Slum And Blight: Gilbert Eyes Redevelopment Plan Using Questionable Method
By Matthew Holloway |
On Tuesday, June 18, 2024, the Gilbert Town Council will hold a meeting to adopt the boundaries of a redevelopment plan which could encompass up to 18% of the town’s landmass extending from its western boundary eastward to Lindsay Road and then south to Ray Road, an area of almost 9 ½ square miles. The Town is seeking to take this action under Arizona Revised Statue § 36-1471-1491 using laws intended to curb “slum or blighted areas,” terms that could hardly be used to describe the 22nd Best Place to Live in the U.S. by Money Magazine and the 2nd Safest City in America by Law Street Media according to Gilbert’s website.
Screenshot: Youtube.com | Gilbert, Arizona | Study Session – 4/16/2024 5:00:00 PM
The controversial move, which seems to carry the broad support of the Town Council, would allow Gilbert to bypass property taxes over the vast swath of real estate, opening a path for the town to engage in a property acquisition and lease scheme known as a Government Property Lease Excise Tax (GPLET) according to Arizona Tax Research Association President Kevin McCarthy.
Ironically, McCarthy, who has opposed this method of redevelopment for years, told AZ Free News that he penned an op-ed for the Arizona Republic crediting Gilbert with not employing this strategy.
“Most of your suburban cities have done very little of this,” McCarthy explained. “Gilbert to date has done none of it. Ironically, I wrote an op-ed for the paper, I don’t know, six, seven years ago that was in the Arizona Republic, crediting the city of Gilbert for doing development the right way and not doing it by harvesting the property taxes that are otherwise owed, making everybody else’s property taxes higher as a result of some development, not being on the rolls and shorting the schools, their monies, that kind of thing.”
Adding another wrinkle to the matter though, is a potential legal vulnerability to the strategy which could land the town in court. McCarthy continued, “And so now we’ve got them wanting to break through and begin using this tool. But what’s different about this now than even five years ago, the last time we made a legislative effort to narrow the use of it, is that there have been court decisions in this space that we’ve been involved in with the Goldwater Institute that have found that this mechanism violates the constitution’s gift clause.”
As reported by the Arizona Republic, a 2020 ruling found that a similar GPLET scheme between the city of Phoenix and developers of The Derby Roosevelt Row, involving a promised tax break, was illegal. In 2016 the Phoenix City Council okayed a plan that would have had developer Amstar/McKinley successfully avoid paying the appropriate property taxes for 25 years. For eight years under the law, the tax would be completely waived, and it would’ve been further reduced for an additional 17 years.
McCarthy explained how the process works: “I assume what happened in Gilbert: Gilbert’s probably got a new economic development director, or maybe it’s the city manager goes to some meetings, and here’s what fund the city of Phoenix is having harvesting the property taxes that otherwise would be owed on a development. To make development easier, the way these deals are usually done is a developer goes to City Hall, and if a city has a central business district that they’ve declared as slum and blight, they know that if they want to propose an $80 million multi-use building that is 30 stories high and have some residential apartment building and then commercial on the first floor, that kind of thing they can negotiate to have it qualify as a GPLET.”
During a Town Council meeting on April 16th, Gilbert Redevelopment Program Manager Amanda Elliott explained that under the law, a municipality must have a combination of nine findings for redevelopment “to eliminate or prevent your [town’s] signs of decline”
Screenshot: Youtube.com | Gilbert, Arizona | Study Session – 4/16/2024 5:00:00 PM
Under the applicable law (ARS § 36-1471), the statute states that a “’Blighted area’ means an area, other than a slum area, where sound municipal growth and the provision of housing accommodations is substantially retarded or arrested in a predominance of the properties by any of the following:
(a) A dominance of defective or inadequate street layout.
(b) Faulty lot layout in relation to size, adequacy, accessibility or usefulness.
(c) Unsanitary or unsafe conditions.
(d) Deterioration of site or other improvements.
(e) Diversity of ownership.
(f) Tax or special assessment delinquency exceeding the fair value of the land.
(g) Defective or unusual conditions of title.
(h) Improper or obsolete subdivision platting.
(i) The existence of conditions that endanger life or property by fire and other causes.”
This language is explicitly presented by the Town as the basis for the redevelopment plan. Further, under the finding for the necessity of the law, the legislature explained clearly, “That the existence of these areas contributes substantially and increasingly to the spread of disease and crime, necessitating excessive and disproportionate expenditures of public funds for the preservation of the public health and safety, for crime prevention, correction, prosecution, punishment and the treatment of juvenile delinquency and for the maintenance of adequate police, fire and accident protection and other public services and facilities, constitutes an economic and social liability, substantially impairs or arrests the sound growth of municipalities and retards the provision of housing accommodations.”
The law adds, “the acquisition of property for the purpose of eliminating the conditions or preventing recurrence of these conditions in the area, the removal of structures and improvement of sites, the disposition of the property for redevelopment and any assistance which may be given by any public body in connection with these activities are public uses and purposes for which public money may be expended and the power of eminent domain exercised.”
According to the Town Council, the moves toward this step have been gradual and ongoing for more than a decade.
Two Words Not Spoken: Property Taxes
During the presentation given by Elliot, the Town explicitly made the claims that the redevelopment plan “will not,” “Specify individual properties, specify commercial centers industrial complexes or neighborhoods, show up on a title report, displace residents or businesses, institute zoning changes, decrease property values or change the voter approved general plan.” However, conspicuously absent from that list is: property taxes.
McCarthy told AZ Free News that when a municipality negotiates to have a redevelopment qualify as a GPLET, “they are exempted from paying any property taxes on the improvement of the property for the first eight years, which is usually when the maximum amount of tax exposure is going to be on a property. That results in the schools not getting all the property tax money that they should get. The counties get zeroed out. The community colleges get zeroed out. The city themselves, it doesn’t get the property. If they do use property taxes, they don’t get any property taxes out of it. And the way that they execute this is that upon completion of the building, they literally deed the property back to the city.”
He added that a developer then wouldn’t have the property added to the tax rolls, “but it’s put on the tax rolls as an exempt property as any government property is, and [wont’] get a property tax bill for eight years.” In prior years, the period was as high as 25 years, but organizations like ATRA, working with the legislature, succeeded in getting that narrowed to eight. A bill was passed to lower it again to four years, but was vetoed by Governor Katie Hobbs. McCarthy noted, “Our argument to lawmakers was that at four years, it’s a lot closer to being able to pass the mathematical calculation of whether or not it’s a gift of public funds and therefore in violation of the constitutional gift clause.” The same gift clause that Phoenix ran afoul of in the Derby ruling.
McCarthy concluded, “Last thing I’ll say is that these property taxes are harvested because in many instances, these deals are agreed to by the cities because there’s a mutual benefit between the developer and the city to exempt the property from paying property taxes and enter one of these GPLET deals, and that is they can enter into any number of agreements that allow them both to benefit financially and maybe not. So not just the developer benefits the city.
So in the example I gave you that the deal might include me as the developer paying for infrastructure that otherwise may not be owed by the developer, but would be a city obligation. Whether the utilities that would be going in the city would bring up to the boundary of the property, any number of improvements in city of Phoenix, it could include, if it’s going to have multifamily, which is a lot of our stuff that we’re seeing in Tempe and Phoenix, a lot of apartment buildings where I as a developer grant concessions to the city council that a certain percentage of the apartments are going to be saved for low-income housing.”
The implications for property taxes also could impact the Gilbert Unified School District considerably as McCarthy observed with properties that “normally would be paying a million dollars a year in property taxes to Gilbert Unified,” not doing so. State funds would be used to subsidize the difference. However, that isn’t so for school bond measures, which are voter approved as are school overrides. “In those instances, the tax rates are going to be higher than they otherwise would’ve been if that property would’ve been on the tax rolls. But even there, the schools really don’t lose money.”
“It’s the other taxpayers that are on the tax rolls that get screwed because the property isn’t paying taxes.”
Gilbert Mayor Brigette Peterson made particular mention during the April meeting that the council is “not trying to turn the town of Gilbert into a city because that’s always a bone of contention with our residents. But it is focused on making sure that this town doesn’t become a city that we’ve seen in the past go downhill. We’re trying to make sure that we’ve learned from other cities’ mistakes in the past and do what’s best for our community to move us into the future and forward.”
Peterson added, “The other thing that we heard at that last meeting that was so well attended was um they they felt like the decisions had already been made. We have not made any decisions, and tonight even we’re just offering more feedback. We’re not voting on anything at a study session, so this still has a lot of time to go through more of a process and to hear from the public too.”
A mailer sent to Gilbert residents in the proposed ‘Blighted area’ indicated that the next meeting is scheduled for June 18, 2024 at 6:30 PM.
Matthew Holloway is a senior reporter for AZ Free News. Follow him on X for his latest stories, or email tips to Matthew@azfreenews.com.
