Committee advances broad urban renewal bill after hours of testimony and debate

Representative Jason Monks presented House Bill 436 to the House Revenue and Taxation Committee on March 25, describing it as a set of clarifications and new options for local governments, urban renewal agencies and overlapping taxing districts.

The bill creates a process by which a city may initiate dissolution of an urban renewal agency by resolution, requires a meeting between the city and the urban renewal agency to develop a termination plan, and preserves existing indebtedness while restricting new obligations during the review process. It also permits an extension of a revenue-allocation area for a single-owner manufacturing project in order to finance additional infrastructure, and—starting July 1, 2025—would require fire districts to opt in for a new urban renewal district to capture future property-tax increment; fire or ambulance districts also could withdraw from a revenue allocation area if they have no outstanding bonds or contractual indebtedness.

Sponsor Representative Jason Monks, District 22, said the measure is intended to provide local governments with a clearer process to dissolve agencies they created and to give emergency services a way to protect revenue they will need to serve growing development. "If you think about it, it makes sense that [fire districts] have the obligation to provide protection for that area and if they are, then they should be able to have the revenue to be able to support that," Monks said.

Testimony at the hearing split along stakeholder lines. Ken McClure, representing Chobani, urged support, saying the bill would allow a manufacturing employer that had used urban renewal to expand and fund needed wastewater and sewer infrastructure tied to a major expansion of operations. "This allows Idaho to grow with a growing business and not prevent its growth," McClure said, describing a 50% expansion by Chobani and the infrastructure needs it creates.

The Urban Renewal Agency of Twin Falls' Executive Director Sean Barriger and the Nampa Fire Protection District Chief and Idaho Fire Chiefs Association President Kirk Carpenter also testified. Barriger warned that permitting a local governing body to dissolve an urban renewal agency by ordinance could create uncertainty for long-term projects and investors, and opposed piecemeal opt-outs by individual taxing districts. Carpenter, representing fire districts, said property-tax increments often fund critical staffing and facilities and said the bill should give emergency services the option to participate in or opt out of revenue-allocation areas. "Our increment is a million dollars," Carpenter said of Nampa's URD; "that is staffing for a new station ... the ability to not go to the taxpayers and request more funds."

Opposition came from Meridian Development Corporation's David Lehman and the Redevelopment Association of Idaho (RAI). Lehman said the dissolution provisions could create instability and a piecemeal erosion of urban renewal tools. Megan Conrad, an attorney representing RAI, said the bill's language raised administrative and legal concerns, particularly around how existing indebtedness and project-area terminations would be protected if a city moved to dissolve an agency.

Committee members debated speed and scope. Representative Cornelis and Representative Birch said the bill was complex and stakeholders needed more time; Representative Ayers argued the bill would still go through further public processes if it advanced. Representative Cheatham offered a substitute motion to hold the bill in committee; that substitute failed in a roll-call vote, 3 in favor, 11 opposed, 1 absent. The committee then voted by voice to send House Bill 436 to the floor with a due-pass recommendation; members recorded as voting nay on the final motion included Representatives Birch, Gannon, Cornelis and Cheatham.

Representative Monks will be the floor sponsor. The bill contains multiple new procedures that local governments and taxing entities will need to follow if it becomes law; witnesses asked the Legislature to clarify timelines and protections for existing bonded obligations.