Laserfiche WebLink
I <br />{ <br />MINUTKS OF Till: <br />ORONO I.OC'AI. BOARD OF APPKAI.S AND KQUAU/.ATION IVIKFTINC <br />Wednesday, April 21,2004 <br />7:00 o'clock p.m. <br />lie cxprcssetl his concern for being tuldilionully assessetl in Ihe fuUire for value already on the tax <br />stutenienl. Davy explained Ihe property would he assessed as partially completed according to Ihe <br />stage it is at on the January 2. 2004 assessment tiale. Mr. Walsh described Ihe cabin’s shell was <br />completed but had no electrical or phimbitig or interior walls completed. <br />Davy offered to review their property record to determine if the shell was valued, and reiterated the <br />assessors attempt to take a conservative look at initial construction for estimates of improvements, <br />especially if the building is just starting and property owners are not able to use it. <br />White asked for a purchase history from Mr. Walsh w ho indicated he purchased the property in 1997 <br />for less than 1/3 its current value. <br />Davy staled the assessors will also review the seasonal versus homestead residential status and <br />oifered to explain Ihe application proee.ss to Ihe Walshes, in addition to the property’s value. <br />Mr. Walsh indicated the property had previously beet: a eattipground. <br />Mayor Peterson confinned the assessor would cotaae: ‘he Walshes to follow-up on the questions <br />raised. <br />Davy advi.sed Ihe assessors will eonlael the Walshes and determine if there is a new' value, and if the <br />property owner is in agreement w ith Ihe value, then Ihe as.sessors will inform Ihe Board of Appeal on <br />its eonlinualion meeting, .set for May 10, 2004 with a recommendation for market value reduction. <br />If Ihe properly ow ners are not in agreement w ith Ihe asse.s.sors’ recommendation, they may further <br />appeal to Hennepin (’ounty. Mr. Walsh indiealeil he et>uld not attend Ihe May 10, 2004 meeting but <br />that Valerie Walsh will attend if nece.s.sary. <br />Mr. Walsh thanked the Board for their consideration. <br />Mayor Peterson asked the as.scssors if any property owner letters were receixed aiul should be added <br />tt> the rec»*id. Davy replied there were no letters received. <br />Mavt»r Peterson asked for rrther cmnments. <br />McMillan asked for information about the relationship between land value and the building on it. <br />Davy explained that the land is valued separately, aiul is com|nireil to bare land sales or land <br />indicators ol sales wah buildings and is compared to similar land values. <br />Muri>hy emnmenteil that there certainly continues to be a huge gap in understanding what MnIX)T <br />thinks a property is worth and what the community knows the property to Ik wonh. <br />White remarked. Irom his experience. .MnDO I seeks to apprai.se property it needs to acquire for road <br />projects at the low est property values m an attempt to keep road improvement projects le.ss costly. <br />Murphy stated that as a community activist he believes that as long as a state agency as lar *e as <br />MnlK)I artilicially dellates road construction costs with its lower appraisetl values] the real costs arc <br />not known, and if known, would have a negative impact on public approval of road projeets. <br />Fige 10 of 11