HomeMy WebLinkAbout3438ORDINANCE NO. 34138
AN ORDINANCE of the City of Kent, Washington,
modifying, approving, and confirming the assessments and
assessment roll of Local Improvement District No. 340 for the
construction of an arterial corridor from the Green River at S.
200th Street northeasterly along Russell Road to S. 196th Street
and then easterly along S. 196th Street to the East Valley
Highway as provided by Ordinance No. 3404, and levying and
assessing a part of the cost and expense thereof against the
several lots, tracts, parcels of land and other property as shown
on the assessment roll.
WHEREAS, the assessment roll levying the special assessments against the
property located in Local Improvement District No. 340 in the City of Kent, Washington
(the "City"), has been filed with the City Clerk as provided by law; and
WHEREAS, the City Council delegated under RCW 35.44.070 to the
Public Works Committee the conduct of the hearing as a Board of Equalization on the
assessment roll; and
WHEREAS, notice of the time and place of hearing on the assessment roll
and for making objections and protests to the roll was published at and for the time and in
the manner provided by law fixing the time and place of hearing thereon before the
Committee for the 16' day of November, 1998, at the hour of 3:30 p.m., local time, in the
Council Chambers in the City Hall, Kent, Washington, and further notice thereof was
mailed by the City Clerk to each property owner shown on the roll; and
LID 340 Final Assessment Roll
WHEREAS, notice of the time and place of a supplemental hearing on the
assessment roll and for making objections and protests to the roll was published at and for
the time and in the manner provided by law fixing the time and place of supplemental
hearing before the Public Works Committee for the 4' day of January, 1999, at the hour of
3:30 p.m., local time in the Council Chambers in the City Hall, Kent, Washington, and
further notice thereof was mailed by the City Clerk to each property owner shown on the
notice of supplemental hearing; and
WHEREAS, at the time and place fixed and designated in the notices the
hearings were held, all written protests received were considered and all persons appearing
at the hearing who wished to be heard were heard, and the Committee, sitting and acting
as a Board of Equalization for the purpose of considering the roll and the special benefits
to be received by each lot, parcel and tract of land shown upon such roll, including the
increase and enhancement of the fair market value of each such parcel of land by reason of
the improvement, considered all such protests, determined to modify certain of the
assessments appearing on such roll, and over ruled all other protests; NOW, THEREFORE,
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENT, WASHINGTON,
DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION]: Roll Confirmation. The assessments and assessment roll of
Improvement District No. 340, which has been created and established for the
of constructing an arterial corridor from the Green River at S. 200th Street
along Russell Road to S. 196th Street and then easterly along S. 196th Street
the East Valley Highway, as provided by Ordinance No. 3404, as the same now stand
er the modification made in the Findings as referenced in Section 3 shall be and the same
approved and confirmed in all things and respects in the total amount of
1,314,017.00.
2 LID 340 Final Assessment Roll
SECTION Z Special Benefit. Each of the lots, tracts, parcels of land and
other property shown upon the assessment roll is determined and declared to be specially
benefited by this improvement in at least the amount charged against the same, and the
assessment appearing against the same is in proportion to the several assessments
appearing upon the roll. There is levied and assessed against each lot, tract or parcel of
land and other property appearing upon the roll the amount finally charged against the
same thereon.
SECTION 3. Findings. The Findings of Fact, Conclusions and
Recommendations of the Committee regarding LID 340 (December 14, 1998), and the
Supplemental Findings of Fact, Conclusions and Recommendations of Public Works
Committee Regarding LID 340 (January 14, 1999) attached hereto at Exhibits 1 and 2 are
adopted by the Council and incorporated herein by this reference.
SECTION 4. Notice of Roll. The assessment roll as modified, approved,
confirmed shall be filed with the Finance Division Director of the City for collection
the Finance Division Director is authorized and directed to publish notice as required
law stating that the roll is in her hands for collection and that payment of any assessment
or any portion of such assessment can be made at any time within 30 days from the
of first publication of such notice without penalty, interest or cost, and that thereafter
sum remaining unpaid may be paid in fifteen (15) equal annual installments. The
interest rate is stated to be 6.25% per annum, with the exact interest rate to be
in the ordinance authorizing the issuance and sale of the local improvement bonds for
Improvement District No. 340. The first installment of assessments on the
roll shall become due and payable during the 30 -day period succeeding the date
year after the date of first publication by the Finance Division Director of notice that
assessment roll is in her hands for collection and annually thereafter each succeeding
shall become due and payable in like manner. If the whole or any portion of
3 LID 340 Final Assessment Roll
A- assessment remains unpaid after the first 30 -day period, interest upon the whole unpaid
sum shall be charged at the rate as determined above, and each year thereafter one of the
installments, together with interest due on the unpaid balance, shall be collected. Any
installment not paid prior to expiration of the 30 -day period during which such installment
is due and payable shall thereupon become delinquent. Each delinquent installment shall
be subject, at the time of delinquency, to a charge of 9% penalty levied on both principal
and interest due upon that installment, and all delinquent installments also shall be charged
interest at the rate as determined above. The collection of such delinquent installments
shall be enforced in the manner provided by law.
SECTION S: - Severability. If any one or more sections, subsections, or
sentences of this Ordinance are held to be unconstitutional or invalid, such decision shall
affect the validity of the remaining portion of this Ordinance and the same shall remain
in full force and effect.
SECTION 6: - Effective Date. This ordinance shall take effect and be in
five (5) days from and after its passage, approval and publication as provided by
CLERK
AS
A. LUBOVICH,
WHITE, MAYOR
4 LID 340 Final Assessment Roll
PASSED: Iq day of
APPROVED: oW day of
PUBLISHED: oR a day of
1999.
ICL119
1999.
I hereby certify that this is a true copy of Ordinance No. 311134F , passed
the City Council of the City of Kent, Washington, and approved by the Mayor of the
City of Kent as hereon indicated.
I PACivil\Winmce\LID 340 Final Assess Roll.doc
BRENDA JACO&k, CITY CLERK
5 LID 340 Final Assessment Roll
EXHIBIT
FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF PUBLIC WORKS
COMMITTEE REGARDING LID 340
I.
FINDINGS OF FACT
A. GENERAL LID FINDINGS
1. Since the early 1980's, both the City and other regional and
state agencies have determined the need for a cross -valley
arterial roadway to serve the business and citizens who use the
north Kent Valley.
2. As presently designed, the South 196th Street Corridor
Project ("Project") will provide another east/west corridor across
the Valley, connecting I-5 with East Valley Highway with a grade
separated crossing of the mainline railroad tracks.
3. On June 2. 1998, the Kent City Council passed Ordinance
#3404 which formed LID 340 for the purpose of partially funding
the Project. The LID boundary is generally bounded by South 180th
Street on the north, SR 167 on the east, South 228th on the south
and the Kent city limits on the Green River on the west.
4. Project improvements are as follows:
• The intersection of Orillia Road/S. 200th Street will
be signalized, and two south- to eastbound left -turn
lanes will be added to Orillia road. Between Orillia
Road and the Green River, S. 200th Street will be
widened from two to four travel lanes with a center
left -turn lane where needed. The north leg of Frager
Road at S. 200th Street will be realigned to a "T"
intersection roughly 700 feet west of its current
location. The south leg of Frager Road will be
eliminated and the road will terminate just south of S.
200th Street in a cul-de-sac. Bicycle lanes five feet
wide and sidewalks 5.5 feet wide will be constructed on
both sides of S. 200th Street.
• A new bridge will span Green River, accommodating the
four lanes of S. 220th Street and the bike lanes and
sidewalks.
• East of the Green River, Russell Road and S. 196th will
follow their existing alignment to Mill Creek just
beyond the 72nd Avenue S. right-of-way, but will be
widened to five lanes, including a center turn -lane,
for the entire length. Sidewalks will be included in
the design, as well as bicycle lanes connecting to the
Interurban Trail.
(300481.DOC;2) 1
12/08/98
• From S. 196th Street, just west of Mill Creek, 72nd
Avenue S. will be extended along the existing right-of-
way to its current terminus at approximately S. 194th
Street.
• A new bridge, approximately 1,425 feet long will span
Mill Creek, the Western Processing site, two sets of
mainline railroad tracks, and the Weyerhaeuser and
South Seattle Auto Auction sites. The bridge will
include four lanes with sidewalks, but no bicycle lanes
will be provided.
• From the east end of the bridge to 84th Avenue S., the
road will be located along the existing S. 196th Street
right-of-way and through the Kingsport Industrial Park.
The road will consist of four travel lanes with a
center turn lane and sidewalks on both sides. No
bicycle lanes will be provided along this segment.
5. On November 16, 1998, having given notice in accordance with
applicable law, the Public Works Committee (Committee) of the
Council met for the purpose of hearing any protest to the final
assessment roll for LID 340 and forwarding recommendations to the
full City Council for final action. At that time the Committee
received a total of 18 protests from various property owners in
the LID which had been filed in accordance with the notice and
state law. Each protest was assigned a number beginning with P1.
A further protest from Lincoln Distribution Center was received
after the deadline and therefore was rejected as non -timely.
6. The Committee heard testimony from the City and all property
owners who had submitted timely protests and wished to be heard.
25 exhibits were offered during the course of the hearing and were
given sequential numbers, beginning with 1. The hearing was
continued to November 23, 1998 for rebuttal evidence from the City
and final arguments.
7. Based on the testimony, exhibits and final arguments, the
Committee makes the following additional general findings, which
will be followed by specific findings related to each parcel.
B. GENERAL FINDINGS AS TO ALL PARCELS
1. Prior to work commencing on the Project, there were no
through street connections. Instead, the existing roadways are
primarily two -land paved roads with minimal drainage and lighting,
terminating at the Green River and the railroads.
• On the west side of the Green River, in unincorporated
King County, S. 200th Street is a paved two-lane road
with narrow gravel shoulders. There are plowed fields
on both sides of the road. A Class 2 stream exists
(3004e1.noc;2) 2
12/08/98
both within culverts and in open channels on the south
side of the road.
• In the City of Kent on the east side of Green River,
Russell Road, between S. 196th Street and the projected
center line of S. 200th Street, is an existing paved
road and transitions from three lanes to two lanes.
Although Russell Road is a designated bicycle facility,
cyclists generally use the travel lanes because the
shoulders are narrow and in some places, non-existent.
• S. 16th Street, between Russell Road and SR -181, has
three paved lanes and paved shoulders.
• Between SR -181 and Mill Creek, S. 196th Street is two
lanes wide with paved shoulders.
• Along the east side of Mill Creek lies the Western
Processing property, a designated federal Superfund
site under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency.
• Further east, between Western Processing and 84th
Avenue S., two sets of mainline railroad tracks run
north/south through and beyond the project area. The
tracks are owned and operated b Burlington Northern
(BN) and Union Pacific (UP) railroad companies. To the
east of these tracks, S. 196th is paved leading from
84th Avenue S. approximately halfway to the railroad
tracks.
2. After construction of the improvements, traffic access and
circulation throughout the north end of the Green River Valley
will be improved by the following:
• Providing another east/west arterial corridor across
the Valley.
• Providing an above -grade crossing over both mainline
tracks, allowing continuous traffic without railroad
delays along one major east/west corridor.
• Providing direct access to the I-5 corridor to the west
across the Green River, diverting substantial traffic
flow from the north and south along both East Valley
and West Valley Highways.
• Mitigate existing and future traffic conditions along
S. 180th and S. 212th Streets.
3. In developing the final assessment roll, the City initially
considered using the zone and termini method set forth in RCW
(300481.Doc;2) 3
12/09/98
35.44.030. However, the City testified that because of the
variety of property types, sizes, development potential and
zoning, the zone and termini method was not used. In its place
the special benefit analysis was used. City witnesses testified
that this method would more fairly reflect the special benefits to
the various properties within the LID boundaries. No other
witnesses provided testimony to dispute this assertion.
4. The City hired the firm of Bruce C. Allen and Associates,
Inc. to perform the special benefit analysis. Bruce Allen and
Deborah Foreman performed the analysis and provided testimony.
5. A Preliminary Special Benefits Study, dated May 12, 1998, was
prepared. (Exhibit 20) This report was available for inspection
by the various property owners within the LID. Representatives
from the Allen Company discussed the analysis with a variety of
property owners and made some adjustments in their special benefit
analysis.
6. A Final Special Benefits Study, dated October 30, 1998, was
prepared by Allen and Foreman and submitted as the basis for the
final assessment roll. (Exhibit 4)
7. Any finding, general or specific deemed to be a conclusion,
shall be considered as such.
C. FINDINGS AS TO SPECIFIC PROTESTS
1. P1, A.P.E. LLC was, continued to December 7 to allow counsel
for the property owner more time to present evidence and will be
subject to further hearing on January 4, 1999 at 3:30 pm.
2. P2, Puget Sound Energy. Mr. Frank Swan, a land planner,
provided testimony that his client's property was not suited to
other uses than a utility corridor. The City's witnesses disputed
this assertion, and gave examples of other PSE property that have
been used for non-utility purposes.
3. P3, William Boeing, Jr. Pursuant to stipulation, the City
agreed that this assessment would be reduced to $0.
4. P4, Paul Rehn. No testimony was provided.'
5. P5, Mathilda De Mayo. No testimony was provided.
6. P6 and P7, Arco Products. No testimony was provided.
7. P8, Beatrice Wieser. No testimony was provided.
'Information contained in the protest materials was considered
by the Committee. No witnesses provided additional testimony.
(300461.DOc;2) 4
12/08/98
8. P9, Richard Brooks. No testimony was provided. Mr. Brooks'
only issue appears to be that his property is currently designated
in current use pursuant to RCW 84.34.300, and therefore is not
subject to LID assessment so long as such designation is
maintained.
9. P10, Peggi Gates, Orillia Industrial Associates. No
testimony was provided.
10. P11, Michael Scully. Mr. Scully, the property owner
testified. His property is subject to an Environmental Mitigation
Agreement (EMA) which established a mitigation amount in excess of
what his assessment would be according to the special benefit
analysis. Mr. Scully provided the Committee with the square foot
assessments of adjoining property.
11. P12, United Warehouses. No testimony was provided.
12. P13, Union Pacific Railroad. Testimony was provided by
Counsel for the railroad, Carolyn Larson and George Donnerberg, a
MAI appraiser. Both witnesses testified that there were no
special benefits to the railroad property because the existing
rail tracks were the highest and best use
13. P14, Nicholas Nesland. Counsel for the property owner, T.J.
Parkes testified and submitted an appraisal by Roger Ockfen, a MAI
appraiser. In rebuttal, the City submitted a supplemental
analysis by the Allen Company (Exhibit 21), and testimony of Ms
Foreman.
14. P15, Chevron USA, Inc. Testimony was provided by Yolanda
Byeman, property development specialist for Chevron. She
testified that because she believed there would be less traffic in
front of the Chevron property, the LID improvements would have a
negative effect on property values. Mr. James Price, a MAI
appraiser testified that in his opinion the LID improvements would
have no impact on the fair market value of the Chevron property.
He also submitted an appraisal that recited the same conclusion
(Appraisal contained in P15). In rebuttal, the City submitted
supplemental analysis (Exhibit 22) from the Allen company, and
testimony of Ms Foreman and Mr. Allen. In addition to requesting
a $0 assessment, counsel for Chevron requested credit for property
dedicated to the City by the former owner.
15. P16. Mr. Jones. The property owner testified that he was
forced to sign the EMA for his property and that other properties
in the vicinity were charged less on a square foot basis.
16. P17. David S. Bolin, agent for 8462 Associates. The property
owner testified, but did not submit any appraisal evidence.
(300481.DOC;2) 5
12/08/98
17. P18. Mr. Temkin. The property owner testified that his
property should not be considered in the primary zone of
proximity, but rather the secondary. His property is located at
the east end of the improvements. A traffic signal will be
installed to control ingress and egress from his property.
18. The protest received from Lorna
Distribution Center was late and
considered. No one appeared at the
property owner.
II.
CONCLUSIONS
Faxon on behalf of Lincoln
therefore should not be
hearing on behalf of the
A. GENERAL CONCLUSIONS
1. Any conclusion deemed to be a finding shall be so considered.
2. Special benefits are measurable increases in the value of
real property in excess of any enhancement to the general area.
It is measured as the difference between the market value of the
property without the LID project and the market value with the LID
project assumed completed.
3. Initially, the City is favored with certain presumptions:
that the improvements are a benefit to the property within the
LID, the assessment is no greater than the benefit, the assessment
is equal or ratable to the assessments upon other properties
similarly situated, and the assessment is fair. rn a Indian Trail
Trunk Sewer, 35 Wash. App. 840 (1983) . The property owners must
present expert appraisal testimony to overcome these presumptions.
4. The special benefit analysis performed by the City more
fairly reflects the special benefits to the properties within the
LID than the zone and termini method.
B. CONCLUSIONS AS TO SPECIFIC PROPERTIES
1. Protests P6, P7, P9, P10, P12, P17, and P18 should each be
denied on the basis that the property owners have not overcome the
City's presumptions.
2. With respect to P4, P5 and P8, it appears that the properties
are currently improved with single family homes and are currently
being used as such. While this is not the highest and best use,
the Committee concludes that the assessments should be deferred,
subject to the property owner qualifying under RCW 84.38. City
staff should work with claimants to complete forms necessary for
consideration by the county under Chapter 84.38 RCW. if the
property owners elect not to sign such a deferral, the assessments
must be paid as required by law.
{300481.DOC;2} 6
12/08/98
3. With respect to P11 and P16, the Committee finds that while
the property owners did execute valid EMAs on their property, the
surrounding property owners whose properties are not subject to
EMAs are paying less per square foot, and therefore, in equity,
these two protests should be granted in part. For 211, the
assessment should be reduced to $.20 per square foot and for P16
the assessment should be reduced to $.22 per square foot.
4. With respect to P2, the Committee concludes that the property
owner has not met its burden to overcome the City's presumptions.
In any case, the Committee concludes that the property is subject
to other economical uses and that the property owners have valued
the property in a manner that indicates economical uses other than
as a utility corridor.
5. With regard to P13, the Committee concludes that the railroad
property is subject to assessment. The present use of the
property cannot be used to determine the benefits that may accrue.
In re West Wheeler 97 Wash. 669,675 (1917). The Committee
concludes that the testimony of Mr. Allen and Ms Foreman should be
given greater weight than the testimony of the railroad witnesses
because, among other things, Allen and Foreman examined specific
sales data and Mr. Allen indicated that his firm had many years
experience in appraising railroad property. Parcel 113, however
presents a unique situation. This parcel is basically landlocked
between the merging rail tracks and thus is of limited use, other
than as railroad property. For this reason, the Committee
concludes that the assessment on this parcel should be reduced to
$25,677.
6. With respect to P14, the Committee has considered both
appraisals and concludes that the assessment should be reduced to
$75,000. The Committee agrees with the Ockfen analysis to the
extent that the improvements will tend to impair truck access to
the site. Therefore the special benefits ascribed by the Allen
study are overstated to some extent. The Committee agrees that
the rest of the Allen analysis should be given more weight
because, among other things, the Ockfen appraisal contains errors
and internal inconsistencies.
7. With respect to the P15, the Committee concludes that the
appraisal testimony of Mr. Allen and Ms Foreman should be given
greater weight. Both appraisers concluded that the "before" value
of the property was $18 per square foot. Mr. Price did not
conduct any sales analysis of the property in the "after"
situation. Allen did under take such analysis. This gives more
credibility to the Allen appraisal.
While Ms Byeman testified that traffic passing by the gas
station would decrease after the improvements were completed, she
offered no factual basis for this conclusion. Mr. Price's
conclusions as to the "after" value of the property are also based
(300481.DOC;2} 7
12/08/98
on the assumption that traffic volumes would be reduced. (See page
15 of Mr. Price's appraisal submitted as part of P15) Mr. Price
can offer no factual basis for this assumption and in fact notes
the "absence of detailed traffic studies and projections".
Ms Foreman's opinions were based, in part, on the assumption
that congestion in the area would be lessened, which assumption
was supported by the testimony of other City witnesses, including
Don Wickstrom. Less congested streets do not necessarily mean
fewer cars. For this reason, in part, the Committee concludes
that the Allen analysis of special benefits should be given more
weight than the Price appraisal.
Counsel for Chevron also argued that the assessments were
founded on a fundamentally wrong basis. However Mr. Price
indicated that he accepted the professional qualifications of Mr.
Allen and in fact undertook the same "before" and "after"
analysis.
With respect to the issue of the credit, the Committee
concludes that no credit should be given. The statute, RCW
35.44.420, applies to property that has been dedicated to make the
LID improvements. The property that was dedicated by Chevron's
predecessors in interest was not used for the LID improvements.
III.
CONCLUSIONS
Based on the foregoing Findings and Conclusions, the
Committee recommends to the City Council as follows:
A. Pursuant to stipulation, the Committee recommends P3 be
GRANTED and the assessment reduced to $0.
B. The Committee recommends the following protests be
GRANTED IN PART: P11, assessment reduced to $.20 per square foot;
P13, parcel 113 be reduced to $25,677; P14, assessment reduced to
$75,000; P16, assessment reduced to $.22 per square foot.
C. The Committee recommends the following protests be
DENIED: P2; P6; P7; P9; P10; P12; P13, with the exception of
parcel 113; 215; P17 and P18.
D. The Committee recommends the following protests be
DENIED, but that the assessments be DEFERRED upon qualification by
the property owners under RCW 84.38: P4; P5 and P8.
E. The Committee recommends that, except as specifically
(300481.00c;2) 8
12/08/98
provided above, the final assessment roll be confirmed
without modification.
DATED THIS ___Ji�__day of December, 1998
7�L L
Tim Clark, Chair
Tom Brotherton
t€ona rr
WDT217660.2P/F0085.090001/B0085.0085.09001
(300481.DOC;2}
12/08/98
:1
J
EXHIBIT.
SUPPLEMENTAL FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS AND RECONEVIENDATIONS
OF PUBLIC WORKS COM %IrrrEE REGARDING LID 340
WHEREAS, pursuant to a Notice of Supplemental Hearing mailed to certain property
owners on or about December 16, 1998, the Public Works Committee of the Kent City Council
held a hearing on January 4, 1999 to consider protests to the final assessment role for LID 340.
Based upon the testimony and evidence submitted, the Committee now enters the following:
I.
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. These supplemental Findings, Conclusions and Recommendations are a
continuation of the Findings of Fact, Conclusions and Recommendations previously entered by
the Committee. Therefore, the Committee re -adopts the general LID findings and the general
findings as to all parcels as set forth in that document.
2. Protest P1, APE LLC, pursuant to earlier order, was continued to this date for
presentation of evidence. The property owner had previously submitted an appraisal from Roger
Ockfen, an MAI appraiser (Exhibit 26). The City presented rebuttal testimony of Deborah
Foreman and submitted supplemental appraisal information.
3. Four additional protests were received at the January 4 supplemental hearing.
These protests were contained in a letter dated January 4, 1999 from RREEF Management Co.,
signed by Ginger Mueller. These protests were assigned numbers as follows: P19, which is the
Northward Business Park, LID parcel #215; P2o is the West Valley Distribution, LID parcels
#147 and #119; P21 is described as KCP 72 and is LID parcel #401; P22 is described as KCP
216 and is LID parcel #448. Testifying for the properties was Chuck Mahlen, an employee of
RREEF Management Co. Mr. Mahlen is not an appraiser. The City presented rebuttal
testimony from Deborah Foreman and Tom Bradley of CTE Engineers.
CONCLUSIONS
A. rte* CW Conclusions
1. The Committee incorporates the general conclusions previously adopted.
•� •� • ►yam _� 111��
{300590.DOC.11 1
WD'[221280.1SX OM-090.00I.Ol/B0085.090001
1. Protest P19, P20, P21 and P22 should each be denied on the basis that the
property owners have not overcome the City's presumptions. The Committee acknowledges that
the City has preserved a possible challenge to P19 on the basis of prior notice.
2. With respect to Pl, it appears that the property owner concedes there are special
benefits to the property. The only issue is to what extent the property is specially benefited.
The Committee finds that the Ockfen appraisal (Exhibit 26) suffers from a fundamental flaw,
namely the appraisal's lack of consideration of the benefits of the improvements to 72nd along
the entire length of the subject property. Improvement of 72nd, together with the improvements
along 196th, will render this property superior to other properties in the area in terms of access
and visibility. On the other hand, the Committee concludes that the Bruce Allen appraisals and
the testimony of the City's witnesses are more believable since, among other things, they
incorporated the improvement of 72nd in their analysis. Further, the Committee concludes that
the measure of special benefit is to the property, not to whatever business may happen to be using
it at any particular time. The Foreman analysis proceeded from this principal, while the property
owner's analysis did not. Nevertheless, when comparing the subject property to immediately
surrounding properties it does appear that some adjustment should be made, particularly in light
of the Committee's recommended action on the Neslund property, P14. The Committee finds
that the subject property will be specially benefited to a greater extent than the Neslund property
primarily due to the location. Therefore, the Committee recommends that the assessment be
reduced to $203,805.
u
RECOMMENDATIONS
Based on the foregoing Supplemental Findings and Conclusions, the Committee
recommends to the City Council as follows:
A. The Committee recommends that the following protests be DENIED: P19, P20,
P21 and P22.
B. The Committee recommends that the following protests be GRANTED IN PART:
P1, Assessment reduced to $203,805.
On January 4 the Committee has further unanimously authorized the Chair to review and
approve these Supplemental Findings and Conclusions.
DATED this� day of January, 1999.
(300590.DOC.1 )
2
W OT2212LW.1 S X/FOM.090.001.01 /BM.09=1
lNOL
Tim Clark, Chair