My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
10-24 & 25-1995 Council Agenda
>
City Council Packets
>
1990-1999
>
1995
>
10-24 & 25-1995 Council Agenda
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/23/2014 12:46:30 PM
Creation date
1/10/2014 8:11:24 AM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
64
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
vacant lot with a width of 75 feet. <br />9. Based on the comparable sales and analysis of William <br />Peterson, the Court concludes that the fair market value of the <br />improved property was $105,000.00 before the improvement project <br />and $112,000.00 after the improvement project. <br />10. The Court finds that the only competent evidence as to <br />the before and after value of the vacant lot was introduced by <br />William Peterson. Based on his paired sales analysis, the <br />increased value to the vacant land resulting from the improvement <br />was no less than $6,375.00. <br />11. The total benefit to Appellants' property resulting <br />from the improvement project was at least $13,375.00, which is <br />greater than the total amount of the assessment of $12,397.56. <br />12. The Respondent's "Assessment Policy Governing Street <br />Reconstruction /Rehabilitation" reasonably reflects differences in <br />benefits to property based upon their differing characteristics. <br />Specifically, the Court finds as follows: <br />(a) The assessment of residential lots on a front footage <br />basis for the footage abutting the street surface with <br />a 75 -foot minimum and a 125 -foot maximum is reasonable <br />and equitable. <br />(b) The imposition of an assessment for an additional lot <br />under circumstances where property has not yet been <br />subdivided but is eligible for subdivision is <br />reasonable and equitable. <br />(c) The Respondent's policies for assessing odd - shaped <br />rectangular lots and approximately rectangular lots are <br />reasonable and equitable and do not result in a lack of <br />uniformity for the assessment. <br />(d) The Respondent's policy which provides that when an <br />urban street is reconstructed, 85% of the project cost <br />3 <br />Page 13 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.