Whistleblower » Blog Archive » His property didn’t change, but his taxes went up 264%

His property didn’t change, but his taxes went up 264%

Posted on May 21st, 2008 – 10:41 AM
By James Shiffer

Dante Canillas is a 52-year-old tech guy for a big bank. When he comes home to his rambler on Drillane Road in Hopkins, Canillas can relax in his backyard without the noise of the tennis courts at the Oak Ridge Country Club, because he has a third of an acre of trees screening it out.

Now the taxes on those trees (actually the land underneath it) have gone up. In one year, the estimated market value of the property rose from $3,100 to $28,000. Because of limitations on the taxable value, his actual bill isn’t staggering - it went up from $39.70 to $144.71. But Canillas thinks it’s just wrong. So wrong that he’s willing to pay $162 to fight the valuation in small claims court. That’s not only more than his tax hike, but he thinks he’s got little chance of success, because, in his view, the law is stacked against homeowners.

Canillas is the kind of guy who actually reads the law, and says the presumption is that the government’s assessment is correct. The homeowner has to prove it’s not.

“I’m going to lose money on this thing,” he said. “The problem is, if you allow them to do it, they just continue to do it.”

Canillas’s situation is somewhat unusual. Years ago, the country club bought parcels of land in the subdivision so it could expand. A previous owner of Canillas’s house didn’t want to sell, so he kept the L-shaped parcel as a screen between his house and the tennis court.

When Canillas bought his property in 2001, he didn’t realize until the closing that he was actually buying two parcels: one the lot on which his rambler sits, and the other, the L-shaped patch of woods. It’s on a slope, and doesn’t border a street.

Along came a Hennepin County assessor (like many small cities, Hopkins uses the county assessor) and determined that Canillas should be paying considerably more to the government for his patch of woods. Tom May, the Hennepin County Assessor, explained that the change reflects the parcel’s boosting of the value of Canillas’s whole property. If Canillas were to sell his property, May said, then he could market it as bordering the golf course, which brings a premium. Therefore the assessor determined, in their regular five-year review of property values, it’s worth more than merely an unbuildable lot.

“It really is a question of what it’s worth in total,” May said. He allowed that “the makeup of this parcel as a whole is unusual.”

Canillas doesn’t buy May’s argument. “That’s baloney. What made them think it’s incorrect, all of a sudden? It’s not like it’s a secret.” He figures they just want to squeeze some more tax revenue out of his big backyard.

Property owners can appeal their tax assessments, although the procedure varies, depending on the municipality and county. Canillas missed the deadline to appeal the valuation to Hennepin County Board of Appeal and Equalization. So he’s taking his fight against his 264 percent tax increase to small claims court, to “put these guys on notice.”

This entry was posted on Wednesday, May 21st, 2008 at 10:41 am and is filed under Property problems. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.

25 Responses to “His property didn’t change, but his taxes went up 264%”

» Next comment page »

shortygirlk2 Says:
May 21st, 2008 at 12:25 pm
Unless he has been able to combine both plots of land together, they should be looked at seperately, independent of who owns them. Good for him to take a stand, but I doubt he will be successful as he was given an appeals avenue and window and he missed it.
brw Says:
May 21st, 2008 at 12:56 pm
Sounds like the assessors have gotten it right-if he sells the land, he should get a boost in his sale price from that particular parcel. I sympathize with him having to pay more tax, but it doesn’t sound unfair to me.
peteyboy Says:
May 21st, 2008 at 1:37 pm
What a whiner! He owns the property and sure cities are always looking for ways to boost revenue but that is pennies compared to what most people pay for urban property, developed or undeveloped. We pay 1700% more than that for undeveloped lakeshore way up north because it borders a lake, like his borders a golf course. Both do affect the value of the land. If my lake prop. was just woods, it would be a fraction of what we pay.
Chris Says:
May 21st, 2008 at 1:44 pm
The parcel clearly does boost the value of this guy’s property. A beautiful 1/3 acre-tree-filled border between your backyard and a country-club is indisputably worth more than some unbuildable extra piece of swamp or prarie land.

The fact that the county had it valued incorrectly for years doesn’t mean that they shouldn’t ever be allowed to correct their mistake.

Besides, it’s likely that no one had visited the property for years before hand. I’m guessing Mr. Casillas didn’t notify the assessors when he discovered upon closing that he was actually buying two parcels, one of which was undervalued. He either didn’t notice the misclassification of his land and paid 30 bucks a year for a premium piece of property, or did notice the misclassification and happily allowed the county to carry on their mistake.

Nothing weird or unfair happened here. Mr. Canillas ought to consider himself lucky that the county undervalued his land for so long and leave it at that.
gopher22 Says:
May 21st, 2008 at 1:52 pm
I find it interesting the county justifies the increase because it borders the golf course. Look at how many golf courses are closing throughout the country–selling out to developers. Will the county make the appropriate adjustment then?

Woodbury had a par 3 golf course in the middle of the city that was sold by the owner. The owner made a bundle by selling to a developer. Now the property is full of town homes. I know the tax values weren’t reduced after the development.
GreenStar Says:
May 21st, 2008 at 2:15 pm
He figures they just want to squeeze some more tax revenue out of his big backyard.

the city doesn’t get more revenue by raising the value of that parcel. common fallicy when it comes to property tax. The city sets a levy amount and then it is determined what each parcel pays.
r.s. Says:
May 21st, 2008 at 2:46 pm
The taxpayers should get legislators to put together a bill which would limit the percentage of increase the State/County could “appreciate” your property. The housing crisis which helped a lot of individuals financially prosper from banks offering sub-prime mortgages to naive buyers, I believe, is a function of what is going on when Counties appreciate values like in this guy’s situation. There should be no law to allow a County to appreciate a property 264% in one year. That assessor is probably jealous of the property owner’s financial resource so he went out there and thought “I’m going to screw him because he has this nice piece of property”. I find people like the assessor to be the same kind of people who think there should be “redicstribution of wealth” in our society, whereby, the resources of the “well-off” get taken (like Robin Hood) from the rich to take care of the poor. The only problem is that the resources are really going into the pockets of the middle class folks, like the assessor, and not into the pockets of the “poor”. I hope the assessor experiences this same kind of crap on his own property one day, so he can feel what this guy feels about the government.
alum and fan Says:
May 21st, 2008 at 3:02 pm
GreenStar, you’re technically correct, but it’s obvious that counties & cities use the increase in property values as an excuse to hide their tax increases. When homes were appreciating 10%/year, your prop taxes would too, and they’d blame the tax increase on prop values rising. Even though - as you astutely point out - it shouldn’t matter how much your prop value increases, it should only matter how much it changes relative to the rest of the city or county.
Howard The Duck Says:
May 21st, 2008 at 3:15 pm
Oh Boo Hoo, I used to live in Excelsior on less than quarter acre and my taxes where $2,800 a year. It USED to be a BLUE COLLAR town not anymore
Moosey Says:
May 21st, 2008 at 3:21 pm
The problem I have is if the 1/3 arce increases the value of the main parcel then it is the main parcel that should in crease in value and not the 1/3 acre plot.