Loading...
05/19/1980 BOR CONT - 5672Continuation of 1980 Board of Review May 19, 1980 � ' � � r 13S THE: MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF REVIEW MEETING OF MAY 12, 1980 The� City Council met as the Board of Review and the meeting was called to order at 7:30 p.m. by Mayor Nee. PLE:DGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Mayor Nee led the Council and audience in the Pledge of Allegiance to the Fla�g. ROI.L CALL: MEMQERS PRESENT: Mayor Nee, Councilman Fitzpatrick, Councilwoman Moses, Councilman Schneider and f,ouncilman Barnette MfMBERS ABSENT: None Mayor Nee stated the Council would now be meeting as the Board of Review and upc�n conclusion of this meeting, the public hearing meeting of the Council wo�ild be opened. He stated the meeting of the Board of Review is required by State law to meet ancl review market values of properties and to hear objections of property owr�ers He pointed out the Council has the power to make an adjustment in the market value, either up or down within certain limits. May�or Nee stated, after the property owners have been heard this evening and., if they feel they have not been treated fairly, a formal objection: shauld be made in order to protect their right of appeal. May�or Nee stated every property in the City is physically assessed every, fouir years at which time the records are brought up to date. This means tha.t one-fourth of the property in the City had an on-site inspection and the balance of the property is reassessed according to a formula provided for in the State regulations. i Mr. Ivers�n, 4519 2nd Street, stated he objected to the rise in the.value of ' his property, as he felt it was unwarranted. He stated no improvements I have been done to the property for the 18 years he has lived there, except a to keep it clean and paint it. , � Mr. Iverson stated he didn't feel the property is worth $42,500 and objected to the increase from last year which was $33,500. Mr. Herrmann explained the limited value last year was $33,500, but the est.imated value was �36,600, which is approximately a 13� increase over last year's market value. Mr. Herrmannstated he felt this wouldn't be an over- evaluation of this property. Councilman Barnette asked Mr. Iverson if he knew of any homes in his area that have been sold and the price for which they wer�e sold. Mr. Iverson indicated he was not interested in this matter. Councilman Schneider pointed our, by State law, the City is required to assess pro�perty on what they consider is a fair market value. Mr. Iverson stated he objected to the value being raised when no improvements have been made to the property. Mayor Nee state this item could be referred back to the Assessor to obtain � figures on the sale price of comparable property in the area. Mr. Iverson felt this would be satisfactory with him, and whished the Council to check into the matter further. Mrs. June Sentyrz, 129 Crown Road, stated she felt her property is valued for � I more than it is worth. She stated the value was raised about $9,000 this year. Mr. Sentyrz stated, with her husband retiring next year, the taxes would be so high they would be taxed out of their home. �� � BOARD OF REVIEW MEETING - MAY 12, 1980 Mayor Nee pointed out, even though the value is raised, it doesn't necessarily mean the taxes would be increased. He explained what the City must arrive at is the fair market value of what the home would sell for if it was placed on the market. Mr. Herrmann stated the value did go up $9,900 to $47,200. He also pointed out the average home in this area sold for $53,800 so didn't feel the property was overvalued. . h1rs. Sentyrz stated she didn't realize if one home in the area sold for $65,000 it would have a bearing on the value of other homes. Mr. Herrmann explained if one home had sold at a much higher price it probably had some additional features to bring such a price, but if most of the other homes were selling in the $50,000 -$55,000 range, this would be the basis for determing the market value. _:l �3� � 1 i Mayor Nee asked Mrs. Sentyrz if she wished to register an objection and have the Assessor's office check into the matter. Mrs. Sentyrz stated her questions had been satisfactorily answered. Mrs. Lindberg, 5216 Pierce Street, questioned the rise in the market value of her home. The value last year was $52,800 and this year it is $59,400. Mayor Nee asked Mrs. Lindberg if she felt her home would sell for $59,400. Mrs. Lindberg stated she felt it would bea much lower figure. Mr. Herrmann stated, he felt, if the mill rate stays the same, Mrs. Lindberg'S taxes would remain about the same or possibly go down. Mayor Nee explained the changes made by the Legislature in the homestead credit and an increase in the market value doesn't necessarily mean taxes would increase. He stated, if Mrs. Lindberg didn't feel her home was worth the value placed on it, the Assessors' office would review it. .Mrs. Lindberg stated she wouid like this reviewed. �� Mr. B. A. Westeren, 5222 Pierce Street, stated he has the same complaint as' � he didn't feel the increase was justified. Mr. Westeren stated his home is 960 square feet, which is small in today's market, and didn't feel it should 6e compared with the larger homes. Mr. Westeren stated he wasn't complaining about an increase, but felt this was too much, and requested the City review the value palced on his property. Mr. Walter Iskierka, 6170 Starlite Boulevard, voiced a complaint on the value placed on his property. He felt the value of his property went down $10,000 because development adjacent to his home has ruined his property. He pointed out his garden and fence have been ruined because of the development of the lots adjacent to his property. Mr. Herrmann stated the value last year was $43,600 and this year it is $48,900. Mayor Nee stated the City has no power to enforce private covenants, but Mr. Iskierka does have the right to go to court to enforce those covenants. Mr. Herrick, City Attorney, stated if the plat had drainage easements and these were filled by the developer, Mr. Iskierka would have the riqht to take action. He stated the City doesn't have the authority or means to enforce the disputes between neighbors and, if the situation is as bad as he states, he felt Mr. Iskierka should consult an attorney. �? Mr. Herrmann stated a protest was received on the value placed on the Barry Blower property. He stated an appraisal by Mr. Haines, representing Barry Blower, was a little less than the City's, however, Mr. Haines felt this may be acceptable with the company, but wanted an opportunity to consult with them, therefore, wanted the protest noted at this meeting. Mayor Nee suggested this item be kept open, and if they wished, a protest could be filed at the next meeting. � ' �� � � � � r � � �I I �J � � � ' ' � E ________-__ __ ______ _-______-____-___ _. _________ _ ___ ______________ __-___ __. �_. .__ I �.4 � l i I i I i , i i , i BOARD OF REVIEW MEETING- MAY 12, 1980 Mr. Herrmann stat� a protest was also received from Rapid Oil Change and this should be noted for the record. Since the County determines the value of service stations, the protest could be heard at this level. Mr. Herrmann stateia protest was received from Leonard and Mary Lind, 1620 75th Avenue regarding the market value of their home. He stated the Linds were unable to attend the meeting this evening and called to register the protest so it could be noted for the record. Mr. Herrmann stated he felt staff could give the Council the further in- formation requested in time for the next meeting, and therefore, the following action was taken. MOTION by Councilman Barnett to continue this hearing of the Board of Review until the next meeting on May 19, 1980. Seeonded by Councilman Schneider. Upon a voice vote, ali voted aye, and Mayor Nee declared the motion carried unanimously. This meeting adjourned at 8:25 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Carole Naddad Recording Secretary Approved: William J. Nee M�yor i I 1'. ; ; _� �l #2 #i John H Grunke - 5598 West Danube Road Lat 2, Block 3, Innsbruck North 2nd Add. Mr. Grunke's value was explained to him prior to the meeting, to his satisfaction. He did not wish to appear before th�e Board. James Johnson - 5657 North Danube Road Lot 2, Block ], Innsbruck North Mr. Johnson discussed his concerns t�rith the assessor's staff, prior to the meeting. Arrangements were made to view his property. His main concern was the unfinished grade of the Innsbruck Villages development which abuts the . rear of his property. Inasmuch as this area is in the final stages of developement, it was felt that this type of thing is to be expected. However, a memo has been sent to the Community Development Department stating that this condition should be follovred up on for proper treatment and completion. It was explained to Mr. Johnson that the Assessor's land values of lots adjoininq the townhouse development are at a lower rate. Mr. Johnson would be satisfied with his value so long as he can be assured that this problem will be properTy solved. He did not wish to appear before the Board. #3 Mike Swenson - 1496 North Innsbruck Drive Lot 1, Block 8, Innsbruck North � #9 � � � � � i � Mr. Swenson's value was explained to h�m prior to the meeting to his satisfaction. 4e did not wish to ap�ear before the Board. Leonard E Foard - 5228 Pierce Street Lot 3, Block 4, Horizon Heights Mr. Foard's vaiue was explained to him prior to the meeting, to his satisfaction. He did not wish to appear before the Board. #5 Mrs. Sentyz appearec� before the Board on May 12 and after the valuation was explained to her, she accepted the values as determined by the Assessor's office. #6 Mrs. Hildegard Lundberg appeared before the Board on May 12 and asked to have the Assessor come ou� for another opinion of value, but reconsidered the next morning and called to cancel the appointment and accepted the Assessor's value. � � � MEt�lO T0: FROM: DATE: SUQJECT: John Flora, Community Deve1opment Department Mervin J. N�rrmann, City Assessor May 75, 1980 Property at 5657 t�orth Danube Road #2 Mr. James Johnson, owner of this property, was in to the Board of Review, Monday, May 12. He was extremely concerned about the effect of a condition at the rear of his lot, on market value of his property. Walt Mulcahy, of Trty staff, and myself, viewed his propert;y �Jednesday May 14. Nis lot is within 25' of the Innsbruck Vi]lages development. He is concerned about the unfinished condition of this development, adjoining his lot. k�e explained to him that, inasmuch as the Villages is in the final stages of development, these types of unfinished condition can be expected. Mr. Johnson said he could appreciate that, but he felt there was a lack of suiiable p7an for the complet-ion of this particular area and was concerr�ed that it cnight be overlooked. tiJe pointed out to him that Darrel Farr Development was still developing in the area and that �the City had sufficient leverage to obtain satisfactory compliance in the matter. We suggest that Mr. Johnson be contacted by your department regarding plans for the final disposition of this area, and that he be given assurance of its timely com�liance. Our department, of course, is equaily concerned that the final outcome of this does not cause a detrimental effect on the market value of this property as well as the other properties actually adjoining the Villages development. � � r i� I� #4 Owner-Gareth N Iverson Lot 10, Block 2 Rearrangement of Plymouth 4519 - 2nd St. #3 I ' 1980 Assessor's Estimated - Market Value � Land Structure Total $10,500 $32;000 $42,500 � An analysis of recent sales of eleven properties.in subject neiqhborhood was made. Sales ran from February 1979 to February 198Q. The average selling price was $46,200 with an estimated market value average of $41,000. The majority of houses 1� sold in this group are considerably smaller than subject, however they all have garages. Two of these eleven properties sold, are comparable in size to the subject. They are listed here, in comparison to the subject. Adjustments are � made for the features of incomparability in order to give an indication of value of the subject. House Garage Assessor's Sq. Ft. Sq. Ft. Bsmt Year Sale .Selling Est. Mar. Address Area Area Fin. Built Date Price Value Subject ],012 None 490 7956 --- ---- $42,500 4551-22 1,012 576 670 1956 5/79 $55,900 49,300 4725-22 1,080 3Q8 299 1953 2/79 55,OQ0 48,400 Subject Sale Price ------ Size 1,Oi2 Garage None Bsmt. Fin. 490 Age 1956 Sale Date ----- Indicated value of Subject �� , ADJUSTMENTS 4551-2'-2 $55,900 -0- -5,500 -2,000 -0- +3,900 $52,300 4725-2 2 $55,000 -2,4QQ -3,000 + 575 +2,500 +5,500 $58,175 �4 i , Gareth Iverson--continued #4 , Sales of homes without garages, that were comparable to the subject in size, age, quality and neighborhood, were very rare to nanexistent in 1979. Therefore the analysis of current sales within the subject neighborhood was relied on for this report. It was felt thai the two sales, of the eleven studied, were of sufficient comparability � to give a reasonable indication of the market value of subject. Conclusion: The sale of 4551 - 22 St. is the closest comparable to the subject. The major differences are a garage and a larger amount of basement finish. Qy adjusting the sale price for these items, and also addinq 1% per month for inflation, the indicated value, as of January 2, 1980 of the subject is $52,30�. Disregarding this analysis, a simple average selling price, of all properties sold in subject neighborhood was $46,200, or $"s,700 more than the 1980 Estimated Market Value of subject. , Recommenda�ion: No Change. � , i � 1 1 �1 �t , #7 Lot 4, Block 4 , Horizon Fieights 5222 Pierce St N E Owner - Brent A L�Jes teren , �� � ' ' � Land $18,500 1930 Assessor's Es�imated Market Value: Buildinq $34,600 Total $53,100 This property has one of the smallest houses in the neiqhborhood. There were no recent sales of property in this n�ighborhood, of sufficient comparability, to analyze. 4Je, therefore, had to search for comparable sales, outside �he neighborhood. Ten sales were found of property where the houses and lots were of sufficient comparability to anaTyze. The saTes took place from December 1978 to October 1979. The averaqe sellinq price was $57,540. Our 1980 value averaged $45,420 on these for a ratio of 79%. The average Assessor's Estimated Value on the lots, of these sales is $11,500, which would indicate the land value represents 25% of the total value. This is consistant with the average land ratio of all residential property in Fridley. This average lot value iS also $7,000 less than the subject. The subject property's land ratio is 35q. This indicates the amount of underimprovement evidenced in the subject because it is located in a neighborhood of generally much higher valued properties. Of the ten above mentioned comparable sales, four N�ere felt to be most comparable to tF�e subject. They are listed here in comparison to the subject: ' � House Sq. Ft. Address Area , Subject 960 5925-5th 960 , 1363-66th 9b0 b212 Caroi Dr 9b0 ' 6141 Trinity 912 Garage Sq. Ft. Area 308 att. 286 att. 286 att. 308 att. 308 att. Bsmt. Sq. Ft. Area 684 408 275 132 396 Extra Bath 3/4 No 3/4 3/4 1/2 Year :. Built 1954 1958 1954 ]956 1956 Lot Size 85 X 126 76 X 136 83 X 355 75X138 75 X 140 #.5 Assessor's Sale adj. Sale Sa1e Est. Mar. to 1(2/80 Date Price Value @ 1% per hio $ $53,100 $ 2/79 58,500. 46,300 64,350 12/78 . 55,000 47,200 65,540 6/79 54,SQ0 46,000 57,700 5/79 59,200 49,300 63,3�4 ' Ctinclusion: By analysis of current sales, the actual indicated market value of the subject would be close to $67,000. The propzrty is developed with a house that is smaller than average size for the area. Therefore, the better homes in the area would tend to hold the subject value at a , higher level than most houses of its size. Disregarding these assumptions, simple analysis of the actual sale price of the four comparables average $57,500 or $4,400 more than the subject. � , , Recommendation: No Change. � , #8 4Jalter Iskierka i , 6170 Starlite Blve. Lot 4, Block 3, Sylvan Hills Plat 2 Plat 59259, Parcel 740 � �� #6 An inspection of the subject property was made May 16, by Mr. Herrmann and Mr. Mulcahy. The property to the north of the subject ras been filled so that the rear of the lot is about six feet higher than the subject. The bank has been sodde.d so there is no erosion at the present time. The wire fence on the property line has been buried from six to twelve inches, perhaps from erosion before sodding. This office has added no value for the fence therefore can not reduce the value of the fence. The following is a list of properties on Starlite Blvd. adjacent to the subject ' property. All have higher values than the subject so it is the opinion of this office that the new houses enhance the value of the subject, not detract from it. ' � 6i40 Starlite Blvd----$51,OQ0 6150 Starlite Blvd---- 58,300 6160 Starlite Blvd---- 56,900 6170 Starlite Blvd----$48,900-Subject 6180 Starlite Blvd---- 57,000 6190 Starlite Blvd---- 54,100 The following is a list of recent sales of compar�ble properties. Al1 are ramblers of approximate size and age of the �ubject a.nd the lots are smaller. Sq. Ft. Sq. Ft. Bsmt. Sale Selling Est Mar Address Si�e Garage Fin. Age Date Price Value Subject 490 Fairmont 6840 Washington 666 Kimball 634 Kimball 6549 Anoka 7�90 468 641 7964 104.0 360 --- 1964 9/79 $52,900 1078 375 450 1963 4/79 67,900 1040 572 288 1953 8/79 59,900 1040 576 376 1963 9/79 58,500 1056 308 526 7963 6/79 57;500 296,7Q0 $243,500 : $296,700 = 85.4% ratio $48,900 47,700 58,800 48,800 48,700 49,500 253,500 The following are three recent sales of property adjoining railroad tracks showing our ratio of estimated market values to selling pr�ces. Address 6180 Starlite 6150 Starlite 7035 Hickory Date Sale price Est. Mar. Va7. Ratio 9/79 $69,500 2/80 $66,500 2/80 $67,900 $203,900 $57,000 $58,300 $59,500 $174,800 82� 87% 88% 85.7� $48,900 estimated market value of subject divided by .857 ratio would indicate an actual value of $57,000. Therefore, the assessor's office would recorr�iend no change of value for the property located at 6170 Starlite Qoulevard. ' #l0 ' Leonard Lind 1620 - 75th Ave N E Lot 2, Block 1 Dalberg Terrace �', , 55653/50 , � , � , Mr. Lind was in a year ago and compared taxes in other, than Fridley, areas. He also was concerned about the agricultural credit that his acquaintances were getting. There is no such thing in Fridley as i� pertains only to farm and seasonal-recreational properties. He also feels that the value on his property is more than market value. I f�ave cor�parable properties that were sold earlier than January 2, 1980. On these I have compared the syuare foot area of house and garage, number of baths, lot size, extras and age. Then I entered actual sale price at time of sale and also the adjusted sale as of January 2, 1980. With these comparables it shows our value is well below market. Address Subject 7518 Nayes 1473-7bth House Sq. Ft. Square Baths Garage Feet Size 1,056 1 576 1,017 1 460 1,040 1 484 Lot Size Aqe 90 X 130 1965 80 X 125 1969 80 X 135 1960 Extras $475 320 65 Assessor's Market Val. $50,600 51,000 46,300 Sale. Price $ 53,900 53,600 #7 Sale Adj. to 1/2/80 $ 60,400 57,900 This property owner was in last year also. At that time the Board of Re�iew , considered no change but acknowledged his protest so he could go to the County Board. This year his property was in the area where we applied a percentage increase. Land at 10%, structure at 13%. ' In view of ail these facts I would recommend No Change. i � 1 1 1 .1 � #� , #11 � Rapid Oil Change � 5701 University Ave. N. E. Lots 1- 4, Block 6 City View Addition Plat 55401/Parcels 850-880 � ' I have the land valued at $85,200 and they bought the land for $82,000. This would seem that I have overvalued the land bu�:, it should be recognized that one sale does not set the market. When the corner just to the south was sold ' the land brought a little more than my value and I use a higher rate per square foot on that land so my estimate of land value is reasonable. The other part of their valuation is the structure. All service station. , structures are valued by the County Assessor. This property owner had bought the structure f rom "Metro 500" for $1,000.00, but neither buyer or seller owned the land at that time so it was not an "arms length" sale. Due to the facts presented I ' would recommend to the Board: No Change. ' 0 � #9 �12 Barry Blower. Division of Weil McLain Co., Inc. 99 - 77th Way N E Pt of SW 4 of SE 4 and SE 4 of SE 4 of Section 3, Township 30, Range ?_4 Plat 53903, Parcel 8850 Mr Qaryl L Haines of Marvin F. Poer and Company, pr�sented his appraisal of the «bove mentioned property and compared it with our value. His was lower by about 6%, but he said he could not get back to his client ai th�s time because he had many other Boards of Review to attend. He may find his client wi7linq to accept our value so, therefore, I would recommend to the Board of Review: No Change.