Treasure Valley Partnership

2007 Retreat Minutes

Owyhee Plaza
September 27 & 28, 2007

Attendees:
Matt Beebe
Tome Dale
Tammy de Weerd
John Evans
Margie Watson
Paul Woods

Guests:
Dan Chadwick
Ken Harward
David Hensley

September 27, 2007

Tom Dale opened the meeting mentioning we would enter into a discussion about issues centering on upcoming urban renewal district legislation. He introduced Ken Harward with the Idaho Association of Cities. Ken stated that during the last Idaho Legislative session there were several bills that were introduced to reform urban renewal law.

Legislation was proposed that instead of having a board appointed by Counties and Cities, that urban renewal district board positions would be elected positions. That bill did not get out of committee.

Chapter 20 is the classic urban renewal section that has been on the books since the 60’s. It did not permit any propterty tax. Then Chapter 29 called the Local Economic Development Act was passed in 1987. It allows the creation of a revenue allocation area. This creates the property tax component. The emphasis is “local economic development”. The district that you created could not account for more that 10% of the total taxable value of the City. Then the overlapping tax rates of the various jurisdictions would be added up and that rate would be applied to the taxable market value of new development. This is called the increment.

Now the overlapping taxing entities will forego revenue during the life of the urban renewal plan. Then at close out, taxable market value will be reported in the new construction role. Therefore there is a real incentive to close out urban renewal district projects as soon as possible.

Paul Woods asked, the year that it sunsets, cities and counties are providing services, then all of a sudden, you can run your budget up to this level because you can on the new construction, if it is under the 3 percent. Ken indicated you can grow your budget by three percent over the levy of the previous year, and you can apply last years tax rate to a new construction role plus any foregone. The effect is that Bodo in essence raises taxes in Star.

Tom asked if it is causing Stars taxes to raise, or inhibit them from going down. Ken stated that the tax effect was there.

Ken indicated that there have been a bunch of people have prepared some legislation that would; 1) a bill that would no longer allow, in this overlapping tax rate that is applied to the increment, to include any voter approved bonds, i.e. School district or city bond levies.

Tom Dale stated that we need to be cognizant as to what is going on with this legislation and continue to be diligent by keeping involved with efforts of IAC and AIC in monitoring and shaping the discussion. Tammy agreed that this is something we need to watch.

Ken indicated that there is a legislative task force that has as its charge, to review and analyze land use policy; area of impact, annexation and urban renewal. It is co-chaired by Sen. Fulcher and Rep. Bayer. Their personal concerns center around the SW Boise Annexation. There have been 3 meetings thus far. He feels however, there probably wont be any legislation introduced from this committee this year.

Paul asked about personal property tax. Ken indicated that their concern is just not loosing revenue. There is a legislative committee looking at exemptions.

Ken said he was at a meeting on transportation funding. The ITD board had voted on requesting 130 million on Garvee. The sentiment however is that why should the State approve these funds when it is the Treasure Valley that is getting all the money. We saw this sentiment play out last year in JFAC. This also has an effect when trying to find traditional money for transportation. The Governor appears not to be supporting a gas tax. Matt suggested that we have the legislature stay in hotels/motels in Caldwell and experience the traffic problems by being forced to drive in it during the session.

Tom introduced Leonard Herr with the Idaho Department of Environmental Quality. Leonard mentioned that this might be a short presentation. He had just a few items to share with the Partnership. Leonard would like the Partnership to look at and pass new ordinances. Specifically, fugitive dust controls.

Tammy asked if we don’t already have some common ordinances. Leonard indicated that the common burn ordinances that were instituted were very successful. With the burn ordinances issue, all jurisdictions had some variation in place and all we had to do was change each ordinance to a common standard and protocol. For the most part, these fugitive dust regulations do not exist.

The only place fugitive dust regulations exist is under State Law. These are very general in nature and talk about reasonable controls, like fugitive dust should be not be allowed “unreasonably”. And there are real minimal controls on covered loads, trackout, etc.

Tom asked what is the State law on covered loads? State law states, “loads should be covered reasonably”. Tom indicated that this term “reasonably”, opens up a wide interpretation.

Leonard passed out a model ordinance on fugitive dust, which included covered loads. He pointed out some of the specifics of this ordinance that gives stricter interpretation compared to the Idaho state law.

Tom provided an example he had witnessed just this week. Where there was a big truck on the freeway that was just billowing sand and gravel from the rear. He asked, “could the State ticket this person”? Leonard said, that under his reg., this person could not be ticketed.

Margie asked where Ag concerns fit under the model ordinance? He indicated that Ag. is exempted on most fugitive dust regulations. Margie asked if it was true that gravel pits are exempted because of mining regulations? Leonard said no, while in the pit, yes, but once it gets on public highway it is a different ballgame.

John felt that the piecemeal approach to this fugitive dust area would probably be the best. He said, he was pretty sure that for example, his council would have little problem instituting a covered load ordinance because we have all seen that truck on the highway. But the other portions of the model ordinance he distributed, are doable, but will take different and more concentrated efforts. Maybe we should bite off small parts of this issue at a time.

Leonard stated, one thing that would be a priority in the development of a covered load ordinance would be insuring the ordinance reads same in each jurisdiction.

John Evans stated that it might be real important if Ada and Canyon County adopted this above all others, because most of these gravel pit type loads originate in the county. His concern was that if we take some common language and then each jurisdiction does their own tweaks to the ordinance we would defeat the standardization concerns. He felt that if the two counties settled on some common language then the cities could easily piggy back off of that and there would be less variation among the ordinances.

Tom felt to be effective on this endeavor; each jurisdiction’s ordinance needs to happen at the same time. Tammy concurred. Paul volunteered to work with Bill and put together draft language for a covered load ordinance. Leonard stated that he would ask his staff to gather some example language and forward it over to Bill.

During the discussion of the model ordinance, the track out issue was brought up. Several jurisdictions have track out ordinance language. Tammy asked that Bill do some research among the Partnership jurisdictions to identify the track out language that exists. Bill indicated he would develop this and bring to the October meeting.

Leonard indicated that the number one air quality complaint is dust from construction. So if we take these measures step by step, we can go along ways to mitigating our fugitive dust issues. Additionally, the track out issue can be handled in a different manner. Track out primarily occurs around construction sites and they are not permanent problems. And you can mitigate this in your permitting process.

Paul stated that the covered load ordinance is a good idea for public safety and air quality combined. But on a larger scale, it is also a nuisance issue.

Paul asked, “When we have orange and red quality days, would it make sense to outlaw certain activities like paving?” Leonard stated that this would help out on poor quality days. But there is no authority for this type of action. Under State law, there are stages. Each stage allows the State to take more action. Leonard felt that paving and chip sealing are possibly big contributors to our ozone problems. They just conducted an air quality study where there was some paving occurring around the test site and they are waiting to see how that affected the monitoring.

Tom opened the discussion on meeting dates for the Partnership. Margie would like to change the date as Monday seems to conflict with a lot of our regular meetings. After the discussion the 1st and 4th Wednesday of each month would work out as a regular meeting dates. Tom asked that Bill put out a notice out to members to find out their preferences.

Margie asked to move on to the budget. Bill indicated that over last years budget he would like to add more to the phone expense amount. He requested that the partnership reimburse him $35.00 to pay for half of his regular monthly charges on his cell phone. The TVP phone number is Bill’s cell number.

He indicated that he also had reduced budget items for expenses such as; the retreat regional meetings and also added money to the computer repair line item. Bill stated that this was the only real change in the budget. Tom mentioned that Bill is having some trouble with his computer. Paul mentioned that he would talk to his IT staff to see if there were some assistance that could be provided.

Tom mentioned that he would like to mount an effort to introduce legislation to have the State fund the SAUSA project. He wanted to approach Patti Lodge and other legislators to see if we can push this forward this year. Margie agreed.

John moved to accept the FY 2008 TVP Budget. Margie seconded. Motion carried.

Bill showed the MOU with TVP and Owyhee County that had been updated for the next year of the project. Margie moved to approve the MOU and Tammy seconded. Motion carried.

Bill stated that he has been getting the sense that our regular monthly meeting agenda’s are too full and he felt we needed to provide more open discussion times. Tom stated that this was one of the priorities of the TVP. Tammy said she really enjoyed the round table discussions on a monthly basis. Paul mentioned that already have forums for transportation and planning and the TVP could be a forum for discussion of other issues.

Tom liked the idea of having a free form discussion at the beginning and end of monthly agenda. It was generally agreed that we would try to shake this up and try to limit real structured time to one hour per meeting.

Tammy wanted to talk about their Youth Fest. Drug Free Idaho has an event at Boondocks and last year they had 1,200 Kids. This year there were sponsors with booths and the kids had to gather information from the booths in order to get free admission. This year they had 2,700 kids attend that had earned their wristbands. She mentioned that these are the types of issues we like to hear about. Anytime we can talk about successes is important to the TVP forums.

Tammy moved to accept the August minutes and adjourn. Margie seconded. Motion carried.

Mayor Dale introduced Dan Chadwick with the Idaho Association of Counties and David Hensley with the Idaho Governor’s Office.

David started out by relaying the message that the Governor is impressed with the effectiveness of the TVP in the recent past and is looking forward to working with its members to positively effect Idaho.

David indicated the governor is looking into efficiencies to of the highway funding formula so that more funds can go to roads. As an example, Parks and Rec. comes off the top and in that highway fund, ISP gets 3% and with that goes to ITD, 14% goes to overhead and 4% goes to roads. So, they are looking into the funding formula, identifying inefficiencies and working to identify better ways to fund transportation needs.

Tom asked if we were to have some enhancements on transportation funding?

David indicated this legislative session is going to present unique challenges. The construction on the Statehouse will be one of them. It will be hard to access people as the legislature is in session.

David stated that the Governor is interested in the issues the Cities and Counties are facing. Tammy said she would like to see Cities, Counties and the Governor’s Office work together to tell the story to rural legislators, the key role that urban counties/cities have in the economic health of the State. This impacts transportation/roads. We have to convince them that we need to fix the congestion problems in urban Idaho and how this impacts our State as a whole. Paul added that he felt that ITD does not have the tools in its toolbox to deal with an urbanizing environment.

John added that you run into problems on state highways with access management types of issues, for example. One of the challenges you get into is who makes the decision when it comes to these types of issues. He stated there are a lot of layers beyond the District 3 representative. The challenge is there is not an urban philosophy in the ITD toolbox.

Tom stated if we could partner with the Governor on specific related issues, we could be a powerful force. We should pick a few issues and partner together to see if we can get fixes to the system. Paul stated he felt it was a revenue enhancement issue to get transportation in the urbanized areas of the State improved.

Tammy said that if we look at highway 20/26, access management issues pit developers against cities, counties and ITD. The problem occurs when the developer walks into ITD’s door and gets looser constraints on access management concerns. This makes the city/county vulnerable.

David stated that this access management issue might be handled outside of the legislature. He indicated that this discussion has brought up a need to have a discussion to see if we can solve it. He feels that the three entities, ITD, the TVP and the Governors office needs have a discussion and he will look into getting this discussion started.

Dan stated that there are other transportation corridors around the State that are having the exact same access management issues that the TVP members do. They will probably be allies in this discussion.

Tammy indicated that tools like Sales Tax Alternative Revenue Source give us an alternative when we talk with developers. In rural Idaho, public transportation seems to be easier to do than in urban Idaho. We need funding tools, local options, impact fees etc. We are going to be severely hampered in the valley if we do not have more tools.

David stated that this discussion is good. Part of the need is helping the Governor’s office understand problems. Paul felt, we need to be active in identifying solutions and need to begin thinking in the solutions area as we work together.

Tom mentioned the SAUSA Project. He mentioned that we can prove the project is saving the State money. We would like to push through and request the State pick up the full cost of the SAUSA program this year. We would like to have help from the Governor’s office to begin the process.

David said he would more than happy to talk to the Governor about this. One of the issues that will come up, is where do we put the money. The AG’s office has been trying. Dan suggested the Criminal Justice Commission as a place to house this program. David asked if the bottom line on the project is $100,000.00 plus. Tom said that there might be some ancillary costs for processing of checks and benefits. All the other overhead costs, such as office space, secretarial assistance, etc. is all being provided by the U.S. Prosecutor’s Office.

Paul wanted to update folks with the community Detox Center that would serve as a crisis center. They are trying to focus on the ongoing operation and try to accommodate substance abuse and mental health components. Ada County has said that they would step in the lead role for operations of the Center. Their frustrations come from decisions by H&W to not fund Franklin House. We would like to work with the Governor’s Office and Legislature to earmark funding for the Detox Center and not have funding be at the discretion of the Regional office of the Department of Health & Welfare.

Paul said that they see this Detox facility as saving taxpayers dollars. They have substantial agreement, they think on the funding and structure. David suggested that Paul meet with Debbie Field as they are working on this project.

Dan added, that H&W’s decision to not fund Franklin House also hurt local law enforcement. The Franklin House gave the option to get people stabilized on their meds for example without funding a Hospital Emergency Room visit.

Dan stated that there is an interim committee on how to effect property/sales tax exemptions. This will have a great impact on Ada/Canyon Counties. There are two things, the source and the growth as it affects personal property tax. As a company rotates manufacturing equipment, will you be able to capture funds on the increase in the equipment. He indicated that they do not know where this committee’s work will end up.

John said that before David Hensley leaves he wants to be sure the Governor keeps his eye on urban renewal legislation. If we can assist the governor by providing information on the success of the urban renewal tools, we are more than ready to participate and volunteer to help in gathering information.

David said that the Real Estate Commission asked if they could have statutory permission to buy and own their own property. They current lease property for their administrative purposes, but the Fish and Game was allowed to make a payment in leau of taxes for the property they own. So, the Governor’s office is looking at saying if you are a state agency like any number of self regulating agencies, then maybe you should be paying property taxes.

As he was leaving, David felt that the Partnership needed to focus on bringing forward issues that need attention either through legislation or administrative analysis. Good timing on this information exchange would be in the next couple of months.

A discussion ensued about member attendance at the meetings. Tom stated that in the last 3-4 years, through the TVP we have done some good things. Examples include SAUSA and pseudoephedrine control. As a body, we are affecting some good changes even though all members are not taking part. John asked how we get more of the members engaged? Tammy stated that the power of this group has everything to do with the health of our valley. If all the members are not serious and present at the table, it diminishes the effectiveness of the Treasure Valley Partnership. Tammy felt that we all have a responsibility to contact our TVP members that are not showing up and encourage participation.

Dan Chadwick stated that the TVP members that are attending regularly, need to work with the members that are not attending meetings and encourage being active. He agreed with Tammy that the health of the Valley is affected by the participation of all cities and counties working together to affect positive change. He indicated that the Association of Idaho Counties has also encountered the problem and their solution was to have all members be responsible for encouraging all members participate. And, you as individuals need to be mindful and active in this pursuit.

Margie asked if meeting once a month was too frequent for the Partnership. John mentioned that one of the principle objectives of the partnership was relationship building. Paul mentioned that all the members have competing interests for our time. What would make it so that members would not want to miss a TVP meeting? The Partnership has proven its value over time. And we need to reinforce that. He thinks that the value of the Partnership is that when we are facing issues we have compare and contrast ability across jurisdictions.

Tom stated that he likes meeting frequently and feels it is necessary to build and develop relationships. Paul even said that as a candidate he would be advertising the fact he has been an active member of the Partnership.

Bill mentioned that as new elected officials come into office after elections, he would like to see a “welcoming team” go and visit the newly elected officials. This was agreed as a good idea and we would tackle that as it was happening.

In addition, Bill mentioned that he was also thinking about attempting some team building exercise with the TVP members. Dan suggested we bring Keith Allread in and work with the TVP on leadership. He is however expensive. Or the TVP could bring in Jim Weatherby to conduct a leadership program with the members.

Tammy asked where we were with regard to instituting fireworks ordinances and the alcohol server-training project. She stated that we attempted to recruit champions to a alcohol server meeting earlier in September. Bill indicated that the City of Boise is charging ahead with their ordinance. Bill said he was planning a meeting for October and would be attempting to recruit champions from each jurisdiction as well as other folks from the insurance industry, Liquor Licensing bureau, ISP and others to discuss this server-training issue and would be ready to move forward with the ordinance process.

Dan mentioned the Governor’s task force on alcohol and beverage control was meeting. More information would be following as this group meets. One issue is the administration of the licensing. The other is the quota system and whether this system would be eliminated. The big battle is the value of the licenses.

Meeting adjourned