Urban Renewal Agency budgets final year, raises facade grant to $50,000 amid debate over projects and transfers

The City of Cami's Urban Renewal Agency on May 15 approved its 2025-26 budget and voted to increase the facade improvement program from $40,000 to $50,000 as the agency moves toward scheduled closure after the final debt payment in June 2026.

The agency's budget message, presented by the renewal agency director, noted the urban renewal district was created in 1999 and operates on tax-increment financing: base tax revenues are frozen and increments above the base go to the URA. The director recommended budgeting the final year's full expenditures because the district will receive one more increment before being closed; after the last debt payment the URA will wind down and any remaining funds are expected to return to the city and other taxing jurisdictions.

Why it matters: the URA has supported downtown capital work and property grants for years. With the district scheduled to finish payments in mid-2026, councilors and committee members debated whether programs such as facade grants and beautification should remain in URA funding or be transferred to the general fund. That decision affects how about $1 million in future revenue will be used and whether some programs continue when URA funds end.

Key details: the agency's proposed 2025-26 budget included roughly $1.892 million in capital projects (the First Street realignment and associated curb, sidewalk and paving work were cited as the primary capital item), $435,000 in materials and services, and other line items for personal services and reserves. The director said debt-service is the main driver of the budget and reiterated that 2025-26 would be the last year with a debt payment; staff projected only modest interest earnings thereafter.

On program specifics, committee members questioned the facade improvement program's $40,000 line (the program pays reimbursable grants, normally in $25,000 increments, with owners matching part of the cost). Several members argued the line should be set to match the program's $25,000 increment structure to avoid partial approvals and applicants having to return for additional funding. One member suggested keeping the program but reducing or eliminating it as URA funding ends; others argued the program benefits downtown businesses and the public realm.

Votes and budget offsets: the committee voted to raise the facade improvement program to $50,000 (motion introduced and seconded on the record). To cover the additional $10,000, the committee approved reducing the URD projects line by $10,000 (members split the reduction across project and beautification lines during discussion; the formal motion reduced the projects line). The agency then approved the full URA budget for fiscal 2025-26, presented as $7,861,487 in total appropriations for the district.

What was not decided: a final policy decision about whether the city will adopt responsibility for beautification and economic development programs after the URA closes was left to the City Council. Several members asked that any transfer of URA-funded programs into the general fund be clarified before the URA ceases, and some urged that leftover balances revert to taxing jurisdictions if programs are not continued.

Quotes: "The Urban Renewal District was created in 1999... when the agency is created, the tax base is frozen, and all proceeds above the tax base go to the Urban Renewal Agency," the renewal agency director said during the presentation. Council members debating the facade program emphasized both program structure and fairness: "the program operates in $25,000 increments, so it doesn't make any sense to have a $40,000 budget," one committee member said; another added, "I believe the beautification project doesn't just benefit a business owner... it benefits the community as a whole."

Looking ahead: staff said the URA will make its final debt payment in June 2026; after that year agencies will see fewer URA expenses and the city will receive additional revenue that council will need to allocate. The URA director and committee members recommended clearer direction from the City Council about which, if any, URA-funded programs the city should continue to fund when the district closes.

Ending: The agency recorded the budget and program votes on May 15 and will forward those budget numbers and the policy questions about program transfers to the City Council for final decisions about post-URA funding and program responsibilities.