Loading...
05/24/1976 - 00014802THE MINUTES OF THE BOARD DF REVIEW MEETING OF MAY 2n, 1976 The annual Board of Review meetinq was called to order at 7 19 P P1 on May 24, 1976, by Mayor Nee. The audience �oined with the Council in qivinn the Pledqe of Alleqiance � ATTENDANCE Ro17 call was taken. Present were P9ayor Nee; Councilwo�an Kukowski, Councilman Hamerm k, Councilman Starwalt, Councilman Frtzpatrtck3 Plasim Qureshi, City Manaqer; ��1arvin Qrunsell, Assistant C�ty Planager, Mervin Herrmann, City Assessor, Leon Madsen, Deputy Assessor, Walter Mulcahy, City Appraiser, and Gordon Starkey, reoresentrna the Anoka Co��nty Assessor's office. GENERAL DISCUSSION P10TION by Councilman Fitzpatrick to waive the readinq of the Heartnq Nct�ce for this meeting. Seconded by Coimcilman Hamernik. Upon a voice vote, all votine aye, Playor Nee declared the motton carried unanimously Mayor Nee we�comed everyone to the meetin4. He explained that this meetrnq is to review the assessed value wh�ch the assessor's office has placed on each property, and to determtne if the est�mated market value is, in fact, a true and reasonable figure The Counc�l, s�tt�ng as the Board of Rev}ew, has limited power to ad3ust th�s market value �f they agr?e wtth any individual property owner that the market val�_�e is incorrect, provided that the aqqregate ad�ustments are no more than one per cent of the total valuation run for the Ctty. If any property owner is not sat�sf�ed with the decision of this Qoard; they do have the riqht to appeal at the Anoka County Board �f Review meetinq on July 8, 1976 The date of the County Board of Review meetinq ts shown on the card sent to each property owner from the County showtnn the estimated market values By callinq Anoka Ccunty, you may receive a request form to fill in and return to the County,ask�nq for a review - of your valuatton. Bastc �nformation is to be ftlled in on this form such as name, address, telephone number, legal desc��ptlon� and a br�ef statement of what reasons you have to question the valuation. After your appearance at the County Board of Review meeting, a representative from the County will come out and look at your prorerty to determine 7f they feel there are any extenuating problems which m�qht affect the value placed on the property. The County Board will then make their �udqment If a reduction is made, this ts called an abatement process. Mr. Herrmann explatned that the 1975 Leqislature passed a new law requirinq that a minimum of one-fourth of the property in the Ctty must have a nhysical reevaluat�on each year, and that a percentage tncrease is applied to the balance of the property so that reasonable equality is reta�ned for estiinated market value The percentage increase this year placed on residential properties by the assessor's office beqan at a ten per cent increase for land values and four and one-half per cent on structures As market values and selling prices have �umped so much, the assessor's office had to add another three per cent to the total valuation in order to sattsfy the County and the State that we were, in fact, arriving at a fair market value The qoal of the assessor's off�ce is to be between ninety and one hundred per cent of the actual sellinq price of any part�cular property. The percentage increase on commercial and industrial properties wh�ch were not physically reevaluated was seven and one-half per cent In addition, any new structures were physically appraised by the assessor's office and any structures in which the market ��alue placed on the property was questionable in any way The actual sellinq prices of similar propert�es in stmilar areas are used to help arrive at a fair market va1ue � P1r. Herrmann explained briefly the card which each property owner received from the County showing what estimated market value their 1976 taxes were based on, and the amount of the new esttmated market value which was place9 on their property as of January, 1976, affecting their taxes payable in 1977 The present law states that the actual taxable value may only be raised ten per cent over the previous year, or one-fourth of the actual increase in valuation if the increase in value is over forty per cent. This is called your limited market value and is also shown on the card Another new law which was passed by the 1975 Le�islature requires that the County, in addition to sending the tax statement to the owner or mort4aqe company--whichever pays the taxes, must now send two copies of the tax statement to the owner, plus a th�rd copy if the owner pays his taxes directly rather than throuqh the mortgage company, Prior to this time, many owners never saw their actual tax statements as they were retained by the mortgage companies. BOARD OF REVIEW MEETIfdG PAGE 2 Mayor Nee asked�f each taxpayer wantinq to be heard this evening had reqistered H�ith the assessor's off�ce, so they might be called in order. He also stated that he hoped everyone here tonight has first discussed any questions with the assessor's office If not, it would conserve time for the Board of Review and yourself if you would itrst check in the assessor's office where a simple explanation miqht answer your questions. One of the deput�es is in the offtce now and will help you. If you are not sattsfied after talking with him, your questions will be taken in order. If all business of this 6oard of Review cannot be completed this evenin�, this meetinq may be reconvened sometime within the next twenty days Th�s deniston will be made later 1n the meetinq. � Councilman Starwalt brought up a point he wanted to clarify. He asked f4r Herrmann tf he was correct in assuming that the assessor's office was aiminq for a valuatton between ninety and one hundred per cent of true market valuatton, and that �f this Board of Review agreed with the valuation placed on the property by the assessor's office as being withrn this range, then there really could 6e no valid challenqe 6y an individual property owner. Mr Herrmann answered that Councilman Starwalt's assumption was correct. He also pointed out that any one particular property may sell for more or less than the estimated market value placed on the property because of the many factors involved but the estimated market values are based on numerous sales and not �ust one particular sale which is etther extra high or extra low If a property owner wanted to obtain an outside appraisal by a qualified appraiser also approved by the City, this appraisal would be taken into consideration, but would be no guarantee that the assessor's office would concur. ITEM Pd0 1--LAP1AUR, INC , REPRESENTED BY MR. WALLACE JOHNSON, 56Q1 EAST RIVER ROAD (AU�ITOR'S SUBDIVISIOP! N0. 78, PARCEL 2885, PLAT 54159; AND SECTION 22, PRRCEL ?_00, PLAT 53922) Mr Johnson stated that he had a letter from h1r William Olson, a controlljng off�ce of LaP1aur, Inc., which he read to the Counctl "Gentlemen: � Please accept this letter as notification of my dissatisfactton of the Jdnuary 2, 1976 property valuations on Plat 53922, Parcel 200, and Plat 54159, Parcel 2885, After this morning's courteous and informative meetiny with Mr. MerVin Herrmann, Fridley Assessor, I am of the opinion that LaP�aur, Inc.'s land eva1uations reflect the maximum value of land available for or currently used for retail product sales, rather than the actual use as a manufacturing site, I believe the current valuation should be based on the actual status of the property and not what it would be worth if used for some other purpose. Your consideration concer m ng an ad�usted evaluation is s�ncerely appreciated Signed--William Dlson."' Mr. Johnson stated that there was a total increased valuation on thelr property for 1976 of seventeen and one-half per cent. One oarcel of land had an increase of 145,6 per cent and the other parcel of land had an increase of 135.8 per cent The structure itself went down six-tenths of one per cent, resultin9 tn a total increase of $720,ODD The 1976 vaivat�on is $4,827,000. They feel that the land valuation �ncrease ls excessive, In d�scuss�ng this with the assessor prior to this meeting, P1r Johnson sdid that I Mr. Herrmann had informed him that the valuation on the�r ldnd was increased based on sales in the immediate area. One such nroperty was b�h ckes, wMich �s a retail sales business, and another is GTE Sylvam a, which is not a retailrna business, Up until this time there� were no comparable sales on which the �ssessor`s office could obtain actual figures, so ug until now LaPlaur has had nn appreciable increase in land values. Mr Herrmann explained that there are certain rules which have to be fo1lowed when appraising commercial and industrial properties Land values can change but do not depreciate Some of the factors which affect land values are convenient access to the property, access to a railroad spur line, visibility to the public, and nearness in location to those you deal with. For this reason "1r. Herrmann stated that the land owned by LaPlaur, Inc. has a hiqh value for a retail buslness, and even thouqh it is not being used for this purpose, the land retains its value. The assessor's office has put a value of $1.15 per square foot on the La^laur property for this year This compares with $1.40 per square foot for Uhckes which is utilin ng its location for retail sales. GTE Sylvania property sold for $1.24 per square foot and �s being valued at �l_00 per square foot, and they are not a retail business. Menard's BOARD OF REVIEW MEETING PAGE 3 y � r is utilizing its locat�on to the fullest deqree, and is beinq valued at $1.40 per square foot. Mr. Herrmann explatned that the laws of assessinq state that land has to be assessed at �ts true value In placinq a value on the structure, even thouqh the LaP�aur Company has a very well built and attractive butldinq, the assessor's office has not placed a full value on the structure as they would �f it were located in an area more su�ted to a warehouse type of business, rather than a retail type of business For thts reason, they have lowered the value of the structure, and feel that the overall valuation is a correct market value for the property as it is at the present time. �The representattve of LaMaur, Inc stated that it �s their contention that as they have no retail business through this building (and, in fact, only one per cent of their total retail sales is in the P1inneapolis area), they should be assessed for the land as it is now being used, and not on the basis of what use could 6e made of the property Mr. Johnson potnted out that there ts no other actually comparable business of th�s type located in the Twin Cities to compare with, and that if their property were sold, unless another company like Toni or Rayette purchased their property, extensive chanqes in the building would have to be made if it were qoinq to be run as a retail business He did not feel that LaMaur could get the actual valuat�on price if they sold because he said another ftrm would not pay this price, realiz�nq that they would have to also make extensive changes to the structure tn order to utilize it for their own purposes Mr. Herrmann stated that in the opim on of the assessor's office, this property would bring at least this price, and possibly even a higher price Mr. Johnson also sa�d the increase was extremely larqe over the space of one year Mr. Herrmann explained that prior to this time, they had no land sales to compare with in ltke areas, so had no standards to go by tn reappraisinq thts land value h4r. Johnson did not feel it was fair to ,7udge thetr land by the same standards as the land owned by Wickes, Plywood Minnesota, or Holiday and Tarqet. Mayor Nee questioned the assessor regarding their �ust�ficat�on �n lowering the value on a structure arbitrarily and not valuing it at its full worth. He felt this was not fair. Mr. Herrmann satd that this ts the customary practice �n all appraising areas in �order to arrive at a fair market value. If the LaMaur 6usiness was located in an area more sulted for a manufactur�ng type of business, which usually would have a value of about $ 60 per square foot, the full value of the structure would be used. In determining the value of the structure, many factors are considered such as what the property would cost to reproduce today as opposed to depreciat�on, plus the costs involved in keeping up the maintenance of the buildtng plus changes to keep the manufacturing processes up-to-date. Mr Johnson stated that he did not feel LaP9aur had realtzed thts land would be of such great value when they had purchased it originally, or they would have looked for an interior location which would have served their purpose ,7ust as well. Councilman Starwalt was of the opinion that LaMaur has perhaps been valued low for the last few years as far as land value was concerned. The freeway was,already in when LaMaur bought the property, so they were aware of the easy access to their location, Mr. Johnson said that LaMaur is located ,7ust next to the Longview Fibre Company (formerly the Downing Box Company) and they share a common driveway Althouqh the Lonqview Fibre Company structure is not as valuable as the LaMaur structure, Mr. Johnson felt as they are both uttlin ng the land in the same manner, not as a retail business, that LaMaur should be paying the same rate per foot for land value that the Lonqview Fibre Company ts paying. The question was raised by P1r. Brunsell as to how long a period of time it would take with the valuation placed on LaMaur's property at the present ttme, tak�nq into conside- �ration the ten per cent limitation, for them to arrive at their full market value if no addittonal tncreases in value were made Mr. Herrmann stated that in two years they would be at the full estimated market value as far as actual taxes were concerned Mr. Johnson said that in 1975 LaMaur, Inc. had sold one-f�fth of an acre of land they were not using to Anoka County. Anoka County paid them $4,200 or approximately $ 51 per square foot for this piece of ground. LaP9aur constdered thts a fatr market value price. Mr. Johnson stated that he felt $.55 per square foot value on LaPlaur's land as it �s now being used would be considered a fair value to them Mr. Herrmann stated that he felt sure LaMaur could sell their property ,7ust as it is for a price greater than the present estimated market value He also said that if LaPlaur had its present buildtng on an industrial lot on Main Street, the structure would be assessed at its full value, but the difference in larid value �n that location would result in a lower esttmated market value than they now have. i_ BOARD OF REVIEW MEETING PAGE 4 It was the consensus of the Council that they would like to have a fact sheet made up by the assessor's office which they could consider when this meet�na is reconvened, because it was their general feeling that this meeting will have to be continued on another date. MOTIOPd 6y Councilman Fitzpatrick to continue th�s item until the Board of Review recon- venes, and to have a fact sheet regardinq this property prepared by the assessor's office. Seconded by Councilman Hamernik. Upon a voice vote, all votinq aye, Mayor Nee declared the motion carried unanimously � ITEM NO 2--MEDTRONIC, INC , REPRESENTED BY MR. HARRINGTON, 6950 OL� CENTP.AL (SECTION 12, PARCEL 6600, PLAT 539121 Mr. Harrington of Alexander R Alexander, representinq Medtro m c, Inc., stated that he had met with P9r Madsen earlier today as well as havinq met with representatives from the assessor's offtce in the last few weeks, and they had come to an agreement that was satisfactory to beth of them. He stated that Mr P4adsen has the facts and figures and asked him to speak to the Board of Review. Mr. Madsen stated that the Medtronic, Inc. had no quarrel wtth the land value. He explained that they had phystcally reevaluated the structure th�s year Medtronics has been �n the process of construction for the last ftve or six years and basically the assessor's office has been going by Medtro m cs' cost figures to set a value up until th�s time. Now they have valued the completed building �ust as they do the other compar- able properties in the area. Mr. Madsen stated that there had been an omission on his part as regards the round administrative building This was planned as a seven-story 6uildinq and all existing foundations, heating, etc. is "super-adequate" for the present three-story buildinq. It is not known at this time tf the building will have more floors added sometime tn the future or if it will rematn at the present three-story he�qht, so P1r. Madsen said he felt a reduction was perfectly ,7ustifiable If, in the future, the buildinq does have further construction and additional stortes added, the value will of course be � raised accordingly Mr. Madsen recommended a reduction from the estimated market value on the structure for 1976 of $1D,725,300 to $10,169,300. Thts would reduce the total estimated market value on the land and structure combined from $11,077,100 to $10,521,100. P�OTION by Councilman Starwalt to reduce the total estimated market value for Medtronic, Inc. to $10,521,100. Seconded by Councilwoman Kukowski Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Nee declared the motion carried unanimously. ITEM NO 3--VIKING CHEVROLET, REPRESENTED BY P1R �1ARK HAGGERTY, 7501 HIGHWAY NO 65 N.E (SECTION 12, PARCELS 2850, 4350, AND 4360, PLAT 53912) Mr Haggerty stated that primarily he had a number of questions which he wanted to ask Mr. Herrmann and Mr Madsen, as to how they arrive at the�r figures. He satd that �t wasn't primarily this year's figures, as this has been an on-going dtscussion over the past few years as to the increases in valuation. P4r. Haqgerty said that from $250,000 total valuation in 1972, they have increased to a valuation of $467,000 for 1976 Mr Herrmann stated that this year Viking Chevrolet was not physically appraised, and received a percentage increase, ,7ust as other commercial properties in the area, There will be another physical appra�sal �n 1977. Two years depreciation has been allowed in computinq the estimated market value of the structure, The last physical appraisal of this property was in 1972. At the time �likinq Chevrolet bought this property, the assessor's office real�zed that this buildina was not latd out as conve m ently as a , buildinq built particularly for this tvpe of business. Credit was allowed because it was felt that extra doors would be needed to facilitate the moving back and forth of automobiles wh�ch were 6einq servtced, and this was reflected in the actual taxes paid. They are not 6eing taxed as much for space wh�ch is not able to be utilized by them in their business, because of the buildrna layout. Mr Haggerty stated that their actual increase over the last five years ran 6etween eighty and eighty-f�ve per cent, which he felt was rather hiqh. P1r. Herrmann said that the original reduction because the bu�ldinq was not laid out as conveniently as though it were built for a car dealership has continued to be reflected �n the yearly percentage tncreases P1r. Herrmann recalled that when this problem was first brought up in previous years, representatives from the assessor's office visited other comparable dealershtps to compare the layouts of their 6uildings and the values set on their properties, �n order to establish a fair market value for Viking Chevrolet. The land value is based on $.40 per square foot. BOARD OF REVIEW MEETING PAGE 5 _/ Mr. Haggerty asked if any reduction might be poss�ble, not necessarily because he considered the 1976 valuation as too high, but because they do not want to run into a situation such as the LaMaur Company where the valuation will rise so extremely that they wtll not 6e a61e to make a go of the bustness and be able to pay the taxes and still show a profit Mr. Haggerty and Mr. Mark Dooley thanked the Board of Rev�ew for letting them make �their presentation. MOTION by Councilman Starwalt to concur with the est�mated market value placed on th�s property for 1976 by the assessor's office and retain this market value Seconded by Councilman Hamernik Upon a voice vote, all votinq aye, Mayor Nee declared the motion carried unanimously Councilman Starwalt made the comment that they are try�nq to make the valuations fair and square across the City to the best of their ability Where someone has been under- valued inadvertently, a larger value increase can be placed on the property, but the assessor's office and the Board of Review are tryinq the�r best to be fair. ITEM N0. 4--HENRY ZIMMER, 4021 CALIFOP,NIA STREET NORTHEAST (LOT 3, BLOCK l, WILSON ADDITION, PARCEL 100, PLAT 59592) f4r. Zimmer stated that his home was valued at $18,000 in 1969, and that his valuation for 1976 �s $31,D00. He fe�lsthis valuation is hiqh because of the location of his home across from the railroad yards and all the new construction done by the railroad When he purchased hts home, he said there were trees between the street and the railroad yards. Since then he has suffered property damage because of the blasting done 6y the railroad, and in spite of the fact that a berm has been put in, the noise and smoke caused by the increased number of running eng�nes day and night because of the Diesel Repair Shop has reduced the value of hts property qreatly Mr. Herrmann stated that P4r. Zimmer has a larqer and nicer home than the averaqe and �credit has been allowed because of the location The actual value of his home is higher than $31,000. A�500 reduction was made previously due to crackinq of the concrete floor of his garaqe. Mr Zimmer also stated that shrubs and trees were to be planted on the berm to add a 6etter appearance and possibly to help reduce some of the noise. He said a repre- sentative from the ratlroad had told htm that trees would not be able to be planted on the berm because the wind would cause them to die. MOTION 6y Councilman Fitzpatrick to have the assessor's office reappraise the property and bring back a recommendation when the Board of Review meetinq is reconvened Seconded by Councilman Starwalt. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Nee declared the motion carried unantmously. ITEM N0. 5--CURTIS W. JOHNSON, 1412 NORTH INNSBRUCK DRIVE (LOT 1, BLOCK 7, INNS6RUCK NORTH ADDITION. PARCEL 580. PLAT 56353) Mr. Johnson stated that his estimated market value had qone from $73,230 in 1975 to $93,524 in 1976, a thirty per cent increase in one year With the lim�tations placed on increases, his tax was based on $71,130 in 1975 and $85,768 in 1976 He sa�d that he actually does not ob�ect to the esttmated market value placed on his home, but inadvertently did not apply for homestead credtt for either the taxes payable in 1975 or the current year's taxes. Mr. Herrmann stated that one reason for the thirty per cent �ncrease in valuation in �one year is the fact that his home was only partially completed on the last valuation He also told Mr. Johnson that if he can present proof showing that he had lived in his house prior to January 2, 1975, that the administrative office at the City and at the County can provide an abatement on his 1975 tax and can have a corrected tax statement issued for 1976. This is purely an administrative matter and does not require Council approval. Mr. Johnson said that thts was acceptable to him MOTION by Councilman Starwalt to concur with the estimated market value placed on this property by the assessor's office. Seconded by Councilman Hamernik Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Nee declared the motion carr�ed unanimously. i;�'� BOARD OF REVIEW MEETING ITEM N0. 6--MAYNARD NIELSEN, 7144 RIVERUIEW TERRACE PAGE 6 Mr. Nielsen stated that his questions had been answered, and he would l�ke to cancel his request to appear before the Board of Review Mr. Herrmann said that he would like to ask Mr. Nielsen if he was claiminq homestead on both properties. Mr Nielsen stated that he has claimed homestead for 1976 on 7144 Riverv�ew Terrace, and has canceled the homestead and did not return the homestead credit card to the County for his previous home on 2z Street Northeast. � ITEMS NDS 7 AND 8--RICHARD HARRIS Mr. Harris asked if he could appear last as he had a number of properties to discuss, and the Board of Review concurred with his request. ITEM N0. 9--GABRIEL GIANCOLA, 109 HARTP4AN CIRCLE (LOT 3, BLOCK 2, SAN�HURST ADDITION, PARCEL 520, PLAT 58945) ITEM NO 10--JOHN AND CARDL BEAULIEU, 129 HARTMAN CIRCLE (LOT 8, BLOCK 2, SANDHURST A�DITION, PARCEL 720, PLAT 58945) ITEM NO 11--RAYMOND J ANDERSON, 125 HARTMAN CIRCLE (LOT 7, BLOCK 2, SANDHURST ADDITION, PARCEL 680, PLAT 58945) Mr. Giancola stated he is acting as unofficial spokesman for Items Nos 9, 10, and 11, and then perhaps the other property owners would like to add to his comments. Al1 three of these lots 6ack on East River Road, and P1r. Giancola's question was whether this is taken into account when the estimated market value is placed on these homes He said the d�ff�culties began after East River Road was upqraded. The tncrease �n traffic has created more noise plus fumes both n�qht and day, detractinq from the en�oyment of their properties Also, the owners of 125 and 129 Hartman Circle have fences across the back of their properties which are annually beinq hit and knocked down by automobiles. When the plow �s removing snow from East River Road, the grit and debrts from the road � gets thrown into the 6ack of their yards, destroy�nq the lawn and shrubs which they continually have to replace. Mr. Giancola also stated that East River Road acts as a barrier because of the traffic, preventing their chtldren from enjoying friends across the road. He said that the County park has become a place where they do not want their small children to go. Numerous cars frequent the park in the spring and summer, beer cans are thrown around, and the smaller chtldren have heen approached by older groups attempting to sell drugs. The noise is so qreat that it is dtfficult to sleep at m ght. For these and other related reasons, Mr. Giancola requested that the Board of Review consider allowing a ten per cent reduction in estimated market value on these three properties Mrs. Beaulieu stated that they had purchased their home for $29,900 in 1972. At the time they purchased their home, the purchase price was less than the market value placed on it by the assessor's office Mr Anderson's home had a purchase price qreater than the market value placed on it by the assessor's office She said that they are closest to East River Road, and are afraid to have their children play in the back yard 6ecause of the danqer of automobiles hittrnq the fence and in�uring their children She feels that they have the only back yard riqht on East River Road, whereas the other properties on Hartman C�rcle do have a slight buffer zone between their back yards and East River Road For th�s reason she feels the value placed on their home is way too high. P1r Herrmann and Mr. P1adsen cited the selling prices of a number of homes located r�ght on East River Road wh�ch have the same problems with traffic and noise, 6ut which sold for higher prices. Mr Pladsen said that the traffic on East River Road is something visible to anyone buying a home in this location, although some of the other detrimental factors � may not become known until you are actually livtnq tn the home, The assessor's office feels that they have allowed ample reduct�on due to the dtsadvantages of East River Road and have placed fa�r market values on these homes, based on comparable sales. Councilman Starwalt asked if they would care to have an appraisal made of their properties by an independent appraiser. They felt they would not care ta invest money for this, as they would not realize enough reduction in their actual taxes to offset the cost of an appraisal Mr. Herrmann stated that he felt tf a reduction was allowed on these three homes, certainly all of the other houses in this row would have to be allowed the same reduction, Councilman Fitzpatrick questioned the leqality of loWering the assessed valuation on properties where the property owner had not even requested that the Board of Review consider a reduction. Mayor Nee was of the opinion that all of the houses would not necessarily have to 6e allowed a reduction. BOARD OF REVIEW MEETING PAGE 7 Mr. Anderson stated that the noise is so great that he cannot en�oy sittinq �n his yard during the summer months, which certainly is a detriment to the value of his home He explained that he has no small chtldren himself, but he has had to repair his fence every so often because it has been damaged by the traff�c. MOTION by Councilman Fitzpatrick to have the assessor's offtce prepare fact sheets on these properties and these properties w�ll again be d�scussed when this Board of Rev�ew reconvenes. Seconded by Councilwoman Kukowski. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, �Mayor Nee declared the motion carried unanimously ITEM N0. 12--�ALE AND MARY BOWEN, 5181 5T MORITZ DRIVE (LOT 3, BLOCK 5, IPJNSBRUCK 2ND A�DITION. PARCEL 1200, PLAT 56348) Mr. Bowen stated that he had come to the meetinq toniqht in order to determine if, �n fact, the rise in h�s estimated market value of approximately fifteen per cent was excessive After registering tonight, he then went over the values of some of the properties reasonably comparable to his home in h�s immediate area with h�r Mulcahy from the assessor's office. Mr Bowen said the pro6lem is that no two houses in his area are really compara6le 6ecause each home was designed and built to individual speci- fications. On checking, he said he discovered that two homes had approximately e�ght per cent increases in valuation over last year, and another home (a split level) had an increase of sixteen per cent. Mr. Herrmann stated that there were two specific th�nqs which affected the increase tn Mr Bowen's valuation this year. First, this property �s located in the area which was physically reappraised. Secondly, the assessor's office discovered last year by making a study of all properties sold during the year, based on the type of building and the actual selling prices, that split level and also split entry homes which have basements whtch have full s�ze windows which meet the code for a leqal residence both on the upper and lower levels, were considered more desirable by the qeneral public because of the increasailiving space and were sellinq for a h�aher price than rambler-type homes where the entire basement is sub-level This point was also brouqht out a�last �year's Board of Review meetinq. For this reason, split level and split entry valuations were raised more than rambler-type homes to reflect a truer market value. Mr. Bowen stated he felt he should have a reduction �n his estimated market value, or conversely, that his neighbors wtth lower valuations should have their estimated market values tncreased MOTION by Councilman Starwalt to concur in the recommendat�on of the assessor's off�ce and retain the valuation set by them as of �anuary 2, 1976 Seconded by Counc�lman Hamer m k. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Nee declared the motion carried unanimously. ITEM N0. 13--WICKES, REPRESENTE� BY MR. STEPHEN HAY, 5353 EAST RTVER ROAD (LOTS 2, 3, 4, AND 5, BLOCK l, GREAT NORTHERPJ INDUSTRIAL CENTER pLAT, PARCELS 20, 30, 40, AND 50, PLAT 56113) Mr Hay, representing Wickes, stated that he would like tt to appear on the record that they feel their estimated market valuation ts too hiah. P4r Flay �ust arrived by plane from Illinois at 8•30 P.P4 this even�rq, so has not had time to go over the facts and figures. He explained that he will be physically apprais�ng the Wtckes property and going over all the information in the next two days, and would like to make a presentation to the Board of Review when they reconVene this meeting. Mr. Hay said that the rate placed by the assessor's office on their property was �approximately $15.00 per square foot spread over the entire build�nq, which he felt was too high a square foot figure. MOTION by Councilman Fitzpatrick to table further discussion on the W�ckes property till this meeting is reconvened in order to allow P1r. Hay time to orepare his presentation. Seconded 6y Councilwoman Kukowski Upon a voice vote, all vottng aye, Mayor Nee declared the motion carried unanimously (The Board of Review took a short 6reak at 10:40 p m and resumed the meeting at 11•00 p m.) ITEM N0. 7--RICHAR� HARRIS (P1r Harris had requested that he be allowed to address the Board of Review last as he has several properties to discussl. ��,i BOARD OF REVIEW P1EETING PAGE 8 13, 15, AND 17-77TH WAY NORTHEAST (LOTS 11 AND 26-37, BLOCK 8, ONAWAY ADDITION, PARCEL 2020. PLAT 57189) Mr. Harris ftrst stated that his property valuation cards were mailed to several addresses rather th�n ,7ust one, and that he has not yet received all of his cards P1r. Starkey from the County stated that the law says each property valuation card must be sent to the owner at the address of the property, even if the building is leased or rented or vacant, and he stated that they have many valuation cards returned as undel�verable because of this specific law � This particular property had an increase in valuation of �13,800 from 1975 to 1976. This year's estimated market value �s $29,000 for the land, and $172,n00 for the structure, giving a total of $201,400 Pqr. Herrmann said this property was not physicall,y reevaluated this year, but was given the ten per cent �ncrease on land and seven and one-half per cent �ncrease on structure, the same as compara6le commercial properties The assessor's office uses the �1arshall & Swift Valuation Service as their basis in arrivinn at the valuations placed on commercial and industrial properties. Thts report �s used oenerally all over the United States. The report goes by current bid prices, actual costs, sellinn prices, etc. based in the Twin Ctties area of P1inneapolls and St Paul. Mr. Harris contends that this report �s incorrect, and that the City's criteria for apprais�ng commercial property is incorrect He states that he can build a structure for quite a bit less than the market value placed on the property by the assessor's office P1r. P4adsen stated that he went to a day-lono meetinq ,7ust last week reqardinq the Marshall & Sw�ft Valuation Servtce He told Mr Harris that a monthly supplement ustng the most current figures available is received each month by the City Assessor's offtce. Mr. Madsen said he feels the fir�ures shown in these monthly supplement reports are as correct as an appraiser can find anywhere Mr fladsen also explained that the trend throuqhout 1975 was an increase in build�nq prices each month. Because the 1975 figures have to be used to arrive at the new estimated market value as of Januar,y 2, � 1976, the increas2 had to be shown. Since the beqimm �g of this year, actual building prices have gone down, and �f this trend continues, next year's estimated market values will reflect the decrease ,7ust as they reflect the increase this year. 7710 AND 7720 MP,IN STREET NORTHEAST (LOTS i-10, BLOCK 8, ONAWAY ADDTTION, PARCEL 183D, PLAT 571891 Mr. Harris stated that the new estimated market value in total on this property is $180,500. Th�s �s a new structure and the assesso'r's office has placed a value of $67,900 on the structure D1r. Harris stated that he actua17y paid only $53,000 to build this structure, and he has all of the facts, fiqures, estimates, and costs to pt^ove it, Mr. Madsen asked Mr. Harris to brrng this material in to the office, and he would be glad to review the information wtth Mr. 'Harris h1r Pladsen a1so mentioned that a valuation is not necessar�ly reduced ,7ust hecause the contractor is able to build the structure for considerably less than another contractor miqht have to pay. 7701 P9AIIS STREET NORTNEAST (LOT 5, BLOCK 3, EAST RANCH ESTATES 2ND ADDITION, PARCEL 140, PLAT 557541 Mr Herrmann explained that this property received a percentaqe increase th�s year. There was a ten per cent increase on the land and a seven and one-half per cent increase on the structure A ten per cent increase was used on new structures, and the seven and one-half per cent increase reflects the depreciation allowed on older buildinas. MOTION by Counc�lwoman Kukowski to have fact sheets prepared on the three above-menttoned , properties which the Board of Review can consider when this meetinq is reconvened. Seconded 6y Councilman Starwalt. Upon a voice vote, all votinq aye, Mayor Nee declared the motion carried unanimously ITEM N0. 8--RICHARD HARRIS, 6200 RIVERUIEW TERRACE (LOT 2, BLOCK 3, JULI-APlN ADDITION, PARCEL 240. PLAT 564501 P1r Harris stated that the 1975 valuation on his home was $59,190 and for 1976 is $64,169, of which $8,950 is for the land alone. He feels that h�s estimated market value �s too high because his house is of a um que design which suits his family, but wh�ch he feels would be difficult to sell to someone else The neneral consensus of the r�embers of the Board of Review was that th�s home would sell for more than the present estimated market value and felt that the home was definitely worth this amount. BOARD OF REVIEW MEETING PAGE 9 i MOTION by Councilman Fitzpatrick to concur with the recommendation of the assessor's off�ce and retain the estimated market value which they have placed on the aroperty. Seconded by Councilman Starwalt Upon a votce vote, all voting aye, P1ayor Nee declared the motion carried unanimously. ITEM N0. 14--GEORGE BACON, 1336 HILLCREST (LOTS 21 AND 22, BLOCK 3, P100RE LAKE HILLS ADDITION, PARCEL 1250, PLAT 56886) � Mr. Bacon had to leave before he was called on to speak, but did discuss his problem with Mr Mulcahy from the assessor's office and asked P1r Mulcahy to speak for him. Mr. Mulcahy stated that Mr Bacon feels his estimated market valuation is too high The homes in Mr. Bacon's area received a percentaqe �ncrease this year and were not physically reappraised. One of the reasons for his dissatisfaction is the fact that he is comparing the valuatton on his home with the valuatton on a new home which �s located across the street from him which was just sold MOTIOfd by Councilman Starwalt to accept f4r. Bacon's statement and allow him to appear before the Board of Review when they reconvene this meeting Seconded 6y Counc�lwoman Kukowski Upon a voice vote, all vottng aye, hlayor Nee declared the motion carried unanimously. ADDITIONM PARCE41A195d, 7PLAT�56986) REET PdORTHEAST (LOT 13, BLOCK 2, NAGEL's WOODLANDS The following letter was read to the Board of Review as h1r Mayer was not able to be present: "Dear Board Members, Maybe I'm a little bitter but as a homeowner in Fridley I should at least let � someone know how I feel. In Oct. 1974 I purchased a double bunqalow between Able and Baker Sts. on the west side of Terrace Trailer Court Last year I pa�d $1,185.00 taxes because I didn't have homestead credit Thts year they dropped to �733 00 with a homestead credit. After living here awhile I feel I really was iqnorant and didn't know much about buying property They didn't put regular windows in these bungalows They took two super cheap storm windows, didn't 6other to slope the frame at the bottom for dra�nage. And thats what I have for windows. I have had estimates of $�1,5D0 00 to $5,500 00 to replace the w�ndows and frames The basement leaked, not because of the water level but because of no black dirt and poor landscaptng. I am �n the process of adding insulation to the attic now. Last winter when I crawled up in the attic, snow had blown in because the roof's vents never had been fastened down properly. The exhaust pipes for the stove hoods were cut too short so when the fan was turned on, the exhaust would qo �n the attic The shingles aren't very good either. The built-�n ranqes and some bathroom fixtures are for trailer houses. A 22-ft wide house really isn't comfortable for liv�nq in either. It's too narrow. � I realize this row of double 6ungalows (from 73rd to Woodcrest school) was built for income property but I hope the buildinq code will not permii this low quality of building to be put up now. Why take it out on tenants? Three houses down from me there is a smashed car that has been sittinq there for approximately 5 months The kids have duq a deep hole beside it Eventually I hope to fix my place up decent I don't mind payinq taxes but why should I pay high taxes when I have to worry about garbage bernq blown on my yard and when I have so much fixing up to do? BOARD OF REVIEW MEETING PAGE 1D I couldn't make it to the meetinq ton�qht because I work niqhts I wrote this letter to make sure you are fully aware of the actual situation that exists. I realise your �ob is a hard one Thank you very much for your time Sincerely, (Siqned) Plarvey A. Mayer 7431 Able St. Pl.E. Fridley, Mtnn. 55432 Lot 13, Block 2 Plat 56986, Parcel 1950, Nagel's Woodlands P S The car is qone but the smashed hood is still there." MOTION by Councilman Fitzpatrick to accept the letter from Mr. Player and to have a fact sheet prepared 6y the assessor's office to be considered when the Board of Review meeting is reconvened Seconded by Councilwoman Kukowski. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Nee declared the motion carried unanimously ITEM NO 16--FIVE SANDS CDRPORATION, 7805, 7825-45-55, 7875, AND 7895 EAST RIVER ROAD (LOTS l, 2, 3, AND 4, BLOCK 1, MEADOW RUN ADDITION, PARCELS 100, 200, 300, AND 400, PLAT 567941 Mr. Herrmann stated that Mr. Lee Hoffman and P1r. Michael Hoffman were to have attended the meeting toniqht to see if the Board of Review miqht consider any reduction in the estimated market value for the Ftve Sands development because they are in the process of foreclosure and hope a reduction might help them somewhat. Due to a death in the family, they were unable to attend the meetina toniqht, 6ut asked if they miqht be allowed to speak if this meetinq is to be reconvened. � MOTION by Councilman Fitzpatrick to hear the presentation by the representatives of the Five Sands Corporation when the Board of Review reconvenes. Seconded by Councilman , Starwalt. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, P1ayor Nee declared the motion carried unanimously. ITEM NO 17--HONEYMEADE COPIPANY (FORh�ERLY MINNESOTA LINSEED COPIPANY) (PART OF LOT 8, AUDITOR'S SIIBDIVISION N0. 39, PARCEL 1400, PLAT 5�156; AND PART OF LOT 1, AUDITOR'S SUBDIVISION P10. 79. PARCEL 640, PLAT 54160) P1r Herrmann stated that he had discussed with representatives from the Honeymeade Company the estimated market value placed on their property this year After thetr discussion, Mr. Herrmann was of the optnion that they were sat�sfted w�th their valuatton, but wanted to leave them the option of appearing before the Board of Review when it reconvenes this meeting, if they so desire. MOTION by Councilman Hamernik to allow the Honeymeade Company to appear before the Board of Review when it reconVenes this meetinq if they so des�re. Seconded by Councilwoman Kukowski. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Nee declared the motion carried unanimously. MOTION by Councilman Hamernik to reconvene this Board of Review meeting on Tuesday evening, June l, 1976, at 7�30 p m. Motion seconded by Councilwoman Kukowskt. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, P1ayor Nee declared the motton carried unanimously Mayor Nee declared the meetrnq of the Board May 24, 1976. Respectfully submitted, Pat���c�.� � ; cia Sy ek ��'� of Review recessed �����William J. N Playor at 11 50 p.m , ��'�-� �