Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1980 06-02 CCM Board of 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 Equalization June 2, 1980 City Hall CALL TO ORDER The Brooklyn Center City Council met as the Board of Equalization and was called to order by Mayor Dean Nyquist at 7:35 p.m. ROLL CALL ' Mayor Dean Nyquist, Councilmembers Tony Kuefler,.Bill Fignar, Gene Lhotka, and -Celia Scott. Also present were City Manager Gerald Splinter, City Assessor -Peter Koole, Appraisers Gerry Ritter and Joe Dabruzzi, Assessing Clerk Grace.Geske, and Administrative Assistant Tom Bublitz. The City Manager stated the City Assessor was prepared to review the purpose of the Board -of Equalization, conduct a procedural review of property taxation, and present the City Assessor's report. He noted that, following the Assessor's presentation, there would be time for public inquiry regarding.local assess- ments. The City Manager requested that all persons present who wished to make inquiries regarding.their assessments please fill out the appropriate forms and present them to the City Assessor. The City Assessor explained the .appeal process, stating the channel of appeal begins with the local Board, then on to the County Board, the State Board, and finally to the tax court if carried that - far. The City Assessor stated the duties and.the procedures to be followed by the local Board are set in Minnesota Statute 274.01 to "examine and see that all taxable property in the City has been properly placed upon a tax list and duly valued by the Assessor. Furthermore, he stated, "on application of any person feeling aggrieved, the Board-shall review the assessment and correct as shall appear just ". In reviewing the duties of the City Assessor, he noted the State Statute reads "All real property subject to taxation shall be listed and assessed every year with reference to -its value on January 2, preceeding the assess = ment ". The Assessor noted this has been done and the owners of the property in Brooklyn n Center have been notified Additionally, ed of an value changes. Y Y g the City Assessor explained Minnesota Statute 273.11 states "All property shall be valued at its market value ". The City Assessor further explained the statute states "In estimating and determining such value the Assessor shall not adopt a lower or different standard of value because the same is to -serve as a basis for taxation; nor shall he adopt as a criterion and a value the price for which ouch property would sell at auction or at a forced sale, or an aggregate with all the property in the town or district; but he shall value each article or description of property by itself, and at such sum or price as he believes the same to be fairly worth in money ". The City Assessor noted in cases where a property may be so unique as to make a comparative market hard to determine, Minnesota Case Law is clear as demon- strated in the case of State of Minnesota versus Fritch. In this case, the 6 -2 -80 -1- court stated "It is up to the Assessor to form an opinion of the market value even when there is no market or sales to aid in fixing values -where there have been no actual'sales for a long period of time, there is no way of determining values except by the judgment and opinion of men acquainted with the lands, their adaptability for.use and the circumstances of the surrounding community ". The City Assessor next reviewed the sales ratio studies. He referred Council to a copy of a graph received in the Agenda packet, stating the sales ratio study was a substantive part of what is done by the Assessing department. The City Assessor briefly reviewed the 1980 sales ratio study noting the aggregate ratio is 95.3 %, the median ratio is 95 %, the coefficient of disper- sion is 8.1, the average sale price is $54,951.00 and the average market value is $52,343.00. He explained the assessing department analyzes the sales by style, location, price and neighborhood. He showed the Council a neighborhood map which had.been prepared and showed the general percent of increase in each area of the City. He stated the figures indicate that with various increases throughout the City the assessment department.obtained a reasonably well grouped set of ratios in every neighborhood City wide. The City Assessor reviewed inspections made by the Appraisers. He commented State law requires that one - fourth of the properties by revalued and inspected each year. He showed the Council on a map of the City which areas had been revalued and inspected in 1979 for the 1980 assessment. He noted in addition to the regular inspections -made each year, the assessment department must also inspect work done on -each building permit. He noted in 1979 there were 606 permits that had.to.be inspected at least once to determine what effect, the work has had on the property.value. The City Assessor next reviewed a tax comparison for properties which were chosen to be representative samples of homes in Brooklyn Center in two different price ranges.. A comparison:was,made from the years 1971 to 1980. He stated - these properties have.not -been extensively changed physically although normal maintenance and depreciation are present in their average properties. He explained.the income adjusted homestead credit (circuit breaker) has not been considered in the example as listed on the chart. The City Assessor explained that approximately 5.8% of the homes in Brooklyn Center turned over during the past year and that the homes over,forty years old were experiencing more inflated values over the past several years. He noted that, the over forty year old homes are generally located in the south- east area of the City and that the homes in the southeast neighborhood are underassessed when compared to the rest of the City. He explained that these homes are inflating faster than the rest of the City. The City Assessor noted that, in areas of the City that were not reappraised over the past year the range of increase in valuation was from 15 -20 %. The City Assessor explained that the Legislature has abolished the limited market value and as a result the average increase in Brooklyn Center is approximately'.25% from the 1979 limited market value to the 1980 market value. He also noted that the taxes will remain about the same for Brooklyn Center residents. He noted that the targeting law passed by the State Legislature is intended to cushion the effect of possible tax increases in the change from limited market to market value. He stated that the law provides a 50% refund for any tax increase over 10 %. 6 -2 -80 -2- .Councilmember Fignar inquired whether a person who appeals his property taxes would have to pay them first.before going to tax court. The City Assessor explained that individuals would have to pay their taxes before they can take their appeals to the tax court. Councilmember Fignar then inquired where the tax dollars are distributed. The City Manager explained that the City receives approximately 17% of the tax dollar, school districts receive approximately 65 -70% of the tax dollar, the County receives approximately 22 -25% and the remainder is distributed to miscellaneous activities such as the MTC and the' mosquito control district. Councilmember Fignar inquired whether property taxes account for approximately one -half of'the City's operating budget. The City Manager explained that it is true that approximately one -half of the City's budget is funded through property taxation. The City Assessor noted and entered into the meeting record the written pro - tests of persons who were not able to appear at this evening's meeting, including Johnson Controls of 1801 67th Ave. No. in Brooklyn Center, the Zayre Corporation of Framingham Massachusetts, and Savage, Savage & Brown Tax Consultants representing Toy City. The City Manager proceeded review the forms submitted by persons present at this evening's meeting who wish to ask questions regarding their valuations. The first person to-appear was Mr. C. J. Tillman of 7130 Willow Lane No. who merely requested reappraisal: The City Assessor made arrangements for the reinspection of - Mr. Tillman's property. The next person to appear was Myrna Vest of 6839 Colfax Ave. N. who indicated that her problem was that her valuation was up $13,000.00 in one year -and that she believed this amount was excessive. The City Assessor noted that Myrna Vest's values were up $6500.00 in one year and explained that the 1978 value on-her property was $27,500.00, the 1979 valuation was $34,000.00 and the 1980.valuation was $40,500.00. Myrna Vest requested that her property be reappraised. The 'City Manager stated that the staff will discuss and make an appointment with Myrna Vest to review her valuation. Mayor Nyquist 'inquired what Miss Vest felt was a fair market value. She stated that she believes the market value should be $30- 35,000.00. The City Manager stated that Miss Vest set up an appointment with Mr. Dabruzzi to review the valuation of her property. The City Manager stated that the next individual making an inquiry regarding the valuation of his property was Mr. William Berres of 3624 53rd Place No. who indicated that he was questioning the valuation placed on his property. The City Assessor stated that the 1980 market value would determine Mr. Berres' 1981 taxes and that in his neighborhood the valuation increase was done on a strict percentage basis_ He explained that, even an inflation rate of 300% over 20 -25 years would be considered normal for Mr. Berres' neighborhood. The City Assessor explained that the valuation is based on what people are paying for property and that the buyers and sellers set the value of homes. Councilmember Kuefler..noted that the percentage of increase in an individual's valuation is not directly tied to his or her tax bill but that indeed taxes may be lower even if the assessed valuation is higher. Mayor N uist stated Y u g Y Yq that a specific number of dollars in the City budget determines the mill levy then this amount is spread equally over all property owners. The City Manager explained that the actual tax dollars paid by persons in Brooklyn Center over the past ten years are down. 6 -2 -80 -3- The City'Manager explained the next inquiry was from Harold Johnson of 7217 Perry Court East who indicated that his problem was an excessive valuation increase. Mr. Johnson stated that identical townhouses in his neighborhood were valued differently and inquired how this could occur. The City Assessor explained that there is often _personal property included in the sale of town- houses and this value is included in the sale cost but not in the valuation. He cited the example of clothes dryers, drapes, and vacuum cleaner systems which would be included in the sale cost but not considered in the valuation of the property. The City Manager explained that the City staff will review Mr. Johnson's evaluation with him and report back to the Council.on.his and all other questions that are referred to City Staff. The City Manager introduced the next inquiry which was from Eugene Clemens of 2806 64th Ave. No, who objected to the rise.of the estimated market value of his property. The City Assessor explained that in Mr. Clemens neighborhood there was an 18% across the board increase.in valuation.and that also Mr. Clemens had made some improvements on his home. The City Assessor explained that the improvements resulted in a.higher percentage increase in Mr. Clemens' home The City Manager introduced the next inquiry which was from Mr, Ronald Hish of 3307 49th Ave. No. He explained that.Mr. Hish was inquiring what method was used to value homes in his neighborhood. The City Assessor quoted current and 1979 valuations of Mr. Hish's property. Mr. Hish explained that his valuations did.not match up.with that of the City Assessors and that he believed that he had probably been using incorrect and out of date valuations and believed that the City Assessor had been using the correct and current valuations. However, Mr. Hish. stated that he believed three homes in his neighborhood were not appraised equitably when they are compared against each other. The City Assessor stated that a reappraisal Mr. Hish's home was not done recently and that it will be reappraised this summer at its market value. He noted the staff will set up an appointment to reappraise Mr. Hish's home The City Manager noted that.the next inquiry was from Mr. Donald T. Hinrichs of 3700 72nd Ave. No..and that Mr. Hinrichs' problem was that he believed the 1980 market value was not correct when compared to other homes in his. neighborhood. Mr. Hinrichs noted that an increase in valuation from $37,000 to $65,000.00 in his property in a one year period was too high. The City Assessor explained that the City staff .was not able to gain access to Mr. Hinrichs' home for an appraisal. Mr. Hinrichs noted that he had been in the hospital for quite some time and was not able to respond to inquiries for an appraisal.. The City Assessor explained that the City staff could set up an appointment for appraisal for Mr. Hinrichs' property. The City Manager.introduced the next inquiry from Richard and Rosemary Graw of 5319 70th Circle No. He noted that Mr: Graw stated that he had received no street maintenance in his area because his street was a private road. Mr. Graw.stated that because the street is private City services are not provided and that he believes he is paying taxes but'not receiving his fair share of City services. Councilmember Fignar left the table at 8:45 p.m. 6 -2 -80 -4- x The City Manager noted that in the planning process of Mr. Graw's development private drives would not meet the standards for City streets and that City equipment will not function properly on these streets. Mr. Graw stated that he feels he is paying for services which he is not receiving and believes that his valuation should be adjusted accordingly. The City Assessor explained that State law does not allow any differential in valuation. Councilmember Kuefler stated that Mr. Graw's complaint is, really with the developer since the developer made certain trade -offs in the planning of the townhouse develop- ment. He noted that these trade -offs were made by the developer at the time of planning and that the City has no responsibility to maintain these streets. Councilmember Fignar returned to the table at 8:47 p.m.. The City Manager explained snow plows will hit the front of garages in the development with snow because of the street widths and that City equipment cannot function properly on these streets. The City Manager introduced the next inquiry, Mr. & Mrs. D. Leonard of 3101 61st Ave. No.. Mr. Leonard stated that he felt he was penalized by the limited market value. The City Assessor explained that the City staff will be happy to review Mr. Leonard's appraisal but that Mr. Leonard is correct in his.assessment of his limited market value. He noted that homes built in the 1970's have had .to bear a larger burden than older homes because of the limited market value.. He explained that this inequity is why the law was changed.- The City Manager explained that the staff will review Mr. Leonard's appraisal. Mr. Harold Johnson of 7217 Perry Court East returned to.state that after talking with -the appraiser he believes his valuation is equitable and that the units he compared his valuation with had more square footage. The City Manager.introduced. the next inquiry from Kenneth B. Buekers.of 1618 69th Ave. No. He explained that Mr. Buekers' concern was with the increase in valuation of his property. The City Assessor explained that Mr. Buekers' neighborhood was reappraised this year and that his home is larger then others in the area in terms of square footage. He noted that square.footage accounts for the majority of valuation. The City Manager stated that the staff will review Mr. Buekers' appraisal. The City Manager introduced the next inquiry, which was submitted by Amos LeVang of 4816 Lakeview No. He.explained Mr. LeVang's concern was with the increase of market value from 1979 to 1981 and how this would effect his taxes. The City Assessor explained that the staff cannot predict how valuation will effect total tax dollars by looking only.at valuation of property. Mr LeVang stated that his problem was that the valuation of his four -plex increased 80% in one year. The City Assessor explained that this is generally what has happened to four- plexes in the real estate market and that the staff will be happy to show Mr. LeVang the sales figures that .document the dramatic cost increase of four - plexes over the past several years. The City Manager introduced the next inquiry submitted by Mr. Robert .Farrel of 5849 Camden Ave. No. whose problem was his valuation increase was too high when compared to comparable homes. The City Assessor explained that Mr. Farrel's valuation increased 19% and that he is in an area that is now being appraised for 1981 values. He noted that the staff can�set up an appointment for an appraisal of Mr. Farrel's property. 6 -2 -80 -5- Mr. Emmett Paulson of 6300 Halifax addressed the Council and complained about the traffic problem.on 63rd Avenue. He stated that he believes the traffic in this is using the street as a,drag strip and making it impossible to-sleep even late at night. The City Manager stated that he would contact Mr: Paulson regarding this matter. i The City Manager introduced the next inquiry from Raymond Janssen of 1619 25th Avenue North regarding property Mr. Janssen owns at 1425 55th Avenue North. He explained that Mr. Janssen's concern was with the market value increase in his property. The City Assessor explained that Mr. Janssen's property is a four -plex and that the valuation of four - plexes are obtained by taking the sales of four - plexes in the overall northwest suburban area. He explained that"the"valuation is based on the sales of four - plexes that have been sold in the area and that the rise in cost.of four - plexes over the past several years has been very dramatic. The City Manager stated that the staff can set up an appointment with Mr. Janssen to review his appraisal. The City Manager explained that the staff.will report back to the City Council on the individuals that the staff is planning to meet with and re- view appraisals with. He stated that the staff will report back at the June 23, 1980 City Council meeting. The -City Assessor stated that he recommends that no action be taken on the requests of persons who chid not appear at this evening's meeting. Councilmember Kuefler complamented'the City Assessor and the City Manager on the conduct of this evening's Board of Equalization meeting. ADJOURNMENT There was a motion by Councilmember Kuefler and seconded by Councilmember Lhotka -to adjourn the Board of Equalization meeting. Voting in favor: Mayor Nyquist, Councilmembers Kuefler, Fignar, Lhotka, and Scott. Voting against: "none. The motion passed unanimously. The meeting was adjourned at 9:30 p.m. .j Mayor, i 6 -2 -80 -6- L