Loading...
4-6-92 agendaCITY OF RICHFIELD CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION MONDAY, APRIL 6, 1992 6:00 P.M. CALL TO ORDER I. 6:00-6:30 P.M. REVIEW OF BOARD OF REVIEW PROCEDURES STUDY SESSION LETTER NO. 20 II. 6:30-6:45 P.M. DISCUSSION OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT TRUST FUND STUDY SESSION LETTER NO. 21 III. 6:45-7:00 P.M. DISCUSSION OF TRAFFIC/TRANSPORTATION STUDIES AND RELATED ISSUES STUDY SESSION LETTER NO. 22 IV. 7:00-8:00 P.M. POLICY AND STRATEGY RECOMMENDATIONS FOR AIRPORT RELATED ISSUES STUDY SESSION LETTER NO. 23 8:00 P.M. ADJOURNMENT ~~ City of Richfield, Minnesota Study Session Letter No. 23 .Agenda April 6, 1992 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 The New Ford Town/Rich Acres Neighbors Advisory Committee held a meeting on Saturday, March 21 with state and federal legislators, MAC staff and City officials. The purpose of the meeting was to discuss how funding can be identified and expedited to accomplish the buyout of the New Ford Town and Rich Acres neighborhoods. The meeting was very productive with some very clear conclusions which included: • There was agreement that the neighborhoods of New Ford and Rich.. Acres should be bought out. The residents from these areas, the City of Richfield and MAC agree on this fact . • The acquisition of these properties is consistent with Federal Part 150 and Metropolitan Council guidelines for land use surrounding the airport. • Other airports across the country have purchased homes adjacent to the airport. We are not establishing a new precedent. • The buyout should occur as soon as possible. Residents in this area want the buyout to begin no later than early 1993. The City and MAC have addressed all the salient issues regarding the details of the buyout. • The only issue that remains is securing FAA financing for the buyout. The FAA and MAC met for this purpose on April 1 in Washington, D.C. Legislators were asked to communicate their support for the buyout with a letter to the FAA. The Neighbors Committee is developing an "Action Agenda" to keep this issue in the forefront and to ensure that residents stay involved. The committee is scheduling future meetings with residents to discuss topics that need to be addressed. ~'~( • Legislative Update (1) Runway Construction Postponement Representative Edwina Garcia drafted a bill that would forestall MAC from constructing any major runway additions until the dual- track planning process was completed and the future of MSP airport was determined. The bill was not heard by the House Local Government and Metropolitan Affairs Committee this session. Senator Phil Riveness introduced the same bill to the Senate .Metropolitan. Affairs Committee. The committee proposed an amendment to the bill that would. delay implementation of the ::runway 4-22 project until the FAA Capacity Task Force completes an airport capacity study at MSP. The committee voted 6-6 on the amended bill which does not allow it to be reported out of .committee. .Because the bill was not heard by the House committee and not reported out of the Senate committee, the bill is effectively "dead" for this Legislative session. (2) Noise Mitigation Funding Representative Garcia and Senator Riveness introduced companion bills that would require MAC to spend certain increasing percentage minimums- of its annual capital improvement budget for off-site noise mitigation. The proposed legislation would increase MAC efforts by using a portion of the new revenue source, Passenger Facility Charges (PFC's). PFC's generate an additional $25 million per year of new money for MAC. The bill submitted by Senator Riveness (S.F. 2271) was recently approved by the Senate Metropolitan Affairs Committee (bill summary attached). An amended version of this bill (H.F. 2269) .with reduced funding levels was also approved by the House Local Government and Metropolitan Affairs Committee (copy of bill is attached). The floor vote is scheduled for the week of March 30 or April 6. If passed by the full House and Senate chambers, the bills will proceed to conference committee for reconciliation of differences between the two versions. If the Senate version is approved, Richfield's share of noise mitigation money will increase significantly. (3) Airport Planning Moratorium Senator Riveness decided not to introduce legislation that would have placed a moratorium on both expanding MSP airport and ...building a new airport until the need for either one could be -firmly established by an independent evaluation. Instead, Riveness (Vice-Chair of the Legislative Audit Commission) has asked that the Commission request the Office of the Legislative Auditor to review the entire major airport planning process, and report back on its effectiveness. The Legislative Audit Commission-will decide within the next month whether a full program evaluation should be conducted on the entire major airport planning process. Attached is a copy of a preliminary report prepared by the Legislative Auditor's Office regarding the issue. ~s • FAA Part 150 Program Attached is a Part 150 Update. which provides information about the sound insulation schedule and public meetings for eligible property owners in Richfield. • Draft EIS for Proposed Extension of Runway 4-22 The comment period deadline on the draft EIS has been extended. to April 17, 1992. The initial draft EIS was released on December 5, 1991. City staff is Currently preparing a response to the draft EIS which will be submitted by the deadline. Recommended Motion: °~ With this background information, the following recommendations are provided to address these issues: • New Ford Town/Rich Acres Acquisition Staff will. continue to inform the Council about the progress of the proposed acquisition of the New Ford Town and Rich Acres, neighborhoods. • Legislative Update Staff will continue to inform the Council of legislation that will affect the City of Richfield. • FAA Part 150 Program Staff will continue to update the Council of the FAA Part 150 Program. • Draft EIS for Proposed Extension of Runway 4-22 Staff will provide the Council with the comments submitted to MnDOT on April 17 regarding the draft EIS. Alternative Recommendation: A variety of alternative recommendations may be discussed at the April 6, 1992 Study Session. Discussion/Decision Mode: These matters will be discussed at the April 6, 1992 Study Session. Respectfully submitted, James Prosser City Manager JDP:kb Attachments SENATE FILE NO. 2271 There's little question that the Minneapolis-St. Paul airport has had a big impact on residents surrounding the airport. The question has been,."What can or should be done to reduce that noise impact?" The federal government has required airports across the country to develop plans for noise mitigation. MAC, working with surrounding cities, has developed a plan. One part of that plan, the residential noise insulation, provides a level of relief which appears to be strongly supported by airport neighbors. The cost of this program is estimated to be about $250 million. In-addition to residential noise insulation, other mitigation measures including land clearance and redevelopment are also included in the noise program. The noise mitigation measures are funded from Federal FAA Part 150 funds and local airport revenues. In the next seven years, from 1992 to 1998, MAC is scheduled to invest $300 million in capital improvements at MSP airport. That's roughly S43 million a year. About 11$ of this total, or about 54.6 million, is programed .for off-site noise mitigation.. At this rate of funding, it is estimated that it will take just less than 50 years to complete dust the residential noise insulation component of the noise abatement program. This level of funding is clearly inadequate. The bill as proposed would gradually increase the level of MAC funding for. noise mitigation purposes. The proposal-takes into consideration the following factors. • MAC, like other major airports across the country, has recently enacted the Passenger Facility Charge (PFC). This S3 per passenger charge will yield, according to MAC's revenues, an estimated 526.3 million annually. This is new revenue not previously available to MAC. • .Use of PFC's by MAC will reduce airport improvement funds an estimated S4 million annually; providing a net increase of S22 million for capital improvement projects. • MAC's capital improvement budget for the next seven years projects $300 million of improvements at MSP. 11$ is budgeted for off airport noise for a total of 532.6 million during the seven year period; an average of 54.6 million per year.- • Approximately one-third of the noise mitigation effort is scheduled to be funded from Federal Part 150 funds; approximately two-thirds, qr 52..9 million, from PFC's. ~~~ • The portion of PFC's 2c9emillion~oreroughly 11$fofsthe new noise mitigation is S PFC revenue. • The bill as proposed would provide the following level of funding: 1993 - S 6.6 million italSlmprovementvBudget (A6C.IfB.) Annualized Cap 1994 - S 7.9 million or 30$ of PFC revenues: 19$ of A.C.I.B. 1995 - S 9.2 million or 35$ of PFC revenues: 22$ of A.C.I.B. 1996 - 510.5 million or 40$ of PFC revenues: 25$ of A.C.I.B. This would provide a five year total of 534.2 million. When added to the federal 9ra=ovidedefordnoisenmitigation; period, 542.3 million would p increasing the percentage from 11$ to 14$ of the total capital improvement budget. • After the completion of the five years, approximately 19$ of the residential noise insulation would be completed. • If the funding levels remains as propWSOUddibetcomplete~ the residential noinethesyear1201program approximately Representatives from the Metropolitan Airports Commissireciable told us that it is not good business to provide any app increase in the level of funding for noise mitigation. During the next seven years, MAC is planning to spend 5270 million making the airport more convenient for Pareededicatin eapmereeS32 9 of the airport. At the same time, they le surrounding million to help reduconetpercenteofmthetrevenue forpthese capital the airport. Sixty- Charge. improvements wilnueeforrthedairport.PaRevenue thatlthey did not ..This is new reve have before. Revused toafund aamuchthighertlevelcofsnoise country is being abatement than here in Minnesota. ood business means funding noise abatement at a level For MAC,. g which would requirins0ulation at aostandardhthatshasabeen t at residential noise established on a national basis. Under25uyearsestThispwould time would be reduced to approximately allow MAC to continuence between theelevelo f thosevimprovements provide a better bala and relief provided to its neighbors. MAC has stated that they want to waitheedecisionrregardingethe commitment to noise abatement until t ~-1 new airport is made. Yet, at the same time, they are willing to commit hundreds of millions of dollars to improve the current airport site. It's time for a decision. That decision is whether we choose to provide a better balance between convenience to the flying public and protecting the health, safety and welfare of residents surrounding the airport. A decision about whether it is more important for airline passengers to get to their rental cars quicker or whether families can discuss their day's activities over the dinner table without being interrupted by the sound of jets roaring over their house; whether the students who live in homes surrounding the airport can do their homework without being interrupted by the regular din of .planes landing and taking off. ~~ ~ 03/09/92 18:16 ERESDEPT J DD/jb 'H2269A4 i". tc. :. ii ~ .: !F, t .{ r 1' Mso~ r ~~ • .i . a ~ .:~ '~ f t :• i ::,' ;, ; ~. ~.:, ~ & ~ . r,~~ '~~r•, . t, >~ 1 moves to amend 8. F. No. 2269, as follows: 2 Delete everything after the enacting clause. and insert: 3 "Section 1. Minnesota Statutes 1990, section 473.661, 4 subdivision 1, is amended to read: 5 Subdivision 1. The eennn~aafeeser commissioners shall, on or 6 before the first day of .July. of each .year, prepare a detailed 7 budget. of the needs of the corporation for the next fiscal year, 8 specifying separately in said budget the amounts to be expended 9~for acquisition of property, construction, payments on bonded 10 indebtedness, if any, operation, noise mitigation, and 11 maintenance, respectively, subject only to such changes as the 12 commissioners may from time to time approve. 13 Sec. 2. Minnesota Statutes 1990, section 473.661, is 14 amended by adding a subdivision to read: 15 Subd. 4. [NOISE MITIGATION.] (a) According to the schedule 16 in paragraph (b) of this subdivision, commission funds must be 17 .dedicated (1) to supplement the implementation of corrective 18 land use management measures approved by the Fede al A i i . r vat on • 19 Administration as part of the commission's Federal Aviation _,~' • . , 20 Regulations, part 150 noise compatibility p rogram, (2) for ~ t '~ ;~~ , 21 acquisition of properties which lie within the boundary created I ' 22 by highway 62 on the north, Cedar Avenue on the west, highway ~ i 23 494 on the south, and existing commission p roperties on the :;•,~ `~'3 24 east, (3) for soundproofing and accompanyin g air conditionfna of ~"«:: t; ~ f:'d A 1 ~~ t ~ r F, . • .:4 •"` ,~ i~ ~ ;+. . ..~ j... F ~T`; '' f :.. .~ ;i _,~ ~. . -. 74 03/09/92 18:16 ~RESDEPT ] DD/jb H2269A4 1 residences, schools and other public buildings. when there is a 2 demonstrated need because of aircraft noise, regardless of the 3 location of the building to be soundproofed, or any combination 4 of the three. 5 fib) The noise mitigation program described in paragraph (a) 6 of -this subdivision shall be funded by the commission from 7 whatever source of funds according to the following schedule: 8 In 1993, an amount equal to 25 percent of the passenger 9 facilities charges revenue amount budgeted by the commission for 10 1993s 1.1 In 1994, an amount equal to 30 percent of the passenger 12 facilities charges revenue amount budgeted by the commission for 13 199d; 14 I_n 1995, an amount equal to 35 percent of the passenger 15 facilities charges revenue amount budgeted by the commission for 16 1995s and 17 In 1996, an amount equal to 40 percent of the passenger 18 -facil ties charges revenue amount budgeted by the commission for 19 1996. 20 Vic) The commission's capital improvement protects. program, 21 and plan must reflect the requirements of this section. Aa part 22 of the commission's report to the legislature under section 23 473.621, subdivision la, the commission must provide a 24 description and the status of each noise mitigation protect 25 implemented under this section. 26 (d) Within 60 davs of submitting the commission's and the 27 metropolitan council's report and recommendations on maior 28 airport planning to the legislature as required by section 29 473.618, the commission, with the assistance of its sound 30 abatement advisory committee, shall make a recommendation to the 31 legislature regarding appropriate funding levels for noise 32 mitigation at Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport and in 33 the neighboring communities. 34 Sec. 3. (APPLICATION.) 35 This act applies in the counties of Anoka, Carver, Dakota, 36 Hennepin, Ramsey, Scott, and Washington." 2 '~' ~- .__ ~ _ r OFFICE OF THE LEGISLATIVE AUDITOR AIRPORT PrAN~G Background Paper March 4,1992 BACgGROUND 'Ibe 1987 Legislature requested a study by the Metropolitan Cbuncil an she casts and benefits of vanous airport "capacity enhanCe~nents." The Met Council responded by hiring consultants, estab- lishing anAirportAdequacyAdvisory Task Fo1Yx, and pubiishir-g a series of reports. The final con- sultant's report, and a Council report to the Legisla- ture were published in late 1958. In its report the Council recommended a dual track planning strat- egy that deie-cod a final decision ot1 whether to build a major new airport while enhancingthe au- rentarlaort (IIdSPj and selecting a situ and banking land for a new airport, In 1959, the Legislature ac- cepted the dual track planning process. The Council's study ais~ concluded that either a new airport or a ma}or runway addition to the exis€- ingairportwas nesx~ssary in the fairly near future, although it was quite uncertain about which of thc~e alternatives was best. Not onl~+ was there no conserssus of technical experts on this point, there was no political agreement on which path to take. The airline industry has undergone rapid changes in response to changing technology and a changing economic and regulatory emnronnient. These changes have continued in the last several years and have contained same surprises. Rapid growth in airport operations (take-orLs and Iand- ings) has abated at MSP and around the country. Same of the projections of airport demand aged by the Council in their 1988 study now appear too high is Iight of stable or declining airport use since that time. 'There are fewer airlines operating than in the past, and general aviation and military use of MSP has declined. Ia addition, the experience of other cities like Denver where a new airport will soon be put into service despite a decline of traffic at the existing airport is thought by some to provide ~~ a cautionary lesson. Another lesson to be gained i'rom recent experience here and elsewhere is that ::forecasting is not an exact science and canno# be pushed too hard to justify capital pmjecss of the or- dc7 caf magnitude of a new airport {3 to S billion dol- IaB~. Each year the Metropolitan Council prepares a report to the l:.egislatune on progress made in air- port planning. In 1989 a State Advisory, Council on Metropolitan Airport Planning was established to hear from the Council, The Metropolitan Airports Commission and other actors in the airport pIan- ningprocess. The Council reports annually to the Lcgisiaturr,, and in February 1992 reported that both operations and enplanemerng were within the forecasted range. An airport search area was also established in Dakota County this year, The Coun- cil is even suggesting that it will be possible >,a move up one year the date of ifs recommendation on whether to improve MSP or build a new airport and close MSP. Some have suggested that the planning process is on too fast a track, and that continuing consolida- tion of the industry as well as the experience of other cities should cause Minnesotans to slaw down and reexamine airport options. POSSIBLE EVALUATION ISSUES 1. is the planning process appropriate and ade- quate in terms of method, time frame, use of experts, public hearings, etc.? Have airport demand and capacity forecasts beers made us- ing areasonable and objective approach: Were any important planning options fore- closed prior to being properly investigated? e --- ...-- --_ ._ .._~..... ... __. __._ - ....~ _.. ..._.. ___ ~`r 2. Are costs and benefits of capital investment ~ ~~. __ alternatives ro rl con tualized and f P Pe Y t`~P : ~e .. ,. measured? Are direct benefits to the airline ~ - - .. _ _ industry distinguished from general oco~ nomic or cavironmental effects? ' 3. How do the assumptions and projections made in 19881aak in 1992? Are there addi- tional alternatives worth consideringfor meeting airport capacity needs? _ DISCUSSION - :The airportplanning process is both technically and politically complex. Varying 1?~P~'~ have generated different interpretations of statisti- cal forecasts, and projections of dea7nand and capac- ity are usherrntly imprecise. The planning horizon of 30 years now being considered is $ long time in an industry that is only 60 years old While the studies sponsored by the Metropolitan Council were prepared by several consulting firms with considerable expertise and credibility, there is by na means universal ae~ptanc:e of the conclu- sions of these studies. And there i$ uncertainty abvutwhcrc the plsnnmgprocess will end vp since -the studies do not arnve at a i"irm conclusion about aihat should be done. C?ne useful possibility for a study by the Program Evaluation Division is to critically reexamine the assumptions and methods used is forecasting air- port capacity and demand to sear if the conclusions of the studies, as revised in subsequent years, are justified, and to ~ it the time frame for reaching a decision is appropriate given the level of certainty that can by attached to any forax~st. °~"~ MAC has proposed a multiple project approach to sound insulation for 1992. This approach involves separating specific groups of homes into projects and grouping the projects intially into two O ~1D ICI LATI0~1 Ct1~D L~E FAA grants. The first grant is planned to begin in late April and includes two projects, 34 homes in Bloomington and 30 homes in Richfield. The second grant, includes two projects in Minneapolis of 39 homes each, and 7 homes in Eagan. Additional projects may be added depending on final FAA funding levels. the attached project implementation timetable illustrates the current schedule. approximats funding levels tMillion~ $800 000 $1 $2 $3 $4 $7 $8 $9 $10 n~itiaation costs b~- Ldn Ldn $8.8 Million 70 Ldn 65 $35.34 Million >~'- D S3s~4o,o00 ® ss,soo,ooo fUnDlfiG LEVELS years to complete rni~igation N pQ M M M ~ M pp ~ O M M The chart and table above illustrate time projections for completion of Part 150 sound proofing according to different possible funding levels. Total costs for sound proofing was estimated at $15,000 per home for this illustration, the MAC has adjusted that estimate to $25,000 per home, a factor which will obviously lengthen the project's completion time. >t. '~ The homes eligible for sound proofing during 1992 have been selected and aze represented on the attached map. There are approximately 30 homes included for 1992, more homes will be added should additional funds I' V ULIC / I~~II I~ Mme available. MAC has retained the Center for Energy and Urban Environment (CEUE) to administer the sound proofing program. The agency has opened a field office in the model home located in New Ford Town. CEUE will be conducting meetings with home owners residing in the eligible .blocks, the meetings will be held at the model home April 1 and 9, 1992. During the meeting, residents will have an opportunity to see and hear the results of differing levels of sound proofing as well as learn first hand what they might expect at their home. ~;~ ~ w m Q r w ~..~ E"'"" L.J 0 /~/~ MiM z 0 G..., Q z w w w c. ~ ~~~ ~~ ~ 3a ~ a~ 3 ~ ~~~ ~ v ~~ ~ ~~a N e '~~ ~ ~c~ .. ~_ ~': " ~ ~,,..i v z L:, -~ C }` C ~ R ~ y d ~ ~ d ~ £ ~o ~ ajnpa os a S - ~ x s Wy ~ ~ ~ ~. N ., vi ~ i~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ s,,,, ~ ~ ~ d ~ ~ £ ~o ~ ajnpa as a S - ~ ~~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ LL M ~ .,$ ~ w ~ ,~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~., a ~ 8 .~i ~ ~ •~ ~ ~ ... ~ ~ ~O ~ C~~ ( $ ~~ ii ~ D ~ ~ dC ~ yyv ~+~ QD U •r Tai N ~: ~ d ~ [ x ~ ~ d t ~a oid atnp ~s a S C °" ~ ~ ~'~ ~ ~ .. .fi ~~ ~ ~b ~ ~ Q L~ O ~ .: x d ~v ~ ~»~~ ~~' a~~~ ~ ~ ~~ o ~ ~ _~~ ~~ _---- _ a ~ . _ ~'~ ~:: ~y ai ,.,.~ ity~ V •~~ . • ~~~ ~~ S ~ . ~ ~ i ~ .' ; ~ ~ f . , ~ .-. u v ~+ C z z ~^ <a ~~ 4~ ~ ~~ I ~0 ~ ~ ` •s •3 : ~ C M N 'SAT ` •r '~Il 1 ~l9Np1 "S ~ 'y- '` ~ ~ Doti N N r •s v+ it '7ArN ~~ H N N 1p N ~ '~ ~y-r W{S ~ Wt~ ~ /~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ W FM a C C C C ~- O d r t t t ~z ..~ •~..~~ any ~~~ ' r.."' ~O , ~ 1 M ~ • ~ j ~3 d o ~ C ~~ r. enV 438 ~ ~ ~ L . ~ ~~ V V1 ~.,< I .... O ~ ~ ~ ~ .~ ~ •N ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ -------------- - en ~ ''~ - - - - r d PB'J V O ~ ~ ~~ a mm ZZ O eny 4381 Z Q ~ 1 ~ N~ ~; o ~ ~ ~t CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Study Session Letter No.22 Agenda April 6, 1992- Issue Statement• Discussion of Traffic/Transportation Studies and related items. Background: There are a number of traffic/transportation studies and issues of concern to Richfield. These include the I494 draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), the I35W draft EIS, and development of 77th Street. Don Fondrick, Community Services Director, will review-the following items: I494 draft EIS - Draft EIS due mid-March - Public information meeting May 20 (tentative) - Public hearing June 10 (tentative) I35W draft EIS - Draft EIS Executive Summary (revised) provided to Council with Ad Hoc I35W/I494 Traffic Committee April 1 agenda - Public information meeting April 23 (tentative) - Public hearing May 14 77th Street development - Draft Environmental Assessment available April 13 - Open house public information meeting May 5 - Public hearing May 5 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 6, 1992. Respectfu y submitted, Jame Prosser Cit anager JDP:ds ~r CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Study Session Letter No. 2~ Agenda April 6, 1992 Issue Statement• Discussion of the local government trust fund. Background: The 1991 Legislature enacted a local government trust fund. The trust fund provided an additional one-half percent sales tax. The additional sales tax revenue was to provide a secure, stable. base for funding local government aids. In 1992, the state administration proposed that the local government trust fund be used to help defray the state budget deficit. This would require a reduction in local government aids. The proposal raised a number of issues, including: • 5198 million of local government trust .fund monies would be used to pay -for state operations over a three year period. • The one-half percent local option sales tax was adopted in 1991 by local governments in order to provide a secure base of funding-local government aids. • City aid cuts accounted for 29~ of the total state budget cuts proposed by the Governor while city aid is only 6.6g of the state budget. No cuts were provided for counties or townships who provide many of the same services as cities. • Many .cities received no aid cuts, including higher property tax wealth cities like Bloomington, Minnetonka, Edina and Plymouth. Those cities receive HACA, but no LGA. Because those cities do not receive aid cuts,. the cuts to lower property tax wealth is greater. _ • The LGA cuts were in addition to city l~a~limits which were frozen in 1992. • The proposal would have significant impacts upon core cities such as Minneapolis ($15 million reduction), St Paul ($10 million reduction); inner ring suburbs, Richfield ($780,000 reduction), St. Louis Park ($1 million reduction); as well as out-state communities, Duluth (52.2 million reduction). Apparently, some legislators believe that the proposal does not make sense and have offered an alternative funding source. That funding source would be to require townships and counties to pay sales tax for city purchases. It is estimated that the impact on Richfield would be approximately $350,000 for all funds compared. with $780,000 loss of LGA. i~ Recommended Motion: Council discussion of this issue is appropriate. Basis for Recommendation: Council Members requested this item be placed on a Study Session agenda for review. Alternative Recommendation: The Council may decide to discuss this matter at a different time. Discussion/Decision Mode: This matter will be presented for discussion at the Study Session of April 6,.1992. ly submitted, Jame ~ Prosser City anager JDP:ds Attachments t Governor's proposal violates administration promises on integrity of trust fund The following article is reprinted in its entirety from the Oct. 25, 1991 Cities Bulletin. This article was submitted by State Revenue Commis- sinner Dorothy McClung to the League and many other organizations as a press release. Bold sections show promises about the integrity of the local government trust fund which have been violated by the Governor's proposal. JT Advisory Commission on ,Intergovernmental Relations renews partnership through Minnesota by Dorothy McClung, commissioner, Minnesota Department of Revenue The 1991 Minnesota Legislature established the Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations (ACIR). Its charge? To develop and recommend to the Legislature a formula, or formulas, W allocate the revenue of the local government trust fund (LGTF) to counties, cities, towns, and special taxing districts. The local government trust fund is a special, dedicated revenue fund established to provide property taz aids to local govern- . meats: I feel the ACIR represents a partnership opportunity for state officials and locally elected and appointed officials. We can all directly participate in the development of local government aid and allocation of state and local aid resources. Its membership consists of 20 people from throughout the state: legislative and nonlegislative. Nonlegislatrve members represent counties, cities, towns, and the state executive branch. ACIR represents a significant break from the past when "hired guns" took sins at state coffers for expanded local aids and when beleagured state policymakers raided local aids to balance state budgets, neither with a clear understanding of each other's needs. The ACIR is a means to bring understanding to the local government aid process in an open environment. Jim Mulder, executive director, Association of Minnesota Counties, puts it aptly when he says, "The ACIR will challenge local government to `put-up or shut-up.' By promoting accountability within the system on the part of both the state and local governments, all participants will be responsible for the taxes each raises and speeds. It will no knger be possible for either the state or k-ca1 governments to point as accusieg finger at the other." A state ACIR is not unique to Mimtesota. 'liMenty-siz states have adopted ouch advisory groups. The United States ACIR recom- mended all states organize such commissions in order to create neutral forums to discuss mutual interests and/or problems. These partnerships are ideal vehicles for improving intergovernmental cooperation, providing. objective research on policy issues, and disseminating information. However, Minnesota's ACIR wilt never function without s high degree of trust and commitment. These elements must be met by all parties affected through the decision making process of ACIR members, which n+present the broad interests of Minnesota's citizenry.. Overall support is essential. Consistency of the LGTF will be an integral part of developing trust and obtaining commitment to the ACIR The LGTF has been incorrectly represented as severing the state-local relationship. On the contrary, the LGTF allows the state-local relationship to be redefined in terms of .stability, structure, consistency, and fairness-and, thereby, severs the rancor and uncertainty that invaded the previous local government aids process. "We expect the ACIR to serve as guardian of the integrity of the LGTF; John Tomlinson, senior legislative represen- tative, League of Minnesota Cities, told me. "This includes revenues collected from each two cents of sales taz and the motor vehicle excise taz (MVET)" He also said, "The LGTF mast be protected ac the main sonree'of property taz relief aids with growth each year proportional to roles taz/MVET growth. If this fend is `raided' by reducing the 2tent sales tax revenue, or by adding new Programs paid by the fund, nothing will Lave changed in the state-local fiscal relationsLip-the new 1!2-cent local option sates taz will lone Its purpose " I couldn't agree more with Mr. Tomlinson, especially when he ezprecsed the League's feeling that integrity of the trast fund means greater stability year-to-year for local governments, as well as property tazpayets. Although the Legislature did not provide a specific appropriation for ACIR staff, a cooperative effort unfolded. The Association of Minnesota Counties, League of Minnesota Cities, and the Minnesota Department of Revenue recommended that staff from these organizations supply administrative assistance to the ACIR Staff will also look to appropri- ate state agencies, the Legislature, and local government associations for research and studies. I truly believe, as does the U.S. ACIR, that an evenhanded staff, responsive to atl the interests of the commission, is essential in maintaining what has been perceived as a delicate balance among state, wunty, city, and town officials. There is no question that Minnesota's ACIR has an important role in helping frame LGTF issues: aiding elected officials; informing private citizens about state-local relations; and serving as a model for effective intergovernmental processes. We in the executive branch understand the skepticism that county, city, and town government officials perceive regarding the sanctity of the LGTF and its insulation from fiscal state invasion. However, under difficult economic conditions, no one can absolutely ensure that any one budgetary unit of state government can beheld . harmless at the ezpense of others. Governor Carlson is an enthusiastic supporter of the LGTF and hopes to ensure it remaiec a clear and distinct resource, generally separate from other state budget considerations. Furthermore, the governor views the ACIR as an effective and renewed partnership for local fovernment units and the state to jointly manage this separate rewnrce, the local government trust fund. September 13,1991 PSge 4 Printed on recycled paper LMC~Cities Bulletin . ~ ~~ ~ ;. `~ as ociation of me~ro olitan munic~aiities~ p r~....~ ~i~:: ~f:~k _ Cleric RECE1vEJ ~'1E1R 1 1 1~~? Legislative ~..~...w_ ~ ....,... ~, .~ _. ,..~ J ~, ontact Alert March 9, 1992 TO: Mayors, Legislative Contacts and Managers/Administrators FROM: Roger Peterson, Director of Legislative Affairs Vern Peterson, Executive Director RE: GOVERNOR'S BIIDGET PROPOSAL AND STATIIS OF MAJOR METROPOLITAN AREA PROPOSED LEGISLATIVE BILLS I. GOVERNORS BIIDGET RA~'R~ CITIES! .COTS TO CITIES ODTRAGEOIIS! The Governor's overall budget proposal uses accounting gimmicks for savings of $178 million for schools, reduces `rainy day fund' by $140 million, cuts state agencies and higher education by $164 million, and cities LGA by $71.6 million. City aid cut of .$71.6 million is 23$ of LGA, equalization aid, and city disparity reduction aid. For cities receiving these aids, this equals an 8$-plus cut of Revenue base (i.e. aids plus levy). Schools, Counties, Towns, Special Districts, get ZERO cuts. They are held ,harmless! Not all cities are cut. Those receiving only HACA have no cut. Is this divide and conquer? Enclosed is a preliminary run showing the impact on AMM cities. The AMM position at this point is that cuts to cities are unnecessary. Additional use of the rainy day fund may cause small short term state borrowing but that would have no impact on the state's bond . rating and would certainly be preferable to the major impact the cuts would have on the general public health and safety if cities are forced to make large cuts. _ Cities .should contact- their legislators and relate how this may -1- 183 university avenue east, st paul, minnesota 55101 (612) 227-4008 v° impact locally. The AMM absolutely. ,battle among cities but pointing out towns are held harmless is appropriate. POINTS TO STRESS: does not want to get into a that schools, counties, and 1. Cities have already done their part. Local government, through aid cuts and support of sales tax increase, solved 41~ of the state's $1.2 billion problem in 1991 while accounting for only 10$ of the state budget. Likewise, we solved over 35$ of the problem in 1990. For the past 3 years, cities have taken cuts, held levies down, spent tax dollars wisely, reduced employees, and this is our reward. 2. .The administration says .this is a 1. ~ cut of base. This is very misleading. The cut is 1.1~ of ..all County, City, Town, and Special District Revenue but only cities are cut . The cut becomes 3.5~ of all city revenue but 7$ of. operating budgets when non-cuttable special assessment revenue is eliminated. Finally, the cut becomes about 8~ after non-LGA cities are removed. When one gets beyond smoke and mirrors, this is a 23$ cut of all city LGA and an 8~ cut of city revenue base. 3. Cities. need to communicate the impact of these cuts to their legislators. Remind them of the cutbacks already taken. Register indignation. Think about use.. of city newsletters and local media to get :the unfairness ..story out. It is about time the state. stops solving its .problems on the back of cities. Minnesota cities spend at about the national average, but when all Minnesota state and local governments are added together, spending is much greater than the national average. We aren't the problem and shouldn't be the solution. NOTE 1: THE ATTACHED RUN IS BASED ON ALL $71.6 MILLION AID COT COMING FROM. CITIES AID NOT INCLUDING HACA. THE REVENUE BASE IISED WAS 1991 WHICH SHOULD BE SIMILAR TO 1992. THE ACTUAL COTS MAY VARY BY A FEW DOLLARS. NOTE 2 :. THE AMIrI HAS JUST T F~-R~'D THAT THE ADMINISTRATION HAS DELAYED. RELEASING THE `ACTUAL PLAN ANV BILK, TSLiS TrIEY MAY SE WORKING ON CHANGES TO THEIR PROPOSAL? II. STATUS OF REY METRO BILLS: A. HF 1778 (REP. ORFIELD)-SF 1656 (SEN. MONDALE) WASTEWATER TREATMENT FINANCING: The AMM opposes this bill as noted in the AMM Legislative Contact Alert, dated February .27th. The bill was heard in the House Local Government and Metropolitan Affairs Committee on Thursday, March 5th. and was held over. It -2- ~.. ~> F-- W Z rZ Z V _Z W 1~ V A• L RS G A V° v 0 0 a L:7 v s s N ~ ~ s ~ s s° s s s p I~ „ ,, , O N O~ ~ N 00 n N 0 :~ C u L d a G Y D .C .r t t_ ~ L S t L ~ M N ... DO O ~ pp NO ~ ~ 00 C • ~ `~'+ Z U ~~ s° s s s° s ~ s s° ~ ~ s O .O y y M O~ N ~O "' ~D v~'S h M N N _ ~-+ N O Q ' V C V ~a 0. ~~ ~ ~ ",' c 3 ~ .. a ~ ~ ~ ~ e ~ w ..~ ~S ~ U < _z e .. z a, o ~ ~ ~ T ~ ~a `•~ ° ~ 3 zo w z 0 a w cC , e< Q z F U < . ~ > S F < .a U ., R a m p? m 3 Q V ~ C~ ~ °° c ~ Gi. 0. = O .; v~ d , = OC V .a z ~ Gz m w n~ ... ~ ~ ~y~ 3 E o 'o .. E N p N d r c ~ L p~ > _ U m ~+ ~,, - ~ d _ d p O ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ O o ~n~a ~ oE cn c c ~ ° o as ~ cn m c:° G aa N H V ~ C > _ ~ ~~N ~ ~a~ c o•-d o ..~,•- Ecna ~ ~ ~ c ~ oo~n r C ~ a~ ~ N ~ L ~ ~ Q ~ • ; ~ ~ Q ~( w • L N fO •1 M. ~ ~ ~` C 0 o\°\° ~ = ~ 7 U ~ l7 er y ,r M c ~ m 4 L ~ O ~ u _ II ~ m L a fA ._ C g °~ ~ V (LLf} W ~ ~ ~ 3 y C LL ~ C c ~ ~' a N $ ~ Q v ~ ~ ~ a H ~ N O O ~~~ d ~ ~ C C t!J off E E ~ ~ {r e u a u H ~. t~ a` '~ M V ^' o ~a 4J CC3 ~-( rr~1 1'V V •~ .~ U N G O u a N TI ~ a '° ~ e H `~ ~1 O\ a rt {n W C 0 .~ a 0 ~H -~ ~ 'c b ~ ~~ x i~ Q ~ U 0 ... .. N~~'-' 100 M'~ ~~ 0 MI ~.. U .'., A ,~ '~ ~,~3 UUHr~ E~ -_ . .~+ ~ ~ 3 ~ ~ (/~ f.+ ~ i. L ~ ~ o ~ _ '~ ,~ ~ •~ •~ p i l i V . V ~ Q L . ~ . «~ y~u ~ ««.. •~ u "" 'd ~ ~ ~ ~ H ~~~ 5~ '~ ~ ~ i i a ~•~,~, ~~ ~ ~ o ~ ~ ~ Aa ~ y ~ ~'~a'~ 5 ~ ~ Q'a.o u ~ ~ ~ ~"5 ~ ~ ~ ~ A v ~' ~ ~ ~~ ~ ,~ . A 1 i 1 a v VUcn Q.'~ ~, u~ ~ ~ ~ N ~ ~'~ i,•~ ~ y y H y 1 i i 1 .. h ~ ~ ~ ~~ a O U h 5 ~ ~ H H ~ ~ ~ ~~a ~ ~ ~ $ ~ ~ ~ 7~ ~ u . •~ 6~ d Q ~' 1 1 1 1 C7 C~ ~~ a:: ., Q VC3E~vai O ~ ~ ~ O ~ a Net N.-+ .r ri H {q N H ~~ 1 i i i G ^~ 5 ~+ o Q ~ A ~ Q '~ ~ La u ~+~ $~ K 1 ~1 E+v~ ~~3 ~~i Cg C3 ~ ~ O c E O y ~ ++ O ~ 'b ~ 'd h ~ ~ ~ ~ tt'~~ u his H e ~w.pp~y~~y tJ ~ ~ ~ V O i ~ v ~i ~ G aQ ~ b ~ ~ O ;~ • ~,,, ,b O .0. y a p ~ ~j ~ C .b r. = O o ~ 7 ~ Q u ~ ~ u aa ~~ M C o a aa ° o Y • O e ~ •~ o a O •~ ~o 'Q~ ... C O O .~ w ~ ~O "~ 4 ~ ~ a "~ ~~ o ~ '~ ~ a S c~ ~ •~ .~+ ~ t C .~ ~ a "'/ 7 .~ ~'i ~ y C O '" .5 ~ ,uc F ~ p u R `o ~~ •~ ~ •~ ~ ~ -~I ~ c~3 r~~ ` / O . ~ ~ ~ ~ . ry ~ ~ O U ~ l V ~ ~1 . ,..., ~ a (s.zEiioQ ~u~~suo~~ ~id~~ .gad autpuads O ~-~+ Q1 01 .-., M rn N ~, O Q1 U i.. v 0 U 0 c a~ E ~. Q V ~~'-.. _~ O "~ Q ~~ ~_ :~ o ~= O O C O C O O O O O C t/> ~ ~ M N ~-- ifr cA C.4 FR c% ~~. 4~ c~ 4~ U ~ ~ ~~ •~ o ~ ,.' ~o ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ .~ o ~ '~ a~ ~ ~a ~ ~ 0 w C~ U O _, , • :s ~. µ n M ~ • o ~ •f M k ~ :: ,:•r; ' H i • j ~,/5 ~'~r °• " ~ ~. ~L~`~!i',, . . .~,. ~~}~~ f ~}~' O ~~ A' .:c• tiiu'3 ~;~/~j//. . 3.•.y::{4~.'.,.:.. /!}iY). +I'+f'.!•.. iii:' '".}4; } ;:: 2.. ';. 3: x•:::yri:•nc'~',y ~}i. x 85 , , ^: :Si}+' :. ..v,. Yr: q:^:~}}i v.?}?i}:r ~>' aij•%'n ^iYi i•'l •:• .. .. {. . ,. . ! '~:?;;`::y:•:};: iii:}}~i {•},v,:^::;:•.'•T}N1:!!?yh:6i4ti;A;; Y: }: ii:?•:!.}i;'.i :i.: ?~t~:j!i•} n'~ii~':Y':'Y'~'~ {:i}.N?fiv,:;:>:F~:Air? i ';iv %:i'•.~:tt:;: i i ~? . ' j % t •, v j ~ ~>: f : :: %%i $ ~~ i !•4 ~ .; . . ; . ~b:. r .} i}: :}:•}as:. : : :Flt:[:i:%N } i}:.}:r}}}::}:}}: J:•Y.~::•f i:5iiii:Y.~ .:. }x.T::F.7..}.5:2' J•;::.~'fisi;:%'i,.4:;~!w'2:":; }: is :~ ::~?:j !;.;;;<:,•,i<: r :: }:a:: N::~%iy:'':%%'' :y{: l' i ^ . •'•~ o . y:•. ~' f~4 i2 •.? u ~ ~ ~ 0 0 ~ ~ ~ o (uot~~L~uI -10.~ pa~sn(~~) as~a.uul ~uaa.~ad r~ ~-.~ ~^r, ^V^ i~+~ `/ U C/~ i- c~ ~--~ .py i~:•.~ V i. ~/ ~J J J U ~~ C~ (~ U ~, U .~.-~ U u V 0 u C_ O 9 'I~ ~ V L 0 U 0 a~ "L7 cd i eti U h J U ~ ~ ~ v1 ~' ;N 4~ • ~ ~ ~ ~i .~ .~ O 4~ ~ .~ V ~ ~,, 0 a~ ~ U ~ ~ ~ O ~ ~ 0~ ~ ~ ~ O W ~ ~ O ~ 00 ~ /~ U V ~~ r{ O . ,.i M ' N u .~ ... . ?::.... ~ z , .. :K:.a::; .. F , .''~:~:° 2'i~. . < , y.~~,,, ~. _ .: ~.;; yam;: '`~,::r'S' S:~ .... ~;~;::;y:;.`~:y is titi~ • rK: a;i t' i :j :{ ;: ~~ yr ;~ ~ NC"r' f %k ~~. ' <vi i~Y: •~ i~ yi:~i: .;:: ~ C ; _ Kdq:F': ~v"~":~ G.;Yf. °My:;: ~ e} t+::.y: i iv>~ ry N' J:. ~ :..: J:v .,v::. '::'.; j i1::;:_ C v~ I I ~ ~ c~ L < ~ `~' = ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ca ~ ~ .r, ~ L/ ec `i' '.. ~ ~ C ...., O ~ cs ~ ~"' U i.. ~ y O ~" ~ ~ 0 ~I E y ;ELI I S O O '~' O N 0 O 0 t ..~^^ 0 vI o z O ~- tC H O N Q~ O U ~ a~ w 0 0 \ ~ o eo O ~ O ~ ~p Ca ' U L O U c.r 0 ~.+ ~ ~ ~ ~; O ~ c/7 r G~ O ~~ ^~ O W rn ~. V W ~ .~ V •~ O ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ O ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ U '~..~ O ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ r~l ~~ V ^~,, ~ ~ W ~~ O `~ ~1 ~/ .,..~ ^, ~ V are ~ . c~ ~I O 01 M 0 rl V 1 ~I I3 (~ U _H U C/? h . j U 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~ o 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~ i L f~ N V~,~ Z r v c G ~: 0 L M V ~ t.. er: r O N L~ 5 ... >> 1 ~: ~. ~"t X ~~:w. a w.~ ^ .~ . rornisE ~~broken k'. --. F. .. .`t , .. Analysis ernitients Wi~T 1}eve"rte ~8y; i}~' ~Qhce Now; taxpayers are'shelling ou 6.5 Rofficers tmd~firefi~ltters because. pf a ,cents. in sales tax° on each $1 '~pur- ~~ proposed ~tt~te„ atd tttL has:<;largely - `chase: But .Carlson has said he: v~on't :: =obscuzed, ~ic~:fact 'that stato:,ofl'icials hold up his end of the bargain. 'ire iibout;to: break~a; prottuse to tax- ~ . , , : ' `° .payers. :The governor wants to raid a knew ` • ` fund that: is to, `be used solely for ,A year ago, ,Gov..Arne Carlson and ...:.property tax relief and use the money the Legislature satd, that rf Minneso- - ' to limn cuts.. to other • types of State ~',tans~°would: pay an'ex#t~.lta7f>cettt tn'':,r;spendtng, .: :: . s ;state, sales taxes, thpyywou~c~rguaran- -. '. ~ .; ~'>:ee:.that a percentage gQttfalr~revenue ~` Legislators are likely to join. Carson `;would be.given.backCo local.govern =:3-:in breaking the. deal --- if A~. in meats as property tax•rehef .W •. I letter, then at least in sprnt. ;'- _ , .. 3..t. :~: county did; they faced enormous dis- preserve the trust fund, but it would -- - ---_. the next bienntttm.'The governor vo-= incentives if they didn't. essentially raid it through the back toed the homestead credit not bo- door. Instead of withdrawing money, . cause he wanted to end the tax relief'., With the passage of the sales tax the proposal would apply the existing program, but because there was a- The evenu surrounding the sales tax increase, the trust fund was created. 6.5 percent sales tax to purchases by dispute over a formula for how mon- ~:- deal, made at the end of the 1991 It was meant to provide local govern- local governments, which .currently ' ey from the trust fund would be dis- _~ legislative session, show how fleeting meets with a stable source of reve- are exempt from the tax. The change . tributed to local governments. such agreemenu can be, especially nue, which would end the Legisla- would raise about the same amount ' when the state is having financial lure's practice of cutting aid to local as Carlson's proposal. His pointed protection of the home-;.? troubles. .: governments every time the state felt ~,,, stead credit this y~at was a dare to' a financial pinch. :, .. ' "Local. governments certainly would - the Legislature to pi+flpoae ~ euttine It also reflects how eager state offs- " have to make adjustments in spend- that program and taking We blame. ~ cials are to shift part of the burden ~ Now they. need a little money, and ing,• but we think we would be up- ~. So far.. the tactic has silenced his for soh•ing the state budget problem "everyone ignores'.'.. last year's agree- _ holding the trust we made with local' . criUc~ oa We matter ; r' to local officials, who are left with the meet, said John Tomlinson, a senior governments," said Senate Tax ;. ' . • + ~ tough decisions to cut services or official for the League of Minnesota , Chairman' Dqug Johnson, DFL•>.' _ On the otlie[ 1;and, Carlaop~tsks ap- raise taxes. ~ Cities. Cook. , peana~ to~faror yvealthter 1lotpeown- To be sure, the governor has taken _: Carlson administrauoa officials said ~' iw Although Carlison's~proposal under- ers. Fir: propotal 'would , a~ the .. richest ttult»rba .from thC: iifate aid pains to preserve the . bomestead that with the current budget problem :cuts last year's promise, tt contains a cola I$orpeovyue~is in Ediniy~Iorth ; credit, the line that appears on home- the governor needs money from the touch of political brilliance. Home- Oaks and other p8luent attaa~would owners' tax bills. It is the most direct trust fund to balance the budget and owners are much: more interested in not `share We pain of solving .the and most popular form of property Qrcvent cuts in priority areas, includ- ,keeping their homestead credit, and budget problem: But. residents in tax relief, deducting hundreds of dot- rng K-12 education, courts and cot- .are far less likely to be outraged by . Minneapolis, St, Paul, Duluth. and lets from property tax bills. rections, and county social service 'cuts in an indirect form of property about 750 other cities'would. programs. tax relief -state aid to their local +,;p, _ n . But while he protected the home- ~' city governments. ' , In that sense, the Senate plan is fair- stead credit, Carlson also proposed "I don't know where in the heck else ~ ~ ~ er. The new sales tax would affect all withdrawing S66 million from the the money is going to come from," And although the net effect could be ` governments, including the county new Local Government Trust Fund. said Morrie Anderson, assistant reve- ~ the same, any anger probably would and township governments that The fund was established by. the gov- nue commissioner. be directed at local. officials, who `, would be exempted from Butt under r^or and the Legislature ss part of a would cut local services or raise taxes . Carlsods p1ap. Also,, the pew sales to solve last year's S 1 billion Legislators, too, have cut local gov- for next year. tax would give local governments t,....get mess. ernment.aid during previous budget some control over the extent of the ' crises, and they can be expected to do By preserving the homestead credit, cut, because they could trim spend- Under that agreement, counties were so again this year. Carlson also was scoring a point over ing on the items that are taxed. asked to raise the state sales tax to legislators and city officials who tried 6.5 percent from 6 percent. Every One proposal in the Senate would. to make hay out of his veto of it for • • -- -. - - CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Study Session Letter No.,~20 Agenda April 6, 1992. Issue Statement• Review of 1992 Board of Review procedures. Background• The 1992 Richfield Board of Review is scheduled for Wednesday,, April 29, 1992 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 confirmation by the City Council. Mr. Lawrence Emond and Mr. Glenn Erickson were recently appointed to serve on the 1992 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 eleventh 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 April 29, 1992, a review session has been established for April 6, 1992. At that meeting, Richfield Assessor Larry Miller will present information pertaining to the 1992 assessment 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 6, 1992. JDP:ds Res ully submitted, Ja D. Prosser Ci Manager ~^ ~ Y' ® v C \i k ~ C Z ©N ® u,a f-1 $.o jO -'~ ~ ° e C MO ~ "~W ~ i ; ~ 1 1 - ' R OCCCC~CCD X7000® CCOC©CCC ~o ~. C ~;`; - ° CCCC®CC~~aCCCC~ CCC ~. CC~~~C ~ ~ C O ~CC~~ ACC ~- ® CCC CCCCC~~ aCC ~ i ~ C®O ~' COCC ' ' C ~~~ 0©C CCCC®C ,~ C~~CCCCC®D C~OC CC C®© ~ w .' C~~C CC~C~CI °° ~ ~ ® - - ~ CCCC~C w• ~ ~ ~ W ~ D ~ ~~CCCCCCCCCC®L~ W ~ ~a ~ o ~ ~ C~CCC~~- ~ ~ "~ ~ oCCCC® ~ -~ ; ; ~ ~ ~• o ®_ ~~ ~ ~~ ~ C~®. D©CCC® _ ,~ ~ ~ ©~ a ~ ®®, I~®CCC©© ~ ~ ~ a ~"~. m _ ~ ~ ~ '^• °D CCCC®___ _ - _~ - ~ ' ~ ~ ®~®C0~ q ~~ S~~® ~ ~ ~ ~. oC ® C ®® // C , CD© ~ C ©~C W CCCC© ~C~ ~ ©CCC : `' ~ CCL~CC '°. GEC CC ,~ ®CC ~ _ ~ CC a gCC ®o ~ ~~C~O o E ®~ ~ ~' fs I ; I(~~1f~"~'q{-~(-I ~-11'"x(-'~ ~ ~ -TT1~11-~i ~~ ~ ---~------------fir ~~3. ~--~-~~ N OJ 07 07 m a'l f-' O rn N Q ~ H Q1 F-. ~-- z W ,~ ~ O ~ ~ H ~ ~ ~ ~ }~ W ~ co rn W ~ H ao ~ 07 U H ~1' ~ ~ m m rn c~ rn CD 07 0~ I~ CD LI7 d' CrJ N r- m r- I 0_ a~ s-- v a~ ~ ~ U .~ co ~ ~ a~ :a: i ' ~.t ii 25-Mar-92 10/90-9/ 91 RICHFIELD RESIDENTIAL SALES x"5:25:36.. HENNEPIN INFORMATION SERVICES. IBM 3090 MVS/SP 2.1.1 RATIO Count Midpoint One symbol equals approximately .1.20 occurrences' 0 61.00 I 0 63.00 I 1 65.00 I* - _ 0 67.00 I 0 69.00 I 0 71.00 I . 0 73.00 I - 0 75.00 I. _ 0 77.00 I . 3 -79.00 I***. 6 81:00 I*~~** 7 83.00 I****** .. . 19 85.00 I***~**~*~**~**~*, 32 87.00 I**~***~*~*****~~*****~;*~~* .~ 54 89.00 I*~***~****~**~**************;*~******~*****~~ 47" 91..00 I*~~~**~*~~~**~*~**~**~****~*~****;*~*** 54 93.00 I***~~~~~~~***~*****~*~*~*~~*******~:*******~* 43 95.00 I*~~****~~****~*~***~*****~****~**~*; 37 97..00 I****~~~~~~*****~***~**~**~~***~ 19 99.OO .I*********~~****~ , 17 lol.oo I~**~**~*~~~*~~ , 18 103.00 I*~****~*******; ~ 5 105.0.0 I**~* , 7 107.00 I~****: 5 109.00 I**:~ 4 111.00 I~:* ~ 2 113:00 I:~ 1 115.00 I* 2 117:00 I** - 0 119.00 I 0 12 24 36 48 60 Histogram frequency Mean - 93.643 Median 92.523 - " Valid cases 384 r ,f.~:; ~ - Missing cases 0 CITY OF.RICHFIELD 1982 Residential Sales Ratios 3 ~: . TWENTY-THREE YEAR REVIEW ALL PROPERTY TYPES 1Jatley Total Dollar Unit Average Proeaae d Volume Sala Sala Prlce 1968 18,891 f 245,650,706 10,461 523,482 1969 20,680 f 250,299,622 9.987 (25,255 1970 23,870 S 258,825,597 9,903 (25,903 1971 30,063 S 345,264,966 12.430 (27,776 1972 33,635 S 436,396,177 14,788 (29,510 1973 33.966 f .489,373,859 15,518 531,536 , 1974 27,865 f 500,401,086 14,481 (34,555 1975 31,271 f 585,954,410 15,381 338,095 1976 34,940 f 773,837,914 18,476 (41,883 1977 38,879 51,115,698.038 23,271 547,943 1978 36.095 (1,296,246,066 22,780 (57,178 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 15.675 550,238 1982 41,465 f 998,693,468 12.193 (82,288 1983 50,794 51,344,916,756 15,914 584,953 1984 53,646 51,544,535,531 18.231 585,007 1985 51,492 31,866,291,153 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 (3,277,302,913 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 1967.87 listings Orocessed include all listings (Single family, 2 units, business and lots and land). Sales reported include only residential listings. Average sales price figures do not include properties sold without reporting the sales price. wv '1991 RESIDENTIAL . --" '~'.".HOME SALES:. ~ ~ , AVERAGE~MEDIAN 'y "PRICES = _ ' . AVERAGE MEDIAN January f 98,800 (87.100 February 100,400 86,800 March 99,400 87,300 ADril 103,100 88,100 May 104,400 89,600 June 105,700 90,300 luly 101,500 85,900 August 101,400 87,400 September 101,100 87,400 October 103,900 88.000 November 106,600 88,300 December 104.200 89,100 ' Figures are rounded to nearest 5 100 and indude all residential sales for RMLS. TWELVE YEAR REVIEW -SALES PRICE BY DISTRICT MINNEAPOLIS AREA Dist' % Change 1991 As No. Section 1980 1981. 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 Compared to 1990 550 Calhoun Harriet (75,795 584,176 586,183 586,184 583,141 590,444 592.897 598,682 5112,634 5115,451 5116,029 5121,117 +4.39 551 Cedar-isles•Lonrig 101,904 112,227 107,596 122,971 109,594 108,365 110,348 122,760 175,545 171,830 219,862 211,267. -3.91 552 North 48,786 53,244 52,244 52,792 53.219 52,379 55,701 53,997 52,825 55,667 53,435 54,181 +1.40 553 Northeast 54,416 59,149 58,834 58,317 59,321 59,534 61,672 63,045 63,370 63,840 64,645 65,414 +1.19 554 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 +2.57 555 Parkway Central 64,570 71,523 71,824 72,291 71,019 73,063 77,409 76,851 80,189 83,241 83,712 86,840 +3.74 556 Parkway South 56,600 61,778 62,259 61,380 61,825 62,883 63,364 67,130 68,616 66,973 70,761 Y0.595 -.23 557 South 54,476 59,747 58,870 59,921 57,749 58,451 61,115 61,825 62,317 63,127 63,695 66,944 +5.10 . 558 S~mth Central 48,633 51,561 53,135 52,013 49,705 48,663 52,184 51,587 49,136 49,630 51,220 50,510 -1.39 559 South East .62,950 70,334 65,991 67,991. 66,455 66,221 .73,861 74,314 73,196 78,685 81,215 65,697 -19.11 560 St. Paui & Suburban 68,927 72,390 82,821 95,312 86,512 95,997 82,797 110,473 563 Isanti County 53,708 48,345 51,110 49,114 49,812 51,313 52,857 56,399 59,830 63,235 66,339 ' 564 Blaine•Lexington- 60,996 67,143 67,404 68,434 70.480 71,683 73,638 75.052 circle Pines 565 Falcon Heights•Roseville 85,584 94,584 92.812 101,411 96,457 100,977 105,100 107,244 Arden HSLsShoreview 566 New Brighton• 75,189 80,608 82,812 86,002 85,602 84,322 89,812 95,504 98,878 102,486 106,085 MoundsviewSL Anthony 567 Coon Rapids-Anoka 62,757 66,064 68,354 66,987 69,666 71,450 75,904 77,887 568 Fridley~Columbia Heights 63,881 69,044. 69,384 69,089 69,984 71,667 73,788 76,404 Spring Lake Park 569 Suburban NE 59,856 66.083 63,248 68,821 65,901 67,449 74,165 76,903 570 Anoka Cty. W. 66,783 70,351 69.418 70,792 73,238 73,920 79,503 86,176 571 Brooklyn CenterlPark 64,284 69,767 71,303 71,061 71.669 71,441 75,812 77,837 87,606 89,466 89,401 89,104 -.33 572 WrightSl>erlwme Counties 43,218 53,674 52,485 55,181 54,658 57,124 62,232 65,081 69,880 72,120 74,130 77,850 +5.02 573 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 +.49 574 Plymouth _94.694 108,007 111,619 114,183 113,135 115,811 120,323 126,910 145,748. 151,612 153,820 151,483 -1.52 575 Robbinsdale-Crystal- 63,888 69,086 69,006 70,049 70,195 71,336 74,433 77,689 80,144 81,266 81,370 81,146 -.28 New Hope 576 Maple GrovelOsseo 71,195 75,457 80,921 80,535 81,630 81,483 85,544 92,627 104,199 106,767 112,030 112,070 +.04 Champlin-Dayton 577 Suburban NW 65,948 69,146 64,756 77,620 85,859 91,262 90.579 98,805 107,938 125,869 117,650 148,008 +25.80 578 Richfield 65,341 70,084 71,273 71,416 70,554 72,994 76,968 77,274 79,801 81,753 82,847 82,994 +.12 579 East Bloomington 65.342 71,406 68,953 74,185 72,655 72,667 78,210 79,500 83,435 85,913 86,052 85,943 -.13 580 West Bloomington 92,670 99,746 105,758 105,008 102,547 106,001 109,963 115,103 134,625 133,679 131,377 136,269 +3.72 561 Mendota HLS.•Eagan 74,015 83,158 82,921 86,309 87,304 91.146 95,617 105,342 Inver Grove Heights 582 Burnsville 78,639 84,220 90.276 89,382 88,048 90,423 93.985. 101,801 114,829 122,581 123,956 123,590 -.30 583 Suburban South 68,944 75,551 73,312 76,234 79,228 83.848 83.261. 87,231 584 ADDIe Valley- 74,794 75,422 78,360 84.331 85,673 89,624 93,401 103,109 Rosemt-Lakeville 585 Edina 117,089 128,756 135,963 135,758 136,726 141,083 142,654 152,634 179,852 196,486 188,380 189,921 +.82 587 Hopkiru-Minnetonka 91,445 96,399 104,781 104,678 105,942 107,569 112,915 122,772 138,603 150,368 148,849 148,371 -.32 589 Lake Minnetonka 105,942 112,977 119,593 127.253 130.791 134,545 133,215 158,729 172,208 180,700 178,719 171,361 -4.12 591 Sl. Louis Park 66,958 71,711 74,699 76,743 75,036 76,722 79,091 79,587 90,582 90,369 91.206 93.633 +2.66 592 Eden Prairie 98,126 104,830 107,507 111,350 107,829 115,778 116,734 126,632 148,971 163,400 167,836 157,322 -6.26 593 Suburban SW 67,727 75,498 75,857 74,617 75,544 $0,886 80,402 89,643 112,418 120.318 130,022 129,359 -.51 4 ~1J8JECT Pf~~PE~TY Address PID Story Height 1 Baths 1 Full 1st Floor Area 1040 sq. ft. ''-z Baths p Gross Builcinc Area 1040 sq, ft. Finished Basement 415 sgo ft . Year Built 1951 Walkout No Condition Average Fireplace 1 ` 1st Floor Rooms Living room, Air Conditioning Yes kitchen, 3 bedrooms Garage 1 car deta h d 2nd Floor Rooms 0 Bedrooms Comments: c e Porches/Deck. 108 sq. ft. screen porch Lot Size 75 x 13.4 5 APPLICANT'S NAME: ADDRESS: PROPERTY ADDRESS: P.I.O. #: MUNIC: TYPE OF BLDG.: STORY HEIGHT: 1ST FLOOR AREA: GROSS BLDG. AREA: YR. OF CONST.: CONDITION: 1ST FL. ROOMS: 2ND FL. ROOMS: BEDROOMS: BATHS: HALF BATHS: FIN. BSMT. SQ.FT.: -WALKOUT: FIREPLACE: AIR COND: GARAGE AREA: PORCH AREA: LOT SIZE: SUBJECT PROPERTY Rambler 1 1040 1040 1951 Ave rage 5 0 3 0 415 No l Ye s 352 108 S.P. 75x134 COMPS-SALE DATA: SALE DATE SALE PRICE SALE/SQ.FT. SUBJECT - ASSESSMENT DATA 1992 ASSESSMENT ASSESSMENT/SQ.FT. REMARKS: GRID - COMPARABLE DATA Richfield COMP #1 COMP #2 COMP #3 COMP #4 Rambler Rambler Rambler Rambler 1 1 1 1 7 05'3 1040 1040 1 108 1.053 1040 1040 1108 1951_ 1953 1952 1957 Average Good Average Good 5 5 5 5 0 0 0 0 3 3 3 3 1 1 1 1~ 3/4 0 0 0 0 315 310 620 330 No No No No 2 0 1 0 No Yes Yes Yes 484 280 .480 2g2 No No No No 72x132 75x133 75x134 75x134 4/91 6/91 12/90 10/91 76,500 77,500 84,900 88,500 72.64 74.51 81.63 79.87 79,000 75.96 6 ~~; , -- f,,~ ?.~ . ~~~ CDC? 4c~' 3Zc. ~ I ~1^1c Address: rt- ,, +~`,.R 1, ~ ~ + { +`~. ~~ I ~-~ t. ~ ~ ;` ~, ; ~'t ~~ { %` t,,''~ .:, r ~!' ®'a ~ CC~.4RABL -r 2 jai ~ Address: - - - -- ~ _ r CD1-~.9.c'Zh3 Z.. s~ 3 tai c address 7 COI~41tABL.:, ?~ 4 1KZtnic : Address: :.; SU~JE~i' P~~QER~'Y Address PID Story Height 1.25 Baths 1 Full 1st Floor area 768 sq. ft. ~ Baths 0 Gross Building Area 960 sg. ft. Finished Basement 380 sq. ft. Year Built 1950 Walkout- No Condition Average Fireplace No 1st Floor Rccros Living room, Air Conditioning No kitchen, 2 bedrooms Garage 1 car detached 2nd Floor Pcoms 1 Bedroom Porches/Deck None Bedrooms 3 Lot Size 78 x 135 Comments: 8 aJ GRID - COMPARABLE DATA APPLICANT'S NAME: ADDRESS: PROPERTY ADDRESS: P.I.O. #: MUNIC: Richfield SUBJECT PROPERTY COMP #1 COMP #2 COMP #3 COMP =4 TYPE OF BLDG.: Expansion Expansion Expansion Expansion Expansion STORY HEIGHT: - - 1.25 t.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 1ST FLOOR AREA: 768 800' 768 780 840 GROSS BLDG. AREA: g6o 980 g60 g60 1.050 YR. OF CONST.: ]950 .194$ 1950 .1950 1850 CONDITION: Average Average Average Average Average 1ST FL. ROOMS: 4 4 4 4 5 2ND FL. ROOMS: 1 0 1 2 1 BEDROOMS: 3 2 3 3 3 BATHS: 1, 3/4 1 1 3/4 1 3/4 1 , , HALF BATHS: 0 0 0 0 0 FIN. BSMT. SQ.FT.: 460 0 380 310 330 ~fALKOUT: No No No No No FIREPLACE: 0 1 0 0 1 AIR CONO: Yes No No No Yes GARAGE AREA: 440 400 484 528 308 PORCH AREA: No 418 Deck No No 170 O.P. LOT SIZE: 78x135. 50x127 82x135 50x130 73x134 COMPS-SALE DATA: _SALf DATE 8/91 6/91 1/91 6/91. SALE PRICE 73,500 80,000 81,000 84,000 SALE/SQ.FT. (Gross Bldg. Area) 75.00 83.33 84.37 80.00 SUBJECT - ASSESSMENT DATA 1992 ASSESSMENT .75,100 ASSESSMENT/SQ.FT. 78.22 REHARKS: Comparable #4 has .remodeled kitchen. 9 COI~34c~e"i3i:. :~ I *~ni c Address: l- .~ ` <~ .- ``\` '. 1 COI~.9&~3 L ?~ 3 '*uni c address: ~' - _ - `manic Address: - ~_.~, ' Tfw. wC ~~ ~~,' ~~•. _~ ~ 11 _6 r 10 ~ i a- .: ~"'' ., CO)~.9.RABLF. ~~ 4. Ionic Address: DATE: 8/88 SECTION: 4123 r,- .,.. PAGE: 1 ti SUMMARY Minnesota Statutes, Section 274.Oi 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 15 each year. 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 rP operly 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 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. 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 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 DATE: 8/88 SECTION: 4123 PAGE: 2 8. In reviewing the individual assessments, the board may find instances of undervaluation. Before the board raises the market .value of property, it must notify the owner. The law doesn't prescribe any particular 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 classifica~ion that has been placed on his property or to contest or to protest any other matter relating to the taxability of his property. The board 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 cur- rent 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 board has the duty of making the assess- ment. 11. The complaints and objections of taxpayers who feel aggrieved with any assessments for the current year should be considered very carefully by the board. Such assessments must be reviewed in detail and the board has authority to make corrections it deems to be just. The board may adjourn from day to day until all cases have been heard. If complaints are received after the adjournment of the board of review, concerning changes made after the board of review, these shall be heard and determined by the county board of equalization. 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 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 board of review. The changes listed in the proceedings should be entered in the assessment book by the county assessor. SP:100 ~ 2 1~ DATE: 8/88 SECTION: 4123 PAGE: 3 INFORMATION FOR LOCAL 130ARDS 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 is 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 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- vats 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 into 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 13