EDA_Minutes_2016_08_29 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

RHRA Meeting Minutes – Monday, August 29, 2016 Page 7 typical office uses; and large buildings providing less value per square foot and smaller buildings greater value per square foot, but often variable based on amenities they provided. While Ehlers didn’t recommend a minimum threshold, opining the market was what it is, Ms. Kvilvang sought a consensus of the REDA. Ms. Kvilvang advised that most cities routinely had minimum assessment agreements as part of their developer agreements, with discussions held with the county assessor regarding minimum market value and setting that level at the time of project completion. Ms. Kvilvang advised that typically those properties maintained their value over time, but by having that minimum assessment in place, a property owner could not petition the county assessor to go below that amount. Ms. Kvilvang advised that developers frequently don’t understand how property taxes work, and this helped them understand how assistance would be generated. Ms. Kvilvang noted lenders also liked that information documented, ensuring a minimum valuation was retained and not reduced. If TIF was involved, Ms. Kvilvang noted, whether a 9 or 24 year district, developers often petitioned that their values be reduced; and outlined the options available for the REDA and developer in various scenarios. Ms. Kvilvang advised that Ehlers recommended minimum assessment agreements be included in the REDA policy for future developer agreements. Mr. Aarsvold stated he was on the fence with including this provision, but agreed it had validity if issuing General Obligation bonds to ensure the TIF stream was on track. While many people didn’t think along the lines outlined by Ms. Kvilvang, Mr. Aarsvold agreed ten years down the road it could prove helpful to have such an agreement in place creating less hassle. Mr. Aarsvold noted there were a few instances where values had fallen under minimum assessment values, with the property owner paying more in property taxes than they were getting out of TIF; noting that could create a sustainability issue. At the request of Member Willmus, Ms. Kvilvang clarified that the assessed value was determined, through forecasting calculations with the assessor, on today’s value levels for new development versus when it came on line possibly in two years. Based on her experience, Ms. Kvilvang stated those valuations typically came in at market rate values; and were based on comparable sales reviewed by the assessor in the market. President Roe noted three members supported a minimum value per square foot threshold, and with Ehler’s recommendation not to include it, sought consensus. Member McGehee stated she had considered the minimum based on square footage; but agreed to drop that in lieu of a floor that would be maintained under agreement with the assessor at the beginning. Member McGehee stated