Elected public bodies, such as the City Council or the Library Board, speak as whole. When the AADL Director sent those letters she was acting on behalf of her Board, probably with the assistance of legal counsel. When a public body takes a position, that position does not change until the body expresses a different position.

Neither the DDA nor the City took any action to resolve differences between the AADL and the DDA interpretations of the TIF limitations after AADL Director Parker sent those letters. Failing to address the AADL’s concerns, Council members are in no position to pretend that the mere passage of time has altered those clearly articulated concerns.

My biggest concern is that those who wish to allow the DDA to ignore the TIF limitations in the City’s DDA ordinance seem intent on constructing a defense of their desire rather than to take a logical view of the ordinance language and apply it. That method violates the public trust.

While the current DDA and Council might get away with ignoring the promises made in the DDA ordinance, their actions would come with a price. Future City Councils may find it difficult to work in cooperation with other governmental bodies because it would appear that we cannot be trusted to keep our promises over time.

Additionally, the Council has an obligation not just to City tax payers but to the constituents of the other taxing bodies from which the DDA diverts tax revenues. The State DDA statute provides us with the right to form a DDA with which one must accept the responsibility for taking tax revenues from the other entities. When the City allows its DDA to capture the tax revenues of the Community College and the County, we must keep in mind the impact that tax capture has on the ability of those governmental units to perform their responsibilities.

We know the City, County and College all face significant budget pressures. Applying the limits on revenue growth found in the City’s DDA ordinance would allow the Council an opportunity to demonstrate a responsible method of balancing the interests of the DDA against the fiscal needs of the other taxing bodies. Changing the rules of the game after it becomes obvious that other parties should prevail under the current rules is fundamentally unfair.

I hope Council will adopt the Kailasapathy/Kunselman resolution to clarify the language in the DDA ordinance that seems to have confused only those who wished for a different result. The alternative proposal to remove the requirement of approval by the other entities and the replacement of the limits on TIF revenue growth with a “hard cap” represents a gross misuse of the Council’s authority.