Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMay 6, 1985OFFICIAL PROCEEDINGS COLUMBIA HEIGHTS CITY COUNCIL lARD OF REVUE 6, 1985 The Board of Revue was called to order by Mayor Nawrocki at 7:00 P.M.. 1. Roll Call Hovland, Peterson,'Nawrocki present Petkoff - absent Councilman Carlson was attending a Traffic Commission meeting. 2. Statement of Purpose of the Board of Review Mayor Nawrocki advised those in attendance that the purpose of the Board of Review was to review property valuations as of January 2, 1985, and to haar appeals from citizens who feel aggrieved or have questions regarding property valuations. 3. Introduction of County Assessor and City Assessing Department Staff The City Manager introduced Gayle Leone, Anoka County Assessor, Karen Meuleners, City Assessor, and Jane Gleason, Assessments Clerk. The City Assessor gave a slide presentation which dealt with property assessment, how the valuation is determined, and the use of property taxes on the local level. All in attendance were requested to sign in so their attendance at this Board of Review could be verified. Property owners attendance is required at this Board of Review before they can attend the Board of Equalization at the county level. The Mayor requested that those property owners whose properties are discussed at this .o ard of Review be notified by mail of the Continued Board of Review date if their ncern is not decided on at this point in time. 4. Questions and Answers Regarding Property. Valuations Following are 'the' a~dre's'ses ~ Yhe properties whose valuations are being questioned by the property owners or by their representatives: a. 4415 Central Avenue, Midas Muffler: The owner of this property felt the valuation is too high .in comparing his total footage with similar operations in other cities. The City Assessor will review the comparables and respond to his concern. b. ll41 44½ Avenue: The property owner stated her concern with the value of the structure and not with the value placed on the land. She had acted as her own contractor for building the house and had taken out the permit. She stated she is well-acquainted with what work had been done and produced data from ten comparable structures in the area. The City Assessor reviewed the property and found some property had been omitted at the first reviewal. She recommended no change in the valuation. Councilmember Peterson said he was familiar with the house and felt the $80,000 value as stated by the owner was more accurate than the $88,500 value of the Assessor. c. A representative for Grief Brothers, 3700 University Avenue, advised the Council of his appraisals for the Grief Brothers property as well as adjacent property (formerly Abex Corporation) recently acquired by Grief Brothers. He reviewed with the Council the purchase price of the Abex property in July, 1984, and told the Council of the additions and expansion of the original Grief Brothers building as well as some unusable land near both properties. The Assessor stated she had already made an adjustment on the Abex property but felt no adjustment was war- ranted on the Grief Brothers property in view of their expansion. d. 3732 Pierce Street: The property owner said his property had been valued at $78,700 Board 'of Review May 6, 1985 page 2 for 1985. He stated he had made no major improvements since he purchased the home in 1979 at a price of $66,000. When contacting two large real estate firms he was advised by both that they could not sell his property for more than $68,000. The Assessor stated that this home is large than those in the same area and the lot is also larger. Councilman Carlson joined the Board of Review at 7:50 P.M.. e. Central Valu Mall, 43rd and Central Avenues: A representative of the developer of this property felt the valuation placed on the proporty is too high in view of the fact that the remaining space in the building will be difficult to lease out. He noted he had tallied with the Assessor regarding an adjustment but had not as yet supplied her with the figures for lease and rental fees which will be factored in in figuring the valuation. The Assessor also noted that the valuation figure is not totally taxable and that the developer had received an abatement in 1984. He felt the $2.00 per square foot value was high compared to other locations of this nature. The Assessor responded that the redevelopment area had increased the value of that area. f. 1600 Innsbruck Parkway: The property owner reviewed the history of his property's valuations since 1981. He noted the valuation placed on the property for 1984 by Anoka County and inquired why the City increased the valuation for 1985 by $2,600. He is requesting a value of $93,900 be placed on his property. The Assessor said his increase was due to inflation and was applied to all properties. He noted that the $2,000 previously subtracted from his valuation for traffic had been dropped. The Mayor requested to see the County's figures for last year. g. 5100 Rainier' Pass: The owner of this property questioned on what basis his home had been reclassified from a rambler to a split leYel. This reclassification had increased h'is home by $6,500. He noted that the two properties adjacent to his had been reclassified downward. There had been an 18% increase in his valuation in the last year. Water damage, soil erosion, exterior rock, and interior tile would need substantial repair before this property would be ready for selling. The property owner felt the rationale for increasing the value was sub- jective and much too high. The City Assessor reviewed what in the house she felt constituted a split level. h. LaBelle 111 Condominium Association: A representative of the members of this Association requested the record of sales for these condominiums be reviewed. He noted that some of the buyers had received a discount on the purchase price by paying cash. His thought is that the valuation should reflect the price paid. The City Assessor stated that since all three buildings in the comdominium com- plex are now completed they will be re-analyzed. i. University Heights: A review of the valuations for this development was requested. It was felt that the values appear to include streets. The Assessor recommended the values stay the same. She noted that lots in this development have been made buildable and many improvements have been done to the property. j. 1439 42nd Avenue: The property owner requested a review of the $1,200 increase in value since he noted nothing had been done to the house in years. The Assessor stated that: there had been a decrease in the value of the house in the amount of $3,000. The value of the land had increased. k. 1523 McLeod: The City Assessor stated that this vacant lot presently has a Board of Review May 6, 1985 page 3 15% reduction for easements. She felt this property should received an additional decrease for road and street easements and will consider this. 1. 1713 Innsbruck Parkway: The owner of this property had received a 25% increase in his valuation and requested an explanation. He also noted that the Assessor had come t~ bis home to do an inspection and he chose not to let her in. The Mayor advised the property owner that when the Assessor is not allowed access to a property a street side observation must be made and a 25% increase results. The Assessor said she would come to make an appraisal at the owner's convenience and an adjustment would be considered. The property owner stated he would have a private appraisal done and also would allow someone from the County Assessor's staff to view the property. m. 4300 Fourth Street: This property was purchased in March of 1985 for $52,900. The property owner said his valuation was placed at $55,300 for this year by the Assessor. The Assessor told the Council the property had last been viewed in 1982 and the appraised value in 1984 had been $55,000. She will review this valuation. n. 1213 42nd Avenue: The property owner inquired how her land had been valued, as one parcel or as two or three buildable lots. She was advised the property had been considered as one parcel, thereby saving the owner taxes. The Mayor questioned how one parcel could be considered with a resulting value of $34,400. The owner also inquired if storm damage had been considered when valuing the property. The Assessor noted that no major storm damage had been recognized and that landscaping was never a consideration when valuing property. O. 1255 Polk Place: The property owner had concern regarding the value put on his land and stated he will be attending the County's Board of Equalization on this matter. Letters Received by City Assessor from Property Owners Regarding Valuations: a. 1309 Lincoln Terrace: Owner feels the value on his home is too high. He has been trying to sell it for some time and has not had any offers close to the valuation. b. 4120 Fourth Street: The investment who owns the property at 4120 Fourth Street as well as ten other apartment buildings in the City has question with regard to the value placed on the structures and on the land. The Assessor noted that the City places the 'value on the land and the value of the structures is determined by the County. c. 5100 Si×th Street: This property was formerly the Nelson Elementary School. The value placed by the Assessor on this property is being disputed by the developer who made the building into condominiums. The Assessor noted the value for 1985 is the same value she placed on the development in 1984. Continuance Motion by Hovland, second by Peterson to recess this BoA of Rev'j~w. ~t~O:05 P.MJand recess until MondaY, May 20th at 7:30 P.M.. Roll call~~ ~ ( ~4~ Nawrocki Mayor , ~ Bruce ~. , Anne Student, Council ~ecretary