5/6/2010 2:30:55 PM
Reply
or ReplyNewSubject
Section 5: OPA Board Subject: OC Bayside Debacle Msg# 737900
|
||||||
Ted, the OPA consultant appraised the value of the property at $2 million months before the total collapse of the real estate market later in the year. If the property was truly worth $2 million last summer, it most likely is worth less since the collapse of the market. Over the term of the previous lease we would have seen a reduction in net income as taxes/assessed value went up if we followed your scenario. You are assuming the state/county/city tax value of $3 million is higher at the end of the prior 5-year lease than it was at the beginning. Do you know it for a fact, or are you speculating? It would be an interesting thing to know. As for any rebound in the market over the next 5-years, if the state reappraised the property at $2 million or less, I have serious doubts it will balloon to $3 million or more in coming five year period. Beyond that, let's consider the business savvy of OPA versus the business savvy of Seacrets. Seacrets is apparently content to take any risk of an increased tax assessment. OPA appears reluctant to do so. Based on history, who would you bet your money on? |
||||||
|
||||||
For reference, the above message is a reply to a message where: Joe, OPA would be FAR better off if the lease was for $75,000 and OPA paid its own taxes. OPA would have more money; the cost to Seacrets would be the same; and the county/state would not be receiving a $10,000 or so gift courtesy of OPA association members every year. This is my opinion only. If you take a snapshot of the last 18 months of downturn you might be correct that if Seacrets paid a lump sum and OPA fought the assessment value that after all costs to get the tax assessment lowered there might be some savings. However, did you look at it going the other way? Over the course of time assessments and the value of property has increased. Therefore, the taxes have increased and Seacrets bears the "risk" of those increases entirely. If the assessed value increases or the tax rate increases it all belongs to them. It is rare - the last 18 months being one of these periods - where assessed values go down. Under your plan, if property assessments went up and/or the tax rate went up we would eat any increase. Over the term of the previous lease we would have seen a reduction in net income as taxes/assessed value went up if we followed your scenario. Further, the lease gives Secrets the right to, at their own sole expense, fight on our behalf any assessment value. Given one of the few things everyone seems to agree on is that Moore is a shrewd businessman, he has the right to fight any assessment increase, at no cost to OPA, and save himself some money. If he does it inures to his benefit in tax savings and ours in a lower assessed value. Over a five year period of a normalized economy, I believe we will see an increase in property values and/or an increase in the tax rate to make up the difference in the lower revenue generated should property values remain depressed. So while there might be a small amount of savings during a downturn, I think the hedge against increased taxes and assessments is prudent and over the past ten years has provided us protection. This was my thinking on this particular issue. Ted
|
Calendar |
Special Board Meeting - Board Room
11/25/2024 - 7:00 P.M. 3 days or less away! |
OPA Board Meeting - Golf Clubhouse
12/21/2024 - 9:00 A.M. |
OPA Board Meeting - Golf Clubhouse
1/25/2025 - 9: A.M. |
OPA Board Meeting - Golf Clubhouse
2/22/2025 - 9:00 A.M. |
OPA Board Meeting - Golf Clubhouse
3/29/2025 - 9:00 A.M. |