4-5-93 agendaCITY OF RICHFIELD
MONDAY, APRIL 5, 1993
r
_ SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING
7:00 P.M.
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
CALL TO ORDER
1. CONSIDERATION OF RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING PURCHASE OF SOO LINE
RAILROAD COMPANY PROPERTY; 77TH STREET PROJECT
COUNCIL LETTER N0. 95
ADJOURNMENT
*~~t**~**,t*********~r~k*****~r*****~t********~c**,~~t*~t**************,k~e**
CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION
7:.15.P.M.
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
AGENDA
CALL TO ORDER
I. 7:15-7:45 P.M. PRESENTATION OF ADVISORY BOARD OF HEALTH
1992 ANNUAL REPORT
II. 7:45-8:00 P.M. DISCUSSION OF 1993 BOARD OF REVIEW
PROCEDURES
STUDY SESSION LETTER NO. 7
III. 8:00-8:15 P.M. DISCUSSION REGARDING THE PHILOSOPHY OF
COMMUNITY ORIENTED POLICING
STUDY SESSION LETTER NO. 8
IV. 8:15-8:30 P.M. POLICY AND STRATEGY RECOMMENDATIONS FOR
AIRPORT RELATED ISSUES
STUDY SESSION LETTER N0. 9
V. 8:30-9:00 P.M. DISCUSSION OF I-35W TRAFFIC CORRIDOR, 77TH
STREET~ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS AND OTHER
TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC ISSUES
STUDY SESSION LETTER NO. 10
VI. 9:00-9:15 P.M. DISCUSSION OF COMPREHENSIVE PLAN REVISION
PROCESS
STUDY SESSION LETTER NO. 11
9:15 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.11
Agenda April 5, 1993
Issue Statement:
Consideration of comprehensive plan revision process.
Background:
The comprehensive plan is 11 years old and overdue. for revision.
Many of the issues that drove the previous plan are no longer
applicable. Further, the plan lacks the depth and clarity to
guide Richfield's move into the next century..
During the past year, planning staff has been developing a
workable process-for revising the current comprehensive plan. A
summary of the proposed process is attached.
Recommended Motion:
It is recommended that the City Council review and discuss the
comprehensive plan revision process..
Basis of Recommendation:
1. The comprehensive plan requires revision in order to aid
future landuse decisions.
2. In order for the process to be successful, a clear vision
needs to be articulated relative to all phases of Richfield's
future development.
3. A favorable response would set the comprehensive plan
revision process in motion.
Alternative Recommendation:
The Council could direct staff to develop a different process to
revise the comprehensive plan.
Discussion/Decision Mode:
The comprehensive plan revision process should be set in motion
as soon as possible
Respectfully submitted,
Jame D. Prosser
City Manager
JDP:cak
l)li~~~l~'1'
ORGflf1lZflTlOf1 flnD
~: ~ ~.
. `. ~:t... 4ti:~
~~ ~~' '~ ~~ ~ ~ PROC fSS
..............
COMPRfilfnSlVf Plfln The comprehensive plan process is
an interactive process between staff
and policy makers. Staff will provide the facilitation and visualization
skills needed to help policy makers understand the results of their
various choices. The following is a brief summary of the organization
and process.
This committee will be composed of persons representing a variety of
community groups including -the City Council, Citizens, School Board
and Social Service Planning Council.
The committee's role will include:
overseeing the comprehensive plan development
~ advising staff on key issues
^ hosting workshops
^ providing input into plan implementation process
~ establishing citywide goals and objectives
COY IS~I.ES ~-~cO~T1~5
These committees will be organized around five to six key
issues/elements chosen as focus points by the steering committee.
Those issues could include:
~ community character
^ landuse
^ public facilities
~ economy
~ transportation
Each committee will provide an interpretation of the community's
values relative to each of the chosen issues. The committees may also
originate sub-issues derived from the community value statements.
Mff Tlf IG 1 ~T~~' c°"~'~T1-~ °r~~''AnMz,a~oN'~ "'~Trl~'
The steering committee will hold an initial organizational
meeting to establish organizational goals and mission, identify and
prioritize major issues and organization membership of community
issues sub-committees.
M ff Tlf IG Q ~o~TY ~~~ F~-M
The second meeting of the steering committee will consist
of a community issues forum. The meeting will be conducted as a
workshop organized around the key issues identified during the first
steering committee meeting.
These meetings could possibly be divided into three parts to be held at
predetermined intervals depending on the extent to which each
committee feels issues need further study and/or definition.
MffTIfIG 3 CRY °F ~oo,~s ~' °~-'~.cT'v~
The results of the community issues forum will be
presented as goals and objectives during this meeting. The meeting
should be held in close proximity to the final community issues forum.
Staff will prepare and forward a summary of the community forum prior
to this meeting.
M ff Tlf IG 4 ~~A~ of `v°R'~'~ °~-~-
This meeting should be held within approximately 90 days
of the previous meeting. Staff will present a working draft of the
comprehensive plan during this meeting.
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Study Session Letter No. 10
" Agenda April 5, 1993
Issue Statement:
Discussion of the I-35W traffic corridor, 77th Street roadway
improvements and any other traffic related items of interest.
Background:
The I-35W traffic corridor continues to be the subject of
discussion and meetings involving elected officials, appointed
officials, staff and the public. For example, the Richfield City
Council recently took action related to an interim third lane on
I-35W. Several bills related to transit issues, have been
mentioned in Status and Information reports.
Another transportation topic of interest is the 77th Street
improvement. Recent discussion has focused on watershed boundary
change of the Wood Lake basin. Construction of Phase I, between
I-35W and Portland Avenue, is scheduled to begin in 1993. Bids
for right of way clearance will be opened April 12 under
direction of the-Minnesota Department of Transportation.. City
Council will be holding a special meeting to make recommendation
on bids received.
There are other traffic/transportation studies, issues and
projects of interest and concern to Richfield. Don Fondrick,
Community Services Director, will provide detail on the various
studies and projects including, primarily, I-35W and 77th Street.
Recommended Motion:
None required as this is a discussion item.
Basis of Recommendation:
The City Council is updated periodically on items of interest and
concern.
Alternative Recommendation:
None.
Discussion/Decision Mode:
The City Council will meet Monday, April 5, 1993.
Respectfully submitted,
Jame Prosser
City anager
JDP:cak
City of Richfield, Minnesota
Study Session Letter No. 9
Agenda, April 5, 1993
Issue Statement:
Policy and strategy recommendations for airport related issues.
Background:
Recent developments regarding the airport include the following:
• New Ford Town/Rich Acres Acquisition
In February,-the Metropolitan Airports Commission (MAC) submitted a
preapplication package to the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA)
for the proposed buyout of the New Ford Town and Rich Acres
neighborhoods.
Nigel Finney, MAC Deputy Executive Director of Planning and
Environment, contacted the City on March 30 with a status report on
funding for the New Ford Town and Rich Acres buyout. The local FAA
office reviewed the preapplication package for the project and
recommended that the MAC should revise. the funding schedule to
provide for a longer term for the buyout.
Local FAA officials advised MAC staff that the total amount of
federal funding available to the MAC for Part 150 noise abatement
projects will be $5 million on an annual basis. This funding would
be for-noise abatement projects including home insulation and .the
buyout of the New Ford Town and Rich Acres neighborhoods.
Jeff Hamiel recently spoke to Congressman James Oberstar in
Washington about revising the funding schedule for the buyout
project. Congressman Oberstar supported Mr. Hamiel's request to
reconsider the funding schedule.
MAC staff recommended two options:
1) Request congressional support for a higher funding level.
2) Seek specific funding with an airport reauthorization bill
presented in Washington.
Staff shared this information with the New Ford Town and Rich Acres
Neighbors Advisory Committee and the City's Legislators..
• FAA Part 150 Program
In January 1993, the MAC began soundproofing construction projects
on homes in Richfield. During the first half of the year, 28
Richfield homes will be soundproofed. The prime contractor, Superl
Thermal Systems, completed work on nine homes in March with the
remaining 19 homes to be completed by the end of July.
During this first phase of the sound insulation program, a few
homeowners have expressed frustration as a result of delays and
disruptions to their lives and homes. However, most of the
residents have welcomed the construction work in their homes
because of the relief from airplane noise the soundproofing
projects will bring.
The Center for Energy and the Urban Environment, which is
administering the program for the MAC, has scheduled workshops
for the residents to provide information about the program and
what to expect once the soundproofing work begins. They have
encouraged residents to be patient throughout the process.
In August, the second phase of the 1993 sound insulation program
will begin with 27 Richfield single-family homes and duplexes to
be soundproofed. During this phase, the bidding process will
change for those homes from a multi-house package of 30 to 40
homes to a single contract for each home. This new bidding
process will be more efficient and personalized for the
homeowner. Under this process, homeowners will select a minimum
of three certified contractors who will do a walk-through
inspection and prepare a bid. The MAC will award the contract to
the lowest responsible bidder.
• Revised MSP Noise Contour Map
At a MAC meeting held in March, the full commission directed MAC
staff to develop a new noise contour map for MSP without the
proposed Runway 4-22 extension project. This new contour map
will shift future community funding levels for the federal Part
:150 sound insulation program.
Currently, the MAC is using the 1992 Ldn 65 noise contour map
approved by the FAA to determine eligibility for the Part 150
program. The noise contour map is based on a five-year forecast
of areas located in the Ldn 65 noise contour near MSP. This map
includes the proposed Runway 4-22 extension project.
At the March MAC meeting, many commissioners said that the Part
150 program should be based on the current noise exposure of the
airport on nearby communities. As a result, the commissioners
authorized MAC staff to develop a noise contour map for MSP
without the proposed Runway 4-22 extension project and standard
instrument departure runway system, but to include the Stage 2
nighttime ban and runway use plan.
The new noise contour map is scheduled for consideration by the
Part 150 Policy Advisory Committee in April and could come under
final consideration by the MAC in April or May.
If approved by the Commission and the FAA, the new map could be
used to determine Part 150 sound insulation program funding
levels for the communities as early as 1994. The new noise map
is expected to increase the number of homes eligible for
soundproofing off the northwest ends of the parallel runways in
Minneapolis and Richfield, and decrease home eligibility in
Bloomington and Richfield off the sound end of the crosswind
runway.
• Proposed Airport Legislation
During the 1993 Minnesota Legislative session, the following
airport-related bills have been introduced:
1) Expanding the Metropolitan Airports Commission (Garcia/Riveness)
Rep. Edwina Garcia and Sen. Phil Riveness introduced a bill to
expand the MAC to include a representative of cities in the Ldn 65
contour as identified in MAC's noise compatibility program. The
bill will give Bloomington, Richfield, Eagan and Mendota Heights
each their own representative on the Commission, appointed by each
city's governing body. Each of the new members' terms will
coincide with that of their mayor.
Currently, the MAC has 15 commissioners. They include a chair
appointed by the Governor, a Minneapolis and St. Paul
representative appointed by their mayors, eight members appointed
by the Governor from precincts in the metropolitan area, and four
members from Greater Minnesota.
The bill was sent to the House Local Government and Metropolitan
Affairs Committee and the Senate Metropolitan and Local Government
Committee. At a hearing held on March 30, the House Committee
recommended to pass the bill. No hearing has been scheduled yet in
the Senate committee.
2) Expanding the Metropolitan Airports Commission (Skoglund/Ranum)
Rep. Wes Skoglund and Sen. Jane Ranum introduced legislation that
would expand MAC representation to include one representative for
every 5,000 residents in the community living in the Ldn 65 contour
as identified by the MAC's noise compatibility program.
The 5,000 65 Ldn resident limitation in the Skoglund/Ranum bill
means that cities significantly impacted by airport noise would be
allowed additional representation on the MAC. Under this bill,
Bloomington and Richfield would each be guaranteed a new seat.
Minneapolis would be provided with three new seats. The
Riveness/Garcia bill is broader in that it would provide a new seat
for Eagan and Mendota Heights in addition to new seats for both
Richfield and Bloomington.
The bill was sent to the House Local Government and Metropolitan
Affairs Committee and the Senate Metropolitan and Local Government
Committee. No committee hearings have been scheduled yet.
3) Study of Unacceptable Aircraft Noise Levels in Schools
(Mahon/Riveness)
Sen. Phil Riveness and Rep. Mark Mahon introduced legislation to
require the MAC to conduct a study of aircraft noise levels in
school classrooms and report back to the Legislature in 1994. The
bill requires that the MAC selectively test various noise criteria
in public and private classrooms in a radius around the airport and
report findings to appropriate House and Senate committees by
January 15, 1994.
The bill was sent to the Senate Metropolitan and Local Government
Committee and the House Local Government and Metropolitan Affairs
Committee. No committee hearings have been scheduled yet.
4) State Impact Aid to Local Communities (Garcia/Ranum)
Legislation was introduced by Rep. Edwina Garcia, Rep. Mark
Mahon, Sen. Jane Ranum and Sen. Phil Riveness that will replace a
substantial portion of monies that are lost because of property
acquired due to state or metropolitan agency capital projects.
In Richfield, the legislation would enable the school district
and the City to receive a portion of taxes lost due to
improvements related to the airport, I-494, I-35W and other
similar projects..
• Legislative Auditor's Report
In April 1992, the Legislative Auditor's Office was authorized by
the Legislative Audit Commission, at the request of Sen. Phil
Riveness who is vice-chair, to examine the technical adequacy of
work completed by the MAC and the Metropolitan Council of the
capacity needs at the airport. The report was also to assess
whether the dual track planning process needed modifications.
The Auditor's office released a report to the Legislature in
February 1993 finding that the Met Council overstated future
capacity needs and future noise impacts at the airport in a study
which helped launch the dual track airport planning process.
The report found that the 1988 Met Council study of the adequacy
of the airport overestimated operational delay times, used
erroneous analyses of trends in hubbing activity at the airport,
and based its noise analysis on faulty statistical analysis and
methods. The Met Council's 1988 airport adequacy study
recommended the dual track airport planning process which the
Legislature created in 1989. The seven-year planning process
examines two options: expand the current airport versus build a
new replacement airport.
The Auditor's report recommended that the Met Council should
strengthen .its technical support, but did not recommend halting
or changing the timing of the current dual track process.
Continuing the dual track planning process will help the region
reach an informed decision.
Following the release of the Legislative Auditor's report, two
Dakota County Legislators introduced a bill to halt the dual
track airport planning process. Rep. Connie Morrison,
Burnsville, and Sen. Pat Pariseau, Farmington, are the chief
authors of the bill.
• Airport Communications Strategy
Jill Schultz, a communications consultant, was to evaluate
Richfield's current airport communications plan. She developed
an evaluation strategy which is broken down into five work tasks
with the project culminating into a final written report. This
report will provide recommendations for Richfield's
communications strategy on airport issues.
• MSP Noise Budget Review
At the MAC meeting held in March, the commissioners adopted the
Hearing Officer's Report of a public hearing held on November 30,
1992 concerning noise budget alternatives for consideration at MSP..
In the hearing report, MAC staff recommended the commission should
implement a new noise reduction strategy at MSP using negotiated
voluntary agreements with airlines serving MSP rather than adopting
a mandatory noise ordinance. The voluntary agreements will include
restrictions on Stage 2 aircraft operations from 11 p.m. to 6 a.m.
at the airport.
The MAC will implement a new noise budget methodology to replace
the Average Daily Noise Energy (ADNE) noise metric. MAC received
numerous complaints from citizens, airport and industry
representatives alike that ADNE is confusing and difficult to
understand.
MAC staff are to develop a new .noise budget strategy to include the
following parameters:
• Percentage reductions in Stage 2 aircraft operations at MSP to
.meet achievable goals .that bring meaningful noise reduction over
time.
• Performance accounting based on actual aircraft operations rather
than flight schedules.
• Noise reports kept during three periods: daytime (7 a.m. to 10
p.m.); nighttime (11 p.m. to 6 a.m.); and shoulder hours (10 p.m.
to 11 p.m. and 6 a.m. to 7 a.m.).
• Development of reporting mechanisms that are reasonable and can
be easily implemented.
MAC staff are not certain when the new noise budget will be
completed. When it is finished, it will be presented to the
Metropolitan Aircraft Sound Abatement Council (MASAC) for review
and approval before coming to the Commission for final approval.
Recommended Motion:
With this background information, the following recommendations are
provided to address these issues:
• New Ford Town/Rich Acres Acquisition
The Council should recommend a strategy for staff to seek funds
from the FAA for the New Ford Town and Rich Acres acquisition
project.
• FAA Part 150 Program.
Staff will continue to update the Council on the status of the
Sound Insulation Program.
• Revised MSP Noise Contour Map
Staff will inform the Council of the revised noise contour map and.
its impact on future funding and implementation of the sound
insulation project in Richfield.
_ • Proposed Airport Legislation
Staff will continue to update the Council on the status of
airport legislation introduced and passed during the 1993
Minnesota Legislative session.
• Legislative Auditor's Report
The Legislative Auditor will present the findings of the report
to the Bloomington City Council on April 12. Council may request
staff to invite the Auditor to make a similar presentation at an
upcoming City Council meeting.
• Airport Communications Strategy
Staff will continue to update the Council on the status of the
consultant's evaluation of the City's airport communications
plan.
• MSP Noise .Budget Review
Staff will inform the Council of the new noise budget strategy
that will be adopted by the MAC.
Alternative Recommendation:
A variety of alternative recommendations may be discussed at the
April 5, 1993 Study Session.
Discussion/Decision Mode:
These matters will be discussed at the April 5, 1993 Study
Session.
Re~,p~t~ully submitted,
Jam sV Prosser
Cit anager
JDP:ds
CITY OF RICHFIELD
Study Session Letter No. 8
Agenda April 5, 1993
Issue Statement:
Staff will discuss with the Council the philosophy of Community
Oriented Policing (C.O.P.).
Background•
For the past
planning and
are now at a
to proceed.
information
have a clear
direction to
six months, Public
training employees
stage where public
In addition, while
~n this concept, it
understanding of t
staff.
Safety has been researching,
in the philosophy of C.O.P. They
awareness and input is necessary
the Council. has received
is important that Council Members
he purpose of C.O.P. and provide
C.O.P. is a philosophy, not a program. Simply stated, it is a
means by which we begin to solve problems, rather than
continually react to them. It is working with the community to
achieve results, as well as empowering employees and customers to
enable them to accomplish goals without bureaucratic road blocks..
C.O.P. will take a great deal of effort and time to fully
implement. However, it is a proven concept with desired results.
Recommended Motion:
Staff will make a brief presentation and ask the Council to
become a part of this concept by providing input and direction.
Basis of Recommendation:
1. C.O.P. has proven to be an effective philosophy, directing
the use of public safety resources.
2. Traditional police concepts do not always resolve community
public safety concerns.
Alternative Recommendation:
The Public Safety Department could_ maintain the traditional
reactive police philosophy.
Discussion/Decision Mode:
No specific action is required. However, staff is desiring
direction and ideas.
Respectfully submitted,
Jame Prosser
City Manager
JDP:cak
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Study Session Letter No. 7
Agenda April 5, 1993
Issue Statement:
Review of 1993 Board of Review procedures.
Background•
The 1993 Richfield Board of Review is scheduled for Monday, May
3, 1993 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 1993 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.
For the twelfth year, the Richfield property assessment has been
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 3, 1993 a review session has been established for April 5,
1993. At that meeting Larry Miller, the Hennepin County
Principal Property Appraiser assigned to Richfield, will present
information pertaining to the 1993 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 fo'r 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,
1993.
Respectfully submitted,
James Prosser
City nager
JDP:ff
Copy: Larry Miller
Lawrence Emond
Glenn Erickson
CITY OF RICHFIELD
COUNCIL STUDY SESSION
MONDAY, APRIL 5, 1993
LOCAL BOARD OF REVIEW INFORMATION
~~
O
a
~i
is
:gi
~~t
~j
=3Si
P
`r
~~
~a
-~
~~
~~
ti
:,,, ~~
'~
MI II •j
)~
4r /i
~n ~~
i s'=~'
s
~ ~ '"' i - I it ~I ~I ~i If
- . ~ !, ~ i z
7~i~RU~zsszs:::za
_._._ ....i ._ _. _~~_...._._._. t _~~ __..._ ~ _.. _. .
:.
~~..
:.
h. ~ ~ ~.
«u 1 O
~~ ~
~ II
~~~
' ~ I ~~
.. .~~
(I
~ ,I ~ ~
.,.. ~ ~
~ ~
~ ~, . ~~w
°~ , ~~ ~ ~
~x ~ a
~ ~ ~9
1 O
~- . ,1 ~ g Q
~~ to ~ w
~: ~ ,X -: ~
M .. o
~ ~ :, ~
a „\ :.
~~
s
~ ~ ~ ~
a
•
A l
~ ..u. s
=3
~ N
nE
26-Mar-93 10/91 - 9/92 RICHFIELD RESIDENTIAL SALES '
10:41:04 HENNEriN INFORMATION .SERVICES IBM 3090 MVS/SP 2.1.1
RATIO
Count Midpoint One symbol equals approximately 1.50 occurrences
O 61.00 I
0 63.00 I
0 - 65.00 I -
0- - 67.00 I
0 69.00 I -
O 71.00 I.
0 73.00 I
1 75.00 I:
O 77.00 I .
1 79.00 I* -
8 81.00 I*****.
8 83.00 I*****
22 85.00 I***~**********:
41 87.00 I****x****~*~*****e**:****~*
bl 89.00 I~****~****~***e***~*~*****:~**********e** -
52 91.00 I**~~*~*~******~*****~**e~~*****;***
50 93.00 I**~***~~**e*~*e~~******e*~e~*~e**.
54 95.00 I~~~****~**~****~****~~***~*******;**
47 97.00 I**~*~**~**~~**~~*~**~~******~**,
24 00.00 Z****~*~***~*~~*e
30 101.00 I~~*****~***~****~**~.
18 103.00 I***********~
13 105.00 I*~~'~*****.
5 107.00 I*~*
3 109.00 I~~. -
6 111.00 I~:**
I 113.00 I: -
4 115.00 I**~'
1 117.OU .I~
1 119.00 I*
0 15 30 45 60 75
Histogram frequency
Mean 93.992 Median 93.446
Valid cases 452 Hissing cases 0
4
TWENTY-TWO YEAR REVIEW
ALL PROPERTY TYPES
I.istlng, Total Dollar Unit Average
Processed Volume Sales Sales Price
1971 30,083 S 345,264,966 12,430 527,776
1972 33,635 S 436,396,177 14.788 ` 529,510
1973 33,966 S 489,373.859 15,518 531,536
1974 27,865 S 500,401,086 14,481 534.555
1975 31,271 S 585,954,410 15,381 538,095
1976 34,940 S 773,837,914 18,476 541.883
1977 _
38,879 51,115,698,038 23,271 547,943
1978 36,095 51,?96,246,066 22.780 - 557,178
1979 40.007 51,351,465,288 20,466 566,417
1980 37,018 51,340,772,915 18,351 574,069
1981 35.580 51,249,787,584 15,675 580,238
1982 41,465 S 998,693,468 12,193. 582,288
1983 50.794 51,344,916,756 !5,914 584.953
1984 53,646 - 5(.544.535,531 18,231 585,007
1985 51,492 51,866,291,153 21,335 587,789
1986 58,382 52,523,647,113 28,015 590,319
1987 55,422 52,460,309,115 25,772 595.914
1988 80,771 53.211,389,403 34,244 593,977
1989 79,170 53.277,302,913 33,962 596.658
1990 78,548 53.372,262,409 34,496 598,016
1991 71.850 53,522,813,135 35,598 599,402
1992 72,730 54.309,040.911 41,944 5103,264
1992 RESIDENTIAL
HOME SALES:
AVERAGE /MEDIAN
PRICES : -
AVERAGE MEDIAN
January 106,300 90,600
February 105.900 91,600
March 105.100 90.500
April 107,500 - 89,800
May 110,300 91,600
June 110,500 90,100
July 106,700 89,500
August 101,400 88,600
September 106,200 91,300
October 105,400 91,600
November 106,200 90,600
December 107,100 91,000
>a Figures arc rounded to nearest SI00 and
include all residential sales for RMLS.
THIRTEEN YEAR REVIEW -SALES PRICE BY DISTRICT
MINNEAPOLIS AREA
%Change 1992 As
DIST. SECTION 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 Compared to
1991
550 Calhoun Harriet 575,795 584,176 586.183 586,184 583,141 590.444 592.897 598.682 5112.634 X115.451 x118.029 x121.117 5122.008 +.74
551 Cedar 191¢5-Loring 101,904 172,227 107,596 122.971 109,594 108.365 110.348 122.760 175.545 171,830 219.862 211,267 200.881 -4.92
552 North 48,786 53,244 52,244 52,792 53219 52.379 55,701 53.997 52.825 55.667 53,435 54,181 53.080 -2.03
553 Northeast 54,416 59,149 5x,834 58.317 59.321 59,534 61,672 63,045 63.370 63,840 64,645 65,414 66,234 +1.25
554 Parkway West 73,785 82,938 86.174 86,040 84,343 87,621 93,530 98.163 100,405 105,461 107,090 109,846 109.588 -23
555 Parkway Central 64,570 71,523 71,824 72,291 71,019 73,063 77,x09 76,851 80,189 832x1 83,712 86.840 88,446 +1.85
556 Parkway SOUth 56,600 81,778 62,259 61,380 61,825 62,883 63.364 67.130 88.616 66,973 70,761 70.595 70,652 +.OB
557 South 54,476 59,747 58,870 59,921 57,749 56,451 61,115 61.825 62,317 63,127 83,695 66,944 67,495 +.82
558 South Central 48,633 51,561 53,135 52,013 49,705 48,663 52,184 51,587 49,136 49.630 51,220 50,570 48,894 -3.20
559 Southeast 62.950 70.334 65.991 67,991 66,x55 86.221 73,861 74,314 73,196 79,685 81215 65.697 79.124 +20.44
560 St. Paul & Suburban 88,927 72,390 82,821 95,312 86,512 95.997 82.797 110.473
563 Isanti County 53,708 48,345 51,110 49.714 49.812 51,313 52.857 56,399 59,830 63.830 86235
564 Blaine-Lexingtn, Circle Pines 60,996 87,1x3 67,404 68,434 70,480 71,683 73.636 75.0.52 • • • • ,
565 Fal. Hgts-Roseville, Arden .85,584 94,584 92,812 101,411 96,x57 100.977 105.100 107244 -
Hilts-Shorevw -
566 New Brighton-Moundsvw, 75,1x9 x0.909 az,x12 96,002 x9,902 x4,322 89.x12 95.soa 9x.978 102.ae6 106,085
St. Anthony
567 COOn Rapids-Anoka 62.757 66,064 88,354 68,967 89,886 71,450 75,904 77,887
568 Fridley-Col Hts, Spmg Lk Pk 63,881 69,044 69.384 69,089 69,984 71,667 73,788 76.x04
569 Suburban NE 59,856 66,083 83248 88.821 85.901 67,449 74,165 78.903
570 Sibley County 66,783 70,351 69,x18 70,792 73238 73.920 79,503 88,176
571 Brooklyn Center-Park 64.284 69.767 71,303 71,081 71,869 71,441 75,812 77,837 87,606 - 89,468 89,401 89,104 91,869 +3.10
572 WrighUSherbume Counties 43218 53,674 52,x65 55.787 54,658 57.124 62232 65,081 69.880 72,120 74,130 77,850 82,442 +5.90
573 Golden Valley/Tyrol Hills 84,439 95,991 93.993 97,650 99.401 94,313. 105,237 105,371 114,238 113,613 118,860 119,438 119,699 +.22
574 PlymOUth 94,894 108,007 111,619 114,183 713,735 115,811 120,323 126,910 145.748 151,612 153,820 151,483 160,141 +5.72
575 Rbbnsdale-Crystal-Nw Hope 83.888 89,086 69,006 70,049 70,195 71,336 7x,433 77,689 80,144 81268 81,370 B1,t46 8x,468 +4.09
576 t)ytrt-Chmplin-Mp16GNe-OSSeO 71,195 76,457 90.921 eoS35 81.630 81.483 8ri.544 s~2,s27 10x.199 1x9.767 112,030 112.070 115,466 w9.o3
577 Sutwrban NW . 65,948 x,146 6x,756 ns20 85.859 91,262 90579 99,805 107,938 125,869 tt7,~0 148,008 135,x17 -x24
578 Richfield 65341 70,084 71,273 71,416 70,554 72.994 76.968 77,274 79,801 81,753 82,847 82,994 85,181 +2.64
579 East Bloomington 65,342 77,406 68,953 74,185 72,655 72,667 7x.210 79.500 83.435 x5.913 x6,052 85,943 89,375 +3.99
580 West Bloomington 92,670 99,746 105,758 105.008102,547 106,001 109,963 115,103 134,625 133.679 131,377 136,269 14x,396 +5.96
581 Mendota Hts-Eagan,lnver 74,015 83,158 82,921 86,309 87,304 91,148 95.817 105,342
Grove Hts -
582 BUmSVille 78.639 84,220 90,276 89,382 88,048 90,423 93.985 101,801 114,829 122,581 123,956 123,590
583 Suburban South 68,944 75,551 73,312 76,234 79228 83,848 83,261 87,231
584 Apple VllyRosemt.-Lkville 74,794 75,422 78,360 8x,331 85,673 93,624 93.401 103,109
585 Edina 117,089 128,756 135,963 135,758 136,726 141,083142.854 152,634 179,852 198,486 188,380 189,921 200,868 +5.76 -
587 Hopkins-Minnetonka 91,4x5 -98,399 104,761 104,678 105,942 107,569 112,915 122,772 138,603 150,368 148,8x9 148,371 154,544 +4.16
589 Lake Minnetonka 105,942 112,977 119,593 127,253 130.791 134,545 133,215 158,729 172,208 180,700 178,719 171,381 190,743 +11.31
591 St. LOUiS Park 88,958 71,711 74,699 76,743 75,036 76,722 79,091 79,587 90,582 90,369 91,206 93,633 94,582 +1.01
592 Eden Prairie 98,126 104,830 107,507 117,350 107,829 175,778 118,734126,632 148,971 163,400 167,836 157,322 168,219 +6.93
593 Eastern Carver County 67,727 75,498 75,857 74,617 75,544 80,888 80,402 89.643 112.418 120.318 130,022 129.359 141,155 +9.12
6
r __. 1._
SUBJECT PROPERTY
Address
PID
Story Height 1 Baths 1 Full ~ 3/4
1st Floor Area 1158 sg. ft. ~ Baths
Gross Building Area 1158 sg. ft. Finished Basement 580 sq. ft.
Year Built 1958 Walkout No
Condition Average Fireplace
2
1st Floor Rooms Living room, Air Conditioning
.
kitchen, 3 bedrooms
2nd Floor Rooms
Bedrooms
Garage
Ye s
2 car attached
Porches/Deck
Lot Size 50x133
Comments:
7
Y ~
~:.
GRID - COMPARABLE OATA
APPLICANT'S NAME:
ADDRESS:
PROPERTY ADDRESS:
P.I.O. #:
MUNIC:
TYPE OF BLOG.:~
STORY HEIGHT.:
1ST FLOOR AREA:
GROSS BLDG. AREA:
YR. OF CONST.:
CONDITION:
1ST FL. ROOMS:
ZND FL. ROOMS:
BEDROOMS:
BATHS:
HALF BATHS:
FiN. BSMT. SQ.Fi.
;WAL+;<OUT
FIREPLACE:
AIR CONO:
GnRAGc AREA:
PORCH AREA:
i0T SIZE:
Richfield
.SUBJECT
PROPERTY
Rambler
1
1158
1158
1958
Average
5
o
3
2
0~
580
No
2
Yes
440 Det
No
50x133
COMP T1
Rambler
1152
1152
1957
Average
5
0
3
2
0
576
No
2
Yes
576 Det
235 Deck
60x132
COMP ~2
Rambler
1
1170
1170
1954
Average
4
0
2
Z
0
585
No
0
No
462 Det
180 Deck
58x135
COMPS-SALE DATA:
SALE DATE
SALE PRICE
SALE/SQ.FT. (Gross Bldg. Area)
SUBJECT - ASSESSMENT DATA
1993 ASSESSMENT .90,000
ASSESSMENT/SQ.FT. 77 72
REi1ARKS
5/9.2
92,000
-79.86
8
9/92
88,900
75.98
COMP #3
Rambler
1
1168
1168
1957
Average
5
0
3
2
0
584
No
2
Yes
378 Att
144 G1P
60x131
11!92
91,000
77.91
COMP = `'
Rambler
1110
1110
1955
Average
5
0
3
2 .~
0
330 _
No
0
Yes
384 Det
No
60x135
10/92
88,000
79.27
1
~\~~
\~ti.
Yt
'Ij ~ _
_ ,.. - ~.
r
,~ I ,
_ i
r
_... , i
~~
~ _ -
r
- -.> .~ .:
COMPARABLE #1
~~ ~
_,'"fi: A
COMPARABLE #3
~~ ~ ~ f
{ ~ ,+ 1
'h .L
~_ fi ~~~ ~) ]jam-~-~
• 1S ~ J~y4p
i '<'1i
~ ~ r
j,: / ~:
• COMPARABLE #2
COMPARABLE #4
9
SUBJECT PROPERTY
Address
PID
Story Height 1.25 Baths 1 Full
1st Floor Area 840 sq. ft. ~ Baths 0
Gross Building Area 1050 sq. ft. Finished Basement 5$8 sq. ft.
Year Built 1951 Walkout No
Condition Average Fireplace No
1st Floor Rooms Living room Air Conditioning No
.
kitchen. 2 bedrooms Garage 1 car attached
2nd Floor Rooms 1 bedroom Porches/Deck 144 sq. ft. - Glazed Porch
Bedrooms 3 Lot Size 75 x 133
Comments:
10
GRID - COMPARABLE DATA
APPLICANT'S NAME:
ADDRESS:
PROPERTY ADDRESS:
P.I.O. ~:
MUNIC: Richfield
SUBJECT
PROPERTY COMP ~1 COMP ~2 COMP r€3 COMP =1
TYPE OF BLDG:: Expansion Expansion .Expansion Expansion ~ Expansior
STORY HEIGHT: 1.25 1.25 1.25. 1.25 1.25
1ST FLOOR AREA: 840 840 856 882 896
GROSS BLDG. AREA: 1050 1050 1070 1080 1076
YR. OF CONST.: 1951 1951 1949 1952 1950
CONDITION: Average Average Average Average Average
1ST FL. ROOMS: 4 5 5 5 5
2N0 FL. ROOMS: 1 1 1 1 1
BEDROOMS: 3 3 ~ 3 3 3
BATHS: 1 1 1 1 1
HALF BATHS: 0 0 0 0 1
FIN. BSMT. SQ.FT.: 588 420 428 441 - 268
WALKOUT : No No. No No No
FIREPLACE: 0 1 0 0 0
AIR CONO: No No No Yes No
GnRAGE AREA: 352 Att 484 Det 784 Det 280 Att 280 Att
PORCH AREA: 144 G1P 119 Deck No No 144 ScP
348 Deck
.LOT SIZE: 75x130 75x134 71x137 75x130 75x130
COMPS-SALE DATA:
SALE DATE
SALE PRICE
SALE/SQ.FT. (Gross Bldg. Area)
SUBJECT - ASSESSMENT DATA
1993 ASSESSMENT .79,000
ASSESSMENT/SQ.FT. 75.23
12/91 10/92 3/92 1/92
79,500 87,500 82,950 79,900
75.71 81.77 76.80 74.25
REi~ARKS
_. l
COMPARABLE #1
a,
COMPARABLE #3
• COMPARABLE #2
COMPARABLE #4
12
DATE: 8/88
SECTION: 4123
PAGE: 1
SUMMARY
Minnesota Statutes, Section 27.4.01 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 befoce February 15 each yeae~. The
meetings are held between April 1 and May 31.
DUTIES OF LOCAL HOARDS OF REVIEW
1. See that all taxable property in the township is ro erl assessed, valued and
classified.
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 now limited to mobile homes, 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.
So be sure to note the board may give consideration to both valuation and
classification of real and personal property.
5. The authority of the local board extends over the individual assessments of real
and personal pc ~perty. 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 equalisation.
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.
?. The local board of review doesn't 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. Occasionally a
taxpayer may appear 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.
SP:100 ~ ~ 3
DATE: 8/88
SECTION: 4123
- PAGE: 3
INFORMATION FOR LOCAL BOARDS OF REVIEW
The board of review, unless a longer period is approved by the Commissioner of
Revenue, must complete its work and adjourn within twenty days 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 i~ order to complete the work of the board of review
must be addressed to the Commissioner of Revenue in writing. The commissioner's
appcoval 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 pasta 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 ~eggrieved 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 inter-
vals 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 to view
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 deter-
mine the value of any property which because of its type or character may be
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 and
hearings held as provided by law. .
SP:100
15