Sent this morning, February 10th: Representative Hertz,
Missoula County opposes Section 2 of HB 413 – Revise laws related to use of tax increment financing. Local governments follow public process in determining how tax increment funds are spent. Taxpayers and taxing jurisdictions have opportunities to comment on the proposed spending, similar to other local government spending decisions. This bill would impose a special appeal process for tax increment spending. Development projects are multi-faceted and inserting a court proceeding would slow down the ability to address blight and infrastructure deficiencies. Also, the language is vague as to the timeframe for aggrieved taxpayer appeals and costs.
Please oppose HB 413 as written.
Respectfully, Vickie Zeier on behalf of the Missoula County Commission
Per Dori Brownlow: I recommend opposing at least the new Section 2 in HB 413.
The amended/added language in 7-15-4288 should not impact County tax increment districts as we don't provide funding for private buildings. However, the restrictions should be limited to urban renewal districts. "improvements to a building" is not defined and it should be clear improvements such as bringing infrastructure up to a building lot aren't included nor are improvements such as sidewalks. However, I'm sure is opposing so this one is political.
The new Section 2 should be opposed. It provides that any taxpayer or taxing jurisdiction aggrieved by a decision to spend tax increment funds may file a petition in court.
The first objection is that local governments follow a public process in determining tax increment funds are spent and taxpayers and taxing jurisdictions have opportunities to present opinions on the proposed spending. This is similar to other local spending decisions and there is no reason to impose a special appeal type process for tax increment spending. In addition, development projects are multi-faceted and inserting the slow down of the court process would slow down the ability to address blight and infrastructure deficiencies.
In addition, the language is vague. What is an aggrieved taxpayer? Are there any time conditions, such as file within 20 days? Who pays the costs?
Sent this morning, February 10th:
ReplyDeleteRepresentative Hertz,
Missoula County opposes Section 2 of HB 413 – Revise laws related to use of tax increment financing. Local governments follow public process in determining how tax increment funds are spent. Taxpayers and taxing jurisdictions have opportunities to comment on the proposed spending, similar to other local government spending decisions. This bill would impose a special appeal process for tax increment spending. Development projects are multi-faceted and inserting a court proceeding would slow down the ability to address blight and infrastructure deficiencies. Also, the language is vague as to the timeframe for aggrieved taxpayer appeals and costs.
Please oppose HB 413 as written.
Respectfully,
Vickie Zeier on behalf of the Missoula County Commission
Per Dori Brownlow:
ReplyDeleteI recommend opposing at least the new Section 2 in HB 413.
The amended/added language in 7-15-4288 should not impact County tax increment districts as we don't provide funding for private buildings. However, the restrictions should be limited to urban renewal districts. "improvements to a building" is not defined and it should be clear improvements such as bringing infrastructure up to a building lot aren't included nor are improvements such as sidewalks. However, I'm sure is opposing so this one is political.
The new Section 2 should be opposed. It provides that any taxpayer or taxing jurisdiction aggrieved by a decision to spend tax increment funds may file a petition in court.
The first objection is that local governments follow a public process in determining tax increment funds are spent and taxpayers and taxing jurisdictions have opportunities to present opinions on the proposed spending. This is similar to other local spending decisions and there is no reason to impose a special appeal type process for tax increment spending. In addition, development projects are multi-faceted and inserting the slow down of the court process would slow down the ability to address blight and infrastructure deficiencies.
In addition, the language is vague. What is an aggrieved taxpayer? Are there any time conditions, such as file within 20 days? Who pays the costs?