04-01-91 agendaCITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Study Session Letter No.20
Agenda April 1, 1991
Issue Statement:
Discussion of City selection process. (Deferred from March 4,
1991 Study Session.)
Background:
At the February 11, 1991 City Council meeting, the City Council
asked that the City's hiring procedure be discussed at the next
Study Session. This item was placed on the March 4, 1991 agenda
but was deferred to the April 1 Study Session.
The memorandum (distributed with the March 4 letter) from Melanie
Ault, the City's Personnel Manager, outlines the City's hiring
and selection procedures. The process is set forth in detail
from the recruitment requisition to the job offer. Sample forms
and other materials contained within the packet give a detailed
look at the many aspects of a highly structured recruitment and
selection procedure.
Also provided was a copy of MN Statute 415.16, Employment;
Residence Requirement. The statute directly addresses the issue
of requiring that a person be a resident of the city as a
condition of employment. In Subdivision 1, the statute clearly
states that "no-city shall require that a person be a
resident ...as a condition of employment... except for positions
which by their duties require the employee to live on the
premises of the person's place of employment."
Further, City Ordinance 310.11, Residency Requirement, states
that while police and fire personnel shall be required to meet
such residency requirements as established by the Civil Service
Commission, "there are no residency requirements for other city
employees." However, in accordance with State Statutes, neither
the City nor the Commission may establish residence or response
time living restrictions for police and fire personnel. Such
restriction may only be established through negotiations with the
respective labor group effected.
Thus, the City does not apply any type of geographic based hiring
preference system. Advertisement for positions is generally
limited to the metro area via the Minneapolis Star Tribune and
the Minneapolis Spokesman. Job specifications are also sent out
to approximately 75 minority recruitment sources and any
appropriate trade journals, newsletters or schools in accordance
with the City's State certified Affirmative Action Plan.
0
The City's selection process is targeted at hiring the most
qualified applicant for the position. For some selection
processes which have been conducted in the past year,
applications for one position may number well over 100. The
range of applicants' home residency may vary from outstate
Minnesota or out of state as well as many metro area candidates
for typical positions. Many job seekers from outside our area
monitor the Star Tribune Sunday classified ads for employment
opportunities.
Hiring results have included the selection of individuals from
several different communities in Minnesota and especially the
metro area. Selections for the City's permanent part-time and
full-time vacancies during the past fourteen months include
several Richfield residents, who have been the best qualified
applicant for their respective positions.
Recommended Motion:
Discuss the selection procedures as outlined in the packet of
materials provided with the March 4 packets. If additional
copies of materials are needed, please contact the City Manager's
office.
Basis of Recommendation:
1. The City Council has directed staff to bring this issue
before the City Council at a Study Session for discussion.
2. Background materials have been prepared and are available for
review and discussion.
Alternative Recommendation:
None.
Discussion/Decision Mode:
Discussion on this issue has been identified by the City Council
for the April 1 Study Session.
Respec lly submitted,
James Prosser
City Manager
JDP:ds
C
•
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Study Session Letter No.19
Agenda April 1, 1991
Issue Statement:
Review of policy regarding payment of legal fees for Council
Members. (Deferred from the March 4, 1991 Study Session.)
Background:
At the January 28 City Council meeting, the Council directed
staff to place on a future work study session the issue of
payment of legal fees for Council Members. This item was placed
on the March 4 agenda but was deferred to the April 1 Study
Session. Attached is a letter from John Dean outlining general
obligations of the City regarding the payment of legal bills.
Recommended Motion:
Discuss the policy regarding the payment of legal fees for
Council Members.
Basis for Recommendation:
1. Council direction.
Alternative Recommendation:
1. None.
Discussion/Decision Mode:
This matter will be discussed at the Study Session of April 1.
Respectfully submitted,
Jame Prosser
City Fanager
JDP:ds
0
R= I., ti v`E: 1,1, C G 1 1? 1
Attorneys at Law
BERT A. A1.50P
'1. D. BAERTSCHI
a)NAI.D H. BATTY
MAK1' J. BRF.NDEN
STEPHEN J. BCBI'l.
ROBERT C. CARISON
CHRISTINE. M. CHALE.
JOIIN B. DEAN
MARI G. DOBBINS
JEFFRE.I ENG
STEFANIE: !S. GALEY
DAVID L. GRAVEN
CORRINE A. HEINE
JAMES S. HOLME:S
DAVID J. KENNEDY
JOHN R. LARSON
WELLINGTON H. I.AM
HOLMES & GRAVEN
CHARTERED
470 Pillsbury Center, Minneapolis. Minnesota 55402
(612)337.9300
Facsimile (612) 337.9310
WRITER'S DIRECT DIAL
337-9207
JULIE. A. LAULER
CHARLES L. LEFEVERE.
JOHN M. LEFEVRL.JR.
ROBERT J. LINDALL
LAt'RA K. MOLLET
DANIEI. R. NEIsoN
BARBARA L.PORTWOOD
MARY FRAN('ES SKAI.A
JAMES M. STROMMEN'
STEVEN M. TALI.E:N
JAMES J. THOMSON. JR.
LARRI M. WF.RTHEIM
BONNIE: L. WILKINS
OF COI NSEL
ROBERT 1.. DAYIDSO\
JOHN G. HOESCHLF.R
February 28, 1991
Mr. James D. Prosser
City Manager
City of Richfield
6700 Portland Ave., S.
Richfield, MN 55423
Dear Jim:
At the January 28 Council meeting, member Mike Sandahl requested that the City Council
undertake to formulate a policy covering the payment, by the City, of legal expenses
incurred by individual council members who become involved in litigation which arises out
of their activities as council members. You have asked me to prepare an information
letter which touches on both the legal framework which would control the various
elements of the policy, and to make some brief comments concerning some of the factors
which the Council may wish to consider as it considers the formulation of such a policy.
For convenience, I will divide my comments between situations in which the council
member is a defendant in litigation and situations in which the council member is a
plaintiff in litigation.
1. Council Member as Defendant.
Cities are re fired by state statute to defend and indemnify council members for
and against damages (including punitive damages) which are claimed or levied
against council members as a result of activities occurring in the performance of
their duties. The clear public policy behind this statutory mandate is that council
members should be free to perform their duties of office, and to make difficult and
possibly unpopular decisions without fear of being held personally liable.
Because this insulation from liability could possibly lead to an abuse of authority,
state law does exempt cities from being required to pay such costs in instances
where the council member has acted in bad faith. Whether the member has acted
in bad faith is a matter which can only be determined by a close review of all of
the facts and circumstances of the matter.
0
Mr. James Prosser
February 28, 1991
Page 2
It is my opinion that the question of payment of costs for defendant council
members is covered by state statute and is addressed as well in case law, and that
there is no compelling reason to formulate a policy statement other than to say
that statutory and case law will govern.
II. Council Member A Plaintiff.
The legal principle concerning this situation is a general rule of municipal law that
a municipality, but is not required, to expend monies which advance a
legitimate and important public objective, serve a public purpose, are closely
related to the performance of the responsibilities which are imposed on the
municipality.
Unfortunately, the statement of the general rule does not provide much guidance in
determining how to approach the question of payment in the real life situation.
It is probably more useful to analyze these matters by looking at a number of
questions.
A. Should the City never reimburse a council member?
A determination to never, under any circumstances, (short of a court
direction) reimburse a council member does not preclude a member from
commencing litigation. It may, however, tend to discourage such litigation.
10 It goes without saying that these kinds of litigation can be disruptive,
divisive, and can affect the ability of the council to work for consensus in
dealing with issues facing the City. On the otherhand, absent such
reimbursement, an issue of important and significant concern to the City
may not be resolved.
B. Are there situations in which reimbursement would be a ro riate? (This
question is reached only if the first one is answered in the negative.
1. Can a distinction be made on the basis of the nature of the litigation?
For example, if a council member is suing at least in part for
personal reasons, such as the denial of a request for rezoning of the
members property, should that be treated differently than a situation
where the member has no personal stake in the outcome of the
litigation?
2. Should reimbursement be available only if the member is successful
in the litigation?
3. Should reimbursement be made only in situations where the member
not only wins, but the action complained of is determined to be
without any possible basis in law or fact?
4. Should a distinction be made between situations where the member is
challenging a failure to act (deadlock), and a situation where the
member is challenging an action taken by a majority of the council?
•
Mr. James Prosser
February 28, 1991
Page 3
5.
6.
1. Has the litigation actually advanced a legitimate and important
public objective?
2. Even if such an objective has been advanced, has the litigation, on
balance, significantly damaged the functional relationship of the
council?
3. Should the legal costs of defending a decision not to pay be a relevant
factor?
4. Should the councilmember be reimbursed if reimbursement will
facilitate settlement of the case?
•
•
M.
Should reimbursement be made in situations where the litigation
could have been initiated by a person who is not on the council?
Should reimbursement be made if the issue could have been resolved
by means other than litigation?
C. Additional Questions.
Concluding Observations.
The Council will certainly benefit from a thorough discussion of this topic.
However, the formulation of my sort of detailed policy will not only be an
enormous task, but it will also carry with it risks that it may, because of the
policy, be obligated to make a reimbursement on some future matter.
Perhaps a general statement such as the following would be the best approach.
A. In instances in which a council member becomes a defendant in litigation
arising out of the performance of the council member's official duty,
questions of defense and indemnification will be resolved in accordance with
the provisions of state law.
B. In instances in which a council member initiates legal action against either
the City or other council members, as a general rule, the City will not
reimburse such initiating council member for the costs incurred in
connection with the litigation. The council may, however, resolve to pay
part or all of such costs upon a finding by it that extraordinary
circumstances exist which justify payment. A council member should never
initiate such litigation against the City or other council members in the
expectation that his or her legal fees and expenses will be reimbursed.
Respectfully y urs,
?-
J B. Dean
JBD:rsr
RC160-001
City of Richfield, Minnesota
Study Session Letter No. 18
Agenda, April 4, 1991
Issue Statement:
Policy and Strategy Recommendations for Airport Related Issues.
Background:
Recent developments regarding the airport include the following:
* MSP Long Term Comprehensive Plan
The MAC is required to prepare and submit to the Legislature a
MSP Long.Term Comprehensive Plan on January 1, 1992. The plan
will describe aviation demand and air transportation needs,
airport capacity limits and a plan for physical development.
This plan will recommend preferred runway and terminal designs
which will reflect the aviation facility needs to meet the year
2020 capacity demand.
Nigel Finney, MAC Deputy Executive Director, will give a
presentation at the Council Study Session to review the various
runway and terminal concepts in the plan.
• Interactive Community Planning at MSP
The MAC has developed three groups to assist with the MSP long
• term comprehensive plan. The three interactive groups include:
1. MSP AIRPORT PLANNING TASK FORCE
This task force includes local, state and metropolitan officials.
The group will meet regularly during 1991 to provide a sounding
board for work in progress on the long term comprehensive plan.
Jim Prosser has been designated to participate in the task force.
The task force held its first meeting on March 6. At the task
force meeting, the group reviewed the airfield and terminal
concepts, the initial evaluation of the consolidated concepts. A
presentation was made regarding a noise analysis being conducted.
A draft of evaluation criteria was also distributed for
discussion at a future meeting.
2. MSP AIRPORT INTERACTIVE PLANNING GROUP
This group will help determine off-site impacts and potential
mitigation measures for each airport development proposal in the
long term comprehensive plan. Members of this group include
elected officials from the communities surrounding MSP,
representatives from the Met Council and MAC.
Mayor Martin Kirsch and Bill Weaver are designated to this group.
Staff is developing a plan for the participation of the Planning
Commission and general public in this analysis. Attached is a
summary of the March 20 meeting.
3. MSP AIRPORT PLANNING REVIEW GROUP
This group will address and review the work of the MAC on the
long term comprehensive plan for MSP. Members include-
representatives from the Met Council, MAC and independent outside
experts.
In addition to these groups, the MAC will hold two MSP airport
planning workshops. The purpose of these workshops is to obtain
input from the participants on the long term comprehensive plan
concept which will provide direction to the MAC. One workshop
was held on January 30, 1991. Mayor Martin Kirsch and city staff
attended the meeting. There will be another workshop scheduled
in July 1991.
The MAC will hold public meetings with communities adjacent to
MSP in April/May and again in August/September on the various
airfield and terminal plans. The meetings are intended to
provide widespread community participation in the planning
process.
• Property Acquisition in New Ford Town and Rich Acres
City staff and consultants continue to develop a comprehensive
proposal for a joint powers of agreement between the City of
Richfield and MAC for the acquisition and management of New Ford
Town and Rich Acres which will be submitted to the MAC. This
proposal will provide a framework by which the MAC and Richfield
can cooperatively acquire the two neighborhoods, manage the
properties acquired and provide for their disposition for airport
uses or other development.
After the city submits the proposal to the MAC, both parties will
meet jointly to:
• explore the feasibility of a complete buy out of New Ford
Town and Rich Acres;
• develop a financial plan for the buy out;
• develop a legislative framework for the financing,
purchase and management of the property;
• develop an agreement to purchase the services of
the HRA for property acquisition, relocation and
interim property management;
• develop an agreement for compensating the school
district and city for lost revenues.
After the city and MAC develop a joint agreement, implementation
of the plan will occur as soon as possible.
The staff and consultants have developed a work schedule to
complete this project (attached).
• MAC Part 150 Program
The MAC hired a consulting firm, Aviation Planning Inc./Wyle
Laboratories, to develop with MAC staff and the Center for Energy
and Urban Environment (CEDE) the implementation plan for MSP's
Part 150 Land Use Program. According to the MAC, the plan will
define the yearly schedule and priorities of the Part 150 program
implementation at MSP, reflecting the multi-jurisdictional
interests of communities with the LDN 65-75 noise contours.
The MAC is forming the MSP Land Use Policy Advisory Committee to
meet with MAC staff and consultants to monitor and make
recommendations on the development of the land use implementation
plan. The committee will consist of the Chair and Vice Chair of
MASAC, representatives for communities surrounding MSP, the Met
Council and the FAA. The MAC asked each city to appoint a
representative to serve on the committee. On March 25, the City
Council appointed Bill Weaver as the representative.
The city representative will also act as the leader of a special
"City Core Team" selected by the city to assist with the
development of a list of Richfield's needs for the Part 150
program.
• MASAC
On February 11, the City Council appointed representatives and
alternatives to serve on MASAC. Kristal Stokes and Don Priebe
were appointed as representatives. Don Priebe declined
reappointment to the council. Mike Sandahl and Jim Prosser were
appointed as alternates.
• Runway 4/22 SID
At the MASAC meeting on March 26, a presentation was made
regarding the Standard Instrument Departure Procedure for Runway
4/22 which will be tested in May 1991. Jim Prosser and Kristal
Stokes will give an overview of the new.procedure at the Council
Study Session.
Recommended Motion:
With this background information, the following recommendations
are provided to address these issues:
• MSP Long Term Comprehensive Plan
Staff will continue to keep the Council updated of the proposed
MSP airfield and terminal concepts in the plan.
• Interactive Community Planning at MSP
Staff will continue to participate in the MSP interactive
planning groups and keep the Council updated of the topics
covered and tasks accomplished at these meetings.
• Property Acquisition in New Ford Town and Rich Acres
Staff and consultants will continue to meet and develop the
comprehensive joint powers of agreement proposal between the City
of Richfield and MAC. The Council will be updated on a regular
basis on the developments of the proposal.
0
e MAC Part 150 Program
Staff will continue to update the Council of the MSP Land Use
Policy Advisory Committee meetings. Also, the staff will develop
a core group of representatives to work with the MAC staff and
consultants. This group will specifically identify the homes,
schools and other public buildings located in Richfield affected
by airport noise that are eligible for Part 150 noise
compatibility projects (property acquisition, soundproofing and
other measures).
a MASAC
The Council should designate a MASAC representative to replace
Don Priebe.
a Runway 4/22 SID
Staff will inform the. Council of the SID test results which will
be conducted in May on Runway 4/22.
Alternative Recommendation:
A variety of alternative recommendations may be discussed at the
April 1, 1991 Study Session.
Discussion/Decision Mode:
These matters will be discussed at the April 1, 1991 Study
Session.
•
JDP:kab
Attachments
Respect ully submitted,
Jam D Prosser
City Manager
is
t
•
INTERGOVERNMENTAL PLANNING GROUP (IPG)
The March 20, 1990 meeting of the IPG focused on two major issues.
o a further discussion of the impact evaluation criteria (see attached)
o a presentation by HNTB of noise metrics and their impact on the six runway alternatives
The proposed impact evaluation criteria is to be further evaluated and expanded if needed by each
community. A copy of the outline is attached.
/'l
0-0
NOISE
The Ldn 65 data was computed in 1965 and reflects a coverage of 40,000 households while the year
2000 projections based on the original federal noise guidelines show only 20,000 households. The
difference is the result of applying the federal guideline which assumes a fleet of 85% Stage III
aircraft. The recently revised 2000 contours show that only 8,000 - 10,000 households fall within the
contour boundaries.
A MAJOR QUESTION REGARDING THESE CONTOURS : Will the aircraft mix at
MSP reflect the national policy? Some felt that local standards should be adopted that will
require the mix to match the national standard.
Residential areas will be mapped to illustrate the actual population falling within the noise contours of
each alternative.
The noise contours presented reflected the assumption that the new runway options would be used
primarily in a landing only mode. Such an assumption does not reflect the very real possibility that
some especially the north/south (36/18) could also function as a take off runway using 36. Also not
treated is the operational possibility that runway 22 will be favored as take-off runway over the
proposed 18, due to 22's close proximity to the terminal. All of the contours reflect the use of 4/22
consistent with its current use. It is clear that an analysis of real operations must be included in
the noise contour evaluations.
None of the analysis considered new air traffic control technology. Including new technology in the
analysis could drastically change the noise contours especially those to the south.
0.0
•
use of the Ldn 65 metric allows for consideration of number of occurrences. Ldn 65 is also used
because it reflects the federal standards upon which mitigation funding is based.
The next meeti of the IPG will be Wednesday April 10 at 8:00 am at MAC.
? s
•
0
WORK SCHEDULE (1991)
NEW FORD TOWN/RICH ACRES
,
PROPERTY ACQUISITION PROPOSAL
Task Time Task
2/14-2/28 Collect/Review Data Proposals
and City Files
3/1-3/8 Format/Collate/Organize/Construct
Strategy
3/8 Staff Workplan Session: Adopt Strategy
3/11-3/15 Prepare Proposal Outline with Blanks
3/15 Review Proposals and Workplan
3/15-3/22 Complete Initial Concepts For Proposal
Outline
3/22 Review/Discuss Initial Proposal Outline
3/25-4/5 Prepare Legal/Fiscal In Draft Proposal Form
4/8-4/19 Staff Review/Critique Draft Proposal
4/19 Adopt Staff Proposal
5/7 City Council Review
May Public Information Meeting
5/7-5/21 Prepare Council Proposal
5/23 Present to MAC
5/23-5/31 Meet/Review with MAC staff
6/4 Report to Council
6/5-6/21 Prepare Revised Proposal or Respond to
MAC Proposal
6/26 Present to City Council
•
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Study Session Letter No. 17
Agenda April 1, 1991
Issue Statement:
Review of 1991 Board of Review procedures.
Background:
The 1991 Richfield Board of Review is scheduled for Monday, April
29, 1991 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 1991
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 tenth 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, 1991, a review session has been established for April 1,
1991. At that meeting, Richfield Assessor Larry Miller will
present information pertaining to the 1991 assessment process.
Recommended Motion:
It is recommended that the Council prepare for the Board of Review
with a presentation from Larry Miller.
Basis For 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 1,
1991.
Respe fully submitted,
Jam D. Prosser
City 4-1- anager
JDP:ds
•
CITY OF RICHFIELD
COUNCIL STUDY SESSION
MONDAY, APRIL 1, 1991
is
LOCAL BOARD OF REVIEW INFORMATION
0
W
3
7
r
a
¦1
?a
a
J
N
t
n
11 All- 11
e
Vl ` 'o
[£ r e
is
s
S?
F
9
f
R
P
r
1
v
W W ?
L
_40 y
u
O
z
a
0 it
O
? w
V
k .y in
COM-
y
s
¦
N '
•
R; iC H FI E L D R E I D E f,,. ITI A L ?''II TH
•
N
rf
L!1
CL.
Z,
lu
iF
14
1
1
u
F
f_{
*Icy' F?
•
•
•
0 61.00 I
0 63.00 I.
0 65.00 I.
0 67.00 I.
0 69.00 I .
0 71.00 I
0 73.00 I
0 75.00 I
1 77.00 I*
4 79.00 I***
3 81.00 I**
13 83.00 I*********
16 85.00 I***********
27 87.00 I**************:***
33 89.00 I****************;*****
45 91.00 I*****************;************
61 93.00 I******************;**********************
58 95.00 I*******************;*******************
57 97.00 I*******************;******************
39 99.00 I******************;*******
31 101.00 I*****************:***
14 103.00 I*********
19 105.00 I************* .
8 107.00 I*****
2 109.00 I*
4 1'1.00 I***
5 113.00 I***
1 115.00 IN
1 117.00 I*
0 119.00 I
CITY OF RICHFIELD
1991 Residential Sales Ratios
is
• i
•
TWENTY-THREE YEAR REVIEW
ALL PROPERTY TYPES
ILthW Told DOBW Ua14 Awrags
rseeesa d Vollt?o SeNa Sags Price
1967 20.156 f 199.986,893 9.506 121.037
:986 18091 f '145.650,706 10.461 $23.482
19W - 20.66 f x50,299.622 9,967 $252S5
1970 23.870 f 258,825.597 _
9.903 $25.903
1971 30.063 f 345.264.966 12.430 127.776
IM 33ALS f 436396.177 14.7W $29510
1913 33.966 1 409373.859 15.518 $31.536
1974 27.865 $ SW,401,086 14.481 $34,555
1975 31271 f 585.954,410 15381 $38,096
1976 4,940 f 773,837,914 18,476 341.803
1977 38.879 SIMS'696.038 23271 (47.943
1978
1 38.095 51296246,066 22.780 157.178
19,
9 40,037 11351.406288 20.466 $66,417
1980 37.018 (1348,772.915 18351 374.068
1981 3S.5W f 1.249.787.584 15.675 180.238
1982 41.465 f 998.693.468 12.193 382=
Iwi 50.794 $1341.916.756 IS.914 $04.953
1984 53.016 $1.544.53553! 18,231 $05.007
1985 SIAM $1,806.291.153 21.335 $87.789
1986 50382 $2.523.6/7.113 28.015 $90319
1987 55422 $2.460.309.115 25.772 $95.914 "
1988 80,771 13.211309.903 34.244 $93.977
1989 79.170 $3.277.302.913 33.962 ' f96.658
19WU 70348 33372202AW 34.496 1198
016
1967187 listings pmaased include all lisungs iSingk (amily. 2 units. business and k8s and land). Saks .
reported include only
mikknlul Irstines. Average yaks twice figures Ito not inelu a properties sold wiltwAa reporting the Sal{ pica
1990 RESIDENTIAL
NOME SALES:-
AVERAGE/MEDIAN
PRICES
AVMGI6 MEDIAN
January f 94400 $83,000
February 100.900 86.600
March 1022W 86200
April 102,600 87.100
May 104.100 87.700
June 101,600 86.700
July 101,000 84,900
August 99.900 852W
September 99.500 84.700
October 99.900 85.10
November 99AM 84400
December 101.500 85.803
• Figures are rounded to nearest f 1 W and
include all residential sales for RML.&
TWELVE YEAR REVIEW - SALES PRICE BY DISTRICT
MINNEAPOLIS AREA
Dist.
No.
See""
1979
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1988
1987
1988
1989
1990 % Change 1990 As
Compared to 1989
5.50 Calhoun Hama $66.644 $75.795 $84,176 $86.183 $86.184 183.141 $90.4" 192897 $98,062 3112.K4 11115.451 (110.0'19 +30
551 Calw4sICS•4mng 89,055 101.9101 112227 107.598 122.971 109.594 108.365 110348 122.760 175.545 1711830 219
002 +27
95
552 North 4?4.W21 48.786 53244 52244 52.792 53219 52379 55.701 53.997 52.1125 55.087 ,
53
435 .
-441
553 Northeast 49.8805 54.416 59.149 58.834 58317 59,321 59.534 81.072 63.045 63370 03AW .
64.645 +1.20
554 Parkway West 66.766 T3.785 82.938 86.174 86.040 84.343 87.621 93.530 911AW IW.405 105.461 107:090 +154
555 Parkway Central S9.856 01570 71523 71.824 71291 71.019 73.063 77,409 • 76.851 80.189 83241 13
712 +57
5% Parkway Sngh 51A37 56003 61.,28 62,259 01380 61.825 ULM 61364 67.130 08.010 66973 ,
70.781 +5
06
557 South 49.085 54.476 59,747 58.870 59,921 57,749 58.451 61.115 fili 25 02317 61.127 63.095 .
+30
558 -south Central 45.971 48.833 51501 53,135 52.013 49.705 48.003 52.184 51587 49.136 49.030 51210 +3
20
SSW South East 58.765 62,950 70334 06,991 67.991 66,455 06121 73.861 74314 73.190 78.065 8121S .
+322
5W St. Paul 41 Suburban 56.420 08.0327 72390 8.1.8'11 95312 86.512 95.997 81s97 110.473
563 Isanti County - 53.708 48345 51.110 49.114 49.812 51313 52A57 50399 59,Kw 63,235 06
339 +4
91
SM Hlaina4xsiryga? 55.673 00.990 67.143 67.404 00.434 70.480 71.003 73.618 75
052 . .
Circle Dina .
585 Fakom HeWds4Aresille 76,617 85.584 94,584 92.512 101.411 98,457 100.977 105
103 107244
Arden Hills kweview .
566 New Hrighla?
MtKukbvww-S . Anthony 69.009 75.189 80.008 82.812 86.002 85.002 8432'1 89.812 95314 98.878 1192.406 106085 +351
567 Coon NapK4.An,ka 56.To6 62.757 66.064 68354 66.987 69.666 71.450 75.904 77.887
568 FndkyL;gumbia Heights 58.838 63.881 69.044 69384 09.089 69,984 71.867 73
788 76
404
Sprang lake Park . .
569 Suburban NE 50.482 59.858 80.083 63248 68.821 65,901 87.449 74.165 76.903
570 Anoka l'ty. W. 63.610 66.11K3 0:151 69,418 70.792 73238 73.920 79.503 86.176
571 Brooldyn Centwl?wk 60.650 64284 09.767 713M 71.061 71.069 71.141 75.812 12.837 87,606 89
466 401
89 -
07
522 Wngk4herburne Counks - 43218 53.674 52,485 55.181 54,058 57,124 82,232 65.081 09.880 ,
-2.120 .
74
130 .
+2
79
57.3 Wden Valky TynA Hill i7A72 84,439 95,991 90.993 91.650 99.401 94313 105.237 105371 114238 113.613 .
118
80% .
+4
02
574 Irlymowth 06.8W 94,0034 I08.W7 111.619 114.183 113.135 115.611 1:01323 126.910 145.748 151.612 .
153
820 .
+1
46
575 NobhinsdakyrystaJL
New Hope 59.633 63.8tl8 89188 69.006 70.049 70.195 71336 74.433 77.689 80.144 81206 .
81370 .
+33
576 Mapk Cr ovel0wen - 71.195 75.457 WWI 80535 81.630 191.483 85.544 92
627 104
199 106787 112
1
ChampBr?DayOm . . .0;
0 +433
577 Suburban NW 61.721 65.948 09.148 64.756 77.620 85.859 91.262 W0.529 98.805 107.938 115.869 117
8850 -6
53
578 NichfwW 00,051 65.341 70.884 71.273 71.416 70.554 7..994 VOW 77
274 2101
03 81
75{ .
7 .
579
East Bloomington
59372
65342
71.406
08,953
74.185
71,655
72.007
78.210 ,
79
500 .
83
435 .
85
913 82139
6 +1.40
SM)
W.,A Hkwnningro n
89.843
92.070
99.748
105.758
105.038
1112,547
100.1411
109.903 .
115
103 ,
134
6825 .
133
679 0
,052
3 +.16
-
581
Mendota Hts.-Eagan
09314
74.015
83.158
82.9'11
MAN
87.304
91.148
95
617 .
105
342 . . 1
1371 -1.4
1
Inver tiny Hetghts . .
-w Hurnswlk 71.919 78.039 84=0 90.276 89382 MM348 90,423 93,985 In1.Mt11 114.829 172
581 950
133 +1
12
SW Suburban South tijA15 66.944 755.551 73,312 76.734 79.:18 83.848 81.261 87.231 . . .
584 APpk Valley 67.015 74,794 75.472 78,3210 84.331 85.673 89.024 93,401 103
109
NusemL•l.okevdk .
:rMS Edma 104.923 117.089 128.856 135.963 135,758 1:18.-16 14I,021'8 142,654 152,634 179,852 196
4NO 11R3
3W) -4
13
887 Hupknts-Annelunka 78.139 91.445 96.399 104,781 104.1978 105.942 107.361 112.915 171
772 138
611:1 .
150308 , .
SM
Like Minnetonka
89.050
105,942
112.977
119.593
127.253
130.791
134.545
133.215 ,
1501
7103 .
172.Lv4
IM
7 148.849 -1.01
591
SL l ants Park
59.090
66.9%
71.711
74.699
76.743
75.036
26
772
79
091 .
79
587 1M1
U. 178,719 -1.10
592
Eden Hrarne
89,153
98.126
104.830
107,507
111.350
107.829 .
115778 ,
136
734 .
126
032 90.5882 90.369 91.2.06 +.93
593
Suburban SW
63.298
57,727
75
498
75
857
74
017
75
544
0186
80 , . 148.971 1014W 167,810 +2.71
, , , . . 80.482 89.643 112.418 120318 I:lU.llr!2 +8.07
•
SUBJECT PROPERTY
Address
P I D
0 Story Height 1 Baths 1 Full 3/4 Down
1st Floor Area 1150 sq. ft. I Baths
0
Gross Building Area 1150 sq. ft. Finished Basement 350
Year Built 1955 Walkout No
Condition Average Fireplace 1
1st Floor Rooms Living room, family Air Conditioning Yes
room, kitchen, 3 bedrooms Garage Two car detached
2nd Floor Rooms 0 Porches/Deck 168 sq. ft. deck
Bedrooms Lot Size 60 x 134
Comments:
GRID - COMPARABLE DATA
APPLICANT'S NAME:
40- DORESS:
ROPERTY ADDRESS:
P.I.O. #:
MUNIC: Richfield
SUBJECT
PROPERTY COMP #1 COMP #2 COMP 43 COMP Z74
TYPE OF BLDG.: Rambler Rambler Rambler Rambler Rambler
STORY HEIGHT: 1 1
1 1 1
1ST FLOOR AREA: 1150 1080 1086 1280 1192
GROSS BLDG. AREA: 1150 1080 1086 1280 1192
YR. OF CONST.: 1955 1953 1955 1955 1955
CONDITION: Average Average Average Average Average
1ST FL. ROOMS: 6 6 5 6 6
2ND FL. ROOMS: 0 0 0 0 0
BEDROOMS: 3 3 3 3 3
BATHS: 1, 3/4 1, 3/4 1, 3/4 1
3/4 1
HALF BATHS: 0 0 0 ,
0 0
IN. BSMT. SQ.Fi.:
Q 350 650 540 510 480
LKOUT: No No No No No
FIREPLACE: 1 0 2 2 0
AIR COND: Yes No Yes No Yes
GARAGE AREA: 44o 352 24o 48o 528
PORCH AREA: 168 Deck 400 Deck No No 240 Deck
LOT SIZE: 60x134 75x133 60x132 66x134 60x134
COMPS-SALE DATA:
SALE DATE 6/90 9/90 1/90 3/90
SALE PRICE 82,000 86,000 89,g00 92,000
SALE/SQ.FT. 75.92 79.18 70.23 77.18
SUBJECT - ASSESSMENT DATA
1991 ASSESSMENT 83,900
ASSESSMENT/SQ.FT. 72.95
REMARKS: Comparable #4 has remodeled kitchen.
COMPARABLE 4 1
Munic:
Address:
0s
COMPARAB I.E # 3
:'Zuni c :
0Address:
COMPARABLE 2
Munic:
Address:
COMPARABLE # 4
,Tunic :
Address:
•
1
A
W_ f. ,r ' -...
s t" n' err _?"'. v%4.
` SUBJECT PROPERTY
Address
PID
Story Height 1.25 Baths 1 Full
1st Floor Area 832 sq. ft. Baths 0
Gross Building Area 1040 sq. ft. Finished Basement 415
Year Built 1950 Walkout No
Condition Average Fireplace 1
1st Floor Rooms Living room, Air Conditioning No
kitchen, 2 bedrooms Garage 1 car detached
2nd Floor Rooms Bedroom Porches/Deck 192 sq. ft. deck
Bedrooms Lot Size 62 x 135
Comments:
is
GRID - COMPARABLE DATA
APPLICANT'S NAME:
0DORESS:
PROPERTY ADDRESS:
P.I.O. #:
MUNIC: Richfield
SUBJECT
PROPERTY COMP #1 COMP #2 COMP 43 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: 832 820 768 840 857
GROSS BLDG. AREA: 1040 1015 960 1050 1057
YR. OF CONST.: 1950 1953 1952 1952 1952
CONDITION: Average Average Average Average Average
1ST FL. ROOMS: 4 4 4 5
5
2ND FL. ROOMS: 1 1 1
1 1
BEDROOMS: 3 3 3 3 3
BATHS: 1 1, 3/4 1 1
3/4 1
HALF BATHS: 0 0 0 ,
0 0
Q IN. BSMT. SQ.7.: 415 410 380 420 425
ALKOUT: No
No
No
No
No
FIREPLACE: 1 0 0 0 1
AIR CONO: No No Yes Yes - No
GARAGE AREA: 352 400 528 48o 352
PORCH AREA: 192 Deck 240 O.P. No No 404 Deck
LOT SIZE: 62x135 75x135 50x135 40x128 60x135
COMPS-SALE DATA:
SALE DATE 1/90 5/90 6/90 1/90
SALE PRICE 78,300 80,000 87,500 90,500
SALE/SQ.FT. (Gross Bldg. Area) 77.14 83.33 83.33 85.62
SUBJECT- ASSESSMENT DATA
1991 ASSESSMENT .77,300
ASSESSMENT/SQ.FT. 74.32
REMARKS: Comparable s #1, 3, and 4 have remodeled kitchens.
0
COMPARABLE # 1
Music:
Address:
? 10
COMPARABLE # 3
Munic:
Address:
COMPARABLE # 4
Munic:
Address:
COMPARABLE-# 2
Munic:
Address:
DATE: 7/86
SECTION: 4110
PAGE: 1
•
NOTICE OF VALUATION
Any county assessor or city assessor having the powers of a county assessor, valuing
or classifying taxable real property shall in each year notify those persons whose
property is to be assessed or reclassified that year if the person's address is known to
the assessor, otherwise the occupant of the property. The notice shall be in writing
and shall be sent by ordinary mail at least ten days before the meeting of the local
board of review or equalization. It shall contain the amount of the valuation in terms
of market value, the new classification, the assessor's office address, and the dates,
places, and times set for the meetings of the local board of review or equalization
and the county board of equalization. If the assessment roll is not complete, the
notice shall be sent by ordinary mail at least ten days prior to the date on which the
board of review has adjourned. The assessor shall attach to the assessment roll a
statement that the notices required by this section have been mailed. Any assessor
who is not provided sufficient funds from his governing body to provide such notices,
may make application to the Commissioner of Revenue to finance such notices. The
Commissioner of Revenue shall conduct an investigation and if he is satisfied that the
assessor does not have the necessary funds, issue his certification to the commissioner
of finance of the amount necessary to provide such notices. The commissioner of
finance shall issue a warrant for such amount and shall deduct such amount from any
state payment to such county or municipality. The necessary funds to make such
payments are hereby appropriated. Failure to receive the notice shall in no way affect
the validity of the assessment, the resulting tax, the procedures of any board of review
or equalization, or the enforcement of delinquent taxes by statutory means. (M.S.
273.121)
•
SP:12
DATE: 7/86
SECTION: 4111
PAGE: 1
•
NOTICE OF MEETING
The clerk shall give at least ten days posted notice of the time and place of the
meeting of the board of review; but the failure to give such notice or hold such meet-
ing shall not vitiate any assessment, except as to the excess over the market value of
the property. (M.S. 274.03)
U_..?
SP:12
DATE: 5/90
SECTION: 4120
PAGE: 1
•
LOCAL BOARD OF REVIEW - DUTIES
The town board of each town, the council or other governing body of each city, is the
board of review except in cities whose charters provide for a board of equalization.
The county assessor shall fix a day and time when the board or the board of
equalization shall meet in the assessment districts of the county. On or before
February 15 of each year the assessor shall give written notice of the time to the city
or town clerk. Notwithstanding the provisions of any charter to the contrary, the
meetings must be held between April 1 and May 31 each year. The clerk shall give
published and posted notice of the meeting at least ten days before the date of the
meeting. The board shall meet at the office of the clerk to review the assessment
and classification of property in the town or city. No changes in valuation or
classification which are intended to correct errors in judgment by the county assessor
may be made by the county assessor after the board of review or the county board of
equalization has adjourned; however, corrections of errors that are merely clerical in
nature or changes that extend homestead treatment to property are permitted after
adjournment until the tax extension date for that assessment year. The changes must
be fully documented and maintained in the assessor's office and must be available for
review by any person. A copy of the changes made during this period must be sent to
the county board no later than December 31 of the assessment year.
The board shall determine whether the taxable property in the town or city has been
properly placed on the list and properly valued by the assessor. If real or personal
property has been omitted, the board shall place it on the list with its market value,
and correct the assessment so that each tract or lot of real property, and each
article, parcel, or class of personal property, is entered on the assessment list at its
market value. No assessment of the property of any person may be raised unless the
person has been duly notified of the intent of the board to do so. On application of
any person feeling aggrieved, the board shall review the assessment or classification,
or both, and correct it as appears just.
A local board of review may reduce assessments upon petition of the taxpayer but the
total reductions must not reduce the aggregate assessment made by the county
assessor by more than one percent. If the total reductions would lower the aggregate
assessments made by the county assessor by more than one percent, none of the
adjustments may be made. The assessor shall correct any clerical errors or double
assessments discovered by the board of review without regard to the one percent
limitation.
A majority of the members may act at the meeting, and adjourn from day to day until
they finish hearing the cases presented. The assessor shall attend, with the
assessment books and papers, and take part in the proceedings, but must not vote. Th
county assessor shall attend the meetings. The board shall list separately, on a form
appended to the assessment book, all omitted property added to the list by the board
and all items of property increased or decreased, with the market value of each item
of property, added or changed by the board, placed opposite the item. The county
assessor shall enter all changes made by the board in the assessment book.
•
SP:100
DATE: 5/90
SECTION: 4120
PAGE: 2
If a person fails to appear in person, by counsel, or by written communication before
the board after being duly notified of the board's intent to raise the assessment of the
property, or if a person feeling aggrieved by an assessment or classification fails to
apply for a review of the assessment or classification, the person may not appear
before the county board of equalization for a review of the assessment or
classification. This paragraph does not apply if an assessment was made after the
board meeting, as provided in Section 273.010 or if the person can establish not having
received notice of market value at least five days before the local board of review
meetig.
The board of review or the board of equalization must complete its work and adjourn
within 20 days from the time of convening stated in the notice of the clerk, unless a
longer period is approved by the Commissioner of Revenue. No action taken after
that date is valid. All complaints about an assessment or classification, made after
the meeting of the board must be heard and determined by the county board of
equalization. A nonresident may, at any time, before the meeting of the board of
review file written objections to an assessment or classification with the county
assessor. The objections must be presented to the board of review at its meeting by
the county assessor for its consideration. (M.S. 274.01)
C0
SP:100
DATE: 7/86
SECTION: 4121
PAGE: 1
SPECIAL BOARD OF REVIEW
•
The council or other governing body of any city, including cities whose charters
provide for a board of equalization, may appoint a special board of review to which it
may delegate all of the powers and duties of the board of review or board of equali-
zation. The special board of review shall serve at the direction and discretion of the
appointing body, subject to the restrictions imposed by law on the appointing body.
The appointing body shall determine the number of members to be appointed thereto,
the compensation and expenses to be paid, and the term of office of each member.
At least one member of the special board of review shall be an appraiser, realtor or
other person familiar with property valuations in the assessment district. (M.S. 274.01)
SP: 12
•
DATE: 8/88
SECTION: 4122
PAGE: 1
LIMITATIONS
1lJ
•
A local board of review may reduce assessments upon petition of the taxpayer but the
total adjustments must not reduce the aggregate assessment made by the county
assessor by more than one percent. If the total adjustments would lower the
aggregate assessments made by the county assessor by more than one percent, none
of the adjustments may be made. The assessor shall correct any clerical errors or
double assessments discovered by the board of review without affecting the one
percent referred to above. (M.S. 274.01)
SP:100
DATE: 8/88
SECTION: 4123
PAGE: 1
SUMMARY
Minnesota Statutes, Section 274.01 provides that the town board of each township and
the governing body of cities shall be the board of review. The board is to review the
assessment and classification of property in their township.
The county assessor sets the dates for boards of review to meet in his county. He
must notify the clerk of the various dates on or before February 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 properly 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 pt operty. 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
d 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 classification that has been placed on his property or to contest or
to protest any other matter relating to the taxability of his property. The
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
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 in order to complete the work of the board of review
must be addressed to the Commissioner of Revenue in writing. The commissioner's
approval is necessary to legalize any procedure subsequent to the expiration of the
twenty day period. The Commissioner of Revenue will not, however, extend the time
for local boards of review to meet past the time county boards of equalization
convene in June.
If a person fails to appear in person, by counsel, or by written communication before
the board after being duly notified by the board's intent to raise the assessment of his
property, or if a person feeling aggrieved by an assessment or classification fails to
apply for a review of the assessment or classification, he may not 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