Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
2000-04-10 BOARD OF REVIEW
STATE OF MINNESOTA HC 211 (p.1) County of Hennepin City of Edina We, the undersigned, Board of Review - *Equalization - of the City of Edina in said County, do hereby certify that we, and each of us, attended at the office of the City Clerk on the 10th day of Apri 1 , 19 2000 The day set forth in the notice given by the Clerk, and in accordance with the provisions of Minnesota Statutes, Section 274.01. We made changes In the 19 9000 Assessment as entered In the following form(s). Itness our hands this 18th day of April ,192000 ( Chair) CHANGES MADE BY THE LOCAL BOARD OF REVIEW o Cities whose Charters provide for a Board of Equalization instead of a Board of Review. Prakash V. Puram 08- 116 -21 -31 -0075 Y RL 24.500 800.000 250.000 550,000 Minuel Azar 31- 117 -21 -24 -0016 Y R 15.400 441.000 114.900 326.100 Alex Zhuravel 32- 117 -21 -41 -0068 Y R 11,900 224,500 60,300 164,200 Jacqueline Mithun 13- 028 -24 -44 -0067 Y ;: 12,300 265,000 95,000 170,000 Team France PartnershiD 31- 028 -24 -14 -0001 N C 333,600 2,635,400 970,600 1,664,800 Jean J. Jiang 05- 1.16 -21 -11 -0070 Y R 200,900 Anthony J. Mitchell 05- 116 -21 -14 -0006 Y R 195,800 NIC Duane �i. Haglund 05- 116 -21 -14 -0040 Y R 202,600 N/C Robert J. Malby 05- 116 -21 -14 -0043 Y R 249,500 N/C Craig Zachman 05- 116 -21 -41 -0071 Y RL 278,100 N/C Danforth H. Leach, Jr. 06- 116 -21 -32 -0054 Y R 328,000 N/C Helen Holvelson 06- 116 -21 -43 -0038 Y R 193,100 N/C Edward Yamnick 07- 116 -21 -21 -0047 Y R 215.,200 N/C Lloyd V. Lof ren 08- 116 -21 -32 -0006 Y Burton C. Ruedy 28- 117 -21 -24 -0061 Y R 158,800 Njr Elizabeth T. Jenson 28- 117 -21 -24 -0062 Y R 158.400 Christine Wellens 30- 117 -21 -22 -0116 N R 57,000 N/C Richard B. Perrin 32- 117 -21 -43 -0051 Y R 315,000 N/C CHANGES MADE BY THE LOCAL BOARD OF REVIEW HC 211 (p.2) *Applies only to Cities whose Charters provide for a Board of Equalization instead of a Board of Review. Debra A. Nei er 32- 117 -21 -44 -0003 Y IR 186,300 N/C Frank Cardarelle 33- 117 -21 -34 -0122 Y R 399,000 N/C Norman P. Chapel 18- 028 -24 -23 -0058 Y RL 1,073,800 N/C Larry Swandby for 9 -02 -24 -31 -0125 Y R 111.400 N/C Andy Pon hi s 31- 023 -24 -22 -0074 Y IR 193,100 I! C Shaner Hotel Grp PrP Two LP Shaner Hotel Grp Prp Two LP 32- 023 -24 -34 -0025 05- 027 -24 -21 -0004 N N C LC 500 685.600 N/C Wr HC 586 (1/00) CERTIFICATION OF POSTING OF ASSESSMENT NOTICE State of Minnesota COUNTY OF Hennepin City OF Edina ss. I, Debra A-' Mangpn , Clerk of the City of Edina in said County for the year 2000 , do hereby certify that on the 22nd day of March , 20.00, in conformity with requirements of law, I posted notices in each of three of the most public places in said C i tY of Edina ten days before the time of meeting therein named, and also caused such notice to be published in a legal newspaper, of which the following is a true copy, to -wit: ASSESSMENT NOTICE NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN, That the Board of Review of the City of Edina in Hennepin County, Minnesota, will meet at the office of the C i ty Clerk in said City Counc i 1 Chamherat ^5-06 o'clock P M., on Monday , the 10th day of Apr i 1 , 2000 , for the purpose of reviewing and correcting the assessment of said City of Edina for the year 2000. All persons considering themselves aggrieved by said assessment, or who wish to complain that the property of another is assess- ed too low, are hereby notified to appear at said meeting and show cause for having such assessment corrected. No complaint that another person is assessed too low will be acted upon until the person so assessed, or his agent, shall have been notified of such complaint. Dated the 22nd day of March , 2000. Clerk of the C i t y of Ed i n a Given under my hand this 22nd day of March , 20 00. Clerk State of Minnesota, COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ss. City of Edina We, the undersigned, Board of Review of the City of Fri i n a in said County, do hereby certify that we, and each of us, attended at the office of the C i ty Clerk of said City on the day set forth in the notice given by the Clerk of said r i t y , and that we then and there remained in session the whole of said day as a Board of Review. Witness our hands this 10th NOTICE TO ASSESSOR Ariessor must make the necessary footings at bottom of each page and carry them forward to the "Tabular Statement "form, and in so doing use all possible care. Minnesota Statutes, Section 274.04. The assessor shall foot each column in his assessment book, and make in each book, under proper headings, a tabular statement showing the footings of the several columns upon each page. He shall also foot the total amounts of the several columns under the respective headings. * * * Such return shall be verified by his affidavit substantially in the following form: To Be Signed By County Assessor To Auditor of the County of State of Minnesota County of I, ASSESSOR'S RETURN OATH SS. , Minnesota. , County Assessor of the County of do solemnly swear that the book to which this is attached contains a correct and full list of all Real and Personal Property subject to assessment and taxation in the of for the year 20 , so far as I have been able to ascertain the same, and that the market value, except as limited by statute, and the assessed value, except as limited by statute, set down in the property column, opposite the several kinds and descriptions of property, is in each case the market value, except as limited by statute, and assessed value, except as limited by statute, of such property, to the best of my knowledge and belief, including all changes made by the Board of Review, and that the footings of the several columns in said book and the tabular statements returned herewith are correct, as 1 verily believe. Subscribed and sworn to before me this County of day of Auditor of CERTIFICATION OF NOTICE ON INCREASED VALUATIONS State of Minnesota Of SS. County Assessor 120 County 1, County Assessor of County, Minnesota, do solemnly swear that the owner or occupant of each description of real properly which was subjected to an increase in market value over the preceding year's assessment was given official notice of the amount of such increases. I further certify that all such notices were sent through the course of ordinary mail not less than ten days prior to on which m0wh Day . Ym the duly convened or on Mowh Day YW Of ten days prior to the official adjournment thereof. Date Signature: Board of Review memorandum Date: 04/7/00 To: Edina Board of Review Members From: Rick Petersburg, SAMA RE: Board of Review Meeting - April 10, 2000 - 5:00 p.m. - Council Chambers This packet of information includes: • 2000 Board of Review Book (Recap of work completed in 1999 for 2000). • Introductory letter and statistics to Board members. • The complete list of Board applicants #1 through #20 who had applied by 4:30 p.m. April 3, 2000 and are still active cases. List indicating late applicants and letters to be considered. • Board of Review Appraiser procedures. • Board of Review Rules. • Sample "Request for Review" forms and resident board presentation sheet. • The Board case worksheet. • Individual assessor's commentaries with recommendations for each case (if time allowed) along with a photocopy of their application and supporting evidence. Note: Any additional applications will be presented to the Board members on April 10"'. Case number 11 and 19 may contain NON - PUBLIC DATA. 04/01/98 1 2000 BOARD OF REVIEW Dennis Maetzold - Mayor Mike Kelly - Council Member Scott Johnson - Council Member Nan Faust - Council Member Jim Hovland - Council Member This unpublished work is protected by copyright and other laws. In the event of publication, the following notice shall apply: © Copyright 1998, 1999 and 2000 City of Edina 2000 BOARD OF REVIEW Index Section 1 - Lefte"r of Transmittal ., Letter of Transmittal Richard R. Petersburg Page Number Section 2 - Ten Year Tax/Value History__. 1 - 2 Ten Year History of Value and Homestead Taxes 2 Section 3 -'Rep, o, rt on the Residential Assessment „_ 3 - 17; . Residential Statistical Summary 4 - 6 Residential Assessment District Legend & Map 7 - 8 Real Estate Sales Articles 9 -16 Section 4 -'Report on the Commercial /Industrial Assessment. 17 - 29 Report on the Assessment 18-23 Commercial Assessment District Map Real Estate Sales Articles 24 25-29 Section nn 5 - Heepin County Ratios , . _ _ :. _.- 31) -:31 Hennepin County Ratios - Residential 31 Section 6 - Average Value Adjustments . 31- 33 Market Value Adjustments 33 Residential Value Adjustments Townhouse Value Adjustments Condominium Value Adjustments Commercial Value Adjustments Industrial Value Adjustments Apartment Value Adjustments Section 7 - Review Areas;. ; _ .. :: - 34; -37 Residential and Commercial Review Areas for 1999 / 2000 35-36 1999 / 2000 Residential Review Area Map 37 Section 8 - Explanation of Homestead Filing/Valuation Notices 38-41 Homestead/Valuation Notice Mailing 39-40 Sample Valuation Notice 41 Section 9 - Definitions _ 42-43 Definitions 43 Addendum Section 10 - Tax Charts _ . _. 44,56 Residential Property Tax Estimates 46 Residential Tax Comparison: Homestead 47 Non - homestead Residential Property Tax Estimates 48 Residential Tax Comparison: Non - homestead 49 Sample Tax Calculation 50-51 Commercial/Industrial Tax Estimates 52 Commercial/Industrial Tax Comparison 53 Sample Tax Calculation 54-55 Total Tax Capacity Rate Comparison 56 1 City of Edina 2000 Edina Board of Review April 10, 2000 TO: The 2000 Board of Review Members FROM: Richard R. Petersburg, City Assessor SUBJECT: 2000 Board of Review Each year the City Council is required by State laws to act as the Board of Review or appoint a special Board of Review to review the work done by the City Assessor. As stated in M.S. 274.01, the duty of the Board of Equalization or Board of Review is: "To examine and see that all taxable property in the City has been properly placed upon the tax list and duly valued by the Assessor." M.S. 274.01 continues, "On application of any person feeling aggrieved, the Board shall review the assessment and correct it as shall appear just." Simply put, the purpose of the Board of Review is not to review the amount or level of a person's property tax, but to review the assessed value and classification of taxable property in the City as determined by the Assessor. The Assessor, as mandated by State law, is responsible for establishing values of property, while elected officials of cities, counties and school districts set the level of taxation, within State guidelines. There is a formal route of appeals of the Assessor's value on a property, starting with the Local Board of Review. The next step is the County Board of Equalization and, if necessary, State Tax Court. Any claims of an unfair assessment should be supported by evidence and submitted to the hearing body. During 1999 the Board of Review heard 53 formal applications (forty-six in person and seven by letter) at the Board to appeal their value or classification. State law requires that a taxpayer appear before each level of the appeals process before going on to the next level, with the exception of the Tax Court which may be appealed to directly. An individual may not be prepared to present evidence at this time, but wish to have the protest read into the record to keep the avenues of appeal open. No Board action is required for these official appearances. Much of the quality of an assessment can be found-in the development of statistics which measure certain tendencies in the assessment. You will find attached in Section 3 and Section 4 of the attached report, statistics that will provide you with concrete data upon which to judge the assessment. Also included, are various reports and charts that should help you get a feel for the assessment and an understanding of what property taxes have done in 2000. City Hall (612) 927 -8861 4801 WEST 50TH STREET FAX (612) 826 -0390 EDINA, MINNESOTA 55424 -1394 TDD (612) 826 -0379 rpj� 'Mm� SECTION 2 - TEN YEAR TAX / VALUE HISTORY Page 2 - Ten Year History of Value and Homestead Taxes This chart shows three homes, a lower value home, an average value home and a higher value home. Each home is tracked for ten years for its value and homestead tax. None of the homes has been altered significantly during the study period. PG 1 T 0 N City of Edina Assessor's Market Value and Property Tax 10 Year History Sr -hnnl f)ictrirt t971 Watarchari # Prooerty 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 4628 Valley View Rd $ 91,500 $ 94,200 $ 97,000 $ 101,200 $ 108,200 $ 115,700 $ 115,700 $ 118,000 $ 123,900 $ 138,700 19- 028 -24 -34 -0074 $ 1,179 $ 1,425 $ 1,616 $ 1,688 $ 1,942 $ 2,015 $ 1,993 $ 1,840 $ 1,833 $ 1,827 4602 Moorland Ave $ 494,900 $ 494,900 $ 514,700 $ 558,000 $ 569,100 $ 574,700 $ 603,400 $ 633,500 $ 690,500 $ 814,700 18- 028 -24 -24 -0071 $ 11,901 $ 11,241 $ 12,368 $ 13,195 $ 14,130 $ 13,420 $ 13,372 $ 13,361 $ 13,966 $ 14,552 5325 Oaklawn Ave $ 159,700 $ 169,300 $ 177,700 $ 194,600 $ 204,300 $ 210,300 $ 220,800 $ 226,300 $ 248,900 $ 271,300 18- 028 -24 -43 -0090 $ 2,867 $ 3,265 $ 3,693 $ 4,040 $ 4,461 $ 4,347 $ 4,445 $ 4,298 $ 4,381 $ 4,573 Market Value $900,000 - $800,000 - - - - - - - �, $700,000 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -' $600,000 - - - - - - - - - - - - > $500,000 - - - ---- - - - - -- $400,000 - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - m $300,000 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - f $200,000 - - - - - - $100,000 - - M LO n rn m 0) m a) 0) 1 m m Q1 Assessment Year �- 4628 Valley View Rd --f- 4602 Moorland Ave -6 5325 Oaklawn Ave $16,000 $14,000 ~ $12,000 v $10,000 aNi $8,000 E $6,000 _ $4,000 CD $2,000 Net Homestead Tax m Q7 M U) rl- 0) m 0) 0) Assessment Year 0 4628 Valley View Rd -0-4602 Moorland Ave -& 5325 Oaklawn Ave 1 3 SECTION 3 - REPORT ON THE RESIDENTIAL ASSESSMENT Page 4 - 6 - 2000 Statistical Summary - Residential This report contains the following data: Median Ratio - middle value in the study. Mean Ratio - average value in the study. Coefficient of Dispersion - measure of assessment uniformity, less than ten (10) (10) is considered excellent. Index of Regression - 100.30 indicates a perfect assessment. Over 100.30 indicates lower value homes may be assessed higher than high value homes. Under 100.30 indicates higher value homes may be assessed higher than low value homes. Number of Sales - total number of valid sales. Sample Sufficiency Gauge - under 1.00 indicates a statistically valid sample. Average Market - average Assessor's value of the sample items. Average Sale Price - average sale price of the sample items. Assessment Quality, as dictated by the Department of Revenue and other sources, requires that there be uniformity among strata and that our ratios fall between 90% and 105% of market value. In addition, Single - family residences coefficient of dispersion should generally be 15.0 or less and for newer and fairly homogeneous areas, 10.0 or less. The following statistics will demonstrate that the overall assessment is good. There are some areas, where there is adequate sample sufficiency, that need attention for the upcoming assessment. Page 7 - 8 - Residential Assessment District Legend and Map This map and legend delineates 42 residential assessment districts in the City of Edina. These areas are studied each year and help to analyze valuations of single family homes within homogeneous neighborhoods. Page 9 - 17 - Real Estate Articles PG 3 City of Edina 2000 Residential Statistical Summary Sales Period: Oct. 1998 thru Sept. 1999 District Area Parcel Count Sales Ratio CID % Inc. Sales End Ratio End C/D 1 Morningside 708 45 79.40% 14.1 45 93.70% 13.4 18.00 2 White Oaks 135 9 83.30% 10.5 13.00 9 94.10% 9.6 3 Country Club 564 41 79.60% 10.3 18.00 40 94.50% 9.4 4 Sunnyslope 74 3 90.00% 8.1 7.00 3 6 96.20% 88.60% 8.1 9.8 5 Indianola /Juanita 140 6 75.10% 10.9 18.00 6 Brucewood 112 7 94.50% 6.2 5.00 7 99.20% 6.2 7 Golf Ter 97 7 80.20% 5.7 17.00 7 93.90% 5.7 8 N 58th /Sher /So Har Park 629 24 86.10% 10.2 9.00 21 95.90% 7.7 9 Woodland/Woodcrest 119 - 8 73.60% 11.9 18.00 8 86.80% 10.4 10 E France No 60th 844 48 77.70% 9.9 20.00 49 93.30% 9.5 11 E France So 60th 287 8 82.90% 7.5 14.00 8 94.50% 7.6 12 Halifax/Grimes 129 3 82.10% 0.9 14.001 2 92.40% 1.2 13 S 58th Fairfax Area 402 23 88.10% 8.5 7.00 23 94.20% 8.4 14 So. Jr High /Concord 466 18 83.80% 10.6 12.00 17 94.30% 8.5 15 Parnell /Ryan 83 3 72.40% 3.8 12.00 3 81.10% 3.9 16 Lake Cornelia 520 23 88.60% 8.8 7.00 23 94.80% 7.7 17 Oscar Roberts 139 3 86.00% 7.6 7.00 3 92.00% 7.7 18 So 70th /Lake Edina 531 25 84.90% 8.5 11.001 25 94.20% 7.7 19 Brookview Hts 444 16 88.70% 7.4 7.00` 15 94.90% 6.9 20 Wilryan So Xtown 227 23 84.90% 8.1 11.00• 22 94.90% 7.1 21 Richmond /Birchcrest 834 37 87.80% 8.9 8.00' 37 94.80% 7.9 22 Brookside 440 24 84.50% 9.5 12.00 23 96.10% 8.6 23 Rolling Green 85 2 74.20% 1.6 12.00 2 84.50% 0.2 24 Highland 524 16 84.50% 12.1 11.001 16 93.80% 11.1 25 Countryside 645 27 83.80% 10.1 12.001 26 94.00% 9 26 Creek Valley /Limerick 744 22 84.70% 9.2 11.001 22 94.00% 8.6 27 Antrim/Dublin 56 3 79.40% 4.1 '12.00 1 3 88.90% 4 28 Kemmrich /Shannon 260 21 85.20% 8.9 10.001 21 93.70% 7.8 29 Dewey Hill 89 11 90.50% 9.9 4.00 11 94.10% 6.5 30 Mendelssohn 228 3 85.00% 7.6 10.00 3 93.50% 7.7 31 Mpls Heights 278 16 84.80% 10 11.00 15 94.50% 9.1 32 W Kenneth 9 2 98.30% 0.1 5.00 2 103.20% 0 33 Malibu 32 1 78.00% 0 5.00 1 92.90% 0 34 Park Knolls New 281 18 88.70% 12.5 5.00 15 94.40% 8.3 35 Park Knolls Older 171 6 81.40% 14.8 12.00 6 91.20% 14.9 36 Park Knolls Middle 160 8 78.60% 9.1 15.00 8 90.30% 9.1 37 Artic Way/Tamarac 196 10 82.70% 9 13.00 10 93.50% 7.9 38 Indian Hills 257 11 89.60% 10.2 5.00 11 94.10% 8.5 39 Sioux Tr 196 13 83.80% 9.4 12.001 13 93.80% 7.2 40 Braemar 205 18 80.60% 13.3 14.001 18 91.90% 13.4 41 Glasgow 27 5 73.70% 11.1 12.001 5 87.80% 2.9 42 Hilldale 78 2 85.00% 1.8 12.00 1 93.30% 0 Residential City Wide 619 83.70% 10.6 11.40 605 94.00% 8.9 PG 4 City of Edina 2000 Residential Statistical Summary Sales Period: Oct. 1998 thru Sept. 1999 Median Mean Coef. Index No. of Sample Average Ave. Sale I Ratio Ratio Disp. Regres Sales Suff. Ga. Market Price stics 94.0% 94.9% 8.8 101.0 594 0.24. $ 277,426 $ 295,268 11 Rambler 93.9% 94.1% 8.4 100.7 230 0.38 $ 230,583 $ 246,784 1 1/4 Story 90.7% 92.5% 9.2 100.8 43 0.79 $ 167,147 $ 182,188 1 1/2 Story 95.9% 97.9% 9.9 101.7 53 0.71 $ 234,955 $ 244,075 1 3/4 Story 93.5% 95.4% 8.4 100.2 34 0.79 $ 275,629 $ 289,515 2 Story 93.0% 94.0% 8.9 100.8 151 0.44 $ 415,501 $ 445,745 Split Entry 97.2% 97.8% 8.6 100.6 31 0.80 $ 260,313 $ 267,847 Split Level 97.0% 97.2% 8.0 101.0 52 0.70 $ 229,525 $ 238,550 99,000 Or Less 94.6% 96.8% 7.6 100.7 4 1.67 $ 98,725 $ 102,750 100,000 - 199,900 93.4% 93.5% 8.7 100.9 224 0.38 $ 158,163 $ 170,757 200,000 - 299,900 95.0% 95.9% 8.1 101.3 189 0.40 $ 246,672 $ 260,619 300,000 - 399,900 91.7% 94.5% 10.1 101.5 77 0.60 $ 343,074 $ 368,658 400,000 - 499,900 92.6% 94.3% 9.8 101.3 47 0.71 $ 447,026 $ 479,981 > 500,000,... 96 6% 97.4% _,. m 8.3 _.. 101.9 ._ _ _53. _.. _ _ 0.69, _, $_ 658,858 $ 689,169 _ _ _ _ 500,000 - 599,900 . , 97.4% 98.8% 8.1 101.2 28 0.84 $ 534,293 $ 547,079 600,000 - 799,900 93.7% 96.8% 8.5 101.3 18 1.05 $ 715,928 $ 748,986 800,000 - 999,900 97.5% 99.5% 4.9 100.6 4 1.54 $ 860,225 $ 870,000 > 1,000,000 84.4% 85.7% 4.5 100.2 3 1.37 $1,210,567 $1,415,333 4 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 11 PG 5. No. of Sales Average Market Ave. Sale Price Mean I Ratio Influence Positive 20 $ 480,125 $ 520,615 92.2% Nuetral 523 $ 266,835 $ 283,951 94.0% Nenative 23 $ 207,696 $ 212,748 97.6% PG 5. No. of Sales Average Market Ave. Sale Price Mean Ratio Location Freeway 39 $ 176,859 $ 185,959 95.1% Railroad 4 $ 304,900 $ 303,475 100.5% Thru Street 27 $ 209,952 $ 219,841 95.5% Park 2 $ 321,050 $ 333,500 96.3% Flood Zone Ind. 12 $ 421,833 $ 452,075 93.3% River 9 $ 435,200 $ 463,767 93.8% Lake 26 $ 451,365 $ 481,758 93.7% PG 5. City of Edina 2000 Residential Statistical Summary Sales Period: Oct. 1998 thru Sept. 1999 PG 6 No. of Average Ave. Sale Mean Sales Market Price Ratio Year Built 1999 to 1994 2 $ 489,500 $ 449,500 108.9% 1993 to 1989 8 $ 735,413 $ 806,625 91.2% 1988 to 1984 19 $ 459,558 $ 465,458 98.7% 1983 to 1979 16 $ 455,588 $ 491,264 92.7% 1978 to 1974 23 $ 392,970 $ 418,561 93.9% 1973 to 1969 38 $ 333,663 $ 347,261 96.1% 1968 to 1964 50 $ 291,112 $ 314,109 92.7% 1963 to 1959 65 $ 237,560 $ 251,071 94.6% 1958 to 1954 100 $ 221,866 $ 236,254 93.9% 1953 to 1949 113 $ 185,755 $ 202,171 91.9% 1948 to 1944 49 $ 203,747 $ 214,457 95.0% 1943 to 1939 24 $ 308,671 $ 314,746 98.1% 1938 to 1934 36 $ 365,631 $ 399,988 91.4% 1933 to 1929 15 $ 467,227 $ 491,727 95.0% 1928 to 1924 15 $ 398,120 $ 423,520 94.0% 1923 to 1919 9 $ 152,656 $ 166,822 91.5% 1918 to 1914 7 $ 180,457 $ 200,929 89.8% 1913 to 1909 3 $ 156,233 $ 167,167 93.5% 1908 to 1904 2 $ 187,950 $ 207,450 90.6% 1903 to 1899 0 Pre 1899 0 Median.. Mean Coef. Index No. of Sample Average Ave. Sale Ratio Ratio Dis . Re res Sales Suff. Ga. Market Price ownhomes 95.5% 95.3% 3.4 100.2 34 0.67 $ 290,462 $ 305,472 Doubles 94.5% 92.8% 9.5 101.0 15 1.22 $ 250,067 $ 272,240 Zero Lot Line Res 92.6% 94.9% 7.9 100.9 22 1.05 $ 239,077 $ 254,127 Condominiums 94.0% 93.9% 7.4 100.9 218 0.40 $ 112,175 $ 120,583 PG 6 City of Edina Residential District Legend District Area Parcel Count 1 Morningside 708 2 White Oaks 135 3 Country Club 564 4 Sunnyslope 74 5 Indianola /Juanita 140 6 Brucewood 112 7 Golf Ter 97 8 N 58th Sher /So Har Park 629 9 Woodland/Woodcrest 119 10 E France No 60th 844 11 E France Sp 60th 287 12 Halifax/Grimes 129 13 S 58th Fairfax Area 402 14 So. Jr High /Concord 466 15 Parnell /Ryan 83 16 Lake Cornelia 520 17 Oscar Roberts 139 18 So 70th /Lake Edina 531 19 Brookview Hts 444 20 Wilryan So Xtown 227 21 Richmond /Birchcrest 834 22 Brookside 440 23 Rolling Green 85 24 Highland 524 25 Countryside 645 26 Creek Valley /Limerick 744 27 Antrim /Dublin 56 28 Kemmrich /Shannon 260 29 Dewey Hill 89 30 Mendelssohn 228 31 Mpls Heights 278 32 W Kenneth 9 33 Malibu 32 34 Park Knolls New 281 35 Park Knolls Older 171 36 Park Knolls Middle 160 37 Artic Way/Tamarac 196 38 Indian Hills 257 39 Sioux Tr 196 40 Braemar 205 41 Glasgow 27 42 Hilldale 78 PG 7 " E.DIN s " 'DISTRICTS 1 Is 42 t: ri ti «. Tr, ' .� IN 0. JIM lie: t• cc a > BLVU r �• 9 ^ • ' •• r. e• 1 COMM X900 .. p vi w pis. Case .. Park S r. W 3 W • M N i`s - •Y ` I • -� `n� -...r �• O • i u • `s V to ■ wI CTI, 11 • > « I " Ir" iJ r ie • Park • 1' � ual It •• • /ApI• r • GIs • 82 • f [ ` r �M ` ,• , q u. �iE w o • .I•►�aa � 3T. � Y • . • � lr•sn •• N i e 1 • e•• rwraf. � +, r • r • li `•I o • u Q u • ' �f ` �) .rte �� ~•• y �Y. rr, % • .r OI • [ « ST 6 • r" t to o �t o. • r . i b5TN I s a ►[ m I: y C J n • � Y e .. 1 some"" o }wI'�._' d •yy '. elc ••I I.YI •A .� �- R/ I Cyan . DIM . ` • ... ���ttf��`••• - • .I _ ••a ar aaY •. 8 w •ar f .� wr � Y •'•. • M [ •. : ai 1 Y�•aa�a••• I `. � i • t3 T.T t Park f! ? s � � S Anm = > Q sar Park da a RD. ]app = ii - -- < m i •• •m• x rtwanls Jy : w 1.1r Y1Y pei j1Li — rOu.. - -♦ - Y • e Iw 1 1• :Ir•11 .a ..•..... I • •a.eaea.aee � � � • I u•0 r W. 77TH ST. s ilOp ••T •: ' +Ire • • • 411 WAaT" RD . S I el ,0a ,, ,• +� f `aa • u r W D. .�• 6 i !� Y `� I •• V fv an go 8 Article Source: The Star Tribune — December 18 1999 Home resale values rose at highest rate in decade Minnesota had among highest rates of gain with a 3 % quarterly rise and 12% annualized You probably didn't notice it last summer. But your personal financial balance sheet as a homeowner would have reflected it: The market resale value of houses across the country rose at the highest quarterly rate this decade during the three months that ended Sept. 30, according to new federal data. In scattered areas, the jumps in values — and presumably in owners' equity — were astounding. In the District of Colum- bia, for instance, the third - quarter value gain on the typical single- family house was 5.9 percent, or a 23.9 percent annual- ized rate. In Massachusetts, the quarterly gain on the typical house was 4 percent, or 16 percent on an annualized basis. In Minnesota, New Hampshire and Colorado the gain was 3 percent quarter- ly, or 12 percent annualized— 1 percent a month. Michigan (up 2.6 percent in the quarter), New York (up 2.5 percent), New Jersey and Wisconsin (up 2.1 per- cent) and Connecticut (up 2 percent) were the other top hot spots. To put this in context, consider these two facts: First, such housing inflation data are extraordinary because the over- all rate of inflation nationwide, as meas- ured by the Department of Labor's Con- sumer Price. Index (CPI), was just 2.6 percent for the entire 12 -month period ended in October. Home value inflation in many parts of the United States is far outpacing inflation in just about every other economic sector. Second, quarterly statistical data tend to be more volatile and subject to big moves up or down, compared with an- nualized data. For a more accurate im- pression of housing appreciation, take a look at the year -to -year performance in major markets nationwide. The data all come from the Office of Federal- Housing Enterprise Oversight. The'agency uses a "repeat- sale" method- ology that tracks a sample of nearly 12 million properties with multiple sale or refinancing transactions.. •..Measured over the past 12 months, the typical U.S. home has appreciated 5.9. percent. The District of Columbia (up' 13.1 percent), Massachusetts. (up 11.7, percent), Minnesota and New Hampshire (both up 10 percent) were overperformers all year long, not just the third quarter. Following them are Colo- rado, Michigan, New York, Georgia, Cali- fornia, South Carolina, Wisconsin, New Jersey, Texas and Connecticut. Slightly below the 5.9 percent nation- al average — but still racking up appre- ciation at least twice the rate of overall inflation — were homes in Nebraska, Arizona, Vermont and Washington. The, nation's housing Kenneth Harney In Ohio, Virginia, Kentucky, Oklaho- ma, Illinois, Rhode Island, North Caroli- na, Tennessee, Maryland and Florida, homeowners' appreciation yields during the year were more than one and a half times the national inflation rate. Only one state — economically stressed Hawaii — saw its home values decline (minus 4.6 percent for the year, minus 3.5 percent for the past quarter). New Mexico, Alaska, Nevada and Utah lagged behind the national CPI rate dur- ing the past 12 months. For homeowners and new buyers who prefer a longer perspective on property investment returns, here are the top hous- ing -value markets for the past five years: Leading the pack are two states that have rebounded dramatically — Michigan (42.7 percent average appreciation) and Col- orado (up 38.6 percent) in the '90s after challenging years in the'80s. Next comes Utah, where the appreciation rate cooled in the past year but has racked up a strong 36.5 percent over the last rive years. Tied for fourth place are Minnesota and Massachusetts (both with 34.8 per- cent gains). Next comes Oregon (up 34.3 percent), Georgia (up 31.8 percent), New Hampshire (29.7 percent), Arizona (28.9 percent); South Carolina (28.5 percent), and Nebraska and Kansas (27.9 percent). During the past 60 months, the only state where the typical homeowner has experienced a net loss in property value is Hawaii, where homes have declined an average 15.1 percent. The rest of the country is firmly in positive territory — the.national average gain has been 23.9 percent — during the past five years. Looking ahead to the next few years, is it possible to identify emerging high - gain markets? Probably the best statisti- c al predictor of near - future winners are markets that have underperformed the national index for years, but have heated up for local economic reasons during the past 12 to 24 months. Some good bets for that list: the East — District of Columbia, New Jersey, New York, Con - necticut — along with Texas. — Distributed by the Washington Post Writers Group. Kenneth Harney Is' a nationally syndicated columnist on real estate and the author of two books on real estate investing. He can be contact- ed 'at the Washington Post Writers Group, 1150 15th St. 1VW., Washington, DC 20071 -9200. PG 9 Article Source: The Realtor — January 2000 Signs point to continued strong real estate economy ahead! 0 ften times, job security and income are cited as the two most important factors to a robust residential real estate market. On November 26, the Commerce Department reported that in October personal income posted its biggest jump in more than five years. Personal income also rose more than twice as fast as spending. An additional sign of a strong economy is the November rise in the Consumer Confidence Index from 130.1 in October to 135.8 in November, as reported by the Conference Board. In early November, Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan credited much of the country's economic pros- perity to robust home sales. According to Greenspan, permanent spending increase due to housing wealth stands at about five percent, while stock market gains are between three to four percent. "The evidence suggests that, in recent years, about a sixth of the so- called wealth effect ... stems from equity extracted from the stock of existing homes," according to Greenspan. Chairman Greenspan projects the sales of existing homes will continue to grow, though at a slower pace. New home sales are expected to flatten out into the future. The economy continues to drive up prices of Twin City real estate. In November the average sale price of a closed home rose to $162,800, up 11.3 percent over November 1998. Year -to- date the average sale price of $157,800 is up 10.2 percent over the $143,200 average closed sale price during the same time period in 1998. There were 3,129 pending sales in November, down from 3,349 pending sales in November 1998. The eleven - month pending sales total through November stands at 47,301 units, down 5.8 percent from 50,231 pending units through November 1998. The eleven - month 47,301 sale unit total is already the second highest total ever in the Twin Cities real estate market. In the third quarter of 1999, the U.S. home ownership rate rose to an all time high of 67 percent, up from the 66.6 percent ownership rate the previous quarter according to HUD. The Mid- west has the highest home ownership rate at 72.1 percent, up from 71.2 percent the previous quarter. Source: Peal Estate Outlook, NAP, Inman News, U.S. Department of Mousing and Urban Development Listings Processed 3,454 3,418 1.0 V Pt3ndfng Sales 3349; 3 129: , 6 6 V 62,831 1 57,627 I 8.3 V .7- 51,636. 51,581 1 -' 6830,991,230 7;406,740,000 8.4.Q $143,200 $157,800 10.2 U $122,000 ..: $133,900 • .9.8, 4: Residential only: single family, condo, townhouse, twinhome. I All property types: single family, condo, townhouse, twinhome, duplex, mobile home, larms/hobby farm, investment and lotsiacreage. Based on data from the Regional Multiple listing Service. PG 10 114.1 •' Current Listings 14,494 12,446 Cfose d Sales 2 Closed Sales -.:-4;731-: - .4,607 2.6 .V " u' --Dollar Vorume 1622,506,500 $675,457,200" 18.5 • Average Price $146,300 $162,800 I 111.3 ^Q Median Price ;`$124,900 ` . .5135,000, 8.1 Q 62,831 1 57,627 I 8.3 V .7- 51,636. 51,581 1 -' 6830,991,230 7;406,740,000 8.4.Q $143,200 $157,800 10.2 U $122,000 ..: $133,900 • .9.8, 4: Residential only: single family, condo, townhouse, twinhome. I All property types: single family, condo, townhouse, twinhome, duplex, mobile home, larms/hobby farm, investment and lotsiacreage. Based on data from the Regional Multiple listing Service. PG 10 Article Source: The Star Tribune — January 8 2000 REAL ESTATE.-:, Realtors end year with strong just shy of record By Neal Gendler Star Tribune Staff j�'Writer Twin Cities -area home sales were very strong last year, but the final sales total was 'shy of be- coming a fourth- consecutive an- nual record by 1.6 percent, ac- cording to data from the Minne- apolis Area Association of Realtors. . Closed residential sales report- ed to the Regional Multiple List- ing Service (MLS) came to 49,800, the second -best year on associa- tion books. The record was 50,594 sales' in 1998. Closed resi- dential sales the previous record years were 43,528 in 1997 and 42,079 in 1996. "Nobody ever could look at this as a disappointing year," as- sociation president Fran Davis said Friday. "Total dollar volume was up." The value of closed sales was $7.99 billion, up 7.8 percent from $7.41 billion in 1998. "It was an interesting year," said Davis, sales manager at Coldwell Banker Bumet's Minne- apolis Lakes office. "It was a chal- lenge because demand continual- ly outran supply. Until late fall, it was an extremely hectic market, and the inventories have re- mained low." As 1999 ended, 10,210 homes were listed for sale, a decrease of 15.6 percent from 12,098 in De- cember 1998. The shortage was twice a's large when last year -be- gan, helping cause a bidding and buying frenzy in spring that drove the median sale price — the midpoint — to a record $138,000. With a softening mar- ket, the median fell to $135,000 in November and December, still up 8 percent from $125,000 in De- cember 1998. For the year, the median was $134,000, up 9.4 per- cent from $122,500 in 1998. Closed residential sales also were down last month: 3,572, or 9.8 percent less than 3,962 in De- cember 1998. Last month, 2,355 purchase agreements were signed for transactions yet to close, down 14.5 percent from 2,755 in December 1998. New listings processed also were off: 2,259, down 7.4 percent from 2,439 in December 1998. For the ' year, 59,886 new listings were proc- essed, down 8.3 percent from 65,270 in 1998. Sales value last month was $584 million, up three- tenths of 1 percent from $583 million in De- cember 1998. Realtors described activity in the last few months of 1999 as a return to a more - normal, more - balanced market. PG 11 Article Source: Star Tribune.— January 22 2000 Strong 1999 housing market to carry over into 2000 Neal Gendler and Jim Buchta / Star Tribune For most people selling their houses, 1999 was an excellent year -- if they could find a home to buy. For buyers, especially those on the lower end of the price spectrum, 1999 was harder to label: Affordability was high, availability was low. The result? Harried agents tried to speed buyers to houses before they were sold, and anxious buyers increased offers so much that the median price hit a record $138,000. The number of completed sales, 49,800, was just 1.6 percent shy of 1998's record of 50,594. Evidence suggests that 2000 could be similarly strong. Shortage and frenzy "On balance, it was just a fantastic year," said Kevin Ries, 1999 president of the Minneapolis Area Association of Realtors. "There were some spikes in the marketplace," with high sales in spring and summer. David Christensen, president of the Minnesota Association of Realtors, gave three main reasons: Low interest rates propelled new buyers into the market because those attractive rates surfaced in a strong national economy and a tight rental market in the Twin Cities. Low inventory -- a shortage of homes for sale. "We started in the hole ... and we never recovered," Christensen said. Listings were below 1998 levels every month but July: off 32.1 percent in January, the shortage dropped only to 22.2 percent in June. Inventories were off 15.6 percent at year's end. Bidding wars. Buyers, especially in lower price ranges, offered full price or more to compete with other offers. "The middle part of the year created this feeding frenzy, with prices that tended to inflate because of the multiple buyers for each property and people taking advantage of the low interest rates," he said. "Sales were not that much above normal, but it seemed like it because we didn't have the inventory," he said. Offers were being PG 12 written quickly, and some homes had 10 or more. Frustrated buyers had to pay more as the supply of good houses below $100,000 all but disappeared. "In August or September, we still were selling everything we could get our hands on," Christensen said. "In October, it got more back to normal and in November it slowed down, as usual." Supply low, hopes high "We're still low on inventory," said Christensen, an agent with Re/Max RealEstate Guide in Edina. He has a buyer who wants to move to Eden Prairie. "We've got 20 homes to show her between $200,000 and $300,000," he said. "We should have at least twice that many." But he remains optimistic, as does Fran Davis, this year's president of the Minneapolis Area Association of Realtors. "At this point, I think it's going to be another good market," she said. "There certainly are a lot of buyers." Jan Rapheal, president of the St. Paul Area Association of Realtors, said open houses already have been very busy. Demand is back, but there aren't enough houses to sell. "It's like having a store with nothing on your shelves," Rapheal said. Davis, sales manager at Coldwell Banker Burnet's Minneapolis Lakes office, said one reason for the low inventory is that "people don't want to sell if they don't know where they're going to go ... so we have a lot of houses that might be available if the potential sellers could find their next house." She said the number of sales and refinancings in the past four years have reduced the number of potential sellers. Ries, an agent with Edina Realty in Edina, said that others have locked themselves into their homes for years with large home - equity loans. He said relocation business remains strong. It looks to me like we're going to have an active late - winter, spring market," he said, but not "so out of balance as last year." 2000 outlook Christensen and Davis, too, see another good year. Christensen expects entry-level homes to sell fastest. But what's considered the low end of the market can vary with geography. "An entry-level house in Bloomington, Eden Prairie, Burnsville, Savage, Edina would be about $145,000," he said. "I think we have a strong market across the board for any property that is in good condition and appropriately priced," Davis said. "That will continue as long as we've got such a low supply." PG 13 Rapheal, a Coldwell Banker Bumet agent in White Bear Lake, expects solid demand up to $175,000 to $200,000. But the home must be priced right and attractive. "It can't smell, it has to be clean, bright, updated," she said. "Today's buyers aren't fixer- uppers; they just don't have time." Buyers also have Internet access "so they know prices." The agents expressed scant concern about interest rates. Davis said that "even if interest rates go up some, they're still pretty reasonable. If they go up very much, then adjustable rates start to look good again. So there's enough options." Unending demand? In the past three years, nearly 144,000 residential sales have closed, and yet agents expect another good year. Is demand infinitely elastic? "As long as we can keep homes affordable at each economic level, we'll have buyers," Christensen said. Ries said the market may be settling down a little because last year, "all the ingredients were just perfect from a buyer's standpoint if they could buy the right property. The combination of low interest rates, high employment and strong consumer confidence doesn't come around all the time. Davis expects demand to continue "because our rental market is so tight; younger people are getting into homeownership at an earlier age, and there'll continue to be demand from first -time buyers and from the high end of the market." PG 14 Article Source: The Realtor - February, 2000 _ =AVERAGE SALES PRICE BY DISTRICT SINGLE FAMILrY r ;; :: J -_ y ��.r _ ^r. .T. } .0 - �..� _. ."^� :f•. _._., _ _ •,� �f,;,Rl �'_.yM'`"� .r -,..�. i _w. -4 t Division 111 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 550 Calhoun Harriet $116,029 $121,117 $122,008 Minneapolis 551 Cedar Isles- Loring 219,862 211,267 200,881 300 Calhoun -Isles 5153.168 5178,990 $213,029 $240.692 5265,775 5277.482 5353.946 53,435 54,181 53,080 301 Camden 57,388 55,026 59,129 61,818 63,175 70,434 80.332 552 North 302 Central 114,600 73.000 78,000 71,200 60,633 99,501 102.425 553 Northeast 64,645 65,414 66,434 303 Longfellow 69,160 73.246 76,169 79,389 87,558 96.265 113,129 554 Parkway West 107,090 109,846 109,588 304 Nokomis 82,748 84.565 87,633 93,607 98,608 108.060 124,034 555 Parkway Central 83.712 86,840 88,446 305 North 51,568 43,953 45,568 47,793 52,102 57,232 62.905 556 Parkway South 70,761 70,595 70,652 306 Northeast 67,556 65.748 72,361 76,685 78,892 90,295 104,909 557 South 63.695 66,944 67,495 307 Phillips 41,253 32.732 35,962 47,865 46,790 50,996 56,978 48,894 308 Powderhorn 63.277 57.002 58,487 61,700 65.622 75,439 90.629 558 South Central 51,220 50.510 309 Southwest 118,534 128,723 136.642 149,515 154,486 164,878 198.414 5i`9 Southeast 81,215 65,697 79,124 310 University 82,370 83.946 87,105 94,124 101,687 116,386 126,864 560 St. Paul d Suburban Suburban and other areas 563 Isand County 340 Buffalo 97,702 101,236 108,085 107,281 117,652 126,449 135.710 564 Blalne- Lexington, Circle Pines 341 Wright County 85.103 93,406 102,149 112,384 111,998 117,775 137,833 565 Falcon Heights- Roseville, Arden Hil 342 Hutchinson 75,702 79,526 94,521 100,184 109,355 111,799 117,634 343 McLeod 65,250 66,646 82,519 76.301 80,267 89,720 98,886 Shoreview 360 Robbinsdale 77.874 82.274 84,796 89,933 94.440 103,400 116,404 566 New Brighton- Moundsview, SL Anthony _ 361 Crystal 80,323 80.663 84,911 89,841 96,002 102,638 113,878 567 Coon Rapids -Anoka 362 New Hope 93,094 103,443 108,340 112,352 118,677 123,591 138,512 568 Fridley - Columbia Heights, Spring Lk Pk 363 Brooklyn Center 77,897 78,878 82,562 85,072 88,034 98,053 115.215 569 Suburban NE 364 Brooklyn Park 96,775 105.641 109,632 115,912 121.679 128,865. 146.129 365 Mple Grve / Oss 130.387 142,872 143,879 162,545 169.582 180,196 203,542 570 Sibley County 366 Champlin 102,558 113.051 120,806 128,154 127,467 142,614 153.225 571 Brooklyn Center -Park 89,401 89,104 91,869 367 Hnnepin Co No 129,863 136,165 134,811 155,194 165,377 179.395 179,320 572 Wright/Sherburne Counties 74,130 77,850 82.442 368 Hnnepin Co NW 179,230 178,293 171,131 202,010 238,270 231,122 258,763 573 Golden Valley/iyrol Hills 118,860 119,438 119,699 370 Sibley County 59.000 75,038 60,611 67,830 93.598 74,540 84,878 574 Plymouth 153,820 151,483 160,141 373 Golden Valley 128,603 132,215 137,388 141,432 145,307 157,583 183,145 575 Robbinsdale- Crystal-New Hope 81,370 81,146 84.468 374 Plymouth 171,532 187,918 203,651 208,258 210,497 218,921 242,362 576 Dayton - Champlin -Maple Grove-Osseo 112,030 112,070 115,466 378 Richfield 86,150 92,260 96,095 100,655 105,706 114,031 129,077 379 Blmington -E 88,070 94,569 99,179 103,313 109,986 113258 129.267 577 Suburban NW 117,650 148,008 135,817 380 Blmington - W 157,418 156,131 161,256 162,771 173,048 181,635 199,353 578 Richfield 82,847 82,994 85,181 381 Lake Mtka N 238,535 306,287 238,422* 256,502 282,465 309,702 367,958 579 East Bloomington 86,052 85,943 89,375 382 Lake Mtka W 155,471 144,015 580 West Bloomington 131,377 136269 144,396 383 Lake Mika S 223,746 262.619 581 Mendota Heights- Eagan, Inver Grove Hts 385 Edina 214,290 226,948 243,550 250,558 254.207 279.574 317,068 582 Burnsville 123,956 123,590 386 Hopkins 97,882 107,208 116,266 128,959 127,460 150,446 169,457 387 Minnetonka 168,031 184,818 194,061 207,265 213,273 217,118 251,116 583 Suburban South 391 St Louis Park 100,584 106,856 111,008 119.402 124,672 134,163 152,413 584 Apple Valley- Rosemount - Lakeville 392 Eden Prairie 175,454 206,057 218,497 225.056 240,666 247,312 279,166 585 Edina 188.380 189,921 200,868 394 Carver County 99.438 109,824 124,278 134,932 128,675 139,807 151,916 587 Hopkins- Minnetonka 148,849 148,371 154,544 395 Waterfront 85,099 92.295 97,030 108,997 121,029 129,676 163.387 589 Lake Minnetonka 178,719 171,361 190,743 396 Chanhassen 164,240 182,828 206,592 215,608 222.315 231,205 264,008 591 St- Louis Park 91,206 93,633 94,582 397 Chaska 126,421 132,502 145,115 165,211 170,366 174,101 202.365 167,836 157,322 168219 398 Victoria 174,270 207,068 185,296 224,754 229,112 235.794 255,615 592 Eden Prairie 399 Out of Town 94,807 73,861 68,489 * 82,533 87,985 93,991 in 99,679 593 Eastern Carver County 130,022 129,359 141,155 Lake Minnetonka area combined 1995 Live at mplsrealtorcom i PG 15 Article Source: Star Tribune — February 12 2000 Real estate sales are strong, inventory is low Neal Gendler / Star Tribune Twin Cities -area residential realestate sales started the year strong, with closings up 10.8 percent and new listings processed up 12.3 percent from January 1999 totals. That may not send corks popping, though: Early 1999 was frustrating for buyers and Realtors because the number of homes for sale was so low. Despite the growth in listings processed, last month's inventory was even lower. Buyers had 8.5 percent fewer homes to see than in January 1999. The median price last month was 5135,000, unchanged from December but up 8.4 percent from $124,500 in January 1999. Fran Davis, president of the Minneapolis Area Association of Realtors, said lower inventory -- despite increased listing activity — may be caused by rapid sales. "You don't have things on the market for 60 -70 -90 days," said Davis, sales manager at Coldwell Banker Burnet's Minneapolis Lakes office. "You could have a lot of homes come on the market and sell quickly, so you never really build up an inventory. Last month, 3,359 home sales closed, compared with 3,031 in January 1999, according to Regional Multiple Listing Service data supplied by the association. Pending sales — agreements for sales not yet closed -- also rose to 2,753, a 3.5 percent increase from 2,661 a year earlier. Davis said more properties were for sale in January 1998 than in January 1999 or 2000. "We're seeing a continuation of very low inventory," she said, and the situation tends to feed on itself. "There continue to be sellers who are not comfortable putting their houses on the'market until they know there's something they can buy." Last month ended with 11,369 listings on the market, down from 12,420 a year earlier and 18,265 in January 1998. Davis said potential sellers might be coaxed to List homes by looking at the market "in a more creative way," such as making their listing subject to "finding a home of their choice, looking at longer closing dates to give them more flexibility." A few may see the strong demand and decide to sell and rent, if necessary, until they find what they want. The benchmark 30 -year mortgage rate rose nationally to 8.36 percent this week, but Davis said it does not appear to make any difference. "There are lots of buyers — we're hearing from agents everywhere, and not just here but across the country -- that there's nothing to show," she said. "So we're going to continue to have lots of multiple offers and-quick decisions." Last year's multiple bids drove the median price -- the point with half above and half below — to a record 5138,000 before it declined with slowing fall sales. People seeking entry-level houses bore the brunt of the price rise. Davis said rising rates and prices do pressure the low end of the market, 'but there still are very good programs out there for entry-level buyers and as rents go up, many people find it more economical to buy than to rent." PG 16 4 SECTION 4 - REPORT ON THE COMMERCIALANDUSTRIAL ASSESSMENT Page 19 - 24 - Report on the Assessment - Commercial/Industrial This report contains the following data: County Ratio Study - compares the total Hennepin County Ratio Study to the City of Edina Ratio Study for the time period 10/1/98 - 9/30/99. 2000 Projected C/I Values - reported by segment. 2000 Projected Apartment Values reported by segment. Direct Ratio Study - ratios which reflect actual 2000 values placed on sold properties (10/1/98 - 9/30/99) compared to their sale price. Segmented Ratio Study - ratios which reflect 2000 values (determined by segment change) applied to the 1999 sold property value and then compared to that properties sale price (10/1/98 - 9/30/99). Inferred Ratio Study - ratios which reflect 2000 values (determined by property type rg owthl applied to the 1999 sold property value and then compared to that properties sale price (10/1/98 - 9/30/99). Assessment Quality , as dictated by the Department of Revenue and other sources, requires that there be uniformity among strata and that our ratios fall between 90% and 105% of market value. In addition, Income - producing properties should have coefficients of dispersion 20.0 or less, and in larger, urban jurisdictions, 15.0 or less. Other real property (commercial/industrial) should have coefficients of dispersion which reflect the nature of the properties, market conditions, and availability of reliable market indicators. The following statistics indicate that the overall commercial/industrial assessment is good. Page 25 - Commercial / Industrial Assessment District Mau Page 26 - 29 - Real Estate Sales Articles PG 17 City of Edina vs Hennepin County C/1 Ratio Study 10/98 - 9/99 Commercial - Industrial Sales as of 1/04/00 Commercial - Industrial Apartments ....... ............................... ::: C:i..:: ..::::::: .. ......... ii t.::::.::::: Number of Sales 9 102 Median Ratiio 93.10% 89.40% Mean Ratio (Average) 89.40% 88.00% Aggregate Ratio 88.20% 88.10% Coef. of Dispersion 11.3 13.8 Apartments ....... ............................... ::: C:i..:: ..::::::: .. ......... ii t.::::.::::: y........ C�i :::::::: ,.., �L.........lE: .. C un :m :.eta: #isf c$: :.:;.$. u..... t1. ..................................................................................•.......... f l n S l�ht�;;:::::::7 Llnift............ .........................'..'.. h t� ;•:::; . :....:.:.....: ............•... ::.::::::.:::::.:.................... ................ or................................ esLess .....or.Mor...... ....... Number of Sales 0 34 0 20 Median Ratio 82.40% 77.80% Mean Ratio (Average) 84.20% 81.40% Aggregate Ratio 83.60% 83.50% Coef. of Dispersion 11.5 10.4 3/1/00 PG 18 2000 Q/1 ASSESSMENT RECAP -1999 TO 2000 .............................................................. .............................. .......... .......... ..................................................... . ......... ... ... .... ...... pro per ............... . . ................................ .... . . .................... ............. ............. ......... ......... ............... ...... ......................................... ....... . . ... .................. ........ . .. .. ................................ ............. .......... : ................ .......... ................ ...... ....... .......... ......... ...... ........ ........ .... ..... ........ * ...... .............. ........ . ......... fin :p , 01 , Golf Courses $7,797,300 $8,708,000 11.68% $910,700 $8,708,000 11.68%11 $910,700 Banks $18,151,700 $18,353,900 1.11% $202,200 $18,353,900 1.11%j $202.200 Department Stores $41,379,100 $43,869,200 6.02% $2.490.100 $43,869,200 6.02%1 $2,490,100 Discount Stores $12,912,400 $14,234,800 10.24%, $1,322,400 $14,203,800 10.00%11 $1,291,400. Storage Garage $640,900 $728,800 13.72%1 $87,900 $728,800 13.72 %j $87,900 Nursing Homes $3,056,400 1 $2,906,100 -4.92%1 ($150,300) $2,906.100 -4.92%, ($150,300) Hospitals $657,200 $670,400 2.011%� $13,200 $670,400 2.01%', $13,200 Hotels $9,787,700 $9,877,200 0.91% $89,500 $9,877,200 0.91%1 $89,500 Laundromats $574,500 $588,900 2.51% $14,400 $588,900 2.51% $14,400 Medical Office Buildings $43.732,700 $48,615,400 11.16% $4,882,700 $45,682,200 4.46% $1,949,500 Mortuarys $2,882,100 $2,972,400 3.13%, $90,300 $2.972,400 3.13% $90,300 Office Buildings $392,444,700 $445,048,400 13.40% $52,603,700 $416,717,100 6.18%1 $24,272,400 Parking Structures $2.666,500 $2,693,300 1.01% $26,800 $2,693,300 1 1.01%, $26,800 Post Office $732.300 $739,500 0.98% $7,200 $739,500 0.98%1 $7,200 Fast Food Restaurants $2,476,000 $2,496,400 0.82%, $20,400 $2,496,400 0.82%j $20,400 Restaurants $5,707,200 $5,799,800 1.62% $92,600 $5,799,800 1.62% $92,600 Retail Stores $55,160,300 $58,762,300 6.53% $3,602.000 $58,198,300 5.51% $3,038,000 Theaters $8,364,200 $8,364,200 0.00% $0 $8,364.200 0.00%1 $0 Veterinary Hospitals $337,700 $339,400 0.50%1 $1,700 $339.400 0.50% $1,700 Mini-Storage Warehouse Parking $3,073,000 $3,134,000 1.99%1 $61,000 $3.134,000 1.99% $61,000 Industrial Engineering $1,744,100 $1,779,000 2.00%1 $34,900 $1.779,000 2.00% $34,900 Storage Warehouse $25,072,800 $25,281,200 0.83% $208.400 $25,281,200 0.83% $208,400 Distribution Warehouse $45,642.700 $46,519,200 1.92% $876,500 $46,519,200 1.92%1 $876,500 Service Stations $1,324,800 $1,476,900 11.48% $152.100 $1,476,900 11.48% $152,100 Automotive Center $984,100 $1,068,500 8.58% $84,400 $1,068.500 8.58% $84,400 Neighborhood Shopping Center $10,443,700 $13.236,500 26.74% $2,792,800 $13,236,500 26.74%1 $2,792,800 Community Shopping Center $56,763,000 $62,040,000 9.30% $5,277.000 $62,040,000 9.30 %i $5,277,000. Regional Shopping Center $104,363,700 $111.475,100 6.81% $7,111,400 $111.475,100 1 6.81 %I $7,111,400 Indoor Tennis Club $1,245,600 $1,258,100 1.00% $12,500 $1,258,100 1.00%1 $12,500 Convenience Market w/fuel safes $1,140,500 $2,161,500 89.52% $1,021,000 $1,240,300 8.75%1 $99,800 Mini-Lube Garage $159,800 $164,600 3.00% $4,800 $164,600 3.00%1 $4,800 Day Care Centers $3,913.800 $3,970,700 1.45%, $56,900 $3,970,700 1.45%: $56,900 Car Wash $1,463.900 $1,492,200 1.93% $28,390 $1.492,200 1.93%: $28.300 Dental Clinic Office $500,600 7 $508,700 1 1.62% $8,100 j $508,700 1.62%: $8,100 Supermarkets $23,877,500 $24,432,200 2.32% $554,700 $24,432,200 2.32% $554,700 Auto Dealerships $2,033,300 $2,094,300 3.00% $61,000 $2,094,300 3.00%1 $61,000 Industrial Light Manufacturing $85,501,900 $90,701,500 6.08% $5,199,600 $90,701,500 6.08% $5,199,600 Laboratories $2,131,400 $2,308700 8.32% $177,300 $2,308,700 8.32% $177,300 Broadcast Facilities $2,979,300 $3,010,400 1.04% $31,100 $3,010.400 1.04% $31,100 Service Repair Garages $910,100 $1,001,100 10.00% $91,000 $1,001,100 10.00%1 $91,000 ........................ ................ ................. ...... .:.::::::$ ..•.. .....••.••. ........... . 90 .... ..... .8 NO: 157.- 371; 600: New Construction ................ ................. ... ................ ............... ............ . .......... .......... $32,780700 .......... ...... ME PG 19 2/16/00 2000 Apartment Assessment Recap -1999 to 2000 ............................................... ................................... ...... ..................... ................................. ................................ ................. . . . ............................. .... :Pt ......... . . ... ..... ................................ .. ... ............................................ ....* ................................................. ........ ................ . ............... . ............... ................ . . ... . ........................ . .. ..... ............... . ...................................................................... ........... . . .... I ... . .. ....................................... . . ........................... .......... ............. . Chart . . . .. : ............ ... .*...1..1...,...1..................................... . . ...... ...... ....... ............................ 111 ..,:... .. ... :.. : ....... .... .. . ..... .................. ......... .. .. NewCons i:C.h ..::..::. .:...:...:...:. .. . . .-... .. .................. ........... . ........... :.:.:.:.:.:::::::::::::::poll ..... .. ... .... ............. .................... . . . ........ ... .. 4/5 Units $1,834,500 $2,026,700 10.48% $192,200 $2,026,700 10.48% $192,200 6-11 Units $4,918,000 $5,591,200 13.69% $673,200 $5,591,200 13.69% $673,200 Class D $9,352,300 $10,980,600 17.41% $1,628,300 $10,980,000 17.40% $1,627,700 Class C $13,012,100 $14,851,300 14.13% $1,839,200 $14,851,300 14.13% $1,839,200 Class B $62,772,900 $70,580,800 12.44% $7,807,900 $70,580,800 12.44% $7,807,900 Class A $56,149,800 $63,129,800 12.43% $6,980,000 $63,129,800 12.43% $6,980,000 Senior Housing $53,292,800 $64,662,900 21.34% $11,370,100 $58,265,100 9.33% $4,972,300 Nursing Homes $3,352,000 $2,856,000 -14.80% ($496,000) $2,856,000 -14.80% ($496,000) Rental Townhomes $10,808,200 I $215,492,600 $12,002,900 $246,682,200 11.05% 14.47% 1,194,700 $31,189,600 $11,888,600 $240,169,500 10.00% 11.45% $1,080,400 $24,676,900 Total New Construction $6,512,700 2/22/00 2/16/00 10:27 AM Direct Ratio 2000 value change on 10/98 - 9/99 C/I Sales Ratio Study and results .... *.*.*...............,.,.,.,.,.,.......................................:........................................."".".......................: ............... .................. ................. Aggregate Ratio ........ .... ....... .... .... ............. ............ 5.63 09-116-21-22-0025 494 $2,350,000 $1,844,500 78.49% $1,976,700 84.11% 09-116-21-24-0013 344C $575,000 $538,900 93.72% $560,500 97.48% 09-116-21-24-0031 344C $1,115,000 $1,038,200 93.11% $1,038,200 93.11% 09-116-21-31-0012 344C $1,550,000 $1,621,300 104.60% $1,556,500 100.42% 09-116-21-32-0005 407A $1,115,000 $1,125,000 100.90% $1,125,000 100.90% 31-117-21-23-0085 344C $1,400,000 $1,451,000 103.64% $1,393,000 99.50% 31-117-21-32-0002 3446 $26,224,943 $22,844,400 87.11% $25,947,500 98.94% 18-028-24-14-0118 353 $380,000 $224,000 58.95% $301,200 79.26% 31-028-24-41-0002 344C $1,675,000 $1,404,100 83.83% $1,572,600 93.89% Sales Compared to 1999 Values Mean Ratio (Average) Median Ratio Aggregate Ratio Coefficient of Dispersion Number of Sales $36,384,943 $32,091,400 89.37% 93.11% 88.20% 11.28 Fen $35,471,200 Sales Compared to 2000 Values Mean Ratio (Average) 94.18% Median Ratio 97.48% Aggregate Ratio 97.49% Coefficient of Dispersion 5.63 M Q 2/16/00 10:22 AM Segmented Ratio 2000 value change on 10/98 - 9/99 C/I Sales Ratio Study and results ....... .. ... . . . . ...... . ..... ............ .................. .. a q . . :.::::::::::::.-20Q0::KY. . . .. .... . .... ...A0ju6tmehU: . .. . . . . ....... . 09-116-21-22-0025 494 $2,350,000 $1,844,500 78.49% 6.08% $1,956,700 83.26% 09-116-21-24-0013 344C $575,000 $538,900 93.72% 6.18% $572,300 99.53% 09-116-21-24-0031 344C $1,115,000 $1,038,200 93.11% 6.18% $1,102,400 98.87% 09-116-21-31-0012 344C $1,550,000 $1,621,300 104.60% 6.18% $1,721,500 111.06% 09-116-21-32-0005 407A $1,115,000 $1,125,000 100.90% 1.92% $1,146,600 102.83% 31-117-21-23-0085 344C $1,400,000 $1,451,000 103.64% 6.18% $1,540,700 110.05% 31-117-21-32-0002 344B $26,224,943 $22,844,400 87.11% 6.18% $24,256,200 92.49% 18-028-24-14-0118 353 $380,000 $224,000 58.95% 5.51% $236,400 62.21% 31-028-24-41-0002 344C $1,675,000 $1,404,100 83.83% 6.18% $1,490,900 89.01% Sales Compared to 1999 Values Mean Ratio (Average) Median Ratio Aggregate Ratio Coefficient of Dispersion Number of Sales $36,384,943 $32,091,400 89.37% 93.11% 88.20% 11.28 Sales Compared to 2000 Values Mean Ratio (Average) Median Ratio Aggregate Ratio Coefficient of Dispersion $34,023,700 94.37% 98.87% 93.51% 10.85 2/16/00 10:19 AM Inferred Ratio 2000 value change on 10/98 - 9/99 C/I Sales Ratio Study and results .......... .......... ...... ........... ..... . .... ----- ..... .................................. .............. - ----------- ....................... ........ .............. ... ... .... .. .. ... ........... ............ 09-116-21-22-0025 494 $2,350,000 $1,844,500 78.49% $1,952,100 83.07% 09-116-21-24-0013 344C $575,000 $538,900 93.72% $570,400 99.20% 09-116-21-24-0031 344C $1,115,000 $1,038,200 93.11% $1,098,800 98.55% 09-116-21-31-0012 344C $1,550,000 $1,621,300 104.60% $1,715,900 110.70% 09-116-21-32-0005 407A $1,115,000 $1,125,000 100.90% $1,190,600 106.78% 31-117-21-23-0085 344C $1,400,000 $1,451,000 103.64% $1,535,600 109.69% 31-117-21-32-0002 344B $26,224,943 $22,844,400 87.11% $24,176,300 92.19% 18-028-24-14-0118 353 $380,000 $224,000 58.95% $237,100 62.39% 31-028-24-41-0002 344C $1,675,000 $1,404,100 83.83% $1,486,000 88.72% Sales Compared to 1999 Values Mean Ratio (Average) Median Ratio Aggregate Ratio Coefficient of Dispersion Number of Sales $36,384,943 $32,091,400 89.37% 93.11% 88.20% 11.28 Sales Compared to 2000 Values Mean Ratio (Average) Median Ratio Aggregate Ratio Coefficient of Dispersion $33,962,800 94.59% 98.55% 93.34% 11.28 General Economic Outlook for 2000 U.S. now in midst of what will be the longest peacetime expansion in U.S. history, entering its ninth year in February 2000. Downs believes the economy will continue to expand without a recession in 2000. • Driving force behind this expansion has been consumer spending. Also influenced by massive positive "wealth effect" caused by rising. stock prices and also rising home prices and falling mortgage. costs. • Another positive factor is that many key economies around the world seem to be. starting into.. expansions. True of S,E. Asia, Japan to some extent and many European counries.. As they expand their demand for U.S. goods may increase, thereby helping our economy. • " In spite of very tight labor markets, inflation has remained quite low. As of October 1999 the CPI had increased only 2.7 % in the preceding year. The `above factors show we aie,growing rapidly without inflation, with low unemployment and without big,, federal deficits. Has there been a basic paradigm shift in the structure of U.S.-'economy making it less susceptible to recessions? • Several factors indicate a shift has occurred including Globalization, greater productivity, over - capacity in,production and commodity markets in much of the rest of the world - holding prices down and to "lean production methods" of many firms through layoffs and greater efficiency. • 'Arguing against a structural shift is our dependence on our consumption in relation to our own production requiring massive borrowing from abroad. Second is the inherent tendency of producers to over expand capacity during periods of easy financing.. Third is unpredictable surprises like corruption and inefficiency in Asian, and Russian banks. Finally there is a. speculative tendency in financial markets to overprice future profits. • Downs own view is that we have not eliminated the likelihood of downturns altogether but we have increased the time we can be prosperous vs. in recessions, compared to the past. What imbalances in our economy might make it difficult for-us to continue the rapid growth we have been experiencing? • High stock prices have created huge unrealized coital pains among consumers that they consider the equivalent to savings. ♦ From 12/31/90 until 12/1/99 the S & P 500 index has risen 329% or at a compound annual growth rate of 1.7.6 %. The NASDAQ has risen 56 %o just in_ 1999, after, increases of-40% anal 22% in the preceding years.. That is a gain of 166% in three years. ♦ The Dow -Jones average did not rise at all in_the._ 17 years from_1967 to 1981 although GDP rose by 360 %. That was aperiod of rising interest rates:: Then in the next 17 years from 1981 s. to 1998 the DOW -Jones rose 10.3 times or at a compound annual growth rate of 14.7 %yer year. .This was a period of declining interest rate's most of the time. The average rate of growth overrthose 34 years was: 7.1% in current dollars,,:.: • A decline in household savings rate.: The personal savings rate was 5.7% of personal disposable income in 1992 but has fallen steadily to 1.3% in 1999.- -If consumers had saved the same percentage of their incomes in 1999 as in 1992 they would have spent $450 billion less - equal to 5.1% GDP or about a whole years growth in GDP. PG 25 • A chance in our balance of payments with the rest of the world. We are now importing about $240 billion more than we are exporting. This might hurt the value of the dollar and tempt the Fed to raise interest rates. Very tight labor markets. Because of very tight labor markets it will be difficult to find enough added workers to increase GDP by.the 34% is has been rising. Plus competition for workers will drive wages up and might cause Fed to raise interest rates in fear of inflation, which has been the cause of most recessions in U.S. since 1945. Downs overall assessment of the above imbalances is that it seems likely that our economic growth rate will slow down in 2000. However, he does not believe we will have a recession unless the stock market falls much more sharply than he believes likely. He also thinks the inflation rate will rise slightly but not enough to stampede the Fed. However, Downs foresees moderately higher interest rates in 2000. MSP economy The roaring prosperity of the nation generally is, as usual, intensified in MSP. We always have a stronger economy than the rest of the nation. Even if there is a significant slow -down in 2000 things will probably remain very Pzood. MSP unemployment rate in October was 1.7 %, about as low as it can get. Job growth was 2.0% in last year vs. 1.3% for entire nation. MN had net in- migration in 1998 and new housing units were 17,620 in the first nine months of 1999 up 19% over the same period in 1998. Construction employment was up 10.2% over a year ago. Even farmers are doing better with a good harvest and recent markedly increased federal aids. The Fed reports that most outstate cities are experiencing good conditions. The condition of property markets. The above suggests that general economic growth will continue in 2000 keeping the demands for properties of all types expanding. But the health of these markets depends upon the balance of both supply and demand. • In 1998 we started into, and are still in, the development boom phase of the real estate development cycle which eventually leads to the overbuilt phase. • Office space is clearly in a boom in MSP with 4.8 million sf under construction with another 2.3 million sf planned. Up to now absorption has kept up with new building and the office vacancy rate has remained about 7.2% overall. Downs believes absorption has peaked and vacancy rates will rise in 2000. • In industrial space there were 40 new buildings totaling 3.6 million sf built in first nine months of 1999. Another 3.8 million sf is under construction or planned. Hence there is a development boom in industrial also. Overall vacancy in first half of 1999 rose from 11.7% to 12.2 %. • Will developers overbuild markets again as they typically have done in past cycles? ♦ With lots of debt financing available Downs thinks local overbuilding �types will become widespread as 2000 og es on. __. ♦ . Even though demands for space are still rising, construction of new space can rise even faster - producing space surpluses. ♦ There are some'markets nationally where undertaking new development projects is feasible. Vacancy rates are still falling there. But in most markets including MSP extreme "caution should be used before building any more space, even if user demands for space are rising. This is particularly true of new speculative space. ♦ While the peak rate of growth in space demand has probably passed by now, development is still increasing. PG 26 The relationship between public and private capital markets in the financing of real estate_ • There have been key changes in stock market investor attitudes towards commercial real estate compared to the past attitude of traditional developer and financial- institution investors in properties. These changes result from a shift in equity ownership from developers who used to hold onto properties for long periods, to stock - market investors with short horizons. There is a whole new set of property owners with very different horizons. ♦ When traditional real estate developers, banks, S & L's and insurance companies were putting up capital they allocated it between various types of real estate. But when owner's of REIT shares consider how to allocate their capital, they are faced with alternative stock investments in every type of business, from steel to computers to internet firms. • Stock market investors have very short-term horizons compared to traditional developers. The average owner of Amazon.com stock holds it for 7 days. Dell Computer 3.7 months, Delta Airlines 6.3 months, IBM 13.8 months, General Electric 33.1 months. There are hardly any long term owners or investors. So the promise of broader access to capital promised by Wall Street was true but that same advantage brings into play a much greater breadth of investment alternatives that in the recent past make commercial real estate look like a bad investment. ♦ Commercial roperty values have done poorly compared to most stocks. With 1987 as a base year of 100, the all property composite in 1999 was 132.4. A similar comparison to the Dow was 704 and for the S & P 500, 387. Thus the value of the underlying assets in the stock market immensely out - performed the value of commercial real estate properties. • In 1990 the total value of corporate equities was $3.5 trillion about the same as the value of all commercial real property. By the end of the first half of 1998, corporate equities had zoomed'to $14.5 trillion, a rise of 311% over 1990. In contrast all commercial real property was worth about $3.7 trillion, a gain of 6% over 1990. • The prospects for rapid growth in real estate values are much lower than for many other industries. Commercial real estate is a mature industry that grows along with the economy. So REITS are, not really growth stocks and will have lower P/E ratios than true growth stocks • The far worse performance of commercial real estate stocks is a key factor holding down REIT share prices, compared to prices of high tech stocks, internet stocks and many others: • Public ownership will not take over all or most commercial property equity in the future - though it will not shrink or disappear either. • When conditions in stock markets are favorable to REIT's they will be able to raise capital and dominate property markets._ But that will not often be the case and it is a delusion to believe that Wall Street conditions will always or predominantly be favorable to REIT's. • Commercial real estate will not grow in the future as fast as many high tech companies but the U.S. will expand by 47 million people from now to 2020 especially in some big states in the South and West. In the next 20 years we will need to build about as much space as we have in the last 20 years. That's a lot of space but Downs again warns to be cautious at this phase of the real estate cycle. Specific types of real estate activity in U. S. and MSP Housing markets in U.S. are still at high levels. Existing home sales in U.S. will probably set a record of over 5 million. Housing starts at about a 1.660 million rate up 4% over 1998. • The median sales price in September was $134,500 in U.S., up 3.9% over 1998. MSP median was $138,300 up 8.8% over 1998. It was $88,700 in 1990 so MSP median price has gone up at a compound annual rate of 5.1 % per year, much faster than inflation. 0627 • MSP new housing units authorized were 17,620 in first nine months of 1999, up 19% over the same period in 1998, but below the peak years of 1985 -87. Home ownership in MSP now uQto 75% of all households causing a relative decrease in the demand for rental apartments. • Sales of existing homes in MSP for first 10 months of 1999 were about the same 42,000 as in 1998, though listings were down 8.7% and pending sales were down 5.8 %. • MSP apartment rental vacancy rate was 1.5% and rents rose 6.7% in 1999 vs. 4.8% in 1998. • The apartment market is the strongest real estate market in MSP in terms of the balance of supply and demand favoring_ owners. Very few new units being built because of a shortage of good sites, high real estate taxes and tough zoning. • If you can profitably develop new apartments, or up -grade existing ones, in good locations, especially in middle to moderate rent ranges you should do so especially if you believe in accumulating profits and equity over the long run. Population growth, inability to afford new homes and not much new building will remain strong forces supporting apartments. Office and industrial space - as discussed earlier, MSP is still experiencing a development boom In both office and industrial major new construction is continuing and shows signs of outpacing increases in demand - especial] aY s the year 2000 progresses. - Retail space overall vacancy was 5.4% in December of 1998 but rose to 8.3% recently. However, most of the increased vacancy consists of large vacancies in a few regional malls. Those malls are reorganizing their use of space to keep up with various technical changes including the internet. Almost all new space under construction is in community and neighborhood centers, not regional malls or power centers. Existing stores are doing very well because of high level of prosperity in U.S. The internet and its impact on merchandising, economic activities generally, and especially on real estate. • The internet is the fastest uowing mass - communication innovation in history. It has huge potential for affecting large numbers of persons and firms. • Internet provides rapid access to immense and widespread sources of data to anyone seeking information. • Internet provides the potential ability to communicate information to huge numbers of persons or firms rapidly and at very low cost. However, in practice you are competing with so many other data broadcasters that you must spend huge sums in advertising to attract attention. • Internet cost of entry is very low, therefore, competition will be intense and profit mares. • Ability of persons both inside and outside organizations to communicate directly will tend to reduce the roles of intermediaries who used to pass information from one person to others. This disintermediation will affect such professions "as real estate brokers. Possible impacts of internet upon economv and real estate. • Internet is attracting a large fraction of all available venture capital away from other activities into internet start-ups and firms. ♦ Business Week reported that 90% of all venture capital invested in 1999 went to high tech firms. One reason REIT shares have done so badly is that internet shares have done so well without any basis in profits. ♦ Warren Buffet points out that major innovations like the internet initially involve many firms that disappear. There were 2000 different car makers over the years, now there are 2. There were 300 different aircraft manufacturing companies during this century, with only a handful remaining and because of intense competition total net.profits made in the airline industry since it began equal roughly zero. ♦ Above means that most of the internet start-up firms that. now exist will fail from lack of profitability. More money will be lost than made. PG 28 • Intemet will have much ereater impacts on relations within and between businesses than on relations between businesses and final consumers. ♦ Mortgage Bankers post the documents for a specific transaction on the web so all parties can access them. So do commercial brokers who create repositories for specific deals.. ♦ Apartment rental firms have created virtual regional rental markets on web sites allowing prospective renters to get detailed information about area and building and even a virtual tour of the unit. One major MSP firm estimates 15% of the new tenants come from the internet. ♦ Intemet will probably reinforce the dominance of many established brands because building up new brands will be very costly because of intense competition for consumer attention. ♦ In office space, the growth of new intemet and other high -tech firms has generated tenants for lots of office space but these tenants have no credit histories or experience paying rent. It's a tough call for owners to decide how much to invest in providing space to these types of tenants. ♦ In retailing intemet shopping will not reRlace in -store shopping but will slow growth of in- store sales in relation to growth in consumer income. Intemet will reward retail companies who take advantage of strong brands on internet to reinforce in -store shopping. ♦ In hospitality Downs believes the intemet will eventually increase travel rather than reducing it. All previous dramatic improvements in communications starting with the telephone eatl increases the total amount of communications and travel amongpeople. Summary predictions for 2000 MSP real estate markets are in for another good year in terms of levels of activity, rents and occupancy. However the danger of some overbuilding will be higher in 2000 than at any time since 1989. Act very cautiously in starting any new developments on a speculative basis. One possible exception would be rental apartments if you can find any desirable sites and you have long term strategy of accumulating profits and equity. Downs motto for the coming year in real estate: "You can still be quasi - heroes, in the year with three zeroes" Editors note: Again this year Downs reminded us to be sure to fully enjoy the great benefits of our current prosperity in our personal lives. and to be thankful that we are living in this region and this country. PG 29 SECTION 5 - HENNEPIN COUNTY RATIOS Page 31 H --- - - -_.. - ennepin County Ratios This report lists all sales ratios for residential properties in Hennepin County as determined by the Hennepin County Assessor's Office. PG 30 Hennepin County Ratio Studies Spring 2000 Bloomington 830 94.5% 95.1% 7.1 Medina 44 95.6% 95.0% 9.2 Brooklyn Center 333 94.1% 95.5% 7.1 Minneapolis" 5192 96.9% 97.6% 10.1 Brooklyn Park 853 94.0% 95.2% 7.3 Minnetonka 527 94.7% 95.9% 5.8 Champlin 324 94.8% 94.8% 5.6 Mtka Beach 9 96.6% 93.3% 8.5 Corcoran 40 95.6% 95.1% 7.5 Minnetrista 64 95.1% 94.8% 8.1 Crystal 367 94.2% 95.0% 6.8 Mound NA Dayton 40 94.6% 94.7% 9.3 New Hope 208 94.2% 95.0% 5.6 Deephaven 73 94.8% 92.5% 7.8 Orono NA Eden Prairie 752 95.0% 95.0% 5.1 Osseo 33 94.4% 94.6% 7.6 Edina 568 93.6% 94.3% 8.8 Plymouth 683 94.1% 93.9% .6.7 Excelsior 24 94.8% 92.9% 8.5 Richfield 518 93.8% 94.1% 6.6 Golden Valley 280 95.6% 95.2% 6.3 Robbinsdale 281 94.5% 95.8% 4.1 Greenfield NA Rockford 4 94.1% 91.6% 4.4 Greenwood 8 94.8% 96.8% 4.8 Rogers NA Hanover 1 94.3% 94.3% 0.0 St. Anthony 57 94.8% 93.5% 5.9 Hassan 20 98.4% 98.3% 14.2 St. Bonifacius 22 96.1% 96.3% 5.6 Hopkins 108 93.7% 94.7% 8.9 St. Louis Park 648 94.5% 95.4% 7.2 Independence NA Shorewood 113 94.5% 93.0% 8.2 Long Lake 25 94.3% 94.3% 14 Spring Park 10 95.9% 96.0% 5.7 Loretto 6 95.0% 92.7% 5.0 Tonka Bay 30 94.5% 95.6% 8.5 Maple Grove 682 94.7% 95.4% 5.8 Wayzata 44 94.7 % 92.1% 8.7 Maple Plain 26 95.6% 95.0% 6.9 Woodland 7 96.4% 91.4% 10.7 Medicine Lake 3 95.0% 96.6% 4.8 Hennepin County* 8665 94.4% 94.9% 6.7 ' County Figures (except sales) are weighted averages. ** Minneapolis Excluded trom county Averages PG 31 Nis SECTION 6 - MARKET VALUE ADJUSTMENTS Pate 33 - Market Value Adjustments This chart shows the percent change in actual dollars of market value for the major property type groups in the city. The gross change in market value includes new improvements made to properties for the 2000 assessment. The net change represents adjustments to value due to changes in the real estate market. PG 32 T Q w w City of Edina Market Value Adjustments 1999/2000 Comparison Property Type Grou Parcel -Count 1999 Market Value . , 2000 —F- Market Value . New *1 Im rovements Gross *2 Chan a Net *3 Change Apartment 93 $ 209,371,300 $ 236,316,100 $ 6,512,100 12.87% 9.76% Commercial 402 $ 805,798,600 $ 907,596,100 $ 31,947,800 12.63% 8.67% Industrial 107 $ 158,173,900 $ 163,841,600 $ - 3.58% 3.58% Residential 13,766 $ 3,220,303,300 $ 3,617,271,100 $ 31,283,000 12.33% 11.36% Condominium 5,805 $ 379,472,200 $ 408,093,600 $ - 7.54% 7.54% Townhouse 498 $ 112,412,800 $ 123,659,400 $ 3,486,600 10.00% 6.90% *1 - New Improvements - Value of new construction added for the 2000 Assessment. *2 - Gross Change - Percent adjustment to Market Value including New Improvements. *3 - Net Change - Percent adjustment to Market Value after reducing the 2000 Market Value by the value of the New Improvements. Note: These values do NOT represent the total City valuation. SECTION 7 - 2000 REVIEW AREAS SECTION 7 - 2000 REVIEW AREAS 2000 Residential Review area • District #1 Momingside Parcel count - 2227 • District #2 White Oaks • District #3 Country Club • District #4 Sunny Slope • District #6 Brucewood • District #8 N 58`" Sherwood/So Harriet Park 2000 Commercial Review area • Convert all Property Record data to Field Card system (LOGIS) • Retail Properties It is our goal, with staffing as it exists today, to attempt to implement a fully computerized mass appraisal system in approximately ten years. The foundation for a sound CAMA system is the proper determination of land value - we will maintain the work completed for the 2000 assessment and work toward improving the current system. The second critical area is to have fully completed property record cards. That requires an interior and exterior inspection of each home to collect all the pertinent characteristics for each property. The same process will apply to Commercial/Industrial properties for the upcoming assessment. Minnesota Statute 273.08 requires each county and city to complete quartile reviews. In other words, each year 25% of the jurisdiction (by law) is required to be physically inspected and reviewed. That information is then used to value the entire city each year. With current and accurate data characteristics the result will be an even more uniform assessment. The City of Edina currently has 12,809 single - family residential properties. This does not include doubles, zero lot line residential, condominiums, townhomes, apartments or commercial/industrial properties. The total number of parcels to be valued each year in the City of Edina is 20,709 with four staff appraisers. This equates to 5,177 parcels per appraiser and 2,958 per employee. IAAO (International Association of Assessing Officers) has conducted a study on staffing patterns and the effect of computerization. Their study included maintenance cities as well as cities which deal with complete reappraisal programs. The inclusion of maintenance cities tends to skew these numbers upward. If they were not included the resulting numbers would be more representative of the situation we are faced with in Edina. Their findings follow: Parcels per employee (rounded) Tyne of Gov. Sample Size Mean Median City 172 2,200 2,100 City with Computer 127 2,500 City without Computer 42 1,500 These finding compare to our 2,958 parcels per employee. PG 35 In order for us to complete our quartile review (as required by law) we need to review 5,177 parcels per year with only four appraisers. With the current staffing level we will continue to struggle with the completion of review areas for 2000 and continue to be in violation of Minnesota Statute. It has been approximately 27 to 30 years since a complete reappraisal of the city was undertaken. More time will be required to complete our work due to the complexity of many of the properties in Edina, the amount of corrupt data being uncovered as we attempt to review these properties (resulting in an extra - ordinary amount of time needed to complete each review), and the current level of staffing. Unfortunately, because of the aforementioned items, the original data collected over the initial years may become corrupt because of the amount of elapsed time. Our goal, as we continue our review process, is first and foremost to have a complete and thorough data base and as accurate an assessment as possible with the current data at hand. PG 36 Up EDIN A s " MMNPApn DISTRICTS 1 - 42 r c �y fWti fr � r 1M • �_ � s I', His •hW 1MDt if pr 1 S I IM Q 1 ( - 7 ►.+ ° M ` � 7 atl i � O , � I • � BLVL' a t am woo e ' . r Park S so i ti IE rr • fri. -.�� r• I %�. , �� COY D `` w f is -1 ••'`•C •W.j� n �� DI ( T#1 I O .• " "�SOR o #,?e . ,.• �Jltsll i ••' � ! • ,T I e' i� � � l ' r ,,..•! It rS ; _ Park ~ ; 40 to 63 q IT am w • • N a c ra.• i �..rra n = ST ^ 661rr p[ Caa r'� 1� q t � I .... • � C J l C E ' — w .�. _ cam•.. . . •�. u 1 0 � •' ` `• � f•r. rW M �.,1 a•f • i � t � Tt✓ ', II J 1 • t ..� —��• 1 I C O ,.. 1` 'li r•�, i Part t s sl A tn u raear Park & z RD. ltpp . . •• K Y YW pa•� + • f0[wf 7 ..• p M t .• :fr.11a..... ... I ..rrwaec� ��• „ l I uro SV 777M'ST. t _ i iIDQ 1r/A711FDr� i I !4! ' °' 8 .r•' ' � ;•'^ % �` U r) soil, s gl y H B�LO CV- MJNGT0 PG 37 SECTION 8 - HOMESTEAD & VALUE NOTICE EXPLANATIONS Page 39 - 40 - Explanation of Homestead Filing % Valuation Notices Homestead explanation. Value notice explanation. Page 41 - Sample Valuation Notice Example of 2000 value notice. PG 38 SECTION 8 - EXPLANATION OF HOMESTEAD FILINGNALUATION NOTICES Homestead Filin To qualify for the homestead classification, a person must: • Be one of the owners of the property, or be a qualifying relative of at least one of the owners; • Occupy the property as his/her primary residence; and • Be a Minnesota resident.. Minnesota Statute 273.124, Subd. 13 requires each person who meets the homestead requirements to file a homestead application with the assessor to obtain homestead for the first time. Once the initial homestead application is filed and the property is granted homestead status, there may not be a need to file a homestead application again as long as the property is owned and occupied by the same party. New owners and/or occupants are required to file an application with the City Assessor, and a homestead card is mailed, and must be returned, to verify initial occupancy. Valuation Notices On Monday, February 28, 2000, valuation notices were mailed to all owners of property in the City of Edina. (See sample at the end of this section) The assessor is required to include the following information on each valuation notice mailed to taxpayers: 1. Assessor's Estimated Market Value The most probable sale price of a property in terms of money in a competitive and open market, assuming that the buyer and seller are acting prudently and knowledgeably, allowing sufficient time for the sale, and assuming that the transaction is not affected by undue pressures. 2. Limited Market Value (M.S. 273.11, Subd. la) The Legislature passed a law imposing a limit on how much an assessor's estimate of market value is permitted to increase from one year to the next. Under the law, assessors are required to continue to estimate the market value of all properties. However, the law requires the use of a limited market value for purposes of determining property tax bills for all classes of residential property. The limited value may be different from the assessor's estimate of market value depending on the amount of market value increase from one year to the next. 3. Qualifying Value of New Improvements (M.S. 273.11, Subd. 16) Qualifying homes 45 years of age or older may be eligible to receive a temporary exemption on all or a portion of the assessor's value estimate for certain newly constructed improvements. To qualify for exemption, the property must be 45 years of age or older at the time the improvement commences and the property must be receiving the homestead classification. In addition, a building permit must have been taken out if one is required and a timely application must be made with the assessor. More information may be obtained from the Edina Assessing Department. PG 39 4. Taxable Value (After subtracting any gualifving improvements) (M.S. 273.1211 The taxable value is the final value used to calculate the property tax after the assessor's estimated market value is adjusted because of any and all limitations and reductions explained in items #2 and #3 above. 5. Property Classification The Property Classification is the class that has been assigned to a property based upon the use of the property. If the property is vacant land and there is no existing use, the property is classified according to its highest and best use, the most profitable legal use of the land. Individual classes of property have different class rates which are established by the state legislature and are uniform on like classes of property throughout the state. Depending on the class rate of the property, final taxes may be more or less than another property of the same market value with a different class rate. 6. Green Acres Green Acres is a tax deferment program for agricultural property. The deferment is designed to protect farm land from valuation increases and tax increases resulting from outside economic influences such as urban sprawl or the proximity of the farm to a lake or river. PG 40 Sample Valuation Notice CITY OF EDINA ASSESSSOR'S OFFICE 4801 WEST 50TH STREET EDINA, MN 55424 -1394 TELEPHONE: 612- 826 -0365 TDD: 612- 826 -0379 PROPERTY ID: PROPERTY ADDRESS: PROPERTY VALUE FOR 2000 VALUE NOTICE JANUARY 2, 2000 PAYABLE 2001 ESTIMATED MARKET VALU8"' LIMITED MARKET VALUE: $ QUALIFYING IlVIPROVEMENT - MARKET VALUE SUBJECT TO TAXATION CLASSIFICATION: THIS NOTICE CONTAINS YOUR 2000 CLASSIFICATION AND VALUATION FOR TAXES PAYABLE IN 2001. IF YOU BELIEVE THE MARKET VALUE OR CLASSIFICATION OF THIS PROPERTY HAS BEEN DETERMINED INCORRECTLY, YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO MAKE AN APPEAL. PLEASE CONTACT THE EDINA ASSESSOR'S OFFICE (612- 826 -0365) AS SOON AS POSSIBLE TO REVIEW ANY DATA SUPPORTING YOUR POSITION. THE CITY OF EDINA BOARD OF REVIEW IS SCHEDULED TO MEET, MONDAY APRIL 10, 2000, AT 5:00 PM IN THE CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS. APPLICATIONS TO APPEAR BEFORE THE BOARD MUST BE RECEIVED NO LATER THAN, APRIL 3, 2000. Mel CLASSIFICATION IS BASED ON THE USE OF THE PROPERTY AND IS DEFINED BY STATE STATUTES. ESTIMATED MARKET VALUE IS THE MOST PROBABLE PRICE THAT A WELL INFORMED BUYER WOULD PAY A WELL INFORMED SELLER FOR A PROPERTY WITHOUT EITHER PARTY BEING UNDULY FORCED TO BUY OR SELL. THE VALUE OF YOUR PROPERTY IS BASED ON REPORTED AND RECORDED MARKET DATA COLLECTED OVER THE PAST YEAR LIMITED MARKET VALUE IS THE TAXABLE VALUE FOR RESIDENTIAL, AGRICULTURAL OR NON - COMMERCIAL SEASONAL RECREATIONAL PROPERTIES (HOMESTEAD OR NON - HOMESTEAD). THE PROPERTY'S TAXABLE VALUE INCREASE MUST NOT EXCEED (1) 8.5% OF THE PREVIOUS YEAR'S TAXABLE VALUE, OR (2)15% OF THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE CURRENT YEAR'S MARKET VALUE AND THE PREVIOUS YEAR'S TAXABLE VALUE, WHICHEVER IS GREATER, EXCLUDING IMPROVEMENTS. (MN statute 273.11, subdivision la) QUALIFYING IMPROVEMENT VALUE (This Old House) IS THE AMOUNT OF IMPROVEMENT VALUE EXCLUDED FROM TAXATION ON HOMESTEADED PROPERTIES THAT ARE 45 YEARS OF AGE OR OLDER AND HAVE A MARKET VALUE OF NOT MORE THAT $400,000. THIS AMOUNT MAY BE EXCLUDE FOR TEN YEARS. AFTER THE BASE QUALIFYING PERIOD, THE EXCLUDED VALUE IS PHASED BACK INTO THE TAXABLE VALUE. IF THE PROPERTY IS SOLD OR NO LONGER QUALIFIES AS HOMESTEAD, THE EXCLUDED VALUE BECOMES TAXABLE FOR THE FOLLOWING ASSESSMENT YEAR. PLEASE CONTACT YOUR LOCAL ASSESSOR FOR AN APPLICATION OR MORE INFORMATION. (MN statute 273.11, subdivision 16) BOARDS OF EQUALIZATION YOU MAY APPEAL DECISIONS OF THE LOCAL BOARD OF REVIEW TO THE COUNTY BOARD OF EQUALIZATION. YOU MAY NOT APPEAR DIRECTLY AT THE COUNTY BOARD OF EQUALIZATION WITHOUT FIRST APPEARING AT THE LOCAL BOARD. THE 2000 COUNTY BOARD OF EQUALIZATION WILL BEGIN MEETING ON JUNE 19, 2000. YOU MUST CALL 348 -7050 FOR AN APPOINTMENT BEFORE JUNE 12, 2000. (MN statute 274.14, subdivision lc) STATE TAX COURT STATE LAW ALSO PROVIDES THAT A PROPERTY OWNER CAN APPEAL TO THE MINNESOTA TAX COURT. FOR INFORMATION ON THE TAX CONTACT THE TAX COURT OFFICE, 25 Constitution Avenue, Judicial Center, ST PAUL, MN 55155. TELEPHONE NO (65 1) 296 -2806. INTERNET - www.taxcourt.state.mn.us PG 41 r SECTION 9 - DEFINITIONS Median Ratio The midpoint or middle ratio when a set of ratios is ranked in order of magnitude; if the number of ratios is even, the midpoint or average of the two middle ratios. Mean Ratio The result of adding all the ratios of a variable and dividing by the number of ratios. For example, the arithmetic mean of 3 and 5, and 10 is 18 divided by 3, or 6. Also called the arithmetic mean. Coefficient of dispersion (COD) The average deviation of a group of numbers from the median expressed as a percentage of the median. In ratio studies, the average percentage deviation from the median ratio. Coefficient of variation (COD The standard deviation expressed as a percentage of the mean. Price- related differential (Index of regression) The mean divided by the weighted mean. The statistic has a slight bias upward. Price - related differentials above 1.03 tend to indicate assessment regressivity; price - related differentials below 0.98 tend to indicate assessment progressivity. Assessment progressivity An appraisal bias such that high -value properties are appraised higher than low - value properties. Assessment regressivity An appraisal bias such that low -value properties are appraised higher than high -value properties. Sample Sufficiency Gauge High Range minus the Low Range divided by 2.0 times the Frequency. Result is then taken to the .5 power. Result under 1.00 indicates a statistically valid sample. PG 43 10 SECTION 10 - TAX CHARTS Pape 46 - Residential Tax Estimates - Homestead This chart shows the Tax Capacity, Tax and Effective Tax Rate for various values for residential properties. Page 47 - Comparison of the 1999 and 2000 Residential Property Taxes • Homestead • This chart builds inflation into a homes value as you read from left to right to compare taxes payable in 1999 versus 2000. • This chart assumes a +8.4% average adjustment to value from 1998 pay 1999 to 1999 pay 2000. Pape 48 - Residential Tax Estimates - Nonhomestead This chart shows the Tax Capacity, Tax and Effective Tax Rate for various values for Nonhomestead properties. Pape 49 - Comparison of the 1999 and 2000 Nonhomestead Residential Property Taxes • Nonhomestead • This chart builds inflation into a home's value as you read from left to right to compare taxes payable in 1999 versus 2000. • This chart assumes a +8.4% average adjustment to value from 1998 pay 1999 to 1999 pay 2000. Page 50 - Sample Residential Tax Calculation This chart shows how you calculate taxes payable in 2000 on residential property. Under Minnesota Statute 124A.03, Subd 2A, a school referendum levy approved after November 1, 1994, for taxes payable in 1995 and thereafter, shall be levied against the market value of the property as defined in Section 124A.02. Pape 52 - Commercial/Industrial Tax Estimates This chart shows the Tax Capacity, Tax and Effective Tax Rate for various values for Commercial/Industrial Properties. Page 53 - Comparison of the 1999 and 2000 Commercial/Industrial Property Taxes • Commercial/Industrial • This chart builds inflation into a commercial/industrial's value as you read from left to right to compare taxes payable in 1999 versus 2000. • This chart assumes a +4.89% average adjustment in value from 1998 pay 1999 to 1999 pay 2000. PG" Page 54 - Sample Commercial and Industrial Tax Calculation This chart shows how you calculate taxes payable 2000 on commercial and industrial property. Under Minnesota Statute 124A.03, Subd 2A, a school referendum levy approved after November 1, 1994, for taxes payable in 1995 and thereafter, shall be levied against the market value of the property as defined in Section 124A.02. Page 56 - Comparison of 1999 and 2000 Total Tax Capacity Rates This chart compares the Tax Capacity Rates payable in 1999 with the Tax Capacity Rates payable in 2000 for 20 major metropolitan municipalities. The Tax Capacity Rates shown are actual rates representing the largest taxing district (School District / Watershed) in the municipality. In order to show relative taxing levels, the 2000 Tax Capacity rates were sorted from lowest to highest. PG 45 City of Edina 2000 Residential Homestead Property Tax Estimates Taxes Pavable in 2000 / School District 273. Watershed 1 ... Ua <isi<is >i >i ........... . ...... >; >:aPa..: ltY .:::::....:::::::.::::::. ax.::::::::: :::::::::::::��R.�°1.�.:::::.:. .............. $ 50,000 500 $ 591.00 1.182% $ 55,000 550 $ 650.00 1.182% $ 60,000 600 $ 709.00 1.182% $ 65,000 650 $ 768.00 1.182% $ 70,000 700 $ 827.00 1.181% $ 75,000 750 $ 886.00 1.181% $ 80,000 826 $ 968.00. 1.210% $ 85,000 909 $ 1,055.00 1.241% $ 90,000 991 $ 1,142.00 1.269% $ 95,000 1,074 $ 1,229.00 1.294% $ 100,000 1,156 $ 1,317.00 1.317% $ 105,000 1,239 $ 1,404.00 1.337% $ 110,000 1,321 $ 1,491.00 1.355% $ 115,000 1,404 $ 1,627.00 1.415% $ 120,000 1,486 $ 1,740.00 1.450% $ 125,000 1,569 $ 1,853.00 1.482% $ 130,000 1,651 $ 1,966.00 1.512% $ 135,000 1,734 $ 2,079.00 1.540% $ 140,000 1,816 $ 2,192.00 1.566% $ 145,000 1,899 $ 2,305.00 1.590% $ 150,000 1,981 $ 2,418.00 1.612% $ 155,000 2,064 $ 2,531.00 1.633% $ 160,000 2,146 $ 2,644.00 1.653% $ 165,000 2,229 $ 2,757.00 1.671% $ 170,000 2,311 $ 2,870.00 1.688% $ 175,000 2,394 $ 2,983.00 1.705% $ 180,000 2,476 $ 3,096.00 1.720% $ 185,000 2,559 $ 3,210.00 1.735% $ 190,000 2,641 $ 3,323.00 1.749 %. $ 195,000 2,724 $ 3,436.00 1.762% $ 200,000 2,806 $ 3,549.00 1.775% $ 205,000 2,889 $ 3,662.00 1.786% $ 210,000 2,971 $ 3,775.00 1.798% $ 215,000 3,054 $ 3,888.00 1.808% $ 220,000 3,136 $ 4,001.00 1.819% $ 225,000 3,219 $ 4,114.00 1.828% $ 230,000 3,301 $ 4,227.00 1.838% $ 235,000 3,384 $ 4,340.00 1.847% $ 240,000 3,466 $ 4,453.00 1.855% $ 245,0001 3,549 $ 4,566.00 1.864% $ 250,000 3,631 $ 4,679.00 1.872% $ 255,000 3,714 $ 4,792.00 1.879% $ 260,000 3,796 $ 4,905.00 1.887% $ 265,000 3,879 $ 5,018.00 1.894% $ 270,000 3,961 $ 5,131.00 1.900% $ 275,000 4,044 $ 5,244.00 1.907% $ 280,000 4,126 $ 5,357.00 1.913% $ 285,000 4,209 $ 5,471.00 1.920% $ 290,000 4,291 $ 5,584.00 1.926% $ 295,000 4,374 $ 5,697.00 1.931% $ 300,000 4,456 $ 5,810.00 1.937% $ 325,000 4,869 $ 6,375.00 1.962% $ 350,000 5,281 $ 6,940.00 1.983% $ 375,000 5,694 $ 7,505.00 2.001% $ 400,000 6,106 $ 8,071.00 2.018% $ 450,000 6,931 $ 9,201.00 2.045% $ 500,000 7,756 $ 10,332.00 2.066% $ 550,000 8,581 $ 11,462.00 2.084% $ 600,000 9,406 $ 12,593.00 2.099% $ 700,000 11,056 $ 14,854.00 2.122% $ 800,000 12,706 $ 17,115.00 2.139% $ 900,000 14,356 $ 19,376.00 2.153% $ 1,000,0001 16,006 $ 21,637.00 2.164% PG 46 City of Edina 1999/2000 Residential Homestead Property Tax Comparison PG 47 Taxes Payable in 1999 .. ... ... Taxes Payable in 2000 ... ........ ........ ........ .......... .... ...... .... . ...... . ......... .................. ............... Value .... ...... Value : Gruth ................. .... ........ c dh APA .... y .0 50,000 500 633.00 1.266% 50,000 54,200 542 627.00 1.157% 55,000 550 697.00 1.267% 55,000 59,620 596 690.00 1.157% 60,000 600 760.00 1.267% 60,000 65,040 650 753.00 1.158% 65,000 650 823.00 1.266% 65,000 70,460 705 815.00 1.157% 70,000 700 886.00 1.266% 70,000 75,880 759 878.00 1.157% 75,000 750 950.00 1.267% 75,000 81,300 813 941.00 1 1.157% 80,000 835 1,046.00 1.308% 80,000 86,720 937 1,064.00 1.227% 85,000 920 1,142.00 1.344% 85,000 92,140 1,026 1,157.00 1.256% 90,000 1,005 1,238.00 1.376% 90,000 97,560 1,116 1,251.00 I 1.282% 95,000 1,090 1,334.00 1.404% 95,000 102,980 1,205 1,344.00 1.305% 100,000 1,175 1,430.00 1.430% .:::�ixi� 100,000 108,400 1,295 1,437.00 1.326% 105,000 1,260 1,526.00 1.453% 105,000 113,820 1,3154 1,530.00 1.344% 110,000 1,345 1,642.00 1.493% 110,000 119,240 1,473 1,624.00 1.362% 115,000 1,430 1,760.00 1.530% 115,000 124:660 1.563 1,815.00 1.456% 120,000 1,515 1,877.00 1.564% 120,000 130080 1,652 I 1,936.00 1 1.488% 125,000 1,600 1,995.00 1.596% 125,000 135,500 1 1,742 1 2,057.00 1.518% 130,000 1.685 2,112.00 1.625% 130,000 140,920 1,831 2,179.00 1.546% 135,000 1,770 2,230.00 1.652% 135,000 146,340 1,921 2.300.00 1.572% 140,000 1,855 2,347.00 1.676% 140,000 151,760 2,010 2,421.00 1.595% 145,000 1,940 2,465.00 1.700% 145.000 157,180 2,099 2,542.00 I 1.617% 150,000 2,025 2.582.00 1.721% >< 150,000 162,600 2,189 2,664.00 1.638% 155,000 2,110 2,700.00 1.742% 155.000 168,020 2.278 2,785.00 1.658% 160,000 2,195 2,817.00 1.761% 160,000 173,440 2,368 2,906.00 1.676% 165,000 2,280 2,935.00 1.779% 165,000 178,860 2,457 3,027.00 1.692% 170,000 2,365 3,052.00 1.795% 170,000 184,280 2.547 3,149.00 1.709% 175,000 2,450 3,170.00 1.811% a 175,000 189,700 2,636 3,270.00 1.724% 180,000 2,535 3,287.00 1.826% ii<E 180,000 195,120 2.725 11 3.391.00 1.738% 185,000 2,620 3,405.00 1.841% :zz 185,000 200,540 2,815 3,512.00 1.751% 190,000 2,705 3,522.00 1.854% » 190,000 205,960 2,904 3,634.00 1.764% 195,000 2,790 3,640.00 1.867% 195,000 211,380 2,994 3.755.00 I 1.776% 200,000 2,875 3,758.00 1.879M............ 200,000 216,800 3,083 3,876.00 1.788% 205,000 2.960 3,875.00 1.890%:.-..-.-.-.- 205,000 222,220 3,173 3,997.00 1.799% 210,000 3,045 3,993.00 1.901% 210,000 227,640 3,262 4.118.00 1.809% 215,000 3,130 4,110.00 1.912% 215,000 233,060 3,351 4,240.00 1.819% 220,000 3,215 1 4,228.00 1.922% ? : 220,000 238,480 3,441 4,361.001 1.829% 225,000 3,300 4,345.00 1.931% 225,000 243,900 j 3,530 4,482.00 j 1.838% 230,000 3,385 4,463.00 230,000 249,320 3,620 4,603.00 1.846% 235,000 3,470 4,580.00 235,000 254,740 3,709 4,725.00 1.855% 240,000 3,555 4,698.00 1.958% 240,000 260,160 3,799 4,846.00 1.863% 245,000 3,640 4,815.00 1.965% 245,000 265,580 3,888 4,967.00 1.870% 250,000 3,725 4,933.00 1.973% 250.000 271,000 3,978 5,088.00 1.877% 255,000 3,810 5,050.00 1.980% >> 255,000 276,420 4,067 5,210.00 1.885% 260,000 3,895 5,168.00 1.988% q 260,000 281,840 4,156 5,331.00 1.891% 265,000 3,980 5,285.00 1.994% E 265,000 287,260 4,246 5,452.00 1.898% 270,000 4,065 5,403.00 2.001% 270,000 292,680 4,335 5,573.00 1.904% 275,000 4,150 5,520.00 2.007% 275,000 298,100 4,425 I 5,695.00 1.910% 280,000 4,235 5,638.00 2.014% 280,000 303,520 4,514 I 5,816.00 1.916% 285,000 4,320 5,755.00 2.019% 285,000 308,940 4,604 I 5,937.00 1.922% 290,000 4,405 5,873.00 2.025% 290,000 314,360 4,693 5 00 0 i 1.927% ::017::0 295,000 4,490 5,991.00 2.031% 295,000 319,780 4,782 1.932% 300,000 4,575 6.108.00 2.036%::.,::::- 300,000 325,200 4,872 6,301.00 1,938% 325,000 5,000 6,696.00 2.060% 325,000 352,300 5,319 6.907.00 1.961% 350,000 5.425 7,283.00 2.081% 350,000 379,400 5,766 7,513.00 1.980% 375,000 5,850 7,871.00 2.099% 375,000 406,500 6,213 1 8.119.00 1.997% 400,000 6,275 8,459.00 2.115% 400,000 433,600 6,660 8,725.00 I 2.012% 450,000 7,125 i 9,634.00 2.141% 450,000 487,800 7,555 9,938.00 2.037% 500,000 7,975 1 10,809.00 2.162% 500,000 542,000 8,449 11,150.00 2.057% 550,000 8,825 1 11,984.00 2.179% 550,000 596,200 9.343 12,362.00 2.073% 600,000 9,675 13,160.00 2.193% 600,000 650,400 10,238 13.575.00 j 2.087% 700,000 11,375 15,510.00 2.216%:.:.:..:.. 700,000 758,800 12,026 15,999.00 2.108% 0 13,075 17,861.00 2.233% 800,000 867,200 13,815 18,424.00 2.125% 900,000 14,775 20,211.00 2.246%, 900,000 975,600 15,603 20,84900 2.137% 1,000, 0,000 16,475 22,562.00 2.256%.. 1,000,000 1,084,000 17,392 23,273.00 2.147% PG 47 City of Edina 2000 Residential Nonhomneub»ad Property Tax Estimates Taxes Pavable in 2000 / School District 273, Watershed I PG 48 800,000 12,858 $ 17,684.00 2.211% PG 48 City of Edina 1999/2000 Residential Nonhomestead Property Tax Comparison PG 49 Taxes Payable in 1999 Taxes Payable in 2000 7998 TIC . ................. ... .. ................... .. . ........ T ........ M.A. 4),.. 50,000 625 750.00 1.500% 50,000 54,200 650 937.00 1.729% 55,000 688 825.00 1.500% 55,000 59,620 715 1,031.00 1.729% 60,000 750 900.00 1.500% 60,000 65,040 780 1,125.00 1.730% 65,000 813 975.00 1.500% 65:000 70,460 846 1,219.00 1.730% 70,000 875 1,050.00 1.500% 70000 75,880 911 1,312.00 1.729% 75,000 938 1,125.00 1.500% 75,000 81,300 976 1,406.00 1.729% 80,000 1,023 1,480.00 1.850% 80,000 86,720 1,089 1,557.00 1.795% 85,000 1,108 1,597.00 1.879 %!E 92,140 1,178 1,679.00 1.822% 90,000 1,193 1,715.00 1.906%...''...- 90,000 97,560 1,268 1,802.00 1.847% 95,000 1,278 1,832.00 1.928%:..... 95,000 102,980 1,357 1,925.00 1.869% 100,000 1,363 1,950.00 1.950% 100,000 108,400 1,447 2,047.00 1.888% 105,000 1,448 2,067.00 1.969% 105,000 113,820 1,536 2,170.00 1.907% 110,000 1,533 2,185.00 1.986% 110,000 119,240 1,625 2,292.00 1.922% 115,000 1,618 2.302.00 2.002% 115,000 124,660 1,715 2,415.00 1.937% 120,000 1,703 2,420.00 2.017%..:, 120,000 130,080 1,804 2,537.00 1.950% 125,000 1,788 2,537.00 2.030 %. 3' 125,000 135,500 1,894 2,660.00 1.963% 130,000 1,873 2,655.00 2.042%.............. 130,000 140,920 1,983 2,782.00 1.974% 135,000 1,958 2,772.00 2.053% 135,000 146,340 2,073 2.905.00 1.985% 140,000 2,043 2,890.00 2.064%.....,........ 140,000 151,760 2,162 3,027.00 1.995% 145,000 I 2,128 3,007.00 2.074% 145,000 157,180 2,251 3,150.00 2.004% 150,000 I 2,213 3,125.00 2.083% 150,000 162,600 2,341 3,273.00 2.013% 155,000 2,298 3,242.00 2.092% 155,000 168,020 2,430 3,395.00 2.021% 160,000 2,383 3,360.00 2.100% 160,000 173,440 2,520 3,518.00 2.028% 165,000 2,468 3,478.00 2.108% 165,000 178,860 2,609 3,640.00 2.035% 170,000 I 2,553 3,595.00 2.115% 170,000 184280 2,699 3,763.00 2.042% 175,000 2,638 3,713.00 2.122% 175,000 189:700 2,788 3,885.00 2.048% 180,000 2,723 3,830.00 2.128% ..... :': 180,000 195,120 2,877 4,008.00 1 2.054% 185,000 2,808 3,948.00 2.134% 5 185,000 200,540 2,967 4,130.00 2.059% 190,000 2,893 4,065.00 2.139% m: 190,000 205,960 3,056 4,253.00 1 2.065% 195,000 2,978 4,183.00 2.145% 195,066 211,380 3,146 4,375.00 2.070% 200,000 3,063 4,300.00 2.150% 200,000 216,800 3,235 4,498.00 2.075% 205,000 3,148 4,418.00 2.155% 205,000 222,220 3,325 4,621.00 2.079% 210,000 3,233 4,535.00 2.160% 210,000 227,640 3,414 4,743.00 2.084% 215,000 3,318 4,653.00 2.164% 215,000 233,060 3,503 4,866.00 2.088% 220,000 3,403 4,770.00 2.168% 220,000 238,480 3,593 4,988.00 2.092% 225,000 3,488 4,888.00 2.172% 225,000 243,900 3,682 5,111.00 2.096% 230,000 3,573 5,005.00 2.176% 230,000 249,320 3,772 5,233.00 2.099% 235,000 2,658 5,123.00 2.180% 235,000 254,740 3,861 5,356.00 2.103% 240,000 3,743 5,240.00 2.183% 240,000 260,160 3,951 5,478.00 2.106% 245,000 3,828 5,358.00 2.187% 245,000 265,580 4,040 5,601.00 2.109% 250,000 1 3,913 5,476.00 2.190% 250,000 271,000 4,130 5,723.00 2.112% 255,000 2,998 5,593.00 2.193% 255,000 276,420 4,219 5,846.00 2.115% 260,000 4,083 5,711.00 2.197% 260,000 281,840 4,308 5,969.00 2.118% 265000 4.168 5,828.00 2.199%::. ,.:. 265,00 0 287,260 4,398 6,091.00 1 2.120% 270:000 4,253 5,946.00 2.202%:: 270,000 292680 4,487 6,214.00 1 2.123% 275,000 4,338 6,063.00 2.205% ........'.'% .. 275,000 298:100 4,577 6,336.00 2.125% 280,000 4,423 6,181.00 2.208% 280,000 303,520 1 4,666 6,459.00 2.128% 285,000 4,506 6,298.00 2.210% ..... . 285,000 308,940 4,756 6,581.00 2.130% 290,000 4,593 6,416.00 2.212% 290,000 314,360 4,845 6,704.00 2.133% 295,000 4,678 6,533.00 2.215% :XX* 295,000 319,780 4,934 6,826.00 2.135% 300,000 4,763 6,651.00 2.217% 300,000 325,200 5,024 6,949.00 2.137% 325,000 5,188 7,238.00 2.227% 325,000 352,300 5,471 7.562.00 2.146% 350,000 5,613 7,826.00 2.236% 350,000 379,400 5,918 8,174.00 2.154% 375,000 6,038 8,414.00 2.244% 375,000 406,500 6,365 8,787.00 2.162% 400,000 6,463 9,001.00 2.250% 400,000 433,600 6,812 9,400.00 2.168% 450,000 7,313 10,177.00 2.262% 450,000 487,800 7,707 10,625.00 2.178% 500,000 8,163 11,352.00 2.270% 500,000 542,000 8,601 11,851.00 2.187% 550,000 9,013 12,527.00 2.278% 550,000 596,200 9,495 13,076.00 2.193% 600,000 9,863 13,702.00 2.284% 600,000 650,400 10,390 14,302.00 2.199% 700,000 11,563 16,053.00 2.293% 700,000 758,800 12,178 16,753.00 2.208% 800,000 13,263 18,404.00 2.301% 800,000 867,200 13,967 19,204.00 2.214% 900:000 14,963 20,754.00 900,000 975,600 15,755 21,655.00 2.220% 1,000000 16,663 23,105.00 1 2.311% 1,000,000 1 1,084,000 17,544 24,105.00 2.224%1 PG 49 City of Edina Sample Residential Tax Calculation 1999 Market Value for Taxes Payable in 2000 School District #273, Watershed #3 Residential parcel with an assessors estimated market,value of: $' n, 195,000 .. - Calculation of the Net Tax Capacity for Homestead Parcel: First 76,000 x 0.0100 = 760 Balance 119,000 x 0.0165 = 1,964 Total 195,000 Market Value multiplied by the Referenda Rate 2,724 = HS Tax Capacity Calculation of the Tax Capacity for Non - Homestead: 195,000 x 0.0001518 = $ 29.60 First 76,000 x 0.0120 = 912 Balance 119,000 x 0.0165 1,964 Total 195,000 $ 543.84 2,876 = NHS Tax Capacity . Calculation of the Homestead Tax including Referenda in place prior to 1994: Net Tax Capacity multiplied by the Tax Capacity Rate: Tax including 2,724 x 1.17953 = $ 3,212.45 referenda in place prior to 1994. Calculation of Solid Waste Tax on Market Value: Market Value multiplied by the Solid Waste Rate 1959000 x 0.0001847 = $ 36.02 Solid Waste Tax Calculation of City Tax on Referenda beginning in 1994: Market Value multiplied by the Referenda Rate 195,000 x 0.0001518 = $ 29.60 Referenda Tax. Calculation of School District Tax on Referenda beginning in 1994: Market Value multiplied by the Referenda Rate 195,000 x 0.0027889 = $ 543.84 Referenda Tax Calculation of Education Homestead Credit: Tax Capacity multiplied by the Education Credit Rate $(850.22) 2,724 x - 0.31218 = $ (390.00) Education Credit Total Net Homestead Tax Due: $ 3,434.90 > Homestead Tax * Maximum Education Credit is $390.00 PG 50 City of Edina Sample Residential Tax Calculation 1999 Market Value for Taxes Payable in 2000 School District #273, Watershed #3 Residential parcel with an assessor's estimated market value of: $ 195,000 11 Calculation of the Nonhomestead Tax including Referenda in place prior to 1994: Tax Capacity multiplied by the Tax Capacity Rate Tax including 2,876 x 1.17953 = $ 3,391.74 referenda in place prior to 1994. Calculation of Solid Waste Tax on Market Value: Market Value multiplied by the Solid Waste Rate 195,000 x 0.0001847 = $ 36.02 Solid Waste Tax Calculation of City Tax on Referenda beginning in 1994: Market Value multiplied by the Referenda Rate 195,000 x 0.0001518 = $ 29.60 Referenda Tax Calculation of School District Tax on Referenda beginning in 1994: Market Value multiplied by the Referenda Rate 195,000 x 0.0027889 = $ 543.84 Referenda Tax Calculation of Education Homestead Credit: Tax Capacity multiplied by the Education Credit Rate 2,876 x 0 = $ - Education Credit Total Nonhomestead Tax Due: $ 4,001.19 = Nonhomestead Tax $ 4,001.19 - $ 3,431.90 = $ 569.29 = Difference PG 51 City of Edina 2000 Commercial/Industrial Property Tax Estimates Taxes Pavable in 2000 / School District 273, Watershed I ............... ........... .......... ............. .... .......... .... U, . . . .. P000. , '' ............... ..... ....... .... -... 1 . . ........ T. $ 50,000 1,200 $ 1,663.00 3.326% $ 55,000 1,320 $ 1,830.00 3.327% $ 60,000 1.440 $ 1,996.00 3.3276% $ 65,000 1,560 $ 2,162.00 3.326% $ 70,000 1,680 $ 2,329.06 3.327% $ 75,000 1,800 $ 2,495.00 3.327% $ 80,000 1,920 $ 2,662.00 3.328% $ 85,000 2,040 $ 2,828.00 3.327% $ 90,000 2,160 $ 2,994.00 3.327% $ 95,000 2,280 $ 3,161.00 3.327% $ 100,000 2,400 $ 3,327.00 1327% $ 105,000 2,520 $ 3,493.00 3.327% $ 110,000 2,640 $ 3,660.00 3.327% $ 115,000 2,760 $ 3,826.00 3.327% $ 120,000 2,880 $ 3,992.06 3.327% $ 125,000 3,000 $ 4,159.00 3.327% $ 130,000 3,120 $ 4,325.00 3.327% $ 135,000 3,240 $ 4,491.00 3.327% $ 140,000 3,360 $ 4,658.00 3.327% $ 145,000 3,480 $ 4,824.00 3.327% $ 150,000 3,600 $ 4,990.00 3.327% $ 155,000 3,770 $ 5,220.00 3.368% $ 160,000 3,940 $ 5,449.00 3.406% $ 165,000 4,110 $ 5,678.00 3.441% $ 170,000 4,260 $ 5,907.00 3.475% $ 175,000 4,450 $ 6,136.00 3.506% $ 180,000 4,620 $ 6.365.00 3.536% $ 185,000 4,790 $ 6,594.00 3.564% $ 190,000 4,960 $ 6,824.00 3.592% $ 195,000 5,130 $ 7,053.00 3.617% $ 200,000 5.300 $ 7,282.00 3.641% $ 205,000 5,470 $ 7,511.00 3.664% $ 210,000 5.640 $ 7,740.00 3.686% $ 215,000 5,810 $ 7,969.00 3.707% $ 220,000 5.980 $ 8,198.00 3.726% $ 225,000 6,150 $ 8,428.00 3.746% $ 230,000 6,320 $ 8,657.00 i 3.764% $ 235,000 6,490 $ 8,886.00 3.781% $ 240,000 6,660 $ 9,115.00 3.798% $ 245,000 6,830 $ 9,344.00 3.814% $ 250,000 7,000 $ 9,573.00 3.829% $ 255,000 7,170 $ 9,802.00 3.844% $ 260,000 7,340 $ 10,032.00 3.858% $ 265,000 7,510 $ 10,261.00 3.872% $ 270,000 7,680 $ 10,490.00 3.885% $ 275,000 7,850 $ 10.719.00 3.898% $ 280,000 8,020 $ 10,948.00 3.910% $ 285,000 8,190 $ 11,177.00 3.922% $ 290,000 8,360 $ 11,406.00 3.933% $ 295,000 8,530 $ 11,636.00 3.944% $ 300,000 8,700 $ 11,865.00 3.955% $ 325,000 9,550 $ 13,010.00 4.003% $ 350,000 10,400 $ 14,156.00 4.045% $ 375,000 11,250 $ 15,302.00 4.081% $ 400,000 12,100 $ 16,448.00 4.112% $ 450,000 13,800 $ 18,739.00 4.164% $ 500,000 15.500 $ 21,031.00 4.206% $ 550,000 17,200 $ 23,322.00 4.240% $ 600,000 18,900 $ 25,613.00 4.269% 700,000 22,300 $ 30,196.00 4.314% $ 800,006 25,700 $ 34,779.00 4.347% $ 900,000 29,100 $ 39,362.00 4.374% $ 1,000,000 32,500 , $ 43,945.00 4.395% PG 52 City of Edina 1999/2000 Commercial/industrial Propertv Tax Comparison Taxes Payable in 1999 ... Taxes Payable in 2000 .. .... .. ... .. .... ....... - .. ............ - 9.9 to. 1. J" YA . . . . .... .. :CAPA 'T ET E it, &M CAPACITY ..... ET.R::., 50,000 1,225 1,732 3.464% 50,000 52,445 1,259 1,745 3.327% 55,000 1,348 1,905 3.464% 55,000 57,690 1,385 1,919 3.326% 60:000 1,470 2,078 3.463% 60,000 62,934 1,510 2,094 3.327% 65000 1,593 2,251 3.463% 65,000 68,179 1,636 2,268 3.327% 70,000 1,715 2,425 3.464% :- 70,000 73,423 1,762 2,443 3.327% 75000 1,838 2,598 3.464% 75,000 78,668 1.888 2,617 3.327% 80,000 1,960 2.771 3.464% 80,000 83912 2,014 2,792 3.327% 85,000 2,083 2,944 3.464% ..... 85,000 89:157 2,140 2,966 3.327% 90,000 2.205 3,117 3.463% 90,000 94,401 2,266 3,141 3.327% 95,000 2,328 3,291 3.464% 95,000 99,646 2,391 3,315 3.327% 100,000 2.450 3,464 3.464%::.:::::::...: 100,000 104,890 2,517 3,490 3.327% 105,000 2,573 3,637 3.464% 105,000 110,135 2,643 3,664 3.327% 110,000 2,695 3,810 3.464% ....... 110,000 115,379 2,769 3,839 3.327% 115,000 2,818 3,983 3.463% 115,000 120,624 2,895 4,013 3.327% 120,000 2,940 4,156 3.463% 120,000 125,868 3,021 4,188 3.327% 125,000 3,063 4,330 3.464% 125,000 131,113 3,147 4,362 3.327% 130,000 3,185 4,503 3.464% 130,000 136,357 3,273 4,536 3.327% 135,000 3,308 4,676 3.464% 135,000 141,602 3,398 4,711 3.327% 140,000 3,403 4,849 3.464% 140,000 146,846 3,524 4,885 3.327% 145,000 3,553 5,022 3.463% 145,000 152,091 3,650 5,060 3.327% 150,000 3,675 5,196 3.464% < 150,000 157,335 4,025 5,548 3.526% 155,000 1 3.850 5,436 3.507% 155,000 162,580 4,028 5,567 3.424% 160 4,025 5,676 3.548% 160,000 167,824 4,206 5,807 3.460% 165:000000 4,200 5,916 3.585% < >r< 165,000 173,069 4,384 6,048 3.495% 170,000 4,375 6,157 3.622% 170,000 178,313 4,563 6,288 3.526% 175,000 i 4,550 6,397 3.655% 175,000 183,558 4,741 6,528 1 3.556% 180,000 4,725 1 6,637 3.687% ... 180,000 188802 4,919 6,769 3.585% 185,000 4,900 1 6,878 3.718% X 185,000 194: 047 5,098 7,009 3.612% 190,000 5,075 7,118 3.746% 190,000 199,291 5,276 7,249 3.637% 195,000 5,250 7,358 3.773% EE 195,000 204,536 5,454 7,490 3.662% 200,000 5,425 7,599 3.800% 200,000 209,780 5,633 7,730 3.685% 205,000 5,600 7.839 3.824% 205,000 215,025 5,811 7,970 3.707% 210,000 5,775 8.079 3.847% 3i 210,000 220,269 5,989 8,211 3.728% 215,000 5,950 8,320 3.870% 215,000 225,514 6,167 8,451 3.747% 220,000 6,125 8,566 3.891% 220,000 230,758 6,346 8,691 3.766% 225,000 6,300 8,800 3.911 % 225,000 236,003 6,524 8,932 3.785% 230,000 6,475 9.040 3.930% 230,000 241,247 6,702 9,172 3.802% 235,000 6,650 9,281 3.949% 235,000 246,492 6,881 9,412 3.818% 240 6,825 9.521 3.967% 240,000 251,736 7,059 9,653 3.835% 245:000000 I 7,000 9,761 3.984% 245,000 256,961 7,237 9,893 3.850% 250:000 7,175 10.002 4.001% 250,000 262,225 7,416 10.134 3.865% 255000 7,350 10,242 4.016% 255,000 267,470 7,594 10,374 3.879% 260,000 I 7,525 10,482 4.032% 260,000 272,714 7,772 10,614 3.892% 265000 7,700 10,723 4.046% 265,000 277,959 7,951 10,855 3.905% 270:000 7.875 10,963 4.060% 270,000 283,203 8,129 11,095 3.918% 275000 8,050 11,203 4.074% 275,000 288,448 8,307 11,335 3.930% 280:000 8,225 11,444 4.087% 280,000 293,692 8,486 11,576 3.942% 285,000 8,400 1 11.684 4.100% #< 285,000 298,937 8,664 11,816 3.953% 290,000 8,575 11,924 4.112% 290,000 304,181 8,842 j 12,056 3.963% 295,000 I 13,750 12,164 4.123% 295,000 309,426 9,020 12.297 3.974% 300,000 8,925 12,405 4.135% 300,000 314,670 9,199 12,537 3.984% 325,000 9,800 13,606 4.186% 325,000 340,893 10,090 13,739 4.030% 350,000 10,675 14,808 4.231% 350,000 367,115 10,982 14,941 4.070% 375,000 I 1,550 16,009 4.269% 375,000 393,338 11,873 16,142 4.104% 400,000 12,425 17,211 4.303% 400,000 419,560 12,765 17,344 4.134% 450,000 14,175 19,614 4.359% 450,000 472,005 14,548 19,748 4.184% 500,000 15,925 22,017 4.403% 500,000 524,450 16,331 22,151 4.224% 550,000 1 17,675 24,420 4.440% 550,000 576,895 18,114 24,555 4.256% 600 19,425 0 0 26,823 4.471% 600,000 629,340 19,898 26,958 4.284% 700,000 22,925 31,629 4.518% 700,000 734,230 23,464 31,765 4.326% 800,0001 26,425 36,435 4.554% ..... 800,000 839,120 27,030 36,572 4.358% 900000 29,925 41,242 4.582% E[EE ...... 900,000 944,010 30,596 41,379 4.383% 1,000:000 33,425 46,048 4.605% 1,000,000 1 1,048,900 34,163 46,186 4.403%� PG 53 City of Edina Sample Commercial & Industrial Tax Calculation 1999 Market Value for Taxes Payable in 2000 School District #273, Watershed #3 Commercial parcel with an assessor's estimated market value of: $ 1,000,000 Calculation of the Tax Capacity for each Non - contiguous Parcel: First 150,000 x 0.024 = 3,600 Balance 850,000 x 0.034 = 28,900 Non - contiguous Total 1,000,000 32,500 = Tax Capacity Calculation of the Tax Capacity for each additional parcel: Addn'I Parcel Market 1,000,000 x 0.034 = 34,000 = Tax Capacity Tax Capacity subject to Fiscal Disparities: 32,500 x 0.267788 Tax Capacity to satisfy local obligations: 32,500 - 8,703 Calculation of the Area -Wide Tax: 8,703 x 1.46134 Calculation of the local Tax: 23,797 x 1.17953 = 8,703 23,797 Calculation of City Referendum on Market Value: Market Value multiplied by the Referenda Rate 1,000,000 x 0.0001518 = Calculation of School District Tax on Referenda beginning in 1994: Market Value multiplied by the Referenda Rate 1,000,000 x 0.0027889 = Calculation of Solid Waste Tax on Market Value: Market Value multiplied by the Solid Waste Rate 1,000,000 x 0.0001847 = Total Net Tax Due on First Entity Parcel: PG 54 12,718 Tax including 28,069 = referenda in place $ 40,787.35 prior to 1994. $ 151.80 = Referenda Tax $ 2,788.90 = Referenda Tax $ 184.70 Solid Waste Tax $ 43,912.75 = First Entity Tax City of Edina Sample Commercial & Industrial Tax Calculation 1999 Market Value for Taxes Payable in 2000 School District #273, Watershed #3 K Commercial parcel with an assessor's estimated market value of: $ 1,000,000 11 Tax Capacity subject to Fiscal Disparities: 34,000 x 0.267788 = Tax Capacity to satisfy local obligations: 34,000 - 9,105 = Calculation of the Area -Wide Tax: 9,105 x 1.46134 = Calculation of the local Tax: 24,895 x 1.17953 = Calculation of City Referendum on Market Value: 9,105 24,895 13,305 29,365 Tax including $ 42,669.84 = referenda in place prior to 1994. Market Value multiplied by the Referenda Rate 1,000,000 x 0.0001518 = $ 151.80 = Referenda Tax Calculation of School District Tax on Referenda beginning in 1994: Market Value multiplied by the Referenda Rate 1,000,000 x 0.0027889 = $ 2,788.90 = Referenda Tax Calculation of Solid Waste Tax on Market Value: Market Value multiplied by the Solid Waste Rate 1,000,000 x 0.0001847 = $ 184.70 Solid Waste Tax Total Net Tax Due on an Additional Parcel: $ 45,795.24 = Addn'I Parcel Tax PG 55 Total Tax Capacity Rate Comparison Payable 1999 vs. Payable 2000 Sorted Low to High by Tax Rates Payable in 2000 Municipality Name School District Water Shed Tax Rates Payable In Rate Change % Change 1999 2000 Eagan * 191 0 128.327 123.247 -5.080 -3.96% Shakopee* 720 2 135.279 127.342 -7.937 -5.87% Burnsville * 191 0 133.269 127.962 -5.307 -3.98% Plymouth * 284 0 136.801 131.701 -5.100 - 3.73% Richfield 280 3 151.735 132.641 - 19.094 - 12.58% Bloomington * 271 1 128.967 133.619 4.652 3.61% Savage* 191 1 142.17 136.829 -5.341 -3.76% Minnetonka * 270 1 136.069 136.885 0.816 0.60% Crystal * 281 0 141.63 139.14 -2.490 -1.76% New Hope * 281 0 142.475 139.771 -2.704 -1.90% Golden Valley * 281 0 145.116 142.681 -2.435 -1.68% Edina * 273 1 143.514 143.328 -0.186 -0.13% Maple Grove * 279 0 146.152 143.35 -2.802 -1.92% St. Louis Park 283 3 135.084 144.294 9.210 6.82% St. Paul 625 C 152.191 148.324 -3.867 -2.54% Hopkins * 270 1 148.477 149.549 1.072 0.72% Brooklyn Park* 279 0 155.644 150.968 -4.676 -3.00% Eden Prairie * 272 4 147.424 153.457 6.033 4.09% Brooklyn Center * 279 0 161.263 157.088 -4.175 -2.59% Minneapolis * 1 3 154.495 157.328 2.833 1.83% Note: The Tax Capacity Rates shown are actual rates representing the largest Taxing District (School District/Watershed) in the municipality, or ( *) inferred rates as calculated on $120,000 of market value using the rate for the largest taxing district and any prevailing market value referenda rates. The above rates do NOT include the Hennepin County Solid Waste Fee. PG 56 CITY OF EDINA K!IIII :•"-M 611VAT1MTh 1 Alex Zhuravel 5812 Hansen Road 32- 117 -21 -41 -0068 2 Eduard Yamnik 7133 Valley View Road 07- 116 -21 -21 -0047 7 4 Larry Swandby 5124 Juanita Avenue 18- 028 -24 -41 -0149 5 Norman P. Chapel 4622 Edgebrook Place 18- 028 -24 -23 -0058 6 Robert J. Malby 6517 Limerick Drive 05- 116 -21 -14 -0043 7 Edward McGlynn 4909 Rolling Green Parkway 29- 117 -21 -13 -0006 8 Richard & Angelia Perrin 5608 Highland Road 32- 117 -21 -43 -0051 9 Jacqueline S. Mithun 5308 Halifax Avenue 18- 028 -24 -44 -0067 10 Helen Hovelson 6913 Mark Terrace Drive 06- 116 -21 -43 -0038 11 Shaner Hotel Group 3400 Edinborough Way 32- 028 -24 -34 -0025 12 Miauel Azar 6609 Field Wav 31- 117 -21 -24 -0016 13 Anthony & Polly Mitchell 6417 Limerick Lane 05- 116 -21 -14 -0006 14 Duane & Delphy Haglund 6505 Limerick Lane 05- 116 -21 -14 -0040 15 Wayne Lu & Jean Jiang 6201 Hansen Road 05- 116 -21 -11 -0070 16 Burton & Marjorie Ruedy 5048 Edinbrook Lane 28- 117 -21 -24 -0061 17 Debra Neuger & William Mccabe 6124 Hansen Road 32- 117 -21 -44 -0003 18 Elizabeth Jensen 5044 Edinbrook Lane 28- 117 -21 -24 -0062 19 Team France Partnership 7200 France Ave S 31- 028 -24 -14 -0001 20 Danforth H. Leach Jr. 6705 Samuel Road 06- 116 -21 -32 -0054 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 Page 1 of 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 City of Edina 2000 Board of Review Applications received after April 3rd and Letters to be read into the minutes. Name Prakash & Kamala Puram Frank R. Cardarelle Andy Poncius Robert L. Kellogg Name Christine Wellens Craig J. Zachman Stephanie M. Lehman Dorothy A. Kronlokken Additional Applications Address 5700 Long Brake Trail 6125 Wilryan Avenue 4909 Trillium Lane 6424 Aspen Road Letters Address 410 Madison Avenue 6624 Limerick Drive 5348 Whiting Avenue 5909 Ashcroft Avenue Page 1 of 1 PID # 08- 116 -21 -31 -0075 33- 117 -21 -34 -0122 31- 028 -24 -22 -0074 31- 117 -21 -42 -0037 PID # 30- 117 -21 -22 -0116 05- 116-21 -41 -0071 05- 116 -21 -11 -0039 19- 028 -24 -31 -0125 $ $ EMV 775,500 399,000 193,100 267,500 EMV 57,000 278,100 169,000 111,400 Case # 1 City of Edina Board of Review 1. MMMMMMM Assessor's Commentary Property I.D; Number: 32- 117 -2141 -0068 Date: 4/10/2000 Property Address: 5812 HANSEN RD Owner /Agent Name: ALEX / MARGARITA ZHURAVEL 2000 EMV Requested Value Recommended Value 236,400 210,000 224,500 Comments: Alex and Rita Zhuravel purchased 5812 Hansen Rd on June 16, 1999 for $218,000. 'The Zhuravels' are appealing their year 2000 assessment of $236,400. The appeal is based on two considerations: 1) that the assessment exceeds the purchase price; and 2) that the rail line behind their property (proposed for use as a commuter line) has reduced its market value. Re: the purchase price, it is the normal procedure of the Assessment Department to reduce an assessment to the purchase price (plus any market adjustment for time) where a verified arms length transaction has occurred. That is the case here. If the purchase price was the only issue, the assessment would have been reduced to $218,000, plus any market adjustment for time and a 'Formal Agreement to Resolution' would have been signed by City Assessor Petersburg and the Zhuravels'. Normally, that would have resolved the matter. That procedure is not applicable in this situation, however. Because the Zhuravels' are also asking for an assessment reduction due to the adjoining railroad line, and the Assessment Department believes that such a reduction would be hightly premature, the 'Formal Agreement to Resolution' is not a workable procedure. Simply put the Zhuravels' do not agree to a reduction to $224,500 and Assessor Petersburg does not agree to a reduction to $210,000. As a result, rather than reducing the assessment to the adjusted purchase price through the'Formal Agreement to Resolution', we recommend that the Board of Review reduce the year 2000 assessment of PID # 32- 117 -21-41 -0068 from $236,400 to $224,500. The Zhuravels' are requesting that their year 2000 assessment be reduced to $210,000. The Zhuravels' are asking, in effect, that the assessment be reduced by $8,000 from their purchase price (which occurred six months prior to setting the assessment) due to the adjoining railroad line. Value 1999 $ 60,300 $ 158,500 $ 218,800 History 1998 $ 35,300 $ 160,100 $ 195,400 1997 $ 35,300 $ 153,500 $ 188,800 Sale Jun -99 $ 218,000 History Mar -90 $ 163,500 Mar -88 $ 147,200 Case # 1 City of Edina Pg. 2 Board of Review Assessor's Commentary Comments Cont. are all aware of the proposal to use the Canadian Pacific Railroad R -O -W for commuter line purpose. Assessment Department understands the anxiety that this proposal may have engendered in property ers who live by or near the rail line. We are not unsympathetic to the concerns of those owners. Lever, it is simply too soon to know what impact a commuter line may or may not have on adjoining )erty values. This is only in the planning and discussion stage. y way of background, the City is divided into 42 assessment districts. Each year, the arms length ales of the preceding year are stratified into those districts. Those sales form the basis of our nnual trend factors and constitute the sales pool for our individual sales comparison approach ppraisals. Our point is simple: valuation judgements whether in mass or individually, are ased on actual, verfied sales data. In order to correctly measure the impact of any factor, rhether it be external (such as a commuter line) or internal (such as depreciation), there must be orroborating sales of similarly effected properties. In the absence of supporting sales, we are A only with speculation and unsupported opinion. If the Zhuravels' assessment is reduced by the BOR due to the rail line, what is the percent or dollar iasis? Is the correct amount 5 %, 10 %, 15 %, 20 %, 25 %, ? Maybe some amount in between? Maybe i lower amount? Maybe a higher amount? The fact is, no one knows what effect a commuter line may it may not have on future resale values of existing residences. Assessment Department does not speculate about future values based on current proposals or possible ,e construction projects. When and if the commuter line is developed, there will undoubtedly be home s along and near that line. Those sales will tell us whether the line has caused resale value to fall, or be unaffected. Th Assessment Department will appropriately respond to that data; it is our it to value per the market as indicated by actual, verified sales. Therefore: recommend that the BOR not further reduce the year 2000 assessment of PID #32- 117 -21-41 -0068. SKETCH /AREA TABLE ADDENDUM r..e ti.. 94d4MRA File No 32- 117 -21 -41 -0088 PVB Code AREA CALCULATIONS SUMMARY Description Size Totals GLA1 First Floor 573.00 20.0 x 23.0 First Floor 920.00 3.0 x 12.0 First Floor 30.00 1523.00 BONT Basement 920.00 920.00 F/F Deck 465.00 465.00 OAR Garage 573.00 573.00 OT8 Finished Basement 767.00 767.00 20.0 TOTAL LIVABLE (rounded) 1523 Scale: 11= 10 LIVING AREA BREAKDOWN Breakdown Subtotals First Floor 20.0 x 23.0 460.00 3.0 x 12.0 36.00 7.0 x 11.0 77.00 18.0 x 30.0 540.00 11.0 x 27.0 297.00 7.0 x 9.0 63.00 1.0 x 20.0 20.00 3.0 x 10.0 30.00 8 Areas Total (rounded) 1523 AMX 60FMARE aoo. � APTIMw AVU11 •• c - - u � � a a� t, City of Edina Assessor's Office 4801 West 50th Street Edina, MN. 55424 -1394 P.I.D. # 32 - 1 1 % Z I - I - 00 �8 Phone: (612) 826 -0365 Fax: (612) 826 -0390 [TDD (Deaf Only): (612) 826 -03791 Board of Review Residential Request for Review Date Returned: 3 - /0-00 ,Time: )1',3o RW Rec (Case # �.-.- - :�:....... r. :office.. us : :on .y ::.:.:...........7........ .... . . supporting documentation Application Date:3 /�j /dam I� Attach any Owner Name Iti (QUQJ n f-e- Sgt Owner Address: ?37- s3 9s' Home Phone Number: 24S gy� Business Phone Number: Property Address: Sg 12 SQ- A Assessor's estimated market value for January 2, 2000: Land: Buildings: Total: 23� � y0 to I believe the estimated market value on January 2, 2000 should be: /� ��• �� Land: Q, �/J Buildings: l,.S'f Qom. �� Total: 2 l Purchase Date: !,Total purchase price (land & bldgs.): 2 Year Built: House: /194-.Garag e: / 6S- 4- Garage:l6S^ Additions (Explain): Q.G�- Condition of Structures (Explain): Description & value of additions and improvements since your purchase of this property: essional Appral5ai5 ::::: 7:::: sisal Date: he e we- ......... e- . f:—� � ieeent. ap c:op .Q.. a. Y Indicated Value: ] . :. :. :. : ........ �:�:�: X12 C=c /-� ;C/ m v e flu' c- e, o 1 fr k 4 ✓aAu e o d �r ,Proper v 'e Fq' - (a" Q sso r'S e-S �; � to -�� a. a w I DO HEREBY AFFIRM THAT THE ABOVE INFORMATION IS COMPLETE AND TRUE TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE AND BELIEF. A Signature of applicant: A L�a- RETURN THIS APPLICATION TO THE EDINA ASSESSOR'S OFFICE BY MONDAY, APRIL 3 2000. U WILL BE PLEASE ATTACH ANY DOCUMENTATION YOU FEETHE SCHEDULED SUPPORT BOARD OF REVOI W MEETING. TO HAVE YOUR PROPERTY REVIEWED PRIOR TO MINNESOTA Department of Revenue Certificate of Real Estate Value PE -20 Buyer 'lost namels), first, middle initial Address Daytime phone Ajex Zhuravel 5812 Hansen Road Rita Zhuravel Edina, M14 55436 Sellers Iasi nomels), firsi,middle initial New address Daytime phone Jeffrey Todd Johnson 7501 Gleason Road Beth H. Dalthorp Johnson Edina, MN 55439 (0*, - iiJJ CJ Slreel address or rural route of property purchased City or township County 5812 Hansen Road Edina uPr,rte in ��Dote of deed or contract Legal description of o u chosed (lot, black and lot, or attach 3 es of the legal descri Iron( eft P i property P r P copies 9 P 06/16/99 Lot 1, Block 1, Warden Ac -res Berg Replat Financial arrangements was usenet property such as furniture, imenrory pr equipmenl included In the purchase price? 11 tyro, ❑yesno q� describe below and list current (not replocement) va ue. {Use the bock of this page if needed.) I•� total purchase price 218,000.00 $ $ _ WDown payment 73,000.00 a a 17atoll personal properly Oil Points or prepaid interest paid by seller current wlue: $ $ i is W. Type of acquisition (check all that apply) ❑Buyer and seller ore relatives or Transaction inwhred the trade of related businesses ❑ property Nome added ro or m•owner's name ❑ Buyer is o unit of government ❑ removed from deed (not a sale) El is o gift or inheritance El Buyer is o religious or charitable 1:1 Condemnation or foreclosure ED Buyer purchased partial interest only transaction organization ❑ Payoff or resole of contract ❑ Purchase agraeunenl sr ned over two m years ago. Ye s : �yl Type of property transfe�d (check all that apply) ❑ land only land and buildings ❑ Construction of olnew building X87 Planned use of property (check one) Residential single family lfyoucheckoneofthef ourboxesbelow, ywmustcornpkfesdsedulePE •2OAasdanachbtotMsterT'Tioote. Residential d Agricultural duplex, triplex (number of acres:) Commercial - industrial hype of business:) Cabin or recreational Apanmenl buildi ng --- ❑ Iron commercrol) E] (number of unit:) -- — ❑ Other (describe:) FA will this property be the buyer's principal residence, }] yes ❑ no Method of financing (complete only) if seller- financed, including a contract for deed or assumed mortgage) Check: Mortgage or contract for Monthly payment for Assumed Conned deeedd amounl at purchase I principal anal interest Interest role Total number Date of any hump sum now in effect of payments Iballaan) payments for Deed j�Martgage ko ❑ ❑ I declare that the information on this form is true, correct, and complete to the best of my knowledge and belief. Noma (print or heel ww- notu,a I Mme _ n ,� Do Co ❑ C Yr Bli SD Yr Bldg Tat IrrteCry property idemirrcerian 1 ❑T Acres illo ICRP RIM I Use I Used I T, of Semdory'pwcd idwigmtien Good for study ❑ yes ❑ m 0 no, gne reosm /rode I b Co Ci Pi Dale M S - I ut extra —6. an+bo�st ❑ y"s 0- Slack Na. 6000400 (Rev. 6/96) DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE COPY 146451 ® Buyers' bocrcl becurity numbers (or minnesota or federal W numbersl belles' tonal becurtty numbers Jar Minnesota or tederdl 1.0 numbersl 477 -76 -5540 516 -66 -9441 3 3 Stock No. 6000400 (Rev. 61961 DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE COPY Y. Case # 2 City of Edina Board of Review Assessor's Commentary Property I.D. Number: 07- 116 -21 -21 -0047 Date: 4/10/2000 Property Address: 7133 VALLEY VIEW RD Owner /Agent Name: EDUARD AND LYBOV YAMNIK 2000 EMV Requested Value Recommended Value 215,200 205,000 215,200 Comments: Eduard and Lyubov Yamnik purchased 7133 Valley View Rd on July 17, 1998 for $205,000. The Yamnik's are appealing their year 2000 assessment of $215,200. They contest that they just purchased the property and the landscape timbers need replacing. The assessing department reduced the 1999 market value to reflect the purchase in 1998. The neighborhood increase was 5 %. Using the market approach to value, the comparables support the assessor's value of $215,200. Split entry homes of similar size are selling for an average of $162 /square foot. Value 1999 $ 105,000 $ 100,000 $ 205,000 History 1998 $ 67,500 $ 171,300 $ 238,800 1997 $ 67,500 $ 171,300 $ 238,800 Sale Jul -98 $ 205,000 History Jul -97 $ 150,000 Estate Sale Feb -87 $ 208,000 SKETCH /AREA TABLE ADDENDUM r....,, ni., aGIM004? File No 07. 116 -21 -21 -0047 Proi)ertv Address 7133 VALLEY VIEW RD city State Zip Borrower Lender /Client Appraiser Name DEK 3 -20 -00 60.0' 24.0' Unfinish Finish Bath 0 1 /GARAGE N • Rec Room OH 29.0' Scale: 1 = 15 • LIVING AREA BREAKDOWN Area Name of Area Size Totals Breakdown Subtotals GLAl First Floor 1656.00 1658.00 First Floor BSIET easement 936.00 936.00 26.0 x 60.0 1560.00 GAR Garage 624.00 624.00 2.0 x 29.0 58.00 0TH BSMT PINISH 727.00 727.00 2.0 x 20.0 40.00 TOTAL LIVABLE (rounded) 1658 3 Areas Total (rounded) 1658 nvex soF,wnae eoo-esaeese AREA CALCULATIONS SUMMARY 3 Areas Total (rounded) 1658 nvex soF,wnae eoo-esaeese nvex soF,wnae eoo-esaeese City of Edina 4801 West 50th Street Edina, MN. 55424 -1394 Phone: (612) 826 -0365 Fax: (612) 826 -0390 [TDD (Deaf Only): (612) 826 -0379] Board of Review Residential Request for Review Assessor's office Application Date: %6 Attach any supporting documentation Owner Name: Owner Address: Home Phone Number: �� " 9y3 Ago I Business Phone Number: 9�1 Property Address: Assessor's estimated market value for J uary 2, 2000: Land: �J , �2r(,2 Buildings: OOO Total: I believe the estimated market value on January 2, 2000 should be: y� Land: Buildings: Total:v Purchase Date: �Total purchase price (land & bldgs.): Year Built: House: %9 Garage: Additions (Explain): Condition of Structures (Explain): 1L.0 �/Iz Description & value of additions and improvements since your purchase of this prop rty: ........................... :::�::: �����ent is s a � ra a Professional A praisais: :. � (Pease attach a c:op of any rec.... p ... : /r Appraisal Date: � � !Indicated Value: i5� i�� l � . . f_... 4 , to 'he 4 s�sT�r's E ..,�tQ� ;��r�ot a;z��e ..::..:..:::.:::.:. :.::..::::..::::...:::::.:::::: I CkFllcitil tIi818a oii� i�:rr j�uur. C.u�rc%uGl'i . , � s A/ J /"Z- %L(/�C � %✓/ r �(i�/ Ov���� ' �iLQ �i'L� 7iGfzi�� G(iL��i2G�GvLJ �� /� n J I DO HEREBY AFFIRM THA THE ABOVE INFORMATION N IS COMPLETE AND TRUE TO THE BEST OF MY� KNOWLEDGE AND BELIEF. Signature of applicant:�� RETURN THIS APPLICATION TO THE EDINA ASSESSOR'S OFFICE BY MONDAY, APRIL 3, 2000. FLEASE ATTACH ANY DOCUMENTATION YOU FEEL WILL SUPPORT YOUR CASE. YOU WILL BE CONTACTED 10 HAVE YOUR PROPERTY REVIEWED PRIOR TO THE SCHEDULED BOARD OF REVIEW MEETING. :e/1 Case # 3 City of Edina Board of Review Assessor's Commentary Property I.D. Number: 08- 116 -21 -32 -0006 Date: 4/10/2000 Property Address: 7405 GLEASON RD Owner /Agent Name: LLOYD AND MARLYS LOFGREN 2000 EMV Requested Value Recommended Value 348,800 299,200 348,800 Comments: Lloyd and Marlys Lofgren have owned the home at 7405 Gleason since September of 1980. A screen porch and deck addition were added in 1988. The home is good to average condition. Finish above ground square footage is approximately 2514. The subject has 3 bedrooms and 3 1/2 baths. Basement finish area is approximately 1234 sq. feet. A recreation room and two other finished rooms, with above ground square footage is approximately 2514. The sales comparable support our value of $348,8000. Two story homes in this neighborhood and of similar size are selling for an average of $150 /sq ft. Mr. Lofgren is concerned with the home next door, which is converting to a care facility for Alzheimer's patients. There is only one sale that has occurred which indicates the market has not been affected. That sale is at 7008 Lynmar Lane. It sold November of 1994 (before the hospice home was started) for $147,500. It recently sold September of 1998 for $181,900. The Lofgren's are in California until mid April and will not be appearing before the board. Value 1999 $ 90,000 $ 227,100 $ 317,100 History 1998 $ 52,400 $ 246,800 $ 299,200 1997 $ 52,400 $ 246,800 $ 299,200 Sale Aug -80 $ 220,000 History Mar -77 $ 145,000 SKETCH /AREA TABLE ADDENDUM Case No 28320006 File No 08- 116 -21 -32 -0006 Property Address 7405 GLEASON RD city State Zip Borrower Lender /Client Appraiser Name DEK 3 -27 -00 14.0' Area AREA CALCULATIONS SUMMARY Name of Area Size Totals GLA1 First Floor 1422.00 1422.00 GLA2 Second Floor 1092.00 1092.00 BSMT Basement 1422.00 1422.00 P/P SCN PORCH 120.00 DECK 438.00 558.00 GAR Garage 598.00 598.00 OTH BSMT FINISH 1254.00 1254.00 TOTAL LIVABLE (rounded) 2514 Scale: 1 = 15 LIVING AREA BREAKDOWN Breakdown Subtotals First Floor 14.0 x 18.0 252.00 14.0 x 38.0 532.00 17.0 x 22.0 374.00 12.0 x 22.0 264.00 Second Floor 28.0 x 39.0 1092.00 5 Areas Total (rounded) 2514 APEX SOFTWARE 800.65&8888 Apx7100.w Apexll City of Edina Assessor's office P801 60th Street - -- Edina, MN. 65424 -1394 P.I.D. # Phone: (612) 526 -0365 Fax: (612) 826 -0390 [TDD (Deaf Only): (612) 826 -0379) Board of Review Residential Request for Review Date Returned: Time: 1 1 oo AVV\ Received By: Case # For office use only Application Date: G(4, °� ro Attach ar, supporting documentation I� Ov•ner Name: L%v d �~ c Owner Address:" �a.S" �ipwJD N — Home Phone Number./O f .) Bysieess Phone Number:166— 54� -�s ra Property Address:7 S //� S /Z4 , Assessor's estimated market value for January 2, 2000: Land: r10 Gin Buildings: ZStJ &007 Total: _8.48 goo A,o, I believe the estimated market value on January 2, 2000 should be: _T, -�� °j Total: a-O 1c1`+5 Land: Buildings: a99 a :Total (land 8 bldgs.): 33 bro�� Purchase Date: /9 PO purchase price Year Built: House: 1677 Garage: 177 Additions (Explain)):,. , O �ne j Condition of Structures (Explain): Description Fs, value of additions and improvements since your p hase of this property: ............................... .................... .. :.:.:.:........ ........................ ..... ...a is s � ent ra a Rirofe� sional Appraisals; (Please attach a cop of any rec pp. . . Appraisal Date: Indicated Value: i LAHitl,�� ti c ICa�IJr S cr ycc:r Object cn ., .f a u _d sL` ti�ated iima kel: is ue::: a �4p °Lre Q� 011 ' T I DO HEREBY AFFIRM THAT THE ABOVE INFORMATION IS COMPLETE AND TRUE TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE AND BELIEF. �� Signature of applicant: v• RETURN THIS APPLICATION TO THE EDINA ASSESSOR'S OFFICE BY MONDAY, APRIL 3, 2000. r PLEASE ATTACH ANY DOCUMENTATION YOU FEEL WILL SUPPORT YOUR CASE. YOU WILL BE CONTACTED TO HAVE YOUR PROPERTY REVIEWED PRIOR TO THE SCHEDULED BOARD OF REVIEW MEETING. /I4 � '���,+'����Jy�+�-� 2a -t�a�, �o �►o -��� . �• c � �d111�� 1 . n .mot..!' . tl f� a� -'f '7 J+DJA , J, -,.,,e /d'�f ov LLOYD V. LOFGREN 7405 GLEASON RD. EDINA, MN 55439 ROY TERWILLIGER Assistant Minority Leader 1 ]5 State Office Building 100 Constitution Avenue St. Paul, MN 55155 -1206 (6]2) 296 -6238 Home: 6512 Navaho Trail Edina, MN 55439 (612) 941 -8258 December 28, 1999 Lloyd V. Lofgren 7405 Gleason Rd. Edina, Mn 55439 Dear Lloyd: Senate State of Minnesota i l Many thanks for your letter concerning the commercial enterprise to be located at 7409 Gleason Rd. I had not been aware of this until you called it to my attention, although I was familiar with the firm that was running the facility over at 609 Blake Rd. and knew that they were looking for another location in Edina. Since this is a new area to me, I talked to the City Manager, Gordon Hughes, concerning this matter and how it came to be through the zoning ordinances, etc. He advised me that it was an existing state statute V which had been passed about l 5 years or so ago that allowed this to take place without any regard to local zoning. It's my understanding that the City has no say in this matter and that it is strictly a state statutory situation. Because this is the situation and the matter has proceeded, I don't believe that there probably is anything that can be done legislatively that could change this, since any such legislation would have to be retroactive, and I don't believe we would make that work. The session starts February 1 and I would welcome a chance to talk to you about this if you would like at any time prior to that. However, I don't really believe that it's going to be possible to have any impact in that way. Thanks for calling this to my attention and I will give a ring in a few days to try to reach you; however, Mary Lou has told me that she thought that you were out of town for the winter. Needless to say, I'll try to reach you, but if I don't reach you by phone, I do hope that Marlys and you are enjoying the warn weather some place. Best wishes for a wonderful New Year! r T • WII,LIGER Senator RT:pr 10 COMMITTEES: Finance • Governmental Operations and Veterans • Health Care • Rules • Recycled Paper 20% Past. Legislative /Commission on Pensions and Retirement • Council on Black Minnesotans Consumer Fiber SERVING: Eden Prairie • Edina J m I I LLOYD V. LOFGREN 7405 GLEASON RD. 1 EDINA, MN 55439 ��z4H ;-e' � ,Ile '7z�� Lci- -`d, lei )Jv�lc V6 V2A ��. 6. � ��C_•F ����-1at% Laid -`' � � �O Case # 4 City of Edina Board of Review Assessor's Commentary Property I.D. Number: 18- 028 -24- 451 -0149 Date: 4/10/2000 Property Address: 5124 JUANITA AVE Owner /Agent Name: ELEANOR B SWANDBY /ESTATE; SON LAWRENCE L SWANDBY 2000 EMV Requested Value Recommended Value 260,500 242,800 TO 245,000 260,500 Comments: The home at 5124 Juanita Avenue is in the estate of Eleanor Swandby (c /o Lawrence Swandby, son). The home is currently non - homestead. We inspected the home in July of 1998. Home is in average to fair condition. The house was built in 1940 and has 4 bedrooms and 2 1/2 baths, brick exterior. The kitchen is smaller and mostly original condition. The approximately above ground square footage is 1684. The current sales support the estimated market value of $260,500. Similar style homes in this neighborhood are selling on average for $155 /square foot. Value 1999 $ 95,000 $ 125,800 $ 220,800 History 1998 $ 58,000 $ 162,800 $ 220,800 1997 $ 58,000 $ 152,300 $ 210,300 Sale History SKETCH /AREA TABLE ADDENDUM r•sse No 05410149 File No 18 -028 -24 -01 -0149 Properiv Address 5124 JUANITA AVE city State Zip Borrower Lender /Client Appraiser Name DEK 4-4 -2000 Patio Garage N 42.0' r o Unfinish Q 11.0' o CY) N • Bat Rec Room o Unfinish Scale: 1 = 15 • LIVING AREA BREAKDOWN Area Name of Area Size Totals Breakdown Subtotals GLA1 First Floor 1244.00 1244.00 GLA2 Second Floor 476.00 476.00 1.0 x 6.0 6.00 BSMT Basement 1236.00 1236.00 0.5 x 2.0 x 1.0 1.00 P/P Porch 112.00 112.00 0.5 x 2.0 x 1.0 1.00 GAR Garage 231.00 231.00 27.0 x 42.0 1134.00 OTH BSMT PINISH 516.00 516.00 6.0 x 17.0 102.00 Second Floor 14.0 x 34.0 476.00 TOTAL LIVABLE (rounded) 1720 First Floor 6 Areas Total (rounded) 1720 nvEJC Sar I Wgltt uww,tu,ae ••W � •YA AREA CALCULATIONS SUMMARY First Floor 6 Areas Total (rounded) 1720 nvEJC Sar I Wgltt uww,tu,ae ••W � •YA nvEJC Sar I Wgltt uww,tu,ae ••W � •YA City of Edina Assessor's Office 4801 West 50th Street Edina, MN. 55424 -1394 Phone: (612) 826 -0365 Fax: (612) 826 -0390 [TDD (Deaf Only): (612) 826 -0379] Board of Review Residential Request for Review Application Date: Attach any supporting documentation Owner Name: E el icy) Owner Address: u j ` 1'1 Home Phone Number: �" � "- ;. % Business Phone Number: Property Address: oT : uK v e Assessor's estimated market value for January 2, 2000: Land: Buildings: Total: 61 1 believe the estimated market value on January 2, 2000 should be: Land: Buildings: Total: !Total price (land & bldgs.): Purchase Date: t c Y1-t ✓ purchase Year Built: House: i- o Garage: ill-/c Additions (Explain): Condition of Structures (Explain): Description & value of additions and improvements since your purchase of this property: ....... .. fs :::::::::::::::::::::: :::::::::::::::: :::::::::::::::::: Proiess......i.q pralsal5 :: (Please attache.cop .ofany.rece.nt:ap ratsa ............. Appraisal Date: Indicated Value: Ex:plam the reasons foc, our bbjection to:fhe. assessor's esti b ted:market vatiio.:: > : :::: h ::.::' i cwc �t h P s a kJ 4 1 c. j�; �0Fe �� �v N411 y�� lu d r h a 4'ti e 1'to -5� �-� �. he �e a5 h e (,4c,, e: h;2 c� '0 e � p (7NrG��t I DO HEREB AFFIRM THAT THE ABOVE INFORMATK N IS COMPLETE AND TRUE THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE AND BELIEF. Signature of applicant: RETURN THIS APPLICATION TO THE EDINA ASSESOOR'S OFFICE BY MONDAY, APRIL 3, 2000. PLEASE ATTACH ANY DOCUMENTATION YOU FEEL WILL SUPPORT YOUR CASE. YOU WILL BE CONTACTED TO HAVE YOUR PROPERTY REVIEWED PRIOR TO THE SCHEDULED BOARD OF REVIEW MEETING. Case # 5 City of Edina Board of Review Assessor's Commentary Property I.D. Number: 18- 028 -24 -23 -0058 Date: 4/10/2000 Property Address: 4622 EDGEBROOK PLACE Owner /Agent Name: NORMAN P CHAPEL 2000 EMV Requested Value Recommended Value 1,073,800 940,000 1,073,800 Comments: Norman and Mary Beth Chapel purchased 4622 Edgebrook Place July 1990 for $792,855. Additions and total remodel were completed before purchasing the property. The home is in good condition it has 5 bedrooms and 4 1/2 baths. Above ground square footage is 4452. The home is located on Minnehaha creek. Homes located in Country Club sell on the average of $251/ square foot. A sale located on the creek sold for $306/ square foot. After reviewing comparable sales and adjusting for any differences the indicated corrected value of the subject is $1,146,700. The review supports the 2000 assessment - we recommend sustaining that value. Value 1999 $ 230,000 $ 680,000 $ 910,000 History 1998 $ 130,000 $ 727,000 $ 857,000 1997 $ 130,000 $ 705,000 $ 835,000 Sale Apr -90 $ 792,855 History Jun -89 $ 475,000 SKETCH /AREA TABLE ADDENDUM Case No 03230058 First Floor File No 18 -028.24 -23 -0058 7.0 x 8 ProDertv Address 4822 EDGEBROOK PL 5.0 x 1 12.0 6 60.00 3.0 x 8 8.0 2 24.00 0.5 x 2.0 x 3 3.0 3 3.00 0.5 x 2.0 x 3 3.0 3 3.00 city 46.0 6 644.00 State Zip 46.0 6 644.00 3.0 x 2 28.0 8 84.00 7.0 x 4 44.0 3 308.00 Second Floor „ Borrower 474.00 OTS 88NT FINI88 1224.00 1224.00 46.0 1 184.00 3.0 x 2 28.0 8 84.00 12 remaining calculations 2 2357.00 Lender /Client Aporaiser Name DEK 0348 -00 32.0' W/O 14.0' 2.0 14.0' 0 Game Roc m Bedroom oZI* 5 ° C r:) oc 3.0' 5 0 v 10.0' Rec Room Bath 1/0 o Mech Laundry 7.0' vi 12.0' 14.0' Garage 0 I L6 12.0' o CD 19.0' Scale: 1 =15 AREA CALCULATIONS SUMMARY Area Name of Area Size Totals OLA1 First Floor 1826.00 1826.00 6LA2 Second Floor 1588.00 1588.00 OLA3 Third Floor 1038.00; 1038.00 88NT easement 1740.00 1740.00 p/p DBCR 723.00 • DECK 170.00 Porch 159.00 1052.00 GAR Garage LIVING AREA BREAKDOWN Breakdown Subtotals First Floor 7.0 x 8 8.0 5 56.00 5.0 x 1 12.0 6 60.00 3.0 x 8 8.0 2 24.00 0.5 x 2.0 x 3 3.0 3 3.00 0.5 x 2.0 x 3 3.0 3 3.00 14.0 x 4 46.0 6 644.00 14.0 x 4 46.0 6 644.00 3.0 x 2 28.0 8 84.00 7.0 x 4 44.0 3 308.00 Second Floor 474.00 474.00 OTS 88NT FINI88 1224.00 1224.00 46.0 1 184.00 3.0 x 2 28.0 8 LIVING AREA BREAKDOWN Breakdown Subtotals First Floor 7.0 x 8 8.0 5 56.00 5.0 x 1 12.0 6 60.00 3.0 x 8 8.0 2 24.00 0.5 x 2.0 x 3 3.0 3 3.00 0.5 x 2.0 x 3 3.0 3 3.00 14.0 x 4 46.0 6 644.00 14.0 x 4 46.0 6 644.00 3.0 x 2 28.0 8 84.00 7.0 x 4 44.0 3 308.00 Second Floor 0.5 x 1.0 x 2 2.0 1 1.00 4.0 x 4 46.0 1 184.00 3.0 x 2 28.0 8 84.00 12 remaining calculations 2 2357.00 naE:x sorlwara: axiesaeese AW,00r,n,.,m City of Edina 4801 West 50th Street Edina, MN. 55424 -1394 Phone: (612) 826 -0365 Fax: (612) 826 -0390 [TDD (Deaf Only): (612) 826 -0379] Board of Review Residential Request for Review Assessor's Office Application Date: MfgZ kt T9 2066 Attach any supporting documentation Owner Name: I. KOVIN P. CWP L Owner Address: 4b7-7- ��CzEt��OCK cL�CE �ttyA (�N • 554-2 Home Phone Number: Business Phone Number: q,SZ-gZ�ir-4OOS Property Address: yf,ZZ eV x0- ,,)mCK hlQ Cif 0t NR .i<'ls • 5 5 4Z� Assessor's estimated market value for January 2, 2000: Land: Buildings: Total: ► , �, 3. �6C () I believe the estimated market value on January 2, 2000 should be: Land: Buildings: Total: q40 , 00 0 Purchase Date: Cq (A (Total purchase price (land & bldgs.): 4 747-,600 Year Built: House:ly3% Garage: 1ct3� Additions (Explain): t2emuated Ig9I Ia axcs old, Condition of Structures (Explain): IZ L-1- S�zU�il% -S (zP.�COC� + RPPLaI;� NC - y Description & value of additions and improvements since your purchase of this property: NC) S(11ptZDtl EIn NTS �c>otTi0N5 sItJC� PISR.CkE{}S• :...::.....:.........:..................... ............................... :....:..:....:.:...........:..:.:.;:.:.:..::.:.:.:.:..::.:....::::.::....:.:.;.:..:.;.:.:.:.:.:.; .:.:.:..:.:.:.:::..:.:.:.:.:.:. . . a :Professional:A prai$a1s attach:a.cop .of a.ny rece.ni:ap �.. sa ............... Appraisal Date: Indicated Value: rlieYvatue :::: ::::::::: ::..... .............. E�c:plain the. reasons fog_ our, objecti,ori :to.the assessors estimated:ma..... Val. U . d hbu� t�.;0 CUC�C�CPS 41�a� {'(he CeC�t ic�C�FaS� �� �CK�"'C 3aLtiE p�Hr �h� aSf fa=a � �105 -- �a�c , 2D`76 vwc -the 6SA -tom �tt5 cr B5�, 0 Ac h,6-13.KO . rt,ece NOW bePln ,� additions c� icn CZ�NC��`% b\t\C e. oie bc,C �t t�� hG6�� :C� .jC�QQ ' �C C> c M bC Sc;�6iliC��1al + it(���CaL1'� �tN dt ri ja �cn� acK �hN �e�fi few �cgtt� k�e p� �� eaVzD- , --RAE oc�ntsEd dc� eC�CS !WGecl C� .�'r e�hC� ���1 ds ctt� &;�1 . I DO HEREBY AFFIRM THAT THE ABOVE INFORMATION IS COMPLETE AND TRUE TO E BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE AND BELIEF. �p Signature of applicant: � �� ,m 3 zB�LC�G RETURN THIS APPLICATION TO THE EDINA ASSESSOR'S OFFICE BY MONDAY, APRIL 3, 2000. PLEASE ATTACH ANY DOCUMENTATION YOU FEEL WILL SUPPORT YOUR CASE. YOU WILL BE CONTACTED TO HAVE YOUR PROPERTY REVIEWED PRIOR TO THE SCHEDULED BOARD OF REVIEW MEETING. Case # 6 City of Edina Board of Review Assessor's Commentary Property I.D. Number: 05- 116 -21 -14 -0043 Date: 4/10/2000 Property Address: 6517 LIMERICK DRIVE Owner /Agent Name: ROBERT AND HELEN MALBY 2000 EMV Requested Value Recommended Value 249,500 220,000 249,500 Comments: Robert and Helen Malby have owned the home at 6517 Limerick Drive since 1971. They are the original owners of the property. In 1978 a garage addition was added to the property. In 1990 a permit was taken out to add a 16 X 16 addition or 3 season porch. The home is 2 story, built in 1971, it is in average to good condition . It has 4 bedrooms and 2 1/2 baths. The 3 season porch is a good addition, it is off the family room. It has a bow window, cathedral ceiling, and electric baseboard heat. The above ground square footage is 1990. After reviewing 14 sales, some having railroad, highway, pool and busy street influences, the average sale prices per'square foot is $132. A range from $103 to $148. Of those 14 sales, 3 are on the railroad. These prices per square foot are, $141, $117, and $143. The average being $133. This supports our January 2, 2000 Assessment. Mr. Malby hired Gregory P Smith of Russell Smith Associates, Inc. to complete an appraisal of the Market Value of his residence effective March 10, 2000. Mr. Smith concludes to a value of $220,000 as of that date. Several comments and observations relative to the appraisal need to be made. 1 Even though Mr. Smith acknowledges that Mr. Malby is an independent accountant for his firm and that there is no conflict one still questions the independent nature of this appraisal. Mr Smith, through his disclosure, has satisfied that clause in the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice. But, can one rely on it as a non biased opinion? 2 The assessment date is January 2, 2000 and our values are set and based on what occurred during the previous year. We are historians of fact and study and measure things that have occurred. None of us have the luxury of a crystal ball when we set assessments and have to rely on the market to guide us. Mr. Smiths appraisal, if retrospective, would not have known of the High Speed Commuter Rail Feasibility Study which according to his appraisal was dated February 16, 2000. Value 1999 $ 65,200 $ 164,800 $ 230,000 History 1998 $ 42,200 $ 176,500 $ 218,700 1997 $ 42,200 $ 172,300 $ 214,500 Sale Jul -71 $ 45,000 History - 6 City of Edina pg, 2 Board of Review Assessor's Commentary Comments Cont. Even if the "Study" he describes had been completed before the assessment date he offers no evidence of how he has measured the loss in value due to the study. Now that the issue is in front of the public we can closely monitor sales activity along the rail line and appropriately react to what may transpire for the 2001 assessment with all the facts necessary to support our decisions at that time. Our hope is that this does not become a self fulfilling prophecy. 3 Mr. Smith indicates in his appraisal that adjustments were based on paired sales analysis wherever possible. We agree that is the appropriate method in which to measure change in the value. Unfortunately, Mr. Smith did not supply any of those matched pairs and only indicates that they are in his file. To make a broad brush statement that is unsubstantiated is questionable. There is no empirical evidence in Mr. Smiths appraisal that would lead one to believe that any value reduction should occur due to the existence of the "Study ". 4 Math errors and omissions were discovered throughout the appraisal. Other observations can be made but for the purpose of this commentary will not be addressed here. Thankfully, we have the current year to watch the market as it reacts to the "Study" and then be able to :orrectly reflect those Market Reactions in the upcoming assessment. CITY OF EDINA o PROPERTY CHARACTERISTICS 6517 LIMERICK DRIVE 05- 116 -21 -14 -0043 SKETCH /AREA TABLE ADDENDUM r' eo Nn 261400 File No 05- 118 -21 -14 -0043 Property Address 8517 LIMERICK DRIVE 2.0 x 5 5.0 1 city 10.00 0.5 x 1.0 x 2 State Zip 2.00 0.5 x 1.0 x 1 1.0 1 1.00 12.0 x 2 21.0 2 252.00 Borrower 13.0 1 143.00 12.0 x 1 17.0 2 352.00 352.00 25.0 5 500.00 5.0 x 8 8.0 4 Lender /Client 40.00 0.5 x 1.0 x 5 5.0 2 2.50 O.s x 1.0 x 5 5.0 1 1.50 Second Floor Appraiser Name DEK 04 -04 -2000 831.00 3 Season N 1/s, 20.0' r 1/0 Unfinish 2/S 0 N Garage Finish N 32.0' Scale: 1-15 AREA CALCULATIONS SUMMARY Area Name of Area size Totals OLA1 First Floor 1158.00 1158.00 6LA2 Second Floor 832.00 832.00 BBNT Basement 1099.00 1099.00 p/p Porch 272.00 ascx 254.00 526.00 • GAR Garage 704.00 704.00 OT8 BSNT FINISH LIVING AREA .BREAKDOWN Breakdown Subtotals First Floor 2.0 x 5 5.0 1 10.00 0.5 x 1.0 x 2 2.0 2 2.00 0.5 x 1.0 x 1 1.0 1 1.00 12.0 x 2 21.0 2 252.00 11.0 x 1 13.0 1 143.00 12.0 x 1 17.0 2 352.00 352.00 25.0 5 500.00 5.0 x 8 LIVING AREA .BREAKDOWN Breakdown Subtotals First Floor 2.0 x 5 5.0 1 10.00 0.5 x 1.0 x 2 2.0 2 2.00 0.5 x 1.0 x 1 1.0 1 1.00 12.0 x 2 21.0 2 252.00 11.0 x 1 13.0 1 143.00 12.0 x 1 17.0 2 204.00 20.0 x 2 25.0 5 500.00 5.0 x 8 8.0 4 40.00 0.5 x 1.0 x 5 5.0 2 2.50 O.s x 1.0 x 5 5.0 1 1.50 Second Floor 16.0 x 3 31.0 8 831.00 naFc somvnae eoo-eso-eeee P4.i,www4uii City of Edina Assessor's office 4801 West 50th Street Edina, MN. 55424 -1394 P.I.D. # o_A5"= Phone: (612) 826 -0365 Fax: (612) 826 -0390 [TDD (Deaf Only): (612) 826 -03791 Board of Review Residential Request for Review I Date Returned: Received By: Time: rS (Case # pro ff'i ice: use:+onl: y ................... . Application Date: -3 3 ] aoC�L a Attach any supporting documentation Owner Name: �a "I A L-G Owner Address: Home Phone Number: 9 5 a h 41-7-5-L 9 Business Phone Number: G 1 61 — tD Property Address: L -'51 7 j, rt m& eA- %( OR -lrZ rfA /' -645 163 9 Assessor's estimated market value for January 2, 2000: Land: Buildings: Total: ;? 49) I believe the estimated market value on January 2, 2000 should be: is Land: C�S�ZdO Buildings: @43Gb Total: O d� �8 Purchase Date: '"7/19 7 1 Total purchase price (land & bldgs.): b® Year Built: House: 1971 Garage: 1901/ Additions (Explain): Condition of Structures (Explain): Description & value of add�ditiionrs and ±improvements since your pp�u�r'c /h]ass.{e of this pro�p�e)rty: a a ' ... .':'. •:':':':'.':':':':':':':' ' .. ••':':: ':: ' ' ' ' ' '•' ' ' ' ' ' '•' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ....'........ • .. • ..•....•....... . : • ::: ::::.:.:::.:::.::::.:.....:.:.. . P. �S S Profes:sioiial:A pra►sai.s:::::::..(Ptea.�a. attach.a: cop :Qf.:a.rty. ►eCe.nt.a ra . 8 ...................... . Appraisal Date: 3 Indicated Value: ket:�iatu ::::: >::::? ::: :.:.: ........ :::::::::::::: : Ex;plain::tFie;:�.easo:ns_fo�;. o rob' ecti. on: to4h ...:ass.e......s.estlrr�afe.:: mar ........................... RoW c -ss:h:Li' o;- C�n�,u�ui� 1r1gAF�, C>��s �+ WT L"r C "►� ,SSr�oA i.iff A00 A,'M7ffW4 4 %r-ASEMENj efRFA `r o A S7—)'r,M rfa4z—,,,8ao I'm o /a SxECNK.1r If : c' 11 aaliliE301 , ,%q3: --det3 y A o/ ,(- A b ,- ;`yin G- �-M: c. �z t' l "' Tut eurYREN'F M lr�r>� �+0 a i�� S �3f/�- M 19C tu M"�Pi ' $-5- '-.4 E7 OP U r I DO HEREBY AFFIRM THAT THE ABOVE INFORMATION IS COMPLETE AND TRUE TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE AND BELIEF. ^ Signature of applicant. RETURN THIS APPLICATION TO THE EDINA ASSESSOR' FF CE BY MONDAY, APRIL 3, 2000. PLEASE ATTACH ANY DOCUMENTATION YOU FEEL WILL S ORT YOUR CASE. YOU WILL BE CONTACTED TO HAVE YOUR PROPERTY REVIEWED PRIOR TO THE SCHEDULED BOARD OF REVIEW MEETING. Page 1 of 4 Malby Addendum to Residential Request for Review Re: Valuation of 6517 Limerick Drive Subject property has been overvalued by the Edina City Assessor for years, and the disparity with better situated properties. in close proximity is getting worse. And now, with the commuter rail issue before us, and getting a public airing, subject property's value and marketability has further suffered. In 1971; 1 made a poor decision to purchase this marginal piece of property. It has not appreciated nearly as much as properties in a more desirable location, for example properties across the street or, especially, those nearby that abut 9 -Mile Creek. The assessment by the Edina City Assessor does not recognize that not all properties appreciate is a like manner. While some desirable properties have skyrocketed, other less desirable properties, like those near the railroad tracks and high voltage power lines, have stagnated. And now, with the commuter rail issue hanging over us, properties on the tracks have likely declined in value in an otherwise rising market! Unlike the ocean, where a rising tide lifts all boats, homes don't all appreciate at the same rate. And yet, that is how the assessor values properties for taxation purposes. All properties get raised by the same percentage. Accordingly, inequities inherent in such a system of valuation are never rectified. Some of us are being assessed at 100 %, or more than 100 %, of true market value while better situated properties enjoy a valuation for tax purposes far under their true value. Diane Koole of the Assessor's Office indicated to me last'spring that they are aware of the inconsistent valuation of properties, and they "are working on it ". My question is, if the Limited Market Value of all of the properties in a "neighborhood" are raised by the same percentage every year, how does that constitute "working on it "? The 8.5% increase in valuation on 6517 Limerick Drive from 1/2/99 to 1/2/2000 is unwarranted, given the prior overvaluation, the location of the property and the relative valuations of other homes in the "neighborhood ". This increase comes on the heels of a 12% proposed increase at 1/2/99 before I requested a review and an adjustment at this time last year. And all the while under the commuter rail "black cloud ". Request for Review Malby 6517 Limerick Drive Page 2 of 4 There are three impediments to what would be considered "normal" valuation of subject property which should be factored into the assessor's valuation: -- property abuts a railroad right -of -way - the track and road bed is unsightly, the train is noisy and causes vibration of the house when it passes; and the railway company is not a good neighbor when it comes to ROW maintenance. -- the ongoing study to.create a high speed commuter rail - Ms Koole recently made the statement to me that "it is not known what the impact of the commuter rail study will be, therefore there will be no adjustment in valuations ". That there is ANY possibility of the commuter rail coming to fruition, whenever that may be, creates a "black cloud" over all the properties adjoining the railroad tracks. The properties are hereafter encumbered or stigmatized by even the possibility. Who is going to purchase a home that has a speeding train passing 12 times a day? - Realtors that I have contacted in Edina and Bloomington advise me that the commuter rail issue definitely would be a disclosure issue upon putting one's home on the market. The negative impact on valuation and saleability has been characterized by some realtors as "considerable ". -- high voltage NSP transmission lines pass over the property. The towers and lines are unsightly, infringing on the ambiance of the area. Many potential buyers who view properties walk away because of the proximity of the high voltage lines and towers. Many find them a problem because they are unsightly. Others consider high voltage lines a health hazard, believing that the electro magnetic interference they generate can cause cancer. - subject property is encumbered by a maintenance easement. NSP has the right to bring in equipment and do whatever is deemed necessary to maintain the high voltage lines and towers. Three years ago a 25 -year old maple tree was sacrificed in our back yard in order to satisfy NSP. Request for Review Malby 6517 Limerick Drive Page 3 of 4 I indicate "neighborhood" above, because within very close proximity there are really four distinct subsets of our neighborhood. They should not all be accorded the same treatment when it comes to assessed valuation. Certainly the arms length real estate marketplace does not treat them the same: 1) Properties that abut the railroad ROW on the east side of the tracks. 2) Properties that abut the railroad ROW on the west side of the tracks, and are, therefore, further encumbered by the high voltage transmission lines and maintenance easement. 3) Properties that abut 9 -Mile Creek, or are in close proximity to it. 4) Properties that are neither encumbered by the tracks and power lines, nor enhanced by the creek and park -like backyards that it creates. Properties.on the creek frequently sell at or above the asking price in a very short time, while track -side properties may sit for months before ANY reasonable offer is forthcoming. Clearly, the marketplace is sending a message. Recently, two properties went up for sale in our "neighborhood ". The one at 6512 Creek Drive garnered multiple offers to purchase on the first day of listing, many at MORE THAN the $385,000 asking price. The assessor has the owner paying real estate taxes based on a market value of well UNDER $300,000. This, in spite of the fact that the property last sold in 1989 for $240,000. Even assuming an average increase in taxable value of only 5 %, one would expect this property to be on the tax roles in the high $300's! Meanwhile, a home at 6415 Limerick Drive went up for sale, with an asking price in the mid- $200,000's. The assessor also had the property pegged in the mid- $200,000's. After one month there had been 30 inquiries. Most took one look at the railroad tracks and the power lines and turned around and walked away. There was one offer ........ for $170,000! The main difference in these two properties is location, location, location ......... one adjoins 9 -Mile Creek and one adjoins the railroad tracks and is further encumbered by the power lines. Vast differences in value as determined by the marketplace, but relatively little difference in the assessed value for purposes of taxation. Request for Review Malby 6517 Limerick Drive Page 4 of 4 Six years ago, the property at 6521 Limerick Drive was sold for $204,000. During the ensuing four years, the new owner spent 100's of man -hours and $1,000's updating the house; every square foot from top to bottom. Then, two+ years ago he remarried and moved, putting the house on the market. And, there it sat for 7 months, finally selling in late spring 1998 for $220,000. Four years later, with considerable additional investment and still precious little appreciation. Stagnation! And, that was before the commuter rail issue was widely known! A number of creek -side properties have sold in recent years, giving a good indication of what the valuation for tax purposes should be. Yet, some properties even have valuations barely greater than the sale price years earlier; and some are actually valued at LESS than the sales price, in some instances many years later! I made a mistake on property selection 29 years ago. It was a poor investment, and I have paid for it ever since in lost appreciation. I recognize that and have accepted it. What is unacceptable is that I am paying for the poor choice another way ........ in overassessment of property taxes while many others enjoy underassessment! Railroad tracks, power lines and now commuter rail. The marketplace has determined that there is an impact -from all three. Homeowners certainly recognize it, especially those of us who have been around for decades. Realtors certainly recognize the impact. The real estate appraiser that I hired recognizes it. Why doesn't the City Assessor recognize the impact? Submitted March 31, 2000: W! Robert J Malby 6517 Limerick Dr Edina, MN 55439 Case # 7 City of Edina Board of Review Assessor's Commentary Property I.D. Number: 29- 117 -21 -13 -0006 Date: 4/10/2000 Property Address: 4909 ROLLING GREEN PARKWAY Owner /Agent Name: EDWARD AND ROSEMARY MCGLYNN 2000 EMV Requested Value Recommended Value. 622,000 500,000 622,000 Comments: The subject property is located at 4909 Rolling Green Parkway. The residence is a two story structure, built in 1969, with 3256 square feet above grade. The property card indicates that the house includes 4+ bedrooms, 2 full and 2 half bathrooms, 2 fireplaces, central air conditioning, a large (912 square feet) attached garage, and an attached screened porch. The listed quality grade is B01 (good). Because the owner did not file his assessment objection until the final submission day (April 3, 2000), we did not have an opportunity to inspect this residence prior to the BOR meeting. The owner, Edward McGlynn, freely concedes that he and his wife live in the home; that it is well built and well maintained; that it suffers no abnormal depreciation or structure problems; and that they will continue to reside at this location for an indefinite period of time. The entire basis of Mr. McGlynn's appeal is that the house is located in an area where tear -down sales have occurred, and that when the house eventually is sold (could be many years form now), it will probably be removed to created a building site. To say that this appeal is unusual, that it is pushing the appraisal logic envelope right to the edge, is an understatement. Normally, appellants claim that their value vis a vis other similar properties is high or that the assessment does not properly reflect lost value due to depreciation., This appeal takes an entirely different slant: it suggests that because the residence is a wasting (diminishing) asset, and will eventually contribute no value to the site, its current value should be preemptively reduced to zero. The extension of that argument would suggest that since all improvements will eventually be fully depreciated, their value should be zeroed out now. This concept would certainly turn the assessment and appraisal practices upside down. It is true that there have been tear -down residential sales in the vicinity of Mr. McGlynn's home. For example, 4 Merilane sold for $610,000 in May 1998, 4916 Rolling Green Parkway sold for $500,000 in September 1999, 4811 Bywood West sold for $550,000 in September 1998, and 5808 Mait Lane sold for $685,000 in July 1998. in each case, the existing residence was removed. This is historical fact. But does this mean that all "older" home sales would result in a tear -down? Value 1999 $ 450,000 $ 105,400 $ 555,400 History 1998 $ 143,900 $ 385,100 $ 529,000 1997 $ 143,900 $ 385,100 $ 529,000 Sale Oct -70 $ 62,000 History Case # 7 City of Edina Pg. 2 Board of Review Assessor's Commentary Comments Cont. In September 1999, the residence only two lots away from the appellant's property sold for $950,000. That house is larger than the McGlynn home, but is of similar age and quality. The size and minor age differences can be easily adjusted. The McGlynn home was built in 1969; the home at 4901 Rolling Green Parkway was constructed in 1975. Both are listed as B01 quality (note: we personally verified the 4901 sale; the quality was based on actual view). These two residences are of similar age , and frankly neither one is even old enough to qualify for Minnesota's "This Old House" program. The sale of 4901 Rolling Green Parkway demonstrates, rather clearly, that an "older" home along Rolling Green Parkway could be purchased for occupancy; so much for the tear -down only scenario. lissing from the appellant's argument is the notion of value in use or contributory value. If there ,ere no near by sales (to be used as comparable properties), then we would estimate the value in use of the ubject property by applying a market rent value to the residence, annualized. But since the residence at 901 is similar in age and quality, the contributory value difference between the residences can be stimated. We will use the Marshall & Swift cost estimation manual for that purpose. The M &S manual is the idustry standard. It is employed by many assessing departments, most insurance companies as well s most private appraisers. The basic cost differences can be adjusted as follows: sq. ft: - 3256 sq. ft. + 1842 sq. ft. difference. 1842 sq. ft. X ($50.40 X 1.12 modifier) _ $104,000. 63 sq. ft. bsmt - 1416 sq. ft. bsmt = 1847 sq. ft difference. 1847 sq. ft. X ($11.92 X 1.12 modifier) _ $24,700. (Subtraction of 6901 bsmt finish: 3035 sq. ft. X $25.00 = $75,900. Is the appellant's basement finished? He is not assessed for basement finish. If it is finished, then this full adjustment would not be made. (Subtraction of 6901 exterior improvements: pool + extensive decking = $50,000 X 75% good = $37,500. : $104,000 + $24,700 + $75,900 + $37,500 = $242,100. ,000 - $242,100 = $707,900. $707,900 X .94 (% gd adj.) _ $665,400. recap: the year 2000 assessment of 4909 Rolling Green Parkway is $622,000. While we are not blessed h a plethora of comparable market data, the sale of 4901 Rolling Green Parkway does put to rest the tion that "older" home sales can and will be exclusively tear -down. That sale also provides immensely eful comparable data. We would suggest that the market would support an assessment as high as 65,400; and we would further suggest that there is no data that would support a reduction to $500,000. appellant's statement that " All houses of similar size, age and quality sold in this neighborhood have :r been moved or torn down" is simply too general; too broad brush. If the statement and the alleged or comments are true, the Edina housing stock will certainly diminish over the coming years, since the m of that stock is ample represented by "older" residences. SKETCH /AREA TABLE ADDENDUM Case No 23130006 1 File No 29- 117 -21 -13 -0006 APEX SOFTWARE 8004LWg GB Ap710Pw Apeall City of Edina Assessor's Office 4801 West 50th Street Edina, MN. 55424 -1394 Phone: (612) 826 -0365 Fax: (612) 826 -0390 [TDD (Deaf Only): (612) 826 -0379] Board of Review Residential Request for Review Application Date: p Attach an supporting documentation Owner Name: j e /-a � � ' 4 Owner Address: q C% (� �v �" �� °v PA- Home Phone Number: 1 Z 12 ^/� Business Phone Number: Property Address: (5 C� / � "; -,) ` P/1_1 Assessor's estimated market value for January 2, 2000: Land: 7 5 e U n Buildings: / 7 21 O C Total: 6722 O c, 6 I believe the estimated market value on January 2, 2000 should be: Land: z7 dD UCJO Buildings: Total: 'C7Gi ocic'� Purchase Date: (Total purchase price (land & bldgs.): ip -- - -0 -C-) 6 Year Built: House: c/ C Garage: 19'w Additions (Explain): Condition of Structures (Explain): u f5 & Description & value of additions and improvements since your purchase of this property: O�!L .............................. •' ts :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: : ........ ....;;,:... ::...... ......................._...... of: a.r . rede.nt ap false................... Frofessionel:A praisals :; :::�::::(P�ease at #ac.h:a: cop y Appraisal Date: Indicated Value: . . t a Explain the reasons for urob�ecti.on toh m .. c) S�Z S G 7� H / S/ Z% /4 C— /1 v� 7 A)4 /CAQYC Pe /4-, IV A LZ /13 / % /z i' i�� ti CA-) .1 /-�1 -1J Au �3 /-C4�/u - -/ ^ `7( 5 4 00 G U 1L D Gt cc; �l0 U 13 � I DO HEREBY AFFIRM THAT THE ABOVE INFORMATION IS COMPLETE AND TRUE TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE AND BELIEF. Signature of ap licant: ZZ RETURN THIS APPLICATION TO THE EDINA ASSESSOR'S OgFICE BY MONDAY, APRIL 3, 2000. PLEASE ATTACH ANY DOCUMENTATION YOU FEEL WILL SUPPORT YOUR CASE. YOU WILL BE CONTACTED TO HAVE YOUR PROPERTY REVIEWED PRIOR TO THE SCHEDULED BOARD OF REVIEW MEETING. Case # 8 City of Edina Board of Review Assessor's Commentary Property I.D. Number: 32- 117 -21-43 -0051 Date: 4/10/2000 Property Address: 5608 HIGHLAND ROAD Owner /Agent Name: RICHARD AND ANGELIA PERRIN 2000 EMV Requested Value Recommended Value 315,000 234,000 315,000 Comments: Richard and Angela Perrin purchased 5608 Highland Road on June 9, 1995 for $225,000. In May and August of 1999 permits for additions and remodeling were taken out for this property. In November a notice was left at the home to view the new construction, measurements were taken and viewed from the outside. Mrs. Perrin called the next day and does not want me to inspect the property. After review from plans, remodeling baths, and enlarging front entry, adding a lower level porch and living area on the first floor, $61,000 improvement value was added. Also the neighborhood increase was 12 %, therefore the 2000 estimated market value is $315,000. The subject above ground square footage is approximately 3017. Reviewing sales with similar style and size,-sale price per square foot average $143. This supports our 2000 assessment and we recommend that the Board sustain that value. Value 1999 $ 80,000 $ 147,000 $ 227,000 History 1998 $ 44,500 $ 167,700 $ 212,200 1997 $ 44,500 $ 161,600 $ 206,100 Sale Mar -95 $ 225,000 History SKETCH /AREA TABLE ADDENDUM Case No 25430051 AREA .CALCULATIONS SUMMARY me No 32 -iii -2i-43-0051 Pro Address 5608 HIGHLAND RD city State Zip „ Borrower Lender /Client Aivraiser Name DEK 23.0' 21.0' 1/0 C.1i r O Garage N Bat W/o S 0 18 i 0 t Porrcllhs 14 FI Lower 2/S 1/0 1999 Addn 41.0' 17.0' Scale: 1-15 • LIVING AREA BREAKDOWN Area Name af Area . Size Totals OLAa Second Floor 820.00 820.00 502.00 502.00 5.0 x 17.0 85.00 OT8 SENT FINISH 510.00 510.00 .Breakdown Subtotals OLA1 First Floor 2197.00 2197.00 First Floor 14.0 x 16.0 252. 00 89NT easement 1549.00 1549.00 24.0 x 30.0 720.00 P/P Porch 252.00 252.00 27.0 x 32.0 864.00 12.0 x 23.0 276.00 Second Floor 20.0 x 41.0 820.00 TOTAL LIVABLE (rounded) 3017 6 Areas Total (rounded) 3017 APEX somvara: e004aea5e n4.71oo -w apexn AREA .CALCULATIONS SUMMARY .Breakdown Subtotals OLA1 First Floor 2197.00 2197.00 First Floor 14.0 x 16.0 252. 00 89NT easement 1549.00 1549.00 24.0 x 30.0 720.00 P/P Porch 252.00 252.00 27.0 x 32.0 864.00 12.0 x 23.0 276.00 Second Floor 20.0 x 41.0 820.00 TOTAL LIVABLE (rounded) 3017 6 Areas Total (rounded) 3017 APEX somvara: e004aea5e n4.71oo -w apexn APEX somvara: e004aea5e n4.71oo -w apexn • City of Edina Assessor's Office 4801 West 50th Street Edina, MN. 55424 -1394 P.I.D. # 32 -to- 2-i - 43. cx�51 Phone: (612) 826 -0365 Fax: (612) 826 -0390 [TDD (Deaf Only): (612) 826 -0379] Board of Review Residential Request for Review Date Returned: Time: �? Received By: P— i Case # n� For off ce. us .o y Application Date: MA-Ro R 50, woo 11 Attach any supporting documentation Owner Name: A Owner Address: 15( Home Phone Number: 9 2 Business Phone Number: Property Address: 500a 1 Assessor's estimated market value for January 2, 2000: _ Land: F cco Buildings: ZD5,0 Total: © ©© I believe the estimated market value on January 2, 2000 should be: O(Z s: FF 9 f�� Buildings: Total: Land: W I � � Purchase Date: l q Q 1 5 (Total purchase price (land & bldgs.): 2-2.-5 , 000 Year Built: House: g55Garage: E Additions (Explain): Condition of Structures (Explain): t�a0 Description & value of additions and improvements since your purchase of this property: NONE ..................... ...... 4... .:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: .... ............. ra � �:: Profes:sionavA : prai $a15:::::::::(P�ea$e::at #ach:a: c:op :o.: a.rry recent ... sa. . Appraisal Date: Indicated Value: . ..... tug:................. Ex:pla ±n.. ttie;:reaso:ns:for;. o: ur. objeeti. on ;foahe::assessor.s.estlrnafe.:: mar. e.: bra ............................... � D - n TftXE 1k) E u \999 E WR t10 E ) I DO HEREBY AFFIRM THAT THE ABOVE INFORMATION IS COMPLETE AND TRUE TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE AND BELIEF Signature of a licant: RETURN THIS APPLICATION TO 'ME EDIUASSESSOR'S OFFICE BY MONDAY, APRIL 3, 2000. PLEASE ATTACH ANY DOCUMENTATION YOU FEEL WILL SUPPORT YOUR CASE. YOU WILL BE CONTACTED TO HAVE YOUR PROPERTY REVIEWED PRIOR TO THE SCHEDULED BOARD OF REVIEW MEETING. W--4,S to increase the value of our �uil''.Ling by $88,000. or $7,000. more than the damage sustained. We would not have DONE ANY WORK to our home had the disaster not oceured. YTV�e were rci aired by our lender AND the insurance company to tear down the damaged parts of our building and — 1,,,;1d. Ycs, things arc new and we got more uscf-al space fom the insurance 1 V U LLLL settlement but this is because of the damage, NOT because we chose to do .,i..,.�,— +n T+ x.....1.7 b, . —iU, -41;-1111- 1 1 -1.. '71 .� 1 +.. 1• inip1VYN111V11LJ. 1L VV ULU Ue i1LV1 GLL.Ly7 U.l -L (.LU%.L tJVJJiL'Ly ;LL%t6 i -.V feiSL.i us because of a disaster, an act of God. Secondly, we have a very good case 7 +., ' 7 • 1 nnQ 7 1 nnn i. ..... ,Use � UIC iVi JL'i.11i11� (= 1<+13LLL1 Vi LQ, %%WJ jfLL:6i ... iJJ:+ reeeL' lJIJ :I L; L, to L:JOd VL LLLV LtLi,L11G1�" We would not have been able to sell our house for its tax value because of the ..,� 1 ....1 .7.,... +., .•.,.7...,., th- +.,....., i LLViii iLVf.LIl ii.Lay Vi.i'v i�3iV'vriiiib vil �i Lia iivvi LV i'vLai.ii. iV Lug' Liir i "v.- following the storm. Therefore, we believe the assessed value is unwarranted given the size of and cost of the damage we sustained. Insured ' Policy No. SALN DESCRIPTION OR ITEM FARMERS INSURANCE GROUP OF COMPANIES BUILDING LOSS WORKSHEET Date of Loss t CR Date Prepared CAT SEL a VAR /QUANTITY COST TOTAL 23.0381 12 -98 11201 fRRMERS �INSURAN[F Z = '.CLOT i L 7,:70 G�- f3 ' 5-7 3X a If d Itt, 1696 (v5 X71. -cam G� 0 ©� � ©v . �(.. COMMENTS: SUB -TOTAL X _ o— tea, A s� DEDUCTIBLE /1 TOTAL 23.0381 12 -98 11201 fRRMERS �INSURAN[F Z = '.CLOT i L Case # 9 City of Edina Board of Review Assessor's Commentary Property I.D. Number: 18- 028 -24 -44 -0067 Date: 4/10/2000 Property Address: 5308 HALIFAX AVE Owner /Agent Name: JACQUELINE S MITHUN 2000 EMV Requested Value Recommended Value 277,300 248,000 277,300 Comments: The subject property is located at 5308 Halifax Avenue. The residence is a 1 1/2 story height design, built in 1947, with additional improvements in 1982 (deck and screened porch) and 1986 (garage addition). The house contains 1805 above grade square feet, 4 bedrooms, 2 bathrooms, 2 fireplaces, central air conditioning, a 492 square foot attached garage, and the aforementioned deck and screened porch. The house is listed as average quality construction and in average condition. Since her purchase of the property in 1992, the owner, Jacqueline Mithun, has objected to her assessment in 1993, 1994, 1996, 1998, 1999, and now in 2000. Ms Mithun purchased the property in 1992 for $176,000; the 1992 assessment was $173,500. There was a proper assessment to value relationship at that time of purchase and the Assessment Department has merely maintained the statutorily required market value hence. In 1999 Ms. Mithun appeared before the Board of Review. The Assessment Department recommended that her value be increased to $245,000, from $205,100, as supported by recent comparable sales. The BOR concurred and the value was increased. Subsequently, Ms. Mithun appealed the BOR assessment to the County Board of Equalization. An appraiser within the Hennepin County Assessment Department conducted a separate appraisal, and while the value was eventually reduced to $235,000 by the Board of Equalization, the independent actions of the city and county differed by only four percent. Comparable sales, whether analyzed by the Edina Assessor or the Hennepin County Assessor, have led to one inescapable conclusion: residential values have increased. This includes Ms. Mithun's value. We matched the subject property with the three most recent highly comparable Edina residential sales. Those sales occurred at 5120 Gorgas Avenue, 5604 Kellogg Place and 4324 Oakdale Avenue. The adjusted sale prices of those properties is $266,900, $291,200, and $288,000, respectively. The weighted subject value is is $281,200. Value 1999 $ 95,000 $ 140,000 $ 235,000 History 1998 $ 73,000 $ 113,500 $ 186,500 1997 $ 73,000 $ 104,700 $ 177,700 Sale Feb -92 $ 176,000 History May -86 $ 137,000 Aug -81 $ 101,000 Case # 9 City of Edina Pg. 2 Board of Review Assessor's Commentary Comments Cont. n summary, the year 2000 assessment of 5308 Halifax Avenue is $277,300. Recent comparable sales >upport a market value of $281,200. Ms. Mithun has suggested a value of $248,000. The Assessment )epartment recommends that the year 2000 assessment be sustained at $277,300. 9.5 WD 1r ,q Sep Par 1,11 33 . 0 Garage y1. Garage 32.E 1 .0 �r n 5308 HALIFAX AVENUE 18- 038 -34 -44 -0067 MEASUREMENTS 101AL 30,0 X 33.0 = 660,0 14.0 X 34.0 = 476.0 3.0 K 33.0 = 99.0 -33.0 X 1.0 = -33.0 Tot Livable: = 1,313 FILE = 5308HALI Total Livable = 1,313 Total Garagye = 493 Total Porc17 = 156 Total Deck = 153 City of Edina Assessor's Office 4801 West 50th Street Edina, MN. 55424 -1394 P.I.D. # /p,- 0ZS -24 --14— 00647 Phone: (612) 826 -0365 Fax: (612) 826 -0390 [TDD (Deaf Only): (612) 826 -0379] Board of Review Residential Request for Review II Date Returned: 3--3/-00 ( Time: %, ,10 P rk l 11 Received By: e Q CA,,, ICase # For. off'ice.,.6 .o nl' :................... . y Application Date: , �,, �I / ? � O 6 Attach an supporting documentation Owner Name: S A Q d s Owner Address: 0 0 Home Phone Number: !� �� — ��` usiness Phone Number: Property Address: Assessor's estimated market value for January 2, 2000: v Land: Gi 5 0 0 0 Buildings: / � 2. Total: 2 I believe the estimated market value on January 2, 2000 should be: Land: Buildings: Total: Purchase Date: — A-io -F ,2J Total purchase price (land - -SU- 6 Garage: Year Built: House: ge: (o Additions (Explain): $� - � % � n / 4 d Condition of Structures (Explain): C& J r C4 C l r e ih ` Description & value of additions and imp vements since your urchase of this p perty: i Ir, f /4 s `— --- 0� P ::. ......::... ::: ::::: ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: :::::: ....:.:.. :::: :.:::::::::::: :: :::::::::::::::::::: ... p ...isafs .......... ........... . :P 6fess ion al.A praisals..i (P�ease:af #ad...a:c. p :pf:.a.ny_cecen a :: i ated Value: Appraisal Date: Ecplain::the ieasons:foi our:objection to fhe ass:esso.ra estirrjated :market:value:::::::'..: :::: >:::::::: >: 3 is Ab r 2 E ��a — 4 b (1 0 L l l / ✓ /� 0 I DO HEREBY FIRM THAT THE ABOVE INFOR A ION IS COMPLETE AND TRUE T HE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDG ND B LIEF. Signature of ap licant• JA A 0) s` - RETURN THIS APP.LLC ATIUN TO THE EDINA ASSESSOR'S OFFICE BY MONDAY, APRIL 3, 2000. PLEASE ATTACH ANY DOCUMENTATION YOU FEEL WILL SUPPORT YOUR CASE. YOU WILL BE CONTACTED TO HAVE YOUR PROPERTY REVIEWED PRIOR TO THE SCHEDULED BOARD OF REVIEW MEETING. Case # 10 City of Edina Board of Review Assessor's Commentary Property I.D. Number: 06- 116 -21 -43 -0038 Date: 4/10/2000 Property Address: 6913 MARK TERRACE DRIVE Owner /Agent Name: HELEN HOVELSON 2000 EMV Requested Value Recommended Value 193,100 169,400 193,100 Comments: The subject property is located at 6913 Mark Terrace Drive. The residence is a rambler, built in 1955, with 1296 above grade square feet. The main level includes 3 bedrooms, 1 full bath, a standard room layout, a fireplace, a two car attached garage, and an attached glazed porch. About one half of the basement area is finished; it is of fair to poor quality (no floor cover), and the basement bathroom is very poor quality. The property owner has indicated that basement repair from water damage would cost about $10,000. This property was inspected during our 1999 quartile review of District 40. 1 reviewed the exterior of the residence on August 4, 1999 and the interior on September 3 1999. The year 2000 assessment of the property was determined by applying the 14 percent neighborhood factor against the 1999 value. This property was treated the same as all other Braemar district residences. The property owner's assessment objection seems to be based entirely on the 1999 inspection. In her objection, she states that "He said the market value would not be raised because of the terrible condition of the basement." No such statement was made to the property owner. During our quartile reviews, property owners will frequently ask if their assessment will increase due to the inspection. We advise property owners that the main purpose of the review is to verify the accuracy of our property descriptions, and that we do not revalue individual residences as we proceed through the review. Our caveat is that assessable improvement, that were constructed without a building permit would be added to the base assessment. We then advise owners that in the absence of such newly discovered improvements, no additional value would be added to the base, and that only the neighborhood increase would be applied. I am very careful in this explanation. I do not recall the particulars of my conversation with Mrs. Holvelson, but I suspect that she did not fully understand my explanation. I am quite certain of one fact: no statement was made that her assessment would be frozen. Value 1999 $ 110,000 $ 59,400 $ 169,400 History 1998 $ 46,500 $ 111,900 $ 158,400 1997 $ 46,500 $ 110,400 $ 156,900 Sale Oct -71 $ 39,500 History Case # 10 City of Edina Pg 2 Board of Review Assessor's Commentary Comments Cont. Ample market evidence supports the year 2000 assessment, and suggests that if anything, the value is low. During the prior sales study period there were six residential sales along Mark Terrace Drive. Three sales were one level residences with one split entry sale and two, two level sales. The average sale price of the four one level residences was $164 per square foot. This amount is very typical of comparable Edina residential sales. ,t $164 per square foot, the approximate market value of the subject property would be $212,500. In an ffort to give the property owner the benefit of doubt, $10,000 can be subtracted from that gure for the deferred basement repair and another $1,000 for the basement 3/4 bathroom (Hennepin :ounty replacement cost). Those adjustments suggest that the property market value is approximately 201,500, or $155 per square foot. Fhe irony of this appeal is that the property owners own data submission supports the above value )nd our lower assessment. The residence at 6913 Mark Terrace Drive was appraised in March 1998 for $180,000. The 1998 Braemar neighborhood market factor was 7 percent while the 1999 factor was 14 ) ercent. It is common appraisal practice to adjust either sales or appraisals to a target date, which is lanuary 2, 2000 in this situation. The time adjusted appraisal calculates as: 180,000 X .07 = $12,600 / 12 = $1,050. $1,050X9 = $9,450. 180,000 X .14 = $25,200. 180,000 + $9,450 + $25,200 = $214,650. rs. Hovelson's 1998 appraisal already reflects lost value due to the condition of the basement. n summary, the year 2000 property assessment is $193,100; an extracted value from recent Mark Terrace Drive sales is $201,500; and, the time adjusted equivalent of the appellant's own appraisal is $214,650. Nhile an assessment increase may be warranted, there is no evidence that a reduction is in order. AN -- 1� IV, -lilt r Jd1r •�`� S�s t , h � ke r tea_ � �� r�` - • . � ~`vim `�� {' ' °w 7`� � •`/+�1�� EG�i`�, 4" ' ` ., ., � .d' . .f ' ;„ � «�: " gas �` � rz y'"L•, w V v =M � . , 1 •' ,. ti - =. - is �..k w- ., y _ . 7 � ' ' s Mk fit^ r~ Iy 9.. -.. � A' ^ L +,_, S' y +. .',� I.JB ♦li• sip SKETCH /AREA TABLE ADDENDUM Case No 40430038 File No 06- 116 -21.43 -0038 Name PVB Code AREA CALCULATIONS SUMMARY Description Size Totals GLA1 First Floor 1296.00 1296.00 BSMT Basement 1296.00 1296.00 P/P Glz'd Porch 324.00 Front Entry Porch 24.00 348.00 GAR Garage 420.00 420.00 OTH Basement Finish 720.00 720.00 TOTAL LIVABLE (rounded) 1296 Scale: 1 =10 LIVING AREA BREAKDOWN Breakdown Subtotals First Floor 24.0 x 50.0 1200.00 4.0 x 24.0 96.00 2 Areas Total (rounded) 1296 APEX SOFTWARE e00458.9950 Apx7lMw Apaxll City of Edina 4801 West 50th Street Edina, MN. 55424 -1394 Phone: (612) 826 -0365 Fax: (612) 826 -0390 [TDD (Deaf Only): (612) 826 -0379] Board of Review Residential Request for Review Assessor's Office P.I.D.# off- / /G- 2 <- 1f3- Date Returned: - 3 --40 Received By: :tv : :::::.. . F7 ...... For: off'ic.t ..... 77 (Time: I 'Case # use onl `: y Application Date: _ " , Attach an supporting documentation Owner Name: .' Owner Address: Phone Number: Home Phone dumber: Business Property Address: / - � G Assessor's estimated market value for January 2, 2000: i Land: 1 I 0 00 -1 Buildings: 83 100 Total: I believe the estimated market value on January 2, 2000 should be: /X Land: Buildings: Total: (Total land & bld Purchase Date: P urchase price ( s. ): Year Built: House: Garage: Additions (Explain): Condition of Structures (Explain): Description & value of additions and improvements since your pychase of this property, '... G.. � .... - .. .... ......... ............................... ... .. ...... i s =� ra s exit a a Professional A praasais: :::::. (R�ea�e attach a: cop of any. r .c... p .... :� �� � Appraisal Date: Indicated Value: . GS�Z% Ex;plam the reasons:for our: obiEction to the .a.ssessora estirrjated::markeYvalue ::::: >: ::: < ::::..............:....... ; "'...'... .. . ✓' e i 4 04 on I DO HEREBY AFFIRM THAT THE ABOYE INFORMATION IS COMPLETE AND TRUE TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE AND BELIEF. Signature of applicant: RETURN THIS APPLICATION TO THE EDINA ASSESSOR'S OFFICE BY MONDAY, APRIL 3, 2000. PLEASE ATTACH ANY DOCUMENTATION YOU FEEL WILL SUPPORT YOUR CASE. YOU WILL BE CONTACTED TO HAVE YOUR PROPERTY REVIEWED PRIOR TO THE SCHEDULED BOARD OF REVIEW MEETING. 41 en lima x" r. iiwirriDu D"inCYTIAI APPRAKAI RFPART _ 9Ann1N r rro Adar9536 t Mark Terrace Drive city Edina Slate MN I code 4 leo.IDe.cnpllonPioneer Oaks Lot I. Blk 1 _ _ _ coon tyHennepin A.naam'm PalWasO 0611621030038 T_YUrI A E1.... 53, 013.04 5 clef A..... merit, SNone BadrAVar Hovelson culrantowner Hovelson M- eel owner ten,m v.cam P Mrtcht, ,.lard xl F-Sini le f I L .... hold Nolect7vise I I PLID Conmmmmm HUD/VA.n HOAS None/uo Nei .borhoodorproem Name Pioneer Oaks Llap Relers.ce C1 -1 Census Tract 5120-239.02 Sale Prices N/A D.Irof Sai, N/A Descnb.n.rdSamdnl 011oantm.r s /tar ssiombbe id seller N/A fender/chentCohen 8 Friedberg/Ed Cohen AddFeSS3015 Ottawa Ave. S. St. Louis Park MN. 55416 Aidame, Gre Callahan Addtes9222 Little Canada Road Little Canada MN 55117 L.Uboo I urban XJ Suburban U Runt Bmll up Over Isx F❑(3� zs -TSx ❑ Wider zsx Growth ute ❑ Rapid OX Sable ❑ Slow Property values ❑X Increasing (❑F� Stable ❑ DeUiM1ng Demand /supply ❑ Shortage M a�WWU ❑ O.n sFVY lu.,I.q time X lxbrlx mo3 3-6 nrb3 M.Ner !1103. Predominant ocrwi1ey �Q1 Owner L7 TeruM ®Wonl(0 -M I., Sx Single IamDy Rousing s��S Low, Present lard use % Land One remit 2 -4 family sae change ❑X Not Gtey • ❑ limey ❑ m process DD Mill, Wtb -Ymy To: -' Pre dorrvrunl '''. :' Commercial 1 a Other 1 10 Note: Race and the racial composition of the neighborhood are not appraisal factors. Nngnoomood boundaries and chaiacteristics: The neighborhood boundaries are Hiphway 62 to the north France _ Avenue to the east Highway 1194 to the south and Hi hwav 169 to the west. F.[lors Ihal stied the m. tall.Dilly of the propeniea in the neighborhood (proximity to employment and amenities. employment stability. appeal to "net. etc.). Mark Terrace Drive is a auiet residential street. Highway 16 a major traffic artery is within one mile and offers access to sho pin schools emDlovment centers freeways. and recreation. Increasin prices demonstrate above averse demand for this area. Ira rovements conform to the surrounding homes. The neighborhood has no apparent adverse factors affectin the subject's marketability. RASA 05120 uar.el coM�bons in the subleci neignoomood (including support Ion the abort conr,uswN mlaled to the land of properly values. demand /supply, and installing time $uch as dale On Compefilrve properties for sale in Ihe neighborhood. description of me prevalence of safes and financing concessions. OEM.): For the sub ect's M -S Inarketin district 47385, MLS statistics indicate that 64.07% of all listings are selling with an average inarketin time of 0 days. Sellers are receivin 96.50% of the askin rice. Financin at the resent time is readily available from a variety of sources which benefits both potential buyers and sellers. _ Project Information for PODS (If applicable) - - 13 the developri/budd t m unuci of tre h.— Ownlers Assoculron (HOA)? U TES LJ NO Approximalr total nUMber of mots in the subject project N/A Approximate total number of uma lot sale m the subject project N/A Drsrnbe common elements and mneanowl laril�bes N/A Dimensions 106 x 163 It 105 x 169 Topography Gently Sloped sue Averape/17.;13 S Ft. shape Irregular Drainage ARpears Adequate view Residential/Average lardsup"9 Typical Driveway surface Asphalt/Average Appmniea,ernentsTvDical for area FEMA Special Flood hazard Area Yrs No FEMAIone ^Cn map Date /1/80 FEMA ma No. 270160-00058 Sikates APDrox. 17513 So.Ft. (per county) Co —IL.1 ❑tea x No Specific toning classihcationand de Pbon R -1 Single Dwell in Unit District 2onurgcomp6me ❑X Legal ❑ Legafrolmrmmcg(Camtluzereduse) legal U No zoning H,Qhtsi s best use as improved M Present use n Ohe, use ea tam ut4ltles Public Other Electricity rMr� 100 Am LB Gas DO Water f©f�s samuysewer `x Storm sewer X Off -site ln — tnents Type Public Private Street Bituminous F❑FX��t1 ❑ Cum /gueer Concrete (y ❑ sideway None ❑ ❑ street bghi3 Yes ❑X ❑ Au None Commenu (apparent adverse easements. encroaclunenta, special 233essmenn• slide areas. the gal or legal nonconforming zoning. use. etc.): Improvements face east. The subject has 'a residential view. This is typical for the area. It is typical in site size topograDhy and land to value ratio for the area. No encroachments noted or known. GENERAL DESCRIPTION No. of Units One No. of Slonles One Type(D.UAB) Detached Design(Syle) Rambler Ensung/Pioposed Existing Age(Yrs.) 4 Years Et i A is 1 Years Ex1ERIORDESCRIPTION Foundation C.Blck/Avg Exterior walls Wood /Brk /A PoorSuftau As halt /A. Gutters ADwnspta. Metal/Avg. window Type D.Hunp./Avg alomJScreens Storms /AV WrwnaredHO No FOUNDATION slab None Crn/. sl>aQ None B.serranl Full SmmRntpNOne Dampness None Noted setuemenl None Noted lnle,fafion None Noted BASEMENT Area Sq,Ft 1272 INSULATION Root Cncld. ❑X Ceiling Cncld. walla Cncld. OX Floor CnCld.O None ❑ u.a.a_ ❑ Avers e XFurnhed A x. 65% Ceding Drywall webs Drywall Floor Concrete o&side Emiy, No ROOMS F r twin Drain Wlchen Den Family Res: Rec lire Bedmams $Baths Laund Other Area3 FI Baxme'd 1 1 1 X 1,272 Leven x- 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 - Level • Finished Brea above rage cnntai 6 Rooms Berlin. s 1 Bath(s) � 1.272s re Feel of Gross I win Area INIEl4OR Matcnals/Condilion Furors . C t/Vin /CT /Av Wafts Drywall /Av, . Tnm/Futish Hardwood /Good Beth Fldor Ceramic Tile /A Bam Wanismi Ceramic Tile /A Dion Flush /Hollow /A Int. has avg. appeal. HEATING IuTCHEN Type FA Ref EOUIP,ff��11 grefalor UJ Nme /Oven F©r�7 Swrs IAI Drop F ©r�11 Scottie tJ Floor ❑ Healed wisher Fim,nerl ATTIC AMENITIES ❑ Freptau(s)fi2 ❑ Patio Stair ❑ Deck O Ports ❑ Fence ❑ Pool rf��11 LT ❑ ❑ 3 Season x CAR STORAGE None ❑ Garage rot cars Attached 2 Detached Wit-in Coition Driveway 2• Fuel Gas Range Cordtion Avers a Disposal COOLING Dishwasher Central Yes Fan/Hood other N/A Microwave comg —Avers a AddiboNlfestune special ""19y effimerd item. t1L)' The subject has an averse efficient as forced air heatin S stem. Exterior halls are wood and brick construction. See attached for additional features. Condiu. otthe improvements, depreciation (phymul. functional. and external), repass needed. quality m of construction. ieooehng /addlaons. etc.: The subject is an averse to good quality three bedroom one bath rambler'. It is in averse overall condition and marketable as is. The floor plan and size of dwelling are typical for the area. The interior is in avg. condition and has avg. a al. See attached comments. ACraraa anAicnmenlal conditions (much me. bul not limited lo. ha sous wale.. toxic substances. etc.) present in the improvements. on the mile. or in th. immediate vionly of the subject property: There are no known or noted environmental conditions that would adversely affect the market value or marketability of the subject. SUBJECT PROPERTY PHOTO ADDENDUM FORSYI7IE APPRAISALS. INC. REAL MAIL APPRAISALS 22-2 IITRE CANADA ROAD IIMJ: CANADA. MINNESOTA 55117 (612)1b6 -955V 1612)49rVMV Fik Nu. 9809102 f - � it � ••., S_. ��:� _ j '� ✓ate : �: 1�:.. <ti _ Ism r r '=- . -� r x 4e1 L r _..kiP 'cis FRONT VIEW OF SUBJECT PROPFATY AT: 6917 Mar► T—. Dn- Fdw. MN 55175 Appr..d: Mu<L 27.1999 VLAR VI}.W OF SIMI= PROPERTY FORSY HE APPRAISALS. INC. REA.. ESTATE APPRAISALS Additional Photos = L rM.E CANADA ROAD UNTIE CANADA. MINNESOTA 55117 (612)43&9550 (612)45&%4V Fns No. 9 B 04102 COMPARABLE SALES PHOTO ADDENDUM '- — - A0 mRs,m IL APMAISALS, INC. R &V. ESTATE APPRAISALS 222 IXM.P. CANADA ROAD TIME CANADA, MINNPJ•OTA 35117 (612) IM 9550 (612) 4W9MY Fk No. 9804102 r COMPARARLE SAIE 11 7116 GL— Road Ed- Sak Ub - clo a 5197 S.k Pri, : S 185,000 COMPAQ Anr F SALE l2 5.13 Duipan Plums Edina Silk Da- Clos d 11197 Sak P— 5173.750 5812 70th S— W. Ed- Salk Dark: cl.-d 9/97 Sak Pri, : 3197.000 FORSYTHE APPRAISALS, INC. RLAL F_STATF AI'PRAISAIS 151, Nu EXPLANATORY COMMENTS 6913 Mark Terrace Drive Edina, Minnesota ADDITIONAL FEATURES: Additional features include; attached two car garage, large three season porch, two fireplaces, vaulted cell* n s, wood stove and central air. CONDITION OF THE MIPROVEMENTS: The first floor is considered to be in average condition. The basement level is in fair to poor overall condition. This level appears to have water damage. The lower level bath is in poor condition and does not appear functional. The present condition of the rest of the basement would be a negative factor in the overall appeal of the dwelling. At the time of the inspection, the roof was in average condition. The subject has been inspected for physical, functional, and external inadequacies. Estimated remaining economic life is 55 years. The square footage was arrived at using the following calculations: GLA 25.00 s 24.00 x 1 = 600 24.00 x 28.00 x t = 672 Total Sq. Ft. = 1272 First 25.00 x 24.00 x 1 = 600 24.00 x 28.00 x 1 = 672 Total Sq. Ft. = 1272 Bsmt. 1.00 x 1272.00 x 1 = 1272 COM-MENPS ON SALES COMPARISON: As noted in their MLS comments and also during a drive by inspection, comparables one and three are considered superior in overall condition. Because they each have an additional full bath above grade, all comparables are considered superior room value. All comparables were given equal consideration in determining ' market value.' Gross living area adjustments were made using $25.00 per square foot. Above grade room count adjustments (except for baths) were considered In GLA adjustment only. Bathroom adjustments were made using $2,000 per full bath and $1,000 per 1/2 bath. Finished basement living area adjustments were made using $10.00 per square foot. DISCUSSION OF EXCEPTIONS TO FA'MA GUIDELINES: FNTMA suggests comparables being within six months, one mile, and have gross adjustments less than :N%, net adjustments less than 15%, and individual adjustments exceeding 10%. Because of limited recent similar rambler sales in the subject's neighborhood, it was necessary to use one sale that closed over six months ago. TRANSMITTAL LETTER: The subject was ins ted on March 27, 1998. The estimated market value as of March 27, 1998 (effective dateTis $180,000.00 The property was appraised by Gregory V. Callahan, Appraiser. No responsibility has been assumed for matters which are legal in nature, nor has any opinion on them been rendered, other than assuming marketable title. Liens and encumbrances, if any, have been disregarded and the property was appraised as though free of indebtedness. 222 Lrrr .E CANADA ROAD, LM LE CANADA, MINNESOTA 55117 (612) 486 -9550 (612) 486 -9649 =�; . ��: m ��: - t:k No- 9804102 DEFINITION OF MARKET VALUE: The most probable price which a properly should bring in a competitive and open market under all conditions requisite to a fair sale. the buyer and seller, each acting prudently, knowledgeably and assuming the price is not affected by undue stimulus. Implicit in this definition is the consummation of a sale as of a specified date and the passing of title from seller to buyer under conditions whereby: (1) buyer and seller are typically motivated; (2) both parties are well informed or well advised, and each acting in what he considers his own best interest; (3) a reasonable time is allowed for exposure in the open market (4) payment is made in terms of cash in U.S. dollars or in terms of financial arrangements comparable thereto; and (5) the price represents the normal consideration for the properly sold unaffected by special or creative financing or sales concessions' granted by anyone associated with the sale. - 'Adjustments to the comparables must be made for special or creative financing or sales concessions. No adjustments are necessary for those costs which are normally paid by sellers as a result of tradition or law in a market area: these costs are readily identifiable since the seller pays these costs to virtually all sales transactions. Special or creative financing adjustments can be made to the comparable properly by comparisons to financing terms offered by a third parry institutional lender that is not already involved in the properly or transaction Any adjustment should not be calculated on a mechanical dollar for dollar cost of the financing or concession but the dollar amount of any r, adjustment should approximate the market's reaction to the financing or concessions based on the appraiser's judgment STATEMENT OF LIMITING CONDITIONS AND APPRAISER'S CERTIFICATION CONTINGENT AND LIMITING CONDITIONS: The appraiser's certification that appears tri the appraisal report is subject to the following conditions: 1. The appraiser will not be responsible for matters of a legal nature that affect either the properly being appraised or the title to ill. The -' appraiser assumes that the title is good and marketable and, therefore, will not render any opinions about the title- The property is appraised on the basis of it being under responsible ownership. 2. The appraiser has provided a sketch in the appraisal report to show approximate dimensions of the improvements and the sketch is included only to assist the reader of the report in visualizing the property and understanding the appraiser's determination of its size. 3. The appraiser has examined the available flood maps that are provided by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (or other data sources) and has noted in the appraisal report whether the subject site is located in an identified Special Flood Hazard Area. Because the appraiser is not a surveyor, he or she makes no guarantees. express or implied, regarding this determination 4. The appraiser will not give testimony or appear in court because he or she made an appraisal of the properly in question unless specific arrangements to do so have been made beforehand. 5. The appraiser has estimated the value of the land in the cost approach at its highest and best use and the improvements at their contributory value. These separate valuations of the land and improvements must not be used to conjunction with any other appraisal and are invalid if they are so used. 6. The appraiser has noted in the appraisal report any adverse conditions (such as. needed repairs, depreciation, the presence of hazardous wastes, toxic substances, etc.) observed during the inspection of the subject property or that he or she became aware of during the normal - research involved in performing the appraisal. Unless otherwise stated in the appraisal report, the appraiser has no knowledge of any hidden or unapparent conditions of the properly or adverse environmental conditions (including the presence of hazardous wastes, toxic substances, etc.) that would make the properly more or less valuable, and has assumed that there are no such conditions and makes no guarantees or warranties, express or implied, regarding the condition of the property. The appraiser will not be responsible for any such conditions that do exist or for any engineering or testing that might be required to discover whether such conditions exist Because the • appraiser is not an expert in the field of environmental hazards, the appraisal report must not be considered as an environmental assessment _ of the property. 7. The appraiser obtained the information, estimates, and opinions that were expressed in the appraisal report from sources that he or she considers to be reliable and believes them to be true and correct. The appraiser does not assume responsibility tot the accuracy of such items that were fumished by other parties. 8. The appraiser will not disclose the contents of the appraisal report except as provided tot in the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice. 9. The appraiser has based his or her appraisal report and valuation conclusion for an appraisal that is subject to satisfactory completion, repairs, or alterations on the assumption that completion of the improvements will be performed in a workmanlike manner. - 10. The appraiser must provide his or her prior written consent before the lender /client specified in the appraisal report can distribute the appraisal report (including conclusions about the property value, the appraiser's identity and professional designations, and references to any protessional appraisal organizations or the firth with which the appraiser is associated ) to anyone other than the borrower; the mortgagee or its successors and assigns; the mortgage insurer; consultants; professional appraisal organizations; any state or federally approved financial institution; or any department, agency, or instrumentality of the United States or any state or the District of Columbia; except that the lender /client may distribute the properly description section of the report only to data collection or reporting service(s) without having to obtain the appraiser's prior written consent The appraiser's written consent and approval must also be obtained before the appraisal can be conveyed by anyone to the public through advertising, public relations, news, sales, or other media. Freddie Mac Form 439 6 -93 Page 1 of 2 Fannie Mae Form 1004B 6 -93 a e FORSYTHE APPRAISALS, INC. REAL ESTATE APPRAISALS V41 TRANSMITTAL LETTER: (continued) Please feel free to call to if you have a question. ADDITIONAL COMMENTS: 1. The purpose of the appraisal is to estimate the market value of the subject property. 2. The legal description of the subject property can be found on page 1 of the URAR form. 3. The reasonable marketing period for the subject property is 90 to 120 days. 4. According to the county and the homeowner, the subject property has not been transferred in the past twelve months. 5. The subject property was inspected on March 27, 1998, the report was prepared on March 27, 1998, the effective date of the appraisal is March 27, 1998. These dates coincide. 6. The subject is an existing structure. This appraisal is made 'as is.' 7. Personal property was not included in the appraised value. S. We have considered all three approaches to value. The income approach was not utilized due to lack of reliable rental data of single family homes in this neighborhood. The cost approach wars not considered applicable, therefore it was not included. 9. The subject is a single family residential property. It is not currently rented. Revenues, expenses, and /or vacancies do not apply. 10. Current and future employment or compensation is not contingent upon the reporting of a predetermined value or direction in value that favors the cause of the client, the amount of the value estimate, the attainment of a stipulated result or the occurrence of a subsequent event. 11. This appraisal report was completed in conformity with the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice. 12. If the photos included in this appraisal are digital /electronic images, they have not been enlarged, enhanced, or altered in any way. 13. If electronic /digital signatures are used, it has been ruled acceptable appraisal practice by USPAP. GC. 2:2 LSrTLC CANADA ROAD, LRTLL, CANADA, MINNESOTA 5SI17 (612) 486.93SO (612) 486 -9649 6913 MARK TERR. DR. 10H5V1L 7 S_ FOR T1.S FORSYTMt / CFD rnTY GARNrfT FORsmm APPRAISALS, Il�C. 1. ✓ wyp..al O,..nr REAL ESTATE SPEC1ALlSlS FOR OVER .50 )TARS DISCUSSION OF FINANCING. ADJUS- -%ENTS Analysis of current market conditions suggest that because of still favorable rates (below 10 %), sellers are not typically participating in payment of points on mortgages. However, in be typical on certain market areas 0 -3t discount points appear to moderately priced homes. Adjustments to sales price reflect any increase in sales price attributable to the concession. Adjustments below $500 are felt to be difficult to measure in the marketplace. FNMA recommends that the dollar amount of sales or financing concessions paid by the SELLER be reported for the comparables if the information is reasonably available. Sales or financing data for comparables (mortgage amount, loan type, interest rate, term and any fees or concessions paid by SELLER), include, but are not limited to, interest rate buydowns or other below market rate financing, loan discount points, origination fees, closing costs, inclusion of non - realty items included in the transaction. Financing adjustments are always "negative ". The dollar amount of the adjustment made to each comparable having sales or financing concessions is equal to any increase in the purchase price of the comparable that the appraisers determines to be attributable to the ' concession. In other words, the appraiser, through the adjustment process, reflects the market's reaction between what the comparable sold for with the concessions versus what, it would have sold for without the concession. P. NOTE: An analysis has been made of the sales from a representative sample of transactions in an active market within the Twin Cities. metro area. (Division III) It suggests that sales involving SELLER paid concessions do result in a measurable difference in '- percent of listing price. Below is data provided by the Twin y Cities Board of Realtors Multiple Listing Service. It shows the financing methods as well as the contract sales price as a _ percentage of the current listing price. In addition to this, a breakdown of those same sales has been made to show the types of financing (also represented as percentages. This analysis provides a comparison of the transactions taking place this year with those : completed twelve months ago. FINANCING METHODS: PERCENT OF LIST PRICE RECEIVED CD CONY FHA VA INS ASSUM CONV This Year 96.87 97.98 98.67 99.51 98.35 98.56 Last Year 96.51 97.89 98.65 99.14 98.31 97.40 FINANCING METHODS: PERCENT OF TOTAL MARKET CD CONY FHA VA INS SPEC CONY FUND This Year 1.37 47.52 28.31 4.66 8.12 .48 Last Year 1.75 45.89 29.30 5.49 7.59 .54 1/2/98 . Fik No. 9804102 DEFINITION OF MARKET VALUE: The most probable price which a property should bring m a competitive and open market under all conditions requisite to a fair sale, the buyer and seller. each acting prudently, knowledgeably and assuming the price is not affected by undue stimulus, implicit in this definition is the consummation of a sale as of a specified dale and the passing of title from seller to buyer under conditions whereby: (1) buyer and seller are typically motivated. (2) both parties are well informed or well advised. and each acting it what he considers h:s own best interest: (3) a reasonable time is allowed for exposure in the open market (4) payment is made in terms of cash In U.S. dollars or m terms of financial arrangements comparable theielo: and (5) the price represents the normal consideration for the property sold unattecled by special or creative financing or sales concessions* granted by anyone associated with the sale. - Adjustments to the comparables must be made for special or creative financing or sales concessions. No adjustments are necessary for those costs which are normally paid by sellers as a result of tradition or law in a market area; these costs are readily identifiable since the seller pays these toss in virtually all sales transactions. Special or creative lmancmg adjustments can be made to the comparable property by comparisons to financing terns offered by a third party institutional lender that is not already involved in the properly or transaction. Any adjustment should not be calculated on a mechanical dollar for dollar cost of the financing or concession but the dollar amount of any adjustment should approximate the market's reaction to the financing or concessions based on the appraiser's judgment STATEMENT OF LIMITING CONDITIONS AND APPRAISER'S CERTIFICATION CONTINGENT AND LIMITING CONDITIONS: The appraiser's certification that appears rn the appraisal repon is subject to the lollowmg conditions: 1. The appraiser will not be responsible for matters of a legal nature that affect either the properly being appraised or the title to iL The appraiser assumes that the title is good and marketable and, therefore, will not render any opinions about the title. 1he property is appraised on the bass of it being under responsible ownership. 2. The appraiser has provided a sketch in the appraisal report to show approximate dimensions of the improvements and the sketch s included only to assist the reader of the report in vxualmzmg the property and understanding the appraiser's determination of its size. 3. The appraiser has examined the available flood maps that are provided by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (or other data sources) and has noted in the appraisal repon whether the subject site rs located m an identified Special Flood Hazard Area Because the appraiser is not a surveyor, he of she makes no guarantees, express or implied, regarding this determination 4. The appraiser will not give testimony or appear in court because he or she made an appraisal of the properly in question unless specific arrangements to do so have been made beforehand. - 5. The appraiser has estimated the value of the land in the cost approach at its highest and best use and the improvements at their contributory value. These separate valuations of the land and improvements must not be used in conjunction with any other appraisal and are invalid if they are so used. 6. The appraiser has noted in the appraisal report any adverse conditions (such as. needed repairs, depreciation the presence of hazardous wastes, toxic substances. etc.) observed during the inspection of the subject property or that he or she became aware of during the normal research involved in performing the appraisal. Unless otherwise stated in the appraisal report. the appraiser has no knowledge of any hidden or unapparent conditions of the properly or adverse environmental conditions (including the presence of hazardous wastes, toxic substances. etc.) that would make the property more or less valuable, and has assumed that there are no such conditions and makes no guarantees or warranties, express or implied, regarding the condition of the property. The appraiser will not be responsible tot any such conditions that do exist or lot any engineering or testing that might be required to discover whether such conditions exisL Because the appraiser is not an expert in the field of environmental hazards, the appraisal ieport must not be considered as an environmental assessment 01 the property. 7. The appraiser obtained the information, estimates. and opinions that were expressed in the appraisal repon from sources that he or she considers to be reliable and believes them to be true and correct. The appraiser does not assume responsibility for the accuracy of such hems that were furnished by other parties. S. The appraiser will not disclose the contents of the appraisal report except as provided lot in the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice. 9. The appraiser has based his or her appraisal repon and valuation conclusion for an appraisal that is subject to satisfactory completion, repairs, or alterations on the assumption that completion of the improvements will be performed in a workmanlike manner. 10. The appraiser must provide his or her prior written consent before the lender /client specified in the appraisal report can distribute the appraisal report (including conclusions about the property value, the appraises s identity and professional designations, and references to any professional appraisal organizations or the firm with which the appraiser is associated ) to anyone other than the borrower; the mongagee or is successors and assigns; the mortgage insurer; consultants: professional appraisal organizations; any slate or federally approved financial iistdution; or any department, agency, or instrumentality of the United States or any state or the District of Columbia; except that the lender /client may distribute the property description section of the report only to data collection or reporting service(s) wit'mou! having to oblam the appraisers prior written consent. The appraiser's written consent and approval rust also be obtained before the appraisal can be conveyed by anyone to the public through advertising, public relations, news, sales, or other media Freddie Mac Form 439 6 -93 Page 1 of 2 Fannie Mae Form 1004B 6 93 APPRAISERS CERTIFICATION: The Appraiser certifies and agrees thaL 9804102 1. 1 have researched the subject market area and have selected a minimum of three recent sales of properties most similar and proximate to the subjec! property for consideration in the sales comparison analysis and have made a dollar adjustment when appropriate to reflect the market reaction to those items of significant variation ll a significant item in a comparable property is superior to , or more favorable VOL the subject property, I have made a negative adjmtmeni to reduce the adjusted sales price of the comparable and. it a significant item in a comparable properly is interior to, or less favorable than the subject property. I have made a positive adjustment to increase the adjusted sales price of the comparable. 2. 1 have taken into consideration the factors that have an impact on value in my development of the estimate of market value in the appraisal report I have not knowingly withheld any significant information from the appraisal report and I believe, to the best of my knowledge, that all statements and information in the appraisal report are true and correct. 3. 1 stated in the appraisal report only my own personal, unbiased, and professional analyss. opinions, and conclusions, which are subject only to the contngent and limiting conditions specified in this form. 4. t have no present or prospective interest in the property that is the subject to this report. and f have. no present or prospective personal interest or biz with respect to the participants in the transaction. I did not base, either panially or completely, my analysis and /or the estimate of market value in the appraisal report on the race, color, religion, sex. handicap. familial stairs, or national origin o1 either the Prospective owners or occupants of the subject property or of the present owners or occupants of the progenies in the vicinity of the subject property. S. I have no present or contemplated future interest in the subject property, and neither my current or future employment not my compensation for performing this appraisal is contingent on the appraised value of hie property. 6. 1 was not required to report a predetermined value or direction in value that favors the cause of the client or any related party, the amount of the value estimate, the attainment of a specific result or the occurrence of a subsequent event in order to receive my compensation and /or employment for performing the appraisal. I did not base the appraisal report on a requested minimum valuation, a specific valuation, or the need to approve a specific mortgage loan 7. 1 performed this appraisal in conformity with the Uniform Standards of Piotessional Appraisal Practice that were adopted and promulgated by the Appraisal Standards Board of The Appraisal Foundation and that were in place as of the effective dale of this appraisal, wilt, the exception of the departure provision of those Standards, which does not apply. 1 acknowledge that an estimate of a reasonable time for exposure in the open market is a condition in the definition of market value and the estimate I developed is consistent with the marketing time noted in the neighborhood section of this report. unless I have otherwise stated in the reconciliation sectiolL 8. 1 have personally inspected the interior and exterior areas of the subject property and the exterior of all properties listed as comparables in the appraisal report 1 further certify that I have noted any apparent or known adverse conditions in the subject improvements, on the subject site. or on any site within the immediate vicinity of the subject properly of which I am aware and have made adjustments for these adverse conditions in my analysis of the property value to the extent that I had market evidence to support them. I have also commented about the effect of the adverse conditions on the marketability of the subject properly. _ 9. 1 personally prepared all conclusions and opinions about the real estate that were set forth in the appraisal report. If I relied on significant professional assistance from any individual or individuals in the performance of the appraisal or the preparation of the appraisal report I have named such indMdual(s) and disclosed the specific tasks performed by them in the reconciliation section of this appraisal report I cerfify that any individual so named is qualified to perform the tasks. 1 have not authorized anyone to make a change to any item in the report: therefore, it an unauthorized change is made to the appraisal reporL I will take no responsibility for it SUPERVISORY APPRAISER'S CERTIFICATION: If a supervisory appraiser signed the appraisal report, he or she certifies and agrees that I directly supervise the appraiser who prepared the appraisal report, have reviewed the appraisal report agree with the statements and conclusions of the appraiser, agree to be bound by the appraiser's certifications numbered 4 through 7 above, and am taking full responsibility for the appraisal and the appraisal report ADDRESS OF PROPERTY APPRAISED: 6911 Mark Terrace Drive, Edina. MN 55415 APPRAISER:- Signature: O-.C4- Name: _cre Callahan Date Signed March 27, 1998 State Certification is 400246 or State License 0: State: MN Expiration Date of Certification or License: 08-31- - SUPERVISORY APPRAISER (only if required) Signature: NamP- Date Signed: State Certification tf: or State License 8: State: Expiration Date of Certification or License: ❑ Did ❑ Did Not hupect Nopery Freddie Mac Form 439 6 -93 Page 2 of 2 Fannie Mae Form 10048 6 -93 REAL ESTATE SYECIAL1STS FOR OVER 50 YF-ARS QUALIFICATIONS OF: Gregory V. Callahao Certified Federal Residential Appraiser Minnesota License #4002346 FORMAL EDUCATION: University of Colorado - Two Years SPECL4LL Rn EDUCATION: Real Estate I, D, and III - 1987 Appraisal 101: Introduction to Appraisal Principles I - 1988 Appraisal 102: Introduction to Appraisal Principles II - 1988 Appraisal 103: Introduction to Appraisal Practices I - 1988 Appraisal 104: Introduction to Appraisal Practices II - 1988 Appraisal 105: Appraisal Standards S Ethics - 1991 FHA Appraisal Requirements & Procedures - 1992 Appraisal 201: Guide to Residential Construction - 1993 Residential Appraisal S Regulation Update - 1995 Additional course work in blueprint reading and drafting. Numerous Seminars EITERIENCE: Independent Fee Appraiser Since 1991 Forsythe Appraisals, Inc. Appointed Chief Litigation Appraiser - 1994 Forsythe Appraisals, Inc. Self - Employed Appraiser - 1987 to 1991 Seven Years of Residential Real Estate Sales in the Eleven County Metro Area New construction coordinator for single family and multi -family homes. Extensive experience in blueprint trading, construction bids, code requirements and cost analysis. CLIENIM: American Mortgage Services, American Security Mortgage, Associates Relocation, Baltic Mortgage, Banc One Financial, Bell Mortgage, Columbia Mortgage, CTX Mortgage, EquiCredit Corporation, First Bank, FirStar Bank, Fleet Mortgage, GMAC Corporation, Great Lakes Mortgage, Homestead Mongage, IBM Credit Union, GFS Financial, Independence Mortgage, Knutson Mortgage, Lakeland Mortgage, Marquette Bank -, MidAmerica Mortgage, Miller Mortgage, Minneapolis Financial Service, Mortgage By Design, North Coast Mortgage, PHH Relocation, Park Bank, Premier Bank, Prime Mortgage, Prudential Relocation Management, Teacher Federal Credit Union, TCF Mortgage, United Companies Lending Corp.,- US Mortgage and numerous independent clients and law firms. sr ATE OF Im ESOrA DEPARTWE W 00Y ERCE ''i, 133 Fx 3h �y�pt 1 S Ft,d sO173101 l� (d 12) 2966319 APPRA=Ek tsm M- OD2346 C33tT RE r. REAL PROP E.tmve. "V99 30 Hn.M— yYJ IM OREOORT 9 CALLAR" 39:: OOCARD AW HO 14L]. AW 35.124000 )utRT roR5rn1E T. E. rOILSYME r,_ InI1N c (ORSrn IE FoRSYTIE APPR INC. � -A ISALS, II . REAL ESTATE SYECIAL1STS FOR OVER 50 YF-ARS QUALIFICATIONS OF: Gregory V. Callahao Certified Federal Residential Appraiser Minnesota License #4002346 FORMAL EDUCATION: University of Colorado - Two Years SPECL4LL Rn EDUCATION: Real Estate I, D, and III - 1987 Appraisal 101: Introduction to Appraisal Principles I - 1988 Appraisal 102: Introduction to Appraisal Principles II - 1988 Appraisal 103: Introduction to Appraisal Practices I - 1988 Appraisal 104: Introduction to Appraisal Practices II - 1988 Appraisal 105: Appraisal Standards S Ethics - 1991 FHA Appraisal Requirements & Procedures - 1992 Appraisal 201: Guide to Residential Construction - 1993 Residential Appraisal S Regulation Update - 1995 Additional course work in blueprint reading and drafting. Numerous Seminars EITERIENCE: Independent Fee Appraiser Since 1991 Forsythe Appraisals, Inc. Appointed Chief Litigation Appraiser - 1994 Forsythe Appraisals, Inc. Self - Employed Appraiser - 1987 to 1991 Seven Years of Residential Real Estate Sales in the Eleven County Metro Area New construction coordinator for single family and multi -family homes. Extensive experience in blueprint trading, construction bids, code requirements and cost analysis. CLIENIM: American Mortgage Services, American Security Mortgage, Associates Relocation, Baltic Mortgage, Banc One Financial, Bell Mortgage, Columbia Mortgage, CTX Mortgage, EquiCredit Corporation, First Bank, FirStar Bank, Fleet Mortgage, GMAC Corporation, Great Lakes Mortgage, Homestead Mongage, IBM Credit Union, GFS Financial, Independence Mortgage, Knutson Mortgage, Lakeland Mortgage, Marquette Bank -, MidAmerica Mortgage, Miller Mortgage, Minneapolis Financial Service, Mortgage By Design, North Coast Mortgage, PHH Relocation, Park Bank, Premier Bank, Prime Mortgage, Prudential Relocation Management, Teacher Federal Credit Union, TCF Mortgage, United Companies Lending Corp.,- US Mortgage and numerous independent clients and law firms. sr ATE OF Im ESOrA DEPARTWE W 00Y ERCE ''i, 133 Fx 3h �y�pt 1 S Ft,d sO173101 l� (d 12) 2966319 APPRA=Ek tsm M- OD2346 C33tT RE r. REAL PROP E.tmve. "V99 30 Hn.M— yYJ IM OREOORT 9 CALLAR" 39:: OOCARD AW HO 14L]. AW 35.124000 Case # 11 City of Edina Board of Review Assessor's Commentary Property I.D. Number: 32- 0208 -24 -34 -0025 AND 05- 027 -24 -21 -0004 Date: 4/4/2000 Property Address: 3400 EDINBOROUGH WAY Owner /Agent Name: KPMG, INC; PAUL GAUER 2000 EMV Requested Value Recommended Value $9,035,500 TOTAL $ 7,700,000 TOTAL: $9,721,100 $ 685,600 $ 9,721,100 Comments: Value notices were sent out in mid February, 2000. Property owner's agent contacted this office on March 30, 2000. At that time, we FAXed the application form for review of the property value and requested the financial operating statements for the property. The agent, KPMG, Inc., FAXed their analysis of the property value to this office on April 3, 2000 at 2:30 PM and 3:45 PM. The requested operating statements (in summary fashion) were included with the analysis. The subject property is the Hawthorne Suites Hotel at 3400 Edinborough Way. It has 142 suites. This property last sold January 1997 for $10,200,000. The Certificate of Real Estate Value reported that $775,000 of the sale price was for personal property; there was no mention of an appraisal of the personal property. The net sale price of the real estate then is indicated to be $9,425,000 Since in general, hotel properties have been doing well with good rental incomes and the economy has been strong, the values have been at least holding and in general increasing. This market has been strong enough in this area such that new hotels are being built. Assuming that the personal property valuation was correct, the Assessor's Estimated Market Value (EMV) is 3.142% over the sale price of three years ago or 1.036% per year compounded annually. Because the requested financial operating statements were received so late, I have not had time to properly review and to work up an analysis of my own. However, a summary review of the agent's finanacial analysis indicates that his assumptions do not match the sale price and the claimed personal property deductions on the Certificate of Real Estate Value. Adjusting the agent's assumptions regarding personal property and working capital to match the claims at the time of sale, the indicated value is $11,055,500. Therefore, because of the above points, I recommend that there be no reduction in the EMV and allow the applicant to pursue his rights of appeal at the County Board of Equalization. Value 1999 $ 9,631,600 History 1998 $ 9,205,600 1997 $ 7,066,500 Sale January 21,1997 $ 10,200,000 History Less Personal Property $ 775,000 Net Real Estate Sale Price $ 9,425,000 Apr-03-00 03 :45pm From-KPMG T-905 P-02/03 F-337 03/30/00 UU5 r City of Fdina - Assessor's Office 4801 West 50th Street -Y .4 2- V Edina, MN. 55424-1394 P. 1. 0. 4; -P S- . Phone: (612) 826-0365 Fax. (612) 626-0390 Date Returned: Time: -4 5 P14 [TDD (Deaf Only) (612) 826-03791 Receivecl by: e Case# Bo ard of bn Review Request for Review A rrach 9 t)y S IJPP Gni ApPlIC81iOn' Ogle' -70 f"AJZC4( c -/A , gent Name: K erv7 � OwrierlAgem Address: 302 jE C Horne Phone Number: I Business Phone Nut property Address: '3&fgV0 V7DI-Yfv20 cA G.- Z')"t Legal Description: Assessor's t5fiMaled market value for January 2.2000: 'rS-. 16 V4P Buildin -7Aj I S-00 land. 1 re 61 s: a., 1 i - I believe I ated mQrkat value on January 2, 2000 should 08: Buildings: 5, Land:, v,6 t)o u- - RI2 666 � -L/�? Total: I. 7a 1. 1 o q Total: / 17 & & 0 [ purcna-se date: A Total purchase rice (land & bldos-)' /40, 2--go g g�e 'old put What aid purchase include?' Terms 01 sal Existing marIgage amount: erms 0 sale: Condition (Explain)- Descrimion & value cf aaditions and improvements since your piecirlase of this property; Professional ApprBusails (Please attach copies)' Date: Indicalea Value: Appraiser name and employer: ex ic ptMhi the rzasq:ns f6r Wr. S A7 -e� — -r-,A 0 1-1,C APPLICATION CONTINUED ON BACK. PLEASE COMPI-F-TE THE REVERSE SIDE OF THIS FORM. RETURN THIS APPLICATION TO THE EDINA ASSESSOR'S OFFICE BY MONDAY. APRIL 3, 2000. Apr-03 -00 03:45pm From -KPMG V3)3U/uU JU126 PAA 81z azlr uuau U111 U1 L'U1111:i gplicotion for property other than residential, continued- ............ fi Tvpa QUpr -Operty:_ Please A anment Ofrice Commercial any of the rear property NOT owned by you? a ,s n we If es, lease ex lain: If nu ar.e leosfn s 'e:' rG a �iease co Name of lessee: ,address of lessee: When aid the lease St2rt?: Terms of the lease. 1nCicate any leasehold improvements' Amount of the lease: T -905 P.03/03 F -337 Warehouse Industrial No. of 2 -Bdrm units Rentfunit: Pool/Party room: Other: • If itse-� .is rerited- lease cctn Qte lFtLS'sec�oTlalatfat:Fio e1'atiA ;sta emPntS �:�::=':- .:•�:.. :�::::�:� :�:�:;.,:: :• Annual grozz etential rent: Annual unreimbursed ex enses: Explain if the tinsnt pays any taxes (full or partial), insurance, maintenance, etc: U.,. In support of income information, please enclose a copy of income statements from all sources, operating expense statements and/or a copy of any leases. Indicate If a lease has been recorded. - I AM THE OWNER/AGENT OF THE REAL PROPERTY DESCRIBED ON THE RFVERSE SIDE OF THIS FORM, AND MY OPINION OF VALUE AS STATED ON THE REVERSE SIDE OF THIS FORM IS ACTUAL VALUE IN MONEY AS OF THE ASSESSMENT DATE OF JANUARY 2, 2000. 1 DO HEREBY AFFIRM THAT Thr; ABOVE INFORMATION IS COMPLETE AND TRUE,-1,0 THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE AND BELIEF. Slcnature of applicant: RETURN THIS APPLICA71ON TO THE EDINA ASSESSOR'S OFFICE BY MONDAY, APRIL_ 3, 2000. YOU MAY BE CON7ACTE070 HAVE YOUR PROPERTY REVIEWED PRIOR TO THE SCHEDULED BOARD OF REVIEW MEETING. o?ii Me ote, escdbe):er n NOther o No. of Eff. units No. of 1.Bdrm units Renttunt: Rent/unit: No. of 3 -Bdrm units _ _ No. of 4 -Bdrm units Rent /unit: Rendunit: Fire +r►Ura [e.caVt;Tege% Amount: Carrier. a ,s n we If es, lease ex lain: If nu ar.e leosfn s 'e:' rG a �iease co Name of lessee: ,address of lessee: When aid the lease St2rt?: Terms of the lease. 1nCicate any leasehold improvements' Amount of the lease: T -905 P.03/03 F -337 Warehouse Industrial No. of 2 -Bdrm units Rentfunit: Pool/Party room: Other: • If itse-� .is rerited- lease cctn Qte lFtLS'sec�oTlalatfat:Fio e1'atiA ;sta emPntS �:�::=':- .:•�:.. :�::::�:� :�:�:;.,:: :• Annual grozz etential rent: Annual unreimbursed ex enses: Explain if the tinsnt pays any taxes (full or partial), insurance, maintenance, etc: U.,. In support of income information, please enclose a copy of income statements from all sources, operating expense statements and/or a copy of any leases. Indicate If a lease has been recorded. - I AM THE OWNER/AGENT OF THE REAL PROPERTY DESCRIBED ON THE RFVERSE SIDE OF THIS FORM, AND MY OPINION OF VALUE AS STATED ON THE REVERSE SIDE OF THIS FORM IS ACTUAL VALUE IN MONEY AS OF THE ASSESSMENT DATE OF JANUARY 2, 2000. 1 DO HEREBY AFFIRM THAT Thr; ABOVE INFORMATION IS COMPLETE AND TRUE,-1,0 THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE AND BELIEF. Slcnature of applicant: RETURN THIS APPLICA71ON TO THE EDINA ASSESSOR'S OFFICE BY MONDAY, APRIL_ 3, 2000. YOU MAY BE CON7ACTE070 HAVE YOUR PROPERTY REVIEWED PRIOR TO THE SCHEDULED BOARD OF REVIEW MEETING. o?ii Me Apr-03-00 02:30pm From -KPMG KPMG 303 East wackei Drive Chicago. L 60601 -5212 April 3, 2000 PERSONAL AND PRIVATE Board of Review City of Edina 4801 W 50th Street Edina, MN 55424 Dear Board ofRcvirN -: Re: Edina Hawthorn Suites 3400 idinborougb Way Edina, Minnesota Parcel 9 32- 028 -24 -34 -0025 Parcel #a! 05- 027 -24 -21 -0004 T-903 P.02/09 F-332 Telephone 312 565 1000 Faz 312 665 6000 KPMG UP, as auihori?ed anent for Sharer Hotel Group, hereby submits the following review and valuation for the above rcfrrenced property. The Edina Hawthorn Suites is located at 3400 Edinborough Way, Edina, Minnesota. The subject property is a 141 room All -Suite Hotel. The subject is comprised of approximately 91,123 sfand is situated on a 2.27 acre site. We have revtewcd the property and based on the infonnation presented, we otter our estimate of fair market value for assessment purposes_ The subject property lla�, experienced a significant increase in assessed value over the past four assessment years from $5,205,600 or $36,919 per room to $9,721,100 or 568,944 per room. This reflects a 87% increase in assessed value. Currently, the real estate taxes as a percentage of net operating income are higher than any property in the entire Shancr Hotel Group National Portfolio v;,,hich consists of over 40 hotels across the US. The 2000 assessment increased, however the property experienced a decline in occupancy of 8 11/, during 1999 which tranNiated into a 16% decrease in net operating income attributable to the real property. This significant decline in income in 1999 has negatively impacted the value of the propcny. A potential buyer would facwr this significant downturn in income into any offer to purchase the subject property. Parcel Land Improvement Total Number Assessment Assessment Assessment 32- 028 -24 34 0025 $ 1,186,000 $ 7,849,500 $ 9,035,00 05- 027 -24 -21 -0004 $ 685,600 $ 0 $ 685.600 fair Market Value 5 9,721,100 (S 68,944 per room) moms Apr-03 -00 02:30pm From -KPMG MW Board of Review City of Edina April 3, 2000 Page 2 Income Ca italization Approach T-903 P.03/09 F -332 The income capitalization approach is based on the premise that the value of a property is represented by the present worth of* anticipated future benefits to be derived from ownership. The incomc capitalization approach estimates a stabilized net income based on actual rents and deducts tine expenses to obtain a net operating income. This estimated net income is Then divided by a nnarket derived capitalization rate to obtain the value of the property. KPMG obmined actual departmental income data from the Edina Hawthorn Suites for The period of 12 months ending December, 1997, 1998 and 1999. Departmental income from all sources, including rooms, food, teleplionc, conference and other miscellaneous income was considered. KPMG obtained actual dcparrmcntal anal urjullocated expens-z data from the Edina Hawthorn Suites for the period of 12 months ;�ndinG December. 1997, 1998 and 1999. Expenses were rev iewed and appear reasonably within typical market ratios as stated in The Smith Travel Research 1999 Hotel Operating Statistics (HOST) study. In order to determine the stabilized nct income attributable to the real property, an average of the Two operating years was calculated for the income approach. This property is self managed by Shaner Hotel Group, thCrcfore no management fcc is deducted from their operating statements. KPMG estimated a market management fee of 3% of gross revenue, v hicll is consistent with industry ratios and supported by the 1999 HOST study. KPMG estimated a market replaccmesnt reserve for the subject property. The replacement reserve is the amount set aside for the replacemcnt of furniture, fixtures and equipment. Typically this amount is required by loan, franchise or managemenT agreements. In order to estimate a market replacement reserve, we rcviewed the international Society of Hospitality Consultant's (iSHC) Study of Capital Expenditures in the US Hotel industry. We have estimated a replacement reserve of approximately 5% of gross revenue for the subject property. ]'his amourlT is a reserve to account for timely replacemcnt of personal propcny. The purpose of this reserve is to prevent insufficicnT cash flow when personal property replacements are needed. It is not a measure of return of or on the personal property. Return Of and On Personal Property This category of expense is an annual deduction from the income stream to provide for the return on and of the per-,unal property which includes furniture and equipment Personal property is necessary to maintain the hotel in an attractive condition and thus maintain room rate. It must be recognized that part of the earnings arc directly attributable to the personal property. The hotel could not operate without personal property. Because we are valuing the real estate only, the appropriate share of the carnungs mint be given recognition a-td allocated to the personal properly. We will do this through an annual deduction from the income stream of an amount sufficient to provide for return on and of Tile personal prOperty. , Apr-03 -00 02:31pm From -KPMG u !'M Board of Rcview City of Edina April 3, 2000 Pagc 3 T-903 P.04/09 F -332 We have estimated personal property of approximately $4,500 per room. This amount is based on an estimated replacement cost new of $9,000 per room. The price used represents a 50 percent discount from replacement cost new under the assumption that, because FF &E is continually replaced, at any point in time the value of the personal properry is at least 50 %, of replacement cost. The total personal properly for the subject property is estimated at $634,500 This amount multiplied by the unleverCd rLqu;red rate of return of 12% for the Subject property is $76,140. The unlevered required rate of return for the subject property is supported by The Korpacz Real Estate Investor Survey First Quarter 1999 which states 12.0% to 16.5% for unlcvcred required ratc� of return for the .iubjcct property's product typa. Return on Workins_ Capital In addition to expending the funds necessary for purchasing a hotel property, an additional sum of money is nk�rdcd for the working capital of the hotel. This money is necessary to.meet normal expenditures because there is a continual deficit between the inflow of crash and the outflow of current liabilities. At any period of timc.throughout the year there is a time lag betwccn when a charge is made and when that charge is actually collected. During this time lag the operator must still purchase food and beverage inventory and pay the salaries in the hotel An owner must provide for this continual deficit by furnishing funds to finance the required amount of net working capital. The earnings of a hotel are partly generated by, and are allocable to the working capital. Because we are evaluating the real estatc portion of the subject properly only, a deduction must be made from the income stream to provide for the carnings attributable to the working capital. We will estimate this deduction by applying the appropriate market rate to the average amount of net working capital Irequired to operate a suite hotel. We have estimated working capital of approximately $282,400 or 52,000 per room for the subject properry. This amount per room is standard for a t)'pical suite hotel. This amount multiplied by the unleveraged required rate of return of 12 "/o for the subject property is $33,840 Aar -03 -00 02:31am From -KPMG Board of Rcview City of Edina April 37 2000 Page 4 T -903 P.05/09 F -332 In order to estimate a reasonable capitalizanon rate, we reviewed capitalization rates stated in the Korpac2 Real Estate Investor Survey. These sources indicated a cap rate range of 9 % -12 1/u. As a result of our review, it was determined that a capitalization rate of 11.00% would be appropriate The three year average effective tax rate of 4.93% was added to the base cap rate to obtain a loaded cap rate of 15 93 %. A loaded cap rate was used to properly reflect the tax expense. The value of the property based upon a direct capitalization method is as follows: Net Operating Income Capitalization Rate Indicated Value Round To $ 1,230,753 15.93Ma $ 7,724,552 $ 7,700,000 (or $54,610 per unit) A breakdown of the income approach is shown on the following page: Apr -03 -00 02:32pm From -KPMG c Board of Review City of Edina April 3, 2000 Page 5 1999 'total Rooms Available 51,100 Average Room Ratt: $85.93 Occup4ncy % 75.32% Room Rcvenue 3,306,975 "Telecommunications 66,393 Miscellaneous income 103,796 PLiblic Room> 50,878 Gross Revenue 3,S28,042 Room Expense 883,041 Food & Beversge Expense 0 Telephone 31,276 Wicellaneous Expznsc 65,851 Public Rooms 27,829 Deparnnental Expenses 1..007.997 Departmental Income 3,520,045 Undistributed Operaring Expenses 828 Admin & Gencral 2 73,259 Franchise Fee 214,927 Manaeeniem Fee 105,841 Marketing 163,909 Repairs & Maintenance 165,261 Utilities 108,847 Replacement Reserve 176,402 Insurance 29,269 Land, Air, F &B Lease 29,327 Total Undistributed Expenses 1,267,037 Total Operating Expenses 2'75.034 Rctum oil Personal Property 76,140 Return on Working Capital 33,840 Net Income Attributed To Real Estate 1.143,028 Capitaltcariort Rate 11.00% Effective Tax Ratc 4405% Total Capitalization Rate 127,269 T -903 P.06/09 F-332 1998 1997 Stabilized 51,100 61,150 51,117 $84.14 $79.24 $83 10 83.39°/, 81.30% 80.00% 3,585,398 3,295,191 3,395,855 75,866 91,660 77,973 82,049 59,119 81,655 56,592 69,208 58,893 3,799,905 3,515,178 3,614,373 932,741 691,523 902,435 59 828 296 34,026 41,780 35,694 44,908 49,163 53,308 29,371 23,933 37,044 1 _U41. l0i 1.007,228 1.018,777 2,758,800 2,3077950 2,595,599 261,726 221,807 352,264 233,895 211,694 220,172 113,997 105,455 108,431 141,069 167,215 157,398 167,221 142,122 158,201 136,473 136,487 127,269 189,995 175,759 180,719 18,143 16,442 21,285 28,441 29,616 29,126 1,290,960 1,206,597 1,254,865 2.332.065 2 213.525 2273,642 76,140 76,140 76,140 33.640 33,840 33,840 1,357,860 1,191,373 1,230,753 11.00% 11.00% 11.00% 5 OSS% 5.33% 4.93% 15.93% Market Value 7,724,552 Rounded To 7,700,000 Per Unit 54,610 Apr-03-00 02:32Pm From -KPMG !.s!={OP Board of Review City of Edina April 3, 2000 Page 6 Conclusion T -903 P.07/09 F -332 In arriving at a final estimate of fair market value for the subject property, we have valucd the properly using the income approach Consequently, we conclude that the fair market value of the property for assessment purposes is approximately $7,700,000 or.$54,610. If you have any questions. please call me at (312) 665 -3497 or Jon Marshall at (3 12) 665 -8922. Thank you for your time and consideration in this matter. Very truly yours_ KPMG LLP P,4,� - DD t' j Paul B. Gauer, CMi Bernice T. Dowell Seuiur Munuger Senror Manager cc: Moreau Sankey, City of Edina Assessor's Office Peter Hulbun, Sliauer Hotel Group Apr-03 -00 02:32pm From -KPMG Bernice T. Dowell Washington/Baltimore Professional Experience T-903 P.08/09 F-332 Over 15 years experience in ad valorem taxation of real estate, half of wnicn specializea in nospitaliry ana assisted living properties in all major cities in the United States ■ Over 7 years experience in Tax Department of mayor hotel real estate company overseeing all aspects of real estate taxation Developed ana usea valuation model to quantify going concern value of operating hotels to provide annual savings in the form of accelerated depreciation tax shield, minimization of real estate closing costs, and minimization of real estate taxes for a $5 billion., portfolio of luxury fud serviced hotels ■ Performed over 100 purchase price allocations for acquisition due diligence and closings • Successfully defended purchase price allocations before local real estate tax assessors, local Boards of Equalization. and Internal Revenue Service • Litigation experience; case management and expert testimony re hotel valuation Professional Designation and Affiliations ■ Certified General Real Estate Appraiser, State of Virginia Beta Gamma Sigma, George Mason University Educational Background • B S , Finance/Real Estate, George Mason University • M.S., Finance, George Wasnington University Published research paper entitled "Hotel Investment Analysis; In Search of Business Value," Assessrnent Journal, MarchjApril 1997 issue; jour o Property Tax Management Vol. 9, Issue 2, Fall 1997. Apr-03 -00 02:32pm From-KPMG • aw wC� L�r Paul B. Gauer Chicago Professional Experience T -903 P.09/09 F -332 • Over nine years experience in appraising a variety of real estate properties for property tax and valuation, including industrial, retail, hotel, and special- purpose property • Experienced in valuing real estate portfolios for large national banks and insurance companies. • Experience in ncgotiatinc assessed property values with assessors and presenting appeals to review boards. • 'Worked in a variety of industries, including food processing and distribution, metal fabrication, textile milling, alid a wide range or light and heavy manufacturing. • Experience in an2lyzing real and personal property assets for tax purposes. Professional pesignations and AITIillsiflons • Candidate, The Appraisal institute - Candidate, American Society of Appraisers • Cenificd Member of the Institute for Professionals in Taxation • Member, International Association of Assessing Officers )Educational Background • BA, Business and Mathcmaucs, Lake forest Collcgr Apr -03 -00 03:45pm From -KPMG C Peat Marwick Plaza 303 E. Wacker Drive Chicago. IL 60601 To Moreau Sankey From Organization City of Edina Department Fax 612- 826 -0390 Fax Page 1 of 3 Date April 3, 2000 Edina Hawthorne Suites - Appeal Form T-905 P.01 /03 F-337 Telephone 312 -565 -1000 Fax 312 -665 -6000 Jon J. Marshall National Property Tax Practice 312 -665 -1903 Attached is the appeal form to go along with the letter faxed to you earlier today. This fax transmission is stncrly confiGential and intended solely for tree person or organization to whom it is aaaressea. if you are not the intended recipient, you must not copy or distribute it or take action based upon its content If you nave received this fax ❑ ❑ ❑n � CL.LP NPIG LLD.IJ5 imdwwftprnnerama, transmission in error, please notify us and return it to us Dy mail �__ J -C.. R%M-S 3 =."w1 as soon as possible Apr-03 -00 02:30pm From -KNG U95 will I Peat Marwick Plaza 303 E wacker Drive Chicago. IL 60601 To Moreau Sankey. OrganiZation City of Edina Fax °effi" gad -c3sD Date April 3, 2000 Edina Hawthorne Suites T -903 P -01/09 F-332 Telephone 312 -665 -1000 Fax 312 -665 -6000 From Jon J. Marshall Department National Property "fax Practice Fax 312 - 665 -1903 Page 1 of 9 Please review the artached letter and appeal form and call me at 312-665-892210 discuss. Thanks. This fax transmission is stnctly confitien ial ana inteneea solely for the person or organization to whom it is aaaressea. If you are not the intenoed recipient. you must not copy or aistnoute it or take action base(l upon its content. If you nave received tn's fax ❑(� ❑❑ FMC 66P �PWu+'. n "m °pO° =P'm = ^� transmission in error. please notify us and return it t0 us by mail U.. 3 rrmM � ARPNCiMOm~s- J5. os amaC..w. as soon as possible. MAR -31 -1997 15:36 HENNEPIN CTY ASSESSOR 612 348 8751 P.04iO4 y � MINNESOTA Department of Revenue. ASk Certificate of Real Estate Value ri Am -'r PE -20 Buyers' Iasi nomc(s), Brst, m;dd(e initial Address Daytime phone 814/234 -4460 Shaner Hotel Group Properties Two Limited Partnership, 303 N. Science Park Road, State College, PA 16803 sellers' lost nome(s), 6r3t,middle Wrial -_ Ne,. address D.0- phone Hawthorn Suites Edina Limited Partnership, 200 W. Madison St., 39th Floor, Chicago, Ii. 60606 Street address or rural route of properly purchased - _ - -_ - -- City or tp -nship County 3400 Edinborough Way _ Edina Hennepin Dote of deed or controct 'Legal description of property purchased (lot, block and plat, or onoch 3 copies of the Ie0a1 dexriprion) 1/21/97 ILot 1, Block 1, Edinborough Addition, Hennepin County, Minnesota . Financial arrangements Was ppeersonal property :uch es furniture, ;nventory or equipment included in the purchase price? If yes, ® yes �'no Total purcfwse price dreribc bcb- and list current loot replacement) value. IUse the bock of this page if treaded.) 10.200.000 _ Fixtures, Furniture E770.000 $ Down payment and Equipment _ 100.000 Inventory E 5.000 E Total personal properly Pants or prepoid inrorat paid by seller wrrenT value 0 S - 3 774,000 R Type of acquisition (check all that apply) EjBuyer and seller are rebtkwea or Transaction ;nwfvod the trade of Name added to or co•o.me /s name related businesses ❑ property ❑ Buyer u o unit of government ❑ KT*„Cd ham dead (not a sale) Property is o gift or inheritance ❑ Buyer z t reGgia,s or cl+or;tobkt ❑ transaction on or foreclosure ❑ Bar pumboocd per+ial ;merest only organization ❑ Payoff or resole of contract ❑ Anse oc,�r rnient signed ewer two 4kType of property transferred (check all that apply) years age. ear sign Land only XX land and building: ❑ after xa y 1 year olosoW tg Planned use of property (check one) ❑ Residential single family �d��D'M,y°urr'uetm^is blend' ed' /ePf 20AardaNs'd'i!f°t}"so°7>�'a°BeL Residential duple:, triplex Agricultural Commercial- industrial -'-� (❑ (number of acres:) Itype d business:) Hotel LJ boon co rc aal) I J APamne o building ❑ (number d units:) Other (describe:) a Will this property be the buyer's principal resiclvKO ❑ yes xX no Method of financing (complete only if seller - financed, including a contract for deed or assumed mortgage) AsumadContracr Mortgage for Deed ❑ ❑ McMngoge or contract for Monthly payment 6 Interest rate Total number Date of any lump sum deedamounr of purchase principal orrd interest now in effect of payments (balloon) payments I declare that the information on this form is true, correct, and cowplele to the best of my knowledg* and belief, Nona (pint or bCd Stgnetura Pltate Data Peter K. Hulburt, V.P., Shaner Operatin P Corp 14/234 -4460 1/20/97 Ce I r1 C �% 1 r B to Bldg Ta Printery properly idendRca ion tr —1 T C. 0 r G o G S ua D,(, '�0 0 32- 028 -24 -34 -0025 Ac s T� RP R Usk !! B 9 . C. Y secondary paronl identification a 1 L �d for study �yes d gi.e reason /redo -cd + V b G5- 027 -24 -21 -0004 1. 51 ter Ockc Grw )D3+ K tC 3-19 -Q7 K INC IsT I Adlc Arp Use Tic EMV Aft FMS I c TOTAL P.04 MAR -31 -1997 15:35 HENNEPIN CTY ASSESSOR 612 348 6751 P.03iO4 rile came L.JMLCRVL04 CERTIFICATE OF VALUE VERIFICATION LOG Prcperty ID City and address 3 00 i5rj r Date time, and person called 3- Iq- Q % 3 ' SO D PA Pe +et' WK & 6:D) ,jk me opal I a me. - e rown ' Wqrnu "o C ' i t ram- PIMM - ` ; LIMIT * a •' d i 01/24/97 CRVLOG.WK4 MAR -31 -1997 15 :35 HENNEPIN CTY ASSESSOR 612 340 0751 P.02iO4 MINNESOTA Department of Revenue Certificate of Real Estate Value. Supplemental Schedule PE -20A (for apartment, commercial- industriol or form sales only) Buyerb Home Sequence cumber from Certificate of Reof Emote Volue Shaver Hotel Group Properties Two Limited Partnership_ -_ _ 39M7 — 1 If the sales price includes any personal property, such as furniture, appliances, supplies, fixtures, machinery, or stock inventories; or any other items, such as the goodwill of the business, the name of the business, francluse, or an agreement not to compete, fill in the total value of those items here ............................. $ 77-541111 D _...__ 2 If the buyer or seller paid someone to make an appraisal of the property's value prior to its sale, check this box ❑ and, if known, fill in the appraised value ..................:....... $ !`iA Commercial- Industrial properties 3 From the list of property uses:-on the back of this form, fill in -the number for the use that best describes how th.,&perty was used just before it was sold ............ ............................... — Fill in the number that best describes how the property will be used after the sale ..................... Apartment-properties 4 If the property sold was an apartment building, fill in: Total number of apartment buildings included in the sale price ............... ............................... .-N18 Total number of rental units in all buildings ................................................. ............................... Farm properties 5 How main acres are: Irrigated? _...., Enrolled in RIM? — _ CRP? All properties yes no ®6 Was the buyer of this property an -owner of a property. adjacent to it? .................. ............................... ❑ 7 If yes, in your opinion, did the buyer pay a higher price for the property than other potential buyers would have likely paid for it? ...................................... ............................... t__I 2 7 Does the total purchase price listed on Iine 2. of the Certificate of Real Estate Value ' represent the allocation of a sale price which includes another property or properties . sold to the same buyer at the same time? ................................................................... ............................... ❑ iXXJ 8 Did the buver lease the property from the .seller before the purchase? ................... ............................... (� XX Did the seller lease the property from the buyer after the purchase? ...................... ............................... ❑ 9 Was this sale announced and /or promoted through realtor listings, newspaper (or other publications) advertisements, or through brochure or other promotional or informational mailings? ................... L 1 XJ' If you answered "no," how did you learn that the property was for sale? 10 If the property was rental property, was the buyer guaranteed a minimum level of rental income? El 2 11 Were the buyer and seller family members, business partners, business affiliates, one subsidiary to the other, joint owners of the property,or stockholders of the business? „ ...... � 12 When the property was sold, was a foreclosure, court judgment, order or. other legal proceeding pending in connection with the pioperty? ................................................................. ............................... ❑i XX 13 In your opinion, is the price the property was sold for considerably different from what you believe other similar properties would sell for? ..................................................................... ............................... If ves, please explain briefly Peter K. Huibyst, ti.P 5haner _Operating Corp. 814/234 -4460 1/21/ 57 Your printed name Sign tun: Telephone Data 5nxk ne. 6000e01 /%/1r i \ rT/ o� /'� r�� • Case # 12 City of Edina Board of Review Assessor's Commentary Property I.D. Number: 31- 117 -21 -24 -0016 Date: 4/10/2000 Property Address: 6609 FIELD WAY Owner /Agent Name: MIGUEL M & SILVIA AZAR 2000 EMV Requested Value Recommended Value 456,400 396,000 456,400 Comments: Miguel and Silvia Azar have owned the home at 6609 field Way since November of 1973. In October of 1998 a permit was taken out to replace the kitchen interior and main floor laundry. The 1/2 bath was also remodeled. The above ground square footage is approximately 2935 . After reviewing sales in the Parkwood Knolls neighborhood of similar size and style, some being original owners, we find that homes are selling on average of $155 per square foot. The Sale Comparison approach indicates a value which supports the 2000 Estimated Market Value. We recommend the Board sustain that value. 1 Value 1999 $ 114,900 $ 282,000 $ 396,900 History 1998 $ 84,900 $ 249,600 $ 334,500 1997 $ 84,900 $ 243,100 $ 328,000 Sale History SKETCH /AREA TABLE ADDENDUM Case No 36240016 - File No 31. 117 -21 -24 -0010 Area AREA CALCULATIONS SUMMARY Name of Area Size Totals GLAI First Floor 1488.00 5.0 10.00 First Floor 9.00 1497.00 OLA2 Second Floor 1438.00 1438.00 BSNT Basement 1456.00 1456.00 OAR Garage 682.00 682.00 OTH BENT FINISH 1008.00 1.0 x 5.0 COV ENTRY 180.00 1.0 0.50 PATIO 252.00 1440.00 28.0 x TOTAL LIVABLE (rounded) 2935 Scale: 1 =12 LIVING AREA BREAKDOWN Breakdown Subtotals First Floor 2.0 x 5.0 10.00 1.0 x 5.0 5.00 0.5 x 1.0 x 1.0 0.50 0.5 x 1.0 x 1.0 0.50 2.0 x 3.0 6.00 0.5 x 2.0 x 2.0 2.00 0.5 x 2..0 x 2.0 2.00 1.0 x 5.0 5.00 0.5 x 1.0 x 1.0 0.50 0.5 x 1.0 x 1.0 0.50 28.0 x 52.0 1456.00 1.0 x 9.0 9.00 Second Floor 5.0 x 5.0 25.00 3 remaining calculations 1413.00 16 Areas Total (rounded) 2935 APEX SOFTWARE 00&85&9868 Apa710Pw April. City of Edina 4801 West 50th Street Edina, MN. 55424 -1394 Phone: (612) 826 -0365 Fax: (612) 826 -0390 [TDD (Deaf Only): (612) 826 -0379] Board of Review Residential Request for Review Assessor's Office I P.I.D. # -31- III- --LI - 2-4 -00/ Application Date: Attach any supporting documentation Owner Name: Owner Address: COD 9 �i�L� w'9t' - 'g��/✓� 5S"�, 3-6 Home Phone Number: 938- 5'214 Business Phone Number: Property Address: 6 6 D cl wi9 % D �iYA Assessor's estimated market value for January 2, 2000: -45-6400 Land: l/g940 Buildings: 341-500 Total' 41-'S- , 1 believe the estimated market value on January, 2, 2000 should be: rYear nd: Buildings: Total: •3 %6/ 000 ase Date: cI 7z Total purchase price (land & bldgs.): /.Z�' 0 0 0 Built: Hous e: �97Z Garage: Sac Additions (Exition of Structures (Explain): A6 Description & value of additions and improvements since your purchase of this property: �'��•c 7'�2 cA� syST�n Of K/ Tc//f i✓ L •9 Un�P•e y &P.-I i N /? . ....:::::. .:.. P�...:. at#acfi : cv ::of arty tec r t:�p �a . :Proies:s7onat:A � praKSafs..•.•.•.. ....(.. Appraisal Date: /-2- 3 - /Q Indicated Value: 3 96 O ,...... . Ek:plain::tti�e::�.ersons: for .:voi.t:r::obiection::to::tfie: assessor .s.esti►r�afed:ixtarket:�ia. ue;:::::::::::::: �::: �: �: �: � : �: �: �: �: � ::�:�:�:�:�:�:�:�:�:�:�:�::: ASSE'SsE� vA�vE in�ceE.gsE 9y ,Z?z 7- Si.✓ce /999. >.P6.f7 y Nrj 0,.-S Al BY �Erlo >El %•vim vE6•tADdS DO/YE Ar Ti%-!E OF Afhvf .T11E //Cor4- .50LjJ. TyESA' WERE Po,,✓,,F �iieST l3 SE / /EQS 1-//Eiy VY d U E�PS. OST f/OUSES h�AVE a oVE TWPov" D(,�,e f%Ov.SE /.f DiyE of Two T�/f!T � /�9.r 0� /6�•v.�l Ot�J�✓f.Q. Ti1E q i Tiv�.q VF�L v� �f' yo �' /%y �✓E /�f/BOR�vo� 45 ?f/i.T �,QO PE.PTy f+�RS iV0 j 3Ef�t/ R�IO� /f /E' y� T. I DO HEREBY AFFIRM THAT THE ABOVE INFORMATION IS COMPLETE AND TRUE TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE AND BELIEF. / Signature of a licant: RETURN THIS APPLICATION TO THE EDINA ASSESSOR'S OFFICE BY MONDAY, APRIL 3, 2000. PLEASE ATTACH ANY DOCUMENTATION YOU FEEL WILL SUPPORT YOUR CASE. YOU WILL BE CONTACTED TO HAVE YOUR PROPERTY REVIEWED PRIOR TO THE SCHEDULED BOARD OF REVIEW MEETING. Miguel and Silvia Azar 6609 Field Way Edina- MN 55436 -1716 March 30, 2000 City of Edina Assessing Department City of Edina Assessor's Office 4801 West 50w Street Edina- MN 55424 -1394 Subject: Assessed value for 2001 PID 31- 117 -21 -24 -0016 We are requesting reevaluation by the Residential Board Review of the Limited Market Value assessed to our home at 6609 Field Way, Edina, MN. The Assessed value in the last 5 years has been increased on 38 %, twenty seven % since 1999. We purchased our home in 1972 at the time it was built for $ 125,000.00. Since then property taxes have increased at a reasonable rate. However since 1999 to this date the increase of taxable value jumped 27,2 %. We enclose a graph showing the rate of increase and percent of change. While the average prices of our neighborhood homes are on an upward trend, besides location value there are two other reasons for higher home values: Improvements and additions. With one of two exceptions, Park wood Knolls homes have changed ownership at least two or three times. Our home at 6609 Field Way remains under the original owner and has not had any enlargement, renovations or upgrading other than an electric circuits /fire protection project necessitated in 1998. We consider the above statement should be considered when assessing our property. We request the value of $ 396,000 assessed by Mr. Michael DePesa be strongly weighted on your consideration. Sincerely yours, C. " Miguel M. Azar Silvia H. Azar Market value 6609 Field Way $450,000 $40,0,000 $350,000. $300;000 $250,000 w rl� CO m o T rn rn rn rn o 0 rn rn rn rn o 0 T T T T N N Percent of increase of assessed value 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 cc . r- CO rn o T rn rn rn rn o 0 rn rn rn CD o 0 T T T N N .•O� Rgq<� -. W A 9 QUj ENT A G� The DePesa Group REALTORS® Edina Realty December 03, 1999 Attention: City of Edina Assessing Department Subject: Assessed value change from 1999 to 2000 The above subject property estimated assessment has been increased from an amount for 1999 of $334,000 to an amount in 2000 to equal $396,000. The assessed values in previous years were as follows: 1998 - $328,000 1997 - $328,000 1996 - $312,400 1995 - $294,700 The purpose of this letter is to appeal to the assessor in charge to reconsider the year 2000 assessment value based on some background information on the property. Many homes in this neighborhood and the surrounding area have been extensively renovated or updated. This is not true of the subject property. The subject property's kitchen has been remodeled, but the rest of the home is very much in the original condition as it was when this owner (original owner) purchased this home. The siding of the house is deteriorating. The landscaping is very old and there have been no expansions. Based on this information we feel the subject property does not deserve the higher assessed value that some of the surrounding homes may be receiving. We feel an increase of approximately 5% would be fair and reasonable. Sincerely, V Michael DePesa Realtor since 1984 Edina Realty 4015 West 65th Street • Edina • Minnesota • 55435 • Office 612 - 927.1100 • Fax 612 - 927 -2836 aQ Case # 13 City of Edina Board of Review Riau j y"y'"d` r Assessor's Commentary Property I.D. Number: 05- 116 -21 -14 -0006 Date: 4/10/2000 Property Address: 6417 LIMERICK DRIVE Owner /Agent Name: ANTHONY AND POLLY MITCHELL 2000 EMV Requested Value Recommended Value 195,800 180,000 195,800 Comments: Case number 13 through 18 all have the same concern as case number 1 and 6. Please refer to the commentaries for both of those cases for additional information. The only additional data which may be relevant are several comments from an appraisal completed on July 17, 1998 and provided by Debra Neuger. In that appraisal, in both the Site Comments and External Obsolescence section, the appraiser observes that due to the depth and wooded features of the lot negative influence from the existing railway is minimized. The Canadian Pacific Railroad has been in existence for many years and buyers and sellers have reacted to that condition. The feasibility study is currently a political animal and to remain unbiased we must stay out of that arena. As appraisers, we can only react to changes in the market. When and if the market recognizes any change in value due to the High speed Commuter Rail Feasibility Study we will recognize it in the upcoming assessment. Value 1999 $ 61,800 $ 114,600 $ 176,400 History 1998 $ 38,800 $ 118,700 $ 157,500 1997 $ 38,800 $ 115,700 $ 154,500 Sale . Mar -96 $ 154,000 History Sep -81 $ 113,500 Mar -70 $ 43,700 City of Edina 4801 West 50th Street Edina, MN. 55424 -1394 Phone: (612) 826 -0365 Fax: (612) 826 -0390 [TDD (Deaf Only): (612) 826 -0379] Board of Review Residential Request for Review Assessor's Office Application Date: - 00 Attach anv supporting documentation Owner Name: >� ��- Owner Address: &q/ L1 Home Phone Number: V 7- %�� 2 Business Phone Number: 7z % " %2 Zb Property Address: L.� LX4 102 3 Assessor's estimated market value for January 2, 2000: C� / 9PP• U Total J C Land: Buildings: I believe the estimated market value on January 2, 2000 should be: Land: Buildings: Total: ;Fp, 00 • i71-? Purchase Date: - '- -I -tl/ - - Total purchase -price (land & bldgs.): - oa - -- Year Built: House: Garage: Additions (Explain): Condition of Structures (Explain): Description & value of additions and improvements since your purchase of this property: ...... ............................... . ' is :::::::::::::::::::: ` `::::.:::: Professional A . praisai5..... (Please attach a::c:opy:of: any recent ap raise........... . Appraisal Date Indicated Value: Ec:plam::ttie reas:o:ns for: our; objection to tie assessor:s:estir»ated : market:vaFue:::::.::' Es 12 Z05 f12q�iG�T' A�ivE, _ ANQ15 � UL � GOBI G� a4,q 6,T-A �M���� GvNr.4ot ✓ _ G��E N1A'I� S AC -0 I DO HEREBY AFFIRM THAT THE ABOVE INFORMATION IS COMPLETE AND TRUE TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE AND BELIEF. 01.1-- ` 3 d� Signature of applicant: RETURN THIS APPLICATION TO THE EDINA ASSESSOR'S OFFICE BY MONDAY, APRIL 3, 2000. PLEASE ATTACH ANY DOCUMENTATION YOU FEEL WILL SUPPORT YOUR CASE. YOU WILL BE CONTACTED TO HAVE YOUR PROPERTY REVIEWED PRIOR TO THE SCHEDULED BOARD OF REVIEW MEETING. Case # 14 City of Edina Board of Review Assessor's Commentary Property I.D. Number: 05- 116 -21 -14 -0040 Date: 4/10/2000 Property Address:. 6505 LIMERICK DRIVE Owner /Agent Name: DUANE H AND DELPHY HAGLUND 2000 EMV Requested Value Recommended Value 202,600 160,000 202,600 Comments: Case number 13 through 18 all have the same concern as case number 1 and 6. Please refer to the commentaries for both of those cases for additional information. The only additional data which may be relevant are several comments from an appraisal completed on July 17, 1998 and provided by Debra Neuger. In that appraisal, in both the Site Comments and External Obsolescence section, the appraiser observes that due to the depth and wooded features of the lot negative influence from the existing railway is minimized. The Canadian Pacific Railroad has been in existence for many years and buyers and sellers have reacted to that condition. The feasibility study is currently a political animal and to remain unbiased we must stay out of that arena. As appraisers, we can only react to changes in the market. When and if the market recognizes any change in value due to the High speed Commuter Rail Feasibility Study we will recognize it in the upcoming assessment. Value 1999 $ 61,800 $ 112,800 $ 174,600 History 1998 $ 38,800 $ 117,100 $ 155,900 1997 $ 38,800 $ 114,100 $ 152,900 Sale Mar -72 $ 42,400 History Aug -69 $ 42,500 City of Edina Assessor's Office 4801 West 50th Street Edina, MN. 55424 -1394 P.I.D. # 0 S / /(, Z/- 1 —444Q Phone: (612) 826 -0365 Fax: (612) 826 -0390 [TDD (Deaf Only): (612) 826 -0379] Board of Review Residential Request for Review Date Returned: 4 - 3 - 0 Received By: K e 0,tA :::::::::s For._offi Time: 00 I'Yl Case # �l use.... ..n .y ........................... Application Date: Y Attach any supporting documentation oil c `' Owner Name: 71 e -� -� Owner Address: Home Phone Number: ! `� f' ' ( �l Business Phone Number: Property Address: Assessor's estimated market value for January 2, 2000: Land: Buildings: Total:C� I believe the estimated market value on January 2, 2000 should be: Land: Buildings: Total: , Purchase Date: - - - -� -- Total purchase-price land -& bld s. C - -- P P ( g )------- - - - - -- `'�� -S Year Built: House: /q'' Garage: (�/',4 Additions (Explain):''L f'liuJ _ / Condition of Structures (Explain):- — Description & value of additions an�mprovements since your purchase of 10s property: ;.: Professidiial.A praisais::::.. fPtea$e attach1a cop of.a'ny ret~e:nt ap faisa s .............. Appraisal Date: Indicated Value: .ssessor' estirriated market. value::::: >.: Explain the reas:o:ns tor. our,:ob]ection to the: a s: ic DO HEREBY AFFIRM 11 HAT THE ABOVEJMf O ATIO I C M�LETE f�p�TRUE TO T+i - -t F M c.cA� ���'�+F``'"� KNOWLEDGE AND BELIEF. Cx Signature of applicant: RETURN THIS APPLICATION TO THE EDIN ASSESSOR'S OFF I Y MONDAY, APRIL 3, 2000. PLEASE ATTACH ANY DOCUMENTATION OU FEEL WILL SUPPORT YOUR CASE. YOU WILL BE CONTACTED TO HAVE YOUR PROPERTY REVIEWED PRIOR TO THE SCHEDULED BOARD OF REVIEW MEETING. IS J% Case # 15 City of Edina Board of Review } Assessor's Commentary Property I.D. Number: 05- 116 -21 -11 -0070 Date: 411012000 Property Address:: 6201 HANSEN ROAD Owner /Agent Name: WAYNE LU AND JEAN JIANG 2000 EMV Requested Value Recommended Value 200,900 190,000 200,900 Comments: Case number 13 through 18 all have the same concern as case number 1 and 6. Please refer to the commentaries for both of those cases for additional information. The only additional data which may be relevant are several comments from an appraisal completed on July 17, 1998 and provided by Debra Neuger. In that appraisal, in both the Site Comments and External Obsolescence section, the appraiser observes that due to the depth and wooded features of the lot negative influence from the existing railway is minimized. The Canadian Pacific Railroad has been in existence for many years and buyers and sellers have reacted to that condition. The feasibility study is currently a political animal and to remain unbiased we must stay out of that arena. As appraisers, we can only react to changes in the market.. When and if the market recognizes any change in value due to the High speed Commuter Rail Feasibility Study we will recognize it in the upcoming assessment. Value 1999 $ 59,600 $ 126,400 $ 186,000 History 1998 $ 34,600 $ 131,500 _ $ 166,100 1997 $ 34,600 $ 123,900 $ 158,500 Sale Dec -96 $ 172,000 History Aug -92 $ 171,000 Feb -84 $ 130,300 FROM : DIMENSION INDUSTRIES PHONE NO. : 6124253641 prom' WenE LU, SUf,C6}'.Ap'!19_'.[000 E'3:F'M -o' y 0. 3 /aa,,o0 of s5 FiX E12 Sgt G2E0 '..tY OF ELl'+A Apr. 0S 2000 12 :3JPM P2 F'bLe 2 of 2 Z D02 City of Edina Assessor's Office 4130' WBS: 60tr, Sttwt UinE, .WN. 6&42d -1aE4 P�nr.ci: (1: 2) 528•'X-83 Faz'. (8'2) E26 -0390 i DO (Gwi O!`dy): (612} 226- .��7Bj B ® of —RAYJAW PA$ld&M W iLgUGk for Rev :ew RETURN -4m[S APPLICATION TC THE EDINA ASSESSOR'S OFI;rE BY MONDAY. APRIL 9, 2000. P',.EASE GT'ACH AVY DOtUVAENTAIt0N YOU FEEL WILL SUPPORT YOUR CAGCC YOU WILL BE CONTACTED TO 1- lA'vtr YOUR FRO PERT"' aEVjEr +0 PFc10RT0 T1-[E SCHEDULED SCARD OF REVIEW MEETING. FROM : DIMENSION INDUSTRIES PHONE NO. : 6124250641 Apr. 03 2000 12:33PM P1 1 ;rem: Way Fr age' Lu. Pge' I of 2 Suna3y. /:pill 0 %. ?000 6:3i PM 'o' ,�k /2 /c C, v Ms • u,, �e, h � ``''L . �— ic.c 1p Ml( waj-oz la IL4 6,1,A �— ic.c 1p Ml( waj-oz la Case # 16 City of Edina � Board of Review h Assessor's Commentary Property I.D. Number: 28- 117 -21 -24 -0061 Date: 4/10/200 0 Property Address: 5048 EDINBROOK LANE Owner /Agent Name: BURTON AND MARJORIE RUEDY 2000 EMV �� Requested Value Recommended Value 1� 153,900 ` 1 ? 153,900 Comments: Case number 13 through 18 all have the same concern as case number 1 and 6. Please refer to the commentaries for both of those cases for additional information. The only additional data which may be relevant are several comments from an appraisal completed on July 17, 1998 and provided by Debra Neuger. In that appraisal, in both the Site Comments and External Obsolescence section, the appraiser observes that due to the depth and wooded features of the lot negative influence from the existing railway is minimized. The Canadian Pacific Railroad has been in existence for many years and buyers and sellers have reacted to that condition. The feasibility study is currently a political animal and to remain unbiased we must stay out of that arena. As appraisers, we can only react to changes in the market. When and if the market recognizes any change in value due to the High speed Commuter Rail Feasibility Study we will recognize it in the upcoming assessment. Value 1999 $ 50,500 $ 91,300 $ 141,800 History 1998 $ 29,500 $ 101,800 $ 131,300 1997 $ 29,500 $ 98,000 $ 127,500 Sale Sep -78 $ 67,000 History City of Edina Assessor's Office c 4801 West 50th Street Edina, MN. 55424 -1394 Phone: (612) 826 -0365 Fax: (612) 826 -0390 [TDD (Deaf Only): (612) 826 -03791 Board of Review Residential Request for Review P.I.D.# 2A - 7- 21- 29— OQ)�PI1 Date Returned: 4-3-00 Time: 4 U Received By: rl�c���► ICase # .:.:..'. :..:..:.'.:.'.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.. n .. . For office use o y :.....:.....:........ . Application Date: Attach any supporting documentation Owner Name: i3u TGl✓ L Owner Address: Sv � Home Phone Number: S Business Phone Number: Property Address: 5,q in F Assessor's estimated market value for January 2, 2000: Land: Buildings: Total: I believe the estimated market value on January 2, 2000 should be: Land: Buildings: Total: - Purchase Date: - -f�4 (Total purchase -price (land Year Built: House: Garage:4,U Additions (Explain): Condition of Structures (Explain): o Description & value of additions and improvements since your purchase of this property: Professional:A attach a cope: 46y: iecent ap faisa. s .............. Appraisal Date: Indicated Value: E .;ftie re.as:ons f or our:.object.on 4o ffie assessor' esti ......d/markef:value ::::::::::::::::: -s(�/ cG � �4'.= ir'u"„""� t- L"�GL�'YV�"�^'�./`�. '�/'�• i7 /%- ,r/2'�G: Ic- cjfTli�a� G.�t -C /l„ - ;!lam_ {� eL r � I DO HEREBY AFFIRM THAT THE ABOVE INFORMATION IS COMPLETE AND TRUE TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE AND BELIEF. -7 Signature of applicant: c��c� =�� U RETURN THIS APPLICATION TO THE EDINA ASSESSOR'S OFFICE BY MONDAY, APRIL 3, 2000. PLEASE ATTACH ANY DOCUMENTATION YOU FEEL WILL SUPPORT YOUR CASE. YOU WILL BE CONTACTED TO HAVE YOUR PROPERTY REVIEWED PRIOR TO THE SCHEDULED BOARD OF REVIEW MEETING. Case # 17 City of Edina Board of Review Assessor's Commentary Property I.D. Number: 32- 117 -21 -44 -0003 Date: 4/10/2000 Property Address: 6124 HANSEN ROAD Owner /Agent Name: DEBRA A NEUGER AND WILLIAM J MCCABE 2000 EMV Requested Value Recommended Value 186,300 172,500 186,300 Comments: Case number 13 through 18 all have the same concern as case number 1 and 6. Please refer to the commentaries for both of those cases for additional information. The only additional data which may be relevant are several comments from an appraisal completed on July 17, 1998 and provided by Debra Neuger. In that appraisal, in both the Site Comments and External Obsolescence section, the appraiser observes that due to the depth and wooded features of the lot negative influence from the existing railway is minimized. The Canadian Pacific Railroad has been in existence for many years and buyers and sellers have reacted to that condition. The feasibility study is currently a political animal and to remain unbiased we must stay out of that arena. As appraisers, we can only react to changes in the market. When and if the market recognizes . any change in value due to the High speed Commuter Rail Feasibility Study we will recognize it in the upcoming assessment. Value 1999 $ 58,900 $ 113,600 $ 172,500 History 1998 $ 33,900 $ 131,900 $ 165,800 1997 $ 33,900 $ 126,300 $ 160,200 Sale Jul -99 $ 172,500 History City of Edina Assessor's Office 4801 West 50th Street Edina, MN. 55424 -1394 P.I.D. # 3 Z - / 0 1 - z- - y �(- 4 o O 3 Phone: (612) 826 -0365 Fax: (612) 826 -0390 [TDD (Deaf Only): (612) 826 -03791 Board of Review Residential Request for Review Date Returned: - 3 - 0 O ;Time: . OU Received B <"", Case # u : ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: nl `:. :::::for off'itO: usev.. y: Application Date: 4 - 3 - 00 Attach an s ippoprting documentation e r c1 ' ''^ �J . /A c e C. Owner Name: e 6 �, e T a . W Owner Address: & ( 20 C A 1 �� Home Phone Number: & / Z -9 2-9 -71 -2- 0 Business Phone Number: CP i Z Property Address: 4 ( - -q 14 z145 e h RU Assessor's estimated market value for January 2, 2000: Land: Buildings: Total: ISP491 300 I believe the estimated market value on January 2, 2000 should be: Land: Buildings: Total: 7 Z D Purchase Date:- -7- - -Cl- t- - (Total purchase -price (land & bldgs.): -- -7 Z- - - -D_d - - - -- - Year Built: House: �'�� Garage: 1°►5S Additions (Explain): �- Condition of Structures (Explain): A ve,rz e- Description & value of additions and improvements since your purchase of this property: D b faith e� 4tA ar,,4ct c osm tu e ,4 ce4 I u p✓,ovew -en n o a��egr ✓a�ue uti����o ......... ............................... as :::::::::::::::::: .:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.::.:.:.::::::: Professional.A praisals. . .. :.(Pile.ase attach.a crop of: =any recen:ap r:atsa ................ . Appraisal Date: ., (L/ �l g Indicated Value: �O S O Dfi Explain ttie reasons: for.:. our: ob�ecti,orrto:ff a as. lessor's; estUrraated market: value;: ..... .. ......:.:..............:: rwr o N l euc8✓'N w i tie sscssH,s fti pre uw- feo� D r I ►'� C �'' 2s C ac �+c t IS e Q� VC A a ! t4l J ✓` �c L� 0 itGr i f 0 �s W �vLOk C6M r �/'ZT��"r 1C0 !ne 0 2 u Ort /y 10 - ,\ ale ;, �1 k ave keem y-c(tI.,5'ed 4M 74V e I DO HEREBY AFFIRM THAT THE ABOVE INFORMATION IS COMPLETE AND TRUE TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE AND BELIEF. Signature of applicant: RETURN THIS APPLICATION TO THE EDINA ASSESSOR'S OFFICE BY MONDAY, APRIL 3, 2000. PLEASE ATTACH ANY DOCUMENTATION YOU FEEL WILL SUPPORT YOUR CASE. YOU WILL BE CONTACTED TO HAVE YOUR PROPERTY REVIEWED PRIOR TO THE SCHEDULED BOARD OF REVIEW MEETING. Residential Research, Inc. rile No. 4123554 'APPRAISAL OF SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING LOCATED AT: 6124 Hansen Road Edina, MN 55436 FOR: Lorraine Neuger 6124 Hansen Road Edina, MN 55436 AS OF: July 17, 1998 BY: Paul Grace, SRA Residential Research, Inc. July 22, 1998 Lorraine Neuger 6124 Hansen Road Edina, MN 55436 File Number: #23554. Tile No. 112 Dear Ms. Neuger: In accordance with yo,�ur request, I have personally inspected and appraised the real property at: 6124 Hansen Road Edina, MN 55436 The purpose of this aPprai;al is to estimate the market value of the subject property, as improved. The property rights appraised are the fee simple interest in the site and improvements. In my opinion, the estimated market value of the property as of July 17, 1998, is: One Hundred Sixty -Five Thousand Dollars ($165,000) The attached report contains the description, analysis and supportive data for the conclusions, final estimate of value:, descriptive photographs, limiting conditions and appropriate certifications. Sincerely, Paul Grace, SRA Residential Research, Inc. file No. #2 NEIGHBORHOOD BOUNDARIES AND CHARACTERISTICS: The immediate neighborhood boundaries appear to be Hansen Road to the west, Vernon Avenue to the north, Mate Highway 100 to the east, and State Highway 62 to the south. This area measures approximately 1 /2 square mile. The surrounding areas of Edina comprise the larger market area. NEIGHBORHOOD FACTORS THAT AFFECT MARKETABILITY: The subject property is located in an area of good demand in the central section of Edina, which is approximately 5 -10 miles southwest of the Minneapolis downtown area. The area consists mainly of single family residences which are similar in age and style. The subject property conforms well wi,.h the surrounding properties. Shopping facilities, schools, and public transportation acre ]ccated at convenient distances. Area recreational facilities include Braemar: Park and Golf Course. Freeway access is via State Highways 100 and 62, which are located within 1/2 mike. SITE COMMENTS: The subject property its an cast facing inside lot which slopes to the rear to permit a lower level walkout: There is a cbncrcte driveway, steps, and front stoop. The site is landscaped with shrubs, trees, wood chips, and timbers. No apparent easements or encroachments exist. The site backs up to a section of the Soo Line Railroad track which is used twice per day on weekdays during business ]lours for very short trains. The site is deep and is wooded along the railroad track, which minimizes any negative influences. The site also fronts on Hansen Road, a through street for the area, and a minor degree of associated traffic influence is exhibited. ADDITIONAL FEA "CURES: 40 gallon gas water heater; water softener; furnace humidifier; 100 amp electrical service; lower level family roqm with wet bar, built -in cabinetry, and brick fireplace with glass doors; built -in desks, shelving, drawers, cabinets, and bunk beds in the lower level bedroom; coved ceilings in the foyer, living room, and dining room; brick fireplace with glass doors in the living room; ceiling f<<ns in the dining room, dinette, and bedrooms; 532 sq. ft. patio. CONDITION OF T11E MIPROVEMENTS: The subject property is a multi -level split design with approximately 1306 square feet of above grade living rea. The garage consists of a built -in portion (240 square feet) and an attached portion (336 square feet). I have been informed that due to damage from a recent storm, the asphalt shingle roof covering will be replaced. The interior surfaces throughout exhibit generally average overall condition. The attached portion of the garage has a flat roof covering with a rolled composition material which appears to be in a deteriorated condition. The drywall walls and ceilings in the interior of the attached portion of the garage exhibit evidence of seepage aiid water damage. Overall utility appears average with adequate room sizes, ample closet spice, and an efficient floor plan. No functional obsolescence was noted. External Obsolescenge: As stated earlier, the subject property fronts on Hansen Road, a through street for the area, and exhibits a minor traffic influence. Also stated earlier, the subject site backs up to a section of the Soo Line Railroad track. This section of track is very lightly used`and the lot is deep and wooded along the: track, which minimizes any negative associated influence. ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS: Va1ir211l.n C.,flnn UNIFORM RESIDENTIAL APPRAISAL REPORT Flt. Nn 112'49;9;4 ESTIMATED SITE VALUE .......................... - E 60 000 ESTIMATED REPRODUCTION COST-NEW OF IMPROVEMENTS: Dwelling 1 .306 Sq. Ft. e S 6.00 - E 84,890 Bsmt . 130 Sq. Ft. a $ 18.00 - 23,508 BsmtFin.Fplcs,Apincs,Pat'io - 30,000 Garage /carport Blt in Sq. Ft. e E InBase - TotafEstimatedCostNew ................. - E 138,398 Less Physical Functional E:xte,mal - Depreciation 0 000 0 __$0 - $ 30,000 Depreciated Value of Improvements ........... ....... - $ 108,198 'As -is' Value of Site Improvements ........... ....... - E 5,0001 INDICATED VALUE BY COST APPROACH .... ....... - 173. 400 Comments on Cost Approach (such as, source of cost estimate, site value, square fool calculation and for HUD. VA and FmHA, the estimated remaining economic life of the properly): See Attached Addendum. ITEM I SUBJECT COMPARABLE NO. 1 COMPARABLE NO. 2 COMPARABLE NO. 3 6124 Hansen Road Address Edina _ 6208 Hansen Road Edina 5329 Maddox Lane Edina 5721 Dale Avenue Edina Proximity to Sub act Block South 1 Block South 115 Mile Northeast Sales Price N/ :', E 177,500.. '. ?:; `:'... ' : E 184.000 E 200,000 Price /Gross Liv. Area S 0.000 118.81 R1 E 110.64 E 163.800: Data and /or Verification Sources Assessor/ Ins eetion _ MLS /Assessor MLS /Assessor MLS /Assessor /Files VALUE ADJUSTMENTS _ DESCRIPTION DESCRIPTION I Adju3 tment DESCRIPTION - 3 AdjusIment DESCRIPTION SAd' 3tment Sales or Financing 9 Concessions '> Conventional: ; 7 0 o C o Seller Conventional:: e e 09,toS11 r Conventional:: e ler 07 ,toSl Date of Sale /Time N1' >< > ? >`< Closed 8- Closed 2- 8 Closed 10- Localion Suburban /Coo uburban /Good: Suburban /Good' Suburban /Good; Leasehold/Fee Simple Fee Simple Fee Sim le Fee Simple Fee Sim le Site _ 1 184 SF /Trfc 18 ,50 SF /Trfc; 10880 SF /Trfc; 11365 SF /Su -2,000 View Residential 'Residential Residential ' Residential Design and Appeal MultiLvl /Coo Rambler /Good MultiLvl /Good MultiLvl /Good cuaiity ofcomtru tion Average/Good' Avera a /Good Average/Good Average/Good A e 1958 136L 1957 1 Condition Average SuDerior -10,000 Su erior -5,000 Su erior -20 000 Above Grade Room Count Gross Livinq Area Total ' Bdrms ' Baths Total ; Bdrms : Baths 6 '-_ 3 ' 1.75 ; -2,000 1,494 S . Ft. -4,700 Total ; Bdrms ' Baths 8 3 1. -2,000 1 66 Sq. Ft. -8.900 Total ' Bdrms ' Baths 5 1 1 221 Sq. Ft. +2.100 6 3 1 06 Sq. Fl. Basement BFinished - Rooms Below Grade 1306 SF, WO 3-1-.75 900SF1-0-.75 1494 SF, WO OOSF, -4.000 1663 SF, WO 2-0-.75 826SF' 1152 SF, WO 3-1-.75 8 0SF: Functional Utility Good Good Good Good ' Healing/Cooling Healing/Cooling Gas FHA Gas C /Air: -1,500 Gas FHA C /Air; -1,500 Gas FHA C /Air: -1.500 - Energy Efficient Items Standard _FHA Standard Standard Standard Garage/Carport 2 Car Cara e 2 Gar Garage 2 Car Caralize 2 Car Garage Porch, Patio. Deck. Fire laces etc. Patio 2 Fire laces Deck -1,000 2 Fireplaces Deck -1,000 2 Fireplaces None +500 2 Fireplaces ; Fence Pool etc. _ Secs stem -1,000 Secs stem -1,000 Kit. Eqqip. A liances _ A liances A liances A liances Net Ad . total :?:::'.`.'.`.;:`. ";'.:;: ?:'''' .' :::: — X - ; S 1 200 , X - S 1 400 + X - ; S 21 00 I Price AdI �usted Se es of Com arable ::. :. S 162 00 :: >?�`:::'.'.:<`'.':';;'.:` >�> S 16416 0 1 8 100 Comments on Sales Comparison(Including'1he subject property's compatibility to the neighborhood, etc. ): See Attached Addendum. ITEM SUBJECT COMPARABLE NO. 1 COMPARABLE NO. 2 COMPARABLE NO.3 Dale, Price and Data Source for prior sates wilNn arofa sisal _ No record of sale during ast 12 mos. _ o record of sale during past 12 mos. er Henna in Count No record of sale during past 12 mos. er Henna in Count No record of sale during past 12 mos. er Henna in Count Analysis of arty current agreement of sale, optii )n, or li:ling of the subject property and analysis of any prior sales o1 subject and comparables within one year of the dale of appraisal: See Attached Addendum. _ INDICATED VALUE BY SALES COMPARISON APPROACH ...................... ............................... E 16 000 INDICATED VALUE BY INCOME APPROACH (If Applicable) Estimated Market Rent S N/A /Mo. x Gross Rent Multiplier N/A = S N/A This appraisal Is made 'as is' subject to the repairs, alterations, inspections or conditions listed below subject to completion per plans and specifications. Case # 18 City of Edina Board of Review Assessor's Commentary Property I.D. Number: 28- 117 -21 -24 -0062 Date: 4/10/2000 Property Address: 5044 EDINBROOK LANE Owner /Agent Name: ELIZABETH T JENSON 2000 EMV Requested Value Recommended Value 158,400 129,000 158,400 Comments: Case number 13 through 18 all have the same concern as case number 1 and 6. Please refer to the commentaries for both of those cases for additional information. The only additional data which may be relevant are several comments from an appraisal completed on July 17, 1998 and provided by Debra Neuger. In that appraisal, in both the Site Comments and External Obsolescence section, the appraiser observes that due to the depth and wooded features of the lot negative influence from the existing railway is minimized. The Canadian Pacific Railroad has been in existence for many years and buyers and sellers have reacted to that condition. The feasibility study is currently a political animal and to remain unbiased we must stay out of that arena. As appraisers, we can only react to changes in the market. When and if the market recognizes any change in value due to the High speed Commuter Rail Feasibility Study we will recognize it in the upcoming assessment. Value 1999 $ 50,500 $. 90,900 $ 141,400 History 1998 $ 29,500 $ 101,500 $ 131,000 1997 $ 29,500 $ 97,700 $ 127,200 Sale History City of Edina Assessor's Office 4801 West 50th Street Edina, MN. 55424 -1394 Phone: (612) 826 -0365 Fax: (612) 826 -0390 [TDD (Deaf Only): (612) 826 -0379] Board of Review Residential Request for Review Application Date: Attach an supporting documentation Owner Name: Owner Address: 5044 Edinbrook Lane Home Phone Number: Business Phone Number: (952) 926-1615 Property Address: Assessor's estimated market value for January 2, 2000: Land: Buildings: Total: 1 I believe the estimated market value on January 2, 2000 should be: Land: Buildings: Total: 1 Purchase Date. - _ - (Total purchase -price (land & bldgs.):- Year Built: House: 1952 Garage:1952 Additions (Explain): }none Condition of Structures (Explain) : Kitchen needs updating. Concrete garage floor & drive- Description & value of additions and improvements since your purchase of this property: need replac Replacement of plumbing fixtures Mechanical ' .............. .... ..................:::::::::...........:.....:.:.......................:.:.:.:.:.:.>..::::.:. :.:.:.:.:_:.:..`.:.:.:.:.:.:.:. js :::::: :::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ::::::::::::::::::::::::::: Pro fessional:A praisais :...(F�ease.attac.h:a.cop :of.a.ny lece.nt:ap rasa ................... Appraisal Date: Indicated Value: Explain the reasons for.: our, objegV0h:to;t.he assessor,.s estlrr±ated:market:�ra . ............. ............................... MNDOT & Metro Council Dan Patch Corridor Feasibility F)tiid)4- T must. der-hare.— upon listing property for sale. Edinbrook Addition has ONE entrance that is crossing the RR tracks. If this crossing ig 'h1nr1,Pd fire !R, Police vrotecti_on is a vital concern; I DO HEREBY AFFIRM THAT THE ABOVE INFORMATION IS COMPLETE AND TRUE TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE AND BELIEF. r Signature of applicant• V RETURN THIS APPLICATION TO THE EDINA ASSESSOR'S OFFICE BY MONDAY, APRIL 3, 2000. PLEASE ATTACH ANY DOCUMENTATION YOU FEEL WILL SUPPORT YOUR CASE. YOU WILL BE CONTACTED TO HAVE YOUR PROPERTY REVIEWED PRIOR TO THE SCHEDULED BOARD OF REVIEW MEETING. M Case # 19 City of Edina (»� Board of Review 4J 2 }a. S'x"'sT,2! 9 t ��.a �'�'Y!'�?t �'�' 4.t� •�'�' ��! ' 'k.ati a� € a?��i�� � r�� iw.eYd.:a,v.d'.f:.� �r.'� t•a. 6 � Assessor's Commentary Property LD. Number: 31- 028 -24 -14 -0001 Date: 4/5/2000 Property Address: 7200 FRANCE AVENUE SOUTH Owner /Agent Name: TEAM FRANCE PARTNERSHIP / WAYNE RICE 2000 EMV Requested Value Recommended Value $2,969,000 $2,000,000 $2,635,400 Comments: The subject property is a three story office building located on the southwest corner of 72nd Street and France Avenue. The site is level and about one story below street grade. The building has second floor entrances from France Avenue and 72nd Street and a first floor entrance at the west side from the parking lot which is below street grade. The building was built in 1967 and 1968. There are three generally accepted approaches to value, Income Capitalization, Market Data, and the Depreciated Replacement Cost Approaches. The property was valued using the Income. Approach and the Market Approach. The Depreciated Replacement Cost Approach generally is best used with newer buildings. Therefore, because of the age of this subject property, it was not considered. For the Income Approach, Mr. Rice provided a summary income and expense statement. It was reviewed and reorganized in accordance with standard appraisal practices. Some adjustments were made to to market rate rents. The net operating income was capitalized at 11.0 %. Of the recent sales of similar office building properties, six property sales were considered. Of those, two are considered to be the best indicators of the value of the subject. Mr. Rice, a partner and part owner of the subject, is out of town until April 12, 2000, and can not be contacted. Attempts were made to contact another partner for a response but a response was not made. Because of the above, I recommend that the Estimated Market Value be reduced to $2,635,400. The petitioner may still appeal to the County Board of Equalization. The income and expense statements that were provided are to be considered confidential and not for public disclosure as per state statute. Value 1999 $ 2,511,000 History 1998 $ 2,000,000 1997 $ 1,368,400 Sale The last sale was in 1993 for $475,000. It is given little weight because of the age of the History sale and the greatly changed market conditions since the sale occured • • 7200 France Avenue South, Edina SKETCH /AREA TABLE ADDENDUM C'acPNn 31-028.24.14 -0001 No Property Address 7200 FRAN City EDINA Borrower 0 0 N (O MOREAU SANKEY HENNEPIN State MN Zip 55435 Appr Address CITY OF EDIN FRANCE AVENUE N 104.00' FOUNDATION DIMENSIONS E W S oI 0 co 7200 FRANCE AVENUE SOUTH, EDINA, MINNESOTA Scale: 1 = 30 AREA CALCULATIONS SUMMARY Area Name of Area Size Totals GBA1 First Floor 13158.0000 L3158.0000 TOTAL BUILDING (rounded) 13158 APEX SOFTWARE WD -&%OM BUILDING AREA BREAKDOWN Breakdown Subtotals First Floor 63.00 x 89.00 5607.0000 4.00 x 37.00 148.0000 13.00 x 45.00 585.0000 10.00 x 37.00 370.0000 62.00 x 104.00 6448.0000 5 Areas Total (rounded) 13158 Apx7100 -w Apexll 03/29/00 15:54 FAX 612 826 0390 CITY OF EDINA 16002 City of Edina Assessor's Office 4801 West 50th Street Edina, MN. 55424 -1394 Phone: (612) 826 -0365 Fax- (612) 826 -0390 [TDD (Deaf Only) (612) 826 -0379] Board of Review Request for Review APPLICATION CONTINUED ON BACK. PLEASE COMPLETE THE REVERSE SIDE OF t H15 ruKm. RETURN THIS APPLICATION TO THE EDINAASSESSOR'S OFFICE BY MONDAY, APRIL 3,2000- 03/29/00 15:54 FAX 612 826 0390 CITY OF EDINA 0 003 for ro p ert o Application ther than residential, continued - Tye. ot. r•o ert please: c. heck;:'.:.:.`. ....... *.::::::;:... ` :::::: ::::.:.>:.:.:::;:.:.:::::: ........... . ........ . . . . . ... . Apartment Office Warehouse Motel /Hotel Commercial Industrial Other (describe : .If�ari a arttr►ent:co.rri•.lete, h No. of Eff. units No. of 1 -Bdrm units No. of 2 -Bdrm units �^ Rent/unit: Rent/unit: Rent/unit: No. of 3 -Bdrm units _ No. of 4 -Bdrm units Pool /Party room: Pent/unit: RenUunit: — Other: ' ;Fire �msurance co.... - Amount: _ Carrier: Is any part of the real prcpe NOT owned by you? ase explain: leeslri tlie;j�ro"ert aeas.e tom Iefeahis: eCfion :': lessee: v' !u LT r r I i✓/� of lessee: rAdd the lease start ?: Amount of the lease: the lea se: ny leasehold improvements: fhe ri+ erf renfed leiase:catii 1Vf .this.SeCtion tfecMo' p'ratin 'a.tafetrtertts F nnual gross potential rent: F INeO�+rFi S�'ATI; r1ual unreimbursed expenses: xplain if the tenant pays any taxes (full or partial), insurance, maintenance, etc: In support of Income information, please enclose a copy of income statements from all sources, operating expense statements and /or a copy of any leases. Indicate if a lease has been recorded. I AM THE OWNER/AGENT OF THE REAL PROPERTY DESCRIBED ON THE REVERSE SIDE OF THIS FORM, AND MY OPINION OF VALUE AS STATED ON THE REVERSE SIDE OF THIS FORM IS ACTUAL VALUE IN MONEY AS OF THE ASSESSMENT DATE OF JA UARY 2, 2000. 1 DO HEREBY AFFIRM THAT THE ABOVE INFORMATION IS COMPLETE AND TRUE TO T` BEST F MY KNOWLEDGE AND BELIEF. Signature of applicant: ✓ `�� RETURN THIS APPLICATION TO THE EDINA ASSESSOR'S REVIEWED EWER RIOR MONDAY. APRIL 3,2000. THE SCHEDULED BOARD OF YOU MAY BE CONTACTED TO HAVE YOU R PROPERTY REVIEW MEETING. • ov�oree Mar.28. 2.000 3 : 2 4 P M RICE PEAL ESTATE CO N0 7200 ON FRANCE January 1999 to December 1999 Income: Rent Collected S 489,173.25 Rent Allowences $ ' Laundry Income $ ' Other (Vending) $ 421.24 Total Income $ 469.594.49 Expenses: 100 Payroll $ 26,076.88 110 Supplles S 5,768.67 120 Electricity S 37,350.84 130 Water /Sewer $ 1,940.46 150 Hestln/Fuel $ 8.094.40 160 Mgrnt, Fee $ 28,176.$6 170 Other Admins Cost $ 8,312.19 180 Palnting /Decorating $ 20.654.48 190 Main /Repairs $ 32,343.20 200 Services $ 15,884.86 210 Misc, $ $63.27 220 Insurance $ 2,390,00. 230 Real Estate Taxes $ 101,674.91 240 Other Taxes. Fees, Permits $ Total Expenses S 287.428.82 Net Cperating income S 182 165,67 .28. 2000 3:24PM RICE PEAL ESTATE CO No 7 . �Itil1NSAC110N Feb. Mar. April May July Aug. Sept'. t� Oct. It , Nov.- Dec. TOTAL SCHI S "C" CAPITAL UreN rru.Ri:S !► lOUN r Carpet 1386.82 r Carpet: Carpe 803-05 Remodel 1978.00 Carpet C 457.37• Carpet 230.67 79.88 Carpet 2433.05 Carpet. Remodel 10,024.33 HVAC 14,107.00 Roof 36075.00 Carpet 1,168.40 2.407.61 Remodel 39573.00 Remodel 4,719.43 2, 544.86 Carpel. 82,288.47 Case # 20 City of Edina Board of Review Assessor's Commentary Property I.D. Number: 06- 116 -21 -33 -0054 Date: 4/10/2000 Property Address: 6705 SAMUEL RD Owner /Agent Name: DAN AND VIRGINIA LEACH 2000 EMV Requested Value Recommended Value 328,000 254,000 328,000 Comments: Dan and Virginia Leach have been owners at 6705 Samuel Road since May 10, 1991. They purchased the property for $203,000. Since purchase, in 1993 a permit was taken out for a kitchen remodel, owners did not. respond to notice left. We did not inspect the property. Then in 1998 a permit was taken out for an addition to house. A notice was left to inspect the property and owners did not respond. We measured and reviewed the plans, then estimated the value added for the addition. The home has 3 bedrooms, 3 baths, first floor family room (new). Main floor square footage is 2497. Upon receipt of application for the Board of Review we have made several attempts to contact the owners to make an inspection. We have not heard from Dan or Virginia. After reviewing the sales in the neighborhood, homes of similar style, size and location, the average sale price is $179 per square foot. After the cursory review, the comparables show a value of $350,000. We ask that the Board sustain the 2000 Estimated Market Value of $328,000. Value 1999 $ 75,000 $ 153,000 $ 228,000 History 1998 $ 47,000 $ 148,200 $ 195,200 1997 $ 47,000 $ 140,700 $ 187,700 Sale Mar -91 $ 203,000 History Feb -72 $ 53,000 Feb -68 $ 39,000 SKETCH /AREA TABLE ADDENDUM r, ni. novinnrA File No 06- 116 -21 -32 -0054 APEX SOFTWARE e0485&9M Apx71Mw ApexR City of Edina 4801 West 50th Street Edina, MN. 55424 -1394 Phone: (612) 826 -0365 Fax: (612) 826 -0390 [TDD (Deaf Only): (612) 826 -0379) Board of Review Residential Request for Review Assessor's Office Application Date: bj `JQ Q Attach an supporting documentation (� Owner Name: ' c r Owner Address: (6�1n,5 �(IMUL G Home Phone Number: Qy — 70 0 7 Business Phone Number: Property Address: Assessor's estimated market value for January 2, 2000: Q Land: Buildings: Total: I believe the estimated market value on January 2, 2000 should be: y� Land: Buildings: Total: 000 Purchase Date: Total purchase price (land & bldgs.): �• 6� l Year Built: House: 616J Garage: Additions (Explain): G �! Condition of Structures (Explain): //!`//k Gjebfl�fx�iYtrf�PlS� b��21'�'L5 Desc iption & value of additio s and improvements since your purchase of this property: L&-e" n drLd S 27`fucGt� cL- ..... . . ....... ........... ... .. . ... :::; ::::::::::::::::::::::: ...................... ..:.:.:...:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.: ....:.:.:::.:.:.:.:.:.:...:..:. �s ::::::::::.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.: .:.:.:.:.:.:.::::: P�ofes:sivnal A pra�sais:: :� �:� .(Please attach a:cop vf:a.riy reeent�ap ia. sa ................. ............................... Appraisal Date: Indicated Value: . .' .:.:.:.:.: .>.:.:.:.:.:.:.: . : Expa in. te:reason , .............. ........... . . ...m.. ..... . I DO HEREBY AFFIRM THAT THE ABOVE INFORMATION IS COMPLETE AND TRUE TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE AND BELIEF. Signature of applicant: 1 U RETURN THIS APPLICATION TO THE EDINA ASSESSOR'S OFFICE BY MONDAY, APRIL 3, 2000. PLEASE ATTACH ANY DOCUMENTATION YOU FEEL WILL SUPPORT YOUR CASE. YOU WILL BE CONTACTED TO HAVE YOUR PROPERTY REVIEWED PRIOR TO THE SCHEDULED BOARD OF REVIEW MEETING. Jim erRifte Homes 6345 Virginia Drive Excelsior, MST 55331 BILL TO DAN & GINGER LEACH 6705 SAMUEL. RD EDINA, MN 55439 Invoice DATE INVOICE # 01/18/1999 201 107 P.O. NO: TERMS PROJECT Due on receipt ITEM DESCRIPTION Est Amt Extras- AMOUNT REMODELING Remodeling Job Expenses Per Plan 49,168.00 Its been a pleasure worldng with you! . Total $49,168.00 I • n u 0 I } i Tn I���S ix, s�Klj a 2 le v-zi adc kv,,, a v I)ody, 4wftt( at +'K5 iv WSo1' o � NJ / u�a ((� i 1 'Lo-M IrGW1- 115 tiAa II i,i Lf iLs(Lf i vtjkf cif' Aft) t�u (.c' iw k.� koov & t 11 it W)haf We- -,zd&A UA.�? I& Ci Moin �.t7 qq� vN,• Gt -�, QG� '.0 Cin�O ��l2�b4'1'1 � fQ (�- �Q . Ih4ml of v�w --ky fwc--,, � 7c) 11)(Wa 5r ire G(o 1770 I ly fe <e. W (_a q 40 -35 7,,mcUCa5-Q evr 9c 1W LIC IIL+ P4f 6VtAOC"' Of -the -6tiki Izow our aV"t',5- VC-1 La -G/ �4 ur, wNJ be t qq,ci T\qc bL, Z,cm 2N 0cx-) X000 (oc1 ala (e 2000 2 15 , 0 (MIA LIVII h-W Mcillend i-im 1,rm f., -uv elb�f t -N (M VWI�6 9 Oil UA441d 1-77,100 MQ1 WO* t.qq 8 $ 1-700 m2 oybto t.gclq 1 1QCZ) I q iii ptftb( ,2 ()CD $ 228; 300 Gxo P---)�* 2001 32014co � 7c) 11)(Wa 5r ire G(o 1770 I ly fe <e. W (_a q 40 -35 7,,mcUCa5-Q evr 9c 1W LIC IIL+ P4f 6VtAOC"' Of -the -6tiki Izow our aV"t',5- VC-1 La -G/ �4 ur, wNJ be t qq,ci T\qc bL, Z,cm 2N 0cx-) X000 (oc1 ala (e 2000 2 15 , 0 (MIA LIVII h-W Mcillend i-im 1,rm f., -uv elb�f t -N (M VWI�6 9 Oil UA441d r� �VId in -�1�, la5f lo�D� `xtav��ul 4'Zd eA -64 330G -3E Civ,-, �lii ���lL vvovo 5d,d iv, 4wk qq 4�,too (0 7 1 e, , 9a t1n wl Pd, �otc4 ifl La a s -�v � I g4, �o� � q ia, �; S,e • A 1,V 4je\ a new KOiaii ve 0 a V.zW IIA moyl ve%wa�,l QFCIV 401j OYl ihP •�1.CU -� OvvX 5 f-X5 — 4 Nu,+ bet (19 +IV. �hrne M f1v .ntiatW I a1 4 1�..r14 hrn? ��l!Ji(i���'�" V✓�C�'FUV �P�VU�{ tJMG11,�15 Wii�'l(l�,f�' �� of�t�' �' ��c -p(� -For (o ►u��liis , 0 NY Vlel�l091111&1 c?t�, 69 &WI kwr hecl�u,,�e ob fafhc Lc �ficula�' A-6 �W!roz4N VOing pl*s lgctn d-kO m • �,e+r ill[.q��b�v{�l , -I le ��vte �+ �uuY -�.s � Sri, c� ��� �►u�' h.��l��� �s 2 to ��rnPS I. • bebecause 4 �v p rn� iv 1�6(• �wV flog i5 -IN, MaM cOWc.2M,M ORO �Wr � tj(�k,6 tyt �At in ow dt �, ��aM valL� ivy -ho ou r way aW j" hi� �qm 0$ aq wAav,t +h 't�,A�,tIwm $zlDDa 20,400 hai��e bt rea�e5se �� a more reasoriaGvC� • • Case # 21 City of Edina Board of Review Assessor's Commentary Property I.D. Number: 08- 116 -21 -31 -0075 Date: 4/10/2000 Property Address: 5700 LONG BRAKE TRAIL Owner /Agent Name: PRAKASH AND KAMALA V PURAM 2000 EMV Requested Value Recommended Value 775,500 700,000 800,000 Comments: LATE APPLICATION Prakash and Kamala Puram purchased 5700 Long Brake Trail August 19, 1998 for $800,000. The 2000 estimated market value is $775,000, less than what he paid over a year ago. The home was built in 1979, and over the years we have been to the home for remodeling, new windows, sun room addition, pool and basement garage addition with living area above. See attached MLS data sheet for detail information on the house. Value 1999 $ 250,000 $ 495,700 $ 745,700 History 1998 $ 188,900 $ 528,200 $ 717,100 1997 $ 188,900 $ 528,200 $ 717,100 Sale May -98 $ 800,000 History May -79 $ 350,000 City of Edina Assessor's office 4801 West 50th Street Edina, MN. 55424 -1394 Phone: (612) 826 -0365 Fax: (612) 826 -0390 [TDD (Deaf Only): (612) 826 -0379] Board of Review Residential Request for Review Application Date: C{ • 2 • CO Attach any supporting documentation Owner Name: PIS K A5 H i�e k M AL A V • PAAM Owner Address: 5-?Do 1-00 C,, 8 RAkE _T?-All- L D /NA NN Ssy39 - �Zo Home Phone Number: 6-4:2- $2.g - -4q I Business Phone Number: o - 69.7 Property Address: 5 ?0o LoArg BKAK I R.t3iL D)N A M A) 55LI 39 .242- Assessor's estimated market value for January 2, 2000: '7'75, So® Land: Buildings: Total: It 145,-700 1 believe the estimated market value on January 2, 2000 should be: Landt4l& Ooa Buildings: t 250 Total: !4 700, D0C Purchase Date: g. 2q- qg (Total purchase price (land & bldgs.): $ 5ce, dp-b Year Built: House: 1819 Garage: 1C119 Additions (Explain): Condition of Structures (Explain): VET J?DoK 50m C- SAY Nl%ED -,Z G Ur it aL.L t REAL 6Sr4-1V YAL Description & value of additions and improvements since your purchase of this property: kt A s uaa� A60Y ra 8 ue-s —► NON(: ::.:.�.::: rt a fag . .: .�. s s a Professional A praisats: ` .� . (Pease attach a crop � �' ��` ��� ' Appraisal Date: Indicated Value: Explain ttie reasons for your objection to the ass.esso,rs estirriated.:marl<et value::;::::.::: � �"' T al4ed to A mWvrw(seh fix c-an 17e hie C a" a&,3 hF e n e a•e. –als- z) B ovuck 3 f _ �. , I DO HEREBY AFFIRM THAT THE ABOVE IN OR T O CO PLETE AND TRUE TO T AE BEST OF MY -- , KNOWLEDGE AND BELIE D Signature of applicant: RETURN THIS APPLICATION TO THE EDINA ASSESSOR'S OFFICE BY MONDAY, APRIL 3, 2000. PLEASE ATTACH ANY DOCUMENTATION YOU FEEL WILL SUPPORT YOUR CASE. YOU WILL BE CONTACTED 10 HAVE YOUR PROPERTY REVIEWED PRIOR TO THE SCHEDULED BOARD OF REVIEW MEETING. LP: $850,000 OLP: $995,000 BR:4 TBA:5 FBT:2 TBT ADD:5700 LONG BRAKE TR MUN:EDINA AR: 385 SUB:1 DIV:3 L0T:212X172X219X139 Level Approx Level LR: M 23 X 20 B1: M DR: M 15 X 13 132: L FR: M 18 X 17 133: L KT: M 16 X 13 64: L ID M 14 X 12 OF L EX L 27 X 19 AM L SDN: 273 Edina SINGLE FAMILY - SF SP: $800,000 ST: SOLD List Number: 1342685 1 HBT: 2 OBT: 0 Style: RAMBLER Off Market Date: 07/29/98 Close Date: 08/20/98 ZIP: 55439 TAX: $15,916 TXY:98 TXD: F Map: D2 133 COU: HENN TWA: $15,916 ASP: N YBL:1979 NWC: No ACR:0.79 ASB: $0 HSY:98 HSD: Full DIR: GLEASON RD SO TO STONEWOOD TO LONG BREAK TRAIL A JEWEL -LIKE SETTING ON TWO WATER LOTS FOR THIS METICULOUSLY DESIGNED HOME,AVAILABLE FOR THE FIRST TIME!SPECIAL FEATURES ABOUND THROUGHOUT THAT DISTINGUISHES THIS EXQUISITELY APPOINTED HOME. ' SEE SUPPLEMENTS' LGL: LOTS 1 & 2 DEWEY AVE 2ND ADDN PID: 0811621310075 BBT: Yes MBT: Yes IN1: REF / RNG / DWS / DSP / WSO / F/H IN2: WSH / DRY / FLT / TRC / SEC / D/P / SUN / FEN / PBG WHP / SAU Approx WAT:CONNECT AIR: C 28 X 16 SEW:CONNECT FPL:3 /L /F 15 X 13 HEA:FA EXT: STU / B/S 15 X 13 14 X 12 BSM:W /F /L GAR:4 /A /Y /I /H 17 X 16 30 X 20 FSZ:3258 AGF:3258 BGF:3742 FSF:7000 SDP:928 -2500 Information Deemed Reliable But Not Guaranteed Printed By: MOREAU J SANKEY - City of Edina\Assessing Dept. MLSWindows 5700 LONG BRAKE TR STUNNING CONTEMPORARY EMBRACES 2 LUSH LOTS ON WATER!! SPECIAL FEATURES ABOUND THROUGHOUT, FROM THE 6 CAR GAR, TO THE WINE ROOM, TO A 780 S.F. MASTER CLOSET! AN INGROUND POOL ADDS THE PLEASURE OF THE HOME!! *ENTER THRU THE MASSIVE BRONZE SCULPTURED, DOUBLE ENTRY DOORS TO A SPACIOUS MARBLED FOYER OPENING TO THE LIVING ROOM/ DINING ROOM AREAS UNDER HIGH CEILINGS & SKYLIGHTS. *LIVING ROOM FEATURES WALLS OF WINDOWS VIEWING THE POND & LUSH GREENERY, DOOR ACCESS TO THE DECK. A FLOOR TO CEILING MARBLE -TILED SEE -THRU GAS FIREPLACE, A WALL OF MIRRORED DOORS OPENS TO THE WET BAR. *DINING ROOM ALSO VIEWS THE POND AND HAS ACCESS TO THE DECK. *KITCHEN HAS CERAMIC TILE FLOORING & CENTER ISLAND COOKSTA- TION. CORIAN COUNTER TOPS, TOP -OF- THE -LINE APPLIANCES ABOUND WITH NEWER DOUBLE OVENS AND FOOD WARMER. SEATING SPACES AT THE CENTER ISLAND PLUS LARGE INFORMAL DINING AREA. *FAMILY ROOM FEATURES A WALL -HIGH BRICK FIREPLACE BETWEEN CABINETRY AND AN ENTERTAINMENT CENTER, AND ACCESS TO THE SUNROOM. *SPECTACULAR SUNROOM VIEWING POOL, PATIO & POND. ACCESS TO THE DECK AND CIRCULAR STAIRS LEAD TO THE ROOF /SUNDECK. *LUXURIOUS MASTER SUITE W /SITTING.LOUNGING AREA, EXTENSIVE BUILT -IN CABINETRY, A WALL OF WINDOWS & DECK OVERLOOKING THE WATER. A WALK -IN CLOSET THAT CONTAINS 780 SQ.FT. OF EFFI- CIENTLY ARRANGED HANDING & STORAGE SPACE. SUMPTUOUS CORIAN BATH WITH WHIRLPOOL TUB, OVERSIZED STEAM SHOWER, MAKE -UP VANITY AND MULTIPLE SETS OF DRAWERS. *LOWER LEVEL* WALKOUT GARDEN LEVEL AMUSEMENT ROOM WITH A WINE ROOM, WET BAR/KITCHENETTE AREA WITH CORIAN COUNTERS & GLASS FRONT CABINETS, DISHWASHER REFRIGERATOR, ICE MAKER. *LARGE OFFICE OR 5TH BEDROOM WITH BUILT -INS. 3/4 BA AND HOT TUB. EXERCISE ROOM HAS A WALL OF MIRRORS, BALLET BARRE & CEILING FANS, WITH VIEWS TO THE POOL AREA. *THREE CHILDRENS BEDROOMS ON THE EAST WING FEATURE LARGE CLOSETS & FULL BATHROOM. *WONDERFUL DOUBLE LOT, 200' ON WATER, FOOT BRIDGE TO ISLAND. *LARGE CIRCULAR CONCRETE DRIVEWAY WITH PRIVACY BERN/FOUNTAIN *4 CAR HEATED GARAGE W /ADDITIONAL 2 ON EAST END OF HOME *ELABORATE WESTCO WHOLE -HOUSE SECURITY SYSTEM. *BEAUTIFUL 1989 POOL WITH CONCRETE DECKING, AND EXTENSIVE LANDSCAPING. '96 NEW POOL LINER. *NEW WINDOWS AND PATIO DOORS. EXCLUDE ART WORK, SOME LAMPS. THIS EXCEPTIONAL RESIDENCE HAS IT ALL.... MARYANNE GROBE 946 -1628 Case # 22 City of Edina Board of Review Assessor's Commentary Property I.D. Number: 33- 117 -21 -34 -0122 Date: 4/10/2000 Property Address: 6125 WILRYAN AVE Owner /Agent Name: FRANK R CARDARELLE 2000 EMV Requested Value Recommended Value 399,000 380,000 399,000 Comments: LATE APPLICATION Cursory review supports the 2000 Estimated Market Value. We ask the Board to sustain our value - resident may then proceed to County Board of Equalization. Value 1999 $ 75,000 $ 305,000 $ 380,000 History 1998 $ 36,600 $ 331,700 $ 368,300 1997 $ 36,600 $ 319,300 $ 355,900 Sale History City of Edina Assessor's Office 480 i West 50th Street Edina, MN. 55424 -1394 Phone: (612) 826 -0365 Fax: (612) 826 -0390 [TDD (Deaf Only): (612) 826 -0379] Board of Review Residential Request for Review Attach anv supporting documentation Appiicauon uare: 4 I LUUU - Owner Name: Frank R. Cardarel le Owner Address: 6125 Wi 1 r a n A Home Phone Number: 929 -2761 i Business Phone Number: 941 -3031 Property Address: 6125 Wi 1 ryan Avenue Assessor's estimated market value for January 2, 2000: 399, 004 Land: -75000 Buildings: 2,1_,y000 Total: =000 I believe the estimated market value on January 2, 2000 should be: Land: Buildings: Total: remain $380,000 Purchase Date: (Total purchase price (land & bldgs.): Year Built: House: rage: 1 gp.1-8ftdclitions (Explain): Condition of Structures (Explain): needs repair Description & value of additions and improvements since your purchase of this property: none ls ::::; :::: ::..:.:::..:.....:.:.:.:::::'`: ...... Professional A prasatst (Please attach a cop of any recent ap rasa .} ........ . Appraisal Date: (Indicated Value: EA .plain. the rEaso.n for o:ur cbje;cticn to t:he assessor's estimated inark0t.:value Location next to hi hwa in i this size with better location. in When house listed 3 years ago, not even an offer when we pricpd thp hnllsp.fnr sale at just under $300,000. After consulting i location, location would not bring the $399,000 that it at. After last year's adjustment to $380,000 I agreed to that with that it would remain at that for at I DO HEREBY AF IRM T HAT THE ABOVE I RMAIION S %COMPLETE AND TRUE TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE AND BELIEF. � r Signature of applicant: RETURN THIS APPLICATION TO THE EDINA ASSESSOR'S OFFICE BY MONDAY, APRIL 3, 2000. PLEASE ATTACH ANY DOCUMENTATION YOU FEEL WILL SUPPORT YOUR CASE. YOU WILL BE CONTACTED TO HAVE YOUR PROPERTY REVIEWED PRIOR TO THE SCHEDULED EOARD OF REVIEW MEETING. Case # 23 City of Edina Board of Review Assessor's Commentary Property I.D. Number: 31- 028 -24 -22 -0074 Date: 4/10/2000 Property Address: 4909 TRILLIUM LANE Owner /Agent Name: ANDY A PONCIUS 2000 EMV Requested Value Recommended Value 193,100 181,000 247,100 Comments: LATE APPLICATION Cursory review indicates the value should be increased. We recommend the Board increase or sustain the 2000 Estimated Market Value. Resident may appeal to the County Board of Equalization. Value 1999 $ 60,500 $ 113,500 $ 474,000 History 1998 $ 419'500 $ 128,300 $ 169,800 1997 $ 41,500. $ 128,300 $ 169,800 Sale Jul -67 $ 35,000 History City of Edina Assessor's Office 4801 West 50th Street Edina, MN. 55424 -1394 Phone: (612) 826 -0365 Fax: (612) 826 -0390 [TDD (Deaf Only): (612) 826 -03791 Board of Review Residential Request for Review Application Date: '�� 13L � �o/off Attach an supporting documentation P Owner Name: Owner Address: ( 0 (✓ Home Phone Number: Business Phone Number: AJ� Property Address: 0 1 L t-- l jL f L /`/ 2, 2000: U Assessor's estimated market value for January r � 3 < too Land: Buildings: Total: I believe the estimated market value on January 2, 2000 should be: o Q C7 8 / 000 —� Land: Buildings: Total: 12 Purchase Date: 1L� ��6. Total purchase price (land & bldgs.): Year Built: House: Garage: Additions (Explain): Condition of Structures (Explain): 00 1 Description & value of additions and improvements since your purchase of this property: Brit a raise. s.......... .... sivpal:A praisal$::::::: :.(P�e:ase :attach a. cop.��:6f.:a:i�y: re.c..... p i . Appraisal Date: Indicated Value: Ex:plam the reasons f;or our;:objection to;f:he ass.essor;.s.esti�te .... ............ T- C -A-N N O P- 010 0 16 IGO nJ 0 S P P-0 P Lkfi— I [ - -T t,Q o RSF UU o I DO HEREBY AFFIRM TH T THE ABOVE INFORMATION IS COMPLETE AND TRUE TO THE BEST OF MYO� KNOWLEDGE AND BEL F. ^ Signature of ap licant: " RETURN THIS APPLICATION TO THE Ei INA ASSESSOR'S OFFICE BY MONDAY, APRIL 3, 2000. PLEASE ATTACH ANY DOCUMENTATION YOU FEEL WILL SUPPORT YOUR CASE. YOU WILL BE CONTACTED 1 -0 HAVE YOUR PROPERTY REVIEWED PRIOR TO THE SCHEDULED BOARD OF REVIEW MEETING. r1 S c of woob -F-QotirT A) LLAJ c� P-o o� cam eo cv `rr% fvo �CK s,�l eA L� 1� C NL J(- -I-C &AJ �� 0 �A� i-o0 m ti E N o 7" i7G I N �--QJ SE -Aso N boo M L� do r\ �R ►NG C '—T � o v t-� � c � � `iC� �? c 0 �o C1 � �T QF i� O �- CDAA Case # -1 City of Edina Board of Review Assessor's Commentary Property I.D. Number: 30- 117 -21 -22 -0116 Date: 4/10/2000 Property Address: 410 MADISON AVE Owner /Agent Name: CHRIS WELLENS 2000 EMV Requested Value Recommended Value 57,000 ZERO 57,000 Comments: We ask that the Board sustain our 2000 Estimated Markt Value. Resident may proceed to County Board of Equalization. Value 1999 $ 41,800 $ 5,190 $ 46,990 History 1998 $ 20,300 $ 64,900 $ 85,200 1997 $ 20,300 $ 60,900 $ 81,200 Sale Aug -83 $ 45,900 History Mar -78 $ 27,000 " Karl Auerbach & Chris Wellens MAR 2 ? QQ 218 CARBONERA DRIVE SANTA CRUZ, CALIFORNIA 95060 -1500 TEL: 831.423.8585 FAx: 831.423.8357 March 19, 2000 City of Edina Edina Assessor's Office 4801 West 50th Street Edina, Minnesota 55424 -1394 RE: Property ID 30- 117 -21 -22 -0116 Property Address: 410 Madison Avenue Dear Sir or Madam, Thank you for your communication "Value Notice" postcard, estimating the market value of the above referenced property at $57,000. Since the tenant residing at the property burned it down on December 23, 1999, and since we are endeavoring to make repairs, it seems to me the present value of the property is zero. Therefore, I feel it is reasonable to exempt it from property taxes until such time as a home is reconstructed and made habitable. I expect this to occur within six months from the date of the incident. Si fr ly yo ���. Chris Wellens Property Owner March 24, 2000 Chris Wellens 218 Carbonera Drive Santa Cruz, CA 95060 -1500 RE Property ID 30- 117 -21 -22 -0116 410 Madison Ave, Edina Dear Chris, I response to your letter to the assessor's office, about the value on the above listed property, the 2000 year market value was reduced to 57,000. We do recognize the fact that there was a fire on December 23,1999. The total market value includes land and buildings that are attached to the property. The 2000 land value is $41,800 , and the building value is $15,200. The 1999 value was 93,700. The property was reduced $36,700. If you still wish to go the Board of Review, please let our office know. At this time no, further reduction will be made. We also plan on looking at the home for repairs and reconstruction for the 2001 assessment. Sincerely yours, Diane Koole City of Edina, Appraiser 612- 826 -0423 Case # L -2 City of Edina Board of Review Assessor's Commentary Property I.D. Number: 05- 116 -21 -41 -0071 Date: 4/10/2000 Property Address: 6624 LIMERICK DRIVE Owner /Agent Name: CRAIG J ZACHMAN 2000 EMV Requested Value Recommended Value 278,100 252,000 278,100 Comments: We ask that the Board sustain our 2000 Estimated Market Value. Resident may proceed to County Board of Equalization. Value 1999 $. 90,000 $ 160,600 $ 250,600 History 1998 $ 57,200 $ 166,600 $ 223,800 1997 $ 57,200 $ 162,300 $ 219,500 Sale Aug -99 $ 240,000 History Craig J. Zachman pp 6624 Limerick Drive �g �' ck Edina, MN 55439 (952) 826 -6422 APR cjzachman@prodigy.net April 5, 2000 City of Edina Edina Assessor's Office 4801 West 5& Street Edina, MN 55424 -1394 Dear Sir or Madam: As per our telephone conversation of 4/412000, 1 am writing you to request a review of my property valuation for taxes payable in 2001. Property ID: 05- 116- 21- 41 -D071 Property Address: 6624 Limerick Drive, Edina, MN 55439 The value notice shows an estimated market value of $278,100 with the amount subject to taxation of $263,000. 1 purchased the property in August 1999 for $240,000. This was also the assessment the Countrywide Mortgage showed when the had the property professionally assessed. Add to that that assessment taxable market value for 1999 was only $223,800. 1 would request that this property be assessed downward to a more realistic level. Allowing for a 5% increase in value since I purchased the property that would bring the market value to $252,000 with the taxable base somewhat less. Do not hesitate to contact me directly. You may reach me at my home telephone 952 - 8266422. Alternatively, my cell telephone number is 612 - 723 -4600. Finally, my private e-mail is clzachmanCcD-prodigv.net. P . . Zachman 6624 Limerick Drive Edina, MN 55439 952 - 826-6422