Item 2A: Approval of City Council Minutes

Home Browse Search

expanded student capacity, and there was a need for it. He suggested the boundary would not expand if the VA did not choose a site in the district. City Attorney Glenn Klein said that subject was being discussed with bond counsel. If the VA did not select the site, the City could chose not to receive tax increment dollars from the expanded area that encompassed the site. Mr. Klein said that staff was exploring the question of whether the plan could be structured in such a way that amending the plan would not require an extensive amendment process but could be accomplished through a resolution to change the plan to remove the area in question. Mr. Poling did not want to see the district expanded if the VA did not choose a downtown site. Mr. Poling spoke to a letter the council had received from the Lane Board of County Commissioners criticizing the council’s actions in regard to the use of urban renewal dollars and suggested the board was again “dangling the public safety carrot” by threatening the loss of deputies and jail beds. He asked how many commission aides could be hired with $200,000. He suggested that if the commissioners could find money to hire themselves assistants, they could find the money to fund jail beds. Ms. Solomon concurred. Speaking to the board’s suggestion that the council seek its concurrence on its future decisions, Mr. Clark suggested that the council might ask to weigh in on some of the board’s future decisions. He did not think the board’s letter was useful, particularly in regard to the veiled threat it contained, but he believed the issues involved could be worked out. Mr. Clark asked City Manager Ruiz if staff had quantified the impact of tax increment financing on School District 4J. He observed that it would cost the school district $100,000 if the City terminated the downtown district. City Manager Ruiz estimated that the school district received an additional net of $117,000. Mr. Clark noted concern on the part of some school board members about that subject, and asked that City Manager Ruiz forward the relevant information to the board. City Manager Ruiz agreed to do so. Mr. Brown questioned if the council should move forward with the proposal. He noted the testimony offered by former City Councilors Bonny Bettman McCornack and Paul Nicholson, who questioned the legality of the plan, as did he. He believed that the proposal violated Oregon Revised Statute (ORS) 457.450(2) and (3). He wanted to know when the City became aware that the debt was paid on all projects in the district, or when it knew it had sufficient funding to pay the debt. Financial Director Sue Cutsogeorge did not recall when the specific calculation was done, but indicated that information was provided to legal counsel in March 2010. Mr. Brown asked when the City knew it had enough money, saying that once the City knew that, by statute, it was supposed to inform the County Tax Assessor of the fact and return any money left over to be returned to the affected taxing districts. That had not been done. Mr. Klein said the statute cited by Mr. Brown had been revised as of January 2010. It did not stipulate what happened when a City was in the middle of an urban renewal plan amendment process that would provide for additional spending authority. He explained that the statute was crafted before there was a concept of maximum indebtedness and was later amended to include the concept. The council had subsequently decided the City would pay no more than $33 million. At some point in the last year the City received sufficient money to pay the maximum indebtedness, but the statute allowed the City to amend the maximum indebtedness amount to allow additional spending. The statute did not speak to whether the City must give notice to the Tax Assessor if it was in the middle of the process of amending the plan. MINUTES—City Council May 10, 2010 Page 4 Work Session