Loading...
1995-04-04 Council minutes Brd of ReviewPage No. 4351 April 4, 1995 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY STATE OF MINNESOTA Minutes of the Board of Review Meeting Held Tuesday, April 4, 1995 Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, the annual Board of Review meeting of the City Council, City of Mendota Heights, was held at 7:00 o'clock P.M. at City Hall, 1101 Victoria Curve, Mendota Heights, Minnesota. Mayor Mertensotto, called the meeting to order at 7:15 o'clock P.M. The following members were present: Mayor Mertensotto, Councilmembers; Huber, Koch, Krebsbach and Smith. POLICE CANDIDATE Mayor Mertensotto informed the audience that the regular agenda includes the appointment of a probationary police officer. Police Chief Delmont, present for the meeting, introduced the candidate, Lee Flandrich, Jr. and his wife. BOARD OF REVIEW Mayor Mertensotto informed the audience that the purpose of the meeting is to review 1995 property valuations for real estate taxes payable in 1996. He stated that if property owners plan to take any action with respect to their valuations, they must sign the meeting attendance roster. He then turned the meeting over to Dakota County Assessor Marvin Pu1ju and Bill Peterson, Manager with the Assessor's Office. Assessor Peterson stated that after his presentation and responses to general questions, members of the assessor's staff will meet with property owners to discuss specific valuation questions. He stated that the purpose of the meeting is to discuss 1995 market values to be used for 1996 taxes. He explained that valuation notices were mailed to property owners in February and that open book meetings were conducted for Mendota Heights residents on March 8 and 9. He stated that the assessor's office is charged to do two things - to arrive at market values and classify properties. He stated that his office is charged by the state to maintain a median ratio of 90 to 105% of market value, and that the median 1995 Mendota Heights residential property value increase was 5.3% over 1994 values. He informed the audience that his office is charged with revaluing 25% of the properties in the county on an annual basis, and is trying to revalue a quartile of each community in the county each year. He explained that if an individual property value increase was greater than 5.3%, it is possible that someone from the assessor's staff visited the property to do an on-site revaluation. He informed the audience that in addition to on-site valuations, his office uses the Page No. 4352 April 4, 1995 CAMA system to recalculate market values each year. Mr. Peterson asked for general questions from the audience. A member of the audience stated that his Truth in Taxation notice included a statement about a 4.5% wage increase, and he asked if that had an impact on property valuations. Mr. Peterson responded that that the state -wide wage increase was calculated by the Department of Revenue and the County was required by law to put the information on the statement. He explained that the wage increase has no relationship to real estate tax increases and that he does not know how the Revenue Department arrived at its percentage. Mayor Mertensotto asked how many cities and townships in the county received a general increase in valuation. He stated that many areas had 11 to 13% increases. Mr. Peterson responded that all communities and townships received some type of an increase and the average county -wide was between five and six percent. He stated that it was quite possible that the properties which received greater increases were within the 25% on- site re- valuations. Mayor Mertensotto stated that the legislature is discussing a freeze in city, county and school district property taxes for 1996. He asked whether the assessor's office anticipated a freeze when the valuations were being done. Mr. Peterson responded that it had not, and that taxes do not go hand in hand with values. He explained that if a property received a 10% valuation increase and no agencies levied increased taxes, the property tax would actually go down. He pointed out that improvements to a property could cause an increase in value. Treasurer Shaughnessy stated that the information provided by the county indicate that if the value of a property did not change, taxes decreased and if the value rose 5 %, the tax increased about 3 %. Mayor Mertensotto stated that if the valuation of a property stays the same and the levy stays the same, there would be no tax increase, but every government budget is increasing because of wages and increased operating costs. He stated that if there is an increase of 5.3% in valuation each year, the level of the budget can remain about the same. He stated that the real estate tax is the most inequitable tax there is. He informed the audience that when the Page No. 4353 April 4, 1995 sales tax was adopted in 1967, the legislature said that real estate tax would be a safety net, but as it turns out, property taxes are supporting cities, counties and school districts. He stated that he can see where the current legislature will call for a property tax freeze, and pointed out that the school district bond referendum will increase property taxes and there will be another excess levy this year for the school district. Councilmember Smith stated that many things can affect the level of property taxes. One which can affect residential values is the balance between increases in residential versus changes in commercial and industrial. She stated that I many cases, commercial/industrial values have come down, and asked, in general, what has happened with businesses in Mendota Heights and the county in the past two years. Mr. Peterson responded that his office has not lowered any particular properties but some property owners who have filed petitions with the tax courts have received valuation reductions. Council acknowledged letters received from the following property owners: Mr. & Mrs. Norman Busta, 555 Simard Street; Mr. Brian Kirchner, 1255 Dodd Road; Mr. Paul Dahlgren, 1736 S. Lexington Avenue; Ms. Donna Lillie, 709 Cheyenne Lane; Ms. Rhonda Burling, 913 Crown Court; Mr. Bernard Kane, 586 Sibley Highway; Mr. & Mrs. Robert Lockwood, 2 Hingham Circle; Mr. & Mrs. Eric Miller, 681 Ivy Falls Court; Mr. & Mrs. Kevin Milberry, 1000 Oxford Court; Ms. Virginia Greene, 544 W. Annapolis; Ms. Christina Escarzaga; 720 W. Wentworth; Mr. Mark Misukanis, 965 Stratford Rd.; Ms. Michelle Mooney, 18 Dorset Road; There being no further questions or comments, the Board of Review meeting was continued to April 18 to allow the assessor's office two weeks to respond to property owners whose questions are not resolved in the individual meetings with the assessor's staff this evening. K4thleen M. Swanson City Clerk Charles E. Mertensotto Mayor