04-07-2008 Board of Appeal A
CITY OF SCANDIA
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA
Special Meeting
Board of Appeal and Equalization
Monday, April 7, 2008
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 6:30 p.m., Tuesday April 15, 2008)
4. Adjournment
r-gt_
C,(f2,0vite diriA
Cr /6 f-)L ---)-
etCt-ht P-46/
CO-CAA-g--
�/ r
• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
2008 Assessment Rnnrte Washington InsidethisRep°rt County
Assessment Calendar 2
Market Values by Class 3
Total Market Values 4
Growth by Municipality 7
TO: Washington County Commissioners, County Administrator,City Council Members,
Town Board Members,Washington County Residents and Local Government Staff Homestead Credit Info 11
FROM: Bruce L.Munneke,Washington County Assessor Sales Analysis 15
DATE: March 26,2008 Appeals Process 21
RE: 2008 Assessment Report Local Board of Appeal 25
County Board of Appeal 28
Introduction
The Washington County Assessor Division has prepared the 2008 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 2008 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 2008 assessment are based upon actual real estate market trends of Washington County properties taking place
from October 2006 through September 2007.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."
"772e 2008 assessment that is up for your review'
has a total unaudited assessed value of
$29,645,139,500.'
• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • a
3 age 2 2008 Assessment Report
2008
2008 Assessment Report
January 2 2008 Market Values for Property Established
February 1 Last Day to Deliver Assessment Records to County Assessor The 2008 assessment is a reflection of the 2007 market conditions.Sales of property are
March 31 2008 Valuation Notices and Tax Statements mailed constantly analyzed to chart the activity of the market place.The Assessment staff does not
create value;they only measure its movement.
April 1 Spring Mini Abstract/Class Shift Report and Ag Report to Department of Assessing property values equitably is part science,part judgment and part communication
Revenue skills.Training as an assessor cannot tell us how to find the"perfect"value of a property,
April 9—May 7 Local Boards of Appeal and Equalization but it does help us consistently produce the same estimate of value for identical properties.
That after all,is the working definition of equalization.
April 30 Last Day to File a payable 2008 Tax Court Petition
As of January 2,2008 there were 95,896(count does not include exempt,railroad,
May 1 Begin the 2009 Assessment Review personal property,and utilities)parcels in the county. This is an increase of 1,044 or 1.1
%over the 2007 parcel count.
May 15 First Half payable 2008 Taxes Due This total includes:
May 16 Deadline for property owners to notify County Assessor of intent to appeal at 3,122 agricultural parcels(unproved&vacant)--(3,228 on January 2,2007)
County Board of Appeal and Equalization 364 apartment parcels(improved&vacant)--(366 on January 2,2007)
May 29—June 8 Region IX State Board of Equalization 3,919 commercial&industrial parcels(improved&vacant)--(3,778 on January 2,2007)
June 17 Washington County Board of Appeal and Equalization 88,491 residential parcels(improved&vacant)--(87,480 on January 2,2007)
Current state law mandates that all property must be re-assessed each year and physically
July 1 2008 Assessment Finalized reviewed once every five years.Staff also inspects all properties that have taken out a
construction permit during the course of the year.
August 31 First Half payable 2008 Taxes Due for Manufactured Homes
During 2007(for the 2008 assessment)the Assessor Division appraisers,and local
September 1 2008 Abstracts,Duplicate Social Security File,and Market Value Sales Ratio appraisers,reviewed 23,939(23,662 during 2006)properties.The breakdown of the
File due to the Department of Revenue properties that were reviewed is as follows:
October 15 Second Half payable 2008 Taxes Due 18,727 residential type quintile reviews(15,352 improved+vacant during 2007)
November 15 Second Half payable 2008 Taxes Due for Manufactured Homes 41.6% interior inspections(compared to 37.1%in 2007)
1,152 apartment and commercial/industrial quintile reviews(compared to 832 in 2007)
November 24 Last Day to Mail Payable 2009 Proposed Tax Notices 1,041 new residential start reviews(compared to:1,662 in 2006;2,475 in 2005)
December 15 Last Day to File Homestead Application for Payable 2009 33 new commercial/industrial start reviews(compared to:65 in 2006;93 in 2005)
3 new apartment start review(compared to:1 in 2006;2 in 2005)
2009
January 2 2008 Market Values for Property Established 2,957 miscellaneous permit reviews of all property classifications (compared to: 3,079 in
2006;2,013 in 2005)
April 7—May 5 Tentative Dates for the 2009 Local Board of Appeal
• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
2008 Assessment Report ffl«ge 3
2008 Market Value by Property Class Dispersion of Market Value by Class
Agricultural,
5.57% Apartments,
"The sales not considered market indicators 2.44%
included new construction sales, vacant
land sales, sales not exposed to the open
market, and other sales such as relocation, Comm/Ind,
bank,government or inter-family." -- 8.74%
Residential,
83.25%
***The% change includes the value added due to new construction
2007 2008 2008 New 2008 %***
Market Value Net Value Construction Total Value Cha 'e
Agricultural $1,529,123,900 $1,584,240,400 $2,132,700 $1,586,373,100 3.7%
Apartments $656,730,500 $653,112,300 $23,322,000 $676,434,300 3.0%
Commercial/Industrial $2,933,083,200 $3,114,184,000 $101,639,000 $3,215,823,000 9.6%
Residential/Seasonal $24,006,123,600 $23,823,838,200 $342,670,900 $24,166,509,100 0.7%
TOTALS $29,125,061,200 $29,175,374,900 $469,764,600 $29,645,139,500 0.2%
• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 49 •
[age 4 2008 Assessment Report
Total Market Values
With new construction included,the pattern of growth in the county's total can be
seen in the following list of assessment years:
Assessment Year Total Value % Change
2001 $16,040,157,200
a„
2002 $17,419,257,000 +8.6%
2003 $19 877 139 400 +14.1% ,
�N�
2004 $22,728,398,000 +14.3% ‘r
2005 $25,049,195,000 +10.2% .�
2006 $27,916,646,300 +11.4% r C
2007 $29,125,061,200 +4.6%
2008 $29,645,139,500 +0.2%
tt Total value does not include exempt,railroad,personal property,and utilities.
The 2008 estimated market value is established after thorough studies of the sales that took place in the county between October 2006 and September 2007.During this study period,
there were 5,386 (-21.1%from previous period) sales recorded,of which 2,658(-26.9%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 2008 assessment that is up for your review has a total unaudited assessed value of$29,645,139,500.This is the estimated market value of agricultural related, apartment,commer-
cial/industrial,seasonal and residential classed properties.It reflects a valuation increase of 0.2%over the 2007 estimated market value.
3 • s; • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
2008 Assessment Report gage 5
Washington County Average Residential Value(SFR and Multi-Family)
CAMA 2000 CAMA 2001 CAMA MA CAMA 2006 CAMA 2003 CA 2004 CAMA 2005 CAM 2006 CAMA 2007 CAMA 2008 " % %Change
Municipality Market Value 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 $465,500 -6.0% 102.9%
Bayport $141,300 $156,000 $173,700 $207,300 $247,100 $243,300 $266,900 $273,400 $269,700 -1.4% 90.9%
Baytown $295,300 $323,900 $359,900 $404,100 $441,000 $484,400 $524,500 $550,500 $497,900 -9.6% 68.6%
Birchwood $197,500 $224,700 $265,300 $325,600 $358,300 $382,100 $429,000 $489,000 $459,100 -6.1% 132.5%
Cottage Grove $128,300 $145,900 $171,600 $187,700 $211,800 $222,000 $239,900 $244,300 $243,900 -0.2% 90.1%
Dellwood $405,400 $464,000 $514,300 $572,100 $651,800 $711,800 $746,100 $775,000 $831,300 7.3% 105.1%
Denmark $214,300 $257,700 $295,300 $309,900 $397,400 $448,300 $497,100 $500,600 $515,000 2.9% 140.3%
Forest Lake $151,600 $182,200 $205,500 $226,600 $257,400 $260,200 $299,900 $313,600 $300,700 -4.1% 98.4%
Grant $265,400 $313,200 $335,600 $405,400 $432,000 $499,600 $518,600 $545,700 $533,200 -2.3% 100.9%
Grey Cloud $166,200 $188,400 $219,700 $244,900 $273,700 $300,100 $321,100 $324,100 $332,700 2.7% 100.2%
Hastings $112,100 $112,100 $123,100 $136,800 $136,800 $135,400 -1.0% 20.8%
Hugo $166,900 $188,800 $208,900 $232,600 $283,300 $277,200 $301,700 $296,600 $280,300 -5.5% 67.9%
Lake Elmo $224,500 $258,300 $292,700 $323,700 $364,700 $355,000 $382,300 $409,200 $449,800 9.9% 100.4%
Lake St Croix $117,500 $127,500 $148,600 $170,100 $193,500 $208,700 $221,500 $223,400 $219,200 -1.9% 86.6%
Lakeland $155,400 $173,900 $200,700 $220,600 $289,200 $282,900 $293,400 $317,500 $312,900 -1.4% 101.4%
Lakeland Shrs $233,800 $255,700 $293,700 $319,700 $439,100 $470,700 $536,000 $534,300 $546,600 2.3% 133.8%
Landfall $12,100 $12,100 $12,100 $32,300 $32,300 0.0% 166.9%
Mahtomedi $186,300 $211,300 $241,500 $267,700 $304,600 $328,000 $363,300 $363,100 $372,100 2.5% 99.7%
Marine $224,000 $255,100 $282,600 $309,200 $380,200 $412,400 $455,700 $448,600 $427,500 -4.7% 90.8%
May $228,900 $265,700 $284,500 $327,300 $398,000 $459,600 $506,800 $540,300 $531,900 -1.6% 132.4%
Newport $116,600 $135,900 $150,000 $167,400 $185,200 $197,400 $214,600 $218,700 $217,500 -0.5% 86.5%
Oak Park Hts $130,200 $144,600 $165,900 $179,600 $212,600 $215,000 $212,100 $215,000 $216,100 0.5% 66.0%
Oakdale $126,500 $142,900 $165,000 $182,800 $214,900 $212,800 $221,100 $222,900 $222,700 -0.1% 76.0%
Pine Springs $227,900 $256,000 $289,200 $304,100 $356,200 $356,800 $420,600 $415,200 $417,800 0.6% 83.3%
St Mary's Pt $193,500 $236,700 $270,900 $316,500 $388,700 $423,400 $473,200 $474,000 $471,400 -0.5% 143.6%
St Paul Park $104,500 $117,600 $136,700 $150,800 $168,400 $168,600 $184,200 $190,200 $192,500 1.2% 84.2%
Scandia $179,400 $208,700 $234,000 $247,400 $320,900 $353,000 $387,000 $391,700 $358,300 -8.5% 99.7%
Stillwater City $148,800 $169,000 $196,100 $219,700 $248,100 $263,200 $275,700 $286,600 $282,900 -1.3% 90.1%
Stillwater Twp $244,500 $281,400 $317,400 $351,700 $398,000 $445,700 $502,500 $502,700 $475,100 -5.5% 94.3%
West Lakeland $259,700 $290,900 $317,400 $353,500 $398,300 $437,900 $480,200 $479,800 $476,800 -0.6% 83.6%
White Bear Lk $128,900 $145,800 $177,000 $187,800 $198,500 $212,600 $232,500 $234,500 $233,700 -0.3% 81.3%
Willernie $87,600 $99,300 $120,300 $137,300 $151,300 $155,000 $162,600 $168,000 $170,700 1.6% 94.9%
Woodbury $171,400 $195,111 $217,600 $237,600 $267,700 $288,500 $304,000 $302,700 $303,600 0.3% 77.1%
LAverase .1 $164,100 I $187,400 1 $211,800 J $234,800 L $271,800 I $284,200 J $304,200 I $309,600 I $307,400 1 -0.7% 1 87.3% J
• • • 0 • • • • • • • • • •
Yage 6 2008 Assessment Report
Residential Graphics
Residential Improved Parcels
90000
0
0
0
0 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008
70000 ■Improved Residential
60000 1 .single Family Improved Residential 67796 69366 71362 73930 76405 77672 77801
O Multi-Family Sin le Family58701 59593 60801 62048 63251 62172 61604
50000
40000 •
' g Multi-Family 9095 9773 10561 11882 13154 15500 16070
30000 . . . . mil
20000
10000NE 11 I I
0 III In
2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 Average Residential Value by Dwelling Type
■Multi Family ■Single Family
_ l$336,400
ay2008 $7-9�80
ay2007 $336,300
ay2006 l$327,800
$190,
\ ay2005 $303,700
00 I / ►1M/ ay2004 $293,300
Il
1p 1 II t, : •I ay2003 $251,000
St J14 " ay2002 $1437ztro_l$223,600
Ya 2001 $197,500
RI
ay2000 $171,400
• !• • • • 0 • • 40 • • • • • • • • • • • • •
2008 Assessment Report fflage 7
Growth By Municipality
Residential Growth Summary (SFR & Multi-Family)
2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008
Municipality Growth Growth Growth Growth Growth Growth Growth
Afton 7.0% 18.6% 11.7% 16.6% 4.9% 2.6% -4.5%
Bayport 9.9% 18.5% 18.3% 1.2% 20.0% 1.6% -2.6%
Baytown 11.1% 10.7% 10.3% 11.1% 9.8% 7.9% -9.1
Birchwood 17.7% 21.2% 10.6% 6.2% 10.6% 14.7% -3.4%
Cottage Grove 17.6% 10.4% 11.0% 6.6% 5.8% 1.7% -0.6%
Dellwood 9.6% 12.0% 16.9% 7.7% 3.4% 2.6% 10.1%
Denmark 16.0% 8.3% 33.6% 3.4% 12.2% 1.0% 5.9%
Forest Lake 15.2% 8.3% 9.4% 6.9% 17.3% 4.5% -3.6%
Grant 6.5% 21.8% 4.6% 12.8% 3.0% 5.9% 1.1
Grey Cloud 16.9% 13.9% 15.6% 6.6% 1.6% 0.3% 1.6%
Hastings 3.7% 333.4% 40.0% 7.8% 13.4% 0.0% 6.7%
Hugo 13.6% 13.8% 16.9% 10.3% 14.6% 1.5% -3.5%
Lake Elmo 11.0% 8.9% 12.2% 8.8% 8.2% -1.5% 4.4%
Lake St Croix 18.3% 12.6% 13.1% 6.0% 5.8% 0.2% -3.0%
Lakeland 14.7% 8.6% 30.3% 0.0% 4.4% 6.4% -0.9%
Lakeland Shrs 14.1% 8.2% 38.7% 6.1% 10.9% -0.2% 3.7%
Landfall 7.6% 0.0% 5.6% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% -0.2%
Mahtomedi 12.8% 9.8% 10.8% 9.0% 10.4% -0.2% 4.5%
Marine 8.8% 7.1% 21.7% 9.9% 10.3% 0.5% -4.3%
May 5.8% 11.8% 25.9% 8.9% 7.9% 7.8% -1.5%
Newport 17.0% 10.5% 13.3% 5.4% 8.8% 0.2% -0.2%
Oak Park Hts 14.8% 8.1% 9.3% 7.4% -0.9% 1.7% 1.5%
Oakdale 12.7% 10.9% 8.5% 6.8% 5.4% -0.2% -0.4%
Pine Springs 10.7% 4.8% 16.6% 0.0% 17.9% -1.1% -1.1
St Mary's Pt 12.2% 12.8% 20.7% 4.2% 13.5% -0.2% -0.2%
St Paul Park 16.3% 9.9% 14.8% 4.7% 8.8% 1.0% -2.7%
Scandia 9.4% 5.6% 34.7% 6.3% 10.5% 0.0% -7.1%
Stillwater City 14.5% 11.1% 9.1% 10.4% 5.3% 2.8% -0.4%
Stillwater Twp 13.1% 11.0% 13.6% 6.4% 13.6% -0.2% -5.1%
West Lakeland 8.6% 10.2% 13.6% 9.3% 9.5% -0.7% -0.4%
White Bear Lk 21.2% 6.1% 5.3% 7.0% 9.3% 0.5% -0.3%
Willernie 22.3% 12.8% 9.8% 2.3% 4.2% 3.1% 0.4%
Woodbury 9.6% 14.2% 12.0% 8.7% 5.1% -0.1% -0.4%
County Total 12.4%0 11.9% 12.5% 8.2% 7.6% 1.4% -0.8%
• • • • •
£age 8 2008 Assessment Report
Total Market Value Summary (Ag/Apt/C&I/Res/Seasonal) Agricultural Summary
ay2008 ay2008 ay2007 9 ay2008 ay2008 ay2007 ay2008
New # Total Total % New # Ag Ag
Municipality Construction Parcels Value Value Growth Municipality Construction Parcels Value Value Growth
Afton $6,429,200 1,533 $627,536,200 $643,835,200 -3.5% Afton $283,600 199 $112,415,400 $112,724,300 -0.5%
Bayport $4,999,500 1,019 $262,192,000 $262,319,400 -2.0% Bayport $0 0 $0 $0 0.0%
Baytown $4,875,400 835 $327,907,500 $352,869,300 -8.5% Baytown $0 58 $23,883,900 $24,225,600 -1.4%
Birchwood $82,600 423 $171,306,600 $177,282,100 -3.4% Birchwood $0 0 $0 $0 0.0%
Cottage Grove $49,804,700 11,989 $3,130,341,400 $3,055,919,600 0.8% Cottage Grove $0 247 $146,429,900 $142,935,000 2.4%
Dellwood $1,582,600 557 $372,448,000 $333,498,200 11.2% Dellwood $0 12 $6,521,400 $4,875,600 33.8%
Denmark $6,946,100 1,162 $477,418,800 $419,009,900 12.3% Denmark $202,800 371 $166,075,800 $131,686,000 26.0%
Forest Lake $33,478,800 8,031 $2,305,166,300 $2,336,355,900 -2.8% Forest Lake $0 146 $104,974,100 $115,117,300 -8.8%
Grant $4,562,600 2,001 $882,758,100 $883,773,700 -0.6% Grant $146,700 203 $101,599,500 $117,995,800 -14.0%
Grey Cloud $126,500 211 $45,979,500 $45,178,000 1.5% Grey Cloud $0 12 $2,016,400 $2,019,900 -0.2%
Hastings $0 7 $1,729,200 $1,758,800 -1.7% Hastings $0 0 $0 $46,500 -100.0%
Hugo $50,356,700 5,968 $1,558,352,000 $1,552,526,700 -2.9% Hugo $434,400 351 $180,617,600 $181,489,600 -0.7%
Lake Elmo $26,154,400 3,189 $1,296,564,800 $1,184,866,400 7.2% Lake Elmo $220,400 169 $113,581,600 $71,772,900 57.9%
Lake St Croix Beach $783,900 759 $109,018,500 $111,449,300 -2.9% Lk St Croix Beach $0 0 $0 $0 0.0%
Lakeland $312,300 834 $240,063,200 $241,716,000 -0.8% Lakeland $0 6 $1,326,900 $1,311,000 1.2%
Lakeland Shores $151,300 154 $68,704,300 $65,982,600 3.9% Lakeland Shores $0 0 $0 $0 0.0%
Landfall $0 8 $6,717,100 $5,930,900 13.3% Landfall $0 0 $0 $0 0.0%
Mahtomedi $21,369,000 3,124 $1,077,640,600 $1,008,363,700 4.8% Mahtomedi $0 2 $968,500 $599,000 61.7%
Marine $981,900 584 $161,501,300 $167,186,200 -4.0% Marine $0 14 $5,758,300 $5,731,300 0.5%
May $6,218,400 1,838 $753,118,900 $754,397,000 -1.0% May $435,400 428 $196,708,700 $195,174,600 0.6%
Newport $3,092,500 1,562 $333,479,100 $323,136,600 2.2% Newport $0 5 $6,577,700 $6,194,900 6.2%
Oak Park Heights $11,148,300 1,880 $542,256,400 $517,809,800 2.6% Oak Park Heights $0 0 $0 $0 0.0%
Oakdale $24,353,500 9,976 $2,622,892,400 $2,565,324,500 1.3% Oakdale $0 12 $8,183,900 $8,510,300 -3.8%
Pine Springs $286,700 177 $59,723,000 $59,384,500 0.1% Pine Springs $0 0 $0 $0 0.0%
St Mary's Point $127,000 321 $82,024,500 $82,818,500 -1.1% St Mary's Point $0 0 $0 $0 0.0%
St Paul Park $4,080,500 2,333 $401,152,400 $406,662,000 -2.4% St Paul Park $0 61 $7,600,300 $7,686,500 -1.1%
Scandia $3,460,600 2,713 $683,609,200 $717,716,700 -5.2% Scandia $333,300 442 $134,447,400 $132,562,900 1.2%
Stillwater City $12,884,100 7,546 $2,146,352,400 $2,142,837,800 -0.4% Stillwater City $0 2 $306,400 $3,236,900 -90.5%
Stillwater Twp $907,500 1,091 $457,213,000 $477,987,500 -4.5% Stillwater Twp $47,000 150 $70,519,000 $71,621,300 -1.6%
West Lakeland $5,179,200 1,513 $656,563,400 $653,839,800 -0.4% West Lakeland $29,100 55 $22,282,400 $23,132,200 -3.8%
White Bear Lake $0 106 $35,572,500 $35,648,100 -0.2% White Bear Lake $0 0 $0 $0 0.0%
Willernie $302,800 369 $44,324,400 $43,881,100 0.3% Willernie $0 0 $0 $0 0.0%
Woodbury $184,726,000 22,083 $7,703,512,500 $7,493,795,400 0.3% r., Woodbury $0 177 $173,578,000 $168,474,500 3.0%
County Totals $469,764,600 95,896 $29,645,139,500 $29,125,061,200 0.2% County Totals $2,132,700 3,122 $1,586,373,100 $1,529,123,900 3.6%
• • i • i ' • • • • • • • • • • • • 0 • •
2008 Assessment Report .9age 9
Apartment Summary Commercial/Industrial Summary
ay2008 ay2008 ay2007 ay2008 ay2008 ay2008 ay2007 ay2008
New # Apartment Apartment % New # Comm/Ind Comm/Ind %
Municipality Construction Parcels Value Value Growth Municipality Construction Parcels Value Value Growth
Afton $0 2 $1,635,800 $817,900 100.0% Afton $665,500 37 $25,573,700 $24,970,300 -0.2%
Bayport $0 24 $14,268,500 $14,268,500 0.0% Bayport $0 106 $42,037,200 $41,769,000 0.6%
Baytown $0 0 $0 $0 NA Baytown $0 10 $1,447,300 $1,289,500 12.2%
Birchwood $0 0 $0 $0 NA Birchwood $0 0 $0 $0 NA
Cottage Grove $12,685,700 12 $40,901,300 $28,667,000 -1.6% Cottage Grove $9,305,000 386 $282,342,300 $236,595,100 15.4%
Dellwood $0 0 $0 $0 NA Dellwood $0 27 $14,220,400 $10,718,700 32.7%
Denmark $300,700 2 $992,100 $274,400 152.0% Denmark $1,198,900 64 $21,860,500 $19,617,300 5.3%
Forest Lake $2,873,300 55 $63,217,000 $59,515,400 1.4% Forest Lake $4,514,200 582 $274,602,400 $256,290,300 5.4%
Grant $0 1 $949,800 $949,800 0.0% Grant $0 98 $18,931,600 $16,249,800 16.5%
Grey Cloud $0 0 $0 $0 NA Grey Cloud $0 21 $2,014,700 $2,012,000 0.1%
Hastings $0 0 $0 $0 NA Hastings $0 2 $1,461,500 $1,461,500 0.0%
Hugo $0 4 $2,733,200 $2,678,300 2.0% Hugo $3,108,400 182 $95,593,500 $90,998,100 1.6%
Lake Elmo $0 4 $1,491,700 $1,491,700 0.0% Lake Elmo $6,100,400 198 $137,605,500 $130,798,700 0.5%
Lake St Croix Beach $0 1 $339,400 $339,400 0.0% Lk St Croix Beach $0 11 $2,336,300 $2,322,300 0.6%
Lakeland $0 3 $503,000 $503,000 0.0% Lakeland $0 31 $11,980,200 $11,803,000 1.5%
Lakeland Shores $0 0 $0 $0 NA Lakeland Shores $0 8 $2,057,400 $1,868,000 10.1%
Landfall $0 0 $0 $0 NA Landfall $0 7 $6,417,700 $5,631,000 14.0%
Mahtomedi $0 13 $29,108,100 $29,108,100 0.0% Mahtomedi $3,641,900 76 $52,326,000 $42,862,000 13.6%
Marine $0 2 $415,000 $415,000 0.0% Marine $0 11 $3,883,100 $3,893,500 -0.3%
May $0 0 $0 $0 NA May $0 9 $2,214,900 $2,199,800 0.7%
Newport $222,900 41 $19,045,200 $19,213,300 -2.0% Newport $1,735,900 223 $69,085,700 $59,696,400 12.8%
Oak Park Heights $0 21 $53,709,500 $53,709,500 0.0% Oak Park Heights $8,162,200 208 $204,924,600 $187,516,000 4.9%
Oakdale $2,264,000 45 $117,913,000 $116,002,300 -0.3% Oakdale $17,998,300 359 $476,224,100 $416,293,800 10.1%
Pine Springs $0 0 $0 $0 NA Pine Springs $0 1 $5,500 $5,500 0.0%
St Mary's Point $0 0 $0 $0 NA St Mary's Point $0 0 $0 $0 NA
St Paul Park $0 31 $6,076,700 $6,076,700 0.0% St Paul Park $1,781,000 197 $45,989,000 $44,146,400 0.1%
Scandia $0 1 $512,200 $505,600 1.3% New Scandia $0 63 $14,653,600 $13,187,400 11.1%
Stillwater City $0 64 $63,533,900 $63,213,000 0.5% Stillwater City $670,300 403 $298,660,900 $297,003,500 0.3%
Stillwater Twp $0 0 $0 $0 NA Stillwater Twp $0 13 $2,721,300 $2,677,500 1.6%
West Lakeland $0 0 $0 $0 NA West Lakeland $0 26 $10,663,700 $10,005,600 6.6%
White Bear Lake $0 1 $6,814,800 $6,814,800 0.0% White Bear Lake $0 9 $6,559,000 $6,559,000 0.0%
Willernie $0 1 $775,600 $775,600 0.0% Willernie $0 34 $5,117,300 $5,117,300 0.0%
Woodbury $4,975,400 36 $251,498,500 $251,391,200 -1.9% Woodbury $42,757,000 517 $1,082,312,100 $987,524,900 5.3%
County Totals $23,322,000 364 $676,434,300 $656,730,500 -0.6% County Totals $101,639,000 3,919 $3,215,823,000 $2,933,083,200 6.2%
• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
�age lU 2008 Assessment Report
Residential Summary
ay2008 ay2008 ay2007 ay2008
New # Res/SRR Res/SRR
Municipality Construction Parcels Value Value Growth
Afton $5,480,100 1,295 $487,911,300 $505,322,700 -4.5%
Bayport $4,999,500 889 $205,886,300 $206,281,900 -2.6% ,
Baytown $4,875,400 767 $302,576,300 $327,354,200 -9.1% The Assessor s Office maintains the County s property
Birchwood $82,600 423 $171,306,600 $177,282,100 -3.4% database and is the primary source of property
Cottage Grove $27,814,000 11,344 $2,660,667,900 $2,647,722,500 -0.6% information for interdepartmental and community use.
Dellwood $1,582,600 518 $351,706,200 $317,903,900 10.1%
Denmark $5,243,700 725 $288,490,400 $267,432,200 5.9%
Forest Lake $26,091,300 7,248 $1,862,372,800 $1,905,432,900 -3.6%
Grant $4,415,900 1,699 $761,277,200 $748,578,300 1.1%
Grey Cloud $126,500 178 $41,948,400 $41,146,100 1.6%
Hastings $0 5 $267,700 $250,800 6.7%
Hugo $46,813,900 5,431 $1,279,407,700 $1,277,360,700 -3.5%
Lake Elmo $19,833,600 2,818 $1,043,886,000 $980,803,100 4.4%
Lake St Croix Beach $783,900 747 $106,342,800 $108,787,600 -3.0% '``
Lakeland $312,300 794 $226,253,100 $228,099,000 -0.9% ,A. ;k 1
Lakeland Shores $151,300 146 $66,646,900 $64,114,600 3.7% ,L '*t ill 41, >t *
Landfall $0 1 $299,400 $299,900 -0.2% it.7
Mahtomedi $17,727,100 3,033 $995,238,000 $935,794,600 4.5% 0,1 , .,1 ' ' 1
Marine $981,900 557 $151,444,900 $157,146,400 -4.3% il0
May $5,783,000 1,401 $554,195,300 $557,022,600 -1.5% r �'
Newport $1,133,700 1,293 $238,770,500 $238,032,000 -0.2% :, t'i ''.
Oak Park Heights $2,986,100 1,651 $283,622,300 $276,584,300 1.5% ""
Oakdale $4,091,200 9,560 $2,020,571,400 $2,024,518,100 -0.4%
Pine Springs $286,700 176 $59,717,500 $59,379,000 0.1% ;
St Mary's Point $127,000 321 $82,024,500 $82,818,500 -1.1%
St Paul Park $2,299,500 2,044 $341,486,400 $348,752,400 -2.7% -
Scandia $3,127,300 2,207 $533,996,000 $571,460,800 -7.1%
Stillwater City $12,213,800 7,077 $1,783,851,200 $1,779,384,400 -0.4% Hay Lake School,Scandia,MN
Stillwater Twp $860,500 928 $383,972,700 $403,688,700 -5.1%
West Lakeland $5,150,100 1,432 $623,617,300 $620,702,000 -0.4%
White Bear Lake $0 96 $22,198,700 $22,274,300 -0.3%
Willernie $302,800 334 $38,431,500 $37,988,200 0.4%
Woodbury $136,993,600 21,353 $6,196,123,900 $6,086,404,800 -0.4%
County Totals $342,670,900 88,491 $24,166,509,100 $24,006,123,600 -0.8%
c • • c • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • i • •
2008 Assessment Report sage ti
Homestead Credit
What is homestead credit? What do I have to do to receive the homestead classification
A homestead credit is a statutory reduction to the general property tax for certain &credit on my property?
property that is occupied as a person's primary place of residence. You must qualify for homestead as outlined above.You will be required to show
proof of ownership(deed),and may be required to show proof of occupancy.
How does a property I own qualify for a homestead credit? You must file an initial homestead application with Washington County.This
The property must be both owned and occupied by the owner or occupied by a may be done at the Government Center or at any of the satellite locations.You
qualifying relative of an owner on January 2nd of the assessment year, or by may also call 651-430-6110 to have an application sent to you.
December 1st of the assessment year, and an application for homestead must be You must provide the names and Social Security Numbers of all owners of the
completed by December 15th of that same year. property on the homestead application. In cases of relative homestead where the
Qualifying relatives for homestead purposes are defined as an owner's son, son- property is not owner occupied,the names and Social Security Numbers of the
in-law, daughter, daughter-in-law, stepchild, parent, parent-in-law, stepparent, owner's relatives occupying the property as their primary residence must be
grandchild, grandparent, grandparent-in-law, sister,sister-in-law, brother, brother- provided.
in-law, aunt, uncle, nephew, or niece. All owners of the property,and in the case of relative applicants,all of the
The person applying for homestead must occupy the property as their primary owner's relatives occupying the property must sign the homestead application.
residence If the property was purchased for more than$1000,by law(MN§272.115),a
You must be a Minnesota resident. (If the property is the primary residence of a Certificate of Real Estate Value(CRV)must be filed with the County Auditor
qualifying relative of an owner, it is not necessary for the owner to be a before the homestead classification can be extended to the property. In most
Minnesota resident unless the relative homestead is being extended to farmland.) instances this is done by the closing company who handled the sale/purchase.
Why must I provide my Social Security Number?
Even though Social Security Numbers are private information,under law(MN§273.124,Subd. 13),Social Security Numbers must be provided before the homestead classifica-
tion and/or credit will be granted. Social Security Numbers are used to determine if owners or relatives of owners have applied for more than one homestead in the state.
Can I file for homestead on more than one property?
To be eligible for full homestead benefits,you must meet all of the qualifications for homestead on or before January 2nd in the year for which you are applying.Parcels qualify-
ing on the January 2nd date remain homestead through year's end,even if the owner moves out.
If at any time the property is sold,or you move out and change your primary residence,state law requires that you notify the County Assessor's Office within thirty(30)days.
By moving to another property,you may also be eligible for homestead credit on that property if you meet all of the qualifications on or before December 1st in that year. If this
property was classified as non-homestead during the year,and you own and occupy by December 1st,the homestead classification placed on it is referred to as a"mid-year home-
stead,"but the benefits are the same as a"full-year homestead."
In addition to your own homestead,any properties that you own that are occupied by qualifying relatives are eligible for the relative homestead classification and/or credit.
o • • • • • • • 0 • • • • • • • • • • •
Jage 12 2008 Assessment Report
Parcel Count Graphics
Total Taxable Parcel Count
"As ofJanuary 2, 2008 there were 95,896
(count does not include exempt,
100000
95896
railroad,personal property, and 94852
utilities)parcels in the county. This is 95000 92498
an increase of 1,044 or 1.1 % over the 90132
2007 parcel count." 90000 88055
85489
85000 • 1
81512
80000
41
75000
-- 70000
1
2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008
,
Parcel Type 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008
" . i• Agricultural 3982 3685 3583 3450 3380 3269 3228 3122
rL_ ,}x :mot
u s .m .t Apartment 321 332 334 334 347 349 366 364
Panoramic view of Stillwater, Minnesota circa 1870 Commercial/Industrial 3376 3396 3438 3484 3564 3678 3778 3919
Residential/Seasonal 73883 76084 78134 80787 82841 85202 87480 88491
TOTAL 81512 83497 85489 88055 90132 92498 94852 95896
• • • • • • • •
2008 Assessment Report .age 13
Parcel Count Graphics
Commercial/Industrial
Apartment
370 1 4000 3919
360 366 3900 -
364
3800 - 3778
350 - 3678
347 349 3700 -
340
_ 3600 3564
330 - 332 334 334 3500 3484
3438
320 321 3400
3376 3396
310 3300 -
300 - 3200 -
290 3100
2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008
Agricultural Residential/Seasonal
4500 90000 -- ----- 88491-
3982 i 87480
4000 - 3685 3583 85202
3450
3500- 3380 3269 3228 3122 85000 82841
3000- 80787
2500 80000 78134
76084
2000 -
75000 - 73883
1500 -
1000-
70000 -
500-
0 - 1 T 65000 T
2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008
• . • 0 • • • 0 0 • 0 • • 0 0 • • • •
i«ge 14 2008 Assessment Report
The Appraisal Process
What is market value? How is market value determined?
Minnesota statue 273.03 defines market value as "... the usual selling price at the
time of assessment." View Property -Approximately every fifth year, an appraiser working under
the supervision of the County Assessor will view the property. Any
The Assessor's Office works throughout the year to estimate market values of 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.
each property for the following January 2 assessment date.
Gather Information-The appraiser gathers information on all characteristics
of the property that affect market value, such as size, age, quality, base-
0
�] ment finish, and extra features, such as fireplaces, walk-out basements,
1 I etc.
I\
6
a a
Compute Value-The characteristics are entered into a computerized system.
Information on actual market sales are used to establish the building and
I component rates used to calculate the property's value. The market
a ('�®� value estimated by the appraiser in this way should be very close to the
.....1:tr amount the property would sell for,if placed on the open market.
-/ l i
Why may market values change from year to year?
Property values change continuously depending on the economic conditions affecting the local
Minnesota statue 273.03 defines market
housing market. In addition to market changes, physical changes made to your property can value as ".. the usual selling price at the
also affect your market value.All factors are considered in estimating the value of property. time of assessment."
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.
4 ;46 ' • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
2008 Assessment Report ✓age 15
Sales Analysis
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 2nd 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.
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
100% ® 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.
• • e e e e 0 0 0 0 • • • • • 0 •
✓aw 16 2008 Assessment Report
"Within the county, we constantly try to
achievea ratio of95%for the median,
Sales Statistics Defined
weighted mean and mean."
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
SOLD 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 stud-
ies 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 over 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 higher valued properties are assessed at a lesser degree than the lower valued properties.A PRD of less than 100 indicates a progressive
assessment or the higher valued properties are assessed at a greater degree than the lower valued properties.A perfect PRD of 100 means that both higher and lower
valued properties are assessed exactly equal.
• • • • 0 • • • 0 0
0
2008 Assessment Report fflage 17
2008 Residential Sales Study Statistics
The following residential statistics are based upon ratios calculated using the 2008 estimated market values and
sales that occurred between October 2006 and September 2007:
The statistics for the previous year(s)
Countywide#'s ay2008 ay2007 ay2006 are also listed. The Assessor's Office
Median Ratio: 95.33 95.23 95.10
uses these ratios to measure
equalization, assessment accuracy,
Weighted Mean Ratio: 94.56 94.66 ! 95.10 and determine trends in the market.
Arithmetic Mean: 95.31 95.45 € 95.70
COD: 6.02 6.84 7.11
PRD 100.79 100.65 100.63
The following statistics show the residential properties broken down by dwelling type:
........ ____
Single Family ay2008 ay2007 ay2006
Median Ratio: 1 95.37 95.18 95.17
Weighted Mean Ratio: 94.67 94.64 95.24
Arithmetic Mean. 95.51 95.49 95.93
COD: 6.19 7.41 7.62
1 iii
PRD 100.92 100.86 100.72
w
Multi-Family ay2008 ay2007 ay2006 SAL
E
Median Ratio: 95.22 95.31 94.95 / �.
Weighted Mean Ratio: 94.32 94.88 94.57 1 ,,/j ��/IIp
Arithmetic Mean: 94.92 95.50 95.17 1
COD: 5.70 5.80 5.88
PRD 100.63 100.64 100.63
• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
Jag 18 2008 Assessment Report
2008 Washington County Residential Ratio Study (SFR & Multi-Family)
Municipality #of Sales Median Ratio C.O.D.
Afton 19 94.89% 4.31
Bayport 25 94.90% 7.49
Baytown 11 94.94% 3.03
Birchwood 5 95.45% 7.40
Cottage Grove 345 95.83% 5.28 Number of Sale Transactions(Good Sales)
Dellwood 13 96.32% 9.50
■#of Multi-Family ii#of Single Family
Denmark 10 95.96% 4.98
Forest Lake 205 95.56% 7.09 3500
Grant 40 95.59% 6.57 3000-
Grey Cloud 2 89.15% 10.06 - -
Hastings 0 0.00% 0.00 2500
Hugo 168 94.78% 5.12 2000
Lake Elmo 45 95.22% 6.14 1500
Lake St Croix Beach 13 95.79% 9.07
Lakeland 20 95.65% 7.14 1 o00
Lakeland Shores 7 96.02% 3.98 500
Landfall 0 0.00% 0.00
a i I
Mahtomedi 78 95.11% 7.46 0 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008
Marine 7 95.40% 12.64 #of Multi-Family 834 815 1013 986 1041 1141 1309 1331 883
May 19 95.72% 10.46 #of Single Family 2895 2669 2756 2672 2960 2934 2923 2305 1775
Newport 28 95.37% 7.04
Oak Park Heights 52 96.42% 7.85
Oakdale 281 95.73% 5.33
Pine Springs 0 0.00% 0.00
St Mary's Point 3 95.89% 1.68
St Paul Park 58 93.65% 4.84
Scandia 24 95.43% 8.33
Stillwater City 266 95.15% 8.04
Stillwater Twp 16 95.49% 3.36
West Lakeland 17 95.54% 6.98
White Bear Lake 2 86.01% 4.27
Willernie 11 95.20% 3.39
Woodbury 868 95.07% 5.00
I County Totals 2,658 95.33% 6.02 I
• • • • • • • to •
iage 19 2008 Assessment Report
2008 Residential High/Low & Average Sale Price Summary
# High Low Average
Municipality sales Sale Price Sale Price Sale Price
Afton 19 $834,000 $280,000 $475,000
Bayport 25 $723,000 $159,000 $305,700
Baytown 11 $1,150,000 $335,000 $733,600
Residential Sales History Birchwood 5 $1,185,000 $300,000 $536,000
■Avg Multi-Family Sale Price ■Avg Single Family Sale Price 1 Cottage Grove 345 $970,000 $113,500 $242,800
Dellwood 13 $2,131,600 $335,000 $886,300
o Avg Assessed Value of Sold •Aeg Assessed Value of Sold Denmark 10 $2,100,000 $299,900
Multi-Family Homes Single Family Homes $675,700
Forest Lake 205 $1,020,000 $142,500 $290,100
400000 Grant 40 $2,400,000 $254,000 $632,700
350000
Grey Cloud 2 $340,000 $298,300 $319,100
300000 I I Hastings 0 $0 $0 $0
250000
200000 - 1 I I I Hugo 168 $1,020,000 $131,600 $259,100
150000 -- . ' I I I Lake Elmo 45 $1,525,000 $207,000 $494,600
1 00000 Lake St Croix 13 $465,000 $137,700 $245,600
I
$259,700
s0000 i I , , , Lakeland 20 $432,000
$130,000
0 Lakeland Shrs 7 $1,850,000 $185,000 $695,500
ay2002 ay2003 ay2004 ay2005 ay2006 ay2007 ay2008 Landfall 0 $0 $0 $0
Mahtomedi 78 $1,599,000 $131,000 $359,500
Marine 7 $965,000 $220,000 $495,000
May 19 $910,000 $249,900 $521,400
Newport 28 $760,000 $113,000 $239,100
Oak Park Hts 52 $524,000 $75,000 $207,300
Oakdale 281 $565,000 $116,400 $235,400
Pine Springs 0 $0 $0 $0
St Mary's Pt 3 $960,000 $175,000 $449,900
St Paul Park 58 $330,000 $100,000 $224,600
Scandia 24 $800,000 $128,800 $337,100
Stillwater City 266 $1,363,000 $103,000 $327,000
Stillwater Twp 16 $838,000 $225,000 $483,500
West Lakeland 17 $1,230,000 $321,000 $647,900
White Bear Lk 2 $265,000 $250,000 $257,500
Willernie 11 $288,900 $119,900 $188,300
Woodbury 868 $1,156,300 $92,500 $298,900
,: Courxty .' ;. _ 2,638 $2,400,000 $75,000" $304,400
• 0 • • 0 40 0 • • • 0 a 40 • 40 • a a • a
Page 2C 2008 Assessment Report
New Construction Summary
SFR TH/Condo C&I Apartments Exempt
2007 2007 2007 2007 2007
Municipality New Home Starts New Home Starts New Starts New Starts New Starts Total New Starts
Afton 7 0 0 0 0 7
Bayport 16 0 0 0 1 17
Baytown 7 0 0 0 0 7 72,722 2,572
Birchwood 2 0 0 0 0 2 - - -_
Cottage Grove 55 4 4 0 0 63 �2 177
Dellwood 3 0 0 0 0 3 1,921
Denmark 11 0 o 1 o 12
Forest Lake 34 65 7 1 0 107 �`` 1,628 .4,1,693
N. I
Grant 5 0 0 0 0 5 +.
Grey Cloud o 0 0 0 0 0 N
1,083 No 11
Hastings 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
Hugo 51 202 4 0 0 257
Lake Elmo 24 0 1 0 0 25
Lake St Croix Beach 3 0 0 0 0 3
Lakeland 1 0 0 0 0 1
0
Lakeland Shores 1 0 0 0 0 1
Landfall 0 0 0 0 0 0 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007
Mahtomedi 8 43 1 0 0 52
Marine 1 0 0 0 0 1
May 9 0 0 0 4 13
Newport 4 0 3 0 1 8
Oak Park Heights 1 18 2 0 0 21
Oakdale 8 6 4 0 0 18
Pine Springs i 0 0 0 0 1
St Mary's Point 0 0 0 0 0 0
St Paul Park 4 2 2 0 0 8
Scandia 6 0 0 0 0 6
Stillwater City 24 8 1 0 0 33
Stillwater Twp 1 0 0 0 0 1
West Lakeland 8 0 0 0 0 8 ariair
White Bear Lake 0 0 0 o 0 0
Willernie o 0 0 0 0 0
Woodbury 237 161 4 1 0 403
i County Totals 532 509 33 3 6 1,083 I
• • • • 0 • • • • 0 0 • • • • • • • • • • •
Yage 21 2008 Assessment Report
The Appeals Process —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.
"The appeals process begins
in March and extends
What steps should property owners take to appeal their assessments? through June."
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.
• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
2008 Assessment Report `.Page 22
The Three-Step Appeal
Step 1:
Step 3:
Property owners who have questions or concerns regarding the market value If property owners are not satisfied with the action taken at the Local
or classification of their property are encouraged to contact the property Board of Appeal and Equalization, they may appear (in person, through a
appraiser responsible for their area.In most cases an interior inspection of designated representative,or by sending a written request) before a second
the property will be necessary.We have found that a large number of board,called the County Board of Appeal and Equalization. In order to be
property owner concerns can be resolved after speaking to an appraiser put on the agenda for the County Board of Appeal and Equalization
Step 2: please contact the Assessor's Office at 651-275-8759 by May 16, 2008.
The County Board is made up of elected county commissioners,the county
If your questions or concerns are not resolved after talking with your auditor/treasurer, and/or appointed officials. The 2008 County Board of
appraiser you may appear before the Local Board of Appeal and Equalization Appeal and Equalization is scheduled for June 17, 2008. Property
in your community or attend one of the Open Book meetings held owners who appeal their assessments at this level must have first appeared
throughout the county.These meetings are held in April or May.Please before the Local Board of Appeal and Equalization if they choose to have
reference your valuation notice or call your appraiser to find out the time and their grievances acted upon by this Board
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. 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.
"In order to be put on the agenda for the
County Board of Appeal and Equalization
please contact the Assessors'Office at 651 275-
8759."
• • • • • • • 0 • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
2008 Assessment Report rage 23
Property Valuation or Classification Appeal Process
When you receive your Notice of Valuation and Classification in March or April,please examine your notice carefully.
If you have a question or you think your notice is incorrect, follow the steps below:
Visit or call the County Assessor or Local Assessors Office FIRST
• Discuss your concerns with the assessor or an appraiser
• Compare values of neighboring or similar properties
• Review local sales information
. , . ,
Option 1: Option 2:
Three Step Appeal One Step Appeal
PTO appeal your valuation or classification,follow the options as shown:
i
STEP 1: STEP 2: STEP 3:
Appeal to City or Township Local Board of Appeal to County Board of Appeal&Equalization Appeal to Minnesota Tax Court
Appeal& Equalization or Open Book Meeting • Meetings held in June • Appeal deadline is on or before April 30th of
• Meetings held in April and May ► • May appeal in person, by a representative /agent, • the year the taxes become payable on the
• May appeal in person,by a representative,or or by letter property being appealed
by letter • Call the County Assessors Office for an
appointment
If you aren't satisfied with the Local Board's If you aren't satisfied with the County Board's There are two(2)Tax Court Divisions
decision,then proceed to Step 2. decision,then proceed to Step 3.
+ + II
MN Tax Court- Small Claims Division MN Tax Court-Regular Division
• Attorney not necessary • Attorney present recommended
• Decision is final and cannot be appealed • Decisions appealable to Supreme Court
• Use for your home or any property assessed under • Can be used for any property
$300,000. • Must be used for property assessed over$300,000
• • • • • • a a a • a
Jage 24 2008 Assessment Report
The One-Step Appeal
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.
� at1
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 assess-
ment.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 han-
dled by telephone, mail, or e-mail during regular business hours
Minnesota Tax Court - Contact Information
Street & Mailing Address:
Minnesota Tax Court
Minnesota Judicial Center, Suite 245
25 Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King,Jr. Blvd.
St. Paul,MN 55155
.`' 1^ * Phone:
! (651) 296-2806 (voice) ; (800) 627-3529 (TDD- Users ask for(651) 296-
• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
2008 Assessment Report Jage 25
Responses to typical questions from members of the Local Board of Appeal
What is the purpose of the Local Board of Appeal?
11.
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 r,
estimate of market value and/or classification that will be used for the dispersal of the following years taxes. ip
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, 2008 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.
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.
9'age 26 2008 Assessment Report
Are the changes made at the local level reviewed? influenced by the same factor. The property owner should have some
The Washington County Assessor reviews all value adjustments made by information to support their claim of being over valued in order to assist the
the Local Boards of Appeal and the changes made by the appraisers prior 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
to the County Board meeting. If the County Assessor finds a value adjust-
ment that is not in the best interest of all property owners in our county, of appraisals that can be produced as evidence.
additional information may be requested to support the change. If ade-
quate information does not support the valuation adjustment, or informa-
tion is not provided, the County Assessor will make a recommendation to
the County Board to change the estimated market value back to an accept- In the case of appeals made by
able level in order to rectify the situation. The property owner involved income producing (commercial/
will be notified in advance of this recommendation. industrial and apartment)
property owners, it is
What is the format for the Local Board of Appeal? "' "`LL'" ` recommended that the procedure
The statutory requirements are listed above and the format must currently in place at the county level and used in tax court appeals be
accommodate those. The method in which the meeting is conducted is at followed. The commercial/industrial appraiser is to first conduct a physical
the discretion of the local officials (it is again emphasized that it is their inspection of the property. They also determine what information may be
meeting not that of the County or local assessor). The county staff or available and beneficial in establishing the estimated value. That
local assessor can provide you with background information regarding information is then requested from the property owner or their
how previous meetings were conducted. representative. This information typically consists of rent rolls, copies of
leases currently in place,gross sales, 3 years of income & expense data and
On what basis should I make my decisions as a Local Board member? appraisals. After gathering the applicable information, staff can conduct a
You have an obligation to objectively listen to the property owner's appeal thorough analysis of the market value. Staff is instructed not to make
which should focus on the market value and facts that impact the market value changes if the information requested is withheld. It is up to the individual
Boards as to what procedure you choose to use in determining if an
(there are occasionally appeals of classification which are usually technical and
adjustment in value is warranted.
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
(Continued on page 27)
• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
2008 Assessment Report :Page 27
(Continued from page 26)
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 16,2008),
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 rec-
ommend 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.
• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
[taw 28 2008 Assessment Report
Responsibilities of the County Board of Appeal & Equalization (CBAE)
The responsibility and procedure of the Count 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 of 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 appeal of property owners in a manner similar to the Local Board of Appeal and Equalization
b.) Equalize 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, and (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 2008.
3. Current law (M.S. 274.14) provides that the CBAE ". . .may meet on any ten consecutive meeting dates in June, after the second Friday
in June. The actual meeting dates must be contained on the valuation notices mailed to each property owner in the county...".
In no case can the CBAE exceed the maximum length of session of 10 consecutive meeting days. If a CBAE completes its work in less
than 10 days, it may adjourn at that time. 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 (LBAE) are required to make an official
appearance (have their name read into the meeting minutes) at the LBAE prior to an appearance at the CBAE. 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 CBAE (application deadline to appear before the Washington County CBAE is
May 16, 2008). Again,this "appearance"can be done in person;by agent;or by letter.
(Continued on page 29)
• • • • • • • • f • • • • • • • • • • • • •
Jade 29 2008 Assessment Report
6. For equalization activities, the Board must not reduce the aggregate value of all property in the County by no more than one percent (1%)
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 serves as a recorder for the Special Board.
8. The format for the CBAE 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 16th if they intend to be present at the 2008 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 prior to the first meeting date.
Because equalization is a primary concern of all property owners in our county--not just those property owners who contest their
valuations--it is recommended that the following approach to those situations in which staff may not have adequate time (or vital
information is not provided) is used 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 so 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.
Washington
County
Washington Department of
County Property Records and
Taxpayer Services
Valuation Notices for
Taxes Payable in 2009
95,903 valuation notices are being mailed to owners of real estate and personal
property parcels. The tables on the following pages show the counts of the number
of parcels by the range of the percentage change in value from the January 2, 2007
assessment/payable 2008 to the January 2, 2008 assessment/payable 2009, along
with the median percentage change in value. Information is shown by municipality
as well as countywide. Separate tables are available for all parcels, residential
homestead parcels, other residential parcels, apartment parcels, and
commercial/industrial parcels. The residential charts also include information on
parcels receiving a value reduction under the limited market value law. For the 2008
assessment/payable 2009, value increases on certain property classifications are
limited to the greater of 15% or 50% of the difference between the current year and
the prior year. Under current law, pay 2009 is the last year that limited market value
will be in effect.
Counts of Assessment Year 2008/Payable Year 2009 Value Notices
by Range of Percentage of Increase/Decrease in Estimated & Taxable Market Value
All Parcels
Parcel Counts by range of Increase/Decrease in Market Value
«_ r Type Median e m c y e y e m e m e 2 & e m a ea) gm e m 3 yr c y 3 y o y
City/Township of g w M 'O M o A � A c A u) W c H a 'n w �i u N y H to I- d y 0 I- m
in Parcel m r m` n am N m CO o N CO ^ m CO CO CO +� . I V w , m S. w
Value m E 4 E 5 O S o 5 e L 2 1, e. . p_ O a u o 0 ,0 63 0 O m
Value > m ,- m � m � m eod rm c .- c c2c oc .- c > c 1- aoz a, � c va
OD dO 1."• 0 dCI csiO d0 ^ a
Z d - cd - - o - O - n.
0002 Baytown EMV -8.2% I 79 182 245 75 133 18 188 9 1 0 1 36 920_ 95% 47 5%
TMV -6.1% 68 140 251 60 51 19 168 15 11 24 41 119 967 757 78% 210 22%
0004 Denmark EMV 5.7% 7 5 5 13 15 22 174 50 383 70 207 181 1 132 241 21% 891 79%
TMV 9.6% 5 2 2 12 10 8 85 32 366 58 170 382 124 11% 1,008 89%
0009 May EMV -0.3% 96 31 46 50 61 675 508 159 83 19 29 63 1 820 1,467 81% 353 19%
TMV 1.9% 63 15 33 26 42 467 158 140 183 59 228 406 804 44% 1,016 56%
0011 Grey Cloud Island EMV 0.0% 1 3 3 0 4 48 81 17 45 7 3 3 215 140 65% 75 35%
TMV 0.5% 1 3 2 0 4 39 57 20 50 14 16 9 106 49% 109 51%
0014 Stillwater Township EMV -5.4% 13 50 135 405 210 112 78 37 16 5 7 10 1,078 1,003 93% 75 7%
TMV -4.5% 13 38 42 374 215 101 27 37 39 14 82 96 810 75% 268 25%
0017 West Lakeland EMV -0.7% 1 18 22 20 56 978 221 101 48 10 6 27 1,316 87% 192 13%
TMV -0.7% 1 18 20 20 52 954 130 100 61 35 40 77 1,508 1,195 79% 313 21%
0100 Afton EMV -6.1% 44 178 193 446 93 119 276 43 34 3 7 78 1,514 1,349 89% 165 11%
TMV -4.2% 38 82 159 426 96 101 103 52 86 44 128 199 1,005 66% 509 34%
0200 Bayport EMV -1.9% 13 39 22 35 316 210 243 86 55 4 0 5 1 028 878 85% 150 15%
TMV 0.0% 11 40 21 34 204 194 173 86 68 17 49 131 677 66% 351 34%
0300 Birchwood EMV -2.9% 4 17 12 20 217 74 52 22 4 0 1 1 396 93% 28 7%
TMV -1.2% 2 11 7 12 149 43 32 27 22 8 66 45 424 256 60% 168 40%
0400 Scandia EMV -11.2% 323 1,192 112 78 93 121 324 114 71 31 49 192 2 700 2,243 83% 457 17%
TMV -5.0% 195 950 119 81 92 94 100 76 142 88 332 431 1,631 60% 1,069 40%
0500 Dellwood EMV 4.2% 43 6 15 32 45 43 17 56 71 32 29 166 201 36% 354 64%
TMV 4.7% 41 8 15 31 39 43 9 57 71 32 95 114 555 186 34% 369 66%
0600 Forest Lake EMV -2.9% 268 804 847 798 1,514 1,227 1,264 326 329 112 139 400 8 028 6,722 84% 1,306 16%
TMV -0.8% 130 445 510 665 1,339 1,234 978 390 494 175 817 851 5,301 66% 2,727 34%
0700 Hugo EMV -3.0% 47 235 424 1,187 1,270 1,302 959 167 69 51 106 126 5,943 5,424 91% 519 9%
TMV -2.0% 38 211 281 1,108 1,199 1,261 374 155 169 77 268 802 4,472 75% 1,471 25%
0800 Lake Elmo EMV 2.5% 140 123 160 202 279 234 211 243 413 142 211 819 3 177 1,349 42% 1,828 58%
TMV 2.9% 138 127 165 201 277 242 182 236 406 144 483 576 1,332 42% 1,845 58%
0900 Lakeland Shores EMV -3.8% 1 1 7 7 85 1 25 0 1 5 19 2 127 82% 27 18%
TMV -3.6% 1 1 0 7 85 1 10 2 2 5 24 16 154 105 68% 49 32%
1000 Mahtomedi EMV 1.8% 184 176 134 200 280 306 108 245 401 155 244 691 1,388 44% 1,736 56%
TMV 3.4% 164 117 133 198 278 303 59 240 378 154 573 527 3,124 1,252 40% 1,872 60%
1100 Marine on St Croix EMV -1.9% 4 30 18 97 121 43 247 13 2 1 0 5 560 96% 21 4%
TMV 0.0% 4 29 16 83 118 34 89 19 16 8 40 125 581 373 64% 208 36%
1200 Newport EMV 0.0% 79 79 31 27 48 443 277 121 171 67 45 165 1,553 984 63% 569 37% iy
TMV 0.0% 65 76 34 29 50 419 184 131 183 61 91 230 857 55% 696 45%
-
,y
2
Counts of Assessment Year 2008/Payable Year 2009 Value Notices
by Range of Percentage of Increase/Decrease in Estimated & Taxable Market Value
All Parcels
Parcel Counts by range of Increase/Decrease in Market Value
Median e e d e e y To " d
Type ° e d 0 d d e d e d e d o e d e d d Q d e d y rn _y ; CO y
/o Chg u) uj N O N )A• m O• u) in• y c N N N y O V) 6 y fn cn y co L F d y d d
City/Township of in Parcel 2 . P. c 2 2 "' d `.' 2 .co c a `c' m r d c af°i d c m duo L d ` '- `
Value s o e o o e o e U ,- o o O e ` ," ` ° ` e I:5` `d ` r` d O 0 U c O co
c o U e V C C z c a L C , a.
Value > d d d d �v d d o c c c c > c ~ io G m - o
O0 p0 � 0 vi0 c,i0 p0 z o - csi - r - o - O - a d
1300 St Paul Park EMV -2.2% 69 103 28 50 765 415 549 121 142 23 50 13 2 328 1,979 85% 349 15%
TMV -1.9% 64 96 27 51 746 401 375 111 145 33 107 172 1,760 76% 568 24%
EMV 0.0% 0 0 01 0'i 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 2 6 75% 2 25%
1400 Landfall 8 -
TMV 0.0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 2 6 75% 2 25%
EMV -0.5% 244 340 269i 3231 601 2,272 1,149 702 1,094 126 140 251 5,198 69% 2,313 31%
1500 Stillwater City 511
TMV 0.0% 212 329 238 313 553 2,052 956 742 1,182 182 394 358 7, 4,653 62% 2,858 38%
EMV 1.3% 4 3 5 8 9 51 41 161 79 4 1 1 121 33% 246 67%
1600 Willernie TMV 1.7% 4 2 5 8 9 44 37 143 79 6 18 12 367 109 30% 258 70%
EMV 0.0% 23 18 36 74 60 404 519 372 252 15 9 101, 1,134 60% 749 40%
1700 Oak Park Heights _
,TMV 0.0% 22 16 24 69 60 387 386 376 291 26 85 141 1883 964 51% 919 49%
1800 St Ma s Point EMV 0.0% 0 6 2 2 8 125 158 20 2 0 0 0 323 301 93% 22 7%
ry TMV 11.1% 0 5 2 3 8 89 9 17 13 7 76 94 116 36% 207 64%
1900 Lakeland EMV -1.0% 4 15 10 9 148 390 69 65 35 8 1 77 831 645 78% 186 22%
TMV -0.9% 4 15 10 8 132 351 51 67 54 18 67 54 571 69% 260 31%,
2000 Lake St Croix Beach EMV -1.6% 12 22 4 9 231 178 271 24 7 0 1 11 760 727 96% 33 4%
TMV -1.3% 12 22 4 8 219 167 162 19 30 11 60 46 594 78% 166 22%
EMV -0.4% 2 3 1 4 5 86 35 14 20 7 3 0 136 76% 44 24%
2100 Pine Springs TMV -0.4% 2 3 1 4 5 83 23 16 18 6 10 9 180 121 67% 59 33%
2200 Cotta e Grove EMV -0.7% 91 357 441 497 1,855 3,838 603 1,703 1,590 310 301 414 12,000 7,682 64% 4,318 36%
g TMV -0.7% 89 346 346 490 1,783 3,831 419 1,705 1,603 262 464 662 7,304 61% 4,696 39%
2500 Woodbu EMV -0.8% 209 261 500 1,354 2,165 10,528 2,436 1,884 1,768 286 266 462 22 119 17,453 79% 4,666 21%
ry TMV -0.8% 136 239 476 1,303 2,148 10,418 1,691 1,921 1,819 291 556 1,121 16,411 74% 5,708 26%
EMV -0.8% 79 124 112 190 1,128 5,801 802 745 434 101 120 347 8,236 83% 1,747 17%
2600 Oakdale TMV -0.8% 77 108 107 179 1,099 5,726 706 751 478 164 310 278 9'983 8,002 80% 1,981 20%
2700 Grant EMV -0.4% 25 48 52 79 84 830 434 173 150 20 29 68 1 992 1,552 78% 440 22%
TMV 0.0% 22 44 43 65 61 663 143 182 192 57 154 366' 1,041 52% 951 48%
EMV - 0.0% 1 0 0 0 0 1 6 0 0 2 0 0 8 80% 2 20%
7500 Hastings 10
TMV 0.0% 1 0 0 0 0 0, 5 0 0, 0 2 2 6 60% 4 40%
EMV -0.6% 0 0 0 0 0 68 24 11 4 0 0 0 92 86% _ 15 14%
9400 White Bear Lake 107
TMV -0.6% 0 0 0 0 0 68 23 11 5 0 0 0 91 85% 16 15%
Count Total EMV -0.8% 2,110 4,469 3,891 6,291 11,899 30,963 12,355 7,804 7,774 1,6161 2,024 4,707 95,903 71,978 75% 23,925 25%
y TMV -n 7°%% 1,623 3,538 3,093, 5,868, 11,123 29,837 7,910 7,876 8,656 2,0801 5,846 8,453 - 62,992 66% 32,911 34%
EMV=Estimated Market Value TMV=Taxable Market Value
Value attributable to new construction was subtracted before determining the percentage increase in value.
3
Counts of Assessment Year 2008/Payable Year 2009 Value Notices
by Range of Percentage of Increase/Decrease in Estimated & Taxable Market Value
Residential Homestead Parcels
Median Median Median Parcel Counts by range of Increase/Decrease in Market Value # Median Median
Type 2007/ 2008/ %Chg e y ;A'
y c H g H c e w H d f c _ Gap Gap
o, a d e m m o m we m rc as
City/Township of Pay 2008 Pay 2009 in ` ` . L o b ` 6 b to i t e N m ^ d o d d .- co o Parcels between as a
d
Value Parcel Parcel Parcel e o u 40 o ea ea v 0 e e e e `0 tj ,2 with EMV& %of
Value Value Value 0 0 0 0 i. 0 ui 0 N 0 •
0 0 ° 6 c c c 6 c > c
z o - Ui - ^ o - - LMV LMV EMV
0002 Baytown EMV 515,400 477,400 -9.7% 68 146 229 50 3 5 2 4 1 0 1 1 510 1 2,200 0.7%
TMV 512,700 477,400 -9.5% 62 131 237 50 8 7 3 5 2 1 2 2
0004 Denmark EMV 416,400 439,600 5.0% 0 1 2 9 8 7 1 23 323 41 36 10 461 40 36,100 7.0%
TMV 411,300 438,900 5.3% 0 1 2 8 7 6 1 20 303 32 67 14
0009 May EMV 436,000 433,400 -0.6% 6 23 33 34 41 502 21 72 59 14 21 21 847 79 42,700 7.2%
TMV 428,700 432,000 -0.4% 0 9 23 23 36 398 19 90 101 25 91 32
0011 Grey Cloud Island EMV 291,400 295,400 1.5% 1 3 3 0 3 42 2 14 43 2 1 0 114 1 1,200 0.8%
TMV 291,400 295,400 2.3% 1 3 2 0 3 35 1 16 47 3 3 0
0014 Stillwater Township EMV 434,400 411,900 -5.5% 5 35 45 383 193 75 0 14 4 3 0 3 760 6 29,900 6.1%
TMV 433,500 411,900 -5.3% 5 30 36 357 200 78 1 20 13 6 11 3
0017 West Lakeland EMV 453,000 451,500 -0.9% 0 16 21 18 52 926 38 76 40 9 3 2 1,201 4 14,900 2.7%
TMV 452,800 451,300 -0.9% 0 16 20 18 50 909 35 85 48 11 9 0
0100 Afton EMV 431,900 402,500 -6.8% 26 91 180 416 75 67 8 19 20 2 3 7 914 20 31,200 6.0%
TMV 422,900 402,200 -6.5% 22 73 152 399 81 76 8 27 31 10 27 8
0200 Bayport EMV 214,400 206,800 -2.5% 10 34 22 30 193 173 6 72 46 3 0 0 589 7 20,600 5.5%
TMV 213,900 206,700 -2.4% 8 35 21 30 183 161 5 71 51 3 15 6
0300 Birchwood EMV 356,800 346,900 -3.0% 2 13 7 17 195 68 0 19 2 0 1 1 325 60 82,400 8.8%
TMV 354,800 346,600 -2.6% 1 10 6 11 141 36 0 23 20 7 55 15
0400 Scandia EMV 335,600 299,200 -11.6% 112 820 69 55 36 29 4 15 32 14 14 19 1,219 47 30,400 6.6%
TMV 332,500 298,400 -11 '° 105 791 79 58 38 37 1 11 24 13 52 10
0500 Dellwood EMV 586,600 605,400 3.6% 1 4 11 26 35 34 2 49 64 27 21 79 353 80 105,400 8.7%
TMV 586,600 605,400 3.9% 1 4 11 25 36 34 1 49 63 28 71 30
0600 Forest Lake EMV 259,500 254,300 -3.9% 181 455 726 651 1,205 1,044 25 258 274 72 116 143 5,150 377 16,100 4.0%
TMV 257,400 253,700 -2.6% 86 340 443 570 1,178 1,078 19 320 388 131 510 87
EMV 243,500 239,700 -3.9% 20 160 174 1,012 996 1,060 93 76 60 38 87 41
0700 Hugo TMV 243,300 239,700 -3.5% 19 155 162 953 994 1,075 24 88 74 42 105 126 3,817 49 6,900 2.4%
0800 Lake Elmo EMV 386,400 393,300 1.0% 34 106 146 187 256 220 10 212 372 126 168 263 2,100 267 19,400 5.0%
TMV 386,400 391,000 1.0% 34 106 146 187 254 220 10 212 371 126 378 56
0900 Lakeland Shores EMV 342,700 327,600 -4.0% 1 1 0 7 84 1 0 0 0 5 13 1 113 12 101,300 7.3%
TMV 342,700 327,600 -4.0% 1 1 0 7 84 1 0 0 0 3 14 2
1000 Mahtomedi EMV 292,500 303,000 1.6% 46 138 117 188 262 288 8 217 362 145 207 378 2,356 419 24,100 7.1%
TMV 292,500 298,200 2.1% 36 107 120 187 260 286 9 215 343 142 492 159
1100 Marine on St Croix EMV 367,900 346,200 -4.9% 1 27 15 81 101 28 1 7 1 1 0 1 264 3 13,300 2.9%
TMV 365,100 345,500 -4.9% 1 26 13 73 100 26 0 11 5 3 6 0
1200 Newport EMV 199,900 196,700 -0.7% 50 57 21 24 40 389 30 96 115 43 33 23
p TMV 199,200 196,600 -0.7% 40 56 23 25 42 370 29 109 122 45 53 7 921 28 9,300 4.1
4
Counts of Assessment Year 2008/Payable Year 2009 Value Notices
by Range of Percentage of Increase/Decrease in Estimated & Taxable Market Value
Residential Homestead Parcels
Median Median Median Parcel Counts by range of Increase/Decrease in Market Value # Median Median
e
Type 2007/ 2008/ %Chg es o s Ls s c s g s go es o s c 2 e 2 of Gap Gap
City/Township of Pay 2008 Pay 2009 in m d o m � d m „; m A e N m r- m 0 o m ` m w Parcels between as a
` ` ` ` ` ,e ` t o . ` ` b ` ` m ` IS with EMV& %of
Value Parcel Parcel Parcel > 0 et 0 e o - o o m - " ' c eo c v c c > c ~
Value Value Value 0 0 o 0 ;;„1 0 rn 0 �i 0 o Di z° o - eii - o - 0 - LMV LMV EMV
1300 St Paul Park EMV 189,100 181,600 -3.0% 66 97 27 42 706 363 3 95 102 10 13 5 1,529/ 16 4,400 2.5%
_ TMV 188,800 181,500 -3.0% 62 91 27 46 692 357 3 91 105 17 35 3
1500 Stillwater City EMV 250,800 250,600 -0.7% 160 308 224 288 548; 1,906 115 608 921 99 125 77 5,379 128 13,700 3.9%
_ TMV 249,400 249,700 -0.7% 155 296 206 278 508, 1,786 98 663 958 137 253 41
1600 Willernie EMV 170,300 169,700 0.6% 2 1 5 6 7 45 3 43 52 4 1 0 169 1 3,700 2.7%
TMV 169,500 167,600 0.7% 2 0 5 6 7 40 4 45 52 6 2 0
1700 Oak Park Heights EMV 211,800 214,800 0.3% 4 16 19 46 42 338 40 315 211 10 7 5 1,053 7 1,200 1.7%
TMV 211,700 214,600 0.7% 3 15 19 42 44 316 39 321 226 13 14 1
1800 St Mary's Point EMV 290,400 284,900 -1.4% 0 5 2 1 7 100 3 13 1 0 0 0 132 7 40,900 5.4%
TMV 290,400 284,900 -1.3% 0 4 2 2 7 81 3 13 9 2 7 2
1900 Lakeland EMV 246,300 242,300 -1.5% 3 14 7 8 139 360 16 59 26 4 0 1 637 8 19,600 2.2%
TMV 246,300 242,300 -1.4% 3 14 7 7 124 337 15 60 42 9 19 0
2000 Lake St Croix Beach EMV 201,400 193,900 -2.7% 6 22 3 8 189 150 4 16 4 0 0 0 402 2 14,500 4.6%
TMV 201,400 193,900 -2.7% 6 22 3 7 186 141 4 16 9 3 5 0
2100 Pine Springs EMV 427,500 425,300 -0.6% 0 2 1 4 5 82 5 13 20 2 1 0 135 6 28,700 7.1%
TMV 425,100 425,200 -0.6% 0 2 1 4 5 79 5 12 18 0 7 2
2200 Cottage Grove EMV 223,600 221,600 -0.8% 25 299 308 454 1,744 3,594 143 1,548 1,438 238 251 91 10,133 110 11,200 3.0%
TMV 223,500 221,600 -0.8% 24 288 302 449 1,684 3,595 145 1,567 1,461 233 341 44
2500 Woodbury EMV 281,500 281,500 -0.8% 75 197 405 1,167 1,902 9,774 561 1,740 1,547 244 176 99 17887 105 8,700 2.1%
TMV 281,300 281,500 -0.8% 56 178 405 1,140 1,894 9,700 524 1,767 1,589 243 281 110 -
2600 Oakdale EMV 225,700 223,800 -1.0% 17 83 91 172 1,007 5,511 222 659 380 78 89 112 8,421 138 9,100 3.6%
TMV 225,600 223,700 -0.8% 15 74 88 163 992 5,461 216 655 394 120 229 14
2700 Grant EMV 458,500 458,600 -0.6% 0 36 47 72 64 735 49 117 127 11 25 12 1,295 52 24,800 4.9%
TMV 452,900 457,600 -0.5% 0 34 39 61 54 623 44 138 153 39 97 13
7500 Hastings EMV 136,800 135,400 -1.0% 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 12,900 9.5%
TMV 106,500 122,500 15.0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0
9400 White Bear Lake EMV 231,200 231,000_ -0.7% 0 0 0 0 0 66 12 10 4 0 0 0 92 0 0 0.0%
TMV 231,200 231,000 -0.7% 0 0 0 0, 0 66 12 10 4 0 0 0
EMV 256,000 255,000 -1.3% 922 3,210 2,960 5,456 10,138 27,983 1,427
County Total 6,479 6,651 1,245 1,413 1,395 69,279 2,081 18,400 4.9%
TMV 255,400 254,600 -1 1/° 748 2,912 2,600 5,186 9,892 27,415 1,278 6,730 7,026 1,453 3,252 787
EMV=Estimated Market Value TMV=Taxable Market Value LMV=Limited Market Value
Value attributable to new construction was subtracted before determining the percentage increase in value.
Excludes parcels with multiple classifications. Only includes the main parcel with the house if a homestead consists of multiple parcels.
5
Counts of Assessment Year 2008/Payable Year 2009 Value Notices
by Range of Percentage of Increase/Decrease in Estimated & Taxable Market Value
All Other Residential Parcel.
Median Median Median Parcel Counts by range of Increase/Decrease in Market Value # Median Median
Type 2007/ 2008/ %Chg o a) o a) o d o y o y o y rn e d c y , y o y a a1 of Gap
m H y 1n N O N) )n N C u") y N y . U) tn m y Gap
City/Township of Pay 2008 Pay 2009 in ,- d v o ai d vi ai N m a o rsi a a c a •-. a 2 cc Parcels between as a
t d d '- e d i
Value Parcel Parcel Parcel m u o u = Ig e e c, e u o g b 2 o %
> y .- y o .- d < y y U e e e u with EMV& of
Value Value Value 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
o `� N o z o N o O LMV LMV EMV
0002 Baytown EMV 189,000 190,000 - % 10 36 15 23 120 0 16 1 0 0! 0 30
TMV 95,800 142,800 14.3% 5 8 14 7 36 3 16 3 3 21 30 1051 251 41 2,900 11.1
0004 Denmark EMV 163,900 184,400 11.8% 6 2 1 4 1 1 58 4 22 12 121 41
TMV 139,200 170,600 15.3% 3 0 0 3 1 1 16 3 19 9 57 124 236 129 26,000 13.8%
0009 May EMV 151,000 135,100 0.0% 89 8 7 9 8 56 282 21 15 3 6 18 522 241 28,500 14.5%
TMV 97,700 107,000 9.8% 61 5 3 1 2 24 110 15 29 11 71 190
0011 Grey Cloud Island EMV 34,000 34,000 0.0% 0 0 0 0 1 3 46 2 2 4 2 3 63 18 6,800 10.7%
TMV 26,400 30,400 0.0% 0 0 0 0 1 2 30 2 3 4 13 8
0014 Stillwater Township EMV 195,000 175,500 -9.5% 2 14 87 16 9 2 23 0 0 0 1 2 156 63 8,600 6.5%
TMV 143,100 142,900 15.0% 2 7 5 12 12 5 7 1 5 3_ 52 45
0017 West Lakeland EMV 174,200 200,000 0.0% 1 1 0 1 2 40 153 3 3 1 0 17 222 52 17,900 11.8%
TMV 147,800 170,500 0.9% 1 1 0 1 1 38 68 5 7 23 26 51 _
0100 Afton EMV 93,700 193,900 0.0% 12 85 12 28 9 8 148 2 5 0 1 44
TMV 85,300 113,900 9.0% 10 7 6 25 8 13 58 8 29 21 71 98 354 94 11,100 8.6%
0200 Bayport EMV 134,400 137,800 -1.8% 1 5 0 4 123 37 103 14 9 0 0 2 298 34 1,900 10.8%
TMV 99,400 134,500 10.1% 1 5 0 3 21 33 35 15 16 13 34 122
0300 Birchwood EMV 75,000 75,000 0.0% 2 4 5 3 22 6 51 3 2 0 0 0 98 39 19,500 15.5%
TMV 47,800 58,600 0.0% 1 1 1 1 8 7 31 4 2 1 11 30
0400 Scandia EMV 39,800 50,000 -14.3% 209 369 39 6 10 35 55 34 26 9 26 139 957 282 6,800 13.7%
TMV 33,800 39,900 8.0% 86 155 34 11 18 28 27 33 74 58 202 231
0500 Dellwood EMV 111,500 135,000 5.9% 39 1 4 5 7 8 8 6 5 5 6 68' 162 73 32,100 19.7%
TMV 107,600 107,000 10.9% 37 2 4 5 3 8 3 7 6 4 21 62
0600 Forest Lake EMV 85,500 90,000 -1.1% 61 343 109 139 293 149 646 48 37 35 17 202 2,079 609 8,800 14.2%
TMV 64,000 80,000 3.4% 29 103 64 89 156 145 386 57 79 37 281 653
0700 Hugo EMV 92,400 105,000 -2.0% 24 72 244 169 265 143 540 15 4 7 14 71 1,568 120 5,700 6.4%
TMV 80,000 105,000 0.0% 15 53 113 152 201 140 158 21 51 14 113 537
0800 Lake Elmo _EMV 137,400 180,000 20.1% 77 13 13 11 18 14 37 24 30 10 31 415 693 402 16,000 13.0%
TMV 88,000 148,000 20.0% 74 14 11 11 18 13 17 15 14 11 91 4041
0900 Lakeland Shores EMV 24,200 24,200 0.0% 0 0 7 0 1 0 16 0 1 0 6 0 31 14 13,400 9.8%
TMV 18,500 21,400 15.0% 0 0 0 0 1 0 3 0 2 2 10 13
1000 Mahtomedi EMV 47,000' 80,000 4.5% 132 _ 37 15 10 18 16 76 18 32 9 30 281
TMV 40,000 60,300 15.0% 122 9 11 9 18 15 26 15 29 11 74 3351 674 300 23,800 26.4%
1100 Marine on St Croix EMV 40,800 40,800 0.0% 2 3 3 16 19 13 225 6 0 0 0 2 289 141 11,000 13.3%
TMV 29,600 33,900 13.3% 2 3 3 9 18 7 78 8 7 4 31 119
1200 Newport EMV 56,600 56,600 0.0% 22 10 10 2 4 49 176 12 24 12 8 28 357 126 6,000 11.8%
TMV 41,200 48,100 0.2% 18 8 11 2 4 45 89 10 27 4 34 1051
6
Counts of Assessment Year 2008/Payable Year 2009 Value Notices
by Range of Percentage of Increase/Decrease in Estimated & Taxable Market Value
All Other Residential Parcels
Median Median Median Parcel Counts by range of Increase/Decrease in Market Value r # Median Median
Type 2007/ 2008/ %Chg A. 0 o m e m e m e m e m •• e e m e. o d o d of Gap Gap
A. fA . C N .. H O N a, . C rrf 3 a N 2 N
City/Township of Pay 2008 Pay 2009 in , ro .- m o d r� m 4 C �i C c e ii C 10 d o d - ai «° Parcels between as a
Value Parcel Parcel Parcel m u - u 4 o e o e o et) . is ve t3 e u e u . c d ,.2 with EMV& %of
> m . m 5O m t0 m � m 0 C f0 C .p c r c > c
Value Value Value 0 0 d 0 ^ 0 6 a N 0 t o 0 z o - N - , d - O - LMV LMV EMV
1300 St Paul Park EMV 60,900 69,000 0.0% 3 5 1 8 58 49 263 23 38 101 37 6 501 142 3,900 10.6%
TMV 47,700 63,200 1.1% 2 5 0 5 54 43 135 20 39 13 71 114
1500 Stillwater City EMV 89,300 131,000 0.0% 82 32 45 35 50 364 599- 93 170 24 14 157 1,665 237 8,600 10.0%
TMV 87,300 107,400 0.0% 55 33 32 35 42 263 439 73 212 42 139 300
1600 Willernie EMV 19,200 19,300 1.7% 2 2 0 2 2 6 2 118 27 0 0 1 162 21 1,400 10.0%
TMV 18,300 18,800 2.2% 2 2 0 2 2 4 0 97 25 0 16 12
1700 Oak Park Heights EMV 6,100 60,000 0.0% 19 2 17 28 11 65 272 54 37 4 1 76 592 73 200 5.7%
TMV 6,100 23,300 1.0% 19 1 5 27 15 70 145 48 60 12 70 120
1800 St Mary's Point EMV 6,900 6,900 0.0% 0 1 0 1 1 25 153 7 1 0 0 0 189 119 1,100 11.9%
TMV 5,500 6,300 15.0% 0 1 0 1 1 8 4 4 4 5 69 92 _
1900 Lakeland EMV 129,500 135,700 7.8% 1 1 3 1 9 30 18 5 8 3 1 73 153 78 1,400 4.3%
TMV 117,300 127,800 14.9% 1 1 3 1 8 14 4 7 10 8 47 49
2000 Lake St Croix Beach EMV 2,200 2,200 0.0% 6 0 1 1 42 28 255 8 2 0 0 1 344 59 500 10.4%
TMV 1,800 2,100 0.0% 6 0 1 1 33 26 147 2 20 8 54 46
EMV 4,300 3,600 0.0% 2 1 0 0 0 4 26 1 0 5 2 0 41 8 6,300 13.2%
2100 Pine Springs TMV 4,300 3,600 0.0% 2 1 0 0 0 4 14 4 0 6 3 7
2200 Cottage Grove EMV 166,700 162,400 0.0% 45 54 133 35 107 213 226 116 120 62 13 65 1,189 54 8,700 9.1%
TMV 166,700 159,300 0.0% 43 55 44 35 97 217 146 120 96 19 52 265
2500 Woodbury EMV 150,000 159,100 0.0% 129 52 92 186 259 734 1,405 124 177 28 19 280 3,485 235 3,700 9.2%
TMV 146,400 158,200 0.0% 74 51 68 162 250 709 742 137 185 35 217 855
2600 Oakdale EMV 103,000 114,900 0.0% 45 11 14 15 117 269 431 67 27 5 10 118 1,129 89 8,000 12.7%
TMV 92,600 113,800 0.0% 45 4 12 14 102 245 342 77 57 25 60 1461
2700 Grant EMV 111,200 84,100 0.0% 12 7 3 3 5 44 264 29 9 2 0 41 382 236 8,500 19.6%
TMV 63,700 75,300 17.8% 10 7 3 2 2 26 49 21 12 3 33 214
EMV 40,800 32,500 5.0% 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 2 0 0,
4 3 5.400 14.0%
7500 Hastings TMV 32,200 27,800 17.4% 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2'
9400 White Bear Lake EMV 211,700 211,400 -0.2% 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 1 0 0 0 OI 4 0 0 0.0%
TMV 211,700 211,400 -0.1% 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 1 1 0 0 0I
County Total EMV 112,500 130,000 0.0% 1,036 1,171 880 761 1,597 2,413 6,575 859 833 252 366 2,107 18,850 4,132 8,300 12.3%
TMV 88,450 115,500 1.3% 727' 542 448 626 1,133 2,158 3,325�833 1,123 427 2,054 5,454
EMV=Estimated Market Value TMV=Taxable Market Value LMV=Limited Market Value
Value attributable to new construction was subtracted before determining the percentage increase in value.
Includes residential non homestead(vacant&improved),seasonal,and residential homestead additional lots. Excludes parcels with multiple classifications
7
Counts of Assessment Year 2008/Payable Year 2009 Value Notices
by Range of Percentage of Increase/Decrease in Estimated Market Value
Apartment Parcels
Median Median Median Parcel Counts by range of Increase/Decrease in Market Value
Type 2007/ 2008/ %Ch
g e N C' Cl) °p. y e ul N e &) e d pf e y o y ' N . y f C)
City/Township of Pay 2008 Pay 2009 in d d o m m 6 m c' d m o N m n cz Ci c A co - 2
Value Parcel Parcel Parcel > a) . a) a ti e c, o c, 4 V o o e e o o , `> 2 F
co >
Value Value Value 0 o o n o ,r; o CO o o o Z o 5 N 5 c c c O -
c
0002 Baytown EMV 0 0 0.0% 0' 0 01 0 0 0 0' Oj 0 0 0 0I 0
0004 Denmark EMV 251,000 496,100 41.7% 0 0' 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 2
0009 May EMV 0 0 0.0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0' 0
0011 Grey Cloud Island EMV 0 0 0.0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0' 0 0 0 0 j 0
0014 Stillwater Township EMV 0 0 0.0% 0 0 0' 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0017 West Lakeland EMV 0 0 0.0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0] 0 0 0 0, 0
0100 Afton EMV 744,100 817,900 11.0% 0 0 0, 0' 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 2
0200 Bayport EMV 303,300 303,300 0.0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 24 0 0 0 0 0 24
0300 Birchwood EMV 0 0 0.0% 0 0 01 0 0 0 0 01 0 0 0 0 0
0400 Scandia EMV 505,600 512,200 1.3% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0' 1
0500 Dellwood EMV 0 0 0.0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 01 0
0600 Forest Lake EMV 749,900 810,400 0.0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 49 t 0 0 0 4, 54
0700 Hugo EMV 356,400 356,400 0.0% 0 0 01 0 0 0 4 01 0 0 0 0' 4
0800 Lake Elmo EMV 299,300 299,300 0.0% 0 0 01 0 0 0 3 0I 0 0 0 0 3
0900 Lakeland Shores EMV 0 0 0.0% 0 0 01 0 0 0 0 01 0 0 0 0 0
1000 Mahtomedi EMV 2,304,000 2,304,000 0.0% 0 0 0, 0 0 0 13 0 0 0 0 0 13
1100 Marine on St Croix EMV 207,500 207,500 0.0% 0 0 0' 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 2
1200 Newport EMV 407,600 362,300 0.0% 0 11 0 0 0 0 27 0' 0 1, 0 01 39
1300 St Paul Park EMV 302,200 302,200 0.0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 26 0 0 0 0 0j 26
1400 Landfall EMV 0 0 0.0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0' 0; 0 0 0 01 0
1500 Stillwater City EMV 463,100 463,100 0.0% 1 0 0 0 0 0 62 OI 0 0 0 0 63
1600 Willernie EMV 775,600 775,600 0.0% 0, 0 0 0 0 0 1 01 0 0 0 Oj 1
1700 Oak Park Heights EMV 1,269,000 1,269,000 0.0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 18 01 0 0 0 0 18
1800 St Mary's Point EMV 0 0 0.0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 01 0 0 0 0 0
1900 Lakeland EMV 209,200 209,200 0.0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0' 0 0 0 0 3
2000 Lake St Croix Beach EMV 0 0 0.0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
2100 Pine Springs EMV 0 0 0.0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0' 0
2200 Cottage Grove EMV 2,119,700 3,177,600 0.0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 01 0 0 0 2. 12
2500 Woodbury EMV 3,428,100 3,487,700 0.0% 0 0 0 0 0 2 30 2 0 0 0 1, 35
2600 Oakdale EMV 444,600 444,600 0.0% 0 1 0 0 0 1 43 0I 0 0 0 0 45
2700 Grant EMV 949,800 949,800 0.0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 Ot 0 0 0 0 1
7500 Hastings EMV 0 0 0.0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 01 0 0 Or 0 0
9400 White Bear Lake EMV 6,814,800 6,814,800 0.0% 0; 0 0 0 0 0 1 0; 0 0 0, 0 1
County Total EMV 411,800 416,600 0.0% 11 12, 0 0 0 3 319 41 0 1 01 9 349
EMV=Estimated Market Value
Value attributable to new construction was subtracted before determining the percentage increase in value.
Excludes parcels with multiple classifications.
8
Counts of Assessment Year 2008/Payable Year 2009 Value Notices
by Range of Percentage of Increase/Decrease in Estimated Market Value
Commercial/Industrial Parcels
Median Median Median Parcel Counts by range of Increase/Decrease in Market Value
Type 2007/ 2008/ %Chg a d o d c d o d o d e3,) rn ea, ea, c a, c y o ar
N N N Y'f N O y ri C 2 - N 2 ' 2 ' N
City/Township of Pay 2008 Pay 2009 in a d o d I..:
i b 2 c. a s c c. a`) a`) o d a`) c
Value Parcel Parcel Parcel i aei e d < m o d zg aoi = m v = c c e = u > c+ 2
c c m c c c
Value Value Value o o I ,- n o vi o :.; o 0 0 Z o - ,; - n - ,- O -
0002 Baytown EMV 97,800 100,000 0.0% 0 01 0' 0 0 01 8 0 01 01 0 11 9
0004 Denmark EMV 213,600 256,400 0.0% 0 0 01 0 0 0 33 0 0 0 0 3 36
0009 May EMV 0 0 0.0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0011 Grey Cloud Island EMV 64,000 64,000 0.0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 20 1 0 0 0 0 21
0014 Stillwater Township EMV 118,100 118,100 0.0% 0 0 01 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 1 5
0017 West Lakeland EMV 237,400 251,900 0.0% 0 0 0' 0 0 0 16 0 0 0 0 2 18
0100 Afton EMV 432,700 432,700 0.0% 5 0 0 0 0 0 22 0 0 0 1 1 29
0200 Bayport EMV 134,300 134,300 0.0% 2 0 0 1 0 0 98 0 0 0 0 311 104
0300 Birchwood EMV 0 0 0.0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0' 0
0400 Scandia EMV 141,700 142,800 0.5% 0 0 0 1 3 0 18 9 6 6 2 4 49
0500 Dellwood EMV 39,100 66,200 41.5% 2 1 OT 1 0 1 2 0 1 0 2 16 26
0600 Forest Lake EMV 191,900 205,300 0.0% 3 0 0 0 0 2 496 3 6 1 4 44 559
0700 Hugo EMV 249,700 272,800 0.0% 0 0 0 0 1 0 142 1 0 0 2 6 152
0800 Lake Elmo EMV 288,500 288,700 0.0% 25 1 0 0 0 0 120 6 5 1 7 71 172
0900 Lakeland Shores EMV 179,500 198,100 0.0% 0 0 0, 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 1 6
1000 Mahtomedi EMV 283,100 284,200 8.0% 6 1 2 2 0 2 6 10 6 1 6 29' 71
1100 Marine on St Croix EMV 488,200 488,200 0.0% 1 0 01 0 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 7
1200 Newport EMV 36,000 57,200 15.3% 5, 1 0 1 4 41 35 12 29 9 4 1051 209
1300 St Paul Park EMV 32,600 99,300 0.0% 01 0 0 0 0 0' 177 0 0 0 0 11 178
1400 Landfall EMV 156,900 242,800 0.0% 0! 0 0' 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 21 6
1500 Stillwater City EMV 425,800 431,000 0.0% 11 0 0 0 3 21 336 1 2 3 1 13; 362
1600 Willernie EMV 82,100 82,100 0.0% 0' 0 0 0 0 0 31 0 0 0 0 0 31
1700 Oak Park Heights EMV 381,000 413,300 0.0% 01 0 0' 0 0 1 174 3 4 1 1 19� 203
1800 St Mary's Point EMV 0 0 0.0% 0 0 01 0 0f 0 0 0 0 0 0 01 0
1900 Lakeland EMV 283,000 297,200 0.0% 0 0 0 0 0' 0 22 0 1 1 0 2 26
2000 Lake St Croix Beach EMV 232,200 232,200 0.0% 0 0 0r 0 0 0 9 0 1 0 1 01 11
2100 Pine Springs EMV 5,500 5,500 0.0% 0 0 07 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1
2200 Cottage Grove EMV 453,200 554,000 6.3% 14 3 0 3 2 6i 70 13 22 4 13 107 257
2500 Woodbury EMV 844,300 929,700 0.0% 3 9 2 1 1 0' 346 8 28 5 23 67! 493
2600 Oakdale EMV 461,700 518,000 2.4% 13 29 7 2 4 141 86 18 22 18 20 111I1 344
2700 Grant EMV 11,000 14,300 13.7% 9 3 1, 1 0 0 15 1 3 3 2 38 76
7500 Hastings EMV 730,800 730,800 0.0% 0 0 0 0 0, 0 2 0 0 0 0 01 2
9400 White Bear Lake EMV 174,600 174,600 0.0% 0 0 01 0 0 0 9' 0 0 0 0 01 9
1
County Total EMV 256,050 279,000 0.0% 89, 48 121 13 18 32! 2,313 86I 136 53' 891 583' 3,472
EMV=Estimated Market Value
Value attributable to new construction was subtracted before determining the percentage increase in value
Excludes parcels with multiple classifications
9
Washington � n a ` .
County J 4 14.1. .1. fl I.
Taxable Market Value Change . 1% ''' it• ': Uhl + ma
'Y v r
T
Residential Homestead Properties '- K.i ►. - J V �
from 2008 Payable to 2009
e r, ■
'Li / l l' I al ti -- , 1 t I
k . ,f ■
Percent Change N = / irr' I r
Greater than 10%decrease w 'u ¶a, •�
• --�w ..R
•
. _I it Li ` 1
5-10%decrease -�, _ ^
Z
':. 2.5-5%detxease � - ��� • '� . •':
""(
0-2.5%decrease `11 r T.
0-2.5%increase � _ - G ;.._ i ■ i..r9.4 - t
• .2.5-5%increase } I �_.t.� thrill‘
• 5-7 5%increase *' r I r�r 1�Iu'�i-.■ 4 '* r
• 7.5-10%increase '`��IR . ,,, '�..•+ (� '` 11 _
• 10-15%increase �' ti 'am L+
• 15-20%increase ' Imo, � L..,,' .
• Greater than 20%increase ���,S G ', I .-• :rt-
BIRCHWOOD
VILLAGe.... .Tf:- — i STILLWATER
p..4, 3
WHITE ■■,-� , PI ` 1 '< Wi'A,
BEAR LAKE u - •PRI ,;-
L.�_•_ ev .,',,e.-I u`3 _~,71
�
... �` li it.=
rt irYV LAA�,_ b- lie411.: BAYPORT
if
Y ✓r: - ELMO S'
y_ BAYTOWN.
r ! IP:
';iw - -
\'t r,
lid �. �rTt.
E
'� LANDFALL 1 III �"W - ..
IC ,f LAKELAND
S -
4... SHORES
0 1 2 3 4 5 Miles „ {¢
>..
r,__. ... ,.. _ ~_„ .,,,,_ I _ LAKE ST.CROIX
BEACH
72 'y f• 1 •i I r tr J ST.MARY'S
R
-Woo --
POINT
} y, ! I ,. 1 1 i,,+. I
NEWPORT 9 1-- _ I' •fi r„t.
i
TT
. I r= 1
ST.PAUL � r 3.
PARK "Rr� �_ }
yt-t.. DENMARKTWP.
GREY CLOUD 14 -..j '�
ISLAND TWP. 11, I LM
�r, COTTAGE GROVE , F me
Olf
tq , -
03-24-2008 '' A"
Prepared by
The GI5 Support Unit •,
Washington County Government Center
14949 82rd Street North-P.O.Box 6 HA.STING$
Srhww,MN 56982
FCon..(861)4306412
wlsldrlgtonDepartment of
, County Property Records and
Taxpayer Services
County Board Workshop
on
Taxes Payable in 2008
March 25, 2008
Contents
What Taxpayers Summary 3
Will See Graph of parcel counts by range of increase/decrease—All Parcels 4
Graph of parcel counts by range of increase/decrease—Residential Homestead 5
Graph of parcel counts by range of increase/decrease—County Tax on Res Homestead 6
Graph of median Residential Homestead tax change by taxing district 7
Table of parcel counts by range of increase/decrease—Residential Homestead 8-10
Table of parcel counts by range of increase/decrease—County Tax on Res Homestead 11
Changes for 2008 12
Levies Levy Increases by District Type 13
Values Market Value and Tax Capacity 2005-2008, Proposed 2009 14
Tax Rates Pay 2007 vs. 2008 Metro County Comparison 15
Table of Pay 2007 vs. 2008 tax rates 16
Graph of Pay 2008 tax rates for county/municipality/school 17
Tax Impacts
Individual Taxing Taxing District portion of Gross Tax 18
District Portion Dollar Change in Individual Taxing District portion of Gross Tax from 2007 to 2008 19
Percentage Change in Individual Taxing District portion of Gross Tax from 2007 to 2008 20
Total Tax Graph of Total Net Tax on a Market Value of 255,000(county median TMV) 21
Tax Comparison Chart Pay 2007 vs. 2008-Total Net Tax 22
Tax Comparison Chart- Individual Taxing District Portion of Net Tax 23
Distribution of Tax Dollar 24
Property Tax Refund information 25
2
Taxes Payable in 2008
• Property Tax Statements and Valuation Notices are in the process of being printed.
96, 112 Tax Statements and 97,277 Valuation Notices will be mailed.
• Tax Statements and Valuation Notices will be available on the county website.
• The total amount billed of $329.7 million is an increase of 7.2% over 2007. The 2007
amount of $307.5 million was a 9.6% increase over the $280.6 million billed in 2006.
• The final 2008 amount billed is a $15.7 million increase over the proposed 2008
amount of $313.9 million.
What will taxpayers see when they
receive their tax statements?
• All Parcels
- Median Value Increase — 0% (varies by municipality)
- Median Total Tax Increase — 2.5%
• Residential Homestead Parcels
- Median Value Increase — 0% (varies by municipality)
- Median Total Tax Increase — 1 .3%
- Median County Tax Increase — 1 .1 %
3
Pay 2008 Tax Statements
Counts by Range of Tax Change
All Parcels - Median 2.5% Increase All Parcels - Median 2.5% Increase
20,000
15,000 - -
Over 20% Increase '
15.1%-20.0%Increase Over 15% Decrease
10.1%-15.0% Increase 10.1%-15.0%Decrease 10,000
7.6%-10.0% Decrease
7.6%-10.0% Increase 5.1:oi:::oi :::::e
- .5.1%-75% Increase 5000
1
inlimi
2.6%-5.0% Increase� _��—� � ��� 0
y G ye a ey a�e ae.y ac py a p c 2 y' 0.1%-2.5% Decrease G Q, c, , 4 c, a �,(G °c,c, ��G ,�, o O
�2e°,...0�.0kOOOGrh\ o\ y\ o\° SsCe30.1%-2.5%Increase No Change 0% y pho �
gyp. ,\co C3• 1.• p, p. �.• y. ,\ ,\p• �y.
4
Pay 2008 Tax Statements
Counts by Range of Tax Change
Residential Homestead - Median 1.3% Increase Residential Homestead - Median 1.3% Increase
20,000
15.1%-20.0% Increase 15,000
10.1%-15.0% Increase Over 20% Increase
7.6%-10.0% Increase , Over 15% Decrease
5.1%-7.5% Increase 10.1%-15.0% Decrease 10,000
7.6%-10.0% Decrease
5.1%-7.5% Decrease
5,000
2.6%-5.0% Increase
2.6%-5.0% Decrease
a e e e ¢. °\° e e e e 5 5
5 a 5 5 5 5 p 5 5 5 5 a s 5
�a 6e ea ea 2a ea a ea Z1 2' Z' 6e ' ea
0.1%-2.5% Increase A °�0 o\° °�0 °�0 °�0 °�0 Vr hN° off° h 0. off° p\ p\ oN°
No Change 0% 0.1%-2.5% Decrease `<h ,o• Epp 1� �o ti� 4)°\�y.°\c,.°\1. �,` •°\,• 11. e'1,
4 '''16° 0t• tiC• pt• p. 1,. 4. ,\to ,p. ,0h. O
Pe•5
Pay 2008 Tax Statements
Counts by Range of Change
in County Portion of Tax
Residential Homestead Residential Homestead
Median 1.1% Increase in County Tax Median 1.1% Increase in County Tax
25,000 - - - -
20,000
-
15.1%-20.0% Increase L, 1
10.1%-15.0%Increase Over 20% Increase 15,000
7.6%-10.0% Increase Over 15% Decrease
5.1%-7.5% Increase 10.1%-15.0% Decrease
7.6%-10.0%Decrease 10,000 - -
5.1%-7.5% Decrease
,,
2.6%-5.0% Increase 5,000
/ Y
2.6%-5.0% Decrease f U ll
II MN
e 5 e e ¢, a o\o a ¢, e e' 5 ' ¢,
\ ea5 yea ea5 ea5 Q, Q, e ear ea5 ea5 ea5 yea yea �a�
° ° at sz �a� ec� ec� ec� o� c� c� c� c� gypc, \c,� c�
0.1/°-2.5/° Decrease cif, o 0 0 0 O Gra o\o�o\o�o\o•o\oo Ac o\o o\oo
o\o OA o\o o\o o\o o\o
h O h O O
0.1%-2.5%Increase �__— --- j•
. No Change 0% `�h • Apo 1y h' el ow ow ow ''• ow o\o- c
g AZ ►`\o o\o t\\o \° ';\° ,. co N o\� t. ,Az
6
_
O V1 O cri O V1 T
O O O O O O /v
o 0 0 0 0 0
1 N
4
Baytown Twp a 0 a
Denmark Twp 1 c) 07; CD
CD
May Twp -T - f..♦ 1
Grey Cloud Twp
f 1 o 3 fl)
Stillwater Twp ' 3 c
West Lklnd Twp o� I
Afton 11 L- x 0
Bayport " 2
Birchwood - --- CD
Scandia 0
Dellwood CD
Forest Lake 0 Q
Hugo _
Lake Elmo r = E
Lakeland Shores : z CD
Mahtomedi I- *
Marine on St Croix - 0 cu
Newport
St Paul Park r CD
Stillwater City ca.. CD
Willernie E. C1
Oak Park Heights r CD
ry
St Ma 's Point �� =
Lakeland -
Lake St Croix Bch -_ o MI
Pine Springs o
Cottage Grove 11- ' -- (')
Woodbury ♦-I- =
Oakdale
Grant
Hastings (�
�D
SU
White Bear Lake , ; _,
Hastings (200) I 1 ' s —I
N St Paul (622) MIcn ru0
White Bear (624) --- ' -c a -- '"F'
Forest Lake (831) ° =_- SD
Mahtomedi (832) - MI o -- "I
S Wash Co (833) -- _ ---II- - , .°' - ly
Stillwater(834) iv X
x
Chisago (2144) , --
Counts of Pay 2008 Residential Homestead Tax Statements
by Range of Percentage of Increase/Decrease in Total Tax
Parcel Counts by Range of Tax Increase/Decrease
Median Median Median Median - --
Pay 2008 Change $ % e o a c e 2t m e� m eE m g m e m m o d c w c a') o m
Taxable in Change Change , 0 A o w el..: A N �o N A tr.; ii A c i 2 N m ; N m m Taxing District Sp m ` r. roro d ro md m _
Market Taxable in Total in Total m i3 ah n E 13 0 13 0 15 0 u e ts ia o o o d ` c
Value Market Tax 1 Tax 6.a ;8 m a T a a o a E roc T E c E 7 c > c ~
Value , is vi :la o o- e�i- in- A o- ui- O -
B Townshi•/Ci &School District Combination:
0002 Baytown Twp 834 512,000 I 6.5%I $240 I 7.5% 2 0 0 0 1 5 10 94 130 93 94 50 4 483
0004 Denmark Twp 200 $44 1.5% 0 1 0 2 13 110 104 67 32 16 26 52 4 427
833 $24 0.9% 0 0 0 1 1 2 2 2 0 1 0 0 0 9
834 $182 8.0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1
Total 406,600 1.3% $44 1.5% 0 1 0 3 14 112 106 69 32 18 26 52 4 437
0009 May Twp 831 $260 11.2% 0 3 2 3 0 10 4 11 9 13 26 23 17 121
834 $212 8.0% 5 30 29 37 51 45 50 57 44 45 138 93 81 705
Total 428,800 6.8% $231 8.8% 5 33 31 40 51 55 54 68 53 58 164 116 98 826
0011 Grey Cloud Twp 833 287,300 2.0% ($20) -0.8% 4 2 3 7 13 23 8 11 7 7 9 5 0 99
0014 Stillwater Twp 834 430,800 0.0% ($20) -0.7% 1 3 2 11 168 235 70 59 44 28 43 59 2 725
0017 West Lakeland Twp 834 448,700 0.0% $170 6.8% 2 0 3 0 1 1 8 411 369 123 123 72 49 1,162
0100 Afton 200 ($246) -5.2% 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
833 $44 1.3% 0 4 2 0 4 4 4 2 4 2 1 6 0 33
834 $11 0.4% 3 103 52 86 86 95 71 79 56 47 78 102 8 866
Total 423,700 0.6% $14 0.4% 3 107 54 87 90 99 75 81 60 49 79 108 8 900
0200 Bayport 834 213,300 2.9% $34 2.0% 1 1 0 0 10 84 260 117 37 18 17 23 3 571
0300 Birchwood 624 353,900 11.8% $591 25.7% 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 3 3 0 16 44 252 320
0400 Scandia 831 $174 7.0% 0 0 0 0 2 47 94 201 169 155 116 96 91 971
2144 ($206) -7.3% 0 23 55 35 15 17 6 5 2 14 0 0 0 172
Total 330,400 0.0% $152 6.0% 0 23 55 35 17 64 100 206 171 169 116 96 91 1,143
0500 Deliwood 832 585,700 1.5% $38 0.8% 1 0 0 0 1 1 276 29 15 6 6 7 0 342
0600 Forest Lake 831 255,500 4.0% $129 6.8% 8 11 7 19 29 37- 788 510 1,356 357 587 822 392 4,923
0700 Hugo 624 $168 10.2% 0 2 0 2 2 1 10 165 636 373 991 178 128 2,488
831 $159 6.6% 0 0 0 0 0 23 27 69 81 50 36 28 8 322
832 $8 0.2% 1 1 0 0 44 45 32 22 19 7 13 3 0 187
834 $87 2.4% 0 1 0 0 18 28 34 19 17 15 8 16 2 158
Total 250,500 0.0% $166 9.7% 1 4 0 2 64 97 103 275 753 445 1,048 225 138 3,155
0800 Lake Elmo 622 ($2) -0.1% 2 1 0 0 0 267 161 7 1 1 2 0 1 443
832 ($111) -3.3% 0 0 0 0 116 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 118
834 ($82) -2.8% 2 4 0 0 1,010 368 21 14 12 3 4 2 0 1,440
Total 383,700 -3.5% ($70) -2.7% 4 5 0 0 1,126 636 182 21 13 4 6 3 1 2,001
0900 Lakeland Shores 834 336,900 0.3% ($12) -0.6% 0 0 0 0 18 41 9 6 6 5 13 11 1 110
1000 Mahtomedi 832 292,300 -3.6% ($91) -3.5% 1 2 0 1 1,857 72 39 15 12 4 102 114 7 2,226
1100 Marine on St Croix 834 367,300 -2.9% $119 3.7% 4 16 8 10 25 29 24 29 13 16 29 14 43 260
8
Counts of Pay 2008 Residential Homestead Tax Statements
by Range of Percentage of Increase/Decrease in Total Tax
Parcel Counts by Range of Tax Increase/Decrease
Median Median Median Median e --
Pay 2008 Change $ % ta N 6 y c y Ina c w a In y c y � 0 o w 6 H c y o y
Taxable in Change Change 1° 0 m ism vi A csi c° c i CO H CO i. CO c a a N a w a a
Taxing District SD Market Taxable In Total in Total d A c`�i � u A A 13 A 13 A ` A ` A C A a ` a, `
> m � d Via, - d rom om " c � c - c � c - c � c > c ~
Value Market Tax Tax pp op ^0 uip N0 Op o- N- u'i- �- o- �- p-
Value
1200 Newport 833 198,600 I 0.8%I $33 I 1.4% 4 I 2 1 I 5 I 61 I 104 I 308 I 69 j 82 I 65 84 I 92 I 7 I 884
1300 St Paul Park 833 188,400 0.0% $10 0.5% 4 3 2 7 43 59 763 129 130 145 99 79 27 1,490
1500 Stillwater City 834 246,900 0.0% $36 1.3% 19 43 59 88 166 191 3,222 320 226 179 258 295 90 5,156
1600 Willemie 832 164,800 3.4% ($47) -3.2% 2 7 19 18 54 29 11 4 12 0 8 0 0 164
1700 Oak Park Heights 834 211,200 0.0% $8 0.5% 0 1 1 11 108 122 435 104 89 67 33 39 26 1,036
1800 St Mary's Point 834 295,700 1.0% $10 0.5% 0 0 1 0 3 58 15 7 11 7 6 16 4 128
1900 Lakeland 834 246,300 7.2% $137 5.8% 0 1 1 0 4 7 49 113 199 53 173 30 0 630
2000 Lake St Croix Beach 834 200,700 0.0% $72 4.3% 0 0 0 1 0 22 34 233 20 36 29 6 22 403
2100 Pine Springs 622 $139 7.9% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 0 0 1 4
832 $59 2.3% 0 0 0 1 7 38 24 19 14 9 9 10 1 132
Total 424,500 2.4% $64 2.4% 0 0 0 1 7 38 24 19 16 10 9 10 2 136
2200 Cottage Grove 200 ($63) -1.9% 0 0 0 10 26 47 16 8 2 2 1 0 0 112
833 ($24) -1.2% 3 20 126 387 850 4,711 1,055 830 859 271 313 158 5 9,588
Total 222,300 0.0% ($24) -1.2% 3 20 126 397 876 4,758 1,071 838 861 273 314 158 5 9,700
2500 Woodbury 622 $36 2.5% 0 0 7 7 172 231 459 497 27 27 37 15 39 1,518
833 ($14) -0.6% 23 118 220 1,393 2,533 6,065 902 558 668 222 214 118 15 13,049
834 $2 0.1% 13 1 3 106 366 168 1,034 28 11 9 6 8 3 1,756
Total 279,900 0.0% ($14) -0.4% 36 119 230 1,506 3,071 6,464 2,395 1,083 706 258 257 141 57 16,323
2600 Oakdale 622 225,500 0.0% $62 3.4% 1 4 5 5 55 1,532 592 3,971 787 476 504 160 270 8,362
2700 Grant 832 $119 3.1% 0 87 39 44 45 64 55 52 37 43 107 111 4 688
834 $21 0.7% 0 70 43 59 39 59 49 56 31 32 57 65 6 566
Total 450,700 2.4% $62 2.1% 0 157 82 103 84 123 104 108 68 75 164 176 10 1,254
7500 Hastings 200 106,500 16.3% $174 22.2% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1
9400 White Bear Lake 832 230,300 0.0% ($36) -1.9% 0 0 0 0 3 71 8 2 2 1 1 0 0 88
County Total 255,000 0.0% $30 1.3% 107 565 690 2,357 8,020 15,169 11,144 9,004. 6,283 3,045 4,417 3,023 1,614 65,438
9
Counts of Pay 2008 Residential Homestead Tax Statements
by Range of Percentage of Increase/Decrease in Total Tax
Parcel Counts by Range of Tax Increase/Decrease
Median Median Median Median
Pay 2008 Change $ % e . o o c 0 e y 0 N e d e m e m e m ''''. 0 o m as: m e m
Taxable in Change Change " e ,7 W o m ^ l0 in A N R N ,in A . CO o A , € NCO N co Tv
Taxing District SD m m ` i 1 m m m m m , m m
Market Taxable in Total in Total ro � � 5 � n e c o u e o A � A � e � \ � e � e � 'eft,' 4
Value Market Tax Tax O�a .-a c!a �a `O 8 c o ; c roc ; c , c •; c > c
Value , ^ iei �i o o- ea- N- ^ ells ,- O-
By School District:
0200 Hastings 390,4001 0.1%1 $101 0.3% 01 11 01 131 391 1571 1201 751 341 181 271 521 51 541
0622 N St Paul/Oakdale/Mpwd 228,900 0.0% $54 3.3% 3 5 12 12 227 2,030 1,212 4,475 817 505 543 175 311 10,327
0624 White Bear Lake 239,700 0.0% $182 10.4% 1 2 0 2 2 1 11 168 639 373 1,007 222 380 2,808
0831 Forest Lake 274,500 3.9% $142 6.9% 8 14 9 22 31 117 913 791 1,615 575 765 969 508 6,337
0832 Mahtomedi 348,700 -3.2% ($72) -3.2% 5 97 58 64 2,127 321 445 143 111 70 246 246 12 3,945
0833 South Washington Co 237,500 0.0% ($16) -0.6% 38 149 354 1,800 3,505 10,968 3,042 1,601 1,750 713 720 458 54 25,152
0834 Stillwater 304,300 0.0% $34 1.3% 52 274 202 409 2,074 1,558 5,395 1,746 1,315 777 1,109 901 344 16,156
2144 Chisago Lakes 339,600 0.0% ($206) -7.3% 0 23 55 35 15 17 6 5 2 14 0 0 0 172
County Total 255,000 0.0% $30 1.3% 107 565 690 2,357 8,020 15,169 11,144 9,004 6,283 3,045 4,417 3,023 1,614 65,438
Percent of Total: 0.2% 0.9% 1.1% 3.6% 12.3% 23.2% 17.0% 13.8% 9.6% 4.7% 6.7% 4.6% 2.5% 100.0%
Note:
- Excludes parcels with new construction
- Excludes parcels with classification changes
-Only includes the main parcel with the house if a homestead consists of multiple parcels
10
Counts of Pay 2008 Residential Homestead Tax Statements
by Range of Percentage of Increase/Decrease in County Tax
Parcel Counts by Range of Increase/Decrease In County Tax
Median Median e I I
Change Change e m cd o °7 o C° o m f d o d o o d ce ow oy a °I � ow w
9 a M N N N O N 1n N O N O (5), N N N �i N p N p N Z N N
In In 1,12 (0 1 d .- d r y u, y N y N N N . N O- 0 '- 0 CV 0 N c is y CO y
City/Town L L e L L o L L L . 0 L L L A. L O L L L O w O L
Taxable County m u , u v u o u o o c, u o c o c o v u u t- o 0 F V
Market Tax > m , 0 �.. 0 - 0 we ow � c o c � c 6 c .- c � c c � c c
Oo oG I` 0 ,d0 (.4 Ca oC o- csi - ui- n - o- 145- - -
Value
0002 Baytown Twp _ 6.5% 8.6% 2 0 0 0 1 4 4 56 119 118 107 60 12 483 7 476
0004 Denmark Twp 1.3% 2.5% 1 1 0 2 7 103 106 62 45 22 28 50 10 437 114 323
0009 May Twp 6.8% 8.9% 4 31 32 43 30 61 55 57 64 56 113 222 58 826 201 625
0011 Grey Cloud Island Twp 2.0% 3.6% 1 4 2 1 9 9 - 21 9 9 9 7 14 4 99 26 73
0014 Stillwater Twp 0.0% 1.1% 1 2 1 2 15 208 213 68 49 39 44 79 4 725 229 496
0017 West Lakeland Twp 0.0% 1.0% 2 3 1 1 10 _ 464 369 97 62 52 63 27 11 1,162 481 681
0100 Afton 0.6% 1.6% 3 71 68 71 86 112 65 77 71 54 82 119 21 900 411 489
0200 Bayport 2.9% 3.9% 0 2 0 0 0 34 100 271 73 31 21 26 13 571 36 535
0300 Birchwood 11.8% 15.0% 1 0 1 1 5 0 4 10 15 37 87 101 58 320 8 312
0400 Scandia 0.0% 1.5% 0 0 0 7 41 330 292 112 84 50 70 124 33 1,143 378 765
0500 Dellwood 1.5% 2.8% 1 0 0 0 0 1 93 185 30 14 7 11 0 342 2 340
0600 Forest Lake 4.0% 7.1% 8 12 7 21 27 44 862 437 1,292 388 557 818 450 4,923 119 4,804
0700 Hugo 0.0% 0.8% 3 6 6 11 537 467 1,185 284 277 119 116 117 27 3,155 1,030 2,125
0800 Lake Elmo -3.5% -3.0% 5 4 0 2 1,578 345 26 " 15 13 4 5 4 0 2,001 1,934 67
0900 Lakeland Shores 0.3% 1.1% 0 0 0 0 3 17 40 10 5 6 10 18 1 110 20 90
1000 Mahtomedi -3.6% -3.1% 1 2 0 1 1,718 199 41 21 15 2 100 108 18 2,226 1,921 _ 305
1100 Marine on St Croix -2.9% -2.2% 20 22 29 23 _ 32 22 17 13 12 19 13 35 3 260 148 112
1200 Newport 0.8% 2.1% 4 2 1 2 39 121 290 77 76 71 97 72 32 884 169 715
1300 St Paul Park 0.0% 1.3% 40 18 10 18 38 60 725 92 95 104 121 79 90 1,490 184 1,306
1500 Stillwater City 0.0% 0.8% 21 51 62 94 178 221 3,163 306 207 158 275 303 117 5,1561 627 4,529
1600 Willernie 3.4% 4.4% 2 0 0 2 12 18 13 53 26 13 8 12 5 164 34 130
1700 Oak Park Heights 0.0% 1.1% 0 1 1 8 95 123 422 ' 109 100 70 41 38 28 1,036 _ 228 808
1800 St Mary's Point 1.0% 2.0% 0 0 0 1 1 9__- 58 11 7 9 9 16 7 128 _ 11 117
1900 Lakeland 7.2% 9.4% 0 1 0 1 0 4 4 ' 40 52 251 106 170 1 630 6 - 624
2000 Lake St Croix Beach 0.0% 1.5% 0 0 1 0 22 35 232 26 32 14 18 15 8 403 _ 58 - 345
2100 Pine Springs 2.4% 3.7% 0 0 0 0 3 17 _ 37 20 19 10 14 13 3 136 20 116
2200 Cottage Grove 0.0% 1.0% 3 4 56 105 602 820 4,656 1,040 789 857 435 319 14 9,700 1,590 8,110
2500 Woodbury 0.0% 0.9% 34 78 148 686 3,010 2,077 7,621 908 657 497 343 196 68 16,323 6,033 10,290
2600 Oakdale 0.0% 1.7% 2 6 4_ 17 855 1,221 3,771 757 626 368 345 140 250 8,362 2,105 6,257
2700 Grant 2.4% 3.8% 0 91 102 85 9.0 102 103 111 93 66 136 247 28 1,254 _ 470 _ 784
7500 Hastings 16.3% 27.4% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1
9400 White Bear Lake 0.0% 1.0% 0 0 0 0 0 3 70 9 1 2 2 1 0 88 3 85
County Total 0.0% _ 1.1% 159 412 532 1,205 9,044 7,251 24,658 5,343 5,015 3,510 3,380 3,554 1,375 65,438 18,603 46,835
Percent of Total: 0% 1% 1% 2% 14% 11% 38% 8% 8% 5% 5% 5% 2% 100% 28% 72%
Note:
-Excludes parcels with new construction
-Excludes parcels with classification changes
-Only includes the main parcel with the house if a homestead consists of multiple parcels
11
Changes for 2008
Limited Market Value
• Tax Statements: the formula for limited market value for taxes payable in 2008 changed from what was in
effect for taxes payable in 2005, 2006, and 2007. Increases in value are limited to the greater of:
a. 15% or
b. 33% of the difference between the current year and prior year
• Valuation Notices: the formula for limited market value for taxes payable in 2009 changed. Increases in value
are limited to the greater of:
a. 15% or
b. % of the difference between the current year and prior year
• Approximately 12,000 parcels are receiving a value reduction for limited market value for 2008. That
compares to 20,000 parcels that received a value reduction for taxes payable in 2007. The number of parcels
receiving a reduction has been declining since a high of nearly 70,000 parcels for payable in 2003.
• Payable 2009 is that last year that Limited Market Value will be in effect.
Homestead Credit
• Since value increases are essentially flat for taxes payable in 2008, the fact that the amount of credit
decreases as market values increase is less of an issue in compounding tax increases this year.
The amount of credit phases out to $0 at a market value of 413,800.
12
Percentage Change in Levy from Pay 2007 to Pay 2008
By Taxing District Type
Significant changes from Pay 2007
to Pay 2008 Levy Changes by Taxing
Cities/Towns District Type
• Levy increases do not necessarily cause a corresponding increase in tax, if the district 20.0%
has enough increased value to offset the levy increase. The follwing areas have double
digit levy increases and median city tax increases over 15%,or double digit reductions:
Levy Chq Median City Tax Chq 15.0%
West Lakeland Township 712.5% 963.2%
Willernie 0.0% -15.7%
10.0%
Schools
• Five districts had referenda on the November 6, 2007 ballot. The results of those
referenda were not included on the TinT notices.
Median Levy Chg 5.0% - -
SD Tax proposed
Levy Chg Chg 07 to 08 to final 1
Ref? 07 to 08 08 08 0.0% - I ,
0200 Hastings failed 3.0% -0.1% .., c Z ,° y LL tfl
0622 N St Paul 8.6% 4.3% 0.1% c 3 2 oo 0 0 F 0
I- H
0 0 55.6% o 0 5 v y
0624 White Bear Lake passed 45.4% 31.7/° L o
0831 Forest Lake 13.3% 9.7% 0.0% 0 v ci, � o r O 0832 Mahtomedi 1.7% -6.0% -2.3% co
0833 So Washington Co passed 3.6% -2.2% - 13.3% ;?
0834 Stillwater 1/3 passed 4.6% -1.6% 57.2% o
2144 Chisago Lakes passed -17.1% -22.0% 21.7%
Other Special Taxing Districts Changes from Proposed to Final
• Other Special Taxing Districts as a group had the largest percentage increase in levy. 2008
The following districts had double-digit levy increases:
County HRA 13% increase
Comfort Lake-Forest Lake WS 19% increase The following districts had double-digit levy changes from proposed:
South Washington WS 14% increase • Marine on St Croix 26% reduction from proposed
Rice Creek WS 28% increase • Afton 24% reduction from proposed
Carnelian Marine St Croix WS 57% increase* • South Washington Watershed 12% reduction from proposed
*with the increased tax base due to the expansion,their tax rate actually decreased 20% • School District changes between proposed and final are shown in the
Woodbury HRA levied for the first time for 2008. table above left.
13
Washington County Taxable Property Values
5 Year Comparison
TYPE OF Payable % Payable % Payable % Payable % `*Preliminary** % 5 year
VALUE 2005 Chg 2006 Chg 2007 Chg 2008 Chg 2009 Chg summary
ESTIMATED MARKET VALUE 23,010,572,000 14.3% 25,346,304,600 10.2% 28,223,870,000 11.4% 29,491,836,700 4.5% 30,028,701,000 1.8% 30.5%
Subtract: "This Old House"Deferral (12,479,800) -7.0% (11,533,300) -7.6% (10,346,500) -10.3% (9,138,000) -11.7% (7,830,700) -14.3% -37.3%
Plat Deferral (146,325,200) 99.1% (105,183,300) -28.1% (111,523,200) 6.0% (102,774,300) -7.8% (77,774,000)1 -24.3% -46.8%
Limited MV&"Green Acres" (1,760,722,900) -1.7% (1,338,546,400) -24.0% (1,373,086,700) 2.6% (1,143,085,100)i -16.8% (965,390,400) -15.5% -45.2%
TAXABLE MARKET VALUE 21,091,044,100 15.5% 23,891,041,600 13.3% 26,728,913,600 11.9% 28,236,839,300 5.6% 28,977,705,900 2.6% 37.4%
New Construction-House/Garage 474,728,300 14.0% 618,302,800 30.2% 736,688,300 19.1% 569,793,400 -22.7% 348,955,700 -38.8% -26.5%
New Construction-Other 79,149,000 0.5% 96,769,900 22.3% 163,643,200 69.1% 182,664,000 11.6% 120.850,100 -33.8% 52.7%
Total New Construction 553,877,300 11.9% 715,072,700 29.1% 900,331,500 25.9% 752,457,400 -16.4% 469,805,800 -37.6% -15.2%
%Increase due to new construction 3.0% 3.4% 3.8% 2.8% I 1.7%
%increase due to inflation/other 12.5% 9.9% 8 1% 2.8% 1.0%
i I
REFERENDA MARKET VALUE 20,668,831,250 15.6% 23,393,842,851 13.2% 26,197,859,451 12.0% 27,646,777,425 5.5%
TOTAL NET TAX CAPACITY 235,738,004 15.0% 265,026,228 12.4% 299,186,499 12.9% 318,217,739 6.4%
Subtract: Tax Increment Financing (6,720,688) 0.8% (6,966,706) 3.7% (8,087,473) 16.1% (8,006,997) -1.0%
Powerline (10,271) -2.2% (10,283) 0.1% (10,588) 3.0% -8.9%
Fiscal Disparity Contribution (15,183,794) 11.0% (16,688,128) 9.9% (17,107,443) 2.5% (21,174,041) 23.8%
LOCAL TAXABLE VALUE 213,823,251 15.8% 241,361,111 12.9% 273,980,995 13.5% 289,027,052 5.5%
Add: Fiscal Disparity Distribution 18,516,763 5.1% 19,830,358 7.1% 22,437,047 13.1% 26,115,570 16.4%
TOTAL TAXABLE VALUE 232,340,014 14.9% 261,191,469 12.4% 296,418,042 13.5% 315,142,622 6.3%
Net Gain from Fiscal Disparities 3,332,969' -15.4% 3,142,230 -5.7% 5,329,604 69.6% 4,941,529 -7.3%
%of Total Taxable Value 1.4% 1.2% 1.8% 1 6%'
County Tax Rate(with Library) I 28.599% -8.3%I 26.968% -5.7%I 25.673% -4.8%I 25.936%1 1.0%I
NOTE: -The"Local Taxable Value"is the value used in the determination of the local tax rate.
-The"Total Taxable Value"is the County's total tax base,which factors in the portion of the levy that is funded by the fiscal disparity pool.
-Pay 2009 values are very preliminary. Prior to Boards of Appeal and Equalization,and includes state determined utility values from the prior year.
14
Metro County Tax Comparison
Tax Capacity Rate Referendum Tax Rate Gross County Tax
County: 2007 2008 % chg 2007 2008 % chg 2007 2008 % chg
based on Taxable Market Value: 255,000 255,000
Dakota 25.127% 25.184% 0.2% 0.00516% 0.00471% $653.90 $654.20 0.0%
Washington 25.673% 25.936% 1.0% 0.00000% 0.00000% $654.66 $661.37 1.0%
Anoka 31.094% 31.453% 1.2% 0.00000% 0.00000% $792.90 $802.05 1.2%
Scott 33.140% 32.646% -1.5/° 0.00000% 0.00000% $845.07 $832.47 -1.5%
Carver 37.802% 37.563% -0.6% 0.00000% 0.00000% $963.95 $957.86 -0.6%
Hennepin (suburban) 39.110% 38.571% -1.4% 0.00000% 0.00000% $997.31 $983.56 -1.4%
Ramsey (suburban) 44.943% 44.023% -2.0% 0.00000% 0.00000% $1,146.05 $1,122.59 -2.0%
Metro County Pay 2008 Tax Comparison
$1,400.00
®Pay 2007 Gross County Tax TMV 255,000
$1,200.00 ■Pay 2008 Gross County Tax TMV 255,000
$1,000.00
$800.00
$600.00
$400.00I ,
$200.00
$0.00 ". .
Dakota Washington Anoka Scott Carver Hennepin Ramsey
(suburban) (suburban) i
15
Pay 2007 vs. Pay 2008 Tax Rates
Pay 2007 Pay 2008 % Pay 2007 Pay 2008 ok
Taxing District Rate Rate Chg Taxing District Rate Rate Chg
Towns: Baytown Twp 8.173% 8.551% 4.6% County: County without Library 23.535% 23.708% 0.7%
Denmark Twp 12.726% 14.318% 12.5% County with Library 25.673% 25.936% 1.0%
Grey Cloud Island Twp 24.592% 23.657% -3.8 County RRA 0.082% 0.077% -6 1"/r
May Twp 9.880% 9.442% -4.4% County HRA 0.934% 1.004% 7.5%
Stillwater Twp 14.346% 14.373% 0.2%
West Lakeland Twp 0.459% 4.880% 963.2% Schools: SD 200 Hastings 18.157% 16.676% -8.2%
SD 200 Hastings MVR: 0.22957% 0.22733% -1.0%
Cities: Afton 22.349% 22.510% 0.7% SD 622 N St Paul/Mpwd 17.698% 20.426% 15.4%
Bayport 31.014% 30.206% -2.6% SD 622 N St Paul/Mpwd MVR: 0.15158% 0.13983% -7.8%
Birchwood 23.055% 22.746% -1.3% SD 624 White Bear Lake 16.887% 15.422% -8.7%
Cottage Grove U 35.813% 35.189% -1.7% SD 624 White Bear Lake MVR: 0.11643% 0.21318% 83.1%
Dellwood 8.599% 8.217% -4.4% SD 831 Forest Lake 12.299% 15.137% 23.1%
Forest Lake 30.415% 29.439% -3.2% SD 831 Forest Lake MVR: 0.14980% 0.13758% -8.2%
Grant 9.970% 9.943% -0.3% SD 832 Mahtomedi 22.628% 22.691% 0.3%
Hastings 49.235% 49.475% 0.5% SD 832 Mahtomedi MVR: 0.17818% 0.16755% -6.0%
Hugo U 35.144% 34.941% -0.6% SD 833 S Washington Co 31.101% 29.841% -4.1%
Lake Elmo 19.274% 20.553% 6.6% SD 833 S Washington Co MVR: 0.18811% 0.18952% 0.7%
Lake St Croix Beach 39.617% 43.551% 9.9% SD 834 Stillwater 19.004% 17.404% -8.4%
Lakeland 34.312% 32.522% -5.2% SD 834 Stillwater MVR: 0.11527% 0.12544% 8.8%
Lakeland Shores 11.456% 11.079% -3.3% SD 2144 Chisago Lakes 26.346% 18.250% -30.7%
Landfall 55.273% 57.603% 4.2% SD 2144 Chisago Lakes MVR: 0.09980% 0.10059% 0.8%
Mahtomedi 25.771% 26.748% 3.8%
Marine on St.Croix 32.147% 35.519% 10.5% Other: Brown's Creek WS 4.580% 4.532% -1.0%
Newport 45.944% 47.213% 2.8% Carnelian Marine WS 4.028% 3.232% -19.8%
Oak Park Heights 35.733% 36.343% 1.7% Comfort Lake WS 1.260% 1.458% 15.7%
Oakdale 29.104% 30.207% 3.8% R-W Metro WS 2.230% 1.995% -10 5°i.
Pine Springs 5.426% 5.891% 8.6% Rice Creek WS 1.315% 1.608% 22.3%
St Mary's Point 19.132% 19.006% -0.7% South Washington WS 0.530% 0.580% 9.4%
St Paul Park 31.516% 32.734% 3.9% Valley Branch WS 1.293% 1.259% -2.6%
Scandia 23.997% 25.092% 4.6% Hastings HRA 1.183% 1.169% -1.2%
Stillwater U 46.498% 48.186% 3.6% Woodbury HRA 0.000% 0.446% 0.0%
White Bear Lake 17.706% 16.524% -6.7% Metropolitan Council 0.838% 0.804% -4.1%
Willernie 33.415% 27.199% -18.6`%%, Met Council Transit 1.232% 1.259% 2.2%
Woodbury 28.122% 28.169% 0.2% Met Mosquito Control 0.477% 0.482% 1.0%
Woodbury MVR: 0.02450% 0.02318% -5 4% State of MN (C/I) 48.032% 45.949% -4.3%
State of MN (cabins) 24.225% 20.385% -15.9%
Fiscal Disparities(C/I) 119.530% 115.782% -3.1%
16
Tax Capacity Rates
N Gs) 07I as
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
e c e o e e e
Washington County - - -- -
0•
West Lakeland Twp "IlIm o 0
Pine Springs 1 -- -- - - o o
Del lwood 1.1.1 . - --_ -- v v
Baytown Twp 11111...m. - -- m x -
May Twp f= d v
Grant 0.
Lakeland Shores 11111 .11m fD
xi xi
Denmark Twp
Stillwater Twp - - - `ig m
m
White Bear Lake - -- - -
o_
St Mary's Point -- - - 01
Lake Elmo m
v
m
Afton
Birchwood
Grey Cloud Island Twp miti
-
Scandia
CO
Mahtomedi -
Willernie ---
Forest Lake N
Bayport 0
Oakdale - CO
Woodbury - -
V Lakeland - -- - ...1 1
St Paul Park I -- --_ -_ -- CD
Hugo U X 1
Cottage Grove U
Marine on St. Croix --
Oak Park Heights
Lake St Croix Beach CD
Newport
Stillwater U --
Hastings
Landfall -
Chisago Lakes SD 2144 I f
Forest Lake SD 831 _ - - - - -
Stillwater SD 834 - - -
N St Paul/Maplewood SD 622
White Bear Lake SD 624Hastings SD 200 - ---_---
Mahtomedi SD 832 _ - - - --
S Washington Co SD 833 I
State of MN (C/I) - - - -
State of MN (cabins) - -- -
o O o 0 0 0 0
O N w A NI Of
, o o c e o e e
Market Value Referenda Rates
VI to ER
N -01
O 0 0 O O N 0
0 O
Washington County
West Lakeland Twp N
-
Pine Springs 0 0 -_
Dellwood i -1
Baytown Twp _, -- - -- ----- -- -- _
x x
May Twp 3
o
0
Grant cn Isa _
Lakeland Shores o' �'
c c
Denmark Twp o o - X
Stillwater Twp o 0
White Bear Lake i 3 CD
St Mary's Point
Lake Elmo I 0
Afton 1
k<
Birchwood
Grey Cloud Island Twp - --- �.
Scandia ( - - 0 t..F
Mahtomedi I - --.1
Willernie < O
w Forest Lake 1 Cl)
Bayport -- - - - - —.
Oakdale i -- 11 0
Woodbury M
Lakeland J - -- 0
St Paul Park IN - N "I
Hugo U 0 0
Cottage Grove U i 0 O
Marine on St. Croix 1
Oak Park Heights
Lake St Croix Beach 1
Newport 1 -
Stillwater U i
Hastings
Landfall
Chisago Lakes SD 2144
Forest Lake SD 831 — 1 i
Stillwater SD 834 1
N St Paul/Mpwd SD 622 1
White Bear Lake SD 624
Hastings SD 200 —'
Mahtomedi SD 832
S Washington Co SD 833 MIMMIIIIII" -min
1
CO -O
O O O N W
0 0 0 0 -�0 0 0 0
Washington County 0
West Lakeland Twp L } 2
Pine Springs
Deliwood L C')
Baytown Twp Z
May Twp a
Grant =
Lakeland Shores I t0
Denmark Twp - 11 CD
Stillwater Twp
White Bear Lake 1
St Mary's Point
Lake Elmo
Afton
d 14< Ci)
Birchwood
.
Grey Cloud Island Twp II O IS
Scandia ill - O
Mahtomedi
Willernie IM.11111 < CI
o Forest Lake J ...
Bayport
Oakdale I ma 1.2.
Woodbury - 1 tU 0
Lakeland
St Paul Park Iima
N
Hugo U O 0
Cottage Grove U _ 0 A.
Marine on St. Croix co —■
Oak Park Heights 0
Lake St Croix Beach =
Newport 1 0
Stillwater U `7 - y_
Hastings j ^
Landfall Y
} ',
0
Chisago Lakes SD 2144 ir0
Forest Lake SD 831 1 0
Stillwater SD 834
N St Paul/Mpwd SD 622
White Bear Lake SD 624 H 2
Hastings SD 200 fi - - x
Mahtomedi SD 832 L
S Washington Co SD 833 1
N - -' N CO
O O O O O O 73
O O OCDOO
0 0 0 0 0 0
`+
Washington County -- _ - CD
West Lakeland Twp 963.6%
Pine Springs
CO
Dellwood -
Baytown Twp i - CD
May Twp 0
Grant =
Lakeland Shores sr D)
Denmark Twp 1111111 -- - =
Stillwater Twp
White Bear Lake .�
St Mary's Point MI
CD
Lake Elmo UM SU .
Afton - ♦
-
Birchwood - N
Grey Cloud Island Twp - r 0 A
Scandia 0 X
Mahtomedi - Ili - " ='
Willernie < O
CO
o Forest Lake - 0Bayport Q
Oakdale II -- 13 —'
Woodbury n% Mk
Lakeland
St Paul Park - N n•
Hugo U r-1-
Cottage Grove U I
Marine on St. Croix AM1 00 0
Oak Park Heights M
Lake St Croix Beach
Newport 1 0
Stillwater U L =
Hastings
Landfall 0
Chisago Lakes SD 2144 1 0
Forest Lake SD 831 _J 'I
Stillwater SD 834 0
N St Paul/Mpwd SD 622 } CA
White Bear Lake SD 624
Hastings SD 200 - < "'I
Mahtomedi SD 832 ---
S Washington Co SD 833 - -- x
EA
-.1 N CO
O O O
EA 0 0 O
O O O O
West Lakeland (834) mimmmimil
s0 ---
Lakeland Shores (834) iiiimpiii 700
o
III
Baytown (834) 0•70 �G '.G
May (834) s'Oo IV N
0 0 0
Stillwater Twp (834) 7 0 o o --
Pine Springs (832) o so t _-. 0
x x D
St Marys Point (834) 'it- 0o ID
0Dellwood (832) rOo C Z
o 3
Grant(832) imummmuimmmi' 6� . M
Lake Elmo(834) ummiliiiimii 7•,7't
Denmark (200) Qt,O ID a)
O x
Afton (834) immi..mmimi 'O?o 0
0
Scandia (831) ?90 E =
White Bear Lake (832) .790 -s A)
0 X
Bayport(834) mi •immimmimiL*7 C g
N Forest Lake (831) limmiliiiiiimii7•Iir0 - - < A)
I
Birchwood (624) 7770 _
Lakeland (834) -�? 0 ry.
Oakdale (622) miiiimimminimind •Isto
Oak Park Heights (834) O•ho C -
SU C
Marine on St Croix(834) �S0 N (p
Mahtomedi (832) 0,)o
o < 0
Willernie (832) . , 1 CD
Grey Cloud (833) 17•�0 - ]- _---- N (N
Hugo (624) 9
0 al
Lake St Croix Beach (834) mimili u'90 ...0 Q
0
Stillwater(834) 7° -- 0
Woodbury (833) =MIIMM '04‘0
St Paul Park (833) miimmmommilimimi Oiro
0
Cottage Grove (833)
• o
Hastings (200) ii. NFI'7 0
0
Landfall (622) ou?So
oc
Newport 833
p ( ) •Ito
o
PAYABLE 2007 vs. PAYABLE 2008 RESIDENTIAL HOMESTEAD TAXES
Assuming a 0% increase in Taxable Market Value
PART I-TOTAL NET TAX BY MUNICIPALITY (1 selected school district/watershed combination per municipality)
PAY 2007 TAX RATE PAY 2008 TAX RATE PAY 2007 TAX PAY 2008 TAX PERCENTAGE CHANGE
DISTRICT SD/WS Net Tax Market Net Tax Market Taxable Market Value: Taxable Market Value: Taxable Market Value:
Capacity Value Capacity Value 150,000 200,000 250,000 350,000 500,000, 150,000 200,000 250,000 350,000 500,000 150,000 200,000 250,000 350,000 500,000
Afton 834 54 70.650% 0.11527% 69.476% 0.12544% $996 $1,452 $1,907 $2,819 $4,109 $993 $1,449 $1,904 $2,814 $4,101 -0.3 -0.2 -0.2 -0.2 -0.2
Bayport 834 77.116% 0.11527% 74.944% 0.12544% 1,093 1,581 2,069 3,045 4,432 1,075 1,558 2,041 3,005 4,374 -1.6 -1.5 -1.4 -1.3 -1.3
Birchwood 624 38 70.493% 0.11643% 69.338% 0.21318% 995 1,451 1,906 2,818 4,107 1,123 1,621 2,119 3,116 4,533 12.9 11.7 11.2 10.6 10.4
Cottage Grove 833 14 96.680% 0.18811% 95.172% 0.18952% 1,495 2,118 2,740 3,985 5,775 1,475 2,090 2,706 3,937 5,707 -1.3 -1.3 -1.2 -1.2 -1.2
Dellwood 832 38 61.778% 0.17818% 62.078% 0.16755% 957 1,400 1,842 2,729 3,980 945 1,385 1,824 2,702 3,942 -1.3 -1.1 -1.0 -1.0 -1.0
Forest Lake 831 71 71.978% 0.14980% 74.337% 0.13758% 1,068 1,548 2,027 2,986 4,348 1,084 1,570 2,055 3,027 4,405 1.5 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.3
Grant 832 38 61.917% 0.17818% 62.545% 0.16755% 959 1,402 1,846 2,734 3,987 952 1,394 1,836 2,718 3,965 -0.7 -0.6 -0.5 -0.6 -0.6
Hastings 200 92.669% 0.22957% 91.588% 0.22733% 1,497 2,120 2,744 3,989 5,781 1,478 2,095 2,711 3,945 5,716 -1.3 -1.2 -1.2 -1.1 -1.1
Hugo 624 38 81.350% 0.11643% 80.274% 0.21318% 1,158 1,668 2,178 3,198 4,650 1,287 1,839 2,393 3,499 5,080 11.1 10.3 9.9 9.4 9.2
Lake Elmo 834 54 68.807% 0.11527% 68.778% 0.12544% 968 1,415 1,861 2,754 4,016 983 1,435 1,886 2,789 4,066 1.6 1.4 1.3 1.3 1.2
Lake St Croix Beach 834 86.625% 0.11527% 89.258% 0.12544% 1,235 1,772 2,307 3,378 4,907 1,290 1,844 2,398 3,506 5,090 4.5 4.1 3.9 3.8 3.7
Lakeland 834 81.320% 0.11527% 78.229% 0.12544% 1,156 1,665 2,174 3,192 4,642 1,124 1,624 2,123 3,120 4,538 -2.8 -2.5 -2.3 -2.3 -2.2
Lakeland Shores 834 58.484% 0.11527% 56.786% 0.12544% 813 1,208 1,603 2,392 3,499 803 1,195 1,587 2,370 3,466 -1.2 -1.1 -1.0 -0.9 -0.9
Landfall 622 34 104.437% 0.15158% 109.586% 0.13983% 1,557 2,200 2,843 4,129 5,980 1,617 2,280 2,943 4,268 6,178 3.9 3.6 3.5 3.4 3.3
Mahtomedi 832 38 78.950% 0.17818% 80.609% 0.16755% 1,214 1,743 2,272 3,330 4,839 1,223 1,755 2,287 3,350 4,868 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.6 0.6
Marine on St Croix 834 10 79.155% 0.11527% 84.458% 0.12544% 1,123 1,622 2,120 3,116 4,534 1,218 1,748 2,278 3,338 4,850 8.5 7.8 7.5 7.1 7.0
Newport 833 106.811% 0.18811% 107.196% 0.18952% 1,647 2,320 2,993 4,339 6,282 1,655 2,331 3,007 4,358 6,308 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.4 0.4
Oak Park Heights 834 83.973% 0.11527% 83.309% 0.12544% 1,196 1,718 2,240 3,285 4,775 1,201 1,725 2,250 3,298 4,792 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4
Oakdale 622 54 77.331% 0.15158% 81.454% 0.13983% 1,150 1,658 2,165 3,181 4,625 1,195 1,717 2,239 3,283 4,772 3.9 3.6 3.4 3.2 3.2
Pine Springs 832 54 58.583% 0.17818% 59.403% 0.16755% 909 1,336 1,763 2,617 3,820 905 1,331 1,757 2,608 3,808 -0.4 -0.4 -0.3 -0.3 -0.3
St Marys Point 834 66.140% 0.11527% 84.713% 0.12544% 928 1,362 1,795 2,661 3,883 922 1,353 1,785 2,647 3,863 -0.6 -0.7 -0.6 -0.5 -0.5
St Paul Park 833 14 92.383% 0.18811% 92.717% 0.18952% 1,431 2,032 2,633 3,834 5,560 1,438 2,041 2,645 3,851 5,584 0.5 0.4 0.5 0.4 0.4
Scandia 831 10 68.328% 0.14980% 71.764% 0.13758% 1,013 1,475 1,936 2,858 4,165 1,045 1,518 1,991 2,937 4,276 3.2 2.9 2.8 2.8 2.7
Stillwater 834 92.600% 0.11527% 92.924% 0.12544% 1,325 1,891 2,456 3,587 5,206 1,345 1,917 2,490 3,634 5,273 1.5 1.4 1.4 1.3 1.3
White Bear Lake 832 38 70.885% 0.17818% 70.385% 0.16755% 1,093 1,582 2,070 3,048 4,435 1,070 1,551 2,032 2,992 4,357 -2.1 -2.0 -1.8 -1.8 -1.8
Willernie 832 38 86.594% 0.17818% 81.060% 0.16755% 1,329 1,896 2,463 3,598 5,221_ 1,230 1,764 2,299 3,366 4,891 -7.5 -7.0 -6.7 -6.4 -6.3
Woodbury 833 14 88.989% 0.21261% 88.598% 0.21270% 1,417 2,013 2,610 3,802 5,512 1,411 2,005 2,600 3,788 5,494 -0.4 -0.4 -0.4 -0.4 -0.3
Baytown 834 54 57.706% 0.11527% 56.776% 0.12544% 802 1,193 1,584 2,366 3,461 803 1,195 1,586 2,369 3,466 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1
Denmark 200 58.887% 0.22957% 59.297% 0.22733% 990 1,445 1,899 2,807 4,092 993 1,449 1,903 2,814 4,102 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.2
Grey Cloud 833 84.227% 0.18811% 82.381% 0.18952% 1,308 1,869 2,429 3,549 5,152 1,283 1,835 2,387 3,489 5,067 -1.9 -1.8 -1.7 -1.7 -1.6
May 834 10 56.888% 0.11527% 58.381% 0.12544% 789 1,177 1,563 2,337 3,420 827 1,227 1,627 2,425 3,546 4.8 4.2 4.1 3.8 3.7
StillwaterTwp 834 10 65.382% 0.11527% 83.312% 0.12544% 917 1,347 1,776 2,634 3,845 901 1,325 1,750 2,598 3,793 -1.7 -1.6 -1.5 -1.4 -1.4
West Lakeland 834 54 48.780% 0.11527% 51.846% 0.12544% 667 1,014 1,360 2,053 3,014 729 1,096 1,463 2,197 3,219 9.3 8.1 7.6 7.0 6.8
NOTES:
•The selected school district/watershed combination is the one with the most residential value in the municipality for taxes payable in 2008.
•The percentage change on this chart is based on a 0%increase in taxable market value from Pay 2007 to Pay 2008. The impact on individual parcels may vary depending on actual market value changes.
22
PAYABLE 2007 vs. PAYABLE 2008 RESIDENTIAL HOMESTEAD TAXES
Assuming a 0% increase in Taxable Market Value
PART II-INDIVIDUAL TAXING DISTRICT PORTION OF NET TAX ONLY (net of district's estimated share of credit)
PAY 2007 TAX RATE PAY 2008 TAX RATE PAY 2007 TAX PAY 2008 TAX PERCENTAGE CHANGE
DISTRICT SD/WS Net Tax Market Net Tax Market Taxable Market Value: Taxable Market Value: Taxable Market Value:
Capacity Value Capacity Value 150,000 200,000I 250,000 350,000. 500,000 150,000 200,0001 250,000 350,000 500,000 150,0001200,0001250,0001 350,000 500,000
County w/o Library 23.535% 23.708% - $278 $410 $541 $806 $1,176 $281 $413 $547 $812 $1,184 1.3 0.8 1.0 0.8 0.7
County w/Library 25.673% 25.936% 310 452 595 881 1,283 314 458 602 890 1,296 1.4 1.4 1.1 1.0 1.0
Afton 22.349% 22.510% $259 $385 $512 $764 $1,116_ $261 $388 $515 $770 $1,125 1.0 0.7 0.7 0.8 0.8
Bayport 31.014% 30.206% 370 543 716 1,062 1,550 357 527 696 1,034 1,509 -3.3 -3.0 -2.8 2.6 2.6
Birchwood 23.055% 22.746% 268 398 528 788 1,152 263 392 521 777 1,136 -2.0 -1.6 -1.4 -1.4 1,4
Cottage Grove 35.813% 35.189% 449 645 841 1,232 1,790 440 633 826 1,211 1,758 -2.0 -1.8 -1.8 -1.7 1.8
Dellwood 8.599% 8.217% 96 145 195 293 430 92 139 186 280 411 -4.6 -4.6 -4.6 -4.3 -4.4
Forest Lake 30.415% 29.439% 356 527 698 1,041 1,520 348 513 678 1,007 1,471 -2.2 -2.6 -2.9 -3.2 -3.2
Grant 9.970% 9.943% 112 168 225 340 499 111 168 226 339 497 -0.5 0.2 0.1 -0.3 -0.4
Hastings 49.235% 49.475% 613 883 1,153 1,693 2,461 614 886 1,158 1,701 2,473 0.1 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.5
Hugo 35.144% 34.941% 425 620 815 1,205 1,756 421 615 810 1,198 1,746 -0.9 -0.7 -0.7 -0.6 -0.6
Lake Elmo 19.274% 20.553% 223 331 441 659 963 237 354 470 702 1,027 6.5 6.8 6.6 6.5 6.6
Lake St Croix Beach 39.617% 43.551% 486 704 923 1,361 1,980 537 777 1,017 1,496 2,177 10.7 10.4 10.2 9.9 9.9
Lakeland 34.312% 32.522% 415 605 796 1,177 1,715 389 570 752 1,114 1,625 -6.2 -5.8 -5.5 -5.3 -5.2
Lakeland Shores 11.456% 11.079% 126 191 257 390 573 120 185 248 377 554 -4.6 -3.6 -3.5 -3.3 -3.3
Landfall 55.273% 57.603% 704 1,003 1,304 1,905 2,763 739 1,051 1,363 1,986 2,879 5.1 4.8 4.5 4.3 4.2
Mahtomedi 25.771% 26.748% 310 452 596 883 1,288 322 471 620 917 1,336 4.1 4.2 4.1 3.8 3.7
Marine on St Croix 32.147% 35.519% 386 565 744 1,102 1,606 433 629 826 1,219 1,775 12.3 11.4 11.0 10.6 10.5
Newport 45.944% 47.213% 587 836 1,086 1,583 2,296 604 859 1,115 1,627 2,360 2.8 2.8 2.7 2.7 2.8
Oak Park Heights 35.733% 36.343% 435 633 830 1,227 1,786 442 643 845 1,247 1,816 1.5 1.6 1.7 1.7 1.7
Oakdale 29.104% 30.207% 348 510 673 998 1,454 365 533 700 1,036 1,509 5.0 4.5 4.1 3.8 3.8
Pine Springs 5.426% 5.891% 59 91 122 185 271 65 99 132 200 295 9.2 8.5 8.2 8.5 8.9
St Marys Point 19.132% 19.006% 218 327 435 654 956 215 324 432 648 949 -1.4 -1.2 -0.8 -0.8 -0.7
St Paul Park 31.516% 32.734% 392 565 738 1,084 1,575 407 587 766 1,126 1,636 3.9 4.0 3.8 3.9 3.9
Scandia 23.997% 25.092% 277 413 548 820 1,199 293 435 576 858 1,254 5.9 5.4 5.0 4.6 4.6
Stillwater 46.498% 48.186% 578 834 1,088 1,598 2,324 600 864 1,129 1,657 2,408 3.8 3.7 3.7 3.7 3.6
White Bear Lake 17.706% 16.524% 207 306 406 606 885 192 285 378 565 826 -7.0 -6.9 -6.8 -6.8 -6.7
Willemie 33.415% 27.199% 410 594 778 1,148 1,670 328 480 631 933 1,359 -19.8 -19.3 -19.0 -18.7 -18.6
Woodbury 28.122% 0.02450% 28.169% 0.02318% 384 550 718 1,052 1,528_ 383 548 715 1,049 1,523 -0.4 -0.4 -0.3 -0.3 -0.3
Baytown 8.173% 8.551% 89 136 183 278 409 92 142 192 290 428 3.2 4.6 4.7 4.5 4.6
Denmark 12.726% 14.318% 140 214 286 433 _ 636 158 240 323 487 716 12.9 12.2 12.7 12.6 12.6
Grey Cloud 24.592% 23.657% 300 436 572 844 1,229 287 418 549 812 1,182 -4.3 -4.1 -4.1 -3.9 -3.8
May 9.880% 9.442% 110 167 223 337 494 104 158 212 321 472 -5.4 -5.3 -4.9 -4.7 -4.5
Stillwater Twp 14.346% 14.373% 163 245 327 489 717 162 243 326 490 719 -0.5 -0.6 -0.3 0.1 0.3
West Lakeland 0.459% 4.880% 5 7 10 15 23, 51 80 108 166 244 962.7 1011.7 1024.3 971.3 961.0
SD 200 (Hastings) 18.157% 0.22957% 16.676% 0.22733% $543 $763 $983 $1,420 $2,055 $524 $735 $944 $1,364 $1,970 3 ).b -4.0 -4.0 -4.1
SD 622 (N St Paul/Mpwd) 916 17.698% 0.15158% 20.426% 0.13983% 438 613 787 1,137 1,643 457 641 824 1,190 1,720 4.3 4.5 4.7 4.6 4.7
SD 624 (White Bear Lk) 916 16.887% 0.11643% 15.422% 0.21318% 379 531 682 987 1,426 505 697 891 1,275 1,837 33.4 31.2 30.5 29.2 28.8
SD 831 (Forest Lake) 12.299% 0.14980% 15.137% 0.13758% 369 513 657 944 1,364 385 539 692 1,000 1,445 4.4 5.0 5.4 5.9 5.9
SD 832 (Mahtomedi) 916 22.628% 0.17818% 22.691% 0.16755% 538 754 969 1,400 2,021 524 735 945 1,364 1,972 -2.6 -2.5 -2.5 -2.6 -2.4
SD 833 (S Wash Co) 916 31.101% 0.18811% 29.841% 0.18952% 666 931 1,197 1,727 2,495 652 911 1,170 1,688 2,439 -2.1 -2.1 -2.2 -2.3 -2.2
SD 834 (Stillwater) 916 19.004% 0.11527% 17.404% 0.12544% 409 572 733 1,056 1,526 405 563 721 1,037 1,497 -1.2 -1.5 -1.6 -1.8 -1.9
SD 2144(Chisago Lakes) 26.346% 0.09980% 18.250% 0.10059% 467 663 860 1,252 1,815 366 518 670 977 1,416- -21.6 -21.9 -22.1 -22.0 -22.0
23
Distribution of Net Taxes :
2003 2004 2005
Other TIF Other _ TIF Other TIF
5.3% r 3.0% 4.7% 2.8% 4.5% 2.5%
State County State 1 County State County
9.0% •� 23.6% 9.3% kiift24.3% 8.8% '114 24.1 %
School City School 011, r,;4.
School
y
34.3% _ 24.7% 33.3% � . ` 2516% 33.5% III!!
2Cit °
6.5 /o
2006 2007 2008
Other TIF Other _ TIF Other TIF
4.4% 2.3% 4.1 % ---\ 2.3% 4.3% r 2.2%
State County State County State County
8.4% y 23.9% 8.7% - j- 23.5% 8.5% - 23.7% 1
School Mr School School
F:
�.,,
34.5% \ Cit 0/0 26.5%34.8% �'��'x Cit 0 34.7% Cit y°
26.6% 26.7 /o
24
Property Tax Refund Programs
from the State of Minnesota
Regular Property Tax Refund "Circuit Breaker"
• Based on income and property tax due. 2007 total household income must be less than
$93,480.
• Must have owned and occupied home on January 2, 2008.
Special Property Tax Refund
• For property owners whose taxes increased more than 12% and the increase was over
$100. The refund is 60% of the increase over 12%, to a maximum of $1 ,000. No income
requirements.
• Must have owned and occupied home on January 2, 2007 and January 2, 2008.
Form M1 PR
• Available online at www.taxes.state.mn.us
• Call 651-296-4444
• File by August 15, 2008
25
Washington -air` "' TaimtY-=Coun - r ��`Ir fr A •, .'ice '^_•t`' ,r i
1 •
Taxable Market Value Change w
Residential Homestead Properties r, ' 4
from 2008 Payable to 2009 i _ tine- - - ` �
._ ,
, .4.. -
t'�' MARINE
. S r ' ST CROIX
A —1$11ra I J Ni,
Pig
r------ - -Percent Change -6. i `fit`
'`7 a.
opGreater than 10%decrease ��' f 1 ' • .�_ 4 -
�' -fr•.
- 5-10%decrease I.. . i -. ;: -^ ' ` 1 ' '�.
2.5-5%decrease �; r
I r Nr..
0 2 5%decrease •
�'- 'TI -- �_-•S k4
0-2.5%increase '� "�.. — - • -•7r
ti
2.5-5%increase � ki '! •I rli__
- 5-7.5%increase - T s�'�;flf ^ �.� t
_ .�
- 7.5-10%increase .•;, *K:_ 1 d, .'i . - t✓
- 10-15%increase to f. — �' •
„t iilio 15•20%increase 4
imp Greater than 20%increase :� • ,p• I� 1
• - .`... IIM I
BIRCHWOOD _ ��L
vILLAG �, ;� ' � � so- STILLWATER
i
WHITE PII`. S �, r
BEAR Lfd(E ',�, �� J L �i 1
,,Y 6 .An. I ei .11...x: PARK
r t
;n,
•
Y -i•. :Ia.' ELMO • BAYTOWN r. r
OAKOAL C ] -. IF Ik l
4,• .I
N �l r
W '� E LANDFALL 1' � . -- 4L -��,
t AL F e IAKELAND
! — •r 1 SHORES
a r I
S I, I v. .�re� '2
0 1 2 3 4 5 Miles u
I 1 LAKE ST.CROIX
9 - • ..,,,,, BEACH
stiff
. .-Ti ^g 1 ST.MARY'S
- ,1 c: POINT
4%.
�' , DBURY r ;�llT 4 r B RTC _
— . F
11
NEWPORT . 1- x i 1: B ■A [
-
i.
PARK \\!. 3L , . r ' •
v .� 'TM >
"1► t ti��}J DENMARK 1 WP. Yi
Ksr14 4ii( ' f
�'-
GREY CLOUD
IA ISND1WP. .i'_.'t_7". I _J •
_:
4 COTTAQE MOVE j _
1
03-24-2008
Pared by ` •!
The GIs Support Una /IASTINGS MI
Washington County Oorrtnr.Genie,
14949 620E Sb.M Note,-P.O.Box 6
8111r.W Ill 66662
Rot:(661)4304412
Counts of Assessment Year 2008/Payable Year 2009 Value Notices
by Range of Percentage of Increase/Decrease in Estimated Market Value
Commercial/Industrial Parcels
Median Median Median Parcel Counts by range of Increase/Decrease in Market Value
Type 2007/ 2008/ %Chg e d o y ' d o d o d a d rn a w o d o a) o a) o w 0
City/Township of Pay 2008 Pay 2009 in F 'r' d o d ^ d vcfi 2 N d 2 e N n c A 6 a = F) 7°
Value Parcel Parcel Parcel > o ' d o ' o a u o e ct e t t, e d F2
Value Value Value Oo 0o . o ino co. o 0o z o - ccsi c c o c 0 -`
0002 Baytown EMV 97,800 100,000 0.0% 0 0 0I 0 0 Of 8, 0 0 0 0 1 9
0004 Denmark EMV 213,600 256,400 0.0% 0 0 0 0 0 O 33 0 0 0 0 3 36
0009 May EMV 0 0 0.0% 0 0 01 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Or 0
0011 Grey Cloud Island EMV 64,000 64,000 0.0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 20 1 0 0 0 0 21
0014 Stillwater Township EMV 118,100 118,100 0.0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 1 5
0017 West Lakeland EMV 237,400 251,900 0.0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 16 0 0 0 0 2 18
0100 Afton EMV 432,700 432,700 0.0% 5 0 0 0 0 0 22 0 0 0 1 1 29
0200 Bayport EMV 134,300 134,300 0.0% 2 0 0 1 0 0 98 0 0 0 0 3 104
0300 Birchwood EMV 0 0 0.0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0400 Scandia EMV 141,700 142,800 0.5% 0 0 0 1 3 0 18, 9 6 6 2 4 49
0500 Dellwood EMV 39,100 66,200 41.5% 2 1 0 1 0 1 2 0 1 0 2 16 26
0600 Forest Lake EMV 191,900 205,300 0.0% 3 0 01 0 0 2 496 3 6 1 4 441 559
0700 Hugo EMV 249,700 272,800 0.0% 0 0 0 0 1 0 142 1 0 0 2 6' 152
0800 Lake Elmo EMV 288,500 288,700 0.0% 25 1 0 0 0 0 120 6 5 1 7 7 172
0900 Lakeland Shores EMV 179,500 198,100 0.0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 0, 0 0 0 1 6
1000 Mahtomedi EMV 283,100 284,200 8.0% 6 1 2 2 0 2 6 10 6 1 6 29 71
1100 Marine on St Croix EMV 488,200 488,200 0.0% 1 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 0I 7
1200 Newport EMV 36,000 57,200 15.3% 5 1 0 1 4 4 35 12 29 9 4 105 209
1300 St Paul Park EMV 32,600 99,300 0.0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 177 0 0 0 0 1 178
1400 Landfall EMV 156,900 242,800 0.0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 2 6
1500 Stillwater City EMV 425,800 431,000 0.0% 1 0 0 0 3 2 336 1 2 3 1 13 362
1600 Willernie EMV 82,100 82,100 0.0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 31 0 0 0 0 0 31
1700 Oak Park Heights EMV 381,000 413,300 0.0% 0 0 0 0 0 1 174 3 4 1 1 19 203
1800 St Mary's Point EMV 0 0 0.0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
1900 Lakeland EMV 283,000 297,200 0.0% 0 0' 0 0 0 0 22 0 1 1 0 2' 26
2000 Lake St Croix Beach EMV 232,200 232,200 0.0% 0, 0 0 0 0 0 91 0 1 0 1 0, 11
2100 Pine Springs EMV 5,500 5,500 0.0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1
2200 Cottage Grove EMV 453,200 554,000 6.3% 141 3, 0 3 2 6 70 13 22 4 13 107, 257
2500 Woodbury EMV 844,300 929,700 0.0% 3! 9 2 1 1 0 346 8 28 5 23 67, 493
2600 Oakdale EMV 461,700 518,000 2.4% 13 29 7 2 4 14 86 18 22 18 20T 1111 344
2700 Grant EMV 11,000 14,300 13.7% 9 3, 1 1 0 0 15 1 3 3 2 38 76
7500 Hastings EMV 730,800 730,800 0.0% 0 0 0 0 0 0' 2 0 0 0 0 0 2
9400 White Bear Lake EMV 174,600 174,600 0.0% 0 01 0, 0 0 01 9 0 0 0 0 0; 9
County Total EMV 256,050 279,000 0.0% 89 481 121 13 18 32, 2,3131 86 136 53 89 5831 3,472
EMV=Estimated Market Value
Value attributable to new construction was subtracted before determining the percentage increase in value
Excludes parcels with multiple classifications
9
Washington r .,--- J. k - •- .T—
, . _ , _ ,.. bi - _-...,
. .1- A:
,
---=--- -,':-.-County , .
. ,. 1, ,_ , , ' ., --711:'L, -,
'--
, , t,„.4, .
\ ,
..--,
,
J-- h- -"'- - T
Effective Tax Rate ,
) [
-._./ 1 , ,__,
___—
Residential Homestead Properties
a -
, .. -
l_ .L.1...„-- \ sc,ANDIA .1
from 2007 Payable to 2008 1- L ' — , 1,._
- 1---- '
FOREST
- if '
, Aln
' ...'URINE
'
_I —9 n --
, 7-- - s•-•\ /ow sr CROCK
I '
1: -, \
1
-
op
HUGO 1
--- 1
4 .4110 Under 0.60%
IND 0.60-0.69% - ---- -
, - _ ; • , -,&
A•' ..., ,
N"-
Illir
7,,,,,',-, -
too-1.09% 1.
--t A•c_'14 ii
Over 1.20% ; . 4
II,
GP 1.10-1.19% osuieboo . 4 j__ - 1,- -
:i• f•-•' •• i- ', 1\--- - " ,k ' ',4:1" -,• -
N.' `'..". - -- I 111.'1 . ,I, •' • - ,'"
7 •I,
BIRCHWOOD ri: 4 ji „..•- i••.„ i STILLWATER
viLLAGE,rIE
-''- y,;.;,,<
' - ',-.'-)-1 NNE' IC .r ..:.' !.t ,- .4i•WHITE --„,-,-,--- -, ,spRikoys ,, ,
BEAR LAKE 4.t.j•., , si.. °.',.,'
' I'•` PARK
. ,r't,• -., - . _ . bt -,
,.....„,,,.. _ .4.,.. .
6da
- 7/ ELM- ' BAYI-OWN. •
... • lir .
L:.„, , t • s „. ... • sii .
N
: 1 (--- _ .
,.- . •
• , „1.:.
--.ff— - . — -'-' i I-.4.:-. • -_ 'F'Y",-.:.'. ., .E LANDFALL
--
'ir- SHORES
- .----: ,
i'. ' l'4-'
S I
i' - - :- --I'74-11---—1 j
‘1 —..,,' W , LAKE sr.CROIX
0 1 2 3 4 5 Miles
air i: '•-•->, • '."..".t:FP,-• •--, sFulw
'---•
.,.- .
":.-
-,..., 1 AFTON ...•-,
' '1 4 M
_,A.,..." .--..1 --1-L4
Wooperi, ... _.
_ii,.. ..,..1.,• ,.... _.,_,_111.1 _
NEWPORT V -r-,-.. ' n . --111-1--
-
-a .I&I
- . , ....
_1 k i. , ,11N4...
, :a_ -; ,.. • -7'
_;:,1
si..pAui ,, ,6 +r Jr., - „,,„,--,,--,,,,, lt-.
I I
,
?.Lilr,-,t,r,4Ld, '' , I.-.: 2..' ''' • '—I- '
..-c ''•1.01i1;,--.'r';' '-.44`r-,-.! ' ''',' - i DENimm(TwP- j_____..
L _---
L Is.,____
1 ,
GREY CLTILf. . _,,I _ .1 .
I
I -i ''-•t COTIg GROVE .
- A
1
03-24-2006
Premed by:
HASTINGS 'I
Th.os Support On,
Waelenglon County Government Center
14949 94(Steel North-P O.Box 6
Stlerreter,MN 65062
Phone(651)430-6412
Washington ,,.. tgi. 8 - � n, : ,� II
--=--....-County esiti b.al .... - i.
Property Tax Change of ., y. •/ � _ •el• 1.
Residential Homestead Properties s ,: - N-- -, A r • ' -
from 2007 Payable to 2008 '�`t kr- ',' t
�`F �
_ y_
r_,IL,I_ r. 1 MMlIE
la
E� 11Y -
,SIT . _ • BT CRdX
1
` a
gill" I 0 7
a
Percent Change r r
• °� -
Greater than 10%decrease -+�„) � �� ■�
•
�,J V.
' {
4.0 5-10%decrease - 5
2.5-5%decrease VP elm A`•
I.- ht 1
0-2.5%decrease •
r � "
•
•
0-2.5%increase '•� ` rliAl-l' _Uln :IIa
'
iimp 2.5-5%increaseIII 1• -- , ■■ .,:••-4�
ih.
ID 5-7.5%increase D aLw r 1 I M- +` ;. 1r�m �
ooq,
imp 7.5-10%increase ' - `i • -tiy� + wJ ,S,
i
- 10-15%increase _ - ,. ••—s. i -I
r ' ,.
• 15-20%increase ''' >� ,.. I
Greater than 20%increase N,MAf - • -'.
VILLAG - jihr r '- • R.I,-- STILLWATER
-,
-i7.. — PI
WHITE BEAR LM(E h-*
•/.SPRIlY
^3�
ill.
�� 1 l.. , LAKE `� :~Ji t k ..j BAYPORT
4� 0 ELMO a,e ■
-,.,:. liaP- . . -
G_._IMR1.7 � �li �•.' •NOd LAKELAND
r �� SHORES
S
{ririons-
�7 _ '
0 1 2 3 4 5 Mies `s
LAKE ST.CROIX
I 7F.►a BEACH
• of y�..-: it AFT•
Mtn T T�.I.1�' 1 F S
POINT
. ■WOODB ,1 a-
y�' 'jJ�' t
NEWPORT t ,. `'`7W1 4 1 -,j"t,-. -•l 1 _
I: -1 ;'c- , `I II.1. _
\N:g1 i4 a..; 1
PARK 'r w { I,_ -�
4
AN ! L ►".x ;',. e 1 DEN�NRKTWP.
CL
OUD OtZ
ISLAND TWP. _ -• I t ihr
corrtDVE .
)11
moil - F
03-24-2008 Ila \I
Prepared byThe OIS : it , -�
Washington County Goverment Center HASTINGS
1494 SW.t9 82ed Bbaal North-P O.Boa 6
P (8 Phone 5)304)4