CC MIN 1979 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

3 � Mr. Ference observed that in considering all of the figures pre- sented it must be remembered that March 1, 1979 was the assessment date and that as of that date the project bonds had not yet been sold. Discussion followed and Mr. Bohegian and Mr. Slater commented and replied to questions regarding the value of the assessed properties; ""'""'" the effect construction of the bond projects will have on future evaluations of property; the prices Mobil expects to get for the � land; whether their estimates of the value of the land are too low; whether Mobil can offer any figures regarding the fixed cost per acre of getting property to the marketplace; the claims of the Army Corps of Engineers regarding jurisdiction; the fact that the value of land is the same whether or not the owner chooses to build, if the land is developable; and the need for appraisers to be prudent and not speculate as to values. In response to question, City Attorney Schricker advised that there are two legal reasons for the District having an assessor: 1) ORDINANCE N0. 1128 setting up the District adopted the sections of the Revenue and Taxation Code providing for an assessor; and 2) the State Constitution relating to fair market value as defined by the courts. He advised that the purpose of the District having its own assessor is so that the District will always be current with regard to changing values. Mr. Schricker noted that the County Assessor is not able to value all property every year, so that some property is always undervalued, but that the District is valued every year. He advised that the same appraisal principles must be � used by the Oistrict Assessor as by the County. Peter Gruchala,` 573 Marlin Court, described his experience in ' �, attempting to purchase business property similar to that in the District and the prices quoted to him. He suggested that Redwood � Shores property is undervalued even as of the March 1 date, and ' stated that he has been quoted prices for that property by Mobil which suggest the value per acre is almost four times as much as ' the appraisal. Discussion followed concerning prudent appraisal practices and the best evidence of value as demonstrated by recent sales in the area of similar properties. It was pointed out that asking price is not the basis for assessed value of property. Mr. Ference noted that the appraisal firm is a national organiza- ' tion with much experience and the only instructions given to them are that they are to use appraisal techniques consistent with the statutes. He advised that every parcel 9n the District has been reviewed, and he has examined the Roll and finds it to be equalized. In response to question relating to the "Summary" figures, Mr. Ference advised tMey were presented in order to break out certain figures which might be of interest to the Board. City Attorney Schricker advised that the work of the Council is to declare the Roll equalized sub�ect to such modifications as may occur because of individual applications for ad�ustment, noting that the �adline for filing of such applications is September 15, 1979. ; ; ; , � Bd�Equal. ; 8/6/79 ? Page 2 � I ; � , 1