Sandpoint urban renewal board denies Bonner County Ambulance District withdrawal from downtown and northern tax-allocation areas

The Sandpoint Urban Renewal Agency Board of Commissioners voted unanimously at a special meeting in June 2025 to deny the Bonner County Ambulance District’s requests to withdraw from the agency’s Downtown and Northern revenue allocation areas and directed the chair to provide written notice of the board’s action.

The action follows Idaho’s 2025 enactment of House Bill 436, which created a statutory process for a fire district or ambulance service district to seek withdrawal from an urban renewal revenue allocation area. Chairman Eric Paul summarized the statute and the packet analysis, saying the law permits withdrawal only after a specific accounting and provided that ‘‘there are no existing indebtedness or other financial obligations’’ that would exceed the revenue allocation proceeds attributable to the withdrawing district.

Board members considered county-provided accounting figures and the agency’s current and anticipated obligations. The packet describes a September 7, 2018 revenue allocation note issued to finance downtown public improvements with an original principal of $1,500,000, a stated interest rate of 3.63 percent, semiannual payments listed at about $83,003.78, a maturity date shown as Sept. 15, 2029, and a current balance reported as $686,635.48. The agency also has an informal note payable to the City of Sandpoint with a balance reported as $572,528 as of Sept. 30, 2024, and reimbursement obligations tied to local development projects: Schweitzer Ranch (annual reimbursement $25,000; remaining balance $375,000), Milltown (annual reimbursement $33,333; remaining balance $500,000), and Milltown improvements (annual reimbursement $18,004.33; remaining balance $276,495). The board’s packet described these as obligations funded, in whole or in part, by future revenue allocation proceeds.

County accounting provided estimated allocations attributable to the ambulance district by revenue allocation area and sample calculations of the district’s share of future increment. The packet figures included an assessed valuation figure labeled for the Downtown district and the Northern district and resulted in estimated annual amounts for the district on the order of tens of thousands of dollars. Commissioners asked for clarification about those calculations during the meeting and noted inconsistencies in the way the numbers were presented in the packet.

Commissioner Cabela said the Downtown district’s outstanding note and the agency’s covenants and estimated cash flows gave reason to deny the downtown withdrawal request, and he cautioned that granting withdrawal could affect the agency’s ability to refinance at current favorable rates. Bonner County EMS Chief Lindsey, participating remotely, said, ‘‘Our call volume has increased immensely’’ in development areas placed inside the urban renewal districts but did not provide a breakdown of payer mix or call types at the meeting.

After discussion, the board considered two formal motions. For the Downtown revenue allocation area, Commissioner Cabela moved to deny the withdrawal request; Commissioner Perry seconded the motion. For the Northern revenue allocation area, Commissioner Pekawi moved to deny the withdrawal request; Commissioner Perry seconded that motion as well. Both motions passed unanimously. Chairman Eric Paul said he would work with the city clerk to provide written notice to the Bonner County Ambulance District citing the agency’s obligations and the board’s action.

The board’s decision was procedural and financial: it concluded the agency’s existing indebtedness and reimbursement obligations that are or will be funded by revenue allocation proceeds exceed the revenues attributable to the ambulance district under the county accounting provided to the board. Commissioners noted the statutes enacted in 2025 require the county to provide an accounting and create a timeline for resolution, and the board followed the special-meeting procedures set out in the new law.

No party proposed a compromise or conditional approval at the meeting, and the ambulance district’s resolutions requesting withdrawal remain part of the record. The board did not change the agency’s budgets or refinance any notes at the meeting; those would require follow-up actions and additional financial analysis.