Laserfiche WebLink
53 1 <br /> February 4,1987 {S <br /> Councilman Stephenson said he Pelt the Haat important thing in this 1 <br /> i ue was the pxocess fax Macaulay's assessment antl he sked Mr. <br /> aulay la sitar hes assessment,010 the staff alter the Pia axes. <br /> M Macaulay said op y, said he didn't Hake assumptions ns T the <br /> rue of the property, used his best judgement atter. , 1 <br /> investigation the data of the ea. rty and consideration of the base study {.I <br /> e the data of the area. �S <br /> Bruce Jones then Piled Exhibit lig, LID Project Experience of the <br /> 1 II <br /> Macaulay and Associates Co. sl. <br /> 1 1 <br /> Mrs. Strong replletl the staff looked at problems of developing a I <br /> property, development .permits, Shoreline Management and the A <br /> p rmi[ting pxocess antl they s w e delightful piece oP property <br /> i ettii9 on the lake es it is today and know that wtthout severs Its , <br /> potential is much.less. Fortunately that was able to be measured by � <br /> He.Macauley. <br /> Mx. %hockey then presented some graphs, the first showing the {�{ <br /> difference In the preliminaryexperienced,assessment and the final assessment. <br /> said this showed that Haglund experienced a 170% increase in <br /> assessmant, thenext highest increase was 22% and the average <br /> difference minus 6%. He said the next graph ha <br /> h . wed � <br /> w <br /> distribution of assessments <br /> e sments by size,benefit and the assessment and 7{'IA <br /> he felt the overalldistribution of cost was consistent. He said {j 1; <br /> the cost distribution, He. Haglund has a proportionately greater <br /> burden then other properties and that he will pay 27%of property [p <br /> value 1n assessments vs.the next highest of 15%and.the average o4 INS <br /> 10%o[less.es 9j <br /> He then reviewed the limitations on Mr. Haglund's property such as .� <br /> zoning regulations, shoreline management, the walking trail, "1 <br /> widening of the highway etc. <br /> He proposed an adjusted rate to reduce Mx.Haglund's assessment from 'r ir. <br /> $2.75 ft. to.$1.07 which is 50% above the next highest He thensho <br /> wed a graph of the Impact on all the other property owners if <br /> this was done. He said no property owner would have the assessment tt �l{. <br /> increased more than the original assessment in the preliminary roll. <br /> President Gipson asked why the other property <br /> owners should pay for 1 .. <br /> thereaisuan increase sin when Mr.his property ural eM1aRiede wthe study and saitl I,j.'I <br /> Mr. Sheckey said they disagree with value <br /> Macaulay,snot that there ? <br /> isn't going to be a benefit,but the amount of benefit. He Pelt on <br /> truly equitable distribution, the zest of the property ownersi'$;1'x +.,, <br /> should have had a higher assessment in the first place. f ' <br /> Mr.Burroughs pointed out to the council if they decided to arove II f1+' <br /> Mr. %hockey's request and raise the other .property owners' <br /> assessm { d �I <br /> ants, the statute would require e w notice be sent to all l''aSiiI <br /> property owners and a new hearings would have to be held. He said on �I y1 <br /> the statement about the final assessment being s much lower than <br /> the preliminary e assessment. He said,thepreliminary is simplsome , <br /> general guidance at the formation stage to give thecouncil <br /> general guidelines as to whether to proceed with the assessment roll. <br /> ploeer0.eure[thlak, tlh seawcominghe ttableod the t1 <br /> d <br />