Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the High Value Property Map topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Advisory board pilots 'high-value' property map to target TIF dollars, weighs outreach and equity
Summary
Bend advisory board members spent a large portion of the meeting workshoping a 'high-value' property map that ranks sites by real-market vs assessed-value and requested overlays, outreach plans and safeguards against unintended impacts on land prices and displacement.
Board members spent the meeting’s main workshop developing a working approach to a ‘high-value property’ map intended to guide where limited TIF dollars should be targeted.
Staff described the map’s starting methodology as a simple ratio of real-market value to assessed value and said parcels with a 50% or lower ratio were flagged as under-assessed and thus good candidates for generating additional tax increment. The presenter emphasized that this is an initial, rudimentary formula intended to be refined with overlays and additional screening.
Members suggested and debated a long list of practical overlays and policy guardrails. Suggestions included: transportation capital-improvement plan overlays, utility capacity and sewer lines, active projects and permit trackers (a ‘ripeness’ heat map), tax-exempt and nonprofit properties, park-search areas identified in the comprehensive plan, vacant/unoccupied proxies (utility-bill data), building age (pre-1993 seismic and retrofit concerns), and a publicly visible aerial base layer. Jonathan (staff) committed to returning multiple map iterations and a site-profile approach to inform incentive design.
Several members voiced caution about the map’s possible market effects. One member asked whether publicly flagging ‘high-value’ parcels could “raise the value of the dirt before anything’s happened,” potentially making acquisition more expensive. The board responded by discussing inward-facing versus outward-facing uses of the tool, precise wording to avoid market distortions, and an engagement plan to proactively contact property owners rather than waiting for them to approach the agency.
Equity and operational questions also surfaced: members asked that the map capture social-service and homeless-shelter sites, and to show tax-exempt properties distinctly so the board can consider those contexts when allocating scarce dollars. Staff agreed to try utility-water data as a pragmatic proxy for building vacancy and to identify active permits and pre-application interest as indicators of project readiness.
What’s next: Staff will produce revised map layers and supporting data — including a permit/activity heat map, tax-exempt and nonprofit markers, park-search areas, and asset-age overlays — and return to the board with site-level profiles ahead of the incentive-design sessions scheduled later in the spring.
