-------
3362 Blaine Rd.
Moscow, ID 83843
September 12, 1995
Dear Mayor Agidius and Moscow City Council Members:
This letter is in reference to Moscow City Council Resolution 95-08
that establishes an Urban Renewal Agency with the intent of utilizing
revenue allocation financing to develop a new business park in Moscow.
On August 12, 1995, myself and other Moscow residents wrote a
letter to the Attorney General of Idaho requesting a legal opinion regarding
urban renewal agencies. On September 8, 1995, we received a response
from the Office of the Attorney General stating that the office could not
render a legal opinion originating from citizens:
The Office of the Attorney General appreciates your concern on this
issue. Under Idaho Code 67-1401, this office is restricted to
rendering legal opinions to state agencies and elected officials. You
should contact the Moscow City Prosecuting Attorney for any
opinions regarding implementation of the Urban Renewal Act within
the City of Moscow.
On behalf of myself and the individuals who submitted the request to
the Office of Attorney General, we are formally asking that you, as elected
officials, forward our request to the Office of the Attorney General for a
legal opinion. As detailed in our original request to the Attorney General
(see enclosed letter), there is a very legitimate question as to whether the
City Council enacted an ordinance in full compliance with the provisions of
Urban Renewal Law, particularly Idaho Code 50-2005 which establishes
the authority for an urban renewal agency. It would be quite prudent for
Moscow to resolve to this legal issue before this matter is raised in a legal
challenge following the adoption of an urban renewal plan. It is
conceivable that an urban renewal plan involving revenue allocation
financing can be successfully challenged legally if the urban renewal agency
lacks authority under Idaho Code 50-2005.
The reason for raising the issue of the legality of the City Council
Resolution 95-08 is not to point fingers but to provide a real opportunity to
foster an important community dialogue about the future of the Moscow
community. As recent Daily News articles attest, revenue allocation
financing schemes that involve new development, as opposed to traditional
urban renewal projects, are quite controversial. For this reason, it is
important that all Moscow residents be fully informed about the risks and
benefits associated with financing schemes that tend to blur the distinction
between the public and private sector.
The most useful way for residents to learn about, and decide on
whether revenue allocation financing makes sense for a new business park in
Moscow is to refer the issue to the people for a vote. It is a common, and
indeed, mandatory practice for bond issues be put to taxpayers for a vote on
issues concerning public schools, utilities, and fire protection. The issuance
of bonds to finance a business park should likewise be held to such
democratic principles and standards. Because the City can assume (though
not required) the financial liability for losses associated with the issuance of
bonds for the business park (I.C. 50-2015 (d)(4)), bonds associated with a
business park are not unlike traditional bond issues. When faced with a
similar situation, residents of Post Falls, ID collected the requisite number of
signatures to force such revenue allocation bonds to go to a vote of the
taxpayers.
Unlike Post Falls, there is no need for conflict in Moscow. We can
do better. A responsive government does not have to be forced to refer such
important issues to the people. It is my hope that the Moscow City Council
will pro-actively seek public input on this important issue through a
referendum before committing to irreversible action. If the residents of
Moscow want to subsidize the development of a business park, then so be it.
A referendum on the business park could be held in conjunction with the
normal November elections at no additional taxpayer expense.
In summary, this letter contains two requests for you as City Council
members. First, please forward a request for a legal opinion on Resolution
95-08 to the Office of Attorney General for a legal opinion. Not only will
this benefit Moscow, it will also benefit other Idaho communities which may
look to Moscow as an example of how to utilize the combination of Urban
Renewal Law and the Local Economic Development Act. Second, because
revenue allocation financing schemes are not unlike other bond issues that
offer both community benefits and risks, please refer the important issue of
a revenue allocation financed business park to the voters of Moscow for
approval before proceeding. Such a referendum can only serve to build trust
with local government while providing the opportunity for an important
community discussion on the future of Moscow.
I would be happy to discuss these requests in private or as part of the
City Council's normal business/committee meetings.
Sincerely,
Greg Brown
cc: Moscow Vision2020