Respondent did not object in principle but informed the Court that Anoka County was appealing the findings of the Study. The appeal of the Study to the Department of Revenue was at that time ongoing. The outcome of the County's appeal could not be foreseen at that point but it was evident that the final ratio for the relevant classification could be changed from that being offered into evidence. After the trial and after the decision but within the allowed time for post-trial motions, the Department of Revenue revised the Study for Anoka County as a result of the appeal. Respondent now brings this Motion for Amended Findings to reflect the revised Study.
Petitioner objects to Respondent's motion.
The Petitioner was the party offering the Study into evidence. The Respondent gave notice of the potential for change in the Study. The Court accepted the proffer with the understanding that the final numbers might change as a result of the appeal. Petitioner had several options at that time. Petitioner could have objected to the Court's proviso.