The measure, House Bill 343, passed 64-5.  The measure will be heard by a Senate committee Wednesday afternoon.  The bill is co-sponsored by 59 Republican lawmakers in the Legislature.

If the measure clears the Senate and is signed by the governor, it may permit the Idaho Office of Species Conservation to work to prevent danger caused by wolves.  The orders may even allow killing of the animals if necessary.  The measure outlines an emergency as a point in time in which the state has more than 100 gray wolves. Estimates project there are now 705 gray wolves in Idaho.

The presenter of the bill, Rep. Judy Boyle, R-Midvale, said the state has been “more than patient” in dealing with the animals since they were introduced in the state in 1995.

House Speaker Lawerence Denny, R-Midvale, who allowed Majority Leader Mike Moyle to run debate on the issue, said that wolves are massacring elk herds through the state.  “I don’t think we have the time to wait patiently while our wildlife is being eaten alive,” said Denney.  “Folks, there is an emergency.”

Rep. Lenore Hardy Barrett, R-Challis, said that Idaho should have the right to manage the animals within its borders.  “This is a state sovereignty issue,” she exclaimed.  “I will be in tears if you do not pass this bill and I may not go home.”

Rep. Dick Harwood, R-St. Maries, told colleagues that wolves have terrorized families in north Idaho.  “This is changing the culture of Idaho … because of the fear,” said Harwood.

Rep. Wendy Jaquet, D-Ketchum, objected to the bill, saying that it should have received a formal committee hearing.  The bill was introduced Friday with no public testimony.

Wolves are protected as an endangered species, though there is a deal in the works to delist them.  The deal, a compromise between several stakeholder groups, needs the approval of U.S. District  Judge Donald Malloy.

Note: The Idaho Freedom Foundation, which publishes IdahoReporter.com, helped craft the legislation. Photo courtesy of echiax.

Cleary, whose entity is building the Ruby gas pipeline that will run underground from southwestern Wyoming to northwestern Nevada, stood before lawmakers Wednesday to discuss his company’s agreement with the Western Watersheds Project (WWP), an environmental group characterized as “domestic terrorists” by Rep. Judy Boyle, R-Midvale.

The agreement – a settlement of a lawsuit WWP filed over the construction project – forces El Paso to pay $15 million through a 10-year time span to the Sagebrush Habitat Conservation Fund.  The fund is intended to be used solely conservation efforts, but several lawmakers on the House and Senate resource committees inferred that the money and the partnership are being used to force ranchers out of business by buying up federal grazing permits.

The intriguing thing is that the project doesn’t even touch Idaho soil; it runs through northern Utah. The settlement allows for the fund to conduct conservation activities in the five southern Idaho counties because they are adjacent to counties where pipeline construction is taking place.

It is also interesting that – as noted by Rep. JoAn Wood, R-Rigby, – El Paso is already required to restore the disturbed lands once construction is completed.  Wood questioned the need for the conservation fund if mitigation is already taking place in affected areas.  Cleary said that WWP was concerned with animals and plants that inhabit the area might be adversely affected by construction and that the fund will help soften the blow to native species.

The fund is prohibited from using litigation – or threats of it – to engage in conservation efforts, but lawmakers are skeptical there isn’t some tag-teaming going on between WWP and the fund over grazing permits.

On its website, WWP boasts that it holds 4,000 acres of Idaho land previously used for cattle grazing and that it is now using the property for conservation efforts.  The group also brags about its past litigation in order to move toward improved ecological stewardship over public lands.

Ranchers holding state grazing permits must renew them every 10 years and can be bid against by willing buyers at that time.  The fund itself is not allowed to bid on leases, but WWP can – and does – bid for the leases in order to retire them permanently.  The group feels it is in the best interest of the environment to end unsuitable land practices.

Ranchers can also sell leases at any time during the 10-year period if another party is interested in the land.

The fund can only buy permits from ranchers who want to sell, but Sen. Bert Brackett, R-Twin Falls, contends that WWP is attempting to intimidate ranchers to force the sale of leases to the fund.  “This is just another tack they are taking,” said Brackett, adding that he has a letter from an Arizona rancher who has dealt with WWP and has been threatened with litigation over his grazing permit.  “That’s how you get a willing seller,” he explained.  “This is not much different than that.”

During the hearing, Brackett fired away at Cleary, saying that allowing the fund to buy up grazing leases is devastating to local economies.  “It destroys the tax base,” he  said.

Cleary, on the defense all afternoon, said that’s not the purpose of the deal.  “It is certainly not the intent to impair communities or their tax bases,” Cleary explained.  He noted that only willing buyers sell grazing leases and that the fund itself has no way of putting pressure ranchers to give up their grazing rights.

Rep. Scott Bedke, R-Oakely, was one of the most outspoken critics of Leary, El Paso, and the $15 million fund.  Bedke said that the by working out a deal with WWP, El Paso sacrificed the interests of Idaho.  “You got yours and we didn’t get ours here,” said Bedke. “You had the ability to cut your deal and the rest of us were left to twist here.”

Sen. Jeff Siddoway, R-Terreton, echoed Bedke’s sentiments.  “That land is completely out of production now,” said Siddoway.

Rep. Lenore Hardy Barrett, R-Challis, didn’t mince words when it came her turn to speak.  “You dodged a bullet, but you funded the firing squad that’s coming for the rest of us,” said Barrett, saying that El Paso got everything it wanted from the deal.

But Cleary stayed firm, contending that no one has forced ranchers to sell leases.  “There are people who have their own reasons for doing transactions,” he explained, adding that ranchers often sell leases in order to fund retirements or to generate funds to re-tool other ranching operations.

The bill passed on a 56-14 vote and now moves to the Idaho Senate. GOP Rep. Tom Trail of Moscow joined Democrats in opposition.

The bill centers on controversy caused by the Portneuf Greenway, a bike and pedestrian path in the Pocatello area.  While much of the path is already constructed along the Portneuf River, there is still some to be built.  It is possible that path planners are looking to ask the city of Pocatello to use eminent domain for the next phase of the pathway, a prospect objectionable to Rep. Jim Guthrie, R-McCammon.

Guthrie, the sponsor of the bill, said that cities should not be able to take private property for the pathway through eminent domain.  During the committee hearing on the measure, Guthrie said he is in favor of bike and pedestrian path development, “But not at the expense of private property rights.”

Upon questioning from Rep. Elfreda Higgins, D-Garden City, Guthrie acknowledged that he knows of no instances in which eminent domain had been used to take private property for recreational purposes.

Rep. Grant Burgoyne, D-Boise, went after that comment.  “We don’t need to pass a bill in search of a problem,” said Burgoyne.  Higgins also blasted the remark by Guthrie.  “I think we are presenting a solution when there is no problem,” said Higgins, arguing that city officials should have the ability to construct their cities as they see fit.

Rep. Elaine Smith, D-Smith, opposed the bill, saying that the plan violates the principle of local control for cities and counties.  “Let each city decide, instead of a state mandate, what cities cannot do,” said Smith.

Temporary Rep. Gayle Batt, R-Wilder, argued that city officials use the threat of eminent domain to intimidate private land owners to get what they want.  “These are in no way good faith negotiations,” said Batt.

Rep. Lenore Hardy Barrett, R-Challis, said that she backs the bill because she believes the government has too much authority to take private land. “I don’t think this bill goes far enough, but I can support how far it goes,” said Barrett.

Cities and counties would still be able to use eminent domain to establish bike paths or sidewalks next to established or permitted roadways.

Some committee members equated the move to increasing taxes on Gem State residents. Rep. Grant Burgoyne, D-Boise, said the measure is a tax hike of the “worst kind.”  Burgoyne, Rep. John Rusche, D-Lewiston, and Rep. Dick Harwood, R-St. Maries, voted against the bill.

Rep. Lenore Barrett, R-Challis, defended the plan, saying that tough decisions must be made and that the legislation qualifies as one of those.

When Idahoans file their yearly taxes, they typically receive $50 per filer, though low-income folks receive $70 and those over 65 receive an extra $20 on top of those numbers.  The expansion would have increased each amount by $10. All amounts will stay flat when Idahoans file their 2011 income taxes next year.

The bill’s sponsor, Rep. Cliff Bayer, R-Boise, said he is not necessarily excited about the plan, but that he sees the necessity of it.

Though some lawmakers believe the move is a step in the right direction, – at least temporarily – one state senator is calling for a further reduction in the tax rebate to fund education in Idaho.

Sen. Nicole LeFavour, D-Boise, authored a blog post last week in which she called on members of the House Revenue and Taxation Committee to cut the rebate program to 2007 levels, which would free up $27 million in tax revenue for the state.

LeFavour said that money could be used to stave off looming cuts to public schools and that the move would be temporary.  ”We would encourage a return to full funding and full structure of the credit following this fiscal year,” wrote LeFavour.

Members of the House Revenue and Taxation Committee did not discuss LeFavour’s proposal at the meeting Tuesday.

“I think for anyone to answer that question right now would be premature,” said Rep. Ken Roberts, R-Donnelly, when asked about the proposal to increase the cigarette tax.  “I’m not inclined to answer that.”

Nothing is set in stone with the increase, which may be one reason why legislators are holding their tongues.  Lake told IdahoReporter.com in December that the hike could be as much as $1.50 per pack, bringing the total to $2.07 per pack.  As it stands, Idaho’s cigarette tax – 57 cents – is the eighth-lowest in the country and the lowest amount of the northwestern states.

Lake is upfront about his support for the idea and is billing the proposal as a way to combat teen smoking and promote good public health.  It’s a $100 million idea that could be used to fill the Medicaid budget gap, which some officials believe could reach $174 million in fiscal year 2012.

Lawmakers are starting to take heat on the measure, too.  The state’s largest special interest group, the AARP, sent out a message voicing support for Lake’s plan.  “AARP commends Lake for standing up during difficult times with an approach to bring more money into critical Idaho programs while helping to reduce the number of young smokers in our state,” said AARP director Jim Wordelman in the statement. “We hope, given the tough budget times expected in the coming session, these types of proposals will see widespread support in the legislature.”

Unlike Lake, however, some members of the committee are riding the fence.  Rep. Mike Moyle, R-Star, said that he is leaning toward rejecting the idea, but isn’t completely certain of his vote.  “I haven’t decided yet,” Moyle explained. “But I’m not really in favor of raising anybody’s taxes.”

Another legislator playing it safe is the vice chair of the committee, Rep. Gary Collins, R-Nampa.  “I don’t have a specific yea or nay on it,” explained Collins in an earlier interview, “though I’ve never voted for a ‘sin tax’ increase.”  Collins isn’t entirely comfortable with discouraging certain behaviors through taxes.  “It’s just another regressive tax,” he concluded.

Avoiding taking a position isn’t only coming from the GOP side  of the aisle, however.  In a lengthy e-mail to IdahoReporter.com¸ Rep. Grant Burgoyne, D-Boise, explained his position on this issue, which amounted to a “maybe” for his vote.    “My libertarian sentiments are that tobacco and other unhealthy things like junk food, power drinks and alcohol are matters of individual choice by adults,” wrote Burgoyne.  “Furthermore, at some point sin taxes just become mean, inequitable and counterproductive.  The state should not use taxes to pit groups against each other, or simply to permit a majority to escape tax burdens and place them on a minority.”

Burgoyne said he might vote for the tax hike in exchange for passage of some Democratic plans, including a reform of the state tax commission and a decrease in the overall sales tax.

There are those lawmakers who are willing to take a firm stance on the issue.  Rep. Lenore Hardy Barrett, R-Challis, opposes the idea and believes a tax hike on cigarettes wouldn’t stop people from smoking.   “Having been a smoker, I know people will pay the price,” said Barrett.  “You just won’t buy a quart of milk or something else to pay for it.”

Democratic Rep. John Rusche, D-Lewiston, is also taking a firm stand on the proposal and says he will support the measure because it will lead to greater public health.

Committee newcomer Rep. Vito Barbieri, R-Hayden Lake, who couldn’t be contacted about the issue Friday, told IdahoReporter.com in early December that he pledged to vote against all tax hikes in the last election and that he intends to keep that promise.

Lawmakers begin the 2011 legislative session Monday when Gov. Butch Otter gives his State of the State address.

Lake, chairman of the House Revenue and Taxation Committee, made waves in Idaho politics a few weeks ago when he said he would allow a hearing for a bill that would increase the tax on cigarettes in Idaho up to $1.50.

The Blackfoot Republican told IdahoReporter.com Wednesday that he sees the bills not as a way to raise revenue for state programs, but rather as a tool to help combat smoking in the Gem State.  He also explained that it’s possible that lawmakers eager to stave off cuts to pet programs or agencies might be more likely to approve the hike than in years past.

While Lake realizes that a boost in the tax – which sits at 57 cents per pack and is eighth-lowest in the nation – will mean additional money for the state, he says that he is more concerned with promoting health and discouraging smoking than raising additional tax dollars.  “That’s why they are bringing the bill,” said Lake, referring to groups backing the bill.  ”What do they care about revenues?  They are more interested in helping people. ”

Data suggests that Lake is correct in his assessment that increasing taxes on cigarettes eventually leads to lower smoking rates. The Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids (TBF), a group dedicated to developing policy options that prevent youngsters from taking up smoking, says that hikes increase revenue while decreasing the number of smokers, thereby lessening potential costs to the public health caused by smoking.  TBF believes that the $1.00 increase per pack for Idaho would save about $230 million in health care costs and would force as many as 6,200 Idahoans to stop smoking.

But as the state faces a budget shortfall that could reach $400 million, Lake is counting on some anti-tax lawmakers to switch votes and approve the hike to bolster state funding.  “I’m guessing in a year like this, we’ll have more support,” explained Lake.

But just how much could those increases contribute to the state’s general fund?  One report suggests that if Idaho were to add $1.00 to its cigarette tax, the state could gain as much as $46 million in revenue on an annual basis.

But that tax increase would come at a cost paid mostly by low-income residents of the state.  A 2007 Heritage Foundation study relating to an expansion of the State Children’s Health Insurance Program, or SCHIP, found out who really pays when governments use cigarette tax hikes to fund government.  Data suggests that 28 percent of the people who smoke make less than the federal poverty level.  Another 26 percent of smokers are considered poor, making between 100 and 200 percent of poverty level guidelines.

Cigarette taxes don’t always provide a stable funding base.  In 2005, Idaho saw $45.7 million in revenue from cigarette taxes alone.  Since then, the state’s revenue stayed mostly steady, with minor variations in revenue amounts, until fiscal year 2010, when the state saw a 10.58 percent drop in total cigarette tax revenue.  That decrease reduced the state’s revenues by more than $4.6 million to a total of $39.6 million.

Several lawmakers believe that government should engineer public tax policy to influence citizen behavior.  Of those legislators, Lake isn’t concerned.  “To each their own,” he said.  “Legislators get to vote their conscience and their district and that’s fine.”

The head of the tax committee might face some opposition over the move from members of his own panel.  Rep. Gary Collins, R-Nampa, serves as the vice chair of the committee and says that he is willing to hear the tax hike proposal, but is skeptical.  “I don’t have a specific yea or nay on it,” explained Collins, “though I’ve never voted for a ‘sin tax’ increase.”  Collins isn’t entirely comfortable with discouraging certain behaviors through taxes.  “It’s just another regressive tax,” he concluded.

Another Republican on the committee, Rep. Lenore Hardy Barrett, R-Challis, believes a tax hike on cigarettes wouldn’t stop people from smoking.   “Having been a smoker, I know people will pay the price,” said Barrett.  “You just won’t buy a quart of milk or something else to pay for it.”

Rep. John Rusche, D-Lewiston, says his caucus will likely be split on the issue.  Rusche told IdahoReporter.com earlier this year that though the proposal will cost citizens more – and particularly those in lower income brackets who have higher smoking rates – it might not be a terrible idea.  “It will go a long way to promote their good health,” said Rusche, though he stopped short of backing the idea.  “This is a problem that requires investigation.”

The proposal will be heard sometime during the 2011 legislative session, set to begin in January.

Some state lawmakers are examining increases for “sin tax” items, like cigarettes, alcohol, and other tobacco products.  Idaho Senate Pro Tem Bob Geddes, R-Soda Springs, told the Idaho Statesman that increases on those items could be part of a myriad of solutions to solve the budget crisis.

Idaho wouldn’t be the first state to increase “sin taxes” to fund government.  Earlier this year, New York increased its taxes on cigarettes by $1.60 to $4.35 per pack, the highest rate in the nation.  By comparison, Idahoans only pay 57-cents a pack in taxes.  Idaho’s cigarette tax rate is eighth-lowest in the nation.

But just how much could those increases contribute to the state’s general fund?  One report suggests that if Idaho were to add $1.00 to its cigarette tax, the state could gain as much as $46 million in revenue on an annual basis.

But that tax increase would come at a cost paid mostly by low-income residents of the state.  A 2007 Heritage Foundation study relating to an expansion of the State Children’s Health Insurance Program, or SCHIP, found out who really pays when governments use cigarette tax hikes to fund government.  Data suggests that 28 percent of the people who smoke make less than the federal poverty level.  Another 26 percent of smokers are considered poor, making between 100 and 200 percent of poverty level guidelines.

Cigarette taxes don’t always provide a stable funding base.  In 2005, Idaho saw $45.7 million in revenue from cigarette taxes alone.  Since then, the state’s take in revenue has stayed mostly steady, with minor variations in revenue amounts.  That was, until fiscal year 2010, when the state saw a 10.58 percent drop in total cigarette tax revenue.  That decrease reduced the state’s revenues by more than $4.6 million to a total of $39.6 million.

Those in favor of increasing “sin taxes” note that hikes serve a dual purpose.  Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids (TBF), a group dedicated to developing policy options that prevent youngsters from taking up smoking, notes that the tax increases revenue while decreasing the number of smokers, thereby decreasing potential costs to the public health caused by smoking.  TBF believes that the $1.00 increase per pack for Idaho would save about $230 million in health care costs and would force as many as 6,200 Idahoans to stop smoking.

The state of Delaware, as cited in the group’s report, increased its cigarette tax by 60-cents per pack in July of 2007 and saw a 35.1 percent decrease in the number of smokers pared with a 35.1 percent increase in the state’s revenue.  Delaware netted $31.6 million from the hike.  Texas, which more than tripled its cigarette tax rate in early 2007, saw a revenue increase of more than $1 billion complemented by a 21 percent decrease in the overall number of packs sold each year.

Idaho House Minority Leader John Rusche, D-Lewiston, isn’t totally opposed to a hike in the cigarette tax.  Rusche, a physician by trade, says the hike could do much good to prevent teens from taking up the habit of smoking.  The Lewiston Democrat called a tax hike on cigarettes “another smoking prevention tool” in the fight against teenage tobacco use.

But is it fair for Idaho’s low-income resident to fund state government operations and social welfare programs?  “It may be that they pay more,” said Rusche, a member of the House Revenue and Taxation Committee.  “On the other hand, it will go a long way to promote their good health.”

The minority leader would make no firm commitments to tax hikes.  “This is a problem that requires investigation,” said Rusche, who echoed Geddes’ notion that legislators would use various methods to balance the state’s budget next year.

But one Republican on the tax panel says only desperation leads lawmakers to go after sin taxes.  Rep. Lenore Hardy Barrett, R-Challis, said she would oppose the hike because she is against tax increases in general.  “Boil it down: stop spending and lower taxes,” Barrett told IdahoReporter.com.  The Challis Republican said that she doesn’t think people should smoke or drink, but “that’s their choice and they’re not breaking the law.”

But what about the positive effect a tax hike would have on public health? “That’s a fallacy,” said Barrett, an ex-smoker herself.  “Having been a smoker, I know people will pay the price.  You just won’t buy a quart of milk or something else to pay for it.”

According to voting data collected by IdahoVotes.com, several lawmakers, Republican and Democrats, didn’t introduce any bills in 2010.  Sen. John Andreason, R-Boise, has the distinction of being the only member of the Legislature’s higher body to not pitch any bills in the latest session, which ended on March 29.  Reps. Lenore Hardy Barrett, R-Challis, Maxine Bell, R-Twin Falls, Brent Crane, R-Nampa, Jim Marriott, R-Blackfoot, James Ruchti, D-Pocatello, Robert Schaefer, R-Nampa, and Mary Lou Shepherd, D-Wallace, joined Shepherd in not bringing any new legislation before the House in 2010.

Shepherd said that he hasn’t brought new legislation because he’s not working hard, but rather that his values prevent him from doing so.  ”I don’t think we need more laws and government intervention,” explained Shepherd.  ”I think we need fewer laws.”  Several lawmakers have accumulated double-digits in number of bills introduced, which Shepherd says shouldn’t necessarily be used as a performance barometer for legislators.  ”I think the biggest thing is how you work the issues with fellow legislators and listening to interest groups to make the best decision possible,” he said.  ”I know they (those who  propose many bills) have good intentions, but we need less government intervention.”  Shepherd plans to author legislation in the 2011 session, but didn’t share specifics of any ideas.

IdahoVotes.com only counts legislators who are the primary sponsor of a bill when concluding who has introduced legislation.  Shepherd told IdahoReporter.com that though he didn’t bring any new legislation before committees, he had co-sponsored some bills and worked to get them passed.

Barrett, one of the most outspoken members of the Idaho House, says that measuring the success of legislators based on how many bills they pitch is nonsense.  ”We pass too dang many bills,” said Barrett.  ”That’s been a sore point with me for years.”  Barrett said that she did advocate a bill in 2010 dealing with sound currency that never received a full committee hearing.  Is Barrett worried about not making progress in the Idaho Legislature if she doesn’t propose new legislation?  Not really.  ”I’m not one of those that think they have dropped the ball if I don’t have some damn bill out there,” she explained.

If it were up to her, Barrett says, legislators would only meet in Boise to craft new legislation once every-other year, instead of coming together on an annual basis.  She also points out that the quantity of the bills doesn’t necessarily mean quality measures are being considered.  ”It’s easier to not do something than to do something wrong and then need to go back and fix it,” Barrett concluded.  ”Sometimes, you just have to say no.”

Note: IdahoVotes.com, like IdahoReporter.com, is a product of the Idaho Freedom Foundation.

The resolution was passed by the Senate State Affairs Committee on March 26 and approved by the full Senate and the House State Affairs Committee Monday afternoon.  David Hensely, representing Gov. Butch Otter, said that the resolution is meant to express Otter’s frustration with the mandate handed down March 22 when the U.S. Congress passed health care reforms.

The resolution spells out what the Legislature would like the amendment to say.  From the text of the resolution:

The Congress shall make no law requiring citizens of the United States to enroll in, participate in or secure health care insurance or to penalize any citizen who declines to purchase or participate in any health care insurance program.

Surprisingly to many, the resolution faced bipartisan opposition on the House floor.  House Minority Leader John Rusche, D-Lewiston, told lawmakers that by passing the resolution calling for the mandate to be made unconstitutional, it would prove that Idaho’s lawsuit, which already claims the mandate is unconstitutional, against the federal government could be in jeopardy.  Rusche asked lawmakers to consider why those bringing the lawsuit needed more evidence to show something unconstitutional if they already believe it is.

Rep. Grant Burgoyne, D-Boise, joined Rusche in opposing the resolution.  Burgoyne, a lawyer, said that if he were defending the constitutionality of the federal mandate, the resolution proposed by Roberts would be “exhibit A” because it would show the state is unsure if a mandate unconstitutional.

Democrats were joined by a handful of Republicans who questioned the need for the resolution.  Rep. Phil Hart, R-Athol, said that the Constitution and the Bills of Rights already contain the tools necessary to “fight this argument.”  He argued that calling for a special health care amendment would set a bad precedent, and could lead to amendments being proposed for every function of the federal government.

Perhaps the most surprising opposition came from Rep. Raul Labrador, R-Eagle, who told lawmakers that he believes the Constitution is a “sacred document” and that altering it in the manner that is called for by the resolution is “not consistent” with the intentions of the Founders of the country.

“I don’t think we should take changing the Constitution lightly,” said Labrador. “I think it’s a grave mistake for us to trifle with the Constitution this way.”  Labrador, who sits on the House State Affairs Committee, voted less than an hour earlier to send the legislation from that committee to the full House.

The most damning testimony came from Rep. Lenore Hardy Barrett, R-Challis, who censured the current Congress for not following the Constitution.  Barrett called the resolution “grandstanding” and said she feels that because the U.S. Congress is so far from governing with the bounds of the Constitution, a resolution would do little good.

“Congress does not obey the Constitution as it is written now,” said Barrett. “An amendment is not going to get their attention.”

Lawmakers won’t act on proposed changes on urban renewal this year as proposed by Rep. Leon Smith, R-Twin Falls.  He said work will continue on reforms before lawmakers meet next year.  “The ball is moving and we ought to keep it moving,” Smith said.  He worked on legislation as part of the House Revenue and Taxation Committee, but heard opposition from all sides when he introduced the plan March 15.  The changes in his legislation would include limiting the length and scope of urban renewal plans, allowing city leaders to remove members of Urban Renewal Agency Boards, and requiring more transparency by holding public hearings and allowing for people to respond to urban renewal plans.  “I don’t believe that URAs ought to continue generating money and amassing a huge reserve in hopes that they can put something together,” Smith said.

Rep. Lenore Hardy Barrett, R-Challis, said more public involvement is critical.  “Before you can form a district, the people need to vote, either yea or nay, and that will tell you the direction you can go,” she said.

Urban renewal laws have been on the books for more than 40 years, but one state representative said he’ll try to repeal those laws next year.  “Urban renewal is simply too sick,” said Rep. Bob Schaefer, R-Nampa, who said he’ll introduce legislation to do away with urban renewal next year.  He said urban renewal agencies are basically spending other people’s money.  “We’ve got this money scheme out there where you’re taking it from legitimate taxing entities.  That’s not the right way of doing things … This is like going to an Urban Renewal bar and getting drunk and doing things you wouldn’t do if you had your senses about you,”  Schaefer said.

“This money is not manna from heaven,” said House Majority Leader Mike Moyle, R-Star.  “This money came from somewhere.”  He said tax revenues that go for urban renewal could otherwise go to libraries, fire departments, sewers, or other local taxing districts.

Rep. Bill Killen, D-Boise, said urban renewal has been a valuable, useful, and essential tool for cities.  “This for years has been one of the few mechanisms that local governments could use to assist their local economies,” he said.  House Minority Leader John Rusche, D-Lewiston, said the debate over urban renewal  centers on the question of whether communities should have the ability to use public funds for economic development.

“Those who work on urban renewal districts, however, should be on notice that next year, we’ll be dealing with this,” said Rep. James Ruchti, D-Pocatello.

The text of Smith’s urban renewal legislation, which will not move forward this session, is available here.