HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council Minutes 05-20-1986 BOE0
a I I
MAT 20, 1986
The meeting of the Plymouth City Council, sitting as the Board of
was called to ora-ar by Mayor Schueider at 7:44 p.m. in the Council
of the City Center at 3400 Plymouth BoulevarA on May 20, 1986.
Review.
Chambers
PUSUT: Mayor Schneider, Councilmembers Crain, Sisk, Vasiliou
Assistant City Manager Boyles, Assistant Finance Director
Aasesser Houet, Appraisers Mauderer, Bye, Carroll, and
Office Technician Anderson.
BOARD OF RKVM
Mayor Schneider stated the purpose of the meeting was
of all real property within the City, to hear citizens
respect to their valuations, and for the Board
adjustments which they believe are warranted based on
1+
and Zitur,
Rahn, City
Assessment
to review the valuations
who have complaints with
of Review to maks: any
the staff's review. He
stated that :he central questions is the market value
January 2, 1986 not the level of property taxes,
of the property on
Mayor Schneider explainer+ the procedure for the hearing and pointed out that
final determinations would no:: be made tonight but at the meeting of June 2.
City Assesso,- Hovet introduced the appraisers on his staff. He explained that
approximately 16,000 valuation notices war mailed nut this year and that his
staff responded to rcughly 400 telephone inquiries. He stated the 1986 total
estimated market valust for the City is almost $1,700,000 and Plymouth's 1985
average home selling price is approximately $116,000 compared to the
metropolitan area average selling price of $87,800. The 1986 mean sales ratio
is 91.82 Lased on approximately 1,428 sales of single-family residential
properties in Plymouth. The ratio on commercial/industrial property is 90.5%.
He also explained that some areas of the City were increased this year, while
others remained the same. lie referred to the 1986 Board of Review booklet
previously distributed to the members of the Board. In the booklet was
included a copy of the notice of the meeting which was published in the City's
official newspaper, the Plymouth Post, and posted within the community.
Assessor Hovet detailed the appeals process at the Country and State levels. He
stated he had 3 written appeals he would read into the record later in the
meeting.
Mayor Schneider opened the hearing at 7:49 p.m.
0
0
Board of Review
May 20, 1986
Page Two
Mervin B. Klatte, Elm Creek Golf Course, 18150 30th Avc.ue North, P.I.N.
07-118-22-23--00019 01-118-11-12-0002, 07-118-22-23-00039 07-118-22-3!-0004,
01-118-22-32-0002 and 07-118-22-32-0007, stated his valuation was increased
204% over last year on his 67.15 acres. The income he receives from the golf
course is less than other courses because he gets very little play on his back
9 holes, and yet he is valued as high as all his competitors. He doesn't want
to pay more than his fair share. Mr. Klatte presented an aerial map of his
property and described the topography. He did not understand how his valuation
could be the same as his competitors.
Kenneth and John Hampton, 1sggton hills Golf Course, 5313 Juneau Lane North,
P.I.N. #04-118-22-34-0001, 04-118-22-43-00039 09-1I8-22-11-0001 and
09-118-22-21--0001, stated thFir main objection regarding their land valuation
was the fact that an extensive portion of their property was water land and
useless except for any other use other than a golf course. They have had 6 or
7 large pumps running continuously for the last 3 wee! -.s and would hesitate to
put a very high value on their land if all the pumps stopped. Approximately
45% of the land is questionable for any use other than back yards or r)asture.
Robert Hughes, B b V Golf Range, 17825 County Road #14, P.I.N.
18-118-22-13-0001, stated he has a golf driving range, nor really a golf
course, and yet he is classified with the rest of the golf :ourses. He has 17
acres of land of which 7 acres is high ground and 10 acres is swamp. His value
was increased from $41,000 to $273,000. His yearly gross income is
apprc.:;imately $25,000. Currently he charges $3.00 for one bucket of golf
balls, which he would have to increase to $18.00 if the valuation remains at
the current level. He did not feel customers could continue to play a game of
golf for a fee rf $6.00 if the current valuations remained. He questioned if
his current valuation represented equalization and explained that he is in
competition with Baker Park driving range and golf course.
Asaessor HovPt explained the procedures and methodology used in determining the
1986 valuations for golf courses. Valuations were equalized on a countywide
basis, rot just in the City of. Plymouth based on the individ.ial characteristics
of each golf course. The 1986 valuations are felt to be realistic for golf
course property and correct previous inconsistencies.
Marion Bohneack, 330 Zinnia Lane North, P.I.N. #34-118-22-31-0033, statpJ she
was Also representing her neighbor, Mr. and Mrs. William Christiansen, 320
Zinnia Lane North, P.I.N. #34-118-22-11-0034. Her property valuation increased
2900, which included a $2,000 increase to her land due to a revaluation of her
area and a $900 increase to her b iilding. :n checkl'.ng with neighbors she
discovered she and only one other property increased this amount, while others
increased only $100, stayed the same, or decreased. She recognized the $900
increase to her building for a concrete driveway and had no problem with that
part of the valuation. There were -no improvements in the area other than
streets which are not reflected in the market value. She stated it had been
explained to her that her neighborhooc was revalued because a lot to the north
of her property recently sold for $25,000 which increased the value of her lot.
Board of Review
May 20, 1986
Page Three
She pointed out some recent market data within her neighborhood indicating
property values have nct increased. The amount of traffic on County Road #61
behind her property has increased and she feels the increase in her valuation
and her neighbor's is unfair in light of other valuations in the neighborhood
not increasing comparably. She asked that her land valuation be adjusted to
last year's value.
Assessor Hovet addressed Mrs. Bohnsack's concerns and stated to^y would be
further explained in the staff report. He stated that last year her valuation
was reduced by the Board of Review creating, unequal lot values within her area.
He stated he would also report on Mr. and Mrs. Christiansen's concerns and
whether under the law Ms. Bohnsack could legally appear on behalf of the
Chriatiansen's to preserve their r;.ght to appeal.
DraA Holiday, 17115 -28th Place North, P.I.N. #20-118-22-32-0082, stated he and
his wits purchased this property in Shiloh for $152,000 in August 1985. ':he
19'1E valuation is $164,400 which is 108% of his sale price and excessive in
light of the fact the rest of the City is valued nt a mean ratio of
approximately 92%. Mr. Holiday admitted lie purchased his property from a
relocation company which may have affected the sale price. He reviewed a list
of several comparable homes i;l the Shiloh area giving the size of the homes and
tar amounts. He referred to the appraisal of his property for loan purposes
which estimated the valuation $5,000 to $8,000 less. He asked that his
property valuation he r vlvwed.
Brad Pavek, 330 Queensland Lane North, P.I.N. #19-116-22-13-0063, stated he was
flattered with the market valuation of his property. He purchased the property
in January 1986 and did not feel it was a distressed sale. The property was
non -homestead, had been on the market for approximately 7 months and had been
rented out for 2 years. He felt the market time was lengthy considering
current market conditions. He paid $84,300 for the property including $1,000
personal property and additional points equaling $2,100. He stated the
purchase value was $81,000 and yet the valuation was $92,000.
rank Dvora'-..%
L
11.745 -38th Avenue North, F.I.N. #14-118-22-43-0055, stated he
questioneJ h, -'.s value because the house next doer to him ;-ist sold for
approximately $126,500 or $129,000. Although the house is smaller than his it
is fairly comparable and his value is $157,500. He feels the difference in
values of $27, 00 is excessive even though his horse is larger and has
additional fireplaces. He states; his value is too high and asked that his
value be reviewed in light of comparable sales in his area,
Villard Jobnar on, 720 Kingsview Lane North, P.I.N. #33-118••22-.13-0041, stated he
purchased his property last year and that the home was vacant for 14 years due
to a high valuation. It had been listed for sale by both Edina Realty and
Coldwell Bankers at $95,000 and six months later was reduced to $90,000. The
home still did not sell for over a year although there were several offers in
the mid $70,000 range which the owner turned down. He purchased the home for
75,000.
0
0
Board of Review
May 200 1986
Page Four
Last December he callad the Assessor's Office to come out to revalue his
property because he felt the valuation was too high, at which time it was
agreed ;o reduce the value a little.
He explained that. the Assessor was comparing his home with another home which
sold approximately four or five months earlier for $90,000 which is larger and
has additional amenities. He has added a breezeway which cannot be used in the
winter because it is not insulated. The current valuation is approximately
86,000 which he fee!a is tco high for what he has. When he purchased his home
he also had to pay the back taxes.
My Marine, 40 Zircon Lane North, P.I.N. #31-118-22--32-0007, stated she and
her husband purchased their property on April 18, 1986 for $151,000. The
property had been on the% market for two months and there was one other offer
for $152,000.. Considering the definition of fair market value, the market
value of her property should be the purchase price. The City's valuation is
160,300 ant'. is 6% higher than the value of the property. She is requesting
the value be reduced to t'..e sale price of of $151,000, rather then the City's
estimated market valve. The seller sold the property to a corporate transfer
company.
Rater SKitb, Burnsville, P.I.N. #19-118-22-41-0011, stated she purchased 4.2
acres one year ago which had been a portion of a person's back yard. The:
property was for sale for 8 or 9 years. 3 years ago the property was sold fo-,c
12,000 on a contract for deed. After having a soil survey done which
indicated the property was not suitable for building, the buyer walked &wily
from the contract. She bought the property for $10,000 thinking it was worth
20,0!0 as stated on the assessment notice. After purchasing the property she
found out it was unsuitable for anything, his a drainage ditch running through
it so it is under water 9 month of the year., and has no trees because she 'Aad
to remove them after the City informed her they were diseased. The property
has no hills and has no exit tc a highway. She feels the $20,000 is excessive
and asks the value to be reduced to the price she paid of $10,000.
Kr. and Mrs. Willis: Foley, 20 Jewel Lane North, P.I.N. #32-118-22-33-110131
stated he would like his value to be indivivalized, not equalized. He bought
the property in 198&4. He put an addition on his home and last year after the
Assessor carefully reviewed it, they agreed to value the property at $130,000.
Now the property is value at $141,000 only one year later. At the trees
behind his property have been cut down which did away with a lot of the value
of his house, and a berm has been put up two feet onto his property. They do
not have a take view and would like to be treated like an individual lot and
not on the basis of tha other homes in the area.
Ren Schiff 4181 Lakeland Avenue North, P.I.N. #26-118-22-33-0002 and
35-118-22-22-0030, stated he is an attorney representing Silverdale Properties
and Fred C. Lucas who recently purchased Beacon Heights School in November 1985
for $400,000. The current valuation is $372,000.
1 Board of Review
May 20, 1986
Page Five
He admitted the purchase may have been a mistake and does not know that there
was any distress involved in the sale. In 1984 and 1985 an effort was made to
rezone the property so it could be used for commercial purposes but the
rezoning was not successful due, in large measure, to neighborhood opposition.
Mr. Lucas bought the property without any contingencies on rezoning and has
been trying to obtain a conditional use permit to use the school as a school.
He has found there is considerable expense involved in bringing the school up
to minimum building code requirements to use the building for scheO)l purposes.
If the building cannot be used as a school it has no value because of the
apparent impossibility of rezoning. The only other alternative is land for
residential development which would have a value of approximately $160,000
after spending approximately that same amount to remove the building. At this
time he believes the property virtually has no value at least until such time
as they are able to obtain a conditional use permit.
A brief discussion followed regarding the commercial classification of the
property.
Alan ilicklander, 5030 Jonquil Lane North, P.IN. X11-118-22-24-0047, passed out
a list of comparable properties in Palmer Creek Estates 3rd Addition including
the current market values. He believes the market value of his property is too
high in comparison to other like properties. His property, which is inferior,
carries one of the highest values. He bought the property in 1984 for $89,000
which was $7,000 too high. The current valuation is $82,300. He reviewed
other recently sold properties in his area. He feels his value should be
reduced $7,000. He asked that an appraiser come out to look at his house and
felt the workmanship should be taken into consideration.
Mr. and Ira. Al Heitkamp. 2116 State Highway #101, P.I.N. #30-118-22-14-0003,
stated that part of his property was taken by the State by eminent domain on
March 27, 1986 and because of this the valuation has changed. They are looking
for an adjustment in valuation because they no longer own that portion of their
property. He asked for clarification of the effective timing of the change
based on the date of transfer to the State.
Assessor Hovet explained because the transfer of p:•operty did not occur until
after the January 2, 1986 assessment that any potential valuation adjustment
could not be considered until the 1987 assessment. He briefly reviewed the law
as it applies to the January 2nd assessment date for valuation purposes.
Mr. Heitkamp stated he is requesting revaluation because the property is worth
less now than it was before the taking. The Heitkamp's will submit to the
Assessor a copy of the State's appraisal of their property. The Board assured
Mr. Heitkamp his valuation would be reconsidered next year.
Larry Elwell, 6125 Highway #101, r. 1,.N., X06-118-22-32-0001 and
3-118-22-33-0008, congratulated the staff stating he was grateful because the
valuation of his property was reduced. However, it should have started two
years earlier when farm land started decreasing. He also had a problem because
he did not know what value per acre for agricultural purposes was being used
0 and queotioned if the acreage was correct.
is
Board of Review
May 20, 1986
Page Six
His property is marginal farm land and in a wet year like this year he cannot
even get on the land. He feels there should be an adjustment to take this into
account. Approximately 25% of his land is under water, another 25% is mixed
with mud, leaving 50% to 60% that is useable. Applying the agricultural
valuation of his property to the useable acreage is about double what he could
pay for a good farm in Iowa.
Assessor Hovet pointed out, as in past years, that Mr. Elwell has filed with
the District Tax Court where his problems will be resolved, adding that the
valuation of Mr. Elwell's property has been properly aligned.
Assessor Hovet read the following names into the record of people submitting
letters of objections to reserve their right to appeal to the County: Chrysler
Coporation, P.I.N. #27-118-22-13-0001; William and Richard Deziel, Hollydale
Golf, Inc., P.I.N. #08-118-22-31-0001 and 08-118-22-34-0005; John Spaeth.
P.I.N. #32-118-22-12-0091; and Mr. and Mrs. Hubert Henderson, P.I.N.
32-118-22-23-0058. He included Mr. and Mrs. William Christiansen, although
they did not submit their objection in writing.
Mayor Schneider closed the hearing at 8:53 p.m.
Mayor Schneider pointed out that by appearing at the meeting tonight these
residents have reserved their right to appeal any decision ultimately made by
the City. The Assessor's office will make their report to the Board of Review
at its meeting on June 2, 1986, at 7:30 p.m. A report will be made for each of
the parcels in question. At that time the Board will make a final decision
which can be appealed to the County Board of Equalization if the resident
disagrees.
The meeting was adjourned at 8:58 p.m.