HomeMy WebLinkAbout2010-04-28 Board of Equalization Meeting HandoutCity of Centerville
soard of Equalization Nleet6�g
Centerville, Minnesota
April 28, 2010
Y�
Ken To(anar1% CW A."&-"...
MW W B%* *,Anoka CWRW A4.,..'S
offim
1
Kenneth A. Tolzmann, SAMA
Senior Accredited Minnesota Assessor
TO: City of Centerville Councilmember's and Residents
FROM: Kenneth A. Tolzmann, SAMA #1939
Centerville City Assessor
DATE: April 22, 2010
RE: 2010 Pay 2011 Assessment Report
Introduction
I have prepared this 2010 Assessment Report for use by the City Council and Residents.
The Assessment Report includes general information about both the appeals and
assessment process, as well as specific information regarding the 2010 assessment.
Minnesota Statutes establish specific requirements for the assessment of property. The
law requires that all real property be valued at market value, which is defined as the usual
or most likely selling price as of January 2, 2010.
The estimated market values established through the 2010 assessment are based upon
actual real estate market trends of City of Centerville properties taking place from
October 1, 2008 through September 30, 2009. From these trends our mass appraisal
system is used to determine individual property values. Property owners who have
questions or concerns regarding the market value set for their property are asked to
contact me prior to this meeting. This allows me the opportunity to answer any questions
they might have. I have found that a large number of property owner concerns can be
resolved by discussion.
If I am unable to resolve a property owner's concerns regarding their market value, the
appeal can be brought to this local Board of Appeal and Equalization.
The 2010 Assessment Summary
As previously mentioned, State Statutes require all real property within the City of
Centerville to be valued at market value as of the January 2nd assessment date. The 2010
assessment has met all assessment standards set by the State of Minnesota.
Statistically, based upon the 31 qualified sales within the City during this sales period,
and after value adjustments made accordingly by zone, the final result was an assessment
that qualifies as "excellent" in the eyes of the Minnesota Dept. of Revenue with a median
of 94.5 and a coefficient of dispersion of 5.8, and a Price Related Differential of 100.
Changes made to this 2010 assessment from the 2009 assessment were as follows:
All residential buildings were adjusted Countywide based on size/quality.
Adjustments to
land were:
Zone 3
( northside average) -10%
Zone 4
(acreage sites) — 10%
Zone 5
(lakeshore) — 10%
Zone 6
(southside avg) -10%
Zone 7
(above avg) -10%
Zone 8
(average townhomes) -10%
Zone 9
(above avg townhomes) -10%
With respect to commercial/industrial parcels, there were no changes made to the land or
building schedules.
In summary, we saw the overall estimated market value of the City drop by 6 % for this
2010 assessment. Preliminary indications are, that we have seen the worst of the fall in
real estate values here in Centerville. If the present trends continue, there is a good
possibility that any further reduction in tax base for pay 2012 would be minimal.
Conclusion
As your City Assessor, it is my priority to represent your community with utmost dignity
and respect, and to make every property owner feel as though they are being heard.
Obviously, I'm not able to tell everyone just what they want to hear, but it is my hope
that through explanation, and discussion, there can be a better understanding.
If there are any questions from members of the City Council or City Staff, or City
Residents, please do not hesitate to call me. I am available to City residents always
during normal business hours and by appointment on evenings and weekends.
In closing, I would like to take this opportunity to thank the City of Centerville for
allowing me the privilege of serving as your City Assessor. I can assure you that I take
the responsibilities of those duties most seriously.
If you or anyone has questions relating to property tax assessment, I would be most
pleased to discuss these issues with you. You can reach me at my office at (651) 464-
4862 or my cell at (612) 865 -2149.
Sincerely,
c. .
Kenneth A. Tolzmann, SAMA #1939
Centerville City Assessor
City of Centerville
.-
AssessmentCalendar .................................................................................... ............................... 3
The2010 Assessment ................................................................................... ...............................
4
QuintileMap ................................................................................................... ...............................
5
Reassessment............................................................................................... ............................... 6
MarketValue .................................................................................................. ...............................
6
Authority of the Local Board of Appeal and Equalization ................................ ............................... 7
MarketValues ................................................................................................ .............................10
2009 -2010 Market Value Comparison ........................................................... .............................11
Residential Appraisal System ........................................................................ .............................12
SalesStudies ............................................................................................... ...............................
12
SalesStatistics Defined .................................................................................. .............................13
Current Sales Study Statistics ........................................................................ .............................14
2010 Anoka County Ratio Study .................................................................. ...............................
14
Residential Tax Changes Examined .............................................................. .............................15
2010 Real Estate Tax Information .................................................................. .............................16
AppealsProcedure ......................................................................................... .............................17
SampleMarket Value Notice ........................................................................ ...............................
19
Sample Pay 2010 Property Tax Statement .................................................. ...............................
20
Anoka County Final Pay 2010 Tax Rates .................................................... ...............................
23
2
City of Centerville
Assessment Calendar
October 15 Second Half Pay 2010 Taxes Due
November 15 Anticipated Day to Mail pay 2011 Proposed Tax Notices
December 1 Last Day to Establish Homestead for pay 2011
December 15 Final Day to File Homestead Application for pay 2011
3
2010
STAFF
January 2
2010 Market Values for Property Established
February 1
Final Day to Deliver Assessment Records to County
February 1
Final Day to File for an Exemption from Taxation
March 1
Final day to file for 1 b with Commissioner of Revenue
March 16
2010 Valuation Notices Mailed
Ken
April 13
Local Board of Appeal and Equalization
Tolzmann
City Assessor
April 30
Final Day to File a Tax Court Petition for 2009 Assessment
May 15
First Half Payable 2010 Taxes Due
May 29
Final Date for Manufactured homes assessed as personal
property to establish homestead
May 31
State Board of Equalization
June 14
County Board of Appeal and Equalization (6:00 PM)
July 1
2010 Assessment Finalized
July 1
Date by which taxable property becomes exempt
August 15
Final Day to File for 2009 Property Tax Refund
August 31
Final Day to Pay the First Half Manufactured Home Taxes
September 1
2010 Abstract to the Department of Revenue
October 15 Second Half Pay 2010 Taxes Due
November 15 Anticipated Day to Mail pay 2011 Proposed Tax Notices
December 1 Last Day to Establish Homestead for pay 2011
December 15 Final Day to File Homestead Application for pay 2011
3
City of Centerville
The 2010 Assessment
The 2009 assessment should be a reflection of the 2009 market conditions. Sales of
property are constantly analyzed to chart the activity of the market place. The
Assessing staff does not create value; they only measure its movement
Assessing property values equitably is part science, part judgment and part
communication skill. Training as an assessor cannot tell us how to find the "perfect'
value of a property, but it does help us consistently produce the same estimate of
value for identical properties. That after all, is the working definition of equalization.
As of January 2, 2010, there were 1,589 parcel /accounts in the City. That is
essentially the same as from 2009. This total includes:
• 1,410 residential parcels
• 90 non - taxable parcels
• 78 commercial and industrial parcels
• 2 apartment/nursing hometman. housing parcels
• 0 manufactured home accounts
• 1 personal property accounts
• 0 railroad parcels
• 8 agricultural parcels
• 0 utility parcels
Current state law mandates that all property must be re- assessed each year and
physically reviewed once every five years. We also inspect all properties with new
construction each year. During 2009 1 reviewed nearly 400 existing properties, in
addition, we added new construction to 45 properties (1 house, decks, garages,
additions & major remodels).
A map illustrating the areas we recently reviewed and those areas to be visited in the
tuture is presented on the fallowing page.
M
City of Centerville
QUIMMEMP
City of Centerville
\
F
1%
17Z
� \
" r`/
20088 Assessme Area
I ft .. 2009 Projected Re-A.%sess-meut Area
(
^ �-
��
\
�� .
®
«
�[
:�� � . - z
�
A-
~
ME
,�
»
�
.� -
-- -
(
r
.
-- -=
I ft .. 2009 Projected Re-A.%sess-meut Area
City of Centerville
Reassessment
State Statute reads: "All real property subject to taxation shall be listed and
reassessed every year with reference to its value on January 2nd preceding the
assessment." This has been done, and the owners of property in Centerville
have been notified of any value change. Minnesota Statute 273.11 reads: "All
property shall be valued at its market value." It further states that "In estimating
and determining such value, the Assessor shall not adopt a lower or different
standard of value because the same is to serve as a basis for taxation, nor shall
the assessor adopt as a criterion of value the price for which such property
would sell at auction or at a forced sale, or in the aggregate with all the property
in the town or district; but the assessor shall value each article or description of
property by itself, and at such sum or price as the assessor believes the same to
be fairly worth in money." The Statute says all property shall be valued at
market value, not may be valued at market value. This means that no factors
other than market factors should affect the Assessor's value and the subsequent
action by the Board of Equalization.
Market Value
Market value has been defined many different ways_ One way used by many
appraisers is the following:
The most probable price that a property should bring in a competitive and open
market under all conditions requisite to a fair sale, the buyer and seller each
acting prudently and knowledgeably, and assuming the price is not affected by
any undue stimulus. Implicit in this definition is the consummation of a sale as
of a specified date and the passing of title from seller to buyer under conditions
whereby:
(1) buyer and seller are typically motivated:
(2) both parties are well informed or well advised, and acting in what they
consider their own best interests;
(3) a reasonable time is allowed for exposure in the open market;
(4) payment is made in terms of cash in U.S. dollars or in terms of financial
arrangements comparable thereto;
(5) the price represents the normal consideration for the property sold
unaffected by special or creative financing or sales concessions granted
by anyone associated with the sale.
6
City of Centerville
Authority of the Local Board of Equalization
Assessments of property are made to provide the means for the measuring of
the relative share of each taxpayer in the meeting of the costs of local
government. It is the duty of the Assessor to assess all real and personal
property except that which is exempt or taxable under some special method of
taxation. If the burden of local government is to be fairly and justly shared
among the owners of all property of value, it is necessary that all taxable
property be listed on the tax rolls and that all assessments be made accurately.
Whenever any property that should be assessed is omitted from the tax rolls, an
unfair burden falls upon the owners of all property that has been assessed. If
any property is undervalued in relation to the other property on the assessment
record, the owners of the other property are called upon automatically to
assume part of the tax burden that should be borne by the undervalued
property. Fairness and justice in property taxation demands both completeness
and equality in assessment.
Minnesota Statutes Section 274.01 provides that the council of each city shall
be or appoint a Board of Appeal and Equalization. The charter of certain cities
provides for the establishment of a Board of Equalization. The provisions of
Section 274.01 and this regulation apply to all Boards of Appeal or Boards of
Equalization.
The 2003 Legislature enacted State Statute 274.014 which requires that there
be at least one member at each meeting of a Local Board of Appeal and
Equalization (beginning with the 2006 local boards) who has attended an
appeals and equalization course developed or approved by the Commissioner
of Revenue within the last four years. (The member must attend the course by
no later than January 1, 2006.) Mayor Mary Capra as well as Councilmembers
Ben Fehrenbacher and Jeff Paar, have met this requirement for the City of
Centerville.
Section 274.01 states the county assessor shall fix a date for each Board of
Appeal and Equalization to meet for the purpose of reviewing the assessment of
property in its respective town or city. The county assessor is required to serve
written notice to the clerk of each of such bodies on or before February 15th of
each year.
These meetings are required to be held between April 1 st and May 31 st; and the
clerk of the Board of Appeal and Equalization is required to give published and
posted notice at least ten days before the date set for the first meeting.
The Board of Appeal and Equalization of anv city. unless a longer period is
approved by the Commissioner of Revenue, must complete its work and adjourn
within twentv days (20) from the time of convening specified in the notice of the
clerk. No action taken subsequent to such date shall be valid.
A request for additional time in order to complete the work of the Board of
Appeal and Equalization must be addressed to the Commissioner of Revenue in
writing. The Commissioner's approval is necessary to legalize any procedure
subsequent to the expiration of the twenty -day period. The Commissioner of
7
City of Centerville
Revenue will not, however, extend the time for local Boards of Appeal and
Equalization to meet beyond the time when the County Board of Equalization
meets, which is the final two weeks of June.
The authority of the local Board extends over the individual assessments of real
and personal property. The Board does not have the power to increase or
decrease by percentage all of the assessments in the district of a given class of
property. Changes in aggregate assessments by classes are made by the
County Board of Equalization.
Although the Local Board of Appeal and Equalization has the authority to
increase or reduce individual assessments, the total of such adjustments must
not reduce the aggregate assessment made by the Assessor by more than one
percent of said aggregate assessment. If the total of such adjustments does
lower the aggregate assessment made by the Assessor by more than one
percent, none of the adjustments will be allowed. This limitation does not apply,
however, to the correction of clerical errors or to the removal of duplicate
assessments.
The Local Board of Appeal and Equalization does not have the authority in any
year to reopen former assessments on which taxes are due and payable. The
Board considers only the assessments that are in process in the current year
Adjustment can be made only by the process of abatement or by legal action.
In reviewing the individual assessments, the Board may find instances of
undervaluation. Before the Board can raise the market value of property it must
notify the owner. The law does not prescribe any particular form of notice
except that the person whose property is to be increased in value must be
notified of the intent of the Board to make the increase. The Local Board of
Appeal and Equalization meetings assure a property owner an opportunity to
contest any other matter relating to the taxability of their property. The Board is
required to review the matter and make any corrections that it deems just.
When a Local Board of Appeal and Equalization convenes, it is necessary that a
majority of the members be in attendance in order that any valid action may be
taken. The local assessor is required by law to be present with his/her
assessment books and papers. He /she is required also to take part in the
proceedings but has no vote. In addition to the local assessor, the county
assessor or one of his/her assistants is required to attend. The Board should
proceed immediately to review the assessments of property. The Board should
ask the local assessor and county assessor to present any tables that have
been prepared, making comparisons of the current assessments in the district.
The county assessor is required to have maps and tables relating particularly to
land values for the guidance of Boards of Appeal and Equalization.
Comparisons should be presented of assessments of types of property with
previous years and with other assessment districts in the same county.
It is the primary duty of each Board of Appeal and Equalization to examine the
assessment record to see that all taxable property in the assessment district has
been properly placed upon the list and valued by the assessor. In case any
property, either real or personal, has been omitted; the Board has the duty of
making the assessment.
a
City of Centerville
The complaints and objections of persons who feel aggrieved with any
assessments for the current year should be considered very carefully by the
Board. Such assessments must be reviewed in detail and the Board has the
authority to make corrections it deems to be just. The Board may recess from
day to day until all cases have been heard. If complaints are received after the
adjournment of the Board of Appeal and Equalization they must be handled on
the staff level; as a property owner cannot appear before a higher board unless
he or she has first appeared at the lower board levels.
Pursuant to Minnesota Statute 274.01: The Board may not make an individual
market value adjustment or classification change that would benefit the property
in cases where the owner or other person having control over the property will
not permit the assessor to inspect the property and the interior of any buildings
or structures.
A non - resident may file written objections to his /her assessment with the county
assessor prior to the meeting of the Board of Appeal and Equalization. Such
objections must be presented to the Board for consideration while it is in
session.
Before adjourning, the Board of Appeal and Equalization should cause the
record of the official proceedings to be prepared. The law requires that the
proceedings be listed on a separate form which is appended to the assessment
book. The assessments of omitted property must be listed in detail and all
assessments that have been increased or decreased should be shown as
prescribed in the form. After the proceedings have been completed, the record
should be signed and dated by the members of the Board of Appeal and
Equalization. It is the duty of the county assessor to enter changes by Boards of
Appeal and Equalization in the assessment book of each district.
The Local Board of Appeal and Equalization has the opportunity of making a
great contribution to the equality of all assessments of property in a district. No
other agency in the assessment process has the knowledge of the property
within a district that is possessed jointly by the individual members of a Board of
Appeal and Equalization. The County or State Board of Equalization cannot
give the detailed attention to individual assessments that is possible in the
session of the Local Board. The faithful performance of duty by the Local Board
of Appeal and Equalization will make a direct contribution to the attainment of
equality in meeting the costs of providing the essential services of local
government.
The 2010 assessment should be a reflection of the 2009 market conditions. Sales of
property are constantly analyzed to chart the activity of the market place.
9
City of Centerville
Market Values
After thorough studies of the sales in the market place are conducted, we establish the
assessed value of all real property. During the 2009 study period, we recorded 59 sales,
of which we considered 31 to be "arms- length" sales.
In accordance with the results of these sales studies, downward adjustments were made to
all areas of the city with certain styles and grades of homes having larger decreases than
others. This will more properly reflect current market trends.
According to the Minneapolis Area Association of Realtors, the average home sales
price in Centerville fell 18.0% between 2008 and 2009. This dramatic decrease is due in
large part to the significant influence of lender owned properties in the market place. I
anticipate that this trend is not over.
The 2010 assessment that is up for your review has a total unaudited assessed value of
$327,217,800 excluding exempt and forfeit property. It reflects an approximate valuation
decrease of 6% compared to the 2009 assessment.
The pattern of decline (including new construction) in the City's total value can be seen in
the following list of assessment years (subject to minor change).
Change in Property Values
2000 -2009
(Total does not include utility, exempt or forfeit)
Year
Apartment
Residential
Commercial &
Total
% Chg
Industrial
2009
$751,600
$323,922,600
$23,429,800
$348,104,000
-10.3%
2008
$776,500
$360,539,000
$26,724,100
$388,039,600
0.9%
2007
$762,400
$350,726,300
$31,861,800
$383,350,500
5.4%
2006
$748,100
$338,067,900
$25,063,100
$363,879,100
13.1%
2005
$689,500
$300,078,100
$20,888,200
$321,655,800
11.8%
2004
$638,900
$268,075,500
$19,047,800
$287,762,200
14.1%
2003
$578
$232,902,300
$16,972,700
$250,453,200
13.4%
2002
$532,400
$206,173,700
$14,180,800
$220,886,900
26.5%
2001
$388,800
$163,024,700
$11,198,300
$174,611,800
14.2%
2000
$378,500
$141,621,500
$10,949,500
$152,949,500
8.0%
10
City of Centerville
2009 -2010 Market Value Comparison
2009 ASSESSMENT
PERCENT OF TOTAL MARKET VALUE
RESIDEN "I VAL
96.1%
COMMERCIAL
3.7%
O APARTMENTS
❑ COMMERCIAL
❑ RESIDENTIAL
2010 ASSESSMENT
PERCENT OF TOTAL MARKET VALUE
APARTMENTS
y3.1
COMMERCIAL
4.5%
NDUSTRIAL
1.2%
11
❑ APARTMENTS
M COMMERCIAL
❑ INDUSTRIAL
O RESIDENTIAL
APARTMENTS
.2%
City of Centerville
Residential Appraisal System
Per State Statute, each property must be physically inspected and individually
appraised once every five years. For this individual appraisal, or in the event of an
assessed value appeal, we use two standard appraisal methods to determine and verify
the estimated market value of our residential properties:
1. First, an appraiser inspects each property to verify data. If we are unable to view
the interior of a home on the first visit, a notice is left requesting a return telephone
call from the owner to schedule this inspection. Interior inspections are necessary
to confirm our data on the plans and specifications of new homes and to determine
depreciation factors in older homes.
2. To calculate the estimated market value from the property data we use a Computer
Assisted Mass Appraisal (CAMA) system
based on a reconstruction less depreciation
method of appraisal. The cost variables and
° �O ° land schedules are developed through an
analysis of stratified sales within the city. This
method uses the "Principle of Substitution" and
° calculates what a buyer would have to pay to
° replace each home today less age dependent
depreciation.
3. A comparative market analysis is used to verify these estimates. The properties
used for these studies are those that most recently have sold and by computer
analysis, are most comparable to the subject property taking into consideration
construction quality, location, size, style, etc. The main point in doing a market
analysis is to make sure that you are comparing "apples with apples ". This will
make the comparable properties "equivalent to" the subject property and establish a
probable sale price of the subject.
These three steps give us the information to verify our assessed value or to adjust it if necessary.
Sales Studies
According to State Law, it is the assessor's job to appraise all real property at market
value for property tax purposes. As a method of checks and balances, the
Department of Revenue uses statistics and ratios relating to assessed market value
and current sale prices to confirm that the law is upheld. Assessors use similar
statistics and sales ratios to identify market trends in developing market values.
12
City of Centerville
A sales ratio is obtained by comparing the assessor's market value to the adjusted sales price of
each property sold in an arms -length transaction within a fixed period. An "arms- length"
transaction is one that is generated after a property has had sufficient time on the open market,
between both an informed buyer and seller with no undue pressure on either party. The median
or mid -point ratios are calculated and stratified by property classification.
C -1
100%
The only perfect assessment would have a 100% ratio for every sale. This is of course, is
impossible. Because we are not able to predict major events that may cause significant
shifts in the market, the state allows a 15% margin of error.
The Department of Revenue adjusts the median ratio by the percentage of growth from the
previous year's abstract value of the same class of property within the same jurisdiction.
This adjusted median ratio must fall between 90% and 105 %. Any deviation will warrant a
state mandated jurisdiction -wide adjustment of at least 5 %. To avoid this increase, the
Anoka County Assessor requests a median sales ratio of 94.5 %.
Countywide, we have the ability to stratify the ratios by style, age, quality of construction,
size, land zone and value. This assists us in appraising all of our properties closer to our
goal ratio.
Sales Statistics Defined
In addition to the median ratio, we have the ability to develop other statistics to test
the accuracy of the assessment. Some of these are used at the state and county
level also. The primary statistics used are:
Aggregate Ratio: This is the total market value of all sale properties divided by the
total sale prices. It, along with the mean ratio, gives an idea of our assessment
level. Within the city, we constantly try to achieve an aggregate and mean ratio
of 94% to 95% to give us a margin to account for a fluctuating market and still
maintain ratios within state mandated guidelines.
Mean Ratio: The mean is the average ratio. We use this ratio not only to watch our
assessment level, but also to analyze property values by development, type of
dwelling and value range. These studies enable us to track market trends in
neighborhoods, popular housing types and Gasses of property.
Coefficient of Dispersion (COD): The COD measures the accuracy of the assessment. It is
possible to have a median ratio of 93% with 300 sales, two ratios at 93 %, 149 at 80%
and 149 at 103%. Although this is an excellent median ratio, there is obviously a great
inequality in the assessment. The COD indicates the spread of the ratios from the mean
or median ratio.
13
City of Centerville
The goal of a good assessment is a COD of 10 to 20. A COD under 10 is considered
excellent and anything over 20 will mean an assessment review by the Department of
Revenue.
Price Related Differential (PRD): This statistic measures the equality between the
assessment of high and low valued property. A PRD over 100 indicates a regressive
assessment, or the lower valued properties are assessed at a greater degree than the
higher. A PRD of less than 100 indicates a progressive assessment or the opposite. A
perfect PRD of 100 means that both higher and lower valued properties are assessed
exactly equal.
Current Sales Study Statistics
The following statistics are based upon ratios calculated using 2009 pay 2010 market values
and October 2008 - September 2009 sales. These are the ratios that our office uses for
citywide equalization, checking assessment accuracy, and predicting trends in the market.
Statistic
2010
Median Ratio:
94.5
Aggregate Ratio:
94.6
Mean Ratio:
94.4
COD:
5.8
PRD:
100
2008 Anoka County Ratio Study
Municipality
Sales
Median Ratio
Coefficient
County of Anoka
1548
95.3
8.2
Centerville
31
94.5
5.8
Columbus
18
94.0
6.9
Blaine
344
95.6
8.7
Circle Pines
33
93.8
7.0
Lino Lakes
78
95.1
7.9
Lexington
7
96.2
3.8
Fridley
126
94.4
9.9
Ham Lake
53
95.7
7.5
Linwood
15
96.8
6.4
Spring Lake Park
30
92.1
7.5
14
City of Centerville
Residential Tax Changes Examined
Although the Assessor's Office is considered by many to be the primary reason for any property
tax changes, there are actually several elements that can contribute to this change, including,
but not limited to:
• Changes in the approved levies of individual taxing jurisdictions.
• Bond referendum approvals.
• Tax rate changes approved by the State Legislature.
• Changes to the homestead credit, educational credits, agricultural aid, special programs (including
"This Old House ", limitations on increases in value) approved by the State Legislature.
• Changes in assessed market value.
• Changes in the classification (use) of the property.
A combination of any of these factors can bring about a change in the annual property tax bill.
2010 Centerville Residential Ratio by Zone
Zone /Code Neiahborhood Desc. #Sales Median Coefficient
CE01 -1
AGRICULTURAL
0
CE01 -2
DOWNTOWN CENTERVILLE
1
CE01 -3
NORTHSIDE AVERGE
8
91.8
6.7
CE01 -4
2.5 TP 10 ACRE RES
1
CE01 -5
LAKESHORE
1
N/A
CE01 -6
SOUTHSiDE AVERAGE
4
94.7
3.3
CE01 -7
ABOVE AVERAGE RES
13
95.8
4.7
CE01 -8
AVERAGE TOWNHOMES
2
94.5
5.2
CE01 -9
ABOVE AVERAGE TOWNHOMES
1
ALL ZONES
31 94.5 5.8
is
City of Centerville
2010 Real Estate Tax lnibrmation
The 2010 real estate tax bills were sent out around the middle of March. A brief review
of the tax procedure is provided.
Discussion
The real estate tax is an ad valorem tax; that is, a tax levied based on the value of the
property. The calculation of the tax requires two variables, a tax capacity value and the
district tax capacity rate applicable to each individual property.
Tax Capacity
Tax capacity value is a percentage of the taxable market value of a property. State law
sets the percent Determination of tax capacity values have historically changed over
the years although the payable 2009 are mostly unchanged from 2009. For the taxes
payable in 2010 the rates are as follows:
Tax capacity value for residential homestead property is determined as follows:
Res. Homestead (1A) Taxable Market Value First $500,000 @ 1.00%
Taxable Market Value Over $500,000 @ 1.25%
Tax capacity value for rental residential property is determined as follows:
One unit (4661)
Two to three unit s (4131)
Apts 4+ units (4A)
Low Inc. Rental Housing
Taxable Market Value
Taxable Market Value
Taxable Market Value
Estimated Market Value
Estimated Market Value
First $500,000 @ 1.00%
Over $500,000 @ 1.25%
All @ 1.25%
All @ 1.25%
All @.75%
Tax capacity value for commercial/industrial property is determined as follows:
Commercial /Industrial (3A) Estimated Market Value First $150,000 @ 1.50%
Over $150,000 @ 2.00%
16
City of Centerville
Appeals Procedure
Each spring Anoka County sends out a property tax bill. Three factors that affect the tax bill are:
1. The amount your local governments (town, city, county, etc.) spend to provide services to
your community,
2. the taxable market value of your property, and
3. the classification of your property (how it is used).
The assessor determines the final two factors. You may appeal the value or classification of your
property.
Informal Appeal
• Property owners are encouraged to call the appraiser or assessor whenever they have
questions or concerns about their market value, classification of the property, or the
assessment process.
• Almost all questions can be answered during this informal appeal process.
• When taxpayers call questioning their market value, every effort is made to make an
appointment to inspect properties that were not previously inspected.
• If the data on the property is correct, the appraiser is able to show the property owner
other sales in the market that support the estimated market value.
• If errors are found during the inspection, or other factors indicate a value reduction is
warranted, the appraiser can easily make the changes at this time.
Local Board of Equalization
• The Local Board of Equalization includes the mayor and city council members.
• The Board meets during April and early May.
• Taxpayers can make their appeal in person or by letter.
• The assessor is present to answer any questions and present evidence supporting their
value.
County Board of Appeal and Equalization
In order to appeal to the County Board of Appeal and Equalization, a property owner must first
appeal to the Local Board of Appeal and Equalization.
• The County Board of Appeal and Equalization follows the Local Board of Appeal and
Equalization in the assessment appeals process.
• Their role is to ensure equalization among individual assessment districts and classes of
property.
17
City of Centerville
0 The board meets during the Final ten working days in June. In 2010 it will commence on
June 14 at 6:00 pm.
A taxpayer must first appeal to the local board before appealing to the county board.
Decisions of the County Board of Appeal and Equalization can be appealed to tax court.
Minnesota Tan Court
The Tax Court has statewide jurisdiction. Except for an appeal to the Supreme Court, the Tax
Court shall be the sole, exclusive and final authority for the hearing and determination of all
questions of law and fact arising under the tax laws of the state. There are two divisions of tax
court: the small claims division and the regular division.
The Small Claims Division of the Tax Court only hears appeals involving one of the following
situations:
• The assessor's estimated market value of the property is <$300,000
• The entire parcel is classified as a residential homestead and the parcel contains no more
than one dwelling unit.
• The entire property is classified as an agricultural homestead.
• Appeals involving the denial of a current year application for homestead classification of the
property.
The proceedings of the small claims division are less formal and property owners often
represent themselves. There is no official record of the proceedings. Decisions made by the
small claims division are final and cannot be appealed further. Small claims decisions do not set
precedent.
The Regular Division of the Tax Court will hear all appeals, including those within the jurisdiction
of the small claims division. Decisions made here can be appealed to a highercourt.
The principal office for the Tax Court is located in St. Paul. However, the Tax Court is a circuit
court and can hold hearings at any other place within the state so that taxpayers may appear
with as little inconvenience and expense to the taxpayer as possible. Appeals of property
located in Anoka County are heard at the Anoka County Courthouse, with trials scheduled to
begin on Thursdays. Three judges make up the Tax Court. Each may hear and decide cases
independently. However, a case may be tried before the entire court under certain
circumstances.
The petitioner must file in tax court on or before April 30 of the year in which the tax is payable.
is
City of Centerville
sample Notice
Notice of Valuation and Classification - County of Anoka
- This is not a'biii -
Nrcperty Reenrris and Taxairon T is fie-mi, is rcafial j of re marxet va'ue axi ckaxvfi--a +,ar or your
f *chael R Sutt pdw -d property for assess -K-nt year 2013 The property taxes yeti evil pay in
An.. -.a County AssG&sor 201 ? ;i N be Dased )�r this valuaaan and cia rfra:_.�,n
2 F
wv,w co- anoka. nri.:is
beaeve your , 4ua;ii ark
property class are correct, it is rut
cacessary to wntact your assessor x
attend any listed meefing.
rf true prom - ty Ob ,&P_'n is R1 -3G
- f - � ci&ree k- the vaiiaes. oryou
have other git shoes about this notice,
Please contact your assessor first to
discuss any questions*; concerns.
O`:e", y-a:r ensues can be rest vod a.
Ns i-'
if your bans or corcerns are not
resolved, more forma! appeal options
are available. Please read the back of
this none for krp'. rtant n?^a9 x
aDwt 0ie fwv appea p mess_
Pro , information is ava;Lle for
v g Nlorv3ay - Friday 8. , a.m -
430 Vthe:nnkaCwni
w a a : the at
, Avrw.o anol a mn us.
Property [aformatior► (legal desaiptfon ar -.d/or pfuperfy address)
LO T 3 BLGiCk r %NDEPENDENT ESTATES PLA -
JAMFESTO ST NE
- s- n[1 _i. Nit -5ti3 -
Property i.D.:
Property Class cation
Assessment Year 2009 Assessment Year 2010
(For Tzzes Payable in 2010) (For Taxes Payable in 2011)
R
,._ -, i ten- -.t. r`Ji.",
Property vatuation
E- or7o:ed ft*a , F, -,I clue
Assessment Year 2DO9 Assessment Year 2014
(For Taxes Payable in 2010) (For Taxes Payable in 2011)
5-32 &Y1 $200 130
Taxable Market Value
Lout Board of Appeal and Equalizaboa
ALrt 1 2010 630 Pf t
East Bead Cet' -Iatll
2241221st Ave NE
East Bethel MN 55011
Crxittty Board of Appeal and EgtollizaBotr
June 14, 2010 5'00 PM
.N Gounty Government Center
County Boardroom - Roan 705
�1ik, 3rd Ap
Arc*a fAI 55303
5237.800
To ap,ea p ace your Locat Assessor at 651- 454 -48F2
S2%.I00
An appointtnent must hee made m advance to appear bLfore ffre boa3 rd.
To schoule an appointment please call the County Assessors Office
at 763 -323 -5475
Please read the back of this notice for important appeal inforrnation.
19
City of Centerville
Anoka Ca U- ntV
FAX
201 PROPERTA
0
XNOKA,
O f
PROPERTY T� IIALLES & cl--ISSIFICXHOIN
CUI NTY �x
P:-, Y ar - 201
BERGER B RI AN & T F KI
194 1 kNIESTO)l ST NE
"of,
Propert-vl)e�rip L"T ;1 K,
S7 "L PETC., I NII, j� Tf E - : ic t f, r-n^ r; - evon
- ICA
Omlrrl 1: P. T, C R 7, a I R 1 ke, �i ho rafe�, (a
Fl- F) s ?
— — --------
Ta-,cq parable Year 2i)fjw
T I- U, t. .: _ AL
`,I JPV
r4
Propert Tim x1d f resits
4. 1, fnfit, d'al rc&L- - p-!Q1r, L-c,
duz.
Pi
! KI
Prupert.• 1- ax b Jurudxtwn
"unt" A Gcumk,,uw�. 1(:,-,
H. Rccjonal ra;l aulbont-,
v, f9w
iO bdaul do;lnct. A a,,Pnr. zd iv lc_
Y. %fic—opofiIall sP cn] n4jr
\tIlCl ,4, 1 'It -C ::d Tc jcr.:n6a , -W
Ir.
apcclaj l,X'SSrroln
B. Nit fvK-T
C. conlamlnal it'll tt.,
101 PP,4DPEFn' "LAX AKD SPFCLAI- ASSESSME-NI S
F'a\ thaz anlixtat m, la thar Ma• 15. 2CID s i 289f"
Pa, flu 3uTV3,-%71 ao ji+t thar Ocinler 1 , 5, s : Zsq
Kil
City of Centerville
upc 01 -�a-utar as %-1 - "'(Li QLPj; h`, i
j� t
'tj Pi- SI "'Z z: 't c
$S$ REFUNDS llov L:-�v Li
Elva it viiu did it ut 2. =.. Tlit vour w4al bousch 4c9
qua in prin1otis MCf�UIC e.
::.q� oll Jrm�w 2
If vm� � cc; nccupicd Zhj� r)r0porry S -- Ip v t�c ch� I:
years, VOR MaV
;1111', P[t)FCA', axot, u !llclT- �)cr, a:-(! 't. sl
(jualirl for Otte or
es, c FE I J1 d S
fr(tru thc
State 9i MinuesoLa
based ap iour r �T ! _ _!
7; 001) Property Tw% e,
P ,
Serf ior C 4izewi Prop ert-, Tax Deferral o C 11
- cr.L , Y i - 'Mfo , i�J r allow�.
Dclk=-Il pro-i-.1-aill Ne:l:(Ir cl l—m- �I; ;i l" i o,- r.: 17
c eq-.); I. -,,-I - 11-21 TI 1 1-0111C f--r _V, J 1`rL-Mar- a
r.o. mL:o. r L
.., - It- rT-, -�iii?
To b;: ]I v c)u nnw-1 be ti 1CLIS! 65 Csil", Old. 2 X, "il: z mcc-m-2 of -1- an"I lil ed ir voti lwnic il.r ai ic�j�i 15 vc� jj
have 1 taxes Oqti t;I v th, iux :nal �hc S
--r vill 'i iit� t,-;i 7- I -- V -,'c E� 1 )On -
z"al;
for Latt 1 Property Ta
P=t_ �,2 : ti le n - it-.
i Jj :i,n, ! g � , cza,�r 1�
Ic :11p,11-v ` :O „?It'd
.CS
2 ( } ifs 1 2 1
r%dr- _I.1 C r Vrrjpci-Ci Tq],E:
-Ifltil Nou-L,mi"ieadv It !:;v di-c H7-tic-'read alit'. C.a th
"lix
n h -A
6" 11
r �i�
1, LLL
rC.11 P7, T�
77 Z
AN ii'Jicr p-t, pr-
Clwir Wl %la,
:umk.? ccuRou N eily Offcx D i. and I w- Pj t me Pri tur [
L
0--J, .:M
% )u U,Q
-7 z!
f Xf PORT ANV 1 \ F( tAULA [ON iLBOV A VOLR PROPLim YA.X * VLNtLNT
thu wailm-,
7,� szarcl,-,� -.- h- v-, 113 ..n the pf!-, i,�, . A !cr c � t z:,- 1,
ltc -?�-rc ";
T l
I
Failziu: 1-} pay duc w ;lx- plL cl - - ---- t h .
r , r
If vou luvt not rvecived youe ta-, statellicut(s) bi' kpril I i, am Veal' ;,talk lalulut'lletured wmw1 k, J*tt:ltsi! call
0d roquest a LtfiQSi'R; C. t i
requires notiflicatioll - ,o the Courtv Aqessor.
- N-1 1 "OR T ANT "I E LE P I I N I' NI N I H E ft 4
% IWI 1 1
0 N v
e ot 1 1 , 0
!A'0'0
ri, rm`,tY ll
"'1'411-.' t
IWI�
c!jh, !
L ( 1 f
IV, "'Y .:
1�� ;?(�; 'i"
'%: '001.1 x)
1 ❑
Ctj
"' - M") I r I
I' Y@,
'4 e f
1 4V 1 . 1 "
11t1 � I /"I
(*fl
'XI e. j 1. t I
1:'f1'fj
(.J:". I 'cl
•1
r ;9 %T
IS, I
T
0A I , 1 , s
e
13
0
'Y1 t;v t %611.
1") T6
"We
T,
'AA W
K'04 11
"i. I 'W I
V 1 f0f,9
W 1 A r D
/4
iLtigY
'Y., TPr I `6, 6VI
/ " I V I I
t
T..
1 /, T I t%69T`4
V'11(11
tl I
MV 0
:Al
�0 0
I %6q f
It"
! YY i
.'•, f", f
s I; 6i.
14r
1`4S
W4Tt I I I
Ill
be
4; 1 W( 1 %(191 Se.
V'4 Wi f
7L'01
I Y"(,Hf Y,
WA 1 00
YM
6
I l'fi U
A,
1 UO
fil I i
e t f)
.9h ";1
6
f
i: " �
RPT 1 1 )
V P- 6 e M
'y4il. , , , I
V t U
T 6
%.,. M '0
1 Y.. I P7 I (Y. U4 I 'r,
0 1 111w)
T.- I 1
l%. I 6':
Uler) , 1)
'1" 9 t I I f:
, , 1) 1
tIff
1 1 1 1, X16
YJ ; V,
I , It
�,'C A
q t T
l tir Bbl I T
L
A461 '0
lolws ds!13 'VIA
P. It
11 /119/ (1, I'D
1 /1, 4 AW(Y0
A� I
t t
-` t 0/
% 1,yy f;
%M/. IH '0
1,59
ti
1 TOW
";Y
VA ON v
"'i, I
I 1 41 0
`,i 1; UN T'tl
T, 51 +'c M t
T 5 0 z
V 0
: ^l.'
"l,
9 b (10 0
'!i, 1 ZWfl
"i, i'101 Co
I.- - "(.t 01
A, 136
-% I 1W I , Y,, C, ',4 f 5f
I t 10 1 1 ;
ly'l SAOV(l
`,fi " - .
51 to 0
-!Iwa '
",�, N,
TEG ae11SJ
p klcl0v
umal
tll' t
fw lsa;; A3uvtoa
V-:) I kiliedplunt
LLAV ifs
I$
'Y" Sf*oolo
*1415
lln :
":,CSGI
(rz
A4kkno.)
h 'Wk, t
%
51.
o Cl, 0
nq(jj 1 0
loft
0
i'T(l
T, 6'A r0l
1 /q(lZv!1C(t
T, e. F 00'a
%
1, 6i'L,£t:'Ci
'v, Z I T;i,
,66'u
Y,
�.Mll �'O
lk O.'W'(1
Z t. CO
It.
( A, TR i'.i
1 A 6 4 t, 51 il U
Y, L e 11 00 (1
kl�. V'64 f" C1
7W
t
6T "I.W0
Y., tf, 4""o
61 i. 6
1
f4PIA
;-;vtj
vwd Ulm
'ixfl
VHN
P`)4S
A Auotiv
AWv
um6l
AW 11
AW4
PaKoj dv.,#
wo-os
dso"
Aluito.)
3U.IVm
'law
IqqJ,
AIIJ
(is
M
wj. J"O L
1
/A w)
`clay
1
O AWW
'k
- 1 Vppj 1. j
ft
A I
N
% IWI 1 1
0 N v
(",
UiAll;i!
j-,—,
IS I ul. I
fli
92"911 VTOW0
I' Y@,
'4 e f
ro v r)
:Cyllkw &im 'Su
SANId J 081')
'qj
LINIX)
0A I , 1 , s
13
0
'Y1 t;v t %611.
Y(10W
;t!;"/
'AA W
K'04 11
"i. I 'W I
V 1 f0f,9
' /,,I Y6�
iLtigY
'Y., TPr I `6, 6VI
'it tfiT-)
1 /, T I t%69T`4
V'11(11
tl I
T, I t; hl I
I %6q f
W)VVI
W I
s I; 6i.
14r
1`4S
W4Tt I I I
Ill
be
4; 1 W( 1 %(191 Se.
V'4 Wi f
7L'01
I Y"(,Hf Y,
WA 1 00
YM
6
t %
1 UO
fil I i
e t f)
.9h ";1
6
f
1 ±kl vi"()
I W I .69 T'S'
rJll, I Wf)
Y t ; 0 ;l
V t U
T 6
%.,. M '0
1 Y.. I P7 I (Y. U4 I 'r,
0 1 111w)
T.- I 1
l%. I 6':
I f1r, %, 69 t $; i
v I ffjF.*0
tIff
1 1 1 1, X16
YJ ; V,
t
Im
lolws ds!13 'VIA
3 NEVIO
rA, W ,l
11 1 , 1110(: , 0
Y,. Ne'l LY, (A V t .
-` t 0/
141 A 14
'Y" I N'.'
I kv'T %681
1 TOW
aslitA 'dsia 'SIA
VA ON v
lk" t
V f f 1) 1, 4
Y, 0 r I lyr t,NT'tiS.
V I WL
A, 136
-% I 1W I , Y,, C, ',4 f 5f
I t 10 1 1 ;
cumo
-!Iwa '
HRAOCIM'd
TEG ae11SJ
p klcl0v
umal
ow-8
fw lsa;; A3uvtoa
V-:) I kiliedplunt
LLAV ifs
ii'll"
I A417
*1415
AlLtno:)
(rz
A4kkno.)
% IWI 1 1
0 N v
loft
O
R
1 1
t' . r
61
f]: ' 4' 1 "1
11 ''1 i
j i, 1.-0 r, pr0 1 , 1
' :6:
, I 'K,
4 4v, wlm
V'::
it
Ij gr 11: '1111
' :Wt
it I
Ij .......
q "I
t't i 1
4,; r Y
G
• 'J( l �rl '�t
-- It,
IT " 'II
Oil
It
IN I
i't
t
t til
t:
T.4 1
•• T'i
q jv)) N 0".0
r •l
it,
t;, it
11 .
it
1,11,1 Oj
wd 11,,ljtL) .;A
V.A
1
vul;
tlllql�
A
VI Vill
'I ts ,
JvH,� I
l',, 'j 4
AHV iii,,J
;.'M - 1.,;
' j
'4
t".q
�p"
; .!: ,
it
I Vi
Xxi, tlU)t'
'%ij."!
- 1VPA Lil
R
d-j ".j
hO it
1w.
it
Wo
*6t
l) Ai/ ON
��
1 ;;
1" h
%'M'
0, lt;.'
tt At�
tit 0 i" 1).� �
-1111, I'll
'V�O
/,,, I l. r 1 " !:..'
.111-
!"�� 1 1
j
liMW I ll "i'!
It!
"I"; I
�i "L
'a' V
14 1 1041 �I
I 1 1h, I
11t. 'If I
1Y I
Y. �'V
Ii, I'll
— .4 4-it ti
11-4
1 ) IiA
I i,
9 it
tt l"
"AW, ki 1 •,
�4 "'e
Vt
tf
('(1 lo,
it 1* �
:11 1 , I
;i.W ,
:t� I
T, 1 '
I 11 4�
- I::, 1 . 1 �11 '1:
v:
hb'1.
141W! 11 ;;k " i f'i, li�
� " " 1
It' t
'j
p V
1
v I x
,Aoki ..*o
tw iA
Mr,
Pw
U-1W
VG
Awill 111,10.1
A; I
Avd
o i
O
0
io I A
A N
0
K A
C 0
V
N
'T Y
Wy
0, 4
7"IM
0 1
NW RPAV
MO
'4 —U74(
ftmv
Ucm R.W
6J—kjpjjty
T.0 A.
Av 1- R."!
4
, vtMy
W..j
tlPA
0"1
-!a RRA
VOW,
fithIr
NMV
>PIIJNG LAKk
FIIPK
I W, A,v
1
h,1'!41'
AI FRANCTS
L
0 11
i),1 /'; 1,
io I A
Research and Analysis for the Minneapolis—St. Paul Metropolitan Area Housing Market
i> pu viz ,.nor ,f +(- Mmnei, Ares Assniation of'Rea�tcz
. .... . ..... ... .... .... .... ....... ....... ....... .... .. ........................ . ..... . . . ...... . .... . . .....
L - www EB VERSIOK
MINNEAPOLIS AREA Association
,, f REALTORS
w—nipisrealtarconi 3
q uickfaas 2009 HousING MARKETA ALYSIS
for the 73- county Twin Cities metropolitan area
Twin Cities Housing Affordability Index
202
Moog saw another new record for housing affordability. Mortgage
rates continued to scrape historic lows, housing prices remained
soft, and more sales took place in the affordable price segments
due to the first -time home buyer tax credit and increased lender -
mediated sales.
This is the positive side to failing prices. While they undeniably
hurt homeowners and have a negative impact on the economy, soft
home prices have improved the accessibility and long -term stability
of the housing market.
Average Square Footage of Closed Sales
1,929 1.910
For the second year in a row, the average square footage of closed
sales actually declined slightly. This is likely due to an increase in the
number of sales taking place in the more affordable price ranges,
which are typically a smaller square footage than traditional homes.
Additionally, new construction is down, and newer homes tend to
have more square footage.
2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
TIP 5 Areas
805 - Western Wisconsin
381 - Lake Minnetonka
365 -Maple Grove /Osseo
385 - Edina
341 - Wright County (Ext Buffalo
$4853
$3596
$2734
$2722
$271 8
Bottom 5 Areas
605 - Sunfish Lake $08
628 - Southern Dakota County $34
618 - Eastern Dakota County $37
307 -MPLS- Phillips $109
370 - Sibley County $112
Finally leveling off after three years of decline, total dollar volume
was boosted by the increased number of transactions. The large
jump in sales offset the continued decline in prices to keep volume
relatively steady. In a related trend, 2oog was the year that MAAR's
membership numbers leveled off as well.
2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
Top 5 Areas Bottom 5 Areas
302 - MPLS - Central $225 305-MPLS - North $36
300 - MPLS - Calhoun -Isles $786 307 - MPLS -Camden $51
741 - SP- Downtown Sip /Capital Hg $178 742 - SP- Central $52
385 - Edina $171 370 - Sibley County $61
381 - Lake Minnetonka $167 363 - Brooklyn Center $62
The Price Per Square Foot (PPSF) of area home sales declined
again in 2oog and at a slightly higher rate than the overall
decline in median price. Since PPSF accounts for home size in its
calculation of value, one could view the larger decline as a more
realistic indicator of the changing market than our annual median
sales price comparisons.
4 Minneapolis Area Association of REACrORV
Total Dollar Volume (in millions)
ii o.4. 615,601
2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
Top 5 Areas Bottom 5 Areas
605 - Sunfish Lake 7,950 741 - SP- Downtown Stp /Captal Hg 1,103
381 - Lake Minnetonka 2,868 303 - MPLS - Longfellow 1,284
368 - Hennepin - Northwest 2,850 742 -SP- Central 1,312
398- Victona 2,634 302 - MPLS - Centel 1,335
396 - Chanhassen 2,623 301 - MPLS - Camden 1,345
2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
Price Per Square Foot of Closed Sales
4. a. $149 $149 el—
r ♦0 MARKET ANALYSIS
I 2004 2005
2006
2007 2008 2009
Top 5 Areas
Top 5 Areas
Bottum 5 Areas
302 MPLS - Central
$225
305 - MPLS - North
300 - MPLS - Calhoun -Isles
$186
301 - MPLS - Camden
741- SP- DDValtown Stp /Capaal Hg
$178
742 - SP Central
385 - Edma
$111
370 - Sibley County
381 - Lake Minnetonka
$167
363 - Brooklyn Center
for the 13- caurdy Twin Cities metropolitan area
I
Sellers began to inch slightly closer to their original asking prices
in zoog. While this positive trend took place mostly across the
board, things especially improved in the lower price ranges and
with foreclosures. Because the tax credit spurred buyers in those
segments, heavy demand often meant multiple offer situations.
Share of Sales That Were New Construction
14.1% 14.3%
2004 2005
2006
2007 2008 2009
Top 5 Areas
Top 5 Areas
Bottom 5 Areas
Bottom 5 Areas
1000%
618 Eastern Dakota County
1000%
302 - MPLS - Central
10%
628 Southern Dakota County
7000%
741 - SP- Downtown Stp / Capital Hg
22%
605 - Sunfish Lake
1000%
300 - MPLS - Calhoun -Isles
440%
713 - Bethel
1000%
740 - SP- Crocus Hill
466%
710 - Northeast Anoka County
98.9%
614 - Apple Valley
483%
2oog was another slow year for home builders in the Twin
Cities. The large -scale builder pullback continued and inventory
absorption became the order of the day. Builders are wisely waiting
out the current environment and waiting to return when market
fundamentals are more attractive.
Top 5 Areas
302 - MPLS - Central 34 4%
141 - SP Downtown Stp /Capital Hg 331%
310 - MPLS - University 111%
398 - Victoria 110%
705 - Lure Lakes /Hug. /Cemoe ll 233%
Bottom 5 Areas
744 - SP -Como 00%
748 - SP -Town &, Coun[ry /Mernam 00%
618 - Eastern Dakota County 00
378 - Rlchlield 00%
528- Southern Dakota County 00%
Historical levels of lender- mediated activity are taking place in the
Twin Cities housing market. Thankfully, the share of sales that are
lender- mediated is exceeding the share of new listings, which has
brought the lender - mediated inventory down dramatically since the
start of 2009.
2004 2005
.................
2006
2007 2008
— ._........ ..
Top 5 Areas
Bottom 5 Areas
618 - Eastern Dakota County
1000%
302 - MPLS - Central
628 - Southern Dakota County
1000%
741 - SP -Downtown Stp /Cap6al Hg
605 - Sunfish Lake
1000%
300 - MPLS - Calhoun -Isles
713 - Bethel
1000%
740 - SP- Crocus Hill
710 - Northeast Anoka County
989%
614 - Apple Valley
2009
10%
22%
440%
466%
483%
Foreclosures and short sales are more likely to be single - family
detached homes than they are townhouses or condos. The
increased market share of these lender - mediated homes meant
that the overall market share of single - family detached homes grew
again in 2oog. A pullback on new construction condo inventory in
recent years has also played a factor.
www.rllplsrealtoacorn 5
Percent of Orig. List Price Received at Sale
98.6% 98.2%
Share of Home Sales That Were Single - Family Detached
79.4% 79.5%
unit sales data 1 2009 TW CITIES HoME S ALES
includes single family detached homes, condominiums, townhomes and to ✓in homes
jff
Are.
Tot. Lender-
Sal Mediated
Previously
Percent
O wned
New
Singie-Farmly
ii�
300
Mpls - Calhoun- Isles
`: 443 i
88
19.9%
411
92.8%
32
7.2%
195
1i
44.0%
248
56.0%
301
Mpls - Camden
912 '
610
66.9%
904
99.1%
8
0.9%
897
98.4%
15
1.6%
302
Mpls - Central
p 587 ',
104
17.7%
385
65.6%
202
34.4%
6
1.0%
581
99.0%
303
Mpis - Longfellow
386 i
124
32.1%
384
99.5%
2
0.5%
375
97.2%
11
2.8%
304
Mpls - Nokomis
843 I
236
28.0% i
837
99.3%
6
0.7%
800
94.9%
43
5.1%
305
Mpls - North
663
514
77.5%
645
97.3%
18
2.7%
653
98.5%
10
1.5%
306
Mpls - Northeast
538
211
39.2%
525
97.6%
13
2.4%
502
93.3%
36
6.7%
307
Mpls - Phillips
131
90
68.7%
116
88.5%
15
11.5%
88
67.2%
43
32.8%
308
Mpls - Powderhorn
545
313
57.4%
543
99.6% ,
2
0.4%
490
89.9%
55
10.1%
309
Mpls - Southwest
721
132
183`3'0
715
992% a
6
0.8%
665
922%
56
7.8%
310
Mpls - University
135
52
38.5%
98
72-6% :
37
27-4%
71
52.6%
64
47.4%
340
Buffalo
278
170
61.2%
259
93.2%
19
6.8%
226
81.3%
52
18.7%
341
Wright County (except Buffalo)
1,603
916
57.1%
1,328
B2.8%
275
17.2%
1,275
79.5%
328
20.5%
342
Hutchinson
211
68
32.2%
204
96.7%
7
13%
191
90.5%
20
9.5%
343
McLeod County
178
97
54.5%
173
97.2%
5
2.8%
167
93.8%
11
6.2%
360
Robbinsdale
261
98
37.5% ,'
252
96.6 ':
9
3.4%
239
91 -6%
22
8.4%
361
Crystal
382
161
421%
375
98.2% '
7
1.8%
367
9611%
15
3.9°%
362
New Hope
; 225
103
45.8%
222
98.7%
3
13%
167
74.2%
58
25.8%
363
Brooklyn Center
675
457
67.7%
673
99.7%
2
0.3%
596
88.3%
79
11.7%
364
Brooklyn Park
1,537
1,006
65.7%
1,457
95.2%
74
4.8%
1,182
77.2%
349
22.6%
365
Maple Grove /Osseo
1,019
292
28.7%
864
84.8%
155
15.2°%
653
64.1%
366
35.9%
366
Champlin
324
167
51.5% t
313
96.6%
11
3.4%
275
84.9%
49
15.1%
367
Hennepin -North
184
99
53.8%
154
83.7% '
30
16.3%
154
83.7%
30
16.3%
368
Hennepin- Northwest
186
84
45.2% '.
168
90.3%
18
93%
155
83.3%
31
16.7%
370
Sibley County
121
60
49.6%
119
98.3%
2
1.7%
118
97.5%
3
2.5%
373
Golden Valley
255
73
28.6%
253
99.2%
2
0.8%
215
84.3%
40
15.7%
374
Plymouth
839
174
20.7% 1
756
90.1%
83
9.9%
492
58.6%
347
41.4%
378
Richfield
553
214
38.7% q
553
100.0%1
0
0.0%
512
92.6%
41
7.4%
379
Bloomington -East
355
146
41.1% '
338
95.2% '
17
4.8%
289
81.4°%
66
18.6°%
380
Bloomington -West
544
145
26.7%
542
9916%
2
0.4%
378
69.5%
166
30.5%
381
Lake Minnetonka
702
229
32.6%
639
91.0%
63
9.0%
599
85.3%
103
14.7%
385
Edina
647
78
12.1%
615
95.1%
32
4.9%
416
64.3%
231
35.7°%
386
Hopkins
196
85
43.4%
192
98.0%
4
2.0%
95
48.5%
101
51,5%
387
Minnetonka
634
190
30.0%
614
96.8%
20
3.2%
410
64.7%
224
35.3%
391
Saint Louis Park
670
117
17.5% i
649
96 -9%
21
3.1%
505
75.4%
165
24.6%
392
Eden Prairie
772
197
25.5%
739
95.7°%
33
4.3%
409
53.0%
363
47.0
394 ,
Carver County
406
146
36.0%
359
88.4%
47
11.6%
333
82.0%
73
18.0%
396
Chanhassen
314
74
23.6%
267
85.0%
47
15.0%
213
67.8%
101
32.2%
397
Chaska
307
113
36.8%
264
86.0%
43
14.0%
183
59.6%
124
40.4%
398
Victoria
92
17
1815%
69
75.0%
23
25.0%
78
84.8%
14
15.2%
600
West St. Paul
257
115
44.7%
255
99.2%
2
0.8%
201
78.2%
56
21.8%
602.
South St. Paul
323
781
56.0%
317
98.1°% '
6
1.9%
295
91.3%
28
8.7%
604
Mendota /Lilydale /Mendota Heights
136
26
19.1%
127
93.4%
9
6.6%
73
53.79/.
63
46.3%
605
Sunfish Lake
1
1
100.0%
1
100.0%
0
0.0%
1
100.0%
0
0.0%
608.
Inver Grove Heights
296
130
43.9%
285
96.3%
11
3.7%
152
51.4%
144
48.6%
610
Eagan
740
276
37.3%
726
981%
14
1.9%
400
54.1%
340
45.9%
612
Burnsville
680
279
41.0%
662
97.4%
18
2.6%
379
55.7%
301
44.3%
614
Apple Valley
777
311
40.0%
754
97.0%
23
3.0%
375
48,3%
402
51.7%
616 -
Rosemount
348
127
36.5%
285
81.9%
63
18.1%
219
62.9%
129
37.1%
617
Hastings
298
136
45.6%
282
94.6%
16
5.4%
189
63.4%
109
36.6%
618
Eastern Dakota County
17
6
35.3%
17
100.0%
0
0.0%
17
100.0%
0
0.0%
624
Farmington
467
211
452%
413
88.4%
54
11.6%
342
73.2%
125
26.8%
626
Lakeville
677 1
258
38.1%
597
88.2%
8o
11.8%
495
731%
182
26.9%
628
Southern Dakota County
s 18 s
7
38.9%
16
100.0%
0
0.0%
18
1iX0% .
0
0.0%
630
Northfield
262
88
33.6%
222
84.7%
40
15.3%
176
67.2%
86
32.8%
632
Rice County
404
176
43.6%
365
90.3%
39
9.7%
367
90.8%
37
9.2%
640
Shakopee
705
345
48.9%
574
81.4%
131
18.6%
397
56.3%
308
43.7%
642
Prior Lake
469
186
39.7%
397
84.6%
72
15.4%
339
72.3%
130
27.7%
644
I Savage
419
167
37.5%
379
90,5%
40
9.5%
275
65.6%
144
34.4%
646
- Jordan
81
48
59.3%
72
88.9%
9
11.1%
76
93.8%
5
62°%
648
New Prague
372
195
52.4%
316
84.9%
56
15.1%
324
87.1%
48
12.9%
650
Belle Plaine
130
79
60.8%
116
89.2%
14
10.8%
124
95.4%
6
4.6%
658
Le Sueur /Rice
183
81
44.3%
180
98.4%
3
1.6%
165
90.2%
18
9.8°%
6 Minneapolis Area Assoc at ion of REALi ORSt
s ales unit ♦i ♦ ', 2009TwIN CITIES HoME S ALES
includes single-family detached homes, condomisliums, townhomes and twit? homes
MLS
Eoclf
Area
Total
Sales Mediated
Lender-
Previously
Owned
Percent Construction
New
Single-Family
Percent
Detached
Percent
' 660
Goodhue County +
358 -
85
23.7%
342
95.5%
16
4.5%
312
87.2%
46
12.8%
702
Falcon Heights /Lauderdale /Roseville
350
72
20.6%
340
97.1%
10
2.9%
283
80.9%
67
19.1%
705
Lino Lakes/Hugo /Centerville
502
199
39.6%
385
76.7%
117
23.3%
290
57.8%
212
42.2%
706
North Central Suburban ;
262
91
34.7%
254
96.9%
8
311%
149
56.9%
113
43.1%
707
Ham Lake
156
94
60.3% ,
147
94.2% !
9
5.8%
152
97.4%
4
2.6%
708
White Bear Area
515 (
187
363%
504
97.9%
11
2.1%
406
78.8%
109
21.2%
709
Forest Lake Area
364
207
56.9%
346
95.1%
18
4.9%
249
68.4%
115
31.6%
710
Northeast Anoka County
93
38
40.9%
86
92.5%
7
7.5%
92
98.9%
1
1.1%
711
Southern Chisago County
438
261
59.6%
407
92.9%
31
7.1%
406
92.7%
32
7.3%
712
Maplewood/North St. Paul
594
255
42.9%
573
96.5%
21
3.5%
473
79.6%
121
20.4%
713
Bethel
161
112
69.6%
156
96.9%
5
3.1%
161
100.0%
0
0.0%
714
SP - Phalen
575
358
62.3%
565
98.3%
10
13%
556
96.7%
19
33%
716
SP - Hillcrest/Hazel Park/Daytons Bluff
977
583
59.7%
972
99.5%
5
0.5%
962
98.5%
15
1.5%
720
SP- Southeast St. Paul
142
73
51.4%
141
99.3%
1
0.7%
127
89.4%
15
10.6%
721
Lakeland /Afton /Denmark
74
35
47.3%
73
98.6%
1
1.4%
72
97.3%
2
2.7%
722
Newport/St. Paul ParklCottage Grove
620
335
54.0%
570
91.9% `
50
8.1%
517
83.4%
103
16.6%
725
Pine Springs/Lake Elmo/Oakdale
423 -
189
44.7%
404
95.5%
19
4.5%
251
59.3%
172
40.7%
726
Woodbury
995
313
31.5% ,
848
851%
147
14.8%
572
57.5%
423
42.5%
727
Stillwater /Bayport
492
162
32.9%
425
86.4%
67
116%
379
77.0%
113
23.0%
728
SP - Riverview /Cherokee
212
112
52.8%
208
98.1%
4
1.9%
197
92.9%
15
7.1%
738
SP- Home Croft/W 7th
111
52
463%
111
100.0%
0
0.0%
106
95.5%
5
4.5%
740
SP - Crocus Hill
191
60
31.4%
189
99.0°%
2
1.0%
89
46.6
102
53.4%
741
SP - Downtown /Capital Heights
136
33
24.3%
91
66.9%
45
33.1%
3
2.2%
133
97.8%
742
SP - Central
478
324
67,8%
472
98.7%
6
1.3%
462
96.7%
76
3.3%
744
SP - Como
231
60
26.0%
231
100.0%
0
0.0%
224
97.0%
7
3.0%
746
SP - St. Anthony /Midway
225
70
31.1%
219
97.3%
6
2.7%
206
91.6%
19
8.4%
748
SP - Town &Country /Merriam Park
117
32
27.4%
117
100.0%
0
0.0%
114
97.4%
3
2.6%
750
SP - Mac /Groveland /River Road Area
244 -
26
103%
242
99.2%
2
0.8%
212
86.9%
32
13.1%
752
SP - Highland Area
260
55
21.2% ,
252
96.9%
8
3.1°%
218
83.8%
42
16.2%
754
Big Lake Township
375
281
74.9%
339
90.4%
36
9.6%
360
96.0% '
15
4.0%
756
Elk River
381
257
67.5%
344
90.3%
37
9.7%
296
77.7%
85
22.3%
758
Northwestern Anoka County
306
199
65.0%
277
90.5%
29
9.5%
257
84.0%
49
16.0%
760
Ramsey
366
211
57.7%
318
86.9%
48
13.1%
249
68.0%
117
32.0%
762
Andover
416
200
46.1%
368
88.5% '
48
11.5% '
367
88.2
49
11.8%
764
Blaine
884
387
43.8%
732
82.8%
152
172°%
614
69.5%
270
30.5%
765
Arden Hills/Shoreview
374
87
23.3%
366
97.9%
8
2.1%
228
61.0°%
146
39.0%
766
Moundsvw /New Brightn /St. Anthny Vdg
372
110
29.6%
345
92.7%
27
7.3%
283
76.1%
89
23.9%
767
Coon Rapids
873
499
57.2%
855
97.9%
18
2.1%
586
67.1%
287
32.9%
768
Fridley
300
146
48.7%
296
98.7%
4
1.3%
252
84.0%
48
16.0%
769
Anoka
229
135
59.0%
219
95.6%
10
4.4%
167
81.7%
42
18.3%
770
Hilltop /Columbia Heights
328
182
55.5%
308
93.9%
20
6.1%
288
87.8%
40
12.2%
771
Spring Lake Park
85
49
57.6%
84
96.8%
1
1.2%
70
82A%
15
17.6%
772
Lexington /Circle Pines
94
47
50.0 °.
94
100.0%
0
0.0%
65
69.1%
29
30.9%
780
Sherburne County
560
376
67.1% ,
523
93.4%
37
6.6%
529
94.5%
31
5.5%
782
Isanti /Chisago
454
319
70.3%
426
93.8%
28
6.2%
398
87.7%
56
12.3%
783
Cambridge
119
75
63.0%
112
94.1%
7
5.9%
100
84.0%
19
16.0°%
784
Northern Chisago County
112
75
67.0% ,
108
96.4
4
16%
106
94,6%
6
5.4%
801
Southeast Wisconsin
N/A
NIA
NIA
NIA
N/A
NIA
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
NIA
802
Southern Wisconsin
9
1
11.1%
9
100.0%
0
0.0%
8
88.9%
1
11.1%
803
Eastern Wisconsin
2
1
50.0%
2
100.0%
0
0.0%
2
100.0%
0
0.0%
804
Central Wisconsin
13
2
15.4%
13
100.0%
0
0.0%
13
100.0%
0
0.0%
805
Western Wisconsin
3,054
871
28.5%
2,875
94.1%
179
5.9%
2,830
92.7%
224
7.3%
811
Northeast Minnesota
839
205
24.4%
816
97.3%
23
2.7%
814
97.0%
25
3.0%
812
Northern Minnesota
152
11
7.2%
148
97.4%
4
2.6%
150
98.7°%
2
1.3%
813
Northwest Minnesota
52
6
11.5%
51
98.1%
1
1.9%
49
94.2%
3
5.8%
814
West Central Minnesota
824 ,
192
23.3%
789
95.8%
35
4.2%
788
95.6%
36
4.4%
815
Southern Minnesota
1,188
235
19.8%
1,146
96.5%
42
3.5%
1,130
95.1%
58
4.9%
816
Southeast Minnesota
676
118
17.5%
649
96.0%
27
4.0%
632
93.5%
44
6.5%
817
Central Minnesota
1,545
553
353%
1,479
95.7%
66
4.3%
1,473
95.3%
72
4.7%
840
North Dakota
115
2
1.7%
108
93.9%
7
6.1%
90
78.3%
25
21.7%
850
South Dakota
1
1
100.0%
1
100.0%
0
0.0%
1
100.0%
0
0.0%
851
Western Iowa
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
861
Eastern Iowa
8
3
37.5%
8
100.0%
0
0.0%
8
100.0%
0
0.0%
w ,w pIs .Itor.com 7
♦ ♦ It 2 009 TwIN CITIEs HoME SALEJ
includes single- detached homes, condominiums, townhomes and twin homes
Cc�q!2�__
Area
Median
Price
Average
Price
Days on Market
to Sale
Percent of O riginal
List Price Received
300
Mpls - Calhoun -Isles
$230,000
$344,713
155
91.4%
.. .
1,713
$186 '
301
Mpls - Camden
$51,900
$68,324
106
95.5%
1,345
$51
302
Mpls - Central
$246,750
$324,897
123
93.8%
1,335
$225
303
Mpls - Longfellow
$171,500
$169,692
84
96.8%
1,284
$134
304
Mp•s - Nokomis
$189,900
$194,210
86
95.8
1,481
$133
305
Mpls - North ?
$38,500
$54,598
108
96.7%
1,541
$36
306
Mpls - Northeast
$151,000
$147,361
110
94.3%
1,450
$105
307
Mpls - Phillips
$89,050
$92,495
165
91.9%
1,443
$67
308
Mpls - Powderhorn
$110,000
$115,203
124
94.7%
1,488
$82
309
MpIS - Southwest
$260,000
$295,453
103
94.3%
1,756
$165
310
Mpls - University
$195,000
$196,796
174
91.4%
1,426
$141
340
Buffalo
$145,000
$156,806
131
93.D%
1,891
$84
341
Wright County (except Buffalo)
$156,000
$171,069
149
92.1%
1,872
$94
342
Hutchinson
$124,950
$140,900
152
90.0%
1,908
$74
343
McLeod County
$99,000
$105,351
189
87.3%
1,675
$64
360
Robbinsdale
$148,750
$143,048
141
91.9%
1
$94
361
Crystal
$142,000
$139,563
116
913%
1,583
$90
362
New Hope
$158,000
$160,952
128
92.5%
1,779
$91
363
Brooklyn Center
$90,000
$96,721
140
94.5%
1,608
$62
364
Brooklyn Park
$135,000
$148,894
136
94.4%
1,897
$76
365
Maple Grove /Osseo
$219,348
$268,567
123
93.4%
2,266
$115
366
Champlin
$162,000
$176,469
114
93.3%
1,904
$93
367
Hennepin -North
$224,950
$230,567
164
91.5%
2,360
$99
368
Hennepin - Northwest
$255,000
$369,723
177
90.9%
2,650
$122
370
Sibley County
$88,888
$97,995
154
89.5%
1,622
$61
373
Golden Valley
$220,000
$250,651
146
92.8%
2,089
$120
374
Plymouth
$253,500
$291,859
134
92.1%
2,302
$125
378
Richfield
$165,000
$159,558
113
93.5%
1,598
$102
379
Bloomington -East
$157,625
$160,556
114
94.1%
1,506
$112
380
Bloomington-West
$210,000
$227,806
140
92.5%
1,999
$114
381
Lake Minnetonka
$339,500
$512,214
204
88.6%
2,868
$167
385
Edina
$324,950
$418,853
148
91.3%
2,282
$171
386
Hopkins
$164,900
$176,549
133
90.6%
1,513
$109
387
Minnetonka
$242,000
$284,113
153
91.8%
2,254
$124
391
Saint Louis Park
$212,500
$230169
118
93.1%
1,583
$145
392
Eden Prairie
$251,750
$308,152
153
92.1%
2.445
$123
394
Carver County
$186,000
$204,675
147
91.8%
2,007
$102
396
Chanhassen
$280,000
$354,811
141
90.9%
2,623
$130
397
Chaska
$178,500
$218,111
125
92.8%
2,018
$106
398
Victoria
$326,950
$336,167
157
92.5%
2,634
$126
600
West St. Paul
$134,900
$136,862
120
92.7%
1,486
$93
602
South St. Paul
$132,000
$130,482
127
92.3%
1,532
$88
604
Mcndota /LilydalclMcndota Heights
$260,000
$291,988
188
89.4%
2,364
$126
605
Sunfish Lake
$830,000
$830,000
455
83.0%
7,950
$104
608
Inver Grove Heights
$165,751
$209,498
179
91.4%
1,967
$103
610
Eagan
$183,000
$205,601
135
93.0%
1,968
$103
612
Burnsville
$175,000
1 $186,602
140
92.7%
1,987
$92
614
Apple Valley
$171,0D0
$194,392
135
93.8%
1,963
$99
616
Rosemount
$194,000
$223,461
118
94.4%
2,096
$106
617
Hastings
$150,000
$169,912
145
91.0%
1,839
$93
618
Eastern Dakota County
$240,000
$218,162
187
89.3%
2,255
$101
624
Farmington
$175,000
$181,359
143
93.1%
1,914
$95
626
Lakeville
$224,188
$240,822
143
93.5%
2,295
$105
628
Southern Dakota County
$169,700
$191,560
214
87.9%
2,114
$93
630
Northfield
$171,425
$186,143
187
90.7%
1,979
$96
632
Rice County
$140,000
$148,469
150
90.6%
1,789
$84
640
Shakopee
$175,000
$195,077
129
93.8%
1,950
$100
642
Prior Lake
$240,000
$283,444
168
91.8%
2,494
$112
644
Savage
$212,000
$225,757
148
93.1%
2,241
$100
646
Jordan
$202,000
$207,830
190
93.4%
2,211
$94
648
New Prague
$198,000
$213,642
141
91.6%
2,219
$98
650
Belle Plaine
$150,500
$154,258
155
94.3%
1,755
$92
658
Le Sueur /Rice
$110,000
$119,578
199
84.6%
1,724
$68
8 Minneapolis Area Association of REALiORSt
price data r 1 i' TWIN CITIEs HoM
includes single-family detached homes, condominiums, townhomes and twin homes
660
Goodhue County
$146,000
$160,587
171
89.9%
1,808
$88
702
Falcon Heights /Lauderdale /Roseville
$201,900
$220,527
116
92.5%
1,803
$122
705
Lino Lakes /Hugo /Centerville
$180,400
$213,661
140
93.4%
2,053
$103
706
North Central Suburban
$190,500
$246,501
169
88.8%
2,112
$108
707
Ham Lake
$236.000
$247,451
176
90.3%
2,549
$98
708 -
White Bear Area
$180.000
$216,516
163
90.8%
1,928
$112
709
Forest Lake Area
$154,500
$173,169
158
90.8%
1,934
$91
710
Northeast Anoka County
$198,000
$212,698
158
90.9%
1,960
$111
711
Southern Chisago County
$154,836
$164,950
182
90.0%
1,822
$93
712
Maplewood /North St. Paul
$160,000
$167,764
142
92.4%
1,790
$96
713 `
Bethel
$152.500
$165,497
181
89.9%
1,855
$91
714
SP - Phalen
$85,000
$90,712
137
92.1%
1,434
$63
716
SP - Hillcrest/Hazel Park/Daytons Bluff
$94,250
$94,526
123
93.6%
1,389
$69
720
SP - Southeast St. Paul
$149,475
$147,415
143
93.3%
1,702
$87
721
Lakeland /Afton /Denmark
$237,800
$271,328
205
87.0%
2,380
$115
722.
Newport/St, Paul Park/Cottage Grove
$168,150
$183,978
125
94.1%
1,956
$95
725
Pine Springs/Lake Elmo /Oakdale
$167,100
$189,708
130
92.4%
1,864
$99
726 -
Woodbury
$238,375
$253,063
133
92.5%
2,303
$108
727
Stillwater /Bayport
$225,000
$269,660
172
90.4%
2,169
$123
728
SP - Riverview /Cherokee
$103,000
$109,070
148
91.3%
1,390
$79
738
SP - Home Croft/W 7th
$110,000
$111,794
82
96.4%
1,352
$84
740
SP - Crocus Hill
$206,250
$280,092
168
90.2%
1,866
$145
741
SP- Downtown/Capital Heights
$176,450
$202,215
161
92.6%
1,103
$178
742
SP - Central
$55,000
$67,299
128
90.8%
1,312
$52
744
SP - Como
$175,000
$174,573
107
94.3%
1,456
$123
746
SP - St.Anthony /Midway
$159,000
$161,306
103
94.0%
1,417
$116
748
SP - Town & Country /Merriam Park
$220,000
$243,951
103
94.4%
1,783
$137
750
SP - Mac/Groveland /River Road Area
$243,000
$259,815
116
94.6%
1,536
$166
752
SP - Highland Area
$222,025
$242,873
104
91.9%
1,607
$152
754
Big Lake Township
$139,900
$149,658
148
93.0%
1,768
$88
756
Elk River
$160,000
$167,146
152
91.5%
2,032
$82
758
Northwestern Anoka County
$159,000
$173,140
176
91.7%
1,938
$92
760
Ramsey
$154,000
$168,262
136
93.0%
1,954
$87
762
Andover
$205,000
$220,323
162
92.7%
2.315
$98
764
Blaine
$169,900
$196,487
126
94.1%
2,003
$98
765
Arden Hills /Shoreview
$209,900
$240,226
147
90.9%
1,983
$118
766
Moundsvw /New Brightn /St. Anthny Vilg
$186,000
$194,167
135
92.6%
1,797
$109
767
Coon Rapids
$137,250
$141,241
132
93.0%
1,686
$84
768 '
Fridley
$139,500
$144,387
136
91.8%
1,662
$89
769
Anoka
$130,000
$134,506
131
92.1%
1,656
$83
770
Hilltop /Columbia Heights
$122,500
$125,161
137
90.8%
1,536
$82
771
Spring Lake Park
$139,000
$144,888
111
93.0
1,668
$88
772
Lexington /Circle Pines
$150,000
$155,538
134
930%
1,637
$96
780
Sherburne County
$144,250
$157,333
163
92.4%
1,883
$86
782
Isanti /Chisago
$124,900
$135,056
174
89.3%
1,636
$85
783
Cambridge
$115,000
$119,053
159
89.5%
1,561
$80
784
Northern Chisago County
$129,950
$134,462
175
88.2%
1,696
$82
801
Southeast Wisconsin
NIA
N/A
MIA
N/A
N/A
N/A
802
Southern Wisconsin
$97,500
$113,300
125
83.9%
2,135
$54
803 -
Eastern Wisconsin
$98,700
$98,700
130
85.3%
2,094
$49
804
Central Wisconsin
$83,750
$93,950
111
85.9%
1,627
$55
805
Western Wisconsin
$139,900
$160,931
175
89.1%
1,759
$93
811
Northeast Minnesota
$132,000
$154,919
137
90.3%
1,588
$99
812
Northern Minnesota
$135,250
$155,250
132
90.3 1 /6
1,663
$100
813
Northwest Minnesota
$125,900
$141,076
167
88.8%
1.875
$83
814
West Central Minnesota
$123,000
$144,994
167
89.4%
1,773
$83
815
Southern Minnesota
$125,900
$133,004
140
90.8%
2,085
$70
816
Southeast Minnesota
$126,500
$137,952
135
90.8%
2,125
$66
817
Central Minnesota
$116,500
$147,745
174
881%
1,630
$92
840 -
North Dakota
$140,000
$151,334
82
96.1%
1,916
$80
850
South Dakota
$30,000
$30,000
0
62.6%
960
31
851
Western Iowa
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
861
Eastern Iowa
$69,000
$94,375
125
85.5%
1,673
38
www mplsrealtoccnm 9
map 2009MEDIANHoME PRICE.-Iq
reap 2009 HoM E PRICE PER SQUARE FoT
closing sales price relative to total finished square footage
hi stori ca l M EDIAN SALES PRICE BY AREA
includes single family detached homes, condominiums, townhomes and twin homes
12 Minneapolis Area Association of REAL'rORS�
% Change
is i�l!IIIIIIIIIIIIII
Code
Area
004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
from 2008
from 2004
300
Mpis - Calhoun -Isles
$262,500
$260,000
$263,500
$256,000
$240,900
$230,000
-4.5%
- 124 %
301
Mpls - Camden
$157,900
$163,800
$163,000
$129,459
$60,000
$51,900
-13.5%
-67.1%
302
Mpis - Central
$256,500
$249,000
$270,050
$278,850
$275,945
$246,750
-10.6%
-3.8%
303
Mpis - Longfellow
$200,000
$212,200
$208,000
$210,500
$188,500
$171,500
-9,0%
-14.3%
304
Mpis - Nokomis
$210,000
$223,496
$225,000
$224,200
$208,000
$189,906
-8,7%
-9.6%
305
Mpis - North
$149,900
$159,900
$150,000
$91,000
$44,313
$38,500
-13.1%
-74.3%
306
Mpls - Northeast
$195,650
$206,125
$210,000
$197,388
$167,500
$151,000
-9.9%
-22.8%
307
Mpls - Phillips
$169,500
$176,590
$189,600
$165,478
$87,550
$89,050
+ 1.7%
-47.5%
308
Mpls - Powderhorn
$184,500
$192,000
$184,000
$170,000
$119,900
$110,000
-8.3%
-40.4%
309
Mpis - Southwest
$268,500
$285,006
$287,006
$309,060
$275,000
$260,000
•5.5%
-3.2%
310
Mpis - University
$235,000
$242,000
$240,000
$242,500
$203,000
$195.000 '.
-3,9%
-17.0%
340
Buffalo
$203,000
$200,250
$214,950
$195,000
$172,500
$145,000
15.9%
- 28.6%
341
Wright County (except Buffalo)
$197,700
$218,864
$218,650
$210,000
$180,000
$156,000
-13.3%
-21.1%
342
Hutchinson
$143,000
$160,000
$161,000
$162,050
$149,000
$124,950
-16.1%
-12.6%
343 •
McLeod County
$142,800
$158,050
$154,200
$142,931
$124,900
$99,000
-20.7%
- 30.7 %
360
Robbinsdale
$190,000
$196,950
$201000
$203,000
$160,025
$148,750
-7.0%
• 21.7%
361
Crystal
$186,700
$197,900
$198,000
$193,650
$161,000
$142,000 -
-11.8%
-23,9%
362:
New dope
? $215,450
$225,000
$227,300
$220,000
$186,000
$158,000
-15.1%
- 26.7%
363
Brooklyn Center
$183,500
$195,000
$192,675
$174,300
$115,500
$90,000
-22.1%
- 51.0%
364
Brooklyn Park
$215,900
$229,900
$230,000
$220,000
$174,600
$135,000
-22.7%
37.5%
365
Maple Grove /Osseo
$224,900
$243,200
$247,000
$253,750
$247,900
$219,348
-11.5%
-2.5%
366
Champlin
$217,000
$227,000
$234,000
$218,111
$199,900
$162,000
• 19.0%
-25.3%
367
Hennepin -North
$252,000
$285,000
$291,000
$283,800
$249,900
$224,950
-10.0%
-10,7%
368
Hennepin - Northwest
$360,000
$400,000
$377,000
$369,000
$310,000
$255,000
-17.7%
291%
370
Sibley County
$135,000
$145,300
$141,100
$132,750
$110,000
$88,888
-19.2%
34.2%
373
Golden Valley
$249,450
$262,000
$267,900
$272,400
$257,450
$220,000
-14.5%
-11,8%
374
Plymouth
$274,950
$290,000
$293,500
$294,000
$279,000
$253,500
-9.1%
- 7.8%
378
Richfield
$211,250
$221,000
$223,000
$217,500
$185,500
$165,000
11.1%
21.9%
379
Bloomington -East
$205,000
$221,650
$225,000
$210,250
$180,000
$157,625
-12.4%
-23.1%
380
Bloomington -West
$234.900
$249,900
$247,00
$245,000
$226,000
$210,000
•7.1%
-10.6%
381
Lake Minnetonka
$400,000
$427,500
$475,000
$400,863
$385,000
$339,500
-11.8%
-15.1%
385
Edina
$322,700
$357,000
$389,500
$378,000
$387,500
$324,950
-16.1%
+ 0.7%
386
Hopkins
$178,450
$190,950
$205,900
$205,000
$170,000
$164,900
-3.0%
-7.6%
387
Minnetonka
$281,400
$292,000
$270,000
$285,000
$263,500
$242,000
_82%
-14.0%
391
Saint Louis Park
$215,300
$230,000
$233,000
$233,500
$226,950
$212,500
-6,41%
- 13%
392
Eden Prairie
$282,796
$294,900
$288,780
$315,250
$280,000
$251,750
-10.1%
-11.0%
394
Carver County
$221,000
$235,000
$244,250
$232,000
$218,000
$186,000
-14.7%
- 15.8%
396
Chanhassen
$288,000
$290,000
$295,000
$317,143
$295,000
$280,000
-5.1%
- 2.8%
397
Chaska
$234,950
$240,250
$233,150
$246,000
$230,500
$178,500
-22.6%
-24.0%
398
Victoria
$345,000
$388,700
$475,000
$407,500
$401,000
$326,950
-18.5%
-5.2%
600
West St. Paul
$190,000
$203,000
$203,175
$189,000
$163,000
$134,900
- 172%
-29.0%
602
South St. Paul
$180,000
$196,900
$1971000
$182,000
$159,000
$132,000 ;
-17.0%
-26.7%
604.
Mendota /Lilydale /Mendota Heights
$319,000
$333,000
$371,000
$382,500
$294,000
$260,000
11.6%
-18.57.
605
Sunfish Lake
$780,000
$650,000
$696,500
$1,110,000
$1,051,250
$830,000
-21.0%
+ 6.4%
608
Inver Grove Heights
$209,500
$221,000
$205,900
$209,900
$190,000
$165,751
-12.8%
-20.9%
610
Eagan
$224,000
$232,500
$237,900
$242,000
$215,000
$183,600
- 14.9%
•1B.3%
612
Burnsville
$221,700
$237.000
$232,900
$225,000
$201,647
$175,000
-13.2%
-21.1%
614
Apple Valley
$209,000
$224,665
$226,500
$224,900
$205,000
$171,000
-16.6%
-18.2%
616
Rosemount
$227,900
$238,400
$248,900
$244,900
$216,900
$194,000
-10.6%
-14.9%
617
Hastings
$203,000
$200,620
$201,325
$196,000
$175,000
$150,000
-14.3%
-26.1%
618
Eastern Dakota County
$259,900
$300,000
$248,300
$250,000
$288,500
$240,000
-16.8%
-7.7%
624
Farmington
$221,000
$230,000
$232,250
$224,000
$195,730
$175,000
-10.6%
-20.8%
626
Lakeville
$267,250
$279,000
$279,700
$262,000
$250,000
$224,188
-10.3%
-16.1%
628
Southern Dakota County
$249,900
$254,500
$237,300
$238,000
$256,500
$169,700
-33.8%
-32.1%
630
Northfield
$220,000
$230,000
$220,850
$215,075
$189,000
$171,425
-9.3%
-22.1%
632
Rice County
$171,000
$194,350
$169,000
$172,250
$146,500
$140,000
-5.7%
- 18.1%
640
Shakopee
$206,500
$217,000
$218,900
$220,050
$199,875
$175,000
-12.4%
-15.3%
642
Prior Lake
$272,750
$298,597
$279,450
$277,000
$264,400
$240,000
-9.2%
-12.0%
644
Savage
$257,906
$264,900
$267,500
$257,000
$241,000
$212,000
-12.0%
17.8%
646
.Jordan
$223,900
$255,000
$250,650
$250,000
$219,950
$202,000
-8.2%
-9,8%
648
New Prague
$225,000
$253,000
$250,000
$228,500
$210,000
$198,000
5.7%
-12.0%
650
Belle Plaine
$210,000
$217,000
$213,700
$207,900
$175,250
$150,500
-14.1%
- 28.3%
658
Le Sueur /Rice
$146,000
$165,000
$164,450
$160,500
$150,000
$110,000
-26.7%
- 24.7 %
12 Minneapolis Area Association of REAL'rORS�
historical. MEDIAN
SALES
PRICE By AREA
includes
single-family detached homes, condominiums, townhomes
and
twin homes
Are.
_2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
200•
% hange
from 200
% Change
660
Goodhue County
$165,125
$169,700
$174,313
$165,000
$148,000
------------
$146,000
-1.4%
2'
-11.6%
702
Falcon Heights/Lauderdale/Roseville
$229,000
$233,000
$246,288
$237,400
$225,000
$201,900
-10.3%
-11.8%
705
Lino Lakes/Hugo/Centerville
$250,000
$269,900
$264,950
$250,000
$219,366
$180,400
-17.8%
-27.8%
706
North Central Suburban
$224,900
$253,000
$260,000
$249.000
$219,950
$190,500
-13.4%
-15.3%
707
Ham Lake
$344,450
$355,000
$345,000
$3115,000
$275,000
$236,000
14.2%
-31.5%
708
White Bear Area
$235,000
$244,900
$245,000
$235,000
$220,000
$180,000
-18.2%
23,4%
z
709
Forest Lake Area
$246,750
$244,950
$243,543
$237,250
$204,500
$154,500
24.4%
-37.4%
710
Northeast Anoka County
$272,269
$274,500
$279,950
$255,453
$205,000
$198,000
3.4%
-27.3%
711
Southern Chisago County
$206,000
$220,000
$211,288
$209,900
$173,500
$154,836
-10.8%
-24.8%
712
Maplewood/North St. Paul
$2015,000
$220,000
$222,000
$205,897
$185,000
$160,000
.13.5%
-22,3%
713
Bethel
$229,450
$260,550
$237,000
$214,5W
$176,200
$152,500
- 115%
.33.5%
714
SP - Phalen
$1169,000
$177,900
$176,950
$160,000
$100,000
$85,000
-15.0%
-49.7%
716
SID - Hillcrest/Hazel Park/Daytons Bluff
$169,000
$179,000
$175,000
$164,800
$98,700
$94,250
-4.5%
-44.2%
720
SP - Southeast St. Paul
$200,000
$208,450
$217,200
$182,000
$170,000
$149,475
12.1%
-25.3%
721
Lakeland /Afton /Denmark
$309,500
$316,350
$325,000
$270,000
$244,000
$237,800
2.5%
23.2%
722
Newport/St. Paul Park/Cottage Grove
$212,340
$222,950
$227,400
$217,1350
$189,210
$168,150
11.1%
-20.8
725
Pine Springs/Lake Elmo/Oakdale
$219,000
$224,400
$227,500
$228,450
$197,000
$167,100
-15.2%
-23.7%
726
Woodbury
$20,000
$280,659
$282,400
$267,575
$264,000
$238,375
-9.7%
-11.4%
727
Stillwater/Bayport
$280,000
$289,000
$300,000
$295,000
$285,000
$225,000
-21.1%
: -19.6%
728
SP - Riverview/Cherokee
$168,000
$182,500
$187,000
$179,500
$115,000
$103,000
-10.4%
-38.7%
738
SP - Home Croft 7th
NV
$175,000
$179,450
$181,580
$180,000
$138,750
$110,000
-20.7%
37.1%
740
SP- Crocus Hill
$230,000
$250.750
$274,900
$260,450
$227,128
$206,250
.9.2%
-10.3%
741
SP - DowntowniCapital Heights
$151,390
$176,339
$200,170
$189.500
$199,900
$176.450
-11.7%
+16.6%
742
SP - Central
$150,000
$160,000
$152,750
$131,750
$60,250
$55,000
-8.7%
613%
744
SP -Como
$200,000
$219,900
$216,250
$216,000
$195,500
$175,000
-10.5%
-12.5%
746
SP - St. Anthony/Midway
$193,640
$195,050
$206,850
$195,400
$175,000
$159,000
-9.1%
-17.9%
748
SP - Town & Country/Merriam Park
$255,500
$292,500
$282,500
$265,950
$230,588
$220,000
-4,6%
-13.9%
750
SP - Mac/Groveland/River Road Area
$264,000
M0,000
$278,000
$276,000
$266,250
$243,000
- 83%
-8.0%
752
SP- Highland Area
$2619,950
$275,000
$274,400
$280,000
$249,000
$222,025
-10.8
-17.8%
754
Big Lake Township
$188,500
$201,000
$207,850
$195,950
$150,000
$139,900
-6.7%
-25.8%
756
Elk River
$225,541
$233,000
$229,900
$210,000
$187,900
$160,000
-14.8%
29.1%
758
Northwestern Anoka County
$236,900
$236,900
$232,000
$220,480
$195,000
$159,000
-18.5%
32.9%
760
Ramsey
$225,898
$226,000
$229,900
$214,750
$186,700
$154,000
-17.5%
31.8%
762
Andover
$254,329
$275,000
$273,500
$265.000
$226.840
$205,000
-9.6%
-19.4%
764
Blaine
$213,700
$226,900
$229,000
$222,350
$194,500
$169,900
- 112.6%
-20.5%
765
Arden Hills/Shoreview
$220,000
$239,900
$242,250
$237,000
$225,000
$209,900
-6.7%
- 4.6%
766
Moundsvw/New Brightn/St. Anthny Vilg
$219,900
$229,900
$225,900
$227,000
$201,000
$186,000
-7.5%
-15.4%
767
Coon Rapids
$196,950
$205,900
$205,900
$190,500
$160,000
$137,250
-14.2%
-30.3%
768
Fridley
$196,550
$210,000
$210,000
$194,000
$160,025
$139,500
-12.8%
-29.0%
769
Anoka
$195,500
$203,000
$200,541
$189,500
$160,250
$130,000
- 18.9%
-33.5%
770
Hilltop/Columbia Heights
$180.000
$189,900
$189,900
$179,900
$1145,000
$124500
-15.5%
-31.9%
771
Spring Lake Park
$190,400
$208,000
$199,650
$195,000
$159,265
$139,000
-12.7%
-27.0%
772
1 exingtonlCircle Pines
$189,450
$192,000
$191,600
$186,000
$172,600
$150,000
-13 1%
- 208%
780
Sherburne County
$197,000
$220,000
$225,000
$207,250
$165,000
$144,250
-12.6%
-26.8%
782
Isanti/Chisago
$176,900
$189,000
$189,900
$176,000
$147,483
$124,900
-15.3%
-29.4%
783
Cambridge
$172,633
$180,900
$175,000
$165,000
$135,200
$115,000
14.9%
-33.4%
784
Northern Chisago County
$175,200
$202.500
$182,200
$179.000
$14%675
$129,950
-13.2%
-25.8%
801
Southeast Wisconsin
$0
$206,000
$408,000
$0
$0
$0
N/A
NIA
802
Southern Wisconsin
$174,997
$103,000
$103,000
$131,000
$128,900
$97,500
-24.4%
-44.3%
803
Eastern Wisconsin
$145,000
$99,450
$76,649
$121,500
$131,400
$98,700
-24.9%
- 31.9%
804
Central Wisconsin
$163,751
$96,950
$86,000
$96,000
$92,000
$83,750
-9.0%
-48.9%
805
Western Wisconsin
$170,000
$173,000
$173,900
$165.000
$153,000
$139,900
-8.6%
-17.7%
Bit
Northeast Minnesota
$139,950
$147,000
$149,000
$152,400
$145,200
$132,000
-9.1%
-5.7%
812
Northern Minnesota
$138,000
$145,373
$150,000
$147,500
$140,000
$135,250
3.4%
-2.0%
813
Northwest Minnesota
$124,800
$99,900
$117,000
$117,500
$100,000
$125,900
25.9%
+0.9%
814
West Central Minnesota
$117,000
$135,000
$138,900
$149,450
$131,900
$123,000
-6.7%
'5.1%
815
Southern Minnesota
$140,950
$147,000
$150,000
$145,000
$134,900
$125,900
-6.7%
-10.7%
816
Southeast Minnesota
$135,478
$136,700
$142,050
$138,000
$137,013
$126,500
-7.7%
.6.6%
817
Central Minnesota
$149,900
$162,000
$162,100
$156,600
$131,100
$116,500
11.1%
-22.3%
840
North Dakota
$99,950
$123,499
$136,250
$130,000
$125,900
$140,000
+11.2%
+40.1%
4
850
South Dakota
$38,750
$61,250
$340,000
$0
$18,000
$30,000
+66.7%
-22.6%
851
Western Iowa
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
NIA
N/A
861
Eastern Iowa
$0
$199,900
63750.0
$110,000
$114,250
$69,000
- 39.6%
N/A
13
h istorical AVERAGE SALES PRICE BY AREA
includes single family detached homes, condominiums, townharnes and twin homes
C odel
Area
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
rom 2008
300
Mpls - Calhoun -Isles
$372,783
$376,014
$400,679
$376,850
$371,228
$344,713 3
- 7.1%
- 7.5 %
301
Mpls - Camden
$160,161
$167,835
$161,503
$131,951
$75,525
$68,324
-9.5%
-57.3%
302 -
Mpls - Central
$311,092
$292,259
$310,890
$321,485
$337,539
$324,897
-3.7%
+4.4%
303
Mpts - Longfellow
$214,740
$230,724
$220,009
$221,695
$193,444
$169,692
-12.3%
-21.0%
304
Mpts - Nokomis
$222,753
$234,723
$239,916
$236,460
$215,963
$194,210
• 10.1%
-12.8%
305
Mpls -North
$166,316
$164,711
$152,386
$102,472
$60,291
$54,598
-9.4%
-6!2%
306
Mpls - Northeast
$200,433
$209,408
$214,645
$199,509
$165,998
$147,361
-11.2%
-23.5%
307
Mpls - Phillips
I $171,434
$183,644
$207,470
$167,278
$97,949
$92,495
-5.6%
-46.0%
308
Mpls - Powderhorn
$182,077
$191,507
$182,790
$168,494
$124,910
$115,203
-7.8%
,,.,.: ;6
309
Mpis - Southwest
$312,662
$337,187
$351,213
$366;837
$332,018
$295,453
-11.0%
5 P',
310
Mpis - University
$238,359
$254,452
$259,903
$267,249
$218,806
$196,796
• 101%
17.4%
340
Buffalo
$220,855
$234,081
$243,478
$223,694
$199,711
$156,806
-21.5%
29.0%
341
Wright County (except Buffalo)
$220,336
$240,737
$241,167
$233,432
$199,193
$171,069
-14.1%
22.4%
342
Hutchinson
$156,348
$175,285
$174,256
$174,986
$155,060
$140,900
-9.1%
-99%
343
McLeod County
$162,345
$163,278
$172,331
$146,530
$135,757
$105,351
-22.4%
35
360
Robbinsdale
$191,655
$193,788
$203,446
$200,666
$161,950
$143,048
-11.7%
25. ,
361
Crystal
$189,943
$201,712
$199,043
$194,025
$162,605
$139563
-14.2%
2
362
New Hope
I $209,631
$219,661
$217,184
$217,058
$183,196
$160,952
-12.1%
2 :%
363
Brooklyn Center
$183,204
$194,673
$191,112
$173,079
$118,074
$96,721
- 18.1 Y.
4
364
Brooklyn Park
$228,739
$249,100
$252,182
$240,856
$190,531
$148,894
-21.9%
365
Maple Grove /Osseo
$263,802
$290,559
$309,000
$323,881
$316,224
$268,567
-15.1%
+ 1.8%
366
Champlin
$238,531
$253,228
$262,969
$240.964
$215,055
$176,469
.17.9%
26-G%
367
Hennepin-North
$275,936
$296,400
$313,133
$299,334
$274,010
$230,567
15.9%
-16.4%
368
Hennepin - Northwest
$491,145
$525,196
$518280
$525,860
$453,968
$369,723
18.6%
- 24.:
370
Sibley County
$137,194
$158,823
$145,215
$145,261
$113,715
$97,995
-13.8%
-28.1
373
Golden Valley
$289,372
$311,181
$327,862
$328,249
$312,842
$250,651
-19.9%
1- .%
374
Plymouth
$310,181
$323,397
$323,984
$329,845
$320,017
$291,859
- 8.8%
E 9s.
378
Richfield
$211,765
$221,325
$223,511
$215,789
$185,253
$159,558 ?
13.9% z
2 .. ?96
379
Bloomington -East
$197,713
$217,692
$233,552
$213,205
$188,577
$160,556 q
14.931.
380
Bloomington -West
$259,561
$281,060
$273,064
$271,557
$251,380
$227,806
9.4%
381
Lake Minnetonka
$582,709
$628,052
$708,266
$635,302
$593,527
$512,214
-13.7%
12.
385
Edina
$408,077
$441,629
$502,293
$490,812
$528,724
$418,853
-20.8%
+"' f;
386
Hopkins
$184,077
$207,712
$221,004
$207,456
$200.110
$176,549
-11.8%
- 4 1'r
387
Minnetonka
$339,495
$357,408
$337,003
$346,445
$319,978
$284,113
112%
- 18.3%
391
Saint Louis Park
$228,846
$247,751
$251,125
$253,283
$247,163
$230,169
•6.9%
+01%
392
Eden Prairie
$349,929
$376,513
$364,710
$409,116
$350,902
$308,152
• 12.2%
- 1 ,, '%
394
Carver County
$250,057
$259,279
$284,378
$256,979
$240,161
$204,675
-14.8%
10
396
Chanhassen
$356,428
$355,671
$369,176
$397,934
$378,839
$354,811
-6.3%
3.5%
397
Chaska
$275,384
$281,832
$276,162
$277,074
$266,521
$218,111
18._`5
2
398
Victoria
$369,861
$473,886
$470,522
$437,151
$424,885
$336,167
20.y'X.
,,
600
West St. Paul
$200,138
$212,530
$210,828
$190,456
$165,561
$136,862
-17.3%
- 3 , 6 /
602
South St. Paul
$179,136
$200,721
$199,666
$189,994
$156,801
$130,482
-16.6%
- 2 %..;6
604
Mendota /Lilydale /Mendota Heights
$368,311
$396,289
$395,552
$438,032
$329,596
$291,988
11.4;6
27. ;
605
Sunfish Lake
$882,847
$757,500
$670,750
$1,114,667
$1,260,625
$830,000
34.2%
6 C'io
608
Inver Grove Heights
$253,054
$276,759
$265,929
$264,766
$227,421
$209,498
-7.9%
-17 _%
610
Eagan
$244,888
$254,617
$261,426
$262,609
$240,878
$205,601
14.6%
672
Burnsville
$730457.
$245,382-
$243,384
$236,131
$211,080
$186,602
-11.6%
..u/
614
Apple Valley
$229,816
$249,709
$253,344
$243,015
$229,652
$194,392
15.4%
1;..'%
616
Rosemount
$250,870
$265.800
$283,737
$277,473
$244,896
$223.461
8.E5�
617
Hastings
$228,748
$225,167
$219,956
$225,945
$195,051
$169,912
12.311:.
L_.. „
618
Eastern Dakota County
$269,507
$329,748
$280,492
$298,198
$278,600
$218,162
-21.7%
1a
624
- Farmington
$238,404
$240,155
$244,374
$235,212
$207,982
$181,359
- 12.6%
2., -5
626
Lakeville
$299,246
$312,927
$314,021
$302,571
$279,123
$240,822
.13.7%
1:;.5%
628
, Southern Dakota County
$269,598
$297,738
$276,450
$243,169
$276,817
$191,560
-30.6%
22.9%
630
Northfield
$242,523
$252,952
$243,849
$237,795
$209,620
$186,143
-11.2%
23._%
632
Rice County
$191,298
$212,516
$205,619
$194,132
$163,537
$148,469
-9.24
4_ h
640
Shakopee
$243,159
$260,869
$259,186
$255,088
$230,856
$195,077
-15.5%
642
Prior Lake
$325,929
$380,227
$357,891
$344,549
$355,229
$281444
-20.2%
13.0
644
Savage
$279,813
$288,856
$294,152
$281,927
$259,517
$225,757
13.C, •6
Y.
646
Jordan
t $254,139
$288,295
$283,754
$260,672
$233,099
$207,830
10. ,5
648
New Prague
$251,564
$289,343
$285,347
$259,876
$226,299
$213.642
5.6 %b
650
Belle Plaine
$226,760
$221,918
$214,030
$215,763
$173,865
$154,258
113%
3_u,5
658
Le Sueur /Rice
$160,208
$184,112
$183,706
$177,416
$168.694
$119,578
29.; %
2.:.,
14 Minneapolis Area Association of REALTORSq'
historical AVERAGE SALES PRICE BY AREA r
includes single-family detached homes, condominiums, townhomes and twin homes
C--1:171
Area
2 004
2005
rr6
2GO7
2008
2009
from 2008
from 2004
Change..:,.
$
660
Goodhue County
$186,058
$198,428
$202,138
$185,838
$166,505
$160,587
-3.6%
-13.7%
i
702
Falcon Heights /Lauderdale /Roseville
$237,388
$252,589
$268,480
$251,565
$244,037
$220,527
-9.6%
7.1
705
Lino Lakes /Hugo /Centerville
i $278,503
$300,000
$300,065
$284,232
$246,574
$213,661
13.3%
-23.3%
706
North Central Suburban
$289,091
$326,344
$331.568
$329,019
$316472
$246,501
-22.1%
-14,7%
$ d
707
Ham Lake
$354,205
$360,043
$355,008
$333,263
$290,535
$247,451
-14,8%
-30.1%
708
White Bear Area
$292,434
$302,386
$301,831
$306,449
$272,150
$216,516 1
- 20.4%
-26.0%
709
Forest Lake Area
$267,619
$281,966
$280,719
$260,557
$231,338
$173,169
-25.1%
-35.3%
710
Northeast Anoka County
$280,445
$290,596
$306,421
$269,620
$212,567
$212,698
+ 0,11%
-24.2%
711
Southern Chisago County
$232,008
$241,278
$240.280
$226,967
$191,675
$164,950
-13.9%
-28.9%
712
Maplewood /North St. Paul
$230,394
$238,240
$238,617
$225,578
$195,727
$167,764
14,3%
-27.2%
713
Bethel
$241,876
$273,023
$262,285
$230,313
$195,411
$165,497
-15.3%
- 31.6%
714
SP - Phalen
$169,922
$182,056
$176,292
$154,721
$106,248
$90,712
-14.6%
-46.6%
716
SP - Hillcrest/Hazel Park/Daytons Bluff
$167,521
$179,025
$175,439
$156,917
$102,866
$94,526
-8.1%
- 43.6%
720
SP - Southeast St. Paul
$212,622
$210,683
$218,327
$187,771
$174,431
$147,415
-15.5%
-30.7%
721
Lakeland /Afton /Denmark
$402,639
$386,067
$376,138
$365,375
$321,858
$271,328
-15.7%
-32.6%
722
Newport/St. Paul Park/Conage Grove
$225,330
$242,476
$248,864
$235,278
$206,458
$183.978
- 10.9%
-18.4%
725
Pine Springs/Lake Elmo/Oakdale
$248,509
$252,971
$263,211
$274,705
$252,746
$189,708
-24.9%
-23,7%
726
Woodbury
$296,491
$308,685
$313,667
$296,716
$290,789
$253,063
-13.0%
-14.6%
727
Stillwater /Bayport
$342,003
$341,658
$354,953
$359,273
$344,331
$269,660
-21.7%
-21.2%
728
SP - Riverview /Cherokee
$172,975
$192,144
$192,887
$180,236
$125,897
$109,070
-13.4%
-36.9%
738
SP - Home Croft/W 7th
$175,215
$179,300
$179,007
$177,510
$132,999
$111,794
-15.9%
-36.2%
740
SP - Crocus Hip
$307,760
$330,368
$340,336
$364,816
$315,698
$280,092
-11,3%
-9.0%
741
SP - Downtown/Capital Heights
$167,567
$2011288
$229,447
$217,065
$203,960
$202,215
-0 -9%
+20.7%
742
SP - Central
$147,358
$157,569
$151,649
$127,332
$75,603
$67,299
-11.0%
-54.3%
744
SP - Como
$209,136
$227,160
$216,711
$225,775
$201,138
$174,573
-13.2%
-16.5%
7
746
SP - St. Anthony /Midway
$207,134
$219,448
$223,240
$218,063
$182,537
$161,306
-11.6%
-22.1%
748
SP - Town & Country /Merriam Park
$314,999
$338,953
$306,536
$323,395
$258,164
$243,951
- 5.5%
-22.6%
750
SP - Mac/Groveland /River Road Area
$299,591
$313,515
$319,884
$325,347
$294,912
$259,815
-11.9%
-13.3%
752
SP - Highland Area
$299,177
$314,905
$318,547
$321,641
$282,697
$242,873
141%
-18.8%
754
Big Lake Township
$209,882
$220,407
$225,396
$209,264
$157,047
$149,658
-4,7%
-28.7%
756
Elk River
$239,411
$252,265
$247,378
$231,580
$200,203
$167,146
-16.5%
-30.2%
758
Northwestern Anoka County
$254,921
$266,211
$260,013
$249,048
$219,181
$173,140
-21.0%
-32.1%
760
Ramsey
$246,711
$244,191
$249,065
$232,567
$207,643
$168,262
-19.0%
-31.8%
762
Andover
$270,707
$292,910
$301,747
$289,787
$240,367
$220,323
-8.3%
- 18.6%
764
Blaine
$238,240
$259,854
$265,828
$264,396
$226,387
$196,487
112%
-17.5%
765
Arden Hips /Shoreview
$245,373
$265,716
$285,321
$282,130
$271,458
$240,226
-11,5%
-2.1%
766
Moundsvw /New Brightn /St. Anthny Vilg
$229,977
$247,307
$241,079
$245,606
$212,155
$194,167
-8.5%
-15.6%
1
767
Coon Rapids
$210,534
$219,785
$217,241
$199,253
$170,038
$141,241
-16.9%
-32.9%
s�
768
Fridley
$204,200
$213,539
$219,204
$203,044
$171,025
$144,387
-15.6%
29.3%
9
769
Anoka
$209,143
$209,873
$211,354
$195,153
$159,999
$134,506
-15.9%
35.7%
770
Hilltop/Columbia Heights
$184,701
$194,087
$188,834
$184,039
$142,651
$125,161
-12.3%
-32.2%
771
Sprang Lake Park
$197,995
$206,867
$210.266
$196,541
$161,071
$144,888
-10,0%
-26.8%
772
Lexington /Circle Pines
$198,925
$212,353
$205,837
$192,346
$181,982
$155,538
-14.5%
-21.8%
780
Sherburne County
$215,555
$241,251
$245,414
$225,797
$181,395
$157,333
-13.3%
-27.0%
782
Isanti / Chisago
$195,383
$205,280
$204,047
$197,427
$161,246
$135,056
-16.2%
-30.9%
783
Cambridge
$184,461
$195,852
$184,358
$174,080
$142,977
$119.053
-16.7%
-35.5%
784
Northern Chisago County
$1
$213,843
$203,763
$187,439
$152.482
$134,462
-11.8%
-30.0%
801
Southeast Wisconsin
$0
$206,000
$408,000
$0
$0
$0
NIA
NIA
802
Southern Wisconsin
$174,997
$99,243
$117,444
$134,395
$112,954
$113,300
+0.3%
35.3%
803
Eastern Wisconsin
$145,000
$120,317
$76,649
$121,500
$186,967
$98,700
-47.2%
-31.9%
804
Central Wisconsin
$150,940
$127,656
$131,021
$123,033
$131,088
$93,950
-28.3%
- 37.8%
805
Western Wisconsin
$196,036
$195,119
$199,119
$193,965
$181,699
$160,931
-11.4%
-17.9%
811
Northeast Minnesota
$163,499
$172,543
$172,372
$175,392
$170,553
$154,919
-9.2%
-5.2%
812
Northern Minnesota
$171,065
$164,411
$167,895
$162,202
$168,909
$155,250
-811%
-9.2%
813
Northwest Minnesota
$147,454
$127,580
$140,435
$132,067
$105,409
$141,076
+33.8%
-4.3%
814
West Central Minnesota
$138,309
$162,607
$163.826
$178,415
$166,655
$144,994
-13.0%
+4.8%
815
Southern Minnesota
$156,990
$160,453
$158,444
$156,175
$140,714
$133,004
-5.5%
-15.3%
816
Southeast Minnesota
$153.030
$157,443
$159,805
$158,917
$151,053
$137,952
-8.7%
-9.9%
817
Central Minnesota
': $175,049
$190,078
$194,301
$192,683
$169,886
$147,745
-13.0%
-15.6%
840
North Dakota
$106,544
$125,755
$137,911
$140,542
$131,007
$151,334
+ 15.5%
+ 42.0%
850
South Dakota
$38,750
$61,250
$340,000
$0
$32,000
$30,000
-6.3%
-22.6%
851
Western Iowa
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
861
Eastern Iowa
$0
$199,900
$63.750
$110,000
$114,250
$94,375
-17.4%
N/A
- mpkr- ltocc- 15
OSCEOLA
710 , =A
^ • _ - Cage _ - �u Naw Scaldfa = Faimi4m
Twp
STCROIX
� x
- -
' 705'x"
NTERVRLE 3
-m''ti�':rae =,a' - _ ,_ - Lmm LArgs Ln�6° Y
- 727 SOMERSET
:..�\ »'-
OSSEO
EW
365 f« $NW Q
a N P ThIi '}� StAlltter' Sa ry� V ®�
- - - - g. GROVE ��jLS 706 1 1 V8 - �xfr n'+P
&! _ 6 6 SnLLWktER
374 765
PLYMOUTH
_ CA OA - >.,��..'.-,' -1 <:
T roz _ ,
A riz °_a.
ROSEV
K1E
- �._ - y awn
H Twp
308
u
coN
- s
- - MEDICINE � PLEWOOD s
TLS'P
-VALLEY A }nt 'r3— IGHTS
$,4 373 sez . 744 : Lam a
j wATPRrovN ORONO WAYZATA s�i`&is� 300 7A8n - T"a Wi z_ : rosaN
PALM'.. < -
AINNE MSTA = ,.. ," NN 74'
�I - �r�.. �� 391 �� �s '740 e}
tiolhnvooa Wa1 uoUtab �w ` N 7L6
Y 387 ° 5 sos - -;a
S 6 ONIFACIt1S SHOREN9D O -`' MINNETONKA EwNAr 304 h ' "` >, WOOD" TaI
.� >s._.sr �.ea:# +- .T-M1 x.:u'•'.'a.:= ,:y�.: >. -x.Y. cwr -.crz. :y 386 Rl3t -iI �G
EVJ GEP.PMNY WaCanla �`vItROR
MAYER p k p a �j ti 3 ?8 ORT
N
T" :1.398' = CHANHASSEN -
'f: 392
Lakamwn _. 396: . 379: - _ �.'
Camnen ysACONIA x' - EDEN S 380 2'. - - - _
f_ - nLUtmaar<a+r ......... &OTR4CsE, - ' `
= y _. ",.. T"p
394
f 397 610 _.,..
NOAVVOOD
YO d[AiPfStALLE
«
AMERICA LRlO
D�^ ' �.`: '= s PRESCOTT
4 z f
A .. Young ..�....- . -- . -- ._ CARVER.. _ =,s%sr^= :d4o#" yA�&E` 12 g 67 _ _ _ Oak Grove
Amenca - - - - - - ... - - -- - - -
,+ Twp Tt'N -. _ �^� £ APPLE .; ROSENJVNT .. -
/,:'" VALLEY
-
HAMBLRG
•: _gaN,.:t .x::,� ms.,rtcss�,erF -;.� rarv+urn��fsu+�( COATES �
;;r. >_`z�.; Nancock " n �.`�"y' 618 -
. z S. Francisco Credlt 626 .�.wq,F- s ;: -£m M n:hen
_ ,`4el. _ a -
Twp g � - jj�� : g C vERAnLtION Ra�arma
LAKEV iI'4'4..'': VermgUw Twp
Twp s
...... .11}. _
ri
i �..',F<_<. -- '•> •_
.:..n��,. - - -
_ MIESVILLE �VJNCh
- -
_ -
Tss➢
` a
> - - Euake Cos RakP 628
630 _ .. ; 660 ;
: -�- - CANNON f
= Y - RA PH T" FALLS,. Vase
- - - - - - WMertWO Sclda
GmemeRe Twp
\ -`,'> <• E >; W TwP
Tp TWP 4 J . ✓ -
�._; Cannon Faps
Twp
u_
< t
- - - - - - RTHF� IELD
>
,,yy,, a F �s «j �;:r;' - - "v' msw.s,..om .. 'kl- �r.•a,rr:�a+Fd i
JF, 4 t5€sc;` - _ - . mVV.✓ 3s.nxW:.'src�x,:'"A%wvs:a�,xVfi" +vx4.ct
ONh9KA
397
map HOME PRICE CHANGES SINCE 2003
includes single family detached homes, condominiums, townhomes and twin homes
LEGEND
F k e
12.5% and above
21.1 % to - 12.6%
-28.6% to -21.2%
- 28.7x¢ and below \`
RMLS Boundary
782
368
MLS District
n
Airport
1
{
Z161MERMAN _
smnl «a A—
ti
.,
`
QTrtadc .:
780
Two TV
....__._._„ .
Twp sty w
Lad
�
-
<
wp_
BT - -„
..............._ _ _
C' BETHEL
... $T'/1CY• C i R
KFEii
TM,p
S T FRANCIS
RdM
BECKER
B1$
Q
758 EAST BETHEL
ri F
: 4kKtaod y. —g -ASAP
w
(
�`
BKa'LAKE 756
T '¢P
754 ELK RIVER
I
OAK
T-P GROVE
WYOMING
UNT=01. 0
xFI�
it 10 709 OSC[OLA
_
`' a Y3 9
I �4 1 y 15°"3II
760
707
FOREST
C.dugbw. LAKE Fvminyton
E
RAMSEY
T-V Twp
`
HAM LAKE
-" at
Twp
• ,•_ ° <`` a
340
767
LOON _ ..:::
75 BomW
SNTEHb1LLE T P
s
.sgi1(a
RAPIDS' i
MUCZ� �
SPRIN
LfNULAdtEB
'�„�' •;
BROOKLYN PAR
SOMERSET
,.
CORCORAN
a
PARK =
364
3
$'
I se
som� NI 805
X08 Twp
• '�
GREENFIELD {
68
RIDL `e
• _+� • t' » �r LOREfTO
3s3 B
OKL
1YBNT® St Josepn
. rwp
. J•
MEDINA
gpt LUM615
-
INDEPENDENCE
DALE
'
7t2 _NT PAUL No= v
4: GfiJN - MuCSx
725
MAPLE
�$
4�APLEWODD
LAKE
�. 714 EtMD
ONh9KA
397
annual review 1980-2009
......... .. ........ ........ ...............
is
t I
kr
gag
�p� � any y . .�. _ __ _ �� >p .- -
46.238
J
19113
1984
'
1086 87,789
is" 58 ; 362 .. ....
90,319
1987 58;422: n4
1980-1996: AM prop"
1988 1 84,7'71
03,977 types, all MLS districts.
1989
1990 78
1991 74,650 93.52 35 99,4w
ign i 72,730
41 103
1993 70,685
$4.30 59;842 107A69
1994
42,454 111,iOB
1996 :42,310 117,053
1996 73,433 $6.82 46,04 124,022
1997 63,189 $5.68 41,441 137
1998 64,280 $7.09 47,836 147,346
1999 57,573 $7.62 46,675 163,277 1997-present: Single-
family detached homes,
2000 59,618 $8.76 48,208 181,605 condominiums,
2001 71,861 $10.22 50,298 203,136 townhouses and twin
2002 i 73,940 $11.33 51,212 f 221.275 homes for the i3- county
metropolitan area.
2003 E 86,378
$13.48 56,528 238,446
2004 97 ,737 Home sales were
97,737 $14.92 58,233 256�252 recalculated by RMLS on
2005 99,211 $15.61 57,283 272 March 6, 2003 due to the
2006 108,022 $13.34 47,906 278,462 fact that the previous re-
2007 105,044 $1111.01 40,055 274,767 port included some sales
reported early in 200 3.
2008
93,560 $9.18 38,730 236,953 t J
2009 83,299 $9.18 45,185 199,404 1
Annual Review
As far as the housing market goes, it is almost
as if the first decade ofthe list century did not
:: A- g e Sal a Pnm exist. All gains in average sales price and total
it ml DWlar Volum Can billims) = dollar volume from 2001 to 20o9 have been
lost. If you're wondering what the heck the
cover image re presents, this is it.
'
Annual Review
1980-2009
Listings Processed are down to 2003 levels,
which is not bad if you consider 2004-2008
an jj
anomaly. Unit Safes data made a nice tittle jump
in 2009, but a lot of this can be squarely placed
on the first-time buyer tax credit and an increase
in lender-mediated sales. This a thriving market
does not make.
IS Minneapolis Area Assodsoon of REALTONSO
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
I INS I - I I ,w al I Ill. - - - mob - . . . - - -
. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 .........................