Loading...
041502 Board of Review Min " . BOARD OF REVIEW CITY OF SHOREWOOD MONDAY, APRIL 15, 2002 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD COUNCIL CHAMBERS 7:00 P.M. MINUTES 1. CONVENE BOARD OF REVIEW MEETING Chair Love called the meeting to order at 7:00 P.M. A. Roll Call Present: Chair Love, Boardmembers Garfunkel, Lizee, and Turgeon; Administrator Dawson; City Appraisers Bill Davy and Tom Kunik Absent: Boardmember Zerby B. Review Agenda Turgeon moved, Lizee seconded, approving the Agenda as presented. Motion passed 4/0. 2. PRESENTATION BY HENNEPIN COUNTY ASSESSOR . Administrator Dawson explained the City Council would be acting as a Board of Review whose purpose was to examine property valuations and hear concerns brought forward by residents regarding proposed valuations for their property. He stated the property tax system was established by the Minnesota State Legislature and as such, required all issues regarding valuation to be remedied twenty days from this date. He explained the City had contracted with Hennepin County for provision of assessment of property valuations. He also explained the procedures to be utilized in this meeting and noted the Board could approve the valuation, make changes to the valuation, or suggest the appellant work to remedy the areas of concern with the assessors. As a result, he anticipated the Board of Review would be holding another meeting in approximately one week to hear progress made on issues brought forth this evening. Chair Love then introduced City Assessors, Bill Davy and Tom Kunik, of the Hennepin County Assessors Office. Mr. Davy reviewed the role of the assessors for the City and noted approximately twenty-five percent of the properties within the City were reviewed in any given year. This year the properties west of Eureka Road, and Enchanted Island were reviewed by the Assessor's office. He also explained there were many factors, such as size of the building and quality of the structure on the property, involved in providing an accurate assessment. In addition, he explained the State legislature had enacted a "limited law" which allowed valuations to increase on a property at a rate of 8.5% annually, or 15% of the difference between the new and previous estimated market value of the property, whichever was greater. He further explained this law was being phased out over the next five years. In the Year 2007, this limited law would no longer be utilized. Mr. Davy stated his purpose in tonight's meeting was to gather more information from concerned residents. Chair Love detailed the process to be utilized by residents interested in appealing the proposed valuation. . He also anticipated a reconvened Board of Review meeting would need to take place in approximately .- . . . BOARD OF REVIEW MEETING MINUTES April 15, 2002 Page 2 of 4 one week. After that date, appeals could be made to the Hennepin County Board of Equalization by June 7,2002. Final appeal would be made to the Minnesota Tax Court by March 31, 2003. 3. TESTIMONY BY RESIDENTS Bill Miller of 2691 Casco Point Road, Wayzata, Minnesota, representing Upper Minnetonka Yacht Club, PID 30-117-23-33-0025, explained the history of the Upper Minnetonka Yacht Club, noting its existence since 1963 as a non-profit organization located on Enchanted Island. He noted the property had not been improved over time, and he requested it be valued in accordance with its use. He also stated the property would not be developed as part of its use. Chair Love stated he appreciated the sentiments regarding sailing in the area, as he also enjoyed the sport. However, he explained the reality was that the property was developable. He questioned whether the Yacht Club had considered placing a conservation easement over the property. Mr. Daly stated, for assessment purposes, the property would need to be examined as if it would be sold in the future. Chair Love encouraged Mr. Miller to have the Yacht Club explore the option of establishing a conservlttion easement over the property, as it seemed to meet the expressed goals of the Yacht Club as well as the residents of Shorewood. He suggested Mr. Miller meet with Administrator Dawson to discuss goals and options for the property. Ronald Leaf, 19790 Near Mountain Boulevard, PID 36-117-23-44-0093, expressed concern for the amount of his valuation. He stated a formal appraisal on the property had arrived during the time the assessment was being completed. He noted the formal appraisal listed the value of the property at $335,000, while the assessed value was listed as $385,000. He stated he was concerned about the proposed city valuation, as the formal appraisal had also listed comparables in the area, which also disputed the higher valuation. In addition, his immediate neighbors had experienced a valuation increase of approximately 22%, while his showed an increase of 25%. He stated he had spoken with the assessors previously about his concerns. Chair Love suggested a site visit as an appropriate course of action. The appellant and the assessor agreed. Howard Young, 5220 Spring Circle, PID 25-117-23-34-0026, stated his questions had been answered in the presentation made by the assessors previously in the evening. Richard Kiefer, 4640 Polaris Lane, Plymouth, Minnesota, PID 29-117-23-44-0030, stated he owned property on Birch Bluff Road. He stated his property was considered "landlocked" in that he was unable to access the lot from a City street. He also explained that he was unable to develop the property as a result. He stated his valuation had changed from $10,000 to $100,000. He stated he had not spoken with the assessors prior to this evening. Mr. Daly stated he would like to review the case prior to the next meeting. Mr. Kiefer agreed. Tom Skramstad, 28020 Woodside Road, PID not given, questioned how valuations were established on properties that held a structure that was torn down and rebuilt on a larger scale. Mr. Daly stated there was a bit of discrepancy shown on the Internet regarding properties listed as vacant parcels. He noted properties would often be accurately adjusted over the course of the two years time. Mr. Kunik also BOARD OF REVIEW MEETING MINUTES April 15, 2002 Page 3 of 4 . explained if a house was only partially constructed at the time of the assessment, only the completed portion could be included in the valuation. Chair Love also commented if the house was not completed at the time of the valuation in one year, it would most likely jump significantly in value in the next year. Kitty Onan, 5525 Wedgewood, PID 33-117-23-22-0029, stated she had a unique situation including a unique home. She stated she was concerned for the incremental increases on her property in the last three years, ranging from $235,000 to $300,000, in the most recent valuation notice. She stated she had contacted the assessor with her concerns. He had reviewed the property quickly and reduced the valuation to $275,000. In addition, she explained she was in the process of having a certified appraisal completed on the property, and she requested this examination be given serious consideration upon completion. She also stated a number of real estate agents had been through the house recently and noted there were significant improvements to be made to the house. With the repairs, the estimated market value recommended by the real estate professionals would be approximately $240,000, and without the improvements, approximately $210,000, at most. Chair Love questioned Mr. Kunik whether he had visited the property. He responded affirmatively, and noted the house-required repair. He explained Ms. Onan was interested in replacement of items within the house that could potentially be repaired, thereby reducing the cost of repair shared by Ms. Onan. Ms. Onan stated she would like to be able to repair the house for the cost savings; however, there were constraints in finding replacement materials, as they were no longer being manufactured. She stated she would like the value of the necessary repairs equated in her valuation. She also requested the assessors return to the property and review the case. Chair Love requested Ms. Onan share her beliefs in writing regarding the cost of replacement versus repair in this matter. . Stan Morgovsky, 23622 Smithtown Road, PID 34-117-23-23-0049, stated his property valuation had increased from $127,400 to $161,000. He further stated no improvements had been made to the structure within the last ten years. He requested a site visit by the assessors, noting he was uncertain of the process to be utilized prior to this evening. Mr. Daly agreed, and arrangements were made for the visit. Brett Helgeson, 5640 Vine Hill Road, PID 36-117-23-14-0061, stated he was concerned for the increase in his valuation. He explained houses immediately located along Vine Hill Road were often inaccurately assumed to be sold at the same premium as other homes in the area. He stated he would like a revaluation and would like to set up an appointment with the assessors so that revaluation could take place. While there was no one present wishing to address the Board, Mr. Daly explained there were five additional residents and one marina wishing to be entered into the minutes for this evening as having concerns with the proposed valuations for the properties specified. . Barbara Beard, 27185 Noble Road, PID 32-117-23-22-0024 . Mike Cramer, 5425 Timber Lane, PID 34-117-23-22-0016 . Eric Rousar, 5575 Shorewood Lane, PID 33-117-23-0056 . Pete Rowland, 26795 Noble Road, PID 32-117-23-21-0027 . Carole Westby, 27020 62Dd Street West, PID 32-117-23-33-0030 . Minnetonka Moorings, 600 West Lake Street, PID 34-117-23-22-0003 4. BOARD DIRECTION TO ASSESSOR . Chair Love explained the next step in the process was for the assessors to review the cases, meet with the appellants, and provide comparables for discrepant properties. ,.,.' , . . . BOARD OF REVIEW MEETING MINUTES April 15, 2002 Page 4 of 4 Without objection from the Board, Chair Love closed the testimony portion of the Board of Review process, noting it would no longer hear additional appeals before the Board. While concerned property owners could continue to meet and speak with the assessors, changes would be made administratively, rather than as a case heard before the Board of Review. 4. ESTABLISH DATE FOR BOARD TO RECONVENE In cooperation with Mr. Daly and Mr. Kunik, the Board of Review agreed to reconvene on April 22, 2001, at 6:00 P.M. 5. ADJOURN Lizee moved, Turgeon seconded, adjourning the April 15, 2002, Board of Review Meeting, at 7:52 P.M. Motion passed 4/0. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Sally Keefe, Recording Secretary