HomeMy WebLinkAbout3. Open Board of Review Meeting �
: �
IT�M # 3
TO: Mayor Napper
Council Members Klassen
Oxborough
Willcox
Wippermann
FROM: Stephan Jilk, Administrator
DATE: May 4, 1990
RE: Board of Review Meeting
The procedure for conducting the Board of Review Meeting is
outlined in the Agenda for this evening' s meeting. Mayor Napper
will open the Board of Review meeting, the staff from the County
Assessor' s Office will be introduced and the meeting will be
turned over to them. In past years the county staff has outlined
the procedure for the meeting and then will meet individually
with residents in the audience.
Since the County Assessor' s Office held an informal "Open Book"
meeting on March 21 -22 for Rosemount residents to meet with
County staff to discuss their valuations for 1990, I am guessing
that we will not have large numbers of people attending the Board
of Review Meeting on May 8th.
I have attached for your review 1990 assessment information the
city received from County Assessor Marvin Pulju. Copies of this
information will be available to the residents at the May 8 Board
of Review.
Attachment
= � DA KO�A C N T Y MARASSESSOR LJU
OU
I6,2� 438.42��
. ' � DAKOTA COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER 1560HWY.55-HASTINGS,MINNESOTA55033
.
_.:�.�-.--�
w�•
a;�'¢Se:��
�{� ��� �
� R �C� IV�D
APR � ����
CLERK'S OFF�CE .
CITY OF ROSEMOUNT
T0: Local Boards of Review
FROM: Marvin Pulju, County Assessor
RE: 1990 Assessment
The attached information is being provided to assist you in
your duties as a Local Board of Review and to explain some
general information regarding the 1990 assessment.
I hope you find the information helpful.
AN EEJUAI OPPpRTUNITY FMP�OYER
1990 ASSESSMENT INFORMATION
The 1990 Assessment, like each of the annual assessments,
affects all the property owners of Dakota County. State Law
requires the assessor to reassess all property every year. �
State Statutes read, "All real property subject to taxation
shall be listed and assessed every year with reference to its
value on January 2nd preceding the assessment. "
Minnesota Statute 273 . 11 reads, "All property shall be �
valued at its market value. In estimating and determining such
value, the assessor shall not adopt a lower or different standard
of value because the same is to serve as basis for taxation, nor
shall he adopt as criterion of value the price for the aggregate
with aIl the property in the town or district but he shall value
each article or description of property by itself, and at such
. sum or price as he believes the property to be fairly worth in
money. ��
The Statute says all property shall be valued at market
value, not may be valued at market value. This obviously means
that no factors other than market value issues (such as
personalities, politics, owner�s income, etc. ) shall affect the
assessor's value and the subsequent action by the Board of
Review.
Market value has been defined many different ways. Simply
stated it is "The most probable price estimated in terms of money
which a property will bring if exposed for sale on the open
market by a seller who is willing but not obligated to sell,
allowing a reasonable time to find a purchaser who is willing but
not obligated to buy, both with knowledge of all the uses to
which it is adapted and for which it is capable of being used. "
The real estate tax is an ad valorem tax which is based on
the value of property and not on the ability of the property
owner to pay. The values placed on all real estate in Dakota
County are based on the estimated value of land and the
improvements upon the land, while no consideration is given to
who owns the land
Market values for most residential properties were generated
using a computerized appraisal system. This system was purchased
by Dakota County in early 1988 . Assessor staff has been
transferring the appraisal data/characteristics into the computer
during the past year & a half.
Building characteristics of each house were entered into the
computer system. The same type of information was entered on
each property, i.e. size, year built, effective year built,
exterior walls, # bedrooms, � baths, type of heat, air
conditioning, extras (such as fireplaces, outbuilding, decks) and
several other characteristics.
Over 10, 000 sales were analyzed to determine what properties
are selling for. For the 1990 assessment, the law .requires sales
taking place between Oct. 1, 1988 and Sept. 30, 1989 only, be
considered and used as the basis for the 1990 assessment.
Changes in market value for the 1990 assessment, taxes
payable in 1991, varied from large increases on some properties
to reductions in value on other properties. By using the CAMA �
system to generate values, a greater degree of equalization of
like properties has resulted. Adjustments have been made to
recogni2e market differences between communities by using a '
neighborhood factor. This factor will be further refined in -
future years to recognize and adjust for the various
neighborhoods within each city or township.
Due to the large number of values being changed as a result
of using the new computerized mass appraisal system (CAMA) the
Assessor's Office conducted informal, open book meetings over a
ten day period in March. All property owners were invited to
attend one of these meetings to discuss their new valuation with
appraisal staff. Over 2 ,000 people attended these meeti gs. The
number of people attending the open book meetings from J��'�,�
was approximately q� .
It is hoped that the number of people requesting a hearing
� before the various local boards of review will be reduced .
significantly because of prior attendance at the open book
meetings.
RESPONSIBILITIES OF LOCAL BOARDS OF REVIEW
The town board of each town, the council or other governing
body of each city, is the Board of Review except in cities whose
charters provide for a Board of Equalization. The County Assessor
shall fix a day and time when the Board or the Board of
Equalization sha11 meet in the assessment districts of the
County. On or before February 15th of each year the Assessor
shall give written notice of the time to the aity or town clerk.
The meetings must be held between April 1 and May 31 each year.
The clerk shall give published and posted notice of the meeting
at least ten days before the date of the meeting. The Board
shall meet at the office of the clerk to review the assessment
and classification of property in the town or city. No changes
in valuation may be made by the County Assessor afte� the Board
of Review or the County Board of Equalization has adjourned.
This restriction does not apply to corrections of errors that are
merely clerical or administrative in nature.
The Board shall determine whether the taxable property in
the town or city has been properly placed on the list and
properly valued by the assessor. If real or personal property
has been omitted, the Board shall place it on the list with its
market value, and correct the assessment so that each tract or
lot of real property, and each article, parcel, or class of
personal property, is entered on the assessment list at its
market value. No assessment of the property of any person may be
raised unless the person has been duly notified of the intent of
the Board to do so. On application of any person feeling
aggrieved, the Board shall review the assessment or
classification, or both, and correct it as appears just.
A Local Board of Review may reduce assessments upon petition
of the taxpayer but the total reductions must not reduce the
aggregate assessment made by the County Assesaor by more than one
percent. If the total reductions would lower the aggregate
assessments made by the County Assessor by more than one percent,
none of the adjustments may be made. The assessor shall correct
any clerical errors or double assessments discovered by the Board
of Review without regard to the one percent limitation.
A majority of the members may act at the meeting, and
adjourn from day to day until they finish hearing the cases
presented. The assessor shall attend, with the assessment books
and papers, and take part in the proceedings, but must not vote.
The County Assessor shall attend the meetings. The Board shall
list separately, on a form appended to the assessment book, all
omitted property added to the list by the Board and all items of
property increased or decreased, with the market value of each
item of property, added or changed by the Baard, placed opposite
1
the item. The County Assessor shall enter all changes made by
the Board in the assessment book.
If a person fails to appear in person, by counsel, or by
written communication before the oard after being duly notified
of the Board's intent to raise th� assessment of the property, or
if a person feeling aggrieved by an assessment or classification
fails to apply for a review of the assessment or classification,
the person may not appear before the County Board of Egualization
for a review of the assessment or classification. This paragraph
does not apply if an assessment was made after the Board meeting,
as provided in Section 273 . 01, or if the person can establis� not
having rece�ved notice of market value at least five days before
the Local Board of Review meet�_ng.
The Board of Review or the Board of Equalization must
complete its work and adjourn within 20 days from the time of
convening stated in the notice of the clerk, unless a longer
period is approved by the Commissioner of Revenue. No action
taken after that date is valid. All complaints about an
assessment or classification, made after the� meeting of the Board
must be heard and determined by the County Board of Equalization.
A nonresident may, at any time, before the meeting of the Board
of Review file written objections to an assessment or
classification with the County Assessor . The objections must be
presented to the Board of Review at its meeting by the County
Assessor for its consideration. (M.S. 274. 01)
RESPONSES TO TYPICAL TAXPAYER QUESTIONS •
1. Q. Why did my taxes increase?
A. The fundamental reason for increase in taxes is increased
government spending. The government suffers from
inflation just as individuals do, as well as demands for
increased services.
For property taxes payable in 1990, there were some
changes in State aids to school districts and local units
of government. '
2. Q. Market Value and Property Class - How do they affect
property taxes?
A. The market value amount represents the assessor's
estimate of your property's actual market value. MARKET
VALUE is defined as the most probable price that a well
informed buyer would pay a well informed seller for a
property without either party being unduly forced to buy
or sell.
PROPERTY CLASS is the class that has been assigned to
your property based upon the use of your property.
Different class rates for various uses of property have �
been established by state law. These class rates are the
same throughout Minnesota. Depending on the class rate
of your property, your final tax may be more or less than
another property of the same market value with a
different class rate. ,
3 . Q. What is gross tax capacity?
A. The gross tax capaCity is calculated by multiplying the
estimated market value by the gross class rate for that
type of property.
4 . Q. What does the term HACA mean?
A. HACA is the homestead credit and agricultural credit paid
by the state directly to the local units of government.
5. Q. What is the net tax capacity?
A. The net tax capacity is calculated by multiplying the
estimated market value by the net class rate for that
type of property. For example, residential property
homesteaded for payable 1989 had a classification
percentage of 2 . 17$ on the first $68 ,000, 2 . 50$ on
$68, 000 to $100, 000, and 3 . 3$ .for everything above
$100, 000. For the payable 1990 taxes the net tax
capacity percentages will be 1.0$ for the first $68,000,
2 .0� for $68, 000 to $100,000, and 3 . 0� for everything
above $100, 000.
Upon request, the Assessor's office will mail a sheet
showing the tax capacity percentages for all property
types.
6. Q. What are the steps for calculating net taxes?
A. A hypothetical example is:
1. Market Value single resident home = $125, 000 '
2. Classification = Residential Homestead
lst $68 , 000 x 1. 0$ = $680
$68, 000 - 100, 000 x 2 .0$ _ $640
$25, 000 x 3 .0$ _ $750
----------------------------
Net Tax Capacity of $2, 070 x local tax rate of 97 .703
NET TAXES = $2, 022 .44
7. Q. Why are non-homestead taxes so much higher than
homestead?
A. Many individuals think that the non-homestead tax burden
will be $700 or $725 higher than the homestead tax
burden, because that is the figure that used to show on
the property tax statement. This is incorrect. The
property tax benefits of owning and occupying one's own
home are reflected not just in the State Paid Homestead
Credit, but also in calculation of the net tax �capacity
from the market value. The tax capacity percentages on
homestead property are 1. 0� on the first $68;000, 2. 0� on
the next $32, 000, and 3 .0� on all values above $100,000.
The tax capacity percentage on non-homestead property is
3 . 0�. This serves to reduce the net tax capacity and
hence the tax. For example, a $100, 000 home with a local
tax rate 97 .703� would have the following tax burdens:
- Homestead Tax, $1,289.70
- Non-Homestead Tax, $2 ,931. 10 (or $1, 641.40 more
than full Homestead)
The relative tax burdens between different types of
property (residential versus industrial versus
apartments) as well as different classifications within
the same type of property (Homestead versus Non-
homestead) are policy decisions made by the Minnesota
State Legislature.
8 . Q. I bought my house last year during the year. Why are my
taxes non-homestead for payable 1990?
A. Taxes payable in 1990 are based on the valuation and
classification as of January 2 , 1989. If your property
was not owned and occupied as of January 2 , 1989, the
taxes payable in 1990 will be at the non-homestead rate.
If you were to have owned and occupied your property by
June 1, 1989, it would be classified as mid-year but
receive the full homestead rate.
9 . Q. What is the Fiscal Disparities Program?
A. The program provides for the sharing of 40� of the growth
of the commercial/industrial tax base in the seven-county
metro area since 1971.
A percentage of the property tax on each
commercial/industrial parcel is calculated at the seven-
county uniform rate.
10. Q. What is a TIF District? �
A. Tax Increment Financing - TIF districts are created to
aid new development. Generally bonds are issued to
finance special improvement projects, to provide write
downs of land costs, to provide a c�talyst for
development that theoretically would not have occurred
without the assistance (referred to as the "but-for"
test) . A base year is established and as market value
increases the additional tax generated is used to pay off
the TIF bonds. �
il. Q. What is the Property Tax Refund Program?
A. There are two programs:
� 1. An income based refund for renters and homeowners.
The income based program is to insure that person's
property taxes do not become disproportionate with
their income. The refund schedules and filing
information is contained in the Department of Revenue
booklet, "1989 Minnesota Property Tax Refund" which is
available by calling 296-3781. The refund does not
apply to tax increases resulting from new.
improvements.
2. State-reimbursed targeting refund is for homesteads,
some commercial/industrial, and seasonal recreational
property.
Residential homestead property - for taxes payable in
1990, an increase in property taxes would have the
owner paying the first 10�; the state pays 75� of the
next $250 of increase and 90� of any increase above
that. Forms and information is available in the
. `�
booklet from the Department of Revenue, "1989
Minnesota Property Tax Refund. " Copies and
information is available by calling 296-3781.
Targeting does not provide refunds to tax increases
resulting from new improvements.
12 . Q. What can I do about my taxes?
A. The assessor deals with classification and valuation of
the property, which provides the basis for the taxes, but
not the specific tax amount. If the classification oz�
valuation is in error the first step is to discuss your,
concerns with the assessor. If an agreement cannot be
reached, a more formal method of appeal is necessary.
There are basically three methods of appealing the
valuation or classification of a property. They are:
- the abatement process
- Local Board of Review, County Board of Equalization
- the Tax Court, including the Small Claims Division
The abatement process is an administrative appeal done
by the County Assessor.
The Local Board of Review meets in April and May to
respond to taxpayer concerns on the January 2nd valuation
and classification. These are generally informal
meetings where an individual will express his or her �
concerns to the Board. The Board generally consists of
the City Council or Township Board Members. They have no
jurisdiction over taxes payable in the current year, only
about the January 2nd classiffcation and valuation.
The County Board of Equalization has many parallel
duties with the Local Board, but has the additional
function of equalizing values between jurisdictions
within the County.
The Tax Court consists of three judges that comprise a
division of the Executive Branch of Government. They
hear all types of tax appeals, but spend a majority of
their time in real estate. Filing information can be
obtained by calling the Tax Court at 296-2806.
VALUATION APPEAL PROCESS
NOTIFICATION OF VALUE
DISCUSSION WITH AND REVIEW BY
• ASSESSOR
LOCAL BOARD ABATEMENT MINNESOTA
REVIE�^1 REQUEST TAX COURT
COUNTY BOARD MINNESOTA
OF SUPREME
EQUALIZATION COURT
STATE BOARD
OF
EQUALIZATION
. �
Minnesota tax reform since 1984 ' �
- --� -- --�-�- -... _� .._ � 1989 Property Tax Reform
Sinu lh�mid-!98Us, �Ninn�sol�has�omsa(mu�h �
thought and��o►i on r�Ja►T»ing its ����s= for Minnesota
RC�O r IT��IZ� 1983 Go�•crnor Pcrpich cstabiishcs the Min-
ncsota Tax Suidy Conimisdun;�c�c�rt
issucci in 19:i4• ' Introduction
M i n n eso ta�S The property tax re(orm just passcd by a
1984 10 perccnt incomc tax sur�ax rc�x-alcd.
spccial scssion oC the Mi�ncsow lxgislaturc
Pro�j�ertV T�.X 1985 Incomc tax simplificd; r.ueslohcrcc�. a»�i ci6nccl intu law by Covcrnor i'crpich
j`" / Est:itc tax simplilicd; bccomrsa '��ick- �»:��-�s thc I:ucst stcp in thc s�atc's cornmit-
up"tax cqual to thc Fcdcr:�l ercdit far �»C»� t� a tax systcm chat �s fa�r, e(licirnt.
� St�m stablr.com��c�iiive,andunders�:u�dablc.fxnh
yl. ctatc tax. iii struewrc anJ i�� c�}�crati�n. l�hc rcfurn�
1987 ytajc�rindi��idualancltorporatcincomc inctudrs:
t:ix rcfo�m accomplishcd th�au�;h in- �
' crcascct cunfurn�it tu Icdcrat t;�r laws. �rduri�i�; ur c:liminatin� prc�jrrtccl in-
incluJing thc 198G �cdrr.�l tax rcCorm: crcasc�s iu 1'1'Jll pra��criy u�x�•s (��r .�II
tax b:�se brc�adcr�cd. ratrs tuh•rrrJ and prup��rt�• uw��crx;
forms grcatly si�nplificcL • iacrr:uin�; 1:►irncss by rc�ucii�b t:�x r�u�s
Sales ta.�c basc: l�roadcncd a�xl ma�lc
on hca�-il�• �ixeJ c:lssscs�C prupert�•;
more fair through the eliminatioi� o[ . ►�r.ginni�i�; the proccu ��C unt�nglu+K ihr
sc�•cral spccial cxeinptions. tina���irib al�local govt�'�����cnt scmcc.s u�
- cnsu�e thai����(�crtyt:�x reven�us are spc»t
' 1988 Disparitics in propert�• taz �trs �x- �rimarily uu I.K:rI scniccs. ar�d stace a��Is
tween comniunities reduced. are spene �,n�narily for s�ate-rr��uired �
Numlxr o( property tax dssxs cuc progcams.
from 6t3 to 29.
• enruuraging more citizcn participatiun
Propertytaxsystemchangcd:t�ucrquals in local govcrnmcnt spcnding and taxing
a percent of the property's�alue. decisions by making the system easirr to
' undcrstand, and hy requirinR n�uicc iu .
1989 Salcs tax on capiwl equipment pur- cath rci crt uwncr of rc�x��cd �ax .
cha.us for ne�v or expanding manu- P N y � �
f.icturing��xrations climina�cd,which incrc:urs and hudgct hcarin};s.
_ �vill cncourage the expansion of busi• Holding down property tax increases
ncsxs in Mi�nesoia. � {'or 1990
19g�J Law Changes -
income tax on insurance companies 1�'i�he,i�� �h�• tax rclic('pm.•iciccl iii thr r�•-
updattd to actord with curnnt Cederal f�rm, total prc�pert�• t:�xes �ve�uld h:�.'r i��-
la�v,�vhich�vill case adniinistcacion a�id �rc�scd about 14 perccn� in 1��90.
_ iinprovc tompliancc.
The tax reliet inchidcd in thc reform�vill Im�roving fairness of the system T:ix r:i�cs fi�r h��si��csscs:�rc tc•l�cclulrcl ���
hold tt�e increase in thc total property tax to Besidcs holding down property tax in- ��� ������«<< ��l��"'� ��� ������• �'•�����• �"��� ���'•��;•
about 1.5 percent in 1�J90. �vhich is less than creases for all classes of prope�ry� thc refonn tlowc•��er.thr pl�asi��};ci�wn uf thc�ax r:uc un
the annual ra�c of intlati�n. conccntratespropertytaxrelieConrcntalhous- thep�rtionofahusiness'spropert���:►lueo�•cr
. Deca�ise property taxes on newly con- ing and mid- to t�igirvaiue homes. reducing 5100,000 after 1�J91 will clrpend on tlie
structed I�uilciings account for atwut 3 per- property wxes in 1990 tor these two heavily legisl:►ture's response to recommcnclations
ccnt of the growth in tax rcvemies� the total � taxcd classes of property. that the governor makes for lowering the tax
rate.
property tax on existing properties will actu- 7��e reduction in property taxes on rental
all�•decreasc about 1 prrcent. }���u��ngwill help promote an adcquate suppty The cut in tax rates on husiness property,
Since the properry tax is a Ic�cal e�x af- of afCordable.well-maintained rental housing. w�iich arr among the hi6hest in thr nation on
ofTice. retail and stc�ragr f:uilities.�.ill rnal�le
fcctecl by local sprnding and taxing decisians The reduction in property wxes on homes Min�esota businesses to com ete more effec-
anct h�•chan6cs in prorert�•��alues, the actual mitigates the effects of recent substantial P
chan�;e in iax from 1�)RS)to 19��Owil1 vary frc�m inflation ofhomevatues�which results in push- tively with businesses in oeher statrs, and ��•ill
proprrty w �roperry, with some decrca5es ing lower-value homes into the middle-�:ilue encourage businesses from other states to
and some increases from 1989 levels. All r:u��;e and middle-w.�lue hames into thc hi};h- lucatc Guilitirs ii► Atinncsur.i.
property owners, h�we�•er, �vill pay far less , v:►lur rangc. Tax Rates foc Property Ctasses
properry tax in 19�U th.nt they +vould ha��e � pwnersofbusinessproperty-anothcrl►caw Spccifically,the new la�v reduccs property
withu�u this tax relief. �Iy taxcd cl:�ts of pmperty-are also ta�};c�cd �o �;ix ra�es on thr F�Il�win�;classcs of��rn��crty:
rcccive property tax rclief in 1990. Failurr to
prt��•idr this t1x rrlirf wvuld hlve�Ilei�vetl the flom�s, espteially mid-b hrgh-value homes:
w�.�l ��r.��x•rt� ta� .�ti hu:ii�r:�pru}xtt�� t�►ri.r [�-���i� `-'.5 perccnt u► `Z.tl perc�•nt uii �hr
Percent change In laxes Irom 198910 1990 ����roximatcly 15 percent in 1990. p�►rtiun of ►hr hu�iu's valu�• I�e�a�•�'n
� � belore and af1e� relorm . ;G8.U00 to 5100.UUU;
. � But with it. the �otal property tax pa)�able
�Existing properties only hy business pcoperty owners will incre:�sr by from 3.3 perccnt to 3.0 �crcrnt o�� the
Properly
belore alter only 5 percent in 1�J410. About 80 percent af portion oC the home's�:ilue o�•er S 1 UO.OUO.
class relorm relorm tliis incrcasc will br clue to growti� in ncwly q pQrtm�nt buildings and rtn�ul homes:
Farms 13.O�o 3.8% ce�nsu�uctcd builcfings. The:owncrsofrxixii��g Gum 4.1 perccnt tu 3.fi percent for ap��rt-
Cabins 7.6 2.5 husi��ess propertics will experience an avrr- . men� buildings;
Homes . 12.1 -2.7 age increase oC about 1 percent in 1990.
from 3.5 pe�cent to 3.0 percent fur sin6le-
Renlal housing 9.0 -11.5 ln 1990� owners oC business properey lo- ramily homes. d�iplexes and triplcxes.
Businesses 10.9 lA catcd in c�mmunitics �vith relati�rly hi�h
�roperty tax ratcs will be eligible for a rctund TFie law requires the owners oC rcn�al
AI!properties(inctuding newc�nnstnrction) uf a pc�rtion of thc tax on the amoun� uf thc housing to cornplr �vi�h l��cai hcalih, �:�Icty
Farms 13.O�o 3.8% property's value over 5100.000. and building mainten�nee cocles i�i order to
qualify fo�the reciuced tax rate on thc rrntal
Cabins 10.6 5.5 �' property.
� Homes 15.1 0.3
Rental housing 13.0 -7•5
Businesses 14.9 5A
� J
Busin�ss prnperty: I3y 1992� the two tax ratcs on the portic�Q Property Tax Refund Changes
Irc>n� 3.:i perccnt an the (irst E lOU,UUI) ul' of the t'arm's value ovcr;100,000 will be cc�n-
�•al�ic to 3.0 perccnt by 1993; solidated intoone tax rate of 1.5 percent. The In addition to cuts in the tax rates, many
< < �ax rate on timberla�d�ril) also be ci�t to I.5 Minnesota homeowne�s, renters, and cal�in
from 5.25 percenl�v 5.06 percent in t JJU owners will also benefit Crom cl�anges in tl�e
ancl to 4.95 ercent in 1991 on value over percent. County bc�ards oF commissioners .
P retain the option o� assessing timberlt�nd state s property tax refund programs. Tl�c
S i 00,000; according to its fair market value or on a �hangrs include:
i�ltimatc goal sct at 4.0 percent. method based on the annual growth of tiin- For homeowncrs,
Fc�r busincsscs in communities witli rcla- ��on the property. • expanding eligibility for rcgular prop- .
ti�•cly high taxes,the new law also provides fc�r erty tax rcfunds in 1990 to homcowncrs �
a spcci:�l pmpert?� tax refund of up to S4,OQA with household incomesofup to;60,000.
fc�r taxcs payable in 1990 and 1991. In 1989. eligibility Cor the refund w:+s �
, limited to homeuwners with hoUsel�old
Farms and timbcrland: incomes of no more than ;35,000.
I�i :ulclitic>n. thc� ncw law cons�>licl:�tcs .
sc��c•r:il tax�:�tes that a � licd to l:�rmland ii��o increasing the dollar amount of refunds
f P homeowners can receive through the
�hrc�cr:itcs!'<,r l�JSlOandtworatesh�• I��Sl`2. tZc-
ginning in 1990. farm homes will bc taxcd at regular propecty tax refund program.
the sanie class ra�rs that apply to othrr humes. • removing the limit for 1988 returns(filcd
For 1�J9O, thc tax ratcs on homcstcactccl in 1989) on the,amount oC the spccial
G�n�ila��cl �vill bc: propertytaxrefund(targeUng)forhume-
ownerswhoexperienceanunusually h�6h
0.4 perccnt on thc first SlOQ.00U; increase in property taxes; and
I.3 percent on the balance of the valuc��t • extending the special property tax reCimd
the first 320 acres on a homestead; program (targeting) to 1994.
1.7 perccnl on all rcmaining farmlancl
:incl c�n ti�ui�erlanJ. QeCore the special scssion, the special
_ __ __ .___ _____ (tacgeting) property tax refund for 1989 w:�s
Comparing tax rates fo� 1990 limited to 75 percent of that portion o( a
Belore After . property tax increase over 10 percent,up to a
retomi relorm � maximum refund of=250. Because the new
- �- law removes the n�aucimum� the Dcparement
Homes vC Revenue is recom utin all 1989 s ecial
'Firs1$68.000 1.0 1.0 P S P
$68,000-$100.000 2.5 2.0 property tax refunds already filed, and will
mail an additio��al refund to homeowncrs
Over 3100,000 3.3 3A who filcd previously and wcre alTccted by the
Businesses rcfund limit� with no furthcr action needed
Fi�st�100,000 3.3 3.3 on thcir parG
Over a100,000 5.25 5.06 � '
Rental Housing _
1-3 . �. • � � �
�Apa�nts ��
i
, �
Startin� in 1�J�0, thc st:ite will p�y 75 � scl�cdulc �n comprns:�te rcntcrs f�r rrcluc-
p��rcent of thc firrt S'�:�0 i�l'ihc t:�x incrca.c• tic�ns in rcfund amounu due to cuts in prc�p-
ovcr 1(l Pcrccnt anc19(1��erccnt c�f the h:�l:incc erty taxcs on rcntal housing.
of the tax increase. Tlic amoiint o('the tax in-
crease over 10 perceni to �vhich the 75 per- For oumers oj seasonal residential recrea-
cent raee applies is increased aCter 1991 as tiona!prop�rties (cabins), Reorganizing taxing and
follows: A one-time properry tax refund program spending responsibilities
19��2: 7a perccnt of tl�e (irst $775 of tlie was adopted for the owners of cabins who ex-
increase o��er IU perceni; perience an unusually high increase in their The new law begiru the process oCclarifi�-
19�)3: 7� percent ol'the f irst S:�Uf) of the property tax Crom 1989 to 1990. Ilnder the �ng and restructu�in� the wxing and spend-
program, owners of property classified as �ng responsibilities of state and Incal go��ern-
increase over 10 percent; ments. It establishes the eneral nnci le
194)4: 7� percent of the first S323 of�he seasonal residenual recreational are eligiblr g P � p
for a refund of 75 ercent of the first a250 oC that che scate should pay for programs ic
increasr o�rr 10 percent. . P manclates,and that IexalKc,�•ernnu•n�sshuuld
tax increase over 10 percent. .i fnr.local s endin ctecisi�,ns. 'I'l�r ne�.•la�v
T�� hr eli�;ihlc f��r the refund, a p' y p �
h��nicn�vn�•r'x�rc►��c•n��i:�x n�util inc�rc:�tic•h� ;u also rrco6nizes tl�at finrncin�; �l'u�i��r x iv-
Ieasi S�It)i�i 1l1�)U:u�cl 1���►I.SIiU in t41J1.SK(1 in ices should be shared by both state and local
IS�93 and S1OU iu !9�)•L govcrnment.
�nother provision uf thc law ciirects the In addition, the law estahlishes the prin-
Department of Re��enue to drvelop by Frbru- ciple that state aic! fi�nc�s ma�•he usrcl ta he•lp
ary 1�. I9J0,a scries uf rrcc�mmendatic�ns ti�r: cnsurc tha� cert:iin rnmmunitics ctu� ��ru��icic
. � b:�sic Icvcl of scnicrs �viihout I�a�•in}; tc�
• rhan�;i��g tli�;ihilit�� f��r tl�c pri►pe•rn� tax impose excessirel�• hi};h taxes un ��ru�crty
rcCund in order to pro�-ide additic,nal owners.
rcf��nd dollars to h�mcrn�•ncrs i�i 19�)I:
In ehis tirst stage. the ne�v law:
� sin►plifj-ing chr pra�;�am tn make applica-
tiuns c:isirr tu run���lr�e: :uid � prr►vitic•s E1R milli�.n fi,��tatc� t:�k�nvcr �►f
cuurt casts. I�� I�N.)I).thc x�atc:�s,u�i�c�ilic
� inrrcasii��; puhlic a�varci�css an�l panici- costs for disu-ict court administ�atiun.
paiion in thc prc�};r:►m. , public dcfense scnices tnr ju�•rnile a�id
misdemeanor cases in Henncpin and
For renters, R.�msey counties and operation of che
The pmperry tax refund prc�gram`or rrn- trial court inf�rma�ion s��ctem•�
trrs (ur 1 J8J a��plic:itic�ns lilyd in 1 J�0 rc- ,
mains essenually the s:►me as this ��ear's prcr • pr���icles f�r the cam�lr�c suur i;,k�•�,�•er
gram. of inc�mc maintcnancc (puhlic assis-
tancc) programs in I991;
lli�wc�•er, fc�r 19�)(1 applicati�ns filcc! in - .
1�J91, rrnters will recri�•e brcater ref��ncts. • prcpares the stace for future assumption
of the costs of other human service pro-
Funhrr, tl�e law clirccts thr Drp:�rtmcnt gr:►ms; anci
oC Re��enur to devclup a more generous
� .
�
• incrcascs st�tc sharc of K 12 funding l�y � proviclrs for trutl�-in-�axation no�iccs ta
S 113 million to allow Cor a corresponding �ncoura��g citizen participation, �ivc property own�rs an oppo�wnity tc►
rcduction in local school district Icvics. controlling spending cxpress thcir opinions on upcorning
The state's sharc oC education s cndin . spcnding dccisions which will atTcct thc:
� K In orcicr to improvc taxpa}crs undcr-
will risc from G1 perccnt to G4 perccnt. standing of tl�c property tax rystcm and to cn- amount of property tax tl�cy will pay:
Jn respcct to rcmaining prvgrams involv- couragc cl�cir participation in and control of — Nenncpin.RamscyandSt.Louisco�i��-
ng scatc aicl tc� local govcrnmcnt. thc I:�w thc systc�n, t�ic ncw u�x law: _ tics will mail c:ach property owncr :�
�tipuiatcs�l�at a joint House-Scnatc Ic6islativc • rcduccs the numbcr of property tax ra�es "proposcJ praperty tax statcmrnl"
_�mmissioiiwillrccommcndwhichprograms Cr�m21 i�i I�Jti9tc� IOi�� I�JS1UanctBin 1!1S)3 showing thc amount of property u►x
should bc paid fo� hy whieh typc of govcrn- (s�e Lrluw); thc owricrwoutcl pay tocach local go�-
mcrit. Thc law also rc uires the ovcrn�r to ernmcnt iC the local govcrntnents
R 8 • simplilirs tl�c terms used �� refer to as- advpt thc budgets thcy are consicler-
rc�icw aU�mdcsignatcd statc aid programs,as pccts oC�hc property t:ix systcm;
wcll as all aids that arc dcsignatcd fur huma�i �ng'
services and for elementa and seconda • removes st�te-imp�sed Ievy limiu on year-
ry ry — All othcr countics will mail cacl�pr���r
�ducation,and thcn make recommcndations t�-ycar incrcasrs in property tax cnllcc- crty owner a statement announcing
to thc commission. ti��ns firr ci�ics in (11�'L anct Gir countic�in � thc tota)amo�int of property tax to l�c
If thc governor recommenJs shiCting thc
����J3� � collcctcd by thcir county,Uy thcir city
inancing of a program Erom statc to local , • rcc�uirrs��n���cri�• �ax liills u�xhi��v a ycar- or trnvn and by thcir school distrirt if
�esources, the governor must also iclentify • t�-ye:�r rump:irisi>�i of tl�e arnrn�nt c�f tax lucal governmeuts ade���t tl�c buel6ct
Nhich othcr state programs are to reccivc the the prc�prrty o�vner pays to eacii Iocal gov amou��ts thcy are considcring.
�tatc revenues. • ernmen� so citizens can more easil�•iclen- To encrn�rage fisc�l respt�nsibiliry on the
ti('ywhichuf(icialsarcres�x�ncilalr(or�r•hat statc lcvcl, whcncvcr a bill for a ncw or cx-
The ncw law also direcu thc commission ��;����� ctrtisions•
o rccommcnd cl�angcs in financial rcporting __.. __..____._'._.,_______________ ._ pandcd progra�n is introJucccl, it must i�r
ncthods to cnsurc public ovcrsight oC local � clude information al�uut thc prc�gran�'�
;ovcrnmcnt cxpcnditures. . Number ot property tax class rates (�nancial im�act on b<�th sCuc and lor.�l g�rv-
2� crnmen�s.
Ovcratl,the retorm provides fo�reJucing "" '
�ur rcliancc on property taxts for thc funcfing To hclp contral currcnt and fiuure spcnct-
rf cducation, human services and othcr non- ing. thc I:�w rcquires tlivgovcrnor to prcr
�roperty-rclatcd programs so that loca! gow pose ways to cut programs by S�0 million in
rnmcnts can uu propert�► caxcs to support �v 1990 anJ �100 million in 1 J91.
ocally Jctcrmincd,propertp-rclatcd scrviccs. :; s �inally, bccau5c Uic bill hclps darify tl�c
�`�.� rclationships lrctwccn statc and local taxing
responsiUilitics. citizcns will. bc Ucucr
R;:, cquippcJ tc�know which unit of govcrnmcnt
to hold accountablc for Jccisions. (Fu�urc
t�o betore tseo aNer ts93 spending increases will:bc ca�trollcd if thc
retorm relotm
govcrnmrnt unit that Jccic]��s to crp:�ncl a
--_ pro}Lr.�m is rc�uirccllc►ray li�r tha�cicrisi����.)
� • ��
� Decl�lon _
i
Resource� Ltd.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This study contains the results of a telephone survey of 400
randonly selected residents of the City of Rosemount. Survey
respor.ses were gathered by professional interviewers between
December 15, 1988, and January 6, 1989. The average interview
took :�orty-five minutes. In general, random samples such as this
yield results projectable to the entire universe of Rosemount
residents wi_thin + 5. 0 percentage points in 95 out of 100 cases.
Rosemount is, in many ways, the quintessential "exurban"
area. Poised geographically between the rural small towns to its
south and the high growth suburbs to its north, Rosemount blends
many of th� characteristics of each. In doing so, it has
established a unique demographic pattern that can best be
� described as "pre-growth: " changes which suggest that it will
evolve� into a traditional "outer-ring" suburban community,
combined witY.� a stability that augers more toward a town-like
enclav? amidst the suburban sprawl. The next few years will be
critical to �he ultimate resolution of the community's identity.
So far, Rosemount has escaped the rapid popu��tion build-ups
which charac�eriz� the Dakota County suburbs to i�s north. About
one-quarter of the residents have arrived durina �h�• past two
years, a lowe� fraction than the high growth a�eas, one more
typical of the Hennepin County suburban belt. `' In addition,
thirty-six percent of the residents have lived in Rosemount for
at leG.st ten years, adding a sizable stable group to the
population. Most residents also anticipate staying for at least
a decade, if not longer; a result more consistent with mature
suburbs than fast-growing suburbs, where greater transiencc is
the rule.
R�semour.� does not evidence any major influx of young
families from the Twin Cities. Instead, it principally draws
from four main sources: first, other Dakota County suburbs;
then, areas across the remaining six Metropolitan Area counties;
and finally, out-state and outside Minnesota. Each of these
areas have provided almost equal segments of the Rosemount
population. Currently, Rosemount is witnessing an up-tick in the
numbers of residents arriving from Northern Dakota County
suburbs, usually in reaction to the fast growth going on there.
Rather than functioning in the traditional role of a suburb
which relies upon the core city for its in-migration, Rosemount
draws laterally from other suburbs and from more disparate areas.
The perspective of most residents, though, will not reflect
3128 Dean Court • Minneaqolis, Minnesota 55416 • (612) 920-0337
adjacent suburbs or northwest across the Minnesota River. Places
of work in Dakota County suburbs were cited by forty percent of
the sample. Minneapolis and its Southern suburbs account for an
additional twenty-three percent. Public transportation planning
should, consequently, reflect these patterns.
As one interviewee told us, "Rosemount is that unique kind
of community which provides small town living close to the
amenities of more highly and intensively developed cities. We
have it both ways. " The demographics of the community would bear
out this statement. But, both that description and the city's
demographics suggest strongly that "keeping it both ways" is the
major challenge facing the community.
Rosemount citizens are generally content with their
community. Eighty-nine percent approved of the quality of life
there; thirty-two percent, strongly so. Residents were drawn to
the city for many reasons -- rural and small town ambience, open
space and housing, high quality schools, and nearby employment
opportunities. Even today, most residents feel that the
characteristics which initially attracted them are still very
much evidenced in the community.
When Rosemount is thought about in general terms by its
residents, it is the rural country-like atmosphere and small town
ambience which comes quickly to mind. That image, together with
the friendly people, are the most outstanding characteristics of
the community in the minds of two-thirds of the sample. It is
also the future protection of this image which provokes the most
unrest in the citizenry. Twenty-two percent of the respondents
were very critical of the rapid growth taking place in the
community, while twenty-four percent were dissatisfied with the
slow rate of deveZopment, particularly in retail shopping
opportunities. Even so, sixty-eight percent of the sample saw
Rosemount as a small town, while only twenty-seven percent felt
it was a suburb. Reconciling effective growth and development
with the small town image of the community is clearly the key
problem facing policy-makers today.
Residents are generally connected to their community. The
quality of inediating institutions -- such as churches, schools,
and parks -- and the feeling of living among like-minded, similar
people are two value people prize highly. Almost sixty percent
of the sample felt they had real roots in the community. But,
that socialization was somewhat less effective among residents
for less than five years. On the issue of empowerment, the
ability to impact city decision-making, only twenty-three percent
expressed alienation, a comparatively low level. Rosemount,
then, is the prototypical small town in mass society, providing
nearby urban living and offering rural, traditional values to its
residents.
The concern and lack of operating consensus about future
development was best evidenced in the choice between preserving
rural character at the cost of slower economic growth or pursuing
3
residents were critical. Water quality, primarily its taste, was
rated unsatisfactorily by almost one-half of the residents, while
building and housing inspection proved to be unfamiliar to about
forty percent of the citizenry. Some re-evaluation of individual
service provision appears necessary, but overall citizens were
content with their city government on this dimension.
The Rosemount Park and Recreation System is highly valued by
most citizens. Eighty-three percent of the sample rated it as
either "excellent" or "good. " Usership, at eighty-one percent,
was among the highest rates recorded in the suburbs.
Neighborhood parks and larger community/regional parks were the
most frequently used components of the system; sixty-three
percent reported visiting the former, while fifty-five percent
went to the latter. Passive recreational and active recreational
facilities drew forty-five percent of the sample. Proximity to
these facilities played a key role in their use by residents.
Tot lots, while drawing only twenty-seven percent of the
residents, possessed a very well-defined usership segment. Also,
in light of the growing numbers of young families, their use can
only be expected to increase in the future.
While the vast majority of residents were satisfied with
current facilities and opportunities, some support existed for
additions to the system. A swimming pool and more picnic areas
were sought by seven and five percent of the respondents,
respectively. And, four percent of the respondents indicated
they would prefer to use an ice arena and swimming pool in
Rosemount, if it were available. Future planning priorities may
wish to take account of these expressed preferences.
Many communities are attempting to come to grips with the
recycling issue. Rosemount begins ahead of most other areas,
with forty-seven percent of the citizenry already recycling to
some extent. Newspaper/cardboard and metal/aluminum were already
be correctly disposed of by about thirty-four percent of the
citizenry. Glass, though, trailed at twenty-two percent.
Residents rely upon a number of structured and occasional ways of
disposing of their recyclables: the recycling center, Knutson
Pickup and paper drives were the most popular.
If the city were to institute its own program for picking-up
recyclables, fifty-one percent of the households could be
expected to participate. If a savings of ten percent on present
hauling costs could be realized, seventy-eight percent of the
citizenry indicated some interest in the program; even with a ten
percent additional cost, thirty-nine percent were still willing
to participate. Unlike many other municipalities, the current
behavior and prospective intentions of residents suggest that a
cost-efficient recycling program should be expected to meet
mandated levels quite handily.
Crime was not deemed as serious an issue as in other parts
of the suburbs. Less than twenty-five percent of the sample felt
that crimes against property had increased in Rosemount during
5
part of the community, one to be protected and nurtured by
future development plans. A consensus exists about what
constitutes "Downtown: " to almost sixty percent of the
citizenry, Downtown is the area within a few blocks of Highway #3
and 145th Street. Another twenty percent would expand the
definition to include other sections of Highway #3 . But,
residents also feel that in the future it should expand along
Highway #3 to include County Road 42 ; just under two-thirds of
the population prefer the treatment of this area by the City as
one development zone.
In discussing what they liked most about downtown Rosemount,
respondents dwelled on two features: first, thirty-six percent
mentioned its convenience as a shopping area; and second, twenty-
eight percent pointed to its distinctive "small town"
personality. In future plans, efforts should be made to
reinforce these two images. On the downside, residents were
critical of the limited selection of goods and merchandise and
the construction of "white buildings. " More diversity should be
encouraged in the types of enterprises settling into this area.
And, as will be discussed, the aesthetics of Downtown Rosemount
are particularly important to many residents.
A clear pattern of planning to incorporate the natural
beauty of the area into future developments was exhibited by mar.y
residents. Sixty-three percent of the respondents would support
the construction of a nature preserve, even if a tax increase
were required for financing. Seventy-seven percent of the
residents would support the construction of a corridor trail
system in the city, even if a tax increase were required. Also,
two-thirds of the city approved of the current allocation of up
to one-half of the city's land for agricultural purposes. These
positions certainly reflect and expand upon the "small town"
ambience that most residents prize.
As suburbs to the North have grown quickly during the past
few years, a general concern has developed in Southern Dakota
County about over-population. Residents were asked if they would
cap the city's population at some level in the future. Forty-two
percent would halt growth at some level between 10, 000 and 20, 000
residents. The median level suggested was 14, 500, smaller than
either Lakeville or Inver Grove Heights. Obviously, residents
who saw the community as a rural, small town settlement tended to
support levels even smaller than this average figure.
There was a general lack of interest in extensive public
transportation systems. Only seventeen percent of the residents
could be projected as ridership of a future system connecting
Rosemount with Downtown Minneapolis, Bloomington, and Downtown
Saint Paul. Residents split evenly in indicating that they would
be most likely to use public transport for journeys to work and
school or for shopping and entertainment. But, consistent with
the view of many other suburbanites, Rosemount residents have a
deep and abiding attachment to their automobile.
7
adequate opportunity for input; a relatively high twenty-two
percent through those opportunities were inadequate. The
process, then, needs some re-examination to insure both the
perception and reality of residential participation.
The general direction of past decisions, however, came under
far less criticism. Sixty-four percent felt that the pace of
development was about right for the community. Fifty-three
percent viewed development across the city as well-planned for
the future. A strong three-quarters of the citizenry also viewed
housing as offering residents a wide choice. Certainly at this
point in time, there is no perceptible "development crisis"
taking place in the residents; fears tend to based on the future,
rather than the past or present.
Rosemount citizens exhibited a high degree of antipathy
toward multi-family housing units. This reaction has been common
throughout Dakota County, perhaps in reaction to developments in
Burnsville and Bloomingtan. Seventy-one percent oppose develop-
ment incentives to attract more apartments and condominiums to
the city. A majority of fifty-two percent oppose any further
multi-family projects, even if they aesthetically blend into the
present character of the community. And, consistent with this
feeling, sixty-seven percent oppose development incentives to
attract higher quality and more pleasing multi-family units. At
this juncture, any attempts to place large scale complexes within
the city will be met with significant hostility.
Residents take a moderate approach to further housing
construction. Sixty percent support keeping the current minimum
lot size at 10, 000 square feet; however, almost thirty percent
favor a larger minimum. Additionally, fifty-eight percent
support further rural residential construction that allows no
tie-in to city sewer and water services. On single family homes,
there is a consensus behind present policies.
Most Rosemount citizens view the opportunity to add on
community facilities to the new armory in a highly favorable
light. Seventy-three percent favor additional recreational con-
struction as an extension to the facility; only fourteen percent
opposed. Even if a tax increase were required, the average
resident would be willing to pay as much as an additional $37.50
yearly to underwrite the costs.
Residents also expressed very definite preferences about
facilities for inclusion in the armory addition. The strongest
NET support levels were present for: day care and latchkey
facilities, a community theatre, a band shell, and an exercise
and fitness room. Moderate net support levels favored an outdoor
wading pool, a gymnasium, and an indoor ice arena. Opinions were
more closely divided on an indoor swimming pool. Racquet ball
courts, indoor tennis courts, and a whirlpool bath and spa
registered net opposition. But, these are aggregate
support/opposition scores which more often reflect general
community interest and commitment rather than a decision to favor
9
communications.
City staff was familiar to thirty-seven percent of the
residents, a tad above the suburban norm. The fifty-seven
percent approval rating was somewhat lower than average, while
the disapproval rating of seventeen percent was somewhat higher.
But, again, abaut one-quarter of the residents were unable to
evaluate the staff. More than in other communities, evaluations
were more heavily based upon specific interactions rather than
hearsay or media reporting. Communications about the actions of
staff, even though they might not directly impact a resident,
would still build good will and help reduce the perception of
"invisibility" expressed by those holding no opinions. The
handicap of no city publication certainly bears upon these
ratings.
In summary, Rosemount citizens are very pleased with their
community. They are satisfied, for the most part, with past
policies and actions. The areas of most concern appear to center
around the course of future development -- maintaining the "small
town" ambience during a period of projected area growth.
Preserving and enhancing this highly positive image of a well-run
"small town" in a mass suburban setting, while encouraging growth
and economic development to meet community needs, will be the key
issue facing decision-makers in the future.
11