04-05-99 agendaCITY OF RICHFIELD
MONDAY, APRIL 5, 1999
REGULAR CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION
7:00 P.M.
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
AGENDA
CALL TO ORDER
ROLL CALL
I. 7:00-7:30 P.M. ANNUAL MEETING WITH ADVISORY BOARD OF HEALTH
II. 7:30- 7:45 P.M. REVIEW AND CONSIDER STATUS OF MULTI-PURPOSE
COMMUNITY CENTER PROPOSAL AND WORK OF TASK
FORCE
STUDY SESSION LETTER NO. 8
III. 7:45-8:00 P.M. REVIEW OF WATER QUALITY REPORT TO CONSUMERS OF
RICHFIELD WATER
STUDY SESSION LETTER NO. 9
IV. 8:00-8:15 P.M. REVIEW OF 1999 BOARD OF EQUALIZATION PROCEDURES
STUDY SESSION LETTER NO. 10
V. 8:15-8:40 P.M. DISCUSSION AND CONSIDERATION OF STAFF'S
RECOMMENDATION FOR HANDLING CIVIL ENFORCEMENT
OF ESTABLISHMENTS THAT FAILED CITY'S RECENT
LIQUOR COMPLIANCE CHECKS
STUDY SESSION LETTER NO. 11
VI. 8:40-9:00 P.M. STATUS UPDATE OF EXECUTIVE SEARCH FIRM (CITY
MANAGER RECRUITMENT) PROCESS
STUDY SESSION LETTER NO. 12
VII. 9:00-9:15 P.M. STATUS OF AIRPORT RELATED ISSUES
STUDY SESSION LETTER NO. 13
VIII. 9:15-9:30 P.M. UPDATE ON 1999 TRANSPORTATION PROJECTS
STUDY SESSION LETTER NO. 14
9:30 P.M. ADJOURNMENT
• AUXILIARY AIDS FOR INDIVIDUALS WITH DISABILITIES ARE AVAILABLE UPON REQUEST.
REQUESTS MUST BE MADE AT LEAST 96 HOURS IN ADVANCE TO THE ADMINISTRATIVE
SERVICES DIRECTOR AT 612-861-9702.
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
• Study Session Letter No. 14
Agenda April 5, 1999
Issue Statement:
Update on 1999 transportation projects.
Background:
Proposed Reconstruction of the Interchange at 66th and Trunk Highway 77
The Metropolitan Airports Commission (MAC) staff has presented a revised plan for the
reconstruction of the 66th Street and TH77 interchange. City staff will discuss the plan
and a suggested citizen participation plan.
New Traffic Signal at 64th and Portland
The 1999 capital improvement budget has identified the installation of one full-traffic
actuated control signal system, two emergency vehicle preemption systems and one
traffic control interconnect system at 64th Street and Portland Avenue. The City Council
awarded a contract in the amount of $121,626 at its regular meeting of February 22,
1999. However, staff and consultant were unaware that the plan had not yet received
the necessary approval from the Municipal State Aid District Office when recommending
that Council award the project. City staff will discuss a revised schedule due to delays
while awaiting approval.
Recommended Motion:
This is a discussion item.
Basis of Recommendation:
This item will update the Council on the transportation plans.
Alternative Recommendation:
None.
Discussion/Decision Mode:
This is a discussion item. No action is required at this time.
Respe ully submitted,
Steven L. Devich
Acting City Manager
SLD:cak
•
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Study Session Letter No. 13
Agenda April 5, 1999
Issue Statement:
Status of airport related issues.
Background:
Recent developments regarding airport issues including the following:
• Runway 4/22
City Council Members will soon be hearing many more complaints about aircraft noise
from southeast Richfield. The Metropolitan Airports Commission (MAC) will begin
reconstruction on the southeast end of the south parallel runway at the Minneapolis-St.
Paul airport on April 5. This work is scheduled to be completed by Labor Day,
September 6.
During reconstruction, it is estimated that 4-22 traffic will. increase from today's average
number of 10 flights to 195-250 jets and 50-80 props. Larger, heavier aircraft will
require the use of the full length of Runway 4/22 for both departures and arrivals.
Flights over northeast Richfield should drop from 320 flights a day to 65-100. After the
work is complete, the use of 4/22 should return to normal levels.
Interestingly enough, MAC also anticipates 50 more flights a day will be addedby
Mesaba Airlines to current numbers. Since there were major delays last year during--
reconstruction, it is unclear what 50 additional flights will mean-for delays and related
nighttime flights.
In addition to this being reported in Your City and the Sun Current, MAC sent public
notices to the impacted residents and held an informational meeting.
Legislative Initiatives
March 10, 1999: The first hearing of the airport impact legislation was held in the
Senate Local Government and Metropolitan Affairs Committee. Senator Dave Johnson
explained the bill and Jim Solem (Met Council), Dave Dombrowski (MAC) and Bill and
Audrey Duffee (Richfield CARE) testified on behalf of the bill.
Five key messages that were brought forth at the committee hearing included:
• In 1996 the Minnesota Legislature made a decision to expand the airport where it is
rather than building a new facility in Dakota County. That decision saved the State
more than $2 billion.
• To stay here, the MAC needs to add a new North-South Runway. The new runway
will be just blocks away from thousands of homes in Bloomington, Minneapolis and
Richfield and carry 300 to 400 aircraft take-offs and landings per day.
• The bill would provide approximately $10 million annually to airport impact zones
,~ adjacent to where the new North-South Runway would be located. The funding is
needed because current mitigation programs do not address certain environmental
impacts from the new runway.
• The airport impact bill will provide some of the funding and tools needed to enable
the cities of Bloomington, Minneapolis and Richfield to create buffer zones, provide
school protection and support land use changes necessary to address airport
impacts from a new North-South Runway.
• A two-step process will be used to resolve adverse environmental impact issues
.from the North-South Runway. The first step will be to seek legislation to address
land use impacts from the runway in Bloomington, Minneapolis and Richfield. The
second step is to identify measures to protect homes from low frequency noise once
the runway is operational. That work is expected to be completed later this year.
March 17 and 19: The airport impact legislation was brought before the K-12
Education Finance Committee and the Children and Family Learning Committee.
Senator Dave Johnson, Superintendent Barb Devlin and School Board Member Pam
Dmytrenko testified on behalf of the bill. The section on school funding was taken from
the bill and will be presented separately in the Omnibus Education Bill: Amendments to
this section treat the impacts on the school population (due to impending
redevelopment) as if there was a natural disaster..
March 24: The airport impact legislation was brought before the House Local
Government and Metropolitan Affairs Committee. Chief Author Representative. Peg
Larson, Jim Solem (Met Council), Tom Anderson (MAC), Marlys Michalik (Richfield
resident), Larry Lee (City of Bloomington), Bill Barnhart (City ofMinneapolis), and Dawn
Weitzel testified on behalf of the bill: Representatives Dan Larson and.Mark Gleason
spoke about the grave importance of the bill for the community.
The major objector to the legislation was Representative Ron Abrams, Minnetonka, who
stated that he was vehemently opposed to the bill. Representative Abrams is also the
Chair of the Taxes Committee -the committee that the bill will now need to proceed to.
Although he voiced opposition to the bill, the Local Government and Metropolitan Affairs
Committee. proceeded to pass the bill (four members voted against) and sent it to the
Taxes Committee. The educational funding section was separated from the bill and
was sent to the K-12 Education Finance Committee for a hearing.
March 30: Mark Gleason introduced an amended version of the educational funding
section of the bill to the House's K-12 Finance Committee. Richfield's School District
has requested that for:
• Fiscal Years 2000 to 2004 -the school district is eligible for declining pupil unit aid
equal to the product of revenues received on a per pupil basis for each fiscal year
times 75 percent of the pupils which the district actually lost by that year (compared
to October 1998 enrollment).
•
• Fiscal Year 2005 -the school district is eligible for declining pupil aid equal to the
• product of revenues received on a per pupil basis for fiscal year 2005 times 50
percent of the pupils which the district actually lost by that year.
• Fiscal Year 2006 -the school district is eligible for declining pupil unit aid equal to
the product of revenues received on a per pupil basis for fiscal year 2006 times 25
percent of the pupils which the district actually lost by that year.
The educational section of the bill passed through the committee with no problems.
This section of the bill will now proceed within the Omnibus Education Bill to the Taxes
Committee.
Low Frequency Noise Policy Committee (LFNPC)
The determined purpose. of the LFNPC is two-fold, to provide: 1) a definition of the low
frequency noise impact on communities from a new runway and a map to show
impacted areas and 2) define options and alternatives that Richfield, Minneapolis and
Bloomington can use to mitigate for this adverse environmental impact.
An educational meeting on the dynamics of low frequency noise will be held on April 13,
at 3:30 p.m. in the terminal building. The next meeting of the-LFNPC will be on April 14,
at 4 p.m., in the terminal building. An assortment of educational materials will be sent to
the committee in the meantime.
All studies and research by the Expert Panel will be completed by July 1999. A project
• ..work-up and budget allotment will be brought before the City Council for approval.
MASAC
The monthly Metropolitan Airports Sound Abatement Council (MASAC) meeting was
held on Wednesday, March 31. The main focus of the meeting was a construction
update presented by Gary Warren, MAC Director of Airside Development. Mr. Warren
spent most of his time discussing the North-South Runway. He stated that the runway
is expected to be completed by December 2003. MAC will be letting bids and working
on three related projects this summer. They are:
• Grading --July to October
• Infield development (Fed-X & UPS sites) -- starting in July
• Storm sewer system -bid to be let on April 13
Roy Furhman, MASAC Technical Advisor, then made a presentation on the Northwest
Airlines Engine Test Cell Facility. The presentation was brought forth after several
months of discussion about whether the Northwest Engine Test Cell Facility was a
contributing factor to ground noise at MSP. The test facility is located on the south side
of the airport in an enclosed building attached to Northwest's maintenance facility. Mr.
Furhman gave a brief update (there will be a more complete report to follow) that
showed no increase in the ambient noise levels in several locations in Eagan during an
engine run up in the test cell facility. Preliminary results tend to show that the test
. facility is not a contributing source of ground noise at MSP.
• At the conclusion of the meeting, Dick Saunders, Minneapolis MASAC representative
and SMAAC Chair, was elected as the MASAC representative to the Low Frequency
Noise Policy Committee's Technical Advisor group. Mark Salmen, Northwest Airlines,
was elected as the alternate delegate.
Recommended Motion:
Discuss current airport issues
Basis of Recommendation:
1. It is important for the Council to provide direction to staff regarding airport concerns.
Alternative Recommendation:
1. Defer Discussion to another date.
Discussion/Decision Mode:
This matter will be discussed at the Study Session of April 5, 1999.
R pectfully sub ed,
~~
t en L. Devich
• Acting. City Manager
SLD:cak
•
r:
~1
M
Z
W
~~
C~ o
W
~~
~- a
ZQ
Oz
-o
~~~
vQo
'Z W
W Z
~zo~
~ m
ZJQ
OQ~
(~ a o
W o
~ 3
J
O~
M o
~ a
~a
rz
z
~~
a
z
oc
._.-_ _ _-- -- _- __._ b ~ ~ o
b •~y~
~. d tae,
~Z ~ 8 « ~ :~ e~
f yi~ bm« M ido~km3 x
~~N#m~
I f o
«
IK.~ ffi ~a«« a d ~ 3 6t a ~d
€«b~
~I
( .. d.«d¢~S»~$7t d~aE'd9~EaiY~~~e 37~' ~""«
3~ s~~~E~: ~yt dYYY1~€idYYYYi~tYi' e°
~., ~., ., .,
~
~
~
~
~j
; ~u bF~'$=":yy:~`~ W j~y~~~C~
~°~b~o~X
'~ ~-a~
~~
~ R~
2
2
9~;'9ooYo~ i~~~
$
~,
:s
W
.
~y
~
~~` I s yy
~~~
Y~ z o=_s
~a
~~~`~k'k'adEY~~~a<ffiiSiW «<s 3$$R4`u<.~.3ig ~
~ ~
_
~ aaaasa a ~
Mig :z Waz~ ~~~~...,
6~:~ ~~iY ii««««a~S'i i'~YYB~
^I
1
rr
°ao~e
- .Ra=R_ -
rvn.«
n _ ~~a ao~
^ Nn r
-
__
use - _ - - ~Y
.e °
o~
oa~~8°eo~
~~~~~~WWWS~~e
°~ .° «
~. eoo a
° ..
=
~--
=
- --- _
-- ------ -- ---- - ---------- ------ -------- __ y--
-
-
A
•
[7
•
~s
~ .~ ~~ ~~ ~ ~a ~ ~ ~ a N
k ~~a ~t~~ "~ $ ~
r~r~~ ~ ~~ ~~~ ~~~a yy ~
Ea# ~~~~~~ ~~~ ~x~~ ak ~R ~ 8~ V
~~" ~a
~ ~ ~~~~ p~~ p~~ ~
•~ J~~~~asa ~~~ ~ ~§ S# 8~ sa
§n ~a ~ .~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~3~~ R ~ ~ ~ r~ Q
~~~ ~ a7 ~ 3
Z
~~ ~' c c
$ O ~ W , 0 0
~ .o ` o
% ~ ® /. t
~. ~
o ~ ~ ~ ~~~ ~ ® /~~
,, < ~
o -
~;~ /~~
jas~ " ~ ' .._~
;~
m j ~ ~ ~~ ~~
~~ ~ qk$ M „
,/ s ~ ~
~ ~~
p ~ , / j`` , ~ ~ c
o ~ ~~~
a
S
~ `
~~ ~ ~~~~
(((/// / k y ~ K
~,~ ~ S~ I ~~ ~ ~ ~z1 a
j .~ j j ~ ~ r
~ ~~' j ~ ~ ~~~ ~ ~~ ~ : ~ ~ ~
`~ ~ ~ ~ >f
~.tr ~ 6n~ ~ ~ E ~ -
r ~~ yak ~ ~~ } ~ ~ V .. ~
~' ~ r 1 e~ e~ »~~~~ ~ it
~cJ ~ ~ p pp
'~ ~ ~~ ~~ U~8L~ 3 e
~:
~~
- ® - - -- ------o----~~--
,~ ~.~
c:
•
F
~x
~' s
Fs .
N
b
ag
8
^
N
O ~ g
8
V u~
~ ~
~ ~~
I- s
N W
_
~
Z V
ON ~~
V
~Z
O R
J ~ ~
a8
~
~
M ~ ~
~ ~ ~
~~
r N g
o
a ~j
Z
m
C m
~+
~
C
C
o
e0
~
O
*+
C m
N.
~
~
~
r
+
C ~
V
o
~ m
~ ~ u
C c
tp w
m
E
c
°' ~ ~ ~ ~°
N E
c a
~
3 °~
C c
Y
° a
a
o ~,
g
a ~
o
v ~
..
~ c
~
E m
'
~ c
~
o a
,~
~ ~
w ~
m° ~
a
m a
~,
~
o
N ~
c
..
c ~
a ~
N ~
E ~
m W
o o
c
m W
°,~ c
o
E
o ~
ev
'c 'o
~ m
~ c
E w
~
o ~
'o m
m
m
E- ~
~-- ~
w m
a =
d m
ac a
a ~
°
v W
cs ~
v o
v '
m °
cs m
vs ~
a.
MAJOR CONSTRUCTION ITEMS
~ RUNWAY 12R-30L RECONSTRUCTION
MSP INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT
SUMMER 1999
• 475, 000 CY EXCAVATION
1 FOOTBALL FIELD 285 FEET DEEP
95 FOOTBALL FIELDS 3 FEET DEEP
• 315,000 CY GRANULAR MATERIAL
1 FOOTBALL FIELD 189 FEET HIGH
63 FOOTBALL FIELDS 3 FEET HIGH
• 95,000 CY BASE (CR. AGGREGATE & CR. CONCRETE)
. 1 FOOTBALL FIELD 57 FEET HIGH
19 FOOTBALL FIELDS 3 FEET HIGH
• 29,000 TONS BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT
3,750 DRIVEWAYS 40' x 12' x 2" THICK
7 MILES 2 - LANE ROADWAY 24' x 4" THICK
• 165,000 SY 20" CONCRETE PAVEMENT
10,300 DRIVEWAYS 40' x 12' x 6 " THICK
29 MILES 2 - LANE ROADWAY 24' x 8" THICK
• 345, 000 LF ELECTRIC CABLE
65 MILES
. • 45 ACRES TURF ESTABLISHMENT
38 FOOTBALL FIELDS
( 1 FOOTBALL FIELD = 300' x 150' )
FEBRUARY 9, 1999 11200
O
.,~
_.
'.
~.....
:•+~
._
.,;-
.,
'~
~:
x~
.~ Q
~~~
z~
o
~o
~~
~a
~~
~~
..
.. ~
~ .ter
~
-
a~ V'
.~ v: O O
~
- O . ~ O G1 ~., C .
• .
, M
N ,~,
c~
4~
G1
,~
/:
.
u~
N :-~
a?
:
~ ~A
r ~
~ • .~
. ~
O s
~:
;
:.
. -
.: .
:
- . .... .
: :
.
. :
. ..
.
~
~
~~ r ~ .
~"' O ~ .~ ~ r ~ V:
f
~..
_
~-- :
N
~
C
N
~
~"'
~ ....
~ . ,..~
-=
p v.~ p
~ .. -~
~''
~ a~ ~ O .
bA ..
.
O
3 N_.
..N .:~ . ~
v
~ ~ :~
~~~
.
.~
~ 4~
~ p ~
~ c~-~' ~
~ ~
~ ~
:~ ~ ~ ~
~ ~
J ~ ~
U
~
~ U
~ ~
.
-., U
O O ~ 3 ~
~
... ....:....
.. ....
. .
:....
O
--~ N
M ~
'~ N
p N
N :~
~ _
~''''
;~ ~ ~
~ ~
O.'
~ a~ ~ p ~ ~ ~
~ ....
~
r~ ~ ,~
. J
': S•~
~ O
. O : O :..~ . U
:...
~
~.
O
O
~. ~
^~
~
...
J
~ ~ >
~ ~
r --~
N ~
,_,_, ~
, _„ ~
...~ O
.
:..
~
~ ~ ~
~ a~ a~ a~ O
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
c
:'
i~icu vrva,a.+....,. y ..............au ~~..,,.
Operations and Complaint Summary
..February 1999
Operations Summary -All Aircraft
Runway Arrival % Use .Departure % Use
04 218 1.3% 44 0.3%
22 48 0.3% 4.12 2.5%
12 8239 49.49b 8252 50.5%
30 8170 49.0% 7632 .46.7%
MSP February Fleet'Mix Percentage
.Stage : - ` Scheduled
1998 Scheduled
- ~ ~ 1999 = ANOMS
Count 1998 ANOMS
Count 1999
Stage 2 33.2% 20.8% .36.9% 21.8%
Stage 3 66.8% 79.2% 63.1% 78.2%
Note: Stage /// Manufactured Aitrrafr encompassed 46.4°,b of the total 71£2% Stape !!! Utilization
Airport February Complaint Summary
Airport 1998 1999
MSP 586 829
Airlake 0 0
Anoka 5 13
Crystal 0 1
Flying Cloud 9 9
Lake Elmo 1 0
St. Paul 2 4
Misc. 2 1
TOTAL 734 857
February Operations Summary -FAA Airport Traffic Record
•
1998 1999
Air Carver 867 828
Commuter 317 321
G.A. 160 217
Military 10 9
TOTAL 1354 1375
Aviation Noise & Satellite Programs
Page 1
Metropolitan Airports Commission
Minneapolis - St. Paul International Airport Complaint Summary
February 1999
C7
Complaint Summary by City
City Arrival Departure Total Percentage
Bloomington 2 5 7 . 0.9%
Eagan 44 20 64 8.1 %
Eden Prairie 2 1 3 0.4%
Edina 1 7 8 1.0%
Inver Grove Heights 2 187 189 24.0%
Maple Grove 9 7 16 2.0%
Mendota Heights S 35 40 5.1 %
Minneapolis 116 292 408 51.8%
Montgomery 0 1 1 0.1 %
Plymouth 1 1 2 0.3%
Richfield 3 25 28 3.6%
South St. Paul 0 1 1 0.1%
St. Louis Park 1 0 1 0.1%
St. Paul 6 9 15 1.9%
Sunfish Lake 1 4 5 0.6%
Total 193 595 788 100%
Time of Day
r:
Nature of Complaint
Time Total Nature of Complaint Total
00:00 - 05:59 42 Excessive Noise 656
06:00 - 06:59 49 Early/Late 116
07:00 - 11:59 187 Low Flying 5
12:00 - 15:59 123 Swctural Disturbance 4
16:00 - 19:59 113 Helicopter 0
20:00 - 21:59 133 Ground Noise 40
22:00 - 22:59 126 Engine Run-up 1
23:00 - 23:59 56 Frequency 7
Total 829 Total 829
Page 2 Aviation Noise & Satellite Programs
Meuopotitan Atrports t;ommission
•
Available Time for Runway Use
Tower Log Reports - Februa 1999
All Hours
0%
7w
Note: Pen;entage of time that the
Assigned runways are available
for use based on FAA tower logs.
•
•
Note: For 2% of the time available, simultaneous departure operations occurred
off the parallels and rwy 22 resulting in an overall use greater than 100%.
12 =~~,
~-
-,.,-.
~.
Note: Fier I % of the time available, simultaneous departure operations occurred
o,Q`'the parallels and rwy 22 resulting in an overall use greater than /00%.
Page 3
Aviation Noise & Satellite Programs
Metropolitan Airports Commission
All Operations
Runway Use Report February~1999
•
Note: Pen:entage of actual arrival or departure
operations from ANOMS data.
Runway
I eparvtu~re
Count
Percentage
1F99b8 Co nt February
1998
Percentage
04 A 218 1.3% 191 1.1%
12L A 4112 24.7% 4667 26.5%
12R A 4127 24.7% 5086 28.9%
22 A 48 0.3% 84 0.5%
30L A 4275 25.6% 4042 23.0%
30R A 3895 23.4% 3519 20.0%
Total Arr. 16675 100% 17589 100%
04 D 44 0.3% 63 0.4%
12L D 3922 24.0% 4668 26.8%
12R D 4330 26.5% 5373 30.9%
22 D 412 2.5% 614 3.5%
30L D 3965 24.3% 3380 19.4%
30R D 3667 22.4% 3314 19.0%
Total Dep. 16340 100% 17412 100%
Note: ARTS data missing for Z.Z days.
Page 4 Aviation Noise & Satellite Programs
•
•
council
4/2/99
Date Address General Issue Specific Issue Raised
3/4/99 Agreement Question about losing Rich Acres, what are
we going to do to replace it.
3/5/99 6345 12th Ave Housing Issue Wondering what's going on. Resident wants
the City to guarantee residents property
values.
3/5/99 7125 18th Ave General Disabled person, wondering how this was
Update going to effect her.
3/5/99 6933 & 17th Ave General Resident is wondering what's going to
Update happen, very supportive of what the City's
doing.
3/8/99 6315 Bloomington Ave Housing Issue Wanted an update on what's happening, in
particular what the timetable is for buyouts on
the East Side of Richfield. Suggested that we
try and keep more trees over there.
3/8/99 7020 Bloomington Ave. Housing Issue Resident has lived there for 50 years, wants
to be bought if possible. Called for an update
on what was happening on the buyouts.
3/10/99 other Resident was complaining about air
pollution -wondering what residents can do.
3/11/99 6914 16TH Ave General Very upset about redevelopment due to
Update airport impact.
3/15/99 Home and Buisiness General Wondering how airport expansion is going to
owner in East Richfield Update effect her.
3/17/99 6200 14th Ave Housing Issue Man calling for his daughter who is looking at
a home at this address and wondering if it
has been insulated under the Part 150
I
program.
3/18/99~67th & 15th Housing Issue Wondering what's happening, saw her home
on a map in the in the paper.
Page 1
•
•
council
4/2/99
Date Address General Issue Specific Issue Raised
3/22/99 7201 18th Ave Housing Issue All he's heard is what's in the Sun Current.
Wondering when he's going to be bought out?
3/22/99 6820 Cedar Ave Housing Issue Is he going to be bought out? If so, when?
3/24/99 6800 & 16th Ave General Questions about what's going on at the
Update airport.
3/24/99 72 & 16th Part 150 Wondering if he was eligible for
soundproofing and what was going on.
3/25/99 Edina Reality Housing Issue Question about listing a home on 7508 Park
Ave. wondering what was going to happen.
Page 2
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Study Session Letter No.12
Agenda April 5, 1999
Issue Statement•
Status update of executive search firm (City Manager recruitment) process.
Background:
Jim and Lisa Lynn have been working with the City to assist in the City Manager search
process. Currently, their primary focus has been to work with Paul Reaume in
establishing a tentative schedule and to assist in the coordination of the preliminary
work necessary to establish the search process. To that end, Jim Lynn will be present
at the April 5 Study Session to present the City Council with a brief status update and
preliminary data pertaining to the services which will be provided by the Par Group in
this executive search.
Recommended Motion:
Receive the status report given by Jim Lynn.
Basis of Recommendation:
Since the City Council will be considering a contract with the Par Group on April 12, this
Study Session provides an opportunity to discuss specific details that may need to be
addressed prior to executing the contract.
Alternative Recommendation:
None.
Discussion/Decision Mode:
The April 5 Study Session is the only scheduled opportunity the City Council will have to
discuss schedule and process issues prior to considering finalizing the contract.
R pe tfully submitt d,
e L. v
Acting City Manager
SLD:ds
•
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Study Session Letter No.11
Agenda April 5, 1999
Issue Statement:
Discussion and consideration of staffs recommendation for handling civil enforcement of
those establishments that failed the City's recent liquor compliance checks.
Background:
On March 4, 1999, Richfield Public Safety police personnel accompanied three underage
youth on a liquor compliance check to determine the availability of alcohol to underage
youth in the City of Richfield.
Fourteen establishments were checked that evening and police found that the underage
youth were able to purchase alcohol in seven of them. The establishments that provided
alcohol to underage youth are:
• Richfield Liquor Store - 6444 Lyndale Avenue
• Sandy's Tavern - 6612 Penn Avenue
• Kenny's Market - 6708 Penn Avenue
• Ketsana's - 7545 Lyndale Avenue
• Kwik Way - 7701 Portland Avenue
• Ground Round -1500 East 78t" Street
• Superamerica - 7720 Nicollet Avenue
On March 23, 1999, Richfield Public Safety police personnel continued to check
establishments to determine the availability of alcohol to underage youth in the City of
Richfield.
Seventeen establishments were checked that evening and police found that the underage
youth were able to purchase alcohol in seven of them. The establishments that provided
alcohol to underage youth are:
• Phillip's 66 - 7744 12t" Avenue
• Tom Thumb - 7600 Knox Avenue
• Hampton Inn - 7745 Lyndale Avenue
• Mobile Gas Station - 6744 Penn Avenue
• Kinhdo Restaurant - 6345 Penn Avenue
• Lariat Lanes- 6320 Penn Avenue
• Superamerica - 2913 W. 66t" Street
As of this date, there are approximately seven to ten establishments yet to be checked.
That will be accomplished shortly after the first week in April. The total number of
establishments that sold alcohol to underage youth was 14 out of the 31 (45%) checked
thus far.
In 1990, five establishments were found to be guilty of providing alcohol to underage
youth. At that time, those establishments met with Public Safety staff, and they received
either a suspension of their alcohol licenses from two to four days or a fine ranging from
$3,000 to $6,000.
Staff s current recommendation is to suspend each license holder's license to sell alcohol
for a range of one to three consecutive days AND require a fine be paid in the amount of
$2,500. The fine money would be used by Public Safety police personnel to conduct three
additional compliance checks within atwelve-month period on all licensed establishments.
Any establishment found to be guilty of selling again on a second, third or fourth check
would receive progressive discipline in the way of license suspensions and fines.
All clerks at the establishments checked were 18 years of age or older. The clerks that
sold alcohol to underage youth will be criminally prosecuted and charges against them are
currently pending.
Recommended Motion:
A discussion concerning the level of civil enforcement that Public Safety staff should take
against those establishments that were found to have sold alcohol to underage youth
should take place. Staff is currently considering a suspension of each establishment's
license to sell alcohol for one to three consecutive days and require a fine be paid in the
amount of $2,500.
Basis of Recommendation:
1. It is a violation of a Minnesota State Statute to sell alcohol to underage youth.
2. Civil enforcement penalties taken in 1990 by the City Council against several
establishments were severe. This was done to send a message to the establishments
and the community .that the Council would not be tolerant of this violation continuing to
occur.
3. Community representatives of the Richfield Advisory Board of Health support severe
actions against establishments in an effort to protect the youth of the community and to
send a message that children and their well being are a value that is important.
Alternative Recommendation:
The Council may consider taking more or less severe action against the establishments
that sold .alcohol to underage youth.
Discussion/Decision Mode:
Public Safety staff recommendation for handling civil enforcement of establishments that
fail the City's liquor compliance check is being presented for Council discussion at the April
5, 1999 Study Session.
R pectfully submitted,
Steven L. Devich
Acting City Manager
SLD:ds
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Study Session Letter No. io
Agenda April 5, 1999
• Issue Statement:
Review of 1999 Board of Equalization procedures.
Background:
The 1999 Richfield Board of Equalization is scheduled for Monday, May 3, 1999 at 7
p.m. in the Council Chambers of City Hall, 6700 Portland Avenue. As provided by City
Charter, the Board of Equalization consists of the Mayor, Council Members and two
citizens appointed by the City Manager with the confirmation by City Council. Mr.
Lawrence Emond and Mr. Glenn Erickson were recently appointed to serve on the 1999
Board of Equalization.
The duties and responsibilities of the Board of Equalization are established by State
law. In general, it is the Board's responsibility to hear appeals by property owners
regarding the estimated market value established by the City Assessor and to
determine if market values should be adjusted. The appeal is to address market values
rather than tax rates or other concerns which property owners may bring up to the
board.
The Richfield property assessment was conducted through a contract with Hennepin
County which is supervised by the Administrative Services Department. Staff works
closely with Hennepin County Property Appraisers to ensure that the local assessment
complies with the provisions of the law.
In order to prepare for the Board of Equalization meeting scheduled for May 3, 1999 a
review session has been established for April 5, 1999. At that meeting Larry Miller, the
• Hennepin County Principal Properly Appraiser assigned to Richfield, will present
information pertaining to the 1999 assessment and Board of Equalization process.
Recommended Motion:
It is recommended that the Council prepare for the Board of Equalization with a
presentation from Larry Miller.
Basis of Recommendation:
1. It is important to review significant property appraisal issues prior to the time of the
meeting.
2. It is important for the board to review their statutory responsibilities prior to the
meeting.
Alternative Recommendation:
None.
Discussion/Decision Mode:
This matter will be presented at the Study Session on April 5, 1999.
Acting City Manag
SLD:cak
Copy: Larry Miller
sp ctfully submitted,
.~
n L. Devic
e
CITY OF RICHFIELD
• COUNCIL STUDY SESSION
MONDAY, APRIL 5, 1999
• LOCAL BOARD OF REVIEW INFORMATION
•
1
CITY OF RICHFIELD
•
Memorandum
DATE: March 5, 1999
TO: Steve Devich, Administrative Services Director
FROM: Larry Miller, Appraisal Supervisor
SUBJECT: 1999 Market Values for the City of Richfield
The 1999 Market Value notices will be mailed to Richfield property owners in the next
two weeks.
Overall residential property values increased by 6.4%. The average sale price for a
single family home was $110,700 according to a Hennepin County study, based on 418
sales that occurred between October 1, 1997 and September 30, 1998. The
Minneapolis Area Association of Realtors reports the average sale price of $114,031.
This amount of changes will generate many phone calls. Anyone receiving a call from a
taxpayer is urged to have them call the Assessor's office at 861-9710 to discuss the
new value.
A summary of the 1999 assessment is as follows:
SUMMARY OF 1999 ASSESSMENT
CITY OF RICHFIELD
418 Residential Sales 10/97 - 9/98
Average Residential Value (+6.4%) $ 106,300
Average Selling Price (+4.2%) 110,700
Median Selling Price (+4.8%) 110,000
MLS Average Selling Price (+7.9%) 1/98 - 12/98 114,031
MLS Median Selling Price (+8.1%) 1/98 - 12/98 114,500
~i
" ~ Steve Devich, Administrative Services Director
March 5, 1999
Page 2
Growth By Class
Residential +6.4%
Commercial +4.7%
Industrial +4.9%
Apartments +12.4%
Condos +3.9%
The total valuation for the City of Richfield increased by 6.2% or $85,247,600 (including
improvements). There were $38,284,100 in improvements included in this total.
Please remember that these are preliminary numbers that are subject to change.
Please contact me or Craig Lone if you have any questions regarding this data
LM:at
•
•
w
W
e
AZ
Q
Z
0
ti
J
Q
1
n
~~
i• IZ
v10Z
Vi 61
M0113d9N01
'3~r av03~
v181
V{ It
4i 91
N019NIw0018
vi sl
v{ YI
VI £I
VlZt ~~
V{ It ~-
I
VIOI II
101113
OOr01N3 II
snewnlo~ ,~
>tavd
aN~~>,vo ~
'3Ar ONrllaOd '
ViS
Vi, I ~
NO1N11~
D~£
DMZ ' r
SN3A31S l
N1
'3Ar 13110~IN d
1
113051tl18 - I
I
N1a0M1N3M 1 ~ I
lanBSllld II
III
1NtlS0'31d ;
1
0Nra9 II
131aavN , I
II
0131daV9 III
III
'3Atl 3lY0NA1 C
N0Ia01tl' i`
1NtlAa8 I~'A-y
Xtld10~ ~ II
I
t-lodna II
Nosa3w3 ~i
lraw3ae
aadato II
I
laloewnN
~Nlnal it
s3wrr ~
XONM i~
Nr901
Nv9aow C
NOlM3N ,
tl3A110 G
'3Ar NN3d
N33no !~
r
113SSna
Ntl01a3NS '~
SrwONl r
NOldn
LN3~NIA ~
NanBNSp'M ~'
3nv 53xa3x !'
.,~ N
e ~e
A A `
W
Z
W
M0113d9N01
~ '3Ar at03]
I V191
1 vlll
V 1 91
N019NIw0p19
VI SI
vl 11
VI £1
Vi 21
Vi 11
V 1 01
101113
09r~iM~
snewnloa
r Xavd
aNVI>tro
y '3Atl ONtl'11a0d
VIS
~~ VI r
NOlKII~
i
0~ £
DMZ
SN3A31S
Isl
1
~ '3AV 131103tN
1130SIr18
Nla0M1N3M
lan8S111d
~ 1NVSr31d
ONtla'J
I 131aaVN
10131datl9
'3AY 3170N17
1 N~Ia01C
1NtlAtl8
xr~lo~
1NOdna
' Nosa3w3
1NOw3ad
aavalo
laloewnN
9NIna1
53wrr
' XONX
NY901
Ntloaow
NO1M3N
a3A110
'3A'I NN3d
N33n0
113SSna
N1IOIa3N5
I StlwONI
NOldn
LN3~NIA
NaneNSOM
_,_ __ _ _ _ _ _ _, ..,_ ___ 3A• 53xa3x
_ ~ ,.. ~ ~ •
N N
A O f
A A
y ~ ._ ._ ._
•
J
g
z
w
0
w
0
W
t%
U
~ ~ I i
i ~I ~ +
I
~ ~~
~ ;M
o i ~
i i
M
I j~
'M +
it N
It
O
N
~ "~
~ N
i j C
r
~ ~ ~
N
~ ~
I
`°
M
~ ~ t
I i o
1 ~
~ I ~
T
i
j
~ c
I
I
I ?'
I ~
j ~ i
0
i
I ~ !
o '
C
N
I
I
I ~
j rn ' I
~,
~,
~,
rn
M
r
O~
O
rn ~
_~
rn
rn
cn
rn
rn
rn
0
rn
rn
r
o>
.-
Oni
r
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
ui o ui o ui o ~
N N ~ ~ ~
1N3~213d
C
•
L
,~3 _ ~
1 ~ i
a.
M
•
d•
• + ~
N p *
C *
W ~ ~ ±
III 1K IK ~ ~
~
' \ V 1K 1K 7K 1
*
* ; M
O >K >K
#
~
' iK ^I ~ >K >K ^ 1
11 >k >tI * * >« ~
- * * * * * i
• 1
.. K
I ~ 7K
*
-
~
~M - * i ~ * >1C >« * >K i d
.
, ~
:
~
~-` L *
•
*
-
*
*
#
*
*
* ~ i
~+
.
~ Ilt
1II
kI
I
K1
I
I
K7
K O
`~b~
~ C 7•
7•It
*
*
*
ll 1*
~
•
*
* i L
a
~ i *
It
~I
It
1
IC 1
7
t
I .
.. \ N ~ M IR • >IC ^ III lI IK IK 1C 1K 7K 1I ~ r~i
.
~
1 M ~ IK IK IK tt IK IK IK IK 1C 1K IK IK
I
]
^
IK lK ~
+~ LL
O M
• '
K ^I
C i
7K IK IK IK ^t
K
r~ O ":. -. • ~ IK ~ 71I >fI * * ^I ^ >K ^ ft ^ IK ^I ' • b S A
- _
`~'
-~
~ .• - ~ ~ ~ lI fI IK IK IK IK ^I ^I ^I~ >ft * ^I i >IC 1[ IK
III 1K IK 1K * It * IK * >ft ^ IK 1t )tt >« ^ lK ~
~ G
• C
+~
M ~ M . 1« ^ >K >k ^ 1K ^ .1r )K * * * >« * III # >r ~ +~ M
a
~
'
~
'
~' C >« IK >ft * I/ fl 71t * ^ * ^ 1t IR IK fr 11I 11 1K
1~ 1R 7I I[ 7~ !I 1K 1R )fI i 1t IR 1C >fI ft
1 ~
~ L =
;-
.:
~ O 1t 11I >ft 1[.
[
IK 7K III It 7K >t >t ^I IL III * >K * iK IK IK >tt * )« ! ~
~J >tt>r*tlKllc^>r>r^t*ti^I/t*>R>K>rt>K 1
' S M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M N M M M M M • O
>` ~~
,'
' ~
~ r1.N ~O P 0~ rl N aa .C !- O~ ^1 N d ~O A O~ nl N d
~Irlrl
~bbbO~O~PaQ•PeOOeeO
_~
-
~ C
~ -
Olq
• rl r1 rl rl rl -1 rl rl rtl ~
O~ b
M
•:
-. W -.
• -a ~ ~ MAIHPY1 nl r~10~O 0~0IIII~~MdOPIIO ~O iI1Nr1 ~ h
-
.ae- .. CC r1 NMMdMMMNNrIN •
Y
L O -
.m
°
r
I ~ _ ~
> >
Y pp~~1. ,~py~.~; ~ ~
Ustings Total Dollar Unrt
Processed Volume Sales
1973 33,' )66 189.373, 859 15.518
q
27,865
500.40L086 !1,181
t 5
381
5
~ 31.271 585.954.410 .
76 34.940 773,837,914 18.476
1977 38.879 1.115.698,038 23.271
1978 36,095 1,296,246,066 22.780
1979 40.007 1.351.465.288 20,466
1980 37,018 1,340,772,915 18.351
15
675
1981 35.580 1.249,787,584 ,
193
12
1982
~ 41,465
794
50 998.693.468
1,344,916,756 .
15,914
1983
198q .
53,646 1,544,535,531 18,231
I 1985 51,492 1,866,291,153 21,335
~ 1986 58,382 2,523.647,113 28,015
1987 55.422 2,460.309,115 25,772
1988 80,771 3,211,389,403 34,244
1989 89,170 3,277,302,913 33,962
1990 78,548 3,372,262,409 34,496
1991 71,850 3,522.813,135 35,598
1992 72,730 4,309,040,911 41,944
1993 70,685 4,300.305,967. 39,842
1984 63,369 4,733,426,199 42,454
1995 64,556 4,941.765,241 42,310
1996 73,433 5,818.898,453 46,949
' 1997 77.871 6,302.132.351 48,431
1998 79,060 7,855,988,247 56,005
~' P .
Average
Sales Pnce
31.536
34.555
38.095
17 ,883
17.943
57,178
6x.417
74,069
80.238
82.288
84,953
85,007
87.789
90,319.
95,914
93,977
96,658
98.016
99,402
103,264
' 107,569
111,806
117,053
124,022.
130,171
_140,300
~ ' ~`~4`''r . _`
.~r~•r- ~`nt'~ , `y'~e~~vpiL*~ ~~ ~1TCTR~,iE".~'~'4,s,.~51I~C
t P~`6~5 i ~ ~ ~k?~ a ~:y
* ~
. ~"w: v, r-.''°„ ~ 7,x.7',
• ~ ~•-
~~ r.
Division III lses 1990 1991 1992 1993
550 Calhoun-Harriet $115,451 $116,029 $121,117 $122,008 Minneapolis
551 Cedar Isles-Loring 171,830 219,862 211,267 200,881 300 Calhoun-Isles $
301 Camden 153,168
57,388
552 North 55,667 53,435 54,181 53,080 302 Central 114,600
553 Northeast 63,840 64,645 65,414' 66,234 303 Longfellow 69,180
554 Parkway West 105,461 107,090 109,846 109,588 304 Nokomis 82,748
555 Parkway Central 83,241 83,712 86,840 88,446 305 North 51,568
6 parkway South 66,973 70,761 70,595 70,652 306 Northeast 67,556
41
253
South 63,127 63,695 66,944 67,495 307 Phillips
308. Powderhorn ,
63,277
a8 South Central 49,630 51,220 50,510 48,894 309 Southwest 118,534
559 Southeast 78,685 81,215 65,69T 79,124 310 University 82,370
560 St. Paul & Suburban Suburban and other areas
563 Isantf County. 66,235 340 Buffalo 97,702
341 Wright County 85,103
564 Blalne~Lexington, Circle Pines 342 Hutchinson 75,702
565 Falcon Heights-Roseville, Arden Hills ~ 343 McLeod 65,250
Shoreview ~ x 360 Robbinsdale 77,874
566 New Brighton-Moundsview, St. Anthony 102,486 106,085 ~ 361 Crystal .80,323
567 Coon Rapids-Anoka ` 362 New Hope 93,094
568 Fridley-Columbia Heights, Spring Lk Pk ` 363 Brooklyn Center 77,897
364 Brooklyn Park 96,775
569 Suburban NE
' 365 Mple Grve / Oss 130,387
570 Sibley County ~ 366 Champlin 102,558
571 Brooklyn Center-Park 89,466 89,401 89;104 - 91,869 367 Hnnepin Co Na 129,863
572 Wflght/Sherbume Counties 72,120 74,130 77,850_ 82,442 368 Hnnepin Co NW 179,230
573 Golden Vaileylryrol Wllis 113,613 118,860 119.438 119.699 370 Sibley County 59,000
574 Plymouth 151,612 153,820 151,483 160,141 373 Golden Valley 128,603
575 Robbinsdale-Crystal-New Hope 81,266 81,370 81,146 84,46 374 PI mouth
378 Richfield 171 532
86,150
576 Dayton-Champlin-Maple Grove-Osseo 106,767 112,030 112,070 115,46 379 Blmington - E 88,070
577 Suburban NW 125,869 117,650 148,008 135,817 380 Blmington - W 157,418
578 Richfield 81,753 82,847 82,994 85,181 381 Lake Mtka N 238,535
579 East Bloomington 85,913 86,052 85,943 89,375 382 Lake Mtka W 155,471
580 West Bloomington 133,679 131,377 136,269 144,396 383 Lake Mtka S 223,746
581 Mendota Heights-Eagan, Inver Grove Hts 385 Edina 214,290
~
582 BumsVille 122,581 123,956 123,590 386 Hopkins
387 Minnetonka 97,882
168.031
583 Suburban South ~ ~ 391 St Louis Park 100,584
584 Apple Valley-Rosemount-Lakeville ~ ~ 392 Eden Prairie 175.454
5 Edina 196,486 188,380 189,921 200,868 ggq Carver County 99,438
7 Hopkins-Minnetonka 150,368 148,849 148,371 154,544 395 Waterfront 85.099
589 Lake Minnetonka 180,700 176,719 171,361 190,743 396 Chanhassen 164,240
591 St. Louis Park 90,369 91,206 93,633 94,582 397 Chaska
398 Victoria 126,421
174,270
592 Eden Prairie 163,400 167,836 157,322 168,219 399 .Out otTown 94,807
593 Eastern Carver County 120,318 130,022 .129,359 1.41,155
~ e
}~
Cb W>t1;,
~`~ ~ ~s}~, ~
A ,.
,,
~ ': a ?~
{
a
t
';Vl4;~r7
AVERAGE I
MEDIAN
January $137.700 5116.800
February 135,200 115,900
March 135.800 119.000
! April 136.800 118,400
May 139,100 120.500
June 142.300 123,500
July 147,500 124,000
August 146,400 125,000
September 149,300 125,100
October 147,900 123,300
November 146.300 124,900
December 147,100 125,000
` Figures I
are rounded to nearest $100 and
include all residential sales for RMLS.
~~ e i 1_R:c ^F ~ .r r .:~
~, _
7
` '
1994 1995 1996 199 1998
$178,990 $213,029 $240,692 $265,775 $277,482
55.026 59,129 61,818 63.175 70,434
73,000 78,000 71,200 60,633 99,501
,73,246 76,169 79,389 87,558 96,265
84,565 87,633 93,607 98,608 108,060
43,953 45,568 47,793 52,102 57,232
65,748 72,361 76,685 78,892 90,295
32,732 35,962 47,865 46,790 50,996
57,002 58,487 61,700 65,622 75,439
128, 723 136, 642 149, 515 154, 486 164, 878
83,946 87,105 94,124 101,687 116,386
101,236 108,085 107,261 117,652
93,406 102,149 112,384 111,998
79,526 94,521 100,184 109,355
66,646 82,519 76,301 80,267
82,274 84,796 89,933 94,440
80,663 84,911 89,841 96,002
103, 443 108, 340 112, 352 118, 677
78,878 82,562 85,072 88,034
105,641 109,632 115,912 121,679
142, 872 143, 879 162, 545 169, 582
113,051 120,806 128,154 127,467
136,165 134,811 155,194 165,377
178,293 171,131 202,010 238,270
75,038 60,611 67,830 93,598
132,215 137,388 141,432 145,307
187,918 203,651 208,258 210,497
92,260 96,095 100,655 105,706
.94,569 99,179 103,313 109,986
126,449
117,775
111,799 '
89,720
103,4C0
102,638
123,591
98,053
128,865
180,196
142,614
179,395
231,122
74, 540
157, 583
218,921
114,031
113,258
156,131 161,256 162,771 173.048 181, 635
306,287 238,422 256,502 282,465 309,702
144.015
262,619
226,948 243,550 250,558 254.207 279,574
107, 208 116, 266 128, 959 127, 460 150 , 446
184,818 194,061 207,265 213,273 217,118
106,856 111,008 119,402 124,672 134,163
206,057 218,497 225,056 240,666 247,312
109, 824 124, 278 134, 932 128.675 139 , 807
92,295 97,030 108,997 121.029 129.676
182,828 206,592 215,608 222,315 231,205
.132, 502 145,115 165,211 .170,366 174,101
207,068 185,296 224,754 229.112. 235,794
73,861 68,489 82,533 87,985 93,991
* lake Minnetonka area combined in 1995
16 The REAI.TOR° February 1999
SUBJECT PROPERTY
OWNER
ADDRESS 732415th Avenue South
PID# 35-028-24-13-0048
1997 EIVN $109,000 ~ - -
Story Height Rambler Year Built 1956
Ground Floor Area 1103 sq. ft Gross Building Area 1103 sq. ft.
Fireplaces 2
Central Air Conditioning Yes
Bathrooms 1 /0/1
Finished Bsmt. Area 662 sq.ft.
Garage 3 car garage
Porches 1 Decks 308 sq. ft. Screen Porch
Other /Comment Subject has unobstructed view of pond
Lot Size 60 x 139
•
•
COMPARABLE #E2
RICHFIELD
.:7214 16TH AVE. S.
Comparable Sales
COMPARABLE # 1
RICHFIELD
7044 16TH AVE. S.
•
t-~'~~~
COMPARABLE #4
RICHFIELD
7340 13TH AVE. S.
i
i
i
I
w
`Compazable Sales
SALES COMPARISON/ADJUSTMENT GRID
4DDRESS:
.TY:
PID #:
SALE DATE:
SALE PRICE:
TIl4IE ADJUSTMENT:
TIME ADJUSTED
SALE PRICE:
TL~iE ADJ. SALE
Y12ICElSQ. FT.:
TYPE OF BLDG:
I sT FLR AREA:
GROSS S3i
BLDG AREA:
PLR RMS:
FLR RMS:
THS:
T AREA:
. AREA:
GARAGE:TYPE
AREA SO FT:
SIZE SO FT:
ADJUSTMENT;
IADJ SALE PRICE:
.SALE/S FT:
Indicated Value As Of January 2,1997:
SUBJECT COMPARABLE #1 COMPARABLE #2 COMPARABLE #3 COMPARABLE #4
732415th Ave. S.
Richfield 704416th Ave. S.
Richfield 721416th Ave. S.
Richfield 7234 18th Ave. S.
Richfield 7340 13th Ave. S.
Richfield
35-028-24-13-0048 35-028-24-11-0067 3s-028-24-14-0051 35-028-24-14-0071 35-028-24.13-0101
1 /96 6/96 6/96 9196
$100,000 $100,000 $103,500 $95,000
$100,000 $100,000 $103,500 $95,000
$93.20 $97.56 $94.78 $86.13
Rambler Rambler Rambler Rambler Rambler
1,103 1,073 1,025 1,092 1,103
1,103 1,073 s9oo 1,025 s2,34o 1,092 s33o 1,103
Avera a -Above Av . Similar Similar Similar Similar
1956 1956 1957 1958 1955
Avera a Similar Similar Similar Similar
6 5 5 5 6
0 0 0 0 0
3 3 3 3 3
1 1 1 1 1
0 1 (s2,soo) 0 0 0
1 0 sl,soo 0 sl,soo 1 0 sl,soo
Full Full Full Full Full
662 0 53,300 562 ssoo 546 ssoo 551 ssoo
NO No No No No
2 2 O 54,000 0 S4,000 O 54,000
FA/AC FA/AC FA/AC FA/AC FA/AC
3 car detached
ssg 2 car detached
400 52,000 2 car detached
484 52,000 2 car detached
440 52,000 2 car detached
440 52,000
None None 271 (51,300) 3s2 (S1,700) None
SCP - 308( ) None 52,000 None 52,000 OP - 60 S1,700 None S2,000
60 x 139 59 x 132 60 x 133 60 x 133 64 x 131
.Good -Neighbors Pond Average SS,000 Average Ss,000 Average SS,000 Average 55,000
$12 200 $16 040 $11 930 $15000
S 112 00 $116 000 $115,400 $110 000
$101.72 $105.17 $104.62 $99.73
II 5115.000 5104.26 Per s4 Ft I
DATE: 09/97
SECTION: 4110
PAGE: 5
LI11'iITATIONS
A local board of review may reduce assessments upon petition of the taxpayer but the
total adjustments must not reduce the aggregate assessment made by the county assessor
by more than one percent. If the total adjustments would lower the aggregate
assessments made by the county assessor by more than one percent, none of the
adjustments may be made. The assessor shall correct any clerical errors or double
assessments discovered by the board of review without affecting the one percent referred
to above. (M.S. 274.01)
SUAZA4ARY
Minnesota Statutes, Section 274.01 provides that the towm board of each township and
the governing body of cities shall be the board of review. The board is to review the
assessment and classification of property in their township.
The county assessor sets the dates for boazds of review to meet in his county. He must
notify the clerk of the various dates on or before February 15 each year. The meetings
aze held between April l and May 31.
nutiec_ of T,o~al Rnardc Of Review
1. See that all taxable property in the township is properly assessed, valued and
classified. The boazd may consider both real and personal property.
2. If any property has been omitted, the boazd must correct the assessment by adding it
to the list of assessments along with its mazket value.
3. The assessments of each description of real property consisting of land and buildings
are reviewed by the board.
4. The assessments of personal property aze likewise within the board's jurisdiction.
Personal property is limited to mobile homes, storage sheds, decks or similaz
improvements located in a manufactured home pazk, structures on leased public lands
and railroad operating rights-of--way and leased buildings located on land owned by
the occupant and used for purposes of a homestead.
DATE: 09/97
SECTION: 4110
PAGE: 6
5. The authority of the local board extends over the individual assessments of real and
personal property. The board can't increase or decrease by percentage all of the
assessments in the district of a given class of property. Changes in the aggregate
assessments by classes aze made by the county boazd of equalization.
6. Although the local board of review has the authority to increase or reduce individual
assessments, the total of such adjustments must not reduce the aggregate assessment
made by the county assessor by more than one percent of said aggregate assessment.
If the total of such adjustments does lower the aggregate assessment made by the
county assessor by more than one percent, none of the adjustments will be allowed.
This limitation doesn't apply, however, to the correction of clerical errors or to the
removal of duplicate assessments.
7. The local boazd of review doesn't have the authority in any year to reopen former
assessments on which taxes are due and payable. The boazd considers only the
assessments that aze in process in the current yeaz. Occasionally a taxpayer may -
appeaz with a tax statement and protest the taxes or assessment of the previous year.
The board should explain tactfully that it has not authority to consider such matters.
After taxes have been extended, adjustment can be made only by the process of
application for abatement or by legal action:
8. In reviewing the individual assessments, the boazd may find instances of
undervaluation. Before the boazd raises the mazket value of property, it must notify
the owner. The law doesn't prescribe any particulaz form of notice except that the
. person whose property is to be increased in assessment must be notified of the intent
of the boazd to make the increase. The local boazd of review meetings assure a
property owner an opportunity to contest the valuation or classification that has been
placed on his property or to contest or to protest any other matter relating to the
taxability of his property. The boazd is required to review the matter and make any
corrections that it deems just.
9. When a local board of review 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 assessment books and papers. He 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 assistants is required to attend. 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 particulazly to land values for the
guidance of boazds of review. Comparisons should be presented of assessments of
types of property with previous yeazs and with other assessment districts in the same
county.
DATE: 09/97
SECTION: 4110
PAGE: 7
10. It is the primary duty of each board of review 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.
11. The complaints and objections of taxpayers who feel aggrieved with any assessments
for the current year should be considered very cazefully by the boazd. Such
assessments must be reviewed in detail and the board has authority to make
corrections it deems to be just. The boazd may adjourn from day to day until all cases
have been heard.
12. A nonresident may file written objections to his assessment with the county assessor
prior to the meeting of the board of review. Such objections must be presented to the
board for consideration while it is in session.
13. Before adjourning, the boazd of review should prepare an official list of the changes.
The law requires that the changes be listed on a separate form-which is appended to
the assessment book. The assessments of omitted property must be listed in detail
with their mazket values. All assessments that have been increased or decreased
should be shown as prescribed in the form along with their mazket values. After the
changes have been completed, the record should be signed and dated by the members -
of the boazd of review. The changes listed in the proceedings should be entered in the
assessment book by the county assessor.
INFORMATION FOR LOCAL BOARDS OF REVIEW
The boazd of review must complete its work and adjourn within twenty days from the
time of convening specified in the notice of the clerk, unless a longer period is approved
by the Commissioner of Revenue. No action taken subsequent to such date shall be valid.
A request for additional time in order to complete the work of the boazd of review 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 Revenue will not, however, extend the time for local
boazds of review to meet past the time county boazds of equalization convene in June.
DATE: 09/97
SECTION: 4110
PAGE: 8
If a person fails to appear in person, by counsel, or by written communication before the
board after being duly notified by the board's intent to raise the assessment of his
property, or if a person feeling aggrieved by an assessment or classification fails to apply
for a review of the assessment or classification, he may not appear before the county
board of equalization for a review of his assessment or classification, except when an
assessment was made subsequent to the meeting of the board or that he can establish that
he did not receive notice of his market value at least five days before the local board of
review meeting.
All real property subject to taxation shall be listed and at least one-fourth of the parcels
listed shall be appraised each year with reference to their value on January 2 preceding
the assessment so that each parcel shall be reappraised at maximum intervals of four
years. All real property becoming taxable in any year shall be listed with reference to its
value on January 2 of that year.
LOCAL ASSESSOR - -The duty of the duly appointed local assessor shall be toview
and appraise the value of all property as provided by law, but all the book work shall be
done by the county assessor, or his assistants, and the value of all property subject to
assessment and taxation shall be determined by the county assessor.
COUNTY ASSESSOR - -The county assessor makes all assessments based upon the
appraised values reported to him by the local assessors or his assistants and his own
knowledge of the value of the property assessed. He must personally view and determine
the value of any property which because of its type or character maybe difficult for the
local assessor to appraise. The county assessor is to make all changes ordered by the
local boards of review relative to the assessed value of the property of any individual,
firm or corporation after notice has been given
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Study Session Letter No. 9
Agenda April 5, 1999
Issue Statement:
Review"of the water quality report to the consumers of Richfield water. '?"
Background:
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) under the direction of Congress is
requiring that every water utility in the nation produce a Consumer Confidence Report in
1999 and each year thereafter. This report must contain information about the quality of
the water that is produced along with any violations, where a maximum contaminant
level has been exceeded, such as lead, salts and minerals.
Richfield has no violations of the standards. However, some trace amounts of different
elements, minerals and other substances were detected in the water. Even bottled
water contains traces of these items. The report not only provides the required EPA
language but it also includes information about how water is produced in Richfield.
Recommended Motion:
The report will be .discussed and reviewed by Council. Any suggestions regarding the
report will be considered. Distribution of the report to the public is scheduled in April.
Any questions that the public may have can be discussed at the Water Plant open
house on May 1.
Basis of Recommendation:
1. The report complies with all requirements of the Environmental Protection Agency
and has been approved by the Minnesota Department of Health (MDH).
2. The report will assist in the announcement of the tenth annual open house at the
Water Plant on May 1.
Alternative Recommendation:
None.
Discussion/Decision Mode:
The report is required by the EPA and the MDH and is a part of a communication tool
that the Water Division uses to communicate with the consumers of Richfield.
p ctfully sub fitted,
n L. e c
Acting City Manag r
SLD:cak
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Study Session Letter No. s
Agenda April 5, 1999
Issue Statement:
Review and consider the status of the Multi-Purpose Community Center (MPCC)
proposal and the work of the MPCC Task Force. Review the preparation process for a
possible referendum vote in the fall.
Background:
The MPCC Task Force was formed in September 1998 to examine the need fora multi-
purpose recreational facility and to establish a group consisting of Richfield residents
who could define the purpose and scope of the facility and communicate this vision to
the rest of the community.
Since January, members of the MPCC Task Force have -been making presentations to
different community groups and organizations in an effort to inform residents of the
progress that has been made to further define the scope of the MPCC and to determine
the types of amenities that the facility would include.
The task force continues to examine the specific ways in which the facility would meet
the community's needs. They also continue to communicate with residents in every
possible forum to prepare. for a possible referendum vote in the fall (in tandem with the
School Board election).
Recommended Motion:
Review and discuss the MPCC planning process.
Basis of Recommendation:
After seven months of work, the MPCC Task Force wants to share and discuss their
work,and information with the City Council.
Alternative Recommendation:
None
Discussion/Decision Mode:
The task force asks the Council to study the work of the MPCC Task Force at the April 5
Study Session. George Watson and MPCC Task Force/Community Services
Commission Chair Rick Jabs will be in attendance.
Re pec ully submitted,
~.
I
n L. Devic
Acting City Manager
SLD:ds