CC_Minutes_1980_1117 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

5 the matter is you don't have to make that decision tonight, but by the same token, you should hear from the people and they may say we're in favor if it's 25% and opposed if its 100%. You take that into consideration because the final decision will be made at the time of the assessment hearing. Mr. Bell is right that like property should be assessed as nearly as equal as possible. A subdivider of a whole piece of property gets greater benefits than people who individually buy lots later from the subdivider, and that was the purpose of your policy adopted several years ago. This is the first time I've seen this come into play that it wasn't a subdivider you were assessing, but a subdivider who sold off property to some people who bought it and the subdivider still retains some of the lots, so you have a hybrid situation, not like the normal ones where the subdivider still owns all the land. We recommend that whatever assessment you adopt (inaudible) and this applies to all of them. Obviously the assessment cannot exceed the benefit. MAYOR DEMOS: Supposing those who have built there (inaudible) and bought from subdividers are given the 25%, can we hold the subdivider for the 100%? MR. POPOVICH: We still have the benefit on the rest, and the escrow or bond is the way you hold the subdivider so that's why you have that three-year rule in order to catch those people who subdivide but the improvements aren't yet put in but are put in in that three-year period of time. Supposing I was a subdivider and subdivided 15 lots, according to your permission, 6 months ago, and I went out and sold them to 15 people individually. I got my money. I'm no longer here. You're dealing with 15 people. You can't get back at me unless I put up a bond. MAYOR DEMOS: Suppose you're still holding 10 and only sold five? MR. POPOVICH: Then you negotiate with me. The subdivider was willing to go along (inaudible) becau se many times subdividers say my lot doesn't benefit more than this one, but because of other things being done for me in the City, he's willing to forego the challenging of an assessment in Court and that often happens, but that's a negotiating factor at the time of the assessment hearing. MAYOR DEMOS: There are certain names you call developers like that. MR. POPOVICH: Those are some of the practical problems you have. But you see, the tests are what we must remember, on all assessments the property must be benefited. They must be benefited by the increase of market value from what was the value before the improvement and after because if anyone challenges, Mr. Bell's office will have to (inaudible) with appraisals. Normally in our (inaudible) you do have this policy where only a percentage is assessed and the rest picked up over the City. We can always show the benefits where only 25% is assessed, but when it's 100% it doesn't necessarily follow because some improvements cost more