The vote was 14-2, only Mat Erpelding and Rob Mason voted “No.” All the other committee members voted “Aye.”

Video of the proceedings:
http://164.165.67.41/IIS/2019/House/Committee/Revenue%20%26%20Taxation/190306_hrev_0830AM-Meeting.mp4

Just for reference, the final vote was 14-2, not 11-3. All the committees Republicans and Boise Democrat Jake Ellis voted in favor. They all deserve our thanks.

Going back to the 1980’s, votes for the convention center and urban renewal districts were, I believe, even more directed by the public vote, as in more votes than 55%. I look in to it and see what else I can share.

Who was it that talked about that whooshing sound of money leaving your pockets. Stadiums do that, as studies will show. No profitable gain there. If I wanted one of those I would go build one myself. It would cost you $200 to get through the door, but. .

Only 1 or 2 “regular” people testified against the Bill. A pack of lobbyists opposed the Bill, and some tried to distort what it would do. I had no idea Urban Renewal districts had lobbyists, back lobbyist, others. They sure are touchy about anything that would bring about accountability and limit the back door dealmaking currently taking place. Having a vote on big projects also serves to make the City present a clear and solid plan to the public. Not the insanity we are seeing with Bieter and City Council regarding the Library/Library Campus/Parking Garage/Cabin Relocation, Events Center luring in the Wings, a potential “skywalk” to connect the garage, even mention of moving the Greenbelt in a news article.

I was VERY disappointed in the Democratic Rep. who claimed he was voting against it because there hadn’t been “collaboration”. The “collaboration” he apparently wanted was between the banks, developers, raft of consultants that feed off these projects and cities with incestuous entities like CCDC. And NOT collaboration with the people.

Rep. Moyle, a cosponsor of HB 217, hit a home run when he noted that “Everybody opposed to this thing [HB 217] is making money on these things [the long-term financing conduits that cities use to avoid going to their voters for approval].” (at 1:31:20–23 of 190306_hrev_0830AM-Meeting.mp4)

I would like to see the legislature mandate that the city council must be divided into districts.

This broken city council refuses to divide into districts so it can protect its majority Democrat party super majority.

EDITOR NOTE–Not certain, but we note the state laws are very liberal, allowing cities and counties to choose their own form of local government. A petition asking for a ballot measure would probably be in order.

I offer a recent example of how the current structure of the LEDA Statute disregards the taxpayers.

Close to 2 years ago, the Boise City Council approved a Construction Management & General Contractor agreement for real estate development consulting services for a new downtown library/civic center. Shortly thereafter, on May 8, 2017 — the Capital City Development Corporation’s Board of Commissioners approved the issuance of $13 million in redevelopment bonds for 3 specific projects in the River-Myrtle / Old Boise District, where the library is located.

Over the next year, Boise City proceeded with pre-construction activities for the new library and selected an architectural firm for the design concept.

On May 14, 2018 the CCDC Commissioners approved Resolution 1529.

This resolution redirected the $2.6 million of the $13 million intended for The Fowler parking garage purchase toward reimbursement of eligible expenses associated with the new downtown library/civic center project. That decision occurred a month and a half before the majority of the Boise population was made privy to the new library design, the tremendous cost, and the disregard for the historical log cabin.

Although a library project is an allowed use for these tax-exempt bond funds, it is the process that is unjust. It is unjust to allow unelected individuals from 4 different financial and legal firms, along with the CCDC Finance Director, to make decisions and recommendations on the funding of a major municipal building while the taxpayers are being denied the opportunity to make any funding decisions whatsoever on the same project. Funding decisions for a project stated to cost between $85 – $104 million, that will most likely require increasing future taxes to meet the debt payments, as well as impact the availability of tax revenue for allocation to other necessary infrastructure and municipal services.

In addition, the type of funding mechanism commonly used for large, costly municipal projects that are not placed on the ballot is Lease Financing. This funding method is documented to be more expensive than General Obligation Bonds, due to the higher risk rating creating higher interest rates and transaction fees.

Question for E.B. Schofield: Are you saying Lease Financing results in a different bond category? Thanks!

EDITOR NOTE–The lease deals are UNSECURED LOANS. As a result, they require “bond insurance” and the repayment is at a higher interest rate, hence it costs extra to go around the mandate to have a vote which offers “the full faith and credit” of the municipality. Citizens agreed to tax themselves to repay the debt.

Eamonn Harter for question above: Boise City did follow the formal bid process. The Boise Working Together group will soon be posting documents to the group’s website for these bids. Meanwhile, here is a brief summary if you wish to submit a Public Records Request to Boise City in order to increase transparency on this project:

CMGC 17-132: Bid identifier for the Construction Mgt./General Contractor contract – due date for proposals was 01/18/2017.

RFQ 18-031: Bid identifier for the Library Campus Architectural Services Building contract – due date for proposals was 10/28/2017.

I will supply more info. later today, need to attend a meeting this morning.

For Katie – above: Thanks Mr. Frazier for answering. I have found that a simple way to understand this would be to compare this to a potential homeowner seeking a loan.

Person X wants to buy a house and they have steady income with a solid employment record of 6 years at the same job, and no outstanding debt.

Person Y wants to buy a house and they have sporadic wages, gaps in their employment record, and other debt obligations.

The investment bank will deem person X as low risk, low uncertainty in paying back the loan – which equals a lower interest rate. Whereas person Y is a risk due to uncertainty in their ability to pay back the loan as well as other debt payments they are obligated to, resulting in a higher interest rate.

Person X is equivalent to a City’s obligation to pay back a General Obligation Bond that voters approved – the investment bank’s risk and uncertainty is low because the payment is secured via the levy on each person’s property tax.

Person Y is equivalent to a City’s obligation to pay back a bond via Lease Purchasing (Revenue Refunding Bonds) – no voter approval means less certainty and more risk for the bank. The payments in the case of CCDC are backed by the tax increment financing in an Urban Renewal District and the revenue from the 6 parking garages owned by CCDC – neither of which is a guarantee, as the economy can change and impact both of these revenue streams. In addition, Lease Financing usually has higher issuance/transaction costs compared to General Obligation Bonds.

To “A Broken City Council”: Perhaps part of the solution is for Boise to go to a Council-Manager form of government and eliminate the Mayor position. This is especially appealing for the largest and capital city in the state, where the mayor job may attract a certain type of character with a “vision” for the city and who is cozy with the Chamber of Commerce and developer interests.

Who has announced so far for elections?

For mayor we have. .

For council seats we have. .

Will someone summarize this, either here or in a story?

good job Fraz,watch Bieter wiggle,now new tact. To make sure u kill the snake u cut its head off then cut in half. What is next? Coop

I think that architect/engineering contracts in idaho are qualifications based without regard to cost. Or at least cost is negotiated after selection.

Rumor has it that the next shoe to fall after the #100 Million library is that the mayor will want to move City Hall and attach it to the Library. Again using CCDC money to the tune of $45-60 million!

The property just to the west where the bio company is would be used. The long term lease on the building was created to “protect it” until the mayor got the library done then he could build his cathedral to himself next to the eternal library.

Don’t expect anyone to confirm the rumor until the mayor announces it after the library is done.

Located some of the CCDC dollars for the City Hall Plaza project.

$1.3M – 2017 (says they shared cost with Boise City, this is phase 1).

Phase 2 of plaza project shows up again in the 2018 (draft) report, but does not show how much they spent.

If these dollars do not commingle with Boise dollars, they have spent more than $14.4 million on City Hall to date.

You can do your part to help keep this bill alive, thus impacting your future taxes, but action is needed TODAY.

Committee Chair Senator Jim Rice is refusing to allow a committee hearing and vote on HB 217. Please contact Senator Jim Rice, and Senate President Pro Tem Brent Hill, and urge them to give this issue a hearing. Your message can be brief: Urban renewal reform is important for all Idahoans and HB 217 deserves a Senate vote.

[email protected]
[email protected]

Background: The bill (HB 217) to reform urban renewal passed the Idaho House of Representatives overwhelmingly on Monday March 11 with a vote of 59-11. The next hurdle for HB 217 is to be heard by the Senate’s Local Government & Taxation Committee, where the nine lawmakers can recommend whether or not it should be passed to the Senate floor for a full vote, but this is being held up right now.

Please do your part readers and contact these two representatives ASAP. This bill will place the power of decision making, specific to the funding of municipal buildings/projects, back into the hands of the citizens of the State of Idaho.

Relieved that this much has been achieved. Now, on to the Senate.

Godspeed!