Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1977-06-13_BOARD OF REVIEWMINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE EDINA BOARD OF REVIEW HELD MONDAY, JUNE 13, 1977 AT 7:00 P.M., AT EDINA CITY HALL Answering rollcall were members Courtney, Richards, Schmidt, Shaw and Mayor Van Valkenburg who served-as Board of Review at its meeting which convened pursuant to "Notice of Board of Review Meeting" published in the Edina Sun on May 11, 1977, and posted on City Bulletin Boards. The audience was reminded that the purpose of this meeting is to give persons who consider themselves aggrieved by their assessment, or who wish to complain that the property of another is assessed too low, an opportunity to show cause for having their assessment corrected. Mr. Swanson explained .that the Assessor is.charged with valuing property based on recent sales:. Mr. Rick Davies, Vice President of the Edina Coalition, advised that the Coalition has received a number of informal requests to look into the whole question of taxes and valuations and that they will be "reviewing matters further down the road as afar as taxing procedures are concerned ". Mr. Donald Modeen, 5156 Tifton Drive, objected that the market price of his home is too high in comparison with other homes in his area and left pictures of other houses in his neighborhood, along with the valuations placed on them. He objected to the method of adding a percentage value each year to the market value which, he said, penalized owngrs of higher priced properties. Market price of Mr. Modeen's house was given at 64,000. Mr..Lewis B. C. Logan, 4909 Hibiscus Ave., objected to his 1977 market value of $64,100, stating that the value should be only.$54,100 because of the noise and other inconveniences from living next to T.H. 100 and because the house itself was built of the cheapest construction and the basement floor is uneven. Mr. Logan knew of no other comparable recent sales in his neighborhood. The Assessor will inspect the property. Mr. and Mrs. E. J. Williams, 6237 Darcy Lane, objected to their 1977 estimated market value of $89,900 as being too high to comparable properties,.even though they paid $92,500 for the house in March, 1976. Mrs. Williams claimed that she has been house hunting and found that houses that are selling for over $100,000 -have taxes that are less than they are paying. Mr. Williams requested that his house be valued along with three or four other houses.. The daughter of Mrs. Charles W..Loufek, claimed that the property of her mother at 6600 Interlachen Blvd. is.raw land without roads, sewer or water and that her property is valued at $60 per acre.higher than that of Carl Hansen which is immedi- ately adjacent. Mr. Swanson explained that small portions of property do have a highter per unit value than larger pieces of property. He will check on the . special assessments levied against the property. Ms. Arnell Jackson, 6325 Peacedale Ave., recalled that she had appeared before the - Board in 1976 and expressed her objection to her 1977 market value of $49,800 which had been increased from $46,000 in 1976. She objected that she is on a fixed income and cannot afford the higher taxes on her home which she compared with sev- eral properties'in her area. Ms. Jackson also objected to the fact that there is an illegal fence adjacent to the Crosstown Highway which prevents residents in her neighborhood from walking to.Southdale. She also objected to a "junk yard" at the end of Peacedale Ave. and was assured that the City would check on both matters. The'Assessor will review the values of'r_he other properties mentioned by Ms. Jack - son. Mr. B. J. Allard, 6021 Zenith Ave., objected to his 1977 market value of $41,700, advising that it had increased 13% over two years ago. He advised that his house is the smallest in the neighborhood and has few of the amenities of surrounding houses. The Assessor will inspect the property. Mr. Wm. T. Jardine, 5400 Malibu Dr., objected to his 1977 market value of $91,000 which had been increased from $84,600 in 1976 and requested that a value of $82,000 be placed on the house. Mr. Jardine referred to the Citizens' League survey which. appeared in the Minneapolis Tribune which showed that Edina had a higher aggreg- ate assessment /sales ratio than other Hennepin County-municipalities. Mr. Swanson said that he would review.Mr. Jardine's home and the materials which he left. Mr. F. X. McCarthy objected to the market value of $1;030,000 for apartments located at 4200, 4250, 4280 Parklawn Ave. and 4415 Parklawn Court, advising that he pur- chased them in June, 1976,for $750,000. Mr. McCarthy explained that the apartments have consistently lost money inasmuch as they do not have the amenities of neighbor- ing apartments. 6/13/77 Mr. E. Wayne Vermeer, 4705 Aspasia Circle, objected to his 1977 makret price of. $95,900 which had increased from $30,400 in 1976, and said that he believed that a realistic price would be $89,100. Mr. Swanson recalled that the property was under construction when the 1976 value was established. he said that the pro - perty was analyzed in'January, 1977, but that he would review the analysis and check on 4717 and 4725 Aspasia Circle which properties were referred to by Mr. Vermeer. Ms. Ruth N. Sullivan, 4373 Thielen Ave., objected to her 1977 market of $65,600 which had increased from $60,200 in 1976, advising that she believed that the house should be valued between $50,000 and $55,000 based on comparison with other comparable properties. Mr. Swanson said that he would review the sales in the neighborhood. Mr. E. H. Becker, 5305 Mirror Lakes Dr., objected to his 1977 market value of $67,900 which had been increased from $62,400 in 1976, stating that he believes that a realistic value of the property would be 62,400.. He claimed that the house has no basement and will be difficult to sell. The Assessor will review the property. Mrs. T. Kim, 5828 Dewey Hill Road, objected to her 1.977 market value of $77,700 which had increased from $72,300 in 1976, stating that she believed that the mar - ket value should be $70,000. She�said that they paid $84,000 in June, 1976, but that she believed that they paid more than the house was worth. The Assessor will review the property. Mrs. Bower Hawthorne, President of P. G. Speakes Co., which owns the office build- ing at 5,100 Industrial Blvd., objected to the 1977 market value of $515,500, advising that she believed that the value should be $500,000 in accordance with an appraisal made by 0. J. Janski for Twin City Federal Savings & Loan.. Both she and Mr. Hawthorne spoke of vacancy problems over the past two or three years and left their appraisal for the Assessor's review. Mr. H. R. Swanson, representing Brandeberg, Chaska Corporation, owner of The Colony at 6238 .Barrie Road, objected to the 1977 market value of $6,000,000 which had increased from $5,463,050 in 1976. Councilman Richards left the room and requested that the record show that he did not participate in this matter. Mr. H.,R. Swanson recalled the history of The Colony, advising that it had been pur- chased in combination of The Colony in Richfield and that he belieived that $5,600,000 would be a fair price, leaving out personal property. He said that he had furnished the Assessor with all of the information that he had requested, but that they still had not been able to reach . agreement on the value of the property. Mr. Kent Swanson said that he is still 'waiting for current income figures and was told by Mr. H. R. Swanson that that information would be made available. Mr. H. R. Swanson said that the owners of the property are in the process of a pro gram of correcting deferred maintenance and said that was open for inspection. Discussion ensued concerning the value of personal property items. Council reviewed Certificate of Real Estate Value and Closing. Statement on the sale of the property which indicated cost adjustment credits and personal property. Mr. John J. Murphy, owner of property located at 5430 -32 W. 70th Street, objected to the 1977 Market Value of $225,000, which had increased from $194,250 in 1976, contending that the correct value is $190,000. Mr. Murphy contended that his net .operating income has been decreased over the past two years by approximately 10% along.with a market value increase of approximately 16% and advised that he has not raised his rents since July, 1975. Mr. Murphy said that he would be happy to sell his property for the assessed valuation. Mr. Murphy said that he would furn- ish the Assessor with his current rent roll -and expenses for the building. Mr. David E. Thomas objected to his 1977 market value for vacant land at the inter- section of County Road 18 and Valley View Road of $112,800, advising that he believes the property to be worth $80,000. He noted that the estimated market value had .increased from $97,000.in 1973 and from $102,600 in 1975 and said that this is the first time that he had ever complained about an assessment for any of his Edina real estate. Mr. Thomas said that the land is for sale at $80,000 (with taxes paid to date)'and that he has had no offers at.that price. Mr. Swanson will discuss the matter with Mr. Thomas' real estate agent. Mr. Donald W. Steinkamp, 4912 Payton Ct.. objected to his 1977 market value of $61,700, asking that it be reduced to $49 „700 because of the T.H. 100 freeway construction. Mr. Steinkamp provided a list of other properties which have recently sold or which are on the market for more than $61,700. The Assessor will inspect-the property. 6/13/77 Mr. Thomas R. Keys, 5528 W. 70th St., objected to his 1977 estimated market value of $52,400, advising that.he purchased the house on November 25, 1976, for $49,900.' He said that the house is in poor repair and that he does not believe that it is worth more than between $48,000 and $50,000. The following submitted written objections to their 1977 market values but did not.appear at this meeting: . Fred W. Hedberg Properties, Inc., objected to their 1977 market value of $517,000 for property located at 6300 York Ave. S., which had been increased from $462,500 in 1976.. Mr. John Hedberg enclosed a copy of their operating statement for 1976 and recalled that the Assessor had reduced the market value last year. Mr. John W. Hedberg, representing Hedberg & Sons, objected to the 1977 market values assigned to Plat 73832, Parcels 0800, 1200, 2800, 4800, 5300, 6400 and 6800. Mr. Hedberg indicated that the total market value for the seven parcels is $4,053,100, or an average acreage value of $45,000 and that the 1977 market value established by the Assessor is an increase.from $3,537,090 in 1976.. Mr. Hedberg said that, based on the District Court determination which was upheld on review by the Minnesota Supreme Court, the 1977 market value is not justified, and added that the range for other land in the vicinity of 76th and York was between $32,000 and $36,000 per acre. Mr. John W. Hedberg, representing Hedberg & Sons Co., objected to the increase in market value for apartments at "4000 Parklawn Avenue from $1,000,000 in 1976 to $1,150,000 in 1977. An operating statement for the apartment building was attached. Mr._James R. Otto, 6324 Brookview Ave.., objected to the 1977 market value of Lot 4, Block 1, Braemar Parc of .$20,900..00. He contended that the existence of.a sanitary sewer easement on the property substantially reduces the value of the lot and requested that the market value be reduced $3,500 because of the sewer. Mr. Norman F. Spear, 5605 Gate Park Road, objected to his 1977 market value of $69,500 which had been increased from $64,200 in 1976, claiming that inequities exist between his home and others belonging to his friends. Mr. Martin J. Shiff,•6105 Lincoln Dr.,. Apt. 136, objected to his 1977 market value for his condominium of $61,500, and requested that the property be reviewed. Texaco, Inc., objected to their 1977 market value of property located at Valley View Road and Oaklawn Ave. of $62,100 which had been increased from $58,500 in 1976. They submitted a copy of an appraisal dated February 17, 1977, which showed land value of $26,000 and building value at $8,000, and requested that the property be reviewed by the Assessor. Mr. Henry W. Haverstock, Jr., objected to his.1977 market value of $92,700 which had been increased from $72,600 in 1976. He contended that the sole basis for the increase was the installation of a swimming pool which was installed only for ..therepeutic purposes and may actually decrease the value of the property because of its specialized purpose. Mr. David J. Griswold objected to his 1977 market value of $80,100 which had been increased from $74,200 iq 1976 for property located at 6417 Mendelssohn La. Mr. Griswold.had not returned the questionnaire which had been sent by the Assessor as he requested. Mr..James T. Deusterhoff, 6320 Peacedale, objected to his 1977 market value of $60,600 which.had been increased from $56,500 in 1976. Mr. Deusterhoff submitted a purchase agreement showing the cost of the house was $56,500 and contended that the purchase price included personal property with a minimum value of $2,000 with a replacement cost of approximately $5,000. Mr. Arv.Adleman, 5418 Creek View Lane, objected to his 1977 market value of .$77,500, claiming that he purchased the house on April 30, 1977 for $77,000. Mr. Adleman submitted a list of other properties to support his contention that his market value should be only 75% of the purchase price. sir. Don Sivinski, 4909 Payton Court, objected to his.market value of $70,200 which had been increased from $65,700 in 1976, and said that he believed the value to be $65,000 because of the noise from the highway and because the cement slab has sunk in the garage, the family room and the laundry.room. 6/13/77 Mr. Byron H. Armstrong, 4119 W. 62nd St., objected to his 1977 market value of $32,100 which had increased from the 1976 market value of $29,200. He based his objection on the facts that neither the amusement room or the expansion area upstairs are heated, that the driveway is gravel., a one stall garage, and general . deterioration of the property. Mr. Milton C. Nelson, 5905 Josephine Ave., objected to his 1977 market value of $59,700 which had increased from $55,200 in 1976, claiming that the property was offered for sale in 1976 for five months without any offer because of-the traffic noise and the upgrading of T.H. 100. Mr. and Mrs. Thomas Hastings, 5901 Josephine Ave., objected to their 1977 market value of $53,800, stating that they believe the value should be $45,000 because of the proximity of T.H. 100. Mr. and Mrs. James P. Lund, 7308 Schey Drive, objected to their 1977 market value of $81,200 which had increased from $75,300 in 1976. They contended that their house has none of the amenities of other properties in their. area. Mr. Ronald Krank, 7201 Schey Dr., had requested and received information.used in establishing the valuation of his property. Mr. Knut A. Reishus, 7309 Schey Dr., objected to his 1977 market value of $79,700 which had increased from $73,900 in 1976. He submitted an evaluation from Subterranean Engineering, Inc., dated September 2, 1975, which indicated that the house is sinking, causing general structural defects. Mr. and Mrs. Joseph Jellen, 5221 Minnehaha Blvd.,. objected to their 1977 market value of $53,300 which had increased from $49,000 in 1976. They contended that they paid $51,000 in October, 1976 and that the market value should be only $37,740. A list of five residences. in the general.area was included which indicated an average assessment level of 74 %. Mrs. Thelma S. Dodge, 5121 Millpond Place, objected to her 1977 market value of $31,600, stating that she believed that her market .value should be $28,900. She referred to a house at 5113 Millpond Place which had been sold in May, 1977, but said that she did not know the price. Mr. Robert G. Schiefelbein, 6115 Arctic Way, objected to his 1977 market value of $110,800.. He advised that his lot had cost $22,000, including payment of special assessments and back taxes, and that the contract price of the house was $71,694, and asked that the property be reviewed. Mr.. Thomas 0. Moe, 6130 Arctic Way, objected to his 1977 market value of $115,100 which had increased from $112,700 in 1976. He said that he had paid $100,000 for the house in April, 1974 and that is his opinion of the current value inasmuch as they hear noise from the Crosstown Highway and traffic on Gleason Road has continually worsened during the last three years. Mr. Jerome E. Rau, 6001 View Lane, objected to his 1977 market value of $96,000, stating that he believed the value to be $85,000. He contended that the property .is over valued in comparison with nearby properties and asked that the Assessor check his records for 1976. No further objections on 1977 market values being heard, it was generally decided to adjourn the meeting until June 27, 1977, at 4 p.m. so that the properties.in question could be reviewed. Adjournment at 9:45 p.m. City. Clerk County Assessor i June 22, 1977 A -2103 Government Center, Minneapolis, MN 55487 HeNNePIN COUNTY 0 Mr. Kent Swanson REVISED Assessor of Edina 4801 W. 50th St. Edina, MN 55424 Dear Mr. Swanson: Subject: Administration of HF 2546 (Chapter 345, Laws of 1976) This letter is to officially notify you of the percentage by which the market values of the various property types exceeds the limited values in your assessment area. Where that percentage is 10% or more, you are to adjust your limited value on new improvements in the respective property type. These changes should be made on the HC224 forms included and mailed to the attention of Bob Martin no later than July 6, 1977, so that the files, here at Hennepin County, can be updated in time to develop the mini abstract. PROPERTY TYPE q OF DIFFERENCE R B P D A M N TV C t► L 1 _54 v G-�- F S Q C 4.62 1.21 U .OS Please call Bob Martin if you have any further questions. Very ruly yours DONALD F. MONK Hennepin County Assessor DFM : j b Nannanin Cnunfv is an Alh/mBfiVB ACf/011 EI11plOyB/ i 41- 9113 E•F. °4Sfi _ it i — i iii — it ;; I , �► � II r it , —i I it ►jI iII �j i!!� i iI ji ► '!! :� ���i - • 1JJ%.'_.1= i,f.i�n.�JTti�._ - -_ ! - .___ -i I It i -� —II I ' ij .I I,.I „ j__i���� c��.,��f.�zJ � : � . .. _ 7_ t> I - li i ; I ,_� .I I J I, J c�O i j i� 1 II 1 1 l I I �� i i � i 7 ijI it 11 � I I I I I i � i I ; ► i ���� I ;► I —. —i; i, li _ I' i �� --- --- j iiiii► li i i i I l i it i I' I I I i iii it . I II _ . I i 7 4Z,5,51-:! z c%oc� �. j�y6 [JI � 3 s „ 2)5-0 t?i— :� zsa i I it ►jI iII �j i!!� i iI ji ► '!! :� ���i - jl j ;I. �iij i► 'il +i+ ij iii iji i ��i;•,; ij .I I,.I „ j__i���� c��.,��f.�zJ � : � . .. _ 7_ t> I - li i ; I ,_� .I I J I, J c�O i j i� 1 II 1 1 l I I �� i i � i 7 ijI it 11 � I I I I I i � i I ; ► i ���� I ;► ''�� � i I , ; i D -T- -�i.�� -�� . �� I -� ; I ,_I —. —i; i, li _ I' �� --- --- j iiiii► li i i i I l i 5156 Tifton Drive Edina, MN 55435 June 13, 1977 Assessor City of Edina 4801 West 50th St. Edina, MN 55424 Dear Sir: I own the house at 5156 Tifton Drive, Plat 74281, Parcel 1700. I purchased this home in August 1974 at a price of $64,000 which included `;5500 worth of personal property. For the year 1975, the house was assessed at a market value and limited value of $64,000, which I considered too high in comparison to other homes in the area. For 1977 my house has been assessed at a market and limited value of 573,900 which I again think is too high in comparison to other homes on "L�ifton Drive in con.,yarison to a home that sold for $67,500 in Edina on Limerick Drive in July or August 1974 at the same time I purchased my home for $64,000. The house that sold for $67,500 in July or August 1974 has a 1977 market value of $68,800 and a limited value of $64,500. I have enclosed a photo of this house which is located at 6501 Limerick Drive, Plat 752519 Parcel 7300. Needless to say, I question the uniformity or fairness of your assessments for a house that sells for a market price U3,500 greater than mine in 1974, and then in 1977 its market value is $5,100 less. This.is a net change of $8,600 which I cannot understand or accept. I have also enclosed eight other photos which include my house and other houses on Tifton Drive, which is only two blocks long. As you can see, the 1977 market values of these homes vary from $46,100 to �7 ?,500. My house has the second highest market valuation on the two blocks at X73,900. I would estimate that most of the homes on Tifton Drive, that I have enclosed photos of, if sold, would sell within X3,000- 55,000 of each other. However, your assessed market values have a spread of ;31,400. Again, I cannot believe that in any two block area of Edina of similar homes that the assessed market value should vary $31,400. I realize that there are many things to consider in homes, but all of these homes (except the Limerick Drive house) that I have enclosed photos of are in my immediate vicinity. If their market value is lower than mine, then I strongly believe that my assessed market value is too high. Therefore it is requested that you lower my market value to $68,400. This will give me the $5,500 credit for personal property which was in the house when I purchased it in 1974 and it will also ut it in the median market value range for similar houses in the area. 1 r a It is apparent to me that your present method of adding a percentage value each year to the market value is unfair to people with high valuations. The spread between people with initial low valuations and high valuations will continue to become a greater difference, and the bulk of the taxes will be paid by people with unjustified high valuations. If I can furnish you any additional information, I can be reached at telephone numbers 296 -6986 (work) or 941 -5832 (home). S ly, i GL Donald 0. Modeen I r dh •• :,d,�.�yv:`: � . g9 I � :alp 1 i, ' • i / � r r "4'1 'Vlii�" � t� �,• 1 i � � 21 '- — LYT, Z d'21 1 � _ .. � �' ] ? • 1 • 111.. • .. 1� i.l . _ . _. .y• 1 1 o� ovS D Te 1 l o / "00 P� e G/ o LA t / p cQ -33$ D /97 r�fe A Soo 12"7 C L S�eo i 77 �l v e ;qL e s 300 III •;� , , •�:'l . i I rrt�v ., i I • i a 5 8 r -P / 7 9'P P v a f �/ e I r dh •• :,d,�.�yv:`: � . g9 I � :alp 1 i, ' • i / � r r "4'1 'Vlii�" � t� �,• 1 i � � 21 '- — LYT, Z d'21 1 � _ .. � �' ] ? • 1 • 111.. • .. 1� i.l . _ . _. .y• 1 1 o� ovS D Te 1 l o / "00 P� e G/ o LA t / p cQ -33$ D /97 r�fe A Soo 12"7 C L S�eo i 77 �l v e ;qL e s 300 III •;� , , •�:'l . 77- i -f -7 e 7e . C, 77 194 We, f Lv e 73 �ai -7 � / A 0 r -Je i,w . 4 PEI'. I 77- i -f -7 e 7e . C, 77 194 We, f Lv e 73 �ai -7 � / A 0 r �i 77r/--, Ve d P P A . /bop I '' V,4,c; ve v I . i,w . 4 PEI'. I 17 IX 1� IZ 7 e t.17 �i 77r/--, Ve d P P A . /bop I '' V,4,c; ve v I . ;BIZ �9 I t/S f / 9 75r oil -17 S �o I✓ 6 / .� i j PL a' IP2 06t, 7 0 2 11, v' v 9 7 b o �oJ s�i , li�tY ICa�,✓ Pf „ News J ;IBS s I w�� o ?� PiA Y 7 a / c 7 Ke r- Asa +6 466 9oc Ci our V A661 v ;BIZ �9 I t/S f / 9 75r oil -17 S �o I✓ 6 / .� i j PL a' IP2 06t, 7 0 2 11, v' v 9 7 b o �oJ s�i , li�tY ICa�,✓ Pf „ News J ;IBS s I w�� o ?� PiA Y 7 a / c 7 Ke r- Asa +6 466 9oc The Wickes Corporation 351 West Dundee Rd. Wheeling. 111`60090 312/541 -0100 June 8, 1977 City of--Edina 4801 West 50th Street Edina, Minnesota 55435 ATTN: Kent Swanson, Assessor Dear Mr. Swanson: Please accept this letter as a formal objection to the overassessment.of the Wickes Furniture Store located at 6725 York Avenue South in the City of Edina. This written objection is in lieu of a personal appearance by the complaintant before your local board of review which convenes June 13, 1977. It is our contention the current market value of the subject property is no more than $1,150,000. This valuation is supported by an appraisal made on the property by Howard Lawrence Appraisals, Inc. Mr. Swanson, we do not understand how your office can put a 1977 market valuation of $1,500,000 on the subject property when the Hennepin County Board of Review reduced the valuation - to $1,355,000 for 1976 and also since Wickes is currently litigating the.$1,355,000 valuation A n court. Sincerely yours, Stephen M. Hay A.S.A. Property Tax Supervisor SMH:msk cc: C. Gladden, Mgr. Edina R. Roeser M. Bryk R. Ainslie C. Holbert 7 �3Z3 ado C, G ./6-7-7 W•R1GH7, WEST & DIES SNER' LAW OFFICES 2000 MIDWEST PLAZA BUILDING 601- NICOLLET MALL - WELLS J.WRIGHT 612.333-0417 KARL F•DIESSNER MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 55402 SHEFFIELD WEST - - - . PETER WE155 ALBERT ANDREWS.JR. 1 Tune 7 C J77 - RICHARD A. HASSEL J , 1. 7 79_ CHARLES F..DIESSNER - THOMAS R. MAHLER - - ROBERT H. ZALK - DOBSON WEST - - Board.of Equalization and Review City of .Edina Edina City Hall 4801 West 50th Street Edina, Minnesota 55424 Re: Equalization of Market Value for . 5300 Evanswood Lane Lot 2, Block 2, Evanswood Addition Gentlemen: Two years ago I appeared before you for a reduction of the initial market valuation placed by the Assessor on my new residence at 5300 Evanswood. As a.result of that appearance, the Board of Review established a market value.for 5300 Evanswood of $100,000. This amount was well in excess of the established.market value for the lot -plus construction costs, but well below the initial valuation established by the Assessor. Now, in two successive - years, •the Assessor has increased the market value for this property almost to the limits allowed by law and well in excess of the rate of increase for any of the neighboring property. The neighboring properties range in value, according to the Assessor's figures, from $72,200 to $1203100. All but one, the original. Evans house, are relatively new structures. They represent a range of architectural styles .sufficiently diverse so that there are virtually no similar types of structures on the block. I believe that the rate of increase in:.market value which the Assessor has applied to the other properties is representative of the rate applied by the Assessor throughout Edina. r: Board of Equalization and Review Page 2 6/15/77 The following table shows the rate of increase in market value established by the Assessor between.January 2, 1975 and January 2, 1977, for the properties located on Evanswood Lane. I believe the figures speak for themselves and clearly show that my property has been singled out for unequal and unfair treatment. The average rate of increase.on all the neighboring properties is less than one -half of the rate of increase on my property during the two -year period in question. The average rate of increase was .0825914. The average rate of increase for the other two properties which were valued in excess of $100,000 on January 2, 1975, has been .0826086. I would be happy to have the increase in my valuation over the two -year period equal that of the highest of those $100,000+ properties, viz, .0841121,.equal the average of the two, .0826086, or equal that of the other properties on Evanswood Lane, .0825914. .0717647 - 5308 Evanswood Lane .0847058 .0829787 .0811051 .0873493 .0861244 .0841121 Av. .0825914 5301 " " 5225 "• it 5221 if If 5224 if it 5228 " of 5304 .1670000 - 5300 Evanswood Lane Peter Weiss I request that the Board exercise its powers of equaliza- tion and reduce the valuation for my property at 5300 Evanswood to a market value between $108,200 and $108,400 for the year 1977. PW:iw Thank you very much. ery truly urs s9 ls- �ocJ o June 14, 1977 Kent P. Swanson, Assessor City of Edina 4801 West Fiftieth Street Edina, MN 55424 Dear Mr. Swanson: As a follow -up to our conversation of today, .I regret I was not able to attend the City Council meeting on June 13, but a.death in the family made it impossible for me to attend. Assuming you have not yet received my information which I forwarded to you on Wednesday, June 8, 1977 I will review my reasons for feeling my 1977 home appraisal of $73,200 is too high. First, from real estate training I have had, the three primary factors in determining the value of property are location, location and location. My home is located on Vernon Avenue which is one of the most heavily traveled roads in Edina. This is a big factor for those families who have children, pets, . or desire quiet and solitude. This road is traveled very heavily from early morning to late evening with cars traveling at least 40 miles per hour.. The seond reason for: asking.for a review is the surrounding area. I know for a fact that my home is appraised in excess of $10,000 over_ my immediate neighbor at 5604 Johnson Drive and even greater than other homes on the same block. I have also attached photographs of the three.. homes I view from my front yard: 5636 Vernon, 5533 Vernon and 5532 Vernon. As you can see all three tomes are quite old and small. The net effect of this is that the value of the surrounding homes decreased the value of my home. The third point that I would like considered is that in September of 1976 I was considering selling my home and received appraisals by two reputable local real estate firms,.Bermel Smaby and Edina Realty. Attached you will find appraisals of $69,900 and $65,900.- And I know from my real estate background that a real estate company will tend to come in with a higher figure than they truly feel can be commanded in order that they can get . the house listing and have some negotiating money. I think the above reasons are logical considerations in requesting a re- valuation. I might add that in the past I have not questioned my valuation, but a $6,000 increase in one year seems far too much in view of the above. Your attention and consideration would be appreciated. Yours very truly, Robert W. Olson 5600 Johnson Drive . ... -.. CITY OF ED114A APPLICATION FOR REVIEW OF REAL ESTATE VALUATION Date 6 -P -`77 Owner Q l sec, Address /,Qo U7c�n scn Assessor's Estimated Estimated Market Value $ Owner's opinion of value $ c'j cc 0 Date of urchase p Ni !971/ Price (2,Goo Substantiating data for owners value opinion. (a) Recent purchase of subject property. Date fiv a.- )g)y- Price G2,aco Terms (b) Recent. sales of similar or ne-ighboring property. Address Date Price (c) Other information that substantiates your opinion of your property value, such as recent construction costs of similar properties; appraisals or other value opinion (attach copy if .possible). Use additional sheets if necessary. Ccyiic3 of !'rct�7 2f�D /Zissl o%yc�Y��"7,% Ulu AI- (L.) 44+f(L i'1orC) 1 S {C ZS L �ac Cl 4 As lAcu C,7� Sty ZP At-1,11l 2rL F11- C cr, 5 JtriG�� /�3t Vl�ct L�.,� Ml-1c 7J7 7c V��vtJ S _S9 9ca • dt4, 26art )-; �� ,c'i' -r ?r, rt.1 uS, L o�tc�c» % r Ti— I do hereby affirm that the above information is complete and true to the best of my knowledge and belief. Signature of applicant AA Li l� l3ertnd -S11 LAN Prepared for Mr_ & Mrs_ Robert W: t1lson Property Address 5600 Johnson Drive By: James E.- Stewart SUBJECT _ Comp. #f1 ADDRESS 5600 Z312 Date 1A_ 1 Q7fi TOTAL ADJUSTMENTS +1,,000 ADJUSTED SALE PRICE 69.500 SUGGESTED SALE PRICE $ S-135-76 Johnson Dr. _ Cernelia Dr_ Sale Price and terms 68,500 cony. Sale Date 4A 6-76 Real Estate Taxes 1622 1310 Style- Construction Split Split Age _1972 1973 Lot Size 81 X 217 80 % 125 Total Sq. Ft. (1st floor) 1248 1207 No. of bedrooms 4 4 No. of baths 3 2 Garages Double Double Family Room (1st floor) No No Fireplace(s) 1 T Central Air Conditioning Yes Yes Amusement room Yes Yes. Carpeting and drapes Yes Yes Formal dining room Yes Yes ADJUSTMENTS Style- construction Age 1st Floor sq. ft. No. of baths + 19000 Garages Family Room (1st floor) Fireplaces Central Air Conditioning Amusement Room Carpeting — Draperies Landscaping and Lot Location Appliances — Built -ins Date 1A_ 1 Q7fi TOTAL ADJUSTMENTS +1,,000 ADJUSTED SALE PRICE 69.500 SUGGESTED SALE PRICE $ S-135-76 '� Ps.. q qfa y" Bcri -n -S Prepared for Mr. &Mrs. Robert W. Olson Property Address 5600 Johnson Dr. Phone 92D,--2227 Date 9 -16-76 By: James E. Stetaart $ Terms Conventional Sale Price $ 69.900 Present mortgage balance $ 422000 Prepayment penalty $ Interest adjustment(s) $ C/D balance $ Home Improvement Loans $ Interest adjustment(s) $ Mortgage placement fee ( %) $ . . . or C/D discount ($2.20 per $1,000) Realtor fee $ 40893— . Abstracting fee or R.P.A. $ 50 Real estate taxes due 19_ $ 811 Assessments $ Existing spec. assessments $ $ Pending spec. assessments $ $ (2 times estimated amt.) Utility Connections Sanitary sewer $ $ Public water $. $ State Deed Tax ($2.20 per $1,000) $ 153 . . . . $ Recording Fees $ 10 $ Estimated Repairs $ $ Inspection Fees $ $ Other expenses $ $ $ $ $ $ TOTAL EXPENSES $47v917 $ Sale Price Minus: Total estimated expenses ESTIMATED PROCEEDS TO SELLER $ 69.900 $ 47.917 $ 2198 Please Note: The above figures are estimates only and much of the information contained herein has been reported to Bermel -Smaby Realty, Inc. by financial institutions, state and local government authorities, and various other sources normally considered to be reliable. Such informa- tion, however, may be subject to changes and /or undisclosed errors or omissions in recording or reporting. Bermel -Smaby Realty, Inc. therefore, cannot and does not guarantee or warrant the accuracy or completeness of such information or estimates. S12576 71EDINA REALTY OFFICES i0 SERVE YOU: _!DINA OFFICE - :E500 FRANCE AVE. SO. _DINA, MINN. 55435 '427 -5621 - MINNEAPOLIS OFFICE _5204 BLOOMINGTON AVE. MINNEAPOLIS, MINN. 55417 _..27 -3551 —BLOOMINGTON OFFICE 10619 FRANCE AVE. SO. BLOOMINGTON, MINN. 55431 888 -4176 -WEST SUBURBAN OFFICE __323 EXCELSIOR AVE. WEST HOPKINS, MINN. 55343 9 35.3366 BURNSVILLE OFFICE 12445 RIVER RIDGE BLVD. BURNSVILLE, MINN. 55337 890.4540 -NORTH OFFICE '613 BROOKLYN BLVD. SP.00KLYN PARK, MINN. 55443 566.5770 NORTHEAST OFFICE :528 UNIVERSITY AVE. N.E. FRIDLEY, MINN. 55432 571.7575 ANOKA /COON RAPIDS OFFICE 2004 NORTHDALE BLVD. COON RAPIDS, MINN. 55433 755.1300 GOLDEN VALLEY OFFICE 3224 OLSON MEMORIAL HWY. 55 GOLDEN VALLEY, MINN. 55427 544 -3696 WAYZATA OFFICE 15200 WAYZATA BLVD. WAYZATA, MINN. 55391 475.2411 ST. PAUL OFFICE 2345 RICE STREET NO. SUITE 118 ROSEVILLE, MINN. 55113 483.5424 COMPUTER ANALYSIS COMMERCIAL SALES PROPERTY MANAGEMENT APPRAISALS - SRA MORTGAGE ASSISTANCE INSURANCE 441m REALTORS INC. MLS THE COMMUNITY WE SERVE IS "CITY WIDE AND COUNTRY SIDE" PRELIMINARY STATEMENT FOR SELLER 1. Seller Date 2. Property Address 3. Listing Agent and Company Phone 4. Selling Agent J !�� 5. Selling Price .... ............................... $ 6. Present Mortgage .................. '........... $ 7. Interest Adjustment ........................... $ �� b 8. Pre - payment Penalty on Mortgage .................. $ 9. Other Financing ... ......................... $ 10. Mortgage or C. D. Discount % of $ ....... $ 11. Special Assessments, Le vied, Pending, or on record ... • . • . $ 12. If Special Assessments, Pending (1Yz x estimated assessments to be escrowed) - - - • • • ...... - - - - - • • - • $ . 13. Plumbers and Municipality Connection Fee (sewer; water, ) ................. $ 14. Realtor Fee .. ............................... $ $-L 7J 15. State Deed Tax ($2.20 per $1000) ................. 16. Abstractor RPA Fees (approx. $25.00 - $40.00) ......... $ S� 17. Recording Fees ( approx. $5.00 - $10.00) ............... $ 18. Balance of Real Estate Taxes Due at Closing .......... $�°- 19. Buyer Closing Costs or MGIC, FHA, GI, placement fee ..... $ 20. Other Costs .. ............................... $ 21 .................. (Survey, Water Test, etc.) ............................... TOTAL $�Tf /O- 22. Estimated Equity to Seller .... ............................... $ 23. Contract for Deed to Seller ........................... 24. Cash to Seller .... .............:................. $ d $� 25. THE ABOVE IS ONLY A PRELIMINARY ESTIMATE BASED ON FACTS AND FIGURES PRESENTLY AVAILABLE AND NO REPRESENTATION IS MADE AS TO THE ACCURACY OR THE COMPLETENESS OF THIS STATEMENT. - Approved Form Greater Minneapolis Area Board of Realtors ,l- Z 6-17M I IN -16, A Jv. %fool, Ar. ��� '',+r�ox -ter � � . �1 `• �� i i " � 4 v 7 ,l- Z 6-17M I IN -16, A Jv. %fool, Ar. ��� '',+r�ox -ter � � . �1 `• �� i i " � 4 BYRON W. McCULLAGH LAWYER 1400 SOO LINE BUILOINO MINNEAPOLIS. MINNESOTA SS402 BYRON W. MCCULLAGH ARTHUR .SUND NELSON ROBERT LOWELL SMITH Francis X. McCarthy 1427 Hest inne aha Parkway 1:i nea ;o_is, :I:v 55409 Dear Sir: June 25, 1976 . 7�o6d 3c� D �d0 9d � siv a 'AR" COOC 612 332�430S I have now completed all matters in connection with your purchase of four apartment buildirgs from Edina Parkway Properties, for the sum of $725,000.00. This purchase was paid as follows: Earnest money $ 5,000.00 Mortgage assumed 451,510.19 Contract for Deed assumed 112,107.46 Trade of Pleasant Ave. property 115,000:00 Contract for Deed, payable 700.67 March 1, 1977 47,000.00 Interest on security deposits $730,617.65 Refund at time of closing 5,617.65 Net payment $7251000.00 You will recall that this purchase was closed as of June 1, 1976, which necessitated adjustments in rent, interest and expenses. The June payment on the mortgage and on the contract for deed was made from the June rents to which you were entitled. These payments included May interest, which was not included in the balances shown on the contract for deed. This and other credits to which you were entitled at the tire of closing included the following: Rents collected for June $12,026.69 Ann Ahl, June rent less security deposit 115.00 May interest on mort ."age 21633.81 May interest on contract 700.67 Security deposits by tenants 5,050.00 Interest on security deposits 228.64 20,754.81 Expenses chargable to seller $ 9,941.06 Net credits due McCarthy 7109813.75 Refund for overpayment as per above 5,617.65 $169431.40 Check to McCarthy you will recall that Eberhardt Company certified that there was a balance in the escrow account of S7,146.82. However, this includes -the June escrow pa�::° = of C2,8�3.03• This means h_=t there was a balance �n t e escrow account after the May payment and payment of the first one -hair c X78,82. The taxes payable in 1976 totaled of the real estate taxes of ,2 003.00 into $33,753.12 or $16,876.56 each half. If you continue to pay ,$2,868.00 have the escrow account each month, after your October _ y a balance of $13,F'a•82, 'which will be in excess of the amount required to pay the taxes then payable. I am enclosing herewith for your records, the following: 1. Contract for Deed, dated June 23, 1976, from Edina Parklawn. Properties to Francis X. McCarthy. - 2. Assignment of c/d covering Vendee's interest in Contract dated August 15, 1967 from Nordling et al to Edina Parklawn Properties. 3. Contract for Deed, dated August 15, 1968 from Nordling et al to Edina Farklawn Properties. 4. Assig:r.,ent of escrow funs from Edina Parklawn Properties to McCarthy. 5. Agreement by Edina Parkla,,-n Properties to "hold McCarthy harmless from any claim by ti',illiam Reilirg. 6. Loan information statement from Eberhardt Company showing balance due on mortga e; balance in escrow account after May payment; interest accrued for May, 1976; taxes payable in 1976 and the fact that one -half are paid. Francis X. McCarthy s June 25, 1976 Page two mentioned above and charges against you included the following: The expenses Payroll for June - actual $ 729.20 4E0.98 management fee _. .... 75.67 Lyndalerardware - dirt - 63.48 Appliances - Harasyns 150.96 King Clear.i .149.65 Lamb PiuMb Contract fcr Deed - June 1 payment 584.06 584.06 Contract cr Deed - June l ray.ert 410275.00 First mort ^age - June 1 payment 2 868.00 men Escrow payt - Jur.e 1 gaynent $9,941.06 you will recall that Eberhardt Company certified that there was a balance in the escrow account of S7,146.82. However, this includes -the June escrow pa�::° = of C2,8�3.03• This means h_=t there was a balance �n t e escrow account after the May payment and payment of the first one -hair c X78,82. The taxes payable in 1976 totaled of the real estate taxes of ,2 003.00 into $33,753.12 or $16,876.56 each half. If you continue to pay ,$2,868.00 have the escrow account each month, after your October _ y a balance of $13,F'a•82, 'which will be in excess of the amount required to pay the taxes then payable. I am enclosing herewith for your records, the following: 1. Contract for Deed, dated June 23, 1976, from Edina Parklawn. Properties to Francis X. McCarthy. - 2. Assignment of c/d covering Vendee's interest in Contract dated August 15, 1967 from Nordling et al to Edina Parklawn Properties. 3. Contract for Deed, dated August 15, 1968 from Nordling et al to Edina Farklawn Properties. 4. Assig:r.,ent of escrow funs from Edina Parklawn Properties to McCarthy. 5. Agreement by Edina Parkla,,-n Properties to "hold McCarthy harmless from any claim by ti',illiam Reilirg. 6. Loan information statement from Eberhardt Company showing balance due on mortga e; balance in escrow account after May payment; interest accrued for May, 1976; taxes payable in 1976 and the fact that one -half are paid. eta silty iMUCA-DAVIS OIL linnisapou tylllTr VTH wpy ' YELLOW —DaY O '.W _ GREEN —hlbra Covy PURCHASE AGREEMENT rla4E— ou"r's June a 76• Kinneapolis,_..._....1 tww .»� 19.. HFC�IVED OF ..Francis...Z...XCCar b7..........._.._ ............................................................ ............................... 5 000.00 the sum of... - - - • - Five .. Tbonaaad..aad... nct1100........ -..... .: .,{� „_, „,•• .............. »..»......._.... -..is earnest money and is Fats payment for the purchase of property At I •...`SA.LaNeb— atauW6trL1 - . Avenne and 4415 Parklawn Conrt,Edina, the 4200,.. 4250., 4. 2s0- Esixk�axt4._ ....................................... ............................... _......................situated is Couoq of... »....9 eat p•i1t•»- _._.�» ... ».... State of Minnesota. and legally described as follows. to-wi t: Lot 6, Block 2, Bertelsen Addition; Lots 1, 2, and 3, Block 1, Bertelsen Addition. including an garden bulbs, plants, shrubs and trees, all storm sash, storm doom, detachable vestibules, screens, awnings, window shades, blinds (including venetian blinds), twain rods, traverse rods, drapery rods, lighting fixtures and bulbs, plumbing futures, hot water sinks and hearing plant (with'any burners, tanks. stokers and other equipment used in connection there- with). water softener and Gqutd gas tank and controls (if the property of seller), sump pump, television antenna,in{' d in scot, built -in dishwasher, garbage disposal, ovens, cook rop stoves and central a. xgnditio i � CT -tea )=red on said premises and including also the following personal ro but not lim- eration of said apartm�nnirildings including, all air- eon ►anetion with the op ed on the p emises, lava, wim- 48 kitchen stoves 48 refrigerators, 48 dishwas ere, to,.at least a tai meat us =osiers washers dryers and laun ry q pt d au ies 11 p vwad ptnpdt�ddc dB Pd4 Bay t t���uyerafur he u�o1f: L 725 , 900.0 D0 t _ wand no /100 - - _........ ................) 'Seven.. Hundred ...Ta veL y . five... Thou. ele► �.. r .................. which the buyer agrees to pay in the following man=es.: June 15, 1976 the to l"IF- Earns[ moaeyherein paid s ..s.,0.00..00.. and s.7,1.5 Q -PA!k9 rd . ......................... ...... � �framort— i x,000 By assuming and agreeing to pay, according to its terms; t e gage now of record in favor of Phoenix Mutual Li insurance Company, bearing interest at seven percent (7x) p in installments of '.0,000 By assuming existing contract for deed due and payable i),A $1168.00 per month, bearing interest at seven and one -half percent (7 -1 /2z) per annnn natal pai197? fall, in 1988; i _255,31 Cash, on or before March 1, pursuant to second contract for deed payable in fall on said date without interest. See EEHI T A attached for additional terms and conditions. interest in above - described contract for deed. Sabi= to performance by the buyer the seller agrees to esectm and deliver a .a... as signment...of... Vend eE a• .Varraaq Deed (so be joined in by spouse, if any) conveying marketable title to said premium subject only to the following ez¢ptiow: (a) Building and zoning laws, ordinanom State Lad Federal regulations. (b) Restrictions relating to use or improvement of premises without effective Forfeiture provisiota. (e) Reservation of any minerab or mineral rights to the State of Minneson (d) Utility and drainage easements which do not interfere with present improvemeatt (e) Rights of tenants as follows: (unless specified, not subject to tenancies) eats payable therewith The buyer shall pay the real estate cases due in the year 19 ..........and any unpaid installments of special a........ and thereafter. Seller warrants that real estate am due in the year 19 ......... will be ................... ............................... homestead classification r a (full. partial or non - homestead —sate which) SeeJel�t��c g etQ &Ire p+�akC ty tpresenutioa or wartanry whatsoever concerning the amount of teal esua note which shall as against the property subsequent to the date of purchase Seller covenants that buildings, if any, are entirely within the boundary lines of the property and ageen to remove all personal- property am included herein and all debti from the premises prior to possession dare. SELLER WARRANTS ALL APPLIANCES, HEATING, AIR CONDITIONING, WIRING AND PLUMBING USED AND LOCATED ON SAID PREMISES ARE IN PROPER WORKING ORDER AT DATE OF CLOSING. The seller further agrees to deliver possession not later than .. cloning date... provided that all conditions of this agreement have been complied with Unless otherwise specified this sale shall be dosed on of before 60 days from the date hereof. In the event this property is destroyed or substantially damaged by fire or any other cause before the dosing date, this agreement shall become null and void, st the purchases s option, and all monies paid hereunder shall be refunded to him. water, and, m the rase of The buyer and seller also mutually agree that pro era adjustments of tea .ant i sumnce and city Y `f`I g ............. ..................................................... income property. current operating expenses, shall be made as of ......._....June.... • The seller stall, within a reasonable time after approval of this agreement, furnish an abstract of title, or a Registered Property Abstract certified to date to indude proper ouches covering bankruptcies, and State and Federal judgments and liens. The buyer shall be allowed to days after receipt thereof for examination of said title and the making of any objections thereto• said objections to be made in writing or deemed to be waived. If say objections are so made the seller shall be allowed 120 days to make such tide marketable. Pending correction of title the payments hereunder required shall be postponed, but upon correction of tick and within 10 days after wrimn notice to the buyer, the parties shall perform this agreement according to its terms. If said title is not marketable and is not made so within 1 ?0 davt from the date of written obiections thereto as above provided, chic agreement shall be null and void, ter option of the buyer, ono c,cnhe: p :n :_ : :.+I sn.i: Ic :u. =ie tar ,crconder to the other principal All money theretofore paid by the buyer shall be refunded. 1f :ter u:lc t sa.0 pmperty be imnd marwer_bie or be so made within said time, and said buyer shall default in say of the agreements ono con ::nut rte d_::ua fors period of 10 days, then and in that case the seller may terminate this contract and on such tetminatio .�m o all the paents m"e c:- :his con:raa shall be rexined by said seller and said agent. La their respective interests may ap?eu- as liquidated 8am3rm. time brit: ; .r m-&nze nereo`. This provision shall not deprive either party of the right of enforcing the spcaiic performance of this c: nra proctuc= ' _- c -_.tract shall mr. be teeotnared as afomasd, and provided anion to enforce such specific pertormance shall be commenced wi:n :r. six nnn :- s mt:er such ng`t: o: scuon shall rue. lt.is understood and agreed tlut this sale is made suo!.ct to ter x-; rvv_` .e r:rt }- cu'r.e: 4i iC premrses in writing and that the under- signed agent is in no manner liable or responsible on account of this agmcment. excepr to rr= n or account for the earnest money paid under this co ntract The delivery of all papers and monies shall be made as the office of: ................... ..... .... .................... ........... _........................ ......... £berhard.t_Camp any .............. _ ................ ... _............. _......... .._ .................------- ------- II 1, the undersigned. droner of the abve land, do hereby approve the above agreement and the sale tfsercby made. Edina parklawU Properties, a ...PartnershiP,.__.. (SEU) • ~r By Eberhardt �ivveatments, Inc. �l Ganaral Partn3Er I hereby agree to purchase the said property for the price and upon.the terms above mentioned, and subject to all conditions hereinexpressed� ' Francis Z. XCClc`f'by euxr.. i 1. All rent payable on June 1 and all moneys deposited in washing machines on such date and thereafter shall be paid to Buyer at closing, and Buyer will pay all expenses of the subject property incurred and due and payable from and after June 1, 1976, including payments on above described "first mortgage and first contract for r deed. All billings for expenses incurred prior to June 1, 19769 will be paid by Seller even though billings therefor may be received in June or thereafter. ' 2. If either the mortgagee or first contract vendor are required to consent to the within purchase, closing shall be conditioned on such consent. ' 3. Seller has paid real estate taxes due in the first half of 1976, and any installments of special assessments and interest thereon, due and payable on or before May 31, 1976. Buyer will pay real estate taxes due in the second half of 1976, together with installments of special assessments and interest thereon and thereafter. Buyer will TOP assume the balance of special assessments levied or pending against 1 - ``Wpr'operty as of June 1, 1976, and will pay the installments thereof and interest thereon payable after June 1, 1976. 4. Seller will pay any assumption fee required by the mortgagee. i 5. Tenants* deposits of $100 per unit with interest to date of -closing shall be paid to Buyer. 6. No real estate commissions will be payable by either Seller or Buyer as a part of this transaction. 7. Seller agrees, at Buyers option, to accept in payment of the $115,000.00 cash to be paid at closing, fee title to the premises known as 3319_ Pleasant Avenue, Minneapolis, Minnesota, subject to an outstanding purchase agreement whereby Buyer herein has previously agreed to convey such property, provided that each and every condition precedent to the closing of the sale of 3319 Pleasant Avenue shall have been met, satisfied, or waived, and that the cash to be paid by Buyer.of 3319 Pleasant Avenue at the closing of that transaction shall in no event be less than said $115,000.00, and that such closing shall occur on June 15, 1976. or contemporaneously with the closing of this ! transaction, whichever shall later occur. S. Seller will protect, defend and save harmless Buyer from any and all claims, including litigation, if any, commenced by William Reiling and persons associated with him, if any, wherein a claim for specific performance or.damages or both may be made with respect to alleged purchase of the subject property. EDINA PARKLAWN PROPERTIES, a Limited Partnership By EB RHARDT INVESTMENTS, INC. ' Francis X. McCarthy Ceneral Partner SELLER BAYER ' Income - SU"-,' � - Pent Schedule in Effect as of September 1, 1975 4200 Parkl a,:rn Avenue 4 - 3 bedroom at $327.50 x 12 $15,720 ��7� z ,e,� o 5 - 2 bedroom at $250.00 r. 12 = 12 = 15,000 2,880 _ `? ° - =� io 1 - 2 bedroom at $240.00 x ,S 4250 Parkl a:•rn Avenue 3 - 3 bedroom at $327.50 x 12 = 11,790 3 ss ��, y, C/o 1 - 3 bedroom at S312.00 x 12 = 12 = 3,750 9,000 z � :T - gg9d 3 1 - 2 bedroom at 5250.00 x - 2 bedroom at $255.00 x 12 = 3,060 '' 1 - 2 bedroom. at 5235.00 x $240.00 x 12 = 12 = 2,820 2,830 1 - 2.bedroom at 4280 Parklawn Avenue 1 - 3 bedroom at $333.00 x 12 = 4,056 3 - 3 bedroom at $327.50 12 = 11,790 9,000 277 • 3 1 - 2 bedroom at $2 50.00 x -.2 bedroom at $255.00 x 12 = 3,060 2-'7 oo -I �g 2 - 2 bedroom at $235.00 x 12 = 5,640 4415 Parklawn Court 10 - 1 bedroom at $210.00 x 12 = 25,200 z 3 0 2 - 1 bedroom at $200.00 x 12 = 12 = 4,800 2,460 - 1 2 -'1 bedroom at $205.00 x - 1 bedroom at $182:50 x 12 = 4,380 l� J 3 - 1 bedroom at $192.50 x 12 = 6,930 Total Apartment Rental Income $144,216.00 16199 Miscellaneous Income* (laundry machines) $375.00 x 12 4,500.00 . •$148,716.00 Total Income * Two years ago, the partnership purchased laundry machines for the complex. Miscellaneous income for this year !�- is, budgeted at $375.00 per month. Through seven months of 1975, the actual income is occupancy. Real Property Assessment Appeal E. Wayne Vermeer 4705 Aspasia Circle Subject Property (New Construction) Owner: E. Wayne and Shirley Vermeer Start of Construction Completion of Construction Builder: James E. Johnson Construction Costs: Lot Purchase (Contract attached) November 1975 Apkil 1976 Building Contract (copy of contract and building specs attached)) Contract extras (copy attached) Including all built in appliances and water softener Landscaping Total Less personal property included in contract (Refridgerator and water softener); Total Cost of Real Property 1977 Assessment Proposed 1977 Assessment $21,500 $66,000 1,034 700 $89,234 (825) $88,409 $95.900 $88,400 It-is my contention that the 1977 Assessment should not exceed the actual cost. Any inflation that may have occured between 4 -1 -76 and 1 -1 -77 is more that compensated by the fact that the proposed assessment is 1001 of cost and not 93 or 94% as is usual in Edina. This is substantiated by the assessment on 4717 Aspasia Circle which was sold in May of 1976 for $111.000 and assessed in 1977 at $1039600 (93.3% of sale price). Your consideration is appreciated. The above is true and correct to the best of my knowledge. . ,. E. Wayne 7VQJrmeer REAL PROPERTY ASSESSMENT APPEAL E. WAYNE VERMEER 4705 Aspasia Circle Comparison Property (New Construction) 4725 Aspasia Circle Owner Micheal Lynch Start of Construction November 1975 Completion of Construction April 1976 Builder- James E. Johnson Construction Costs Original Contract $819800 (including lot) Contract EXtras 19500 Landscaping 19200 Total( not including movable appliances) $849500 1977 Assessment $84,900 The above is true and correct to the best of knowledge. Dr. Micheal Lynch �.e QA,.L � 1� n hj �e-ewLA, no�l�, ' ^ �A �1 l�lY Q. • 1 i S � q '� 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 Proposed 1978 TAX RECORD 6620 NORMANDALE ROAD. Market Value $ 61,500.00 67,000.00 67,000.00 73,700.00 84,100.00 i 93,100.00 ?3Gacl- ao /J Assessed Value $ 22,800.00 24,030.00 25,000.00 27,680.00 32,428.00 Tax $ 11747.26 1,815.32 . 2,070.44 2,097.14 2,994.72 Gr= HIGHWAYS $T. PAUL. MINN. 55155 . 33 August 11; -1976 _Me 2733 (10% 130 -21 -1) ' S.P. County of Hennepin -Parcel 3111 -State vs. Joanne C. Willmert, et al.. - NOTICE OF y:1AU -1n the above entitled condemnation proceeding the cc=issioners appointed by :.the DzstrizL CoL_t in the above nar.ea county, in a report tiled with Li hie -Ci'erk of s-ic Court on August 10, 1976 ,. made the following ati�ard for he making of Parcel 3111 for trurY Liig'rl sy purpose= -Burch N. Bell Olga C. Bell Z _._ - -.—.- 32_,950.00 - -- - .County of Hennepin ) ._:City of Edina ) $ NONE • i i -_In addition, as a separate award, we, the undersigned commissioners, pursuant _--to Minn. Stat. 1974, § 117.085, allow to the owner, Burch N. Bell, reasonable ___appraisal fees in the amount of $300.00. -In making our award on this parcel, we took into consideration the stipulation _ -between the State of Minnesota and the owner amending the taking. i i We find the gross amount of damages for the taking herein to be $32,950.00. Of this. amount $13,700.00 is for the land takeri, and $19,250.00 is for damage _:to the remainder. - -This award is based uporr the grade of the highway and service road being at --tiie approximate levels shown in the - attached profiles, Exhibits'A and B. ! I (continued page 2) STATE OF MINNESOTA , DEPARTMENT Gr= HIGHWAYS $T. PAUL. MINN. 55155 . 33 August 11; -1976 _Me 2733 (10% 130 -21 -1) ' S.P. County of Hennepin -Parcel 3111 -State vs. Joanne C. Willmert, et al.. - NOTICE OF y:1AU -1n the above entitled condemnation proceeding the cc=issioners appointed by :.the DzstrizL CoL_t in the above nar.ea county, in a report tiled with Li hie -Ci'erk of s-ic Court on August 10, 1976 ,. made the following ati�ard for he making of Parcel 3111 for trurY Liig'rl sy purpose= -Burch N. Bell Olga C. Bell Z _._ - -.—.- 32_,950.00 - -- - .County of Hennepin ) ._:City of Edina ) $ NONE • i i -_In addition, as a separate award, we, the undersigned commissioners, pursuant _--to Minn. Stat. 1974, § 117.085, allow to the owner, Burch N. Bell, reasonable ___appraisal fees in the amount of $300.00. -In making our award on this parcel, we took into consideration the stipulation _ -between the State of Minnesota and the owner amending the taking. i i We find the gross amount of damages for the taking herein to be $32,950.00. Of this. amount $13,700.00 is for the land takeri, and $19,250.00 is for damage _:to the remainder. - -This award is based uporr the grade of the highway and service road being at --tiie approximate levels shown in the - attached profiles, Exhibits'A and B. ! I (continued page 2) bENTIAL — COMMERCIAL — INDUSTRIAL Richard H. Sawe, MAI -SRPA /.r.r'r A U V! APPRA19ALS .REAL ESTATE APPRAISERS .. 16009 PENN AVENUE SOUTH • MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 55419 • PHONE (612) 866 -8436 t ' June 30, 1976 K 'fir Connor Schmid, Attorney r _ Mackay, Crounse, and Moore - ` �`2 1000 First National Bank Building !Minneapolis, MDT 55402 Flat - In re: Partial . n -Tak' g Burch N. Bell Property ~ 6620 Normandale Road Edina.. NN �.-. Dear Mr, Schmid: - ' In`accordance,with your request I have made -an inspection of the.above _ referenced property for the purpose of estimating -the values before taking fig, of a portion of subject property by the Minnesota State Highway - Department. =2 have also made an .estimate of the value immediate) after _t y along of said . property, for the purpose of estimating damages sustained to the property ` =by reasons. -of the taking. - By reason of my examination, and after analysis.of the damage increments I have, - arrived at the following value estimates. Value Before Take -- -$110, -000 Value .After Taking $ 72,000 - ?".".'Damages $38,000 >= 'Thank you -for this opportunity to be of service to you and I am submitting *:herewith my appraisal report. yam. S ce * .Ric d'H, Sauve, MA..13, SRPA RCS /sh F Ik �gi i ;... _ ._ r ., _ a.: _ 1- =—+_- ".. /'r - ..(.�• •aae /' ice::. ..J - : _ r L K �.. lit C( rtl - -d���' .0 �i ` � 4-. - a • A. t, '. r .� � i : CC t ! ! � r i tip? t a '. Ja - . :i S. P. 2733 (100 = 130 -21 -1) ?0 -797 county Hennepin Par: No. 311 J own-r(s) Burch N Bell and Olga C. Bell Property Address 6620 Normandale Road Edina,- Minnesota Zoning_ R -1, single fami 1Y _Rights being Appraised: Fee Simple X ether Existing use ^SF residence Highest &Best use: Beforo Residence q{ Residence Estimate of Value Before Taking Land Value: 150 front ft. at $ 140. for 750 ft depth $ 112,500 square ft. at • 19 Rd. 1— 3.56 acres at 8,200. $ 21,000. Plus estimated value of improvements , Dwelling with attached garage, detached shed $ 79,000. Other Items: $79,000. ESTIMATED VALUE BEFORE TAKING S 100,000. . Estimated Value After Taking s Land Value: = 15i_ Wont, ft. at S 107. fov AV r4. G70 (L dep:li S • 98.881 square ft. at .16 - $300. slope easement Rd. 15.700. 227 or es at 7048. g 15,700. Plus estimated value of remaining improvements Dwelling with attached garage detached 'shed $ 64,300. Other Items: ESTIMATED VALUE AFTER TAKING $ 80,000. ESTIMATED ACQUISITION $ 20,000. { Allocation of Acquisition Land Value: 12,632 square ft. of R/VV at $ • 19 $ 2,398. at $ j Pius estimated value of improvements taken None Land and Improvements $ 2,398. Severancedanageto remainder. land $ 2,602 Severance damage to dwelling and garage $ �porary slope easements Special Benefits $ ESTIMATED ACQUISITION $ 20,000. Sign Removal $ r} �I Appraisal by �' f,�' •'C`��' Date April 27, 1976 f ' -mow I •. STATE OF MINNESOTA ) CER.TIFICATE OF COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) SS POSTING NOTICE CITY OF EDINA ) I, the undersigned duly appointed and acting Police Patrolman for the City of Edina, County of Hennepin. State of Minnesota, do hereby certify that I have, this date, posted copies of the attached and foregoing Notice of Board of Review on three official City Bulletin Boards, as follows: ]Gl City Hall, 40:01 W. 50th Street 2✓. ✓50th and France Business Area (3922 W. 50th St.) ?. Amundson Avenue Shopping Center. Dated %% Si,pned _ Police Pa olman Signed and sworn to before me, a Notary Public In and for Hennepin County, Minnesota, this, the day of 19 — . R -74 0 .Clerk's Notice to Post and Publish — HC 1163 ASSESSMENT NOTICE. NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN, That the Board of Review of the city of Edina in Hennepin —County, Minn. will meet in the Edina:,. City Hall. Council :Chambers, 4801 W:.- 50th Street at 7.00 o'clock —E.--M., on Monday s the 13th ay OL June 9177 / 9 for the purpose of reviewing and correcting the assessment of said City for the year 1977. All persons considering themselves aggrieved by said assessment or who wish to complain that the property of another is assessed too low, are hereby notified to appear at said meeting and show cause for having such assessment corrected. No complaint that another person is assessed too low will be acted upon until the person so assessed, or his agent, shall have been notified of such complaint. Dated this 2nd day of May , 1977. Clerk of the City of Edina G � S s: 54 36 .fir o r yv • s d S� qz • �t� 12 tZ 'eo 1�17 4137 -3 Ave. )5 d A4,4 sr 3G Y ale."011 .w - � �' Goo h•� -'�� � �z�olti o� r>i s7'yvG.�i wig& a OL � 0 s s - &a �1 S-6 e-1 Q r d d Gv ! Ljl 7 / G /c A7 S S d r le fe %l h.-riele_. h loo rdol e Ir er i 7 do 5 f �+o r,.► ti it +- 11a G+l a c s /S D C .� S / V tif` Y IC !� VC, /V r �c by /vs ddec% + Y OL • A o L K---aC/ � ��✓ � � � ci � le, r o A.. Gv / 4-1 / e le- r3 r► G �. tsv �1 a v �� r zt N �% AST rs ►s � s d r all �vG�o • Ice YY► D r G . Tom' %)s I L' `-)'A a h hn 1 C a a e 7 s— � ka -7`6 Or #3 d ovb�e � r q �o-�•. arc d.� � A t s C� vC /L �j0 5e ci I*r"" and c�ovb/e ayo �27+ G ov /d y I L � I �1 G hew e4a vj/& 1 l -�- 4-11 L S yyw �w l�, fig -+-►�� � �� � �� � 1/ 1 e L`'�'�y /l �9t� .. _ - -- - - - ... _ k-ird Y-3 70 4 b V " m V,A 3 1, G OT 6sy. X37 � �' -3 74-4-3 60� v v �C- ;�. CZ" 7— _ \ �v %U l q Yyw� Q Y �, 6 /y 14 ry 15 k4 5 0,- V-Z X 73 tea, � p, w1 3qi, 6 r� 's 9y7.,` U 1 1 Z To the Edina City Council: 5400 Malibu Drive Edina, Minnesota 55436 Dist Plat Parcel 24 76111 0700 James Van Valkenburg, Mayor C. Wayne Courtney, Councilman Frederick S. Richards, Councilman June A. Schmidt, Councilwoman Willis F. Shae, Councilman Warren C. Hyde, City Manager r!. I have asked to have my real estate value reviewed. In order to save you time, I am sending you this in advance so you will, I hope, have a chance to read it. I have randomly selected homes sold in Edina showing 1) Address, 2) 1977 Taxes, 3) 1976 Assessed Value, 4) 1976 Estimated *Market Value, 5) 1977 Sales Price, 6) 1977 Estimated :Market Value, 7) 1977 Assessed Value, 8) 1978 Taxes will be (if rate does not change), 9) Percentage difference between the 1977 Sales Price and 1976 Estimated Market, 10) Percentage difference between the 1977 Sales Price and 1977 Estimated Market Value, 11) Percentage Increase Taxes. For,-your further information, I am enclosing a copy of a letter I wrote to Mr. Kent Swanson on June 14, 1976 and a copy of his answer on July 19, 1976. He states that the 1976 value appears correct and has been compared with properties which have recently been sold. The list I have submitted does not show this. He further states the basis for property assessment is market value rather than cost. This list does not show that on these homes, current market value is the'way taxes were set, when comparing their taxes to mine. If I understand the law correctly, 273.17 Assessment of real property, "That newly assessed property shall be valued initially at the average level of assessment which exist at the time in its assessment district." I expect my valuation is going to increase if home values continue to go up, but am objecting to my starting out at 100 percent of valuation when many other homes in Edina are not being assessed at 100 percent of their valuation. It may be true that you are evaluating only new homes in Edina at 100 percent of valuation. After notifying you, I would like to appear. I received the attached applica- tion for review of my real estate value. So I am also submitting a comparison of 59 ramblers (my home is a rambler) sold in Edina. You are asking for my opinion of the value of my home. It is, of course, worth a good deal to me, but I paid $84,500 for the home in September of 1975. You valued it at $84,600, which also included my large appliances, garage door opener, my carpeting and incinerator, which I think are personal property. You also just increased my valuation to $91,000. --2— The 59 ramblers sold for an average sale price of $85,650. This showed that on the real estate market in Edina, ramblers similar to mine sold at $46.37 per square foot. My home has 1740 square feet. Multiplying this by the average of the 59 ramblers equals $80,683.80. Therefore, I think my home should sell for somewhere between $85,656 and $80,683. I am requesting $82,000 figure would indicate a personal property. WTJ /ss Enclosures to be the new Estimated Market Value. This sale of approximately $86,000 less $4,000 of SincerelyVJr:dine 1. 5 /{ William T Owner Address CITY OF 1 :DI1:A APPLICATION rOR REVIEW OF REAL ESTATE VALUATION Date X11-uL Iq Assessor's Estimated Market Value $ L4� L` Owner's opinion of value $ Date of purchase Substantiating data for owners value opinion. (a) Recent purchase of subject property. Date - Price Price Terms (b) Recent sales of similar or neighboring property. Address Date Price (c) Other intonation that substantiates your opinion of your property value, such as recent construction costs of similar properties; appraisals or other value opinion (attach copy if possible). Use additional sheets if necessary. Aso 0J e—&— e. w�� Lo I do hereby affirm that the above information is complete and true to the best of my knowledge and belief. L Signature of pp icant 1. Address 7300 Glouchester Drive 2. 1977 Taxes $2,032.64 3. 1976 Assessed Value $25,741.50 4. 1976 Estimated Market Value $69,200.00 5. 1977 Sales Price $83.500 6. 1977 Estimated Market Value $76,200.00 7. 1977 Assessed Value $28,500.00 8. 1978 Taxes will be (if rate does not change) $2,286.26 9. Percentage difference between the 1977 Sales Price and 1976 Estimated Market 83% 10. Percentage difference between the 1977 Sales Price and 1977 Estimated Market Value 91% 11. Percent Increase Taxes 11% 1. Address 4904 E Sunnyslope Road 2. 1977 Taxes $2,888.00 3. 1976 Assessed Value •$35,080.60 4. 1976 Estimated Market Value $92,600.00 5. 1977 Sales Price $180.000 6. 1977 Estimated Market Value $114,400.00 7. Assessed Value $43,800.00 8. 1978 Taxes will be (if rate does not change) $3,688.70 9. Percentage difference between the 1977 Sales Price and 1976 Estimated Market 51% 10. Percentage difference between the 1977 Sales Price and 1977 Estimated Market Value 64% 11. Percent Increase Taxes 22% 1. Address 6129 Mildred 2. 1977 Taxes $900.46 3. 1976 Assessed Value $13,380.00 4. 1976 Estimated Market Value $38,300.00 5. 1977 Sales Price $50.000 6. 1977 Estimated Market Value $42,200.00 7. 1977 Assessed Value $14,900.00 8. 1978 Taxes will be (if rate does not change) $1,040.87 9. Percentage difference between the 1977 Sales Price and 1976 Estimated Market 77% 10. Percentage difference between the 1977 Sales Price and 1977 Estimated Market Value 84% 11. Percent Increase Taxes 13% 1. Address 5429 Brookview 2. 1977 Taxes $1,027.76 3. 1976 Assessed Value $14,769.90 4. 1976 Estimated Market Value $41,800.00 5. 1977 Sales Price $61.900 6. 1977 Estimated Market Value $46,800.00 7. 1977 Assessed Value $16,800.00 8. 1978 Taxes will be (if rate does not change) $1,211.86 9. Percentage difference between the 1977 Sales Price and 1976 Estimated Market 68% 10. Percentage difference between the 1977 Sales Price and 1977 Estimated Market Value 76% 11. Percent Increase Taxes 15% I . Addr 2. 1977 3. 1976 4. 1976 5. 1977 6. 1977 7. 1977 ess Taxes Assessed Value Estimated market Value Sales Price Estimated Market Value Assessed Value 8. 1978 Taxes will be (if rate does not change) 9. Percentage difference between the 1977 Sales Price and 1976 Estimated Market 10. Percentage difference between the 1977 Sales Price and 1977 Estimated Market Value 11. Percent Increase Taxes 1. Addr 2. 1977 3. 1976 4. 1976 5. 1977 6. 1977 7. 1977 ess Taxes Assessed Value Estimated Market Value Sales Price Estimated Market Value Assessed Value 8. 1978 Taxes will be (if rate does not change) 9. Percentage difference between the 1977 Sales Price and 1976 Estimated Market 10. Percentage difference between the 1977 Sales Price and 1977 Estimated Market Value 11. Percent Increase Taxes 4522 Casco $1,260.00 $16,585.30 $46,300.00 $87.000 $56,500.00 $20,700.00 $1,566.45 53% 65% 20% 5912 Crescent Drive $1,587.20 $20,878.10 $57,100.00 $76.000 $62,800.00 $23,200.00 $1,796.28 75% 83% 12% 1. Address 4606 Casco 2. 1977 Taxes $1,237.94. 3� 1976 Assessed Value $16,490.OQ 4. 1976 Estimated Market Value $46,100.00 5. 1977 Sales Price $88.500 6. 1977 Estimated Market Value $56,700.00 7. 1977 Assessed Value $20,700.00 8. 1978 Taxes will be (if rate does not change) $1,573.64 9. Percentage difference between the 1977 Sales Price and 1976 Estimated Market 527 10. Percentage difference between the 1977 Sales Price and 1977 Estimated Market Value 64% 11. Percent Increase Taxes 217 1. Address 5717 Susan Lane 2. 1977 Taxes $2,169.74 3. 1976 Assessed Value $26,339.10 4. 1976 Estimated Market Value $70,700.00 5. 1977 Sales Price $94.500 6. 1977 Estimated Market Value $77,800.00 7. 1977 Assessed Value $29,200.00 8. 1978 Taxes will be ..(if.rate does not 'change) $2,346.47 9. Percentage difference between the 1977 Sales Price and 1976 Estimated Market 757 10. Percentage difference between the 1977 Sales Price and 1977 Estimated Market Value 827 11. Percent Increase Taxes 87 1. Address 5700 Susan 2. 1977 Taxes $1,743.70 3. 1976 Assessed Value $22,586.80 4. 1976 Estimated Market Value $61,300.00 5. 1977 Sales Price $89.500 6. 1977 Estimated Market Value $68,400.00 7. 1977 Assessed Value $25,400.00 8. 1978 Taxes will be (if rate does not change) $2,001.60 9. Percentage difference between the 1977 Sales Price and 1976 Estimated Market 69% 10. Percentage difference between the 1977 Sales Price and 1977 Estimated Market Value 76% 11. Percent Increase Value 13% 1. Address 7209 Schey Drive 2. 1977 Taxes $3,020.12 3. 1976 Assessed Value $36,297.00 4. 1976 Estimated Market Value $95,600.00 5. 1977 Sales Price _ —___— __ . $130.000 6. 1977 Estimated Market Value $105,200.00 7. 1977 Assessed Value $40,100.00 8. 1978 Taxes will be (if rate does not change) $3,349.71 9. Percentage difference between the 1977 Sales Price and 1976 Estimated Market 74% 10. Percentage difference between the 1977 Sales Price and 1977 Estimated Market Value 81% 11. Percent Increase Taxes 10% M i p- t i i 1. Address 2. 1977 Taxes 3. 1976 Assessed Value 4. 1976 Estimated Market Value 5. 1977 Sales Price 6. 1977 Estimated Market Value 7. 1977 Assessed Value 8. 1978 Taxes will be (if rate does not change) 9. Percentage difference between the 1977 Sales Price and 1976 Estimated Market 10. Percentage difference between the 1977 Sales Price and 1977 Estimated Market Value 11, Percent Increase Taxes 1. Address 2. 1977 Taxes 3. 1976 Assessed Value 4. 1976 Estimated Market Value 5. 1977 Sales Price 6. 1977 Estimated Market Value 7. 1977 Assessed Value 8. 1978 Taxes will be (if rate does not change) 9. Percentage difference between the 1977 Sales Price and 1976 Estimated Market 10. Percentage difference between the 1977 Sales Price and 1977 Estimated Market Value 11. Percent Increase Taxes 4732 School Road $1,302.52 $17,769.80 $49,300.00 $70.000 $54,500.00 $19,800.00 $1,492.11 70% 78% 13% 6008 St. Johns Drive $1,936.32 $24,689.90 $66,600.00 $79.500 $73,300.00 $27,400.00 $2,180.31 84% 92% 11% 1. Address 5725 Kemrich 2. 1977 Taxes $2,842.54 3. 1976 Assessed Value $34,584.30 4. 1976 Estimated Market Value $91,300.00 5. 1977 Sales Price $110.000 6. 1977 Estimated Market Value $100,500.00 7. 1977 Assessed Value $38,200.00 8. 1978 Taxes will be (if rate does not change) $3,177.15 9. Percentage difference between the 1977 Sales Price and 1976 Estimated Market 83% 10. Percentage difference between the 1977 Sales Price and 1977 Estimated Market Value 91% 11: Percent Increase Taxes 11% 1. Address 5904 Tamarac Lane 2. 1977 Taxes $2,331.08 3. 1976 Assessed Value $29,000.00 4. 1976 Estimated Market Value $77,400.00 5. 1977 Sales Price $110.000 6. 1977 Estimated Market Value $85,500.00 7. 1977 Assessed Value $32,300.00 8. 1978 Taxes will be (if rate does not change) $2,629.89 9. Percentage difference between the 1977 Sales Price and 1976 Estimated Market 70% 10. Percentage difference between the 1977 Sales Price and 1977 Estimated Market Value 78% 11. Percent Increase Taxes 11% 62 Woodland Cr 1. Address 2. 1977 Taxes $1,988.62 2. 1977 Taxes $22,050.00 3. 1976 Assessed Value $25,260.90 4. 1976 Estimated Market Value $68,000.00 5. 1977 Sales Price $110. @00 6. 1977 Estimated Market Value $78,500.00 7. 1977 Assessed Value $29,500.00 8. 1978 Taxes will be $2,170.80 9. (if rate does not change) $2,373.04 9. Percentage difference between the 1977 Sales Price and 1976 54% 10. Estimated Market 62% 10. Percentage difference between the 1977 Sales Price and 1977 65% 11. Estimated Market Value 71% 11. Percent Increase Taxes 16% 4202 Sunnyside Road 1. Address 2. 1977 Taxes $1,771.23 3. 1976 Assessed Value $22,050.00 4. 1976 Estimated Market Value $60,000.00 5. 1977 Sales Price $112.000 6. 1977 Estimated Market Value $73,000.00 7. 1977 Assessed Value $27,300.00 8. 1978 Taxes will be (if rate does not change) $2,170.80 9. Percentage difference between the 1977 Sales Price and 1976 Estimated Market 54% 10. Percentage difference between the 1977 Sales Price and 1977 Estimated Market Value 65% 11. Percent Increase Taxes 18% 1. Address 4bub woodaale 2. 1977 Taxes $2,042.00 3. 1976 Assessed Value $25.,286.90 4. 1976 Estimated Market Value $68,100.00 5. 1977 Sales Price $119.500 6. 1977 Estimated Market Value $80,900.00 7. 1977 Assessed Value $30,400.00 8. 1978 Taxes will be (if rate does not change) $2,461.84. 9. Percentage difference between the 1977 Sales Price and 1976 Estimated Market 57% 10. Percentage difference between the 1977 Sales Price and 1977 Estimated Market Value 68% 11•. Percent Increase Taxes 17% 1. Address 5224_Forslin Drive 2. 1977 Taxes $2,205.18 3. 1976 Assessed Value $27,625.40 4. 1976 Estimated Market Value $73,900.00 5. 1977 Sales Price $110.000. 6. 1977 Estimated Market Value $83,000.00 7. 1977 Assessed Value $31,200.00 8. 1978.Taxes will be (if rate does not change) $2,535.46 9. Percentage difference between the 1977 Sales Price and 1976 Estimated Market 67% 10. Percentage difference between the 1977 Sales Price and 1977 Estimated Market Value 75% ' - -- - - - -- 11. - - - ----- -__13% - - - - -- -- -- - -- � - -T - -. -- -� Percent Increase Taxes 1. Address 6712 Samuel Road 2. 1977 Taxes $1,996.30 3. 1976 Assessed Value $22,603.60 4. 1976 Estimated Market Value $61,400.00 5. 1977 Sales Price $108.000 6. 1977 Estimated Market Value $73,000.00 7. 1977 Assessed Value $27,300.00 8. 1978 Taxes will be (if rate does not change) $2,172.19 9. Percentage difference between the 1977 Sales Price and 1976 Estimated Market 57% 10. Percentage difference between the 1977 Sales Price and 1977 Estimated Market Value 68% 11. Percent Increase Taxes 8% 1. Address 6521 Maloney 2. 1977 Taxes S1,100.00 3. 1976 Assessed Value $15,558.60 4. 1976 Estimated Market Value $43,800.00 5. 1977 Sales Price $65.800 6. 1977 Estimated Market Value $49,300.00 7. 1977 Assessed Value $17,800.00 8. 1978 Taxes will be (if rate does not change) $1,301.76 9. Percentage difference between the 1977 Sales Price and 1976 Estimated Market 67% 10. Percentage difference between the 1977 Sales Price and 1977 Estimated Market VAlue 757. 11. Percent Increase Taxes 15% 1. Address 5605 Park Place 2. 1977 Taxes $3,012.32 3. 1976 Assessed Value $35,449.90 4. 1976 Estimated Market Value $93,500.00 5. 1977 Sales Price $148.800 6. 1977 Estimated Market Value $107,300.00 7. 1977 Assessed Value $41,000.00 8. 1978 Taxes will be (if rate does not change) $3,428.31 9. Percentage difference between the 1977 Sales Price and 1976 Estimated Market 63% 10,. Percentage difference between the 1977 Sales Price and 1977 Estimated Market Value 72% 11. Percent Increase Taxes 12% 1. Address 4503 Bruce Avenue 2. 1977 Taxes $1,610.27 3. 1976 Assessed Value .$20,352.20 4. 1976 Estimated Market Value $55,800.00 5. 1977 Sales Price $79.900 6. 1977 Estimated Market Value $61,800.00 7. 1977 Assessed Value $22,800.00 8. 1978 Taxes will be (if rate does not change) $1,760.18 9. Percentage difference between the 1977 Sales Price and 1976 Estimated Market. 70% 10. Percentage difference between the 1977 Sales Price and 1977 Estimated Market Value 77% 11. Percent Increase Taxes 9% 1. Address 5725 Susan Lane 2. 1977 Taxes $2,004.18 3. 1976 Assessed Value $25,430.80 4. 1976 Estimated Market Value $68,500.00 5. 1977 Sales Price $94.500 6. 1977 Estimated Market Value $75,300.00 7. 1977 Assessed Value $28,200.00 8. 1978 Taxes will be (if rate does not change) $2,254.96 9. Percentage difference between the 1977 Sales Price and 1976 Estimated Market 72% 10. Percentage difference between the 1977 Sales Price and 1977 Estimated :Market Value 80% 11. Percent Increase Taxes 11% 1. Address 6913 Gleason Road 2. 1977 Taxes $1,708.00 3. 1976 Assessed Value $22,197.00 4. 1976 Estimated Market Value $60,400.00 5. 1977 Sales Price $83.400 6. 1977 Estimated Market Value $66,400.00 7. 1977 Assessed Value $24,600.00 8. 1978 Taxes will be (if rate does not change) $1,929.16 9. Percentage difference between the 1977 Sales Price and 1976 Estimated Market 72% 10. Percentage difference between the 1977 Sales Price and 1977 Estimated Market Value 80% 11. Percent Increase Taxes 11% 1. Address SS13 Dundee Road 2. 1977 Taxes $2,557.02 3. 1976 Assessed Value $.29,,108.5.0 4. 1976 Estimated ;iarket Value $7.7,600:00 5. 1977 Sales Price $120.000 6. 1977 Estimated Market.:Value $88,200.00 7. 1977 Assessed Value $33,300.00 8. 1978 Taxes will be (if rate does not change) $2,728.93 9. Percentage difference between the 1977 Sales Price and 1976 Estimated Market 65% 10. Percentage difference between the 1977 Sales Price and 1977 Estimated Market Value 74% 11. Percent Increase Taxes 6% 1. Address 6108 Chowen 2. .1977 Taxes $1,152.32 3. 1976 Assessed Value .$16,129.90 4. 1976 Estimated Market Value $45,200.00 5. 1977 Sales Price $65.000 6. 1977 Estimated Market Value $50,100.00 7. 1977 Assessed Value $18,100.00 8. 1978 Taxes will be (if rate does not change) $1,333.67 9. Percentage difference between . the 1977 Sales Price and 1976 Estimated Market 70% 10. Percentage difference between the 1977 Sales Price and 1977 Estimated Market Value 77% 11. Percent Increase Taxes 14% I. Address 6200 Parnell 2. 1977 Taxes $1,327.04 3. 1976 Assessed Value $18,037..50 4. 1976 Estimated Market Value $50,000.00 5. 1977 Sales Price- $65.500 . 6. 197.7 Estimated Market Value $5,5,.000.00 7. 1977 Assessed Value $201000.00 -8. 1978 Taxes will be (if rate does not change) $1,510.10 9. Percentage difference between the 1977 Sales Price and 1976 Estimated Market 76% 10. Percentage difference between the 1977 Sales Price and 1977 Estimated Market Value 84% 11. Percent Increase Taxes 12% : 1. Address 6712 Sioux Trail 2. 1977 Taxes $1,522.00 3. 1976 Assessed Value $20,166.20 4. 1976 Estimated Market Value $55,300.00 5. 1977 Sales Price $83.850 6. 1977 Estimated Market Value $62,400.00. 7. 1977 Assessed Value. $23,000.00 ' 8. 1978 Taxes will be (if rate does not change) $1,783.57 . 9. Percentage difference between the 1977 Sales Price and 1976 Estimated '.Market 66% 10. Percentage difference between the 1977 Sales Price and 1977 Estimated Market Value 74% 11. Percent Increase Taxes 15% 1. Address 7121 Fleetwood Drive 2. 1977 Taxes $2,726.00 3. 1976 Assessed Value $33,166.60 4. 1976 Estimated Market Value $87,800.00 5. 1977 Sales Price $135.000 6. 1977 Estimated Market Value $99,600.00 7. 1977 Assessed Value $37,900.00 8. 1978 Taxes will be (if rate does not change) $3,145.08 9. Percentage difference between the 1977 Sales Price and 1976 Estimated Market 65% 10. Percentage difference between the 1977 Sales Price and 1977 Estimated Market Value 74% 11. Percent Increase Taxes 13% 1. Address 5640 Johnson Drive 2. 1977 Taxes $2,038.58 3. 1976 Assessed Value $24,598.00 4. 1976 Estimated Market Value $66,400.00 5. 1977 Sales Price $97.000 6. 1977 Estimated Market Value $74,000.00 7. 1977 Assessed Value $27,700.00 8. 1978 Taxes will be (if rate does not change) $2,208.45 9. Percentage difference between the 1977 Sales Price and 1976 Estimated Market 68% 10. Percentage difference between the 1977 Sales Price and 1977 Estimated Market Value 76% 11. Percent Increase Taxes 8% 1. Address 6324 Ashcroft Lane 2. 1977 Taxes $879.80 3. 1976 Assessed Value $13,154.40 4. 1976 Estimated Market Value $37,800.00 5. 1977 Sales Price $52.500 6. 1977 Estimated Market Value $41,500.00 7. 1977 Assessed Value $14,700.00 8. 1978 Taxes will be $2,920.33 (if rate does not change) $1,018.14 9. Percentage difference between the 1977 Sales Price and 1976 Estimated Market 72% 10. Percentage difference between the 1977 Sales Price and 1977 - Estimated Market Value 79% 11. Percent Increase Taxes 14% 1. Address 5700 McGuire Road 2. 1977 Taxes $'2,609.06 ' 3. 1976 Assessed Value $32,035.10 4. 1976 Estimated Market Value $85,000.00 5. 1977 Sales Price $91.000 6. 1977 Estimated Market Value $93,500.00 7. 1977 Assessed Value $35,400.00 8. 1978 Taxes will be $2,920.33 (if rate does not change) 9. Percentage difference between the 1977 Sales Price and 1976 Estimated Market 93% 10. Percentage difference between the 1977 Sales Price and 1977 - Estimated Market Value 103% ll.---Percent Increase Taxes - 11% 1. Address 4022 Grimes 2. 1977 Taxes $855.58 3. 1976 Assessed Value $12,890.00 4. 1976 Estimated 'Market Value $37,100.00 5. 1977 Sales Price $50.500 6. 1977 Estimated Market Value $40,800.00 7. 1977 Assessed Value $14,400.00 8. 1978 Taxes will be (if rate does not change) $991.498 9. Percentage difference between the 1977 Sales Price and 1976 _ Estimated Market 73% 10. Percentage difference between the 1977 Sales Price and 1977 Estimated 'Market Value 81% 11. Percent Increase Taxes 14% 1. Address 6129 Kellogg 2. 1977 Taxes $1,024.10 3. 1976 Assessed Value $14,729.90 4. 1976 Estimated Market Value $41,700.00 5. 1977 Sales Price $52.500 6. 1977 Estimated Market Value $45,900.00 7. 1977 Assessed Value $16,400.00 8. 1978 Taxes will be (if rate does not change) $1,176.87 9. Percentage difference between the 1977 Sales Price and 1976 Estimated Market 79% • 10. Percentage difference between the 1977 Sales Price and 1977 Estimated Market Value 87% 11. - Percent Increase Taxes 13% 1. Address 4433 Ellsworth Drive 2. 1977 Taxes $1,441.64' 3. 1976 Assessed Value $18,831. <B0 4. 1976 Estimated Market Value $5.2,000.00 E _ 5. 1977 Sales Price $79:800 s 6. 19,77 Estimated'Market Value $58,900.00 7. 1977 Assessed Value $21,600..00 8. 1978 Taxes will be (if rate does not change) S1,654.81 9. Percentage difference between the 1977 Sales Price and 1976 Estimated Market 65% 10. Percentage difference between the 1977 Sales Price and 1977 Estimated Market Value 74 %. 11. Percent Increase Taxes 13% 1. Address 7212 Trillium Lane 2. 1977 Taxes $1,551.08 3. 1976 Assessed Value $20,483..70 4. 1976 Estimated Market Value $56,100.00 5. 1977 Sales Price $73.500 6. 1977 Estimated Market Value $61,700.00 7. 1977 Assessed Value $22,700.00 8. 1978 Taxes will be (if rate does not change) $1,;756.55 9. Percentage difference between the 1977 Sales Price and 1976 Estimated Market 76% 10. Percentage difference between the 1977 Sales Price and 1977 Estimated Market Value 84 %. 11. Percent Increase Taxes 12% 1. Address 4813 Dunberry Lane 2. 1977 Taxes $2,291.68 3. 1976 Assessed Value $28,569.80 4. 1976 Estimated Market Value $76,300.00 5. 1977 Sales Price $96.500 6. 1977 Estimated Market Value $83,900.00 7. 1977 Assessed Value $31,600.00 8. 1978 Taxes will be (if rate does not change) .$2,571.21 9. Percentage difference between the 1977 Sales Price and 1976 Estimated Market 79% 10. Percentage difference between the 1977 Sales Price and 1977 Estimated Market Value 87% 11. Percent Increase Taxes 11% 1. Address 5824 W 61st Street 2. 1977 Taxes $2,234.02 3. 1976 Assessed Value $27,940.30 4. 1976 Estimated Market Value $74,700.00 5. 1977 Sales Price $96.550 6. 1977 Estimated Market Value $82,200.00 7. 1977 Assessed Value $31,000.00 8. 1978 Taxes will be (if rate does not change) $2,507.78 9. Percentage difference between the 1977 Sales Price and 1976 Estimated Market 77% 10. Percentage difference between the 1977 Sales Price and 1977 Estimated Market Value 85% 11. Percent Increase Taxes 11% I. Address 4504 Sedum Lane 2< 1977 Taxes $1,684.62 3. 1976 Assessed Value $21,637.40 4. 1976 Estimated Market Value $59-,000.0.0 5. 1977 Sales Price 599.500 6. 1977 .Estimated Market Value $69,100.00 7. 1977 Assessed VAlue $25,700.00 8. 1978 Taxes will be (if rate does not change) $2,027.97 9. Percentage difference between the 1977 Sales Price and 1976 Estimated " Mrket 59% 10. Percentage difference between the 1977 Sales Price and 1977 Estimated * trket Value 69% 11. Percent Increase Taxes 17% 1. Address 4629 Browndile 2. 1977 Taxes $2,825.00 3. 1976 Assessed.Value $32,995.20 4. 1976 Estimated Market Value $87,400.00 5. 1977 Sales Price $149.000 6. 1977 Estimated Market Value $102,800.00 7. 1977 Assessed Value $39,200.00 8. 1978 Taxes will be (if rate does not change) $3,261.53 9. Percentage difference between the 1977 Sales Price and 1976 Estimated Market 59% . 10. Percentage difference between the 1977 Sales Price and 1977 Estimated Market Value 69% 11. Percent Increase Taxes 13% l ^ Address ` 5��2 Yvonne Terrace , � 2. l977 Taxes. $1,742.58 '! ` 3. ' 1976 Assessed Value $22S-574.50 ' ` ` �. Market Value l976 Ca�io��ed �a � oe �6I 3O8 O0 , , ' 5. ` ' l977 Sales Price . �75 90O . . . , x 6, � 1977 �at^ �ed �a �t Value . ) $67"400^00 `7. ' 1977 Assessed Value $25,000.00 _ ' 8. 1978 Taxes will be ' (if rate does not change) $1,967.20 ' ' > 9. Percentage difference between the 1977 Sales 'Price and 1976 Estimated Market ' 10. Percentage difference between ^ ` the 1977 Sales Price and 1977 Estimated Market Value ' 89% ' ` ' Percent Increase Taxes ' ^ ^ l. � Address ' ,� . co �ao/ 4522 3. 1977 Taxes ' $I,260.06 3^ oeao l976 Assessed Value $16,585.90 ` ' 4.' 1976 Estimated Market Value ` $46,300.00 ` 5. ' 1977 Sales Price .. $92.000 | 8. 1977 Estimated Market Value ¢57^800.00 ' ' 7. 1977 Assessed Value �2I 2OO OO 8. 1978 Taxes will be ' (1f rate does not change) $1^612.29 ` ' 9. Percentage difference between the 1977 Sales Price and 1978 _ ` Estimated Market 50% _ ' ' lO, Percentage difference between ' . tbel977 Sales Price and 1977 ' Estimated Market Value ' ' ' Percent Increase Taxes ' ` � 22% ` i 4 1. Address 6417 Willow Wood Road 2. 1977 Taxes $2,650.58 3. 1976-Assessed Value $32,488.40 4. 1976 Estimated Market Value $86,100.00 5. 1977 Sales Price $105.000 6. 1977 Estimated Market Value $94,700.00 7. 1977 Assessed Value $35,900.00 8. 1978 Taxes will be (if rate does not change) $2,966.00 9. Percentage difference between the 1977 Sales Price and 1976 Estimated Market 82% 10. Percentage difference between the 1977 Sales Price and 1977 Estimated Market Value 90% 11. Percent Increase Taxes 11% 1. Address 6221 Loch Moor Drive 2. 1977 Taxes $2,331.80 3. 1976 Assessed Value $29,007.80 4. 1976 Estimated Market Value $77,400.00 5. 1977 Sales Price $106.000 6. 1977 Estimated Market Value $85,100.00 7. 1977 Assessed Value $32,100.00 8. 1978 Taxes will be (if rate does not change) $2,615.34 9. Percentage difference between the 1977 Sales Price and 1976 Estimated Market 73% 10. Percentage difference between the 1977 Sales Price and 1977 Estimated Market Value 80% 11. Percent Increase Taxes 11% 1. Address 6906 Paiute Circle 2. 1977 Taxes $2,662.42 3. 1976 Assessed Value $34,481.60 4. 1976 Estimated Market Value $81,100.00 5. 1977 Sales Price $126.168 6. 1977 Estimated Market Value $92,400.00 7. 1977 Assessed Value $35,000.00 8. 1978 Taxes will be (if rate does not change) $2,879.75 9. Percentage difference between the 1977 Sales Price and 1976 Estimated Market 64% 10. Percentage difference between the 1977 Sales Price and 1977 Estimated Market 73% 11. Percent Increase Taxes 8% 1. Address 6125 Birchcrest Drive 2. 1977. Taxes $1,466.78 3. 1976 Assessed Value $19,563.30 4. 1976 Estimated Market Value $53,800.00 5. 1977 Sales Price $81.000 6. 1977 Estimated Market Value $60,600.00 7. 1977 Assessed Value $22,300.00 8. 1978 Taxes will be (if rate does not change) $1,716.06 9. Percentage difference between the 1977 Sales Price and 1976 Estimated Market 66% 10. Percentage difference between the 1977 Sales Price and 1977 Estimated Market Value 75% 11. Percent Increase Taxes 15% 1. Address 6821 Normandale Boulevard 2. 1.977 Taxes $1,218.74 3. 1976 Assessed Value 81,6,855.10 4. 1976 Estimated market Value $47,000.00 5. 1977 Sales Price $72.000 6. 1977 Estimated Market Value $53,300.00 7. 1977 Assessed Value $19,400.00 8. 1978 Taxes will be $25,700.00 8. (if rate does not change) $1,447.60 9. Percentage difference between ° 9. the 1977 Sales Price and 1976 Estimated market 65% 10. Percentage difference between 73% 10. the 1977 Sales Price and 1977 Estimated Market Value 74% 11. Percent Increase Taxes 16% 1. Address 7416 W Shore Drive 2. 1977 Taxes $1,821.78 3. 1976 Assessed Value $23,168.40. 4. 1976 Estimated Market Value $62,800.00 5. 1977 Sales Price •$86.000 6. 1977 Estimated Market Value $69,100.00 7. 1977 Assessed Value $25,700.00 8. 1978 Taxes will be (if rate does not change) $2,027.03 9. Percentage difference between the 1977 Sales Price and 1976 Estimated Market 73% 10. Percentage difference between the 1977 Sales Price and 1977 _. Estimated Market Value 80% 11. Percent Increase Taxes 10% 1. Address 4512- Vandervork Avenue 2. 1977 Taxes $1,181.64 3. 1976 Assessed Value $16,450.00 4. 1976 Estimated Market Value $464:000.;00` 5. 1977 Sales Price $67 -.000 6. 1977 Estimated Market Value $51,300.00 7. 1977 Assessed Value $18,600.00 8. 1978 Taxes will be (if rate does not change) $1,373.98. 9. Percentage difference between the 1977 Sales Price and 1976 Estimated Market 69% 10. Percentage difference between the 1977 Sales. Price and 1977 Estimated Market Value 76% 11. Percent Increase Taxes 14% 1. Address 5928 Oaklawn 21' 1977 Taxes $1,357.48 3. 1976 Assessed Value .$18,369.90 4. 1976 Estimated - Market Value $50,800.00 5. 1977 Sales Price $72.500 6. 1977 Estimated Market Value $56,200.00 7. 1977 Assessed Value $20,500.00 8. 1978 Taxes will be (if rate does not change) $1,556.23 i 9. Percentage difference between i the 1977 Sales Price and 1976 Estimated Market 70% 10. Percentage difference between the 1977 Sales Price and 1977 Estimated Market Value -78% 11. Percent Increase Taxes 13% 1. Address 2. 1977 Taxes 3. 1976.Assessed Value 4. 1976 Estimated Market Value 5. 1977 Sales Price 6. 1977 Estimated Market.Value 7. 1977 Assessed Value 8. 1975 Taxes will be (if rate does not change) 9. Percentage difference between the 1977 Sales.Price and 1976- Estimated-Market 10. Percentage difference between the 1977 Sales Price and 1977 Estimated Market Value 11. Percent Increase Value 1. Address 2. 1977 Taxes 3. 1976 Assessed Value 4. 1976 Estimated Market Value 5. 1977 Sales Price 6. 1977 Estimated Market. Value 7. 1977 Assessed Value 8. 1978 Taxes will be (if rate does not change) 9. Percentage difference between the 1977 Sales Price and 1976 Estimated Market 10. Percentage difference between the 1977 Sales Price and 1977 Estimated Market.Value. 11. Percent Increase Taxes 5717 Londonderry Road $4,009.98 $47,330.80 $123,20040 .$172.500 $135,500.00 $52,300.00 $4,461:50 71% 79% 10% 5844 Creek Valley $2,057.44 $26,012.30 $69,900.00 $95.000 $76,900.00 $28,800.00' $2,313.54 74% •81% 11% 1. Address 2. 1977 Taxes 3. 1976 Assessed Value 4. 1976 Estimated Market Value 5. 1977 Sales Price 6. 1977 Estimated Market Value 7. 1977 Assessed Value 8. 1978 Taxes will be (if rate does not change) 9. Percentage difference between the 1977 Sales Price and 1976 Estimated Market 10. Percentage difference between the 1977 Sales Price and 1977 Estimated Market Value 11. Percent Increase Taxes 6813 Sally Lane $1,981.00 $25,177.70 $67,800.00 $108,000 $77,900.00 $29,200.00 $2,349.01 63 /, e 72% 16% 5400 Malibu Drive Minneapolis, T.T. 55436. June 14, 1976 Mr. '.Cent Swanson City Assessor Edina City- Fall 4 71 'hest 51th Street Edina, `(m 55424 Dear ' *r. Swanson, I recently t•ullt, and now occupy. a new sizale family house in !-.'ina at 5Lr•") "Rlihu rrive. I received the real property assessment v31u.3tion notice listing my ^+sr: :et value, and it Indicates that I am being assessed at ICO". construction cost of my rouse. I am not a lawyer. but I unAerstand that "the newly assezoed property shall he valued at the avera, c level of assessment which exists at that tine in its assessment district," and that "the assessment shall re increased to market value in annual increments..." Can you explain this section of the law to me? I don't believe the compar- able existing single family homes in Ay neighborhood are being assessed at 1002 of trite market value. Any information you can provide will is appreciated. Sincerely, Villian T. Jardine WTJ /pl IF William T. Jardine 5400 Malibu Drive Edina, MN 55436 Dear Mr. Jardine: C y of 4601 WEST FIFTIETH STREET • EDINA. MINNESOTA 67434 927.8861 July 19, 1976 I have reviewed our records for your property at 5400 Malibu Drive. (Lot 1, Block 1, Malibu Heights). Our 1976 value appears correct and has been compared with properties, which have recently sold. The basis for property assessment is market value rather than cost, although, this factor is strongly considered in arriving at market value. We review all properties periodically and any property found to be under valued is ad= justed to reflect market value. I regret the delay in answering your earlier letter, which arrived during our review of the current assessment. Yours very truly, Kent P. Swanson, Assessor City of Edina KPS /jr PRICE SQUARE SALES PER ADDRESS TAXES FEET PRICE SQUARE 5400 Londonderry Road 2,539.40 2590 $135,000 52.12 5701 Camelback Drive 3,487.50 2952 160,000 54.20 5516 Merritt Circle 1,847.16 3000 102,000 34.00 7136 Glouchester Avenue 1,539.98 1795 80,000 44.00 4416 Vandervork Avenue 322.94 1320 80,500 60.98 5928 Schaefer Road 1,945.00 2300 120,500 52.39 4724 Wilford Way 1,248.26 1625 65,000 40.00 6300 Westwood Court 2,874.10 2500 110,000 44.00 7020 Sally Lane 1,590.06 1500 78,500 52.33 6220 Parkwood Road 1,528.60 1722 71,000 41.23 5125 Mirror Lake Drive 1,560.00 2400 73,900 30.79 5504 Chantrey Road 1,207.94 1600 63,500 39.68 6020 Idylwood Drive 1,791.46 1950 82;000 42.05 5429 Highwood Drive 2,154.94 2029 82,000 40.41 6037 Kaymar Drive 1,389.94 2080 78,000 37.50 5817 Northwood Drive 1,812.09 2057 103,000 50.07 7300 W Shore Drive 1,350.72 1660 75,500 45.48 6809 Galway Drive 1,605.12 1826 71,400 39.10 4508 W 44th 1,300.56 1511 70,000 46.32 5536.Chantrey Road 1,558.36 1553 70,000 45.07 5533 Dundee Road 1,883.40 1734 73,200 42.21 5404 Chantrey Road 1,956.98 1956 81,200 41.51 5509 Chantrey Road 1,205.00 1550 .76,000 49.00 5610 Dalrymple 1,110.98 1748 63,000 36.04 6909 Antdim Road 1,232.42 1548 65,000 41.98 5120 Benton Avenue 876.64 1404 60,500 43.09 5216 Hollywood Road 1,285.00 1756 76,000 43.23 6200 Virginia Avenue 1;138.74 1828 63,900 34.95 6227 Westridge B1 1,362.00 1742 78,300 44.94 6801 Limerick Lane 1,883.02 2080 86,900 41.77 6305 Ashcroft Lane 1,437.01 2000 78,500 39.25 7116 Glouchester 1,183.30 1500 65,000 43.33 6324 Westwood Cr 2,341.50 2278 89,500 39.28 6204 S Knoll Drive 1,883.36 1800 90,000 50.00 5121 Skyline Drive 2,001.50 2375 99,900 42.06 6513 Polar Circle 2,297.70 2164 127,200 58.78 6112 Creek Valley Road 1,965.30 2400 97,500 40.62 605 Blake Road 2,811.64 2423 72,500 29.92 5808 Hidden Lane 1,628.38 2120 •82,000 38.67 5600 Heather Lane 1,527.24 1685 93,000 55.19 5348 Whiting Avenue 1,608.50 1264 72,500 57.35 5301 Birchcrest Drive 1,513.46 1496 79,500 53.14 5404 Chantrey Road 1,956.98 1956 81,200 41.51 5716 Lois Lane 1,613.40 1700 83,000 48.82 5016 Edinbrook Lane 1,234.00 1650 65,000 39.39 4008 Wood End Drive 1,646.68 1600 77,000 48.12' 5405 S Blake Road 559.42 1800 86,900 48.27 6717 Galway Drive 1,620.00 2000 77,500 38.75 6216 Wyman.Avenue 1,556.52 1662 73,000 43.92 6324 Ashcroft Lane 879.80 1107 52,500 47.42 7209 Schey Drive 3,020.12 1780 130,000 73.03 5513 Dundee Road 2,557.02 2000 120,000 60.00 7461 W Shore Drive 1,821.78 1530 86,000 56.20 6712 Sioux Trail 1,522.00 1637 83,850 51.22 6200 Parnell 1,327.04 1453 65,500 45.07 6913 Gleason Road 1,708.00 1456 83,400 57.28 6417 Willow Wood Road 2,650.58 1463 105,000 72.26 6221 Loch Moor Drive 2,331.80 2600 106,000 40.76 7121 Fleetwood Drive 2,726.00 2075 135,000 66.36 AVERAGE 1,720.64 1868 85,656 46.37 1977 BOARD OF REVIEW SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDED CHANGES Name & Address F. X. Mc Carthy 4200 -50 -80 Parklawn Avenue 4415 Parklawn Court 74060 - 0300 0600 0900 5100 David Thomas County Rd. #18 (Vacant Land) 73607 - 1600 Thomas P. Keyes 5528 West 70th Street 76000 - 4790 James T. Deusterhoff 6320 Peacedale 76326 - 7500 Knut A. Reishus ?309 Schey Drive 76961 - 8700 Joseph & Rosemary Jellen 5221 Minnehaha Blvd. 77211 - 8400 Arvin D. Adelman Lan 5418 Creek IN iew a 600 76446 - 2500 (9) 77,500 -1,900 75, A- x Recommended Adjusted Page Current Value Adjustment Value (3) 232,600 - 32,600 200,000 (3) 232,600 - 32,600 200,000 (3) 232,600 -32,� 200,000 (3) 310,000 - 10,000 300.000 1,007,800 - 107,800 900,000 (5) 1,12 .,800 - 12,800 100,000 (5) 523,400 -2a 700 49,700 (7) 60,600 -4,100 56,500 (8) • ?9,900 - 12,000 67,9OO (9) 53000 -1.,800 51,9500 5418 Creek IN iew a 600 76446 - 2500 (9) 77,500 -1,900 75, A- x 1977 CITY OF EDINA LOCAL BOARD OF REVIEW ASSESSOR'S RECO�XEN DATION A. PERSONAL APPEARANCES, JUNE 13, 1977, IN ORDER OF PRESENTATION. . No. Name & Address 1976 Value 1977 Value Recommended Change 1. Donald 0. Modeen 689400 73,900 None 5156 Tifton Drive (not on 74281 -1700 list) Comment: Owner made few remarks, but left letter and photographs. (See Attachment) Appears to base comments on other home assessments rather than overvaluation. Our review indicates current value not excessive. Z ( 2. not on list) Lewis P. Logan 4909 Hibiscus 76006 -5200 59,000 64,100 None - _Commaents: Owner has made numerous previous inquires and requests for reductions. An adjustment was made in 1968. Our review indicates current value is not excessive and owners comments as to condition of property and location have been taken into consideration. 3. Edward and Patricia Williams 84,100 90,100 None 6237 Darcy Lane ( #48 76966 -60,00 -on list) Comment: Owners have been reviewing offerings of other homes and comparing taxes to their own. Did not believe their home to be overvalued. 4. Mrs. Charles W. Loufek p. 1600 46,800 56,100 None 6600 Interlachen Blvd. p. 2000: 32,400 38,800 None (not on 73730 -1600 & 2000 list) Comment: Note: the above parcels are vacant land adjoining owners residence, which is not under review. Comparison shows the above land is valued at approximately 15,000 per acre and 13,000 per acre respectively. Other vacant land in the area is valued at 13,000 to 16,600 per acre (One large parcel of nearly a million dollars in value being valued at the lower end of the range). When all factors such as size, loca- tion and utilities are considered, it does not appear that these tracts are overvalued. Also, special assessments are trunk charges rather than for lateral services to lots. • h 5 Page 2 P. . - No. Name & Address 1976 Value 1977 Value Recommended Change Arnell Jackson 46,000 49,800 None 6325 Peacedale Avenue ( #40 76495 -4800. on..list) Comment: Valuation has been reviewed previously and adjustment made, The - typical increase which was applied to the reduced value has not resulted in excessive value. Our review indicates current value is, in fact, less than market based on other recent sales. Owner makes comparison with adjoining properties. When comparisons take into consideration all factors, the values are shown to be in line with these properties.. Also, when values are compared over a. period of time, the value on this property is actually less propor- tionately. ,Bernard J. Allard 38,400 41,700 None 6021 Zenith Avenue (#27 76056 -5000 on list) Comment: Here again, property value was adjusted previously and increase in 1977 is in line with Market. Certain properties have problems which.reduce their value in com- parison-with others. However, inflation affects all properties and it is seldom that values decline or even remain stable during such inflation. The problems inherent in this property have been consid- ered and the 1977 valuation is not shown to be excessive. William Jardine 841600: 91,000 None 5400 Malibu ( #29 76111 -0700 on list) Comment: Owner provides a lengthy list.of property sales of which.some are reasonably valid comparison to subject property and indicate that current value is not excessive. However, the owner uses a number of assumptions which are not valid in his analyses. First, he refers to the State law requiring new construction to be entered at the level of existing properties. In Edina, with its generally high assessment level (ie limited within 10% of market) this is accomplished. However, the owner uses his own sample to indicate the level he feels should be utilized rather than the State study* e.use of averages in comparing diverse properties.is misleading. Owner. alludes to purchase price in 1975 as basis for current values. Finally, owner request is to lower the 1977 value which he does not claim to be in excess of market. P Page 3 No. Name & Address 1976 Value, Value Recommended Chanute Adj. Value /a• F. X. McCarthy Parcel:0300 211,500 232,600 - 32,600 200,000 1+200 -50-80 Parklawn & 0600 211,500 232,600 - 32,600 200,000 (#9 4415 Parklawn Crt. 0900 211,500 232,600 • - 32,600 2009000 onlist) 74060 - 0300,0600,0900 & 5100 285,600 310,000 - 10.000 300,000 5100 9200100 . 1,007,800 107,800 900,000 Comment: As indicated, owner purchased property.in 1976 for a consideration of $725.,000 (See Attachment). This did involve an exchange which the owner states was at a cash equivalent. The property was - apparently not producing a cash return although the owner states this C, has now begun to "turn around ". Thus while the purchase may have been favorable because of condition at the time of sale, it does not fall in line with other properties in the area and based upon our review does not warrant a reduction in value to the reported purchase price. ' We will review the situation annually. Wayne Vermeer 30,400 95,500 None / 4705 Aspasia Circle (Partial) (#7 73945 -4500 on list) Comment: Owner points out two other properties for which he compares cost vs.our value. However, one of these properties has recently sold at a figure higher than our value. The other which may have cost an equivalent amount, is much smaller, resulting in a lower val- uation. The subject house does not appear overvalued and would currently sell for a figure higher than our value. .p% Ruth Neumann Sullivan 609200 65,600 None 4373 Thielen Avenue ( #52 77480 -6100 on list) Comment: Owner refers to valuations on nearby homes, however, our review of the property and sales in the area indicate that we may be under- valuing this property at its current level. We will review the property annually. ✓11 Erhart & Edna Becker 62,400 67,9 None 5305 Mirror Lakes Drive ( #31 76240 -5100 on list) Comment: Owner indicates concern with doubling of value in approximately eleven years. Numerous examples indicate this is not unusual and although he states he would sell the property for our 1977 value, a market transaction would result in a higher figure. This property was-reviewed in 1976 and increased only.the typical amount from that adjusted base. Page 4 No. Name & Address 1976 Value 1977 Value Recommended Change .0.1,2 Youngki & Youngsun Kim 72000 77,700 None 5828 Dewey Hill Road ( #21 75348 -7500 on list) Comment: Owner here is concerned that 1976 purchase price of 84,000 may have been excessive. Our review indicates it was not and although our current value is understated, we recommend no increase until entire area is reviewed. G. Speakes Co. 503,000 515,000 None 5100 Edina Indus. Blvd. .(Not on 75190-4500 list) <�Gomment: Owners have been concerned for sometime over economic return on property, an office building. We have reviewed the situation on various previous occasions and it does not appear to be overvalued. A recent appraisal analyzes the three approaches to value indicating: oa0 Cost: 550,000 Market sales: 520,000 ep.Economics or income: 500,000 - this is simil to our y5, current value which has a slightly higher land \ °� � consideration. Colon) At Southdale 5,463,050 6,000,000 None various parcels ( #58 _on list) Comment: New owner here expresses a number of concerns some of which have a bearing on Market Values. First, the transaction itself) which was recorded at 6,2002000, included some personal and some credits or so called cash offsets. Our analysis accepts the owners value.of approximately 200,000 in physical personal property as a valid deduction to indicate the - purchase of real estate. The other credits to the sale proceeds, however, represent expenditures which were assumed and later paid. or are to be paid, by the buyer and in our opinion do not repre- sent a reduction in the purchase of the property. Second, we have reviewed the Richfield portion of the property sale and find their value in line with the purchase using this type of criteria. Third, income figures when compared with total value indicate the figure of 6,000,000 is realistic. Fourth, our value of 6,000,000 which, although it may include some rounding, was not prepared in any manner that is "suspect ". This value was established prior to any knowledge of what the property sold for. Page 5. Not Name & Address 1976 Value 1977 Value Recommended Change 14. Colony at Southdale Cont. Comment: Finally, although the buyers did assume favorable rate financing, it should be pointed out they had a cash outlay of nearly 3,000,000 or 50% in the transaction, . John J. Murphy 5430 West 70th St. ( #2 73605 -2815 on list) • Comment: LA 1� 194,250 225,000 None Owner has supplied income and expense information for prior years, but at the time of this report, nothing current. Based on informa- tion available and similar adjoining properties, this apartment is not overvalued. Also, we learned from the owner's comments that the building contains eleven units rather than ten, as our records in- dicate. __,16-:,� David Thus 1029600 1129800 - 123L800 County Rd.#18 (Vacant Land) 03 73607 -1600 on list) •Comment: Owner states property for sale at $80,000 net. Discussion with real estate agent indicates essentially the same thing. When considering taxes and special assessments according to the owner and agent, it appears that the property would be involved in a transaction near $100,000 plus or minus. The basis for our recommended reduction, however, is that some grading and soil questions exist on this property as opposed to similar properties already developed, Donald W. Steinkamp 61,700 671,200 None 4912 Payton Court ( #38 76474 -7000 .-on list) t� Comment: Owner cites highway proximity which is considered in our 1977 (and prior) assessment. Sales checked in addition to those shown by owner, do not indicate this property is overvalued. f We will review this situation annually. 180 Thomas P. Keyes 48,3 52,400 -2,700 5528 West 70th St. (not on 76000 -4790 list) Comment: Owners recent purchase valid according to conditions found during - review. We will review annually to monitor renovation now under way. Page 6 B. No OR WRITTEN PRESENTATIONS - GENERALLY IN PLAT AND PARCEL (LEGAL DESCRIPTION) ORDER. Name & Address 1976 . Value 1977 Value Recommended Change 1. Hedberg & Sons.,Inc. 73832 -0800 495,720 500,000 None (a) Gravel Pit -76th France 1200 2679030 323,000 None (#6 on list) 2800 11494,090 1,727,100 None 611" 4800 5300 857,250 135,000 1 .90000000 .163,000 None None /`^ ? 6400 6800 144,000 144,000 1709000 170,000 None None b) Apt. - 6300 York 74530 -3000 462000 517,000 None (#13 on list) (c) t - 4000 Parklawn 75801 -3000 1,000,000 19150,000 None 25 on list) Comment: Gravel pit areas continue to be under District Court consideration and subject to development and usage questions. Recommend no change at this time. Apartment properties have been reviewed and appear to be in line with recent sales and may be favorably valued relative to other units. James Otto 16, 650 ;cu, yw lY vuC Vacant lot -Mark Terrace Dr. � ( #l0 74144 -8000, on list) Comment: Owner states ut�asement reduces value of lot. This is true., but our already very conservative value is not excessive. 3.� Norman A. Spear 64,200 69000 None 5605 Gate Park Road (#17 75215 -8000 on list) Comment: Property purchased in 1975 for 76,500 but owner feels other properties are more undervalued than his. Martin J. Shiff 61,500 61,500 None 6105 Lincoln Drive (#19 75255 -0700 on list) Comment: No change in this condominium property. Owner questions value on other units. All have been valued according to Marketing Plan and resulting sales. Also,, a homestead question from prior year has been resolved. 5 -7 4 � Page 7. No. Name & Address 1976 Value 1977 Value Recommended Change .�.5! . Texaco Station 58,500 622100 None 4404 Valley View Road ( #20 75330 -5075 on list) Comment: Owner submits appraisal report which unfortunately is undocumented. The resulting value does not correspond with our general property values or recent sales (ie Pure Oil Station at 50th & Halifax). See Attachment. Jerome E. Rau 89,200 95,900 None 6001 View Lane (Not on 75981 -8400 list) Comment: Owner has appeared at Review Boards previously and -previous analysis has also indicated that property is not overvalued. «Q. David J. Griswold 6417 Mendelssohn Lane ( #30 76182 -1300 on list) 74,200 80,100 None Comment: Similar situation to #6 above. Also.numerous recent sales in the area may have resulted in owner not following up his request for appearance. James T. Deusterhoff 6320 Peacedale ( #32 76326 -7500 on list) 56000 60,600 -4,100 Comment: Owners purchase of 56000 nearly equivalent of our review value of 57,300 and thus recommend his value Property may have been poorly maintained however and will be reviewed annually. 9. Don J. Sivinski 65,700 70,400 None 4909 Payton Court ( #37 76474 -2000 on list) Comment: Property has been reviewed previously and adjustment made for physical defects still in existence. Normal increase only for 1977. We will review annually fbr correction. Page 8. No. Name & Address Thomas J. Hastings 5901 Josephine Avenue ( #44 76956 -9100 on list) 1976 Value 1977 Value Recommended Change 49,700 53,800 None Comment: Owner concerned about highway configuration. Oar review indicates slightly higher value than entered for 1977 but, recommend no change until area review. ."',/'ll. Milton C. Nelson 55,2OO 59,900 None 5905 Josephine Avenue ( #43 76956 -8400 on list) Comment: Owner also concerned about highway #100. Review however, indicates our 1977 value not excessive. 12, James P. Lund 75,300 81,400 - None 7308 Schey Drive t� 1--.9 -�— r `° 045 76961 -5100 on fist) Comment: Our review indicates all points raised about house construction . have been considered and our 1977 value is not excessive. Knut A. Reishus 739900 792900 - 122000 7389 Schey Drive ( #47 76961 -8700 on list) Comment: A large deduction in value is recommended because of physical damage resulting from settling. We have discussed this adjustment with owner after consulting with the Building Department. I� -c..,� --�� �r We mill review annually for correct'lve measliresw 3.4. Ronald Krank 89,200 101,000 None 7201 Schey Drive (inc. improvement) ( #46 76961 -7200 on list) Comment: Owner concerned over methods used in valuation rather than over- valuation. We discussed the matter at some length and reviewed value . Page 9. No Name & Address 1976 Value 5. Joseph & Rosemary Jellen 49,000 5221 Minnehaha Blvd. 051 77211 -8400 on list) 1977 Value Recommended Change Adj. Value 53000 -12800 512500 Comment: Although change is small, recent purchase indicates consideration given to condition. Owner extremely concerned about valuation of recently sold homes in neighborhood. We will review annually. ,.YS. Robert Schiefelbein 21000 1100800 None 6115 Arctic Way (Partial) 054 77707 -0800 on list) ( #55 on list) Comment: Owner concerned about 1977 value in relation to others in area. Review indicates we have-tmoLted properties here and other similar areas on a similar bass � , 5 _ - Thomas 0. Moe 6130 Arctic Way 77707 -8000 112,700 115,100 None Comment: Owner concerned about highway noise. However, review of property and others which have sold recently in the area, with similar situation, indicate 1977 value is not excessive. �8. Henry W. Haverstock,Jr. 72s,600 92,700 None �v 6112 Saxony Road (inc. improvement) ( #28 76058 -4500 `� // )� Q-6-� --L- on list) ,,/ ' Comment: Owner is concerned about va ue added for indoor swimming pool. Review indicates our overall value, which includes general value adjustment as well as improvement, is not excessive. �.19. Arvin D. Adelman 5418 Creekview ( #36 76446 -2500 on list) 723,000 77000 -19900 Comment: Recent purchase and our review indicates moderate adjustment in order. However, sample of few unrelated properties, at much different level, is not a valid basis for greater reduction. -20. Burch Bell 84,100 93,100 None 6620 Normandale t.� --c,Ed �, , s� 9 3 .-o -7k U-1 73604 -2010 �---_ �� a ��� on list) Comae nt: Owner had appraisals for highway taking (see attachment) which are closely related to our value on structure. However, our analysis of land value is higher than values by other appraisers. See also `,�I,..��taking award. CLI� Page 10. No . 039 on list) Mme & Address Byron H. Armstrong 4119 West 62nd St. 76490 -5200 1976 Value 1977 Value Recommended Change 292200 32,300 None Comment: Our review indicates a substantial 'amount of deferred maintainance on this property. However; after taking this into consideration, it does not appear property is overvalued. C. LATE APPLICANTS NOT PREVIOUSLY LISTED. ATOM, Name & Address 1976 Value 1977 Value Recommended Chanee 1. Robert W. Olson 67,800 73,E — None 5600 Johnson Drive a `� 1-1( � 75915-2000 i. a , LE - -7 ti " j Comment: Owner presents realtors statements and photos of area. Discussion 1 with owner indicates his concern with undervaluing of nearby property. Our review of his property and adjoining area properties indicate some of the others maybe undervalued and will be adjusted during re- valuation of the area. 2. Wickes Furniture Co. 1,355,E ' 1,500,E None 6725 York Avenue So. 76636 76636 -3215 Comment: Value was reduced to figure shown by Hennepin County Board and further appealed by owner. Suggest values for 1977 as well, be resolved by District Court, as our analysis does not indicate property to be overvalued. �-�- � P-e 3. Peter Weiss 112,000 1169700 None 5300 Evanswood Lane 75323 -7000 Comment: Owners have made annual requests since 1975 to reduce value, as home remains unfinished. Our annual review has indicated no re- .duiction � after the initial adjusment\ �i We will continue to review incomplete status annually. D. All other individuals requesting appearances were sent questionaires and explanatory letters. These were not returned or subsequent discussions resulted in cancellation of request. i r BEFORE THE MINNESOTA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION Karl F. Rolvang Chairman Arlen L' Erdahl Commissioner Richard J. Parish Commissioner Katherine E. Sasseville Commissioner Juanita R. Satterlee Commissioner In the Matter of the Petition of Northern States Power Company, Minneapolis, Minnesota, for, Authority MPSC DOCKET NO. E- 002/GR -77 -611 to Change its Schedule of Electric Rates for Retail Customers.within NOTICE AND ORDER FOR HEARING the State of Minnesota. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that a contested hearing .in.the above- entitled matter will be held, commencing with a pre- hearing conference on Monday, July 18, 1977 at 9:30 a.m. in the Large Hearing Room, Seventh Floor, American Center Building, 160 East Kellogg Boulevard, St. Paul, Minnesota 55101 and continuing on dates to be set by the presiding- officer after the pre - hearing conference. This hearing is being ordered by the Minnesota Public Service Commission ( "Coennission ") to.investigate the necessity for and reasonable- ness of certain.electric rate increases proposed by Northern States Power Company ( "NSP ") in NSP's Notice of Rate Change filed with the,Commission May 19, 1977. The Commission is authorized to conduct this hearing by Minn. Stat. § 216B.16 (1976). The approximate proposed increase in rates can be summarized, by class of service as follows: REVENUES 000's Present Proposed Increase Rates,, Rates Amount. Percent Residential $186,909 $214,109 $27,200 14.6% Commercial and Industrial $279,792 $320,297 $40,505 14.5% Lighting $ 9,618 $ 11,006 $ 1,388 14.4% Other Sales to Public Authorities $ 5,260 $ 6,028 $ 768 14.6% Total Retail $481,579 $551,440 $69,861 14.5% A copy of NSP's requested rates are on filed in the offices of'the Department of Public Service, and are open to public inspection during normal office hours. A copy of NSP's entire rate filing also is available for'public inspection 'during'normal office hours at NSP's regional offices in Minneapolis, St. Paul, St.'C1oud, Winona, Red Wing, Faribault, and Mankato, Minnesota. ► This hearing will be conducted by a Hearing Examiner appointed by the Chief Hearing Examiner of the State of Minnesota, and will be held in compliance with the applicable laws relating to the Public Service Commission, the Administrative Procedure Act (Minn. Stat. § 15.0411 - .052), and the rules of the Office of Hearing Examiners (Minn. Rules HE 201 -222). These rules may be purchased from the Documents Section of the Department of Administration, 140 Centennial Building, St. Paul, Minnesota 55155 [(612) 296 - 28741. These rules provide generally for the procedural rights of the parties including: rights to advance notice of witnesses and evidence, right to a pre- hearing conference, rights to present evidence and cross examine witnesses, and right to purchase a record or transcript. Parties are entitled to issuance of subpoenas to compel witnesses to attend and produce documents and other evidence. Any person intending to appear at this hearing should file with the Hearing Examiner a Notice of Appearance in the form which is attached to this Order as soon as possible. Any person intending to intervene as a formal party to this hearing must submit a Petition for Leave to Intervene to the Hearing Examiner and serve the Petition on all existing parties. All petitions to intervene must be filed by July 19, 1977. The Petition must state how the petitioner's legal rights, duties, or privileges may be affected by the Commission's decision' in the matter. All parties have the right to be represented by legal Counsel. If persons have good reason for requesting a delay of the hearing, the request must be made in writing to the Hearing Examiner at least 5 days prior to the hearing. A copy of the request must be served on the Commission and all parties. Following the contested hearing, the Commission may approve all or any part of the rate increase proposed by NSP but may not approve an overall increase greater than that proposed by NSP. However, the Commis- sion may adjust rates for classes of customers to levels greater than those proposed by NSP and make other rate adjustments based upon the testi- mony of parties other than NSP. if no person contests the proposed rate increase at this hearing, the rates may be approved as proposed by•NSP. Any questions concerning informal disposition of this matter or discovery of information should be addressed to Jerome L. Getz, Assistant Attorney General, Seventh Floor, American Center Building, 160 East Kellogg Boulevard, St. Paul, Minnesota 55101. &a i All other questions concerning this hearing should be addressed to the Hearing Examiner'assigned to this hearing: GEORGE DERETICH Minnesota State Office of Hearing Examiners . 1745 University Avenue' St.,,Paul, Minnesota. 55104 ; (612) ,296- 8116... IT 1S FURTHER ORDERED that this Order'shall be served on NSP, and that.NSP shall mail copies of'the 'same'to all counties'.and municipalities in its service'territory,.and also all parties of record in the most recent NSP Electric Rate Hearings, Docket Nos.,E- 0O2046 -934 and ER -2 -1, and on all persons deemed interested by the Department'of Public Service. NSP shall also publish notice of the commencement of`the hearings at least 10 days prior to the'date established herein in'the` legal newspaper in the county seat towns in the counties in its service territory. BY ORDER OF THE COMMISSION /s/ LEO J. AMBROSE Secretary SERVICE DATE. JUN (SEAL) MEMORANDUM TO: Warren C. Hyde, Edina City Manager FROM: Kent P. Swanson, Assessor SUBJECT: Assessment Ratios Figures do not lie. However, figures and especially statistics can be misleading if not properly backgrounded. The attached table from a recent newspaper article provides an example of this. The table, which is statistically correct, shows Edina as having the highest ratio of value to selling prices. The misinterpretation however, is that the City of Edina has currently valued its properties higher than other metropolitan communities. This is not the case and the attached excerpts from the State of Minnesota market ratio study for Hennepin County shows that the values as established by the City of Edina Assessor's Office are very closely comparable to (and not the highest) of other assessment areas. The 1977 market study is not yet available from the State of Minnesota, but, the 1976 market and limited tables are used to demon- strate the differences between the two studies. Also, the enclosed page from last years Citizen League analysis shows it was based on the limited value study. The reason for the difference? The two sets of ratios are arrived at • differently. The newspaper article is based on the State study of "limited values ", values restricted by law as to annual increase. The market study shows assessor's values, which follow the current market. Thus, the City of Edina, which has had historically high ratios, has not required excessively large increases to keep abreast of the market. In other communities where larger market adjustments have been required (and have been accomplished as shown by the current market study) the action of the law has limited the level to which the taxable values can be raised. In conclusion, the City of Edina with high assessment levels must now wait while the legal limitations allow the other communities to catch up. Even though on a current basis, all communities are assessing on a compa- rable level. KPS /jr June 10, 1977 1 v: rn a ,.. , ­11-1 .., . . , ing value:: of $1U.000 ha, 1n- creased by 17.8 p��rcent over the past year, according to a study released today by the Citizens Leagut ,.. :IV tit" 11II home since la, I vcar, m,•:min this year's $ lu,00 home (far purp ws of the study) had a 1976 selling prt-c of 536.36 1. The median 1977 property tax on a The study means that net 1977 $40,000 home is estimated at $878 properly taxes on 510.000 hones by the stu,ly. Median net property are higher than the $878 median 4A - Minneapolis Tribune Mon., June 6, 1977 Taxes Continued from page 1A Taxes on the same home in St. Paul total an estimated $1,023 - sixth highest over -all and a 23.4 - percent increase over 1976. (A table published below lists Citi- zen League tax data for all 87 met - ropolitan communities with popu- lations of more than 2,500). The 10 localities with the highest estimated taxes are, In order, Min- neapolis, Lino Lakes, Circle Pines, Chaska, Minnetrista, St. Paul, Coon Rapids, Champlin, Hopkins and Brooklyn Park. Taxes on S-10,- 000 homes In those communities range from $1,228 to $1.010. The 10 lowest -taxes localities are Mendota Heights, Eagan, Inver Grove Heights, North Oaks, Forest Lake Township, West St. Paul, Ar- den Hills, White Bear Township, Bayport and Andover. Taxes in the lowest 10 communities range from $597 to $753. Tax estimates for the various com- munities include city, school, coun- ty and special- district levels, but they do not include special assess- . menus. The estimates are net prop- erty taxes, after deducting the maximum state homestead credit of $325. The league study said taxes on $40,000 homes in suburban Henne- pin County generally range be- tween $900 and $1,000. Figures for the suburban areas of other coun- ties are $750 to $900 in Ramsey and Washington Counties, $800 to $1,000 in Anoka, Carver and Scott counties and $600 to $800 in Dako- ta County. The league said several factors ex- plain why tax levels in some com- munities are higher than in others. They include higher levels of pub- lic services and less taxable prop- erty available to share the tax bur- den. Those communities may also assess properties closer to true market value, meaning the homes will bear larger shares of taxes imposed by overlapping taxing jurisdictions. The sales ratio - a measure of how closely the assessed value of a home matches the actual selling price - differs greatly among communities and affects taxing levels. Sales ratios for 1977 taxes, the league study said, range from a high of 94.6 percent in Edina to a low of 66.7 percent in White Bear Township. Homes In Vadnais Heights, for ex- ample, are assessed at only 68.3 percent of the price they are sell- ing for. As a result, Vadnais Heights ranks 51st in taxes on a $40,000 home even though its tax rate is the second highest in the Twin Cities area. Sales ratios for many communities declined over the past year, in part because market values are rising faster than annual increases in as- sessed valuation, which are limited by the state, the league report said. The .differences between commu- nities In percentage tax increases, the league said, are due to a combi- nation of varying selling prices, sales ratios, assessed values and tax rates and the changes in those figures for each community over. the past year. (Following is the Citizen League's table of estimated taxes for Twin Cities area communities. The fig- ures are based on taxes for a $40,- 000 home and assume that it has increased In value by 10 percent since last year. They do not esti- mate taxes for any given individu- al, but only illustrate relative dif- ferences between the tax levels of different communities.) of $40,000 - not the value placed on the hung by an asse•.5ut', which Is normally Inss than actual stalling price on the , :,ern nt,,rket. Once anain, Minneapolis leads the The Citizens League study also show; that net property taxes on a $10,000 home in titlnneap)lis in- + crea,ed by 18.6 percent over the past vear, wln,k: incre;, :. 41, by only - 6.4 percent in Mendota Heights. tax list, with an estimated tax of $1,22S - almost 40 percent higher Taxes continued on page 4A Estimated taxes on $40,000 homestead, 1977 communities over 2,500 population in metro area aaa oawes n Andover ( Anuka (II Apple Vail Arden Hill Bayport Belle Plain Blaine (16 Blooming Brooklyn Brooklyn Burnsviu Champlin Chanhass Chaska (1 Circle Pi Columbia Columbus Coon Ra Corcoran Cottage Crystal Dayton Deephav Eagan (1 East Bet Eden Pra Edina (2 Excelsior Falcon H Farming Forest L Forest Fridley ( Golden Ham La Hastings Hopkins Hugo (6 Inver G Lake El Lakevill Lino La Little C Mahto Maple Maplew Medina Mendot Mlnnea Mlnnet alianet Mound Mound New B New H New-po North North Oakdal Oak G Orono Osseo Plymo Prior Ramse Rlchfl Robbi Rosen Rosev St- An St. Le 8t. Pa St. Pa Savag Shako Shore Shore South Spring Stlllw Vado Waco Ways West White Whit Wood (cbanga& from 1976 Includes-10% Inflation factor In value of house) q Is �an1 Iffl [ua 1 I>d[�1 liaw 111`7011 77 I.mlru ow alas IaN0�1 I1) 3 733 78 19.0% 88.0 909 36 19.7% 101.7 ey (196) 803 67 11.6% 103.8 3(921) 724 81 7.0% 113.9 834) 740 79 21.3% 108.4 e (116) 994 16 28.1% 128.5 • 921 33 14.8% 102.7 ton (271), 970 22 13.6% 102.1 Center (286) 924 30 14.6 % 104.9 Park (279) 1010 30 17.6% 105.8 e (191) 779 14 11.3% 96.1 (11) 1018 8 22.9% 106. en (112) 982 18 3.7% 123.1 12) 1043 4 2.4% 122. Pin (12) 1082 3 16.9% 113. Heights (13) 784 73 7.50 90. Twp. (831) 772 75 25.8% 93 Rap (11) 1017 7 21.4% 104. (877) 976 21 20.7% 100. Grove (833) 926 29 20.4% 107. 291) 876 45 21.1% 99. 11) 923• 31 17.5 % 96. en (276) 937 27 15.0% 106. 97) 607 86 10.1% 85. Beth (15) 997 13 32.7% 103. Irie (272) 908 37 18.5% 98. 73) 887 41 27.7% 91. (276) $99 14 23.4% 109. eights (623) 828. 62 19.9% 111. ton (192) 912 33 7.0% Ile. ake (831) 810 M 21.9% 121. Lake Twp. (831) 644 83 19.3% 98. 14) 830 Be 17.0% 94. Valley (273) 1006 12 18.0% 108. ke (11) 148 87 20.3% 92 (200) BIB 63 25.1% 108 (274) 1014 9 18.7% 109 24) 836 83 10.4% 113 rove Heights (199) 620 83 7.2% 89 no (834) 761 76 6.9% 107 e (194) 909 66 21.2% 106 kes(12) 1081 2 22.2% 116 anada (623) 878 44 24.7% 115 medl (832) 864 80 20.0% 124 Grove (279) 1008 11 17.1% 105 ood (622) 874 46 16.7 % 119 (278) 963 23 27.7% 103 a Heights (197) 397 87 8.4% 8 polls (1) 1228 1 18.6% 12 onka (278) 1003 13 16.7% 10 vista (277) 1030 8 4.5 %p 11 (277) 976 20 12.5% 10 Mounds View (621) 897 39 18.7% 12 rlghton (621) 922 32 23.0% 11 ope (281) 976 19 20.7% 10 rt (833) 795 •70 16.3% 11 Oake (621) 639 84 16.1% 10 St. Paul (622) 757 77 18.5% 11 e (622) 898 38 11.0% 11 rove Twp. (13) 798 68 29.2% 9 (278) $95 40 18.1% 10 (279) 990 17 28.0% 10 6th (284) see 92 20.0% 9 Lake (719) 912 34 28.1% 12 Y (11) 706 49 37.5% 9 cId (280) 931 28 16.1% 10 asdale (281) Ise 23 17.1% 10 ount(196) $53 54 26.5% 10 lIle (623) 844 68 18.2% 11 thony (282) 902 24 19.3% 1 uls Park (283) 954 26 20.7% 1 ul (025) 1023 6 23.4% 1 ul Park (833) 838 g0 32.8% 1 e (191) .833 It 16.9% 1 pre (720) 904 49 .5% 1 view (621) 844 69 18.7% 1 wood (276) 872 48 17.5% 1 St. Paul (6) 673 47 6.2% 1 Lake Park (16) sea 43 16.6% 1 ater (834) 831 as 11.6% 1 ale heights (924) 661 61 25.9% 1 nla (110) 793 71 ata (284) 792 72 18.9% St. Paul (197) $96 82 14.9% e Bear Lake (624) see 43 15.3% 1 White near Twp. (624) 726 80 24.3% 1 odbury (833) $09 .. r {6 .. 10.1% 1 sal s 7 1 6 0 5 5 4 4 4 2 s4 9 16 56 82 29 21 87 69 83 99 25 55 18 28 93 27 67 71 82 60 71 11 61 8E .0( .St .4S .5: .81 .11 .81 .51 A .4' 9.8 9.6 7.6 6.9 8.7 3.0 9.7 0.4 1.s 7.1 9A 1.4 5.4 31 1.4 3: 3.1 2.; 3: 9: 1: 04. 02. 33. 08. 11. 19. 20. 05. 10. 00, Is 32 24 92 94 29 20 01 -Z91- 9LT 616T e•ZO1 901&1 L61ZT ZL 91ZI TIM LVEI L1'01 $4 VET 1•E01 SEIST E1•II 61 1101 EIZO1 10.01 L!•60 1616 1•eT 9•ZOI 92.61 61'11 L1Z TILT 0•ZOT 90.61 TO'RL e2 Z•LT R'tlb so-et L41Z1 EE 6'60 L'OOI 99.60 56.90 Zt l'tl 6.66 90'ZT 9090 big 0•ET 9.6b 00.61 ZSIEI St 1181 8.901 Lb-91 LO.1T 91 Z•ZE 0•E6 1Z1 E•61 6.66 66Z 9•!I 9.66 k2 6101 4'96 91 6'OZ 1.001 6610E 6.1T 6.001 121 6160 E'001 CEO 11 6'91 9.101 611 9 *91 l•Z01 ULC 11bt 6.001 06 5•£Z R•bb 9i 1•61 4.001 LI 0.60 1'001 ZS LIU 6•Z01 eEI O'LI S•ZOI 6441 9•LI 2.101 L1 E'OZ 6.66 WRIT 0.11 9.001 Z90I L'T! E'001 99Z 610'Z S %O I 6L 6.91 elkol 1LR bIET 01101 Lb9 L•li 0.001 tDOE 9.11 L1001 LIT l•£l E•601 Os 0•E1 0.201 9k k141 k'001 SILI Z•tT 2.101 ZSS ' E•EI 0.101 ZVE1 E•ZI 0.001 95 021 Z'6b E61 1's1 0.201 LZ L'91 1.001 L1 Z•il 9.101 2t L'LI b'OOT 6LZ E•EI 1.001 two 1•EI 0.101 OL 1•ZZ b•EOI lest S•TT E'00l 56t 4.91 IIEOI 1.66 Zlfl 1.101 /k1 0 %1 6'101 606 0.11 6.001 I1 1'11 11001 91.0E E 1.91 Writ Z9111 LO'ZZ 1E'S1 91.01 os'Ll 061LT SC•11 E9.12 LE'sl Lolvo Z11IZ 1T•Ll bZ•L1 L9•IZ E1.11 96.11 40•IZ £1.91 1£'11. kZ'Zl Wit Lb•E1 WET 4b•51 WLI SLIiI #Iv Z1 Zb•E1 tl1.91 OS'LI Ld•it Os'oI Zv'EI Z1•EI 6T'ZZ 24'11 OL'91 4L•EI tlI•L1 60.11 Zk•11 E1.1Z 10•!1 66.01 E9'LO W E1 16'01 90•d0 b9•Z1 oE'll 11'60 EE•8T Z4•TI 66'90 LZ•Zl 96.01 E9.60 2&191 Eb•LO Woo 1tl'sI LI'11 k0.01 E0160 Zb180 Etl'OI ld•I1 6[121 Eb'UI 14.01 64'60 SE'Ol L1•Zl 6L'kl .10•d0 Wit OS•dO 16'01 Es.,* It 6L'd0 11'11 OC10I 60111 W%L E1.01 L106 1116 E'Eb 0•ve 6.06 6.06 e'LV TIS6 6.06 8160 6.101 L'OOI E'E6 L'Sb 6156 £'be Z'06 l'6b 0 9b 6'1b E16b 1.101 E•OOl ZIZ01 6'001 E•lll 6.801 b %v O'bL 6'9tl b' bb 0•ob 9'VOI 8•EIT IIL6 6'601 f'Eb E•Z6 E•Eb 4'Zb 0.46 4'Z6 9'L6 0.0b 111b Slbb 2106 0'66 2'96 6196 Z•Lb 1•Lb 0 *06 S•Lb 0'46 0'46 Ul" 6.401 4'4C•1 E's01 1•bb s•Lb 4'(101 Z•9b 9'tb L'sb 4•Lb 1116 L'tlb 4.66 a•Lb 2.001 0.001 e1b6 6•Z01 2146 S'L6 4.66 s•001 I'ZOI i1•IOl E'1b b'Zb 0.10 L•eb tl•L6 Elbe I'db 2'16 i•bb 2.16 L'6b 9.1b 6'Lb 6.101 L•I01 9'1b 6'96 1.56 6'16 9.1b tl'ab L %b Z•Lb 1•eb Z•bb 0.66 0'1b W*vb 9.10 61bb u•6tl 0116 1.00 Z•Sb b'b6 5116 tl'Sb tl•16 tl11.0 b'46 1'Lb L•LO ZIZb 1•Cb s•I0 L116 i'lb L'Eb 2'bb k %b 1•sb 0.16 E•lst So sb Z•00 0.2b 1•16 6'L6 1•ICI Oda L'ib 9•Vb tl'L6 0•YO 1'111 6100 L•L6 i1'Y6 1'd0 k's6 E•2b E•bb 2•sb I's6 1.96 L•Lb 1.66 t•bb b'ub 6.101 4.60 1'db 91db o'bb SM311 NOI1VIA30 NOISS3bJ3a NOI111dVA NOISdidSljj 011vd 01110 Oliva 31dwVS OOVONV1S i0 x33NI 30 '11100 d0 •da300 dlvOdaJJv Nvlu3w NV3w NI d3NN3N 30 AANI103 S.07VA J1TMVN =vWljS3 NO Q34V6 LOII.LS OI.LV)i Snys Z7:' LSdSoV S&L d0 SIS TY11V 7VOIJSI.LYSS V.1L)7;JKIN 30 alviS SUIRAlkno 511(16%. Nhl6 NU16hIwLll6 xavd S41.61 1S '111 tlSnuhl 301AA1 M.C3 S 11ILd%ihhl h IOC,L%jhl Mu616 xdVd SII-L1 1S ahldM:)l It SKIsO.W 9h)U3 1tl�aaww0� 301AA1h1iL5 waVi 301AA1h11C9 S110dVihhl6 NU1'Jh1wLL1b xbvd Silzi 11 S1ha1.AtVdV 301MA1.+1.L3 AAOnlhv L$ S11Udvihhlw I.LAAv(, 31111VOt haui vlSlblahhlw hvtL7c�� Ulilah�3t� 37N30haoaUNi LLUP a b1Ma VxhulahNJw Oi)i:•hisbto )'?Std NA I >Luob Ml1)L.A la LhLaL thludw 3ALty alavw adLm A3h hLl!). +1 nuL lu �IVIA1h AVb 11I.L1 wb%a :hlao$ xbvd slicl 15 31V0i1•lbauc (0aloNA t L3$SI Lhi -ft N)Vad v )-huaal.hlw hl ild d -ICvw auVl "hll Shl)dW+ AJ11VA I.au1u%, tul: lo.x s VI.10a h3AV"Ciic WLSAaj hl - iu%i.0 b3lh33 NAIaELce hV�,Svn lvllhaOssa -53- a + AGGREGATE ASSESSMENT /SALES RATIO BASED INDICATED MARKET VALUE ;i dAj 1A rn11Y7Y rc ASSF5SrR,S Ar.rQFGATE INCICATED HL,IyFP I e,ARKET VALUE RATIO MARKET VAL'Ic VEST rc'IT TAl_ HASSAp1 6,655,945 05.0 .7.216x784 P7n•1KLYN CENTER 194.61T.690 P.7.1 222,Q2c,770 fHAMPI_IN 50.SP6,86? Q1.0 55.589.959 C7YSTAL 1RS.2c6,172 86.7 218.334.685 nccPHDVc`1 5C,Q56.701 87.9 57.071.219 El I?J A 64F.274,115 C30 688,591,593 ExfcLSTIP 14,69Q,783 84.9 17.2679117 .'1LnE'4 VALLEY 21P.727,055 99.2 267.6 ?1.227 FllOV *'4c A99101,114 94.9 100,226.224 ' L'1N, LAK= 129°J0.401 96.4 14,46P,059 MAP1rl PLilhl P9361.711 AP.? 9.490, ?97 '4TNNF*TPNKA PEACH 1C,206.59C 86.0 11,745,212 Mnll4P 649507,176 86.6 74,48P,655 O W O 16.111.253 AA.5 19.227,403 DTCHFIrLn 296.020,157 P4.5 336937EI023 R^9PT•"tOALF 126,044,526 90.4 139.42Q,785 ST Lr'llS DARK 363,901921.4 PQ.2 407,961,002 SOD TNr, DARK 6,047,66r- P7.9 6.982.110 TINKA PSY 15,P97,885 65.7 18,516.955 WAY71.TA 40,592,017 83.1 49,326.564 ALOnMIV T']N 633.762,324 91.2 694,916.758 NFM H1PF 156.042.118 92.3 169.050.716 MAOLF rQ'VE 71-.414.029 91.2 83.767, ?12 McnIF'.% 10,7159886 86.Q 22,6869016 noDYO 9395Qb913P 96.2 108.58C,206 P1 211.745,487 91.5 .932 231,41x.832 , AQ017-KLYY DARK 191.14C,9RO Q1.0 199,J55,S12 G2rFNd ^'1D 7,635,07C 86.9 8,797,C85 M TAME TnVKA 350.610.441 90.3 389.5809379 SHnc=wr.nn 4P,094.21'Z P1.7 57,4609237 I \nFREN0ENCF 149102.145 90.Q 1595139910 GRCENFIFL'I 5,50793PI 94.5 5.827.916 CORfnRf -A 13941192 ?9 91.2 14970 °9359 .4I►4NFTPISTA 27.031.744 88.8 30,441.153 EnEN PRATRTF 10 °.259.551 92.3 118,37 3,294 DAVTrNI 19,271,586 96.2 209732.833 MTNN ='kP,LTS 2907 °.351.146 97.A 2, 363, 727. 956 ST ANTHONY 51,095,393 E9.R 67,9909415 1' C[:UNTYMInE 6..°74.369031 89.3 7055,6449509 ADAQTMCNTS 5T L9111S PARK 62.463.106 94.9 66,09P9620 ILCr.MINrTON 84,110.910 96.4 8601919435 M IN' ticAPOLIS 442,47'1,934 91.9 48194799797 CCUNTYWInE 1,010,190,341 92.5 1,091.390.858 QECREATIONRL rf,UNTYMII'E P9931,414 96.4 9,264,952 cAQ M rrLNTYMTnE 114,950.3A6 82.6 139.165,116' COMMERCIAL EnINA 150,105.140 98.2 15299560;59 HIPKIlF 319354,747 81.3 389566,724 QTCHFIcLD 469678,400 104.0 45.075.384 ST LCJTS PARK 104,5F29700 100.4 104,146,115 PLOOMINrT '3N 209,109,500 04.3 221,7499714 M1NT1FAPnLIS 024.747,747 89.1 9369206.296 CrUNTYMInE 198459976.186 91.7 2.0110739892 INOUSTQ TAL k ST LrUTS DARK '45,710.7'19 97.7 36.5519462 9LnnMINrTIN 145.447.170 85.7 16Q.716.t51 MIMNFAPOLIS 291.5659430 87.2 334022040 CCUNTYWInE 7449396,010 88.4 8419879.478 i DU9LIC UTILITY CCIJNTYMITIF 12491509C76 100.0 1249150,076 COUNTY TOTAL 1n,423,16A.3A6 nn.n 11,573,AS0,283 -53- • r -11�. I PAGE 2 Estimated Taxes on $30,000 Homestead, 1976 and 1975 Communities Over 2,500 Population in Metro Area (Using sales ratios to correct for differences in assessment practices.) Eden Mina ( 1 Edina (273) 489 62 -23 -4.43 86.10 3.84 93.8 - Falcon Heights (623) Farmington 092) Forest lake (831) Forest lake Township (831) Fridley (14) Golden Valley (27S) Ham lake 01) Hastings (200) Hopkins (274) Hugo (624) Inver Grove Heights (199) Lake Elmo (834) Lakeville (194) Lino lakes (12) Little Canada (623) Mohtomedi (832) Mople Grove (279) Maplewood (622) Medina (278) Mendota Heights (197) Minneapolis (1) Minnetonka (276) Minnetristo (277) Mound (277) Mounds View (621) 478 607 477 389 513 613 494 451 614 547 40S 497 461 637 488 498 620 523 534 395 758 620 719 624 529 30 -163 -2237 $ chaege 14 chance 84.9 1976 non• sates ratio 1976 soak I (high) (rem 1975 from 1973 1976 total school debt (taxes pry- 1973 total Community and School District Number 4616 tax le a (lour) to 1976 to 1976 mill rase mill rate able in 1976) mill rate Andover (I1) $438 7S $ -47 -9.75% 85.45 .20 89.4% 89.07 Anoka (11) 539 39 -75 -12.27 98.62 4.51 88.0 106.64 Apple Valley (196) 505 .64 -29 -5.48 101.28 4.30 ' 83.3 104.09 Arden Hills (621) 466 70 -84 -15.35 111.72 574 74.0 122.41 Bayport (834) 414 80 -104 -20.07 104.34 .53 74.0 111.99 Belle Plaine (716) $44 38 -75 -12.12 126.10 17.60 72.4 132.15 Blaine (16) 5713 28 -79 -12.07 100.88 .53 89.2 109.72 Bloomington (271) 615 12 -40 -6.07 102.80 6.79 91.2 109.30 Brooklyn Center (286) 576 26 -94 -14.08 103.85 5.65 87.3 116.01 Brooklyn Park (279) 619 10 -36 -5.49 103.49 4.62 91.0 111.39 Burnsville (191) 490 61 -52 -9.53 97.15 5.42 84.9 105.72 Champlin (11) 593 18 -40 -6.25 100.65 4.08 91.0 106ZI Chanhassen 012) 686 4 9- 1.28 121.44 3.22 84.4 126.22 ChosWo (112) 746 2 -3 -.40 119.86 3.49 89.6 128.09 Circle Pines (12) 661 5 - -127 -16.09 110.84 3.98 89.1 125.08 Columbia Heights (13) SIS SO -60 • -10.38 93.70 5.09 89.7 101.30 Columbus Township (831) 421 79 -84 -16.66 89.25 1.18 847 102.11 Coon Rapids (11) 603 16 -39 -6.12 101.32 4.28 91.3 106.87 Corcoran (877) 579 24 1. .16- 98.88 2.79 91.2 99.43 Cottage Grove (833) 544 37 . -12 -213 105.30 3.21 83.8 110.59 Crystal (281) S10 52 -263 -4.38 97.02 3.93 867 10072 Dayton 01) 562 32 -26 -4.42 91.08 2.64 96.2- 97.10 Deephoven (276) 582 22 -54 -8:42 10370 677 87.9. 111.97 Eagan (197) 394 85 . -24 - 576 86.41 3.02 82.1 94.03 East Bethel (15) S96 17 51 9.41 99.17 .19 92.4 98.89 272 545 36 0 0 93.84 5.35 923 98.97 Eden Mina ( 1 Edina (273) 489 62 -23 -4.43 86.10 3.84 93.8 - Falcon Heights (623) Farmington 092) Forest lake (831) Forest lake Township (831) Fridley (14) Golden Valley (27S) Ham lake 01) Hastings (200) Hopkins (274) Hugo (624) Inver Grove Heights (199) Lake Elmo (834) Lakeville (194) Lino lakes (12) Little Canada (623) Mohtomedi (832) Mople Grove (279) Maplewood (622) Medina (278) Mendota Heights (197) Minneapolis (1) Minnetonka (276) Minnetristo (277) Mound (277) Mounds View (621) 478 607 477 389 513 613 494 451 614 547 40S 497 461 637 488 498 620 523 534 395 758 620 719 624 529 30 -163 -2237 106.32 9.28 84.9 65 -56 76.0 15 106 78.5 66 -82 69.3 86 -27 73.7 SI -36 88•S 14 -10 89.2 S9 -46 90.4 73 - 40 79.5 13 -79 88.9 35 -21 77.9 81 -24 797 58 -24 78.5 71 0 78.6 6 -38 86.6 63 -14 75.2 57 -1 69.7 8 -30 91.2 47 -33 74.1 44 - 111 66.9 84 -.20 80.6 1 -87 87.8 9 -58 90.0 3 11 88.8 7 - 112 86.6 45 -19 73.8 - 10.53.. 21.16 -14.73 -6.45 -6.61 -1.65 -8.44 9.75 -11.44 -3.68 -S.SS -4.54 0 -5.63 -2.74 -.17 -4.65 -6.02 -17.23 -4.88 -10.30 -8.52 1.52 -15.17 -3.50 1x9.73 122.36 119.46 96.92 94.97 105.34 90.54 100.24 105.92 115.58 92.23 107.83 103.01 111.98 112.59 125.31 103.38 119.61 99.51 89.27 124.00 104.95 117.84 110.48 121.01 5.70 22.32 16.84 4.27 .83 5.61 .19 4:68 3.30 2.33 3.25 6.99 .83 2.90 11.11 5.70 6.72 5.88 4.69 2.52 14.55 7.65 8.86 2.98 8.42 116.31 118.39 115.73 136.82 110.52 10200 109.14 9926 98.30 115.02- 122.24 95.06 113.07 107.42 119.92 116.82 13170 110.16 127.35 114.94 96.75 136.02 115.04 117.90 118.67 129.45 r PACs 3 Estimated Taxes on 530,000 Homestead, 1976 and 1975 Communities Over 2,500 Population in Metro Area (Using soles ratios to correct for differences in assessment practices.) I S change % change 1976 non. sales ratio 1976 rank 1 (high) from 1973 from 1973 1976 total school debt (taxes pay. 1973 rotot Community and School District Number est. tax to 87 (low) to 1976 10 1976 mill rate mill rate able in 1976) mill rasa New Brighton (621) $525 46 $-22 -4.04% 118.41 6.22 74.8% 127.68 1 New Hope (281) 580 23 -17 -2.82 97.54 6.23 92.3 100.00 1 Newport (833) 473 67 -23 -4.65 106.80 6.52 77.3 113.16 i North Oaks (621) 388 87 -10, -2.S9 106.44 3.24 68.9 117.01 i . North St. Paul (622) 440 74 -38 -7.97 116.36 7.68 69.3 125.96 Oakdale (622) 57S 27 -88 -13.28 113.84 7.52 80.9 12479 Oak Grove Township (15) 424 77 -18 -4.10 91.85 .19 83.0 91.91 s Orono (27.8) 537 43 -101 -15.81 100.&i_ 2,54 AA 9 .02 1 Osseo (279) 550 34 -49- =8.14 99.20 6.05 88.5 10573. Plymouth (284) S06 53 -53 - 9.41 90.49 3.09 91.5 99.87 i Prior Lake (719) 485 64 51 11.72 122.73 8.23 70.0 106.53 { Ramsey (11) 396 83 -39 - 8.91 85.79 .19 84.8 91.88 Richfield (280) 573 29 -43 -7.06 101.63 4.77 88.6 108.47 i Robbinsdale (281) 585 20 -50 -7.88 100.57 2.98 90.4 105.96 i Rosemount 0 96) 466 69 -3 -.64 105.70 6.71 77.4 107.83 t Roseville (623) 498 56 -51 -9.32 108 .98 677 77.9 113.00 St. Anthony (282) 576 2S 9 1.5 100.43 3.70 89.8 101.24 St. Louis Pork 03) 564 31 -62 -9.92 99.82 8.69 89.2 107.23 St. Paul (625) 587 19 -116 -16.55 126.72 15.08 7S.0 146.54 St. Paul Park (833) 457 72 -61 -11.83 102.66 12.38 76.4 113.36 Scvage (191) 502 55 -19 -3.62 109.08 10.10 782 113.00 Shakopee (720) 615 11 72 13.21 118.37 5.68 812' 114.34 Shoreview (621) 492 • 60 -29 -5.64 118.67 6.51 72.4 127.56 • Shorewood (276) 523 48 -74 -12.39 102.89 5.48 83.7 111.54 South St. Paul (6) 584 21 -47 -7.48 116.73 1171 79.9 126.10 1 Spring Lake Park (16) 538 40 -43 -7.45 98.16 .81 88.3 104.37 Stillwater (834) 537 41 -42 -7.26 112.23 3.19 79.0 123.90 Vadnais Heights (624) 468 68 -92 -16.43 125.10 10.49 67.8 140.68 Waconia 010) 557 33 -4 -.70 127.13 5.06 72.8 127.04 Wayzata (284) 424 78 -105 -19.84 91.34 3.79 83.1 100.30 West St. Paul (197) 429 76 -33 -7.07 95.84 6.53 79.3 106.65 White Bear Lake (624) S37 42 -43 -7.41 128:70 7.70 70.8 140.40 White Bear Township (624) 402 82 -33 -7.58 114.00 3.24 67.2 124.89 Woodbury (833) $16 49 8 1.60 105.58 5.27 81.4 109.16 Tax i (Continued from page 1) t will be on the tax books at a level above the locality's sales ratio and some will be below. The impact of the metropolitan tax -base sharing law, also known as the fiscal disparities law, is reflected automatically in the mill rates and, :a therefore, the tax estimates. I Under the law, all localities in the Twin Cities area must contribute 40 Per cent of their net growth in commercial - industrial assessed valuation since 1971 to a metropolitan pool of valuations. All localities then receive back a share of the pool based on population, adjusted for differences in market value of property per capita. What this means is that some localities have more assessed valuation under the law than they otherwise would have, which means that their mill rates, and therefore, taxes -payable, are lower than they otherwise would be. Conversely, some localities have less assessed valuation under the law than they otherwise would have, which means that their mill rates, and taxes payable, are higher. For example, Minneapolis is a net ! gainer in commercial - industrial valuation i under the base - sharing law. Its mill rate is lower than it would be in the absence of the law, 01 - MEMORANDUM DATE: June 27, 1977 TO: Mr. Warren Hyde, City Manager FROM: Arlin Waelti, Administrative Assistant ' RE: Possible action that could be taken by the City of Edina to address the inequity caused to the City by the differences in market value between cities and counties in the State. THE PROBLE."i: Value at Market Value. Minn. Stat. 273.11, subd. 1 provides that the Assessor shall value all property at market value and that in determining this value, the Assessor shall not adopt a lower or different standard of value because the assessment shall serve as a basis of taxation. Once this initial assessment is made, all subsequent adjustments are mandated by statute. Limited Value. The key statute which frustrates the equalization of values is Minn. Stat. 273.11, subd. 2 (a) which provides that the amount of the increase entered in the current assessment shall not exceed ten percent of the value in the preceding assessment or one - fourth of the total amount of the increase in valuation whichever is greater. Effect. If the rate of inflation on property values exceeds the percentage limitation imposed by statute, the overall effect is to continue the disparity in market values as between cities and counties. However, it should be kept in mind that the limitation on increase in valuation has a like effect on the City of Edina. Assuming an inflationary rate of twelve percent on real property in Edina over a given period of time and a statutory limitation of teh percent, the effect would be to eventually reduce the City's limited market value downward. DETRIMENT TO THE CITY. Any area -wide levy such as the tax levy for the Metropolitan Council, the Metro Sewer District, or the Metro Mosquito District would adversely affect Hennepin County and the cities within, as opposed to the other six counties with their proportionally lower market values. The same effect would be caused by the formula used for the Fiscal Disparities Act. Note. It should be kept in mind in the following discussion that the above detriment suffered is by the property owners who pay taxes rather than the municipal corporation of Edina which is exempt from taxation and therefore may lack standing for purposes of legal suit for damages. If this .was the case, it may be possible to circumvent this "injury in fact" requirement by (1) financially supporting a private action brought by Edina taxpayer(s) or (2) by renting taxable property for City purposes, claiming that the property taxation is reflected in the rental paid. However, the courts have recognized municipalities as. having standing for purposes of challenging the constitutionality of statutes affecting their duties and powers. SUGGESTED LEGAL THEORIES: The following possible legal theories for suit are suggested after some creative brainstorming with the League of Cities legal and research staff. Constitutional Issues. The City could seek a declaratory judgment challenging the constitutionality of Minn. Stat. 273.11, subd. 2 (a) based on the Fourteenth Amendment Due Process and Equal Protection clauses. A. Due Process Clause. The limited value - statute has the effect of frustrating the "process due" in order to carry out the spirit and intent of the Tax Reform and Relief Act of 1967; this intent being ff that all property be valued at its market value. Minn. Stat. 273.11. The legislation limiting current year assessments was passed subsequent to the Act in years 1973 (limiting current year assessments for selective' property classes to five percent) and 1975 (amending the law so that all property classes are limited to an increase of ten percent or one- fourth the difference in valuation.) Edina finds that it is denied its due process to carry out the mandate of the Tax Reform and Relief Act by this subsequent legislation. B. Equal Protection Clause. The limited value statute has the further effect of discriminating against Edina and other similarly situated municipalities which, in good faith, attempted to carry out the legal requirements of the Tax Reform and Relief Act of 1967. This discrimination is evidenced by the present and potentially future adverse position of the City in area -wide levies, Fiscal Disparities Act distributions, and Local . Government Aid allocation formulae. Note: I have not had an opportunity to check out the specific effect flowing from each of these. Equitable Issue. "He•who seeks equity, must do equity." This equitable maxim describes the equitable principle involved in this issue. The Legislature in passing the Tax Reform and Relief Act of 1967 sought to equalize property valuations throughout the State; an equitable concept. Edina proceeded, in good faith, to carry out the mandates of the Act. The Legislature subsequently passed legislation, ie. the limited value statute, that created an inequitable situation for those cities carrying out their legal duties and rewarding those cities (and counties) not, in good faith, complying with the requirements of the Act. CONCLUSION: The above definition of the problem and suggestions as to possible legal alternatives are meant to be cursory only. It does not portend to include all possible alternatives. If the Council is interested in pursuing this matter further, I would suggest that they, or appropriate city personnel,meet with members of the Department.of Revenue staff to discovgr first what the Department of Revenue is presently doing or intends to do about this inequity. If my instincts are functioning properly, I detect much stirring in the Division of Property Equalization regarding this specific matter. Certainly, the City should make its thoughts known to appropriate personnel at the State level who are advocating a position similar to ours. II 1977 - BOARD OF R --W JUNE 13, 1977 u �- . PLAT DAROuTJ ADnRrc� 76- L/V 176 M/V 177 'L !V . 177MI -,: 1. 73604 201:0 6520 Ncrmanuale ,81,070. 84,100 8.9,10.0 93,x_' 273605 2815 �54 3 -32 West 70th St. -_= 19.4,250 194,250 213,600 +`I,,00a 225,0 °° 3&3607 1600 C. d: 18- tshington Ave. (Land) 102,600 102,600 112, 800 Vo,000112, 80C! t. 73731 1800 6720 Roushar Rd. 198,000 198)000 217,800 217,8U 5. 73819 8360 4621 Tower Street 36,300. 36,300 39,800 39,8 0 be,/73832 0800 76th & France. (Land) W ! 392,000 495,720 431,200 500, C0 7./3945 4500 4705 Aspasia Circle 30,400. 30,400- 95,700 95, 90, 8. 73977 1600 5117 Ridge Rd. 79,860 802400 87,800 88,50:x. 9,:074060 0300 Parklawn.(4 Apt. Blgs.) (11,500 211,500 F232' 600 (-240 0Q , o °*, 0600 ° 211, 500 211, 600 232,600 c 240, OC; U 0900 211,500 211,500 232,600 240,0 P,��O- 1-7 0C Z-T ,C.oO L3/0. 000 (-3 -_0. 04144 8000 7136 Mark Terrace D4. (Lot) 16,600 16,650 18,200 - 20, 9C 1. 74145 3200 7005 Mark Terrace Dr.. 75,500 75,500 81,900 81,9U! 2. 74415 1010 4904 Merilane 228,700 228,700 244,500 244115C`j 3. ✓74530 3000 6300. York Avenue / 462,500 462,500 508,700 517,001.-1, -4. 3600 6304 York Avenue 529,690 529,690 575,000 575,000. _5. 74820 1150 4703 Sunnyside Road 71,010 76,300 78,100 83,800 16. 74830 0950 4518 Arden Avenue 41,500 '' 48,000 45,600. 52,2CO 17. ✓75215. 8000 5605 Gate Park Road )�,�I, . 64,150 642200 69,500 69,500' 18. 75252 4000 6401.Ridgeview Drive 67,460 69,800 74,200 75,300 19.x15255 0700 6105 Lincoln Dr #136 61,500 61,500 61,500 61,500 20. J15330 5075 4404 Valley View Road ! ¢- ^�°- �t- <;�''` 52, 200 58,500 57,300 62,10* 21.75348 7500 5828 Dewey Hill. Road 67,330 72,300 74j000 77,700 22. 75393 2000 6424 Aspen Road 86,630 88,700 95,000 95,000 23. 4001 6420 Aspen Road 90,600 90,600 97,200 97,200; 24. 75440 5400. 5500 E..Lakeview Dr - 103,700 103,700 1129400 1 112,4CO 25. ✓75801 3000 4000Parklawn Avenue 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,100,000 1 150,000` 1977 - BOARD Or REJIEw June 13, 1977 PLAT PARCEL ADDRESS 176 L/V '76 M/V '77 L/V '77 M/7 26. 75915 2000 5600 „onrson Dr. 67,150 67,800 73,200 73,2--l' 27,1d 76053 5000 6021 Zenith 0 -U" 38,400 38,400 41,700 41, 70 28. ✓ 76058 4500 6112 -�d Lo Saxony Rd. . R 72,600 721600 92,700 92,700 29. 76111 0700 5400 Malibu Dr.)- - 84,600 84,600 91,000 91,0c: 30. ✓ 76182 1300 6417 Mendelssohn La.74,200 74,200 80,100 80,100 31. 76240 5100 5305 MirrcLr LgLkes Dr. 49,240 62,400 54,100 67,90 C .Peace �dsaelek4--,Ai--II}, 32. 76326 7500 6320 53,090 56,500. 58,300 6096C- 33. 76341 4880 lot 5,500 7,400 6,300 8,8 34. 4900 lot 5,300 6,100 5,800 7,300 35. 4941 6421 Mildred 38,110 38,900 41,900 42140(- 36. 76446 2500 5418 Creek View La. 72,000 72,000 77,500 77,50 37. 76474 2000 4909 Payton Ct. 65,700 65,700 70,200 70,200 38.19) 76474 7000 4912 Payton Ct. 61,700 61,700 67,200 67,2ff 39. ✓ 76490 5200 4119 West 62nd St. V,-" 29,200 29,200 32,100 32,10`` 40. p 76495 4800 6325 Peacedale 46,000 46,000 49,800 49,801, ; 41. 76910 1900 14 Paddock Rd. 106,500 106,500 127,400 127,4C- 42. 76940 7400 5200 Chanterey Rd. 59,700 63,700 65,600 69,30,- 43. ✓ 76956 8400 5905 Josephine 55,200 55,200 59,700 59,7C.- 44. v 76956 9100 5901 Josephine 48,640 49,700 53,500 53,80 45. 76961 5100 7308 Schey Dr. � �""� 74170 75,300 81,200 81,2C- 46. 76961 7200 7201 Schey Dr. �� 89,200 89,200 101,000 101,0CC 47. V, 76961 8700 7309.Schey Dr. K• A 9810 73,900 79,700 79,70 48. a 26966 6000 6237 Darcy La. t (U,' 100 84,100 89,900 89,90( 49.. 77152 3150 6728 Point Dr. 68,470 71,100 75,300 77,201 50. 77152 3450 6805 Point.Drr...,� 64,000 65,000 70,400 70,6CC 51. i✓ 77211 8400 5221 MinnehaNa Blvd. 48,270 49,000 53,000 53,30; 52.� 77480 6100 4373 Thielen tn- ~60,200 -60,200 65,600 65,6v 1977 - BOARD OF REVIEW June 13, 1977 M 4zv, &N �-� fib+ �� • Sti r3� S pa v00 ej c � PLAT PARCEL ADDRESS 176 L/V 176 M/V 177 L/V 177 MX 53. 77540 1550 5121 Millpond �"`"°"" 28,900 28,900 31,600 31,60C 54. V 77707 0800 6115 Arctic Way ,i2' 21,300 21,300 109,700 110,80C 55. '� 77707 8000 6130 Arctic Way T 112,700 112,700 115,100 115,10C 56. 77708 2100 6409 Glacier Place 87,200 87,200 95,400 95,400 57. 78125 1800 7101 France 1,719,000 1,719,000 179,000 179,OOC 58. © The Colony.Apts ,` 5,463,050 5,463,050 5,935,300 / 6,000,OOC M 4zv, &N �-� fib+ �� • Sti r3� S pa v00 ej c � TO_ Aasesor_ City of Edina 4801 We st 504."h _ -St. - - -- Edina, N`n 55424 ow-' V, L-6V 8.66., J. V6 FROPA _ RPlph W. __Jewell _ Jewell Properties 4251_PPrklawn Ave. 7dir_e , Mn. 55435 B1ECT - -D1 a t•_ 24_Plet_74060_Pe.rce3-_ 3900 ; DATI June 27 19= _ I Gish to ep�2e_ 1 the Jan. 2., jq=rM1_prop�ty �as�e.eIIe�t�eluet -1or- oi�his_ _property_, Pie _a -ee ta.ke- the-te-yem-e-c -ti_on is equil ed��Y�ui off-icP to imp sinc JEWELL PROPERTIES 4251 Parklawn Ave. Edina, Minnesota 55435 ASSESSORS RECOMMENDATION: 1976 1977 437,100 480,000 9 T 7............. Assessor City of Edine 4801 We at 50th St. rains, Mn 55424 Adjustment None The above correspondence was received 6 -29 -77 without previous discussion or contact of any kind. Our review indicates current value on this apartment is correct, but owner may have wished to preserve his option to appear at the County Board. I HENRY W. HAVERSTOCr, JR. ATTORNEY AT `LAW 404 ROANOKE- BUILDING MARQUETTE AT 7TH STREET MINNEAPOLIS. MINNESOTA 55402 May 20, 1977 Er. Kcnt Swanson As�e��or r 1_iTy el r d -Lna 4501 Uje5Ll 70th Street na, i, _nn -s c t a ;7424 RE: 6112 Saxony Ro Dist. 24, p1 7005x, /parcel 45C0 Dear Mr. Swanson: I am herewith requesting a review of the-1,977 assessment of my home, inasmuch as the small pool, which forms the basis for the substantial increase, is of a therapeutic nature exclusively. I await your advices. Yours very truly, Henry W. Haverstock, Jr. HWHjr:mb LAW OFFICES OF ERICSON, MACGREGOR. HAVERSTOCK & O'BRIEN . 1120 -1130 ROANOKE BUILDING MINNEAPOLIS. MINNESOTA 88402 TELEPHONE 4612) 338.4242 - - DUDLEY C. ERICSON WILLIAM E. MACGREGOR. JR. HENRY W. HAVERSTOCK JOSEPH D. O'BRIEN June 1, 1977- Asssssor City cf Ec -n 4801 West 50 --h Strut Edina, Minnesota 55424 Re: Henry W. Haverstock, Jr. 6112 Saxony Road Edina, fll i nn -3=ta 55436 Plat No. 76058 Parcel No. 4500 Dear Sir: Per the instructions in your letter of May 24th, find Application for Review of Real Estate Valua- tion in the above. Yours very tr.ly, H my W averstock, Jr. HWHjr:ea Encl. h CITY 01-1 i,D3.11111 .. . . .. .... ~ <<i'i'1.IC /:'1'1G„ 1'0! 1:1: ;'1� ;'d 01' )ZEV.1, ESTATE. VALU��TIOIN DutC d'u'd 0wnnr Y,-rr V f, L^ T, Addr'c X c, r i r 3, 1nre 754_ • /1ssc:: ;sor's I.SLirl, Led 1•Sarket: Value Owner's ()billion of value $ 70,000.03D Date of purchase C^ .,gib =r '_orl Price 43,000.00 i;ir. ion dleger) Sub.^•tz:nti..!ting dava for owners value opinion. (a) 1:ecent purchase of subject Property. Date — - - - '- Prj.ce (b) Recent sales of si.u:il• r or ncigihbori.ng property. Address Date Price 14 PP (c) Other inforriation that substantiates your opinion of your property value, such as recent construction costs of similar properties; appraisals or other value opinion (attach copy if possible). Use additional sheets if necessary. =The sole bads •for the current increase of valuation:, -.:as advised by ..your offi ce ljjas the instal l ati nn of n � iii MMi nn• -nnl AS,,,gvy�d,ayno�T� to i!:r. eleger, I am largely confined to 'a wheelchair and my small pool is for thgrr- peutic nuronses, as advis -rd by .-my doctol: nnl � my, ui f c I myself _eside in our hem,, and my wife. does not swim. The pool is equiped with a permanent concrete wheelchair access I am advised by a realtor acquaintance that e poo , in his judgiaent, may actually decrease the value of the home becuase of its specialized purpose. '1 =tly upun Q w ,ae c hair 71MOSL exc usively to get aoout my house and have a separate wheelchair which I carry i the car and use in traveling L. m an or a usiness� purposes.. wy condition consist; . of massive disability due' to polio, complicated by a recent degenerative '">rUntf Of v permanent nature Note: For income nroducin. or co�nercf_al p operties include for 3 years, if possibl.e:. (1) Annual gross incorn;e.. (2) Annual expense, itemized. (3) Lease terms or rent roll ac applicable. z do hereby affirm that tl.e .above information is complete and true to tba hc:i:t of my knowledge and belief, _j r7 - .;iLnat u 0 :rpplicanL al:pISWOLD AND RAVMA • ARC1-1IT3ECT8 May 31, 1977 Assessor City of Edina 4801 West 50 Street Edina, Minnesota 55424 v I wish an appearance before the Local Board of Review on Monday, June 13, relative to the values established on my residential' property, which is Parcel 1300, Plat 76182, District 24. r DAVID J. GRISWOLD DJG:djs DAVID J. p1P15WOLD AIA JDMN G. RAVMA RnfA J,,GKSON W. CSP.fSWDLD AIA ROBERT G. EDGE AIA 730 SECCND AVENUffi SOV'Z"rI 2dIKN3APCL =3, = �IN?�TE�CTA 55408 339 -3071 6320 Peacedale Avenue Edina,.Minneso'ta 55424 June, 2, 1977. Mr. Ralph Johnson, Assessor City of Edina 480L West 50th Street - Edina, Minnesota. 55424 Re: January 2, 1977,.. real property assessment valuation notice for 6320 Peacedale Avenue (District.24, Plat 76326 Parcel 7500) Dear Mr. Johnson: I.would like - -this letter to serve as my appearance before the Edina, City Council meeting as the Local Board of Review on Monday, June 13, 1977, as I will not be able to physically attent that meeting. I feel that the January 2, 1977, market ($60.6M) and limited ($58.3M) valuations assessed to the above mentioned property are both excessive. I purchased this property effective January 14, 1977, from Mr. and Mrs. Donald F. Kilburg for $56.5M. This was a completely arms- length transaction since I am not directly or indirectly related to the Kilburgs nor did I ever, in fact, meet the Kilburgs prior to my inspecting their house. I have enclosed for your benefit copies of the following documents which further support my argument that the assessed valuation of my home is execessive: 1.. Purchase Agreement dated. December 6, 1976, 2. Warranty deed dated January 14, 1977, 3. Copy of the MLS listing of. the property. I would like to point out a few items from the MLS listing. First, the upper left hand corner shows "1976 .J" thus indicating that the house had been listed for sale for $59.5M since.October 1976. Second, the.... "asked price". included all carpeting and drapes'; garage door opener, window air conditioner, dishwasher -, disposal, electric stove and hood. I would value these items at a minimum of $24 with a replacement cost of approximately $54. Mr. Ralph Johnson, Assessor 2 June 2, 1977 The assessed market value of the property, by Minnesota Statute, represents the price which the property would sell for under current conditions. Since I legally purchased the property subsequent to January 2, 1977, in fact on January 14, 1977, I contend that the assessed market value cannot realistically exceed $56.5M. In fact, considering that the $56.5% includes consideration paid for those items mentioned in the previous paragraph, I content that the assessed market value of my house is in the JL1.5M to $54.5M range. I find it extremely hard to believe that an assessed market valuation outside this range could be substantiated. I kindly request that you give consideration to adjusting the assessed market value of my property to fall within my range. I have also enclosed a copy of the warranty deed for homesteading purposes. If you have any questions, please feel free to call me at the following numbers: Home 920 -5677 Business 340 -2471 Very truly yours, 7. James T. Deusterhoff 6320 Peacedale Avenue Edina, Minnesota 55424 Enclosures t j � _ � •*• �,.yl -gyp ` �,.�,w � e� , .�: °±�,�6k � 7�^; e�!s,tp! -, � �a ,is t `- M. inn_ Dec 6 19 76 RECEIVED OF James T. Deras er'no_ff (9' =cle person) the sum of Fifteen hundred and no/c100 (s 1,500.00 )DOLLARS by check to be deposited upon acccrtartc= of o;Tcr by all parties• but to be returned to buyer(s) if offer is rejected. tom4 6320 Peacedale Ave Said earnest money is ill part payment for the purchase of property at situated in the County of Ee"s 7:"-- . State of Minnesota, and legally described as follows, to wit: legal to conform to above address including all garden bulbs, plants, shrubs and tress. all storm doors, detachable vestibules, screens, awnings, window shades, blinds (including veneuan b1 mail. cunam rows, traverse rods. drapery rods, lighting fixtures and bulbs, plumb- ing fixtures, hot water tanks and hcatir., ; .ira (.0 s: any bz pers, tanks, stokersand otherequipment used in connection therewith), liquid gas tank and controls, and water softener (if the property of se2crf. exterior television antenna, incinerator, built -in dishwasher and garbage disposal, built -in owns, coon too stoves ant; ceat�l air conditioning equipment. if any, usedand located on said premises and including also the loilowmg personal pra;�rty: _d 1-­4 €azra a door opener and transmitters, dishwasher, disposal, electric air conditioner all of which property the undersigned, as agent for the owner, has this day sold to the buyer for the sum of fifty -six thousand five a=ct no/100 (S 56.500.00 )DOLLARS. which the buyer agrees to pay in the following rnanncr. Earnest money herein paid S 1, 500.00 and S 19,20-00 cash, on or before ta&ra• 31a 1977 s�s ,500.00_ _ M bu,cr piasd a•�+ h:� �ep :. ^. e a COwestional_ mortgage in this amount, amortised monthly over a period of years with Interest thereon aZ-3/4 per cent per annum or such rate which may he lower or higher as specified in havers client. m mortgage commit ent. Buyers agree to makeimrdiate art: :cataa+n for morteaee and to esert reasonable effort insecure financing. If and when the lending agency docrmme, the hu,cr an sir rro^rn, a'. ,. ...._ ... ;.rt ,r.a ..; i_•_.r :nines this pun base agreement ,hall hr null and toad and all earnest money paid hereunder snaii hr rcturriw t.+ J in: urr{-yy�, �•ur apriai,at and or credit report. In the event hu%ers cannot secure a firm commiltment for such mortgage more . 19 1L, this agreement shall terminate at the sellers option. which seller shall have 241 hoar, to exercise in w rams! or wai,c It :-:, rowract shall o terminate the eajnot moncv paid herein shall be refunded to buyer less any expense incurred by seller or age^. : /., r apprauai or credit report. Scllen agree to pay _.IIiC.IL_ as insurance premium to lending agency if applicable. Buyer agrees to pay nt a as insurance premium to lending agency it applicable. Seller agrees to pay all special assessments of record. levied or pending as of date of closng. Subject toperformancebythe but yer the seller agrees toexecure and deli Vera �eral Warranty Deed Ito be joined in by spouse, if aml cnn%tymg marketablr emir to .vd rrcma,e. uhtect nnly to the following exceptions: (a) Building and iomng law,. oilman: c,. ?ia:r .uid hisser a: rr:+...,i.o•., (b) Restrictions relating to use or ompnuenicni of pr­­ iHtnout e1:KWe forfeiture provision. (c) Reservation of am• mineral, or m,nrr.rt n.hh t„ mi, pia ;c 10- -ota. (d) Utility and drainage ea,cment, wta;ch d,+ not a irr.rr ... cct imno,vemenu. It) Rights of tenants a, In!, : lunlr„ ,� e: 11,rJ, r.� +t ,[ : ?•fti! iP Thebuvershallpa� N ,.poialHa \r„1tie,r,RS,raliaJ.t_a vunpaid installments ofspeeialas ". smenlspayabletherewith and thereafter. The sellrr%hall par o �^ -_1St rc.J ctia :c :air•- ..:.;�yTr tear iY�ar*t yainpaldin] tatimcntso fspecialai %es%ment%=hle therewith. Seller warrants that real r,taic la%e% due in tr. %rat 1Y L?_ cod! he ill I I homestead classification. Neither Berme+ Smaby, its stra >. nor the seller or its a =ems make any representatbo v warranty whatsoever concerning the amount of reef estate load which shall be assessed against the property w-+ 4utnr_ rmee to the date of purchase, Seller warrants that municipal sew er and municipal "'Al" "' 0 eoled directly to the building(s) on the premises: Seller warrants that all appliances, heating, au conditioning..unit and plumbing mud and looted on said premises will be in proper working order at dale of possession. Seller covenants that buildings, if ■ray- are entirel% within the boandar% litres of isle property mad agrees to remove are personal property not Included therein and all dehri% from the premr%es poor w ou„e%..•- asst. l' he seller fu r hcragreotodehscrpo- c— onn,a!atcrtran__x_ 49 1977 provided that all conditions ofthis agreement have been complied with. Unless otherwise %pccd,cd this sale ,hall he dosed on or brlone 60 doss from the date hereof. In the event this property is destrsweJ or ,ohstan :uih der Taec ::,, t error arc o, herou%e before the closing date, that agreement shall become null and void, at the purchasers option. and all motors r-1 hrreurwri, , ^al, he refunded to ham. The buyer and seller also mutually scree that pror+Yae­, mrts,•t;ants, uttered. itnuramrard city water. and. in the case ofincorreproperty. current operating expenses, shall he male as of _, - -..3 �.= The seller shall. within a reasonable time after a rrro%of or t m, agree=nt. f umish an abstract of title. or a Registered Property Abstract certified to date to include proper searches co%cnne hankruptcrr,. and Mali art,: trdcral tudementsard liens. The buyer %hall be allowed 10days after receipt thereof for examination of said title and the makmv of anv ohLecttons thereto. sa,J ohnielsons to he nude in writing ordeemed to be waived. If any objections are so made the seller shall he alloi%cd CU dad, to make such tale marketable. 1%eridmg correction of title the payments hereunder required shall he postponed, but upon correct ion of tin le and w shin 10 day s aner w ntten notice to the buyer, the panics shall perform this agreement according to its terms. I f said title is not marketable and is not made so within 120 da.s from the dateof written objections thereto as above provided, i his agreement shall be null and void, and neither principal shall he liable for damage, hereunder to the other principal. All money theretofore paid by thebuyer shall here- funded. If the title to said property he found martetahir or he ,n made .thin said tame, and said huver %hall default in any of the agreements and continue in default for a period of 10 days- then and in that cue the scilcr ray termuute thiseontran and on such termination all the payments made upon this contract shall he retained M wad ,vller and said arm, a% their respertne niternts may appear. as liquidated damages, time being of the essence hereof. Phis provision shall not dcpn%c either pant of the nenl of cnlorcIne the specific performance of phis contract pr -ided such contract shall not he terminated as aforesaid, and provided action to enforce such specific performance shall beeommenced within six months after such right of action shall arise. It is understood and agreed that the undersigned agent at in m maaaer liable or responsible on account-of-this agreement, except to return or account for the earnest money paid under this contnux_ The delivery of all papers and monies %hail be maple at the office oL BERMEL -SMABY Realty, Inc. 1, the undersigned, owner of the above land, do hereby approve the above agreement and the sale thereby made. B S 7IA Y Re • Inc BY �' Agent 1 hereby agree to pu hase the said property for the price and upon the terms above mentioned, and subject to all conditions berein exp! per (SEAL) _ �• \ — (SEAL) Buyer l� r (SEALI (SEAL) Surer THIS IS A LEGA Y BINDING CO; FeACT. IF NOT UNDERSTOOD, SEEK COMPETENT ADVICE, t INSURED/CONVENTIONAL TYPE - CITY OI' 1a1I:�► - nPL1G:;'L1ON FOR I EVII:Id We }tEAL E ;TATIi VALUATION Date June 2, 1777 Owner James Thomas Deusterhoff Address 6320 Peacedale Avenue Assessor's Estimated Market Value $ $60.6,1 as of .;anua.ry 2, 1977. Owner's opinion of value $ Range of $51.51M to $54.51 Date of purchase Closing effective 1 -14-77 Price $ 56.5M Substantiating data for owners value opinion. (a) Recent purchase of subject properLy. ;pace 1 -14 -77 - Price $56.5M Terms Conventional (b) Reuenc sales of similar or neighboring property. Address Date Price Not considered at this time due to recent purchase (c) Other information that substantiates your opinion of your property value, such as recent construction costs of similar properties; appraisals-or other value opinion (attach copy if possible). Use additional sheets if necessary. See letter date June 2, 1977 to Mr. Johnson,. Assessor, City of Edina for further details and supporting documentation. I do hereby affirm that the above information is complete and true the best of my knowledge and belief" j /Sil;naturc o•f applicant CITY OF EDINA .Al'PLICAno,,4 FOR REVIEW OF REAL ESTATE VALUATION Date C A 7 E -Owner �rd A0/er+•rG - Address S yi S, Ct - •ee- L/, C, oa, LM _._Assessor's - Estimated Market Value $ 7 7 3 ,00 o Owner's opinion of value $ •7 5'_ /a p -:Date of purchase _ A ac; l 3&. i5'77 Price -7 7 Occ Substantiating data for owners value opinion. -5G4jvIc Vat."j. (a) Recent purchase of subject property. Date Price Terms (b) Recent sales of similar or neighboring property. - Address Date Price (c) Other information that substantiates your . opinion of your property value, such as recent construction costs of similar properties; appraisals or other value opinion (attach copy if possible). Use additional sheets.if. -pecessary. James T. Brown property Tax Division Alexander & Alexander Inc. Shelard Plaza P.O. Box 1360 Minneapolis, Minnesota 55440 Telephone 612 542 -3000 1lexander lexander I do hereby affirm that the above information is complete and true to the best of my knowledge and belief. lel—i f—'ASE ws 11A, it it Ito. T-1 ILZ Z C&C.) it i Y/-7 it Z/7 It YY 171.7,i Z S-co, S ri, ji P-T . . . ......... ..... �..... ,_... ._�_ ._.. CITY OF LllXNA76 7 ea (0 , 1 3 '7� A11PLICATION. FOR REVIE14 Or REAL rSTATE VALUATION . ..' Date Owner ZION SIVINSKI 4M fWall eaut it — 85 Address EDINA, MINNESOTA 55435 . Assessor's Estimated Market Value $ Owner's opinion of value $ ���D4 Date of purchase Price ®® Substantiating data for owners value opinion. - (i) Recent purchase of subject property. Date - Price Term (b) Recent sales of similar or neighboring property. Address Date Price �,- inf I— i�Yo tTi�tJsu'bs a i•'�s j'o� � o � r �op��� `. - such a construction costs of similar ro ert'.es• a rail la'/or P P PP A oZhe �1 ^, ^� ^n_ (attach copy if possible). Use additional she is Y" necessary. (2)v Annual expenses itemized. (3) Lease terms or rent roll as applicable. I do hereby affirri that the above 'information is complete •nd true to tc best of my knowledge and belief, _ • � Sil;natur�. 01: applicant CITY 01' 1'1111:A Al'PLICATj0,,4 17Oit RL'VIEW Ole REAL ESTATE VALUATION Datc 1 June 1977 Owner Byron H. Armstrong 4119 W. 62nd Street Address Assessor's Estimated 1•}ar.ket Va11-1c $ . oo:ner':: opinion of value $ Date of purchase June 27, 1968 Price 21,500 Subs trjnti::ting data ;or ov.ners value opinion. (a) l.eccnt purc:ilase of subject property. Date Price Terms (b) Recent sales of similar or neighboring property. Address Date Price 3 � i (c) Other information that substantiates your opinion of your property value, such as recent construction costs of similar properties; appraisals or other value opinion (attach copy if possible). Use additional sheets if necessary. Since buying this my first house I have learned that there are various.criteria on which the above values are determined. In this case it is to be noted that neither ,+ha _zaxpansion grgs uRstpirs nor the recreation room in the basementare heated or used. 2) driveway is gravel 3) one stall garage with no room to.make a 2 stall attached roo mo s ure r severe flaking and peeling of paint 6 stucco on chimney breaking apart taking part of bricks wittit 7 creens of por h ne $ ere - no or co toner or Y. �1 wa r amage o inter or as er c e ga Note: For income producing or cornercial properties include for 3 years, if possible: (1) Annual gross income. (2) Annual expenses itemized. (3) Lease terms or rent roll as applicable. I do hereby affirra that the allove information is complete and tru o the best of my knot: ledge and belief. r' L Signature. 6 1 applicant Byron H. Armstrong i .j .l i4 C1TY Ll:. I'1)i.J ;/► - -� G �1� �QC/ 1:5TATE VLLIJAT1ON Date J1 '1�c' l /y �71 Assessor's i stilnated l;arket Value Owner Is opinion of value $ 'tee /1'g/i-- 5 /��a� /799VIC- :5f�c �a�d1c ✓e /- Date of purchase -,L-7e , � e�: e,.' Price Sub;;t nt i atin� slat, for ow -nerc ,aluc op inion. =--(z- KCCC!nt purc:i:asc of suO)ject proi)crty. U1 to - Pri.cc Terns (b) Recent sales of similar or neighboring property. Ad6ress Date Price lee 3; A-4A /E. , • / (c) Other information that substantiates your opinion of your property* value, such as recent construction costs of similar properties; appraisals or • other value opinion (attach copy if possible). Use additional sheets if necessary. 14%y /�� r+-� .2 /�.� � � � i-� .� e� t—l'e ..� /cl �� i°� � � a�.9.4 b s-,. • c"rri Vd C c� �� /� c��'�i f,'s� l fi ^a f�� 1 ?�,L'.s E' �a1 fa /'2 C� n �li'1�.��r I•t/e )^k . ✓ ar'�c " / /�� .12 L ^�, d/' [� T ! ?c•' V ci LU..� ; T/ j/ � - - &� Note: For income producing_ or cmmercial properties include for 3 years, if possible: (1) Annual gross i.ncore. (2) Annual expenses itemized. (3) Lease terms or rent roll.as applicable. Z clo he affirm that the :shove information is• complete and true to the best of my knowledl;c and lwli.ef. Sil;uaturc of :ipPliLant CITY OF 1aI1:A ; -.. -.. APPiICATI0;1 17OR REVIK: l 0'11' R-FAL ESTATE VALUATION f Date ,, / 'J( Owner _ .226Yyt/ 4 '7f fi' IC..!�' �F'. 47— /tT4�ot.!2 Address,` IV • Assessor's Estimated Market Value Owner's opinion of value $ 45jQ,0 Z Date of purchase 4p 7 Price Substantiating data for owners value opinion. (a) Recent purchase of subject property. Date - Price Terms (b) Recent sales of riil4r or neigla;cri ^^ prod erty• A Address s'9�ns��o _ Date ,�,� Price w x — (c) Other information that substantiates your cpinion of your property value, such as recent construction costs of similar properties; appraisals or other value opinion (attach copy if possible). Use additional sheets if necessary. k,JA. AAI J.,w. �A✓�tii 11./r��� � $'416. 53'0 v1 /979 /1iu/�.�'S3. �0�1 /s./i�.�.,a►�.t. liu, . A v IF I do hereby affirm that the above information is complete and true to the best of my knowledge and belief. • SignaCure of apt icant CITY 01F I'DII,'A ®� �. (t 7 17 1;1:'JIi :i: 01 l:i !.L 1:.;'L':,'li: V11 0!; Owncr -�j C -.'y14 ESj ���� / Y Gary v� `,l C.tAXI c�• Auclress • l�sscssor's F.stim ted Market Value $ Owner's opinion of value $ Dat-c of purchase Price $uhst I "!i- i.'.tint, (1.t8 for owners value opinion., (a) RecenL pul. -ChAse of - subjecL property. Date Prj.cc Terns (b) neccnt sale:: of similar or neighborin,; property. Address Dare Price (c) other i.nforrlation that substantiaLes your opinion of your property value, such as recent construction costs of sirli_lar properties; appraisals or • other value opinion (attach copy if possible). Use additional sheets if necessary. %OyJeS` l�Lt a r-�e_ ✓27:1 u �_ ! n e r. S - b l"CL CD�'bUr raA I lJ S -M.- I O ' ►� --F LL'i _ O � � I A. /C /� II � 1 6 Gr�ocl �') 6trlGtV "l2© '1`1 re fo- -2_ Ito C°eyzzn4 IC, '.'T' 1 Om �'$ %'ZF3 7' ✓t / Yt e =� ��LS�•e�v� 1't-o !.t)lc. i %JO Lt� '"' �-,h, f B-�t. �L.� r t MOMS / � � [_5���:�5 �S S l ?oUse- -Ma..u. ZLI C— Note: For income producing or cou= r.cial_ piiop(erties include for ,3 years, if possible: (1) Annt,.al gross ilzcorce. (2) Annual expenses itemized. (3) Lease terns or rent roll as applicable. 1 do hereby affirri that the above information is complete and true to t: e best of my l:rn,�:lc(il;c and belief. ` ir.nat:ure'oi applicant KORSUNSKY KRANK ARCHITECTS, INC. May 26, 1977 I Ft t ARCHITECTS / PLANNERS / INTERIOR DESIGN t 1 Ir Mr. Kenneth P. Swanson City Assessor City of Edina 4801 West 50th Street Edina, Minnesota 55424 Re: Platt 76961 Parcel 7200 7201 c ey Drive Dear Mr. Swanson: I wish to thank you for the response to my inquiry regarding the valuation of my residence. My inquiry is not so much my disputing the valuation you have set for my property as it is in determining how you established this specific value. Therefore, I would like to receive from your office all copies of the information you have used to establish this valuation so that I can determine if I feel you have done it correctly. I believe it is my right under the Federal Right To Know law recently enacted to know precisely how valuations were done and to obtain a copy of all worksheets the individual assessors used in determining this value. After receiving this information from you, I will then be in a better position to determine whether or not I disagree. Until such time I cannot blankly accept the valuations as set forth. Thank you for your assistance. Yours ver truly, Ron d Krank R :d 555 SHELARD TOWER 600 SOUTH COUNTY ROAD 18 MINNEAPOLIS, EAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 55426 (612)546 -5361 .i .7une 7, 1977 FuzEic k:rur:t !wi S'chey Drive LGl:tli3, 1`.d r3:ii3:7 Krazuk: Enclosed are co °:�:s of our record:; for your hone at 7201 Schey Drive. 1. Record of valuation of your ho-ma. Note the 1977 entry includes an isprovement of $4,300 for pool. The balance of adjustment is similar to that of surrounding properties. 2. Report of inspection made in 1974.with adjustments for 1975 value. 3. Original value analysis made in 1967, but, including value on recent pool and addition. The originals;, are on file for your inspection, if there are any questions. DYours very truly, Kent. P. Swanson, Assessor City of Edina KPS/ j r Encl. (3) CITY OF LDINA APPLICATION' FOR 1?EV1Ei' Or 1'iEAL 1::;TAT1: VAI,ME1O11 4 / Date ro --�- -A 4% Owner K N (I I Address C'. /Z C'v X17 • Assessor's Estimated Market Value Owner's opinion of value $ Date of purchase / 7�� Price '9 !JO D Substantiating data for owners value opinion. (a) Recent purchase of subject property. Date - Price Terms (b) Recent sales of similar or neighboring property. Address Date Price (c) Other information that substantiates your cpinion of your property value, such as recent construction costs of similar properties; appraisals or other value opinion (attach copy if possible). Use additional sheets if necessary. • sTYtJr. f e� �. e r Pf -91 ,= • 1 �/1 P Sc�i f1) E? .-++ Z_5 Si -V lei At, T` 0 .c/f` al O V 1e to d` is - Q. e cL L 5 4 ti AA e l"" P � B 7Ze A:.y) V I?_, b e_e &0 eJ_J 2d r.& al C3? S Se S� • L e As S-Q_ -e,� , ito•2 a ,i o•�7 /Ce �• '�-/�, c? rtL aZ s L,.t b s 744? I do licreby affirm that the above information is complete and true the best of my knowledge and belief. Sil;nature /of applicant A SU TINI SOIL 612/546 -6938 Mervyn V -less . Arthur E. Osriur,d Warren O. Ols --n Francis D. Hagen, Sr. Mr. K. A. Reishus 7309 Schcy Drdve Minneapolis, Minnesota 55435 7415 - WAYZATA BOULEVARD, SUITE I I I MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 55426 Job No. S -72109 September 2, 1975 re: Evaluation of House Settlement 7309 Schey Drive Edina, Minnesota The house at this lot was built in the last quarter of 1972. The south - easterly corner of the house is based in a sand fill material underlain by a lk foot thick layer of compressible organic silt between the 16h foot to.17 foot depths. This - portion of the house has undergone some settlement. We were retained to evaluate the extent of the problem, and to suggest remedial measures. The house was inspected on August 29, 1975 by James D. Ostrow, P.E. and the undersigned. SOIL AND FOUNDATION ENGINEERING. FIELD LOADING TESTS. ROAD SUBGRADE INVESTIGATIONS. EARTHWORK CONTROL n PAVEMENT DESIGN. MATERIALS TESTING. SUPERVISION AND CONSULTATIONS The outside backfill adjacent to the walls of the mouse has settles, with resultant settlement of patio slabs, etc." At the Present tine the surface drainage pattern is improper, and there are some areas that appear to drain toward the building instead of away from it. Associated with this, some areas of former surface water infiltration into the building were noted. The south- easterly corner of the house has settled. There are some cracks in the foundation walls and the basement floor slab, a doorway is warped, and the first floor above this area is not level. Approximately 2411 of differential settlement wap measured in the first floor. s 7— /Ae-rS +W'7- 1AR Qc: 1:_V f0 - l97b ��' 2c� ca /V DuD f?.c ms's ; i� e /v-4, -�P-� S ©v th _QV L • ANALYSIS AND REC0MMENDATIONS: In our opinion the majority of the settlement has already occurred. However, the potential for a slight amount of additional settlement remains. The house superstructure (above the masonry foundation walls) should be leveled by jacking it up, and placing appropriate shims between the top of the concrete block walls and the wood plate which rests on it. This work should be done by a carpenter working in conjunction with a building mover. Once the building work is completed doors and window frames which are presently skewed can be rehung and made to operate freely. SUBTERRANEAN ENGINEERING INC. KKn ,� MINNEAPOLIS. 'MINN. 3 r The exterior grading adjacent to the building should be improved, to provide positive drainage away from the building. It may be necessary to break out and re -lay the concrete patio.slab between the house and garage. New concrete should be separated from the brick vaneer by a tar - impregnated felt strip. The procedure recommended herein could be done again in several years if significant or troublesome settlements recur. SUBTERRANEAN ENGINEERING INC. MM /lp Distribution: Mery M�ndess Yn Registered Professional Engineer 2cc. Mr. K. A. Reishus lcc. File SUBTERRANEAN ENGINEERING INC. r n MINNEAPOLIS. MINN. -71 r- T T T T -f I Y OJT_ .J TC. !�- (I'luall-Ly coll,'i-rol• Tests ject S:I NN G 1, 1: ') FX'•1ILY DV,ELL . ING Report No. TDI'.'A MTN1"•,'FS0TA Job 5 -72109 No :.nd Cone Method .:-!-Icar ❑ :.her ❑ Depth below "P Notes: All tests correoted for stone content, where applicable, ASTOT Indicated Percent Compaction 00/b Max. Modified Proctor Dry Density D-1557 Max. Standard Proctor Dry Density D-698 A :ribution: :c Edina Bldg.Insp. Dept. Jones Const. Co. :c Gardne Masonry Co, :c File test. location below gub"A dz ❑ wet donatly moisture conlant 90 dry density maximum laboratory % compaction reco"mme ndallona no. Loclow till vurfp,co ❑ PC( dry d P.raity �1i a M F140 -T -S 1 SEE 95.01 141.7 6.0 128.1 130.3 98.3 APPROVED 8 2 PLAN 95.0' 139.6 6.7 128.1 130.3' 98.3 APPROVED -8 3 BELOW 95.0 140.5 5.5 129.1 136.3 99.1 APPROVED 72 mom U IME nil I= =`!MEMO "P Notes: All tests correoted for stone content, where applicable, ASTOT Indicated Percent Compaction 00/b Max. Modified Proctor Dry Density D-1557 Max. Standard Proctor Dry Density D-698 A :ribution: :c Edina Bldg.Insp. Dept. Jones Const. Co. :c Gardne Masonry Co, :c File Lkli ME �1i a M F140 MEMO mom IME nil I= =`!MEMO Lkli Owner Addres CITY OF EDINA J 1PPJJCATION FOR RE'V11:1.1 O1' It1:AL ESTATE' VALUATION 7 �� ii - •��oo D a t e I✓� uz1-�; , 7 7 Assessor's Estimated Market Value 7:� Owner s opinion of value % n • csi. Date of purchase ��Y %b �/97� Price _ ,- /, C 0 0 /il-t�)LC�- '6.�.:.w V �i�- tii'►'�.a,0 Lr�- =L�:1 C C,,-k:,, /`n -A L J V I do hereby affirm that the above information is complete and true to the best of my knowledge and belief. n� ln1 Signature of e' icant A �a'+�� '' .y �,c,�,¢;.4 V c;�,►ti, /� ^ �.¢. /�,�m2,. '.4 CiM-' �;n,;�11� �- s�'� -Ge.� �.Y ..',,• --y1'� %'..- �n- i.—u:� �nn ctG�.c.� /�X�. ��.�,,.� l I�.� �.arne -. �a�'c.�( ;:r.. a., • I-A=tt T1-1• ... a-�- J 7r�L �c� O •'►� ¢� ---PM C r� rca c P ia- � 1 . \ /7 � _..� ti cr+�ca . .. <t a cr�'"C� � n� /0 Substantiating data for owners value opinion. (a) Recent purchase of stibject property. Date l!7f/ obcr, Price S�f 0r^,r, Terris (b) Recent sales of similar or neighboring prop,e lty. r. � �� �i i )- Address D a t e,b . �u a.�.<�( /-ti:<a :t i'rc e 1-4 �: � A x/:77 ,Cc",c �j. 5.�� Y Nr�2�. -�• /�'L'e S f ®��C:. [���1� , 9 e� �) � �.5 !r; � 0 3i�3 . �. � L 3/77, VC �/9� f, cc; c- 3� � 7 3t c �� JG�v -81571 (c) Otler nfornation that substantiates your opinion of your property value, such as recent construction costs of similar properties; appraisals or • other value opinion (at -Lach copy if possible). Use additional sheets if necessary. /il-t�)LC�- '6.�.:.w V �i�- tii'►'�.a,0 Lr�- =L�:1 C C,,-k:,, /`n -A L J V I do hereby affirm that the above information is complete and true to the best of my knowledge and belief. n� ln1 Signature of e' icant A �a'+�� '' .y �,c,�,¢;.4 V c;�,►ti, /� ^ �.¢. /�,�m2,. '.4 CiM-' �;n,;�11� �- s�'� -Ge.� �.Y ..',,• --y1'� %'..- �n- i.—u:� �nn ctG�.c.� /�X�. ��.�,,.� l I�.� �.arne -. �a�'c.�( ;:r.. a., • I-A=tt T1-1• ... a-�- J 7r�L �c� O •'►� ¢� ---PM C r� rca c P ia- � 1 . \ /7 � _..� ti cr+�ca . .. <t a cr�'"C� � n� /0 1 � 4 AZ Owner! Address CITY OF L'DINA A1'PI.ICJVrI0117 FOR REVIEW 0: REAL 1 :.STATC VALUAlIO2 Date •7 Assessor's, Estimated Market Value D t' Owner's opinion of value $ 7F" e e Date of purchase ! Price -? ,� o b Substantiating data for owners value opinion. (a) Recent purchase of subject property. Date - Price Terms (b) Recent sales of similar ox neighboring properly. • Address Date Price (e) Other information that substantiates your opinion of your property value, such as recent construction costs of similar properties; appraisals, or other value opinion (attach copy if possible). Use additional sheets if necessary. do hereby affirm that the above information is complete and true to the best of my knowledge and belief. ** ES: 5113 Millpond Place • Signature o .applicant Re: Local boara o =,nev.- Property at 6115 Arctic Way Gentlemen: As per our recent conversation, I have requested that the 1977 market value and limited market value in regard to.the above en- titled property be reviewed. As I told you, I will be out of town on June 13, 1977, and you suggested that.the review can be made • if I directed a letter to your office. This is my.request for review. Based upon our brief examination of comparable houses in the vicinity, it would appear that the limited value should be approximately $93,000.00. The cost of the lot was $22,000.00 and included a pay- . off of specials and back taxes by the previous owners. The contract price of the house was $71,694.00. My house has a two car garage whereas most of the comparables have three. Notwithstanding, the range of limited market value was $80,000.00 to $94,000.00. Thank you for your consideration and the courteous and cooperative treatment I have received. Yours very truly, Robert G. Schiefelbein RGS /cp CITY Ui 1 :1 >7.i ;h . • .. t�° � i ��` � � •f �'� - _ -. - 777p �' �vo0 1 =ATi: V1-1- 11ATION a Da Ue 4/3ij Uric �: • Assessor's l:stir�aecd t( arket \'slue Owner's opinion of value Date of purchase Price �tn1 -1,: stir; data for o4�ncr va]:ue opinion. a u . (n) 1.eccrlt purcha::c of ::ul)ject property. ii.:tL ' 1'r i.cc Tcrrrs (b) recent saic: of. sirni):ar or neil;llho:-Ir,9 Price. property. l,ct Date e_ drCSS . (c) Other information that -substantiates your opinion of your - property value, such as recent construction cows of similar properties; appraisals or • other v -alue opinion (attach copy if possible). Use additional sheets if Note: For income prod properties include for 3 years, if possible: (1) Annual gross income. (2) Annual expenses itemized. (3) Lease terms or rent roll.as applicable.. x do hereby .affirm that the al,avc inform tion is• complete and true to the best of my knoWledre anti hclief. ;;i.};naLurc 01 a1)1)liL:auL CITY or EDI2�/1a,' G -'l 3 _ 7 7 ___ .�.__• .. APPLICATION FOR REVIEW OF REAL ESTATE VALUATION Date D' Owner Address Assessor's Estimated Market Value Owner's opinion of value $S_ 2�0 U Date of purchase i L Price ?el), Substantiating data for wners value opinion. (a) Recent purchase of subject property. Date Price Terms (b) Recent sales of similar or neigl.uoring property. Address Date Price (c) Other information that substantiates your opinion of your property value, such as recent construction costs of similar properties; appraisals or other value opinion (attach copy if possible). Use additional sheets if necessarv. _ I do hereby affirm that the above information is complete and true to the best of my knowledge and belief. • S nature•of applicant Ili;li!;fait; P1a)YTil','CY VALUES ,4� -7 ° VALUE PER AC. 39,100 27,600 12,000 BASED ON 90.75 AC. 33,400 29,850 12,000 31,600 38,400 • le . �. �..N I�.f -w� c i, 33,700 38,400 36,400 44,350 40,600 • 1, a 1.970 �; �E� 1972 0' 1973 1975 1976 1977 (71 SAME) (74. Same) PARCEL ORIGINAL. 369,000 ADJUSTED 276,000 COURT 1119000 ORIGINAL 370,000 ADJUSTED 294,000 COURT 111,000 ORIGINAL 310,000 MARKET 495,720 LIMITED 356,400 MARKET 495,720 LIMITED 3922000 MARKET 500,000 LIMITED 431,200 0800 1200 399,000 225,000 120,000 270,000 2709000 120,000 285,000 267,030 267,000 267,030 2679000 323,000 293,700 2800 11500,000 1,125,000 450,000 1,280,000 1,175,000 450,000 1,232,000 1,494,000 1,355,200 1,494,000 1,494,000 1,727,000 1,643,500 4800 740,100 555,000 216,000 720,000 576,000 216,000 600,000 803,250 660,000 803,250 726,000 9729000 850,400 5300 99,900 75,000 60,000 100,000 100,000 601000 125,000 1352000 135,000 135,000 135,000 163,000 148,500 6400 219,900 123,600 66,000 147,000 147,000 661000 159,500 144,000 1441000 1441000 1441000 170,000 158,400 6800 21.9,900 123,600 66,000 147,000 147,000 66,000 159,500 144,000 144,000 !44,000 1441000 170,000 158,400 TOTAL 3,547,800 2,503,200 1,089,000 3,034,000 2,709,000 1,089,000 2,871,000 3,483,000 3,061,600 3,483,000 3,302,000 4,025,000 39684,100 VALUE PER AC. 39,100 27,600 12,000 BASED ON 90.75 AC. 33,400 29,850 12,000 31,600 38,400 • le . �. �..N I�.f -w� c i, 33,700 38,400 36,400 44,350 40,600 • 1, a AGGREGATE ASSESSMENT /SALES RATIO BASED INDICATED MARKET VALUE .mow+ r^IJNTY rc ASSFScrR,c AGr.RFGATE INDICATED 141 "J14 F01 MARKET VALUE DATIO 14APKET VALlic FESIrc•JTTAL NASSAN 6,855,945 05.0 7,216,784 R7n'1KLYN: CENTER 194,617,690 P7.3 222,Q2c.77C CHAMPLIN 509SP6986? 91.0 559589.959 ClYSTAL 1R9,246,172 86.7 21893349685 DFE04pVcN J Otws SC,456.701 646.7741115 _ 87.9 03.14 57.071.219 688.591,�9� p' 9 3• D EXCcLSTIP 14,6.'0.783 84.9 117 ,267.115 lLnE'a VALLEY 23P.7279055 R9.2 26796 ?19227 HIDMI•45 RQ.1019114 84.9 100,226,224 LING LAKE 129°0139403 96.4 14,46149059 . MAPLC PL "T ^J F.361,711 89.2 9,480, ?97 4TNNFTrNK4 PEACH 1C.206.59C 86.9 119745,212 4'IIINr 64,507,176 86.6 7494814,655 nSScO 16.131.252 RR.S 18.227,403 PTCHFTFLn 299.0209157 88.6 3369376,023 RnRPI'!SDALF 1269044,52A 90.4 139,42Q.785 ST Lr'ITS DARK 363.9019214 149.2 4079961.002 SDPINr, DARK 6,04 "9669 P7.8 69882. ?10 TINKA PSY 1591487,885 85.7 18.5 18,955 a' WAY7ATA 40.9929037 83.1 4993214,564 RLQnml T'7N 633,7829324 91.2 694,93A,758 - NFW WIDE 156.0429118 92.3 169.059.716 mADLF r:ReWE 76.4149029 91.2 8397879?12 �✓�- -� MenTe!A 19,715,886 66.9 22.6889015 `cry OPDYO 93,5Q6,13R 96.2 1089580,206 ...•, J PL YNr?'JTH 211,745,487 91 .5 231, 415, 832 "4x AROCKLYN DAPK 1a1,14C,980 91.0 1999 0 55,S12 GaFFNannD 7,635907C 86.9 8,797.C85 41NNFTnNKA 350.E ?0.441 90.3 ,389,580079 SHnrFWflnn 48094.21q P"3.7 57,460,237 INnFDFNOEra CF 14,1029145 90.Q 15,513.910 GRcc#!FIEIn 5,507,3P1 94.5 5.827.916 CORCORAN 1394119299 91.2 1497059359 MININETPISTA 27.031,744 88.8 309441.153 EnEk PPATRIE 119.259.551 92.3 118.373,294 • DAYTrkJ 1c9271,586 96.2 2090329833 MINNFAPPLIS 2,075,353.14f. 97.8_ 2,363.•727.956 ST ANTHONY 61,015,393 89.8 67.990.415 CCUNTYWInE 6,574.369,931 89.3 7#355,644,909 ! , APAQTMSNTS ST L^UTS PARK 62,463.1Q6 94.5 66909P,620 r RLC`rmINRTO "J 849110.910 56.9 86,991,435 MINNEAPf`LTS 442,479,934 91.9 481,479097 r C- UNTYWTnE 1,0109390.341 92.5 1.0919390.858 QECREATICNAL COUNTYI.IRE P,931#414 96.4 9,264.952 a - F4R9 COUNTYWIDE 114.550.386 82.6 139,165,116 _ COM'4FRCIAL EDING 15091059140 98.2 152.956. °59 f . / WIPKI15 91,354,747 81.3 3895669724 D TCHFIFLD 46.878.400 104.0 459075.384_ ST LCJTS DAPK 104,5679700 100.4 104,146,115 RLOO- INr:TON 209,10Q,50C 04.3 221,749,214 MINUFAPOLIS 824,797,747 89.1 936,206.296 COUNTYWIDE 1,845,9769186 91.7 2,01199739892 INOUSTPTAL ST LriJTS DARK 35,710.708 97.7 36,551.492 9Ln0wINGTIN 145,4479170 85.7 16Q,7169651 MINNFAPOLIS 2919Q659430 87.2 3341822,740 COUNTYWIDE 744,396,010 80.4 841.875.478 DURLIC UTILITY CCUNTYWInF 12491509C78 103.0 1249150,078 COUNTY TOTAL 10,423,16A,34 an.0 11,573,45n,2R3 -53- STATE OF MINNESOTA STATISTICAL ANALYSIS OF 1975 ASSESSK21T SALES RATIO STUDY BASED ON ESTIMATED MAMW VALUES A-,L -162- CnUNTV OF MENNEP14 p' "FAN MEMAN AC- rRFCATE COEFF. OF COFFF. OF 14CEX OF STANDARD SAMPLE < RATIO 04Tin PATIO PISPFRSION VARTATIO14 REGAFSSION DEVIATION ITFNS �.r acs1'±C4TIAL UASSAV OR.* OR,6 qs.4 10.13 14.32 100.4 14.1 41 -OO'lKLYV CENTER 09,7 101.5 oP.o '17.14 11.09 100.8 11.0 905 Cy! "OL 1Y 99.1 q5.1 97.7 11.05 17.10 101.5 17.0 414 �r•0YST4L 06,4 95.1 05.2 10.00 13.74 101.1 13.2 9916 D« OH1VE4 99,3 92.3 95.'1 11.15 16.70 103.1 16.4 Iq5 JZIAI�S m c X^ -- QP.75_ - - 11.72 100.3 5 -12.1 ISR1 '•nLn°'I 00:9 114.1 oti3O 11.59 22.19--- r -- 1C3 -o--' 22.1 70�- T VALLFY 9T.R q6.6 q6.7 1004 13.42 101.0 13.1 883 4'IoKT4S 90.3 101.1 97,5 OP.50 13.62 100.7 13.3 279 L14, LArc 01.I 02.0 00.2 1 ?.12 10.50 100.0 17.7 72 �A'yl.F PLAIN 05.6 151.3 94.0 06.01 • 11.97 101.6 1 ?.2 47 "Iv•Ic*n4KA PEACH q5.4 97.1 95.2 13.7q 17.50 100.1 160 27 4^'149 q3.7 91.5 91.7 12.17 16.49 102.0 15.4 493 IssOl 9).5 q2.4 92.2 10.35 1302 q9.2 12.7 56 IICHCTVLF) 07.7 97,5 o6.R 09.49 12.44 100.8 12.3 13F2 �noRT'ISOILE 06,11 94.R 95.9 10.41 13.75 101.0 13.3 SS2 +�7 LI M PARK 96.5 90.q 95.2 ln.43 1K.74 101.2 13.2 1715 S0014: DARK 00.1 91.0 R9.? 12.79 1506 100.; 14.3 36 TnVrA RAY 9P.9 01.6 qh.R 11.81 13.10 102.0 13.0 SO vAY)AT4 94.0 95.0 R9.2 1003 13.g7 105.3 13.1 115 a171"T"GTn4 qQ.l 07.1 07,3 08.02 11.88 100.7 11.6 3003 VEW "-)PC 05.9 q4.6 94.8 09.03 12.23 100.9 11.7 F87 "O LC ,RIVE 95.4 90% 94.Ir 10.01 14.31 10I.R. 13.9 474 MF ^Tv4 101.7 101.5 97,9 11.17 16.23 101.8 16.5 75 70141 OLY -IUTH q7.6 95.7 .04.2 15,84 21.04 103.5 20.5 266 9R.�K 94.2 9P.1 08.76 11.06 100.3 11.7 1062 ROnnKLYV PARK ao,3 97,9 q8.7 07,03 11.13 100.6 11.0 1149 GQRS4y01r) 04.0 92.0 94.3 16.72 21.67 99.5 20.3 17 - vTv4cr'14KA 101.0 102.1 1000; 09.63 17.20 101.2 17.6 1445 cM'1R01'YN 99.7 91.5 97.2 10.96 17.14 102.5 17.0 138 TN7cocgosNCE 102.9 9R.R 100.0 12.27 21.12 102.8 21.7 S2 fl.2Er4CTEL0 100.2 q?. 1. 99.4 06.59 08.07 100.7 08.0 15 rl.%CIIA4 08.1 91.1 97.4 11.42 15.37 100.7 19.1 56 vi4VcTRIST4 95,7 q3.6 96.2 18.33 24.63 09.4 23.5 90 fnr4 +oalRIE 100.4 97,5 99,4 00.41 14.05 100.9 14.1 379 flsYr1'I 10S.3 104.4 107.9 11.70 17.90 102.2 18.8 148 41v4FkPDLTS qS.R 97.0 94.0 12.6A 17.50 101.9 16.9 11033 ST AVT1404Y 97.5 98.8 97.1 OP.06 10.16 100.3 09.9 124 C1'I��TYMIOE 97.2 06.9 96.2 10.94 15.31 100.9 14.8 30458 AOAITMCNTc ST L)'I!S PARK 95.0 90.2 94.5 13.59 22.07 100.1 20.9 76 4L7')"1V,TnN q4,1 90.0 97.6 07.63 11.62 96.4 10.9 23 •1v4FAPOLTS 92.4 94.0 92.7 10.95 15.89 99.6 14.6 298 C31JNTYMIDE 93.3 92.3 q3.3 11.04 16.43 9909 1S.3 424 FARE C1114TY111DE 105.9 97.1 113.8 24.43 30.46 93.0 32.2 16 COMV CO F 111 FOINA 106.6 9000 09.9 14.07 16.97 106.8 18.1 116 WOKINS 96.8 79.0 87,9 13.52 15.00 98.6 13.0 24 RICHFIELD 108.9 111.3 108.9 08.76 12.06 9909 1301 12 ST Ll'IIS PARK 102.2 100.3 101.4 06.95 09.66 100.7 09.8 33 PL'1'1 "TNr'rlvl q5,3 04,5 06.9 12.47 18.05 q8.4 17.2 28 K144E4POLIS 91.1 90.2 88.3 14.01 19.06 102.0 17.1 247 C3'14TYMTOF. 95.8 95.7 93.3 14.29 19.26 102.6 16.4 SS2 WUSTR TAL - Sr Ln'I ►S PARK 100.7 101.•9 48.4 08.17 10.04 102.3 10.1 116 •Ll'TMIV,TDN 00.9 95.1 97.8 11013 19.35 103.4 13.9 116 41VNCSOOLIS 90.6 90.5 RR.O 10.47 13.87 103.1 12.6 72 C9u4TYMIDE 93.3 94.1 90.7 12.97 17006 102.8 19.9 116 -162- n..aa..s h..i& Ass. STATE pr «IwhfSGIA STATISTICAL ANALYSIS CF 1076 SAIiS ASSESS•. MT wAf�u ����� L/ .vNV6i AnEoseeS 65r -.- .4-60 ol*oC kf ET yAz-a CCUNTY OF MENNEPIN 94`• +• MEAN MEDIAN AGGREGATE COEFF. OF COEFF. OF INDEX OF ST ►NOARO • RATIO RATIO RATIO DISPERSLON VARIATION REGRESSION 0EVIAf10►1 ITEMS - -�-3g C�ai��taeJ�T�ES - • RESIDENTIAL 96.3 96.4 95.5 07.44 11.07 10048 10.6 4S _ _HASSAN _ OR09KLYN CENTER _ 100.7 100.3 99.4 09.53 11.68 12.56 15.06 101.2 101.4 12.6 16.4 877 399 CHAMPLiN 109.2 96.7- 105.7 95.3 107.6 95.7 09094 13.02 100.9 12.6 984 ___CRYSTAL _ _ DEEPHAVEN 97.2 9609 96.1 /4;"97 10.73 09.90 16.06 101.0 15.6 163 1761 EOINA 97.6/9497.4 98.2 .1 r� 95.8 10.08 %5 14.00 r-o f 100.9 dr 13.5 LSE r MOTr _ EXCELSIOR GOLDEN VALLEY 9608 97.9 97.5 96.7 .10.66 13.97 101.2 101.4 13.6 12.9 783 280 HOPKINS 99.8 9908 98.3 09.33 10.77 12.96 17.15 101.7 16.4 79-1 --LONG LAKE 95.8 99.8 96.0 100.0 94.t 58.1 _.. 10.01 15.07 101.6 15.0 50 MAPLE PLAIN MA MIPLETPLAI BEACH 97.5 95.3 9701 15.43 19055 100.3 10105 1900 1.1 26 494 MOUND -. _ _ _ _ .., ._ 99.8 _ 99.6 58.2 . __ 11082 12.38 _ 16.18 16.85 _ 10000 15.9 5 66 OSSEO 94.5 99.5 97.0 98.7 94.4 98.5 10.73 13028 10009 19.2 1276 RICHFIELD ROBBINSOALE. 96.6. 96.0 95.3 L0.80 14.56 101.3 102.9 14.0, 14..0 510 15 _ ST BnNIFACE 107.1 102.8 104.0 12.20 10.56 13.07 13.53 100.7 1300 1679 ST LOUIS PARK 96.3 95.3 95.5 93.9 19.07 . -. 99.3. 17.8 _ .- -_ 37 _ SPRING PARK, _ _ 93.4 97.3 93.4 96.2 ._.. 95.2 ,.14.07 16.36 _.. 22.91 102.1 22.3 42 TONK A BAY TONK ATA 98.0 96.8 95.6 11.17 16.79 10294 100.7 16.4 12.5 118 - 2669 BLOOMINGTON ._ 96.7 96.0 96.0 09.87 09.17 12.95 12.12 100.9 _ 11.7 637 NEW HOPE 96.9 95.5 96.0 95.9 96.0 94.4 10.60 16.25 10101 15.5 742 65 MAPLE GROVE MED,INA 101.9 - -__ 102.5 100.3 -_ 10.31. _ _.. 14139.. - .... 101.5 ._ - 101.3 _ 14.6,_.__. 18.4 _ 232 OR4N0 96.9 96.7 95.6 14.44 09.47 19.05 13.93 100.6 13.6 . 1117 PLYMOUTH 98.0 97.6 9 8.2 97.9 97.4 96.8 08.96 13.14 100.7 12.8 1434 BROOKLYN GREENWOOD 100.3 93.2 ,_ •100.6 18.41 23.15 99.6 101.4 23.2 14.6 23 1331 MINNETONKA 97.0 97.1 95.5 11.15 15.10 SHOREW000_ _ 9893 98.2 S6.2 11.20 16.79 20.36 102.1 102.1 16.5 20.5 130 40 INDEPENDENCE 100.7 96.8 58.5 93.7 13.75 10.29 13.09 101.4 12.4 18 GREENFIELD 95.1 97.5 97.2 @.1 97.5 10.54 _ 15.40 - - - - .15-0 - OBCORAN.. -_ -- MINNETRISTA _ -. •...9 92.3 . 93.9 __ 93.2 -- -16.30 20.80 98.9 100.8 9.2 12.5 67 558 EDEN PRAIRIE 97.7 98.6 56.8 96.7 09.02 - 10.63 12.88 15.28 -10108 15.0 116 .-DAYTON _ _ _ _ MINNEAPOLIS _ 9815 97.0 98.1 95.9 95.3 13.55 17083 10107 17.3- 11.0. 10211 118 ST ANTHONY 93.0 93.3 '92.9 09.44 11689 10000 COUNTYwIOE 97.5 96.9 96.3 11.48 15049 10101 1501 29340 AnP.TBENTS .. -- . -- MINNEAPOLIS - -- 89.6 - 90.7 90.1 .13.24 18.35 99.4 16.4 191 19.62 ___.. 9418 .. _. 1719. 255 .._ .. FARM COUNTY7.IDE 84.4 78.8 81.8 30.33 36.99 103.1 31.2 26 COMMERCIAL ST LOUIS PARK ST LOUIS 92.6 BT.b 92.7 23983 30.01 99.8 96.5 27.7 26.5 18 86.4._ 84.1 89.5 89.8 23.74• 21.46• 30.70 26.09 94.7 22.2 138 MINNEAPOLIS 85.2 63.9 _rntjHIyh1DF Bi.7. _._86.0 ._ _86.2 20.44 '26.46. _• . 99.3 .. . _. 22.6. _.� 328