|
.. WINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE )DINA BOARD OF REVIEW
<br />HELD TUESDAY, JUNE 5, 1979, .- AT 4:OO P.M. , AT EDINA ClTY HALL
<br />-*
<br />Answering rollcall were members Courtney, Richards, Schmidt and Mayor Van ‘ .
<br />Vdkenburg who served as Board of Review, which meeting convened pursuant to
<br />and posted on City Bulletin Boards on April 30, 1079. Mayor Van Valkenburg
<br />stated that the purpose of fhis meeting was to give persons who consider- .
<br />themselves aggrieved by their property assessbent, or who wish to complain
<br />that the property of another is assessed Qbo low, an opportunity to show cause
<br />for having their assessment corrected. Mr. Johnson, City Assessor, explained
<br />that on single family homes the increases range from 15% to 35% and that on
<br />other types of property the increases vary to quite a degree ar,d that valuation
<br />is based on recent sales for like property.
<br />at this meeting by law keeps open the right of appeal before the County Board
<br />of Review, .and could then be appealed to the State Board of Review. Mr. Johnson
<br />also advised of other methods of appeal.
<br />Nr. Arthur Buffington appeared on behalf of his wife, owner of a vacant lot at
<br />6900 Dakota Trail. He objected to the market value of $17,800 because the lot
<br />is very steep; that they had tried to sell the lot but had been unsuccessful
<br />because of the taxes on the property, and that the realtor had advised them to
<br />take any offer they could’get.
<br />been unchanged €or three years.
<br />Notice of Board of Review 3Ieeting” publsshed in the Edina Sun on Nay 2, 1979,” I1
<br />-I
<br />He further stated that- appearance
<br />Mr. Johnson advised that the market value has
<br />Mr. Donald Zerger, 5525 Malibu Drive, objected to the market value for his
<br />home of $128,400 and questioned his ratio of 96% inasmuch as his neighbors-
<br />who purchase their homes at approximately the same time were assessed using
<br />lower ratios. He further stated he had the smallest house and lot, that there
<br />was no landscaping, and that he felt the market value should 3e $117,925.
<br />. .
<br />1-fr. Lawrence E. Erickson, 5300 Hollywood Road, objected to the market value of
<br />$84,000 and stated he felt an increase of $10,900 in a year on an 28-year
<br />year old home seemed excessive. He stated he did not know what value he would
<br />pface on tge property.
<br />minimum azrount of increase for any single family dwelling.
<br />Xr. Johnson advised that the increase wzk 14.9%, the
<br />..- Xr’. Robert,D. Hill, 52G4 Richwood Drive, objected to the market value of .
<br />$69,800 on his home and stated he felt the value should be $57,000 when
<br />conparing his house with the neighborhood. He referred to tha poor design
<br />of the house znd the cold and damp conditions which exist in the basement,
<br />as outlined in his letter.
<br />Hr. Theodore Kane, representing Edina Masonic Lodge No. 343, stated that the
<br />value of a,tract of land owned by the Lodge, located at the ET4 corner
<br />of Gleason Road and Crosstown Highway, is substantially overstated at $22,200
<br />for the reascn that the lot is-landlocked with no access to it and attempts ‘
<br />to sell the property have been unsuccessful because of this factor. Masonic ‘
<br />Lodge No. 343 is asking for a reduction in market value but could nake no
<br />estimate of value for the property.
<br />Hr. %’alter Baker, representing the 7500 York Avenue Cooperative, skated that
<br />he was appearing before the Board of Review to preserve the right of appeal .
<br />inasnuch as they had just received vaulations for the 338 units and had not
<br />had an Opportunity to go over the data with Nr. Johnson. €le also stated that
<br />on January 2, 1979, the property vas still ur,der construction and was just .
<br />recently completed for occupancy. Mr. Johnson advised that the total estim9ted
<br />market value for the 338 units was approximately $17,891,900 and tbatrhe
<br />would work with Nr. Baker in reviewing values for the individual units.
<br />Ek. Edward H. Palrrter, osmer of a 264 unit apartment building at 7201 Pork Ave.,
<br />appeared before tlie Board to preserve his right oE sppeal based on tlie fac; ,
<br />that construction has not been completed on the propirty and initial occupancy
<br />on six of the floors Iind been granted only three weeks ago hy the City Builhing
<br />Department. He advised that thz building would produce no incone Enti1 units
<br />were ready for occupancy. Nr. Johnson advised that the market val.rre was
<br />estimated st $6,480,000, partially completed as of January 2, 1979. I
<br />-.
<br />I *, I
<br />I
|