The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About04-24-2002 Board of Review PacketORONO BOARD OF REVIEW MEETING SIGN IN SHEET April 24, 2002 Please Print Name Street Phone PID# 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 AGENDA FOR 2002 BOARD OF REVIEW WEDNESDAY, APRIL 24,2002,7:00 P.M. ORONO COUNCIL CHAMBERS 2780 KELLEY PARKWAY ORONO, MINNESOTA ROLL CALL APPEALS - Appeals will be heard in the order persons arrive and sign in at the Council Chambers When property owner's name is called please approach the Board and give the following information: • Name • Address of property (Mailing address if different) • The property identification number (PID number of the property being appealed) • Value of property on 2002 Notice of Valuation • Value you believe is appropriate and why ADJOURNMENT *;^ «*rv ^ • 17 April 2002 w*i I Ur W.-.O, .0 Kim fensen City Assessor City of Orono 2750 Kelley Parkway Orono, Mn. 55447 Dear Ms. Jensen: Please (incl enclosed tke agreed on Final Judgement in Tax Court file # 14783 between myself, tke City of Orono, and Hennepin Coimty, of Marck 1993> adjud^in^ tke value of Deering Island to ke $125,1CIIIIIII I also enclose tke supporting^ documents, in tkat you said you kad no file regarding tkis Judgement, wken making your decision. Tkis Judgement of Marck 1993> kinding tke City and myself, skotdd enakle tke error on current value to ke corrected ky your office. if tkis cannot ke corrected ky tke City meeting on 24 April, ke advised I will ke out of town, and designate Harold E. Fames as my representative at tke meeting sckeduled for tke 24*^ of April 2002. Sincer < tf I V j TO: FROM: Stephen Faroes^ owner, Harold Farnes^, Attorney Rolf Erickson P 0 Box 47841 Plymouth, MN 55447 DATE: 12-8-92 RE; Tax Court #92-14783 PID# 18-117-23-31-0001 Address Peering Island Owner Stephen Farnes|i The Hennepin County Assessor’s Office has approved the following value/classificatlon changes for stipulation. Please Initial and return this form immediately If you agree with the changes. Stipulation papers will then be prepared in the normal manner by the Hennepin County Attorney's Office. Year 91 Pay 92 92 Pay 93 Current Value $176,500 Recommended Value $125,000 $176,500 $125,000 pay. Comments; t ■| 1 ,i STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF HENNEPIN TAX COURT FOURTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT ) Stephan W. Fames. Petitioner, ) vs. County of Hennepin, ) STIPULATION, OFFER and acceptance . JUDGMENT AND DECREE ) Respondent. T.C. U783 (92) OFFER AND ACCEPTANCE FeKkI Petitioner hereby issues its ACCtPTANCL of the above entitled matter on the basis of the attached valucts) and classificalionfs); MICHAEL O. FREE.M.AN Hennepin County Attorney AttornC-y foH^tiiioner Harold E. Fames (28381) Date: 'I! Uiyttr£^_llk^- ^lARK K.aPTER MAHhRTb650: Assistant County Attorney Minneapolis, MN 554S7 JUDGMENT AND DECREE I hereby certify that the foregoing OFFER and ACCEPTANCE constitutes the Judg ment and Decree. BY THE COURT Tax Court .Adnunistrator By: Deputy * PETITION INFORMATION TRACKING STSTEM * * SUBRECORD INFORMATION 02/16/93 0 UPDATE: SUBRECORD: 1 CLOSE IND: EX CODE:fJrNES. «EP«eS STATUS: ST (STIPULATED) REDUCED AS PERCENT OWNERSHIP: .00 HMST-NON: N i* TRIAL ISSUES TMV LAND: 80000FROM PROP TYPE: FMV LAND: FMV BLDG: FMV MACH: FMV TOT: FASSD Bl: FASSD BZ: FASSD NHB: FASSD NH: FASSD TOT: CTY APPR; PETITIONER’S APPR: PETITIONER’S VALUE: PF13 - VIEW SAME PID PFIB * VIEW NEXT PID 133000 43S00 0 176500 0 0 0 3883 3BB3 TMV BLDG: TMV MACH: TMV TOT: TASSD Bl: TASSO B2: TASSD NHB: TASSD NH: TASSD TOT: 4S000 0 12S000 0 0 0 Z7S0 2750 70.8 X OF FMV (FMV REDUCED 29.2 X) VALUE: APPR VALUE: 0 0 PF15 ■ MENU PF16 - NEXT SUBRECQRD PF17 PF24 - CHANGE T.C. NO. PROCESSING COMPLETE - PID SEL M M m r r L.-I ■»i iFor County Use Only For City Uso Only * * Of STIPULATION AND OnDEn FOR JUDGEMENT REFUND ' ■- ■ ■ V . . • •■ ^■>. ' » 'V /.■ ' • y. ^ ^ • •■• cc: County Altorncy ’sOlIico: Pctitioner/Attorncy: ^ V '■4kyMW^': ^ P.I.D.I: 18-117-23-31-0001 Trial Date: Pec_lji_;_1221 Petitioner: <;rpnhcn Farncss Municipality: Oro»Q 38 Tax Court*: 92-14783 Court*: to be filed Tax Court *: 1^ ^ ^ ^ ______________________Assessment Year: Scor^mended Assessor ’s Estimated Market Value tor Years (or P.I.D. rs)lis^ Property Address: Peering Island Property Type: Assessment Year: 1991 1992Assessment Year: Assessment Year: For Tax Year: 1992 1993For T ax Year:______ For Tax Year: For Tax Year: :: - v P.I.D, # Prior Value u)17-71-31-0001 91 Pav_^ RO.OOQ 45.000 $176,500 1R -117-23-31-0001 9^pay_93 HO.000 45.000 175.000 $176,500 Pay Pay Pay Pay Remarks:lanH. Cannot he divided or have more than one principal structure. City AsseMor balo: 12-8-’2 . V .vv^ LAKE MINNETONKA ISLANDS OR LOTS ON ISLANDS MUNIC ISLAND £!Q OWNER LOT SIZE PT 1999 1 1*1 mi 12 t w/LSB % wfL DATE PRICE RATIO Commant 38 38 36 38 26 Big Island Big Island Crane Big Island Gales 36 36 Oeering Eagle Spray 23117 23 32 0039 23117 23 32 0027 36117 24 23 0009 22117 23 31 0033 22117 2344 0001 18117 23 31 0001 36117 24 31 0001 30117 23 14 0001 CrasweH Rothstein McCarthy Lapping Nass Fames Lang Smith RL RL S S .19 ac •33 ac .49 ac .53 ac 2.26 ac RL 2.65 ac RL 5 .19 ac S 21.65 ac RL 68,800 100,000 92,500 108,000 254,600 157.000 248.000 369.000 70,000 110,000 103.500 123.000 412.500 257.000 273.000 480.000 93,000 143.000 116,200 155.000 900.000 450.000 325.000 1,050,000 108,000 205.000 216.000 200,700 1,650,000 637.000 751.000 1,350,000 13.05 14.26 10.12 8.69 16.76 5.52 3.32 1.43 10.75 7.86 843 650 15.24 5.00 3.32 127 JuLOO Sep-01 Oct-01 Mar-01 Aug-73 $150,000 $270,000 $350,000 $189,735 $135,000 72.0% Lot on an island 75.9% Lot on an island 61.7% Lot on an island 105.8% 02 $7,800 Improvement amt & Lot onT^tand 1222.2% 00 Unsolicited offer of 2.5 mil was turr^d ckvirv vvV-. ■'V* ^ * St mm “■------------------- 04/23/02 TUE 11:21 FAX 6123345Cf8 STIELOW PROPERTIES w* I j ^ w , To Whom it May Coneam: Ra: Piropoity ID 13-117-23-2I-0007 AuuKifflJcnsoa Fajt9S1-249-46l6 Orano County Assessor I have booghtthe ‘Pink Palaeo Propot^' app. 30 yean ago and developed, sold all oru but this lot The chy of Oraoo has collect^ my leal estate taxes all ibese yovs and 1 Ibel I have paid a Mr tax, based on a eniniated market value of S 25,000 and a limited maikctvahjoS 10,000. As you know the property b eb this tiow not bttOdable. A chaage hi valuation ftomS 23,000 to S 200.000 and from S 10,000 to $ 3S,'‘00 seems out of comroL Jedtn SUclow 612-333-3300 April 23,2002 . .» :• .* *• f •: iit fv* . * I • •• . ••• • • • • • • i .■1.. •* • 1 •• *• " / • ■ * • • • •» •• I • 4• •K\• •[% *i»;: C•-.4 i • ' :; 1 *. • •• tt . V i;*.'.'.-I •••••• ;• -.f.‘ «• #• •••• •••#* •* ; *.*4..I • • • •*. •• : I* 1.1. •• •:• t.: . i •• *• •• • •• * .** • • • • eiooi JOHN STIELOW USNofm'IhMSM MbuM^oBaMNSSmi MtpiMiKSUiSSMaoo FaxiSUaMMTS I Orooo Locd Board of Review lod Equdizition 2750 Kelley Parkway Orono, MN 55356 • • fy .1 »• • • ♦ Cm »f ' J w.- April 24,2002 To Whom R May O I hove receolly reviewed 1heHcnne|rin County Real Eilate Valuation Notice for our property at 290 HoUanderltoad (TO# 25-118-23 43 0011), in which omealiinated^et Utue increased from S775,000 for 2001 to $929,000 for 2002. This represents a 19.9% inesrease in value over a one year period. I do not agree with this vahiatioo, particularly as it relatea to recent sale prices in my nei^boihood As a result, I am requesting you to have the value of my property reriewed. Ttiawlr yntt tnr ytmr eontidcTation of this request. l/l ‘i 89u«i!||nu|‘8 Hd2i:n 2002 ‘t2‘^«V April 24.2002 (hand dclh-crcd)1 ^ •V ‘f T - *'>t:, j • V. 4 V* w Local Board of Appeal A Equali/nlion %Orono City Hall Appeal of Estimated Market Value and Market Value for Taxation for 2002 (2003 Taxes) PropertylD 08-117-23 410001 Property Address 3200 North Shore Drive, Wayzaia.Mn 55391 Greetings, We are questioning both ofthe abo\ e items. We ha\e had little opportuniiy to pull together information as the Assessor’s office just returned our call yesterday. The property right next to us recently sold for o\ er S20.000 less then our 2002 Est Market Value. It is ^te ffimUy to ours - two bedroom older home, a little smaller, niih a two car garage. Their total land area is a little smaller then outs but our property has three major easements that significantly reduce the usabilit)' - a ten foot easement down the length (oi^ 57 feet wide to begin with); a sewer laimping lift station cuts th? property in half anda sewer line cutting accrossed nearly the full widdi for a neighboring home. In addition, there are overhead power lines to an at^jacem property cutting accrossed our land in another foeat*"" Our useable land is less then the property that sold a^ is not on one continuous piece. We therefore feel our Fri«n«t"d Market Value is at least S20.000 to high. We are unable to relate the Limited Market Value to the Statue's requirements and question iv> calcubtion as being in compliance with the law. Further, we have continually requested a ‘This (Md House’ e.xception for the impro\ cment we made of adding the garage. That is not reflected in this statemern. The increase in our Estimated Market Value was 20%i This is totally unrealistic and not supported by an sale of similar property’ right next to us. We ha\ c a smalL older two bedroom home with a two car gjiray dift floor in port ofthe basement, exposed piping in the kitchen, painted ceiling tiles in the halL Some areas of the home are better then others. We ha\ c seen the inside of the other home and found similar conditions. We knew and socialized with the gentleman that li\od in the other home before it was sold. We are concerned that overvaluing the property will negatively impact our ability- to maintain this home thru our retiremenL We are not wealthy people. We saved to purchase the property-ar ’work long hours to try to improve it and be good neighbors and responsible tax powers but we are also conixmed that lax policy may well penalize us for our efforts. We appreciate your consideiation of our appeal. /Z Shirley Hendrickson Property- Owners and Residents 1 J ERROR IN SIZE OF DEERING ISLAND ? A pKone tnessagfe to tke taxpayer claimed tLe as«es!»eJ value of tKe IslanJ KaJ l>ecn reJuceJ to $ 637,000.00 because tbe 19S5 Survey Joes in fact Jisclose an islanJ size 30 % less tlian tKe taxpayer Kas Keen assessed for previously. If tKis did in fact Kappen, and assuming tKe assessed value of tKe caKin value, as previously disclosed, remained tKe same, tKe following resulted: 1) It eliminated tKe pKantom land, reducing tKe assessors claim of tKe Island size from 3.98 acres to 2.65 acres, a reduction of 1.33 acres, or 30%. 2) TKe ^ross assessment was reduced to $637,000.00. 3) XKe caKin value presumably Kadn t changed, and only tKe land value was cKan^ed Ky eliminating tKe pKantom land of 1.33 acres or 57,935 sq feet. 4) Asstunin^ Uie cabin retained its $61,000.00 value, tKe assessor tKen reduced iKe assessed value of tKe Island land Ky $183,000.00 to $ 576,000.00 5) TKe assessor tKen Increased tKe land value from $ 4.38 per square foot to $4.99 p«r foot, an increase of $ .61 per square fool, or $26,571.60 per acre. 6) TKe corrected land value, based on iKe 2002 assessment should Kave Keen 2.65 acres times $4.38 per square fool or $505,600.00. 7) Adding iKe cabin and correct land area value, and usin^ iKe assessors original 2002 assessment figfures, tKe reduction caused Kv iKe **pKantoni land ’ should result in an assessed value of $566,600 in place of the original $820,000.00, and not $637,000.00 Without any property improvements, this figure still demonstrates an alleged increase in value in three years of $480,000.00, or 306%; an average of 102% per year, and an increase of $512,000.00 over the DEERING ISLAND ASSESSED VALUATION DATA 4-24-2002 (based on date supplied by Orono assessor 4-11-2002) Proparty and Assessed\ Value % Increase recent sale Property ID #1999 2002 1999-2002 price (m/y) Big Island 2311723320039 $ 68,000 108,000 + 56%$150,000 7/00 Big Island 2311723320027 100,000 205,000 + 105%$270,000 9/01 Big Island 2211723310033 108,000 200,700 + 85%$185,735 3/01 Deering Island 1811723310001 157,000 820,000 + 422%N/A ** RESULTS: 1) BI6 ISLAND PROPERTIES 3 YEAR INCREASE (AV6) 82% 2) DEERING ISLAND 3 YEAR INCREASE 422% COMMENTS: 1) **The 1993 estimated market value of Deering Island was adjudicated (T.C. 14783) at $125,000. Last sale was 11/91 for $99,000. 2) With no improvements to the property, the assessed value of Deering Island was increased $32,000 over the 6 years from 1994, or 4% per year. The last three years have seen an increase of $663,000, a yearly increase of 140i. 3) Th« historic rats of 4% yoarly valua incraasa coincidas with inflation and common sansa, and should ba usad to datarmina an assassad valua of no mora than $174,584 for tha proparty. 1 IL 2-24-02 James R. & Helen L. Johnson 2240 Fox Street Long Lake. MN 55356 To; Board of Appeal and Equa zation Re: Valuation of Property at 2'.40 Fox Street Background: Subject property was divided into three parcels; Old 2240 Fox, PID 03-1 1 7-23-32-0009. House on 8 acres New 2240 Fox, PID 03-117-23-32-0020, House on 3 acres 2260 Fox, PID 03-117-23-32-0019, Vacant Lot 2240 Fox, PID 03-1 1 7-23-32-0021 . Outlet A. vacant lot 6 Reason for Appeal: Property reduced from 8 to 3 acres (63% reduction) But taxable market value increased from $315,500 (2001) to S488.000 (2002), a 55% increase . Limited market value increased from S223.800 to $488,000, an increase of 118%. Valuation Analysis: Three methods were used to estimate market value; 1) 2002 proposed valuation is based on 300.000 Land Value (61%) 188.000 House Value (39%) 488.000 Total Land valuation is based on sale of 2260 Fox Street for $330,000. Since 2240 Fox is 3 acres, compared to 5 acres for 2260 Fox, a more accurate estimate of the land value would be: 60% X 330,000-$198,000 This suggests that a better estirr.ate of the value of 2240 Fox Street would be; 198.000 Land Value (51%) 188.000 House Value (49%) 386.000 Total J 2) An In pendentappraia .il conducted in 2000 suggested that the market value of 2- fO Fox v^ouse + 6 icres) was $350,000. An appraisal conducted In 2001 to re a partial release of mortgage suggested "no negative impacf on value due the division of p'^'oerty. This appraisal did not suggest an increase in value d j. to subdivision. Assuming a 6% Increase for two years, an estimate of the 20C' valuation would be 350.000 Year 2000 21.000 6% increase 371.000 Year 2001 22.260 6% increase 393,260 Year 2002 3) Analysis of comparable properties These properties are deemed to be comparable with exc^tjons noted. All valuations are per Hennepin County for taxes payable in 2002 V Property Lot Size Market Value Notes 2185 Webber Hills Rd.1.325 acres 300.000 17,000 Land 163.000 House 236.600 Limited Brick house Smaller lot 2355 Abingdon Way 1 1 2.01 acres 397,000 150.500 Land 246.500 House 372.400 Limited Much larger house 80 Wear Lane 5 acres 374.000 197.000 Land 177.000 Building 286.200 Limited Comparable house on much larger lot ' 50 Wear Lane i 2.02 acres 338,000 172.500 Land 165.500 House 267.900 Limited Nicer house 20 Wear Lane i 2.031 acres 359.000 165.000 Land 194.000 House 292.600 Limited Same house exactly. Same model 680 Willow Drive S.3.285 acres 353.000 200.000 Land 153.000 House 263.000 Limited Very similar house and lot size 2180 Fox Street 1 9.70 acres 376.000 350.000 Land 26,000 House 199.400 Limited Moreland, older house. Next Door ^ k e .AeiA i« «rta uoi£ i rr IT»f I.r S •* ff.kii ,/Ur vt^i — . 1 VHf7^i ‘»n ^ I The averages of the seven comparables listed above are: Market Value Land Value House Value Limited Value Lot Size $356,714 $196,000 $160,714 $271,271 3.62 Acres Land value per acre $54,144 An analysis of the above data suggests that an appropriate 2002 valuation for 2240 Fox street should be: Market Value Land Building Limited Value $366,000 200.000 166.000 $223,800 These valuations, not coincidentally, are the same as ttie 2001 valuations for taxes payable in 2002. In Concluaion; Three methods \eere used to estimate valuation of the property at 2240 Fox Street. No approach justified the proposed 2002 valuation of $408,000 / $488,000 Ltd. While properties of this value certainly exist in the area, none are vievired as comparable. i Helen and I respectfully request that the Board of Appeal and Equalization reconsider the proposed 2002 valuation of 2240 Fox Street. Sincerely, Jim & Helen Johnson 2-24-02 James R. & Helen L. Johnson 2240 Fox Street Long Lake, MN 55356 To: Board of Appeal and Equalization Re: Valuation of Property at 2240 Fox Street Bacfcaround: Subject property was divided into three parcels: Old 2240 Fox. PID 03-117-23-32-0009, House on 8 acres New 2240 Fox. PID 03-117-23-32-0020. House on 3 acres 2260 Fox. PID 03-117-23-32-0019. Vacant Lot 2240 Fox. PID 03-117-23-32-0021. Outlot A. vacant lot Reason for Appeal: Property reduced from 8 to 3 acres (63% reduction) But taxable market value increased from $315,500 (2001) to $488,000 (2002), a 55% increase . Limited market value increased from $223,800 to $488,000, an increase of 118%. Valuation Analysis: Three methods were used to estimate market value; 1) 2002 proposed valuation is based on 300.000 Land Value (61%) 188.000 House Value (39%) 488.000 Total Land valuation is based on sale of 2260 Fox Street for $330,000. Since 2240 Fox is 3 acres, compared to 5 acres for 2260 Fox, a more accurate estimate of the land value would be: 60% X 330,000 = $198,000 This suggests that a better estimate of the value of 2240 Fox Street would be; 198.000 Land Value (51%) 188.000 House Value (49%) 386.000 Total 2) An indnp«n<tont appraisal conducted in 2000 suggested that the market value of 2240 Fox (house 8 acres) was $350,000. An appraisal conducted in 2001 to secure a partial release of mortgage suggested **no negative impact" on value due to the division of property. This appraisal did not suggest an increase in value due to subdivision. Assuming a 6% increase for two years, an estimate of the 2002 valuation would be: 350.000 Year 2000 21.000 6% increase 371.000 Year 2001 22.260 6% increase 393.260 Year 2002 3) Analysis of comparable properties These properties are deemed to be comparable with exceptions noted. All valuations are per Hennepin County for taxes payable In 2002 Property 2185 Webber Hills Rd 2355 Abingdon Way Lot Size 1.325 acres Market Value 2.01 acres 80 Wear Lane 5 acres 50 Wear Lane 20 Wear Lane 680 Willow Drive S. 2.02 acres 2.031 acres 3.285 acres 2180 Fox Street 9.70 acres 300.000 17.000 Land 163.000 House 236.600 Limited 397,000 150.500 Land 246.500 House 372.400 Limited 374.000 197.000 Land 177.000 Building 266,200 Limited Notes Brick house Smaller lot Much larger house Comparable house on much larger lot • • •338,1 172.500 Land 165.500 House 267.900 Limited Nfo.r house 359.000 165.000 Land 194.000 House 292,500 Limited 353.000 200.000 Land 153.000 House 263.000 LimHad 376.000 350.000 Land 26,000 House 199^ Limited Same house exactly. Same model Very similar house and lot size Moreland, older house. Next Door i I The averages of the seven comparables listed above are; Market Value Land Value House V' * Limited vaiw Lot Size $356,714 $196,000 $160,714 5271.271 3.62 Acres Land value per acre $54,144 An analysis of the above data suggests that an appropriate 2002 valuation for 2240 Tox street should be: Market Value Land Building Limited Value til $366.0 200. 166.000 $223,800 These valuations, not coincidentally, are the same as the 2001 valuations for taxes payable in 2002. In Conclueion: Three methods were used to estimate valuation of the property at 2240 Fox Street. No approach justified the proposed 2002 valuation of $488,000 / $488,000 Ltd. While properties of this value certainly exist in the area, none are viewed as comparable. Helen and I respectfully request that the Board of Appeal and Equalization reconsider the proposed 2002 valuation of 2240 Fox Street. Sincerely, Jim & Helen Johnson CITY OF ORONO ASSESSMENT NOTICE (BOARD OF REVIEW) NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN, that the Board of Review of the City of Orono in Hennepin County, Minnesota, will meet at the Council Chambers. 2780 Kelley Parkway, in said City of Orono at 7:00 o'clock p.m. on Wednesday, the 24th day of April, 2002. for the purpose of reviewing and connecting the assessment of said city for the year 2002. All persons considering themselves aggrieved by said assessment or who wish to complain that the property of another is assessed too low, arc hereby notified to appear at said meeting and show cause for having such assessment corrected. No complaint that another person is assessed too low will be acted upon until the person so assessed, or his agent, shall have been notified of such complaint. Dated this 8th day of April. 2002. /s/ Linda S. Vee City Clerk *'«•*»»'•■'- ffr JV’Wim' ‘ —»-*i «T»« V^rr Clerk's Notice to Post and Publish • IlC 1163 (1/02) ASSESSMENT NOTICE NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN, That the Local Board of Appeal And Equalization of the City of_______________________in Hennepin County, Minn..will meet at the office of the________________Clerk, in said___________________________,at_________o'clock M., on , the day of.,20 for the purpose of reviewing and correcting the assessment of said. for the year 20 __. All persons considering themselves aggrieved by said assessment or who wish to complain that the property of another is assessed too low, are hereby notiffed to appear at said meeting and show cause for having such assessment corrected. No complaint that another person is assessed too low' will be acted upon until the person so assessed, or his agent, shall have been notified of such complaint. Dated this day of 20. Clerk of the city of »\ M,,*,...*.-.,. .-^.1-. .<iU* «- ^ •vT w ^1 Fomi No A F 4 • Nodco lo Ctorli o( Mooting ol Boom ol Rov<ow ♦ * EqualiiHon OFFICE OF COUNTY ASSESSOR TO THE CLERK OF THE City Orono HENNEPIN COUNTY. MINNESOTA NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN. That the Twenty-Fourth day of April et Seven o'clock P»M.. has been fixed as the date for the meeting of the Local Boad of Appeal and Equalization in your City for said year. This meeting should bo hold in your office as provided by law. Pursuant to the provisions of the Minnesota Statutes Section 274.03. you are required to give notice of said meeting by publication and posting, not later than ten days prior to the date of sakt meeting. Given urtder my hand this Eighth February ..20 County Assessor n Hennepin County. Mpnesota HC300MW)