Laserfiche WebLink
r MINUTES OF THE <br />ORONO I.OCAE BOARD OF APPEAI.S AND EQUALIZATION MEETING <br />Wednesday, April 21,2004 <br />7:00 oVIock p.m. <br />ill selling the property but wanted to continue to live there. Mr. Adair concluded by requesting some <br />consideration for a reduction in value <br />Kunik confirmed the assessors would eall Mr. Adair to further discuss the valuation. <br />Mayor Peterson thanked Mr. Adair for his frank comments and concerns. <br />5) George and Mary Torkelson, 670 Tonkawa, PID ifOS-117-23 33-0009 <br />Mary Torkeison advised that last year they did not do an>lhing about the valuation increases because <br />of personal/lamily matters that were occurring then. Ms. Torkelson acknowledged that Jensen did <br />visit the property and the house value is as low as possible. George Torkelson asked why the <br />valuation is so high on a 50 ’ lot that has building restrictions. He stated they have lived in the house <br />since I9S8 but it is in need of substantial repairs. <br />Ms. Torkelson acknowledged she s|x>ke with Davy and conducted some realtor and Internet research <br />of neighboring property values. She presented information about the house ne.xt door that she <br />believed has been undervalued for many years. She slated that 100’ lakefronls or larger are worth <br />more per foot than a 50 ’ lakeshore lot. Next door to the Torkelsons is a lot that has 101-103 ’ of <br />lakeshore, and Ms. Torkelson reported that the value of the lot is S7.35(>.40/fool of lakeshore <br />compared to the Torkelson ’s at about $y,000/fool of lakeshore on a 50 ’ lot which she believed is not <br />us valuable as a 100’ lot. She referred to realtor comments about the restricting impacts of Orono <br />rules and regulations on smaller lots. Ms. Torkelson coneluded they are fighting the over 38% rise in <br />land value. <br />Ms. Torkelson advised that computer infonnation about the adjacent property is incorrect, noting that <br />the record indicates 1947 as the year of construction. There has been substantial remodeling and it is <br />now 4 5 times larger with huge decks and other site improvements. She repeated information she <br />received from the assessor that its estimated market value is $783.UO<) and the taxable market value is <br />S52I,2(M). She emphasized there is a difference in what can be built on a smaller 50* lot when <br />compared to a 100 ’ lot. She pointed out their position is that they should not be paying over $9,000/ <br />lakeshore front footage compared to about S7.000/lakeshore front footage. Mr. And Mrs. Torkelson <br />stressed the smaller lot is less valuable because the property owner is limited to what improvements <br />may be done on the property. <br />Murphy conveyed that the City Council has struggled with the 50 ’ lot situation with the lakeshore <br />setback requirement and side yard setbacks and ucknow ledged improvements on the 50 ’ lots arc <br />challenging. <br />White asked what was the last year ’s percentage increase on the Torkelson property. <br />Ms. Torkelson did not have the exact percentage and due to the poor condition of the house, they did <br />not express any comments about last year ’s increase. But with the huge, over 38%, increase for <br />2(X)5, they had to present their objection. Mr. Torkelson indicated they probably w ould have to sell <br />the property as the house has to have immediate work and does not know what they will be allowed <br />to do. <br />Page 7 of 11 <br />i