Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutBoard of Appeals and Equalization - 04/06/2022APPROVED MINUTES EDEN PRAIRIE BOARD OF APPEAL AND EQUALIZATION WEDNESDAY, APRIL 6, 2022 7:00 PM—CITY CENTER Council Chambers 8080 Mitchell Road BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Lyndon Moquist, Chair; Eileen Canakes, Vice-Chair; Kristin Rial, and James Lawver CITY STAFF PRESENT: County Assessor: Jim Atchison City Assessor: Jon Thompson Assessing Technical Operations Supervisor: Dave Buswell Appraiser III: Jim Wise Appraiser II: Alex Oldefendt Appraiser I: Jordan Crowe Appraiser I: Zak Rexford Assessment Technician: Jody Carlson Kristin Harley, Recording Secretary I. CALL THE MEETING TO ORDER Chair Moquist called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. II. PROCEDURAL INFORMATION BY JON THOMPSON The Board members introduced themselves and Moquist introduced the Board members present. Jon Thompson gave an overview of the assessment laws and procedures which values are adjusted every year as of January 2 (2022 for this year) according to statute. This assessment was based on market sales between October 1 2020 and September 30 2021, Adjustments were also made due to changing market conditions. This year saw an adjustment of over 14 percent per year for single family homes due to historic growth across the Twin Cities. Single family sales in Eden Prairie were adjusted by 14 percent to the assessment date (January 2, 2022). This significant growth, 20 percent was norm across the Twin Cities, did not necessarily equate to a similar increase in taxes. The Board’s goal is to estimate the sale price for each property in an open market transaction. The agenda contained over 170 appeals in four sections. Some had already reached agreement, and others will need Board action. Residents disagreeing with the adjustment and who signed in were welcome to speak to the board when their property was discussed on the agenda. There were four categories: properties with a review completed and recommendation given; properties with a review not completed; properties which had an application received after the request deadline; and properties in which staff worked with property owners, completed review, and reached an agreement with the property owner. Moquist went over the ground rules for residents wishing to give public comment. III. ORDER OF BUSINESS A. REVIEW APPEALS IN SECTION A AS LISTED ON THE APRIL 6, 2022 BOAE LIST AND STATUS OF APPEALS Appeal 2 – James Asselstine – 6825 Roland Road – PID 02-116-22-41-0022 Moquist read the agreement of a value of $870,000 into the record. MOTION: Canakes moved, seconded by Rial, in Appeal No. 2, PID 02-116-22-41-0022, to reduce the value to the agreement of $870,000. Motion carried 4-0. Appeal 3 – John Howarth– 15820 Eden Drive S. – PID 04-116-22-22-0043 Moquist stated he did not want to change Assessor review range of $413,400, owner’s opinion is $315,000. Canakes noted this property had two bedrooms and three baths, and a two-car garage. Rial gave comparable values in the $350,000 and $390,000 range. MOTION: Canakes moved, seconded by Rial, in Appeal No. 3, PID 04-116-22-22-0043, to reduce the value to $375,000. Motion carried 4-0. Appeal 4 – Tobias Rothfusz– 14925 Ironwood Court – PID 04-116-22-43-0069 Moquist noted this was a split entry. Canakes listed comparable values in the $451,000 and $465,000 range. Rial gave a range of $425,000 to $489,000 based upon last year’s sales. She added the seller had submitted their own comparables. Jon Thompson stated these were the comparable sales the staff appraiser had used. Rial stated she stuck with homes in close proximity when making her decisions, such as 15526 Michelle Lane, 6885 Hallmark, and a nearby Summer Hill property. Canakes gave a comparable value in of $475,000, whereas Lawver argued for $495,000 considering this was a three-bedroom, three-bath. MOTION: Canakes moved, seconded by Rial, in Appeal No. 4, PID 04-116-22- 43-0069, to reduce the value to $495,000. Motion carried 4-0. Appeal 5 – Tao Zhang – 6251 Country Road – PID 05-116-22-21-0057 Tao Zhang stated the price was not dependent on the neighborhood but also on condition, which was poor. There was staining, foundation, bathroom, and roof issues costing at $70,000 She requested $540,000. Moquist asked for clarification as to whether these were structural issues and asked for estimates. Tao Zhang replied he had no professional estimates but had checked online. He had also sent photographs. Rial asked for and received clarification there was a full and a secondary kitchen and that the house had five bedrooms, four baths and a three-car garage. Tao Zhang stated the square footage was less than the square footage indicated as revealed by inspection: 3,700 instead of 4,362 square feet. Moquist noted this was large home of just under 4,200 square feet with a 1,500 square foot foundation and found a comparable at 6407 Country road which sold for $675,000 despite having a considerably smaller footprint than this. Lawver asked for a dollar amount for repairs. Moquist replied the board must defer to who visited the home, and Jon Thompson replied there were not inspections done on every property but staff appraisers take into consideration any information provided to staff appraisers, such as photos, engineer’s reports, or contractor estimates. Moquist stated the assessor valued this house at $70,000 more than a comparable house that was considerably smaller and found this to be in line. Rial noted the proximity to schools and these nearby homes were quite nice through that road. The value was well over $600,000 if repaired. Rial recommended the assessor’s value. MOTION: Canakes moved, seconded by Rial, in Appeal No. 5, PID 05-116-22-21-0057, to affirm the value of $682,700. Motion carried 4-0. Appeal 6 – Xiuyu Gao– 6275 Country Road – PID 05-116-22-21-0059 Xiuyu Gao stated he bought the property last year at $635,000 at the peak of the market so in his opinion he overpaid for a competitive home. In his own market research he found similar homes that had closed at higher prices were now being appraised at lower than his price. His home also needed considerable repairs. Moquist noted a comparable that sold at $675,000 in November which was a smaller home on the same street. Appreciation in a few months was possible, even a modest appreciation of 5.5 percent a year could arrive at $688,000. Every home had pluses and minuses in terms of condition. Canakes noted not the highest bid always won. There were high appraisal numbers for homes due to supply and demand, which made them more valuable. Moquist replied he understood the appraiser’s value and the homeowner’s difficulty of seeing a rise of value of $50,000 in a few months. MOTION: Canakes moved, seconded by Rial, in Appeal No. 6, PID 05-116-22- 21-0059, to reduce the value to $675,000. Motion carried 4-0. Appeal 7 – Xujin Gong– 17034 Claycross Way – PID 05-116-22-21-0105 Moquist noted the owner was asking for less than paid for, for large home in a cul-de-sac, whereas the assessment followed the appreciation path. What mattered was the price paid, not what the seller asked for. MOTION: Canakes moved, seconded by Lawver, in Appeal No. 7, PID 05-116-22-21-0105, to affirm the value of $760,800. Motion carried 4-0. Appeal 9 – Richard Amy – 6451 Unestad Street – PID 05-116-22-24-0017 Moquist read the agreement of a value of $440,000 into the record. MOTION: Canakes moved, seconded by Rial, in Appeal No. 9, PID 05-116-22- 24-0017, to reduce the value to the agreement of $440,000. Motion carried 4-0. Appeal 12 – Derek Robillard– 6919 Alpine Trail – PID 05-116-22-44-0043 Moquist read the agreement of a value of $575,000 into the record. MOTION: Canakes moved, seconded by Rial, in Appeal No. 12, PID 05-116-22-44-0043, to reduce the value to the agreement of $575,000. Motion carried 4-0. Appeal 13 – Ming Yan– 6448 Bracket Road – PID 06-116-22-23-0054 Canakes stated her comparable indicated a value of $430,000. MOTION: Canakes moved, seconded by Rial, in Appeal No. 13, PID 06-116-22-23-0054, to reduce the value to $430,000. Motion carried 4-0. Appeal 16 – Michael Kirchoff – 17867 Liv Lane – PID 07-116-22-11-0057 MOTION: Canakes moved, seconded by Lawver, in Appeal No. 16, PID 06-116-22-23-0054, to reduce the value to the agreement of $400,000. Motion carried 4-0. Appeal 19 – Steven Nosek – 7276 Howard Lane – PID 09-116-22-11-0004 Rosie Worth stated this house was located on a dead-end street, whereas in the nearby three cul-de-sacs all the homes’ values went up 22.3 percent, high for her home. Her house was not on the golf course as others are, whereas she had to contend with a lot of cars speeding past their steep incline, which was not as safe for children as compared to the homes on the cul-de-sac. Her house was not a one-story, and she had received comparables from the assessor and didn’t understand the adjustments. Also, there was no walkout basement and she thought the value of her smaller home should be lower than the houses on the cul-de-sacs. Moquist noted the assessor used the same metric across Eden Prairie. Jon Thompson gave the assessed value at $627,400. Moquist stated that $627,000 represented the low end of this neighborhood in an across-the-board comparison. The focus was what the house sold for as of January 2, 2022. Rial noted the value seemed fair for that block. Canakes noted smaller homes often reflected the prices of larger homes in the same area. MOTION: Canakes moved, seconded by Lawver, in Appeal No. 19, PID 09-116- 22-11-0004, to affirm the value of $627,400. Motion carried 4-0. Appeal 20 – Stephen Shea – 7240 Sunshine Drive – PID 09-116-22-13-0022 MOTION: Canakes moved, seconded by Lawver, in Appeal No. 20, PID 09-116- 22-13-0022, to reduce the value to the agreement of $490,000. Motion carried 4-0. Appeal 22 – Trent McKay – 8353 Labont Way – PID 13-116-22-32-0100 Canakes recommended $300,000. MOTION: Canakes moved, seconded by Lawver, in Appeal No. 22, PID 13-116-22-32-0100, to reduce the value to $300,000. Motion carried 4-0. Appeal 23 – Suzanne Cichosz– 14153 Carmody Drive – PID 15-116-22-33-0125 Canakes recommended a range between $362,000 to $370,000. according to comparables. MOTION: Canakes moved, seconded by Rial, in Appeal No. 23, PID 15-116-22-33-0125, to affirm the value of $369,400. Motion carried 4-0. Appeal 24 – Ryan Gagne – 8595 Mitchell Road – PID 15-116-22-33-0177 MOTION: Canakes moved, seconded by Rial, in Appeal No. 24, PID 15-116-22-33-0177, to affirm the value of $325,900. Motion carried 4-0. Appeal 26 – Shravan Pargal – 16997 New Market Drive – PID 17-116-22-34-0033 MOTION: Canakes moved, seconded by Moquist, in Appeal No. 26, PID 17-116-22-34-0033, to reduce the value to $618,500. Motion carried 4-0. Appeal 27 – Michael Shinners – 17090 New Market – PID 17-116-22-34-0043 Canakes noted there was an agreement. MOTION: Canakes moved, seconded by Moquist, in Appeal No. 27, PID 17- 116-22-34-0043, to reduce the value to the agreement of $660,000. Motion carried 4-0. Appeal 28 – Boon Chung Tan – 10891 82nd Street W – PID 18-116-22-42-0026 MOTION: Canakes moved, seconded by Lawver, in Appeal No. 28, PID 18-116-22-42-0026, to affirm the value of $547,900. Motion carried 4-0. Appeal 29 – Xiaoli Wang – 8655 Shepherd Way – PID 20-116-22-21-0064 MOTION: Canakes moved, seconded by Moquist, in Appeal No. 29, PID 20-116-22-21-0064, to reduce the value to $511,000. Motion carried 4-0. Appeal 30 – Yongjun Zhao – 8935 Preserve Blvd – PID 23-116-22-14-0046 MOTION: Canakes moved, seconded by Moquist, in Appeal No. 30, PID 23-116-22-14-0046, to affirm the value of $394,300. Motion carried 4-0. Appeal 31 – Yunming Hu – 17467 Wexford Drive – PID 20-116-22-23-0080 Yunming Hu stated her home was the smallest in neighborhood and did not have the same amenities as others in the area. It also needed repairs and the basement was unfinished. She could not understand an increase of 23 percent considering the size and condition of the home. Moquist noted the footprints of the houses in the neighborhood appeared similar. Moquist and Jon Thompson discussed the size of the basements compared to the owner’s crawlspace. Moquist noted this house was considerably smaller than the comparable homes nearby. Canakes recommended $460,000. MOTION: Canakes moved, seconded by Rial, in Appeal No. 31, PID 20-116-22- 23-0080, to reduce the value to $460,000. Motion carried 4-0. Appeal 32 – C & E Apts – 8994 Scarlet Globe Drive – PID 22-116-22-13-0065 MOTION: Canakes moved, seconded by Moquist, in Appeal No. 32, PID 22- 116-22-13-0065, to affirm the value of $240,400. Motion carried 4-0. 1:30:02 Appeal 33 – Michael Kujak – 8996 Scarlet Globe Drive – PID 22-116-22-13-0066 MOTION: Canakes moved, seconded by Moquist, in Appeal No. 33, PID 22-116-22-13-0066, to affirm the value of $244,100. Motion carried 4-0. Appeal 34 – C & E Apts – 8969 Massie Curve – PID 22-116-22-14-0064 MOTION: Canakes moved, seconded by Moquist, in Appeal No. 34, PID 22-116-22-14-0064, to affirm the value of $244,100. Motion carried 4-0. Appeal 35 – Michael Kujak – 9098 Massie Curve – PID 22-116-22-41-0030 MOTION: Canakes moved, seconded by Moquist, in Appeal No. 35, PID 22-116-22-41-0030, to affirm the value of $240,400. Motion carried 4-0. Appeal 36 – Michael Benz – 15705 Corral Lane – PID 21-116-22-32-0010 MOTION: Canakes moved, seconded by Rial, in Appeal No. 36, PID 21-116-22-32-0010, to affirm the value of $625,300. Motion carried 4-0. Appeal 41 – Rhonda Donahoe – 9000 Preserve Blvd. – PID 23-116-22-42-0057 MOTION: Canakes moved, seconded by Rial, in Appeal No. 41, PID 23-116-22-42-0057, to affirm the value of $544,600. Motion carried 4-0. Appeal 46 – Bonita Buckley – 10317 Nottingham Trail – PID 25-116-22-13-0072 MOTION: Rial moved, seconded by Canakes, in Appeal No. 46, PID 25-116-22- 13-0072, to reduce the value to $394,000. Motion carried 4-0. Appeal 51 – Terrie Viken – 9890 Crestwood Terrace – PID 30-116-22-42-0021 MOTION: Canakes moved, seconded by Rial, in Appeal No. 51, PID 30-116-22- 42-0021, to affirm the value of $467,100. Motion carried 4-0. Appeal 54 – Scott Belsaas – 6205 Morningside Circle – PID 02-116-22-21-0013 MOTION: Canakes moved, seconded by Rial, in Appeal No. 54, PID 02-116-22-21-0013, to affirm the value of $794,400. Motion carried 4-0. Appeal 55 – Karl Mulle – 6278 Chasewood Drive – PID 02-116-22-21-0022 MOTION: Canakes moved, seconded by Lawver, in Appeal No. 55, PID 02-116-22-21-0022, to reduce the value to the agreement of $715,000. Motion carried 4-0. Appeal 58 – Lei Fang – 6755 Woodhill Trail – PID 04-116-22-31-0017 MOTION: Canakes moved, seconded by Moquist, in Appeal No. 58, PID 04-116-22-31-0017, to affirm the value of $323,600. Motion carried 4-0. Appeal 59 – Hao Fang – 19167 Barrington Drive – PID 06-116-22-22-0075 MOTION: Canakes moved, seconded by Moquist, in Appeal No. 59, PID 06-116-22-22-0075, to affirm the value of $407,100. Motion carried 4-0. Appeal 60 – Hao Fang – 7269 Paulsen Drive – PID 07-116-22-13-0044 MOTION: Rial moved, seconded by Canakes, in Appeal No. 60, PID 07-116-22-13-0044, to affirm the value of $494,300. Motion carried 4-0. Appeal 61 – Hao Fang – 14136 Carmody Drive – PID 15-116-22-33-0110 MOTION: Canakes moved, seconded by Moquist, in Appeal No. 61, PID 15-116-22-33-0110, to reduce the value to $365,000. Motion carried 4-0. Appeal 63 – Hao Fang – 12371 Princeton Avenue – PID 23-116-22-31-0041 MOTION: Canakes moved, seconded by Moquist, in Appeal No. 63, PID 23-116-22-31-0041, to affirm the value of $739,400. Motion carried 4-0. Appeal 64 – Hao Fang – 10290 Edinburgh Circle – PID 35-116-22-12-0061 MOTION: Canakes moved, seconded by Lawver, in Appeal No. 64, PID 35-116-22-12-0061, to reduce the value to $385,000. Motion carried 4-0. Appeal 65 – Salahuddin Khuhro – 6379 Ginger Drive – PID 05-116-22-11- 0025 MOTION: Canakes moved, seconded by Lawver, in Appeal No. 65, PID 05-116-22-11-0025, to reduce the value to the agreement of $605,000. Motion carried 4-0. Appeal 66 – Robert Raschke – 6599 Mere Drive – PID 05-116-22-14-0012 MOTION: Canakes moved, seconded by Lawver, in Appeal No. 66, PID 05-116-22-14-0012, to reduce the value to the agreement of $465,000. Motion carried 4-0. Appeal 67 – Sarah Bockin – 6280 Duck Lake Road – PID 05-116-22-22-0008 MOTION: Canakes moved, seconded by Moquist, in Appeal No. 67, PID 05-116-22-22-0008, to reduce the value to $385,000. Motion carried 4-0. Appeal 71 – Hanbin Zhou – 18613 Shroeder Place – PID 06-116-22-21-0050 MOTION: Canakes moved, seconded by Moquist, in Appeal No. 71, PID 06-116-22-21-0050, to reduce the value to the agreement of $520,000. Motion carried 4-0. Appeal 72 – Daniel Savage – 18810 Lotus View Drive – PID 06-116-22-33-0063 MOTION: Canakes moved, seconded by Lawver, in Appeal No. 72, PID 06-116- 22-33-0063, to reduce the value to $260,000. Motion carried 4-0. Appeal 73 – Robert Ingalls – 7026 Ticonderoga Trail – PID 07-116-22-12-0001 MOTION: Rial moved, seconded by Canakes in Appeal No. 73, PID 07-116-22-12-0001, to affirm the value of $368,400. Motion carried 4-0. Appeal 74 – David Pidgeon – 16500 Hillcrest Court N. – PID 08-116-22-12- 0016 MOTION: Canakes moved, seconded by Moquist in Appeal No. 74, PID 08-116-22-12-0016, to reduce the value to $515,000. Motion carried 4-0. Appeal 76 – Anthony Morimoto – 7214 Topview Road – PID 10-116-22-14-0112 MOTION: Canakes moved, seconded by Rial in Appeal No. 76, PID 10-116-22-14-0112, to reduce the value to the agreement of $400,000. Motion carried 4-0. Appeal 78 – Natasha Bentley – 10972 Hyland Terrace – PID 13-116-22-33-0024 MOTION: Rial moved, seconded by Canakes, in Appeal No. 78, PID 13-116-22- 33-0024, to reduce the value to $435,000. Motion carried 4-0. Appeal 84 – Laura Pasiuk – 7830 Dover Cove – PID 18-116-22-11-0011 MOTION: Canakes moved, seconded by Lawver in Appeal No. 84, PID 18-116- 22-11-0011, to reduce the value to $535,000. Motion carried 4-0. Appeal 85 – Dipak Shah – 7993 Lismore Circle – PID 18-116-22-11-0068 MOTION: Canakes moved, seconded by Moquist in Appeal No. 85, PID 18-116-22-11-0068, to affirm the value of $546,800. Motion carried 4-0. Appeal 86 – Li-Kong Chen – 17713 Cascade Drive – PID 18-116-22-14-0027 MOTION: Canakes moved, seconded by Lawver in Appeal No. 86, PID 18-116-22-14-0027, to affirm the value of $608,200. Motion carried 4-0. Appeal 87 – Wei Liu – 17557 George Moran Drive – PID 18-116-22-14-0054 MOTION: Rial moved, seconded by Canakes in Appeal No. 87, PID 18-116-22-14-0054, to affirm the value of $662,900. Motion carried 4-0. Appeal 88 – Lisa Lorenz – 8015 Hemlock Circle – PID 18-116-22-24-0001 MOTION: Canakes moved, seconded by Moquist in Appeal No. 88, PID 18-116-22-24-0001, to reduce the value to the agreement of $435,000. Motion carried 4-0. Appeal 90 – Bruce Moyer – 18426 Magenta Bay – PID 18-116-22-24-0043 MOTION: Canakes moved, seconded by Moquist in Appeal No. 90, PID 18-116- 22-24-0043, to reduce the value to the agreement of $590,000. Motion carried 4-0. Appeal 91 – Jia Xu– 8187 Katie Circle – 18-116-22-24-0070 MOTION: Canakes moved, seconded by Lawver in Appeal No. 91, 18-116-22- 24-0070, to reduce the value to $590,000. Motion carried 4-0. Appeal 93 – Jane Kurzeka – 8099 Spruce Trail – PID 18-116-22-24-0093 MOTION: Rial moved, seconded by Canakes in Appeal No. 93, PID 18-116-22- 24-0093, to affirm value of $654,600. Motion carried 4-0. Appeal 97 – Robert Brokke – 8791 Danton Way – PID 20-116-22-23-0017 MOTION: Canakes moved, seconded by Rial in Appeal No. 97, PID 20-116-22- 23-0017, to affirm the value of $498,200. Motion carried 4-0. Appeal 98 – Lainie Brandt – 8805 Boulder Rise – PID 21-116-22-13-0001 MOTION: Rial moved, seconded by Canakes in Appeal No. 98, PID 21-116-22- 13-0001, to affirm the value of $786,300. Motion carried 4-0. Appeal 100 – Hai Duc Pham – 14610 Queens Trail – PID 21-116-22-41-0024 MOTION: Canakes moved, seconded by Rial in Appeal No. 100, PID 21-116- 22-41-0024, to reduce the value to the agreement of $623,700. Motion carried 4-0. Appeal 101 – Paul Becker – 8665 Westwind Circle – PID 23-116-22-11-0056 MOTION: Canakes moved, seconded by Lawver in Appeal No. 101, PID 23- 116-22-11-0056, to reduce the value to $430,000. Motion carried 4-0. Appeal 103 – Florian Girthofer – 11917 Welters Way – PID 23-116-22-43-0052 MOTION: Canakes moved, seconded by Lawver in Appeal No. 101, PID 23-116-22-43-0052, to affirm the value of $760,500. Motion carried 4-0. Appeal 113 – Muhammad Mastoor – 17992 Macintosh Road – PID 30-116- 22-11-0140 MOTION: Canakes moved, seconded by Lawver, in Appeal No. 113, PID 30-116-22-11-0140, to affirm the value of $537,400. Motion carried 4-0. Appeal 115 – Eugene Heier – 9816 Crestwood Terrace – PID 30-116-22-13-0022 Eugene Heier stated other homes in his neighborhood sold for less but his home was not compared to those as comparables. MOTION: Canakes moved, seconded by Lawver in Appeal No. 115, PID 30-116-22-13-0022, to reduce the value to $370,000. Motion carried 4-0. Appeal 118 – Deborah Jecha – 18632 Farmstead Circle – PID 30-116-22-24- 0035 MOTION: Canakes moved, seconded by Lawver in Appeal No. 118, PID 30-116-22-24-0035, to reduce the value to the agreement of $585,000. Motion carried 4-0. Appeal 124 – Michael Allen – 6547 Countryside Drive – PID 05-116-22-24-0041 MOTION: Canakes moved, seconded by Moquist in Appeal No. 124, PID 05- 116-22-24-0041, to reduce the value to the agreement of $405,000. Motion carried 4-0. Appeal 127 – Chris Fredericksen – 17754 South Shore Lane West – PID 07-116-22-11-0097 MOTION: Canakes moved, seconded by Moquist in Appeal No. 127, PID 07-116-22-11-0097, to reduce the value to the agreement of $435,000. Motion carried 4-0. Appeal 129 – Steven Kuebler – 17682 Steading Road – PID 18-116-22-11-0083 MOTION: Canakes moved, seconded by Rial in Appeal No. 129, PID 18-116-22-11-0083, to reduce the value to $600,000. Motion carried 4-0. Appeal 134 – Joseph Peterson – 10418 Lee Drive – PID 25-116-22-34-0070 MOTION: Canakes moved, seconded by Lawver in Appeal No. 134, PID 25-116-22-34-0070, to reduce the value to $430,000. Motion carried 4-0. Appeal 164 – Andrew Lenander – 8029 Lismore Circle – PID 18-116-22-14-0008 MOTION: Canakes moved, seconded by Lawver in Appeal No. 164, PID 18- 116-22-14-0008, to affirm the value of $600,000. Motion carried 4-0. Appeal 165 – Karla Waasdorp – 9005 Preserve Blvd. – PID 23-116-22-42-0042 MOTION: Canakes moved, seconded by Rial in Appeal No. 165, PID 23-116- 22-42-0042, to reduce the value to $675,000. Motion carried 4-0. Appeal 179 – Maribeth Scattarella – 17200 Honeysuckle Lane – PID 05-116-22-31-0040 MOTION: Canakes moved, seconded by Lawver in Appeal No. 179, PID 05-116-22-31-0040, to reduce the value to the agreement of $425,000. Motion carried 4-0. B. REVIEW APPEALS IN SECTION B AS LISTED ON THE APRIL 6, 2022 BOAE LIST AND STATUS OF APPEALS – UNRESOLVED APPEALS WITHOUT STAFF REVIEW Appeal 92 – Jim Cao – 8079 Spruce Trail – PID 18-116-22-24-0091 MOTION: Canakes moved, seconded by Moquist in Appeal No. 92, PID 18-116-22-24-0091, to reduce the value to the agreement of $620,000. Motion carried 4-0. Appeal 114 – Ginger Flaten – 9843 Crestwood Terrace– PID 30-116-22-13- 0015 MOTION: Canakes moved, seconded by Lawver in Appeal No. 114, PID 30-116-22-13-0015, to reduce the value to $415,000. Motion carried 4-0. The remaining appeals in section B were referred back to staff to complete a review and for further discussion with property owners. C. HEAR OTHER PERSONAL AND WRITTEN APPEALS FROM SIGN-UP LIST AND UNRESOLVED APPEALS RECEIVED AFTER MARCH 25, 2022 Jon Thompson opened up the meeting to citizens who had signed in to speak. He announced staff would contact these residents after the meeting. Appeal 125 – Sandra J. Peterson – 18694 Harrogate Drive – PID 06-116-22-31-0030 Sandra Peterson objected to the 33.5 percent increase due to this being one of the smaller homes. She stated she had a realtor look at it who quoted a lesser figure but which seemed reasonable and accurate. Jon Thompson stated staff had not completed a review. Moquist stated staff would review the property. Appeal 130 – Allan Joe – 17143 Raleigh – PID 20-116-22-31-0072 The owner was not present to speak. Appeal 121 – Robert Schein – 6382 Ginger – PID 05-116-22-11-0034 The owner was not present to speak. Appeal 135 – Deborah Germscheid – 18798 The Pines – PID 30-116-22-23-0009 Deborah Germscheid stated hers was one of the smaller units, a non-walkout which had not been improved since 1999. She had purchased the home in 2020. New appeal, no number assigned – Brian Goundhofer – 16061 Alpine Way – 08-116-22-11-0039 The owner was not present to speak. New appeal, no number assigned – Adam Zepeda – 16741 Thatcher Road – 20-116-22-12-0090 Adam Zepeda stated that similar houses to his with similar floor plans had lower assessments. He suggested $540,000. New appeal, no number assigned – Lin Ma & Aosheng Wang - 8692 Grier Lane – 23-116-22-12-0057 Owner expressed fear about the next year considering this year’s increase and asked if there could be a refund or a reduction, and how the money generated by the adjustment was spent. Appeal 130 – Allan Joe – 17143 Raleigh Lane – PID 20-116-22-31-0072 Alan Joe stated the adjustment of his property was not fair, as his neighbors have improved their properties whereas he had not. He objected to the comparables given. Moquist assured him staff would visit and review. Appeal 132 – Linda Lonn– 14702 Boulder Pointe Road– PID 21-116-22-11- 0025 Linda Lonn stated there were three neighboring homes, including nearby lakefront properties, that had been sold that she considered to be comparables with a range between $695,000 and $725,000 whereas she was assessed at $771,900. She was asking for $725,000. The remaining appeals in section C were referred back to staff to complete a review and for further discussion with property owners. D. REVIEW APPEALS IN SECTION B AS LISTED ON THE APRIL 6, 2022 BOAE LIST AND STATUS OF APPEALS The following appeals were read into the meeting by address and assessed value, to be reduced to the value as agreed to by the property owner and Assessing staff. Appeal 8 –James Wollman –6470 168th Ave W – PID 05-116-22-24-0005, $415,000 Appeal 10 –Scott Wilson –6591 Countryside Dr – PID 05-116-22-24-0045, $450,000 Appeal 11 –Susan Orton –16760 South Shore La – PID 05-116-22-43-0004, $615,000 Appeal 14 –Harrogate LLC –18574 Harrogate Dr – PID 06-116-22-31-0035, $380,000 Appeal 15 –Edward Lynch –7129 Emerald La – PID 07-116-22-11-0034, $450,000 Appeal 17 –Margaret Stewart –7243 Bren La – PID 07-116-22-14-0171, $251,000 Appeal 18 –Andrej Maczka –7547 Kimberly La – PID 07-116-22-42-0073, $557,500 Appeal 25 –Brandon DeWitt –15184 Village Woods Dr – PID 16-116-22-43-0051, $525,000 Appeal 37 –Elisa Kromminga –8613 Saratoga La – PID 22-116-22-21-0200, $395,000 Appeal 38 –Paul Carlson –8706 Westwind Cir – PID 23-116-22-11-0061, $390,000 Appeal 39 –Kenneth Langehaug –11996 Waterford Rd – PID 23-116-22-24-0107, $465,000 Appeal 40 –Timothy Sullivan –9152 Preserve Blvd – PID 23-116-22-31-0002, $395,000 Appeal 42 –Soraja Sarasvati –10860 Forestview Cir – PID 24-116-22-23-0023, $385,000 Appeal 43 –Meiyun Chen –8813 Hidden Oaks Dr – PID 24-116-22-24-0080, $570,000 Appeal 44 –Margaret Musech –9051 High Point Cir – PID 24-116-22-31-0017, $450,000 Appeal 45 –Susan Berg –10101 Laurel Dr – PID 25-116-22-11-0008, $460,000 Appeal 47 –Randall Snyder –10167 Nottingham Tr – PID 25-116-22-13-0083, $465,000 Appeal 48 –Balaji Rengasamy –9850 Cromwell Dr – PID 25-116-22-31-0015, $424,000 Appeal 49 –Suzanne Maki –10466 Grant Dr – PID 25-116-22-34-0022, $390,000 Appeal 50 –Ursula Dickinson –10075 Buckingham Dr – PID 25-116-22-42-0007, $465,000 Appeal 52 –Rohan Preston –11600 Landing Rd – PID 35-116-22-13-0068, $665,000 Appeal 53 –John Davis –11475 Landing Rd – PID 35-116-22-14-0070, $775,000 Appeal 57 –Alan Hanson –6923 Rosemary Rd – PID 03-116-22-34-0025, $410,000 Appeal 62 –Hao Fang –8650 Ridgewind Rd – PID 23-116-22-11-0035, $435,000 Appeal 68 –Scott Schmieg –6297 Whispering Oaks Dr – PID 05-116-22-22-0027, $410,000 Appeal 70 –Ryan Lodgaard –18249 Tristram Way – PID 06-116-22-12-0006, $580,000 Appeal 75 –James Kaufman –7356 Ontario Blvd – PID 09-116-22-23-0036, $390,000 Appeal 94 –Charles Engmark II –18443 Melissa Cir – PID 18-116-22-31-0038, $890,000 Appeal 95 –Qisuo Chen –8633 Braxton Dr – PID 20-116-22-21-0040, $560,000 Appeal 96 –Dudley Whiteley –8767 Big Woods La – PID 20-116-22-22-0046, $835,000 Appeal 99 –Xuebing Feng –9079 Victoria Dr – PID 21-116-22-41-0020, $718,300 Appeal 104 –Kim Thommes –9115 Fox Run Cir – PID 24-116-22-31-0037, $420,000 Appeal 105 –Kenneth Haas –9117 Neill Lake Rd – PID 24-116-22-31-0039, $325,000 Appeal 107 –Lihua Pan –10793 Mount Curve Rd – PID 25-116-22-22-0034, $755,000 Appeal 108 –Patrick Jerich –10749 Grant Dr – PID 25-116-22-34-0104, $457,500 Appeal 109 –Adam Peters –9986 Balmoral La – PID 25-116-22-41-0064, $460,000 Appeal 110 –Timothy Henderson –10395 Buckingham Dr – PID 25-116-22-42-0026, $380,000 Appeal 111 –Stanley Saddoris –10158 Juniper La – PID 25-116-22-42-0128, $450,000 Appeal 112 –Paul Gustafson –9632 Bennett Pl – PID 26-116-22-14-0013, $530,000 Appeal 116 –Jeremy Van Beusekom –17964 Strawberry Ct – PID 30-116-22- 14-0066, $755,000 Appeal 122 –Victoria Risken –6459 Mere Dr – PID 05-116-22-13-0082, $630,000 Appeal 131 –David Reidy –16281 Hilltop Rd – PID 20-116-22-44-0040, $370,000 Appeal 133 –Paula Treiber –13952 Wellington Dr – PID 22-116-22-21-0247, $410,000 Appeal 138 –Thomas Durda –6340 Fallbrook Rd – PID 02-116-22-12-0040, $420,000 Appeal 139 –Jeffrey Walton –11539 Raspberry Hill Rd – PID 02-116-22-14- 0013, $682,200 Appeal 140 –Lance Smith –6919 Sand Ridge Rd – PID 03-116-22-43-0015, $515,000 Appeal 141 –Lonnie Jensen –6979 Sand Ridge Rd – PID 03-116-22-43-0043, $460,000 Appeal 142 –Aisha Nancoo –6896 Stonewood Ct – PID 03-116-22-44-0054, $430,000 Appeal 143 –Jennifer Lake –15800 Lund Rd N – PID 04-116-22-23-0006, $350,000 Appeal 144 –Shannon Kelly –6294 Sequoia Cir – PID 05-116-22-12-0061, $380,000 Appeal 145 –Heather Prondzinski –6690 Duck Lake Rd – PID 05-116-22-32-0080, $700,000 Appeal 146 –Michael Dop –17949 Lorence Way – PID 07-116-22-14-0059, $400,000 Appeal 147 –Charles Weber –7311 Hames Way – PID 08-116-22-23-0151, $823,700 Appeal 148 –William Dale –15501 Hillcrest Ct N – PID 09-116-22-21-0023, $500,000 Appeal 149 –Junhui Yang –15204 Buchanan Ct – PID 09-116-22-31-0083, $250,000 Appeal 150 –Joshua Winkleman –13759 St Andrew Dr – PID 10-116-22-24-0042, $725,000 Appeal 151 –Andrew Nett –10948 Hyland Ter – PID 13-116-22-33-0025, $405,000 Appeal 152 –Ramses Abdelmalek –16573 Thatcher Rd – PID 17-116-22-43- 0017, $490,000 Appeal 153 –John Burns –8107 Cimarron La – PID 18-116-22-13-0039, $600,000 Appeal 154 –Chengjun Liu –18230 Bearpath Tr – PID 19-116-22-12-0034, $1,435,000 Appeal 155 –Jill Peifer –8854 Belvedere Dr – PID 20-116-22-23-0020, $482,000 Appeal 156 –Kelly Escobar –16708 Stirrup La – PID 20-116-22-43-0049, $576,600 Appeal 157 –Sam Gavin –9195 Victoria Dr – PID 21-116-22-41-0051, $790,000 Appeal 158 –Dean H Peter –8774 Hawthorne Dr – PID 22-116-22-21-0092, $355,000 Appeal 159 –Norman Gabrick –9665 Garrison Way – PID 25-116-22-11-0031, $365,000 Appeal 160 –Gary Ashbacher –9605 Squire La – PID 25-116-22-14-0037, $410,000 Appeal 161 –Sanata Lau –10493 Shelter Grove – PID 36-116-22-14-0075, $550,000 Appeal 167 –Tower Square ShpgCtr –566 Prairie Center Dr – PID 14-116-22-42-0008, $850,000 Appeal 168 –WSL of EP –431 Prairie Center Dr – PID 14-116-22-44-0183, $28,356,000 Appeal 169 –Tower Square Retail Sh Ctr –574 Prairie Center Dr – PID 14-116-22-31-0045, $8,400,000 Appeal 173 –Lonny Gulden –8972 Knoble Ct – PID 23-116-22-13-0018, $519,000 Appeal 174 –Michael C Neuharth Trust –9610 Eden Prairie Rd – PID 29-116-22-12-0005, $1,815,000 Appeal 176 –Michael Crawford Jr –10379 Lee Dr – PID 25-116-22-43-0021, $400,000 MOTION: Canakes moved, seconded by Lawver in the following Appeals and PIDs to affirm the following changes agreed to by the owner and by staff. Motion carried 4-0. E. SCHEDULE NEXT MEETING The Board of Appeal and Equalization would reconvene on April 21, 2022 in the City Council Chambers at 7:00 p.m. IV. RECESS THE BOARD OF APPEAL AND EQUALIZATION MEETING MOTION: Moquist moved, seconded by Canakes to reconvene on April 21, 2022 in the City Council Chambers at 7:00 p.m. Motion carried 4-0. The meeting was recessed at 10:44 p.m.