City Council Agenda Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

” And while ORS 195.305(1) specifies that the regulation must “restrict the residential useit is use clear that the residential was in no way whatsoever affected by any 2014 code amendments. B)use . Despite lacking a sound argument for the claimants having been restricted in the of their property the claim proceeds to provide appraisals of very questionable value and in an unacceptable manner. A group of appraisals was entered into the record and when the group didn't meet the requirement for having been done one year before and one year after code changes the dates on all the appraisals were simply changed and resubmitted. The results were appraisals for any new dates but no changes in value number of properties that were identical two years apart – . This is absolutely not credible. Of course, reentering the same appraised value with a new date without an explanation should have immediately raised a red flag for staff. Beside the fact that none of the comparables were large properties with small residential units, many of the comparables were peculiar, if not wrong choices in other ways such as the location in an R3 zone for one and location outside the UGB (and in the Springfield school district!) for another. No appraisal was included for a very similar neighboring property which did sell in th the years under consideration (1781 E. 30 Ave). That said, a convincing argument could have been made if the claim had provided an equal insideoutside number of (similar) comps the area specific neighborhood and the same area and then shown that over the two-year period those outside the area had increased in value and those within had either remained the same or decreased. Given the so-called evidence provided, this claim completely fails to support the argument for loss of value due to area specific code amendment 9.2751(17)(c)9. A complete analysis of residential property values would also be expected to look at all factors market trends at play in the real estate market.Failure to take into account the many at play would alone invalidate any conclusion as to what caused fluctuations in a property's appraised value. It is also highly unusual to base the claimants' pre and post property values on hypothetical primary residences and hypothetical SDU's. Common practice would assume values based on existing structures. According to ORS 195.332 “The fair market value of property does not include any prospective value or possible value based upon future expenditures and improvements.” Therefore, a set of appraisals dependent on the use of several hypotheticals would be rendered invalid. City Councilors should insist at minimum on an independent appraisal review.