Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1977 05-31 CCM Board of Equalization 3 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 MAY 31, 1977 CITY HALL Call to Order The City Council met as the Board of Equalization and was called to order by Mayor Philip Cohen at 7:30 p.m. Roll Call Mayor Cohen, Councilmen Britts, Kuefler, Fignar, and Lhotka . Also present were City Assessor Peter Koole And Administrative Assistant Ronald Warren. Mayor Cohen reported that the City Manager is unable to attend this evening's Board of Equalization meeting because of another commitment. Purpose of Board Mayor Cohen referred to Chapter 274 of the Minnesota of Equalization Statutes and to Sections 7.03 and 7.04 of the City Charter which authorize the City Council to sit as the Board of Equalization to review assessments of property for taxation purposes. He stated that the Board of Equalization is concerned with two things: first, that all taxable property has been listed, and second, that the assessments have been done in an equitable manner. He explained that the City Assessor does not determine what an individual's property tax will be, but rather determines the value of the property to be taxed. The Mayor reported that this meeting was a duly called public meeting with notice of the date, time and place being posted at the City Hall for at least ten days preceding this meeting and that official notice was also published in the City's official newspaper on May 19 and May 26, 1977. He added that cards containing both the market value and limited value for each piece of property were sent to all property owners and that these cards also give notice of the date, time and place of the Board of Equalization meeting. Mayor Cohen next reviewed the procedure to be followed at this evening's meeting: a review of the property taxation process and comments by the City Assessor; an opportunity for the Board of Equalization to question the City Assessor regarding assessment methods; and a public hearing for the purpose of receiving public inquiry relative to property assessments. Review of Process The City Assessor reviewed State law as it pertains to the of Property Taxation assessment of property. He stated that the purpose of the Board of Equalization is not to review the amount or levels of a person's property tax, but to review - the assessed value of taxable property in the City as determined by the Assessor. He explained that the local Assessor, as man- dated by State law, is responsible for establishing values of property, while elected officials of cities, counties and school districts set the taxes. He stated that there is a process by which property owners can appeal the determination of the Assessor. He explained that the property owner's first appeal for alleged assessment inequity is to the local Board of Equalization. The next step would be to the County Board; following that, the Commissioner of Revenue and finally to -1- 5 -31 -77 "I the courts. He stated that each claim of nfair tax assess- ment should be supported by evidence submitted to the hearing body. The City Assessor briefly reviewed the assessment procedure and the operation of the Assessor's Office. He stated that the Assessor is required to annually inform each property owner of any change in the valuation of their property. He explained that cards are sent out which contain a market value and a limited value for each piece of property. He stated that the market value is determined through the analysis of current market trends and should generally reflect the amount a willing buyer would pay to a willing seller for a certain piece of property. He further stated that the limited value represents the amount of valuation that is used for tax purposes, and is confined to a 10% annual increase in the limited value or 25% of the difference between the old limited value and the new market value whichever is . greater. The City Assessor reported that, with its computer capability, the City now has the ability to study various individual market factors relating to each property which can be comparatively analyzed. He explained that utilizing this residential sales study information along with field inspections should improve the City's capability for equalized assessments. He added that presently the City statistically has a very equalized assessment for the ehtire City with an approximate 90% ratio of sales price to the Assessor's valuation. He also commented that this residential sales study information also indicates that homes near highways or freeways do not show a marked difference in sales price to comparable homes located away from freeways and highways. Following the City Assessor's presentation a brief discussion ensued relative to the methods and procedures utilized in assessing property. The City Assessor responded to various questions relating to limited values by stating that a local Assessor does not determine limited values which is a legislative decision based on the application of a State formula He added that the local Board of Equalization cannot change limited values. Following further discussion Mayor Cohen opened the meeting for purposes of public inquiry relating to the local assessments. Mayor Cohen recognized Mr. and Mrs. Allen Kent, 5807 Lyndale e Avenue North, who commented that their property does not seem to be assessed equally with that of the neighbors to either side. They stated that they pay a substantially greater amount based on the limited value of their property in comparison to their neighbors. They added that they have contacted the City Assessor to discuss this matter. The City Assessor reviewed the case in question and explained that the Kent's home was constructed in 1973 and that at that time the limited value and market value were the same. He stated that one of the problems that causes this inequity is that the neighboring properties are approximately fifteen years older than the Kent's property, and that there is a large difference between the limited values and market values for these properties. He further explained that because of an amendment to the State law in 1975, Mr. and Mrs. Kent were allowed a rollback setting their limited value at 88% of the market value but that the differences in the limited values of the Kent property and neighboring property still exists. The City Assessor further explained that limited values, by law, can be increased by either 10% of the preceding year's limited value or 25% between the difference of the old limited value and the new market value, whichever is greater. He stated that the intent of the law is 5 -31 -77 -'L— that eventually limited values, which taxes are based on, will be equal to market values but in order to soften the impact on the taxpayer this type formula was devised. He added that the likelihood of limited values and market values being the same for older properties with the current 10% inflation rate is remote for the next few years. He further stated that the Kent's problem is due primarily to this quirk in the law. The City Assessor further stated that the Kent's market value was reduced this year from $50,000 to $47,700 which has somewhat of an effect on their limited value but that the inequity of their limited value in comparison to neighboring properties is still present. He reported that the local Board of Equalization does not have the authority to alter limited values which are a function of the market value and a State devised formula for determining limited values. Mr. Kent inquired if the market value of his property could be further reduced, thus having a greater effect on the limited value of his property. The City Assessor responded that he, in good conscience, could not recommend lowering the market value of the Kent property any more than what r already has been done, based upon the market values for properties similar to the Kent's in other parts of the City.' Mayor Cohen commented that it seems that the only recourse for solution to the Kent's problem lies with the State Legis- lature and suggested that the City Assessor develop the necessary information relating to this problem and other similar problems so that the Council could take a position and refer the matter to the State Legislature. He added that the possibility of a special legislative session to discuss tax matters has been proposed and that perhaps this type of situation could be referred to the Legislature during such a special session. Further discussion ensued relative to the Kent problem with the City Assessor stating that he could develop the necessary information and would assist the Kent's in any way possible, within the confines of his position, to help rectify this seeming inequitable situation. Mayor Cohen next recognized Mrs. Richard Englehardt of Royalton, Minnesota who stated that she is the daughter of the deceased Addie Radtke, 5531 Emerson Avenue North, whom she is speaking on behalf of. She stated that she believes the limited value of the property in question was raised by an amount in excess of what State Statutes provide. She explained that the old limited value.was $13,810 and had increased to $18,210 and contended that this was in excess of the State formula. - The City Assessor stated that the property in question was subdivided a few years ago and a variance was obtained for two substandard -sized lots. He explained that at that time the Assessor administratively split the value of the lots, one of which had a home on it. He further stated that it is his opinion that the splitting of the values of the two lots was incorrectly done at that time and that it has -3- 5 -3I -77 now been corrected, thus causing & chaw. ,3 in the limited value of the property in question Mrs Englehardt stated that she does not dispute the new market value assigned to the property but still contended that the limited value was increased beyond what the Statutes provide. A lengthy discussion ensued relative to the case in.question. Councilman Kuefler stated that it seems that if an error was made at the time the property was subdivided it was to the property owner's benefit and that the adjustment made now only brings the limited value back to where it should be. Mayor Cohen commented that the assignment of an approximate $3,000 increase in the limited value may seem to be an excessive amount, but pointed out that to modify or devalue the market value of the property would create an inequity in terms of similar property in the City. Following further discussion, Mayor Cohen suggested that the City Assessor report his findings relative to this case to the County, which is the next step in the appeal process, and to report the results to the City Council. Mayor Cohen next recognized Mr. Paulson, 6300 Halifax Drive, who explained that the amounts listed on the card sent to him in the mail last year do not correspond to the tax statements sent from the County for the same time period. The City Assessor explained that in some cases clerical errors were made on the cards that were mailed out from the Assessor's office. He explained that the errors were corrected and that the amount on the tax statement from the County is correct. He asked Mr. Paulson to stay after the meeting so that this could be verified. Mr. Lundt, 3012 Thurber Road, reported a similar problem regarding his assessment card and tax statement. The City Assessor asked Mr. L undt to also stay after the meeting to verify the clerical error. Mayor Cohen next recognized Mr. john Greenley, 5255 East Twin Lake Boulevard, who stated that he had not received a homestead credit last year and that he had contacted the former City Assessor about rectifying this matter. The City Assessor responded that the former City Assessor had investigated Mr. Greenley's homestead claim and after an investigation had determined that he was not eligible for a homestead because he was not living at the property, was renting it, and maintained only a "token occupancy" He added that he cannot challenge the former Assessor's determination unless it can be shown by Mr. Greenley that he .in fact resided at the property and was indeed eligible for a homestead credit. Mayor Cohen suggested that Mr. Greenley contact the City Assessor and provide the necessary documentation to possibly rectify the situation. There being no one else wishing to be heard, there was a motion by Councilman Fignar and seconded by Councilman Britts to close the public hearing. Voting in favor were: Mayor Cohen, Councilmen Britts, Kuefler, Fignar, and Lhotka. Voting against: none. The motion passed unanimously. The City Assessor reported,that an official protest relating to the assess- ments for Brookdale Super Valu have been submitted. He explained that they did not wish to appear at this evening's Board of Equalization meeting but wanted the record to indicate that they had abided by the procedure for the appeal process. 5 -31 -77 -d_ Adjournment Motion by Councilman Fignar and seconded by Councilman Britts to adjourn the meeting. Voting in favor were: Mayor Cohen, Councilmen Britts , Kuefler, Fignar, and Lhotka . Voting against: none. The motion passed unanimously. The Board of Equalization adjourned at 9:20 p.m. Clerk Mayor r i _5- 5 -31 -77