Laserfiche WebLink
1 sizes and features to arrive at values for individual properties. He <br /> said the study of recent sales tells the assessors how far they might <br /> 3 be behind the market. Those adjustments are then entered into the <br /> 4 computer to recalculate the value of properties whether they are <br /> 5 physically inspected or not. The assessor assured Mrs. Schmid her <br /> 6 property had been treated the same way as houses of the same style. <br /> 7 The property owner indicated she didn' t know what had happened to her <br /> 8 neighbors ' valuations this year, but said she would be "perfectly <br /> 9 willing to pay- more if everybody else' s values went up the same way. " <br /> 10 Councilmember Ranallo told Mrs. Schmid the valuation on his own four <br /> 11 bedroom colonial had risen 9 . 4% but her valuation would depend on the <br /> 12 size and other features of homes which are similar to hers in St. <br /> 13 Anthony. He also warned her that she would be taking a chance her <br /> 14 property valuation might go up rather than down after this inspection. <br /> 15 The assessors told the property owner each assessor is responsible for <br /> 16 the valuations imposed on each property which is inspected and she <br /> 17 should expect whoever comes out this time to repeat the same <br /> 18 measurements, etc. , as the first assessor made two years ago. <br /> 19 Mayor Sundland advised that the Council had established a policy to act <br /> 20 only on valuation changes of $1 ,000 or more. <br /> 21 Council Action <br /> 102 Motion by Marks, seconded by Enrooth to request the Hennepin County <br /> 23 Assessors to reevaluate the property at 2800 St. Anthony Boulevard and <br /> 24 to report the results of that onsite inspection when the Board of <br /> 25 Review reconvenes, April 26th. <br /> 26 Motion carried unanimously. <br /> 27 Staff to Confirm Whether Sharon Frick Still Wants Onsite Inspection <br /> 28 Sharon Frick, 3222 Old Highway 8 , had written to the Board of Review <br /> 29 members to protest what she perceived were discrepancies in valuations <br /> 30 for similar units in the Village Townhouse complex. She drew <br /> 31 comparisons between her own valuation of $87 ,700 and the $85 , 000 <br /> 32 valuation of unit 3210 which did not have air conditioning and $88 , 000 <br /> 33 for unit 3224 which had air conditioning, but had also added a $4 , 500 <br /> 34 fireplace. <br /> 35 Mr. Salzwedel said he had discussed the request for reevaluation with <br /> 36 the person in his office who had talked to Ms. Frick and had also been <br /> 37 the person who had set the original valuations for the entire <br /> 38 development. He said he had found out the assessors had already <br /> 39 been through each unit in that complex so another -onsite inspection <br /> 40 would probably not change the valuation. However, the assessor <br /> 41 suggested it might be more productive to just have the same assessor <br /> 42 sit down with Ms. Frick and show her the spreadsheets on which the <br /> ®43 original valuations were based rather than to repeat the reevaluation <br /> 4 <br />