Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Urban Renewal Public Art topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Banks School Board hears plan to let City use urban-renewal funds for public art; $500,000 Kelly Field allocation noted
Summary
On Nov. 17 the Banks School District board received a presentation on a City of Banks Urban Renewal Agency substantial amendment that would add a public-art category to the plan; the city also identified a potential $500,000 allocation for Kelly Field restoration. The board was asked to consider a concurrence resolution at a later meeting.
The Banks School District board on Nov. 17 received a presentation on a proposed City of Banks Urban Renewal Agency substantial amendment that would allow the city to use tax-increment funds for public art and could include a future $500,000 allocation for restoring Kelly Field.
Blaine Howard, a consultant for the city's urban renewal project, told the board the city had notified taxing districts and was seeking the district's concurrence on adding a public-art category. "They can do everything on their own in this amendment except they are proposing to add an ability to do public art within their urban renewal plan," Howard said. Howard also said there is "a potential allocation ... of $500,000 to help with the restoration of your Kelly Field project."
Why it matters: certain public-art projects now trigger a requirement for concurrence from taxing districts under a 2019 change in the statute, Howard said, and adopting a concurrence resolution would be the board's formal response. Howard explained that urban renewal relies on increases in assessed value (tax increment) rather than new taxes: a frozen base is established when an area is formed, and later increases in assessed value inside the renewal area flow to the urban renewal agency to pay for projects and programs. The consultant said the district's direct operating revenue would not be immediately reduced; instead the effect is on the state school fund, which distributes per-pupil allocations statewide.
Howard described the plan's timing and process: the city held a first reading of the amendment Nov. 11 and expects a city council vote on Dec. 9. An updated analysis provided to taxing jurisdictions estimates it would take about 31 years for the urban renewal area to reach its maximum indebtedness under the current plan. Howard said the county must approve the amendment for several unincorporated properties and that the city can proceed with the amendment even if taxing districts withhold concurrence, but without the ability to include the public-art project among contemplated future projects.
Board members asked several clarifying questions. The clerk asked, "I'm I'm confused about, like, what exactly we'd be voting on and how that's gonna impact the school or the students," and Howard responded that the district's role is to indicate concurrence (or not) on the specific public-art authority in the amendment and that the school district's per-pupil allocation is handled at the state level. Board members also asked whether "public art" meant work at the proposed performing arts center or pieces on Main Street; Howard said the amendment adds an arts category that could cover multiple locations and does not specify a single site.
The district was shown a sample resolution that would record concurrence; Howard and district staff said that resolution will appear on the board's regular meeting action agenda for a formal vote. No concurrence vote was taken during the Nov. 17 work session. The city council public hearing already occurred; the city is scheduled to consider the amendment on Dec. 9.
The board may consider the sample concurrence resolution at its next regular meeting; district staff and the consultant said they will be available to answer follow-up questions about locations, specific projects, and the draft language before any formal board vote.
