HomeMy WebLinkAboutCorrected May 13, 1975-144-
Of~icia1 Proceeding
Special Meeting
Board Of Equalization
May 13, 1975
May 13, 1975
The meeting was called to order at 8:02 p.m. by Council-President Heintz.
Roll Call: Logacz, Heintz, Norberg, Land - Present Nawrocki - Absent
Mayor Nawrocki arrived at approximately 8:30.
Motion by Norberg, seconded by Land to name Shelley Hanson Secretary Pro
Tem for this meeting. Roll Call - All Ayes
Introduction of Gordon Starkey from the Anoka County Assessor's Office,
Mildred Carlson,.City Assessor, Jerry Hedlund from the City Assessor's
Office, and Arden Hovland, Building inspector.
Mr. Starkey made a few comments about evaluation. He stated the reason
for two market values on the evaluation notices was the 5% limitation law
passed in 1973. This law allows only a 5% increase in the value of property,
per year, for tax purposes. He also explained that new improvements or
construction can be added by the Assessor in addition to the 5% limitation.
Councilman Heintz then asked Mr. Starkey to clarify the Senior Citizens
Tax Freeze and'how it affects the evaluation of property.
Mr..Starkey explained that the Sr. Citizens Freeze does not. put the value
of property or the taxes at a stand^still. He went on to clarify that Sr.
Citizens have a base year that their taxes are froze at.' However, the taxes
will continue to increase or decrease, as all properties do, and that they
must compare each year's taxes to.their base yeer. Then if there was.ah
increase, they must apply fora refund from the State-each year by June 30.
There were no more comments or questions so the Council took the first
person on ~the.`list: ~ ~ ~ ~ .
1. Mr. Leonard Keyes, 3818 Van Buren Street, .Plat 33365, Parcel 7038.
He thought that his .value should be'froze.because~of the Sr.rCitizens
lax 1=reeze. Mr.-Starkey', however; had answered his questions that the
value was not froze: Mr. Keyes understood hgw.,,the freeze pertains to
his taxes and the procedure in filing fora refund,
2. Mr. Eir~aP Pearson-450 38th~Avenue, Plat 32681, Parcel 210, Ind Shop.
Mr. Pearson stated that this is the only notice he's ever received.
This was because the previous statements were mailed to Norman Chelberg,
contract purchaser,- Mr. Pearson was toldrto notify his`bank and the
County that Mr, Chelberg is not the contract purchaser and that his
name should be removed from~~he records. ~ ~
-14:5-
May 13, 1975
Mr. Pearson also felt that it was too old and dirty to be valued at
$27,900. He feels it's not worth more than $20,000. He claimed it's
unsafe and that most of the windows have been broken. Councilman
Norberg asked to see comparable~~. properties. Mrs. Carlson showed them
Mr. Hoch's property on 38th Avenue, and Mr.~Hunstad's property at
519 38th Avenue. These=.weregoodE~aomp'a~ab.les~and~s2emed`i~to show fair
and equal value. Mr. Pearson!s property increased in value from
$27;000 in 1973-74 to $27;900 irr 1975: Mr.s. Carlson stated that this
was due to land values increasing not the structure itself. This has
been the case for most Industrial and Commercial property over the last
few years.
Councilman Heintz then stated that Arden Hovland would check out the
abuse and condition of,Mr. Pearson's building.
Mr. Miskowic of 1320 44th Avenue, asked how often Assessors go through
the houses? And what happens if you can't get"in? Mr: Hedlund answered
these questions. Mr. Starkey added that all houses"are valued .according
to sales 'in the area, and that assessors are requi-red by law to value ;at
market value. If values are not. up to market value, the State will
authorize~a flat percentage increase. This is not a favorable way of
valuing because it becomes unfair to some property owners.
3. Mr. Gerald Brown, 4101 Cleveland Street,-Plat 33097, Parcel 1100.
His house which was recentl..y built"is valued at~$40,000. He feels it
should be valued at $35,500 which he claims is what he paid for it.
He passed our a tabled drawing showing the amount he was assessed for
certain items and the actual amount kie paid. On the~list he used
basement finishing, brick trim, walkout, range !r hood, dishwasher,
the lot itself, and,the rate per sq,'ft. the house was valued at.
He stated his house was the bear minimum fora house its size. It only-
has two bedrooms compared to three bedroom house which would cost more
to build but was valued at the same rate per square foot. He also
stated tl•iat his lot value went from $5300 in 1972"73 74 to $7100 in 1975.
He felt this~was `valued too high since he only paid $$p00 for it in
June, 1972•
Mrs. Carlson explained to him that itFS not necessarily what you pay
for your lot, house, and extras,'but how much they're worth on the market,
if you were to sell the house.
The Council made no motion to change the value.of Mr. Brown's property.
4. Mrs. Donna Eckman, 4243 Monroe.Street, Plat 33365, Parcel 2317.
She wondered why the big increase from $25,500 in 1973x74 to $29,400
in 1975• She stated that she paid $3'2,900 for it in August 1974. Mrs.
Carlson explained that all properties. are valued according to sales in
their area, and inflation is being reflected by sales. She also told
Mrs. Eckman that the evaluation for 1976 tax puposes will only be 50
higher than the 1974 value, and that taxes will not necessarily increase
because of the new evaluation, that it depends on the mill rate which is I
determined by the Budget.
May 13; 1975
Mrs. Carlson showed Mrs. Eckman comparables which .,showed similar
increases. She was satisfied with her value and the answers she
received.
5. Mr. Larry Miskowic, 132b 44th Avenue, Plat 34416, Parcel 930.
He[is new to the area and was curious about a few things. He
asked if a Tuck Under Garage was valued less than_an attached
garage. Mrs. Carlson told him yes, because it's cheaper to build
and that you lose some basement area. He wondered, also`, if the
Council had the power to pass a protect like the Government Center.
in Minneapolis. Mayor Nawrocki told,him the Council did-have the
power or authority, but whether they would or not is another question.
He was satisfied with his value.
6. Mr. Kenneth Hentges, 635 39th Avenue, Plat 35154, Parcel 340.
Mr.:Hentges wanted to know why the value of his land was figured
at a different rate than other properties around him. Mr. Hentges.
is satisfied with his land value of $44,000 being that he paid
$50,000 for it in October, 1973 however, he feels that he is being
treated unfairly compared to his neighbors across the street. His
property is valued at 40,000 sq.ft. @1.16, compared to St. Paul
Corrugated valued at 37,500 sq.ft. @93~, & 25,485 sq.ft. @39G~ and
to Lange Tank valued at 50,00 sq.ft. @93t, ~ 33,980 sq.ft. @39G.
Mrs. Carlson explained the~~reason for the different rates is that the.
lots on the south side of~ 39th /Avenue are much ddeper with less frontage
on the street, making sewer and water liYtes much more costly to run in.
On the north side of the street.;.the.ulo~s~ar~ shallow with ,much more
frontage on the street, and .~:l:so, there i s a ra i 1 road. spur track. at the
rear of the lots on the north side of 3gth Avenue. All of the lots on
the north side were valued @1.10 per sq.ft., end the lots on the south
side of 39th Avenue were va 1 ued @93~'-;pnd° .3~'C per sq. ft.
Mrs. Carlson was asked to check further back in the records to find out
the reason this difference in rates was used for these Industrial
properties in this area.. This information will be presented to the
Council at the continued meeting May 19, 1875, at 7:00 p.m., and a
decision by the Council will be made at :that time.
Motion by Heintz, seconded by Norberg, to adjourn to 7:00 p.m. May 19,
1975. Roll Call - All Ayes
Adjourned at 10:00 p.m.
-146-
aruce G, Nawrock Mayor
Secretary Pr em