Committee introduces RS 32-716 to add URD dissolution process, fire-district opt-out and single-owner extension for manufacturing sites

The House Revenue and Taxation Committee on March 21, 2025 introduced RS 32-716, a bill-length draft that would change several aspects of Idaho's urban renewal district (URD) law, including a formal city-initiated dissolution process, a limited mechanism for fire districts to opt out of URDs when no indebtedness exists, an opt-in pathway for fire districts in new URDs, and a provision allowing single‑owner URDs tied to manufacturing projects to be extended for up to 20 years.

Representative Jason Monks, R‑Ada County, said the RS is not a full rewrite of urban renewal law but "a couple slight changes" intended to address concerns raised by cities, fire districts and others. He said some cities have worried that once a URD is created it can continue to pursue debt or new projects long after an original project is complete; the RS would provide a statutorily defined process for a city to notify a URD, meet, develop a plan and then vote on dissolution through the city's usual ordinance process.

On fire districts, Monks said the RS would allow a fire district to opt out of an existing URD if the URD carries no indebtedness and the fire district would otherwise be disadvantaged by not receiving increased property-tax revenue tied to new development. "It allows a fire district to opt out of an urban renewal district with a really big caveat. The caveat is that there's no indebtedness there and they don't have any obligations on their funding," Monks said. For new URDs, he said fire districts would have an opt-in pathway so they could participate where appropriate.

The RS also includes language to permit an amendment of a revenue allocation area to support growth or development of a manufacturing project where the allocation area includes parcels owned or controlled by the project owner and affiliates; in such cases those single‑owner areas could be extended for up to 20 years to finance public infrastructure for manufacturing expansions.

Several members expressed concern about advancing the measure late in the session and asked for more stakeholder review and public transparency. Representative Birch said he was "nervous" about moving the RS forward this session and sought assurance it would not be rushed to a floor vote without broader public input. Representative Gannon asked about carve-outs for single‑project provisions and said such targeted language "always makes me a little nervous that somebody is getting something that the rest of us aren't." Representative Cornelis and others said they supported introducing the RS so it could be aired publicly and reviewed by constituents.

Representative Jeff Ehlers moved that the committee introduce RS 32-716; the motion carried by voice vote. The committee did not place the RS on the second reading calendar at the March 21 meeting; the RS was introduced so it could be the subject of public debate in committee process going forward.