Have you received your notice of proposed property taxes for 2026? Caught your breath yet?
The increases in the bottom line in many cases are startling. But before you turn to social media to rant, perhaps anonymously because you might not want to risk anyone knowing you have an opinion outside the norm, at least consider the facts. Minnesota’s property tax system is grotesquely complicated. In years past, presenters at county tax hearings have stated they are among the most complicated in the county.
Oh, lucky us.
Among the many facts to consider in this complicated labyrinth of values, levies and formulas is the notion your property has likely increased in its worth. As a resident of a nearby community, we saw the estimated market value of our property value on a 1,474-square-foot townhouse built three years ago increase by 7.165% The taxable market value increased by 8.3% These assigned increases are based on sale prices of comparable properties. A quick Google search says estimated market value is the assessor's opinion of what a property would sell for on the open market, while taxable market value is the value used to calculate property taxes, which is the estimated market value minus any applicable exemptions, exclusions, or deferrals.
But that’s just a piece of the puzzle. Your local units of government figure into the equation. Preliminarily, the impact of the county’s levy on our property is a 14.3% increase. The city increased its share of the property taxes on our place by 9.84% The school district’s preliminary levy’s impact is a whopping 48% bump and that doesn’t include the impact of a levy voters approved Nov. 4. To be fair, the gargantuan increase includes an operating levy approved years ago that ended so the lone operating levy increase was OK’d by the school board.
Bottom line, the proposed property taxes on our house increased by 6.23% - more than twice the consumer price index (inflation). If you show up at your local Truthin-Taxation hearing and want to protest the valuation of your property, you’ve missed the boat. That process occurs earlier in the year.
Your local units of government – the county, school district and city – are all dealing with increased costs to deliver services we seem to expect. We don’t often see people attend city council, county board or school board meetings demanding less – fewer social programs, lower-quality roads, fewer cops on the street, reductions in park maintenance or fewer people to serve them – when the need arises. Thus, the locally-elected city councils, school boards and county commissioners propose levy increases. Each elected official must decide if a reduction in services citizens enjoy and perhaps even demand, is worth maintaining or cutting.
In a perfect world, President Ronald Reagan was correct back at his inauguration in 1981: “Government is the problem,” he said. Then again, that’s easy to say when you don’t need or want much. Reagan never worried about reductions in spending determining how long it would take a cop to answer a 911 call. He never wondered when would the city finally plow the street so he could go to work. He never had to fret over the continued availability of SNAP benefits.
In the wake of Human Services cuts from the federal government, does the county need to maintain a level of assistance people need? Does the school district need to maintain the level of programming and facilities maintenance it provides? Would you mind if your city reduced the level of services it offers? The services these units of government provide are in part driven by the cost of the people delivering them. Like you, employees expect wage increases to keep up with the cost of living. To their credit, New Prague’s teachers, for example, took a smaller bite of the apple when negotiating their most recent two-year contract to ease the burden on the district.
Is government at any level operated to perfection?
Nobody here is making that claim.
Minnesota is, no doubt, a high-tax state. In exchange, residents seemingly enjoy a higher quality standard of services from their local governments. A former city councilor from the area was known to say he was happy to discuss cuts to the budget (and levy) as long as the person calling for the reductions would be directly impacted by the reductions. So when, or if, you attend a tax hearing held by the county, the city or school district, don’t waste time calling for a reduction of the levy without including suggestions for where the reduction of spending ought to occur. You want less law enforcement? Larger class sizes? Reductions in street maintenance or the library open fewer hours? OK. Don’t call for reductions in programming and services you don’t utilize.