Full Text
RESOLUTION NO. 90-12 A RESOLUTION RELATIVE TO THE ASSESSMENT ROLL OF LOCAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT NO. 111 DEALING WITH PROTESTS TO THE ASSESSMENT ROLL AND THEIR DISPOSITION AND PROVIDING FOR OTHER MATTERS PROPERLY RELATING THERETO. CITY OF MOSCOW LATAH COUNTY, IDAHO LOCAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT NO. 111 BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Moscow as follows: WHEREAS, it appears to the Mayor and Council of the City of Moscow, Idaho, (hereinafter called "City"), that each lot, tract, parcel and other property included within Local Improvement District No. 111 of the City will be specifically benefitted by the doing and making of the improvements within said District, as ordained by Ordinance No. 89-19 of the City, heretofore adopted, at least in an amount equal to, as to such lot, parcel of land and other property, in the specific amount and amounts set opposite each such lot, parcel of land and other property upon the Assessment Roll of said Improvement District heretofore filed herein and now on hearing before said council; and that each and all of said assessments are strictly in accordance with the benefits and are in amount and apportionment in accordance with I.e. 50-1712, and the Ordinances of the City, and that said Assessment Roll and each and all of the assessments set forth therein are correct and proper in every respect, and, also the WHEREAS, the members of the Council have considered the Engineer's report in respect to apportionment and the correctness of the assessments respect to the amounts levied on any particular lot parcel of land, including the benefits accruing thereon, the proper apportionment share of the total cost of improvements to be borne thereby and to the inclusion of lot or parcel of land in the proposed District. in or and the any NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED AND FOUND AS FOLLOWS: 1. That each and all of said lots, parcels of land and other property within said District, as the same are described in said Assessment Roll, will be especially benefitted by the making and doing of said improvements in excess of the costs and expenses of said improvement\ ---PAGE BREAK--- 2. That each and every lot and parcel of land is benefitted in the amount of the assessment levied thereon. 3. That the Assessment Roll and the amount levied on any particular lot or parcel of land, including the benefits accruing thereon and the proper proportionate share of the total cost of the improvement to be borne by each lot or parcel of land, are proper, regular, sufficient and correct. 4. That no single assessment has been increased in an amount greater than twenty percent (20%) of the amount of the assessment as set forth in the Notice of Hearing. 5. That the following disposition is made concerning the objections to the Assessment Roll, viz: ADDRESS DISPOSITION OF PROTEST see attached two pages dealing with protests from Council minutes WHEREUPON, proposed Ordinance No. .9/0_-0211---- was presented. Dated this 15th day of --October---' 190 ATTEST: ---PAGE BREAK--- RESOLUTION NO. 90-12 October 15, 1990 10 Councilman Tragesser moved, seconded by Councilman Voxman to adopt Resolution No. 90-12 dealing with the protests to the LID 111 assessment roll and that the disposition of the written protest be as follows: 1. The assessment is made on a fundamentally wrong basis because a front foot assessment assumes the Indian Hills Trading Company property will be be used as intensely as the other property specially benefitted by the improvement. "There appraisal does indicate the value of that land lies in fairly intense commercial development and that is one of the reasons that they used to come up with their estimated value of the property that differed greatly from what the City had. What we don't know is other development on this road has been without the benefit of the paved road, the other commercial development to the south and now that the road is in place future development will not be limited by the lack of the paved road so actually we have probably increased the value of their property over and beyond the original assessment. Of course they are paying for that so that one of things that they are receiving for that. Even if the property will not be used as intently as the property on Palouse River Drive it doesn't mean that they do not have the equal benefit and possible equal benefit to do more to that property than might have originally been planned. I think it has been made on the correct basis on the front foot assessment." 2. The assessment is injust and oppressive in that it exceeds the special benefit to the parcel. "I think that has been spoken to in so far as the owners had the appraised value indicated when we went into our negotiating session at $79,000 an acre. They are not valuing the property as farm land they are valuing it as commercial prices and to develop commercially the property must have a developed road and as farm land it is worth roughly $1,000 an acre. For commercial use or for development use it could be anywhere from $44,000 to $80,000 an acre and as yet we don't know what they are going to do with it. I think what we wound up paying, if the assessment is correct, is what we are paying for the right of-way was roughly $55,000 an acre which far exceeds the value of that farm land at a $1,000 an acre. I have a difficult time understanding why we have changed from the value of commercial back to farm land now that the City has purchased the right-of-way at roughly $55,000 an acre value." 3. The assessment was made without regard to the special benefit to the property. "The special benefit to the property now is an enhanced benefit in that it may now be developed to its highest and best use because the infrastructure is in place ---PAGE BREAK--- October 15, 1990 11 to do this. We did consider special benefits in so far as we are not requiring that driveways be introduced at this time and requiring that anything be developed outside the property that we paved." 4. The assessment is not in proportion to the benefits received. "The only comment we can have is that we have discussed it the three different ways that the city has to assess. The front foot assessment is in proportion to the benefits received on commercial property there was not a whole lot more we could do. We might point out that if we did it on a square foot basis it would be obvious that Indian Hills Trading Co. would be impacted much more severely than they are on the front foot assessment as has been recommended on this particular assessment. 5. The assessment constitutes a taking of property for public use without compensation in violation of the state constitution. "The whole purpose of this hearing is to make certain that the assessment is fair and that there is no unconstitutional taking. That is why we are going through this process. That is why the law requires it and so we are meeting our constitutional requirements and certainly aren't taking property in any violation of any of the State constitution." 6. The assessment ignores the difference in value between an immediate opportunity for use and a use that is prospective only. "It has been pointed out that we haven't had a lot of commercial development take place in the City of Moscow for several reasons. One of the greatest reasons is that the property is not developed and available for commercial development at this time. Right now we don't have a lot of commercial property available so there is a need for the type of commercial light industrial development that we see in the Palouse River Drive area." Roll call vote: AYES: Hodge, Voxman, Tragesser, Crookston, and Baron. NAYS: None. The motion carried unanimously. Councilman Tragesser moved, seconded by Councilman Voxman to adopt Ordinance No. 90-21 under suspension of the rule requiring three separate and complete readings approving and confirming the assessment roll of LID lll and that it be read by title only. Roll call vote: AYES: Baron, Crookston, Tragesser, Voxman, and Hodge. NAYS: None. The motion carried unanimously. Mayor Agidius read Ordinance No. 90-21 by only.