Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutBoard of Appeals and Equalization - 05/08/2012 UNAPPROVED MINUTES EDEN PRAIRIE BOARD OF APPEAL AND EQUALIZATION TUESDAY, MAY 8, 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; 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 A. APPROVE MINUTES FROM APRIL 19, 2012 BOARD OF APPEAL AND EQUALIZATION MEETING MOTION: Motion was made by Walker, seconded by Moquist, and all members voting aye to approve the April 19, 2012, meeting minutes as published. B. REVIEW ITEMS CONTINUED FROM APRIL 19, 2012 Appeal No. 7 —Todd Johnson, 10020 Dell Road O'Connor said she did not agree with most of the comparables used by the City's assessing staff for this property other than Comparable 1. Pidcock reminded the Board they have to look at the value of the property as of January 1, 2012. O'Connor said she looked at the number of properties that have sold in Eden Prairie for $2 million and found there were 18 such properties. Since 2009 there were 2 properties that have sold for over $2 million. O'Connor said she did walk this property and it is a fabulous home but the property cannot be subdivided. She pointed out the closest comparable to this property was 9995 Dell Road. This property was eventually sold for$1.6 million and it is an older home. O'Connor said her conclusion after looking at the house and with her experience in new construction is that the house should not be priced over $2 million. Johnson said in reviewing the appraisal and looking at the land with each of the comparables the largest parcel of the comparables was 1.57 acres. He questioned what the adjustment is per acre because it looked like the differences ranged from BOARD OF APPEAL AND EQUALIZATION MINUTES May 8, 2012 Page 2 $57,600 to $72,600 per acre. Also, Comparables 4, 5 and 6 on construction quality were rated excellent and yet adjustments were made to Comparables 4 and 5. Johnson said he is trying to determine where those numbers came from. Sinell explained on the construction quality homes rated excellent can still be a little better than another property rated excellent. On the homes that were rated excellent and no adjustment was made they are equal and those with adjustments were slightly better in overall quality. Sinell further explained the question on the acre adjustment of the site is everything about the site. Even if they are equal in size, this site is better. Johnson pointed out City staff approaches the value from an appraisal point of view while the Board approaches it from a market point of view. He said in looking at this property, he is trying to figure out how much is objective and how much is subjective and at what point and time does an additional acre change the value of the property. Sinell said they are not saying because this property has extra acres those acres are that much more valuable but because this lot has more privacy. Sinell said because of the lack of sales there is not as much information for staff to rely on. They have to use the best comps they have and adjust for the differences. Johnson said he still believes a lot of this is subjective because they don't have comparables that have ten acres and there is no hard evidence to support most of the land adjustments. Moquist said a lot of emphasis is put on the interior of the home and they can only speculate the inside shows as well as the outside. He questioned the value in 2000 versus the 2012 value. Sinell said in looking at the whole market they have seen values going up through the early 2000's and residential property peaking in 2006, 2007 and 2008 and then going back down. Sinell said as of today home values are probably down about 15 percent. What they have seen in the last several years is that very expensive houses have not sold and those that have sold were pretty consistent with the City's numbers and have not been overvalued in that market. Walker said he agrees with O'Connor that there is a lack of good comparables. The comp they rely most heavily on was drawn from 2010 and that concerns him. They have seen the market continue to deteriorate particularly since 2010. Also, he does not believe they get as much push back at the higher price point and at this price point so many of the owners are here for short-term and are not long-term residents or investors in those properties. Walker said he also feels this property is valued too high. Sinell said he does not agree and thinks the Board is adopting a different standard of value because of tax purposes. The comments made about the comparables are the same comparables that were used when the appellant had an appraisal done for refinancing. MOTION: Motion was made by O'Connor, seconded by Johnson, in Appeal No. 7 to reduce the estimated market value to $2 million. The motion carried 5-0. BOARD OF APPEAL AND EQUALIZATION MINUTES May 8, 2012 Page 3 Appeal#4 —Roger Rumble, 16837 Enclave Circle MOTION: Motion was made by Johnson, seconded by Moquist, in Appeal No. 4 to reduce the estimated market value to $535,000. The motion carried 5-0. Appeal#6 —Patricia Earp, 8087 Long Meadow Pt. MOTION: Motion was made by Moquist, seconded by O'Connor, in Appeal No. 6 to reduce the estimated market value to $320,000. The motion carried 5-0. Appeal#11 — Tim O'Connor, 13597 Zenith Lane MOTION: Motion was made by Johnson, seconded by Moquist, in Appeal No. 11 to reduce the estimated market value to $80,000. The motion carried 5-0. Appeal#12 — Sandra Carlson, 9777 Belmont Lane MOTION: Motion was made by Johnson, seconded by O'Connor, in Appeal No. 12 to reduce the estimated market value to $185,000. The motion carried 5-0. Appeal#13 —Robert& Rebecca Weiler, 10281 Meade Lane MOTION: Motion was made by Moquist, seconded by Johnson, in Appeal No. 13 to reduce the estimated market value of$480,000. The motion carried 5-0. Appeal#14 —Barbara Condit, 15220 Boulder Pointe Road MOTION: Motion was made by Johnson, seconded by Moquist, in Appeal No. 14 to reduce the estimated market value to $800,000. Walker said he would be abstaining because he has previously worked with the appellant. The motion carried 4-0-1 with Walker abstaining. Appeal#15 — Karen Hieb, 6745 West 192"Avenue MOTION: Motion was made by Moquist, seconded by O'Connor, in Appeal No. 15 to reduce the estimated market value to $115,000. The motion carried 5-0. C. SIGN BOARD OF APPEAL AND EQUALIZATION DOCUMENTS III. ADJOURN THE 2012 BOARD OF APPEAL AND EQUALIZATION MEETING MOTION: Motion was made by O'Connor, seconded by Johnson, to adjourn the 2012 Board of Appeal and Equalization meeting. The motion carried 5-0 and the meeting was adjourned at 7:50 p.m.