:pogS?treamingHandlerashx Page 1 o: can? - Rebeca w. Arnold, President Marv May. 15? Vice~Prcsiidcnt Sara M. ?atter, :2ml ViceoPresident Jim D. Hansen, Commissioner ?awed 7% mm 503W. Commissioner May 8, 2019 Mayor David H. Bieter 150 N. Capitol Blvd. Boise, Idaho 83 702 M5. Dana Zuckennan .. Chair Capital City Development Corporation 121 N. 9th Street, Suite 50] Boise, ldaho 83702 Dear Mayor Bieter and Ms. Zuckerman: This letter is in regard to the Capital City Development Corporation? 5 latest Urban Renewal Project/Economic Development District Areas within the City of Boise/Ada County: the Shoreline Urban Renewal Project Area (?Shoreline Drive Project Area?) and the Gateway East Economic Development District Project Area (?Gateway East Project Area?). As we understand it, these two Project Areas were approved by the City of Boise on December 18, 2018 and became effective on January l, 2019 Additionally, CCDC is in the initial stages of creating a new urban renewal area, the Central Bench Urban Renewal Area (?Ccnoal Bench Area?), with an Eligibility Report having been presented and approved by the CCDC Board of Commissioners on April 8,2019 and Boise City Council- on May 7, 20l9. The creation of these two Project Areas and the proposal for a third have brought to light several important issues. First, with respect to the formation of the Shoreline Drive and Gateway East Project Areas and the proposed formation of the Central Bench Area, it appears the boundaries of the Project Areas are very strategically located around primary transportation corridors. A prime example is the proposed Central Bench Area and. its three (3) subareas, which tracks transpo?ation corridors very closely. (See attached boundary map). As is clearly shown from the attached map, the Central Bench Area boundary is a plain attempt to ?gen-yinander? the project area around primary transportation corridors. practice in this regard is highly questionable and appears to be inconsistent with the statutory purpose. In particular, this effort appears to be a clear attempt to avoid Idaho?s laws governing local improvement districts and/or to circumvent exclusive jurisdiction over, the public rights-of?way within the new District?s boundary. Next, it is our understanding that the Urban Renewal Plans for the two Project Areas and the proposed Central Bench Area include improvements to roads, streets, and public rights-of-way. However, any action by CCDC relating to roadways and rights?of-way within jurisdiction must be coordinated with, and approved by, As you are aware, ACHD has exclusive jurisdiction over the tights~of~way and roadways within its jurisdiction. ldaho Code 40-1310, 40-3312, 40-1406, 40- 1415. For example, 40?1310 provides: Ada County Hlohwav District 3?75 Adams Street 0 Garden City. ID a 83714 - PH 208 387?6100 0 FX 345-7650 - memoidahoom 5/23/20 qr ,creamingHandlerashx Page 2 o: The; commissioners of a highway district have exclusive general supervision and jurisdiction over all highways and public rights-of?way within their highway system, with full power to construct maintain repair, acquire purchase and approve all highways within their highway system, whether directly or by their own agents and employees or by contract.-I ?This statutory grant of authority is to be ?liberally construed, as a broad and general grant of Idaho Code 404312. In that vein, jurisdiction over highways within Ada County explicitly supersedes con?icting laws: county-wide district] shall speci?cally be responsible for all county secondary roads and city highways . . . Wherever any provisions of the existing laws of the state of Idaho are in con?ict with the provisions of this chapter, the provisions of this chapter shall control and supersede all such laws. Idaho Code 40-1406. Thus, while CCDC may have some statutory authority relating the funding and improvement to roads and streets within its urban renewal areas (cg, Idaho Code 50-2007, its authority may not con?ict with, and is superseded. by, exclusive jurisdiction over its roadways and rights-of?way. Idaho Code 40-1406. This is particularly so where (I) authority to create an urban renewal district is subject to the approval of the City of Boise and (2) the . City is expressly prohibited from maintaining or supervising any city highways within a county-wide highway district. 1d. county-wide highway district] shall be speci?cally responsible for all . . . city highways . . . No city included within a county-wide. highway district shall maintain or supervise any city highways, or levy any ad valorem taxes for the construction, repair or maintenance of city highways Ada Highway Dist v. City of Boise, No. CVOC I4 l5 (4th Judicial. Dist. idaho 2006) (interpreting Idaho Code ?40-l406 and holding that the provision provides ACHD with ?exclusive jurisdiction over even the city highways. Thus, to the extent that Urban Renewal Plans for the Shoreline, Gateway East, and proposed Central Bench Project Areas involve roadways and tights-o?way under jurisdiction, its actions to implement any plan requires express coordination with. and approval ?om, ACHD so as not to violate Idaho law. In addition to the jurisdictional issue, also believes that the current. revenue allocation ?nancing for urban renewal areas violates Idaho law. The incremental property tax revenue being used to fund the urban renewal areas are funds made available from property tax revenues levied by ACHD pursuant to statute Idaho Code 46 801. And by statute, those funds must be used exclusively for the ?construction and maintenance of highways and bridges" within jurisdiction. Id. CCDC does not account for the spending of each taxing agency?s incremental funding or how those dollars are spent. What is clear however, is that the use of funds from. property taxes levied by ACHD for any purpose other than the ?construction and maintenance of highways and bridges"'- is in direct violation of enabling statute that allows for the collection and expenditure of property taxes. Moreover, the urban renewal revenue allocation financing is contrary to the express limitations of 404406, which specifically prohibits cities from ?levylingl any ad valorem taxes for the construction, repair or maintenance of city highways. ldaho Code 40-1406. Where Project Areas (which require the City?s approval) rely on property tax revenues to fund levied by Idaho Code 404406 incorporates all of the powers and duties provided for in Title 40, Chapter 13 for county-wide highway districts. (?The highway commissioners ofa county-wide highway district shall exercise all ofthe powers and duties provided in chapter I3 of this title"). 5/23/20 7 treamingHandlerashx Page 3 0' ACHD and where CCDC cannot distinguish whether and to what extent its incremental funding dollars are spent on ?construction, repair or maintenance? of city highways, there is a further violation of Idaho law. Idaho?s highway district statutes (ldaho Code, Title 40, Chapters l3 and I4) existed prior to the enactment of the Local Economic Development Act, as did the statutory provisions limiting the purposes for which property taxes levied by could be spent. Under long-established rules of statutory interpretation, the Legislature was aware of the law and its funding limitations when it enacted the Local Economic Development Act. It could have created an exception to the funding limitations at that time, but it did not. Therefore, the express statutory limitations on the uses for property tax levies remain valid and in effectmas does the express requirement that the provisions of Title 40, Chapter 14 ?shall control and supersede" all con?icting laws. Idaho Code 40-4406. If Idaho?s laws are read properly and in context, the incremental property tax revenues collected by CCDC that would have otherwise gone to ACHD must be used for the statutorilysrequired purpose of construction and maintenance of highways and bridges. This is an important issue to the citizens of Ada County because the use of property tax dollars for any purpose other than the statutorily mandated purpose of ?construction and maintenance of highways and bridges? deprives ACHD of muchmeeded revenue to maintain the rights?of- wa'y and roadway infrastructure in Ada County. The revenues being collected by CCDC from property tax levies are substantial, and the lack of those funds in coffers cause signi?cant impacts to the number and scope of road projects that can be undertaken in Ada County. to concrete ?gures, the amount of property tax revenues received by per year is approximately 35% of total revenues. All other sources of revenue are, like the property tax revenues, constitutionally and/or statutorily limited to the construction, reconstruction, or maintenance of roadways. The amount of ACHD lost property tax revenues being transferred to CCDC has totaled nearly $1 million per year, not including sums transferred to other urban renewal agencies. For example. in 2018 the property tax base totaled more than $670,000,000 in the River District, and lost revenues from that base totaled approximately $577,000. In the same year, the Westside District?s property tax base totaled nearly $250,000,000, whereas lost revenues totaled more than $213,000. Below is a schedule of lost revenues as compared to the base totals for the years 2014 to 2018: Ada County Urban Renewal Districts area; one; son acne; soar to): Levy Rm 2015 Fox Larry Race: no la: Lory Reta. Eat? to: My mg . am Tax Levy item tacos Roma: district scene: W: am; sancmomsm one mstiit? ninei Engines near? arenas in an? anion3?5 Bess secs nine Rae: ocean as: as; sea; ass as? as? car? act are 32? can no 3514 an at: an ass; Basso coo: arcane its no in rat ass] in mass 339 intrans em ccoc ear a: a on in are?! 23 in ass at. aresit? as its tit 39 on cam ca, Rent Free East 12 as: ass 13 395.; it van on a sac; at or are as itscamera man ea, as are 222 to in33as: stress? once on is: its an? an as: an: est ass setW?ml?wi?e 5 -7 7 .7 ?tease ?331i assesses sorts case mas orin; 13'? as in? 1 an ass was, was ?t 3 sea as: heels on an Seam is an ass 29 ansea; as an ass is its Ease mines orErupts Greene Cay Seatsacne Portico rm: 124,76: ?1 stain resists: room I 5/23/20 ,creamingHandlerashx Page 4 0: To ACHD, these sums are signi?cant, resulting in fewer roadway projects being constructed for the bene?t and safety of the traveling public in Ada County. As compared to the revenues lost by ACHD, it has continued to invest signi?cant dollars into the roadway infrastructure within the urban renewal districts. For each year since 20l4, the total amount invested by ACHD for roadway capital and maintenance costs, using non-property tax revenue sources, is as follows for maintenance costs: at! Mt 19. as 162 33200 2015 am has 2017 $25 Leno Costs 2 21 233%33 ?913 Nil 38 88 21 83 .224 foam Tool 25 8? 294 09 516319.00 25. @526 1.66 5 39 These sums for capital projects are broken down in more detail in the following chart: teammate tub-stains 7, eschew-?immerses saw-reaswutwrr tweeters? ?rst marinas ar- an access leis twosome-er ?ttmr?ricu recreate is ?ll! mares? less we mew. or Stoneware}: Resumes: hminmer sin-oasis rein. t: thermistor use a ?cementum treaties-earl teensensmreals ?ecev's A star-tr Earn 13;: 9-3313". arse? its-team asserts: or tea tc?sujttmiit?? irritates: .. your? in?! Main" 1.112 new mu? 13ft Lia)! auteur-oi tagsmm mum ?new when. .- marine science w: much: - Because of the lost property tax revenues, not only are the funds not being spent on transportation- related projects as required by statute, but these costs are being funded disproportionately by taxpayers located outside the urban renewal district and not by the property owners located within the district. This is particularly so where funds are primarily sourced ?om property tax dollars. Againrthis is contrary to Idaho law, and it places an undue burden on property owners who are disproportionately required to pay for transportation projects as compared to property owners located within the urban renewal district. Despite the signi?cant number of proposed legislative bills during the last five legislative sessions, CCDC appears to be responding with a more aggressive use of its statutory authority. CCDC has approved four (4) urban renewal project areas with the last seven years. Prior to 2012, CCDC had only approved two (2) urban renewal project areas since 1986. Moreover, the recent approval of the Gateway East Project Area is questionable as it is largely an undeveloped desert in southeast Boise. We question the limits of authority in approving the current urban renewal project areas, including the recent efforts to gain approval of the proposed Central Bench Area. There is nothing in the enabling urban renewal statute or legislative history that evidences that the Idaho Legislature intended to give urban renewal agencies the statutory authority to redevelop areas that have never ?been developed. Moreover, there are constitutional limits in that the redevelopment efforts of an urban renewal agency must be ?primarily? for public bene?t versus private, and they may not encompass more than 10% of the taxing base by value. We recognize that with the termination of Central District. a considerable amount of taxing base value was removed from what previously 5/23/20 AreamingHandlerashx Page 5 0? had encompassed. This likely would justify additional project areas, so long as the new project areas do not exceed the 10% limit on the value of the taxing, base within jurisdiction. Notwithstanding this issue, CCDC is still obligated to satisfying the statutory requirements for establishing the need for an urban renewal or economic development project area, including the approval of the City of Boise. And it is still subject to the statutory requirements of Title 40, Chapters 13 and 14. Because ACHD does not believe that those statutory requirements can be met without proper coordination with and approval by ACHD, ACHD objects to the creation of recent urban renewal project areas, and it will continue assert its objections to any new project areas. These are serious issues relating to Project Areas and the ?tnding for its Project Areas and need your immediate attention. In the future, the ACHD Board of Commissioners will take a critical look at the funding of those ACHD capitol and maintenance projects that are planned in all CCDC Project Areas. Based upon the foregoing, the ACHD Board of Commission clearlyopposes the proposed Central Bench District or any other future expansion of Project areas in the City of Boise. Please provide us a detailed accounting of annual expenditure of ACHD increment funds that CCDC receives for each Project. Area for the last five (5) years. Please let us know if you would like to discuss these issues in more detail. Very truly yours, ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT 547:. Rebecca Arnold President, ACHD Board of Commissioners Cc: Chuck Winder. Mike Movie, Jim Rice, Jason Monks, Joe Palmer, Melissa Wimrow Enclosures . .. 5/23/20