Winona County board hears assessor's report on valuation shifts, grants a handful of appeals

Winona County officials met June 18 for the Board of Appeal and Equalization to administer oaths, elect meeting officers and hear the county assessor's annual valuation report and property appeals.

County Assessor Lindsay Brandt told the board the office must implement a Department of Revenue order that requires a 5% increase to land values in St. Charles (land only) to correct a sales-ratio shortfall, and she said the order cannot be contested at the county level. Brandt also said the assessor's office raised the residential base rate from $170 to $189 per square foot and applied a roughly 25% increase to commercial buildings countywide to bring the county's sales ratios into the statutory 90'105 range.

"We do have a state order for the city of St. Charles residential," Brandt said. "It cannot be contested at all. It's coming down from the commissioner of revenue. That will have to be implemented before September 1st." She later summarized countywide work: "commercial and industrial went up 25%."

Why the jump: Brandt and staff said the county's mass-appraisal process compares multiyear sales across districts. Where a district falls outside the 90'105 median-ratio band, the Department of Revenue may require county adjustments. Brandt acknowledged the approach can produce sharp, uneven changes across small towns and urged property owners to use the appeal process if they disagree.

Several property owners came forward to challenge their valuations. Dwight Lang of Good View objected to what he described as incorrect acreage and an overstated interior square footage; he told the board the assessor's parcel record listed 1.47 acres and 3,900 square feet when he believes the heated area is about 1,850 square feet and the lot is smaller. Assessor staff said Beacon (the parcel system) appeared to be pulling a non-deed field for acreage and offered to verify the parcel geometry.

Commissioners debated modest reductions for Lang's building value. After two motions (one to reduce by $20,000, then a second to split the difference at $15,000) the votes ended in a tie when the full count was clarified; the tie meant no change was made at the meeting. "If there's a discrepancy in the acreage and the heated area, we'll verify and come back," Brandt told the board.

Diane and William Peach of District 5 submitted a third-party appraisal and a property survey that flagged additional acreage. The assessor's walk-through corrected a flooring classification that lowered the building value, and the survey raised the land from 10 to 13.57 acres, adding roughly $28,600 in land value. After discussion, the board agreed to set the Peach parcel at $548,500, a $39,000 reduction from the assessor's re-evaluated figure. Heather from the assessor's office described the walk-through and the rationale for the change.

A large, contested appeal from Larry Graden of Mount Vernon Township prompted legal questions. Graden objected to what he called an outsized increase after new construction and a base-rate change. Assessors said they applied a 12% functional-obsolescence reduction to reflect missing electrical/HVAC systems on part of the site and explained that a completed commercial structure had been added to the roll. During deliberations a member of the public cited Minnesota statutes (including Minn. Stat. 274.01, subd. B and cross-references to 273.2/273.20) that restrict the board's ability to make owner-benefiting adjustments when the owner has refused interior inspection. After debate and a motion to leave the roll value as set by the assessor, the board voted to retain the assessor's total for that parcel as mailed.

The board approved the remainder of the consent list of property adjustments recommended by staff. Commissioners asked staff to provide written notes on any consent-item reductions larger than $50,000 for future meetings so the board could review supporting evidence.

The meeting concluded after the board handled all scheduled appeals and consent items. No new policy or county-level tax rates were set at the meeting; the board's actions were limited to case-by-case assessment corrections and formal votes on appeals and consent adjustments.

What happens next: Property owners who remain dissatisfied can pursue further review through the formal petition process (tax court) or provide additional evidence (surveys, appraisals, interior access) to the assessor before a final adjustment is made. The Department of Revenue's directive on St. Charles must be implemented by the assessor's office before Sept. 1, per Brandt.

Speakers quoted in this report appear as named in the public record of the hearing. Where a transcript used variant spellings, this article uses the spelling that the speaker or office provided in the record.

Ending: The board adjourned after approving consent items and individual appeals; commissioners asked staff for more documentation on large adjustments ahead of the next review cycle.