The URL can be used to link to this page

2010 Assessment Report - Z O 10 A s s e s s m e n t R e o rt Washington Inside this Report p �.Co�ty Assessment Calendar 2 Market Values by Class 3 Totai Market Values 4 Change by Municipality 7 TO: Washington County Commissioners, County Administrator, City Council parcel Counts 11 Members,Town Board Members,Washington County Residents and Local Government Staff Sales Analysis 14 FROM: Bruce L. Munneke,Washington County Assessor Appeals Process 20 DATE: March 26, 2010 Local Board of Appeal 24 County Board of Appeal 28 Introduction The Washington County Assessor Division has prepared the 2010 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 2010 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 2"d assessment date. The estimated market values established through the 2010 assessment are based upon actual real estate market trends of Washington County properties takin�place from October 2008 throu�h September 2009. 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". "The 2010 assessment that is up for your review has a total unaudited assessed value of$26,111,291,200." 1 �'�2 2010 gssessment Re ort P Zo�a 2010 �ssessment Report January 2 2010 Market Values for Property Established February 1 Lut Day to Deliver Assessment Records to County Assessor The 2010 assessment is a reflection of the 2009 market conditions. Sales of property March 31 Stacucory deadline for muling 2010 Valuation Nocices and pay 2010 are constantly analyzed to chart the activity of the market place.The Assessment staff Tax Statements does not create value;they only measure its movement. April 1 Spring Mini Abstract/Clus Shift Report and Ag Report to Assessing property values equitably is part science,part judgment and part Department of Revenue communication skills.Training as an assessor cannot tell us how to find the "perfect" April 12-May 4 Local Boazds of Appeal and Equalization value of a propeny,but it does help us consistently produce the same estimate of value April 30 Last Day to File a Tax Court Petition for taxes payable in 2010 for identical properties. That after all,is the working definition of equalization. As of January 2,2010 there were 95,527(count does not include exempt,railroad, May 1 Begin the 2011 Assessment Review personal property,and utilities)parcels in the county. This is an decrease of 16 from May 14 Deadline for property owners to notify County Assessor of intent to the 2009 parcel count. appeal at County Board of Appeal and Equalization This total includes: May 15 Fint Half payable 2010 Ta�ca Due 2,380 agrzcultural pareels(improved�vacantJ--(2,397 on january 2,2009J June 2010 Region IX State Board of Equalization 392 apart»unt parcels(improved Fr vacantJ--(357 on)anuary 2,2009) June 15 Washington County Boazd of Appeal and Equalization 3,980 commercial fr indust•n�l parcels/improved�vacant)--(3.78Son)anuary 2,2009J 88,775 residential parccls(improved�vacantJ--/89,004 on january 2,2009J July 1 2010 Assessment Finalized Current state law mandates that all property must be re-assessed each year and August 31 First Half payable 2010 Taxes Due for Manufactured Homes physically reviewed once every five years.Staff also inspects all properties that have taken out a construction permit during the course of the year. September 1 2010 Abstraas,Duplicate Sceial Security File,and Market Value Sales Ratio File due to the Department of Revenue During 2009(for the 2010 assessment)the Assessor Division appraisers,and local October 15 Second Half payable 2010 Taxes Due appraisers,reviewed 26,463 (22,876 during 2008)properties.The breakdown of the properties that were reviewed is as follows: November 15 Second Half payable 2010 Taxes Due for Manufactured Homes 20,296 restclential type quzntile revtezr�s November 27 Last Day to Mail Payable 2011 Proposed Tax Notices 38.1% mtenor tnspecttons December 15 Last Day to File Homestead Application for Payable 2011 1,374 apartment and commercial/industrial quintile reviews 585 new residential stan rev�cus (707 in 2008,1,041 in2007, 1,662 in 2006J 2011 6 new commercial/industrial start reviews�20 in 2008,33 in 2007,65 in 2006;) January 2 2011 Market Values for Property Established 1 new apartment start reviervs(4 in 2008,3 in 2007, 1 in 2006J 1064 miscellaneous pernzit revie�s ofall property class�ations April 11-May 6 Tentative Dates for the 2011 Local Boards of Appeal and Equalizarion 2010 Assessment Report ��3 _ ___--_ _ — - - __ - - -- 2010 Market �alue by Property Class DlsPe=S1onofMarket v�ue by�l�s - 2.6% 4.9% 11.796 "The sales not considered market indicators included new construction sales, vacant land *ng sales,sales not exposed to the open market, -. ,�_ . ._ � --- � �Apt �.:�� and other sales such as relocation,bank, � ca�I government or inter family." Ra/Sn 80.8% 3 �� - �, $:�;�� s 4�� a�� _ — __ _ —— — — --- "��'�The % change includes the value added due to new construction 2009 2010 2010 2010 �'"� Market Value Net Value New Construction Total Value % Change A ricultural $1,284,984,000 $1,276,252,000 $918,100 $1,277,170,100 -0.6% A artments $680,991,200 $674,546,500 $10,312,700 $684,859,200 -0.9% Comm/Ind $3,243,479,400 $3,018,313,200 $31,334,200 $3,049,647,400 -6.6% Res/Seasonal $22,820,478,500 520,939,883,600 $159,730,900 $21,099,614,500 -8.2% Totals $28,029,933,100 $25,908,995,300 $202,295,900 $26,111,291,200 -7.6% ✓�¢ 2010 Assessment Report Total Market Yalues 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 2002 $17,419,257,000 +g.6% 2003 $19,877,139,400 +14.1% ��' -+ \ 2004 $22,728,398,000 +143% t � � ,��•��' � _.,�� h 2005 $25,049,195,000 +10.2% � ' • � M 2006 $27,916,646,300 +11.4% �l ' , �- 2007 $29,125,061,200 +4.3% ' ��`' ` �. ,�'+ �` ,.,, 2008 $29,527,904,100 +1.4% 2009 $28,029,933,100 -4.6% 2010 $26,111,291,200 -7.6% $$Total value does not ieclude exempt,railroad,personal property,snd uNlities. The 2010 estimated market value is established after thorough studies of the sales that took place in the county between October 2008 and September 2009.During this study period,there were 4,011 sales recorded,of which 1,347(-23.0%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 cenain 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 2010 assessment that is up for your review has a total unaudited assessed value of$26,111,291,200. This is the estimated market value of agricultural related,apartment, commercial/industrial,seasonal and residential classed propenies.It reflects a valuation decrease of 7.6%as compared to the 2009 estimated market value. Z010 gssessment Re ort � 5 Washington County Average Residential Value(SFR and Townhome/Condo) it0/1/98-9/30/99 10/1/99-9/30/00 10/1/OP9/30/O1 10/1/01-9/30/02 10/1/02-9/30/03 10/1/0}9/30/W 10/I/049/30/OS 1�/]/05�9/30/06 10/1/Ob9/30/07 10/1/07•9/30/OS 10/1/0&9/30/09 CAMA 2000 CAMA 200] CAMA 2002 CAMA 2003 CAMA 2004 CAMA 2005 CAMA 1006 CAMA 2007 CAMA 2008 CAMA 2009 CAMA 2010 % %Change � Municipality Market Value Market Value Market Value Market Value Market Value Market Value Market Value Market Value Market Value Mazket Value Market Value Chan�e siace 1000 Afton $229,400 $264,900 $287,800 5338,800 5379,600 5463,8�0 b493,000 5495,200 5465,500 5442,500 5423,400 -4.3% 102.9% Bayport 5141,300 $156,040 E173,700 5207,300 E247,100 E243,300 b266,900 5273,400 $269,700 $262,000 ;247,300 -5.6°� 90.9°�U Baytown $295,300 $323,900 b359,900 3404,100 E441,000 5484,400 E524,500 E550,500 E497,940 a477,900 s432,000 -9.6% 68.6% Birchwood 5197,500 E224,700 b265,300 E325,600 E358,300 5382,100 $429,000 E489,000 5459,100 5428,700 5379,000 -11.6% 117.1% Cottage Grove b128,300 E145,900 5171,600 E187,700 E211,800 5222,000 E239,900 5244,300 $243,900 5228,000 5207,400 -9.0°� 77.7% Dellwood 3405,400 5464,000 5514,300 a572,100 E651,800 5711,800 5746,100 3775,000 $831,300 5836,000 �741,600 -113% 82.9% Denmark 3214,300 b257,700 �295,300 3309,900 5397,400 5448,300 b497,100 5500,600 $515,000 $466,700 5416,600 -10.7% 94.4% Forest Lake 5151,600 5182,200 5205,500 5226,600 E257,400 5260,200 E299,900 $313,600 $300,700 5274,000 5249,100 -9.1% 64.4°� Grant a265,400 5313,200 �335,600 3405,400 E432,000 E499,600 $518,600 $545,700 $533,200 a484,300 5480,600 -0.8% 81.1% GreyCloud 3166,200 5188,400 �219,700 a244,900 b273,700 5300,100 5321,100 b324,100 $332,700 3302,800 5289,400 -4.4% 74.1% Hastings 5112,100 a112,100 5123,100 5136,800 5136,800 $135,400 $135,400 s123,100 -9.1% 9.8% �Hugo $166,900 5188,800 5208,900 5232,600 E283,300 5277,200 3301,700 5296,600 E280,300 $253,100 5225,400 -10.9% 35.1% �Lake Elmo 5224,500 3258,300 5292,700 $323,700 5364,700 5355,000 $382,300 3409,200 b449,800 $426,800 5401,000 -6.0% 78.6% �Lake St Croix a117,500 5127,500 b148,600 5170,100 5193,500 5208,700 5221,500 $223,400 5219,200 5202,200 5203,100 0.4% 72.9°,6 �I,akeland �155,400 5173,900 5200,700 3220,600 E289,200 $282,900 E293,400 �317,500 5312,900 3301,]00 5291,700 -2.8% 88.4% ILake(and Shrs E233,800 5255,700 5293,700 3319,700 E439,100 E470,700 E536,000 5534,3�0 3546,600 b498,700 5482,4D0 -3.3% 106.3% I.andfall 512,100 $12,1OQ $12,100 $32,300 532,300 532,300 532,300 0.0% 166.9% �Mahtomedi 5186,300 5211,300 E241,500 5267,700 b304,600 E328,000 5363,300 b363,100 5372,100 E354,100 5330,600 -6.6% 77.5% �Marine $224,000 5255,100 3282,600 E309,200 5380,200 5412,400 E455,700 f448,600 5427,500 E413,100 5385,300 -6.7% 72.0% May �228,900 $265,700 b284,500 E327,300 $398,000 5459,600 5506,800 3540,300 $531,900 $490,900 5501,900 2.4% 119.7% Newport $116,600 E135,900 S15Q,000 �167,400 E185,200 5197,400 5214,600 5218,700 5217,500 E200,000 5180,900 -9.6% 55.1% Oak Park Hts $130,200 E144,600 $165,900 5179,600 b212,600 5215,000 E212,100 3215,000 5216,100 5202,300 5195,700 -33% 50.3% Oakdale $126,500 $142,900 5165,000 5182,800 b214,900 5212,800 5221,100 5222,900 $222,700 5205,300 5190,000 -7.5°� 50.2% �Pine Springs E227,900 E256,000 5289,200 5304,100 5356,200 5356,800 $420,600 3415,200 $417,800 5400,400 5370,300 -7.5°� 62.5°� �St Mary's Pt 5193,500 5236,700 E270,900 E316,500 5388,700 E423,400 5473,200 E474,000 5471,400 5462,000 5452,400 -2.1% 133.8% ISt Paul Park 5104,500 5117,600 �136,700 5150,800 b168,400 $168,600 5184,200 E190,200 5192,500 5174,100 5158,400 -9.0% 51.6°k Scandia $179,400 $208,700 �234,000 5247,400 $320,900 5353,000 5387,000 $391,700 5358,300 E357,000 =312,�00 -12.6°� 73.9°k Stillwater City 5148,800 b169,000 5196,100 $219,700 E248,100 t263,200 5275,700 E286,600 b282,900 E267,300 5249,000 -6.8% 67.3% Stillwater Twp 5244,500 $281,400 $317,400 E351,700 E398,000 5445,700 5502,500 5502,700 5475,100 $451,600 5419,300 -7.2% 71.5% West Lakeland $259,700 a290,900 E317,400 5353,500 E398,300 b437,900 5480,200 5479,800 5476,800 E463,300 s412,500 -8.8°k 62.7°,6 White Bear Lk 5128,900 5145,800 E177,000 E187,800 E198,500 f212,600 5232,500 5234,500 5233,700 E221,600 5201,3�0 -9.2°/a 56.2% Willernie 387,600 599,300 $120,300 E137,300 E151,300 E155,000 5162,600 E168,000 5170,700 5160,400 SI51,600 -5.5% 73.1% Woodbu 5171,400 5195,111 5217,600 5237,600 5267,700 $288,500 b304,000 E302,700 5303,600 E283,100 5258,100 -8.8% 50.6% Av 5164,100 E187,400 a211,800 5234,800 E271,800 �284,200 E304,200 E309,600 �307,400 5297,800 a264,700 -��.��io 61.3°� �«�� 2010 Assessment Report Residential Graphics Residential improved Parcels $o,000.00 - - - - 2003 2004 1005 2006 2001 2008 2009 2010 �a.000.00 - - - - — -- — lmproved Residential 69366 11362 13930 76405 77612 77801 78321 78553 _ _ _ . 60,°°°°° single Famiy 59593 60801 62048 63251 62172 61604 61963 61946 So,000.00 � �Improved Residential TOn11�I11G'W��O 9173 10561 11882 13154 15500 16010 16358 16601 A Single Family 40,000.00 - - - - - - ' OTownhome/Condo �, 30,000.00 '�- - -- - � i 20,000.00 -' - : � 10,000.00 -�� - � � � 0.00 ' _ , I__ �_ I._ i--- --------------- ---------- ----- ----------- � 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Average Residential Value by Dwelling Type ay2010 � _ _ 15 1 .-...._ � _. .� 6293,100 ay2009 . _ :.�_ _.. ._.;._ � $315,�00 >i i;i,800 ay2008 � . I�194,800 t $�36,400 ay2007 .�..�.+.�r�-- _a $�36,300 , ' $199,400 ay2006 190,800 �""'�"�"`'. � $327,800 ' � � � � ay2005 � 0,000 �a- r� 5303,700 II ' - �4 ■ ay2004 � �b�,��0 • 5293,300 ay2003 l ' .�.158,�OP ,' 5251,000! $0 $50,000 $100,U00 $150,000 $200,000 $250,000 $300,000 $350,000 $400,000 "Single Family +�Townhome/Condo 2010 Assessment Report �� Growth By Municipality Residential Growth SIlmmary (SFR & Townhome/Condo) 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Municipality Growth Growth Growth Growth Growth Growth Growth Growth Growth Afton 7.0% 18.6% 11.7% 16.6% 4.9% 2.6'% -4.5% -1.0% -7.2% Bayport 9.9% 18.5% 18.3% 1.2% 20.0% 1.6% -2.6% -5.6% -6.2% Baytown 11.1% 10.7% 10.3% 11.1% 9.8% 7.9% -9.1% -2.4% -10.8% Birchwood 17.7% 21.2% 10.6% 6.2% 10.6% 14.7% -3.4% -6.7% -12.4% Cottage Grove 17.6% 10.4% 11.0% 6.6% 5.8% 1.7% -0.6% -6.7% -9.6% Dellwood 9.6% 12.0% 16.9% 7.7% 3.4% 2.6% 10.1% 1.4% -12.2% �Denmark 16.0% 8.3% 33.6% 3.4% 12.2% 1.0% 5.9% -8.6% -13.2% IForest Lalce 15.2% 8.3% 9.4% 6.9% 17.3% 4.5% -3.6% -7.0% -9.4% �Grant 6.5% 21.8% 4.6% 12.8% 3.0% 5.9% 1.1% -6.6% -1.3% Grey Cloud 16.9% 13.9% 15.6% 6.6% 1.6% 0.3% 1.6% -59% -11.9% Hastings 3.7% 333.4% 40.0% 7.8% 13.4% 0.0% 6J% -2.2% -15.8% Hugo 13.6% 13.8% 16.9% 10.3% 14.6% 1.5% -3.5% -7.5% -10.8% Lake Elmo 11.0% 8.9% 12.2% 8.8% 8.2% -1.5% 4.4% -3.8% -6.2% Lake St Cro1x 18.3% 12.6% 13.1% 6.0% 5.8% 0.2% -3.0% -8.9% 0.4% Lalteland 14.7% 8.6% 303% 0.0% 4.4% 6.4% -0.9% -5.4% -3.0% Lakeland Shrs 14.1% 8.2% 38.7% 6.1% 10.9% -02% 3.7% -6.6% -3.0% Landfall 7.6% 0.0�/0 5.6% 0.0% 0.0�/0 0.0% -0.2% -51.2% -1.6% Mahtomedi 12.8"/0 9.8% 10.8% 9.0% 10.4% -0.2% 4.5% -5.0% -6.6% Marine 8.8% 7.1% 21.7% 9.9% 10.3% 0.5% -4.3% -3.2% -6.7% May 5.8% 11.8% 25.9% 8.9% 7.9% 7.8% -1.5% 0.3% 1.8% Newport 17.0% 10.5% 13.3% 5.4% 8.8% 0.2% -0.2% -8.5% -10.4% �Oak Park Hts 14.8% 8.1% 9.3% 7.4% -0.9% 1.7% 1.5% -7.2% -43% �Oakdale 12.7% 10.9% 8.5% 6.8% 5.4% -0.2% -0.4% -9.4% -7.6% �Pine Springs 10.7% 4.8% 16.6% 0.0% 17.9% -1.1% -1.1% -5.0% -7.3% St Mary's Pt 12.2% 12.8% 20.7% 4.2% 13.5% -0.2% -0.2% -5.0% -3.3% �St Paul Park 16.3% 9.9% 14.8% 4.7% 8.8% 1.0% -2.7% -9.7% -8.7% Scandia 9.4% 5.6% 34.7% 6.3% 10.5% 0.0% -7.1% 4.3% -12.5% Stillwater City 14S"/o 11.1% 9.1% 10.4% 5.3% 2.8% -0.4% -5.5% -6.8% Stillwater Twp 13.1% 11.0% 13.6% 6.4% 13.6% -0.2% -5.1% -0.8% -7.6% West Lakeland 8.6% 10.2% 13.6% 9.3% 9.5% -0.7% -0.4% -3.4% -9.8% White Bear Lk 21.2% 6.1% 5.3% 7.0% 9.3% 0.5% -0.3% -5.1% -9.1% Willernie 22.3% 12.8% 9.8% 2.3% 4.2% 3.1% 0.4% -6.2% -7.6% Woodbur 9.6% 14.2% 12.0% 8.7% 5.1% -0.1% -0.4% -6.9% -9.3% oun ota o 0 0 0 0 0 -5. o - o �'�� 2010 Assessment Report Total Market Yalne Snmmary (Ag/Apt/C&I/Res/Seasonal) Agricultural Summary ay2010 a�Z010 ay2009 '� ay2010 ay2010 ay2009 ay2010 New # Total Total % New # Ag Ag % Municipality Construction Parcels Value Value Growth Municipality Construction Parcels Value Value Growth A{ton $3�790�600 1�502 s572�819�900 $591�042�200 -3.7% Afton $55>000 153 a94�603�900 $81�656�000 15.8% Bayport $1,785,500 1,026 �239,568,800 $250,395,500 -5.0% �Bayport $0 0 a0 $0 0.0% Baytown $1,724,000 821 E282,496,100 $312,893,200 -10.3% Baytown $381,400 40 519,066,000 $19,031,400 -1.8% Birchwood $649,500 422 E140,156,500 3159,316,900 -12.4% Birchwood $0 0 SO $0 0.0% Cottage Grove $22,590,500 11,964 �1,718,574,200 $2,963,045,100 -9.0% Cottage Grove $0 201 5136,512,500 $140,401,100 -2.8% Dellwood $1,610,000 555 5333,399,200 $373,535,000 -11.2% Dellwood $0 5 �4,437,600 $2,561,000 73.3% Denmark $851,300 1,120 E387,206,400 $425,188,900 -9.1% enmark $0 357 5137,450,000 3140,651,960 -2.3% Forest Lake $7,069,000 8,099 51,940,070,200 $2,116,150,000 -8.7% orest Lake $0 132 575,393,60Q 580,536,150 -6.4% Grant $1,885,100 1,968 5796,249,800 $798,313,900 -0.5% Grant $0 131 S81,000,200 $75,283,100 7.6% Grey Cloud $167,900 210 �42,382,800 $42,966,500 -1.7% Grey Cloud $0 13 53,876,600 $1,533,500 152.8% Hastings $0 9 52,061,6�0 $1,723,400 19.6% � IHastings $0 0 523,800 0 0.0% Hugo $32,319,200 5,953 51,347,698�00 $1,469,811,000 -10.5% Hugo $165,200 262 5122,572,900 $145,778,100 -16.0% Lake Elmo 38,805,200 3,093 51,164,2�9,700 $1,227,075,700 -5.8% �Lake Elmo $o 123 576,053,000 $80,781,400 -5.9% �Lake St Croix Beach $142,800 751 =99,914,600 $99,433,20Q 0.3% Lk St Croix Beach $0 0 a0 $0 0.0% Lakeland 52,713,900 838 5226,818,100 5229,312,000 -2.3% Lakeland $0 4 E3,092,200 $1,677,900 843% Lakeland Shores $39,600 153 562,096,600 $63,810,800 -2.7% Lakeland Shores $0 0 SO $0 0.0% Landfall $0 8 �6,239,000 $6,581,500 -5.2% Landfall $0 0 a0 $0 0.0% Mahtomedi $2,847,600 3,125 5965,531,800 $1,025,188,200 -6.1% Mahtomedi $0 2 5887,000 $887,000 0.0% Marine $308,200 556 �144,692,000 $154,877,700 -6.8% Marine $0 8 E4,595,600 $4,730,500 -2.9% May $2,440,400 1,805 E699,545,400 $683,177,200 2.0% May $253,000 289 5135,913,900 $131,886,750 2.9% Newport $615,500 1,548 5289,499,800 $310,866,400 -7.1% Newport EO 6 a8,655,100 $6,736,600 28.5% Oak Park Heights $2,223,500 1,874 5498,110,200 $517,214,200 -4.1% Oak Park Heights $0 1 53,498,700 $3,498,700 0.0% Oakdale $9,618,900 9,944 E2,325,848,500 $2,483,112,800 -6.7% Oakdale $o 1 E9,750,700 $7,981,900 22.2% Pine Springs $221,500 178 S53,109,200 $57,087,100 -7.4% Pine Springs SO 0 SO $0 0.0% St Mary's Point $13,000 322 574,715,500 $77,283,700 -3.3% St Mary's Point $0 0 �0 $0 0.0% St Paul Park $620,200 2,316 s335,018,400 $362,392,500 -7.7% St Paul Park $o 60 58,865,400 $9,518,300 -6.9% Scandia $1,745,000 2,680 E589,136,500 $673,139,9Q0 -12.7% Scandia $0 315 588,784,300 5104,516,355 -15.1% Stillwater City $9,463,000 7,496 E1,944,978,600 $2,061,613,500 -6.1% Stillwater Ciry $0 0 a306,300 $306,300 0.0% Stillwater Twp $920,700 1,077 =410,786,300 5435,391,900 -5.9% Stillwater Twp $35,100 102 556,019,400 $53,226,200 5.2% West Lakeland $4,923,600 1,505 E591,420,600 $647,354,500 -9.4% West Lakeland $28,400 49 526,832,300 $27,656,000 -3.1% White Bear Lake $0 106 539,668,100 S41,808,800 -5.1% White Bear Lake $0 0 SO SO 0.0% Willernie $182,500 361 539�27,800 $42,145,500 -7.2% Willemie $0 0 s0 $0 0.0% Woodbu $80,008,200 22,142 a6�747,940,700 $7,326,634,400 -9.0% Woodbu $0 126 5178,979,100 $164,147,800 9.0% Coun Totals 5202,295,900 95,527 526,111,291,200 528,029,933,100 -7.696 �, Coun Totals 5918,1OQ 2,380 51,277,170,100 S1,284,984,015 -0.796 ZO10 Hssessment Report �� Apartment Summary Commercial/Industrial Summary ! ay2010 ay2010 ay2009 ay2010 ay2010 ay2010 ay2009 ay2010 a � New # Apartment Apartment % New # Comm/Ind Comm/Ind % Municipality Construction Parcels Value Value Growt Municipality Construction Parcels Value Value Growt Afton �0 2 51,635,800 $1,635,800 0.0% Afton $1,391,000 35 �25,332,900 $23,779,100 0.7% Bayport $0 24 ;12,992,200 $14,157,000 -8.2% Bayport $0 114 540,934,000 $40,174,100 1.9% Baytown EO 0 SO $0 NA Baytown $0 10 �1,560,400 $1,866,400 -16.4% Birchwood $0 0 SO $0 NA Birchwood $0 1 s0 $0 NA Cottage Grove $1,491,400 12 544,375,800 $42,831,000 0.1% Cottage Grove $2,228,000 408 E254,398,700 $275,643,800 -8.5% Dellwood $0 0 SO $0 NA Dellwood $0 28 514,204,900 $14,204,900 0.0% Denmark SO 2 51,145,800 $1,206,800 -5.1% Denmark $0 57 521,575,800 $22,677,200 -4.9% Forest Lake $0 60 =57,865,800 $62,501,300 -7.4% Forest Lake $2,798,800 586 a260,607,400 $271,674,300 -5.1% Grant SO 1 5995,100 $995,140 0.0% Grant $0 93 518,322,700 $19,181,200 -4.5% Grey Cloud $0 0 SO $0 NA Grey Cloud $0 24 E3,621,500 $2,008,800 803% Hastings $0 0 SO $0 NA Hastings $0 5 51,817,200 $1,461,500 24.3% Hugo $0 20 �2,675,100 $2,733,200 -2.1% Hugo $2,656,600 182 5117,485,100 $115,080,900 -0.2% Lake Elmo $0 5 $1,366,100 $1,526,200 -10.5% Lake Elmo $0 200 a129,120,500 $133,712,200 -3.4% Lake St Croix Beach $0 1 E298,800 $339,400 -12.0% Lk St Croix Beach $0 10 �1,980,500 $1,956,700 12% Lakeland a0 3 E454,200 $503,000 -9.7% Lakeland $1,776,300 39 a13,535,200 $11,775,900 -0.1% Lakeland Shores a0 0 SO $0 NA Lakeland Shores $0 8 52,185,200 $2,057,400 6.2% Landfall a0 0 SO $0 NA Landfall $0 7 56,097,200 $6,437,400 -5.3% Mahtomedi a0 25 529,224,900 529,350,100 -0.4% Mahtomedi $1,178,300 76 553,659,700 $52,481,400 0.0% Marine $0 2 E284,200 $372,900 -23.8% Marine $0 11 E3,417,700 $3,883,100 -12.0% May $0 0 SO $0 NA May $0 7 �2,324,200 $2,214,900 4.9% Newport $227,200 40 517,620,000 $18,521,100 -6.1% Newport $331,700 224 568,446,400 $68,220,000 -0.2% Oak Park Heights $0 24 S5S,955,300 $55,330,100 1.1% Oak Park Heights $1,664,400 210 5187,981,600 $197,0G6,200 -5.5% Oakdale $983,600 47 s115,433,600 $116,795,600 -2.0% Oakdale $5,540,800 380 E472,762,400 $491,985,600 -5.0% Pine Springs $0 0 a0 $0 NA Pine Springs $0 1 a100 $5,500 -98.2% St Mary's Point $0 0 SO $0 NA St Mary's Point $0 0 s0 $0 NA St Paul Park $0 26 55,283,300 55,606,900 -5.8% St Paul Park $0 209 540,796,800 $41,250,400 -1.1% Scandia $0 1 5448,100 $512,200 -12.5% Scandia $0 68 �12,026,300 $12,328,600 -2.5% Stillwater City a0 60 a60,444,500 $63,443,400 -4.7% Stillwater City $927,000 394 s296,S19,400 $303,952,100 -2.8% Stillwater Twp $0 0 ;0 $0 NA Stillwater Twp $0 8 53,673,800 $3,021,200 21.6% West Lakeland EO 0 SO $0 NA West Lakeland $0 27 512,075,100 $12,601,300 -4Z% White Bear Lake $0 1 514,378,000 $14,378,000 0.0% White Bear Lake $0 9 56,164,300 $6,380,400 -3.4% Willernie 50 1 :744,200 $994,700 -25.2% Willernie $0 34 s5,094,400 $5,168,700 -1.4% Woodbu $7,610,500 35 a261 38400 $247,257,400 2.6% Woodbu $10,841,300 515 5971,925,500 $1,099,228,200 -12.6% Coun Totals S10,312,700 392 a684,859,200 5680,991,200 -0.996 Coun Totals 531,334,200 3,980 53,049,647,400 E3,243,479,400 -6.9% ��v 2010 Assessment Report Residential Summary ay2010 ay2010 ay2009 ay2010 New # Res/SRR Res/SRR % Municipality Construction Parcels Value Value Growt Afton $2,344,600 1,312 5451,247,300 $483,971,300 -7.2% Bayporc $1,785,500 888 a185,642,600 $196,064,400 -61% Baycown $1,342,600 771 �261,869,700 $291,995,400 -10.8% TheAssessor's Ojfice maintains the County's property Birchwood $649,500 421 �140,156,500 $159,316,900 -12.4% database and is the primary source ojproperty Cottage Grove $18,871,100 11,343 �2,283,187,200 $2,504,169,200 -9.6% injormation jor interdepanmental and community use. Dellwood $1,610,000 522 $314,756,700 $356,769,100 -12.2% Denmark $851,300 704 a227,034,800 $260,652,940 -13.2% Forest Lake $4,270,200 7,321 51,546,203,400 $1,701,438,250 -9.4% Grant $1,885,100 1,743 5695,931,800 $702,854,500 -13% Grey Cloud $167,900 173 �34,884,700 $39,424,200 -11.9% lHastings $0 4 a220,600 $261,900 -15.8% �Hugo $29,497,400 5,489 �1,104,965�200 $1,206,218,800 -10.8% �Lake Elmo $8,805,200 2,765 a957,670,100 $1,011,055,900 -6.2% OLake St Croix Beach $142,800 740 E97,635,300 $97,137,100 0.4% �Lakeland $937,600 792 5209,736,500 $215,355,200 -3.0% � � Lakeland Shores $39,600 145 E59,911,400 $61,753,400 -3.0% �`�, k� Landfall $0 1 5141,800 $144,100 -1.6% " 4�'yL �` M Mahtomedi $1,669,300 3,022 �881,760,200 $942,469,700 -6.6% Marine $308,200 535 5136,394,500 $145,891,200 -6.7% ' � May $2,187,400 1,509 �$61�307�300 $549,075,550 1.8% � �`�� Newport $56,600 1,278 s194,778,300 $217,388,700 -10.4% " Oak Park Heights $559,100 1,639 a250,674,600 $261,319,200 �.3% Oakdale $3,094,500 9,516 a1,727,901,300 $1,866,349,700 -7.6% `'" �' Pine Springs $221,500 177 553,109,100 $57,081,600 -73% � � St Mary's Point $13,000 322 �74,715,500 $77,283,700 -3.3% � y �;;� St Paul Park $620,200 2,021 5280,072,900 $306,016,900 -8.7% � -+�� Scandia $1,745,000 2,296 5487,877,800 $555,782,745 -12.5% Stillwater City $8,536,000 7,042 S1,S87,708,400 $1,693,911,700 -6.8% Hay Lake School, SCc111C�1c1, MN � Stillwater Twp $885,600 967 S3S1,093,100 $379,144,500 -7.6% West Lakeland $4,895,200 1,429 s552,513,200 $607,097,200 -9.8% White Bear Lake $0 96 �19,125,800 $21,050,400 -9.1% Willernie $182,500 326 b33,489,200 $36,032,100 -7.6% WoodUu $61,556,400 21,466 S5 35 797,700 55,816,001,000 -9.3% CountyTotals SiS9,730,900 88,775 E21,099,614,500 522,820,478,485 -8.2% �«�11 2010 Assessment Report . Parcel Count Graphics Total Taxable Parcel Count ".�Is ofJanuary2, 2010 there were 95,527 100000 - - (count does not include exempt, railroad, personal property, and 95000 __.------- -- .—_. . .. - - - - - _. . utilities)parcels in the county. This is 90000 �- -- -- - - - - - - - - an decrease of 16 from the 2009 parcel ' count." 85000 ---- -- -- - - - - - - - 80000 - - -- - - -- - - - - 75000 -- -- -- - -- - _ -- _ _ Percentage of Parcels by Property Type , _ _ _ . zs%� /o.a% ! 70000 ' '�4•� 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 � �� "Agricultural � - -- - . Apartment i Comm/Ind �'I Res/Seasonal :�� 1001 2001 2003 1004 2005 2006 2001 2008 1009 2010 9Z.�— y� - Agr�ultural 3982 3685 3583 3450 3380 3269 3228 2910 2391 2380 Apartment 321 332 334 334 347 349 366 353 351 392 — - - Comm/Ind 331b 3396 3438 3484 3564 3618 3115 3179 3785 3980 Res/Seasonal 13883 16084 18134 80781 82841 85202 87480 88422 89004 88115 Total 81�62 83491 85489 88055 90132 92498 94852 95524 95543 95527 ZO10 Assessment Report �«�e 12 Parcel Count Graphics Agricultural Commercial/Industrial 2010 '�""'°",�.��..�„"�r"""""""."" 2380 j � 2010 ' �3980 2009 ■�1w�°` 2397 '� � 2009 ; 3785 � 2008 ""' 2970 �, � I 2008 ' 3779 2007 ' � 3228 � 2007 '! �',3778 � 2006 3269 ' ; 2006 � 3678 , 2005 � � i 3380 ' ' ' 2005 �' �564 ! 2004 3450 ' � 2004 ' 3484 2003 358�' 2003 3438 2002 36�5 2002 ' 3396 2001 _ , ' , _ � . _ � 3982 2001 I , 3376 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 3000 3200 3400 3600 3800 4000 4200 Apartments Residential/Seasonal 2010 � � 392 ! 2010 88775 2009 ` � ` � 357 � � � 2009 89004' � i 2008 ' 88422 2008 , i � � � 353 I� I 2007 � i , � � 366 � ; 2007 87480 2006 � � � � 349 ' 2006 85202 � ( ' 2005 � 82841 2005 � � 347 ' � 2004 � � � �34 �, � �� 2004 , 80787 2003 334 I ' 2003 1 �78134 , 2002 � � 362 ' i � 2002 � 76084 2001 ' ' � I 32]; j ' ' 2001 73$83 0 50 100 150 2Q0 250 300 350 400 450 0 20000 40000 60000 80000 100000 ��3 2010 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 prop- The Assessor's Office works throughout the year to estimate market values erty. Any property that had a building permit issued in a given year of each property for the following January 2 assessment date. is viewed and the new value calculated as of January 2°d following the construction. Gather Information-The appraiser gathers information on all character- O ^ istics of the property that affect market value, such as size, age, _ `�T' quality, basement finish, and extra features, such as fireplaces, walk- _ —_ out basements,etc. Q Q I Compute Value - The characteristics are entered into a computerized Q system. Information on actual market sales are used to establish the � NF�'� building and component rates used to calculate the property's � l � value. The market value estimated by the appraiser in this way should be very close to the amount the propeny would sell for, if placed on the open market. Why may market values change from year to year? Property values change continuously depending on the economic conditions affecting the local housing market. In addition to market changes, physical changes made to your property can also affect your market value. All factors Minnesota statue 273.03 defines market are considered in estimating the value of property. value as "... the usual selling price at the time of assessment." The following section includes detailed summaries of the market value adjust- ments that were needed in order for the 2010 assessment to meet the require- ments set by the County Assessor and the Department of Revenue. 2010 Assessment Repori ��14 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 2°d assessment date. As a method of checks and balances, the Department of Revenue uses statistics and ratios relating to assessed market value and sale prices to confirm that the law is upheld. Assessors use similar statistics and sales ratios to identify market trends in developing market values. A sales ratio is obtained by comparing the assessor's market value to the adjusted sales price of each propeny 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 which there are a minixnum of six sales, this adjusted median ratio must fall 100'h , � ` between 90% and 105%. ANY deviation will warrant a state mandated jurisdiction-wide �� r` ,}� adjustment of at least 5%. To avoid a state increase, the Washington County Assessor has set the ��,� target median sales ratio for the 2010 assessment for each municipality to be 93.5. �*'�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. �c�15 2010 Assessment Report "Washington County Assessor has set the target S a 1 e s S t a t i s t i c s D e f i n e d median sa�es ratta for �tie zo�o ass�sm��for each municipality to be 93.5%. 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. � 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. ' ' spin 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 Jrange. These studies enable us to track market trends in neighborhoods,popular housing types and classes of property. Coefficient of Dispersion(COD�: The COD measures the accuracy of the assessment.The COD indicates the spread of the ratios from the mean or median ratio. It is possible to have a median ratio of 94.5%with 300 sales,two ratios at 94.5%, 149 at 80%and 149 at 103%.Although this is an excellent median ratio,there is obviously a great inequality in the assessment. The goal of a good assessment is a COD of 10 to 20. A COD under 10 is considered excellent and anything 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 indi- cates 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. 2010 Assessment Report �� 2010 Residential Sales Stndy Statistics The following residential statistics are based upon ratios calculated using the 2010 estimated market values and sales that occurred between October 2008 and September 2009: The statistics for the previous year(s) Countywide#'s Ay2ol0 Ay2009 ay2008 are also listed. The Assessor's O�ce �.---- _ Median Ratio: 93.56 � 93.85 �� 9533 uses these ratios to measure . -` � ��- 4 � eqr�alization, assessment accuracy, Weighted Mean Ratio: 93.38 93.37 � 94.56 _ T market. --� and determine trends in the Arithmetic Mean: 94.26 � 94.13 ' 95.31 r�_ _�___... _ . COD: 711 ; 5.98 �_ 6.02 PRD 101 _�- 100.65 4 100.79 The following statistics show the residential properties broken down by dwelling type: Single Family Ay2010 Ay2009 ay2008 MedianRatio: 93.44 93.93 9537 �'M� M � .�� Weighted Mean Ratio: 93.36 9339 94.67 _ .---r.--. Arithmetic Mean: 94.23 ; 94.27 95.51 � _:_.__ _ .�___. ...._-�_. COD: 7.0 ' 6.1 � 6.19 , _------ _ �. _ _�__. � PRD 101 ]O 1 ]00.92 � _......_..__.. . � Townhome/Condo ay2010 ay2009 ay1008 SAI�� ` Median Ratio: 93.91 93.66 95.22 ` r c � Weighted Mean Ratio: 93.47 93.49 94.32 ` /�� 1 .___,__._ _.�.______ _..� � ♦ � ��I Arithmetic Mean: 94.22 � 94.18 � 94.92 � � COD: �-.'- 7.25 -�- 6.08 � V 5.70 -- ti --, PRD 101 101 100.63 �� 2010 Assessment Report � 2010 Washingtan Connty Residential Ratio Study (SFR & Townhome/Conda) Between Oct. 1.2008 and SepG 30,2009,Ihere were � . Municipality #of Sales Median Ratio C.O.D. 1,347good sales used in the Ratio Study. Afton 12 93.48 5.01 � Bayport 14 93.44 lOJ8 The number oj good sales is down 409 jrom�he �i Baytown 7 93.12 2.02 previous sale study period. � I Birchwood 4 91.55 0.80 Cottage Grove 172 93.87 7.26 Dellwood 9 93.66 735 Denmark 3 94.83 3.05 Forest Lake 83 93.43 9.83 Grant 16 93.37 7.67 Grey Cloud 1 89J9 0.00 - - - - - - - _ _ _ Hastings o 0 0.0o Number of Sale Transactions(Good Salesj Hugo 69 93.35 7.07 _ Lake Elmo 20 93.57 8.54 zoio ;;�,�„�401 9a6 Lake St Croix Beach 10 93.46 8.17 zoo9 � 558 ll9g� Lakeland 5 93.44 3.82 Lakeland Shores 2 93.69 1.48 2008 - ' 863 1775 Landfall 0 0 0.00 2°°� `" __ _. lssl zsds Mahtomedi 39 93.48 8.83 zoo6 ---- 13 - . � z9za , 09 : Marine 3 95.81 14.90 zoos - llal ---�-^------- � 2934 May 7 93J 8.43 2004 '-"'�""""""'""*' :"".,.'�......, � 2960 Newport 12 93.52 7.40 � , loai 2003 �•---'�*�^- . 2672 Oak Park Heights 16 93.73 7.43 98e Oakdale 149 9339 6.90 Zoo2 ioia Z�S� Pine Springs 0 93J1 1.26 2001 """'�""""""" 8i,�' """"""'�f""'�""'"• 2669 St Mary's Point 0 0 0.00 y _ 2000 _ _:-__.---.__: _... 2895 St Paul Park 25 93.56 9.23 ' 83� Scandia 12 93.28 9.31 o soo i000 isoo i000 zsoo 3000 3soo Stillwater City 152 93.38 8.94 '#Single Family �#Townhome/Condo Stillwater Twp 8 93.47 5.42 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ West Lakeland 14 93.66 5.47 White Bear Lake 1 92.14 0.00 Willernie 2 88.57 10.65 Woodbu 480 93.79 5.95 Coun Totals 1,347 93.5696 7.09 �� 2010 Assessment Report Residential Hi h/1,ow & H g verage Sale Pr�ce Snmmary for Cnrrent Sale Stndq Period Municipalities Median COD PRD #of Sales Low Sale Mean Sale Hi�h Sale Afton 93.48 5.01 1.00 12 $290,000 $427,917 $675,000 Bayport 93.44 10.78 1.00 14 $140,000 $524,524 $2,825,000 Baytown 93.12 2.02 1.00 7 $208,000 $497,222 $850,000 Birchwood 91.55 0.80 1.00 4 $192,000 $266,875 $335,000 Cottage Grove 93.87 7.26 1.01 172 $110,000 $226,937 $574,975 Dellwood 93.66 7.35 1.02 9 $160,800 $539,144 $895,000 Denmark 94.83 3.05 1.01 3 $185,000 $257,133 $317,500 Forest Lake 93.43 9.83 1.01 83 $114,500 $250,590 $1,000,000 Grant 93.37 7.67 1.01 16 $245,000 $490,625 $892,500 Grey Cloud 89.79 0.00 1.00 1 $425,000 $425,000 $425,000 Hastings Hugo 93.35 7.07 1.02 69 $89,900 $187,678 $437,000 Lake Elmo 93.57 8.54 1.02 20 $203,000 $539,297 $1,280,000 Lake St Croix Beach 93.46 8.17 1.02 10 $157,000 $250,360 $476,000 Lakeland 93.44 3.82 1.00 S $179,900 $209,517 $257,500 Lakeland Shores 93.69 1.48 1.00 2 $225,000 $262,500 $300,000 Landfall Mahtomedi 93.48 8.83 1.01 39 $180,000 $378,267 $1,620,000 Marine 95.81 14.90 1.00 3 $289,000 $387,033 $472,100 May 93.7 8.43 1.02 7 $285,000 $601,429 $1,250,000 Newport 93.52 7.40 1.02 12 $110,000 $208,488 $385,000 Oak Park Heights 93.73 7.43 1.02 16 $119,000 $235,641 $420,000 Oakdale 93.39 6.90 1.01 149 $93,785 $197,710 $513,500 Pine Springs 0 St Mary's Point p St Pau1 Park 93.56 9.23 1.01 25 $109,900 $169,778 $335,000 Scandia 93.28 9.31 1.02 12 $166,000 $318,108 $633,800 Stillwater City 93.38 8.94 1.02 152 $98,000 $297,601 $1,440,000 Stillwater Twnshp 93.47 5.42 1.01 8 $320,000 $403,825 $587,300 West Lakeland 93.66 5.47 1.02 14 $188,000 $430,529 $710,000 White Bear 92.14 0.00 1.00 1 $215,000 $215,000 $215,000 Willernie 88.57 10.65 0.99 2 $174,000 $194,500 $215,000 Woodbury 93.79 5.95 1.00 480 $95,000 $269,550 $1,025,000 �"`��`� 2010 Assessment Report 2009 New Start Summary • SFR TH/Condo C&I Apartmrnu Exempt 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 Municipality New Home Starts New Home Starts New Starts New Starts New Starts TOt81 Afton i o i o 0 2 Bayport b o 0 0 0 6 Baytown s o 0 0 o s New Starts Birchwood 2 0 0 0 0 2 Cottage Grove s3 iz o o i 66 3000 - --- -- - — - - 2722 Dellwood o 0 0 0 0 0 - Denmark 3 0 0 0 0 3 2500 - - - f Z��Z — Forest Lake i3 o i o i 15 1921 R- Grant i o 0 0 0 1 2000 -.,- - --! �277 Grey Cloud i o 0 0 0 1 1693 Hastings o 0 0 0 0 0 �, 1500 _ _ Hugo 53 90 1 0 0 1� 1628 1083 Lake Elmo ia o 0 0 0 18 Lake St Croix Beach o 0 0 0 0 0 1000 : �' , Lakeland 3 0 0 0 0 3 \`^� _ 607 --.. Lakeland Shores o 0 0 0 0 0 500 --____ -__ _ _ _ _- ___ _. __ _- __- _739— Landfall o 0 0 0 0 0 � Mahtomedi a o 0 0 0 4 0 Marine o 0 0 0 0 0 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 May s o 0 0 0 5 _ _ _ _ _ -- _ _ _ Newport o 0 0 o a 0 Oak Park Heights o 0 0 o i 1 Oakdale 9 5 i i o 16 � ``� Pine Springs o 0 0 0 0 0 1� St Mary's Point o 0 0 0 0 0 �-� St Paul Park i z o 0 0 3 + - - Scandia s o 0 0 0 8 � Stillwater City zo za o o z 46 Stillwater Twp i o 0 0 0 1 ✓ � West Lakeland a o 0 0 0 4 White Bear Lake o 0 0 0 0 0 i, Willernie t o 0 o a 1 ` Woodbu is3 9� z a o 251 Coun Totals 365 230 6 1 5 607 ��2U 2010 Assessment Report The Appeals Process Steps in the Appeals Process: In Minnesota, property t�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. At what point in the assessment cycle does the appeals process begin? The appeals process begins in April 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 instnxctions 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 April and extends through What steps should property owners take to appeal their assessments? 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. 2010 Hssessment Report �«�21 . The Three-Step Appeal Step 1: Step 3: Property owners who have questions or concerns regarding the market If propeny owners are not satisfied with the action taken at the Local value or classification of their property are encouraged to contact the Board of Appeal and Equalization, they may appear (in person, property appraiser responsible for their area. In most cases an interior through a designated representative, or by sending a written request) inspection of the property will be necessary. We have found that a large before a second board, called the County Board of Appeal and number of property owner concerns can be resolved after speaking to an Equalization. In order to be put on the agenda for the County appraiser Board of Appeal and Equalization please contact the Assessor's Office at 651-275-8759 by May 14, 2010 for an Application to Step 2: Appear form. The County Board is made up of elected county commissioners, the county auditor/treasurer, and/or appointed If your questions or concerns are not resolved after talking with your officials. The 2010 County Board of Appeal and Equalization is appraiser you may appear before the Local Board of Appeal and scheduled for June 15, 2010. Property owners who appeal their Equalization in your community or attend one of the Open Book assessments at this level must have first appeared before the Local meetings held throughout the county. These meetings are held in April Board of Appeal and Equalization if they choose to have their or May. Please reference your valuation notice or call your appraiser to grievances acted upon by this Board. find out the time and place of the meeting held for property owners in your community. Your appeal can be made in person,through a letter, If property owners still feel aggrieved as a result of the action taken or through a representative authorized by you. 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 "In order to be put on the agenda for the 30 of the year the tax becomes payable. Countv Board o(Anneal and EQualization please contact the Assessors'Office at 651-275- 8759." 2010 Hssessment Report ✓�22 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 Ootion 1: Oution 2: Three Step Appeal To appeal your valuation or classification,follow the options as shown: One Step Appeal STEP 1: STEP 2: STEP 3: Appeal to Ciri or Townshia Local Board of Aaceal to Countv Board of Aaueal&Eaualization Anneal to Minnesota Taa Court Aoaeal&Equalization or O�en Book Meetin¢ • Meetings he(d 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 • Cail the County Assessors Office for an appointment If you aren't satisfied with the Local Board's If you aren't satisfied wit6 the County Board's There al'e two(2)Tax Court Divisions decision,then proceed to Step 2. decision,then proceed to Step 3. MN Tax Court-Small Claims Division MN Tax Court-Reeular 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 ��23 2010 Assessment Report . The One-Step Appeal Minnesota Tax Conrt The one-sten an�eal 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. '� ` Before property owners make a formal appeal, shonld they contact their assessor's office? �i�„� �� Property owners are encoura�ed to contact their appraiser anytime to discuss their property assessment. An informal meeting can be scheduled to review the property, examine market data, answer questions, and clarify the valuation and classification practices used. This discus- sion can also be handled by telephone, mail, or e-mail during regular business hours Minnesota Tax Court - Contact Information Street & Mailin� Address: .r��1� �,,t Minnesota Tax Court "��`� ',"�; Minnesota Judicial Center, Suite 245 � '+ ''t��+"��""� �"► 25 Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King,Jr. Bl�d. -'�.;- �. , � �*. �r � ! � � � �,�'.� �� Phone: �t ,, r . :`� �. , .: � �.. .. � �: ~ � (651) 296-2806 (voice) ; (800) 627-3529 � �R` (TDD- Users ask for (651) 296-2806) 2010 Hssessment Report �'�24 Responses to typical questions from members of the Local Board of Appeal What is the purpose of the Local Board of Appeal? The Local Board of Appeal and Equalization is an important part of the appeals portion of the '" assessment c cle. The Board rovides ro ert owners with an o ortunit to review and challen e, if _ '�� '�� Y P P P Y PP Y g �: � � necessary, their estimate of market value andlor classification that will be used for the dispersal of the �' following years taxes. � � �" `'``. : R .��-�--� 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, 2010 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 propeny 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. ��ZS 2010 Assessment Report Are the changes made at the local level reviewed? Board.) For example if the property owner states that they believe that ' The Washington County Assessor reviews all value adjustments made their home is over valued because it is located on a busy street, they by the Local Boards of Appeal and the changes made by the appraisers should present comparable sales that are also influenced by the same prior to the County Board meeting. If the County Assessor finds a factor. The property owner should ha�e some information to support value adjustment that is not in the best interest of all property owners their claim of being over valued in order to assist the Local Board in our county, additional information may be requested to support members in making their decision. With the large number of the change. If adequate information does not support the valuation homeowners who have refinanced in the past couple of years, there are adjustment, or information is not provided, the County Assessor will Plenty of appraisals that can be produced as evidence. make a recommendation to the County Board to change the estimated market value back to an acceptable level in order to rectify the situa- �.:;� -;�;- �_��.-- tion. The property owner involved will be notified in advance of this J � ' �' � , �-_ recommendation. ` __ `�.---' '=' " '� �*---- _ _ . ._ -�, v;��'��^�---�--� What is the format for the Local Board of Appeal? � The statutory requirements are listed above and the format must accommodate those. The method in which the meeting is conducted In the case of appeals made by income producing(commercial/industrial is at the discretion of the local officials (it is again emphasized that it and apartment) property owners, it is recommended that the procedure is their meeting not that of the County or local assessor). The county �rrently in place at the county level and used in tax court appeals be staff or local assessor can provide you with background information followed. The commerciaUindustrial appraiser is to first conduct a regarding how previous meetings were conducted. physical inspection of the property. They also determine what information may be available and beneficial in establishing the On what basis should I make my decisions as a Local Board member? estimated value. That information is then requested from the property You have an obligation to objectively listen to the property owner's owner or their representative. This information typically consists of appeal which should focus on the market value and facts that impact the rent rolls, copies of leases currently in place, gross sales, 3 years of market value (there are occasionally appeals of classification which are income & expense data and appraisals. After gathering the applicable usually technical and legal in nature and should be sent to the County (Contint�ed on page�6� 2010 Hssessment Report ✓«�2� (Continued from page 25) information, staff can conduct a thorough analysis of the market value. Staff is instructed not to make 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 adjustment in value is warranted. 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 Loca1 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 14,2010); 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 per- ceived as a conflict of interest by the local property owners and the Department of Revenue, it is strongly suggested that these appeals be han- dled as follows: If a Board member(s) (or city/township staff inember(s) involved with the Board proceedings) chooses to appeal the valuation on their home, or any other property that they own, they should register their appeal by having their name read into the meeting minutes. At that point the Local Board should recommend no change in value and send the appeal to the County Board of Appeals for review. If a Local Board member(s) (or city/township staff inember(s) involved with the Board proceedings) chooses 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. ��2� 2010 Assessment Report � Responsibilities of the Connty Board of Appeal & Eqnalization (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 2010. 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 (T_,BAE) are required to make an official appearance (have their name read into the meeting minutes) at the LBAE prior to an appearance at the CSAE. This "appearance" can be made in person; by agent; or by letter. (Contimied on page 28) �«�.e 28 2010 Assessment Report 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 14,2010). Again, this "appearance" can be done in person; by agent; or by letter. 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 serve 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 Mayl4th if they intend to be present at the 2010 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 sha11 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.