Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05/09/1979 Council Minutes240 May 4, 1979 is a question whether this money will be refunded by Circle Pines or not. Mr. Kelling suggested that perhaps the system's (Circle Pines) financial records should be checked - this would tell this City what the profits are and what portion belongs to the Lino Lakes system. The existing lines on Rice Lake Lane will be discussed and reoslved between the two companies. Mr. Kulaszewicz moved to adjourn at 2:00 P.M. Seconded, by Mr. Zelinka. Aye. These minutes were considered, corrected and approved at the regular Council meeting held on May 14, 1979. Edna L. Sarner, Clerk- Treasurer May 9, 1979 The Board of Reveiw was called to order at 7:00 P.M., May 9, 1979 by Mayor Karth. Council members present; Kulaszewicz, McLean, Schneider. Absent; Zelinka. Mr. Starkey from the County Assessor's office, and Margie Roisum, City Assessor, were also present. 1 Mrs. Dean Allen, plat 82906, parcel 0610, asked if the Assessor had used the house plans when their property was assessed. Mrs. Roisum answered that the usual practive is to measure the house from the outside; the records list 22x41 as the base and then an overhang of one foot; a foyer and entry as 8x16. Mrs. Allen said her market value had jumped $21,800, and thought it excessive for one year. Mrs. Roisum checked the records, which listed the house at 75% complete in 1978, and 100% complete for 1979; this was the reason for the large increase in tax. Mrs. Allen wanted to know what type of taxes she will be receiving next year. MR. Starkey indicated that all the County could do at this time is give her an estimate, as there is proposed legislation pending now that will affect property taxes, and that next year could be a whole different story. Mrs. Allen wanted to know why Lino Lakes' taxes are so high. Mayor Karth answered that the proportion of tax Lino Lakes gets each year is minimal (16.530 mills), and the highest proportion goes to school taxes, which in her case is Forest Lake School District (60.467 mills) In a survey put out a year ago by the Citizen's League, Lino Lakes was listed second highest taxed, but this year Lino Lakes has dropped to 20th from the top. This is due primarily to more people paying tax now. Mr. J. J. Bakken, plat No. 83313, parcel 3660, was concerned becasue his tax statement has gone up by $4,000.00 in the last two or three years, although he has made no najor improvements. Mrs. Roisum indicated that an increase of 10% per year is average, due to inflation. Also, state law requires that assessments be within 90 of current market value each year. Mr. Bakken was concerned becasue where he lives, he gets very little in the way of services for his tax dollars, other than fire and police protection.. He also suggested about two weeks of burning (leaves) in the spring and fall, as there is no dump nearby. Mayor Karth said that this would be a matter for the PCA. There was further discussion concerning sewer and water services. In reference to property tax increases, Mr. Starkey indicated that the circuiot - breaker property tax refund was the only aid available to senior citizens. He added that people were paying more property taxes in 1972 than they are now May 9, 1979 due to this refund. One of the audience pointed out that becasue the property values go up 10% per year, the City is then guaranteed a 10% increase in the City budget without any justification for it. Mayor Karth replied that the mil rate for the city remains the same, and that inflations is responsible for a similar increase in expenses for the City budget. Mr. Starkey said that taxes are based on assessed value, which has been going down, even though the market value is going up. The assessed value times the mil rate gives the gorss taxes. In answer to another question, Mr. Starkey explained that on residential homestead property, the first $17,000 is calculated at 20 %, and the remainder over $17,000 is at 33 -1/3 %. Mr. Joseph Marcotte, plat No. 82910, parcel 0350, was concerned becasue his land was purchased by the County for or five years ago, and he felt that what he had received for the land had been too low, in view of an offer he had received previous to that. He indicated that this offer had been $55,000, although he later stated it to be $35,000. Mrs. Roisum checked the record, which listed the market value at $10,200, which- was comparable to the price he and received from the County. It was listed as a 2- acre lot, with a 440 square foot, one -story house built in 1950. Mr. Marcotte indicated it was a two -story home. It was felt by the Board that the price the County had given him was comparable with the listed value of the property. Mr. James Plemmons, plat No. 82931, parcel 6420, 927 W. County Road J wanted to know what the listed square footage of his house was. Mrs. Roisum checked the books; it was listed at 28x34, with a 1977 enclosure of 32x12 which makes 1,168 for a total. In answer to his question, Mr. Starkey explained the difference between limited market value and market value. He said that eventually we may see only one market value, and that in Anoka County, the limited and actual market values are not that far apart (approximately a .02% differential), so that the removal of the limited value, as far as taxes are concerned, will not have as great an impact here as in other areas whrer the difference is much larger. The assesor is only responsible for the market value, and that's the only value they have in their records. Mr. Plaemmons said he had a 26% increase this year, which he thought was escessive. Mrs. Roisum checked the books, which listed a breezeway, which was made into a dining room, that hadn't been picked up until this year, and a patio lsited at 20% complete, a garage, a fireplace, and a 100 square foot finished basement area; the land value was $13,900, which included a land improvement, and structure value was listed at $36,000, with the new structure (or previously omitted structure) listed at $2,000, making a total of $49,900. Lot values, which had gone up this year, and the new structure value were primarily responsible for the increase. Mr. Plemmons wanted to know if the breezeway was looked at at today's market value or had it been looked at for the value when it was built; Mrs. Roisum indicated it had been depreciated at the same vlaue as the house (16 years old). Mr. Plemmons felt he was being penalized becadge this new structure had been overlooked previously; Mrs. Roisum said that becasue it was obsolesced at 16 years, rather than 5 years, he and in fact come out ahead. It was onsolesced at the same rate as the house because when it was assessed, no one had known exactly when it had been put in. Mr. Plemmons wanted to know why it all hadn to be picked up at once, ie., this year; Mr. Starkey said as a policy they don't usually go back a few years to add it on, but it could be done if Mr. Plemmons wanted to, although it would be more espensive that way. He indicated that the law requires the assessor to visit 25% of the property every year, and therefore most property will get inspected once in every four years. In the course of this four -year cycle, some things are missed, and this is apparently what had happened in this case. 242 May 9, 1979 Mr. Plemmons requested that the assessor come out and take a look at his property to review this. Mrs. Roisum asked hom to call to make an appointment whenever it was convenient. Mr. and Mrs. Standridge, plat No. 82908, parcel 3300 said that there were no improvements other than land improvements on their property, and their taxes had jumped quite a bit since last year. Mrs. Roisum checked the books and found listed the house, the deck, the shed and a barn as all the structures on the land, and market value listed as in- creasing from $40,778 in 1978 to $43,400 in 1979; she said that this increase was due basically to inflation. She also indicated that the building site value rose fro $5,900 to $8,00 this last year. Mr. Standridge said that the house is high water 90 %of the time; Mrs. Roisum said that this was taken into consideration, and explained the pro= cedure. Mr. Standridge requested that Mrs. Roisum come out and revalue the house. An appointment will be made. Mr. Dae Hak Chi, Plat No. 88083, parcel 20 wanted to know what his taxes were going to be next year. Mrs. Roisum said she had only a partial structure listed as of 1979. Mr. Sarkey first gave a rough estimate of $90.00, based primarily on the lot, as the structure is listed as in- complete on January 2 (1979). He added that if he occupies it prior to June 1, then he would be eligiablefor the homestead property tax refund. which would reduce that tax to about $290. This was based on a $12,000 value on the house. This year's taxes would be just on the lot. With the limited value at $6,000, Mr. Starkey revised his estimate to be $240, with half of that refunded if the home was occupied by June 1. Mr. Thomas Lehn, palt No. 85400, parcel 1000, asked how market value was determined. Mr. Starkey said that market value should reflect what homes are actually selling for, but that because assessments are made early, the market value is often only about 90% of the actual selling value. Mr. Lehn wantted to know how assessments are done on new homes, especially in reference to his; Mrs. Roisum said that someone probably looked at it either before they moved in, or possibly afterwasrds. Mr. Lehn asked if it was possible to find out what neighbor's homes were valued at. Mr. Starkey said that when the Assessment Book is available (sometime in November), it is a matter of public record. Mr. Lehn was concerned becasue his home was valued at $55,700, and he understood his beighbor's jp,e. pm a comparable lot, to be valued at $44,000. Mrs. Roisum replied that it may not have been listed as a complete stru -ture at the time of assessment (completion of structures is often estimated for January 2), or that different types of homes are valued differently (split levels, split entries, etc.). Mr. Lehn inquired as to how homes are valued; Mrs. Roisum said all the homes in Colonial Woods are running very close together, and offhand, none seem to be valued at more than $5,00 less than Mr. Lehn's ,r. Lehn asked for a breakdown on his home: There is a land value of $11,200, which includes a $2,000 land improve- ment value for 1979, and a structure value of $49,400, for a total of $60,600. 1978 structure value was $48,500. Mr. Lehn said that last year's lot taxes were $19, and he was surprised because it was so low. Mr. Starkey replied that the first year taxes on a lot from a larger plat is figured by taking the larger area acreage value and dividing it by the number of lots, and that's why first year taxes are so low. Mr. Lehb wanted to know if in the event he wasn't comfortable with teh valuation on his house when he saw the Assessment Book in November, would he have any further recourse? Mr. Starkey indicated that he could complain this time next year on any previous taxes and it could be looked into again at that time. At that point hw could go through the local board, then the County Board, and after that there is still the option May 9, 1979 243 of legal action. He indicated that he could also contact the Assessor's office and fill out a review form to have another assessment made, If it's lower, a reduction is recommended, and if it's higher, no reduction is made. This, however, is limited to just one's own home, and does not include any neighbor's homes. Mr. Lehn asked if mil rates were the same for all cities; the explanation was that a mil is the same all over, but the mil rate is different from city to city. Mr. Lehn metioned a case in Hennepin County where the house was comparable to his, but the taxes were much lower on it. Mr. Starkey replied that this might be a case of limited value - the new homes are closer to the assessed value than the older homes. Mr. Rosengren, plat No. 82907, parcel 10 was concerned about a situation where he and divided up a piece of land into several parcels, The question was one of acreage (a land size discrepancy) and also of taxes on these parcels. Mr. Rosengren had been to the Auditor's office in Anoka, but apparently the situation was still unclear. These parcels were sold on contract for deed basis, and he pays the taxes on the. Mr. Starkey indicated that if the values arethe same on two of these, then the difference in taxes.is due to the fact that one was full- homesteaded, Honesteaded is assessed differently than non- homestead (or half homestead) property. Mr. Starkey suggested that Mr. Roasengren call for an appoint- ment to come into the Assessor's office to go over these problems. Mr. L'Allier, plat No. 88193,parcel 160, inquired as to the situation with new construction, and whether lot valuation is based on what a person paid for it. Mr. Starkey answered that that has a bearing on how the land is valued, but they try to get an overalll picture or average on places to equalize it. Mr. Storberg asked how it rates are determined; Mayor Karth answered that the budget balanced against against the assessed valuation of the City is what determines it, and that more construction is not alwayg better, as suggested by Mr. Storberg. Mr. Storberg was particularly concerned about the $425.00 charge for the sewer availability tax. Mayor Karth said that this was charged in the event that the sewer ever becomes available; it provides funds for when the sewer is extended so that it won't be necessary to float a bond issue. This charge is going up at the rage of $25 per year. Mr. Storberg asked if there was any interest paid on it; Mayor Karth replied that there wasn't, and that it is only processed here, and goes to the Metropolitan Council. Mr. Storberg was concerned especially because he felt there was little likelihood of there ever being a sewer in his area. Mayor Karth that there was an attempt to get the money refunded to people in the north area where the sewer may never reach, but without success. Once the sewer comes through, you have one year to hook up. Mr. Storberg also raised a question about bringing shcool taxes down in view of declining enrollment; Mayor Karth indicated that inflation is largely responsible for the fact that they haven't gone down. Mr. Storberg asked what happens when you put something in and change it later (such as a kitchen in the basement) in regards to assessments. Mr. Roisum said that if he changes soeething they will change it accordingly. It was pointed out that Mr. Storberg will have to satisfy the building inspector as far as occupancy goes when he actually moves into his home; that the state building oces, which Lino Lakes has aopted, will have to be followed in regard to occupancy. Mrs. Dean Allen asked about the policy in regard to leaving notices when the assessor visits and no one is home. Mrs. Roisum replied that it is not required to leave a notice, although it is a, policy in some areas. Mr. Starkey said that there is only about a 10% return on notices, so it's not usually worthwhile, although they try to get back to them. If a notice is left, it's usually just a courtesy. 244 May 9, 1979 In answer to a question, Mrs. Roisuq said that the new assessed value is for the tax year 1980. In answer to another question on market value and limited value, Mr. Starkey explained that there is legislation being considered that will do away with limited values. Other ligislation being considered concerns property tax refund credit and homestead percentages, and so on. Mr. McLean moved to approve the assessor's recommendations for the 1979 assessment on the follwoing items: 1. 94503 -300: No road access reduce from $3,500 to $1,000 2. 82906 -30 incomplete structure reduce from $56,800 to $54,100 Mr. Kulaszewicz seconded the motion. All were in favor, and the motion was declared passed. The meeting was adjourned at 8:40 P.M. These minutes were considered and approved at the regular Council meeting held on June 11, 1979. Edna L Sarner, Clerk- Treasurer May 14, 1979 The regular meeting of the Lino Lakes City Council was called to order at 8:00 P.M., by Mayor Karth, on Mayo 14, 1979. Council members present; Kulaszewicz, McLean, Schneider, Zelinka. Absent; None. Mr. Locher was also present. On considering the minutes of April 23, 1979, Mr. Schneider question the cost for the clean -up. He had felt the figure of $1,000 had been the estimate. There was some discussion on this matter, with Mr. Schneider moving to require a costing out on the completion of the project for future reference. Seconded by Mr. McLean. Motion declared passed. Mr. Kulaszewicz moved to approve the minutes as amended. Seconded by Mr. McLean. Motion declared passed. On considering the minutes of May 1, 1979, Special meeting, Mr. Schneider made several corrections. Mr. Schneider moved to approve the minutes as amended. Seconded by Mr. Kulaszewicz. Motion declared passed, with Mr. McLean abstaining. The minutes of May 4, 1979 were considered and corrected. Mr. Schneider moved to approve as corrected. Seconded by MR. Kulaszewicz. Motion declared passed, with Mr. McLean abstaining. The Clerk presented the following items for Council consdieration: ..All members have a copy of the Resolution passed by Anoka County proposing a County facility be built on a portion of the State lands at the Correction facility. Mr. Schneider said:'the Advidory Board of the Correctional facility had no knowledge of this matter. Also, the SuPerintendent of the Facility was unaware of this Resolution. Mr.