Our local skewspaper, The Coeur d’Alene Press, likes to take cheap shots at local legislators who encourage citizen awareness about the not so altruistic side of some of Idaho’s urban renewal agencies. So it was a pleasant surprise to see this morning’s skewspaper published a letter to the editor authored by Sharon Culbreth and titled NIC: Hurt by urban renewal.
Her letter revealed (because the Press hasn’t reported) one particular piece of legislation pending in the Idaho legislature. Though she didn’t cite the legislation explicitly, it is House Bill 631. Its Statement of Purpose reads: “The purpose of the legislation is to protect Idaho’s community colleges from monies being taken away to fund urban renewal districts (URDs). URDs have the ability to access taxing districts’ budgets. In the past Idaho Code was amended to protect Idaho school districts from having monies diverted to URDs. This legislation would do the same to protect Idaho’s three community colleges.”
As Culbreth’s letter to the editor noted, this legislation was authored by Senator Bob Nonini. She failed to include, however, that its legislative co-sponsors are Representatives Kathy Sims and Ron Mendive.
The Legislature should quickly and unanimously pass this legislation. Idaho’s community colleges can use the money now.
A friend familiar with urban renewal legislation in another state told me that legislation in her state permitted taxing districts to negotiate percentages taken by URAs. Prior to the city’s adoption of urban renewal legislation, I contacted Steve Schenck at NIC to discuss the impact that the legislation would have on NIC and the possibility that NIC could negotiate the percentage taken by the URA. If I remember correctly, he told me something to the effect that the sum wouldn’t amount to much.
Are percentages taken from taxing districts negotiable?
Comment by Susie Snedaker — March 23, 2014 @ 10:39 am