Good evening. It is 6 o'clock according to my time. I'll go with that time. I looked up at the clock up there. So, I'll call the U meeting of truth and taxation to order. All the commissioners are present. The truth and taxation
uh meeting was enacted by the Minnesota state legislature in 1988 to enhance public participation in the Minnesota property tax system. Let it slide. The purpose is to provide a fair and
objective forum for property owners to appeal their valuation or classification. These appeals are only for the current year. We know you have reviewed the assessor's data and this evening you may provide
evidence of recent sales or recent appraisers to us. When you are called, please come up to the desk that has the um microphone and um you already are. If you haven't signed in, there'll be a paper there for
you to sign in and give your information. You'll state your name and your case. Be prepared to answer questions by the county board. This meeting will be conducted in a fair and impartial manner. The county board listens to all
appeals and takes time for the consideration of all that is presented. We will address each presentation individually and you will have five minutes to do your presentation. So, whomever want to be first, step up to the table with the microphone,
please. We got We have Tim White up first. I was get finding the numbers because these two parcel 40 acre 40s were combined. So, I'm reviewing what information you have. I went into the
the administrator's office to make a better um map and um but I guess she didn't receive that. They did actually that were handed out
by she got it. You gave it to her. Oh yeah. Okay. So they do have a copy of the black and white. That's a critical one because I wanted to simplify this. There are so many different issues that I certainly couldn't cover them all in
five minutes. The the state of Minnesota doesn't consider assessors to be infallible or we wouldn't be here. And so I hope you're going to listen to
what I have to say as uh my perspective different from the surveyors and use your own judgment and also whether this information that I have to present would change the value of that
land. What when I tried to simplify it, I I finally today I used this this black and white map that David Demer had prepared in um 2015. I think
that's when um I think that Frank Mo asked him to go out and look at the land. Now, I don't think he looked at all the land uh because I think I talked to him and he didn't cross the river. It's hard to
get to this piece, both of these pieces. Anyway, and as it says, generalized buildable area of white property. It's not fully accurate. Uh he missed a few critical things on
this map. I drew in some lines. for example, in addition to what he considered he considered these to be buildable areas. So in the top right corner, uh that land is just as steep as the
steep slopes that he considered unbuildable and it goes down to a ravine which probably last night had water gushing down it. I got two inches of rain and this ravine fills with water.
So I don't consider that I wouldn't consider that to be buildable. And then to the east side, I also drew a line uh showing another ravine
which goes through the middle of what David considered to be possibly buildable. And on each side of that ravine, the slopes are very steep. Another thing that happened is that in between
when I entered this land in the SFIA program. Do I need to explain that SFIA program? Yes. So, I think it was around 2005, thanks to um our senator especially, it
was he Tom Bach, they set up this program to allow forest land owners to enroll um subject to a covenant which prohibited any development. Part of the idea was to
encourage more sale and of timber and also to prevent this kind of building pressure and subdivision pressure that was a you know it's bad on uh really the nature of of wild lands. If people
people's taxes go up and then they divide in order to be able to afford their taxes under the SFI program, you receive a payment from the state of Minnesota administered by the Department of Revenue every year based on the statewide
property taxes on forest land. But you're prohibited from developing from building even roads on the land that is included in that uh SFIA. And when you enroll in it, it's
all of your land. And if you violate the terms of that in one small place, they're going to come after you for everything. Like they give the example of some timber company that had like 5,000 acres and they made a small
mistake and then Department of Revenue went after them for the previous eight years of payments on all 5,000 acres. Anyway, is that enough explanation on that? Okay. So, this all of my land is
enrolled in SFIA program. There are a few places where I was able to exclude thinking at the time that maybe I'd have a business with sled dog touring and I could put up a wall tent on a platform or something like that. Well, that never
happened. But I picked places that would be good for that. And I picked those places. I wasn't thinking about building and I wasn't thinking about the county zoning and where I could or couldn't build. I just this was a good place to set up a tent. And on this
these parcels here. Sometime in between, Wayne Henchie, bless his soul, with his GPS and his obsession with quarter corners, relocated this corner quarter corner so that the boundaries changed
and as a result, what on the earlier map showed as the as that road, which is now called the Brew Valley Trail, moved. So, it's no longer uh touching my property.
So, anyway, back to this on there's two ravines there. So, the of what David Demer thought and you see, he says generalize. He doesn't claim to have been perfect and he's a water man, right? He was a water man. He wasn't a planning and
zoning building permit man. But the only thing left is that really small piece on top of the cliff. And I haven't I haven't gone there to to determine carefully, but I don't think
that's buildable either. And it isn't on the Brew Valley Trail. So person would need to have an easement to get there. Okay. Back to the other side of the river. uh that side. The next section over is
section 36. Like many um townships in northern Minnesota, section 36 and section 16 were put in the school trust fund land program for the DNR to manage to generate income for schools.
So that property there is a square mile of school trust fun land and it's very unlikely that anybody could get an easement across there. So from that side of the river, my land would have to go
a mile to reach Solder Homes Forest Service special use permit where he has a road that he maintains under his own cost that then connects to Forest Road 308. Anyway, so I also drew in here in the
bottom left corner of my land, that line shows is a sharp drop off from the ridge into wetland. And people may not know this, but there's one classification of wetland called coniferous wetland. So
from an aerial photo, you might see black spruce trees growing, but if you went down on the ground, you'd see moss that's a foot deep and it's wet even in the hottest weather. Anyway, that that other part is coniferous wetland. And then the other line is another ravine
where water flows off from the ridge. So, um, thinking that perhaps when I combine these properties, the assessor saw now I have 80 acres with buildable
sites and an access on the east side, some kind of access because it happens to be it's close to that Bull Valley Trail, but realistically ally.
I don't think that's true. So, my other document here, which I don't know if you have a copy of this. I'm sorry. It was written in pencil. That's on the very last page of the packet that I do on this. I tracked the I tracked the
um assessed value of those 240s which were until this year were separate. But I wrote down what that came to that combined. So in 2022 combined value 759
2023 759 2024 872. But then this year this is the one I'm really objecting to. when they were combined, instead of what you usually expect that the price per acre would go
down, instead it went to 119,300 in the previous years is 1,000 per acre, 1,100, and now it's 1,500 per acre. And I know that that having come to some of these other meetings that the
assessor talks about um comparable. Is that it? Is that the word? Comparable. Comparable. Comparable. Well, that's a pretty vague term. What you really need to know beyond
comparing is what are the key differences? What are the similarities? Mr. White, I'll give you another minute. Okay. Quickly, I'm going down. I picked three other parcels of mine which have
some strong similarities like one parcel 300 acres on the camp 15 road uh that has probably half of it is wetlands like this rural riverland wetlands that's valued at 500 an acre.
another parcel 120 acres uh on Magny Park that doesn't have good access. It's 3/4 of a mile on an easement that's valued at 70 750 per acre. And then another parcel on the Casper Hill Road,
uh which has lots of building sites and it's on the Casper Hill Road, $800. So, I think this $1,500 an acre is is is an awful big jump without any justification considering that realistically there are no building
sites. Thank you. I'll turn it over to Bob Townson. Thank you, Madam Chair. Um, thanks Tim for coming and bringing some information. Uh, I did provide the commissioners with some information myself. that's in that little binder
with your name on it there. Um, if you want to look at it, it's in the in the binder to your left. Um, so effectively what I've got put together here is just a little bit of rundown on the history. Um, I know that, you know, in communicating with Mr. White this year,
he had brought up the the previous tax court stipulation that was settled in 2017 uh with the previous assessor. Um, so what I have is a couple, you know, I have a photo from up at the I don't know if that's what Mr. White referred to as
the tent site, but this is up on the east side. Um, the the larger of the areas on the David Demer map where it's outlined and showing, you know, approximate buildable areas. You know, that is the information that we based the, you know, the the tax court
stipulation on back in 2015. I haven't ever seen another map where the property lines have shifted. And you know, I think that with this this map that was provided by a county official, I have to take it for its value is that there are potential build sites on either side of
of the river. Um, you know, there there's not a lot of sales of of properties like this where, you know, it's elevated up on a on a ridge line, you know, looking over a valley like that. They're few and far between. There is a an active listing down in that area
right now and it's been on for some time. Um, you know, it's a it's a rustic off-grid cabin. It's a rather large log home cabin on the Burl River Road and, you know, the assessment that we have on it is right about what their asking price is currently. They had recently
dropped their price from, I think, 400 to 375 on that property. So, you know, that's kind of looking at our measurement of assessment. And you know, it's one of those things that that we have to look at is where are those sales lining up with the um with the actual
assessments. So, you know, I have the the David Demer map that was that was also provided by Mr. White. I have that photograph from up on the RGEL line over the Brew River Valley. You know, in that MLS listing, it talks about how this is, you know, some of the most unique land
in in all of the county and, you know, highly soughta and very very rarely comes available. Uh, that property is still active. It hasn't sold yet. Um, I do also have the val value history of Mr. White's two properties, the ones that were combined that make up this 80
acres now. And I guess if if Mr. White, if you take a look at that, the numbers that I have on this uh it's the second page in your packet that I gave you. Yep. The second page in there, it shows the value going in 22 from 759
into 23 was 94,400 and then in 24 19,300 and this year 123700. So, those were different from the numbers that I think you had added up. And I did just double check it in the software and it is it is matching up to what I have on the paper
here. So, you know, I have to ask myself, do I think that one or potentially two build sites over that Burl River Valley is worth $123,000? I we do have it factored into our
assessment where there's marshlands, wetlands. In fact, the majority of the property is on the assessment record as wetlands, but wetlands in Cook County sell for $800 an acre currently. So, that's what we have them valued at across the county is $800 an acre. Um,
river frontage adds value to a property. We've seen it in sales. And in fact, I provided um two examples of that in a sideby-side comparison on the third page. So underneath the blue line graph that shows the county's total value history
um there's a comparison right in in Mr. White's neighborhood uh that the off river prop parcel sold for 1,100 an acre and the on the river parcel sold for um 2269 an acre and that I didn't even take
into account the fact that that non-river sale was 2 years later in a market that's appreciating. So, if you account for that, it only further spreads the difference between the non- river and the river frontage and and shows that that river frontage is truly in high demand. Um, the parcel
referenced here that sold for $90,000 in 2020 is a a 40 acre parcel directly south of Mr. White's property. So, this is, you know, roughly half the size of Mr. Whites in total on the same bluff
overlooking the river. It sold for 90,000 before we had this, you know, 80% increase in market value since the pandemic. So, those are just a couple of data points that, you know, when you don't have a perfect comparable, you just have to look at data points and
say, what is the data suggesting? Is that number of 123 wrong or is it supported in the data? And you know, I talked about it with my appraisers today and you know, when you don't have that perfect comp, sometimes you're saying, "Well, maybe it could use a, you know,
$10 or $20,000 reduction." And and then you think about it and it's like, "Well, yeah, but then there's that 80 acres that sold right off of the um Superior Hiking Trail for $25,000 and 23." And you know that it's going to end up probably being one build site. It's not
like they bought it to be subdivided. We often times see people buy 40 80 you know 160 acre parcels and build one house on it or one cabin. So you know I think that the fact that Mr. Demer has identified a potential build site or
two. Um I will also point out that this map excludes the 50ft setback all the way around the perimeter. If you look at it in the detailed map, you can see that there are variances for for bluff setbacks and sideyard setbacks when you
have challenges like this. In fact, I've heard Neva um say it many times that when a property has a challenge with the setbacks, that's when they're more likely to get the variances approved. So, you know, we're we're valuing Tim um
equal with other properties that are like him. And you know that's that's that's how we got to the number. We have marsh discounts. We have elevation discounts. We offset some discounts when you have a view like that because that is a multiplier in our assessment. So
there's a lot of things going on. But you know I just have to put my my real estate cap on and say would somebody pay 123 for that? And I do think they would. I did reach out to the broker that Mr. White had worked with in the past and I never got a response. That was I emailed
yesterday. So, you know, I I don't know where to go. I mean, I asked Mr. White to get BPOS's prepared from a realtor and and I haven't seen anything yet. So, you know, here we are. Does the Does the board have any questions or
clarification? The one building site that's down in the lower to the east that is flood waters. I mean, just like we have
said that there are people with enough money that will buy whatever there is. this particular piece of property. If they're going to invest that much money, they could find nicer pieces of property and not have to deal with
wetlands and wetland credits and then access to it and and um when it floods, which it did, things float away. If you know there's I think Tim has a canoe
that he for goofing around or for his whatever the kid and it floats away after a heavy rain if he doesn't have it tied up. So that's that's it that is not a buildable area at all. So, and as far as the bluff
goes, it um well, maybe I should try to walk up the bluff, but that does not have road access. And that's that will be just like we are aware just like when we talked about the bluff above Grand
Marray that there may be somebody at some point that would invest the money to buy a $200,000 10 acres so they could be up high to get up high on this particular piece of property.
It would be a significant investment to get there. And I think there are finer or better pieces of property with the same amount of money you could put into it um that would be less hassle to get to it. So,
Commissioner Gamble. Thank you, Madam Chair. Uh thank you, Mr. White and Bob for the the information. As I recall, um, we were talking about this in my first term as commissioner when David Demer was
assessing this and I think the conversation was whether or not we were going to actually put our boots on and go up there and take a look and see, you know, what was, you know, reality in that regard. I think the thing for everybody when it comes to property tax
and assessment looking at all the influences if there's a matrix in place so that it's equally applied in evaluation and we'll often hear you know individuals say how come that house and how come this site and whatever and and our security I would say comes in equal
application so that there's integrity in our process um and I and I think uh reasonleness and Good faith says that we come together to have these discussion to make sure that our assumptions and our application of policy is equal
amongst all owners. Uh the other thing that I I recall when we did our quartortile assessments uh back when we were not in compliance and we had to get in compliance or the state would take over that we would send that down and
here's how we rate these and the state would come back and say well we think it needs to be 10% higher that that's something that I guess in my limited experience I don't know know how much negotiation and if the commissioners and other commissioners in the arrowhead
region would challenge, you know, those comebacks from the state that's saying you're going to have to bump it up. Well, we think we in good faith assessed, you know, it properly. Um um our willingness to to listen, our
willingness to actively respond to concerns uh and to explain how we arrived at our numbers, which Bob has has certainly helped inform us on. um are are places
to begin. I think as community working together and trying to see the reasonleness, sometimes we arrive at occlusion that we're not necessarily happy with and our stewardship responsibility as elected and hired individuals on behalf of citizens in the
county. We want to get it right within the context of what our policies, procedures, state statute, and the state, you know, orchestrates for us. Um my response to this would be simply that um
if it hasn't been done that that we would go the extra mile to try to make sure that the matrix that we're applying is equally applied here based upon assessment and that we would you know look at that as to the significant increase that we're experiencing since
the pandemic. The explanation for that is a bigger ex explanation across the board when we see significant increases in our taxes. So my encouragement and the short response is is to say that um we we make a commitment to be sure we
are hearing and we are understanding and we are explaining best that we can and we come from a good place so that the integrity of their process demonstrates that we choose to be good stewards and earn trust. uh and we need to negotiate
on behalf of our citizenry when the requirements that are placed on us for compliance come outside of our jurisdiction to the extent that we can. We do it in PILT. We do it in a lot of other areas. We need to be active respect in that responsible but to
whatever we control so that other authorities have empathy and understanding and context for us is hugely important. Like I said, we were talking about this 10 years ago and uh we're talking about
it again and I I I appreciate Mr. White your your information and and the spirit in which you're delivering it. Thank you. Are there any other opinions, Commissioner Mills? Can you can you speak to Well, first off, I have a question for Mr. White. Do you do you know the how long the SFIA is in place
for? I re um entered 50 years. Okay. And so then my question is how does that affect value? Well, I I excluded two sites. However, at the time they weren't in
these places that were buildable that the that the assessor considers to be buildable. If they were, then I could the land could be sold and the new owner could build there if it could meet the
land office. And as I've pointed out here, despite David Demer's general approach, you can see yourself from the contours that the only place that doesn't have a ravine and a steep slope
is that middle piece, which is just a narrow strip on top of a cliff. And if a person did uh if they could build there, if if they bought it and built on it, they would be obligated to continue to respect the
non-development conditions on the rest of that piece of land for they've changed this a little bit, but I think it's probably 20 years. And I'm responsible for them to do that. If they if they violated that, then the state is
going to come after me for $100,000. So, I'd have to enter into a contract with them to do that. That's on that is on the east side on on the west side of the river. You just
can't get there. You'd have to you the DNR doesn't give out easements to reach land. They just say, "Tough. Too bad for you." So, it's just this one, in my opinion, it's just this one
small sliver of land at the top of a cliff, which I don't think was buildable. Now, maybe what I need to do is go to the land office again and ask for a building permit and see what happens because David Demer wasn't really inspecting for building
permits. He was given a general, as he says, generalized. He was mostly looking at what was the issue at the time was wet plants. You have a response, Bob? Yeah, I can offer something up. Um, so if we do if
we do want to pursue, you know, having someone like Neva Maxwell go out and look at this property and look at the bluff setbacks, wetlands, and things like that, we can certainly, you know, make a change after the board of appeal and equalization if the information we were using was was an
error. Um, otherwise, we would be looking forward to the 26th assessment. So, um I would be willing to to have NEVA walk the property if if you know if that's something that the land services office is willing to do. Um also with
the SFIA, you know, I know there was a lot of talk this year. I don't know if it made it into the legislation that they were going to change the payments on SFIA. Has anybody know what the final determination was there? because with that there was an opt out for where no penalty and you know you could opt out
and then reenroll in another 50 years and redescribe that SFIA covenant. So, you know, if there was a change in it, that's something to consider. But it's true. It's it's all at the legislaturator's uh discretion. Like I have to I have to pay with blood if I
make an error, right? They can just change it from one year to the next. And so, Mr. White, does that seem reasonable what Mr. Thompson suggested? Yeah, I think I think that is if it if it is like pending
that somebody who's more familiar with these building permit criteria Mhm. would look at it. And if this is the only point of contention, you can drive there close to
there on the Brew Valley Trail cuz that's that's the main place is at the top of that hill cliff I would say that you can almost reach on the Brew Valley Trail and it would have a beautiful
view over that whole valley. In fact, I think the property you referred to was that Alexander uh directly to the south of you. Oh, Tom, not Tom Schroeder. He's a couple he's Wagner, I think. The next
one, Vagner. Yeah. Is he selling, too? No, it's it sold in 2020. He purchased it in 2020 for 90,000. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Well, it's it's it was Deb and she died, but I think her husband's still around.
when she first bought that, she built a cabin at the top of that hill overlooking the whole valley. And I have to say, it's stunning. I have a photo that Stan Pelto took from his little plane
that's looking out. And you'd think you were in Alaska or in the far north because you can see areas of tiger and tundra and black spruce and and the river flowing through it. And actually, I was happy with that lower
um the 40 on the river and I bought the 40 on the hill to prevent somebody from building on it, not knowing if it was buildable or not, but just in case because at that time I could get a good price on on those 40 acres. So, is it
reasonable? Commission. Yeah. So I was just wondering if there is a factor with the SFIA as far as the valuation is concerned. So we do we do have the carveouts of the SFIA covenant and that permits two building sites. So you know
we we do account for that in the assessment if there was no build sites. Um we we still actually don't reduce the value due to covenants like that unless it's specifically for a repairarian buffer. And in this case, I think there
could be an argument that it's a repairarian buffer, but it has to specifically say that in the covenant. There is a statute that all um conservation easements enrolled in after March 2013 cannot affect the assessed value unless it's for the protection of
a repairarium buffer. So with the build sites, there's really, you know, that that's what we're kind of saying here is that there's one potentially two, one really good build site and potentially a second on the west side of the river. But, you know, that if if if something
changes with, you know, another look at it with our land services department, I'm more than willing to change the way we're entering it into our assessment. That reasonable, Mr. Gamble? Yeah. Thank you, Madam Chair. appreciate the the discussion. If
if a contract, a covenant agreement, and we're mindful of anything that is restrictive in nature, if the property were to sell and there was a commitment that was made in a in a covenant or whatever, that there be no development. And that's the premise under which that covenant was made, then in the state of
Minnesota, it's required, it used to be, that that any incumbrance like that would have to be stated in the deed in its transfer. though that there would be a mindfulness of that. But um again, sometimes we enter into agreements with
the information that we have at hand and then the state legislature changes on us and then we're stuck with, you know, the outcome of it. I think the commitment again in good faith to want to be sure we get it right by taking a tour and having the people that make those
decisions be involved. I think that's a good move. So, Mr. White will go ahead and have another look at it with uh land services and um we'll wait and and see what you can work out and that's been agreeable to the commissioner board. So,
thank you very much for your um attention to your details and all of that with your property. Thank you. I appreciate your your time and your reasonable approach. Thank you, sir. Tim, I'll try to schedule something with Neva so that her and I can both walk the
property together if that'll work for our schedules. I know she's on vacation for another couple weeks. They're way up in the Canada wilderness. She's also find somebody who can tell you what are the conditions on on that
road. I think you do need a four-wheel drive. Mhm. Okay. Thank you, Mr. White. We're going to move on. So, um, we have the next appeal from Ken and Barbara Rindle. If you want to step up to the microphone there, you can go either
side. [Music] Uh, good evening. Thank you for the opportunity to be before you and discuss this issue. So, first of all, I want to state that this parcel of property has been in our family lineage since the
late 1800s. Um, we are I am the fourth generation owner of this property and I would like to continue to pass that on to generations beyond us. Um, we're kind of having the same issues as Mr. White. We
have uh 25 acres of our parcel that's nonaccessible. And we hear a lot of conjecture. We hear a lot of it could be, it might be. Um, but when it all comes boils down to it, we'd actually have to pay an easement to somebody to a
land owner on the west side of the the river to be able to access 25 acres of our parcel. Now, I'm in real estate. I'm a real estate broker. I'm also a contractor. I've developed properties. And there's a lot that goes into developing land. You can't just say,
"Well, we might be able to get 5 acre parcels out of this." There's a lot that goes into You have to plan. You have to zone it. You have to design. You have to per test. You have to get surveys done. You're looking at, you know, probably $35 to $40,000 an acre to parcel this
off and make it 5 acre parcels. And if you look at the parcel of land that we're talking about here, we have an elevation drop from north to south of well over 100 ft. It does not make it a prime buildable site. You know, the assessor is saying, "Well, you have
river frontage." Yeah, we have river frontage. It's a 100 foot gorge. What good does that river frontage do? Doesn't do us any good when you're just listening to roaring water rapids. I mean, it it's just when you're when you're dealing with land that's
inaccessible, the values can't be as high as they are. I mean, we we're seeing a double. I mean, this this land is going from 205,000 to $400,000 value in one year where this land, these two parcels, the original
Homestead 80 and this 80 acre parcel that we're talking about here, which was my grandfather's and now I now I have it in my possession, was always valued lower than the north south 80acre parcels that directly adjoins it. And the reason being is my
father came to a to a meeting like this years ago when he, you know, acquired this land in the late 60s. In the 70s, he came and talked to people such as yourselves about this and they agreed, you can't access that land. It's landlocked from the west side. We're
going to lower the value because we see your incumbrance here of un being unable to access this property. So, a lot of what Mr. White was saying kind of applies to our situation here as well. I mean, you can say, "Yeah, we can we might be able to get some buildable
sites here. Did you take the time to perk the test? Can we get a well in there? Can we get septics in there? What's it going to cost to run utilities into there? What good does it do to have acorage on the other side of the river when you can't access it?" Those are all things that kind of would drive these
values for this property. You have anything you want to input? I just don't understand why everything is always a build site, a build site, a build site. Back when I first acquired land, it was everybody wanted to save all the land. Now all of a sudden,
everybody wants to make it a building site. And I've been taxed out of my properties before. And so that's why this is so far up north. I'm like, are you kidding me? Living out up there in the winter. We just walked it today and got eaten
alive. So, I mean, you know, it's only worth what it's worth. And land, you shouldn't be taxed. You shouldn't have to have millions just to own something that was handed down to you. And I have went through this quite a few times with my family. And it it just really hits
me. Everything shouldn't be a development. And we could do it if we really wanted to. We could probably find people, but why does everybody get to have million-dollar houses on stuff? Can anybody just enjoy some property? Yeah. The whole That's the biggest
thing. Our our whole goal behind this and and if you look I mean you look at the paperwork he put together. Yeah. I didn't do a BO because at first by the their office I was told it would be a conflict of interest. Up until last week is when he finally said, "Okay, yeah,
I'll accept your BO." I talked to two brokers here in town and they all agreed with me. There's no comparables. There's nothing out there to show that there's an 80 acre parcel that was for sale that that can give you a value that we can even come up with. In fact, one of one
of the gals at the office that was that was kind of working with us here um in town contacted the assessor's office and said, "What are you using for comparables cuz we can't find anything. Only thing I can find is four parcels that were sold in the last two years."
And yes, they're far away, but so what do you use for a comparable? I got an 80 acre parcel that adjoins it. That's now going to be half the value of this exact parcel. And and the banks don't want to give out loans on some of this kind of
land. Yeah. You're you're you're you're excluding who's available to purchase these types of properties because it would it would it' be strictly a cash deal on something like this. and to go in there and development the the development costs would be astronomical to to develop something like that. Thank
you for your explanation. I'll turn it over to Bob. Thank you, Madam Chair. So, I have similar packet kind of put together. Um the first image is the overhead. Um I don't know if you're familiar with this area. It's up off of County Road 56 across from the Berglin Farm. Um the the
parcel that we're we're in we're talking about is the southern parcel with the river frontage. the other parcel was kind of left out of the conversation this year. I know in the past I I'd seen Mr. Rendall at one of the other board of appeal and equalization meetings and we talked about both parcels at that time.
Um, one thing I do want to um, bring up that it isn't in the information here, but the assessment history of this, you know, going back to the late 2000s, like 2009, 2010, the value of that property was up at 190 180,000. And for some
reason in 2016, the value was dropped to 82,000. So, I don't know if that was due to an appeal or if it was just because the way the assessor was changing over land records at the time, but that significant drop is is part of the
reason why this is now doubling in value. Um, and also the fact that this was in our quintile for this year and we just started adding river frontage for the Devil Track River because everything that sells along the river sells for more uh improved or unimproved. Um, I'm
not valuing this as if it was 5 acre parcels. You're all familiar with uh the sheath parcel up on the bluff. Um, Mr. Chief had an attorney draft up a document that was filed with the recorder's office and that created eight
parcels. Um, sorry, 10 parcels. The the area that this property falls in is within the two-mile buffer of Gramaray. So, the county's um zoning ordinance doesn't have full effect. It's it's it's kind of like Tyson referred to it as a
developer's no man's land. Um we all know that Cook County land is expensive to develop. Wells are not cheap. Septic systems are not cheap, but people continue to pay a lot of money for that land to buy it and build on it. Um this
land valued as an 80 acre parcel at $400,000. to me uh given that it is in the F3 district which has 5 acre minimums given that it's within the 2-m buffer of town uh it's on a plowed county road with power I mean this
compared to the sheath parcel to a developer is gold I mean it it it you all heard the the arguments made by she's attorney um and you've seen the appraisal that was provided by sheep that's a a similar parcel that has a creek going through it instead of a
river. Um, but it has a lot more challenges with getting access into the parcel. And even without access to that parcel, you know, we see a value there from the county's perspective. It's part of it the Bluff Hill side. But this parcel, I drove up there today. I drove
up there a few weeks ago and it was just too hazy to to really get a good photo. Today it was a little better. It is a little hazy over the lake. At the second page, you can see this is looking downhill basically across the stretch of the of the shorter side of the parcel.
And you can see that, you know, that whole area up there with the right tree clearing is going to have a view of Lake Superior. Uh he mentioned that there was like a 100 foot drop in the parcel from north to south. That's what developers are looking for when you have that open
hillside to the to the Lake Superior viewshed. Um, so I think the view is there. The river frontage is there, which again, we have sales that support the river frontages selling for more than non- river frontage parcels. I did provide for sales. Um, I did provide
those to Ken um a couple weeks ago after I had taken over from uh Rachel was working on this appeal and I looked at the the sales that Ken provided and you know, you can see kind of the differences there. The parcels that I'm
looking at for the most part are, you know, within 10 minutes of town. Um, two of the three are in the F3 zoning. Uh, they are smaller, but, you know, 40 acres versus 80 acres. So, you know, literally all it would take is walking
into the recorder's office and you could create 240s out of this. And, uh, there's no administrative subdivision process with this because it's within the 2-m buffer. Um, cheaper. So the sales that I've got, you know, they're supporting this value. 5975 an acre,
51.42 an acre, and that's in the F1 zone and 6250 an acre. And then the last comparable, which is going to be on the next page, is the Cascade River sale. That's on the Bali Creek Road. That road isn't plowed in the wintertime. Uh there's no power down that road. And you
know, a good portion of that 11 acres is on the inaccessible side of the river. So, you know, if you look at it and you break it down that way and say, well, only part of this parcel is on the roadside, it it comes out to 10,000 an acre on the side of the river. So, um,
you know, then last, Mr. Randall provided these three sales. You know, two of them are in Hovland on unplowed roads, off-rid. Um, one of these parcels has no road access at all. It's a landlocked parcel and it's actually south of the Brule River. I don't even know how you'd ever get to
it. Um they're just to me they're just not apples to apples when you're talking something up on the hillside almost overlooking town. Um and then last but not least this is the parcel that Commissioner Gamble visited with me and the appraisers a few you know two months
ago. It it was bought I'm assuming for development because there are a few driveways cut into it. There's a road and few driveways. Uh it's a 80acre parcel that was a year and a half ago the sale. It does have a view of Lake Superior there, you know, kind of through trees. It's not necessarily
seasonal, but not necessarily a panoramic view of Lake Superior. And that parcel back in 23, July 23, sold for uh 300,000 or 3750 an acre. Now, I didn't do a market adjustment on the
sale since that sale because I didn't feel this was the best comparable. It is it is certainly comparable. It it is a basis. And you know, when I saw this, I thought, well, you know, the northern parcel that Rendall owns is actually valued less than 300,000. And this this
parcel is not as good as that one. That one has pasture land cleared. I don't know if they're still cutting hay on it. But, you know, it's got some clearing out. And I even stopped and looked down that driveway today. There's a little clearing over the river valley. I mean, it's not anything like what Mr. White has on his property, but there are some
spectacular build sites up there. Um, we aren't valuing it as 35 acre parcels. If it if it was, it'd be well over in the millions of dollars. Um, we're valuing it how somebody would pay for it if they were either going to buy it for development or buy it for farming or buy
it for use. you know, farmers actually have because of the value increases, they have a a special provision that if they if they register, they can get green acres and that would reduce the taxable value of the farmland. So, that's something that the Department of
Revenue or the state of Minnesota legislature has created so that farms don't disappear. Um, you know, it's a deferred tax and you know, if they sell it to a developer in the future, they have to pay back three years. But if they owned it for 30 years and then sold
it, you know, for 27 years, they'd get that deferred tax value. So, unfortunately, I don't think we can apply that on this cuz this isn't used agriculturally. Um, I'm not sure if it's used seasonally or if it's just, you know, kind of sitting there empty and not being used at all. But, um, it's got
some clearing. One of them has a a fire number and address. There was an old house. We have a picture of the old homestead that was on the property. It's been removed. And uh short of having a perfect comparable like you and and and your realtors discovered, you kind of look at points of information and and
and have to ask yourself, do you think it's worth, you know, $400,000 for a property like that? And you have no plans on building or being a part of? Well, the one side is landlocked, so yeah. Yeah, we have no plans on building or developing that
property. Like I said, it's been in the family since the late 1800s. Um, one of our options was combining the P numbers to make it one parcel. The other option was to go egg. I mean, we've we've got interested parties who would
continue to hay the field itself. So there there are those options, but you know there there again I mean valing property that we can't access and and valing it based on a whatif. It's it's just not fair to put that burden on the
land owners in this county. Any comments, Commissioner Gamble? Thank you. Uh Ken Barber, appreciate the the information. Um it would be interesting to know of the parcels that we're using
comparison that have sold why they sold and um I don't know that we track that that information but let's just say that people that have generationally been in this community when it gets to the point
where they have no recourse that they just say I'm just selling. I got to get out. I can't continue. and and that that is a reality. It is probably the hardest thing that I faced in campaigning is the reality that generational families are affected by
the decisions we are making and the influence of legislators at the state. And um so when we look at as an example our our work staff, if we have work staff that are leaving, exit interviews is to help
us understand why people leave. And it would be true when people are selling. We use a comparison. But the other part of that is why are they leaving? And if it's a matter of cashing out because they can no longer afford, that's a reality. It's an emotional
thing. So often times it's used as a battering ram to get what we want. But it is also a reality. So it cannot be ignored. Um, I think this opportunity is is an opportunity to come together in good faith to try to
look at things from a reasonable standpoint understanding the mutual respect and regard that we hear what you're saying and we are willing to look at it and we have to look it in the context of what we are accountable for. And I can tell you that um
uh in my first term as commissioner, we hadn't done these quintentile studies that were required and the state said if you don't do them, we will come up and we'll do them oursel and so it's it's best if we can have that jurisdiction in
the context of the requirements that they put or place on us. um if if we make an assumption it's a bad day when we've looked at lots of parcels whatever and so we just put the same cookie
cutter assessment on everybody and we're just saying wait a minute and so we want to go back and take a look and and see uh I appreciate what Bob does in trying to bring this board information to put things in context but again our our
commitment is to want to understand and to listen actively and to respond in a way that there's mutual appreciation for what we're held accountable, the context in which we have to operate and make assessments to make sure that those metrics are
properly applied and that's why we have this discussion. So, I'd encourage whatever we we could do to make sure that we're getting it right. And how high is ever going to be high enough? Well, that's that's exactly
right. and and um yeah, we wouldn't dare put something on it right now. We wouldn't be able to afford it. No, the taxes would be too much. The the thing is is that as we become more attractive, if we have 82%
81% of our our commerce is directly tied to tourism and so we become attractive place like Brooklyn and other places around the world. those that have earned their money elsewhere and export it here to be
able to purchase, we cannot compete with that. And so I think that elected officials need to be mindful of how do we keep the balance so we don't lose our identity and our generational families. Any other comments, Madam Chair? Yeah.
Um, I just want to respond to uh comments that Gary made. Uh, the use by the by the buyers or sellers of those comps that I provided, we actually do call and interview the buyers when they buy properties every every single sale. So, we have two of those properties um
53 5 sorry 541032100. We called and did an interview in September of 25 and they said that they were going to use it for bare land. The second one, we didn't do the full call because this property was sold by the state of Minnesota, the DNR. It was an
auction property that they had gotten rid of off their off of their uh books, the uh off the Pine Mountain Road. And the last one is 531042400. That one they also indicated they would use it as bare land, the buyers. So,
they're they're buying this land either for hunting or recreational use. They don't have plans to build immediately because it's too expensive. Commission, did you have a comment? Oh, I was just going to ask a little bit about the the valuation difference between that northern property and the
southern property is the river. Is that the is that the That's what it is. So, we I think let me check. We have the river frontage, I think, at $85 a foot. That was what we had extracted from the sales that were occurring compared to the non river frontage sales.
And then is the west side of the river is that factored in or how is that factored in? Let me just take a peek here. I don't have that parcel number written down, so I'm just zooming to it. Southern one. Yeah. No, the northern
one. 103. Northern one is 53103 4100 or 1100. 1100. Sorry. The southern one's 40. So, that one we just have it on as as 77.6 acres, 2.4 acres under road and and
that one's valued on our regular um land tiers with no view factor or anything added to it. Now, the 4100 parcel we have 2.2 acres as river as as actual underwater. So there's zero value on the on the or $800. It's a wet like a
wetland value. Um we have one acre of road on that parcel and we have $75 is the base rate for the river frontage because of the neighborhood adjustment. It adjusts up to $85 a front foot. I'm sorry. I don't know if I was
following but did you address the west side? How that is factored in the west side? Um we don't have anything addressed on it. There is there is a a trail like a two tire track trail on the on the western side of the river frontage. We we didn't discount it for
not having access because there is some type of a trail access there. I know there's probably not an easement, but we have to pay an easement to access it. You can say all you want there's a trailer. We don't own it. We don't own the access to it. It's the land owners who are adjacent to the west side. So
that's inaccessible by us unless we pay. They're walking in there. You the people that are adjacent to that property are the ones walking in there using it. They've admitted it. And that is part of the reason why I included the analysis of the Cascade River, how 11 acres of
that is also on the other side of the river. Yeah. Go walk it. Go down to the river. Go walk that ravine. See if you can get up and down that. I did it. I thought my life was in his hands.
It was pretty treacherous. So, I mean, it's certainly an option to to carve out that 25 acres and and mark it as, you know, a a lacking of road access. That's a pretty big deal,
Commissioner Gamble. Yeah, thank you, Madam Chair. Um, I was going to ask Bob if in a similar situation where you have a tow road or whatever, a path, something like that. Um if this is a unique circumstance where we don't have any other properties similar in how
we've evaluated or applied our criteria uh that would be one thing but if we have it would this be consistent application in other cases where we've assessed based upon that same scenario if you understand what I'm saying they don't have access but there is you know
an easement that provides that access. Yeah. So, we have we have several forms of discounts that we we apply when a property doesn't have direct road access or county road or public road or private road access. Um, we have a trail access only, which would be like a four-wheeler
or a hiking path. Uh, we have a lake access only discount, and we have a minimum road minimum maintenance road discount. Um, this this I think we didn't we didn't apply any of those discounts because there's tire tracks there. And you know,
we we don't look up I'm sorry. Oh my god. Yeah. Yeah. I'm sorry. Can I finish? Um we don't look up the deeds for every parcel to see if there's an easement. We assume if there's tire tracks across a property, we assume that there's easement that there's access there. And you know, I'm not sure if
someone's been trespassing on your property or if they're allowing you to access your property, but there are tire tracks going on. They've openly admitted to trespassing. Yeah. Yeah. Madam Chair, if you take out the 25 acres, then what's left of the 80? Then
you got Well, it's like 53 acres. I I have it measure. Did I have it measured out on this? Yeah. 53 acres would be on the county road side of the river and the remaining, you know, because there's two
acres of river, 25 acres. Then how do you appraise that? Well, we could apply, like I said, we could apply a lax road access discount on it. I think that discounts at 20% on that acreage for the rate that's applied to the neighborhood. So, it's a formula I would have to actually put into the
computer to tell you what the number is going to come out to, but Commissioner Mills, uh, thank you. Um, yeah, I think that's important because, um, I think it's important that we respect there is no legal easement at at this point. Even if
there are tracks there, it's it's not a legal access. And I think that's important to to respect. And so I think it's also important to to adjust that valuation. And you would know much better than me on how how that how that
goes. But um I think that would be I think that would be fair. Um, as far as the rest of it is concerned, um, you know, for I was going to say for better or worse, but I'll just say for worse, the the land value is what the market
and that's not something we control. We have to comply or else we get dinged $700,000 from the state. So, we have to stay up to date on things. But, um, we also have to be fair and reasonable. And so, that's, uh, that's where I'm really
leaning on that west side, right? like to be fair. Um and then on that east side, it's even if even if you're not going to develop it, that's what the market would do and so that's what we have to do. Um
and similarly, um Madame Chair, as I'm looking at this and I I live in this area, um the fact that it's far three, it's close to town, there's power there, it's plowed is makes it highly desirable. Um the only issue I see is
the issue of the easement. Thank you, Madam Chair. I I would agree and I think as suggested by Bob that re-evaluating applying the discount makes sense. I think that anything we do that um is could be perceived as a
concession should be done with a basis of reasoning that supports consistency in that application and so as you've described to us Bob and you said that we have these discounts and we read it this way but that's why we allow as Mr. White
had said for these meetings that the state says sometimes we don't get it right and it's not because we didn't operate in good faith. We just apply the matrix but we have a discussion and I think that would be a a good thing to do is is to apply the discount.
So, um, when I apply the, uh, discount on the 25 acres, it values that unaccessible 25 acres or without access 25 acres at 65,400. So, if you have a a a 25 acre parcel out
in the woods with no road, that's what we would have it valued at. Um, so that brings the total value to 3885. I feel comfortable with that. I don't any other support. I
I I think that is what the the the re a reasonable discount we can apply. Um and like I said, for worse, that's what the that's what the market dictates. And but I think uh it's
important to recognize no legal no legal easement and and landlocked as they say um it's it's unreachable. Um so yeah thank you Madam Chair. uh
participating in in uh these uh board of appeals and equalization. In the past, we've had discussions like this and we've dug in and and rolled up our sleeves and tried to look at things. Um and then we submit our recommendations
and the state comes back and tells us yes, we'll allow this, it seems reasonable, or no, it won't be reasonable. So again, I think it's important for the public and certainly the individuals that are affected are coming before the board to understand that that we are stewards of what we've
been entrusted with. We want we want to be reasonable within the context of what we're held accountable to and in situations where we're not comfortable like you're not comfortable, we need to advocate to try to have things on be changed on behalf of our people to the
extent we can do it. That's that's what we need to do. My personal and I think certainly the board has expressed is that consistency of application and understanding sometimes we might apply things or not allow for certain discounts or whatever but we'll have the
discussion and we'll try to be reasonable in the context of what's allowable for us. Our decisions then get forwarded and they either approved or we have to go back and based upon our accountability. And so part of part of the the hurt here
is the the significant change, right? And and and and that's because of the rotation, right, of having a different section uh assessed every every year not have not having been done in a in a
while. That's why it jumped so much is my understanding. The other quintile every five years. Yeah. So that's the that's the ouch. So Madame Chair, it will require a motion to um on the second line here uh board approve or
board make a motion to that uh 3885 was it? Madam Chair. Yes. I'd make a motion to adjust it to 3885 given our discussion for the easement. All in favor? I I opposed. Same sign.
Motion passes unanimously. A second here. Okay. Hear. Thank you, Commissioner Gamble. Thank you. Thank you. So, this um ends the folks who made an appointment. We have one more
appointment. Was there one? Oh, the the um I'm sorry, but you know, Kathleen um Gaylord and I believe she has someone with her today. Okay, thank you. Well, good evening, commissioners, and and um other members of the board of
equalization and appeals. I appreciate the the opportunity to be here with you and to discuss uh uh the assessment that I just passed to the group. Um my name is Kathleen Gaylord. I'm a third
generation owner uh of parcel 532152310 here in Cook County. The parcel is unimproved vacant land. Much of the land is swamp or wetlands. There are no improvements or shelters or
cabins on this property. None. Okay. By 2025, uh, notice evaluation listed an estimated market value of $74,300 with a property classification of rural vacant land.
In early May, I received a revised valuation notice for 2025, which I'm appealing here tonight. That notice increased the estimated market value to 40 140,200 and it split the classification between rural vacant
land and seasonal re residential recreational class 4C12. So I have two issues with with the changed um valuation notice. One is classification. I'm probably one of the first people to v to argue classification other than
homestead before you. So let me let me try to walk through this. The split classification is wrong. There is no authority for using it in this situation. Class 4 C12 is real and personal
property devoted to non-commercial temporary and seasonal residential occupancy for recreational purposes. This parcel does not meet that definition. There are no improvements or
structures on this parcel and then no residential occupancy. Um it's vacant land. So I'm requesting that the classification of this property for um tax purposes be corrected to
rural vacant land which is actually class 2B. That's one issue. I have a question about that. I'll turn it over. Are you finished? Um, I have a a valuation issue also. I'll give you a few more minutes.
Okay, I'll I'll do valuation issue. The revised valuation notice increases the assessment by $65,900 for improvements. As I've noted, there are no improvements on this parcel. I am
requesting the removal of $65,900 assessment for non-existent improvements on parcel 532152310. Thank you. You're welcome. Okay. Turn it over to Bob. Thank you, Madam Chair. So
the reason for this updated valuation notice that changed the original valuation notice is when we were going through the quintile we added cabins that were on Elbow Lake to a 1acre parcel that seemed to be the
closest privatelyowned parcel. We often times see that our GIS lines are shifted. In fact, on Caribou Lake or Tate Lake, every parcel is completely shifted, one entire parcel, either north or south. So, it's not uncommon to see that that our GIS lines are not
accurate. They're not surveys. So, when we have a cabin like this on federal land and there's an adjacent private owner, we'll put it on that property. That property owner reached out to us and said, "Hey, I I don't have any cabins. It's it's not mine. It's actually Mrs. Gaylord's who owns a
property nearby." So, we moved the cabin over to that record and sent out this notice thinking, "Oh, well, they'll let us know if it's not their cabin." So, what I'm hearing today is that these are the Forest Service cabins, um, and that we
should put them on that parcel. But that is not the case. Um, those those cabins were built by the Gaylord family. Correct. I'm not um talking about um that area of
you know if you want to talk about the assessment of a different parcel I can I can do that and I would happy to do that with you Bob but I I am talking about the parcel that you assessed property that isn't there. So, the the the photos that you provided me when you came in
with two other folks, the photos of the cabin that we have on your assessment record, is that your brother's? I'm not making that representation. I'm making the representation that it's not on this parcel. Okay, let me let me let me back up. Let me let me try to help Bob because I've
tried to help him three times. In the broader context of this area, there's a lot of problems and I don't know um how many of you are familiar with some of the problems that are um that are here. Um yes, my family does
have improvements on federal forest land. We have never disputed that. We the Forest Service knows, BLM knows, Cook County knows. Um those are improvements that can't be assessed on a
different parcel. You don't just pick up improvements and decide to put them on a different parcel. It doesn't it doesn't work that way. And I and I don't know how to better say that. You tried to put them on my neighbor's parcel and he
properly objected and I told him she should because I said those are not your cabins. You know that. And um he shouldn't be paying taxes on them. Uh it's very very clear these are improvements that are on parcel 53 215
1 0 0. This is an area of um uh that was formerly known as lot 4. Um it is now lot 10 and I can explain all that if you need it but it's a
different parcel. So, let me let me take you guess. So, it would be helpful to have a map because we have nothing here other than the Gunflint Trail address and um it's kind of hard for us to visualize this piece
of land without some type of um yeah that okay yeah your your problem isn't the land your problem is the improvements on a different parit and um okay if you take a look at the um what I just handed out. Uh we can go
over that and you will see that there is um look at the where it says lot four lot 10 and there's a little sliver a little little little um uh on the lake shore you'll see a one
it's a one and a half acre lot. Okay. The cabins are not on the one and a half acre lot. They were assessed on those last year. That was a mistake. Um this year they were assessed on lot four. Where they sit is just south of that one
acre um cutout. That's where they are, which is lot 10. Okay. On on your map. Lot 10 is property vested in the Forest Service and it's a different it has a different parcel number.
I've tried to explain and I hope I I was hoping that the county attorney would be here because this all of these things are really basically legal arguments. Um but state law, property tax law lists that
when you have improvements on property that is um vested in the United States, um that property needs to be assessed as personal property. It should be those
improvements should be on the personal property tax role to me. I have never I've never received a personal property notice. I don't know what it looks like, but um
that is how Minnesota law tells you to handle this kind of a problem because it is unique. Um, I think Bob mentioned that he doesn't know that he's got any other property quite like this. So, I I understand that this is this is
difficult, but it's very clear in state statute. It's personal property, not real property. Madam Chair, if I could just ask Kathleen to restate your understanding of the law relative
to the assessment when you were saying that improvements on government. If you'd kindly restate that, I'll do better than that. I'll give you a little statute. Okay. Thank you. Thank you.
I got three here. Here's Katherine. So, I guess I would say it's really important for us to have all this information ahead of time. Well, I didn't intend to to dispute the issue with regard to personal property assessment for which I've not received, but I'm willing to do that to help. You
know, I I do think we want to get it right. And I do think um we want to make sure that we're not assessing property that doesn't exist in places it certainly doesn't exist um because we don't know what to do. And I I recognize that this is a unique situation and um
I'm hoping that we can resolve it so it gets done right because you can't just keep putting these these uh improvements on all the neighboring properties until somebody doesn't realize what happened and pays the tax. That's not a appropriate way to do it. So, but maybe
Bob could explain a little bit more what we're looking at here. Yeah. And um Kyle Mson is going to get some maps to show in relation to those property lines where the cabins sit. Um effectively it's been described, but for the most part by Kathleen correctly that these
cabins sit on Forest Service land. Um so the option I have is to add those cabins to the Forest Service property and then send them out an exempt application to see if they qualify for exemption. No, we don't want them exempt. We want to pay the tax on them. Why would we want
them exempt? So the if the what will happen is the forest service will get a property tax bill if they don't qualify for exemption. Madame chair um I'm not sure who's chairing this. Okay. Madam chair you've done this before. Cook County has um put
these properties on the forest service land. and the Forest Service land says, "Uh-uh." You know, and then you that's there's a there's a whole long history of this. And I don't know why we've been very clear these um improvements are our improvements. Um
they're shown on maps from the 20s and 30s. Um I don't I don't I don't know why all of a sudden Cook County would like to claim that they don't know who the owner is. It's always been us. The problem is that it's not real estate. So, I know you're used to dealing with
real estate. This is personal property. It's a little different as a result. Madam Chair, so we discovered these cabins, I think, in 2018 after our aerial flyover. Some point after our aerial flyover, we discovered the the
newest, biggest cabin. There's a smaller old log cabin. Looks like it was probably built in the 30s to the 60s. I think I put in a um effective age of 1930 because it looked like it's about at the end of its life. There's a much larger cabin on the parcel that you can see in that aerial overhead that showed
up without a building permit. So, you know, without a building permit, a cabin shows up, we try to find out who owns this thing. We send it out like we did. I mean, when when Mrs. Gaylord is referencing a personal property record, that information either comes from the
state or the feds. We have several um Forest Service owned parcels where they send they call them the summer home cabins up on Bare Skin. There's the Gunflint properties on Gunflint Lake. Uh there's a few other ones like Hungry Jack Lodge. The lease information comes
from the Forest Service to tell us, hey, these individuals have personal property on our land. Uh what I believe we have here is different. I I I you know I I don't want to get into the details and specifics of how we ended up where we're
at, but what I'm willing to do is I'm willing to put these onto the Forest Service parcels. Well, you can't because they're not real property. Okay, Bob, please look at the state law. It's personal property. It
doesn't belong on their assessment because it's Here's the problem. on federal land and um I I can dig out the next statute if county attorney
obviously isn't here. Um you cannot um put a lean on federal property for improvements that are on the property. Federal land don't does not accept a lean on their property. So they are not going to pay the tax on that property. They are not there will not be a way to
get a lean on that property if those taxes are not paid. You have to you're supposed to tax the owner of the property. You're supposed to ask who's the owner. You already know who the owner is. I've we've never hid that in you know the what almost 70 years that
we've owned this property for many many years. You assessed it to us. Um you know and then I don't know I'm not going to speculate on on why suddenly you don't know they're our property. We have never we've never hidden it. Uh, you can see it on aerial
photos, like I say, from the 20s and 30s. This is not tax record. We've got tax records that'll show you exactly it if you'd like. I can I can show you all kinds of um field notes and cards and other things from Cook County um about these particular improvements
um because they've been there forever. At least Yeah. Some of them Yeah. from at least the 30s, maybe even the 20s. Um, Commissioner Mills. Um, I so, uh, I think I understand that the
cabins are on lot 10, correct? Your private property, uh, your your real estate is lot four, correct? The assessment um, placed the cabins on lot four.
Correct. And um and so I guess my question for Bob is do we here tonight have any jurisdiction or anything on lot 10?
Um I mean we could certainly add it to the list if we wanted to change the value of lot 10 by adding improvements to it. No, but that's real estate. Excuse me. That's um I think lot 10 is owned by the Forest Service, correct? Yeah. Um
and so what we're discussing here tonight is lot 4, right? Okay. Just wanted to make sure. Madam Chair, if I may. So, the only difference between a personal property record and and a real
property record is we we have a different sequence of P numbers and we typically don't value land on a personal property record. So, I'm not I'm not going to create a personal property record for these cabins because I haven't gotten anything from the state or from the Forest
Service to say that this property is being leased by the Forest Service to so and so. It's not being leased. You know that. So, so if if somebody was to come in and tell me that they built a house on Forest Service land and they want a tax bill, I'm supposed to just send them
that in this case, I think you are. And I will I will explain why if you'd like me to. Madam Chair, I' I'd really like to focus on lot four here. Um and and I think lot 10 is a it's a much different bigger
conversation. And so, um, Bob Bob, um, I I think what what you had said is you you you're very willing to to take off the cabins from the lot for assessment, correct? Would that change
or should we talk about classification as well? Or um, would that change the class, you know, like and presumably that changes the assessed value? Well, it it would. So, it would it would change that. Um, effectively what you would end up having if you didn't
address lot 10 at the same time is you would have a cabin out there that's being used by somebody that's not being taxed and we're willing to pay the tax, but you haven't assessed us yet. Commission Commissioner Mills, are you
I I I'm sorry. Yeah, we're not processing. Please, Commissioner Gamble can Yeah. take over here. Um well I think you came in and and mentioned that this is rather convoluted. It is. And so trying to understand it, there's been uh discussions
um and you keep alluding to the fact that if we had our attorney here um I and and so the assessment, the cabins, the definitions usually are reinforced by precedent that
comes out of challenges through court processes so that we make sure that our individual understandings of terminology in the law is equally applied and equally understood. Absolutely. And so when challenged in similar situations, we find out in fact and then future
courts will use precedent in application and making a determination as to what it is. So um I think so that the we'll just say the emotion that comes out of both sides of the discussion uh can be
diffused by identifying the issues at hand and separating them out and getting a clarification on our understanding based upon an attorney's interpretation. This is my perspective in listening to
the discussion. So to move forward, I'd say we should get make sure we're clear on our definitions so that we're applying them. Once we know the rules of the game, so to speak, now we can apply them based upon what we're responsible
for doing. So I would say that if if we can say what we're calling into question is how we are understanding interpreting the circumstance given the fact that we have cabins on forest land with our parcel that is there. We with our
responsibility have to assess buildings and we need to understand the terminology with a court reinforced an attorney reinforced so that we can move forward with a clear understanding. That would be my assessment based upon the
conversation. All right, that's thank you. I appreciate Gary and I appreciate your dialogue here. Um, but let me just say, um, cabins is a is is a is a strange term.
Um, and I these are no longer what most people would consider cabins. They're sheds. Um, with one exception, um, a little bit newer one. Uh, but I have on that property a one room log cabin that used
to be a a trapper fisherman uh maybe a logger back in the 20s and 30s. I mean, that's it's a kind of a historic little thing that I've always thought was really really cool. And this has been um um an area for my family
since my grandparents bought it in 1958. Um and um we've planted trees. We've we've done all kinds of things in that area to make it almost every storm up there knocks everything over because the soil is you probably know all around
this this county was less than a foot deep. I mean I can remember as a little girl walking through the forest with my dad and he walked up to a tree and he just pushed it over. I mean it's that's there's there's very little soil there. It has um a a a great significance to me
and my brothers and um you know, so we have been fighting for this land because if you look at that little map that I showed you and you see lot four and then you see lot 10, our cabins are on lot 10 because lot four used to be on where 10
is. um a survey by the federal government basically said your property that you've been on for all these years is now back in the in the woods in the forest in the swamp. Um and um this is
now federal land. We have um uh worked with the BLM. We are working with the Forest Service now that you know it's been a progression over many many years but everyone kind of just pushes it off because they don't quite know
what to do. And if you've got suggestions of somebody else who's come before you that has dealt with this, I'd really appreciate that help. Madam Chair. Yes. Um again just listening to the conversation
and I think the important thing to have conversations to get it right absolutely we can be frustrated and consequently that can sometimes encumber conversations in the ability to get it right. I I think if we can correctly identify what has been with the
different statements that have been the hangup in this because we're not necessarily understanding because we have difference of understanding relative to interpretation or definition of things what is or what is not a cabin and historical or not just the state has
set some guidelines. When it's fuzzy it usually gets challenged. When it gets challenged and there's a hearing, they use a determination which future similar situations the the result of that challenge defines for people that are in
situation with fuzzy stuff where we go from there and so can I ask a question? I mean, so you are you saying it's okay to do it wrong so that some No, no, I'm not saying I'm saying it sounds to me in the discussion and part of it is that we're using terminology which Bob had
just said when we're talking about, you know, different things. I think I think we need to be sure that we understand the things that direct us the structure in which conversations can have. And one of the hang-ups seems to be an interpretation of definition based upon
state statute or what you've given to us here. And so I' I'd say and you again referred to the fact if we had our attorney here, our attorney hopefully would give us a response, which I'm assuming attorney might know, but the attorney is in the position, you know,
relatively new here, so she would probably take it under advisement and get that answer. Whatever it takes, our commitment is wanting to get it right and to follow an ethical and and a good faith procedure to make sure that we
understand. Okay. And then at that point when we're clear on it that we make a decision. But it is a discipline process that rules out some of the frustrations that come because we have misunderstandings. And there are going to be situations
like that. Let's see if we if we can identify the concerns, bullet point concerns, okay? and then let us take that and try to address it given our stewardship responsibility and then find out how we deal with it. But
we better start out with an understanding clear understanding of terminology so we are subjectively trying to apply it and it looks like we're not being responsible. Can can we can we agree that the cabins are not and cabins is not my term it's yours. I say
improvements um on are not on the current lot four. Well, they're on the former lot four, but they're not on the current lot four, which you're assessing at with this parcel. Yeah. Again, if if you say here's here's our contingents relative to this and why we came before. If you if you say that I would defer,
you know, to Bob who represents that our department relative to assessing so that uh we we gain that we're sort of arbitrary of a process. And I'm just saying list the things and then let's
let's look at and let's get a legal opinion. Let's look at their similar situations so we can apply that equally and equitably. That would be my recommend. Maybe I need to ask the question of Bob. Bob, are these cabins that you are assessing on lot for?
My response to that is that I've seen older maps and I've seen the newer maps. My understanding is that you were pursuing with the Bureau of Land Management or the Forest Service to try and undo the reservey is effectively what I was to understand is that you are
are in the process of redefining the the real estate you own which was previously adjacent to Elbow Lake. So the answer is yes. Those properties are not on L 4. I'm not a surveyor. I haven't seen a
survey. I can't tell you where those cabins are. You know this because you're trying to put it on forest land. Why are you trying to put it on forest land? It's on lot four. So, Madam Chair, I guess, you know, I I don't know what the resolution to this is, but my understanding is that in the
past they they were in under the impression that they owned the shoreline on Elbow Lake. They had an older cabin there. They in 2018 or somewhere around there between 2012 and 2018 when it showed up on aerials, a cabin was built
without a county permit. Um, and at some point since the three generations, a reservey was done and now the Forest Service is is claiming claiming ownership to that part of the shoreline of Elbow Lake. But what I was told a
couple of weeks ago is that they were working with an attorney that they were trying to go through the motions to get the ownership of the shoreline back. So in the meantime, there are cabins out there that if we don't have them somewhere, they're untaxed cabins that
are being used for recreational purposes. Can can you put them on the personal property tax role and then it's all taken care of? That's the answer. Madam chair meals, I was wondering if you could maybe exp explain some of the other situations with uh personal property on
on federal land. Yeah, so it would be like you know the Bare Skin Lake, East Bearskin Lake, uh Gunflint Lake. Um well, just how does that work? Yeah, so we we have um communication with the Forest Service on who owns those when those change out ownership. they file
paperwork with the recorders office or the forest service will reach out to us and let us know that there's been a change of ownership. Those those don't have deeds. Um I think they file a patent on those. So you know these those are set up with the Forest Service in
cooperation with the Forest Service that you know they they tell you the defined area that you have to build in and all of those specifics. What we have here is what appears to be that Can I pause you there? So, um when those agreements
are in place, then we tax the personal property. Correct. Okay. And and that's done through the Forest Service. Correct. Well, they they define they define the area that we then identify what the improvements are within that area. Okay. And um they even have like
it it looks just like a survey when they do those. And so they initiate or how is that initiated? Uh well, I haven't had communication with them in in some years, but uh we did at one point get an entire list of all of the owners and all
of the leases that were in place and and all of that. In fact, I can try and dig it up, but it's been several years. It was when I was working up the gunflint in 2018. Okay. Thank you. Okay. except there's no lease here. And a survey, you don't survey a piece of
a building. I'm sorry. I think you misunderstood me. Up at the sites where there are leases, they draw out a survey. Effectively, it's the same thing as a survey saying you're leasing this area, you're leasing this area, you're leasing this area. So,
it looks like a survey, but it is a lease on federal property. But here, there is no lease. Correct. I know. I'm fully aware. So, so if you can get past the no the lease thing, what do you do? You tax it as personal property. So, we're just saying you should be taxing
this as personal property like that. It's I don't I don't understand why it why that why that is not a reasonable solution to an odd problem. Commissioner White. Well, so you have
have cabins. Initially they were on your property but now without a now there's not your property. That's well it's in in dispute. It's it's a dispute and so we have a claim have a lease for this so it doesn't fit any we don't intend to
have a lease on this. We have issu we have uh filed an application for claim of title. Um and um at one point we're um the instruction to the BLM was to issue a patent for the land to us for
lock 10. Commissioner Gamble, go ahead. Um Madame Chair, one of the things I was thinking and this goes back to a statement that uh Commissioner Mills made early is early on we talked about this parcel not having any
structures on it, lot four. And my recommen recommendation would be that we go ahead and deal with the assessment with lot four without any property and that then we begin to work on and with the forest service to determine what to
do with parcel 10 or lot 10. Commissioner Mills. Um I I like that idea. A question I had was about uh and forgive me for not having a good example, but say um uh one of the leases
up the Gunflint um built an accessory. Uh how does that work from your end? You know, I guess we would I my appraisers would go through the same motions of measuring it and adding it to the assessment and and I'm
not sure that land services has jurisdiction. And I assume they do. Um, but they do also have to get permits on those through the Forest Service as well. I know that. Yep. Okay. Commissioner Gamble. Thank you, Madam Chair. So under the scenario that
Commissioner Sullivan is proposing, um we would draft that language as the board and our consideration and it would be sent to the state and we would provide to them the all the particulars
relative to our recommendation and they would look at it and they would probably come back and say what are you doing with this this component of it? I'm I'm just making an assumption there. Um we could put the narrative that would say
given the lack of clarification relative to definition and equal application with that understanding definition. We are taking that under advisement for clarification. But in the meantime, we're going to take this action and see
what they they say. I'm sorry. What action is that that you're taking? I'm sorry. Sorry, I didn't. Well, if the action is to say, let's just look at at this property without the uh the the so the the improvements are there. We're not going to assign that. That's what I
understand. Not going to put value on except for the for the lot four on your map. Um we're just going to look at at lot building. So, you can't assess buildings that aren't there. And that just that that because of that you're obviously going to you know the
classification will switch back to the way it was in the original um because appraisal because we think this process that there's lack of clarity and a misunderstanding because we need to be sure we're clear because our responsibility is to make sure that
buildings in fact are attributed to somebody for taxation. That that's our responsibility. So that being the thing, why why wouldn't you just do a personal property tax bill to me? Why would we not? Because we don't we don't know what
that is. This is why the clarification of equal application. If something comes before us that we don't have familiarity with. We want clarification. It's the same thing as this discussion without an attorney's opinion. All we're saying is we're committing.
It's very simple. It is by your definition, ma'am. Yeah, it's very simple. Yeah, by your definition, we just need because of our stewardship responsibility because if we make a decision, it is precedent. That decision needs to be equally applicated to everybody that in your circumstance
would come before us. That is fair application of the rule of law. And we're just saying let's make sure we get it right by clear understanding of how this has been interpreted interpreted in other situations. That's why we will have sometimes we say we don't have
enough information to make a decision that protects our values. Therefore, we're saying let's get that information so we do get it right. That's our commitment to you and that's our commitment to our stewardship respons trying to help you get it right. I know that and we're trying to make sure we
get it right to do and I'm I'm not just, you know, somebody off the street. Um, I have a whole long list of credentials in property taxation and in the classification system. I've been an advisor to the Department of Revenue and
to the Minnesota legislature on these kinds of issues. I'm not just know what they're talking about. I'm not claiming that. But then you should have appreciation for the fact that we want to get it right as we are stewards and and I have no problem with your asking
the question of what do you do? I do have a problem with with sending it to my neighbor as to be paid or sending it to the Forest Service to be paid because that's what we're trying to resolve. That's what we're trying to resolve because it's getting rid of the thorn in the flesh. Thank you. Yeah. Do you have
another comment? So, Madam Chair, I just I want to I want to pose the question to Mrs. Gaylord. Are you pursuing ownership of that land currently through the Forest Service or the Bureau of Land Management? Yes. So on one side of the of the situation, you're saying that's
my land and over here you're telling the board that's saying it used to be my land and um we're trying to get at least that area where those cabin where those improvements are. Um and then back into family ownership. I um yeah I a
follow-up question. Okay. um the the the the the value we have on that. If we were to put a $140,000 value on a personal property record, would that satisfy your appeal? Absolutely not.
Because I can tell you you cannot buy even a Forest Service leased property for $140,000. So, one way or another, this this property should be taxed. I asked you how you do personal property assessments. You told me the same. you do kind of pretty much the same way you do real estate, real property
assessments. And the assessment that you put on lot 4 is 65,900. So absolutely, if you give me a personal property tax for 65,900 will go forward. But if you suddenly decide that the all of the value of lot
4 plus uh um all of the value of the improvements now needs to to be put in uh in a personal property role. No, that is not that is not accurate and that does not get it right. I think we'll return to Commissioner Sullivan and her proposal. So, Madam Chair, I'd like to
make a motion that we uh assess this property and this would be property ID 532152310 um without the value of the structures. So as rural vacant land and correct the
classification to 2B rural vacant land. Thank you. Uh support. Any comments or questions? Commissioner Mills. Thank you. Um so uh I support that clearly. Uh and and
then and perhaps this is stretching too far to for tonight. Um, would it be appropriate to have personal property taxed at 659? Yeah, I I won't issue a personal property record. I I've been
specifically told by the Department of Revenue that I can't just create personal property records at my discretion. So, I appreciate that. This will this action will be reviewed. They as they all are by the state. So, you know, the state will determine whether or not this is the right cause of action. All right. All right. Thank you.
Thank you, Commissioner White. Well, then my understanding is the state will look at this and say, "Well, why didn't you tax those improvements or the buildings or I just did they compensate you for taking a chunk of your property away? Did they
compensate me for taking all this lakeshore property, I don't know, thousand feet of lakes shore and putting me back in the swamp?" No. Huh. Did they compensate me for the improvements that were on the property that they now claim was theirs? Zero.
Commissioner Gamble. Thank you, Madam Chair. Um I'm I'm not comfortable with the motion as it stands just in the language as it's its limitation because in in the discussion from my perspective, what our
commitment is is a commitment to trying to get this right with a misunderstanding that exists. But as a good faith measure, we are willing to assess it as it is just lot four without
the improvements. So what we're doing this it is a holding place while we get a determination legal relative to our total obligation. So, I'm comfortable with a motion that says in good faith,
we will do this contingent upon a definition and clarity as to equal application of the law relative to our responsibility. Because if we make a motion without that contingency, then then if I were in your position, I'd
say, well, wait a minute. You you just passed this and now you're back at it again. I think it has to be contingent. We're doing this in good faith, but we want to get it right. And therefore, let's make sure it's equal application of the rule of law by clearly defined
definitions with legal opinion. So, we'd like to refer it to legal opinion. So, so the motion would be that as you know has been made and seconded that uh I would a
friendly amendment suggests that contingent upon a review so clarity to make sure that we meet our obligation as responsibles. Can I show you this map just real quick? Excuse me just a minute. U Commissioner Mills, you look
perplexed. Oh yeah. Um, the one Mhm. Uh, I do not Yeah. see this resolving quickly. I can imagine it moving and then we'll have to address it again. But I think as things are now, this is how
it is. Um, but I do believe there will be more. And I I would agree with it's just I don't I don't think any contingencies uh I don't I'm not comfortable contingencies right now because we have to address what what's right in front of
us and that is the way I feel is not contingent on anything. Okay. Yeah, Madam Chair, I was going to say the only way that we could really do that is if the contingency is looking to the 26 assessment or that we are recessing and and reconvening this meeting before the end of the month. So I I I I know I just
just to clarify if if we're saying that the board's motion is to remove the improvements from lot for um partial record and then continue on to look to the 26 assessment for resolve is that's
Madam Chair I I would agree with that the understanding and it should be in as a matter of record that we we agree to this for the 2025 and it would be revisited for 2026. I would agree with that. So, do we have that clarification?
Absolutely. Okay. Any further comments or questions? All in favor? I I oppose. Same sign. Thank you. Thank you. I just have a question. How long do have you been working on this with the Forest Service? Uh the
application went in um fall of 1986. No, 83. 83. Okay. You'll hear us in the future. Yeah. Thank you. Can I just clarify one thing? I don't I don't know why Bob said he didn't know what that what where these cabins were. He showed you this
aerial photo. Can we have that? They're they're right on the near right there. Yeah. Yeah. You can clearly see what four. Sure. On your map because it wasn't on here. I just I just right there. Okay. All
right. It's the countyy's for Yeah, clearly they're not on lot four. No, I I I understood that because you said it was just south of that private parcel. So, okay. Thank you. Um, this ends our appointment. We have uh we have a walk-in and in the past we
have allowed the walk-in to uh come up and and speak. Would you like to come forward? Could I I I apologize for you could come over here to the where the microphone is, please. Apologize not for not getting on the agenda. I'm
probably coming in to talk to Bob and you will um give us your name and I'll give you five minutes. Okay. David Merlin, I actually came tonight to uh represent Ken Rindall on behalf of his
conversation and his concerns. Uh, and I'll just quickly talk about that. Then I've got to bring up something about myself. Uh, Bob, you took pictures of their property overlooking my farm showing Lake Superior. I don't think you can assess his property based on that. It's from
the road. Yeah, it was taken from the road. And if you get in on the Rendo property, you won't get that same view. And you do get a view of that property because there's a farm there and there's pasture and open land only. Uh this winter we're going to cut 80 acres of dead balsom and spruce. That's
going to open up that view greater. Uh can you assess their property or my property on the fact that we're going to have a greater view of Lake Superior? We we value it based on what the market's willing to pay. Yeah. All right.
I have just one and I apologize for you people not having this in front of you. I've got proposed uh market value uh of 160 acres. Just one of my parcels is almost a million dollars for next year.
Guys, I have to tell you, I'm a farmer. My family's been here since 1886. I'm the last dairy farmer in Cook County. Uh I don't value my farm. I know the county does differently than I do, but I don't
value my farm as a market value based on other properties in Cook County. Lake Superior, I've been looking at that since I was a kid. My family's been looking at that since the 1800s. It's beautiful. My farm happens to overlook
Lake Superior. I've got just one parcel here, 152 acres roughly. next year's proposal of $942,000. God damn world. There's there's a house on that parcel.
Yeah. Yeah. Uh $660,000 for that property. This is just a piece of farm property. I know you value it as maybe developed property or comparing it to some other property in Cook County overlooking Lake
Superior, but guys, this this farm isn't for sale. It's going to stay in the family forever. I'm going to try to hold on to this dairy farm. My kids are going to try to hold on to this dairy farm and their kids. And you heard Mr. Rindall tonight talk pretty much the same thing.
We're actually I have actually been farming the Rindle farm since I was a little boy. My family's been farming that farm for 80 years. That was a farm and he indicated tonight that he's going to put it back into agriculture.
So I I came a little unprepared, but I I'm just looking at these assessments for next year. I'm I'm not a skiill. I'm not Ludson. I'm not a developer. I'm not developing this farm. Can we just somehow take a
look at that and base this one last dairy farm in Cook County agriculturally? somehow take it back to what land values were years ago when it was assessed as a farm. I'm not a resort.
I don't know how else to say it. I don't know if I'm saying this correctly or if you're understanding what I'm saying, but it just doesn't seem right. See, if I if I bought this property 10 years ago and I just for an investment, I I get it. No problem.
It it just really wouldn't be a problem. just adjust it, sell it, make a few bucks, and move on and do it over again. I I don't do that. I try to save farmland, try to keep it going. I hope that this community appreciates that, that there's somebody that's still
trying to hang on to a family farm and keep it going like we, you know, there's there isn't any farms left. And some would say, "Oh, the burglan, this isn't farmland up here." I've made it. My grandpa did. My great-grandfather did.
I'm currently running 120 head of cattle right now. We milk 35 cows. We supply food to this community. I I could go on and on, but please just take a look at that. Thank you. We'll have Bob comment. So, the the one comment I have is that, you know, from
what I understand, you haven't signed up for the Green Acres program, have you? And I won't. Yeah. I I we did send out letters to all the agricultural properties and Green Acres is created by the state of Minnesota, a special program to say we don't want farmers losing their farm. We're going to tax
them at a much lower rate. In fact, it would take this from $4,400 an acre to $800 or I think it's $900 an acre, something like that. $1,000 an acre. It'd be the land value would be cut by quite a bit. But you'd have to sign up for green acres to do that. Yeah. And if you, like you say, if like you say, you
don't ever plan on selling it, then then there really shouldn't be a risk. I mean, I don't want to say there's never a risk, but the program is that once you sell or no longer farm, there's a payback of three years. I understand that. So, I think it I mean, it might be
something. I lived on Westerland's farm and and I I told Roger, I said, "Roger, you got to sign up for this because I don't want you to get the tax bill you're about to get without without Green Acres." He signed up for it. I mean, I I wouldn't steer you in the wrong direction. Um, I think most of the the larger
farms, like, you know, the the syrup farm, I think all the ones that qualified with the acorage and the farming operations signed up except for you. I just don't like the fine print that's behind that. There's there's I'm not going to get into that here at this meeting, but I understand there's
troubling parts to that. Yeah. and and whenever it comes up with legislation discussing changes to the program because some county doesn't know how to apply it correctly. I mean it it it I I can see where it is. I when I when I told Roger I considered that I said Roger there's always a risk but if you
plan on owning this thing anything longer than 3 years there's going to be an advantage to the green acres. I mean there's also senior property tax deferrals. There's other programs for people who have owned and homestead a property for many many years so that they don't lose them and and you know
there are a couple of options out there. I mean I when I look at 160 acres at 660,000 up on that hill it it it's probably worth more than that and I I know Roger got letters in the mail from developers and other people who were interested and there were million dollar offers. I mean one after another. I
don't dispute that. I I totally understand that. I I get it. I just wish that it could be looked at as just a simple farm without the green acres. Yeah. And unfortunately in the in the tax system, I don't I don't have a I
don't have a a lever to pull for you. Um so, you know, I I I I hear what you're saying and I I understand it and um you know, I don't know. I mean, agriculture, they they have really low rates on the homesteaded agriculture. Um you know, the tax rate really when we raise
anyone's value, the county doesn't get any more money. And I want everybody to fully understand that that it's it's not me saying, "Hey, you should pay more." It's it's me saying that in the in the whole algorithm algorithm of real estate and the value of these properties, we're trying to do our best to get it so that everyone's paying their fair share. Now,
when you have a property that dropped, the value got cut by more than half in 2016. And now we're making up that difference. And a quintile review, it it really hits people hard. It it it I wish it had been more smooth transition, but we have these areas of the county or
certain situations that came up where values were reduced and they probably shouldn't have been. So, Bob, do you have a recommendation? I I the only recommendation I have is that you look into green acres. I mean, I I know there's a risk with it, but I can
assure you I'm on the legislative committee with the assessors, and anytime like they're talking about, oh, we're going to change this or we're going to change that, the assessors come forward and say, hey, you're going to do this to somebody. you're going to do this to this group of people. If they were ever talking about Green Acres, I have imagine that they're going to make
it so that there is no, you know, three-year payback. Like, if they did way with the program, let's say, um, I don't think they're going to make everybody in the state who was is in the program pay that back. But you know that that's that's personally my
recommendation to my landlord who was a farmer was to enroll in green acres because it's it's designed specifically to protect somebody who has an old homestead in a lot of acreage in an area like this. So why do we need the government involved to protect an oldfashioned piece of property? That's
my point. It just doesn't seem right. I get the program, but I mean, can't we just go back to property taxes were were part of the agreement when homesteads were were being claimed? You know, I mean, property taxes were inherent with with getting the land,
but were there property taxes when they homesteaded back in the 1800s? There were home there were taxes in Minnesota before Minnesota got statehood. What year was that? 1858. Well, 1858. I know that one. Questions or comments? Commissioner
Campbell. Thank you. Um yeah, you know, if you get a few years under your belt, it's it's hard not to become nostalgic, but um especially when we see change that that affects us in in a way that we're not happy with it. Um
the legislature ran into a lot of issues on this whole real estate thing and I forget the year that it was that they concentrated on on focusing on making sure that there was uniformality without within the state meaning all 87 counties
because you could have let's just say as an example Lake County that applied tax law one way property tax and we applied another and it became competitive and the The state realized it was a problem. So they said, "We're going to focus on
this issue and create uniformality. The farm is largely our heritage within the state of Minnesota. So we need to protect in this discussion our farms and thereby there was much discussion to create the green acre option. I would
say because of the history that's existed in that regard that you would be able relative to the fine print issue. Anything that we're not familiar with but we just sort of have life experience that casts our assumptions on top of you know everything relative to why do we have government? Well, government's
responsibility is to be an umbrella of protection so that we can live our lives under the freedom that's provision in a republic. And in the con context of the provision that is there with the green acres, I would say we've had enough history on that to ask the questions of
people that have been part of the program and see here's the benefits, here's the risks. And we've had discussions about carrots that we grab and then they're linked to something and we find out, whoops, there's a surprise here. But that's our responsibility to
ask those questions. And many times governments, other entities will use something that's attractive, hoping you don't understand what the obligation is on the other end. And I've been in situations where I say, "No, thank you. There's a hand out here, but I don't like what comes with it." So I say,
"No." But but we have enough history. This is something new. And so I would say that you heard the numbers. The benefit is there. You just need to evaluate at what cost. And there should be people that I think in talking with
people within the farming industry that can answer that question for you and hopefully you'd be comfortable to be able to take that advantage so that you can keep the farm for the family. So Mr. Mr. Bergland, it sounds like maybe in another year after you've
looked at um that particular program and kind of get your papers together, you can come back before the board and and see where you might be in another year. Well, we I can talk to Bob. We can take a look at that. Yeah, we certainly can. And and and I you know, like I said,
there's always a risk with it. But I do think that if the legislature was ever going to do something that would eliminate the program that they would eliminate that three-year payback requirement cuz the idea of the three-year payback was that either you stopped farming or you sold it. So if you sell it, you know, if you sell it,
you got a big payday and you're going to be able to cover the three-year payback. Uh if it no longer qualifies, it means you stopped farming it and you know, then I don't know what that situation looks like. Uh we can take a look at the fine print. Yeah. Yeah. I have before and I don't like it, but we can look at
it again. Yeah. And Madam Chair, I'd just say, you know, to David that I'm certainly willing to help you on the end of vetting the program. So, no, no, we'll get together. Apologize for not talking earlier. I I've been so busy. I just I I got caught off guard with all
this. Yeah. No apology needed. Thank you for coming, sir. All right. Thank you for listening. Yes. Is there any other business? The only other business we have is on the sheet with the grid. Here we have uh 1 2 3 four assessor recommendations that these are things
that have occurred within the last 10 days and because of that window of the last 10 days we have to put it on the board agenda for as a formal action. So um really the you can you can make one single motion to approve the list of assessor's recommendations uh or you can
go through them one by one however you prefer. Michigan. Madam Chair, I I make that motion to approve the assessor's recommendation. I'll second. Do we have a motion and a second? Any comments? All in favor? I oppose.
Same sign. Motion passes unanimously. Thank you very much. And um as of 88. Yes. Thank you, Madam Chair. appreciate your indulgence here, but I I just think and certainly on behalf of the board,
Bob, we appreciate your good work and um uh it's it's challenging especially when it affects people's pocketbooks um and you can get wore out going through proes processes that are
demanding. But um the the brand that we put on the county is dependent upon good people protecting what we are about which is trying to be servants but still compliant with our responsibilities and sometimes it's a not a very grateful
position but I appreciate uh the the work you do and the spirit in which you do it and um I I hope that as as we move forward in a lot of different areas is that we can build a trust relation that demonstrates that we work hard at trying
to be good stewards at what we do. So, thank you for your work. Yeah. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. And we are journed. And to all your staff, thank you. Thank you. Yeah. Thanks, guys. Thanks for saying that. Yeah, it's starting to bleed off.