CC MINUTES 04121988 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

1 sizes and features to arrive at values for individual properties. He said the study of recent sales tells the assessors how far they might 3 be behind the market. Those adjustments are then entered into the 4 computer to recalculate the value of properties whether they are 5 physically inspected or not. The assessor assured Mrs. Schmid her 6 property had been treated the same way as houses of the same style. 7 The property owner indicated she didn't know what had happened to her 8 neighbors' valuations this year, but said she would be "perfectly 9 willing to pay more if everybody else's values went up the same way." 10 Councilmember Ranallo told Mrs. Schmid the valuation on his own four 11 bedroom colonial had risen 9.4% but her valuation would depend on the 12 size and other features of homes which are similar to hers in St. 13 Anthony. He also warned her that she would be taking a chance her 14 property valuation might go up rather than down after this inspection. 15 The assessors told the property owner each assessor is responsible for 16 the valuations imposed on each property which is inspected and she 17 should expect whoever comes out this time to repeat the same 18 measurements, etc., as the first assessor made two years ago. 19 Mayor Sundland advised that the Council had established a policy to act 20 only on valuation changes of $1,000 or more. 21 Council Action 12 Motion by Marks, seconded by Enrooth to request the Hennepin County 3 Assessors to reevaluate the property at 2800 St. Anthony Boulevard and 24 to report the results of that onsite inspection when the Board of 25 Review reconvenes, April 26th. 26 Motion carried unanimousl 27 Staff to Confirm Whether Sharon Frick Still Wants Onsite Inspection 28 Sharon Frick, 3222 Old Highway 8, had written to the Board of Review 29 members to protest what she perceived were discrepancies in valuations 30 for similar units in the Village Townhouse complex. She drew 31 comparisons between her own valuation of $87,700 and the $85,000 32 valuation of unit 3210 which did not have air conditioning and $88,000 33 for unit 3224 which had air conditioning, but had also added a $4,500 34 fireplace. 35 Mr. Salzwedel said he had discussed the request for reevaluation with 36 the person in his office who had talked to Ms. Frick and had also been 37 the person who had set the original valuations for the entire 38 development. He said he had found out the assessors had already 39 been through each unit in that complex so another onsite inspection 40 would probably not change the valuation. However, the assessor 41 suggested it might be more productive to just have the same assessor 42 sit down with Ms. Frick and show her the spreadsheets on which the 43 original valuations were based rather than to repeat the reevaluation 4