Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Urban Renewal topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee introduces RS 32‑716 to add URD dissolution process, fire‑district opt‑out/opt‑in rules and single‑owner extensions
Summary
RS 32‑716 would create a process for cities to initiate dissolution of urban renewal districts (URDs), allow fire districts to opt out where there is no indebtedness, let fire districts opt in for new URDs, and permit single‑owner URDs to extend up to 20 years for manufacturing projects; committee introduced the RS after debate.
The House Revenue and Taxation Committee introduced RS 32‑716 on Friday, a proposal that would add procedures for dissolving urban renewal districts, create opt‑out and opt‑in rules for fire districts, and allow limited single‑owner URDs to be extended up to 20 years to support certain manufacturing projects.
Representative Jason Monks, the sponsor, told the committee the RS is not a complete rewrite of urban renewal law but would provide several targeted changes. First, it would create a process by which a city could notify and work with an urban renewal district (URD) to prepare a plan to dissolve the district, using the same ordinance/resolution process that created it. Second, the bill would enable fire districts to opt out of existing URDs where the URD carries no indebtedness and would require notice and a meeting between the URD and the fire district; for new URDs, fire districts would have to opt in if they wanted to retain tax increment revenues allocated to them. Third, the RS would permit plans that amend an existing revenue allocation area supporting a manufacturing project — where the allocation area includes only parcels owned or controlled by the project owner and affiliates — to be extended up to 20 years.
Monks said the changes respond to concerns from some fire districts that receive increased service demand from development inside URDs but do not see corresponding tax revenues. He said he has worked with URD attorneys and fire district representatives while drafting the RS, and expects both supporters and opponents to testify at a public hearing.
Committee members raised questions about timing and stakeholder engagement. Representative Birch urged additional public outreach and cautioned against rushing changes late in the session; Representative Gannon flagged concerns about single‑owner carve‑outs and asked to review the specific subsection (page 12, subsection 5) that permits 20‑year extensions for manufacturing projects. Representative Cheatham confirmed code still prohibits URD funds from being used for personnel — Monks agreed and said the bill focuses on infrastructure and publicly owned improvements.
Representative Ehlers moved to introduce RS 32‑716; the motion carried and the RS stands introduced. Monks said he supports moving the RS forward now to solicit public comment and to allow municipalities and stakeholders time to respond.
Discussion vs. decision: the committee introduced RS 32‑716 for public discussion; members asked for more stakeholder input and some members said they would be reluctant to support floor action this session without additional review. The introduction was approved by voice vote; a hearing is expected before any floor action.
Ending: The RS was introduced to permit public debate and stakeholder hearings; committee members signaled divergent views and indicated further review will follow.
