CC BOARD OF REVIEW MINUTES 04141987

Home Browse Search

Councilmember Enrooth wondered whether there was any provision for rebating a 12% to 15% differential which might exist in this case. He said if the last sales in this complex preceded the tax law changes that might account for the difference between what was paid for a condo in 1986 and what could be gotten for one after last December. He and Councilmember Ranallo both said they doubted the property in question was worth as much now as it had been in early 1986. Mr. Hanscom told Councilmember Marks the assessors are continually evaluating commercial property and there is no evidence in the market that office space in general has been adversely impacted by the change in tax laws. To the contrary, that market has been consistently going up. He also said he could not predict how his office would react to realtors ' appraisals of this property and was not certain whether the sales which had been used as a basis for Mr. Tromiczak' s valuations had been made before or after the new tax laws had gone into effect. Council Action Motion by Marks, seconded by Enrooth to request the Hennepin County Assessors reevaluate the Northgate condo property owned by Tim Tromiczak, 1797 Spruce Court, and to report back the results of that reconsideration when the Board reconvenes in two weeks. • Motion carried unanimously. LaVonne Fritz to Appeal Reevaluation of Her Property at 3105 Croft Drive to the Hennepin Board of Equalization The property owner indicated the following about her property: -she and her ex-husband had literally "hand built the entire split level except for digging the basement, between 1961 and 1962" ; -her valuation had increased $29,000 or 43% from $68,000 in 1981 to $97,000 in 1987 ; -this included a 32% raise she had experienced in 1982 when the pro- perty was transferred to her name after her divorce. That increase had been reduced to 26% through the efforts of Hennepin County Com- missioner Sam Sivanich. None of this had come about because of an assessor' s inspection and no notice of an attempt to inspect her property had ever been left at her door. Ms. Fritz said because she had no response to her phone call to the assessors protesting her valuation raise, she had written them a letter. Her first response to that had been a call to her at work last Friday asking her to get home before 4:00 P.M. to enable the assessor to inspect her home. She said this had been very difficult for her to do because • she was in a training program at the Health Department and she had let the young assessor know she was not happy about that when she met him at