HomeMy WebLinkAbout2022.04.04 CC Packet
A. CALL TO ORDER
B. ROLL CALL
C. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
D. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
1. March 21, 2022, City Council Meeting
E. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
F. APPOINTMENTS/PRESENTATIONS
1. Washington County Assessor’s Report – Assessor Dan Squyres
G. CONSENT AGENDA
All matters listed under the Consent Agenda are considered to be routine by the City Council and
will be enacted by one motion and a roll call vote. If a member of the City Council or the public
wishes to discuss an item, that item will be removed from the Consent Agenda and will be
considered separately.
1. Approve Claims Roster
2. Approve Donation to the Hugo Fire Department from the Hugo American Legion
3. Approve Lawful Gambling Exempt Permit for Hugo Yellow Ribbon Network Fundraiser
on May 7, 2022, at the Hugo American Legion
4. Approve Memorandum of Understanding with Washington County for CSAH8/Oneka
Parkway Traffic Signal
5. Approve Resolution Electing the Standard Allowance Available Under the Revenue Loss
Provision of the American Rescue Plan Act
6. Approve Request for Bids for Water Tower No. 2 Demolition Project
Agenda
HUGO CITY COUNCIL MEETING
HUGO CITY HALL
MONDAY, APRIL 4, 2022 – 7 P.M.
H. PUBLIC HEARING
1. None Scheduled
I. UNFINISHED BUSINESS
1. None Scheduled
J. NEW BUSINESS
1. None Scheduled
K. VISITOR PRESENTATIONS
1. None Scheduled
L. COUNCIL PRESENTATIONS
1. None Scheduled
M. ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS
1. Local Board of Appeals and Equalization on Thursday, April 7, 2022
2. Citywide Spring Cleanup Day on Saturday, April 16, 2022
3. Schedule Tour of New Public Works Facility April 18-22, 2022
M. ADJOURNMENT
BACKGROUND MEMO FOR THE CITY COUNCIL MEETING ON APRIL 4, 2022
D.1 March 21, 2022, City Council Meeting
Staff recommends Council approve the above minutes for the City Council Meeting held on
March 21, 2022, as presented.
F.1 Washington County Assessor’s Report – Assessor Dan Squyres
Washington County Assessor Dan Squyres is the residential assessor for the City of Hugo. Dan
will be in attendance to provide information on the County’s Assessor report as it pertains to
Hugo and answer questions by the Council in preparation for the Board of Appeals and
Adjustments meeting on April 7, 2022.
G.1 Approve Claims Roster
Staff recommends Council approve the Claims Roster as presented.
G.2 Approve Donation to the Hugo Fire Department from the Hugo American Legion
The Hugo American Legion is requesting to donate $1,000 to the Hugo Fire Department for
equipment. Donations to the Fire Department must be approved by the Council. Staff
recommends Council approve the donation of $1,000 from the Hugo American Legion to the Hugo
Fire Department.
G.3 Approve Lawful Gambling Exempt Permit for Hugo Yellow Ribbon Network
Fundraiser on May 7, 2022 at the Hugo American Legion
The Hugo Yellow Ribbon Network is requesting a Lawful Gambling Exempt Permit to hold a
raffle during a fundraiser to be held on May 7, 2022, at the Hugo American Legion. Permits need
to be approved by the Council before being approved by the MN Gambling Control Board. Staff
recommends Council approve the Lawful Gambling Exempt Permit for the Hugo Yellow Ribbon.
G.4 Approve Memorandum of Understanding with Washington County for CSAH8/Oneka
Parkway Traffic Signal
The 2022 Oneka Parkway Improvement Project was discussed at the March 21st City Council
meeting where a Public Hearing was held. At the conclusion of the public hearing, City Council
ordered the Improvement and authorized the preparation of plans and specifications. As part of
the project, staff had requested Washington County consider moving up the signal improvements
proposed for the intersection of CSAH 8 and Oneka Parkway from 2024 to 2022 so it could be
included and designed as a City led project. Washington County has agreed to this approach and
sees this as a mutually beneficial approach. The attached MOU outlines party responsibilities
and cost sharing consistent with County practices. Staff recommends approval of the
memorandum of understanding as written.
G.5 Approve Resolution Electing the Standard Allowance Available Under the Revenue
Loss Provision of the American Rescue Plan Act
At their June 21, 2021 City Council Meeting, Council approved a resolution authorizing
acceptance of Coronavirus Fiscal Recovery Funds that the City of Hugo was eligible to receive
under the American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA). To date, the City has received $834,205.96 and
expects to receive a second allotment for that same amount in 2022, bringing the expected total
received to $1,668,411.92. In May 2021, the United States Department of Treasury issued an
Interim Final Rule to serve as guidance for governments on eligible expenditures for the
Recovery Funds. Eligible uses included responding to the COVID-19 public health emergency
and the negative economic impacts of the pandemic, premium pay for essential workers,
necessary investments in water, sewer and broadband infrastructure, and replacement of revenue
lost due to the pandemic that would have been used to provide vital government services. For
cities to claim lost revenue, they had to complete a full revenue loss calculation under the
Treasury’s complex calculation method. On January 6, 2022, after taking feedback and
comments on the Interim Final Rule, the Department of Treasury released the Final Rule, which
provides governments broader flexibility and simplicity to maximize the impacts of their
Recovery Funds. Not only does the Final Rule include broadened eligibility for water, sewer and
broadband infrastructure investments and streamlined options to provide premium pay, it offers a
standard allowance option for cities to use when calculating revenue loss due to the
pandemic. The Department of Treasury is assuming that all cities experienced a revenue loss of
up to $10 million. This means that recipients who select the standard allowance may use that
amount – in many cases their full award – to fund general government services. General
government services include any service traditionally provided by a government. Common
examples include; road building, road maintenance, other infrastructure, general government
administration, staff and administrative facilities, and provision of police, fire and other public
safety services. Staff recommends that the City Council approve the resolution electing the
standard allowance available under the revenue loss provision of the Coronavirus Fiscal
Recovery Fund established under the American Rescue Plan Act, which allows the City of Hugo
to use the full amount of Recovery Funds received for the general provision of government
services and also allows for streamlined reporting requirements.
G.6 Approve Request for Bids for Water Tower No. 2 Demolition Project
Staff is requesting Authorization to prepare a bid package and request bids for the removal of
Water Tower No. 2. This will be the first bid package and will consist of removing the tower,
piping and miscellaneous items. This is specialty work with limited contractors doing this type
of work and therefore we are limiting the scope of the bid package to the type of work these
contractors perform. Remaining site work and bid packages will be coordinated with Park
Planner Denaway and Public Works Director Anderson which will involve an inclusive process
of determining what the goals and vision for the park are. Once clear direction is known, a
second bid package or work performed by public works staff will finalize the clean-
up/modifications of the site. Staff recommends City Council authorize staff to prepare the bid
package and request bids for the Water Tower No. 2 Demolition Project.
M.1 Local Board of Appeals and Equalization on Thursday, April 7, 2022
Council is scheduled to meet as the Local Board of Appeals and Equalization on Thursday, April
7, 2022, in the Oneka Room from 5:30 – 7:00 p.m.
M.2 Citywide Spring Cleanup Day on Saturday, April 16, 2022
The City will hold its annual Spring Cleanup Day on Saturday, April 16, 2022 from 8 a.m. –
noon at the Public Works Building.
M.3 Schedule Tour of New Public Works Facility April 18-22, 2022
The Public Works facility is nearing completion and staff hopes to be occupying it by the end of
April. An Open House will likely be held this summer. Staff recommends Council schedule a
date and time during the week of April 18-22, 2022, to tour the new Public Works facility
N. Adjournment
Call to Order
Mayor Weidt called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
COUNCIL PRESENT: Klein, Miron, Petryk, Strub, Weidt
COUNCIL ABSENT: None
OTHERS PRESENT: City Administrator Bryan Bear, City Engineer Mark Erichson,
Community Development Director Rachel Juba, Parks Planner Shayla Denaway, City Clerk
Michele Lindau
Minutes for the March 7, 2022, City Council Meeting
Petryk made motion, Klein seconded, to approve the minutes for the City Council meeting held
on March 7, 2022, as presented.
All Ayes. Motion carried.
Minutes for the March 14, 2022, Redistricting Workshop
Strub made motion, Klein seconded, to approve the minutes for the Redistricting Workshop
held on March 14, 2022, as presented.
All Ayes. Motion carried.
Approval of Agenda
Weidt made motion, Klein seconded, to approve the agenda as presented
All Ayes. Motion carried.
Hugo Area Business Association Easter Egg Hunt Special Event Permit – President Julie
Larson
The Hugo Area Business Association had requested a Special Event Permit to hold an Easter
Egg Hunt at Hanifl Fields on Saturday, April 9. HBA President Julie Larson explained they
were expecting approximately 1,200 kids and would hold the egg hunt in two waves. There
were four different levels of sponsorship for the event, and sponsors would purchase the eggs
and provide bags. There will also be food trucks, and she was hoping to have the fire trucks
there. She was asking the City to wave the $75 permit fee, and asked for help with traffic
control and porta potties.
Weidt made motion, Klein seconded, to waive the Special Event Permit fee and help provide
traffic control for the event.
All Ayes. Motion carried.
Minutes
HUGO CITY COUNCIL MEETING
HUGO CITY HALL
MONDAY, MARCH 21, 2022 – 7 P.M.
Hugo City Council Meeting Minutes for March 21, 2022
Page 2 of 8
Update on Yellow Ribbon Network-Chair Chuck Haas
Hugo Yellow Ribbon Network Chair Chuck Haas provided an update on recent activities of the
YRN. He showed a PowerPoint with pictures from the Rotary Polar Plunge, and he presented
Certificates of Appreciation to those that participated. Bri Seekon and Shelby Kramer were
there to accept them, and they presented a check to the YRN for $700 that was collected in
donations. Haas also had pictures of soldiers receiving care packages and pictures of the
Welcome Home Pheasant Hunt held the previous weekend at Wild Wings. The talked about
upcoming events that include Burger Night on March 22 sponsored by the Arcand Family and
Oneka Ridge Golf Course.
Approval of Consent Agenda
Miron made motion, Petryk seconded, to approve the following Consent Agenda:
1. Approve Claims Roster
2. Approve Matt Derr as Vice-Chair of the Planning Commission
3. Approve Agreement with Lakes Center for Youth and Families
4. Approve Agreement with Northeast Youth and Family Services
5. Approve Resolution Approving Wards, Precincts, and Polling Locations
6. Approve Ordinance Rezoning 15500 Keystone Avenue North – Haas
7. Approve Application for Metropolitan Council Water Efficiency Grant
8. Approve Extension of Purchase Agreement for City Owned Property
9. Approve Ross Hoernemann as Safety Captain on the Hugo Fire Department
10. Approve Jason Palmquist as Training Captain on the Hugo Fire Department
11. Approve Resolution Approving Encroachment Agreement for 6593 145th Circle North
12. Approve Resolution Approving Encroachment Agreement for 12560 Foxhill Avenue North
All Ayes. Motion carried.
Approve Claims Roster
Adoption of the Consent Agenda approved the Claims Roster as presented.
Approve Matt Derr as Vice-Chair of the Planning Commission
Former Planning Commission Vice-Chair Scott Arcand retired at the end of his term on
December 31, 2021, after serving over 12 years on the Commission. Matt Derr had submitted a
letter of interest to be the next Vice-Chair. At its March 10, 2022, meeting, the Planning
Commission nominated Matt to fill the position. Adoption of the Consent Agenda approved the
appointment of Matt Derr as the new Vice-Chair of the Planning Commission.
Approve Agreement with Lakes Center for Youth and Families
Over the past several years, the City had entered into an agreement with the Lakes Center for
Youth and Families to support programs for Hugo families related to counseling, intervention,
and enrichment. Through this agreement, the City sponsored LCYF by providing financial
support. In the 2022 budget, Council approved $15,000 in funding for their services. Adoption
Hugo City Council Meeting Minutes for March 21, 2022
Page 3 of 8
of the Consent Agenda approved the agreement with Lakes Center for Youth and Families.
Approve Agreement with Northeast Youth and Family Services
Over the past several years, the City had entered into an agreement with Northeast Youth and
Family Services to support programs for Hugo families related to counseling, intervention, and
enrichment. Through this agreement, the City sponsored NYFS by providing financial support.
In the 2022 budget, Council approved $15,000 in funding for their services. Adoption of the
Consent Agenda approved the agreement with Northeast Youth and Family Services.
Approve Resolution Approving Wards, Precincts, and Polling Locations
Every ten years upon completion of the United States census, cities were required to use the
census data to confirm or reestablish ward boundaries to ensure equal representation. At the
Council redistricting workshop on March 14, 2022, Council reviewed the data which showed all
three wards increased nearly the same in population. Staff recommended Council keep the same
ward boundaries and reestablish precinct boundaries and polling locations to make voting more
manageable. Adoption of the Consent Agenda approved RESOLUTION 2022-14
RESOLUTION APPROVING REDISTRICTING PLAN CONFIRMING EXISTING
MUNICIPAL WARD BOUNDARIES AND CREATING NEW PRECINCT BOUNDARIES
AND POLLING LOCATIONS.
Approve Ordinance Rezoning 15500 Keystone Avenue North – Haas
Charles and Marykay Haas had submitted a zoning amendment request to rezone from the
Agricultural Zoning District to the Long-Term Agricultural Zoning District for their property
located at 15500 Keystone Avenue North. At its March 10, 2022, regularly scheduled meeting,
the Hugo Planning Commission considered the zoning amendment request and held a public
hearing. No one came forward to speak. The Planning Commission agreed the request met the
criteria necessary to approve the application and recommended approval of the zoning
amendment to the City Council. Adoption of the Consent Agenda approved ORDINANCE
2022 – 512 AMENDING CHAPTER 90 (ZONING ORDINANCE) OF THE CITY CODE TO
CLASSIFY CERTAIN LANDS LOCATED 15500 KEYSTONE AVENUE NORTH.
Approve Application for Met Council Water Efficiency Grant Application
The Metropolitan Council will implement a water efficiency grant program effective July 1,
2022 to June 30, 2024. Grants would be awarded on a competitive basis to municipalities that
manage municipal water systems. The Met Council would provide 80% of the program cost
while the municipality would be responsible for the remaining 20%. Staff proposed to apply for
$50,000, which would require the City to contribute $12,500. Should funds be awarded, staff
would propose to use the grant money to implement a rebate program that would update the
irrigation systems in up to eight City parks and the Hugo Fire Hall. The proposed irrigation
system updates were expected to reduce water usage by 62% due to the increased efficiency of
the devices. Adoption of the Consent Agenda approved staff’s request to submit an application
to the Metropolitan Council Water Efficiency Grant Program with the understanding that the
City of Hugo would be responsible for a local match of $12,500.
Hugo City Council Meeting Minutes for March 21, 2022
Page 4 of 8
Approve Extension of Purchase Agreement for City Owned Property
Denny Trooien of Dennis Properties had the purchase agreement on the City owned property in
downtown. Mr. Trooien had provided an update to the EDA on the proposed project at their
meeting on March 15, 2022. Mr. Trooien had also requested the EDA consider a purchase
agreement amendment to extend the closing dates and construction completion dates. The
existing closing date for the first phase was May 20, 2022. He requested the first phase closing
date be September 20, 2022, with the availability to extend with written notice to January 31,
2023. He also requested a one-year extension on the closing date for the second phase. He
requested the completion of the first phase construction to be extended from December 31,
2022, to December 31, 2023. Mr. Trooien stated that he had been working on marketing and
had submitted development applications to the City for approval of the project, but it took
longer than expected to work through environmental regulations. The EDA had discussed next
steps with Mr. Trooien. He stated he wanted to continue to work with staff on refining the plans
and get scheduled for a Planning Commission meeting date. The EDA unanimously
recommended approval of the purchase agreement to the City Council. Adoption of the Consent
Agenda approved the extension of the purchase agreement for the City owned property
Approve Ross Hoernemann as Safety Captain on the Hugo Fire Department
Ross Hoernemann currently served as the Training Captain and the Administrative Captain on
the Fire Department. Fire Chief Jim Compton had recommended appointment of Ross as the
Safety Captain while he continued to hold a second position as the Administrative Captain.
Adoption of the Consent Agenda approved the appointment of Ross Hoernemann as the Safety
Captain effective April 1, 2022.
Approve Jason Palmquist as Training Captain on the Hugo Fire Department
With the appointment of Ross Hoernemann from Training Captain to Safety Captain, there was
a vacancy in the Training Captain position. Fire Chief Jim Compton had recommended
appointment of Jason Palmquist to fill this vacancy. Adoption of the Consent Agenda approved
the appointment of Jason Palmquist as Training Captain effective April 1, 2022.
Approve Resolution Approving Encroachment Agreement for 6593 145th Circle North
Brad and Mary Dinndorf had requested an encroachment agreement to allow construction of a
fence within a drainage and utility easement on property located at 6593 145th Circle North.
Staff had reviewed the request and recommended City Council approve the encroachment
agreement. Adoption of the Consent Agenda approved 2022-15 APPROVING AN
ENCROACHMENT AGREEMENT FOR BRAD AND MARY DINNDORF TO ALLOW
CONSTRUCTION OF A FENCE WITHIN A DRAINAGE AND UTILITY EASEMENT ON
THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 6593 145TH CIRCLE NORTH.
Approve Resolution Approving Encroachment Agreement for 12560 Foxhill Avenue
North
Terrance Reetz had requested an encroachment agreement to allow construction of a fence
within a drainage and utility easement on property located at 6593 145th Circle North. Staff had
reviewed the request and recommended Council approve the encroachment agreement.
Hugo City Council Meeting Minutes for March 21, 2022
Page 5 of 8
Adoption of the Consent Agenda approved RESOLUTION 2022-16 APPROVING AN
ENCROACHMENT AGREEMENT FOR TERRANCE REETZ TO ALLOW
CONSTRUCTION OF A FENCE WITHIN A DRAINAGE AND UTILITY EASEMENT ON
THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 12560 FOXHILL AVENUE NORTH.
Public Hearing on Oneka Parkway Improvement Project
On September 7, 2021, the City Council authorized the preparation of a feasibility study for the
2022 Oneka Parkway Improvement Project. Staff had held a neighborhood meeting on
February 16, 2022. The City Council accepted the competed study at their February 22, 2022,
meeting and called for a public hearing to be held on March 21, 2022.
City Engineer Mark Erichson presented a PowerPoint that detailed the proposed improvements
and findings of the feasibility study. The project would consist of bituminous mill and overlay
from Frenchman Road (CSAH 8) to Farnham Avenue, partial street reconstruction from
Farnham Avenue to Heritage Parkway, construction of a right-turn-lane northbound on Oneka
Parkway at CSAH 8, and construction of a traffic signal at the intersection of Oneka Parkway
and CSAH 8. Funding for the project would be provided through assessments to benefiting
properties, County funds, and City MSA/Street Funds. He explained the assessment process as
it followed MN State Statute, Chapter 429. An assessment hearing would be held in October.
Assessments can be prepaid without interest being accrued if paid within 30 days of the
assessment hearing. Assessments were typically spread out over ten years, but this project may
be assessed over five years.
The total project cost would be $2,600,000. He explained that, according to the assessment
policy, a partial reconstruction would be $4,100 per unit, which converts to $76.88 per front
foot, and an urban roadway overlay would be $1,800 per unit, which converts to $39.38 per
front foot. The total footage of all association parcels along Oneka Parkway was 6,035, which
did not include the clubhouse frontage of 405 feet. Based on the frontage along the home
owners association properties on Oneka Parkway, assessments were calculated uniformly
among the townhome properties. Areas outside the home owner association frontages were not
used to calculate the assessment amount, such as turn lanes and areas where there were ponds.
There would be future road assessments to the same group of properties when improvements
were made to Farnham, 149th Street, and Heritage Parkway. Those projects were not currently
in the five-year plan. With the future assessment combined, it would still be less than a typical
per parcel assessment. Erichson provided a rough schedule saying if it was approved this
evening, they would prepare plans and have a neighborhood open house in April to review
them. Bids would be opened and a contract awarded in June. Construction would take place
over the summer and an assessment hearing would take place in October, 2022.
He reviewed some of the concerns by that were expressed during the neighborhood meeting.
There were questions on the assessments to the HOA for the clubhouse and the condition of the
trail along Freedom Avenue. Erichson explained there would be a one-time charge of
approximately $20 for all those who had access to the clubhouse, and the trail needed
improvement but it was not funded. Parks Planner Shayla Denaway would be looking into
options.
Mayor Weidt asked staff what would happen if the construction costs came in higher than
anticipated and if there was any discussion on traffic signal versus a roundabout. Erichson
Hugo City Council Meeting Minutes for March 21, 2022
Page 6 of 8
explained the City’s cost would increase but assessments would not since the assessment policy
is uniform from project to project. When the intersection was constructed, it had been planned
for a future signal, which would be less expensive than a roundabout. It was also pointed out
that assessments only cover approximately 14% of the total costs of the road projects.
Mayor Weidt opened public hearing.
Rick Bieniek, 5161 Farnham Drive North, said he was on the board for the manor group and on
the master board, and he gets a lot of questions from neighbors. Concerns he heard were about
the truck and construction traffic breaking down the roadway, and he asked what assurances do
they have the road would be built properly and won’t prematurely degrade. He questioned why
the roadway was failing since it was not that old. Rick talked about the water reuse project
stalling in the construction phase and asked that the road project remain on task. He said he
appreciated the traffic signal going in at Frenchman and Oneka Parkway.
George Finn, 5169 Farnham Dr. N, stated that from 2018-2020, his total Washington County
property tax went up 47% and the total taxes for Hugo went up 43% in two years. He said a
concern was he was also paying for the 86% through taxes. He wanted Council to know that
those who live in the area have already been hit really hard.
Mayor Weidt talked about how home values change the taxes. The City is on a flat tax rate, and
he was not sure if the value of George’s home had increased. He provided George information
on the Board of Appeal and Equalization to be held on April 7, 2022, where he could appeal his
value.
George stated he understood that but wanted to make clear that this was a major increase. He
said the increase in the value of the property is of no significance to him, but the cost of living
there is.
Paul Hughes, 15411 Farnham Avenue, said he had moved in last July when the 147th Street
project began and kept getting postponed. He asked about a project deadline.
Nate Koenig, 15396 Farnham Avenue, asked how homes were selected. He questioned if his
home was going to be valued at a higher rate and why the 14% wasn’t budgeted as maintenance.
He referenced State Statute 429 that talked about the benefit of an assessment needing to be
greater than the cost of the assessment.
Johnny Johnson, 5157 Farnham Drive, had questions on detour routes.
Ellen Johnson, 15443 Freedom Drive N, asked if she would be assessed again when Farnham
was improved.
Erichson addressed the question on quality control saying the project would need to meet
MnDOT State Aid design standards. Senior Engineering Technician Liz Finnegan would be on
site during construction and would be responsible to make sure they met specifications. There
were also material testing requirements. Staff would be provided with a construction schedule,
and he explained the 147th street project was not delayed; the signage was not properly placed.
Erichson addressed the questions on how homes were assessed and State Statute 429. He
Hugo City Council Meeting Minutes for March 21, 2022
Page 7 of 8
explained the properties being assessed were based on the frontage of any streets in the HOA.
There would be additional assessments for the same group of properties when other roads were
improved. He said he had worked closely with the City attorney to ensure the City was in
compliance with State Statute 429. An appraiser had done a benefit appraisal, and the value
increases far exceed what the assessed amounts would be.
Erichson addressed the question on why the City did not budget for the entire project and the
issue on the road deterioration. He said the City had never not assessed for improvements, and it
was not uncommon to see a mill and overlay project done within a 15-20 year period. He
acknowledged there were issues with the concrete curb and gutter, and that could have created
some of the pavement issues, but it was hard to narrow down the deficiencies.
Koenig asked why the single-family villas and patio homes were not being assessed. Erichson
responded they would be assessed at the time those roadways were improved.
Erichson addressed the question on detours saying they had not received authorization for plans
and specifications. If the Council authorizes the project to move forward, a number of different
options would be considered and shared in another neighborhood meeting.
Erichson addressed the issue of improvements to private drives saying they were the HOA’s
responsibility, and there would be no assessments.
Bieniek further explained there were private roadways that abut some of those roads.
Improvements to those roads would be paid for with collected dues. He also reiterated that
those in the project area would be assessed twice, now and when Farnham was improved. He
talked about the concerns neighbors had with MnDOT overseeing the project since the last
project was failing. He questioned why the contractor or City was not being held responsible.
Erichson responded that he had no knowledge as to what happened with that roadway project.
The road was constructed by the developer and was not a City-led project. He said unfortunately
there was a one-year warranty. MnDOT was not involved, and it was not a state aid route at that
time.
Weidt explained that streets are a part of an entire system used by the entire City, including
construction traffic. The majority of the cost for improvements is paid by all residents and state
money and grants.
Ellen Johnson talked about the large construction vehicles she sees every day and how it was
unfair they do not pay for the roads.
There were no other comments, and Mayor Weidt closed the public hearing.
Council talked about the deferral and when a resident could request that. Erichson responded it
could be done at the assessment hearing that will be held the first meeting in October, 2022.
Hugo City Council Meeting Minutes for March 21, 2022
Page 8 of 8
Klein made motion, Petryk seconded, to approve RESOLUTION 2022-17A RESOLUTION
ORDERING THE PROJECT AND AUTHORIZING THE PREPARATION OF PLANS AND
SPECIFICATIONS FOR THE 2022 ONEKA PARKWAY IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT.
Ayes: Klein, Miron, Petryk, Strub, Weidt
Motion carried.
Discussion and Approval of Letter of Support for Hardwood Creek Trail Extension
Washington County Senior Planner Connor Shafer addressed the Council on the Hardwood
Creek Trail Extension. Washington County had studied the feasibility of constructing the final
extension of the Hardwood Creek Regional Trail from Fenway Boulevard North and 130th
Street North to 120th Street North (Ramsey County Rd J). He explained how regional trails
were defined by Metropolitan Council and how the trails are designed saying the southern
extension forces them to be creative. A lot of the trail lies within the railroad right-of-way.
Work continues on Segment 1 from 130th Street to 125th Street, and Segment 2 from 125th Street
to 120th Street along Falcon Avenue. Two concepts were identified for Falcon Avenue.
Concept A made no modification to Falcon Ave and reduced the width of the trail. Concept B
reduced the width of Falcon and maintained a 10-foot wide trail. Both met regional standards,
and the decision was made to move forward with Concept B. The total estimated cost for the
project was $1,767,425, with 80% of the project cost eligible through a grant. Shafer talked
about the Regional Solicitation Grant explaining that Federal funding for the multi-use trail
category was the most competitive. He felt it would be most successful to just apply for Section
1, which was estimated to cost $1,121,106. Funding would be available in five years. He
explained the next steps would be to finalize the study, submit the Regional Solicitation
Application, and coordinate with the City to develop additional funding strategies.
Parks Planner Shayla Denaway explained Washington County would be applying for
Metropolitan Council Regional Solicitation funding, and a letter of support had been drafted
indicating that the City of Hugo was supportive of construction and complete of the Hardwood
Creek Regional Trail. The Parks Commission had been presented with this at their last meeting
and was very supportive. Staff recommend Council approve the draft letter of support for the
grant application.
Strub made motion, Miron seconded, to sign the letter of support for the Regional
Transportation Grant Application.
Adjournment
Miron made motion, Klein seconded, to adjourn at 9:29 p.m.
All Ayes. Motion carried.
Respectfully Submitted,
Michele Lindau, City Clerk
ASSESSMENT
REPORT
2022
This report includes specific information regarding the 2022 assessment, as
well as general information about both the appeals and assessment processes.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Introduction ............................................................................................................................................ 3
Sales Analysis Section .......................................................................................................................... 4
Sales Analysis ..................................................................................................................................... 4
Sales Statistics Defined.................................................................................................................... 4
Arm’s-Length Transactions ........................................................................................................... 6
Residential Lender-Mediated Sales ............................................................................................ 8
County Sales Statistics by Classification ay2018-ay2022 ................................................. 10
Residential Sales Statistics........................................................................................................... 11
Historic Average Sale Prices: Single Family & Townhome/Condo ............................... 12
Past & Current Year Adjustments/Parcel Count Section ...................................................... 13
Agricultural Class Summary: Current Year Adjustments ................................................. 13
Agricultural Class: Past & Current Year Adjustments ................................................... 14
Agricultural Class: Parcel Counts.......................................................................................... 15
Apartment Class Summary: Current Year Adjustments ................................................... 16
Apartment Class: Past & Current Year Adjustments ...................................................... 17
Apartment Class: Parcel Counts ............................................................................................ 18
Commercial/Industrial Class Summary: Current Year Adjustments ........................... 19
Commercial/Industrial Class: Past & Current Year Adjustments ............................. 20
Commercial/Industrial Class: Parcel Counts.................................................................... 21
Residential/SRR Class Summary: Current Year Adjustments ........................................ 22
Residential/SRR Class: Past & Current Year Adjustments........................................... 23
Residential/SRR Class: Parcel Counts ................................................................................. 24
Total Taxable Class Summary: Current Year Adjustments.............................................. 25
Total Taxable Class: Past & Current Year Adjustments ................................................ 26
Total Taxable Class: Parcel Counts ...................................................................................... 27
Residential/SRR Class: Current Year Value Changes ..................................................... 28
Market Value Section ......................................................................................................................... 29
Distribution of Market Value by Classification ..................................................................... 29
Median Values .................................................................................................................................. 30
Historical Median Residential Improved Value: Residential/SRR ........................... 30
Historical Median Residential Improved Value: Townhomes/Condos ................... 31
Historical Median Residential Improved Value: Single Family .................................. 32
Single Family and Townhome/Condo breakdown .......................................................... 33
Historical County Median Residential Improved Value ................................................ 33
Other Assessment Related Information ...................................................................................... 34
New Construction ............................................................................................................................ 34
Current New Construction Starts: All Classifications .................................................... 34
Past & Current New Construction Starts: Single Family and Townhome/Condo 35
Historical New Construction Summary: All Classifications ......................................... 36
Appraiser Activity: Permit & Quintile Review Counts ...................................................... 37
Appraiser Activity: Tax Petition Related ............................................................................... 38
Tax Petitions: Number of Petitions Filed for Payable Years 2017-2021 ................ 39
Tax Petitions: Value Under Petitions for Payable Years 2017-2021 ....................... 39
Assessment Process: Statutory Requirements .................................................................... 40
Explaining the Appeals Process ................................................................................................. 42
Assessment Calendar ..................................................................................................................... 44
Local Board & Open Book Meeting Schedule ......................................................................... 47
3 | Page
INTRODUCTION The Washington County Assessor Division has prepared this 2022 Assessment Report for use by the County Board, City Councils, Town Boards, residents, and staff. This report includes specific information regarding the 2022 assessment, as well as general information about both the appeals and assessment process. 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 2022 assessment are based upon actual real estate market trends of Washington County properties from October 1, 2020
through September 30, 2021. 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 “Past and Present Adjustments” section of this report. Property owners who have questions or concerns regarding the market value that has been established 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 “Other Assessment Related Information.” Bruce L. Munneke, S.A.M.A. Washington County Assessor
4 | Page
SALES ANALYSIS SECTION
Sales Analysis The assessment function is governed by Minnesota State statute. 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 assessment date of January 2nd of each year. Assessors are historians and measure the market based on sales which have occurred previous to the assessment date. Assessors do not create the value or predict what the market will do; rather, the assessor’s job is to follow the patterns set by the real estate market. Information on the sales of real estate is of paramount importance to the assessors in a market-based property tax system. Sales information is required to be submitted electronically using the program developed by the Minnesota Department of Revenue. This program is known as the Electronic Certificate of Real Estate Value (eCRV). The Department of Revenue requires all County Assessors to utilize a specified time period for sales analysis. This time period of 12 months is from October 1st through September 30th preceding the assessment date. Sales within this time period will be used to determine the changes in assessed value that may be needed in each community for the impending assessment. For example, the sales that occurred between October 1, 2020 and September 30, 2021 are used to establish the January 2, 2022 assessed values. The assessor’s office is charged with setting estimated market values for tax purposes at actual market value. The relationship between sales prices to estimated market value is called the sales ratio. The target median ratio range is set by the assessor’s office for all Washington County communities (for all classes of property); the range established for the 2022 assessment is 93%-95%. We make every effort to make certain that each municipality in Washington County falls within this range. In this way, we ensure an equitable distribution of the property tax burden for all Washington County taxpayers.
Sales Statistics Defined In addition to the median ratio, we have the ability to measure other statistics to test the accuracy of the assessment. Some of these are also used at the state level. 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 measure our assessment level, but also to analyze property values by municipality, type of dwelling and value range. These
5 | Page
studies enable us to track market trends in neighborhoods, popular housing types and classes of property. Within the county, we strive to achieve a ratio within the 93%-95% range for the median and mean. This allows us a margin to account for a fluctuating market and still maintain ratios within state mandated guidelines. 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 measure our assessment level, but also to analyze property values by municipality, type of dwelling and value range. These studies enable us to track market trends in neighborhoods, popular housing types and classes of property. Coefficient of Dispersion (COD) The COD is used to measure the accuracy of the assessment. The COD indicates the spread of the ratios from the mean or median ratio. 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 result in an assessment review by the Department of Revenue. Price-Related Differential (PRD) The PRD is used to measure value related inequities in the assessment, referred to as regressively or progressivity. Appraised values are regressive if high value properties are under appraised relative to low value properties and progressive if high value properties are over appraised relative to the low value properties. The PRD is found by taking the mean (average) ratio of the sample and dividing by the weighted (aggregate) mean ratio. The acceptable range is .98 to 1.03.
6 | Page
Arm’s-Length Transactions The Department of Revenue requires all County Assessors to utilize a specified time period in their sales analysis. This time period is 12 months from October 1st through September 30th, preceding the assessment date. Sales within this time period will be used to determine the changes in the prior years assessed value in each community for the impending assessment. The sales that occur within this October 1st through September 30th time period, each year, are closely scrutinized by the appraisers within the Assessor Division. Evidence suggesting a forced sale, foreclosure, a sale to a relative, or anything other than an arm’s-length transaction requires the sales to be disqualified from the sales study. This is important, because the real estate sales information constitutes the statistical basis for determining the annual adjustments that are made to the valuation models. An arm’s-length transaction is any transaction in which buyers and sellers of a product act independently and have no relationship to each other. The concept of an arm's-length transaction is to ensure that both parties in the deal are acting in their own self-interest and are not subject to any pressure or duress from the other party. The following graphs and charts show the number of arm’s-length transactions that occurred within each sales period.
Sales Period 10/1/16-9/30/17 10/1/17-9/30/18 10/1/18-9/30/19 10/1/19-9/30/20 10/1/20-9/30/21
ay2018 ay2019 ay2020 ay2021 ay2022
Apartment 8 13 12 10 10
Commercial 39 37 51 49 61
Residential 3,963 3,907 4,103 4,004 4,341
Single Family 2,603 2,648 2,873 2,719 2,996
Townhome/Condo 1,360 1,259 1,230 1,285 1,345
TOTAL 4,010 3,957 4,166 4,063 4,412
7 | Page
Residential/SRR (Seasonal Rec) sales count ay2018-ay2022
Sales Period 10/1/16-9/30/17 10/1/17-9/30/18 10/1/18-9/30/19 10/1/19-9/30/20 10/1/20-9/30/21 Difference from
Previous Year
ay2018 ay2019 ay2020 ay2021 ay2022
Afton 31 35 39 36 34 -2
Bayport 36 29 42 31 50 19
Baytown 25 26 23 23 20 -3
Birchwood 11 9 20 12 12 0
Cottage Grove 550 513 577 527 585 58
Dellwood 15 15 12 12 18 6
Denmark 19 12 8 15 10 -5
Forest Lake 313 254 268 267 290 23
Grant 46 43 50 45 51 6
Grey Cloud 3 2 5 4 3 -1
Hastings 0 0 0 0 0 0
Hugo 369 348 337 323 316 -7
Lake Elmo 114 105 162 166 172 6
Lake St. Croix 18 12 13 17 12 -5
Lakeland 24 25 19 22 25 3
Lakeland Shores 1 2 6 1 3 2
Landfall 0 0 0 0 0 0
Mahtomedi 104 107 116 113 117 4
Marine 12 14 17 15 14 -1
May 26 40 30 36 30 -6
Newport 34 37 46 43 48 5
Oak Park Hgts 59 65 53 69 55 -14
Oakdale 438 452 439 391 404 13
Pine Springs 4 6 4 5 4 -1
St. Mary's Point 5 2 2 6 5 -1
St. Paul Park 51 84 72 62 84 22
Scandia 38 43 45 52 69 17
Stillwater 306 320 343 344 363 19
Stillwater Twp 18 16 17 14 22 8
West Lakeland 44 32 38 41 44 3
White Bear Lake 2 4 1 2 4 2
Willernie 7 8 6 13 12 -1
Woodbury 1,240 1,247 1,293 1,297 1,465 168
COUNTY 3,963 3,907 4,103 4,004 4,341 337
8 | Page
Residential Lender-Mediated Sales Foreclosures Properties in which the financial institution has repossessed the home from the owner due to non-payment of mortgage obligations. Short Sales Unique arrangements where the financial institution and in-default home owner work together in an attempt to sell the home before it is foreclosed upon. In both situations, lenders are highly motivated “sellers”, which can result in discounted asking prices as they attempt to move the assets quickly from the balance sheets. Lender mediated sales are not used in the sales study.
3,963 3,907 4,103 4,004
4,341
236 179 91 54 22
0
500
1,000
1,500
2,000
2,500
3,000
3,500
4,000
4,500
5,000
ay2018 ay2019 ay2020 ay2021 ay2022
Comparison of Arm's-Length & Lender-Mediated Sales
ay18 -ay22
Arm's-Length Sales Lender-Mediated Sales
9 | Page
Residential Lender Mediated sales count ay2018-ay2022
Sales Period 10/1/16-9/30/17 10/1/17-9/30/18 10/1/18-9/30/19 10/1/19-9/30/20 10/1/20-9/30/21
ay2018 ay2019 ay2020 ay2021 ay2022
Afton 1 2 3 0 0
Bayport 3 1 1 2 1
Baytown 0 1 0 0 0
Birchwood 1 2 0 0 0
Cottage Grove 37 23 18 9 2
Dellwood 1 2 0 0 0
Denmark 1 1 0 0 0
Forest Lake 29 24 8 5 1
Grant 0 0 3 3 2
Grey Cloud 1 1 2 0 0
Hastings 0 0 0 0 0
Hugo 14 12 4 2 2
Lake Elmo 6 3 2 2 0
Lake St. Croix 1 1 1 0 1
Lakeland 2 3 1 0 0
Lakeland Shores 0 0 0 0 0
Landfall 0 0 0 0 0
Mahtomedi 6 9 3 2 0
Marine 0 0 0 0 0
May 1 1 1 1 0
Newport 7 3 4 2 0
Oak Park Hgts 1 5 0 0 0
Oakdale 41 22 9 8 6
Pine Springs 0 0 0 0 0
St. Mary's Point 0 2 0 0 0
St. Paul Park 15 8 8 3 2
Scandia 1 2 1 0 1
Stillwater 16 11 7 2 0
Stillwater Twp 0 3 0 1 1
West Lakeland 3 0 0 0 0
White Bear Lake 0 1 0 0 0
Willernie 0 2 0 0 0
Woodbury 48 34 15 12 3
COUNTY 236 179 91 54 22
10 | Page
County Sales Statistics by Classification ay2018-ay2022 The statistics listed for each use (classification) below are measured after the annual adjustments are applied to each classification of each property. Apartment Sales Statistics (After Annual Adjustments)
Commercial/Industrial Sales Statistics (After Annual Adjustments)
Residential Sales Statistics (After Annual Adjustments)
Sales Period 10/1/16-9/30/17 10/1/17-9/30/18 10/1/18-9/30/19 10/1/19-9/30/20 10/1/20-9/30/21
ay2018 ay2019 ay2020 ay2021 ay2022
Number of Sales 8 13 12 10 10
Median 99.1%95.7%94.3%94.9%94.5%
Mean 98.9%94.6%96.3%103.0%92.0%
COD 4.6 5.3 6.1 5.7 2.6
Sales Period 10/1/16-9/30/17 10/1/17-9/30/18 10/1/18-9/30/19 10/1/19-9/30/20 10/1/20-9/30/21
ay2018 ay2019 ay2020 ay2021 ay2022
Number of Sales 39 37 51 49 61
Median 95.3%96.8%95.7%95.5%99.5%
Mean 96.5%98.5%99.4%93.8%101.9%
COD 12.0 21.8 10.0 8.3 7.4
Sales Period 10/1/16-9/30/17 10/1/17-9/30/18 10/1/18-9/30/19 10/1/19-9/30/20 10/1/20-9/30/21
ay2018 ay2019 ay2020 ay2021 ay2022
Number of Sales 3,963 3,907 4,103 4,004 4,341
Median 94.9%95.6%95.2%93.6%93.8%
Mean 94.3%96.0%95.7%94.1%94.2%
COD 6.6 6.5 6.1 5.8 8.0
11 | Page
Residential Sales Statistics The sales statistics (Number of Sales, Low Sale Price, and High Sale Price) are based on data collected from sales that occurred between October 1, 2020 and September 30, 2021. The remaining statistics are measured after the percent of change factor (local effort) is applied to the going-in ratio (previous year assessed value/sale price) in each community for the 2022 assessment. If there are 30 sales or less in a community, the median is the only statistic deemed reliable.
# of Sales Median COD PRD
Low Sale (no
trend applied)
High Sale (no
trend applied)
Afton 34 93.8%10.13 1.021 262,000$ 2,525,000$
Bayport 50 93.6%9.80 1.017 160,000$ 599,900$
Baytown 20 94.3%..370,000$ 1,563,500$
Birchwood 12 94.0%..230,000$ 1,800,000$
Cottage Grove 585 93.7%8.05 1.015 70,000$ 1,800,000$
Dellwood 18 93.6%..462,000$ 2,675,000$
Denmark 10 93.2%..385,000$ 965,000$
Forest Lake 290 93.7%7.67 1.011 117,000$ 2,050,000$
Grant 51 93.4%10.31 1.012 335,000$ 2,100,000$
Grey Cloud 3 80.8%..540,000$ 606,000$
Hastings 0 0.0%-$ -$
Hugo 316 93.9%4.94 1.004 154,628$ 899,000$
Lake Elmo 172 93.9%7.70 1.015 233,000$ 1,850,000$
Lake St. Croix 12 93.6%..199,820$ 1,200,000$
Lakeland 25 93.6%..225,000$ 3,500,000$
Lakeland Shores 3 84.2%..354,050$ 2,300,000$
Landfall 0 0.0%-$ -$
Mahtomedi 117 93.8%9.17 1.038 189,900$ 3,500,000$
Marine 14 93.6%..235,000$ 1,108,350$
May 30 93.5%12.59 1.018 292,400$ 2,010,000$
Newport 48 93.8%9.34 1.004 110,000$ 760,000$
Oak Park Hgts 55 93.7%8.51 1.002 96,000$ 550,000$
Oakdale 404 93.8%6.34 1.007 87,000$ 577,500$
Pine Springs 4 83.1%..570,000$ 707,000$
St. Mary's Point 5 79.9%..289,900$ 950,000$
St. Paul Park 84 93.7%6.95 1.006 140,000$ 380,000$
Scandia 69 93.4%12.35 1.025 195,000$ 1,400,000$
Stillwater 363 93.8%8.60 1.012 158,500$ 1,300,000$
Stillwater Twp 22 93.6%..300,000$ 3,291,000$
West Lakeland 44 93.6%9.57 1.008 315,000$ 2,287,500$
White Bear Lake 4 91.9%..363,000$ 415,000$
Willernie 12 93.3%..163,000$ 499,900$
Woodbury 1,465 93.7%6.08 1.006 102,000$ 1,500,000$
COUNTY 4,341 93.8%7.50 1.015 66,500$ 3,500,000$
12 | Page
Historic Average Sale Prices: Single Family & Townhome/Condo
ay2018 ay2019 ay2020 ay2021 ay2022
Afton 485,300$ 555,200$ 576,600$ 604,345$ 722,300$
Bayport 312,900$ 423,100$ 355,800$ 350,999$ 361,000$
Baytown 615,100$ 603,200$ 657,000$ 687,415$ 754,000$
Birchwood 483,900$ 393,700$ 566,800$ 384,548$ 494,800$
Cottage Grove 252,800$ 266,400$ 282,100$ 303,060$ 344,300$
Dellwood 574,500$ 740,400$ 1,215,100$ 969,333$ 1,100,000$
Denmark 505,700$ 525,300$ 466,100$ 875,786$ 697,300$
Forest Lake 267,700$ 265,400$ 312,200$ 294,563$ 375,900$
Grant 498,500$ 619,500$ 634,900$ 673,901$ 672,700$
Grey Cloud 240,700$ 298,500$ 370,800$ 561,717$ 564,700$
Hastings -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
Hugo 249,600$ 254,300$ 277,300$ 300,311$ 449,900$
Lake Elmo 470,900$ 519,300$ 480,600$ 537,760$ 619,000$
Lake St. Croix 214,200$ 215,800$ 248,500$ 266,870$ 354,800$
Lakeland 288,400$ 444,600$ 334,900$ 414,202$ 571,200$
Lakeland Shores 313,000$ 650,000$ 356,400$ 1,625,000$ 1,004,700$
Landfall -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
Mahtomedi 385,400$ 407,900$ 421,400$ 409,456$ 527,900$
Marine 316,900$ 511,400$ 366,000$ 422,754$ 572,400$
May 544,400$ 474,500$ 587,800$ 597,749$ 691,800$
Newport 211,000$ 234,300$ 257,500$ 294,723$ 304,500$
Oak Park Hgts 230,400$ 229,800$ 244,500$ 247,558$ 284,700$
Oakdale 215,800$ 231,500$ 240,200$ 260,361$ 288,000$
Pine Springs 434,900$ 426,200$ 434,100$ 408,850$ 663,700$
St. Mary's Point 390,600$ 601,000$ 954,900$ 968,883$ 544,000$
St. Paul Park 195,100$ 210,700$ 230,400$ 234,443$ 267,000$
Scandia 354,600$ 387,200$ 376,200$ 448,700$ 499,100$
Stillwater 308,100$ 340,400$ 343,900$ 352,427$ 413,300$
Stillwater Twp 488,600$ 666,500$ 542,500$ 570,652$ 802,900$
West Lakeland 512,900$ 523,100$ 547,700$ 585,678$ 695,200$
White Bear Lake 243,000$ 270,100$ 279,000$ 263,268$ 390,600$
Willernie 223,800$ 236,400$ 210,000$ 273,820$ 277,800$
Woodbury 306,700$ 317,200$ 346,500$ 357,373$ 411,600$
COUNTY AVERAGE 297,000$ 314,500$ 337,000$ 355,283$ 410,300$
13 | Page
PAST & CURRENT YEAR ADJUSTMENTS/PARCEL COUNT SECTION
Agricultural Class Summary: Current Year Adjustments
ay2022 Number of ay2022 ay2021 ay2022
New Construction Parcels Agricultural Value Agricultural Value % Growth
Afton 2,091,600$ 173 141,069,300$ 114,253,300$ 21.6%
Bayport -$ 0 -$ -$ 0.0%
Baytown -$ 46 27,196,600$ 23,579,900$ 15.3%
Birchwood -$ 0 -$ -$ 0.0%
Cottage Grove 21,400$ 160 141,379,400$ 119,173,600$ 18.6%
Dellwood -$ 5 4,758,200$ 3,409,600$ 39.6%
Denmark 872,500$ 333 181,055,900$ 141,967,800$ 26.9%
Forest Lake 141,100$ 153 74,285,000$ 58,547,600$ 26.6%
Grant 180,000$ 144 109,729,300$ 84,867,100$ 29.1%
Grey Cloud -$ 10 5,053,100$ 4,012,400$ 25.9%
Hastings -$ 1 28,500$ 23,800$ 0.0%
Hugo 216,300$ 264 145,483,100$ 118,514,200$ 22.6%
Lake Elmo 143,000$ 118 104,047,600$ 81,085,800$ 28.1%
Lake St. Croix -$ 0 -$ -$ 0.0%
Lakeland -$ 4 1,731,000$ 1,503,100$ 15.2%
Lakeland Shores -$ 0 -$ -$ 0.0%
Landfall -$ 0 -$ -$ 0.0%
Mahtomedi -$ 2 387,100$ 309,700$ 25.0%
Marine -$ 9 5,863,100$ 4,294,800$ 36.5%
May 1,096,500$ 312 193,157,200$ 148,848,200$ 29.0%
Newport -$ 3 7,023,800$ 5,807,400$ 20.9%
Oak Park Hgts -$ 0 -$ -$ 0.0%
Oakdale 2,900$ 4 8,106,600$ 7,026,800$ 15.3%
Pine Springs -$ 0 -$ -$ 0.0%
St. Mary's Point -$ 0 -$ -$ 0.0%
St. Paul Park 38,400$ 58 4,083,200$ 3,200,900$ 26.4%
Scandia 353,600$ 323 137,539,600$ 105,542,700$ 30.0%
Stillwater -$ 4 3,427,600$ 2,945,400$ 16.4%
Stillwater Twp 201,100$ 109 74,121,100$ 60,070,800$ 23.1%
West Lakeland -$ 46 31,757,500$ 26,705,700$ 18.9%
White Bear Lake -$ 0 -$ -$ 0.0%
Willernie -$ 0 -$ -$ 0.0%
Woodbury -$ 97 177,034,100$ 155,887,000$ 13.6%
COUNTY 5,358,400$ 2,378 1,578,317,900$ 1,271,577,600$ 23.7%
14 | Page
Agricultural Class: Past & Current Year Adjustments
ay2018 ay2019 ay2020 ay2021 ay2022 5-Year Change
Afton 0.5%3.6%6.7%3.2%21.6%35.8%
Bayport 0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%
Baytown 1.6%0.7%14.4%5.7%15.3%37.6%
Birchwood 0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%
Cottage Grove -1.2%-3.6%0.1%-3.0%18.6%10.8%
Dellwood 9.6%0.4%2.7%16.8%39.6%69.1%
Denmark 0.7%-1.0%6.4%3.0%26.9%36.1%
Forest Lake 2.6%2.4%2.1%3.0%26.6%36.7%
Grant 1.1%0.2%4.1%3.6%29.1%38.1%
Grey Cloud 5.8%3.8%1.0%0.1%25.9%36.7%
Hastings 0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%19.7%19.7%
Hugo -0.6%-2.4%6.3%1.9%22.6%27.7%
Lake Elmo 0.7%-6.6%5.8%-5.4%28.1%22.7%
Lake St. Croix 0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%
Lakeland 0.5%-45.9%-12.3%0.0%15.2%-42.5%
Lakeland Shores 0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%
Landfall 0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%
Mahtomedi 0.0%0.0%0.0%-22.9%25.0%2.1%
Marine 17.3%0.9%13.3%7.2%36.5%75.2%
May 0.0%10.2%8.4%4.2%29.0%51.8%
Newport -0.6%-7.7%0.2%2.1%20.9%14.9%
Oak Park Hgts 0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%
Oakdale 2.0%-25.0%0.4%-60.8%15.3%-68.1%
Pine Springs 0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%
St. Mary's Point 0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%
St. Paul Park 0.0%0.2%0.1%3.8%26.4%30.4%
Scandia -1.1%10.1%5.4%1.4%30.0%45.8%
Stillwater 139.3%-1.2%10.7%-78.8%16.4%86.3%
Stillwater Twp 0.8%4.6%5.1%-0.4%23.1%33.1%
West Lakeland 0.1%-4.2%2.9%0.2%18.9%17.8%
White Bear Lake 0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%
Willernie 0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%
Woodbury -6.0%-6.0%13.1%-11.4%13.6%3.2%
COUNTY 0.0%-0.3%6.3%-2.0%23.7%27.7%
15 | Page
Agricultural Class: Parcel Counts
ay2018 ay2019 ay2020 ay2021 ay2022
# Parcels # Parcels # Parcels # Parcels # Parcels
Afton 160 156 170 172 173 1
Bayport 0 0 0 0 0 0
Baytown 44 43 50 50 46 -4
Birchwood 0 0 0 0 0 0
Cottage Grove 180 175 170 165 160 -5
Dellwood 6 6 6 6 5 -1
Denmark 341 334 339 338 333 -5
Forest Lake 145 145 148 150 153 3
Grant 146 142 142 143 144 1
Grey Cloud 10 10 10 10 10 0
Hastings 1 1 1 1 1 0
Hugo 257 251 258 265 264 -1
Lake Elmo 129 113 117 122 118 -4
Lake St. Croix 0 0 0 0 0 0
Lakeland 4 4 4 4 4 0
Lakeland Shores 0 0 0 0 0 0
Landfall 0 0 0 0 0 0
Mahtomedi 2 2 2 2 2 0
Marine 7 7 9 9 9 0
May 275 276 312 311 312 1
Newport 3 3 3 3 3 0
Oak Park Hgts 0 0 0 0 0 0
Oakdale 4 5 4 4 4 0
Pine Springs 0 0 0 0 0 0
St. Mary's Point 0 0 0 0 0 0
St. Paul Park 57 57 57 57 58 1
Scandia 322 319 327 327 323 -4
Stillwater 3 2 5 4 4 0
Stillwater Twp 104 104 108 108 109 1
West Lakeland 47 44 46 47 46 -1
White Bear Lake 0 0 0 0 0 0
Willernie 0 0 0 0 0 0
Woodbury 101 98 103 102 97 -5
COUNTY 2,348 2,297 2,391 2,400 2,378 -22
+/-
16 | Page
Apartment Class Summary: Current Year Adjustments
ay2022 Number of ay2022 ay2021 ay2022
New Construction Parcels Apartment Value Apartment Value % Growth
Afton 219,800$ 2 1,884,100$ 1,635,100$ 1.8%
Bayport -$ 22 24,830,300$ 21,213,900$ 17.0%
Baytown -$ 1 745,000$ 684,800$ 8.8%
Birchwood -$ 0 -$ -$ 0.0%
Cottage Grove 11,586,400$ 44 200,892,300$ 143,823,800$ 31.6%
Dellwood -$ 0 -$ -$ 0.0%
Denmark -$ 1 1,137,800$ 1,033,800$ 10.1%
Forest Lake 1,176,700$ 73 259,451,400$ 218,336,700$ 18.3%
Grant -$ 2 1,191,700$ 1,139,600$ 4.6%
Grey Cloud -$ 0 -$ -$ 0.0%
Hastings -$ 0 -$ -$ 0.0%
Hugo 22,018,900$ 11 51,005,500$ 24,656,600$ 17.6%
Lake Elmo 36,252,900$ 10 74,980,500$ 35,300,000$ 9.7%
Lake St. Croix -$ 1 551,600$ 432,700$ 27.5%
Lakeland -$ 2 888,200$ 771,600$ 15.1%
Lakeland Shores -$ 0 -$ -$ 0.0%
Landfall -$ 0 -$ -$ 0.0%
Mahtomedi 285,100$ 17 71,452,500$ 63,023,900$ 12.9%
Marine -$ 2 481,800$ 418,200$ 15.2%
May -$ 0 -$ -$ 0.0%
Newport -$ 42 79,553,700$ 68,996,900$ 15.3%
Oak Park Hgts -$ 33 178,372,300$ 153,814,600$ 16.0%
Oakdale -$ 56 299,796,500$ 233,208,600$ 28.6%
Pine Springs -$ 0 -$ -$ 0.0%
St. Mary's Point -$ 0 -$ -$ 0.0%
St. Paul Park -$ 25 9,411,900$ 7,668,600$ 22.7%
Scandia -$ 3 612,900$ 525,200$ 16.7%
Stillwater 8,386,700$ 80 168,848,800$ 126,339,100$ 27.0%
Stillwater Twp -$ 0 -$ -$ 0.0%
West Lakeland -$ 1 804,100$ 708,800$ 13.4%
White Bear Lake -$ 1 15,699,000$ 14,195,500$ 10.6%
Willernie -$ 1 1,134,200$ 1,016,000$ 11.6%
Woodbury 96,235,200$ 81 1,048,615,600$ 820,175,200$ 16.1%
COUNTY 176,161,700$ 511 2,492,341,700$ 1,939,119,200$ 19.4%
17 | Page
Apartment Class: Past & Current Year Adjustments
ay2018 ay2019 ay2020 ay2021 ay2022 5-Year Change
Afton 5.1%19.5%15.9%17.5%1.8%59.7%
Bayport 28.4%7.2%8.1%6.0%17.0%66.7%
Baytown 0.0%53.1%0.0%0.0%8.8%61.9%
Birchwood 0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%
Cottage Grove 5.0%9.1%3.7%2.8%31.6%52.3%
Dellwood 0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%
Denmark 3.2%7.8%1.7%-24.8%10.1%-2.1%
Forest Lake 5.8%11.0%4.9%2.5%18.3%42.5%
Grant 4.3%4.2%0.0%4.6%4.6%17.8%
Grey Cloud 0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%
Hastings 0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%
Hugo 17.1%10.4%2.1%13.1%17.6%60.3%
Lake Elmo 30.3%3.6%15.8%52.1%9.7%111.5%
Lake St. Croix 16.7%64.9%16.7%30.7%27.5%156.4%
Lakeland 0.0%23.5%7.8%25.4%15.1%71.9%
Lakeland Shores 0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%
Landfall 0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%
Mahtomedi 7.0%29.9%-10.7%2.1%12.9%41.3%
Marine 0.0%49.6%1.1%7.8%15.2%73.7%
May 0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%
Newport 7.4%13.0%12.2%1.8%15.3%49.8%
Oak Park Hgts 10.8%16.0%3.0%2.6%16.0%48.4%
Oakdale 11.8%12.5%7.0%4.1%28.6%63.9%
Pine Springs 0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%
St. Mary's Point 0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%
St. Paul Park 3.7%16.5%6.4%3.2%22.7%52.6%
Scandia -0.3%6.4%5.7%3.3%16.7%31.8%
Stillwater 6.6%18.3%12.7%4.8%27.0%69.4%
Stillwater Twp 0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%
West Lakeland 100.0%4.3%100.0%4.0%13.4%221.8%
White Bear Lake 0.0%0.0%-34.5%1.7%10.6%-22.2%
Willernie 0.0%28.3%5.9%1.5%11.6%47.3%
Woodbury 13.1%14.6%5.3%7.6%16.1%56.7%
COUNTY 10.6%13.9%4.7%5.5%19.4%54.2%
18 | Page
Apartment Class: Parcel Counts
ay2018 ay2019 ay2020 ay2021 ay2022
# Parcels # Parcels # Parcels # Parcels # Parcels
Afton 2 2 2 2 2 0
Bayport 22 22 22 22 22 0
Baytown 1 1 1 1 1 0
Birchwood 0 0 0 0 0 0
Cottage Grove 17 37 39 41 44 3
Dellwood 0 0 0 0 0 0
Denmark 2 2 2 1 1 0
Forest Lake 67 71 71 71 73 2
Grant 1 1 1 1 2 1
Grey Cloud 0 0 0 0 0 0
Hastings 0 0 0 0 0 0
Hugo 5 6 6 9 11 2
Lake Elmo 6 7 7 10 10 0
Lake St. Croix 1 1 1 1 1 0
Lakeland 2 2 2 2 2 0
Lakeland Shores 0 0 0 0 0 0
Landfall 0 0 0 0 0 0
Mahtomedi 15 17 17 17 17 0
Marine 2 2 2 2 2 0
May 0 0 0 0 0 0
Newport 42 42 42 42 42 0
Oak Park Hgts 32 35 35 33 33 0
Oakdale 48 50 51 51 56 5
Pine Springs 0 0 0 0 0 0
St. Mary's Point 0 0 0 0 0 0
St. Paul Park 23 23 23 23 25 2
Scandia 1 3 3 3 3 0
Stillwater 68 73 79 79 80 1
Stillwater Twp 0 0 0 0 0 0
West Lakeland 1 1 1 1 1 0
White Bear Lake 1 1 1 1 1 0
Willernie 1 1 1 1 1 0
Woodbury 54 60 66 75 81 6
COUNTY 414 460 475 489 511 22
+/-
19 | Page
Commercial/Industrial Class Summary: Current Year Adjustments
ay2022 Number of ay2022 ay2021 ay2022
New Construction Parcels Comm/Ind Value Comm/Ind Value % Growth
Afton -$ 39 37,363,800$ 32,668,000$ 14.4%
Bayport 600,000$ 107 43,354,500$ 43,076,700$ -0.7%
Baytown -$ 10 2,694,000$ 2,540,900$ 6.0%
Birchwood -$ 0 -$ -$ 0.0%
Cottage Grove 7,580,400$ 567 434,259,400$ 405,841,900$ 5.1%
Dellwood 20,000$ 28 18,743,500$ 15,821,900$ 18.3%
Denmark -$ 65 33,961,200$ 32,350,100$ 5.0%
Forest Lake 3,446,000$ 546 297,046,200$ 290,765,800$ 1.0%
Grant 432,800$ 93 22,166,700$ 22,463,400$ -3.2%
Grey Cloud -$ 22 3,606,400$ 3,286,600$ 9.7%
Hastings -$ 5 1,837,500$ 1,837,500$ 0.0%
Hugo 3,342,500$ 195 187,995,500$ 175,267,500$ 5.4%
Lake Elmo 211,800$ 201 178,197,200$ 171,654,800$ 3.7%
Lake St. Croix -$ 9 2,342,900$ 2,281,400$ 2.7%
Lakeland -$ 38 14,275,200$ 14,255,100$ 0.1%
Lakeland Shores -$ 9 2,808,200$ 2,814,000$ -0.2%
Landfall -$ 7 10,112,000$ 10,112,000$ 0.0%
Mahtomedi -$ 77 64,909,800$ 61,274,400$ 5.9%
Marine -$ 16 3,545,100$ 3,563,500$ -0.5%
May -$ 8 3,155,000$ 2,851,400$ 10.6%
Newport 414,100$ 197 85,786,800$ 81,972,900$ 4.1%
Oak Park Hgts 12,720,000$ 220 246,395,600$ 229,758,900$ 1.7%
Oakdale 698,100$ 393 559,092,800$ 542,002,700$ 3.0%
Pine Springs -$ 0 -$ -$ 0.0%
St. Mary's Point -$ 0 100,000$ 100,000$ 0.0%
St. Paul Park 88,600$ 200 59,891,100$ 49,037,700$ 22.0%
Scandia -$ 75 18,672,500$ 17,471,000$ 6.9%
Stillwater 4,503,700$ 394 398,930,900$ 389,911,700$ 1.2%
Stillwater Twp -$ 6 2,504,300$ 2,339,700$ 7.0%
West Lakeland -$ 33 16,865,300$ 15,790,300$ 6.8%
White Bear Lake -$ 9 6,735,900$ 6,741,800$ -0.1%
Willernie -$ 33 6,371,400$ 6,230,200$ 2.3%
Woodbury 24,973,200$ 574 1,631,524,200$ 1,578,349,000$ 1.8%
COUNTY 59,031,200$ 4,176 4,395,244,900$ 4,214,432,800$ 2.9%
20 | Page
Commercial/Industrial Class: Past & Current Year Adjustments
ay2018 ay2019 ay2020 ay2021 ay2022 5-Year Change
Afton 3.7%3.4%7.0%4.4%14.4%32.8%
Bayport 1.1%1.8%8.5%4.4%-0.7%15.1%
Baytown 1.7%0.0%1.1%5.8%6.0%14.6%
Birchwood 0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%
Cottage Grove 2.3%1.2%8.9%7.1%5.1%24.5%
Dellwood 4.2%1.8%-0.4%10.0%18.3%34.0%
Denmark 0.7%9.8%9.5%11.3%5.0%36.2%
Forest Lake 3.0%-0.9%3.5%8.8%1.0%15.4%
Grant 1.9%0.5%7.3%6.4%-3.2%12.8%
Grey Cloud 1.8%5.1%15.8%-1.5%9.7%30.9%
Hastings 4.0%-6.9%-4.7%10.0%0.0%2.4%
Hugo 2.1%2.1%11.8%5.9%5.4%27.3%
Lake Elmo 4.3%2.8%0.8%7.7%3.7%19.3%
Lake St. Croix 5.4%0.2%6.0%9.8%2.7%24.1%
Lakeland 3.3%0.1%0.7%4.5%0.1%8.7%
Lakeland Shores 1.7%0.0%-9.2%13.3%-0.2%5.7%
Landfall 3.7%17.9%0.0%10.0%0.0%31.5%
Mahtomedi -0.6%3.6%10.2%5.2%5.9%24.4%
Marine 3.9%-0.7%32.4%-19.0%-0.5%16.1%
May 1.3%-0.5%-0.3%7.1%10.6%18.2%
Newport -11.1%-0.6%7.3%5.3%4.1%5.1%
Oak Park Hgts 2.5%-0.8%2.8%9.5%1.7%15.6%
Oakdale 1.8%3.0%6.8%8.1%3.0%22.8%
Pine Springs 0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%
St. Mary's Point 0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%
St. Paul Park 20.1%19.0%7.9%24.4%22.0%93.3%
Scandia 5.9%-0.1%7.7%8.7%6.9%29.0%
Stillwater 3.7%0.5%6.2%9.1%1.2%20.7%
Stillwater Twp -30.5%-33.2%-31.4%9.3%7.0%-78.9%
West Lakeland 3.6%4.7%8.7%8.2%6.8%32.0%
White Bear Lake 3.6%0.7%-5.0%10.0%-0.1%9.2%
Willernie 2.9%3.0%1.9%8.3%2.3%18.5%
Woodbury 3.9%3.7%5.3%9.0%1.8%23.7%
COUNTY 3.0%2.4%5.9%8.4%2.9%22.6%
21 | Page
Commercial/Industrial Class: Parcel Counts
ay2018 ay2019 ay2020 ay2021 ay2022
# Parcels # Parcels # Parcels # Parcels # Parcels
Afton 35 35 37 36 39 3
Bayport 108 107 107 107 107 0
Baytown 10 10 10 10 10 0
Birchwood 0 0 0 0 0 0
Cottage Grove 422 428 503 567 567 0
Dellwood 29 29 28 28 28 0
Denmark 65 65 66 66 65 -1
Forest Lake 562 562 549 546 546 0
Grant 93 94 94 95 93 -2
Grey Cloud 24 24 24 21 22 1
Hastings 5 5 5 5 5 0
Hugo 184 192 191 194 195 1
Lake Elmo 203 207 201 201 201 0
Lake St. Croix 9 9 9 9 9 0
Lakeland 39 39 38 38 38 0
Lakeland Shores 8 8 9 9 9 0
Landfall 6 7 7 7 7 0
Mahtomedi 76 77 77 78 77 -1
Marine 15 16 17 17 16 -1
May 8 8 8 8 8 0
Newport 221 219 205 197 197 0
Oak Park Hgts 214 223 220 220 220 0
Oakdale 386 399 394 398 393 -5
Pine Springs 1 0 0 0 0 0
St. Mary's Point 0 0 0 0 0 0
St. Paul Park 206 203 200 201 200 -1
Scandia 76 77 77 77 75 -2
Stillwater 397 397 408 400 394 -6
Stillwater Twp 6 6 5 6 6 0
West Lakeland 29 33 34 34 33 -1
White Bear Lake 9 9 9 9 9 0
Willernie 33 33 33 33 33 0
Woodbury 550 574 577 575 574 -1
COUNTY 4,029 4,095 4,142 4,192 4,176 -16
+/-
22 | Page
Residential/SRR Class Summary: Current Year Adjustments
ay2022 Number of ay2022 ay2021 ay2022
New Construction Parcels Res/SRR Value Res/SRR Value % Growth
Afton 10,128,800$ 1,266 732,195,000$ 606,098,300$ 19.1%
Bayport 3,669,500$ 1,026 375,555,900$ 321,632,200$ 15.6%
Baytown 8,734,500$ 856 535,898,000$ 446,362,600$ 18.1%
Birchwood 1,861,700$ 413 217,024,100$ 170,804,600$ 26.0%
Cottage Grove 156,968,500$ 13,875 4,698,653,800$ 3,715,898,100$ 22.2%
Dellwood 3,430,800$ 509 457,092,400$ 370,376,400$ 22.5%
Denmark 7,026,700$ 742 412,675,300$ 323,485,700$ 25.4%
Forest Lake 14,142,400$ 7,386 2,629,037,900$ 2,057,859,100$ 27.1%
Grant 13,341,500$ 1,753 1,041,029,000$ 845,009,000$ 21.6%
Grey Cloud 140,300$ 151 54,451,100$ 42,694,600$ 27.2%
Hastings -$ 3 758,800$ 633,300$ 19.8%
Hugo 75,187,500$ 6,425 2,428,118,800$ 1,945,365,200$ 21.0%
Lake Elmo 137,629,000$ 4,872 2,567,004,100$ 1,989,131,600$ 22.1%
Lake St. Croix 615,800$ 714 158,613,300$ 134,701,700$ 17.3%
Lakeland 648,200$ 788 312,716,800$ 266,501,000$ 17.1%
Lakeland Shores 81,600$ 144 74,503,700$ 63,445,300$ 17.3%
Landfall -$ 1 172,200$ 166,000$ 3.7%
Mahtomedi 5,959,000$ 3,010 1,396,646,100$ 1,110,385,300$ 25.2%
Marine 1,681,300$ 510 186,028,900$ 138,845,000$ 32.8%
May 3,955,800$ 1,429 763,627,700$ 613,789,100$ 23.8%
Newport 26,830,200$ 1,424 420,628,500$ 325,671,200$ 20.9%
Oak Park Hgts 2,957,500$ 1,558 404,045,000$ 334,244,000$ 20.0%
Oakdale 6,090,600$ 9,633 2,837,360,900$ 2,397,938,100$ 18.1%
Pine Springs 35,800$ 164 78,509,400$ 62,530,900$ 25.5%
St. Mary's Point 220,200$ 307 109,354,000$ 90,807,600$ 20.2%
St. Paul Park 702,800$ 2,000 490,890,500$ 408,989,500$ 19.9%
Scandia 8,845,000$ 2,226 855,329,000$ 679,166,400$ 24.6%
Stillwater 24,398,100$ 7,502 2,873,388,900$ 2,401,031,200$ 18.7%
Stillwater Twp 4,920,000$ 812 496,842,200$ 407,889,800$ 20.6%
West Lakeland 14,573,000$ 1,438 894,207,800$ 735,845,000$ 19.5%
White Bear Lake 83,500$ 99 33,572,100$ 26,826,500$ 24.8%
Willernie 83,700$ 311 61,083,500$ 51,870,600$ 17.6%
Woodbury 212,361,300$ 25,270 10,650,967,900$ 8,803,748,300$ 18.6%
COUNTY 747,304,600$ 98,617 39,247,982,600$ 31,889,743,200$ 20.7%
23 | Page
Residential/SRR Class: Past & Current Year Adjustments
ay2018 ay2019 ay2020 ay2021 ay2022 5-Year Change
Afton 1.2%11.4%-1.5%1.6%19.1%31.7%
Bayport 7.8%9.8%1.9%4.3%15.6%39.5%
Baytown -0.2%4.1%3.0%3.2%18.1%28.2%
Birchwood 10.1%9.1%0.4%1.5%26.0%47.1%
Cottage Grove 7.1%5.6%5.4%2.6%22.2%42.9%
Dellwood 1.0%-0.2%8.1%1.8%22.5%33.1%
Denmark 5.0%8.8%4.2%2.7%25.4%46.1%
Forest Lake 7.5%3.9%1.2%3.6%27.1%43.2%
Grant 2.8%10.1%-2.0%1.9%21.6%34.5%
Grey Cloud 1.9%4.2%4.0%3.1%27.2%40.3%
Hastings 2.5%5.2%5.5%1.2%19.8%34.2%
Hugo 4.7%7.8%2.8%4.8%21.0%41.0%
Lake Elmo 7.7%9.8%0.6%5.4%22.1%45.6%
Lake St. Croix 13.4%7.7%4.2%3.1%17.3%45.7%
Lakeland 12.8%0.9%4.8%3.6%17.1%39.3%
Lakeland Shores 8.6%3.8%0.6%3.2%17.3%33.5%
Landfall 4.0%0.5%0.0%12.1%3.7%20.4%
Mahtomedi 1.6%5.0%4.8%-2.6%25.2%34.1%
Marine 1.3%10.0%-3.5%-1.6%32.8%38.9%
May 1.8%8.6%0.3%0.0%23.8%34.5%
Newport 4.8%11.0%9.5%2.4%20.9%48.7%
Oak Park Hgts 8.6%9.3%2.5%2.7%20.0%43.1%
Oakdale 7.2%8.0%2.3%2.6%18.1%38.1%
Pine Springs 2.9%-0.5%0.0%3.5%25.5%31.5%
St. Mary's Point -1.4%4.4%0.5%11.4%20.2%35.0%
St. Paul Park 3.2%15.0%3.2%1.3%20.0%42.7%
Scandia 7.2%11.3%2.7%1.7%24.6%47.6%
Stillwater 5.1%7.9%1.3%5.6%18.7%38.5%
Stillwater Twp 1.1%14.6%-1.9%3.6%20.6%37.9%
West Lakeland 1.3%7.7%0.3%4.5%19.5%33.4%
White Bear Lake 7.5%4.1%2.5%2.0%24.8%40.9%
Willernie 11.8%16.8%2.7%6.1%17.6%55.0%
Woodbury 5.4%5.0%2.7%3.4%18.6%35.0%
COUNTY 5.4%6.9%2.4%3.2%20.7%38.6%
24 | Page
Residential/SRR Class: Parcel Counts
ay2018 ay2019 ay2020 ay2021 ay2022
# Parcels # Parcels # Parcels # Parcels # Parcels
Afton 1,283 1,275 1,276 1,275 1,266 -9
Bayport 979 1,003 1,030 1,030 1,026 -4
Baytown 806 815 805 805 856 51
Birchwood 415 414 414 414 413 -1
Cottage Grove 11,897 12,277 12,607 13,078 13,875 797
Dellwood 517 515 513 513 509 -4
Denmark 717 744 740 737 742 5
Forest Lake 7,352 7,369 7,369 7,369 7,386 17
Grant 1,733 1,746 1,757 1,752 1,753 1
Grey Cloud 172 171 148 152 151 -1
Hastings 3 3 3 3 3 0
Hugo 5,905 6,067 6,132 6,286 6,425 139
Lake Elmo 3,971 4,306 4,410 4,579 4,872 293
Lake St. Croix 722 721 717 717 714 -3
Lakeland 788 785 791 791 788 -3
Lakeland Shores 145 145 144 144 144 0
Landfall 1 1 1 1 1 0
Mahtomedi 2,999 3,001 3,003 3,003 3,010 7
Marine 528 526 523 518 510 -8
May 1,476 1,470 1,434 1,430 1,429 -1
Newport 1,237 1,289 1,388 1,424 1,424 0
Oak Park Hgts 1,551 1,560 1,558 1,564 1,558 -6
Oakdale 9,515 9,527 9,527 9,524 9,633 109
Pine Springs 163 164 164 164 164 0
St. Mary's Point 316 316 312 305 307 2
St. Paul Park 1,989 1,984 2,007 2,005 2,000 -5
Scandia 2,238 2,240 2,232 2,226 2,226 0
Stillwater 7,431 7,490 7,477 7,487 7,502 15
Stillwater Twp 815 816 815 814 812 -2
West Lakeland 1,431 1,437 1,435 1,437 1,438 1
White Bear Lake 99 99 99 99 99 0
Willernie 313 313 313 312 311 -1
Woodbury 23,624 24,206 24,500 24,981 25,270 289
COUNTY 93,131 94,795 95,644 96,939 98,617 1,678
+/-
25 | Page
Total Taxable Class Summary: Current Year Adjustments
ay2022 Number of ay2022 ay2021 ay2022
New Construction Parcels Total Value Total Value % Growth
Afton 12,440,200$ 1,480 912,512,200$ 754,654,700$ 19.3%
Bayport 4,269,500$ 1,155 443,740,700$ 385,922,800$ 13.9%
Baytown 8,734,500$ 913 566,533,600$ 473,168,200$ 17.9%
Birchwood 1,861,700$ 413 217,024,100$ 170,804,600$ 26.0%
Cottage Grove 176,156,700$ 14,646 5,475,184,900$ 4,384,737,400$ 20.9%
Dellwood 3,450,800$ 542 480,594,100$ 389,607,900$ 22.5%
Denmark 7,899,200$ 1,141 628,830,200$ 498,837,400$ 24.5%
Forest Lake 18,906,200$ 8,158 3,259,820,500$ 2,625,509,200$ 23.4%
Grant 13,954,300$ 1,992 1,174,116,700$ 953,479,100$ 21.7%
Grey Cloud 140,300$ 183 63,110,600$ 49,993,600$ 26.0%
Hastings -$ 9 2,624,800$ 2,494,600$ 5.2%
Hugo 100,765,200$ 6,895 2,812,602,900$ 2,263,803,500$ 19.8%
Lake Elmo 174,236,700$ 5,201 2,924,229,400$ 2,277,172,200$ 20.8%
Lake St. Croix 615,800$ 724 161,507,800$ 137,415,800$ 17.1%
Lakeland 648,200$ 832 329,611,200$ 283,030,800$ 16.2%
Lakeland Shores 81,600$ 153 77,311,900$ 66,259,300$ 16.6%
Landfall -$ 8 10,284,200$ 10,278,000$ 0.1%
Mahtomedi 6,244,100$ 3,106 1,533,395,500$ 1,234,993,300$ 23.7%
Marine 1,681,300$ 537 195,918,900$ 147,121,500$ 32.0%
May 5,052,300$ 1,749 959,939,900$ 765,488,700$ 24.7%
Newport 27,244,300$ 1,666 592,992,800$ 482,448,400$ 17.3%
Oak Park Hgts 15,677,500$ 1,811 828,812,900$ 717,817,500$ 13.3%
Oakdale 6,791,600$ 10,086 3,704,356,800$ 3,180,176,200$ 16.3%
Pine Springs 35,800$ 164 78,509,400$ 62,530,900$ 25.5%
St. Mary's Point 220,200$ 307 109,454,000$ 90,907,600$ 20.2%
St. Paul Park 829,800$ 2,283 564,276,700$ 468,896,700$ 20.2%
Scandia 9,198,600$ 2,627 1,012,154,000$ 802,705,300$ 24.9%
Stillwater 37,288,500$ 7,980 3,444,596,200$ 2,920,227,400$ 16.7%
Stillwater Twp 5,121,100$ 927 573,467,600$ 470,300,300$ 20.8%
West Lakeland 14,573,000$ 1,518 943,634,700$ 779,049,800$ 19.3%
White Bear Lake 83,500$ 109 56,007,000$ 47,763,800$ 17.1%
Willernie 83,700$ 345 68,589,100$ 59,116,800$ 15.9%
Woodbury 333,569,700$ 26,022 13,508,141,800$ 11,358,159,500$ 16.0%
COUNTY 987,855,900$ 105,682 47,713,887,100$ 39,314,872,800$ 18.9%
26 | Page
Total Taxable Class: Past & Current Year Adjustments
ay2018 ay2019 ay2020 ay2021 ay2022 5-Year Change
Afton 1.2%9.8%0.0%2.0%19.3%32.3%
Bayport 8.1%8.7%3.0%4.4%13.9%38.1%
Baytown -0.1%4.0%3.5%3.3%17.9%28.6%
Birchwood 10.1%9.1%0.4%1.5%26.0%47.1%
Cottage Grove 6.3%5.0%5.4%2.8%20.9%40.4%
Dellwood 1.2%-0.1%7.7%2.3%22.5%33.5%
Denmark 3.3%5.7%5.2%3.2%24.5%41.8%
Forest Lake 6.7%3.8%1.7%4.0%23.4%39.7%
Grant 2.6%8.9%-1.3%2.2%21.7%34.1%
Grey Cloud 2.2%4.2%4.4%2.5%26.0%39.3%
Hastings 2.6%-4.3%-2.2%7.6%5.2%8.9%
Hugo 4.3%6.7%3.6%4.8%19.8%39.2%
Lake Elmo 7.0%8.3%1.0%5.4%20.8%42.4%
Lake St. Croix 13.2%7.7%4.2%3.3%17.1%45.6%
Lakeland 12.2%0.4%4.5%3.7%16.2%37.0%
Lakeland Shores 8.4%3.7%0.3%3.6%16.6%32.4%
Landfall 3.7%17.5%0.0%10.0%0.1%31.3%
Mahtomedi 1.7%6.0%4.2%-2.0%23.7%33.6%
Marine 1.8%9.5%-2.3%-1.9%32.0%39.2%
May 1.5%8.9%1.8%0.8%24.7%37.7%
Newport 1.5%8.6%9.2%2.9%17.3%39.4%
Oak Park Hgts 7.0%7.3%2.7%4.8%13.3%35.0%
Oakdale 6.5%7.2%3.4%3.2%16.3%36.6%
Pine Springs 2.9%-0.5%0.0%3.5%25.5%31.5%
St. Mary's Point -1.4%4.4%0.5%11.3%20.2%35.0%
St. Paul Park 5.1%15.3%3.7%3.6%20.3%48.1%
Scandia 6.0%10.9%3.2%1.8%24.9%46.8%
Stillwater 5.3%7.2%2.4%5.6%16.7%37.1%
Stillwater Twp 0.8%12.9%-1.1%3.0%20.8%36.5%
West Lakeland 1.4%7.2%0.6%4.4%19.3%32.8%
White Bear Lake 3.8%2.0%-13.2%2.9%17.1%12.7%
Willernie 10.4%15.4%2.6%6.2%15.9%50.6%
Woodbury 5.4%5.2%3.4%4.2%16.0%34.1%
COUNTY 5.1%6.4%3.0%3.6%18.9%37.0%
27 | Page
Total Taxable Class: Parcel Counts
ay2018 ay2019 ay2020 ay2021 ay2022
# Parcels # Parcels # Parcels # Parcels # Parcels
Afton 1,480 1,468 1,485 1,485 1,480 -5
Bayport 1,109 1,132 1,159 1,159 1,155 -4
Baytown 861 869 866 866 913 47
Birchwood 415 414 414 414 413 -1
Cottage Grove 12,516 12,917 13,319 13,851 14,646 795
Dellwood 552 550 547 547 542 -5
Denmark 1,125 1,145 1,147 1,142 1,141 -1
Forest Lake 8,126 8,147 8,137 8,136 8,158 22
Grant 1,973 1,983 1,994 1,991 1,992 1
Grey Cloud 206 205 182 183 183 0
Hastings 9 9 9 9 9 0
Hugo 6,351 6,516 6,587 6,754 6,895 141
Lake Elmo 4,309 4,633 4,735 4,912 5,201 289
Lake St. Croix 732 731 727 727 724 -3
Lakeland 833 830 835 835 832 -3
Lakeland Shores 153 153 153 153 153 0
Landfall 7 8 8 8 8 0
Mahtomedi 3,092 3,097 3,099 3,100 3,106 6
Marine 552 551 551 546 537 -9
May 1,759 1,754 1,754 1,749 1,749 0
Newport 1,503 1,553 1,638 1,666 1,666 0
Oak Park Hgts 1,797 1,818 1,813 1,817 1,811 -6
Oakdale 9,953 9,981 9,976 9,977 10,086 109
Pine Springs 164 164 164 164 164 0
St. Mary's Point 316 316 312 305 307 2
St. Paul Park 2,275 2,267 2,287 2,286 2,283 -3
Scandia 2,637 2,639 2,639 2,633 2,627 -6
Stillwater 7,899 7,962 7,969 7,970 7,980 10
Stillwater Twp 925 926 928 928 927 -1
West Lakeland 1,508 1,515 1,516 1,519 1,518 -1
White Bear Lake 109 109 109 109 109 0
Willernie 347 347 347 346 345 -1
Woodbury 24,329 24,938 25,246 25,733 26,022 289
COUNTY 99,922 101,647 102,652 104,020 105,682 1,662
+/-
28 | Page
Residential/SRR Class: Current Year Value Changes This table lists a breakdown of the number of value changes by percent change the residential and seasonal recreational properties in each community received for the ay2022 assessment. The percent change groupings are listed across the top row of the table. For the 2022 assessment 99.4% are receiving a valuation notice indicating an increase in their property value.
Over 15% Decrease10.1% - 15% Decrease5.1% - 10% Decrease.1% to 5% DecreaseNo Change.1% to 5% Increase5.1% - 10% Increase10.1% - 15% IncreaseOver 15% IncreaseTotal Total Decrease & No ChangeTotal IncreaseAfton - - - 2 35 1 1 5 1,222 1,266 37 1,229
Bayport 3 - - - 5 - 3 247 768 1,026 8 1,018
Baytown - - - - 19 - 3 14 820 856 19 837
Birchwood - - - - - - 2 1 410 413 - 413
Cottage Grove 7 - 1 11 38 12 91 237 13,478 13,875 57 13,818
Dellwood - - 1 - 9 1 - 4 494 509 10 499
Denmark 1 1 - - 8 - 1 1 730 742 10 732
Forest Lake 1 - 3 4 84 4 4 37 7,249 7,386 92 7,294
Grant 9 1 - - 30 1 1 1 1,710 1,753 40 1,713
Grey Cloud 1 - - - - - 11 - 139 151 1 150
Hastings - - - - - - - - 3 3 - 3
Hugo - - - 1 22 1 3 7 6,391 6,425 23 6,402
Lake Elmo 2 - 1 - 14 6 4 218 4,627 4,872 17 4,855
Lake St. Croix - - - 1 29 - 4 33 647 714 30 684
Lakeland - - - 2 - - 6 6 774 788 2 786
Lakeland Shores - - - - - - - - 144 144 - 144
Landfall - - - - - 1 - - - 1 - 1
Mahtomedi 5 1 - - 3 1 3 16 2,981 3,010 9 3,001
Marine - - 3 3 4 3 1 1 495 510 10 500
May 1 - - 1 39 2 6 11 1,369 1,429 41 1,388
Newport 2 - - 4 12 1 3 9 1,393 1,424 18 1,406
Oak Park Hgts - - - 1 - 2 3 281 1,271 1,558 1 1,557
Oakdale 2 - - 1 46 3 12 2,821 6,748 9,633 49 9,584
Pine Springs - - - - 3 - - - 161 164 3 161
St. Mary's Point - - 1 - 8 - 1 2 295 307 9 298
St. Paul Park 3 - - - 10 3 4 2 1,978 2,000 13 1,987
Scandia 5 - - - 67 3 2 1 2,148 2,226 72 2,154
Stillwater 2 1 2 3 - - 10 1,515 5,969 7,502 8 7,494
Stillwater Twp - - - - 9 - 1 2 800 812 9 803
West Lakeland - - - - 7 1 4 4 1,422 1,438 7 1,431
White Bear Lake - - - - - - - - 99 99 - 99
Willernie - 1 - 10 - 2 15 41 242 311 11 300
Woodbury 4 - 1 2 - 240 18 7,565 17,440 25,270 7 25,263
48 5 13 46 501 288 217 13,082 84,417 98,617 613 98,004
0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.5%0.3%0.2%13.3%85.6%100.0%0.6%99.4%COUNTY
29 | Page
MARKET VALUE SECTION
Distribution of Market Value by Classification With new construction included, the pattern of change in the county’s total value and classification value distribution can be seen in the following list of past assessment year data. Estimated Market Value (EMV) by Classification & Percentage of Total
EMV (includes new construction)ay2018 ay2019 ay2020 ay2021 ay2022
Total EMV 32,894,024,500$ 35,654,881,200$ 37,326,145,800$ 39,314,872,800$ 47,713,887,100$
Agriculture EMV 1,263,774,600$ 1,250,153,700$ 1,315,056,100$ 1,271,577,600$ 1,578,317,900$
Agriculture % of Total 3.8%3.5%3.5%3.2%3.3%
Apartment EMV 1,322,514,400$ 1,600,537,000$ 1,743,006,000$ 1,939,119,200$ 2,492,341,700$
Apartment % of Total 4.0%4.5%4.7%4.9%5.2%
Commercial/Industrial EMV 3,445,552,500$ 3,607,962,900$ 3,884,295,400$ 4,214,432,800$ 4,395,244,900$
Comm/Industrial % of Total 10.5%10.1%10.4%10.7%9.2%
Residential/SRR EMV 26,862,183,000$ 29,196,227,600$ 30,383,788,300$ 31,889,743,200$ 39,247,982,600$
Residential/SRR % of Total 81.7%81.9%81.4%81.1%82.3%
3.3%
5.2%9.2%
82.3%
2022 EMV Distributuion by Classification
Agriculture
Apartment
Commercial/Industrial
Residential
30 | Page
Median Values Historical Median Residential Improved Value: Residential/SRR
(Combined Single Family and Townhome/Condo with improvement value ≥ $25,000)
Median %Median %Median %Median %Median %
ay2018 Change ay2019 Change ay2020 Change ay2021 Change ay2022 Change
Afton 443,800$ 4.7%497,000$ 12.0%484,600$ -2.5%489,100$ -1.6%597,000$ 22.1%
Bayport 232,000$ 8.9%262,900$ 13.3%267,200$ 1.6%288,200$ 9.6%336,400$ 16.7%
Baytown 516,200$ 2.6%540,600$ 4.7%573,700$ 6.1%589,500$ 9.0%691,900$ 17.4%
Birchwood 331,100$ 11.4%358,500$ 8.3%346,100$ -3.5%354,800$ -1.0%435,400$ 22.7%
Cottage Grove 238,900$ 6.7%253,800$ 6.2%266,900$ 5.2%270,700$ 6.7%328,600$ 21.4%
Dellwood 567,400$ 3.9%553,000$ -2.5%637,600$ 15.3%688,100$ 24.4%804,900$ 17.0%
Denmark 414,400$ 8.7%439,900$ 6.2%456,500$ 3.8%467,400$ 6.3%612,100$ 31.0%
Forest Lake 254,600$ 9.2%270,700$ 6.3%274,500$ 1.4%281,400$ 4.0%361,000$ 28.3%
Grant 453,300$ 6.0%507,800$ 12.0%487,000$ -4.1%503,400$ -0.9%618,400$ 22.8%
Grey Cloud 324,700$ 5.0%344,300$ 6.0%359,000$ 4.3%371,400$ 7.9%480,500$ 29.4%
Hastings
Hugo 260,500$ 4.4%278,500$ 6.9%290,000$ 4.1%309,800$ 11.2%379,300$ 22.4%
Lake Elmo 401,600$ 4.8%430,600$ 7.2%434,800$ 1.0%458,700$ 6.5%553,800$ 20.7%
Lake St. Croix 209,900$ 15.5%230,900$ 10.0%242,400$ 5.0%250,000$ 8.3%293,700$ 17.5%
Lakeland 269,800$ 17.7%269,100$ -0.3%283,800$ 5.5%297,000$ 10.4%349,000$ 17.5%
Lakeland Shores 325,300$ 12.1%341,000$ 4.8%343,900$ 0.9%358,500$ 5.1%418,300$ 16.7%
Landfall
Mahtomedi 324,900$ 3.2%342,800$ 5.5%360,100$ 5.0%351,200$ 2.5%435,800$ 24.1%
Marine 342,300$ 3.0%386,700$ 13.0%373,300$ -3.5%379,900$ -1.8%499,600$ 31.5%
May 420,500$ 4.7%454,600$ 8.1%458,800$ 0.9%452,100$ -0.5%567,200$ 25.5%
Newport 195,400$ 5.5%216,100$ 10.6%226,600$ 4.9%229,600$ 6.2%285,700$ 24.4%
Oak Park Hgts 215,500$ 6.5%236,700$ 9.8%240,300$ 1.5%251,000$ 6.0%294,600$ 17.4%
Oakdale 231,700$ 7.1%252,800$ 9.1%259,000$ 2.5%264,300$ 4.5%315,000$ 19.2%
Pine Springs 413,700$ 3.6%412,100$ -0.4%412,300$ 0.0%429,200$ 4.1%538,900$ 25.6%
St. Mary's Point 296,000$ -0.7%317,900$ 7.4%318,400$ 0.2%335,000$ 5.4%402,900$ 20.3%
St. Paul Park 180,100$ 2.4%211,100$ 17.2%220,200$ 4.3%221,600$ 5.0%266,600$ 20.3%
Scandia 331,300$ 9.8%365,500$ 10.3%376,500$ 3.0%375,500$ 2.7%476,800$ 27.0%
Stillwater 268,300$ 7.1%289,300$ 7.8%294,700$ 1.9%313,400$ 8.3%373,800$ 19.3%
Stillwater Twp 437,300$ 2.8%505,700$ 15.6%487,200$ -3.7%499,700$ -1.2%612,400$ 22.6%
West Lakeland 438,500$ 3.0%476,000$ 8.6%479,500$ 0.7%503,300$ 5.7%606,500$ 20.5%
White Bear Lake 252,100$ 10.0%264,400$ 4.9%269,500$ 1.9%276,500$ 4.6%345,500$ 25.0%
Willernie 172,500$ 13.6%202,500$ 17.4%211,700$ 4.5%226,300$ 11.8%266,200$ 17.6%
Woodbury 312,600$ 5.4%327,400$ 4.7%341,200$ 4.2%351,100$ 7.2%419,000$ 19.3%
COUNTY MEDIAN 277,100$ 12.6%296,700$ 7.1%306,600$ 3.3%316,800$ 6.8%384,200$ 21.3%
31 | Page
Historical Median Residential Improved Value: Townhomes/Condos
(With improvement value ≥ $25,000)
Median %Median %Median %Median %Median %
ay2018 Change ay2019 Change ay2020 Change ay2021 Change ay2022 Change
Bayport 286,500$ -3.8%310,200$ 8.3%352,100$ 13.5%364,600$ 17.5%418,700$ 14.8%
Cottage Grove 169,800$ 13.4%178,400$ 5.1%190,700$ 6.9%199,000$ 11.5%236,300$ 18.7%
Forest Lake 180,100$ 8.0%189,600$ 5.3%190,800$ 0.6%196,800$ 3.8%246,300$ 25.2%
Hugo 179,800$ 9.0%195,600$ 8.8%199,800$ 2.1%212,000$ 8.4%254,800$ 20.2%
Lake Elmo 230,900$ -6.8%285,500$ 23.6%283,700$ -0.6%309,700$ 8.5%341,800$ 10.4%
Mahtomedi 264,500$ 12.8%277,400$ 4.9%289,300$ 4.3%281,500$ 1.5%340,600$ 21.0%
Marine 192,200$ -3.0%211,000$ 9.8%211,000$ 0.0%219,900$ 4.2%291,200$ 32.4%
Newport 149,100$ 0.3%165,300$ 10.9%170,000$ 2.8%174,400$ 5.5%212,300$ 21.7%
Oak Park Hgts 161,700$ 6.0%181,500$ 12.2%197,900$ 9.0%202,300$ 11.5%270,200$ 33.6%
Oakdale 163,900$ 10.1%180,900$ 10.4%185,500$ 2.5%194,600$ 7.6%220,000$ 13.1%
St. Paul Park 169,700$ 3.2%205,100$ 20.9%205,100$ 0.0%199,800$ -2.6%241,100$ 20.7%
Stillwater 224,000$ 9.9%249,100$ 11.2%249,300$ 0.1%262,800$ 5.5%299,400$ 13.9%
Woodbury 192,500$ 7.5%207,800$ 7.9%220,700$ 6.2%231,700$ 11.5%261,900$ 13.0%
COUNTY MEDIAN 182,700$ 8.7%197,100$ 7.9%206,700$ 4.9%216,900$ 10.0%251,500$ 16.0%
32 | Page
Historical Median Residential Improved Value: Single Family
(With improvement value ≥ $25,000)
Median % Median % Median % Median % Median %
ay2018 Change ay2019 Change ay2020 Change ay2021 Change ay2022 Change
Afton 443,800$ 4.7%497,000$ 12.0%484,600$ -2.5%489,100$ -1.6%597,000$ 22.1%
Bayport 227,000$ 9.5%256,200$ 12.9%260,800$ 1.8%283,200$ 10.5%332,300$ 17.3%
Baytown 516,200$ 2.6%540,600$ 4.7%573,700$ 6.1%589,500$ 9.0%691,900$ 17.4%
Birchwood 331,100$ 11.4%358,500$ 8.3%346,100$ -3.5%354,800$ -1.0%435,400$ 22.7%
Cottage Grove 245,600$ 6.8%260,700$ 6.1%274,700$ 5.4%279,000$ 7.0%339,100$ 21.5%
Dellwood 567,400$ 3.9%553,000$ -2.5%637,600$ 15.3%688,100$ 24.4%804,900$ 17.0%
Denmark 414,400$ 8.7%439,900$ 6.2%456,500$ 3.8%467,400$ 6.3%612,100$ 31.0%
Forest Lake 274,600$ 8.8%290,800$ 5.9%296,000$ 1.8%302,800$ 4.1%389,800$ 28.7%
Grant 453,300$ 6.0%507,800$ 12.0%487,000$ -4.1%503,400$ -0.9%618,400$ 22.8%
Grey Cloud 324,700$ 5.0%344,300$ 6.0%359,000$ 4.3%371,400$ 7.9%480,500$ 29.4%
Hastings
Hugo 326,000$ 4.1%348,400$ 6.9%358,400$ 2.9%372,100$ 6.8%450,200$ 21.0%
Lake Elmo 408,700$ 4.8%438,800$ 7.4%441,400$ 0.6%464,600$ 5.9%563,500$ 21.3%
Lake St. Croix 209,900$ 16.7%230,900$ 10.0%242,400$ 5.0%250,000$ 8.3%293,700$ 17.5%
Lakeland 269,800$ 17.4%269,100$ -0.3%283,800$ 5.5%297,000$ 10.4%349,000$ 17.5%
Lakeland Shores 325,300$ 12.1%341,000$ 4.8%343,900$ 0.9%358,500$ 5.1%418,300$ 16.7%
Landfall
Mahtomedi 334,100$ 2.6%351,600$ 5.2%370,600$ 5.4%361,600$ 2.8%451,300$ 24.8%
Marine 342,300$ -1.1%386,700$ 13.0%373,300$ -3.5%379,900$ -1.8%513,900$ 35.3%
May 420,500$ 4.7%454,600$ 8.1%458,800$ 0.9%452,100$ -0.5%567,200$ 25.5%
Newport 195,400$ 4.4%216,100$ 10.6%226,600$ 4.9%229,600$ 6.2%289,400$ 26.0%
Oak Park Hgts 234,000$ 6.9%257,900$ 10.2%260,300$ 0.9%270,600$ 4.9%314,500$ 16.2%
Oakdale 248,500$ 7.7%270,700$ 8.9%276,800$ 2.3%284,600$ 5.1%340,900$ 19.8%
Pine Springs 413,700$ 3.6%412,100$ -0.4%412,300$ 0.0%429,200$ 4.1%538,900$ 25.6%
St. Mary's Point 296,000$ -0.7%317,900$ 7.4%318,400$ 0.2%335,000$ 5.4%402,900$ 20.3%
St. Paul Park 180,100$ 2.0%211,100$ 17.2%220,200$ 4.3%221,600$ 5.0%268,900$ 21.3%
Scandia 331,300$ 10.1%365,500$ 10.3%376,500$ 3.0%375,500$ 2.7%476,800$ 27.0%
Stillwater 276,800$ 6.4%297,000$ 7.3%301,500$ 1.5%321,800$ 8.4%387,600$ 20.4%
Stillwater Twp 437,300$ 2.8%505,700$ 15.6%487,200$ -3.7%499,700$ -1.2%612,400$ 22.6%
West Lakeland 438,500$ 3.0%476,000$ 8.6%479,500$ 0.7%503,300$ 5.7%606,500$ 20.5%
White Bear Lake 252,100$ 10.0%264,400$ 4.9%269,500$ 1.9%276,500$ 4.6%345,500$ 25.0%
Willernie 172,500$ 14.7%202,500$ 17.4%211,700$ 4.5%226,300$ 11.8%266,200$ 17.6%
Woodbury 358,100$ 5.4%371,300$ 3.7%382,800$ 3.1%395,400$ 6.5%476,100$ 20.4%
COUNTY MEDIAN 307,900$ 6.7%327,900$ 6.5%337,400$ 2.9%348,000$ 6.1%425,900$ 22.4%
33 | Page
Single Family and Townhome/Condo breakdown
(With improvement value ≥ $25,000)
Historical County Median Residential Improved Value
(Includes both Single Family and Townhome/Condo with improvement value ≥ $25,000)
$307,900
$327,900
$337,400
$348,000
$425,900
$182,700
$197,100
$206,700
$216,900
$251,500
AY2018
AY2019
AY2020
AY2021
AY2022
Median Residential Value by Dwelling Type
Townhome/Condo Single Family
$277,100
$296,700
$306,600
$316,800
$384,200
AY2018
AY2019
AY2020
AY2021
AY2022
County Median Residential Improved Value
34 | Page
OTHER ASSESSMENT RELATED INFORMATION
New Construction Current New Construction Starts: All Classifications
SFR TH/Condo Comm/Ind Apartment Exempt Total
Calendar year 2021 2021 2021 2021 2021 2021
New Starts New Starts New Starts New Starts New Starts New Starts
Afton 19 0 0 0 0 19
Bayport 8 0 0 0 0 8
Baytown 9 0 0 0 0 9
Birchwood 1 0 0 0 0 1
Cottage Grove 372 164 3 0 1 540
Dellwood 2 0 0 0 0 2
Denmark 15 0 0 0 0 15
Forest Lake 29 12 1 1 1 44
Grant 19 0 0 0 0 19
Grey Cloud 0 0 0 0 0 0
Hastings 0 0 0 0 0 0
Hugo 197 0 2 0 3 202
Lake Elmo 271 55 0 0 0 326
Lake St. Croix Beach 0 0 0 0 0 0
Lakeland 1 0 0 0 0 1
Lakeland Shores 0 0 0 0 0 0
Landfall 0 0 0 0 0 0
Mahtomedi 6 0 0 0 0 6
Marine 5 0 0 0 0 5
May 3 0 0 0 0 3
Newport 70 0 1 0 1 72
Oak Park Hgts 5 0 1 0 0 6
Oakdale 4 20 1 0 2 27
Pine Springs 0 0 0 0 0 0
St. Mary's Point 2 0 0 0 0 2
St. Paul Park 1 0 0 0 0 1
Scandia 20 0 0 0 0 20
Stillwater 39 0 1 1 0 41
Stillwater Twp 6 0 0 0 0 6
West Lakeland 18 0 0 0 0 18
White Bear Lake 0 0 0 0 0 0
Willernie 2 0 0 0 0 2
Woodbury 468 65 8 2 0 543
COUNTY 1,592 316 18 4 8 1,938
35 | Page
Past & Current New Construction Starts: Single Family and Townhome/Condo
Calendar year 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021
New Starts New Starts New Starts New Starts New Starts
Afton 13 5 11 8 19
Bayport 26 34 26 28 8
Baytown 20 15 7 11 9
Birchwood 0 0 0 2 1
Cottage Grove 118 181 249 359 536
Dellwood 3 2 1 4 2
Denmark 8 9 9 13 15
Forest Lake 53 55 53 52 41
Grant 4 5 10 16 19
Grey Cloud 1 0 0 0 0
Hastings 0 0 0 0 0
Hugo 81 124 101 161 197
Lake Elmo 283 280 228 282 326
Lake St. Croix Beach 3 3 0 1 0
Lakeland 0 0 3 2 1
Lakeland Shores 0 0 0 0 0
Landfall 0 0 0 0 0
Mahtomedi 11 11 9 13 6
Marine 0 1 0 0 5
May 10 8 8 3 3
Newport 7 20 46 67 70
Oak Park Hgts 0 0 4 6 5
Oakdale 4 2 3 4 24
Pine Springs 0 0 1 0 0
St. Mary's Point 1 1 0 0 2
St. Paul Park 7 3 9 0 1
Scandia 22 16 11 7 20
Stillwater 42 38 50 33 39
Stillwater Twp 3 6 5 1 6
West Lakeland 5 6 4 8 18
White Bear Lake 0 0 0 0 0
Willernie 3 0 0 2 2
Woodbury 326 445 454 383 533
COUNTY 1,054 1,270 1,302 1,466 1,908
36 | Page
Historical New Construction Summary: All Classifications
Historical Comparison of New Construction: ay18–ay22
2017 2018 2019 2020 2021
ay2018 ay2019 ay2020 ay2021 ay2022
Single Family 916 1,062 1,144 1,247 1,592
Townhome/Condo 138 208 158 219 316
Apartment 11 13 16 10 4
Commercial/Industrial 23 33 14 14 18
Misc Permits 2,377 2,830 2,690 3,250 3,527
TOTAL 3,465 4,146 4,022 4,740 5,457
Taxable Value Added 537,246,400$ 661,822,400$ 620,711,300$ 703,302,300$ 987,855,900$
3,465
4,146
4,022
4,740
5,457
AY2018
AY2019
AY2020
AY2021
AY2022
New Construction Reviews
(New Starts & Misc. Permit)
37 | Page
Appraiser Activity: Permit & Quintile Review Counts Current state law mandates that all property must be re-assessed each year and reviewed once every five years (aka quintile). Staff also inspects properties that have taken out a construction permit during the course of the year. During 2021 (for the 2022 assessment), the Assessor Division appraisers and locally hired assessors, reviewed 30,458 properties. The breakdown of the properties that were reviewed over the last five years.
2017 2018 2019 2020 2021
ay2018 ay2019 ay2020 ay2021 ay2022
Residential Quintile 19,377 19,727 21,400 24,160 23,008
Apt/CI Reviews 676 1,190 970 1,191 499
New Construction Reviews 3,465 4,146 4,022 4,740 5,457
Misc Reviews 0 0 28 0 1,494
TOTAL 23,518 25,063 26,420 30,091 30,458
38 | Page
Appraiser Activity: Tax Petition Related Minnesota Tax Court has been established by the Minnesota Legislature for the purpose of hearing only tax related cases. The Court’s judges have expertise in tax laws and apply that knowledge in a manner to ensure that taxpayers are assessed in a fair and equitable way. The tax petition process is a complicated and ever-changing part of our business. The entire process continues to consume a large amount of our Commercial/Industrial/Apartment appraiser workload. The table below provides a summary of the petition filings in Washington County over the last five payable years. Petitions related to taxes payable 2021 increased in the number of
petitions filed by 7.5% or 14 petitions. The only property use that showed an increase was the commercial/industrial class. Total value under petitions for pay2021 declined roughly 2% when compared to the previous year. The section titled petition value by classification indicates that the residential value under petition declined significantly while apartments, that have experienced substantial increases over the last several years, the value under petition declined by nearly 18%.
Payable Year 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021
Residential 12 17 16 12 5
Commercial/Industrial 93 94 123 156 179
Apartment 5 18 22 19 17
TOTAL 110 129 161 187 201
Payable Year 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021779,084,100$ 967,278,300$ 1,297,975,600$ 1,719,577,900$ 1,686,979,000$
Payable Year 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021
Residential 20,168,200$ 30,299,900$ 18,568,700$ 18,685,600$ 4,333,700$
Commercial/Industrial 602,423,800$ 660,500,500$ 846,459,300$ 1,281,098,600$ 1,336,984,000$
Apartment 156,492,100$ 276,477,900$ 432,947,600$ 419,793,700$ 345,661,300$
TOTAL 779,084,100$ 967,278,300$ 1,297,975,600$ 1,719,577,900$ 1,686,979,000$
Number of Petitions Filed
Value Under Petitions (All Classifications)
Petition Value by Classification
39 | Page
Tax Petitions: Number of Petitions Filed for Payable Years 2017-2021
Tax Petitions: Value Under Petitions for Payable Years 2017-2021
12 17 16 12 5
93 94
123
156
179
5 18 22 19 17
PAY 2017 PAY 2018 PAY 2019 PAY 2020 PAY 2021
Number of Petitions Filed by Classification
Residential Commercial/Industrial Apartment
$779,084,100
$967,278,300
$1,297,975,600
$1,719,577,900
$1,686,979,000
PAY 2017
PAY 2018
PAY 2019
PAY 2020
PAY 2021
Value Under Petitions (All Classifications)
40 | Page
Assessment Process: Statutory Requirements Minnesota law establishes specific requirements for the entire property tax system, including the assessment of property (M.S. Chapter 273). These requirements have not changed during the past year. The laws require the following: 1. All real property is to be valued at market value, which is defined as the usual or most likely selling price at the time of assessment. Special qualified exclusions such as the Veterans’ Exclusion are subtracted from the market value to arrive at the taxable value. 2. Property is classified according to state law, and the tax capacity is calculated. 3. The tax capacity is multiplied by the tax rate (the total of county, school, city, and miscellaneous levies) to determine the amount of property tax. The annual property assessment focuses on the very first step of this process—establishing an estimated market value for each parcel of property. Market values are assessed locally by either a county employed appraiser or a locally hired assessor. The work of both county and local assessors is monitored by the County Assessor, whose work is in turn monitored by the Minnesota Department of Revenue. The monitoring agency is authorized by law to adjust the property assessment to help ensure county-wide and state-wide equalization of property assessments. The County Assessor has established the standard that all Washington County communities, with at least six (6) sales in their sales study, has a community median ratio in the range of
93%-95% of actual market values in relationship to time-adjusted sales prices. At times, local assessment levels have been adjusted by the County Assessor or the State of Minnesota. State law also requires that each individual property be reviewed by the assessor at least once every five years. Each community has a rotating revaluation schedule to ensure that this requirement is met.
What is market value? Minnesota Statue 273.03 defines market value as “… the usual selling price at the time of assessment.” The Assessor’s Office works throughout the year to estimate market values of each property for the following January 2 assessment date.
41 | Page
How is market value determined? Review Property: Approximately every fifth year, an appraiser working under the supervision of the County Assessor will review the property. Any property that had a building permit issued in a given year is reviewed and the new value is calculated as of January 2nd following the construction. Gather Information: The appraiser gathers information on all characteristics of the property that affect market value, such as size, age, quality of construction, basement finish, and extra features, such as fireplaces, walk-out basements, et cetera.
Compute Value: The characteristics are entered into a computerized system (CAMA). Information on actual market sales are used to establish the building and component rates used to calculate the property’s value. The market value estimated by the appraiser in this way should be very close to the amount the property would sell for, if placed on the open market. Why may market value change from year to year? Property values change continuously depending on the economic conditions affecting the local market. In addition to market changes, physical changes made to a property can also affect its market value. All factors are considered in estimating the value of property.
42 | Page
Explaining 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, if necessary, challenge 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 Valuation Notices during the month of March, they should read them carefully for instructions about deadlines, filing procedures, meeting dates and times. If they are not clear, they should call the assessor’s office for clarification and additional information because a missed deadline, an incorrect filing, or the failure to attend a scheduled meeting can cause an appeal to be dismissed. What steps should property owners take to appeal their assessments? There are two avenues of appeal that property owners may take to challenge their assessments. The first route is referred to as the three-step appeal and the second is known as the one-step appeal. These steps are illustrated in the flow chart on the following page. How should property owners begin their appeal? Property owners are encouraged to contact their appraiser to discuss their property assessment concerns. An informal meeting can be scheduled to review the property, examine market data, answer questions, and clarify the valuation and classification practices used. This discussion can also be handled by telephone, mail, or e-mail during regular business hours.
43 | Page
Appeals Process: What are the options?
Appeal to your Local Board of Appeal & Equalization (LBAE) or attend one of four regional
Open Book meetings (meeting times & locations are listed on your valuation notice).
•Appeal in person, by letter, or by designated representative.
•If your appeal is not addressed to your satisfaction, or you and the County staff
cannot agree to a change in valuation or classification, continue to the next step.
Appeal to the Washington County Board of Appeal & Equalization (CBAE).
•You must have first appealed to your LBAE (unless your property is in an Open Book
community) Check your valuation notice to verify.
•The CBAE meets in June - Call the Assessor’s Office at 651-430-6175 by May 5, 2022
to make an appointment.
•If you still do not feel your concerns have been addressed to your satisfaction, you
may next appeal to the Minnesota Tax Court.
Appeal in the Minnesota Tax Court
•Appeals may be filed up until April 30th of the year when the taxes are due.
•The Tax Court can be contacted at 651-539-3260 for more information on procedures, forms, and
filing fees.
Regular Division
•Can be used for any property type
•Must be used for property assessed >
$300,000
•Can be appealed to the Supreme Court
Small Claims Division
•All homestead property
1 unit/parcel/petition
•Homestead classifications
•Assessed < $300,000
•All decisions are final
First Contact the County Assessor’s Office or your Local Assessor 651-430-6175.
•Discuss your concerns with the assessor or an appraiser.
•Compare values of neighboring or similar properties.
•Review local comparable sales information.
•If you and your assessor or the County staff do not agree, continue below:
Appeal directly to Tax Court (One-Step Appeal)
44 | Page
Assessment Calendar
45 | Page
46 | Page
47 | Page
Local Board & Open Book Meeting Schedule
City/Township Format Date Time LocationMarine on St Croix Local Board Tuesday, April 5, 2022 9:00-10:00 am Marine on St Croix City Hall 121 Judd StMahtomediLocal Board Wednesday, April 6, 2022 5:00-6:00 pm Mahtomedi City Hall 600 Stillwater RdHugoLocal Board Thursday, April 7, 2022 5:30-7:00 pm Hugo City Hall 14669 Fitzgerald Ave NBaytownLocal Board Monday, April 11, 2022 4:00-5:00 pm Baytown Community Center 4020 McDonald Dr NForest Lake Local Board Monday, April 11, 2022 5:30-6:30 pm Forest Lake City Hall 1408 Lake St S
Dellwood - Virtual Local Board Monday, April 11, 2022 5:00-5:30 pm Call the Dellwood City Clerk at 651.429.1356 or visit www.dellwood.us for more details.Birchwood Local Board Tuesday, April 12, 2022 6:00-6:30 pm Birchwood Village City Hall 207 Birchwood AveDenmarkLocal Board Tuesday, April 12, 2022 4:30-5:30 pm Denmark Town Hall 14008 90th St SGrey Cloud Island Local Board Thursday, April 14, 2022 6:00-7:00 pm Grey Cloud Island Town Hall 9910 Grey Cloud Island Dr SScandiaLocal Board Monday, April 18, 2022 5:00-6:00 pm Scandia Community Center 14727 209th St NLake Elmo Local Board Wednesday, April 20, 2022 5:00-7:00 pm Lake Elmo City Hall 3800 Laverne Ave N
May - Virtual Local Board Wednesday, April 20, 2022 9:00-9:30 am Call May Town Hall at 651.491.1706 prior to the scheduled meeting or visit www.townofmay.org for more details.Willernie Local Board Monday, April 25, 2022 5:30-6:30 pm Willernie City Hall 111 Wildwood RdAftonOpen BookBayportOpen BookCottage Grove Open BookGrantOpen BookHastingsOpen Book Regional Open Book-Cottage Grove Cottage Grove City Hall Lake St Croix Beach Open Book Thursday, April 7, 2022 5:00-7:00 pm 12800 Ravine Pkwy SLakelandOpen BookLakeland Shores Open BookLandfallOpen Book Regional Open Book-Oakdale Oakdale City Hall Newport Open Book Wednesday, April 13, 2022 5:00-7:00 pm 1584 Hadley Ave NOak Park Heights Open BookOakdaleOpen BookPine Springs Open Book Regional Open Book-Stillwater Washington Cty Govt Center St Mary's Point Open Book Wednesday, April 20, 2022 2:00-7:00 pm 14949 62nd St NSt Paul Park Open BookStillwater City Open BookStillwater Township Open Book Regional Open Book-Woodbury Woodbury City Hall West Lakeland Open Book Thursday, April 21, 2022 5:00-7:00 pm 8301 Valley Creek RdWhite Bear Lake Open BookWoodburyOpen Book
County Board Meeting Tuesday, June 14, 2022 5:00 pm **By Appointment
Government Center - Stillwater Tuesday, June 21, 2022 11:00 am (times subject to change)
**Appointment deadline to sign up for County Board meeting is Wednesday, May 4, 2022
2022 Meeting Schedule
May attend any one of four Regional Open Book meetings
City of Hugo Claims
April 4, 2022 G. 1
Vendor Invoice Amount Description Department
Allstream 18232256 102.30$ Fax Lines Administration
Aspen Mills 290222 18.85$ Name Tag Fire Dept
Aspen Mills 290323 59.40$ Name Tags Fire Dept
Baller, Scott CLAIM 79.99$ Work Boot Reimbursement Building Inspections
Canteen Refreshment Services MSP41999 233.53$ Breakroom Supplies Gen Gov't Bldgs
Canteen Refreshment Services MSP42001 170.85$ Breakroom Supplies Public Works
Cargill Incorporated 2907008827 19,731.73$ Salt for Snow & Ice Control Street Dept
Cargill Incorporated 2907012757 8,348.39$ Salt for Snow & Ice Control Street Dept
Cargill Incorporated 2907018532 3,021.15$ Salt for Snow & Ice Control Street Dept
CDW Government Inc T629903 28.38$ Flash Drives Administration
Comcast 3/5/2022 2.25$ Business Internet (thru April 14) Fire Dept
Comcast 3/12/2022 25.25$ Business Cable (thru April 21) Administration
Custom Cap & Tire LLC 270045825 10,724.00$ Tires - Unit #326-11 Street Dept
Custom Cap & Tire LLC 270046203 1,907.20$ Tires - Unit #205-15 Street Dept
Custom Cap & Tire LLC 270046204 2,040.00$ Tires - Unit #115-12 Street Dept
Dell Marketing LP 10569860279 124.54$ Monitor Public Works
Dell Marketing LP 10569860279 28.37$ Keyboard & Mouse - Laserfiche Workstation Administration
Dell Marketing LP 10571655637 194.00$ Docking Station - Laserfiche Workstation Administration
Electro Watchman Inc 021622SP-9325ACC 15,849.48$ Access Control System - Lions Park Pavilion (1/2) Special Parks Fund
Electro Watchman Inc 021622SP-9325CAM 23,606.59$ Security Camera System - Lions Park Pavilion (1/2) Special Parks Fund
Excel AV Group 147300 38,022.50$ AV System - Lions Park Pavilion (1/2) Special Parks Fund
Goodin Company 02504220-00 332.73$ Parts - Unit #209-13 Sewer Utility
GovOffice LLC INV224610 1,440.00$ Web Hosting thru March 2023 Administration
GovOffice LLC INV224610 300.00$ Extended Storage Plan Administration
HCM Architects 2066-16 7,046.79$ Lions Park Architect Services Special Parks Fund
Hisdahl Inc 17424 22.00$ Par Tags Fire Dept
Hotsy Equipment of Minnesota 12630 1,149.18$ Bulk Soap & Parts for Washbay Public Works
Innovative Office Solutions LLC IN3716471 70.68$ Label Tape, Highlighters, Message Books, Etc Public Works
Innovative Office Solutions LLC IN3721942 29.24$ Flash Drives Administration
Lawson Products 9309366520 423.50$ Bulk Hardware Supplies Public Works
Lindau, Michele CLAIM 749.50$ Zoom Video Conferencing Software Renewal Administration
MacQueen Equipment Inc P40890 41.36$ Parts - Unit #209 Sewer Utility
McCullough, Ryan CLAIM 68.54$ MRWA Conference - Fuel Water & Sewer
McCullough, Ryan CLAIM 3.50$ MRWA Conference - Parking Water & Sewer
Minneapolis/St. Paul Business Journal 508453325 90.00$ 1 Year Subscription Administration
NAC Mechanical Corp 195931 1,071.64$ HVAC Repairs - CH Gen Gov't Bldgs
Northern Door Company 70455 180.00$ Garage Door Repairs Fire Dept
O'Reilly Auto Parts 5914-194319 54.80$ Parts - Unit #109-15 Street Dept
Press Publications 733137 50.80$ Planning Commission Public Hearing Notice Ordinances/Proceedings
Press Publications 733138 139.70$ Notice of Redistricting Ordinances/Proceedings
Professional Home Cleaning Inc 44836 450.00$ House Cleaning - 14696 Fondant Ave Rental Properties
Ricoh USA, Inc 105973925 194.61$ April Copier Lease Payment Public Works
Signature Lighting Inc 1297 140.00$ Streetlight Repairs Street Dept
Silver Star Industries Radco - Blaine BLN-87233 242.95$ Parts - Unit #111-16 Building Inspections
Sun Life Financial April 1,039.35$ Disability Premium Finance Dept
Terry's Repair Co 5616 100.00$ Repairs - Unit #CV2 Fire Dept
UniFirst Corporation 090 0683073 44.61$ Supplies & Floor Mat Services (CH) Gen Gov't Bldgs
UniFirst Corporation 090 0684437 65.89$ Supplies & Floor Mat Services (CH) Gen Gov't Bldgs
UniFirst Corporation 090 0684439 137.84$ Uniforms, Supplies & Floor Mat Services (PW) Public Works
UniFirst Corporation 090 0685801 119.79$ Uniforms, Supplies & Floor Mat Services (PW) Public Works
UniFirst Corporation 090 0687163 46.04$ Supplies & Floor Mat Services (CH) Gen Gov't Bldgs
UniFirst Corporation 090 0687164 37.54$ Supplies & Floor Mat Services (FH) Fire Dept
UniFirst Corporation 090 0687165 167.03$ Uniforms, Supplies & Floor Mat Services (PW) Public Works
Washington County 194681 14,200.64$ Traffic Striping Services Street Dept
Xcel Energy 51-0013009096-8 1,137.90$ Water Tower No. 4 Electric Water Utility
Xcel Energy 51-0013297123-1 5,212.08$ Public Works Natural Gas Service Public Works
Xcel Energy 51-0013297123-1 1,973.08$ Public Works Electric Service Public Works
Xcel Energy 51-0013848498-2 1,371.84$ Temp Electric Service - Lions Park Parks Dept
Zerorez 552037 649.00$ Carpet Cleaning - 14696 Fondant Ave Rental Properties
Ziegler Inc IN000456437 1,641.20$ Parts - Unit #326-11 Street Dept
166,554.10$ Total Claims for April 4, 2022
Page 1
Page 1 of 3
MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING
BETWEEN THE CITY OF HUGO AND WASHINGTON COUNTY
FOR DESIGN AND INSTALLATION OF A TRAFFIC SIGNAL SYSTEM
ON COUNTY STATE AID HIGHWAY (CSAH) 8
AT ITS INTERSECTION WITH ONKEA PARKWAY IN THE CITY OF HUGO
THIS MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING, by and between the City of Hugo, a municipal corporation,
herein after referred to as the "City", and Washington County, a political subdivision of the State of
Minnesota, hereinafter referred to as the "County.”
WHEREAS, the County has determined through its Intersection Control Ranking System (ICRS) that the
intersection of CSAH 8 (Frenchman Road) and Oneka Parkway will soon be a candidate location for
installation of a traffic signal; and
WHEREAS, the City is planning to construct roadway improvements on Oneka Parkway at its intersection
with CSAH 8, hereinafter referred to as the “Project”; and
WHEREAS, the City and County have determined that it would be mutually beneficial to incorporate the
design and construction of a traffic signal system into the city’s planned Project to improve Oneka
Parkway.
NOW THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY MUTUALLY UNDERSTOOD BY THE PARTIES AS FOLLOWS:
1. PURPOSE
The City and County agree to incorporate the design and construction of a new fully actuated
traffic control signal system at CSAH 8 into the City’s planned Project to improve Oneka
Parkway, and to share in the design and construction costs of such traffic signal system and
associated components and pedestrian ramps, under the arrangement described in the
following sections.
2. PLANS AND SPECIFICATION PREPARATION
a. The City will be responsible for the preparation of all the plans and specifications for the
Project, including but not limited to, compliance with all applicable standards and
policies and obtaining all approvals required in formulating the bid specifications for all
County and City components of this Project.
b. The City shall provide for county review all draft plan submittals for work within the
county right-of-way, including at a 30%, 60%, and 90% level. The 30% plan submittal
shall indicate all proposed signal structure locations along with surveyed utilities, such
that the county may pothole for utility verification purposes.
c. The following County project numbers have been assigned to the Project: SAP 082-608-
012? and CP 22-10804.
d. The following City project numbers have been assigned to the Project: SAP 224-111-002.
3. PROJECT COMPONENTS
a. The traffic signal construction will conform to Washington County’s design preferences
and Division SS specifications and will include pedestrian ramps on all four corners
Page 2 of 3
compliant with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), in addition to an Emergency
Vehicle Preemption (EVP) system, four overhead streetlights, four marked crosswalks,
and all necessary overhead and ground-mounted signing.
b. Vehicle detection is already installed on CSAH 8, therefore the cost of vehicle detection
for sidestreet approaches will be listed as a separate bid item and will be at the City’s
sole cost and expense.
c. City road work to provide dedicated left turn, through, and right turn lanes on Oneka
Parkway will be constructed at the City’s sole cost and expense, with the through lane
aligned with the northbound thru lane adjacent to the inplace center median on the
north leg of Oneka Parkway.
d. County-furnished materials will include controller cabinet and equipment, audible
pedestrian buttons, and EVP equipment. Structural steel or other components of the
signal system may be supplied by the city or county, as determined during the design
process. The cost of agency-furnished materials will be considered an in-kind
contribution towards the project cost by the furnishing agency.
4. ADVERTISEMENT AND AWARD OF CONTRACT
After plans and specifications have been approved by the County, all permits and approvals
obtained, and acquisition of necessary rights-of-way and easements, the City will advertise for
construction bids. Following bid concurrence by the County, the City will award the contract to
the lowest responsible bidder. Concurrent with the contract award, the City and the County will
enter into a cooperative agreement for cost share of the construction project and for long-term
maintenance of the traffic signal and its components.
5. CONSTRUCTION ADMINISTRATION, OBSERVATION, AND TESTING
The City will be responsible for the construction administration, inspection, and for the
observation and testing for all construction items. The City will allow county staff to inspect
construction items within the county right-of-way and to make recommendations to the City
regarding acceptance of such items, and will provide to the County for review and approval any
Shop Drawings related to traffic signal components.
Any County requests or contractor direction will be communicated to the City, and the City will
be the sole agency responsible for direct communication with the Contractor. Any change
orders pertaining to construction items within County right-of-way will be subject to the
approval of the County.
6. COST PARTICIPATION ITEMS AND ESTIMATED COSTS
The City’s cost participation for this project will be in accordance with the provisions of the
“Washington County Cost Participation Policy #8001 for Cooperative Highway Improvement
Projects” which is incorporated into this agreement by reference.
a. Construction
Construction costs will be the cost to construct the Project.
b. Design Engineering
Design engineering costs will be professional design engineering services, project
coordination, preparation of plans and specification, stakeholder engagement,
geotechnical studies, and other administrative functions necessary to add the traffic
signal and associated pedestrian ramps to the Project, which the City has estimated to
Page 3 of 3
not exceed $28,500 as per the Scope of Services attached to this memorandum as
Exhibit A. The County will pay 50% of the design engineering costs necessary to add the
traffic signal and associated pedestrian ramps to the Project.
c. Construction Engineering/Contract Administration
Construction engineering/contract administration costs will be construction
observation, construction testing, construction administration, staking, conducting and
recording the pre-bid, pre-construction and weekly construction meetings, reviewing
monthly pay estimates, labor compliance, and other administrative functions necessary
for the Project. Construction engineering/contract administration is 8% of the
construction cost. Based on the County’s share of the construction cost, the County will
pay the prorated cost of construction engineering/contract administration for its share
of the project. After the City has awarded the construction contract, the City will provide
to the County an updated estimate of the construction engineering/contract
administration cost.
d. Actual County costs and shares will be based on the following:
i. Construction will be based on the contractor's unit prices and final quantities at
Project completion including all contract changes.
ii. Design engineering will be based on the actual design costs incurred by the city
directly attributable to inclusion of the traffic signal and associated pedestrian
ramps into the Project.
iii. Construction engineering/contract administration will be based on the
contractor’s unit prices and final quantities at Project completion including all
contract changes and liquidated damages.
WASHINGTON COUNTY CITY OF HUGO
County Engineer Date City Engineer Date
Mayor Date
G:\Group Data\Traffic\Proposals\2022\Washington County-Hugo\Washington County - CSAH 8 & Oneka Parkway.docx 701 XENIA AVENUE S | SUITE 300 | MINNEAPOLIS, MN | 55416 | 763.541.4800 | WSBENG.COM Proposal to Provide Traffic Engineering Services
To: Mark Erichson, City of Hugo
From: Sean Delmore, PE, PTOE, Director of Traffic Engineering
Erik Seiberlich, Senior Project Manager
Date: March 29, 2022
Re: Scope and Cost Estimate for a Traffic Signal Design Package at CSAH 8 & Oneka
Parkway in Hugo (SAP 224-111-002)
CC: Washington County Public Works
The following is a summarized scope for completing traffic signal design plans, special provisions,
cost estimate, and a Signal Justification Report (SJR) at the intersection of CSAH 8 & Oneka
Parkway in Hugo, MN. This scope includes project management and correspondence with the
City of Hugo and Washington County.
SCOPE OF SERVICES
1. Project Management and Correspondence
a. WSB will work with Washington County and the City of Hugo to ensure that the
traffic signal design, ADA compliant pedestrian facilities, and intersection/
roadway improvements are in coordination with the other construction activities in
the area.
b. The cost estimate provided assumes all correspondence is by email, telephone,
or video conference.
c. Project Management Team (PMT) meetings – WSB will schedule and lead up to
five PMT meetings to facilitate discussion and gather feedback and input
regarding the intersection and signal improvements.
2. Intersection Control Evaluation Report (ICE)
a. WSB will collect 48 hours of video at the intersection and provide this to
Washington County.
b. WSB will analyze 24 hours of data for traffic turning movements and warrant
analysis and provide raw data to County.
c. WSB will complete a draft ICE including FYA by-time-of-day information for City
and County review.
d. WSB will complete a final ICE incorporating comments received and will submit
the report to Washington County, the City of Hugo, and MnDOT State Aid for
approval.
3. Intersection and Roadway Design
a. WSB will complete design of ADA ramps in all four quadrants.
b. WSB will address existing and future trail/ sidewalk connections with the design.
4. Pre-Design and 60% Field Meetings
a. WSB will complete a site visit and document existing conditions in coordination
with the data collection.
March 29, 2022
Page 2
G:\Group Data\Traffic\Proposals\2022\Washington County-Hugo\Washington County - CSAH 8 & Oneka Parkway.docx
b. WSB will create a preliminary pole placement figure (including x/y coordinates)
based on proposed intersection geometry. WSB will perform a utility locate in
conjunction with the pre-design signal infrastructure field meeting where
proposed signal pole locations will be staked and reviewed. County and City staff
will be invited to this meeting.
c. WSB will utilize information from the pre-design meeting to develop the signal
plans according to field observations and notes that come out of the field
meeting.
d. WSB will perform a utility locate in conjunction with the 60% signal infrastructure
field meeting where proposed signal design and pole locations will be staked and
reviewed. County and City staff will be invited to this meeting.
5. Traffic Signal Design Package
a. With the existing base files provided, WSB will provide draft traffic signal plans
following the guidelines for Washington County and the City of Hugo. We will
complete draft Division-SS special provisions and cost estimate to be submitted
with the draft plan set.
b. Once the signal pole locations are approved (Task 4d), WSB will assist the
agencies with the coordination of pole ordering.
c. Upon receiving comments from the City and County, WSB will complete a final
design package for bidding including signed traffic signal plan sheets, signed
Division-SS special provisions and a final cost estimate.
d. Washington County will be responsible for providing initial signal timing
parameters for the new signal controller.
6. Quality Control
a. All deliverables are subject to internal review per WSB’s Quality Management
Process for Traffic Signal Design Packages.
WSB will complete all the tasks described in this scope for a not-to-exceed amount of $28,500.
Thank you for the opportunity to propose on this project. Please contact me at 612.360.1322 if
you have any questions regarding the content of this proposal. This work does not include any
hours associated with right of way or permitting.
Sincerely,
Sean Delmore, PE, PTOE
Director of Traffic Engineering
ACCEPTED BY: The City of Hugo
The City of Hugo hereby accepts the WSB proposal in the not-to-exceed amount of $28,500
for the services outlined in this proposal according to the terms and conditions attached.
Signature:
Name:
Date:
CITY OF HUGO
RESOLUTION 2022-
RESOLUTION ELECTING THE STANDARD ALLOWANCE
AVAILABLE UNDER THE REVENUE LOSS PROVISION OF THE
CORONAVIRUS LOCAL FISCAL RECOVERY FUND
ESTABLISHED UNDER THE AMERICAN RESCUE PLAN ACT
WHEREAS, Congress adopted the American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) in March 2021, which
included $65 billion in recovery funds for cities across the country.
WHEREAS, ARPA funds are intended to provide support to state, local, and tribal governments
in responding to the impact of COVID-19 and in their efforts to contain COVID-19 in their
communities, residents, and businesses.
WHEREAS, The Fiscal Recovery Funds provides for $19.53 billion in payments to be made to
States and territories which will distribute the funds to nonentitlement units of local government
(NEUs).
WHEREAS, The ARPA requires that States and territories allocate funding to NEUs in an
amount that bears the same proportion as the population of the NEU bears to the total population
of all NEUs in the State or territory.
WHEREAS, $1,668,411.92 has been allocated to the City of Hugo (City) pursuant to the ARPA.
WHEREAS, The Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds ensures that governments
have the resources needed to fight the pandemic and support families and businesses struggling
with its public health and economic impacts, maintain vital public services, amid declines in
revenue, and build a resilient and equitable recovery by making investments that support long-
term growth and opportunity.
WHEREAS, In May 2021, the US Department of Treasury (Treasury) published the Interim
Final Rule describing eligible and ineligible uses of funds, as well as other program provisions,
sought feedback from the public on these program rules, and began to distribute funds.
WHEREAS, on January 6, 2022, Treasury issued the Final Rule. The Final Rule delivers
broader flexibility and greater simplicity in the program, reflective of feedback in the comment
process.
WHEREAS, the Final Rule offers a standard allowance for revenue loss of up to $10 million,
allowing recipients to select between a standard amount of revenue loss or complete a full
revenue loss calculation.
WHEREAS, recipients that select the standard allowance may use that amount, in many cases
their full award, for general government services, with streamlined reporting requirements.
Resolution 2022-
Page 2
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
HUGO, MINNESOTA, THE CITY ELECTS THE STANDARD ALLOWANCE
AVAILABLE UNDER THE REVENUE LOSS PROVISION OF THE AMERICAN
RESCUE PLAN ACT IN THE AMOUNT OF $1,668,411.92 TO BE USED FOR THE
GENERAL PROVISION OF GOVERNMENT SERVICES.
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Hugo, Minnesota this 4th day of April, 2022.
_______________________
Tom Weidt, Mayor
Attested:
_______________________
Michele Lindau, City Clerk
178 E 9TH STREET | SUITE 200 | SAINT PAUL, MN | 55101 | 651.286.8450 | WSBENG.COM March 30, 2022
Honorable Mayor and City Council
City of Hugo, MN
14669Fitzgerald Avenue North
Hugo, MN 55038
Re: Authorize Preparation of Bid Package and Request for Bids for the Water Tower No. 2
Demolition Project
WSB Project No. 018814-000
Dear Mayor and Council:
Water Tower No. 4 (125th Street and Fondant Trail N), is on-line and operational. As you may
recall, Water Tower No. 2 (Fenway Boulevard and 130th Street) and Water Tower No. 3 (located
near 159th Street and Farnham Ave) were on separate pressure zones and water Tower No. 2
was due for costly rehabilitation. For cost effectiveness reasons, the City of Hugo chose to
construct Water Tower No. 4 to a size that would allow the removal of Water Tower No. 2 and
allow the City to operate with one pressure zone. Staff has been coordinating the removal of
existing utility companies infrastructure located on Water Tower No. 2 to allow its removal.
Staff is requesting Authorization to prepare a bid package and request bids for the removal of
Water Tower No. 2. This will be the first bid package and will consist of removing the tower,
piping and miscellaneous items. This is specialty work with limited contractors doing this type of
work and therefore we are limiting the scope of the bid package to the type of work these
contractors perform. Remaining site work and bid packages will be coordinated with Park
Planner Denaway and Public Works Director Anderson which will involve an inclusive process of
determining what the goals and vision for park are. Once clear direction is known, a second bid
package or work performed by public works staff will finalize the clean-up/modifications of the
site.
Staff recommends City Council authorize staff to prepare the bid package and request bids for
the Water Tower No. 2 Demolition Project.
Sincerely,
WSB
Mark Erichson
City Engineer
cc:
Scott Anderson, Public Works Director
Shayla Denaway, Parks Planner
Bryan Bear, City Administrator
Rachel Juba, Community Development Director
13/31/2022 3:25 PMMichele LindauSu Mo Tu We Th Fr Sa12345678910 11 12 13 14 15 1617 18 19 20 21 22 2324 25 26 27 28 29 30April 2022Su Mo Tu We Th Fr Sa12345678 9 10 11 12 13 1415 16 17 18 19 20 2122 23 24 25 26 27 2829 30 31May 2022April 2022Mar 2728293031Apr 1234567897:00pm City Council5:30pm LBAE (Oneka Room) - Michele Lindau8:00am VetEaster Egg Hunt101112131415166:30pm BOZA7:00pm Planning CommTax Day (United States)8:00am Spring Cleanup17181920212223Easter Day (United States)7:00pm City Council5:30pm EDA6:30pm Hist Comm7:00pm Parks Comm24252627282930Administrative Professionals Day (United States)6:30pm BOZA7:00pm Planning CommSUNDAY MONDAY TUESDAY WEDNESDAYTHURSDAY FRIDAY SATURDAY
23/31/2022 3:25 PMMichele LindauSu Mo Tu We Th Fr Sa12345678 9 10 11 12 13 1415 16 17 18 19 20 2122 23 24 25 26 27 2829 30 31May 2022Su Mo Tu We Th Fr Sa123456789101112 13 14 15 16 17 1819 20 21 22 23 24 2526 27 28 29 30June 2022May 2022May 12345677:00pm City Council891011121314Mother's Day (United States)6:30pm BOZA7:00pm Planning Comm151617181920217:00pm City Council5:30pm EDA6:30pm Hist Comm7:00pm Parks Comm222324252627286:30pm BOZA7:00pm Planning Comm293031Jun 1234Memorial Day (United States)SUNDAY MONDAY TUESDAY WEDNESDAY THURSDAY FRIDAY SATURDAY