William A. Franklin

September 24, 2004

Mr. Richard H. Moore
North Carolina State Treasurer
325 North Salisbury Street
Raleigh, NC 27603-1385
Fax (919) 508-5167

Subject: Amendment One, Freedom of Information Request

Treasurer Moore:

I would like to gain an understanding of Amendment One and the manner in which it was formulated. I have watched many things in NC Government the past two to three years, but the ongoing action on Amendment One, and its antecedents really escaped my grasp. I am sure that the our compliant, complacent and unknowing taxpayers have no better understanding than I did, until a month ago when I set out to understand. As with COP at the State (which I still consider an Enron-like off-books financing operation—supposedly made an honest woman via legislation), Amendment One avoids taking capital projects in sub-state political entities to the taxpayers – the ones who pay the bills for this type of thing. What COP does not fully address to my way of thinking is the operating budgets going forward for a long, long time – 20 years or more, and at likely higher rates due to risk premium. The same problem exists with TIFs. Who can adequately model the risks inherent in TIFs? I suggest no one. But, then it was not for that reason that TIFs were placed up for adoption by the NCCBI in a Constitutional Amendment—it was for the convenience of the some special interests around the state, to leave them un-tethered and un-audited across time to exploit compliant local governments with the blessing of the State.

Under the NC FOIA, I would like the following information within the next two weeks:

1. What corporations, volunteer, non-profit or other entities helped formulate Amendment One, including all colleges, academics, etc. Please include all primary contracts for same let by either the State of NC, or a named, contracted or otherwise designation. Please also include the time frames in which any of these people and their firms (volunteer, non-profit and or corporate) were employed on this process, as well as who in NC State Government managed the project, including the writing of the legislative language. Please include any and all correspondence of all types (email, phone calls, phone logs, emails, letters, telegrams, etc.) from or to the state, or between State employed agents (contacted agents) with any and all other profit and non-profit corporations working on this set of issues.

2. What analysis did your office or any contracted or volunteer groups perform to arrive at the decision that Amendment One could only be done through Tax Incremental Financing (TIF)? What models and assumptions (explicit and implicit) were used to model the use of TIF over time at the municipal and other sub-State levels of government? What other models, other than TIF, were considered and modeled. Please provide these models fully documented, with graphs, charts, assumptions, etc., as well as all correspondence of all types

3. What corporations, profit or non-profit, developed the communications and marketing packages for Amendment One, and what instructions did your office, or the office with responsibility, including NCCBI as a North Carolina State Agent, place on that firm or firms; and at what cost, including any bonuses promised if Amendment One passed? Please provide all correspondence and documentation relating to this set of issues?

4. When I speak of correspondence, communications or documentation, I include all of these same which passed between the State of North Carolina executive agencies and the NC Legislation for the past four years or more. Which legislators were primary in moving the Amendment One legislation through the legislative process? Please provide all correspondence and documentation of same.

5. What explicit criteria were developed and studied to arrive at Amendment One? In other words, was Amendment One just “ginned up” in casual discussions, or was there an orderly exhaustion of alternatives before such radical action as amending the Constitution was adopted? Such criteria certainly must contain logic which requires significant study and adoption of measures of merit, as well as financial, economic and other major risks, as well as the effects of taking the TID off the tax rolls for extended time, during which the TID would use the existing infrastructure paid for by taxpayers to support the TID for the 20-30 years the TID was off the rolls. Please include any and communications, analysis, documentation, models, etc. which were used for this purpose.

6. Did your analysis, or that done for you, consider the issue of eminent domain. Specifically, will the State seize private land to give to developers of factories, malls, apartments, etc.? What is in Amendment One which precludes the high likelihood that municipalities, relieved of the obligation to go the voters, will become much more likely to dispatch someone who wants full value for his/her property via eminent domain, from which both the developer and municipal entity will profit? Again, I request any and all communications, considerations, documentation and other data which will explain how this analysis was conducted.

Thank you in advance for your help with this issue. I really want to know how I should vote in the elections regarding Amendment One. I would also appreciate a contact at NCCBI.

Kindest regards,

William A. Franklin

PS: I talked with someone in your office a month ago and requested the names of the Board of Directors of the non-profit corporation, NCIFC I think, which operates COP under the new legislation. I have not gotten it. I therefore request all relevant data on this entity, its BOD, the person or persons who operate it from your office, and a history of all transactions which have taken place since its inception.