Laserfiche WebLink
May 14, 2014 <br />Location: Fbrama>H.:Drive>15153>RndingsFeport <br />FINDINGS REPORT: LAND VAWES <br />ISSUE DESICRI PTI ON <br />A portion of OMC9udy Group members indicated development of the Sabject Rropertyfor a data <br />center user will result in decreased property valuesfor surrounding property owners. In many cases, a <br />10-15%minimum reduction in property values was specified by OMC3udy Group members (based on <br />personal conversations with realtors). <br />In conjunction to this discussion, a pending lawsuit in Ohio relating to a Oti&roup data center was <br />identified as an example of why the City should not be considering a center development on the Sabject <br />Property. <br />ANALYIICS(click here for supplemental information, page 5) <br />Oty staff had a chance to review this concern with the Oty Attorney (Ratwik, Fbsak & Maloney P.A) a <br />Fbsidential Appraiser (anonymous), a Commercial Broker (anonymous), the City's real estate broker <br />(CBI the Anoka County Assessor and the League of M innesota Cities (LM Q. Below is a list of <br />summarized comments. <br />A. This accusation is very subjective and very challenging to quantify. A large number of <br />variables effect the value of property; and, they change over time; and, they change based <br />on perspective. Brokers/experts the City contacted were unable to make a 'firm' quantified <br />opinion related to this acquisition. <br />B. A substantial quantity of case law exists related to this accusation. In general, Courts have <br />consistently ruled against Cities that have made land use regulation decisions based solely <br />on this accusation. Most case law indicatest his accusation is subjective, unclear and lades <br />legal basis. This accusation likely cannot legally standalone—there must be a cause of <br />action (for example, spot zoning). <br />C. Understanding what base comparison surrounding property owners are utilizing to <br />determine perceived changes in value is important. Examples of valuation comparisons are <br />listed below with general comments. <br />COM PARING "X" USE OF SUBJETPROPERTY TO "Y" RJTURE USE <br />In this case, the future use of the abject Property is a potential data center development. A <br />difference in opinion exists between Oty:taff and several OMCStudyGoup members on <br />what the base use/existing comparison of abject Ropertyvalue should be (i.e. the "X" use). <br />X1 Large Open Space/Minor Qty Use <br />Sabject R'opertywas not guided for a large public open space or a park. Based on <br />information the Qty has available, this is an insufficient and irrelevant comparison <br />X2 Smile Family Residential <br />abject R'opertywas not guided for said use. Based on information the Oty has available, <br />this comparison subjective, arbitrary and not most relevant. This specific base comparison <br />has been commonly utilized by residents; and in many cases, is a major reason residents <br />believe a reduction in surrounding property values will occur. <br />OMC3udy Coup, Findings Faport (DR4F7) Page 35 of 42 <br />