HomeMy WebLinkAboutBoard of Appeals and Equalization - 04/19/2012 APPROVED MINUTES
EDEN PRAIRIE BOARD OF APPEAL AND EQUALIZATION
THURSDAY,APRIL 19, 2012 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, Barb Cook, 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 7:00 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 and explained that the Board is
appointed by the City Council to hear appeals on value classification. This evening is the
first meeting of the Board and they have up to 20 days to complete the process with
May 8 being the last day for consideration. Sinell pointed out all of the Board members
have had formal training by the Department of Revenue. He reminded everyone that State
law requires the determination of property value and not market value. Sinell presented
the definition of market value explaining market value is usually the selling price of the
property. Prices obtained as a result of forced sales should not be considered nor is it the
highest value, lowest value or average value; it is the most likely value.
Pidcock reviewed the procedures that would be followed this evening in hearing the
various appeals.
III. ORDER OF BUSINESS
A. REVIEW APPEALS #1 THRU#14 AS APPEAR ON THE APRIL 19, 2012
BOAE LIST AND STATUS OF APPEALS
BOARD OF APPEAL AND EQUALIZATION MINUTES
April 19, 2012
Page 2
Appeal#7 —Todd Johnson, 10020 Dell Road
Todd Johnson appeared before the Board and thanked them for taking the time to hear
his and everyone else's appeal. He also thanked City staff for working with him
during this process. He explained he had an appraisal done of his property in July
2011 for refinancing. He believes his land and home is overvalued on a relative basis.
Johnson explained the appraisal completed by a third party professional confirms the
value derived from his own analysis of comparable properties. He feels the appraisal
done for refinancing his mortgage is a good reflection of the current state of the
market for real estate and represents an unbiased valuation and shows his land value
is overstated in the proposed tax valuation. Johnson stated there are nearby similar
properties located on the river bluff valued at $82,000 per acre while his parcel is
valued at$105,000 per acre. He does agree that his property is unique;however, it
lacks support of City services. He lives on a dirt road, has no City water or sewer and
no access to cable television. Fire protection is provided through use of a tanker truck.
Johnson said he has a lovely view but so does everyone else along the bluff. He asked
the Board to grant him relief from the high valuation placed on his property and he
wants to feel confident he is not paying more than his equitable share of taxes.
In response to a question from Pidcock, Johnson said his appraisal was completed by
Dean Loosbrock of Pinnacle Appraisals West, Inc. His valuation based on
comparables was $1,800,000 and the City has a current proposed valuation for 2012
of$2,116,600.
Moquist asked how Johnson would view his property with the others on this same
street. Johnson responded that he purchased the property because of the nice view. He
has a 150 degree view of the river valley. Other homes have the ability to have
comparable views. Johnson said his property is somewhat unique. He originally
purchased the property for$1 million and about one year later he tore down the
1970's home. His intent was to hold the property as an investment but then decided to
build. Johnson said if he were to sell the home today he does not believe it would
bring more than the amount the City has it valued at.
Walker asked Johnson in looking at his lot location and his view,how much better
does he think his property is than neighboring properties. Johnson said that is difficult
to answer. He would assign a comparable value to other properties that have similar
views. What he has is very unique and there are ten acres. However, it is not
developable and the property will only be sold as a single private parcel.
Sinell said of all the lots up and down the river bluff this is the best one. It sits on the
top and juts out with a 150 degree view. It is a very unique site and is essentially one
of a kind for Eden Prairie and they do not believe it is developable. Staff Appraiser
Schmidt has been working with these properties for a long time. Sinell said he would
like to have staff finish the appraisal. They do believe this is an exceptional piece of
property. The appellant purchased the property for $1 million in 2000 and built a
BOARD OF APPEAL AND EQUALIZATION MINUTES
April 19, 2012
Page 3
house for$1.5 million in 2002. Sinell reviewed the values placed on this property
since 2003.
Board member Johnson said part of the issue he sees is the difference between the
objective and subjective and it is difficult to put a number on this property. He would
like to see additional information before he makes any determination in value on this
property.
MOTION: Motion was made by Johnson, seconded by Moquist, in Appeal No. 7 to
refer this item to the Assessor to complete a review appraisal. The motion carried 5-0.
Sinell said what they find on refinancing appraisals in many cases is they are
conservative. Moquist asked if they weigh in how they assess other homes on the
same block and if the value on that property is impacted by potential. Sinell said they
will have other properties that have ten acres and are worth $1 million based on their
divide plan or zoning.
Appeal#1 —Martin Shaw, 10240 Tarn Circle
Sinell explained this is a twin home off of Franlo and Anderson Lakes Parkway. Staff
did complete an appraisal of this property and compared it to several other twin
homes in the area that sold and concluded the value of this property to be at$165,000
which is less than the Estimated Market Value assigned at$178,300. Sinell said staff
shared the appraisal with the homeowner who believes the property should be valued
at$124,900.
Johnson asked what documentation was provided to support the owner's belief that
the property should be valued at$124,900. The appellant has corresponded with the
City through e-mails. This was a foreclosed piece of property and was purchased for
$124,900. His appraisal came in at about the sale price at$126,000. One of the
problems is the broad range of sale prices on twin homes. Much has to do with the
condition of the property and condition of sale and whether or not it is a foreclosure
or short sale.
Staff Appraiser Carlson explained she did an interior inspection of this property and
they have done approximately $5,000 in improvements. There are not a lot of updates
and it is not run down. The house is in average condition.
MOTION: Motion was made by O'Connor, seconded by Johnson, in Appeal No. 1 to
reduce the Estimated Market Value from $178,300 to $165,000.
Moquist pointed out the comparables are very different from the purchase price.
Walker said he believes $165,000 is high based on the recent experience of the
market. Sinell explained Comparable No. 6 is the closest to this property and it is
smaller and on the corner of Franlo. Moquist said the subject property does appear to
be on a nice lot with a nice view.
BOARD OF APPEAL AND EQUALIZATION MINUTES
April 19, 2012
Page 4
Vote was called on the motion with all members voting aye. The motion carried 5-0.
Sinell said part of the problem is that the date of assessment is January 2, 2012 and
from their observation, the lowest end of the market is right now.
Appeal#4 —Roger Rumble, 16837 Enclave Circle
MOTION: Motion was made by, Johnson seconded by Moquist, in Appeal No. 4 to
refer this item to the Assessor for review. The motion carried 5-0.
Appeal#6—Patricia Earp, 8087 Loniz Meadow Pt.
MOTION: Motion was made by Moquist, seconded by O'Connor, in Appeal No. 6
to refer this item to the Assessor for review. The motion carried 5-0.
Appeal#11 — Tim O'Connor, 13597 Zenith Lane
MOTION: Motion was made by O'Connor, seconded by Moquist, in Appeal No. 11
to refer this item to the Assessor for review. The motion carried 5-0.
Appeal#12— Sandra Carlson, 9777 Belmont Lane
MOTION: Motion was made by Johnson, seconded by Moquist, in Appeal No. 12 to
refer this item to the Assessor for review. The motion carried 5-0.
Appeal#13 —Robert& Rebecca Weiler, 10281 Meade Lane
MOTION: Motion was made by Johnson, seconded by Moquist, in Appeal No. 13 to
refer this item to the Assessor for review. The motion carried 5-0.
Appeal#14 —Barbara Condit, 15220 Boulder Pointe Road
Walker said he would have to excuse himself from this appeal. He has previously
worked with the appellant.
MOTION: Motion was made by Johnson, seconded by Moquist, in Appeal No. 14 to
refer this item to the Assessor for review. The motion carried 4-0-1 with Walker
abstaining.
B. HEAR OTHER PERSONAL AND WRITTEN APPEALS FROM SIGN-UP
LIST OUTSIDE COUNCIL CHAMBERS
Appeal#15— Karen Hieb, 6745 West 192"Avenue
BOARD OF APPEAL AND EQUALIZATION MINUTES
April 19, 2012
Page 5
Karen Hieb said she purchased her home in 2000 for$125,900 and has seen its value
go up and down. The City has her property valued at$134,100. Their appraisal was
completed last Thursday and the home was appraised at$90,000. Hieb pointed out
her neighbor's home is valued at $76,000. A home to the south with 1,086 square feet
recently sold for$100,000. Her house has 960 square feet.
MOTION: Motion was made by Johnson, seconded by O'Connor, in Appeal No. 15
to refer this item to the Assessor to complete a review appraisal. The motion carried
5-0.
C. SCHEDULE NEXT MEETING
The next meeting of the Board of Appeal and Equalization is scheduled for Tuesday,
May 8, 2012, at 7:00 p.m.
D. CLOSE THE BOARD OF APPEAL AND EQUALIZATION MEETING TO
ADDITIONAL APPEALS
MOTION: Motion was made by O'Connor, 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 Johnson, to continue the Board
of Appeal and Equalization meeting to May 8, 2012. The motion carried 5-0 and the
meeting was continued at 7:55 p.m.