City Council Minutes 1993 01 27 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

2.) The alternative structure would be to delete the last phase from the structure, commit to the $900,000.00 now, but, then let the commitment to move forward with construction, wait until the end of the year hoping that the Amendment 1 issues that are up in the air now would have been resolved by that time. Susan Griffiths, City Attorney, stated that the Conservancy District, as well as the City of Louisville, are subject to Amendment 1. She identified three (3) areas of possible application, both from the District's perspective and the City's perspective. 1.) Participation Agreement - A multiple fiscal year financial obligation for either the City or the District. Griffiths spoke with Greg Hobbs, attorney for the District, and his opinion was that the participation agreement is not a multiple fiscal year financial year obligation for the District. He does not believe Amendment 1 applies in that respect. In Griffiths review of the Agreement, it does appear to be a multiple fiscal year obligation for the City. The version Council received the previous Friday, which has the commitment for the minimum of $900,000.00 and the construction commitment for $3.5 million. If the costs come in below that, then the City is committing to the $3.5 million. That amount would not be paid within the fiscal year of 1993 and would go over into 1994, which makes it a multiple fiscal year obligation. Griffiths felt the City could deal with this by having a irrevocable pledge of the City's current cash in an amount sufficient to cover the amount of the obligation, which would mean that the City would be irrevocably pledging, through at least an ordinance, the entire amount of at least $3.5 million, assuming the other amount would be paid prior to 1993. 2.) Of potential concern was whether the second agreement, the pipeline capacity allotment agreement, is a multiple fiscal year financial obligation of the City or the District. The City, the District, and other participants would like to insure that the allotment contract is not a multiple fiscal year obligation. Griffiths stated that there is a statement in the revised agreement that it will not be, but it hasn't been drafted yet in final form. It is not ready for adoption tonight. 3.) A third issue, the inclusion of the City within the District and the extension of the District's mill levy. Does the extension of the District's mill levy onto the City's property constitute a tax extension of some form under Amendment 1 that would require voter approval? It is the opinion of the District's attorney that it does not require a district wide vote to include property within the District. It is Griffiths opinion that it