CR 99-71 1999 Hopkins Board Of Review
1 y 0
\
CJ ,<-
m
..y ""
April 1, 1999 o P K \ ~ Council Report 99-71
.
1999 HOPKINS BOARD OF REVIEW
Proposed Action
Staffrecommends adoption of the following motion: Move to adopt the proposed 1999 Board of
Review procedures and to establish as policy: I) that the Board will accept the established
market value as determined by the real estate advisors. and 2) that appeals cannot be withdrawn
once the estimates are provided by the advisors.
Overview
The Board of Review is scheduled for April 20, 1999 at 6:30 p.m. A decision was made to add
real estate advisors for their expert opinion to assist the board in their valuation decisions.
How this expert information is to be used, needs to be addressed by the members of the Board of
Review,
As of this date, we have one application in hand and a verbal commitment from another. It was
our desire to have representation from each ofthe three real estate offices in Hopkins. It is
understood that at the conclusion of this year's Board, we will review the process for possible
. changes next year.
Primary Issues to Consider
. How will the Board make use of the outside independent estimate of value in the decision
process?
. If the advisors' recommended valuation is above the assessor's estimated market value, will
the property owner be allowed to withdraw their appeal?
. What information will be given out to property owners to inform them of the new Board of
Review procedures?
Supporting Documents
.. Proposed 1999 Hopkins Board of Review Format and Procedure.
I)U-L LJ~
.
e Robert C. Wilson, Assessor
Council Report 99- 71
04/01/99
Page 2
.
Primary Issues to Consider
. How will the Board make use of the outside independent estimate of value in the
decision process?
A decision was made in an effort to improve the appeals process for both property
owners and board members by appointing real estate advisors.
The City of Minnetonka has used an advisory panel for a number of years and would
serve as a model for the Hopkins Board of Review.
The decisions made by the Minnetonka Board of Review members are based on the value
estimates provided by the real estate advisors. The advisors' opinions of value are
approved regardless of the assessor's estimated market value. Even if the advisors'
valuation conclusion is greater than the appealed value, the Board accepts the higher
value.
. If the advisors' recommended valuation is above the assessor's estimated market value,
e will the property owner be allowed to withdraw their appeal?
In the City of Minnetonka, once an appeal has been filed and the advisors have reviewed
the owner's property, the appeal cannot be withdrawn even if the advisors' valuation is
higher than the assessor's original value. This is done to discourage property owners
from frivolous appeals and ensures fair and equitable treatment to everyone.
. What information will be given out to property owners to inform them of the new Board
of Review procedures?
An article explaining the new Board of Review procedures appears on the first issue of
the Hopkins Link Report. Property owners will also be informed in person by the
Assessing staff during the valuation review process.
Alternatives
The Board of Review has the following alternatives regarding this item:
1. Use the advisor's estimate of value as an added piece of information and make
valuation decisions that may differ from the advisor's conclusions.
2. Allow the property owner to withdraw their appeal at any time prior to the Board's
. final action regarding their valuation.
. PROPOSED 1999 HOPKINS BOARD OF REVIEW
FORMAT:
The Board of Review will consist of the members ofthe city council. To assist the board in the
appeals process, the council will appoint two or more advisors. The advisors should live or work
in the Hopkins community and have experience in the real estate field. The advisors' findings
will be submitted to the Board of Review and will be used as expert information in making a
decision.
PROCEDURE:
1. The property owner is required to complete a written application prior to the meeting. It
is not necessary for a property owner to appear before the board once the application is
filed.
2. The purpose of the initial meeting is to take the written appeals and refer them to the real
estate advisors for review.
3. The Board of Review meeting is not a public hearing. Property owners should discuss
their specific concerns to the advisors during their visit to the property.
. 4. No decisions will be made during the initial meeting. The board will reconvene at a later
date to make the final decisions on appeals.
5. Appeals on commercial, industrial or apartment properties will be referred directly to the
County Board of Equalization.
6. The advisors will not be required to attend the reconvened meeting. Their value
conclusions, along with any written comments or explanations will be provided to board
members.
7. The local and county boards have the authority to raise or lower an appealed market
value. The Board will use the advisor's expert opinions when deciding whether the
appealed value should be lowered, left the same, or raised in value.
8. The decision of the Local Board may be appealed to the Hennepin County Board of
Equalization.
9. In appreciation and gratitude, the advisors will receive $25.00 for attending the meeting
and $25.00 each for the properties they review in pairs.
.
---
April 6, 1999
. CONCLUSION FOR INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT
The City of Hopkins contracted with Peat Marwick for consulting services to review the city's
current technology environment and assess the services required now and in the future.
Following is a presentation from Jolm Grondahl, a consultant with Peat Marwick who specializes
in technology assessments. The consultants have established recommendations for the City of
Hopkins to improve upon its' technology environment.
Following are the recommendations:
. Hire one or two individuals to plan, coordinate and oversee the implementation of
information technology systems.
. Centralize the information technology budget for hardware, software and services.
. Develop a three year information technology plan for applications, hardware, software and
serVIces.
- Develop standards for hardware, software and applications.
. Implement a train the trainer concept for Microsoft Word, Microsoft Excel, Microsoft
Access, Microsoft Power Point, Microsoft Publishing, Govern Systems, GIS and PACE
e Financial Systems.
Overview
Originally the goals set forth in the 1998 budget were to resolve the city's technology issues by
determining exactly what the technology issues are and then deciding on the best way to solve them.
The decision was made to hire an outside consultant to come in and review our teclmology systems
and give us some advice as to what approach the city should take, if any, to help with our cunent and
future technology status.
Peat Marwick interviewed key users of our current technology systems. They also reviewed
current documentation regarding control and security and took a close look at our various
hardware and software systems, reviewing the interaction and considering the maintenance
required.
Attached is a copy ofthe presentation from Peat Marwick. Following the presentation will be a
discussion period to enable you to express any concerns or questions regarding the
recommendation.
&~ "/}/~
. Lori Yager
Finance Director