CCP 03-20-2006 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

. . . To determine whethcr the assessmcnt cxcecds any special benefits, one needs to look at what, if any, special benefits the proposed Ingerson Court improvement affords the Association members and/or whether the improvement increases the market value ofthc Association's property. A fun,,1lonaI roadway already exists and building a new roadway in itself does not necessarily convey a special benefit. The Association members that typically use thc property travel to the property by toot, not by vehicles. A new roadway \vill not provide any new benefit to these members or if it does provide a benefIt, its valuc is negligible. The current configuration and stmcturc of Ingerson Court provides thc necessary means for members to access the Association's property. Returning to what the Minnesota Courts have held that the market value should be determined by what a ,villing buyer would pay a willing seller for the property before and then after the construction of the improvement, one first has to determine: (I) how much a willing buyer would pay for the vacant property if it already has a roadway that provides access to the property and to the lake; (2) if the property is subject to an easement for use held by others that cannot be removed by the Association and (3) the property cannot be dcveloped due to the rcquiremenls of the City's Shorcland Ordinance The critical determination is then how much a willing buyer would pay for the same property with some roadway improvements that would (I) not provide bettcr land or lake access; (2) would not cme the easement the property is subject to, and (3) duc to the requiremcnts of the City's Shoreland Ordinance, would not make the property developablc. We do not believe a buyer would be willing to pay more for the Association property due to the proposed improvements to Ingerson Court Because thc proposed improvements do not increase the market value of the Association's property and the proposed assessment for improvement to Ingerson Court cxceeds any special benefit to the property, thus, tailing to mcet the applicable legal standards, thc City should delete the Association's property from its Assessment Roll. ? As to the City's third criteria that the proposed assessment produces unfair and undesirable results and thus, should be removcd from the City's Assessment Roll; from a review of the assessments assessed against homeowners in the roadway project at issue, it appears that the assessments proposed to be lcvied against homeo,^,ners amount to Icss than 3% of the market value of the a~sessed properties. However, in the case of thc property owned by the Association, even assuming the Council agrees that the assessment should only be for owncrship of 96 fect of property along the City's right-of- way on Ingerson Court as opposed to 156.5 feet, the proposed assessment is 41 % of the property value ba~ed upon the 2003 assessed valuation of the Association's property. If the City maintains the $7,35550 assessment that would be 66.9% of the property value based upon the 2003 assessed valuation ofthc Association's property Clearly, assessing a small undeveloped, and undevelopable, picce of property 41 % of its property valuc, J