June 21, 2007 Board Workshop

Special Meeting/Workshop June 21, 2007
CDA City Council Chambers 4:00 PM

URBAN RENEWAL WORKSHOP

At 4:10 PM, Chair Vern Newby called the meeting to order and led the Pledge of Allegiance. Trustees Edie Brooks, Christie Wood, Sid Fredrickson and Diane Zipperer were also present.

Guests in attendance were Tony Berns, Executive Director Lake City Development Corp., Jay Townsend, City of Hayden, Nancy Sue Wallace, Hayden URD Commissioner, and Deanna Goodlander, LCDC Commissioner. Representing Coeur d’Alene School District were Superintendent Harry Amend, Assistant Superintendent Hazel Bauman and Chief Financial Officer Steve Briggs.

Chair Newby began by asking for introductions and explained the purpose of this workshop to gain a better understanding of urban renewal areas within the school district. Questions from patrons may be submitted in writing to the school district administration office.

General Overview of URD’s In Idaho: Tony Berns began by defining Lake City Development Corporation. It is made up of two separate districts: Lake District and River District. He shared their Mission and Vision Statements. Urban Renewal was first authorized by state legislature in 1965; it defines an area to be improved, develops a plan to guide the efforts, and leverages public funds with private equity to create new jobs, and encourage housing, office and retail space. Areas qualify if they are of poor infrastructure, blighted, and economically disadvantaged bordering strong neighboring communities. Once a district is formed, a Board of Commissioners is established. LCDC established their districts in 1997 and 2003. Funded by tax increment financing, LCDC receives taxes on increased property values since the establishment of the district. A consultant recommended focusing on housing and office space – primary components when deciding projects to fund. Projects are funded by grants and Owner Participation Agreements (OPA’s), no risk to the public. He detailed several of the projects that LCDC has partnered with including, Mill River, Ice Plant, the future education corridor, Chamber of Commerce, Parkside Towers, Sherman Lofts, and the new Library. They are also working to improve the Midtown corridor on 4th Street.

Jay Townsend presented a brief overview of the Hayden URD. Implemented in 2005, it is fairly new, and they are currently conducting a comprehensive strategic plan study, and have hired a consultant firm in partnership with City of Hayden. Five members form their Board of Commissioners.

Mr. Newby asked about term length of the Urban Renewal Districts. Mr. Berns noted that in 2002, the LCDC Board requested a term extension after a plan modification. This decision is made by the City Council. Mrs. Wood asked if terms can be restricted. Mr. Berns replied that if plans and debt obligations have been met, they can be modified. Mrs. Brooks asked about OPA’s. There is no term on the debt however, they cannot extend beyond the life of the district. The bottom line is the strategic plan of the district and if that includes looking at additional projects. They can anticipate the types of projects coming to the district but it is difficult to know in advance. LCDC meets monthly; sub-committees meet within the month, and a strategic planning session takes place on a yearly basis. Ms. Bauman asked about workforce housing for district employees, and noted the possibility of partnering with LCDC and the City.

URD’s & School Finance: Steve Briggs shared a presentation about school districts and funding. URD’s have long been established to provide a vehicle for financing infrastructure and improvements in specific geographical areas. Their funding comes from an indirect application of the levy rates of other taxing entities. School districts have been protected in that operating budgets, driven by the ADA formula, have included .004 of the increment value of URD’s. School districts may not levy against the incremental value relating to levies and bonds. However, since the school district’s levies are required to be driven by dollars and not rates, the district has remained unaffected. Is this a School District issue? Mr. Briggs continued; anything affecting our taxpayers is of concern however, the school district receives all its operational funds from the State. The District receives all funding from the levies it certifies and this would not change even if we had no URD’s in our District. Other points he mentioned are that all district property taxpayers are levied at the same amount whether they live in the URD or not and we have not been harmed by the shift of URD funds during property tax relief. Based on the fact that the district receives all formula and levy driven monies needed to operate in the amounts required, the existence of URD’s in a school district does not harm the operations of the district.

Mrs. Wood asked prior to the tax shift, how much did the school district receive from LCDC. Mr. Berns responded that LCDC levied at same rate as district rather than higher rate. The State picked up the difference and school districts were held harmless. Mr. Berns spoke about increased tax revenue via the increased amount of the supplemental levy and how those funds can be used to assist the district. Mr. Townsend reminded everyone that this is a tax shift, not additional monies. Mrs. Wood asked about possible proposals to the legislature. Mrs. Brooks asked if all taxes are fixed amounts and how they are calculated. School districts are tightly monitored and levies are against fixed dollars. Mrs. Brooks asked about differences in property values within URD. Increases only happen within budgets and may increase up to 3 percent from the previous year. The difference is minimal when looking at city taxes, however, this also depends on the number of taxing entities. Ms. Bauman said that she could see the positive impact of partnering with the URD and the City with housing or capital improvements. This could be a win-win for students and patrons of the school district. As Sorensen is outside of the URD, is funding appropriate? Mr. Berns said a legal review is forthcoming. He noted that Sorensen Elementary adds great value and benefits the URD. Mr. Fredrickson said that the City has not taken advantage of the allowable 3% budget increase for a number of years. The tax rate has gone down and levy rates are projected to go down. Mrs. Zipperer said she heard that the URD can cause increased taxes for taxpayers outside the URD. Mr. Briggs responded it is a misnomer to say that people outside the URD pay more; levies are levies and are transparent. The dollars would change if the district was poorer in terms of valuation but the relationship would not change.

Mr. Newby noted the significance of projects such as Mill River. Deanna Goodland said we are fortunate with our growth and that not all cities have the ability to use URD’s. Looking at the big picture statewide, URDS are doing a great deal to create quality jobs. Mr. Berns agreed and said it’s not just property taxes, but also sales and revenue tax within community, which ultimately benefits the state. Mrs. Brooks talked about the vitality of the downtown area and that Sorensen will benefit that area. Mr. Berns and Mr. Newby both spoke to the positive qualities of Sorensen and the value added to the downtown area. Mrs. Wood thanked all for this information, and looks forward to working together. Mr. Amend thanked Mr. Berns, Mr. Townsend and their representatives for attending. This is a great opportunity to learn about partnerships. Mr. Newby noted this is an information workshop and questions and/or comments should be submitted in writing to the school district.

Meeting adjourned at 5:45 PM.

Vern Newby, Chair
Board of Trustees

Lynn M. Towne, Clerk
Board of Trustees

Home