OCR Text |
Show Candidates respond to Clipper article on Bountiful redevelopment (Editor's note: The following article ar-ticle was submitted to the Clipper by Dee Tingey and Barbara Holt, candidates can-didates for Bountiful City Council. These candidates felt a recent article In the Clipper discussing Bountiful'! Redevelopment plans gave only one side of the Issue. We present their views in the public Interest) This article is in rebuttal to statements made and reported in the Davis County Clipper, Oct 20, 1987, as concerns redevelopment and the up-coming election. The Tax Limitation Coalition candidates can-didates have made redevelopment a focal point in their campaign because be-cause of its impact in a tax sense. It is an issue which needs inspection, thorough inspection, at each election elec-tion because upon being elected to the city council we automatically become redevelopment agency board members. Perhaps more of the populace would understand this better if the dual rolestitles were listed on the ballot. Quoted in that article, City Manager Tom Hardyand RDA Executive Ex-ecutive Director Randy Sant seem somewhat at variance about redevelopment financing. Mr. Hardy says, "...only tax increment can be spent on any project.." while Mr. Sant says "...are not in any way a part of city funds or public taxation." Further on in the article Mr. Hardy mentioned the eight parcels of property purchased by the Bountiful RDA. So where did they get the money for these acquisitions? The RDA's funding has to be either private contributions con-tributions or funds collected through taxation. The solution of this obvious disparity dis-parity is on the side of taxation. No, the RDA is not a taxing entity like the schools, water districts, etc. But yes, they do receive a share of the portions of taxes received (or originally earmarked for) those taxing entities on the properties included in-cluded in the RDA project area. No, they are not using city funds? That is debatable as a cross-over payment from the city to the RDA was part of this last summer's budget action. The funds were to repay Mr. Sant for his time to be spent in city code enforcement work. Also, in the past, the RDA borrowed from the city. Those funds, we are told, were repaid to the city from the succeeding year's tax increment funds. That brings us to a key issue repayment how much and when? How much do the various developers owe the RDA at this time? And how much does the RDA owe the various taxing entities en-tities in terms of coming back to a tax-ground-zero? The amount of funds used to date are a matter of history; they should be available for discussion now. What the return on investment is on those funds will be available only years in the future. We all hope the developments develop-ments will be stunning successes. But this is a gamble and was referred refer-red to as such some years past by Mr. Hardy. And in the more recent past Mr. Hardy cautioned the RDA board about bonding on six block-fronts block-fronts when only one was really j thought to be able to show a profitable profi-table return. That one block is now the most "iffy" of the crouo. Whomever you vote for, the future fu-ture is what we are all looking to. Part of this future already has obligations attached to it. The Main Street improvement project, the project requiring the bonding is future fu-ture debt The bonds are to be paid off from future tax increment funds. This is contrary to what has been Bountiful's basic policy in the past Bountiful is one of a minority of cities that operate in the black in terms of not having to resort to tax anticipation notes to finance its regular activities. That has been an achievement roundly applauded in the past. That redevelopment is leading away from this policy troubles us. Perhaps some of you were confused con-fused by what was meant by Mr. Hardy's reference to a "can of worms." Let us explore that briefly. Mr. Hardy praised the work of the 15-member committee first chaired by Kenyon Gurr and more recently by Bob Robinson, a committee hand picked by the RDA. Earlier in the redevelopment saga were comments from volunteer committees which were disbanded by the RDA in what was viewed by many as a stifling of input in-put Whose input is worthy of mention men-tion and whose is not? Other input and polls have been basically ignored. ig-nored. Such has resulted in accusations ac-cusations of the councilboard not listening to the citizenry. Citizenry responds by not participating, sometimes not voting, sometimes avoiding meetings all of which means less backing for the officials. During the ill-fated mall controversy con-troversy it became evident how redevelopment proposals could put neighbor-against-neighbor over the uses of each other's property. Similar confrontations form over new, entering businesses crippling existing businesses. That question was approached again with an inquiry in-quiry of whether the RDA would compensate businesses for losses in rents due to delays by the RDA. Mentioned in the Oct. 20, 1987 article was the tentative time for the "Collier Project" to begin construction construc-tion next spring. But in discussion during the meeting held the following follow-ing Wednesday, the one the RDA invited us all to, that tentative date was made much more tentative. Such not only was cause for concern con-cern by property owners on that block, it freshened views about delayed promises who can you believe? Worms! We have been told that we can't look to what is happening in Salt Lake City's redevelopment because it is a whole different ball game. Perhaps so, but we must look at what is Bountiful's past and present and without omissions. Incumbents need the whole picture and so do the challengers. But most of all, the citizenry at large need the whole picture in order to aid in the voting decision; it is their city, their taxes and their vote. We would like to thank Jack C. Billings for his assistance in drafting draft-ing this article. It comes at a time when we are most hard-pressed to meet campaign commitments, including in-cluding publication deadlines. Dee Tingey Barbara Holt |