04-09-2007 Board of Appeal & Equalization CITY OF SCANDIA
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA
Special Meeting
Board of Appeal and Equalization
Monday, April 9, 2007
4:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m.
1. Call to Order
2. Conduct Board of Appeal and Equalization
3. Determine Whether Continuation Meeting is Required
(Continuation date would be 6:00 p.m., Tuesday April 17, 2007)
4. Adjournment
Washington ,ems
County
TO: Washington County Commissioners,County Administrator,City Council Members,
Town Board Members,Washington County Residents and Local Government Staff
FROM: Bruce L.Munneke,Washington County Assessor
DATE: March 27,2007
RE: 2007 Assessment Report
Introduction
The Washington County Assessor Division has prepared the 2007 Assessment Report for use by the
County Board, City Councils, Town Boards, residents, and staff. The Assessment Report includes
general information about both the appeals and assessment process, as well as specific information
regarding the 2007 assessment.
Minnesota Statutes establish specific requirements for the assessment of property.The law requires that
all real property be valued at market value,which is defined as the usual or most likely selling price as of
the January 2nd assessment date.
The estimated market values established through the 2007 assessment are based upon actual real estate
market trends of Washington County properties taking place from October 2005 through September
2006. From these trends our mass appraisal system is used to determine individual property values.
Detailed discussion of the sales analysis can be found in the"Sales Analysis"section of this report.
The summaries breaking down the adjustments made in each community, by property use, can be
found in the"Growth by Municipality"section of this report.
Property owners who have questions or concerns regarding the market value set for their property are
encouraged to contact the property appraiser responsible for their area. In most cases an interior
inspection of the property will be necessary. For detailed discussion regarding the appeals period please
refer to the section of this report titled"Appeals Process".
2007
Assessment
Report
Table of Contents
Introduction
Assessment Calendar 5
Assessment
The 2007 Assessment 6
Total Market Values 7
2007 Market Values by Property Class 8
Assessment Statistics 8
Average Residential Value 9
Residential Value—by Dwelling Type 11
Parcel Count 12
Appraisal Process
Responses to frequently asked questions regarding Market Value 16
Growth by Municipality
Residential Growth Summary 18
Total Value Summary 19
Agricultural Summary 20
Apartment Summary 21
Commercial/Industrial Summary 22
Residential Summary 23
Sales Analysis
Sales Studies 25
Sales Statistics Defined 26
2007 Residential Sales Study Statistics 27
2007 Washington County Residential Ratio Study 28
3
Number of Residential Sales Transactions(Good Sales) 29
Residential Sales History 29
Residential Sales Summary(SFR&Multi-Family Coded Good Sales) 30
New Construction Summary 31
Appeals Process
Appeal flow chart 33
Steps in the Appeals Process 34
Responses to typical questions from members of
the Local Board of Appeal and Equali?ation 36
Responsibilities of the County Board of Appeal and Equalization 40
4
Assessment
Assessment Calendar
2007
January 2 2007 Market Values for Property Established
February 1 Last Day to Deliver Assessment Records to County Assessor
March 31 2007 Valuation Notices and Tax Statements mailed
April 1 Spring Mini Abstract/Class Shift Report and Ag Report to Department of
Revenue
April 9—May 7 Local Boards of Appeal and Equalization
April 30 Last Day to File a payable 2007 Tax Court Petition
May 1 Begin the 2008 Assessment Review
May 15 First Half payable 2007 Taxes Due
May 11 Deadline for property owners to notify County Assessor of intent to
appeal at County Board of Appeal and Equalization
May 29—June 8 Region IX State Board of Equalization
June 12 Washington County Board of Appeal and Equalization
July 1 2007 Assessment Finalized
August 15 Last Day to File for 2007 Property Tax Refund
August 31 First Half payable 2007 Taxes Due for Manufactured Homes
September 1 2007 Abstracts,Duplicate Social Security File, and Market Value Sales
Ratio File due to the Department of Revenue
October 15 Second Half payable 2007 Taxes Due
November 15 Second Half payable 2007 Taxes Due for Manufactured Homes
November 24 Last Day to Mail Payable 2008 Proposed Tax Notices
December 15 Last Day to File Homestead Application for Payable 2008
2008
January 2 2008 Market Values for Property Established
April 7—May 5 Tentative Dates for the 2008 Local Board of Appeal
6
The 2007 Assessment
The 2007 assessment is a reflection of the 2006 market conditions. Sales of property are constantly
analyzed to chart the activity of the market place.The Assessment staff does not create value;they only
measure its movement.
Assessing property values equitably is part science, part judgment and part communication skill.
Training as an assessor cannot tell us how to find the "perfect" value of a property,but it does help us
consistently produce the same estimate of value for identical properties. That after all, is the working
definition of equalization.
As of January 2, 2007 there were 94,852 (count does not include exempt, railroad, personal
property, and utilities) parcels in the county. This is an increase of 2,354 or 2.54 % over the 2006
parcel count.
This total includes:
3,228 agricultural parcels (improved&vacant)
366 apartment parcels (improved&vacant)
3,778 commercial and industrial parcels(improved&vacant)
87,480 residential parcels (improved&vacant)
Current state law mandates that all property must be re-assessed each year and physically reviewed once
every five years. Staff also inspects all properties that have taken out a construction permit during the
course of the year.
During 2006 (for the 2007 assessment) the Assessor Division appraisers, and local appraisers,reviewed
23,662 properties.The breakdown of the properties that were reviewed is as follows:
15,352 residential type quintile reviews of which 37.1%were interior inspections
2,665 residential,agricultural and exempt vacant land reviews
832 apt.tment and commercial/industrial quintile reviews
1,662 new residential start reviews
65 new commercial/industrial start reviews
1 new apartment start review
6 new exempt reviews
3,079 miscellaneous permit reviews of all property classifications
7
Total Market Values
The 2007 estimated market value is established after thorough studies of the sales that took place in the
county between October 2005 and September 2006. During this study period, there were 6,826 (-12.1%
from previous period) sales recorded, of which 3,636 (-14.1% from previous period) were considered "arms-
length" sales. The sales not considered market indicators included new construction sales, vacant land
sales, sales not exposed to the open market, and other sales such as relocation, bank, government or
inter-family.
In accordance with the results of these sales studies, certain areas of the county and certain styles and
grades of homes may have been adjusted in value,either lower or higher than the previous year's value.
This will more properly reflect current market trends.
The 2007 assessment that is up for your review has a total unaudited assessed value of$29,190,239,500.
This is the estimated market value of agricultural related,apartment,commercial/industrial,seasonal and
residential classed properties. It reflects a valuation increase of 11.7% over the 2006 estimated market
value.
With new construction included, the pattern of growth in the county's total value can be seen in the
following list of assessment years:
Assessment Year Total Value** %Change
2001 $16,040,157,200
2002 $17,419,257,000 +8.6%
2003 $19,877,139,400 +14.1%
2004 $22,728,398,000 +14.3%
2005 $25,049,195,000 +10.2%
2006 $27,916,646,300 +11.4%
2007 $29,190,239,500 +4.6%
**Total value do not include exempt,railroad,personal property,and utilities.
Source:Assessment Administration Division reports—SS(USE EVERY YEAR report)
8
2007 Market Value by Property Class
2006 2007 New 2007
Market Value Net Value Construction Total Value Change
Agricultural $1,514,224,300 $1,533,597,200 $2,669,000 $1,536,266,200 1.5%
Apartments $623,548,600 $646,389,800 $19,538,400 $665,928,200 6.8%
Commercial/Industrial $2,651,325,200 $2,784,701,300 $169,887,500 $2,954,588,800 11.4%
Residential/Seasonal $23,127,558,100 $23,461,080,300 $572,376,000 $24,033,456,300 3.9%
'. TOTAIS. $27,916,656,200 $28,425,768,600 ,. $764,470,900 $29,190,239,500 1.8%
Dispersion of Market Value by Class
Agricultural,
5.57% Apartments,
2.44%
Comm/Ind,
8.74%
*41111111110
Residential,
83.25%
9
Washington County Average Residential V alue(sFR and Mum-Family)
i
CAMA 2000 CAMA 2001 CAMA 2002 !, CAMA 20031 CAMA 2004 CAMA 2005 CAMA 2006 CA'MA2007 % %Change
Municipality Market Value Market Value Market Value Market Value',Market Value:Market Value,Market Value Market Value Change since 2000
Afton $229,400 $264,900 $287,800 $338,800 $379,600 $463,800 $493,000 $495,200 0.4% 115.9%
Bayport $141,300 $156,000 $173,700 $207,300 $247,100 $243,300 $266,900 $273,400 2.4% 93.5%
Baytown $295,300 $323,900 $359,900 $404,100 $441,000 $484,400 . $524,500 $550,500 5.0% 86.4%
Birchwood $197,500 $224,700 $265,300 $325,600 $358,300-I $382,1004 $429,000 $489,000 14.0% 147.6%
Cottage Grove $128,300 $145,900 $171,600 $187,700 $211,800 i $222,000 $239,900 $244,300 1.8%° 90.4%
i .
Dellwood $405,400 $464,000 $514 300 $572,100 $651,800 $711,800 $746,100 $775,000 3.9% 91.2%
Denmark $214,300 $257,700 $295,300 $309,900 $397,400 I $448,300 $497,100 $500,600 0.7% 133.6%
Forest Lake $151,600 ' $182,200 E $205,500 i $226,600 $257,400 I $260,200 $299,900 $313,600 4.6% 106.9%
Grant $265,400 $313,200 $335,600 $405,400 $432,000 • $499,600 $518,600 $545,700 5.2% 105.6%
Grey Cloud $166,200 $188,400 I $219,700 $244,900 $273,700 $300,100 $321,100 $324,100 0.9% 95.0%
Hastings $112,100 i $112,100 $123,100 $136,800 $136,800 0.0% 22.0%
Hugo $166,900 $188,800 $208,900 $232,600 $283,300 $277,200 $301,700 $296,600 -1.7% 77.7%
Lake Elmo $224,500 $258,300 $292,700 $323,700 $364,700 $355,000 $382,300 $409,200 7.0% 82.3%
Lake St Croix $117,500 $127,500 $148,600 $170,100 $193,500 $208,700 $221,500 $223,400` 0.9% 90.1%
Lakeland $155,400 $173,900 $200,700 $220,600 $289,200 $282,900 $293,400 $317,500 8.2% 104.3%
Lakeland Shrs $233,800 $255,700 $293,700 } $319,700 $439,100 $470,700 $536,000 $534,300 -0.3%° 128.5%
Landfall $12,100 $12,100 $12,100 $32,300 166.9% 166.9%
Mahtomedi $186,300 $211,300 $241,500 $267,700 $304,600 $328,000 $363,300 $363,100 -0.1% 94.9%
Marine $224,000 $255,100 $282,600 $309,200 $380,200 $412,400 $455,700 $448,600 1.6% 100.3%
May $228,900 $265,700 r $284,500 $327,300 $398,000 $459,600 _l_ $506,800 $540,300 6.6°/0 136.0%
Newport $116,600 $135,900 $150,000 $167,400 $185,200 $197,400 $214,600 $218,700 1.9% 87.6%
Oak Park Hts $130,200 $144,600 $165,900 j $179,600 $212,600 $215,000 $212,100 $215,000 1.4% 65.1%
.t-_...
Oakdale $126,500 $142,900 1 $165,000 $182,800 $214,900 $212,800 $221,100 $222,900 0.8% 76.2%
Pine Springs $227,900 $256,000 $289,200 $304,100 $356,200 $356,800 1 $420,600 $415,200 -1.3% 82.2%
St Mary's Pt $193,500 $236,700 $270,900 $316,500 $388,700 $423,400 $473,200 $474,000 0.2% 145.0%
St Paul Park $104,500 $117,600 I $136,700 $150,800 $168,400 $168,600 $184,200 $190,200 3.3% 82.0%
Scandia $179,400 $208,700 $234,000 $247,400 $320,900 $353,000 $387,000 $391,700 1.2% 118.3%
Stillwater City $148,800 $169,000 $196,100 $219,700 $248,100 $263,200 $275,700 $286,600 4.0% 92.6%
Stillwater Twp $244,500 $281,400 $317,400 $351,700 $398,000 $445,700 4j $502,500 $502,700 0.0% 105.6%
West Lakeland $259,700 $290,900 $317,400 $353,500 $398,300 $437,900 $480,200 $479,800 -0.1% 84.8%
White Bear Lk $128,900 $145,800 $177,000 $187,800 $198,500 $212,600 $232,500 $234,500 0.9% 81.9%
Willernie $87,600 $99,300 $120,300 $137,300 $151,300 $155,000 $162,600 $168,000 3.3% 91.8%
Woodbury $171,400 $195,111 $217,600 $237,600 $267,700 $288,500 $304,000 $302,700 -0.4% 74.6%
Average I $164,100 I $187,400 I $211,8-00 J $234,800 I- $271,800 I $284,200 I $304,200 I $309,600 I 1.8% I 88.//o I
Residential Value Breakdown by Dwelling Type
$400,000
$350,000
$300,000
$250,000
p Multi-Family
$200,000
—FL I
® Single Family
$150,000
$100,000 --
i
$50,000 —
$0
• /7/ Ie. /
•
11
Residential Improved Parcels
90000 i
80000
70000
60000 —
50000 uiii1ll
0
2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007
o Improved Residential ■Single Family 0 Multi-Family
2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007
Improved Residential 65991 67796 69366 71362 73930 76405 77672
Single Family 57652 58701 59593 60801 62048 63251 62172
Multi-Family 8339 9095 9773 10561 11882 13154 15500
12
Total Taxable Parcel Count
100,000 _.
94,852
95,000
92,498
90,132
90,000 88,055
85,489
85,000 83,497 s
81,512
80,000
75,000
x
70,000
2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007
Parcel Type 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007
Agriculture 3,982 3,685 3,583 3,450 3,380 3,269 3,228
Apartment 321 332 334 334 347 349 366
Commercial/Industrial 3,376 3,396 3,438 3,484 3,564 3,678 3,778
Residential/Seasonal 73,833 76,084 78,134 80,787 82,841 85,202 87,480
TOTAL 81,512 83,497 85,489 88,055 '90,132 92,498 94,852
13
Apartments
370
360 366
350
347 349
340
330 332 334 334
320
321
310
300
290 -T-
2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007
Commercial/Industrial
3900 ._,_. ..
3800 - 3778
3700 - 3678
3600 - 3564
3500 3484
3438
3400 -
3376 3396
3300 -
3200 -
3100
2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007
14
Agriculture
4500
S`lg`L
4000 5
3500 ��� 35�� 3'5�� 31'69 1:$
3000
2500
2000
1500 r'�-
1000 . S
.
500 S 4
0
2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007
Residential/Seasonal Rec
90000 - -
87,480
85,202
85000 -
82,841
80,787
80000 -- - —
78,134
76,084
75000 - --
70000
65000
2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007
15
Appraisal
Process
What is market value?
Minnesota statue 273.03 defines market value as "... the usual selling price at the time of
assessment."
The Assessor's Office works through out the year to estimate market values of each property for
the following January 2 assessment date.
How is market value determined?
1. View Property - Approximately every fifth year, an appraiser working under the
supervision of the County Assessor will view the property.Any property that had a
building permit issued in a given year is viewed and the new value calculated as of
January 2nd following the construction.
2. Gather Information - The appraiser gathers information on all characteristics of
the property that affect market value, such as size, age, quality, basement finish,
and extra features, such as fireplaces,walk-out basements, etc.
3. Compute Value - The characteristics are entered into a computerized system.
Information on actual market sales are used to establish the building and
component rates used to calculate the property's value. The market value
estimated by the appraiser in this way should be very close to the amount the
property would sell for,if placed on the open market.
Why market values may change from year to year?
Property values change continuously depending on the economic conditions affecting the local
housing market. In addition to market changes, physical changes made to your property can also
affect your market value.All factors are considered in estimating the value of property.
The following section includes detailed summaries of the market value adjustments that were
needed in order for the 2007 assessment to meet the requirements set by the County Assessor and
the Department of Revenue.
17
Growth
By
Municipality
Residential Growth Summary (SFR and Multi-Family)
2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007
Municipality Growth Growth Growth Growth Growth Growth
Afton 7.0% 18.6% 11.7% 16.6% 4.9% 2.6%
Bayport 9.9% 18.5% 18.3% 1.2% 20.0% 1.6%
Baytown 11.1% 10.7% 10.3% 11.1% 9.8% 7.9%
Birchwood 17.7% 21.2% 10.6% 6.2% 10.6% 14.7%
Cottage Grove 17.6% 10.4% 11.0% 6.6% 5.8% 1.7%
Dellwood 9.6% 12.0% 16.9% 7.7% 3.4% 2.6%
Denmark 16.0% 8.3% 33.6% 3.4% 12.2% 1.0%
Forest Lake 15.2% 8.3% 9.4% 6.9% 17.3% 4.5%
Grant 6.5% 21.8% 4.6% 12.8% 3.0% 5.9%
Grey Cloud 16.9% 13.9% 15.6% 6.6% 1.6% 0.3%
Hastings 3.7% 333.4% 40.0% 7.8% 13.4% 0.0%
Hugo 13.6% 13.8% 16.9% 10.3% 14.6% 1.5%
Lake Elmo 11.0% 8.9% 12.2% 8.8% 8.2% -1.5%
Lake St Croix 18.3% 12.6% 13.1% 6.0% 5.8% 0.2%
Lakeland 14.7% 8.6% 30.3% 0.0% 4.4% 6.4%
Lakeland Shrs 14.1% 8.2% 38.7% 6.1% 10.9% -0.2%
Landfall 7.6% 0.0% 5.6% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Mahtomedi 12.8% 9.8% 10.8% 9.0% 10.4% -0.2%
Marine 8.8% 7.1% 21.7% 9.9% 10.3% 0.5%
May 5.8% 11.8% 25.9% 8.9% 7.9% 7.8%
Newport 17.0% 10.5% 13.3% 5.4% 8.8% 0.2%
Oak Park Hts 14.8% 8.1% 9.3% 7.4% -0.9% 1.7%
Oakdale 12.7% 10.9% 8.5% 6.8% 5.4% -0.2%
Pine Springs 10.7% 4.8% 16.6% 0.0% 17.9% -1.1%
St Mary's Pt 12.2% 12.8% 20.7% 4.2% 13.5% -0.2%
St Paul Park 16.3% 9.9% 14.8% 4.7% 8.8% 1.0%
Scandia 9.4% 5.6% 34.7% 6.3% 10.5% 0.0%
Stillwater City 14.5% 11.1% 9.1% 10.4% 5.3% 2.8%
Stillwater Twp 13.1% 11.0% 13.6% 6.4% 13.6% -0.2%
West Lakeland 8.6% 10.2% 13.6% 9.3% 9.5% -0.7%
White Bear Lk 21.2% 6.1% 5.3% 7.0% 9.3% 0.5%
Willernie 22.3% 12.8% 9.8% 2.3% 4.2% 3.1%
Woodbury 9.6% 14.2% 12.0% 8.7% 5.1% -0.1%
Count "Total :v, I z12.4*/047:: .i..`r •y dfo' 1§": fi 'A li Z°1.. ..I: _ 7.6/i .... •.:.. RA,
19
Total Market Value Summary (Ag/Apt/c&I/Res/seasonal)
ay2007 ay2007 ay2006
New # Total Total %
Municipality Construction Parcels Value Value Growth
Afton $3,483,600 1,499 $645,674,700 $615,124,300 4.4%
Bayport $5,152,800 1,021 $262,381,100 $251,359,400 2.3%
Baytown $4,961,800 818 $346,336,700 $318,904,800 7.0%
Birchwood $407,300 427 $178,501,800 $155,314,700 14.7%
Cottage Grove $67,196,800 11,941 $3,058,851,500 $2,918,573,800 2.5%
Dellwood $1,742,300 559 $333,575,400 $322,270,700 3.0%
Denmark $7,911,700 1,161 $420,478,400 $405,396,000 1.8%
Forest Lake $28,276,300 7,863 $2,353,707,200 $2,248,727,300 3.4%
Grant $3,701,500 1,981 $885,894,200 $824,187,200 7.0%
Grey Cloud $584,000 184 $41,505,700 $40,707,600 0.5%
Hastings $0 7 $1,758,800 $1,758,800 0.0%
Hugo $106,311,000 5,817 $1,564,679,600 $1,453,919,600 0.3%
Lake Elmo $33,154,000 3,184 $1,193,507,800 $1,172,147,800 -1.0%
Lake St Croix Beach $1,425,400 759 $111,786,700 $109,962,000 0.4%
Lakeland $1,143,900 825 . $239,740,600 $224,847,300 6.1%
Lakeland Shores $68,900 154 $65,982,600 $65,999,300 -0.1%
Landfall $0 7 $5,930,400 $5,879,600 0.9%
Mahtomedi $19,755,300 3,130 $1,009,002,300 $990,424,800 -0.1%
Marine $1,749,900 590 $168,260,800 $165,538,100 0.6%
May $7,403,600 1,847 $757,420,600 $696,343,100 7.7%
Newport $1,129,400 1,561 $324,964,000 $316,318,200 2.4%
Oak Park Heights $16,623,400 1,814 $518,127,100 $490,376,500 2.3%
Oakdale $37,815,900 9,880 $2,565,807,000 $2,527,199,400 0.0%
Pine Springs $0 177 $59,384,500 $60,016,600 -1.1%
St Mary's Point $585,300 324 $82,853,600 $82,458,800 -0.2%
St Paul Park $6,551,200 2,354 $410,560,800 $399,652,800 1.1%
Scandia $10,277,900 2,687 $718,081,600 $708,524,800 -0.1%
Stillwater City $41,326,700 7,421 $2,143,325,700 $2,039,571,100 3.1%
Stillwater Twp $3,230,000 1,098 $483,027,700 $481,802,400 -0.4%
West Lakeland $7,540,400 1,497 $653,914,100 $650,633,400 -0.7%
White Bear Lake $1,047,200 106 $35,648,100 $33,926,200 2.0%
Willernie $1,283,200 375 $43,881,100 $40,299,600 5.7%
Woodbury $342,630,200 21,784 $7,505,687,300 $7,098,480,300 0.9%
I TOTALS 1 $764,470,9001 , 94,852 $29,190,239,500 $27,916,646,3001 1.8%
20
6. For equalization activities, the Board must not reduce the aggregate value of all
property in the County by more than one percent of the total valuation. There
are no restrictions as to the amount of aggregate increases.
7. The Board of Equalization for any County may appoint a Special Board of
Equalization and delegate its powers to it. At least one member of the appointed
Board must be an appraiser, realtor or other person familiar with property
valuations in the County. The County Auditor would be a non-voting member
and would serve as a recorder for the Special Board.
8. The format for the County Board of Equalization is at the discretion of the
Board.
From past experience it is suggested that the appealing individuals be heard by
appointment. ALL property owners have been asked to notify the Assessor's
Office by May 11th if they intend to be present at the 2007 County Board
meeting.The advanced notification is necessary so that an appraiser will have the
opportunity to make an interior inspection of the property, request and analyze
any pertinent information, and complete the necessary reports prior to the first
meeting on June 12th.
Because equalization is a primary concern of aal property owners in our county,
not just those property owners who contest their valuations, I recommend the
following approach to those situations in which staff may not have adequate time
(or vital information is not provided) to process an appeal that is filed beyond
the deadline. Staff will process those appeals if time permits them to analyze the
appeal in a way that is consistent with the methods used for those appeals that
are filed in a timely manner. If time becomes an issue, or vital information is not
provided, a recommendation of no change will be given to the County Board of
Appeal. At that time the property owner can take their appeal to Tax Court if
they choose.
All Board decisions should be adopted by a formal vote. Either developing a
consensus on all appeals and adopting them with one vote or taking a vote on each
appeal is acceptable.
9. The County Auditor shall keep a record of the proceedings and the orders of the
Board. The record must be published like other proceedings of County
Commissioners. A copy of the published record must be sent to the
Commissioner of Revenue with the abstract of assessment.
42
Responsibilities of the County Board of Appeal and
Equalization
The responsibility and procedure of the County Board of Appeal and Equalization are
contained in Minnesota Statutes 274.13 and 274.14. In addition to the statutory requirements,
some procedures are suggested based on past experience of the Board.
1. The County Board of Appeal and Equalization shall consist of the County
Commissioners or a majority of them,with the County Auditor,or if the Auditor
cannot be present, the Deputy County Auditor, or if there is not a Deputy, the
Court Administrator of the District Court. Their purpose shall be to form a
Board for Equalization of the assessment of the property in the County.
2. The County Board of Appeal and Equalization has a dual role:
a). Listen and act upon appeals of property owners in a manner similar
to the Local Board of Appeal and Equalization
b). ail-Jahn values throughout the various jurisdictions and various property
types, both within the County and the bordering tier of townships of
each adjoining county. This responsibility has been de-emphasized
somewhat now that the sequence of Boards is (1) Local, (2) State, (3)
County, rather than (1) Local, (2) County, (3) State. Theoretically,
equalization issues,both intra and inter County,will have been addressed
and resolved at the State Board of Equalization which meets in June
2007.
3. The Board shall meet during the last two weeks in June that contain ten meeting
days, excluding Saturday and Sunday. For the 2007 Board of Equalization, this
means that they shall meet during the weeks of June 11 through June 18. Our
experience has been that it will take one-half day in the first week and one-half
day in the second week.
4. Property owners that reside in municipalities that hold a Local Board of Appeal
and Equalization are required to make an official appearance (have their name
read into the meeting minutes) at the Local Board of Appeal and Equalization
prior to an appearance at the County Board of Appeal and Equalization. This
"appearance"can be made in person,by agent or by letter.
5. Owners of property in those municipalities that have opted for the "Open
Book" format can choose to attend the Open Book meetings held in their
community and/or proceed directly to the County Board of Appeal (application
deadline is May 11,2007). This appearance can be done in person,by agent or by
letter.
41
withheld. It is up to the individual Boards as to what procedure you choose to use in
determining if an adjustment in value is warranted.
The format for receiving additional information and recommendations on appealing properties is
at the discretion of the Board. Our suggestion is that properties that are appealing (based on the
owner's opinion that they are overvalued), should be reviewed by the assessor responsible for the
area, and a specific recommendation made to the Board. The Board has the option of following
that recommendation in total or in part, or making a decision independent of the
recommendation.
The decisions should be adopted by a formal vote. Either developing a consensus on all appeals
and adopting them with one vote,or taking a vote on each appeal is acceptable.
What options does the property owner have if they do not agree with the results
from the Local Board of Appeal?
The next step in the appeals process is:
1. Appeal to the County Board of Appeal and Equalization (a property owner must
appear at the Local Board of Appeal and Equalization in order to maintain their
right to appeal to the County Board of Appeal and Equalization (application
deadline is May 11,2007),
2. Tax Court.
What procedure should a Board member(s) (or city/township staff involved with the
Board proceedings) follow to appeal their own market value?
There are no statutory provisions that address the procedure to follow in these situations. In
order to not be put in a position that may be perceived as a conflict of interest by the local
property owners and the Department of Revenue, it is strongly suggested that these appeals
be handled as follows: If a Board member(s) (or city/township staff member(s) involved
with the Board proceedings) chooses to appeal the valuation on their home, or any other
property that they own, they should register their appeal by having their name read into the
meeting minutes. At that point the Local Board should recommend no change in value and
send the appeal to the County Board of Appeals for review.
If a Local Board member(s) (or city/township staff member(s) involved with the Board
proceedings) choose to ignore this suggestion they should abstain from voting and provide
the Board members with credible supporting evidence in order for the Board to make a
decision as to why their property is overvalued.
39
• At the conclusion of the meeting, all Board members in attendance are required
to review and sign Form Q1-4 which is the statutory reporting form for the
meeting.
Are the changes made at the local level reviewed?
The Washington County Assessor reviews all value adjustments made by the Local Boards
of Appeal and the changes made by the appraisers prior to the County Board meeting. If the
County Assessor finds a value adjustment that is not in the best interest of all property
owners in our county, additional information may be requested to support the change. If
adequate information does not support the valuation adjustment, or information is not
provided, the County Assessor will make a recommendation to the County Board to change
the estimated market value back to an acceptable level in order to rectify the situation. The
property owner involved will be notified in advance of this recommendation.
What is the format for the Local Board of Appeal?
The statutory requirements are listed above and the format must accommodate those. The
method in which the meeting is conducted is at the discretion of the local officials (it is again
emphasized that it is their meeting not that of the County or local assessor).The county staff
or local assessor can provide you with background information regarding how previous
meetings were conducted.
On what basis should I make my decisions as a Local Board member?
You have an obligation to objectively listen to the property owner's appeal which should focus on
the market value and facts that impact the market value (there are occasionally appeals of
classification which are usually technical and legal in nature and should be sent to the County
Board.) For example if the property owner states that they believe that their home is over valued
because it is located on a busy street,they should present comparable sales that are also influenced
by the same factor. The property owner should have some information to support their claim of
being over valued in order to assist the Local Board members in making their decision.With the
large number of homeowners who have refinanced in the past couple of years,there are plenty of
appraisals that can be produced as evidence.
In the case of appeals made by income producing (commercial/industrial and apartment)
property owners,it is recommended that the procedure currently in place at the county level and
used in tax court appeals be followed.The commercial/industrial appraiser is to first conduct a
physical inspection of the property. They also determine what information may be available
and beneficial in establishing the estimated value. That information is then requested from
the property owner or their representative. This information typically consists of rent rolls,
copies of leases currently in place, gross sales, 3 years of income & expense data and
appraisals. After gathering the applicable information, staff can conduct a thorough analysis
of the market value. Staff is instructed not to make changes if the information requested is
38
Responses to typical questions from members of the
Local Board of Appeal
What is the purpose of the Local Board of Appeal?
The Local Board of Appeal and Equalization is an important part of the appeals portion of
the assessment cycle. The Board provides property owners with an opportunity to review
and challenge, if necessary, their estimate of market value and/or classification that will be
used for the dispersal of the following years taxes.
What are the requirements for the meeting?
The statutory requirements are:
• On or before February 15 of each year the assessor shall give written notice of
the time and place to the city or township clerk.
• The clerk shall give published and posted notice of the meeting at least ten days
before the date of the meeting.
• Valuation and classification notices for the January 2, 2007 assessment are mailed
to property owners by the County Assessor's Office at least ten days prior to the
Board of Appeal and Equalization.
• The Local Board of Appeal and Equalization is an official public meeting similar
to a City Council or Township Board meeting and cannot be convened without a
quorum and the city or township clerk has the responsibility of keeping the
minutes of the meeting.
• The Board must complete its work and adjourn within twenty days of the time of
convening but not outside the April 1 to May 31 time period.
• The Local Board of Appeal and Equalization has the authority to reduce and
increase assessments upon petition of the property owner. The total reductions
may not reduce the aggregate assessment by more than one percent. If the total
reductions lower the aggregate assessment by more than one percent, none of
the adjustments may be made. There is no limit to the amount an assessment can
be increased.
37
County Board of Appeal and Equalization. In order to be put on the agenda for
the County Board of Appeal and Equalization please contact the Assessor's
Office at 651-430-6109 by May 11, 2007. The County Board is made up of
elected county commissioners, the county auditor/treasurer, and/or appointed
officials. The 2007 County Board of Appeal and Equalization is scheduled for
June 12, 2007. Property owners who appeal their assessments at this level must
have first appeared before the Local Board of Appeal and Equalization if they
choose to have their grievances acted upon by this Board
If property owners still feel aggrieved as a result of the action taken by this Board, they may
file a petition in Minnesota Tax Court (i.e. small claims or regular division depending upon
property type and estimated market value).All appeals must be filed on or before April 30 of
the year the tax becomes payable.
The one-step appeal process bypasses both the Local Board of Appeal and the County
Board of Appeal and Equalization. It involves making an appeal directly to the regular
division of Minnesota Tax Court. The same filing requirements and deadlines apply to all
property owners who choose this route. The Minnesota Tax Court is located at
Minnesota Judicial Center, Suite 245, 25 Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Blvd., St. Paul,
MN. 55155. The phone number is (651)296-2806.
Before property owners make a formal appeal, should they contact their assessor's
office?
Property owners are encouraged to contact their appraiser anytime to discuss their property
assessment. An informal meeting can be scheduled to review the property, examine market
data, answer questions, and clarify the valuation and classification practices used. This
discussion can also be handled by telephone, mail,or e-mail during regular business hours.
36
Steps in the Appeals Process
In Minnesota, property tax laws provide the legal parameters that govern the work of
assessors. These statutes lay down a cycle of assessment activities that are conducted on an
annual basis. Each year, assessors are required to work on a number of tasks that include:
listing, valuing, and classifying all taxable properties; processing both real and personal
property transfers; analyzing market data; monitoring assessment levels for several different
classes of property;and arranging and conducting an appeals process.
The latter of these activities is a key part of the assessment cycle that provides property
owners with an opportunity to review and challenge, if necessary, their estimate of market
value and/or classification that will be used for taxation purposes in the following year.
At what point in the assessment cycle does the appeals process begin?
The appeals process begins in March and extends through June. When property owners receive
their tax statements and assessment notices during the months of March, April, and May, they
should read them carefully for instructions about deadlines, filing procedures, meeting dates and
times. If they are not clear, they should call the assessor's office for clarification and additional
information because a missed deadline, an incorrect filing, or the failure to attend a scheduled
meeting can cause an appeal to be dismissed.
What steps should property owners take to appeal their assessments?
There are two avenues of appeal that property owners may take to challenge their
assessments. The first route is referred to as the three-step appeal process and the second
route is known as the one-step appeal process.
The three-step appeal:
1. Property owners who have questions or concerns regarding the market value or
classification of their property are encouraged to contact the property appraiser
responsible for their area. In most cases an interior inspection of the property will be
necessary. We have found that a large number of property owner concerns can be
resolved after speaking to an appraiser.
2. If your questions or concerns are not resolved after talking with your appraiser
you may appear before the Local Board of Appeal and Equalization in your
community or attend one of the Open Book meetings held throughout the
county. These meetings are held in April or May. Please reference your valuation
notice or call your appraiser to find out the time and place of the meeting held
for property owners in your community. Your appeal can be made in person,
through a letter or through a representative authorized by you.
3. If property owners are not satisfied with the action taken at the Local Board of
Appeal and Equalization, they may appear (in person, through a designated
representative, or by sending a written request) before a second board, called the
35
What do I do if I think my property is valued or classified incorrectly?
After you receive your value notice(generally mailed in Feb.-March)
Examine your notice; if you have a question OR if you think your property assessment for
this year is incorrect,follow these steps:(
Step 1: TALK TO YOUR ASSESSOR
• Call the number listed on the notice.
• Discuss your concerns with the assessor/appraiser.
* Review sales information.
OR A (Apply directly to Minnesota Tax Court)
7
Step 2: Attend the "Board of Appeal and Equalization"or'"""Open Book"Meeting
• The Board of Appeal and Equalization meets at the city or township level.
* Meets in April or May.
* Appeal in person, by letter or by designated representative.
* Call your assessor- an appointment may be necessary.
** "Open Book"meeting: If your notice refers to the"Open Book"meeting,this is held in lieu of the
Board of Appeal and Equalization. "Open Book"refers to the informal assessment review
process between the property owners and the assessor/appraiser. This is an informal
opportunity to resolve assessment questions prior to the County Board of Appeal and
Equalization.
4
Step 3: Attend the County Board of Appeal and Equalization
• You must first appeal to the Board of Appeal and Equalization(local level see Step 2).
If your city has an "Open Book" meeting, you may appeal directly to the County
Board of Appeal and Equalization. Although it is strongly recommended, you are
not required to appear at the "Open Book" meeting.
* Meets in June
* Appeal in person, by letter or by designated representative
* Call the number listed on your valuation notice to make an appointment
Appeal to the Minnesota Tax Court
Appeals must be filed by April 30 of the year following the assessment
taxrroi.nt state,mn,us
V
Regular Division Small Claims Division
*Non homesteaded property valued over$300,000 *Nonhomestead property valued under$300,000.
*Appeal can be used for all property. *All homestead property. Provided that there is
one dwelling unit per parcel per petition.
*Attorney is recommended *Denial of current year application for Homestead.
*Attorney is not necessary.
*Decisions can be appealed to Supreme Court. *Decisions are final.
***Chart courtesy of the Hennepin County Assessor's Office
34
Appeals
Process
New Construction Summary
SFR TH/Condo C&I Apartments Exempt
2006 2006 2006 2006 2006
Municipality New Home Starts New Home Starts New Starts New Starts New Starts 1 otal
Afton 9 0 0 0 0 9
Bayport 11 0 0 0 0 11
Baytown 6 0 0 0 0 6
Birchwood 0 0 0 0 0 0
Cottage Grove 123 101 9 0 1 234
Dellwood 1 0 0 0 0 1
Denmark 14 0 1 0 0 15
Forest Lake 47 42 1 0 1 91
Grant 4 0 0 0 0 4
Grey Cloud 0 0 0 0 0 "0
Hastings 0 0 0 0 0 0
Hugo 116 275 3 0 1 i 395
Lake Elmo 28 0 3 0 2 33
Lake St Croix Beach 4 0 0 0 o "".4
Lakeland 1 0 0 0 0 1
Lakeland Shores 0 0 0 0 0 0
Landfall 0 0 0 0 0 4``0
Mahtomedi 15 20 5 0 0 ., 40
Marine 4 0 0 0 0 '4
May 12 0 0 0 012
Newport 3 0 0 0 0 3
Oak Park Heights 1 17 7 0 o fi h 25
Oakdale 8 15 7 0 1 31
Pine Springs 0 0 0 0 0 `` 0
St Mary's Point 0 0 0 0 0 0
St Paul Park 13 15 0 0 0 28
Scandia 14 0 1 0 0 :' 15
Stillwater City 42 11 0 0 0 53
Stillwater Twp 3 0 0 0 03
West Lakeland 8 0 0 0 0 8
White Bear Lake 0 0 1 0 0 ;; ` " 1
Willernie 0 9 0 0 0 9
Woodbury 364 266 27 0 0 657
TOTALS I 8511 7711 651 01 611,693
32
Residential Sales Summary (SFR and Multi-Family coded good sale)
# High Low Average
Municipality sales Sale Price Sale Price Sale Price
Afton 23 $699,000 $192,500 $412,400
Bayport 25 $875,000 $156,000 $272,900
Baytown 17 $1,100,000 $269,900 $552,200
Birchwood 8 $1,400,000 $140,000 $491,400
Cottage Grove 591 $770,000 $115,000 $245,300
Dellwood 6 $1,125,000 $360,000 $691,500
Denmark 7 $765,000 $308,500 $487,600
Forest Lake 276 $1,975,000 $137,400 $282,400
Grant 46 $2,100,000 $249,900 $635,000
Grey Cloud 1 $165,000 $165,000 $165,000
Hastings 0 $0 $0 $0
Hugo 245 $998,500 $136,700 $267,000
Lake Elmo 60 $2,175,000 $155,000 $418,600
Lake St Croix 22 $400,000 $154,000 $233,300
Lakeland 25 $1,610,000 $130,000 $314,600
Lakeland Shrs 1 $475,000 $475,000 $475,000
Landfall 0 $0 $0 $0
Mahtomedi 80 $1,188,900 $89,000 $373,100
Marine 7 $765,000 $217,900 $421,200
May 23 $1,200,000 $245,000 $505,200
Newport 40 $465,000 $93,500 $196,800
Oak Park Hts 62 $769,200 $74,000 $211,000
Oakdale 418 $580,000 $82,000 $221,500
Pine Springs 5 $654,000 $216,200 $431,000
St Mary's Pt 5 $377,300 $209,000 $294,600
St Paul Park 81 $329,000 $119,000 $203,300
Scandia 34 $1,075,000 $218,000 $445,000
Stillwater City 285 $1,073,500 $140,000 $282,900
Stillwater Twp 10 $980,000 $415,000 $585,800
West Lakeland 27 $1,275,000 $287,500 $590,300
White Bear Lk 5 $249,700 $227,500 $236,800
Willernie 12 $234,200 $72,000 $176,800
Woodbury 1,189 $1,450,000 $91,200 $301,400
County I 3,636 I $2,175,000 I $72,000 I $289,000 I
31
Number of Sale Transactions (good sales)
■#of Multi-Family■#of Single Family
3500
3000
2500
2000
1500
1000
500
0
ay2000 ay2001 ay2002 ay2003 ay2004 ay2005 ay2006 ay2007
■#of Multi-Family 834 815 1013 986 1041 1141 1309 1331
■#of Single Family 2895 2669 2756 2672 2960 2934 2923 2305
Residential Sales History
■Avg Multi-Family Sale Price ■Avg Single Family Sale Price
O Avg Assessed Value of Sold Multi-Family Homes 0 Avg Assessed Value of Sold Single Family Homes
400000
300000 ^—
200000
11.
100000
0
ay2002 ay2003 ay2004 ay2005 ay2006 ay2007
Avg Multi-Family Sale Price 144300 157500 164400 181300 195200 199800
Avg Single Family Sale Price 231600 250700 257000 295000 316400 334700
Avg Assessed Value of Sold Multi- 137500 150700 156700 172700 185300 190400
Family Homes
Avg Assessed Value of Sold Single 217400 237800 243600 278700 301100 318500
Family Homes
30
2007 Washington County Residential Ratio Study (SFR&Multi Family)
Municipality #of Sales Median Ratio C.O.D.
Afton 23 98.2% 13.80
Bayport 25 95.5% 12.10
Baytown 17 95.3% 7.60
Birchwood 8 98.3% 9.30
Cottage Grove 591 95.1% 6.70
Dellwood 6 93.9% 17.20
Denmark 7 94.5% 6.90
Forest Lake 276 98.3% 9.20
Grant 46 97.8% 9.50
Grey Cloud 1 95.8% 0.00
Hastings 0 0.0% 0.00
Hugo 245 94.7% 6.60
Lake Elmo 60 95.7% 10.60
Lake St Croix Beach 22 94.8% 11.80
Lakeland 25 98.0% 9.90
Lakeland Shores 1 97.5% 0.00
Landfall 0 0.0% 0.00
Mahtomedi 80 94.2% 9.10
Marine 7 98.2% 7.50
May 23 96.8% 14.00
Newport 40 97.6% 9.20
Oak Park Heights 62 94.9% 10.60
Oakdale 418 94.7% 6.80
Pine Springs 5 97.3% 8.60
St Mary's Point 5 95.8% 12.60
St Paul Park 81 96.8% 7.80
Scandia 34 95.1% 10.90
Stillwater City 285 96.3% 9.30
Stillwater Twp 10 96.5% 6.90
West Lakeland 27 95.4% 8.80
White Bear Lake 5 98.7% 7.40
Willernie 12 94.9% 10.10
Woodbury 1189 94.4% 6.50
ra:J--TOTALS' 5: is ,;3,636 . . 5N . '„ :47, . :IW
29
2007 Residential Sales Study Statistics
The following residential statistics are based upon ratios calculated using the 2007 estimated market
values and sales that occurred between October 2005 and September 2006. The statistics for the
previous year(s) are also listed. The Assessor's Office uses these ratios to measure equalization,
assessment accuracy,and determine trends in the market.
Countywide#'s ay2007 ay2006 ay2005
Median Ratio: 95.23 95.10 94.70
Weighted Mean Ratio: 94.66 95.10 95.13
Arithmetic Mean 95.45 95.70 98.94
COD: 6.84 7.11 7.15
PRD: 100.65 100.63 100.66
The following statistics show the residential properties broken down by dwelling type.
Single Family ay2007 ay2006 ay2005
Median Ratio: 95.18 95.17 94.46
Weighted Ratio: 94.64 95.24 95.13
Mean Ratio: 95.49 95.93 99.52
COD: 7.41 7.62 8.07
PRD: 100.86 100.72 101.25
Multi Family ay2007 ay2006 ay2005
Median Ratio: 95.31 94.95 95.24
Weighted Ratio: 94.88 94.57 95.14
Mean Ratio: 95.50 95.17 97.45
COD: 5.80 5.88 3.40
PRD: 100.64 100.63 99.85
28
Sales Statistics Defined
In addition to the median ratio,we have the ability to develop other statistics to test the accuracy of the
assessment.Some of these are used at the state level also.The primary statistics used are:
Median Ratio: This is a measure of central tendency, the median of a sample is the value for which
one-half (50%) of the observations (when stratified) will lie above that value and one-half will lie
below that value. The median is not susceptible to extreme observations referred to as outliers.We
use this ratio, much like the mean, not only to watch our assessment level, but also to analyze
property values by municipality, type of dwelling and value range. These studies enable us to track
market trends in neighborhoods,popular housing types and classes of property.
Within the county,we constantly try to achieve a ratio of 95% for the median,weighted mean and
mean. This allows us a margin to account for a fluctuating market and still maintain ratios within
state mandated guidelines.
Weighted Mean Ratio:This is the sum of the estimated market value of all sale properties divided by
the sum of all sale prices.The weighted mean is also a measurement of central tendency.
Arithmetic Mean Ratio: The mean is the average ratio. Unlike the median,the mean is influenced by
outliers.We use this ratio not only to watch our assessment level,but also to analyze property values by
municipality, type of dwelling and value range. These studies enable us to track market trends in
neighborhoods,popular housing types and classes of property.
Coefficient of Dispersion (COD): The COD measures the accuracy of the assessment. The COD
indicates the spread of the ratios from the mean or median ratio.It is possible to have a median ratio of
94.5%with 300 sales, two ratios at 94.5%, 149 at 80% and 149 at 103%. Although this is an excellent
median ratio,there is obviously a great inequality in the assessment.
The goal of a good assessment is a COD of 10 to 20. A COD under 10 is considered excellent and
anything under 20 will mean an assessment review by the Department of Revenue.
Price Related Differential(PRD):This statistic measures the equality between the assessment of high
valued and low valued property.A PRD over 100 indicates a regressive assessment,or the lower valued
properties are assessed at a greater degree than the higher valued properties. A PRD of less than 100
indicates a progressive assessment or the lower valued properties are assessed at a greater degree than
the higher valued properties.A perfect PRD of 100 means that both higher and lower valued properties
are assessed exactly equal.
27
Sales Studies
According to State Law,it is the assessor's responsibility to appraise all real property at current resale
value as of the January 2"d assessment date. As a method of checks and balances, the Department
of Revenue uses statistics and ratios relating to assessed market value and sale prices to confirm
that the law is upheld. Assessors use similar statistics and sales ratios to identify market trends in
developing market values.
A sales ratio is obtained by comparing the assessor's market value to the adjusted sales price of
each property sold in an "arms-length" transaction within a fixed period. An "arms-length"
transaction is one that is generated after a property has had sufficient time on the open market,
between both an informed buyer and seller with no undue pressure on either party.The median or
mid-point ratios are calculated and stratified according to property classification.
100%
The only perfect assessment would have a 100% ratio for every sale. This is of course, impossible.
Because we are not able to predict major events that may cause significant shifts in the market, the
state allows a 15%margin of error.
The Department of Revenue adjusts the median ratio by the percentage of growth from the
previous year's abstract value of the same class of property within the same jurisdiction. In
municipalities in which there are a minimum of six sales, this adjusted median ratio must fall
between 90% and 105%. ANY deviation will warrant a state mandated jurisdiction-wide
adjustment of at least 5%. To avoid this increase, the Washington County Assessor has set the
target median sales ratio, for our internal sales study,at 95%target for each municipality.
*** Although the Assessor's Office and the Department of Revenue measure the equality
and accuracy of the assessment for all property classes our discussion will center on the
residential classed properties. This is due in large part to the small number of sales in the
other property classes.
26
Sales
Analysis
Residential Summary
ay2007 ay2007 ay2006 ay2007
New # Res/SRR Res/SRR 0/0
Municipality Construction Parcels Value Value Growth
Afton $3,468,600 1,258 $506,736,000 $490,310,500 2.6%
Bayport $5,152,800 894 $206,343,600 $198,060,700 1.6%
Baytown $4,961,800 751 $320,821,600 $292,685,800 7.9%
Birchwood $407,300 427 $178,501,800 $155,314,700 14.7%
Cottage Grove $60,427,700 11,316 $2,648,952,200 $2,546,108,300 1.7%
Dellwood $1,715,500 520 $317,981,100 $308,384,900 2.6%
Denmark $6,318,000 723 $268,515,200 $259,656,200 1.0%
Forest Lake $25,691,700 7,052 $1,913,631,400 $1,807,300,300 4.5%
Grant $3,543,800 1,661 $750,720,500 $705,522,100 5.9%
Grey Cloud $584,000 152 $38,084,100 $37,377,900 0.3%
Hastings $0 4 $250,800 $250,800 0.0%
Hugo $98,852,800 5,279 $1,285,363,800 $1,168,669,000 1.5%
Lake Elmo $29,896,900 2,815 $988,062,200 $973,014,300 -1.5%
Lake St Croix Beach $1,385,400 747 $109,125,000 $107,486,200 0.2%
Lakeland $1,143,900 785 $226,123,600 $211,515,900 6.4%
Lakeland Shores $68,900 146 $64,114,600 $64,190,400 -0.2%
Landfall $0 1 $299,400 $299,400 0.0%
Mahtomedi $15,247,600 3,042 $936,405,600 $923,082,500 -0.2%
Marine $1,749,900 561 $158,221,000 $155,705,300 0.5%
May $6,796,700 1,411 $560,183,400 $513,135,900 7.8%
N ewport $1,118,000 1,294 $238,600,700 $236,923,100 0.2%
Oak Park Heights $5,839,700 1,591 $276,913,500 $266,546,800 1.7%
Oakdale $9,009,700 9,481 $2,025,010,900 $2,020,320,000 -0.2%
Pine Springs $0 176 $59,379,000 $60,011,100 -1.1%
St Mary's Point $585,300 324 $82,853,600 $82,458,800 -0.2%
St Paul Park $6,382,300 2,065 $352,040,900 $342,325,800 1.0%
Scandia $9,908,800 2,184 $571,795,200 $562,006,700 0.0%
Stillwater City $37,825,100 6,949 $1,779,467,400 $1,695,002,700 2.8%
Stillwater Twp $3,227,300 927 $405,798,200 $403,460,000 -0.2%
West Lakeland $7,532,100 1,415 $620,776,300 $617,668,000 -0.7%
White Bear Lake $79,200 96 $22,274,300 $22,086,400 0.5%
Willernie $1,265,600 340 $37,988,200 $35,612,600 3.1%
Woodbury $222,189,600 21,093 $6,082,121,200 $5,865,065,000 -0.1%
I TOTALS I $572,376,0001 87,480 $24,033,456,300 $23,127,558,1001 1.4%
24
Commercial/Industrial Summary
ay2007 ay2007 ay2006 ay2007
New # Comm/Ind Comm/Ind
Municipality Construction Parcels Value Value Growth
Afton $0 35 $25,494,900 $20,498,800 24.4%
Bayport $0 103 $41,769,000 $39,030,200 7.0%
Baytown $0 9 $1,289,500 $1,185,000 8.8%
Birchwood $0 0 $0 $0 NA
Cottage Grove $6,034,900 359 $237,981,800 $216,107,900 7.3%
Dellwood $26,800 27 $10,718,700 $10,704,400 -0.1%
Denmark $1,227,800 61 $19,934,400 $14,696,900 27.3%
Forest Lake $2,424,500 573 $265,398,200 $258,499,100 1.7%
Grant $0 92 $16,249,900 $12,574,100 29.2%
Grey Cloud $0 21 $2,012,000 $1,788,300 12.5%
Hastings $0 2 $1,461,500 $1,461,500 0.0%
Hugo $6,876,200 180 $90,998,100 $82,651,500 1.8%
Lake Elmo $3,257,100 194 $131,931,200 $124,147,500 3.6%
Lk St Croix Beach $40,000 11 $2,322,300 $2,146,600 6.3%
Lakeland $0 31 $11,803,000 $11,805,900 0.0%
Lakeland Shores $0 8 $1,868,000 $1,808,900 3.3%
Landfall $0 6 $5,631,000 $5,580,200 0.9%
Mahtomedi $4,507,700 73 $42,889,600 $37,699,400 1.8%
Marine $0 11 $3,893,500 $3,832,600 1.6%
May $0 9 $2,199,800 $1,995,500 10.2%
Newport $11,400 221 $60,294,400 $53,411,900 12.9%
Oak Park Heights $10,783,700 203 $187,504,100 $170,119,200 3.9%
Oakdale $26,899,500 342 $416,283,500 $385,220,400 1.1%
Pine Springs $0 1 $5,500 $5,500 0.0%
St Mary's Point $0 0 $0 $0 NA
St Paul Park $155,900 196 $44,146,400 $41,970,700 4.8%
New Scandia $339,400 59 $13,217,900 $12,535,800 2.7%
Stillwater City $3,501,600 403 $300,232,300 $282,671,200 5.0%
Stillwater Twp $0 12 $2,677,500 $2,702,600 -0.9%
West Lakeland $0 25 $10,005,600 $9,701,900 3.1%
White Bear Lake $968,000 9 $6,559,000 $5,025,000 11.3%
Willernie $17,600 34 $5,117,300 $3,911,400 30.4%
Woodbury S102,815,400 468 $992,698,900 $835,835,300 6.5%
I TOTALS ' $169,887,5001 3,778 $2,954,588,800 $2,651,325,2001 5.0%1
23
Apartment Summary
ay2007 ay2007 ay2006 ay2007
New # Apartment Apartment
Municipality Construction Parcels Value Value Growth
Afton $0 1 $817,900 $817,900 0.0%
Bayport $0 24 $14,268,500 $14,268,500 0.0%
Baytown $0 0 $0 $0 NA
Birchwood $0 0 $0 $0 NA
Cottage Grove $0 11 $28,667,000 $25,842,300 10.9%
Dellwood $0 0 $0 $0 NA
Denmark $0 1 $274,400 $259,400 5.8%
Forest Lake $6,500 51 $59,526,800 $58,291,900 2.1%
Grant $0 1 $949,800 $806,500 17.8%
Grey Cloud $0 0 $0 $0 NA
Hastings $0 0 $0 $0 NA
Hugo $0 4 $2,678,300 $2,678,300 0.0%
Lake Elmo $0 4 $1,491,700 $1,450,100 2.9%
Lake St Croix Beach $0 1 $339,400 $329,200 3.1%
Lakeland $0 3 $503,000 $219,500 129.2%
Lakeland Shores $0 0 $0 $0 NA
Landfall $0 0 $0 $0 NA
Mahtomedi $0 13 $29,108,100 $28,910,900 0.7%
Marine $0 2 $415,000 $415,000 0.0%
May $0 0 $0 $0 NA
Newport $0 41 $19,874,000 $19,789,800 0.4%
Oak Park Heights $0 20 $53,709,500 $53,709,500 0.0%
Oakdale $1,906,700 45 $116,002,300 $112,421,600 1.5%
Pine Springs $0 0 $0 $0 NA
St Mary's Point $0 0 $0 $0 NA
St Paul Park $0 31 $6,076,700 $6,950,400 -12.6%
Scandia $0 1 $505,600 $379,700 33.2%
Stillwater City $0 68 $63,319,700 $61,590,800 2.8%
Stillwater Twp $0 0 $0 $0 NA
West Lakeland $0 0 $0 $0 NA
White Bear Lake $0 1 $6,814,800 $6,814,800 0.0%
Willernie $0 1 $775,600 $775,600 0.0%
Woodbury $17,625,200 42 $259,810,100 $226,826,900 6.8%
I TOTALS I $19,538,4001 366 $665,928,200 $623,548,6001 3.7%1
22
Agricultural Summary
ay2007 ay2007 ay2006
New # Ag Ag
Municipality Construction Parcels Value Value
Afton $15,000 205 $112,625,900 $103,497,100
Bayport $0 0 $0 $0
Baytown $0 58 $24,225,600 $25,034,000
Birchwood $0 0 $0 $0
Cottage Grove $734,200 255 $143,250,500 $130,515,300
Dellwood $0 12 $4,875,600 $3,181,400
Denmark $365,900 376 $131,754,400 $130,783,500
Forest Lake $153,600 187 $115,150,800 $124,636,000
Grant $157,700 227 $117,974,000 $105,284,500
Grey Cloud $0 11 $1,409,600 $1,541,400
Hastings $0 1 $46,500 $46,500
Hugo $582,000 354 $185,639,400 $199,920,800
Lake Elmo $0 171 $72,022,700 $73,535,900
Lk St Croix Beach $0 0 $0 $0
Lakeland $0 6 $1,311,000 $1,306,000
Lakeland Shores $0 0 $0 $0
Landfall $0 0 $0 $0
Mahtomedi $0 2 $599,000 $742,000
Marine $0 16 $5,731,300 $5,585,200
May $606,900 427 $195,037,400 $181,211,700
Newport $0 5 $6,194,900 $6,193,400
Oak Park Heights $0 0 $0 $1,000
Oakdale $0 12 $8,510,300 $9,237,400
Pine Springs $0 0 $0 $0
St Mary's Point $0 0 $0 $0
St Paul Park $13,000 62 $8,296,800 $8,405,900
Scandia $29,700 443 $132,562,900 $133,602,600
Stillwater City $0 1 $306,300 $306,300
Stillwater Twp $2,700 159 $74,552,000 $75,639,800
West Lakeland $8,300 57 $23,132,200 $23,263,500
White Bear Lake $0 0 $0 $0
Willernie $0 0 $0 $0
Woodbury $0 181 $171,057,100 $170,753,100
I TOTALS I $2,669,0001 3,228 $1,536,266,200 $1,514,224,3001
21