JOHN DAY — The city of John Day will hire an independent party to conduct a review of its urban renewal program in hopes of reviving the suspended housing initiative.

The review will examine the way John Day Urban Renewal Agency functions in comparison to urban renewal programs in other locations.

The John Day Urban Renewal Agency indefinitely suspended its housing incentive program in mid-April amid concerns that the agency was not bringing in enough money in property tax revenues from incremental property improvements to cover incentive payments.

Opinion on the matter was not unanimous at the July 9 meeting of the John Day URA board, with a pair of John Day city councilors making strong arguments both for and against a review of the city’s urban renewal program.

Councilor Dave Holland pointed to the extensive amount of research and review that was conducted prior to the start of the program, saying that a review would be a waste of money.

He also addressed financial concerns with the URA, arguing it would take time for increased property tax revenues from improvements within the district to catch up to incentive payments made during the early stages of the urban renewal program.

“We always knew at some point when we adopted this that there would be some catch-up,” Holland said.

Holland also stressed that the URA hadn’t been mismanaged, but added it had not been managed at all over the past two years, leaving the agency where it is now.

Councilor Eric Bush agreed with Holland that a lot of good work had been done by those who created John Day’s urban renewal program but wondered if things were overlooked once the program began.

“After all the experts left, how did we execute the program?” he asked.

Bush also cited potential legal action in voicing support for the review.

“We had a citizen threatening a civil lawsuit when the URA (incentive payment program) was suspended,” he said. “We owe it to them to provide transparency.”

The URA board, which is made up of John Day city councilors, voted 4-1 in favor of authorizing a review. Holland was the lone “no” vote, and Councilor Chris Labhart was not present for the vote.

The URA board also voted 4-1 to table a discussion about asking the Regional Rural Revitalization Consortium for funds to assist the financially struggling URA until after the completion of the review.

Holland was once again the lone “no” vote, saying the timeline for the review, current URA obligations and the possibility of R3 funding other projects make tabling the discussion now a risky move. Councilor Chris Labhart abstained from the vote.