Rehabilitation and Maintenance Plans are included in the packet. Despite the lengthy process the owners have been ideal and working with the Planning Department to meticulously restore the upon property. The Planning Department recommends approval of this contract in conformance with the unanimous recommendation of approval this year. The application rehabilitation and Maintenance Program is consistent with the requirements of the mills act. I am available to answer any questions about the application and the program and a representative from the Assessors Office can answer questions about the reevaluation. Okay. Good afternoon supervisors. Trisha on behalf of the assessors records office. I would like to thank you for the opportunity to address you today. I am here with my colleague who can address specific questions. Before i turn it over to mike i want to acknowledge the hard work of mr. Stein and mr. Peeps and for their understanding and commitment to Historic Preservation i want t
Okay. Much appreciated. We dont have a budget Analyst Report so we will move to Public Comment. No Public Comment so its closed. Colleagues, can i have a motion to approve these items . Mr. Chairman i believe there is a need to amend the title. Okay. Actually chairman farrell can i ask a question . Please supervisor mar. I know in my conversations with the city administrator there have been discussions whether this project move forward like a private Public Partnership like dial drive project and other approaches and i am wonderings if you could talk about that. [inaudible] construction project by the federal highway bridge program. Just to speak to the amendment to the title of the item as well. The original title to the item cited a project combined value for the project of just over 50 million. That was referencing the peak annual reimbursement under underneath the construction moa and not the aggregate for the moa and for the rightofway and the combined value as presented in the am
Should be closer to 1. 1 million instead of 1 million and impact to the city of 6,000 versus 7,000. I did note that we consulted with the City Attorney and noted this lower estimate is not substantive and would not require a continuance and now i would like to turn it over to michael who will address the General Mills act process and for the corrected estimate rational. Thank you trisha and good afternoon chair farrell and supervisors. I am here to speak on the general process the Assessors Office goes through evaluating a mills act property. I can speak on the specific evaluation for buchanan street. For all of properties we are to do this and what is the facta [inaudible] value and the original Purchase Price and the inflation factor added each year and then a market value of the property. By looking at sales in the area we look at what could the property sell for at that time and this is a mills act value and proscribed by state law. The code says the rate that we should be using th
Evaluation used 4 for the entire property. We were thats incorrect because part of the property is Owner Occupied so we applied the 4 risk rate to the Owner Occupied portion of the rate and 2 for the non Owner Occupied portion of the property. This resulted in evaluation being adjusted to. 29 95. And the second handout is the revised summary page. The three prong test as you can see and the current assessed value is listed here and result in taxes of approximately 19,000. Based upon the three prong test the lower of the values, the restricted value, which is 1. 1 million, and the factory facta value and 2 million and the value should be as listed here and results in tax savings of approximately 6,000 and i am here to answer any questions you may have. Thank you. Colleagues do we have any questions . Thank you very much. Mr. Rose can we go to the budget Analyst Report please. Yes mr. Chairman and members of the committee, on page 20 of the report and im going to use the revised numbers
The buchanan street. From that market rent we subtracted and allowable vacancy and collection loss. We subtracted some operating expenses that should be allowed for the property to approve at the net income. The change was made in the risk factor. For over occupied buildings its 4 . For all other property types the risk factor is 2 . Our initial evaluation used 4 for the entire property. We were thats incorrect because part of the property is Owner Occupied so we applied the 4 risk rate to the Owner Occupied portion of the rate and 2 for the non Owner Occupied portion of the property. This resulted in evaluation being adjusted to. 29 95. And the second handout is the revised summary page. The three prong test as you can see and the current assessed value is listed here and result in taxes of approximately 19,000. Based upon the three prong test the lower of the values, the restricted value, which is 1. 1 million, and the factory facta value and 2 million and the value should be as list