My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Minutes - Council Work Session - 03/02/2010
Ramsey
>
Public
>
Minutes
>
Council Work Session
>
2010
>
Minutes - Council Work Session - 03/02/2010
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/14/2025 1:34:38 PM
Creation date
4/12/2010 11:27:12 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Document Type
Minutes
Meeting Type
Council Work Session
Document Date
03/02/2010
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
11
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
<br />He stated he is selling a commercial building that will take about a 40% cut and <br />wondered why is this subject property holding such a value when other purchase prices <br />seem to be down to $4 a foot - also on the same corridor. He felt it just didn't "add up". <br /> <br />Ms. Ruehle explained that the $4 comparison is by the Coon Rapids rail station and is 15 <br />plus acres. It seems the bigger the property, the smaller the value. <br /> <br />George Eckenoff stated that they used eight comps from a selection of 50 and they <br />ranged from $9.21 to $10.21 a square foot as adjusted. In an unadjusted manner, the <br />comps ranged from $7.77 to $14.98. He presented an appraisal formula, which included <br />traffic counts, etc. He explained the procedure and stated that he felt it was a fair <br />appraisal. He added that this subject property has a unique location to the college and <br />that needs to be considered. <br /> <br />Councilmember Wise inquired if the property owner had an appraisal done as well to <br />which Mr. Eckenoff replied no. <br /> <br />Councilmember Dehen stated that when he looks at these comps, Holiday is the only <br />benchmark we have other than a property in Rogers. He wondered if that is as good as it <br />gets. <br /> <br />Mr. Eckenoff responded that this property has sewer and water assessibilities. <br /> <br />Chris Hokanson noted a difficulty in locating comps. It has to do with this process - no <br />one is going to buy on Highway #10 knowing their building will be torn down - so he <br />had to view comps elsewhere of similar size and comparable locations. <br /> <br />Councilmember Look asked if we got a County Assessor appraisal number on this <br />property. He reiterated it seems high when we are paying $10 and other land is going for <br />$4. He felt that this is based on square footage - it seems as if the appraisal is going off <br />on the assessed market value. <br /> <br />Mr. Hokanson responded that his appraisal is completely independent. <br /> <br />Councilmember Look commented that County assessments are normally two years in <br />arrears. If we are at all close to what the appraised amount was two years ago, and we <br />are buying today - that amount is taking a beating. He sated he is reluctant to go by a <br />county assessed value. <br /> <br />Mr. Eckenoff stated that they have to go by comp sales - not the County's market value. <br /> <br />Mayor Ramsey inquired about the criteria for a comp to which Mr. Eckenoff provided <br />examples. <br /> <br />Councilmember Elvig suggested that the City is in kind of a "Catch-22". There are <br />variables as the City continues to buy. The property on Highway #10 is not getting a <br /> <br />City Council Work Session - March 2, 2010 <br />Page 2 of 11 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.