The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutBOR April 4, 1991 ~ CITY of ANDOVER Board of Review/Special City Council Meeting April 4, 1991 1:30 P.M. Call to Orde r 1. Board of Review 2. Adopt Assessment Rol1s/90-3 & 90-16 3. street Assessment Policy 4 . 5. Adjournment <-- .. ."- .- BOARD OF REVIEW/SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING - APRIL 4. 1991 TABLE OF CONTENTS BOARD OF REVIEW Ot to Pfe i ffer . . . . . . . · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · 1 Mr. and Mrs. Jerry Saarenpaa · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · 1 Motion to Continue Board of Review to April 16 · · · · · · · · 2 ADOPT ASSESSMENT ROLLS/IP90-3 AND IP90-16 · · · · · · · · · · · · 2 RESOLUTION R042-91 (Assessment Hearing) · · · · · · · · · · · 3 RESOLUTION R043-91 (Declare Costs/Prepare Assessment) · · · · · 3 RESOLUTION R044-91 (Adopt Assessment Rol I) · · · · · · · · · · 3 Motion to Refund Interest on Escrowed Prepayments. · · · · · · 3 MSA STREET ASSESSMENT POLICY . · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · 3 ADJOURNMENT . . . . . . . . . · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · 3 .. ~ CITY of ANDOVER BOARD OF REVIEW/SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING APRIL 4, 1991 - M mUTES The Regular Board of Review and a Special Meeting of the Andover City Counc i 1 was cal Ied to order by Mayor Ken Orttel on Apri I 4, 1991, 7:30 p.m. , at the Andover City HaJJ, 1685 Crosstown Boulevard NW, Andover, Minnesota. Councilmembers present: Jacobson, McKelvey, Perry, Smi th Councilmembers absent: None Also present: County Assessors John Leone and Scott Varner; City Administrator/ Engineer, James Schrantz: and others BOARD OF REVIEW The fol lowing residents presented their cases: Otto Pfei ffer. 15400 Rose Street NW Mr. Pfeiffer objected to the raise in his valuation. This is his third objection in four years. It raised $19,000 in two years, though only $2,000 of it was from last year to this year. He explained the uniqueness of his energy-efficient house, the void spots which are unuseable, the empty basement, the I ack of a furnace or air conditioning, the eJectric baseboard heat which was required by law and is hooked up to off-peak, and the sma I I amount of actual Jiving space in re]ation to the outside appearance. Mr. Pfeiffer reported that houses in the neighborhood have not been seIJing or are se]ling for considerably less than what was originally asked for. He said he is at a point now where if his propeety taxes keep going up, he wiJ! lose au t on a I I the efficiency he has built into his home. He realized Andover has kept the tax levies low and was not complaining about that. But he did not feel his property increased in value almost $20,000 in the last two years. Nor did he feeI he could sel I his home for the valuation of $121,900 as listed. The assessors noted the parcel was visited two years ago, but they felt another appraiser should view it. It was agreed that another appraisee would recheck the parcel and make a eecommendation. Me. and Mrs. Jeeev SaarenDaa. 15318 Niohtlnoale Street NW Mrs. Sarrenpaa stated two years ago the total cost of bui Jding theie house was $154,000. They objected last year, but the valuation was set at $163,800. This year it increased to $180,900. They have a 2438 square-foot eambler on 12.57 acres ~ ,- .~.- .' Board of Review/Special Ci ty Counci I Meeting ~1inutes - Apri I 4, 1991 Page 2 (Board of Review. Continued) (Saeranpaa's, Continued) and a pole barn. They questioned the vaJue being higher than the actual cost, interpreting market va]ue as what you have into it. Also, at the rate their propeety value is Increasing every year, they were veey concerned about what happens next yeae. Mr. Varnee explained when he checked the propeety last year, he personally valued it at $180,900 and placed that amount in the computer. Though the costs weee less, he felt the property was worth more than they had paid foe it. The valuation for 1991 was pJaced at $163,800, chosen to give the Saaranpaa's the benefit of the doubt. Apparently this yeae Me. Leone vaJued the property at the amount he had shown in the computer. Mr. Leone then gave severa] comparable sales of houses about the same size which sold for more than $200,000. He explained that assessed valuation is not the actual cost of construction but what the property could be sold for at an arm's length transaction. There is no provision in the Jaw that provides for stepped increases in va]uation. Both appraisors felt the valuation for 1992 is lower than what the property couJd be sold for. The Saeranpaas were encouraged to take their case to the County Board of Equalization if they are not satisf ied. No action was taken by the Council. Mayor Orttel asked for a motion to continue the Board of Review to the Apri I 16 Regular Council Meeting. MOTION by Jacobson, Seconded by Smith, to so move. Motion carried unanimous]y. 8:30 p.m. ADOPT ASSESSMENT ROLLS/IP90-3 AND IP90-16 Counc i I noted the calcuation of interest to be refunded for Kensington 5th and 6th addition for peepaid assessments prior to their being levied. It was suggested that the Assessment Policy and Developees Agreements be altered to reflect the pol icy of the City paying Interest for prepaid assessments made directly to the City prior to the adoption of the assessment roll. Jerrv Windschtil - felt that it benefits the City to receive the money directly from the developee eathee than wai t unti I the roJ I is adopted to receive al I of i t in a lump sum. He suggested the City may want to encourage all developees to do this. Mr. Schrantz felt i t would simply require a computer peogeam to keep track of those prepayments. .,.. ., Board of Review/Special Ci ty Counci I Meeti ng Minutes - Apri I 4, 1991 Page 3 (Adopt Assessment Rolls/IP90-3 and IP90-16, Continued) MOTION by Jacobson, Seconded by Smith, the three ResoJutions. (See the following: Resolution R042-91 - Hearing on proposed assessment for the improvement of wateemain, sanitaey sewee, storm drain and streets for Projects 90-3 and 90-16, Kensington Estates 5th and 6th Additions Resolution R043-91 - Declaring cost and directing prepaeation of assessment roll for IP90-3 and 90-16 ResoJution R044-91 - Adopting the assessment rol I for IP90-3 and IP90-16) Motion careied unanimously. MOTION by Peery, Seconded by Smith, that a refund In the amount of $3,146.92 be issued to Geeald and Carol Wlndschitl for the assessments that were prepaid in the Kensington 5th and 6th Additions. Motion carried unanimously. MSA STREET ASSESSMENT POLICY Mayor Orttel expJalned theee is some confusion with the amended Assessment PoJicy for MSA roads relative to assessing al I costs that are not eeimbursed by MSA funds. He asked if it was the Council's intent to assess out-of-pocket costs not reimbursed or out-of-pocket costs plus overhead (administration, assessing, mapping, etc. ). He understood at the time the policy was adopted that the cost to the residents would be between $300 and $500 per parcel. Wi th overhead, the calculations amount to almost $900 on the proposed Crosstown Drive project. He fe It that was a I at of money and that that was not the intent. These are major-type thoeoughfares, thinking it is reasonable that they be excluded teom those types of assessments. Mr. Scheantz explained peior to the pOlicy change, the General Fund absoebed the unreimbursed costs. He noted the county does not charge overhead. After some discussion, it was agreed the intent was that out-of-pocket costs would be assessed to abutting parcels on MSA street projects, but overhead City costs such as mapping, administration, assessing, etc. , were not to be assessed. Mr. Schrantz was asked to present that clarification to the Assessment Manual for Counc i I action at the next meeting. MOTION by Jacobson, Seconded by Smith, to adjourn. Motion carried unanimously. Meeting adjourned at 8:53 p.m. I Respect fu II y $Ubmlt ted7 . oN, (~ ú''-\ ·[-c<.<-';/" Mai'ce II a A. Peach, Þecoedi ng Secretaey d_