New Search
DIXON Valerie A <br /> From: WEIXELMAN Susan E <br /> Sent: Tuesday, June 06, 2000 4:35 PM <br /> To: DIXON Valerie A <br /> Subject: FW: FW: Flight Line Loan <br /> Valerie, FYI... not urgent for us to discuss but this will keep you in the loop 1 do question Finn's use of the word <br /> "recently" in the loop since it was last year.. but it's not a big issue now since the attorney has said it's fine for the <br /> Airport to use their funds to remodel the restaurant.- <br /> Susan <br /> <br /> 1 <br /> -----Original Message----- <br /> From: KLEIN Glenn <br /> Sent: Tuesday, June 06, 2000 4:23 PM <br /> To: CRONIN Finn J <br /> Cc: CHAPMAN Pat; WEIXELMAN Susan E <br /> Subject: Re: FW: Flight Line Loan <br /> Finn - I believe that the questions you asked are the right questions to be <br /> asking, and they are some of the issues that I think about when these issues <br /> come up. For the following reasons, I conclude that the Flight Line loan is <br /> lawful. <br /> First, the loan is not an investment of surplus funds. Instead, the loan is a <br /> use of public funds to accomplish a public purpose. Consequently, ORS 294.035 <br /> does not apply. The airport was interested in providing a higher quality <br /> restaurant and lounge than previously existed on both the ground and upper <br /> levels. Having a higher quality space will draw more customers to the <br /> airport. To accomplish that objective, the airport decided to use airport <br /> funds to facilitate that improvement. <br /> Second, the loan itself is a lawful vehicle for accomplishing that public <br /> purpose. Clearly, the airport could have used public funds to pay for the <br /> renovation, and then following the renovation, either operated the space <br /> itself, or contracted out the operations. Similarly, the airport could have <br /> contributed funds to the renovation. As long as there is a public purpose for <br /> the expenditure, the fact that the contribution would also have benefitted a <br /> private company is not a problem. Instead of making a grant, the airport <br /> agreed to aloes-interest loan, which will result in repayment of the funds. <br /> In short, the airport is better off (financially) with the loan than with an <br /> outright grant. <br /> As you are aware, the city has a number of loan and grant programs which are <br /> designed to further various public purposes. We believe that these loan <br /> programs are valid. The loan by the airport similarly is lawful. <br /> If you need a more detailed response or have questions, please let me know. <br /> Glenn Klein <br /> Harrang Long Gary Rudnick PC <br /> 101 E Broadway Suite 400 <br /> Eugene OR 97401 <br /> 541-485-0220 <br /> glenn. klein@harrang.com <br /> This message is a confidential communication under the attorney-client or <br /> 1 <br /> <br />