Kootenai County Assessor Mike McDowell
[
A reader of my March 1, 2012, post titled Is It Time? attached a comment (see comment 134) disagreeing with some information concerning urban renewal districts and agencies posted on the Kootenai County Assessor’s Office URD webpage. I provided the entire comment to Kootenai County Assessor Mike McDowell, asked him to respond, and assured him that I would post his response in its entirety, unedited.
His response arrived today via email, and as promised, here is a link to it. I appreciate that Kootenai County Assessor Mike McDowell took the time to compose and send such a thoughtful response. His response makes it very clear that he is working diligently with state officials to resolve differences and disagreements that may affect the interpretation and beneficial application of those laws.
So once again Johnny gets his hat handed to him. And yet he will claim the moral high ground, that place from which superior vision trumps all else.
Who to believe, who to believe? The Man with Vision or the elected County tax collector? Who to believe, who to believe?
(In deference to those who tire of the lyrics from Queen, I will refrain this time, but feel free to hum along at home if you wish!)
Comment by Pariah — March 12, 2012 @ 11:46 am
Pariah,
I think there are reasonable differences in interpretation and application of the urban renewal laws. It appears that citizens throughout the state have raised enough questions to finally get the Legislature to look at the state’s existing urban renewal laws. Needless to say, the current laws’ proponents and their lobbyist, the Association of Idaho Cities, do not want any changes at all. But in an interview in this morning’s Idaho Statesman, retiring legislator Dennis Lake said, “I think we’ll continue to chisel away at urban renewal, simply because of the shift in taxes that it causes.”
Comment by Bill — March 12, 2012 @ 12:00 pm
Bill, here is my response this morning back to you and Mike McDowell, as I think you should provide both sides of the issue:
Mike:
Thanks for the response to Bill McCrory. Here is where we part sides on the issue:
You state that $912,046,811 is in the county’s various revenue allocation areas (RAAs) of their urban renewal districts and therefore don’t contribute to local governments. What you may not realize is IF the revenue allocation areas did not exist, that value would be allowed to be ADDED to the budgets of each local government as new construction. So, the county could add the $912 million at their total levy rate to their budget IF no RAAs existed. There of course would be no impact on taxpayers because the budget dollars from new construction would be offset by the $912 million. I don’t have the county’s levy in front of me but that would be a huge boost to the county budget.
Since Sen. Hammond’s legislation, local governments can no longer add that new construction, UNTIL the RAAs close and that value is then ADDED to the budget calculations. That is what happened when the West Seltice RAA ended in Post Falls and the city of Post Falls added some $200,000 in new tax revenue to their budget. Again, there was no increase to taxpayers because those dollars were already being paid, but were simply flowing to the Post Falls URA and not the city.
SUMMARY: Since that new value of $912 million (and the corresponding budget dollars assessed on it) are NOT added to the budgets of local governments, there is nothing added to any budget that would increase taxes to property owners outside the RAAs.
I believe, Mike, if you discuss this with your brother Dave in the Auditors Office you will see how budgets can’t increase without the value of new construction that is only allowed to be counted in the URDs.
Again, thanks for working to bring a resolution to this issue, as it is one that is both complicated and also of the utmost importance when the discussion of urban renewal is addressed.
John Austin
Austin Consulting
Bill, I hope Mike talks to both his brother and Alan at the STC so he can get a clear understanding of budget practices as I’ve noted.
Comment by John Austin — March 12, 2012 @ 12:09 pm
Pariah, the Assessor is NOT the tax collector. He assesses the value of your property but the Treasurer collects and distributes the taxes. You amaze me with your lack of knowledge on this issue.
Comment by John Austin — March 12, 2012 @ 12:11 pm
John,
Government has twisted what should be simple mathematics into a spin to hide what is really happening. You compound and confuse accounting so that the layman, like myself, has no choice BUT to pray that you are telling the truth. People in government have lied to themselves so much that they truly believe what they are saying. You are nothing more than Prince John from Robinhood.
Comment by concerned citizen — March 12, 2012 @ 1:18 pm
Hmmm…. At the very least I hope this will assuage John’s tendency to talk down to any who disagree with his whirlybird logic. Even the state tax assessor conflicts with how John sees the URD issue so the rest of us Plebe’s must certainly be considered as well anchored. Or……. just mebbe………. the Honorable John is full of…… beans….. as most of have speculated at one point or another.
Comment by Wallypog — March 12, 2012 @ 1:44 pm
I think there is room to disagree, at least on the edges. There is no room to disagree that the issue is both complex and controversial. It is time to have laws written that will:
Simplify the issues,
Narrow the financial and geographic scope of what a URA can do,
Treat them as public agencies with either elected or appointed board subject to the same laws, rules and disclosures as other public agencies.
Comment by justinian — March 12, 2012 @ 1:51 pm
Idaho’s urban renewal laws have matured to the point that their results and performance can be objectively evaluated. A reasonable start might be for the Legislature to convene an interim committee to do that.
Comment by Bill — March 12, 2012 @ 2:26 pm
Mike and I have agreed to sit down together and discuss our differences of opinion. That’s what reasonable people do when they don’t agree on something, which is a far departure from what happens here. Having a meaningful discussion on differing points of view should always outweigh simply taking a personal shot at someone whith whom you don’t agree.
Comment by John Austin — March 12, 2012 @ 3:44 pm
Comment by John Austin — March 12, 2012 @ 3:44 pm
Comment by John Austin — March 12, 2012 @ 12:11 pm
BWAHAHAHahahaha……, yeah, right Johnny. You are a class act. Well, not really but I wanted to try saying something nice.
Comment by Pariah — March 12, 2012 @ 3:57 pm
Boy oh boy, a world of doubt has just been lifted from my shoulders. I’m not a lay person and have had extensive experience in both finance and real estate. I was beginning to doubt my own knowledge, experience and education. It truly was wonderful to read the response from our county assessor. It reinforced faith in myself. I thought my hair was getting to be too blue or possibly I was coming down with a terminal case of “CRS”. I can now look forward to not having to believe the government lapdog apologists but rather believe my own “lying eyes”. Thank you Mr. Assessor.
Comment by Ancientemplar — March 12, 2012 @ 4:33 pm
Whether I agree or disagree with John A. I feel I must point out that he is addressing, or at least attempting to address, issues raised. It is a shame that the city’s elite and/or LCDC don’t.
Comment by Joe Six-Pack — March 12, 2012 @ 5:56 pm
Indeed Joe, Johnny is doing that. Along with gratuitous insults, condescension and jibes he describes as “wry humor”. He does defend complex financial issues from the POV of the insider with real vigor.
Comment by Pariah — March 12, 2012 @ 6:13 pm
Thank you, Assessor McDowell, for your knowledgeable, clear and strong explanation of the impacts of urban renewal. I am glad JohnA engages in these discussions because it gives us all reason to elucidate our thoughts and ask questions of people like our expert County Assessor.
Major thanks to Bill for sending the email request to Mike McDowell!
Comment by mary — March 12, 2012 @ 11:15 pm
Pariah, you raise a valid perspective. I however am less concerned about someone who is willing to set forth their perspective publicly than I am about persons who choose to keep their reasoning out of the public debate and only share it with others of like mind.
Comment by Joe Six-Pack — March 13, 2012 @ 11:15 am
When will we hear the results of this famous meeting?
Comment by Pariah — March 15, 2012 @ 6:34 pm