HomeMy WebLinkAbout04/20/1998 Council MinutesCITY COUNCIL BOARD OF REVIEW APRIL 20, 1998
CITY COUNCIL BOARD OF REVIEW
MINUTES
DATE : April 20, 1998
TIME STARTED : 6:32 P.M.
TIME ENDED : 7:00 P.M.
MEMBERS PRESENT : Council Members Bergeson, Dahl, Lyden, Neal,
Mayor Sullivan
MEMBERS ABSENT : None
Staff members present: Clerk -Treasurer, Marilyn Anderson and Anoka County Assessor,
Todd Smith.
The purpose of the meeting was to allow residents to come before the City Council and
explain why they feel the value placed on their property by the City Assessor for property
taxes payable in 1999 is incorrect.
Mr. Smith presented information regarding State Statutes governing the Board of Review.
There are several different portions of the Statutes that must be followed. The City and
County Assessor's office have followed them every year. Mr. Smith's presentation
included a definition of market value. He also presented a map to the City Council. The
blue shaded area represents the area of re -assessment in 1997. Mr. Smith reviewed all
properties in this area during 1997. The tan area represents the area that he will be
reviewing in 1998. By State law, the Assessor must review 25% of the parcels of land
each year. Mayor Sullivan noted that this map should be included in the next City
newsletter along with an explanation that the Assessor visits one-quarter of the City
annually.
The final part of Mr. Smith's written presentation was the valuation notice which is
designed by State Statute to reflect certain information and sent to each property owner
each year.
Council Member Neal noted many homeowners build patios. He asked if patios are
included in the value of the property. Mr. Smith said patios can be very costly to install.
However, they are not included in the value of the property because there is such a wide
variety of construction. Decks are included in the value of the property. The Assessor
looks at decks as an element of construction and determines the actual market value for
that particular deck. Often decks are overbuilt but it may not add the value of what it cost
to construct it. This also may be true with finished basements, additions or garages. Land
is the only thing that appears to have a constant upward trend in value in Lino Lakes and
there appears to be no slowing of this trend.
Council Member Bergeson noted at one time there was a 3% increase to the value of all
parcels. Mr. Smith said this comes from a historical standpoint. Usually, at the end of the
PAGE 1
CITY COUNCIL BOARD OF REVIEW APRIL 20, 1998
year when all numbers are in, the County performs a sales ratio study. Mr. Thurston, the
County Assessor looks at what has happened to property values in comparison to the
assessed ratios. He compares the actual sales to the assessed values, how much difference
there is, how much is attributed to new construction costs increases and how much is
attributed to appreciation or inflation. He then makes a judgment as to how much he will
increase structure values in the entire county. This is done on a mass basis and in general,
for the past five (5) years, there has been a 3% increase on structures only. Most real-
estate appraisers agree that 3% is a very good number to use in the midwest. Mr. Smith
noted that when he returns to a particular property in the regular four (4) year rotation, his
review of the value of the structures will not change unless there has been new
construction or some other substantial change.
Mr. Smith explained land values are another issue. He adjusts land values according to
what is happening with the actual land sales in the area. This is done on an annual bases.
Occasionally landowners may see a decrease in their land value. This happens when there
has not been enough land sales to justify an increase or the sales indicated that land
values have actually dropped from the previous estimates. Mr. Smith noted state
standards require the assessor's appraisals be within 90 and 105 percent of actual market
value. This year he was at 94.4% and this has been very close to the past years.
Council Member Lyden asked how does the upward trend in land values impact property
classified as Green Acres or agricultural and the tax to those owners. Mr. Smith explained.
in 1996, he visited every parcel classified agriculture in the City. He removed
approximately 35 properties from the agriculture classification and changed them to
residential because they did not qualify under the State criteria for the Green Acres
program or the agriculture classification. In some cases, there was a big impact to the tax
payer and in some cases it did not make much of a difference. Although property values
increased in areas where there were Green Acres or agricultural properties, values used
for these classifications stayed fairly stable at $900.00 per acre for Green Acres or
agricultural as opposed the market value of $3,200.00. If the Green Acres or agricultural
properties happened to be in the MUSA, an additional MUSA value was added. However,
the property owners still only paid taxes on the Green Acres or agricultural properties
value. As these properties become valuable and the adjustments are made accordingly,
those "behind the scenes" values will increase. The Green Acre and agricultural values
increase at a much slower rate. There is an advantage to hold onto the Green Acres or
agricultural properties. These properties still must meet the criteria for Green Acres or
agricultural properties and must reapply every year for the program. Mr. Smith explained
the criteria for participation in the Green Acres or agricultural program is set by the State.
The owner must be able to document income of at least $300.00 plus $10.00 per tillable
acre with a minimum of 10 acres. The City cannot impact the criteria, however, at some
point the State will increase these minimums and tighten the criteria because it is
becoming an issue of fairness. Since these two (2) tax class rates are significantly less
than residential homestead rates. Council Member Lyden said he is of the opinion that
property tax rate increases for Green Acres or agricultural properties forces people off of
their land. He also noted the inability of the legislature to freeze property taxes for
PAGE 2
•
•
•
CITY COUNCIL BOARD OF REVIEW APRIL 20, 1998
seniors. He asked if there is anything that the City or City Council can do to encourage
the legislators to enact such legislation. Mr. Smith said the main focus should be to get
the senior citizens involved. The lobby is not strong enough at the legislature to get the
point across. It has been introduced every year for the past five (5) or six (6) years and
does not have enough support to get out of the House. It also needs more media coverage.
The larger issue is class rates and it appears that the legislature is dealing with and
lowering each class rate each year. Then the next question becomes where will the
governments dependent upon property taxes make up the loss of revenue which happens
when class rates are reduced. There are a lot of issues that the public is not aware of.
Mr. Smith explained he has received approximately 30 calls of which 25 were from Lino
Lakes residents regarding their property values. Normally he receives about 80 calls. Tax
rates have gone down and there are more credits available so people are reasonably happy
about their taxes. Mr. Smith said he did not expect to see anybody at this hearing tonight.
He did receive a letter from a property owner, Nick Gargaro of Northern Wholesale
Supply, PIN. R24-31-22-43-0011, and read it into the record. Mr. Smith said he has
talked to Mr. Gargaro on the telephone and he has decided to go to the County Board of
Equalization. Mr. Smith noted there is a minimum assessment agreement on the property
with the City of Lino Lakes. At this point the valuation is above the minimum, however,
the agreement means that it is just a minimum valuation. The County has hired a new
commercial appraiser, who has reviewed a lot of commercial properties in the City and
found they were considerable undervalued according to the market. That is why
commercial values have increased for 1999. No action is needed by the Council on the
Northern Wholesale Supply appeal. After this Board of Review, Mr. Smith will send a
list of all the property owners who have contacted him asking for a review of their
property value. This list will show what happened, if any changes were made, if any
errors were made and the adjustment. If anything happens at the County Board of
Equalization, the City Council would be notified of these results. In the past, property
owners have requested the City Assessor to enter their name on the agenda for the County
Board of Review so that they can appear at that meeting. Last year a resident asked to
appear at the County Board of Equalization. Mr. Smith worked with this property for two
(2) weeks in preparation for her appearance and she did not come to the meeting. A lot of
time was spent for nothing and to avoid another such incidence, the Assessor's office will
follow the proper procedure.
Mr. Smith presented the abstract for signatures of the City Council. He also noted that if
any resident needs help with the property tax program, they should call him.
Council Member Lyden moved to adjourn at 7:00 p.m. Council Member Neal seconded
the motion. Motion carried unanimously.
These minutes were considered, corrected and approved at a regular meeting of the City
Council on June 8, 1998.
PAGE 3
CITY COUNCIL BOARD OF REVIEW
Mar lyn G. Anderson, Clerk -Treasurer
APRIL 20, 1998
Kimberl Sullivayor
PAGE 4
•
•
•
April 24, 1998
TO:
CITY OF LINO LAKES
COUNTY OF ANOKA
Office of the County Assessor
Government Center
2100 3rd Avenue, Anoka, Minnesota 55303-2281
612-323-5475 Fax: 612-323-5421
1. The following information is provided for your files and delineates
the outcome of the BOARD of REVIEW Proceedings of April 20, 1997.
2. The below individuals had their market value questions resolved before the local
board of review met.
PIN NAME VALUE ACTION TAKEN
$
01 31 22 32 0003 Bob Bump 130,500 No Change
02 31 22 44 0007 Chon Yang 96,400 No Change
04 31 22 21 0009 Potenital Buyer 125,400 No Change
04 31 22 33 0004 Lynn Boyer 67,500 No Change
04 31 22 33 0012 Ed Seekon 78,600 Reduced to $76,800
08 31 22 41 0031 Sandra Mattson 140,900 No Change
09 31 22 13 0002 Brad Racutt 262,100 No Change
09 31 22 23 0019 Brian Rydlund 141,500 No Change
09 31 22 23 0020 Bob Pokorny 172,300 No Change
11 31 22 43 0007 Nancy Bowring 243,500 No Change
11 31 22 43 0017 Nancy Tuomie 137,300 No Change
17 31 22 24 0019 Joann Haubrick 162,400 No Change
18 31 22 21 0011 Regenscheid 272,800 No Change
18 31 22 21 0016 Bart Rehbein 168,500 No Change
19 31 22 11 0026 Veer Kadhiresan 131,100 No Change
19 31 22 14 0031 Dean Kienholz 139,300 Reduced to $134,500
19 31 22 31 0021 Darson Wiege 153,500 No Change
22 31 22 41 0002 St Paul Public Works 127,800 No Change
24 31 22 11 0003 Jim Bernier 123,100 No Change
29 31 22 41 0021 Rich Granger 93,500 No Change
29 31 22 41 0019 Roberta Kuik 272,800 No Change
31 31 22 42 0005 Sherrie Hatton 143,500 No Change
32 31 22 23 0022 Michael Norling 183,200 No Change
33 31 22 13 0004 Mark Payette 150,700 No Change
34 31 22 13 0003 Mark Pariseau 108,000 No Change
36 31 22 22 0011 Tim Turcotte 316,800 No Change
Commercial
24 31 22 43 0011
Nick Gargaro 3,027,400 No Change
As of 4-24-98 these are all of the changes made.
If I can be of further assistance, please feel free to call me at 323-5483.
Sincerely,
• 7449.
Todd Smith
Appraiser
Anoka County
f\libd98.doc
Affirmative Action / Equal Opportunity Employer
N' NORTHERN WHOLESALE SUPPLY
04/14/98
Local Board of Review
City of Lino Lakes
1189 Main Street
Lino Lakes, MN 55014
Dear Sirs:
I would like to appeal the property valuation increase that was applied to PIN: R24 31
22 43 0011. It is my understanding that the valuation should reflect what the market
value of building and property is. Should this not be equal to what some one would pay to
purchase a property or building under reasonable conditions? You have put that figure at
$3,027,400.00 even though the building was completed in January of last year at a cost of
about $2,400,000.00 for both land and building. I can not understand how you can value
this property 45% higher then the replacement cost.
When the building was originally built 1 provided your office with the documentation
for the actual building costs and it was agreed to value the building at its present amount,
If I need to provide further information please do not hesitate to contact me.
Sincerely.
'47:0e4/
Nick Gargaro
6800 Otter Lake Road • Lino Lakes, MN 55038-9466
(6121429.1616 • FAX: (6121 429-5757
TOTAL P.02
•
•
CITY OF CENTERVILLE
1998 ASSESSMENT/PAYABLE 1999
• Total Number of Taxable Parcels: 1,122
Total Number of Parcels including Exempt and Forfeit: 1,199
Total Taxable Market Value, 1998 Assessment: $101,116,100
New Construction, 1998 Assessment: $10,254,172
Parcels with New Construction: 255 = 21.3% of Total
Total Taxable Market Value, 1997 Assessment: $84,741,200
Net Growth '97 to '98 Including New Construction: +19.3%
Net Growth '97 to '98 Excluding New Construction: +7.2%
Total Market Value Including Exempt and Forfeit, 1998 Assessment:
Total Market Value Including Exempt and Forfeit, 1997 Assessment:
$108,733,800
$91,181,200
1998 ASSESSMENT - SALES RATIOS
Type # Sales Median Ratio Coefficient
Residential Single Family 53 94.3% 5.2
Multiples (Duplex, etc.) 2 88.1% 1.3
Patio Townhoine 12 95.5% 4.9
•Quad Homes 0 .0% .0
Apartments 0 .0% .0
Condominiums 0 .0% .0
Commerciallndustrial 1 108.8% .0
1998 ASSESSMENT - COMPARABLE SALES RATIOS
(Residential Single Family)
Municipality # Sales Median Ratio Coefficient
County of Anoka 3,910 94.4% 5.2
Anoka 207 94.3% 6.2
Blaine 583 94.3% 4.3
Columbia Heights 208 94.3% 7.2
Coon Rapids 733 94.3% 4.7
Fridley 248 94.4% 6.2
Centerville 53 94.3% 5.2
Circle Pines 50 94.3% 4.3
Lexington 15 94.2% 3.6
Lino Lakes 296 94.4% 4.6
Spring Lake Park 82 94.2% 5.0
• 07BOR'97
STATE OF MINNESOTA
) SS
COUNTY OF ANOKA
CERTIFICATE AS TO TAXES AND TAXABLE
PROPERTY IN THE CITY OF LINO LAKES
(Herein called the "TAXING DISTRICT")
I hereby certify that the TAXING DISTRICT is situated ENTIRELY in this County and that:
1. CURRENT VALUATION -The market value and net tax capacities of all taxable propery in the TAXING
DISTRICT in this county as assessed in 1997 for the purpose of computing the rates of taxes collectable
in 1998 are as follows:
Estimated Net
Market Value Tax Capacity
Real Estate:
Residential Homestead (Non -Ag) 553,568,700 7,669,759
(Class la & lb)
Agricultural (Class 2 and 4b(3)) 14,251,500 157,954
Commercial & Industrial (Class 3, 5(1),
& 5(3) [zoned Comm., Ind., Publ. Util.])
Commercial & Industrial 27,806,700 964,738
Public Utility 192,300 7,692
Railroad operating Property 0 0
Non -Homestead Residential 20,688,400 444,762
(Class 4a, 4b(1-2), 4c(1-4) (7-8), 4d & 4e)
Commercial & Residential SeasonalRec. 0 0
(Class lc & 4c(5-6))
Other 0 0
Total Real Estate 616,507,600 9,244,905
Total Personal Property 10,916,200 434,234
Total Real & Personal Property 627,423,800 9,679,139
If applicable to the TAXING DISTRICT
Subtract: Captured tax capacity of tax increment district 555,542
10% of 200 KV transmission lines 0
Fiscal Disparity Contribution Value 358,998
Subtotal: Local Tax Rate Determination Value 8,764,599
Add: Fiscal Disparity Distribution Value 1,395,540
Total Adjusted Taxable Net Tax Capacity 10,160,139
•
STATE OF MINNESOTA
) SS
COUNTY OF ANOKA
CERTIFICATE AS TO TAXES AND TAXABLE
PROPERTY IN THE CITY OF LINO LAKES
(Herein called the "TAXING DISTRICT")
• I hereby certify that the TAXING DISTRICT is situated ENTIRELY in this County and that:
1. CURRENT VALUATION -The market value and net tax capacities of all taxable propery in the TAXING
DISTRICT in this county as assessed in 1997 for the purpose of computing the rates of taxes collectable
in 1998 are as follows:
•
•
Estimated Net
Market Value Tax Capacity
Real Estate:
Residential Homestead (Non -Ag) 553,568,700 7,669,759
(Class la & 1 b)
Agricultural (Class 2 and 4b(3)) 14,251,500 157,954
Commercial & Industrial (Class 3, 5(1),
& 5(3) [zoned Comm., Ind., Publ. Util.])
Commercial & Industrial 27,806,700 964,738
Public Utility 192,300 7,692
Railroad operating Property 0 0
Non -Homestead Residential 20,688,400 444,762
(Class 4a, 4b(1-2), 4c(1-4) (7-8), 4d & 4e)
Commercial & Residential Seasonal/Rec. 0 0
(Class Ic & 4c(5-6))
Other 0 0
Total Real Estate 616,507,600 9,244,905
Total Personal Property 10,916,200 434,234
Total Real & Personal Property 627,423,800 9,679,139
If applicable to the TAXING DISTRICT
Subtract: Captured tax capacity of tax increment district 555,542
10% of 200 KV transmission lines 0
Fiscal Disparity Contribution Value 358,998
Subtotal: Local Tax Rate Determination Value 8,764,599
Add: Fiscal Disparity Distribution Value 1,395,540
Total Adjusted Taxable Net Tax_Capacity 10,160,139
STATE OF MINNESOTA
) SS
COUNTY OF ANOKA
CERTIFICATE AS TO TAXES AND TAXABLE
PROPERTY IN THE CITY OF LINO LAKES
(Herein called the "TAXING DISTRICT")
I hereby certify that the TAXING DISTRICT is situated ENTIRELY in this County and that:
1. CURRENT VALUATION -The market value and net tax capacities of all taxable propery in the TAXING
DISTRICT in this county as assessed in 1997 for the purpose of computing the rates of taxes collectable
in 1998 are as follows:
Estimated Net
Market Value Tax Capacity
Real Estate:
Residential Homestead (Non -Ag) 553,568,700 7,669,759
(Class 1 a & lb)
Agricultural (Class 2 and 4b(3)) 14,251,500 157,954
Commercial & Industrial (Class 3, 5(1),
& 5(3) [zoned Comm., Ind., Publ. Util.])
Commercial & Industrial 27,806,700 964,738
Public Utility 192,300 7,692
Railroad operating Property 0 0
Non -Homestead Residential 20,688,400 444,762
(Class 4a, 4b(1-2), 4c(1-4) (7-8), 4d & 4e)
Commercial & Residential Seasonal/Rec. 0 0
(Class lc & 4c(5-6))
Other 0 0
Total Real Estate 616,507,600 9,244,905
Total Personal Property 10,916,200 434,234
Total Real & Personal Property 627,423,800 9,679,139
If applicable to the TAXING DISTRICT
Subtract: Captured tax capacity of tax increment district
l0% of 200 KV transmission lines
Fiscal Disparity Contribution Value
555,542
0
358,998
Subtotal: Local Tax Rate Determination Value 8,764,599
Add: Fiscal Disparity Distribution Value 1,395,540
Total Adjusted Taxable Net TaxCapacity 10,160,139
•
•
STATE OF MINNESOTA
) SS
COUNTY OF ANOKA
CERTIFICATE AS TO TAXES AND TAXABLE
PROPERTY IN THE CITY OF LINO LAKES
(Herein called the "TAXING DISTRICT")
• I hereby certify that the TAXING DISTRICT is situated ENTIRELY in this County and that:
1. CURRENT VALUATION -The market value and net tax capacities of all taxable propery in the TAXING
DISTRICT in this county as assessed in 1997 for the purpose of computing the rates of taxes collectable
in 1998 are as follows:
•
Estimated Net
Market Value Tax Capacity
Real Estate:
Residential Homestead (Non -Ag) 553,568,700 7,669,759
(Class la & lb)
Agricultural (Class 2 and 4b(3)) 14,251,500 157,954
Commercial & Industrial (Class 3, 5(1),
& 5(3) [zoned Comm., Ind., Publ. Util.])
Commercial & Industrial 27,806,700 964,738
Public Utility 192,300 7,692
Railroad operating Property 0 0
Non -Homestead Residential 20,688,400 444,762
(Class 4a, 4b(1-2), 4c(1-4) (7-8), 4d & 4e)
Commercial & Residential Seasonal/Rec. 0 0
(Class lc & 4c(5-6))
Other 0. 0
Total Real Estate 616,507,600 9,244,905
Total Personal Property 10,916,200 434,234
Total Real & Personal Property 627,423,800 9,679,139
If applicable to the TAXING DISTRICT
Subtract: Captured tax capacity of tax increment district 555,542
10% of 200 KV transmission lines 0
Fiscal Disparity Contribution Value 358,998
Subtotal: Local Tax Rate Determination Value 8,764,599
Add: Fiscal Disparity Distribution Value 1,395,540
Total Adjusted Taxable Net TaxCapacity 10,160,139