BOARD OF APPEAL AND EQUALIZATION COUNTY OF SCOTT ...

PAGE 5June 22, 2010is a statewide organization that helps to drive a revisit of practice and/or technical changes.Staff can initiate discussions through that organization. Commissioner Warfield noted that theappraisal guidelines do recognize the changing market.The motion carried on a vote of four ayes, with Commissioner Larson dissenting.E. Commissioner Larson stated that he would need to abstain from voting on the nextitem, and left the room.David Haspel, PID #25-406-0430, noted that his appeal is similar to the previous case. Thefirst two comparables are located in Dakota County, and he feels that they are not goodcomparables. The other comparable is on Tranquility Court, and shows a cost per square footof $80. Using that amount times the correct amount of his square footage, which is 750 squarefeet and not 808, he comes up with a market value of $60,000. In addition, he has an appraisalat $50,000 done for Wells Fargo in December of 2009. He feels that the $85,000 current valueisn’t close. The 68 square foot difference is for a storage area. In response to Chair Marks’inquiry, Mr. Haspel maintained that the storage area is common area and is not part of theliving space. Mr. Ahmet concurred with that statement.Mr. Thompson noted that staff had not previously been informed of the difference in thesquare footage. Mr. Haspel stated that he would be willing to have the space re-measured byCounty staff. Mr. Thompson stated that he does not feel that taking a flat price per square footfrom one property and applying it to another is an appropriate methodology to determine thevalue. He noted that the comparable on Tranquility Court shows a value of $81,825, which isvery close to the assessed value of $85,400. Mr. Haspel argued that there are no othercomparables to use, and that he feels the $80 per square foot is the only way to determine thevalue.Mr. Pint responded to inquiries from the Commissioners. He stated that comparables 4 and5 were not used in determining the value as they are senior housing, but are there to show onebedroom and similar square footage. Mr. Thompson informed the Commissioners that therewas not available information to extract from sales of condominiums in Scott County to helpdetermine the difference in value for a one bedroom versus two bedroom unit. CommissionerFritz asked if that information would be available from sales of condominiums in Dakota County.Commissioner Fritz made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Warfield to revisit theanalysis of this property with a further adjustment for the value of an extra bathroom and extrabedroom, and an adjustment for location. The motion carried on a vote of four ayes, withCommissioner Larson abstaining.F. Wayne Tonsager, PID #08-915-0183, was not in attendance.G. Chair Marks stated that he has prepared an appraisal for Mr. Kreisssler, so would needto abstain from voting on this item. He turned the meeting over to Vice Chair VanDenBoom,and left the room.Mark Kreissler, PID #25-449-0010, advised the Commissioners that the assessed value forhis commercial property in 2010 was originally $1,950,000. County staff toured the building andthe value was reduced by the Prior Lake Board of Appeals to $1,850,000. He feels it should bereduced further. Universal Valuation Services completed an appraisal, which came back with a