Call to order. Welcome to the April 17, 2025 local board of appeal and equalization meeting. I hereby call the meeting to order. Members of the public may attend this meeting in person or may watch and listen remotely by viewing the meeting on channel 8 WCTV and the city's website at weisetta.orgwv. The city manager will provide more details shortly, but please note that appeals may be provided in person here by filling out an information card or by logging into the team's call and raising your hand during the hearing and indicating that you would like to appeal. When your name is called in the meeting, you will be seen and heard in our council chambers and the cable channel. You will be asked to unmute and then you begin your comment for three minutes. Please make sure your camera is on and all appeals must include your full name and address. Next on our agenda is our roll call. Let the record note that all members of the board are present uh this evening. And now we'll move on to uh the agenda which is to consider the appeals. And we'll start with some background with the city manager and from the county. Thank you, Mr. Mayor, and good evening, council members. Long time no see. Uh so I'm just going to provide a uh just a brief background on the process and just uh taxes in general and why we're doing what we're doing. And then we're going to have a brief summary of uh Henipin County data uh as it pertains to Weisetta from our Henipin County assessors and then uh go over a little bit more about the process tonight and then we'll get into the nitty-gritty which is um reviewing the uh three different types of appeals for your consideration tonight. and then obviously have some time to take any public u commentary and appeals as well. So first and foremost I just want to do a high level uh kind of why we're here. Um ultimately as we all know government government receives revenue to operate its services with three major buckets that's sales tax, income tax and property tax. Uh our meaning municipality's main source of income is through property taxes. So, how do we figure out how much revenue is generated from property tax taxes? There's two big processes throughout the year that um uh really answer that question. One is at the end of the year when the taxation rate is approved uh which is based on the city county school district's budget that we approve a levy and the other process is the valuation process uh annually updating each property based on market value ultimately determines the share of what property owners need to pay. Each of these process involves public meetings. Obviously, there's the the truth and taxation meeting at uh at the end of the year when the budget's approved and um at the when the valuations are considered and approved. That's this process in the spring. Uh each of these processes involve public uh notices. Uh there's a public hearing for when the budget's approved later in the year. And uh for this process uh valuations are mailed to each property owner um by a specific date in and every property owner in the community and they are made aware of this specific hearing to appeal contact the county and uh you know petition their property taxes and their valuation um if they disagree with it. Uh so I'll stop there. Uh any questions regarding process at all? No. Um for this part of uh the the valuation process, this part of you know revenue generating uh the city contracts with Henipin County to provide all residential and commercial appraising services. And tonight we have uh commercial appraiser appraiser Melody Divine and residential appraisers Shane Larson and Mike Smeiran. um they are the ones that are that really um work with Weisetta property owners and uh will be the main speakers tonight. Um and real quick just in terms of what we saw this past year in Weisetta, you can see compared to previous years, the the valuation increases are down significantly. Uh residential still pretty robust compared to other parts of the county at 6.5. Um, and then you can see this this was in the packet. So, if anybody is listening or watching at home, uh, can't see it. Um, it kind of shows the the trends of how increases are generally more towards the western half of the county in the in the the more rural areas. Maybe I'll pause there to see if um, Mr. Larson Smeiran or uh, Ms. uh, Divine had any comments about just overall what you saw this year. Uh yeah, overall the the uh growth uh in total the net increase was about 5% for the city. Uh single family properties uh increased about 7 12%. Um residential condos 3.4%, town homes 7.4%. Uh, duplex triplexes 7.3% and twin homes 5.7%. So, um, pretty even amongst the different property types. And I can talk about the commercial markets. Um, our commercial team does the apartments, the commercial, and then industrial. As far as industrial, you guys only have one non-exempt industrial property and that was flat for the 2025 assessment over the 2024 value. um apartments, the gross growth on apartments, there's 33 parcels that are included in the apartment analysis and the gross growth gross growth was 2.5% um net growth of 1.9% which doesn't include improvement value which was $1,525,000. For the commercial properties, we have 131 parcels that we value. The gross growth on those was 3.5%. And um the net growth was 1% which in that's without the improvement value of 14,890,000. So um to break down some of the specifics, the most parcels on the commercial side are office. We have 53 office parcels and our um gross growth on that was 6% and a net growth which is um without the improvement value was 1.8%. The other um largest contributing category would be retail. We have 32 parcels that are retail. We had a negative 2% um or 20 negative two yeah negative.2% um growth on that. So, it was a little bit of a decline, rather stable. And um that's it. Any questions, mayor and councel? Uh what's on your screen is summarizes basically what uh uh Miss Divine and Mr. Larson had uh kind of given questions from the board. No. Great. Moving right along. Uh in terms of the process tonight and how we got here, um ultimately as I referred to below uh before, um valuation notices were sent out. They must be sent out at least 10 days prior to uh this hearing. Um for us this year, they were sent out March 14th, so almost a month ago. So allowing a lot of time for residents to contact the county. that might be a uh one of the reasons why we've had less kind of appeals make its way through the hearing. Um and then ultimately evaluation or classification changes during the 10day period prior to the local board of uh local board requires hearing action. So you'll see as we go through the spreadsheet that a lot of the appeals have already been uh discussed and agreed upon. Um but because they were made within the last 10 days, they still need to be um uh action need to be taken on them tonight. So when it comes down to tonight, um you'll go through the pro the the list that we'll we'll get to in a minute or so. Um ultimately we'll ask uh folks in the audience and also folks um on uh teams both residential and commercial if they would like to um appeal their property valuation. And ultimately, if there's um both a high amount of appeals and ones that maybe are just missing a little bit of information that if we had a couple more weeks, we could hold a re reconvene session and uh make a determination on the value at that point. But because of the circumstance of we don't have a lot of um appeals that are still kind of disagreed upon and we only have a few people here tonight. Um I would strongly suggest that I think we can handle all the business tonight. We do not need to have a reconvene session, but we can cross that bridge uh when we get to it uh in you know a little bit of time here. So, real quick, you'll notice the spreadsheet itself. In summary, there's a lot of information, but there's three types of statuses of appeal. One is the appeals that were received after the 10-day period. Uh the assessors and the property owners have discussed uh the valuation and there's an agreement upon the value. The next is there uh that same process happened with the county and the property owner. Um however, there were no agreement on the value. Lastly, uh there's also some appeals on that list that either they just were received and we hadn't had a chance to um go out and and do our due diligence or um you know, we couldn't get in contact with them or some other communication challenge. So, those are the three types of appeals and those are the ones that, you know, ultimately we're going to be going through them all, but the um the last two are the ones that there will be discussion on more specifically tonight. Uh and uh before we get into that, um well, no, I can just Hey, Jeeoff, before you get to the list, I just have a statement I'd like to read. Yeah. And this is for our residents and property owners either here or watching this later or on teams. But we recognize that property valuation and taxes are a significant matter for our residents and commercial property owners. Weisetta property values are substantial. The total estimated market value of Weisetta property for 2025 is approximately 3.6 billion. High property uh tax values can be beneficial particularly when you're selling property. But however, in our state's property tax system, which relies on a PR rata share, significant increases in property value, combined with the spending decisions of various local government entities, including the city of Weisetta, can lead to considerable impacts on individual property tax bills. We understand that participating in a formal hearing process, especially one being recorded, may be unfamiliar or cause apprehension. Our board is committed to conducting this hearing respectfully and fairly, adhering to the established rules and procedures while also ensuring a welcoming environment for discussion. And with that, I'll turn it back over to the city manager. Thank you, mayor. Well said. Um, and actually, my next thing is just uh mayor, if you would uh uh please open up the meeting, then we can go through the uh the list. Yes, I'm uh happy to open the hearing for a review of our list. And I think I'm turning it over to the county or or back to you. Um, uh, I can just preface before we, uh, move over to the county. Um, I would just ask that if you are in attendance today and wish to comment on your property, have not contacted the the assessor to appeal, please com uh, complete a blue card, the three of you. I hopefully you have. I think we've received them. So maybe this direction is not needed since we only have three folks in the room. Um, so we're going to go through the list and at the end of it, um, we'll see if there's any others, but um, well, just to oversimplify, we're going to go on agreed upon, no agreement, and not enough information in that order. Exactly. And I think before I think we just can move through the ones that have agreed upon, unless there's anything for um, Mr. Larson to add, we can just go through those. And what's the specific action that we'd like the uh council to make on those? Um the well the council can in uh decrease the value, increase the value or affirm the original assessed value. Um I've provided recommendations based on what what we saw. um the council can affirm those unless there's an owner in attendance, property owner that would like to to be heard tonight. So, Mr. Mayor, I would go through you can just use this spreadsheet and on the presentation the ones where uh property owners have agreed go through each of those individually. Um, we should read the P and the address and then ultimately ask the board if there's any discussion just top to bottom till we get to yellow. Exactly. So, first I guess I'd like to open the hearing for 308 Walker Avenue South, PID number 06117223 1 019. Yes, that is a commercial property. the property owner contacted us on April 7th, which um so we weren't able to reach an agreement on the within the 10-day window. That's why it's come to the board for a vote. We had never been allowed into that property since they um got their new tenant back in 200 2022 or 2023. And um this time they did let us in and we did do a inspection and then we did a review and we did offer them a reduction of $7.95% from $4,715,000 down to $4,340,000. So I'm looking for the board to vote to affirm that reduction. Any questions of the county about their information? Uh does anyone want to adjust this in any way? Hearing none, then I would accept a motion to accept the county's uh revised uh assessed value. So moved, Mr. Mayor. Second. Second. Further discussion hearing? None. Uh I guess we vote yay or nay. So we don't have to do roll call or anything. So all in favor say I. I. Okay, that passes. Next one is 1415 Weisetta Boulevard East, pit number 0511 7222 400 06. Uh turn it over to the county. Okay, that one includes um three Ps. It's the Weisetta Crossings property. Um so that would include 14 all of them. That's okay. Um 1515 Weisetta Boulevard and 1411 Weisetta Boulevard. We do handle them individually by P purpose. So that's okay. Okay. Um so the property owner did reach out um with concerns about the 1415 Wetta Boulevard property. That's the one that's currently occupied by a bank and um it is a um we had to do a review of the entire property given that they're connected by a skyway. And um after doing our analysis, we agreed to move back roll back the value on that individual PID to last year's value, the 2024 value. So um the other two we did not recommend a change in value and he concurred with that. So, and the owner also did concur with our reduction down to 935,000 on the 1415 Weisetta Boulevard property. So, that one is going from $1,185,000 down to $935,000. And you want to take these one by one in terms of an affirmation of of it or not? Um, I think you could probably read all three PIDs and then do one vote. Okay, we'll do that. So next up would be 1550 WA Boulevard East pit number 0511 7222400005 over to the county. Oh yeah. Um mayor I think you can just read all three. Um we have no he's concurred to no change in value on those two. So I think you can vote. So I'll just read them in the record. 1411 Weisel Boulevard east. Last PID number in this block is block of addresses 0511722240058. And so uh as the do you offer comments on any of the rest of them or we can move to affirm or adjust? I would handle all three of those as one vote. Okay. So you could make a motion to um reduce the value on the 006 P and sustain the value on the um on the other two PIDs. Okay. First, are there any questions of the county? Hearing none, I would accept a motion as the uh county staff has suggested. So moved. Do I have a second? Second. Further discussion? All in favor say I. I. That passes. The last one in the commercial block is 200 Lake Street East. Uh, PID number 06117223200029. Over to the county. Yes, I was contacted by that property owner last week. Um, a representative for the property owner, Mandy Cullen. Is that you, Mand? Okay. I wasn't sure. She said she was going to attend. I talked with her today. Um, as of last week, they hadn't appealed. Today they did call and formally wanted to appeal. Um, so this is a complicated property. It's the redevelopment site, the former TCF headquarters. Um, I would make make a recommendation to the board that you sustain my current value at $9,897,000 and we move this appeal to the county board level. And the reason I'm recommending that is because it's complicated and I don't think I'm going to get enough time even if there was a reconvene within two weeks to complete my analysis. Okay. And just for clarification, has a recent um inspection of the building occurred? No. No. We just got the official notice that they wanted to appeal today. So, we're going to have to do an inspection and information gathering as well. Okay. So, um, I would any questions of the county based on that information? Okay. Go ahead, Mr. Plush. I mean, I have no problem with moving it forward, but I'm just out of curiosity, do you know if there was any value for this property given to the building? We have $1,000 on the building, which was typical um when there's a redevelopment. We're That's um basically um So, it's bled blighted. Yes. knowing that it was going to be redeveloped, we put limited value on the improvements. Okay. So, uh if we're comfortable moving forward with the county recommendation, I would accept a motion to affirm the valuation that we have before us. Mr. Mayor, I I would uh suggest uh allowing opportunity for miss. Sorry, I I didn't know. Apologize. Would you would you like to speak in any way? If you do, you could approach the DAS. If you don't and decline, that's fine. Okay. Okay. So, you're declining to speak. That's fine. So, going back here, thank you for that. Um, we would uh would someone like to make a motion to um sustain the recommendation and move it forward for further discussion with the applicant with the county uh at the county uh hearing. I'll make that motion. I have a second. Second. Any further discussion? Hearing none. All in favor say I. I. And do do you understand what was communicated in the process and that your your rights are are held and you're moving forward to the next step to to challenge uh challenge it with the county's process. Okay. Thank you. You bet. Now we're moving on to residential. Uh and the first one on the docket is 607 Gardener Street East. PID number 0611722120032. over to the county. Uh yeah, the property was inspected by an appraiser in our office. Um based on kind of the age and condition of the property, um it really shouldn't have increased that much year-over-year. Um the appraiser made an adjustment um basically giving it more depreciation um to reflect the effective age of the house of the home that resulted in a reduction of 9.24% and the owner concurred. Okay. Do we have any questions of the county on 607 gardener? Uh, so does anyone want to challenge this or I would accept a motion to approve the county's recommendation of the change in value? I'd make that motion, Mr. Mayor. I have a second. Second. All in favor say I. I. That moves along. Next one is 494 Boie Road, pit number 011723 430020. uh over to the county. Uh again, appraiser from our office, did a physical inspection of the property. Um made some adjustments based on what he saw on the interior. The um the basement um didn't have very many lookout windows, made some adjusted adjustments to the basement quality as well as the site value is rather small for the area. Um so that was the basis for the reduction uh resulting in u -6.72 and the homeowner concurred with that. Any questions of the county? Anyone wanting to challenge this recommendation? Hearing none, I would accept a motion to approve the county's recommendation on 494 Boie Road. So moved. Moved. Second. Moved. Seconded. Any further discussion? All in favor say I. I. That passes. Next on the docket is 176 Bagpack Lane West, hid number 0117231 1 0 015. Over to the county. Yeah. made a inspection of the property um based on the on the homeowner's request, reviewed all the characteristics, um looked at some sales data. Um basically corrected some of the characteristics just based on quality, effective age of the home. It wasn't as updated as the characteristics reflected. Um resulting in a a slight reduction of 2.11%. The homeowner concurred with that. Uh, any questions of the county? Anyone like to challenge this? Okay. I would accept a motion to approve the county's recommendation on 176 Babcock Lane West. Moved. So moved by Mr. Sorenson. Second. All in favor say I. I. Passes. Next on the docket is 242 Glenbrook Road North. PID number 0611722214 0032. over to the county. Uh again, appraisal from our office did an inspection of the property. Um kind of like the one we talked to about before. Um based on the area, the condition and age of the home, uh really needed more depreciation. Um because of the the land values being uh increasing so much over the last uh few years. um just needed to have a lower effective age and it's made some adjustments to that. It resulted in a 13.79% reduction and the homeowner concurred with that as well. Okay. Any questions of the county on this one? Anyone like to challenge this one? Hearing none, I would accept a motion to approve the county's recommendation at 242 Glenbrook Road. So moved. Second. Second. Second by McDonald. Um, any further discussion? All in favor say I. I. That moves ahead. Next on the docket is 1107 Lasal Street, PID number 0511722320051. Over to the county. Uh, yeah. I made an inspection of the property, met the homeowner there. Um, it was a rental property of his. Both of us agreed that it would uh be a potential tearown based on the market there. Uh central Lasal. I performed a a land analysis valuation. Um reported the results to the homeowner and he uh concurred that it was a correct value. Any questions of the county on this one? Anyone want to challenge this one? All right. All right. I would accept a motion to approve the county's recommendation at 1107 Lasell Street. So moved, Mr. Mayor. Second. Second. All in favor say I. I. That moves ahead. Next on the docket is 117 Edgewood Court, pit number 061172230347. Over to the county. Uh, I made an inspection of the property with the homeowner. Uh it was um in very similar condition to another unit that sold over there. So we made some adjustments to create uh more similar condition characteristics to that one. Um and the homeowner concurred. Okay. Any questions of the county? Anyone like to challenge this? Okay. I would accept the motion to approve the county's recommendation on 117 Edgewood Court. So moved. Second. Second. Any further discussion? All in favor say I. I. That passes. Excuse me. Bless you. Okay. I moved my paper. Now I'm out of order here. So it's Rice Street is the next one. Right. Correct. Okay. So next on the docket is 527 Rice Street East. PID number 06117222 40085. Over to the county uh for 527 Rice Street. I made an inspection of the property. Um there was some data corrections there as well. It had a detached garage with some finished area over the top, but it didn't have any forced air. um didn't really consider it a gross living area. So, we made some adjustments there. Um that was the basis for the uh reduction of 6.82% and the homeowner concurred. Any questions of the county? Anyone want to challenge this one? Hearing none, I would accept a motion to approve the county's recommendation at 527 Rice Street East. So move, Mr. Mayor. We have a second. Second. All in favor say I. I. I. Moves ahead. Next one on the docket is 128 PV Lane. PID number 011723410 033. Over to the county. Uh yeah, this one is a a vacant lot and it had sold recently. It was um a raw land sale. it really shouldn't have um appreciated the same as um you know a lot that was ready to build. Um so made some slight adjustments there after um looking at some other sales and resulted in a reduction of 8.47% and the owner concurred. Okay. Anyone have any questions of the county? Anyone want to challenge this one hearing? None. I would accept the motion to approve the county's recommendation at 128 PB Lane. So moved. I have a second. Second. All in favor? I I. That moves ahead. Next one. 265 Benton Avenue North, pit number 0611 722140072. Over to the county. Uh 265 Benton. I had a discussion with the with the owner. Um decided to come out for an inspection. Um when I got we had some discussed some sales on the street and then when I got there he said he was fine with the value. He he wasn't aware of some of the sales of on the street um and so he didn't want me to come through. I did some measurements of the exterior but uh he decided that his value of 600,700 was was fine. Okay. Any questions of the county on this one? And we can't challenge this because you didn't inspect it, right? Correct. Okay. No challenge. Uh I would accept a motion to approve the county's recommendation for 265 Benton Avenue. So moved. Second. Second. All in favor? I Next one is 450 Hillside Drive West, pit number 0111 723320022. Uh over to the county. Uh, this one was basically had more of a discussion with the owner. She had some questions more specifically about some other properties in her area. Um, I asked if I could come through the property just to confirm that we had all the correct characteristics. Um, she didn't want an inspection of the interior. Not even really sure if she was appealing her value, but I said if I can't come through the property, we we can't do anything about the value. So, okay. Any questions of the county? We can't challenge this one due to no inspection. I would accept a motion to uh affirm the county's recommendation on for 450 Hillside Drive West. Motion. So moved. A second. Second. All in favor say I. I. I. That one moves ahead. The next one, I believe the applicant is here uh or the owner. 545 Indian Mound East, PID number 061172224146. So um if you've given your information to the if you have extra copies to the county that's fine. Otherwise, if you would approach the podium and um we'll be asking you questions after the county uh makes their position and then you're offering your additional facts to challenge and then we'll have a discussion about it and then um we will come to a conclusion at the board about what we're going to do uh about about your challenge. Uh so, welcome and just approach the podium. Yeah, you can right here. You go right to the um I'm sorry, I should have been more specific. Right where it says city of Wisetta. Nope. See where it says city Wisetta with the microphone? Sorry. Take your time. It's it's going to it's just fine. You're going to be on mic, but you're just going to ask to just just wait for one moment. The countyy's going to offer first some some commentary. Then you'll be given a chance to offer your facts to challenge and then we'll bring it back to the board for discussion. Uh so just one moment and over to the county who will start with uh their assessment. Yeah. Uh good evening. I had talked to your son Josh and he was he had some analysis that he had given me. Um he I believe he was using uh lot size square footage per assessed value for for coming up with his analysis. Um, it didn't it didn't seem to to be truly uh how someone would analyze the value of a of a town home based on the lot size. I sent him some uh square footage GLA numbers. Um, and he was just contending he the property was purchased in 2002 for 2,292,000. Um, and he was contending that the property value should be a million7 something around there. Um, just it wasn't making sense to me why it would be $500,000 less than the purchase price and about a million dollars less than the most recent sale. Uh, there was a resale of a unit this last year. Um, they're newer town homes, newer builds. Um, I've been through your home right right after you built it. Um, originally when they were purchased, they were selling in the range of of yours for 2,200,000. Um, the most recent sale sold for 2,700,60. So, that's indicating an increase in the market since they were um the original purchases in 2022. So, Mr. Chu, you're you're uh at the podium to offer your facts or your reasoning why the valuation should be less. Hold on one second. Is microphone on? One second. I apologize. We just got to make sure the microphone I keep talking. I'm sure uh Fred downstairs. No, no. That's why that's why I made the statement. You're fine. We're we're all actually Weisetta residents here. We'll give you a fair chance to speak. So, we're just trying to get our technology to work. Oh, it wasn't. Okay. Welcome again, Mr. Take your time. And uh my son appreciated speaking to you, Shane. Uh you said you were really on top of it and and uh he deals a little bit in real estate. That's why I had him take care of this. But um just a couple of things. Uh, one thing um I noticed that the valuation from 2024 to 2025 was 250,000 less. So, I'm not complaining about that, but I'm just wondering um what happened that it devaluated in one year. Are you talking about the 2024 assessment? Yeah, that was 2,227900 and the 2025 was 1,00 1,988300. Um I believe there was a sale that indicated the values were a little bit high. Let me see here. I understand your question. You noticed a dip and then it came right back to where it was before. And you're trying to understand It's kind of irrelevant to what I'm going to discuss. Oh, it's be good for you to know, right, about how the county viewed it and then you can go on to whatever happened, I want it to happen again. Fair enough. There was Oh, there was a sale on Rice Street. There was some sales activity that showed we were a little bit high. Um we so the property values came down for your street on Walker too. Um basically we did a closer look and made some adjustments there. Maybe the property value shouldn't have come down in 2024 after looking closer at at the data there. Um but it was it was driven by a town home sale off of uh some off of Rice Street around the corner. Okay. And then the sale that occurred this year um in 2024 uh for 2,760 and that indicated that we were low on the town houses on on Walker and and Indian Mount on your street and that's why they came back up. What's the relative percentage of change uh of that? Like you have it for everything else. I'm just curious what that relative percentage of change is from 24 to 25. So these these town homes from 24 to 25 increased 20 about 23%. Mhm. All right. Go ahead, sir. Okay. Um, just to give a little background, there's seven units, three buildings, and I'm in a unit that has three a building that has three units. And um, because of that, I only have two walls with windows. The other two buildings that only have two units in each have three walls. So, I don't have as much window space. I think I'm a little closer to the sidewalk than the other units. So, I um need to have my blinds pulled on the first floor. Um I'm right at the beginning of the driveway, a shared driveway that everyone drives through and um it's a very short spot where I have that I can back out. So, it's a kind of a problem, but there's a lot of traffic that goes by and I think that should enter in a little bit into the valuation of the property. Um the I did some calculations of the average square foot and I'm not going to go over the numbers. You know, I can if you want, but and the average um price per square foot and I'm I have the smallest unit and it's 223 square feet smaller than the other units. And by calculating out um the averages, uh it appears to me I should have a valuation of 175,000 less than what I currently have. And I can show you the numbers, but uh I don't want to bore you with all that. So I'm I'm a proposing that uh the property is valued at at 175,000 less than current. Would you like to respond or did you have other points you'd like to offer first? Go ahead and respond to his first point. Uh, sure. Bring up points. Sure. Um, I was wondering if you were looking at the square footage of the lot size or if you're looking at the square footage of the living structure, living space. Living space. Okay. Um, I do understand the yours is a little bit different on the around the corner. Um, the one of the comps that sold recently as well only had two sides. One was an interior unit as well. Um, in in addition, I yours is a little bit different style than the other ones. It took that into consideration as well. Um but again based on the valuation of 175,000 less would bring it uh very near to your sale price from 2022. But based on a resale of a property that sold for 30% more than when it was originally purchased in 2022. Um I guess it's my opinion that the assessed value is is correct. Do you have any other um comments that you'd like to make? And again, you know, our job is to look at where their position, where your position is, and then we'll have a discussion about it and rule it one way or the other. Um well, I guess I guess that's it. I I could show the numbers, but uh you have certainly more time if you have any other facts that you'd like to put out there. That's all I have for my Okay. Thank you for being here. Now, we'll bring it back to to the board to discuss um would anyone like to start with a discussion about about this property, about their perspective on it? I'll start with some questions of the assessors. Um do you happen to have at your fingertips the assessed values of the other homes along this stretch? I do. Would you mind going through them from nearest to him to furthest away maybe? Uh again, his uh Mr. Chief's value is 2,450, 200. Uh his uh neighbor, his wallmate is 2,510,100. Continuing down 2,ion537 2,ion 544 2,549 2,534 and 2,749 for the end unit. So his is the lowest valued And this might be a little bit of a stretch of a question, but do you happen to have those values per square foot for each of those homes? You don't need to go through them all, but you have even happen to have those numbers. I don't have them readily available. I'd have to crunch them out. Okay. Do you feel that they would be roughly the same? It looks like all the all these homes are 2.5 to 2.7 million and they look to my eye at least to be a little bit bigger than Mr. Chu's property, but he's also slightly lower. But I'm trying to get a sense for this per square foot comparison between the two or between all of them actually. Uh again, I could crunch those out. His is wall mates. So, Mr. Chu's uh gross living area is 3,020. His wallmates is 3,75. Uh then we have 3,300, 3,100, 3,300, 3,100, and 3300. Okay. Well, doing quick mental math, it looks like they're roughly in the same area per square foot. Yeah. Okay. Pretty roughly. Yes. Yeah. Are there comments or questions about this? Which pro property sold recently that you're using? The property uh at 207 Walker Avenue. That one sold for 2,760 in May of 24. And when it was originally purchased four months before Mr. Choose, it was purchased for 2,96,000. So using a paired sales analysis, it's a 30% increase since the purchase of that property over how many years? Uh that was from uh March of 22 to May of 25. Other questions from the board or anyone want to offer or start the discussion of affirm where the county is at or make an adjustment? I'll start. I think Mr. Chu made some valued arguments about the uniqueness of the site and the the location, the road, and the other impacts that may um negatively impact the value. I do respect what council member Plecer said about trying to equalize the square foot, but I think the location um you know, lights and windows, things like that could um potentially justify this. I would start uh by reducing this by 2% or $50,000 is where I'd start, but obviously others need to weigh in and see if anyone would agree with me or challenge it another way. And then we can see if we drive consensus towards a motion. I have a I was just calculating the square footage. There are the 3,300 square feet one. The third one here is 768 a square foot. The other 3,300 ft one was 772. In my view, the ones along Walker seem to be I don't know better visibility, nicer. Um they share with one other unit instead of two. Um, I do feel like this one is sort of on the back alley side of the unit. So, I mean, I could even see I haven't calculated the number, but going down to something less than even that. Sure. Go ahead and make a proposal to see if it would be supported. The properties on Walker also look into a a wooded hill, you know, that goes right over here. Um, so Jeeoff, just to help you out, I'm at 2% or 50,000 and then you could take it another direction. Well, if we went all the way down to this 772 or the 776, it would be significantly less, like less than even what what the purchase price was, but you get to make a proposal, so go ahead. Yeah. Um, I kind of wanted to do it based on some facts here, but Yeah. No, take your time. I would say at least 100,000 off. Okay. 100,000 would take it to I think about 6%. No, 4%. Um 100,000 off of 2450 200 to 2 350 200. Um anyone else have comments or or 4% that'd be 4%. 4%. Yep. I would support council or board member Parkills. Um 4% 4% I think the the alleyway, the three walls and um being kind of the outlier of the neighborhood. That makes sense to me. Thank you, Council Mal. Anyone else want to weigh in one way or the other? I mean, just again trying to make sense of the on a on a square foot basis, if you took even the higher square footage cost per square foot numbers that that we're chatting about here at his square footage, it it calculates about 100,000 lower. So, I think some of that range makes sense. Any other comments? I I would support that. So, I'll say that Mr. Park Hill's analysis is far more precise than just stabbing at a number of 50,000. So that makes a lot more sense to me. I am familiar with that block and pastor often and uh and I do agree that it is the where it's located actually is lesser appealing than these other homes along the street. So I do think that it should have a comparatively less value than these other homes uh no matter how you look at it. So, I also would support 100,000 if that's what the formula comes out to be. I've heard consensus of supporting 100,000 less or 4%. Any further discussion? I would accept a motion to challenge the county's position and drop the value from 245200 to 2350200. And I would accept a motion for that 4% reduction. So moved. I have a second. Second. All in further discussion? All in favor say I. I. I. Thank you for being here. Um that is the ruling of of the board and um you're welcome to stay for this riveting conversation or you can be on your way uh to wherever you are going next. And thank you for being here. Yep. Okay. Next is 353 Ferndale Road, PID number 011723410034. uh to the county. Uh yeah, I did an inspection of this property. Um the property owner appealed uh I think two years ago, so there wasn't really much there as far as data correction. Um, I did observe uh kind of less than modern updating as well as kind of less than modern layout of the property. Um, based on a sale of another property and comparing it to that, I thought that other one was a little bit more updated and nicer even though it was older in age. Um, and thought it was a little bit too high. So, we we did a a reduction that resulted in 2.6% 6% questions of the county on this one. Anyone like to ch Oh, go ahead. Did you actually connect with the homeowner after the drop? Yeah, we we talked on the phone and had a discussion about it. He thought it should be a little lower. Um but at the end of the day, um yeah, we we looked at some other there was some significant lot sales there, compared it to some of those and a recent sale. Um he he wanted it to be lower, but I guess I couldn't We all Yeah. Yeah. I guess I guess we couldn't uh agree on that. Well, he's not here to challenge, so not sure what else there is to say. You did drop it some and Yeah. better than zero. Okay. Any further questions of the county or any interest in challenging this one? Okay. I would accept a motion to support the county's position on 353 Ferndale Road South. So moved. We have a second. Second. We have a second from Council Member Park. Any further discussion? Hearing none. Uh motion to approve by saying I. I. I. That moves forward. Next is 438 Waycliffe North, pit number 05117222100034. Over to the county. Uh yeah, I did an inspection on the property um per the homeowner's request. Uh there was a a purchase um for 1.5 million. Their assessed value was less than that. The owner had the idea that he had overpaid for the property. Uh then following his purchase, there was another purchase of a similar property that sold for uh 1,462. The subject property is actually uh had superior to that one. It had a threecar garage versus a twocar garage. Uh it also had a screen porch. Uh the updating though was similar. His assessed value is below the sale price of the comparable and below his own sale price. Questions of the county on this one? Anyone like to challenge this one? Hearing? None. Then I would accept a motion to affirm the county's position at 438 Way Cliff North. So moved. Do I have a second? Second. All in favor say I. I. Forward. Next was 824 Park Street East. PID number 06117222130087. Over to the county 824 Park Street East. What did I say wrong? Yeah, you said two three twos instead of two. Oh, so okay. Sorry. Well, you try reading this sheet with these. Go ahead. Uh, I did an inspection of the property. didn't see um any any incorrect data on it. Then I did a comparison of some other sales. Um the homeowner thought it could be a little high based on just kind of the increases. Um so we had a discussion about some other sales. Um I left him a voicemail saying that that there was no change and I haven't heard back from him. Okay. Questions of the county on this one? Anyone like to challenge this one? Seeing none, I would accept a motion to approve the county's position on 824 Park Street East. So moved. Second. Second. All in favor say I. I. Okay, that one moves forward. The next one is 217 Byron Avenue North. Wish I had a magnifying glass. To do 0611722140092. over to the county. Uh again, did an inspection of the property. The owner's concern was obviously the value was was higher based was too high based on his location in um he's on a private road with an association. Um took all that into consideration. There was a sale. So he had purchased the property in 2020 for 987,000. Um he he thought it was worth around a million which had only been a 13% increase since 2020. Uh there was a sale on the street and I believe it was it was still a little bit older sale now but it was in 2022 for a million150. And then uh looking at at some comparable structures to his um more to the west in um you know areas on city streets and um not an association. There's some very similar properties to his that were selling more in the range of a million7 to a million8. So taking into consideration I, you know, I agreed with him that his location wasn't as good, but I I'm not sure that he was aware that similar properties to his were selling for as high as a million 7 to a million8. Uh his assessed value is a million 261. And after analysis, my analysis came in a little bit higher than the assessed value. uh called the owner and left him a voicemail, but I haven't heard back. Any questions of the county on this one? Anybody like to challenge the county's position on this one? Hearing none, I would accept a motion to affirm the county's position at 217 Byron Avenue North. So moved. Second. Second. All in favor say I. I didn't have further discussion. Any further discussion? All in favor say I. I. I. Okay. Next one is 549 Harrington Road, pit number 0211 723 400 02 to the county. Mr. Mayor, just for the record, it was the first number is one. Oh, sorry, one. Boy, I need new glasses. Anyway, uh over to the county. Uh this was a call that that came in within the 10day window. um called them back and left a voicemail. It may or may not have been an appeal call. They may have been calling for general information. Um just no contact from them. Okay. But added them to the roster just to keep their appeal options open. Okay. So I guess there wouldn't really be or do you have a question on this one? Oh, what's the square footage of this house? 6550 packet says total finish in the packet 12,46 square ft. Can you remind us of the breakdown between the building and the land? The land is valued at about 8 8.5 million. The building is valued at about 6.4 million. Thank you. Any other questions on this one? Anyone making a challenge or can we even make a challenge since there was no there was no inspection or or no contact moving it along or preserving their right to move it along if they choose. If they choose. Okay. So, I would accept a motion to affirm that. So moved. Second. Second. All in favor say I. I. Forward. Almost done here. 118 Babcock Lane West 011172311000000009. Over to the county. Again, this is another one that called within the 10day window. U called and left them a voicemail. I haven't heard back. Again, may or may not be an appeal call. they may have been been seeking general information. Um, but no contact there. Just adding them to the roster if they wanted to keep their appeal options open. Okay. So, we're just affirming that they are preserving their rights to move on to the next step if they choose. I would accept a motion to affirm that. So, moved. Do I have a second? Second. Further discussion? All in favor say I. I. I. Last one on this list, unless anyone's online, is 131 Huntington Avenue South, pit number 061172241 032. Over to the county. Uh, this is one where we have been playing phone tag. It's just having a hard time getting a hold of each other. Um, last time I called, I left a message including my email address to see if she could reach out that way. Um, but wanted to add her to the list to keep her appeal options open as well. Okay. Um, this is just again affirming and prever preserving this rights to roll forward. Yep. A motion to affirm that. So moved. Have a second. Second. Further discussion. All in favor say I. I. Okay. Okay. So, that concludes now. I'll ask the city manager or the clerk if there's anyone online. Mayor, there's not. We don't see anybody online. We don't see anybody here. So, um again, for those who are not satisfied or preserved Oh, go ahead. I do have uh two people that called today. Okay, great. So, again, just like to add them add them to the record and keep their options open. Go ahead. Uh the first one uh bear with me one second. I'll get the P ID number. Yep, no problem. Wear your glasses. Uh the property ID number is 06117 22120015. It's 530 Broadway Avenue North. Okay. So, this is just uh affirming their rights to move forward and we accept a motion on that in that regard. Yes. So, moved by one. We need a second. Second. Further discussion. All in favor say I. I. Forward. And you have one more. I believe. I do have one more. The property ID number is 01 1117 234300 017. The property address is 453 Highcraftoft Road. Uh they called and left a voice message as I was arriving in the parking lot. Um that wasn't Alex was it just to just to leave the appeal options open for them. Okay. So again, we're affirming this pit number and property address uh affirming their rights to move forward to the to the county uh hearing. I would accept a motion to affirm that. So moved. Do we have a second? Second. Further discussion. All in favor say I. I. I. Okay. So, hearing nothing new on teams. Nobody's walked through the door. So, I'll ask the city manager, do we have uh a need to reconvene in April 29th? Mr. Mayor, we do not. Okay. So, then the county board um did you have something? Oh, no. The county board uh of appeal and equalization, the next meeting, I believe, is on June 16, 2025. And all requests or appointments for that should be received by I believe the 21st of May. Is that right? Correct. The 21st of May. And in order to do that, I'm just going to read this into the record to make it easy for our residents if they want to do that. They can call the county at 612 3487050 750 or they may email them at county value appeal all one word at henipin. us. Okay. Any further comments from the board before I close the hearing? Hearing none, I would accept a motion to close the hearing and that we are not going to reconvene later in April. So, accept that motion. So moved. Do I have a second? Second. Okay. Further discussion hearing. None. The hearing's closed. Thank you for your time this evening. Thank you to the staff. Appreciate it. Thank you.