Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Municipal Property Conveyance Nonprofits topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Sponsor seeks to let cities negotiate property transfers to nonprofits without auction; committee sends bill back for revisions
Summary
Representative Ben Furman introduced RS 32108 to allow cities to transfer property to nonprofits by negotiation rather than auction in certain cases; the committee voted 8–6 to return the RS to the sponsor for additional guardrails and clarification.
Representative Ben Furman introduced RS 32108, a draft amending Idaho Code section 54-14-03 (as cited in the presentation) to permit cities to negotiate conveyance of city-owned property to nonprofit organizations in the same manner cities may currently negotiate transfers to other taxing districts.
Furman said the change would make negotiation with longstanding nonprofits (senior centers, museums, YMCAs, libraries) an option when a city decides a property is a maintenance or liability burden. The sponsor emphasized the change would be optional for cities; they would not be required to convey property nor to change existing lease arrangements. Furman said that by enabling negotiated transfers, cities could avoid the costs of maintenance or liability associated with underused municipal properties.
Committee members raised concerns about public accountability and the possibility of transfers to organizations with political purposes. Representative Healy, Representative Price and others asked whether taxpayers would be upset if city property was conveyed without compensation. Representative Birch and others asked whether legal guardrails exist to prevent transfers to organizations that are, in effect, political entities. The sponsor responded that the statutory public hearing process and city council approval remain required and that the authority to negotiate would not eliminate public oversight.
Representative Price moved a substitute motion to return RS 32108 to the sponsor for revisions and additional guardrails; the committee conducted a roll‑call vote. The roll call recorded the following positions: Ehart (Chair) — Yes; Cornelis — Yes; Erickson — No; Weber — No; Alfieri — Yes; Cheatham — No; Hawkins — Yes; Healy — Yes; Price — Yes; Kehler — Yes; Razor — Yes; Wheeler — No; Birch — No; Church — No. The chair announced the motion passed on an 8–6 vote and the RS was sent back to the sponsor for revision. The sponsor was asked to provide additional outreach and documentation, including city survey results and proposed guardrails, before returning the RS for committee consideration.
