Committee Minutes

MINUTES/FINANCE-DEVELOPMENT STANDBY COMMITTEE
Tuesday, May 4, 2004 - 7:00 p.m.______________________________

Members present: Council Members Christensen, Glassheim, Hamerlik, Gershman (ex-officio) Also present were staff members: Mel Carsen, city assessor and John Herz, asst. city assessor.

2.1 Protest of Assessor's 2004 values:
2.1 a) Gary Lietzau, 815 Duke Drive #315
Mr. Lietzau distributed clipping from Minneapolis Tribune re. tax increases, that by increasing valuation and saying there is no mill levy increase, get same purpose done, and by increasing value on a house should consider people that are on retirement as stated in the article there were people who had to refinance to pay their increase in taxes; and sent letter to Mr. Carsen. He also stated there was an apartment building built close to Chateau Condos. and increase in traffic detracts from valuation of their property and apartment building built on high ground and with heavy rains could cause drainage problem for the Chateau, that drainage of the property was to be to the north to the Coulee but actually draining back to the south and into Chateau property - that he has been to Inspections a number of times and also to Planning Office and they can't seem to get it straightened out on drainage system and wrote letter hoping for adjustment in taxes.

Gershman stated the City is mandated by the State to revalue the properties and if we don't do it as a City, the State comes in and does it. Mr. Carsen stated that they have to value property within 5% of what the overall sales would indicate from last year's sales, that means 95% to 105% of value. He stated in the case of the Chateau Condos they had 11 sales during the year 2003 and they indicated they should have increased the Chateau Condos by 17% but overall the Condos seemed to show a 10% increase, so increased most of the Condos by 10%, including this unit, so value went from $52,400 to $57,700 and that he looked at this unit a couple weeks ago and while he thinks the sale strongly support about a $60,000 value, and in his opinion have nothing else to go on and have to go by sales, the concerns about the two apartments built to the north, two vacant lots for long time and were intended to be occupied by similar condo. units and that the lots went for non-payment of taxes and now owned by Valley City group and they built two new buildings, that the elevation of those buildings determined by the rules and regulations that FEMA put out, it probably does cause problem to the Chateau Condos. because the water is going to drain into the draining system. He stated they have sales as recent as two weeks ago that support their value, that have to go by the market; and market would indicate a value of about $60,000 for this unit and currently have valued at $57,700 and felt that is right value, but they may well have some concerns with the neighbors to the north - water issues and traffic. In answer to Mr. Lietzau's question, Mr. Carsen stated they study sales each year and that the sales that took place in the year 2002 indicated they were assessing Chateau Condos. a little bit too high and reduced the value by 5% for 2003, and then when looking at 2003 sales , it indicated they should increase them - look at sales every year.

Glassheim stated he would like to remember the matter of the drainage, not in terms of valuation, but had one in his ward too and apparently Inspections has no authority to mandate a drainage plan that protects existing homeowners and thinks city council needs to look at it, doesn't sound good, and there should be some ability by Inspections to require protection of existing properties - not in terms of valuation as don't have reason it is going to change anything at this point.

Mr. Lietzau also reported there is a security lighting problem as they have a light coming off the apartment building that shoots straight out and shines in his living room window, that it does have a hood on it to deflect the light - that Inspections stated they have run into that problem before and through agreement between the builders, owners, neighbors was adjusted, but nothing seems to get adjusted there - doesn't understand why the City doesn't have any control over it. Hamerlik stated that is what Glassheim was alluding to, need to get handle on that and figure out what ordinance needs to be so they can do what you consider a more efficient job but our hands are tied now because of lack of regulation.

Christensen stated we have to stay focused on issue at hand, whether or not value is too high or wrong for various reasons, however, we have had a problem with that building site since they started construction, and have four council members here and your message has been heard on drainage issue, etc. and if cause damage to Condominium site, the Assn. has right to seek an injunction because they have constructed a nuisance and to tell president of Assn. and as far as the light is concerned, again that is probably a nuisance and if have nuisance ordinance to deal with that.

It was moved by Glassheim to uphold the assessor's value of $57,700, seconded by Gershman. Motion carried.

2.1 b) James Fish, 112 Chestnut Street.
John Herz, asst. city assessor, reported that Mr. Fish was unable to attend this meeting and didn't indicate that he was agreeable with the value or disagreed.

Glassheim stated that Mr. Fish listed a number of individuals in his neighborhood whose properties are significantly less than his and if we have readings of other values in the 100 block of Chestnut. Mr. Herz stated he has information that states the values that he is referring to are the 2003 values and not 2004 that he is protesting; and for comparison determined that his house is much larger than any of the houses he referred to; total living area in his house is 2009 sq.ft. whereas the house at 102 Chestnut is 1592 sq.ft. and have that valued at $53.14 sq. ft. and Mr. Fish' house is valued at $51.77, and all received the same index as Mr. Fish. Mr. Herz stated the effective age is what the house is based on updates made to the property (siding, window inserts, updating carpeting, new roof, enlarged the garage and resided it) and all of those things remove age based on remodeling, etc. that he has done to the house.

It was moved by Hamerlik and seconded by to uphold the assessor's value on this property at $104,000; seconded by Gershman.

Glassheim stated he felt value had gone up very quickly from $83,000 and now $104,000 and asked how much of the new construction makes that up. Mr. Herz stated the main difference is the index, increase in inflation. Christensen stated this is a 25% increase in 3 years and there has not been an inflation, CPI or otherwise in that 3 years and that is what is troubling citizens. Mr. Herz stated that part of that increase is due to a 9x18' addition to the garage in 2002 (they missed date for exemption); and that when you look to comparable sales, they would indicate that the value would be there and a fair value.

Upon call for the question the motion tied - Gershman and Hamerlik voting for the motion
and Glassheim and Christensen voting against the motion.

Glassheim moved that we change the value to $101,000. Hamerlik stated he wouldn't second the motion but would like justification for reduction; and if questioning one mathematical formula that is put in with a model we are using for everybody, need to have it for this one too.

Glassheim stated that the rapid increase from 2001 of $83,000 to $104,000 for 2004 seems too high, that he is still not clear on the price per sq.ft.; Mr. Carsen stated that was 1,000 on each floor and that rate is for both floors and almost $60.00 per sq.ft. floor. Glassheim stated that some of the others were $53.00 or $51.00 per sq.ft. and the effective age but seems not arbitrary but whether effective age is 1953 or 1946, and seems there's some in terms of physical depreciation of the home is room for little wiggle room for how it should be valued. Mr. Herz stated the total value per sq.ft. works out to be $53.31 for the 2,000 sq.ft.

Gershman stated the problem they have is prices are driven up by the market and that we lost 800 homes in the flood and the housing is being bid up; and important to get more affordable housing stock and values are driven by market of comparable sales.

Glassheim moved to support the assessor's valuation of $104,000. Hamerlik seconded the motion. Motion carried.

2.1 c) Dean Kuznia, 5753 Cypress Point Drive
Mr. Kuznia reported he built a new house last year in Deacon's Green area, and through that process has now had two appraisals, one during construction process and one by the city appraiser - the only part between the numbers in the previous appraisal and the appraisal done by the City is that he disputes is the value of the lot. He stated he purchased his lot for about $44,000 and the City is now telling him that his lot because a little larger than the other lots is now worth about $20,000 more than that and when he looks at comparable sale of the house they use, which was within the same lots, that were sold for the same price is about $17,000 less than his lot, and realizing that his lot is a little larger but when other lots sold, his lot was sold at the same price as all the other lots, and his question is if someone comes out to do an appraisal, why aren't they looking at the comparable sales rather than relying on an average of how much frontage he would have.

Mr. Herz stated Mr. Kuznia's frontage is 119.67 ft. with an average depth of 148.93 ft. and that they use front footage and adjust for depth over and above or below 140 ft. of depth - that 140 ft. of depth is considered 100% of value per front foot. He noted that the comp. sale is 95' of frontage by 130 ft. in depth, that he doesn't know what they are selling for today but what they used was the 2003 sales to determine what they were going to use for 2004, and the $44,000 that he paid was for the lot plus he assumed $10,700 in unpaid special assessments and have to value the property as if it is free and clear of all encumbrances, and value of the lot is $54,796.00. Mr. Kuznia stated all the lots were sold with specials on them.

Christensen stated that if this gentleman bought his lot for $44,000 and lots sold at same price, and willing buyer and willing seller it is true market value, so Mr. Kuznia is willing to go with appraisal but should factor in what he paid for the lot in 2003 and nothing in that lot that escapes him - if these lots on the market and people willing to buy and willing to sell and Mr. Kuznia made an offer and doesn’t appear it was a bargain sale, no extenuating circumstances and should honor the integrity of the deal.

Gershman asked what would be the impact on the other properties. Mr. Herz stated he doesn't know what the impact would be by reducing Mr. Kuznia's but what they would do is if going to reduce Mr. Kuznia's to his sale price, then do they increase the other ones that sold for more than what they have them assessed at because when they look at the lot sales out there, it would be great if they knew of every sale price that happened and assess it based on sale prices, but when look at 14,000 properties it is impossible to look at sale prices, but have to establish some sort of a common denominator and here they use the front foot price, in 2002 those lots were selling at an average of $500 front foot, and in 2003 they were selling for $547 front foot or $562 as median price, which is 6 or 7% above what they were selling for in 2002 and to be fair assessed those lots at $500 front foot would be treating everybody with a common denominator and with the index also be treating them with a common denominator trying to maintain equity which is also what they are responsible for doing. Christensen stated that this is an appeal process and Mr. Kuznia is suggesting that he feels that the appraisal doesn't represent the market and he is giving evidence as to what he actually paid for it within the last 9 to 12 months. Mr. Kuznia stated this are 2003 prices, and that his lot is little bit bigger but that the sales price was not priced any different than the other lots, and unfair for them to apply an average.

Glassheim asked if all the other houses are figured adding in the specials - they are. Mr. Carsen stated that special assessments have always been included in the valuation; and asked Mr. Kuznia that it includes in his appraisal that he had the house built for $241,000 or plus and if that included the lot. Mr. Kuznia stated that was the contractor's price and included the lot - he stated that the contractor subtracted the $44,000 off the $241,000.

Hamerlik stated that appraisals were to be based on market value and his question is that he is hearing that the prices for all the lots were same even though his lot was bigger and when it came time for an appraisal , the City used the larger lot and multiplied that out and that is why there is an increase in the value of the lot based on the way the City did it by the footage not the selling process, it wasn't used and that is the protest. Mr. Kuznia stated they used an average and applied his lot which would increase the value substantially yet the actual sale price was substantially less.

Glassheim asked if there was an increase in this or if this is the first time this has been assessed. Mr. Carsen stated this is the first year and it is a value as of February 1, 2004 and there may well be some inflation between May of 2003 - he stated they do in some cases consider excess frontage when lots are bigger than typical they give excess frontage and value the portion over that frontage at half value - that in this area they have not considered any excess frontage on any of the lots, and this is one of the bigger lots of the interior lots and they struggled with that, whether they should be granting excess frontage to this lot, and if they were to do that and if the 100 ft. lot was more standard that would mean a reduction of about $5,000 and that would be valuing the area over 100 ft. of frontage at half value - that is not significant but it would be treating him a little different then, that they do have a few other interior lots that are slightly over 100 ft. also.

Hamerlik stated if that were the policy then in the future the rest of those would be afforded that same opportunity. Mr. Carsen stated that would be the fair thing to do - that they always consider excess frontage but that varies by neighborhood, in the older part of town 50 ft. is standard and if a lot is 75 ft. that additional 25 ft. gets excess frontage; in a new area of town the standard is more typically 100 ft. and if 120 ft. then give excess frontage to the 20 ft., and vary that depending on what is typical in the neighborhood, have not granted any excess frontage in this neighborhood, figured it wasn’t warranted but could be wrong.
Mr. Herz stated the sale price was $44,000 and he assumed $10,796 in special assessments and sale price would indicate $54,796.00, and assessor valuing it at $63,400. Gershman stated it has increased in value $9,000 since Mr. Kuznia purchased the property. Mr. Herz stated there is $11,000 difference and that comes from is they established the front foot price and applied that against all of the lots out there, and same way that they handle the index price on any neighborhood - all the houses don't sell 7 or 8% below what they have them assessed at but on an overall basis the median sale price is 7% less and treated these lots the same way, the sale price per front foot ranged from about $425 front foot on up to $587 front foot, and they used $500 front foot as a common front foot price for 2002 and for 2003 the sale prices were 5% higher so for the value for 2004 they indexed all the lots a plus 5%.

Gershman moved to value the property at $57,535 (that he took the price of the lot and added the special assessments and added 5% for the year and came up with $57,535 for the lot); Glassheim seconded the motion.

Hamerlik stated the motion reduces the total amount based on the lot by $5,865. Mr. Carsen stated he would like to have the values stated in even hundred dollars; and Gershman agreed to value the property at $57,500. Christensen stated the motion is to reduce the value of Mr. Kuznia's assessment by reducing the value of the land by $5,900 making it $263,900 to $57,500 and uphold the assessor's appraisal process . Motion carried.

2.1 d) Larry Lovseth, 5803 Pinehurst Drive
Larry and Mary K. Askim-Lovseth reported that they live two doors down from Mr. Kuznia; that they filed protest at Board of Equalization meeting, that the cost to build their home was $333,000 and that they feel that is the market and have been in that home for 3 months, that Mr. Herz came up with a value of $353,000 or an increase of $20,000. He stated they had their home appraised at $338,000 and on the market appraisals are done with two-story homes and one-story homes, the City is only comparing to a one-story home; and in their appraisal it says that homes sell for 96% of asking price, and their argument would be on the home comparison, and if take 96% of those $300,000 homes, take about 4% off or approx. $12,000, and for 2003 everyone of those homes City was taxing at a lower value than what they actually would sell for.

There was some discussion re. comparison homes provided by Mr. Lovseth, and their complaint is that the City is assessing them at $20,000 more than what they have into the home, that in 3 months their home can't go up $20,000, and that none of the lots next to theirs has sold yet, they bought their lot in June of 2003 and that is an indication that the market isn't as strong as some people say it is. He stated that assessing is using an approach of $347,000 and that Mr. Carsen stated at the last meeting that the tax base was averaging 95.8% to actual value of sales, and in his case they are coming in way over 100% of sales; and assessing comparing them to 3 one-story homes with comparable sq. footage and if look at indicated value, assessing is saying the market approach is going to be $381,000 for his home; and his complaint would be is if he said he uses somewhere in between the cost and the market approach for this year if you don't make any changes , and their biggest concern is what happens next year, they paid $333,000 for this home and City is going to assess it at $381,000 and that home has not gone up $47,000 or $48,000 in one year and they feel they are being discriminated against based on the history - that the tax base is always less than the sales price and in their instance it is the opposite and would like an explanation.

Mr. Carsen stated that for 2004 they had the value at $353,600 and a new appraisal that Mr. Herz did a couple weeks ago indicated a value of $347,800 by the cost approach and that is his recommendation; the market approach which is not being used to value the property but stated that the value based on the market approach is $381,000 and that is what similar homes are selling for and when you make comparable sales, you don't use two-stories to value one-story house but use one-story house. Hamerlik stated that if we continue talking about the market approach but really being based upon the cost approach, there is big difference in how it is being assessed.

There was further discussion relative to comparable houses - and Mr. Carsen went to his office to pick up additional info. re. comparable houses and reviewed with committee.
He stated they do a cost approach on every house and that is based on typical costs and pricing system, each house is graded separately. He stated that after doing all of their adjustments their assessments should test out at about 95.-%.

Mr. Lovseth stated to the Board is that they paid $333,000 for their house before the basement is complete and he has taken off $20,000 as they just started that and will be assessed next year, and based on sales of comparable homes recommendation is that they paid $333,000, add in specials of $11,000, is $343,000 and take 95.8% of that, coming up with $330,000 as tax base, and cost is the market. Mr. Carsen stated that when you build a home unless it is worth more than when you are done, you should not have built it, because there is time, energy and planning involved in building a home that is not put into the calculation so absolute cost is not truly the value of the building, and feels $381,000 and their actual recommendation is $347,000+ and that is $35,000 less than what the market would say and more than the 5%.

After further discussion it was moved by Glassheim and seconded by Gershman that the value be reduced from $353,600 to $347,800 for the year 2004. Motion carried.

2.1 e) Suellen Bateman, Unplatted Parts #3117.192.02
It was moved by Gershman and Glassheim to uphold the assessor's value of $5,000. Motion carried.

2.1 h) Lloyd Holy, 5101 Gateway Drive
Mr. Holy stated his building is on Gateway Drive and presented photo of the building, and is on south side of the lot, purchased building 3 years ago, and listed advantages and disadvantages of his property. He stated the biggest issue is in the shop where the cement floor is not tapered and need sloped drain and he has not been able to figure out how to remodel; he noted cement outside the building is not tapered and water doesn't run off. He stated that water comes off their roof into the parts area inside the building, photo showing water in front of a 30 ft. overhead door, east lunchroom and only heated portion of the building when purchased, and only entrance into back lot is through a cut on the curb and needs cut on curb on the west side of the lot. Christensen stated he has some issues here but that report tells them he paid $965,000 for the property, and talking fair market value and willing buyer and willing seller; assessing hasn't really raised assessed value by much of any; they are issues you have to do to make your building get in the state you would like it to be but doesn't know if they have any issue on the fair market value of the building in light of the fact that you paid for it. He stated it doesn't show us why the value should be reduced, obsolescence hasn't been taken into consideration but have to have more than just his opinion, have to have some facts to help you.

Mr. Holy stated he is in desperate need for a warehouse and impossible to build onto this building with the existing conditions that are there, is within 20 ft. of street in one area and can only put a 40 ft. wide addition in other area, and doesn't know what his future is on this building; thinks the building is beautiful but back lot is a disaster (mud, gravel, etc.); and that he has to be competitive in the marketplace, has a competitor in town and their market value on 81 North is $500,000 and his understanding it is being revalued to $669,000.

Mr. Carsen stated his Exhibit A compares those two buildings, both reappraised for the year 2004, John Deere Equipment went down a little bit in value, Reiten Young went up from $500,000 to $669,000, they are about the same size building but Reiten Young's original building built in 1953 and is 50 years old, has been resided and two additions that not very functional, business is somewhat different, Reiten Young does more truck repair and probably less implement sales and repair, do both and large part of their shop is truck repair business, that he has made the comparison of the buildings - starting point on Forks Equipment is $39.52sq.ft. which is cost and Reiten Young is $32.02 and building value on Forks Equipment is $726,900 (building and yard improvements) and Reiten Young is $454,300, land size almost identification and made up of two parcels and land value is within $20,000 and N.Washington worth a little less than the Gateway Drive property and total for Forks Equipment is $964,100 and Reiten Young $669,200. He also presented values for the building from 1998 through 2004; and has been fairly steady but little downward.

Mr. Holy stated going into values Reiten Young was valued at $500,000 and he was valued at $977,000 and he is valued at double the amount of his competitor and now have reassessed them to $669,000 but 50% higher value than they are with their new assessment.

Mr. Carsen stated that he looks more at competitive buildings, what they are used for is immaterial; that he has included two sales, one in Jamestown and one in Wahpeton, which took place in 2001 and differences between these and Forks Equipment - both buildings older and less functional, and found another sale in Mandan and that also supports his value.

Mr. Carsen stated there is more office space in John Deere Equipment than Reiten Young and bigger sales area and carries higher rate than the shop, Forks Equipment is a taller building and maybe excessively tall and that is why gave the 5% functional because of excessive height, and difference in quality and more office space, more sales area. Christensen asked what new construction value if didn't include excessive height. Mr. Carsen stated there is some benefit in that in the 28 ft. high building there is an office area with loft over the top used for storage, and in determining the 5% functional, he priced at 24 ft. building vs. 28 ft. building and difference came out to be 5%.

Glassheim asked if the items listed as disadvantage, would they be considered a decline of function as overhead doors only 16 ft., and not tapered for draining, etc. and be a functional problem or not considered. Mr. Carsen stated he had not deducted for that except 40% physical depreciation plus 5% functional, and how big a problem those are he didn't know.

GERSHMAN EXCUSED.

Mr. Holy stated Mr. Carsen made comparison to Jamestown and would rather stay in town, that Jamestown has got a 50,000 sq.ft. building and he has 30,000 and out of comparison, Jamestown has 12 acres of land and he has 6.8 and that Jamestown isn't a fair comparison.
He stated that even with raising his taxes, he is still running 50% higher value than local competitor. Hamerlik stated because of some of the problems out there, that building may not be worth as much and would like to look at the value.

Mr. Holy stated he wasn't asking for anything totally unreasonable, not asking for a true value of $500,000 but thinks there could be some compromise there and thinks % could be compromised at, and went into the year with 100% more value with 100% more taxes and going with their changes and 50% higher and still can't justify that. Hamerlik stated they are trying to do is not take a stab at a percentage and say that is it, trying to arrive at some justification on which to make our judgment on.

Christensen asked Mr. Carsen if they could figure out cost to build the back part of that building and exclude from the cost the additional steel so dealing with one level each.
Glassheim stated it looks that rather than the whole 100'x200' but if reduced to 20 ft. high because 18 ft. door and not sure whether whole 20,000 sq.ft. down to 20 ft. rather than 28 ft. or simply the shop area. Christensen stated they have some shop and offices in there and above offices have mezzanine for storage, and that is an improvement; but if Mr. Carsen were to do what they ask would have a fairly good basis for comparison at 18 ft. or 20 ft., if 18 ft. door then 20 ft. and Mr. Carsen to go 20 ft. and figure that. Christensen stated they would adjourn until get a little better data.

2.1 f) Dudley Benson, 1609 2nd Avenue North
Mr. Benson stated in going through property assessments in year 2001 had increase in home value of $4700 and neighbor across the alley had her house increased $200 and everybody else in neighborhood had from $900 to $3700 decrease. He stated he made comparison to various properties and asked if properties on a corner lot are assessed at a higher rate than others; assessed the same.

Glassheim asked if there were any improvements to the property; Mr. Benson stated that in 1990 had an electrical fire and rebuilt house on the same foundation, and feels their house should be put back in line with everybody else in the neighborhood; that he is living on a fixed income and difficult to get by. Christensen stated the increase was from $99,000 to $101,900 and increase of $2,900. Mr. Herz stated the reason for the change is if go back to years 1998, 1999, 2000 and 2001, they were still carrying flood damage on many properties and as they were repairing them, adding to the values; that Mr. Benson's property carried flood damage in the amount of $6500 or $6700, and when his basement was restored, value was restored and that is the year when his value increased; that the neighborhood on an overall basis got a 2 or 3% downward adjustment and that adjustment was also applied to the main part of his property but then when added back the loss that they had reduced it in 1997 after the flood, he actually ended with a small increase, and that is reason for adjustment.

Mr. Herz stated for the year 1997 and for 1998 restored that value for the furnace but didn't have chance to get back to find out if all the properties had their basements repaired, and had carried a lower value on Mr. Benson's house for 1999, 2000 and in 2001 after the basement was restored then restored the value; have to look at what properties are selling for and when look at what selling for in that area, and if look at reports they are giving Mr. Benson every possible deduction and reduction that they could have, and the No. 1 comparable house recently sold in March of 2003 for $125,000, and in 2002 they had also made a comparison for Mr. Benson because of a letter he wrote to the mayor asking for some consideration as far as valuation is concerned, and can see what has happened in that neighborhood in those two years, and if look at what houses are selling for and what Mr. Benson is assessed at can't see where there is an adjustment justified, that they have reflected the difference in effective age because he built a new house on an existing foundation and reflected the condition of the property, as he has some sheet rock ceiling in the basement of his house that is saturated with water because of the laundry on main floor overflowed and tried to reflect that value and also has a little uneven part of the flood in the main house and reflected that adjustment, and have reflected everything that they could possibly do in an effort to treat Mr. Benson fairly.

Glassheim stated there has been a constant increase and from 1998 up $6500, then up $2900 and $4700 and $2700, then $5600 and if this represents capturing some of the improvements or a general increase - thinks he has gone up faster than some of the other houses in the neighborhood but a constant increase every year for the past five years. Mr. Herz stated this is one of the newer houses in the area, and the size of Mr. Benson's house and what it is valued at and what it should sell for there is probably the highest demand in the market in Grand Forks and other sales that we could use that would justify it higher than what assessing it at. He also noted that Mr. Benson has not received anything different other than the repair for the flood damage than any other property out there.

It was moved by Hamerlik and seconded by Christensen to uphold the city assessor's value of $101,900.00. Motion carried; Glassheim voted against the motion.

Mr. Carsen stated he has looked at the senior citizen tax credit for Mr. Benson and his income is above the limits, the limits are very low and there is no other exemption that he knows of that Mr. Benson would qualify for, there is no exemption and no credit. The committee asked Mr. Benson to stay in touch with assessing.

2.1 h) Lloyd Holy, 5101 Gateway Drive.
Mr. Carsen stated that the change in the back building from 28 ft. to 20 ft. changes the cost down to $36.08 on an overall basis and using a 40% depreciation as indicated earlier and without any functional at this point, the value would be $702,600 on the building and yard improvements, that value was $728,900, and has figured what a 5% functional would be and that's a negative $32,400 and if chose to price at a 20 ft. building and give it a 5% function, would have $702,600 minus $32,400, which is $670,200 plus the land which is $235,200 for a total of $905,400.

It was moved by Hamerlik that based on information from the city assessor to reduce the assessed value from $964,100 to $905,400, and seconded by Glassheim. Motion carried.

2.1 g) Craig Engel, 2215 Fallcreek Court.
Mr. Carsen reported that Mr. Engel had withdrawn his protest in lieu of application for 3-year remodeling exemption.

ADJOURN

It was moved by Council Member Hamerlik and Glassheim to adjourn. Motion carried.
Meeting adjourned at 7:30 p.m.

Alice Fontaine, City Clerk