Um, I'm going to go ahead acting in a temporary capacity and call this meeting of the uh board of appeal and equalization to order. Our first order of business, I think, is to swear in the
six members of the board, only five of which are present. And Bob, are you doing that for us this year? >> Yes. Yes. >> In this case, the county board acts as the board of appeal and equalization along with the auditor.
>> Right. Good evening everyone. I'm very honored to be here tonight to administer the oath of office for the Mono County Board of Appeal and Equalization. And we um there's different ways that the oath can be taken and some of those
are a little bit awkward. Uh research shows that uh most of the oaths that are taken for meetings like this. Uh we have all of the members of the committee raise their right hand. And we'll start by having each of you say I and your
name. And we'll start with the chair at the present time, Chris, and just go around the table. >> I Chris Meyer. >> I Dwayne Begley. I Chelsea Wilg. >> I Marshall Ward. >> I Greg Olsen. And then we'll follow with all of you repeating, "Do solemnly swear
that I will support the Constitution of the United States of America and the Constitution of the State of Minnesota and will perform the duties of the Winona County Board of Appeal and
Equalization. patience >> to the best of my knowledge and ability. >> So help me God. >> Great. Thank you. That was very nicely done. >> You >> each of you now will sign and that'll
complete the official part of this. I'll start with the chairperson. >> I might have misunderstood you. Was it so help me Bob or so help me Greg, I I just appreciate you a lot, but I get into enough trouble on my own.
>> Yeah, Marie's laughing. >> I'm usually right there by you, Bob. >> Thank you. Is it possible that Josh might be still coming this evening? >> Don't think so. >> Okay. Okay.
If he did, we'd want to swear him in. >> If he does, >> yes, >> I will stop. >> That will be that would be at your discretion and I'll be here for a while. A lot of information to cover tonight. Thank you very much. >> Thank you. >> Thank you.
>> Thank you. The next order of business is going to be to elect a meeting chair and a secretary. I just want to point out that I do not have to be the chair. >> I'd like to move to uh nominate uh Commissioner Meyer to be the chair and
Miss Wilbright to be the secretary if that's appropriate. >> I'll second that motion. >> Okay. Commissioner Vegley has moved and Commissioner Ward has seconded. um nomination for Chris Meyer as the chair and Chelsea Wilbright as the
secretary for this meeting. Are there any other nominations? >> Oh, there he is. >> There he is. We'll go ahead and complete this and then we'll stop the meeting and uh swear Commissioner Aling in. So, if there are no other nominations,
uh, all those in favor of Chair Meyer and Wilbrite as secretary, please signify by saying I. I. >> Anyone's opposed, say nay. >> No one's motion carries. Uh, we're going to stop the meeting. Bob, could you swear Commissioner Elsing in?
>> I could get behind every slow person and hit every stop and I managed to do it today. >> I'm glad trains. I usually catch a train. >> Don't tra have cross tracks. Well, besides that, >> well, so far tonight, all the members of the board for the evening have made it
through the oath and and did it in an admirable fashion. >> So, so that yeah, the challenge is on. >> I have the honor this evening and uh I am administering to you the oath of office for the Winona County Board of
Appeals and Equalization. And we start with you saying I and your name. >> Hi, Josh. And on the oath is as follows. Do solemnly swear >> solemnly swear >> that I will support >> I will support >> the Constitution of the United States of
America. >> constitution of the United States of America >> the Constitution of the State of Minnesota >> constitution of Minnesota >> and will perform the duties >> will perform the duties >> of the Winona County Board of Appeal and Equalization >> County Board of Appeal and Equalization
>> to the best of my knowledge and ability. >> Best of my knowledge and ability. >> So help me God. Help me God. >> Thank you. You are sworn in and we'll have you do a signature and we'll be all set. >> Let's say yes.
>> Amen. Um before we plunge into the rest of the agenda, I did want to just sort of set some expectations. Uh this meeting is being held based on Minnesota state statutes. Um
our duty is to attempt to address property owners issues efficiently, fairly and objectively. Um it is um our action is really to give people a fair and objective forum for property
owners to appeal their valuation of classification. Um I there are a set of reminders that the state uh suggests as ground rules. Uh the first of these is that a reminder to
property owners that only appeals for the current year's valuation or classification can be made. Prior year's assessments are not within our jurisdiction. Property owners may only appeal the estimated market value and the appeals prior process is concerning
this amount and it isn't the tax amount, it's the value. Um, and I think we can proceed with after that. Uh, Miss Lindsay, are you going to talk to us first about some changes in property values?
>> Um, we'll go that route if you wish. >> The item three was property owners appeals. um >> went off some old agendas, but sometimes it's helpful to read that first. So, what we'll be looking at is number five, the review um of of mine of the year.
>> Yeah, I think that would be great. I think it would be important. I can see that particularly commercial and industrial properties >> Yeah. were their sales ratio was like in some cases less than 50% which means they sold way over market values.
Hi, I'm Lindsay Brandt. I'm the county assessor here. Um, just to start off, I do want everyone to know that we do this year have five tax petitions. In the last two years, we've had zero. We have Fleet Farm, Walmart, Menard's, Roots Hospitality, which is American, and
Fastenol. Uh the fastenol buildings are the one the big ones the original ones off um off the bridges. >> Oh sir, thank you. So those are the ones we have coming. Um we have not had any
scheduled dates yet. Uh and the other big important thing I did want to bring up right away is we do have a state order coming through. It actually came in yesterday. Uh we do have a state order for uh the city of St. Charles residential. Um, we have a 5% increase
mandated by the state on the land only. So, it's land only, not the not the buildings. So, it could have been much much worse. The reason that happened is when we were doing our sales studies, we did have one property where the new
construction was not included and it threw our number off enough that we were not in ratio. Um, so we have a state order. It cannot be contested at all. It's coming down from the commissioner of revenue. That will have to be implemented before September 1st.
Um, >> so I'm sorry, if it's statemandated and it's land only, so so what's that mean? Next year's taxes will go up. It's not retro, >> right? So this would be >> 26 2027. I mean >> 2027. Yep. So the the appeals we're
working on right now, this would go on that value. >> Assessment 26 is paid 27. So we're here to review assessment 26, >> right? So I mean, >> so that was honestly we missed one new
construction and it could have been much worse. They could have put it on the buildings. Um, let's see. I did inform that board at their local boards as well. So, they are aware um because I talked with our PTCO
who is our regional officer for up there that he's like it's going to come. So, be prepared. And I wanted them to know as well. Uh the adjustments >> I'm sorry. Yeah. You know, >> that's okay. >> I've told you I don't like this system and I think for the state to come in and
do this is is almost criminal. Um, so you missed one construction sale, but they're raising the land, you said, not the buildings, right? That seems hypocritical. And then where did they have six sales in St. Charles that
justified this? >> Yes. So, because we have to have that 90 to 105 ratio. If we do not is when we get the state mandate. So, because we did miss that new construction which didn't get pulled out, it pulled ours under, just under. If they were to do it
on the land and the buildings, it would have gone way, way more up. If it was just the buildings, it would have been that, but this was actually a land, new construction on land. So, it was the well and the septic. It wasn't ticked off as new construction. So, this is
going just on the land. The the people in St. Charles, it won't be as harsh on their values versus 5% on their building value. >> Was the pro was the project when was the project completed?
>> I don't know that right now. I'd have to look. >> Okay. If it wasn't completed, how can you tax somebody for value if the project >> and I don't know that it wasn't, but if there was some improvements and the well and septic were put in even if a house
is not completed, there is some new construction added. Say just the foundation is there, there would still be value on that foundation. So even if it's not completed, whatever portion is goes on the tax roles.
>> Thank you. I wouldn't vote for that, but okay. Thank you. [laughter] >> I don't think we get to vote on that. I >> Right. >> There's some problems here in the system. Yeah. >> Um the residential base rate for all residential properties went from $170 a
square foot to $189 a square foot. Um, we've all looked at the construction costs over the last year or two. Um, Homer Township did get an extra bump. They had a neighborhood factor that went from 1.11 to 1.12
and because they had 10 residential sale sales at 85%. So, they needed that extra little bump um to get them in ratio. Um, Rolling Stone Township, they got a factor adjustment as well. They went
from 0.96 to 1.12. They got a larger one. They only had five sales, so it wasn't required, but our fiveyear study in that township has been very, very low. So, with the five sales, we were still at 64%. So, this is just trying to
be a little proactive so we don't have to do major jumps later down the road. Um, Udica City neighborhood factor went from 0.93 to 0.97. They did have six stales, six sales. Uh, so they had their own study and they just needed that to
get into ratio as well. Um, commercial industrial, that's the big one that everybody's had the hardest time swallowing. Uh, there was a 25% increase across the board on all commercial buildings. Uh, countywide, we had 13 sales and the ratio of that was 74.29.
Uh, and industrial had four sales, but we were still at 54% on those. So commercial and industrial went up 25%. Uh agricultural land had no change. We were actually at just over 100% on that. I think it was like 100.1 or 100.2. So
that was good cuz the year prior got a 10% push. [clears throat] Um I included in the packet a report from the department of revenue. Uh, I'll show you which one it is. Before the adjustments were made,
um, this this sheet right here, that's from the Department of Revenue. It's broken down by each area, agricultural, residential, commercial. That shows you right here under the median ratio column, what those ratios were before any of these adjustments were made. And a reminder, that needs to be between 90
and 105. Um, over >> But again, I'm sorry. So here I'm I'm looking right down the line. Dresback commercial. It's at 52.39. Well, there was only one sale. So how can you justify
>> right >> jumping that up to close to 100 if there's one sale? >> So >> so that one property >> when you look at the commercial, so these top one, two, three, four, five, six, seven lines, that is countywide, >> right? >> So countywide commercial, we're still
only at 74%. So countywide there was 13 sales. So that still needs to be in ratio. >> But did the Dresback one, is that one property going to get a huge tax increase? >> Every every commercial property in
Dresback got a 25% increase. Every commercial building in Winona County got a 25% increase. >> So you disproportional toback versus >> that's not apples to apples. commercial property in Dresback is not the same as a commercial property in the city of
Winona. >> And I'm not disagreeing with you, but we do mass appraisal. So then you get your valuations. That's when you need to call us if you're looking at it going, "This isn't going to work in Dresback because that's how we do it because it's not We can't go to every single one and do an individual appraisal every year."
>> But the state of Minnesota is telling you that you've got to lump them all together. >> Correct. >> Yeah. So ask them to go to each and every one and justify That's why you're seeing the businesses dry up in small towns. >> Oh yeah. >> Stand the same cost. They don't they can't do >> Yeah.
>> They lose. >> They don't. >> I guess my main point is that we need we compliance and disagreement and push back all need to be part of the formula. We need to comply, yes, but we need to do some push back and some maybe some,
you know, like this is not working for our constituents. >> So, if we wouldn't have done that 25% raise on the commercial properties, there would have been a state order. This gives this gives us the opportunity to us,
>> but this gives us the opportunity to say, hey, I don't agree with that. And if we are not in compliance with commercial properties, so you have your public utilities, your my energy, dairy land, all that stuff, railroads. If we are not in compliance,
say we're at 85%. Right? We're 5% low. The public utilities value gets adjusted to that, which means what Excel is paying in their taxes in dairy land, that's gone. And now we're paying it.
>> Why is it gone? I don't understand why. >> Because we our ratio would be low. So they adjusted to be low as well. That's how that works. So having to do a large jump on commercial properties
with the option to appeal is better than not and losing taxes on public utilities. >> But public utilities don't doesn't the state take the bulk of their taxes? How much does Winona County collect out of public utilities? >> Oh, yeah.
>> Okay. I mean, but isn't the bulk go right to the state of Minnesota? >> I know. I think 40% of Red Wings tax base comes directly from Excel because they have so much property there. >> Um, for the statewide assessed or the state assessed value for transmission, distribution lines, etc. Um, we tax
those at countywide average rate. There are some state assessments taxed at the locality rate for taxing district 0301 that's not dress but an example but most of these big utilities are taxed at the
countywide average rate. So we take the total tax base for the whole county divided by total levies to boil down to the countywide average rate. And so they're paying countywide average rate and that goes I don't want to misspeak.
So they pay uh tax capacity tax on the countywide average rate. They pay the market value tax which um is schools um and yes they pay state tax. But let's pick on the biggest one of our
um the biggest line for our transmission distribution is their tax bill is 5,000 or 525,62. 27,000 of that is market value. Um 379,000
is tax capacity tax which is at that countywide average rate. And then 117,000 is state tax because the state tax rate stays the same across the county which is 28 point something. Um so that gets applied
to those and yes the state takes that how those are distributed wind and solar versus transmission distribution are distributed differently. Well, while you're looking that up. So, Lindsay, you're telling me if we don't if if we aren't in the range, the state
threatens us by taking away some of our local tax capacity. >> They don't threaten us. >> It It does. Okay. Well, it's a it's a threat to keep you at that margin, >> right? Because if we didn't do something, then we're not Again, it's
mass appraisal, not individual. We are not assessing everybody equally across the board. Yes. So, it's it is it's like a check and balance between the counties um between 90 and 105. There's room to
move because any sale price is a moving number. There's always usually negotiations, but it's to be within that institutions can be changed and I'm not sure that I'm not sure the constitution dictates these kind of micromanaging
rules. There is a a portion of yeah tax collection and everything but this is actually talk about micromanaging down to the county level. That's exactly what they're doing. That's okay. you can follow up with it. >> Get it. Okay.
>> It's a threat. It's a It's a mandated threat. Okay. Thank you. >> Uh I did want to important note that I found uh the new cost of a building average here at 350,800 new house, excuse me. The average cost was 350,800.
That's up 51 a.5% from the previous year. Uh that information was from planning and zoning department based off the permits and new construction. So, we kind of go from there. I do have in that letter that I sent you actually a breakdown of year-over-year, which is
kind of interesting. >> Thanks. >> Year and median house cost. So, yeah, just in 2019 it was 172 average for a new construction house and now we're at 35,800.
But uh an important factor to me would be what's the square footage of these houses? They seem when somebody seems to build they get bigger and bigger. >> That's why they go with the median because you're going to have a tiny house which is on the low end and a and a large >> McMansion with four car garage.
>> Yeah. >> Yeah. >> So I'm sure the median has grown considerably over the last 10 years. >> Yep. >> Um >> it's almost doubled in six years. >> Yeah. Uh,
like I said, the the egg values did not change this year, but for those who have a lot of egg in their districts, I included this lovely spreadsheet. Um, from 2012 2026, which gives you top tier
syllable for each county in our um, so it kind of shows you where we prepared everybody out. Again, it's for the top grade a soil. Um, but again, it's a nice breakdown. Shows you where we're at compared to other counties. A lot of
people have found that information good. The next page in your your handout is the new construction for the county as a whole. Sorry, this last year we had 47,78300
in new construction. Above that you have a breakdown for each township city. And let's see. Oh, the next part in there as well. That was some helpful information. It's the assessed values for each
township and city. So, what the total values are for each township or city? >> Quick question on the new construction. Is that taxable or what if it's uh churches or schools or museums that are
non- tax? >> That would be included in there. >> Okay, that's all. But >> yeah, this is this is market value, not >> not tax value, >> not tax capacity >> or tax capacity. Um
then in the end of your page I did include just this diagram because it's been helpful to kind of explain how how your effect your changes in your value effect
and a lot of boards had asked for that. So we gave them copies there's copies outside as well. Um it's just a another way to explain how that gets Uh the areas that are going to be quintiles this year, full quintiles is
Rolling Stone City, Norton Township, half of St. Charles City, and then a portion of each each of the four neighborhoods in Winona approximately 40 4900 plus that'll be reassessed.
>> Great question. I don't hear any. So, if we move on to the >> I'm sorry, maybe Lindsay can answer these. I'm apologize. >> Um, so you have under your Department of Revenue rules of equalization there. Okay. Uh, six sales in a district. What
and on a bigger page, you had some pretty large what constitutes a district because you have on the first page then countywide and then you break down some of the cities. So, what is a district? >> Your district's either going to be a full township or a full city. Okay. All right.
>> Does that depend on the level of the board that's meeting or >> No, no, >> each district is literally just either a specific concert. So like all of Fremont is one city St. Charles. >> Okay. All right. Okay. And then um thank you for not um raising the farmland. Um
but a question is being asked about um the value of certain farmlands into in fact today we were uh looking at a farmer down in Wiscoy area that has a large amount of acreage probably taken out of production because of our um
stream bank uh you know setback. So, is all his land taxed at a high rate or do we exclude portions that we say no, you can't farm? >> If he's tilling it, it will go at the soil grade. Okay.
>> If he's not, it's it's it's the use. Is he pasturing it? Is he is it just sitting there? >> It's just sitting there growing the buffer >> probably listed as pasture waste which are the same value. >> Okay. So would he have to come in and double check that or do you have
>> Yeah, absolutely. >> Okay. So, so a buffer setback would be lesser value should be >> if it's not already set up. Yeah. >> Yeah. Okay. All right. And the same way with now um more and more land is being put in conservation programs. Is is a
land owner compensated for acreages that are in, you know, 10-year conservation plans and such? >> Again, it all depends on how it's being used. So, depending. Some conservation easements are very specific
to the land. Some let you pasture it, some don't let you touch it. So, it's it's going to be on an individual basis. >> But a person that does have a large acreage and something should ver check and verify with your office that even a small one. Yeah.
>> Um Okay. Thank you. >> Any other questions? You jump 25% on commercial properties. I how does I mean that's a that's a pretty big jump. >> Yeah, >> we have been
>> But the question becomes didn't happen overnight, >> right? >> So, how do we get there? Because I look at the multiple municipalities that I deal with. I look at the commercial properties that I own. when I look at different things that are out
there and there's no magic bullet to just go pay that, right? So, how did we as a county, I guess, all of a sudden realized and why wasn't there some sort of something happening in the prior years to say, "Hey, we're we're this far
out of whack." >> There was some movement in prior years, about enough to get us in ratio. And this last one, we had a bunch of sales that were just high. Our big one that we haven't had a lot of sales on recently
in the past four or five years was industrial. Um they're just selling for much more than we put on now. That little, you know, where uh lighting used to be that area,
>> the middle school by the river >> building there about the size of this and it sold for $800 $900,000. >> Yeah. >> Bob brings us those reports,
>> but I just I still go back and said that the reflection of that to the outlying areas is just not realistic. >> Well, well, so can they can with that said, can they apply for one of these credits? You know, there's that thing if your real estate taxes go up more than
12. >> Okay. Well, do they have something for commercial? because we're saying that that's going to just drive out a lot of >> Yeah. >> Well, even our out our our smaller townships, even those were low. They're just low. It's not like we're putting
something in St. or not Central like Udica City. Say we had >> Did we have some or something sold for 200? We're not pushing that to the 500 like you would in Winona. It's just
literally across the board on each individual property. We're not pushing it out of it's just we and if I'm if I understand this right when so I'm not sure did you merge the
commercial industrial sales so there would be 17 total sales or did you Yes. >> this Yes. So the state does it once you have any areas that do not have their own they go into a separate
>> and so the ratio the sales ratio if it's less than 90 which it was then requires you the assessor us the county to increase the property value and that's
how we got to the 25% >> and that's what it took took us to get us in. Yeah. And again, that's when I was explaining we didn't everybody still has the opportunity to dispute that value why we get the green sheets every
year. I guess my point is is that, you know, there has to be I understand they want their money, but to to to jump that and say there isn't some outlying factor that somebody found gold under the building and doesn't want to tell
anybody and they're willing to pay 900,000, the rest of us got to foot the bill. I mean, that's the that's a lot of what happens in these situations. And I say that hypothetically, but you know that's and then and then to come back and there isn't some sort of a hey the most it can go up is 10% 5%. Because of
some circumstance that created this scenario. So at least businesses have the the the ability to absorb the increases because, you know, I can think of a dozen little businesses that are trying to just survive and you go whack
them with a $2,000 deal and that's, you know, $2,400 increase on a 10,000. It doesn't take much. I mean, a couple hundred,000 building is $10,000. I know. I own them. So you go and say, "Well, you got to come up with another 200 bucks a month." and you're like, man, we're already on the verge of shutting
the doors. You know, it's just what's the point? And that's that's to me, it's just it's just devastating when we allow one year to dictate all this when the whole thing could change next year and the insurance going to go back down. So, >> I think keep in mind again with with all
of these ratios, it's always the medium. So, you can have one super low and they're way too much and vice versa. We go to the media and every agricultural sale and every commercial sale and every single industry every single one of them we are required by the state to call and
verify the sale to see if there was was there personal property included in that you know was machinery in part of that number. So that comes out and if we can't if there's like excessive personal property we don't even use that stuff not even in our sales study um you know
or a land is sold from a grand to a grandchild and there's no appraisal to say, "Yeah, each kid gets 30% and this is what we think it's worth." We don't we don't
>> This isn't This isn't on you. this is a higher level situation to me that just simply says I don't think it's fair that you know the the assessment process allows for such a large increase
that there's no way to absorb for some of these small businesses you know they can't just pass that on >> I think the thing is if all property went up equally and every piece of property in the county went up 25% value >> then right but Then the taxes however
would be distributed >> equally just as they are right. But if residential properties go up 5% and commercial properties go up 25% even if we reduced taxes the commercial taxes are still going to
go up because proportionally they're >> you're preaching to the choir. You want to compare tax bills. >> The wrong the wrong people are making up the board of equaliza appeal and equalization. It should be state senators and state representatives because it's their rules that we are having to imply.
>> Yes. >> And and really they you know it we're the wrong people. >> Well, it's it's to me it's it's so reactionary and then it's guilty until you prove yourself innocent and plead
your case and you know it's a to >> go tell the college kids that well I don't pay real estate taxes. Yes, you do. Your rent is going to go up considerably. >> That's your That's your property. >> Every one of my rents will go up after this.
>> Yeah. >> Okay. >> All right. So, sorry. We're beating up on you. >> That's okay. You're the messenger. >> We're actually beating up on the state and the rule state. >> Yeah. That's not on you, Lindsay. I I made that clear. I I get what I get what needs to happen. I just I don't feel as
though it's right that they can there needs to be some sort of a realistic cap when these things come to be come to fruition >> since she be a state employee the county why why are we doing that >> um with the property owners appeals does
it make sense the individuals who are we have a giant sheet who are in green on here are present at the meeting >> um I will look okay >> but they may or may Okay. So if they are do you want me to call their names and if they are present then ask them to
come up >> every year we do have a schedule time. So I would start with whomever has already signed up. >> Do you have a list? >> I do. >> Okay. Would you like to do >> Okay. Uh with before you start that though you say uh you know what we can do is we're limited to 1% change in the
value of your district. So, do we know the people who are appealing, what district they're in, and how much and how many dollars we have to play with? >> Well, it says we can. >> If the county is a district and we could justify it, couldn't we reduce to from
25 to 24? >> Well, and but she said district like would for me would be mighty >> out of ratio. >> That would put us out of ratio and the state would never allow it any. So, >> let them catch us. Let them slap our hands. >> Sure, they're listening. district again is uh city or township, not my taxing
district. >> Yeah. So, so mine would be my township. >> So on this form, >> Yes. >> is your >> which one is that? >> The Minneapolis that is >> uh I think second third last page.
>> Yeah. >> Reconstruction. This one. >> Oh, >> go ahead. This one. >> Yes. Okay. So this is Okay. So in Alura their value is X 60 >> 60,000. >> So we we have we our discretion is 1% of that 60,000.
>> Correct. Okay. >> If there's not already changes. >> Okay. >> In the >> Oh, so it isn't it isn't by classification. It's for the entire district. >> All right. >> Um Okay. So now we're going to this big
spreadsheet. >> I guess not. >> No. Oh, >> right. So we have he already called and said he's not. >> Gotcha. Okay. So Dwight Lang, if you're in the audience, could you come up to the
podium um and state your case in in terms of what you would your complaint is about the property valuation if you haven't. Well, we're raising my property value by
over $30,000 and I met with Stephanie earlier and I tried to ask for comparables and at that time because of the one of the hacks that she was not able to give
me the comparables, but she did give me a sheet where I see a couple inaccurate things on my property. One of them is the acreage they have me down for is 1.47
acres, 64,000 square ft. My actual square footage is about 15,000 >> a lot. Um the other thing she has my heated
area in my house at 3900 square ft actual heated it's 1850. Um, my house is a threebedroom, two bath and it has to be one of the
most expensive threebedroom, two bath. They're proposed is my value would be next year $363,400 almost. It's over a 9% gain. Good views sales
were in the 90.43% ratio. You take my over 9% and add that to put me at 100%. I was told that everyone was gone
and I thought the people since then I never had an increase that high. 89 is when I took back time. Um, Mr. Lang, did with that change in acreage and footage, did you by chance
go back and look at like last year or past years? Did we still have it at that high that differential? >> I was just given this sheet by Stephanie. >> Oh, >> and I noticed just these things that are inaccurate and I don't know how long it's been
inaccurate or if it was in this book or whatever. I know that those things are not And like I say, if I look through her good view sales here, I'm the most expensive threebedroom, two bath house
compared to the fresh 2025 sales since I built. I don't know if um hacken had adjusted my value for the building
and I don't think that percent has been taken off now that he's adjusted that like I said when I met with her not her fault had just been hacked didn't have a lot of the comparisons,
but I know almost every house in my area around me had new siding, new windows, new doors, new roofs. One had a big twocar garage addition on it
to see if those properties went up. Even if they did go up, they've had a lot of improvements. >> So, how the people in the position, how do we verify the dimensional differences? >> Yeah.
>> Well, plus my lot is a parallelogram, so it's not square. When you do the math on a parallelogram, you have to measure the height. It shrinks down. You lose square
footage. So, it's usable >> and trying to figure out where that 1.47 comes is coming from because it's not. >> And when did you talk to them if it was
right after the um cyber attack? Well, it was right after the mailing of this because that was really the way the mailing >> mail those went out March 31st. >> March. >> Okay. They were mailed March 31st.
>> Yeah. >> Yep. So I do have the same question that Commissioner Ward had just in terms of uh the discrepancies in terms of the acreage and the condition space. >> Yeah. And I don't know if there's other
inaccuracies or like I said if that percentage that Mr. backed on because in the last court hearing that we found Tony's house inspector found 15 flaws that he
could see that didn't meet building code he could see the other hidden walls. So that I think was an adjustment that he put on my house and my house suffered because of it. I mean, if you came in
there and Stephanie was in there and did a a fresh review just a year ago. So, I was shocked that you see a 30% tax or press review because the inside of the house is
basically cracking and falling apart. >> And you live in Good View. >> Yeah, but that's city of Good View rules. And it's >> but it is residential and looks like there were 39 sales and they were 90.43. So they fell inside of the
um inside of the state limits of 90 to 105. So I >> Yeah. If we take that 90 plus% and add another nine something. >> Yeah. And I'm not understanding why it
would go up if the overall the residential properties but unless you're >> in the county. >> Yep. >> So countywide. >> Yeah. Countywide >> that's done by itself countywide. And
countywide we had 432 sales. So we were at >> Yeah. 86 almost but still 4% too low. >> Yeah. And actually I think it ended up being well either way we have 85% on the paper here. But um we were low
countywide so that's why there was that base rate from the 170 to 189 per square foot on all the houses throughout the county. >> And then is his valuation I mean then that discrepancy in terms of the well
that's the property itself. Yeah. And that >> when it's done we can go and play our on why things are not changed. >> Super. Okay. >> Yeah. Because I mean even if you're held to 1%
I'm like I said I'm going up close to 10%. I don't know if the rest of good view or others are. And I had that disagree with Mr. Hack and he say well yours your health is in this range 2%.
It's even listed on GIS as 1.47 and your neighbor's lot back to the east is just slightly smaller than yours and that's listed at 32. >> I'm looking at that and I I'm wondering if uh Beacon isn't
>> feeding it. It look >> has incorrect information. >> Yeah, it looks like it's feeding from uh when I'm looking in the tax system, it appears to be feeding from the parcel tab under calculated kama acres, but that's
not real acres. That includes lots and things like that. So, it it's >> So, was that when it was a bigger parcel, but split up? >> No. I don't think that that field should be reading from where it's reading from.
>> All of the view is put in. >> So like you're getting a whole acre per unit, but that's not how it's valued or >> or an actual acre. We're not saying your property is 1.47 acres. That field,
since we switched to Tyler, appears to be pulling from a different location than it did on our prior Um, with our prior CA soft where it was pulled from deed acres, it still reads deed acres on beacon, but it's not pulling that
information >> because on a lot block situation, we don't use acres in the dated acres section. >> So, interesting enough, your neighbor next to you's lot is valued at $52,800 at 32. Your lot, although it's
classified as 1.47, 47 is actually the val and it's larger is actually valued at less than that at 51,000 >> and Mr. Hack adjusted that when the apartment building apartment building up right next to my house
>> and I'm not what I'm trying to say Dwight is that although it says 1.47 it's rel it's realistic to the lot next door because they're almost attached identical even though yours is slightly larger. So, I think it's just a misprint on the 1.47, but it doesn't look like
it's being taxed at a 1.47 if that help if that makes sense. >> So, what's our timeline constraints in here and everything? If we can get some of this information verified, do we h we have a timeline that before we can make an adjustment? What's the I think we
have >> I have a question too is what what is the average house in going up? I I have not pulled that number, but they would just be the standard base rate per square foot. So be from that one.
>> It went up. Yeah. $19 $19 a square foot. >> Yeah. So, if you have a house that's 800 square ft versus a house that's 2,000 square feet, there's going to be
discrepancy there per square foot. >> And the square footage is not on the condition space, it's on the building. >> Yeah. And see, again, that should be a house that's been lived in for 20 years is worn and torn versus a house that got
>> appreciation on top of that spread. I mean >> you guys only assess this. >> Yeah, I would I would agree. So again, what what's where are we leaving Mr. Lang? >> So Lindsay is going to be explain >> they're going to explain.
>> Yeah. >> But but do we have a certain drop dead timeline that we have to make a decision to change something? It has to be tonight, June. Yes. >> Whatever today is. >> You can't leave them in limbo. >> No. Pending. >> Well, it sounds like I'll be taking it
to the back. >> Well, that doesn't help anybody. That wastes your time, energy, and effort, and waste our time, energy, and effort. So, so what what's the average that the tax court gets? >> That is >> all over the place. >> Yeah.
>> So, what what would make I I know nothing will make you happy. What can you live with? What What is it you're asking us to do, Mr. I mean, I was happy for, you know, when when it goes up at a one or 2% rate, but
a 10% rate is >> 25%. >> No, it no, but we any change that we make has to be justified with data. >> I mean, we have made changes in the past when I've been on the board. >> Okay. So, can you go verify the data and
then come back and if anything is dramatically different than what >> we did? Stephanie walked through. >> Okay. But I don't see any changes on my spreadsheet here. >> Right. We voted no change. The assessor's office would like a chance to respond.
>> Yeah. Let Lindsay talk. >> Yeah. Why are we doing nothing? What What's the rationale? What's the >> We're going to hear that. >> Oh, well, I thought they were going to go discuss something. >> No. No. Thank you, Mr. Lang. Thank you. >> Appreciate it. I appreciate that you came.
>> So, if you want to pop in here, walk through this house. >> All right. Um, we have his property right now valued at 363,400. Um, and just so we're all in >> the same.
This is his house in Good View. >> And then the lot, which it's on the main drag. We've all kind of been through it. So, if I zoom out a good view. >> And when was it built? 20 years. >> 2004. >> 2004. >> Thank you.
[laughter] >> Yeah. And like Mr. Lane said, I walked through the property. I walked through the property last year. >> Um, so this year, um, I asked him since I walked through your property last year, um, is it okay if we just meet in
person and go over and see if there have been any changes? and if there have been any changes, we agreed that we would go over to the property and take another look around. Um he said that there were not there were not any changes. I explained the base rate increase um last
year's value was 333,000. Um I was able to provide unfortunately this did happen um when we were systems down um but I did pull from
Beacon uh comparison sales report um which I provided and that does I mean the acreage you know as he stated is pretty inaccurate um from what we can see but what I circled here was um the
heated area of the properties that had sold and we did come up with 14 results that were compared to his um and the heated area on all of these properties that has sold within the last year um
were half of what his heated square feet was. And these properties um the top what uh the top six right here I can say sold for three 375,000 370,000
367,500 uh 345,000 331,000 315,000 and it goes on. >> What were the ages of Do you have ages of those houses? I mean, were they again 20 plus years
old? >> Three bedroomedroom. >> The year built on the first two, the 375,000 was 2007. >> And it's a four bedroomedroom, three bath. >> Fourbedroom, three bath. And his um is a
threebedroom, two bath. But when we do comparables, they can be um four bedrooms or >> or one bathroom. Um, and those fit within the range that we pull when we pull comparables. Um,
>> and the square footage was >> the square footage was 1,73. >> So, the rooms are smaller. Now, it's sold for 375 and you get 363. >> And um yeah, and the one right after that was built also in 2007.
Um, the one that sold for 3675 was built in 1978. That one was a four bedroomedroom, two bath. Um, >> 1300 square feet, so even smaller. Yeah. >> Yep. And then there was a 1500 square foot house, a four bedroomedroom, three
bath, 345,000. Um, that one actually was a town home. >> But do those have new windows, siding, insulation, new plumbing fixtures, new stove, refrigerator? >> Considered in the depreciation scale, house does have depreciation.
>> Okay. So, what did Mr. Langs depreciate then >> because he's saying it's a 20. He said changes. He said there's more cracks in the walls. There's more wear and tears. >> Fully depreci. >> It is fully depreciated. >> Are depreciated as we can get it. >> So, how much can you depreciate a
property if it's fully depreciated? >> So, it's saying his house was built in 2004 and to this day nothing has been changed or updated. That's what it's saying. Nothing's been. It's like it was still broken in 2004 without new windows siding.
>> So back in 2004, it still would have been 312. >> No, this is this has the adjustments for what the market sales are for a property similar size and condition. And then he did request um a comparison and we actually didn't
have access to beacon at this time or printer or we had access to beacon but not printers. So, I did um provide him with a handwritten um sample >> for his neighbors >> that he requested of his neighbors. And then I wrote the parcel number, what was
listed in Beacon for acres, um the estimated market value that was listed on Beacon, and then broke out um what the building value was versus the land value and then provided those parcel numbers. And the house um directly
behind him is currently 5 and that one um the property itself is just at 315 50,000 of it's just for the land >> but now that's not next year. Yeah, this is this is that was
that particular house $3,000 windows, doors, siding, double garage added on. >> He's got another double garage added on. >> So, we [clears throat] don't have any
more information that with Dwight's house. We have it at 363,4 3634 and we think that was a fair market value. >> Sure. >> And that was our reasoning. >> Yeah. >> And even though the beacon values are incorrect, that isn't what you were the you were taxed. Uh that wasn't what you
were taxed on and um the price per square foot is on the entire property, not just the condition space. M >> sale comparables that we did pull from Beacon would be used in our study
>> just year wise then this one um only goes so it goes back to 2025 >> okay so this to >> commissioner Olsson first then commission >> I would you know I would say based on your assessment that you've done your
due diligence and uh if his remedy is tax court then that would be uh the remedy that he would have to seek um but I would support the don't change. >> Uh so what so what is make it clear to
me uh is Mr. Lang going to be taxed at 363,400 value for next year then or it's going to be 10% higher than that >> that's the number >> that is the >> okay so it will be at the 363
or 100 well Mr. Lang has been here before. It seems like his property is a little bit unique in the city of Good View. Um somewhat by, you know, how he built it. And I'm assuming you're still cutting hair there. >> We tried to retire, but
>> you won't. No, you won't be. We won't allow you. We keep taxing your price of haircuts will go up. Um tax court does nobody any good. It's just it's just a a real negative type of thing. And do we have any you're saying
we have no reflection on homes what tax courts uh v you know is? We usually go to tax court with very large corporations who have you know multiple lawyers and everything. Do we have any feeling what an individual house how they get treated in tax court in the
state of Minnesota? Do you know Mr. Lang? You've been there before. >> Yeah. Did you have any did they have any sympathy or >> they did the court on one year
and Mr. He said, "I'm going to suggest that you following three years at this lower, >> but that that three years has passed. >> It's getting dark. Okay.
>> But is it the market value that you're not liking or is it >> I you know what I if you want to speak to us please do come to the microphone. Yeah. Because we are recording the meeting. Thank you. If an official appraiser came through
the house and seen the flaws that are there and the 22 23 year old carpet flooring appliances and the cracks in the brake I mean almost every corner in my house is cracked and busted
drywall falling down. So that's not an assessor's assessment. A brazer would lower the value. Now, my house could be brought up to that, but it would take like the back neighbor did. I'm sure it cost $100,000 to do what he did with new
windows, doors, and even a double garage addition. My friend just put a a new addition on a new house, just the back porch, and that was like 50,000 for just that. [clears throat] Um,
>> so do do the commissioners have any other question questions for Mr. Lang? >> Not for Mr. Lang, but for staff. >> Please take a seat. Thank you. Okay, proceed. >> What What do we anticipate? You know, we go to task court with these very large
corporations and we I don't know we I don't know exactly what we spend fighting the large corporations. Do we have any idea what we would pay to fight tax court on a small individual residential? It doesn't work like that. >> Well, we'd have to hire a lawyer. We don't do it ourselves. We
>> No, always hire somebody. I got an assistant attorney there. Have you been a tax court? >> No, >> you have for the county. >> The assessor, please respond. >> I don't know. In terms of the tax court now. >> Oh, okay.
>> The what it would cost? I have honestly no idea. That was something we would try and do in house actually. Yes, we would work with our local Okay. Because the corporations we always seem to hire somebody because >> what is needed. Yeah. >> Because they have
>> and one thing that we don't know what gave his information but he has not said what he thinks that value should be. >> Well, I'm going to assume we would spend at least probably time, energy, and effort restaff $20,000 fighting it in the tax court. So, I would just assume
give Mr. laying a $20,000 building value versus and say let's go on with life versus spending it on tax court. So, I'll make a motion to reduce his his um I guess the building value uh $20,000.
>> What was it? I don't see >> 312 prior. >> No, it says prior and post. They're the same. They're identical. >> That's right. >> 353,400. >> What was it last year? 333,000.
>> Okay. So, it still would go up. >> I said math. >> Is there a second motion that's on the table right now? >> Three. So, went up 30,000. So, half of it would be 15. >> Is there a second to the motion that's
on the table? >> Hearing none. That motion fails. Would anyone like to uh make a motion regarding this property? >> I'll make a motion to split it 15,000. >> There a second to that. >> I'll second that. >> Okay. >> And the justification, just for the
record, um is that >> unappreciate, you know, I can't find the reason why the value went up that high. And I go back to my original statement about moving things up in large increments like that. you know, whether it was a mistake in the past or whatever
that might be. So, I just feel as though that we could do it a little slower and um you know, unequivocally that there's you could argue about the differences and everything, but there's a small change. We can tell that the
land values there. I don't think the dispute so much is in the land value as it is in the condition in the property of the building um or the house. That's what I heard. So there's a small change that could be there arguing that everybody else around has something newer than what they do and more square feet or whatever it might or less square
feet but yet newer things. So I would say a cost of a door cost the same regardless of the size of the building. Okay. Anyone else have thoughts? Okay. Um
Commissioner Sing has moved Mr. Ward is seconded decreasing the value of the property by $15,000. Is there any further discussion >> and that's something that we are allowed to do? >> Right. Yep. It would be within that 1%.
>> All those in favor of proceeding with the motion to decrease the property value, please signify by saying I. I. >> Who are saying nay? Nay. >> Motion carries. Wait, do you get a vote? >> Oh, I'm sorry, Chelsea. >> Oh, I think it's tied.
>> Nay. >> Yes. >> Okay. So, that's a tie. So, the motion does not proceed. >> Then there's no change. >> There would be no change. >> And thank you. Sorry about that. Okay. Um, >> just a question clarification on this
big spreadsheet and everything. There's a difference at to the far right. You have no ch you have no CBA. >> Some have a difference. Yeah. >> Right. Some have a difference, but then you say no change. So you already decided to do that difference, decrease something 30 like here.
>> So >> 356. >> I want to explain this a little bit. >> Yeah. Did did your department decide to decrease that 356? >> This is when we didn't have system difference. So this is what it was. This is what we suggest that change is
>> at the local board. We voted no change because we couldn't we didn't have actual numbers to pull from the system. So >> that gave them the option to come to county for >> the different what's the difference number? >> The difference is is the adjustments we had made and need approval for.
>> Okay. So you did make some adjustments to a number of properties. So this one the top one old homer road you decreased. Now did you decrease the the bu does this uh building or land? So here's prior land pro building. >> Okay. Post land 85. So that's
>> none of the land changed on any of the >> Okay. You but you >> Okay. So you dropped the value of the house. Okay. Okay. So I'm understanding. So >> if I understand a lot changed. >> Everything on this sheet that's not green or yellow will be on consent.
Correct. >> Right. Which is fine. But uh take note that there were a lot of changes made to some properties for some reason and we don't know why. >> Okay. Mr. Peach and Mrs. Peach, could you introduce
yourselves? >> I'm Diane Peach. >> William Peach. >> Welcome. >> Thank you. Um thank you for the opportunity to appeal. And we sent an email on the 5th to Marsha who is our commissioner. We live in district 5 south of Stockton and included the
assessor's office in that. Um just to recap that information, um our value in 2025 was 531,000. Our value in 2026 was 595,000. Um we did call and discuss with Heather,
she did a walk through and then decreased the value to 587,000. So it only went down a small amount. And is this residential? >> This is residential. Yes. >> New new build. >> No, it was built at 96 1996.
>> 96 I think it was built and it we just purchased it last October. That's right. >> So it was on the market forundred in five days. Right. >> Starting at listed at 575. You bought it. >> Went down to 550. >> Went down to because no one's making offers on it. Down to 525. No one's
making offers on it. It goes down to 499,000. That's when our realtor said, "This is at least a reasonable price. Acreages don't come up. If you want to go after it, which we did." So, >> 96. >> No, it was it was built. It was built
96. So, we just purchased it last October. Oh, yeah. >> And you purchased it for $4.99. >> We purchased it for $4.99, but it had been on the market for 105 days. Started at 575. >> Our realtor's telling us it's too high. It's 550. It's too high. It's 525. It's
too high. At $4.99, she said it's at least reasonable. If you want it, go get it. So, we purchased it at $4.99 >> and then this spring it was valued at 535 at the time and then it's up to so we're at a 100,000 above our purchase
price in October. So, the >> we're biased of course, but we can't help but look at that and think >> that's our market value. So we spoke to a real estate lawyer and he suggested we have an appraisal done. So last month we had it appraised and she used six
comparables that were in our area had recently sold were acreages >> and she started out with now I might come back higher than what the county assessed it at. So >> and we knew that we wanted an honest >> she was honest with us and she warned us. So she said you may not be happy
with what I come up with but she said she also stands behind her work. So she was very thorough what she gave to us. And personally we feel of course our weight is >> the purchase price. It was sold in this market to a willing buyer which is what
your website says you are trying to replicate >> and it had been on the market all summer. >> Yeah. >> And hadn't sold. So um yes. So we went and our lawyer suggested well if you're going to be in court go get a third party assessment value. And so
regardless of claims of what the market was doing at the time we purchased it, which again for us we feel like our purchase price within a few months is the real number everyone should be striving for, but we went ahead and got an assessed value that was slightly higher. >> Yeah. The
>> appraised what was the appraised value? >> The appraised value was 515700. >> 515. >> Say that again. >> 515,700. So slightly more than we paid for it, but a lot lower than the assessed value
is. >> May 11th. >> So we would like >> You're not ready to sell and move on. [laughter] >> We hope to be here 25 years at least. And we know we have an acreage with lots of snow and tree removal. We're hoping
for 25 good years. So this is the year to get it addressed if we're going to get it addressed. And we are all for we're not trying to pay we're all for paying our fair share. You build and maintain communities through good school systems whether it
be character counts or kindness clubs. That's how you build a community. We are all for that. It's just we're at about 117% and what you claim is 90 to 105. And I know no one really cares so much about individual properties. It's
countywide. But we feel like we can't help but feel like we're being a little taken advantage of. But theund uh the 500 and uh 15700 we would be happy with that. It's at
103%. It's at the upper end of your stated scale, but that sounds much better to us than the 117%. So >> the the 587 that we have is that I don't have a calculator. >> It's 117.6%
of what we paid for it >> of what you paid for it. And it's 113.8% of the appraised 515,000. >> The difference between our assessor value and their appraisal is 71,3. >> Right. And but now there's an 8 8,400.
Who came up with that figure? A reduction of 8,000. >> The assessment. So we went through the initial call. We'd like to challenge this. They came out and did a walk through and they did a small correction for I think they had the entire house being wood floors and part of it
carpeted and so they did a they moved it down. >> That makes so much difference. I mean, my gosh, people [laughter] >> So, you got a floor. That's a good thing, right? >> Yeah. >> Are there any other questions from the commissioners for um
>> Could you please remind me what you're requesting? 515700. So just to go with the >> that's the third party. Okay. So we maybe we got a pretty decent deal on the property. But >> um and our
>> that's what we would try to get out of it if we were turning around to sell it. >> Yeah. >> Is 515. That's how we would come up with that market value that we would >> And um do you have or did you share with the assessor's office a copy of that? >> We did send that. We had six comparables
all within the past 18 months um on all within like 12 miles of our home. So, she wasn't reaching >> and some of course were a little higher, a little lower. And then she made adjustments based on location, number of bathrooms, bedrooms, and all of that.
So, she's a she's very >> we have a great opinion of her because >> it was recommended by our lawyer. She and she started out the conversation with I might be higher than what this county assessed it at. So, y >> she prepped us with I'm an honest person, but I'll stand by my work. So,
we feel good about her number. >> Thank you. Are there any other questions? >> Well, you're throwing a lot of numbers out. So, I'm looking at we have it at 587. You'd be happy with 515. So, that's >> a reduction of 71 >> 713
>> 70 70 almost 70,000 >> 2,000 >> and we just paid $4.99 for it last October. >> Okay. Okay. All right. Otherwise, I would like to give the assessor's office >> I'm doing my pencil math. Sure. >> Otherwise, I would like to give the assessor's office an opportunity to respond or share additional information.
If there's no more questions for the uh >> Thank you, >> Property owner. Thank you very much. >> I did not walk through the property. Um that's why Heather's here. I did get a chance to review quickly the
um appraisal. I did have a few issues with the appraisal and I'm just going to run through those. >> Yeah, go ahead. Um, the few issues I had with the appraisal, it was a little bit more difficult to follow because they utilized an agricultural appraisal form
versus a residential appraisal form. So, that just made it a little more difficult to follow. Uh, so there was no sales comparison grid where it shows what adjustments were actually made for bedrooms, bathrooms, floorings, acreage. None of those things were in there. Um
I'm sure they were made somewhere. The subject and the comparable sales were given a 1acre site while the one property that she gave the most weight to was given a 2acre site with no reasonable explanation of such. I I'm
not sure why everything else was given a 1acre site and the subject and the property she gave the most weight to was given a 2acre site. Uh there was no quantitive support for the external and obso and functional obsolescence.
Uh there was 20% functional obsolescence on the the peaches property and 10% external obsolescence. Um the external obsolescence did say uh it was due to increased building costs,
inflation and uncertain foreign trade policies. >> What does that obsolescence? >> Uh I mean I know what it means in general but >> outside factors that can affect the sale. >> Okay. >> Um the functional obsolescence would be
inside. Say there's an elevator going top and bottom. Maybe somebody put an elevator in for somebody in a wheelchair. You know, that would be considered probably a functional obsolescence because that's not necessary kind of deal. >> Okay. >> So, there was a 20% functional, 10%
external with no quantitative support for either. Um, there was one of the sales comps that she did have in there that was built in the '60s and when it sold needed a ton of work. The other thing I had a a an issue with is when I
was looking through this, each comp was listed as a superior property. So that means every com she used was saying that this that sale or house was better than what she was doing her valuation on. Um
the reconciliation page it should have an analysis on why things were weighed a certain way or why was one was given more more weight in the analysis but it was just definitions of each approach. Um, so there wasn't any explanation of
how this number came to be. Um, and then I already talked about the negative adjustments. Um, but I guess for now that's kind of I just had some issues with the way it was done. It was
I would I would have assumed a a comp study would have include higher and lower quality properties. Um, this indicated that every property she used was of better quality. >> Hello, I'm Heather with the assessor's
office. Uh, I went and did a walk through along with JR. Uh, he's another uh appraiser in our office. So, it was two people that walked through. Um, and we walked through on 423. Um, and I did inform the peaches that
um, part of the value change why it went up so much is when they bought the house, we actually originally only had it at 10 acres and they had it surveyed, the survey came back and there's actually 13.57
acres. So, that's where you're seeing some of the value. Um, >> but is that classified rural egg or forest land or what rate is is is the extra three acres? >> $8,000 an acre. >> Yep. 8,000. Yep. Excess acres is what we have it listed as.
>> But it's it's not crop land, is it? >> No, >> it's woods. >> It's woods. >> Woods and deer and coyote and turkey habitat. >> Yep. >> Okay. >> Um, so before so last year's Sorry. So for the 10 acres value of land only, we
had it listed at 135,000 alone for land for the 10 acres. With it going up to the 13.57 acres, the land value went up to $163,600. So it went up uh 28,600 difference in that one.
>> I ask a quick question. Did you were you aware it was 13 acres or 10 acres? We were aware that it was >> Yeah, we I was aware it was 13 itself. So on the uh on beacon it said plus minus 10. So I from that I drew it was
not >> but on the sales sheet when they sold the house did it say 13. >> I think it said plus minus 10. >> Okay. I just >> I got on beacon and you can do your own polygon with the measurement and it was 13. And then I have reg grid which is what I use to keep track of. >> I'm just curious if you
>> So yeah for the average person look at it. It's an un surveyed acreage. If you care to look, you can just go on it own and draw it. >> Yeah, I've done it many times. >> So, the property itself went up 286. >> Um, no, sorry. The So, from the the
total value of the house and land it in 2026, it was 531,300 and that was with, like I said, the 10 acres of land because that's what we had it originally. In 2027 with the updated change in the land value uh we had a
total value of 595,400. When we walk through we did notice that the there was a difference in the flooring. We originally had it as wood and tile. There was not. It was wooden carpet. So that difference was $8,400.
Um so that brought the house down to for the building alone for the house uh was 423,400. So that means the total value for the 2027 with the house change and the land
value came to 587,000 >> but the additional three acres was 28,000. >> Yes, it went up 28,600 with the additional 3.57 acres. So that's where
we get the the total of the um original of 59 595,400 but with the difference in the flooring which brought it down >> um 587,000. >> Mr. Begley, do you have a question? >> Yes. Um yeah. Can you help explain the
difference between the assessed value and the market value, which is what we're held accountable to by the state is what houses actually sell for versus what they're assessed at. If the house was just sold in last October, >> Yep. >> why was it why was it so much less than
the appraised the assessed value? >> It sold for $4.99 and it was assessed at >> 575 was I'm sorry. It was listed at 575. >> Is there a reason why the difference?
Was it a U buyer sale? So it means >> no >> you can't you can't but that's a powerful argument if they bought it in October at $4.99 that's the market value. >> Yep. Yeah. And so everybody's
opinion of a value of property is everybody's opinion. So they were like $4.99 good. That's what she >> me and another person in the office. We walk through um and we came back and compared notes and we >> and the
>> we we changed the flooring otherwise. Other than that, nothing. >> And the appraisal that was done was a third different number. >> Yep. >> So yeah, >> kind of where it all comes from. >> And the thing with this, >> but I guess my thing is this. >> And there is no doubt you all good at
your jobs. There's no doubt about that. But this one to me is a little bit cut and dry. only multiple properties and I can definitely understand picking apart the the the other side of it there. There's no doubt you know what you got going on there. Lindsay, you're good at what you do. But this one's pretty cut
and dry. I mean, if we say the $800, $900,000 building down there, which makes no sense why it got bought, but it sets a precedent for everybody else, >> and then we turn around and say, "Well, what you were willing to pay for this, it doesn't set the same precedent." That's a double standard to me because
it was on the market in a fair amount of time. This is what somebody's willing to pay for it. And then we turn around and say, "Well, actually, you were wrong." Well, that's like me saying that $800,000 building, I don't agree that was an $800,000 building. Don't go raising my taxes because of that. It's the same. It's it's a double standard.
So, in my situation, I think a very fair thing to do here is to work off from a realized thing that they said that was $515,700. We we can arguably say, "Hey, there's three three acres here that, you know, probably should taxed." And if we say
that $28,000 exists because it does exist. It's a bonus. Congratulations. You just got three extra acres. Um I wish I could have that happen to me. Trust me, it'd be the other way in my world. Um you know, if we add that to this, that's 50 $543,700.
And if we add 1% to that, which is roughly $5,000, comes up with $548,000. If we look at the 595 and the 499, that's almost exactly half. And half of that half is actually a realized gain for you by picking up an additional three acres.
>> So that would be a fair, you know, if we subtracted that 28,000 off from there, you're very close to the number you would have been satisfied with. And to me, that's a that's a that's a way to kind of split it. You gain three extra acres. and we still really are working
off the 499 mark. We're just saying the 515 that you were happy with, add the 3 acres and we're there. So, I would say that'd be a starting point in my world to to try to make this fair. If that was a two, threey old sale, I think we'd have an argument point, but that's not
that long ago. >> Um, will Bright the question and then you, Commissioner Ward? >> I'm not quite done. Sorry. I have one more thing. Um, and for the square footage of this house, it is a really big house. that has a threec car garage. Um the only increase it did have besides
the land to make it correct uh was the $19 increase of base per square foot. And it looks like we have a square footage of heated square feet of 2,136. So just so you guys are aware of that as well. Sorry. >> Thank you.
>> Yes. Uh being that the uh my brain I've been here since 5:00 a.m. My brain's not anymore. Uh they had their appraisal done and they had a
survey drawn. The 3 whatever it was acres that change yearover-year just land change yearoveryear was 28,600. >> Mhm. land itself from assessment 25 to
26 did not change. >> Correct. >> That's what I was. >> Yep. Yeah. Yeah. >> Wonder. >> Yeah. Yeah. >> Okay. >> Yeah. That was a question I had. Bob, you're you're our resident expert. Woodland in that neighborhood. Is that selling for $8,000 an acre? >> It's it's >> Bob, if you answer, I want you to come
to the podium. >> Or if you don't want to answer, that's fine, too. I mean, but you you're my resident expert on land sales. It sounds >> we want to take a look at that at at that area. We have had some sales where the woodland and not even top woodland
has been selling for much higher prices, >> but then they're usually buying it for hunting and such. I mean, three acres nobody would buy for >> $900,000. >> And I have another meeting to go to and I did have a few notes for you, but I'll leave you this one. We just had a record
month of home sales in May. There were 79 77% of the sales were above county market value. The assessor will be working with that. You'll probably be seeing that.
And what it shows is demand that there is there is keen interest in homes and there is significant demand at present to buy them. >> You know, one of the things that I think you know, Commissioner Vagely was worried about our who was owning our farmland a while ago. Who are these
people Winona County residents and they're just moving within the county or do we have a migration in from outside the I you can just >> we we've got documentation on that. >> You use your listen >> and I think it's still current and I'll get that for you. >> All right. Thank you. >> Thank you.
>> You have anything else you want to tell us? >> No, that was it. >> Great. I really appreciate your pre. You know, I'm I'm confused. Um because recently in a family situation, we had to have a house appraised and assessed and neither one of them cared that that
house was virtually destroyed internally. I mean, electrical outlets were were damaged. Uh holes in the ceiling to put new lights without installation. A bathroom was tore out, gutted, not put back together. That didn't seem to matter to them at all. And you seem to we we we changed their
taxes because they had carpet versus wood. Um those they were metropolitan. It was a metropolitan area. It was basically square footage. No, I need to know what the square footage is. I don't care that the house is not sellable at you know because of its condition. They didn't seem to care about condition and
we seem to put a lot on condition. So I'm confused. Is that our personal preference or is that the state rules or, you know, to me square footage would, you know, maybe be more equitable? Like my personal house, all the appliances are, you know, 35 years
old. They're all breaking. You know, I had an assessor come through. Yeah. That, you know, and Yeah. Come on in. The carpet's worn, the the tile, you know, it just >> is your washboard rusty? >> It is. I have one. Can we please stay on the of this particular >> Why the difference is it it's why would
a metropolitan assessor appraiser have a different standard than a one on a county one? I don't I don't understand it. >> What was your number? >> 548. >> Yeah. What's your figure? >> Yeah. 548. >> I'm going to make a motion based on the current sale. I appreciate the work put
into this. Um but looking at what they asked for with the additional land value at a 1% puts us at 5485. I think that's reasonable and justifying just because there are three acres that weren't getting taxed that were found out. Um, so that's going to be my motion.
>> Okay. Is there a second? >> I'll second that. >> Okay. Well, Commissioner Esing's made a motion that we reduce the property value to 548 >> 5 >> 548,000 >> 500 548,500 >> which is a reduction of 39,000 from what
the assessor's office um >> re-evaluated. >> Yes, re-evaluated. Commission have a question because we do land different than house different. So are we reducing the house? I mean do we have to make that distinction because you assess land
different than you do houses. >> So the three acres is there >> right? >> Three acres is there. So I'm assuming we would adjust it according to the house. >> That's why that's why I said that. >> Oh >> yeah. >> Okay. I I made the 28,000 on the land base, but
>> Okay. Okay. All right. Any further comments? None. Okay. So, all those in favor of Commissioner Elsing's motion to reduce the value, please signify by saying I. >> I. >> I. >> Anyone have anyone opposed, please say nay. Okay. Motion carries.
>> Clarification. 5485. >> Correct. >> Oh, 5485. [clears throat] >> Correct. >> Thank you. >> Okay. Um, next is HY. >> Is there a representative from HY in the audience? >> Didn't you list them as a tax court?
>> Nope. >> Participants. No. Oh, I not >> they did not show up. So, that would move to consent business. >> Okay. >> Okay. Great. And is there anyone in the audience
that would like us to hear their appeal who did not sign up? Would you please come forward and tell us who you are? Are are you Miss >> Larry Green? Larry two highs on here. >> Yes, there are two high ves on.
>> What's the other location? >> Larry Graden. I live in Mount Vernon Township. I uh thought I was signed up, but evidently wasn't. I I'm have a some documents here I'd like to
share. >> Do we need to make copies? >> Oh, you got you made copy. No, >> I don't think so. >> This one is Which one is uh
the insurance person? >> So, I think one of those is for Dwayne. >> Oh, yeah. This looks like the same thing. >> I got two of these. >> Do the Do the folks in the assessor's office have a copy of the documents?
No. Right. I'm going to give you my copy. >> This is >> I want you to see them.
>> This one is I think that's what you need there. The 26 27. Did everybody get the insurance and the transmission >> and the valuation? Gotcha. [clears throat]
>> Okay. I I uh did go to the township meeting. And by the way, here's a copy of the appraisal, all the photos and and comparables. If anybody wants to look at them, you're welcome to. Uh, as
you can see, our home that Nance and I built in 2006 for $350,000 is now, according to the assessor, worth a lot more than that. And [snorts]
I went to the board of adjustment and Vernon Township. didn't really get any satisfaction although there was only two board members there. Uh, and I just think it's it's uh excessive
and uh I I can't believe that it increased that much that quickly and you know they got it at what is it 27 here. It's u put my glasses on.
>> Can I just clarify you have a lot of properties is it's just this one you're Fantastic. >> Yeah. >> Thank you. >> Is this tied in with the farm buildings, Larry? >> Pardon? >> Is this tied in with the Heer shed? Is this value >> tied in with this value? Okay.
>> Just residential. >> Just so the heer sheds aren't here are not tied into the this >> Did I give her the wrong one? >> Well, the heer sheds are on the insurance. >> The heer sheds are on the insurance, Larry. So, I was just trying to figure out are the heer sheds. >> Well, that's on the insurance, but
>> that's part of this parcel. >> No. Okay, that's what I was wondering. I'm just trying to understand. >> It's a separate parcel. >> Okay. >> I don't have a problem with what the heer sheds are valued at. >> I was just trying to figure out if they were valuing that on this stat insurance. They're valuing it at 638,200.
You kind of put a little mark there. That's what the insurance values it at. >> I'm just making sure I understand where you and Nancy are at. >> The insurance they're saying the house is 638. So, this is only Larry and NY's house.
It's none of the outside sheds, correct? >> Yeah, I know. I'm just I don't know how they have it together. >> What's the valuation now? I gave my papers for the assessment >> 968, but I'm assuming that's with land in it. >> It's 2 and a half acres with the home. >> Is it 8.96 without the land, Chelsea? Is
that correct? >> It It's on the property. >> So, does this have the land in it? >> Two and a half acres. per acre and then there. >> Yeah, it's the two and a half acre piece. >> What's the land value that was? So I
don't have to >> the total please. Yeah, give me a second. >> I just want to subtract it off this 960. So we're looking at a building acres >> there. He's looking at 07001961,
>> correct? >> Okay. >> Yep. >> So you're saying that the land is 72,000. people >> 749. >> So that would roughly put You're saying Larry and NY's house is appraised
give give or take? 8.90. >> Yep. >> So the land is worth how much an acre? >> Well, right now 75 divided by 2.5. What are we looking at? 32,000, Larry? >> Yeah. Well, you got gold.
>> That's your well and septic on there. Yeah, I can see that. Anyway, any questions of me? I I won't This is getting later than I thought. >> It is getting late, isn't it? >> So, the what's currently assessed is 968 968,000. >> I'd say the land's fair because with a
well septic and two and a half acres, you know, 3010 and say 10,000 an acre, I mean, it puts you about 75. So, you've got that about right. But what you're saying is that the $893, Larry, versus the 638 for the insurance cover, there's a $260,000
discrepancy. >> Well, and and the appraisal >> appraisal 750 >> and appraisal 750 >> is 750. And like I said, they they uh she well the insurance people on the appraiser took photos and measured and all of that
stuff. When I talked to the assessors, God bless them, they got a hell of a job. But I I I talked to them and they said, "Well, we need to come out and if we come out, we might raise it because you have wood floors. Even though our wood floors are
>> said, if you got you decreased it, >> even though our wood floors are pine floors, they're not hardwood. We don't know what's the cheaper option. They have little nicks in them. I call that character. But uh so you know she said I
talked to two different people once a guy and once a gal and they both said well if we come out we might raise it. So I thought instead of doing that I was I got an appraisal and they do the same thing. They measure everything. They they probably go to the same school or pass the same test. So that's what I did
and and uh I don't want to raise anymore. So, I just decided to do that and I will yield to your judgment if there's any other question to me. >> It's a pretty big deal. >> And you've done no major improvements
since >> we haven't changed a thing since we built it. We built it like we wanted and it's nothing's changed. >> Sure. And what again? Mount Vernon. >> Mount Vernon Township. Yeah. >> Okay. Okay. Thank you very much. You're welcome.
That makes sense. >> Uh, I do want to start with any call we get, we tell them we could lower it, it could stay the same or it could go up. We just want everyone to be aware of that. Uh Larry's called a couple years in a row
and every time we have offered to do a walkth through, we have not been allowed to do a walkth through. By statute, we do not make a change. So, we did not make a change. >> By statute, you can't make a change because they don't allow a walkth through. >> Correct. We don't know the quality or
the condition of the interior of the buildings. So you could have a barn that's made into a house, but if we can't go through it, we don't know that >> statute is that >> I I do not know off. >> But it is somebody can provide that to me. That's on the Google.
>> That seems criminal. It's your private property. It's your >> And how are we going to know what >> he needs to go through your home? >> I see. >> So then we don't make >> I see the reason that they have to >> Yeah. So, if we don't know what quality
or condition is, I mean, you could have an a beautiful exterior and a very cruddy interior or vice versa. Um, if if if you want to have an adjustment, you that that appraiser who did the appraisal for him went through his home,
that's how they have to do it. >> It just again, the system is very >> Yep. anti >> and on top of that it is >> constituency. >> The square feet of the house is 3,685 square feet. >> So Lindsay, can you explain something to
me? So prior to last year and I I realize we're not moving that. I just I'm just curious, you know, a very large jump from last year to this year. Was there a large jump between the year before to this year to 2025? >> One moment I can get that.
>> Now this property you um Oh, wait. You're probably income. The problem is income because those tax refunds are based on income too. Property tax that they're based on income and income. There's two different portions of it. Yeah. >> This one qualify for green acres.
>> The year prior was 4.83%. >> So that would have been >> what the year prior to that parcel went up 4.3. >> It was about 850. >> 4.83. >> 4.83 prior. So in 24 it was 850. In 25
it was 8.96 and in 26 it jumped up to 968. >> That sound right? >> I mean I'm just give or take. >> Yep. >> Probably pretty close on that. >> Are there any other questions for the assessor?
>> Do is there a reason for kind of that really big jump on that or >> square footage and the base rate? >> That was it. It was that was the base rate that everybody got. Oh, everybody's went up that >> it's $19 a >> almost 4,000 square feet
>> and we don't set the base rate. We do, >> but it's got to it was >> it was one of the changes we did to get the residential properties into compliance in the statute you were asking about. >> You're asking >> the price per square foot went up 19,
but that was to keep us within the 90 to 105. >> Right. But the again, in my opinion, the price should only go up like on new construction because old worn out construction isn't the same dollars. >> The static you had asked about, Mrs. Ward, >> it's just not >> 273.2.
>> 273.2. >> Yes. >> And is there's some numbers in front of that, isn't there? >> Nope. >> Just statute Minnesota statute 273.2. Okay. >> Okay. >> All right. Well, our local legislators need to learn this. >> There you go. >> Better. And >> any uh other questions for either the
property owner or the assessor? >> So, a question for you, Lindsay. How I mean how do we we're always working off some other number, right? And it comes to a point where I mean this is somewhat real. I
mean an insurance company is going to have some sort of a fair value to what something is to replace it. >> Not disagreeing, >> you know. And then you have, you know, pretty reputable person here at American Consulting. I know who these people are
and then but you know we're always just working off from and again this isn't on you but this is everybody that's got a property like this to where it is today right and I I feel this too because I feel that I have multiple properties that I would struggle I think trying to
get an assessed value out of them and so is is there a point where we reset and say hey yeah this $1 got carried on to what it already is. But there's clear and concise evidence from,
you know, multiple insurance companies or, you know, something like this. I I have a policy with Bloomfield, Larry, so they actually do my house, too, because houses that tend to be higher in value is kind of hard to find good insurance for. And this is a great company, and I
think they have my house appraised very fair. You know, what it's worth. And of course, I'm always trying to downplay because I don't want to pay the policy, but uh what what how do we say, okay, we're just out of whack. We're
just too high. You know, >> we might be that is why we send out those valuation notices. >> Well, like and I look at this and say, this isn't necessarily what you're at. I'm just saying this is cumulative. That's why I asked to go back and I'm kind of looking for a trend. like at some point the county superseded the
value of this place and it continues to grow >> and now we are a4 million dollars over and we have to go whoa hold on like we're because we when we stack these it's it's a lot of times like I say on
these u um when we hand out 3% raises the person making $200,000 and the person making $40,000 there's a big difference so when we come in and do these well raise my taxes 25% % on a $200,000 building, a million dollar building is a big difference. And so I
think my question is is this isn't even specific to Larry, but when we have some concise evidence with this, how do we how do we kind of reset that and especially if we can only move it a small percentage? >> So again, I'm just going to reiterate the whole mass appraisal portion of it,
right? That's how we do it. And we send out the valuation notices. And if you think this is ridiculous, that's when you call us and we come out to your property. >> You have to let us through the property to make a good assessment. >> So yeah, and I don't and that, you know,
that's Larry's right to do that, but at the same time, do we have the >> do we have the ability? >> We've gone to properties in the past during quintile. >> Um, and you're like, that's not worth that. And you do lower it. Yeah, >> it it's when it's quintiled, if that
number makes sense with the information from the exterior. If we are not allowed in the interior, then we make gross assumptions about condition, rooms, you know, appliances, we kind of have to go from there.
>> In your in your opinion, in and again that you've got a very difficult job. In your opinion, in a situation like this, which I mean, and I can back this up because I work with Bloomfield, um, they don't make unfair assessments
to drive policy premiums up. I can concur with that. Anybody can get uh, this is not against Mr. Graden, but anybody can get an appraisal and say, because I'm guilty, make it make it this number, right? we
can make an appraiser number, but insurance companies tend to not lie and they tend to be on the high side if anything. So, at the end of the day, I guess in your opinion, what's your take on this having I'm not going to say this is conclusive evidence, but seeing that
there is a pretty large discrepancy here, how how do you view this? How do we justify this 250,000, 200,000, whatever it is? >> I understand your question. I would say over the past
four years maybe when you call just let us come in we would have never gotten here. I I don't appraise that area for multiple reasons but we just go by the loss if we can go
through the property. Yes. If Heather I don't know the next time you're doing Mount Vernon and there >> maybe next year I go through I have not done that area that assigned area. Um >> I do think Mount Vernon is next year. >> I guess I guess the
>> I think it's next year. Um and he has called every year and I I told him I said we are more than happy to come out and take a look at your property. I said it can go either way. It could go up, it could stay the same, or it could go down depending on what we have and what is
actually on the property. >> But what have you been waiting for the floor? So, pardon me. >> What was the assessed value last year again? You mentioned someone >> 850 >> 896 >> 896
>> and a jump to 960. >> Oh, the pre Yeah, the previous year was 850. >> Yep. The only reason for the jump was the base rate of the $19 per square foot. >> All right. >> Yep. >> Yep. Gotcha. >> How many square feet did you have it?
$19 a square foot increase. >> Uh 3685. >> Yep. 3685. Heated square feet. Yes. >> Is that living space? Is that garage and everything? >> No garage. No. >> So what? >> No basement. Um 3,685
square feet. Well, I'm going to I'm going to go back to being in real estate. I I use that 3% raise increase. It It's easy to not allow it to get under on a $200,000 property or $300,000
property, when you look at these base rate increases, they can catch up a little quicker to fair market value. When you go to the high side and you start adding percentage basises, they can get out of fair market value very quickly. And that's what I think Mr.
Graden is trying to say is, hey, I'm on the upper echelon. When you start stacking 3% on a $200,000 salary or an $800,000 house, it throws you out of fair market value very very quickly because those higher valued houses don't appreciate rapidly. We also have to
understand where where are we seeing the increase in value? It is lower to midlevel houses are going up very quickly. The highle houses are not going up that fast. So that's the that's that's the flaw in the system when we use percentagebased
increases on these types of properties and I think they get out of whack very very quickly. Commercial real estate can do the same thing. So it's the ability of you know that's it makes sense on paper but it doesn't make sense when it comes down to writing the checks out. So in this situation I think what we have
is a ballooned effect from multiple increases that have pushed it way out of fair market value. And so I although I don't think we can bring this back down to maybe a $750,000 valuation, Larry, I I do think there's a little wiggle room here to try to stop
some of this this hyperinflation on the higher end when we do these types of things. So by the book, Lindsay, 100%. I you did it by the book, right? But the reality of it is is that this is going to get snowball out of control next year
if this happens again. You as a board can make those adjustments. Yeah, we at that time >> I think we got to figure out a way how to do this. >> Mr. Ward, but you said the only reason that it went up was there was 3,685 ft. And I just did 20 because it's
easier math. 20. That's That's not these figures. That's only 7,3. >> So that is a base rate change. >> It also goes Yeah. >> But it doesn't add up to what you got it. >> So part of that >> just to help her
Okay. >> It doesn't add up to that. And then I hate to say this, but we don't have personal property tax in Minnesota yet, do we? When you My opinion, when you go into that house and you're looking at how they live and everything, that's personal property. That's not what
>> We're not looking at that. >> Well, you said you look at the appliances and you look at the floor, if it's wood or you're not taking the floor with you when you leave or sell the house. >> No, >> that's part of the house. We We don't look at the personal property. We look at this shell >> inside the house to make it >> to check the quality and condition of
the property and verify, you know. Oh, I could say it's only one bathroom, but now I got four. It's verification. >> Okay. So, are we ready to anyone ready to propose? Yes, Commissioner Hagen. >> When the appraisal was done, um Larry,
did they mention or does art assessor department know what what comps are for this house this property? I >> showed the proposal to the assessors at the town >> town board meeting. You passed it around. >> You passed it around. >> Yeah. So, were there any comparable any
comparable? >> Yeah, there's six of them. You'd like to see them >> in Mount Vernon Township? In in Mount Vernon? >> No, I in Mount Vernon Township. There's six comparables. >> I don't know. >> Oh, okay. Okay.
>> Didn't study them. >> Okay. It should be your neighborhood, right? >> Similar similar, >> not necessarily direct neighborhood. Right. >> Right. Right. >> Well, it says district. So that's your township. >> Yeah. Especially those. >> So I I just going to go stand back to
what I've said before. This is this is a flaw in how we tax and assess and move things up on a percentage basis. I I I try to bring it back to a fair market value scenario. And the easiest way to explain is if there's a lot if you can buy a house for $150,000
and there's a 10% increase it goes to 165. [snorts] You can easily get that value back out of that the same 10% on a $900,000 house drives it to $990. You've got to go get that. >> We are kind of turning over the same information. So I'm wondering if anyone's ready to um
>> got move forward. >> I guess I I I I don't think we can get it back to where it was. Um, but I think we can kind of stop the hyperinflation with some of these things. Um, I think there's a enough evidence from some
pretty reputable things here. Um, pretty hard to fool an insurance company. Um, you know, there's not a there's not a uh there's not a prorate on this where they're saying, "Hey, the 638 is, you know, 80% of the value. It is a full value." Um, I mean, the best I can see,
unless somebody handed that up. Um, so I guess I would I would I would move to at least leave the appraised value of what it was in 2025 to not add the hyperinflation on a property that's
probably arguably already 10 to 20% over value. >> So you're saying >> high side, Larry, but it's better than Y. What was it? I'm sorry. >> I made a motion to leave it at 8.96, which is going to put them at the 105%.
>> Yes. >> Okay. So, there's a motion on the floor made by Commissioner Elsing, seconded by Olsen, set the value at 896 to 800. Uh, I personally not going to support that motion. Um, I feel like it undercuts um our assessor's office. Um, the law tells
them that they need to be able to inspect the property, and I understand that Mr. didn't want that, but that does stop them from being able to do their jobs and potentially do the re-evaluation. I feel like that allows people to then
circumvent the system. >> I'm not going to support the issues. Anyone else? I just a comment. I'm trying to figure out on these comps if they're even where they are. It doesn't list partial number or address. Some of them got se Oh, they're section township range. So,
uh, Wilson Township, St. Charles Township, uh, Warren Township, um, Wilson, and then Wabasha County, Oakwood Township. >> It's going to be hard to find those values, right? >> Mount Vernon. Yeah.
>> Trying to see if it's neighbors or not. And they're these sales dates are 2024 and 2025, it looks like. >> Commissioner, I think Commissioner Ward wants to make a comment. I I would I would agree to that. But what's a very
powerful document is this because I list virtually everything. My house, my buildings, what type of floor, what type of sighting, what type of roof, how manyear roof. I mean, it's very thorough as to really what's in there. Although it's not listed out, but those questions
are all asked to generate that. And there's nothing on here knowing this company that I have the ability to downplay how much coverage I want based on value that says hey this is only 80% of assessed value. This is a full market value from your insurance company. It is
not a reduced market value. So being in real estate knowing this stuff there's a lot of conclusive evidence that says hey this is a product of hyperinflation. >> Here well I appreciate uh the participants coming tonight. the peach is left and Larry's here and and
>> and we have one at least one more to go. >> Yeah, we have one more. But you've provided the information we need to make a decision. I thank you for that because you know that didn't come free um you know to get your uh appraisal and everything. So I do appreciate people doing their homework and our room should
be packed instead of five people. >> Thank you. >> Anybody else? Okay, hearing none. Um motion on the on the table is made by me commissioner seconded by commissioner Olsen to set the value for 26 the same
as it was in 25 896800. All those in favor please signify by saying I >> I. >> Anyone opposed say nay. Nay. So I fails >> 42. >> 42 in four in favor. Two. >> Motion passes. >> Thank you. I want to take those sheets
back. >> Paul don't get to take them home and study them. Thank you, sir. Thanks for comment. >> Thanks for doing your homework. >> I gave mine to the assessment. >> I don't know. >> Larry, can we keep one set for the
meeting? >> We have to have one at least to document what you gave us. >> Okay. So, >> you get to pitch him because Chelsea has one. >> Thanks to make sure that >> we'll put them up on Larry. We'll put them on Facebook as we leave. Well, just
don't let him steal our identity like happened in January. >> My wife got stolen on January 22nd. >> Oh, your identity. Yeah, there's no Yeah, >> that's a foreign thing or not. >> You come to the podium and share your comments with us. >> Thank you.
>> Safe drive home. >> We'll send a letter out. >> Yeah. So, I'm Nathan Utsie. >> Uses. Sorry. >> Um, yeah. I feel like I'm really unprepared. I uh got my tax uh notification a little late due to a
mailing error and and then I uh yeah, I called in. Lindsay was out. She's great. I think I called at whatever time of day and an hour later she was there. Um >> and this is out in um which township is this?
>> Uh so this partial it's uh Saratoga Township. >> Saratoga. So the partial ID is R14.0000 uh three zeros. >> Y 0210. >> Gotcha. >> So the [clears throat] the problem we're
having is um the u the value of this property. Um and I I understand now I need a I need to get a appraiser and have it appraised. I didn't have enough time and
I don't know here I am. But um so last year we got our taxes this valuation notice and it was it was 2,567,000 and I fell down on my
chair and barely got up and scratched around. H at last I got over it and I thought, well, we're going to have to do something about this. And then this year it comes and it says it's $1.6 million75,000 increased.
Uh we built the building a year and a half ago. So then Lindsay says, "Well, it was not done." And there was I guess that was just an estimate at first. Now they they've got this. So now it's up to 4,230,000
for this commercial property. And we paid um like 600,000 for the property. >> And how many acres is that? >> 40 acres. >> 40 acres. >> We thought we paid a ridiculous amount. We paid 15,000 an acre for it.
>> We did. >> And um it had a trailer house on it and had a little shed on it. So, we're in the process of getting a house built on it, and I'm just trying to figure out what in the world's next thing is this going to happen. What is this what is this property going to
become? But are we going to sell it? I said, if I can get $4 million out of this, I'm going to sell it. Go somewhere else and build something else. Um, so I had a realer out today and he took a look and he gave me some advice which was get a couple appraisers
and get it appraised or one appraiser, this third party appraiser or whatever. [clears throat and cough] And I know the square footage stands against us. The problem we have is, and what the realtor told me is, you know, he said, there's a lot of Amish properties that we build buildings, but
we can't get out of them what what they're trying to say here. And we don't have electricity. We don't have HVAC. And um all the modern things need to rattle off a whole bunch of stuff, but we don't have the modern conveniences in our
buildings. And we don't build them maybe um as I shouldn't say as good, but this is just a wood stick building. It's not like a steel building or a you know quite as it's not like some commercial buildings I might say or a lot of
commercial buildings. [cough] So [clears throat] I have a value of this property at like 2.1 million is what I have in this property and >> invested. >> Yeah. >> Is that what the realtor said or that's your
>> No, that's what I have in it. >> Okay. what you built it for and what >> that that's my that's my total and what I have in the property >> the property the buildings and everything. >> Do they have a realized labor though on that because Yeah. Yeah. Well, it's Amish labor. >> Well, and that's one of the issues is
that Yeah. Because we've run into this before and I've done this too. Sweat equity still gets taxed. That's the problem. >> And I'm and I'm fine with whatever is fair. I'm fine with that. It's just it's it's so out of proportion. And then Lindsay told me about this 25% increase
across the board. And you know, we haven't even had a number yet. We we didn't even have a number. And we we're not that we had a number before and now it's 25% up. >> That number you're looking at. >> Yeah. Yeah. Well, >> in here, Lindsay, >> what? >> That's in here. Okay.
>> Right. But what I mean, it wasn't even there wasn't even a number on the property prior because this is just brand new. Um, so I don't know how that all works. I I nobody ever gave me like a a a list of how this how we get all I have is this I don't know what I have
you know this is all I have I don't have no >> breakdown >> spreadsheet of nothing I I don't know how we come up with these numbers >> and the and the biggest problem is um comparing apples to apples like where are we where are we u where's our
comparables where's our you know comparison sales I don't know. All I know if I can sell it for this, I I want to sell it. Uh but I do know I can't sell it for this is is is what the realtor told me today, you
know, uh and and a far cry from it. So, it's like Lindsay [clears throat] told me over the phone, I think it was today when I called her, she said, "You can go take a house. A house has only got this much value, and you can take this house and
you can put a $60,000 kitchen into it, and the value will not go up 60,000. And and that's about what I got. I got a I got a piece of property and we're valuing it by the square foot or some I don't know how we're valuing it all, but and all of a sudden we got a
value that we can't even get out of, you know, we can't get our money out of this thing. And if I'm going to have to pay taxes, I don't know what my taxes will be next year. I I don't know on this thing. I don't know what the this year was 44,000. I do not know what and it was and it
went up 1.6 million. So I have no idea what my tax is going to be next year if I build a house on it. I have no idea what that but that's all beside the point. Um we're I ran out of time. I guess I was all I was just behind. So getting it appraised
is my probably what I need to do now. And so I just need to I need to appeal the evaluation and whatever we can do at
a fair price is all I have. >> Uh question for staff. You have a a reduction here of $517,000. What where did that come from? >> Oh, can we ask questions of um Mr. Are you familiar with that? I mean they
did. >> Okay. So she did a change. She did she did do a change. She said since she was there this she was only there like a couple days ago. She she she reacted really fast. She did awesome. >> So what ch why did they figure they changed? >> Well we can ask her that. >> Let's ask her when she gets >> his opinion. Sister did you have a
question for the uh >> I want to hear what the property owner why does he feel it went what was your case that you got him to drop at 517,000. >> Well >> that's a big chunk of change too. >> Yeah. So, I don't think she really explained it to me, but but >> all right.
>> But I know that, you know, a lot of it's not heated. >> Uh, a lot of it doesn't have a floor. If it has a floor or if it's concrete, there's a difference. She did look at some of those things and she did make changes according to what she found. >> Okay.
>> Because she has not been there since it was done. >> Okay. All right. >> Is the way I understand. >> It's the first time I met her. >> Uh, do you have a question for him? She said she was there a year ago or so, but but it was not done at that time. I don't think so. I don't know what she's seen or when it was or what it was, but
>> Okay. >> Appreciate your appreciation >> with walking through. I agree. Walking through is is awesome. Um, you know, to see what we have or whatever. Uh, you can't see the guts of the building, but you can see uh can see the insides or see the outsides, you know. >> Okay. >> Two questions for you, sir. Um, if it's
okay, and we're I'm going to trust you on this. What did the realtor um appraise the property up? >> So he did not do an actual write up appraisal. Uh he to he tooured it. He looked at it and he said we need to do on a third party
>> appraisal evaluation not appraisal. Okay. Is is it possible you don't need to do this pass around to share your proposed thing? >> Oh no. This is just a >> Oh yeah, >> that's your green sheet. >> Yeah. And we'll get it back. >> Got it. >> That's it for now. Yeah. >> Okay. Mr. Al.
>> Yes. So I I I going to make somewhat of assumption because I I agree not every building is built the same. You know, when they look at a square footage situation, you know, is it a Taj Mahal or that it's it's it's very similar to what I said earlier because I run into this. The
cost to replace a door doesn't matter if it's a 500 foot building or a 2,000t building. The door costs the same. And that's why people don't understand rents and everything else because when it comes time to maintenance this I need you got to pay so much which is why
typically in rents it's higher per square foot in the smaller locations. So we can recognize that when I saw the $517,000 evaluation. I went under the assumption that that was you coming in saying hey yeah this this building does
not have the modern amenities that we would normally find. So looking at this, I just assumed that was a fair, hey, we subtracted out a half a million dollars to for cuz that's the HVA HVAC cost, that's the the the electric cost,
whatever that might be. So that's already to me factored in this. So what other So my question is is what other conclusive evidence do you have because we have to make a factualbased decision today? why I feel like I'm
unprepared. not prepared >> because what I've learned here lately is is we need comparables and we need >> an appraisal >> third party >> third party appraisal don't have and I and I feel like I'm
>> it definitely helps us because we have to have a findings why we think you know otherwise somebody just come in here why I feel and then you know we don't have anything to gauge off from >> right the realtor Jeff Bogle he's done a lot of properties for the Amish sold a lot of properties And what he finds out
is, and I've bought property from him, I've sold property through him. And what he finds out with Amish property, it just doesn't bring um what you know, non Amish property brings. And and this is maybe beside the
point. Totally. >> You're buying at a high price though right now. You tend to be fine if you bought 40 years. >> Um it's all beside the Yeah, that's maybe all the beside the point. But so I just I guess comparing apples to apples. I haven't seen no comparisons yet. Like how do we come up with this just I just
in Filillmore County I was not used to this kind of stuff. It was just you know I had the same amount of square footage of Filmore County. My taxes were like $10,000. And like I said it what it's going to be next year. Uh I don't know. But it's
it's scary and and you know like like you said, we have to start charging more for everything we do and and it just it just doesn't feel right. And is this the world we're in or what's going on? It just um
I guess is is the problem. >> Thanks. Appreciate it. >> So no other conclusive evidence though. >> Uh I don't know that what you make inclusive. I I just I just looking for something that we can work off from to help you out, but it's going to be difficult, you
know, because now we've got to lean on what we do know, if that makes sense. Now, that doesn't mean next year there's a situation where you could come back with some of this evidence and say very similar to Mr. Gradens, but are you going to be able to get it back to where you think it is? It's going to be difficult to do that, you know. So, it's
going to be difficult to go backwards on this. >> So, says, "Yeah, I was hoping I was buying for time, but I don't there is no there's no such thing. You can't I don't know how long it takes. >> No, probably not today. >> Right. Today like I didn't know. Yeah. >> Mr. Ward, do you have a question? >> Well,
>> so how much improvements did you make on the property and the building from 25 to 26? >> Okay. But we're looking at a 1.6 million increase. So the building was complete. It was >> back on that first year because the
first year was 25 two 2,567 announcements. >> I don't know what time of year that you're going by. What time of the year? >> Cut up date is January every year. >> So January 2nd of 2025. >> Was it complete?
>> It wasn't. It wasn't >> because you were still quite complete. >> We open in April. Um, no, it wasn't quite complete. Wait, what? 90%. >> That's when the paper came out. It's complete. >> Yeah, 90% complete. >> Uh, in January, yeah, it would have been like 90.
>> Yeah, at least 90%. >> Almost complete. >> We have to ask staff where they came up with this 1.6. Let's do that. >> Yeah. >> Okay. >> Thank you very much. Could you take a seat? >> Thank you. >> Can the assessor's office um please share what information you have?
So I went through the property. Um the I did add 12% functional obsolescence for the electricity on that property. The heating I did not make an adjustment for. Right now it's a wood furnace going through hot water heat
which can be adjusted um and have other types of furnaces swapped out. Um the parcel that again it is a very difficult property to find a comp comp.
Uh but I did find one a little bit similar sizewise. Granted it's a different location. Um 16 is 16 Wilson. No Warren >> is
>> nonetheless it's a 4. with versus a 40 built in 2002. Sold last year for 2.45. Um the old FedEx building. It's a big storage building. So I kind of that's the only thing I could find that was
even somewhat similar. The property is 44,000 square ft, I believe. 44,84 square ft. Uh the commercial building portion of that is 2.599. The rest of it would be the farm, the
mobile or yeah, the mobile. There's a barn and there's a shop. I do have pictures of the building itself there. You can see there's a little slab right there. My whole truck fits on that little slab. That gives you an idea of
the building size. And I do have interior pictures as well for quality and condition. Um, but I did do the 12%. Um, and that's where that half million came from. Um, for the electricity on that property.
Any questions? >> That'd be a 12% reduction. Yep. >> Correct. >> 57. >> Well, that's the 517. >> Yep. >> Because it doesn't have electricity. Yeah. >> Yeah. Any questions?
First half. >> Okay. >> But but how did But that's a far cry from the 1.6 increase. So what what what made it increase? if he said it was >> the building being finished, >> but he said it was 90% finished at the 25 or the
>> when I had million gone out there and I went in the building and I asked somebody said, >> "So, did you give it the two 2.5 initially?" >> He had on the green sheet he had 2.5 million and >> I am only showing 42. >> Both of those valuations would have been
from me. >> Okay. So again, I guess I'm confused. What did you see the increased value to raise it that much? >> So, when I first went the first time, it was starting to be built, just starting. I mean, they were inside hanging up
ceiling. Um, and when I came back, it was completed. So, that's why the value changed. We only have 2.55 on that commercial building. The remainder is the rest of the 40 acres in the buildings.
>> Okay. So, what did um I'm sorry, we don't have So, what did his land increase? >> Nothing. >> And what's that valued at? Do you have that figure? >> 66. >> 66. It's right in front of you. >> 300. >> Oh, I'm sorry. I apologize. >> Almost a million. >> Okay. That's the 40 acres,
>> correct? I don't know off hand what his soil rating is, but I'm assuming if the land alone is at a million, it's probably a higher grade soil. Barring no other evidence, I'll make a motion that we keep it uh as we have to
>> as is. We need a motion or is it just fall under? >> I accept that motion. >> Yeah. I don't know if it needs Yeah, I'll second that motion. >> Uh okay. >> Is that something you >> Yeah. The >> You would have to approve it, correct? >> Yes. >> And I want to add I'll second that
motion. is that we would like to have a leg to stand on. Unfortunately, we don't have any other >> but we have to approve the 517 they said. >> Yes. >> The reduction. >> Yes. So the motion I think is to approve the 3.725. Is that correct? >> Which is
>> which includes the 517 off. >> Yes. >> So it's as stands on the sheet. Correct. >> Yeah. >> Okay. So >> I apologize if you wish we could. Yeah. So the motion was Sorry, Mr. Olsson. >> Mr. also made a motion and it was seconded by vaguely to leave the value at the post value total for this
property as it was on the sheet which is got the 517 >> and and we have subtracted for all the amenities the H that that's what the 570 is very >> no electricity y >> any further discussion >> well I'm sorry she brought up the question of the heating and you see it
seemed a little arbitrary your comment it has a a a nonentralized wood >> it does have in flooror heat that is powered by a wood burner. >> Oh yeah, that big books. >> Okay. So there's no You made some comment that it could be changed out at some point
>> if at some point somebody did purchase it and wanted to put in a >> furnace, but I don't know why you would in that type of a building. >> But there was no no deduction for the in flooror no >> heat wood system. Okay. Well, you made a comment. I didn't understand what the
comment. Oh, that's okay. That's fine. >> Well, I'm I'm you know, we want business. We're we've got EDAs in this this county and we try to encourage business. The Amish do a great amount of business and then we're going to tax them right out of business. I mean I I it's just unbelievable what
we and how much of this tax goes for commercial to the state of Minnesota >> percentage. I'll pull up the tax. >> Okay. >> Do that after we >> I I think we should reduction. >> Any other comments? >> I just don't have any evidence to do it
on. That's the problem. Okay. >> But the state doesn't have enough to raise it either. >> All those in favor of this motion, please signify by saying I. I. I. >> Is anyone opposed? >> Martin. >> Yeah, I'm opposed. >> Okay. >> All right. Looks like Miss Church has
some words of wisdom to leave us with. >> Do you have You are not on this sheet. Did you have a >> problem? I like the rest of the >> Please. Go ahead. I came here today, just so you know, my intentions, as you know, I'm running for county attorney. I'm on
oppose. I'm just trying to learn Yep. things. My intention was to observe quietly. Um, however, it was brought to my attention um a statute that I think the board needs to know and needs to address. Um, a statute to um Minnesota
statute 274.01, subdivision B. This is going to be regarding the LA not not this person >> the statute subdivision B the middle of the statute reads the board may not make
an individual market value adjustment or classification change that would benefit the property owner if the owner or any person having control over the property has refused to let the assessor access and inspect the property and the interior of any building or structure
structure as provided by 273.2. That was the statute reflected that says they have they need to go look at it. Therefore, I believe that the board cannot make that adjustment that was voted on. >> Um, where are the laminated sheets for
Robert's rules of order? >> Make none. We can't make any. No. >> Well, then he needs to take I'm sorry. He needs to take a >> So, I'm sorry I couldn't write that number down fast enough. >> Got it right there. >> Okay. Okay. And what was that other one that I
>> It's referred to in here. >> Commissioner Ward. >> Oh, both. >> Yeah. >> I don't know how. >> Yeah. Go ahead. I'm not going to bite you. >> In court, we're not allowed. >> Yeah. >> So, this is what she was referring to that says that in order to make a
determination, they need to inspect it. >> And then this says if they're not allowed to inspect it, the board cannot market. >> Well, what if I've been to Larry's house? >> Well, it doesn't matter. I'll make that one. >> Yeah. >> You're not an appraiser. >> Yeah, but I'm a I'm a board of
equalization. >> I'm a board of equalization. >> Yes. Can Commissioner Ellson ask you a question? >> So, and this is just I'm not challenging it by any means, but the question I have is is it
is it if it's already established because is this technically this has not been established yet. So I could see if it was estab this is proposed correct >> my this this is for this is regarding
>> because they're not because that's what we're doing right now >> right this is this this rule is about you the board the board >> of appealing equity >> right so this is >> what I'm saying though is it's saying that that we can't make an adjustment
well adjustment would be if it was already set it was on the books and then we come back and said Hey, we're going to change it. Correct. >> You're No, you vote. No. >> Okay. I'm just I'm just trying to understand. I'm not I'm not here to debate. Oh my no just just please let I'm I'm trying to understand.
>> My understanding of what you're doing today is the adjustment. >> Correct. >> And this defines that, >> right? >> Okay. Thank you. >> Um in the interest of following state statute, um I would make a motion that
we reconsider the vote. I'll >> second it. Which vote? >> Well, I'm still going to support the going back because that was on It's on the statement. >> You didn't vote. >> It's on the statement. So, that was
that's not really a that's a document. >> What's that? >> The the what was it? He took them all now. >> The insurance. Yeah, >> the Well, the insurance and and the green sheet. I guess I have to refer to it as >> pretty cut and dry. Commissioner Ward. >> Okay. Uh is is there any further
discussion? This is a debatable motion. Any further discussion? Hearing none. All those in favor of reconsidering the vote, please signify by saying I. >> I. Opposed. >> Okay. Motion does carry. >> Opposed. Only because I need more time to read the rest of it. I apologize.
>> Okay. So, time. >> Could can we just take a second here? The board may not make an individual market value adjustment. The board shall determine whether the taxable property in the tent was a tax but that was their recommendation
real or personal princip Was Mr. Graven aware of this? >> Sure he wasn't. >> I don't know. >> They voted no change and wanted our system down we had to obviously bring it to you guys. >> No. Was he aware of the state statute?
>> Yes, he is aware that he needs the walk through before he can do anything. before we change value. >> Before you did, but how about us? I mean, did he know about this state statue? >> We told him that it was a state statue that we needed a boxer. Yes.
>> And the uh Mount Vernon council also told him, you know, that he it be in his benefit to do a walk through. >> Yes. One word. >> Oh, yeah. Okay, I'll go on a on a limb on a motion
uh based on new information or old information that was newly presented uh that we made no no change to u his valuation uh as mailed out for 2026. Okay, that motion.
>> Yeah, >> taxable property >> by auditor treasure world. >> I had my ear. I was trying to read. >> Sorry, >> I'm just making sure that it's part of this. The board shall determine
text. Okay. But all these other people that had issues, you have walked through. You have physically walked through everybody. Mr. Lang. >> Yep. >> Mr. Lang. >> Yes. Walked through in 25 and 24. And I
offered it to him this year, but he said because no change, he was willing to meet me here. Um, in person, >> does But does the rule say that if I let you in back in when I bought the house in 1979, I don't have to let you in again? >> He offered to let me in.
>> No, no, no. By this statute, if I if I let you in once? >> No. No. >> That's not how it reads. I have to Every year I have to let you in. >> If you're contesting the value that they gave you that year, >> that's not what it says.
>> But that's what our decisions are. We're we are making a decision on the value for this particular year and if you refuse them access so it's whatever year you're appealing is the year that you have to allow allow them to enter.
>> He's refused to let us >> but it doesn't say that >> many years. So I >> doesn't say that here. >> I would um so two it refers to 27320 and that's where it talks I'm sorry Minnesota statute 273.20 20 refers to um
the assessor entering the home and a property owner may refuse um but that's that denial um the assessor is authorized to estimate the property's estimated market value by
assumptions. So that's what they do. And then what this is saying is so because they denied it then the board cannot make that change because they haven't because they've been denied to go look at it. So it refers back to another statute
>> with many you said a buzzword market value. So is Larry Graden's house the higher figure the market value? We don't know. Well, but not by his appraisal and stuff. Appraisal and tax and but
>> the market value is the building value plus the land value. >> But you have you feel that that that's at the very high the the big >> I did not see the appraisal. I mean I glanced at it as you passed around the room but I didn't get time to analyze
the appraisal. So, I don't know the scope of it or if it was just for the building or the I don't know. >> Sure. >> We only got page one of the appraisal the um and it's just a letter stating that they think it's worth 750,000. It's not
it's just a letter. It's not appraal like the full >> Right. So, is that market value? >> I would say that's market value. >> There's no proof. >> No, but do they What do we have? What do we have proof that the 900 and some is market value? >> But statute says if they don't let them
in then they have to estimate. >> Yeah. And >> but we estimated very high and it's ballooned as Commissioner Eline said it's ballooned after the last >> but the estimated valuation we're not allowed to change based on state statute. Do we need do we have
additional questions? >> Well, I will be talking to authorities at a higher level that this law is pretty crappy. Okay, Mr. Alson, >> it's pretty cut and dry. >> Okay, so the motion is >> and the more I read it, cut I want to
find the way. >> Mhm. >> No, with the more I read more. I'm I'm surprised that he if you told them you told him this is I Has he ever seen this?
Is is he actually ever >> I think this would be good for him to see. >> So he's gonna be pretty you can give the poor guy a hard. >> Yeah. >> Okay. Motion was made by Commissioner Olsen, seconded by auditor treasurer
Wilbright. uh to >> ruling against it would be get almost >> um in jail then >> to leave the value at what was set by the assessor which was 968.
>> All those in favor please say goodbye by saying >> I I >> I nay. >> Those opposed please say nay. >> Nay. >> And you took that training. >> Did I hear one nay? >> One. I think commission I just I I interpret this differently than some other people, but that's my thinking.
>> Okay. That's okay. That's why we have a democracy. >> Yeah. Okay. So, >> I believe that the next two items of business have to do with the consent. Um, you've had a review of the report.
Okay. So, I guess what would be next would be to act on the consent items that were on this spreadsheet. Um, Lindsay, did you um have anything else you wanted to tell us about this? >> Uh, one moment right now.
>> Thank you. >> So, do you have a breakdown of why you some of these are pretty significant like is this the movie theater that you've cut backund? So, no, I do not have them on there because it is listed as consent business. Um, breakdowns are available if necessary. I do have copies
of everything that was noted from each appraiser on each of these areas. Um, we only had one that actually had a value increase and he didn't seem to mind. [laughter] Um, [clears throat]
>> but hotels, how how did they drop that much? I went and walked through each property with the owners. >> I mean, that's significant dollars. >> Yeah. So, this is again where we're talking about that 25% increase across the board and it can throw things out of
range. Um, hotels right now in a lot of areas are having issues keeping up on maintenance because they don't have a lot of that that their vacancies are much higher. So, their their maintenance budget is a lot lower. That shouldn't
that should Why would a maintenance or just because their occupancy is lower? That shouldn't reduce property taxes. It's the building. It's not the use and the >> It reduces the value somebody's worth paying if they have to redo the faith. >> Oh, yes. I'm sorry.
>> That kind of down. >> I just I >> Okay, Commissioner, >> I'll move to approve the remain the other item. I'll I guess >> consent >> the consent items. >> I'll second it. >> Okay, great. I did have another question
for the >> Yeah. >> Um, so are any of the folks on here unhappy enough that they've said they're going to take us to export that you're aware of? >> I don't believe so. Do you guys call anybody on there? >> Just Dwight. Yeah.
>> Was it was the rivers >> Mike >> for the 40 44 North? >> Yeah, 44 north. Mr. Shortridge called me. >> Yeah, >> he's called everybody. Um, I have spoke with >> Wait a minute. What are we talking
about? I don't know what you're talking about. >> The new hotel. >> The new hotel. >> Okay. What about that? I I have no idea what you're talking about. >> I think they just had questions come out. It doesn't It isn't specific for this meeting. Um because there was a clerical error on that property. So,
that gets uh addressed at the end of the year. Um, I've spoke with Danny, Mike, and Mr. >> Meaning we were too high or too low. >> Uh, and this one it ended up being higher. Uh, and it was lowered. There
was there was an overlap of building, >> but that's that's another. So can I I request can can you just a quick note anything that was like 50,000 that you dropped can you provide a note why >> in the future? No, on these there's a
pretty well not right this minute, but I mean rivers you drop >> four >> six you know >> 420 265 378 that's a lot of money is that >> generally it's because the maintenance hasn't
>> so normally those types of things would have been approved through the city board um at that time but because everything had to come to the county board that's why we're asking him for consent Um, >> is that because of the cyber effect?
>> Okay. What was with Debbie Reminger? You got about two, four, six, seven, and they all all went down. Are those rentals? >> No, those are the properties on Breezy Lane. >> And what was the justification that they
all went down? I mean, if you can put some short notes together. I have no idea. Here, you're telling us we can't. A few people that showed up and then some of these people got very large decreases. I have no idea why the rationale was, I guess, is what I'm saying. >> You would accept that at a future time?
>> Yeah. Or just even a email. Anything over 50, anything that you cut over $50,000, I would like to know why. What What was it that triggered that? Because what if you added up those I I guess you didn't put a total. How much how many dollars did you decrease?
>> Can people help >> in the county as a vote? Did we vote on the consent business yet or not? >> Nope. >> I didn't think so. Okay. >> Because I I I'm apologize. I don't have a lot of confidence in these numbers because I
don't know why they got changed in my opinion fairly significantly. >> Okay, that is noted. And it sounds like the assessor will get us answers. Any other questions? Hearing none. The motion on the table. It's made by Commissioner Olsson,
seconded by Treasurer Wilbright. Approve the consent. >> Made by second by Olsson. >> Really? >> You're on the chain. >> It is getting late. Here we go. I made it here. Okay. Made by seconded by Olsen. >> All those in favor, please signify by
saying I. I. If anyone's opposed, say nay. >> Nay. Because I don't know why. >> Thank you. But motion carries. >> Number seven. >> Yeah, I think so. Is there any other business that we need to consider? >> Motion to adjourn. >> Well, the staff, everything else. >> Yeah, that's what I'm asking.
>> Second. >> Not debatable. >> It was and Olsson and >> all those in favor, please signify by saying I. >> I. If. If anyone opposed and they want to stay here. >> Well, you made you made friends tonight. >> Thank you so much.
>> Most recent