05-04-87 agenda
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Study Session Letter No. 19
Agenda May 4, 1987
Issue Statement:
Consideration to Adopt the 1987 Recodification of Richfield
Ordinances
Background:
For the past year the City of Richfield has been working to
recodify city ordinances. Recodification is necessary
approximately every five to ten years in order to make sure that
the code is as up to date and easily readable as possible. The
last time the city ordinance was recodified was in 1968. The
recodification process has now reached a stage requiring council
attention. To date, the city attorneys have undertaken a
thorough analysis of the previous code, reorganized the code, and
updated language. Staff has reviewed the recodification and
provided additional recommendations for changes which have been
accomplished.
At this point in time, it is appropriate for the City Council to
review the recodification prior to consideration for adoption.
It should be noted that the recodification process is merely a
means to update the code and does not include any substantiative
changes in the city ordinances. Any substantiative changes must
be made by separate action. Draft copies of the revised code
will be provided on Monday, May 4, by David Kennedy who will also
review the recodification process and new code format.
Recommendation:
Staff is recommending that the council review the revised code
during the next month. At the council's pleasure, we can provide
an opportunity for additional discussions during June. If there
is not a need for a meeting, it would be recommended that the
code be placed on the agenda for first reading on June 8, and the
public hearing and second reading on June 22. This would permit
an effective gate of the new code of August 1, 1987.
Basis for Recommendation:
1. A need to update code and remove archaic and/or conflicting
language.
2. A need to provide format and more easily readable code form.
Alternative Recommendation:
1. The city could not adopt the code or adopt the code in a
revised format. However, it is the opinion of the staff that
the format suggested by our attorneys is very good.
Discussion/Decision Mode:
This matter will be presented for discussion at the work session
of May 4, 1987.
Respectfully submitted,
Ja s D. Prosser
Ci y Manager
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Study Session Letter No. 18
Agenda May 4, 1987
Issue Statement
Review of the operating costs and fees for the proposed ordinance
to license rental units and inspect homes at point of sale.
Background:
At the April 6, 1987 study session, the council reviewed a
proposed ordinance which would license owners of apartments and
rented homes, and would also require owner-occupied homes to be
inspected at the time of sale. The fees suggested for the
licenses are designed to recoup the operating cost of the
program.
Annual inspections of each apartment unit and rented home would
be performed to determine compliance with the existing housing
maintenance code. The attached memorandum from Fire Division
Commander Patrick Coughlin to City Manager James Prosser explains
how the staff requirements were determined in order to conduct
the inspections.
Assumptions about the time required per inspection were verified
with St. Louis Park, which now enforces a similar ordinance.
Personnel costs were predicted based upon current costs of
• similar personnel in surrounding cities.
A table is included in the memorandum which shows the number of
inspections expected, the number of personnel to accomplish the
inspections in a timely manner, and includes personnel and
related costs of enforcing the ordinance. Fees from four metro
area cities are attached to the memorandum.
Recommendation:
It is recommended that the City Council review the cost and fee
data and determine if the fees are reasonable.
Basis of Recommendation:
The fees schedule is based upon the most accurate data available
from surrounding cities. The Fire Division Commander has
concluded that the analysis of the recommended fees provides an
reasonable and adequate prediction of the actual costs for
operating the program.
Alternative Recommendation:
1. The council could decide against consideration of the rental
licensing program, and thus would not need to consider the
cost and revenue data.
2. The council could determine that there is a need for more
information, and request it from the staff.
0
Ae'??l
. Decision/Discussion Mode:
1. The cost and fee data have been prepared by the Fire Division
Commander for consideration at the May 4th council study session.
Respectfully submitted,
Jame Prosser
City Vanager
JDP/e j a
0
CITY OF RICHFIELD
MEMORANDUM
0
4
DATE: April 17, 1987
TO: James Prosser, City Manager
FROM: Patrick Coughlin,
Fire Division Commander
SUBJECT: COSTS FOR IMPLEMENTING RENTAL LICENSING AND POINT OF
SALE ORDINANCE
Per your request, I have broken down the costs of maintaining an
inspection program to enforce the above ordinance, which was
reviewed at the April 9th Council study session.
The program is designed to be self-supporting. No funds from the
inspection fees will be used to support any other activities.
Once the program is underway we will monitor the costs and
revenues, and will adjust the fees up or down to reflect our
actual costs.
The program's total cost is based upon four factors, the number
of inspections required, the time needed for the inspections, the
number of personnel needed to perform the inspections, and the
level of expertise of the personnel. Each of these factors is
discussed below in detail to show how they relate to the cost.
Number of Inspections
Our estimates of the number of inspections required are based on
data supplied by the Community Development Department. They list
4,575 apartment units, 374 duplexes, and 500 non-homesteaded
single family homes in the city. Home sales in the city have
averaged about 500 per year, with a range from 200 to 700.
Our inspection experience with current building and fire
inspections indicates that each apartment building and house will
require 1.5 inspections. That is, for every two inspections we
perform, one will require that we do a follow-up inspection. For
the apartment unit inspections, we will need 1.2 inspections. The
annual total number of inspections required to enforce the
ordinance will be approximately 7,549 inspections.
1
Inspection Time
Our estimates of the time required to perform the inspections are
based upon our experience with building and fire inspections.
Follow-up inspections take about one third to one fourth the time
of initial inspections. We verified our estimates with the City
of St. Louis Park fire department, which has a licensing program
similar to our proposal. Our estimates matched their experience.
The total hours required for the inspections will be
approximately 2,315 hours.
Number of Personnel
The number of personnel required to operate the inspection
program are based upon the assumption that the inspectors would
be devoting,20-30 hours per week to inspections, with the balance
used for report writing, filing, training, lunch breaks, etc. Two
inspectors will be capable of performing the required inspections
in 40-60 weeks, depending upon where in the weekly range our
actual experience falls.
In addition, a clerical position will be needed to handle
correspondence, perform the telephone scheduling for the
inspectors, receive and process the license applications, and
maintain the record system. We are proposing that we start with a
halftime clerical position for the program start-up, and not go
to a full time position unless it is warranted after the program
is fully operational.
Level of Expertise
The point of sale inspections will require an inspector trained
and experienced in all facets of building and housing codes,
including building, electrical, plumbing and heating. This person
must be familiar with the full range of electrical, plumbing and
heating devices which exist, and must be capable of performing a
thorough inspection of each system. We will require that the
succesful applicant hold a state certificate in building
inspection. Also, the person selected will be one with several
years of experience in residential inspection, since good
judgement is required to determine when an older component of any
of these systems is likely to be a safety threat.
The apartment inspection can be performed by a person trained in
basic building inspection requirements. This person would not
need the level of expertise of the above, as the housing
inspector would be available for consultation on technical
problems.
2
Hyy
. We are proposing that a firefighter working a 40 hour week be
assigned to inspect apartment units. Using a firefighter will
give us one more person available for any structure fires during
the day. The firefighter/inspector would be called to a fire on
the average of once a week, which would not affect the inspection
duties that much. It will, however, provide us with an extra
person at a time when it is difficult to get off-duty personnel.
The clerical position will not require skills beyond normal
secretarial duties. The specific building and housing code
background needed for the position can be taught on the job.
Program Costs
Nearly all of the program's cost is personnel cost. The annual
salaries for the positions were derived from existing personnel
costs'. The amounts reflect the entire cost of each position,
i.e., salary plus all fringe benefits such as vacation, holidays,
health and life insurance, pension costs, etc. Also, the amounts
are based upon the salary ranges for experienced personnel.
J
Housing Inspector $30,000.00
Firefighter 40,000.00
Clerical 20,000.00
Administration,
Office Supplies,
Forms, etc. 20,000.00
TOTAL $110,000.00
Revpnuac
The revenues are based upon the proposed
four. The schedule considers the time nei
Inspections for point of sale, apartment
houses will take the most time (about 45
these occupancies have a higher fee than
will take less time.
fee schedule on page
aded per inspection.
building and rented
minutes). Therefore,
apartment units, which
Four attachments are included after page four, which show fees
charged by other cities in the metro area for similar programs.
i
3
?y
u
Inspection Fee Schedule for Rental Licensing
and Point of Sale Ordinance
Type Number Fee Revenue
Apartment Buildings 200 $50.00 $ 4,000.00*
(the building itself,
laundry, storage,
furnace rooms, cor-
ridors, stairs)
Apartment Units 4575 7.50 34,312.00
Duplexes 374 50.00 18,700.00
1-Family 500 50.00 25,000.00
1-Family 500 50.00 25,000.00
(Point of sale)
TOTAL $107,012.00
19 *The first four apartment units would be included in this
fee, so that amount is deducted here and included in the
next figure.
0
4
???
Brooklyn Center
Single family - $25.00 (2 years)
Duplex - $25.00 1 unit
$35.00 2 units
Multi-family - $20.00 per building and $5.00 for each add. unit
Bloomington
Apartment and Townhouses : $50.00 for first 2 units and
$ 6.00 for each additional unit
Duplex: If owner lives in one side there is no fee,
If both sides renters charge is $36.00
New Brighton
Multi Family $5.00 per unit per year with a minimum of $15.00
I•
St. Louis Park
License fees for 1 or 2 buildings
multi-family 3 to 9 buildings
10 or more
Inspection fees for 3-5 units
multi-family 6-10 it
11-20
21-40 "
41-100 "
101-200 "
200 & up
$30.00
$60.00
$120.00
$ 6.00
5.50
5.00
4.50
4.00
3.50
3.00
•
;2?ff
•
e
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Study Session Letter No. 17
Agenda May 4, 1987
Issue Statement:
Preliminary information for 1987 Board of Review.
Background:
On June 1, 1987 at 7:00 P.M., the Richfield Board of Review will
convene to conduct its annual business. The Board of Review will
consist of City Council Members and two resident experts
appointed by the City Council, Mr. Lawrence Emond and Mr. John
Janski.
The May 4th Study Session will focus on the methods of property
appraisal used by Hennepin County appraisers. In addition,
Hennepin County Principal Property Appraiser, Larry Miller, will
review the types of appeals which may come before the 1987 Board
of Review.
Attached is a brief synopsis of the duties and responsibilities
of Local Boards of Review, some data indicating home sales prices
for the past several years in the metropolitan area, and sample
property comparisons which will be explained at the Study
Session.
Recommendation:
None
Alternative Recommendation:
The City Council could conduct the Board of Review without the
preliminary information.
Discussion/Decision Mode:
This Study Session is timely in preparing City Council Members
for the June 1, 1987 meeting.
Respectfully submitted,
Ja D. Prosser
C Manager
JDP/eja
• ATTACHMENT SCHEDULE
A. Greater Minneapolis Area Board of Realtors residential market
value comparison
B. Hennepin County Richfield Residential Growth Comparison
C. Hennepin County maps indicating sections of the city
physically inspected by assessing staff for 1987/88
D. Sample Hennepin County property assessment sheet
E. Sample Hennepin County property comparison sheet
F. Hennepin County Board of Review Process explanation including
Board responsibilities
0
3- -A
MINNESOTA SUBURBAN NEWSPAPERS
SIn-Current
Residential sales
in three south
suburbs climbing
CI
Residential real estate sales -in
Edina, Richfield and Bloomington;
continue to climb.
The Greater Minneapolis Area
Board of Realtors reported Feb. 6
that residential property sales in;
1986 in the greater Minneapolis'
area reached $2.5 billion through;
493 local real estate offices, up 31.3
percent over 1985.
Total sales in West Bloomington,
were $121.4 million, with the aver-
age price rising from $106,001 ink
1985 to $109,963 in 1986. East Bloom-!
ington total was $30.26 million, with
the average home at $78,210 vs.
$72,667 a year earlier.
Richfield sales reached $42.95
million with an average home sale'
at $76,968 vs. $72,994 a year earlier.
Edina sales totaled $141.94 million
or $142,654 for the average home
sale vs. $141,083 in 1985.
RESIDENTIAL SALES
BY PRICE BREAKDOWN
#8
1986 Unit % of
Price Saks Total
$19,999 or under 239 .85
$20.(XX) - 29,999 198 .65
530.000 - 39.999 456 1.6
$40,000 - 49,999 1,219 4.4
1150.000- 59.999 2.612 9.3
560,000 - 69,999 4,566 16.3
$70,/100 - 79,999 5,232 18.7
580101X1 - 89,999 4,132 14.7
$90.000 - 99.999 2.542 9.1
SIWA00 - 119,999 2,557 9.1
S120,000- 139.999 11598 5.7
S140,000- 159,999 873 3.1
S160,000- 179,999 584 2.1
5180,000 - 199,999 382 1.4
S200.0W - 249,999 422 1.5
5250,000 and over 407 1.5
TWENTY YEAR REVIEW #7
Reaideelial
Ihlings Total Dollar Unit Average
Processed Volume Saks Sales Price
1%7 20.156 $ 199,986,893 9,506 S21,037
1968 18,891 S 245,650,706 10,461 $23,482
1%9 20,680 S 250,299,622 9,987 525,255
1970 - 23,870 S 258,825,597 9,903 S25,903
1971 30.093 S 345,264,966 12,430 $27,776
1972 33,635 S 436,3%,177 14,788 529,510
1973 33,966 S 489,373,859 15,518 531,536
1974 27,865 S 500,401,086 14,481 534,555
1975 31,271 S 585,954,410 15,381 $38,095
1976 34,940 S 773,837,914 18,476 $41,883
1977 38,879 51,115,698,038 23,271 $47,943
1978 36,095 S1,2%,246,066 22,780 $57,178
1979 40,007 51,351,465,288 20,466 $66,417
1980 37,018 S1,340,772.915 18,351 $74,069
1981 35,580 $1,249,787,584 15,675 580,238
1982 41,465 $ 998,693,468 12,193 S82,288
1983 50,794 $1,344,916,756 15,914 584,953
1984 53,646 $1,544,535,531 18,231 $85,007
1985 51,492 51,866,291,153 21,335 $87,789
1986 58,382 $2,523,647,113 28,015 $90,319
TEN YEAR REVIEW - AVERAGE SALES PRICE BY DISTRICT #9
J
Disl °'o Change 1986 As
No. Section 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 Compared in 1985
550 Calhoun Harriet 544.885 S58,959 $66,644 S75,795 584,176 S86,183 586,184 $83,141 590.444 592,897 4 2.7
551 Cedar-Isles-Loring 60.284 78,559 89,055 101,904 112,227 107,5% 122,971 109,594 108,365 110.348 + 1.8
552 North 31,021 37,492 44,921 48,786 53,244 52,244 52.792 53,219 52,379 55,701 46.3
553 Northeast 34,572 42,959 49,605 54,416 59,149 58,834 58,317 $9,321 59,534 61,672 4 3.6
554 Parkway West 50,988 60,737 66,765 73.785 82,938 86,174 86,040 84,343 87,621 93.530 46.7
555 Parkway Central 42,663 49,828 59,856 64,570 71,523 71,824 72,291 71,019 73,063 77,409 45.9
556 Parkway South 37,286 44,745 51,837 56,600 61,778 62,259 61,380 61,825 62,883 63.364 40.8
557 South 34.658 41,440 49,085 54,476 59,747 58,870 59,921 57,749 58,451 61,115 +4.6
558 South Central 29.900 37,197 45,971 48,633 51,561 53,135 52,013 49,705 48,663 52,184 4 7.2
559 South East 43,097 50,189 58,765 62,950 70,334 65,991 67,991 66,455 66,221 73,861 + 11.5
560 St. Paul & Suburban 41,788 50,722 56,420 68,927 72,390 82,821 95,312 86,512 95,997 82.797 - 13.8
563 Isanti County - - - 53,708 48,345 51,110 49,114 49,812 51,313 52,857 43.0
564 Blaine-Lexington- 39,073 49,373 55,673 60,9% 67,143 67,404 68,434 70.480 71,683 73,638 +2.7
Circle Pines
565 Falcon Heights-Rouvillc - 63,385 76,617 85,584 94,584 92,812 101,411 %,457 I00,977 105,118) 44.1
Arden Hills-Shoreview
566 New Brighton- 49,955 58,937 69,009 75,189 80,608 82,812 86,002 85,602 84,322 89,812 46.5
Moundsview-St. Anthony
567 Coon Rapids-Anoka 40,769 49,342 56,776 62,757 66,064 68,354 66,987 69.666 71,450 75,90M 46.2
568 Fridley-Columbia Heights 43,276 52,029 58,838 63,881 69,044. 69,384 69,089 69.984 71,667 73,788 4 .1.0
Spring Lake Park
569 Sub. NE 40,214 49,099 56,462 59,856 66,083 63,248 68,821 65,901 67,449 74,165 4 10.0
570 Anoka C-ty. W. - 54,067 63,610 66,783 70,351 69,418 70.792 73,238 73,920 79,501 4 7.6
571 Brk. Center/Park 44,269 53,755 60,650 64,284 69,767 71,303 71,061 71.669 71,441 75,812 4 6.1
572 Wright-Sherburne Clys. - - - 43,218 53,674 52,485 55,181 54,658 57,124 62.232 48.9
573 Golden Valley-Tyrol Hills 56,550 67,346 77,022 84,439 95,991 93,993 97,650 99.401 94,313 105,237 4 11.6
574 Plymouth 62,814 74,460 86,860 94,694 108,1X17 111,619 114,183 113,135 115,811 120,323 4 .1.9
575 Robbinsdale-Crystal- 44,117 52,860 59,633 63,888 69,086 69,006 70.049 70,195 71.336 74,433 443
New Hope
576 Maple Grove/Osseo - - - 71,195 75,457 80,921 80,535 81,630 81,483 85,544 45.0
Champlin-Dayton
577 Sub. NW 42,905 53,688 61,721 65,948 69,146 64,756 77,620 85,859 91,262 90,579 - 0.7
578 Richfield 44,406 53,132 60,051 65,341 70,084 71,273 71,416 70,554 72,994 76,968 4 5.4
579 E. Bloomington 43,799 52,383 59,372 65,342 71,406 68.953 74,185 72.655 72,667 ,2 +
580 W. Bloomington 58,750 72,165 79,743 92,670 99,746 105,758 105,008 102,547 1()6,1101 109,963 4 3.7
581 Mendota His: Eagan 46,675 58,372 69,304 74,015 83,158 82,921 86,309 87,304 91,146 95,617 44.9
Inver Grove Heights
582 Burnsville 55,391 63,798 71,919 78,639 84,220 90,276 89,382 88,048 90.423 93,985 4 3.9
583 Suburban South 46.834 59,685 67,805 68,944 75,551 73,312 76,234 79,228 83,848 83,261 - 0.7
584 Apple Valley- 49,465 59,500 67,015 74,794 75,422 78,360 84,331 85,673 89,624 93,401 + 4.2
Rosemi.-Lakeville
585 Edina 82,464 94,162 104,923 117,089 128,756 135,963 135.758 136,726 141,083 142.654 4 1.1
587 Hopkins-Minnetonka 56,180 68,%5 78,139 91,445 %,399 104.781 104.678 105,942 1(17„569 112,915 4 5.0
589 Lake Minnetonka 58,144 74,001 89,050 105,942 112.977 119,593 127,253 130,791 134,545 133,215 Lo
591 St. Louis Park 44,830 52,892 59,690 66,958 71,711 74,699 76,743 75,036 76,722 79,091 4 3.1
592 Eden Prairie 62,306 73,719 89,153 98,126 104.830 107,507 111.35() 107,829 115,778 116,734 40.8
593 Suburban SW 46,781 55,146 63,298 67,727 75,498 75,857 74,617, 75,544 80,886 80,44)2 0.6
February '87/Minneapolis REALTOR
I u
,oel
'3ntl o?
s 3nv
??I I
-, 5 Al
O
H1
?CC? 3ntl j nv ?®
W _
0? ; 3?ba CC
r
h L "? m Oa08 F.
001-- - - O?
P`? 3j6pNA' ??
C o • y? t?
E V O' v
?' / 3bN
C® e
0 J
ntl N a w
0
0091--?-^ ?C?CC tlal
CC?CC?C® w H 'la 31 C
N "C? n° C CCC?
CC 3ntl P ?? CC?CC
00? "°y ?IDC?C?C
J CC?CC? 3"0 ?'CCC?C
? C]CCL . -J? ?CCCC
?CCC?O ?CCCC
3ntl H O
it
OOfd---
° L.. ? H
N '3ntl C
b
3ntl
nv
S n E71 b
3 ? ntl3C? 3 -
S
?I
z W??T
Illy
J ?
2
? U m
vi W
f -
nv ava3o O
01,
c
11
1311001N ;.)
?? slv?B
==F_411" 1N3M z
Abnus?id
-IF
•d ? 1 Id H ^?I• ~
717
3ltlONA? ????
Nuu? ?
Ntl0 CCr
N W C? O
NO1M3N C -O
a I C
]NI13d
OIa3H?r?
-=l S°WOMl UUC?C I
NOldn ???'
1N30NIn
NOC__
rTla nH om I Nand ?i?
, ;' I
• i -- 1 1 " ? r-' 1 ;-1 ? r ?.. i 1 •_. r°- ; 1 -i•- ? ; , ? , ; _ _ 1 1'1 j ? {••J
i
1 SJ
i •1.1•
5.1:1
-l 'i 141
G:
LLI
•
0
1: h • 9 S + ED -D 1 ??h iu 1 191 a.2 1 q, :0 19 84 19-87
•
U
Average existing house prices
572
wriimt Couch
1
Amka7Coolly
So?r9mao
Sllab
qty west Norimast
567 564
Coon Rapids, main.
Amlia, °
576 Cirde
Maple atom,
Isseo, Cmaalplio,
gaytoo
577 571 566 566
Srmnrkm 6mollhll Ceoter, Crirmma Noaads
Norriwest 9raaklye Park Neijmts. row,
FM*. New
spring killiltoll. 565
575 take Park, St
1611top Anttway ialtxo ReitYts.
8olmiasdale Roseide, Ards.
574 Ct7h IElls Sdwreriew
Maw
552 553.
North Northust
513
can TO Fills . 99 South
loop East
589
take Niimostats 587 . 5!i ?. eS
St tools pad 556 . 556
? ? St. W
city Nwk
Mmreb
ka
p Wrist
554 5 556
Parkw
585 w both ?
Fdaa
576
It hfiew
592
516
579
581
593 "a Prairie "Ir
Np
df
S P ,wc miser Gm Rdob
1:1,101011f
93
S
i U2
l
p
SertY
BEDS
" 94
Resaowt,
talmrlwe
Dist number/section 1977 1986
550/Calhoun-Harriet $44,885 $92,897
551/Cedar-Isles-Loring 60,284 110,348
552/North 31,021 55,701
553/Northeast 34,572 61,672
554/Parkway West 50,988 93,530
555/Parkway Central 42,663 77,409
556/Parkway South 37,286 63,354
557/South 34,658 61,115
558/South Central 29,900 52084
559/South East 43,097 73,861
560/St.Paul and suburban 41,788 82,797
563/Isanti County - 62.857
564/Blaine-Lexington-
Circle Pines 39,073 73,638
565/Falcon Heights-'
Roseville-Arden Hills-
Shoreview - 105,100
Dist number/section 1977 1986
571 /Brooklyn Center/Park 44,269 75,812
572/Wi ight-Sherburne counties - 62,232
573/Golden Valley-Tyrol Hills 56,550 105,237
574/1*lymouth 62,814 120,323
575/Robbinsdale-Crystal-
New Hope 44,117 74,433
576/Maple Grove-Osseo-
Champlin-Dayton - 85,544
577/Suburban northwest 42,905 90,579
678/Richfield 44,406 76,958
579/East Bloomington 43,799 78,210
S80/West Bloomington
- 58,750 109,963
$81/Mendota Heigghts-Eagan-
Inver Grove Heights 46,675 95,617
582/Bumsville 55,391 93,985
583/Suburban south 46,834 83,261
584/Apple Valley-Rosemount-
Lakeville 49,465 93,401
566/New Brighton-Mounds 49,955 89,812
View-St. Anthony
567/Coon Rapids-Anoka 40,769 75,904
568/Fridley-Columbia Heights- 43,276 73,788
Spring Lake Park
569/Suburban northeast 40,214 74,165
570/Anoka County west - 79,503
Source/greater Minneapolis Area Board of Realtors
585/ Edina 82,464 142,654
587/Hopkins-Minnetonka 56,180 112,915
589/Lake Minnetonka 58,144 133,215
591 /St. Louis Park 44,830 79,091
592/Eden Prairie 62,306 116,734
593/Suburban southwest 46,781 80,402
Star and Tribune graphic
yA
R
SUBJECT PROPERTY
ADDRESS
P.I.D. #
Gross Bldg. Area 1073 1st Floor Rooms 3 bedrooms, living
Year Built 1957 room and kitchen
Area. Rating ("Ond 2nd Floor Rooms 0
Building Condition- Average Number Bedrooms 3
• Construction Class Ay Ah Ay
Exterior Finish ctiirr o-hrirk Number Baths 1
Bath Tile: CeramicX
Garages c i og 1P At ta,-hPd Plastic
Porches N?hP Fireplaces 2
Basement Rooms 2 Built-in Range-Oven No
Basement Walkout Built-in Dishwasher No
Amusement Room
Air Conditioning v.
CCMMENTS:
GRID - COMPARABLE DATA
K PLICANT'S NAME:
DRESS: PROPERTY ADDRESS:
P.I.D. #:
MUNIC:
SUBJECT
PROPERTY COMP #1 COMP #2 COMP #3 COMP #4
TYPE OF BLDG.: Rambler Rambler Rambler Rambler Rambler
STORY HEIGHT: 1 story 1 story 1 story 1 story 1 story
1ST FLOOR AREA: 1073 lo44 logo -1044 1064
GROSS BLDG. AREA: 1073 1044 1090 1044 1j??4
YR. OF CONST.: 1957 1956 1958 1957 1»
CONDITION: Average Average Average Average Average
1ST FL. ROOMS: 5 5 5 5 5
2ND FL. ROOMS: 0 0 0 ,0 O
BEDROOMS: 3 3 3 2 3
BATHS: 1 1 & 3/4 1,& 3/4 1 & 3/4 1
HALF BATHS: 0 .0 0 0 1`
01IN. BSMT. SQ.FT.: 535 522 545 522 532
WALKOUT: .No -No- No No- - No
- FIREPLACE: 2 0 0 0 0
AIR COND: Yes Yes. No No No
GARAGE AREA: 240 523 44o 528 440
PORCH AREA: No No No No No
LOT SIZE: 60x132 60x133 65x133 58x133 57x129
COMPS-SALE DATA:
SALE DATE
SALE PRICE
SALE/SQ.FT.
SUBJECT-APPRAISAL DATA:
1987 ASSESSMENT
ASSESSMENT/SQ.FT.
REMARKS:
7-86 6-86 4-86 3-86 6-86
82,900 79,000 78,500. 74,000 82,900
77.26 75.67 72.ol 70.88 77.91
75,600
70.46
LOCAL BOARDS OF REVIEW
Section 274.01 provides that the town board, the
council, or other government body of each city shall be
a board of review. The charter of certain cities
provides for the establishment of a board of
equalization. The provisions of Section 274.01 and this
regulation apply to all boards of review or boards of
equal i z ation.
THE TIME OF MEETING OF THE BOARD OF REVIEW
Section 274.01 states the county-assessor shall fix a
date for each board of review or board of equalization
to meet for the purpose of reviewing the assessment of
property in its respective town or city. The county
assessor is required to serve written notice to the
clerk of each of such bodies on or before April 1 of
each year.
These meetings are required to be held between April 1
and June 30 and the clerk of the board of review or the
board of equalization is required to give published and
posted notice at least ten days before the date set for
- - the first ,meeting.
The board of review and the board of equalization of any,
city, unless a longer period is approved by the
commissioner of revenue,--must complete its work and
adjourn within 0 days from the time of convening
specified in the notices of the clerk. No action taken
subsequent to such date shall. be valid. The twenty days
refers to calendar days and the day of the board is the
first day.
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 riecessary 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 June 30
because county boards of equalization convene in July.
84
•
•
the taxability of his property. The board is required
to review the matter and make any corrections that it
deems just.
When a local board of review or equalisation convenes,
it is necessary that a majority of the member's be in
attendance in order that any valid action may be taken.
The local assessor- is required by law to be present with
h i s 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
rn ne. of his _as.shstants i a required to attend. The-board
should proceed immediately to review the assessments of
property.
it is the primary duty of each board of review to
examine the assessment record to see that all taxable
property in the assessment district has been properly
placed upon the list and valued by the assessor. In
case any property, either real or personal, has been
omitted, the board has the duty of making the
assessment.
The complaints and objections of persons 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
Abe authwrity to mak corrections it deems to be just.
The beard may-adjourn from day. to day until all cases
have been heard.
A taxpayer may appear-in person, by council, or by
written communication to present his objections to the
board of review.
Be+ore adjourning, the board of review or equalization
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
and all assessments that have been increased or
?'awreased? should be shown as prescribed on the form.
After the changes have been completed, the record should
be signed and dated by the members of the board of
review or equalization. The changes listed in the
proceedings -should be entered in the assessment booy by
?t,`;e county assesor.
86
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Study Session Letter No. 16
Agenda May 4, 1987
do Issue Statement:
Discussion of alternatives for Milner Pond treatment.
Background:
Milner Pond is a storm water retention pond located between 64th
Street on the north, 66th Street on the south, and in the
backyards of houses fronting 5th Avenue, Clinton Avenue, and
portions of Apple Lane. The purpose of the pond is to
temporarily store water in periods of heavy rain until the excess
water can be gravity fed to Legion Lake.
In 1986 there were extensive storm sewer improvements made
between Norby Pond, located at approximately 70th Street and
Second Avenue and Legion Lake in Veterans Memorial Park of
Richfield. These improvements included piping to and from Milner
Pond, and has not contributed to the lack of water at Milner
Pond.
Presently there are concerns on the part of Milner Pond neighbors
due to the low water level of the pond. After two or three years
of unusually high water, we suddenly are in a period of low
water. As a matter of fact, the last six months have been the
driest for this area since 1881. April of 1987 will be the
driest April in meteorological records, and the driest of any
• monthsince December, 1943. Because of this unusual situation and
the concerns of the neighbors, city staff has been examining
possible treatment of Milner Pond for primarily aesthetic
purposes. A number of alternatives have been examined including
the following:
1. Clean Only. The unusually dry weather has caused not
only Milner Pond, but many other area waterways to be
dried out, causing an aesthetically unpleasant situation.
Ponds, lakes and creeks have been significantly affected
because of this dry weather. The return of normal levels
of precipitation will remedy this problem.
2. Increase the size of the existing pump at the pond.
Because of the combination of normal seepage through the
bottom of the pond and evaporation, Milner Pond has
experienced more dry spots than acceptable to the
neighbors. In 1963 a pump was installed at the request
of the neighbors to maintain water levels. The neighbors
paid for the original cost of the pump, and the repair of
the pump two years ago. Since the original placement of
the pump, the city has paid the electrical costs for
operating the pump, minor maintenance and repair costs
for the cost of water pumped to the pond. If the pump
size were increased, there would be a greater likelihood
of water coverage for the pond to be complete. The
. existing pump produces a maximum of 130 gallons per
minute. A new pump would provide a capacity of 500 - 600
gallons per minute. The cost of a new pump would
approximate $35,000 plus $5,000 for energy charges.
3. Dredge or deepen the pond. Another concept is for the
city to dredge or deepen the pond with the idea that a
deeper pond would hold more water and be less likely
to bottom out to evaporation and seepage. Two
40 variations for this option include:
A. Make the pond deeper by two feet and add a new seal.
The estimated cost of this work would be $100,000 to
$125,000. A new seal would be necessary since
deepening the pond two feet would remove the existing
seal.
B. Deepen the pond to the current water table at an
estimated cost of $150,000 to $250,000. Going to the
level of the current water table would eliminate the
need for a seal and increase the likelihood that water
would still remain in the pond. However, in dry times
only the bottom foot or so of the deepened pond would
have water in it.
4. Maintain water retention area as a dry bottom flood area.
This could be accomplished by either filling in the pond
to the level of the outfall and seeding, or by seeding
the existing bottom and installing a pump to remove water
below the level of the outfall. Costs for this option
have not been directly established, but would probably be
in the range of $100,000 to $250,000, plus additional
operating costs.
5. Apply a clay seal on bottom of pond. This would reduce
• seepage and help maintain acceptable water levels. The
City has conducted a number of percolation tests on the
pond. One set of tests indicated that two feet below the
bottom of the pond, the water seepage rate was 1/2 foot
per hour. Another set of tests taken at the pond bottom
showed water seepage at a rate which varied from 1/10 of
a foot per hour, to one foot per hour. The difference in
the seepage rates are dependent upon the extent of the
seal which provides a liner to the pond bottom. The
estimated cost of installing a clay seal at the bottom of
the pond is $30,000 to $40,000.
Recommendation:
At this point in time it is recommended that Option 1 be
accepted, and the situation be reevaluated next winter after
benefit of observing the pond levels during the summer and fall.
Basis for Recommendation:
1. Milner Pond has two specific purposes. First, to provide
a storm water storage area; and secondly, to provide an
amenity on to the 38 homes surrounding the pond. If the
city is to use a wet bottom retention area as a storm water
control device, we do have the responsibility to make sure
that under reasonable circumstances the pond is attractive
and not an eyesore to neighboring residents. In this
particular case, given the weather conditions, the pond is
• not aesthetically pleasing. However, it is important to
remember that the weather conditions which have caused this
problem are extremely unusual. It would not be appropriate
to spend significant sums of money because of a highly
unusual weather condition.
2. The cost of other options is significant compared with
funds available, it is difficult to justify implementation
at this time.
3. Action taken to remedy this particular problem must also
include consideration of what other equitable action would
be requested by neighbors in the area of other ponds within
Richfield. We must examine whether or not the Milner Pond
situation is significantly different than other ponds within
the area. Staff has been unable to determine a standard for
Milner Pond which would differentiate it from other ponds in
Richfield. If improvements are made to Milner Pond at the
magnitude indicated, we would be subject to potentially
making similar improvements for other ponds.
Alternative Recommendation:
1. From the staff viewpoint, only one other recommendation is
worth any consideration. Installation of a clay bottom would
be the most cost effective of the remaining recommendations.
However, it would still carry with it the potential for
equitable action in other ponds at an estimated cost roughly
equivalent to $30,000 - $40,000 per pond. If this option is
considered, some method of special assessment from adjoining
property owners for a portion of that cost might be
considered. Another option would be to increase the utility
fund assessment to property owners. Currently, the utility
fund assessment revenues pay for debt service and/or
maintenance expenses and there are not sufficient funds to
make the type of improvements throughout the community of the
nature described herein.
• Discussion/Decision Mode:
This matter will be presented at the administrative session of
Monday, May 4. If the recommendation is approved, no formal
action would be required, since there are sufficient funds within
the budget to accomplish the cleanup process. If another concept
is approved, however, it will be necessary to develop a timeframe
for preparation of plans and specifications, bidding and contract
award, since the amount is in excess of the statutory $15,000.
Respectfully submitted,
a s D. Prosser
C ty Manager
JDP/eja
?Z//
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
• Study Session Letter No. 15
Agenda May 4, 1987
Issue Statement:
Discussion of Richfield Community Services Advisory Commission
1986 Accomplishments and 1987 Goals and Objectives.
Background:
In the early 1970's a Park and Recreation Advisory Commission was
formed by resolution. A few years later the Youth Advisory
Commission was disbanded with that scope of responsibility added
to the Park and Recreation Commission. With major reorganization
of the city in 1980, the Park and Recreation Commission became
the Community Services Advisory Commission. This commission also
functions as the city's forestry advisory body.
The members of the city council receive copies of the minutes for
the meetings of the Community Services Advisory Commission and
are, therefore, well aware of the many and varied topics
discussed and acted upon by the Commission. Commission members
would like to discuss what they feel were some of the major
topics in 1986 which include, but are not limited to, insurance,
the community park at Veterans Memorial Park of Richfield, Teen
Center, Traffic Studies and the Capital Improvement Program.
Proposed 1987 goals and objectives will also be discussed.
Recommendation:
"r The Community Services Advisory Commission is looking forward to
meaningful dialogue with and feedback from the city council.
Basis of Recommendation:
As the members of the Commission serve in an advisory capacity,
it is in the best interest of the community to coordinate efforts
and share concerns.
Alternative Recommendation:
Should the city council feel the Community Services Advisory
Commission enter into more, less or different endeavors, such
should be made known to the members of the Commission.
Discussion/Decision Mode:
Discussion is anticipated to fill a forty-five minute time period
on Monday, May 4, 1987. No formal actions are anticipated.
J4o's D. Prosser
Ci ? ?? Manager
• JDP/eja
Respec*fully submitted,