City lays out its debt case in court
Friday, August 12, 2011
WENATCHEE — The city says state laws passed in the late 1800s to limit city spending are not clear enough to easily determine whether Wenatchee can legally back the Town Toyota Center’s nearly $42 million outstanding debt.
The city laid out its case in court documents filed Thursday in Chelan County Superior Court in a lawsuit to determine whether the city can legally back the debt when it is refinanced later this year.
The city wants to honor a commitment it made in 2006 to loan money to the arena’s owner to make its annual debt payments, The city’s attorney, Arley Harrel, wrote. But city leaders do not want to exceed their legal debt limit.
“The city finds itself between the proverbial rock and a hard place,” Harrel wrote. “Unfortunately, Washington legal precedent does not provide clear guidance to the city on how to resolve this conflict.” The city sued last month, asking a judge to determine whether backing the bonds would constitute debt for the city. The suit names the taxpayers of Wenatchee as defendants, and businessman Mike Walker as the taxpayers’ representative.
If the city signs the loan agreement with the Greater Wenatchee Regional Events Center Public Facilities District, it would be committing to pay about $65 million over the life of a 20-year bond issue, or about $85 million if the bonds are paid off in 30 years.
Harrel argued in the documents that because the city does not have to borrow money to make the loan to the PFD, it would not be debt in the traditional use of the term. He cited a number of previous court cases that could be helpful to the court in making a ruling, but none are similar to Wenatchee’s case or answer the debt question definitively.
Walker’s attorney, Tom O’Connell, filed paperwork on Wednesday with the court stating that he intends to argue that backing the bonds would constitute debt.
Documents filed Thursday state that the PFD would not be able to refinance the current short-term, interest-only bonds that expire on Dec. 1 without the city’s backing. And, because the district is not generating enough revenue to cover operations of the arena and the annual debt payment, the city is expected to make the majority of the debt payment for the foreseeable future.
The city’s annual payment is estimated to be between $2.5 million and $3 million a year.
Under state law, the city cannot incur debt that is greater than 2.5 percent of its total taxable property value, and can only commit 1.5 percent of that value without voter approval. Under that formula, the city currently has a non-voter-approved debt capacity of just over $23 million that it could tap for Town Toyota Center.
The City Council has already passed an ordinance saying that it intends to back the bonds when they are refinanced if the court determines that it would not constitute debt.
The PFD has until Monday to file its arguments with the court.
Judge John Bridges will hear the case on Sept. 8.
Michelle McNiel: 664-7152
mcniel@wenatcheeworld.com
» 8 comments on this story
MORE LIKE THIS
Stage is set for arena debt lawsuit
Arena debt question headed to Supreme Court
Taxpayers’ victory leaves city and arena unsure of the future
City will spend an extra $450,000 on legal fees
City forces PFD to find new attorney for lawsuit
Advertisement
UPCOMING EVENTS
Thursday, May 23
BNI Better Business Boosters
Rivertop Bar & Grill, 201 N. Wenatchee Ave., 7:30 a.m.
Thursday, May 23
BNI High Noon Achievers
Red Lion Hotel, noon
Thursday, May 23
S.T.Y.L.E. Boot Camp!
Wenatchee Valley Mall, space A-4, 6:30 p.m.
Friday, May 24
BNI Wenatchee Valley Friday
Smitty's Pancake House, 7 a.m.




Comments
Want to comment on this story? All Wenatchee World members are invited to comment on stories, by using the form below. Please know that we at wenatcheeworld.com hope our site is useful, entertaining and civil. So we'll delete comments that are obscene, abusive or way off topic. We appreciate it when readers use the "suggest removal" button to flag inappropriate comments. For more about interacting with the site, see our Use Policy.
LDS 1 year, 9 months ago
The article states: The city wants to honor a commitment it made in 2006 to loan money to the arena’s owner to make its annual debt payments. I don't understand how it can be called a loan if there is no provision for or intent to repay the city. If it isn't a loan, then it must be debt.
GaryH 1 year, 9 months ago
This comment was removed by the site staff for violation of the usage agreement.
EDDIEWAYNE 1 year, 9 months ago
Lets see, so the city is sueing itself to see if it can pay a debt it wants to pay and if it doesn't pay the debt, the city will default on a bond guarantee contract that will prohibit the city from being able to afford to finance any type of maintainance, repair, expansion or improvement for decades to come? I don't think so. If the City really wanted to avoid default they would have already agreed to pay the debt and saved hundreds of thousands of dollars on unnecessary legal fees by hiring a full time City attorney to defend their actions if their decision was challenged at all. This is a classic example of ducking their responsibility to do evrything possible to save this City.
fitzsimmons 1 year, 9 months ago
You didn't. But when Gary's post was removed your post went with it because it failed to make sense anymore.
NotaHomer 1 year, 9 months ago
IS this a reverse class action suit? How can the City sue the citizens if each citizen is not a party to the case?
Rebelrouser 1 year, 4 months ago
Wow, did not even get a chance to vote on building the center, now being sued because city officials made bad decision to build it. Really make me want to continue living in the city..............not
Sign in to comment