Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC BOARD OF REVIEW MINUTES 04221986 a 'r, Meeting Sheet - '�r . . . 10'1744 ; • - • _,.3..�rpt , .. B'ox: 21 _ Folder:�CC.'MINUTES'ANDAGENDAS 1986 D: ,cument:',CCl . . _. .• ' o ••CC MINUTES 0422.1986. •�. • ' • , • ti-: r : J ,':�� it 3 ... •r "- - z" -� .. � _ .. ,. - - .. . 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 -2- last onsite inspection had been made in November of 1984 and his office had been • unable to schedule an onsite inspection with Mrs. Bakke prior to this hearing, the Assessor reported. Mrs. Bakke responded by saying she works until 4:.00 P.M. every day and it is almost impossible for her to get home before 4:30 P.M. which is too late for the assessors to make an onsite inspection. However, the homeowner reiterated, whenever an inspection had been made .in the past, her valuations had been lowered. Mrs. Bakke said she wasn't "protesting having to pay taxes in St. Anthony" because she perceived "they are worth being able to live in the Village" . However, she said she had been very surprised to get such a large raise as compared to her neighbors' . The Mayor told the property owner he perceived the new computers had enabled the assessors to categorize_certain types of homes which needed to- have their valuations raised to match the market, but he perceived Mrs. Bakke mi.ght be better satisfied if an onsite inspection could be scheduled at a time mutually acceptable to both parties. The listing of homes sold in St. Anthony the last year had been provided Council members and Mr. Hanscom pointed out a 1 ,040 square foot, 1-1/3 story expansion home built in 1953, which he perceived was very similar to the Bakke home, which had sold for $78,000. Mrs. Bakke questioned whether the 90 percentile mentioned earlier had been applied to her valuation and was told that would have been the case if the county had 200 similar sales .which came within that percentile of their assessed valuation, one-half of which fell above and the other below the 95 percentile. When he inspects Mrs. Bakke's home, Mr. .Hanscom assured her, he would only estimate what. the house • would sell for today and not be concerned about meeting any percentages. Councilmember Ranallo told -the homeowner the Council would be happy to request the onsite inspection if that is what she wants but he wanted her to realize there had been cases in the past where the onsite. eval.uation resulted in a higher valuation than was being protested in the first place. He related an instance several years ago where a homeowner had asked for a reevaluation of his property and after he. had received an increase, had refused to speak to the Councilmember, even in church, ever since. Mayor Sundland commented that with the computers the assessors now have available to "enhance the valuation game", they are able to. make instant com- parisons of similar sales from all. over. , the metropolitan area. Mrs. Bakke indicated she would be willing =to take her chances on a reevaluation. Motion by Councilmember Marks and seconded by Councilmember Enrooth to request the Hennepin County Assessors to make arrangements with Naoma Bakke to schedule an onsite evaluation of the property at 2616 - 31st Avenue N.E. Motion carried unanimously. Roman and Elsie Seide, 3117 Stinson Boulevard were present to discuss .how the assessors had arrived at a lower valuation for their home after an onsite inspection. Mrs. Seide said she particularly wanted to know whether a home on a heavily traveled street like Stinson Boulevard "would be taxed at the same mill rate as a home on the back streets". She was told that the "mill rate would remain the same but the valuation would probably reflect the fact that the home was on a busy street which • could bring theproperty values down" and that Mr. Hanscom -would write to the property owners to let them know the reasons for the reduction. _3_ Bill Hampton, 3212 Croft Drive, said he was more concerned about his home being . classified as "non-homesteaded" than he was with his valuation. He said he and his wife had taken possession of their home January 28, 1986 and prior- to that time had been given to understand by the real estate company that the property was homesteaded, as stated in the purchase agreement. Mr. Hampton indicated the very afternoon of the day they assumed the property, he and..his wife had. returned the card applying for a homestead classification to City Hall . The property owner reported seeing the previous owners move out of the house that same morning but said he had been unable to reach them since that time to confirm the homestead classification at the incorrect addresses he had been given, presumably because of an impending divorce. The real.tor had not been very cooperative either, 'Mr. Hampton said, because they claimed the misunderstanding was not their responsibility. Mr. Hanscom told Mr. Hampton the lack of documentation that the home had been homesteaded had caused the reclassification,of this property and an affidavit from the neighbors. that the house had been vacated by the previous owners the same morning as Mr. Hampton had moved in would certainly be helpful . The Assessor indicated he woule report back on this matter when the Board of Review is- reconvened. Jerome Brede, 3216 Townview Street N.E. , indicated he was "seeking a point of clarification"because he and his wife "were sort of contesting" the valuation they had been notified would remain for their property following an onsite inspection. Mr. Brede reported having an appraisal of his home about a month ago after which the appraiser had concluded that "comparing the Brede home with sales of four homes .of similar type within the City in the last 12 months, they would be very lucky to get the price at which their house had been assessed". The property- owner said he had built his home in 1978 of "a quality less than we could have used" and he indicated • he perceived that quality had not been weighed 'in the Assessor's final evaluation. As a result, Mr. Brede stated, he had concluded that "all homes in St. Anthony are not being treated equally" . The .property owner stated further that he disagreed with the Assessor's assumption that, because his home is comparatively new, its values are appreciating while older homes would. be depreciating. Mr. Brede said he had noticed a home placed on the market a couple of months ago which had an assessed value of only $90,000 for which the owners were asking $140,000, and-, although he realized they probably didn't get that much for the house, the homeowner indicated he didn't believe the realtors could be that far off. He was convinced that a 20 year old home could be just as valuable as his eight year old house, Mr. Brede said. When Councilmember Enrooth asked what the differential was between the assessed valuation of Mr. Brede's home and what the realtor estimated it was worth, the property owner told him, according to the letter he had received from the Assessors, April 12th, his home was evaluated at $126,000 where the appraiser had estimated its worth between $115,000 and $120,000. However, the property owner said he "wasn't arguing about the $126,000" because he perceived he "might be able to sell his property for that", but his contention was that "everybody in the Village is not being evaluated in the same manner". Mayor Sundland commented that he perceived the information Mr. Hanscom was getting this year was furnished by more sophisticated computers which were able to give a more realistic market valuation to the City's property. • Mr. Hanscom indicated he perceived Mr. Brede was stating a philosophical difference with the county's methods of evaluating the City's properties but he knew St. Anthony had a good "coefficient of dispersion" Ca measurement of difference between assessed and market valuations) which did not have the type of disparity the property owner perceived. 1 • 1 'N1 s Cy -4- When the Assessor was asked whether the Assessors office would immediately raise . the valuation of the home where there had been such a disparity between the assessed and market value, Mr. Hanscom indicated "We have never, and never would, raise the assessed valuation based on one sale, but would make a comparison between this sale the the sales of similar type homes to ascertain whether the higher price was indeed the correct valuation". Councilmember Ranallo asked why, if that was the case, were realtors required to report all sales to the state. The Assessor said the state requires a Certificate of Real Estate Value to be filed on every piece of property with the information used for many different purposes, including its availability.to state, county, and local assessors and the State Department of Revenue. These figures are also used as a base for statistical analysis, determination of school aids, etc. Mr. Childs indicated the City gets a printout of all sales in the City and the "co- efficient dispersion" between the assessed and market valuations are almost always within a few thousand dollars. In the case of a few exceptions, the Manager said, he had been told the difference is often because of a sale to a relative or due to special financing arrangements. Mr. Hanscom told Councilmember Enrooth that in the appraisal process a 30 year old home would depreciate about 18% more than a new one and Mr. Brede's home would have depreciated a few thousand dollars from the value of an identical home built today, but that depreciation would probably have been lost in the appreciation which resulted from a comparison of the sale of homes similar to his own. Councilmember Ranallo agreed that the example cited by Mr. Brede might have been an exception. Councilmember Marks indicated he had been bidding on some property which finally . sold for 25% more than he perceived the land was worth. He said the desire of a purchaser to possess a piece of property could also affect the price. When Mayor Sundland indicated to Mr. Brede that he was certainly free to go to the Board of Equalization to state his philosophical differences with the evaluation process, Mr. Hanscom said he would not suggest that action unless the property owner fully understood that historically, if the county reappraises a property higher, the Board concurs with that evaluation. Mr. Brede indicated he wasn't arguing that the $126,000 valuation on his home wasn't correct, he was just basing his complaint on the fact that 90% of the homeowners he had talked to had told him they would never sell their homes as low as they are assessed and he perceived he -would be lucky to get the assessed figure for his home. Mayor Sundland indicated he perceived Hennepin County had been more thorough in their approach to assessing than Ramsey or Washington Counties where the differential between the assessed values and the market values is being rapidly eliminated to the consternation of the property owners, some of whom are facing a 55% increase in value. Because the Board of Review had to be reconvened within 20 days of that evening, before the next scheduled Council meeting, May 13, the following was necessary: Motion by Councilmember Marks and seconded by Councilmember Ranallo to recess the April 22, 1986 Board of Review until 7:00 P.M. , Monday, May 12, 1986. Motion carried unanimously. esp tfully bmitt , H Cro e,, cre f•y ATTEST: 2 City C er ayo J APPEARANCE AEVORF CITY. COUNCIL OR' PLANNING FOARD (Please Print) . • Name 0W- ' /U Date /27 7- Ato Address? Z(2- C90F1 DP V& /E Phone No. ! ' Z� Agenda No. or Subject uAtog--nmi /Ob-nc Cor.:pany or Individual Representing, If Applicable PLEASE COMPLETE IF YOU IIISH TO ADDRESS THE COUNCIL OR PLTIRVINr BOARD, THANK YOU. If you wish to address the City Council or Planning Board, please follow the suggestions listed below: (� Please complete the above portion of this card so that the Mlayor/Chairman may recognize you promptly at the appropriate time on the agenda. Please state your full name and address when you begin your remarks in order that the official minutes will record your appearance. Thank you for your cooperation. APPEAPANCE:'PEEORI': CITY CGUNCIL OI; PLAIItTIrIG £011RD (Please Print) .• Name tate --T Address _ra�dlG 3/ Phone No. Agenda No. or Subject Corpany or Indiviolual � Repjresenting, If Applicable i PLEASE COMPLETE IF YOU 6IISH TO ADDRESS j THE COUN-CIL OR PLP.NNINr' BOARD, THANK YOU. 1 - , 1 If you wish to address the City Council or Planning Board, please i. follow the, suggestions listed below- Please complete the above portion of this card so that ,I the mayor/Chairman may recognize you promptly at the appropriate time on the agenda. ! Please state your full name and address when you begin your remarks in order that the official minutes will _� record your appearance. Thank you for your cooperation. APPEARANCE BEFORr CITY COUNCIL OP.' PLA111TING £OARD (Please Print) AName Date Address�19 / Phone No. Agenda No. or Subject Corpany or Individual Representing, If Applicable PLEASE COMPLETE IF YOU 61ISH TO ADDRPSS THE COUPTCIL OR PLIMNIM BOARD, TIIA17K YOU. If you wish to address the City Council or Planning Board., please ' follow the suggestions listed below: Please complete the above portion of this card so that ithe t",ayor/Chairman may recognize you promptly at the appropriate time on the agenda. Please state your full name and address when you begin your remarks in order that the official minutes will record your appearance. Thank you for your cooperation. APPEAP.ANCE BEFORF' CITY 'COUNCIL OP, PLAI1VING :FOARD (Please Print) . • Name R0,61M J� SE/,DE Date .2 r/ Address 3/f7 STit/so� /.�L G,o Phone No. -W-7 ,9.2/;z Agenda .No. or Subject r- Corpany or Individual Representing, If Applicable PLEASE COMPLETE IF YOU SIISH TO A.DDRrSS THE COUNCIL OR PLP-.NFINr, BOARD, THANK YOU. If you wish to address the City Council or Planning Board., please + follow the suggestions listed below: Please complete the above portion of this card so that the r",ayor/Chairman may recognize you promptly at the appropriate time on the agenda. Please state your full name and address when you begin your remarks in order that the official minutes will record your appearance. Thank you for your cooperation. APPEAP.ANCE• REFOItI2``CITY .CCUNCIL,-OP, PLA iMIim. rOARD _(Please Print) Name P_rs ow�� ter. Date .:Address 3 G `rm�.����,�., %�[ �: Phone No.. 01 r Agenda No. or Subject Corpany or Individual Representing, If Applicable PLEASE COMPLETE IF YOU 6IISH TO ADDRPSS i�CIL OR PLlT1ilIrlr BOARD, THANK YOU. THE COU 1 If you wish to address the City Council or Planning Board., please follow the suggestions listed below- i Please complete the above portion of this card so that the t".ayor/Chairman may recognize you promptly at the. appropriate time on the agenda.. Please state your full name and address when you begin r your remarks in order that the official minutes will .� record your appearance. Thant; you for your cooperation. :1 - --- - -