Loading...
05/02/1983 BOR - 52351 ' Honorable Mayor Nee and Fridley City Council , The meeting of the 1983 Board of Review must be called as a separate meeting from any other scheduled business. ' In the past, there has been need to cal� a continued meeting to hear cases that cannot be resolved at the first sitting. In order to give our office adequate time to prepare, we would appreciate at least ' two weeks time until the next meetinq. That would be May 16. State statute requires that the Board finish its business within 20 days of the first meeting. That would be May 23. , The notice of valuation, sent to taxpayers this year, encouraged them to contact our office before appearing at this meeting. Of those that do, our office should be prepared so that these cases can most likely ' be settled at the first sitting. However, for those that come to the meeting, without contacting our office, we will probably need to take more time to review and prepare. We would appreciate it if these , people can be asked to contact our office for an appointment to view their property and to gather whatever data we miqht need. I hope the following information in this booklet will be of assistance 1 to you in your deliberations for this Board of Review. Property tax laws, in Minnesota, are extremely complicated, and many taxpayers are understandably confused by them. Hopefully, we will be able to educate ' as well as equalize at these meetings. If you have any questions on this year's assessment or anything else � regarding property taxation and valuation, please feel free to contact me. I also want to thank you for your fine conduct of these meetings in the past. r Leon Madsen, Assessor r � � � � � � 1 , �� �� AUTHORITY OF THE LOCAL BOARD OF REVIEW ' Assessments of property are made �o provide the means for the measuring of the relative share af each taxpayer in meeting the costs of local government. It is the duty of the Assessor to assess all real and personal property except that which is exempt or taxable under some special method of taxation. , If the burden of local government is to be fairly and justly �hared among the owners of all property of value, it is necessary that all taxable property be listed on the tax rolls and that all assessments be made accurately. � Fairness and justice in property taxation demands both completeness and equality in assessment. ' �� � Minnesota Statutes Section 274.01 provides that the council of each city shall be or appoint a Board of Review. These meetir�gs are required to be held between April 1 and June 30 and the Clerk of the Board of Review is required to give published and posted notice at least ten days before the date set for the first meeting. The Board of Review of any c;ity, unless a longer period is approved by the ' Commissioner of Revenue, must complete its work and adjourn within 20 days from the time of convening specified in the noticP of the C1erk. No action taken subsequent to such date shall be valid. � A request for additional time in order to complete the work of the Board of Review must be addressed to the Comnissioner of Revenue in writing. The Comnissioner's approval is necessary to leqalize any procedure subsequent to � the expiration of the 20-day period. The Commissioner of Revenue will not, however, extend the time for local Boards of Review to meet past June 30 because County Boards of Equalization convene on July 1. ' , r , ' � L_ J , ' The authority of the local board extends over the individual assessments of real and personal property. The board does not have the power to incrPase or decrease by percentage all the assessments in the district of a given class of property. Changes in aggregate assessments by classes are made by the County Board of Equalization. Although the local Board of Review has the authority to increase or reduce individual assessments, the total of such adjustments must not reduce the aggregate assessment made by the assessor by more than one percent of said aggregate assessment. If the total of such adjustments does lower the aggreate assessment made by the assessor by more than one percent, none of the adjustments will be allowed. This limitation does not apply, however, to the correction of clerical errors or to the removal of duplicate assessments. The local Board of Review does not have the authority in any year to reopen former assessments on which taxes are due and payable. The board considers only the assessments that are in process in th� current year. Occasionally a taxpayer may appear before a board to protest an assessment that was made the previous year. The board should explain tactfully that it has no authority to consider such matters and that after taxes have been extended, adjustment can be made only by the process of abatement or by legal action. 2 , ' ' , ' � �' ' � , � AUTHORITY (continued) In reviewing the individual assessments, the board may find instances of undervaluation. Before the board can raise the market value of property, it must notify the owner. The law does not prescribe any particular form of notice except that the person whose property is to be increased in assessment must be notified of the intent of the board to make the increase. The local Board of Review meetings assure a property owner an oportunity to contest the valuation that has been placed on his property or to contest or protest any other matter relatinS to the taxability of his property. The board is required to review the matter and make any corrections that it deems just. When a local Board of Review convenes, it is necessary that a majority of the members be in attendance in order that any valid action may be taken. The local assessor is required by law to present his assessment books and papers. He is required also to take part in the proceedings but has no vote. In addition to the local assessor, the county assessor or one of his assistants is required to attend. The board should proceed imnediately to review the assessments of property. The complaints and objections of persons who feel aqgrieved with any assessments for the current year should be considered very carefully by the board. Such assessments must be reviewed in detail and the boar� has the authority to make corrections it deems to be just. The board may adjourn from day to day until all cases have been heard. A property owner may file written objections to his assessment with the assessor prior to the meeting of the Board of Review. Such objections must be presented to the board for consideration while it is in session. Before adjourning, the board of review should cause the official proceedings � to be prepared. The assessments of omitted property must be listed in detail and all assessments that have been increased or decreased should be shown as � prescribed in the form. After the proceedings have bPen completed the record � should be signed and dated by the members of the Board of Review. It is the duty of the County Assessor to enter changes by Boards of Review in the assessment book of each district. � The local Board of Review has the opportunity of making a qreat contribution to the equality of all assessments of property in a district. No other agency in the assessment process has the knowledqe of the property within , a district that is possessed jointly by the individual members of a Board of Review. The County or State Board of Equalization cannot give the detailed attention to individual assessments that is possible in the session � of the local board. It is a well considered opinion that the most important single duty placed by law upon the governing body of a municipality is the serving as the Board of Review of assessments. The faithful performance of duty of the Board of Review will make a direct contribution to the � attainment of equality in meeting the costs of providinq the essential services of local government. � �� 3 � ' LJ � 1983 ASSESSMENT Approximately 2200 parcels of property have been physically reviewed for the 1983 assessment, for taxes payable 1984. This is the assessment that is being heard at this Board of Review. The map on Page 5 indicates the area of the 1983 physical reviews and the other three quarter areas. Two items have made this assessment unique, compared to those done in the , past. One is the fact that, almost Twin City area wide, there was very little, if any, increase in the levels of real property values during the year of 1982. We, therefore, submitted our 1983 values to the County ' (�ssessor's office with virtually no change from 1982, except for new construction. Sales ratio studies, done of the entire Anoka County by the County Assessor, indicated that Fridley's sales ratio fell somewhat below the mean. The County Assessor's office , therefore, deemed it necessary ' to increase our overall level of assessment, on residential property, by 4 percent. LJ � ' , ' L � i� � i � � , ' The second ite� that makes this year's assessment unique is that it was done almost entirely by computer. Anoka County, has for some years, been doing much of the tax administration work on their computer system. This year, however, marks the first assessment that was generated with computer aided appraisals. The Computer Aided Mass Apprasial (CAMA) proqram used by the county is distributed out of a Florida Company. It is designed to use very much the same techniques we have been using manually. It basically works this way; we gather the physical data on each property, we make the judgement decisions that establish the value level each property should fit into, we then enter this data on forms that translate to the computer, the County personnel input this data, the computer generates the calculated values. As with most any computer problems. This system is if any, testing done, such resulted in unacceptable year's assessment, was spe results. Between this pro our property data to compu normal recalculation work reviewed. Therefore, with system, the initial use stages present numerous no exception. Given the fact that there was little as a pilot run, much of our initial input values. A laroe amount of staff time, in this nt on correctinq and adjusting the computer cess and the time consuming one of transferring ter inputable form, we were unable to do our on the one-quarter area that we physically the exception of new construction, the 1983 assessment amounted to a re-entry of the 1982 assessment, as a factor of 4% to all residential land and building values. it was, plus :'� BLMNE / ♦ N SPRING �aKE vaaK ,..�a�.� f W � �N • p[��x� C� f S MtRw C�� hw <�� �w�WY[M CM� f � N�11[t C�� [. �o�t�( M • li Y��OOD C� 4 STREET MAP-CITY OF FRIDLEY 5 � - �nva�s � - � ' , � i � LJ ' � � 1 1 � � L__� � � ' � [% SALES RATIO STUDY A sales ratio study is a comparison of the Assessor's Estimated Market Value (E.M.V.) against actual sales prices. EMV = Sales Price = the ratio. The State, the County and our office do these types of studies annualiy, but for different pruposes. The State studies are used for a number of purp�ses. One is for the calculation of school aids; another is for equalization of assessment within school districts that cross tax jurlsdiction borders; another is for tax court. The County does a ratio study primarily to equalize assessment levels within the County. Our office does these studies to see how our most current assessment relates to the current market and gives indication of what adjustments need to be made. Our current study gives a good picture of market trends in the City of Fridley. Our office does these studies, periodically, throuqhout the year. We do our last study, for a par.ticular year's assessment, in about March. This gives us sales data to the end of the previous year, and gives us the most current status of the assessment under study. It is this latest study, for this year, that indicated that the Fridiey assessment was lower than the majority of other Anoka County jurisdications, and hence requirinq the 4� increase. It must always be remembered that when these studies are done, no one particular sale will be used to establish value. 7his is because one sale won't necessarily represent exact market, either for its particular property, or a group of similar properties. It requires many sales to provide a reliable statistical sample. Following is some general data on sales ratio studies done for the last three years. YEAR OF TOTAL SALES TOTAL OF TOTAL OF AGG. AVERAGE SALES STUDIED SALES PRICES EMV RATIO SELLING PRICE ••� 1981 I�:� 313 $21,993,249 18,479,300 84.22 211 177 15,992,200 14,242,300 12,994,715 *11,436,600 *before addinq in 4%. :• � :: � $70,265 75,792 73,416 � � ' I�� � �'� � �I� � � � u ' � � �. J ' � � f_J CONTINUATION of BOARO OF REVIEW MAY 16, 1983 7:00 P.M. � I� J �I I� � � t_J , LJ ' i ��� �i " � �� :�� : � . �1/ 1�" i �-'�� �. c � � r � The City Council met as the Board of Reviex and the meeting Was called to order at 7:08 p. n. by Mayor Nee. � '�. � �� Mayor Nee led the Couneil and audience in the Pledge of Allegiance to the "Flag. ;� MF.NIBERS PRESENT: Hayor Nee� Councilman Fitzpatrick� Councilman Aamernik, Councilman Schneider and Councilman Barnette MEMBERS ABSENT: Kone Mayor Nee stated the purpose of the Board of Review is to hear comments or questions from property owners regarding the values placed on their property. Mr. Leon Madsen, City Assessor, introduced the County Assessor, Nr. Gayle Leone and Mr. Aloyus Barck of the County Assessor's Office, Who are required to be in attendance at this meeting. Mr. Madsen stated Lhe Board of Revie�r Would hear comments regarding the 1983 values placed on properties for taxes payable in 1984. He stated the Board has the power to change any vglue within the legally described limits. Mr. Madsen stated, aceording to State lax, at least 20x of properties in the City have to be iaspected eaeh year and this year the area xas in School District No. 14 and the properties south of Hississippi Street. Mayor Nee stated, basfcally, what the Board of RevieW is to determine is ' Whether or not the Assessor set his estimated market value at a correct level. He stated the City and Couaty Assessor run sales ratio studies on a periodic basis� and they try to come within 95i of the estimated value. � �J ' LJ l_.J � , Mayor Nee stated last year Columbia Heights raised a point that the City was under assessing and an order Was received to make an adjustment to equalize this within the County, therefore, about a 4'j increase is reflected Which includes the adjustments and takes into consideration normal inflaiion. Tbe folloxing persons spoke regarding the values placed on their properties. Mr. Arvid Krogsveen� 6711 Quincy Street, stated he is the orrner of a lot on 71st Hay and East River Road and felt the value of �16,000 placed on the lot Was too high. Mr. Madsen stated this lot is 120 z 160 feet and by using a base or site value, a 80 z 125 foot lot in that area �ould be valued at a14,000 and adjusting a larger lot, they arrive at a value of �18,000 and this is reduced by 15i because it is vacant. :�: i� �� i�� �. c.-� z.: Nayor Nee stated he noticed the lot xas for sale and asked rrhat price Mr. 1Crogsveen Was asking for it. Nr. 1Crogsveen stated he hoped to get �20,000 for the lot. Mayor Nee felt the �16,000 value might very �rell be the right eatimate of .trhat the lot is vorth. Councilman Barnette stated the fact that he is asking �20,000 for the lot seems the value placed on the lot vould be correct. Councilman Fitzpatrick stated the Board is obliged to consider only one thing and that is market value and the Assessor has valued this lot at �16,000 and, if the oWner is asking �20,000, this figure seemed eorrect and there Wasn't any basis for reducing the value. Mr. Madsen stated there Were a number of smaller lots in the area �here homes xere built and those lots sold for �15,000. There Was no aetion by the Board to reduce the value, therefore, the Assessor's value Was sustained. Mayor Nee stated the record Will shoW that he did appeal the value and this would give Mr. Rrogsveen the right of appeal to the County. Marjon Enterprises, 6525 IIniversity Avenue. Mr. Madsen stated Marjon Enterprises had contacted them and wished to be recognized that they are protesting the value� but they �+ere unable to attend this evening. NOTION by Councilman Barnette to receive the protest from Marjon Enterprises. Seconded by Councilman Schneider. Opon a voice vote, all voting aye, Nayor Nee declared the motion carried unanimously. Nr. Gregory Felt, 233 Ely Street, appeared before the Board and indicated he felt the value of �50,700 placed on his property Was too high. Hr. Felt presented figures vhich he stated showed the average value of homes in his neighborhood is about =65,000. Nr. Felt stated it Would be impossible for him to sell his home for �80,700 because of the location which is close to the railroad tracks and also near an industrial area Where they get fumes from the spray paintiag operation. Mr. Felt stated a reasonable value for his home vould be ?7,400. Mr. Felt stated he has had a 34x increase in the value of his home from 1g81 to 1984 and didn't believe housing has increased more than 12 to 15�- Mr. Madsen stated there are a number of items in this property that are alightly above average or above meeting the City's code, and felt the value �as Well Within the market. Councilman Fitzpatrick felt the Assessing Department should reviex this item since it may be difficult to sell this property for �80,700 because of the close proximitq of the railroad tracks and to the spray painting company. � , � I� t � :�,;i �, ;' �f. .' , �: pAGE � NOTION by Couacilaan Fitzpatriek to continue thfs ftem to Nay 16, 1983 for a further report from the Assessor's Office. Seconded by Councilman Schneider. Opon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Nee declared the aotion carried unanimously. .!!r. Jacob Weins� 5809 Mthur Street. Nr. Madsen stated ataPf talked With !!r. ileins and he is aatisfied rrith the value placed on his property. Mr. Marvin Joppe� 7330-7332 Everts Court, appeared before the Council regarding the value placed on his double bungaloW. He stated the value placed on his property is the same as others in the area, hoWever, he has had difficulty renting his units because of adjacent property Where it is unkempt and a"junkyard". He stated he actually had to loWer the rent in order to fill his vacancy. Mr. Madsen stated, Wben they valued the property, they based it on the ' surrounding property as it Was zoned, but this one unit has the Worst exposure to the unkempt property. CJ ' � Nr. Flora, Public liorks Director, stated the property owner to Which Mr. Joppe made reference, has been contacted regarding cleaning up his property. Mr. Joppe stated the value placed an the property is �111,400, hoxever, last year he paid �132,238 for the property. Councilman Fitzpatrick asked why the value placed on the property is lor+er than What it vas sold for last year. ' Mr. Madsen stated because it sold for �132,000 doesn't necessarily mean it is worth ths amount in the market and his concern is that it xas valued equally vith other like properties. ' MOTION by Councilman Schneider to adjust the value of the property at 7330- 7332 E�►erts eourt from �111,400 to �103,000 based on the fact that the litter and junk on the neighboring property impacted rents for this ' property. Seconded by Councilman Barnette. Opon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Nee declared the motion carried unanimously. Mr. Ron Burg, 7170 Central Avenue, stated he didn't have a problem With the ' value, but felt the taxes �ere quite high and, With the increase in value, it causes the taxes to go up. ' Nr. Burg stated the value oa this four-plex has gone up from �137,000 in 1981 to a157,1�0, and taxes are �5,800. He questioned xhat taxes would be on a home valued at �157,000. ' Nr. Madsen explained the formulas used in assessing multiple units, as compared With single family or homestead properties. ' Councilman Fitzpatrick pointed out the public can be heard on issues that Would affect the mill rate and taxes at the budget hearings conducted by the school district, city� and county. ' I�� Hr. Raymoad Anderson, 6428 DellWOOd Drive, stated he felt the value placed on hfs duplez was too hight at �88,300. He stated his property Would need a lot of improvements in order to bring it up to this value. :�, �1 �, i �� �. ■ � ■.: 7 Mr. Anderson pointed out a brick� three bedroom home in his area recently aold in the �70,000 bracket. MOTION by Councilman Schneider to direct the Assessor's Office to further atudy the value placed on the property at b�28 Dellr+ood Drive and report -back to the Board. Seconded by Councilman Baraette. Upo a a voice vote, all voting aye, Nayor Nee declared the motion earried unanimou�ly. Mr. Hjalmer Aaderson, 1491 Rice Creek Road. Mr. Madsen stated Mr. Anderson has left the meeting, however, Mr. Anderson felt the value placed on the property �►as too high. MOTION by Councilman Schneider to record the protest by Mr. Anderson for his property at 1491 Rice Creek Road. Seconded by Councilman Barnette. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Nee declared the motion carried unanimously. Mr. A1 Singer, 1450 Rice Creek Road, appeared before the Board and stated he felt the value of a65,100 placed on his property xas too high. He stated he purchased this property ia July of 1982 for E57,200� therefore, he felt this value was 21-22x high and requested a reduction. MOTION by Councilman Barnette to direct the Assessor's Office to further study homes comparable to the property at 1450 Rice Creek Road and report back to the Board. Seconded by Councilman Fitzpatrick. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye� Mayor Nee declared the motion carried unanimously. Mr. Fred Covey, 7321 East River Road, atated he Was not upset �+ith the value placed on the property, but upset about the taxes. He questioned how they can inerease the value by 5i and increase the taxes by 40x. Mr. Qureshi, City Manager, stated the city, county, and schools, basically, set the taxes. He pointed out the schools get almost 50-55x of the taxes, and the county betWeen 20 to 25x, and the city betWeen 16 and 17x. Mr. Qureshi stated the homestead eredit stayed the same so any increase has a doubling effect. Mayor Nee pointed out the mill rate the City levied did not increase. Mayor Nee asked Mr. Covey if he wished to carry this protest further. He stated he didn't disagree xith the value on the property, but With the percentage of the tax increase. Nr. Richard Amar, 6654 East River Road, felt the value of �36,700 placed on this property �as too high. Mr. Madsen stated an inspection of this property was done in June, 1981 and it was found that very feW homes sell for under ��10,000. Mr. Amar stated, With the Aealth Club going in this last qear, he felt the value of this property should be going doxn. Mr. Madsen stated there are some homes ia Fridley similar in size to which this property could be compared. , � ' �� '� : � , ; � �: " � � 1' � 1. � . : MOTION by Councilman Fitzpatriek to direct the Assessor's Office to further atudy the value placed on this property and report back to the Board. Seconded by Councilman Hamernik. IIpon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Nee declared the motion carried unaaimously. .Mr. Dale Rnott, 5980 2-1/2 Street. Nr. Madsen stated Mr. l�uott vished the record to shox he had entered a protest. MOTION by Councilman Fitzpatriek to record the protest f iled by Mr. Rnott ' for his property at 5980 2-1/2 Street. Seconded by Councilman Barnette. Qpon a voice vote, all voting aye, !layor Nee declared the motion carried unanimously. � ' ' L_J � � ' � 0 ' ' ' ' ' Nr. Chris Jelevarov, 6471 Rfverviex Terrace, appeared before the Council regarding the assessment on this property for Water and sexer xhich Was put in 15 years ago. ' Mayor Nee asked Mr. Jelevarov if he �►as objecting to the value placed on his property and he indicated he r�as not objecting to the value, but to the assessment. Mayor Nee stated this question was then out of order to be heard by the Board of RevieW and informed Mr. Jelevarov the Council would hear his complaint r►hen the regular meeting convened after this Board of Reviex meeting. Mr. Richard Harris, 6200 Riverviex Terrace. It Was noted that Mr. Harris had left the meeting and wished to record a protest. MOTION by Councilman Hamernik to record a protest from Mr. Harris regarding the value placed on his property. Seconded by Councilman Barnette. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Hayor Nee declared the motion carried unanimously. Mr. Mark Rroll, 123 63rd Way, appeared before the Board regarding the value placed on his home. He stated all tbe homes in his area have a lorrer value than his property and at least tWO of the homes have been refurnished. Mr. Rroll stated he has had a 24.7i increase in value over over the last three years and felt this has skyrocketed enough and it shouldn't go up another 5x . MOTION by Couneilman Fitzpatrick to direct the Assessor's Office to review the value placed on his property and report back to the Board. Seconded by Councilman Hamernik. IIpon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Nee declared the motion carried unanimously. Mr. Dean Johnson, 5626 6th Street, appeared Defore the Board regarding the value placed on his home. Ae stated the value placed on his home is =56,300 and last year he had txo real estate people come in and they estimated the value at �5�,000. Nr. Madsen stated the land value is at �16,500 and the total value on the property is �56,300. He stated the house Was originally built in 19u8 and had considerable remodeling and an addiiton in 1978. •� 1� �: ��� `�i. r- f r. He stated the total aquare footage of the house is 1,266. With no basement� and ia rated alightly belov average. NOTION by Councilman Hamernik to direct the Assessor's Ottiee to further atudy and fnvestigate the value placed on this property and report back to the Board on May 16, 1983• Seconded by Councilman Schneider. IIpon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Nee declared the motion carried uaanimously. aDJOURNMENT• HOTION by Councilman Barnette to continue this hearing of the Board of Review to May 16, 1983• Seconded by Councilman Fitzpatrick. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Nee declared the motion carried unanimously and this meeting of May 2, 1983 adjourned at 9:10 p. m. Respectfully submitted, Carole Haddad Recording Secretary Approved: William J. Hee Mayor ITEM #1 Arvid and Maude Krogsveen Lot 16, Block 2, Riverwood Manor. Claimed value of $16,000 too high, on lot. Board action - sustained value at $16,000. P.I.N. 10-30-24-44-0064 1 2 , '�,I � ITEM #2 Marjon Enterprises, partnership P.I.N. i4-30-24-24-0010 ', ' 6525 University Avenue N. E. Phoned Assessor's office and wished to be recognized as protesting the value of $278,700. Unable to attend meeting. �� ' Will probably appear at County meeting. � Board action - received protest. , ' � ITEM #3 Gregory and Linda Felt P.I.N. 03-30-24-42-0147 233 Ely St. N. E A review was made of the subject property May 4, 1983. The structure is a well built two story, three bedroom house w�th a large attached garage. It was built in 1979 and is in like-new condition. The neiqhborhood is made up of lesser valued properties, built about twenty years ago. It appears that the subject is somewhat overbuilt for the area. This is difficult to measure because of the lack of sales of two story houses in Fridley. It was decided to use a"C" rate rather than a"CC+" rate in the cost method to reflect this economic obsolesence. This would be a 3.3% or $2100 reduction in the structure value. It is the recorrmendation of the assessor's office to reduce the value of the property at 233 Ely St. from $80,700 to 78,600 as follows: From To t __ Land $16,800 $16,800 Structure $63,900 $61,800 Total $80,700 $78,600 3 4 � ' � I i E'�1 #4 Jacob and Emma Weins P.I.N. 24-30-24-14-0037 ' 5809 Arthur St N E Was looking for help to figure out his property tax refund form. ', 1 Stafif talked to Mr. Weins and he did not want to appear before the Board. Board action - none. ' ' � , ' ITEM #5 Marvin Joppe P.I.N. 12-30-24-13-0047 ' 7330 Evert Court Mr. Joppe claimed value too high because of unsightly condition on property , at 7345 Central Ave. N. E. Board action - reduced value from $111,400 to $1_03,000. ' ' I � � � � � ,I� . 5 I ' ' ITEM #6 Ronald and Mary Burg '� 7170 Central Avenue N E P.I.N. 12-30-24-31-0040 � Claimed taxes too high. Had no real objection to value. , Board action - sustained value at $157,100. ' , �� ' ' ' 0 � ITEM �7 ' Raymond L and Gladys Anderson P.I.N. 13-30-24-31-0014 6428 Dellwood Drive , Owner stated value too high. We made an onsite review of the property on May 5. All of the previous data, that we were carying on our records, proved correct. ' In attemptinq to make a market analysis of the subject, it was found that no sales have taken place, recently, of sufficiently comparable property. Most , of the sales of double bungalows were either substantially newer of smaller than subject. , In support of our value of $88,300 for 1983, pay 1984, we submit this comparison of our values of fairly comparable properties, to subject, and sales of duplexes in the subject neighborhood. 1983 Values on Comparable Properties ' Subject 6210 E.R.Rd 6140 Star Lane 1250 Miss. St ,?otal Bldg Area 1885 Sq. Ft. 1584 Sq. Ft. 1682 Sq. Ft. 1906 Sq. Ft. Garage 2 car - Det. 2 Car - Att. 2 car - Det 4 car - Rtt. � Year Built 1951 1966 1959 1963 �entr. Air Cond. One-half Yes Yes No ' Lot Size 130 X 190 92 X 135 110 X 136 153 X 95 , Lot Value �23,400 $18,700 $21,300 $31,900 Total Yalue �88,300 $90,000 $85,100 $116,500 7 , , Sales in Subject Neiqhborhood Subject 6355 Pierce 6373 Pierce 6389 Pierce (For Com arison) � Style Doub e Bungalow Duplez-Enq. Bsmt Duplex-Eng. Bsmt Duplex-Ena. Bsmt. Total Area 1.885 Sq. Ft. 984 + 800 Sq. Ft. 984 + S00 Sq. Ft. 984 + 800 Sq. Ft. ', , Garage 2 car - Det 2 car - Det 2 car - Det 12 car - Det. Year Built 1951 i962 1962 1962 , n. Air Cond. One-half No Alo No Ce ',, � Zot Size 130 X 190 80 X 174 85 X 155 80 X]50 � SaTe Date --------- Nov. 1982 Aug. 1982 Aug. 1981 ' Selling Price --------- $98,500 $99,000 $95,000 �, ' It is our opinion that this data supports the fact that we have similar properties of this type, equally valued, and that recent sales in the subject area prove a market at a value somewhat higher than our current value of subject. � We, therefore, recommend no chanQe in the value as submitted. � .<. � , ' , ITEM #8 Hjalmer Anderson P.I.N. 13-30-24-42-0029 , 1491 Rice Creek Road Claimed taxes too high. Left meeting before he was called on. I■ Board action - recarded attendance. � � �J ' � ' �_ � ITEM #9 Allan E. Singer 1450 Rice Creek Road P.I.N. #13-30-24-43-0059 Claims value too high based on his purchase price of $57,200 In June, 1982. As mentioned at the first meeting, one particular sale does not necessarily represent market value. Our office is convinced that Mr. Sinqer obtained an exceptional deal, and based on the following sales of comparable property, his price does not�represent market value of his property. The following sales are listed, starting with the one most comparable to subject. The comparison is based on the most significant features of the property. The most outs�anding feature of the subject is the size of the lot. The averaqe value of the las of tl-�e comparables is $17,000. If the subject had an average size lot, it's total value would be approximately $55,400, well below the average selling price of the comparables. 0 Based on this evidence, we reco�nend no change in the value of the subject, as submitted. (see next page for comparables) , _ 0 � � � ITEM #9-Continued Allan E. Singer 1450 Rice Creek Road , Subject � Area 944 Sq. Ft. Garage 1 + 1 Att. � Yr. Blt. 1950 ' Cent A/C Yes Bsmt Fin. 156 Sq.Ft. , Lot Size 165 X 215 ' Location =________ Sale Date �ale Price Value ($65,100) � � Area Garage � Yr. Blt �Cent A/C Bsmt Fin. � Lot size Location ' Sa7e Date � Sale Price ' , P.I.N. 13-30-24-43-0059 List of Comparables to Subject 6045 6425 6819 2z St Ashton E. Rr. Rd. 962 Sq.Ft. 912 Sq.Ft. 982 Sq.Ft. 2 car-Det 1 car-Att 1 car-Att 1957 1956 1954 No No No 468 Sq.Ft. 468 Sq.Ft. 852 Sq.Ft. 70 X 130 80 X 178 80 X 154 Similar Similar Poorer Aug 1982 Aug 1982 May 1981 $65,900 $63,000 $69,500 129 Crown Road 978 Sq.Ft. 2 car-Det 1956 No No 71 X 126 Similar July 1981 $66 , 900 6280 Able St 960 Sq.Ft. 1 car-Att 1956 Yes No 75 X 135 Similar Jan 1982 $67,000 881 W Moore Lk Dr 960 Sq. Ft. 1 car-Att 1956 Yes 442 Sq.Ft. 75 X 136 Better Jan 1982 $65,500 5840 W. Moore Lk Dr 928 Sq.Ft. 1 car-Det 1956 No 400 Sq.Ft. 70 X 132 Better Feb 1982 $76,500 6220 Able St 960 Sq.Ft. 1 car-Att 1957 No 445 Sq.Ft. 94 X 115 Similar June i 982 $62,300 10 5744 Jackson 988 Sq.Ft. None 1956 Yes No 70 X 135� Similar Auq 1982 $62,000 11 � I ' ITEM #10 Fredrick and Kay Covey P.I.N. 10-30-24-14-0005 � 7321 East River Road N E Claimed amount of increase over last 5 to 7 years too much. Also tax increase too much. � Board action - sustained value of $68,600. � � � � � � � � ' - l ' 12 ITEM #11 Richard T. Amar P.I.N. 15 30 24 13 0004 6654 East River Road Claims value too high. An onsitiereview was made of this property on May 10. All previous data on our records was found to be correct. A market analysis revealed sales of 6 properties fairly comparable to subject. All but one are of very similar siie. Most have fairly comparable features. Two are located simiiarly on East River Road. The subject is 20 years older than most of the comps. but was built in an era of quality, superior to the comps. The normal 5°% reduction has been applied to the structure, for location on East River Road. However, no additional reduction has been applied for the poor arrangement of bath facilities. It is estimated that the property would command $15 more per month in ren � if the bath was all on 1 floor. This amount would convert into approximately $1700 in value. This amount would also approximate the cost to remodel the bath to a normal configuration We therefore recommend a reduction of $1700, in value to a new total of $35,000. Following is the sales analysis for subject. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- SUBJECT 100 Charles St 389 Hugo St 544 Fairmont Area 570 Sq.Ft. 572 Sq.Ft. 576 Sq.Ft. 560 Sq.Ft. �arage lcar-Det 1 car-Det 1 car-Det 1 car-Det Yr. Blt. 1928 1948 1944 1948 Bath Up 2 Full Full Full Bsmt Full Full Full None Lot Size 80 X 164 100 X105 50 X102 50 X110 Location -------- Similar Better Better Sale Date -------- Dec 1982 June 1982 Dec 1982 Sale Price $ 6,700 $44,900 $44,500 $40,500 �value) Area Garage Yr. Slt. Bath Up Bsmt. Lot Size Location Sale Date Sale Price 621 Janesviile St 532 Sq. Ft. None 1948 Full Full 75 X 110 Better Feb. 1982 $38,500 5807 2 2 St 528 Sq.Ft. 1 2 car-Det 1948 Full Full 80 X 130 Better June 1982 $39,500 41 Osborne Way 480 Sq.Ft. 4-Det 1940 Full Part 70 X 125 Similar May 1982 $52,900 � ITEM #12 Dale and Bernadette Knott P.I.N. 23-30-24-22-0085 , 5980 2 2 St. N E Claimed value too high, but did not want to appear before Board. Wished to � have his protest recorded. Board action - received protest. � � � � � � �_ ' 13 ' ��, ' ITEM #13 Chris Jelavarov P.I.N. 15 30 24 42 0093 7471 Riverview Terrace N E ' Had a question regarding special assessments. ', , Board action - recommended he appear before regular Council meeting. ' � � ' � � ' ' � 14 15 ' , ITEM #14 ' Richard Harris P.I.N. 02 30 24 33 0018 7701 Main St N E Wanted explanation of value change. Left meeting before being called. ' Board action - recorded attendance. � ' �J � � , � � �, ' ' � CI' ' ` - ' ITEM #15 , Mark and Delores Kroll P.I.N. 15-30-24-42-0056 123 - 63rd Way , Mr. Kroll stated all the homes in his area have a lower value than his property. A study was made of all the properties on both sides of 63rd Way from East River Road to Riverview Terrace as follows: ' ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ADDRESS 123 63rd Way 111 63rd Way 135 63rd Way 147 63rd Way 159 63rd Way 171 63rd Way 183 63rd Way 195 63rd Way 6321 Riverview Terrace 6291 Riverview Terrace 194 63rd Way 82 63rd Way 170 63rd Way 158 63rd Way 146 63rd Way 134 63rd Way 110 63rd Way STYLE Rambler Rambler Rambler Rambler Rambler Rambler Rambl er Rambler Split Entry Rambler Rambler Rambler Rambler Rambler Rambler Rambler Rambler SQ.FT. 1040 1079 1129 107 9 1129 1079 107 9 1100 1051 1447 1079 1079 1211 1079 1079 1319 1079 AGE 1978 1962 1962 1961 1961 1961 1962 1962 1975 1962 1962 1961 1963 1961 1963 1963 1961 VALllE $69,400 $60,000 $66,200 $66,500 $64,300 $60,100 $65,400 $62,600 $88,200 $81,700 $64,500 $57,400 $63,800 $62,400 $67,300 $70,400 $52,600 Subject 16 All of the houses are older than the subject and somewhat larger. Al1 the structures were built in 1961, 1962 and 1963 with the exception of one, which was built in 1975. Of the seventeen houses on 63rd Way, three have a higher value than the subject. The reason that fourteen of the houses have a lower value is the age difference of about sixteen years. The subject is not over built for the neighborhood. Just a half block to the south the twelve properties on Alden Way have an average value of $77,183: It is the recommendation of the assessor's office that no reduction of value be made for the property located at 123 - 63rd Way. I �� ' ' ITEM #16 Dean and Darlene Johnson P.I.N. 23-30-24-31-0016 5626 6th Street N E '' A review of the subject property was made May 5, 1983. The structure consists of a 1,276 square foot rambler on crawl space and a 16 X 22 foot detached ' garage. The house was built in 1948 and an addition of 400 square feet was added in 1978. The trim has been removed and not replaced in the older section, and there is no floor cover in the newer part. , A sales comparison study was made. There were seven sales of Fridley property in 1982 which had older structures with no basements. Of those seven, four were selected to be most comparable and are as follows: �' -----------r----------------------------------------------------------------------------- ' Item Subject Address 5626 6th St ' Size 1276 Sq. Ft.� Effect. Age 1958 �, , Garage 325 Sq. Ft. � Porch None � Lot Size 80 X 130 '�, ' Sale Date Sale Price 'i ---------- -------------� � Comp #1 6007 Main � 1080 Sq. Ft. 1948 None None 80 X 129 6/82 $60,000 1275 Norton Ave 6840 Channel 1086 Sq. Ft. 934 Sq. Ft. 1948 1946 308 Sq. Ft. 336 Sq. Ft. 108 Sq. Ft. 176 Sq. Ft. 120 X 135 85 X 456 11/82 3/82 _$62,700_ __$60,000____ 8081 Broad 1004 Sq. Ft. 1943 None None 110 X 110 2/82 ____$55,000 ' � ' ' All the comparable structures are older and smaller than the sub�ect. Two of them have no garages. The average selling price is $59,400 If there would be no reduction, the value of $56,300 for the sub�ject would indicate a sales value of ��1,900 at a 91% ratio. This would be in line with the average sellinq price of the e:�mparables after adjustments are made for size and aqe, etc. If a$2000 reduction in value for the subject was yranted for the cost of items not completed since the addition was built, the market value would be $54,300. By applying the 91� ratio this would indicate a more reaiistic "as is" selling price of $59,700. The assessor's office would reccMxnend a$2000 reduction in value as follows: Land Structure Total From $16,500 $39,800 $56,300 To $16,500 $37,800 $54,300 � ' ITEM #17 Jeffrey and Sherry Wood P.I.N. 13-30-24-32-0034 ', ' 6444 Baker Street N E Mr. and Mrs. Wood were at the assessor°s office May 2nd during the Board of Review meeting to protest the vaiue on their home. They did not want to appear ' before the Board of Review and especially not before the television camera. The assessor's office reviewed their property May lOth. The property consists ' of a walkout rambler with a detached double garage built in 1978 on a 75 X 150 lot. It is a manufactured home which meets code, but has very little frills. The structure was rated a"CC+" at the original appraisal. ,' This should have been rated "C" which would reduce the value by $2300. The assessor's office recommends a reduction in value of the property at '_ 6444 Baker Street f rom $79,200 as follows: Land Structure Total $17,400 $59,500 $76,900 � � � � I ' � : � , ' ' , �� Y 1�� 7 � R. •� i f.� � f`7 '7� 1! 1 � Y i • ��}� The continued meeting of the Board of Review Kas called to order at 7:10 p. m. by Mayor Nee. �� •i MEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor Nee, Couneilman Barnette, Councilman Schneider, Councilman Hamernik and Councilman Fitzpatriek MEMBERS ABSENT: None The Board of Reviex took action regarding the folloWing properties: 2�� Elv Street: Mr. Madsen, City Assessor, stated this property was again ' reviewed and it is probably the largest and best home in the neighborhood, it is overdeveloped for the area, therefore, it is recommended the estimated market value be reduced from �80,700 to $78,600. ' ' MOTION by Councilman Fitzpatrick to reduce the estimated market value for the property at 233 Ely Street from $80,700 to $78,600. Seconded by Couneilman Schneider. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Nee deelared the motion carried unanimously. �„u28 Dellwood Drive: Mr. Madsen, City Assessor, stated he spoke with the � owner of this property, Mr. Anderson, and he Was comfortable with the value placed on the property. , ,L450 Rice Creek Road: Mr. Madsen, City Assessor, stated the staff's recommendation would be not to reduce the value placed on this property. He stated the property Was reviewed and comparisons made with similar homes. � Mr. Madsen stated Mr. Singer Pelt the value of the property should be what he paid for it in 1g82 Which Was �57,200 and the value pl ace on the property xas �65,100. , ' Mr. Madsen pointed out there Were some unique circumstances when Mr. Singer bought the property, as he paid cash to the mortgage, and it was felt he received an exeeptionally good deal. Mr. Singer stated he felt one of the most legitimate Ways to make an appraisal is by the latest sale price of the home. ' Mr. Singer pointed out another �►ay is for the appraiser to inspect the house and make a judgment on how much it is valued based on comparable properties in that area. He stated if they are not able to get inside the , house, they may just boost up the value appropriate With real estate increases in that year. '' Mr. Singer stated the house Was valued at $29,000 in 197� �d now only nine years later it is Worth over �65,000 and he is not sure property values have gone up that mueh. '� � Mr. Singer stated placing the value at $65,100 is over 100x of the price he paid for the property in 1 g82, t�erefore, he requested a 21 to 22� reduetion. � ' :I: �I • f�� �. Y• � Y-6 � Councilman Schneider asked What price he could sell the home for today. Mr. Singer stated he doesn't intend to sell the home, and felt the value should be at $57,200. Mayor Nee stated he would feel more comfortable if the County raould revieW this case as they do have experts in the field. 6654 East River Road: Mr. Madsen, City Assessor, stated they revieWed and inspected this property and depreciation had been dedueted for the location on East River Road but not for the location of the bathroom facilities in the basement. Mr. Madsen stated he felt, in the general market, there may be some resistanee to the location of these facilities and in comparison With other similar homes, it Would be appropriate to reduce the value �1,700. MOTION by Councilman Fitzpatrick to coneur With the Assessor's Office to reduce the estimated market value for the property at 6654 East River Road by �1,700 from �36,700 to �35,000. Seconded by Councilman Barnette. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Nee declared the motion carried unanimously. 12� 6�rd Wav: Mr. Madsen, City Assessor, stated they have reviewed other properties located on this street and although a number of properties are valued higher, most of them are loWer. Mr. Madsen stated the differenee in the value is because of the age of the property, as this home is about 16 years newer. Mr. Madsen stated the depreciation applied to this home, compared with the older homes, does make differenee in the value. Mr. Rroll, 123 63rd Way, distributed copies of information regarding a comparison of other properties in the area. Mr. Kroll stated he felt the value of his property Was out of line with the homes in the immediate neighborhood and it Was out of line with the increases he paid over the last several years. Mr. Rroll pointed out the homes on both sides of his property have two finished floors, more square footage, and 2 1/2 car garages, however, the value of these tWO properties is less than his home. He also made a comparison with the home across the street which reeently has some improvements made and also has a 2 1/2 ear garage and fireplace. Mr. Kroll stated the three homes in the area Which have a higher value have more square feet than his home. Mr. Kroll stated if the homes located a bloek away affect the value of his property, he felt then that the location of East River Road to his property should also affect the value. Mr. Rroll stated he has had a 24� increase in the value over the last three years and idn't want another 5K iacrease this year, as he didn't believe the value has gone up 29K over the last four years. Mr. Madsen stated he didn't see any descrepaneies and even though size and age are both important factors, the diPferences in age of this home would make a difference in the valuation. :�:;� � ; �f. Y" � Y.; • •� f��i ' Couneilman Fitzpatrick stated he felt this case should probably be revieWed by the County. He stated, in driving by this property, he Was surprised it �►as one of the most highly valued in the neighborhood. , � Couneilman Barnette stated he felt Mr. Rroll made a good case and Would encourage him to take his appeal to the County. Mayor Nee stated, all things taken into consideration, the value is probably pretty close to What it is worth. �626 6th Street: Mr. Madsen, City Assessor, stated this property was � reviewed and inspected again and the home is under remodeling and there are still a number of items not completed. He felt the value should be reduced by �2,000 to cover those items that are not yet completed. � , MOTION by Councilman Hamernik to concur With the recommendation of the Assessor's Office to reduce the value of the property at 5626 6th Street by $2,000. Seconded by Councilman Schneider. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Nee declared the motion carried unanimously. �44�t Baker Street: Mr. Madsen, City Assessor, stated the owners of this � property did speak with the Assessor's Office the evening of the May 2, 1g83 meeting, however, were unable to stay for the meeting to speak before the Review Board. � i � � � , � � � IJ) ' Mr. Madsen stated in revie�ing this property and comparing it With the others in the neighborhood, it is a newer home, but, in this case, it is a factory built home and doesn't have the finished items you would f ind in a custom built home. He stated, tberefore, a recommendation would be made to reduce the value of this home by �2,300 form �79,200 to $76,900. MOTION by Councilman Schneider to co ncur with the recommendation of the Assessor's Office to reduce the value of the property at 644�1 Baker Street by �2,300 from �79,200 to �76,900. Seconded by Councilman Barnette. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Nee declared the motion carried unanimously. MOTION by Gouneilman Hamernik to certiPy the property roll to the County Assessor. Seconded by Councilman Fitzpatriek. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Nee declared the motion carried unanimously. �:�[�]�,i�t�i�;ii� MOTION by Couneilman Barnette to adjourn the meeting of the Board of Review. Seconded by Councilman Sehneider. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Nee declared the motion carried unanimously and the meeting of the Board of Review adjourned at 7:50 p. m. Respectfully submitted, Carole Haddad Reeording Seeretary Approved: William J. Nee Mayor