BOARD OF APPEAL AND EQUALIZATION COUNTY OF SCOTT ...

PAGE 3June 22, 2010the appropriate adjustments were made. He noted that the difference in the appraisals is$17,000 which is approximately four percent.The Commissioners voiced their support of the market value assigned by Scott County,stating that the comparables must be a certain type of sale, that the appellant’s appraisal isfrom a refinanced transaction and there is no letter of release, that the comparable is a bi-levelhome and not a raised ranch, and that there is additional living space included in the County’svalue that was not included in previous years.Commissioner Fritz moved, seconded by Commissioner Larson to affirm the value of PID#10-001-0150 at $417,700. Motion carried unanimously.B. Troy Borreson, PID #01-930-0012 and #01-930-0013, was not in attendance.C. Darik Schultz, PID #02-909-0021 and #02-909-0023, distributed copies of documentsto the Commissioners regarding his properties and reviewed the information in them. He statedthat the County’s information shows he has 6-8 poultry on his property, but he does raise manymore free-range chickens on the property, and he also boarded a horse last winter. Hecompared his property to a property owned by “Anderly” that was determined to be anAgricultural class due to rent and pasturing cattle. He showed his 2008 income tax statementthat included income due to sales of livestock and other items.Mr. Thompson stated that staff can only go by what they saw during the inspection. He alsostated that he cannot comment on the income information presented as he has not seen it priorto this meeting. The income information does not break down what piece of property it wasfrom. The information available to County staff shows that this property does not qualify for anagricultural classification. Ms. Geis noted that according to Minnesota Statute relating to thisclassification, poultry must be confined.Mr. Schultz, Mr. Thompson, and Ms. Geis responded to questions and comments from theCommissioners. Mr. Thompson stated that staff across the state has met with the Departmentof Revenue about how to implement the statutes consistently. The classification for thisproperty has been changed to Agricultural Classification. Following discussion about theproperty, Commissioner Warfield inquired about the language in the statute for property aboveten acres compared to below ten acres. Commissioner Fritz noted that he does not feel that thestatute is clear relating to property with ten or more acres. It simply states “poultry product” butdoes not say “confined.“ Ms. Geis responded that staff can talk with the Department ofRevenue regarding their interpretation of free range chickens as it relates to this specificinstance. In response to Commissioner Warfield’s inquiry, Mr. Schultz stated that the chickenshave 12.6 acres to roam.Commissioner Larson moved, seconded by Commissioner Warfield, to ask Mr. Schultz toprovide the information to the Assessor he gave to the Commissioners and to ask theAssessor’s Office staff to look at additional information and get an interpretation from theDepartment of Revenue. Motion carried unanimously.