The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About04-22-2019 Board of Appeal & Equalization Mayor Donna Schmitt Councilmembers Robert A. Williams John Murzyn, Jr. Connie Buesgens Nick Novitsky City Manager Kelli Bourgeois City of Columbia Heights 590 40th Avenue NE, Columbia Heights, MN 55421-3878 (763) 706-3600 Visit our website at: www.columbiaheightsmn.gov The following is the agenda for the Board of Appeals & Equalization meeting to be held at 6 pm on Monday, April 22, 2019 in the City Council Chambers, City Hall, 590 40th Avenue N.E., Columbia Heights, Minnesota. 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. ROLL CALL 3. STATEMENT OF PURPOSE OF THE BOARD OF REVIEW To review property valuations as of January 1, 2019, for taxes payable 2020, and to hear appeals from citizens who feel aggrieved or have questions regarding property valuations. 4. INTRODUCTION The City Manager will introduce the Anoka County Appraisers 5. QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS REGARDING PROPERTY VALUES Citizens in attendance will be given an opportunity to raise questions regarding their property valuations. 6. COUNCIL ACTIONS REGARDING SPECIFIC CASES OR CASES ON WHICH ADDITIONAL INFORMATION IS REQUIRED. The Council may at this time take action regarding any of the properties that were discussed or instruct the County Assessor’s Office to provide more information at a continued meeting. Recommended Motion: Move to adopt the 2019 Assessment Rolls as presented OR Alternate Motion: Move to continue the Board of Appeals and Equalization meeting to ___________ for the purpose of hearing additional information regarding only those property values appealed on April 22, 2019 and to consider adoption of the 2019 Property Assessment Rolls. 12. ADJOURNMENT Auxiliary aids or other accommodations for disabled persons are available upon request when the request is made at least 48 hours in advance. Please call at 763-706-3610 or administration@columbiaheightsmn.gov, to make arrangements. 2019 ASSESSOR’S REPORT BOARD OF APPEAL AND EQUALIZATION Anoka County City of Columbia Heights 1 2019 Local Board of Appeal and Equalization Agenda April 22, 2019 1. Call the Board of Review to Order 2. Roll Call 3. Read Official Notice of the Board of Review 4. Board Chair outlines the ground rules for the meeting. The specific ground rules may vary for each local board but should include: • Purpose of the meeting; • Remind property owners that only appeals for the current year valuation or classification may be made. The 2019 board is to review the assessment as of January 2, 2019, which will be used to compute the property taxes payable in 2020. Prior years’ assessments or taxes (including taxes payable in 2019) are not within the jurisdiction of the board; • The order of the appellants - by appointment first, followed by walk-ins on a first-come basis. The board will also receive written appeals from property owners. The secretary will record the required information (name, mailing address, telephone number, and address of property, etc.) • The expectations of the appellant when presenting their appeal (i.e. the appeal must be substantiated by facts; where the appellant should stand or sit; the appellant should be prepared to answer questions posed by the board, etc.); • Time limits imposed (if any); • The procedure the board will follow for making decisions (Will the board hear all appeals before making any decisions? Will the board send a letter to appellants to inform them of the decision? Etc.) The Board may correct any erroneous valuation and add any omission of properties or increase of value after due process. The total decrease of valuations may not exceed one percent of the total valuation of the taxing district; 5. The Board Chair should give the assessor the opportunity to present a brief overview of the property tax process and a recap of the current assessment. 6. Appellants should then present their appeals to the board. If the assessor has had a chance to review the property prior to the meeting, the assessor can present facts and information either supporting the valuation and or classification, or recommend that the board make a change. If the assessor has not had a chance to review the property prior to the meeting, the board may ask the assessor to review the property and present his/her findings to the board at a reconvene meeting. 7. Recess or Close the Meeting. (If needed, the meeting will be reconvened at a date to be determined. The Board of Appeal and Equalization of any city must complete its work and adjourn within twenty days from the time of convening as specified in the notice of the clerk, unless a longer period is approved by the Commissioner of Revenue. No action taken subsequent to such date shall be valid.) Anoka County City of Columbia Heights 2 Understanding Your Assessment and Appeal Options Assessment Process Timeline In Minnesota it is the duty of the Assessor to value and classify property. This is done annually as of the assessment date of January 2nd. Each year's assessment is based on arms-length transactions (sales that meet the criteria of an open market transaction, see market value definition below) that occurred the previous October thru September. When the assessment is completed the local taxing jurisdictions begin their budgeting process for the following year. They use the total assessment to determine their tax base and develop their tax rates (formerly referred to as mill rates). All aspects of the assessment, including but not limited to the assessment date, sales period for each assessment and property tax classification are dictated by state statute and under the oversight of the Minnesota Department of Revenue. Market Value Defined As in private appraisal, Market Value is defined as: The most probable price that a property should bring in a competitive and open market under all conditions requisite to a fair sale, the buyer and seller each acting prudently and knowledgeably, and assuming the price is not affected by any undue stimulus. Implicit in this definition are the consummation of a sale as of a specified date and the passing of title from seller to buyer under conditions whereby: • buyer and seller are typically motivated: • both parties are well informed or well advised, and acting in what they consider their own best interests; • a reasonable time is allowed for exposure in the open market; • payment is made in terms of cash in U.S. dollars or in terms of financial arrangements comparable thereto; • the price represents the normal consideration for the property sold unaffected by special or creative financing or sales concessions granted by anyone associated with the sale (a foreclosure sale or a short sale [a sale to avoid foreclosure] is not considered an arms-length transaction). Mass Appraisal Defined Property values for Minnesota real estate tax purposes are determined via mass appraisal. Mass appraisal is the practice of determining individual values based on statistical analysis of a group of sales for a large area. The values are determined as of a specific date and are based on arms-length transactions that occurred during a specified sales period. Anoka County City of Columbia Heights 3 Sales Statistics Defined We have the ability by using statistical analysis to test the accuracy of the assessment. We use these statistics to ensure equity between properties at the neighborhood, municipal and county levels. The Minnesota Department of Revenue also uses these same techniques to test for equity between counties. The primary statistics used are: Median Ratio: This is a measure of central tendency that is the midpoint of a group of sales ratios when arrayed from low to high. The median is a useful statistic as it is not affected by extreme ratios. Aggregate Ratio: This is the total market value of all sale properties divided by the total sale prices. It, along with the mean ratio, gives an idea of our assessment level. Within the city, we constantly try to achieve an aggregate and mean ratio of 94% to 95% to give us a margin to account for a fluctuating market and still maintain ratios within state mandated guidelines. Also referred to as the Weighted Mean. Mean Ratio: The mean is the average ratio. We use this ratio not only to watch our assessment level, but also to analyze property values by development, type of dwelling and value range. These studies enable us to track market trends in neighborhoods, popular housing types and classes of property. Coefficient of Dispersion (COD): The COD measures the accuracy of the assessment. It is possible to have a median ratio of 93% with 300 sales, two ratios at 93%, 149 at 80% and 149 at 103%. Although this is an excellent median ratio, there is obviously a great inequality in the assessment. The COD indicates the spread of the ratios from the mean or median ratio. The goal of a good assessment is a COD of 10 to 20. A COD under 10 is considered excellent and anything over 20 will mean an assessment review by the Department of Revenue. Price Related Differential (PRD): This statistic measures the equality between the assessments of high and low valued property. A PRD over 100 indicates a regressive assessment, or the lower valued properties are assessed at a greater degree than the higher. A PRD of less than 100 indicates a progressive assessment or the opposite. A perfect PRD of 100 means that both higher and lower valued properties are assessed exactly equal. Appeals Procedure Each spring Anoka County sends out a property tax bill (based on the prior year assessment) along with the Notice of Valuation and Classification. Three factors that affect the tax bill are: 1. The amount your local governments (town, city, county, etc.) spend to provide services to your community; 2. The estimated market value of your property; 3. The classification of your property (how it is used). The assessor determines the final two factors. You may appeal the value or classification of your property as described on the next page. Anoka County City of Columbia Heights 4 Informal Appeal • Property owners are encouraged to call the appraiser or assessor whenever they have questions or concerns about their market value, classification of the property, or the assessment process. • Almost all questions can be answered during this informal appeal process. • When taxpayers call questioning their market value, every effort is made to make an appointment to inspect properties that were not previously inspected. • If the data on the property is correct, the appraiser can show the property owner other sales in the market that support the estimated market value. • If errors are found during the inspection, or other factors indicate a value reduction is warranted, the appraiser can easily make the changes at this time. Local Board of Appeal and Equalization • The Local Board of Appeal and Equalization is typically made up of city council members or township board members. In certain cases, a special board is appointed and is typically consists of real estate professionals. • The Board meets during late April and early May. • Taxpayers can make their appeal in person or by letter. • If an interior inspection is denied no adjustment can be made to value per MN Statute. • The assessor is present to answer any questions and present evidence supporting their value. County Board of Appeal and Equalization • In order to appeal to the County Board of Appeal and Equalization, a property owner must first appeal to the Local Board of Appeal and Equalization. • The County Board of Appeal and Equalization follows the Local Board of Appeal and Equalization in the assessment appeals process. • Again, if an interior inspection is denied no adjustment can be made to value per MN Statute. • Their role is to ensure equalization among individual assessment districts and classes of property. • Decisions of the County Board of Appeal and Equalization can be appealed to the Minnesota Tax Court. Minnesota Tax Court The Tax Court has statewide jurisdiction. Except for an appeal to the Supreme Court, the Tax Court shall be the sole, exclusive and final authority for the hearing and determination of all questions of law and fact arising under the tax laws of the state. There are two divisions of tax court: the small claims division and the regular division. The Small Claims Division of the Tax Court only hears appeals involving one of the following situations: • The assessor’s estimated market value of the property is <$300,000 • The entire parcel is classified as a residential homestead and the parcel contains no more than one dwelling unit. • The entire property is classified as an agricultural homestead. • Appeals involving the denial of a current year application for homestead classification of the property. The proceedings of the small claims division are less formal and property owners often represent themselves. There is no official record of the proceedings. Decisions made by the small claims division are final and cannot be appealed further. Small claims decisions do not set precedent. Anoka County City of Columbia Heights 5 The Regular Division of the Tax Court will hear all appeals, including those with the jurisdiction of the small claims division. Decisions made here can be appealed to a higher court. The principal office for the Tax Court is in St. Paul. However, the Tax Court is a circuit court and can hold hearings at any other place within the state so that taxpayers may appear with as little inconvenience and expense to the taxpayer as possible. Appeals of property located in Anoka County are heard at the Anoka County Courthouse. Three judges make up the Tax Court. Each may hear and decide cases independently. However, a case may be tried before the entire court under certain circumstances. The petitioner must file in tax court on or before April 30 of the year in which the tax is payable. Anoka County City of Columbia Heights 6 Columbia Heights Assessment Overview Columbia Heights Assessment Staff Name Position License Level Responsibility Theodore Anderson Residential Appraiser CMA Residential 1-3 Units Shawn Halligan Senior Appraiser CMA – Income Qualified Apartments John Leone Senior Appraiser AMA Commercial/Industrial/Exempt Alex Guggenberger County Assessor SAMA Countywide Oversight City of Columbia Heights Property Breakdown Property Type Number of Parcels Vacant Residential 83 Improved Residential 6,851 Apartment (Vacant & Improved) 129 Commercial/Industrial (Vacant & Improved) 238 Total 7,593 2019 Assessment As part of this mass appraisal process, all properties are re-valued annually based on the information on record. Properties are physically inspected and property records reviewed once every 5 years (as statutorily required). This is an ongoing process whereby 20% (referred to as quintile) of a city is inspected each year so that in a cycle of 5 years all properties have been inspected at least once. In addition to this quintile review, properties are also inspected when there is a building permit issued or at the request of the property owner. The sale of a property does not initiate a reassessment. The map on the next page depicts the residential quintile plan for the next 5 years. Anoka County City of Columbia Heights 7 MAIN ST NE UNIVERSITY AVE NE CENTRAL AVE NE Columbia Heights 5 Year Quintile Map 26 34 35 49TH AVE NE 25 36 40TH AVE NE Legend Sections 2019 2021 2018 2020 2022 UNIVERSITY AVE NE CENTRAL AVE NE CENTRAL AVE NE STINSON BLVD NE I 45TH AVE NE Anoka County City of Columbia Heights 8 As stated earlier, Minnesota state law governs the assessment date, which is January 2nd of each year, as well as the sales periods associated with each assessment date. The 2018 assessment which was used for tax calculations this year (2019) was based on transactions that closed between October 1, 2016 and September 30, 2017. Property owners were notified of their 2018 value on their Notice of Valuation and Classification (also referred to as a valuation notice). The notices were mailed out in March of 2018 in the same envelope as the tax statement. The appeals process took place at the municipal level during the month of April of 2018 and at the county level in June of 2018. At this point, if a property owner wishes to appeal their 2018 assessment (for taxes payable 2019) their only option is to file a tax court petition. This must be done no later than April 30, 2019. The 2019 assessment was completed in February and the valuation notices were mailed the week of March 18th. The 2019 assessed value will be used for tax calculation purposes next year. The sales period associated with this assessment is October 1, 2017 thru September 30, 2018. As with past assessments, the local appeals process will begin in April and finish up in June. The options and requirements to appeal this assessment are listed on the back of the valuation notice. If a property owner has an issue with their 2019 assessment, the first thing they should do is contact their local assessor. The phone numbers are listed on their valuation notice. Please note that only arms-length sales that closed between October 1, 2017 and September 30, 2018 have been used to determine valuations for the 2019 assessment, for taxes payable in 2020. The following chart may be helpful in following the timeline of your assessment: Anoka County City of Columbia Heights 9 We are aware that due to the time frames we are required to work within it sometimes appears as though the assessor’s estimated market value does not represent the market. It seems lower than it should be during times of inflation and higher than it should be in times of deflation. The following chart illustrates the relationship between assessed values and actual sale prices; and how the assessor’s market values have been following the changes as they occur in the open market. Note: The Median Assessor’s Estimated Market Value represents the homes that are in the sales study. One important thing to remember is the assessment process is completed before the budgeting process begins. Assessors do not adjust values in order to increase revenue. There is little correlation between changes in assessments due to market changes and how the resulting real estate tax changes. When we adjust assessments due to market conditions, all properties are adjusted. The only time that an adjustment in an assessor’s estimated market value will have an impact on the increase or decrease in tax is if the change in value is due to value added for new construction or value removed due to demolition/destruction of an improvement. 2019 Sales Statistics – Residential The table below uses various sales metrics to compare how the residential market in Columbia Heights performed compared to the rest of the county. The sales study figures were gathered using Northstar MLS data Metric Columbia Heights County Average Sale Price & % Change (YOY) $207,600(+12.02%) $274,200(+9.37%) Median Sale Price % Change (YOY) $206,500 (+11.01%) $250,000(9.36%) Median Days on Market (DOM) 32 45 # of Sales & % Change (YOY) 306(-12.6%) 4,983(-19.26%) # of Arm’s Length Sales & % Change (YOY) 286(-14.4%) 4,868(-16.86%) # of Non-Arm’s Length Sales & % Change (YOY) 20(+25%) 202(-36.26%) $165,000 $170,000 $175,000 $180,000 $185,000 $190,000 $195,000 $200,000 $205,000 $210,000 $215,000 $220,000 $225,000 $230,000 $235,000 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 Median Assessed Value vs. Median Sale Price Median Sale Price Median Assessor's Estimated Market Value Anoka County City of Columbia Heights 10 2019 Sales Ratio Statistics The tables below display the final adjusted sales ratios for Residential, Apartments, Commercial, and Industrial properties. All the numbers are within State of MN requirements and indicate a high-quality assessment with good equalization. City Town # of Sales Ratio COD City Town # of Sales Ratio CODAndover440 94.02% 5.46 Columbia Heights 6 92.15% 5.92Anoka212 94.17% 5.94 Fridley 7 90.73% 4.46Bethel791.77% 9.86 Countywide 25 91.85% 6.56Blaine1026 94.56% 5.62 Centerville 52 94.53% 4.48 Circle Pines 84 94.35% 5.61 Columbia Heights 318 94.89% 10.35 City Town # of Sales Ratio CODColumbus34 94.17% 9.20 Anoka 8 96.08% 8.83 Coon Rapids 927 94.21% 5.12 Coon Rapids 11 96.64% 9.85 East Bethel 150 94.69% 8.16 Columbia Heights 6 97.21% 13.47Fridley350 94.52% 5.95 Countywide 46 94.14% 15.12 Ham Lake 139 93.03% 7.20 Hilltop 2 85.31% 0.94 Lexington 16 94.15% 7.40 Lino Lakes 227 94.31% 5.40 City Town # of Sales Ratio CODLinwood52 94.14% 8.20 Blaine 9 97.24% 7.64 Nowthen 25 95.69% 7.28 Countywide 25 92.59% 11.71 Oak Grove 71 94.50% 7.00 Ramsey 415 94.64% 6.52 Spring Lake Park 105 94.57% 6.23 St. Francis 124 95.36% 4.81 Countywide 6,964 94.40% 6.03 Residential Countywide Apartments Countywide Commercial Countywide Industrial Anoka County City of Columbia Heights 11 Market Value History The graphs below indicate how aggregate values have changed over the last 5 years for each of the four largest property types. $- $500,000,000 $1,000,000,000 $1,500,000,000 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Residential $- $50,000,000 $100,000,000 $150,000,000 $200,000,000 $250,000,000 $300,000,000 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Apartment $70,000,000 $75,000,000 $80,000,000 $85,000,000 $90,000,000 $95,000,000 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Commercial $- $5,000,000 $10,000,000 $15,000,000 $20,000,000 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Industrial $- $500,000,000 $1,000,000,000 $1,500,000,000 $2,000,000,000 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Columbia Heights Total EMV Anoka County City of Columbia Heights 12 2019 Market Value Statistics & New Construction The tables below indicate the percentage change (YOY) for each of the four largest property types as well as the total market value. The increase due to New Construction (NC) is also included in the table below. Property Type 2019 EMV % Increase % Increase Due to NC Residential $1,364,953,400 12.28%0.26% Apartment $182,733,400 29.05% 19.53% Commercial $91,661,000 6.58%0.00% Industrial $14,564,700 0.09%0.00% Total EMV $1,653,922,500 13.45%2.11% RE April2l,2019 Local Board of Appeal and Equalization Taxable Market Value 4621 University Avenue; Columbia Heights, MN Board Members: I am in strong disagreement with the proposed 2020 taxable market value of the address listed above. I am not able to attend the local board of appeal meeting on April 22 so I would like to present my objection in this letter. In review of the I l-unit buildings on University Avenue in the proximity of 4621 University, the 2020 proposed taxable market values increased approximately 12% on all the buildings, except 4621. 4621University increased more than 28%o. When the county representative, Shawn Halligan, recently toured the building, I asked him why suddenly my building had a much higher percentage increase than the surrounding buildings. Shawn responded that apparently, during my last appeal in 201 3 the county representative assigned an"obsolescence" on the building and this year it has been removed. When asked why the "obsolescenca" was assigred, Shawn stated that it was likely needed to get the 2013 tax estimated value in line with the sales price. This is not a valid reason and is totally unacceptable especially since Ijust found out about this. Based on my research on "obsolescence" with the Minnesota Department of Revenue and others, there needs to be an obvious and documented reason to assign an "obsolescence" to the building and there needs to be another reason to remove this title from the building. No one seems to know why this was ever assigned and now why it is suddenly removed. Nothing has really changed with the building. There were no problems with the building before and nothing has changed as far as the overall condition or general maintenance of the building since the last appeal. It seems that the argument then and now consistently goes back to the idea that the County believes a building that is 30 years old is worth considerably more than a building that is 50 years old, given that all other things are equal. Again, I totally disagree with this concept and the sales data does not support this logic. There is a reason the Internal Revenue Service allows complete depreciation on an apartment building over a27.5 year life. In my last appeal I supplied statistics and data to show that the County was incorrect in the tax assessed value at that time and in fact had likely been over-assessing the previous owner for years. Now, we are right back where we were in 201 3 because the County refuses to recognize that the purchase price in 2012 was reflective ofthe actual value and that the tax assessed percentage increases should continue to remain consistent with other buildings in the area. I have performed an extensive review of the 2017 and 2018 Certificate of Real Estate Values (CRP's) for the apartment buildings sold in Anoka County as filed with the Minnesota Department of Revenue. A few things stand out: l) Sales Price to Assessed Value Ratios are generally much less for newer buildings, 2) generally, if the sales price is much higher than the assessed value the County may say that the sale is not "good" and the County will change some paftrmeters on the building so that it again fits their "model", and they can continue to increase the tax assessed value (this also allows them to claim that they are within the State mandated Sales Ratio), 3) generally, if the sales price is way less than the County Assessed value, again the sale may not be "good" and the County will refuse to change the value or a temporary halt such as a "obsolescence" will be assigned even though it is totally inappropriate. I have compiled some of the CRV data on the attached excel spreadsheet in order to better understand the data. It becomes very obvious that per unit value and the square foot value is much greater for 4621 University than it is for sales even of the same age. When one compares this same data to building values that were not sold the discrepancy gets much greater. Please show me the math from an investor standpoint that puts the value ofa 30 year old building at 40-50 7o more than a 50 year old building - pure nonsense. In summary, I find it very initating that I have to continually spend my time arguing this topic, when the County has not provided me one solid ri*on why the 2012 sales price was incorrect, other than it doesn't fit their "model". When sales come in less than the tax assessed value the County needs to adjust the values downward just like they readily do when sales come in higher than assessed values. In my opinion, tle County's approach to this is inconsistent and totally un-defensible. There is absolutely no reason that my building value sirould increase u bigg"i p"r"entage than the adjacent buildings that were not part ofa sales transaction. I can be reached ar 65 I -263 -1793 or jmorisetteT I 89@outlook. com. d-o q) o 8ro 4 3o a 0) o,o 1ll.oo oqo @ @od- oeo NoNo oooooo- 0)coo (D 2. a,stoo Tt. a.cf NoNo aoo aoo- q) Eo 15o aI TI aoooooo, !rco 0) J 3o o a 0) 6' oaooo @o 0, co fo a o)oo NoNo No (o No @ a @o ooo gr co NoNo a @ooaoo o-o N @oo- E 3 o @oo- B3vg o -{ofr TDoo. do 3u f (/, ero o o)f 3of Cf. o fa o) o- {oq a OJ o 0) (D E. = a o) oaoo U'o oo !:.oo \Z @@ Ju..1(, P(D O) @(oAb5 N 90 (J)(,s @{(oA-@ oIoo 6 -o N -o o9oo b,A @ o@s.-t (oo{ oC IDcmo{ ,l \ l8lclflc lol-lo loll l@ 5\o)N c =.o a. o iJN g, @ -o -.t Poo @(I -{(,l-.t \o a@ -o-.t5 b,{ @{-{ooIo<) @ILo 9)...1(o @(o -(n@u) s,(r)q, o-.t :'l @o 6(, 9)(,l @--tIoN @*{ s,AN 4(n!,N(o ao@Lot @ @(o "(,t o9oo @N @ooioIoo a L(I, .N oIoo s,5 s po{s !o Ns @ '@ .-l 5-(r! oIoo @ -(,o5 -@NoIoo a -o N -Ol{oIoo @!\)oA -(o oIoo & -(,oo -o o9oo @ -@(, --.IooPoo $D to5 ir)oo s5 o(, 5@ No o(, N5 No,NNo ot5ooo No)oo (oo..1 @--lo (o -.1 o, -(, No @ LCao -g) No{ =o af -{lso{ @ ioN -ooo9oo @ -(/)5 --.t6o9oo @!.)(, <) -oooIoo t3lo ld lo l8lllr lo)blo kn t-nItlo KDk N(, N E 6fof .,.. NAoN o(o = s o) (o{oa ls @o) -5 Nt,6o @(, -@oN!, 6o @.-l P(,l @--tI @ @o.tl .ANoIoo i.)o,(, 6@ O) _-..1(ooIoo 6 -o @ -o oPoo LDo N@ ! AN5! (o o,o TIog e 0)a No ! 6 'o o -oooPoo oqc 3q o)-q.o =a o(ooo 1lo o a ! n,oo b--l @ N -o,@oI !o, 6 o,-o o,Po -.1 @o):(, @ @o) s,5 -.1 @o,N (o oN N@ _o cooIoo s)o,@s @ !$o -(o{oIoo @No,o)Ji(ooIoo o! o(,N o)(oo@o, (o @(o L o,:,c 0,a o).. N)o --l @N5o -oooIoo 'n fo o $(t) {oa @ O) -(!@ O)!,o,5 @N,\)@ -o@oIoo Ioc)s g .A o _uoopoo @ Lo -(nooIoo b,! oo)NN NN o @--l N zo2t, t-m U'o =.Jot- o) o 1lox Noo @ o @o, _Ot!(oI(o a{ --{N @ !r) N@ -o@o9oo l.){s goA -oNoIoo 6-{N -o\loIoo io N oo@ @o)(, zozaral oc 3q 0) I 0.o f 5No (,a q) oo !f.oo 6o (h 6; ]Dloooinooe ot Eo oo 3t AI laiol= rO '3 o-0, ooc t,o, Dumore lnvestments LLC c/o Dave Morlsette Ct No, Oakdale, MN 55128760722' PropertyAddressi 462IUniversityAveNE City: Columbia Heights PIN:, 26-30-24-34-0095 Legal Descrlptlon: Lot 7 Block 4 Columbla Heights Acres Ex E 14O Ft, ex Rd SubJ to ease of rec Lot Slze: .49 Acre Area: 21,682Sq, tt.Rectangular Residentlal Nelghborhood Boundarles City of Columbla H SubJect comparable 1 Comparable 2 Comparable 3 Address 1036 Peters Pl NE, CH Ave Ng, CH228 4546 Tyler St NE, cH PID 3G30-24-33-0144 35-3G24-324LO2 2S-3G24-33-0055 Sale Date L2/22/20L7 Sale Price S6so,ooo $615,000 'Iime Adjusted sale Prlce to ss62,s00 S693,700 666,000 Time Sao,aoo 700 Time Sale S1ls 700 840 nlt 630 nit985nit .49 AclResldential 28 .36 .22 Design/Appeal 3 Story 2 Story 2Story 2 Story Constructlon Quality AvB,/Good Avg/Good Avg/Good Avg/Good Age 1988 - 31 Years 1963 - 56 Years 7,5N 1962 - 57 Years 7,800 1961- 58 Years 8,100 Condition Average AveraBe Average 1X 7 Unlts 8 I 18 8 t4 7 7 Rooms ll 8 8 Gross Bullding Area 10,836 SF SF SF SF Effl1Bed/2Bed/3Bed 0/4l7lo 324,2@ 589,000 Heatlng/Cooling HWA/Vall Ac HWAArall AC AC HWAVall AC 11 Ga Unlts None 32,000 None 32,000 None 32,000 None NoneDecksNone AdJusted Sale Price of Comparable 700 100 Comments; The sub.fect property is a well malntalned 1988 built 3 story apartment complex wlth ll total units, The unit mlx conslsts of (4) l bedroom unlts and (7) 2 bedroom unlts. The subject ls located on the servlce road for University Avenue which offers easy access to downtown Mlnneapolls vla multiple forms of translt and is withln close proxlmity to 1694. All sales are time adjusted to the !OZ|aOL9 assessment date with the Dept of Revenue tlme trend of .0131 monthly for Apartments. The subiect ls the newest 5-19 unit apartment buildlng, by 20 years, ln the Clty of Columbia Helghts, Age adjustments are made at a conservatlve $300/year, Unit mlx adjustments are made using a 3% vacancy rate, 35% Operatin8 Expense Ratio (OER), 7% Cap Rate and market rents of $800 for efficiencies, 5950 for 1 Bedroom, $1,150 for 2 Bedrooms, and 51,600 for 3 B€drooms. Per Marshall & Swift, cost new for the garage structure ls roughly $52,000. The depreciated value ls approxlmately $32,000, Per the income approach, at Sso/month Sarage rent, assuming 5% vacancy, a 35% OER, and a 7% cap rate, the garages would be valued at 555,200. Comparables 2 is weighted most heavlly In thls report as it is the most recent sale, requlrlng the least amount of adJustments, has the most slmllar unh mlx, ls the closest ln lot size and is located just off Unlverslty Avenue like the subJect, Comparable 4 is a 3-story buildinS as ls the subject, lts lot size brackets the sublect's allowing for a garage, it ls the most simllar ln age, lt's effective area/unh is the same as comp 2, and has a simllar unlt mix to the subJect, Assessor's Estimated Market Value as of January 2' 2Ot9z S 1,o2o,1oo raiser's Reconciled Value: S Effective Date: O4l 19raiser's Si ature: Shawn Appraiser's Name Prlnted Here None I I 4621 Universlty Ave NEProperty Address:PIN: 26-30-24-34-0095City: Columbla Helghts Subject 4 comparable 5 comparable 6 Address 4650 Johnson St NE, CH 5940 E River NE, PID 25-3G24-34-0031 22-30-24-12-0006 3/20/2018 LL/14/20L8Sale Date S1,62s,oooSale Price Tlme Adjusted Sale Prlce to Ll02l2oL9 $1,826,900 $s63,soo Time Adjusted Sale Price/Unit S1o7,soo $80,3oo (Square Feet)Time s128 ses 985 SF/UnltEffective Area/Untt 840 SF/Unlt 841 SF/Unit Description Descrlption +/- s Adj Descrlptlon +/- $ AdI Description +/- $ adjAdjustments .49 Ac/Residentlal .66 Ac/ResldentialSlteTVlew ,43 AclResidential 3 Story 3 Story 3 StoryDesign/Appeal Construction quality Avg 1988-31 Years 1968 -51 Years 6,000 8,100A8e1961 - 57 Years Condition Average Average AveraSe Unlts 11 Unlts L7 Unlts t2 Unltt Bedromt 18 Bodrcoms 30 Bedrooms 18 Ecdrooru Batlts L7 gath5 L7 Seths L2 Batht Rooms 10,836 SF L4,2745F 10,092 SFGross Buildin8 Area t/4lt0l2 -805,300 -81,0@Effl1Bed/2Bed/3Bed ol6l6/0 ACHeating/Cooling HWAilall AC Ac GaraBes 11 Garage Unlts 16 GaraBe Unlts -14,500 None 32,000 Decks None Decks -2,000 None Adjusted Sale Price of Comparable $1,011,100 s922,600 CommentS: Comparable 4 ls a 3-story building as ls the subject, lts lot size brackets the subject's also allowlng for a garage, It ls the most slmllar ln age, it's effective area/unh ls the same as comp 2, and has a similar unit mix to the subject. Thut comp 4 carries the second most welght ln thls report. Assessor's Estimated Market Value as of Janua ry 2, 2019: S 1,020,100 Appraiser's Reconciled Value: $ 1,040,000 Appraiser'sSignature: Shawn Halligan Date: O4lLBlzOtg Appraiser's Name Prlnted Here I o/4/7lo Basic lncome Approach: Unlt Mlx Studio l Bedrooms 2 Bedrooms 3 Bedrooms Actual Rents N/A N/A N/A N/A 0s 4s 7s 0s $ s s s Estlmated Market Rents Unlt Mlx Estlmated Annual lncome 800 9s0 1,150 1,600 Low End s.s0% 45,600 96,600 PotentlalGrosslncome $L42,2OO 4,266Less Vacancy & Collection Loss s Effectlve Gross lncome $ f37,9?4 Operating Expense Ratlo (35%) S 48,277 Net Opperatlng lncome 5 89,SSZ Hlgh End 8.OO% Typical 6%to7%Market Cap Rate Range Value lndicated @ 5.5% cAP Value lndicated @ 6.0% CAP Value lndicated @ 7.O% CAP Value lndicated @ 7,50/6 CAP Value lndicated @ 8.0% cAP Value lndlcated by lncome Approach $ Flnal Reconcllliatlon Value Indlcated by Sales Comparlson Approach Value lndlcated by lncome Approach s S s s s 1,630,000 L,494,W 1,281,000 1,195,000 L,Lzt,O00 1,2OO,OOO 1,040,000 1,200,000 s $ Reco-nciliation Comments: The Subject Property is a well maintained 11 Unlt property consisting of (a) 1 Bedroom Units and (7) 2 Bedroom Units. After surveying the best available comparable sales and adjusting those sales appropriately the value indicated by the sales comparison approach ls $1,040,000. The income approach conservatively yielded an estlmated value of approximately , 51,200,000. Upon reconclling these values the appraiser felt as though both approaches to value carried welght given the good I quality/quantity of the data avallable for whlch to base adjustments. The result is an estimated market value opinion of 51,100,000. For the purposes of this appeal, Anoka County would recommend no action regardlng the property owners 2019 Assessment for taxes payable ln 2020. Estimated Market Value S1,1oo,ooo r SUBJECT PHOTOS I REAR FRONT ,*:.. ", t'. 1.,,:' .'it.,ti$ G_i)fl ra,-fu4+ ._ q l trlr1 aE .1. a I l::4r-,;!, ii i ? ! t J EI Thd .t T J l?i-l l *'--"-- ,*9 ffi&E --r*F' I G u fl 1 q.'- t COMPARABLE PHOTOS COMP 1 COMP 2 1.\,',-._a--.:.a r ,'?.:'*...4 : j..tr Ji -t/J. a 'fE' '.#*;"": -ql'', . .:\'lq5 a r-F'--TE-T--I *fu ,Jl ,t' b k ^*l I COMPARABLE PHOTOS COMP 3 lrc EmE I I ryruE COMP 4 t !'r* ' ff-,-1EEt..4:r I ---EI - ,'m a-y' ..; - ./ t--a u7 ._!-.I -1 - --!f,;f '...........- cot\4P 5 * I a- --4 E E Iili ffi l I ,t d t I 4621University Ave NE, CH Location Map 4621 Univc6ity Ave NE columbla Hohhts, MN 55421 : Subj.cl 1036 Petcrs Pl NE columbia Hcighls. MN 55421 : CompaaEble 1 228 40th Ave NE CdumHs Hsiqhls, MN 53421 : CotrpaEble 2 4546 Tyl€r Sl NE Cotumbi. HeighE. MN 55421 i Codp..abl€ 3 Columbia Height3, MN 55421 : Comperable 4 5940 E Rivsr Rd NE FridGy, MN 55,t32 : CompsGblg 5 Download 4621 Universitv Ave NE. CH Location Mao Gooole Earth (KML) A Page I of2 B C D E https:/iwww.batchgeo.c om/ maplb406fal e5085aBa5 8 I 5b 1 02Rd3 5004 F 0412212019 tts N @ (o tr!(l?.raq, 6an trUo",.^,** .ffi!,1rl Pdrla @ @ @ @ @ Ll,rnn! r V i'rr lir c Columbia silvptuoodHeights park (o) r:":,"r1 1A)V Hrrrroffi (B' e @ h @ @ @ I Moore Lake Park .F Palmer Lake Parl tDi @ ) l,lew Briqhton i i G lony Schmidl Reglonal ParkG] I e- ^n tl Cml.d m.p owr(lvtllf d{i{ erzor e coeqre @