06-22-88 Council Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

MINUTES City Council June 22, 1988 Taxes The Auditor• pointed out that under• the mill r•ate method, Little Canada (Cont.) r~anked 49th of the 95 communities sur~veyed and this r•anking contr•adicts the conclusions of the $80,000 hypothetical home method. The City's school distr•ict mill r•ate r•anked 17th of the 45 school distr•icts included in the seven county metr~opolitan ar•ea. The Ramsey County mill r•ate r~anks 3r•d of the 7 counties compare~. The Auditor pointed out that the City's 1988 total mill r•ate (City, School Distr•ict, County and other•) r•anked 20th of the 95 communities sur~veyed. These r•ankings all contr~adict the conclusion of the $80,000 hypothetical home method. The Auditor• also pointed out that the City's mill r~ate of 19.081 r~epr•esents 16% of the total mills levied against Little Canada pr•operty owner•s. The major•ity of the mill r•ate is levied by the School Distr•ict (50%) and the County (30%). The City has no contr~ol over~ tax levies of other• gover~nmental jur•isdictions. The City only has contr•ol over~thel6% or~ the City's tax levy. The Auditor• then r•eviewed histor•ical tax levies for~ the City for the past seven year•s pointing out that of those 7 year•s, the City r•educed its mill r~ate in each of 5 year•s. The Auditor• then r~eviewed the $80,000 hypothetical home method that was used in the sur•vey and indicated that the sur~vey should have concluded that Little Canada has the highest r•esidential assessment/sales ratio r•ather~ than the highest pr•oper•ty taxes. The Auditor• pointed out that the infor~mation used to deter•mine ranking of pr•oper•ty taxes was the assessment/sales r•atio, which was an er•r~oneous use of this information. The Auditor concluded that the best indicator• of both taxing levels and taxing r~ates is the use of average pr•ice home. Use of this data r•anks the City of Little Canada 37th of the 95 communities compar•ed. Richar•d Ward, Ramsey County Assessor, appeared before the Council. War~d r•epor•ted that the City Auditor•'s explanation of the facts of the sur•vey was accurate. Ward explained var•ious infor•mation that can be used in compar~ing pr•oper•ty taxes. War•d explained that if mill r•ates ar•e used, then the mill r•ates of var•ious cities, school distr~icts and water~sheds must be compar•ed. War•d r~epor•ted that the use of the r~esidential assessment/sales r•atio in the sur•vey was an illegitimate use of that data. War•d explained that there ar~e thr~ee differ•ent types of r~atios gener~ated and explained these in detail. The fir~st is the r•esidential assessment/sales r•atio which is based on 9 month infor•mation and is used by Minnesota Tax Cour•t. Thi s compar~es estimated mar~ket val ue to sal es pr•i ces for• the period January, 1987 through Sept,, 1987. The second r•atio is based on 12 month data and is used to deter•mine assessment r~atio for~ the following year•. This data is r~eviewed by the Boar~d of Equalization each year~ to deter•mine if cur~rent ratios need adjustment. Paye -15-