Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2005 05-02 CCM Board of Appeal & Equalization i I I 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 2, 2005 CITY HALL - COUNCIL CHAMBERS I 1. CALL TO ORDER The Brooklyn Center City Council met as the Board of Appeal of Equalization and was called to order by Mayor Myrna Kragness at 7:00 p.m. ROLL CALL i Mayor Myrna Kragness and Councilmembers Kay Lasman, Diane Niesen, and Mary O'Connor. Councilmember Kathleen Carmody was absent and excused. Also present were City Manager Michael McCauley, Assistant City Manager/Director of Operations Curt Boganey, City Assessor Nancy Wojcik, Hennepin County Assessor Tom May, and Deputy City Clerk Maria Rosenbaum. Others present were Appraiser Jill Brenna and Appraiser Technician Karen Casto. 2. ASSESSOR'S REPORT City Assessor Nancy Wojcik reported that during the summer of 2004 her office conducted re- inspections for the 2005 assessment of the residential properties located east of Highway 100, south of 57 Avenue and properties west of Highway 100, south of 61' Avenue North. In addition to all single - family homes located in the review area, all condominiums were also reviewed. The inspection area involved 1,921 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, condominiums, 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 1,000 properties to the inspection total and approximately 600 ofthese properties required exterior inspections and approximately 400 required interior inspections. The estimated total number of residential properties reviewed in 2004 was approximately 2,921. I 05/02/05 -1- Ms. Wojcik outlined some of the commonly asked questions from the valuation notices sent in March 2005; 2005 assessment tax capacity payable in 2006 property type breakdown; comparison of the assessed value by property type from 2002 to 2006 tax payable years; comparison of the property tax base by property type from 2003 to 2006 tax years; tax rates across the school districts; homestead tax history; changes made to 2005 assessment; residential assessed value of a median home and tax capacity from 1997 through 2006; 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 2005 assessments were as follows: Citywide (including all property types) 5.8 percent Citywide (excluding new construction) 5.0 percent Citywide (residential single - family detached only) 6.6 percent Citywide (excluding new construction) 6.1 percent Commercial (excluding new construction) 2.1 percent Industrial (excluding new construction) 4.4 percent Apartments (excluding new construction) 3.2 percent Condominiums (excluding new construction) 10.5 percent Co -ops (excluding new construction) 0.3 percent Townhomes (excluding new construction) 6.9 percent Double Bungalows (excluding new construction) 7.5 percent Residential Neighborhoods: River Influence 8.1 percent (excluding new construction) 7.8 percent North West 4.7 percent (excluding new construction) 4.4 percent North East 4.5 p ercent (excluding new construction) 4.0 percent West Central 4.7 percent (excluding new construction) 4.3 percent South East 9.6 percent (excluding new construction) 9.0 percent South West 11.4 percent (excluding new construction) 11.0 percent Waterfront (includes river /lake properties) 6.1 percent (excluding new construction 5.2 percent 05/02/05 -2- I Ms. Wojcik reminded that the only issue before the Board is the estimated market value of individual properties. 3. QUESTIONS REGARDING THE ASSESSMENT REPORT Councilmember Niesen questioned the actual year built and effective year built. Ms. Wojcik discussed that the year built is the year the property was built and the effective year is an age reflective of remodeling to make it comparable to other properties in the market. When an assessment is compared the effective age is considered and a formula is used to set standards so the assessment is consistent. Councilmember Niesen asked if this is the same process used for Hennepin County. Hennepin County Assessor Tom May discussed that the County uses the same process. Councilmember O'Connor questioned the 2006 values being 15 percent over last year's taxable value or fifty percent of the difference. Ms. Wojcik discussed that this was done due to the limited market value coming off on the 2007 assessment. Councilmember O'Connor asked for clarification regarding the Board's review for reducing the aggregate assessment by more than one percent. Mr. May discussed that the Board must not reduce the aggregate assessment by more than one percent; and that the City of Brooklyn Center has never had to approach this; however, in a smaller community this can be an issue. Councilmember O'Connor questioned the total extension rate on all school districts and why School District No. 286 is more than School District No.1 l for the total market value based rate. Ms. Woj cik discussed that this is a portion of the tax rate. The total tax rate is a total of the tax entities of County, School, etc.; and that School District No. 286 is the same except for the schools portion of the tax rate. Ms. Wojcik added that a referendum can change the market value rate. Councilmember Lasman questioned when the limited market value phases out if the City realizes that gain. Ms. Woj cik discussed that this increases the tax capacity and there are more tax dollars for each entity. Councilmember Niesen questioned if it is a State Standard that the Board may not make an individual estimated market value adjustment change that would benefit the property in cases where the owner has not permitted the Assessor to inspect the property and the interior review of any building or structure; and if pictures taken during an interior inspection are kept on file. Mr. May discussed that it is a State Statute; and Ms. Wojcik discussed that interior pictures are the resident's option and assist in the review of an appeal. The pictures are kept in the Assessing Department property files and guidelines are followed for the Data Privacy Act. Mr. May added that the guidelines depend on the City and that under the Data Privacy Act, residential property files are not protected under Data Practice. 05/02/05 -3- I 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 that is required by 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 2005 assessment; which affects taxes payable in 2006. The Board has the authority to change the valuation or classification of a property for the current assessment year (2005). 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 2005 estimated market value: 1. Bill Kenny, 7036 Willow Lane, addressed the Council to express that he believes his estimated market value is not fair and that he would not be able to sell his home for $357,500. Mr. Kenney informed that his neighbors feel his estimated market value is too high and that he had contacted two local real estate agents to do a home market evaluation. The home market evaluation done by the real estate agents estimated the market value to be a low of $275,000 to a high of $285,000. Council and Ms. Wojcik discussed Mr. Kenny's property with the comparable sales. Ms. Wojcik informed his structure value that increased for Mr. Kenny's property was due mass appraisal calculating based on 36 different factors. Councilmember Lasman expressed she believes Mr. Kenny's estimated market value should be reduced to $344,000. Councilmember Niesen agreed. Councilmember O'Connor expressed she believes that Mr. Kenny's estimated market value should be lowered to $340,000. There was a motion by Councilmember Lasman, seconded by Councilmember Niesen to reduce Mr. Kenny's estimated market value to $344,000. Councilmember O'Connor voted against the same. Motion passed. 05/02/05 -4- 2. Diane Sannes, 7006 Willow Lane, addressed the Council to discuss her concerns with the Hennepin County Board process and asked that the Council be careful when sending residents on to the County Board. She informed that she would like to hear her neighbors speak and then would like to readdress the Council regarding her estimated market value. i 3. Stephen Cooper, 6632 West River Road, addressed the Council and discussed the easement the City had taken over his land and the outcome of the condemnation proceedings. Ms. Wojcik discussed that her office was not involved in the condemnation proceedings that were completed and that when Mr. Cooper contacted her office regarding the 2005 valuation notice Mr. Cooper was informed that the Board addressed estimated market value only and not the separation of land and building. Mr. Cooper was informed that if he disagreed with the 2005 estimated market value that he would need to set up an interior review to complete a new appraisal of his property. Mr. Cooper declined and it is being recommended to sustain Mr. Cooper's estimated market value of $459,800. Council and Ms. Wojcik further discussed Mr. Cooper's property and the condemnation proceedings. Councilmember Niesen informed that she was disturbed by the disconnect of communication regarding the completion of the condemnation proceedings and that she believes it would be fair to reduce Mr. Cooper's land value. Mayor Kragness asked Mr. Cooper to contact the Assessor's officer to set up an interior appraisal. Councilmember Niesen made a motion to reduce the amount of judgment. Mr. May informed the Council that it would not need to make a motion to refer the appeal back to the Assessor if the Board will reconvene. Councilmember Niesen expressed that she is not confident about what is being done. Ms. Wojcik informed that she would like to review the completed condemnation proceedings and complete an interior appraisal of Mr. Cooper's property. Councilmember Niesen expressed she was fine with that. 4. Todd Paulson, 6408 Willow Lane, addressed the Council to appeal his $383,600 estimated market value and to inform that he had an independent third party, as requested by the City Assessor, do an appraisal on his property. Comparable sales used of similar properties found his property to be over assessed. He discussed that he is willing to have the City Assessor do an appraisal on his property. 5. The following were write -ins and not present to address the Board: George Van Vliet, 3305 and 3423 53` Avenue North LaQuinta Properties Inc., 6415 James Circle North Matthew Schirack, 2701 Freeway Boulevard Amy Fingerhut, 2200 Freeway Boulevard 05/02/05 -5- Individual motions for each property were made by Councilmember Lasman, seconded by Councilmember Niesen to sustain the 2005 estimated market values on all the above referenced write -ins. Motion p asked unanimously. 6. Ms. Wojcik informed that she had recommended the 2005 estimated market value for the property at 6120 Brooklyn Boulevard to be $674,000; however, after a physical review of the property she recommends reducing the 2005 estimated market value to $569,000. A motion by Councilmember Lasman, seconded by Councilmember O'Connor to reduce the 2005 estimated market value for 6120 Brooklyn Boulevard to $569,000. Motion passed unanimously. 7. The following were walk -ins who addressed the Council to appeal their 2005 estimated market values: Mark Klinkner, 5637 Brooklyn Boulevard, discussed that his property is in the original condition that the property has had high vacancy with high expenses. He outlined materials that he had prepared regarding the cash flow from his property and expressed that he does not believe there is sufficient income to pay the tax increase. There was a motion by Councilmember Lasman, seconded by Councilmember O'Connor to have Mr. Klinkner's property reviewed. Motion passed unanimously. Brett Hildreth, 6500 Willow Lane and 501 Bellvue Lane, informed that he would like to have the Assessor's office review both of these properties. It was noted that no motion was needed for properties that were going to be referred back to the Assessor's office for review. 8. Diane Sannes, 7006 Willow Lane, readdressed the Council to express concerns about the sale prices at 7224, 6704, and 6500 Willow Lane and reiterate that she will not go to the Hennepin County Board. Ms. Sannes inquired what the City would be doing with the property at 6842 West River Road and questioned if the City would be able to put a portable toilet at Willow Lane Park. Ms. Wojcik discussed that the property at 6842 West River Road is in the process of court proceedings at this time. Councilmember Niesen asked that Ms. Sannes send her an e -mail regarding these requests. Ms. Wojcik informed that she had suggested to Ms. Sannes that she may wish to get a market analysis on her property and that her office would sustain the 2005 estimated market value of $394,400. 05/02/05 -6- i i i Councilmember Niesen expressed that she is concerned about the experience Ms. Sannes had with the Hennepin County Board and questioned their process. Mr. May discussed that they need to be notified before June 6, 2005, to set up appraisals and that the County Board will meet on June 13, 2005. If persons appear before the County Board, they are given ten minutes to discuss their appeal and the County Assessor will discuss the appeal for five minutes. There was a motion by Councilmember Niesen, seconded by Councilmember Lasman to sustain Ms. Sannes estimated market value at $394,400. Motion passed unanimously. Ms. Sannes asked again about the property at 6842 West River Road. Mr. McCauley discussed that the City cannot force the property owner to sell or build a house. Ms. Wojcik informed that she could address the homestead status. 7. ADJOURNMENT A motion by Councilmember Lasman, seconded by Councilmember Niesen to reconvene on May 16, 2005, at 5:30 p.m.; and adjourn the meeting at 10:45 p.m. Motion passed unanimously. l w"(w � ATA-1-- )'�A City Clerk May r 05/02/05 -l- i I