Sunday’s Coeur d’Alene Press had a Letter to the Editor urging that “… an immediate recall campaign must be initiated against [Coeur d’Alene, Idaho] Mayor Bloem and council members Kennedy, Goodlander and McEvers.”
The 2011 Election Manual for City Clerks, at pages 48 – 55, describe the general procedures attendant to a municipal recall election. Idaho Code, Title 50, Chapter 4 also includes some information about municipal recall elections.
What do you think? Should the residents of Coeur d’Alene consider recalling those named officials? Idaho law does not prescribe any particular justification necessary to recall one or more public officials, so what would you consider to be sufficient justification to recall them?
1. Schools M & O (maintenance and operations) are not impacted by URDs because that funding comes from sales tax. Taxes levied for school facilities approved by voters are NOT diverted to URDs but instead go to the schools so the burden is lower for the rest of us. As far as basic services, many cities see growth in taxes outside of URDs (like in CDA) and those taxes help with growth inside URDs. Then, when the URD ends cities, counties etc see a huge windfall of taxes to cover those services (CDA and the county will see about $1 million annually in about eight years.) The one issue that is not disputed is that URDs do mean services might be spread thin for awhile until the windfall arrives.
2. See #1 for city and county employees paid from taxes. As far as water and wastewater all properties pay utility fees to the city so URDs have no impact on those employees or the maintenance of those facilities.
The fact is that no one pays for services inside the URD, until the URD closes and those funds are released to the governments. This means those governments might have to stretch their budgets for awhile until the projects funded in the URD are paid for and the URDs close. Then as I mentioned those governments get a huge windfall of taxes.
The county is liminted, as are all governments, to a 3% increase even if they believe they need more money.
Comment by John Austin — March 6, 2012 @ 6:56 pm
…and when the projects FAIL, like StoneHenge might, the cleanup costs and additional burden can bankrupt the host cities.
Comment by Pariah — March 6, 2012 @ 7:07 pm
Failed Cleveland TIF on Hot Seat
Comment by Pariah — March 6, 2012 @ 7:14 pm
New Mexico Legislators Speak Out on Failed SunCal Tax Increment Financing Bill
Comment by Pariah — March 6, 2012 @ 7:16 pm
They still have to pay their taxes, Pariah, no one is left holding the bag in Idaho URDs because of a slow economy.
Comment by John Austin — March 6, 2012 @ 7:45 pm
“They still have to pay their taxes, …”
Until, well, they fail.
Comment by Pariah — March 6, 2012 @ 8:13 pm
Some of the crap I am reading is so Kurt Lewin, Was there not a study on the CAVERS awhile ago – just exactly what did that have to say?
John, can you get that study?
Comment by Stebbijo — March 6, 2012 @ 8:38 pm
Most small towm people I have ever met John respect ALL community members and their contributions. Mill workers, loggers, miners, auto repair, wait staff, etc. Not just the select upper crust that might line pockets.
Comment by concerned citizen — March 6, 2012 @ 8:55 pm
Where is the cities friend chesrown? Is he still making a contribution to CdA? I think not. He took his TEN MILLION of taxpayers money and RAN.
Comment by concerned citizen — March 6, 2012 @ 8:57 pm
John, thanks for the reminder that CDA will get millions in about 8 years when the URD’s close. We need to get positioned now to get a city government in place that will provide tax relief instead of going on a spending spree. (as if they needed a reason to do so)
Comment by Gary Ingram — March 6, 2012 @ 11:19 pm
“…governments have to stretch their budgets for a while.” John, Those of us who pay taxes and struggle to stay afloat are the ones providing those services. For those of us who are not spring birds, this means that we may never see the end of LCDC and the return of those millions.
Comment by Susie Snedaker — March 7, 2012 @ 7:16 am
Susie,
The promise of “the big payback” in a few years when the URDs close reminds me of the quote uttered by Popeye’s friend, J. Wellington Wimpy:
Comment by Bill — March 7, 2012 @ 7:27 am
Austin….. Pretty nifty Freudian slip there on your comments #94 and 95. Limme ask you this. With property values dumping why is it that our property taxes have not taken a nose dive as well? My house is worth 30% less than 3 years ago but I am paying about 10% more in property taxes.
Comment by Wallypog — March 7, 2012 @ 7:39 am
Your tax bill is not based on the value of your house, Wally, so much as it is the spending of governments. As values drop levies rates go up. It’s simple math. Since all governments can raise their budgets by 3% every year you should expect your taxes to go up that much annually. Some opt not to raise them the full 3% but unless spending drops your taxes will not go down.
That is, unless as Gary notes, when they all receive their windfalls as the Lake District ends in eight years. Taxes can drop dramatically then because of all the new tax dollars. So, your taxes don’t rise now with URDs but they can drop very fast when their purpose is done.
Comment by John Austin — March 7, 2012 @ 9:13 am
Yes, your taxes DO rise now with URDs, and they have for the last many years. Cities and counties have to max out their legal limit to raise taxes because they are being shorted by the money skimmed off by the URDs like LCDC.
Comment by mary — March 7, 2012 @ 9:20 am
By the way, that was a nice picture of ‘Steve’ Gookin in the CDA Press this morning. 🙂
Comment by John Austin — March 7, 2012 @ 9:36 am
There is no magic Mary. If communities want Urban Renewal Agencies, they have to pay. Pretty simple stuff.
(Of course if you want a URA, you might ask yourself WHY? It is cheaper and smarter to go to the voters with well thought out bond requests and avoid the many issues LCDC has had with honesty, integrity and openness.)
Comment by justinian — March 7, 2012 @ 9:36 am
it’s not legally possible, Wally. They get 3%, that’s it. Even if their demand for services go up 50% they are limited to 3%. URDs have nothing to do with the taxes you pay. The State Tax Commission has agreed to that conclusion based on the law.
Comment by John Austin — March 7, 2012 @ 9:38 am
“You have to have vision and look out into the future to create great communities,” said Mike Kennedy, councilman. “I think we should move forward with the project and get it going.”
Hey – Kennedy is signing the “Austin Song”, wow. I bet he lurks here.
Comment by justinian — March 7, 2012 @ 9:38 am
Taxes going down, that’s interesting and hopeful. Are there any examples out there where a URD ended it’s life and taxes went down and by how much? It would be helpful in understanding what might be in store for us in 8-10 years.
In our case I’m concerned that the promise or potential of reduced taxes will be absorbed in the good or bad products developed by our URD. In our case again for example, maintaining the developed projects or bailing out failed ones could absorb some of that potential windfall maybe even increase under that guise. Can I understand that in light of that, our taxes could remain the same and depending on the unknown, increase?
I do understand that life is a gamble and each of us measures the risks as best we can. I’m curious as to the good URD final results (taxes going down) along with the bad (taxes going up). With that info I can, at least personally, get a better feel as to the risks that our URD are taking.
Comment by Eric — March 7, 2012 @ 9:38 am
Austin…. You have the horse pushing the cart. When civic expenditures rise they need more tax revenue. When a URD carves out 25% of the property tax base for its own purposes then tax revenues need to be obtained to offset that lost tax revenue. Whatever the maximum allowable levy is, it will be assessed year upon year and not because we have better schools or more police. It will be to allow the LCDC to play with our taxes. Taxation w/o representation for anyone county resident living outside of the city limits of CdA.
Comment by Wallypog — March 7, 2012 @ 10:23 am
Wally, expenditures can’t rise more than 3%. Check out Alan Dornfest at the State Tax Commission, the leading authority on property taxes in Idaho. Taxes do not, and cannot go up because of taxes being diverted to URDs. You may make the point, as was done earlier in this thread, that there are not enough new taxes to cover services because of URDs, but you cannot say that taxes go up because of them.
Eric, the only URD to close in Idaho that I’m aware of was in Post Falls when their Harpers Furniture facility built out so fast they were able to pay off their obligations to Harpers and close the URD early. In that instance, the city of Post Falls got about $250,000 annually released to them, which they put into building a new police station. I’m not sure what the other entities like the county, NIC, EMS, ect did with their first-time monies. The Post Falls URA has another district set to close this year, I believe, so it will be interesting to see what happens with those taxes when they come to the various entities next year.
Comment by John Austin — March 7, 2012 @ 10:30 am
What you mean to say, John is that no one can PROVE that taxes go up because of URDs so people like you can say they “don’t”. Well you cannot PROVE they don’t and so you can say that they don’t. But there are some clear facts. Times are tough and property values are down. The international, national, state and local economies are all struggling. And in the middle of this worldwide economic duress your URD buddies are spending tax dollars like drunken fools and just coincidentally our property taxes rise when they should be declining. Go figure.
Comment by Wallypog — March 7, 2012 @ 1:47 pm
And Wally, I think John probably has Brown eyes.
Comment by Ancientemplar — March 7, 2012 @ 4:04 pm
I can’t help you anymore, Wally. The State Tax Commission backs up my point. That should be good enough for you but it is not. There’s no way anyone can paint a clearer picture with facts and proven authorities than I have. I’ll add my 25 years in the business to that of the esteemed folks at the State ahead of you or anyone else, anytime.
So, if you want a different answer ask a different person: like one of the four or five around here with whom you still post.
Comment by John Austin — March 7, 2012 @ 9:26 pm
Kootenai County Assessor shows a pie chart online where 85% of all taxes collected is distributed to Urban Renewal.
[LTR: I’m adding this link to the Kootenai County Assessor’s page elaborating about the URDs. Bill]
Comment by LTR — March 8, 2012 @ 7:22 am
Bill,
Thanks for the link. In many ways that link deserves to be broken into segments and posted as related but stand-alone threads. Or derided as the work of a blind, partisan hack sans vision! I mean really, it mocks everything the estimable and small town wise man, John Austin, has been saying here. For example:
“This creates a tax shift and causes levy rates to increase at a faster rate (or in some cases not decrease as much as it would have otherwise).” Wow, that means that URD’s create HIGHER TAXES for EVERYONE, right?
“This means each tax payer is responsible for providing a larger percentage of the tax district’s budget.” Ah, thank you!
Comment by justinian — March 8, 2012 @ 7:47 am
“There’s no way anyone can paint a clearer picture with facts and proven authorities than I have.”
Well John, it looks like there are authoritative sources that have a different point of view. Odd how that works. Care to change your tune, or are you still part of the chorus that has such contempt for both the facts and the voters?
Comment by justinian — March 8, 2012 @ 7:51 am
Once again, JohnA is spinning. Allen Dornfest at the State Tax Commission said that a particular change in a certain law would help make urban renewal “more tax neutral”. He did NOT say that urban renewal is tax neutral. It’s not. It raises our taxes. Our County Treasurer even said so. So did Post Falls City Administrator, who, when I asked him that question directly said, “Of course it does!”
Comment by mary — March 8, 2012 @ 8:11 am
Bill: Thank you for posting the link to the pie chart. It would be nice if we had updated information from the County.
Comment by LTR — March 8, 2012 @ 8:20 am
“Once again, JohnA is spinning.”
http://youtu.be/NfG47NsWVYA
Comment by justinian — March 8, 2012 @ 8:39 am
Wow, what a flash from the past, Justinian! That was fun to watch. I was a freshman in college when that song came out and it’s hard to believe we wore clothes like that, but we did…great memories.
Comment by mary — March 8, 2012 @ 9:02 am
Some things change (clothes, hair styles), some things never do (spin, spin artists, etc).
Comment by justinian — March 8, 2012 @ 9:36 am
I’ve stated this before and I’ll do it one more time:
The Assessors’ arguments were correct BEFORE the law changed on how governments could increase their budgets. It is NO LONGER correct.
This is complicated so please pay attention to the following three points:
Point #1: There are two ways a local government can increase their budget. 1- the value of new construction (homes and businesses paying taxes for the first time) and 2- an increase of 3% from the prior year. Example: a city’s $1,000,000 budget can go up by 3% (or $30,000) and by new construction (say $50,000). The new budget is $1,080,000, which with the added value of the new construction (those PAYING the $50,000 for the first time) would result in a 3% increase to all taxpayers.
Point #2: Prior to the law change three years ago (championed by my friend, Sen. Jim Hammond) a local government was allowed to add to their budgets the value of new construction from anywhere in its limits, including INSIDE an urban renewal district, in addition to the 3% from the prior year. That meant a city, for example, could add those $50,000 in new taxes to its budget even though that money would flow to the URD and NOT to the city. So, in the example above, the $1,080,000 budget would NOT be offset by the new construction value so the increase was 8% and not 3%. That raised taxes outside the URD for all residents, validating the Assessors’ claim BEFORE the law changed (point $3 below.)
Point #3: This is key to what Alan Dornfest stated: With the law change local governments can NO LONGER add to their budgets the value of new construction INSIDE a URD, until the URD closes and releases the new taxes to the government. So, because of that needed law change, that same city that could add $50,000 in new taxes BEFORE the law changed can NOT do so any longer. Example above, they could only raise their budget by $30,000 (the 3% allowed) or a total of $1,030,000. The impact is the same with or WITHOUT a URD. So, there is NO increase in taxes on those taxpayers outside the URD, as noted by Mr. Dornfest.
I’ve known and respected Mike McDowell for 25 years but I believe it is time for the Assessors as a group to acknowledge what the State Tax Commission has certified: since the law changed, taxes do NOT go up because of URDs.
It’s both as complicated, and as simple as that.
Comment by John Austin — March 8, 2012 @ 10:51 am
Who to believe, who to believe? Alas, methinks John spins and Mike speaks sooth. So sorry John, you may need to ask yourself if maybe you got it wrong?
Comment by justinian — March 8, 2012 @ 11:13 am
“This is complicated so please pay attention to the following three points:”…………….now dammit pay attention…………
So Justinian who you gonna believe, him or your own lain’ eyes?
Comment by Ancientemplar — March 8, 2012 @ 11:32 am
LTR,
I’ve provided a copy of John Austin’s comment #134 to the assessor’s office and asked for comment and clarification. If I get a reply, I’ll post it here.
Comment by Bill — March 8, 2012 @ 12:44 pm
Thanks!
Comment by justinian — March 8, 2012 @ 1:45 pm
Again…Alan Dornfest from the State Tax Commission said the change in the law made urban renewal “more tax neutral” than it was before. He did not say it IS tax neutral.
The simple reason urban renewal DOES raise taxes for everyone else is just basic common sense: Every bit of increased property tax money for every single property, old or new, in the downtown urban renewal district since 1996 goes to LCDC. It does NOT go to the city to pay for POLICE, FIRE, street repair, snow removal or park maintenance. It does NOT go to the County to pay for their services, nor to NIC or the 911-Emergency system.
The City, County, and other groups are not taking a budget cut, they make ALL the rest of us pay more to make up for the money that goes to LCDC.
Comment by mary — March 8, 2012 @ 2:08 pm
Mary, if you think that’s the case prove it with actually budget numbers the way I did. Otherwise, you need to have a paradism shift and trust someone who has constructed local government budgets for 25 years. If you’ve never filled out an L-2, the document that is certified by the State Tax Commission, you simply can’t understand the restrictioins placed on local governments by the STC. If a government as you note tried to make the ‘rest of us pay more’ it would be rejected by the STC. That’s why Mr. Dornfest said what he did.
He wasn’t asked but he could have said URDs actually LOWER taxes because the new dollars within a URD DO go for school overrides and plant facility levies and any other voter-approved levy (like CDA’s library and public safety levies.) Those URD dollars actually LOWER the amount the ‘rest of us’ pay because they are there in the first place.
Comment by John Austin — March 8, 2012 @ 3:20 pm
Mary – in an argument between common sense and a technocrat, common sense loses. The truth is, absent LCDC, taxes would be lower now. Anybody that has any common sense knows that. Then there is the alternate reality where there are NEVER budget surpluses, just unappropriated revenues and where never is heard a discouraging word. The Land of Oz. The Yellow Brick Road. A place where Vision matters and reality has no place. Just pay no attention to the Man Behind the Curtain.
Comment by justinian — March 8, 2012 @ 3:37 pm
John said “The fact is that no one pays for services inside the URD”. We all understand that John.
Fact is the burden is on all property taxpayers outside of an urban renewal district to payfor additional city employees and all their benefits, plus all necessary equipment to provide services inside all urban renewal districts. Taxing district budgets have continued to increase to cover the additional expenses created by urban renewal. A future prime example is the additional employees the City will have to hire in the future to take care of expanded upkeep to McEuen Field. Currently, McEuen Field maintenance costs are very low.
Comment by LTR — March 8, 2012 @ 3:56 pm
Just, the reason taxes would NOT be lower is because IF the money did NOT go to the URD it would go to each of the other entities, like the city, county, NIC, etc, who would simply INCREASE their budgets by that amount, as allowed by law.
The only way your taxes are ever going to go down is to get local governments to spend less right now. That’s it. That’s all. Take the new dollars and NOT add them to their budgets. That’s the only way taxes can go down.
Now that’s common sense.
Comment by John Austin — March 8, 2012 @ 3:58 pm
LTR, if they need new employees for McEuen Field they’ll have to use the ones they have now. They can’t just increase taxes to get new ones (except by the 3% per year I’ve noted above) and for the city that usually just covers their annual employee COLA increases.
I’m sorry, but that’s the way the law works, and has since Phil Batt’s leadership limited the growth of governments back in the 1990s. No matter how much they need they can only increase by 3%.
Comment by John Austin — March 8, 2012 @ 4:03 pm
John said “IF the money did NOT go to the URD it would go to each of the other entities, like the city, county, NIC, etc, who would simply INCREASE their budgets by that amount, as allowed by law”.
Perhaps the taxing entities would not take their 3% if they were not so burdened with stretched budgets.
And if anyone thinks the taxing entities will ease the burden of increased taxes once a urban renewal district expires, they are living in some other world. GREED, GREED AND MORE GREED
Comment by LTR — March 8, 2012 @ 4:05 pm
LTR, the fact is neither the city nor the county have even bothered to take the full 3% increase in recent years. That should tell you something about the ‘burden’ placed on them by the many URDs in the county. Clearly, if they were so burdened they’d be raising taxes as much as they possibly could to make ends meet.
Comment by John Austin — March 8, 2012 @ 4:24 pm
LTR, don’t you hear what John is telling you. They can’t hire the additional employees to maintain McKuen if it would put them over the annual 3% increase allowed by the law. They’ll just have to not fill as many potholes next spring (2013) because they’ll have employees mowing the grass either at McPark or Cherry Hill.
Don’t you get it. Evidently you haven’t gone to the government lingo class where they teach dolble speak.
Comment by Ancientemplar — March 8, 2012 @ 4:42 pm
ROTFLMAO! More guffaw from the Johnny on the Spot, the Expert on Everything related to Big Government!
Just to remind you how the “Pretty People” view the vision less, un-credentialed common folk, take a gander:
http://youtu.be/25tBFjtTMZQ
Comment by Pariah — March 8, 2012 @ 4:47 pm
Will Rogers obviously never met Pariah.
Comment by John Austin — March 8, 2012 @ 6:04 pm
So will the police put mower decks on the cars or lights on the mowers?
Comment by concerned citizen — March 8, 2012 @ 6:54 pm