ចុះផ្សាយថ្ងៃទី ១៧ កក្កដា ឆ្នាំ ២០១៦
ដោយ ឌីក ហូវស៍
ប្រែជាខេមរភាសាដោយ សុខា
អចលនទ្រព្យដ៏ធំចំនួនពីរ ត្រូវបានគេដេញថ្លៃត្រូវរូវគ្នា លក់ចេញបាត់ហើយ។ នៅថ្ងៃ អាទិត្យ ទី ១៧ ខែកក្កដា ឆ្នាំ ២០១៦ សាកលវិទ្យាល័យរដ្ឋម៉ាសាឈូសេត (UMass Lowell) បានក្លាយជាម្ចាស់កម្មសិទ្ធផ្ទះ ល្វែង ផឺកឃីន។ រំលងមួយថ្ងៃ ខាងស្ថាបន័ដែលបានគេស្គាល់តាមឈ្ មោះថា មានចក្ខុវិស័យអភិវឌ្ឍ បានក្លាយជាម្ចាស់កម្មសិទ្ធអគា រធ្លាប់ជាធនាគារសន្សំប្រាំសេន មានទីស្នាក់ការកណ្តាលនៅផ្លូវ ១ មែរីម៉ាក់ (ឆ្លងមួយផ្លូវពី វិទ្យាល័យឡុវែល )។ មិនខុសគ្នា ពីការប្រព្រឹត្តទៅនៃអចលនទ្រព្ យដទៃទៀតឡើយ ពេលមានការផ្លាស់ប្តូរម្ចាស់កម្ មសិទ្ធ ការផ្លាស់ប្តូរផ្សេងទៀត ផ្តល់វិបាក ដែលមានសេចក្តីពន្យល់ពិស្តារខា ងក្រោមនេះ។
ការលក់ចេញផ្ទះល្វែង ផឺកឃីន នៃ ក្រុមហ៊ុនអចលនទ្រព្យ ផឺកឃីន លេខ មួយ ទៅឲ្យសាលាយូម៉ាសឡូវែល មានជាអាទិ៍៖ ផ្ទះល្វែង ផឺកឃីន ផ្លូវលេខ ១ លក់ក្នុងតម្លៃ ១ ២៥០ ០០០ ដុល្លារ ផ្ទះល្វែង ផឺកឃីន លេខ ២១ ដល់ ៣៩ ត្រូវបានលក់ក្នុងតម្លៃ ៤០ ៣៥០ ០០០ ដុល្លារ និង ផ្ទះល្វែង ផឺកឃីន ផ្លូវលេខ ៦៥ ត្រូវបានលក់ក្នុងតម្លៃ ១៥ ១៥០ ០០០ ដុល្លារ។ ចំណែកក្រុមហ៊ុនមួយទៀតគឺ អចលនទ្រព្យ ផឺកឃីន អេមស៍ បានលក់ផ្ទះល្វែង ផឺកឃីន ផ្លូវ ៤០ ទៅឲ្យសាលាយូម៉ាស ក្នុងតម្លៃ ៤ ៧៥០ ០០០ ដុល្លារ។ ទឹកប្រាក់សរុបនៃការលក់ និង ទិញ គឺជាង ៦១ លានដុល្លារ សហរដ្ឋអាមេរិក។
ឯការលក់អចលនទ្រព្យ នៃធនាគារសន្សំ ប្រាំសេន ឯណោះវិញ គឺ ត្រូវបានលក់ក្នុងតម្លៃ ៣ ២៧៥ ០០០ ដុល្លារ ដោយក្រុមហ៊ុនអចលនទ្រព្យ ម៉ាក់ខាណាល់ ដែលស្ថិតនៅក្រោមការគ្រប់គ្រង របស់ ស្ថាប័នមួយឈ្មោះថា ចក្ខុវិស័យអភិវឌ្ឍន៍ (Vision Development) ។ ម្ចាស់ក្រុមហ៊ុនម្នាក់នេះ ច្បាស់ជាខ្វលខ្វាយមិនល្មមឡើយ ក្នុងការដឹកនាំឲ្យគម្រោងរបស់ខ្ លួនផ្តើមដំណើរការបាន ត្បិតមុននេះបន្តិច ខ្ញុំបានឭថា ផ្នែកខ្លះនៃការផ្តល់អំណាចគ្រប់ គ្រង ពីគណៈកម្មការធិការក្រុងឡុវែល ត្រូវបានប្តឹងផ្តល់ដោយម្ចាស់ អចលទ្រព្យ ត្រង់ផ្ទះល្វែងធំស្គឹមស្គៃ រីវឺផ្លេស ដែលមានចំណែករួមក្នុងកិច្ចការនោះ ។ បុរសដដែលនេះ ទាល់តែមានសន្លឹកបៀរធំថាឈ្នះកា រប្តឹងផ្តល់នេះហើយ ព្រោះបច្ចុប្បន្ន សំណុំរឿងខាងលើ ត្រូវទើរនៅត្រឹមសាលាឧទ្ទរណ។
ចក្ខុវិស័យបង្កើតផ្ទះល្វែងក្នុ ងទម្រង់ថ្មីបន្ថែម គឺក្នុងគោលបំណងសាងសង់ ផ្ទះល្វែងនៅនឹងកន្លែងដល់និស្សិ តរៀននៅសាលាយូម៉ាសឡុវែល។ វានឹងត្រូវបានគេហៅ នៅថ្ងៃណាមួយថាជា អន្តេវាសិកដ្ឋានឯកជនសម្រាប់និស្ សិត។ ដោយសារតែអត្តសញ្ញាណ នៃអចលនទ្រព្យនេះ នឹងត្រូវបានគ្រប់គ្រងជាលក្ខណៈ ឯកជន (ដែលផ្ទុយទៅនឹងសម្បត្តិគ្រប់គ្ រងដោយ ស្ថាប័នរដ្ឋាភិបាល ឬ របៀបជាមិនដើម្បីប្រាក់ចំណេញ) ដូចនេះហើយអចលទ្រព្យប្រភេទខាងលើ នាពេលខាងមុខ នឹងជាប្រធានបទរាប់បញ្ចូលក្នុងកា របង់ពន្ធដូចគេ ដូចឯង។ លើកលែងគម្រោងធ្វើដោយសាលាយូម៉ាស ដែលមិនជាប់កាតព្វកិច្ចពន្ធ លើគម្រោងសាងសង់ អភិវឌ្ឍថ្មីនេះ ព្រោះសាលាយូម៉ាសឡូវែលជាសាលារដ្ ឋ។
ទោះជាយ៉ាងណាក៏ដោយ មានពីរចំណុចរសើប ចេញពីការទិញ លក់ អចលនវត្ថុខាងលើនេះ ដែលនាំជាវិបាក។
ទីមួយ គឺ ការប្រឈមនឹងការបាត់បង់ទីស្នាក់ អាស្រ័យនៃអ្នករស់នៅបច្ចុប្បន្ នដែលកំពុងរស់នៅទីនោះ។
អ្នកដែលកំពុងជួលផ្ទះល្វែងនៅ ផឺកឃីន នឹងប្រឈមទៅនឹងការបោះបង់ និង បាត់លំនៅរបស់ខ្លួន។ សំខាន់ជាងនេះ អ្នកកំពុងរស់នៅទីនោះទៀតសោត សុទ្ធសឹងជាបញ្ញវ័ន្ត វាគ្មិនពូកែវោហាស័ព្ទ និងជាអ្នកបំពេញមុខវិជ្ជាជីវៈ ក្នុងក្រុង ហើយដែលបានរួមចំណែក បង្កើតតម្លៃឡូវែលឲ្យលេចធ្លោឡើយ។ អ្នកទាំងនេះ ជានិមិត្តរូបសំខាន់នៃអានុភាពក្ រុងឡុវែល ដែលបង្ហាញថា ក្រុងឡុវែលជាឋានបណ្តុំដោយអ្ នករស់នៅចម្រុះ។ វត្តមាននៃការរស់នៅរបស់ពួកគេ បានមកបំពេញក្រុងនេះ ជំនួសអតីតកាលភាពរបស់ក្រុង ដែលរាល់អគារទាំងឡាយធ្វើឡើយ ដើម្បីតែបំណងការិយាល័យការងារតែ មួយមុខគត់។
បើតម្លៃជួលផ្ទះប្រហាក់ប្រហែល លែងអនុញ្ញាតភាពអាចទៅរួចដែលគេអា ចដោះស្រាយថ្លៃជួល ឲ្យបន្តបាន ឬ ប្រហែលនឹងថ្លៃនៅកន្លែងដទៃទៀត គេអាចផ្លាស់ការតាំងទីលំនៅ ចរចាកឆ្ងាយពីក្រុងឡុវែល។ បើវាកើតឡើងមែន ឡុវែលនឹងខាតប្រយោជន៍ធំ នឹង បង់តម្លៃខ្លួនយ៉ាងខ្លាំង។
បញ្ហាទី ពីរ គឺ ការប្រឈមនឹងការបាត់បង់ចំណូលពន្ ធរដ្ឋ។
ដូចបង្ហាញខាងលើ ពេលផ្លាស់ប្តូរម្ចាស់កម្មសិទ្ ធពីឯកជន ទៅជាសាលាយូម៉ាសដែលជាស្ថាប័នរដ្ឋ រួចការបង់ពន្ធ នោះចំណែកដែលរដ្ឋធ្លាប់តែទទួលពី ការបង់ពន្ធលើសម្បត្តិនេះ ត្រូវប្រហោង។ ដូចនេះ ពីធ្លាប់ជាទ្រព្យជាប់ពន្ធ មកជាទ្រព្យ រួចកាតព្វកិច្ចពន្ធ ក្រោមម្ចាស់ការរបស់សាលាយូម៉ាស រដ្ឋខាតពន្ធ ត្រង់រឿងមួយនេះ។
យ៉ាងណាក៏ដោយ ក្រុងឡូវែល ត្រូវបានគេតម្រង់ទិស ឲ្យក្លាយជាក្រុងនៃអ្នកសិក្សា ដែលគ្រប់គ្នាក្នុងសហគមន៍នេះ បានស្គាល់ថា ជាស្ថាប័នអប់រំមានឈ្មោះល្អ ត្បិតមានសាលាយូម៉ាស។ ស្របគ្នានឹងវត្តមានរបស់ឧត្តមសិ ក្សានេះ ក្រុងឡូវែលទទួលប្រយោជន៍សេដ្ឋកិ ច្ច និងមានការអភិវឌ្ឍជាច្រើនរូបភាព។
យ៉ាងណាមិញ យើងត្រូវសម្លឹងមើលសាលាយូម៉ាស ជាស្ថាប័នមួយដែលមានតួនាទីសំខាន់ តែមិនមែនឲ្យសំខាន់ត្រង់ថា ជាយក្សកំណាចដែលនាំឲ្យបង់ប្រយោ ជន៍ចំនូលពន្ធរដ្ឋនោះឡើយ។
និយាយពីការកែប្រែក្រុង និង ការអនុញ្ញាតពន្ធ គេមិនអាចរំលង ស្ថាប័ន ស៊ី ប៊ី អេ ដែលបានរួមចំណែក កែប្រែមុខមាត់ក្រុងឡុវែល ឲ្យថ្មី និង ល្អឡើង។ យុន ជូ ឆ័រ គឺជានាយិកាប្រតិបត្តិ លេចធ្លោ មានសមត្ថភាព ឆ្លាតវ័យ ខាងប្រើប្រាស់ ប្រព័ន្ធក្រេឌីត អនុញ្ញាតដោយសហព័ន្ធ ។ ការប្រើប្រាស់ក្រេឌីតបានល្អ នាំឲ្យចង្វាក់ផលិតកម្ម និង ការប្រព្រឹត្តទៅ នៃការកែកុន អគារ មានមុខងារបម្រើជាលំនៅដ្ឋានរដ្ឋ សម្រាប់ប្រជាជនក្រុងឡូវែលនោះ ដំណើរការបានយ៉ាងរលូន។ ធម្មជាតិនៃ ស៊ី ប៊ី អេ គឺមិនដើម្បីប្រាក់ចំណេញ ដូចនេះ រដ្ឋមានការអនុញ្ញាតពន្ធ រាល់កិច្ចការកែកុនក្រុងធ្វើដោ យស៊ី ប៊ី អេ។ ស៊ី ប៊ី អេ គ្រាន់តែបង់ពន្ធចូលរដ្ឋនូវចំណែក ក្រោម ១ ភាគរយ នៃផលចំណូលដែលទទួលបាន ទៅឲ្យរដ្ឋ តាមការគណនាដែលចេញដោយរដ្ឋ។ ជាក់ស្តែង ឆ្នាំមុន ស៊ី ប៊ី អេ បានបង់ពន្ធ៦៥០ ០០០ ដុល្លារ កំណត់ដោយរដ្ឋ ទៅឲ្យរដ្ឋ តាមក្រឹតក្រម។
ទោះកិច្ចការដែលស៊ី ប៊ី អេ ធ្វើ បានប្រើប្រាស់ក្រេឌីត ដែលគាំទ្រដោយសហព័ន្ធ ការទទួលចំណែក បង់ថ្លៃស្នាក់នៅ ពីអ្នកជួលផ្ទះល្វែង គឺនៅតែជាចំណែកសំខាន់។ ឧទាហរណ៍ អ្នករស់នៅក្នុងផ្ទះល្វែង សេន ចូសែហ្វ (ឥលូវគេឲ្យឈ្មោះថា វិទ្យាល័យ អេកខឺ ) ល្វែងមាន ២ បន្ទប់គេង មានតម្លៃ ១១០០ ដុល្លារ ក្នុងមួយខែ ឯល្វែងមាន ៣ បន្ទប់ គេង មានតម្លៃ ១២៥០ ដុល្លារ ក្នុង មួយខែ។ ភរិយា ស្វាមី និងកូនស្រី ជានិស្សិតកំពុងសិក្សានៅមហាវិទ្ យាល័យសហគមន៍ ទាំងអស់គ្នាក្នុងគ្រួសារ សុទ្ធសឹង តែធ្វើការពេញម៉ោង។
ការទទួលបាននូវចំណេះដឹង និង ព័រមានពីក្រុងឡុវែល តួយ៉ាង បទបង្ហាញពីកិច្ចការរបស់ ស៊ី ប៊ី អេ ដោយ យុន ជូ ឆ័រ មានប្រភពចេញមកពីការចូលរួមកម្មវិ ធី ដើរជុំវិញក្រុងឡូវែល ឬ ដែលគេ ហៅថា ឡុូវែលវ៉កស៍។ ព័រមានបន្ថែម អំពីកម្មវិធីនេះ គេអាចចូលកាន់គេហទំព័រ របស់អ្នកនិពន្ធ ឌីកហូវ ខាងលើបាន៕
Lowell Week in Review; July 17, 2016
By Dick H.
Two big real estate sales were consummated this week. On Thursday, UMass Lowell took ownership of the Perkins Place apartments, and on Friday, Vision Development took ownership of the former Lowell
Five Cent Savings Bank headquarters at One Merrimack Plaza (across from Lowell High School). Like most complex real estate transaction of this type, other entities were involved. Here are the details.
In the Perkins sale, One Perkins Street LLC sold to University of Massachusetts Building Authority the parcels known as 1 Perkins St for $1,250,000; 21-39 Perkins St for $40,350,000; and 65 Perkins St for $15,150,000. Perkins Ames LLC sold 40 Perkins St to UMass Building Authority for $4,750,000. That’s a total sales price of $61,500,000.
In the other sale, Lowell Five Cent Savings Bank and Merrimack Properties Inc. sold to Mack Canal LLC the parcel known as One Merrimack Plaza for $3,275,000. According to records from the Secretary of State’s website, the new owner, Mack Canal LLC, is controlled by the owner of Vision Development. This gentleman must be anxious to get the project started because last I heard, some of his authorizations from city of Lowell
Continued to Page25
boards had been appealed by the owner of the abutting River Place Towers apartment building. He also must be confident he will prevail in the appeal which is pending in Superior Court.
Vision plans to build a large apartment building on the site that is intended for college students. It is sometimes called a privately-owned dorm. Because it will be privately owned (as opposed to owned by a governmental entity or a non-profit), it will pay real property taxes in the normal manner. Not so the Perkins Apartments since UMass Lowell is part of state government and Massachusetts does not pay to local government property taxes on buildings it owns in the local community.
Two things about the Perkins sale were problematic. First is the inevitable displacement of current residents. The tenants who shared their plight at a city council meeting when news of this sale first broke were all well-spoken professionals who have embraced living in downtown Lowell. They were emblematic of our aspirations for downtown as a mixed use neighborhood to replace the retail and office uses that moved to the suburbs long ago. With comparable rental housing in the city relatively scarce, these people and their neighbors will likely move elsewhere which will be a loss to Lowell.
The second problem is that, given the value of the real estate involved, suddenly moving it from property tax paying status to exempt from property tax status, blows a significant hole in the city’s tax revenue projections. It turns out this problem has been tempered in the current fiscal year (as I understand it) by UMass Lowell agreeing to pay the full property taxes for this year (even though it is not legally obligated to do so). To city councilors, whose gazes are always set on the next municipal election, taking away $300,000 in revenue in future fiscal years leaves them with the politically unpalatable choice of raising taxes on everyone else or cutting services so as to live with the reduced amount of revenue. (A cynic might say that because increased costs are built into every municipal budget, the council will have to raise taxes and cut services regardless of this sale, but now they can blame it on UMass Lowell and dodge the political heat themselves).
Still, if Lowell aspires to be a “college town” – that is, a community known for its educational institutions and a community that benefits economically from those institutions – we have to see UMass Lowell as something other than a giant eraser of city property tax revenue. To do otherwise is incredibly short-sighted. Perhaps that’s a consequence of elected leaders thinking in two year cycles rather than over the longer term.
I’ve argued repeatedly that UMass Lowell growing into the area bounded by the Northern Canal and the Merrimack River – from the Howe Bridge all the way to Boott Mills – is good for the city in the long term notwithstanding short term problems posed by things like the Perkins sale. That area was once home to Little Canada and the Merrimack Mills, but both were demolished in 1960s Urban Renewal programs with the promise that the existing structures would be replaced by “new industry,” whatever that was supposed to be. Well new industry never came, and that substantial strip of land hasn’t been used to its full potential since then. Promoting University expansion into that area draws the school closer to downtown Lowell with all its businesses and entertainment venues that would greatly benefit from more University-affiliated customers. University expansion into the area would also strengthen the Acre neighborhood that borders it on the other side of the Northern Canal and Fr.
Morissette Blvd. And University expansion into that area might divert expansion away from Fletcher Street, Pawtucket Street, Riverside Street, University Avenue and all the other established residential neighborhoods that now border the college. Our goal should be to constantly engage the University in discussions about its future, do all that we can to ensure that the University’s expansion plans and the city’s long term strategic plans are in sync, negotiate the differences, and then celebrate all the benefits that UMass Lowell brings to the city.
Regarding property tax payments by nonprofits, the Sun reported this week that an amendment filed by Representative Dave Nangle that would require nonprofits that became the owners of real estate to continue paying property taxes for four years on a tapering scale, had failed to be accepted by the state senate. This is not a standalone bill; instead it’s an amendment to some other bill that passed the House,
Continued to Page 30
however, the Nangle amendment was not included in the senate version of the same bill (it is unclear to me what the underlying bill is about – probably some omnibus revenue or government services matter; it is not the state budget which has already passed both houses). If the amendment had made it into both the house and the senate versions, it would be “in the bill” without any further action.
Now, the two versions of the bill will be taken up by a conference committee which consists of a few key representatives and senators who negotiate over the differences between the two bills. Whatever version the conference committee, which works in secret, arrives at, will be the final version that both houses vote on. If Nangle’s amendment is kept in by the conference committee, it will probably become law. If it is removed from the final version, then it won’t become law through this vehicle.
In a related matter, the website of the state legislature shows no new action on the two identical bills that the council voted to endorse at its last meeting per a motion by Rodney Elliott. These two bills, House 2584, and Senate 1451, call for nonprofits to pay 25% of the property taxes that would be due if the same property were owned by a tax paying entity.
Two big real estate sales were consummated this week. On Thursday, UMass Lowell took ownership of the Perkins Place apartments, and on Friday, Vision Development took ownership of the former Lowell
Five Cent Savings Bank headquarters at One Merrimack Plaza (across from Lowell High School). Like most complex real estate transaction of this type, other entities were involved. Here are the details.
In the Perkins sale, One Perkins Street LLC sold to University of Massachusetts Building Authority the parcels known as 1 Perkins St for $1,250,000; 21-39 Perkins St for $40,350,000; and 65 Perkins St for $15,150,000. Perkins Ames LLC sold 40 Perkins St to UMass Building Authority for $4,750,000. That’s a total sales price of $61,500,000.
In the other sale, Lowell Five Cent Savings Bank and Merrimack Properties Inc. sold to Mack Canal LLC the parcel known as One Merrimack Plaza for $3,275,000. According to records from the Secretary of State’s website, the new owner, Mack Canal LLC, is controlled by the owner of Vision Development. This gentleman must be anxious to get the project started because last I heard, some of his authorizations from city of Lowell
Continued to Page25
boards had been appealed by the owner of the abutting River Place Towers apartment building. He also must be confident he will prevail in the appeal which is pending in Superior Court.
Vision plans to build a large apartment building on the site that is intended for college students. It is sometimes called a privately-owned dorm. Because it will be privately owned (as opposed to owned by a governmental entity or a non-profit), it will pay real property taxes in the normal manner. Not so the Perkins Apartments since UMass Lowell is part of state government and Massachusetts does not pay to local government property taxes on buildings it owns in the local community.
Two things about the Perkins sale were problematic. First is the inevitable displacement of current residents. The tenants who shared their plight at a city council meeting when news of this sale first broke were all well-spoken professionals who have embraced living in downtown Lowell. They were emblematic of our aspirations for downtown as a mixed use neighborhood to replace the retail and office uses that moved to the suburbs long ago. With comparable rental housing in the city relatively scarce, these people and their neighbors will likely move elsewhere which will be a loss to Lowell.
The second problem is that, given the value of the real estate involved, suddenly moving it from property tax paying status to exempt from property tax status, blows a significant hole in the city’s tax revenue projections. It turns out this problem has been tempered in the current fiscal year (as I understand it) by UMass Lowell agreeing to pay the full property taxes for this year (even though it is not legally obligated to do so). To city councilors, whose gazes are always set on the next municipal election, taking away $300,000 in revenue in future fiscal years leaves them with the politically unpalatable choice of raising taxes on everyone else or cutting services so as to live with the reduced amount of revenue. (A cynic might say that because increased costs are built into every municipal budget, the council will have to raise taxes and cut services regardless of this sale, but now they can blame it on UMass Lowell and dodge the political heat themselves).
Still, if Lowell aspires to be a “college town” – that is, a community known for its educational institutions and a community that benefits economically from those institutions – we have to see UMass Lowell as something other than a giant eraser of city property tax revenue. To do otherwise is incredibly short-sighted. Perhaps that’s a consequence of elected leaders thinking in two year cycles rather than over the longer term.
I’ve argued repeatedly that UMass Lowell growing into the area bounded by the Northern Canal and the Merrimack River – from the Howe Bridge all the way to Boott Mills – is good for the city in the long term notwithstanding short term problems posed by things like the Perkins sale. That area was once home to Little Canada and the Merrimack Mills, but both were demolished in 1960s Urban Renewal programs with the promise that the existing structures would be replaced by “new industry,” whatever that was supposed to be. Well new industry never came, and that substantial strip of land hasn’t been used to its full potential since then. Promoting University expansion into that area draws the school closer to downtown Lowell with all its businesses and entertainment venues that would greatly benefit from more University-affiliated customers. University expansion into the area would also strengthen the Acre neighborhood that borders it on the other side of the Northern Canal and Fr.
Morissette Blvd. And University expansion into that area might divert expansion away from Fletcher Street, Pawtucket Street, Riverside Street, University Avenue and all the other established residential neighborhoods that now border the college. Our goal should be to constantly engage the University in discussions about its future, do all that we can to ensure that the University’s expansion plans and the city’s long term strategic plans are in sync, negotiate the differences, and then celebrate all the benefits that UMass Lowell brings to the city.
Regarding property tax payments by nonprofits, the Sun reported this week that an amendment filed by Representative Dave Nangle that would require nonprofits that became the owners of real estate to continue paying property taxes for four years on a tapering scale, had failed to be accepted by the state senate. This is not a standalone bill; instead it’s an amendment to some other bill that passed the House,
Continued to Page 30
however, the Nangle amendment was not included in the senate version of the same bill (it is unclear to me what the underlying bill is about – probably some omnibus revenue or government services matter; it is not the state budget which has already passed both houses). If the amendment had made it into both the house and the senate versions, it would be “in the bill” without any further action.
Now, the two versions of the bill will be taken up by a conference committee which consists of a few key representatives and senators who negotiate over the differences between the two bills. Whatever version the conference committee, which works in secret, arrives at, will be the final version that both houses vote on. If Nangle’s amendment is kept in by the conference committee, it will probably become law. If it is removed from the final version, then it won’t become law through this vehicle.
In a related matter, the website of the state legislature shows no new action on the two identical bills that the council voted to endorse at its last meeting per a motion by Rodney Elliott. These two bills, House 2584, and Senate 1451, call for nonprofits to pay 25% of the property taxes that would be due if the same property were owned by a tax paying entity.