I think I heard 6 3BD. 72 2BD, the rest 1BD and studios.
It's more evidence that our property tax system needs a rehaul that it still produces that much more a year with abatement. We really need to start charging empty properties for what they're worth rather than whether there's a building on them, but I know that I'm preaching to the choir here
Current property taxes are $64k. They est with the 75% abatement it'll be $400k. After the ten years is up by my math it would be $1.4M. In today's dollars.
In addition to the intangibles, such as more residents, eyes on the street, density, retail foot traffic, city earnings taxes because it's a brand new high end building and could lure some folks across our imaginary line.
I do think the garage is oversized, but it is what it is at this point.
I do think the garage is oversized, but it is what it is at this point.
- 2,929
He just earned my vote for Alderman of the new 9th Ward right there. And, I'll tell my neighbor's what's up and get him their votes.
Any reason given for voting "no"? Seems very inconsistent on development issues.chriss752 wrote: ↑Jan 12, 2023Alderman Narayan voted no.
It was referred to the HUDZ committee as is typical for these bills. It will probably be on the agenda at the Jan 19 9am meeting, if you'd like to testify.
https://www.stlouis-mo.gov/events/event ... t_ID=33751
https://www.stlouis-mo.gov/events/event ... t_ID=33751
SLDC staff said property taxes would go from $65k -> $450k -> $1.5M after the 10 year abatement.
Narayan doesn't support because he doesn't think the parcel is blighted and that the 17th ward has been over incentivized. Todd thinks that the alder for the ward should sponsor the bill. Pihl doesn't support saying it's not blighted, too many incentives, thinks something can be built w/o incentives.
HUDZ cmte rec do pass 8-4
Narayan doesn't support because he doesn't think the parcel is blighted and that the 17th ward has been over incentivized. Todd thinks that the alder for the ward should sponsor the bill. Pihl doesn't support saying it's not blighted, too many incentives, thinks something can be built w/o incentives.
HUDZ cmte rec do pass 8-4
I'd make the argument that Gras is also the alderman for the area now since the wards have been redrawn and the election has been set. It might be a wrong argument, but it's practically true.
Naturally Pihl is against it. I can attest personally that she treated Koplar and Albion like sh*t this entire process and doesn't understand crucial information when it was presented to her. Not everything is unicorns and rainbows and with the way the interest rates and inflation went, we're lucky this is even still proposed. A very delicate situation.
Naturally Pihl is against it. I can attest personally that she treated Koplar and Albion like sh*t this entire process and doesn't understand crucial information when it was presented to her. Not everything is unicorns and rainbows and with the way the interest rates and inflation went, we're lucky this is even still proposed. A very delicate situation.
- 1,792
I'm sure something could be built but could be built but how SOON could it be built because if it would take another 5-10yrs to do it and/or if it was something of half the scale the long-term financial interests are served best by granting the abatement. Thats sort of the whole point.quincunx wrote: ↑Jan 19, 2023SLDC staff said property taxes would go from $65k -> $450k -> $1.5M after the 10 year abatement.
Narayan doesn't support because he doesn't think the parcel is blighted and that the 17th ward has been over incentivized. Todd thinks that the alder for the ward should sponsor the bill. Pihl doesn't support saying it's not blighted, too many incentives, thinks something can be built w/o incentives.
HUDZ cmte rec do pass 8-4
She is right... Something can always be built without incentives. But that something would be less dense and produce less tax revenue (even with the incentive in place). For example, QuikTrip would probably love that lot and pay a lot of money for it. You might be able to put a small apartment building on it with surface park it without an expensive garage, even that wouldn't generate the same revenue as this building WITH ABATEMENT.
The anti-incentive people focus on the incentive itself and not the long-term or even immediate benefit to the city. What they don't get is the availability of the incentive shifts the highest and best use equation for potential developers, adds some additional control over the site for city, resulting in better uses and more revenue.
The anti-incentive people focus on the incentive itself and not the long-term or even immediate benefit to the city. What they don't get is the availability of the incentive shifts the highest and best use equation for potential developers, adds some additional control over the site for city, resulting in better uses and more revenue.
Why isn’t there any conversation about clawback clauses for abatement in case the building’s revenue far exceeds estimations or it is sold for a windfall ( like Orion)?
That way if their cost models are accurate the developer would be protected but if they are not, the city could get back a part of what we forego…
That way if their cost models are accurate the developer would be protected but if they are not, the city could get back a part of what we forego…
That would require the TIF commission to do their own independent audit, rather than just rubber-stamping the developers fabrications ... errr...numbers. Much too radical an idea for St Louis.
There is a clause in SLDC redevelopment agreements that does exactly that. I'd say its been in redevelopment agreements dating back 4 years or so. If the building sells for more than SLDC's analysis anticipated (within a certain threshold), the abatement is adjusted downward. There is a formula, but essentially, the "unanticipated" gain in value is not tax abated and fully taxed. The "anticipated" gain in value remains abated as originally awarded. So hypothetically, a property was 75% abated before the sale, may be 60% abated after the sale if the sale price was higher than expected originally. The buyer will pay more taxes going forward, and thus the sale price is slightly depressed, resulting in less sale proceeds for the original developer.imran wrote: ↑Jan 19, 2023Why isn’t there any conversation about clawback clauses for abatement in case the building’s revenue far exceeds estimations or it is sold for a windfall ( like Orion)?
That way if their cost models are accurate the developer would be protected but if they are not, the city could get back a part of what we forego…
With a TIF, the project is fully taxed and the benefit to the developer is set at a fixed value up front. So, if the project sells for much higher than anticipated the taxes increase and pay off the TIF earlier. While the city doesn't benefit immediately, the TIF might burn off in 15 years instead of 20 years, so the city does benefit in the long run.
Interesting points. Thank you.
I’m now curious to look at this against the Orion. Pretty sure Mills got tax abatement and ended up exiting for 80 million.
I’m now curious to look at this against the Orion. Pretty sure Mills got tax abatement and ended up exiting for 80 million.
^ So that is a weird one since it is a TIF with a tax abatement. If the "clawback" was in place, the City would not have benefited right away anyway, the TIF would have. As structured (TIF and abatement), if the sale value was much higher than expected, the TIF would still pay off earlier than expected, just not as early as it could have been if there had been no tax abatement.
Also important to note that we should be rooting for developments to be more successful than anticipated, not penalizing developers when that does happen. Still good to put some measures in place (like this one) so that the City can share in that success.
Also important to note that we should be rooting for developments to be more successful than anticipated, not penalizing developers when that does happen. Still good to put some measures in place (like this one) so that the City can share in that success.
Ald Gras referenced, during his testimony at the BoA today on the tax abatement bill, a previous proposal here for which incentives weren't entertained by the city, and it didn't happen. Did that ever see the light of day? Did it really exist? Is he really talking about the Covington proposal for the Optimist site a decade ago?
^ I believe Chris may have mentioned seeing some previous plans. Nothing that was ever made public though.
I remember him saying it changed a lot from what he had seen, but It seems like what Gras is saying is that Ald Roddy had opposed incentives for something here back when he was in office, when he had just supported incentives for One Hundred. Doesn't add up.
Yeah I think that's shady. So we just have to take his word for it what happened in a private closed door meeting?