Professional Documents
Culture Documents
House Bill 606
House Bill 606
Bill
606
2016
Freedom
Index
Score
(0)
Analyst:
Wayne
Hoffman
Date:
March
16,
2016
ANALYST
NOTE:
House
Bill
606
makes
several
notable
reforms
to
the
state's
urban
renewal
statutes.
The
bill
promises
to
increase
government
transparency
and
accountability,
but
urban
renewal,
by
its
nature,
makes
it
very
difficult
for
people
to
fully
appreciate
how
their
tax
dollars
are
diverted
to
urban
renewal
projects.
The
bill
does
make
an
attempt
to
improve
taxpayer
oversight.
Point
No.
8:
Does
it
in
any
way
restrict
public
access
to
information
related
to
government
activity
or
otherwise
compromise
government
transparency
or
accountability?
Conversely,
does
it
increase
public
access
to
information
related
to
government
activity
or
increase
government
transparency
or
accountability?
ANALYSIS:
The
proposed
50-2006(5)
allows
for
the
members
of
an
urban
renewal
board
to
be
elected,
rather
than
appointed,
increasing
the
accountability
of
the
commissioners
for
an
urban
renewal
board.
(+1)
The
bill
also
requires
agencies
to
file
reports,
plans
and
plan
modifications
with
the
state
tax
commission,
and
provides
a
consequence--the
loss
of
tax
revenue--for
failure
to
do
so.
(+1)
Point
No.
5:
Does
it
directly
or
indirectly
create
or
increase
any
taxes,
fees,
or
other
assessments?
Conversely,
does
it
eliminate
or
reduce
any
taxes,
fees,
or
other
assessments?
ANALYSIS:
The
bill
makes
an
important
modification
to
Idaho
Code
50-2033,
which
was
added
as
part
of
an
urban
renewal
transparency
measure
in
2011.
That
year,
the
Legislature
prohibited
certain
plan
amendments
to
a
revenue
allocation
area.
House
Bill
606
allows
for
plan
amendments
to
take
place
under
certain
conditions
and
stipulates
whether
or
not
a
reset
in
the
base
valuation
in
the
revenue
allocation
area
is
to
occur.
The
criteria
are
provided
in
the
new
proposed
Idaho
Code
50-2903A.
A
base
valuation
reset
is
important
in
that
it
dictates
whether
the
the
urban
renewal
agency
is
to
use
the
current
property
values
in
determining
the
tax
increment
or
whether
it
is
to
use
the
values
from
when
the
revenue
allocation
area
was
established.
The
former,
generally,
would
mean
more
money
for
the
urban
renewal
district
while
the
latter
would
likely
result
in
less.
While
allows
for
some
minor
changes
to
the
revenue
allocation
area
without
triggering
a
reset,
the
bill
also
protects
the
urban
renewal
district
from
a
reset
when
it
is
to
accommodate
an
existing
commercial
or
industrial
project
in
a
revenue
allocation
area
or
when
the
urban
renewal
district
has
indebtedness
that
cannot
be
repaid
before
the
revenue
allocation
area
is
to
expire.
This
has
the
potential
of
prolonging
a
shifting
the
tax
burden
to
other
taxpayers
while
the
debt
is
to
be
repaid.
(-1)
Point
No.
7:
Does
it
increase
government
spending
(for
objectionable
purposes)
or
debt?
Conversely,
does
it
decrease
government
spending
or
debt?
ANALYSIS:
The
proposed
addition
of
50-2905A
would
prohibit
urban
renewal
revenue
from
being
used
to
construct
certain
municipal
buildings
(spelled
out
in
the
section)
without
a
vote
of
the
public.
When
urban
renewal
dollars
contribute
to
51
percent
or
more
of
a
project's
cost,
a
public
vote
with
at
least
60
percent
of
the
participating
qualified
electors
would
be
needed
to
approve
the
project.
While
the
notion
of
a
public
vote
is
a
good
thing,
the
51
percent
provision
would
appear
to
be
an
invitation
to
fund
49
percent
of
a
project
using
urban
renewal
dollars,
allowing
voters
to
continue
to
be
bypassed
for
debt
financing
purposes.
(-1)