Comments on: Ada Taxpayers Could Take Hit In HP Deal

By: Pete

Pete — Mon, 27 Mar 2017 22:55:13 +0000

One question -WHO makes money on the sale? WHO is the broker or agent or persons that get paid for the sale?????????

By: Greg

Greg — Sat, 25 Mar 2017 16:17:59 +0000

Once again we are talking about allowing the State of Idaho to COMPETE with private businesses.

If they have lease out space to ANYONE then they are competing with private commercial property owners.

By: Chuck

Chuck — Sat, 25 Mar 2017 16:03:48 +0000

David, while I wholeheartedly agree with the premise of the article, don’t you have to weight the tax loss against the price the state pays for rental space all over the valley? Over time, wont the 2 different models end up washing? There should be an analysis completed to know all the details of this move.

EDITOR NOTE–There is absolutely no “wash.” The citizens of Boise will be subsidizing the state taxpayers. If ALL Idaho taxpayers lost a little revenue your premise would be true, but only Boise loses.

By: flyhead

flyhead — Fri, 24 Mar 2017 21:52:57 +0000

The State needs to make this a null deal with respect to property taxes and all the taxing districts who benefit from these taxes. It seems very simple on the surface for the State to make this right with the citizens of Boise.

If they don’t do this it is another deal just like the “Affordable Storage” deal done by the land board when they bought this property and didn’t pay the property taxes.

EDITOR NOTE–We agree and it is seems counter intuitive for the State of Idaho to get out of the leasing business on one hand (21 parcels in downtown Boise) and then go back into the private practice at HP.

By: Former HP Employee

Former HP Employee — Mon, 20 Mar 2017 17:50:08 +0000

HP has been trying to sell off/lease properties for many years (not just recently or during or after the recession). I have a copy of a commercial real-estate listing from 2007/2008 for Bldg 8 (the one Sykes is leasing now) that had the building up for sale. I recall Bldg 4 was also slated. No one else seems to want or need the buildings.

Another thing is HP cut their budget for building upkeep. The work used to be done by HP and then they outsourced it (Johnson Controls as I recall). The result was those Johnson employees complaining about the lack of resources (people and money) and then problems like buildings leaking when it rains (buckets inside Bldgs. 1 & 2 to catch rain are common).

I hope the State looks closely at that to make sure they don’t get caught with higher repair expenses than expected.

There is an old site master plan from 35+ years ago that showed Chinden eventually having 12 or more buildings as I recall. But then that was when HP actually made things here.

By: Clancy Anderson

Clancy Anderson — Mon, 20 Mar 2017 17:06:02 +0000

It is too bad that government exempt properties do not fall under the same exemptions status as non-profits. Then they could be subject taxes if more than 3% of the property is used for commercial purposes under 63-602C. Or be subject to a “fee in lieu of property tax” similar to Fish and Game under 63-602A. Once the state is the only tenant, then they be granted the full exemption.

By: erico49

erico49 — Mon, 20 Mar 2017 16:25:23 +0000

I think that Glad 2 be Retired has an excellent idea. I also think that properties that require special attention (foothills, property next to fire-prone areas should pay a surcharge. Those 2 things would be a good start to correcting the inequities of property tax.

By: JJ

JJ — Mon, 20 Mar 2017 15:43:27 +0000

City of Boise needs to sell off the private golf courses they acquired. These golf courses can be operated as businesses and pay taxes. There is little difference in my mind between the State Land Board running storage businesses and the City of Boise buying and operating private golf courses.

City complains about tax-exempt entities not paying property taxes, but the City owns a lot of surplus land and actively acquires private land and takes it off the tax rolls.

EDITOR NOTE–The most egregious sin on the part of Boise City is the $23 million hangar they built for Skywest. IT costs us about $378,000 a year in lost revenue because it is government owned real estate. Shameful!

By: JJ

JJ — Mon, 20 Mar 2017 15:40:12 +0000

My understanding is the IRS non-profit 501c3 rule exempts an entity from “corporate” income taxes and allows such an entity to issue tax-exempt bonds for low cost debt. The concept of not paying property tax or local sales tax as a 501c3 is the result of local laws. Local laws, to make it simple, often offer the property tax and sales tax exemption for any entity qualifying as a 501c3 by the IRS. I believe local government(s) in Idaho, could charge non-profits property taxes if they had the fortitude to do so, not all non-profits need to pay property taxes in my mind, but the large health systems and churches are really businesses trying to make as much money as possible and leverage their non-profit status to increase their net income.

By: boisecynic

boisecynic — Mon, 20 Mar 2017 12:53:43 +0000

Editor wrote:

“The vindictive nature of the proposed bill to keep Boise from shifting the tax burden to home owners by lowering the city budget is insane.”

BG, can you elaborate on this comment? I’m confused here and I guess I haven’t been following he bill you are referencing.

EDITOR NOTE–Here is the link to the bill. https://legislature.idaho.gov/wp-content/uploads/sessioninfo/2017/legislation/H0283SOP.pdf

EDITOR NOTE–I don’t have the number handy, but House introduced a bill to prevent Boise from raising taxes/budget when revenues are reduced due to the State owning tax-exempt land. If passed it would reduce city budget by the amount of revenue lost to state ownership. Will do more later in detail. Statesman Cynthis Sewell had a great piece Saturday. http://www.idahostatesman.com/news/local/article139310263.html