04-04-94 agendaCITY OF RICHFIELD
MONDAY, APRIL 4, 1994
CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION
7:00 P.M.
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
AGENDA
CALL TO ORDER
I. 7:00-7:30 P.M. REVIEW OF 1994 BOARD OF REVIEW PROCEDURES
STUDY SESSION LETTER NO. 10
II. 7:30-8:00 P.M. DISCUSSION OF POLICY AND STRATEGY
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR AIRPORT RELATED ISSUES
STUDY SESSION LETTER NO. 11
III. 8:00-8:15 P.M. DISCUSSION REGARDING ON-SALE WINE AND NON-
INTOXICATING MALT LIQUOR LICENSES-THAT
WOULD REQUIRE A SUBSTANTIAL PART OF
LICENSE ESTABLISHMENT'S ACTIVITIES INCLUDE
SERVING OF FOOD
STUDY SESSION LETTER N0. 12
IV. 8:15-8:45 P.M. DISCUSSION RELATING TO COUNCIL SALARIES
STUDY SESSION LETTER NO. 13
8:45 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 861-9702.
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Study Session Letter No.10
Agenda April 4, 1994
Issue Statement:
Review of 1994 Board of Review procedures.
Background:
The 1994 Richfield Board of Review is scheduled for Monday, May
2, 1994 at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers of City Hall. As
provided by City Charter, the Board of Review 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 1994 Board of Review.
The duties and responsibilities of the Board of Review 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 Review meeting scheduled for
May 2, 1994 a review session has been established for April 4,
1994. At that meeting Larry Miller, the Hennepin County
Principal Property Appraiser assigned to Richfield, will present
information pertaining to the 1994 assessment and Board of Review
process.
Recommended Motion:
It is recommended that the Council prepare for the Board of
Review 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 4,
19940
Respectfu y submitted,
James Prosser
City ager
JDP:ff
CITY OF RICHFIELD
COUNCIL STUDY SESSION
MONDAY, APRIL 4, 1994
LOCAL BOARD OF REVIEW INFORMATION
DATE: 11/93
- SECTION: 4123
PAGE:1
SUNIlViARY
Minnesota Statutes, Section 274.01 provides that the town 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 boards of review to meet in his county. He must
notify the clerk of the various dates on or before February 2 5 each year. The meetings are
held between April 1 and May 31.
Duties of Local Boards of Review
See that all taxable property in the township is properly assessed, valued and
classified. The board may consider both real and personal property.
2. If any property has been omitted, the board must correct the assessment by adding it
to the list of assessments along with its market 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 are likewise within the board's jurisdiction.
Personal property is limited to mobile homes, storage sheds, decks or similar
improvements located in a manufactured home park, 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.
The au~hority 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 are made by the county board 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.
ff 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.
DATE: 11/93
_ SECTION: 4123
PAGE: 2
7. The local boazd of review doesn't have the authority in any yeaz 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. Occasionally a taxpayer may
appeaz with a tax statement and protest the taxes or assessment of the previous year.
The boazd 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 prescnbe 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 board to make the increase. The local board 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
boazd should ask the local assessor and county assessor to present any tables that
have been prepazed, 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 review. Comparisons should be presented of
assessments of types of property with previous years and with other assessment
districts in the same county.
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 boazd has the duty of making the assessment.
11. The complaints and objections of taxpayers who feel aggrieved with any assessments
for the current yeaz should be considered very cazefully by the boazd. Such
assessments must be reviewed in detail and .the boazd has authority to make
corrections it deems to be just. The board may adjourn from day to day until all
cases have been heazd.
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.
2
DATE: 11/93
SECTION: 4123
PAGE:3
13. Before adjourning, the board 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 market values. All assessments that have been increased or decreased
should be shown as prescribed in the form along with their market 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 board 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 board 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 boards of
review to meet past the time county boards of equalization convene in June.
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 appeaz 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 boazd or that he can establish that he did not
receive notice of his mazket 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.
:7
~~~5 ~nL S
~~iNNUAL~ REVIEW~ALL~`PROPERTY~ TYPES s S
~'
•
~ ~.'.?< Yi~:.Y? Fba; _ .t ~" .4 zt*'','~c ~'4 'v.t lv`~1't,~ti,-v.~}¢'7 :7 < - t~--~i,v~i .:;E irrtM;~~f,
•
Listings Total Dollar Unit Average
processed Volume Sales Sales Price
1972 33,635 $ 436.396,177 14,788 $29,510
1973 33,966 $ 489,373,859 15,518 $31,536
1974 27,865 $ 500,401,086 14,481 $34,555
1975 31,271 S 585,954,410 15,381 $38,095
1976 34.940 S 773,837,914 18,476 $41,883
1977 38,879 $1,115,698.038 23.271 $47,943
1978 36,095 $1,296,246,066 22,780 $57,178
1979 40,007 $1,351,465,288 . 20,466 $66,417
1980 37,018 51,340,772,915. 18.351 $74,069
1981 35,580 $1,249,787,584 15,675 $80,238
1982 41,465 $ 998,693,468 12.193 $82,288
1983 50,794 $1,344,916,756 15,914 $84,953
1984 53,646 31.544,535,531 18,231 $85,007
1985 51,492 31,866,291,153 21,335. $87,789
1986 58,382 32,523,647,1 I3 28,015 $90,319
1987 SSA22 32,460,309.115 25,772 $95,914
1988 80,771 S3,?11,389.403 34,244 $93,977
1989 89.170 33 77,302,913 33,962 $96,658
1990 78,548 $3.372,262,409 34,496 $98,016
1991 71,850 33,522.813,135 35,598 $99,402
1992 72,730 51,309,040,911 41,944 $103;L64
1993 70,697 54'84,620,621 39,833 $107,564
~ o ~- ~
-1993 RESIDENTIAL I30ME :,
SALES: (Single Fami;ly;':<= .
Condominium,Townhouse, Co-op)
AVERAGE /MEDIAN PRICES
AVERAGE ]1fEDIAN
January 107,800 91,800
February 107,200 92.500
March 108.300 96.500
April 111,700 97,400
May 111.100 97,700
June 111,800 97.900
July 106,300 93.500
August 122.000 94,100
September 107,200 93.000
October 109,800 93.400
November 115,700 96.600
December 110,600 96,600
~ Figures are rounded to nearest S 100 and
include al l residential sales for R~1LS.
AVERAGE SALES PRICE BY DISTRICT: SINGLE FAMILY
DIVISION III
DIST. SECTION 19x6 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993
CaIhOUn Harriet - 550 S90.a4a 5 92.997 $98,682 5112.634 5115.451 $116,029 $121,117 $122,008 Minneapolis
Calhoun -Isles - 300 429
5153
Cedar Isles-Loring - 551 708.365 1 10,348 122,760. 175,545 171,830 219,862 211.267 200.881 ,
Camden - 301 56,042
North - 552 52.379 55,701 53,997 52.825 55,667 53,x35 54,181 53.080
Longfellow - 303 70,145
Northeast - 553 59.534 61,672 63,045 63,370 63.840 64,645 65,414 66,234
Nokomis -304 82,848
Parkway West -554 87,621 93.530 .96.163 100,x05 105,461 107,090 109.846 109,588
North - 305 53,274
Parkway Central - 555 73,063 77,409 76,851 80,189 83.2x1 83.712 86.840 88.446 Northeast - 306 67,690
Parkway South - 556 62,883 63,364 67,130 68616 66.973 70,761 70,595 70.652 phIIIIpS - 307 43,352
South - 557 Sa,a51 61,115 61,825 62,317 63.127 63,695 66,944 67,495 powderhom - 308 57,006
South Central - 558. x8.663 52,184 51,587 49.136 49,630 51.220 50,510 48.89a Southwest -309 119,374
Southeast - 559 66.221 73.861 74,314 73,196 78,685 81,215 65.697 79,124 University - 310 82,752
St. Paul & Suburban - 560 95.997 82.797 110,473
Isanti County - 563 52.857 56.399 59.830 63.830 65.235 Bloomington -East - 379 89,866
Blaine-Lxingtn, Crcle Plnes - 564 71,683 73.63a 75.052 Bloomington -West - 380 157,860
Fal. Hgts•Roseville, Arden 100.977 106.100 to7.2aa Brooklyn Center- 363 78,908
Hills-Shorevw - 565 Brooklyn Park - 364 96,837
New Brighton-Moundsvw, 8x,322 89,812 95.soa 68.67& 102,x86 106.085 Buffalo -340 97,203
St. Anthony - 566 C~ef ~rnY -394 ~~~
Coon Rapids-Anoka - 567 71.x50 75.904 77.867 Champlin-366 104,006
Frdly-Col Hts, Sprng Lk Pk - 568 71.667 73,768 76,aoa Chanhassen - 396 165,688
Suburban NE - 569 67,449 7x,165 76,603 Chaska -397 124,926
Sibley County - 570 73.920 7 5,603 86.176 Crystal - 361 80,886
Brooklyn Center-Park - 571 71.aai 75.812 77,837 87,606 89,x66 89.x01 89,104 91,869 Eden Prairie-392 178,476
Edina - 385 217
605
Wright/Sherbume Cnties - 572 57,t2a 62,232 65.OSt 69,880 72.120 74,130 77,850 82,442 ,
Golden Valley - 373 129,866
Golden Valley/Tyr01 Hills - 573 9x,313 105.237 105,371 114,238 113,613 118,860 t [9,438 119.699
Hennepin Co North - 367 116,760
Plymouth - 574 115.81 1 120,323 126,910 1x5,748 151,612 153,820 151,483 160.147
Hennepin Co NW -368 173,767
Rbbnsdle-Crysial-Nw Hpe - 575 71,336 74,d33 77,689 80,144 87,266 81,370 81,1x6 84.469
Hopkins -386 103,110
Dytn-Chmplin-Mille Grve-0sseo -576 81,x83 85,54a 92,627 104,199 106.767 112,030 112,070 115,466
Hutchinson -342 76,098
Suburban NW . -577 91,262 90579 98.805 107938 125869 117 1 1
k
Mi
k
N
381
L
t
275
937
Richfield - 578 72,99a 76,968 77.274 79,80[ 81,753 82,847 82,994 8 5,181 nne
on
a
e
a
o. -
Lake MPInelOnka $O -~ ,
~~
East Bloomington - 579 72,667 78,210 79,500 83,435 85,913 86,052 85,943 89,375 ~g Minnetonk8 West -382 183,471
West Bloomington - 580 106,001 109,963 715,103 134,625 133,679 131,377 [36,269 144,396 Maple Grove / Osseo - 365 129,367
Mendota Hts-Eagan, Inver 91,1x6 95.617 105,3x2 Minnetonka -387 171,457
Grove Hts - 581 New Ho
pe -362
92,848
Burnsville -582 90,x23 93.985 101.801 11x,829 122.581 123,956 123.590 Out Of Town - 399 81,180
Suburban South - 583 83,848 83,261 87,231 PI h - 173 293
Apple Vlly-Rosemt.-Lkville - 584 93,624 93,x01 103,109 Richfield - 378 87,191
Edina • 585 141,083 142,654 152,634 179,852 196,486 188,380 189,921 200,868 Robbinsdale - 360 .78,884
Hopkins-Minnetonka - 587 107,569 t 12,615 122,772 139,603 150,368 148.849 1x8,371 154,544 Saint Louis Park - 391 101,567
Lake Minnetonka - 589 134,545 133,215 158,729 172.208 180,700 178.719 17[,361 190,743 VictOna - 398 175,000
St. Louis Park - 591 76,722 79,091 79.587 90,582 90,369- 91,206 93,633 94,582 Waterfront - 395 84,092
Eden Prairie - 592 i 15,778 116,734 126,632 148.971 163,x00 167,836 157,322 188,216 Wright County -341 84,840
Eastern Carver County - 593 80,886 80,402 89,643 112,418 120,318 130.022 129,359 141,155
4 February 1994 13
r~ ,
~ ~ ~ ice.
_ ~~
~ t ~,~
i__
~ T 7~ ~
~~ ~.
~ ~~ I I~~I ~., o
p ~ . ~ / . ~ ~
i
~I ~I
• ~ ~ ~ I' I .M II ~.
® ~i...sl .I .il ~I w .'I _ ~ iI
' I q I N _ _I ~ p
1 I a L
., I ~ ~ I ! -
( I~ r "~~ a
I I ti I
~ I II ,m~`
I 'i~ ~ C
I ~ ~ V
•s ~7 rte r., :II ~~~ ~ ~3~ I ~+ ~~1 -" •{~Jt ;i~/~i ~
u
_ ~ i
a.~ a~.~~.~ ~c ~
' I I~«~ ~~ -~ ( ~I II I I I I
I~l~ ~i ~ I 1i ~ ~
II II ~I ~ ~1
'~ tl I~I it , ~ , `
~ i ~ I
a II II ~ ~ ! i ~~ I. ,~
~_ ~
I I~'~ a I' I ~ ° I
'I r ~~ i ~ ~"' i I t~
~~
A I • ~ trw
/~
r ~ '~~ ~
~' II'~'i- ~t~i~"" 11'x"' B ~~ ~ ~~ . ~ ~
~I ~ y
A , , L _
„4
~~ ~
~ _ ;
11~~11 / a
C • ~ r ~ .
i ~ t
• ~
I~ ~ C
~~~ u ~ I ,~ .
RICHFIELD RESIDENTIAL GROWTH
25
20
15
10
5
0
_5 ~
78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94
YEAR
6
•
28-Mar-94 RICHFIELD SALES OCTOBER-1992 THROUGH SEPTEMBER-1993'
10.:36:25 HENNEPIN INFORMATION SERVICES IBM 3090 MVS/SP 2.1.
SALERAT
Count Midpoint One symbol equals approximately 4.00 occurrencf
0 .57 I
0 .6 0 I ..
0 .63 I `
0 .66 I
0 .69 I
1 .72 I
0 .75 I
3 .78 I~
. I1 .81 I~~*.
27 .84 I'~** : **~
64 .87 I~~~;~~~~~~~~~~~~
102 .91 I~~~;~~~~~~~*~*~~~~~~~~~~~*
~S0 .94 I~~*;~~~*~~~~~~~~~*~~
79 .97 I~~*;~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
51 1.00 I~~*;~~*~~~~~~
31 1.03 IY~~:~~~~
11 1.06 I~**.
5 1.09 I'~
3 1.12 I~
1 1.15 I
2 1.18 I~ .
+----+----+----+----+----+----~+----+----+----+----f
0 40 80 120 160 200
Histogram frequency
Mean .956 Median .933
Valid cases. 475 Missing cases 0
7
:--'
~-
_.~
- .
r-~ W
~_~~ ~ ~
~ ~ (~~'
I~ U~
4
hrs. ~ - xa :~::/::a:
~_. .. ... .. >: z~~
AY ar~^i.. ,~~. .
.~ E '~ .+U'.. ,y.
SUBJECT PRCPEBTY
Address - XXXX XX Avenue South
PID XX-028-24-41-0010
Story Height One Baths 1
1st Floor Area 1042 sq. ft. ~ Baths 1 in basement
Gross Building Area 1042 sq. ft. Finished Basement 500 sq. ft.
Year Built 1952 Walkout No
Condition Average Fireplace No
1st Floor Rooms Kitchen, living Air Conditioning Yes
room, 3 bedrooms Garage Single attached
2nd Floor Rooms 0 Porches/Deck None
Bedrooms Lot Size 75x133
Comments• Property sold 12/91 for $81,000
8
GRID - COMPARABLE DATA
APPLICANT'S NAME:
ADDRESS: ,
PROPERTY ADDRESS:
Q.I.D. #:
MUNiC:
BUILDING TYPE:
STORY HEIGHT:
1ST FLOOR AREA:
GROSS BLDG. AREA;
YR. OF CONST.:
CONDITION:
iST FL. ROOMS:
2ND FL. ROOMS:
BEDROOMS:
BATHS:
HALF BATHS:
FIN. BSMT. SQ.FT.:
WALKOUT:
FIREPLACE:
AIR •COND:
GARAGE AREA:
PORCH AREA:
DECK:
LOT SIZE:
COMPS-SALE DATA:
SALE DATE
SALE PRICE
SALE/SQ.FT.
SUBJECT - ASSESSMENT DATA
1994 ASSESSMENT
ASSESSMENT/SQ.FT.
REMARKS:
XXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXX XX Avenue South
XXXX XX Avenue South
XX-028-24-41-0010
Richfield
SUBJECT
PROPERTY COMP #1 COMP #2 COMP #3
Rambler Rambler Rambler -,Rambler
one one one one
1042 951 1042 '•'g18
1042 951 1042 g18
:1952 1953 1953 1949
Average Average Good Average
5 4 6 4
0 0 0 0
3 2 3 2
1 1 1, 3/4 1
1 0 0 0
500 300 500 300
No No No No
0 0 0 1
Yes Yes Yes Yes
264 400 336 352
0 144 GL 0 140 GL
No No No No
75x133 78x172 75x133 78x126
12/91 11/93 8/93 9/93
81,000 88,000 86,000 83,000
77.73 92.53 82.53 80.41
SUBJECT - REVIEW APPRAISAL
75,000 $6,000.
71098 82.53
9
"j-fmfJ l , J~ , ~ • ~ V ~
j~ ' nA~ ~,
'A
a .,
~t -
r. ~ ;.
~ y '~~i
~, ~x `~
COMPARABLE #1
COMPARABLE #3
~,
~~~~
_•~~~~
- _ - _ -c~:
_ ±`~~
,,,
:"~:
1-:--°.-
>l-7.
/~ ~ ~~
10
.\
`~
COMPARABLE #2
COMPARABLE #4
~1
U
SUBJECT PROPER~'Y
Address XXXX XX Street West
pip XX-028-24-12-0029
•
' ht
Story He i g 1.25 Baths 1
1st Floor Area 783 ~ Baths 0
Gross Building Area 975 Finished Basement 400 sg. ft.
Year Built 1954 Walkout No
Condition Average Fireplace No
1st Floor Rooms Kitchen, living Air Conditioning No
room 2 bedrooms Garage Double detached
2nd Floor Rooms 1 Porches/Deck None
Bedrooms 1 Lot Size 75x135
Comments:
r~
U
11
GRID - COMPARABLE DATA
APPLICANT'S NAME: XXXXXXXXXXXXXX __
ADDRESS: XXXX 7CX Street West
~ ROPERTY ADDRESS; XXXX XX Street West
P.I.D. #: XX-028-24-12-0029
MUNIC: Rici~field
SUBJECT
PROPERTY COMP #1 COMP #2
BUILDING TYPE: Expansion. Expansion Expansion
1ST FLOOR AREA: 183 768 768
GROSS BLDG. AP.EA: 975 g60 960
YR. OF CONST.: 1954 ig50 1g5o
CONDITION: Average Average Average
1ST PL. ROOMS: 4 4 4
2ND FL. ROOMS: 1 1 1
BEDROOMS: 3 3 3
BATHS: i 1 1
HALF BATHS: 0` 0 0
FIN. BSMT. SQ.FT.: 400 400 400
WALKOUT: No No No
FIREPLACE: 0 0 0
AIR COND: No No No
GARAGE AREA: 528 352 308
PORCH AREA: 0 0 0
DECK: No No No
LOT SIZE: 75x135 46x134 46x134
COMPS-SALE DATA:
SALE. DATE 12/93 9/93
SALE PRICE 76,900 78,000
SALE/SQ.FT./GBA 80.10 81.25
SUBJECT - ASSESSMENT DATA SUBJECT - REVIEW APPRAISAL
1894 ASSESSMENT 76,000 81-,000
ASSESSMENT/SQ.FT. 77.95 83.07
REMARKS:
coMP #3
Expans iorl
783
975
1953
Average
4
3
1
0
400
No
0
Yes
440
0
No
66x135
3/93
82,500
84.61
COMP #4
Expansion
768
g6o
1954
Average
4
3
0
300
No
0
No
528
0
No
60x134
9/9'.3 ....
81,000
84.38
-- 12
COMPARABLE #1
COMPARABLE #2
•
COMPARABLE #3
r,
fi
`
n ^ `~
1;
~ ~
~
y
.
a
~; - i,.
4r -
~.
c y.
t M
~. d f ~Y .
ti
`
~
~ i~
_~,i
it
-
~~ ~ i ~~, ~` ' _ 'a!~3QJ a
~ ~
O ~~ F
. ~ .1
,
~/s N. G.
'(;~ _ _
..
"'mac-.~..._-
COMPARABLE #4
~3
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
,.xti Study Session Letter No. 11
Agenda April 4, 1994
Yssue Statement:
Policy and strategy recommendations for airport related issues.
Background:
Recent developments regarding airport issues include the following:
• New Ford Town and Rich Acres Acquisition
W.D. Schock Company is continuing progress in the neighborhood
acquisition. Progress was slowed in March by Marquette Partners.,
the appraisal firm contracted by Schock. Marquette Partners fell
behind schedule in providing. appraisal reports due to changes in
the comparable sales book (CSB). The CSB identifies houses in
Richfield and South Minneapolis with similar values and
characteristics to those in New Ford Town and Rich Acres. These
"comp" houses are used to develop the appraisal value of the
houses. The book .was completed on March 21, and contains 102
"comps". First offers should be made in the middle of April.
Due to resident concerns about safety, Schock has developed
identification badges for all parties involved in the Part 150
Acquisition. Individuals representing Schock, MAC, Marquette
Partners, environmental inspectors, and property management workers
(when they become involved) will be required to wear the badges
whenever conducting business in the neighborhoods. Likewise,
company vehicles will have magnetic nameplates on the doors. Some
residents were concerned about letting in persons not authorized or
otherwise connected to the buyout.
Schock and MAC continue to pursue congressional funding for the
next phase of the acquisition. The New Ford Town/Rich Acres Group
will also be contacting congressional representatives to thank them
for their prior support, and urge their cooperation in allocating
the necessary monies for the buyout. $15 million was appropriated
for the first phase, most of which will have been allocated by
June. If funding isn't approved during this session Schock will be
forced to suspend the buyout until such time as money is
appropriated.
Representative Edwina Garcia presented a bill to committee which
would provide impact aid to the City and school district of
Richfield affected by the loss in tax revenue expected following
the buyout. Senator Jane Ranum has yet to bring her version of the
bill before committee. Staff has continued ongoing dialogue with
both elected officials, and others at the Minnesota House and
Senate, to secure this tax relief.
• 4-22 Extension
Staff and Council Members participated in meetings on March 10 to
clarify Richfield's position in opposition to extending MSP Runway
4-22. The meetings were very productive in terms of explaining to
elected officials at the state and local levels, staff from
neighboring communities,: and representatives from the offices of
the Minnesota congressional delegation, the inadequacies of the
Revised Draft Environmental Impact Statementent for the extension.
Consultants Bob .Collette and Steve Pflaum provided assistance in
developing and explaining the technical information presented.
Senator Phil Riveness sent a letter to Jeffrey Hamiel, Executive
Director of the Metropolitan Airports Commission, requesting
clarification of unanswered questions created by statements and
figures presented in the RDEIS. Senator Riveness is also setting
up meetings with the Minnesota Department of Transportation and the
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency to discuss the RDEIS and its
implications. Staff has scheduled a meeting with U.S.
Representative Martin O. Sabo, and will schedule one with U.S. Rep.
James Oberstar, for the same purpose.
s MSP Long-Term Comprehensive Plan
MAC Commissioners accepted greater responsibility for the ultimate
recommendation to the Legislature regarding which track of the
Dual Track Planning Process should be pursued. At the full
commission meeting on March 21, Commissioner. John Himle made a
motion to revise the mission of the Task Force on the Dual Track
Planning Process. The Task Force was initially created to
thoroughly analyze both tracks, aided by the MSP Technical
Committee and the New Airport Technical Committee, and then make a
policy recommendation to the Commission. Himle was concerned about
the possibility of the Task Force recommending one track and the
Commission recommending another to the Legislature. The motion,
which passed 12-3, also clarified the selection process for Task
Force members.
Recommended Motion:
Discuss current airport policy issues:
Basis for Recommendation:
It is important for the Council to provide direction to staff on
airport policy.
Alternative Motion:
Defer discussion to another date.
Discusssion/Decision Mode:
This matter will be discussed at the Study Session of April 4,
1994.
Respe tf lly submitted,
Jame Prosser
City nager
JDP:ds
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Study Session Letter No.12
Agenda April 4, 1994
Issue Statement:
Council discussion regarding on-sale wine and non-intoxicating
malt liquor licenses that would require a substantial part of a
licensed establishment's activities include the serving of food.
Background:
Currently, the City's on-sale intoxicating liquor ordinance
states in Section 1200.17 subd. 14 that "a restaurant shall be
conducted in such a manner that a substantial part of all
business activities conducted on the licensed premises for a
license year is the serving of food; and that the revenues from
the sale of liquor shall not constitute the principal part of the
revenues derived from all business activities conducted on the
licensed premises."
In the wine. ordinance, Section 1225.07 subd. 6, it only states
that "no person may be sold or served wine who does not order
food to be consumed with the wine".
Holders of non-intoxicating malt liquor licenses have no
food/beer ratio as a requirement under Section 1210.
Recommended Motion:
Council discussion of whether to amend the current on-sale wine
and non-intoxicating malt liquor ordinances to include language
that would require a substantial part of a licensed
establishment's activities be the serving of food.
Basis of Recommendation:
1. To ensure-that an establishment's primary focus is on the
serving of food rather than the service of liquor, wine or
beer.
Alternative Recommendation:
1. Do nothing. Leave the current beer/wine ordinances as they
are.
Discussion/Decision Mode:
Staff, at the direction of Council, is presenting this item for
Study Session discussion.
submitted,
ser
JDP:cak
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Study Session Letter No. 13
Agenda April 4, 1994
Issue Statement:
Council discussion relating to Council salaries.
Background•
Mayor .Kirsch has requested that discussion relating to Council
salaries be placed on the April 4, 1994 Study Session agenda.
Attached is Council Memorandum No. 16 which provides background
information related to Council salaries. The 1994 salary
adjustment for employees in the General Services and Management.
pay plans was 2.5$.
Recommended Motion:.
Council Members should discuss whether or nod an ordinance
amendment regarding Council salaries should be prepared and
scheduled for first reading at a subsequent Council meeting.
Basis for Recommendation:
1. Mayor Kirsch has requested this item be placed on the April 4
Study Session agenda.
Alternative Recommendation:
1. The Council could defer discussion of this item to another
Study Session.
Discussion/Decision Mode:
This item has been placed on the April 4 Study Session agenda as
requested by Mayor Kirsch.
Respec ully submitted,
Jam s Prosser
City anager
JDP:ds
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Office of City Manager
February 25, 1994
Council Memorandum No. 16
The Honorable Mayor
and
Members of the City Council
City of Richfield
Subject: Consideration of Council. Salaries
Council Members:
Chapter II, Section 210 of the City ordinance establishes the salaries
of the City Council and provides that the salaries of the Council
Members be reviewed by December 1 of each year in which an election is
held.
It has been the practice in past years for. the.. City Council to review
their salaries prior to the time that work begins on proposed budgets
for the next year.
Council Members may wish to think about this matter to determine if an
ordinance amendment to increase Council Member salaries should be
approved.
In June 1987, Council Member adopted a policy to review Council
salaries. The policy statement provides that in years a municipal
election is to be held, the Council shall establish a revised pay
schedule for Council Members and the Mayor.
Council salaries were last adjusted for fiscal year 1992 (effective in
1993) when the salary of the Mayor was increased from $7,282 to $7,573
per year; and .Council Member salaries were increased from $5,652 to
$5,878 per year. As stipulated in the City Charter, salary increases do
not take effect until after the next succeeding municipal election.
This means any change in salaries would be effective January 1, 1995.
The policy also provides that any increase should be based upon the
amount of increase granted to employees in the year subsequent to the
previous salary adjustment. The salary increase for employees in the
General Services and Management pay plan was 2.5~.
Attached is a list of Council salaries of 11 selected cities in the
metro area of a comparable size.
If Council Members would like additional information on this matter,
please let me know.
Resp lly submitted,
James Prosser
City nager
JDP:cak
Attachment
METROPOLITAN AREA COUNCIL SALARIES
(Selected Cities of Comparable Size)
## MTGS .
CITY MONTH POPULATION
Apple Valley 2 45,000
Blaine 2 40,575
Eden Prairie 2 42,000
Edina 2 46,916
Fridley 2 28,300
Golden Valley 2 20.889
Maple Grove 2 41,420
Minnetonka 2 48,658
RICHFIELD 2 35,544
Roseville 2 33,485
St. Louis Park 2 43,000
Average Salary:
1994 ANNUAL SALARY
MAYOR COUNCIL
$ 8,400 $ 6,000
9,024 6,600
7,200 6,000
7,050 5,100
8,400 6,100
9,105 6,815
8,000 6,000
8,400 5,604
7,573 5,878
7,800 6,000
10,790 7,202
$ 8,340 $ 6,118
a
Richfield City Code 210.01
(Rev. 1992)
Section 210 - Compensation of mayor and council members
210.01. Com ensation of council. Subdivision 1. Mayor The salary of the.
mayor is $7,573 per year. (Amended, Bi11 No. 1987-18; Bill No. 1988-14; Bill No.
1992-5)
Subd. 2. Council. The salary of a member of the council is $5.,878 per
year. (Amended, Bill No. 1992-5)
Subd. 3. Payable. Salaries of members of the council are payable bi-
weekly.
Subd. 4. Salary review. The council shall review the salaries set by this
section by December 1 in each year in which an election is held pursuant to
section 200 of this code. (Amended, Bill No. 1988-18).
Y
.,
f~~_ -/_
COUNCIL POLICY STATEMENT N0. -
Issue
g lish:nent of council salaries. The purpose of this policy is
to provide a basis for updating council salaries regularly.
' According to state law and city charter, councils may adjust.
their salaries to be effective the year following a municipal
election. This policy will provide a basis for setting the
revised salary base.
Policy Statement
In each calendar year when a municipal election will be held, the
~~
council shall establish a revised pay schedule for council
members and mayor. This amount shall be based upon the amount of
.increase granted to the employees generally in the year(s)
subsequent to the previous salary adjustment. Staff shall
provide information,to council indicating what these amounts have
been not later than ~iay 1. Council shall then make a
determination regarding salaries. Final determination shall be
subject to the council approval as required by Section 2.-07 of
the City Charter-which stipulates that council salaries may be
a
adjusted only by ordinance.
1