Loading...
1h. Board of Review Minutes Dated May 20, 1996l� ' CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL BOARD OF REVIEW AND EQUALIZATION ' SPECIAL MEETING MAY 20 1996 Mayor Chmiel re- opened the Board of Review and Equalization at 7:10 p.m. COUNCEL MEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor Chmiel, Councilman Senn, Councilman Mason and Councilman Berquist ' COUNCIL MEMBERS ABSENT: Councilwoman Dockendorf STAFF PRESENT: Don Ashworth, Orlin Shafer, Ann Wise, and Craig Paulson FINALIZE BOARD OF REVIEW AND EOUALIZATION. f Mayor Chmiel: I'm wondering if there's anyone here yet this evening that has some concerns in regard to those taxes. t Chuck Peterson: This has to do with property tax evaluations? Mayor Chmiel: Right. State your name and your parcel number. ' Chuck Peterson: My name is Chuck Peterson. I don't know my parcel number but my address is 708 Lake Point. Since we moved in 48 short months ago, they have increased the value of our property 25 %. $100,000.00 over what we paid for it in 1991. We moved into this city, we paid $365,000.00 for our house. The very first year, 14 days after we moved in, they valued it at $379,000.00. I had discussions with them at that point. They've gone on a couple of times. Since then they have increased it for a couple years at a pace of, approaching $30,000.00 a year and this year they came out and took a look at it again. I've had discussions with them since they turned in the valuation and ... the part that I have a problem with, there's a house that sold three doors away from us with a $60,000.00 lot value higher than what... It has 4,500 square feet. We have 3,800 square feet. They valued our property, in the same year that that house was sold, over $30,000.00 more ' than the sale price of that. And their claim is that they just like the looks of our house better and that's the best they could tell me. The stucco was given as an example. $60,000.00 as a value for stucco. In case anybody knows, to stucco that house it cost $15,000.00 total. If I could add that kind of valuation onto my house every ' single time, that'd be fine. The other valuation he said was marble. Our total bill for all marble tile bath, for all showers, everything was $15,000.00 when we built the house. That's the difference between these two houses so I guess I would just like to go on record as saying that I think it's important that everybody pays their fair share but I believe that watching these property values rise, I have to stand up for my family and say that I ' haven't had a raise since 1990, and everybody works hard to make sure that the county gets run well and the city gets run well and people work very hard to keep expenses in line but this is... I just feel like it's, I don't think it's fair and I think that things ought to be valued comparatively. I'll pay my share for what values there ' am in my neighborhood but I won't overpay for somebody else's neighborhood. Don Ashworth: Mr. Mayor? Mayor Chmiel: Yes. Don Ashworth: He is number 63, if you want to look at the appeal itself. Charles and Judy Peterson. 1 Board of Review and Equalization - May 20, 1996 Chuck Peterson: Correct. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. And you're saying that the same size lot sold for $60,000.00? Chuck Peterson: Yes, because that lot has sandy lakeshore on Lotus Lake. Those lots sold for $117,000.00 to $125,000.00 in the same year that we paid $65,000.00 for our lot. It's a different lot. They have, I'll bet you that any other lakeshore property on Lotus Lake probably had comparable... Mayor Chmiel: Could we have someone indicate in regards to this particular piece of property? Craig Paulson: Mr. Mayor, I re- appraised that property and I did take a look at the sale down the street and I did think it was in fair quality. I didn't get a chance to look on the inside of the comparable. I did attempt to contact the owners of it to do an inspection but I did find some sales on Oxbow Bend which I thought were more comparable to the quality of the subject property. With the stucco exterior and the stone and the cedar shakes. I thought the Oxbow Bend was a good comparable to this particular property. I picked a comparable from that area that was in a similar situation. It backed up to marshland. Similar situation that Mr. Peterson is in. Overlooks Silver Lake, which is a, what I would say an inferior lake to Lotus. I have a sheet here if you'd care to take a look at it. I also have some pictures of the property. But there's a comparable on Oxbow that has some of the ... that Mr. Peterson has. Some of the hardwood. Great room with fireplaces and catwalk. Four bedroom. Second floor. Master bedroom, master bath with a catwalk to the other three bedrooms. That's similar to what Mr. Peterson has. And closer in size also. 3,400 total square feet. Chuck Peterson: If I could respond to the Silver Lake lots. There are two lots on Silver Lake right now that are for sale for $200,000.00 each. So where the information comes from of Silver Lake being inferior, it's a little bit of the value that goes along with it. I have Christmas Lake across the way. The lots that were selling up on the Lundgren Brothers development, which seems to have a certain ... to it, were selling in the $100,000.00 range also. I am not sure what the lot sold for, what he's talking about but the house up the street does have a two story family room. Just exactly like out's. He mentioned that we had wood down below and it's not. It's sheetrocked. It's painted sheetrock. And we don't have any fireplaces in the house that have a complete finish job on them at this point in time. I do understand that they will be finished at some point in time but they're not today. And I think that the comparable that's up the street is 700, or between 600 and 700 square feet larger than out's. Pm not sure why the one that has the smaller size has higher value and why somebody would pay that much but I do know that our neighborhood is bigger and it wasn't a developed property... In fact it was known to be ,a very tough development because of the hills that were in there and the amount of retaining walls. You probably some of those as far as variances go for people who are looking for some big retaining walls..., which we also put a lot of money into also... Mayor Cbmiel: Okay. Did everyone have a chance to look at that? Councilman Berquist: You said the other lot on Lake Point, the 740 Lake Point has a superior lot than Mr. Peterson's? Craig Paulson: Because of the access to the lake from the lot itself. I believe Mr. Peterson has access to the lake but not from his lot. Councilman Berquist: So what's the value of that lot on 750 Lake Point? 2 ' Board of Review and Equalization - May 20, 1996 ' Craig Paulson: I believe it's $100 and, it's over $100,000.00. Close to $110,000.00. Mr. Peterson's is at $81,000.00... Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Everybody's had a chance to look at it? Okay. Councilman Senn: I've got a question if I could. ' Mayor Chmiel: Sure, go ahead. Craig, feel free to defer to that guy sitting behind you... There was another one in here recited where it was valuated on the basis I think Christmas Lake, where the last two 100 foot open parcels on Christmas Lake sold for $300,000.00 each. Other than the fact that that blows my mind so to speak, I try to put it into perspective and the perspective it seems to me is that we're in to a bit of a game here where there's one or two lots left in sought after areas and is it fair for us to be valuing the properties effectively throughout the area based on the sale of those last couple remaining lots or whatever. I see that a little bit ' synonymous to here because again we're looking, I don't know how I say it. It seems to me what I see out there is that people are willing to pay more for raw land to build on lakeshore than they are to pay for land which in effect has an existing house on it. The reason they're willing to do that is they can custom design and put their own house on that raw land versus accepting things, accepting some things and not accepting other things at a high market value or a high price on an existing home. And it seems to me you're not compensating for that per se. That's kind of a question. Long. Chuck Peterson: In all of this, it's interesting. The CTIU during that same period went up 8.9% for Minnesota, not just nationwide, which means that if you went up 8.9, we'd be at about $400,000.00 right now in value. If you add in the $1,500.00 I put into a deck and half the price of the value of the pool that might even take back ' away from the value on the property, and then add on another $10,000.00, you'd at $425,000.00 which I believe is probably a fair and just number. But I'm standing here saying what I think is fair and just and that's what I think. Because I'm not going to stand here that it isn't going up in value. I'd be a fool to do that. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. I would think that one of my suggestions would be to, you've not been inside the structure? Craig Paulson: I've been inside Mr. Peterson's. I have not been inside with comparable... which I would like to do. t Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, and I think that it's something that should be looked at it. From last year to this year, what was it, about 10% then? Pretty close. Give some, take some. Ann Wise: It was 8 %. Mayor Chmiel: Pardon? ' Ann Wise: 8. Mayor Chmiel: 8, okay. Alright. What's normal? Has it been normally about 5% per year? Is that what we've been running? Orlin Shafer: Yeah. That's true Mr. Chairman but part of the problem that we've had is our stratification of ' homes above the $250,000.00 mark have actually tended to increase in price rather than selling price more than 3 Board of Review and Equalization - May 20, 1996 our lower strata. And it's driven our average sale price well above $165,000.00 this year than actual for '95 sales. In some areas, Fox Chase area, that area out there, we've had a very difficult time getting to 85 %. Just to stay even we've had to give 8% to that area this year to bring it above the 90 percentile. Our ratio ... going in with 81, 82. We had one in here at 87 and that was the highest one we had in Fox Path area so when you put the 8% on, that one went to 95. The rest, two or more broke 90. Two didn't make it to 90. They came up but they still didn't fit that magic number that the State called... Now that's going to call for us to review that entire area next year and make further adjustments. Hopefully getting us above that 90 %. That's our goal for the entire community is to be as uniformed as we can with different stratifications of product. Chuck Peterson: I don't think that's going to be a problem because if I have a house that's smaller with a less valued property and that other house sold at $432,000.00, that means that that house that should have been at 85% of that, which means my property should be between. Be below $432,000.00 and I'll get 85 %... Orlin Shafer: I'm sorry, that's not how the system works. Period. You're assuming that the assessor's right on all of his counts and he's not. That's an assumption. Chuck Peterson: But I don't want to make up for not being... Orlin Shafer: No, you're not. You're not. What we try to do is equalize values in one neighborhood. We're not setting market. These are all after the fact. These are a year later. I mean our adjustments are after the sale so what you're talking about, $432 in a house that's a little bit inferior to your's. Chuck Peterson: Just a minute, I haven't heard anything... Orlin Shafer: Because the quality is not the same. Chuck Peterson: Well what is that? Orlin Shafer: The quality of what goes into the workmanship, what goes into the finish, those sorts of things. Chuck Peterson: Specifically what is that? Orlin Shafer: I didn't view the property but in talking to my two appraisers, that's what's come out of it. Your quality and your finish, your workmanship is superior to the one you're talking about. Chuck Peterson: And as soon as they say what that is specifically, then I'll listen. Mayor Chmiel: Well that's what I think. Chuck Peterson: The two things I've come up with are stucco and some marble, both of which cost $30,000.00 total for the entire bill. You'd have to replace that with some kind of... Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, and that's why I suggest that that be looked at to see what the differences basically are. And my suggestion on this particular one would be to have this go before the County Board for an appeal. Orlin Shafer: That would be fine with us. If you, I mean it comes ... the property and you carry that part, that's fine. Then we'll have a little more opportunity... 4 I i Board of Review and Equalization - May 20, 1996 ' Chuck Peterson: Do you want to explain to me what that means? ' Mayor Chmiel: Well basically what he's going to do is go back and look at the other valuations on the inside of the properties, as he's indicated. Then what can be done once he finds what's there, there may be some justification, there may not be. My position is seeing that what you should do then is go to the County Board with your appeal. There are some that have been requesting to go back to the County Board and in doing so, ' you will then have that opportunity to plead your case before them. Chuck Peterson: I would like it if logic could prevail as we sit here but... ' Mayor Chmiel: Well I guess I can't make that decision right now because I don't know some of those things that he indicated. ' Councilman Berquist: Well here's my logic, if anybody is willing to listen to it. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. ' Councilman Berquist: You've got an appraised value of $461,000.00 and the assessor is saying of that $81,100.00 is the lot. He's already stated that the adjoining lot on the other parcel is worth probably ' $110,000.00. There's a $30,000.00 difference in there. If you take that off the 461, that leaves you with 431. You say that the value of the stucco and the marble is roughly $30,000.00 together. Assuming that you end up having to replace that with ceramic or wood or some other exterior material, that would end up being a $15,000.00 credit against that and that difference end up being 15 off of 461 and a valuation of 446. Chuck Peterson: Except you have 650 square feet to take off of our house to get to the size of the house. ' Councilman Berquist: Well I haven't weighed that into the equation. What I started with only is the lot difference and then the two finishing materials. So I mean if you want to finish it now, that would be my proposal. Otherwise I'd. ' Chuck Peterson: And you're saying it would land at what? Councilman Berquist: 446. Chuck Peterson: Land at 446 with our house being 700 feet, almost 700 feet smaller? ' Councilman Berquist: Well, in lieu of not going to the County Board, and I haven't seen the property. I'm simply looking at it from a pragmatic point of view. From what I've heard so far. Chuck Peterson: You know in certain respects I would be willing to land on that as long as this is the appraised ' value next year. I mean if we land at, if this is the number that they come up with for January 1 of 1997, this 446, I'll take two years of that. ' Mayor Chmiel: Orlin. Orlin Shafer: Mr. Chairman. This board cannot tie a future board with those numbers. We can make a gentleman's agreement to say that we'll review it but the Board can't give that now. Do you understand? 5 Board of Review and Equalization - May 20, 1996 Chuck Peterson: Sure. Orlin Shafer: Statute prohibits that. Chuck Peterson: But I think that that would be a fair compromise. Ann Wise: We're going to re- appraise that area for next year's values. Valuation and I stop at every house in Fox Chase so it wouldn't be right to be tied down next year when we're trying to equalize, I don't feel. Chuck Peterson: Well I won't patronize you with coffee Mayor Chmiel: I'd like to finalize this. You have your choices, providing the balance of the Board feels comfortable with those particular numbers. But I don't think we're talking two years We're talking one year. Chuck Peterson: What I'll stand on is two things. One, I'll stand on the value that we just came up with, and secondarily, that everybody that's going to take a look at this property next year is in this room and understands what my point is from the size and how... Mayor Chmiel: Mark Councilman Senn: But the thing I don't understand is that this property has gone up much higher than the average. Orlin Shafer: No it hasn't. Ann Wise: He added a pool during that time. Chuck Peterson: $15,000.00. Ann Wise: And a deck. Otherwise it's been the same percentage as every other property in Fox Chase. Councilman Senn: So that's taking it from the 5% to 6% up to the 8 %? Ann Wise: No. All the properties got 8% and then the two years before 5% I believe. So the difference is the pool and the deck. I mean in addition to the percentage. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Let me call a question in regards to this. To keep this at, did you say 446 even or was it 446.7? Councilman Berquist: 446 even. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Do you want to make that a motion? Councilman Berquist: I will make that a motion. Do you want me to rephrase it? Mayor Chmiel: Yes. I i Board of Review and Equalization - May 20, 1996 ' Councilman Berquist: I will move that we accept a 1996, pay '97 valuation for the property located at 708 Lake Point of $446,000.00. ' Mayor Chmiel: Okay, is there a second? Councilman Senn: Second. ' Councilman Berquist moved, Councilman Senn seconded to approve the valuation for 708 Lake Point, Charles and Judy Peterson, at $446,000.00. All voted in favor and the motion carried. Mayor Chmiel: Okay, is there anyone else? Richard Larson: Is this open? 1 Mayor Chmiel: Yes, you have about a 5 minute period if you could. ' Richard Larson: Oh, can I come now? I thought it was supposed to start at 7:30. Mayor Chmiel: No, 7:00. ' Richard Larson: I got bad information, sorry. Mayor Chmiel: Please state your name and your address and then the parcel number. ' Richard Larson: My name is Richard Larson. My address is 8141 Pinewood Circle, Chanhassen. I've got some documents to hand out. To pass out to you. Orlin Shafer: Mr. Larson, have you submitted an appeal already to the Board? Richard Larson: Maybe I've got the wrong ... is this for taxes? Mayor Chmiel: Yes. Orlin Shafer: This is Board of Review. Richard Larson: Okay. No, this is a different matter. Okay. So is this strictly for taxes? ' Mayor Chmiel: Yes. Richard Larson: Oh! When does the Council meeting start? ' As Mayor Chmiel: soon as we close. Councilman Mason: You were right... Mayor Chmiel: Okay, is there anyone else? Okay if seeing none, Don would you like to go through that list? 1 7 Board of Review and Equalization - May 20, 1996 Don Ashworth: Well I think, since we have really no other appeals, I would make the assumption that the visits that have been made by the assessor's office to each one of the homes has either produced a belief that their value is reasonable, or are deciding not to pursue the issue further. There are a number of them in your packet where we simply were not able to get to the property or the appeal came in late and they're recommending that those parcels go to the Carver County Board, but otherwise I would recommend that you pass them as presented. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Could I interject just three that are still there that no action was on and was sent to the County Board. That was #46, 952 and continued appeal for the County which is #64. Orlin Shafer: Mr. Chairman, number 64 we did give you this evening... so called development on that. We finally got a copy of the appraisal we were talking about. And we did have a recommendation there to address that number 395. $395,000.00. The property owner is aware of that and thought that was a reasonable... Mayor Chmiel: Okay. So just strike 64. Councilman Berquist: So 64 has been negotiated? Mayor Chmiel: Right. So would there be a motion to accept the total numbers as indicated through number 134. Councilman Berquist: As much as I don't like to, because I think these valuations are getting so far out of hand as to be absolutely ridiculous, I will move that the negotiated and final valuations on the properties listed as numbers 1 through 134, excluding the ones that the Mayor mentioned, be approved. Mayor Chmiel: Okay, is there a second? Councilman Mason: I will second that. Mayor Chmiel: Moved and seconded. Discussion. Councilman Senn: Don, which ones were your's again? Mayor Chmiel: 46 and 52. As indicated on each of those forms. Any other discussion? Councilman Berquist: Yes. Well call the question. Then we'll discuss. Mayor Chmiel: Well you'd better discuss it now because once I call the question. Councilman Berquist: Well, it's not a discussion relative to the question. Councilman Berquist moved, Councilman Mason seconded that the Board of Review and Equalization approve the negotiated and final valuations on the properties listed as numbers 1 through 134, excluding #46 and $52. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. Councilman Berquist: Orlin, I received a phone call from a gentleman's who's listed in here. I'm somewhat surprised he's not here this evening. He is number 116. He made mention of the fact that there was three 8 I I i Board of Review and Equalization - May 20, 1996 ' properties contiguous to his or one was 5 houses away, that were valued significantly below, from a percentage point of view, what his was. ' Orlin Shafer: 11613? Councilman Berquist: B? 116, no. The other one. 116A. He had given me this list of properties and told me ' the valuations and I percented them out. I mean his point is that either his value should be lowered or their's should be raised. I told him you realize you may very well be making enemies and he acknowledged that. But he questions the increased valuation of his at 99.83% or whatever it worked out to be and the others at 91 and 1 one at 78. Orlin Shafer: Now he's saying that these have sold? ' Councilman Berquist: Yeah. These numbers. This is your sale or construct. This is, maybe it's obvious. Now paid dollars and appraised values on percentage. ' Ann Wise: The one with the really low ratio, I told him that I would look at you know because that's really out of line. Orlin Shafer: What sometimes happens ... and you're aware of this too, is that timing of these might ... so when ' you look at that, you have to be what year you're looking at. I don't know... We'll look into this. Mayor Chmiel: One other thing too Orlin is I keep looking at all the additional taxes and it really bothered me ' to see what is happening, specifically on some of the higher homes. When it comes time to sell those, can those people or will those people be able to get the prices that they've been paying those taxes on. And that becomes a real concern because I see in the long run we will have some given problems within this County and I think that hopefully some other kind of formula may come up, either through legislature or something because I've talked to an awful lot of people within the community and some of those who are on fixed incomes can no longer continue in the increases that they're getting and I don't want to see those people moved out of their home because they can't afford it, and I really do some real concerns. ' Orlin Shafer: Exactly. We too had a concern, in fact last week a lady stopped in my office. Her husband just passed away and we were talking about her property. She's got a house on a lot and then she's got another lot ... and her husband and I talked about this two years ago because he had a concern about... We had it down for 105 two years ago. She's listing it at 155 two years later and that is the situation. She's now definitely on a fixed income and yet this is what's driving that. We are charged by Statute to follow ... and we hear this a lot. ' Mayor Chmiel: ...something that's going to be equal for everyone. Because the}' are just escalating and escalating and I would hope that that's happening all over the entire County Not just here. Good, thank you. Is there a motion to close the Board of Review and Equalization? ' Councilman Senn: Don before we do, I'd just like to take your point back to the point Orlin that I was talking about before. I think that has a lot to do with what's happening in the upper bracket homes. I mean I think it's ' having a big effect on it and I think what's happening is, you know you're bringing all the land values up as a result of that and I'm not sure it's a fair comparison. Z Board of Review and Equalization - May 20, 1996 Orlin Shafer: The other side of that Councilman is that we've got sales now where they've bought the existing house on a lot and demolish the house to build a new house and people can do that, and are willing to do that. That's scary from our part because that adds that demo cost to the lot value. Councilman Senn: Are they in those cases paying the market value of the structure that it's on? Orlin Shafer: Yeah, Councilman Senn: And you're not talking about a tear down cabin? You're talking about a good house? Orlin Shafer: Were talking about a $235,000.00 sale that was destroyed to build a new house of $700 and some thousand. Now I mean this is extravagant. I don't relate to it personally but I do, as I've studied the numbers, and I go out and look at these houses. Councilman Senn: How often are we seeing that? I mean is that something that's happening. Orlin Shafer: I think we've had it happen over time, well county wide we've had it happen about 6 times in the last 30 months. But I mean again, those are not the norm. The other thing that happens however, in a subdivision, and the Mayor brought this up or perhaps Mr. Berquist, as a subdivision fills, all of a sudden we have one or two lots left. We're thinking that's driving the whole thing but truly, as the other houses ... all sell and they were built for $65 or $125, it doesn't make much difference. They are now selling for 2 1/2. That can't all be house. Some of that's got to be land. So we use the residual method and extract the house from the sale using other land sales. If we find that the house, even the old houses are far more expensive than they should be. Truly. I mean from what we see. But again we're obligated to go with what the market is telling us. Councilman Senn: I understand that but I mean do you think every 100 foot lot on Christmas Lake with an existing house is worth $300,000.00 in land value? Orlin Shafer: No. No, I wouldn't think so. Craig Paulson: If I might say something. Shane Mack owned property on Kurvers Point on Lotus Lake. He bought it for $488,000.00 in January of '93 and put about $7,000.00 into it in the meantime and sold it for $592,000.00 about 2 months ago. So that's over 20% increase. Councilman Senn: Well somebody wasn't taking out building permits because they remodeled the house, top to bottom, three times during their residency in three years. Craig Paulson: Is that right? Councilman Senn: Yeah, seriously. Craig Paulson: I was not aware of that. Councilman Senn: It's in my neighborhood. I know it Craig Paulson: I was not aware of that so. 10 I i Board of Review and Equalization - May 20, 1996 ' Orlin Shafer: ...it comes back to bite us a little bit when people do make appeals, and they're legitimate appeals. I like appeals to be quite frank about it because it gives us a reason to get into the property. But that's what we find a lot. Somebody will say well my neighbor down the street just finished a basement off. We never saw a ' building permit. We didn't know about it and it took us 4 years to ... and then the value leaps. That sort of thing. 1 Councilman Berquist: I've got another quick question for you. Out of all of these, this 134 appeals, what percentage of them showed some modification? ' Mayor Chmiel: 68 to 67. Orlin Shafer: Yeah, between 60 and 70. ' Councilman Berquist: And were all those people, all 134, the ones that were modified and the ones that weren't, were they happy campers once you guys left the place? ' Orlin Shafer: Not necessarily. Some wanted a greater adjustment. Councilman Berquist: I'm amazed. I am amazed that one gentleman shows up to express his frustration. To ' what do you attribute that? Orlin Shafer: Maybe some of the people really wanted to be heard and we did that. We listened and we looked and we re- computed and even some minor adjustments satisfy some of the people. I don't know what goes on ' in the minds of those people but I'm certainly glad they made an appeal. Councilman Berquist: I can appreciate everyone's time and the fact that they're not here and the fact that you're ' a smooth talking devil but my feeling is that there's probably just this, what more can I do sort of, throw up my hands and accept the inevitable and pay the taxes and go away and fuss about it. Orlin Shafer: We've had a few of those Councilman Berquist. Not many. By the time we get done with our one on one, they're either glad to get rid of us because they've learned something. They've, it's an educational process for those people. The night we had our informational meeting here, I believe 10 -12 people came up and actually thanked us for holding that meeting. They learned a few things. They learned how the system works ' How we arrived at some of the numbers. It's a good process. But I don't think they're near as frustrated as they were on the 15th of April when they came here that night. So some of that has gone away. It's not due to the resignation by any means. ' Councilman Berquist: I hope you're right. I really do. On the other hand I think their frustration has probably been added to it. I'm sure on a personal, one on one level, they're pleasant, as I would expect them to be and congenial but all and all, with valuation increases like they're seeing and increased taxation as per those ' valuations, there has got to be a tremendous amount of, I can't fight City Hall or State Legislature or County Board. This is all fruitless. t Orlin Shafer: Well in that respect you're right. I don't believe anyone we've talked to this year was happy about the end tax result... potentially taxed. The}' weren't unhappy about the values. For the most part we could accept it as being reasonable and very few didn't ... but none of them were happy about the tax impact, no. That I can vouch for. I've received several calls, or more than several. Dozens of calls after my people were out and 11 1 Board of Review and Equalization - May 20, 1996 talking about well what could the potential taxes ... and I didn't have an answer to that. It's sorry to say but that's true. So the tax thing is what, the Mayor is right. It's frustrating. People are being taxed and they're constantly taxed you know... Mayor Chmiel: Okay, I have a motion on the floor to close the Board of Review and Equalization. Is there a motion? I motioned it. Is there a second? Councilman Mason: I'll second it. Mayor Chmiel moved, Councilman Mason seconded to close the Board of Review and Equalization meeting. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The Board of Review and Equalization was closed for 1996. Submitted by Don Ashworth City Manager Prepared by Nann Opheim 12 t 1 1