HomeMy WebLinkAbout1972/06/19 - ADMIN - Minutes - City Council - RegularMinutes of
St. Louis
1 _ Call to Order
The recessed Board
reconvened at 6:45
2, Roll Call
Board of Review
Pari:, Minnesota
June 192 1972
of Review meeting of June 12, 1972
P. M.
The following Councilmen were
Frani: Fleetham
Lyle Hanks
James Heltzer
Leonard Thiel
Richard Graves (arrived at 6:50 P.M•)
Rose -Mary Grial; (arrived at 7 : 30 P. Y•1, )
present:
Also present were: Robert Locky,
Director of Finance/City Clerk.
3, Board of Review
City Assessor and Earl Hanson,
It was moved by Councilman Hanks, seconded by Councilman Fleetham,
that Councilman Thiel be appointed acting chairman of the Board
of Review. Motion carried unanimously.
Acting Chairman Thiel called the meeting to order and stated that
the Board of Review of the assessment district of St. Louis Park
was meeting for the purpose of reviewing and correcting the
assessments of the City for the year 1972.
4. Cases
The following cases came before the Board of Review and in each
case the complainant was info--med that the Board was meeting for
the purpose of reviewing and correcting the assessments for the
year 1972. Further, each complainant, or his representative,
was requested to state the nature of his complaint, and to submit
any information he had that would substantiate his claim,
173
i
G
Board of Review Meeting - June 19, 1972
Case No. 10
Name: Abraham Singer
Property: Real Estate
Location: 2821 Monterey
Plat 52295 Parcel 3500
Assessor's
1972
1970
1968
(house)
Parkway
Market Value -
$39,400
$36,900
$33,090
The assessor submitted photos and various comparable sales in
area to substantiate his valuation.
Mr. Singer submitted an appraisal report dated June 19, 1972
by Donald B. Anderson SRA (Resop Realty, Inc.). The appraisal
report estimated Market value to be $35,000, and also indicated
considerable physical deterioration of the property which was
correctible at a probable cost of $5/6,000. Report also con-
twined photos of subject property in addition to comparable
sales. However, the assessor contended the sales cited were
not in the immediate area, and therefore not fair comparables.
Mr. Singer also questioned whether consideration was given to
need of repair in arriving at market value and was informed by
the Assessor that adequate maintenance is presumed. He also
stated that the house was purchased in 1969 for $41,500 but
that a very favorable interest rate of 53�% on the assumed
mortgage was reflected in the purchase price.
Mr. Singer.was informed his case would be taken under advisement
by the Board and that he would be notified as to its recommen-
dation and conclusion in the matter.
Case No. 11
Name: Charles M. Fox (M/M Samuel Hector, representative)
Property: Real Estate (double bungalow)
Location: 3005/09 Blackstone Avenue
Plat 50820 Parcel 3000
Assessor's
1972
1970
1968
Market Value -
$28,700
$26,100
$27,720
The assessor submitted photos and comparable a
sales
io substantieW
stucco
ate his valuation, and described the property n8
of
construction and located near railroad tracks. Mr. Hector stated
174
Board of Review Meeting - June 19, 1972
Case No. 11 (Cont'd)
the property was purchased in 1963 for $23,700. Also stated
that it presently is in a bad state of repathat beinth gcked located
cco
and deteriorated foundation. Furthermore, g located
railroad tracks it is not readily saleable vnluehofe$28e700uldn't
sell the property for the estimated market
Mr. and Mrs. Rector,
would be taken under
be notified as to its
Case No. 12
representing Mr. Fox were informed the case
advisement by the Board and that they would
recommendation and conclusion in the matter.
Name: Alois W. Lampe
Property: Real Estate (office building)
Location: 3560 Aquila Circle
Plat 51233 Parcels 6000 and 6300
Mr. Lampe was also accompanied by Mrs. Lampe and David Lampe and
represented by Earl Dorn. The meeting was tape recorded by
David Lampe.
Assessor's Market Value -
Mr. Lampe
gave some
submitted
property
follows:
Parcel
6000
1972 $25,500
1970 $25,500
1968 $23,040
Parcel
6300
$249,500
$268,500
$231,570
cited the law relative to valuation of properties and
historical data relative to subject property, and
a number of reasons why he felt the valuation on his
was overstated by the. Assessor. Some of these were as
The building was primarily designed for one tenant,
Target stores Inc., and that he had entered into a
long-term lease (1962-1971) expiring November 15, 1971.
Target Stores Inc., vacated property in October 1969;
approximately 6600 sq. ft. of the 16,000 sqo ft*
previously leased by Target, was sublet to RC11 Co., in
March, 1970; Assessor's 1968 valuation was $254,600 and
increased $39,400 or approximately 15% in 1970 for a
total of $294,000, the increase not realistic in light
of the lease termination and conditions - occupancy
approximately 60/65% (statement submitted to Board)
175
30ard of Review Meeting - June 19, 1972
Case No. 12 (Cont'd)
Mr. Dorn, representing Lampe, submitted information relative to
the subject property after first establishing his qualifications,
some of it, together with Mr. Lampe I s, Was as follows:
Property is overvalued according to his appraisals many
factors affect the value including economic conditions
and over -supply of office space; also, that the building
was a one purpose structure designed for Target; discussion
of methods of valuation - income approach, cost less
depreciation, and market value by comparison, in Lampe's
case, income approach most important; further, that RCII
lease expired in March, 1972 and presently renting on a
month-to-month basis and have notified they will be
moving; RCM rent approximately $30,000 of total $48,000
for 1972; other lease expirations and vacancies could
reduce gross income substantially in 1973 compared with
1972; vacancies in 1973 could be as high as 74%; other
costs affecting income such as remodeling, painting, par=
titions, carpeting etc., should be considered;total
expenses approximately $30,000 per year; capitalizing net
income basis of evaluation should be approximately 10%-- 8%
interest and 2% depreciation or 7% and 3%; using this basis
estimated value of property Mould be $200,000 or somewhat
greater, depending on potential purchaser. Mr. Lampe
further questioned basis for determing values in previous
years. Assessor responded it was based on comparative
market sales, including management and operations of
other office buildings, with consideration for percent
of vacancies. Mr. Dorn indicated comparables not neces-
sarily applicable to this situation and that consideration
should be given to fair rate of return, and the economic
depreciation factor.
At conclusion of the meeting lir. Lampe requested minutes to shoe that
he would expect complete consideration be given to his case, and
unlike previous years where he had been labeled a "complainer" by
certain members of the Board of Review not presently serving.
5• Recess
At 8:20 P.M. the Board of Review meeting was recessed to 6:30 P.I.
June 21, 1972.
R( spectfully submi�ted,
r Ha -C
C4 ns
Carl
City Clerk
176
Fiti