Laserfiche WebLink
1 <br />2 <br />3 <br />4 <br />5 <br />6 <br />7 <br />8 <br />9 <br />10 <br />11 <br />12 <br />13 <br />14 <br />15 <br />16 <br />17 <br />18 <br />19 <br />20 <br />21 <br />22 <br />23 <br />24 <br />25 <br />26 <br />27 <br />28 <br />29 <br />30 <br />31 <br />32 <br />33 <br />34 <br />35 <br />36 <br />37 <br />38 <br />39 <br />40 <br />41 <br />42 <br />43 <br />�4 <br />45 <br />46 <br />RHRA Meeting <br />Minutes — Monday, August 29, 2016 <br />Page 7 <br />agreeinents as part of their developer agreements, with discussions held with <br />the county assessor regarding minimum market value and setting that level at <br />the time of project completion. Ms. Kvilvang advised that typically those <br />properties maintained their value over time, but by having that minimum <br />assessment in place, a property owner could not petition the county assessor to <br />go below that amount. <br />Ms. Kvilvang advised that developers frequently don't understand how <br />property taxes work, and this helped them understand how assistance would be <br />generated. Ms. Kvilvang noted lenders also liked,tliat infonnation documented, <br />ensuring a minimum valuation was retained _and not reduced. If TIF was <br />involved, Ms. Kvilvang noted, whether a 9 or 24 year district, developers often <br />petitioned that their values be reduced; an� oiitlined the options available for <br />the REDA and developer in various scenarios. Ms: Kvilvang advised that <br />Ehlers recommended minimum assessment agreements ,be included in the <br />REDA policy for future developer agreements. <br />Mr. Aarsvold stated he was on the fence <br />agreed it had validity i�,issuing Generad `( <br />stream was on track. W�ile many people i <br />by Ms. Kvilvang, Mr. Aarsvold agreed ten <br />helpfiil to have such an agreement in' place <br />noted there were a few instances where ' <br />assessme�t rates; with the property owner' <br />they were getting out of TIF; notingtliat co <br />th including this`provision, but <br />igation bonds to erisure the TIF <br />z't thinlc along the lines outlined <br />�rs down the road it could prove <br />�ating less hassle. Mr. Aarsvold <br />ues liad fallen under minimuin <br />�ing more' in property taxes than <br />create a sustainability issue. <br />At the request of Member Willmus; Ms. Kvilvang clarified that the assessed <br />: value v�as determined, through forecasting calculations with the assessor, on <br />today`'s �ates for new developrrient versus when it came on line possibly in two <br />years. Based on her experience, Ms. T�vilvang stated those valuations typically <br />came in at market rate �alues; and were based on coinparable sales reviewed <br />���� by the assessor in the market. � <br />President,Roe noted three members supported a ininimuln threshold, and with <br />Ehler's recommendation not to include it, sought consensus. <br />Member McGehee stated she had considered the minimum based on square <br />footage; but agreed to drop that in lieu of a floor that would be maintained <br />under agreement with the assessor at the beginning. Member McGehee stated <br />her reason in seelcing a minimum threshold was to protect the value and tax <br />base for a project receiving a subsidy, but agreed this would hold it better. <br />Member Etten stated he was not in favor of the minimum threshold as it could <br />vary with development. However, Member Etten spoke in support of the <br />minimum assessment agreement for long-term protection of the taxpayer <br />investment. <br />