Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutBoard of Appeals and Equalization - 04/25/2013 APPROVED MINUTES EDEN PRAIRIE BOARD OF APPEAL AND EQUALIZATION THURSDAY,APRIL 25, 2013 7:00 P.M., CITY CENTER Council Chambers 8080 Mitchell Road BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Patricia Pidcock, Chair; Lyndon Moquist, Vice-Chair; Jim Johnson, Annette O'Connor, and Todd Walker BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT: None CITY STAFF PRESENT: City Assessor Steve Sinell; Staff Appraisers: Jody Carlson, Dave Buswell, Jessica Pike, John Sams and Colin Schmidt; Assessing Technician Lisa Ramsey and Recording Secretary Carol Pelzel I. CALL MEETING TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Chair Pidcock at 7:06 p.m. Pidcock asked the Board members and staff to introduce themselves. II. PROCEDURAL INFORMATION BY STEVE SINELL City Assessor Sinell presented an overview of the process explaining the Board of Appeal is a process required by State Statute. The City Council, for the last 20 plus years, has appointed a special board consisting of active realtors who live in Eden Prairie. The City Assessor's office mailed valuation notices to 22,000 Eden Prairie property owners notifying them of this meeting and their value from last year as well as their taxable market value. Sinell further explained any appeals not completed this evening will be completed twenty days later. The decision of the Board can be appealed to the County Board of Equalization that will meet on June 17. III. ORDER OF BUSINESS A. REVIEW APPEALS #1 thru#19 AS APPEAR ON THE APRIL 25, 2013 BOAE LIST AND STATUS OF APPEALS Appeal#1 — Stephen Smitley, 12720 Riverview Rd. MOTION: Motion was made by O'Connor, seconded by Moquist, in Appeal No. 1 to reduce the estimated market value to $810,000. Motion carried 5-0. BOARD OF APPEAL AND EQUALIZATION MINUTES April 25, 2013 Page 2 Appeal#2—Alan Hanson, 6923 Rosemary Sinell explained a review of this property was completed and staff is recommending an estimated market value of$269,700. The homeowner feels the property should be valued at$220,000. He also indicated the appellant has not seen the City's completed appraisal. MOTION: Motion was made by Johnson, seconded by O'Connor, in Appeal No. 2 to continue this item to the May 14 meeting. Motion carried 5-0. Appeal#3 —Michael Smith, Lot 40H Flying Cloud Airport Smith explained he recently leased this parcel of land at Flying Cloud Airport from the Metropolitan Airports Commission (MAC). This space was made available after the sale of commercial property. It had been a grass field for some time. Smith said he has not purchased this parcel and it cannot be sold. He does not own the land but would own the building placed on the land. The lot is not buildable or saleable in the open market. At the current time, MAC does not have a definitive plan for making the lot buildable. Even though the lot is valued at$17,000, Smith said he does not believe they can assign a value to it unless MAC makes changes to make the lot buildable. Water has pooled on the lot and MAC indicated this is a perennial problem. O'Connor stated, for clarification, MAC owns the property and leases it to Smith so he can build an airplane hangar on the lot. Smith said that is correct and if after ten years MAC does not renew his lease, he has to disassemble the building and move it. O'Connor asked if part of the lease term requires Smith to pay MAC 58 cents a square foot and the property tax due on the lot. Smith said he is aware he has to pay property tax on the personal property on the land; however, there currently is no existing personal property. Sinell explained Smith does lease the land from MAC and the terms of the lease and State Statute states property made available by lease or otherwise to private companies or individuals, the person leasing the property is responsible for taxes as if they own the property. In the City, there are approximately 125 leases at the airport ranging from small properties to larger properties and they are required to pay taxes on the land leased and on any improvements they make. Sinell explained the values on the various lots at Flying Cloud vary because of their size. Also, there are two different leases for these parcels. One is for private storage of aeronautical equipment and one is for commercial uses allowing a tenant to use the property for commercial maintenance of aircraft, etc. Sinell said the question is whether or not this parcel is worth $17,000 or if it is tax exempt. The County would have to decide if the parcel is exempt. In response to a question from Walker, Smith explained he plans to build a 60'x 60' aircraft hangar and in order to be eligible to lease the property the person has to own an aircraft. Walker said he would think it is MAC's responsibility to make the lot BOARD OF APPEAL AND EQUALIZATION MINUTES April 25, 2013 Page 3 buildable so it can be used for the purposes of the lease. Smith said he was of the assumption the lot was useable when he signed the lease. O'Connor said it appears the real issue is with MAC. MOTION: Motion was made by Johnson, seconded by Moquist, in Appeal No. 3 to refer this item to the Assessor for further review. The motion carried 5-0. Appeal#4— Tim O'Connor, 13308 Zenith Lane Sinell explained that O'Connor purchased the property for$62,000 in 2012 and is renting it out. He found two houses in the neighborhood that sold for$62,000 and another one that sold for$110,000. The one sold for$110,000 is being used as comparable No. 1. When that property was adjusted for minor differences the indicated value was $114,000. In looking at other comparables of other condos the medium price seems to support the market value. The $110,000 value is high while the $62,000 value is low. Sinell is recommending an estimated market value of $94,000 while O'Connor is suggesting a value of$70,000. Sinell indicated the appellant has not seen the appraisal completed by Assessing staff. MOTION: Motion was made by O'Connor, seconded by Johnson, in Appeal No. 4 to affirm the original estimated market value of$94,000. The motion carried 5-0. Moquist said he knows condo and townhome values have been hit pretty hard. Sinell said that is correct but this property is still at the bottom of the value. Appeal#5 — Gene Sipprell, 17734 Sheffield Lane MOTION: Motion was made by Johnson, seconded by Moquist, in Appeal No. 5 to reduce the estimated market value to $520,000. The motion carried 5-0. Appeal#6—Xie Wang, 10449 Purdue MOTION: Motion was made by Moquist, seconded by Johnson, in Appeal No. 6 to reduce the estimated market value to $925,000. The motion carried 5-0. Appeal#7—Todd Ebersviller, 11436 Kensinizton Dr. Sinell explained this appeal was received via e-mail and did not include a telephone number. Assessing staff has not been able to make contact with this person. MOTION: Motion was made by Johnson, seconded by Walker, in Appeal No. 7 to affirm an estimated market value of$208,000. BOARD OF APPEAL AND EQUALIZATION MINUTES April 25, 2013 Page 4 Appeal#8 —Justin Cass, 9384 Creekwood Dr. MOTION: Motion was made by Johnson, seconded by Moquist, in Appeal No. 8 to reduce the estimated market value to $255,000. The motion carried 5-0. Appeal#9 —Richard Penny, 7316 Franklin Circle E MOTION: Motion was made by O'Connor, seconded by Johnson, in Appeal No. 9 to continue this item to the May 14 meeting. The motion carried 5-0. Appeal#10—Brice Holasek, 6602 Golden Ridize Dr. MOTION: Motion was made by Johnson, seconded by O'Connor, in Appeal No. 10 to reduce the estimated market value to $495,000. The motion carried 5-0. Appeal#11 — Ghassan Safi, 10219 Mooer Lane MOTION: Motion was made by Moquist, seconded by O'Connor, in Appeal No. 11 to reduce the estimated market value to $225,000. The motion carried 5-0. Appeal#12 —Marlene & Carl Adams, 9475 Olympia Dr. MOTION: Motion was made by O'Connor, seconded by Johnson, in Appeal No. 12 to reduce the estimated market value to $530,000. The motion carried 5-0. Appeal#13 —Clint Carter—Ruby Tuesday, 12900 Technology MOTION: Motion was made by Walker, seconded by Moquist, in Appeal No. 13 to refer to the assessor to complete the appraisal. The motion carried 5-0. Appeal#14 —Mohammed Gaffar, 10143 Bluff Rd. MOTION: Motion was made by Johnson, seconded by O'Connor, in Appeal No. 14 to reduce the estimated market value to $600,000. The motion carried 5-0. Appeal#15 —David Chung, 8603 Crane Dance Trail MOTION: Motion was made by Johnson, seconded by Moquist, in Appeal No. 15 to reduce the estimated market value to $640,000. The motion carried 5-0. Appeal#16 —Wilbur and Marjorie Maki, 10463 Spyglass Drive Sinell explained the City's assessor is working with the Maki's and has not yet completed the appraisal. There were a row of trees under a power line that the power company removed. The appellant believes the removal of those trees has affected their property value. BOARD OF APPEAL AND EQUALIZATION MINUTES April 25, 2013 Page 5 Ms. Maki explained they had received a notice from Xcel Energy and a tree service indicating they will be clear cutting all of the brush and after they do that they will be spraying the ground so nothing grows back. All that will remain will be the tree stumps. Ms. Maki said when they purchased the house the trees covered the power lines. The trees have since been removed and now it looks dangerous because the power lines are exposed. Ms. Maki presented pictures of before the trees were removed and after they were removed. She feels when they try to sell their home it will be difficult to convince people that the power lines are not hazardous. Once people have negative feelings about the power lines it is difficult to convince them otherwise and this will make it very difficult to sell the property. Ms. Maki said the house is also dated; it does not have an open floor plan or granite counter tops. Pidcock suggested the appellant talk to the City about their tree replacement program. Ms. Maki explained they have planted six trees but Xcel Energy says they cannot be higher than 20 feet. MOTION: Motion was made by Johnson, seconded by O'Connor, in Appeal No. 16 to refer to the assessor to complete the appraisal. The motion carried 5-0. Appeal#17 —Robert Maki, 7166 Ticonderoga Trail MOTION: Motion was made by Johnson, seconded by Moquist, in Appeal No. 17 to reduce the estimated market value to $160,000. The motion carried 5-0. Appeal#18 —Hariprasad Shetty, 8355 Labont Way MOTION: Motion was made by O'Connor, seconded by Moquist, in Appeal No. 18 to refer to the assessor to complete the appraisal. The motion carried 5-0. Appeal#19 —Randall & Sonya Sailer, 19072 Magenta Bay MOTION: Motion was made by Johnson, seconded by Moquist, in Appeal#19 to reduce the estimated market value to $455,000. The motion carried 5-0. B. HEAR OTHER PERSONAL AND WRITTEN APPEALS FROM SIGN-UP LIST OUTSIDE COUNCIL CHAMBERS Appeal#20— Kailash Mariappan— 15581 Crab Apple Lane Mariappan said the value of this property is $256,800 and he is happy to see an increase in his value by 13.4 percent,however, the market has not gone up that much. He indicated he owns two more properties in Eden Prairie and their values have not changed but have remained the same. Mariappan said in his opinion the value of this property should remain the same as the previous year as his other two properties have. BOARD OF APPEAL AND EQUALIZATION MINUTES April 25, 2013 Page 6 Sinell explained every year the Assessing Division physically goes out and looks at 20 percent of the properties in Eden Prairie. This year they found a lot of single- family homes that the market showed the value needed to be raised. This resulted in a raise in values on 30 percent of those properties. MOTION: Motion was made by O'Connor, seconded by Johnson, in Appeal #20 to refer to the assessor for further review. The motion carried 5-0. Appeal#21 —Catalin Petrescu, 9188 Shetland Rd. Petrescu explained he purchased this property in 2004 for$600,000. Between 2006 and 2007 the value of the home went up to $680,000. Back then, the house next door was valued close to $800,000. That home does have more square footage. When those people were relocated, they had difficulty in selling their home and in 2012 it sold for $510,000. Petrescu said he does not understand between 2006 to 2013 his property value went down more than 25 percent. He said he has looked at other homes in his neighborhood and they have not seen the same change. Petrescu questioned if the basement bargain price for the home next to his affects the value of his home. He also pointed out for 2014 his home value is proposed to go down even further. Petrescu said he would like to have his property value kept the same as the previous year. O'Connor said she is familiar with this neighborhood and it is done very well. She said as a realtor she feels the market started to change about 2011 and 2012. Walker said there was a period of time when there was an incredible drop in home values. He indicated what is happening now in the market place is a lack of supply of these types of properties and there is a buyer demand. The sale price of this property would be above the assessed value for taxes. Walker said in looking at value they are talking about two different things. He said personally he would not be concerned about the tax value. From a market standpoint, they are seeing a recovery in pricing. Moquist said buyers are influenced by assessed value. Petrescu said when he purchased the house he used the market value to determine the price he would pay. With the value going down, when he wants to sell the house they may take a big loss. He understands they would be paying less in taxes with a lower value but he would prefer to pay higher taxes and sell the home for a realistic price. Sinell explained this comes up frequently. Sometimes when they look at these properties further they do determine the value should be raised. He said he would like to have the assessor review the property and determine what the value should be. MOTION: Motion was made by Johnson, seconded by Moquist, in Appeal#21 to refer to the Assessor for further review. The motion carried 5-0. BOARD OF APPEAL AND EQUALIZATION MINUTES April 25, 2013 Page 7 C. SCHEDULE NEXT MEETING The next meeting of the Board of Appeal and Equalization is scheduled for Tuesday, May 14, 2013, at 7:00 p.m. D. CLOSE THE BOARD OF APPEAL AND EQUALIZATION MEETING TO ADDITIONAL APPEALS MOTION: Motion was made by Johnson, seconded by Moquist, to close the Board of Appeal and Equalization meeting to additional appeals. The motion carried 5-0. IV. CONTINUE THE BOARD OF APPEAL AND EQUALIZATION MEETING MOTION: Motion was made by O'Connor, seconded by Moquist, to continue the Board of Appeal and Equalization meeting to May 14, 2013. The motion carried 5-0 and the meeting was continued at 8:10 p.m.