| OCR Text |
Show City officials defend positions on RDA abolition By JUDY JENSEN Editor The action taken by the Bountiful City Council last week to abolish the city's RDA has created a furor. Lawyers, businessmen and city administrators ad-ministrators have been researching the ramifications, and legality of the action. According to city administrator Tom Hardy, the bottom line is that the dissolution of the RDA could cost the city, and possibly the taxpayers, tax-payers, over $2 million, and in the best case scenario, if all of the property prop-erty purchased by the RDA can be sold, the cost will be nearly $1.4 million. The 3-2 vote came after Council Coun-cil woman Barbara Holt introduced the motion to dissolve the RDA based on her frustration over the failure of the RDA to develop Block 29 in downtown Bountiful. Councilmembers Bob Gramoll and Renee Coon voted to support the action, ac-tion, and Les Foy and Harold Shafter opposed. Councilwoman Coon was unavailable for comment on her vote. Holt said she was aware that it could not be done without some cost to the city. "But I don't think the dollar figure is going to be that high. One more giveaway is too much." The giveaway she was referring re-ferring to she discussed in her proposal pro-posal to abolish the RDA. "The purpose presented to the public for creating an RDA in Bountiful was to revitalize the downtown area. Today the area is economically devastated, visually unacceptable, and private enterprise struggles harder here than any other area of the city," she wrote. According to Holt, RDA projects are formed to create additional property tax. Tax sufficient to pay the debt of the project "How do streets or parking lots create tax,? she asked. Holt said the only thing that has come from the numerous efforts to entice developers to downtown Bountiful is a $1.5 million bond for the improvements, and ownership by the RDA of nearly near-ly one entire block of Bountiful. "Where's the increment? There is none. Who gets to pay the debt? All of us,' she said. "Let's look at all the RDA. At what point do we call a halt? We can close it down now without an impact we can't absorb' she said. Holt said she "would absolutely vote again to abolish the RDA. How it affects other RDA's I don't know she said referring to the two joint agreements Bountiful has with Woods Cross on Gateway and West Bountiful on ShopKo, "but I don't think it should be negative she added. "When I made the motion I didn't know the ABC's of it. I thought where we were headed was disastrous. Legislation is very clear on how to establish an RDA, but there is nothing on how to undo an RDA. I think these are items that can be taken care of,' she said. Councilman Bob Gramoll agreed "I seconded the motion," he said when asked to discuss his opinion. "My goal was to stop the bleeding' he said, "When you're taking taxpayers money and running runn-ing these projects at a deficit you need to show there will be a commensurate com-mensurate return. Block 29 is unforgivable. un-forgivable. We're not receiving any money from this project, and the agreements were written to the detriment of the city. We're in financial fi-nancial trouble now, and if wwe continue we'll be in worse shape he said. Gramoll agreed that some of the RDA projects have been successful. "But the RDA is trying to force an economic position the market place can't justify. We need to do some of the homework that any prudent real estate developer would do," he See RDA A-2 RDA Cont. from A- J M said. According to Gramoll the ramifications of the dissolution of the RDA "is something the legal experts are going to have to solve. I haven't seen anything yet that would make me change my mind, but I will go into Wednesday's meeting with an open mind," he Gramoll suggested if the RDA cannot be dissolved, "We need to plan something for that block. Something living and vibrant that would eliminate the image of death. We need something that will breathe life back into it," he said. He added that as members of the RDA board, ' we may pose ourselves as experts in an area where we may not have expertise." Speaking of the downtown project, Gramoll said. "They voted on that when I was out of town. I would not have supported it. We really shot ourselves in the foot," he said. Councilman Les Foy voted against the proposal to abolish the RDA. "It's not proper to dump a big expense on the taxpayer without his knowledge," he said. Foy said if he could be sure there would be no legal problems with the proposal he would have supported it, although he still feels there is a place for an RDA. "All of our RDA projects but one have been successful. Personally, Personal-ly, I would have insisted any potential poten-tial downtown developer put some of his money into the project to make him more liable for its success." Foy said some of the things the Centennial committee has planned may have brought life to the area. "We need to attract single developers to come in and build a single business, not this grandiose plan we've been attempting. attemp-ting. In acquiring these properties we have closed down tax paying businesses," he said. Foy said he is concerned that by abolishing the RDA they will also be abolishing other projects. "There are too many other things we're trying to accomplish. ac-complish. In the long run I think the RDA will pay itself off. If we put $2 million into abolishing it we won t have any funds for the Centennial, or extra police or firemen that the city may need." Foy said that without additional information, in-formation, he plans to vote not to abolish the RDA on Wednesday. "I think it's illegal to dissolve the RDA when it owes as much as it owes," said Councilman Harold Shafter who opposed the Aug. 22 resolution. "It's not logical to sell the property at a loss after we've spent so much money for it. I can't see taking a loss and putting the burden on the taxpayers," he said. Shafter pointed out that he has been serving on the council longer than any of his constituents. "When they said the RDA was in shambles I took it personally. I'll be the fust to admit we've made some mistakes. Block 29 hasn't gone the way we wanted it to, but the downtown area has been deteriorating de-teriorating since before the RDA was established. I don't think there would be anyone who would pay four times as much for downtown areas as they would pay if they put their business somewhere else in Bountiful. That's the purpose of the RDA, to bring revitaUzation to areas that wouldn't be revitalized by private business," he said. Shafter said he feels overall the RDA has been successful. "Bountiful is a better place because of the RDA." Mayor Bob Linnell said if the action ac-tion had come up before the RDA board, a board on which he has a vote, he would have voted no. "I understand the frustration the council coun-cil has with the downtown project, and I have no trouble with where they are going, but I tried to get a postponement," he said. Linnell agreed the RDA has made some mistakes. "We've laid some egg, but we've had some successes. But walking away from the project is not a good investment," he said. Linnell said the bond attorney who assisted the city in acquiring the $1.5 million bond that financed the downtown project has speculated that if the RDA is abolished the tax-exempt bonds may be declared taxable and back taxes could be collected. Linnell also pointed out that the RDA's agreement on the ShopKo project would bring a 35 percent share of the projects profits. "We would also lose the revenue from the power we agreed to supply for that project," he said. "I think we should let the RDA play itself out. Revenues coming in should meet the obligations so citizen's don't have to pay it," he said. Linnell estimated that it would only cost approximately $25,000 each year to keep the RDA operating. That amount would pay the salary of assistant administrator Lana Hardy, and other expenses. The decision on the fate of the RDA will be decided at Wednesday's city council meeting which will begin at 7 p.m. |
