Laserfiche WebLink
j 4, <br /> .1, I 536 <br /> December 16,1907 <br /> 5 j,,;J5 Mr.Rodgers asked that the followJno be introduced as exhibits. <br /> I,'511A5' Plot Plan <br /> ,k ;^, =Int NO. Notice Of Objection from Doolittle <br /> ,d1.1,I5 <br /> Mr. John Boucher,MAI Appraiser, stated that in his analysis of the <br /> property of Ms. Doolittle, the properties are two appraisal units <br /> and should have been done as separate units in the determination of <br /> 5.44Oh: special benefit. He reviewed his methods of determining tre <br /> special benefit to Lot 14. <br /> 1 1 <br /> j'A IT Councilmember Niva asked what the zoning designation is on the <br /> 515 51 property and was told that all of Hs.Doolittle's property is zoned <br /> 1 <br /> ; !I <br /> ' /1,, Nr. Buddy Brooks, MAI Appraiser retained by the City, stated his <br /> review and appraisal determined that the special benefit to the <br /> 4 15 Doolittle property was best decided as one parcel. The demand for <br /> large tracts of commercial property in this area cakes the special <br /> f '1 , benefit applicable to the entire piece of property. <br /> f , <br /> 'I 11 Blair Burroughs, Special LIO Counsel, said the propertY aPPreisai <br /> needed to consider the highest and best use of the property at its <br /> 111 '1 fullest potential. <br /> Mr.Burroughs introduced the following exhibit <br /> Exhibit No.24 The Brooks Appraisal <br /> ,Il11 Mr. Burroughs stated that there was a problem with the Ooolittle <br /> 5' legal description and approximately 7,600 square feet of reduced <br /> 1, i area and their will be approximately $7,600 redUCtion in the <br /> 4 q assessment which is reflected in the final assessment roll. <br /> (Councamember Stephenson was excused at 9.15 a.m.) <br /> 11 I <br /> 15 4 <br /> ;1 <br /> , 1, 'adre 7rn:nt int:Me Yf inf;I:a's1sagst A;“;:11 o11!rgel 1,I.o wtg P1011n'tds 1'''' <br /> j 1,,Ill 4 <br /> ' r' Il I 1. The assessments exceeds the special benefit. <br /> 2. The assessment is not proportionately distributed amongst the <br /> property owners. <br /> ; 3. prigpeCrittyy.,actions constitute an unconstitutional taking of <br /> d'1 ' <br /> I Pf,1 I <br /> 4. There is no addcd value to the property. <br /> 5. Irc=itlg:d.„ke:Ilda:::::a,Tng basis and methodology <br /> ti,5 15 <br /> 4 1,., 6. The improvement will create loss of income and inconvenience <br /> 1 '5 11' to the business. <br /> 1 5j F <br /> 15,J I <br /> 51 1, <br />