Laserfiche WebLink
BOARD OF REVIEW MINUTES May 9, 2011 <br /> APPROVED <br /> 1 CITY OF LINO LAKES <br /> `, 2 MINUTES <br /> 3 BOARD OF REVIEW <br /> 4 <br /> 5 DATE : May 9,2011 <br /> 6 TIME STARTED : 5:45 p.m. <br /> 7 TIME ENDED : 6:30 p.m. <br /> 8 MEMBERS PRESENT : Council Member Gallup, Roeser, and Mayor <br /> 9 Reinert <br /> 10 MEMBERS ABSENT : Council Member Rafferty and O'Donnell <br /> 11 <br /> 12 Staff members present: City Administrator Jeff Karlson; Public Safety Director John Swenson; City <br /> 13 Clerk Julie Bartell <br /> 14 <br /> 15 Anoka County Assessor Linda Weiner noted that the council continued the board meeting so as to <br /> 16 continue discussion on two matters: a)the lakeshore properties on Bald Eagle Lake that are split <br /> 17 between Anoka and Washington County; and b) Mr. Jackson's property at 431 Post Road. <br /> 18 <br /> 19 There was no one present wishing to speak on the Bald Eagle Lake property. The council received an <br /> 20 update from Ms. Weiner on the property. City staff had met with her, an Anoka County appraiser, <br /> 21 Hugo's Community Development Director, and a Washington County appraiser to discuss the Bald <br /> 22 Eagle Lake property values. Historically, the Washington County appraiser had adjusted the lake <br /> 23 frontage values to $1,000 per linear foot, which resulted in a significant increase of assessed land <br /> L' 24 value to the property owners who addressed the board on April 25. Apparently Washington County <br /> 25 based their appraisal on their across-the-board rate for lake front property while Anoka County's <br /> 26 assessment is based on"site value." Both appraisers pointed out that if you add the Anoka County <br /> 27 assessment and the Washington County assessment,the total land value is in the range of where both <br /> 28 counties would be if the properties were exclusively assessed in either county. Because of the limited <br /> 29 lake view that these properties have, Ms. Wiener indicated that she is willing to propose a 10% <br /> 30 reduction in her appraisal, which would lower the property tax assessment by $21,710 for the five <br /> 31 property owners appealing their assessment. <br /> 32 <br /> 33 The board concurred with the proposed reduction; the mayor indicated that he'd still like to have a <br /> 34 discussion with the Hugo city council to see what can/should be done long term to deal with this <br /> 35 unusal situation. <br /> 36 <br /> 37 The board then heard from Ms. Weiner regarding Mr. Jackson's property at 431 Post Road. Ms. <br /> 38 Weiner reported that she retrieved more comparables on the property. Regarding the question of <br /> 39 devaluation because of a tragedy having occurred in the home, she hasn't been able to confirm the <br /> 40 incident for this property. If the incident did occur, it wasn't with the owner just previous to Mr. <br /> 41 Jackson; there is probably less and less impact the more such a property changes hands. She's <br /> 42 recommending no change to the valuation she has proposed. <br /> 43 <br /> 44 Mr. Jackson appeared with his own comparables and provided that information to the council <br /> L 45 members. He noted that Ms. Weiner's comparables are not appropriate since they are older and <br /> 1 <br />