The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2005-07-01_APPRAISAL CONSULTING REPORTOORSEY DORSEY & WHITNEY LLP MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council Gordon Hughes, City Manager FROM: Jerome P. Gilligan DATE: July 1, 2005 RE: Special Assessment for Public Improvements Article X, Section 1 of the Minnesota Constitution allows the Minnesota Legislature to authorize municipalities to levy and collect special assessments for local improvements upon property benefited thereby without regard to cash valuation. Pursuant to this authority the Legislature has enacted Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 429, which provides that municipalities may construct public improvements and levy special assessments upon property benefited thereby. A municipality's power to levy special assessments for improvements is limited by the following three conditions: (1) the property upon which the special assessments are levied must receive a special benefit from the improvement being constructed; (2) the assessment must be uniform upon the same class of property; and (3) the assessment may not exceed the special benefit to the property. The benefit a property received by an improvement is measured by the difference between what a willing buyer would pay a willing seller for the property before the improvement and after the improvement, based on the highest and best use of the property. Edina, like most cities, has historically determined the amount of special assessments by allocating the cost of the improvement against benefited property, and has not done any analysis concerning the benefit to property being assessed. Property owners are appealing special assessments to district court with more frequency in recent years. If a special assessment is appealed on the grounds that it exceeded the benefit, courts will look to see whether the municipality had evidence presented to it when it levied the special assessment which supported a determination that the amount of the market value of the property assessed increased by at least the amount of the assessment. This provides a difficult standard for municipalities since typically assessments are determined based upon the cost of an improvement without little or no evidence presented at the time of levying the special assessment concerning the amount of the benefit to property being assessed. While municipalities are vulnerable when property owners appeal special assessments to district court, Minnesota law does provide some protection to cities by requiring strict notice requirements for property owners to appeal special assessments. In order to appeal a special DORSEY & WHITNEY LLP C: OORSEY assessment a property owner must file a written object with the municipal clerk prior to the assessment hearing or such objection must be presented to the presiding officer at the hearing, and such objecting property owner must appeal such assessment to the district court by serving notice of appeal upon the mayor or clerk within 30 days after the adoption of the assessment and file such notice with the district court within 10 days after service of the mayor or clerk. In addition, Minnesota law permits special assessments to be levied once the expense of an improvement is calculated, which permits municipalities to levy special assessments prior to constructing an improvement. Using this provision some cities levy special assessments once construction bids have been received and do not award the construction contract for an improvement until the special assessment has been adopted and no property owner has appealed the special assessment. 2 DORSEY 6 WHITNEY LLP .. • 1l Special Assessment Comparison Matrix — May 2005 U Bloomington Plymouth Golden Valley Fridley Wayzata Maple Grove • Use a Pavement Management Program to rate • Pavement Management System • Use a Pavement Management Program to rate condition of condition of streets (0 -100) prioritizes streets for maintenance and rehabilitation • Sealcoat every 8 • Reconstruction based • Most constructed in streets . Evaluate 1/3 of streets each • Average Life of a street is 50 years on evaluation using 1970 �streets s. ca • 60 year road lifecycle • year Reconstruction needed for years • Curb and Gutter Mandated Pavement Management Plan • Move to reclaim (full depth p„ • 2 -3 sealcoats over first 20 -25 streets with ratings below 50 • Sealcoat 2 times in first 10 years • Move to replace • Sealcoat every 6 mill and overlay) many of H • years Mill and overlay (year 20 -25) • Full Depth Mill and Overlay • Mill and Overlay at 20 -25 years on a Curb and Gutter street asphalt curbs with years • the streets Sealcoat around 3 and 12 � • 2 more sealcoats over next 20 for streets rated 50 -75 • Reconstruct @ 50 years or if concrete curb and • Curb and Gutter not years — maybe a 3ra before b years • Seal coat every 6 years (approx. 3 times) street has no Curb & Gutter • gutter Currently recon/mill • mandated Use of Asphalt Curbs Mill and Overlay y th a� • Mill and Overlay — year 40 • Curb and Gutter Mandated • Opt out program for C &G — 70% and overlay 1 in some areas • Reclaim at 20 year a • • 1 Sealcoat (year 40 -50) Reconstruction year 60 -70 • Temporary Overlays may be : required except if . ° or less ➢ Grade 1 /o mile /year need to • New subdivisions • Some street reconstruction if no curb and gutter exists • Curb and Gutter Mandated to used to delay reconstruction — life of temp overlay 5 -7 ° )0- Grade 8 /o or greater increase to 4 miles /year require concrete curb and gutter today allow program to work ➢ Property abutting below years grade of street • 25% Assessment to Single • 30% Assessment to Single • $3,200 Single Family Assessment • Assess Single Family • Assessed 3 projects • 50% Single Family/Duplex Family and duplexes Family (covers the mandated 20% bond concrete curb and in 10 years Street Assessment • 50% Assessment to all other • Assessments made on a per requirement with driveway" gutter cost of the • Residential Road • Assessment is for property types lot (parcel) basis option) project (currently Reconstruction, reclaiming streets built in • Overlays paid by general • Multi - Family converted to • Neighborhood may opt out of $14.41 /foot ($1,000- sealcoating, etc. the 70's taxes /debt levy and or state aid equivalent of minimum Curb and Gutter if 70% oppose 2,000 /lot) covered by City • 2005 Est. Assessment is maintenance funds Single Family Lot size (never been used) • Exempt Property Funds $3,200 /lot for reclaiming • New Subdivisions Assessed (Area/18,500) • Residents may replace driveways treated the same as • Previous Properties and around $5,000 for 100% and must have concrete • C/I Area/ 18,500 to equiv. with bid contract costs at time of single family assessed include reconstruction curb and gutter Units (Exempt property street recon. • Balance picked up by county road, Wayzata • Curb and Gutter cost to • Assessed on a front footage basis treated as C/1) • Multi - family assessed at 37% of Taxes/Reserves Blvd. — assessed resident equals difference • Changed from 100% to 25% • Curb and Gutter Mandated construction cost • Curb and Gutter benefited properties between asphalt and aassessment in 1992 — and Assessed for • Exempt Property assessed at 45% Mandated for cost of sidewalks concrete curb or approx. justification was new Pavement reconstruction or repair — if of project cost • Commercial Property $350 /lot W Management Plan to extend life asphalt curbs exist — • All other land uses (C /I, office) 100% Assessment • Assessment increases each y of streets conversion to Concrete assessed at 45% of project cost year by Construction Cost d occurs and assessed at 100% • If Concrete Roadway exists, Index about 4% • Plymouth moving to a 40% residents may opt to continue assessment rate in 2005/2006 concrete at same rate as other • Overlays will be assessed at single family plus 100% of cost same rate difference between concrete and asphalt • Mill and Overlays-are not assessed • Assessable cost increased by Construction Cost Index Annually . + Special Assessment Comparison Matrix — May 2005 Bloomington Plymouth Golden Valley Fridley Wayzata Maple Grove U • Single Family and duplex lots a• Use State Aid Maintenance and assessed on a per unit basis some State Aid Construction • Assessment will be approximately funds to pay for Pavement 25% of the standard residential rate y Management Program - . Same Assessment • Multiple Dwelling lots assessed on a • State Aid Street • No State Aid Received — . Don't residents to y $800,000 maintenance plus Methodology as Non- front foot basis at approximately Reconstruction under 5,000 in allow front on a state aid street d 25% of overlay and 20% of State Aid Streets 37% of the project cost complete population reconstruction am ro p 1�' • Exempt Properties and all other uses • Same level of assessment as assessed on front foot basis at ;r Non -State Aid Roads (25/50 %) approximately 45% of the project cost • Area of C/I parcels are converted to y equivalent parcel units • Assessed 3 projects in by dividing area by 10 years — benefited • Calculation made to M • As Listed Above — 50% 18,500 (which • Assessed on a Front Footage Basis • 100% Assessment to properties assessed for determine equivalent a Assessment to All Non- represents minimum • Assessment rate equal to 45% of Commercial cost of sidewalks added number of units and result Residential Properties single family lot size) project costs properties to Wayzata Blvd. is assessed at same dollar • • Same assessment rate • No policy on assessing amount as residential applies to the resulting commercial properties onumber of parcels (� (40 %) �; • 2 terms and interest a ° °' •o • 10 year Assessment rates available based a �, y • Interest Rate =Bond Rate plus on total cost . 10 year Term • year ear term • None • 20 year term %2 to 1 % . 5 year with Prime Rate • 7% Interest Rate • 6.5% Interest Rate • 6% Interest Rate • 10 year with Prime F' plus %a% • $3,000 to $8000 based on type: • $3,000 to $5,000 per y • $5,000 on large lots (assessed $3,000 = Reconstruct • $3,200 per assessable parcel assessable parcel o y on front footage) $5,000 = Recon/Curb • Inflated by construction cost index • $1,000 to $2000 • No assessment • Based on whether curb and c U a &Gutter annually (est. 4 %) gutter is needed or $8,000 = Recon/C &G and reconstruction is needed Storm Sewer • $12,000,000 set aside in Q ° • Debt Levy for bonds • Debt Levy — evaluated each year • Capital Improvement p p • Capital Improvement p 1995 from reserves • Today $20,000,000 in 0 t C o • Progressively Increased from • General Fund Program based on project load Plan and Reserves Plan - $250,000 from ' outstanding debt and 0 p, wo Inception to cover annual P &I • Use Debt Levy if Levy • Levy covers annual P& I of new • Need to move to Debt Liquor funds and $18,000,000 in reserve ;ti • of additional annual projects Limits imposed bond issue Levy to cover Balance from Property fund a U increasing costs Taxes • Need to move towards debt �' levy Special Assessment Comparison Matrix — May 2005 Bloomington Plymouth Golden Valley Fridley Wayzata Maple Grove U c• Yes • Yes • Yes • No • No • No 3a • None • None • 1 Commercial Challenge - • None • N/A • None a resolved U .� • Sanitary & Water • Sanitary & Water • Sanitary/Water Repair and • Water /Sanitary Improvements paid by Improvements paid by Reconstruction paid by Utility System Improvements • Water and Sanitary W Utility Fund Utility fund Funds paid by Utility fund • Water, Sanitary and Improvements paid by W W c • Storm Sewer Assessments — • Storm Sewer Improvements • Sanitary/Water New • If neighborhood does Storm System Utility Fund p only if no previous ° 100% Assessed for new Construction aid b developer p y p not have adequate Improvements paid by • Storm Sewer Additions assessment (1 -2 %), and upgrade if system is not • Storm Sewer Improvements paid storm sewer, up to Utility Funds assessed like Street improvements paid by Storm adequate by Utility Fund $1,000 /lot is assessed Improvements at 50% Utility Fund to homeowner Road Recon/Mill & Overlay Costs & Levy to support costs: Project Costs: Project Costs: 1999 - $1,362,815 1999 - $1,742,629 2000 - $1,625,027 2000 - $2,345,673 2001 - $2,415,742 2001 - $3,470,257 2002 - $2,333,180 Road Reconstruction Costs 2002 - $1,987,426 2003 - $1,545,550 • 1999 - $250,000 2003 - $3,516,785 2004 - $4,177,596 • 2000 - $200,000 2004 - $3,589,301 2005 - $3250000 est. , , . • 2001 - $350,000 c Amount Assessed: Levy 1999 - $1,106,187 • Not provided — debt levies used • 2002 - $650,000 y 1999 - $470,391 2000 - $697,434 2000 - $1,139,373 to support costs not aid for b pp p y • 2003 - $700,000 2001 - $938,620 2001 - $1,240,000 special assessments Information not provided • 2004 - $600,000 Information not provided � 2002 - $557,694 2002 - $1,240 000 ' • Bond Issuance Annually based w 2003 - $1,112 466 2003 - $1,283,400 2004 - $0 (levy limits — used debt on amount of project cost Funding sources are $250,000 2004 - $1,035,786 levy of $599,222 for bonds) per year from Liquor Fund 2005 - $1,288,700 (reduced by from Storm sewer fund Amounts not assessed picked up by $688,700 if MV Hstd credit doesn't an d balance ane lance by property tax general obligation debt levy. 29% of get approved costs assessed, 71 % covered by debt levy Costs exceed levies — balance paid by assessments, fund balance, transfers of general fund surplus and other minor contributions THOMAS J. DAY, MAI, SRA Principal 1/4:14JATTIO 763- 398 -1130 direct N tday@valgroup .net RINC. 3655 Plymouth Boulevard, Suite 105 Plymouth, MN 55446 763- 525 -0000 main 763- 525 -8875 fax THOMAS J. DAY, MAI, SRA Principal Y4!1t4JAT10 763- 398 -1130 direct I�T tday C�valgroup.net UP, INC. 3655 Plymouth Boulevard, Suite 105 Plymouth, MN 55446 763 - 525 -0000 main 763 - 525 -8875 fax Valuation Group Job No 250168 : NJ ► ' AL • 2005 Appraisal Consulting Report Edina Street Reconstruction Assessments South Harriet Park Neighborhood Sunnyslope Neighborhood Rolling Green Neighborhood Edina, Minnesota 3655 Plymouth Boulevard, Suite 105 Plymouth, MN 55446 763- 525 -0000 main 763 -525 -8875 fax June 24, 2005 Eric Anderson, Assistant City Manager City of Edina 4801 West 50th Street Edina, MN 55424 -1394 Principals Paul G. Bakken, MAI, MS, CCIM Cletus C. Liedl, MAI Thomas J. Day, MAI, SRA David S. Reach, MAI Scott F. Muenchow, MAI Michael A. Bownik, MAI RE: Appraisal consulting report pertaining with City street reconstruction assessment policy Three sample neighborhoods —South Harriet Park, Sunnyslope and Rolling Green Edina, Minnesota Dear Mr. Anderson: In accordance with your request, an inspection and appraisal consulting work on the above - referenced neighborhoods have been completed. We have considered all the pertinent factors relating to the subject neighborhoods and the current market forces. The attached report contains the pertinent data, summary of the analysis completed, commentary, value conclusions,, and recommendations pertaining to this real estate. Because of the aging and deteriorated condition of public streets within many neighborhoods, The City of Edina is undergoing planning efforts on a stepped -up street reconstruction schedule. Of major concern are the funding options and the impact on future taxation policies. To assist the City in setting its future special assessment policies, the use of the following report is to provide supported opinions of the market value benefit that properties within the subject neighborhoods will experience in conjunction with street reconstruc- tion improvements. It includes a general study of what value benefit a typical residence will achieve, and not specific complete appraisals of individual properties. The date of our analysis is June 24, 2005. Our appraisal consulting has been made in conformity with the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice (USPAP), and the Code of Professional Ethics and the Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice of the Appraisal Institute. To the best of our knowledge and belief, the data contained in the attached report is believed to be reliable. Neither our employment to make appraisal opinions nor the compensation received is contingent upon the conclusions, values or recommendations reported herein. The appraisal consulting is subject to the special and general limiting conditions contained on pages 9 through 11 (please review these assumptions before any of the values, conclusions or recommendations are relied upon). City of Edina June 24, 2005 Page 2 We have employed several valuation tools, including a resales and paired sales analysis on numerous properties, interviews with experienced residential appraisers, interviews with experienced Edina Realtors, and a survey of homeowners within two upper valued neighborhoods which have recently had new streets installed. Based upon all of our research and analysis, we conclude the following market value benefits for the subject three neighborhoods: South Harriet Park With Curb and Gutter: Sunnyslope With Curb and Gutter: Sunnyslope Without Curb and Gutter: Rolling Green Without Curb and Gutter: $9,000 to $10,000 (1.8% to 2.0% on a $500,000 residence) $12,000 to $14,000 (1.6% to 1.9% on a $750,000 residence) $10,000 to $12,000 (1.3% to 1.6% on a $750,000 residence) $14,000 to $16,000 (.9% to 1.1% on a $1.5 million residence) With costs reportedly near $3,000 to $4,000 per 1/4 -acre property, and $6,000 or more per larger site sub- divisions, the marginal benefit of curb and gutter greatly diminishes in the "country" look neighborhoods. Based upon our market research, South Harriet Park can fully bear the $3,000 to $4,000 curb and gutter costs, Sunnyslope could bear near $2,000 per parcel, and Rolling Green $0 to $1,000. While this is inverse to the costs, the market appears to prefer the no curb "country" look in the large -site estate -type suburban developments. While this conclusion is not fully consistent with all of our market research, the majority of data supports this opinion. With new street improvements net of consideration of the curb and gutter issue, the market appears to fully bear the cost when the original improvements are in poor condition. Costs reportedly are in the $4,000 to $10,000 range depending upon size of the lots. When the pavement has some remaining life where signifi- cant annual patching is not needed, a proration of the new pavement cost would be appropriate. All of the subject neighborhoods' streets appear to be at the end of their useful life. It has been a pleasure to serve you in this manner. Feel free to contact us if you have any questions or concerns. Respectfully submitted, THE VALUATION GROUP, INC. /7� Thomas J. Day, MAI, SRA Minnesota Certified General Real Property Appraiser #4000814 INTRODUCTION AND EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1 CERTIFICATION OF APPRAISER ASSUMPTIONS AND LIMITING CONDITIONS 9 EXTRAORDINARY ASSUMPTIONS, SPECIAL LIMITING CONDITIONS, AND HYPOTHETICAL CONDITIONS 11 IDENTIFICATION OF CLIENT, OTHER INTENDED USERS, AND INTENDED USE OF APPRAISAL OPINIONS 12 TYPE AND DEFINITION OF APPRAISED VALUE 13 DATE OF APPRAISAL CONSULTING 14 PROPERTY RIGHTS APPRAISED 14 SCOPE OF WORK USED TO DEVELOP APPRAISAL CONSULTATION 15 COMMUNITY DESCRIPTION 16 SUBJECT NEIGHBORHOODS LOCATION MAP 27 SOUTH HARRIET PARK NEIGHBORHOOD DATA 28 SUNNYSLOPE NEIGHBORHOOD DATA 40 ROLLING GREEN NEIGHBORHOOD DATA 51 NEW STREETS OVERVIEW AND PRELIMINARY ANALYSIS 61 OVERVIEW OF VALUATION ANALYSIS 64 RESULTS OF RESALES AND PAIRED SALES ANALYSIS 65 a WHITE OAKS NEIGHBORHOOD, EDINA 69 lab EAST PAMELA PARK NEIGHBORHOOD, EDINA 80 lab SCHOOL ROAD NEIGHBORHOOD, EDINA 86 SOUTH TYROL HILLS NEIGHBORHOOD, GOLDEN VALLEY 91 MISCELLANEOUS GOLDEN VALLEY RESALES 104 MISCELLANEOUS METROPOLITAN AREA RESALES 118 RESULTS OF REAL ESTATE APPRAISER SURVEY 127 a RESULTS OF REALTOR SURVEY 131 Tab RESULTS OF PROPERTY OWNER SURVEY 133 Tab SUIat MARY AND FINALdGONCLUSIONS 139 lab ADDENDA Ti QUALIFICATIONS OF APPRAISER ADDENDA -2 COMPANY BROCHURE ADDENDA -5 Client City of Edina 4801 West 50th Street Edina, MN 55424 -1394 Type of Engagement Appraisal consulting assignment pertaining to special as- sessment policy and market value benefit associated with new street reconstruction in sample neighborhoods within Edina, Minnesota Property Name and Location Three sample neighborhoods studied: South Harriet Park Sunnyslope Rolling Green All located in Edina, Minnesota The Valuation Group File Number 250168 Property Types Detached residential properties within established neigh- borhoods having good locational appeal, mostly quality housing, and strong market values Property Rights Appraised The fee - simple interest has been appraised. Not included in the value opinions are any personal property Valuation Dates Date of values: June 24, 2005 Date of neighborhood inspections: Several dates during March, April and May of 2005 Date of report: June 24, 2005 Appraiser Thomas J. Day, MAI, SRA MN Certified General Real Property Appraiser #4000814 1 INTRODUCTION AND EXECUTIVE SUMMARY (CONTINUED) Summary of Conclusions Our study has included the following work: • Resales analysis - -study of neighborhoods where new streets have recently occurred. This includes identifying and studying properties which sold twice- -first recently before the street reconstruc- tion, and secondly after completion of the project to provide a value benefit indication. • Paired sales analysis - -study of neighborhoods where new streets have recently occurred; com- parable before and after sales are analyzed to pro- duce value benefit indications. Within our resales and paired sales analysis, a total of 39 properties have been used for detailed study. Some iden- tified sales indicated no value benefit, yet many of these sold during the late 1990s where the 10% time adjustment might not be fully supported, or where there is some un- certainty with the features or condition of the comps. Following are a summary chart and table. Due to market irregularities, a few resales /paired sales indicate a nega- tive benefit, and a few indicate exorbitant amounts. The majority, however, indicate a typical benefit of $6,000 to $15,000. • Survey of property owners who have recently ex- With omitting the extremes, the average value indication is perienced street reconstruction. $11,666, and the median amount is $9,700. The percent- • Survey of Realtors who are active in Edina. age mid - points are 3.4% to 4.0% of total property value. • Survey of experienced professional real estate ap- praisers. W Resales /Paired Sales Value Benefit Indications Histogram of Value Benefit Indications (Extremes Omitted) Less than $3000 $3001 to $6000 $9001 to $12,000 Value Benefit $15,001 to Over $18,000 $18,000 F2 I INTRODUCTION AND EXECUTIVE SUMMARY (CONTINUED) Summary of Resale and Paired Sale Conclusions Location Set Resales $ Benefit °b Benefit Paired Sales $ Benefit % Benefit White Oaks 1 5,580 1.02% 27,860 4.89% White Oaks 2 18,480 4.50% White Oaks 3 98,700 14.33% White Oaks 4 6,060 1.14% White Oaks 5 16,500 2.23% White Oaks 6 19,750 3.29% Pamela Park 7 5,100 1.41% 48,550 12.73% Pamela Park 8 38,700 11.34% 12,900 3.51% 9,550 2.58% School Road 9 8,100 2.98% 8,500 3.13% 10,900 4.05% So. Tyrol Hills 10 18,900 10.44% - 1.06% So. Tyrol Hills 11 32,500 8.51% 7,100 1.74% So. Tyrol Hills 12 8,000 3.51% 14,300 6.10% So. Tyrol Hills 13 12,500 2.51% So. Tyrol Hills 14 8,200 1.84% 51,200 12.68% So. Tyrol Hills 15 26,300 8.00% So. Tyrol Hills 16 (26,900) -8.23% (31,250) -9.43% 22,750 8.21% So. Tyrol Hills 17 25,000 4-55% So. Tyrol Hills 18 (1,000) -0.58% Misc Golden Valley 19 9,000 5.26% Misc Golden Valley 20 7,300 3.37% Misc Golden Valley 21 1,900 0.15% Misc Golden Valley 22 7,000 1.09% Misc Golden Valley 23 1,000 0.60% Misc Golden Valley 24 6,400 2.99% Misc Golden Valley 25 74,000 38.44% Misc Golden Valley 26 8,500 7.23% Misc Golden Valley 27 14,017 6.15% Misc Golden Valley 28 4,000 2.11% Misc Golden Valley 29 9,000 3.74% Misc Golden Valley 30 9,900 5.50% Misc Golden Valley 31 19,000 9.31 % Shoreview 32 17,000 5.70% Woodbury 33 13,800 6.24% Bloomington 34 3,500 1.80% Brooklyn Center 35 9,850 6.12% Minnetonka 36 14,000 3.37% Minnetonka 37 14,500 5.13% Minnetonka 38 (5,000) -1.53% Eden Prairie 39 4,650 1.72% Low (26,900) -8.23% (31,250) -9.43% High 74,000 38.44% 98,700 14.33% Average 10,794 4.73% 20,258 4.68% Median 8,500 3-51% 14,300 3.51% Combined Average 14,769 4.71% Combined Median 9,875 3.51% Without extremes, Low 1,000 0.15% 5,580 1.02% High 25,000 10.44% 27,860 8.21% Average 9,976 4.19% 14,202 3.67% Median 8,750 3.62% 12,700 3.21% Combined Average 11,666 3.98% Combined Median 9,700 3.44% F3 INTRODUCTION AND EXECUTIVE SUMMARY (CONTINUED) Appraiser Survey Telephone interviews were conducted with 22 experienced residential real estate appraisers in the Twin Cities metro- politan area familiar with Edina real estate. All appraisers' opinions and comments were used in our analysis. The results obtained are summarized as fol- lows: ■ 20 appraisers (91%) expressed a positive opin- ion of new street improvements; 2 were negative which dealt with the Rolling Green neighborhood. Positive comments generally mentioned improved appearance and appeal. Many commented their opinions could vary based on the condition of the original street, with streets in poor condition obvi- ously receiving a greater benefit than those in okay condition. • Value benefit results for South Harriet Park ranged from $2,000 to $10,000, with an average of $7,461 and a median of $10,000 per property. Many felt this neighborhood would receive the greatest ben- efit return relative to the cost from new streets and new curb and gutter due to its "urban" feel. • Sunnyslope value benefit ranged from $2,000 to $17,500, averaging $10,939 and a median of $11,200 per property. Opinions were mixed about the benefit of new curb and gutter in this commu- nity, since many residents prefer the "country" look without them. 1I ■ Rolling Green value benefit ranged from $0 to $25,000 per property, having an average of $13,972 and a median of $15,000. Many appraisers stated new street improvements, including new curb and gutter, would enhance this neighborhood least of the three presented, relative to costs. The feeling was that it is a unique area providing very upscale residents with "country" living, yet still being very close in to the City of Minneapolis and its opportu- nities. The majority feel the curb and gutter benefit is minimal within this neighborhood. ■ General comments on curb and gutter were most positive in South Harriet Park, and least in Rolling Green, yet there were a full range of opinions - -some were very supportive of the value benefit in all 3 neighborhood, others were more neutral, and a few were negative for Rolling Green. Sunnyslope was considered between the other two neighborhoods. Based upon general comments, we have ranked them into 3 categories: curb & gutter benefit is 100 %+ of cost, 50% of cost or "minimal ". 9 were ranked at 100 %, 8 were 50 %, and 6 were "mini- mal". Nearly all of the "minimal" were exclusive to Rolling Green, and some 50% rankings were for both Rolling Green and Sunnyslope. Combined Three Neighborhood Opinions 7: INTRODUCTION AND EXECUTIVE SUMMARY (CONTINUED) Realtor Survey Telephone interviews were conducted with 32 experienced ■ Three Realtors expressed their value benefits as a residential Realtors in the Twin Cities metropolitan area fa- percentage of property values, ranging from 3% to miliar with Edina real estate. The results are summarized 10% increase, averaging 7.7% and having a me- as follows: dian of 10 %. ■ Many Realtors indicated there would be a return or partial return on costs /special assessments paid, either immediately or at some time in the future. For purposes of analyzing our data, $10,000 +/_ was assigned as a dollar amount for costs. There were a total of 17 value benefit amount responses- - either a specific dollar amount, or a percentage re- turn of costs /assessments. The overall increased value opinions ranged from $4,000 to $21,000, with an average of $9,941 and a median of $10,000. The amounts were generalized to all 3 neighbor- hoods. With greater costs /assessments in larger lot subdivisions, some greater average amounts would be produced. 14 12 W 0 10 O e� v 'C R t~ w O }, 6 v .a 4 Z ■ None of the Realtors expressed value benefit opinions individually for the three neighborhoods. There were comments supporting the appraisers' opinions as to South Harriet Park having the great- est benefit -to -cost ratio, and Rolling Green the least, due to the same "urban" vs. "country" feel. ■ Two Realtors expressed specific curb and gutter value benefits of $8,000 and $10,000. On the 10- scale, seven gave opinions ranging from 1 to 5, with an average of 2. General comments placed most benefit to South Harriet Park, least to Rolling Green, and some to Sunnyslope. Realtor Overall Average Benefit Opinions INTRODUCTION AND EXECUTIVE SUMMARY (CONTINUED) Homeowner Surveys Telephone interviews were conducted with numerous ho- meowners in the neighborhoods of White Oaks in Edina, and South Tyrol Hills in Golden Valley. These subdivisions had recent street improvements, and their values and ap- peal were felt to be similar to some of the subject neigh- borhoods. Both neighborhoods where interviews occurred indicated positive opinions of new street improvements, yet the Edina neighborhood had stronger positive views. White Oaks Homeowner Survey Summary Chart (Total New Streets Project) White Oaks Homeowner Survey Summary Chart (New Streets Component) w 5 O C Z t 1 - r 1 - 10 Scale of Benefit ' White Oaks Homeowner Survey Summary Chart (Curb & Gutter Component) S `e �8 9 2 rT = 1 - 10 ►Scale of Benefit m4 0 •a 8 e 0 6 Z Z, 1` 11 III O w x M C O 5 d L 4 E Z 2 - -_— u In P I 1 -10 Sca4 of Benefit South Tyrol Hills Homeowner Survey Summary Chart (Total New Streets Proiect) South Tyrol Hills Homeowner Survey Summary Chart (Total New Streets Project) � o 7 - 105ea44tf BeeleHt South Tyrol Hills Homeowner Survey Summary Chart (Total New Streets Project) I o , a o E , 7 1 - 10 Scale of Benefit INTRODUCTION AND EXECUTIVE SUMMARY (CONTINUED) Conclusions and Recommendations With costs reportedly near $3,000 to $4,000 per 1/4 -acre property, and $6,000 or more per larger site subdivisions, the marginal benefit of curb and gutter greatly diminishes in the "country" look neighborhoods. Based upon our mar- ket research, South Harriet Park can fully bear the $3,000 to $4,000 curb and gutter costs, Sunnyslope could bear near $2,000 per parcel, and Rolling Green $0 to $1,000. While this is inverse to the costs, the market appears to prefer the no curb "country" look in the large -site estate - type suburban developments. While this conclusion is not fully consistent with all of our market research, the majority of data supports this opinion. With new street improvements net of consideration of the curb and gutter issue, the market appears to fully bear the cost when the original improvements are in poor condi- tion. Costs reportedly are in the $4,000 to $10,000 range depending upon size of the lots. When the pavement has some remaining life where significant annual patching is not needed, a proration of the new pavement cost would be appropriate. All of the subject neighborhoods' streets appear to be at the end of their useful life. Based upon all of our research and analysis, we conclude the following market value benefits for the subject 3 neigh- borhoods: South Harriet Park With Curb and Gutter: $9,000 to $10,000 (1.8% to 2.0% on a $500,000 residence) Sunnyslope With Curb and Gutter: $12,000 to $14,000 (1.6% to 1.9% on a $750,000 residence) Sunnyslope Without Curb and Gutter: $10,000 to $12,000 (1.3% to 1.6% on a $750,000 residence) Rolling Green Without Curb and Gutter: $14,000 to $16,000 (.9% to 1.1% on a $1.5 million residence) Note that these are average values where there may be some exceptions —small /modest homes on poor- feature lots may be less, and larger than average sites with strong values commanding site premiums would be greater. City assessment policy may varying from a conservative across the board low percentage of cost rate with general taxes funding the balance, to an aggressive near 100% of cost rate where property owner appeals would be prob- able on some class of properties. If current costs are below the above market value benefit conclusions, a more aggressive stance could be feasible. To reduce potential appeals, however, a compromise policy would be to establish a floor assessment amount somewhat below the above value benefit rates, plus apply a certain percentage for the overage. The shortfall would have to be covered by a City contribution funded via the general tax levy. Unique floor amounts would be appropriate for the differ- ent types and valued subdivisions (see the notable value benefit differences between South Harriet Park and Roll- ing Green). If curb and gutter are to be included in some large -lot de- velopments where a "country" look is preferred, greater care should be used in establishing the floor amount. Please review the "extraordinary assumptions, special limiting conditions, and hypothetical conditions" section of this report on page 11 before relying on the values, recom- mendations or other conclusions. F 77 I certify that to the best of my knowledge and belief: 1) The statements of fact contained in this report are true and correct. 2) The reported analyses, opinions, and conclusions are limited only by the reported assumptions and limiting conditions, and are my personal, impartial, and un- biased professional analyses, opinions, and conclu- sions. authorized representatives. 12) As of the date of this report, Thomas J. Day has com- pleted the requirements of the continuing education program of the Appraisal Institute. 13) 1 certify that I have adequate knowledge, experience, education and resources to competently complete this appraisal consulting assignment. 3) 1 have no present or prospective interest in the proper- Date: ties that are the subject of this report, and no personal interest with respect to the parties involved. 4) 1 have no bias with respect to the properties that are Signature the subject of this report or to the parties involved with this assignment. Thomas J 5) My engagement in this assignment was not contingent upon developing or reporting predetermined results. 6) My compensation for completing this assignment is not contingent upon the development or reporting of a predetermined value or direction in value that favors the cause of the client, the amount of the value opin- ion, the attainment of a stipulated result, or the occur- rence of a subsequent event directly related to the intended use of this appraisal 7) My analyses, opinions, and conclusions were devel- oped, and this report has been prepared, in conformity with the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice (USPAP). 8) 1 have made a personal inspections of the neighbor- hoods that are the subject of this report. 9) Associate appraisers Barbara Lynn Day (MN Licensed Real Property Appraiser License No. AP- 20318572) and Ashley Ann Ferguson (MN Registered Real Prop- erty Appraiser License No. AP- 20486606) assisted in research, preliminary analysis and report writing. No one else provided significant real property appraisal assistance to the person signing this report. 10) The reported analyses, opinions and conclusions were developed, and this report has been prepared in conformity with the requirements of the Appraisal Institute's Code of Professional Ethics and Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice, which include the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Prac- tice. 11) The use of this report is subject to the requirements of the Appraisal Institute relating to review by its duly June 24, 2005 Day, MAI, SRA State Certification: Minnesota Certified General Real Property Appraiser #4000814 Expiration Date: 8/31/2006 1) The appraiser assumes no responsibility for matters of a legal nature affecting the properties within the neighborhoods studied or the title thereto, nor does the appraiser render any opinion as to the title, which is assumed to be good and marketable. 2) The furnished legal descriptions are assumed to be correct. 3) The properties are studied free and clear of all indebt- edness, liens or encumbrances unless otherwise stat- ed. 4) Responsible ownership and competent property man- agement are assumed. 5) Any plat, site plan or sketch in the report may show approximate dimensions and is included to assist the reader in visualizing the properties. The appraiser has made no survey of the properties. It is assumed that the utilization of the subjects are within the boundar- ies or property lines of the property described and that there is no encroachment or trespass unless noted in within the report. 6) The appraiser is not required to give further consulta- tion, testimony, or appear in court because of having made the appraisal consulting with reference to the property in question, unless arrangements have been previously made therefore. 7) Any distribution of the total valuation in this report be- tween land and improvements applies only under the reported highest and best use of the property. The al- locations of value for land and improvements must not be used in conjunction with any other appraisal and are invalid if so used. 8) The appraiser assumes that there are no hidden or unapparent conditions of the property, subsoil, or structures, which would render it more or less valu- able. The appraiser assumes no responsibility for such conditions, or for engineering which might be required to discover such factors. Stable soils are as- sumed unless otherwise stated. 9) Unless otherwise stated in this report, the existence of hazardous material, which may or may not be present on the property, was not observed by the appraiser. The appraiser has no knowledge of the existence of such materials on or in the property. The appraiser, however, is not qualified to detect such substances. The presence of substances such as petroleum prod- ucts, asbestos, urea - formaldehyde foam insulation, radon gas, or other potentially hazardous materials may affect the value of the property. The value esti- mate is predicated on the assumption that there is no such material on or in the property that would cause a loss in value. No responsibility is assumed for any such conditions, or for any expertise or engineering knowledge required to discover them. The client is urged to retain an expert in this field, if desired. 10) It is assumed that all applicable zoning and use regu- lations and restrictions have been complied with, un- less a nonconformity has been stated. 11) It is assumed that all required licenses, certificates of occupancy, consents, and other legislative or adminis- trative authority from any local, state or national gov- emment or private entity or organization have been or can be obtained or renewed for any use on which the opinion of value contained in this report is based. 12) It is assumed that there is full compliance with all ap- plicable local, state and federal environmental regula- tions unless a noncompliance has been stated. 13) Information, estimates, and opinions furnished to the appraiser, and contained in the report, were obtained from sources considered reliable and believed to be true and correct. However, no responsibility for ac- curacy of such items furnished the appraiser can be assumed by the appraiser. 14) This appraisal does not affix or set the price of the property but offers only a supportable opinion as to the present worth of anticipated benefits subject to in- vestment risk, measured mainly by the market data available at the valuation date. Therefore, we assume no liability for changes in market conditions or for the inability of the owner to locate a purchaser at the ap- praised value. 15) Disclosure of the contents of the appraisal report is governed by the Bylaws and Regulations of the Ap- praisal Institute. No part of the contents of this report, or copy thereof (including conclusions as to the prop- erty value, the identity of the appraiser, professional designations, reference to any professional appraisal organizations, or the firm with which the appraiser is connected), shall be disseminated to the public through advertising, public relations, news, sales, or any other public means of communications without the prior written consent and approval of the appraiser. 16) The Americans with Disabilities Act ( "ADA ") became effective January 26, 1992. We have not made a spe- cific compliance survey and analysis of this property to determine whether or not it is in conformity with the ASSUMPTIONS AND LIMITING CONDITIONS (CONTINUED) various detailed requirements of the ADA. It is possible that a compliance survey of the property, together with a detailed analysis of the requirements of the ADA, could reveal that the property is not in compliance with one or more of the requirements of the Act. If so, this fact could have a negative effect upon the value of the property. Since we have no direct evidence relating to this issue, we did not consider possible non- compli- ance with the requirements of ADA in estimating the value of the property. 17) Information in the appraisal report relating to the com- parable market data is more fully documented in the confidential files in the office of the appraiser. 18) Possession of this report or a copy thereof does not carry with it the right of publication. It may not be used for any purpose by any person other than the party to whom it is addressed without the written consent of the appraiser, and in any event only with properly writ- ten qualification and only in its entirety. 19) This appraisal was requested by the named client and the listed intended users for their sole use. No other party may use or rely upon any part of this report with- out the prior written authorization of both the named client and the appraiser. Any unauthorized third party relying upon any portion of this report, does so at its own risk and liability. 1 10] Definitions Extraordinary assumptions or conditions affecting the ap- praisal are uncertain facts that are assumed to be accurate for purpose of the appraisal. Examples include a possible or probable rezoning which has not yet occurred, or pos- sible contamination which is ignored in the value opinion. Hypothetical conditions or assumptions are contrary to known facts or conditions. An example is ignoring known contamination for valuation purposes given a pending liti- gation in which damages are being sought due to the con- tamination. Special /Extraordinary Assumptions and Lim- iting Conditions 1) The concluded value opinions associated with new public improvements is based upon the assumption that the existing public streets are dated and have lim- ited remaining life. 2) No consideration has been given to the temporary in- conveniences associated with the construction of the streets. It is assumed that there will be proper staging of the construction so as to minimize disruption. 3) It is assumed that proper driveway connections will be made, and that all disturbed soils will be appropriately graded and fully sodded so as leave minimal work for property owners. 4) It is assumed that all public improvements will be within the right -of -way, and that no encroachment will result from the new streets. Hypothetical Assumptions None 11 Client Restriction on Use of Appraisal Consulting City of Edina 4801 West 50th Street Edina, MN 55424 -1394 Appraisal Consulting Engagement Eric Anderson, Assistant City Manager engaged the ap- praiser (phone 952 - 826- 0415). Other Intended Users City of Edina staff and Council Members. Intended Use of Appraisal Consultation Because of the aging and deteriorated condition of public streets within many neighborhoods, The City of Edina is undergoing planning efforts on a stepped -up street recon- struction schedule. Of major concern are the funding op- tions and the impact on future taxation policies. The consulting is an independent and professional study to determine what market value benefit typical residential properties may experience from having street reconstruc- tion. Specifically, we have analyzed the benefit from new pavement, and new concrete curb & gutter along with any needed storm water sewer requirements. Three sample neighborhoods have been considered which are scheduled for future street reconstruction: ■ South Harriet Park • Sunnyslope • Rolling Green The appraisal consulting and report have been developed without respect to the interests of the parties involved —it is an independent third party analysis supported by mar- ket observations. This appraisal consulting assignment was requested by the named client and the listed intended users for their sole use. No other party may use or rely upon any part of this report without the prior written authorization of both the named client and the appraiser. Any unauthorized third party relying upon any portion of this report, does so at its own risk and liability. 12] Type of Value Market Value Definition The type of value used in our analysis is the market value benefit attributed to the new public improvements. Before and after street improvement market values have been studied, with the difference being the benefit to a typical residential property. Market value is purely an economic concept. It differs from: • Intrinsic value • Value in use —value based upon a specific use • Investment value —value to a specific investor • Going concern value —value of a proven property operation which can include personal property and business enterprise • Insurable value • Assessed value —used for taxation purposes and based upon mass appraisal techniques • Public interest value (e.g., conservation and pres- ervation issues) • Cost Value is created by utility, scarcity, desire and effective purchasing power. The definition of "Market Value" as utilized in this report per the Office of the Comptroller of Currency is as follows: The most probable price which a property should bring in a competitive and open market under all con- ditions 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 they consider their 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 property sold, unaffected by special or cre- ative financing or sales concessions granted by anyone associated with the sale. 13 The subject and other neighborhoods were inspected dur- ing March, April and May of 2005. The date of value is the date of this report—June 24, 2005. The property rights appraised are the fee - simple interest of the real estate, subject to normal easements for drain- age, public streets and utilities, if any. A fee - simple inter- est is the absolute ownership interest unencumbered by any other interest or estate, subject only to the limitations of eminent domain, police power and taxation. The effect of any existing mortgages, deferred taxes, de- linquent taxes, outstanding special assessments, unpaid utility charges, payable association dues, or any other lev- ies /liens on the subject property have not been consid- ered in this appraisal. No movable equipment or personal property have been included in our appraised values. 14 The scope of work used to develop the appraisal consulta- and after sales are analyzed to produce value ben - tion is specific to the intended use of the assignment re- efit indications. sults. "Scope of work" is defined as the amount and type m Survey of property owners who have recently ex- of information researched and the analysis applied in an assignment. It includes: perience street reconstruction. 1. The degree to which the property is inspected or identified, 2. The extent of research into physical or economic factors that could affect the property, 3. The extent of data research, and 4. The type and extent of analysis applied to arrive at opinions or conclusion. The appraisal consultation complies with all Standard Rules of the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice (USPAP). Drive -thru inspections of the subject neighborhoods were made by appraiser Thomas Day. No interior or detail in- spections of any specific property occurred. The following was available to the appraisers: ■ Plat maps ■ Zoning Maps • Aerial photographs • Other city maps including age of roadways and curb and gutter maps • FEMA flood hazard maps • Public assessment information ■ City historic and proposed street reconstruction costs ■ Overview of past assessment policies We have not appraised any specific property, but rather analyzed the market value benefit to a typical residential property from the three sample neighborhoods. Our study has included the following work: ■ Resales —study of neighborhoods where new streets have recently occurred. This includes iden- tifying and studying properties which sold twice— first recently before the street reconstruction, and secondly after completion of the project to provide a value benefit indication. ■ Paired sales —study of neighborhoods where new streets have recently occurred; comparable before ■ Survey of Realtors who are active in Edina. ■ Survey of experienced professional real estate ap- praisers. With consideration of the value indications from the resales and paired sales using a traditional valuation tools, along with the survey results from homeowners and real estate professionals, we have concluded market value benefit opinions for the impacted subject neighborhoods. While we have focused on the Edina market, we have stud- ied other communities as well where market data can be derived from street resconstruction projects. These other communities considered included St. Louis Park, Golden Valley, Bloomington, Minnetonka and Eden Prairie. We have made exterior inspections of some of the market data utilized in this report. The final step is a reconciliation of the indicated values and survey results to produce sup- ported opinions of the subject market value benefit from street reconstruction. The appraiser signing this report accepts full professional responsibility for all of the analyses and conclusions con- tained within this report. The data used was obtained from sources considered credible, yet its accuracy is not guar- anteed. 15 The City of Edina is a first tier fully - developed community, lying west of the City of Minneapolis and 9 miles south- west of downtown Minneapolis. It has a current popula- tion over 47,000, and is surrounded by the communities of Minneapolis, St. Louis Park, Hopkins, Minnetonka, Eden Prairie, Bloomington and Richfield. There is a mixture of large residential districts developed in the 1940's thru 1960's, some multi - family residential projects, industrial uses at the southern edge of the city developed largely in the 1950's and 1960's, commercial /retail districts along heavily - traveled France Avenue, and office complexes in districts such as France Avenue and on State Highways 100 and 62 (Crosstown). Several major highways provide good access to all por- tions of the metropolitan area. State Highways 100 (north - south) and 62 (east -west) divide the community into four sections. Interstate 494 runs east -west along the south- ern border and State Highway 169 runs north -south along the western border of Edina. Most development occurred in the 1940's, 1950's and 1960's, and property condition is rated average. It has a good close -in location with good access routes. Major employers in the city include Fairview Southdale Hospital, Jerry's Enterprises, Golden Valley Microwave Foods, Health Risk Management, Wells Fargo Funding Co., Nash Finch Co., International Dairy Queen, Roach Organization and Techpower. Edina has numerous retail shopping centers, including a regional mall, Southdale Center. Others include the Gal - leria, Yorktown, and Centennial Lakes Plaza. In addition, there is a thriving downtown area located at 50th Street & France Avenue, known as "50th & France." Average single - family home prices in the community have soared from $246,768 in 1997 to $496,579 in 2004, with a 17.7% increase in values from 2003 to 2004. According to MLS data, the number of single - family homes sales have remained steady between 1997 and 2004, averaging ap- proximately 590 annually. Overall, it is a strong reputation community having much upper valued housing command- ing good demand and a stable future. Regional Mag 16 COMMUNITY DESCRIPTION (CONTINUED) Community Man o 01 02 03 04 05 4 __ LEGEND i 1 irrcA = 0]9 mile ,. i ,r PLACES A 0 } OL 1/lf I LACESv 67. \% 1 !I IT SCHOOLS EDINA / 9 PRIVATE v SCHOOLS y~ ` PAW r' OURSE$ w.. Op • t _ O ^ �� d STATE OR COUNTY HIGHWAY ar - wA A WiFWAC -NIN vim' ! O! �i ( `• • L:(TUNIRY _ � !! � INTERSTATE NWY POND 4 :IUR • 9 III li ro 17 ®�' ► 1 ®111® ® i' III li ro 17 18 COMMUNITY DESCRIPTION (CONTINUED) Employment Density Twin Cities Metropolitan Area 2000 Employment Density lwas~ � ,,,,%, , 0—T.T. Oa. AND G� T" 9L D.A.- Vd.4 I I # • Uu*. w" T-e. • WASHINGTON c— 4 NO. T- HENNEPIN LAI •* H.fy— T- Wrnl...� T.4L S', c IL CARVE Pli 5 r • c4w. M•m Tap DWdr- T- L—WAb T.W Pdw LdW —T- San F—T T-* •W4 L•. TA. 0,00- L.-.. ! T.F, sciwr D TA - --------------------- bmkft T4 C"ILO* •.Y T— "w—up TWL N- Nt. �P. E� �P. II.InVNn T� N. D-0. TT. 0 N 5 IO" r1w- 15 20 Miles Metropolitan Council Building Cbmmunides that Work Average Employment Density (first quarter 2000 average employment) Lem than I job per acre not shown 1 -2 10-20 2-3 20-30 *W 3-4 30-40 4 - 5 40 -50 5.6 -50 -100 6-7 100 - 200 7.: 200 - 300 a- 300-400 9-10 400 or more 797� COMMUNITY DESCRIPTION (CONTINUED) Housing Density Twin Cities Metropolitan Area — 2000 Housing Unit Density . !M Vy l.k.+••A Twp '. . �v.r Trp OMMyw - Housing Unit Density e.m as .w..»nb 10 na,aoy vorcs by 2000 C-- Bbtk _ _ .. mom MR+7 arw r4ntak. c.kw -T• • `'� r Foml l•k• Mew , "T ..) Hen T+ry, a r.upo { .••�.� WASHINGTON • - '• .ems 0r•wrReM C•re•r•n re.a. �n.gglGP• 0 .R .:�w 'ly... �.. M�yeWr _ .. '•'3R' Nan ar. t'^ pp° Mwwriw HENNEPIN�s' a..a wa06 B.y. "1yFq Bpnnue �'V •', krieynA•R•• N•an•�°i F•t r ;i r ♦ a ..+.' ( 1 T O•x PrAM•jONb r(rjt� jfi 'lufra; r ,rrs ` � lup+l ]•, XCS 4wWD•ae•4rKi«z �� Mwi1e hi��♦ �.- d�':r,.. Lsxe EHro Be r GlFYs•VeRry' ,Y• lk*YU1e 4p1r Yz YWe. LaxWnO Tw0.n �%nri .. •-x�, i ! � °fit � � rte" +Tw ■k•..nbT• 'rte.. �py�«au a. «n wwa.no Tr- o�rpn� [}Qi1R «lu• ow. b•MFM6.j i, fL°.!"�' J�. 1`..:1�'.•. y� �f pan. ,M•(r ( Wconu T,a C+rre•"Try W{bL - l F `' ./± ',y��y .iOrYMti•yi e'T ^�r I xm. a 't.^' .� CARVER n'S'{ l L t•bbwn Trp may.. 46 g N Ymi ,� �' j l t ' -fi D•mwk Twy. TL'.k• .. c P �".r �6, Fwrn,� d ',.-. �,. - "_YF Co�11�i fir+• ile a :. ,. ot -- Jp•oon Yp 8r•onTrp �''°• '�i "TC'L' Ro..Te,.,n rkmrq«Twp Lwawr.rw p.b(yti, •' - vnnilFOn Twp N•rrW 1Wy- .. WIrp LYU Try. CrWX RIwr Twp laFwtlN Empke rrp. r. ",. v rmllbn M«sn.n Twy. SCOTT DAKOTA ' N•nplon N•W T— MrrW r. BbFr.y Try RNM pbrne Try N•luu Twp CWer ltle Trp IbR MRIMr'M• : E.— Try C• W Roca Twp N.npon Twp —' N•r a•TkR - OpNw Te•p. ERo N•w pnpu• - ReMapn TK. ° • `- ° E11r Randapn 0nenveb Trp WTrf —TwpS Twp. }y Metropolitan Council NwiMWG -. [�MDIYIY ae N6rt 20 COMMUNITY DESCRIPTION (CONTINUED) 2003 Aerial Photo 21 COMMUNITY DESCRIPTION (CONTINUED) 1991 Aerial Photo 22 COMMUNITY DESCRIPTION (CONTINUED) Avg Price Edina Average SFR Prices t Average Annual °;, Change From MLS Data $600,000 - - -- _.. - 20% 18% $91N1,(Nl(1 - 16 14'; `+1W.OlN) 12' r 3 y V a d w A d Sjt, $2(V,M) 6' 4', s11x1,m) 2'; 1997 1998 1999 2(00 2W1 2002 2003 2W4 Year 1 70,000 1 fi(1.(1f111 So,lxKl a 417,(100 0 0 a 30,W0 0 a 20,M) 10AX) Edina Population and Jobs 19n0 1970 19A(I I1A)0 Iv96 21RN1 2010 2020 2030 Year ■ Edina Population ■ Edina Jobs COMMUNITY DESCRIPTION (CONTINUED) 2002 Population Density Map 7�w To �- � �' • • �•r•► `•"fit • ♦ •� • • • ♦ • •• M • • • � ,.n 0000 °. ••• • t 1 I' '�°° •• ° +• • • •� �� tf• iii ii • AR, 400 CAL M ;•� �• °I «tom.. ♦ 9099•. 0. • • . • • • • • • mow• s 40 40 e ch 1 04 • to • • 17I � p • l hMA/•• • ...V.. • „�lr r • • • • • • • • i ••.,w{w • 'fie• • • °• _ r + i' Ly • • !l"w• . • •• ,.,r•,... 4090 • • • •• L • ♦ •% • ••-• �• tom. •Z ••• 2-t • • "'. • •. �it� .ter' • • ° r Tile �•/r o 24 ze • • ° r • • • • i • • • � • • • • � • • • 0009 • • � ,.n 0000 °. ••• • t 1 I' '�°° •• ° +• • • •� �� tf• iii ii • AR, 400 CAL M ;•� �• °I «tom.. ♦ 9099•. 0. • • . • • • • • • mow• s 40 40 e ch 1 04 • to • • 17I � p • l hMA/•• • ...V.. • „�lr r • • • • • • • • i ••.,w{w • 'fie• • • °• _ r + i' Ly • • !l"w• . • •• ,.,r•,... 4090 • • • •• L • ♦ •% • ••-• �• tom. •Z ••• 2-t • • "'. • •. �it� .ter' • • ° r Tile �•/r o 24 25 COMMUNITY DESCRIPTION (CONTINUED) Significant Externalities of Market Area Positive externalities include: Negative externalities include: • Convenient first -tier community ■ Aging public infrastructure • Established and fully - developed community • Major uses within the community include Southdale Shopping Center and Fairview Southdale Hospi- tal • Good population and stable demographics • Large number and educated labor force • Good transportation routes including Interstate 494, U.S. Highway 169, State Highways 62 and 100 • Growing number of jobs • Good property maintenance • Good population base from which to find qualified employees • Dwindling supply of developable land within the region • Increasing residential values • Very strong reputation and stability 26 � I i •. * LnLL113L Y Sunnyslope . ,, - HOPKI \S Rolling Green ST. LOUIS RKr y,5a. sr. MI"+.noho t! I ...s.x i I�r_.0 "KA J l' I &V�� WL Nw ;� BLOOMINGTON E\ d Lay. 0 vw / `i rr tt+« m".. _South Harriet Park I S1. T... F j .11-11, , v,u 11 O.9. 66 The South Harriet Park neighborhood is located between the Edina Country Club on the west and the City of Min- neapolis on the east. It is bordered by 52nd Street West to the north, Halifax Avenue to the east, 54th Street West to the south and Wooddale Avenue to the west. Residential uses surround the subject. Minnehaha Creek runs north - south through the center of the subdivision. It is an appealing, fully- developed single - family residen- tial neighborhood having above average residential views. Lot sizes generally ranging from approximately .25 -acre in the western portion to .40 -acre on the east side of Min- nehaha Creek. Hennepin County records indicate as- sessed market values for improved properties typically range from approximately $350,000 to $900,000. Most of the homes were constructed in the 1940's. Zoning is R -1, Single Dwelling Unit District. The topography is mostly level, with lower elevations adja- cent to Minnehaha Creek. There are many mature trees. The subject soils appear and are assumed to be stable. Most of the development does not appear to be within a mapped special flood hazard area as determined by FEMA. There is a small area affecting two or three parcels on the east side of Minnehaha Creek lying within Zone B (areas between the limits of the 100 -year flood and 500 - year flood). All normal utilities and services are available including public sanitary sewer, water, storm sewer, electrical ser- vice and natural gas. There is good access to collector routes and highways. The 2001 traffic counts on France Avenue, 54th Street West and Wooddale Avenue were 14,500, 2,100, and 5,700 vehicles per day, respectively. Current streets in the neighborhood are two -lane residen- tial streets with bituminous surfaces. They are in fair to below average condition having evidence of settlement, potholes, deteriorating edges and patched areas. Only Halifax Avenue has a concrete curb and gutter, also show- ing signs of wear. There is average street lighting, older public improvements and no public sidewalks. Improvements being considered involve the following streets: • 52nd Street between Wooddale Avenue and Oak - lawn Avenue • 53rd Street between Wooddale Avenue & Brookview Avenue • Kellogg Avenue between 52nd and 54th Streets • Brookview Avenue between 52nd and 54th Streets • Minnehaha Blvd between 52nd and 54th Streets • Halifax Avenue between 52nd and 54th Streets A street map, location /traffic map, plat map, aerial maps and neighborhood photographs are shown on the follow- ing pages. 28 SOUTH HARRIET PARK NEIGHBORHOOD DATA (CONTINUED) 2001 Edina Street Map 3 D J Li -lL%L�,JLJLJ 5 42N sr. HOPKINS ST. LOUIS PARK up h6GL —I M I 0 I �6 c:1 wr� r� : g 1 Y :aoa�loa y IT 85 Sr. 3 —. . • ST. 11900 T 1.) W94. Lk CT.. rip ��,g(Wr ky° , TIL 5 T'iL 21 I Z 17. PRAIRIE WIT" II BLOOMINGTON Edi- L." IT.South Harriet - Park 11 i 11 , .1-111, 'ZI-11 20100 7700 § 0 o ED. !Tl" a SOUTH HARRIET PARK NEIGHBORHOOD DATA (CONTINUED) 9th 3 ST. FW 3 ST. Lr; N RICHMOND o AVE. KENT AVE. NE TER. Y r�5?tt) z v Uri �s 1 G 146 ti N ICLO� RIDGE 0 2001 South Harriet Park Location and Traffic Count Mag Z Q C13 BRI DGE ST. 6 RIDGE a 30 0 o LA. o ° W. 48th w m a w r w S T. 5 a Z ° O w z o z > O X U U 0 3 S Q WON ,r, °off ° o a Ir J ° 0� W�49th ST. U m w !� ��IRY RD. c W - 49/2 ST. J C cr_ W. 1 h 106 OST. 2 18. � o� - - - Y J - - - /4 � w 141 ro 19. WOODDALE LA• BRUCE W. a c 51 St ST. ' ��• Q i a o a I City of WOOD i DgLE PL• z z 0> Minneapolis a o a O GL i z �' W. 52nd ST. o W. 52nd ' T 1 1 7N R24W • L�j Edina s o z 18 17 Country Club W. 53 rd a ST. _ CO X 19 20 Q �I > R__ Lake W. = 54th ST. Harvey GOLF a TER. a 1 a - - - - - - - - - � a /4 o Y OO _j IFULLER WOODHILLJ DR. a i ``' ° a 17 I W. ST. 55th Y OAK o _j ; hG. > Wd WI ND EVI �� LEXING TONS i ST. DES``' �p Cf W. Y v �C AV. o > > W. N 56 th O o ST. o o a� a a � � PL. c �p� Pr10 SO UTH VI EW OW ER ST. i — m I W. 57t 4 cc��-cc��-�� - - OOD LAND � RD. oo" Q �O 30�� C)ACORD 3 0�� • j w w w 00 o R. PHILBROOK LA. 3 a a > > cr w za - 143 -' 58 t h 143 S T a a = J �° N �i > > I -'- - -�O - - - - GRIM ES 2 O Q Q a Q LA.I W. 59th ST. W. 59Th ST. Jam' z z, i w o o f i J I Z c� O z w " 0 = W SCHOOL m W. ]th - LL a o f a a o 3 VQ<<fY a o i LL st ST _ U a ' W. 61 st ST. 6� 30 SOUTH HARRIET PARK NEIGHBORHOOD DATA (CONTINUED) 2004 Plat Map 31 SOUTH HARRIET PARK NEIGHBORHOOD DATA (CONTINUED) 2000 Aerial Map 32 SOUTH HARRIET PARK NEIGHBORHOOD DATA (CONTINUED) 2003 Aerial Photo 33 SOUTH HARRIET PARK NEIGHBORHOOD DATA (CONTINUED) Representative Photographs of South Harriet Park Pro eg_rties 34 SOUTH HARRIET PARK NEIGHBORHOOD DATA (CONTINUED) Representative Photographs of South Harriet Park Properties 35 SOUTH HARRIET PARK NEIGHBORHOOD DATA (CONTINUED) Representative Photographs of South Harriet Park Pro ep rties 36 SOUTH HARRIET PARK NEIGHBORHOOD DATA (CONTINUED) Representative Photographs of South Harriet Park Street Improvements 37 SOUTH HARRIET PARK NEIGHBORHOOD DATA (CONTINUED) Representative Photographs of South Harriet Park Street Improvements 71 le, 38 SOUTH HARRIET PARK NEIGHBORHOOD DATA (CONTINUED) Representative Photographs of South Harriet Park Street Improvements 39 The Sunnyslope neighborhood is located in the northeast quadrant of State Highway 100 and 50th Street West. It is bordered by Minnehaha Creek to the north and east. Across 50th Street to the south is Edina Country Club golf course. It is an appealing, fully- developed single - family residential neighborhood with above average residential views. Lot sizes are generally near one -half acre. Hennepin County assessed market values for improved properties typically range from approximately $350,000 to $1,100,000. Most of the homes were constructed in the 1940's and 1950's. Zoning is R -1, Single Dwelling Unit District. The topography is rolling, and there are many mature trees. The subject soils appear and are assumed to be stable. Most of the development does not appear to be within a mapped special flood hazard area as determined by FEMA. There is a small strip along the length of Minneha- ha Creek lying within Zone B (areas between the limits of the 100 -year flood and 500 -year flood). Buildings do not generally appear to lie in the designated flood zone area. All normal utilities and services are available including public sanitary sewer, water, storm sewer, electrical ser- vice and natural gas. There is good access to collector routes and highways. The 2001 traffic counts on State Highway 100 and 50th Street West were 111,000 and 24,200 vehicles per day, respectively. Trees provide a buffer to properties backing up to State Highway 100. Current streets in the neighborhood are two -lane bitumi- nous residential streets without curb and gutter. They are in fair condition having some evidence of settlement, de- teriorating edges and patching. There is average street lighting, older public improvements and no public side- walks. The following streets are being considered for improve- ments: ■ Sunnyslope Road ■ Woodhill Way ■ Ridge Place ■ Dale Drive ■ Hilltop Lane A street map, location /traffic map, plat map, aerial maps and neighborhood photographs are shown on the follow- ing pages. 40 SUNNYSLOPE NEIGHBORHOOD DATA (CONTINUED) 2001 Edina Street Man HOPKINS sanx� Im. �'0 sTl� oa®oD5 Sri. 2I6W IxTERLRGxEx"II M" 2. M�10 IRAIRIE al i R:x. upe Ra Sunnyslope J i J_ ST. LOUIS RK Meado"b.004 x NpN11xGSIMJ�� i" xv 0 0 0" �q 4 `�p IvISIW sT. L c N `b Fw s ;i o xoltrMOU 5, 11900 R m M W 11 W 1& a.o. " sl �� T M � � 5" NORTN d tL ll ". Stm 51 lv �yH �i 0. x. 52M C i N1d1EN r SXOe J � IQO Ilk `(1\p � REcexLaoN zL. +._ OJ 1GN4IXA H.— Ll' TER . =.x +/ M t .1-11 qkT.11 1 ";8 T- o�m Txsx R: IT. ST. Ti RxeN / e ]I IT. uu II GRek T]T�MR°d J 5 1n z ST. N 'j TR CEJ ,m cq t ° 7700 S L N G t• .s. . ` all' ST. Q 11 cIR. ti i < x l yN oR. W c 44I17 d ■.T rd sr. d Ro. / i11n Si. Ln4e ni ISC V �RAReL." i AK. Edna qor 20Qs no v4 z L..2 nTn sr. vR 41 W 76th ST. fp ♦ ' IL . oR. ` V t ST. Ni— 4 ?I d 8 e' aQ o G P ' T Eo1xN IMUSTR� w nrn '❑� T. U6 IR Ii to of i " 10000 ex l0 MI1 —I.T. TMex on. T 430 j m R3J -� f'I6 e x BLOOMINGTON u00:A 41 SUNNYSLOPE NEIGHBORHOOD DATA (CONTINUED) 2001 Sunnyslope Location and Traffic Count Map a > o gR AN w Gree4 o Q > w c-_3 z a CD p �o -7 Y zi Yea Ld w Y ° �o Y O U O O0W I , z a cr O > 140 L,JW m UQ - SUNN > I 4 w I �, 11. W ° o �; > > LD W I o o W > a a w° <1 V Z1 12. ---j a ST, o Q RD. Z gRI DGE ST. CD I ~ Of 13. o w 5 m— CO m a W. 48th I ,��{• `� a a ° o T O \.\. z 0 ,_,j LRD. I W0013 �l �ri o ° o ,i to 4. m �- y�P o w a w• 1--4 v �� RY G ' � S T. .,, d 18. � ST. �� _ 158 - - � ' 1 I � Q w 19. �6 WOODDALE I LA. z R Q - _ ' P��• �O i EDEN w < �Q WOOD I AL E 3 �4 GL I 5 o W. 52nd I Edina CD 100 G Country Club I N W. 53 I rd F CIR. I• • > --o,iEDEWkAQQR ST 42 SUNNYSLOPE NEIGHBORHOOD DATA (CONTINUED) 2004 Plat Map 44 ---- -------- — -- 96 S 40V 46 46 4p A J. 40 J6 . ........... c its ki. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 121 Got" far j....... 43 SUNNYSLOPE NEIGHBORHOOD DATA (CONTINUED) 2000 Aerial Map SUNNYSLOPE NEIGHBORHOOD DATA (CONTINUED) 2003 Aerial Photo 45 SUNNYSLOPE NEIGHBORHOOD DATA (CONTINUED) Reoresentative Photographs of Sunnyslope Properties 46 SUNNYSLOPE NEIGHBORHOOD DATA (CONTINUED) Representative Photographs of Sunnyslope Properties 47 SUNNYSLOPE NEIGHBORHOOD DATA (CONTINUED) Representative Photographs of Sunnyslope Properties ow F ttt � 1 48 SUNNYSLOPE NEIGHBORHOOD DATA (CONTINUED) Representative Photographs of Sunnysloge Street Improvements 49 SUNNYSLOPE NEIGHBORHOOD DATA (CONTINUED) Representative Photographs of Sunnyslope Street Improvements S °s 50 50 The neighborhood of Rolling Green is located along the City of Edina's northern border with Hopkins. Two golf courses are adjacent; to the west and south is Interlachen Country Club and to the north is Meadowbrook Golf Course. A single - family residential subdivision lies to the east and Interlachen Boulevard is the southern boundary. It is an appealing, fully - developed, upscale single - family residential neighborhood with good residential views. Lot sizes are generally near 1 acre, yet several sites are much larger; the largest of which is 15 acres. Hennepin County assessed market values for improved properties typically range from approximately $1 to $2 million; the highest in- dicated property value was over $5.5 million. The original homes were constructed during the late 1930's and 1940's, yet there are currently many new homes in the neighbor- hood. There has been a increasing trend in recent years for buyers to purchase the properties for their land value, razing the buildings, and constructing new homes. Zoning is R -1, Single Dwelling Unit District. The topography is rolling with many mature trees. The subject soils appear and are assumed to be stable. Most of the development does not appear to be within a mapped special flood hazard area as determined by FEMA. There are areas in the northern portion of the de- velopment lying within Zone A6 (100 -year flood) and Zone B (areas between the limits of the 100 -year flood and 500 - year flood). All normal utilities and services are available including public sanitary sewer, water, storm sewer, electrical ser- vice and natural gas. There is good access to collector routes and highways. The 2001 traffic count on Interlachen Boulevard was 11,900 vehicles per day. Current streets in the neighborhood are two -lane resi- dential streets with bituminous surfaces and no curb and gutter. They are in fair condition with some evidence of settlement, deteriorating edges and patched areas. There is average street lighting, older public improvements and no public sidewalks. Improvements being considered involve the following streets: • Annaway Drive • Bywood West • Crescent Terrace • Mait Lane • Rolling Green Parkway • Merilane • Paddock Road A street map, location /traffic map, plat map, aerial maps and neighborhood photographs are shown on the follow- ing pages. 51 ROLLING GREEN NEIGHBORHOOD DATA (CONTINUED) 2001 Edina Street Map HOPYINS Rolling Green 2600 •.m uw ,.n 51. w,C•E.[w[w� 3 l4 CT. FA PAft 16 k YA 4 •SK i — w _ 4309 I I u —m ST. LOUIS PARK � � a� U E Sr. Mdo•bw4 •x�• .oxx "�'�� 5r. Qa J 4 • k��R tl _ ` MINNEAPO r v 5 ,nEn .srw ,,. . tx *Ep 11900 n 'r \ � 4 MLa4e H�4��.�r.��.4. ®a , t• I •oaoDUE i . U • = I I'Snp:I�I •� V o � , • s:� r' 1 w..r.. cw. H— : rU. y j'x UIU E • � '1 =1� ©fir Z:: n`sz +/ a.• N s. �11JL�L°JL'J� 7700 g ci . z s,. n tix �� Y AQ N n a 5r. 31 g a4. u ap.. E.• 3 f- •. ,•.n s,. BLOOMINGTON "T utM 52 ROLLING GREEN NEIGHBORHOOD DATA (CONTINUED) 2001 Rolling Green Location and Traffic Count Map Meadowbrook City of Hopkins Meadowbrook GO Course SPR UCE RD. > J F- 0 D_ N LD LA. TI17N R21W w 9 2Z N O 0 w 3 Y V O o � WATERMAN AVE. Interlachen ,k:- Country Club i o MAIT aERILANE 3 LA. a Z Z a ANNAWA'i o GENT Q 2c v 0 r F'Q rn (\ 20 y INTERLACHEN �ADOW Lake O cc Y U 0 os 0 a 3 T117N R21W +�2 �,n'Zeha w �v w Q v Q O Q c�D DIVISION > J v� � w Q O' o o COOPER xo > W• CIR. HOLLYWOOD a R w ORCHARD 20 J > LL> m a LA. LVD. A 119 00 / ofR, i o > > > 20 U o a a a Z Mirror Interlachen it ou BL OSSOW. S1 st 94 Lake H Country Club Highlands W CT, �° o a Y Z S`�° a J a a �• Lake o m 3 = i NORTHWOOD �, Q �� 4. W. 52nd T. 4 LA. 0 0 CRO'i �o w Q o° a �° HIDDEN r �- i c, J 0 0 0 = � 53rd'o , L) U0 a iw NIGHWOCO od LA.Y a o 0 0 a :33 o> i s DR. SOU TH a DR. o 6�L o NEST�O `� °° PINE GROVE ❑ ��' , J 21. N RO , RD. AYR SH1 i w A � � n OOD EA' 01DYLWOODdo o w AJ YLW ��•� a ��•�ICHW000 D i o 0 o 2 2 2 ~ J WINDSOR A DR. I DR. o � o = cw zo a 158 �NL i ONY oRD ESLEE y = W. 56 the ST. w o� p ��N i ��5 W 56th s; JEF Q LA. Z a o > ENO J (q. �•� w Q/ �� Q HAW' RIDCF p 9'Pt I w ° w Illy. OR. NLwkes{s ER N Ln = SRO. 4Rk > 'a KAY MAR RAIRIE ' \�� 0 a �� Ea�� Q R� n (1 C1R • MERE O\ <f" y WARD E� Q Q i W. 5 7 t O �fSTI c 53 ROLLING GREEN NEIGHBORHOOD DATA (CONTINUED) 2004 Plat Map :0L to goo 'AUAW -~.ANON" I Agl= i )P*ftf Aft mia --_am jV, rC �54 ROLLING GREEN NEIGHBORHOOD DATA (CONTINUED) 2000 Aerial Map 55 ROLLING GREEN NEIGHBORHOOD DATA (CONTINUED) 2003 Aerial Photo 56 ROLLING GREEN NEIGHBORHOOD DATA (CONTINUED) Representative Photographs of Rolling Green Properties 57 ROLLING GREEN NEIGHBORHOOD DATA (CONTINUED) Representative Photographs of Rolling Green Properties 58 ROLLING GREEN NEIGHBORHOOD DATA (CONTINUED) Representative Photographs of Rolling Green Street Improvements r. AL 4 . 59 ROLLING GREEN NEIGHBORHOOD DATA (CONTINUED) Representative Photographs of Rolling Green Street Improvements 60 Proposed for the three subject neighborhoods are new public streets. Due to their age being over 35 years, the sig- nificant deterioration, the high annual repair costs, and to the limited remaining useful life, new streets are a prudent decision. Moreover, Edina residents expect good public services -- including proper upkeep and replacements of public infrastructure. Most of the subject neighborhood's streets have no curb or gutter. As a result, ruts, deterioration and snow plow dam- age is amplified. Drainage also is less efficient. Some residents, however, prefer the "country look" of not having curb and gutter. These generally are within the larger -site subdivisions, such as Rolling Green, where no sidewalks are preferred. Sunnyslope and South Harriet Park have the older streets, and have notable deterioration. Rolling Green's streets show sign of their age, yet some large surface patching has improved its utility. Due to the increasing lot sizes and frontages, costs increase for the three subject neighborhoods - -they are reported to be approximately: So. Harriet Park $10,000 Sunnyslope $15,000 Rolling Green $20,000 The costs include complete street reconstruction, and include curb and gutter, improved storm sewer facilities, new bituminous pave- ment and driveway connections. Utility replacement is not included. The above costs include a bulk- head curb and gutter. With some neighborhoods preferring no curb and gutter, the costs will be less. Historically Edina has fully as- sessed property owners for street replacements. In the past, costs generally have been near $2,000 to $6,000 per parcel. Going forward with larger -scope projects and larg- er site neighborhoods, higher costs are projected. Generally, other communities as- sess 20% to 50% of costs, with the balance being funded from general taxes. Many of these policies are designed to keep contested ap- peals to a minimum. With Edina's strong market with upper values and a desire for good public ser- vices and infrastructure, the market acceptance of assessments where benefit can be show is good. Ilifi�l ■� ` �. � ►1111 1 ,r4i �� '� � �ti 1111• �� !/ j ► 1 , �� 111 � � �! 111111 11111 11 low w. '� c 7111 J. 77 NEW STREETS OVERVIEW AND PRELIMINARY ANALYSIS (CONTINUED) 9n. mrlmmr. =..I v 1• - -72 IT __,q K011ing �en Sunnyslope 1 31 L L- -T--T I F'— L 1 t -3 IN j N W+ E No Curb s Engineering Dept January, 2005 NEW STREETS OVERVIEW AND PRELIMINARY ANALYSIS (CONTINUED) Our preliminary analysis indicates that all three of the subject neighborhoods benefit from street replacement. The utility and appeal of the public improvements will be enhanced, with the result that the overall neighborhood will be strengthened. It helps promote property upkeep, renovation, landscaping improvements, and extends the life of the district. Based upon our own past appraisal experience, those with dense development resembling urban features —such as South Harriet Park or the County Club Neighborhood, experience notable market value benefit. Intuitively, as an improvement ages and deteriorates to the point of it having limited remaining life, it is prudent to re- place the asset. When there is notable life remaining in an improvement, the added value for replacement is some- what below the cost— again, it depends upon the condition of the existing improvements. Sunnyslope and South Harriet Park have streets that have spent most of their useful life. Hence, new streets are a significant betterment which can better be supported from the market. Rolling Green has some streets with large surfaces patches which has extended their utility, appear- ance and life. Given the residents's desire for a "country look ", the added market value for complete new streets might be somewhat less than the cost. The following sections of this report focus on a more de- tailed study including an analysis of market data. 63 Our study has included the following work: ■ Resales analysis —study of neighborhoods where new streets have recently occurred. This includes identifying and studying properties which sold twice —first recently before the street reconstruc- tion, and secondly after completion of the project to provide a value benefit indication. ■ Paired sales analysis —study of neighborhoods where new streets have recently occurred; com- parable before and after sales are analyzed to pro- duce value benefit indications. ■ Survey of property owners who have recently ex- perienced street reconstruction. ■ Survey of Realtors who are active in Edina. ■ Survey of experienced professional real estate ap- praisers. First reported are the results of our resales and paired sales analysis, followed by the result of phone surveys. 64 In the following sections of this report are the detailed ad- justment analysis of resales and paired sales. We have expended numerous effort and time identifying meaning- ful properties that can be analyzed. A total of 39 proper- ties have been used for detailed study. When valuing the contribution of a specific item to the overall property value, a paired sales analysis often is used. Paired sales generally find a property with and without a specific item such as a porch, 3rd garage stall or basement finishing. Ideally, very similar comparables are found from the same neighborhood which sold during similar market conditions. With street replacement, it is difficult to find comps which sold at the same time with and without new streets. Giv- en the different appeal and values of neighborhoods, it is best to use property sales from the same district which sold over time - -prior sales with dated streets, and recent sales after the new streets are completed. While resales are best - -the same property which requires little adjustment other than for time - -they are difficult to find having the proper street criteria. Hence, many paired sale are also included that have comparable features. A detraction from our study is the recent strong residen- tial appreciation rates. Generally, many of the resale and paired sale sets have a 1 to 3 year timeframe to adequate- ly reflect the market before and after the new streets. The metro areas and the comparable study market areas all experience near 10% annual appreciation rates. Hence, time adjustments are huge - -on a $300,000 property, time adjustment of near $30,000 /year is needed. While large, the adjustment is market supported. Time Adjustment Conclusion: 10% Annual Rate 65 Twin Cities Average SFR Prices From MLS Data $300,000 IT, $250,(00 TC Metro Avg. Price - — _ -- - t TC Metro Annual 'Y,, Change $200,000 v U $1 SO, ON) d d $1(X1, OW $511,0(x) 2'';. $0 0 ", 1992 1993 1994 1995 19% 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2(x)4 Year 65 RESULTS OF RESALES AND PAIRED SALES ANALYSIS (CONTINUED) Intuitively, there is benefit of having new streets; the ques- ■ Enhancement in neighborhoods where visitor tion is how much benefit. Appeal and value enhancement street parking is used can result from the following factors: ■ Enhancement where unsightly dated wood tim- ■ Elimination of potholes and street -edge ruts bers or boulders or other barriers at roadside are no longer needed ■ Reduced damage to both streets and lawns from snow plows and vehicles when a bulkhead curb is used • Increased aesthetic appeal of new streets • Greatly lengthens the life of the public improve- ments serving the needs of the neighborhood • Promotion of properties installing new driveways and updated site improvements ■ Appeal for families having better streets for chil- dren riding bikes, using roller blades, strollers, etc. • Smoother ride for vehicles • Superior drainage • Reduced annual maintenance disruptions ■ Extends the life cycle of a neighborhood ■ Reduces potential buyer objection to a neighbor- hood or property A total of 39 properties have been used for detailed study. Some identified sales indicated no value benefit, yet many of these sold during the late 1990s where the 10% time adjustment might not be fully supported, or where there is some uncertainty with the features or condition of the comps. Following are summary tables and charts. Due to market irregularities, a few resales /paired sales indicate a nega- tive benefit, and a few indicate exorbitant amounts. The majority, however, indicate a typical benefit of $6,000 to $15,000. • New public improvements reduce risk of future With omitting the extremes, the average value indication is special assessments for a new buyer $11,666, and the median amount is $9,700. The percent- • Reduce marketing times for properties offered for age mid - points are 3.4% to 4.0% of total property value. sale Histogram of Value Benefit Indications (Extremes Omitted) 12 10 s~ 0 8 u f~ w 6 O d 4 O z 2 0 Less than $3000 $3M1 to $60(x) $6001 to $9000 $9001 to $12,000 Value Benefit $12,001 to $15,001 to Over $18,000 $15,000 $18,000 66 RESULTS OF RESALES AND PAIRED SALES ANALYSIS (CONTINUED) Summary of Resale and Paired Sale Conclusions Location Set Resales $ Benefit % Benefit Paired Sales $ Benefit % Benefit White Oaks 1 5,580 1.02°i 27,860 4.89% White Oaks 2 18,480 4.50% White Oaks 3 98,700 14.33% White Oaks 4 6,060 1.14% White Oaks 5 16,500 2.23% White Oaks 6 19,750 3.29% Pamela Park 7 5,100 1.41° 48,550 12.73% Pamela Park 8 38,700 11.34% 12,900 3.51% 9,550 2.58% School Road 9 8,100 2.98% 8,500 3.13% 10,900 4.05% So. Tyrol Hills 10 18,900 10.44% , 1 -10i -1.06% So. Tyrol Hills 11 32,500 8.51% 7,100 1.74% So. Tyrol Hills 12 8,000 3.51% 14,300 6.10% So. Tyrol Hills 13 12,500 2.51% So. Tyrol Hills 14 8,200 1.84% 51,200 12.68% So. Tyrol Hills 15 26,300 8.00% So. Tyrol Hills 16 - 8.23% (31,250) - 9.43% 22,750 8.21% So. Tyrol Hills 17 25,000 4.55% So. Tyrol Hills 18 -0.58% Misc Golden Valley 19 9,000 5.26% Misc Golden Valley 20 7,300 3.37% Misc Golden Valley 21 1,900 0.15% Misc Golden Valley 22 7,000 1.09% Misc Golden Valley 23 1,000 0.60% Misc Golden Valley 24 6,400 2.99% Misc Golden Valley 25 74,000 38.44% Misc Golden Valley 26 8,500 7.23% Misc Golden Valley 27 14,017 6.15% Misc Golden Valley 28 4,000 2.11% Misc Golden Valley 29 9,000 3.74% Misc Golden Valley 30 9,900 5.50% Misc Golden Valley 31 19,000 9.31% Shoreview 32 17,000 5.70% Woodbury 33 13,800 6.24% Bloomington 34 3,500 1.80% Brooklyn Center 35 9,850 6.12% Minnetonka 36 14,000 3.37% Minnetonka 37 14,500 5.13% Minnetonka 38 (5.000) -1.53% Eden Prairie 39 4,650 1.72% Low (26,9G -8.23% (31,250) -9.43% High 74,000 38.44% 98,700 14.33% Average 10,794 4.73% 20,258 4.68% Median 8,500 3.51% 14,300 3.51% Combined Average 14,769 4.71% Combined Median 9,875 3.51% Without extremes: Low 1,000 0.15% 5,580 1.02% High 25,000 10.44% 27,860 8.21% Average 9,976 4.19% 14,202 3.67% Median 8,750 3.62% 12,700 3.21% Combined Average 11,666 3.98% Combined Median 9,700 3.44% 67 RESULTS OF RESALES AND PAIRED SALES ANALYSIS (CONTINUED) Scatter Gram of Current Benefit Relative to Total Value $120.000 $100,000 $80.000 $60.000 3 $40.000 $20,000 z so (S20.uo( ($40.000. ($60.000 Property Value ),000 New Streets Benefit Percentage 50.00% 40.00% 30.00% c 20.00% w d c m 10.00% ■ ■ 0.00% r $ $200,000 $400,000 $600,000 $ 800,000 $1,000,000 $1,200,000 $1,400 ,000 - 10.00% - 20.00% Value WA Notea, The White Oaks neighborhood is located in the far north- eastern portion of the City of Edina, adjacent to the City of Minneapolis. Roads bordering the subdivision include Sunnyside Road to the north, 50th Street to the south and France Avenue to the east. Residential uses surround the neighborhood. It is an appealing, fully - developed single - family residential neighborhood having above average residential views. Lot sizes generally range from approximately .20 -acre to .50- acre. Current market values researched from Hennepin County public records typically range from approximately $300,000 to $600,000, with several properties over $1 mil- lion. The majority of the homes were built in the 1940's and 1950's. It is zoned R -1, Single Dwelling Unit District. The topography is rolling and there are many mature trees. The subject soils appear and are assumed to be stable. Most of the development does not appear to be within a mapped special flood hazard area as determined by FEMA. There is a small area affecting two or three par- cels at the north end of Meadow Road lying within Zone B (areas between the limits of the 100 -year flood and 500 - year flood). All normal utilities and services are available including public sanitary sewer, water, storm sewer, electrical ser- vice and natural gas. There is good access to collector routes and highways. The 2001 traffic counts on France Avenue and 50th Street were 14,500 and 10,600 vehicles per day, respectively. Street improvements in the White Oaks neighborhood were completed in 2003. Reported costs were $5,941 per lot. The new streets are two -lane residential streets with bi- tuminous surfaces and concrete curb and gutter, except for the northern portion of Meadow Road which has no curb and gutter. Previously, curb and gutter were installed along Maple Road and they were not replaced during this project. Maple Road also received decorative new street lighting, while others chose to retain the original lighting. The southern portion of Meadow Road had older curb and gutter which was replaced. Sidewalks were installed along 48th Street; there are no public sidewalks in the remainder of the neighborhood. Most homeowners we spoke with reported the original streets were in need of repair due to potholes and crum- bling edges and runoff issues. A location map, aerial map and neighborhood photographs are shown on the following pages. Location Mar) D � o biorninVde fed � � _. ® � j__... s { tvtot�� Pj � W 44th St +a °— A4�� St1f'1 tp Bra»s� St cn O �� Q- rn y 45th St W,.{ 46th St VV � 1 47th St� _ Badge St Bridge Ln i 49th St W I t 0 �g' m Prrshing x o V. 7►itard f 4 a a�i 49th St W I W 49th St Park 49 1 t2 5t v bath St �° 50th sty O V� Utley VV0CJ'{Lja3e LIN p, Park y D e t. 0 A 91,%t S, vv c 111141 w ;L9 WHITE OAKS NEIGHBORHOOD, EDINA (CONTINUED) 2000 Aerial Photograph (Highlighted area indicates portion of White Oaks neighborhood with new streets) 70 WHITE OAKS NEIGHBORHOOD, EDINA (CONTINUED) Representative Photographs of New Street Improvements �3 WHITE OAKS NEIGHBORHOOD, EDINA (CONTINUED) Representative Photographs of New Street Improvements �4 of a 72 ] WHITE OAKS NEIGHBORHOOD, EDINA (CONTINUED) Representative Photographs of Improved Pro en rtes L73 WHITE OAKS NEIGHBORHOOD, EDINA (CONTINUED) Paired Sales Set 1 ITEM I SUBJECT COMPARABLE NO. 1 COMPARABLE NO 2 4828 Maple Road Address Edina Proximity to Subject Sales Price $ 575,000 4932 Maple Road Edina Same Street $ 426,000 $ 217.5; MIS & public records 4928 Maple Road Edina Same Street $ 530,000 Price/Gross Liv. Area Data and/or Verification Source $ 336.85 f' MLS iY public recorcl $ 230.43 MLS dr public records VALUE ADJUSTMENTS DESCRIPTION DESCRIPTION +t )f Ad n&nera DESCRIPTION +i 1f A*jWnenr Sales or Financing Concessions No financing concessions No financing concessions__ Date ofSale/Time 11/15/2004 _ 3/1/2002 +125, 11/1/2002 +114, Location white Oaks Whits Oaks White Oaks Fee Simple LeasehWiFee Simple Fee Simple Fee Simple Sits .18 ac quiet .18 ac, quiet .18 ac, quiet View Adjacent Homes Homes_ Adjjacent Homes Deeps and Appeal 2-story/good _Adjacent 2-sto / ood 2-story/good Glumly of Corremxstion Good, brick Good — +5,000 Good Age (Year built) 1940 1941 -1,000 Avera a +20, 1941 -1,000 lacements - 10,000 Total Bdrms. B,vns 7 3 1.50 -3,000 Sq. Ft_ - 35,580 1150 sf -51000 500 sf fin /avg Condition Good Above Grade ToW ' adrms: Saar Total ttdrrns awr j Room Count Gross Living Area Basement 8 Finished Rooms Below Grade 7 3 1.00 8 4 1.50 -3,000 1,707 Sq. Ft. 1,958 Sq. Ft -15,060 819 sf 510 of finished /av 1177 sf. -5,400 325 sf fin /av --+5,600 Functional Utility Average Aver a Average Heating/Cooling FA /AC FA /AC FA /AC Energy Efficient Items Average Average Average Garage/Carport Attached 1-= Attached 1-car Attached 1-car Porch, Patio, Deck, Fireplace(s), etc. Fence, Pod, etc. Deck 2 Fireplaces Porch ilr deck -10,000 2_Fireplaces - Good. landscaping Por, decking, patio - 20,000 2 Fireplaces _ Good landscaping Good landsca ' Extras Average Average Average Not Adj. (total) X + ❑- $ 121,140 Net - 28% Gross - 45% 547,140 X+ �- $ 39,420 Net- 7% Gross -3896 $ 569,420 Adjusted Sales Price of Comparable Indicated before and after benefit of new street with curb and gutter: $5,580 resale and $27,860 paired sale 74 WHITE OAKS NEIGHBORHOOD, EDINA (CONTINUED) Paired Sales Set 2 4829 Townes Road Address Edina Proximity to Subject Sales Price $ 429,500 rrtoelGroae Liv. Area $ - 32145 ¢ Data and/or Verification Source MLS dr public rem VALUE ADJUSTMENTS DESCRIPTI.O_ N Sales or Financing Concessions Date of Salle /rime 6/28/2004 Location White Oaks 4833 Townes Road Edina Adjacant $ 339,900 $ 257.50 W 6r Public records DESCRIPTION HIS Adjustment No financing conoe� ions 3/27/2003 +43, White Oaks Leasshold/Fee Sir" Fee Simple Fee simple site .19 ac WO .18 ac, quiet, WO View Homes 6r Wetlands Homes, Wetlands Design and Appeal 1 / 1-story/good Quality of Construction Good Good Age (Year built) 1956 1956 Condition More remodeling Good +15, Above Grade ToW Barns Brat Toms Barns ads Room Court 6 3 1.75 6 2 1.00 +5, Gross lArea 1,332 Sq. FL 1,320 4 Ft + Basement i3 Finished Rooms Below Grade 1332 at WO 1020 sf finished /av 1320 sf, WO 775 sf fn /av +7, Functional Utility Averse Average Heating/Cooling FA /AC FA /AC Energy Efficient Ran Average Average Garage /Carport Attached 2-car Attached 2-car Porch, Patio, Deck, Fireplace(s), etc. Patio 2 Fireplaces Patio 2 Fire laces Fence, Pool, etc. Extras Net Adj. (total) Adjusted Sales Price of Comparable Good landscaping Average Good landscaping Avers e + - $ 71,120 Net- 211, Gross= 21 °, $ 411,020 Indicated before and after benefit of new street with curb and gutter: $18,480 paired sale 75 WHITE OAKS NEIGHBORHOOD, EDINA (CONTINUED) Paired Sales Set 3 ITEM I SUBJECT COMPARABLE NO. 1 4900 Maple Road Address Edina Proximity to Subject Sales Price $ 787,500 trice /Gross Liv. Area $ 336.11 Data and/or Verification Source MLS & public recA 4928 Maple Road Edina Same Street 530,000 $ 230.43 MIS & public records VALUE ADJUSTMENTS DESCRIPTION DESCRIPTION +1•p Agwrrrro Sales or Financing Concessions No financing concessions Data of Sale/rims 11/1/2002 +96, Location White Oaks White Oaks LeasalwldfFee Simple Fee Simple Fee Simple Site View .18 ac, quiet .18 ac, quiet Adjacent Homes Adjacent Homes DesoandAppeal 2-story/good 2-sto / cod Quality of Construction Good Good 1941 Age (Year built) 1940 Condition V. Good Good +30, Above Grade Taw sm. I TOW "Im ears Room Count 8 4 1 2.50 7 3 1.50 +5, Gross Living Area 2,343 S . FL 2,300 S . FL +2,1 Basement b Finished Reema Below Grade _ 1238 sf 795sffinidied/ o0 _ 1150 sf. +1, 500 sf fm/ ood +8, Functional Utility Average Average Heating /Cooling FA /AC FA /AC Energy Efficient Name Average Average Garage/Carport Detached 2-car Attahced 1-car +6, Porch, Patio, Deck, Fireplace(s), etc. Patio 2 fireplaces Por, decking, patio 2 fireplaces -20, Fence, Pool, etc. . Good landsca ' Avg. landscaping +1Q Extras V.Gaad Avers +20, Net Adj. (total) Adjusted Sales Pnce of Comparable X + _- $ 158,800 Net. 30% _ _. . Gress. 38% Q 688,800 Indicated before and after benefit of new street with curb and gutter: $98,700 paired sale 76 WHITE OAKS NEIGHBORHOOD, EDINA (CONTINUED) Paired Sales Set 4 ITEM I SUBJECT COMPARABLE NO. 1 4908 Maple Road Address Edina 4932 Maple Road Edina Proximity to S _ $ 538,000 $ 257.79 & public rem Saate street 426,000 $ 217.57 MLS 4 public records Sales Price Prics Gross Liv. Area Data andlor Verification Source VALUE AWl1STMENT8 DESCRIPTION I DESCRIPTION ,os Aq *.* Sales or Fxiancng Concessions AM / No financing concessions 3/1/2002 +89 Date of salerrrne Loabon White Oaks White Oaks Leasehold/Fee Sknple Fee Simple Fee Sim le Site .17 ac quiet .18 ac, quiet View Adjacent Homes Adjacent Homes Design and Appeal 2-sto / ood 2-story / g ood Quality of Constriction Good Good Age (Year built) Condition 1941 1941 Good Good Above Grade Tow Brims Baer TOW Banns Sans Room Count 7 3 2.50 8 4 1.50 +5, Gross Living Area 2,087 Sq. Ft 1,958 Sq. Ft. +7,7 Basement 8 Finished Rooms Below Grade 1027 sf 342 sf finished/ good 1177 sf -2,300 325 sf fin /av + Functional Utility HeatirglCooling Energy Efficient Items Average FA /AC Average Average FA /AC Average GaragNC port Attached 2-car Attached 1-car +6, Porch, Patio, Deck, Fireplace(s), etc. Porch, deck 2 Fireplaces Porch, deck 2 Fireplaces Fence, Pool, etc. Good landscaping Good landscaping Extras Net Adj. (total) Adjusted Sales Price of Comparable A e A e X + _ - $ 105,940 Net- 25% Gross= 26% $ 531,940 Indicated before and after benefit of new street with curb and gutter: $6,060 paired sale 77 WHITE OAKS NEIGHBORHOOD, EDINA (CONTINUED) Paired Sales Set 5 ITEM I SUBJECT COMPARABLE NO. 1 4821 Townes Road Address Edina 4928 Maple Road Edina Proximity to Subject Sales Price Price /Gross Liv. Area $ 755,000 $ 359.52 Subject $ 530,000 $ 230.43 Data and/or Verification Source VALUE ADJUSTMENTS MLS 6r public DESCRIPTION MIS k public records DESCRIPTION A40kno t Sales a Fetwx*V Cerinssiorts Date ofSalelTime Location Leasehold/Fee Simple Site No financing concessions g3/311IF White Oaks Fee Sim le .18 ac, quiet WO 11/1/2002 +137, White Oaks Fee Simple .18 ac, quiet View J. Homes,Wetlan Adjacent homes +15, Deso and Appeal 2-story/Good 2-story/Good Cluallity of Catatrucoon Good Good Age (Year built) 1952 1941 +11, Condition Much renovation Good +60,000 Above Grade TotW Sdrms Beft Tart Sdnns Baer Room Count 9 4 2.50 7 3 1.50 +5, Gross Living Area 2,100 Sq. Ft. 2,300 Sq.FL -10, Basement 8 Finished Rooms Below Grade 800 sf, WO 450 sf fin/ Good 1150 sf 500 sf fin /Good +5, -50( Functional Utility Heating/Cooling Energy Efficient Items Average Average FA /AC Average FA /AC Average GaragelCarport Attached 2-car Attached 1-car +6, Porch. Patio, Deck, Fireplace(s), etc. Deck 2 Fireplaces Por, decking, patio 2 Fireplaces Good landscaping -20, Fence, Pool, etc. Extras Net Adj. (total) Adjusted Sales Price of Comparable Good landsca Average JM Average ❑ + _ - $ 208,500 NOW39% limes- sm 738,500 Indicated before and after benefit of new street with curb and gutter: $16,500 paired sale 78 WHITE OAKS NEIGHBORHOOD, EDINA (CONTINUED) Paired Sales Set 6 ITEM I SUBJECT COMPARABLE NO. 1 4819 Maple Road Address Edina Proximity ro Sub'ec Sales Price $ 620,000 Prios/Gross Liv. Area $ 247.90 4928 Maple Road Edina 1 block $ 530,000 $ 230.43 MILS dr public records Data and/or Verification Source MLS 6r public recort VALUE AWUSTMENTS Sales or Financing Concessions DESCRIPTION DESCRIPTION +0$AQkwtrrwM No financing concessions Date of Sale/rime Location 8/1/2D03 White Oaks 11/1/2002 +39, White Oaks Leasehold/Fee Simple Fee Simple Fee Simple Site .20 ac quiet .18 ac, quiet View Adjacent Homes Ad'cent Homes Design and Appeal 2 /Good 2-story/Good Guality of Construction Good Good Age (Year built) 1950 1941 +9, CortdMon V. Good Good +20, Above Grade ToW B&m I Baea Tow adnrr save Room Count 9 1 4 1 .50 7 ! 3 1.50 +5, Gross Living Area Basement 8 Finished Rooms Below Grade 2,501 Sq.FL 2,300 Sq.FL +10, 1150 Sf + 500 Sf fin/ ood +3, 1323 sf SM sf finished /good Functional Utility Average Average 1,19OW9/Codinlg FA /AC FA /AC Energy Efficient Items Averse Average Attached 2-car Attached 1-car +6,OOC Porch, Patio, Deck, Frepleoe(s), etc. Deck 2 Fireplaces por, decking, patio -20, 2 F' laces Fence, Pool, -etc.— Avg. landscaping Good landscaping -5,000 Extras A Aver e Net Adj. (total) Adjusted Sales Price of Comparable F + _ - $ 70,250 No. 1_3X_ Gros" 23% 600,250 Indicated before and after benefit of new street with curb and gutter: $19,750 paired sale 79 The East Pamela Park neighborhood is located in the northeastern portion of the City of Edina, just north of State Highway 62 (Crosstown). Roads bordering the subdivision are 58th Street to the north and France Av- enue to the east. Pamela Park is adjacent to the west and south. Residential uses surround the neighborhood. It is an appealing, fully - developed single - family residential neighborhood having above average residential views. Lot sizes generally range from approximately .20 -acre to .50- acre. Current market values researched from Hennepin County public records typically range from approximately $250,000 to $350,000, with several properties valued over $500,000. The majority of the homes were built in the 1950's. It is zoned R -1, Single Dwelling Unit District. The topography is gently rolling, providing walkout sites along the park and few walkouts in the remainder of the subdivision. The subject soils appear and are assumed to be stable. Most of the development does not appear to be within a mapped special flood hazard area as determined by FEMA. There is a small strip along the length of the park boundary within Zone B (areas between the limits of the 100 -year flood and 500 -year flood). All normal utilities and services are available including public sanitary sewer, water, storm sewer, electrical ser- vice and natural gas. There is good access to collector routes and highways. The 2001 traffic counts on France Avenue and 58th Street were 14,500 and 2,300 vehicles per day, respectively. Street improvements in the East Pamela Park neigh- borhood were completed in 2005. Reported costs were $7,317.97 per lot. The new streets are two -lane residential streets with bitu- minous surfaces and concrete curb and gutter. There are no public sidewalks. Original street was reported to be in poor condition. A location map, aerial map and neighborhood photographs are shown on the following pages. a� Z ower 5f �o 8 a e W Woodland Rd �� . 57th St W b Woodcrest Or Concord Ter oa Phiibrook Ln y 58th St T M Q A 9th St W a School Rd in Pamela Q A p N N d 64th St W o o— m Park m CL _ N a >� V 61 St St W W 51st 5t t W D 4 �eY �eN, R� Chowen Crve 'N td c C 0 �3 N o ■ o D W 62nd St ' 62nd St W Ed Q Gams o m Z aeard it I CL a. I _N H" Rage N �c r N v ) D a / r^ D a o u� 6414 +5 t g r cn 52' 80 EAST PAMELA PARK NEIGHBORHOOD, EDINA (CONTINUED) 2000 Aerial PhotograRh 81 EAST PAMELA PARK NEIGHBORHOOD, EDINA (CONTINUED) Representative Photographs of New Street Improvements 82 EAST PAMELA PARK NEIGHBORHOOD, EDINA (CONTINUED) Representative Photographs of Improved Properties 7837 EAST PAMELA PARK NEIGHBORHOOD, EDINA (CONTINUED) Paired Sales Set 7 ITEM I SUBJECT COMPARABLE NO. 1 COMPARABLE N0.2 3921 St W Address Edina Proximity to S_ Sales Price $ 430,000 Price/Gross Lhr. Arsa $ 282.15 3921 St W Edina 5829 Halifax Ave S Edina 1 block Su ' 289,900 $ 190.22 319,000 $ 186.44 Data and/or Verification Source LS dr public rem MIS dr public records MLS & public words VALUE ADJUSTMENTS DESCRIPTION DESCRIPTION ai -� AdJwanara DESCRIPTION a( -){ AdjostrnsrM Sales or Fig Cor4ensions No financing concessions No financing concessions Date ofSa�me 5/24/2001 +135, 9/15/03 +57, Location Good Edina Good Edina Good Edina - Leasehold/Fee S Fee Simple Fee Simple Fee Sim le Site .23 ac 'et .23 ac quiet .24 ac quiet View Adjacent Homes Adjacent Homes Adjacent Homes Design and Appeal 1-story/Avg. 1-story/ V . 1-sto /Av . Quality of Construction A— age Ay-age Average Age (Year built) 1954 1954 1954 Condition Good Good ToW B6nn BMr Good _ Total_ _ admro aetlr _ -_- 7 3 1.50 +2 1_,711 Sq. Ft -9,350 1711 sf, +7, 400 sf fin /av +8,1 Above Grade ToW Bdrms Baas 6 3 1.75 Room Count Gross Living Area Basement & Finished Rooms Below Grade 6 3 1.75 1,524 Sq. Ft 1524 sf, WO 725 sf fin/ avg 0 1,524 Sq. Ft 1524 sf, WO 725 sf fin/ avg Functional Utility Averaff Almrage Avelrege Heating/Cooling FA /AC FA /AC FA /AC Energy Efficient Items Avers Averse Average GaragelC_arport TU /2-car TU /2-car Attached 2 -car -2,500 Porch, Patio, Deck, Fireplace(s), etc. Fends, Pod, etc. Patio 2 Fireplaces Patio 2 Fireplaces Avg- landsca in • Patio 2F laces Avg. landsca ing . Avg. lan6m ' Extras Avers Aver Ay- age Not Adj. (total) Adjusted Sales Price of Comparable X+ E'- $ 135,000 Net= 47% Gross= 47% 424,900 X + G'- $ 62,450 Nea 20% Grow. 27% 381,450 Indicated before and after benefit of new street with curb and gutter: $5,100 resale & $48,550 paired sale 84 EAST PAMELA PARK NEIGHBORHOOD, EDINA (CONTINUED) Paired Sales Set 8 ITEM SUBJECT COMPARABLE NO. 1 COMPARABLE NO. 2 COMPARABLE NO. 3 5937 Grimes Ave S Address Edina 5941 Grimes Ave S Edina 5912 Grimes Ave S Edina 5916 Grimes Ave S Edina Same block $ 329,9W $ 26455_. Proximity to Subject Adjacent $ 256,000 Same block $ 295,000 Sales Price Price /Gross Liv. Area $ 379,900 $ 316.58 $ 214.05 $ 270.15 / Data andlor Verification Source MLS & public recorc MIS & public records MLS 6r public records MLS & Mjbhc records VALUE ADAW%WNTs Sales or Financing Conceseior>s DESCRIPTION -- - - - DESCRIPTION M•)f A4mwmt DESCRIPTION +t -)f A*wwmk DESCRIPTION +ms Adluwrat No financing concessions No financing concessions No financing concessions Date of Salefrome Location LeaseholdlFee Simple Site View Design and Appeal Quality of Construction 6/8 /2005 Good Edina Fee Simple 11/26/2003 +44 8/29/2003 +54, Good Edina ' Fee Simple 7/15/2004 +29, Good Edina Fee Simple .24 ac quiet Adjacent Homes 1-ato /Av . Average Good Edina_ Fee Simple .21 ac, quiet .23 ac qWet 24 ac, quiet Adjacent Homes 1-sto /Av . Adjacent Homes Adjacent Homes 1-story Avg. 1 /Av . Average Average Average Age (Year built) Condition 1952 1952 1952 Good 1952 Good Good vera a +20,000 Above Grade Tote) Bdrrm salt Trial adrms BaMS Total Bdrrna Bedre 7aW adrms eettra Room Cotmt 6 3 1.50 6 3 1.00 +3,00C 6 3 1.00 +3, 6 3 1.00 +3, Gross Living Area 1,200 FL 1,196 Sq. Ft +200 1,092 Sq. Ft +5,40C 1,247 Sq. Ft. -2,350 Basement 8 Finished Rooms Below Grade 1200 af, 700 sf fin/ avg 11% sf, 400 sf fin/ modest +1Z000 1092 sf, +1,600 700 sf fin /av 1242 sf %5 sf fm /av +3, Functional Utility Averaite Averse Averse Average Heating/Cooling Energy Efficient Items FA /AC FA /AC FA /AC Averse FA /AC _ Average Average Averse Garage/Carport Porch, Patio, Deck, Fireplace(s), etc. Attached 2-car Attached 2-car Screen porch +7, 2 Fireplaces Attached 1-car +5, Attached 1-car +5, Glazed porch 2 Fireplaces Glazed porch 2 Fireplaces Porch 6r patio 2 Fireplaces Fence, Pool, etc. Good land—ping Avg. +3,000 Avg. landscaping +3,000 Avg. landscaping +3, Extras Average Average Average Net Aril. (total) X+ _- $ 85,200 x-+ -- $ 72,000 X+ � - $ 40,450 Adjusted Salm Price Net- 33% Net. 24% Net. 12% of Comparable Gross. 33% S 341,200 Gross= 24% $ 367,000 Grose. l4% 370,350 1. r AL f J l . Comp 2 ri -Cbmp 1 Indicated before and after benefit of new street with curb and gutter: $38,700, $12,900 and $9,550 paired sales 85 The School Road neighborhood is located on the east side of State Highway 100 and approximately 1/2 mile north of State Highway 62 (Crosstown). It is a very small subdivision with three roads - -59th Street West, Ruth Drive and School Road. Three schools are adjacent to the north and residential uses are to the south and east. It is an average, fully - developed single - family residential neighborhood having average residential views. Lot siz- es are near .25 acre. Hennepin County records indicate the assessed market values range from approximately $150,000 to $200,000. The homes were built in the mid - to -late 1950's. It is zoned R -1, Single Dwelling Unit Dis- trict. The topography is level. The subject soils appear and are assumed to be stable. The development does not appear to be within a mapped special flood hazard area as deter- mined by FEMA. All normal utilities and services are available including public sanitary sewer, water, storm sewer, electrical ser- vice and natural gas. There is good access to collector routes and highways. The 2001 traffic counts on State Highway 100 were 107,000 vehicles per day. Street improvements in this neighborhood were completed in 2001. Actual costs amounted to $2,248.45 per lot. The new streets are two -lane residential streets with bitu- minous surfaces and concrete curb and gutter. The origi- nal curb and gutter was not replaced during this project. There were older public street improvements and no pub- lic sidewalks. A location map, aerial map and neighborhood photographs are shown on the following pages. `Tower 5t �o j dJq o Q S D W Woodland Rd Qa - u�c — WOoduest Dr n a Do Concord Tar__: CL Philbrook Ln X 58th St r. o m Q 59th St W E n 1 9 y D School Rd c o, w v y o ? D ce Puma Q to y Clover Rd 6th St W n Park a i I iN yy a ) 61 at St a W 61 St St o2nd St W n ° _J' Viers Rd C ho+Nen Crve 0 62nd St 62nd St d a cn s �—^ el A A N 1:t c >I �] a 86 SCHOOL ROAD NEIGHBORHOOD, EDINA (CONTINUED) 4 s ti 2000 Aerial Photograph ty F, 87 SCHOOL ROAD NEIGHBORHOOD, EDINA (CONTINUED) Representative Photographs of New Street Improvements s 88 SCHOOL ROAD NEIGHBORHOOD, EDINA (CONTINUED) Representative Photographs of Improved Properties now -- _ IP �ot low � s 89 SCHOOL ROAD NEIGHBORHOOD, EDINA (CONTINUED) Paired Sales Set 9 ITEM I SUBJECT COMPARABLE NO. 1 COMPARABLE NO. 2 COMPARABLE NO. 3 4809 School Road Address Edina Proximity to Subject Sales Prins $ 280,000 Price/Gross Liv. Area $ 206.03 Data and/or Verification Source MLS dr public record 4809 School Road Edina 0 $ 185,900 $ 136.79 = MLS fir public records 4725 School Road Edina Same Street $ 180,500 $ 124.23 — MLS & public records 4804 School Road Edina Across Street 219,000 $ 154.12 MLS & public records VALUE ADJUSTMENTS Sales or Financing Concessions DESCRIPTION DESCRIPTION «( -)t AtilluWrnre DESCRIPTION Atiltswimtt DESCRIPTION .(- )$A*G*nartt No financing concessions No financing concessions No financing concessions Date ofSale/Time 05 /02/2002 4/30/1998 +86, 8/19/1998 +76,000 3/23/2000 +49, Location Good Edina Good Edina Good Edina Good Edina Leasehold/Fee Simple Fee Simple Fee Simple Fee Simple Fee Simple Site .22 ac, minor traffic 22 ac., minor traffic 22 ac, minor traffic 23 ac, minor traffic View Adjacent Homes Adjacent Homes adjacent homes adjacent homes Design and Appeal 1-sto /Av . lstory /Avg. 1-story/Avg. 1-story/Avg. Quality d Cortstruction Average Aver a Average Average (Year built) 1958 1958 1956 +1,000 1958 Condition Good TOW 8ttrrrn' Berns Good Total Bdrms Baths _ 6 3 1.50 1,359 Sq. Ft. Good Good ToW w.m 9Wr Above Grade Room Count_ Gross Living Area ToW B&m Bern - 6 3 1.50 7 3 1.75 -2,000 6 _ 1 3 1.00 +3, 1,359 Sq. FL 1,453 Sq. FL 4700 1,421 Sq. Ft. -3,100 Basement & Finished Rooms Below Grade Functional Utility Heating /Cooling Energy Efficient Items Garage/Carport Ponds, Patio, Deck, Fireplaceft etc. 1359 sf, 1000 sf finished/ ayl 1359 sf, 1000 sf fin/avg 1453 sf, -1,400 895 sf fin /av +Z100 1421 sf, N -900 771 td fm /av +4, Average Average Average A-rage FA /AC FA /AC FA /AC FA /AC Average Average Average Average Attached 2-car Attached 2-car Attached 2-car None +20,000 2 Fireplaces - TU /2-car -2,500 None - 2 Fireplaces Patio fir Porch 2 Fireplaces Patio fir Porch 2 Fireplaces Fence, Pod, etc. Avg. landscaping Avcrec Avg. landscaping Av , landscaping - _ Average Avg. landscaping Average Extras Average Net Adj. (total) Adjusted Sales Price of Comparable X + - $ 86,000 Net= 46 % Gross= 46 %a $ 271,900 X + - $ 9.11000 Net= 50% Gross= 59 % $ 271,500 X + - $ 50,100 Net= 23 % 1 Gross= 29% $ 269,100 .-J Subject and Comp 1 Comp 2 Indicated before and after benefit of new street with curb and gutter sales I* $8,100 resale, and $8,500 & $10,900 paired 90 The South Tyrol Hills neighborhood is located in the south- east quadrant of State Highway 100 and Freeway 394. It is bordered by Douglas Avenue to the south and the City of Minneapolis to the east. Park land lies adjacent to the east and residential areas to the south. It is an appealing, fully - developed single - family residen- tial neighborhood having above average residential views. Lot sizes generally range from approximately .25 -acre to .40 -acre, with several much larger sites on Tyrol Crest. Hennepin County assessed market values typically range from approximately $250,000 to $600,000, yet several larger properties are over $1 million. The ages of the homes vary greatly, from the late 1930's to the mid- 1970's. The majority of the homes were built in the 1950's. It is zoned Residential. The topography is rolling and there are many mature trees. The subject soils appear and are assumed to be stable. The development does not appear to be within a mapped special flood hazard area as determined by FEMA. All normal utilities and services are available including public sanitary sewer, water, storm sewer, electrical ser- vice and natural gas. There is average access to collector routes and highways. The 2001 traffic counts on 1 -394 and State Highway 100 were 134,000 and 81,000 vehicles per day, respectively, yet sound walls protect the district. Street improvements in the South Tyrol Hills neighbor- hood were completed in 2002. In February, 2002, the project was officially "pending" and assessments were levied in October, 2002. Assessments averaged $2,600 per lot and the total cost to the City of Golden Valley was $2,247,651.47 or approximately $12,020 per parcel. The new streets are two -lane residential streets with bitu- minous surfaces and concrete curb and gutter. Some ar- eas have new street lighting, while others chose to retain the original lighting. There are no public sidewalks. The original streets were in need of attention. Many hom- eowners we interviewed reported potholes and crumbling edges, and some indicated there were runoff issues in- volving properties at lower elevations. Most of the original streets did not have curb and gutter. A location map, aerial maps, neighborhood photographs and paired sales market data are shown on the following pages. Location Map Ave o G O O a CK 9 x �8n8 A CAN or m Q p I y Westwood Ln Glencrest Rd Theodore aurel Ave O a 0 -5 Wirth Park a N m Strawberry Ln' R x 2 North O �isr to Circle Down 7lrrol CL Meadow, d Park Q �� $ N Tirol TM a Tyrol Cast jr D P r'y ;K s ley n ° Douglas Ave 100 Cedar Lake Rd S to crev,l Rd j D c] Parkl \ Hig�woo�Rd M c9 t1� ands Cn ,�• g N tp SOUTH TYROL HILLS NEIGHBORHOOD, GOLDEN VALLEY (CONTINUED) 2000 Aerial Photograph 92 SOUTH TYROL HILLS NEIGHBORHOOD, GOLDEN VALLEY (CONTINUED) Representative Photograehs of New Street Improvements i r 93 SOUTH TYROL HILLS NEIGHBORHOOD, GOLDEN VALLEY (CONTINUED) Representative Photographs of Improved Properties 94 SOUTH TYROL HILLS NEIGHBORHOOD, GOLDEN VALLEY (CONTINUED) Paired Sales Set 10 ITEM I SUBJECT COMPARABLE NO. 1 COMPARABLE NO. 2 1505 Ottawa Avenue S. Address Colden Valley Proximity to Subject Sales Price $ 199,900 Price /Gross Liv. Area $ 237.98 Data and /or Verification Source Qr lic 1505 Ottawa Avenue S. Golden Valley 1535 Princeton Avenue Golden Valley Su ' Within One Block 111,000 151,000 $ 132.14 M[S dr public records : 170.81 MLS do public records VALUE ADJUSTMENTS Sales or Financing Gneessxm DateofSale/Tlme Location Leasehokl/Fee Sit" _ DESCRIPTION -- _- /27/2003 South Tyrol Hills Fee Simple DESCRIPTION (.)$A*. wl DESCRIPTION +( -►Z; Agirbiwr No financing concessions No financing concessions 7/10/1998 +70, 3/29/2001 +39, South T I Hills South Tyrol Fee Sim le Fee Simple Site .27 ac, quiet WO .27 ac, quiet, WO .17ac, quiet +10, View Adjlacent Homes Adjacent Homes Near H 7100 +2, Design and Appeal 1-story/Avg. 1-story/ . 1.5 sto /Av . -3,000 Ouality of Construction Average Average Average Age (Year built) 1952 1952 1942 +3, Condirion Average Average Avera e Above Grade Room Count TOW Bdrms Bad. 4 2 1.00 TOW 80 B ft T09W tld�mb a_ 91M__ 4 2 _ 1.00 5 2 _ 1.00 Gross Living Area 840 Sq.FL 840 Sq. Ft. 0 884 Sq. Ft. -1,760 Basement fl Finished Rooms Below Grade 840 sf., WO 400 of finished/ avg 840 sf, WO 400 sf fin /avg 884 sf, +4 250 sf fn /av +2, Functional Utility Heating/Cooling Energy Efrrcient Items Average Average Average FA /AC Average FA /AC FA /AC Average Average Garage/Carpon TU /l-car TU /l-car Heateddet /2- car -0000 Porch, Patio, Deck, Firsoace(s), sic. Patio & Porch None Patio & Porch None Deck & fencing +3,OOC 1 F' laces -4_,000 Fence, Pool, etc. Avit. landsca ' Avg. landscaping None Extras A Average Average X + — $ 51,040 Net= 34% Gross= 51% $ 202,040 Not Adj.(total) Adjusted Sales Price of X + _- $ 70,000 Net. 63% Gross= 63% �$ 181,000 Indicated before and after benefit of new street with curb and gutter: $18,900 resale, and - $2,140 paired sale 95 SOUTH TYROL HILLS NEIGHBORHOOD, GOLDEN VALLEY (CONTINUED) Paired Sales Set 11 ITEM SUBJECT COMPARABLE NO. 1 COMPARABLE NO. 2 1530 Fairlawn Way Address Golden Valley Pro)dmity to subjsG I - 1530 Fairlawn Way Golden Valley Sub'ed 1550 Natchez Avenue S. Golden Valley Within One Block 293,000 --- - - - - -- - $ 242.55 f - - MIS & public records Sales Price $ 414,500 218,000 $ 137.80 MILS & public records Price/Gross Liv. Area $ 262.01 Data andlor Verification Source MIS & public VALUE ADJUSTMENTS_ DESCRIPTION DESCRIPTION M -►f A**.t DESCRIPTION (.)$ AgrrYn�nl Sales or Financing Concessions No financing concessions No financing concessions Date ofSalelrime ';28/201 7/22/1999 +134, 1/28/2002 +79, Location Leasehold/Fee Simple Site South Tyrol Hills South Tyrol Hills South Tyrol Hills Fee Simple .24 ac, quiet Fee Simple Fee Simple .25 ac quiK comer .25 ac quietcomex View Design and Appeal A 'cent Homes Adjecent Homes Adjacent Homes Split-Entry/Avg. S lit -En /Av . Split-Entry/Avg. Quality of Construction Average Average Average Age (Year built) 1986 1986 1978 +4, Condition Updates Avg. +30,000 Good Above Grade TOW atrms Soft TOW Stri arrtlis TOM abnr Bsft _ Room Count 6 3 1.75 _ 6 3 1.75 _ _ 5 2 2.00 Gross Living Area 1,582 Sq. Ft. 1,582 Sq. Ft. 1,208 Sq.FL +18,700 Basement & Finished Rooms Below Grade 1582 sf, WO %4 sf finished/ avg 1582 sf, WO 964 sf fin/ avg 1208 sf, +15, 1208 sf fm /av -4,900 Functional Utility Average Average Average Heating /Cooling Energy Efficient Items Garage/Carport Porch, Patio, Deck, Fireplace(s), etc. Fence, Pool, etc. Extras Net Adj. (total) Adjusted Sales Price of FA /AC FA /AC FA /AC Average Attached 2-car Average _ Average Att /2-car Att /2-car Deck 2 Fireplaces Avg. landscaping Good _ Deck 2 Fireplaces Avg. landscaping Good Deck 1 Fireplaces +2, Avg. landsca ' Good X + �- $ 164,000 Net= 75% Gross= 75% $ 382,000 _X + —II- $ 114,400 Net. 39% Gross- 42% $ 407AW J� Indicated before and after benefit of new street with curb and gutter: $32,500 resale & $7,100 paired sale 96 SOUTH TYROL HILLS NEIGHBORHOOD, GOLDEN VALLEY (CONTINUED) Paired Sales Set 12 ITEM I SUBJECT COMPARABLE NO. 1 COMPARABLE NO. 2 1540 Natchez Avenue S. Address Golden Valley Proximity to Subject 1540 Natchez Avenue S. Golden Valley Subject 1410 June Avenue South Golden Valley _Same Neighborhood $ 396,500 Sales Price $ 220,000 289,000 Pnoe/Gross Uv. Area $ 174.60 $ 229.37 $ 326.61 MIS & public records Data and/or Verification Source MLS 6r public recd MLS 6r public records VALUE ADJUSTMENTS Sales or Financing Concessions_ Date of Sale/Time Location Leasehold /Fee Simple Site View Design and Appeal DESCRIPTION DESCRIPTION +( -)f Aguw wt DESCRIPTION AdXwknwd No financing concessions _ 4/3/2003 -88AM South Tyrol HilIss_ -10, Fee Sim le M I No financing concessions 14/2000 South Tyrol Hills Fee Simple 6/13/2002 -06,000 South Tyrol Hills Fee Simple .17 ac, quiet _ - Ad' cent Homes Split-Entry/Avg. .17 ac, quiet .24 ac, quiet -1,500 Adjacent Homes _ Wooded HillsideT -15, S lit -En /Avg. sed 1 -s /Av Quality of Construction Averse Averse Good -30, Age (Year built) 1978 1978 1980 -1,000 condition Av era a Good Good -10, Above Grade Room Count Tae/ edrms Bame 5 2 1.00 J-15, Total ndrrrr Dame aI edam Batt 5 2 1.00 1 1.50 -3,000 Gross Living Area 1,260 Sq. Ft. 1,260 . Ft. 1,214 Sq. Ft. +2 Basement 8 Finished Rooms Below Grade 1260 sf, LO 940 sf fin/good 1260 sf, LO 940 sf fin/good 1214 sf, WO -3,300 800 sf fin /av +2,801 Functional utility Average Averse Average Hesting/Cooling Energy Efficient Items Garage/Carpod Porch, Patio, Deck. Fireplace(s), etc. FA /AC FA /AC Averse Attached 2-car FA /AC Average TU /2-car +2, Major Decking -5,000 1 Fireplace +2, Average Attached 2 -car Deck 2 Fireplaces Deck 2 Fireplaces Fence, Pool, etc. Extras Net Adj. (total) Adjusted Sales Price of Comparable Avg_ landscaping Average - - - - -._ _. Avg. land—ping Good landsca ing -5,000 Average n+ ;�- $ -162,200 Net. 41% -.... Gross. 48% $ 234,300 Averse 7+ X - $ -61,000 Net= -21% _1 Grose. 21X 228,000 Indicated before and after benefit of new street with curb and gutter: $8,000 resale & $14,300 paired sale 97 SOUTH TYROL HILLS NEIGHBORHOOD, GOLDEN VALLEY (CONTINUED) Paired Sales Set 13 ITEM I SUBJECT COMPARABLE NO. 1 1521 Kaltem Lane Address Golden valley 1500 Fairlawn Way Golden Valley Proximity to Subject Bobs Price $ 510,000 3 blocks west $ 352,500 $ 207.35 f MLS & public records Prioe/Grow Liv. Area $ 255.00 Data and/or Var "lion Source & public recur VALUE ADJUSTMENTS DESCRIPTION DESCRIPTION .t -� A d Sales or Financing Concessiorm No financing concessions Date of SaWrime Location South Tyrol 12/17/2001 +59, South Tyrol Hills Umsehold/Fee Simple Fee Simple Fee Simple Site .35 ac, cul- de-sac .27 ac, quiet +20, View kdjacent parkHome Adjacent homes +10, Design and Appeal 1-story/Good Split-Entry /Good Ouality of Constriction More upWades Good +10, Age (Year built) 1958 1961 -3,000 Condition Good Good -- Above Grade Taal adrym Baeis Tow gams Baths Room Count 6 1 3 2.50 5 2 1.00 +8, Gross Living Area 2,000 Sq. Ft 1,700 Sq. Ft. +15, Basement 8 Finished Rooms Below Grade 2000 sf, WO 1300 sf fin/ good 1700 sf, LO +8 700 of fin/ good +12 Functional Utility Heating/Cooling Energy Efficient Items Average FA /AC Averse Average HW /AC A—age Garage/Carport Porch, Patio, Deck, Fireplace(s), etc. Fence, Pool, etc. Extras Attached 2-car TU /2-car +2, Large patio 2 Fireplaces Deck & Patio -2,000 2 Fireplaces Good ldpg Avg. landsca in +5, Good Good Net Adj. (total) Adjusted Sales Price of Comparable X + ❑- $ 145,000 Net. 41% Gross- 44% 497,500 Indicated before and after benefit of new street with curb and gutter: $12,500 paired sale 98 SOUTH TYROL HILLS NEIGHBORHOOD, GOLDEN VALLEY (CONTINUED) Paired Sales Set 14 ITEM I SUBJECT COMPARABLE NO. 1 COMPARABLE NO.2 1445 Tyrol Trail Address Golden Valley Proximity to Subject Sales Price $ 455,000 PriceMross Liv. Area $ 293.55 ZL 4320 Sussex Road Golden Valley Same Neighborhood $ 335,000 $ 207.56 MIS 6i public records 1500 Fairlawn Way Golden Valley Same Neighborhood $ 352,500 $ 207.35 MILS 6r public records Data and/or Verification Source Lu & public recor4 VALUE ADJl1ST*ION DESCRIPTION .( -)S Adlustnwit DESCRIPTION +(•If Ad d Sales or FinaE:TS Concessions No financing concessions No financing concessions Date OfSa 7/17/2000 +108, 12/17/2001 +54, Location South Tyrol Hills South Tyrol Hills Leasehold/Fee Simple Fee Sim le Fee Simple Fee Sim le Site .27 ac, quiet .31 ac., quiet .27 ac, quiet View South T 1 Park Adjacent Homes Adjacent Homes Design and Appeal Split-Entry/Good 1 sbo /Good Split—Fn /Good Quality of Construction Good Good Good Age (Year built) 1954 1949 +Z50C 1961 -3,500 Condition Good Good Good Above Grade Told W.. Bedre Tote) B&. Dante ToW B&I. llatla Room Count 6 3 1.75 7 3 2.00 5 2 1.00 __ +5, Gross Living Area 1,550 Sq. Ft. 1,614 FL i -3,200 1,700 Sq. FL -7,500 Basement & Finished Rooms Below Grade 1550 sf, WO, TU B75 sf finished /good 1516 sf 1000 sf fm/ ood +11,000 -4,000 1700 sf, LO, TU 700 sf fin/good +1, +5, Functional Utility Avera a Average Average Heating/Cooling FA /AC FA /AC HW /AC Energy Efficient Items Average Average A—age Garage/Carport TU /2-car Attached 2-car -2,500 TU /2-car Porch, Patio, Deck, Fireplace(s), etc. Patio 2 Fireplaces Deck 2 Fireplaces Deck 6r Patio 2 Fireplaces -4,000 Fence, Pod, etc. Avg landscaping-, Av landeca ' Ave landscaping Extras Average Average Average Net Adj. (total) J + E:1- $ 111,800 Net- 33% 1 I Grosa.39% 446,800 [K+ ❑ - $ 51,300 Net. 15% Gross. 23% 403,800 Adjusted Sales Price of Comparable Indicated before and after benefit of new street with curb and gutter: $8,200 and $51,200 paired sales 99 SOUTH TYROL HILLS NEIGHBORHOOD, GOLDEN VALLEY (CONTINUED) Paired Sales Set 15 ITEM I SUBJECT COMPARABLE NO. 1 4430 Douglas Avenue Address Golden Valle Proximity to Su6jers Sales Price $ 355,000 Prics/Gross Liv. Area $ 224.97 1340 Alpine Pass Golden Valley Same Nei lborhood 226,000 $ 181.09 Data and/or Verification Source MLS & public rem MLS 6r public records VALUE ADJUSTMENTS Sales or Financing Concessions DESCRIPTION - I DESCRIPTION .(.)$Agrrrnad No financing concessions Date of Sale/Time Location 6/30/2004 x 4/28/2000 +110, South Tyrol Hills Sup. S. Tyrol Hills -20, Leasehold/Fee Simple Fee Simple Fee Simple Site .26 ac, quiet 56 ac, uiet, hillside -10, View Adjacent Homes Wooded, Overlook -15, Design and Appeal 1-sto /av 1-sto /av Quality of Construction Average Average Age (Year built) 1953 1963 _5,000 Condition Good updates Good Above Grade TOW I BA ms' Raft _ ToW BErms Baft Room Count 6 ' 3 1.00 5 2 1.00 Gross Livinq Area 1,578 Sq. FL 1,248 Sq. Ft. +16 Basement d Finished Rooms Below Grade Functional Utility Heating /Cooling Energy Efficient hems 1358 sf, WO 468 sf finished/ avg 1248 sC TU +11,7 None +12, Average Average FA /AC FA /AC Averse A—age Garage /Carport Attached 2-car TU /2-cm + Porch, Patio, Deck, Fireplace(s), etc. Fence, Pool, etc. Extras None 2 Fireplaces Patio -21000 1 Fireplace +2, Avg. landsca ' Avg. land—ping Averse Aver Net Adj. (total) Adjusted Sales Price of Comparable FX + —]- $ 102,700 Net. 45% Grosv91% $ 328,700 Indicated before and after benefit of new street with curb and gutter: $26,300 paired sale 100 SOUTH TYROL HILLS NEIGHBORHOOD, GOLDEN VALLEY (CONTINUED) Paired Sales Set 16 ITEM I SUBJECT COMPARABLE NO. t COMPARABLE NO. 2 COMPARABLE NO. 3 4420 Douglas Avenue Address Golden valley 4420 Douglas Avenue Golden Valley Su ' 189,900 $ 142.03 MIS & public records 1340 Alpine Pass Golden Valley Same Ntghporhood 4800 Douglas Avenue Golden valley Same Neighborhood RL 1.8.4,900 $ 140.50 ' MIS & public records Proximilty to Subject Sales Pries $ 300,000 226,000 $ 181.09 MIS 6r public records Pno& Gross Liv. Area Data and/or Verification Source $ 224.38 MLS & public reom VALUE ADJUSTMENTS DESCRIPTION DESCRIPTION +(- ISAdlustnwt No financing concessions 2/16/1999 +137, DESCRIPTION A*wnsrt DESCRIPTION A*wnwt Sales or Financing Concessions Date ofSale/Tvne No financing concessions No financing concessions 10/22/2004 South Tyrol_ Hills Fee Simple 4/28/2000 +120, 12/7/2001 +58AW Location SouthTyrol Hills South Tyrol Hills -20M Fee Simple South Tyrol Hills Fee Simple Leasehold/Fee Simple Fee Simple Site .25 ac, quiet .25 ac, quiet 56 ac, quiet, hillsido -10, ac, quiet comer View Design and Appeal Adjacent Homes Adjacent Homes Wooded, Overlook -1W 1-storylavg Adjacent Homes 1-story/avg. 1-sto /av . S lit -En /av . Quality of Construction Average Average Average Average Age (Year built) 1960 1960 1%3 -1,500 1969 ,SOD Condition Good Good Good Aver a +20, Above Grade _ _ Tale) adrms Soft Total Bdrms Sa" Total Sdm a Bath Total Sdrms t_iatlre Room Count 6 3 1.75 _ 6 3 1.75 5 2 1.00 +5, 6 _ 3 2.00 Gross Living Area 1,337 Sq. Ft. 1,337 Sq. Ft. 0 1,248 Sq.FL +4 1,316 Sq.Ft +1, Basement & Finished Rooms Below Grade 1337 sf, WO 260 sf fin/ avg 1337 sf, WO 260 sf fin/ avg 1248 sf, TU +11,30C None +6, 1316, LO, TU +4 312 sf fin /av -1,500 Functional Utility Average Average Average Average Heafing/Cooling FA /AC FA /AC FA /AC T FA /AC Energy Efficient Items Average Averap Average Average Garage/Carport Attached 2 -car Attached 2-car TU/ 2-car +2,500 TU /2-car + Porch, Patio, Deck, Fireplace(s). etc. Fence, Pool, etc. Extras Net Adj. (total) Adjusted Sales Price of Comparable Deck dr Patio 2 F laces Deck & Patio 2 F' laces Patio 1 Fireplace +2,00 Avg _ landsca Average X + - $ 105,250 Net= 47% Gross= B8% $ 331,250 None +6, None +6 Avg. landscaping Average Avg. landscaping Avera X + _ - $ 137,000 Net= 72% Gross= 72% $ 326,900 Av . landsca ' Average -x'+ - $ 92,350 Net. 50% Gross- 56% $ 277,250 Indicated before and after benefit of new street with curb and gutter: - $26,900 resale, and - $31,250 & $22,750 paired sales Comments: The recent 2004 sale price appears to be below market 101 SOUTH TYROL HILLS NEIGHBORHOOD, GOLDEN VALLEY (CONTINUED) Paired Sales Set 17 ITEM I SUBJECT COMPARABLE NO. 1 4320 Sussex Road Address Golden Valley 4320 Sussex Road Golden Valle Proximity to Subject Same Neighborhood Sales Price $ 575,000 — "'$ 335,000 $ 207.56 7__ Price/Gross Liv. Area $ 356.26 Data and/or Verification Source IVILS dr public MLS & public records VALUE ADJUSTMENTS DESCRIPTION DESCRIPTION .( -)S AdJuetrnent Sales or Financing Concessions No financing concessions Date of SaleTme Location Leasehold/Fee Simple South Tyrol_ Hills Fee Simple 7/17/2000 +215, South Tyrol Hills Fee Sim le site .31 ac., quiet .31 ac., quiet View Adjacent Homes Adjacent Homes Design and Appeal 1-story/Good 1-story/ Quality of Construction Good Good Age (Year built) 1949 1949 Condition Good Good Move Grade Total adtne Setlu ToW Skin. Room Count 7 3 1 2.00 7 3 2.00 Gross Living Area 1,614 Sq. Ft 1,614 Sq.FL 0 Basement & Finished Rooms Below Grade 1516 sf 1000 sf fin/ good 1516 sf 1000 sf fin/ good Functional utility Avera a Average Heafing/Cooling FA /AC FA /AC Energy Efficient Items Average Average Garage/Carport Attached 2-car Attached 2-m Porch, Patio, Deck, Fireplace(s), etc. Deck 2 Fireplaces Deck 2 Fireplaces Fence, Pool, etc. Avg landscaping Avg landscaping Extras Net Adj. (total) Average Average X + - $ 215,000 Net= 64 Gross= 64% 550,000 Adjusted Sales Price of Comparable Indicated before and after benefit of new street with curb and gutter: $25,000 resale 102 SOUTH TYROL HILLS NEIGHBORHOOD, GOLDEN VALLEY (CONTINUED) Paired Sales Set 18 ITEM SUBJECT COMPARABLE NO. x 1515 Princeton Ave Address Golden Valloc Proximity to Subject Saba Price $ 170,000 1515 Princeton Ave Golden Valle Subject $ 132,000 $ 115.99_ _ f MLS dr public records Price/Gross Liv. Area Data and/or Verification Source $ 14938 MLS dr public recd VALUE ADJUSTMENM DESCRIPTION DESCRIPTION «(- )<A�ualnart Sales or Financing Concessions Date ofSale/Time Location Leasehold /Fee Simple Site View Design and Appeal 8/7/2002 -- No financing concessions 11/30/1999 +39, South IyrolIlills Fee Simple South Tyrol Hills Fee Sim le .27 acre Hvg 100 traffic 1-story/Avg .27 acre H 100 traffic 1-story/Avg Quality of Construction Average Average Age (Year built) 1959 1959 Average Condition Average Above Grade Twat edrms Saft Taal adrma Bathe Room Count 5 2 1.00 5 2 1.00 Gross Living Area 1,138 Sq. FL 1,138 Sq. Ft. Basement & Finished Rooms Below Grade 1138 sf 720 sf fin/ avg 1138 sf 720 sf fm /av Functional Utility Heating/Cooling Energy Efficient Items Average Average FA /no AC Average FA /no AC Average Garage/Carport Porch, Patio, Deck, Fireplace(s), etc. Fence. Pool, etc. Extras Net Adj. (total) Adjusted Sales Price of Comparable Attached 2-car Attached 2-car Patio 2 Fireplaces Patio 2 Fireplaces Avg laz►dscTing_ Av landscaping Average _ X + - $ 39,000 Net= 30% Gross= 30% $ 171,000 Average Indicated before and after benefit of new street with curb and gutter: Comments: The resale may have occurred while the streets were under construction - $1,000 resale 003 Following are 13 resales from Golden Valley having new streets constructed mostly in the 2000 to 2003 time peri- od. The City assesses only for a fraction of the total costs - -many were in the $2,600 /unit range. Most of the resales are average valued, yet two are over $500,000. 1 44 MISCELLANEOUS GOLDEN VALLEY RESALES (CONTINUED) Paired Sales Set 19 ITEM I SUBJECT COMPARABLE NO. 1 1020 Sumter Avneue N. Address Golden Valley 1020 Sumter Avneue N. Golden Valley Subject 106,000 $ 97.70 Pro-TAy to Supped Belles Price $ 180,000 Price/Gross Liv. Area Data and/or Verification Source VALUE ADJUSTMENTS Sales or Financing Concessions $ 165.90 15 k public recor DESCRIPTION _ MIS 6r public records DESCRIPrION _ _ _M•),S Adiustm nt No financing concessions Date ofSalefrms 9/19/2003 9/25/1998 +65, Location Golden Valley Golden Valley Leasehold/Fee Simple Fee simple Fee Simple Site View .20 acres_ , quiet .20 acres , wet Adicent Homes Ad'cent Homes Design and Appeal 1-s /av . 1-sto /av . Quality of Construction (Year built) Average Average 1956 Similar Trial Bdrms ? Baths 6 3 1.00 1,085 Sq, Ft. 1085 of None 1956 Condition Above Grade Average Tot Bdrrm ' Beft Room Carat 6 3 1.00 Gross Living Area 1,085 Sq. R Basement 8 Fktiehed Roans Below Grade 1065 sf None Functional utility Average Average Hsating+'Cooling FA /AC FA /AC Energy Effidern Items A—age Average Gana i&C-pat Det /2tar _ Det /2-car Porch, Patio, Deck, Fireplace(s), etc. Deck None Deck None Fence, Pod, etc. Extras Net Adj. (total) Adjusted Sales Price of Comparable Avg. landscaping Avg. landsca ' Avera Avers e )X+ - = tS,000 171,000 Subject an 'Comp 1 Indicated before and after benefit of new street with curb and gutter: $9,000 resale 1105 MISCELLANEOUS GOLDEN VALLEY RESALES (CONTINUED) Paired Sales Set 20 ITEM I SUBJECT COMPARABLE NO. 1 532 Indiana Avenue Address Golden Valley Proximity to Subject L Sales Price $ 223,900 PriM/Grm Liv. Area $ 223.90 532 Indiana Avenue Golden Valley Subject 145,000 $ 145.00 MLS & public records DESCRIPTION +(•>s AdpsWm t No financing concessions _ 5/31/2001 +5ZOOO T 1 Fee Simple Data and/or Verification Source VALUE ADJUSTMENTS Sales or Financing Concessions Date of SaWrow Location LeaseholdlFee LS & public recor DESCRIPTION T 1 Fee Sim le site .17 acres, uiet, W 17 acres, qui4 WC Adicent Homes View Ad'cent Homes Design and Appeal 1-sto /av I-storilr/avit. C u dity of Construction (Year built) Average 1950 Average 1950 Condition Updates Average +10 Above Grade Room Count Gross Living Area Basement 8 Finished Rooms_Bebw Grade ToW 9dr in Soft Tow adrms 5 3 ear 1 1.00 5 3 ' 1.00 1,000 Sq. FL 1,000 Sq. FL 1000 sf, Wo 778 of fin/good 1000 sf, WO 300 of fm/ +9, Functional Utility Heating/Cooling Energy Efficient Items Garage /Carport Porch, Patio, Dedt, Fireplace(s), etc. A—age Average FA /AC _ Average _ Det /2-car None None FA /AC Average Det /2-car None Norte Fence, Pod, etc. Extras Net Adj (total) Adjusted Sales Price of Comparable Avg. land—ping I Avg land—ping ' 1 Aver e XX + $ 71600 $ 216,600 1 Average Indicated before and after benefit of new street with curb and gutter: $7,300 resale 106 MISCELLANEOUS GOLDEN VALLEY RESALES (CONTINUED) Paired Sales Set 21 ITEM I SUBJECT COMPARABLE NO. 1 208 Sunnyridge Circle Address Golden Valley 208 Sunnyridge Circle Golden VaHey Subject $ 940,000 $ 319.29 MLS_& _public records DESCRIPTION +( -)s Adjustment No financing concessions 5/23/2002 +308, Golden Valley Fee Simple 55 ac quiet, wooden Proximity to Subject sales Price Price/Gross Liv. Anna $ 1,249,900 $ 424.56 MLS & public recor4 DESCRIPTION Data andlor Ve_ffmfion Source VALUE ADJUSTMENTS Sales or Financing Concessions Date olSale/rim_e Location 5 /13/2005 North Tyrol Hills LeassholdlFee Simple Fee Simple Site 55 ac quiet, wood View Ldi Home, Wirth Par di Homes, Wirth Pa +2-story/V. Good Design and Appeal +2-"/V. Good Quality of Construction V. Good V. Good Age (Year built) Condition 1987 V. Good 1987 V. Good Above Grade Total Bdrms I;;; Tdsl same Room Count 5 2 2.50 5 2 2.50 Gross Living Area 2,944 Sq. Ft. 2,944 Sq. Ft. Basement & Finished Rooms Below Grade 1602 sf 700 sf fm / V. Good 1602 sf 700 sf firn / V. Good Functional Utility Heating/Cooling EneW Efficient Items Avers Ay—age FA /AC FA /AC A—ge Average i Garaj;s,ll pot Attached 2-car Attached 2-car Porch, Patio, Dedr, Fireplece(s), etc. Deck, Balcony 2 FuMlaces Deck, Balcony 2 Fireplaces Fence, Paul, etc. Extras Net Adj. (total) Adjusted Sales Price of Comparable t Tub, VG landscap Good iot tub, landsca . Good X + �- $ 308,000 $ 1,248,000 Indicated before and after benefit of new street with curb and gutter: $1,900 resale Comments: This is a listing for sale which originally had a $1,295,000 price (indicated benefit of up to $47,000) 107 MISCELLANEOUS GOLDEN VALLEY RESALES (CONTINUED) Paired Sales Set 22 ITEM SUBJECT COMPARABLE NO. 1 100 Ardmore Drive Address Golden Valley 100 Ardmore Drive Golden Valle Proximity to Subjecl Sales Price Price /Gross Liv. Area Data and/or Verification Source VALUEADJUSTMENTS Sales or Financing Concessions Data ofSaWrrrne $ 650,000 $ 280.78 MLS & public recor DESCRIPTION 529,000 $ 228.51 MIS & publlc records DESCRIPTION ,( -Jf Adjustment No financing concessions P/2/2004 3/15/2002 +104, Lewfon Tyrol Hills Fee Simple Tyrol Hills LeasehokVFee Skrtpls Site View Desw and Appeal Fee Simple S7 acres, quiet, WC 57 acres, quiet, WC Adicent Homes Adjoent Homes 1-e / ood 1-s /cod Quality of Construction Good Good Ape (Year built) Condition 1954 1954 Some updates Good +10, Above Grade Tow edrms aaft Total Bdn. sans Room Count 6 3 2.50 6 3 2.50 Gross Living Area 2,315 Sq. Ft. 2,315 Sq. Ft Basement 8 Finished Rooms Below Grade 2315 sf, WO 1465 sf fin/good 2315 sf, WO 1465 sf fn/ good Functional Utility Heating/Cooling Energy Efficient Items Average Average FA /AC FA /AC Average Average Garage /Carport Attached 2-car Attached 2-car Porch, Patio, Dedr, Fireplace(s), elc. Deck, Porch 2 F IaCea Deck, Porch 2 F laces Fence. Pool, etc. Extras Net Adj. (total) Adjusted Sales Price of Comparable Good landscaping Average - - Good lanciscaping Average X + $ 114,000 F $ 643,000 Indicated before and after benefit of new street with curb and gutter: $7,000 resale 108' MISCELLANEOUS GOLDEN VALLEY RESALES (CONTINUED) Paired Sales Set 23 ITEM I SUBJECT COMPARABLE NO. 1 6723 Knoll Street N. Address Golden Valle\ Proximity to Subject L Sales Price $ lb8,000 Pnce/Gross Liv. Area $ 133.44 6723 Knoll Street N. Golden Vatley Subject $ 136,000 $ 108.02 Data arxi/or Verification Source VALUE ADJUSTMENTS WLS & public recok recd DESCRIPTION MIS dr public records DESCRIPTION .(-)S Adjument Sales or Financing Concessions Date of Sale/Time Location No financing concessions 9/25/1998 +31, /2000 ' ' Golden Valley Golden VaHey LeaNald/Fee Simple Fee Simple Fee simple Site .16 acres, quiet .16 acres, quiet View Ad'cent Homes Ad'cent Homes i Design and Aplisal —r""/avg. 1-5-story/ . Quaky Of CautrucUon A—age Average (Year built) 1946 1946 CorxNon Good Good Above Grade ToW Bdmt Daft Tots Bdmt Bar - Room Courd 6 1 3 1 1.00 6 3 1.00 Gross Living Area 1,259 Sq. FL 1,259 Sq. Ft. - 1079 sf 550 sf 8n /av Basement 8 Fxrshed Rooms Below Grade 1079 sf 550 sf fin /av Functional Utility Averse Average Healing/Cooling FA /AC FA /AC Energy Efficient Items Averse Average Garage /Carport Det /2-car Det /2-car Porch, Patio, Deck, Fireplace(s), etc. Deck 1 Fire lace Deck 1 Fireplaces Fence, Pool, etc. Avg. landscaping Avg. landsca ' Extras Net Adj. (total) Average Average X + '^ - $ 31,000 $ ]67,000 Adjusted Sales Price of Comparable Indicated before and after benefit of new street with curb and gutter: $1,000 resale 109 MISCELLANEOUS GOLDEN VALLEY RESALES (CONTINUED) Paired Sales Set 24 ITEM I SUBJECT COMPARABLE NO. 1 6408 Winsdale Street N. 6408 Winsdale Street N. Address Golden Valley Golden Valli Proximity to Subject Subject Sales Price $ 220,400 $ 150,000 Price /Gross Liv. Area $ 158.33 $ 107.76 Data and /or Verification Source MLS & public recorc MLS & public records DESCRIPTION ( -)s Aquwn w VALUE ADJUSTMEWS DESCRIPTION Sales or Financing No financing Concessions concessions Date ofSal&Tirne 3/12/2003 2/25/2000 +51, Location Belmont Belmont LeaeetrokWes Simple Fee Simple Fee Simple site .25 acres, quiet .25 acres, quiet Ad'cent Homes view Adjeent Homes Deso and Appeal 1-sto /av . 1 -sto /av . Quality of Construction Averse Average Age (Year built) 1953 1953 Cortdtion Averse Avera e Above Grade Told atlrmw Bsft TOW adrma Baft _ Room Count 6 2 1.00 6 2 1.00 Grass Living Area 1,392 Sq. Ft 1,392 Sq. R. 1392 sf 1392 sf Basement 8 Finished Rooms Below Grade 974 sf fin/ remodel 800 sf fm /av +13, Average A—age Functional Utility Heating/Cooling FA /AC FA /AC Energy Efficient Items Average Average Garage /Carport Attached 2-car Attached 2-car Porch, Patio, Deck, Deck Deck Fireplace(s), aft. 2 Fireplaces 2 F' laces Fence, Pool, etc. Avg. landscaping Avg. landscaping Extras Aver Average Net Adj. (total) X t - $ 64,000 Adjusted Sales Price of Comparable 214,000 Indicated before and after benefit of new street with curb and gutter: $6,400 resale 110 MISCELLANEOUS GOLDEN VALLEY RESALES (CONTINUED) Paired Sales Set 25 ITEM I SUBJECT COMPARABLE NO. 1 6319 Winsdale Street N. Address Golden Valley 6319 Winsdale Street N. Golden Valley Proximity to Subject Sales Price $ 199,900 Subject $ 151,500 $ 145.11 M[S do public records Price /Gross Liv. Area Data and/or Verification Source VALUE ADJUSTMENTS Sales or Financing Concessions Date of Sale/Time Location LeasehokWee Simple Site View Design and Appeal $ 191.48 & public recorc DESCRIPTION _ DESCRIPTION _ r( -)f AgnMnwM No financing concessions 7/18/2000 +39, 12/4/2002 Golden Valley Fee Simple 20 acres, uiet Ad cent Homes 1-sto /av . Golden Valley Fee Simple .20 acres, quiet Adicent Homes 1-story/avg. Quality of Co mitruction Average Average Age (Year built) 1965 1965 Condiition New FA carpet Averse +2, Above Grade Tay I OdnM Batlu Trial Gyms east Room Count 6 1 3 1.00 6 3 1.00 Gross Living Area 1,044 Sq. FL 1,044 Sq. Ft. Basement & Finished Rooms Below Grade 1044 sf 500 sf fin/ avg. 1044 sf 500 sf fin/ avg. Functional Utility Average Aver e HeatingCCooling FA /AC FA/AC Energy Efficient Items Averse Average Garage/Carport Porch, Patio, Deck, Freplace(s), etc. Det /2-car Porch 2 Fireplaces Det /2-car Porch 2 F' laces Fence, Pool, etc. Avg. landscaping Avg. landscaping Extras A Aver Net Adj (total) Adjusted Sales Pnce of Comparable X + - $ 41,000 192,500 Indicated before and after benefit of new street with curb and gutter: Comments: Seller paid for pending assessments, yet work was not completed at date of closing $7,400 resale 111 MISCELLANEOUS GOLDEN VALLEY RESALES (CONTINUED) Paired Sales Set 26 ITEM I SUBJECT COMPARABLE NO, 1 6539 Olympia Street Address Golden Valle Proximity to Subject 6539 Olympia Street Golden Valley Subject Sales Price Price/Gross Uv. Area $ 126,000 $ 95,500 $ 119.67 $ 157.89 ;2' i Data and/or Verification Source VALUE ADJUMENTS Sales or Financing Concessions Date d Same Location MLS & public recur DESCRIPTION 12001 Belmont MLS & public records DESCRIPTION +( -IS Adqustrnent No financing concessions 7/28/1999 +17, Belmont Leasehold/F_ Simple Fee Simple Fee Sim le Site .16 acres, quiet .16 acres, quiet View Adiceritt Homes Ad'oent Homes Design and Appeal 1-dory/avg. Qualfty of Coneaucdon A—age Average Ago (Year built) 1957 1957 Condition Some recent work Average +51 Above Grade Tots) 06ms 9atlr ToW 6drms Sa tr Room Count 5 2 0.75 5 2 0.75 Gross Living Area 798 Sq. FL 798 Sq. FL Basement 8 Finished Rooms Below Grade None None None None Functional Utility Averse Average Heating/Cooling FA /AC FA /AC Energy Efficient Items Averse Average Gar /Carport Attached 1-car Attached 1-car Porch, Patio, Deck, Fireplace(s), etc. None 1 F lace None 1 F' lace Fence, Pool, etc. Av . landscaping Avg. landscaping Extras Net Adj. (total) Adjusted Sales Price of Comparable Averse Average I X t - $ 22,000 117,500 Indicated before and after benefit of new street with curb and gutter: $8,500 resale 112 MISCELLANEOUS GOLDEN VALLEY RESALES (CONTINUED) ITEM SUBJECT COMPARABLE NO. 1 7600 Duluth Street Address Golden Valley Proximity to Subject Sales Price $ 242,050 7600 Dulth Street Golden Valley _ Subject $ 141,033 Price/Gross Liv. Area $ 205.82 $ 119.93 f Data and/or Verification Source VALUE ADJUSTMENTS MILS & public rem DESCRIPTION MLS & public records DESCRIPTION N -)S AOAWn -d Sales or Financing Concessions Date ofSaWiTime No financing concessions 3/31/2003 6/17/1998 +82, Location LeasehokVFee Simple Site - Weinnetka Heights Golden Valley Fee Simple .29 ac, quiet Fee Simple .29 ac, quiet View Adjcent Homes Adiceint Homes Demo and Appeal 1 /a . 1-sto /av . Quaft of Comtrucdon Average Average Age (Year built) 1960 1960 CondWon Some new decor Aver a +5, Above Grad! TOW Bderr TOW B6ms Be ft Room Count 6 3 1.50 6 3 ! 1.50 Gross Living Area 1,176 Sq.PL 1,176 Sq. FV Basement i3 Finished Rooms Below Grade_ Functional Utility Heating/Cooling Energy Efficient Items Garage /Carport 1176 sf 646 of fin/ ayg 1176 sf 646 sf fin /av Average Average FA /AC FA /AC Average Average Attached 2-car Attached 2-car Porch, Patio, Deck, Freplace(s), etc. Deck, 2 Fireplaces Deck 2 Fireplaces Fence, Pod, etc. Avg. landscaping Avg. landsca ' Extras Not Adj. (total) Average Average FX + �- $ 87,000 Adjusted Sales Price of Comparable $ 228,033 Indicated before and after benefit of new street with curb and gutter: $14,017 resale 113 MISCELLANEOUS GOLDEN VALLEY RESALES (CONTINUED) Paired Sales Set 28 ITEM I SUBJECT COMPARABLE NO. t 7950 Wesley Drive Address Golden Valle Proximity to Sulyect Sales Price $ 193,500 7950 Wesley Drive Golden Valley Subject $ 140,500 = 132.30 MI S 6r public records PAcetGross lJv. Mss $ 18220 Data andlor Verification Source dr public VALUE ADJUSTMENTS Sales or Financing Concessions DESCRIPTION DESCRIPTION a(- )<Aglrsarll 7acres, No financing concessions 3/25/1999 +51, Golden Oaks Date ofSalefrime Location L easehold/Fee Simple Fee Simple Site 29 acres, quiet _ view Ad'cent Homes Adicent Homes Design and Appeal 1-sto /av . 1 -sto /av . Quality of Cwretiuction Averse Avera e 1962 Ap ear built) 1962 Candidw Dated bsmt carpet Average -2,000 Total Bdrms Baths 5 2 1.00 1,062 Sq. FL 1062 sf 820 sf fin/ avg Average FA /AC Average Det /2-cu — Deck, Patio 2 Fireplaces Avg. landscaping Average X + $ 49,000 $ 189,5110 Above Grade Room Count TaW &W. Bi 5 2 1.00 1,062 Sq. FL Gross Living Area Basement 8 Finished Rooms Below Grade Functional Utility Heatingicoding Energy Efficient heats Garage/Carport 1062 sf 820 at fin / vg Averse FA /AC Average Det /2-car Porch, Patio, Dock, Finsplace(s), etc. Deck, Patio 2 Fireplaces Fence, Pod, etc. Avg. landscapirig Extras Net Adj. (total) Adjusted Sales Price of Comparable Average t.r Subject and Comp 1 Indicated before and after benefit of new street with curb and gutter: $4,000 resale 114 MISCELLANEOUS GOLDEN VALLEY RESALES (CONTINUED) Paired Sales Set 29 ITEM I SUBJECT COMPARABLE NO 1 8435 Wesley Drive Address Golden Valley Proximity to Subject 8435 Wesley Drive Golden Valley Subject Sales Price $ 249,900 $ 178,900 Pnre/Gross Liv. Area $ 113.69 $ 81.39 Data and /or Verification Source VALUEADJUS7MEWS MLS k public recorc DESCRIPTION MLS 6L public records DESCRIPTION +(- )SAd}wunem Sales or Financing Concessions Date ofSale/Time No financing concessions 7/31/2000 - 8/29/1997 +57, Location Ber stroms Valley Valley Leasehold/Fee Simple Fee Simple Fee Simple Sim .34 acres, quiet, LA) 34 acres, quiet, LO View Adjoent Homes Adjoent Homes Desipnarid App@W Split-Entry/avg. lit -En /av . DAft of Construction Average Average Age (Year built) 1960 1960 Condition Some new floo ' Average+5, Above Grade ToW W.. BaM Tow Bdm s Sift Room Count 8 3 1.00 8 3 1.00 Gross Living Area 2,198 R 2,198 84 FL Basement & Finished Rooms Bebw Grade 1425 sf, LO 516 sf fin /av 1425 at L O 516 sf firt /av Functional Utility Average Avera e _ FA /AC FA /AC Energy Efficient Items Average Average Garage/Carport Attached 2-car Attached 2-car Porch, Patio, Deck, Fireplace(s), etc. Deck, Sunroom 3 Fireplaces Deck, Sumroom 3 Fireplaces Fence, Pod, etc. Avg. landscaping Avg. landscaping Extras Net Adj. (total) Averse_ Average_ x-+ -- $ 62,000 Adjusted Sales Price of Comparable $ 240,900 Indicated before and after benefit of new street with curb and gutter: $9,000 resale 115 MISCELLANEOUS GOLDEN VALLEY RESALES (CONTINUED) Paired Sales Set 30 ITEM I SUBJECT COMPARABLE NO. 1 8201 Julianne Street Address Golden Valley 8201 Julianne Street Golden Valle Proximity W Subject Sales Price $ -- 189,900 Subject $ 143,000 5 116.07 MLS & public records DESCRIPTION .(-)$ Adjustment No financing concessions _ 2/26/1999 +37, Prioe/Gross L1v. Area Data and/or Verification Source VALUEAwusTmEws _ Sales or Financing Concessions Date ofsawrtrne $ 154.14 1/ LS & public recur DESCRIPTION /2001 Golden Oaks Location Golden Oaks LeasehokWas Unpile Site Fee Simple Fee Simple .31 acres, uiet .31 acres, quiet View Adjcent Homes Adjoent Homes Design and Appeal Split-Entry/avg. S lit -En /av . Quality of Construction Average Average Age (Year built) Condition 1958 1958 Average Avera a Above Grade Tow Bums BMtu Tot Bd.. Baths Room Count 6 1 3 J 1.00 6 3 1.00 Gross Living Area 1,232 Sq. FL 1,232 Sq. Ft. Basement & Finished Rooms Below Grade 1232 sf 600 sf fin /av 1232 sf 600 sf fin/ av Functional Utility Hea_bng/Cooling EneW Efficient Items Average Avera e FA /AC Average FA /AC Aver GamillaiCarport TU /2-car 7111/2-car Porch 2 Fireplaces Porch, Patio, Deck, Fireplacilil etc. Porch 2 F' laces Fence, Pool, etc. AyS. landscaping Ave ra a Av . lattdaca ' -Average X + - $ 37,000 $ 180,()()() Extras Net Adj. (total) Adjusted Sales Price of Comparable Indicated before and after benefit of new street with curb and gutter: $9,900 resale 116 MISCELLANEOUS GOLDEN VALLEY RESALES (CONTINUED) 1; =--En Yill ITEM I SUBJECT COMPARABLE NO. 1 1296 Castle Address Golden Valley 1296 Castle Golden Valley Proximity to Subject Sales Price $ 223,000 $ 110.29 4 Subject 172,000 Price/Gross Liv. Area $ 85.06 Data and/or Verification Source VALUE ADJUSTMENTS MLS 6r public recorq MLS & public records I DESCRIPTION «j -)$ Adjustmerd No financing concessions 7/6/1998 +3ZOOO ;olden Valley Estatr DESCRIPTION Sales or Financnp Concessions Date of SaWrims Location :;olden Valley Este Leasshou Fee Simple Fee Site k Fee Sim le Site .27 acres, quiet 27 acres, quiet View Ad'cent Homes Ad'eent Homes Design and Appeal Slit -En /a vg. Split-Entry/avg. Oualfty of Construction Average Average Age (Year built) 1981 1981 Average Condition Aver a Above Grade TOW W.1 Sesu Taut Sdr. Sedr Room Count 7 3 1 2.50 7 1 3 1 2.50 Gross Living Area 2,022 Sq. Ft. 2,022 Sq. Ft. Basement & Finished Rooms Below Grade 1,245 sf None 1,245 sf None Functional Utility Heabrxj/Cooling Energy Efficient Items Averse Average FA /AC FA /AC Averse Average Garage/Carport Attached 2-car Attached 2-car Perak, Patio, Deck, Fireplace(s), etc. Fence. Pool, etc Extras Net Adj. (total) Adjusted Sales Price of Comparable Deck 1 Fireplace Deck 1 Fireplace Avg. lands-ping Avg. landeca ' A e A X + - $ 32,000 204,000 Indicated before and after benefit of new street with curb and gutter: $19,000 resale 117 0 Following are resales from a variety of communities hav- ing new streets. 118 MISCELLANEOUS METROPOLITAN AREA RESALES (CONTINUED) Paired Sales Set 32 ITEM I SUBJECT COMPARABLE NO. 1 3145 Park Overlook Dr 145 Park Overlook Dr Address Shoreview Shoreview Proximity to Subject Subject Sales Price $ 315,000 $ - 193,000 rrieelfroas Liv. Anse $ 200.38 $ 122.T7 Data and /or Verification Source LS 6r public reco MIS drpublic records VALUE ADJUSTMENTS DESCRIPTION DESCRIPTION +( -)E Adiust -W Sales or Financing 3 No financing Concessions concessions Date ofSaleTms 8/25/2003 7/31/1999 +91, Location Avg-suburban Avg suburban LeaeetwldlFee Simple Fee Simple Fee Simple Site .29 ac, quiet, LO 29 ac quiet, LO Adjacent homes 4 -level lit /av View Adjacent homes Design and Appeal 4 -level lit /av Quality of Correavaion Average Average Age (Year built) 1985 1985 Upgrades Condition vera a +8, Above Grade Taal Bdmts saws Taal Bdma Satha Room Count 6 2 2.75 6 2 2.75 Gross Living Area 1,572 Sq. Ft. 1,572 . Ft. Basement & Finished Full, lookout Full, lookout Rooms Below Grade 911 sf fin/ avg 911 sf fm /av Functional Lrdlity Average Average Heating/Cooling FA /AC FA /AC Average Energy Efficient Rents Average rage/Carport Att 2-car Att 2-car rch, Patio, Deck, Patio, deck, hot tub None +6, eplace(s), etc. F' lace Fireplace nce, Pool, etc. [Adjusted Avg landscaping Avg landscaping _ - xtras Invisible fencing Nolte t Adj (total) X + - S 105,000 Sales Price Net= 54% Comparable Gross= 54% $ 298,000 .1 Subject and Comp 1 Indicated before and after benefit of new street with curb and gutter: $17,000 resale 119 MISCELLANEOUS METROPOLITAN AREA RESALES (CONTINUED) Paired Sales Set 33 ITEM I SUBJECT COMPARABLE NO. t 1312 Woodhill Circle Address Woodbury Pro*nity ID Subject Sales Price $ 234,800 Price /Gross Liv. Area $ 202.41 ;'` Data and/or Verification Source MI,S & public recorc 1312 Woodhill Circle Woodbury Subject $ = 184,000 $ 158.62 MILS 6r public records VALUE ADJUSTMENTS Sales or Financing Concessions DESCRIPTION DESCRIPTION Aowtment No financing concessions Date of Salt�me 5/28/2004 3/21/03 +22,000 Location Suburban cul -de -sa uburban cul -de-sail Leasehold/Fes Simple Site Fee Sim le Fee Sim le 23 ac, quiet, no WC .23 ac quiet, no WO view Adjacent ro k Adjacent ro ark Design and Appeal Rambler /av Rambler /avg Avera e 1965 — Average +15AW Ta4l Bbms Bathe 6 3 1.75 1,160 R. Quality of Construction Aver Age (Year built) Condition Above Grade Room Count Gross Living Area 1965 some remode ' T atstns a*. 6 3 1.75 1,160 Sq. Ft Basement 8 Finished Rooms Below Grade Functional Utility Heating/Cooling Full, no WO 660 sf fin /av Full, no WO 660 sf fm /av Average Hot water /waU AC Average Hot waer /wall AC Energy Efficient Mama Avers A—age Garage/Carport Att 2-car Att 2-car Porch, Patio, Deck, Fireplace(s), etc. Patio 1 Patio 1 Fence, Pool, etc. Avg landscaping Avg landscaping xtras None None et Adj. (total) djusted Sales Price [of Comparable I X + F- $ 37,000 Net= 20 I Gross= 20% 221,000 Indicated before and after benefit of new street with curb and gutter: $13,800 resale 120 MISCELLANEOUS METROPOLITAN AREA RESALES (CONTINUED) Paired Sales Set 34 ITEM I SUBJECT COMPARABLE NO x 10130 Abbott Avenue South Address Bloomin ton 10130 Abbott Avenue South Bloomington Proximity to Subject $ 197,500 Subject $ 130,000 $ 121.50 l i3 & ublic records DESCRIPTION .( -)S Adjustment No financing concessions Sales Price Price /Gross Liv. Area Data and /or Verification Source VALUE ADJUSTMENTS Sales or Financing Concessions Date of Sale/Time Location LeasehokifFee Simple Site view_ $ 18.4.58 _ MIS & public recorc DESCRIPTION Ave subtuban Fee simple 6/29/1999 +62, Avg suburban Fee Simple 54 ac, et, treed 54 ar, 'et, treed Adjacent homes Adjacent homes Design and Appeal 1 -1/2 stop /av 1 -1/2 /av Ouality of Construction Averse Average Age (Year built) 1950 1950 Condition New roof A— age +2, Above Grade Totr Bdrms Barns Tote) Bd.. sates Room Count Gross Living Area 5 3 1.50 1,070 sq. Ft. 5 3 1.50 1,070 Sq. Ft. Basement & Finished Rooms Below Grade 700 sf, noW0, sauna 100 sf fm /av 700af, noWO,sa 100 sf fn /av Functional Utility Averse A-erage Neating/Cading EnsW Er Efficient Hams FA /AC FA /AC Avers Aver Garage/Carport An 2-car Aft 2-car Porch, Patio, Deck, F s), etc. 2 decks, 3- season None Av landscaping None 2 decks, 3- season None Fence, Pod, etc. Avg landsca in None X + - $ 64,000 Net= 49 % Gross= 49 90 $ 194,000 Extras Net Adj (total) Adjusted Sales Prce d Comparable Indicated before and after benefit of new street with curb and gutter: $3,500 resale 121 MISCELLANEOUS METROPOLITAN AREA RESALES (CONTINUED) Paired Sales Set 35 ITEM I SUBJECT COMPARABLE NO 1 5841 Zenith Avenue North Address Brookl n Center 5841 Zenith Avenue North Brooklyn Center Proximity to Subject Sales Price Subject $ = 124,900 $ 93.21 MIS 6z public records DESCRIPTION «(.)s AdJuaowd No financing concessions 8/24/2001 +26, Av suburban Fee simple .25 ac, et level $ 170,750 Prioe/Gross Ltv. Area Data and /or Verification Source VALUE WUSTMENTf $ 127.43 IMITS & public rem DESCRIPTION Sales or Financing Concessions Date of s� Location 7/30/2003 Avg suburban L easehoWlFee Simple Fee Simple Sits 25 ac, triet, level View Adjacent homes Adjacent homes Design and Appeal 1.5 -sto /av 1.5-a /a Ouality of Constnictim Average Average Age (Year built) Condition 1955 1955 verage +5, Some updates Above Grade T ms pttr Baths Total sdrms Balls Room Count Gross Living Area 6 4 2.00 6 4 2.00 1,340 Sq. FL 1,340 Sq. FL Basement 8 Finished Rooms Below Grade Full, No WO FR Full, No WO Unfinished +5,OOC Functional Ublity Average Average HeatinglCooling FA /AC FA /AC Average EneW Efficient Items Average GeragelCarpon Detached 2-car Detached 2-car Norte Norte Avg Iandaca ' Wood_ fence X + 7]- $ 36,000 Net= 29 Gross= 29% $ 160,900 Porch, Patio, Deck, Fireoace(s), etc. None None Fence, Pool, etc. Avg landscaping Extras Net Adj. (total) Adjusted Sales Price of Comparable Wood fence Indicated before and after benefit of new street with curb and gutter: $9,850 resale 122 MISCELLANEOUS METROPOLITAN AREA RESALES (CONTINUED) Paired Sales Set 36 ITEM I SUBJECT COMPARABLE NO. 1 5921 Creek Point Address Minnetonka Proximity to Subject sales Price $ 430,000 Price/Gross Liv. Area $ 11;2.88 Data and/or Verification Source MIS dr public recond 5921 Creek Point Minnetonka_ Subject $ 330,000 $ 125.00 MLS 6r public records VALUE ADJUSTMENTS Sales or Financing Concessions DESCRIPTION DESCRIPTION +( -)6 Ad WYMrM No financing concessions Date ofSaleTme 1/23/2002 9/28/1999 +86,000 Location Good suburban Good suburban Leasehold/Fee Simple site Fee Simple 1.23 ac quiet Fee Simple 1.23 ac quiet View Creek Creek Design and Appeal 2 /Good 2-story/Good Good 1982 Good Tatar Bd—s Baths 9 3 2.50 2,640 4 Ft. 1338 A WO 1160 sf fin /Good Good _ FA /AC Average Attached 3 -car Deck 3 Fireplaces Ouality of Cionstruction Good Age (Year built) 1982 Condition Good Above Grade TOW BMrms Bdu Room Count 9 3 2.50 Gross Living Area Basement 8 Finished Rooms Below Grade Functional Utility Heating /Cooling Energy Efficient Items Garage/Carport Porch, Patio, Deck, Fireplace(s), etc. 2,640 Sq.FL 1338 sf, WO 1160 of fin /Good Good FA /AC Average Attached 3 -car Deck 3 Fireplaces Fence, Pool, etc. Extras Good landscaping Good Good landscaping Good Net Adj. (total) Adjusted Sales Price of Comparable _ x + � - $ 86,000 Net= 26% Gross= 26% $ 416,000 Indicated before and after benefit of new street with curb and gutter: Comments: Minnetonka has a no assessment policy -- funded thru general taxes $14,000 resale 123 MISCELLANEOUS METROPOLITAN AREA RESALES (CONTINUED) Paired Sales Set 37 ITEM I SUBJECT COMPARABLE NO. 1 17731 Creek Ridge Pas, Address Minnetonka 17731 Creek Ridge Pass Minnetonka Proximity to Subject Subject Sales Price Pnce/Gross Liv. Area $ 297,000 $ 168,500 $ 124.26 $ 219.03 Data and/or Verification Source VALUE ADJUSTMENTS _ M 15 6r public record DESCRIPTION MLS & public records DESCRIPTION +( -IS nqu�x Sales or Financing Concessions Date ofSale/Tirne Location No financing concessions 1/26/2003 Good suburban 8/27/1997 +114, Good suburban leaseholdlFee Simpb Site Fee Simple Fee Simple 43 acre, et 43 acre, View wooded wooded Design and Appeal lit /Good lit /Good Oualiry of Construction Ape (Year built) Good Good 1984 1984 Condition Good Good Above Grade T Brims Bsws T Brims Bsihs Room Court 6 2 1.00 6 1 2 1.00 1,356 Sq. Ft. Groas Living Area 1,356 Sq. Ft. Baseri 8 Finished Rooms Below Grade 1356 at WO 1356 sf Hn /Good 1356 at WO 1356 of fin /Good FunctionallJtllity Good Good H"fi ing FA /AC FA /AC Energy Efficient tams Average Average Garage/Carport Attached 2-car Attached 2-car Porch, Patio, Deck, Fireplace(s), etc. Decking I Fueplace Decking 1 Fireplace Fence, Pod, etc. Good landscaping Good Landscaping Extras Net Ad j. (total) Good Good -- X + - $ 114,000 Net= 68% Gross= 68% $ 282,500 Adjusted Sales Price of Comparable Indicated before and after benefit of new street with curb and gutter: Comments: Minnetonka has a no assessment policy -- funded thru general taxes $14,500 resale 124 MISCELLANEOUS METROPOLITAN AREA RESALES (CONTINUED) Paired Sales Set 38 ITEM I SUBJECT COMPARABLE NO. 1 17611 Creek Ridge Pass Address Minnetonka 17611 Creek Ridge Pass Minnetonka Subject $ 250,000 $ 121.83 Proximity to Subject Sales Price Price/Gross Uv. Area $ 321,000 $ 156.43 Data and /or Verification Source VALUE ADJUSTMENTS Sales or Financing Concessions Date of Sale/Time Location Leasehold /Fee Simple Site MLS & public recordI DESCRIPTION MIS 6r public records a(- )SAdjwhnant No financing concessions 9/1/1998 +76, Good suburban Good suburban Fee Simple Fee Simple .44 acre, quiet .44 acre, quiet View Wooded Wooded Design and Appeal 2 /Good I 2 /Good Ouality of constructim Good Gaud 1981 Good Told Bdmis Baths Pp (Year built) 1981 Good Condition Above Grade Told Bdmr fialM Room Count Gross Living Area 8 1 3 1 2.50 8 3 2.50 2,052 Sq. Ft. 2,052 Sq. Ft. Basement & Finished Rooms Below Grade 1208 sf, WO 850 sf fn /Good 1208 A WO 850 sf fin /Good Functional Utility Good Good Heating/Cooling FA /AC FA /AC Energy Efficient Items Average Average Garage/Carport Attached 3 -car Attached 3 -car Porch, Patio, Deck, Fireplace(s), etc. Decking 2 Fireplaces Decking 2 Fireplaces Fence, Pool, etc_. Extras Net Adj. (total) Adjusted Sales Price of Comparable _ Good landscapin& Good landscaping Good X + —,- $ 76,000_ Net = 30 i Gross= 30% $ 326,000 Good Indicated before and after benefit of new street with curb and gutter: Comments: Minnetonka has a no assessment policy -- funded thru general taxes - $5,000 resale 125 MISCELLANEOUS METROPOLITAN AREA RESALES (CONTINUED) Paired Sales Set 39 ITEM I SUBJECT COMPARABLE NO 1 16281 Hillcrest Lane Address Eden Prairie 1630011illcrest Lane Eden Prairie Sanio block $ 250000 $ 227.27 MIS & pubfic records DESCRIPTION_ �(•IiAgirsnur Proximity to Subject Sales Price Price /Gross Liv. Are_ a Data and /or Verification Source VALUE ADJUSTMENTS Sales or Financing Concessions Date of Salelrime Location Leasehold/Fee Sim_ ple Site $ 275,000 $ 2.61.66 7' MLS & Public recorc _ DESCRIPTION 7/15/2004 Good suburban _ No financing concessions 6/21/2002 +54, Good suburban Fee Simple Fee Simple .54 acre, et A— age Split /Av Upgrade kitchen $,000 .53 acre, quiet View Average Design and Appeal Quality of Construction S lit er /Av Average Age (Year built) Condition 1973 1973 Averatize Many updaties -20, Above Grade Tay S&.8 Bathe T Bdnm ssft Room Count 5 2 1.00 1,051 Sq. FL 5 2 1.00 1,100 Sq. FL -2,450 Gross UvN Area Basement 6 Finished Rooms Below Grade Functional Utility 1051 sf, WO 877 sf fin/ Avg 1100 Sf, WO 900 sf fin /Av -700 Good Good Heating/Cooling Energy Efficient Items FA /AC FA /AC Ave[ Avera Garage/Carport Attadied 2-car Attadted 2-cm Porch, Patio, Deck, Fireplace(s), etc. Deck Fireplace Deck Fireplace Fence, Pod, aft. Avg landscaping Fencing -2,500 Extras Average Average X + _ - $ 20,350 Net= 8 Gross= 35% $ 270,350 Net Adj. (total) Adjusted Sales Price of Comparable Indicated before and after benefit of new street with curb and gutter: $4,650 paired sale Comments: Assessment was $5,936 /parcel (40% of total cost) 126 ��w i�,..y.;v; P Telephone interviews were conducted with 22 experienced residential real estate appraisers in the Twin Cities metro- politan area familiar with Edina real estate. All except one of the appraisers had a "SRA" designation from the Ap- praisal Institute, a recognized authority in the real estate community. The appraisers' experience averaged 24 years in the profession, and ranged from 16 to 34 years. There was a wide range of Edina experience from 8 to 1,500 proper- ties, averaging 409 properties per appraiser. Fifteen had completed over 200 appraisals each within Edina. Conversations were initiated by referencing South Harriet Park, Sunnyslope and Rolling Green as three neighbor- hoods with older streets in Edina that we were studying. Most were familiar with these areas, yet for those who were not, they were described as follows: ■ South Harriet Park -1/4 -acre lots with values of $400,000 to $600,000 ■ Sunnyslope -1/2 -acre lots with values of $500,000 to $1,000,000 -plus ■ Rolling Green -1 -acre lots with values over $1,500,000 The appraisers were asked if they feel new streets benefit these types of residences and then to give a value opinion based on their experience. They could answer generally, yet most had value opinions specific to each type of neigh- borhood, using A) South Harriet Park, B) Sunnyslope or C) Rolling Green. If no dollar amount was given, they were asked how they would rate the new street benefit to a home on a scale of 1 to 10, with 1 being no benefit, 5 being average benefit, and 10 being significant benefit. Of the 22 responses, 18 have specific value opinions for each of the 3 neighborhoods. We asked separately about the value benefit curb and gutter may provide. Most lumped this value in with the overall street value benefit, yet some had opinions specific to curb and gutter. Frequently- mentioned benefits to new curb and gutter were improved appearance, correction of runoff issues and creation of a edge protecting lawns from damage by snow plows or cars. All appraisers' opinions and comments were used in our analysis. The results obtained are summarized as fol- lows: ■ 20 appraisers (91%) expressed a positive opin- ion of new street improvements; 2 were negative which dealt with the Rolling Green neighborhood. Positive comments generally mentioned improved appearance and appeal. Many commented their opinions could vary based on the condition of the original street, with streets in poor condition obvi- ously receiving a greater benefit than those in okay condition. ■ While most expressed dollar amounts, two apprais- ers suggested general overall value increases —a rating of 3 on the 10- scale, and the other at 50 -75% of costs. ■ Value benefit results for South Harriet Park ranged from $2,000 to $10,000, with an average of $7,461 and a median of $10,000 per property. Many felt this neighborhood would receive the greatest ben- efit return relative to the cost from new streets and new curb and gutter due to its "urban" feel. ■ Sunnyslope value benefit ranged from $2,000 to $17,500, averaging $10,939 and a median of $11,200 per property. Opinions were mixed about the benefit of new curb and gutter in this commu- nity, since many residents prefer the "country" look without them. ■ Rolling Green value benefit ranged from $0 to $25,000 per property, having an average of $13,972 and a median of $15,000. Many appraisers stated new street improvements, including new curb and gutter, would enhance this neighborhood least of the three presented, relative to costs. The feeling was that it is a unique area providing very upscale residents with "country" living, yet still being very close in to the City of Minneapolis and its opportu- nities. The majority feel the curb and gutter benefit is minimal within this neighborhood. ■ Regarding curb and gutter, four appraisers ex- pressed specific benefits on the 10- scale. They ranged from 2 to 10, with an average of 6.3 and a median of 6.5. General comments on curb and gutter were most positive in South Harriet Park, and least in Rolling Green, yet there were a full range of opinions —some were very supportive of the value benefit in all 3 neighborhood, others were more neutral, and a few were negative for Rolling Green. Sunnyslope was considered between the other two neighborhoods. Based upon general comments, we have ranked them into 3 catego- ries: curb & gutter benefit is 100 %+ of cost, 50% 127 RESULTS OF REAL ESTATE APPRAISER SURVEY (CONTINUED) of cost or "minimal ". Nine were ranked at 100 %, 8 were 50 %, and 6 were "minimal ". Nearly all of the "minimal" were exclusive to Rolling Green, and some 50% rankings were for both Rolling Green and Sunnyslope. Overall, we had a good response from the appraisers. While all felt this was a difficult value benefit to measure, the vast majority provided strong views. The condition of public improvements is not generally a direct category used by appraisers in their valuation adjustment grids, yet the indirect benefit is included under neighborhood/ location appeal, or under the site appeal /value. Of all the survey responses completed for this report, the appraisers were the only group which consistently had specific value benefit opinions —most of which were very positive. The strongest consistent opinions were for the reconstructed streets and for curb and gutter within the more dense "urban" style neighborhoods, and the least benefit relative to cost was expressed in the large -lot, up- per- valued Rolling Green neighborhood having a no curb and gutter "country" look. All appraiser opinions were fa- vorable for reconstructed streets. Given the common up- per values throughout the community, the benefit-to-total - value ratio remains very low. On the following pages, histogram charts of the opinions are graphically depicted. 128 RESULTS OF REAL ESTATE APPRAISER SURVEY (CONTINUED) Histogram Charts of Appraiser Benefit 012inions F— - 12 1K o � u �+ 6 0 4 z 2 0 8 �6 O et! 5 u 4 w O 3 Z 2 I m South Harriet Park Under $2000 $2000 to $5000 $5001 to $8000 $8001 to $10,001 to $14,001 to Over $18,000 $10,000 $14,000 $18,000 New Street Market Value Benefit Sunnyslope Under $2000 $2000 to $5000 $5001 to $8000 $8001 to $10,001 to $14,001 to Over $18,000 $10,000 $14,000 $18,000 New Street Market Value Benefit 129 RESULTS OF REAL ESTATE APPRAISER SURVEY (CONTINUED) Histogram Charts of Aoaraiser Benefit O ina ions 8 PI 6 O O v 5 .b O 4 w O O � O Z 2 1 0 Rolling Green 12 10 O 8 u 'd C 6 w O 4 z 04 0 Under $2000 $2000 to $5000 Under $2000 $2000 to $5000 $5001 to $8000 $8001 to $10,001 to $14,001 to Over $18,000 $10,000 $14,000 $18,000 New Street Market Value Benefit Combined Three Neighborhood Opinions l3 South Harriet Park ■ Sunnyslope 7 Rolling Green $5001 to $8001 to $10,001 to $14,001 to $8000 $10,000 $14,000 $18,000 New Street Market Value Benefit Over $18,000 _ _ ,�, i �- Telephone interviews were conducted with 32 experienced residential Realtors in the Twin Cities metropolitan area fa- miliar with Edina real estate. Years of experience ranged from 1 to 34 years, with an average of 16.6 and a median of 16 years. Approximately 80% have 10 or more years of experience. Many have been involved with hundreds of properties from Edina —the average is 143 properties. As with the appraisers, conversations were initiated by referencing South Harriet Park, Sunnyslope and Rolling Green as three neighborhoods with older streets in Edina that we were studying. Most were familiar with these ar- eas, yet for those who were not, they were described as follows: ■ South Harriet Park -1/4 -acre lots with values of $400,000 to $600,000 ■ Sunnyslope -1/2 -acre lots with values of $500,000 to $1,000,000 -plus ■ Rolling Green —1 -acre lots with values over $1,500,000 All expressed positive opinions of new street improve- ments, yet stated their value opinions could vary based on the condition of the original street, with streets in poor condition obviously receiving a greater benefit than those in okay condition. Realtors were asked if they feel new streets benefit these types of residences and neighborhoods, and then to give a value opinion based on their experience. They could answer generally, yet most had value opinions specific to each type of neighborhood, using A) South Harriet Park, B) Sunnyslope or C) Rolling Green. If we were not given a dollar amount, they were asked how they would rate the new street benefit to a home on a scale of 1 to 10, with 1 being no benefit, 5 being average benefit, and 10 being significant benefit. Several offered an opinion as a per- centage increase of the property value. We asked separately about the increased appearance , function and value benefit curb and gutter may provide. Most lumped this value in with the overall street value benefit, yet some had opinions specific to curb and gut- ter. Frequently- mentioned benefits to new curb and gut- ter were improved appearance, correction of runoff issues and creation of a edge protecting lawns from damage by snow plows or cars. All Realtors' comments were used in our analysis, and the results are summarized as follows: ■ Many Realtors indicated there would be a return or partial return on costs /special assessments paid, either immediately or at some time in the future. For purposes of analyzing our data, $10,000 +/- was assigned as a dollar amount for costs. There were a total of 17 value benefit amount responses- - either a specific dollar amount, or a percentage re- turn of costs /assessments. The overall increased value opinions ranged from $4,000 to $21,000, with an average of $9,941 and a median of $10,000. The amounts were generalized to all 3 neighbor- hoods. ■ Three Realtors expressed their value benefits as a percentage of property values, ranging from 3% to 10% increase, averaging 7.7% and having a me- dian of 10 %. • None of the Realtors expressed value benefit opinions individually for the three neighborhoods. There were comments supporting the appraisers' opinions as to South Harriet Park having the great- est benefit -to -cost ratio, and Rolling Green the least, due to the same "urban" vs. "country" feel. • Two Realtors expressed specific curb and gutter value benefits of $8,000 and $10,000. On the 10- scale, seven gave opinions ranging from 1 to 5, with an average of 2. General comments placed most benefit to South Harriet Park, least to Rolling Green, and some to Sunnyslope. As with the appraisers, the Realtors felt this was a difficult value benefit to measure in dollar amounts. Even though several Realtors felt there was little or no value benefit, nearly all felt a property would sell more quickly on a new street vs. a home on an older street due to the increased appeal. All had positive opinions on new streets, yet some had difficulty is quantifying it; nevertheless 53% did pro- duce some type of benefit amount. The most favorable value to cost ratio would be in South Harriet Park, and least in Rolling Green due to the "urban" vs. "country" look. On the following page, a histogram chart graphically depicts the Realtor value benefit opinions. Again the average and median amounts were $9,941 and $10,000 respectively, yet we used a cost amount of $10,000 when quantifying a "cost return percentage" opinion. With greater costs/as- sessments in larger lot subdivisions, some greater aver- age amounts would be produced. 131 RESULTS OF REALTOR SURVEY (CONTINUED) 132 Realtor Overall Average Benefit Opinions 14 12 10 O e� V 'd 8 19 w as 6 .O z 4 2 0 Under $2000 $2000 to $5000 $5001 to $8000 $8001 to $10,001 to $14,001 to Over $18,000 $10,000 $14,000 $18,000 New Street Market Value Benefit 132 Notes Telephone interviews were conducted with numerous ho- meowners in the neighborhoods of White Oaks in Edina, and South Tyrol Hills in Golden Valley. These subdivisions had recent street improvements, and their values and ap- peal were felt to be similar to some of the subject neigh- borhoods. Nearly all indicated positive opinions of new street im- provements, yet were very uncomfortable to express them in dollar values. Many felt they were not knowledgeable about property values to give such an amount. All but two owners gave their opinions using the 10 -scale described in the previous two survey results. To initiate conversation, homeowners were asked how they felt the new street looked and to give their opinion of the condition of the original street. As would be expected, there was a close correlation in value benefit responses relative to the perceived condition of the older streets. They were asked if they feel the new street benefited their neighborhood and property, and if given a positive response, we asked their value opinion as to the increase. They could answer generally or specifically to the new street surface and the new curb and gutter. We asked separately about the increased appearance, function and value benefit curb and gutter may provide. As with the previous surveys, frequently- mentioned ben- efits to new curb and gutter were improved appearance, correction of runoff issues and creation of a edge protect- ing lawns from damage by snow plows or cars. It was interesting to note the owners living at the bottom of a hill were more interested in runoff improvement than the oth- ers. Both neighborhoods where interviews occurred indicated positive opinions of new street improvements, yet the Edina neighborhood had stronger positive views. This may be due to the scope of the project (Golden Valley left some more issues for residents to deal with), and to differ- ing market characteristics. 133 RESULTS OF PROPERTY OWNER SURVEY (CONTINUED) White Oaks Neighborhood, Edina A description of the White Oaks Neighborhood is found beginning on page 69 of this report. The results of discus- sions with 32 homeowners in the White Oaks neighbor- hood are summarized below: ■ Most felt the original street was in below average condition and needed work, yet 40% stated the street was in "average" or "okay" condition. ■ All but one homeowner had positive opinions of the new street improvements. Some streets received new curb and gutter, sidewalks and /or decorative street lighting, while others did not. ■ None had specific dollar benefit amount opinions ■ 28 or 88% had a value benefit rating opinion some- where on the 10 -scale (1 is no benefit, 5 is average benefit, and 10 is significant benefit). Overall street improvement opinions ranged from 1 to 10, with an average of 5.48 and a median of 6. ■ Specific to the street improvements, not including curb and gutter, results ranged from 1 to 9, with an average of 5.6 and median of 7. 0 u "C3 s~ w O t ri ■ The increased value scale for curb and gutter re- sulted in a range from 6 to 10, with an average of 7.45 and median of 7. Despite many homeowners mentioning the hassle they had gone through while the street improvements were be- ing installed, most liked the new street after the project was completed. Although we did not specifically ask about the new sidewalks or decorative street lighting, several owners had definite opinions. Families particularly liked the sidewalks because it provides a safe place for their children to play. One owner appreciated the new street lighting that is aimed down, not shining into nearby hous- es. One owner mentioned he was pleased their alley was also upgraded. There were several positive comments regarding how the owners felt they were treated by the City of Edina during this process. One said they did a good job overall. Anoth- er was pleased that her old broken -down wood retaining wall was replaced with an appealing brick wall. Summary histogram charts of the responses are graphi- cally shown below. White Oaks Homeowner Survey Summary Chart (Total New Streets Project) pp G d Ln 0 1 -10 Scale of Benefit 134 RESULTS OF PROPERTY OWNER SURVEY (CONTINUED) I Jt, White Oaks Homeowner Survey Summary Chart (New Streets Component) 6 - -. O 5 4 — u 'C ►� w 3 O d .G 2 z 1 - - -f- O, O G y, ~ A O�A O 1 -10 Scale of Benefit White Oaks Homeowner Survey Summary Chart (Curb & Gutter Component) 6 O L v 5 'C rr 4 w O d 3 2 z 1 0 N M dt 011 Ln O 1 -10 Scale of Benefit I Jt, RESULTS OF PROPERTY OWNER SURVEY (CONTINUED) South Tyrol Neighborhood, Golden Valley A description of the South Tyrol Hills Neighborhood is found beginning on page 91 of this report. Discussions with 50 homeowners in this neighborhood are summa- rized below: ■ Most felt the original street was in below average condition or worse and needed work, yet 38% stat- ed the street was in "average" or "okay" condition. ■ A vast majority (90 %) had positive opinions of the improvements; only 5 (10 %) did not. Some streets had curb and gutter previously; currently all have new curb and gutter. Homeowners on some streets fought for lower curbs and won. Some areas re- ceived new street lighting. Owners were given an opportunity to have new concrete or bituminous driveways installed at a slight discount at the same time their street was installed. Many took advan- tage of this and were happy with the results. ■ Two homeowners indicated possible value ben- efits for overall street improvements of $3,000 and $4,500 per property. The assessments were near $2600 per property. ■ 37 or 74% had a value benefit rating opinion some- where on the 10 -scale (1 is no benefit, 5 is average benefit, and 10 is significant benefit). Overall street improvement opinions ranged from 1 to 10, with an average of 5.27 and a median of 5. ■ Specific to the street improvements, not including curb and gutter, results ranged from 1 to 8, with an average of 3.23 and median of 2.5. ■ The increased value scale for curb and gutter re- sulted in a range from 1 to 10, with an average of 3.71 and median of 2.5. Many were happy with the improved runoff. As might be expected in a project of this type, several owners brought up issues that frustrated them, including a damaged sprinkling system, damaged electric fencing, having to move a driveway and sidewalk, and sod that failed to grow, all corrected at the owners' expense. One owner was concerned about her sickly neighbor who was physically unable to walk several blocks to her home after being out due to the home being inaccessible while the work was being done and felt the city should have made some provision for her. Some reported the project took 2 months longer than expected. One interesting comment was "...the city should not make promises they can't keep- - people remember the issues and hassle even though they like the result." For the owners unable or unwilling to pay the entire as- sessment in a lump sum, financing was offered at 10 %, well above current interest rates. Some felt this was unfair and struggled to pay the amount up front. Despite many homeowners mentioning the "hassle factor," most were very happy with the new street improvements after the project was completed. Overall, responses here were not as strong as within Edi- na's White Oaks Neighborhood, yet it appears that there were more issues and some landscaping repair expense left for the homeowners to address. Summary histogram charts of the responses are graphically shown on the fol- lowing pages. 136 RESULTS OF PROPERTY OWNER SURVEY (CONTINUED) 61 m 4 O O v 3 O w O �• 2 O Z, v 0 12 11 10 z 9 O e�le 8 V 7 9 "'' 6 w O 5 it d PC 4 3 z 2 1 0 v c South Tyrol Hills Homeowner Survey Summary Chart (Total New Streets Project) 4 K, 00 a, o > 1- 10`Scale of Benefit South Tyrol Hills Homeowner Survey Summary Chart (Total New Streets Project) RESULTS OF PROPERTY OWNER SURVEY (CONTINUED) 11 10 0 9 O O 8 v 7 "C Q 6 0 ` 5 O 4 3 Z 2 1 0 South Tyrol Hills Homeowner Survey Summary Chart (Total New Streets Project) M, 1 -10 Scale of Benefit 1-1 00 CD H 138 v M, 1 -10 Scale of Benefit 1-1 00 CD H 138 We have completed an extensive market study to assist the City of Edina in their future assessment policies. Our appraisal consulting work has focused on the market val- ue benefit from reconstructed public streets within three sample and differing types of neighborhoods: ■ South Harriet Park with 1/4 -acre sites and good values ■ Sunnyslope with 1/2 acre site with very good val- ues ■ Rolling Green with 1 -acre site with extremely strong values and appeal We have employed several valuation tools, including a resales and paired sales analysis on numerous proper- ties, interviews with experienced residential appraisers, interviews with experienced Edina Realtors, and a survey of homeowners within two upper valued neighborhoods which have recently had new streets installed. The resales /paired sales analysis indicated typical value benefit in the $6,000 to $15,000 range. With excluding the extreme and suspect indications, the average and median figures were as follows: Resales Average Value Benefit: $9,976 Resales Median Value Benefit: $8,750 Paired Sales Average Value Benefit: $14,202 Paired Sales Median Value Benefit: $12,700 Combined Average Value Benefit: $11,666 Combined Median Value Benefit: $9,700 Many of the properties studied have total market values under $400,000. Higher priced properties on larger and more valuable sites generally would be able to command more benefit —such as the subject Sunnyslope and Rolling Green neighborhoods. The results of the appraiser survey are summarized as fol- lows for combined streets with curb and gutter: South Harriet Park Average Value Benefit: $7,461 South Harriet Park Median Value Benefit: $10,000 Sunnyslope Average Value Benefit: $10,939 Sunnyslope Median Value Benefit: $11,200 Rolling Green Average Value Benefit: $13,972 Rolling Median Value Benefit: $15,000 The Realtor survey concluded the following combined streets with curb and gutter values: Average Value Benefit: $9,941 Median Value Benefit: $10,000 Somewhat higher Realtor indications would be possible if a greater than $10,000 cost of improvements were used (many of the responses were in relation to the cost/special assessment amount). The vast majority of the homeowners surveyed indicated a positive opinion of the new public improvements, and rat- ed the value benefit on a 1 to 10 scale (1 being no benefit, 5 being average benefit, and 10 being significant benefit) as follows: White Oaks Average Rating: 5.48 White Oaks Median Rating: 6.00 South Tyrol Hills Average Rating: 5.27 South Tyrol Hills Median Rating: 5.00 When including ratings for isolation of the street from the curb and gutter, White Oaks would have greater average & median overall ratings, and South Tyrol Hills would be lower. Between the appraisers and Realtors, the appraisers have a more favorable view of the benefit of curb and gutter. Most of the experienced appraisers indicated near full val- ue benefit relative to cost for curb and gutter in South Har- riet Park due to its smaller lots and "urban" characteristics. Rolling Green had the least value return, and Sunnyslope was somewhere in the middle. Realtors viewed South Harriet Park better for having curb and gutter, yet marginal benefit in Rolling Green, and some benefit in Sunnyslope. With costs reportedly near $3,000 to $4,000 per 1/4 -acre property, and $6,000 or more per larger site subdivisions, the marginal benefit of curb and gutter greatly diminishes in the "country" look neighborhoods. Based upon our mar- ket research, South Harriet Park can fully bear the $3,000 to $4,000 curb and gutter costs, Sunnyslope could bear near $2,000 per parcel, and Rolling Green $0 to $1,000. While this is inverse to the costs, the market appears to prefer the no curb "country" look in the large -site estate - type suburban developments. While this conclusion is not fully consistent with all of our market research, the majority of data supports this opinion. With new street improvements net of consideration of the curb and gutter issue, the market appears to fully bear the cost when the original improvements are in poor condi- 139 SUMMARY AND VALUE CONCLUSIONS (CONTINUED) tion. Costs reportedly are in the $4,000 to $10,000 range depending upon size of the lots. When the pavement has some remaining life where significant annual patching is not needed, a proration of the new pavement cost would be appropriate. All of the subject neighborhoods' streets appear to be at the end of their useful life. Based upon all of our research and analysis, we conclude the following market value benefits for the subject 3 neigh- borhoods: South Harriet Park With Curb and Gutter: $9,000 to $10,000 (1.8% to 2.0% on a $500,000 residence) Sunnyslope With Curb and Gutter: $12,000 to $14,000 (1.6% to 1.9% on a $750,000 residence) Sunnyslope Without Curb and Gutter: $10,000 to $12,000 (1.3% to 1.6% on a $750,000 residence) Rolling Green Without Curb and Gutter: $14,000 to $16,000 (.9% to 1.1% on a $1.5 million residence) Note that these are average values where there may be some exceptions —small /modest homes on poor- feature lots may be less, and larger than average sites with strong values commanding site premiums would be greater. City assessment policy may varying from a conservative across the board low percentage of cost rate with general taxes funding the balance, to an aggressive near 100% of cost rate where property owner appeals would be prob- able on some class of properties. If current costs are below the above market value benefit conclusions, a more aggressive stance could be feasible. To reduce potential appeals, however, a compromise policy would be to establish a floor assessment amount somewhat below the above value benefit rates, plus apply a certain percentage for the overage. The shortfall would have to be covered by a City contribution funded via the general tax levy. Unique floor amounts would be appropriate for the differ- ent types and valued subdivisions (see the notable value benefit differences between South Harriet Park and Roll- ing Green). If curb and gutter are to be included in some large -lot de- velopments where a "country" look is preferred, greater care should be used in establishing the floor amount. Please review the "extraordinary assumptions, special limiting conditions, and hypothetical conditions" section of this report on page 11 before relying on the values, recom- mendations or other conclusions. 140 �+ - f C dld e n d� Edina Street Reconstruction Assessments on Three Sample Neighborhoods Edina, Minnesota The Valuation Group, Inc. Thomas J. Day, MAI, SRA K AL IRW� EDUCATION THE /A 10M GROUP, INC. Thomas Day is a partner, shareholder and officer of the Valuation Group, Inc. He first joined the Lyle H. Nagell & Co., Inc. as a real estate appraiser in 1978 after having re- ceived his BS degree in Business Administration from the University of Minnesota. In 1987, he became an owner and officer of the firm. Mr. Day, in 1996, joined Bakken & Liedl, Inc. as a principal. During 1998, the firm name was changed to Bakken, Liedl, Janssen, Day & Reach, Inc. In 2003, the name was again changed to The Valua- tion Group, Inc. Mr. Day's diverse appraisal practice includes properties such as industrial facilities, retail buildings, office centers, apartment complexes, subdivision analysis, special use projects, vacant land parcels, planned unit developments, and mixed -use complexes. He is experienced with litigation and condemnation assign- ments including partial acquisition, and has testified as an expert witness in District Court, Federal Court, and in con- demnation proceedings before District Court- appointed county commissions. Minnesota Certified General Real Property appraisal license No. 4000814. ■ Bachelor of Science Degree - Business Administration, 1978 honor graduate from the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota, with an emphasis in finance APPRAISAL EDUCATION The Appraisal Institute • Capitalization Theory & Techniques, Part A • Capitalization Theory & Techniques, Part B • Case Studies in Commercial Highest And Best Use • Income Property Valuation In The 1990s Seminar • Evaluations &The Real Estate Appraisal Industry Seminar • Case Studies In Real Estate Valuation • Appraising Troubled Properties Seminar • Eminent Domain and Condemnation Appraising • Senior Demographics and its Impact on Senior Housing • Attacking & Defending Appraisal in Litigation • Appraisal Report Writing Seminar • Discounted Cash Flow Seminar • Standards Of Professional Practice • Subdivision Analysis • Toxic Contamination • Appraisal of Local Retail Properties • Wetlands and Property Evaluations • Upscale Urban Townhouse Development • Multi - Family Housing —the Future • Regional Retail Malls Seminar QUALIFICATIONS OF APPRAISER (CONTINUED) The Society Of Real Estate Appraisers ■ Introduction To Appraising Real Property, Course 101 ■ Evaluating Residential Construction ■ Applied Residential Appraising, Course 102 ■ Building Codes and Inspections Seminar Other Organizations ■ State of Minnesota vs. Woodridge Plaza L.P. Seminar — Intemational Right of Way Association ■ Mock Trial Seminar– International Right of Way Association ■ FHA Single - Family New Construction Appraisal Training Seminar /HUD Training Seminar —HUD ■ Right of Way Professional Conferences— Minnesota Department of Transportation ■ Comprehensive Appraisal Workshop —Ted Whitmer ■ The Uniform Relocation and Real Property Acquisition Act– International Right of Way Association LICENCES AND AFFILIATIONS ■ Minnesota General Real Property Appraiser No. 4000814 ■ Member - MAI designated member of Appraisal Institute ■ Member - SRA designated member of Appraisal Institute ■ Past service of the Metro /Minnesota Chapter of the Appraisal Institute as President, Vice President, Secretary, Treasurer, Nominating Committee Chair, Education Committee Member, Finance Committee member, Residen- tial Admissions Committee Chair, Bylaws Committee Chair, Program Committee Chair, Residential Associate Guidance Committee Chair, Pro -Bono Committee member, Peer Review Committee member, and Scholarship Committee member ■ Member - International Right Of Way Association CLIENTS SERVED Numerous individuals, attorneys, corporations, partnerships, non - profits, governmental agencies and lenders. Sample clients include the following: ■ Anchor Bank ■ Anoka Electric Cooperative ■ Briggs and Morgan ■ Burnsville School District ■ Central Community Housing Trust ■ Citizens Bank ■ City of Bloomington ■ City of Circle Pines ■ City of Orono ■ City of Plymouth ■ City of St. Louis Park ■ Fredrikson & Bryon ■ Firstar Bank ■ GE Capital ■ Gray, Plant, Mooty, Mooty & Bennett ■ Hennepin County ■ Highland Banks ■ Honeywell ■ Kennedy & Graven ■ Lakeville School District ■ Metropolitan Airports Commission ■ Midland Financial ■ Midway National Bank ■ Minneapolis Community Development Agency ■ Minneapolis Planning and Economic Development ■ Minneapolis Library ■ Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board ■ Minneapolis Public Works Department ■ Minneapolis School District ■ Minnesota Attorney Generals Office ■ Minnesota Department of Commerce ■ New York Life Insurance Company ■ Northern States Power Company ■ Phillips Neighborhood Housing Trust ■ Powderhom Residents Group ■ Premier Bank ■ Project For Pride in Living, Inc. ■ Ramsey County ■ Richfield Bank and Trust ■ Seward Redesign ■ Southside Neighborhood Housing ■ State of Minnesota ■ TCF Bank ■ Twin Cities Habitat For Humanity, Inc. ■ Union Bank and Trust ■ U.S. Bank ■ U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service ■ Wells Fargo ■ Whittier Alliance QUALIFICATIONS OF APPRAISER (CONTINUED) CURRENT APPRAISAL LICENSE Thomas Day holds a Minnesota Certified General Real Property Appraiser license. µ 'tatt3 Qf Minnesota department of:C6ihMerce Ltcensing':Division Department of Commerce Telephone: (651);296 - 6319:;:- 85 - 7th Place East, Suite 600` E- mg,ll.address: Iicensing.commerce@state.mn.us St:wPaul, tillN'S51,01 -3165 3 Webs"dress: commerce.state.mmus . z Ceit fied-denera["Real Propert"Appraiser License -kdgal Name: " THOMAS J DAYS t Company Af Nation: ''' BAKKE N LIEDL JANSSEN DAY REACH INC Address: 12905.27TH pLACE'NO a 8085 WAYZATA BLVD STE 105 PLYMOI)TH, MN 55441: 1ViPLS, MN 55426 :. A person Ilc n In this category can perform appraisals for federally - related traansactiona License. Identification,Number AP_ ;. 4000$14 License Expiration Date: 8131/2Q04r * ; A person itrx need In;ttis camgwy may appralse.all types of real properly. — Continuing Education: 'W.- 6redits'dUe by license expiration date:. The Valuation Group, Inc. 3655 Plymouth Boulevard Minneapolis, Minnesota 55446 Phone 763- 525 -0000 Fax 763 - 525 -8875 "A real estate valuation and consult- ing company committed to the high- est standards of ethics, expertise, re- search and technological innovation." The Valuation Group is a complete real estate valuation and consulting firm offering in -depth analytical services on a variety of investment, owner - occupied, property development and spe- cial use projects. Consisting of seven MAI- designated partners with many years in the profession, additional staff appraisers and support professionals, we have the knowledge, experience, size and a commit- ment to professionalism to handle all of your real estate valuation and consultation needs. With our - diverse practice we have experts in :the multi- faceted and complex real. estate. sub-mar- kets, including:: ✓ Retail centers _ ✓ Office complexes ✓ Corporate headquarters ✓ Industrial facilities Major manufacturing plants ✓ Multifamily residential_ properties Development projects Special.use.,propert y '✓ . Market feasibility. studies 6 Mixed -use projects MUlti- property portfolios. �Affordable'hous 9 in COMPANY BROCHURE (CONTINUED) THE �LVAT10 GROUP, INC. front row - Scott Muenchow, MAI, Melissa Janssen, MAI, & Clete Lied, MAI. The Valuation Group, Inc. was formed to incorporate the talents and experience of these seven experienced appraisers, all of whom are MAI- designated members of the Appraisal Institute. All partners have a minimum of 17 years in the business with some having over 25 years. In addition to the 7 partners, the company utilizes an experienced and professional team of staff appraisers and support professionals. K COMPANY BROCHURE (CONTINUED) rvices -We - Provide �- - - -� i our experienced partners and quality staff, provide a variety of real estate valuation and sultinq services. These include: i ✓ Lending valuations ✓ Tax appeal valuation & consulting ✓ Condemnation Just Compensation valu- ation ✓ Pre - condemnation scope of taking con- sultation ✓ Inverse condemnation ✓ Investment consultation ✓ Valuation for estate planning ✓ Special assessment appeals ✓ Valuation and consulting relating to part- nership dissolution ✓ General disputes relating to real estate ✓ Review appraisals • Expert witness testimony • Litigation support ✓ Highest and Best Use studies ✓ Market feasibility studies ✓ Market rent studies ✓ Charitable contribution valuations THE " AI,UATION GROUP, INC. With our commitment to professionalism and technological innovation, we have compiled ex tensive tools and resources for our valuation and consultation practice. These include: ✓ Extensive and up -to -date electronic databases useful for market studies and specific comparable analysis ✓ Access to a variety of market data re- sources ✓ Large professional staff researching and verifying real estate transactions ✓ Discounted cash flow software ✓ State -of- the -art report writing and graph- ics software ✓ Published cost manuals ✓ Published market studies and surveys ✓ Extensive library ✓ Computerized model valuation tech- niques ✓ Numerous office files on income, ex- pense, cost, absorption, capitalization rates and other market data Clients Served Our professional services have assisted many; I in their real estate valuation and consul tation needs. These clients include individuals, corporations, attorneys, governmental agencies; enders and partnerships COMPANY BROCHURE (CONTINUED) Recent Valuation Assignments Retail Properties Southdale Regional Mall Burnside Shopping Center Shingle Creek Shopping Center Starlite Center Peony Promenade Kohl's /Media Play Hawthorne Crossing Cliff Lake Center Highland Square Burnsville Center Round Lake Shoppes Blaine Town Center Pamida Discount Stores Multifamily Properties Southfork Village Calhoun Beach Club East River Plaza Churchill Apartments Marquette Place One Ten Grant Oakridge Apartments Fine Apartment Portfolio Royal Park Apartments 681 Oakland 2214 Marshall 301 St. Anthony 556 North Snelling Highcrest Apartments Circle Court Apartments THE ALUATION GROUP, INC. COMPANY BROCHURE (CONTINUED) Office Properties Kinnard Office Building Wayzata Executive Minnesota Life World Trade Center Jewish Family Services Grandview Square HealthPartners Office U.S. Bank Operations Center H.B. Fuller Offices Pioneer - Endicott Building Northland Plaza Interlachen Corporate Center Griggs- Midway Josten's Office Building ADC Corporate HQ Medtronic Corporate HQ Court International Deluxe Check Southdale Office Center First National Bank LaSalle Plaza Minnetonka Plaza Flagship Office Building Unisys Office Building GLenbrook Offices Chaska Business Center Continental Professional Offices Northwest Professional Building Lowry Professional Building Green Valley Office Flying Cloud Business Center 301 Carlson Parkway Crescent Ridge I & II Minnesota Tech Center THE jk UATION GROUP, INC. 1% COMPANY BROCHURE (CONTINUED) Industrial Properties Rahr Malting Plant Pillsbury R&D Facility Merillat Corporation Hormel Hog Plant Johnson Brothers Warehouse Recycling Center Mars, II Plant Gannett/Printed Media United Parcel Service Water Tower Place Randy's Rentals Federal Cartridge Hoffman Enclosures REXAM Beverage Anvil Corporation Magnetic Data Farmland Foods 3M Plant - Cottage Grove 3M Plant - Cordova, IL 3M Plant - Nevada, MO Honeywell Plant Trend Enterprises CalEast Industrial Portfolio John Deer Facility Clopay Corporation HJH Investments M.G. Walbaum Foods Northern Wire Grede Foundry Entegris /FSI Western Steel Unisource Industrial THE jk ,U ION GROUP, INC.