04/09/97 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

JUNE 1994 Page 11 · LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY. THIS IS A FINAL ORDER. A STAY OF 15 DAYS IS HEREBY ORDERED. BY THE COURT, Dorothy A. McClung, Judge DATED: June 21, 1994 MEMORANDUM For many years, the Wright County Assessor classi- fied the subject property as agricultural homestead but for the 1993 assessment changed the classification to residential homestead. Petitioners question the change in classification after all these years when there was no significant change in the ownership, or use of the prop- erty. Douglas Gruber, the Wright County Assessor since 1986, testified that his office reviewed all proper- ties in Wright County which were classified as agricul- tural and contained twenty or fewer acres to ascertain whether these parcels qualified, for agricultural classifi- cation under Minnesota Statutes. Mr. Gruber also testi- fied that this review was prompted by the changing character of Wright County from a predominantly rural county to a suburban county as well as prodding from the Department of Revenue. The Commissioner of Revenue has general supervisory responsibilities to en- courage uniformity of assessments (including classifica- tions) statewide. As a result of thc assessor's review, the classifica- tion of 700 parcels was changed, including the Petition- ers' property. In the opinion of Mr. Gruber, the Petitioners use their ten acres primarily as a homestead not as an agricultural property. Raising two horses does not constitute an agricultural pursuit in his opinion. Pe- titioners argue that almost nine of their ten acres are de- voted to pasture for their horses and the predominant use is agricultural in nature. The pertinent part of Minn. Stat. § 273.13, subd. 23, reads as follows: Agricultural land as used in this section means contiguous acreage of ten acres or more, primarily used during the preceding year for agricultural purposes. We were presented with no evidence to refute Mr. Gruber's conclusion that the subject property was · not primarily used for agricultural purposes. Petitioners are no longer raising and selling a dozen horses a year. They have only two horses now and we agree with the' Assessor that the subject property is primarily used as a homestead, not an agricultural enterprise. We affirm the Assessor's classification as residential homestead.