Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutBoard of Appeals and Equalization - 05/10/2011 UNAPPROVED MINUTES EDEN PRAIRIE BOARD OF APPEAL AND EQUALIZATION TUESDAY, MAY 10, 2011 7:00 P.M., CITY CENTER Council Chambers 8080 Mitchell Road BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Patricia Pidcock, Chair; Brian Duoos, Vice- Chair; Jim Johnson, Lyndon Moquist and Annette O'Connor BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT: None CITY STAFF PRESENT: City Assessor Steve Sinell; Staff Appraiser: Dave Buswell; Assessing Technician Lisa Ramsey; and Recording Secretary Carol Pelzel I. CALL MEETING TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Chair Pidcock at 7:00 p.m. II. ORDER OF BUSINESS The Board members introduced themselves. A. APPROVE MINUTES FROM APRIL 21, 2011 BOARD OF APPEAL AND EQUALIZATION MEETING MOTION: Motion was made by Moquist, seconded by O'Connor, to approve the April 21, 2011, minutes as published. All members voted aye and the motion carried 5-0. B. REVIEW ITEMS CONTINUED FROM APRIL 21, 2011 Appeal No. 3 —Gerald Pitzrick, 12761 College View Dr#105 Gerald Pitzrick, 12761 College View Dr., #105, appeared before the Board and said basically, he does not have a problem with the new proposed value of$134,000 for his property. He indicated that typically, 5 percent of the market place is distressed sales while 50 percent of condo sales are distressed sales. He asked if that was taken into consideration when the appraisals were done. Also, Pitzrick said there are distressed sales, sales by owner and sales by agents. The true value today is what the seller ends up with and not what the property sold for. An agent gets 5 to 7 percent of the sale price and the value should be less the agent's fee. Pitzrick said this should be taken into consideration. BOARD OF APPEAL AND EQUALIZATION MINUTES May 10, 2011 Page 2 Moquist explained he is a broker, manager and realtor and there are very few, if any, for sale by owners existing in today's market place. They are comparing apples-to- apples and everyone is in the same boat. Sinell said this issue has been before a judge and it has been determined the gross sale price is to be used and not the net sales price. As long as everyone is treated on the same basis for determining property taxes there is not an issue. MOTION: Motion was made by O'Connor, seconded by Moquist, in Appeal No. 3 to reduce the estimated market value to $134,000. The motion carried 5-0. Appeal No. 25 —Srikanth Renukunta, 12795 College View Dr., #105 Srikanth Renukunta, 12795 College view Dr. #105, appeared before the Board explaining that he is okay with the determination of reducing his value from$142,500 to $130,000. However, when they went to a bank for a loan the value of their property was placed at$90,000 to $95,000 and no more than that. Pidcock explained this Board's job is to determine what the property was worth January 2, 2011 for 2012 taxes. The Assessor has determined this property is valued at$130,000 as of January 2, 2011. Renukunta said the bank did an appraisal in December and valued their property at $90,000 and they also did an appraisal last month that valued their property at $95,000. Duoos said he feels $95,000 is low for this property. The Board just reviewed a similar property in the same development and valued it at$134,000. Renukunta said his home has one fewer room and there is an extra bath but it is not plumbed. Duoos said he believes the bank is being extremely conservative because they do not know what is going to happen with the market. Renukunta said he purchased the property for$83,000 in December, 2010. Sinell said it may be difficult to obtain a loan on this property since it was purchased as a foreclosure in December. Duoos said lenders may find it difficult to increase the value of this property so quickly since it was just purchased for$83,000. Pidcock said generally speaking, they would want a certain percentage of equity in the property in order to obtain a home equity line of credit. Renukunta said he would like to see the value of his property reduced more than the $130,000 value. Duoos pointed out it was originally assessed at$142,500. He said they need to be consistent and properties like the petitioners are easy to find for consistency. The values used for comparables ranged from $133,800 to $150,000. MOTION: Motion was made by Johnson, seconded by Moquist, in Appeal No. 25 to reduce the estimated market value to $130,000. The motion carried 5-0. BOARD OF APPEAL AND EQUALIZATION MINUTES May 10, 2011 Page 3 Appeal#4 —Andrew Feng, 9630 Belmont Lane MOTION: Motion was made by Johnson, seconded by Duoos, in Appeal No. 4 to reduce the estimated market value to $275,000. The motion carried 5-0. Appeal#13 —Michael Steidle, 18947 Magenta Bay MOTION: Motion was made by Duoos, seconded by Johnson, in Appeal No. 13 to reduce the estimated market value to $685,000. The motion carried 5-0. Appeal#15 —Jean Merry, 6970 Edgebrook PI MOTION: Motion was made by O'Connor, seconded by Duoos, in Appeal No. 15 to reduce the estimated market value to $530,000. The motion carried 5-0. Appeal#16 —Dipak Shah, 7993 Lismore Cir MOTION: Motion was made by O'Connor, seconded by Duoos, in Appeal No. 16 to affirm the estimated market value of$339,800. The motion carried 5-0. Appeal#17 —Linda Stilwell, 14393 Wilson Drive MOTION: Motion was made by Johnson, seconded by Moquist, in Appeal No. 17 to reduce the estimated market value to $162,000. The motion carried 5-0. Appeal#18 —Laura Unze, 15685 Manitoba Rd. MOTION: Motion was made by Duoos, seconded by Moquist, in Appeal No. 18 to reduce the estimated market value to $140,000. The motion carried 5-0. Appeal#20—Nicole & Paul Lainhart, 17625 Lorence Way MOTION: Motion was made by Johnson, seconded by Moquist, in Appeal No. 20 to reduce the estimated market value to $218,000. The motion carried 5-0. Appeal#21 —Mark Ahmann, 9426 Olympia Drive MOTION: Motion was made by Moquist, seconded by Johnson, in Appeal No. 21 to reduce the estimated market value to $440,000. The motion carried 5-0. Appeal#23 —Katrina Buetow, 18528 Wynnfield Rd. MOTION: Motion was made by Duoos, seconded by Moquist, in Appeal No. 23 to reduce the estimated market value to $395,000. The motion carried 5-0. BOARD OF APPEAL AND EQUALIZATION MINUTES May 10, 2011 Page 4 Appeal#24 —Matt Johnson, 11553 Welters Way MOTION: Motion was made by Moquist, seconded by Johnson, in Appeal No. 24 to reduce the estimated market value to $480,000. The motion carried 5-0. Appeal#27 —Al Keenan, 18515 Pioneer Trail MOTION: Motion was made by Johnson, seconded by Moquist, in Appeal No. 27 to reduce the estimated market value to $100,000. The motion carried 5-0. Appeal#26 —Tim Ashenfelter, 14801 Pioneer Trail Johnson said he had spent a considerable amount of time today reviewing the information on this appeal. He indicated he is not a commercial broker and asked for an explanation that would make sense as to why they have two appraisals in the $2 million range and the City's value over$4 million. Sinell explained a $1 million difference is because the appraisals are only of the leaseholder's interest and only address the value of the facilities. The City's appraisal has to look at the value of the entire property which includes the buildings Ashenfelter owns and the land he leases. Sinell further explained typical land leases provide for the tenant to pay the taxes on the land. However, the entire value has to be determined for tax purposes. The tenant agrees to pay rent and the taxes for that land. State law is very clear that if the State of Minnesota or any other units of government make property available to a person, company or corporation for private use it is taxable as if that person who is renting the property owns it. O'Connell asked how the City values those kinds of properties. She asked if business is down would that make the tax value go down. Sinell responded like condos, if the foreclosure is at$85,000 it will bring the value of other properties down. As industry drops values will go down. Johnson questioned if Ashenfelter's income has dropped considerably how the value of his property can stay up. Sinell explained in looking at the City's appraisal they will see that there were nine sales of airport hangars in the Twin Cities in the last couple of years, after the downturn of the economy. Sinell reviewed the comparables with the Board stating since February of 2009 there have been seven sales in the seven-county metro area in the sales range of$4 per square foot in Hassan Township and Savage to $16.10 per square foot in Shakopee. It is the City's opinion that the land leased at Flying Cloud should relate to the value of similar industrial property. Two of the seven sales were intended for industrial use. Johnson said based on the information presented, it appears what is stated in Ashenfelter's letter is really misstating the facts as they are. He is looking at a $3 million appraisal that does not include land. Johnson asked if Ashenfelter understands that. Sinell said it appears Ashenfelter is not valuing his real estate but is valuing his business. His contention is since his business is off by 40 percent the real estate value must also be off 40 percent. Ashenfelter's main business is not the rental of real estate but the sale,repair and fueling of aircraft and it is possible that business is down quite a bit. BOARD OF APPEAL AND EQUALIZATION MINUTES May 10, 2011 Page 5 Moquist pointed out in 2006 the property was valued at$4.25 million and the tax value is slightly higher than that. He indicated it went up considerably in 2009 and down in 2010. He questioned why this occurred. Sinell explained this is a typical change in the commercial market and continues to go up longer than residential. Johnson asked if the success of a business has a direct correlation to the value of the property. Sinell stated the City Assessor feels the building is worth $3.448 million and land is valued at$1.327 million. One appraisal Ashenfelter had indicates the value of the buildings at$3.6 million and the other appraisal values the buildings in the mid $3 million. MOTION: Motion was made by Johnson, seconded by O'Connor to affirm the original estimated market value at$4,342,000. The motion carried, 5-0. C. SIGN BOARD OF APPEAL AND EQUALIZATION DOCUMENTS III. ADJOURN THE 2011 BOARD OF APPEAL AND EQUALIZATION MEETING MOTION: Motion was made by Johnson, seconded by O'Connor, to adjourn the 2011 Board of Appeal and Equalization meeting. The motion carried 5-0 and the meeting was adjourned at 8:05 p.m.