Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutBoard of Appeals and Equalization - 04/08/2021UNAPPROVED MINUTES EDEN PRAIRIE BOARD OF APPEAL AND EQUALIZATION THURSDAY, APRIL 8, 2021 7:00 P.M. Virtual Meeting via Microsoft Teams BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Lyndon Moquist, Chair; Kristin Rial, Nate Thompson, and James Lawver BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT: Eileen Canakes. CITY STAFF PRESENT: City Assessor John Sams. City Staff: Jody Carlson, Dave Buswell, James Wise, Jordan Crowe and Jon Thompson. Hennepin County Assessor’s Representative Jim Atchison. Recording Secretary Jan Curielli. PROCEDURAL INFORMATION BY JOHN SAMS City Assessor Sams stated tonight’s meeting is being conducted in a virtual format via Microsoft Teams due to the rules governing meetings and public gatherings during the COVID-19 pandemic. Because this is a public meeting, any taxpayer wishing to speak during the meeting will be given the opportunity to do so. He explained the purpose of the meeting is to provide a process to conduct a review of the 2021 estimated market values and classifications of property in the City which is the basis for taxes payable in 2022. The rules for the Local Board of Appeal & Equalization (LBAE) meetings are established by State statute. The decision of the LBAE can be appealed to the County Board of Appeal & Equalization. There are 17 active appeals to be considered by the LBAE tonight. Additional appeals received during the meeting will be addressed after the active appeals are reviewed. I. CALL MEETING TO ORDER Sams called the roll. All Board Members were present virtually with the exception of Eileen Canakes who did not attend the meeting. Chair Moquist called the meeting to order at 7:02 p.m. Sams explained Jon Thompson is hosting tonight’s meeting via Microsoft Teams. We plan to take calls in the order in which the appellant called into the meeting. Jon Thompson then asked each caller to enter the meeting and announce their name and address. II. ORDER OF BUSINESS BOARD OF APPEAL AND EQUALIZATION MINUTES April 8, 2021 Page 2 A. REVIEW ACTIVE APPEALS AS LISTED ON THE APRIL 16, 2020 LBAE LIST AND STATUS OF APPEALS Appeal 1 – Rajeev & Kuhu Singh, 11760 Welters Way – PID 26-116-22-12-0015 Sams said we have reviewed this property. The property owner has concerns his estimated market value is too low. Our current value on record is $620,100. The conclusion of our review of the property was the property has a market value of $650,000. However, it is our policy as City staff not to recommend an increase in value from the value set for the property as of January 2, 2021. The LBAE can keep the same value, lower the value, or raise the value. In the event the LBAE were to vote to raise the value, by statute we must let the owner know of the plan to raise the value. Since the review of this property did come out to be higher than the current estimated value, the decision is up to the LBAE. Moquist noted the owner suggested a value of $700,000. Mr. Singh said he provided data on the value of three properties near his home that have sold in the last six months. The value of those properties increased substantially in 2021, and all three have sold for well over $800,000. He was concerned because his value was actually reduced by more than $47,000 to $620,100 for 2021. Moquist felt Mr. Singh was raising some reasonable questions. He asked Sams to clarify the date of setting the value. Sams replied we look at the property value as of the assessment date, which is January 2 of any given year. The sales that were chosen for comparison were those that took place in the year 2020. Moquist commented we have had a different market in the first months of 2021, but we are using 2020 comparisons for this review. Sams replied we try to adjust to the market that was there on January 2, 2021. The current estimated value is $620,100, and our review appraisal concluded a value of $650,000. The owner is suggesting a value in the neighborhood of $700,000 plus. Moquist asked about the assessed value last year. Sams responded the last three years have been $654,500 in 2019, $667,500 in 2020, and $620,100 in 2021; however, we set the value every year without looking at the previous years’ values. Moquist thought it was fair to say the Board is trying to make values and taxes as equal as possible in Eden Prairie. As a realtor in the community, he did not think many buyers look at the assessed market values, so it may not have much of an impact on how someone views the value of a particular property. Mr. Singh believed the three properties he chose as examples were in his neighborhood and were a nice mixture of sales. All three sold for more than $800,000. Moquist believed those three properties are two story homes, and we would have to go outside the neighborhood to compare the same style home. BOARD OF APPEAL AND EQUALIZATION MINUTES April 8, 2021 Page 3 Nate Thompson thought the comparables used in the staff report were very good considering the market in 2020. He noted you would get a different number in the market today; however, we have to assign a value based on last year’s sales. He understands why Mr. Singh thinks it is worth $700,000, and it is probably worth that today. Rial believed this is something of a unique property and it is hard to compare apples to apples on this type of home. She thought a market value of $650,000 would be where it was for last year. Lawver thought the appraisal is pretty close. Mr. Singh noted he did not see any house that had a decrease in value as his did for the January 2, 2021 appraisal. Moquist asked Sams if there is anything the Board would have to do if we went with the review that indicates $650,000. Sams said in this case you have to make the property owner aware of what you are doing because staff’s recommendation would never be an increase. Nate Thompson suggested there may have been some outlier comparables back in 2020 that set the value at $667,500; however, we can’t go back tonight and justify why Mr. Singh had a drop this year. Moquist noted the goal here tonight is to provide equalization in values, and he thought the comparables support $650,000. Sams reiterated our policy is not to ask for increases, but whatever the Board does is okay with staff. MOTION: Nate Thompson moved, seconded by Rial, in Appeal No. 1, PID 26-116- 22-12-0015, to increase the value from $620,100 to $650,000. Motion was approved on a roll call vote, with Rial, Thompson, Lawver and Moquist voting “aye.” Appeal 7 – MDC Coast 20, LLC, 11200 Prairie Lakes Dr – PID 14-116-22-41- 0009 The tax representative for MDC Coast 20 LLC said there was a subject sale of the PetSmart on December 4, 2019, with an allocated price of $967,312. The property is valued at $3,050,000. He noted the PetSmart owner rents the building for $10.61 per square foot. The pandemic has had an adverse effect on retail sales, and they are looking for some tax relief this year. Sams reported our value for January 2, 2021 is $3,050,000, and we did a review of the property. The review supports our current value of $3,050,000. While we can’t share our actual income approach or confidential information, the owner can share that information. He understood there were some special conditions regarding the sale of December 4, 2019. BOARD OF APPEAL AND EQUALIZATION MINUTES April 8, 2021 Page 4 Jon Thompson said the property transferred as part of a large portfolio at an allocated sale price of $965,840 which is not necessarily a market-based sale. There was a sale of the property in 2013 for $3,545,000. The cost and income analysis done by staff and the comparables support the assessed value of $3,050,000. Moquist commented the sale was in 2013, and all the commercial businesses have been affected by the pandemic. He asked if that is relevant to this. Sams replied we did try to take into account any COVID type market impacts, but there may not be any measurable effects of the impact. Any real measurement comes in the form of sale of property. Moquist asked if that would mean the value of $3,050,000 would be higher than that in a normal year. Sams replied we did try to take into account anything that might affect the market value. Moquist asked if we have actual information on the business. Sams responded we have income and expense information, but that is not about sales. Our best way of determining market is through sales of property. COVID did have a bearing on everything we did on all property types, but especially on commercial property. Moquist asked if there was less sakes activity last year. Sams replied certain sectors had fewer transactions than in a more normal time. In the event the Board doesn’t feel comfortable making a decision on commercial property, the County might be able to take a better look at those properties. You need to be comfortable with what you are doing. Moquist noted we are going blind when you can’t share too much information. Sams stated the packet presented is about all we can tell you. We determined the value is in line. Moquist then asked if staff visited the property recently. Sams replied we are not making physical inspections of building interiors because of COVID. In some cases, we might ask for documentation. We considered this building to be in typical or normal condition. We have been through the building in the past and assume it is pretty much as it was before with some normal wear and tear. Moquist asked if the 2013 value was $3,450,000. Sams said that was the actual sales price. Nate Thompson asked if we could just uphold the value, and they can appeal to the County. Sams replied after the Board has met we send out letters to the property owners letting them know the decision and providing instructions about contacting the County. Nate Thompson then asked if we must affirm the value or if we can vote to move it to the County. Sams believed the Board must affirm the value. Jim Atchinson, Hennepin County Assessor, informed the Board they cannot move to refer an appeal to the County and must only move to increase, decrease or sustain the value. The property owner then has the opportunity to do what he likes in terms of an appeal. BOARD OF APPEAL AND EQUALIZATION MINUTES April 8, 2021 Page 5 MOTION: Nate Thompson moved, seconded by Rial, in Appeal No. 7, PID 14-116- 22-41-0009, to affirm the value of $3,050,000. Motion was approved on a roll call vote, with Rial, Thompson, Lawver and Moquist voting “aye.” Appeal 10 – Paul & Sarah Gallenberger, 8182 Pristine Pine Tr – PID 18-116-22- 13-0042 Mr. Gallenberger stated he was appealing because the day after he received his value notice a City water main broke on his property. There was substantial damage for which he has substantial repair costs. He believed his assessment should reflect that. Moquist asked if his insurance paid for the repairs. Mr. Gallenberger replied it did not because the break occurred on the city’s side of the demarcation line. The city shut off the valve and said they will repair the pipe. Moquist noted the same thing happened to him and the insurance paid for it. Mr. Gallenberger replied the damages to his property were not inside the house. He provided a photo of the 10 foot by 10 foot area of damage to his driveway where the pipe broke. He believed a $20,000 reduction would be in order due to the decrease in his property’s curb appeal because of the large hole in his driveway. Atchison informed the Board the assessed value is as of January 2, 2021, and this issue occurred well past that assessment date. If there is an issue with the value because of that, it would be reflected in the 2022 assessed value. The Board cannot adjust the value based on something that occurred after January 2, 2021. Sams said we can take another look at the end of the year and see what repairs have been made at that time. We could then determine if we should make a reduction. Our review of the property that occurred after the assessment date came in at $585,000. Nate Thompson thought the comparables are a little light. He would uphold the $549,000. Rial agreed with Thompson. She commented this is a nice area, and the property has a three-car garage. Lawver thought $549,000 seems on the lower end. Moquist thought the value was very fair. MOTION: Nate Thompson moved, seconded by Rial, in Appeal No. 10, PID 18- 116-22-13-0042, to affirm the value of $549,000. Mr. Gallenberger asked what the next step would be. Moquist told Mr. Gallenberger the first step would be to have someone from assessing look at your home including the driveway. Mr. Gallenberger asked if it will be valued again on January 2, 2022. Sams replied by State statute all property values are to be valued as of January 2 of any given year. We would flag something like this to check out next year. VOTE ON THE MOTION: Motion was approved on a roll call vote, with Rial, Thompson, Lawver and Moquist voting “aye.” BOARD OF APPEAL AND EQUALIZATION MINUTES April 8, 2021 Page 6 Appeal 11 – Rik & Beverly Berkbigler, 8168 Pristine Pine Tr – PID 18-116-22- 13-0043 Ms Berkbigler said she was calling because the value of her home has increased dramatically from $527,300 to $568,100, a more than $40,000 increase. She understood other homes are bringing surprising prices, but she is not selling at this time. She asked for a reduction of her market value. Moquist noted Ms Berkbigler’s home has fewer bedrooms and baths than several of the comparables. Rial noted the property has a finished basement unlike the previous property which was also located on Pristine Pine Trail. Ms Berkbigler said the basement is not 100% finished. Sams said staff took another look at this property. We don’t look at previous values when we try to establish value on January 2 of a given year. This was an area where we gave a little more of an individual look at the properties. In this case, we found sales that we felt were comparable, and in doing so we determined the data could support a value of $590,000, which would support the current value of $568,000. Rial asked Mr. Sams if he said they took a look at this entire area in more detail. Sams replied by State statute we are required to take more of an in-depth look at 20% of the existing properties every year, so this area was included in our in-depth review for 2020. When that happens in a neighborhood, there may be values increased and decreased and will not be the same percentage increase for all the properties. He noted values in Eden Prairie did go up last year. Ms Berkbigler asked if they went up by 8% as hers did. Sams replied we take another look at the property each year, and we try to determine the right value. Typically, the value tends to follow the market, but each individual property may be different. Moquist asked for clarification of the main floor square footage and the comparables. Sams said our total GBA is the total finished area above the basement area. The total finished area includes any finished basement area. He thought the Berkbigler property has 3747 square feet of total finished area. Ms Berkbigler noted the comparables have more bedrooms and square footage. Moquist commented he thought the first floor is a little lighter than some. He thought the upper two levels should have the most weight, so he would put extra weight on that. He believed the first floor gives a feel for the size and scope of the home. Nate Thompson agreed with Mr. Moquist regarding the bedrooms and the main floor square footage. He thought comparables #5 and #6 are very good comparables. BOARD OF APPEAL AND EQUALIZATION MINUTES April 8, 2021 Page 7 Buswell said the main issue in this case is that the neighboring home doesn’t have a finished basement at all and has a knee wall while the Berkbigler property has a walkout. He noted the staff report is abbreviated because the appeal just came in yesterday or today. Moquist didn’t believe the $20,000 difference in value would get much of a finished basement. Rial asked if all four bedrooms are on the upper level. Ms Berkbigler responded that was correct. Rial stated with the walkout on the lower level and a three-car garage she believed the value was actually low. The property has a smaller footprint, but the property has other features that enhance the value, especially the walkout. Moquist noted this is a very nice area. Nate Thompson thought there are a lot of comparables in 2020 that are in the upper $500,000s. Moquist understood Ms Berkbigler’s concern about an 8% increase, but with a closer look he thought the home has been fairly assessed. MOTION: Rial moved, seconded by Lawver, in Appeal No. 11, PID 18-116-22-13- 0043, to affirm the value of $568,100. Motion was approved on a roll call vote, with Rial, Thompson, Lawver and Moquist voting “aye.” Appeal 13 – Ping Zhan, 8345 Townsend Dr – PID 14-116-22-41-0201 Ms Zhan stated she thought the value of $269,200 was too high for her town house. The property is a rental town house, it is a middle unit and it is not as updated as those currently for sale or those already sold. She calculated an average price of $170 per square foot for 24 units sold in the same association from 10/1/2019 to 9/30/2020. Based on a price of $170 per square foot, she believed her market value should be $230,000. Sams stated to get to a figure of $170 per square foot, the owner is comparing a lot of properties that are bigger than her own. The greater the square footage, the more likely it is the cost per square foot will come down. We found some comparables that were more in line with her size, and our conclusion of the value is $285,000. Ms Zhan noted her unit is not updated and is in the middle of the row, so staff was not comparing apples to apples here. She believed the only way to work is the average square footage. Sams said he heard Ms Zhan say when she purchased her town home exterior units of similar size sold for around $48,000 more. He didn’t know if that would happen in today’s market. Comparable #5 is an interior unit that is slightly bigger, and it sold for $312,000 in 2020. BOARD OF APPEAL AND EQUALIZATION MINUTES April 8, 2021 Page 8 Moquist asked if there are interior pictures for Comparable #5. Sams replied we do not have photos, but he believed we have good comparables. He thought the size in the same economic neighborhood is a better indicator of value than for a larger property. Moquist thought Ms Zhan made a good point about end units and conditions. Sams said we tried to get a comparable that was an interior unit and the one we found points to an even higher value. He said we are not suggesting there may not be a difference in value, but the question is how much more will someone pay for the end unit. Staff feels our analysis is correct but the Board may have a different opinion. Rial believed there is a big difference between a middle unit versus an end unit, for example, the amount of window space. However, when you compare sales from last year the lowest was $259,000 for one in the range you should be for taxes even if the property is a rental. That location is a very desirable place for rentals. She believed the property is valued in the correct range. Lawver said in Eden Prairie everybody wants a corner unit, but the location speaks for itself. Ms Zhan’s property is in line with the comparables, and he thought the value is where it should be or should perhaps be even higher. Nate Thompson stated when real estate gets sold by a builder who charges a premium for location, the premium doesn’t carry forward in the real estate market. Appraisers don’t look back 15 or 20 years to see what the lot premium was. He thought the City could make a case for $285,000, but went to $269,200 based on the condition of the interior. Moquist thought there is a lot of value for end units all over Eden Prairie, but probably not even $20,000 more. He didn’t know how to value the condition. He thought there should be additional value for an end unit, but he wasn’t sure what amount that would be. Nate Thompson said the property at 8292 Townsend is a middle unit and sold at $312,000. A lot of updating can be done for $45,000 on a 1300 square foot unit. Rial asked how much Ms Zhan was getting for the rental of the unit. Ms Zhan said it is $1650 right now, but that does not completely cover the association dues, insurance, taxes and mortgage. MOTION: Nate Thompson moved, seconded by Lawver, in Appeal No. 13, PID 14- 116-22-41-0201, to affirm the value of $269,200. Motion was approved on a roll call vote, with Rial, Thompson, Lawver and Moquist voting “aye.” Appeal 12—Ping Zhan & Gregory Kyzencoff, no address—PID 26-116-22-31- 0031 BOARD OF APPEAL AND EQUALIZATION MINUTES April 8, 2021 Page 9 Sams said staff is affirming the value of this vacant land parcel at $100,000. Ms Zhan thought the City is looking at the lot in general. Only 0.3 acres of the property is buildable, it is located on a busy street, there are no utilities in place, and the existing power lines are not appealing. She thought a value of $40,000-42,000 would be fair. The lot doesn’t have any improvements on it, and there are no utilities or trees on the property. In addition, there is an Xcel easement for the power lines running down the back of the property. Moquist asked what it might cost to improve the lot for development. Sams said this was originally one large lot before Ms Zhan requested it be split in 2020. It is buildable, otherwise the City wouldn’t have allowed it to be split. He was not aware of any conditions that would make this lot not buildable. Moquist noted Ms Zhan said 0.3 acres is buildable. Sams said there is a driveway that comes off Oxbow, and the house would front Homeward Hills Road. The lot value is $100,000. Sewer, water and all City utilities are available in the street. He was very confident the lot could be sold for more than $100,000 to build a house on. Moquist asked what the cost would be for the City utility hook-up. Sams did not know the exact cost, but he thought $15- 20,000 would be more than adequate to cover the additional improvements and the other conditions Ms Zahn mentioned. Moquist asked if the house would have a normal setback from Homeward Hills. Sams assumed it was the standard 30 feet. The drawing provided to the Board was submitted along with the parcel split, so it has gone through the normal plan review and approval for the administrative split. Rial asked if there is access to the lot off Homeward Hills Road. Sams replied there is not based on the plan that was approved. He was not in on all the discussions about the split, so he could not comment on whether they could come in with another plan to have access off Homeward Hills Road. The driveway is permitted on the side, but they might be able to petition to have it come out on Homeward Hills. Rial asked if the existing home on the split property is older. Ms Zhan replied the existing house was built in the early 1980’s. Sams noted the neighborhood to the north of this property has houses from about the same era. Moquist asked about the orientation of the property in the photo. Sams replied the shed is on the north side of the property. Jon Thompson replied the house in the background was the house that remained after the lot was split so the photo was taken looking to the south. Rial thought there are people who are willing to build on a lot like this even though the power lines are there. It is a large lot and there would be some privacy. In Eden Prairie, there is no such thing now as a lot worth $42,000 for this size and in this location. Someone might be able to build a $350,000 house on that lot. BOARD OF APPEAL AND EQUALIZATION MINUTES April 8, 2021 Page 10 Nate Thompson said some of the homes further to the south under the power lines sold. There are a lot of other homes underneath power lines, and many of them were able to be sold. Sams said most of the properties to the north are above $250,000. Moquist commented there is hardly a home available in Eden Prairie in that price range in 2021. Ms Zhan said she listed at $363,000 for the existing house, and then ended up selling at $322,000. Sams noted that was after the split and doesn’t include the additional lot. Ms Zhan explained people see the power lines and don’t want to buy. She believed her lot might be suitable for low income housing. Sams believed the value of the lot is actually low at $100,000. Ms Zhan noted there are no improvements on the lot right now so she thought $40,000-$42,000 was the right value. Sams explained we are looking at this property not just as excess land with special assessments, because of the split, it is now an additional building site. Moquist said the question is what would a builder pay for it with the demand in the market as of January 2, 2021. He thought someone could build a house for $300,000 on top of the lot priced at $100,000, or $120,000 with utilities and improvements. He believed the neighborhood commands $400,000-$450,000. Nate Thompson said he would have to say there would be a price range of $325,000- $350,000 for a 2000 square-foot house in that location, and asked if someone could build a house for $200,000 after paying $100,000-120,000 for the lot. While he gave some credence to the power lines, people don’t seem to be concerned when there is new construction involved. Moquist thought a builder could take a risk and build something because they won’t find another lot in Eden Prairie for $100,000. He believed anything new in that neighborhood would probably be around $450,000. Rial commented the lot value of the house Ms Zahn sold for $322,000 was $119,000. New construction in that area will sell quickly, so she would stick with the $100,000 value. Lawver thought a $400,000-$450,000 house would sell because houses in Eden Prairie are selling like crazy in this market. The inventory isn’t there, and people are eager to get something in the southwest metro area. He believed $100,000 was fair. Nate Thompson agreed with Ms Rial that this is a bigger lot than many. He thought Ms Zhan’s own sale was a very good comparable at $119,000 for the land. BOARD OF APPEAL AND EQUALIZATION MINUTES April 8, 2021 Page 11 MOTION: Rial moved, seconded by Nate Thompson, in Appeal No. 12, PID 26- 116-22-31-0031, to affirm the value of $100,000. Motion was approved on a roll call vote, with Rial, Thompson, Lawver and Moquist voting “aye.” Appeal 15—DIYA Hospitality Inc., 7740 Flying Cloud Dr—PID 11-116-22-44- 0010 Mr. Bhakta said his family bought the property in bankruptcy for $4,000,000 in 2014. He reported they have had losses for 2019 and 2020 and expect a loss for 2021. He did not think the assessment of $4,300,000 is right. Financing is very difficult for hotels. His franchise with Comfort Inns requires upgrading all the furniture and furnishings in the facility on a strict schedule. A light rail is being built in front of his property and will impede access to his property. He has the problem of trying to sell the property now. He thought he should be assessed just the land value because the building itself is a liability. Moquist asked about taxes being paid. Mr. Bhakta replied one-third of his revenue went to taxes. He didn’t know how long it will take for the market to pick up with the corporate tax rate in Eden Prairie. Moquist asked if there have been many sales of hotels in 2020. Mr. Bhakta replied there were very few transactions in the Twin Cities area in 2020. Sams stated we received this appeal very late. He noted Mr. Bhakta sent along some information, but staff has not had an opportunity to complete a review. Staff recommends the value be affirmed to allow this appeal to continue on to the County level so there is an opportunity to complete a review. Rial thought Mr. Bhakta had some valid points because of the light rail construction, and she thought he should have time to pursue his argument. Sams said if the Board decides to affirm the value, we would send out a letter explaining how Mr. Bhakta may continue the appeal. Staff might also be able to work with the County on it. MOTION: Rial moved, seconded by Nate Thompson, in Appeal No. 15, PID 11- 116-22-44-0010, to affirm the value of $4,303,200. Motion was approved on a roll call vote, with Rial, Thompson, Lawver and Moquist voting “aye.” Sams stated that was the last appellant who called into the meeting tonight, so we will go back to the beginning of the list and address those we skipped. Appeal 2—Jennifer Doyle, 7286 Penny Hill Rd—PID 10-116-22-23-0186 Moquist asked if the owner disagrees with the recommended value of $182,400 and believes it is worth $173,000. Sams said that was correct, but staff’s review appraisal BOARD OF APPEAL AND EQUALIZATION MINUTES April 8, 2021 Page 12 comes in at $186,000. The homeowner had concerns about deferred maintenance. We asked for photos but she did not provide any. We made an adjustment of $3,000 for deferred maintenance, but even with an adjustment of $3,000 the value would still come to $186,000, which would affirm the current value of $182,400. He believed $3000 would make a lot of difference on the deferred maintenance. Moquist noted this is one bedroom/one bath/one car garage unit in a demand area. Nate Thompson asked what the lowest priced unit in the area sold for last year. Sams replied Comparable #1 sold for $183,000 in December 2020. Prior to the COVID pandemic we did not take photos of the interior of houses, but in this case we asked for photos because we are not doing interior inspections because of COVID restrictions. He got the impression from Ms Doyle’s narrative there are mainly cosmetic updates needed. She did mention she has new countertops and sink. Moquist noted most of these are two bedroom units, but this is one large bedroom. Sams explained there are various styles in that area, but many of the units are one bedroom. Nate Thompson asked if the unit at 14271 Bedford is the same size. Buswell said it is and that comparable had some updates. Comparable #2 did not have updates and sold for $190,000, which was more than price of the updated Comparable #1. Nate Thompson asked about the view from Ms Doyle’s property. Buswell replied the property has a view of the Bent Creek golf course. Lawver asked for clarification of the number of bedrooms. Sams replied we have this listed as a one bedroom with two other rooms listed, one of which may be a den; however, a den usually does not count as a second bedroom. Lawver asked if it would be legal as a second bedroom. Sams thought it would be legal if it has a closet. Rial stated units in this area are mostly two levels with some of the smaller one-level units included. Buswell said all of the comparables are flats, either second floor or ground level. Lawver believed $177,000-182,000 is where it should be with the market right now. Rial thought the property is right around $178,000. People really like these units. MOTION: Nate Thompson moved, seconded by Rial, in Appeal No. 2, PID 10-116- 22-23-0186, to reduce the value from $182,400 to $180,000. Motion was approved on a roll call vote, with Rial, Thompson, Lawver and Moquist voting “aye.” Appeal 3—Shravan & Katharine Pargal, 16997 New Market Dr—PID 17-116- 22-34-0033 BOARD OF APPEAL AND EQUALIZATION MINUTES April 8, 2021 Page 13 Sams stated the staff review comes in at $549,100, and the current value is $513,900. The owner recommends a value of $489,000. Rial asked why they are recommending $489,000. Sams replied their appeal application talks about foundation issues, Hwy 212 noise, and some lack of updating. We made adjustments for the foundation at $10,000 and additionally adjusted by 1- 3% of the sale price for the condition. Rial noted this is a very large lot. She asked if staff has heard about foundation problems with other houses in that neighborhood. Sams said this owner brought that concern before, but he did not believe anyone else has. Rial said she would affirm the value because it is a very big lot for that neighborhood. Nate Thompson said there is a comparable on 16883 Hanover that is very close that sold for $515,000 although that house had an unfinished basement. Sams said we made adjustments of $25,000-40,000 for deferred maintenance so he would think the Pargal property would be worth more. Moquist asked if the adjustment in value of $10,000 for the foundation was adequate. Sams thought $10,000 more than adequately addresses it. We don’t have any engineer or inspector report data, and there is a crack in the foundation. MOTION: Nate Thompson moved, seconded by Lawver, in Appeal No. 3, PID 17- 116-22-34-0033, to affirm the value of $513,900. Motion was approved on a roll call vote, with Rial, Thompson, Lawver and Moquist voting “aye.” Appeal 4—Jeffrey & Natanya Harris, 9809 Windsor Ter—PID 25-116-22-23- 0030 Sams said after the staff review the owner agrees with reducing the value to $520,000. MOTION: Lawver moved, seconded by Rial, in Appeal No. 4, PID 25-116-22-23- 0030, to reduce the value from $535,900 to $520,000. Motion was approved on a roll call vote, with Rial, Thompson, Lawver and Moquist voting “aye.” Appeal 5—Store Master Funding V LLC, 12365 Singletree La—PID 14-116-22- 23-0014 Sams said the staff review supports a value of $2,153,000. The tax representative disagrees but the review supports the current value. MOTION: Nate Thompson moved, seconded by Rial, in Appeal No. 5, PID 14-116- 22-23-0014, to affirm the value of $2,153,000. Motion was approved on a roll call vote, with Rial, Thompson, Lawver and Moquist voting “aye.” BOARD OF APPEAL AND EQUALIZATION MINUTES April 8, 2021 Page 14 Appeal 6—ALS West Inc., 7513 Mitchell Rd—PID 10-116-22-32-0052 Sams stated this is a memory care facility. Staff spoke with the tax representative and owner who agreed to a reduction in value to $4,780,000. MOTION: Rial moved, seconded by Nate Thompson, in Appeal No. 6, PID 10-116- 22-32-0052, to reduce the value from $5,244,000 to $4,780,000. Motion was approved on a roll call vote, with Rial, Thompson, Lawver and Moquist voting “aye.” Appeal 8—BRE/ESA Portfolio LLC, 7550 Office Ridge Cir—PID 11-116-22-42- 0044 Sams said this is an extended stay hotel property and staff is recommending a change in value to $3,800,000. The tax representative agrees. MOTION: Nate Thompson moved, seconded by Rial, in Appeal No. 8, PID 11-116- 22-42-0044, to reduce the value from $3,927,000 to $3,800,000. Motion was approved on a roll call vote, with Rial, Thompson, Lawver and Moquist voting “aye.” Appeal 9—BRE/ESA Portfolio LLC, 11905 Technology Dr—PID 14-116-22-12- 0024 Sams said this is another extended stay hotel and staff is recommending the value be affirmed. The tax representative agrees. MOTION: Lawver moved, seconded by Rial, in Appeal No. 9, PID 14-116-22-12- 0024, to affirm the value of $3,586,100. Motion was approved on a roll call vote, with Rial, Thompson, Lawver and Moquist voting “aye.” Appeal 14—CAPREF Eden Prairie South LLC, 8301 Flying Cloud Dr—PID 14- 116-22-42-0003 Sams stated staff, the owner, and the tax representative have agreed to a reduction in value from $27,875,000 to $26,480,000. MOTION: Lawver moved, seconded by Nate Thompson, in Appeal No. 14, PID 14- 116-22-42-0003, to reduce the value from $27,875,000 to $26,480,000. Motion was approved on a roll call vote, with Rial, Thompson, Lawver and Moquist voting “aye.” Appeal 16—HP Eden Prairie LLC, 11369 Viking Dr—PID 14-116-22-11-0037 BOARD OF APPEAL AND EQUALIZATION MINUTES April 8, 2021 Page 15 Sams said the owner made one contact with us but we did not hear back. We included this because of the appeal, but we have no supporting data. We are asking the Board to affirm the value of $7,895,900. MOTION: Nate Thompson moved, seconded by Lawver, in Appeal No. 16, PID 14- 116-22-11-0037, to affirm the value of $7,895,900. Motion was approved on a roll call vote, with Rial, Thompson, Lawver and Moquist voting “aye.” Appeal 17—Eden Prairie Senior Living Prairie LLC—PID 14-116-22-34-0117 Sams stated the representative for this senior living facility just called last night and wanted to include the appeal in tonight’s meeting. The owner knows they can appeal the value at the County level, and they will send cost information. The owner disagreed with the value but had not put together the information necessary for review. MOTION: Rial moved, seconded by Lawver, in Appeal No. 17, PID 14-116-22-34- 0117, to affirm the value of $31,000,000. Motion was approved on a roll call vote, with Rial, Thompson, Lawver and Moquist voting “aye.” III. CLOSE MEETING Sams said all of the appeals received have been acted upon, so he recommended the meeting be adjourned. He did not see a reason for the Board to reconvene. MOTION: Nate Thompson moved, seconded by Rial, to close the LBAE to further appeals and to adjourn the meeting of the 2021 Board of Appeal and Equalization. Motion was approved on a roll call vote, with Rial, Thompson, Lawver and Moquist voting “aye.” Chair Moquist adjourned the meeting at 10:03 p.m.