Wednesday, December 2, 2009
Sunday, November 29, 2009
Should Boise create an LID for the streetcar?
November 29, 2009
Should Boise create an LID for the streetcar?
An option to make property owners help pay for the possible project has some legislators hoping to change state law.
BY CYNTHIA SEWELL cmsewell@ idahostatesman.com - Idaho Statesman
Copyright: © 2009 Idaho Statesman
An option to make property owners help pay for the possible project has some legislators hoping to change state law.
A city in Idaho can pass a one-time assessment on private property owners with just a majority vote of its city council - and that doesn't sit well with some state lawmakers."The way the process works today, the people who are paying the taxes don't have a say, and that needs to be fixed," House Majority Leader Mike Moyle, R-Star, said.
Moyle and Rep. Raul Labrador, R-Eagle, say they will bring a bill requiring a vote of property owners on any city-initiated local improvement district that levies an assessment to pay off $1 million or more in bonds. The change would not apply to districts initiated by property owners.
Local improvement districts are used by many Idaho towns to fund street, sidewalk, irrigation, sewer or other vital infrastructure projects - and are most often introduced by property owners asking that a district be created to fill a specific need. All private property owners within the district must pay the assessment.
A local improvement district, or LID, carries its own tax levy and it appears on the property tax bill, just like the city, county, school or other taxing districts.
Boise is considering creating a local improvement district to raise $10 million to $15 million to help pay the $60 million cost of the first phase of a streetcar system. The district would tax about 660 Downtown private property owners - who could pay their one-time assessment all at once or over a 20-year period.
"That's the kind of project I don't think an LID is appropriate for," Labrador said. "We have gotten away from the initial purpose of an LID, which was to help on small projects - very local, small projects."
Any LID-changing bill would need to pass muster with the Senate Local Government and Taxation Committee, which is chaired by Sen. Brent Hill, R-Rexburg.
When he was first approached by Labrador in October about the bill, Hill wasn't too keen on the idea of changing the law. But when he heard about Boise's plan for a streetcar district, Hill said the issue warranted further discussion.
"I think the city is reaching the bounds on this," Hill said.
State law allows cities to create districts for "optional improvements."
"I don't think that was what most legislators envisioned when they put in that provision - it was curbs, gutters, sidewalks, not public transportation systems."
Moyle does not have a problem with cities using districts to pay for optional improvements as long as that is what the property owners want. For example, if the majority of Downtown property owners want a new amenity and they are willing to tax themselves for it, then it is their choice as taxpayers and they can petition the city to create the district, Moyle said. But if a city can initiate a new taxing district for something property owners may not want or need, then the law isn't working.
"While we can't comment on a bill until it has been introduced, the current LID statute has numerous avenues for property owners to register opposition; any further restriction by the Legislature would leave local communities with less ability to solve their own problems," Adam Park, Mayor Dave Bieter's spokesman, said.
At both the initiation and assessment phases, property owners can file protests, which the council is required to hear, but the decision to move forward and levy the assessments lies solely with the council.
Rep. Branden Durst, D-Boise, does not think the law needs to be changed.
"It's not our job to be constraining city government. It is our job to be empowering city government," he said. "We need to stand up for our city governments because city governments get stepped on a lot, especially when certain legislators try and use state law to hamstring people trying to do their jobs. I think that is disheartening and disingenuous."
Moyle says he does not want to take away cities' authority; he wants to give taxpayers authority. "We still want to allow cities to use the tool, but we want to limit them from abusing it."
That's why the bill will apply only to city-created districts looking to raise $1 million or more, Moyle said.
The current state law does not prevent a city from holding a vote, Durst said. So if the city's elected leaders thought it was the right thing to do, they would do it.
"We elect people to make decisions for us," Durst said.
If people do not like those decisions, he said, they can vote officials out of office.
The city has been visiting with property owners, giving them the proposed assessment formula, but it has not yet offered to let property owners vote on the matter.
"As of now it is uncertain if a streetcar LID will ever be necessary, so any discussion of an advisory vote is premature," Park said.
In the current economy, some infrastructure construction bids have been coming in below projections.
If the streetcar bid does come in below the projection, "those savings would go toward reducing the LID," said Bieter's economic development assistant, Cece Gassner. And if the savings are substantial enough, the city may not need to create a taxing district at all.
Hill said he has no problem refining the LID law, but any changes need to be the right change for the right reason.
Hill plans to ask his committee, city leaders and others what they think about changing the law.
"I don't want to punish every city council in the state because one city council is trying to abuse the statute," Hill said. "It kind of makes you sad, those few that try to do things with the statute that I don't think it was intended to do. It gives everyone a bad taste in their mouth."
Cynthia Sewell: 377-6428
Wednesday, October 28, 2009
Just don't call it a TROLLEY
Boise, Idaho -- A public relations firm has been chosen to handle the Boise streetcar issue.
Choosing a firm has been contentious, but on Tuesday, city council members said they made the right decision.
It's not a decision to go ahead with a streetcar, but the council did vote to award a public relations contract to Cronin and Associates.
Council president Maryanne Jordan says it was based on three issues: the process being proper, public outreach on the issue being critically important, and the award to Cronin being valid.
"The bid submitted by Cronin and Associates was by far not only the most specific and comprehensive, but the only one to offer the city options as far as how to do what portions of public outreach when," said Jordan.
Many in the council voiced their issues about incorrect information involving the streetcar.
David Eberle was concerned media outlets were calling it a trolley, and Alan Shealy took it a step further.
"There is a tremendous amount of misinformation out there. Disinformation that I think rivals the war department regarding such issues as why don't you spend the money on commuter rail, why don't you buy buses," said Shealy, Boise City Council pro tem.
But at the heart at the issue was the public relations contract,and should it go to Cronin and Associates.
That concern involved a possible conflict of interest, since Brian Cronin helped Boise Mayor Dave Bieter in his election campaign.
Council members said that's no longer a concern, even Jim Tibbs, who opposes the streetcar, would vote for Cronin's company.
"If I did, Cronin and Associates would clearly be the right vendor to award the contract to," said Tibbs, a Boise City Council member.
And that has everything to do with what Cronin spelled out in his proposal.
"There are a number of ideas for activities that they can undertake, everything from building a website to creating some print materials to doing a fair deal of public outreach, which is a big part of the plan," said Cronin, Cronin and Associates.
But it's also the price structure, which ranges between $50,000 and $90,000.
And even in that, Cronin says there's always wiggle room.
"I think the mayor's staff and/or the council could come back and say, 'We only want to spend $20,000 on this,' " said Cronin.
There were two no votes against the contract -- Councilmen Vern Bisterfeldt and Tibbs.
Tibbs said he voted against it because he's against the streetcar, so there's no reason to hire a firm.
Tuesday's vote does not involve money right now, but that money could be allocated later on if the city decides to move forward.
Saturday, October 24, 2009
No Plans to railroad streetcar through
October 24, 2009
Boise task force: no plans to railroad streetcar through
Not everyone is on the same page on a Boise trolley, but Mayor Dave Bieter has confidence that evidence will sway them.
BY CYNTHIA SEWELL - cmsewell@idahostatesman.com
Copyright: © 2009 Idaho Statesman
Not everyone is on the same page on a Boise trolley, but Mayor Dave Bieter has confidence that evidence will sway them.
Boise Mayor Dave Bieter is unwavering in his support of a Downtown streetcar.But the task force he created - made up of powerful business leaders and Downtown landowners - doesn't intend to be a rubber stamp.
Several members said Friday they were taking their role seriously and asking some hard questions about whether the streetcar is right for Boise.
The task force has met monthly since it was formed a year ago, but Friday's meeting was the first the Statesman has been allowed to attend. Since the task force is composed of business and civic leaders, it has considered its meetings private.
The task force will not present its findings and recommendations to the City Council until late January or February - at the soonest.
But as of Friday, there was no consensus. The task force is still struggling to answer the questions it set out to answer: Is the streetcar the right project for Boise? Can the city do it? And how?
Bieter said that is to be expected and is part of the process.
"This is an information-intensive project that requires a robust discussion," he said in an e-mail after the meeting. "I've found that the more people learn about the streetcar the more they support it, which is why 57 percent of the people who visited the open house wrote comments of support. I appreciate the task force's efforts and look forward to receiving its report."
Last month, the city held a public open house on the streetcar project, and on Tuesday it will consider awarding a streetcar public relations contract, even though the task force has not decided whether the streetcar is right for Boise.
"Are we doing this in the wrong order?" asked task force member Scott Schoenherr, who works with Rafanelli & Nahas, a firm that owns several Downtown blocks.
He said that after months of studying the issue and being ready to make a recommendation by the end of the year, he was taken aback by the open house and the city's discussions of hiring a PR firm for what Schoenherr called a "marketing campaign."
"I kind of felt like, 'What am I spending all this time on?'" he said. "If the decision has been made to do this and we are starting public outreach É let's just say what it is."
"I don't want to call it a marketing campaign," City Council President Maryanne Jordan responded. "I don't think that's the intention of the city. Any large infrastructure project that is done in this Valley É there is always enormous public outreach with all of the stakeholders."
Bieter told the task force members that he does not dismiss their work.
"The work of this task force is vital to the whole thing. I just couldn't feel any better about all your work here," Bieter said. "There's no reason to push this group toward a decision before we have a pretty vital piece of information, and that's the stimulus."
The city is banking on a $40 million federal stimulus grant to pay for about two-thirds of the streetcar's estimated $60 million cost. Grant recipients will be announced by the end of January, but about 1,500 applications have been submitted from around the country for a pool of $1.5 billion.
But whether Boise gets the money is just part of the whole question, St. Luke's CEO and task force member Ed Dahlberg said.
"Frankly, it doesn't matter to me yet whether we get $40 million," Dahlberg said. "We ought to be looking at whether this is the right way to spend 65 million bucks. I'm just not convinced yet that this the right project."
Cynthia Sewell: 377-6428
Sunday, October 18, 2009
Boise Streetcar in Election races
October 18, 2009
Mass transit a key issue in Boise City Council races
BY BETHANN STEWART - bstewart@idahostatesman.com
Copyright: © 2009 Idaho Statesman
Council President Maryanne Jordan is seeking another term in Seat 6, opposed by painting contractor Lucas Baumbach and Boise State University student David Webb.In the Seat 6 race, Vern Bisterfeldt, a retired Boise police officer and Ada County commissioner, is seeking re-election, challenged by Realtor Daniel Dunham and auto parts salesman David "Pappy" Honey.
Here's how the candidates answered three key questions.
What do you think about the proposed streetcar?
Bisterfeldt: He said he is not convinced the trolley is a good idea and that more discussion is needed before he makes up his mind.
Dunham: "If the trolley were a viable idea, private industry would be all over it."
Honey: "We'll lose a lot of small businesses if the streetcar goes through. There'll be two years of construction. It does more damage than good."
Jordan: "The streetcar process is integral (to the public transportation system). The grant application sped up the conversation. We couldn't pass up the opportunity for a $40 million grant. "
Baumbach: "The streetcar is not a commuter solution. It doesn't go anywhere. Go somewhere, please, if you're going to spend that kind of money."
He thinks the cost of the project is underestimated.
Webb: "Why don't we take it to the voters with a simple majority? If they don't want the streetcar, we need to find a different approach to public transportation issues."
What do you think about the city's public transportation system?
Bisterfeldt: He said he would like to see better bus service within the city because for many people it's their only means of transportation.
Dunham: He said the city needs to find a way to make the bus system more user-friendly. "Can we make deal with employers to use buses differently?"
Honey: He said he'd like to revamp the bus schedules and use smaller buses on less-popular routes.
Jordan: "The city's role is to keep the bus system whole."
The city should partner with other cities to keep routes operational and analyze areas where there's been an increase in ridership, she said.
Baumbach: "People on the outskirts of Boise want a commuter solution. Boise is spending too much money for the current ridership."
Webb: He said he would like to see the bus system improve by increasing routes, adding more buses and extending the hours of service.
How would you approach balancing the city budget?
Bisterfeldt: "I've worked with a lot of councils since 1959, and this one is pretty frugal. They're not big spenders. I think we did a good job in the way we allowed people to take (early retirement) to save as many jobs as we could" without hurting essential services like police, fire and sewer.
He voted to take the 3 percent increase in the portion of the budget that comes from property taxes allowed under state law.
"I voted for what we were allowed to take. If you don't vote for it, you'll never get it back. If you don't need it, the next time, you can save the money."
Dunham: He said does not support taking the 3 percent, saying the City Council "needs to show solidarity with what the citizens are going through." He said he would look for opportunities to outsource services, areas where the city is competing with private industry.
Honey: He called the 3 percent increase an "extreme burden on citizens." He said he would not cut police or fire budgets.
Jordan: She said she supported taking the 3 percent only after evaluating the impact on homeowners.
"Going the 3 percent wasn't going to cause an increase in taxes due to the drop in home values. We have to look at all areas of city government to find efficiencies."
The City Council had to weigh "the immediate savings vs. how that might disinvest the community and how that might affect businesses that would come here." If the city hadn't taken the 3 percent, both police and library services would have had to be cut, she said.
Baumbach: He said he would not have taken the 3 percent; he would have made budget cuts.
Webb: "The closer you get to issues like that, the more complicated they become. I would have to analyze the budget to make a better decision."
Bethann Stewart: 377-6393Friday, October 16, 2009
Richert: The streetcar could derail other transit projects
Richert: The streetcar could derail other transit projects
- Idaho Statesman
Copyright: © 2009 Idaho Statesman
Published: 10/15/09
Local governments and public transit advocates have had enough trouble trying to convince lawmakers to give them local-option taxing authority.
I can't imagine that the brouhaha over the Downtown Boise streetcar will make things any better. More likely, it could make matters even worse.
The streetcar campaign personifies the boogieman the local-option critics like to invoke. Skeptical legislators suggest that if local governments get the chance to pursue voter-approved sales taxes, they will exert this authority by trying to jam through costly and unpopular transportation projects.
Sure, it's a bogus and patronizing argument against local option. I believe that if we trust voters enough to choose their legislators, we should also trust them to decide whether they want to pay for expanded bus service. It's just another excuse to say no to local option, and on this issue, legislators are uniquely adept at conjuring up excuses.
They don't need help from Dave Bieter. But with his full-court press on the streetcar - in the face of vocal opposition to the 2.3-mile, $65 million project - the mayor has long since abandoned any appearance of objectivity. The City Council would have followed right along, had it agreed to spend up to $90,000 on a "public outreach" contract that would certainly border on publicly funded advocacy.
The contract is on hold, but I can't imagine this whole fiasco is doing any favors to the cause of public transportation - especially with lawmakers outside the Valley, who already cast a suspicious eye toward Boise politics.
The irony is that the streetcar is less a public transportation project than it is an economic development project. The argument for the streetcar is that a public investment in steel-wheeled transit will encourage private development Downtown. The streetcar wouldn't do much good for the Boiseans who really depend on transit - the elderly, the disabled, the refugees and the kids who are forced to use the city's spotty bus service.
Alas, the streetcar is really the only transportation project City Hall can pursue. It's the only project that qualifies for $40 million in federal economic stimulus funding - dollars that could be make-or-break for the streetcar.
In the absence of flexible local-option taxing authority, the streetcar project is the only game in town. Which is why it's troubling to see the way City Hall is playing this one. Locals are watching. So too, I suspect, are legislators.
TAKING THE STREETCAR ISSUE FOR A RIDE
City Hall has bungled the streetcar issue so badly that it has handed a nice fat opening to Dave Litster.
The council candidate wants to launch a petition drive to put the question to the voters, one way or the other. Said Litster last week: "I say to the city: 'Before you saddle us with a ridiculous trolley, get our permission.' "
His petition drive proposes an ordinance requiring a public vote on the streetcar. If he gets 6,500 signatures from registered voters, the ordinance goes before the City Council. If the council rejects the ordinance, Boiseans would get to vote up or down on the ordinance.
Simple, huh?
TJ Thomson, who is also seeking to replace Jim Tibbs on the council, accused his opponent of grandstanding.
Thomson is uncommitted on the streetcar, and said he wants to wait on the results of economic engineering and feasibility analysis before taking a position. "My opponent apparently will do something different - he'll begin the discussion by throwing the first hand grenade."
I don't think Litster is launching a petition drive out of sheer altruism. It's no secret that the city council elections have been a snoozer, while the streetcar is the hottest topic around City Hall. The petition drive allows Litster to get his name out.
Gamesmanship? Sure. But City Hall has (almost) handed Litster the high road.
TIBBS' ENDORSEMENT
With Tibbs' endorsement, Litster has further positioned himself as the anti-establishment candidate in what is becoming Boise's most interesting council race.
A longtime police officer who briefly served as police chief, Tibbs has been something of a contrarian voice during his four years on the council. Most recently - and on the issue of the day - Tibbs has voiced skepticism about the streetcar.
The Tibbs endorsement gives Litster some name backing and also draws the battle lines in clear relief. Thomson has endorsements from Bieter and four sitting council members: Vern Bisterfeldt, Elaine Clegg, David Eberle and Maryanne Jordan.
How much juice does Tibbs' endorsement carry? Here's a number to consider. Two years ago, Tibbs ran against Bieter for mayor; Bieter won with 64 percent of the vote.
Kevin Richert: 377-6437
Tuesday, October 13, 2009
Boise Trolley FAQ's
Transportation Policy
Boise Trolley FAQs: Our Future as America’s Most Livable City
Transportation planning has evolved since a focus on cars and roads seemed imperative. We should evolve, too.By Chris Blanchard, 10-13-09
 | |
 | |
|
The proposed streetcar in downtown Boise has generated a lot of comment and controversy. But even with all the news coverage and discussion there still seem to be a number of questions. I try to get to the most important ones in a series of trolley FAQs:
Just where exactly is Boise getting the $60 million to pay for this thing?
Earlier this year President Obama signed the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) into law. As part of that Act, the U.S. Department of Transportation is making $1.5 billion available to state and local governments through the TIGER (Transportation Investment Generating Economic Recovery) Discretionary Grants Program. TIGER grants can be used for most any kind of transportation related project, but it must also achieve certain outcomes such as increasing livability, sustainability, economic competitiveness, and job creation. Grants will be announced as soon as possible after September 15, 2009, but not later than February 17, 2010.
If the City of Boise gets the grant those funds will partially cover the start-up costs. To generate the remaining monies needed they are considering the establishment of an LID or Local Improvement District. Under the LID, the City would levy an additional tax on businesses along the streetcar route. There is still no consensus among business owners as to whether there is support for the creation of an LID, but Idaho state law 50-2601 allows Idaho municipalities to create LIDs (or BIDs - Business Improvement Districts) with a simple majority vote of the Council. The Mayor and Council will then have to cobble together funds from the City’s general fund and CCDC to pay for ongoing operations.
Why do we need a trolley, anyway? What we need is better bus service, or congestion reduction on I-84 between Nampa and Boise.
The most important thing to consider in any policy debate is the objective of the policy. The Mayor/Council’s objectives are stated clearly on the Boise Streetcar website: ”A streetcar would boost economic development in Boise’s downtown core, increase the “livability” of downtown, relieve traffic congestion and reduce the city’s collective carbon footprint.”
This is not a transportation project; it is an economic development project. When it comes to economic development and rail vs. buses, transportation planners are in general agreement on several points. First, the permanence of rails and the related infrastructure is what increases property values along transportation routes, not the mere existence of a route. Bus routes can change at any moment - it’s just a matter of moving a sign. A rail stop is more permanent, and generates higher property values for building owners and businesses. Second, in general, people prefer to ride rail transportation over buses.
As a transportation project, the goal of the streetcar is to move people from one end of the City to another in a convenient fashion. There are over 40,000 jobs in Boise’s downtown core and those workers run errands, go to lunch, and go to meetings throughout the day. The streetcar will enable more of that to take place and reduce car trips in the city.
This project is only part of a larger rail vision for the city and the Valley. Eventually, the streetcar would be expanded to run up Capital/Vista serving BSU and the Boise Depot. Additional westward routes would expand the line to the 30th and Main master planned area of Boise; eastward expansions would go out past MK Plaza and Park Center.
If Senator Crapo is able to get funding for the re-establishment of Amtrak’s Pioneer Line, we would then have a system that could carry people in from Nampa, drop them at the Depot, then take them to virtually any part of downtown from 30th street to Park Center. So that’s the vision.
We used to have a Trolley and it didn’t work. Why on earth would we do this again?!
Not true. Boise and the Valley had an extensive rail system that operated from 1891-1928, and it served the public quite well. Streetcar lines ran through all of downtown Boise, and the Interurban Lines ran out to Collister, Pierce Park, through Eagle, Star, Middleton, to Caldwell, Nampa, Meridian and back into Boise. Like many rail systems across the globe, however, the system ran into financial difficulties which led the owners to shut it down in 1928.
Art courtesy of Adele Thomsen, Nick Casner and Valeri Kiesig
This of course coincided with the rise of the automobile. The car was not immediately well received, but soon gained favor as the rail infrastructure fell into disrepair. At this time too, the city planning profession was young and very preoccupied with relieving congestion in city centers. They saw providing more space to cars and wider roads as the way to make that happen. That is hardly the prevailing theory in planning practice today.
What are other places doing about rail?
The Mayor points to 10 cities that have a streetcar, and another 3 dozen or so that are considering building some sort of rail based circulator. The Idaho Freedom Foundation (IFF) has written a couple of pieces poo-pooing the proposed Boise system because our conditions are not like those found in Little Rock, AR, a system Mayor Bieter points to as a success. The IFF makes some good points if we view the proposed streetcar as a transportation system. But 1) it’s too early in the build out of the system to judge whether the streetcar makes sense (of course it does in the wider scheme that I outlined above); and, 2) this is an economic development project. What the Mayor needs to demonstrate is that there will be a net positive return on investment for the city and the local landowners. Current academic literature shows extremely high rates of return on fixed-rail investments.
This is one reason regions are looking at rail transit. One of the most famous examples is Portland, OR, which has an international reputation for its rail transit operated by Metro (a regional governing body). I would posit that our neighbor to the south, Salt Lake City, will one day be much the same as Portland. But the ability of those cities and regions to raise finances for operations far exceeds Boise’s. Boise has no ability to create “local option taxes” to fund transportation. It is also not likely that though 50% of the state’s GDP comes from the Boise-Nampa MSA, that the state will ever invest in rail though that is exactly who pays for the rail line that runs from Sandy to Ogden (the Utah Transit Authority). That leaves us with a lot of work to do from a governance standpoint if we are ever to get any of this to happen.
Do I support the trolley/streetcar?
Yes. I think that it is a good first step in developing transportation infrastructure for this region that we will need in the next 40 years. Can we do everything immediately? Nope. Have I seen evidence that property values will increase along the streetcar line more than enough to offset the taxes levied by an LID? No. There are still many questions and details to sort out. But I do commend the Mayor and Council for exercising LEADERSHIP on an issue that is critical to our future.
And what about simply funding Valley Regional Transit (VRT) to a greater extent so that we can have better bus service? The federal funds available through TIGER and other ARRA funds cannot be used for that and cities have no way to raise revenues to pay more for bus service. Cities facing reduced revenues are cutting back their payments to VRT which means bus service is going to get worse in the Valley long before it gets better.
The streetcar debate opens the door to so many policy questions - policy debates we need to have. So even if we don’t get the TIGER grant, I’m glad to see so many people talking about transit, taxes, governance, and our very future as America’s Most Livable City. It would be unfortunate to get to 2050 only to lament, “I (Boise) coulda been a contender.”
Chris Blanchard is a Ph.D. student in the acclaimed urban studies program at Portland State University where his research focuses on urban planning and economic development.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)