Sorry the spreadsheet below didn't display properly in my earlier posting. It looked OK in draft and first look, but apparently blog software later rejected it as too wide. I'm still a rookie using this blog tool... I won't repeat my earlier text, but here are the key points my sample of taxes below demonstrates:
1. Property taxes aren't simply about the total bill, but more about the value of buildings placed on whatever the size of the property is. Comparing the two Lakeville houses with similar Eureka houses shows this dramatically: similar property tax on lots 1/2 or 1/10th the sizes in Eureka. And Lakeville has a lot more small lots than 1-acre lots.
2. The County Assessor does not simply look at what a zoning classification is, but what the actual use LOOKS like. Appearance also obviously affects property values nearby.
3. Dakota County does not correlate what permits Eureka may have approved in past with what Assessor SEES as land use. Half the Eureka business samples show this by the Assessor classification of Residential Homestead.
This is reasonable for permitted uses such as home businesses and clearly low-impact businesses from the past neatly contained within a building. Several of the samples with Eureka permits (yellow listings) are in fact treated as "Residential Homestead" by the County Assessor. None of the permit listings in my sample were home businesses - all involved an accessory building. A couple of the non-business properties also have an accessory building used for storage (I know because one of the listings is my property).
The point is that zoning does not automatically place a property in a different tax rate classification.
Opening up Commercial or Industrial zoning is of no net increase to the Eureka tax base unless business structures much more valuable than a house are constructed on the same acreage. This is why looking at tax rate per acre is helpful in "scoring" the value to the Eureka budget. Remember, Eureka only gets about 19-20 cents from each tax dollar.
The initial draft zoning terms under consideration are a pathetic, simplistic copy-and-paste of State language with no practical limits on what we may consider acceptable and compatible with the MET Council-approved Comprehensive Plan, like the hasty Ag Tourism Ordinance. Remember "similar but not limited to"?
Overly broad ordinance language cannot be effectively reined in by permit language. Court precedents favor a property owner's interpretation of an ordinance.
