|
May 9, 1979
<br />due to this refund. One of the audience pointed out that becasue the
<br />property values go up 10% per year, the City is then guaranteed a 10%
<br />increase in the City budget without any justification for it. Mayor
<br />Karth replied that the mil rate for the city remains the same, and that
<br />inflations is responsible for a similar increase in expenses for the City
<br />budget. Mr. Starkey said that taxes are based on assessed value, which
<br />has been going down, even though the market value is going up. The
<br />assessed value times the mil rate gives the gorss taxes. In answer to
<br />another question, Mr. Starkey explained that on residential homestead
<br />property, the first $17,000 is calculated at 20 %, and the remainder over
<br />$17,000 is at 33 -1/3 %.
<br />Mr. Joseph Marcotte, plat No. 82910, parcel 0350, was concerned becasue
<br />his land was purchased by the County for or five years ago, and he felt
<br />that what he had received for the land had been too low, in view of an
<br />offer he had received previous to that. He indicated that this offer had
<br />been $55,000, although he later stated it to be $35,000. Mrs. Roisum
<br />checked the record, which listed the market value at $10,200, which- was
<br />comparable to the price he and received from the County. It was listed
<br />as a 2- acre lot, with a 440 square foot, one -story house built in 1950.
<br />Mr. Marcotte indicated it was a two -story home. It was felt by the Board
<br />that the price the County had given him was comparable with the listed
<br />value of the property.
<br />Mr. James Plemmons, plat No. 82931, parcel 6420, 927 W. County Road J
<br />wanted to know what the listed square footage of his house was. Mrs.
<br />Roisum checked the books; it was listed at 28x34, with a 1977 enclosure
<br />of 32x12 which makes 1,168 for a total. In answer to his question, Mr.
<br />Starkey explained the difference between limited market value and market
<br />value. He said that eventually we may see only one market value, and that
<br />in Anoka County, the limited and actual market values are not that far
<br />apart (approximately a .02% differential), so that the removal of the
<br />limited value, as far as taxes are concerned, will not have as great an
<br />impact here as in other areas whrer the difference is much larger. The
<br />assesor is only responsible for the market value, and that's the only
<br />value they have in their records. Mr. Plaemmons said he had a 26% increase
<br />this year, which he thought was escessive. Mrs. Roisum checked the books,
<br />which listed a breezeway, which was made into a dining room, that hadn't
<br />been picked up until this year, and a patio lsited at 20% complete, a
<br />garage, a fireplace, and a 100 square foot finished basement area; the
<br />land value was $13,900, which included a land improvement, and structure
<br />value was listed at $36,000, with the new structure (or previously
<br />omitted structure) listed at $2,000, making a total of $49,900. Lot
<br />values, which had gone up this year, and the new structure value were
<br />primarily responsible for the increase. Mr. Plemmons wanted to know if
<br />the breezeway was looked at at today's market value or had it been looked
<br />at for the value when it was built; Mrs. Roisum indicated it had been
<br />depreciated at the same vlaue as the house (16 years old). Mr. Plemmons
<br />felt he was being penalized becadge this new structure had been overlooked
<br />previously; Mrs. Roisum said that becasue it was obsolesced at 16 years,
<br />rather than 5 years, he and in fact come out ahead. It was onsolesced
<br />at the same rate as the house because when it was assessed, no one had
<br />known exactly when it had been put in. Mr. Plemmons wanted to know why
<br />it all hadn to be picked up at once, ie., this year; Mr. Starkey said
<br />as a policy they don't usually go back a few years to add it on, but it
<br />could be done if Mr. Plemmons wanted to, although it would be more espensive
<br />that way. He indicated that the law requires the assessor to visit 25%
<br />of the property every year, and therefore most property will get inspected
<br />once in every four years. In the course of this four -year cycle, some
<br />things are missed, and this is apparently what had happened in this case.
<br />
|