05-29-07 Item 6A, 2007 PMP Assessment Hearing

Home Browse Search

2007 PMP 5/24/2007 Page 3 Chapter 429 of state statute has two major points to consider when justifying assessments. First, the assessment has to treat similar properties equally, and second the amount of the assessment has to be equal to or less than the resulting increase in property value. All properties in the commercial area are proposed to be assessed the same amount. According to Ramsey County records, the average property value in the area is approximately $14.32 per square fODt. The property value for Flaherty's three parcels totals $1,692,400. Their proposed assessment is less than two percent of the property value. While two of the three parcels owned by the Flahertys are parking lots, they would not have sufficient parking on the parcel which houses the bowling alley. With the two additional parcels, Flaherty's Arden Bowl exceeds its parking requirements. If either of these parcels were sold, it is likely they would be redeveloped to a different commercial use; the selling price would reflect this change in use. By improving the road to the level that this project has done, we believe there is a direct benefit to property owners. These improvements will extend the life of the street 15 to 20 years, and was done at a significantly reduced cost than it would have been to reconstruct the street entirely. Staff recommendation: Staff committed to facilitating discussions between the owner and contractor to address the owner's concerns; however, it is up to the contractor and property owner to corne to an agreement on the necessary repairs. The 70% assessment rate fDr commercial properties is consistent with the City's Assessment Policy. The policy does not recognize the current use of that property, only the zoning. Staff does not recommend deviation from the policy. 3) Oral comment: 1549 Briarknoll Drive, Mike Moghaddam Mr. Moghaddam indicated that he did not receive any notices prior to the assessment hearing notification. He expressed concern that his tax money was not being wisely spent, and he does not have the money to pay for this assessment. He also stated that the proposed interest rate is incredibly high. 4) Oral comment: 3724 Brighton Way, Jens Breiland Mr. Breiland indicated that he also did not receive prior notification that included information about the amount of the assessment. He stated that he felt the condition of his road was fine, and questioned whether this project was a wise use of money. 5) Oral/written comment: 1518 Briarknoll Drive, Nicholas Walker Mr. Walker stated that his street was in the same condition as the neighboring streets which were seal coated, and asked why his street was not just a seal coat as well. His second concern was that Briarknoll Drive is used as a cut-through street by people who do not live in the neighborhDod, and asked that a reduced assessment rate be considered as a result. Mr. Walker spoke again later, commenting that several utility repairs have been completed along Briarknoll Drive in the recent past.