Council advances first reading of urban renewal amendment adding 19.225 acres to district

Megan Conrad, an attorney with Elam & Burke, told the Hayden City Council on Nov. 18 that the First Amendment to the Hayden Urban Renewal Capital Development Plan would add about 19.225 acres in five nodes adjacent to the existing 720‑acre revenue allocation area to the urban renewal district and update the list of planned public improvements.

Conrad said the amendment complies with Idaho statutory limits: the combined base and amendment-area values remain well under the 10% valuation test and the addition is within the 10% geographic limitation. She also described the required economic feasibility and fiscal impact analyses, saying the agency’s cumulative revenue projection through the district’s remaining life is about $6.2 million and that the amendment-area contribution is modest relative to the overall district. The amendment does not extend the district’s termination date (the original plan terminates in 2029, with final revenue collected in 2030), Conrad said.

Council members asked detailed questions about the project list and funding. One council member expressed concern that the plan’s prioritized projects now include large civic items — a Civic Center and City Hall/McIntyre Park improvements — alongside intersection and road projects, and asked whether urban renewal funds would be used 100% to pay for those items. Staff and counsel responded that the plan identifies projects and estimated costs as part of the feasibility requirement, that project funding and prioritization remain subject to council and agency decisions, and that the fiscal analysis assumes a mix of existing agency funds, projected revenues and potential grant funding.

Council proceeded with the procedural ordinance motion: reading the ordinance by title only and suspending the three‑reading rule so a summary could be published and the amendment meet statutory timing for a retroactive 01/01/2025 base year. On the roll call for that procedural motion, Council member White voted no; other members voted yes. The mayor then read the ordinance title by summary and council moved to adopt the ordinance on first reading and publish by summary; recorded roll call votes were entered as shown in the meeting record.

Next steps identified by staff and counsel include publication of the ordinance summary, recordation of the map and legal descriptions, additional transmittals to state and county officials and the overlapping taxing districts, and final procedural steps required to effect a retroactive base year if council continues to the adoption ordinance on subsequent readings.

The council’s action at the Nov. 18 meeting was a first reading and procedural adoption by summary; the amendment itself and any project expenditures would require additional formal actions and project‑level approvals in the future.