HomeMy WebLinkAbout1982 06-07 CCP Board of Equalization Clerk's Notice to Post and Publish — HC 1163
ASSESSMENT NOTICE
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN, That the Board of Review of th C i TY of
BROOKLYN CENTER in HPNNFE c N County, Minn.,
will meet at the office of th C_av - Clerk, in sai C -Tv HALL ,
at--Z- o'clock —LM., on
-MONDAY the ,SFVFNIH day, of JuNE , 19 82,
for the purpose of reviewing and correcting the assessment of sai C i Ty o F RR 00 K LY N C ENTER
for the year 1982 All persons considering themselves aggrieved by said assessment or who
wish to complain that the property of another is assessed too low, are hereby notified to
appear at said meeting and show cause for having such assessment corrected.
No complaint that another person is assessed too low will be acted upon until the
person so assessed, or his agent, shall have been notified of such complaint.
Dated thi 2&T- -day of APR i L 1982. •-
M ONO PM
Clerk of the f RR00KLYN CENT
BOARD OF EQUALIZATION AGENDA
City of Brooklyn Center
June 7, 1982
7:00 p.m.
1. Call to Order
2. Roll Call t
3. Purpose of Board of Equalization
4. Procedural Review o f Property Taxation
5. City Assessor's Report
6. Public Inquiry Regarding Local Assessments
7. Adjournment
�4
MINUTES OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE HOUSING AND
REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN
• CENTER IN THE COUNTY OF HENNEPIN AND THE STATE
OF MINNESOTA
SPECIAL SESSION
JUNE 14, 1982
CITY HALL
CALL TO ORDER
The Brooklyn Center Housing and Redevelopment Authority met in special session
and was called to order by Chairman Dean Nyquist at 10:01 p.m.
ROLL CALL
Chairman Dean Nyquist, Commissioners Gene Lhotka, Celia Scott, Bill Hawes, and
Rich Theis. Also present were HRA Director Gerald Splinter, Director of Public
Works Sy Knapp, Director of Planning & Inspection Ron Warren, City Attorney
Richard Schieffer, and Administrative Assistants Brad Hoffman and Tom Bublitz.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES - APRIL 26, 1982
There was a motion by Commissioner Scott and seconded by Commissioner Hawes to
approve the minutes of the April 26, 1982 Housing and Redevelopment Authority
meeting as submitted. Voting in favor: Chairman Nyquist, Commissioners Lhotka,
Scott, Hawes, and Theis. Voting against: none. The motio n passed unanimously.
RESOLUTIONS
The HRA Director introduced a Resolution Approving Two Brooklyn Center Housing
• Rehabilitation Grants. In discussion of the resolution, Commissioner Lhotka
inquired whether a previous grant had been awarded to one of the locations listed
in the memorandum from Administrative Assistant Hoffman to the City Manager.
Administrative Assistant Hoffman noted that he was not aware that this address
had been awarded a previous grant but that he would check the records to determine
whether or not it had.
RESOLUTION NO. 82 -12
Member Gene Lhotka introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption, such
approval being contingent on whether a previous rehabilitation grant had been awarded
at the address: Resolution Approving Twd Brooklyn Center Housing Rehabilitation
Grants.
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member
Celia Scott, and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof:
Voting in favor: Chairman Nyquist; Commissioners Lhotka, Scott, Hawes, and Theis.
Voting against: none. The motion passed unanimously.
APPROVAL OF PURCHASE AGREEMENT FOR RICHFIELD BANK & TRUST PROPERTY
The City Manager reviewed the purchase agreement which had been prepared for the
City to purchase the property owned by the Richfield Bank & Trust Company for the
proposed Elderly Housing Project. The City Manager stated that he believes the
price of $130,000 for the property is an acceptable price.
6 -14 -82 -1-
Commissioner Scott pointed out that in the addendum to the purchase agreement the
words buyer and seller should be reversed in the second paragraph of the addendum.
There was a motion by Commissioner Scott and seconded by Commissioner Theis to
approve the purchase agreement with Richfield Bank & Trust in the amount of $130,000
for Lots 10 and 11, Guilford Outlots except those parts of said Lots 10 and 11 lying
within the right of way of State T. H. 100 and the right of way of U.S. Interstate
Highway 94, according to the plat thereof on file or of record in the office of the
Registrar of Titles in and for Hennepin County. Voting in favor: Chairman Nyquist,
.Commissioners Lhotka, Scott, Hawes, and Theis. Voting against: none. The motion
passed unanimously.
_A DJOUMMENT
There was a motion by Commissioner Scott and seconded by Commissioner Lhotka to
adjourn the meeting. Voting in favor: Chairman Nyquist, Commissioners Lhotka,
Scott, Hawes, and Theis. Voting against: none. The motion passed unanimously.
The Brooklyn Center Housing & Redevelopment Authority adjourned at 10:08 p.m.
0
Chairman
6 -14 -82 -2-
3
3
MINUTES OF THE PROCEEDING OF THE CITY
COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER
IN THE COUNTY OF HENNEPIN AND THE STATE
OF MINNESOTA
Board of Equalization
June 7, 1982
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 7:09 p.m.
ROLL CALL
Mayor Dean Nyquist, Councilmembers Gene Lhotka, Celia Scott, Bill Hawes, and Rich
Theis. Also present were City Manager Gerald Splinter, City Assessor Peter Koole,
Appraiser Joe Dabruzzi, Assessing ClerksJulie Caswell and Evelyn Byron, and Administrativf
Assistant Tom Bublitz.
Mayor Nyquist reviewed the purpose of this evening's meeting pointing out that the
City Council was serving as the Board of Equalization to conduct a review of assessed
valuation within the City,and to allow a time.for public inquiry regarding local
assessments after the City Assessor makes his report.
The City Manager pointed out there are various steps that individuals must take
when seeking adjustments in their valuations and he explained that the meeting tonight
is the first stepjthen the inquiry is passed on to the County and the County then passes_
it on to the State for their review. He ekplained that the values discussed this
evening will serve as the basis for 1983 taxes. He added that the Board of.Equalization
reviews the City Assessor's work and he explained that the City appraisers and assessing
staff are fully certified by the State of Minnesota.
The City Assessor explained the appeal process, stating the channel of appeal
begins with the local toard, then onto the County Board, the State Board, and finally
to the tax court if carried that far. He also noted that individuals may appeal to the
tax court directly without going to the County Board or State Board. He added that an
individual must go to the local Poard first before they can qualify for the next step
which is the County Board, and that an individual must also appeal to the County Board
prior to appealing to the State Board. The City Assessor explained that the County
-- 6 -7 -82 _ - t-
Board of Equalization is appointed by the County Commissioners arid"that'the`Comniissioner
of Revenue serves as the State Board of Equalization.
The City Assessor stated that 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, preceding the assessment The Assessor stated
this has been done and the owners of the property in Brooklyn Center have been notified
of any value changes. He also pointed out that 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 such
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 so unique as to
make a comparative market value hard to determine, Minnesota Case Law is clear as
demonstrated in the case of State of Minnesota versus Fritch. In this case, the court
stated, "It is up to the Assessor to form an opinion 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 explained that the assessors work
is based on historical value and that their data is based on actual sales and not
�I
projections.
The City Assessor next reviewed the sales ratio studies. He explained that the
6 -7 -82 -2-
sales ratio study was a substantive part of what is done by the Assessing Department.
The City Assessor briefly reviewed the 1981 sales ratio study noting the aggregate
ratio is 93.9 %, the median ratio is 93.2 %, th coefficient of dispersion is 6.5 %. He
stated that the average sale price is $66,052 and the average market value is $61,763.
He explained the Assessing Department analyzes the sales by style, location, price, age,
neighborhood. He reviewed the valuations of several homes located in different parts
of the City, including homes located on a lake or river, in proximity to,a highway or
freeway, commercial and multiple family units, and homes located near parkland. He
pointed out the y' g Q 3 d
po percent of increases in the City's neighborhoods ran from <�
d
to 0 d and that the average increase in valuation City wide was
He explained that in the 1980's the inflation rate in real estate
is .expected to lag behind inflation and other areas.
The City Assessor reviewed inspections by the Appraisers. He commented, that
State law requires that one- fourth of the properties be revalued and inspected each year.
He showed the Council on a map of the City which areas had been revalued and inspected
in 1981 for the 1982 assessment. He noted in addition to the regular inspections made
each year, the Assessing Department must also inspect the work on each building permit.
He noted that in 1981 there were over 518 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 1973 to 1982. He stated these properties have not
been extensively changed physically although normal maintenance and depreciation are
present in their averay properties. He explained the income adjusted homestead credit
(circuit breaker) has considered in the example as listed on the chart. Historically
he pointed out, taxes on homesteaded properties have decreased over the years.
The City Assessor then proceeded to review an example of how the homestead credit
works with regard to taxes._ For his example, the City Assessor assumed a gross tax of
$1,100 and when the 58% homestead credit ($638) is deducted the net 'taxes are $462. The
City Assessor then assumed that the budget of the taxing authority increased by 10% or
6 -7 -82 '3-
$1,100 plus $110 for a total of $1,210 reflecting the 10% budget increase. The 1982
gross tax, he pointed out, would then be $1,210 and the 58% homestead credit would be
$701.80, however, the homestead credit provides a Yhaximum of $650, therefore, the net
tax would be $1,210 less $650 equals $560. The tax increase from one year to the next
on the example property increased $98 or a 21.2% increase. He explained that the
additional increase is due to adjustments made by the State Legislature. The City
Manager pointed out that the City's 'share of the total tax dollar is approximately
15% to 17 %.
The City Assessor proceeded to review small apartment building sales and also the
sale of four - plexes in the last five years. He explained the use of the gross rent
multiplier and developing values for apartment buildings. He explained that the gross
rent multiplier is obtained by dividing the sale price of the building by the gross rent
of the building. He pointed out that four- plexes that were sold more than once in eleven
years experienced an annual inflation rate of 34.3% with regard to their saling price.
The City Assessor reviewed new legislation for the Council and pointed out that
homestead properties with tax increases over 30% received refunds from the state for
7 �- % up to $200.
The City Manager proceeded to review the forms submitted by persons present at this
evening's meeting who wished to ask questions regarding there valuations. The first
people to appear were Donald and Elizabeth Tinker, 3337 49th Avenue North, Property
Identification No. 10- 118 -21 -13 -0017. He stated that his value was raised 33% in one
year and that he believes this is too high since his valuation is up $18,000 from the
year before. He stated that his tax statement is 100% over the year before. The City
MAgYeT
Assessor stated that Mr. Tinker's 1981 a eessed value was f��/70U He pointed but
that in March of 1982 the property was reappraised at $61,700. He stated that this is
an example of an expansion home being revalued and he noted that these types of homes
were grossly undervalued until 1981 which resulted in a great tax increase when they
were brought up to their proper value. He stated that he recommends the value remain
as is for this property.
6 -7 -82 -4-
The City Manager explained that the Assessing Staff can sit down with Mr. Tinker and
compare values of other homes in his neighborhood. Mayor Nyquist stated that he would
recommend that Mr. Tinker get together with Mr. Koole's staff and examine the values as
suggested by the City Manager.
Mayor Nyquist stated that the next person making an inquiry regarding the valuation
s kk'R�
of his property was Mr. William F. Sheehy, owner of the properties at 6715, 17 19, and
21 Humboldt Avenue North, Property Identification No. 35- 119- 21 -11- 0009, 0010, 0007, and
0008. Mr. Shooty stated that the property taxes on the four four - plexes he owns have
gone up 200% in two years. He stated that he is questioning the formulation and fairness`
in computing all multiple family type housing together. He stated that it does not seem
fair to compare the small multi - family housing with large multi - family housing units.
He stated that his valuation in 1981 was $112,900 and in 1982 it was $126,700 per unit.
sh wire
The City'Assessor stated that he agrees with Mr. Skevty in that he is competing with .
larger apartment complexes. He stated that four - plexes sale at higher cost per unit than
large 100 unit complexes and the assessment must reflect this. He pointed out that the
State Legislature requires all multiple family type buildings that is anything over four
units to be in the same tax classification. He stated that the gross rent multiplier
for a four -plex is between 8 and 10 and that for larger units it is between 4 and 6.
Councilmember Lhotka left the table at 8:02 p.m.
The City Assessor explained that there is more.demand for four unit buildings than
for sixteen unit buildings,thus the sales price is increased by the demand.- He empathized
that there is more demand.for the smaller unit.
Councilmember Lhotka returned to the table 8:03 p.m.
The City Assessor stated that he does not see an inequity in the appraisal since the
appraisal is based on the market value and it can be demonstrated that a four -plex can
S� wTT�
be sold for more per unit than a sixteen unit building. Mr..Sheety stated that he believe
G,2arS
the expenses in maintaining th4building should also be considered not just the e+ese rent
SkN It
multiplier. Mr. Shooty then requested information from the Assessor regarding the
information the Assessing Department has on his rental income. Mayor Nyquist suggested
S$ V W�t
that Mr. Skegty meet with Mr. Koole and his staff to clarify some of the questions he has
6 -7 -82 - -5-
regarding his property.
The City Manager stated that the next person making an inquiry regarding valuation
of his property was Mr. Charles Thompson, 4201 58th Avenue North, Property Indentification
No. 03- 118- 21 -23- 0023. Mr. Thompson stated that between 1976 and 1981 the market value
of his home increased from $56,000 to $118,800. He stated that he believes this increase
is too high. He stated that his assessed valuation increased from $118,500 in 1981 to
$118,800 in 1982. The City Assessor noted that Mr. Thompson's property is located on
the north end of Twin Lake and is a single story home on a 2 acre lot with 2,214 sq. ft.
of space. He added that the last appraisal of the property was conducted on April 10,
1981. Mr. Thompson stated that he believes the market value is not what the home would
sell for and that the value has doubled since 1976. The City Manager stated that the
value of most homes in the City has doubled since 1976. Hs added that by law the City
Assessor is required to assess on the value of property. The City Assessor pointed out
that the valuation on Mr. Thompson's property in 1979 was $83,800, in 1980 it was
$97,200, in 1981 it was $118,500, and in 1982 it was $118,800. He stated that he believes
the valuation on Mr. Thompson's property is far below the market value of the property.
Mr. Thompson stated that he would take his protest to the next step, that being, the
County.
The City Manager introduced the next inquiry,from Mr. Kenneth Wutschke, 7226
Perry Court East, Property Identification No. 28- 119 -21 -41 -0163. Mr. Wutschke stated
that the valuation of his property at 7226 Perry Court East has increased from a valuation
of $62,100 in 1981 to $77,100 in 1982 and that he believes this is a rather large increase.
The City Assessor noted that town houses were raised by a percentage this year to establis2
their valuation. He added that Mr. Wutschke's neighbor located at 7220 Perry Court East
sold his unit for over $81,000. He added that the sale prices in the Creek Villa's
Development have been very stable. Mr. Wutschke stated that he believes he valuation
is $5,000 greater than his neighbor's valuation and his neighbor has the same floor plan.
The City Assessor stated that the staff will review Mr. Wutschke's property and set up
a reappraisal appointment for his property.
The City Manager introduced the next inquiry,from Kathleen A. Grisser, 1708 69th Avem
North, Property Identification No. 26- 119 -21 -44 -0079. He explaifi6w that:
Ms. Grisser was present earlier in the meeting but that she was not present now. The
City Assessor explained that the home at_1708 69th - Avenue North was an expansion home
and was a non homestead property. He added that in 1980 Ms. Grisser- applied for
abatement with the County and the County approved the valuation of $48,000 in 1980 and
that the property is still valued at $48,000. He stated that he would recommend that the
$48,000 valuation be reaffirmed.
The City Assessor stated that this concludes the in person inquiries for this
evening's meeting, but that a number of written protests will be entered into the
record from persons who could not be present at this evening's meeting. Mayor Nyquist
directed that the written protests be entered into the official meeting record. Letters
of protests were received from the following:
1. Prudential Insurance Company of America, James North and Freeway Boulevard,
P.I.D. 35- 119 -21 -14 -0004, 1982 value $3,900.
2. Prudential Insurance Company of America, 1600 and 1700 Freeway Boulevard,_
P.I.D. 35- 119 -21 -14 -0011, 1982 value $1,570,900.
3. Prudential Insurance Company of America, 6820 Shingle Creek Parkway
P.I.D. 36- 119 -21 -12 -0002, 1982 value $2,638,200.
4. Prudential Insurance Company of America, 6840 Shingle Creek Parkway
PI.D 35- 119 -21 -21 -0003, 1982 value $2,246,300.
5. B & G Realty Incorporated, 6415'James Circle North,
P.I.D. 36- 119 -21 -42 -0003, 1982 value $1,500,000.
6. Edwin W. Elmer, 6500 West River Road,
P.I.D. 36- 119 -21 -13 -0008, 1982 value $163,800.
The City Assessor stated.that he will be meeting with a representative of the
Prudential Insurance Company of America this week to discuss the problems related to
the protested valuations. He stated that he would recommend that the current values'
be reaffirmed,pointing out,that this action would protect the right of appeal of the
property owners to the next level. He added that he is awaiting information from the
B & G Realty Incorporated and Mr. Edwin W. Elmer regarding the valuations of their
6 -7 -82 -7-
properties.
Mayor Nyquist noted that the Board of Equalization meeting would be continued to
the June 14 City Council meeting and at that time the Council would review as many
properties as the staff can report on in time for that meeting. Mayor Nyquist adjourned
the Board of Equaliaation meeting at 8:40 p.m.
6 -7T82 -8-
MINUTES OF THE PROCEEDINGS Or THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER IN THE COUNTY OF
HENNEPIN AND THE STATE OF MINNESOTA
Board of Equalization
June 7, 1982
City Hall
C ALL TO ORDER
The Brooklyn Center City Council met as the Board of Equalization and was called
to order by Mayor Dean Nyquist at 7:09 p.m.
ROLL CALL
Mayor Dean Nyquist, Councilmembers Gene Lhotka, Celia Scott, Bill Hawes, and Rich
Theis. Also present were City Manager Gerald Splinter, City Assessor Peter Koole,
Appraiser Joe DaBruzzi, Assessing Clerks Julie Caswell and Evelyn Byron, and
Administrative Assistant Tom Bublitz.
Mayor Nyquist reviewed the purpose of this evening's meeting pointing out that the
City Council was serving as the Board of Equalization to conduct -a review of assessed
valuation within the City, and to allow a time for public inquiry regarding local
assessments after the City Assessor makes his report.
The City Manager pointed out that there are various steps that individuals must
take when seeking adjustments in their valuations and he explained that the meeting
tonight is the first step after which the inquiry is passed on to the County, and
the County then passes it on to the State for their review. He explained that the
values discussed-this evening will serve as the basis for 1983 taxes. He added
that the Board of Equalization reviews the City Assessor's work and he explained
that the City appraisers and assessing staff are fully certified by the State of
Minnesota.
The City Assessor explained the appeal process, stating the channel of appeal begins
with the local Board, then onto the County Board, the State Board, and finally to
the tax court if carried that far. He also noted that individuals may appeal to
the tax court directly without going to the County Board or State Board. He added
that an individual; must go to the local Board first before they can qualify for
the next step, which is the County Board, and that an individual must also appeal
to the County Board prior to appealing to the State Board. The City Assessor
explained that the,County Board of Equalization is appointed by the County Commissioners
and that the Commissioner of Revenue serves as the State Board of Equalization.
The,City Assessor 'stated that the duties and the procedures to be followed by the
local Board are set in Minnesota Statute 27C01 to "examine and see that all taxable
property in the City has been properly plated upon.a tax list and duly valued by
the Assessor ". "Furthermore ", he stated, "on application of any person feeling
i
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, preceding the assessment ". The Assessor stated
this has been donee and the owners of the property in Brooklyn Center have been
notified of any value changes. He also pointed out that Minnesota Statute 273.11
states, "All property shall be valued at its market value ". The City Assessor
6 -�7 -82 -1-
K
further explained the Statute states - "In estimating and determining such value
j 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 such 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 value
hard to determine, Minnesota Case Law is clear as demonstrated in the case of State of
Minnesota versus Fritch. In this case, the 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 explained that the assessor's
work is based on historical value and that their data is based on actual sales
and not projections.
The City Assessor next reviewed the sales ratio studies. He explained that the
sales ratio study was a substantive part of what is done by the Assessing Department._
The City Assessor briefly reviewed the 1981 sales ratio study noting the aggregate
ratio is 93.9 %, the median ratio is 93.2 %,. and the coefficient of dispersion is
6.5 %. He stated that the average sale price is $66,052 and the average market
value is'$61,763. He explained the Assessing Department analyzes the sales by
style, location, price, age, and neighborhood. He reviewed the valuations of
several homes located in different parts of the City, including homes located on
a lake or river, in proximity to a highway or freeway, commercial and multiple
.family units, and homes located near parkland. He pointed out the percent of
increases in sale prices in the City's neighborhoods ranged from 3% to 8t and
that the average increase in.valuation City wide was 5.9 %. He explained that in
the 1980's the inflation rate in real estate is expected to lag behind inflation
in other areas.
The City Assessor reviewed inspections by the Appraisers. He commented that State'
law requires one - fourth of the properties in the City be revalued and inspected
each year. He showed the Council on a map of the City which areas had been revalued
and inspected in 1981 for the 1982 assessment. He noted in addition to the regular
inspections made each year, the Assessing Department must also inspect the work
on each building permit. He noted that in 1981 there were 518 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 1973 to 1982. 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. Historically, he pointed out, taxes on homesteaded
properties have decreased over the years.
The City Assessor then proceeded to review an example of how the homestead credit
6 -7 -82 -2
works with regard to taxes. For his example, the City Assessor assumed a gross
tax of $1,100; when'the 58% homestead credit ($638) is deducted the net taxes
are $462. The City,Assessor then assumed that the budget of the taxing authority
increased by 10 %, or $1,100 plus $110 for a total of $1,210 reflecting the 10%
budget increase. The 1982 gross tax, he pointed out, would then be $1,210 and
the 58% homestead credit would be $701.80; however, the homestead credit provides
a maximum of $650, therefore, the net tax would be $1,210 less $650 or $560. The
tax increase from one year to the next on the example property increased $98 for
a 21.2% increase. He explained that the additional increase is due to adjustments
made by the State Legislature. The City Manager pointed out that the City's share
of the total tax do Ilar is approximately 15% to 17 %.
The City Assessor proceeded to review small apartment building sales and also the
sale of four- plexes!,in the last five years. He explained the use of the gross
rent multiplier in !developing values for apartment buildings. He explained that
the gross rent multiplier is obtained by dividing the sale price of the building
by the gross rent of the building. He pointed out that four- plexes that were sold
more than once in eleven years experienced an annual inflation rate of 34.3% with
regard to their selling price.
The City Assessor reviewed new legislation for the Council and pointed out that
homestead propertieIs with tax increases over 30% received refunds from the state
for 75% up to $200.'
Mayor Nyquist proceeded to review the forms submitted by persons present at this
evening's meeting Who wished to ask questions regarding their valuations. The
first persons to appear were Donald and Elizabeth Tinker, 3337 - 49th Avenue North,
PID No. 10- 118 -21 -13 -0017. Mr. Tinker stated that his value was raised 33% in
one year and that be believes this is too high since his valuation is up $18,000
from the year before. He stated that his tax statement is 100% over the year
before. The City Assessor stated that Mr. Tinker's 1981 market value was $64,700.
He pointed out that in March of 1982 the property-was reappraised at $61,700. He
stated that this is an example of an expansion home being revalued and he noted
that these types of homes were grossly undervalued until 1981 which resulted in
great tax increase ''when they were brought up to their proper value. He stated
that he recommendsl,the value remain as is for this property.
The City Manager explained that the Assessing Staff can sit down with Mr. Tinker
and compare values'of other homes in his neighborhood. Mayor Nyquist stated that
he would recommend,that Mr. Tinker get together with Mr., Koole's staff and examine
the values as suggested by the City Manager.
Mayor Nyquist stated that the next person making an inquiry regarding the valuation
of his property was Mr. William F. Shutte, owner of the properties at 6715, 17, 19,
and 21 Humboldt Avenue North, PID No. 35- 119 -21 -11 -0009, 0010, 0007, and 0008. Mr.
Schutte stated that the property taxes on the four four - plexes he owns have gone
up 200% in two years. He stated that he is questioning the fairness of computing
the values of all multiple family type housing together. He stated that it does
not seem fair to compare the small multiple family housing with large multiple;
family housing units. He stated that his valuation °in• 1981 was $112,900 and,in.
1982 it was $126,700 per unit. The City Assessor stated that he agrees with Mr.
Shutte in that he is competing with larger apartment complexes. He stated that
6 -7 -82 -3-
four- plexes sell at a higher cost per unit than large 100 unit complexes and the
assessment must reflect this. 'He pointed out that the State Legislature requires
all multiple family type buildings, which includes anything over four units, to
be in the same tax classification. He stated that the gross rent multiplier for
a four -plex is between 8 and 10 and that for larger units it is between 4 and 6.
Councilmember Lhotka left•the table at 8:02 p.m.
The City Assessor explained that there is more demand for four unit buildings than
for sixteen unit buildings, thus the sales price is increased by the demand. He
emphasized that there is more demand for the smaller unit.
Councilmember Lhotka returned to the table 8:03 p.m.
The City Assessor stated that he does not see an inequity in the appraisal since
the- appraisal is based on the market value and it can be demonstrated that a four
plex can be sold for more per unit than a sixteen unit building. Mr. Shutte stated
that he believes the expenses in maintaining the building should also be considered
not just the gross rent multiplier. Mr. Shutte then requested information from
the Assessor regarding the information the Assessing Department has on his rental
income. Mayor Nyquist suggested that Mr. Shutte meet with Mr. Koole and his staff
to clarify some of the questions he has regarding his property.
Mayor Nyquist stated that the next person making an inquiry regarding valuation of
his property was Mr. Charles Thompson, 4201 - 58th Avenue North, PID No. 03- 118 -21-
23 -0023. Mr. Thompson stated that between 1976 and 1981 the market value of his
home increased from $56,000 to $118,300. He stated he believes this increase is
too high. He stated his assessed valuation increased from $118,500 in 1981 to
$118,800 in 1982. The City Assessor noted that Mr. Thompson's property is located
on the north end of Twin Lake and is a single story home on a 2� acre lot with
2,214 sq. ft. of space. He added that the last appraisal of the property was
conducted on April 10, 1981. Mr. Thompson stated he believes the market value
is not what the home would sell for and that the value has doubled since 1976.
The City Manager stated that the value of most homes in the City has doubled since
1976. He added that by law the City Assessor is required to assess on the value
of property. The City Assessor pointed out that the valuation on Mr. Thompson's
-- pr- _ in 1979 was $83,800, in 1980 it was $97,200, in 1981 it was $118,500,
and in 1982 it was $118,800. He stated that he believes the valuation on Mr.
Thompson's property is far below the market value of the property. Mr. Thompson
stated he would take his protest to the next step, that being, the County.
Mayor Nyquist introduced the next inquiry, from Mr. Kenneth Wutschke, 7226 Perry
Court East, PID No. 28- 119 -21 -41 -0163. Mr. Wutschke stated that the valuation
of his property at 7226 Perry Court East has increased from a valuation of $62,100
in 1981 to $77,100 in 1982 and that he believes this is a rather large increase.
The City Assessor noted that townhouses were raised by a percentage this year to
establish their valuation. He added that Mr. Wutschke's neighbor located at 7220
Perry Court East sold his unit for over $81,000. He added that the sale prices
in the Creek Villa's Development have been very stable. Mr. Wutschke stated he
believes his valuation is $5,000 greater than his neighbor's valuation and his
neighbor has the same floor plan. The City Assessor stated that the staff will
review Mr. Wutschke's property and set up a reappraisal appointment for his property.
0
6 -7 -82 -4-
Mayor Nyquist introduced the next inquiry, from Kathleen A. Grisser, 1708 - 69th
Avenue North, PID No. 26- 119 -21 -44 -0079. He explained that apparently Ms. Grisser
• was present earlier in the meeting but that she was not present now. The City
Assessor explain6d' that the hc)me at 1708 69th Avenue.North was an expansion home
and was a non - homestead property. He added that in 1980 Ms. Grisser applied for
an abatement with the County and the County approved the valuation of $48,000 in
1980 and that the property is still valued at $48,000. He stated that he would
recommend the $48,000 valuation be reaffirmed.
The City Assessor stated that this concludes the in person inquiries for this
evening's meeting, but that a number of written protests will be entered into the
record from persons who could not be present at this evening's meeting. Mayor
Nyquist directed that the written protests be entered into the official meeting
record. Letters.of protests were received from the following:
1. Prudential Insurance Company of America, James North and Freeway Boulevard,
PID No. 35- 119 -21 -14 -0004, 1982 value $3,900.
2. Prudential Insurance Company of America, 1600 and 1700 Freeway Boulevard,
PID No. 35- 119 -21 -14 -0011, 1982 value $1,570,900. - -
3. Prudential Insurance Company of America, 6820 Shingle Creek Parkway,'
PID No. 36- 119 -21 -12 -0002, 1982 value $2,638,200.
4. Prudential Insurance Company of America, 6840 Shingle Creek Parkway,
PID No. 35- 119 -21 -21 -0003, 1982 value $2,245,300.
• 5. B & G Realty Incorporated, 6415 James Circle North,
PID No. 36- 119 -21 -42 -0003, 1982 value $1,500,000.
6. Edwin W. Elmer, 6500 West River Road,
PID No. 36- 119 -21 -13 -0008, 1982 value $163,800.
The City Assessor stated that he will be meeting with a representative of the
Prudential Insurance Company of America this week to discuss the problems related
to the protested valuations. He stated he would recommend that the current values
be reaffirmed, poi!ting out that this action would protect the right of appeal of
the property owners to the next level. He added that he is awaiting information
from B & G Realty Inc. and Mr. Edwin W. Elmer regarding the valuations of their
properties.
Mayor Nyquist noted that the Board of Equalization meeting would be continued to
the June 14 City Council meeting and at that time the Board would review as many
properties as the taff can'report on in time for that meeting. Mayor Nyquist
adjourned the Boar; of Equalization meeting at 8:40 p.m.
Clerk Mayor
6 -7 -82 -5-
1982 BOARD OF EQUALIZATION
Appeals by Letter of Protest
Owner Property Recommendations on Letter Appeals
1. Prudential Insurance Company of Amercia PID# 35- 119 -21 -14 -0004 We are currently waiting for additional
c/o Property Evaluation Services 1982 Value: $ 3,900. information from the owner so that we may
Suite 720, Miami Valley Tower 'Type: Vacant Land complete our review of these properties.
40 West Fourth Street Address: James N. & Freeway Blvd. I recommend that the Board affirm the
Dayton, Ohio 45402 Assessor's 1982 Market Value on these
p ropert ie s, an t he staff will c on t inu e
to work with the property owner.
2. Same as above. PID# 35- 119 -21 -14 -0011 Same as above.
1982 Value: $1,570,900
Type: Office /Warehouse
Address: 1600 & 1700 Freeway Blvd.
3. Same as above. PID# 35- 119 -21 -12 -0002 Same as above.
1982 Value: $2,638,200
Type: Office /Warehouse
Address: 6820 Shingle Creek Pkwy.
i
4. Same as above. PID# 35- 119 -21 -21 -0003 Same as above.
1982 Value: $2,245,300
Type: Office /Warehouse
Address: 6840 Shingle Creek Pkwy.
5. B. & G. Realty,-Inc. PID# 35- 119 -21 -42 -0003 Additional information has been requested
The Marcus Corporation 1982 Value: $1,500,000 from the owner to complete a review of his
212 West Wisconsin Avenue Type: Motel 1982 Market Value. I recommend that the
Milwaukee, Wisconsin 53203 Address 6415 James Circle N. Board affirm the Assessor's 1982 Market Value
6. Edwin W. Elmer PID# 36- 119 -21 -13 -0008 Additional information has been requested
2901 Pleasant Avenue 1982 Value: $ 163,800 from the owner to complete a review of his
Minneapolis, Mn. 55408 Type: Motel 1982 Market Value. I recommend that the
Address: 6500 West River Road Board affirm the Assessor's 1982 Market Value
MINUTES OF THE PROCEEDING OF THE CITY
COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER
•IN THE COUNTY OF HENNEPIN AND THE STATE
OF MINNESOTA
Board of Equalization
June 1, 1981
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 7:05 p.m.
ROLL CALL F
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 Jerry 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 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 /,Z-
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 onto the County Board, the State Board, and
finally to the tax court if carried that far. He also noted that individuals
may appeal to the tax court directly without going to the County Board or State
Board. �c9 «.�v.®.s �► d s ®- tJ 1 yd.•,rr�^. ss s+ ,y
The City Assessor stated the duties and the procedures to be followed by th�
local Board are set in Minnesota Statute 274.01 to " examine and see that a ll
taxable property in the City has been properly placed upon a tax list and duly
valued by the Assessor urtrmore e 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, preceding the assessment ". The Assessor
If noted this has been done and the owners of the property in Brooklyn Center have
been notified of any value changes. Additionally, 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 criterion and a value the price for which such 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 value hard to determine, Minnesota Case Law is
clear as demonstrated in the case of State of Minnesota versus Fritc In this
case, the 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
6 -1 -81 -1-
�N there have been no actual sales for a long period of time, there is no 2 way ( ® of determining values except by the judgment and .opinion of men acquain
with the lands, their adaptability for use and the bircumstances of the
surrounding community ".
The City Assessor next reviewed the sales ratio studies. He referred the
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 ev„i ewed the 1981 sales ra ' o study noting the ��` �2
aggregate r o ' 94.8�,he median ratio i 94 he coefficient of
dispersi`6.0 The average sale price is 60,412 n e average market
alue i $57,272. He explained the Assessing ° Department analyzes the sales
yle, location, price and neighborhood. He reviewed the valuations of
t0! several homes located in different parts of the City, including homes located
on a lake or river, in proximity to a highway or freeway, commercial and
multiple family units, and homes located near parkland. He showed the Council
a neighborhood map which had been prepared and discussed the general percent
of increase in various areas 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. He
pointed out the percent of increases in the City's neighborhoods ranged fro
4.5% to 11% and that the average increase in valuation City wide was 8 to
F es.
The City Assessor reviewed inspections made by the Appraisers. He.commented,
State law requires that one - fourth of the properties be revalued and inspected
each year. He showed the Council on a map of the City which areas had been
revalued and inspected in 14 -for the assessment. He noted in addition
to the regular inspections each yea t Assessment Department must also
t the work on each building permit. He noted in 198 there were over
00
6 rmits that had to be inspected at least once to deteLne what effect
the w ork 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 1973 to 198?, He stated these
properties have not been extensively changed physically although normal main-
tenance and depreciation are present in their average properties. He explained
the income adjusted homestead credit (circuit breaker) has been considered in
the example as listed on the chart.
v gone up wa ease.
that the City's share of the total tax ollar is
approximately 15% to k"Tk H ents
wined.
t he 15� to 18� of the t ar rece �.ved--by° ° S approximately
C�JV VL
The City Manager proceeded to 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. Gene Sorby, 6437 Emerson Avenue North,
Property Identification I3o. 36- 119 -21 -32 -0084. Mr. Sorby stated his home has
been valued at $67,000 and that he paid only $63,000 for the home three months
ago. The City Assessor stated that he will have the City's Property Appraisers
review Mr. Sorby's valuation and make a recommendation to the City Council at
the next meeting. The City Manager stated the Board can defer any action on
6 - -81 -2-
the valuation of Mr. Sorby's property until the staff reviews the valuation
and reports back to the Council. The next person to appear was Mr. Robert
Melina, 3919 61st Avenue North, Property Identification No. 03- 118- 21 -21- 0127.
Mr. Melina stated that his valuation had been $48,000 previously and is now
$62,000. He stated his house is 42 years old and that he has made no improve -
ments to the ro ert and that he was here this evening to find out why his
P p Y g
valuation had increased from $48,000 to $62,000. The City Assessor reviewed
Mr. Melina's past valuations noting that the property in question had been
valued at $49,900 in 1979, $58,300 in 1980 and $62.,000 in 1981. He noted the
increase in property valuations have followed a normal percentage increase in
valuation as compared to other similar properties in the City. The City Manager
pointed out the Appraisers can physically inspect only 2000 homes per year
and that this is why the sales ratio is used in determining valuations for
homes which the Appraisers cannot physically inspect. He noted the City's
Appraisers can review this property along with sales of other homes in the
area.
The City Manager stated the next individual making an inquiry regarding the
valuation of his property was Mr. Paul Linton, 6915 Indiana Avenue North,
Property Identification No. 27- 119- 21 -34- 0005. Mr. Linton stated he tried
to sell his home approximately 4 years ago and at that time the FHA valued
his home at $25,000. He explained his home did not meet FHA requirements
since there was no basement in the home. The City Assessor.explained $46,800
is the current value of Mr. Linton's home and that his property has not been
appraised recently. He explained the Appraisers can review and inspect Mr.
Linton's home and return back to the Council with their inspection report.
i
The City Manager introduced the next inquiry from Mr. Earl Dukatz, 5655 Northport
Drive, Property Identification No. 03- 118- 21 -42- 0009. The City Assessor explained
that the City's Appraisers had problems gaining entry to appraise this property
and that the staff will report back to the Council after the property has been
inspected and reviewed. He stated the staff anticipates no problem with this
property.
The City Manager introduced the next inquiry from Lucille Hargzi, 3527 27th Avenue
North, Property Identification No. 10- 118 -21 -42 -0024. He explained Ms. Hargzi.'s
concern was with the increase in valuation of her property. The City Assessor
stated the property in question has been valued $159,500 for 1981 and is an
eleven unit apartment building. He added, he believes this property is grossly
undervalued. He cited examples of other apartment buildings noting a four unit
apartment building on Lake Breeze Avenue sold for $167,000 in 1980. He stated
another four unit building at 6637 Humboldt Avenue North sold for $172,900 in
1980. He added, in 1982 the staff will undertake 'a major apartment study
throughout the City. The City Manager pointed out that the State Legislature
has shifted the tax relief to homestead property and not commercial properties,
resulting in an increased share of the tax burden for commercial property owners.
The City Assessor pointed out that Ms. Hargzi's property at 3527 27th Avenue
North was valued at $140,300 in 1980 and $159,500 in 1981.
Councilmember Lhotka stated that he wanted to clarify the fact that taxes are
set to a great extent by the State Legislature and not by local City Councils..
The City Manager pointed out, in apartment properties tax relief is given to
the renter since the State views the renter as the ultimate taxpayer on
cor-nercial properties. He explained the tax burden has been taken off the
single family home in recent years and a greater share of the burden has been
placed on apartment buildings.
6 -1 -81 -3-
The City Manager introduced the next inquiry, which was submitted by Mr.
Amos LeVang owner of the properties at 4100 Lake Breeze Avenue and 4816 Lake
View Avenue North, Property Identification No. 10- 118 -21 -32 -0068. Mr. LeVang
.stated he was opposed to the system set up by the Legislature which has placed
a greater share of the tax burden on apartment properties. He stated he
realizes the City Council's hands are tied with regard to the State's actions.
He explained his four -plex, located at 4100 Lake Breeze Avenue, has increased
80% in valuation and that the taxes have increased 83% to almost $1,800. He
stated there was a problem with the tax system and that something must be done
to, bring the selling price of property down to a reasonable level. He added,
the system is also unfair to renters.
The City Manager stated the City can invite local legislators in to discuss the
problem and emphasized to Mr. LeVang that he should carry his protest forward
to the State Legislature. The City Assessor noted that what Mr. LeVang is
saying is true and that the State has been responding to a certain segment
of the population, that being the homesteads not commercial and industrial
property. Mr. LeVang stated he has no objections to the actual taxes he paid
last year, but that he is opposed to the system that is placing a greater tax
burden on commercial property. The City Manager explained the City staff has
discussed this problem with local legislators in the past. Mayor Nyquist
suggested that the City use Mr. LeVang's data and forward a resolution to the
State Legislature regarding this problem. The City Manager requested Mr. LeVang
to include the information he presented this evening in a letter that the City
could pass along to the State Legislature along with a resolution.
The City Manager introduced the next inquiry from Mr. Urban Sander, 6732 Willow
Lane, Property Identification No. 36- 119 -21 -12 -0013. Mr. Sander stated that
other properties in his neighborhood were paying lower taxes than his property
even though he had a smaller house. in light of this difference he inquired
why his taxes were greater. The City Assessor stated the City's Appraisers
will show comparable valuations in Mr. Sander's neighborhood and will also
show any values on any property which Mr. Sander's feels is comparable. Mrs.
Sander's stated the taxes on a $60,000 home are $800 and on a $120,000 home
are $1,500. She- inquired why the taxes were structured in this manner. The
City Assessor stated the higher the value of the property, the higher the tax
rate, noting that this is the way the tax system is structured. Discussion
followed regarding the general trend of home sales in the area and the inflated
prices of homes. Mrs. Sander's stated she had no complaints with the market
value the Appraisers have chosen to set and in fact she would not sell for that
price. She did note, however, that she was concerned with the inflated prices
of homes and the inability of many people to sell there home in today's market.
The City Manager introduced the next inquiry from Ms. Audrey Alford, 5306 Camden
Avenue North, Property Identification No. 01- 118 -21 -43 -0077. Ms. Alford
questioned the current market value of her home noting that the market value
of her home was $29,600 in 1980 and was increased to $43,800 in 1981. The City
Assessor explained the home consisted of 795 sq. feet with a double garage and
that the home was reappraised during the past appraisal period. He explained
the average value in Ms. Alford's neighborhood has been generally only one -half
that of the rest of the City thus creating more demand for housing in the
neighborhood and thereby increasing the valuation. He noted that only 12 homes
in the City sold for under $40,000 as of- August 1980. He noted the staff will
review the appraisal of Ms. Alford's home with her and will report back to the
City Council on..this review.
6 -1 -81 -4-
d
The City Manager stated that this concludes the in person inquiries for this
evening's meeting, but that a number of written protests will be entered into
• the record from persons who could not be present at this evening's meeting.
Mayor Nyquist noted and entered into the meeting record, the written protest
of persons who were not able to appear at this evening's meeting. Letters of
protest were received from the following individuals:
1. Mr. Robert Regan, 4435 68th Avenue North, Property Identification
No. 34- 119 -21 -22 -0012.
2. Lionel Corporation /Toy City, Property Identification No. 02- 118 -21 -11 -0005.
3. Prudential. Insurance Company, Property Identification No. 35- 119- 21 -14- 0004,
and 55- 119- 21 -14- 0011.
a
4. Texas International Airlines, RLS 1380, Property Identification No.
02- 118 -21 -11 -0001.
5. Health Industries, Incorporated, Executive Health Spa, Property
Identification No. 02- 118 -21 -23 -0019.
6. Plitt N. C Theater's, Incorporated, Brookdale, 2501 County Road 10,
Property Identification No. 02- 118 -21 -24 -0013.
7. Gabbert & Beck Incorporated, Tract A except Highway RLS 1235 -22- 89757-
5000- 281 -0, Property Identification No. 03- 118- 21 -14- 0022.
• 8.. McDonald's Restaurants of Minnesota Incorporated, 5525 Xerxes Avenue
North, Property Identification No. 03- 118 -21 -41 -0020.
9. Lowry MLS Realtors, 7000 Brooklyn Boulevard, Property Identification
No. 27- 119 -21 -33 -0006 and 27- 119 -21 -33 -0007.
Shingle Creek Parkway Properties,
of America Y p
10. Prudential Insurance Company
rt Identification No. 35- 119 -21 -12 - 0002.
6820 Shingle Creek Parkway, Property g Y
11. Prudential, 6840 Shingle Creek Parkway, Property Identification No.
35- 119- 21 -21- 0003.
Councilmember Kuefler suggested the Board of Equalization meeting be continued
to the June 8, 1981 Council meeting and at that time the Council would review
as many properties as the staff can report on in time for that meeting. Mayor
Nyquist noted the Board of Equalization meeting will be continued to June 8,
1981 at 7:00 p.m.
PURCHASE OF XEROX MACHINE
The City Manager reviewed the memorandum in the Council's packets regarding
copying costs for the City. He explained at the present time the City is
paying $937 per month for the Xerox 7000 and that an identical machine is
available from the City of Fridley for $7,500 plus moving expenses of
approximately $300. He stated the staff is requesting the Council's
authorization to submit a bid for $7,500 on the Xerox machine. He added,
• the normal cost for a used machine of this type is between $1.5,000 and
$20,000. Mayor Nyquist inquired how old the used machine was. The City
Manager explained the used machine was approximately 5 to 6 years old.
_6 -1 -81 -5-
b
I
i
There was a motion by Councilmember Scott and seconded by Councilmember Fignar'
to authorize a bid of $7,500 for the Xerox machine currently owned by the City •
of Fridley. Voting in favor.: Mayor Nyquist, Councilmembers Kuefler, Fignar,
Lhotka, and Scott. Voting against: none. The motion passed unanimously.
ADJOURNMENT
There was a motion by Councilmember Kuefler and seconded by Councilmember Fignar
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 8:40 p.m.
Clerk Mayor
•
6 -1_81 -6-
w
1982 BOARD OF EQUALIZATION
Appeals by Letter of Protest
Owner Property 11A Recommendations on Letter Appeals
1. Prudential Insurance Company of Amercia PIN 3e-119-21-14-0004 S4 We are currently waiting for additional
c/o Property Evaluation Services 1982 Value: $ 3,900. information from the owner so that we may
Suite 720, Miami Valley Tower Type: Vacant Land complete our review of these properties.
40 West Fourth Street Address: James N. & Freeway Blvd. I recommend that the Board affirm the
Dayton, Ohio 45402 Assessor's 1982 Market Value on these
properties, and the staff will continue
to work with the property owner.
2. Same as above. PIN 35- 119 -21 -14 -0011 Same as above.
1982 Value: $1,570,900
Type: Office /Warehouse
Address: 1600 & 1700 Freeway Blvd.
3. Same as above. PIN 35- 119 -21 -12 -0002 Same as above.
1982 Value: $2,638,200
Type: Office /Warehouse
Address: 6820 Shingle Creek Pkwy.
4. Same as above. PIN 35- 119 -21 -21 -0003 Same as above.
1982 Valuer $2,245,300
Type: Office /Warehouse
Address: 6840 Shingle Creek Pkwy.
5. B. & G. Realty,-Inc. �a'�PID# 35- 119 -21 -42 -0003 Additional information has been requested
The Marcus Corporation `' 1982 Value: $1,500,000 from the owner to complete a review of his
212 West Wisconsin Avenue Type: Motel 1982 Market Value. I recommend that the
Milwaukee, Wisconsin 53203 Address: 6415 James Circle N. Board affirm the Assessor's 1982 Market Value
6. Edwin W. Elmer PIN 36- 119 -21 -13 -0008 Additional information has been requested
2901 Pleasant Avenue 1982 Value: $ 163,800 from the owner to complete a review of his
Minneapolis, Mn. 55408 Type: Motel 1982 Market Value. I recommend that the
Address: 6500 West River Road Board affirm the Assessor's 1982 Market Value
CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER
1982 BOARD OF EQUALIZATION
1. Donald A. Tinker PID# 10- 118 -21 -13 -0017
3337 - 49th Avenue North
Brooklyn Center, Mn. 55429
2. William F. & Bonnis L. Shutte
6715 Humboldt Avenue North 35- 119 -21 -11 -0009
6717 It to it 11 -0010
I 6719 It it 11 -0007
6721 it it -0008:
Brooklyn Center, Mn. 55430
fo -6 ' 3. Charles P. Thompson 03- 118 -21 -23 -0023
4201 - 58th Avenue North
i
Brooklyn Center, Mn. 55429
'f"fw 4. Kenneth E. & Patricia R. Wutschke 28- 119 -21 -41 -0163
7226 Perry Court East
.Brooklyn Center, Mn. 55429
5. Kathleen A. Grisser 26- 119 -21 -44 -0079
^--°- 1708 - 69th Avenue North
Brooklyn Center, Mn. 55430
6. Prudential Insurance Company of America 35-119-21-14-0004
Vacant Land
7. Prudential Insurance Company of America 35- 119- 21 -14- 0011
1600 & 1700 Freeway Boulevard
Brooklyn Center, Mn. 55430
8. Prudential Insurance Company of America 35- 119 -21 -12 -0002
6820 Shir:gle Creek Parkway
Brooklyn Center, Mn. 55430
9. Prudential Insurance Company of America 35- 119 -21 -21 -0003
6840 Shingle Creek Parkway
Brooklyn Center, Mn. 55430
10. B. & G. Realty, Inc. 35- 119 -21 -42 -0003
6415 James Circle North
Brooklyn Center, Mn. 55430
.11. Edwin W. Elmer 36- 119 -21 -13 -0008
6500 West River Road
Brooklyn Center, Mn. 55430