Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2006 05-01 CCM Board of Appeal & Equalization MINUTES OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER IN THE COUNTY OF HENNEPIN AND THE STATE OF MINNESOTA BOARD OF APPEAL AND EQUALIZATION MAY 1, 2006 CITY HALL — COUNCIL CHAMBERS 1. CALL TO ORDER i The Brooklyn Center City Council met as the Board of Appeal of Equalization and was called to Y n' pp order b Mayor Myrna Kra ess at 7:00 Y Y Yrn � .m. P ROLL CALL Mayor Myrna Kragness and Councilmembers Kathleen Carmody, Kay Lasman, and Diane Niesen. Assistant City d unexcused. Also resent were Councilmember M O'Connor was absent an p Manager/Director of Operations Curt Boganey, City Assessor Nancy Wojcik, Hennepin County Assessor Tom May, Appraiser Jill Brenna, Appraiser Technician Karen Casto, and Deputy City Clerk Camille Worley. 2. ASSESSORS REPORT City Assessor Nancy Wojcik reported that during the summer of 2005 her office conducted re- inspections for the 2006 assessment of the residential properties located east of Vera Cruz Avenue, south of 694, west of Shingle Creek Parkway, and north of Bass Lake Road/Co. Rd. No. 10. In addition to all single-family homes located in the review ar ea all commercial apartment and industrial properties were also reviewed. The inspection area involved 2,038 residential parcels with exterior inspections on all and 66 percent of those had interior inspections. The interior inspection percentage is down slightly from previous years due to the elimination of a second mailing to remind owners to set an appointment. This was done as a cost saving measure starting in the summer of 2003. In May her office began the re- inspection process which was completed by the end of September. Following the review of scheduled quintile, the focus switched to the residential properties with new improvements, commercial/industrial, and apartment properties. All permit review inspections were completed by her staff and commercial inspections by herself. The review of new improvements added an additional 945 properties to the inspection total and approximately 600 of these properties required exterior inspections and approximately 345 required interior inspections. The estimated total number of residential properties reviewed in 2005 was approximately 2,938. 05/01 /06 -1- Ms. Wojcik outlined some of the commonly asked questions from the valuation notices sent in March 2006; 2006 assessment tax capacity payable in 2007 property type breakdown; comparison of the assessed value by property type from 2004 to 2007 tax payable years; comparison of the property tax base by property type from 2004 to 2007 tax years; tax rates across the school districts; homestead tax history; changes made to 2006 assessment; residential assessed value of a median home and tax capacity from 1998 through 2007; assessed valuation changes for single - family residential properties for taxes payable 2006; and residential sale information from the realtors MLS system. The overall value changes made to the 2006 assessments were as follows: Citywide (including all property types) 6.3 percent Citywide (excluding new construction) 5.7 percent Citywide (residential single - family detached only) 6.8 percent Citywide (excluding new construction) 6.5 percent Commercial (excluding new construction) 3.5 percent Industrial (excluding new construction) 13.6 percent Apartments (excluding new construction) .2 percent Condominiums (excluding new construction) .7 percent Co -ops (excluding new construction) 1.4 percent Townhomes (excluding new construction) 3.0 percent Double Bungalows (excluding new construction) 4.2 percent Residential Neighborhoods: #50456 All Residential 6.9 percent (excluding new construction) 6.6 percent #50455 Residential Off Water 7.0 percent (excluding new construction) 6.7 percent #56 Residential Waterfront 4.3 percent (excluding new construction) 3.6 percent Ms. Wojcik reminded the Board that the only issue before the Board is the estimated market value of individual properties. 3. QUESTIONS REGARDING THE ASSESSMENT REPORT This item was discussed after Appearances by Taxpayers with Appointments. Councilmember Niesen inquired about the pie chart under Assessor's Report. Ms. Wojcik stated the chart is the portion of tax capacity from the City of. Residential 61 %, Apartments 8 %, Commercial 22 %, Industrial 9 %, and Farm 0 %. Councilmember Niesen asked why the tax payable on the following page does not correspond with the pie chart. Ms. Wojcik explained that the tax payable 05/01/06 -2- figures came from a finalized County report of estimated market value and the pie chart came from the City is Tax Capacity. Ms. Wojcik explained that the tax payable chart is the total taxable value, not the tax capacity represented in the pie chart. Ms. Wojcik explained how the tax capacity is calculated. Assistant City Manager/Director of Operations Curt Boganey stated Minnesota has a unique way of taxing properties; however, the legislature came up with a way of spreading property taxes among different classes of property use. He discussed class rates in regard to taxes. The City Council and Hennepin County Assessor Tom May discussed abatement and uses of such. Councilmember Niesen inquired about the Changes Made to the 2006 Assessment. Ms. Wojcik explained that this chart shows the average increase by taking the value of all the properties on the river and all the properties on the lake where they were increased 3.6% to get an acceptable ratio on the sales to get to an assessment level that Hennepin County requires. 4. STATEMENT OF THE LOCAL BOARD OF APPEAL AND EQUALIZATION AND A REVIEW OF THE BOARD'S DUTIES Ms. Wojcik discussed the purpose of the Board of Appeal and Equalization. Minnesota Statutes Section 274.01 provides that the governing body of each City or a duly appointed Board will serve as the Local Board of Appeal and Equalization. This review is held each spring and the Board has the responsibility to review the assessed valuation and classification of property within the City. This year's review is limited to the 2006 assessment; which affects taxes payable in 2007. The Board has the authority to change the valuation or classification of a property for the current assessment year (2006). Taxes or prior year assessments are not within the jurisdiction of the Board. Ms. Wojcik outlined materials from the Minnesota Revenue Local Board of Appeal and Equalization handbook to assist in the definition of market value and classification. 5. QUESTIONS REGARDING THE LOCAL BOARD DUTIES No questions were asked regarding the Board duties. 6. APPEARANCES BY TAXPAYERS WITH APPOINTMENTS The following addressed the Council to appeal their 2006 estimated market value: Gene Anderson, 2121 57 Ave North, addressed the City Council to express that he believes his property value is too high and the property can not be compared to properties in other communities because the building is at least 50 years old with only minor improvements. He stated the land is less than 100 feet by 100 feet. He stated concern that the west property line shown by the County is incorrect. He explained that the building is a former gas station and although the gas tanks have 05/01/06 -3- been removed, soil pollution is a possibility. He explained that his son has assumed responsibility for the property and if the business was to be sold outside of the family, the value is undetermined. He stated objection to the doubling of his property value between 2004 and 2007. He provided an appraisal for $120,000, an appraisal for $140,000, and stated the City had offered $150,000 years earlier. Mayor Kragness stated the property line should be clarified. Councilmember Niesen asked if this is the first year Mr. Anderson has contested his property value. Mr. Anderson stated he has not appeared before the Board before; however he has questioned the value with the City Assessor in previous years. Councilmember Niesen inquired as to the future year's valuation if the valuation is lowered this year. Hennepin County Assessor Tom May explained that every year is a new year with property valuation and the valuation would continue to be based on the market. Councilmember Carmody q property inquired as to how the p e rtY value decreased compared to last year. Mr. Anderson explained that due to illness and postponed notification from his son, he did not object to last year's valuation, however he feels it was also too high. The City Council and Ms. Wojcik discussed Mr. Anderson's property with the comparable sales in particular to the garage, warehouse and office uses. Ms. Wojcik explained that the market information was Hennepin County originally; in Coun wide on inall •however she reviewed and re- sketched the property to determine the amount used as office and warehouse. She stated that after review, there was no significant change to the value; however she looked for sale information at the County level, looking for a closer proximity. She stated four properties in Minneapolis were the best comparison. w included in Mr. Anderson's appraisal was not an o She stated that one in Robinsdale that as incl pp p market sale. She stated other properties that were used that were sold in 2003; however a more recent sale should be used because the commercial and industrial markets have changed significantly since 2003. She described the ro and its uses and stated in her opinion, the property value should be P pe rtY � p P Pe rtY sustained at $178,000 or $141 per sq. ft. Councilmember Lasman stated the property line needs to be determined before the value is determined. Ms. Wojcik explained that the site map from Hennepin County shows the same dimensions as City records show. She stated the only way there could be a discrepancy is if there was a change in the legal description that was not filed at the County. Councilmember Carmody stated the only factor she would consider in the reduction of the property value is the property line. Ms. Wojcik explained that Mr. Anderson's son felt the line was incorrect; there is no evidence that it is not correct. The consensus of the City Council was to accept the property valuation as presented by the City Assessor. 05/01/06 -4- i Councilmember Carmody moved and Councilmember Lasman seconded to sustain the estimated market value of $178,000 for 2121 57 Avenue N. Motion passed unanimously. Kevin Andreasen, 5018 Abbott Avenue North, failed to appear before the Board. The following is a discussion regarding his property: Ms. Wojcik explained that Mr. Andreasen contacted the Assessor's office objecting to his estimated property value and after further research on the property; Mr. Andreasen was contacted with an offer of a reduction of $2,800, in which he declined and indicated his intent to appeal. She stated the report was created with the original estimate. She stated Mr. Andreasen failed to appear in front of the Board. She explained that since he declined the offer of reduction, the matter was forwarded to the Board with the original value. Councilmember Lasman stated she was prepared to discuss the reduction of estimated property value; however, the property value should sustain at $202,000 because Mr. Andreasen failed to appear before the Board. She stated he has the opportunity for further appeal with Hennepin County if he wishes. Councilmember Lasman moved and Councilmember Carmody seconded to sustain the estimated market value of $202,000 for 5018 Abbott Avenue N. Councilmember Niesen stated the City Council should give Mr. Andreasen the reduction of $2,800 because it was merited. She stated the work was done by Mr. Andreasen and the City Assessor to reduce the estimated property value and that the lower amount should be granted. Councilmember Carmody stated agreement with Councilmember Lasman and stated Mr. Andreasen still has the option to appeal to Hennepin County. Councilmember Lasman stated by not appearing, Mr. Andreasen is no longer requesting a reduction in estimated property value. Councilmember Niesen voted against the same. Motion carried. Paul Bragelman, 5948 Admiral Lane, failed to appear before the Board. The following is a discussion regarding his property: Ms. Wojcik explained that Mr. Bragelman left a message with the Assessor's office stating concern that the property value of $198,200 was too high. She stated he was sent a typical list of comparable sales. She stated the Assessor's office received his appeal application along with a copy of an appraisal indicating the value of $196,000. She stated Appraiser Jill Brenna performed an interior review of the property and after review, she felt she could offer him a reduction of $2,200. She stated an appraiser left Mr. Bragelman a message with the offer on April 18 which also indicated that a 05/01/06 -5- i verbal agreement from him was needed to accept the value reduction. She stated on April 20 a letter was sent to Mr. Bragelman stating the recommendation of $196,000 and that a call from him was needed. She stated to this day, Mr. Bragelman has not responded to the notifications. Councilmember Lasman moved and Councilmember Carmody seconded to sustain the estimated market value of $198,200 for 5948 Admiral Lane. Councilmember Niesen stated disagreement with the motion because the reduction in property value should be granted even though Mr. Bragelman did not appear in front of the Board. Councilmember Niesen voted against the same. Motion carried. 7. ADJOURNMENT Councilmember Lasman moved and Councilmember Carmody seconded to adjourn the meeting at 8:38 p.m. Motion assed unanimously. .� `�7LG40 City Clerk ayor 05/01/06 -6-