Mary Takes URA Battle South

25 comments on this post so far. Add yours!

• 

  moscow_minidoka on March 26 at 10:00 a.m.

  Well, I’m wondering why someone from Athol would give a hoot about “urban renewal” districts, myself… isn’t that kind of like a Mormon being on the Idaho State Liquor Dispensary Board?

• 

  JamesBond on March 26 at 10:39 a.m.

  The amount of debt incurred by these entities, which of course always claim that the taxpayers are not on the hook, is staggering and is a big part of the Federal Bailout. The public and press don’t really understand them. They are yet another pyramid-scheme like finance mechanism that is destined to fail under its own weight.

• 

  JohnA on March 26 at 10:39 a.m.

  Mary’s comments about House Bill 244 are dated.

  The Bill went before the full House on Tuesday this week for amendments. After discussion, an amendment put forth by Rev and Tax Chair Dennis Lake was approved, effectively defeating the Bill as written by Reps. Phil Hart and Jim Clark. Their own amendment to soften the impact of the Bill was defeated.

  The legislature has shown now over the last three sessions that small tweaks to urban renewal law were needed, but they have roundly voted to not defuse the basics that make it a great tool for cities. It’s especially vital for small cities like Dover, where urban renewal funds have built a new wastewater plant and fire station, plus paved all of old Dover’s streets, to the tune of $8.2 million. How would a city of a few hundred people ever come up with that kind of money for projects so important to them?

• 

  Charlie on March 26 at 10:56 a.m.

  Shouldn’t Mary be wearing he parrot headdress??

• 

  Charlie on March 26 at 10:56 a.m.

  he=her

• 

  OrangeTV on March 26 at 11:06 a.m.

  There may actually be parts of Mary’s message I actually might agree with. However, her delivery method is so shrill, repetitive and ripe with bitterness and anything she says requires wading through so much negative static and unnecessary flim-flam that I just tune it out and root for the city.

• 

  Phaedrus on March 26 at 11:06 a.m.

  Mary’s comments about House Bill 244 are dated.

  Once again, Ms. Souza would appear to be a day late and a dollar short.

• 

  Aliasjax on March 26 at 11:14 a.m.

  Here’s a little more: A house committee took testimony on this bills nearly two weeks ago. There were two, TWO, people from the ENTIRE STATE who testified against URAs and for the bill, and our own Dan Gookin was one of them. The other 30 or so to testify all testified to in favor of URAs and against the bill…go figure.

• 

  JohnA on March 26 at 11:16 a.m.

  JB, if the urban renewal agencies are set up correctly, the debt is NOT an obligation of the taxpayers. Again to use Dover, there was never any obligation to repay the developer the $8.2 million he has invested in the city’s infrastructure. He only gets repaid if and when the tax base increases and the funds are available. To date, we have been able to repay about $7.1 million but he’s still on the hook for the rest.

  Urban renewal is complicated but the rewards, especially for small cities, make it imperative to be informed.

• 

  danofthecommunity on March 26 at 3:53 p.m.

  While I believe they can accomplish some good things and I respect John’s experience with them, I have never been a big fan of URD’s. In my mind, they just divert revenues from actual taxing districts that are usually already needed.

  In general I would like to see them more representative of those whose dollars they use, more time and purpose limited, and have some strict proportion limits as to the size of their value vs. the other districts that actually fund them.

  Here are some ideas for discussion in no particular order of importance. Most of them have been mentioned at other times by me in earlier posts or by others. I don’t consider myself an expert on URD’s but this is a valid topic that warrants more discussion in our communities.

  1. Have the board members elected and from a broader geographic area than just the cities. That would ensure more direct public accountability.

  2. Cut the maximum timeline to 12-18 years.

  3. Not allow boundaries to change from original district.

  4. Put a limit on the value that can be used to generate income for the URD from the parent districts. If increases in value result in revenues larger than allowed by the value limit of the district, than the “excess” revenues would just go back to the actual districts that generate the income. That would keep the URD’s from getting out of proportion with the actual taxing districts. It would also prevent them from getting artificial windfalls from times of high growth. Otherwise they may end up diverting extra revenues from the parent taxing districts that likely need those extra dollars to provide actual public services during those times of high demands and financial stress.

• 

  JohnA on March 26 at 4:42 p.m.

  You make good points, Dan. Maybe it is time to review how long the revenues can go strickly to the urban renewal districts and not to agencies in need of them.

  We’ve seen how the revenues can skyrocket by looking at Coeur d’Alene’s. If I had predicted in ‘97 when we wrote that plan that the URA’s revenues would top $4 million annually, I’d have been laughed out of city hall. To see that total exceeded in just the 12th year is both a testament to the success of the plan and also to those who’ve managed it over the years.

  Believe me, Dan, I know the county could use the $1.5 million or so annual share of those taxes. Not to be critical of LCDC, but the original plan was for 15 years, which means you’d be looking at those revenues pretty shortly. Now that the district has been extended to 24 years, it’s going to be awhile.

  One thing we’re doing as we form URAs in smaller cities is to include a rebate of some of the revenues to local governments who need them. For example, the city of Dover gets the first $30,000 from the tax increment to use for maintenance of the new assets they’ve received. Also, the fire department got a new station and fire apparatus to help them deal with Dover’s new growth. Maybe it’s time for the County and other governments to seek a share of LCDC’s new tax dollars as well.

  In any event, discussion of changes to urban renewal is important. I hope the County will stay engaged in the talk.

• 

  GaryIngram on March 26 at 7:53 p.m.

  DFO, glad to see you are now willing to allow discussion on URA issues on this blog. I recall it was only a year or so ago that you dissed those commenters like me when LCDC concerns were expressed. Thank you for your more open attitude.

  Now, John. Good to read your comments. You are a self admitted ring leader of the mess we now have, however you continue to promote it and defend it. At least you could have your information accurate. The 4 million figure you seemed shocked about, now that Dan English has weighed in on this, is actually right at 5 million dollars of property tax revenue that has been diverted to LCDC for 2008. Since its inception, when you wrote the plan, the total property tax revenue has been more than 12 million. In 2006, the diversion was 1.4 million. It has more than tripled in just three years.

  You can say here that maybe it is time to review how this thing works, but you had a chance to so something about it by supporting H-244. Had it passed as written by Rep. Hart, it would have put a cap on how much diversion can occur, just what you are now advocating.

  John, it’s time back up your newly found concern and walk the walk.

• 

  JohnA on March 29 at 12:00 a.m.

  Sorry, Gary. Just got back into town so I missed your comment.

  HB 244 was not so much about limiting the diversion of tax dollars as it was about requiring the approval of a city’s urban renewal plan by all effected agencies, by resolution, before a city could do so by ordinance. It is simply ludicrous to expect unanimous multi-agency approval of everything that is contained in a URD plan. The bill was intended to kill urban renewal, plain and simple. And, that’s why it couldn’t make it to a House vote without amendments.

  Reps. Hart and Clark, both former colleagues of mine by the way, offered to amend the bill to say ‘a majority’ of the affected agencies but that amendment failed. It was too little, too late to save that bill.

  Meanwhile, I have backed up my concern about affected agencies receiving some of the tax increment by writing it into plans in Dover and Priest River. The city of Dover gets the first $30,000 from the increment, which increased their budget from taxes this year by 37%, and we included a new fire station and ladder truck in their plan as well; both are now in place improving the safety of the city’s residents.

  So, please don’t suggest that I walk the walk when I’ve been running the walk for years.

« Back to Huckleberries Online

• ›Scanner traffic