Item 2A: Approval of City Council Minutes

Home Browse Search

Continuing, Mr. Klein said he had consulted with bond counsel regarding the application of the statute in this circumstance, and it was not clear. The statute had been amended to indicate that if the council did not amend the plan in the current fiscal year, it would alert the County that it had sufficient funding to pay the debt as part of the notice the City gave the County annually each July. The City would not be able to identify the exact amount in question until the Urban Renewal Agency (URA) records were audited after the end of the fiscal year. Mr. Klein said that some people believed that at the same time a city gave notice, it had reached the funding limit. Not only did tax increment cease, the plan and district terminated. The statute did not say that. The notification provision addressed tax increment, but the URA had the authority to spend other funding, such as the Downtown Revitalization Loan Program. Even if tax increment creased, the plan continued. Mr. Klein said that if the City gave notice today, it would still have authority to adopt the plan amendment as the plan remained in effect until it was terminated. He said the statute did not speak to the argument offered by opponents, and there were no court cases interpreting the statute. Mr. Brown disagreed with the conclusions reached by Mr. Klein. He found the statute “perfectly clear” and found no ambiguity in the statute. Mr. Zelenka said he specifically asked City Manager Ruiz if the City was on good legal ground moving forward and he was assured that the City was on firm legal ground and the City Attorney had looked into the question raised by Mr. Brown. He said “that was why we have legal staff.” He asked staff to elaborate on the response from School District 4J. Ms. Nobel Flannery indicated that 4J financial staff had indicated its concurrence with the City’s analysis. Mr. Zelenka said a citizen commented that the City could use urban renewal to pay for capital projects, but the garage was an existing debt rather than a new debt and could not be a capital project and hence the use was inappropriate. Mr. Klein said that if the project was a completely new project that had not yet been funded by urban renewal or was outside the district he would agree, but the parking garage property was initially assembled by the URA, and the URA had already contributed more than $2 million toward the project. Mr. Zelenka said he found irony in the letter from the Board of County Commissioners, who asserted the City was taking away money from jail beds when the City was actually funding more jail beds and putting more money for police services “on the street.” He suggested the issue would be worked out and it could be that the City purchased the jail beds from Lane County. He recalled past examples of partnership between the two entities. Mr. Zelenka called the council’s attention to the op-ed piece he co-authored with the Mayor in support of the proposal, which appeared in the Sunday, May 9, edition of The Register-Guard. Mr. Pryor agreed the council needed to have its legal questions answered but he thought the proposal was in the community’s best interest and the funding proposal was the best way now to revitalize downtown and increase public safety without increasing taxes. It was a way to provide livability and quality of life enhancements in regard to the Farmer’s Market. In addition, it had the added benefit of being something the council could sunset in a shorter time than it could a bond. With regard to the communication from the Lane Board of County Commissioners, Mr. Pryor suggested the board would do what it would do and the council would do what it would do and they would maintain a MINUTES—City Council May 10, 2010 Page 5 Work Session