Posts tagged: tax increment financing
Urban renewal makes an easy target for those of us who don't like taxes. Yes, that's just about all of us. But should it? Are we being fair, are we being prudent, when we clamor for elimination of the laws that permit the use of tax-increment financing - an unwieldy term that assures much misunderstanding right out of the gate - to spur economic development in the short term for benefit in the long one? Rep. Kathy Sims of Coeur d'Alene recently recommended changes to the way urban renewal agencies function, but Rep. Robert Schaefer, a Nampa Republican, introduced legislation last week that would repeal Idaho's urban renewal laws altogether and require debts incurred by urban renewal agencies to be retired. Schaefer's goal - to funnel more money toward schools, fire departments and highway agencies - seems laudable on the surface. But we think it bears deeper examination/Mike Patrick, Coeur d'Alene Press. More here. (Legislature photo: Kathy Sims, outspoken opponent of urban renewal)
Question: Do you understand the long-term benefits of tax-increment financing and urban renewal law?
The information contained in Mr. Hayes’ email today regarding estimated urban renewal tax increment receipts for the 2010 tax year are higher than the fiscal year 2011 LCDC district budget tax increment receipts adopted by the LCDC Board last August (please refer to 8/18/10 LCDC Board Minutes). Assuming everyone pays their taxes, Mr. Hayes’ documents show $3.9 million of estimated tax increment revenue for the LCDC Lake District ($3.1 million per FY2011 LCDC budget), and $1.7 million of estimated tax increment revenue for the LCDC River District ($1.4 million per FY2011 LCDC budget). The primary reason for the variance in Mr. Hayes’ values and the LCDC budget values is that LCDC has to use projected increment valuations and estimated taxing district levy rates when setting the budget in August of each year/Tony Berns, executive director/Lake City Development Corp. More here.