HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC MINUTES 04121988C= TY O F S T_ ANTHONY
BOARD (DF' REV = EW M =NUT = S
AP R= L 3-2 , 1988
1 The meeting was called to order by Mayor Sundland at 6:30 P.M.
2 Present: Sundland, Marks, Ranallo, Makowske.
3 Absent: Enrooth (arrived at 6:42 P.M.).
4 Also present: David Childs, City Manager (arrived at 6:32 P.M.)
5 Daniel Salzwedel and Glen Busitsky, Hennepin County
6 Assessors
7 Two residents were present to discuss the 1988 property valuations
8 Hennepin County had placed on their residences and copies of letters
9 from two other property owners had been included in the agenda packet
10 and distributed by the City Manager.
11
12
700 Valuation Reduction
13 The March 18th letter attached to the notice of the board of Review
14 meeting in the agenda packet was from Jerry Miller a partner in
'5 Sandpiper Development, 2828 Anthony Lane South, who indicated his
firm had information which seemed to support their contention that
17 their building might have been overvalued at $638,700 when compared to
18 a building on County Road D with the same square footage income and
19 expenses for which a purchase agreement had been signed for $495,000.
20 Mr. Salzwedel reported an assessor had visited the subject property and
21 had adjusted the valuation down to $575,000. He also noted the absence
22 of anyone from Sandpiper, who had been advised that if they were still
23 dissatisfied with their valuation, someone from the company should
24 make a formal objection at the Board of Review that evening.
25 Council Action
26 Motion by Marks, seconded by Ranallo to uphold the $575,000 assessed
27 valuation the Hennepin County Assessors Office had placed on the
28 Sandpiper Development property at 2828 Anthony Lane South, after an
29 onsite inspection had been made of the premises.
30 Motion carried unanimously.
31 No Further Inspections Requested for Bredemus House
32 Joe Bredemus, who indicated he lived in the residence at 2705 St.
33 Anthony Boulevard, owned by his sons, John and Mike Bredemus, said he
14 was present to indicate the property owners were not completely
I satisfied with the $2,000 reduction in valuation they had been given by
the assessor, who made an onsite inspection of the property at their
3 request.
4 Mr. Bredemus told the Council the house had been purchased in 1985
5 for $92,000 and the 1988 valuation had been $91,000, which the
6 assessors had reduced to $89,000 after looking at the house. He said
7 the back yard had been flooded three times and there had been 20 inches
8 of water in the basement in the three years he had lived there and his
9 sons didn't think a $2,000 reduction would go far towards installing
10 drain tiles or putting a $1,000 check valve on the drain. The resident
11 said he presumed that even if these preventive measures were taken,
12 there would have to be full disclosure of the water problems to any
13 perspective buyer and the asking price would have to be jacked up to
14 cover those costs.
15 Assessors Perceive Further Reductions Improbable
16 The assessors indicated the person from their office who had inspected
17 the property had based the $2,000 reduction on the condition of the
18 house as it was when he inspected it and it would be unlikely that
19 further reductions would be given. Mr. Bredemus was also told the
20 property's valuation had probably not been greatly affected by the
21 construction of a larger than usual home in his area. The assessors
22 also said it was not their office which considered properties on St.
23 Anthony Boulevard more valuable, but rather the sale of properties on
'4 that street which set the valuations and the market makes very little
i differentiation between corner and mid -block lots with larqe back
26 yards.
27 Councilmembers advised Mr. Bredemus further by saying:
28 Sundland told him the Assessors Office had provided each Councilmember
29 with a brochure showing recent sales of homes in St. Anthony
30 and there were several homes similar to this property whose
31 sale prices were comparable to this valuation;
32 pointed out that the location of the home might have some
33 bearing because he knew of a case of a family who bought a
34 home in his own neighborhood who deliberately bid $6,000
35 over the asking price to assure getting a home close to
36 St. Charles Church, which, of course, probably affected his
37 own value;
38 said as far as the City finding solutions to long standing
39 water problems on streets like St. Anthony Boulevard went,
40 the study the engineers were just completing seemed to indi-
41 cate those solutions wouldn't be inexpensive for either the
42 property owners or the City as a whole if adopted.
43 Enrooth said there had been flooding problems on that portion of the
44 Boulevard ever since he could remember;
2
l recalled canoeing down that street a couple of times when
he was younger;
3 indicated surprise that Mr. Bredemus' sons hadn't known
4 about those conditions before they bought the house or at
5 least wouldn't have been told something about them by the
6 seller.
7 Ranallo pointed to the fact that the 1988 valuation had been $1,000
8 less than the purchase price, even though all other St.
9 Anthony properties had risen at least 2-3% since 1985;
10 warned that the Board of Equalization might raise the valu-
11 ation above $89,000.
12 Mr. Bredemus said he didn't want to carry the issue further but was
13 just interested in finding out more about how the property valuations
14 were established.
15 Council Action
16 Motion by Ranallo, seconded by Marks to uphold the $89,000 assessed
17 valuation the Hennepin County Assessors had placed on the property at
18 2705 St. Anthony Boulevard after an onsite inspection had been made of
19 the premises.
no Motion carried unanimously.
21 Schmid Home at 2800 St. Anthony Boulevard to be Reevaluated
22 Mrs. Alois R. Schmid of the above address appeared to protest the 9.6%
23 raise in valuation her property had been given in 1988 which raised her
24 valuation from $92,000 to $97,600. Mrs. Schmid reported she had
25 requested an onsite inspection of her property two years ago and the
26 assessor at that time had reduced the valuation to $92,000 which had
27 stayed the same for 1987. The homeowner indicated there had been no
28 improvements to her home for the last 20 years. When she had called
29 the Assessors Office she had been told "the big house across the
30 street" and several other things had caused the raise which, Mrs.
31 Schmid said, had not satisfied her.
32 Councilmember Ranallo told the assessors this was the same type of
33 complaint he was getting from other residents whose property values
34 were being raised without onsite inspections.
35 Mr. Salzwedel told him the real estate market went up 6% last year, so
36 the assessors have to adjust their schedules to reflect those changes.
37 He indicated that by not reflecting that raise all over the City, and
38 not just in the quadrant inspected last year, would tend to upset the
39 equalization the assessors try to maintain for the City as a whole.
40 Mr. Busitsky added that onsite inspections just updated and verified
41 data already entered into the computer which is then applied to like
3
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
1. process. He had also sensed a certain skepticism that the type of
fireplace being installed in those units could be valued as high as
3 $4,500.
4 Mr. Childs pointed out that one of the covenants and restrictions on
5 this particular property prevented any substantial changes in the
6 assessed valuation which might result in taxes on the property being
7 insufficient to pay the principal and interest on the bonds held by the
8 H.R.A. The City Manager said one valuation reduction would probably
9 not do that but if all 29 valuations were to be reduced below $85,000,
10 the covenant might be violated. He therefore recommended the Board of
11 Review be sure whatever precedent they set in this case was prudent
12 and reasonable. The Mayor agreed, saying he perceived there would be
13 little chance the Board of Review would overrule the assessors ruling
14 in this case. It was also noted that this was another case where the
15 purchase price of $92,000 exceeded the valuation by $4,300.
16 Council Action
17 Motion by Ranallo, seconded by Marks to request the City Manager to
18 contact Sharon Frick to ascertain whether she still wants the Hennepin
19 County Assessors Office to reevaluate her townhome at 3222 Old Highway
20 8, pointing out to her that it is possible her valuation would be
21 raised rather than lowered after an onsite inspection and that the
22 City would take no action regarding any change which was $1,000 or
23 less. She is also to be given the option of just discussing rather
14 than having the entire reevaluation process followed.
25 Motion carried unanimously.
26 Board of Review Recessed to April 26, 1988
27 Motion by Ranallo, seconded by Enrooth to recess the April 12, 1988
28 Board of Review to be reconvened at 7:00 P.M., April 26, 1988, prior
29 to the St. Anthony City Council meeting at 7:30 P.M. the same evening.
30 Motion carried unanimousl
31 Respectfully submitted,
32 Helen Crowe, Secretary
33
5