Agenda Packets - 2003/10/27 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

could be compared to a benchmark that would be some percentage of the median value home in Mounds View. If the applicant’s home value is below the benchmark, they qualify. I don’t recommend this approach because I can readily foresee the case of a disabled person, who has lost their job and has no income, has spent their savings on medical bills, but who has a home that has an assessed value above the benchmark. This describes hardship as clearly as any example I can think of, yet the applicant would be denied the deferral of the assessment. Other approaches involving adjusted gross income are more promising. A few variations of this are in use in other cities. I recommend the simplest one that I came across, which is the one in use in the City of White Bear Lake. That policy reads in part: “A hardship shall be deemed to exist when the average annual payment for all assessments levied against the subject property exceeds one (1%) percent of the adjusted gross income of the applicant as evidenced by the applicant’s most recent federal income tax return.” The applicant would be required to submit a copy of their most recent federal tax return. Adjusted gross income is line 34 on the standard Form 1040, line 21 on Form 1040A, and line 4 of Form 1040EZ. This is the simplest approach because the only information needed is the assessment, which we already have, and the federal tax return, which the applicant provides. This issue gained prominence because of the appearance before the City Council of Lucille Steenberg, who was concerned about her assessment for a diseased tree. Her first year payment on this assessment should be no more that $180.00. If we use White Bear Lake’s example of one (1%) percent of the adjusted gross income as our benchmark, then Ms. Steenberg’s adjusted gross income would need to be less than $18,000 in order to qualify for a hardship. I have no idea if her income is above or below that level. The City Council could adopt something less than one (1%) percent, for instance one half of one (0.5%) percent, as the benchmark. That would make it easier for applicants to qualify. Ms. Steenberg’s adjusted gross income would then need to be less than $36,000. If you make the benchmark so low that anyone could qualify, then why not just go with my original proposal and don’t have an income or wealth qualification? The attached resolution incorporates the 1% of adjusted gross income as the benchmark. This may be modified by the City Council at the meeting. Respectfully submitted, ___________________________