HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council - 04/28/1988AGENDA
SPECIAL EDEN PRAIRIE CITY COUNCIL MEETING
TUESDAY, APRIL 28, 1988
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
CITY COUNCIL STAFF:
6:00 PM, CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS,
7600 Executive Drive
Mayor Gary Peterson, Richard Anderson,
George Bentley, Jean Harris, and Patricia
Pidcock
City Manager Carl J. Jullie, Assistant to
the City Manager Craig Dawson, City
Assessor Steve Sinell, and Recording
Secretary Sue Anderson
ROLL CALL
I. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
II. DISCUSSION - REVIEW OF CITY'S PROPERTY VALUATION PROCEDURES
III. ADJOURNMENT.
MEMO
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Steven R. Sinell, City Assessor
Through: Carl J. Jullie, City Manager
Subject: January 2, 1988 Assessment and April 23, 1988 Board of Review
Date: April 22, 1988
The January 2, 1988 assessment was completed and submitted to the Hennepin
County Assesscr on March 15, 1988 for review and approval. The Hennepin
County Assessor has approved our assessment and approximately 14,000 valuation
notices were mailed March 31, 1988. City of Eden Prairie property owners were
notified of the value and classification of their property as of January 2,
1988. They were also informed of their right to appeal to the local board of
review, the county board of equalization, the state board of equalization and
the Minnesota Tax Court.
To complete the annual assessment the Assessing Department must view and
appraise:
1.) 25% of the existing properties, and
2.) All new construction valued over $1,000 whether completed
or under construction, and
3.) All property platted since the last assessment.
The January 2, 1988 assessment consisted of 14,184 parcels. The assessing staff
completed 4,345 appraisals as outlined below:
3,457 single family, twin home, townhouse and condominiums
40 apartment properties
180 commercial properties
29 industrial properties
639 vacant land, farm and miscellaneous properties
4,345 Total
One of the assessment goals is to increase the uniformity of assessment. Many
of the properties that were physically appraised were new or had improvements
since our last appraisal, the amount each one changed in value varied considerably.
The values of properties that were not physically appraised were adjusted, if
necessary, based on sales studies and other information to insure uniformity
with those properties that were actually viewed and appraised. The typical
adjustments for January 2, 1988 by property type are:
Single Family = +4.2%
Farms . +4 2%
Twin Home = +4.2%
Apartments = No Change
Condominiums = No Change
Commercial =
Townhouse = +1.0t
Industrial = +5.0%
page 2
Some properties not physically appraised saw adjustments ranging from no change
to increases of 10',. The values and classifications determined by the Eden
Prairie Assessing Department for January 2, 1988 may be appealed at the 4/28/88
Eden Prairie Board of Review.
The assessing staff has received 514 calls and personal visits regarding the
1/2/88 assessments since the valuation notices were mailed 3/31/88. The staff
has reviewed and corrected appraisals or classification on most of the 514
inquiries. Most corrections involve properties that our appraisers had not
previously viewed the interior. To date 59 property owners have indicated
they may appear before the board of review.
The question has been raised regarding whether Eden Prairie has more properties
over valued than other nearby communities. The most objective way to evaluate
assessment performance is to make an assessment ratio study. An assessment
ratio study is a comparison of the properties estimated market value made by
the assessor and the actual sales prices of the same properties. An assessment
ratio is calculated by dividing the estimated market value by the sale price.
An assessment ratio study reveals how closely appraised values correspond to
sales prices. The over all relationship between estimated market value and
sales prices is represented by the average (mean) or middle (median) assessment
ratio.
The variation amoung individual assessment ratios is represented by the co-
efficient of dispersion. The coefficient of dispersion is the average percentage
by which individual assessment ratios deviate from the median assessment ratio.
It is also a measure of assessment equity. For example, a 5% coefficient of
dispersion means that roughly half of the properties fall within a range of 5`,.:
above or below the median assessment ratio. Industry standards indicate co-
efficients of dispersion of less than 15% are attainable using mass appraisal
techniques and coefficients of dispersion under 10",'„ are attainable and desirable
in newer communities.
The Eden Prairie Assessing Department completed numerous sales ratio studies
before and after making adjustments to existing values for the January 2, 1988
assessment. Our studies confirmed the information that was provided to us by
the Hennepin County Assessor in September 1987. The assessment ratio sales study
compared sales that occurred between September 1986 and October 1987 with the
January 2, 1987 assessment. The study showed the need to increase residential
values by 4.2° to meet the Hennepin County goal of 92.5?' median ratio and the
state mandated median ratio of over 90;'!, for the January 2, 1988 assessment.
The Hennepin County Assessor's Office analyzed our January 2, 1988 assessment.
Their analysis used an assessment ratio study comparing our 1/2/88 estimated
market values to sales that occurred between 9/86 and 10/87. The results are
a median assessment ratio of 92.4 and a coefficient of dispersion of 5.9.
Both rates are acceptable and meet county and state standards.
The question remains, are some properties valued in excess of market value? The
answer is yes. There are properties which because of their unusual character, do
not lend themselves to the use of mass appraisal techniques. We encourage property
owners to contact the Assessing Department if their opinion of value is different
than ours. Their appraisal is reviewed and corrections are made where needed. The
board of review, the county board of equalization and other appeal processes are
provided as a means of review and correction.
page 3
What does the median assessment ratio of 92.4% and coefficient of dispersion
of 5.9% have to do with the board of review? It shows that statistically
most individual properties are valued very close to their actual market
value, yet probably somewhat below full value.
The review appraisals that are completed by the Assessing Staff are done
to see if a complete market comparison of a property supports the mass
appraisal value that has been assigned.
I've attached the following materials for your review:
April 28, 1988 Board of Review Agenda
MLS 1987 Residential Real Estate Report
What does the Assessor do?
The Property Tax Process - Example
Board of Review Information
Letter from Hennepin County Assessor
SRS/akn
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
BOARD OF REVIEW AGENDA
THURSDAY APRIL 28, 1988
BOARD OF REVIEW MEMBERS:
BOARD OF REVIEW STAFF:
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
ROLL CALL
I. CALL MEETING TO ORDER
II. ORDER OF BUSINESS
A. Personal Appeals
B. Written Communications
III. CLOSE MEETING
7:30 PM COUNCIL CHAMBERS
7600 EXECUTIVE DRIVE
Gary Peterson, Richard Anderson,
George Bentley, Jean Harris,
Patricia Pidcock
City Manager Carl Jullie,
Assistant to the City Manager
Craig Dawson, City Assessor
Steve Sinell, City Staff Appraisers
Lorna Lisell, John Sams, Barb
Cook, Rick Petersburg and Earl
Zent, Hennepin County Representative
Don Monk, and Recording Secretary
Sue Anderson
1987 MI,S ACTIVITY
Residential Real Estate Report
. ..
• .., RESIDENTIAL HOUSING 1985, 1986, 1987 #1
1.1311751.3
10241. 541.60 DOLLAR 601.1341. PRIX 1,711
190 19116 PM 935 1918 1987 1915 1956 1917
1 1.410 1.605 LON S 120.061.184 S 140,016,475 S 182,229,010 4.192 5.210 5,002
628.4. 1.611 2.058 2,771 117,471.529 176,162,730 251.661,447 4,2112 4,611 5,276
M., 1.111 2.592 3.616 114.056661 221,591.222 547,606,021 4,924 5,7131 7,1014
Apol 1.401 4.421 2,720 207,172.171 401,116,871 259,210,927 5.300 1 .2 1 4 5 .078
111., 2.072 2.911 2,17/ 10.610209 265.40,897 211.1 711 4,9811 5.902 4.336
4u. 1 .971 3 .4013 2 .641 1 7 1.13 6 .12 2 227,541,609 254,406.112 4,537 5.2331 1.211
MI, 2,594 2.706 1,51 11511311,941 242,741,022 114.504.211 1.140 5.158 4,181
Ammo 1.699 1,04 1,719 144.711496 114,041,181 164.061.1 15 4,414 4,457 EVA
Sr... 1.590 2.641 2.179 146,911.660 218,586.192 213,118,040 1,247 4.027 5.120
11.36er 1,757 1,694 1,441 1511,318306 152.210,405 111,267.181 11110 5,141 1,5170
1146.0.2, 1,064 1,571 1,145 161.010,922 146,812.3181 117,51,74 2,19 1,8212 1.020
D , 3.1211 1.100 1.144 117.211,244 110,614 027 126.139.460 2,239 2,560 2.076
TOTAL 11,111 211.011 2/.1 7 2 S1 0M,'21171 S2.571.647,111 32.460.10,111 51,491 91192 55.2 7 7
TERMS
• •
OF FINANCING - AN EIGHT YEAR RECORD #2
Pm.. 31 1.0 MI.
19M 1911 1 1281 III) 1914 1915 1966 11.7
11.4 S101 3066 3674 11107 14 67 12 Xi X ill 10 20
4 0117,7137171111 110 3046 11 /7 17 62 28 11 19 01 19 11 24 13
M. 190 1046 16 117 14 72 1107 II IS 42 17 IS 24
1.1 077 I 61 6 711 9 20 601 11 11 4 07 6 54
(4,41 314 402 411 622 7)07 510 104 6 81
1017.2 In.. 81 12 07 1 VI I 24 1 24 10 71
9.6..., 2 7 01 21 81 20 16 1700 20 10 1566 763 9 16
36.. 1111 101 1 116 364 4 51 662 406 • 35
Although a small percentage, 2.5
percent, behind the all time high total
for 1986, reports of sales for 1987
were over $2.4 billion. The overall
average sales price rose from $90,319
in 198610 $95,914 in 1987, which was
a 61.9 percent increase. The use of
conventional financing rose to 24.13
percent of the total from 18.19 per-
cent in 1986 which was a 32.7 percent
increase.
These points of interest were
among the results of the 1987 annual
residential real estate activity report
which is based on data received by the
Minneapolis Board's 423 MLS par-
ticipants, including 512 offices, the
Anoka County Board's 76 offices and
the Dakota County Board's 99 offices
participating in the residential Multi-
ple Listing Service (MLS).
The 1987 total unit sales of 25,772
were off 8 percent from the 1986 total
of 28,015. The 1987 total listings pro-
cessed, 55,422, were 5.1 percent fewer
than the 1986 total of 58,382. Chart
#1 provides a three year record of
residential units sold, dollar volume
and total listings processed through
MLS 1985 through 1987.
FHA insured mortgages remained
the most popular term of financing
for the third year in a row. At the
same time it lost some of its
dominance from the previous year. In
1987 FHA financing represented
38.24 percent of the total which
represents a 17.5 percent drop from
1986 when FHA financing was 46.37
percent total sales. A conventional
mortgage was used with 24.13 percent
of total sales in 1987 as compared to
1986 when 18.19 percent of total sales
used that form of financing. Chart tr'2
provides an eight year record of
financing terms.
Total unit sales, bedroom
breakdown, total sales volume and
average sale price for each residential
district are listed on Chart a3 for 1986
and Chart #4 for 1987.
Types of financing for 1986 and
1987 are listed by district number in
Chart #5. The type of financing chart
includes all transactions, residential
and commercial, reported by MLS
participants.
In addition to 25,772 residential
sales reported in 1987, there were
1,451 other types of property reported
sold by MLS participants. Chart #6
includes unit sales, dollar volume and
average sale price for business,
duplex, apartment and other types of
properties.
A twenty year review of listings
processed, residential total dollar
volume, unit sales and average sale
prices are included in Chart
1987 residential unit sales by pricing
category are shown in Chart #8. Total
unit sales and percent of total for year
is listed for each of the price
breakdowns.
Of the 39 real estate districts includ-
ed in this report, all but three had an
average sale price increase for 1987.
In the City of Minneapolis, seven
districts had an increase ranging from
.6 percent (Southeast) to a high of
11.2 percent (Cedar Isles-Loring).
Three Minneapolis districts had a
drop in average sales price.
In suburban communities, the
highest increase in average sale price
1987 as compared to 1986 was in
district 589 (Lake Minnetonka) where
the average price advanced from
$133,215 to $158,729, a 19.2 percent
increase. The second highest district
was 593 (Suburban Southwest) where
the average selling price rose 11.5 per-
cent from $80,402 in 1986 to $89,643
in 1987.
Additional copies of this report are
available from the Greater Min-
neapolis Area Board of REALTORS,
5750 Lincoln Drive, Minneapolis,
MN 55436 (933-9020).
February '88/Minneapolis REALTOR/7
. .. . . .
::. REPORT
.
ON EXISTING 1, 2,3, AND 4 .0R mon BEDROOMS #3 __..._ .. . HOME SALES IN 1986 .-..;;;.:.,, ..,4':. ,, . ..
AYKRAGE
TOTAL ONE TWO THREE A IR TOTALS SALK
RUST. SE(741074 SALES BR BR RR OR MORE VOLUME PRICE
550 CAI NOON HARRIET IMINNEAPOI IS1 III r/ III 141 150 166.019.040 V42197
151 CEDAR ISO FS 1 ORIN() MINN000E/1 151 490 9) 132 III UN 30.700.373 110,141
112 NOR I 14 (MINN)APOLIS) 901 66 142 400 9) 50E17.024 15,701
131 NORTHEAST (MINNEA1)01 IS) 436 II II/ 215 /11 23122314 61.672
154 PARKWAY WEST (MINNEAPOLIS) 90 II 119 PI 99 50 64) 579 90,3)0
531 PARKWAY CENTRAI IMINNE APO! 151 614 22 146 329 77 47,529.146 71.409
136 PARKWAY 500111 (MISS! APIA IS1 495 44 213 205 32 II .165.660 63364
SO SOUTH IMINNIWPOLISI 561 II 267 214 II 14303100 61.115
150 SOUTH CENTRAL IMINNEAP01.0 1 181 4 46 91 42 9353140 52,144
539 SOUTHEAST (MINNE APOI IS) 101 5 43 24 7,751,4 95 71.461
360 ST PAUL & SUBURBAN ID 1 01 54 25 10.011,467 42.797
961 ISAN71 COUNTY 167 10 42 78 II COL 1S. 12,097
NH BEAINL.LEKINGTON.CIRCLE PINES 679 9 III 354 111 10,031,249 73.638
563 FALCON HEIGHIS•ROSEVILIE•ARDEN HILLS.SHORLVIITY 469 10 117 219 121 49342.1 711 103.100
566 NEW BRION TONMOUNDSVIEW•til . ANTIION y 500 21 II 219 117 44,036,27* 69312
767 COON RAPIDSANOKA 1060 21 269 327 243 10,430,143 75.904
164 PRIDI EY-COL. HEIGHTS-SPRING LAKE PARK 612 22 176 374 110 50.123361 73,708
769 SUB NE MISC. III 1 75 III 64 23314.514 74.165
570 0906* COUNTY WE ST 502 3 265 151 39.410.679 79,103
571 IRK CORPORA 1 466 24 410 740 271 111.141.0.14 71.812
372 WRIGHT-SHERBURNE ('(VS VS 92) 263 43) 192 57340.512 62.232
373 GOLDEN VA1 E LY 114 3 54 210 II) 40,411,125 101.217
574 PLYMOUTH 1.175 41 219 453 462 141360.646 120.32)
575 R 0965.CRYST 0 L.N. HOPE 1 .047 27 269 392 114 77.911366 74633
576 MAKE ORM E-OSSEO 1,2611 29 341 570 251 102.651,160 113,546
577 SUB NW MISC. 171 7 20 91 31 15,444.093 90,579
578 RICHEIELD 150 I) 154 324 67 42,341,377 76,964
3 19 EAST BLOOMINGTON 317 11 93 142 44 10.267.630 74,200
700 WEST 41100MINGTO N 1.104 2) 212 551 111 121.400.033 109.961
511 MENIXHA HEIGIIIK-EAGAN-INVER GRUYE HEIGHTS Do 40 252 362 166 10,400,324 91,611
05 ) 60695011 1.E 907 29 III 419 271 85.244.925 93.915
1111 SUBURRAN SOUTH 114 II 241 359 196 67,774,500 43.261
5114 APP) I. (Al LETROSEMOUNI.I.AKE VOLE 1,286 17 262 616 191 ME 14.620 93.401
185 EI/INA 903 43 INS 411 354 141.941.1 54 142.654
317 HOPK INS•M1NNE TONNA 1.141 19 2)2 320 217 129.626,5 7 2 112.913
70 LAKE MINNETO NKA 1,214 17 2413 120 414 165.011356 133.215
191 ST. LOUIS PARE 117 31 264 410 111 64,617374 79.091
391 1 OEN P1014111- 116 14 V I 402 281 103,427.177 116.734
19) SUBURBAN SOUTHWEST H6 9 175 215 147 41349.510 10,402
MISET LI. ANIMUS AREAS 612 63 10 237 in 44.624.213 76.439
REPORT ON EXISTING 1, 2, 3, AND 4 OR MORE BEDROOMS -#4
- --: HOME SALES IN 1987
...
1104. SILTION
TOTAL
SALES
ONE
BR
TWO
BR
THRI6.
BR
ERR
OR MORE
TOTAL 9
VOLUME
AVERAGE
SALE
PRICE
550 (MI)11I, 1101 111 T WINN/ APOI IS) 60) 26 141 297 1)) 159.105,537 594.662
551 1. 1 OAR ICI ES 1116191, (MINNEAPOLISI 401 11 122 85 107 49.7)7,444 122,760
532 NORTH MINN! APO! ISo 796 34 320 170 12 42.9112091 91,497
553 NO1411414%1 IMINNLAPOI 01 397 12 152 199 34 23.029.232 63.047
554 PARK , AY WI ST IMINN1 APOI IS) 463 8 116 271 61 45 646 091 95,161
155 PARKWAY CI NTRAI 16116041 APO) CH 159 24 217 251 67 42,919374 76351
116 PARKWAY SOUTH IMINNEAPOI IS) III 32 232 207 44 34.172,010 67.130
557 SOUTH IMINN1. APO) IS) 493 16 212 RH 40 10,479305 61.123
550 SOUTH (INTRO) ,MINNLAPOI IS) 161 49 52 27 1,105.612 51.517
559 SOUTHEAST IMINNI APOI IS) 11 30 0 13 6316,703 73114
560 ST PAUL & SUBURBAN III 41 Se 29 14,010,006 110,47)
HO ISANT1 t 0060E1 231 1 69 106 52 13,423.031 36.399
164 Bi AIN!. II 515)1119-116(1 1, PINES 611 119 307 1)2 43357,1)9 71,052
565 601 (1)9 III 11,11 15 ROSES!) 1.1.AR 01 N 111115 SRO LVOV , 171 52 1141 91 413.1312.210 107.244
HA NEN 6)1)1,09009 MoUNDSyli W.ST ANTHONY 419 I 71 230 124 41316,444 01.104
547 COON RAPIOSANOK A 1081 Pe 519 196 84332.22e 77,487
SAII 19101 9 4 I. 01 HEIGHTS SPR1ME 1 061 PARK 60 22 160 370 91 49,240.973 76,404
564 SUB NE 51(5k 295 1 72 114 II 22,605,617 76.90)
570 ANOKA ((lust) WEST 5)7 5 115 231 166 46,276,40E 16.1 7 6
571 11116 t TB PARK 1211 24 421 553 215 91,971,291 31.063
172 WRIGHT SIIERBURNI (110 9)7 11 279 410 177 60.9711,722 6101
37) GOI DEN VA1 I I Y 329 1 59 171 99 34,667.201 103,011
171 PI 6611(U) 11 1020 21 191 426 379 124.8 24,110 126.410
575 R066 S) it YSTAI NEW HOPE 651 17 210 507 117 631113 72 77,670
176 61041 11 TWO! OSS1 to 1116 7 150 545 216 105E24.651 92.627
317 MAI NW MIS( 1411 4 16 61 65 14,623,200 90,163
571 60 111 I, 11 407 12 114 246 30 31.4 50741 77,274
579 IASI HI 00611NtoIoN 311 11 K. 169 42 26.314.773 79,50)
510 WEST RI 0004151,105 656 11 164 01 111 110,019,114 115,101
WI 1409)3010 HEIGHISIAGAN INV 1 6 OHM HEIGHTS 470 14 277 407 192 91343146 105,142
5112 11116Nsvil 1 1 so “, 164 409 NI 119.002.364 101.901
181 1211111410.14 5O11311 761 II 214 341 174 66.441.4 13 117,231
344 APP) F VAI 1 1 6 ROSEMOUNT•I Ala 4 II 1 I_ 1357 11 272 626 44 139.419355 101,100
77) 10150 441 11 I57 10 101 121.361.517 112314
517 HOpkiNs MINNETONKA 962 le 172 461 31) 111,107.195 122,772
519 LAKE MINNI tONSA 1121 02 246 445 Ill 177.9 13314 1511,729
561 ST 101115 PARE 711 49 260 052 77 11.7)5,405 19.141
702 110 9 pRAIRII 496 10 144 404 294 111,462.611 126.612
541 S1)1111101,4 M)(1111WESI 443 12 111 204 111 14.1141,209 RENO
MINE 1 1 I AN13), AR1 AS 712 71 111 274 179 56.6111.1311 79,610
February '88/Minneapolis REALTOR/8
¶ 1.114.610
1.710.900
11,061.4011
109,900
7,460.700
11,016.121
1).011.76i
22.745,21.
22.165,011
1,011,7 70
40.912,646
1.776.210
0105.1614
61•170
14.760
61 710
67,704
76,717
72,410
to.1 1 6
..111.11
I 17360
.0.112
1/.591
/5.461
76,122
74,399
9.116
61.0111
61,7474
93.30.
29.591
6.610
2394
39 .4115
59,100
71,76.
76.406
77.9/1
14,7 74
6.• 0471
17,429
92.02 7
4 .1
. 'r 4L . ,... .
• 'TYPE OF FINANCING BY DISTRICT FOR 1986-1987 1)5 136 ., .....
.
„. ,..
,.-...!..- .11,-..*.:...-.
. .. .
ConInKe Prieste
[MM. for Deed CONV, FHA GI CASH Insumnce Assume ISO1FA Other
- 1986 1987 1986 1987 1986 1967 1986 1987 1986 1987 1986 1987 1986 1987 1986 1987 1166 1987
532 21 13 6 8 I 2 -- - 9 7 - - 2 - - - 4 3
533 9 8 1 2 - 1 -- 1 6 4 - - - I - - 1 -
535 39 35 10 5 32 13 3 5 3 7 - I II 10 - - 3 5
536 - I I
537 24 20 II 8 87 36 10 9 7 7 I I 28 18 - 2 4 _
539 34 20 4 11 79 48 13 12 8 3 I - 15 II - - 2 I
541 54 44 12 16 118 65 16 10 II 9 1 I 28 18 I I 4 3
543 48 36 50 60 96 51 II 10 10 12 2 4 13 18 - I 4 6
550 50 49 152 174 391 249 20 22 32 31 14 10 39 42 6 9 12 32
551 28 44 180 148 110 88 17 5 65 71 4 8 40 31 5 - 16 13
552 93 113 35 32 507 405 98 79 40 37 5 I 94 84 25 29 II 28
553 32 38 13 31 296 228 54 29 15 16 2 - 35 32 7 20 3 7
554 12 21 123 146 299 204 31 14 21 14 19 I 27 43 3 3 8 20
555 33 27 71 80 370 321 57 37 17 16 6 I 46 51 8 15 9 12
556 45 49 39 35 307 297 32 43 15 17 2 I 41 44 15 16 4 15
557 48 46 37 35 342 285 48 37 17 23 5 3 30 39 13 17 5 13
558 20 24 13 12 94 86 19 II 10 6 I - 26 13 I 7 3 4
559 8 II 18 17 64 38 8 2 3 ,' 3 I 6 7 - 2 1 4
560 6 II 23 41 64 42 12 9 4 6 - I 10 16 I 3 3 2
563 47 68 13 23 68 87 20 25 27 38 - - 8 20 6 7 I 2
564 52 62 39 67 406 327 88 48 29 25 4 3 63 79 I 7 12 5
565 24 18 144 163 210 123 36 26 18 14 8 4 34 24 - 2 2 I
566 28 30 87 135 281 154 53 40 20 24 2 10 27 44 4 3 6 0
567 70 116 90 132 591 550 129 94 45 36 I 6 110 131 2 21 42 9
568 39 54 42 89 432 338 77 50 22 34 5 2 60 64 4 12 7 0
569 39 56 23 38 178 154 49 25 21 23 2 2 21 27 2 4 15 I
570 69 84 50 94 269 256 88 57 31 51 - 4 33 59 3 10 21 5
571 47 III 103 157 920 620 193 III 36 52 7 6 148 151 5 21 15 8
572 162 239 134 131 459 417 106 96 130 158 2 7 55 84 16 10 15 3
573 20 25 110 109 178 113 23 18 21 27 6 2 12 35 - 2 4
574 40 56 526 507 364 247 86 33 69 77 26 9 57 7 3 3 4 23 39
575 54 75 80 106 689 488 110 56 29 27 2 2 73 71 5 22 6 16
576 79 80 160 230 706 534 128 89 41 49 5 II 108 133 - 14 17 27
577 32 25 26 43 89 57 21 10 22 31 1 2 13 17 I I 8 6
578 20 24 37 45 367 238 54 36 19 14 - I 54 36 3 10 4 7
579 22 24 25 37 242 185 45 34 15 II 2 I 34 30 I 6 6 4
580 56 69 350 377 438 279 81 47 61 59 16 7 108 109 - 4 12 21
$81 31 27 164 322 328 313 63 59 14 29 1 7 82 107 1 2 169 26
582 37 68 193 267 374 311 98 81 29 34 4 10 89 92 I 5 117 42
583 120 143 109 211 376 280 92 56 92 97 3 6 66 50 15 24 63 43
584 69 86 180 386 542 525 176 137 50 61 6 8 109 132 - 8 229 77
585 61 49 500 468 187 112 49 13 123 106 14 7 51 63 - 3 19 44
587 74 66 440 421 411 240 82 46 80 76 25 20 79 89 - 4 16 45
589 186 168 368 457 381 282 129 32 176 210 20 II 86 95 2 8 34 33
591 42 54 123 136 489 362 41 40 35 32 8 9 63 79 4 12 15 23
592 31 49 363 418 321 258 60 43 49 50 5 9 64 76 - 2 21 28
593 69 79 103 134 246 158 57 24 63 52 7 5 39 42 8 10 9 10 .
605 99 114 24 56 52 49 20 25 59 49 I 2 10 22 1 2 7 2
608 29 14 3 5 4 10 - 3 24 18 - 3 6 3 - 2 3 3
609 60 77 51 79 102 100 27 23 12 17 5 I 19 25 - - II 5
611 17 7121- - 14 31-13 -II-
Total Units 2,432 2,852 5,478 6,707 13,86110,629 2.730 1.818 1,759 1,893 255 213 2,292 2,545 174 368 1,027 784
Percent 8.01 10.20 18.19 24.13 46.37 38.24 9.07 6.54 5.84 6.81 0.85 0.77 7.61 9.16 0.58 1.32 3.48 2.83
-SALES ACTIVITY FOR BUSINESS DUPLEX ,',APARTMENTS, ETC.
`-
19115 909 9117 1915 1966
1 7
101
0
172
116
247
212
271
2411
24
11674111(111196
532 311.11 1119 31100 1.61111, .66 •I
711 - Bo. I. V., 001 01 37,6 0677
535 - Opt 0,014000 121
716 -36443 Group
117 - North 6 61.1177r71 1/66167 114
134 - Norilleau 127.147 144
541 - .60 A6.6440e5o 229
741 - N4t066661 DupIet 214
601 - stunt 110767, 241
6161 -- 1.10 67.6 l'67.11‘ 61
- 110667 22 1
ni 1 - 61016mo.4 61n 1,11, 93.1.4
13 34.11 7 .91 7
716061
16,5501174
2
127.11711
101
12,071,4111
106
11,354,116
167
16.766.477
191
25,60.010
121
14,614.526
RI
1.261.1173
327
iV,779,191
1,71v 100
Dollar Volume
54366.110
1,102.250
11..96,744
0
12,9.0.157
11,917,510
11,171.607
21.161397
1/.747,110
2,411,109
26.104,947
3,330,240
1465
•614
19116
148 ,
February '88/Minneapolis REALTOR/9
1190 *1)5ENIVAYS:AEA --
.BY PRICE IlitiAlCDZIWN-7
PrItst
SI 4.99/ or undee
520.110 - 29,9
110190 - 19.049
340.190 - 49 v.
950.039 - 19.44Y
S40.411 - 69,499
570.1910 - 79,999
190.212 - 119.1999
$91.100 - 99.999
Slt9.190 - I
5120,000 - 139.999
.057uu - 119 999
$160.010 - 174,999
$1101811- 199,1899
1210.002 - 199.999
3230.000 and 950
1.1111
940-
682
202
437
1.0/1
2.19
3.671
4,141
1.734
2.441
2.6/4
1,694
939
671
•16
371
516
sae 61
Tolel
71
71
1.77
• 16
87
9109
1616
14 49
141
1122
697
3.64
2.62
161
2,22
2.60
UnI1 1.9.41
Yoh. S.. haln 139ese •
211.610.706 10.961 $21.9112
nfl NV fin . filn t7. .nt
111015.597 9,901 $29.03)
141.264.990 12.410 $27.776
416.1. 177 14,711 179.510
499171019 15.118 611.516
500,901.0119 19.441 614,05
189.959.410 15.391 1111.095
77101 7 ,914 78,416 191061
.115,691,011 31.271 6917,941
.296,20700 22.760 $17.1 7 1
.111.991.2611 20,666 $66.917
.190.771.011 11,971 979,1209
.20,7117,194 11.671 390.2111
990691,968 12.191 692,98
.041916.756 15.974 694.911
.169.515.111 18.131 611.007
.606.291111 21.111 S17,739
121.647.111 28,011 $90,119
160,109.111 25.772 $91.914
1959
1970
1971
.72
1971
1979
1971
1976
.7/
19 /9
1979
1991
1902
1991
1994
1985
1986
1967
1191.91
Procemed
18.191
20.610
21.470
10.00 1
1/.615
11..6
27,101
11,171
19.590
50.479
16.091
90.1917
27.019
11,550
91.969
50.794
51, 34995
51,491
59.162
91.422
11+6
42o. 66040. 1977 1978 1979 1910 19111 1912 1913 1916 1919 8986 1987
550 Calhoun 14a1r41 144A. 911,919 166.994 $75.795 $119.176 $16.191 $66.194 117,141 910.444 192,897 $916112
511 Cedar•116i•L0tin6 60,284 70.119 19,011 101.904 111,227 101,796 121.971 109,594 108.361 110,10 122.760
512 North 11.011 17.492 41921 48.786 91,244 52,244 52,791 51.119 12,379 15.701 50.997
553 Northeast 14.571 42,979 49,601 74,416 59,149 58.814 51,111 19,321 59,5)4 61.672 63,041
554 Par1•47 We8) 10.911 60,717 66,761 73,187 12.938 16.174 86,040 114,141 1 7 .671 91.010 91.163
515 Pael•ay 5,7081 42,661 99,423 19,656 64,570 11.111 71.824 72.291 71,019 70.061 77.409 76131
516 P•r6o•ay South 37.280 44,745 51.837 56.600 61778 62,259 63,900 61.125 62.161 61.164 67,110
337 Sou. 59,659 41.990 99.055 94,476 99.747 08.870 59.921 57.749 58,951 61.115 61,1125
558 South Cenlral 29,900 17,197 41971 48,613 51.161 53,115 52.013 49,701 48,663 52,14 51.587
179 South Easl 41097 50,189 56,765 62.950 70,114 63,991 67,991 66,455 66.221 73,161 71114
560 St P641 & Suburban 41,798 10.712 56.420 61,927 72,090 82.821 95.112 86.912 95,997 12.797 110.471
361 19910:04917 - 57.708 48,141 51,110 49,114 49,102 51,311 12,857 56,199
564 1119.,10.111on 39,0
-
71 99371 39,671 60,999 67,141 67,4191 84,404 70,410 71,611 71,6111 75.052 Cock 'Sues
565 Falcon 111,0101 64ve0., - 63,117 76,617 119.1114 94.164 92.112 101.411 96,457 140,970 105,100 107.244
Alden .11111115150.9,*
566 790. BeH61no• 49,911 78.977 64,444 73.189 10.601 12.812 116.091 15.602 11.122 89,112 95,504 Moundsnes+SI Anthony
567 Coon 0ap441sook a 40,769 49,142 56,776 62.757 6614 61.304 66.987 69.096 71.450 75,934 77,117
• 06d94191umbr4 H96103 41.276 52.029 58.1171 63.111 69.044 69.364 69,099 69.909 74,667 73,761 76,401 Spina 1.46. Pert
569 Sob NE 40,214 49,099 56.461 59,856 66.081 63,241 68.921 61901 67149 74.165 76.901
570 Anoka CH W. - 54,067 60.610 66.703 70.151 09.498 70.792 13.238 11.920 79.503 16.176
171 Bel Center /Pa. 44,266 53.753 60.630 64.264 69,767 71,061 71.669 71,441 13.111 77,177
571 Wnsht.56e169r0e Lrys - 41.211 51,674 92.481 55.191 54.658 57,124 62,132 61,0111
511 Golden Va11e1./ ysol Hills 56,3
-
50 67,346 70.022 84,419 91,991 90.991 97,650 99.409 94,317 105.217 101.371
374 Plymoulh 62,81 4 74,440 86.860 94.694 101,097 111.619 114,11) 113,115 113.811 119.123 126,910
575 Kobb,514s1e ,Cryst•I 44,117 52,660 09.617 63.188 69.016 69.0% 70,1569 70,191 71.116 71417 77,686
New Hope
576 1.4.. Cdosee0swo 11.190 10.171 10.921 80,119 81.610 11.411 85.144 92,627 ChamplIn•LHH+n
577 Sob NW 42,901 50,691 61.721 65,968 69,146 64.756 77.620 85.859 91.262 90.579 91.101
378 litchlteld 49,906 31.132 60.051 61341 10.944 71,273 71.416 70,154 72.994 16,991 77,274
579 1 Bloomingral 41,799 51.311 59,372 65,142 71106 98,950 14.987 72115 72,661 71210 79.146
560 W Bloomtnsion 58.750 72,169 79,74) 92.670 99,746 105,718 103.001 102147 106.1101 109.993 115.101
511 Mendota Hu .1-sgan 9,17 1 98,172 69,104 74,015 81,151 12.921 16.009 81.066 91146 93.617 101.142 Inver (0770e 11418614
512 6 ile 51.19) 67.791 71.919 10.639 114.220 20.279 89.312 68,9111 90,423 91,915 101,801
5111 Suburban buds 401114 396115 67.801 64.944 75,511 73112 76.234 79,211 111.648 11.261 111231
asople +a1.+ 49 605 19/00 67.015 74,794 75,421 78.360 84.311 81,671 91614 91.461 101,100 Rote. I lit
MN Edina 82.464 94162 104.911 117.089 121.756 113161 131.118 116,726 43.163 192,6131 132.619
507 Hoplon3 94th40,06. 56,160 68.965 71139 91.441 96,399 104,7111 106,678 101,942 107,369 112,915 122.712
589 6.•ke Minnoonta 18,144 74,001 89,070 105,942 112.971 119.591 117.251 130,791 114.941 131.213 138,729
591 S. Loon P196 44,•10 52.892 59.690 66,951 71.711 74.619 76,743 73.006 76.722 79.011 99.587
192 E4.5 PHs. 62.106 71.719 19.117 98.126 104.110 107.507 119.150 107,929 115.778 116.754 126,612
591 Suburlmn SW 46.781 35,146 63,291 417,727 73,491 75.137 71617 70,514 80.816 80.402 89,643
Olaate 1917
Conelmr.. 1984
• 6.2
• 1 1 2
- 1,1
• 3 2
• 5.0
.1.2
7)9
1091
• 6 7
• 1.9
• 2 0
+6.3
• 2 6
• 1.3
.3.7
• 8.4
62,7
• 4 6
+11
• 15
• 4 •
• 9 1
• 0 4
936
• 4 7
1602
Y YEAR REVIEW va . . . „ •
.';,',.ELEVEN YEAR REVIEW - AVERAGE SALES PRICE BY DISTRICT #9 •
February '88/Minneapolis REALTOR/I0
WHAT DOES THE ASSESSOR DO?
1.. He first reviews all property to be assessed
2. He then values it.
To do this he is constantly searching and digging for significant facts
to accumulate and analyze in order to estimate the estimated market value
of your property.
3. What is "Market Value?"
Finding the market value of your property involves discovering the price
most people would pay for it in its present condition. Its not quite
that simple, however, because he has to find what this value would be for
every piece of property, no matter how big or small. But it doesn't stop
there. Each year he has to do the whole thing over again, because the
market value of almost everything changes from one year to the next.
This is done so that those of us who want the advantages of having schools,
fire and police protection, and other public benefits, can absorb our fair
share of the cost, in proportion to the amount of money our individual
property is worth.
4. How the assessor goes about his job.
To find the value of any piece of property the appraiser must first know
what properties similar to it are selling for, what it would cost today to
replace it, how much it takes to operate and keep it in repair, what rent
It may earn, and many other dollar facts affecting its value.
Utilizing these facts he can then go about finding the property's value in
three different ways.
The first way is by comparing your property to others which have sold
recently. (Market /1p2roach) These prices, however, must be analyzed very
carefully to get the true picture.
A second way to value your property is based on how much money it would.
take, at current material and labor costs, to replace your property with
one similar. (cost Approach) If your property is not new, he must also
determine how much it has depreciated.
The third way is to evaluate how much income your property would produce
if it were rented like an apartment house, a store, or an office building.
Incomeiyprolch) The appraiser must consider operating expenses and the
return most people would expect on your kind of property.
5. Why Market Values may change from year to year.
Market values change because of inflation or defl
a
t
i
o
n
i
n
t
h
e
r
e
a
l
e
s
t
a
t
e
market and because of positivie or negative change
s
i
n
a
n
i
n
d
i
v
i
d
u
a
l
property.
For instance, if you were to add a garage to yo
u
r
h
o
m
e
,
t
h
e
m
a
r
k
e
t
v
a
l
u
e
would increase. However, should your property b
e
d
a
m
a
g
e
d
b
y
a
f
i
r
e
t
h
e
market value would decrease.
The appraiser has not created the value; he sim
p
l
y
h
a
s
t
h
e
l
e
g
a
l
r
e
s
p
o
n
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
to discover it as it exists and appraise your pr
o
p
e
r
t
y
a
c
c
o
r
d
i
n
g
l
y
s
i
n
c
e
people make value by their transactions in the market place.
6. Market Value and the Tax Rate.
The appraiser/assessor has nothing to do with th
e
total amount of taxes collected. His primary responsibility is to fin
d
t
h
e
m
a
r
k
e
t
v
a
l
u
e
o
f
y
o
u
r
property, so that you will pay only your fair sh
a
r
e
o
f
t
h
e
t
o
t
a
l
t
a
x
e
s
.
To afford all the services you receive, the local taxing divisions, (City, County, School District, and others) must levy t
a
x
e
s
.
7. SEE US FIRST
If your opinion of the value of your property differs from the assessor's,
by all means come in and discuss the matter with
u
s
.
W
e
w
i
l
l
b
e
g
l
a
d
t
o
discuss any questions you may have.
The Property Tax Process - Example
This is a very simplified recap of the property tax process
a
s
t
h
e
r
e
a
r
e
a
myriad of laws and regulations concerning the calculation o
f
a
s
s
e
s
s
e
d
values and the allowable amounts that are levied by the var
i
o
u
s
t
a
x
i
n
g
districts.
A. Assessment/Valuation Process
1/88 1. Value and classification of all properties in the city
a
s
o
f
January 2, 1988 the legal date of assessment.
4/88 2. Assessment complete, subject to correction of errors, an
d
c
h
a
n
g
e
s
made by local and county boards of equalization.
9/88 3. Assessed values finalized after approval of State Commi
s
s
i
o
n
e
r
o
f
Revenue.
B. Budget/Levy Process
10/88 1. All divisions of local government authorized to levy pro
p
e
r
t
y
t
a
x
e
s
must submit to county auditor the certified ($) amounts to
b
e
levied. (Ex: City, County, School District, Watershed District)
12/88 2. Mill Rates for each division of local government determin
e
d
.
(a) $ levied 4-total 1/2/88 assessed value = tax rate x 1000 = mill
r
a
t
e
.
1/89 3. Individual Property Tax Statements prepared.
(b) individual assessed value x tax rate = gross tax - credits
=
n
e
t
t
a
x
.
Collection of Taxes Levied in 1988 to be paid in 1989 and distributed to
local government divisions in 1989.
5/89 1. First 1/2 tax due and payable.
10/89 2. Remainder of tax due and payable.
Definitions
1. Estimated Market Value - Means the usual selling price at the
p
l
a
c
e
where the property to which the term is applied shall be at t
h
e
t
i
m
e
of assessment; being the price which could be obtained at pr
i
v
a
t
e
sale and not a forced or auction sale. (M.S. Sec. 272.03, Subd. 8)
2. Assessed Value - A percentage of the Estimated Market Valu
e
w
h
i
c
h
varies by property type and value. The percentage and pro
c
e
d
u
r
e
s
are determined by the Minnesota State Legislature.
2. Tax Levy - That portion of a local governments total ope
r
a
t
i
n
g
b
u
d
g
e
t
to be collected in the form of local property taxes.
<T4
rry,(Z17
DATE: 7/86
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 Aprit -T each year. The meet-
ings are held between April 1 and Jette-307 — r b I
My 31
DUTIES OF LOCAL BOARDS OF REVIEW
1. Ste that all taxable property in the township is properly assessed, valued and
clt ssified.
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 aggre-
gate 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:12
DATE: 7/86
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 adjourn-
ment of 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:12
ASSESSOR
A-2103 Government Center
300 South Sixth Street
HENNEPIN Minneapolis, Minnesota 55487-0213
April 18, 1988
Steven Sinell
Eden Prairie City Assessor
7600 Executive Drive
Eden Prairie, MN 55344
Dear
We have just completed the analysis of each class of property for
the City of Eden Prairie's 1988 assessment.
I am very pleased tc advise you that the assessment meets the
standards required with regard to level and quality of the assess-
ment. The analysis clearly indicates that Eden Prairie is well
equalized with the other cities in Hennepin County.
My sincere thanks to you and your staff for a job well done.
Very uly yours,
/52 Wra---
Donald F. Monk
Director of Assessments
DFM:jn
cc: Carl Jullie, Manager
HENNEPIN COUNTY
on equal opportunity employer