CC MIN 06-08- to 12-21-1981 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

that Fluor was able to purchase the property at only $5.00, because Mobil wanted a major development in order to entice other developers and that presently similar property is being offered at $12-14 per square foot. Comment was made concerning the value of smaller properties on Veterans Boulevard. Moil Adair Slater, Redwood Shores, Inc., suggested that downtown property is more valuable because of the greater density possible, and the sales prices reflect it. Pat Murphy, Controller, Redwood Shores, Inc. said that commercial property on the waterfront is less valuable because the part under water is considered part of the parcel, but it is not buildable. Mr. Murphy's remarks were challenged, since waterfront property is usually considered to have higher value as was reflected in home prices in Redwood Shores. In response to request for specific values of certain parcels in the Fluor area, Mr. Torkelson gave the following figures: 95-13 - $7.50; 95-07 - $8.00; 95-12 - $6.50; 95-06 - $7.00; and 95-08 - $6.50. John Murphy, 421 Luff Lane, asked the average square foot assessment of residential property for high and low density areas. Gregg Doran (see above) inquired concerning the difference in cost of the lots in a parcel to be developed for homes and the value assessed for each homeowner's lot after development. Mr. Torkelson explained that there are few buyers for large parcels of land for development of many homes as compared to the number able to buy one home and that in addition to the price of the land, the buyer must prepare the land and construct homes on it before it is offered to individual buyers. Also, Mr. Torkelson pointed out that he must • assess the value of residences on the basis of the known value through sales of similar parcels, that is,at fair market value. Discussion continued and Mr. Torkelson and Mr. Ference commented and replied to questions concerning the need of Council to justify mid assessed valuation to all property owners; the fact that requirements relating to manner of determining fair market value of residential, commercial and industrial property must be followed; the fact that the market value of residential, commercial and industrial property must be followed; the fact that the market can absorb only a certain amount of property in a given period; why condominium lots may be assessed as - much as single-family home lots; the fact that property developed as residences is claimed to have increased several hundred percent while a similar increase has evidently not occurred for undeveloped property; the fact that sale price of similar properties is the basis for determining present value; and the fact that the spread between the value of developed residential property and undeveloped commercial property appears to be growing. Mr. Ference stated that the average single-family dwelling increased 11% over the assessed value in 1980-81 with other increases as follows: condominiums - 9% to 28%; undeveloped land - 46%; commercial - 115%; condominiums under construction - 138%. Mr. Ference said that overall the residential increase over last year is 14%, which is less than in the past, and it is not expected to rise in the next year. Gregg Doran (see above) asked about some nine million dollars worth of parcels which are apparently missing from the Roll. Mr. Ference explained that the parcels are all included, but that those to which reference is made have been renumbered or are in different land combinations. With regard to questions concerning assessment of Fluor property, Mr. Torkelson said that the major parcel is valued at $7.50 per square foot because it is in a good location and as a rectangle is readily Iowa Bd.Equal. krri 7/20/81 Page 2