Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutBOR May 11, 1981 ~ 01 ANDOVER BOARD OF REVIEW MAY 11, 1981 l. Call to order - 7:00 P.M. 2. Board of Review 3. Presentation and Actions on Valuations 4. Adjourn/Continue Board of Review SPECIAL MEETING l. Call to order 2. 171st Avenue Extension 3. Rental of Front End Loader 4. >. 6. Approval of refund deposit to Central Landscaping/Northwoods Park -~ · J ~ 01 ANDOVER BOARD OF REVIEW - MAY 11, 1981 MINUTES The Re9u1ar Board of Review for the City of Andover was called to order by Mayor Jerry Windschit1 on May 11, 1981, 7:00 p.m., at the Andover City Hall, 1685 Crosstown Boulevard NW, Anoka, Minnesota. Councilmen present: Jacobson, Lachinski, Ortte1, Peach Councilmen absent: None Also present: County Assessor, Bob Weisbrich Mr. Weisbrich explained that for last year all homes south of 149th Avenue were reappraised. For this year they tried to reappraise everything else in the City. If they were not able to get in the home, a tag was left. If they were still unable to get in the home, they arbitrarily assessed the property approximately 10 percent. Those houses above 149thwere not raised by a percentage but were completely re- appraised. Those below 149th were raised 7 percent on the house and $1,000 on the land. Mr. Weisbrich also pOinted out that this year the Minnesota Legislature gave a substantial homestead credit to people who own their homes; but non-homestead property has gone up at a much higher rate. The following residents presented their cases: Rosella Sonsteby, Plat 65929, Parcels 1650, 7010, and 660-1 Ms. Sonsteby explained that the County took approximately 27 feet off the lots, the high ground, leaving very small lots; and she felt the value being placed on them is too high. The County took title to that 27 feet last year. She also stated that she is going to ask the County to buy that property, as she was not satisfied with the County's offer. Mr. Weisbrich stated he raised the value of the lot by $500, but his records do not indicate that the County has taken land from that lot. It was agreed that Mr. Weisbrich will recheck the lots and make a recommendation. Rosella Sonsteby, Plat 66091, Parcel 065 Ms. Sonsteby stated the taxes on the lot were raised approximately $160 last year, and she didn't feel it should be raised that much in one year. Also, the City has a storm water easement through the lots, which she felt is ruining those lots and is depreciating the lots. Plus the as.sessments and taxes are going to be extremely high with the sanitary sewer and streets coming in. Mr. Weisbrich stated that this is the first year taxes are paid on the estimated market value; until now taxes have been figured on the limited market value. This year vacant lots that are non-homestead received large increases in valua- tion because of the Legislative action to increase the homestead credit. Mr. Weisbrich agreed to meet with Ms. Sonsteby relative to her dispute on the lot and to make a recommendation. Roman Przezdziecki, Plat 67811, Parcel 0010 Mr. Prezezdziecki stated he is questioning the 1980 taxes Council noted this Board of Review does not deal with that issue. No action was taken by the Council. f .- Board of Review May 11, 1981 - Minutes Page 2 Jerry Jorgenson, 15955 Swallow Street NW, Plat 65915, Parcel 5865 Mr. Jorgenson asked why his increase in valuation was so much higher than the previous year. His valuation increased $7,300 to $55,100 for his rambler, feeling he would not receive that price if he sold his home. Mr. Jorgenson felt the increase was much too high. Mr. Weisbrich explained that the homes in Andover were reappraised based on the fair market value. That fair market value is based on a two-year market analysis on the selling price of houses, and he reviewed the selling prices of several houses simi1iar to Mr. Jorgenson's, which were comparable to Mr. Jorgenson's assessed valuation. Mr. Weisbrich also reviewed the breakdown on valuations of the land and structure, explaining how the values were arrived at. He had viewed the house this last year. In discussing the fair market value, Mr. Weisbrich explained they use the Certificate of Value when homes and property are sold, but that value does include the realtor's fees. That standard is then used for appraisin9 all houses. Mayor Windschit1 also asked Mr. Weisbrich to provide the comparab1es of Andover to the remaining County on the percentage of market value for taxable purposes. Mr. Weisbrich stated the City is at 96 percent, but he did not know the average for the remainder of the County. No action was taken by the City Council. Barry Gusk, 2149 161st Avenue NW, Plat 65915, Parcel 4590 Mr. Weisbrich stated he has spoken with Mr. Gusk previously, noting he has not viewed the property and an arbitrary assessment was given. It was agreed that Mr. Weisbrich will view the parcel and make a recommendation. Mildred Ortte1, 428 Constance NW, Plat 65913, Parcel 4800 Ms. Ortte1 stated the land has gone up over $1,000 and asked to view the records and how the valuation was calculated. She also stated that the Watershed has an easement going through the property and asked if that would affect the valuation. There are also three acres that are landlocked. Mr. Weisbrich reviewed the breakdown on the type of land, noting that he has already lowered the valuation after talking with Ms. Ortte1 prior to the meeting. The records do not show a ditch or easement going through the property; so if there is such an easement, it was not taken into consideration when determining the property value. Mr. Weisbrich also stated that the three acres would be considered landlocked if it were a separate parcel. But because it is part of the whole parcel, it is not considered landlocked. It was agreed that Mr. Weisbrich will research the Watershed easement question and make a recommendation. Donald L. Sparks, 14215 Ivywood Street, Plat 65928, Parcel 6350 Mr.Sparks stated the estimated market value for 1981 is $83,100; however, he purchased the house on December 19, 1980, for $73,500. The 1980 taxes on the property were $669; and the most recent taxes are $1,700; and he felt there is a disparity in the valuation. He explained that his company purchased the house in March, 1979, for more than what he paid for it; however, the house was on the market for a year and a half at that price and it did not sell. In the interim it went from homestead to non-homestead property. At this point there is a great disparity between what the homstead taxes should be. Mr. Weisbrich reviewed Board of Review May 11, 1981 - Minutes Page 3 (Donald Sparks, Plat 65928, Parcel 6350, Continued) the records relative to the dimensions of the house, noting that the inside of the house has not been viewed for some time and that 10 percent of the value is then automatically placed on it. It was agreed that Mr. Weisbrich will view the parcel and make a recommendation. John Zi11hardt, Plat 66091, Parcel 360 Mr. Zi11hardt was shocked by the large percentage increase in valuation of his property and wasn't convinced of the reasons given this evening for the increases in valuations. The valuation has increased from $20,000 two years ago, to $27,000 last year, to $31,000. He admitted he paid more than that for the house, but that amount also included the relator's fees. He also questioned the last time the house was inspected, explaining the history of the house. Because it was a cabin at one time, in the remodeling the walls are unusually thick, resulting in considerably less square feet of liveable space than would be indicated by measuring the outside of the house. Also, ¡the original floors are still there and slope. He requested the house be inspected and reevaluated. Mr. Weisbrich explained that relator's fees are not taken into consideration in the fair market analysis for anyone. The records indicate the house as being depreciated 35 percent, 1125 square feet measured on the outside of the house as is done for everyone. It was agreed that Mr. Weisbrich will view the parcel and make a recommendation. Robert and Dorinne Dillon, Plat 65986, Parcel 1970 Mr. Dillon asked why their phone calls to Mr. Weisbrich were never answered. He stated they did try to make an appointment to have the house checked. Mr. Weisbrich reviewed the dimensions of the house, indicating a 140 square foot deck. Mr. Dillon stated they do not have a deck on their house. It was agreed that Mr. Weisbrich will view the parcel and make a recommendation. John E. McKelvey, Plat 65922, Parcel 1500 Mr. McKelvey understood that houses built three years ago were assessed at full value then. His was assessed at the price he paid for the land with the old buildings, which have since been torn down and new buildings built. It was then reassessed when the new house was built, that being the exact price he had into the property, to which he did not object. But this year's valuation is $16,100 more than last year, which he didn't feel was proper. Mr. Weisbrich explained that the house was not viewed and the value was arbitrarily raised 10 percent. It was agreed that Mr. Weisbrich will view the parcel and make a recommendation. Ken Kobs, Plat 65908, Parcels 6000, 6010, 6030, 6040, 6050, 6060, 6070, 6080, 6090, 6100, 6110, 6120, 6130, 6140, 6155, 6160, 6170, 6180, 6190, 6200, 6210, 6220, 6230, 6240, 6250, 6260, 6270, and 6280 Mr. Kobs asked that the parcels be placed back on the agricultural classification. Some time ago the land was divided by metes and bounds, but it is one piece of 15~ acres which he farms. It was agreed that Mr. Weisbrich will research this further and make a recommendation. Board of Review May 11, 1981 - Minutes Page 4 MOTION by Jacobson, Seconded by Ortte1, that we continue the Board of Review to Tuesday, May 19, 7:30 p.m. Motion carried unanimously. Larr~ Carlson, developer - explained that he had discussed his problem with Mr. Wels rlch earlier today about his concerns on the inequities in the valuations of vacant 1 and. Some of the values on his property, which will be adjusted, were higher than what they were buying them for this year, because raw land has not gone up in value over the last three/four years. They sell the vast majority of their lots on Contract for Deed, and they are finding a very real difference in the evaluating of those properties. He was concerned that the valuations continue to rise on the vacant lots; however, they have not been able to se.11 the lots in the last several years. But he also felt that the County should take into account when the land is sold on a Contract for Deed. They average no more than 15 percent down; and at 10 percent interest, he is fortunate if that carries a 60 percent value. By selling a parcel for $12,000 with $2,000 down and a $lO,OOOcd,he doesn't have spendable money and doesn't have $12,000 worth of goods. But the County values the land at $12,000, and Mr. Carlson stated that is really creating a problem right now. They are not getting cash for the sale and they are not getting a discount to the actual value of the land. In noting the inequities, Mr. Carlson stated that the value of some of his land in Oak Grove is substantially higher than his listed retail price. He asked that some support be given for considering land different in the real estate market than homes, and he would be willing to provide all information necessary, suggesting that it simply be noted on the sales certificate whether or not it is a Contract for Deed purchase and for how much. He felt valuation should be determined on the down payment and on the value of the contract. Mr. Carlson went on to explain that there has been an assumption that land has automatically increased every year; but in looking at the economy, land is not automatically increasing in value. He did talk to the County about his concerns last year; the County stated they are aware of the problem but would do nothing about it. Councilman Lachinski stated that it is a known fact that a sale by Contract for Deed does have a tendency of inf1atin9 the value of the property, and he felt the Council could go on record saying there should be considerations for property sold on Contract for Deed based on the amount, feeling the goal of the evaluation process should be as equitable as possible. Mayor Windschit1 also questioned the validity of indexing the land, because in theory a farmer could then be indexed out of existence, and questioned whether land values are going up at this time. Mr. Weisbrich stated that it will have to come to a meeting of the minds between himself and the rest of the appraisors. He will speak with the others at the County. The issue will be discussed again at the May 19 Continued Board of Review. Board of Review continued to May 19, 1981, 7:30 p.m. 8: 14 p.m. Respectfu lly submitted,_ .!~ <X.~ c::~=7~ MaY>tella A. Peach Recor'tling Secretary - P f