[[
[
[[Read staff writer Brian Walker’s article headlined URD gives back $2.2M in today’s Coeur d’Alene Press .
[[He’s not talking about the City of Coeur d’Alene’s urban renewal agency, the LCDC. Once again, the City of Post [Falls has taken the lead.
It’s a no-brainer to say that:Post Falls Urban Renewal Districts are more efficient and work for the taxpayers.Their districts should be the model for all other URD’s in the CDA area and around the state.
Comment by kageman — October 23, 2009 @ 1:18 pm
The urban renewal districts in CdA are enormous. That’s one of the main problems. They SKIM the property tax increment off of the whole downtown commercial district, NOT just the few buildings down there that they have helped.
Here’s one example in the second CdA district, which is also huge. It runs out Seltice to Mill River. Anyway, CdA Honda built a new building on their property last year. ALL the taxes from the new building go to LCDC, even though Honda recieved NOTHING from LCDC. The property tax increment from Honda’s older building and all of it from the new building total up to basically $40,000 per year. ALL to LCDC. Not to the city, county, etc.
You and I pay more to make up the difference. And Honda is just one property…think of all the hundreds of others in downtown and out to Mill River and up 4th street.
Comment by mary — October 23, 2009 @ 5:15 pm
Now, with $5.2 million in property tax increment due to the LCDC for this year alone, according to their own information, don’t you think they could take a lesson from Post Falls and give back at least $2 million to the city? And $1 million to the County? That could help reduce some budget strain! After all, it’s public property tax money!
Comment by mary — October 23, 2009 @ 5:17 pm
Mary: “You and I pay more to make up the difference.”
Mary, with all due respect, you still haven’t shown where this is a correct statement. I know this is your site and all, but I would hope that any statements made here would be based on fact and not conjecture. If you do not like LCDC, well, that’s OK, but please let’s talk about known issues and their impact on taxpayers and not assumptions that have yet to be proven by outside authorities.
Meanwhile, my hat’s off to the Post Falls URA for finding a way to rebate some of their excess dollars. My hope is that they will end that district soon if their projects are indeed funded.
Comment by JohnA — October 23, 2009 @ 6:45 pm
Just think how far this money would go to pay for a new jail in CdA.
I want to vote for the jail, but am having a hard time with this when I think of our tax money being held captive by LCDC for their pet projects.
Where am I going wrong in my thinking?
Comment by citizen — October 23, 2009 @ 6:48 pm
Citizen, the only thing wrong with your thinking is that LCDC is free to disburse funds to the agencies in their area. If they could, I think a point could be made to do so.
Post Falls apparently received more tax dollars than their projects needed, so they rebated some of the money. I’m happy for them that they could do that.
The jail issue has great merit on its own. Please check out the facts, including the issue that if we don’t raise the sales tax now to pay for it, we’ll have to bear the burder ourselves, with no outside help from tourists who visit our county and pay 30 percent of the sales tax.
Comment by JohnA — October 23, 2009 @ 7:10 pm
JohnA, how did PostFalls pay for its new city hall; did their URA pitch in? Templin was trying to save the old one but,Larkin and co. prevailed Was building that palatial building a good deal for the citizens of PostFalls?
Comment by kageman — October 23, 2009 @ 7:14 pm
JohnA, I think I have shown where it is true. I have told you my information comes from the latest State of Idaho data from the Tax Commission. Look it up. It is an increase from the numbers Kootenai County gave me last year, but you and Tony Berns continue to deny it raises anyone’s taxes. Poppycock! Your reasoning defies common logic.
I have even reversed the scenario to say, “what if LCDC closed down today (not that I suggest this), what would property tax revenues to the city & county do? THEY WOULD INCREASE DRAMATICALLY! You can dance around it all you want, John, but you know it’s true. So, if tax revenues to the city and county would increase drastically without LCDC, the rest of us HAVE TO be making up the difference in the budget shortfalls due to the taxes skimmed off to LCDC.
Backing me up is the absolute, instant response from the Post Falls officials, (you know the ones who just gave back $2.2 MILLION of their urban renewal excess?) when I asked them if urban renewal raises the tax rates for everyone else? “YES”, they said, immediately. “That’s why we’re so careful with it!”
You and Tony Berns play it differently than Post Falls. You always say, “prove it”. And nothing I can say is good enough. So now let me turn the tables on you: Prove to me that urban renewal does NOT raise my taxes!
Comment by mary — October 23, 2009 @ 7:58 pm
LCDC could hand the money to the taxing agencies and some agencies could spend it on the jail. Instead I hear that LCDC will be spending our money on an ice skating rink. I remember in Phoenix the day I could no longer drop my kids at the rink, because the criminal gang element moved in. Seems to me the taxpayers are having to tax themselves to lock up the bad guys so that LCDC can pay for a luxury skating rink.
We are getting tired of feeding the LCDC Beast. It’s coming out of our food budget.
Comment by citizen — October 23, 2009 @ 8:45 pm
John A. Look at the prorations from the article. They tell us how much tax money from which taxing entity is taken by that URD. There can be little doubt that the LCDC has similar numbers. So lets use them that way.
40% to from the city is over $2 million. 20% from Kootenai county and the schools is $1 million apiece. 6% to NIC is just over $300K. This is just part of what the LCDC took from these entities just THIS year alone.
Now you tell Mary that she has NO proof that the citizens get taxed extra to make up for these tax deficits. We know for a fact that NIC is assessing higher taxes which might not have been as badly needed if all of the regional URD’s were not pulling away so much money. But lets assume that none of the other entities do tax extra. Their only other option would be to short shrift the citizens on the services they need. All of these new developments and increased population still need city and county services. They pay their taxes to obtain those services and the LCDC takes a huge part of those taxes. If the city does not make up for those lost revenues it still has to provide the services.
So which is John A.? Do we pay more in taxes and get the proper support services….. OR…… do we not pay more in taxes and get delivered city and county services spread thin and marginalized?
Also the county does need a new jail and needs MORE tax money for it. How much more new money is required because of the various URDs taking away county tax revenues?
In other words you are talking out of both sides of your mouth (the Tony Berns way). One way or another these URDs do financially impact the everyday citizen anywhere they live in this county.
Comment by Wallypog — October 24, 2009 @ 5:45 am
Congratulations to Post Falls!
We need a clean sweep to the City Council to clean up this supposedly legal corruption.
Perhaps, a challenger to Wasden might help.
Comment by citizen — October 24, 2009 @ 7:12 am
Mary and Wally, with my 22 years experience developing local government budgets, please let me help you understand how the process works. Local governments cannot by law raise their budgets by more than 3% over the previous year unless they have new construction in their districts. Since new construction in URDs flows to the urban renewal agency, and therefore NOT to local governments, they are unable to increase their budgets. So, taxes cannot be made to be higher outside of URDs no matter how you look at it.
A case can be made, as Wally states and is made often around the state, that local governments who do without the dollars from new construction are being spread thin. We will see what the local governments do with their $2.2 million in new revenues from Post Falls to see if they are used to make up services, if any, that they have done without over the years. There’s already an example of how the city of Post Falls used theirs when the Harper’s URD was closed. They built a police station that was badly-needed.
So, please if you want, make the case that governments may have to make due without new costruction dollars flowing to URDs until their useful lives end, but stop with the impossibility that taxes are higher outside of URDs.
That’s all I have to say on the subject and thanks again for the forum.
Comment by JohnA — October 24, 2009 @ 9:22 am
…… so the answer is “B”. City and county services run ‘lean’ because they get shorted on the tax revenues by the various URDs.
How about the new projects? Is the proposed jail bond larger because the county has lost revenues to the URDs? Would NIC have taken the maximum taxes if it got all of its tax revenues?
Comment by Wallypog — October 24, 2009 @ 10:05 am
Your argument would hold water, Wally, if we could be positive there would have been all the new construction without the URDs being formed. Of course, there’s no way to know that. One thing we do know is that new construction outside but near the URDs has helped the tax base of the local governments. So, I can state that without the URDs the tax burden could just have easily been heavier WITHOUT the URDs.
Either argument is just as valid, bud sadly just as speculative, at this point.
Comment by JohnA — October 24, 2009 @ 10:31 am
JohnA, one of our readers emailed me personally and wants this question asked:
“John, the LCDC took in over $5.2 million in property tax dollars this year. Where would that money go if the districts closed?”
Comment by mary — October 24, 2009 @ 2:39 pm
Also, John, you said that “Since new construction in URDs flows to the urban renewal agency, and therefore NOT to local governments, they are unable to increase their budgets. So, taxes cannot be made to be higher outside of URDs no matter how you look at it.”
But isn’t it true that the TAX LEVY RATE is increased to fill the need in the city / county budget? These entities do not run at a lower budget, they just take more from the taxpayers.
Comment by mary — October 24, 2009 @ 2:42 pm
Mary, if the $5.2 million was released today it would go to local governments proportionate to the percentage their levy rate is of the levy rates of all the taxing districts. Say the CDA levy rate is .33% of the total 1% tax rate, CDA would get one-third of the $5.2 million, or $1.7 million. As I discussed earlier, they could either add that to their budget or reduce taxes, the latter action resulting in an increase to their foregone tax balance. That $1.7 million increase would then be subject to the allowable 3% annual increase (so next year that amount they could levy would be $1,751,000.)
Second, the levy rate is a simple calculation. If CDA levies $10,000,000 in taxes and their market value is $3 billion, both hypothetical since I don’t have the numbers in front of me, the levy rate is .33% ($10,000,000/$3,000,000,000). The only way the levy rate increases is if the city’s budget goes up or their market value goes down. The City can’t raise it’s levy rate by itself since market values play a larger role.
I know it is confusing but I hope this helps, and thanks.
Comment by JohnA — October 24, 2009 @ 3:36 pm
Also, Mary, as I noted on HBO, please note the falacy of ending the URDs now. By law they cannot do that until their debt is retired.
Of course, the city of CDA could retire the debt on their own but that would not be smart since they would have to do that with their share of the $5.2 million, instead of having LCDC retire it as scheduled with the whole amount. I’m quite sure they’d have to RAISE taxes to do that instead of lowering taxes by ending the URDs, as some have suggested.
Comment by JohnA — October 24, 2009 @ 3:54 pm
John it makes no difference what ‘if’ anything. We know what has happened and we know what exists. You speculate about how many advances may or may not have occurred without the URD in place. I will accept the reciprocal which assumes that MORE would have been developed in the absence of URDs’. Am I wrong or right? You don’t know.
Of greater importance is the impact of what HAS occurred versus the impact of what may happen in the future. There are laid plans that will benefit a select group. If those plans should change then others might benefit. Which of those hypotheticals is better for the public? Which is better for a handful of fat developers?
Fact: The powers that be keep many things secretive and work to shut up their critics. WHY? If there is nothing to hide why is so much being hidden?
Rather than percolate possibles why not just shoot directly towards what is best for the TAXPAYER?!? (Especially since times are really, really hard on the small folks.)
Comment by Wallypog — October 24, 2009 @ 4:01 pm
Wally: “I will accept the reciprocal which assumes that MORE would have been developed in the absence of URDs’. Am I wrong or right? You don’t know.”
I think it’s silly to think more would have been developed in the absence of URDs. John Stone told me recently the mill site he bought would not have developed without the URD and it would likely still be an abandoned mill site. The cost to obtain the property, remediate the land and develop it without assistance would have made that improbable.
So, I DO know that a bigger tax base has happened because of the URD being in place. Meanwhile, there is no evidence that ‘fat’ developers have benefitted from the URDs since their funds are at risk if they don’t develop.
In the end, taxpayers will benefit from the huge increase in the tax base that has come from urban renewal. It may take another few years but the impact will be huge. No doubt about it.
Comment by JohnA — October 24, 2009 @ 4:48 pm
John A. Curious that you cite only one person and he happens to be someone who liberally used the LCDC for his own purposes. Now go look as the resort. Hagadone developed it all with is own money, accepting all the risks and taking all the profits. On the other hand, Stone chooses not to take all the risks or use all of his own money but he will gladly take any and all of the profits. CdA is a well known growth community which is why there is so much interest in its various markets and business potential. Yes, CdA would be developed without the machinations of the LCDC. We have all witnessed that CdA is on the world map and the citizens do not need to pay developers to come here to exploit business potential. That is why they are developers. That is what they do.
I will however afford you the benefit of the doubt. I will accept that the pace of development is faster due to the LCDC. Now that it has successfully kick started building this place into Vail, northwest why does it need to remain in existence to ensure it will be finalized? Even the LCDC admits that the blight it was founded to correct has been corrected. The LCDC has laid the foundation now let the developers use it at their own risk according to city development plans. There is absolutely no need for the LCDC to live out its proposed tenure.
The major problem is one of balance. There isn’t any. There is a singular focus on making this city into a mega dollar resort town and the people with that focus choose to proceed regardless of the impact it has on the citizens whose needs and desires receive their nominal attention (and often their overt maltreatment). Like the Kroc project they get what they want even if it means breaking their own promises and openly skirting state laws. I have no doubt that Stone loves the LCDC, Bloem and all you guys. Not only did he gain his project but he also was handed a juicy tax break for donating his useless park to the city (for them to maintain).
If Bloem was working ethically and WITH the citizens all of this rancor would be avoided and maybe the LCDC would be a welcomed entity.
Comment by Wallypog — October 25, 2009 @ 7:14 am
Wallypog, that was very well said, It IS a problem of balance. Post Falls’ action has underscored the differences: They get in, get their specific goals accomplished and then they GET OUT.
John A, on the other hand, defends LCDC’s maximum timelines by saying this: “In the end, taxpayers will benefit from the huge increase in the tax base that has come from urban renewal. It may take another few years but the impact will be huge. No doubt about it.” “ANOTHER FEW YEARS”? : It will be 11 years for the first CdA District and 14 years for the second one.
Comment by mary — October 25, 2009 @ 8:17 am
Mary, 11 years is a short time for a city. It may seem like a long time to those of us living and working in the present, but it is only a short time for a city. I can tell you the last 11 years have gone awfully fast, at least for me. CDA has seen great things happen in those 11 years and will see many more in the next 11.
And, I’ll grant you some things might have developed over the last 11 years, but certainly not Riverstone. In addition to the $6 million purchase price, the cost to remediate the land alone made it prohibitive. By having some (but certainly not all) of the infrastructure costs paid back to John Stone, it encouraged him to get it going when there was no one, and I emphasize NO ONE willing to step into that mess.
I applaud Mr. Hagadone for his business enterprises. I’m guessing, however, that he has benefitted greatly from the rejuvenation of the downtown he once dominated. Please don’t forget the 40% vacancy rate of downtown storefronts in 1997, all of which are now full and funnelling people to his establishments.
It’s easy to look around now and say things were great back then when they were not. I’m proud to have been a part of the creation of an agency that has and will continue to deliver great economic benefit to its residents.
Comment by JohnA — October 25, 2009 @ 1:34 pm
How long did the Post Falls URD’s take?
As for Riverstone, let’s not count those chickens yet, the enormous unsold inventories and precarious capital structure may yet collapse.
Comment by Pariah — October 25, 2009 @ 2:15 pm
John A, you’re correct. Things do change and they change a lot faster than they used to. No, there is no need for the LCDC to continue. In fact there is the need for the LCDC to end. It has served its purpose and now exists only to enrich a select group of inside players. The continued growth in CdA development will progress independently with people just as savvy and deep pocketed as Duane Hagadone. We don’t need council people who work for major developers or council folks who just happen to own properties adjacent to these projects keeping the LCDC unnecessarily afloat for their own gain. It is time to put the needs of the taxpayers back in front. Recapture the lost tax revenues and put them to work as they are intended. They are NOT supposed to be side tracked into a development slush fund.
11 years may be short or not. In this instance it is not short. We have success. Be proud of that and move forward without the LCDC juggernaut. The fact is that we can see that NOW the LCDC can recede its influence. NOW, is the key term. The blight is gone. The foundation is laid. Time to end the gravy train and put the money back to serving the people who pay the bills.
Comment by Wallypog — October 25, 2009 @ 4:07 pm
Wally, some elements of LCDC’s plan are not complete. The Ed corridor and upgrades to CDA’s waterfront, including McEuen Field, are still undone. When these elements are complete, we can look forward to rebates and other investment returns from LCDC. I would say that within another five years LCDC will be able to establish the timeline for ‘winding down’ as Tony put it. That’s not so long from now.
Meanwhile, let’s imagine CDA fifty years from now when the urban renewal has had its ultimate influence. I believe people will look back at LCDC and find it in the same favor they did for those in the community fifty years ago who saved Tubbs Hill and preserved the waterfront properties downtown.
Comment by JohnA — October 25, 2009 @ 7:09 pm
John, you made the point that there was a time in CdA when urban renewal was needed. There were certain economic problems and specific areas of blight that if mitigated would greatly enhance local growth and stability.
I am saying that those original goals have been met. But in the process the LCDC has morphed into a development agency for private firms funded by our tax dollars. Our leadership and the LCDC are now about major urban reinvention requiring massive sums of our tax dollars. It is clear that our leader are more worried about their idilic plans than they are about the citizens.
10, 20, 30, 40%….. how much of CdA’s property tax dollars will eventually be annually taken by the LCDC and the citizens deprived of quality city support? The ethics of this stinks. The LCDC has delivered a very nice complement of improvements. The blight is gone. The area is in the national spotlight. But the LCDC now wants MORE, a lot more. They have delivered a Cadillac and now they demand a Bentley even though the Cadillac met their originals goals and would be quite acceptable on its own. The cost of that Bentley comes from some people who can’t afford to pay for their own medicine. The LCDC attitude is near predatory in its callousness. You should feel ashamed in defending their plans.
50 years from now this city will be just as wonderful without the continued work of the LCDC. The LCDC does not define the plans it just sees to it that a select group of insiders gets to profit from them. Those same plans will blossom and bear the same fruit without the LCDC. And Meyer and Nipp, etc…. will actually have to bid for the work and EARN their success.
Comment by Wallypog — October 26, 2009 @ 7:04 am
You’re quite wrong, Wally, to expect me to be ashamed of LCDC’s plans. With their track record of providing the funding for the magnificent projects in their districts, they deserve every accolade I can muster.
You are among a very few who have problems with LCDC and/or the process they have legally utilized to provide the economic stimulus CDA has needed over the years. Of course, you are entitled to your opinions, as am I, so we will have to simply agree to disagree on this point.
Thanks for the exchange and thanks to Mary and Bill for providing the forum.
Comment by JohnA — October 26, 2009 @ 9:33 am
JohnA, don’t be quite so sure that Wallypog is “among the very few who have problems with LCDC”. Protesters number in the hundreds or more and to some extent the election next week will be a referendum on the policies of LCDC and the lack of critical oversight by the city council.
I have always appreciated your thoughtful and respectful responses. Too bad you’re not right once in a while. 😉
Comment by Gary Ingram — October 26, 2009 @ 11:04 am
“You are among a very few who have problems with LCDC and/or the process they have legally utilized”. Comment by JohnA — October 26, 2009 @ 9:33 am
Then why did LCDC spend $35,000 of taxpayer dollars to find out how to be liked by the public?The fact is:nobody I know likes LCDC.Why?Because, they understand that as long as LCDC is in the business of: helping to build high-end residential developments, like condos for the rich.It will eventually, gentrify the CDA area;with working class people moving out because,they can’t afford the housing and rich part-timers or well-off retirees moving in.LCDC does help to raise property values.
So, if LCDC is part of the problem with the lack of affordable housing, then they need to be part of the solution IMO.Because, were in an economic downturn, now would be the time for them to make an impact on affordable housing.Affordable meaning:anything under $200,000.
Comment by kageman — October 26, 2009 @ 1:37 pm
John just demonstrated what is wrong with the LCDC. They don’t care about anyone but themselves. As far as John is concerned the LCDC can take all of CdA’s property taxes, leaving the public woefully under served. If a few folks have to starve to death or lose their family homes so that John and the LCDC can have their vision of the future then so be it. There is no wrong the LCDC could do that John would ever find fault with.
Comment by Wallypog — October 26, 2009 @ 2:05 pm
“There is no wrong the LCDC could do that John would ever find fault with.”
Wally, if LCDC did anything illegal I would find fault with that. If you’re suggesting they have done something illegal, you should push that envelope as far as you can. Otherwise, if what they do is legal, and my opinion is that everything they do is within the law, I’ll support their mission.
Comment by JohnA — October 26, 2009 @ 3:48 pm
So as far as John is concerned these people can work as much in the foggy grey area as they can possibly get. Just don’t step over that line. Never mind personal ethics or civility. It makes no difference if they lie because, well, no laws are broken. Any ends are justified by any means (as long as they don’t break the law). Now they can accidentally break the law like Nipp did or they can challenge the law and lose like Gridley and the city did. Just do not get caught up to your premeditated elbow in the illegal cookie jar. Is that how it works for you John? It has to be that blatant for you to wince does it John?
How about this? Is it all right with you if they break the law but don’t get caught? If you knew they broke the law would you actually contact the authorities and turn them in?
Comment by Wallypog — October 26, 2009 @ 4:41 pm