CC BOARD OF REVIEW MINUTES 04221986

Home Browse Search

. CITY OF ST. ANTHONY BOARD OF REVIEW MINUTES April 22, 1986 The Board of Review was called to order by Mayor Sundland at 6:30 P.M. , with Councilmembers Marks, Ranallo, Enrooth, and Makowske all present. Also present: David Childs City Manager; and Robert Hanscom, Hennepin County Assessor. The Mayor explained to those residents present that the purpose of this hearing was to discuss the Hennepin County 1986 valuations of their properties and not the property taxes due in 1986. Mayor Sundland indicated that the Council had, in the past, established a policy of only considering changes of $1 ,500 or more, or what might be perceived by a property owner to be an incorrect classification of the property to be considered. Mr. Hanscom indicated the review that evening was just the first of several options a property owner who is dissatisfied with the assessed valuation on his property, has to appeal that valuation. The Assessor said, if the Council orders an onsite evaluation at the request of the property owner, and that homeowner disagrees with the result of that evaluation reported when the Board of Review reconvenes in 20 days, he or she can appeal that decision to the Hennepin County Board of Equalization and from there, all the way to the State Tax Court, as indicated on the Notice of 1986 • Valuation. However, he added, the Board of Equalization perceives it is their responsibility to maintain realistic market values of all county property and would in all likelihood change the assessed valuation of a particular property to the level established by the Assessor during the onsite inspection. Mr. Hanscom explained further that the County Assessor does make a statistical analysis for each city to determine the level of assessment it would take to bring each within an acceptable range which would be equitable with other communities and he said, it is also true that the norm for that figure has been in the 90 percentile. But, according to the Assessor, it would be a fallacy to assume that figure is applied to individual valuations . Naoma Bakke, 2616 - 31st Avenue N.E., indicated she had expected to get a $200 or $300 raise in her assessed valuations this year, the same as her neighbors because she had made no improvements to the property for the last nine years. She indicated she had been quite surprised to see, instead, that her valuation had increased by $5,000. The property owner reported when she had received increases in past years they had been eliminated with onsite inspections. Mr. Hanscom told Mrs. Bakke her valuation is subject to change every year, depending on what the assessors see in the market place and this year the valuations of all unfinished expansion structures like hers had been raised. Councilmember Ranallo questioned how such a "large jump in valuation" could happen and the Assessor told him that with the computer the County has this year, his office had been able to "stratify" the assessments to match expansion homes, parti- cularly undeveloped expansions, county-wide, which are selling at a much higher • level than they had been assessed. Mr. Hanscom indicated the Bakke property valuation had gone from $70,600 in 1982 to $72,200 in 1985, and increased to $77,200 with the market analysis this year. The