My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Search
05-06-13 Council Packet
LinoLakes
>
City Council
>
City Council Meeting Packets
>
1982-2020
>
2013
>
05-06-13 Council Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
2/28/2014 3:45:57 PM
Creation date
5/3/2013 4:50:20 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council
Council Document Type
Council Packet
Meeting Date
05/06/2013
Council Meeting Type
Work Session Regular
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
176
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
Anoka County City of Lino Lakes <br />27 <br /> <br />When a taxing jurisdiction lies in two or more counties, if the sales ratio studies prepared by the <br />Department of Revenue show that the average levels of assessment in the several portions of the <br />taxing jurisdictions in the different counties differ by more than five percent, the board may order <br />the apportionment of the levy. When the sales ratio studie s prepared by the Department of <br />Revenue show that the average levels of assessment in the several portions of the taxing <br />jurisdictions in the different counties differ by more than ten percent, the board shall order the <br />apportionment of the levy unless (a) the proportion of total adjusted gross tax capacity in one of <br />the counties is less than ten percent of the total adjusted gross tax capacity in the taxing <br />jurisdiction and the average level of assessment in that portion of the taxing jurisdiction is the l evel <br />which differs by more than five percent from the assessment level in any one of the other portions <br />of the taxing jurisdiction; (b) significant changes have been made in the level of assessment in the <br />taxing jurisdiction which have not been reflected i n the sales ratio study, and those changes alter <br />the assessment levels in the portions of the taxing jurisdiction so that the assessment level now <br />differs by five percent or less; or (c) commercial, industrial, mineral, or public utility property <br />predomina tes in one county within the taxing jurisdiction and another class of property <br />predominates in another county within that same taxing jurisdiction. If one or more of these factors <br />are present, the board may order the apportionment of the levy. Notwithstand ing any other <br />provision, the levy for the Metropolitan Mosquito Control District, Metropolitan Council, <br />metropolitan transit district, and metropolitan transit area must be apportioned without regard to <br />the percentage difference. If, pursuant to this subdi vision, the board apportions the levy, then that <br />levy apportionment among the portions in the different counties shall be made in the same <br />proportion as the adjusted gross tax capacity as determined by the commissioner in each portion is <br />to the total adjus ted gross tax capacity of the taxing jurisdiction. For the purposes of this section, <br />the average level of assessment in a taxing jurisdiction or portion thereof shall be the aggregate <br />assessment sales ratio. Gross tax capacities as determined by the commis sioner shall be the <br />gross tax capacities as determined for the year preceding the year in which the levy to be <br />apportioned is levied. Actions pursuant to this subdivision shall be commenced subsequent to the <br />annual meeting on April 15 of the State Board of Equalization, but notice of the action shall be <br />given to the affected jurisdiction and the appropriate county auditors by the following June 30. <br />Apportionment of a levy pursuant to this subdivision shall be considered as a remedy to be taken <br />after equaliz ation pursuant to subdivision 2, and when equalization within the jurisdiction would <br />disturb equalization within other jurisdictions of which the several portions of the jurisdiction in <br />question are a part. <br /> Subd. 4.Public utility property. <br />For purposes of equalization only, public utility personal property shall be treated as a separate <br />class of property notwithstanding the fact that its class rate is the same as commercial -industrial <br />property. <br /> Subd. 5.Equalization orders. <br />The Board of Equalization may, pursuant to its responsibilities under subdivisions 2 and 3, issue <br />orders to ensure that the results of local and county boards of equalization are consistent with the <br />objective of state equalization. The board may issue, at its discretion, a supplem ental order to <br />amend, supersede, or correct a prior order of the board or an order of a local or county board. The <br />supplemental order must be issued within 60 days of the order to be changed. The board may <br />issue to a local or county board of equalization, within ten business days of the receipt of minutes <br />of a local or county board of equalization, an order explaining the action that the state board <br />believes will be necessary to effect the objective of state equalization. <br />History: (2366 ) RL s 863 ; 1971 c 564 s 3 ; 1973 c 123 art 5 s 7 ; 1973 c 582 s 3 ; 1975 c 295 s 1 ; 1975 c 339 s 8 ; <br />1978 c 766 s 1 ; 1980 c 616 s 10 ; 1983 c 222 s 3 ; 1985 c 300 s 3 ; 1Sp1986 c 1 art 4 s 10 ; 1987 c 268 art 7 s <br />20 ,21; 198 8 c 719 art 5 s 84 ; 1989 c 277 art 2 s 12 ; 1989 c 329 art 15 s 20 ; 1Sp1989 c 1 art 2 s 11 ; art 3 s 1; art <br />9 s 9,10; 1991 c 291 art 1 s 7 ; art 12 s 3; 1994 c 416 art 1 s 7 <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.