My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
CC BOARD OF REVIEW MINUTES 04141987
StAnthony
>
City Council
>
City Council Minutes
>
1987
>
CC BOARD OF REVIEW MINUTES 04141987
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
12/30/2015 5:48:54 PM
Creation date
12/30/2015 5:48:52 PM
Metadata
Fields
SP Box #
21
SP Folder Name
CC MINUTES AND AGENDAS 1987
SP Name
CC MINUTES 04141987
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
9
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
J <br /> C 2 TY OF S T _ ANTHONY <br /> • BOARD O F REV= EW <br /> APR= L 1 4 , 1 9 8 "7 <br /> The Board of Review was called to order by Mayor Sundland at 6: 30 P.M. <br /> Present: Councilmembers Marks, Ranallo, Enrooth, and Makowske, Sundland. <br /> Also present: David Childs, City Manager <br /> Robert Hanscom and Tom Holmes, Hennepin County Assessors <br /> Three property owners were present to discuss the assessed valuations the <br /> assessors had designated for their St. Anthony properties. The Mayor <br /> explained the procedure which would be followed that evening as well as <br /> the appeal process which they could pursue through the county and state <br /> tax agencies if they were not satisfied with the Council' s judgments that <br /> evening. <br /> Mayor Sundland also advised them that the Council had established a <br /> policy of only considering changes of more than $1,000 ( should have been <br /> $1, 500 according to last year' s minutes) in what might be perceived by a <br /> property owner to be an incorrect valuation of the property being <br /> considered. <br /> • Peter Mazurko Questions Increase in Valuations for Split Level Homes <br /> Mr. Mazurko told the Council that: <br /> -at his request, his property at 3216 Belden Drive had been given an <br /> on-site inspection April 9th, after which he had been advised by a <br /> letter from Mr. Hanscom that the formula originally used to determine <br /> his assessed valuation had been correct and that valuation would <br /> remain; <br /> -even after discussing the matter further with Mr. Hanscom that even- <br /> ing, he still questioned why his :.valuation should have risen 5. 60 <br /> while the valuation of a more expensive rambler next door which had <br /> been constructed along side his home after the tornado at the same <br /> time in 1983 , and inspected by the same inspector in 1984 , had only <br /> experienced a 1. 06% increase; <br /> -the rambler has 3 ,456 square feet of finished space where his split <br /> level has only 1 , 846 square feet; <br /> -his valuation had increased $5 ,600 from $98,300 to $103 ,000 this <br /> year where the rambler, which had cost much more to build than his <br /> house, had had its valuation raised from $113,100 to only $114,300 in <br /> 1987 ; <br /> • -he couldn' t understand why both structures weren' t appreciating at the <br /> same rate although Mr. Hanscom had told him it was his "style of <br /> house" which had caused his home to increase faster in value; <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.