Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Property Tax Assessment topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

BCA vice chair sets Maple Tree Place assessment at $80 million after settlement discussion

BCA (acting chair presiding) · September 9, 2024
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

At a BCA hearing, the board set Maple Tree Place’s 2024 assessed value at $80,000,000 after a representative described an assessor settlement offer; the board clarified that values for 2025–2026 must be set year-by-year and may be revisited.

The BCA acting chair set the 2024 assessed value for Maple Tree Place owner LLC at $80,000,000 following testimony about a settlement offer from the assessor.

Nick, the representative from Altus who said he is taking over the appeal for Connor Morrow, told the board he understood “there was a settlement offer from the assessor to reduce the value … to $80,000,000 for 2024 and to $77,000,000 for 2025 and 2026,” and that Acadia, the property owner, had agreed to that proposal.

The context: the board was reviewing a memo circulated by Bill Hinman. Board members and staff emphasized that the board must set assessment values on a year-by-year basis. Jenny, a committee member, asked whether the assessor would bring the issue back and urged fairness to the process; a staff member replied that an assessment recommendation would return next year and was unlikely to be forgotten.

After brief discussion about the scope of the vote—specifically that the board was setting the value it would record rather than approving a separate settlement—the board moved to set the 2024 assessment at $80,000,000. The motion was offered by a staff member and seconded; the acting chair called the voice vote, recorded several ayes and said, “Motion carries.”

The hearing record shows the board accepted the 2024 figure and closed the hearing; members noted that 2025 values can be appealed or revisited in the next cycle.

No formal statutes or ordinance numbers were cited during the discussion in the transcript provided; references to assessor staff included the names Sarah and Carter only as conversational possibilities.