UND and developer seek 20‑year, 90% pilot for Ray Richards redevelopment; neighbors and small businesses raise competition and legal concerns

UND President Andy Armacost and members of a private development team presented a plan on July 14 to redevelop the Ray Richards Golf Course in Grand Forks, proposing a preserved nine‑hole course, a Toptracer driving‑range entertainment facility and a single, reduced‑density market‑rate apartment building capped at 169 units. The team asked Grand Forks taxing entities to support a 20‑year pilot tax abatement equal to 90% of the tax liability to make the project financially feasible.

Armacost and developer Steve Burien said the project responds to neighborhood feedback and aims to eliminate an ongoing university subsidy of about $500,000 per year for the course while adding new amenities and housing in the 42nd Street corridor. "We want to preserve the Ray Richards Golf Course," Armacost said, adding the proposal would place currently nontaxable university land onto the tax rolls in future years and provide a home for UND27s golf teams.

Colby Krasnowski of Baker Tilly, the city27s independent financial adviser, summarized his firm27s "but‑for" analysis. He reported an unlevered internal rate of return of about 6.31% with the proposed incentive and about 3.29% without it, and estimated a gross incentive value over 20 years of roughly $10.54 million (net present value about $5.16 million at a 6% discount). Baker Tilly said those shifts in return materially improve debt service coverage and make the combined housing-plus‑Toptracer package nearer to market investor expectations. "We find the assumptions reasonable, and even with sensitivity testing the need for an incentive remains," Krasnowski said.

City finance director Maureen Storstad reviewed the taxing partners27 estimates, noting that the site today produces no property tax revenue and that, under the developer27s projections, taxing entities could realize roughly $674,000 over five years and approximately $2.2 million over 20 years from the parcel as developed. The city attorney reviewed the legislative history governing payment‑in‑lieu and pilot agreements (statute cited in the meeting as 40‑57.103 and related North Dakota Century Code sections) and said attorney‑general opinions and legislative history support the availability of pilots for revenue‑producing enterprises, although boards must evaluate whether a pilot would give an "unfair advantage" to existing businesses.

Public comment was long and conflicted. Small‑business owners who operate local golf simulators and indoor golf (Albatross Indoor Golf) urged rejection. "Giving a multimillion‑dollar tax holiday to a direct competitor is the exact definition of an unfair advantage," Andrew Krosnick, owner of Albatross Indoor Golf, told the combined boards. Krosnick and staff member Kelsey Dodd described long‑running community programming and said the Toptracer facility and its reported simulator and food‑and‑beverage revenue lines would directly compete with existing operators.

Other opponents, including former school‑board members and community activists, argued pilots shift costs to taxpayers, reduce available property tax revenue for schools and counties, and can be used repeatedly to favor the same developer groups. Supporters, including representatives of the city27s economic development corporation and multiple elected leaders, said the project converts nontaxable land to a taxable asset, adds housing that the region needs, and preserves a community golf course that otherwise might be sold or redeveloped in a way that removes the amenity.

Board members asked detailed questions about the structure and safeguards. University assistant director Tom Burris said the ground lease under negotiation is currently drafted as a 40‑year lease with two 10‑year renewal options (60 years total), and developers confirmed the project would be a single combined entity that could not easily be sold in pieces. The developers acknowledged that they would include clause(s) in agreements and record notices to protect taxing jurisdictions, and counsel said typical development agreements include clawbacks and title notices if property converts to tax‑exempt status during the period taxpayers expected it to be taxable.

No formal vote on the pilot occurred at the meeting; the bodies closed the public comment period and adjourned after questions. Several members asked for further legal clarity (some suggested requesting an opinion from the state attorney general) and additional written detail on lease terms, developer equity sources and operating agreements before deciding whether to approve a pilot.

What happens next: the taxing entities will consider the information presented, and multiple officials asked the development team and staff to provide additional written details on lease clauses, clawbacks, investor identities (developers said equity commitments will be finalized only if the incentive process succeeds) and the exact operational model for the Toptracer facility. The meeting closed without a decision on the requested pilot.