3. Abatement hrg/B&H Investmts - Laserfiche WebLink

INVESTIGATION OF ABATEMENT APPLICATION ABATEMENT NO. 5253 Following is a report on the investigation of the abatement application of: B&H Investments Cass County Board of Commissioners and State Tax Commissioner: The applicant (Phil Buhr) is asking that the $545,000 valuation be reduced on his commercial property located on Lot 2 BK 1 Dakota Plaza Addition for 2003. He states that the valuation should be $219,200, which is a valuation on a neighboring property. The Stanley Twp Board recommended denial of the application. The property is located at 5402 53rd Ave SW, along 52nd Ave, about 1 mile west ofl-29. The structure is a 10,500 square foot steel frame shop building that is insulated and heated. It's divided into 3 bays, with one bay being further divided. There is one restroom in each bay. There is also a 4,000 square foot steel frame office addition that is divided into three separate offices. The office addition shares two restrooms of the common hallway. For 2003, the property was assessed at $55,500 for the land and $490,000 for the structures, for a total valuation of $545,000. The applicant feels that this property is comparable to the Jobber's Moving and Storage property, which has an assessment of$219,200 (Note: Jobber's Moving is located on two parcels that has a total valuation of $80,000 land and $358,700 for the structures, for a total valuation of $438,700). I did review the B& H assessment. Compared to market value and costs, the valuation does not appear excessive. I also reviewed other assessments in the development. Compared to some properties, Mr. Buhr's assessment appears equitable. It would seem that some of the newer neighboring properties had partial assessments, as the valuations were increased significantly for 2004. February 1 st of each year is the assessment date and any improvements made after that date become assessable the next year. Also, it would appear that some properties have had ongoing improvements made, but the increases in value did not get added to the roll. It's possible that the assessor did not get a copy of the building permit or that one was not issued. Mr. Buhr's valuation appears to represent market value. There is no evidence that the B& H commercial structure valuation was assessed at market and other property was systemically under assessed. It would appear that any under assessment of other property was an oversight and unintentional. It would appear that Mr. Buhr's lot valuation may be somewhat high compared to surrounding property and it would be my recommendation to lower the lot valuation $10,000. Suggested Motion: "I move that the Abatement #5253 be lowered $10,000 to make the improved lot valuation equitable with other improved lots."