HomeMy WebLinkAbout2011/04/25 - ADMIN - Agenda Packets - City Council - Regular
AGENDA
APRIL 25, 2011
6:15 p.m. LOCAL BOARD OF APPEAL AND EQUALIZATION – Council Chambers
6:30 p.m. STUDY SESSION – Council Chambers
Discussion Items
1. 6:30 p.m. Future Study Session Agenda Planning – May 9, 2011
2. 6:35 p.m. Nestlé HealthCare Nutrition Property
3. 7:05 p.m. Update on Freight Rail Meetings/Process
4. 7:25 p.m. Communications/Meeting Check-In (Verbal)
Written Reports
5. March 2011 Monthly Financial Report
6. First Quarter Investment Report (January - March, 2011)
7. 2011 Community Open House
8. Update on Pending Westwood Villa Condominium Association Housing Improvement Area
(HIA)
9. Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Funds for 2011
Meetings of April 25, 2011
LBAE, Study Session, EDA and City Council Agenda
7:30 p.m. ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY – Council Chambers
1. Call to Order
2. Roll Call
3. Approval of Minutes
3a. Economic Development Authority Minutes April 4, 2011
4. Approval of Agenda
5. Reports
5a. Economic Development Authority Vendor Claims
6. Old Business
7. New Business
7a. Authorization to Submit Grant Applications for the Wooddale Pointe Project.
Recommended Action:
1) Motion to adopt the resolution authorizing the Executive Director and President to
submit a grant application to the Department of Employment and Economic
Development (DEED) Contamination Clean-up Grant Program on behalf of Greco
Development.
2) Motion to adopt the resolution authorizing the Executive Director and President to
submit a grant application to the Metropolitan Council Tax Base Revitalization Grant
Program on behalf of Greco Development.
3) Motion to adopt the resolution authorizing the Executive Director and President to
submit a grant application to the Hennepin County Environmental Response Fund
Program on behalf of Greco Development.
8. Communications
9. Adjournment
Meetings of April 25, 2011
LBAE, Study Session, EDA and City Council Agenda
7:40 p.m. CITY COUNCIL MEETING – Council Chambers
1. Call to Order
1a. Pledge of Allegiance
1b. Roll Call
2. Presentations
2a. Beautify the Park Proclamation
3. Approval of Minutes
3a. Special Study Session Minutes April 4, 2011
3b. City Council Meeting Minutes April 4, 2011
3c. Special City Council Meeting Minutes April 11, 2011
4. Approval of Agenda and Items on Consent Calendar
NOTE: The Consent Calendar lists those items of business which are considered to be routine and/or which need no
discussion. Consent items are acted upon by one motion. If discussion is desired by either a Councilmember or a
member of the audience, that item may be moved to an appropriate section of the regular agenda for discussion. The
items for the Consent Calendar are listed on the last page of the Agenda.
Recommended Action:
Motion to approve the agenda as presented and to approve items on the consent calendar.
(Alternatively: Motion to add or remove items from the agenda, motion to move items from consent calendar to
regular agenda for discussion and to approve those items remaining on the consent calendar.)
5. Boards and Commissions -- None
6. Public Hearings
6a. Public Hearing and Final Bond Resolution - Issuance of Private Activity Revenue Bonds
for Benilde-St. Margaret’s School.
Recommended Action: Mayor to open and close the public hearing. Motion to Adopt
Final Bond Resolution Authorizing the Issuance of Private Activity Revenue Bonds for
Benilde-St. Margaret’s School.
7. Requests, Petitions, and Communications from the Public – None
8. Resolutions, Ordinances, Motions and Discussion Items
8a. Project Report: 2011 MSA Street Rehab (Park Center Blvd.) - Project No. 2010 1100
Recommended Action: Motion to Adopt Resolution Accepting the Project Report,
establishing Improvement Project No. 2010-1100 approving plans and specifications, and
authorizing advertisement for bids for Improvement Project No. 2010-1100.
8b. Resolution Approving 2011 International Association of Firefighters (IAFF) Local #993
Labor Agreement.
Recommended Action: Motion to Adopt the attached Resolution approving a Labor
Agreement between the City and the IAFF Local #993, establishing terms and conditions
of employment for one year, from 1/1/11 – 12/31/11.
9. Communication
Auxiliary aids for individuals with disabilities are available upon request. To make arrangements, please call
the Administration Department at 952/924-2525 (TDD 952/924-2518) at least 96 hours in advance of meeting.
Meetings of April 25, 2011
LBAE, Study Session, EDA and City Council Agenda
4. CONSENT CALENDAR
4a. Designate Cool Air Mechanical as the lowest responsible bidder for the dehumidification
project in The Rec Center East Arena and authorize execution of a contract with the firm
in the amount of $284,728.00
4b. Designate Valley Paving, Inc. the lowest responsible bidder and authorize execution of
contract with the firm in the amount of $1,381,042.10 for the 2011 Local Street
Rehabilitation Project – Area 7, Project No. 2010-1000 & 2011-1400
4c. Approve the 2011 Neighborhood Grants
4d. Authorize staff to execute an agreement with NEXGEN for Public Works Asset
Management software licenses and implementation services
4e. Adopt Resolution certifying the special assessment for the demolition costs in the amount
of $20,014.13 for the property at 3317 Texas Avenue South
4f. Adopt Resolution accepting a donation from Cardiac Science of an Automated External
Defibrillator (AED) valued at $1995 to be used by the Police Department’s Emergency
Response Unit
4g. Amend Contract No. 29-08 Joint & Cooperative Agreement for Leasing Fire Department
Breathing Apparatus (SCBA) and approve Third Amended and Restated Joint &
Cooperative Agreement for Public Safety Purchasing
4h. Approve for Filing Housing Authority Minutes March 9, 2011
4i. Approve for Filing Planning Commission Minutes March 2, 2011
4j. Approve for Filing Planning Commission Minutes March 16, 2011
4k. Approve for Filing of Vendor Claims
St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority and regular City Council meetings are carried live on Civic TV
cable channel 17 and replays are frequent; check www.parktv.org for the schedule. The meetings are also streamed
live on the internet at www.parktv.org, and saved for Video on Demand replays. The agenda is posted on Fridays
on the official city bulletin board in the lobby of City Hall and on the text display on Civic TV cable channel 17.
The agenda and full packet are available by noon on Friday on the city’s website.
2011 Local Board of Appeal and Equalization
April 25, 2011
City Council Chambers
6:15 p.m.
AGENDA
1. Convene the St. Louis Park Local Board of Appeal and Equalization
2. Roll Call – Declaration of Quorum
3. Appoint Chair
4. Acknowledgement of Trained Members (Omodt & Santa)
5. Accept Roster of Appellants and Call for Any Additions
6. Determination of Date and Time for Continued Proceedings (Reconvene)
… Suggested as May 9, 2011 prior to Study Session …
7. Instruct Assessor to:
a. Inform Appellants of Reconvene Date via Telephone and Certified Mail
b. Re-Inspect and Re-Appraise Parcels Under Appeal
8. Completion of the Local Board Certification Form
9. Recess
Meeting of April 25, 2011 Page 2
Subject: 2011 Local Board of Appeal and Equalization
Staff Report - 2011 St. Louis Park Local Board of Appeal and Equalization
All property owners are entitled to the right of appeal regarding their classification and market
value. The City is required by statute to conduct a Local Board of Appeal and Equalization
meeting to hear appeals. The property classification is determined by the actual use of the
property. The market value is based on a) records maintained for every property and b) market
conditions as of the date of the assessment (January 2, 2011). Minnesota statute requires that all
properties are to be valued at full market value.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Undertake actions as indicated on the Agenda
BACKGROUND:
In most jurisdictions and our historic practice, the Local Board is accomplished in two meetings.
The first meeting is used to convene the Board, set the Board process, note that appeals are taken
under advisement for further consideration at the reconvene meeting and to determine the
date/time for continuation of the proceedings. The second meeting (reconvene) is used to hear
and decide the merit of each appeal. The Local Board process depends on active participation
from all parties involved including the board members, the property owner and assessing staff.
The Board must conclude its business within 20 days of convening, this year by May 14, 2011.
The Assessor’s Office will compile a roster of parcels under appeal which will be presented to
the Board once convened. The roster will be finalized at the Board meeting by calling for any
other appeals to be entered into the record. All parcels under appeal will be re-appraised by the
assessing staff. All property owners are requested to complete a form stating their basis of
appeal, their estimate of the market value and informed that they have the opportunity to present
information supporting their opinion of value and/or classification.
As part of the Local Board process, A Local Board of Appeal Certification Form must be signed
–at each Board meeting– by all Board members present. One trained and certified Board
member must be present at each meeting of the Board (either Paul Omodt or Sue Santa).
For 2011, it is suggested that the Board reconvene prior to the May 9, 2011 study session to hear
the appeals. All cases can be decided the same night they are heard or, if additional time is
needed, a second reconvene date can be set. Following a decision by the Local Board, the
property owner is notified of the decision with sufficient time allowed for the owner appeal at the
County Board of Appeal and Equalization. The Hennepin County Board of Appeal and
Equalization begins June 13, 2011. An application is required no later than May 25, 2011. To
appear before the County Board, all appellants must first have appealed before the St. Louis Park
Board of Appeal and Equalization. Property owners may also appeal directly to the Minnesota
State Tax Court.
Attachments: Summary of Duties and Responsibilities
Memo from the Department of Revenue (2008)
Sample – Letter to be Sent to Each Property Owner on the Roster
LBAE Final Handbook 2009
Prepared by: Cory Bultema, City Assessor
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Meeting of April 25, 2011 Page 3
Subject: 2011 Local Board of Appeal and Equalization
LOCAL BOARD OF APPEAL AND EQUALIZATION
SUMMARY OF DUTIES AND RESPONSIBILITIES
Most of the responsibilities listed under the Local Board of Appeal and Equalization are
statutory, primarily found in Minnesota Statutes 274.01.
The first responsibility is attendance. The Local Board of Appeal and Equalization is an
official public meeting similar to a City Council meeting and must have a quorum to
convene. In addition, the local assessor, the county assessor, or one of his/her assistants is
required to attend.
At least one member, present at each meeting of the Local Board of Appeals and
Equalization (beginning in 2006), must have attended and be certified in an appeals and
equalization course as developed and approved by the Commissioner of Revenue.
The valuation notices shall be in writing and be sent by ordinary mail at least ten calendar
days before the meeting of the board. The valuation notice will include the dates, places and
times set for the meetings of the Local Board of Appeal and Equalization as well as the
Hennepin County Board of Appeal and Equalization.
The meetings must be held between April 1 and May 31 each year. The County Assessor
shall fix a day and time when the Local Board of Appeal and Equalization shall meet. The
board must complete its work and adjourn within 20 days from the time of convening stated
in the notice of the clerk, i.e., calendar days -- original night is day one.
The clerk shall give published and posted notice of the meeting at least ten days before the
date of the meeting.
The purpose of the Local Board of Appeal and Equalization is to provide a fair and objective
forum for property owners to appeal their valuation or classification. The goal of the Board
should be to attempt to address property owners’ issues efficiently, fairly and objectively.
Always keep in mind that any changes made by the Board must be substantiated by facts.
Any value changes must be justified because they have the effect of shifting the tax burden
from one property to others in the jurisdiction. Further, any changes made by the Board must
meet statutory guidelines.
Local Boards of Appeal and Equalization must see that all taxable property is properly
assessed, valued, and classified for all current assessments. The board may consider both
real and personal property.
If any property has been omitted, the board must correct the assessment by adding it to the
list of assessments along with its market value.
The board may not increase or decrease by percentage all assessments in a district of a given
class of property. Changes in the aggregate to assessments are by class and are made by the
county board of equalization.
Meeting of April 25, 2011 Page 4
Subject: 2011 Local Board of Appeal and Equalization
SUMMARY OF DUTIES AND RESPONSIBILITIES (Continued)
Although the Local Board of Appeal and Equalization has the authority to increase or
decrease individual assessments, the total of such adjustments must not reduce the aggregate
assessment by more than one percent. If the total reductions would lower the aggregate
assessments by more than one percent, none of the adjustments may be made. The assessor
shall correct any clerical errors or double assessments discovered by the board without regard
to the one percent limitation.
The local board does not have the authority to reopen former assessments on which taxes are
due and payable. The board only considers assessments in the current year.
The board may find instances of undervalued properties. The board must notify the owner of
the property that the value is going to be raised. The property owner may then appear before
the board if they so wish.
It is the primary duty of each local board to examine the assessment record to see that all
taxable property in the assessment district has been properly placed upon the list and valued
by the assessor. The local boards do not have the authority to address exemption issues.
Only the county assessor has the authority to exempt property.
A taxpayer may appear in person, by council, or written communication to present his or her
objection to the board. The focus of the appeal must center on the factors influencing the
estimated market value or classification placed on the property.
All changes will be entered into the assessment books by the county assessor’s office.
Further reference (attached separately) is provided by a complete copy of
the 2009 LBAE training manual. This manual gives considerably greater
detail as to the process and role of the Board in the assessment process.
Meeting of April 25, 2011 Page 5
Subject: 2011 Local Board of Appeal and Equalization
Memo
Date: March 20, 2008
To: All County Assessors, Local Assessors, and
Members of Local and County Boards of Appeal and Equalization
From: Andrea Fish, State Program Administrator
Information and Education Section
Subject: New Law Affecting 2008 Local and County Boards of Appeal and Equalization
Important Information Regarding Changes in Minnesota Statutes for Local and County
Boards of Appeal and Equalization
Minnesota Statutes, section 274.01, subdivision 1(b) has been amended to include the following
concerning local boards of appeal and equalization:
“A board member shall not participate in any actions of the board which result in market
value adjustments or classification changes to property owned by the board member, the
spouse, parent, stepparent, child, stepchild, grandparent, grandchild, brother, sister, uncle,
aunt, nephew, or niece of a board member, or property in which a board member has a
financial interest. The relationship may be by blood or marriage.”
We recommend that if a local board is faced with this scenario, the decision to continue with the
appeal shall be made by the remaining members of the board (assuming there is still a quorum). If
there is not a quorum, or the remaining board members feel that there may otherwise be a conflict of
interest, “No Change” should be marked on the record form and the property owner shall be able to
appeal to the county board.
Minnesota Statutes, section 274.13, subdivision 1 has been amended to include the following
concerning county boards of appeal and equalization:
“Members shall not participate in any actions of the board which result in market value
adjustments or classification changes to property owned by the board member, the spouse,
parent, stepparent, child, stepchild, grandparent, grandchild, brother, sister, uncle, aunt,
nephew, or niece of a board member, or property in which a board member has a financial
interest. The relationship may be by blood or marriage.”
The appeal shall be handled solely by the remaining members of the board who have no such interest
in the property.
These changes were effective the day following enactment. Consequently, they are effective for 2008
local and county boards of appeal and equalization. If you have any questions or concerns, please
contact our division.
Property Tax Division 651-556-6091
Mail Station 3340 Fax: 651-556-3128
St. Paul, MN 55146-3340 proptax.questions@state.mn.us
Meeting of April 25, 2011 Page 6
Subject: 2011 Local Board of Appeal and Equalization
April 26, 2011
Address line 1
Address line 2
Address line 3
Re: St. Louis Park Local Board of Appeal & Equalization
Subject Address
Property ID #: xx-xxx-xx-xx-xxxx
Dear :
The Board convened on April 25 and the above-referenced property has been entered onto the
appeal roster. You are receiving both a telephone call and this letter to inform you that the
reconvene date has been scheduled for X:XX pm on May 9, 2011 in the City Hall Council
Chambers.
Appeals will be heard at this meeting. The following are important for you to know:
If the Assessing staff has not already inspected your property within the last year, they must
complete an interior and exterior inspection to revalue the property. Important: Refusing access
precludes the Board from taking action that would benefit the owner (MN statute 274.01).
Assessing staff will complete their revaluation and contact you prior to the May 9 meeting to
inform you of their conclusion. This is an important component of the Local Board process. If
the assessing staff and you as the owner can mutually agree to resolve the matter, the agreement
will be reported to the Board…while it is common that that the Board ratifies mutual agreement,
please note that the Board is the decision maker on the issue. This method of resolution is often
preferred by property owners as it is not necessary to speak before the board.
Where agreement cannot be reached, the Board determines how they will proceed and their past
practice has been as follows: You, as the appellant, are allowed about 5-10 minutes to present
information supporting your value position. The assessing staff, as the respondent, is allowed
about 3-5 minutes to present information and their conclusion. The Board hears the information
and decides the market value and/or classification as of January 2, 2011. The Board has full
authority to sustain, increase, or decrease individual assessments. The Board does not have
authority to reopen prior assessments. The Board does not have authority to change current and
past real estate taxes.
The property owner may appear in person, by representative, and/or by written communication
to the Board. As the Assessor, I suggest focusing your appeal on the factors influencing market
value and/or classification of the property as of the assessment date. We strongly recommend
locally competitive market information pertaining directly to your property (sales, appraisals,
etc). National or regional information, while interesting, may not necessarily correlate to this
specific local market.
Meeting of April 25, 2011 Page 7
Subject: 2011 Local Board of Appeal and Equalization
The Board appreciates receiving written information before the meeting. The assessing staff
prepares a written report on all parcels under appeal and submits it to the Board prior to the
meeting. If you would like your written documentation to be included in the Board packet,
please provide it to my office by 12:00 Noon on Wednesday May 4th to allow time for copying
or scanning. Otherwise, please prepare ten (10) copies of written materials to be brought to the
Board meeting on May 9th.
Upon completion of the Local Board, you will be notified via letter of the Board action. If you
do not agree with the Local Board decision, you are eligible to attend the Hennepin County
Board of Appeal & Equalization which convenes on June 13, 2011. An application to appear
before the County Board is required no later than May 25, 2011.
If you have any further questions on the Local Board process, do not hesitate to contact me
directly.
Cory Bultema, City Assessor
Direct Dial 952-924-2536
Local Board
of Appeal and
Equalization Handbook
2009 Update
Meeting of April 25, 2011
Subject: 2011 Local Board of Appeal and Equalization Page 8
This handbook was created to satisfy the requirement under
Minnesota Statutes, Section 274.014, subdivision 1.
July 2009.
Meeting of April 25, 2011
Subject: 2011 Local Board of Appeal and Equalization Page 9
Table of Contents
Introduction............................................................................................................................................3
Purpose of the local board...................................................................................................................................................3
Training for Local Boards of Appeal and Equalization.................................................................................................3
The impetus for the legislation.............................................................................................................................................................3
Compliance requirements.....................................................................................................................................................................4
Failure to comply..................................................................................................................................................................................4
Role of the local board in the assessment process.........................................................................4
Market value..........................................................................................................................................................................5
Estimated market value........................................................................................................................................................................5
Taxable market value............................................................................................................................................................................6
Classification..........................................................................................................................................................................6
Split-class property................................................................................................................................................................................7
Overview of the assessment process...................................................................................................................................7
Assessor estimates value......................................................................................................................................................................8
Three approaches to value....................................................................................................................................................................8
Assessor determines classification.......................................................................................................................................................9
Assessor reviews sales ratio.................................................................................................................................................................9
The sales ratio study............................................................................................................................................................................10
Assessor notifies taxpayer..................................................................................................................................................................10
Assessor meets with State Board of Equalization.............................................................................................................................10
Local board meeting...........................................................................................................................................................11
Who must attend the meeting.............................................................................................................................................................11
Meeting dates and times for the local board......................................................................................................................................11
Documenting local board actions.......................................................................................................................................................12
Required forms for documenting board actions ...............................................................................................................................12
Duties of the local board.....................................................................................................................................................13
Changes within 10 days of local board meeting...............................................................................................................................13
What the board can do........................................................................................................................................................................13
What the board can’t do......................................................................................................................................................................14
Recommendations for local board members..................................................................................................................15
Become familiar with sales information prior to local board meeting............................................................................................15
Duties of the clerk................................................................................................................................................................15
Legal and policy reasons for fair and impartial appeal and equalization hearings...................16
Legal reasons for fair and impartial local board meetings..........................................................................................16
Policy reasons for fair and impartial local board meetings.........................................................................................16
Local board meeting procedures that foster fair and impartial assessment reviews and
other best practices recommendations........................................................................................17
Meeting procedures............................................................................................................................................................17
The board should run the meeting.....................................................................................................................................................17
Establish ground rules for the meeting..............................................................................................................................................17
All proceedings must be public..........................................................................................................................................................18
Make appellants feel comfortable......................................................................................................................................................18
Dealing with angry or difficult property owners...............................................................................................................................18
Hearing appeals...................................................................................................................................................................................18
1Table of Contents
Notes
Meeting of April 25, 2011
Subject: 2011 Local Board of Appeal and Equalization Page 10
Review process, not value-reduction process...................................................................................................................................19
Recess or adjourn................................................................................................................................................................................19
Decisions.............................................................................................................................................................................................19
Appeals must be substantiated by facts.............................................................................................................................................20
Best practices recommendations......................................................................................................................................21
Have appellants call for appointments...............................................................................................................................................21
Time limits for presenting appeals.....................................................................................................................................................21
Hear all appeals first............................................................................................................................................................................21
Conducting other business at the local board meeting.....................................................................................................................22
Notifying property owners of decisions............................................................................................................................................22
Quorum requirements for local boards............................................................................................22
Quorum must be present...................................................................................................................................................22
What constitutes a quorum?...............................................................................................................................................................22
Assessor’s role when a quorum is not present..................................................................................................................................23
Arrive on time for the meeting...........................................................................................................................................................23
Explanations of alternate methods of appeal..................................................................................23
Open book meetings ...........................................................................................................................................................23
Benefits for the local board ................................................................................................................................................................25
Benefits for the county........................................................................................................................................................................25
Option 1: Transferring assessment and local board duties to the county........................................................................................25
Option 2: Transferring local board duties to the county...................................................................................................................25
Special Boards of Appeal and Equalization......................................................................................................................................26
Tax Court.............................................................................................................................................................................................26
Appendix...............................................................................................................................................27
Glossary................................................................................................................................................................................27
Duties of local and county boards.....................................................................................................................................30
Frequently asked questions by property owners ...........................................................................................................34
Handouts for property owners .........................................................................................................................................34
Note: This handbook is designed to provide information to city and town boards or special boards serving as the Local
Board of Appeal and Equalization. This handbook mentions local, city and county assessors. The specific responsibilities
of the local, city and county assessor may differ from one jurisdiction to the next. Not all jurisdictions have a local
assessor. For example, counties with a true county assessing system (all assessments are done by the county) will not have
a local assessor. In counties having a city of the first class, the powers and duties of the county assessor within such city
shall be performed by the duly appointed city assessor. In all other cities having a population of 30,000 persons or more,
according to the last federal census (except in counties having a county assessor prior to January 1, 1967), the powers
and duties of the county assessor within these cities will be performed by a duly appointed city assessor. The county
assessor will, however, retain the supervisory duties contained in M.S. 273.061, subdivision 8. For example, the county
assessor may provide sales information for the local boards in the entire county, or a city assessor may be responsible for
providing the information for the local board in a city that has an appointed city assessor. If the local board has questions
about the division of assessor duties in the jurisdiction, please contact the county assessor for clarification.
2 Table of Contents
Other alternate methods of appeal...................................................................................................................................26
How value changes affect taxes.........................................................................................................................................31
Frequently asked questions by local board members...................................................................................................33
Benefits for the property owner.........................................................................................................................................................24
Recommended format to notify appellants of local board decisions..........................................................................32
Notes
Meeting of April 25, 2011
Subject: 2011 Local Board of Appeal and Equalization Page 11
3Introduction
Introduction
Purpose of the local board
The goal of the Local Board of Appeal and Equalization
should be to attempt to address property owners’ issues
efficiently, fairly and objectively.
The purpose of the Local Board of Appeal and
Equalization is to provide a fair and objective forum
for property owners to appeal their valuation or
classification. The local board often serves as the
first formal step in the appeals process for taxpayers. Always keep in mind that any changes made by
the board must be substantiated by facts. Any
value reductions must be justified because they
have the effect of shifting the tax burden to other
property in the jurisdiction. Further, any changes
made by the local board must meet statutory
guidelines.
One of the most important duties placed by law upon the
governing body of a township or city is to serve as the
Local Board of Appeal and Equalization. Effective
actions taken by the local board may potentially make a
direct contribution to attaining assessment equality.
Training for Local Boards of Appeal and Equalization
Legislation enacted in the 2003 session requires that
there be at least one member at each meeting of a Local
Board of Appeal and Equalization (beginning with the
2006 local boards) who has attended an appeals and
equalization course developed or approved by the
Commissioner of Revenue within the last four years.
Many long-standing local board members are in their
second four-year certification cycle. They may have
also attended additional appeals and equalization courses
as a refresher. This handbook and the accompanying
presentation have been updated to provide additional
useful information to help the local board members
better understand the overall assessment process and
their role within it.
The impetus for the legislation
The 2003 legislation was enacted as a response to
complaints that were directed to the Governor,
Legislature and Department of Revenue. The legislature
determined that training was needed to address the
procedural shortfalls of some local boards. This training
will provide information and education for local board
members that will make the process more efficient and
result in a better overall experience for both property
owners and local board members.
Does “training” sound familiar?
Training for Local Boards of Appeal and
Equalization is not a new concept. From 1947 to
1979, Local Boards of Appeal and Equalization
(then referred to as local boards of review) were
required by law to attend an instructional meeting at
the county. In 1979, Minnesota Statutes,
Section 273.03, subdivision 1 read as follows:
“The assessors and at least one member of each
local board of review shall meet at the office of
the county auditor on a day to be fixed by the
commissioner of taxation for the purpose of
receiving instructions as to their duties under
the laws of the state.”
While training or instructional meetings may not be
a “new” idea, the 2003 legislature determined that
training for Local Boards of Appeal and
Equalization was necessary to explain and clarify the
role and duties of the local board to help ensure that
property owners receive a fair and impartial review
of their valuation and classification.
Minnesota Revenue, Understanding Your Assessment and the A ppeals Process 2
Remember, your assessor is not responsible for the dollar
amount of taxes that you pay. Tax rates are determined by
your local taxing authorities (the city, the county, school,
districts, etc.). If you think your taxes are too high, you
should make your opinion known to your taxing authorities
during the budget meetings in November and December.
Local Board of Appeal and Equalization
If you choose to appeal to your boards of appeal and
equalization, first must first meet with your Local (city or
town) Board of Appeal and Equalization. These are often
the same people as your city council or town board. The
board meets on a specified day in April or May. The exact
date is listed on your Notice of Valuation and Classification.
We strongly recommend that you contact your city or town
clerk to schedule your appearance. Some jurisdictions hold
an open book meeting instead of a Local Board of Appeal
and Equalization. Please check your Notice of Valuation
and Classification for date, time, and place.
You may make your appeal in person, by letter, or have
someone else appear for you. The assessor will be present
to answer questions. You must present your case to the city
or town board before going to the County Board
of Appeal and Equalization.
Cities and towns have the option of transferring their board
powers to the County Board of Appeal and Equalization. If
your municipality has elected to do this, your Notice of
Valuation and Classification will direct you where to begin
your appeal.
County Board of Appeal and Equalization
If you are not satisfied after your Local Board of Appeal
and Equalization or open book meeting, or if your city or
town has transferred its powers to the county, you may
appeal to the County Board of Appeal and Equalization.
This board meets in June. The exact date is listed on
your Notice of Valuation and Classification. The members
are usually the county board of commissioners or their
appointees. We strongly recommend that you contact your
county auditor or assessor to schedule your appearance
before the board. Many counties request that taxpayers
make appointments to appear.
You may make your appeal in person, by letter, or have
someone else appear for you. The assessor will be present to
answer questions. If you are not satisfied with the decision
of the County Board of Appeal and Equalization, you may
appeal to the Minnesota Tax Court.
Minnesota Tax Court
You have until April 30 of the year the tax becomes payable
to appeal your assessment to the Minnesota Tax Court. In
other words, you must appeal your 2009 valuation and
classification on or before April 30, 2010.
The Tax Court has two divisions: The Small Claims
Division and the Regular Division.
The Small Claims Division only hears appeals involving
one of the following situations:
The assessor’s estimated market value of your
property is less than $300,000.
Your entire parcel is classified as a residential
homestead (1a or 1b) and the parcel contains no
more than one dwelling unit.
Your entire property is classified as an agricultural
homestead.
You’re appealing the denial of a current year
application for homestead classification of your
property.
The proceedings of the Small Claims Division are
less formal and many people represent themselves.
Decisions made by the small claims division are final and
cannot be appealed further.
The Regula r Division will hear all appeals –including those
within the jurisdiction of the small claims division.
Decisions made here can be appealed to a higher court.
Most people who appeal to the regular division hire an
attorney because the hearing is conducted according to the
Minnesota Rules of Civil Procedure.
You may obtain complete information on Tax Court
appeals by writing or calling the court administrator in your
county or by contacting:
Minnesota Tax Court
Minnesota Judicial Center
Suite 245
25 Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Boulevard
St. Paul, MN 55115
(651) 296-2806
www.taxcourt.state.mn.us
Conclusion
In conclusion, it is essential that taxpayers understand that
assessors use historical sales data to estimate a property’s
market value. This estimate may be appealed informally by
speaking with the assessor or formally by appearing at the
Local or County Boards of Appeal and Equalization.
For additional information, please refer to Fact Sheet 12a
Understanding Property Taxes and Fact Sheet 12b How the
Assessor Estimates Your Market Value
Meeting of April 25, 2011
Subject: 2011 Local Board of Appeal and Equalization Page 12
The appeals and equalization course details the
responsibilities, procedures and requirements of the
Local Board of Appeal and Equalization. The legislation
also requires the Commissioner of Revenue to develop a
handbook to be reviewed during this course. This
handbook includes:
The role of the local board in the
assessment process;
Legal and policy reasons for fair and impartial
appeal and equalization hearings;
Meeting procedures that foster fair and
impartial assessment reviews and best
practices recommendations;
Quorum requirements for local boards; and
Explanations of alternate methods of appeal.
Compliance requirements
All cities and towns must certify to the county assessor
by December 1of each year that:
At least one voting member at each local board
meeting has attended the appeals and equalization
course within the last four years; and
A quorum was present at each local board meeting
in the prior year.
Failure to comply
Any city or town that fails to meet the compliance
requirements by December 1of each year is deemed to
transfer its powers to the County Board of Appeal and
Equalization for the following assessment year.
The Notice of Valuation and Classification must notify
property owners when the Board of Appeal and
Equalization for a city or town has been transferred to
the county for failure to comply with these requirements.
Instead of a Local Board of Appeal and Equalization
meeting, property owners must be provided with a
procedure for reviewing their assessments, such as open
book meetings, prior to the meeting of the County Board
of Appeal and Equalization. This alternate review
process will take place in April and May.
A local board whose powers are transferred to the county
for failing to meet these requirements may be reinstated
by resolution of the governing body of the city or town
and upon proof that one of the members of its Local
Board of Appeal and Equalization has attended the
appeals and equalization course. The resolution and proof
must be provided to the county assessor by December 1
to be effective for the following assessment year.
Note: The citation for the appeals and equalization
course and meeting requirements for local boards is
Minnesota Statutes, Section 274.014.
Role of the local board in the assessment process 1
The Local Board of Appeal and Equalization has the
authority to change the valuation or classification of a
property for the current assessment year. Taxes or
prior year assessments are not within the jurisdiction
of the local board.
Any decisions made by the local board must be
supported by facts and by Minnesota law. The board
must make informed decisions and ensure all
taxpayers are treated fairly and uniformly.
In order to make an informed decision on the valuation
or classification of a property, it is important to
understand the concepts of valuation and classification.
These two concepts are equally important in the
assessment process. They are both determined on the
assessment date, January 2, each year.
We will look at the definition of market value and
explain how classifications are determined.
4 Role of the local board in the assessment process
Property Tax Division - Mail Station 3340 St. Paul, MN 55146-3340
Revised 07/09
This fact sheet is intended to help you become more familiar with Minnesota
tax laws and your rights and responsibilities under the laws. Nothing in this fact
sheet supersedes, alters, or otherwise changes any provisions of the tax law,
administrative rules, court decisions, or other revenue notices.
Alternative formats available upon request.
Minnesota Revenue, Understanding Your Assessment and the A ppeals Process 1
Understanding Your Assessment and the
Appeals Process
Property Tax Fact Sheet 12c Fact Sheet
12c
www.taxes.state.mn.us
The role of the assessor
The assessor has an important role in the property tax
process in that it is very important to make sure all property
is valued at its market value and classified according to its
use so the property tax levy is divided correctly among all
taxable properties. The assessor does not determine your
property taxes. Likewise, assessors do not raise revenue by
increasing market values. This fact sheet discusses
estimated market value and classification. The assessor
determi nes these factors each year, and they are shown
annually on your Notice of Valuation and Classification.
This fact sheet also explains what you can do if you and the
assessor disagree about the value or classification of your
property.
How is my property value estimated?
Using a mass appraisal system and historical sales data, the
asses sor’s job is to estimate the market value of all
properties on the assessment date of January 2 each year.
The assessor will consider the location of your property, the
amount of land you own, any improvements to the land,
physical characteristics of the improvements (including
square footage, decks, porches, etc.), and the quality of
construction. The assessor will then compare your property
to similar properties in your area that have recently sold in
order to estimate what your property would sell for in an
open-market arm’s length transaction. This value is called
the estimated market value.
Classification and class rates
All property is classified by the assessor according to
its use. Each class of property (home, apartment, cabin,
farm, commercial) has its own classification rate. This class
rate is determined by the state legislature. Like market
value, the class rate of your property plays a role in how
much property tax you pay.
Notice of valuation and classification
Each spring, the assessor will mail you a Notice of
Valuation and Classification informing you of the market
value and classification of your property. If you believe the
classification or the estimated market value of your property
is incorrect, you have several appeal options.
What if I disagree with how my property
was assessed?
If you have a disagreement over valuation or classification
of your property, the first step is to contact your assessor.
Most issues can be resolved at this level.
Verify information about your property, such as its
dimensions, age, and condition of its structures.
Review records to determine the market values of
similar properties in your neighborhood.
Review sales data to find out what similar
properties in your area are selling for.
Ask the assessor to explain the criteria used for
classifying your property. You may also review the
classifications of other properties used in the same
manner as yours.
If your property has not be inspected recently, both interior
and exterior, ask the assessor to come out to review your
property. If your concern is not resolved after conferring
with the assessor, you may attend the annual Local Board of
Appeal and Equalization or Open Book meeting identified
on your valuation notice.
Appealing your assessment
There are formal methods of appeal available. Keep in mind
that,by law, the Local Board of Appeal and Equalization
cannot make a change favoring a taxpayer if the assessor is
not allowed to inspect the property.
You have the right to appeal your market value estimate
and/or property classification if you feel your property is:
Classified improperly.
Valued at an amount higher or lower than you
could sell your property for.
Valued at a level different from similar property in
your area.
This fact sheet is the third in a series of three fact sheets that were designed to assist taxpayers in the understanding of the basic concepts of
their annual assessment and property tax administration. Please see Fact Sheet s 12a and 12c for additional information.
Meeting of April 25, 2011
Subject: 2011 Local Board of Appeal and Equalization Page 13
5Role of the local board in the assessment process
Market value
State law requires that all property shall be valued at its
market value (Minnesota Statutes, Section 273.11,
subdivision 1).
Minnesota Statutes, Section 272.03, subdivision 8 defines
“market value” as follows:
“ ‘Market value’ means the usual selling price at the
place where the property to which the term is applied
shall be at the time of assessment; being the price
which could be obtained at a private sale or an
auction sale, if it is determined by the assessor that the
price from the auction sale represents an arm's-length
transaction. The price obtained at a forced sale shall
not be considered.”
Many professional appraiser/assessor organizations
have a more detailed definition of market value. The
elements of these definitions can be used to clarify the
statutory definition.
The definition of market value usually implies the
consummation of a sale as of a specific date under the
following conditions:
The buyer and seller are typically motivated;
Both parties are well informed or well advised and
both are acting in what is considered to be their own
best interest;
A reasonable time is allowed for exposure in the
open market;
Payment is made in cash or its equivalent;
Financing, if any, is on terms generally available in
the community on the specified date and typical for
the property type in its locale; and
The price represents a normal consideration for the
property sold unaffected by special financing
amounts and/or terms, services, fees, costs or credits
incurred in the transaction.
In other words, market value is the price that would
tend to prevail under typical, normal competitive open
market conditions.
Minnesota Statutes, Section 273.11, subdivision 1
further states:
“In estimating and determining such value, the
assessor shall not adopt a lower or different
standard of value because the same is to serve as
a basis of taxation, nor shall the assessor adopt
as a criterion of value the price for which such
property would sell at a forced sale, or in the
aggregate with all the property in the town or
district; but the assessor shall value each article
or description of property by itself, and at such
sum or price as the assessor believes the same to
be fairly worth in money.”
The law provides that all property must be valued at
market value, not that it may be valued at market value.
This means that factors other than market value issues
(such as personalities or politics) should not affect the
market value determined by the assessor. Non-market
value factors also should not affect the actions of the
Local Board of Appeal and Equalization.
Estimated market value
The value determined by the assessor as the price
the property would likely sell for on the open
market is called the estimated market value (EMV).
This value is determined on the assessment date,
January, 2 of each year.
The EMV for the current assessment year is the
only value property owners may appeal to the
local board, even though taxpayers will also be
given a taxable market value.
The price that would tend to prevail under typical,
normal competitive open market conditions.
Market value
Minnesota Revenue, How the Assessor Estimates Your Market Value 2
assessor will use to value property for the 2010 assessment
for taxes payable in 2011.
This same lag time is also present in declining markets. For
example, if the assessor places a market value of $200,000
on a property for the 2009 assessment (again using sales that
occurred between October 2007 and September 2008), but
the property sells for $175,000 in August 2009, does it mean
the January 2, 2009 assessed value is incorrect? Not
necessarily. It could signal a downturn in the housing
market just began to occur between September 200 8 and
August 2009. The assessor will use the August 2009 sale as
well as others occurring in the market to estimate 2010
market values.
The assessor does not raise property tax revenues by
increasing values. Total property tax revenues are a function
of county, school district, and city/town spending as well as
state-paid local government aid and other factors. The value
and classification of the property are merely a way to divide
the total property tax levy among all taxpayers. The total
amount of the levy will be collected whether values increase
or decrease from one year to the next. An individual’s share
of the overall tax burden may change from year to year,
however.
What are sales ratio studies?
Sales ratios show the relationship between the assessor’s
estimated market value on a property and the actual sale
price of a property.
Each year the assessor performs sales ratio studies on
properties that have sold in their jurisdiction. These sales are
stratified many different ways including by location and
property type (residential, agricultural, commercial, etc.).
The sales can also be stratified further such as by home style,
subdivision, age of structure, location on or off water
frontage, price range, etc.
A single sale may not represent the true market activity.
Rather, sales of all properties are reviewed to determine
market trends. However, even if there are no sales occurring
within the sales ratio study period, assessors are still
expected to use their professional judgment and knowledge
of the local market to annually value properties in their
jurisdiction.
Whenever any real estate is sold for a consideration in excess
of $1,000, a Certificate of Real Estate Value (CRV) is filed.
These CRVs are the foundation of all sales ratio studies
because they contain important information about each
transaction. Assessors then verify the information contained
on the CRV in order to determine whether or not the sale
represents an open-market arm’s length transaction. If the
sale does not represent an open-market, arm’s length
transaction, it may not be used in the sales ratio study.
Simply having an extremely high or low sales ratio is not a
valid reason to remove a sale from the sales ratio study.
Rather, the extreme ratio indicates a need for additional
investigation by the assessor.
Again, sales ratio study periods are generally October 1 of a
given year to September 30 of the following year. For
example, for the 2010 assessment, assessors use sales that
took place between October 1, 2008 and September 30,
2009. This is the reason that assessors’ market values may
lag a bit behind current market activity.
Assessors will use the median sales ratio as the statistical
measure of the overall level of assessment. The median ratio
is the middle ratio of all the ratios when they are arranged in
order from highest to lowest (or vice versa). The median is
used because it is not affected by extreme ratios. Department
of Revenue guidelines indicate that the median ratio of a
sales ratio study should be between 90 and 105 percent.
Is it possible for the values of some
properties to decrease while others
increase?
Yes. Each segment of the market is different. Sales prices of
certain types of properties can vary widely. Currently, sales
of both farmland and recreational properties are strong and
show appreciation. However, the sales of residential
properties are stable or declining in some areas .
Sometimes it can be difficult to estimate the rate at which a
market is increasing or declining. Ideally, a property would
sell twice within a certain period of time, such as one year,
but all other characteristics of the property would remain the
same. That way an appraiser or assessor would be able to
isolate a time adjustment to indicate whether the market is
increasing or decreasing or simply remaining stable.
Do all areas increase or decline at the same
rate?
No. Some areas or neighborhoods are declining at a much
faster rate than others that are showing stable values or
values that are slightly increas ing.
Conclusion
In conclusion, it is essential that taxpayers understand that
there may be a legitimate reason for the assessor’s annual
market value to be different from current market conditions
due to the lag time between sales study periods and sales
taking place today.
For additional information, please refer to Fact Sheet 12a
Understanding Property Taxes and Fact Sheet 12c
Understanding Your Assessment and the Appeals Process.
Meeting of April 25, 2011
Subject: 2011 Local Board of Appeal and Equalization Page 14
6 Role of the local board in the assessment process
Taxable market value
Taxable market value (TMV) is the value that property
taxes are actually based on, after all reductions, limitations,
exemptions, exclusions and deferrals.
There are many programs and provisions in Minnesota law
that allow for a property’s EMV to be different from its
TMV. For example, qualifying veterans who are disabled
receive an exclusion of up to $150,000 or $300,000 of their
property’s EMV. This reduction is reflected in their TMV.
Other programs and provisions to be aware of include the
Agricultural Property Tax Law (Green Acres), the Rural
Preserve Property Tax Program (effective for the 2011
assessment) and Plat Deferment. If you have questions
about these or any other programs, speak with your county
assessor.
One provision in Minnesota law that often caused
significant differences between an EMV and a TMV was
the limited market value. This value was created by the
legislature as an attempt to “limit” the increase a
property owner could be taxed on each year. The
limited market value provisions expired starting with
the 2009 assessment.
An unintended consequence of limited market values is
that they caused unequal taxation on different types of
property – or even on similar properties. It was possible
for two very similar properties with identical EMVs to
have substantially different property tax bills due to this
limitation.
The local board cannot change the TMV of a
property. The only value the local board has the
authority to change is the EMV for the current year.
Changing the EMV may ultimately change the TMV,
but it is important to note that there can be instances
where the board raises or lowers the EMV, and the
TMV remains the same.
Classification
In Minnesota, property is classified according to its
actual use on the assessment date (January 2 of each
year). If the property is not currently being used, it is
classified according to its most probable, highest and
best use.
Property owners do not get to choose how they want
their property to be classified. It is the assessor’s job to
classify property consistent with Minnesota Statutes,
according to its current use or its most probable,
highest and best use.
When determining the most probable, highest and best
use for a property that is not being used, zoning may
be an influencing factor in the classification of the
property; however, it is not the sole factor.
Additionally, all real property that is not improved
with a structure must be classified according to its
current use or its highest and best use permitted under
the local zoning ordinance if there is no identifiable
current use. If zoning permits more than one use, the
land must be classified according to the highest and
best use permitted.
If no such zoning ordinance exists, the assessor shall
consider the most likely potential use of the
unimproved land based upon the use of surrounding land
or land in proximity to the unimproved land.
Property classifications are defined in Minnesota Statutes.
Examples of classifications include residential homestead,
residential non-homestead, apartment, commercial and
agricultural.
The board can change the classification for the current
assessment year of any property which in the board’s
opinion is not properly classified. The classification must
be based on use, and in order for the board to change the
classification, the owner must present evidence that the
property is used in a manner consistent with the
classification he/she is seeking. The board can only
The assessor assigns a statutorily-defined
classification to all property based upon the actual
use of the property on January 2 of each year.
Examples of Minnesota property classes include
residential, agricultural, commercial-industrial,
apartment and seasonal residential recreational.
Classification
Property Tax Division - Mail Station 3340 St. Paul, MN 55146-3340
Revised 07/09
This fact sheet is intended to help you become more familiar with Minnesota tax
laws and your rights and responsibilities under the laws. Nothing in this fact
sheet supersedes, alters, or otherwise changes any provisions of the tax law,
administrative rules, court decisions, or other revenue notices.
Alternative formats available upon request.
Minnesota Revenue, How the Assessor Estimates Your Market Value 1
How the Assessor Estimates Your Market Value
Property Tax Fact Sheet 12b Fact Sheet
12b
www.taxes.state.mn.us
Property Tax Assessment Process
Minnesota has what is known as an ad valorem property tax.
This means property tax is divided among taxable properties
according to their value. The final amount of property tax
the owner of a property pays in any given year is the end
result of a process that begins over two years before property
tax statements are actually mailed to property owners.
The process begins with the assessor collecting data on sales
of properties within the market during a specific time period
between October of one year and September of the following
year (this period is known as a sales study period). Over the
next several months and by using mass appraisal techniques,
assessors analyze the data in order to estimate each
propert y’s market value for the next assessment (January 2).
Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 273.11 assessors
must estimate the value of property at a value that would
represent what the property would sell for in an open-market
arm’s length transaction on January 2 of each year. The
assessor cannot adopt a higher or lower standard of value
because the value will be used for the purposes of taxation.
Assessors also classify property according to its use on
January 2. Between April and June, taxpayers have an
opportunity to appeal both the estimated market value and
the classification of their property. Values and classifications
are generally finalized July 1 of each year .
Local units of government then finalize their estimated
budgets for the upcoming year. Once the budgets are
finalized in December, the market values and classifications
are used to divide the overall tax levy among all taxable
properties. Tax statements are mailed by the following
March 31.
For example, sales of properties that occur between October
1, 2008 and September 30, 2009 are used by assessors to
estimate a property’s market value for the January 2, 2010
assessment. Following an appeal process that occurs between
April 1, 2010 and June 30, 2010, the valuations and
classifications generally become final on July 1, 2010.
This lengthy time frame may result in a significant difference
between actual sales prices occurring in the current market
and assessors’ estimated market values for the current year’s
assessment.
Using the final values and the local jurisdictions’ proposed
budgets, the auditor then estimates each property’s proposed
taxes payable for 2011. After public budget meetings are
held and final budget numbers are adopted, property tax
statements are mailed to taxpayers by March 31, 2011.
In summary, sales taking place from October 2008 to
September 200 9 are used to estimate a property’s market
value as of January 2, 2010 which will in turn be used to
calculate property taxes payable in 2011.
What is the role of the assessor?
Assessors use historical sales in order to estimate each
property’s market value as of the assessment date (January 2)
of each year. The assessor also classifies the property
according to its use on January 2 of each year.
Assessors also review other quantifiable data such as
supply/demand, marketing times, sales concessions, vacancy
rates, etc. to help in analyzing whether a market is increasing,
stable, or decreasing.
During increasing markets, this may benefit some property
owners because a buyer may pay a price that is significantly
higher than the assessor placed on the property for the last
assessment. For example, if a property is valued by the
assessor at $180,000 for the 2009 assessment (based on sales
that occurred between October 2007 and September 2008),
and it sells for $230,000 in August 2009, the new property
owner is benefiting from the lower market value for the 2009
assessment which will be used to calculate taxes payable in
2010.
The August 2009 sale of the proper ty will be included in the
study period of October 2008 to September 2009 which the
This fact sheet is the second in a series of three fact sheets that were designed to assist taxpayers in the understanding of the basic concepts
of their annual assessment and property tax administration. Please see Fact Sheets 12a and 12c for additional information.
Meeting of April 25, 2011
Subject: 2011 Local Board of Appeal and Equalization Page 15
7Role of the local board in the assessment process
change the classification of a property to a
classification that is permitted by law.
For example, the assessor classifies a property as
residential. The owner seeks the agricultural
classification. In order for the board to change the
classification to agricultural, the owner must prove
that the property is used agriculturally and meets the
statutory requirements of the agricultural class.
It is important to remember that use – not zoning – is the
key factor in determining the classification of a property.
For example, a property owner has a parcel that is used as
an auto repair shop. The assessor has the property
classified as commercial. The property is zoned
agricultural so the owner is seeking the agricultural
classification. Classification is based on use. Since the
property is used as an auto repair shop, it is properly
classified as commercial. Therefore, the board must vote
to uphold the commercial classification.
Split-class property
A property can have more than one property tax
classification if it has more than one use. Such properties
are called split-class properties. If this is the case, the
assessor will classify the different uses accordingly. For
example, when an owner-occupied farm also has a
structure that is used as a commercial repair shop for farm
equipment, the property is split classified agricultural
homestead and commercial.
Overview of the assessment process
The assessment of property – determining the estimated
market value and classification – technically occurs on
January 2 (the assessment date) of each year. The work
and analysis required to make these estimations involves
several months before and after the assessment date,
however.
Most of the field inspections of real estate for the next
assessment begin in the summer and continue through
the fall. For example, assessors will inspect properties
starting in the summer of 2009 for the January 2, 2010
assessment. These inspections are when the assessor
identifies and records the specific characteristics of each
property being reviewed. These characteristics include
square footage, condition of the property and number of
bedrooms, for example. Assessors gather a lot of
information to help them estimate each property’s value
and determine its use for classification purposes. This
field inspection work is completed as the assessment
date nears.
At about this same time, assessors start work on
analyzing sales and other market data in a sales ratio
study to help them estimate values. The sales included in
this sales ratio study should represent a typical open
market. The sales are from October 1 of two years prior
to the assessment year to September 30 of the year prior
to the assessment year. In other words, sales from
October 1, 2008 to September 30, 2009 are included in
the study for the 2010 assessment. The Department of
Revenue, through the State Board of Equalization,
conducts a similar sales ratio study to monitor the work
of the assessors.
Based on the field inspections and sales ratio study, all
taxpayers are notified of their value and classification for
that January 2 assessment date in the spring of each year.
This notification initiates the appeals process that
continues until the middle of June at the local level.
Once the appeal process is complete, the assessor starts
work on the next assessment, and the entire cycle starts
again.
The final value and classification for each property for
each assessment year is used in determining that
property’s taxes in the following year. For example, the
value and classification for the 2010 assessment, once
finalized, is used to determine the taxes paid in 2011.
A principle of appraisal and assessment requiring that
each property be appraised as though it were being
put to its most profitable use (highest possible present
net worth), given probable legal, physical and
financial constraints.
Glossary for Property Appraisal and Assessment,
International Association of Assessing Officers, 1997.
Highest and best use
Minnesota Revenue, Understanding Property Taxes 2
The final step is to calculate the local property tax
rate by dividing the property tax revenue needed in a
jurisdiction by its total tax capacity.
(Property tax revenue needed)Local
Tax Rate =(Total Tax Capacity)
The county auditor will also calculate and apply any
homestead credits, referendum levies, and the state
general tax (for certain types of property).
Combining the above calculations, the basic formula
to determine an individual property’s tax amount is:
What is a “Truth in Taxation” notice?
Every year, after November 10, but before November
25, all property owners receive a “Truth-in-Taxation”
notice by mail. The notice contains:
valuation and classification information on
your property for the current and previous
assessment years;
your current -year property tax amounts ; and
an estimate of how your taxes may change
based on your taxing district and local
budget decisions for the following year.
The Truth-in-Taxation notices are required to show
dates, times, and places for the scheduled meetings in
which the budget and levy will be discussed and
finalized. These meetings must occur after
November 24. The public must be allowed to speak
at these meetings for the city, county, and school
district and they must not be held prior to 6 p.m.
These meetings are held to give taxpayers an
opportunity to voice their concerns over the
jurisdiction’s proposed budget. They are not a forum
for taxpayers to appeal their market value or their
individual proposed property tax amounts.
Property Tax Statement
The County Treasurer’s Office mails a tax statement
to property owners by March 31 of each year. The
statement provides an itemized list of the property tax
due to each taxing authority. The dollar amounts
must be listed separately for the state general tax (if
applicable), county, municipality or township, voter-
approved school tax, other local school tax, and other
special taxing districts. The statement must also
include any tax on contamination value and any other
special assessments on the property.
Real property taxes are due in equal installments on
May 15 and October 15 of each year (unless the
amount is $50 or less [$250 or less starting with taxes
payable in 2010] in which case taxes are due in full
on May 15). If a property is classified as agricultural
property, the 2nd half is not due until November 15.
Conclusion
In conclusion, it is essential that taxpayers understand that
there is no direct relationship between estimated market
value and property tax revenue. It is possible to have your
property tax increase while your market value decreases
and vice versa. Government spending and revenues will
affect your tax bill the most.
For additional information, please refer to Fact Sheet 12b
How the Assessor Estimates Your Market Value and Fact
Sheet 12c Understanding Your Assessment and the
Appeals Process.
Taxable Market Value
x Class Rate
=Tax Capacity
x Local Tax Rate =Base Tax
-- Homestead Credits
+ Referendum Amounts
+ State General Tax
=Total Property Tax Payable
Meeting of April 25, 2011
Subject: 2011 Local Board of Appeal and Equalization Page 16
Assessor estimates value
The assessor determines the approximate selling price
(or EMV) for each taxable parcel based on the
conditions of the market on January 2 of each year.
The assessor is required by law to view each property at
least once every five years. However, even if the
assessor did not physically visit a property for that
assessment year, the property is subject to valuation
changes to reflect market conditions. The assessor is
required to estimate the market value as of January 2 of
each year to reflect current market conditions because
the real estate market is constantly changing –
sometimes dramatically.
When the assessor views the interior of a property,
he/she can make a more accurate assessment and
eliminate any guesswork. The assessor bases his/her
assessment on multiple factors, including size, age,
condition, quality of construction and other features such
as fireplaces.
The assessor compares the property to actual sales of
similar properties in the area to determine the EMV of a
property. In addition to this approach to determining
value, the assessor may also consider the cost to
construct the property or the income generated from the
property. These techniques are often referred to as the
“three approaches to value.”
The assessor applies one or more of the three approaches
to value in estimating a property’s value:
Sales comparison approach;
Cost approach; and/or
Income approach.
The assessor will consider all approaches to value, but
one approach may be better suited than the others for
estimating the value of a particular property. In some
cases, one or more approaches may not be applicable.
Sales comparison approach: This approach is based on
the reasoning that the value of a property is related to the
sale prices of similar properties in the same market.
Using this approach, the assessor identifies similar
properties that have recently sold and analyzes the
differences between the subject and the comparable
properties. The sale price for each comparable sale is
adjusted to reflect the differences (i.e. the subject
property has three bathrooms and the comparable
property has two bathrooms, so the sale price of the
comparable property is adjusted upward to make it more
similar to the subject property). The assessor then
estimates the value based on the analysis of the
comparable sales.
The sales comparison approach is most applicable when
there is sufficient sales data available for analysis. This
approach is most often used for residential properties. It
is the most common and preferred method for valuing
vacant land when comparable sales data is available.
The sales comparison approach should be supported by
other approaches to value when comparable sales are
limited or unavailable.
Cost approach: This approach is based on the principle
of substitution which means that an informed buyer will
not pay more for a property than it would cost to build
an acceptable substitute with comparable utility.
Using the cost approach, the assessor calculates market
value by estimating the current cost of replacing a
structure with one having comparable utility then
subtracting depreciation and adding in the land’s value.
The cost approach is most reliable when valuing new or
relatively new properties because the depreciation is
minimal. Depreciation is the loss in value of a property,
perhaps due to wear and tear or some other factor.
Estimating the amount of depreciation can be difficult
making the cost approach less reliable when valuing
older properties. The cost approach can be more useful
when valuing structures that are not frequently sold.
Income approach: This approach is based on the
reasoning that the value of the property is directly related
to its ability to produce income. The property value is
measured in relation to anticipated future benefits
derived from ownership of the property.
Using this approach, the assessor reviews income and
expense information for the subject property and
estimates the market value of the property based upon
the income stream projected to be derived from the
property. This approach has limited applicability
because it is only appropriate for income-producing
properties such as commercial, industrial and
apartments. The income approach is the primary
approach for valuing income-producing properties.
Three approaches to value
8 Role of the local board in the assessment process
Property Tax Division - Mail Station 3340 St. Paul, MN 55146-3340
Revised 07/09
This fact sheet is intended to help you become more familiar with Minnesota
tax laws and your rights and responsibilities under the laws. Nothing in this
fact sheet supersedes, alters, or otherwise changes any provisions of the tax
law, administrative rules, court decisions, or other revenue notices.
Alternative formats available upon request.
Minnesota Revenue, Understanding Property Taxes 1
Understanding Property Taxes
Property Tax Fact Sheet 12a Fact Sheet
12a
www.taxes.state.mn.us
Why do we have property taxes?
The money raised by property taxes is a major source
of funding for school districts, cities and townships,
counties, and special taxing districts. Local property
taxes help fund many programs and services
including public schools, fire stations, police
protection, streets, libraries, and more.
Certain types of properties – including
seasonal/cabin, commercial/industrial, and un-mined
iron ore – are also subject to a state-level property
tax. Receipts from this “state general tax” go into the
general fund.
A key benefit of the property tax system is that the
revenue it raises tends to remain stable. Compared
with sales or income taxes, the property tax is less
susceptible to recessions or other changes in income
or spending trends. In addition, since local
jurisdictions only levy what they need to cover their
annual needs, there is no surplus or deficit.
What affects my property tax bill?
Government spending and revenues will affect your
tax bill the most. If spending increases or revenues
from other sources such as state aid decrease, your
property taxes may increase. Conversely, if spending
decreases or revenue from other sources increases,
you may see a decrease in your property tax bill.
Since property taxes are levy-based, it is possible to
have your property tax increase while your market
value decreases and vice versa.
Your share of the overall property tax levy is
determined by the market value and classification of
your property. The esti mated market value and
classification of your home are determined by the
assessor as of January 2 of each year. Assessors
estimate the value of your property using historical
sales of similar properties.
There is no direct relationship between estimated
mark et value and property tax liability. Instead, your
property’s taxable market value is used to determine
how much property tax is due. These two values may
differ for a number of reasons, including tax deferral
programs, exclusions or reductions for specific types
of property.
The classification of your property is based on its use
on January 2. Each class of property (residential,
apartment, cabin, farm, commercial, etc.) has a
different classification rate. These rates are set by the
Legislature and calibrated so that some property
types pay a greater share of the property tax than
others. For example, commercial properties pay more
than residential homesteads and agricultural
properties.
How are my taxes determined?
First, each local jurisdiction will determine the revenue
needed from property taxes. This amount – the levy – is
calculated by subtracting all non-property tax revenue
from the total proposed budget.
The levy is then spread among all taxable properties
according to their net tax capacity. A property’s tax
capacity is calculated by multiplying the taxable market
value by the state-mandated classification rate.
This fact sheet is the first in a series of three fact sheets that were designed to assist taxpayers in the understanding of the basic concepts of
their annual assessment and property tax administration. Please see Fact Sheet s 12b and 12c for additional information.
Total Proposed Local Budget--All non-property tax revenue (state aid, fees, etc.)
=Property tax revenue needed (levy)
(Taxable Market Value) x (Class Rate) = Tax Capacity
Meeting of April 25, 2011
Subject: 2011 Local Board of Appeal and Equalization Page 17
Assessor determines classification
Along with estimating the market value of each
property, the assessor must determine the classification,
or use, of each parcel of property. Property
classifications are defined in Minnesota Statutes, and the
assessor classifies the property based on its use as of
January 2 of each year. Examples of classifications
include residential homestead, residential non-
homestead, apartment, commercial and agricultural.
Assessor reviews sales ratio
Assessors analyze the sales in a community in order to
understand local market trends and provide direction in
estimating values. Whenever real estate is sold for more
than $1,000 a certificate of real estate value (CRV) must
be filed in the county in which the property is located.
The assessor uses CRVs to analyze actual sales of
property and to complete sales ratio studies for each
community and for each type of property. The ratio is
determined by dividing the EMV by the sale price. The
assessor uses the sales as guides to estimate what similar
properties would likely sell for on the open market. It is
important to remember that one sale, taken by itself,
does not necessarily reflect the actual real estate market
in a jurisdiction.
In addition to the sales ratio study conducted by the
assessor, the Department of Revenue conducts a similar
independent sales ratio study for the jurisdiction to
monitor how close the median ratio is to the required
level of assessment and is used by the State Board of
Equalization. The Department of Revenue’s sales ratio
studies should be the same or similar to the studies
conducted by the assessor.
The sales ratio study is a tool assessors use to help
determine values for properties. The study helps
assessors plan the upcoming assessment and evaluate
the current assessment. If results of the study are not
within acceptable guidelines, the assessor is required by
law to either decrease or increase values so that they
more closely reflect the market.
The sales ratio study period includes sales that have
occurred in a twelve month period. For the January 2,
2010 assessment, the assessor reviews sales that occur
between October 1, 2008 and September 30, 2009. By
design, there is a lag between the sale and when it is
used to help estimate value so it can be verified and
reviewed for accuracy.
The assessor only considers sales that have been verified
as typical and open market. This means the buyer and
seller are typically motivated, both parties are acting in
their own best interests and a reasonable time is allowed
for marketing. According to state law, the assessor must
not use sales that cannot be verified as open market
sales. This means sales between family members, for
example, are not included. This also means that
foreclosure sales are very rarely (if ever) included.
The assessor completes a sales ratio study by gathering
basic data and screening and editing information to
make any adjustments and exclude all sales that do not
represent arm’s-length transactions. The remaining data
is put into an acceptable format for processing (usually
done by computer) and sorted by similar property types
within each city or township (or neighborhood if
possible). Finally, statistics are computed to describe the
information and determine results of the assessor’s
work.
There are numerous calculations in a sales ratio study
that describe the overall levels and quality of the
assessment. An important one is the sales ratio; it shows
the relationship between the EMV and a property’s sale
price. It is the EMV divided by the sales price.
EMV Sale Ratio =Sale Price
The median sales ratio is the midpoint (middle) of all the
individual ratios that are included for that property type
in that city or township for that study period when they
are put in order.
In Minnesota, this median sales ratio should be between
90% and 105%. This means that when all sales from
that study period for that property type in that city or
township are put in order from smallest to largest ratio,
the middle ratio should be between 90% and 105%.
In Minnesota, six sales of each property type in each
jurisdiction are required to complete a sales ratio study.
One sale is not enough evidence for the assessor to
change values. The assessor uses other tools when there
are limited sales to study. In fact, just because a property
sells does not mean its sale price should be its EMV.
Assessors look at all sales in a study to arrive at
conclusions and value estimates in mass.
The sales ratio study
9Role of the local board in the assessment process Revised 07/04 Minnesota Revenue, Preparing an Appeal to your Local and County Boards of Appeal and Equalization 2
Presenting your case
Remember, how you present your case may affect the
outcome of your appeal – you want to be sure you get
your point across as effectively as possible.
Make a list of key points you may wish to present.
The board has never seen your
property. Describe your property so
they will understand your arguments
more fully. Photos can be helpful to
support your argument.
Keep your presentation brief and factual.
Be prepared to discuss your case with the board or
answer any questions that the board may have.
Written appeals
You may also appeal your value or classification by
submitting a letter of appeal to the board instead of
appearing in person.
You will want to do your research and
explain your appeal in writing. Your letter
should state the facts and include supporting
documentation. You may want to include your daytime
phone number so you can be reached in case the board
has any questions.
Other helpful information
Please keep in mind that taxes are not the issue. To
strengthen your appeal, you should present evidence
about your property’s value or classification,
not how much you are paying in taxes.
This fact sheet is not meant to give you
legal advice. It is intended to be a helpful tool with
general information for presenting your property tax
appeal at your Local and County Boards of Appeal and
Equalization.
Meeting of April 25, 2011
Subject: 2011 Local Board of Appeal and Equalization Page 18
Assessor notifies taxpayer
The assessor notifies taxpayers of their values and
classifications each year after they have been estimated
on the assessment date. This notification – the Notice of
Valuation and Classification – must be mailed at least 10
days prior to the Local Board of Appeal and
Equalization meeting or 10 days prior to the open book
meeting (generally, this means that the notices are
mailed in February or March of each year).
At this point, the property owner can appeal the EMV
and/or classification if he/she feels that the property is:
classified improperly;
valued at an amount higher than they could
sell the property for; and/or
valued at a level different from similar
properties in the area.
The property owner should first contact the
assessor’s office to discuss questions or concerns.
Issues often can be resolved at this level. If questions or
concerns are not resolved after talking with the assessor,
formal appeal options are available:
Property owners may appeal to the Local Board of
Appeal and Equalization (some jurisdictions that
have transferred the local board duties to the
county will have open book meetings instead of
local board meetings);
If the property owner is not satisfied with the local
board’s decision (or the outcome of the open book
meeting), he/she may then appeal to the County
Board of Appeal and Equalization; and/or
The property owner may appeal to Tax Court.
The Notice of Valuation and Classification must provide
the property owner with the date, time and location of
the Local and County Boards of Appeal and
Equalization.
Assessor meets with State Board of Equalization
The State Board of Equalization ensures assessors
follow approved appraisal and assessment practices
and reviews the results of the assessors’ work in
estimating values. This board meets in June of every
year. The meeting, and any resulting changes, occurs
only after a review of values and sales ratios and after
discussions with the county assessor, county assessors
in adjacent counties, and the Commissioner of
Revenue.
The Department of Revenue, as the State Board of
Equalization, completes its own sales ratio studies – one
which is very similar to the assessor’s study, plus two
additional studies – to be sure values closely match the
real estate market.
The department has determined that a minimum of six
sales in a jurisdiction are required for the median ratio to
be reflective of actual assessment levels for its studies.
There are some jurisdictions and property types that may
never have enough sales, for example small-town
commercial properties. In these instances, the assessor
and the State Board of Equalization may examine sales
over a protracted period of time or borrow sales from
other similar jurisdictions to help evaluate the
assessment and estimate values.
The State Board of Equalization completes this
verification statewide for each property type and
jurisdiction and can order changes to EMVs if the
assessor’s work does not comply with law and
guidelines. If the study indicates that the median ratio
is below 90 percent or above 105 percent, the
Commissioner of Revenue has the authority to
increase or decrease values to bring about
equalization.
The equalization process is designed not only to
equalize values on a county-, city- and township-wide
basis but also to equalize values across county lines to
ensure a fair valuation process across taxing districts,
county lines and by property type.
State Board orders are usually on a county-, city- or
township-wide basis for a particular classification of
property. All State Board orders must be implemented
by the county, and the changes are made to the current
assessment year.
10 Role of the local board in the assessment process
Property Tax Division – Mail Station 3340 – St. Paul, MN 55146-3340 This fact sheet is intended to help you become more familiar with Minnesota
tax laws and your rights and responsibilities under the laws. Nothing in this
fact sheet supersedes, alters, or otherwise changes any provisions of the tax
law, administrative rules, court decisions, or revenue notices. Alternative formats
available upon request.
www.taxes.state.mn.us
Preparing an Appeal to Your Local and County
Boards of Appeal and Equalization
Property Tax Fact Sheet 10 Fact Sheet
10
Revised 07/04 Minnesota Revenue, Preparing an Appeal to your Local and County Boards of Appeal and Equalization 1
You have decided to appeal the valuation and/or
classification of your property to your Local or County
Boards of Appeal and Equalization. You must appeal to
the Local Board of Appeal and Equalization before
appealing to your County Board of Appeal and
Equalization.
If you haven’t done so already, you should contact your
assessor’s office before making a formal appeal to discuss
changing your assessment. Often issues
and concerns can be resolved at this level.
If you and the assessor were unable to agree
on your valuation or classification you may
decide to appeal to your Local and/or County Boards of
Appeal and Equalization.
The general information contained in this fact sheet is
applicable to preparing for appeals to both the Local and
County Boards of Appeal and Equalization.
Successfully appealing your assessment
Minnesota law assumes that the County Assessor has
correctly valued and classified your property. You must
present factual evidence to convince the Board otherwise
in order to win your appeal. Make sure all facts are
presented, and the board understands the
information presented, so a decision can
be made based on facts.
Successfully appealing your value or
classification at your Local or County Board of Appeal
and Equalization can mean a number of things.
It does not necessarily mean that the board ruled in your
favor and lowered your value or changed your
classification.
Whether or not the local board decides to make a change
in your estimated market value or classification, you can
still be successful in appealing to your local board. The
ultimate result you want to achieve is to make sure your
value is warranted and the classification of your property
is correct based on its use.
Preparing for your appeal
The first step is to do some research to collect information
to show why you believe your estimated market value or
classification is incorrect. Begin by
contacting the assessor’s office.
Verify information about your property,
such as its dimensions, age and
condition of its structures.
Review records to determine the market value of
similar property in your neighborhood.
Review sales data to find out what similar property in
your area is selling for.
Check real estate ads in your newspaper to get an
idea of the asking price of local properties.
Ask the assessor to explain the criteria used for
classifying your property. You may also review the
classification of other property used in the same
manner as yours.
Gathering supporting evidence
You must have documentation to support your
appeal. Items you may wish to bring to the
meeting include:
A recent appraisal of your property.
Recent sales of similar property.
Documentation supporting the use of
your property (if you are appealing the
classification).
Copies of other property owners’ field cards/property
information.
Photos of your property.
Photos or exhibits comparing neighboring properties
to yours.
If you should have questions, please don’t hesitate to
contact your assessor’s office. Staff members are always
willing to answer questions and give you information that
will help you understand your assessment.
See page 2 for helpful hints o
Meeting of April 25, 2011
Subject: 2011 Local Board of Appeal and Equalization Page 19
Local board meeting
Who must attend the meeting
Per Minnesota Statutes, Section 274.01,
subdivision 1, paragraph (a), the town board of a
town or the council or other governing body of a
city is the Local Board of Appeal and Equalization,
except in the following situations:
Cities whose charters provide for a board of
equalization;
Cities or towns that have transferred their local
board duties to the county (see Chapter 5);
Cities with Special Boards of Appeal and
Equalization appointed by the governing body
(see Chapter 5); or
Cities or towns whose local board duties have
been transferred due to noncompliance with
the training requirements.
When a Local Board of Appeal and Equalization
convenes, a majority of the voting members (quorum)
must be in attendance in order for any valid action to
be taken (see Chapter 4 for more information about
quorum requirements).
The local assessor is required by law to be present with
his/her assessment books and papers. The local assessor
is required to take part in the proceedings to support his
values or recommend a change, but the local assessor
has no vote. He/she should be prepared to explain how
the value was determined, and in doing so, the assessor
should be able to describe the characteristics of the
property, such as: location and neighborhood, public or
private restrictions on the property, building type and
size, quality of construction, age of the structure,
physical condition of the structure, total number of
rooms and total number of bedrooms and bathrooms,
and market conditions, etc.
The local assessor should be knowledgeable about the
local real estate market and the property in the area.
While it is not the goal of the assessor to influence the
board, the assessor should provide factual information to
support the value and classification or to support a
recommended change to a subject property. The local
assessor also should be able to explain how the property
classification was determined.
In addition to the local assessor, the county assessor or
one of his/her assistants is required to attend. The board
should ask the local and/or county assessors to present
any tables that have been prepared, making comparisons
of the current assessments in the district. Either the local
or county assessor is required to have maps and tables
relating particularly to agricultural land values for the
guidance of the Local Board of Appeal and Equalization.
The local board should be prepared to ask the local and
county assessors questions, and assessors should be
prepared to answer questions and provide information
that will assist the board in its deliberations.
Meeting dates and times for the local board
The meeting date and time for the Local Board of
Appeal and Equalization is set by the county assessor.
The county assessor must provide written notice of the
date and time to the city or town clerk by February 15 of
each year. The clerk shall publish and post notice of the
meeting at least 10 days before the date of the meeting.
The Local Board of Appeal and Equalization meeting
must be held between April 1 and May 31 of each year
(unless the provisions of a charter provide otherwise). The
local board must conduct its business and adjourn within
20 days of the date stated in the published notice. Upon
request, the Department of Revenue (at its discretion)
may grant extensions beyond the 20-day time period to da
date no later than May 31.
No changes may be made by the local board after
adjourning. The county assessor also may not make any
changes in valuation or classification that are intended to
correct errors in judgment by the county assessor after
the local board has adjourned. However, the county
assessor may make changes that are clerical in nature or
changes that extend homestead treatment until the tax
extension date for that assessment year. A list of all the
changes made by the local board must be fully
documented and maintained in the assessor’s office and
must be available for review by any person. A copy of
the changes made during this period in those cities or
towns that hold a local board must be sent to the county
board no later than December 31 of the assessment year.
11Role of the local board in the assessment process
Frequently asked questions by property owners
Is it legal for the assessor to increase my value
so much in one year?
Yes. The assessor must value property at market value
each year. Property values change continuously with
changing economic conditions. There is no limit to the
amount of increase or decrease in estimated market values
in a given year. The assessor is required to review the
values and classifications as of January 2 of each year.
When will my value stop changing so much?
This is impossible to predict. Estimated market values
are dictated by the market. If sale prices are increasing,
estimated market values will increase. If sale prices are
decreasing, estimated market values will decrease.
Why are my taxes so high?
Taxes are not within the authority of the local board. The
property tax on a specific parcel is based on its market
value, property class, the total value of all property
within the taxing area, and the budget requirements of
all local government units located within the taxing area.
Only concerns relating to the current year valuation
and/or classification may be heard by the local board.
Will I be taxed out of my home?
The local board cannot reduce tax amounts. There is
relief for property classified as homestead. The market
value homestead credit directly reduces the property
taxes on a parcel. In addition to the homestead
classification, Minnesota provides property tax relief to
homeowners through the Property Tax Refund program.
This program has been around for many years and
includes two different kinds of refunds: the regular
refund and the special refund. The regular refund was
designed to relieve the burden on homeowners whose
property taxes are high in relation to their income. The
special refund is for homeowners who experience a
property tax increase of more than 12 percent (and at
least $100), regardless of their income level. Both of
these refunds must be applied for using form M1PR
from the Minnesota Department of Revenue. There are
specific requirements for each refund, which are
included in the M1PR instructions.
In addition, qualifying individuals may participate in the
Senior Citizen Property Tax Deferral program. This is a
deferral of tax, not a reduction. The taxes accumulate
along with interest at a rate not to exceed 5 percent and a
lien is attached to the property.
Forms and instructions for the Property Tax Refund and
Senior Citizen Property Tax Deferral program are
available on the Department of Revenue website
(http://www.taxes.state.mn.us).
Handouts for property owners
The following pages contain information for property
owners to help them with the appeal process. You
may photocopy these pages and provide them to
property owners who seek to appeal their property
value or classification.
34 Appendix
(http://www.taxes.state.mn.us).
BoardsofAppealandEquilization,""Understanding
propertytaxes,""Howtheassessorestimatesyour
DepartmentofRevenuewebsite
The“PreparinganappealtoyourLocalandCounty
marketvalue," and"Understandingyourassessment
andtheappealsprocess" fact sheets are also on the
Meeting of April 25, 2011
Subject: 2011 Local Board of Appeal and Equalization Page 20
Documenting local board actions
Before adjourning, the Local Board of Appeal and
Equalization must prepare an official record of all actions
taken by the board. Minnesota Statutes 274.01,
subdivision 1, paragraph (e) requires, in part, that:
“The board shall list separately, on a form appended
to the assessment book, all omitted property added to
the list by the board and all items of property
increased or decreased, with the market value of
each item of property, added or changed by the
board, placed opposite the item.”
This means that the local board must prepare an official
record of the proceedings. The record must reflect all
board actions. Therefore, the record must list all:
Assessments of property added to the tax rolls with
the market value for each;
Appeals brought before the board, indicating the
action taken by the board (including all appeals in
which the board voted “no change”);
Assessments that have been increased or decreased
with the market value for each;
All classification changes; and
All changes that the county assessor brought
to the board for action, indicating the action
taken by the board.
After the changes have been completed, the record must
be signed and dated by the members of the local board
who were present at the meeting. The record must also list
the names and titles of all voting members of the local
board, including those who are present and those who are
absent, to verify that the quorum requirement was met.
The county assessor is to make all changes ordered by the
local board that are authorized by law.
Required forms for documenting board actions
County assessors are required to submit any changes
made by the Local and County Boards of Appeal and
Equalization to the Commissioner of Revenue, along
with a copy of the proceedings of each board within 10
working days following final action of the local board.
The information must be filed in the manner prescribed
by the Commissioner of Revenue (Minnesota Statutes,
Chapter 270C).
In recent years, there has been increasing interest by the
legislature and others in the number of appeals at the
local level and the effect of the changes that were made.
However, because of the manner in which many
counties submit this information, the Department of
Revenue has not been able to respond to requests for this
information. Therefore, we are requiring that the
counties provide the data in a format that is complete,
readable and easily interpreted. Each county will be
required to submit this information in an electronic
format as instructed by the Department of Revenue.
To ensure that the information is consistent from local
jurisdiction to local jurisdiction and from county to
county, the Department of Revenue also is requiring that
the local board complete the following two forms for
each Local Board of Appeal and Equalization meeting:
Local Board of Appeal and Equalization
Certification Form – must be completed and
signed to verify that the quorum and training
requirements were met and to provide a summary
of board actions; and
Local Board of Appeal and Equalization Record
Form – must be completed to provide a detailed
report of the proceedings of the board.
The county assessor will provide these forms to the local
board. The local board will complete the forms (the
jurisdiction total EMV is to be completed by the
assessor), and the county assessor will take possession
of the completed forms at the end of the meeting.
A Certification Form must be completed in the case of a
reconvene meeting. If a recess is called, a quorum also
must be present at the reconvene meeting for the local
board to take valid action. To verify that the quorum
requirement was met, the local board must complete and
sign a Certification Form for each reconvene meeting.
The local board will continue to complete the original
Record Form at each reconvene meeting.
The reconvene meeting(s) must be held and all business
of the local board must be concluded within 20 calendar
days (including the day of the initial meeting) unless the
board requests a time extension in writing from the
Department of Revenue and the time extension is
granted by the department (no extensions will be granted
beyond May 31). The date and time for the reconvene
meeting must be determined before the initial meeting is
recessed. Once the Local Board of Appeal and
Equalization has adjourned, they cannot reconvene.
12 Role of the local board in the assessment process 33Appendix
Frequently asked questions by local board members
What is the purpose of the Local Board of
Appeal and Equalization?
One characteristic of the valuation (and to a lesser extent
the classification) part of the property tax process is that
there are subjective elements involved. Both mass
appraisal and independent appraisal are inexact sciences.
The property tax system has a method for property
owners to appeal the decisions made by the assessor.
Effective actions taken by the Local Board of Appeal
and Equalization may potentially make a direct
contribution to attaining assessment equality. Any
value reductions have the effect of shifting the
property tax burden to other properties, so any changes
made by the board must be justified.
On what basis should I make my decisions as
a local board member?
You have an obligation to objectively listen to the
property owner’s appeal, which should focus on the
market value and facts that impact the market value or
the facts that focus on the classification. It is assumed
that the assessor has valued the property correctly. The
burden of proof rests with the property owner who must
present factual evidence to disprove the assessor’s value.
For example, if the property owner states that his/her
home is overvalued because it is located on a busy street,
the property owner should present comparable sales also
located on that street. The board would want to take that
information under advisement. Then the board should
ask for information from the assessor concerning how
the value of the property was determined. Again, any
decisions made by the board should be based on facts
because any reductions have the effect of shifting the
property tax burden to other properties. It is important
to keep in mind that all decisions must meet statutory
guidelines as well.
What options do property owners have
if they are not satisfied with the local
board’s decision?
The property owner can:
appeal by letter, representative or in person to the
County Board of Appeal and Equalization (a
property owner must appeal to the local board to
be able to appeal to the county board); and/or
appeal to Tax Court.
What factors make up the valuation of
property?
The critical question is whether the property is valued in
excess of market value or a theoretical selling price as of
January 2 of each year. The components that make up
the market value are developed from vacant land sales,
replacement cost schedules, abstraction from sales data,
and other sources. The mass appraisal system includes
both quantitative and qualitative variables.
Quantitative variables are objective characteristics,
such as square footage, number of bathrooms or
fireplaces, and other straightforward items. It is
important that the property description is accurate to
allow for a fair application of the mass appraisal
schedule to the property.
Qualitative variables are more subjective in
nature. They include the grading (or estimating
the construction quality) of the property which
always involves judgment.
Why do values change?
There are basically three reasons why values change.
Appreciation or depreciation in the real estate
market. The assessor’s office collects information on
the local real estate market and adjusts property values
annually in order to reflect the market. The requirement
that the assessor actually view properties once every five
years does not limit the assessor to revaluing properties
once every five years. The assessor is required to review
property values and classifications each year.
Physical changes to improvements on the property.
Improvements such as building a deck or finishing the
basement increase the value of the property, and the
assessor would adjust the value to reflect these
improvements. Similarly, the assessor should adjust the
value for any structural components that may be removed.
Equalization process. The Commissioner of Revenue,
acting as the State Board of Equalization, has the
authority to increase or decrease values to bring about
equalization. The orders are usually on a county-, city-,
or township-wide basis for a particular classification of
property. All State Board orders must be implemented
by the county for the current assessment year.
Meeting of April 25, 2011
Subject: 2011 Local Board of Appeal and Equalization Page 21
Duties of the local board
The local board is to determine whether all of the taxable
property in the town or city has been properly valued
and classified for the current assessment. All property is
to be valued at its market value, and all property is to be
classified according to use. It is assumed that the
assessor has properly valued and classified all the
property in the jurisdiction. The burden of proof rests
with the property owner who must present factual
evidence to disprove the assessor’s value or
classification.
The complaints and objections of property owners
appealing individual assessments for the current year
should be considered very carefully by the board. An
appeal may be made in person, by letter, or through a
representative of the owner. Written objections should be
filed with the city or town clerk or county assessor prior
to the meeting of the Local Board of Appeal and
Equalization and must be presented to the board for
consideration while it is in session. The board must hear
all complaints and examine all letters. Such assessments
must be reviewed in detail, and the board has the
authority to make corrections as it deems to be just. The
board may recess from day to day until all cases have
been heard.
The board should look for property or improvements that
are not on the tax rolls. When property or improvements
are missing from the tax rolls, an unfair burden falls
upon the owners of all properties that have been
assessed. If the board finds any property or
improvements that are not on the tax rolls, the board
should place it on the assessment list along with its
market value, and correct the assessment so that each
tract or lot of real property and each article, parcel or
class of personal property is entered on the assessment
list at its market value.
Changes within 10 days of local board meeting
Since the Notice of Valuation and Classification must be
mailed to taxpayers at least 10 days prior to the meeting
of the Local Board of Appeal and Equalization, the
assessor should not make changes to the valuation or
classification of a property within that 10-day window
without bringing the change to the local board for action.
After receiving the notice, the property owner can
contact the assessor to discuss questions or concerns.
The assessor can make changes to the valuation or
classification without bringing the change to the local
board if a new notice is mailed to the property owner at
least 10 days prior to the local board meeting.
Oftentimes, the assessor will continue to review
properties within 10 days of the local board meeting.
However, if the assessor makes a change, that change
should be brought to the local board for action.
If the property owner agrees with the change, he/she
does not need to personally appeal to the board. Instead,
the assessor should present such changes to be voted on
by the board.
What the board can do
Reduce the value of a property. The local board may
reduce the value of a property if the facts show that
the property is assessed at a value that is higher than
its market value. All property is to be valued at its
market value. It is assumed that the assessor has
properly valued the property. The burden of proof
rests with the property owner who must present
factual evidence to disprove the assessor’s value.
Increase the value of a property. The local board may
increase the value of a property if the facts show that the
property is assessed at a value that is lower than its
market value. The board must also base the decision to
increase the market value on facts. All property is to be
valued at its market value. It is assumed that the assessor
has properly valued the property. The board must rely
on factual evidence to disprove the assessor’s value.
Before the board raises the market value of a property, it
must notify the owner. The law does not prescribe any
particular form of notice, except that the person whose
property is to be increased in assessment must be
notified of the intent of the board to make the increase.
The owner must be notified either in writing or orally.
He/she should be given a time to appear before the local
board. After the hearing, the local board should make
any corrections that it deems just.
Add properties to the assessment list.If the board finds
that any real or personal property has not been entered
onto the assessment list, the board shall place it on the
assessment list along with its market value, and correct
the assessment so that each tract and lot of real property
and all personal property is entered on the assessment
list at its market value.
13Role of the local board in the assessment process
Recommended format to notify appellants of local board decisions
April 29, 2010
{Insert property owner’s name}
{Address line 1}
{Address line 2}
Dear {Insert name here}:
This letter is to acknowledge an appeal to the {insert jurisdiction here} Local Board of Appeal and Equalization regarding
the value or classification of parcel number {Insert parcel number here}.
The local board considered the appeal and any information presented (or supplied in the case of written appeals). As a
result of its review, the local board voted to:
______ Make no change to the 2010 value or classification
______ Change the 2010 classification from ______________________ to _____________________
______ Reduce the 2010 value from $___________________ to $ ___________________
______ Increase the 2010 value from $___________________ to $ ___________________
Comments:
If you are not satisfied with the outcome of the Local Board of Appeal and Equalization, you may appeal to the County
Board of Appeal and Equalization. {Add details about scheduling appointments or how to appeal to the county board.}
You may also appeal to Tax Court. For more information on the Tax Court, go to http://www.taxcourt.state.mn.us.
Sincerely,
{insert name}
{insert title}
32 Appendix
Meeting of April 25, 2011
Subject: 2011 Local Board of Appeal and Equalization Page 22
Add improvements to the assessment list.In reviewing
the individual assessments, the board may find instances
where property is not listed at its market value because
the value of a building or other improvement was not
included when the market value of the property was
estimated. These should be carefully reviewed by the
board and placed on a tentative list of property values to
be increased. The board should then determine to what
extent the valuation of such property should be
increased. Before the board adds value for new or
overlooked improvements, it must notify the owner.
Change the classification of a property.In
Minnesota, property is classified according to its use
on the assessment date (January 2 of each year). If the
property is not currently being used, it is classified
according to its most probable, highest and best use.
Property owners do not get to choose how they want
their property to be classified. It is the assessor’s job to
classify it according to its current use or its most
probable, highest and best use. The board can change
the classification of any property which in the board’s
opinion is not properly classified. Again, it is assumed
that the assessor has classified the property correctly.
The classification must be based on use, and in order
for the board to change the classification, the appellant
must present evidence that the property is used in a
manner consistent with the classification.
What the board can’t do
The local board can’t consider prior year assessments.
The Local Board of Appeal and Equalization does not
have the authority in any year to reopen former
assessments on which taxes are due and payable. The
board considers only the assessments that are in process
in the current year. Occasionally, a property owner may
appear with a tax statement and protest the taxes or
assessment of the previous year. The board should
explain tactfully that it does not have the authority to
consider such matters. After taxes have been extended,
adjustments can be made only by the process of
application for abatement or by legal action.
The local board can’t order percentage increases or
decreases for an entire class of property. The authority
of the local board extends over the individual
assessments of real and personal property. The board
cannot increase or decrease by percentage all of the
assessments in the district of a given class of property.
Changes in the aggregate assessments by classes are
made by the County Board of Appeal and Equalization.
The local board can’t reduce the aggregate assessment
by more than 1 percent. Although the Local Board of
Appeal and Equalization has the authority to increase or
reduce individual assessments, the total of such
adjustments must not reduce the aggregate assessment
of the jurisdiction by more than 1 percent. The
“aggregate assessment” is the total EMV that the local
board has the authority to change, i.e. the total EMV of
assessments within the jurisdiction excluding state
assessed property. For example, if the total EMV of a
jurisdiction is $2,000,000, the board cannot reduce the
total EMV of the
jurisdiction by more
than $20,000. This
means the EMV after
board actions must be
at least $1,980,000.
Assessor’s EMV
+ Total board EMV increases
- Total board EMV reductions
EMV after board actions
If the total amount of adjustments made by the local
board does lower the aggregate assessment by more
than 1 percent, none of the adjustments will be
allowed. This limitation does not apply, however, to the
correction of clerical errors or to the removal of
duplicate assessments. Clerical errors are limited to
errors made by someone performing a clerical function
during the course of the actual assessment. Examples of
clerical errors are errors such as transposing numbers or
mathematical errors. Errors that occur when making
estimations during the inspection and appraisal process
(judgment errors) are not considered to be clerical errors.
The local board can’t exempt property. The Local
Board of Appeal and Equalization does not have the
authority to grant an exemption or to order property
removed from the tax rolls.
The local board can’t make changes benefiting a
property owner who refuses entry by the assessor.
The board may not make an individual market value
adjustment or classification change that would benefit
the property in cases where the owner or other person
having control over the property will not permit the
assessor to inspect the property and the interior of any
buildings or structures.
A member of the local board can’t make changes to
property in which he/she has a conflict of interest or
financial interest. If a property being appealed is
owned by a board member, a board member’s spouse,
parent, stepparent, child, stepchild, grandparent,
grandchild, brother, sister, uncle, aunt, nephew, or
niece, by blood or marriage, the board member is
prohibited from participating in the actions of the
14 Role of the local board in the assessment process
How value changes affect taxes
31Appendix
Meeting of April 25, 2011
Subject: 2011 Local Board of Appeal and Equalization Page 23
15Role of the local board in the assessment process
board for that appeal. The board member is also
prohibited from participating in an appeal of a
property in which a board member has a financial
interest. If the remaining members constitute a
quorum, the board may vote on the action with the
compromised board member abstaining from the vote.
Otherwise, or if the board wishes to prevent any
perception of preferential treatment, it should mark
“No change” on the record form for the meeting. The
taxpayer will be eligible to appeal to the County
Board of Appeal and Equalization.
The local board can’t grant special program status. If a
property owner is appealing for enrollment in special
programs that require an application (e.g. Green Acres),
they must follow the proper application procedure.
Recommendations for local board members
Become familiar with sales information prior to
local board meeting
Most local board members are not necessarily aware of
current trends in the real estate market or trained in the
field of appraisal. Therefore, advance preparation is
essential to making informed, fair decisions on the
appeals heard by the local board.
The county assessor (or the local or city assessor in
some instances) should provide information on the real
estate market in advance of the local board meeting. If
this information is not provided, the local board should
request that the assessor provide the information at least
one week prior to the meeting so board members have
time to review it.
The following are examples of the type of data that the
assessor may provide for the local board to use when
determining if an adjustment is necessary. This is not an
all-encompassing list, and depending on the jurisdiction,
it may or may not be necessary for every board to have
all the items on the list. The local board should work
with the assessor to determine the specific information
to be supplied to the local board.
Information on sales within the district that
occurred in the previous year.
Valuation tables of land types.
Copy of the values from the mini-abstract
for the district (current year and prior year).
Printout of parcel listings for the district
with the values.
Review of the current statutory classifications
and the corresponding class rates.
Review of value changes by property type
in the district.
The local board should also be prepared to request
additional background information and to ask
questions of the assessor in order to assist with the
board’s deliberations.
As a local board member, you should review the
information provided by the assessor. If you have any
questions about the materials, please be sure to contact
the assessor. Being knowledgeable about the real estate
market is the key to making informed and fair decisions.
Duties of the clerk
The town or city clerk plays an important role in the
Local Board of Appeal and Equalization process. The
following is a brief list of the duties of the clerk
pertaining to the local board meeting:
Work with the county assessor to establish the
meeting date(s) for the local board;
Publish and post notice of the meeting at least 10
days prior to the date of the (Minnesota Statutes,
Section 274.01, subdivision 1);
Ensure that a quorum will be present;
Provide a sign-in sheet for appellants;
Take minutes of the meeting as part of the
town or city record; and
Return all necessary records to the county
assessor in a timely manner.
In some jurisdictions, various duties of the clerk may be
performed by the city or county assessor or the
assessor’s staff. In these instances, it is recommended
that the clerk be aware of and monitor these duties to
ensure they are completed.
Duties of local and county boards
30 Appendix
Meeting of April 25, 2011
Subject: 2011 Local Board of Appeal and Equalization Page 24
Legal and policy reasons for fair and impartial
appeal and equalization hearings 2
Legal reasons for fair and impartial local board meetings
Minnesota Statutes, Section 274.01, subdivision 1,
paragraph (b) states:
“The board shall determine whether the
taxable property in the town or city has been
properly placed on the list and properly
valued by the assessor.”
This means that any action taken by the board must be
done in an effort to ensure that all taxable property in the
jurisdiction has been properly valued and classified by
the assessor. It is assumed that the assessor has correctly
valued and classified all property. The burden of proof
rests with the property owner who must present factual
evidence to disprove the assessor’s valuation or
classification of the property.
Minnesota Statutes, Section 273.11, subdivision 1
requires that all property be valued at its market
value. The assessor is required to value all property
at market value, and the Local Board of Appeal and
Equalization also must keep this in mind when
adjusting market values.
The board is to hear all appeals and act in a manner that
is just. Minnesota Statutes, Section 274.01,
subdivision 1, paragraph (b) states:
“On application of any person feeling aggrieved, the
board shall review the assessment or classification, or
both, and correct it as appears just.”
To act in a just manner, the board must only make
changes that are based on facts.
Policy reasons for fair and impartial local board meetings
Property owners expect and deserve a fair and impartial
hearing. Serving as the Local Board of Appeal and
Equalization is an important duty. As one step –
generally the first step – in the appeal process, it is very
important that the meeting be conducted in a fair and
impartial manner, or the property owner’s confidence in
the entire appeal process will be undermined.
In order for the property owner to receive a fair and
impartial hearing, the property owner must have an
opportunity to present his/her appeal and provide
evidence to support it. Then the assessor should explain
his/her valuation or classification. It is assumed that the
assessor has valued and classified the property correctly,
and the burden of proof rests with the property owner,
who must present factual evidence to disprove the
assessor’s value or classification. Then the local board
must take the appeal under consideration.
An educated board is the key to a fair and impartial
hearing. A board that is knowledgeable about the local
real estate market does not simply “rubber stamp” the
assessor’s value but makes independent decisions based
on facts. It is important that the property owner does not
perceive the outcome to be predetermined or believe that
the board is “defending” the assessor’s value. This does
not mean that the board should not uphold the assessor’s
value. It does mean that if the local board changes the
assessor’s value or classification, it must be based on the
facts presented.
A fair and impartial hearing does not necessarily mean
that the property owner is granted the value reduction or
classification change that he/she is seeking. Receiving a
fair and impartial hearing only means that the owner had
the opportunity to present his/her appeal, the board
considered the appeal and based its decision on facts.
16 Legal and policy reasons for fair and impartial appeal and equalization hearings 29Appendix
Residential property – Property that is residential in
nature consisting of the house, garage and land including
homestead and non-homestead single-family houses,
duplexes and triplexes. Defined in Minnesota Statutes as
Class 1a residential homestead, Class 1b disabled
homestead, Class 4b(1) residential real estate containing
less than four units that does not qualify as class 4bb,
Class 4bb(1) nonhomestead residential real estate
containing one unit, other than seasonal residential
recreational property; and Class 4bb(2) a single family
dwelling, garage, and surrounding one acre of property on
a nonhomestead farm.
Rural vacant land – Property that is unplatted, rural in
character and not improved with a structure unless it is a
minor, ancillary and nonresidential structure. Defined in
Minnesota Statutes as Class 2b rural vacant land. Rural
vacant land may be part of an agricultural homestead if it
is contiguous to class 2a agricultural land under the same
ownership.
Sales ratio study – A tool assessors use to help determine
values for properties. The sales ratio study period includes
sales that have occurred in a twelve month period. For the
January 2, 2010 assessment, the assessor reviews sales
that occur between October 1, 2008 and September 30,
2009. A sales ratio shows the relationship between the
EMV and the sale price of a property. It is the EMV
divided by the sales price. In Minnesota, six sales of each
property type in each jurisdiction are required to complete
a sales ratio study. One sale is not enough evidence for
the assessor to change values. Assessors look at all sales
in a study to arrive at conclusions and value estimates in
mass.
Seasonal residential recreational property – Real
property devoted to temporary and seasonal residential
occupancy for recreation purposes, including real
property devoted to temporary and seasonal residential
occupancy for recreation purposes and not devoted to
commercial purposes for more than 250 days in the year
preceding the year of assessment. Defined in Minnesota
Statutes as Class 4c(1) commercial or noncommercial
seasonal residential recreational property.
State Board of Equalization – The Commissioner of
Revenue, serving as the State Board of Equalization,
ensures assessors follow approved appraisal and
assessment practices and reviews the results of the
assessor’s work in estimating values. This board meets
in June of every year. The board can increase or
decrease values to bring about equalization on a
county-, city- and township-wide basis as well as across
county lines to ensure a fair valuation process across
taxing districts, county lines and by property type.
Statutory city – Any city which has not adopted a home
rule charter pursuant to the constitution and laws; the term
“home rule charter city” means any city which has
adopted such a charter.
Tax Court – A specific court established to hear and
determine all questions of law and fact arising under the
tax laws of the state. The Tax Court has statewide
jurisdiction. Except for an appeal to the Supreme Court,
the Tax Court is the sole and final authority. The
petitioner must file in Tax Court on or before April 30 of
the year in which the tax is payable, not the year of the
assessment.
Tax levy – The total amount of property tax revenue
needed to meet a jurisdiction’s budget requirements.
Tax rate – Determined by taking the total amount of
property tax revenue needed (tax levy) divided by the
total net tax capacity of all taxable property within the
taxing jurisdiction.
Tax statement – Mailed to taxpayers in March of each
year, the property tax statement includes the actual tax
amounts to be paid in the current year. Property tax
statements for manufactured homes assessed as personal
property are mailed in May of each year.
Taxable market value (TMV) – This is the value that
property taxes are actually based on, after all reductions,
exclusions, exemptions and deferrals.
Town board – The supervisors of a town constitute
the town board. Unless provided otherwise, there are
three supervisors. Towns operating under “option A”
have five supervisors.
Truth in Taxation Notice – Mailed to taxpayers in
November of each year, the truth in taxation notice
contains the estimated tax amounts for the following year.
The statement also includes current year tax amounts for
comparison purposes and notice of budget meetings.
Meeting of April 25, 2011
Subject: 2011 Local Board of Appeal and Equalization Page 25
3 Local board meeting procedures that foster
fair and impartial assessment reviews and
other best practices recommendations
Each local board meeting is conducted differently.
While there are not any statutory guidelines for
conducting the meeting, this chapter will outline
meeting procedures that foster fair and impartial
assessment reviews.
Also included in this chapter are best practices
recommendations for local boards. We acknowledge
that some cities or townships may have bylaws or rules
of procedures that may preclude some of these
recommendations. Keep in mind that these are
recommended procedures for the local boards, and they
are not intended to contradict such rules or bylaws. It is
up to each board to determine which procedures are
most appropriate for its Local Board of Appeal and
Equalization meeting.
Meeting procedures
The board should run the meeting
The board should take charge of the meeting. It is not
the assessor’s meeting. The local board is intended to be
a fair and impartial review of the assessment. The
assessor should realize that the appeal decisions are not
in his/her hands. The board’s decisions are between the
board and the appellant. The assessor is not on trial for
his/her work. The board should not critique the
assessor’s performance or blame the assessor for
increasing values (or taxes). Assessors should try not to
become too personally involved with the decisions and
remember that they have already done their best job. It is
now the task of the local board to review the facts and
make decisions as it deems just.
Establish ground rules for the meeting
Before hearing any appeals, the Board Chair should
outline the ground rules for the meeting. The ground
rules set the tone for the meeting. The specific ground
rules may vary for each local board but should include:
The purpose of the meeting;
A reminder to property owners that only appeals
for the current year valuation or classification can
be made – taxes or prior years’ assessments are not
within the jurisdiction of the board;
A reminder to property owners that they may only
appeal the estimated market value (EMV), and that
the appeals process is concerning this amount - not
tax amounts;
An explanation of the order of the appellants (will
it be by appointment first, followed by walk-ins on
a first-come basis, etc.);
The expectations of the appellant when presenting
his/her appeal (the appeal must be substantiated by
facts; where the appellant should stand or sit; the
appellant should be prepared to answer questions
posed by the board, etc.);
The time limits imposed (if any); and
The procedure the board will follow for making
decisions (will the board hear all appeals before
making any decisions, will the board send a letter
to appellants to inform them of the decision, etc.).
The Board Chair should give the assessor the
opportunity to present a brief overview of the property
tax process and a recap of the current assessment.
Appellants should then present their appeals. If the
assessor has had a chance to review the property prior to
the meeting, the assessor can present facts and
information to the board to support the valuation or
classification or recommend that the board make a
change. If the assessor has not had a chance to review
the property prior to the meeting, the assessor can
present such information to the local board at the
reconvene meeting.
17Local board meeting procedures that foster fair and impartial assessment reviews and
other best practices recommendations
Exempt property – Property that is not subject to
taxation. All property, real and personal, in the state is
taxable except that which by law is exempt. Exemption
laws are to be construed strictly, not broadly. Local or
County Boards of Appeal and Equalization cannot
grant an exemption. Ownership, use and necessity of
ownership are key elements reviewed by the assessor
when determining exemption.
Highest and best use – “A principle of appraisal and
assessment requiring that each property be appraised as
though it were being put to its most profitable use
(highest possible present net worth), given probable
legal, physical, and financial constraints.” Glossary for
Property Appraisal and Assessment, International
Association of Assessing Officers, 1997.
Home rule charter city – Any city which has adopted
a home rule charter pursuant to the constitution and
laws; “statutory city” means any city which has not
adopted such a charter.
Homestead – Property that is occupied as the principal
place of residence by the owner is eligible to receive the
homestead status and the market value homestead
credit. Property may be a residential or agricultural
homestead.
Local assessor – An assessor who works on a contract
basis for a township or city.
Local Board of Appeal and Equalization – A group
of people, typically the town board or city council,
authorized to determine whether the assessor has
properly valued and classified all parcels of taxable
property located within the district.
Market value homestead credit – Residential
homestead property receives a credit which is equal to
0.4 percent of the market value of the property. The
amount may not exceed $304 and is reduced by
0.09 percent of the market value in excess of $76,000.
Agricultural homestead property receives the residential
credit for the house, garage and one acre value plus an
agricultural credit of 0.3 percent of the agricultural class
2a and rural vacant land class 2b market value not to
exceed $345. It is reduced by 0.05 percent of the
market value in excess of $115,000 but may not be
reduced to less than $230.
Mass appraisal – The process of valuing a group of
properties as of a given date using standard methods
and statistical testing.
Median sales ratio – The midpoint (middle) of all the
individual ratios that are included for that property type in
that city or township for a sales ratio study period when
they are put in order. In Minnesota, the median sales ratio
should be between 90% and 105%. This means that
when all sales from that study period for that property
type in that city or township are put in order from smallest
to largest ratio, the middle ratio should be between 90%
and 105%.
Net tax capacity – Determined by multiplying the class
rate by the taxable market value for each property.
Notice of Valuation and Classification – A notice
mailed to taxpayers at least 10 days prior to the Local
Board of Appeal and Equalization (generally in February
or March) to inform them of their property values and
classifications for the current assessment year. Minimally,
the notice must include: the estimated market value for
the current and prior assessment; the value of any new
improvements; the amount qualifying for any deferral or
exclusion; the taxable market value for the current and
prior assessment; the property classification for the
current and prior assessment; the assessor's office address,
phone number, website and time when property
information can be viewed by the public; and the dates,
places and times set for the meetings of the Local Board
of Appeal and Equalization, any open book meetings and
the County Board of Appeal and Equalization.
Open book meeting – A meeting held by the county
assessor’s office to discuss property owners’ questions
regarding their assessments. The one-on-one meeting
usually is held as an alternative to the Local Board of
Appeal and Equalization.
Property characteristics – Distinguishing interior and
exterior features of a property and its surroundings such
as its: location and neighborhood; public or private
restrictions on the property; building type and size;
quality of construction; age of the structure; physical
condition of the structure; and the total number of rooms,
bedrooms and bathrooms.
Quorum – The number of people required to be present
before the members at a meeting can conduct business.
For the Local Board of Appeal and Equalization, a
majority of the voting members of the board must be
present to meet the quorum requirement.
Recess – A break in a meeting or proceedings until a
certain date and time. Recess is not to be confused with
“adjournment,” which ends the proceedings.
28 Appendix
Meeting of April 25, 2011
Subject: 2011 Local Board of Appeal and Equalization Page 26
All proceedings must be public
The local board meeting is subject to the open
meeting law. The open meeting law requires that
meetings of governmental bodies generally must be
open to the public. Therefore, all local board
proceedings must be public.
Board members should not leave the meeting to the
assessors while they talk about other business.
Board members should not confer with each other,
the assessor or appellants regarding appeals in
question outside the local board meeting(s).
Make appellants feel comfortable
Presenting an appeal to the Local Board of Appeal and
Equalization can be intimidating for appellants. The goal
of the board should be to make the appellant feel
comfortable, not intimidated. To make the appellant
more comfortable when presenting an appeal to the local
board, it is recommended that the appellant sit (or stand)
in front of the board and present directly to the board
rather than having the appellant speak and address all
present in the audience. This not only allows the
appellant to be more comfortable, but also decreases the
potential that an angry “mob” will form at the meeting.
Dealing with angry or difficult property owners
The following are some tips that may be helpful when
dealing with an angry or difficult property owner:
Always treat the property owner with respect;
Listen to the property owner;
Speak calmly and keep your body language calm;
Encourage the property owner to discuss
his/her concerns;
Do not get defensive;
Keep things on a positive level;
Avoid blaming statements (“You…”);
Keep the conversation focused on the issue, not
personalities (“The assessor doesn’t like me,”
etc.);
Clarify the problem;
Acknowledge the property owner’s concerns;
Show empathy for the property owner;
Emphasize collaboration (“Let’s see if we can find
a solution to this problem.”);
Let the property owner know that you will be
reviewing the facts of the case; and
End the property owner’s presentation by
acknowledging in a tactful manner that you’ve
heard what he/she has to say and will consider
the matter.
If things get too heated, it may be a good idea to suggest
a short break so the parties can calm down. Do not let
things get out of hand before informing the authorities.
If the board is anticipating any problems, it may be a
good idea to inform local law enforcement of the
meeting in advance. Do not take threats or someone
talking about violence lightly. Safety should be your
main concern. If you feel threatened, call the authorities.
Oftentimes, property owners are frustrated by the
process because they are unsure about how to appeal
to the local board. To reduce their frustration, it is
recommended that the local board let them know what
they will need to do to substantiate their appeal (see
“Handouts for property owners” section in the
Appendix for information local boards may supply to
property owners).
The Notice of Valuation and Classification will direct
property owners to the Minnesota Department of
Revenue website (http://www.taxes.state.mn.us) for
information on the appeal process and how to
substantiate appeals. Many counties also have
information on their websites concerning how to appeal,
property information, frequently asked questions, etc. If
your county website does have information relating to
assessment or property taxes, it is a good idea to become
familiar with this information so you can refer property
owners to it.
Hearing appeals
The Board Chair should call the appellant. The board
must be attentive when the appeals are being presented.
Take the time to listen to the person presenting the
appeal, but do not let the appellant dominate the
meeting.
After an appellant has presented his/her case, the chair
should ask the assessor to explain how the value and/or
classification was determined. To keep things moving
and to conduct a fair meeting, any time limits imposed
on an appellant should also be imposed on the assessor.
The board should ask questions of the appellant and the
assessor if more information is needed.
18 Local board meeting procedures that foster fair and impartial assessment reviews and
other best practices recommendations
Appendix
Glossary
Abatement – Reduction of estimated market value,
taxes, costs, penalties or interest which have been
erroneously or unjustly paid.
Adjourn – The final closing of a meeting, such as a
meeting of the board of directors or any official
gathering. Adjourn is not to be confused with
“recess,” which means the meeting will break and
then continue at a later time.
Agricultural property – Property including the
house, garage, farm buildings and farm land used
for raising or cultivating agricultural products for
sale. Defined in Minnesota Statutes as Class 2a
agricultural land. An agricultural homestead is class
2a land that is homesteaded along with any
contiguous class 2b rural vacant land under the
same ownership. Agricultural property may also be
non-homestead.
Apartment property – Residential real estate
containing four or more units and used or held for
use by the owner or by the tenants or lessees of the
owner as a residence for rental periods of 30 days or
more. Defined in Minnesota Statutes as Class 4a
rental housing.
City council – The legislative body of a city. The
city council in a standard plan city consists of an
elected mayor, an elected clerk, and three or five
elected council members (which means these cities
have either five or seven voting members). In
optional plan cities, the city council consists of an
elected mayor and four or six elected council
members (which means these cities have either five
or seven voting members). In all statutory cities, the
mayor is a voting member of the council and must
be counted when determining whether a quorum is
present. Charter cities may provide that a different
number of council members constitutes a quorum.
Class rate – The percent of market value (as
defined in Minnesota Statutes) used to determine a
property’s net tax capacity.
Classification – The assessor assigns a statutorily-
defined classification to all property based upon the use
of the property on January 2 of each year. Examples of
Minnesota property classes include residential,
agricultural, commercial-industrial, apartment and
seasonal residential recreational.
Commercial-industrial property – Property used for
commercial or industrial purposes such as retail or
manufacturing. Defined in Minnesota Statutes as Class
3a commercial and industrial property.
Comparable property sales – Properties that have
recently been sold which have similar property
characteristics to a property being appraised.
Computer-assisted mass appraisal (CAMA)
system – A computerized system that uses statistical
analysis to generate estimates of property value.
County Board of Appeal and Equalization – A
group of people, typically the county commissioners
and the county auditor, authorized to examine, compare
and equalize property assessments so that each parcel in
the county is listed at its market value.
Estimated market value (EMV) – This is the value
that the assessor estimates the property would likely sell
for on the open market. This value may be appealed to
the Local Board of Appeal and Equalization, County
Board of Appeal and Equalization or Tax Court.
27Appendix
Meeting of April 25, 2011
Subject: 2011 Local Board of Appeal and Equalization Page 27
19Local board meeting procedures that foster fair and impartial assessment reviews and
other best practices recommendations
The final closing of a meeting, such as a meeting of
the board of directors or any official gathering.
Adjourn is not to be confused with “recess,” which
means the meeting will break and then continue at a
later time.
Adjourn
Depending on the procedure that the board is following,
the chair should either:
Have the board make a decision on the appeal; or
Inform the appellant that his/her concern will be
taken into consideration and let the appellant know
when a decision will be made, as well as how
he/she will be informed of the board’s decision.
Review process, not value-reduction process
The appeal process is a review process and not just a
value-reduction process. The Local Board of Appeal and
Equalization is an important step in maintaining an
equitable property tax system. It is vital that the board
members take this responsibility seriously. Any value
changes – increases or decreases – must be justified as
value changes have the effect of shifting the tax burden
to other property owners in the jurisdiction.
The purpose of the board is to ensure equality between
taxpayers so that each taxpayer is paying the fair share
of taxes – no more, no less. Keeping in mind that a
reduction in estimated market value may not reduce
taxes, and sharing this information with appellants, may
help set the proper tone for the meeting.
Therefore, it is not incumbent upon the board to reduce
the value of all individuals who appeal to the board, as
that may be unfair to the property owners who have not
appealed. The board should not give reductions to
people just for “showing up.” It is assumed that the
assessor has properly valued and classified all property
in the jurisdiction. The burden of proof rests with the
property owner who must present factual evidence to
disprove the assessor’s value or classification. All
changes made by the board must be based on facts.
Recess or adjourn
The board may not take action after adjourning. All
issues must be resolved before the meeting is adjourned.
If issues still need to be considered, the board should
recess until the next meeting.
The next (reconvene) meeting must be held within 20
calendar days (including the day of the initial meeting)
unless the board requests a time extension from the
Department of Revenue, and the time extension is
granted by the department. The date and time for the
reconvene meeting must be determined before the initial
meeting is recessed. Once the Local Board of Appeal
and Equalization has adjourned, they cannot reconvene.
Decisions
It is the board’s duty to review the facts and make
corrections as it deems just. It is not appropriate to turn
the decision over to the assessor. The board should not
order the assessor to review the property and change the
value or classification and then adjourn. In this instance,
the issue is not resolved. The board may ask the assessor
to review the property and report back to the local board
at a reconvene meeting. Ultimately, it is the local board
that must make any adjustments.
All decisions should be adopted by a formal vote.
Options for decisions include:
No change;
Lower the value;
Raise the value;
Notify a property owner of intent to raise
the value;
Change the classification; or
Have the assessor inspect the property and report
to the local board (within the 20-day timeframe).
A break in a meeting or proceedings until a certain
date and time. Recess is not to be confused with
“adjournment,” which ends the proceedings.
Recess
It seems appropriate that the local jurisdiction be given
the opportunity to decide to forego its right to act as a
Local Board of Appeal and Equalization and still
maintain its local assessor. If the town board or city
council deems that property owners would be best
served with an open book meeting, which also would
relieve the board from having to make difficult value
and classification decisions, the board or council
should contact the county assessor and inform him/her
of the jurisdiction’s intent to be treated as though it did
not meet the quorum or training requirements. It
should clarify that the city or town is transferring its
duties to the county board, but will retain its local
assessor. The town board or city council must notify
the county assessor of this decision in writing by
December 1 to be effective for the following
assessment year.
Property owners in a jurisdiction that has chosen to
transfer its Local Board of Appeal and Equalization
duties to the County Board of Appeal and Equalization
would be provided with an open book meeting in place
of the local board. Property owners who are not
satisfied with the outcome of the open book meeting
may appeal to the County Board of Appeal and
Equalization and/or to Tax Court.
The local board can be reinstated by resolution of the
governing body of the city or town and upon proof of
compliance with the training requirements. The
resolution and proof of compliance must be provided
to the county assessor by December 1 to be effective
for the following assessment year.
Other alternate methods of appeal
Special Boards of Appeal and Equalization
The governing body of a city (including cities with
charters that provide for a board of equalization) may
appoint a Special Board of Appeal and Equalization.
The city may delegate to the Special Board of Appeal
and Equalization all of the powers and duties of the
Local Board of Appeal and Equalization. Town boards
are not able to appoint special boards.
The special board serves at the direction and
discretion of the appointing body, subject to the
restrictions imposed by law. The appointing body
shall determine the number of members of the board,
the compensation and expenses to be paid, and the
term of office of each member.
At least one member appointed to the Special Board
of Appeal and Equalization must be an appraiser,
realtor or other person familiar with property
valuations in the assessment district. The special board
must also meet the training and quorum requirements
that a local board must meet.
Tax Court
Minnesota has a specific court established to hear and
determine all questions of law and fact arising under the
tax laws of the state. The Tax Court has statewide
jurisdiction. Except for an appeal to the Supreme Court,
the Tax Court is the sole and final authority. The
petitioner must file in Tax Court on or before April 30
of the year in which the tax is payable, not the year
of the assessment.
There are two divisions of Tax Court: the Small Claims
Division and the Regular Division. The Small Claims
Division only hears appeals in certain circumstances and
is less formal. Property owners often represent
themselves and there is no official record of the
proceedings, meaning the decisions cannot be appealed
further. The Regular Division hears all types of appeals
and the decisions can be further appealed.
There is a filing fee and other fees associated with
appealing to Tax Court. The court is based in St. Paul,
but it travels to the county where the property being
appealed is located for the trial. More information is
available at www.taxcourt.state.mn.us.
26 Explanations of alternate methods of appeal
Meeting of April 25, 2011
Subject: 2011 Local Board of Appeal and Equalization Page 28
20 Local board meeting procedures that foster fair and impartial assessment reviews and
other best practices recommendations
There are certain circumstances, such as appeals
involving contamination values or income-producing
properties, that may require more than 20 days for the
assessor to review. In such instances, the board may
decide to vote “no change” and forward the appeal to the
County Board of Appeal and Equalization.
There also may be circumstances involving complicated
appeals, in which the board may review the information
presented and not be able to determine if the assessor’s
value should stand or if the property owner’s evidence
justifies a value or class change. If the board is faced
with a situation in which it is not sure how to rule based
on the facts presented, the proper decision would be “no
change.” In these instances, the local board should keep
two things in mind:
The property owner can appeal to the county board
or he/she can take the case to Tax Court; and
The county assessor can ask the county board
to review the property value or classification if
he/she believes that the local board change
was not justified.
Appeals must be substantiated by facts
Appeals must be based on facts. The property owner
must present supporting evidence to convince the
board that the current year valuation or classification
is incorrect. The supporting evidence can be presented
either in person, through a letter or through an
authorized representative.
The property owner should describe the property, how
the property is used, as well as its current condition.
Photos can be very helpful in illustrating the condition
of the property. The property owner should review the
assessor’s data on the property to make sure that it is
correct. The property owner should also review recent
property sales in the area. At the assessor’s office, the
property owner can review Certificates of Real Estate
Value (CRVs) for properties in the area. Other
evidence such as a recent appraisal may also be
helpful information to present.
The property owner should keep in mind that taxes are
not the issue. The board should not consider arguments
based on the ability of the taxpayer to pay, services
received for taxes paid or tax equalization. Given the
broad spectrum of tax capacity rates, tax classifications
and state credit programs that apply to various properties
throughout the jurisdiction, tax comparisons are
misleading. To strengthen their appeal, property owners
should present evidence about the property’s value or
classification, not how much they are paying in taxes.
Property in Minnesota is classified according to its
actual use, such as commercial, agricultural, or
residential homestead, not zoning. Property owners
disputing the classification need to present information
that proves how they use the property. For example, a
property is classified as residential. The property owner
believes that his/her property is eligible for the
agricultural classification and appeals to the local board.
In order for the board to change the classification to
agricultural, the owner must prove that the property is
used agriculturally and meets the statutory requirements
of the agricultural class.
As a board member, you should be objective and be
sure that any changes are based on facts. Do not
recommend changes without any supporting
documentation. Do not recommend changes for all
people who appeal to the board (unless each appeal can
be substantiated). Simply taking the time to appeal is not
a valid reason for adjusting the market value or changing
the classification of a property. Always keep in mind
that any reductions that the board may make will have
the effect of shifting the tax burden to other property in
the jurisdiction. The amount the jurisdiction levies will
not change when values are increased or decreased; only
the amount paid by each taxpayer changes.
For information on the appeal process and how to
substantiate an appeal, you can direct property owners to
the Minnesota Department of Revenue website
(http://www.taxes.state.mn.us). If your county website
also contains additional information such as how to
appeal, property information, frequently asked
questions, etc., it is a good idea to become familiar with
this information so you can refer property owners to it.
25Explanations of alternate methods of appeal
Benefits for the local board
The benefit for the local board is that an open book
meeting saves time for board members. It eliminates the
need for the board to become familiar with and educated
on the local real estate market. Board members will be
able to spend this time concentrating on their other
duties as town board or city council members. In
addition, board members can avoid confrontational
situations with constituents and will no longer be put
into difficult situations by having to make decisions
about the property values or classifications of property
owned by friends and neighbors.
Benefits for the county
While the number of appeals made at the open book
meeting may not be less than the number of appeals to
the local board, the benefit for the county is that the open
book process allows for immediate consideration of
issues, and in many cases, appeals are resolved before
the County Board of Appeal and Equalization. The
process is efficient for the county because it can often
consolidate several jurisdictions into one meeting (or a
series of meetings) instead of holding at least one
meeting in each jurisdiction.
Option 1: Transferring assessment and local
board duties to the county
The town board or city council may transfer the
powers and duties of the Local Board of Appeal and
Equalization to the county board (under Minnesota
Statutes, Section 274.01, subdivision 3) and no
longer perform the function of a Local Board of
Appeal and Equalization.
However, in order to exercise this option, the local
jurisdiction also must have its assessment done by the
county. This means that the local jurisdiction must give
up its local assessor. Some jurisdictions do not see this
as an option, because they have no intention of
relinquishing this power to the county. For other town
boards or city councils, this may be a good option.
Before transferring the powers and duties to the county
board, the town board or city council must give public
notice of the meeting at which the proposal for transfer
is to be considered (the public notice needs to follow the
procedure contained in Minnesota Statutes,
Section 13D.04, subdivision 2).
A town board or city council that wishes to transfer the
assessment and local board duties to the county board
must communicate this intent in writing to the county
assessor before December 1 of any year to be effective
for the following year's assessment. This transfer of
duties may either be permanent or for a specified
number of years. However, the duties must be
transferred to the county board for a minimum of three
years, and the length of the transfer must be stated in
writing. A town or city may renew its option to transfer
its duties to the county board.
Property owners in jurisdictions that have chosen this
option would be provided with an open book meeting in
place of the Local Board of Appeal and Equalization.
Property owners who are not satisfied with the outcome
of the open book meeting may appeal to the County
Board of Appeal and Equalization and/or to Tax Court.
Option 2: Transferring local board duties to the
county
Previously, the only option for transferring the local
board duties to the county board meant that the local
jurisdiction had to give up its local assessor as well.
Some jurisdictions saw this option as a loss of control,
and therefore, it was not considered to be an option for
the city or town.
The quorum and training requirements for local boards
were implemented to improve the local board process so
that the boards function fairly and objectively. The intent
of the legislation was not to force or require a city or
town to give up its local assessor. However, a
jurisdiction that fails to meet these requirements must
transfer the duties of the Local Board of Appeal and
Equalization to the County Board of Appeal and
Equalization. In this situation, the jurisdiction would
lose the right to hold its local board, but it would be able
to retain its local assessor.
It seems unfair that a jurisdiction which voluntarily
transfers its Local Board of Appeal and Equalization
duties to the County Board of Appeal and Equalization
must give up its local assessor, while a local board that
must transfer its duties to the county board for failing
to meet the training or quorum requirements may retain
its local assessor.
Meeting of April 25, 2011
Subject: 2011 Local Board of Appeal and Equalization Page 29
Best practices recommendations
Have appellants call for appointments
It is recommended that the local board hear appeals on
an appointment basis. The Notice of Valuation and
Classification sent to all taxpayers to notify them of their
property value and classification can instruct appellants
to call for an appointment with the local board.
Appointments benefit the board, the assessor and the
appellant. Appointments give the board an idea of how
many property owners will be appealing, so the board
can manage their time appropriately. It gives the
assessor time to assist in the board’s deliberations by
reviewing the property and collecting supporting data or
recommending that the board make a change.
Appellants also benefit because they need only come
to their scheduled appointment and do not have to
spend time listening to other appellants. In some
instances, property owners call to schedule
appointments with the local board, and the appeal is
avoided altogether because the issue can be resolved
easily by the assessor’s staff. Property owners who
call for appointments can also be given information on
preparing and presenting an appeal so they will know
what to expect at the meeting (see “Handouts for
property owners” section in the Appendix).
In addition to hearing appeals by any appellants who
scheduled appointments, the local board also must hear
any appeals by property owners who come to the
meeting without having scheduled an appointment prior
to the meeting. When outlining the ground rules for the
meeting, the board chair should inform the appellants
that the board will be hearing appeals from those who
have scheduled appointments first, and then the board
will be hearing appeals by others (in the order listed on
the sign-in sheet).
Time limits for presenting appeals
Time limits can help to keep the meeting moving. Time
limits may be more appropriate in jurisdictions with a
significant number of people appealing their valuation or
classification. If there are only a few people at the
meeting, time limits may not be necessary. If there are
several appellants, it may be beneficial to establish a
time limit for each appeal.
If time limits are established, they should be included in
the ground rules that are outlined at the beginning of the
meeting. Whether or not a time limit is established, it is
the responsibility of the board chair to keep the meeting
moving. If an appellant goes on at length about a
specific point, the Board Chair should intervene – in a
professional manner – to keep the meeting on track. The
chair should ensure that appellants stick to their time
allotments. If the appellant discusses taxes or previous
assessments, the Board Chair should remind him/her
tactfully that the issue is the current year valuation or
classification.
If the board determines that time limits are appropriate
for appellants, it also should impose time limits for the
assessor to support his/her valuation or classification or
recommend that the board make a change.
Hear all appeals first
It is recommended that the board hear all appeals
before making any decisions. The board should make
all decisions later in the meeting or at the reconvene
meeting (within 20 calendar days) if it is determined
that the assessor should view the property or if the
board requests additional information from the
assessor. If a reconvene meeting is necessary for the
assessor to report back to the board, it should be
limited to appeals made at the initial meeting. The
reconvene meeting is typically not for hearing a
property owner’s initial appeal.
Hearing all appeals first gives the board an opportunity
to get a better understanding of what happened in the
district, so it can make consistent recommendations. It
eliminates situations where the board feels obligated to
respond in a certain manner to one property owner
because of an earlier decision. It also speeds up the
process for appellants as they may leave after they
present their appeal.
21Local board meeting procedures that foster fair and impartial assessment reviews and
other best practices recommendations
24 Explanations of alternate methods of appeal
The open book meetings provide a forum for property
owners to meet with assessment staff on an informal
basis to review information about their property and to
ask questions about the assessment. This setting allows
the assessor’s office to resolve questions and reduce the
number of property owners who feel the need to appeal
to the County Board of Appeal and Equalization.
Property owners do not need to make an appointment to
meet with the assessment staff. They can simply show
up at the dates and times stated on the Notice of
Valuation and Classification, and an appraiser will
discuss their assessment.
Depending on the jurisdiction, the appraisers may
have laptop computers to access information about the
taxpayer’s property. Some counties may be able to
link directly to their computer-assisted mass appraisal
(CAMA) system which allows the appraiser to obtain
data on sales of comparable properties.
When reviewing the details of the property with the
owner, the appraiser can verify the accuracy of the
county’s data and correct any errors. The property
owner can also schedule an appointment for the
appraiser to view the property if needed.
Benefits for the property owner
Property owners often find that the open book meeting
is less intimidating than presenting their appeal to the
Local Board of Appeal and Equalization. They often
appreciate the fact that they can have their questions
answered in a more private setting, and not have to be
apprehensive about making a presentation in front of
their friends and neighbors. In this one-on-one setting,
property owners may spend as much time with the
appraiser as they need. They can compare the value of
their home with the values of similar homes owned by
their neighbors.
The process is very efficient because concerns and
questions are often resolved immediately. Property
owners can see that the appraiser collects the same
information on all properties, reassuring them that the
process is the same for everyone, and they have not been
singled out for a value increase.
Property owners who are not satisfied with the “open
book” approach may appeal to the County Board of
Appeal and Equalization and/or to Tax Court.
It is only a recommendation that the property owner
attend the open book meeting to discuss concerns prior
to the County Board of Appeal and Equalization. In a
jurisdiction that does not have a Local Board of Appeal
and Equalization, the property owner is not required
to attend an open book meeting in order to appeal to
the County Board of Appeal and Equalization.
An open book meeting is a meeting held by the
county assessor’s office to discuss property owners’
questions regarding their assessments. The one-on-
one meeting usually is held as an alternative to the
Local Board of Appeal and Equalization.
Open book meetings
Open book meetings provide many benefits:
No appointment needed.
Property owners can verify or correct
information about their property.
Property owners can schedule a time for the
assessor to view their property.
The setting is less intimidating than a Local
Board of Appeal and Equalization meeting.
The property owner does not need to “present”
their appeal in front of friends and neighbors.
Property owners can compare their values to
the values of other similar homes.
Questions and concerns are often resolved
immediately.
The process is very efficient.
Property owners may appeal to the County
Board of Appeal and Equalization and/or to
Tax Court if not satisfied with the outcome.
Benefits for property owners
Meeting of April 25, 2011
Subject: 2011 Local Board of Appeal and Equalization Page 30
22 Quorum requirements for local boards
Conducting other business at the local
board meeting
It is best to hold a special meeting for the Local
Board of Appeal and Equalization and not conduct
the regular council meeting (or other business) at the
local board meeting. However, due to the low
attendance in some jurisdictions, conducting other
business at the meeting may be an acceptable
practice if handled appropriately.
If other business is also to be conducted at the
meeting, the time listed on the Notice of Valuation
and Classification should be the start time for the
appeals portion of the meeting. You should conduct
other business either before the meeting (table any
discussion if not completed when it is time for the
Local Board of Appeal and Equalization) or after the
meeting (allow any late arrivals to present their appeal
even if the board has moved on to other business).
There have been instances in the past where the board
members have held their regular meeting in one part
of the hall, and the assessor has been told to meet with
appellants in another area. This is not an acceptable
practice.It is the responsibility of the board to hear
the appeals and the facts presented to make an
informed and fair decision.
Notifying property owners of decisions
It is recommended that all appellants be notified in
writing of the decision of the board, even if the
appellant was present for the decision. Given the
recommended format of hearing all appeals before
making any decisions, appellants may choose not to
stay for the entire meeting. A letter notifying appellants
of the decisions ensures that they understand and are
aware of the action, if any, taken by the board. It is also
an opportunity to notify appellants of additional appeal
options if they are not satisfied with the board’s
decision (see “Recommended format to notify
appellants of local board decisions” in the Appendix).
Quorum requirements for local boards
Quorum must be present
A majority of the voting members of the Local Board of
Appeal and Equalization must be in attendance in order
for any valid action to be taken. When a local board
meets and conducts business without a quorum, it is
conducting an illegal meeting. This means that any
changes made by a local board which does not meet the
quorum requirement are null and void.
What constitutes a quorum?
Quorum requirements differ depending on the type of body
that is meeting. Per Minnesota Statutes, Section 274.01,
subdivision 1, paragraph (a), the town board of a town,
or the council or other governing body of a city is the
Local Board of Appeal and Equalization.1
1 Except for the following situations:
Cities whose charters provide for a board of equalization;
Cities or towns that have transferred their local board duties to the county (see Chapter 5);
Cities with Special Boards of Appeal and Equalization appointed by the governing body (see Chapter 5); or
Cities or towns whose local board duties have been transferred to the county due to noncompliance with the training
requirements.
4
The number of people required to be present before
the members at a meeting can conduct business. For
the Local Board of Appeal and Equalization, a
majority of the voting members of the board must be
present to meet the quorum requirement.
Quorum
Townships:Per Minnesota Statutes, Section 366.01,
subdivision 1, the supervisors of each town constitute
the town board. Two supervisors constitute a quorum at
a town board meeting unless the town is operating under
“option A,” which means it has a five-member board of
supervisors. In the latter case, three supervisors are
required to meet the quorum requirement.
City councils: According to Minnesota Statutes,
Section 412.191, the city council in a standard plan
city shall consist of an elected mayor, an elected clerk,
and three or five elected council members (which
means these cities have either five or seven voting
members). In optional plan cities, the city council
consists of an elected mayor and four or six elected
council members (which means these cities have
either five or seven voting members). In all statutory
cities, the mayor is a voting member of the council
and must be counted when determining whether a
quorum is present. A majority of the voting members
must be present to meet the quorum requirement.
Charter cities may provide that a different number of
council members constitute a quorum.
Special boards: Appointed by the governing body of a
city, a majority of the voting members must be present
in order to meet the quorum requirement.
Assessor’s role when a quorum is not present
Each year, there are numerous complaints from property
owners who have taken time off from work – or simply
taken their personal time – to attend a local board
meeting only to find that the meeting cannot take place
due to the lack of a quorum.
When a local board does not meet because a majority of
the members are not present, it sends a message to
property owners that the board does not value their time.
It also sends the message that the board does not take the
responsibility of serving as the Local Board of Appeal
and Equalization seriously.
Rather than simply sending home angry and frustrated
property owners, the assessor changes the format to an
“open book” meeting. Property owners can discuss their
issues one-on-one with the assessor or the assessor’s
staff. If they are not satisfied with the outcome, they can
appeal to the County Board of Appeal and Equalization.
This assures that the time property owners set aside to
appeal to the local board is not wasted.
Arrive on time for the meeting
It is also very important that the board members and
all required attendees (county assessor, local assessor,
etc.) arrive at the meeting on time and that the meeting
begins at the scheduled time. This shows respect for
the people who are appealing to the board, and also
shows that their time is valued.
Explanations of alternate methods of appeal 5
Open book meetings
Open book meetings are an alternative to the Local
Board of Appeal and Equalization. During open book
meetings, the valuation and classification issues are
handled by the assessor’s staff on a one-on-one basis
with the property owner. Typically, open book meetings
are held by the county assessor’s staff. However, larger
cities with an appointed city assessor may hold their
own open book meetings.
The open book meetings are held in locations that are
convenient for property owners. Often open book
meetings are held over several days during both day
and evening hours. This allows property owners to
appeal when it best suits their schedules instead of
having to rearrange their schedules to attend a local
board meeting held at one place and time.
23Explanations of alternate methods of appeal
Meeting of April 25, 2011
Subject: 2011 Local Board of Appeal and Equalization Page 31
22 Quorum requirements for local boards
Conducting other business at the local
board meeting
It is best to hold a special meeting for the Local
Board of Appeal and Equalization and not conduct
the regular council meeting (or other business) at the
local board meeting. However, due to the low
attendance in some jurisdictions, conducting other
business at the meeting may be an acceptable
practice if handled appropriately.
If other business is also to be conducted at the
meeting, the time listed on the Notice of Valuation
and Classification should be the start time for the
appeals portion of the meeting. You should conduct
other business either before the meeting (table any
discussion if not completed when it is time for the
Local Board of Appeal and Equalization) or after the
meeting (allow any late arrivals to present their appeal
even if the board has moved on to other business).
There have been instances in the past where the board
members have held their regular meeting in one part
of the hall, and the assessor has been told to meet with
appellants in another area. This is not an acceptable
practice.It is the responsibility of the board to hear
the appeals and the facts presented to make an
informed and fair decision.
Notifying property owners of decisions
It is recommended that all appellants be notified in
writing of the decision of the board, even if the
appellant was present for the decision. Given the
recommended format of hearing all appeals before
making any decisions, appellants may choose not to
stay for the entire meeting. A letter notifying appellants
of the decisions ensures that they understand and are
aware of the action, if any, taken by the board. It is also
an opportunity to notify appellants of additional appeal
options if they are not satisfied with the board’s
decision (see “Recommended format to notify
appellants of local board decisions” in the Appendix).
Quorum requirements for local boards
Quorum must be present
A majority of the voting members of the Local Board of
Appeal and Equalization must be in attendance in order
for any valid action to be taken. When a local board
meets and conducts business without a quorum, it is
conducting an illegal meeting. This means that any
changes made by a local board which does not meet the
quorum requirement are null and void.
What constitutes a quorum?
Quorum requirements differ depending on the type of body
that is meeting. Per Minnesota Statutes, Section 274.01,
subdivision 1, paragraph (a), the town board of a town,
or the council or other governing body of a city is the
Local Board of Appeal and Equalization.1
1 Except for the following situations:
Cities whose charters provide for a board of equalization;
Cities or towns that have transferred their local board duties to the county (see Chapter 5);
Cities with Special Boards of Appeal and Equalization appointed by the governing body (see Chapter 5); or
Cities or towns whose local board duties have been transferred to the county due to noncompliance with the training
requirements.
4
The number of people required to be present before
the members at a meeting can conduct business. For
the Local Board of Appeal and Equalization, a
majority of the voting members of the board must be
present to meet the quorum requirement.
Quorum
Townships:Per Minnesota Statutes, Section 366.01,
subdivision 1, the supervisors of each town constitute
the town board. Two supervisors constitute a quorum at
a town board meeting unless the town is operating under
“option A,” which means it has a five-member board of
supervisors. In the latter case, three supervisors are
required to meet the quorum requirement.
City councils: According to Minnesota Statutes,
Section 412.191, the city council in a standard plan
city shall consist of an elected mayor, an elected clerk,
and three or five elected council members (which
means these cities have either five or seven voting
members). In optional plan cities, the city council
consists of an elected mayor and four or six elected
council members (which means these cities have
either five or seven voting members). In all statutory
cities, the mayor is a voting member of the council
and must be counted when determining whether a
quorum is present. A majority of the voting members
must be present to meet the quorum requirement.
Charter cities may provide that a different number of
council members constitute a quorum.
Special boards: Appointed by the governing body of a
city, a majority of the voting members must be present
in order to meet the quorum requirement.
Assessor’s role when a quorum is not present
Each year, there are numerous complaints from property
owners who have taken time off from work – or simply
taken their personal time – to attend a local board
meeting only to find that the meeting cannot take place
due to the lack of a quorum.
When a local board does not meet because a majority of
the members are not present, it sends a message to
property owners that the board does not value their time.
It also sends the message that the board does not take the
responsibility of serving as the Local Board of Appeal
and Equalization seriously.
Rather than simply sending home angry and frustrated
property owners, the assessor changes the format to an
“open book” meeting. Property owners can discuss their
issues one-on-one with the assessor or the assessor’s
staff. If they are not satisfied with the outcome, they can
appeal to the County Board of Appeal and Equalization.
This assures that the time property owners set aside to
appeal to the local board is not wasted.
Arrive on time for the meeting
It is also very important that the board members and
all required attendees (county assessor, local assessor,
etc.) arrive at the meeting on time and that the meeting
begins at the scheduled time. This shows respect for
the people who are appealing to the board, and also
shows that their time is valued.
Explanations of alternate methods of appeal 5
Open book meetings
Open book meetings are an alternative to the Local
Board of Appeal and Equalization. During open book
meetings, the valuation and classification issues are
handled by the assessor’s staff on a one-on-one basis
with the property owner. Typically, open book meetings
are held by the county assessor’s staff. However, larger
cities with an appointed city assessor may hold their
own open book meetings.
The open book meetings are held in locations that are
convenient for property owners. Often open book
meetings are held over several days during both day
and evening hours. This allows property owners to
appeal when it best suits their schedules instead of
having to rearrange their schedules to attend a local
board meeting held at one place and time.
23Explanations of alternate methods of appeal
Meeting of April 25, 2011
Subject: 2011 Local Board of Appeal and Equalization Page 32
Best practices recommendations
Have appellants call for appointments
It is recommended that the local board hear appeals on
an appointment basis. The Notice of Valuation and
Classification sent to all taxpayers to notify them of their
property value and classification can instruct appellants
to call for an appointment with the local board.
Appointments benefit the board, the assessor and the
appellant. Appointments give the board an idea of how
many property owners will be appealing, so the board
can manage their time appropriately. It gives the
assessor time to assist in the board’s deliberations by
reviewing the property and collecting supporting data or
recommending that the board make a change.
Appellants also benefit because they need only come
to their scheduled appointment and do not have to
spend time listening to other appellants. In some
instances, property owners call to schedule
appointments with the local board, and the appeal is
avoided altogether because the issue can be resolved
easily by the assessor’s staff. Property owners who
call for appointments can also be given information on
preparing and presenting an appeal so they will know
what to expect at the meeting (see “Handouts for
property owners” section in the Appendix).
In addition to hearing appeals by any appellants who
scheduled appointments, the local board also must hear
any appeals by property owners who come to the
meeting without having scheduled an appointment prior
to the meeting. When outlining the ground rules for the
meeting, the board chair should inform the appellants
that the board will be hearing appeals from those who
have scheduled appointments first, and then the board
will be hearing appeals by others (in the order listed on
the sign-in sheet).
Time limits for presenting appeals
Time limits can help to keep the meeting moving. Time
limits may be more appropriate in jurisdictions with a
significant number of people appealing their valuation or
classification. If there are only a few people at the
meeting, time limits may not be necessary. If there are
several appellants, it may be beneficial to establish a
time limit for each appeal.
If time limits are established, they should be included in
the ground rules that are outlined at the beginning of the
meeting. Whether or not a time limit is established, it is
the responsibility of the board chair to keep the meeting
moving. If an appellant goes on at length about a
specific point, the Board Chair should intervene – in a
professional manner – to keep the meeting on track. The
chair should ensure that appellants stick to their time
allotments. If the appellant discusses taxes or previous
assessments, the Board Chair should remind him/her
tactfully that the issue is the current year valuation or
classification.
If the board determines that time limits are appropriate
for appellants, it also should impose time limits for the
assessor to support his/her valuation or classification or
recommend that the board make a change.
Hear all appeals first
It is recommended that the board hear all appeals
before making any decisions. The board should make
all decisions later in the meeting or at the reconvene
meeting (within 20 calendar days) if it is determined
that the assessor should view the property or if the
board requests additional information from the
assessor. If a reconvene meeting is necessary for the
assessor to report back to the board, it should be
limited to appeals made at the initial meeting. The
reconvene meeting is typically not for hearing a
property owner’s initial appeal.
Hearing all appeals first gives the board an opportunity
to get a better understanding of what happened in the
district, so it can make consistent recommendations. It
eliminates situations where the board feels obligated to
respond in a certain manner to one property owner
because of an earlier decision. It also speeds up the
process for appellants as they may leave after they
present their appeal.
21Local board meeting procedures that foster fair and impartial assessment reviews and
other best practices recommendations
24 Explanations of alternate methods of appeal
The open book meetings provide a forum for property
owners to meet with assessment staff on an informal
basis to review information about their property and to
ask questions about the assessment. This setting allows
the assessor’s office to resolve questions and reduce the
number of property owners who feel the need to appeal
to the County Board of Appeal and Equalization.
Property owners do not need to make an appointment to
meet with the assessment staff. They can simply show
up at the dates and times stated on the Notice of
Valuation and Classification, and an appraiser will
discuss their assessment.
Depending on the jurisdiction, the appraisers may
have laptop computers to access information about the
taxpayer’s property. Some counties may be able to
link directly to their computer-assisted mass appraisal
(CAMA) system which allows the appraiser to obtain
data on sales of comparable properties.
When reviewing the details of the property with the
owner, the appraiser can verify the accuracy of the
county’s data and correct any errors. The property
owner can also schedule an appointment for the
appraiser to view the property if needed.
Benefits for the property owner
Property owners often find that the open book meeting
is less intimidating than presenting their appeal to the
Local Board of Appeal and Equalization. They often
appreciate the fact that they can have their questions
answered in a more private setting, and not have to be
apprehensive about making a presentation in front of
their friends and neighbors. In this one-on-one setting,
property owners may spend as much time with the
appraiser as they need. They can compare the value of
their home with the values of similar homes owned by
their neighbors.
The process is very efficient because concerns and
questions are often resolved immediately. Property
owners can see that the appraiser collects the same
information on all properties, reassuring them that the
process is the same for everyone, and they have not been
singled out for a value increase.
Property owners who are not satisfied with the “open
book” approach may appeal to the County Board of
Appeal and Equalization and/or to Tax Court.
It is only a recommendation that the property owner
attend the open book meeting to discuss concerns prior
to the County Board of Appeal and Equalization. In a
jurisdiction that does not have a Local Board of Appeal
and Equalization, the property owner is not required
to attend an open book meeting in order to appeal to
the County Board of Appeal and Equalization.
An open book meeting is a meeting held by the
county assessor’s office to discuss property owners’
questions regarding their assessments. The one-on-
one meeting usually is held as an alternative to the
Local Board of Appeal and Equalization.
Open book meetings
Open book meetings provide many benefits:
No appointment needed.
Property owners can verify or correct
information about their property.
Property owners can schedule a time for the
assessor to view their property.
The setting is less intimidating than a Local
Board of Appeal and Equalization meeting.
The property owner does not need to “present”
their appeal in front of friends and neighbors.
Property owners can compare their values to
the values of other similar homes.
Questions and concerns are often resolved
immediately.
The process is very efficient.
Property owners may appeal to the County
Board of Appeal and Equalization and/or to
Tax Court if not satisfied with the outcome.
Benefits for property owners
Meeting of April 25, 2011
Subject: 2011 Local Board of Appeal and Equalization Page 33
20 Local board meeting procedures that foster fair and impartial assessment reviews and
other best practices recommendations
There are certain circumstances, such as appeals
involving contamination values or income-producing
properties, that may require more than 20 days for the
assessor to review. In such instances, the board may
decide to vote “no change” and forward the appeal to the
County Board of Appeal and Equalization.
There also may be circumstances involving complicated
appeals, in which the board may review the information
presented and not be able to determine if the assessor’s
value should stand or if the property owner’s evidence
justifies a value or class change. If the board is faced
with a situation in which it is not sure how to rule based
on the facts presented, the proper decision would be “no
change.” In these instances, the local board should keep
two things in mind:
The property owner can appeal to the county board
or he/she can take the case to Tax Court; and
The county assessor can ask the county board
to review the property value or classification if
he/she believes that the local board change
was not justified.
Appeals must be substantiated by facts
Appeals must be based on facts. The property owner
must present supporting evidence to convince the
board that the current year valuation or classification
is incorrect. The supporting evidence can be presented
either in person, through a letter or through an
authorized representative.
The property owner should describe the property, how
the property is used, as well as its current condition.
Photos can be very helpful in illustrating the condition
of the property. The property owner should review the
assessor’s data on the property to make sure that it is
correct. The property owner should also review recent
property sales in the area. At the assessor’s office, the
property owner can review Certificates of Real Estate
Value (CRVs) for properties in the area. Other
evidence such as a recent appraisal may also be
helpful information to present.
The property owner should keep in mind that taxes are
not the issue. The board should not consider arguments
based on the ability of the taxpayer to pay, services
received for taxes paid or tax equalization. Given the
broad spectrum of tax capacity rates, tax classifications
and state credit programs that apply to various properties
throughout the jurisdiction, tax comparisons are
misleading. To strengthen their appeal, property owners
should present evidence about the property’s value or
classification, not how much they are paying in taxes.
Property in Minnesota is classified according to its
actual use, such as commercial, agricultural, or
residential homestead, not zoning. Property owners
disputing the classification need to present information
that proves how they use the property. For example, a
property is classified as residential. The property owner
believes that his/her property is eligible for the
agricultural classification and appeals to the local board.
In order for the board to change the classification to
agricultural, the owner must prove that the property is
used agriculturally and meets the statutory requirements
of the agricultural class.
As a board member, you should be objective and be
sure that any changes are based on facts. Do not
recommend changes without any supporting
documentation. Do not recommend changes for all
people who appeal to the board (unless each appeal can
be substantiated). Simply taking the time to appeal is not
a valid reason for adjusting the market value or changing
the classification of a property. Always keep in mind
that any reductions that the board may make will have
the effect of shifting the tax burden to other property in
the jurisdiction. The amount the jurisdiction levies will
not change when values are increased or decreased; only
the amount paid by each taxpayer changes.
For information on the appeal process and how to
substantiate an appeal, you can direct property owners to
the Minnesota Department of Revenue website
(http://www.taxes.state.mn.us). If your county website
also contains additional information such as how to
appeal, property information, frequently asked
questions, etc., it is a good idea to become familiar with
this information so you can refer property owners to it.
25Explanations of alternate methods of appeal
Benefits for the local board
The benefit for the local board is that an open book
meeting saves time for board members. It eliminates the
need for the board to become familiar with and educated
on the local real estate market. Board members will be
able to spend this time concentrating on their other
duties as town board or city council members. In
addition, board members can avoid confrontational
situations with constituents and will no longer be put
into difficult situations by having to make decisions
about the property values or classifications of property
owned by friends and neighbors.
Benefits for the county
While the number of appeals made at the open book
meeting may not be less than the number of appeals to
the local board, the benefit for the county is that the open
book process allows for immediate consideration of
issues, and in many cases, appeals are resolved before
the County Board of Appeal and Equalization. The
process is efficient for the county because it can often
consolidate several jurisdictions into one meeting (or a
series of meetings) instead of holding at least one
meeting in each jurisdiction.
Option 1: Transferring assessment and local
board duties to the county
The town board or city council may transfer the
powers and duties of the Local Board of Appeal and
Equalization to the county board (under Minnesota
Statutes, Section 274.01, subdivision 3) and no
longer perform the function of a Local Board of
Appeal and Equalization.
However, in order to exercise this option, the local
jurisdiction also must have its assessment done by the
county. This means that the local jurisdiction must give
up its local assessor. Some jurisdictions do not see this
as an option, because they have no intention of
relinquishing this power to the county. For other town
boards or city councils, this may be a good option.
Before transferring the powers and duties to the county
board, the town board or city council must give public
notice of the meeting at which the proposal for transfer
is to be considered (the public notice needs to follow the
procedure contained in Minnesota Statutes,
Section 13D.04, subdivision 2).
A town board or city council that wishes to transfer the
assessment and local board duties to the county board
must communicate this intent in writing to the county
assessor before December 1 of any year to be effective
for the following year's assessment. This transfer of
duties may either be permanent or for a specified
number of years. However, the duties must be
transferred to the county board for a minimum of three
years, and the length of the transfer must be stated in
writing. A town or city may renew its option to transfer
its duties to the county board.
Property owners in jurisdictions that have chosen this
option would be provided with an open book meeting in
place of the Local Board of Appeal and Equalization.
Property owners who are not satisfied with the outcome
of the open book meeting may appeal to the County
Board of Appeal and Equalization and/or to Tax Court.
Option 2: Transferring local board duties to the
county
Previously, the only option for transferring the local
board duties to the county board meant that the local
jurisdiction had to give up its local assessor as well.
Some jurisdictions saw this option as a loss of control,
and therefore, it was not considered to be an option for
the city or town.
The quorum and training requirements for local boards
were implemented to improve the local board process so
that the boards function fairly and objectively. The intent
of the legislation was not to force or require a city or
town to give up its local assessor. However, a
jurisdiction that fails to meet these requirements must
transfer the duties of the Local Board of Appeal and
Equalization to the County Board of Appeal and
Equalization. In this situation, the jurisdiction would
lose the right to hold its local board, but it would be able
to retain its local assessor.
It seems unfair that a jurisdiction which voluntarily
transfers its Local Board of Appeal and Equalization
duties to the County Board of Appeal and Equalization
must give up its local assessor, while a local board that
must transfer its duties to the county board for failing
to meet the training or quorum requirements may retain
its local assessor.
Meeting of April 25, 2011
Subject: 2011 Local Board of Appeal and Equalization Page 34
19Local board meeting procedures that foster fair and impartial assessment reviews and
other best practices recommendations
The final closing of a meeting, such as a meeting of
the board of directors or any official gathering.
Adjourn is not to be confused with “recess,” which
means the meeting will break and then continue at a
later time.
Adjourn
Depending on the procedure that the board is following,
the chair should either:
Have the board make a decision on the appeal; or
Inform the appellant that his/her concern will be
taken into consideration and let the appellant know
when a decision will be made, as well as how
he/she will be informed of the board’s decision.
Review process, not value-reduction process
The appeal process is a review process and not just a
value-reduction process. The Local Board of Appeal and
Equalization is an important step in maintaining an
equitable property tax system. It is vital that the board
members take this responsibility seriously. Any value
changes – increases or decreases – must be justified as
value changes have the effect of shifting the tax burden
to other property owners in the jurisdiction.
The purpose of the board is to ensure equality between
taxpayers so that each taxpayer is paying the fair share
of taxes – no more, no less. Keeping in mind that a
reduction in estimated market value may not reduce
taxes, and sharing this information with appellants, may
help set the proper tone for the meeting.
Therefore, it is not incumbent upon the board to reduce
the value of all individuals who appeal to the board, as
that may be unfair to the property owners who have not
appealed. The board should not give reductions to
people just for “showing up.” It is assumed that the
assessor has properly valued and classified all property
in the jurisdiction. The burden of proof rests with the
property owner who must present factual evidence to
disprove the assessor’s value or classification. All
changes made by the board must be based on facts.
Recess or adjourn
The board may not take action after adjourning. All
issues must be resolved before the meeting is adjourned.
If issues still need to be considered, the board should
recess until the next meeting.
The next (reconvene) meeting must be held within 20
calendar days (including the day of the initial meeting)
unless the board requests a time extension from the
Department of Revenue, and the time extension is
granted by the department. The date and time for the
reconvene meeting must be determined before the initial
meeting is recessed. Once the Local Board of Appeal
and Equalization has adjourned, they cannot reconvene.
Decisions
It is the board’s duty to review the facts and make
corrections as it deems just. It is not appropriate to turn
the decision over to the assessor. The board should not
order the assessor to review the property and change the
value or classification and then adjourn. In this instance,
the issue is not resolved. The board may ask the assessor
to review the property and report back to the local board
at a reconvene meeting. Ultimately, it is the local board
that must make any adjustments.
All decisions should be adopted by a formal vote.
Options for decisions include:
No change;
Lower the value;
Raise the value;
Notify a property owner of intent to raise
the value;
Change the classification; or
Have the assessor inspect the property and report
to the local board (within the 20-day timeframe).
A break in a meeting or proceedings until a certain
date and time. Recess is not to be confused with
“adjournment,” which ends the proceedings.
Recess
It seems appropriate that the local jurisdiction be given
the opportunity to decide to forego its right to act as a
Local Board of Appeal and Equalization and still
maintain its local assessor. If the town board or city
council deems that property owners would be best
served with an open book meeting, which also would
relieve the board from having to make difficult value
and classification decisions, the board or council
should contact the county assessor and inform him/her
of the jurisdiction’s intent to be treated as though it did
not meet the quorum or training requirements. It
should clarify that the city or town is transferring its
duties to the county board, but will retain its local
assessor. The town board or city council must notify
the county assessor of this decision in writing by
December 1 to be effective for the following
assessment year.
Property owners in a jurisdiction that has chosen to
transfer its Local Board of Appeal and Equalization
duties to the County Board of Appeal and Equalization
would be provided with an open book meeting in place
of the local board. Property owners who are not
satisfied with the outcome of the open book meeting
may appeal to the County Board of Appeal and
Equalization and/or to Tax Court.
The local board can be reinstated by resolution of the
governing body of the city or town and upon proof of
compliance with the training requirements. The
resolution and proof of compliance must be provided
to the county assessor by December 1 to be effective
for the following assessment year.
Other alternate methods of appeal
Special Boards of Appeal and Equalization
The governing body of a city (including cities with
charters that provide for a board of equalization) may
appoint a Special Board of Appeal and Equalization.
The city may delegate to the Special Board of Appeal
and Equalization all of the powers and duties of the
Local Board of Appeal and Equalization. Town boards
are not able to appoint special boards.
The special board serves at the direction and
discretion of the appointing body, subject to the
restrictions imposed by law. The appointing body
shall determine the number of members of the board,
the compensation and expenses to be paid, and the
term of office of each member.
At least one member appointed to the Special Board
of Appeal and Equalization must be an appraiser,
realtor or other person familiar with property
valuations in the assessment district. The special board
must also meet the training and quorum requirements
that a local board must meet.
Tax Court
Minnesota has a specific court established to hear and
determine all questions of law and fact arising under the
tax laws of the state. The Tax Court has statewide
jurisdiction. Except for an appeal to the Supreme Court,
the Tax Court is the sole and final authority. The
petitioner must file in Tax Court on or before April 30
of the year in which the tax is payable, not the year
of the assessment.
There are two divisions of Tax Court: the Small Claims
Division and the Regular Division. The Small Claims
Division only hears appeals in certain circumstances and
is less formal. Property owners often represent
themselves and there is no official record of the
proceedings, meaning the decisions cannot be appealed
further. The Regular Division hears all types of appeals
and the decisions can be further appealed.
There is a filing fee and other fees associated with
appealing to Tax Court. The court is based in St. Paul,
but it travels to the county where the property being
appealed is located for the trial. More information is
available at www.taxcourt.state.mn.us.
26 Explanations of alternate methods of appeal
Meeting of April 25, 2011
Subject: 2011 Local Board of Appeal and Equalization Page 35
All proceedings must be public
The local board meeting is subject to the open
meeting law. The open meeting law requires that
meetings of governmental bodies generally must be
open to the public. Therefore, all local board
proceedings must be public.
Board members should not leave the meeting to the
assessors while they talk about other business.
Board members should not confer with each other,
the assessor or appellants regarding appeals in
question outside the local board meeting(s).
Make appellants feel comfortable
Presenting an appeal to the Local Board of Appeal and
Equalization can be intimidating for appellants. The goal
of the board should be to make the appellant feel
comfortable, not intimidated. To make the appellant
more comfortable when presenting an appeal to the local
board, it is recommended that the appellant sit (or stand)
in front of the board and present directly to the board
rather than having the appellant speak and address all
present in the audience. This not only allows the
appellant to be more comfortable, but also decreases the
potential that an angry “mob” will form at the meeting.
Dealing with angry or difficult property owners
The following are some tips that may be helpful when
dealing with an angry or difficult property owner:
Always treat the property owner with respect;
Listen to the property owner;
Speak calmly and keep your body language calm;
Encourage the property owner to discuss
his/her concerns;
Do not get defensive;
Keep things on a positive level;
Avoid blaming statements (“You…”);
Keep the conversation focused on the issue, not
personalities (“The assessor doesn’t like me,”
etc.);
Clarify the problem;
Acknowledge the property owner’s concerns;
Show empathy for the property owner;
Emphasize collaboration (“Let’s see if we can find
a solution to this problem.”);
Let the property owner know that you will be
reviewing the facts of the case; and
End the property owner’s presentation by
acknowledging in a tactful manner that you’ve
heard what he/she has to say and will consider
the matter.
If things get too heated, it may be a good idea to suggest
a short break so the parties can calm down. Do not let
things get out of hand before informing the authorities.
If the board is anticipating any problems, it may be a
good idea to inform local law enforcement of the
meeting in advance. Do not take threats or someone
talking about violence lightly. Safety should be your
main concern. If you feel threatened, call the authorities.
Oftentimes, property owners are frustrated by the
process because they are unsure about how to appeal
to the local board. To reduce their frustration, it is
recommended that the local board let them know what
they will need to do to substantiate their appeal (see
“Handouts for property owners” section in the
Appendix for information local boards may supply to
property owners).
The Notice of Valuation and Classification will direct
property owners to the Minnesota Department of
Revenue website (http://www.taxes.state.mn.us) for
information on the appeal process and how to
substantiate appeals. Many counties also have
information on their websites concerning how to appeal,
property information, frequently asked questions, etc. If
your county website does have information relating to
assessment or property taxes, it is a good idea to become
familiar with this information so you can refer property
owners to it.
Hearing appeals
The Board Chair should call the appellant. The board
must be attentive when the appeals are being presented.
Take the time to listen to the person presenting the
appeal, but do not let the appellant dominate the
meeting.
After an appellant has presented his/her case, the chair
should ask the assessor to explain how the value and/or
classification was determined. To keep things moving
and to conduct a fair meeting, any time limits imposed
on an appellant should also be imposed on the assessor.
The board should ask questions of the appellant and the
assessor if more information is needed.
18 Local board meeting procedures that foster fair and impartial assessment reviews and
other best practices recommendations
Appendix
Glossary
Abatement – Reduction of estimated market value,
taxes, costs, penalties or interest which have been
erroneously or unjustly paid.
Adjourn – The final closing of a meeting, such as a
meeting of the board of directors or any official
gathering. Adjourn is not to be confused with
“recess,” which means the meeting will break and
then continue at a later time.
Agricultural property – Property including the
house, garage, farm buildings and farm land used
for raising or cultivating agricultural products for
sale. Defined in Minnesota Statutes as Class 2a
agricultural land. An agricultural homestead is class
2a land that is homesteaded along with any
contiguous class 2b rural vacant land under the
same ownership. Agricultural property may also be
non-homestead.
Apartment property – Residential real estate
containing four or more units and used or held for
use by the owner or by the tenants or lessees of the
owner as a residence for rental periods of 30 days or
more. Defined in Minnesota Statutes as Class 4a
rental housing.
City council – The legislative body of a city. The
city council in a standard plan city consists of an
elected mayor, an elected clerk, and three or five
elected council members (which means these cities
have either five or seven voting members). In
optional plan cities, the city council consists of an
elected mayor and four or six elected council
members (which means these cities have either five
or seven voting members). In all statutory cities, the
mayor is a voting member of the council and must
be counted when determining whether a quorum is
present. Charter cities may provide that a different
number of council members constitutes a quorum.
Class rate – The percent of market value (as
defined in Minnesota Statutes) used to determine a
property’s net tax capacity.
Classification – The assessor assigns a statutorily-
defined classification to all property based upon the use
of the property on January 2 of each year. Examples of
Minnesota property classes include residential,
agricultural, commercial-industrial, apartment and
seasonal residential recreational.
Commercial-industrial property – Property used for
commercial or industrial purposes such as retail or
manufacturing. Defined in Minnesota Statutes as Class
3a commercial and industrial property.
Comparable property sales – Properties that have
recently been sold which have similar property
characteristics to a property being appraised.
Computer-assisted mass appraisal (CAMA)
system – A computerized system that uses statistical
analysis to generate estimates of property value.
County Board of Appeal and Equalization – A
group of people, typically the county commissioners
and the county auditor, authorized to examine, compare
and equalize property assessments so that each parcel in
the county is listed at its market value.
Estimated market value (EMV) – This is the value
that the assessor estimates the property would likely sell
for on the open market. This value may be appealed to
the Local Board of Appeal and Equalization, County
Board of Appeal and Equalization or Tax Court.
27Appendix
Meeting of April 25, 2011
Subject: 2011 Local Board of Appeal and Equalization Page 36
3 Local board meeting procedures that foster
fair and impartial assessment reviews and
other best practices recommendations
Each local board meeting is conducted differently.
While there are not any statutory guidelines for
conducting the meeting, this chapter will outline
meeting procedures that foster fair and impartial
assessment reviews.
Also included in this chapter are best practices
recommendations for local boards. We acknowledge
that some cities or townships may have bylaws or rules
of procedures that may preclude some of these
recommendations. Keep in mind that these are
recommended procedures for the local boards, and they
are not intended to contradict such rules or bylaws. It is
up to each board to determine which procedures are
most appropriate for its Local Board of Appeal and
Equalization meeting.
Meeting procedures
The board should run the meeting
The board should take charge of the meeting. It is not
the assessor’s meeting. The local board is intended to be
a fair and impartial review of the assessment. The
assessor should realize that the appeal decisions are not
in his/her hands. The board’s decisions are between the
board and the appellant. The assessor is not on trial for
his/her work. The board should not critique the
assessor’s performance or blame the assessor for
increasing values (or taxes). Assessors should try not to
become too personally involved with the decisions and
remember that they have already done their best job. It is
now the task of the local board to review the facts and
make decisions as it deems just.
Establish ground rules for the meeting
Before hearing any appeals, the Board Chair should
outline the ground rules for the meeting. The ground
rules set the tone for the meeting. The specific ground
rules may vary for each local board but should include:
The purpose of the meeting;
A reminder to property owners that only appeals
for the current year valuation or classification can
be made – taxes or prior years’ assessments are not
within the jurisdiction of the board;
A reminder to property owners that they may only
appeal the estimated market value (EMV), and that
the appeals process is concerning this amount - not
tax amounts;
An explanation of the order of the appellants (will
it be by appointment first, followed by walk-ins on
a first-come basis, etc.);
The expectations of the appellant when presenting
his/her appeal (the appeal must be substantiated by
facts; where the appellant should stand or sit; the
appellant should be prepared to answer questions
posed by the board, etc.);
The time limits imposed (if any); and
The procedure the board will follow for making
decisions (will the board hear all appeals before
making any decisions, will the board send a letter
to appellants to inform them of the decision, etc.).
The Board Chair should give the assessor the
opportunity to present a brief overview of the property
tax process and a recap of the current assessment.
Appellants should then present their appeals. If the
assessor has had a chance to review the property prior to
the meeting, the assessor can present facts and
information to the board to support the valuation or
classification or recommend that the board make a
change. If the assessor has not had a chance to review
the property prior to the meeting, the assessor can
present such information to the local board at the
reconvene meeting.
17Local board meeting procedures that foster fair and impartial assessment reviews and
other best practices recommendations
Exempt property – Property that is not subject to
taxation. All property, real and personal, in the state is
taxable except that which by law is exempt. Exemption
laws are to be construed strictly, not broadly. Local or
County Boards of Appeal and Equalization cannot
grant an exemption. Ownership, use and necessity of
ownership are key elements reviewed by the assessor
when determining exemption.
Highest and best use – “A principle of appraisal and
assessment requiring that each property be appraised as
though it were being put to its most profitable use
(highest possible present net worth), given probable
legal, physical, and financial constraints.” Glossary for
Property Appraisal and Assessment, International
Association of Assessing Officers, 1997.
Home rule charter city – Any city which has adopted
a home rule charter pursuant to the constitution and
laws; “statutory city” means any city which has not
adopted such a charter.
Homestead – Property that is occupied as the principal
place of residence by the owner is eligible to receive the
homestead status and the market value homestead
credit. Property may be a residential or agricultural
homestead.
Local assessor – An assessor who works on a contract
basis for a township or city.
Local Board of Appeal and Equalization – A group
of people, typically the town board or city council,
authorized to determine whether the assessor has
properly valued and classified all parcels of taxable
property located within the district.
Market value homestead credit – Residential
homestead property receives a credit which is equal to
0.4 percent of the market value of the property. The
amount may not exceed $304 and is reduced by
0.09 percent of the market value in excess of $76,000.
Agricultural homestead property receives the residential
credit for the house, garage and one acre value plus an
agricultural credit of 0.3 percent of the agricultural class
2a and rural vacant land class 2b market value not to
exceed $345. It is reduced by 0.05 percent of the
market value in excess of $115,000 but may not be
reduced to less than $230.
Mass appraisal – The process of valuing a group of
properties as of a given date using standard methods
and statistical testing.
Median sales ratio – The midpoint (middle) of all the
individual ratios that are included for that property type in
that city or township for a sales ratio study period when
they are put in order. In Minnesota, the median sales ratio
should be between 90% and 105%. This means that
when all sales from that study period for that property
type in that city or township are put in order from smallest
to largest ratio, the middle ratio should be between 90%
and 105%.
Net tax capacity – Determined by multiplying the class
rate by the taxable market value for each property.
Notice of Valuation and Classification – A notice
mailed to taxpayers at least 10 days prior to the Local
Board of Appeal and Equalization (generally in February
or March) to inform them of their property values and
classifications for the current assessment year. Minimally,
the notice must include: the estimated market value for
the current and prior assessment; the value of any new
improvements; the amount qualifying for any deferral or
exclusion; the taxable market value for the current and
prior assessment; the property classification for the
current and prior assessment; the assessor's office address,
phone number, website and time when property
information can be viewed by the public; and the dates,
places and times set for the meetings of the Local Board
of Appeal and Equalization, any open book meetings and
the County Board of Appeal and Equalization.
Open book meeting – A meeting held by the county
assessor’s office to discuss property owners’ questions
regarding their assessments. The one-on-one meeting
usually is held as an alternative to the Local Board of
Appeal and Equalization.
Property characteristics – Distinguishing interior and
exterior features of a property and its surroundings such
as its: location and neighborhood; public or private
restrictions on the property; building type and size;
quality of construction; age of the structure; physical
condition of the structure; and the total number of rooms,
bedrooms and bathrooms.
Quorum – The number of people required to be present
before the members at a meeting can conduct business.
For the Local Board of Appeal and Equalization, a
majority of the voting members of the board must be
present to meet the quorum requirement.
Recess – A break in a meeting or proceedings until a
certain date and time. Recess is not to be confused with
“adjournment,” which ends the proceedings.
28 Appendix
Meeting of April 25, 2011
Subject: 2011 Local Board of Appeal and Equalization Page 37
Legal and policy reasons for fair and impartial
appeal and equalization hearings 2
Legal reasons for fair and impartial local board meetings
Minnesota Statutes, Section 274.01, subdivision 1,
paragraph (b) states:
“The board shall determine whether the
taxable property in the town or city has been
properly placed on the list and properly
valued by the assessor.”
This means that any action taken by the board must be
done in an effort to ensure that all taxable property in the
jurisdiction has been properly valued and classified by
the assessor. It is assumed that the assessor has correctly
valued and classified all property. The burden of proof
rests with the property owner who must present factual
evidence to disprove the assessor’s valuation or
classification of the property.
Minnesota Statutes, Section 273.11, subdivision 1
requires that all property be valued at its market
value. The assessor is required to value all property
at market value, and the Local Board of Appeal and
Equalization also must keep this in mind when
adjusting market values.
The board is to hear all appeals and act in a manner that
is just. Minnesota Statutes, Section 274.01,
subdivision 1, paragraph (b) states:
“On application of any person feeling aggrieved, the
board shall review the assessment or classification, or
both, and correct it as appears just.”
To act in a just manner, the board must only make
changes that are based on facts.
Policy reasons for fair and impartial local board meetings
Property owners expect and deserve a fair and impartial
hearing. Serving as the Local Board of Appeal and
Equalization is an important duty. As one step –
generally the first step – in the appeal process, it is very
important that the meeting be conducted in a fair and
impartial manner, or the property owner’s confidence in
the entire appeal process will be undermined.
In order for the property owner to receive a fair and
impartial hearing, the property owner must have an
opportunity to present his/her appeal and provide
evidence to support it. Then the assessor should explain
his/her valuation or classification. It is assumed that the
assessor has valued and classified the property correctly,
and the burden of proof rests with the property owner,
who must present factual evidence to disprove the
assessor’s value or classification. Then the local board
must take the appeal under consideration.
An educated board is the key to a fair and impartial
hearing. A board that is knowledgeable about the local
real estate market does not simply “rubber stamp” the
assessor’s value but makes independent decisions based
on facts. It is important that the property owner does not
perceive the outcome to be predetermined or believe that
the board is “defending” the assessor’s value. This does
not mean that the board should not uphold the assessor’s
value. It does mean that if the local board changes the
assessor’s value or classification, it must be based on the
facts presented.
A fair and impartial hearing does not necessarily mean
that the property owner is granted the value reduction or
classification change that he/she is seeking. Receiving a
fair and impartial hearing only means that the owner had
the opportunity to present his/her appeal, the board
considered the appeal and based its decision on facts.
16 Legal and policy reasons for fair and impartial appeal and equalization hearings 29Appendix
Residential property – Property that is residential in
nature consisting of the house, garage and land including
homestead and non-homestead single-family houses,
duplexes and triplexes. Defined in Minnesota Statutes as
Class 1a residential homestead, Class 1b disabled
homestead, Class 4b(1) residential real estate containing
less than four units that does not qualify as class 4bb,
Class 4bb(1) nonhomestead residential real estate
containing one unit, other than seasonal residential
recreational property; and Class 4bb(2) a single family
dwelling, garage, and surrounding one acre of property on
a nonhomestead farm.
Rural vacant land – Property that is unplatted, rural in
character and not improved with a structure unless it is a
minor, ancillary and nonresidential structure. Defined in
Minnesota Statutes as Class 2b rural vacant land. Rural
vacant land may be part of an agricultural homestead if it
is contiguous to class 2a agricultural land under the same
ownership.
Sales ratio study – A tool assessors use to help determine
values for properties. The sales ratio study period includes
sales that have occurred in a twelve month period. For the
January 2, 2010 assessment, the assessor reviews sales
that occur between October 1, 2008 and September 30,
2009. A sales ratio shows the relationship between the
EMV and the sale price of a property. It is the EMV
divided by the sales price. In Minnesota, six sales of each
property type in each jurisdiction are required to complete
a sales ratio study. One sale is not enough evidence for
the assessor to change values. Assessors look at all sales
in a study to arrive at conclusions and value estimates in
mass.
Seasonal residential recreational property – Real
property devoted to temporary and seasonal residential
occupancy for recreation purposes, including real
property devoted to temporary and seasonal residential
occupancy for recreation purposes and not devoted to
commercial purposes for more than 250 days in the year
preceding the year of assessment. Defined in Minnesota
Statutes as Class 4c(1) commercial or noncommercial
seasonal residential recreational property.
State Board of Equalization – The Commissioner of
Revenue, serving as the State Board of Equalization,
ensures assessors follow approved appraisal and
assessment practices and reviews the results of the
assessor’s work in estimating values. This board meets
in June of every year. The board can increase or
decrease values to bring about equalization on a
county-, city- and township-wide basis as well as across
county lines to ensure a fair valuation process across
taxing districts, county lines and by property type.
Statutory city – Any city which has not adopted a home
rule charter pursuant to the constitution and laws; the term
“home rule charter city” means any city which has
adopted such a charter.
Tax Court – A specific court established to hear and
determine all questions of law and fact arising under the
tax laws of the state. The Tax Court has statewide
jurisdiction. Except for an appeal to the Supreme Court,
the Tax Court is the sole and final authority. The
petitioner must file in Tax Court on or before April 30 of
the year in which the tax is payable, not the year of the
assessment.
Tax levy – The total amount of property tax revenue
needed to meet a jurisdiction’s budget requirements.
Tax rate – Determined by taking the total amount of
property tax revenue needed (tax levy) divided by the
total net tax capacity of all taxable property within the
taxing jurisdiction.
Tax statement – Mailed to taxpayers in March of each
year, the property tax statement includes the actual tax
amounts to be paid in the current year. Property tax
statements for manufactured homes assessed as personal
property are mailed in May of each year.
Taxable market value (TMV) – This is the value that
property taxes are actually based on, after all reductions,
exclusions, exemptions and deferrals.
Town board – The supervisors of a town constitute
the town board. Unless provided otherwise, there are
three supervisors. Towns operating under “option A”
have five supervisors.
Truth in Taxation Notice – Mailed to taxpayers in
November of each year, the truth in taxation notice
contains the estimated tax amounts for the following year.
The statement also includes current year tax amounts for
comparison purposes and notice of budget meetings.
Meeting of April 25, 2011
Subject: 2011 Local Board of Appeal and Equalization Page 38
15Role of the local board in the assessment process
board for that appeal. The board member is also
prohibited from participating in an appeal of a
property in which a board member has a financial
interest. If the remaining members constitute a
quorum, the board may vote on the action with the
compromised board member abstaining from the vote.
Otherwise, or if the board wishes to prevent any
perception of preferential treatment, it should mark
“No change” on the record form for the meeting. The
taxpayer will be eligible to appeal to the County
Board of Appeal and Equalization.
The local board can’t grant special program status. If a
property owner is appealing for enrollment in special
programs that require an application (e.g. Green Acres),
they must follow the proper application procedure.
Recommendations for local board members
Become familiar with sales information prior to
local board meeting
Most local board members are not necessarily aware of
current trends in the real estate market or trained in the
field of appraisal. Therefore, advance preparation is
essential to making informed, fair decisions on the
appeals heard by the local board.
The county assessor (or the local or city assessor in
some instances) should provide information on the real
estate market in advance of the local board meeting. If
this information is not provided, the local board should
request that the assessor provide the information at least
one week prior to the meeting so board members have
time to review it.
The following are examples of the type of data that the
assessor may provide for the local board to use when
determining if an adjustment is necessary. This is not an
all-encompassing list, and depending on the jurisdiction,
it may or may not be necessary for every board to have
all the items on the list. The local board should work
with the assessor to determine the specific information
to be supplied to the local board.
Information on sales within the district that
occurred in the previous year.
Valuation tables of land types.
Copy of the values from the mini-abstract
for the district (current year and prior year).
Printout of parcel listings for the district
with the values.
Review of the current statutory classifications
and the corresponding class rates.
Review of value changes by property type
in the district.
The local board should also be prepared to request
additional background information and to ask
questions of the assessor in order to assist with the
board’s deliberations.
As a local board member, you should review the
information provided by the assessor. If you have any
questions about the materials, please be sure to contact
the assessor. Being knowledgeable about the real estate
market is the key to making informed and fair decisions.
Duties of the clerk
The town or city clerk plays an important role in the
Local Board of Appeal and Equalization process. The
following is a brief list of the duties of the clerk
pertaining to the local board meeting:
Work with the county assessor to establish the
meeting date(s) for the local board;
Publish and post notice of the meeting at least 10
days prior to the date of the (Minnesota Statutes,
Section 274.01, subdivision 1);
Ensure that a quorum will be present;
Provide a sign-in sheet for appellants;
Take minutes of the meeting as part of the
town or city record; and
Return all necessary records to the county
assessor in a timely manner.
In some jurisdictions, various duties of the clerk may be
performed by the city or county assessor or the
assessor’s staff. In these instances, it is recommended
that the clerk be aware of and monitor these duties to
ensure they are completed.
Duties of local and county boards
30 Appendix
Meeting of April 25, 2011
Subject: 2011 Local Board of Appeal and Equalization Page 39
Add improvements to the assessment list.In reviewing
the individual assessments, the board may find instances
where property is not listed at its market value because
the value of a building or other improvement was not
included when the market value of the property was
estimated. These should be carefully reviewed by the
board and placed on a tentative list of property values to
be increased. The board should then determine to what
extent the valuation of such property should be
increased. Before the board adds value for new or
overlooked improvements, it must notify the owner.
Change the classification of a property.In
Minnesota, property is classified according to its use
on the assessment date (January 2 of each year). If the
property is not currently being used, it is classified
according to its most probable, highest and best use.
Property owners do not get to choose how they want
their property to be classified. It is the assessor’s job to
classify it according to its current use or its most
probable, highest and best use. The board can change
the classification of any property which in the board’s
opinion is not properly classified. Again, it is assumed
that the assessor has classified the property correctly.
The classification must be based on use, and in order
for the board to change the classification, the appellant
must present evidence that the property is used in a
manner consistent with the classification.
What the board can’t do
The local board can’t consider prior year assessments.
The Local Board of Appeal and Equalization does not
have the authority in any year to reopen former
assessments on which taxes are due and payable. The
board considers only the assessments that are in process
in the current year. Occasionally, a property owner may
appear with a tax statement and protest the taxes or
assessment of the previous year. The board should
explain tactfully that it does not have the authority to
consider such matters. After taxes have been extended,
adjustments can be made only by the process of
application for abatement or by legal action.
The local board can’t order percentage increases or
decreases for an entire class of property. The authority
of the local board extends over the individual
assessments of real and personal property. The board
cannot increase or decrease by percentage all of the
assessments in the district of a given class of property.
Changes in the aggregate assessments by classes are
made by the County Board of Appeal and Equalization.
The local board can’t reduce the aggregate assessment
by more than 1 percent. Although the Local Board of
Appeal and Equalization has the authority to increase or
reduce individual assessments, the total of such
adjustments must not reduce the aggregate assessment
of the jurisdiction by more than 1 percent. The
“aggregate assessment” is the total EMV that the local
board has the authority to change, i.e. the total EMV of
assessments within the jurisdiction excluding state
assessed property. For example, if the total EMV of a
jurisdiction is $2,000,000, the board cannot reduce the
total EMV of the
jurisdiction by more
than $20,000. This
means the EMV after
board actions must be
at least $1,980,000.
Assessor’s EMV
+ Total board EMV increases
- Total board EMV reductions
EMV after board actions
If the total amount of adjustments made by the local
board does lower the aggregate assessment by more
than 1 percent, none of the adjustments will be
allowed. This limitation does not apply, however, to the
correction of clerical errors or to the removal of
duplicate assessments. Clerical errors are limited to
errors made by someone performing a clerical function
during the course of the actual assessment. Examples of
clerical errors are errors such as transposing numbers or
mathematical errors. Errors that occur when making
estimations during the inspection and appraisal process
(judgment errors) are not considered to be clerical errors.
The local board can’t exempt property. The Local
Board of Appeal and Equalization does not have the
authority to grant an exemption or to order property
removed from the tax rolls.
The local board can’t make changes benefiting a
property owner who refuses entry by the assessor.
The board may not make an individual market value
adjustment or classification change that would benefit
the property in cases where the owner or other person
having control over the property will not permit the
assessor to inspect the property and the interior of any
buildings or structures.
A member of the local board can’t make changes to
property in which he/she has a conflict of interest or
financial interest. If a property being appealed is
owned by a board member, a board member’s spouse,
parent, stepparent, child, stepchild, grandparent,
grandchild, brother, sister, uncle, aunt, nephew, or
niece, by blood or marriage, the board member is
prohibited from participating in the actions of the
14 Role of the local board in the assessment process
How value changes affect taxes
31Appendix
Meeting of April 25, 2011
Subject: 2011 Local Board of Appeal and Equalization Page 40
Duties of the local board
The local board is to determine whether all of the taxable
property in the town or city has been properly valued
and classified for the current assessment. All property is
to be valued at its market value, and all property is to be
classified according to use. It is assumed that the
assessor has properly valued and classified all the
property in the jurisdiction. The burden of proof rests
with the property owner who must present factual
evidence to disprove the assessor’s value or
classification.
The complaints and objections of property owners
appealing individual assessments for the current year
should be considered very carefully by the board. An
appeal may be made in person, by letter, or through a
representative of the owner. Written objections should be
filed with the city or town clerk or county assessor prior
to the meeting of the Local Board of Appeal and
Equalization and must be presented to the board for
consideration while it is in session. The board must hear
all complaints and examine all letters. Such assessments
must be reviewed in detail, and the board has the
authority to make corrections as it deems to be just. The
board may recess from day to day until all cases have
been heard.
The board should look for property or improvements that
are not on the tax rolls. When property or improvements
are missing from the tax rolls, an unfair burden falls
upon the owners of all properties that have been
assessed. If the board finds any property or
improvements that are not on the tax rolls, the board
should place it on the assessment list along with its
market value, and correct the assessment so that each
tract or lot of real property and each article, parcel or
class of personal property is entered on the assessment
list at its market value.
Changes within 10 days of local board meeting
Since the Notice of Valuation and Classification must be
mailed to taxpayers at least 10 days prior to the meeting
of the Local Board of Appeal and Equalization, the
assessor should not make changes to the valuation or
classification of a property within that 10-day window
without bringing the change to the local board for action.
After receiving the notice, the property owner can
contact the assessor to discuss questions or concerns.
The assessor can make changes to the valuation or
classification without bringing the change to the local
board if a new notice is mailed to the property owner at
least 10 days prior to the local board meeting.
Oftentimes, the assessor will continue to review
properties within 10 days of the local board meeting.
However, if the assessor makes a change, that change
should be brought to the local board for action.
If the property owner agrees with the change, he/she
does not need to personally appeal to the board. Instead,
the assessor should present such changes to be voted on
by the board.
What the board can do
Reduce the value of a property. The local board may
reduce the value of a property if the facts show that
the property is assessed at a value that is higher than
its market value. All property is to be valued at its
market value. It is assumed that the assessor has
properly valued the property. The burden of proof
rests with the property owner who must present
factual evidence to disprove the assessor’s value.
Increase the value of a property. The local board may
increase the value of a property if the facts show that the
property is assessed at a value that is lower than its
market value. The board must also base the decision to
increase the market value on facts. All property is to be
valued at its market value. It is assumed that the assessor
has properly valued the property. The board must rely
on factual evidence to disprove the assessor’s value.
Before the board raises the market value of a property, it
must notify the owner. The law does not prescribe any
particular form of notice, except that the person whose
property is to be increased in assessment must be
notified of the intent of the board to make the increase.
The owner must be notified either in writing or orally.
He/she should be given a time to appear before the local
board. After the hearing, the local board should make
any corrections that it deems just.
Add properties to the assessment list.If the board finds
that any real or personal property has not been entered
onto the assessment list, the board shall place it on the
assessment list along with its market value, and correct
the assessment so that each tract and lot of real property
and all personal property is entered on the assessment
list at its market value.
13Role of the local board in the assessment process
Recommended format to notify appellants of local board decisions
April 29, 2010
{Insert property owner’s name}
{Address line 1}
{Address line 2}
Dear {Insert name here}:
This letter is to acknowledge an appeal to the {insert jurisdiction here} Local Board of Appeal and Equalization regarding
the value or classification of parcel number {Insert parcel number here}.
The local board considered the appeal and any information presented (or supplied in the case of written appeals). As a
result of its review, the local board voted to:
______ Make no change to the 2010 value or classification
______ Change the 2010 classification from ______________________ to _____________________
______ Reduce the 2010 value from $___________________ to $ ___________________
______ Increase the 2010 value from $___________________ to $ ___________________
Comments:
If you are not satisfied with the outcome of the Local Board of Appeal and Equalization, you may appeal to the County
Board of Appeal and Equalization. {Add details about scheduling appointments or how to appeal to the county board.}
You may also appeal to Tax Court. For more information on the Tax Court, go to http://www.taxcourt.state.mn.us.
Sincerely,
{insert name}
{insert title}
32 Appendix
Meeting of April 25, 2011
Subject: 2011 Local Board of Appeal and Equalization Page 41
Documenting local board actions
Before adjourning, the Local Board of Appeal and
Equalization must prepare an official record of all actions
taken by the board. Minnesota Statutes 274.01,
subdivision 1, paragraph (e) requires, in part, that:
“The board shall list separately, on a form appended
to the assessment book, all omitted property added to
the list by the board and all items of property
increased or decreased, with the market value of
each item of property, added or changed by the
board, placed opposite the item.”
This means that the local board must prepare an official
record of the proceedings. The record must reflect all
board actions. Therefore, the record must list all:
Assessments of property added to the tax rolls with
the market value for each;
Appeals brought before the board, indicating the
action taken by the board (including all appeals in
which the board voted “no change”);
Assessments that have been increased or decreased
with the market value for each;
All classification changes; and
All changes that the county assessor brought
to the board for action, indicating the action
taken by the board.
After the changes have been completed, the record must
be signed and dated by the members of the local board
who were present at the meeting. The record must also list
the names and titles of all voting members of the local
board, including those who are present and those who are
absent, to verify that the quorum requirement was met.
The county assessor is to make all changes ordered by the
local board that are authorized by law.
Required forms for documenting board actions
County assessors are required to submit any changes
made by the Local and County Boards of Appeal and
Equalization to the Commissioner of Revenue, along
with a copy of the proceedings of each board within 10
working days following final action of the local board.
The information must be filed in the manner prescribed
by the Commissioner of Revenue (Minnesota Statutes,
Chapter 270C).
In recent years, there has been increasing interest by the
legislature and others in the number of appeals at the
local level and the effect of the changes that were made.
However, because of the manner in which many
counties submit this information, the Department of
Revenue has not been able to respond to requests for this
information. Therefore, we are requiring that the
counties provide the data in a format that is complete,
readable and easily interpreted. Each county will be
required to submit this information in an electronic
format as instructed by the Department of Revenue.
To ensure that the information is consistent from local
jurisdiction to local jurisdiction and from county to
county, the Department of Revenue also is requiring that
the local board complete the following two forms for
each Local Board of Appeal and Equalization meeting:
Local Board of Appeal and Equalization
Certification Form – must be completed and
signed to verify that the quorum and training
requirements were met and to provide a summary
of board actions; and
Local Board of Appeal and Equalization Record
Form – must be completed to provide a detailed
report of the proceedings of the board.
The county assessor will provide these forms to the local
board. The local board will complete the forms (the
jurisdiction total EMV is to be completed by the
assessor), and the county assessor will take possession
of the completed forms at the end of the meeting.
A Certification Form must be completed in the case of a
reconvene meeting. If a recess is called, a quorum also
must be present at the reconvene meeting for the local
board to take valid action. To verify that the quorum
requirement was met, the local board must complete and
sign a Certification Form for each reconvene meeting.
The local board will continue to complete the original
Record Form at each reconvene meeting.
The reconvene meeting(s) must be held and all business
of the local board must be concluded within 20 calendar
days (including the day of the initial meeting) unless the
board requests a time extension in writing from the
Department of Revenue and the time extension is
granted by the department (no extensions will be granted
beyond May 31). The date and time for the reconvene
meeting must be determined before the initial meeting is
recessed. Once the Local Board of Appeal and
Equalization has adjourned, they cannot reconvene.
12 Role of the local board in the assessment process 33Appendix
Frequently asked questions by local board members
What is the purpose of the Local Board of
Appeal and Equalization?
One characteristic of the valuation (and to a lesser extent
the classification) part of the property tax process is that
there are subjective elements involved. Both mass
appraisal and independent appraisal are inexact sciences.
The property tax system has a method for property
owners to appeal the decisions made by the assessor.
Effective actions taken by the Local Board of Appeal
and Equalization may potentially make a direct
contribution to attaining assessment equality. Any
value reductions have the effect of shifting the
property tax burden to other properties, so any changes
made by the board must be justified.
On what basis should I make my decisions as
a local board member?
You have an obligation to objectively listen to the
property owner’s appeal, which should focus on the
market value and facts that impact the market value or
the facts that focus on the classification. It is assumed
that the assessor has valued the property correctly. The
burden of proof rests with the property owner who must
present factual evidence to disprove the assessor’s value.
For example, if the property owner states that his/her
home is overvalued because it is located on a busy street,
the property owner should present comparable sales also
located on that street. The board would want to take that
information under advisement. Then the board should
ask for information from the assessor concerning how
the value of the property was determined. Again, any
decisions made by the board should be based on facts
because any reductions have the effect of shifting the
property tax burden to other properties. It is important
to keep in mind that all decisions must meet statutory
guidelines as well.
What options do property owners have
if they are not satisfied with the local
board’s decision?
The property owner can:
appeal by letter, representative or in person to the
County Board of Appeal and Equalization (a
property owner must appeal to the local board to
be able to appeal to the county board); and/or
appeal to Tax Court.
What factors make up the valuation of
property?
The critical question is whether the property is valued in
excess of market value or a theoretical selling price as of
January 2 of each year. The components that make up
the market value are developed from vacant land sales,
replacement cost schedules, abstraction from sales data,
and other sources. The mass appraisal system includes
both quantitative and qualitative variables.
Quantitative variables are objective characteristics,
such as square footage, number of bathrooms or
fireplaces, and other straightforward items. It is
important that the property description is accurate to
allow for a fair application of the mass appraisal
schedule to the property.
Qualitative variables are more subjective in
nature. They include the grading (or estimating
the construction quality) of the property which
always involves judgment.
Why do values change?
There are basically three reasons why values change.
Appreciation or depreciation in the real estate
market. The assessor’s office collects information on
the local real estate market and adjusts property values
annually in order to reflect the market. The requirement
that the assessor actually view properties once every five
years does not limit the assessor to revaluing properties
once every five years. The assessor is required to review
property values and classifications each year.
Physical changes to improvements on the property.
Improvements such as building a deck or finishing the
basement increase the value of the property, and the
assessor would adjust the value to reflect these
improvements. Similarly, the assessor should adjust the
value for any structural components that may be removed.
Equalization process. The Commissioner of Revenue,
acting as the State Board of Equalization, has the
authority to increase or decrease values to bring about
equalization. The orders are usually on a county-, city-,
or township-wide basis for a particular classification of
property. All State Board orders must be implemented
by the county for the current assessment year.
Meeting of April 25, 2011
Subject: 2011 Local Board of Appeal and Equalization Page 42
Local board meeting
Who must attend the meeting
Per Minnesota Statutes, Section 274.01,
subdivision 1, paragraph (a), the town board of a
town or the council or other governing body of a
city is the Local Board of Appeal and Equalization,
except in the following situations:
Cities whose charters provide for a board of
equalization;
Cities or towns that have transferred their local
board duties to the county (see Chapter 5);
Cities with Special Boards of Appeal and
Equalization appointed by the governing body
(see Chapter 5); or
Cities or towns whose local board duties have
been transferred due to noncompliance with
the training requirements.
When a Local Board of Appeal and Equalization
convenes, a majority of the voting members (quorum)
must be in attendance in order for any valid action to
be taken (see Chapter 4 for more information about
quorum requirements).
The local assessor is required by law to be present with
his/her assessment books and papers. The local assessor
is required to take part in the proceedings to support his
values or recommend a change, but the local assessor
has no vote. He/she should be prepared to explain how
the value was determined, and in doing so, the assessor
should be able to describe the characteristics of the
property, such as: location and neighborhood, public or
private restrictions on the property, building type and
size, quality of construction, age of the structure,
physical condition of the structure, total number of
rooms and total number of bedrooms and bathrooms,
and market conditions, etc.
The local assessor should be knowledgeable about the
local real estate market and the property in the area.
While it is not the goal of the assessor to influence the
board, the assessor should provide factual information to
support the value and classification or to support a
recommended change to a subject property. The local
assessor also should be able to explain how the property
classification was determined.
In addition to the local assessor, the county assessor or
one of his/her assistants is required to attend. The board
should ask the local and/or county assessors to present
any tables that have been prepared, making comparisons
of the current assessments in the district. Either the local
or county assessor is required to have maps and tables
relating particularly to agricultural land values for the
guidance of the Local Board of Appeal and Equalization.
The local board should be prepared to ask the local and
county assessors questions, and assessors should be
prepared to answer questions and provide information
that will assist the board in its deliberations.
Meeting dates and times for the local board
The meeting date and time for the Local Board of
Appeal and Equalization is set by the county assessor.
The county assessor must provide written notice of the
date and time to the city or town clerk by February 15 of
each year. The clerk shall publish and post notice of the
meeting at least 10 days before the date of the meeting.
The Local Board of Appeal and Equalization meeting
must be held between April 1 and May 31 of each year
(unless the provisions of a charter provide otherwise). The
local board must conduct its business and adjourn within
20 days of the date stated in the published notice. Upon
request, the Department of Revenue (at its discretion)
may grant extensions beyond the 20-day time period to da
date no later than May 31.
No changes may be made by the local board after
adjourning. The county assessor also may not make any
changes in valuation or classification that are intended to
correct errors in judgment by the county assessor after
the local board has adjourned. However, the county
assessor may make changes that are clerical in nature or
changes that extend homestead treatment until the tax
extension date for that assessment year. A list of all the
changes made by the local board must be fully
documented and maintained in the assessor’s office and
must be available for review by any person. A copy of
the changes made during this period in those cities or
towns that hold a local board must be sent to the county
board no later than December 31 of the assessment year.
11Role of the local board in the assessment process
Frequently asked questions by property owners
Is it legal for the assessor to increase my value
so much in one year?
Yes. The assessor must value property at market value
each year. Property values change continuously with
changing economic conditions. There is no limit to the
amount of increase or decrease in estimated market values
in a given year. The assessor is required to review the
values and classifications as of January 2 of each year.
When will my value stop changing so much?
This is impossible to predict. Estimated market values
are dictated by the market. If sale prices are increasing,
estimated market values will increase. If sale prices are
decreasing, estimated market values will decrease.
Why are my taxes so high?
Taxes are not within the authority of the local board. The
property tax on a specific parcel is based on its market
value, property class, the total value of all property
within the taxing area, and the budget requirements of
all local government units located within the taxing area.
Only concerns relating to the current year valuation
and/or classification may be heard by the local board.
Will I be taxed out of my home?
The local board cannot reduce tax amounts. There is
relief for property classified as homestead. The market
value homestead credit directly reduces the property
taxes on a parcel. In addition to the homestead
classification, Minnesota provides property tax relief to
homeowners through the Property Tax Refund program.
This program has been around for many years and
includes two different kinds of refunds: the regular
refund and the special refund. The regular refund was
designed to relieve the burden on homeowners whose
property taxes are high in relation to their income. The
special refund is for homeowners who experience a
property tax increase of more than 12 percent (and at
least $100), regardless of their income level. Both of
these refunds must be applied for using form M1PR
from the Minnesota Department of Revenue. There are
specific requirements for each refund, which are
included in the M1PR instructions.
In addition, qualifying individuals may participate in the
Senior Citizen Property Tax Deferral program. This is a
deferral of tax, not a reduction. The taxes accumulate
along with interest at a rate not to exceed 5 percent and a
lien is attached to the property.
Forms and instructions for the Property Tax Refund and
Senior Citizen Property Tax Deferral program are
available on the Department of Revenue website
(http://www.taxes.state.mn.us).
Handouts for property owners
The following pages contain information for property
owners to help them with the appeal process. You
may photocopy these pages and provide them to
property owners who seek to appeal their property
value or classification.
34 Appendix
(http://www.taxes.state.mn.us).
BoardsofAppealandEquilization,""Understanding
propertytaxes,""Howtheassessorestimatesyour
DepartmentofRevenuewebsite
The“PreparinganappealtoyourLocalandCounty
marketvalue," and"Understandingyourassessment
andtheappealsprocess" fact sheets are also on the
Meeting of April 25, 2011
Subject: 2011 Local Board of Appeal and Equalization Page 43
Assessor notifies taxpayer
The assessor notifies taxpayers of their values and
classifications each year after they have been estimated
on the assessment date. This notification – the Notice of
Valuation and Classification – must be mailed at least 10
days prior to the Local Board of Appeal and
Equalization meeting or 10 days prior to the open book
meeting (generally, this means that the notices are
mailed in February or March of each year).
At this point, the property owner can appeal the EMV
and/or classification if he/she feels that the property is:
classified improperly;
valued at an amount higher than they could
sell the property for; and/or
valued at a level different from similar
properties in the area.
The property owner should first contact the
assessor’s office to discuss questions or concerns.
Issues often can be resolved at this level. If questions or
concerns are not resolved after talking with the assessor,
formal appeal options are available:
Property owners may appeal to the Local Board of
Appeal and Equalization (some jurisdictions that
have transferred the local board duties to the
county will have open book meetings instead of
local board meetings);
If the property owner is not satisfied with the local
board’s decision (or the outcome of the open book
meeting), he/she may then appeal to the County
Board of Appeal and Equalization; and/or
The property owner may appeal to Tax Court.
The Notice of Valuation and Classification must provide
the property owner with the date, time and location of
the Local and County Boards of Appeal and
Equalization.
Assessor meets with State Board of Equalization
The State Board of Equalization ensures assessors
follow approved appraisal and assessment practices
and reviews the results of the assessors’ work in
estimating values. This board meets in June of every
year. The meeting, and any resulting changes, occurs
only after a review of values and sales ratios and after
discussions with the county assessor, county assessors
in adjacent counties, and the Commissioner of
Revenue.
The Department of Revenue, as the State Board of
Equalization, completes its own sales ratio studies – one
which is very similar to the assessor’s study, plus two
additional studies – to be sure values closely match the
real estate market.
The department has determined that a minimum of six
sales in a jurisdiction are required for the median ratio to
be reflective of actual assessment levels for its studies.
There are some jurisdictions and property types that may
never have enough sales, for example small-town
commercial properties. In these instances, the assessor
and the State Board of Equalization may examine sales
over a protracted period of time or borrow sales from
other similar jurisdictions to help evaluate the
assessment and estimate values.
The State Board of Equalization completes this
verification statewide for each property type and
jurisdiction and can order changes to EMVs if the
assessor’s work does not comply with law and
guidelines. If the study indicates that the median ratio
is below 90 percent or above 105 percent, the
Commissioner of Revenue has the authority to
increase or decrease values to bring about
equalization.
The equalization process is designed not only to
equalize values on a county-, city- and township-wide
basis but also to equalize values across county lines to
ensure a fair valuation process across taxing districts,
county lines and by property type.
State Board orders are usually on a county-, city- or
township-wide basis for a particular classification of
property. All State Board orders must be implemented
by the county, and the changes are made to the current
assessment year.
10 Role of the local board in the assessment process
Property Tax Division – Mail Station 3340 – St. Paul, MN 55146-3340 This fact sheet is intended to help you become more familiar with Minnesota
tax laws and your rights and responsibilities under the laws. Nothing in this
fact sheet supersedes, alters, or otherwise changes any provisions of the tax
law, administrative rules, court decisions, or revenue notices. Alternative formats
available upon request.
www.taxes.state.mn.us
Preparing an Appeal to Your Local and County
Boards of Appeal and Equalization
Property Tax Fact Sheet 10 Fact Sheet
10
Revised 07/04 Minnesota Revenue, Preparing an Appeal to your Local and County Boards of Appeal and Equalization 1
You have decided to appeal the valuation and/or
classification of your property to your Local or County
Boards of Appeal and Equalization. You must appeal to
the Local Board of Appeal and Equalization before
appealing to your County Board of Appeal and
Equalization.
If you haven’t done so already, you should contact your
assessor’s office before making a formal appeal to discuss
changing your assessment. Often issues
and concerns can be resolved at this level.
If you and the assessor were unable to agree
on your valuation or classification you may
decide to appeal to your Local and/or County Boards of
Appeal and Equalization.
The general information contained in this fact sheet is
applicable to preparing for appeals to both the Local and
County Boards of Appeal and Equalization.
Successfully appealing your assessment
Minnesota law assumes that the County Assessor has
correctly valued and classified your property. You must
present factual evidence to convince the Board otherwise
in order to win your appeal. Make sure all facts are
presented, and the board understands the
information presented, so a decision can
be made based on facts.
Successfully appealing your value or
classification at your Local or County Board of Appeal
and Equalization can mean a number of things.
It does not necessarily mean that the board ruled in your
favor and lowered your value or changed your
classification.
Whether or not the local board decides to make a change
in your estimated market value or classification, you can
still be successful in appealing to your local board. The
ultimate result you want to achieve is to make sure your
value is warranted and the classification of your property
is correct based on its use.
Preparing for your appeal
The first step is to do some research to collect information
to show why you believe your estimated market value or
classification is incorrect. Begin by
contacting the assessor’s office.
Verify information about your property,
such as its dimensions, age and
condition of its structures.
Review records to determine the market value of
similar property in your neighborhood.
Review sales data to find out what similar property in
your area is selling for.
Check real estate ads in your newspaper to get an
idea of the asking price of local properties.
Ask the assessor to explain the criteria used for
classifying your property. You may also review the
classification of other property used in the same
manner as yours.
Gathering supporting evidence
You must have documentation to support your
appeal. Items you may wish to bring to the
meeting include:
A recent appraisal of your property.
Recent sales of similar property.
Documentation supporting the use of
your property (if you are appealing the
classification).
Copies of other property owners’ field cards/property
information.
Photos of your property.
Photos or exhibits comparing neighboring properties
to yours.
If you should have questions, please don’t hesitate to
contact your assessor’s office. Staff members are always
willing to answer questions and give you information that
will help you understand your assessment.
See page 2 for helpful hints o
Meeting of April 25, 2011
Subject: 2011 Local Board of Appeal and Equalization Page 44
Assessor determines classification
Along with estimating the market value of each
property, the assessor must determine the classification,
or use, of each parcel of property. Property
classifications are defined in Minnesota Statutes, and the
assessor classifies the property based on its use as of
January 2 of each year. Examples of classifications
include residential homestead, residential non-
homestead, apartment, commercial and agricultural.
Assessor reviews sales ratio
Assessors analyze the sales in a community in order to
understand local market trends and provide direction in
estimating values. Whenever real estate is sold for more
than $1,000 a certificate of real estate value (CRV) must
be filed in the county in which the property is located.
The assessor uses CRVs to analyze actual sales of
property and to complete sales ratio studies for each
community and for each type of property. The ratio is
determined by dividing the EMV by the sale price. The
assessor uses the sales as guides to estimate what similar
properties would likely sell for on the open market. It is
important to remember that one sale, taken by itself,
does not necessarily reflect the actual real estate market
in a jurisdiction.
In addition to the sales ratio study conducted by the
assessor, the Department of Revenue conducts a similar
independent sales ratio study for the jurisdiction to
monitor how close the median ratio is to the required
level of assessment and is used by the State Board of
Equalization. The Department of Revenue’s sales ratio
studies should be the same or similar to the studies
conducted by the assessor.
The sales ratio study is a tool assessors use to help
determine values for properties. The study helps
assessors plan the upcoming assessment and evaluate
the current assessment. If results of the study are not
within acceptable guidelines, the assessor is required by
law to either decrease or increase values so that they
more closely reflect the market.
The sales ratio study period includes sales that have
occurred in a twelve month period. For the January 2,
2010 assessment, the assessor reviews sales that occur
between October 1, 2008 and September 30, 2009. By
design, there is a lag between the sale and when it is
used to help estimate value so it can be verified and
reviewed for accuracy.
The assessor only considers sales that have been verified
as typical and open market. This means the buyer and
seller are typically motivated, both parties are acting in
their own best interests and a reasonable time is allowed
for marketing. According to state law, the assessor must
not use sales that cannot be verified as open market
sales. This means sales between family members, for
example, are not included. This also means that
foreclosure sales are very rarely (if ever) included.
The assessor completes a sales ratio study by gathering
basic data and screening and editing information to
make any adjustments and exclude all sales that do not
represent arm’s-length transactions. The remaining data
is put into an acceptable format for processing (usually
done by computer) and sorted by similar property types
within each city or township (or neighborhood if
possible). Finally, statistics are computed to describe the
information and determine results of the assessor’s
work.
There are numerous calculations in a sales ratio study
that describe the overall levels and quality of the
assessment. An important one is the sales ratio; it shows
the relationship between the EMV and a property’s sale
price. It is the EMV divided by the sales price.
EMV Sale Ratio =Sale Price
The median sales ratio is the midpoint (middle) of all the
individual ratios that are included for that property type
in that city or township for that study period when they
are put in order.
In Minnesota, this median sales ratio should be between
90% and 105%. This means that when all sales from
that study period for that property type in that city or
township are put in order from smallest to largest ratio,
the middle ratio should be between 90% and 105%.
In Minnesota, six sales of each property type in each
jurisdiction are required to complete a sales ratio study.
One sale is not enough evidence for the assessor to
change values. The assessor uses other tools when there
are limited sales to study. In fact, just because a property
sells does not mean its sale price should be its EMV.
Assessors look at all sales in a study to arrive at
conclusions and value estimates in mass.
The sales ratio study
9Role of the local board in the assessment process Revised 07/04 Minnesota Revenue, Preparing an Appeal to your Local and County Boards of Appeal and Equalization 2
Presenting your case
Remember, how you present your case may affect the
outcome of your appeal – you want to be sure you get
your point across as effectively as possible.
Make a list of key points you may wish to present.
The board has never seen your
property. Describe your property so
they will understand your arguments
more fully. Photos can be helpful to
support your argument.
Keep your presentation brief and factual.
Be prepared to discuss your case with the board or
answer any questions that the board may have.
Written appeals
You may also appeal your value or classification by
submitting a letter of appeal to the board instead of
appearing in person.
You will want to do your research and
explain your appeal in writing. Your letter
should state the facts and include supporting
documentation. You may want to include your daytime
phone number so you can be reached in case the board
has any questions.
Other helpful information
Please keep in mind that taxes are not the issue. To
strengthen your appeal, you should present evidence
about your property’s value or classification,
not how much you are paying in taxes.
This fact sheet is not meant to give you
legal advice. It is intended to be a helpful tool with
general information for presenting your property tax
appeal at your Local and County Boards of Appeal and
Equalization.
Meeting of April 25, 2011
Subject: 2011 Local Board of Appeal and Equalization Page 45
Assessor estimates value
The assessor determines the approximate selling price
(or EMV) for each taxable parcel based on the
conditions of the market on January 2 of each year.
The assessor is required by law to view each property at
least once every five years. However, even if the
assessor did not physically visit a property for that
assessment year, the property is subject to valuation
changes to reflect market conditions. The assessor is
required to estimate the market value as of January 2 of
each year to reflect current market conditions because
the real estate market is constantly changing –
sometimes dramatically.
When the assessor views the interior of a property,
he/she can make a more accurate assessment and
eliminate any guesswork. The assessor bases his/her
assessment on multiple factors, including size, age,
condition, quality of construction and other features such
as fireplaces.
The assessor compares the property to actual sales of
similar properties in the area to determine the EMV of a
property. In addition to this approach to determining
value, the assessor may also consider the cost to
construct the property or the income generated from the
property. These techniques are often referred to as the
“three approaches to value.”
The assessor applies one or more of the three approaches
to value in estimating a property’s value:
Sales comparison approach;
Cost approach; and/or
Income approach.
The assessor will consider all approaches to value, but
one approach may be better suited than the others for
estimating the value of a particular property. In some
cases, one or more approaches may not be applicable.
Sales comparison approach: This approach is based on
the reasoning that the value of a property is related to the
sale prices of similar properties in the same market.
Using this approach, the assessor identifies similar
properties that have recently sold and analyzes the
differences between the subject and the comparable
properties. The sale price for each comparable sale is
adjusted to reflect the differences (i.e. the subject
property has three bathrooms and the comparable
property has two bathrooms, so the sale price of the
comparable property is adjusted upward to make it more
similar to the subject property). The assessor then
estimates the value based on the analysis of the
comparable sales.
The sales comparison approach is most applicable when
there is sufficient sales data available for analysis. This
approach is most often used for residential properties. It
is the most common and preferred method for valuing
vacant land when comparable sales data is available.
The sales comparison approach should be supported by
other approaches to value when comparable sales are
limited or unavailable.
Cost approach: This approach is based on the principle
of substitution which means that an informed buyer will
not pay more for a property than it would cost to build
an acceptable substitute with comparable utility.
Using the cost approach, the assessor calculates market
value by estimating the current cost of replacing a
structure with one having comparable utility then
subtracting depreciation and adding in the land’s value.
The cost approach is most reliable when valuing new or
relatively new properties because the depreciation is
minimal. Depreciation is the loss in value of a property,
perhaps due to wear and tear or some other factor.
Estimating the amount of depreciation can be difficult
making the cost approach less reliable when valuing
older properties. The cost approach can be more useful
when valuing structures that are not frequently sold.
Income approach: This approach is based on the
reasoning that the value of the property is directly related
to its ability to produce income. The property value is
measured in relation to anticipated future benefits
derived from ownership of the property.
Using this approach, the assessor reviews income and
expense information for the subject property and
estimates the market value of the property based upon
the income stream projected to be derived from the
property. This approach has limited applicability
because it is only appropriate for income-producing
properties such as commercial, industrial and
apartments. The income approach is the primary
approach for valuing income-producing properties.
Three approaches to value
8 Role of the local board in the assessment process
Property Tax Division - Mail Station 3340 St. Paul, MN 55146-3340
Revised 07/09
This fact sheet is intended to help you become more familiar with Minnesota
tax laws and your rights and responsibilities under the laws. Nothing in this
fact sheet supersedes, alters, or otherwise changes any provisions of the tax
law, administrative rules, court decisions, or other revenue notices.
Alternative formats available upon request.
Minnesota Revenue, Understanding Property Taxes 1
Understanding Property Taxes
Property Tax Fact Sheet 12a Fact Sheet
12a
www.taxes.state.mn.us
Why do we have property taxes?
The money raised by property taxes is a major source
of funding for school districts, cities and townships,
counties, and special taxing districts. Local property
taxes help fund many programs and services
including public schools, fire stations, police
protection, streets, libraries, and more.
Certain types of properties – including
seasonal/cabin, commercial/industrial, and un-mined
iron ore – are also subject to a state-level property
tax. Receipts from this “state general tax” go into the
general fund.
A key benefit of the property tax system is that the
revenue it raises tends to remain stable. Compared
with sales or income taxes, the property tax is less
susceptible to recessions or other changes in income
or spending trends. In addition, since local
jurisdictions only levy what they need to cover their
annual needs, there is no surplus or deficit.
What affects my property tax bill?
Government spending and revenues will affect your
tax bill the most. If spending increases or revenues
from other sources such as state aid decrease, your
property taxes may increase. Conversely, if spending
decreases or revenue from other sources increases,
you may see a decrease in your property tax bill.
Since property taxes are levy-based, it is possible to
have your property tax increase while your market
value decreases and vice versa.
Your share of the overall property tax levy is
determined by the market value and classification of
your property. The esti mated market value and
classification of your home are determined by the
assessor as of January 2 of each year. Assessors
estimate the value of your property using historical
sales of similar properties.
There is no direct relationship between estimated
mark et value and property tax liability. Instead, your
property’s taxable market value is used to determine
how much property tax is due. These two values may
differ for a number of reasons, including tax deferral
programs, exclusions or reductions for specific types
of property.
The classification of your property is based on its use
on January 2. Each class of property (residential,
apartment, cabin, farm, commercial, etc.) has a
different classification rate. These rates are set by the
Legislature and calibrated so that some property
types pay a greater share of the property tax than
others. For example, commercial properties pay more
than residential homesteads and agricultural
properties.
How are my taxes determined?
First, each local jurisdiction will determine the revenue
needed from property taxes. This amount – the levy – is
calculated by subtracting all non-property tax revenue
from the total proposed budget.
The levy is then spread among all taxable properties
according to their net tax capacity. A property’s tax
capacity is calculated by multiplying the taxable market
value by the state-mandated classification rate.
This fact sheet is the first in a series of three fact sheets that were designed to assist taxpayers in the understanding of the basic concepts of
their annual assessment and property tax administration. Please see Fact Sheet s 12b and 12c for additional information.
Total Proposed Local Budget--All non-property tax revenue (state aid, fees, etc.)
=Property tax revenue needed (levy)
(Taxable Market Value) x (Class Rate) = Tax Capacity
Meeting of April 25, 2011
Subject: 2011 Local Board of Appeal and Equalization Page 46
7Role of the local board in the assessment process
change the classification of a property to a
classification that is permitted by law.
For example, the assessor classifies a property as
residential. The owner seeks the agricultural
classification. In order for the board to change the
classification to agricultural, the owner must prove
that the property is used agriculturally and meets the
statutory requirements of the agricultural class.
It is important to remember that use – not zoning – is the
key factor in determining the classification of a property.
For example, a property owner has a parcel that is used as
an auto repair shop. The assessor has the property
classified as commercial. The property is zoned
agricultural so the owner is seeking the agricultural
classification. Classification is based on use. Since the
property is used as an auto repair shop, it is properly
classified as commercial. Therefore, the board must vote
to uphold the commercial classification.
Split-class property
A property can have more than one property tax
classification if it has more than one use. Such properties
are called split-class properties. If this is the case, the
assessor will classify the different uses accordingly. For
example, when an owner-occupied farm also has a
structure that is used as a commercial repair shop for farm
equipment, the property is split classified agricultural
homestead and commercial.
Overview of the assessment process
The assessment of property – determining the estimated
market value and classification – technically occurs on
January 2 (the assessment date) of each year. The work
and analysis required to make these estimations involves
several months before and after the assessment date,
however.
Most of the field inspections of real estate for the next
assessment begin in the summer and continue through
the fall. For example, assessors will inspect properties
starting in the summer of 2009 for the January 2, 2010
assessment. These inspections are when the assessor
identifies and records the specific characteristics of each
property being reviewed. These characteristics include
square footage, condition of the property and number of
bedrooms, for example. Assessors gather a lot of
information to help them estimate each property’s value
and determine its use for classification purposes. This
field inspection work is completed as the assessment
date nears.
At about this same time, assessors start work on
analyzing sales and other market data in a sales ratio
study to help them estimate values. The sales included in
this sales ratio study should represent a typical open
market. The sales are from October 1 of two years prior
to the assessment year to September 30 of the year prior
to the assessment year. In other words, sales from
October 1, 2008 to September 30, 2009 are included in
the study for the 2010 assessment. The Department of
Revenue, through the State Board of Equalization,
conducts a similar sales ratio study to monitor the work
of the assessors.
Based on the field inspections and sales ratio study, all
taxpayers are notified of their value and classification for
that January 2 assessment date in the spring of each year.
This notification initiates the appeals process that
continues until the middle of June at the local level.
Once the appeal process is complete, the assessor starts
work on the next assessment, and the entire cycle starts
again.
The final value and classification for each property for
each assessment year is used in determining that
property’s taxes in the following year. For example, the
value and classification for the 2010 assessment, once
finalized, is used to determine the taxes paid in 2011.
A principle of appraisal and assessment requiring that
each property be appraised as though it were being
put to its most profitable use (highest possible present
net worth), given probable legal, physical and
financial constraints.
Glossary for Property Appraisal and Assessment,
International Association of Assessing Officers, 1997.
Highest and best use
Minnesota Revenue, Understanding Property Taxes 2
The final step is to calculate the local property tax
rate by dividing the property tax revenue needed in a
jurisdiction by its total tax capacity.
(Property tax revenue needed)Local
Tax Rate =(Total Tax Capacity)
The county auditor will also calculate and apply any
homestead credits, referendum levies, and the state
general tax (for certain types of property).
Combining the above calculations, the basic formula
to determine an individual property’s tax amount is:
What is a “Truth in Taxation” notice?
Every year, after November 10, but before November
25, all property owners receive a “Truth-in-Taxation”
notice by mail. The notice contains:
valuation and classification information on
your property for the current and previous
assessment years;
your current -year property tax amounts ; and
an estimate of how your taxes may change
based on your taxing district and local
budget decisions for the following year.
The Truth-in-Taxation notices are required to show
dates, times, and places for the scheduled meetings in
which the budget and levy will be discussed and
finalized. These meetings must occur after
November 24. The public must be allowed to speak
at these meetings for the city, county, and school
district and they must not be held prior to 6 p.m.
These meetings are held to give taxpayers an
opportunity to voice their concerns over the
jurisdiction’s proposed budget. They are not a forum
for taxpayers to appeal their market value or their
individual proposed property tax amounts.
Property Tax Statement
The County Treasurer’s Office mails a tax statement
to property owners by March 31 of each year. The
statement provides an itemized list of the property tax
due to each taxing authority. The dollar amounts
must be listed separately for the state general tax (if
applicable), county, municipality or township, voter-
approved school tax, other local school tax, and other
special taxing districts. The statement must also
include any tax on contamination value and any other
special assessments on the property.
Real property taxes are due in equal installments on
May 15 and October 15 of each year (unless the
amount is $50 or less [$250 or less starting with taxes
payable in 2010] in which case taxes are due in full
on May 15). If a property is classified as agricultural
property, the 2nd half is not due until November 15.
Conclusion
In conclusion, it is essential that taxpayers understand that
there is no direct relationship between estimated market
value and property tax revenue. It is possible to have your
property tax increase while your market value decreases
and vice versa. Government spending and revenues will
affect your tax bill the most.
For additional information, please refer to Fact Sheet 12b
How the Assessor Estimates Your Market Value and Fact
Sheet 12c Understanding Your Assessment and the
Appeals Process.
Taxable Market Value
x Class Rate
=Tax Capacity
x Local Tax Rate =Base Tax
-- Homestead Credits
+ Referendum Amounts
+ State General Tax
=Total Property Tax Payable
Meeting of April 25, 2011
Subject: 2011 Local Board of Appeal and Equalization Page 47
6 Role of the local board in the assessment process
Taxable market value
Taxable market value (TMV) is the value that property
taxes are actually based on, after all reductions, limitations,
exemptions, exclusions and deferrals.
There are many programs and provisions in Minnesota law
that allow for a property’s EMV to be different from its
TMV. For example, qualifying veterans who are disabled
receive an exclusion of up to $150,000 or $300,000 of their
property’s EMV. This reduction is reflected in their TMV.
Other programs and provisions to be aware of include the
Agricultural Property Tax Law (Green Acres), the Rural
Preserve Property Tax Program (effective for the 2011
assessment) and Plat Deferment. If you have questions
about these or any other programs, speak with your county
assessor.
One provision in Minnesota law that often caused
significant differences between an EMV and a TMV was
the limited market value. This value was created by the
legislature as an attempt to “limit” the increase a
property owner could be taxed on each year. The
limited market value provisions expired starting with
the 2009 assessment.
An unintended consequence of limited market values is
that they caused unequal taxation on different types of
property – or even on similar properties. It was possible
for two very similar properties with identical EMVs to
have substantially different property tax bills due to this
limitation.
The local board cannot change the TMV of a
property. The only value the local board has the
authority to change is the EMV for the current year.
Changing the EMV may ultimately change the TMV,
but it is important to note that there can be instances
where the board raises or lowers the EMV, and the
TMV remains the same.
Classification
In Minnesota, property is classified according to its
actual use on the assessment date (January 2 of each
year). If the property is not currently being used, it is
classified according to its most probable, highest and
best use.
Property owners do not get to choose how they want
their property to be classified. It is the assessor’s job to
classify property consistent with Minnesota Statutes,
according to its current use or its most probable,
highest and best use.
When determining the most probable, highest and best
use for a property that is not being used, zoning may
be an influencing factor in the classification of the
property; however, it is not the sole factor.
Additionally, all real property that is not improved
with a structure must be classified according to its
current use or its highest and best use permitted under
the local zoning ordinance if there is no identifiable
current use. If zoning permits more than one use, the
land must be classified according to the highest and
best use permitted.
If no such zoning ordinance exists, the assessor shall
consider the most likely potential use of the
unimproved land based upon the use of surrounding land
or land in proximity to the unimproved land.
Property classifications are defined in Minnesota Statutes.
Examples of classifications include residential homestead,
residential non-homestead, apartment, commercial and
agricultural.
The board can change the classification for the current
assessment year of any property which in the board’s
opinion is not properly classified. The classification must
be based on use, and in order for the board to change the
classification, the owner must present evidence that the
property is used in a manner consistent with the
classification he/she is seeking. The board can only
The assessor assigns a statutorily-defined
classification to all property based upon the actual
use of the property on January 2 of each year.
Examples of Minnesota property classes include
residential, agricultural, commercial-industrial,
apartment and seasonal residential recreational.
Classification
Property Tax Division - Mail Station 3340 St. Paul, MN 55146-3340
Revised 07/09
This fact sheet is intended to help you become more familiar with Minnesota tax
laws and your rights and responsibilities under the laws. Nothing in this fact
sheet supersedes, alters, or otherwise changes any provisions of the tax law,
administrative rules, court decisions, or other revenue notices.
Alternative formats available upon request.
Minnesota Revenue, How the Assessor Estimates Your Market Value 1
How the Assessor Estimates Your Market Value
Property Tax Fact Sheet 12b Fact Sheet
12b
www.taxes.state.mn.us
Property Tax Assessment Process
Minnesota has what is known as an ad valorem property tax.
This means property tax is divided among taxable properties
according to their value. The final amount of property tax
the owner of a property pays in any given year is the end
result of a process that begins over two years before property
tax statements are actually mailed to property owners.
The process begins with the assessor collecting data on sales
of properties within the market during a specific time period
between October of one year and September of the following
year (this period is known as a sales study period). Over the
next several months and by using mass appraisal techniques,
assessors analyze the data in order to estimate each
propert y’s market value for the next assessment (January 2).
Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 273.11 assessors
must estimate the value of property at a value that would
represent what the property would sell for in an open-market
arm’s length transaction on January 2 of each year. The
assessor cannot adopt a higher or lower standard of value
because the value will be used for the purposes of taxation.
Assessors also classify property according to its use on
January 2. Between April and June, taxpayers have an
opportunity to appeal both the estimated market value and
the classification of their property. Values and classifications
are generally finalized July 1 of each year .
Local units of government then finalize their estimated
budgets for the upcoming year. Once the budgets are
finalized in December, the market values and classifications
are used to divide the overall tax levy among all taxable
properties. Tax statements are mailed by the following
March 31.
For example, sales of properties that occur between October
1, 2008 and September 30, 2009 are used by assessors to
estimate a property’s market value for the January 2, 2010
assessment. Following an appeal process that occurs between
April 1, 2010 and June 30, 2010, the valuations and
classifications generally become final on July 1, 2010.
This lengthy time frame may result in a significant difference
between actual sales prices occurring in the current market
and assessors’ estimated market values for the current year’s
assessment.
Using the final values and the local jurisdictions’ proposed
budgets, the auditor then estimates each property’s proposed
taxes payable for 2011. After public budget meetings are
held and final budget numbers are adopted, property tax
statements are mailed to taxpayers by March 31, 2011.
In summary, sales taking place from October 2008 to
September 200 9 are used to estimate a property’s market
value as of January 2, 2010 which will in turn be used to
calculate property taxes payable in 2011.
What is the role of the assessor?
Assessors use historical sales in order to estimate each
property’s market value as of the assessment date (January 2)
of each year. The assessor also classifies the property
according to its use on January 2 of each year.
Assessors also review other quantifiable data such as
supply/demand, marketing times, sales concessions, vacancy
rates, etc. to help in analyzing whether a market is increasing,
stable, or decreasing.
During increasing markets, this may benefit some property
owners because a buyer may pay a price that is significantly
higher than the assessor placed on the property for the last
assessment. For example, if a property is valued by the
assessor at $180,000 for the 2009 assessment (based on sales
that occurred between October 2007 and September 2008),
and it sells for $230,000 in August 2009, the new property
owner is benefiting from the lower market value for the 2009
assessment which will be used to calculate taxes payable in
2010.
The August 2009 sale of the proper ty will be included in the
study period of October 2008 to September 2009 which the
This fact sheet is the second in a series of three fact sheets that were designed to assist taxpayers in the understanding of the basic concepts
of their annual assessment and property tax administration. Please see Fact Sheets 12a and 12c for additional information.
Meeting of April 25, 2011
Subject: 2011 Local Board of Appeal and Equalization Page 48
5Role of the local board in the assessment process
Market value
State law requires that all property shall be valued at its
market value (Minnesota Statutes, Section 273.11,
subdivision 1).
Minnesota Statutes, Section 272.03, subdivision 8 defines
“market value” as follows:
“ ‘Market value’ means the usual selling price at the
place where the property to which the term is applied
shall be at the time of assessment; being the price
which could be obtained at a private sale or an
auction sale, if it is determined by the assessor that the
price from the auction sale represents an arm's-length
transaction. The price obtained at a forced sale shall
not be considered.”
Many professional appraiser/assessor organizations
have a more detailed definition of market value. The
elements of these definitions can be used to clarify the
statutory definition.
The definition of market value usually implies the
consummation of a sale as of a specific date under the
following conditions:
The buyer and seller are typically motivated;
Both parties are well informed or well advised and
both are acting in what is considered to be their own
best interest;
A reasonable time is allowed for exposure in the
open market;
Payment is made in cash or its equivalent;
Financing, if any, is on terms generally available in
the community on the specified date and typical for
the property type in its locale; and
The price represents a normal consideration for the
property sold unaffected by special financing
amounts and/or terms, services, fees, costs or credits
incurred in the transaction.
In other words, market value is the price that would
tend to prevail under typical, normal competitive open
market conditions.
Minnesota Statutes, Section 273.11, subdivision 1
further states:
“In estimating and determining such value, the
assessor shall not adopt a lower or different
standard of value because the same is to serve as
a basis of taxation, nor shall the assessor adopt
as a criterion of value the price for which such
property would sell at a forced sale, or in the
aggregate with all the property in the town or
district; but the assessor shall value each article
or description of property by itself, and at such
sum or price as the assessor believes the same to
be fairly worth in money.”
The law provides that all property must be valued at
market value, not that it may be valued at market value.
This means that factors other than market value issues
(such as personalities or politics) should not affect the
market value determined by the assessor. Non-market
value factors also should not affect the actions of the
Local Board of Appeal and Equalization.
Estimated market value
The value determined by the assessor as the price
the property would likely sell for on the open
market is called the estimated market value (EMV).
This value is determined on the assessment date,
January, 2 of each year.
The EMV for the current assessment year is the
only value property owners may appeal to the
local board, even though taxpayers will also be
given a taxable market value.
The price that would tend to prevail under typical,
normal competitive open market conditions.
Market value
Minnesota Revenue, How the Assessor Estimates Your Market Value 2
assessor will use to value property for the 2010 assessment
for taxes payable in 2011.
This same lag time is also present in declining markets. For
example, if the assessor places a market value of $200,000
on a property for the 2009 assessment (again using sales that
occurred between October 2007 and September 2008), but
the property sells for $175,000 in August 2009, does it mean
the January 2, 2009 assessed value is incorrect? Not
necessarily. It could signal a downturn in the housing
market just began to occur between September 200 8 and
August 2009. The assessor will use the August 2009 sale as
well as others occurring in the market to estimate 2010
market values.
The assessor does not raise property tax revenues by
increasing values. Total property tax revenues are a function
of county, school district, and city/town spending as well as
state-paid local government aid and other factors. The value
and classification of the property are merely a way to divide
the total property tax levy among all taxpayers. The total
amount of the levy will be collected whether values increase
or decrease from one year to the next. An individual’s share
of the overall tax burden may change from year to year,
however.
What are sales ratio studies?
Sales ratios show the relationship between the assessor’s
estimated market value on a property and the actual sale
price of a property.
Each year the assessor performs sales ratio studies on
properties that have sold in their jurisdiction. These sales are
stratified many different ways including by location and
property type (residential, agricultural, commercial, etc.).
The sales can also be stratified further such as by home style,
subdivision, age of structure, location on or off water
frontage, price range, etc.
A single sale may not represent the true market activity.
Rather, sales of all properties are reviewed to determine
market trends. However, even if there are no sales occurring
within the sales ratio study period, assessors are still
expected to use their professional judgment and knowledge
of the local market to annually value properties in their
jurisdiction.
Whenever any real estate is sold for a consideration in excess
of $1,000, a Certificate of Real Estate Value (CRV) is filed.
These CRVs are the foundation of all sales ratio studies
because they contain important information about each
transaction. Assessors then verify the information contained
on the CRV in order to determine whether or not the sale
represents an open-market arm’s length transaction. If the
sale does not represent an open-market, arm’s length
transaction, it may not be used in the sales ratio study.
Simply having an extremely high or low sales ratio is not a
valid reason to remove a sale from the sales ratio study.
Rather, the extreme ratio indicates a need for additional
investigation by the assessor.
Again, sales ratio study periods are generally October 1 of a
given year to September 30 of the following year. For
example, for the 2010 assessment, assessors use sales that
took place between October 1, 2008 and September 30,
2009. This is the reason that assessors’ market values may
lag a bit behind current market activity.
Assessors will use the median sales ratio as the statistical
measure of the overall level of assessment. The median ratio
is the middle ratio of all the ratios when they are arranged in
order from highest to lowest (or vice versa). The median is
used because it is not affected by extreme ratios. Department
of Revenue guidelines indicate that the median ratio of a
sales ratio study should be between 90 and 105 percent.
Is it possible for the values of some
properties to decrease while others
increase?
Yes. Each segment of the market is different. Sales prices of
certain types of properties can vary widely. Currently, sales
of both farmland and recreational properties are strong and
show appreciation. However, the sales of residential
properties are stable or declining in some areas .
Sometimes it can be difficult to estimate the rate at which a
market is increasing or declining. Ideally, a property would
sell twice within a certain period of time, such as one year,
but all other characteristics of the property would remain the
same. That way an appraiser or assessor would be able to
isolate a time adjustment to indicate whether the market is
increasing or decreasing or simply remaining stable.
Do all areas increase or decline at the same
rate?
No. Some areas or neighborhoods are declining at a much
faster rate than others that are showing stable values or
values that are slightly increas ing.
Conclusion
In conclusion, it is essential that taxpayers understand that
there may be a legitimate reason for the assessor’s annual
market value to be different from current market conditions
due to the lag time between sales study periods and sales
taking place today.
For additional information, please refer to Fact Sheet 12a
Understanding Property Taxes and Fact Sheet 12c
Understanding Your Assessment and the Appeals Process.
Meeting of April 25, 2011
Subject: 2011 Local Board of Appeal and Equalization Page 49
The appeals and equalization course details the
responsibilities, procedures and requirements of the
Local Board of Appeal and Equalization. The legislation
also requires the Commissioner of Revenue to develop a
handbook to be reviewed during this course. This
handbook includes:
The role of the local board in the
assessment process;
Legal and policy reasons for fair and impartial
appeal and equalization hearings;
Meeting procedures that foster fair and
impartial assessment reviews and best
practices recommendations;
Quorum requirements for local boards; and
Explanations of alternate methods of appeal.
Compliance requirements
All cities and towns must certify to the county assessor
by December 1of each year that:
At least one voting member at each local board
meeting has attended the appeals and equalization
course within the last four years; and
A quorum was present at each local board meeting
in the prior year.
Failure to comply
Any city or town that fails to meet the compliance
requirements by December 1of each year is deemed to
transfer its powers to the County Board of Appeal and
Equalization for the following assessment year.
The Notice of Valuation and Classification must notify
property owners when the Board of Appeal and
Equalization for a city or town has been transferred to
the county for failure to comply with these requirements.
Instead of a Local Board of Appeal and Equalization
meeting, property owners must be provided with a
procedure for reviewing their assessments, such as open
book meetings, prior to the meeting of the County Board
of Appeal and Equalization. This alternate review
process will take place in April and May.
A local board whose powers are transferred to the county
for failing to meet these requirements may be reinstated
by resolution of the governing body of the city or town
and upon proof that one of the members of its Local
Board of Appeal and Equalization has attended the
appeals and equalization course. The resolution and proof
must be provided to the county assessor by December 1
to be effective for the following assessment year.
Note: The citation for the appeals and equalization
course and meeting requirements for local boards is
Minnesota Statutes, Section 274.014.
Role of the local board in the assessment process 1
The Local Board of Appeal and Equalization has the
authority to change the valuation or classification of a
property for the current assessment year. Taxes or
prior year assessments are not within the jurisdiction
of the local board.
Any decisions made by the local board must be
supported by facts and by Minnesota law. The board
must make informed decisions and ensure all
taxpayers are treated fairly and uniformly.
In order to make an informed decision on the valuation
or classification of a property, it is important to
understand the concepts of valuation and classification.
These two concepts are equally important in the
assessment process. They are both determined on the
assessment date, January 2, each year.
We will look at the definition of market value and
explain how classifications are determined.
4 Role of the local board in the assessment process
Property Tax Division - Mail Station 3340 St. Paul, MN 55146-3340
Revised 07/09
This fact sheet is intended to help you become more familiar with Minnesota
tax laws and your rights and responsibilities under the laws. Nothing in this fact
sheet supersedes, alters, or otherwise changes any provisions of the tax law,
administrative rules, court decisions, or other revenue notices.
Alternative formats available upon request.
Minnesota Revenue, Understanding Your Assessment and the A ppeals Process 1
Understanding Your Assessment and the
Appeals Process
Property Tax Fact Sheet 12c Fact Sheet
12c
www.taxes.state.mn.us
The role of the assessor
The assessor has an important role in the property tax
process in that it is very important to make sure all property
is valued at its market value and classified according to its
use so the property tax levy is divided correctly among all
taxable properties. The assessor does not determine your
property taxes. Likewise, assessors do not raise revenue by
increasing market values. This fact sheet discusses
estimated market value and classification. The assessor
determi nes these factors each year, and they are shown
annually on your Notice of Valuation and Classification.
This fact sheet also explains what you can do if you and the
assessor disagree about the value or classification of your
property.
How is my property value estimated?
Using a mass appraisal system and historical sales data, the
asses sor’s job is to estimate the market value of all
properties on the assessment date of January 2 each year.
The assessor will consider the location of your property, the
amount of land you own, any improvements to the land,
physical characteristics of the improvements (including
square footage, decks, porches, etc.), and the quality of
construction. The assessor will then compare your property
to similar properties in your area that have recently sold in
order to estimate what your property would sell for in an
open-market arm’s length transaction. This value is called
the estimated market value.
Classification and class rates
All property is classified by the assessor according to
its use. Each class of property (home, apartment, cabin,
farm, commercial) has its own classification rate. This class
rate is determined by the state legislature. Like market
value, the class rate of your property plays a role in how
much property tax you pay.
Notice of valuation and classification
Each spring, the assessor will mail you a Notice of
Valuation and Classification informing you of the market
value and classification of your property. If you believe the
classification or the estimated market value of your property
is incorrect, you have several appeal options.
What if I disagree with how my property
was assessed?
If you have a disagreement over valuation or classification
of your property, the first step is to contact your assessor.
Most issues can be resolved at this level.
Verify information about your property, such as its
dimensions, age, and condition of its structures.
Review records to determine the market values of
similar properties in your neighborhood.
Review sales data to find out what similar
properties in your area are selling for.
Ask the assessor to explain the criteria used for
classifying your property. You may also review the
classifications of other properties used in the same
manner as yours.
If your property has not be inspected recently, both interior
and exterior, ask the assessor to come out to review your
property. If your concern is not resolved after conferring
with the assessor, you may attend the annual Local Board of
Appeal and Equalization or Open Book meeting identified
on your valuation notice.
Appealing your assessment
There are formal methods of appeal available. Keep in mind
that,by law, the Local Board of Appeal and Equalization
cannot make a change favoring a taxpayer if the assessor is
not allowed to inspect the property.
You have the right to appeal your market value estimate
and/or property classification if you feel your property is:
Classified improperly.
Valued at an amount higher or lower than you
could sell your property for.
Valued at a level different from similar property in
your area.
This fact sheet is the third in a series of three fact sheets that were designed to assist taxpayers in the understanding of the basic concepts of
their annual assessment and property tax administration. Please see Fact Sheet s 12a and 12c for additional information.
Meeting of April 25, 2011
Subject: 2011 Local Board of Appeal and Equalization Page 50
3Introduction
Introduction
Purpose of the local board
The goal of the Local Board of Appeal and Equalization
should be to attempt to address property owners’ issues
efficiently, fairly and objectively.
The purpose of the Local Board of Appeal and
Equalization is to provide a fair and objective forum
for property owners to appeal their valuation or
classification. The local board often serves as the
first formal step in the appeals process for taxpayers. Always keep in mind that any changes made by
the board must be substantiated by facts. Any
value reductions must be justified because they
have the effect of shifting the tax burden to other
property in the jurisdiction. Further, any changes
made by the local board must meet statutory
guidelines.
One of the most important duties placed by law upon the
governing body of a township or city is to serve as the
Local Board of Appeal and Equalization. Effective
actions taken by the local board may potentially make a
direct contribution to attaining assessment equality.
Training for Local Boards of Appeal and Equalization
Legislation enacted in the 2003 session requires that
there be at least one member at each meeting of a Local
Board of Appeal and Equalization (beginning with the
2006 local boards) who has attended an appeals and
equalization course developed or approved by the
Commissioner of Revenue within the last four years.
Many long-standing local board members are in their
second four-year certification cycle. They may have
also attended additional appeals and equalization courses
as a refresher. This handbook and the accompanying
presentation have been updated to provide additional
useful information to help the local board members
better understand the overall assessment process and
their role within it.
The impetus for the legislation
The 2003 legislation was enacted as a response to
complaints that were directed to the Governor,
Legislature and Department of Revenue. The legislature
determined that training was needed to address the
procedural shortfalls of some local boards. This training
will provide information and education for local board
members that will make the process more efficient and
result in a better overall experience for both property
owners and local board members.
Does “training” sound familiar?
Training for Local Boards of Appeal and
Equalization is not a new concept. From 1947 to
1979, Local Boards of Appeal and Equalization
(then referred to as local boards of review) were
required by law to attend an instructional meeting at
the county. In 1979, Minnesota Statutes,
Section 273.03, subdivision 1 read as follows:
“The assessors and at least one member of each
local board of review shall meet at the office of
the county auditor on a day to be fixed by the
commissioner of taxation for the purpose of
receiving instructions as to their duties under
the laws of the state.”
While training or instructional meetings may not be
a “new” idea, the 2003 legislature determined that
training for Local Boards of Appeal and
Equalization was necessary to explain and clarify the
role and duties of the local board to help ensure that
property owners receive a fair and impartial review
of their valuation and classification.
Minnesota Revenue, Understanding Your Assessment and the A ppeals Process 2
Remember, your assessor is not responsible for the dollar
amount of taxes that you pay. Tax rates are determined by
your local taxing authorities (the city, the county, school,
districts, etc.). If you think your taxes are too high, you
should make your opinion known to your taxing authorities
during the budget meetings in November and December.
Local Board of Appeal and Equalization
If you choose to appeal to your boards of appeal and
equalization, first must first meet with your Local (city or
town) Board of Appeal and Equalization. These are often
the same people as your city council or town board. The
board meets on a specified day in April or May. The exact
date is listed on your Notice of Valuation and Classification.
We strongly recommend that you contact your city or town
clerk to schedule your appearance. Some jurisdictions hold
an open book meeting instead of a Local Board of Appeal
and Equalization. Please check your Notice of Valuation
and Classification for date, time, and place.
You may make your appeal in person, by letter, or have
someone else appear for you. The assessor will be present
to answer questions. You must present your case to the city
or town board before going to the County Board
of Appeal and Equalization.
Cities and towns have the option of transferring their board
powers to the County Board of Appeal and Equalization. If
your municipality has elected to do this, your Notice of
Valuation and Classification will direct you where to begin
your appeal.
County Board of Appeal and Equalization
If you are not satisfied after your Local Board of Appeal
and Equalization or open book meeting, or if your city or
town has transferred its powers to the county, you may
appeal to the County Board of Appeal and Equalization.
This board meets in June. The exact date is listed on
your Notice of Valuation and Classification. The members
are usually the county board of commissioners or their
appointees. We strongly recommend that you contact your
county auditor or assessor to schedule your appearance
before the board. Many counties request that taxpayers
make appointments to appear.
You may make your appeal in person, by letter, or have
someone else appear for you. The assessor will be present to
answer questions. If you are not satisfied with the decision
of the County Board of Appeal and Equalization, you may
appeal to the Minnesota Tax Court.
Minnesota Tax Court
You have until April 30 of the year the tax becomes payable
to appeal your assessment to the Minnesota Tax Court. In
other words, you must appeal your 2009 valuation and
classification on or before April 30, 2010.
The Tax Court has two divisions: The Small Claims
Division and the Regular Division.
The Small Claims Division only hears appeals involving
one of the following situations:
The assessor’s estimated market value of your
property is less than $300,000.
Your entire parcel is classified as a residential
homestead (1a or 1b) and the parcel contains no
more than one dwelling unit.
Your entire property is classified as an agricultural
homestead.
You’re appealing the denial of a current year
application for homestead classification of your
property.
The proceedings of the Small Claims Division are
less formal and many people represent themselves.
Decisions made by the small claims division are final and
cannot be appealed further.
The Regula r Division will hear all appeals –including those
within the jurisdiction of the small claims division.
Decisions made here can be appealed to a higher court.
Most people who appeal to the regular division hire an
attorney because the hearing is conducted according to the
Minnesota Rules of Civil Procedure.
You may obtain complete information on Tax Court
appeals by writing or calling the court administrator in your
county or by contacting:
Minnesota Tax Court
Minnesota Judicial Center
Suite 245
25 Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Boulevard
St. Paul, MN 55115
(651) 296-2806
www.taxcourt.state.mn.us
Conclusion
In conclusion, it is essential that taxpayers understand that
assessors use historical sales data to estimate a property’s
market value. This estimate may be appealed informally by
speaking with the assessor or formally by appearing at the
Local or County Boards of Appeal and Equalization.
For additional information, please refer to Fact Sheet 12a
Understanding Property Taxes and Fact Sheet 12b How the
Assessor Estimates Your Market Value
Meeting of April 25, 2011
Subject: 2011 Local Board of Appeal and Equalization Page 51
Review process, not value-reduction process...................................................................................................................................19
Recess or adjourn................................................................................................................................................................................19
Decisions.............................................................................................................................................................................................19
Appeals must be substantiated by facts.............................................................................................................................................20
Best practices recommendations......................................................................................................................................21
Have appellants call for appointments...............................................................................................................................................21
Time limits for presenting appeals.....................................................................................................................................................21
Hear all appeals first............................................................................................................................................................................21
Conducting other business at the local board meeting.....................................................................................................................22
Notifying property owners of decisions............................................................................................................................................22
Quorum requirements for local boards............................................................................................22
Quorum must be present...................................................................................................................................................22
What constitutes a quorum?...............................................................................................................................................................22
Assessor’s role when a quorum is not present..................................................................................................................................23
Arrive on time for the meeting...........................................................................................................................................................23
Explanations of alternate methods of appeal..................................................................................23
Open book meetings ...........................................................................................................................................................23
Benefits for the local board ................................................................................................................................................................25
Benefits for the county........................................................................................................................................................................25
Option 1: Transferring assessment and local board duties to the county........................................................................................25
Option 2: Transferring local board duties to the county...................................................................................................................25
Special Boards of Appeal and Equalization......................................................................................................................................26
Tax Court.............................................................................................................................................................................................26
Appendix...............................................................................................................................................27
Glossary................................................................................................................................................................................27
Duties of local and county boards.....................................................................................................................................30
Frequently asked questions by property owners ...........................................................................................................34
Handouts for property owners .........................................................................................................................................34
Note: This handbook is designed to provide information to city and town boards or special boards serving as the Local
Board of Appeal and Equalization. This handbook mentions local, city and county assessors. The specific responsibilities
of the local, city and county assessor may differ from one jurisdiction to the next. Not all jurisdictions have a local
assessor. For example, counties with a true county assessing system (all assessments are done by the county) will not have
a local assessor. In counties having a city of the first class, the powers and duties of the county assessor within such city
shall be performed by the duly appointed city assessor. In all other cities having a population of 30,000 persons or more,
according to the last federal census (except in counties having a county assessor prior to January 1, 1967), the powers
and duties of the county assessor within these cities will be performed by a duly appointed city assessor. The county
assessor will, however, retain the supervisory duties contained in M.S. 273.061, subdivision 8. For example, the county
assessor may provide sales information for the local boards in the entire county, or a city assessor may be responsible for
providing the information for the local board in a city that has an appointed city assessor. If the local board has questions
about the division of assessor duties in the jurisdiction, please contact the county assessor for clarification.
2 Table of Contents
Other alternate methods of appeal...................................................................................................................................26
How value changes affect taxes.........................................................................................................................................31
Frequently asked questions by local board members...................................................................................................33
Benefits for the property owner.........................................................................................................................................................24
Recommended format to notify appellants of local board decisions..........................................................................32
Notes
Meeting of April 25, 2011
Subject: 2011 Local Board of Appeal and Equalization Page 52
Table of Contents
Introduction............................................................................................................................................3
Purpose of the local board...................................................................................................................................................3
Training for Local Boards of Appeal and Equalization.................................................................................................3
The impetus for the legislation.............................................................................................................................................................3
Compliance requirements.....................................................................................................................................................................4
Failure to comply..................................................................................................................................................................................4
Role of the local board in the assessment process.........................................................................4
Market value..........................................................................................................................................................................5
Estimated market value........................................................................................................................................................................5
Taxable market value............................................................................................................................................................................6
Classification..........................................................................................................................................................................6
Split-class property................................................................................................................................................................................7
Overview of the assessment process...................................................................................................................................7
Assessor estimates value......................................................................................................................................................................8
Three approaches to value....................................................................................................................................................................8
Assessor determines classification.......................................................................................................................................................9
Assessor reviews sales ratio.................................................................................................................................................................9
The sales ratio study............................................................................................................................................................................10
Assessor notifies taxpayer..................................................................................................................................................................10
Assessor meets with State Board of Equalization.............................................................................................................................10
Local board meeting...........................................................................................................................................................11
Who must attend the meeting.............................................................................................................................................................11
Meeting dates and times for the local board......................................................................................................................................11
Documenting local board actions.......................................................................................................................................................12
Required forms for documenting board actions ...............................................................................................................................12
Duties of the local board.....................................................................................................................................................13
Changes within 10 days of local board meeting...............................................................................................................................13
What the board can do........................................................................................................................................................................13
What the board can’t do......................................................................................................................................................................14
Recommendations for local board members..................................................................................................................15
Become familiar with sales information prior to local board meeting............................................................................................15
Duties of the clerk................................................................................................................................................................15
Legal and policy reasons for fair and impartial appeal and equalization hearings...................16
Legal reasons for fair and impartial local board meetings..........................................................................................16
Policy reasons for fair and impartial local board meetings.........................................................................................16
Local board meeting procedures that foster fair and impartial assessment reviews and
other best practices recommendations........................................................................................17
Meeting procedures............................................................................................................................................................17
The board should run the meeting.....................................................................................................................................................17
Establish ground rules for the meeting..............................................................................................................................................17
All proceedings must be public..........................................................................................................................................................18
Make appellants feel comfortable......................................................................................................................................................18
Dealing with angry or difficult property owners...............................................................................................................................18
Hearing appeals...................................................................................................................................................................................18
1Table of Contents
Notes
Meeting of April 25, 2011
Subject: 2011 Local Board of Appeal and Equalization Page 53
Meeting Date: April 25, 2011
Agenda Item #: 1
Regular Meeting Public Hearing Action Item Consent Item Resolution Ordinance
Presentation Other:
EDA Meeting Action Item Resolution Other:
Study Session Discussion Item Written Report Other:
TITLE:
Future Study Session Agenda Planning – May 9, 2011.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Council and the City Manager to set the agenda for the regularly scheduled Study Session on
May 9, 2011.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Does the Council agree with the agenda as proposed?
BACKGROUND:
At each study session, approximately five minutes are set aside to discuss the next study session
agenda. For this purpose, attached please find the tentative agenda and proposed discussion
items for the regularly scheduled Study Session on May 9, 2011.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
None.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
None.
Attachment: Future Study Session Agenda Planning May 9, 2011
Prepared by: Debbie Fischer, Office Assistant
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Study Session Meeting of April 25, 2011 (Item No. 1) Page 2
Subject: Future Study Session Agenda Planning – May 9, 2011
Reconvene Local Board of Appeal and Equalization Meeting – May 9 at 6:00 p.m held
prior to the Study Session.
Study Session, Monday, May 9, 2011 – _Immediately following Local Board of Appeal and
Equalization Meeting
Tentative Discussion Items
1. Future Study Session Agenda Planning – Administrative Services (5 minutes)
2. Freight Rail – Administrative Services/Community Development (90 minutes)
Update, discuss and debrief on Freight Rail City Council Listening Sessions.
3. Communications/Meeting Check-In – Administrative Services (5 minutes)
Time for communications between staff and Council will be set aside on every study session
agenda for the purposes of information sharing.
Reports:
Solid Waste Annual Report
Meeting Date: April 25, 2011
Agenda Item #: 2
Regular Meeting Public Hearing Action Item Consent Item Resolution Ordinance
Presentation Other:
EDA Meeting Action Item Resolution Other:
Study Session Discussion Item Written Report Other:
TITLE:
Nestlé HealthCare Nutrition Property.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
The purpose of this staff report is to provide background for discussion regarding the future of
the Nestlé HealthCare Nutrition property (5320 23rd Street W).
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
The future of the Nestlé property.
BACKGROUND:
On January 14th the City received formal notification that Nestlé (formerly Novartis) intends to
phase out its St. Louis Park HealthCare Nutrition facility beginning this June with complete
closure anticipated by December 30, 2012. Nestlé stated that approximately 243 employees will
be laid off. Presently Nestlé is the St. Louis Park’s fifth largest private sector employer. Over the
last 30+ years the Nestlé plant has been cobbled together to the point where it now has become
obsolete and inefficient to operate. Based upon Blog postings from Nestlé employees to an
article in the Star Tribune it appears that a sizable portion of the production here will be
relocated to a Nestlé Nutrition facility in Eau Claire, WI. That facility is newer, has been
upgraded to Nestlé’s standards, and is currently undergoing expansion.
The closure notification was not necessarily unexpected. In April 2004 the City was informed by
then- Novartis that the St. Louis Park plant was closing down and its production would be
disbursed to existing or potentially new locations around the country. In June 2005 the company
met with staff and indicated it was reconsidering closing the facility. Over the next year and a
half discussions were held in which Novartis expressed interest in potentially renovating the
existing facility in order to increase its production efficiencies and adding new space for its
expanding Research and Development operations. In response the City and the MN Dept. of
Employment and Economic Development (DEED) presented a joint proposal to facilitate those
new investments. The company ultimately decided to forego renovating the St. Louis Park plant
and relocate its R&D operation to a leased building in Minnetonka. In 2007, as part of Nestlé’s
acquisition of Novartis, the company contacted the City again about renovating the St. Louis
Park plant and the space needs of the division’s headquarters. Staff submitted proposals
encouraging both the renovation and expansion of the plant as well as the retention of the
headquarters. Ultimately, Nestlé chose to do nothing with the manufacturing plant and relocate
the headquarters to Minnetonka (despite a less expensive lease proposal from St. Louis Park).
Approximately two years ago this headquarters operation relocated again to New Jersey.
DEED has been working with Nestlé and its employees since February through the Dislocated
Worker Program. Under this program workers meet on-site with counselors who inform them of
the availability of services in three broad categories: job search, job skills training, and
emergency financial support. Some services are available immediately and some, such as skills
training, are available within 6 months of the employees’ anticipated layoff. Nestlé has
Study Session Meeting of April 25, 2011 (Item No.2) Page 2
Subject: Nestlé HealthCare Nutrition Property
reportedly been very cooperative with DEED and that is expected to continue until the plant is
shuttered at the end of 2012.
Disposition of the Real Estate
Staff has spoken with David Yates, North America Regional Business Head of Nestlé
HealthCare Nutrition, who indicated that the future of the St. Louis Park property has not yet
been determined. Given the phased closure of the facility, Mr. Yates indicated the company
would not likely start discussions on the disposition of the property until mid-year. He indicated
the City would be invited to participate in some of those discussions when they are held. Staff
will keep the City Council informed as it learns more about Nestlé’s future plans for the
property.
Mr. Yates indicated there are at least three possible scenarios for the real estate: 1) the plant and
property could be sold as-is to a non-competitor 2) the plant could be stripped of equipment,
repositioned, and sold 3) if the plant is determined to be so functionally obsolete it could be
demolished and the property sold. One thing is certain; Nestlé does not have a company use for
the property.
In all likelihood, the plant will initially be marketed for sale. Given the age, condition, limited
access, and customized configuration of Nestlé’s operations, there may be a narrow niche of food
production companies interested in the property. The 311,946 square foot plant with its
processing tower in the middle would be costly to demolish and remove. If an industrial user
ultimately does not step forward to purchase the property, the City may want to initiate a process
for identifying a new direction for the site.
Land Use Considerations
The Nestlé plant property consists of 25 acres of which approximately 15 have been built on. It
is guided in the City’s Comprehensive Plan for Industrial, and is zoned a combination of
Industrial Park and General Industrial. The site could continue to be used for industrial uses, or
could potentially be designated and zoned for Business Park (BP), which would allow more
office and service uses. It would not function well as a commercial or retail site as its access is
complicated. A multi-tenant office/flex building similar to the Highway 7 Corporate Center
could conceivably be successful in this location. From a marketing perspective, a multi-tenant
building would be more stable and a lower risk than seeking another large, single industrial user
for the property.
As the City envisions the future use of the Nestlé property it may wish to consider what
opportunities it could present from a municipal infrastructure or operations perspective. For
example, there is a lack of north-south roads that cross the BNSF rail line in the northeast potion
of the city. The future reuse of the Nestlé property may provide an opportunity to construct
crossings either at-grade or via a bridge. Whether such crossings are feasible from both an
engineering and financial perspective would have to be explored. Likewise, does the City have
operational needs in the area that could be better addressed by acquiring a portion of this
property? These are just a couple things the City may wish to contemplate relative to the future
reuse of this property.
In 2007 the City initiated a study of the FEMA floodplain in the neighborhood surrounding
Nestlé’s manufacturing plant. Federal regulations generally prohibit the construction of
structures within floodplains and much of the Nestlé site is currently within floodplain. Using
Study Session Meeting of April 25, 2011 (Item No.2) Page 3
Subject: Nestlé HealthCare Nutrition Property
the study completed by the City, the portion of Nestlé’s site that is designated floodplain could
be greatly reduced through the FEMA floodplain map amendment process. The aerial
photograph below illustrates the change in the floodplain. The blue line represents the floodplain
as illustrated in the currently adopted FEMA flood maps. The green line represents the potential
revised floodplain as estimated by the City’s study. If a map amendment is approved, a new user
could potentially develop approximately 10 additional acres. The next step required to make the
change is for the property owner to file an application for either a map amendment (LOMA) or a
map revision (LOMR).
Property Tax Impacts
The total 2011 assessment (for taxes payable 2012) on the Nestlé property is $6,550,900. Nearly
all of the value is in the land which is assessed at $6,491,000. Due to the building’s obsolescence
it is only assessed at $59,900. Nestlé’s total 2011 property tax obligation is $237,048. Of this
amount, the City’s portion is approximately 14.7% or $34,832 plus a small portion of Nestlé’s
Fiscal Disparities contribution that would be returned to the City. It should be kept in mind that
as long as Nestlé owns the property it is obligated to pay property taxes. When a future use is
found for the property and if that user ultimately develops the 10 additional acres noted above,
there is an opportunity for a greater assessed value in the coming years.
Utility Impacts
Nestlé is the City’s largest water user and represents approximately 7% of the City’s Utility
revenues (water, sewer and storm water).
Study Session Meeting of April 25, 2011 (Item No.2) Page 4
Subject: Nestlé HealthCare Nutrition Property
Revenues:
The 2010 utility related revenues from Nestlé total $745,840.56. The break down of this amount
is as follows based on the 2010 water rate structure:
Water: $268,365.69
Sewer: $453,525.37
Storm Water: $ 20,634.16
Tax: $ 3,315.34
$745,840.56
Expenditures:
Practically speaking, water system operations will not change as a result of the closing of the
Nestlé plant. Water treatment plant operations are expected to remain the same with or without
the water consumed by Nestlé with the exception of a minor estimated reduction in electrical and
chemical costs.
Nestlé purchased 169 million gallons (MG) of water
Electrical cost per MG = $138
Chemical cost per MG = $140
$278/MG x 169 = $47,000 reduction in costs
Sewer expenditures will be reduced significantly as a large portion of those costs are pass
through costs to Met Council Environmental Services as a sewage disposal charge.
Storm Water system expenditures are not expected to change as a result of this plant closing.
Public Works will be reviewing these preliminary findings and making recommendations to our
utility rates during the budget process to address changes in each fund.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
To be determined.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
Nestlé and its facilities are a significant component of St. Louis Park today. Its departure will
have impacts on various aspects of the City. The future of this property has the potential to
affect many aspects of St. Louis Park’s vision.
Attachments: None
Prepared by: Greg Hunt, Economic Development Coordinator
Assistance from: Planning, Public Works and Accounting
Reviewed by: Kevin Locke, Community Development Director
Approved by: Tom Harmening, EDA Executive Director and City Manager
Meeting Date: April 25, 2011
Agenda Item #: 3
Regular Meeting Public Hearing Action Item Consent Item Resolution Ordinance
Presentation Other:
EDA Meeting Action Item Resolution Other:
Study Session Discussion Item Written Report Other:
TITLE:
Update on Freight Rail Meetings/Process.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Staff requests the City Council provide feedback on the information contained in this report.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Does the City Council want to make any changes to the types or dates of meetings planned on
this topic?
BACKGROUND:
On March 21, 2011, the Council directed staff to organize listening sessions on April 27 and 28
regarding the freight rail issue. The listening sessions are scheduled to be held at St. Louis Park
Junior High.
On April 11 staff discussed logistics of the meeting with the City Council and received direction
regarding the manner in which the listening sessions should be conducted.
Preparation for and notification of these meetings has been extensive. The City’s web site has
been updated and residents can provide comments via a special e-mail address at
railcomments@stlouispark.org
SEH is finishing up its study report and the final draft will be submitted to the City Council not
later than Monday night’s Study Session.
As was discussed on April 11, the order of the listening sessions is as follows:
6:00 pm Doors open
6:30 pm Council meeting officially starts
6:30 – 6:45 Call to Order and general information
6:45 – 7:15 Presentation from consultant
7:15 – 7:30 Council questions on presentation (if any)
7:30 – 9:30 Listening Session (no action taken by the City Council)
9:30 pm Adjourn meeting (unless the Council desires to extend the meeting time)
What is the schedule subsequent to the listening sessions?
At the March 21 and April 11 meetings staff presented to the Council a proposed schedule for
obtaining community input on the freight rail issue as a means in part to allow the Council to
develop an updated policy position on the issue and approve comments on the MNS EAW being
prepared by the County. The schedule assumed that the formal/legal comment period for the
EAW started on May 2 and ended on June 1. Note – this schedule has not yet been confirmed by
the County. If the formal comment period should start later, the schedule below could be
modified if so desired by the Council.
Study Session Meeting of April 25, 2011 (Item No.3) Page 2
Subject: Update on Freight Rail Meetings/Process
Below is a summary of the schedule presented to the City Council. At Monday night’s Study
Session staff desires any further input the Council might wish to provide on this schedule and to
identify changes as needed or desired:
April 25th Council Study Session
o Discuss upcoming listening sessions and future rail meeting schedule
April 27 and 28th Council freight rail listening sessions
May 9th Council Study Session
o Review input from listening sessions along with written comments, email
comments, etc
May 16th Regular City Council Meeting
o Currently set up as Public Hearing on freight rail routing.
o Comment/Question Given that the Council will have held two listening sessions,
will another “public hearing” be needed at this time? Please note that a hearing
has not yet been published/formally scheduled.
May 23rd Council Study Session.
o Council policy discussion on freight rail
May 31st Regular City Council Meeting.
o Council adopts resolution updating freight rail policy and approves comments for
submission on MNS EAW
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
Not applicable.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
Not applicable.
Prepared by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Meeting Date: April 25, 2011
Agenda Item #: 4
Regular Meeting Public Hearing Action Item Consent Item Resolution Ordinance
Presentation Other:
EDA Meeting Action Item Resolution Other:
Study Session Discussion Item Written Report Other:
TITLE:
Communications/Meeting Check-In (Verbal).
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Not Applicable.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Not Applicable.
BACKGROUND:
At every Study Session, verbal communications will take place between staff and Council for the
purpose of information sharing.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
Not Applicable.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
Not Applicable.
Attachments: None
Prepared and Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Meeting Date: April 25, 2011
Agenda Item #: 5
Regular Meeting Public Hearing Action Item Consent Item Resolution Ordinance
Presentation Other:
EDA Meeting Action Item Resolution Other:
Study Session Discussion Item Written Report Other:
TITLE:
March 2011 Monthly Financial Report.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
No action required at this time. This report is being provided for information sharing purposes.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
None at this time.
BACKGROUND:
This report is designed to provide summary information regarding the overall level of revenues
and expenditures in both the General Fund and the Park and Recreation Fund. These funds
should be a primary concern in analyzing the City’s financial health because they represent the
discretionary use of tax levy dollars.
Actual expenditures should generally run about 25% of the annual budget through March.
Currently, the General Fund has expenditures totaling 22.6% of the adopted budget and the Park
and Recreation Fund expenditures are at 25.4% of budget. Revenues tend to be harder to gauge
in this same way due to the timing of when they are received, examples of which include
property taxes and State aid payments (Police & Fire, DOT/Highway, PERA Aid, etc).
It is important to note that there is nearly one full week of March payroll expense which has not
been recorded at the time this report was prepared. Due to the conversion to the two-week
payroll delay, time earned for the period of March 26th to March 31st will not be paid and
recorded until the April 22nd pay date.
Significant variances for both revenues and expenditures are highlighted below accompanied
with a general discussion of reasons for the variance.
General Fund
Revenues:
As of March, 44% of the license and permit revenues have been received in the General
Fund. This is consistent with prior years in that most 2011 liquor and business license
payments have already been received. In the Administration Department, 91% or
$202,000 of the budgeted liquor license revenues have been received. In the Inspections
Department, 92% or $481,000 of the business license revenues for the year have been
recorded, with most of the payments coming in late 2010 and deferred to 2011 to
accurately reflect the year that the license revenue is earned. Permit revenues are at
21.4% through March, which is slightly lower than prior year through the first quarter.
Expenditures:
The Human Resources budget for Services & Other Charges is at 30.5%. Consistent with
prior years, a payment was made in March to the School District in the amount of
$34,400 for the 2011 Volunteer Coordinator position.
Study Session Meeting of April 25, 2011 (Item No.5) Page 2
Subject: March 2011 Monthly Financial Report
Personal Services under Facilities Maintenance is currently well below budget at 18.5%
and will most likely continue to be under budget for the remainder of the year. This is
due to the Facilities Superintendent staff position vacancy.
The Public Works Engineering Division appears to be over budget significantly on
Supplies. However, this is due to a $26,000 expenditure in March for survey equipment
which will be reclassified from the General Fund to the Capital Replacement Fund to
correctly reflect where the expenditure is budgeted. This correction will be made for the
April Monthly Financial Report.
Public Works Operations has spent 31% of the Supplies budget through March, which is
primarily due to $117,000 spent on road salt.
Parks and Recreation
Expenditures:
Certain Park & Recreation Divisions, such as Environment and Rec Center, appear to be
running well below budget for Personal Services at 14% and 18% respectively. Both of
these divisions have a significant portion of the Personal Services budget for temporary
help, and due to the seasonal nature of the work, very little of the temporary salaries
budgets have been spent to date. This will even out over the summer months.
In the Organized Recreation Division, Supplies are exceeding budget at 38%. A
purchase of $9,900 was made in January for youth recreational equipment components,
which will be installed later in the year to replace or repair existing play structures.
Also in the Organized Recreation Division, Services & Other Charges are exceeding
budget at 54% because the full 2011 Community Education contribution in the amount of
$187,400 was paid to the School District in March. This is consistent with prior years.
Services & Other Charges in the Environment Division are at 36.8% through March due
to tree pruning and removal work.
Under Vehicle Maintenance, both Supplies (29.8%) and Services & Other Charges
(42.3%) are exceeding budget. Motor fuel expense and equipment repair services are the
main reasons for these overages. The extreme winter weather caused an increase in
equipment repairs. While fuel prices have increased from last year, the fuel consumed
through the first quarter of 2011 is over 4,800 gallons more than in the first quarter of
2010, mainly due to snow removal. Staff will continue to monitor fuel expense and
repair parts and services closely throughout the remainder of the year.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
None at this time.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
Regular and timely reporting of financial information is part of the City’s mission of being
stewards of financial resources.
Attachments: Monthly Financial Reports
Prepared by: Darla Monson, Senior Accountant
Reviewed by: Brian A. Swanson, Controller
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
4/20/2011CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 8:50:26R5509FIN1 LOGIS001
1Monthly Financial Report Page -By Co (pb), Object
2011
20113/31/2011 <==========================================>20102011
Description
Annual
Budget
Current
Period
YTD
Actual
Budget
Balance
Per Cent
Used
|
|
Prior Year
Budget
Same Period Prior
Year YTD Actual
Per Cent
Used
01000 GENERAL FUND
4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES
4001 REVENUES
4010 GENERAL PROPERTY TAXES 15,426,072.00-15,426,072.00-|14,889,605.00-
4100 LICENSES & PERMITS 2,345,910.00- 160,330.47- 1,025,651.56- 1,320,258.44- 43.72 |2,294,768.00-1,065,270.47- 46.42
4270 FINES & FORFEITS 328,200.00- 25,360.13- 49,287.56- 278,912.44- 15.02 |311,750.00-52,445.95- 16.82
4300 INTERGOVERNMENTAL 1,136,187.00- 14,877.73- 260,115.85- 876,071.15- 22.89 |1,598,787.00-358,130.53- 22.40
4600 CHARGES FOR SERVICES 1,152,643.00- 13,277.49- 57,758.01- 1,094,884.99-5.01 |1,138,018.00-104,729.48- 9.20
5200 MISCELLANEOUS 100,150.00-8,494.58- 35,005.19- 65,144.81- 34.95 |100,000.00-36,310.27- 36.31
4001 REVENUES 20,489,162.00-222,340.40-1,427,818.17-19,061,343.83-6.97 |20,332,928.00-1,616,886.70-7.95
6001 EXPENDITURES
6002 PERSONAL SERVICES 18,397,016.00 1,197,996.07 4,201,866.49 14,195,149.51 22.84 |18,132,004.00 4,558,196.91 25.14
6210 SUPPLIES 768,410.00 86,901.38 213,868.54 554,541.46 27.83 |846,535.00 202,783.40 23.95
6300 NON-CAPITAL EQUIPMENT 63,425.00 2,141.48 7,547.57 55,877.43 11.90 |67,775.00 15,833.37 23.36
6350 SERVICES & OTHER CHARGES 3,851,437.00 275,140.29 788,856.90 3,062,580.10 20.48 |3,922,858.00 760,366.99 19.38
6001 EXPENDITURES 23,080,288.00 1,562,179.22 5,212,139.50 17,868,148.50 22.58 |22,969,172.00 5,537,180.67 24.11
8001 OTHER INCOME
8010 TRANSFERS IN 2,589,876.00- 212,573.00- 637,719.00- 1,952,157.00- 24.62 |2,583,825.00-645,956.22- 25.00
8070 OTHER RECOVERIES 4,000.00-608.36-674.95-3,325.05- 16.87 |1,500.00-1,754.90 116.99-
8100 INTEREST 200,000.00-200,000.00-|200,000.00-61,747.43 30.87-
8130 CONTRIBUTIONS/DONATIONS 306.00-899.27-899.27 |
8170 ADMINISTRATION FEES 750.00-25.00 275.00-475.00- 36.67 |478.00-
8200 MISC RECEIPTS 118.34-168.34-168.34 |100.00-
8001 OTHER INCOME 2,794,626.00-213,580.70-639,736.56-2,154,889.44-22.89 |2,785,425.00-582,931.89-20.93
8501 OTHER EXPENSE
8580 MISCELLANEOUS EXPENSE 182,000.00 182,000.00 |181,181.00 .87-
8590 BANK CHARGES/CREDIT CD FEES 21,500.00 1,687.79 4,238.85 17,261.15 19.72 |19,000.00 4,205.81 22.14
8501 OTHER EXPENSE 203,500.00 1,687.79 4,238.85 199,261.15 2.08 |200,181.00 4,204.94 2.10
4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES 1,127,945.91 3,148,823.62 3,148,823.62-|51,000.00 3,341,567.02 6,552.09
01000 GENERAL FUND 1,127,945.91 3,148,823.62 3,148,823.62-|51,000.00 3,341,567.02 6,552.09
Study Session Meeting of April 25, 2011 (Item No. 5)
Subject: March 2011 Monthly Financial Report Page 3
4/20/2011CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 8:50:26R5509FIN1 LOGIS001
2Monthly Financial Report Page -By Co (pb), Object
2011
20113/31/2011 <==========================================>20102011
Description
Annual
Budget
Current
Period
YTD
Actual
Budget
Balance
Per Cent
Used
|
|
Prior Year
Budget
Same Period Prior
Year YTD Actual
Per Cent
Used
02000 PARK AND RECREATION
4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES
4001 REVENUES
4010 GENERAL PROPERTY TAXES 4,000,561.00-4,000,561.00-|4,014,872.00-
4100 LICENSES & PERMITS 6,600.00-55.00-6,545.00-.83 |6,275.00-330.00- 5.26
4300 INTERGOVERNMENTAL 77,652.00-1,116.72- 6,213.35- 71,438.65-8.00 |71,219.00-6,319.46- 8.87
4600 CHARGES FOR SERVICES 1,095,250.00- 47,483.05- 124,128.44- 971,121.56- 11.33 |1,073,900.00-152,073.49- 14.16
5200 MISCELLANEOUS 937,400.00- 98,772.46- 121,442.55- 815,957.45- 12.96 |906,900.00-135,396.04- 14.93
4001 REVENUES 6,117,463.00-147,372.23-251,839.34-5,865,623.66-4.12 |6,073,166.00-294,118.99-4.84
6001 EXPENDITURES
6002 PERSONAL SERVICES 3,524,740.00 223,072.91 761,656.24 2,763,083.76 21.61 |3,440,416.00 769,195.47 22.36
6210 SUPPLIES 854,846.00 56,036.16 200,129.34 654,716.66 23.41 |906,881.00 116,279.17 12.82
6300 NON-CAPITAL EQUIPMENT 4,120.00 4,120.00 |4,120.00
6350 SERVICES & OTHER CHARGES 1,729,657.00 326,506.23 590,747.74 1,138,909.26 34.15 |1,712,749.00 531,005.77 31.00
7800 CAPITAL OUTLAY 1,500.00 1,500.00 |7,000.00
6001 EXPENDITURES 6,114,863.00 605,615.30 1,552,533.32 4,562,329.68 25.39 |6,071,166.00 1,416,480.41 23.33
8001 OTHER INCOME
8130 CONTRIBUTIONS/DONATIONS 15,000.00-750.00- 1,050.00- 13,950.00-7.00 |13,000.00-2,085.00- 16.04
8200 MISC RECEIPTS 5,440.00-5,440.00 |5,440.00-
8001 OTHER INCOME 15,000.00-750.00-6,490.00-8,510.00-43.27 |13,000.00-7,525.00-57.88
8501 OTHER EXPENSE
8550 INTEREST/FINANCE CHARGES |39.00
8590 BANK CHARGES/CREDIT CD FEES 17,600.00 1,179.29 3,378.53 14,221.47 19.20 |15,000.00 3,862.47 25.75
8501 OTHER EXPENSE 17,600.00 1,179.29 3,378.53 14,221.47 19.20 |15,000.00 3,901.47 26.01
4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES 458,672.36 1,297,582.51 1,297,582.51-|1,118,737.89
02000 PARK AND RECREATION 458,672.36 1,297,582.51 1,297,582.51-|1,118,737.89
Study Session Meeting of April 25, 2011 (Item No. 5)
Subject: March 2011 Monthly Financial Report Page 4
4/20/2011CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 8:53:23R5509FIN1 LOGIS005
1Monthly Financial Report Page -By Co, Dept (pb), Object
2011
20113/31/2011 <==========================================>20102011
Description
Annual
Budget
Current
Period
YTD
Actual
Budget
Balance
Per Cent
Used
|
|
Prior Year
Budget
Same Period Prior
Year YTD Actual
Per Cent
Used
01000 GENERAL FUND
100 GENERAL
4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES
4001 REVENUES
4010 GENERAL PROPERTY TAXES 15,426,072.00-15,426,072.00-|14,889,605.00-
4300 INTERGOVERNMENTAL 45,205.00-45,205.00-|45,205.00-
4600 CHARGES FOR SERVICES 6.99-6.99-6.99 |62.24-
5200 MISCELLANEOUS 85,000.00-7,083.33- 21,249.99- 63,750.01- 25.00 |85,000.00-26,177.16- 30.80
4001 REVENUES 15,556,277.00-7,090.32-21,256.98-15,535,020.02-.14 |15,019,810.00-26,239.40-.17
6001 EXPENDITURES
6350 SERVICES & OTHER CHARGES |3,600.00
6001 EXPENDITURES |3,600.00
8001 OTHER INCOME
8010 TRANSFERS IN 2,550,876.00- 212,573.00- 637,719.00- 1,913,157.00- 25.00 |2,583,825.00-645,956.22- 25.00
8100 INTEREST 200,000.00-200,000.00-|200,000.00-61,747.43 30.87-
8001 OTHER INCOME 2,750,876.00-212,573.00-637,719.00-2,113,157.00-23.18 |2,783,825.00-584,208.79-20.99
8501 OTHER EXPENSE
8580 MISCELLANEOUS EXPENSE 180,000.00 180,000.00 |180,681.00
8501 OTHER EXPENSE 180,000.00 180,000.00 |180,681.00
4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES 18,127,153.00-219,663.32-658,975.98-17,468,177.02-3.64 |17,622,954.00-606,848.19-3.44
100 GENERAL 18,127,153.00-219,663.32-658,975.98-17,468,177.02-3.64 |17,622,954.00-606,848.19-3.44
Study Session Meeting of April 25, 2011 (Item No. 5)
Subject: March 2011 Monthly Financial Report Page 5
4/20/2011CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 8:53:23R5509FIN1 LOGIS005
2Monthly Financial Report Page -By Co, Dept (pb), Object
2011
20113/31/2011 <==========================================>20102011
Description
Annual
Budget
Current
Period
YTD
Actual
Budget
Balance
Per Cent
Used
|
|
Prior Year
Budget
Same Period Prior
Year YTD Actual
Per Cent
Used
110 ADMINISTRATION
4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES
4001 REVENUES
4100 LICENSES & PERMITS 221,590.00-8,700.00- 201,740.00- 19,850.00- 91.04 |183,360.00-188,031.67- 102.55
4270 FINES & FORFEITS 8,000.00-250.00-7,750.00-3.13 |8,000.00-
4300 INTERGOVERNMENTAL 3,945.50-|
4600 CHARGES FOR SERVICES 250.00- 1,294.12-1,294.12 |175.86-
5200 MISCELLANEOUS 50.00-50.00 |
4001 REVENUES 229,590.00-12,895.50-203,334.12-26,255.88-88.56 |191,360.00-188,207.53-98.35
6001 EXPENDITURES
6002 PERSONAL SERVICES 469,088.00 15,253.47 97,813.71 371,274.29 20.85 |444,400.00 129,992.95 29.25
6210 SUPPLIES 2,900.00 163.83 241.02 2,658.98 8.31 |3,100.00 294.43 9.50
6350 SERVICES & OTHER CHARGES 417,810.00 28,249.70 114,948.90 302,861.10 27.51 |476,972.00 92,138.31 19.32
6001 EXPENDITURES 889,798.00 43,667.00 213,003.63 676,794.37 23.94 |924,472.00 222,425.69 24.06
8001 OTHER INCOME
8130 CONTRIBUTIONS/DONATIONS 100.00-100.00-100.00 |
8200 MISC REVENUE 50.00-100.00-100.00 |
8001 OTHER INCOME 150.00-200.00-200.00 |
8501 OTHER EXPENSE
4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES 660,208.00 30,621.50 9,469.51 650,738.49 1.43 |733,112.00 34,218.16 4.67
110 ADMINISTRATION 660,208.00 30,621.50 9,469.51 650,738.49 1.43 |733,112.00 34,218.16 4.67
Study Session Meeting of April 25, 2011 (Item No. 5)
Subject: March 2011 Monthly Financial Report Page 6
4/20/2011CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 8:53:23R5509FIN1 LOGIS005
3Monthly Financial Report Page -By Co, Dept (pb), Object
2011
20113/31/2011 <==========================================>20102011
Description
Annual
Budget
Current
Period
YTD
Actual
Budget
Balance
Per Cent
Used
|
|
Prior Year
Budget
Same Period Prior
Year YTD Actual
Per Cent
Used
120 FINANCE
4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES
4001 REVENUES
4600 CHARGES FOR SERVICES 48,318.00-4,026.50- 44,291.50-8.33 |48,318.00-4,026.50- 8.33
4001 REVENUES 48,318.00-4,026.50-44,291.50-8.33 |48,318.00-4,026.50-8.33
6001 EXPENDITURES
6002 PERSONAL SERVICES 452,004.00 3,275.39 110,446.65 341,557.35 24.43 |444,200.00 137,080.36 30.86
6210 SUPPLIES 3,000.00 376.56 2,623.44 12.55 |3,000.00 499.57 16.65
6350 SERVICES & OTHER CHARGES 155,710.00 14,854.22 34,117.57 121,592.43 21.91 |140,650.00 26,494.93 18.84
6001 EXPENDITURES 610,714.00 18,129.61 144,940.78 465,773.22 23.73 |587,850.00 164,074.86 27.91
8001 OTHER INCOME
8170 ADMINISTRATION FEES 750.00-25.00 275.00-475.00- 36.67 |300.00-
8001 OTHER INCOME 750.00-25.00 275.00-475.00-36.67 |300.00-
8501 OTHER EXPENSE
8580 MISCELLANEOUS EXPENSE 2,000.00 2,000.00 |500.00 .87- .17-
8590 BANK CHARGES/CREDIT CD FEES 250.00 250.00 |500.00
8501 OTHER EXPENSE 2,250.00 2,250.00 |1,000.00 .87-.09-
4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES 563,896.00 18,154.61 140,639.28 423,256.72 24.94 |540,532.00 159,747.49 29.55
120 FINANCE 563,896.00 18,154.61 140,639.28 423,256.72 24.94 |540,532.00 159,747.49 29.55
Study Session Meeting of April 25, 2011 (Item No. 5)
Subject: March 2011 Monthly Financial Report Page 7
4/20/2011CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 8:53:23R5509FIN1 LOGIS005
4Monthly Financial Report Page -By Co, Dept (pb), Object
2011
20113/31/2011 <==========================================>20102011
Description
Annual
Budget
Current
Period
YTD
Actual
Budget
Balance
Per Cent
Used
|
|
Prior Year
Budget
Same Period Prior
Year YTD Actual
Per Cent
Used
121 ASSESSING
4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES
4001 REVENUES
5200 MISCELLANEOUS 150.00-150.00-150.00-100.00 |
4001 REVENUES 150.00-150.00-150.00-100.00 |
6001 EXPENDITURES
6002 PERSONAL SERVICES 488,690.00 35,980.33 115,085.30 373,604.70 23.55 |476,600.00 118,245.01 24.81
6210 SUPPLIES 1,200.00 9.57 271.19 928.81 22.60 |1,225.00 130.26 10.63
6350 SERVICES & OTHER CHARGES 10,251.00 244.63 1,291.35 8,959.65 12.60 |12,255.00 1,325.00 10.81
6001 EXPENDITURES 500,141.00 36,234.53 116,647.84 383,493.16 23.32 |490,080.00 119,700.27 24.42
8001 OTHER INCOME
8501 OTHER EXPENSE
4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES 499,991.00 36,084.53 116,497.84 383,493.16 23.30 |490,080.00 119,700.27 24.42
121 ASSESSING 499,991.00 36,084.53 116,497.84 383,493.16 23.30 |490,080.00 119,700.27 24.42
Study Session Meeting of April 25, 2011 (Item No. 5)
Subject: March 2011 Monthly Financial Report Page 8
4/20/2011CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 8:53:23R5509FIN1 LOGIS005
5Monthly Financial Report Page -By Co, Dept (pb), Object
2011
20113/31/2011 <==========================================>20102011
Description
Annual
Budget
Current
Period
YTD
Actual
Budget
Balance
Per Cent
Used
|
|
Prior Year
Budget
Same Period Prior
Year YTD Actual
Per Cent
Used
130 HUMAN RESOURCES
4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES
4001 REVENUES
4600 CHARGES FOR SERVICES 11,000.00-3,103.00- 3,320.00-7,680.00- 30.18 |9,000.00-8,403.00- 93.37
5200 MISCELLANEOUS |264.00-
4001 REVENUES 11,000.00-3,103.00-3,320.00-7,680.00-30.18 |9,000.00-8,667.00-96.30
6001 EXPENDITURES
6002 PERSONAL SERVICES 497,170.00 36,662.81 115,727.15 381,442.85 23.28 |482,400.00 119,805.85 24.84
6210 SUPPLIES 2,000.00 1,043.77 956.23 52.19 |2,000.00 166.56 8.33
6350 SERVICES & OTHER CHARGES 153,600.00 40,267.14 46,904.31 106,695.69 30.54 |160,550.00 48,810.06 30.40
6001 EXPENDITURES 652,770.00 76,929.95 163,675.23 489,094.77 25.07 |644,950.00 168,782.47 26.17
8001 OTHER INCOME
8501 OTHER EXPENSE
4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES 641,770.00 73,826.95 160,355.23 481,414.77 24.99 |635,950.00 160,115.47 25.18
130 HUMAN RESOURCES 641,770.00 73,826.95 160,355.23 481,414.77 24.99 |635,950.00 160,115.47 25.18
Study Session Meeting of April 25, 2011 (Item No. 5)
Subject: March 2011 Monthly Financial Report Page 9
4/20/2011CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 8:53:23R5509FIN1 LOGIS005
6Monthly Financial Report Page -By Co, Dept (pb), Object
2011
20113/31/2011 <==========================================>20102011
Description
Annual
Budget
Current
Period
YTD
Actual
Budget
Balance
Per Cent
Used
|
|
Prior Year
Budget
Same Period Prior
Year YTD Actual
Per Cent
Used
135 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES
4001 REVENUES
4100 LICENSES & PERMITS 9,000.00-525.00- 2,655.00-6,345.00- 29.50 |9,000.00-1,860.00- 20.67
4300 INTERGOVERNMENTAL 1,250.00- 1,250.00-1,250.00 |
4600 CHARGES FOR SERVICES 613,225.00-5,627.06- 34,254.55- 578,970.45-5.59 |594,000.00-56,610.88- 9.53
4001 REVENUES 622,225.00-7,402.06-38,159.55-584,065.45-6.13 |603,000.00-58,470.88-9.70
6001 EXPENDITURES
6002 PERSONAL SERVICES 1,036,336.00 5,719.64 231,748.86 804,587.14 22.36 |1,001,700.00 346,601.79 34.60
6210 SUPPLIES 1,700.00 64.84 1,635.16 3.81 |1,700.00 112.99 6.65
6350 SERVICES & OTHER CHARGES 56,150.00 617.06 1,149.07 55,000.93 2.05 |47,750.00 1,543.52 3.23
6001 EXPENDITURES 1,094,186.00 6,336.70 232,962.77 861,223.23 21.29 |1,051,150.00 348,258.30 33.13
8001 OTHER INCOME
8501 OTHER EXPENSE
4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES 471,961.00 1,065.36-194,803.22 277,157.78 41.28 |448,150.00 289,787.42 64.66
135 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 471,961.00 1,065.36-194,803.22 277,157.78 41.28 |448,150.00 289,787.42 64.66
Study Session Meeting of April 25, 2011 (Item No. 5)
Subject: March 2011 Monthly Financial Report Page 10
4/20/2011CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 8:53:23R5509FIN1 LOGIS005
7Monthly Financial Report Page -By Co, Dept (pb), Object
2011
20113/31/2011 <==========================================>20102011
Description
Annual
Budget
Current
Period
YTD
Actual
Budget
Balance
Per Cent
Used
|
|
Prior Year
Budget
Same Period Prior
Year YTD Actual
Per Cent
Used
140 FACILITIES MAINTENANCE
4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES
4001 REVENUES
4600 CHARGES FOR SERVICES 43,000.00-43,000.00-|43,000.00-17,250.00- 40.12
5200 MISCELLANEOUS 15,000.00-1,250.00- 5,000.00- 10,000.00- 33.33 |15,000.00-5,000.00- 33.33
4001 REVENUES 58,000.00-1,250.00-5,000.00-53,000.00-8.62 |58,000.00-22,250.00-38.36
6001 EXPENDITURES
6002 PERSONAL SERVICES 543,009.00 28,185.71 99,042.80 443,966.20 18.24 |546,200.00 130,765.26 23.94
6210 SUPPLIES 79,650.00 5,099.34 10,025.01 69,624.99 12.59 |86,150.00 12,166.83 14.12
6300 NON-CAPITAL EQUIPMENT 20,000.00 423.21 19,576.79 2.12 |26,000.00 3,837.73 14.76
6350 SERVICES & OTHER CHARGES 471,892.00 44,385.01 110,439.35 361,452.65 23.40 |423,392.00 89,842.47 21.22
6001 EXPENDITURES 1,114,551.00 77,670.06 219,930.37 894,620.63 19.73 |1,081,742.00 236,612.29 21.87
8001 OTHER INCOME
8200 MISC REVENUE 68.34-68.34-68.34 |
8001 OTHER INCOME 68.34-68.34-68.34 |
8501 OTHER EXPENSE
8590 BANK CHARGES/CREDIT CD FEES |20.00
8501 OTHER EXPENSE |20.00
4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES 1,056,551.00 76,351.72 214,862.03 841,688.97 20.34 |1,023,742.00 214,382.29 20.94
140 FACILITIES MAINTENANCE 1,056,551.00 76,351.72 214,862.03 841,688.97 20.34 |1,023,742.00 214,382.29 20.94
Study Session Meeting of April 25, 2011 (Item No. 5)
Subject: March 2011 Monthly Financial Report Page 11
4/20/2011CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 8:53:23R5509FIN1 LOGIS005
8Monthly Financial Report Page -By Co, Dept (pb), Object
2011
20113/31/2011 <==========================================>20102011
Description
Annual
Budget
Current
Period
YTD
Actual
Budget
Balance
Per Cent
Used
|
|
Prior Year
Budget
Same Period Prior
Year YTD Actual
Per Cent
Used
145 INFORMATION RESOURCES
4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES
4001 REVENUES
5200 MISCELLANEOUS 117.29-117.29 |
4001 REVENUES 117.29-117.29 |
6001 EXPENDITURES
6002 PERSONAL SERVICES 529,075.00 35,346.73 123,081.89 405,993.11 23.26 |516,850.00 146,585.81 28.36
6210 SUPPLIES 29,000.00 3,002.92 2,488.67 26,511.33 8.58 |23,500.00 6,444.23 27.42
6300 NON-CAPITAL EQUIPMENT 2,400.00 747.00 747.00 1,653.00 31.13 |28.95
6350 SERVICES & OTHER CHARGES 833,751.00 58,174.38 191,636.54 642,114.46 22.98 |860,316.00 221,193.05 25.71
6001 EXPENDITURES 1,394,226.00 97,271.03 317,954.10 1,076,271.90 22.81 |1,400,666.00 374,252.04 26.72
8001 OTHER INCOME
8501 OTHER EXPENSE
8590 BANK CHARGES/CREDIT CD FEES 12.22-12.22-12.22 |34.90
8501 OTHER EXPENSE 12.22-12.22-12.22 |34.90
4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES 1,394,226.00 97,258.81 317,824.59 1,076,401.41 22.80 |1,400,666.00 374,286.94 26.72
145 INFORMATION RESOURCES 1,394,226.00 97,258.81 317,824.59 1,076,401.41 22.80 |1,400,666.00 374,286.94 26.72
Study Session Meeting of April 25, 2011 (Item No. 5)
Subject: March 2011 Monthly Financial Report Page 12
4/20/2011CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 8:53:23R5509FIN1 LOGIS005
9Monthly Financial Report Page -By Co, Dept (pb), Object
2011
20113/31/2011 <==========================================>20102011
Description
Annual
Budget
Current
Period
YTD
Actual
Budget
Balance
Per Cent
Used
|
|
Prior Year
Budget
Same Period Prior
Year YTD Actual
Per Cent
Used
150 COMMUNICATIONS & MARKETING
4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES
4001 REVENUES
4300 INTERGOVERNMENTAL |3,000.00-
4001 REVENUES |3,000.00-
6001 EXPENDITURES
6002 PERSONAL SERVICES 196,370.00 11,980.82 42,343.06 154,026.94 21.56 |188,280.00 30,943.00 16.43
6210 SUPPLIES 100.00 100.00 |100.00
6350 SERVICES & OTHER CHARGES 98,000.00 21,782.51 22,154.97 75,845.03 22.61 |93,525.00 5,920.00 6.33
6001 EXPENDITURES 294,470.00 33,763.33 64,498.03 229,971.97 21.90 |281,905.00 36,863.00 13.08
8001 OTHER INCOME
8501 OTHER EXPENSE
4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES 294,470.00 33,763.33 64,498.03 229,971.97 21.90 |278,905.00 36,863.00 13.22
150 COMMUNICATIONS & MARKETING 294,470.00 33,763.33 64,498.03 229,971.97 21.90 |278,905.00 36,863.00 13.22
Study Session Meeting of April 25, 2011 (Item No. 5)
Subject: March 2011 Monthly Financial Report Page 13
4/20/2011CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 8:53:23R5509FIN1 LOGIS005
10Monthly Financial Report Page -By Co, Dept (pb), Object
2011
20113/31/2011 <==========================================>20102011
Description
Annual
Budget
Current
Period
YTD
Actual
Budget
Balance
Per Cent
Used
|
|
Prior Year
Budget
Same Period Prior
Year YTD Actual
Per Cent
Used
160 POLICE
4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES
4001 REVENUES
4100 LICENSES & PERMITS 4,500.00-1,350.00- 1,350.00-3,150.00- 30.00 |
4270 FINES & FORFEITS 320,000.00- 25,360.13- 48,597.56- 271,402.44- 15.19 |303,500.00-52,306.52- 17.23
4300 INTERGOVERNMENTAL 446,982.00-5,358.34-566.46- 446,415.54-.13 |800,582.00-108,977.71- 13.61
4600 CHARGES FOR SERVICES 100,700.00-3,653.50- 13,459.75- 87,240.25- 13.37 |109,700.00-15,909.00- 14.50
5200 MISCELLANEOUS 8,366.66-8,366.66 |4,869.11-
4001 REVENUES 872,182.00-35,721.97-72,340.43-799,841.57-8.29 |1,213,782.00-182,062.34-15.00
6001 EXPENDITURES
6002 PERSONAL SERVICES 6,599,679.00 472,209.44 1,507,724.19 5,091,954.81 22.85 |6,609,294.00 1,599,221.94 24.20
6210 SUPPLIES 96,600.00 7,555.86 24,289.19 72,310.81 25.14 |141,050.00 13,528.38 9.59
6300 NON-CAPITAL EQUIPMENT 33,025.00 1,394.48 6,377.36 26,647.64 19.31 |33,775.00 9,366.69 27.73
6350 SERVICES & OTHER CHARGES 478,958.00 27,239.41 91,152.23 387,805.77 19.03 |521,783.00 86,333.71 16.55
6001 EXPENDITURES 7,208,262.00 508,399.19 1,629,542.97 5,578,719.03 22.61 |7,305,902.00 1,708,450.72 23.38
8001 OTHER INCOME
8010 TRANSFERS IN 39,000.00-39,000.00-|
8070 OTHER RECOVERIES 4,000.00-608.36-674.95-3,325.05- 16.87 |1,500.00-1,754.90 116.99-
8001 OTHER INCOME 43,000.00-608.36-674.95-42,325.05-1.57 |1,500.00-1,754.90 116.99-
8501 OTHER EXPENSE
8590 BANK CHARGES/CREDIT CD FEES 250.00 50.35 123.47 126.53 49.39 |500.00 58.68 11.74
8501 OTHER EXPENSE 250.00 50.35 123.47 126.53 49.39 |500.00 58.68 11.74
4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES 6,293,330.00 472,119.21 1,556,651.06 4,736,678.94 24.73 |6,091,120.00 1,528,201.96 25.09
160 POLICE 6,293,330.00 472,119.21 1,556,651.06 4,736,678.94 24.73 |6,091,120.00 1,528,201.96 25.09
Study Session Meeting of April 25, 2011 (Item No. 5)
Subject: March 2011 Monthly Financial Report Page 14
4/20/2011CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 8:53:23R5509FIN1 LOGIS005
11Monthly Financial Report Page -By Co, Dept (pb), Object
2011
20113/31/2011 <==========================================>20102011
Description
Annual
Budget
Current
Period
YTD
Actual
Budget
Balance
Per Cent
Used
|
|
Prior Year
Budget
Same Period Prior
Year YTD Actual
Per Cent
Used
161 COMMUNITY OUTREACH - POLICE
4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES
4001 REVENUES
6001 EXPENDITURES
6002 PERSONAL SERVICES 78,960.00 5,854.83 18,454.30 60,505.70 23.37 |76,700.00 19,041.33 24.83
6210 SUPPLIES 850.00 850.00 |850.00
6350 SERVICES & OTHER CHARGES 8,705.00 273.16 8,431.84 3.14 |8,705.00 264.98 3.04
6001 EXPENDITURES 88,515.00 5,854.83 18,727.46 69,787.54 21.16 |86,255.00 19,306.31 22.38
8001 OTHER INCOME
8501 OTHER EXPENSE
4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES 88,515.00 5,854.83 18,727.46 69,787.54 21.16 |86,255.00 19,306.31 22.38
161 COMMUNITY OUTREACH - POLICE 88,515.00 5,854.83 18,727.46 69,787.54 21.16 |86,255.00 19,306.31 22.38
Study Session Meeting of April 25, 2011 (Item No. 5)
Subject: March 2011 Monthly Financial Report Page 15
4/20/2011CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 8:53:23R5509FIN1 LOGIS005
12Monthly Financial Report Page -By Co, Dept (pb), Object
2011
20113/31/2011 <==========================================>20102011
Description
Annual
Budget
Current
Period
YTD
Actual
Budget
Balance
Per Cent
Used
|
|
Prior Year
Budget
Same Period Prior
Year YTD Actual
Per Cent
Used
165 FIRE PROTECTION
4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES
4001 REVENUES
4100 LICENSES & PERMITS 40,000.00-2,493.08- 8,741.33- 31,258.67- 21.85 |40,000.00-9,880.80- 24.70
4300 INTERGOVERNMENTAL 194,000.00-4,323.89- 4,323.89- 189,676.11-2.23 |300,000.00-8,239.82- 2.75
4600 CHARGES FOR SERVICES 4,000.00-595.00- 1,205.00-2,795.00- 30.13 |4,000.00-780.00- 19.50
5200 MISCELLANEOUS 60.00-60.00 |
4001 REVENUES 238,000.00-7,411.97-14,330.22-223,669.78-6.02 |344,000.00-18,900.62-5.49
6001 EXPENDITURES
6002 PERSONAL SERVICES 2,877,201.00 212,813.64 665,118.87 2,212,082.13 23.12 |2,826,180.00 675,494.59 23.90
6210 SUPPLIES 69,560.00 671.88 3,517.44 66,042.56 5.06 |71,810.00 3,304.57 4.60
6300 NON-CAPITAL EQUIPMENT 5,000.00 5,000.00 |5,000.00 2,600.00 52.00
6350 SERVICES & OTHER CHARGES 212,583.00 14,140.41 38,621.95 173,961.05 18.17 |219,183.00 30,221.65 13.79
6001 EXPENDITURES 3,164,344.00 227,625.93 707,258.26 2,457,085.74 22.35 |3,122,173.00 711,620.81 22.79
8001 OTHER INCOME
8130 CONTRIBUTIONS/DONATIONS 206.00-799.27-799.27 |
8170 ADMINISTRATION FEES |178.00-
8001 OTHER INCOME 206.00-799.27-799.27 |178.00-
8501 OTHER EXPENSE
4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES 2,926,344.00 220,007.96 692,128.77 2,234,215.23 23.65 |2,778,173.00 692,542.19 24.93
165 FIRE PROTECTION 2,926,344.00 220,007.96 692,128.77 2,234,215.23 23.65 |2,778,173.00 692,542.19 24.93
Study Session Meeting of April 25, 2011 (Item No. 5)
Subject: March 2011 Monthly Financial Report Page 16
4/20/2011CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 8:53:23R5509FIN1 LOGIS005
13Monthly Financial Report Page -By Co, Dept (pb), Object
2011
20113/31/2011 <==========================================>20102011
Description
Annual
Budget
Current
Period
YTD
Actual
Budget
Balance
Per Cent
Used
|
|
Prior Year
Budget
Same Period Prior
Year YTD Actual
Per Cent
Used
170 INSPECTIONAL SERVICES
4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES
4001 REVENUES
4100 LICENSES & PERMITS 1,995,700.00- 146,412.39- 806,565.23- 1,189,134.77- 40.42 |1,987,288.00-853,268.00- 42.94
4600 CHARGES FOR SERVICES 2,400.00-41.94-191.10-2,208.90-7.96 |162.00-
5200 MISCELLANEOUS 11.25-11.25-11.25 |
4001 REVENUES 1,998,100.00-146,465.58-806,767.58-1,191,332.42-40.38 |1,987,288.00-853,430.00-42.94
6001 EXPENDITURES
6002 PERSONAL SERVICES 1,763,169.00 124,450.97 395,856.90 1,367,312.10 22.45 |1,713,100.00 401,683.83 23.45
6210 SUPPLIES 17,000.00 464.40 1,337.23 15,662.77 7.87 |21,500.00 2,046.03 9.52
6350 SERVICES & OTHER CHARGES 62,127.00 3,903.21 9,814.17 52,312.83 15.80 |63,627.00 16,745.32 26.32
6001 EXPENDITURES 1,842,296.00 128,818.58 407,008.30 1,435,287.70 22.09 |1,798,227.00 420,475.18 23.38
8001 OTHER INCOME
8200 MISC RECEIPTS |100.00-
8001 OTHER INCOME |100.00-
8501 OTHER EXPENSE
8590 BANK CHARGES/CREDIT CD FEES 21,000.00 1,649.66 4,127.60 16,872.40 19.66 |18,000.00 4,092.23 22.73
8501 OTHER EXPENSE 21,000.00 1,649.66 4,127.60 16,872.40 19.66 |18,000.00 4,092.23 22.73
4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES 134,804.00-15,997.34-395,631.68-260,827.68 293.49 |171,161.00-428,862.59-250.56
170 INSPECTIONAL SERVICES 134,804.00-15,997.34-395,631.68-260,827.68 293.49 |171,161.00-428,862.59-250.56
Study Session Meeting of April 25, 2011 (Item No. 5)
Subject: March 2011 Monthly Financial Report Page 17
4/20/2011CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 8:53:23R5509FIN1 LOGIS005
14Monthly Financial Report Page -By Co, Dept (pb), Object
2011
20113/31/2011 <==========================================>20102011
Description
Annual
Budget
Current
Period
YTD
Actual
Budget
Balance
Per Cent
Used
|
|
Prior Year
Budget
Same Period Prior
Year YTD Actual
Per Cent
Used
175 PUBLIC WORKS - ADMINISTRATION
4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES
4001 REVENUES
6001 EXPENDITURES
6002 PERSONAL SERVICES 795,548.00 63,654.28 200,809.47 594,738.53 25.24 |825,800.00 218,316.43 26.44
6210 SUPPLIES 4,000.00 459.11 1,005.48 2,994.52 25.14 |4,000.00 299.84 7.50
6300 NON-CAPITAL EQUIPMENT 1,000.00 1,000.00 |1,000.00
6350 SERVICES & OTHER CHARGES 29,150.00 419.00 1,633.16 27,516.84 5.60 |24,100.00 1,008.98 4.19
6001 EXPENDITURES 829,698.00 64,532.39 203,448.11 626,249.89 24.52 |854,900.00 219,625.25 25.69
8001 OTHER INCOME
8501 OTHER EXPENSE
4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES 829,698.00 64,532.39 203,448.11 626,249.89 24.52 |854,900.00 219,625.25 25.69
175 PUBLIC WORKS - ADMINISTRATION 829,698.00 64,532.39 203,448.11 626,249.89 24.52 |854,900.00 219,625.25 25.69
Study Session Meeting of April 25, 2011 (Item No. 5)
Subject: March 2011 Monthly Financial Report Page 18
4/20/2011CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 8:53:23R5509FIN1 LOGIS005
15Monthly Financial Report Page -By Co, Dept (pb), Object
2011
20113/31/2011 <==========================================>20102011
Description
Annual
Budget
Current
Period
YTD
Actual
Budget
Balance
Per Cent
Used
|
|
Prior Year
Budget
Same Period Prior
Year YTD Actual
Per Cent
Used
176 PUBLIC WORKS - ENGINEERING
4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES
4001 REVENUES
4100 LICENSES & PERMITS 75,000.00-850.00- 4,600.00- 70,400.00-6.13 |75,000.00-12,200.00- 16.27
4600 CHARGES FOR SERVICES 330,000.00-330,000.00-|330,000.00-1,350.00- .41
4001 REVENUES 405,000.00-850.00-4,600.00-400,400.00-1.14 |405,000.00-13,550.00-3.35
6001 EXPENDITURES
6002 PERSONAL SERVICES 772,432.00 52,881.40 167,010.89 605,421.11 21.62 |750,000.00 171,918.61 22.92
6210 SUPPLIES 6,850.00 26,050.38 26,717.14 19,867.14- 390.03 |7,050.00 345.46 4.90
6300 NON-CAPITAL EQUIPMENT 2,000.00 2,000.00 |2,000.00
6350 SERVICES & OTHER CHARGES 64,750.00 1,260.78 5,370.02 59,379.98 8.29 |70,750.00 7,496.84 10.60
6001 EXPENDITURES 846,032.00 80,192.56 199,098.05 646,933.95 23.53 |829,800.00 179,760.91 21.66
8001 OTHER INCOME
8501 OTHER EXPENSE
4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES 441,032.00 79,342.56 194,498.05 246,533.95 44.10 |424,800.00 166,210.91 39.13
176 PUBLIC WORKS - ENGINEERING 441,032.00 79,342.56 194,498.05 246,533.95 44.10 |424,800.00 166,210.91 39.13
Study Session Meeting of April 25, 2011 (Item No. 5)
Subject: March 2011 Monthly Financial Report Page 19
4/20/2011CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 8:53:23R5509FIN1 LOGIS005
16Monthly Financial Report Page -By Co, Dept (pb), Object
2011
20113/31/2011 <==========================================>20102011
Description
Annual
Budget
Current
Period
YTD
Actual
Budget
Balance
Per Cent
Used
|
|
Prior Year
Budget
Same Period Prior
Year YTD Actual
Per Cent
Used
177 PUBLIC WORKS - OPERATIONS
4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES
4001 REVENUES
4100 LICENSES & PERMITS 120.00-120.00-|120.00-30.00- 25.00
4270 FINES & FORFEITS 200.00-440.00-240.00 220.00 |250.00-139.43- 55.77
4300 INTERGOVERNMENTAL 450,000.00-253,975.50- 196,024.50- 56.44 |450,000.00-240,913.00- 53.54
4001 REVENUES 450,320.00-254,415.50-195,904.50-56.50 |450,370.00-241,082.43-53.53
6001 EXPENDITURES
6002 PERSONAL SERVICES 1,298,285.00 93,726.61 311,602.45 986,682.55 24.00 |1,230,300.00 312,500.15 25.40
6210 SUPPLIES 454,000.00 43,424.09 142,491.00 311,509.00 31.39 |479,500.00 163,444.25 34.09
6350 SERVICES & OTHER CHARGES 798,000.00 19,602.83 119,350.15 678,649.85 14.96 |799,300.00 127,428.17 15.94
6001 EXPENDITURES 2,550,285.00 156,753.53 573,443.60 1,976,841.40 22.49 |2,509,100.00 603,372.57 24.05
8001 OTHER INCOME
8501 OTHER EXPENSE
4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES 2,099,965.00 156,753.53 319,028.10 1,780,936.90 15.19 |2,058,730.00 362,290.14 17.60
177 PUBLIC WORKS - OPERATIONS 2,099,965.00 156,753.53 319,028.10 1,780,936.90 15.19 |2,058,730.00 362,290.14 17.60
01000 GENERAL FUND 1,127,945.91 3,148,823.62 3,148,823.62-|51,000.00 3,341,567.02 6,552.09
Study Session Meeting of April 25, 2011 (Item No. 5)
Subject: March 2011 Monthly Financial Report Page 20
4/20/2011CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 8:53:23R5509FIN1 LOGIS005
17Monthly Financial Report Page -By Co, Dept (pb), Object
2011
20113/31/2011 <==========================================>20102011
Description
Annual
Budget
Current
Period
YTD
Actual
Budget
Balance
Per Cent
Used
|
|
Prior Year
Budget
Same Period Prior
Year YTD Actual
Per Cent
Used
02000 PARK AND RECREATION
200 ORGANIZED RECREATION
4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES
4001 REVENUES
4010 GENERAL PROPERTY TAXES 4,000,561.00-4,000,561.00-|4,014,872.00-
4300 INTERGOVERNMENTAL 44,702.00-44,702.00-|44,702.00-
4600 CHARGES FOR SERVICES 263,000.00- 18,786.50- 58,675.16- 204,324.84- 22.31 |261,000.00-59,518.20- 22.80
5200 MISCELLANEOUS 31,400.00-327.73- 2,487.73- 28,912.27-7.92 |31,400.00-3,163.00- 10.07
4001 REVENUES 4,339,663.00-19,114.23-61,162.89-4,278,500.11-1.41 |4,351,974.00-62,681.20-1.44
6001 EXPENDITURES
6002 PERSONAL SERVICES 724,457.00 50,828.16 169,651.26 554,805.74 23.42 |715,280.00 160,105.82 22.38
6210 SUPPLIES 51,541.00 3,834.80 20,024.74 31,516.26 38.85 |59,451.00 4,800.60 8.07
6350 SERVICES & OTHER CHARGES 446,232.00 206,600.21 241,875.11 204,356.89 54.20 |455,677.00 240,268.47 52.73
6001 EXPENDITURES 1,222,230.00 261,263.17 431,551.11 790,678.89 35.31 |1,230,408.00 405,174.89 32.93
8001 OTHER INCOME
8130 CONTRIBUTIONS/DONATIONS 15,000.00-750.00-750.00- 14,250.00-5.00 |15,000.00-350.00- 2.33
8200 MISC REVENUE 5,440.00-5,440.00 |5,440.00-
8001 OTHER INCOME 15,000.00-750.00-6,190.00-8,810.00-41.27 |15,000.00-5,790.00-38.60
8501 OTHER EXPENSE
8550 INTEREST/FINANCE CHARGES |39.00
8590 BANK CHARGES/CREDIT CD FEES 17,000.00 1,105.57 3,237.65 13,762.35 19.05 |15,000.00 3,710.48 24.74
8501 OTHER EXPENSE 17,000.00 1,105.57 3,237.65 13,762.35 19.05 |15,000.00 3,749.48 25.00
4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES 3,115,433.00-242,504.51 367,435.87 3,482,868.87-11.79-|3,121,566.00-340,453.17 10.91-
200 ORGANIZED RECREATION 3,115,433.00-242,504.51 367,435.87 3,482,868.87-11.79-|3,121,566.00-340,453.17 10.91-
Study Session Meeting of April 25, 2011 (Item No. 5)
Subject: March 2011 Monthly Financial Report Page 21
4/20/2011CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 8:53:23R5509FIN1 LOGIS005
18Monthly Financial Report Page -By Co, Dept (pb), Object
2011
20113/31/2011 <==========================================>20102011
Description
Annual
Budget
Current
Period
YTD
Actual
Budget
Balance
Per Cent
Used
|
|
Prior Year
Budget
Same Period Prior
Year YTD Actual
Per Cent
Used
201 RECREATION CENTER
4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES
4001 REVENUES
4600 CHARGES FOR SERVICES 638,000.00- 16,244.30- 37,949.22- 600,050.78-5.95 |630,000.00-51,114.06- 8.11
5200 MISCELLANEOUS 771,000.00- 90,032.84- 92,865.99- 678,134.01- 12.04 |744,500.00-102,010.78- 13.70
4001 REVENUES 1,409,000.00-106,277.14-130,815.21-1,278,184.79-9.28 |1,374,500.00-153,124.84-11.14
6001 EXPENDITURES
6002 PERSONAL SERVICES 786,207.00 41,417.45 137,824.40 648,382.60 17.53 |785,638.00 140,646.58 17.90
6210 SUPPLIES 170,750.00 4,261.13 21,029.28 149,720.72 12.32 |170,350.00 19,784.54 11.61
6350 SERVICES & OTHER CHARGES 485,490.00 38,182.56 99,221.57 386,268.43 20.44 |480,870.00 101,030.95 21.01
6001 EXPENDITURES 1,442,447.00 83,861.14 258,075.25 1,184,371.75 17.89 |1,436,858.00 261,462.07 18.20
8001 OTHER INCOME
8501 OTHER EXPENSE
4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES 33,447.00 22,416.00-127,260.04 93,813.04-380.48 |62,358.00 108,337.23 173.73
201 RECREATION CENTER 33,447.00 22,416.00-127,260.04 93,813.04-380.48 |62,358.00 108,337.23 173.73
Study Session Meeting of April 25, 2011 (Item No. 5)
Subject: March 2011 Monthly Financial Report Page 22
4/20/2011CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 8:53:23R5509FIN1 LOGIS005
19Monthly Financial Report Page -By Co, Dept (pb), Object
2011
20113/31/2011 <==========================================>20102011
Description
Annual
Budget
Current
Period
YTD
Actual
Budget
Balance
Per Cent
Used
|
|
Prior Year
Budget
Same Period Prior
Year YTD Actual
Per Cent
Used
202 PARK MAINTENANCE
4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES
4001 REVENUES
4100 LICENSES & PERMITS 6,600.00-55.00-6,545.00-.83 |6,275.00-330.00- 5.26
4600 CHARGES FOR SERVICES 10,500.00-344.90- 10,155.10-3.28 |10,500.00-
5200 MISCELLANEOUS 34,000.00-89.53 110.47- 33,889.53-.32 |30,000.00-4,376.00- 14.59
4001 REVENUES 51,100.00-89.53 510.37-50,589.63-1.00 |46,775.00-4,706.00-10.06
6001 EXPENDITURES
6002 PERSONAL SERVICES 970,504.00 64,139.66 216,785.53 753,718.47 22.34 |926,500.00 219,450.67 23.69
6210 SUPPLIES 102,555.00 3,168.86 10,818.52 91,736.48 10.55 |97,755.00 10,212.24 10.45
6300 NON-CAPITAL EQUIPMENT 4,120.00 4,120.00 |4,120.00
6350 SERVICES & OTHER CHARGES 358,195.00 25,252.47 88,758.25 269,436.75 24.78 |361,340.00 66,615.15 18.44
7800 CAPITAL OUTLAY |7,000.00
6001 EXPENDITURES 1,435,374.00 92,560.99 316,362.30 1,119,011.70 22.04 |1,396,715.00 296,278.06 21.21
8001 OTHER INCOME
8501 OTHER EXPENSE
4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES 1,384,274.00 92,650.52 315,851.93 1,068,422.07 22.82 |1,349,940.00 291,572.06 21.60
202 PARK MAINTENANCE 1,384,274.00 92,650.52 315,851.93 1,068,422.07 22.82 |1,349,940.00 291,572.06 21.60
Study Session Meeting of April 25, 2011 (Item No. 5)
Subject: March 2011 Monthly Financial Report Page 23
4/20/2011CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 8:53:23R5509FIN1 LOGIS005
20Monthly Financial Report Page -By Co, Dept (pb), Object
2011
20113/31/2011 <==========================================>20102011
Description
Annual
Budget
Current
Period
YTD
Actual
Budget
Balance
Per Cent
Used
|
|
Prior Year
Budget
Same Period Prior
Year YTD Actual
Per Cent
Used
203 WESTWOOD HILLS
4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES
4001 REVENUES
4600 CHARGES FOR SERVICES 95,000.00- 11,927.25- 19,690.85- 75,309.15- 20.73 |86,400.00-29,066.25- 33.64
5200 MISCELLANEOUS 113.00-437.00-437.00 |681.00-
4001 REVENUES 95,000.00-12,040.25-20,127.85-74,872.15-21.19 |86,400.00-29,747.25-34.43
6001 EXPENDITURES
6002 PERSONAL SERVICES 431,151.00 31,486.55 93,588.84 337,562.16 21.71 |421,200.00 98,164.75 23.31
6210 SUPPLIES 27,000.00 570.70 2,394.01 24,605.99 8.87 |27,000.00 1,677.72 6.21
6350 SERVICES & OTHER CHARGES 43,615.00 2,225.32 6,641.89 36,973.11 15.23 |45,250.00 7,421.51 16.40
6001 EXPENDITURES 501,766.00 34,282.57 102,624.74 399,141.26 20.45 |493,450.00 107,263.98 21.74
8001 OTHER INCOME
8130 CONTRIBUTIONS/DONATIONS 300.00-300.00 |1,535.00-
8001 OTHER INCOME 300.00-300.00 |1,535.00-
8501 OTHER EXPENSE
8590 BANK CHARGES/CREDIT CD FEES 600.00 73.72 140.88 459.12 23.48 |151.99
8501 OTHER EXPENSE 600.00 73.72 140.88 459.12 23.48 |151.99
4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES 407,366.00 22,316.04 82,337.77 325,028.23 20.21 |407,050.00 76,133.72 18.70
203 WESTWOOD HILLS 407,366.00 22,316.04 82,337.77 325,028.23 20.21 |407,050.00 76,133.72 18.70
Study Session Meeting of April 25, 2011 (Item No. 5)
Subject: March 2011 Monthly Financial Report Page 24
4/20/2011CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 8:53:23R5509FIN1 LOGIS005
21Monthly Financial Report Page -By Co, Dept (pb), Object
2011
20113/31/2011 <==========================================>20102011
Description
Annual
Budget
Current
Period
YTD
Actual
Budget
Balance
Per Cent
Used
|
|
Prior Year
Budget
Same Period Prior
Year YTD Actual
Per Cent
Used
204 ENVIRONMENT
4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES
4001 REVENUES
4300 INTERGOVERNMENTAL 7,500.00-7,500.00-|
4600 CHARGES FOR SERVICES 88,750.00-525.00- 7,468.31- 81,281.69-8.41 |86,000.00-11,838.22- 13.77
4001 REVENUES 96,250.00-525.00-7,468.31-88,781.69-7.76 |86,000.00-11,838.22-13.77
6001 EXPENDITURES
6002 PERSONAL SERVICES 112,204.00 2,463.13- 15,241.77 96,962.23 13.58 |108,648.00 26,834.80 24.70
6210 SUPPLIES 17,100.00 174.08 1,250.11 15,849.89 7.31 |19,425.00 1,464.20 7.54
6350 SERVICES & OTHER CHARGES 240,520.00 24,162.85 88,504.56 152,015.44 36.80 |223,470.00 76,116.86 34.06
7800 CAPITAL OUTLAY 1,500.00 1,500.00 |
6001 EXPENDITURES 371,324.00 21,873.80 104,996.44 266,327.56 28.28 |351,543.00 104,415.86 29.70
8001 OTHER INCOME
8130 CONTRIBUTIONS/DONATIONS |2,000.00 200.00- 10.00-
8001 OTHER INCOME |2,000.00 200.00-10.00-
8501 OTHER EXPENSE
4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES 275,074.00 21,348.80 97,528.13 177,545.87 35.46 |267,543.00 92,377.64 34.53
204 ENVIRONMENT 275,074.00 21,348.80 97,528.13 177,545.87 35.46 |267,543.00 92,377.64 34.53
Study Session Meeting of April 25, 2011 (Item No. 5)
Subject: March 2011 Monthly Financial Report Page 25
4/20/2011CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 8:53:23R5509FIN1 LOGIS005
22Monthly Financial Report Page -By Co, Dept (pb), Object
2011
20113/31/2011 <==========================================>20102011
Description
Annual
Budget
Current
Period
YTD
Actual
Budget
Balance
Per Cent
Used
|
|
Prior Year
Budget
Same Period Prior
Year YTD Actual
Per Cent
Used
205 VEHICLE MAINTENANCE
4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES
4001 REVENUES
4300 INTERGOVERNMENTAL 25,450.00-1,116.72- 6,213.35- 19,236.65- 24.41 |26,517.00-6,319.46- 23.83
4600 CHARGES FOR SERVICES |536.76-
5200 MISCELLANEOUS 101,000.00-8,388.42- 25,541.36- 75,458.64- 25.29 |101,000.00-25,165.26- 24.92
4001 REVENUES 126,450.00-9,505.14-31,754.71-94,695.29-25.11 |127,517.00-32,021.48-25.11
6001 EXPENDITURES
6002 PERSONAL SERVICES 500,217.00 37,664.22 128,564.44 371,652.56 25.70 |483,150.00 123,992.85 25.66
6210 SUPPLIES 485,900.00 44,026.59 144,612.68 341,287.32 29.76 |532,900.00 78,339.87 14.70
6350 SERVICES & OTHER CHARGES 155,605.00 30,082.82 65,746.36 89,858.64 42.25 |146,142.00 39,552.83 27.06
6001 EXPENDITURES 1,141,722.00 111,773.63 338,923.48 802,798.52 29.69 |1,162,192.00 241,885.55 20.81
8001 OTHER INCOME
8501 OTHER EXPENSE
4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES 1,015,272.00 102,268.49 307,168.77 708,103.23 30.25 |1,034,675.00 209,864.07 20.28
205 VEHICLE MAINTENANCE 1,015,272.00 102,268.49 307,168.77 708,103.23 30.25 |1,034,675.00 209,864.07 20.28
02000 PARK AND RECREATION 458,672.36 1,297,582.51 1,297,582.51-|1,118,737.89
Study Session Meeting of April 25, 2011 (Item No. 5)
Subject: March 2011 Monthly Financial Report Page 26
Meeting Date: April 25, 2011
Agenda Item #: 6
Regular Meeting Public Hearing Action Item Consent Item Resolution Ordinance
Presentation Other:
EDA Meeting Action Item Resolution Other:
Study Session Discussion Item Written Report Other:
TITLE:
First Quarter Investment Report (January - March, 2011).
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
No action required at this time. This report is being provided for information sharing purposes.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
None at this time.
BACKGROUND:
The City’s investment portfolio is focused on shorter term cash flow needs and investment in
longer term securities. This is done in accordance with Minnesota Statute 118A and the City’s
Investment Policy objectives of: 1) Preservation of capital; 2) Liquidity; and 3) Return on
investment.
The total portfolio value decreased by approximately $12 million in the first quarter of 2011.
This decrease was primarily within the money market accounts, as over $6.5 million was needed
to make the February 1st debt service payments and to payoff the Louisiana Court Bonds that
were refinanced in December 2010. A large amount of cash was also needed to make the
February 1st Pay-As-You-Go note payments.
The overall yield of the portfolio increased to 1.47% from 1.05% in the prior quarter. A large
portion of the cash from the Fire Station Bonds, which were sold in December 2010, was
invested in the first quarter in short term commercial paper. The commercial paper has varying
maturity dates over the next six months in order to have cash available as needed throughout the
construction period, while maximizing short term interest earnings. The rates on the commercial
paper range from .3% to .85% compared to .15% in the UBS Money Market Fund.
A new money market account was also opened at Citizen Independent Bank in January which
helped to raise the portfolio yield. The yield on this new account of .41% is substantially higher
than either the 4M Fund (.02%) or the UBS Money Market (.15%). In order to maximize interest
earnings on available cash necessary for the general operational expenses of the City, $5 million
was transferred to this new higher yielding money market account.
Some of the longer-term investments in the portfolio again turned over in the past quarter as calls
came in on higher rate securities. Five investments were called in the first quarter, and while
new securities that were purchased had lower rates than some of those that were called, interest
rates in the first quarter did show some signs of improvement. Cities generally use a short
horizon benchmark such as the two year Treasury (.80% at 3/31) or some similar measure for
yield comparison of their overall portfolio.
Study Session Meeting of April 25, 2011 (Item No. 6) Page 2
Subject: First Quarter Investment Report (January - March, 2011)
Looking to the second quarter of 2011, the City will receive the 70% advance payment from the
general property tax levy and the HRA levy in May. Longer term investments will be purchased
when possible to help raise the portfolio yield. However, a reasonable amount of cash will be
maintained in the money market accounts to cover the normal cash flow needs for payroll and
general operating expenses, as well as the semi-annual obligations for debt service and Pay-As-
You-Go note payments, and construction project payments over the summer months. It is also
imperative that sufficient liquidity is available to be able to lock in higher rates as the economy
begins to improve and interest rates rise.
Approximately one half of our longer term purchases are in municipal debt, which are bonds
issued by State or local governments to pay for special projects. The rest of our longer term
purchases are in callable agency bonds, which are issued by government agencies such as the
Federal Home Loan Bank or Fannie Mae. They typically have more reasonable interest rates to
the final maturity date, which is in three to five years, but the issuers have the right to call the
bonds in three months to a year if interest rates decline.
Here is a summary of the City’s portfolio at March 31, 2011:
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
None at this time.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
The City has a sound investment policy that brokers are required to follow with the goals of
preservation of capital, liquidity and return on investment. The policy is strictly followed in
making investment decisions to protect the City’s resources.
Attachments: Quarterly Investment Report
Prepared by: Darla Monson, Senior Accountant
Reviewed by: Brian A. Swanson, Controller
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
12/31/10 3/31/11
<1 Year 66% 50%
1-2 Years 6% 10%
2-3 Years 15% 15%
>3 Years 13% 25%
12/31/10 3/31/11
Money Markets $43,490,334 $13,966,833
Commercial Paper $0 $11,841,619
Municipal Debt $15,406,646 $20,757,569
Agency Bonds $18,817,044 $19,201,797
City of St. Louis Park
Investment Portfolio
March 31, 2011
Institution Type Maturity
Yield to
Maturity Cost Basis
Market Value at
3/31/2011
Estimated Avg
Annual Income
Citizens Ind Bank Money Market 0.41%5,003,928 5,003,928 20,516
4M Fund Money Market 0.02%2,008,001 2,008,001 402
Citigroup/Smith Barney FNMA 07/06/2011 2.00% 2,000,000 2,010,240 40,000
Citigroup/Smith Barney GNMA 7.19% 37,346 37,346 2,685
2,047,586
Wells Fargo Advisors FHLMC 08/17/2015 1.50% 2,000,000 1,980,120 30,000
Wells Fargo Advisors FNMA 11/05/2015 1.25% 1,000,000 971,450 12,500
Wells Fargo Advisors FHLB 05/25/2016 2.00% 1,000,000 961,110 20,000
Wells Fargo Advisors FHLB 03/07/2016 3.00% 1,000,000 1,000,420 30,000
4,913,100
UBS Muni Debt 04/01/2013 1.84% 1,031,190 991,730 18,922
UBS FHLB 11/16/2015 1.63% 1,497,208 1,447,890 24,404
UBS Muni Debt 02/01/2016 3.03% 1,022,000 1,012,230 30,916
UBS Muni Debt 02/01/2016 3.66% 1,020,000 1,012,230 37,332
UBS Money Market 0.16% 5,856,498 5,856,498 9,370
UBS Money Market (Fire Station)0.16% 1,098,406 1,098,406 1,757
UBS Comm Paper (Fire Station)06/01/2011 0.30% 1,153,633 1,154,469 3,461
UBS Comm Paper (Fire Station)07/01/2011 0.35% 948,411 949,307 3,319
UBS Comm Paper (Fire Station)08/01/2011 0.40% 947,857 949,022 3,791
UBS Comm Paper (Fire Station)09/01/2011 0.40% 1,540,983 1,542,049 6,164
UBS Comm Paper (Fire Station)10/03/2011 0.40% 1,262,258 1,262,734 5,049
UBS Comm Paper (Fire Station)10/07/2011 0.84% 5,962,200 5,984,040 50,082
23,260,603
Sterne, Agee Gov't Debt 09/26/2011 1.55% 964,160 996,690 14,944
Sterne, Agee FAMC 10/03/2011 2.10% 1,069,426 1,024,290 22,458
Sterne, Agee FHLB 12/09/2011 2.63% 1,024,946 1,021,980 26,956
Sterne, Agee Muni Debt 05/01/2012 2.80% 101,504 101,392 2,842
Sterne, Agee Muni Debt 12/30/2012 2.45% 1,579,605 1,561,140 38,700
Sterne, Agee Muni Debt 03/01/2013 2.03% 752,580 751,440 15,277
Sterne, Agee FNMA 03/18/2013 3.96% 1,000,000 1,059,500 39,600
Sterne, Agee FNMA 04/29/2013 3.60% 802,894 797,226 28,880
Sterne, Agee Muni Debt 05/01/2013 3.12% 307,584 307,476 9,597
Sterne, Agee Muni Debt 05/01/2013 3.16% 599,360 589,808 18,940
Sterne, Agee Muni Debt 04/01/2013 1.75% 1,033,320 991,730 18,083
Sterne, Agee FFCB 12/27/2013 2.20% 971,162 930,114 21,327
Sterne, Agee Muni Debt 12/30/2013 2.95% 1,574,415 1,568,115 46,445
Sterne, Agee Muni Debt 04/01/2014 2.53% 820,919 826,338 20,769
Sterne, Agee Muni Debt 05/01/2014 3.52% 720,475 725,678 25,361
Sterne, Agee Muni Debt 06/01/2014 4.04% 768,740 780,499 31,057
Sterne, Agee Muni Debt 01/01/2014 3.25% 1,258,660 1,231,946 40,906
Sterne, Agee Muni Debt 01/01/2013 2.63% 865,649 851,275 22,723
Sterne, Agee Muni Debt 01/01/2012 1.65% 2,040,400 2,010,120 33,667
Sterne, Agee FNMA 10/27/2015 1.55% 1,000,086 970,150 15,501
Sterne, Agee Muni Debt 10/01/2013 1.50% 1,001,340 997,660 15,020
Sterne, Agee FNMA 07/21/2014 1.15% 1,002,980 991,160 11,534
Sterne, Agee FNMA 07/28/2015 1.49% 1,006,875 999,860 14,992
Sterne, Agee FNMA 01/28/2016 1.00% 1,000,000 999,450 10,000
Sterne, Agee Muni Debt 01/15/2012 0.55%281,924 281,212 1,551
Sterne, Agee Muni Debt 01/15/2013 0.88% 277,072 274,417 2,424
Sterne, Agee Muni Debt 01/15/2014 1.35% 280,290 278,286 3,784
Sterne, Agee Muni Debt 01/15/2015 1.90% 276,127 272,850 5,246
Sterne, Agee Muni Debt 01/15/2016 2.40% 275,092 272,998 6,602
24,464,799
Wells Fargo FNMA 01/13/2014 1.40% 1,000,000 996,660 14,000
Wells Fargo Muni Debt 03/01/2013 1.00% 1,034,583 1,018,110 10,346
Wells Fargo Gov't Debt 08/01/2014 1.33% 1,066,000 1,052,200 14,178
Wells Fargo FHLB 03/27/2013 1.02% 999,580 1,002,830 10,196
4,069,800
GRAND TOTAL 65,767,818 964,580
Portfolio Yield 1.47%
Study Session Meeting of April 25, 2011 (Item No. 6)
Subject: First Quarter Investment Report (January - March, 2011)Page 3
Meeting Date: April 25, 2011
Agenda Item #: 7
Regular Meeting Public Hearing Action Item Consent Item Resolution Ordinance
Presentation Other:
EDA Meeting Action Item Resolution Other:
Study Session Discussion Item Written Report Other:
TITLE:
2011 Community Open House.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
No action is requested or required. This staff report is being provided for informational
purposes. Please let staff know of any questions or comments you might have. Also – please let
staff know if you would like to participate or help out in any way with this event.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Not Applicable
BACKGROUND:
The first Community Open House hosted by the City of St. Louis Park was held June 9, 2009.
Staff began researching other metro area City Open Houses in 2007 and this led to the successful
event at the St. Louis Park Rec Center. It was determined in 2009 that the Community Open
House should be held every two or three years. The City’s second Community Open House will
be held May 18, 2011 from 6:00 pm – 8:00 pm at the new Municipal Services Center (MSC). It
will be a Zero Waste event.
In addition to allowing the community an opportunity to see the City’s recently remodeled and
expanded MSC, the purpose of the Community Open House is to reach out to both new and
long-term residents of St. Louis Park and to connect people in this community with one another
and city staff. The goal is to bring residents together in a community-wide event that will be fun
and inviting, and encourages residents to learn about the city and many of our key partners
including, but not limited to, STEP, the School District, Children First, Parktacular and
Bookmark in the Park.
The Community Open House will be a celebration for the whole community of St. Louis Park.
In addition to city staff and city equipment (Public Works Vehicles, Fire Trucks, Police Cars,
etc.) there will be a lot of fun activities and a chance for residents to learn about Zero Waste.
The goal of a zero waste event is to reduce waste to the greatest extent possible. This is done by
identifying areas where we can reduce or eliminate waste and by using compostable and
recyclable materials. The Community Open House will feature mini donuts, 1919 root beer, and
ice cream treats. The Whitesidewalls band will be playing from the showmobile stage as
residents enjoy their refreshments and connect with city staff and their neighbors.
All residents are welcome to attend this event. Marketing will play an important role in getting
residents of all ages and backgrounds to attend this event. The event was advertised in Park
Perspective and Summer Park & Rec brochure. Additional marketing opportunities include:
social media, website, posters, Cable TV, Sun Sailor, Patch, backpack stuffers, SPARC (St.
Louis Park Area Rental Coalition), neighborhood associations and block captains, etc.
Participating partners may also have additional marketing opportunities.
Study Session Meeting of April 25, 2011 (Item No. 7) Page 2
Subject: 2011 Community Open House
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
The budget for the Community Open House is $5,000 and is accounted for in the City’s 2011
budget.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
The Community Open House is aligned with two of the City Councils Strategic Directions: St.
Louis Park is committed to being a connected and engaged community and St. Louis Park is
committed to being a leader in environmental stewardship. The Vision handbook says the
following about community events: “Activities and celebrations throughout the year provide
ways for residents, workers and visitors to come together and keep the St. Louis Park community
welcoming, vibrant, and active. In the fullest sense of community, such events provide an
opportunity for residents of different ages and backgrounds to connect on common ground.”
Attachments: None
Prepared by: Marney Olson, Community Liaison
Reviewed by: John Luse, Police Chief
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Meeting Date: April 25, 2011
Agenda Item #: 8
Regular Meeting Public Hearing Action Item Consent Item Resolution Ordinance
Presentation Other:
EDA Meeting Action Item Resolution Other:
Study Session Discussion Item Written Report Other:
TITLE:
Update on Pending Westwood Villa Condominium Association Housing Improvement Area
(HIA).
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
No action is required at this time. This report is intended to update the City Council on this
pending project. The Westwood Villa Association anticipates petitioning the City Council to
conduct a Public Hearing to establish the HIA in the near future.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
The City is authorized by the state to establish HIAs as a finance tool for private housing
improvements. The City adopted an HIA policy in 2001, and has established five HIA’s to date,
see attached HIA summary.
BACKGROUND:
Westwood Villa Condominium Association is
located at 2200 Nevada Ave S.
The single, 3-story building has 66 units.
It was built in 1970 and converted to condos
in 1973.
75% of the units are owner occupied.
The 2010 median estimated market value of
the units is $86,227.
The 2010 estimated market value of units
range from $78,400 - $125,800.
History
Westwood Villa Association has been working towards acquiring HIA designation since they
contacted staff in 2010 for possible assistance to address significant maintenance needs. The
Board had contracted for a Reserve Study in 2007. This study included a physical needs
assessment to determine what improvements were and would be needed, and a financial plan to
finance them now and in the future. The Board then began the process of determining the scope
of work, identifying contractors and communicating with membership.
1. In November 2010 they submitted a preliminary application which met all statutory
requirements and complied with the city’s HIA policy.
Study Session Meeting of April 25, 2011 (Item No. 8) Page 2
Subject: Update on Pending Westwood Villa Condominium Assoc. Housing Improvement Area (HIA)
2. Over the winter, the association worked with third party consultants to hammer out the scope
of work with their property management company, Gassen Companies and contractors. They
have met with our Inspections and Fire Department to ensure the scope includes required
code compliant improvements. They have addressed the difficult challenge of balancing
needed improvements with the debt load their members can manage.
3. The final estimated project costs are being completed now and will be close to $1,500,000.
The improvements are basic common area improvements and would include replacement of
all decks, repair and replacement to the flat roof, replacement of the failed mansard
roof/siding, replacement of the rooftop chiller and two rooftop cooling units, and required
corrections to the fire sprinkling system. If at all possible they hope to include replacement
of garage piping, repairs to the garage floor, and updates to the building elevator to meet the
2012 State requirements.
4. The Board has determined that while costly, the work needs to be done and further delay of
the work will only result in further deterioration of the building. They are prepared to
request a public hearing.
Estimated HIA Timeline
The tentative timeline for the Westwood Villa HIA process is based on improvements beginning
later this summer:
April/May Association distribute petitions
June 6th Public Hearing
June 20th 2nd Reading
Aug 4th Effective Date of Ordinance
Aug 5th Loan closing, Execution of Development Agreement, construction start
Issues
Taking on additional debt during a recession is a challenge to the association, and the board has
looked at numerous options to reduce the loan amount for residents. In addition they have had
several informational meetings to garner additional membership input.
There are a few owners that purchased units at the peak of housing costs in the mid 2000s,
when prices were high. These owners could be in a situation where the additional debt load
could result in a higher debt load than unit value. The board has provided owners contact
information to Community Action Partnership of Hennepin County to provide home finance
counseling to owners that could be significantly burdened by the loan.
Low-income seniors, and low income disabled residents, could be eligible for the City’s
hardship deferment of special assessments. It is anticipated that four residents may apply for
the deferment.
On a positive note, despite the tumultuous condo housing market, the Association has
recently been notified that units are now eligible for FHA approved mortgages – a key to
retain owner occupancy.
Study Session Meeting of April 25, 2011 (Item No. 8) Page 3
Subject: Update on Pending Westwood Villa Condominium Assoc. Housing Improvement Area (HIA)
City Financing of the Loan
The Association anticipates requesting a 15-year loan which they believe will allow for more
affordable payments. This concurs with the City perspective, that the shortest term loan that
provides an affordable payment is desirable. The City Manager and Controller will make a
recommendation to the Council regarding internal financing or bond issuance for this HIA.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
The proposed HIA loan is within the range requested by three other Associations. The City’s
experience has been that the rate of HIA repayment delinquencies is the same as the citywide
property tax delinquency rate which is quite low. The risk to the city of non-payment is low for
three reasons: in the event of foreclosure, tax payments are first paid; the association assigns its
assets (reserve funds) to the city; and finally there is 105% debt coverage.
As this project proceeds thru the City’s formal process staff will provide additional details on the
merits of this proposal.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
The preservation of modest valued owner occupied homes is consistent with the City Councils
adopted Strategic Direction of providing a well maintained and diverse housing stock.
NEXT STEPS:
Upon completion of the final scope of work the association will be requesting the Council
conduct a Public Hearing to establish the Westwood Villa Association HIA and impose fees.
The association anticipates this will occur in the near future.
Attachments: Summary of HIA
Prepared by: Kathy Larsen, Housing Programs Coordinator
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
HIA Summary - April 2011AssociationNumber of Units Loan Amount2008 Average EMVYear EstablishedAvg Fee/UnitInterest RateTerm Years ExpirationSource of Funds# of Hardship Deferrals # Prepayments Outstanding Balance 12/31/2009Outstanding Balance 12/31/2010Cedar Trails Condominium Association 280 $1,366,000$112.80 2002 $4,878 6.30% 10 2012 HRF 050$183,657 $128,811Sungate One Association 20 $183,884$131,700 2006 $9,194 5.90% 10 2016 HRF 02$80,447 $64,394Wolfe Lake Condominiums 130 $1,238,000$127,300 2007 $9,754 5.85% 15 2022 HRF 010$910,390 $828,561Westmoreland Hills Owners Association 72 $1,026,125$101,400 2008 $14,250 5.85% 15 2023 HRF 712$908,140 $843,1722009 EMV$118,500Totals742 $7,749,204$2,082,633 $4,968,3442011 Pending HIA's Number of UnitsEstimated Loan Amount2010 Average EMVEstimate -Year to be EstablishAvg Fee/UnitInterest RateTerm Years ExpirationSource of FundsEstimated # of Hardship DeferralsEstimated # PrepaymentWestwood Villa Homes66 $1,300,000 $86,227 2011 $22,700 TBD 15 2026410Greensboro Square260 $3-5,000,000condos $75,300 townhomes $151,5002011 TBD TBD TBD 2032 TBD TBDSunset Ridge Condominium Association 240 $3,935,195200950 $0 $3,103,406$16,625 5.60% 20 2031 Bonds 604/20/2011Study Session Meeting of April 25, 2011 (Item No. 8) Subject: Update on Pending Westwood Villa Condominium Assoc. Housing Improvement Area (HIA)Page 4
Meeting Date: April 25, 2011
Agenda Item #: 9
Regular Meeting Public Hearing Action Item Consent Item Resolution Ordinance
Presentation Other:
EDA Meeting Action Item Resolution Other:
Study Session Discussion Item Written Report Other:
TITLE:
Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Funds for 2011.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
No action is required. This report is being provided for informational purposes. Please let staff
know of any questions or concerns that you might have.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Please let staff know of any questions or concerns you might have regarding the information in
this report.
BACKGROUND:
At the 2011 CDBG Public Hearing held on February 22, 2011 the City Council approved
projects to be funded with the City’s 2011 estimated allocation of $222,431. Since the 2011
Federal Budget had not been approved at the time of the Public Hearing, and some level of cuts
were anticipated, the City was advised to be prepared to reduce project funding.
The City was notified on Monday, April 18, 2011 that the federal cut of sixteen percent to the
CDBG budget was being passed onto cities within Hennepin County. The city’s estimated
allocation of $222,431 has been reduced by sixteen percent to $186,842. The actual final amount
may include a minor adjustment to this amount.
Since the City was informed of a pending funding cut, the Public Hearing staff report of
February 22, 2011 included recommendations that in the event the final allocation was less than
estimated, staff concurred with the Housing Authority’s input to retain the Emergency Repair
Program’s funding level and reduce the other allocations. Additionally the approved 2011 CDBG
Resolution authorized the City Manager to adjust project budget(s) to reflect an increase or
decrease in funding. So no further action is required at this time by the City Council.
The following table shows the approved allocation by project and the reduced allocation. The
revised allocations follow the recommendations discussed in February. The Low Income Single
Family Emergency Repair Program has not been reduced as recommended. The Park and
Recreation Departments Youth Programming at Meadowbrook was already at the minimum
allocation allowed by the County and could not be further reduced.
The remaining projects: the single family home rehab loan program administered by the County,
Homes Within Reach; Habitat for Humanity; and STEP’s budgets have been cut to achieve the
sixteen percent reduction. Staff has communicated with county staff, Homes Within Reach and
STEP to discuss the reductions to ensure the funds can still be used effectively.
Study Session Meeting of April 25, 2011 (Item No. 9) Page 2
Subject: Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Funds for 2011
Project Activity
Approved
Allocation
Revised
Allocation Rationale
Single Family Emergency
Repair Program $37,500 $37,500 Retain - high need and use
Single Family Deferred
Home Rehab Loan
Program $65,431 $56,827 Slight reduction - high need and use
STEP Roof Repair $70,000 $55,000
Reduce - extend to 2 year funding and
provide up to $15,000 with 2012 CDBG
WHALT $20,000 $10,000
Reduce and assist with one affordable
ownership home
Habitat for Humanity
3317 Texas Ave $22,000 $20,015 Slight reduction to known actual cost
Meadowbrook & Aquila
Parks - Summer Youth
Programming $7,500 $7,500
Retain - minimum CDBG amount allowed for
a project
Activity $222,431 $186,842
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
CDBG funds allow cities discretion (within the HUD guidelines), to fund projects that meet the
national low income objectives and the needs of cities. St. Louis Park will receive an estimated
$186,842 in 2011, which reflects a sixteen percent reduction from the original estimate. The
2011 CDBG year runs from July 1, 2011 through December 31, 2012. Staff anticipates the
proposed projects can expend the funds in a timely manner as has been our historical practice of
fully expending CDBG funds.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
The City Councils adopted Strategic Direction related to housing is, “St. Louis Park is committed
to providing a well-maintained and diverse housing stock”. The use of CDBG funds for the
proposed allocation is consistent with this direction and the national objectives to benefit low and
moderate income persons.
Not Applicable.
Attachments: February 22, 2011 Public Hearing Council Report
Prepared by: Kathy Larsen, Housing Programs Coordinator
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Study Session Meeting of April 25, 2011 (Item No. 9) Page 3
Subject: Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Funds for 2011
Meeting Date: February 22, 2011
Agenda Item #: 6a
Regular Meeting Public Hearing Action Item Consent Item Resolution Ordinance
Presentation Other:
EDA Meeting Action Item Resolution Other:
Study Session Discussion Item Written Report Other:
TITLE:
Public Hearing to Consider Allocation of 2011 Grant Year Community Development Block
Grant (CDBG) Funds.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Mayor to close the public hearing. Motion to Adopt Resolution approving proposed use of 2011
Urban Hennepin County Community Development Block Grant Program Funds and authorizing
execution of Subrecipient Agreement with Hennepin County and any Third Party Agreements.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Does the City Council concur with the recommendations made for the allocation of the 2011
CDBG funds?
BACKGROUND:
At this time each year the City must decide how to use its annual allocation of CDBG Funds.
The City must submit its proposed use of the allocation to Hennepin County by February 24th.
Prior to submittal, the City must hold a public hearing. Council received an update on the
proposed 2011 allocation at its January 24, 2011 study session via a written report.
The St. Louis Park Housing Authority reviewed the proposed allocation at its February 9, 2011
meeting. The Commissioners supported the allocation and strongly supports the single family
home emergency grant program for our lowest income homeowners. They suggested that if the
final funding level is reduced for 2011, and adjustments to the allocation are necessary, the
Emergency Repair Program for low-income homeowners not be reduced.
CDBG funds are US Housing and Urban Development (HUD) funds distributed through
Hennepin County. The City is estimated to receive $222,431 in federal CDBG funds in 2011;
the same amount allocated in 2010. However, the funding level for 2011 is uncertain at this time
for two reasons. First, Congress has not yet determined 2011 funding levels; Congress passed a
short term resolution for 2011 appropriations to keep government operations going through
March 4, 2011, which froze spending on CDBG at 2010 levels. Cuts are anticipated in the 2011
and 2012 CDBG budget. Second, the County and in-turn the City’s allocation is based on a
HUD formula which considers: 1) population; 2) number of persons with incomes at or below
poverty; and 3) overcrowded housing units within the City compared to the rest of Urban
Hennepin County. It is likely that the new 2010 Census population data may affect the
allocation amounts for both the County and City. The County has advised we keep the proposed
allocation flexible to allow for either a decrease or increase in the final allocation amount and the
attached draft resolution does so.
Study Session Meeting of April 25, 2011 (Item No. 9) Page 4
Subject: Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Funds for 2011
The national objectives of the CDBG program are:
Benefit low and moderate-income persons (moderate is defined as up to 80% of median
income or $67,200 for a family of four, and low is defined as up to 50% of median income or
$42,000 for a family of four in 2010).
Prevention or elimination of slum or blight.
Meet a particular urgent community development need.
From a policy perspective, the City Council has typically focused CDBG funds on “sticks and
bricks” improvements to the housing stock for low-income families, for both single-family
owners and multifamily housing residents. Over the past years a small portion of funds have
been allocated to support public services for St. Louis Park Housing Authority (SLPHA)
residents and park programming for low-income youth as well as assisting with renovations at
Lenox Center and STEP’s acquisition of a new facility.
Proposed 2011 CDBG Allocation
The proposed use of our allocation of CDBG funds reflect the priorities described in Vision St.
Louis Park, the City’s housing goals adopted by the Council in the Comprehensive Plan and the
CDBG national objectives. These priorities include preserving existing housing and increasing
affordable ownership opportunities.
This year’s proposed allocation is summarized in Table 1 below, which is followed by
descriptions of the proposed activities. Sixty-five percent of the allocation or $144,931 of the
$222,431 focuses on assisting low-income single family homeowners with emergency repairs,
rehab loans and affordable ownership opportunities. The remainder is proposed to assist St.
Louis Park Emergency Program (STEP) with roof replacement at their facility and a small
amount is proposed to leverage youth park programming at Meadowbrook Manor and Aquila
Park.
The city’s non-profit affordable housing providers have historically received CDBG funds to
assist with their building renovations. They have completed significant renovations in recent
years and with the continued high need for the single family homeowner assistance and STEP’s
proposed roofing project, staff did not solicit requests from them this year, nor did any come
forward requesting CDBG assistance.
Table 1: Proposed 2011 CDBG Allocation
Project Activity
Proposed
Allocation
Ongoing
Activity
Low-Income Single Family Ownership Assistance
Low Income Single Family Emergency Repair Program $37,500 yes
Low Income Single Family Home Rehab Loan $65,431 yes
Affordable Housing Land Trust – Homes within Reach $20,000 yes
Habitat for Humanity – Acquisition 3317 Texas Ave $22,000 new
Low-Income Community Assistance
STEP Roof Replacement $70,000 new
Public Service – Youth Park Programming at Meadowbrook & Aquila $7,500 yes
Total $222,431
Study Session Meeting of April 25, 2011 (Item No. 9) Page 5
Subject: Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Funds for 2011
Emergency Repair Program – Single Family $37,500
This program is consistent with the Council’s focus on stick and bricks and has proven its
responsiveness to low income seniors and vulnerable residents with annual incomes of 50% or
less of the median area income, or $29,400 for a single person household, and assets less than
$25,000. It provides grants of up to $4,000 for emergencies such as leaking roofs, plumbing
repairs and water heaters. Community Action Partners for Suburban Hennepin County (CAPSH)
currently administers this program for the City. This is an ongoing CDBG activity due to the
ongoing need of low income homeowners in St. Louis Park.
Low Income Single Family Home Rehab Loan Program- $65,431
This is the primary ongoing CDBG rehab loan program targeted for homeowners with annual income
of 50% or less of the median area income, or $42,000 for a household of 4, and assets less than
$25,000. The rehab focuses on improvements to bring homes into code compliance and provide long-
term maintenance free housing. The maximum loan amount is $25,000 and is forgiven after 15 years.
Repayment is required if homeowners sell the property before the 15-year period expires.
The demand for our low-income home improvement loans and grants continues to be high. Despite
significant funding in 2010 there is still a waiting list for the low income single family deferred loan
program. Last year $128,955 was allocated and 6 residents were assisted. Continued support along
with the program income realized from repayment of previous CDBG deferred loans, should make it
possible to serve five residents. This program is administered by Hennepin County Housing staff.
Affordable Housing Land Trust – Homes within Reach $20,000
Homes within Reach is a program of West Hennepin Housing Land Trust that purchases homes
and sells them to low income homeowners. Buyers pay for the cost of the building only and
lease the land for 99 years. St. Louis Park funds are leveraged with Met Council and Hennepin
County HOME funds, and Homes within Reach administers this activity. Homes within Reach
has purchased seven homes in the city that have been sold to low income families. This program
is consistent with the Council’s focus on using CDBG funds for “sticks and bricks” activities.
Habitat for Humanity - $22,000
The City has the opportunity to partner with Twin Cities Community Land Bank (TCCLB) and
Habitat for Humanity to construct a new affordable single family home on the 3317 Texas Ave
property. The blighted substandard home on this lot was demolished in 2010, consistent with
Council action and Court orders.
The City has not partnered with Habitat on developing affordable single family homes since
housing prices began escalating in the 2000s. The land and home values simply exceeded costs
that Habitat could manage; however Habitat has the opportunity to purchase this lot for $22,000.
The bank owner of this property opted to sell to the lot to TCCLB, which is a newly formed
entity that purchases primarily foreclosed homes from lenders before they go for sale to the
public. TCCLB will hold the lot until Habitat can purchase the parcel with CDBG assistance.
Habitat will fund the full construction costs and ensure that a low income family purchases and
retains the home. This project meets two housing objectives: replacement of a blighted property
with affordable owner occupancy.
Study Session Meeting of April 25, 2011 (Item No. 9) Page 6
Subject: Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Funds for 2011
STEP - $70,000
STEP has requested CDBG funds to repair and replace the roof at their new location. See
attached letter. When STEP acquired the Lake Street facility the condition of the roof was
known, yet the cost of repair exceeded the acquisition and construction budget. The City assisted
STEP with 2008 CDBG funds of $56,500 for the acquisition. STEP serves the population
allowed under CDBG income guidelines and as stated in their request for funding, CDBG funds
will allow them to use their limited operational funds to meet the needs of our low income
residents.
Public Service – SLP Park and Rec. Programming at Meadowbrook Manor and Aquila
Parks - $7,500
The Park and Recreation Department provides park programming to children at the
Meadowbrook Manor Apartment Community and the Aquila Park community. The $7,500
would provide an enhanced level of programming and ensure affordable registration fees at both
the Meadowbrook Manor and Aquila Park in 2011. The youth park programming has been
funded with CDBG funds 2007. Both Meadowbrook Manor and Aquila Parks are CDBG
eligible sites based on the poverty levels in these neighborhoods.
NEXT STEPS:
February 24, 2011 Deadline for submission of CDBG Application to Hennepin County.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
CDBG funds allow cities discretion (within the HUD guidelines), to fund projects that meet the
national low income objectives and the needs of cities. St. Louis Park will receive an estimated
$222,431 in 2011. The 2011 CDBG year runs from July 1, 2011 through December 31, 2012.
Staff anticipates the proposed projects can expend the funds in a timely manner as has been our
historical practice of fully expending CDBG funds.
In the event the final allocation is less than estimated, staff concurs with the Housing Authority’s
input to retain the Emergency Repair Program’s funding level and reduce the other allocations.
In the event the final allocation is more than estimated, the additional funds would be allocated
to the Emergency Repair Program. Staff will keep Council apprised of actual funding amounts.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
The City Councils adopted Strategic Direction related to housing is, “St. Louis Park is committed
to providing a well-maintained and diverse housing stock”. The use of CDBG funds for the
proposed allocation is consistent with this direction and the national objectives to benefit low and
moderate income persons.
Attachments: Draft Resolution
St. Louis Park Emergency Program’s (STEP) request for funding
Prepared by: Kathy Larsen, Housing Programs Coordinator
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Study Session Meeting of April 25, 2011 (Item No. 9) Page 7
Subject: Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Funds for 2011
DRAFT RESOLUTION NO. 11-029
RESOLUTION APPROVING PROPOSED USE OF 2011 URBAN HENNEPIN COUNTY
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT PROGRAM FUNDS AND
AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF SUBRECIPIENT AGREEMENT WITH HENNEPIN
COUNTY AND ANY THIRD PARTY AGREEMENTS
WHEREAS, the City of St. Louis Park, through execution of a Joint Cooperation
Agreement with Hennepin County, is cooperating in the Urban Hennepin County Community
Development Block Grant Program; and
WHEREAS, the City of St. Louis Park has developed a proposal for the use of 2011
Urban Hennepin County Community Development Block Grant funds made available to it; and
WHEREAS, the City held a public hearing on February 22, 2011 to obtain the views of
citizens on housing and community development needs and priorities and the City's proposed use
of $222,431.00 from the 2011 Urban Hennepin County Community Development Block Grant.
BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of St. Louis Park approves the following
projects for funding from the 2011 Urban Hennepin County Community Development Block
Grant Program and authorizes submittal of the proposal to Hennepin County.
Activity Budget
Low Income Single Family Emergency Repair Program $37,500
Low Income Single Family Home Rehab Loan $65,431
Affordable Housing Land Trust – Homes within Reach $20,000
Habitat for Humanity – Acquisition 3317 Texas Ave $22,000
St. Louis Park Emergency Program Roof Replacement $70,000
Public Service – Youth Park Programming at Meadowbrook & Aquila $7,500
Total $222,431
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council hereby authorizes and directs the
Mayor and its City Manager to execute the Subrecipient Agreement and any required Third Party
Agreement on behalf of the City to implement the 2011 Community Development Block Grant
Program.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that should the final amount of FY2011 CDBG
available to the city be different from the preliminary amount provided to the city, the City
Council hereby authorizes the City Manager to adjust project budget(s) to reflect an increase or
decrease in funding.
ADOPTED: the 22nd day of February 2011
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council February 22, 2011
City Manager
Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
Meeting Date: April 25, 2011
Agenda Item #: 3a
UNOFFICIAL MINUTES
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA
APRIL 4, 2011
1. Call to Order
President Finkelstein called the meeting to order at 7:23 p.m.
Commissioners present: President Phil Finkelstein, Jeff Jacobs, Anne Mavity, Julia Ross, Susan
Sanger, and Sue Santa.
Commissioners absent: Commissioner Paul Omodt.
Staff present: Executive Director (Mr. Harmening), Director of Community Development (Mr.
Locke), Economic Development Coordinator (Mr. Hunt), and Recording Secretary (Ms.
Hughes).
2. Roll Call
3. Approval of Minutes
3a. Economic Development Authority Minutes of February 22, 2011
The minutes were approved as presented.
4. Approval of Agenda
The agenda was approved as presented.
5. Reports
5a. Economic Development Authority Vendor Claims
It was moved by Commissioner Santa, seconded by Commissioner Ross, to approve the
EDA Vendor Claims.
The motion passed 6-0 (Commissioner Omodt absent).
6. Old Business - None
7. New Business
7a. First Amendment to the Redevelopment Contract with Wooddale Catered
Living, LLC
EDA Resolution No. 11-03
EDA Meeting of April 25, 2011 (Item No. 3a) Page 2
Subject: EDA Meeting Minutes of April 4, 2011
Mr. Hunt presented the staff report and advised that the EDA approved the
Redevelopment Contract for this project last June and since that time, the Redeveloper
has been working on securing project financing through the Department of Housing and
Urban Development (HUD); however, due to a backlog at HUD, the time to secure the
financing commitment has taken longer than anticipated. He stated that in order for the
Redeveloper to avoid being in default under the Redevelopment Contract, the project’s
completion schedule needs to be adjusted through an amendment whereby the project’s
required commencement date is extended six months to July 1, 2011 and the required
completion date is extended to September 30, 2012. He noted that the Redeveloper
expects to close on its financing commitment with HUD in mid-May and break ground in
June. He stated that construction will take 12-14 months with an anticipated completion
date in summer 2012. He added that Section 3.4 of the contract is proposed to be
removed as it is no longer applicable. He then introduced Mr. Arnie Gregory, President
of Greco Development.
Commissioner Sanger noted that the Redeveloper’s Transit Oriented Development
(TOD) Grant with the County has an expiration date of December 2011 and asked if the
Redeveloper anticipates any problems in getting the County to extend that date as well.
Mr. Hunt replied that the County has requested a letter from the EDA, which has been
supplied, requesting an extension to comply with the proposed schedule and it is assumed
that the County will go along with this.
Commissioner Mavity asked if the requested extension will be sufficient for the
Redeveloper to complete the project.
Mr. Arnie Gregory stated that he is ready to proceed with the project, the financing with
HUD has been secured and the closing on the loan will take place in approximately six
weeks.
It was moved by Commissioner Mavity, seconded by Commissioner Sanger, to adopt
EDA Resolution No. 11-03 Approving a First Amendment of a Contract for Private
Redevelopment by and between the St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority and
Wooddale Catered Living LLC.
The motion passed 6-0 (Commissioner Omodt absent).
8. Communications - None
9. Adjournment
The meeting adjourned at 7:29 p.m.
______________________________________ ______________________________________
Secretary President
Meeting Date: April 25, 2011
Agenda Item #: 5a
Regular Meeting Public Hearing Action Item Consent Item Resolution Ordinance
Presentation Other:
EDA Meeting Action Item Resolution Other: Vendor Claims
Study Session Discussion Item Written Report Other:
TITLE:
Vendor Claims.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Motion to accept for filing Vendor Claims for the period March 26, 2011 through April 8, 2011.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Not applicable.
BACKGROUND:
The Finance Department prepares this report for council’s review.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
None.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
Not applicable.
Attachments: Vendor Claims
Prepared by: Connie Neubeck, Account Clerk
4/19/2011CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 9:57:15R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
1Page -Council Check Summary
4/8/2011 -3/26/2011
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
10,500.00DEVELOPMENT - EDA G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESDECISION RESOURCES LTD
10,500.00
369.82WEST END TIF DIST G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESEHLERS & ASSOCIATES INC
464.84ELLIPSE ON EXC TIF DIST G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
369.82TRUNK HWY 7 G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
607.32HSTI G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
369.82VICTORIA PONDS G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
512.32PARK CENTER HOUSING G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
1,050.65CSM TIF DIST G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
1,050.65MILL CITY G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
2,032.32PARK COMMONS G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
1,050.67EDGEWOOD TIF DIST G & A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
369.82ELMWOOD VILLAGE G & A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
1,050.65WOLFE LAKE COMMERCIAL TIF G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
1,145.65AQUILA COMMONS G & A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
1,050.65HWY 7 BUSINESS CENTER G & A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
11,495.00
1,654.08DEVELOPMENT - EDA G&A AUDITING AND ACCOUNTING SERVICHLB TAUTGES REDPATH LTD
1,654.08
337.50HARD COAT LEGAL SERVICESKENNEDY & GRAVEN
28.527015 WALKER-REYNOLDS WELD PROP LEGAL SERVICES
72.90DEVELOPMENT - EDA G&A LEGAL SERVICES
438.92
225.00DEVELOPMENT - EDA G&A SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPSMNCAR EXCHANGE
225.00
9,333.00DEVELOPMENT - EDA G&A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICESSEARCHWIDE LLC
9,333.00
8,185.49DEVELOPMENT - EDA G&A PLANNINGSEH
8,185.49
2,600.00SOOMEKH PROPERTY OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESSRF CONSULTING GROUP INC
2,600.00
103.00DEVELOPMENT - EDA G&A SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPSST LOUIS PARK SUNRISE ROTARY
103.00
EDA Meeting of April 25, 2011 (Item No. 5a)
Subject: Vendor Claims Page 2
4/19/2011CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 9:57:15R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
2Page -Council Check Summary
4/8/2011 -3/26/2011
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
Report Totals 44,534.49
EDA Meeting of April 25, 2011 (Item No. 5a)
Subject: Vendor Claims Page 3
Meeting Date: April 25, 2011
Agenda Item #: 7a
Regular Meeting Public Hearing Action Item Consent Item Resolution Ordinance
Presentation Other:
EDA Meeting Action Item Resolution Other:
Study Session Discussion Item Written Report Other:
TITLE:
Authorization to Submit Grant Applications for the Wooddale Pointe Project.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
1) Motion to adopt the resolution authorizing the Executive Director and President to submit a
grant application to the Department of Employment and Economic Development (DEED)
Contamination Clean-up Grant Program on behalf of Greco Development.
2) Motion to adopt the resolution authorizing the Executive Director and President to submit a
grant application to the Metropolitan Council Tax Base Revitalization Grant Program on behalf
of Greco Development.
3) Motion to adopt the resolution authorizing the Executive Director and President to submit a
grant application to the Hennepin County Environmental Response Fund Program on behalf of
Greco Development.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Does the EDA support the submittal of grant applications to assist in the environmental clean up
of the proposed Wooddale Pointe property (3601 Wooddale Avenue and 5810 37th Street West)?
BACKGROUND:
For several years Wooddale Catered Living (Greco Development and “Redeveloper”) has been
working with the EDA and the City on a major, mixed-use redevelopment to be located at the
southeast corner of Wooddale Ave and 36th Street West across from the future light rail station.
As envisioned, Wooddale Pointe would entail a five-story building consisting of a 115-unit
senior assisted living complex on the second through fifth floors, 10,000 SF of retail on the first
floor and a small outdoor public gathering area featuring public art.
A major amendment to the PUD for the proposed project was approved on November 16, 2009
and a second Redevelopment Contract between the EDA and Greco was approved June 7, 2010.
A First Amendment to the Redevelopment Contract was approved April 4th. The Redeveloper
expects to close on its financing with HUD in mid-May and hopefully break ground in June.
Construction will take 12–14 months, so Greco anticipates completing the project in late summer
2012.
Discovery of Additional Soil Contamination
Recently, the Redeveloper had a subsequent environmental investigation conducted on the
project site. This study revealed additional soil contamination that will require special handling
and disposal in order to allow the project to proceed. The identified soil contamination consists
of relatively low concentrations of petroleum compounds, arsenic and polynuclear aromatic
hydrocarbons (PAHs). The estimated volume of contaminated soil is 7,347 cubic yards. The
estimated cost for the excavation and disposal of contaminated soil is estimated at $328,100. To
EDA Meeting of April 25, 2011 (Item No.7a) Page 2
Subject: Authorization to Submit Grant Applications for the Wooddale Pointe Project
offset these new extraordinary costs Greco has requested that the EDA apply for contamination
cleanup grants on its behalf through DEED, the Metropolitan Council, and Hennepin County.
Grant applicants must be made by either the city in which the project is located, or its respective
EDA or HRA. Each of the above agencies requires an authorizing resolution from the governing
body of the entity applying for the grant. Applications to the above agencies are due by May 1
and grant awards are typically announced by late June.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
Greco Development has requested that the EDA authorize the submission of grant applications to
DEED, the Metropolitan Council and Hennepin County totaling $328,100 to address the
contamination on the future Wooddale Pointe property.
Applicants for a grant from DEED may apply for assistance for up to 75% of the “Project Costs”.
Project Costs are defined as clean-up costs for the site and the cost of related site acquisition,
demolition, and public improvement work necessary for the applicant to implement the response
action plan.
The DEED grant program requires a 25% local match by the authorizing municipality. Local
matches may include funding sources from other government agencies. In the Redevelopment
Contract with the Redeveloper the EDA agreed to provide $490,000 in Tax Increment Finance
towards this project of which a portion was allocated toward environmental remediation. Funds
provided by the Metropolitan Council, Hennepin County, the Redeveloper and from the EDA
will sufficiently meet the above requirement. Within the resolution approving the grant
application to DEED is a statement that the EDA has committed to the sources identified within
the application as the local match requirement.
No additional funds are being requested from the EDA for the Wooddale Pointe project as
a result of the EDA’s proposed applications to any of the above grant agencies.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
Cleaning up and redeveloping the subject site is consistent with the City Councils Strategic
Directions relating to environmental stewardship and providing for a diversity of housing.
Attachments: DEED Resolution
Metropolitan Council Resolution
Hennepin County Resolution
Prepared by: Greg Hunt, Economic Development Coordinator
Reviewed by: Kevin Locke, Community Development Director
Approved by: Tom Harmening, EDA Executive Director and City Manager
EDA Meeting of April 25, 2011 (Item No.7a) Page 3
Subject: Authorization to Submit Grant Applications for the Wooddale Pointe Project
EDA RESOLUTION NO. 11-____
RESOLUTION APPROVING A GRANT APPLICATION TO THE DEPARTMENT OF
EMPLOYMENT AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AND APPROVING LOCAL
MATCHING FUNDS ON BEHALF OF GRECO DEVELOPMENT
WHEREAS, the St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority has agreed to act as
the legal sponsor for the Project referred to as Wooddale Pointe, contained in the Contamination
Cleanup Grant application submitted to the Department of Employment and Economic
Development (DEED) on or before May 1, 2011; and
WHEREAS, the St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority has the legal authority
to apply for financial assistance, and the institutional, managerial, and financial capability to
ensure adequate project administration; and
WHEREAS, the sources and amounts of the local match identified in the application are
committed to the project identified and the advance of such funds is subject to the final approval
of the Economic Development Authority; and
WHEREAS, the St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority has not violated any
Federal, State or local laws pertaining to fraud, bribery, graft, kickbacks, collusion, conflict of
interest or other unlawful or corrupt practice; and
WHEREAS, upon approval of its application by the state, the St. Louis Park Economic
Development Authority may enter into an agreement with the State of Minnesota for the above
referenced Project, and that the St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority certifies that it
will comply with all applicable laws and regulation as stated in all contract agreements;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the President and Executive Director
are hereby authorized to apply to the Department of Employment and Economic Development
for funding of this project on behalf of the St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority and
execute such agreements as are necessary to implement the Project on behalf of the applicant.
I CERTIFY THAT the above resolution was adopted by the St. Louis Park Economic
Development Authority on April 25, 2011.
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the Economic Development
Authority April 25, 2011
Executive Director President
Attest
Secretary
EDA Meeting of April 25, 2011 (Item No.7a) Page 4
Subject: Authorization to Submit Grant Applications for the Wooddale Pointe Project
EDA RESOLUTION NO. 11-____
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING APPLICATION FOR THE
METROPOLITAN COUNCIL TAX BASE REVITALIZATION ACCOUNT
ON BEHALF OF GRECO DEVELOPMENT
WHEREAS, the City of St. Louis Park is a participant in the Livable Communities Act's
Housing Incentives Program for 2011 as determined by the Metropolitan Council, and is
therefore eligible to make application for funds under the Tax Base Revitalization Account; and
WHEREAS, the St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority has identified a clean-
up project within the City that meets the Tax Base Revitalization account's purposes and criteria;
and
WHEREAS, the St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority has the institutional,
managerial and financial capability to ensure adequate project administration; and
WHEREAS, the St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority certifies that it will
comply with all applicable laws and regulations as stated in the contract agreements; and
WHEREAS, the St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority agrees to act as legal
sponsor for the project contained in the Tax Base Revitalization Account grant application
submitted on May 1, 2011;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the President and Executive Director
are hereby authorized to apply to the Metropolitan Council for a Tax Base Revitalization
Account grant on behalf of the St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority and to execute
such agreements as are necessary to implement the project on behalf of the applicant.
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the Economic Development
Authority April 25, 2011
Executive Director President
Attest
Secretary
EDA Meeting of April 25, 2011 (Item No.7a) Page 5
Subject: Authorization to Submit Grant Applications for the Wooddale Pointe Project
EDA RESOLUTION NO. 11-____
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING APPLICATION FOR A GRANT FROM
HENNEPIN COUNTY’S ENVIRONMENTAL RESPONSE FUND
ON BEHALF OF GRECO DEVELOPMENT
WHEREAS, the St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority is eligible to make
application for grant funds from Hennepin County’s Environmental Response Fund; and
WHEREAS, an application requesting grant funds from the Hennepin County
Environmental Response Fund has been prepared for submission by the St. Louis Park Economic
Development Authority; and
WHEREAS, the grant funds will be used for environmental clean-up of the Wooddale
Pointe site located at 3601 Wooddale Avenue and 5810 37th Street West in the City of St. Louis
Park; and
WHEREAS, the State Statute which created the Environmental Response Fund requires
approval by the governing body of the EDA for submission of a grant request to the Hennepin
County Environmental Response Fund; and
WHEREAS, the St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority has the institutional,
managerial and financial capability to ensure adequate project administration for any grant funds
received; and
WHEREAS, the St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority certifies that it will
comply with all applicable laws and regulations as stated in the contract agreements; and
WHEREAS, the St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority agrees to act as legal
sponsor for the project contained in the Environmental Response Fund grant application to be
submitted on or before May 1, 2011;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the President and Executive Director
are hereby authorized to apply to Hennepin County for an Environmental Response Fund grant
on behalf of the St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority on or before May 1, 2011 and
execute such agreements as are necessary to implement the project on behalf of the applicant.
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the Economic Development
Authority April 25, 2011
Executive Director President
Attest
Secretary
Meeting Date: April 25, 2011
Agenda Item #: 2a
Regular Meeting Public Hearing Action Item Consent Item Resolution Ordinance
Presentation Other: Proclamation
EDA Meeting Action Item Resolution Other:
Study Session Discussion Item Written Report Other:
TITLE:
Beautify the Park Proclamation.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
The Mayor is asked to read the Proclamation which kicks off the 2011 Beautify the Park
initiative and proclaims Earth Week.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Not Applicable.
BACKGROUND:
The City’s annual Beautify the Park initiative encourages residents to take time to walk around
their property, their alley, their neighborhood, and their community and pick up litter, leaves, and
any other remnants of winter to help give their neighborhood a fresh start this spring. Businesses,
civic groups, families and individuals can volunteer to clean an area in St. Louis Park by
contacting the City and School volunteer office at 952-928-6025.
St. Louis Park has teamed up with Tree Trust to make it affordable for residents to reforest their
properties. Citizens were encouraged to purchase up to three trees at $35 each for pick up and
planting in early May; this is the 3rd Annual Tree Sale and is currently all sold out of 200 trees.
Tree Trust and the City will again be partnering on the purchase of trees and a tree planting event
in Dakota Park on June 4th.
2011 Environmental Events
April – May 25 – Pick up the Park ongoing event
April 30 – Earth & Arbor Day Celebration 10 a.m. – noon at Westwood Hills Nature Center
May 17 – Rain Garden Workshop 6:30 p.m at Benilde-St. Margaret’s School.
May 18 – Community Open House - ZeroWaste Event 6-8 p.m. MSC, 7305 Oxford St.
May 21 – Creek Clean-up at Izaak Walton Creekside Park, 7341 Oxford St.
June 4 – Tree Planting Event at Dakota Park, 2643 Dakota Ave.
June 9 – June 11 Household Hazardous Waste Drop-off 9 a.m. – 4 p.m., 7250 Hwy 7
June 11 – Spring Clean-up Day St. Louis Park Jr. High, 2025 Texas Ave.
June 18 – Eco Fair at Parktacular
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
None other than staff time and other minimal expenses.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
This activity is consistent with the City Councils Strategic Direction related to the Environment.
Attachments: Proclamation
Prepared by: Nancy Stroth, City Clerk
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
City Council Meeting of April 25, 2011 (Item No. 2a) Page 2
Subject: Beautify the Park Proclamation
PROCLAMATION
2011 Beautify the Park Initiative
WHEREAS, the City Council of St. Louis Park is committed its Strategic Direction of
being a leader in environmental stewardship and to increase environmental consciousness and
responsibility in all areas of city business; and
WHEREAS, the City’s Beautify the Park initiative encourages residents to take some
time to walk around their property, their alley, their neighborhood, and their community.
Residents are encouraged to pick up litter, leaves, and any other remnants of winter, and give
their neighborhood a fresh start this spring; and
WHEREAS, residents are encouraged to take pictures of their clean-up adventures and
submit them for the City’s “Beautify the Park” website.
WHEREAS, the City’s 2011 Environmental Objective is a partnership with Tree Trust to
assist residents in reinvesting in their property and the City’s tree canopy; and
WHEREAS, citizens were encouraged to purchase up to three trees at a cost of $35 each
for pick up and planting in early May. The initiative resulted in the ordering of 200 trees for
May planting. For every new tree a resident plants, five more trees are lost to storms, pests and
disease.
NOW THEREFORE, let it be known that the Mayor and City Council of the City of St.
Louis Park do hereby proclaim Earth Week 2011 (April 16-23) to be the kick-off of these
initiatives, and call upon all citizens in our community to join in on these environmental
activities.
WHEREFORE, I set my hand and cause the Great Seal of
the City of St. Louis Park to be affixed this 25th day of
April, 2011.
_______________________________
Jeff Jacobs, Mayor
Meeting Date: April 25, 2011
Agenda Item #: 3a
UNOFFICIAL MINUTES
CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL STUDY SESSION
ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA
APRIL 4, 2011
The meeting convened at 6:45 p.m.
Councilmembers present: Mayor Jeff Jacobs, Phil Finkelstein, Anne Mavity, Julia Ross, Susan
Sanger, and Sue Santa.
Councilmembers absent: Paul Omodt.
Staff present: City Manager (Mr. Harmening), City Assessor (Mr. Bultema), Commercial
Appraiser (Ms. Nathanson), Communications Coordinator (Mr. Zwilling), and Recording
Secretary (Ms. Hughes).
1. 2011 Valuation Report
Mr. Bultema presented the staff report and provided an overview of the City’s assessment
process and 2010 market performance. He indicated that the 2011 Notices of Valuation and
Classification were mailed to each property owner on March 23rd which reflects property values
as of January 2, 2011 for taxes payable in 2012. He stated that the City’s total valuation stands
at $5,248,322, which reflects a 1.0% net decline in total value compared to 2010. He noted that
very few calls have been received this year regarding the 2011 Notices of Valuation. He
reviewed 2011 market value changes compared to 2010, noting that single family residential
values are down 2.0%, condominium values are down 4.0%, townhome values are down 2.4%,
apartment values are up 3.1%, and commercial-industrial values are up 1.1%. He indicated that
some of the City’s residential stock is moving up softly and the City is very cautious in bringing
values back because the market is still unsettled. He also presented historical median sale prices
of the City’s immediate peer communities for the past five years, as well as median sale prices
for the traditional market versus the foreclosure and short sale markets. He added that St. Louis
Park is fortunate to have a strong residential market with only 20% of its transactions in the
distressed market versus 40% metro-wide. He discussed valuations in the commercial/industrial
market, stating that hotel and motel properties are up 7.9%, offices in general are up 1.5%, retail
is down 2.5%, industrial is down 0.6%, and restaurant and grocery is down 0.6%, for an overall
increase for commercial/industrial of 1.1%. He then discussed the City’s tax capacity and fiscal
disparities, stating that the City moved from 21st to 11th highest net contributor for taxes payable
in 2011.
Council discussed the City’s five year cycle for conducting valuation inspections.
Councilmember Sanger requested further information regarding the impact on valuations when a
neighborhood has several homes on the market that do not sell.
Mr. Bultema stated that the City tracks properties that go on the market and do not sell after a
significant period of time, noting that the City does not have a lot of inventory on the market at
any given time. He stated that there will be some neighborhood variations, but most of those
variations represent areas with foreclosure properties that will impact the traditional market.
City Council Meeting of April 25, 2011 (Item 3a) Page 2
Subject: Special Study Session Minutes of April 4, 2011
Council also discussed the commercial/industrial market valuations and the impact of derivatives
on this sector.
Mr. Bultema reviewed the appeal process and indicated that the Board of Appeal and
Equalization is scheduled to convene on April 25th with a likely re-convene date of May 9th. He
stated that property owners are encouraged to contact the assessing department with questions,
but they can attend the April 25th Board of Appeal meeting even if they have not contacted the
assessing staff beforehand.
The meeting adjourned at 7:19 p.m.
Written Reports provided and documented for recording purposes only:
2. Bidding and Construction/Project Management
______________________________________ ______________________________________
Nancy Stroth, City Clerk Jeff Jacobs, Mayor
Meeting Date: April 25, 2011
Agenda Item #: 3b
UNOFFICIAL MINUTES
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA
APRIL 4, 2011
1. Call to Order
Mayor Jacobs called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m.
Councilmembers present: Mayor Jeff Jacobs, Phil Finkelstein, Anne Mavity, Julia Ross, Susan
Sanger, and Sue Santa.
Councilmembers absent: Paul Omodt.
Staff present: City Manager (Mr. Harmening), City Clerk (Ms. Stroth), Community
Development Director (Mr. Locke), Public Works Director (Mr. Rardin), Engineering Project
Manager (Mr. Olson), and Recording Secretary (Ms. Hughes).
1a. Pledge of Allegiance
1b. Roll Call
2. Presentations
2a. Recognition of Board & Commission Members
Mayor Jacobs expressed the City Council’s deep appreciation to all of the board and
commission members for their time, energy, and expertise they provide on behalf of the
entire community. He recited the Proclamation Honoring Board and Commission
Volunteers and presented Certificates of Appreciation to Steve Fillbrandt, Sharon Lyon,
Pat Swiderski, and Vladimir Sivriver. He also recognized the contributions of Jonathan
Awasom, Joan Barnes, Bill Gavzy, James Kelly, Robert Malooly, Mohamed Abdi, and
Shelley Weier, who were not in attendance.
2b. Caring Youth Day Proclamation
Mayor Jacobs recited the Caring Youth Day Proclamation. He stated that this year’s
Caring Youth Recognition event will be held on April 26, 2011, at the Marriott West
Hotel at 7:00 p.m. He noted that the event will be cable rebroadcast. He indicated that
questions regarding the event may be directed to Karen Atkinson at Children First.
3. Approval of Minutes
3a. Council Workshop Minutes March 12, 2011
The minutes were approved as presented.
3b. Study Session Minutes March 14, 2011
The minutes were approved as presented.
City Council Meeting of April 25, 2011 (Item 3b) Page 2
Subject: City Council Minutes of April 4, 2011
3c. Special Study Session March 21, 2011
Councilmember Ross requested that the second sentence of the last paragraph on page 1
be amended to add a reference to the fact that that there may be some people who do not
feel comfortable with public speaking.
The minutes were approved as amended.
3d. City Council Minutes March 21, 2011
The minutes were approved as presented.
4. Approval of Agenda and Items on Consent Calendar
NOTE: The Consent Calendar lists those items of business which are considered to be routine
and/or which need no discussion. Consent items are acted upon by one motion. If discussion is
desired by either a Councilmember or a member of the audience, that item may be moved to an
appropriate section of the regular agenda for discussion.
4a. Adopt Resolution No, 11-043 authorizing the special assessment for the repair of
the sewer service line at 1618 Melrose Avenue South, St. Louis Park, MN – P.I.D.
01-117-22-44-0003.
4b. Adopt Resolution No. 11-044 authorizing the special assessment for the repair of
the water service line at 4249 Ottawa Avenue South, St. Louis Park, MN - P.I.D.
07-028-24-31-0022.
4c. Grant the City Manager authority to administratively approve work extras (change
orders and minor extra work) for an additional $100,000 limit for City Project
2004-1700 (Highway 7/Wooddale Interchange Project), in accordance with the
City’s existing policy.
4d. Approve Resolution No. 11-045 approving Wellness Incentive Program for
benefit earning staff in 2011-2012.
4e. Adopt Resolution No. 11-046 accepting Donation to the City to support the
Environmental Coordinator’s Attendance at the 2011 International Society of
Arboriculture Conference.
4f. Approve for Filing Parks & Recreation Advisory Commission Minutes January
19, 2011.
4g. Approve for Filing Vendor Claims.
It was moved by Councilmember Ross, seconded by Councilmember Mavity, to approve
the Agenda and items listed on the Consent Calendar; and to waive reading of all
resolutions and ordinances.
The motion passed 6-0 (Councilmember Omodt absent).
5. Boards and Commissions – None
6. Public Hearings – None
7. Requests, Petitions, and Communications from the Public – None
8. Resolutions, Ordinances, Motions and Discussion Items
City Council Meeting of April 25, 2011 (Item 3b) Page 3
Subject: City Council Minutes of April 4, 2011
8a. Amend Consultant Contract – Highway 7/Louisiana Avenue Interchange
Project
Mr. Olson presented the staff report and proposed Amendment No. 3 to the consultant
contract with SEH, Inc. related to Phase 4 activities for the Highway 7/Louisiana Avenue
project. He explained that Phase 3 work is nearing completion, and includes preliminary
design and environmental assessment work, as well as the geometric layout of the
preferred concept, which has been approved by Mn/DOT. He added that the
environmental assessment has also been prepared and is currently undergoing agency
review by Mn/DOT and the Federal Highway Agency. He advised that Phase 4 activities
would include final design and plan preparation and these activities would allow
construction to commence in the summer of 2012. He reviewed the pros and cons for
completing Phase 4 work, noting that this work will likely place the project in a stronger
position for Federal funding. He noted that the Federal funds already secured by the City
have a sunset date of March 31, 2012 and in order to meet this schedule, Phase 4
activities need to begin in April. He stated that Phase 4 work by SEH is estimated at
$958,600 and would be completed by the end of July 2012.
Councilmember Santa stated that she felt the City should proceed with Phase 4 activities
so that if further funding becomes available, the City will be ready to move forward with
completing the project.
Councilmember Finkelstein stated that he would not be supporting the contract
amendment. He indicated that the City’s engineering department has done a great job
shepherding this project and working on obtaining funding, but he felt it was clear that
the City would not be getting any Federal or State funding for this project this year and
the City does not have the ability to pay for this regional project on its own. He added he
is not willing to spend additional taxpayer money on Phase 4 work and would rather save
the money until there is additional funding available for the project.
Councilmember Ross noted that the City was in a similar situation with the Highway
7/Wooddale Avenue project and expressed support for moving forward with Phase 4
work so that the City can be in a better position to obtain funding for the project.
Councilmember Sanger acknowledged that there is a risk associated with moving forward
with Phase 4 work, but felt it was a risk worth taking. She stated that there is a significant
need for this project to address the safety and traffic congestion issues. She indicated that
she was not willing to throw away all the money that has been invested to date by the
City and added that the City needs to move forward with Phase 4 work so that it is in a
better position to secure additional funding in the future.
Councilmember Mavity agreed and requested further information regarding funding
requests and sources of those funds. She also asked if the City can request an extension
of the Federal funds prior to the 2012 sunset date.
Mr. Rardin explained that the City has applied for four different grants in the past eight
months but was unsuccessful in obtaining any funding. He indicated that there are
currently no grant programs available that the City can avail itself of. He stated that there
have been instances in the past where one year extensions have been granted if good faith
efforts have been shown in completing the project.
City Council Meeting of April 25, 2011 (Item 3b) Page 4
Subject: City Council Minutes of April 4, 2011
Councilmember Mavity asked if the Phase 4 work would be useful at whatever point the
City obtains additional funding; in other words, the work being funded by the City has to
be done at some point in time, whether now or in the future.
Mr. Rardin replied that this is correct and stated that the plans and specifications have an
approximate three year shelf life.
It was moved by Councilmember Santa, seconded by Councilmember Mavity, to approve
Amendment No. 3 to City of St. Louis Park Consulting Services Contract No. 142-08 for
the Highway 7/Louisiana Avenue Interchange Project, Project No. 2012-0100.
Mayor Jacobs acknowledged that this is a difficult issue but felt it was worth the risk. He
stated if the City puts in the additional time and money on Phase 4, the City’s chances of
obtaining additional funding will likely increase. He stated that he shares Councilmember
Finkelstein’s concerns but is confident that the City will be able to obtain an extension on
the Federal funds if the City can show a good faith effort toward completion of the
project. He asked if the work on Phase 4 can be stopped if it becomes obvious that the
additional $10 million in funding will not be forthcoming.
Mr. Olson replied in the affirmative.
The motion passed 5-1 (Councilmember Finkelstein opposed; Councilmember Omodt
absent).
9. Communications
Mayor Jacobs reminded residents of the Caring Youth Day event on April 26th at the
Marriott West Hotel at 7:00 p.m.
Mayor Jacobs stated that the Council has scheduled two listening sessions on the freight
rail issue for April 27th and 28th at 6:30 p.m.; both sessions will be held at the Junior High
School and the sessions will be cable rebroadcast. He added that further information
regarding the listening sessions will be posted on the City’s website.
Councilmember Sanger noted that the purpose of the two listening sessions is to provide
an opportunity for the Council to listen to the community about the freight rail question
and that no formal action will be taken by the Council at these sessions.
Councilmember Ross reminded residents of a public meeting regarding the Highway 100
project on Tuesday, April 12th, from 5:00-7:00 p.m. at the St. Louis Park Evangelical
Free Church at 6805 Minnetonka Boulevard.
10. Adjournment
The meeting adjourned at 8:07 p.m.
______________________________________ ______________________________________
Nancy Stroth, City Clerk Jeff Jacobs, Mayor
Meeting Date: April 25, 2011
Agenda Item #: 3c
UNOFFICIAL MINUTES
SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING
ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA
APRIL 11, 2011
1. Call to Order
Mayor Jacobs called the meeting to order at 6:30 p.m.
Councilmembers present: Mayor Jeff Jacobs, Phil Finkelstein, Anne Mavity (arrived at 6:38
p.m.), Paul Omodt (arrived at 6:47 p.m.), Julia Ross (arrived at 6:33 p.m.), Susan Sanger, and
Sue Santa.
Councilmembers absent: None.
Staff present: City Manager (Mr. Harmening), City Attorney (Mr. Scott), Senior Planner (Mr.
Walther), Fire Chief (Mr. Stemmer), Public Works Director (Mr. Rardin), Communications
Coordinator (Mr. Zwilling), and Recording Secretary (Ms. Hughes).
Guests: Brian Hook and Pat Sims (Kraus-Anderson) and Mike Clark (DLR Group KKE).
1a. Roll Call
2. Resolutions Ordinances, Motions and Discussion Items
2a. Bid Tabulation for Fire Stations Project – Project Nos. 2008-3001 and 2008-
3002
Mr. Walther presented the staff report and a summary of the bids received. He advised
that approximately 290 bids were received for this project and the overall total of the bids
came in well under the construction estimate. He indicated that six contractors are
claiming errors in their bid involving abatement, asphalt paving, aluminum entrances,
painting, and mechanical work scopes.
Mr. Hook reviewed the Bid Scope Analysis and noted that the bids to be awarded this
evening are for the construction contracts only. He stated that there are three alternates
included in the total value of the contracts for a vapor mitigation system ($37,750) and
two natural gas generators for the two fire stations ($28,000 and $20,700). He noted that
it is not known whether the vapor mitigation system will be required until Fire Station
No. 1 is demolished.
Councilmember Ross requested further information regarding the standard practice used
to advertise for bids and specifically how small businesses, minority and/or women-
owned businesses are able to access the process for bidding on this type of project.
Mr. Walther stated that the City advertises in the local newspaper as well as in the
Construction Bulletin. He added that Kraus-Anderson also advertised for bids.
City Council Meeting of April 25, 2011 (Item 3c) Page 2
Subject: Special City Council Minutes of April 11, 2011
Mr. Hook indicated that the availability of work scopes were broke out such that they
were small enough to allow small businesses to bid. He noted that the call for bids also
went to the St. Paul Builder’s Exchange and numerous other bid houses that would reach
this particular population.
Councilmember Sanger asked if there was any outreach to Metropolitan Economic
Development Association or the National Association of Women Business Owners. She
stated that while it is assumed that small businesses and/or minority businesses would
check the normal sources, it is also common practice to notify these organizations so that
there is a clear opportunity for them to bid on the project.
Mr. Hook replied that there was not specific outreach to those organizations.
Mr. Harmening noted that it was assumed that all companies in the construction industry
would access these publications through normal channels.
Councilmember Finkelstein requested that the City contact these organizations in the
future on any large project of this type in the future.
Councilmember Ross requested that staff provide further information regarding small
businesses that are included in the Bid Scope Analysis.
Mr. Walther clarified the information contained on page 9 of the staff report due to a
printing error. He stated that the total estimate figure is $2,683,863, the low bid figure is
$1,990,599, the variance from estimate figure is $693,264, and the bid figure under the
next potential low bidder column is $2,305,725. He noted that this page relates only to
those bidders that have indicated there were errors in their bids and does not represent the
bottom line for the entire project. He also clarified the information contained on page 8
of the staff report and stated that the estimate figure is $8,563,676, the low bid figure is
$8,161,136, the variance from estimate figure is $402,540, and the award amount with
alternates figure is $8,246,886.
Councilmember Mavity asked how the City will protect itself from unpredictable cost
overruns and/or change orders.
Mr. Walther stated that Kraus-Anderson, in its role as agency construction manager, is
responsible for assisting the City in this regard. He added that the overall budget for the
project includes a 4% contingency to cover any change orders for unforeseen, true costs.
Mr. Hook discussed the remaining bid scopes analysis for asphalt paving, aluminum
entrances/windows, painting, and HVAC work. He stated that after the bid opening, the
City was contacted by these firms who claimed mathematical errors in their bids. He
explained the HVAC bid from Klamm for $1,478,000 represented a combined bid for
both fire stations; Klamm informed the City via fax on March 31st stating that it had made
a $300,000 mathematical error in its sheetmetal number, using $415,000 instead of
$715,000.
Mr. Harmening explained the City’s options for these five contractors, noting that the
HVAC bid from Klamm has a significant discrepancy in its bid. He stated that the City
can choose to let them off based on the error and go to the next potential low bidder or
the City can award the bid to Klamm. He indicated that if Klamm does not sign the
City Council Meeting of April 25, 2011 (Item 3c) Page 3
Subject: Special City Council Minutes of April 11, 2011
contract within ten days, the City has the ability to act on Klamm’s 5% bid bond and
award the contract to the next low bidder.
Councilmember Mavity asked if the City can release one contractor and not another
based on the claimed bid errors.
City Attorney Thomas Scott replied that the City is not required to release them all. He
also explained the process by which the City would pursue a bid bond. He advised that
the City is required to award the contract to the lowest bidder and see if the contractor
will sign the contract.
The Council discussed legitimate errors in bids on previous projects and the City’s
actions taken on projects where contractors were released from a project due to errors.
Mr. Hook stated that his recommendation was that the City should release Klamm and
award the contract to the next low bidder.
Mr. Sims discussed the remaining bid errors, stating the asphalt paver missed adding
$16,000 to his bid and the aluminum contractor used a $3,200 figure instead of $32,000
in its bid calculation.
Mayor Jacobs stated that he was willing to follow the recommendation of the
construction managers.
Mr. Walther reviewed the bid tabulation for asbestos and hazardous material abatement,
noting that the abatement contractor has also claimed a bid error.
Councilmember Sanger stated that she felt the City should treat all of the contractors the
same and award contracts to all low bidders.
It was moved by Councilmember Santa, seconded by Councilmember Omodt, to
designate 31 different contractors as the lowest responsible bidders, as identified in the
attachment to the staff report, and authorize execution of contracts with those firms for
the Fire Stations Project – Project Nos. 2008-3001 and 2008-3002. The total value of
the contracts recommended for award is $10,266,250.00.
Councilmember Mavity expressed concern about the HVAC bid and the risks associated
with Klamm signing the contract.
Councilmember Santa stated that the City and Kraus-Anderson, as construction manager,
has a duty to inspect the project and to make sure all work is being performed according
to the specifications.
The motion passed 7-0.
3. Adjournment
The meeting adjourned at 7:41 p.m.
______________________________________ ______________________________________
Nancy Stroth, City Clerk Jeff Jacobs, Mayor
Meeting Date: April 25, 2011
Agenda Item #: 4a
Regular Meeting Public Hearing Action Item Consent Item Resolution Ordinance
Presentation Other:
EDA Meeting Action Item Resolution Other:
Study Session Discussion Item Written Report Other:
TITLE:
Bid Tabulation: The Rec Center East Arena Dehumidification Project - Project 20110090.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Motion to designate Cool Air Mechanical as the lowest responsible bidder for the
dehumidification project in The Rec Center East Arena and authorize execution of a contract
with the firm in the amount of $284,728.00.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Does the City Council wish to proceed with this Capital Improvement Project?
BACKGROUND:
Bids were received on April 12, 2011 for The Rec Center East Arena Dehumidification project.
New energy efficient dehumidification equipment is needed to remove moisture from the east
arena during spring, summer and early fall ice operations. The new system will replace a 14
year-old system that is energy inefficient and is no longer manufactured, which means
replacement parts are no longer available.
A total of three (3) bids were received for the project. A summary of the bid results is as
follows:
CONTRACTOR Bid Amount
Cool Air Mechanical $284,728.00
Corval Constructors, Inc. $287,000.00
Gartner Refrigeration & Mfg. Inc. $336,000.00
EVALUATION OF BIDS:
Staff has reviewed all of the bids submitted and has tabulated the results. From the review, staff
recommends Cool Air Mechanical as the lowest responsible bidder for The Rec Center East
Arena Dehumidification project. The bid from Cool Air Mechanical was lower than the others
and received good references from their past projects.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
This project is part of the Council approved 2011 CIP program at a budgeted amount of
$300,000.00. The source of funding is the Park Improvement Fund. Once the project is
complete, the City will apply for a rebate of up to $10,000 from CenterPoint Energy for
upgrading to a more efficient system.
CONSTRUCTION TIMELINE:
Construction is planned to begin May 9, 2011 with completion by June 17, 2011.
City Council Meeting of April 25, 2011 (Item No. 4a) Page 2
Subject: Bid Tabulation: The Rec Center East Arena Dehumidification Project - Project 20110090
VISION CONSIDERATION:
The replacement of the dehumidification equipment with much more energy efficient equipment
is in alignment with the City Council’s Strategic Direction related to the environment.
Attachments: None
Prepared by: Stacy Voelker, Administrative Secretary
Craig Panning, Manager of Buildings and Structures
Reviewed by: Cindy Walsh, Director of Parks and Recreation
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Meeting Date: April 25, 2011
Agenda Item #: 4b
Regular Meeting Public Hearing Action Item Consent Item Resolution Ordinance
Presentation Other:
EDA Meeting Action Item Resolution Other:
Study Session Discussion Item Written Report Other:
TITLE:
Bid Tabulation: 2011 Local Street Rehabilitation Project – Area 7, Project No. 2010-1000 &
2011-1400.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Motion to designate Valley Paving, Inc. the lowest responsible bidder and authorize execution of
contract with the firm in the amount of $1,381,042.10 for the 2011 Local Street Rehabilitation
Project – Area 7, Project No. 2010-1000 & 2011-1400.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Does the City Council wish to continue to implement our pavement management program?
BACKGROUND:
Bid Information:
Bids were received on April 14, 2010 for the 2011 Local Street Rehabilitation Project – Area 7.
This is the seventh year of the City’s Pavement Management Program. Work for this year’s
program will occur on selected streets in the Elliot, Elliot View, Willow Park and Pennsylvania
Park Neighborhoods. The work includes replacing the old pavement with a new asphalt surface.
Other work associated with the project includes 2 blocks of water main replacement, drainage
system repairs and fire hydrant replacement.
An advertisement for bids was published in the St. Louis Park Sun-Sailor on March 24, 2011 and
in the Construction Bulletin on March 28, 2011. In addition, plans and specifications were
noticed on the City Website and were made available electronically via the internet by our
vendor Quest CDN.com. Final printed plans were also available for viewing at the AGC of
Minnesota Planroom and at City Hall. Forty-four contractors purchased plan sets with three
Disadvantaged Business Enterprises (DBE) identifying themselves as subcontractors. One DBE
has been indentified in the low bidder’s subcontractors list.
A total of seven (7) bids were received for this project. A summary of the bid results is as
follows:
* Bid corrected upon extension
CONTRACTOR BID AMOUNT
Valley Paving, Inc. $1,381,042.10
Northwest Asphalt, Inc. $1,416,052.66
ASTECH Corporation $1,444,269.90
Hardrives, Inc. * $1,488,513.63
Midwest Asphalt Corporation $1,496,279.50
Bituminous Roadways $1,647,571.30
Geislinger & Sons $1,714,377.60
Engineer’s Estimate $1,329,926.00
City Council Meeting of April 25, 2011 (Item No. 4b) Page 2
Subject: Bid Tabulation: 2011 Local Street Rehab Project – Area 7, Proj. No. 2010-1000 & 2011-1400
Evaluation of Bids:
Staff has reviewed all of the bids submitted and has tabulated the results. The low bid exceeded
the Engineers Estimate by $51,116 or 4%. In evaluating this, it appears three factors contribute
to this; increased asphalt prices for pavement ($73,000), increased costs for copper water service
lines ($17,000), and unanticipated piling costs for watermain supports ($7,000). It appears
energy prices and economic growth may now be beginning to increase construction costs.
There are adequate funds available for this project and staff feels this contract should be awarded
as previously planned. From the review, staff recommends Valley Paving, Inc. as the lowest
responsible bidder. Valley Paving has worked for the City before and has successfully
completed previous contracts.
Construction Timeline:
Construction is tentatively planned to begin in early to mid-May and should be completed by
late-August.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
This project was planned for and is included in the City’s adopted Capital Improvement Program
(C.I.P.). This project will be funded by three sources, the Pavement Management Fund for the
associated street work, the Water Utility Fund for the water main and hydrant replacement work,
and by Special Assessments to residents for optional water service line replacements offered
under this contract at their cost.
Based on the low bid received, cost and funding details are revised as follows:
Expenditures
Construction Cost $1,381,042.10
Contingencies (5%) $ 69,000.00
Engineering & Administration (12%) $ 165,725.00
Total $1,615,767.10
Revenues
Pavement Management Fund $1,367,603.00
Water Utility Fund $ 213,434.10
Special Assessments (water service lines) $ 34,730.00
Total $1,615,767.10
VISION CONSIDERATION:
Not applicable.
Attachments: None
Prepared by: Jim Olson, Engineering Project Manager
Reviewed by: Scott Brink, City Engineer
Michael P. Rardin, Director of Public Works
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Meeting Date: April 25, 2011
Agenda Item #: 4c
Regular Meeting Public Hearing Action Item Consent Item Resolution Ordinance
Presentation Other:
EDA Meeting Action Item Resolution Other:
Study Session Discussion Item Written Report Other:
TITLE:
2011 Neighborhood Grants.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Motion to approve the 2011 Neighborhood Grants.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Does Council wish to approve the allocation of neighborhood grants for 2011?
BACKGROUND:
Each year grant funding is made available to neighborhood associations to promote strong
neighborhoods and enhance community connections by bringing neighbors together. The City
Council appropriated $31,000 in grant funds for the 2011 neighborhood grant program, an
additional $2,000 for environmental requests, and up to $15,000 for insurance. Organized St.
Louis Park neighborhood associations may apply for up to $2,000 annually to support activities,
operations and other neighborhood improvements and community building activities and up to
$100 for environmental activities.
Neighborhood Associations are responsible for providing outside insurance when planning
neighborhood events in parks that bring outside equipment into the park such as, but not limited
to moonwalks, petting zoos, etc. To assist neighborhood associations with purchasing additional
insurance, neighborhoods can apply for a maximum of $500 for insurance reimbursement. This
is in addition to the standard grant.
Grant applications from 23 neighborhoods were received in March. The total grant request for
2011 was $32,620. Thirteen of these neighborhoods also applied for additional insurance
reimbursements and fifteen neighborhoods applied for the environmental funding. On April 12,
Community Liaison Marney Olson facilitated the grant review process with Grant Review
Committee members Erica Bagstad, Kate Burggraff, and Darla Monson. The Grant Review
Committee met to review the grant applications and make funding recommendations to City
Council.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
The Grant Review Committee recommends approval of $31,000 to fund the following 23
neighborhood grants:
$1700 Aquila $1975 Birchwood $1870 Blackstone
$1090 Bronx Park $710 Brooklawns $1050 Brookside
$1975 Browndale $865 Cobblecrest $1095 Creekside
$1350 Eliot View $1595 Elmwood $1600 Kilmer Pond
$1060 Lake Forest $1420 Lenox $1600 Minikahda Oaks
$1425 Minikahda Vista $810 Minnehaha $400 Oak Hill
$1800 Sorensen $1240 South Oak Hill $1975 Triangle
$1080 Westwood Hills $1315 Willow Park
City Council Meeting of April 25, 2011 (Item No. 4c) Page 2
Subject: 2011 Neighborhood Grants
The Grant Review Committee recommends approval of $1465 to fund the environmental
requests. The following neighborhoods are recommended to receive funding: Aquila,
Blackstone, Browndale, Creekside, Eliot View, Elmwood, Kilmer Pond, Lake Forest, Lenox,
Minikahda Oaks, Minikahda Vista, Minnehaha, Sorensen, Triangle and Willow Park.
The Grant Review Committee recommends approval of $4160 to fund insurance purchased by
neighborhood associations. The following neighborhoods applied for insurance reimbursement:
Aquila, Birchwood, Blackstone, Bronx Park, Brookside, Browndale, Cobblecrest, Elmwood,
Kilmer Pond, Minikahda Oaks, Minikahda Vista, Westwood Hills and Willow Park.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
The neighborhood grants support the strategic direction – St. Louis Park is committed to being a
connected and engaged community.
The environmental component of the grant also supports the strategic direction – St. Louis Park
is committed to being a leader in environmental stewardship.
Attachments: 2011 Grant Committee Worksheet
Prepared by: Marney Olson
Reviewed by: John Luse, Police Chief
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Requests total $32,595. 2011 Grant Budget is $31,000.
Insurance and Environmental requests came in under budget.
Requested
Amount Recommended Amount
$1,700 Aquila $1,700
$350 Trail Improvements
$700 Postage - 2 neighborhood newsletters
$500 Picnic/Annual Meeting
$75 Garage Sale
$75 Meet your neighbors
$50 Insurance Request $50
$100 Environmental Request - Trail Beautification $100
$2,000 Birchwood $1,975
$600 Winter Party
$700 Summer Party
$300 Movie Night
$400 Newsletter
$500 Insurance Request $500
$1,945 Blackstone $1,870
$270 Porta-Potty at Blackstone Park
$160 Park Lawn/Trees
$190 2011 Kick Off
$170 Summer Gathering
$75 Ice Cream/Float Social
$445 National Night Out
$215 Pizza Night
$260 Election/Winter Gathering
$160 Operating Support
$80 Insurance Request $80
$100 Flowers for Blackstone Park $100
Reduce operating
support to $85.
Grant Committee Worksheet
2011 Neighborhood Grant Request
Maximum awarded in
2011 is $1975.
Neighborhood can make
adjustment.
The Grant Review Committee reduced the requests by $1,595. The maximum grant
awarded for 2011 is $1975. The maximum garage sale funding for 2011 is $75.
Grant Review Committee Meeting April 12th, 11:30 pm, Aquila Room, City Hall
2011 Neighborhood Grant Worksheet Page 1 of 6
City Council Meeting of April 25, 2011 (Item No. 4c)
Subject: 2011 Neighborhood Grants Page 3
Requested
Amount
$1,115 Bronx Park $1,090
$525 Annual Neighborhood Picnic
$100 Neighborhood Garage Sale
$100 Neighborhood Movie Night
$190 General Meeting Expenses
$200 Children's Activities
$100 Insurance Request $100
$710 Brooklawns $710
$300 Halloween Party
$100 Kid's Fourth of July Neighborhood Parade
$50 Spring Egg Hunt
$260 National Night Out
$1,105 Brookside $1,050
$500 National Night Out
$100 Parade & Picnic at Jackley Park
$250 Annual Meeting
$130 Garage Sale
$125 Porta-Potty at Jackely Park (share w/ Creekside)
$30 Insurance Request
$2,000 Browndale $1,975
$400 Newsletter
$600 Fall Bonfire & Bluegrass Event
$500 Family Camp Out
$100 Winterfest
$150 Spring Egg Hunt
$125 Earth Day Park Cleanup
$125 July 4th Kiddie Parade
$500 Insurance Request $500
$100 Earth Day Park Cleanup $100
Reduced Garage Sale to
$75
Maximum awarded in
2011 is $1975
Reduced Garage Sale to
$75
2011 Neighborhood Grant Worksheet Page 2 of 6
City Council Meeting of April 25, 2011 (Item No. 4c)
Subject: 2011 Neighborhood Grants Page 4
Requested
Amount
$965 Cobblecrest $865
$800 Fall Hayride
$165 National Night Out
$500 Insurance Request $500
$1,095 Creekside $1,095
$80 Spring Plant Sale/Exchange
$20 Creek Clean-Up
$600 Block Party
$50 National Night Out
$30 Adults Only Party
$75 Butterfly Garden
$40 Neighborhood Flower Urn
$150 Porta Potty
$30 Ice Skating Party
$20 Nature Walk
$100 Marsh Madness $100
$1,650 Eliot View $1,350
$100 Neighborhood Website
$650 Annual Picnic & Election
$350 Garden Party & Ice Cream Social
$450 Youth Activity/Fitness
$100 National Night Out
$100 Garden tour & Garden Party $100
$1,820 Elmwood $1,595
$160 Annual Meeting/Election of Officers
$200 Center Park Ice Skating/Justad Porta Potty
$310 Garage Sale/Plant Swap
$450 Kids Halloween and Pumpkin Carving Party
$700 Annual Neighborhood Picnic
$500 Insurance Request $500
$100 Justad Porta Potty $100
Reduced Youth Activity to $250 based
on number of participants. Eliminated
NNO funding because it is done at the
individual block level, not at the
neighborhood level.
Grant will not fund Center Park
Ice Skating electricity
reimbursement for outdoor lights.
Reduced Garage Sale/Plan Swap
to $185 which allows $75 for
garage sale (the max for 2011)
$700 is maximum per event
2011 Neighborhood Grant Worksheet Page 3 of 6
City Council Meeting of April 25, 2011 (Item No. 4c)
Subject: 2011 Neighborhood Grants Page 5
Requested
Amount
$1,700 Kilmer Pond $1,600
$200 Kilmer Pond Garden Club
$600 Halloween Hayride
$300 Back to School Event and Art Crawl
$200 Neighborhood Newsletter & Website
$400 Spring Fling
$500 Insurance Request $500
$100 $100
$1,060 Lake Forest $1,060
$510 Annual Summer Party
$285 National Night Out Block Parties
$125 General Association Supplies
$140 Garden Maintenance & Improvement
$90 Earth Day Clean Up $90
$1,420 Lenox $1,420
$550 Newsletter Lenox Lines
$100 Blog/website
$200 Parkview Picnic
$200 Roxbury Park Improvements
$220 Winter Social
$150 Communications Committee/Signs
$100 Roxbury Park Improvements $100
$1,800 Minnikahda Oaks $1,600
$800 Spring Social
$600 Summer Fall Social/National Night Out
$150 Neighborhood Bike Tour
$250 Winter Social
$500 Insurance Request $500
$100 Friends of Bass Lake $100
$700 is max per event so
reduce Spring Social to $700
and neighborhood can choose
where to cut the additional
$100.
Reduced Back to School
Event/Art Crawl and Spring
Fling by $50 each.
2011 Neighborhood Grant Worksheet Page 4 of 6
City Council Meeting of April 25, 2011 (Item No. 4c)
Subject: 2011 Neighborhood Grants Page 6
Requested
Amount
$1,425 Minnikahda Vista $1,425
$700 National Night Out
$250 Annual Meeting, Newsletter, Website
$150 Plant Swap
$250 Volunteer Recognition
$75 Garage Sale
$200 Insurance Request $200
$100 National Night Out $100
$810 Minnehaha $810
$150 National Night Out
$60 Park Playtime Flyer
$600 Tree Planting
$100 Spring Clean-up $100
$400 Oak Hill Park $400
$350 Annual Mailing
$50 Administrative Costs
$2,065 Sorensen $1,800
$670 Newsletter - postage
$580 13th Annual Fall Social
$135 Printing for Corrogated Signs
$190 Annual Meeting
$490 Webster Park Porta Potty
$100 Biodegradable Bags $100
$1,415 South Oak Hill $1,240
$145 Summer Kick-Off Ice Cream Social
$250 Garage Sale
$680 Neighborhood BBQ & Potluck
$275 Neighborhood Meetings
$65 Neighborhood Newsletter
$2,000 Triangle $1,975
$700 Halloween Event
$700 Movie Nights
$600 Ice Cream & Popcorn Night
$100 Environmentally Friendly Products $100
Maximum awarded $1975. Many
of the expenses are equipment
expenses that will be used for
years.
Neighborhood can choose
where to make the cuts.
Grant request asked for
$1700 but total requests
added up to $2065.
Reduce garage sale to
$75
2011 Neighborhood Grant Worksheet Page 5 of 6
City Council Meeting of April 25, 2011 (Item No. 4c)
Subject: 2011 Neighborhood Grants Page 7
Requested
Amount
$1,080 Westwood Hills $1,080
$700 Winter Hayride
$300 Movie Night
$50 Ladies Night
$30 Remodelers Showcase
$500 Insurance Request $500
$1,315 Willow Park $1,315
$600 Summer Celebration in the Park
$175 Fall Ice Cream Social
$540 Semi-Annual Newsletters
$200 Insurance Request $200
$100 Spring Clean Up Event $100
Recommended
$32,595 Total Requested by all Neighborhoods $31,000
$4,160 Total Insurance Request $4,130
$1,490 Total Environmental Request $1,490
2011 Neighborhood Grant Worksheet Page 6 of 6
City Council Meeting of April 25, 2011 (Item No. 4c)
Subject: 2011 Neighborhood Grants Page 8
Meeting Date: April 25, 2011
Agenda Item #: 4d
Regular Meeting Public Hearing Action Item Consent Item Resolution Ordinance
Presentation Other:
EDA Meeting Action Item Resolution Other:
Study Session Discussion Item Written Report Other:
TITLE:
Authorization to Enter into Agreement with NEXGEN Utility Management, Inc. (NEXGEN) to
Provide Public Works Asset Management Software Licenses and Implementation Services.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Motion to authorize staff to execute an agreement with NEXGEN for Public Works Asset
Management software licenses and implementation services.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Does the City Council support replacement, integration, and other enhancements of the City’s
Public Works Asset Management software to not only continue to support, but to improve
current business processes and agility in responding to new business needs?
BACKGROUND:
Since the early to mid-1990’s, the City of St. Louis Park has utilized multiple forms of software
to manage Public Works assets. These assets include underground utilities, roads and above
ground assets, and solid waste collection. For the most part, these assets have been managed
using the same core software since that time and were scheduled for replacement in the 2011
Capital Improvement Program. The core software, which is generally 15 – 17 years old in
structure, has become functionally obsolete and is only minimally supported. In addition, it
needs to be replaced for technical compatibility and business process reasons. For example, some
software is not compatible with coming versions of Microsoft Windows. In addition, some older
software like this cannot be easily and efficiently accessed from the field using the Web. Most
modern software is now Web based.
Staff undertook deep analysis and definition of system needs in 2010 and issued a Request for
Proposal to replace these systems in late 2010. After receiving multiple proposals, staff invited
three vendors (including one incumbent) to demonstrate their most current versions of software
applications In January 2011. These vendors were Infor, NEXGEN, and VUEWorks. Using pre-
written scripts, 15 City staff representing various departments and job functions (including field),
attended the demonstrations and rated the vendors using several criteria.
The demonstrations included interactive discussion with the vendors, ratings of the software and
business process approaches, and post demonstration discussion. Major topics included:
technical software capabilities, implementation processes, GIS interfaces, ability to share data
with other existing City applications, field access / mobile capabilities, analysis and reporting,
risk analysis, CIP planning capabilities, and overall license and implementation costs. This was
an exhaustive process with input invited from all stakeholders.
Based on the analysis, the team of 15 unanimously recommended NEXGEN. This was based on
NEXGEN’s business functionality, flexibility, implementation process, and cost-effectiveness.
NEXGEN is also particularly strong on mobile use of its software for field employees and its
potential to manage assets in departments beyond Public Works. For example, Parks and
City Council Meeting of April 25, 2011 (Item No. 4d) Page 2
Subject: Agreement NEXGEN for Public Works Asset Mgmt Software Licenses & Implementation Svcs
Recreation desires to implement NEXGEN for its asset management of trees and parks facilities
(this is included in current estimated costs).NEXGEN is powerfully integrated with the City’s
Geographical Information System (GIS), facilitating easier data sharing, mapping, and future
public access to related information. Finally, NEXGEN includes an optional customer web
portal, which provides opportunities to the public to submit requests for service or report
problems for follow-up on various assets via the Web.
From a technical standpoint, NEXGEN does use modern architectures that ease management and
do not add to the need for IT staff support. Importantly, NEXGEN provides the opportunity for
Public Works to consolidate its current three separate Asset Management applications into one.
Such integration eases staff workload and training, and it also facilitates access to department-
wide data and information for field, administrative, and management operations and decision
making.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
This project is included in the 2011 Capital Improvement Program, specifically the Capital
Replacement Fund for Technology. It is proposed that payments be made from the Capital
Replacement Fund. It should be noted that this project budget estimate was $200,000. Under this
proposed agreement, the project costs for software licensing and implementations services total
$124,500. That said, it is possible staff will recommend investing some remaining funds in field
devices to take advantage of NEXGEN’s capabilities. It is expected that total costs will still
remain well under the $200,000 budgeted. Staff has drafted a performance based contract so
funds are paid only upon successful completion of deliverables as determined by the City. Staff
feels this is a good investment, value, and long-term strategy to manage Public Works assets,
Parks assets, other assets (e.g., Facilities) and possibly provide further capabilities.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
Not applicable
Attachments: None
Prepared by: Clint Pires, Chief Information Officer
Reviewed by: Michael P. Rardin, Public Works Director
Scott Merkley, Public Works Coordinator
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Meeting Date: April 25, 2011
Agenda Item #: 4e
Regular Meeting Public Hearing Action Item Consent Item Resolution Ordinance
Presentation Other:
EDA Meeting Action Item Resolution Other:
Study Session Discussion Item Written Report Other:
TITLE:
Special Assessment – Demolition Costs – 3317 Texas Avenue South - PID 1711721230086.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Motion to Adopt Resolution certifying the special assessment for the demolition costs in the
amount of $20,014.13 for the property at 3317 Texas Ave. South
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Does the City Council wish to assess the property in question for the costs associated with
demolition and other related expenses?
The proposed action is consistent with policy previously established by the City Council.
BACKGROUND:
History
On March 3, 2010 the house located at 3317 Texas Avenue South sustained serious fire damage.
The fire was so severe that the house was uninhabitable and the City suspended the Certificate of
Occupancy for the house.
The City issued an Order for Abatement of Hazardous Building and the Demolition Order on
April 19, 2010 and the property owners were served the order on April 29, 2010.
On September 10, 2010 the court directed the City to abate the hazardous building. An
excavating contractor was hired and the demolition and restoration work was completed on
October 26, 2010. The contract amount was $15,410 and included:
Asbestos removal from site
Remove and dispose of municipal solid waste from 2nd floor.
Demolition of house
Fill existing excavation and finish grade
The court also ordered associated expenditures incurred by the City to be recovered. The
assessment amount includes costs for emergency services and materials required for securing the
building after the fire and legal fees incurred by the City. This brings the total costs to
$20,014.13.
The property was foreclosed and sold to the Twin Cities Community Lend Bank on December
20, 2010. Habitat for Humanity has entered into a purchase agreement to buy the property later
this year for construction of an affordable single family home.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
The demolition and other associated costs will be 100% assessed against the property. A
City Council Meeting of April 25, 2011 (Item No. 4e) Page 2
Subject: Special Assessment – Demolition Costs - 3317 Texas Avenue South - PID 1711721230086
representative of the Twin Cities Community Lend Bank has signed the assessment agreement
and waived their right to a public hearing.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
None.
Attachments: Resolution
Prepared by: Ann Boettcher, Inspection Services Manager
Reviewed by: Brian Hoffman, Director of Inspections
Brian Swanson, Controller
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
City Council Meeting of April 25, 2011 (Item No. 4e) Page 3
Subject: Special Assessment – Demolition Costs - 3317 Texas Avenue South - PID 1711721230086
RESOLUTION NO. 11-____
RESOLUTION APPROVING ASSESSMENT AGREEMENT
FOR THE DEMOLITION COSTS – 3317 TEXAS AVENUE SOUTH
PID 1711721230086
IN THE AMOUNT OF $20,014.13
WHEREAS, Twin Cities Community Lend Bank (“Owners”) are the owners of
real property situated in the City of St. Louis Park, County of Hennepin, State of Minnesota,
legally described as Lot 43 and 44, Block 301, “Rearrangement of St. Louis Park” (“Subject
Property”).
WHEREAS, the City of St. Louis Park (“City”) initiated an action declaring the home
located on the Subject Property to be a hazardous building pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 463.15; the
City requested permission to demolish the home and assess the costs associated with the
demolition to the Subject Property; the housing court authorized entry onto the Subject Property
and demolition the home (“Project”); and the court order authorized assessment of all costs
associated with the Project, including attorney’s fees.
WHEREAS, the Owners have entered into an Assessment Agreement (“Agreement”)
wherein they have agreed that the Subject Property should be assessed for the costs associated
with the Project and that the actual cost of the Project is Twenty Thousand Fourteen and
13/100ths Dollars ($20,014.13).
WHEREAS, consistent with the terms in the Agreement and the provisions of Minn.
Stat. Chapter 429, the Owners have waived any and all procedural and substantive objections to
the special assessment, including hearing requirements, any claim that the assessment exceeds
the benefit to the Subject Property, and any rights to appeal.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of St. Louis
Park, Minnesota that
1. The Agreement is hereby approved and the assessments allocated, adopted, and
made payable pursuant to the terms of the Agreement as shown on the Assessment Roll, attached
hereto as Exhibit A.
2. The Owners may, at any time prior to certification of the assessment to the
County Auditor, pay the whole of the assessment on such property, with interest accrued to the
date of payment, to the city , except that no interest shall be charged if the entire assessment is
paid within 60 days from the adoption of this resolution; and they may, at any time thereafter,
pay to the city treasurer the entire amount of the assessment remaining unpaid, with interest
accrued to December 31 of the year in which such payment is made. Such payment must be
made before November 15 or interest will be charged through December 31 of the next
succeeding year.
City Council Meeting of April 25, 2011 (Item No. 4e) Page 4
Subject: Special Assessment – Demolition Costs - 3317 Texas Avenue South - PID 1711721230086
3. The City Clerk shall transmit a certified duplicate of this resolution and the
Agreement to the County Auditor to be extended on the property tax lists of the County. Such
assessments shall be collected and paid over in the same manner as other municipal taxes.
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council April 25, 2011
City Manager Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
Meeting Date: April 25, 2011
Agenda Item #: 4f
Regular Meeting Public Hearing Action Item Consent Item Resolution Ordinance
Presentation Other:
EDA Meeting Action Item Resolution Other:
Study Session Discussion Item Written Report Other:
TITLE:
Acceptance of Donation to the Police Department.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Motion to Adopt a Resolution accepting a donation from Cardiac Science of an Automated
External Defibrillator (AED) valued at $1995 to be used by the Police Department’s Emergency
Response Unit.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Does the City Council wish to accept the gifts with restrictions on their use?
BACKGROUND:
State statute requires City Council’s acceptance of donations. This requirement is necessary in
order to make sure the City Council has knowledge of any restrictions placed on the use of each
donation prior to it being expended.
Cardiac Science is graciously donating an Automated External Defibrillator to the Police
Department. This donation is given with restrictions. The AED will be used by the Police
Department’s Emergency Response Unit for potential medical emergencies during training or
tactical operations.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
None
VISION CONSIDERATION:
Collaboration with other organizations is related to the results of Vision St. Louis Park and one
of the adopted Strategic Directions that “St. Louis Park is committed to being a connected and
engaged community”.
Attachments: Resolution
Prepared by: Mike Harcey, Police Lieutenant
Reviewed by: John Luse, Chief of Police
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
City Council Meeting of April 25, 2011 (Item No. 4f) Page 2
Subject: Acceptance of Donation to the Police Department
RESOLUTION NO. 11-____
RESOLUTION APPROVING ACCEPTANCE OF DONATION FROM
CARDIAC SCIENCE OF AN AUTOMATED EXTERNAL DEFIBRILLATOR TO BE
USED BY THE POLICE DEPARTMENT’S EMERGENCY RESPONSE UNIT FOR
POTENTIAL EMERGENCIES DURING TRAINING OR TACTICAL OPERATIONS
WHEREAS, The City of St. Louis Park is required by State statute to authorize
acceptance of any donations; and
WHEREAS, the City Council must also ratify any restrictions placed on the donation by
the donor; and
WHEREAS, Cardiac Science is graciously donating an Automated External Defibrillator
valued at $1995 to be used by the Police Department’s Emergency Response Unit.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of St. Louis
Park that the gift is hereby accepted with thanks to Cardiac Science with the understanding it will
be used by the Police Department’s Emergency Response Unit for potential medical emergencies
during training or tactical operations.
Reviewed for Administration Adopted by the City Council April 25, 2011
City Manager Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
Meeting Date: April 25, 2011
Agenda Item #: 4g
Regular Meeting Public Hearing Action Item Consent Item Resolution Ordinance
Presentation Other:
EDA Meeting Action Item Resolution Other:
Study Session Discussion Item Written Report Other:
TITLE:
Amend Original Contract No. 29-08 - Joint & Cooperative Agreement for Leasing Fire
Department Breathing Apparatus.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Motion to Amend Contract No. 29-08 Joint & Cooperative Agreement for Leasing Fire
Department Breathing Apparatus (SCBA) and approve Third Amended and Restated Joint &
Cooperative Agreement for Public Safety Purchasing.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Does the Council wish to approve the Third Amended and Restated Joint & Cooperative
Agreement for Public Safety Purchasing?
BACKGROUND:
The City of St. Louis Park and the Fire Department entered into the initial JPA in 2008 to allow
us to purchase breathing apparatus cooperatively with neighboring communities to increase
interoperability and life safety. This JPA has been highly successful and we have purchased
SCBA. Entering into the amended version of the JPA will allow us to not only purchase
breathing apparatus, but many different types of public safety equipment.
The St. Louis Park Fire Department is an active participant in the southwest suburbs automatic
aid/mutual aid/box alarm system. These various systems currently encompass an area of ten
communities from Minneapolis to Bloomington, over to Minnetonka and Chanhassen.
As the various communities continue to respond to incidents together, public safety equipment
has become an issue. Different communities use different equipment, resulting in potentially
hazardous conditions, possibly even life threatening, from a lack of common equipment.
The attached joint powers agreement is an effort to allow all participating organizations the
ability to look at the feasibility of purchasing public safety equipment, ideally tested and
maintained by the manufacturer, resulting in increased interoperability and life safety. This
agreement will allow us to look at the cost and then determine if this program is in the best
interest of the city. The idea is for one city to act as the lead agency in obtaining bid proposals
from manufacturers, but each city would enter into its own contract with the company for the
type of products that they need. There would be an operating committee who would oversee the
selection and use of the equipment. The initial parties would be the cities of St. Louis Park,
Bloomington, Eden Prairie, Edina and Minnetonka, but other cities could join if they wish.
The City Attorney reviewed both the original agreement and the amended agreement on April
14, 2011 and no changes were needed.
City Council Meeting of April 25, 2011 (Item No. 4g) Page 2
Subject: Amend Contract No.29-08 - Agreement for Leasing Fire Department Breathing Apparatus
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
Entering into this agreement does not obligate the city from a financial perspective at this time.
VISION CONSIDERATION: None.
Attachments: Third Amended & Restated Joint & Cooperative Agreement for Public Safety Purchasing
Prepared by: Mark Windschitl, Assistant Chief
Reviewed by: Luke Stemmer, Fire Chief
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
THIRD AMENDED AND RESTATED
JOINT & COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT
FOR PUBLIC SAFETY PURCHASING
1. Purpose
This Agreement is made pursuant to Minnesota Statutes 471.59 which authorizes the joint and
cooperative exercise of governmental powers common to contracting parties. The intent of this
Agreement is to make available joint public safety purchasing and leasing to the governmental
agencies who are parties to this Agreement. The intent of this agreement is to also replace and
rescind the Amended and Restated Joint & Cooperative Agreement For The Acquisition and Use
of SCBA executed and approved by the parties in March, April and May, 2009, and the Second
Amended and Restated Joint & Cooperative Agreement For The Acquisition and Use of
Firefighting Equipment executed and approved by some or all of the parties in August and
September 2010 (“Prior Agreements”).
2. Parties
The initial parties to this Agreement are the cities of Bloomington, Brooklyn Park, Eden Prairie,
Edina, Hopkins, Saint Louis Park, and Minnetonka, all of which are municipal corporations and
subdivisions of the state of Minnesota. Additional governmental agencies may become parties to
this Agreement by adopting a resolution approving this Agreement and sending an original
execution page and a certified copy of the resolution to the secretary of the Operating Committee
established below. The secretary of the Operating Committee must maintain a current list of the
parties to this Agreement and must notify the contact person for each party whenever there is a
change in the parties to this Agreement.
3. Operating Committee
3.1. Creation.
There will be an Operating Committee (the “Committee”) to administer this Agreement. The
Committee will consist of one representative appointed by each of the parties to the Agreement.
In the absence of a specific appointment, a party’s representative will be its fire chief. Each
member of the Committee is entitled to one vote.
3.2. Procedural Rules.
The Committee must adopt procedural rules to govern its operations.
3.3. Officers.
The Committee will select from its members a chair to conduct meetings, a vice-chair to act in
the place of the chair, and a secretary to keep the records of the Committee.
City Council Meeting of April 25, 2011 (Item No. 4g)
Subject: Amend Contract No.29-08 - Agreement for Leasing Fire Department Breathing Apparatus Page 3
3.4. Powers, Duties.
The Committee has the authority and responsibility to administer this Agreement on behalf of the
parties and to take all necessary actions allowed by law to implement its terms.
4. Procedures
4.1. Acquisition.
The Committee will take the necessary actions for obtaining contracts for the purchase or lease
of public safety uniforms, supplies, equipment, and other items, and for contracting for services,
as selected by the Committee. The Committee will comply with the Municipal Contracting Law,
including the preparation of specifications and requests for proposals. The Committee will
designate one of the member parties to act as the lead agency for selecting the contractor for a
contract, based on the recommendation of the Committee.
4.2. Contract Terms.
The contract with each selected contractor (the “Contract”) must provide that each party to this
Agreement will have the option to order items directly from each selected contractor and make
payments directly to the contractor. No party will have any responsibility for paying for the items
ordered by any other party. When appropriate, the Contract may include an option for the
contractor to maintain and certify designated equipment. The Contract must provide the terms of
payment to the contractor for this service.
4.3. Rules for Use.
When appropriate, the Committee will establish rules and procedures for the parties’ use of items
acquired pursuant to this Agreement, including determining the responsibility for damage to, or
loss of, the items.
5. Responsibility for Employees
All persons engaged in the work to be performed by a party under this Agreement may not be
considered employees of any other party for any purpose, including worker’s compensation and
other claims that may or might arise out of the employment context on behalf of the employees.
All claims made by a third party as a result of any act or omission of a party’s employees while
engaged on any of the work performed under this Agreement are not the obligation or
responsibility of any other party. Each party is responsible for injuries or death of its own
personnel. Each party will maintain workers' compensation insurance or self-insurance coverage,
covering its own personnel while they are providing services under this Agreement. Each party
waives the right to sue any other party for any workers' compensation benefits paid to its own
employee or volunteer or their dependants, even if the injuries were caused wholly or partially by
the negligence of any other party or its officers, employees, or volunteers.
City Council Meeting of April 25, 2011 (Item No. 4g)
Subject: Amend Contract No.29-08 - Agreement for Leasing Fire Department Breathing Apparatus Page 4
6. Indemnification
Each party agrees to defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the other parties against any and all
claims, liability, loss, damage, or expense arising under the provisions of this Agreement and
caused by or resulting from negligent acts or omissions of the party and/or those of its employees
or agents. Under no circumstances, however, may a party be required to pay on behalf of itself
and another party any amounts in excess of the limits on liability established in Minnesota
Statutes Chapter 466 applicable to any one party. The limits of liability for two or more parties
may not be added together to determine the maximum amount of liability for one party. The
intent of this paragraph is to impose on each party a limited duty to defend and indemnify each
other subject to the limits of liability under Minnesota Statutes Chapter 466. The purpose of
creating this duty to defend and indemnify is to simplify the defense of claims by eliminating
conflicts among the parties and to permit liability claims against both parties from a single
occurrence to be defended by a single attorney.
7. Duration
This agreement will be in force from the date of execution by at least two parties and notification
to the secretary of the Operating Committee. Any party may withdraw from this Agreement upon
30 days written notice to the other party or parties to the Agreement. Upon execution of all of the
parties to the Prior Agreements, the Prior Agreements will terminate.
8. Execution
A separate execution page is provided for each party.
[Signature pages follow]
City Council Meeting of April 25, 2011 (Item No. 4g)
Subject: Amend Contract No.29-08 - Agreement for Leasing Fire Department Breathing Apparatus Page 5
Execution Page for the
Third Amended and Restated Joint & Cooperative Agreement
For Public Safety Purchasing
The party listed below has read, agreed to and executed this Agreement on the date indicated.
Date ______________________ Entity ________________________________
By __________________________________
Title _________________________________
And _________________________________
Title _________________________________
City Council Meeting of April 25, 2011 (Item No. 4g)
Subject: Amend Contract No.29-08 - Agreement for Leasing Fire Department Breathing Apparatus Page 6
Meeting Date: April 25, 2011
Agenda Item #: 4h
MINUTES
St. Louis Park Housing Authority
City Hall – Westwood Room
Wednesday, March 9, 2011
5:00 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Commissioners Renee DuFour, Justin Kaufman, Suzanne Metzger
MEMBERS ABSENT: Commissioners Catherine Courtney, Trinicia Hill
STAFF PRESENT: Cindy Stromberg, Jane Klesk, Sue Wiseman, Michele Schnitker
1. Call to Order
The meeting was called to order at 4:59 p.m.
2. Approval of Minutes for February, 2011
The Board minutes of February 9, 2011 were unanimously approved.
3. Hearings – None
4. Reports and Committees – None
5. Unfinished Business – None
6. New Business
a. TRAILS FSS Annual Report – 2010
Ms. Schnitker introduced Sue Wiseman, TRAILS FSS Coordinator, and provided an
overview of the TRAILS FSS 2010 Annual Report. Ms. Schnitker stated the program
has been successful in providing high quality case management and support services
to Public Housing and Section 8 program participants for 16 years. Ms. Wiseman
answered questions from the Commissioners about the TRAILS program.
After discussion the Commissioners agreed to change agenda item b. to item c., and
agenda item c. to item b.
b. Contract Extension – Wayside Project-Based Housing Choice Vouchers
Ms. Schnitker explained the contract for 20 units of project-based Section 8 Housing
Choice rental assistance at properties owned by Wayside House, Inc., stating that
since HUD requires available vouchers be issued to project-based tenants first, it has
not been possible to issue to persons on the HA’s general waiting list for close to 3
years. The Commissioners requested monthly updates from staff on the status of
City Council Meeting of April 25, 2011 (Item No. 4h) Page 2
Subject: Housing Authority Minutes March 9, 2011
Wayside’s progress regarding future contract modifications to address HA operational
concerns, and stated no further contract extension amendments would be considered
without a solution to the issue of project-based vouchers only being issued.
Commissioner Metzger moved to authorize the execution of Amendment to the
Housing Assistance Payments Contract between the Housing Authority of St. Louis
Park and Wayside House, Inc., for the term April 1 through September 30, 2011.
Commissioner DuFour seconded the motion, and the motion passed 3-0.
c. Center for Energy and Environment (CEE) Contract Approval – Green Remodeling
Program
After discussion, Commissioner Metzger moved to table the Green Remodeling
Program Contract Amendment until the April 2011 meeting, to allow additional time
to research the indemnification clause. Commissioner DuFour seconded the motion,
and the motion passed 3-0.
d. Civil Rights Certification, Resolution No. 602
Ms. Schnitker explained that the HA Board is required, on an annual basis, to execute
a civil rights certification in accordance with Section 5A(b)(3)(B) of the Act, as
amended by Section 2702 of the Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008.
Commissioner DuFour moved to authorize execution and submission of the Civil
Rights Certification and Resolution No. 602. Commissioner Metzger seconded the
motion, and the motion passed 3-0.
7. Communications from Executive Director
a. Claims List – March, 2011
b. Communications
1. Monthly Report – March, 2011
2. Louisiana Court Update – Verbal Report
3. Draft Financial Statements – February, 2010
8. Other
9. Adjournment
Commissioner DuFour moved to adjourn the meeting, and Commissioner Metzger seconded
the motion. The motion passed 3-0. The meeting adjourned at 5:55 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
_________________________
Renee DuFour, Secretary
Meeting Date: April 25, 2011
Agenda Item #: 4i
OFFICIAL MINUTES
PLANNING COMMISSION
ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA
March 2, 2011 – 6:00 p.m.
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
MEMBERS PRESENT: Lynne Carper, Andrew Ford (youth member)
Claudia Johnston-Madison, Robert Kramer
Dennis Morris, Carl Robertson, Larry Shapiro
MEMBERS ABSENT: Richard Person
STAFF PRESENT: Gary Morrison, Sean Walther, Nancy Sells
1. Call to Order – Roll Call
2. Approval of Minutes of February 16, 2011
Commissioner Robertson moved approval of the minutes of February 16, 2011.
Commissioner Shapiro seconded the motion, and the motion passed on a vote of
5-0.
Commissioner Kramer arrived at 6:02 p.m.
3. Hearings
A. Conditional Use Permit for motor vehicle service and repair
Location: 1820 Quentin Avenue South – Luther Automotive Center
Applicant: Luther Motors, LLC
Case No.: 11-03-CUP
Gary Morrison, Assistant Zoning Administrator, presented the staff report. He explained
that the automotive center will be a private use only and will not be open to the public.
The purpose of the facility is to receive new and used vehicles, inspect those vehicles,
detail and clean them, photograph them for the website, and perform minor maintenance.
Mr. Morrison said after vehicles are cleaned and prepped they will be shipped to the
Luther VW dealerships in St. Louis Park and Golden Valley. He discussed access,
parking, landscaping, and vehicle loading/unloading.
Commissioner Robertson asked Mr. Morrison about rooftop screening, remarking that the
building’s rooftop equipment pre-dates the current rooftop screening ordinance.
Mr. Morrison said the rooftop equipment does pre-date the ordinance, but when uses
change and equipment changes the City tries to bring applicants closer to compliance.
He added that Luther Motors is proposing some rooftop screening on the property.
Commissioner Robertson said he didn’t see screening in the report or in the elevations
provided.
City Council Meeting of April 25, 2011 (Item No. 4i) Page 2
Subject: Planning Commission Minutes March 2, 2011
Mr. Morrison responded that he didn’t mention rooftop screening in the report. He said
the applicant is proposing some screening.
Commissioner Kramer asked about the orderliness and condition of the cars.
Mr. Morrison said the cars will be brand new and used. The used cars will be very much
like new cars, cars which will only be sold at Luther dealerships. Wrecks or cars needing
major repair will not be sold by Luther dealerships and will not come to this site.
Chair Johnston-Madison asked about the public hearing notification for this request.
Mr. Morrison responded that the public hearing notice was published in the Sun Sailor
and notification was mailed to the required 350 ft. radius property owners.
Chair Johnston-Madison asked if there were any single family homes within the 350 ft.
radius.
Mr. Morrison said there were a few single family homes within that radius.
John Baker, architect for Luther Companies, provided a brief history of the property. He
explained that the automotive business is improving and Luther needs more area for their
facilities and business. He spoke about the pre-delivery inspection function. He added
that a number of additional jobs will be created for this function. The landscaping around
the property will be significantly improved. He said Luther believes all of the
improvements will add business vitality to this site.
Commissioner Robertson stated that the roadways around the property have changed
quite a bit over the years, increasing the visibility of the building rooftop. He asked about
screening. He also asked about the for sale sign on the corner.
Mr. Baker stated that Planning staff would primarily like Luther to screen rooftop
equipment which is visible from the residential neighborhood. Luther plans on screening
a couple of units that are visible over the showroom area. He went on to say that the
problem is that Highway 100 is now much higher than the roof. He said they intend to
remove large, obsolete rooftop equipment. The rest of the rooftop equipment that is
visible from Highway 100 will be cleaned up and painted to match the building.
Linda McGinty, Luther Automotive Group, said since this will be just an internal facility,
Luther didn’t intend to put any signage on the site. They didn’t want to mislead
customers to come to the site as it won’t accommodate customer appointments. She
apologized, saying they didn’t go as far as discussing what would occur with the sign.
Commissioner Robertson said it would be a nice improvement at the building if the sign
could be removed when they are cleaning up the rooftop.
Ms. McGinty commented that was a reasonable request.
Commissioner Carper asked if there was any consideration for public art or decorative
greenscape/landscaping on the site.
City Council Meeting of April 25, 2011 (Item No. 4i) Page 3
Subject: Planning Commission Minutes March 2, 2011
Mr. Baker said no public art was planned. He did say they are keeping the mature trees
that are on the site. Landscaping will be done with a large variety of plants and shrubs
along the perimeter as well as split rail fencing.
Ms. McGinty said that public art has not been considered for this site. She said that public
art may be more ideal at a site like West End with pedestrians, bicycles and slower
moving traffic. The traffic flow at the Luther site is very fast and constant.
Chair Johnston-Madison opened the public hearing. No speakers were present and the
Chair closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Kramer made a motion recommending approval, subject to conditions
recommended by staff. Commissioner Morris seconded the motion, and the motion
passed on a vote of 6-0.
4. Other Business
5. Communications
A. PMT
Commissioner Carper spoke about the ongoing Project Management Team (PMT)
meetings for the MN & S Freight Rail Study. He said in his opinion it is turning
into a struggle and the information is not necessarily consistent. He encouraged
Planning Commissioners and the public to attend meetings or watch broadcasts.
Chair Johnston-Madison said she agreed with Commissioner Carper.
B. March 16th Planning Commission meeting
Sean Walther, Senior Planner, said there are no applications pending for March
16th and a study session is planned for that meeting.
6. Adjournment
The meeting was adjourned at 6:20 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Nancy Sells
Administrative Secretary
Meeting Date: April 25, 2011
Agenda Item #: 4j
OFFICIAL MINUTES
PLANNING COMMISSION STUDY SESSION
ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA
March 16, 2011 6:00 p.m.
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
MEMBERS PRESENT: Lynne Carper, Andrew Ford, Robert Kramer,
Dennis Morris, Richard Person, Carl Robertson, Claudia Johnston-
Madison, Larry Shapiro
MEMBERS ABSENT: None
STAFF PRESENT: Meg McMonigal
1. Southwest LRT and Freight Rail Studies Update
Meg McMonigal, Planning and Zoning Supervisor, presented the information related to
the SW LRT project, including timing, schedule, funding and work involved. She noted
that Hennepin County had designated this as a “Community Works” project, and noted
the planning work that is occurring for that. Several committees are in place to work on
planning items, and staff groups have formed. The initial priority is circulation and access
in station areas.
In regards to the freight rail studies, McMonigal noted that the City Council had
discussed a process for obtaining public input and was planning several meetings for
residents and business owners. Commission Members Carper and Johnston-Madison
updated the other Commissioners on the PMT meetings.
2. Other Updates
McMonigal gave brief updates of city projects, including the fire station rebuilding
projects, Highway 100 planning, and the 36th Street and bridge improvements, which are
now complete. She noted that the Plan by Neighborhood chapter of the Comprehensive
Plan was being finalized and would be before the Commission soon.
Regarding site plans and building projects, McMonigal noted that the Volkswagen plans
for the Quentin area were on hold; Park Summit was proceeding and the Planning
Commission will see the item next month; the Wooddale Point senior housing building
received all its approvals from HUD and is expected to break ground in June; the 8849
Minnetonka Blvd subdivision will be in for Final Plat approval next month; West End
residential is expected to get its building permit within a week or so; there is interest in
the former motel site next to the Ellipse; and the School District is marketing the Eliot
School Site and there is some interest by private developers.
City Council Meeting of April 25, 2011 (Item No. 4j) Page 2
Subject: Planning Commission Minutes March 16, 2011
3. Planning Commission training opportunities
McMonigal noted the flyer in the packet for Planning Commissioner training and noted if
Commissioners are interested to let her know.
4. Adjourn
The meeting was adjourned at 7:40 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Nancy Sells
Administrative Secretary
Meeting Date: April 25, 2011
Agenda Item #: 4k
Regular Meeting Public Hearing Action Item Consent Item Resolution Ordinance
Presentation Other:
EDA Meeting Action Item Resolution Other:
Study Session Discussion Item Written Report Other:
TITLE:
Vendor Claims.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Motion to accept for filing Vendor Claims for the period March 26, 2011 through April 8, 2011.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Not applicable.
BACKGROUND:
The Finance Department prepares this report on a monthly basis for Council’s review.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
None.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
Not applicable.
Attachments: Vendor Claims
Prepared by: Connie Neubeck, Account Clerk
4/19/2011CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 9:56:06R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
1Page -Council Check Summary
4/8/2011 -3/26/2011
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
62.52FABRICATIONOTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES3M
62.52
95.00INSPECTIONS G & A BUILDINGA&M HEATING & AIR CONDITIONING
95.00
29.56GENERAL REPAIR GENERAL SUPPLIESA-1 OUTDOOR POWER INC
29.56
921.50WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICESADVANCED ENGINEERING & ENVIRON
921.50
706.33T-BALL/BASEBALL GENERAL SUPPLIESALL STAR SPORTS
706.33
159.39PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH INVENTORYAMERICAN TIRE DISTRIBUTORS
159.39
137.56PUBLIC WORKS OPS G & A OPERATIONAL SUPPLIESAMERIPRIDE LINEN & APPAREL SER
89.54PARK MAINTENANCE G & A OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES
150.82ENTERPRISE G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES
97.90VEHICLE MAINTENANCE G&A OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES
123.69WATER UTILITY G&A OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES
123.67SEWER UTILITY G&A OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES
20.54STORM WATER UTILITY G&A OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES
743.72
7,580.51FABRICATIONOTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIESANDERSEN INC, EARL
7,580.51
519.31GENERAL CUSTODIAL DUTIES CLEANING/WASTE REMOVAL SUPPLYARAMARK UNIFORM CORP ACCTS
228.30ENTERPRISE G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES
747.61
108.84IT G & A OFFICE SUPPLIESARC
108.84
472.48PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH INVENTORYASPEN EQUIPMENT CO
472.48
40.00SOLID WASTE G&A SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPSASSOC RECYCLING MANAGERS INC
40.00
City Council Meeting of April 25, 2011 (Item No. 4k)
Subject: Vendor Claims Page 2
4/19/2011CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 9:56:06R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
2Page -Council Check Summary
4/8/2011 -3/26/2011
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
32.72COMMUNICATIONS/GV REIMBURSEABL TELEPHONEAT&T
32.72
75.00POLICE G & A TRAININGATOM
75.00
3.95-WATER UTILITY BALANCE SHEET DUE TO OTHER GOVTSAWWA
61.45WATER UTILITY G&A TRAINING
57.50
1,368.93OPERATIONSTRAININGBAKKEN, ERIC
1,368.93
488.66HUMAN RESOURCES GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICESBARNA, GUZY & STEFFEN LTD
488.66
1,400.00GO BONDS-FIRE STATIONS G&A RENTAL BUILDINGSBELT LINE PROPERTIES INC
1,400.00
79.05ORGANIZED REC G & A MILEAGE-PERSONAL CARBIRNO, RICK
79.05
8,891.80WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESBLOOMINGTON, CITY OF
8,891.80
463.43EQUIP/VEHICLE REPLACEMENT FIRE EQUIPMENTBOUND TREE MEDICAL, LLC
463.43
1,280.34PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH INVENTORYBOYER TRUCK PARTS
1,280.34
1,448.50PE SURVEYS IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDIBRAUN INTERTEC CORPORATION
1,448.50
162.50GREEN REMODELING PROGRAM OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESBROWN, BRIAN & LESLIE
162.50
100.00BASKETBALLOTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESCALISTRO, ANTHONY
100.00
5,000.00ESCROWSDEMO / BROOKSIDE TRAFFICCARON, GREG & JOE
City Council Meeting of April 25, 2011 (Item No. 4k)
Subject: Vendor Claims Page 3
4/19/2011CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 9:56:06R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
3Page -Council Check Summary
4/8/2011 -3/26/2011
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
5,000.00
852.86IT G & A EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICECARTRIDGE CARE
852.86
1,156.66DISCOUNT LOAN PROGRAM OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESCENTER ENERGY & ENVIRONMENT
1,780.00MOVE-UP PROGRAM OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
50,000.00TRANSFORMATION LOAN OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
52,936.66
10,200.00EMPLOYEE FLEXIBLE SPENDING B/S OTHER RETIREMENTCENTRAL PENSION FUND
10,200.00
240.31PARK MAINTENANCE G & A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESCHIEF'S TOWING INC
240.31
180.00PARK PAVILIONS RENT REVENUECHRISTENSEN, NICOLE
96.00PICNIC SHELTERS RENT REVENUE
276.00
300.00BASKETBALLOTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESCHURCHILL, LEE
300.00
2.33-GENERAL FUND BALANCE SHEET DUE TO OTHER GOVTSCITIZENS INDEPENDENT BANK
4.29ADMINISTRATION G & A OFFICE SUPPLIES
400.00ADMINISTRATION G & A SEMINARS/CONFERENCES/PRESENTAT
527.15ADMINISTRATION G & A MEETING EXPENSE
96.06HUMAN RESOURCES ORGANIZATIONAL DEVELOPMENT
250.00HUMAN RESOURCES RECOGNITION
180.00HUMAN RESOURCES SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS
7.38HUMAN RESOURCES MEETING EXPENSE
1,212.67IT G & A SEMINARS/CONFERENCES/PRESENTAT
72.00DESKTOP SUPPORT/SERVICES GENERAL SUPPLIES
9.57ASSESSING G & A OFFICE SUPPLIES
152.00COMM DEV PLANNING G & A TRAINING
507.42POLICE G & A POLICE EQUIPMENT
350.00POLICE G & A TRAINING
25.00POLICE G & A TRAVEL/MEETINGS
113.10DARE PROGRAM OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES
19.95INSPECTIONS G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES
199.00PUBLIC WORKS G & A TRAINING
661.34PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH INVENTORY
City Council Meeting of April 25, 2011 (Item No. 4k)
Subject: Vendor Claims Page 4
4/19/2011CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 9:56:06R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
4Page -Council Check Summary
4/8/2011 -3/26/2011
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
5.97-PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH DUE TO OTHER GOVTS
22.00ORGANIZED REC G & A TRAINING
260.00BASKETBALLTRAINING
252.23BROOMBALLGENERAL SUPPLIES
67.97PARK MAINTENANCE G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES
100.00PARK MAINTENANCE G & A TRAINING
26.82SKATING RINK MAINTENANCE GENERAL SUPPLIES
55.99BRICK HOUSE (1324)OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES
15.03WW RENTAL HOUSE (1322)OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES
20.88TREE MAINTENANCE GENERAL SUPPLIES
224.02WESTWOOD G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES
151.23VEHICLE MAINTENANCE G&A SMALL TOOLS
71.97VEHICLE MAINTENANCE G&A TRAINING
101.00WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL SUPPLIES
74.00SEWER UTILITY G&A TRAINING
6,221.77
148.40EQUIP/VEHICLE REPLACEMENT FIRE EQUIPMENTCLAREY'S SAFETY EQUIPMENT INC
148.40
76.71INSTRUCTIONAL SKATING LESSONS OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESCOLBORN, CHRISTINE
76.71
17,603.53ADMINISTRATION G & A LEGAL SERVICESCOLICH & ASSOCIATES
17,603.53
218.30EMPLOYEE FLEXIBLE SPENDING B/S WAGE GARNISHMENTSCOLLECTION SERVICES CENTER
218.30
1,725.72BUILDING MAINTENANCE GENERAL SUPPLIESCONTINENTAL RESEARCH CORP
1,725.72
13.70-GENERAL FUND BALANCE SHEET DUE TO OTHER GOVTSCOOKE JP CO
212.95PUBLIC WORKS G & A OFFICE SUPPLIES
199.25
138.87POLICE G & A SUBSISTENCE SUPPLIESCUB FOODS
138.87
47.18-WATER UTILITY BALANCE SHEET DUE TO OTHER GOVTSCULVER COMPANY
734.00WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL SUPPLIES
686.82
City Council Meeting of April 25, 2011 (Item No. 4k)
Subject: Vendor Claims Page 5
4/19/2011CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 9:56:06R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
5Page -Council Check Summary
4/8/2011 -3/26/2011
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
3,853.37WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIESDAKOTA SUPPLY GROUP
3,853.37
95.26ROUTINE MAINTENANCE SMALL TOOLSDELEGARD TOOL CO
95.26
3,977.22INSPECTIONS G & A DUE TO OTHER GOVTSDEPT LABOR & INDUSTRY
3,977.22
94.20PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH INVENTORYDISCOUNT STEEL INC
94.20
2,273.81GO BONDS-FIRE STATIONS G&A BUILDINGS & STRUCTURESDJ ELECTRIC SERVICES INC
10,997.00MUNICIPAL BLDG BUILDINGS & STRUCTURES
13,270.81
261.84WESTWOOD G & A GENERAL SUPPLIESDON'S RODENTS
261.84
417.00GENERAL BUILDING MAINTENANCE EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICEDRUK UPHOLSTERING
417.00
7,466.30PARK IMPROVE CAPITAL PROJECT IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDIEFA PARK & RECREATION
7,466.30
350.00WIRING REPAIR OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESEGAN COMPANIES INC
350.00
1,187.50ESCROWSDuke Realty - West EndEHLERS & ASSOCIATES INC
47.50WESTWOOD VILLAS HIA OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
1,235.00
4,405.39WATER UTILITY G&A OTHERELECTRIC PUMP INC
4,405.39
1,055.93PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH INVENTORYENVIRONMENTAL EQUIPMENT & SERV
1,055.93
529.03STORM WATER UTILITY G&A OTHERESS BROTHERS & SONS INC
529.03
City Council Meeting of April 25, 2011 (Item No. 4k)
Subject: Vendor Claims Page 6
4/19/2011CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 9:56:06R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
6Page -Council Check Summary
4/8/2011 -3/26/2011
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
750.00HUMAN RESOURCES ORGANIZATIONAL DEVELOPMENTETHICAL LEADERS IN ACTION LLC
750.00
34,540.08SOLID WASTE COLLECTIONS RECYCLING SERVICEEUREKA RECYCLING
34,540.08
36.37PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH INVENTORYFACTORY MOTOR PARTS CO
52.86GENERAL REPAIR GENERAL SUPPLIES
89.23
7.53PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH INVENTORYFASTENAL COMPANY
21.21SEWER UTILITY G&A OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES
28.74
4,513.80WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIESFERGUSON WATERWORKS
4,513.80
1,500.00POLICE G & A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESFISCHLER & ASSOCIATES PA
1,500.00
11.10SEWER UTILITY G&A GENERAL SUPPLIESFLOYD TOTAL SECURITY
11.10
8,000.00ESCROWSDEMO / BROOKSIDE TRAFFICGAL PALS LLC
8,000.00
5,538.50ARENA MAINTENANCE BUILDING MTCE SERVICEGARTNER REFRIG & MFG INC
5,538.50
225.00GENERAL REPAIR EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICEGLASS DOCTOR
225.00
5,130.38WATER UTILITY G&A OPERATIONAL SUPPLIESHAWKINS INC
5,130.38
2,737.00POLICE G & A SUBSISTENCE SERVICEHENNEPIN COUNTY TREASURER
25.00EMPLOYEE FLEX SPEND G&A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
2,762.00
1,946.14WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICEHIGHVIEW PLUMBING INC
1,946.14
City Council Meeting of April 25, 2011 (Item No. 4k)
Subject: Vendor Claims Page 7
4/19/2011CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 9:56:06R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
7Page -Council Check Summary
4/8/2011 -3/26/2011
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
159.80TRAININGSEMINARS/CONFERENCES/PRESENTATHIGHWAY TECHNOLOGIES INC
159.80
878.23WATER UTILITY G&A BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIESHIRSHFIELDS
878.23
5,375.76FINANCE G & A AUDITING AND ACCOUNTING SERVICHLB TAUTGES REDPATH LTD
827.04WATER UTILITY G&A AUDITING AND ACCOUNTING SERVIC
827.04SEWER UTILITY G&A AUDITING AND ACCOUNTING SERVIC
827.04SOLID WASTE G&A AUDITING AND ACCOUNTING SERVIC
827.04STORM WATER UTILITY G&A AUDITING AND ACCOUNTING SERVIC
8,683.92
234.06ROUTINE MAINTENANCE EQUIPMENT PARTSHOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES
25.09PARK BUILDING MAINTENANCE GENERAL SUPPLIES
20.32TREE MAINTENANCE GENERAL SUPPLIES
279.47
9.82WESTWOOD G & A GENERAL SUPPLIESHOME DEPOT CREDIT SRVCS
9.82
3,182.47EMPLOYEE FLEX SPEND G&A TUITIONHOWE, NICOLE
3,182.47
15.16ROUTINE MAINTENANCE SMALL TOOLSHSBC BUSINESS SOLUTIONS
15.16
149.35PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH INVENTORYI-STATE TRUCK CENTER
149.35
45.00VEHICLE MAINTENANCE G&A SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPSIATN
45.00
740.38WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICEIDEAL SERVICE INC
740.38
949.32IT G & A EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICEIKON OFFICE SOLUTIONS
949.32
34,400.00HUMAN RESOURCES OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESIND SCHOOL DIST #283
187,400.00SCHOOL DISTRICT OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
221,800.00
City Council Meeting of April 25, 2011 (Item No. 4k)
Subject: Vendor Claims Page 8
4/19/2011CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 9:56:06R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
8Page -Council Check Summary
4/8/2011 -3/26/2011
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
167.11WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL SUPPLIESINDELCO
167.11
2,470.80IT G & A TELEPHONEINTEGRA TELECOM
2,470.80
220.37PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH INVENTORYINVER GROVE FORD
227.18GENERAL REPAIR EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE
447.55
10.00HUMAN RESOURCES TRAININGIPMA - MINNESOTA CHAPTER ADMIN
10.00
2,244.36OPERATIONSEMERGENCY PREPAREDNESSJACOBS TRADING COMPANY
2,244.36
5.26PATCHING-PERMANENT EQUIPMENT PARTSJERRY'S HARDWARE
63.38RELAMPINGOTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES
13.77VEHICLE MAINTENANCE G&A GENERAL SUPPLIES
82.41
400.00SOFTBALLPROGRAM REVENUEJJ'S CLUBHOUSE
400.00
300.00WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICEJM CONSULTING LTD
300.00
78.44BUILDING MAINTENANCE GENERAL SUPPLIESJOHN HENRY FOSTER MN
361.75WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICE
440.19
63.72WESTWOOD G & A GENERAL SUPPLIESJOHNSON, DICK
63.72
150.00GREEN REMODELING PROGRAM OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESJOHNSON, WARD
150.00
3,172.80PARK IMPROVE CAPITAL PROJECT OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESJUST-RITE CONSTRUCTION INC
3,172.80
276.92EMPLOYEE FLEXIBLE SPENDING B/S WAGE GARNISHMENTSKELLER, JASMINE Z
City Council Meeting of April 25, 2011 (Item No. 4k)
Subject: Vendor Claims Page 9
4/19/2011CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 9:56:06R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
9Page -Council Check Summary
4/8/2011 -3/26/2011
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
276.92
576.00ESCROWSGRECO DEVELOP/WOODDALE POINTEKENNEDY & GRAVEN
576.00
1,000.00PE PLANS/SPECS ENGINEERING SERVICESKLM ENGINEERING INC.
1,000.00
913.77GENERAL REPAIR EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICEKREMER SERVICES LLC
913.77
63.93ENVIRONMENTAL G & A GENERAL SUPPLIESKRZESOWIAK, SARAH
63.93
48.00INSPECTIONS G & A BUILDINGKUEGAR, PATRICK
48.00
1,108.75WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICELAKELAND ENG EQUIP CO
1,108.75
44.74PATCHING-PERMANENT EQUIPMENT PARTSLAKES GAS CO
165.09PATCHING TEMPORARY OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES
209.83
137.74WATER UTILITY G&A BUILDING MTCE SERVICELARSON, JH CO
137.74
2,682.00VEHICLE MAINTENANCE G&A BLDG & CONTENTS INSURANCELEAGUE OF MN CITIES INSURANCE
58.00EMPLOYEE FLEX SPEND G&A League of MN Cities dept'l exp
784.66UNINSURED LOSS G&A UNINSURED LOSS
3,524.66
300.00IT G & A TRAININGLIFESHINE COACHING AND CONSULT
300.00
81.00PRE-SCHOOL PROGRAMS PROGRAM REVENUELIU, MINGQUAN
81.00
4,822.11PARK BUILDING MAINTENANCE OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESLSV METALS INC
4,822.11
80.07ADMINISTRATION G & A SEMINARS/CONFERENCES/PRESENTATLUEDKE, KRIS
City Council Meeting of April 25, 2011 (Item No. 4k)
Subject: Vendor Claims Page 10
4/19/2011CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 9:56:06R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
10Page -Council Check Summary
4/8/2011 -3/26/2011
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
80.07
118.00INSTRUCTIONAL SKATING LESSONS OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESMACGREGOR-HANNAH, MAREN
118.00
43.87PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH INVENTORYMACQUEEN EQUIP CO
43.87
391.50HUMAN RESOURCES GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICESMADDEN & ASSOCIATES, FRANK
391.50
210.40FITNESS PROGRAMS OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESMALONE, DANIEL
210.40
48.40INSPECTIONS G & A ELECTRICALMAYER ELECTRIC CO
48.40
27.89ROUTINE MAINTENANCE GENERAL SUPPLIESMCCOY, WILLIAM PETROLEUM FUELS
27.89
38.00CABLE TV G & A GENERAL SUPPLIESMCHUGH, JOHN T
38.00
65.00SUPPORT SERVICES TRAININGMETRO CISM TEAM
65.00
212.00VOLLEYBALLOTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESMETRO VOLLEYBALL OFFICIALS
212.00
46,510.34INSPECTIONS G & A DUE TO OTHER GOVTSMETROPOLITAN COUNCIL
15,134.20REILLY BUDGET CLEANING/WASTE REMOVAL SERVICE
61,644.54
93.30SEWER UTILITY G&A GENERAL SUPPLIESMICRO CENTER
93.30
2,025.85PATCHING TEMPORARY OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIESMIDWEST ASPHALT CORP
2,025.85
300.00WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESMIDWEST TESTING LLC
300.00
City Council Meeting of April 25, 2011 (Item No. 4k)
Subject: Vendor Claims Page 11
4/19/2011CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 9:56:06R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
11Page -Council Check Summary
4/8/2011 -3/26/2011
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
47.00YOUTH PROGRAMS PROGRAM REVENUEMILLER, AIMEE
47.00
1,120.96INSTALLATIONSMALL TOOLSMINING AUGER & TOOL WKS INC
1,120.96
145.24EMPLOYEE FLEXIBLE SPENDING B/S ACCRUED OTHER BENEFITSMINNESOTA BENEFIT ASSOC
145.24
1,222.43EMPLOYEE FLEXIBLE SPENDING B/S WAGE GARNISHMENTSMINNESOTA CHILD SUPPORT PYT CT
1,222.43
16.00EMPLOYEE FLEXIBLE SPENDING B/S ACCRUED OTHER BENEFITSMINNESOTA NCPERS LIFE INS
16.00
264.00VEHICLE MAINTENANCE G&A SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPSMINNESOTA REVENUE
345.00WATER UTILITY G&A LICENSES
1,230.00REILLY BUDGET CLEANING/WASTE REMOVAL SERVICE
1,839.00
25.00INSPECTIONS G & A LICENSESMN DEPT LABOR & INDUSTRY
25.00
25,593.99SANDING/SALTING OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIESMORTON SALT
25,593.99
42.65GENERAL BUILDING MAINTENANCE EQUIPMENT PARTSNAPA (GENUINE PARTS CO)
33.84SWEEPINGEQUIPMENT PARTS
1,401.41PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH INVENTORY
109.96PARK GROUNDS MAINTENANCE GENERAL SUPPLIES
127.64GENERAL REPAIR GENERAL SUPPLIES
1,715.50
12.54PARK MAINTENANCE G & A GENERAL SUPPLIESNEP CORP
12.54
141.58PATCHING-PERMANENT SMALL TOOLSNEWTON BROOM & BRUSH CO
141.58
444.00HUMAN RESOURCES RECRUITMENTNORTH WORKS OCCUPATIONAL HEALT
444.00
City Council Meeting of April 25, 2011 (Item No. 4k)
Subject: Vendor Claims Page 12
4/19/2011CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 9:56:06R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
12Page -Council Check Summary
4/8/2011 -3/26/2011
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
20.00HUMAN RESOURCES TRAININGNORTHSTAR CHAPTER APA
20.00
13,657.51COMM & MARKETING G & A PRINTING & PUBLISHINGNYSTROM PUBLISHING
13,657.51
3,275.00GENERAL BUILDING MAINTENANCE BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIESO'BRIEN ORNAMENTAL IRON INC
3,275.00
59.54ADMINISTRATION G & A OFFICE SUPPLIESOFFICE DEPOT
191.66POLICE G & A OFFICE SUPPLIES
30.35POLICE G & A OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES
19.51PATROLOFFICE SUPPLIES
101.55SCHOOL LIASON OFFICE SUPPLIES
317.77INSPECTIONS G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES
56.41PUBLIC WORKS G & A OFFICE SUPPLIES
116.23ORGANIZED REC G & A OFFICE SUPPLIES
893.02
909.60TREE DISEASE PUBLIC CLEANING/WASTE REMOVAL SERVICEOSTVIG TREE INC
909.60
76.00INSTRUCTIONAL SKATING LESSONS OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESPARR, MELISSA
76.00
2,250.00COMM & MARKETING G & A PRINTING & PUBLISHINGPERNSTEINER CREATIVE GROUP INC
2,250.00
583.50INSTRUCTIONAL SKATING LESSONS OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESPOLK, MARLA
583.50
242.49WATER UTILITY G&A POSTAGEPOSTMASTER - PERMIT #603
242.49SEWER UTILITY G&A POSTAGE
242.49SOLID WASTE COLLECTIONS POSTAGE
242.48STORM WATER UTILITY G&A POSTAGE
969.95
1,148.91TREE DISEASE PUBLIC CLEANING/WASTE REMOVAL SERVICEPRECISION LANDSCAPE & TREE
1,148.91
1,237.42BLDG/GROUNDS OPS & MAINT BUILDING MTCE SERVICEPUMP & METER SERVICE
1,237.42
City Council Meeting of April 25, 2011 (Item No. 4k)
Subject: Vendor Claims Page 13
4/19/2011CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 9:56:06R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
13Page -Council Check Summary
4/8/2011 -3/26/2011
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
163.46VEHICLE MAINTENANCE G&A POSTAGEQUICKSILVER EXPRESS COURIER
163.46
955.00PARK MAINTENANCE G & A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESQUIRING EXCAVATING LLC
955.00
2,490.50FACILITY OPERATIONS GARBAGE/REFUSE SERVICERANDY'S SANITATION INC
1,075.90REC CENTER BUILDING GARBAGE/REFUSE SERVICE
980.72SOLID WASTE COLLECTIONS GARBAGE/REFUSE SERVICE
4,547.12
79.36WATER UTILITY G&A POSTAGERAPID GRAPHICS & MAILING
79.36SEWER UTILITY G&A POSTAGE
79.35SOLID WASTE COLLECTIONS POSTAGE
79.35STORM WATER UTILITY G&A POSTAGE
317.42
63.10POLICE G & A OFFICE SUPPLIESREGENCY OFFICE PRODUCTS LLC
63.10
1,200.00WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICERENNER & SONS, E H
1,200.00
322.00BASKETBALLOTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESRUDDY, WILLIAM
322.00
50.02PARK BUILDING MAINTENANCE BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIESSAVITT BROS INC
50.02
297.60UNINSURED LOSS G&A UNINSURED LOSSSCHERER BROS. LUMBER CO.
297.60
96.00INSTRUCTIONAL SKATING LESSONS OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESSCHMIDT, KELLIE
96.00
180.00BASKETBALLOTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESSCHUMACHER, REBECCA
180.00
6.75WATER UTILITY G&A OPERATIONAL SUPPLIESSEARS COMMERCIAL ONE
6.75
City Council Meeting of April 25, 2011 (Item No. 4k)
Subject: Vendor Claims Page 14
4/19/2011CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 9:56:06R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
14Page -Council Check Summary
4/8/2011 -3/26/2011
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
8,791.81PE INVEST/REVIEW/PER IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDISEH
11,315.96PE DESIGN IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDI
308.00STORM WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
20,415.77
283.50GO BONDS-FIRE STATIONS G&A BUILDINGS & STRUCTURESSGC HORIZON LLC
218.75PARK IMPROVE CAPITAL PROJECT BUILDINGS & STRUCTURES
234.50PAVEMENT MANAGEMENT G&A IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDI
736.75
7,477.75PARK IMPROVE CAPITAL PROJECT IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDISHAW/STEWART LUMBER CO
7,477.75
749.95GENERAL BUILDING MAINTENANCE EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICESIMPLEXGRINNELL LP
749.95
355.21OPERATIONSTRAININGSMITH, TIM
355.21
162.50GREEN REMODELING PROGRAM OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESSONDAY, TOM
162.50
747.08IT G & A DATACOMMUNICATIONSSPRINT
747.08
20.61PARK MAINTENANCE G & A GENERAL SUPPLIESSPS COMPANIES INC
73.95WATER UTILITY G&A EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE
94.56
4,910.00CE INSPECTION IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDISRF CONSULTING GROUP INC
4,910.00
103.00COMM DEV PLANNING G & A SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPSST LOUIS PARK SUNRISE ROTARY
103.00
48.00INSPECTIONS G & A BUILDINGSTANDARD HEATING & A/C
48.00
232.96POLICE G & A SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPSSTAR TRIBUNE
232.96
1,709.11PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH INVENTORYSTONEBROOKE EQUIPMENT INC
City Council Meeting of April 25, 2011 (Item No. 4k)
Subject: Vendor Claims Page 15
4/19/2011CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 9:56:06R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
15Page -Council Check Summary
4/8/2011 -3/26/2011
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
1,709.11
1,405.45POLICE G & A OPERATIONAL SUPPLIESSTREICHER'S
1,405.45
106.08ADMINISTRATION G & A MILEAGE-PERSONAL CARSTROTH, NANCY
106.08
40.04ADMINISTRATION G & A LEGAL NOTICESSUN NEWSPAPERS
407.55GO BONDS-FIRE STATIONS G&A BUILDINGS & STRUCTURES
162.45PAVEMENT MANAGEMENT G&A IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDI
610.04
3,515.40WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICESWANSON FLO-SYSTEMS CO
3,515.40
25.62POLICE G & A SUBSISTENCE SUPPLIESTARGET BANK
25.62
80.00ELECTRICAL SYSTEM MTCE TRAININGTCALMC
110.00PARK MAINTENANCE G & A SEMINARS/CONFERENCES/PRESENTAT
30.00WATER UTILITY G&A SEMINARS/CONFERENCES/PRESENTAT
220.00
70.95ADMINISTRATION G & A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESTELELANGUAGE INC
70.95
48.00OPERATIONSEQUIPMENT PARTSTEXA TONKA TAILORING
48.00
471.25ADMINISTRATION G & A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESTIMESAVER OFF SITE SECRETARIAL
471.25
2,250.95PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH INVENTORYTRI STATE BOBCAT
2,250.95
7,995.32PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH INVENTORYTRUCK UTILITIES MFG CO
1,175.63GENERAL REPAIR EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE
9,170.95
401.30UNINSURED LOSS G&A UNINSURED LOSSTWIN CITY HARDWARE
401.30
City Council Meeting of April 25, 2011 (Item No. 4k)
Subject: Vendor Claims Page 16
4/19/2011CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 9:56:06R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
16Page -Council Check Summary
4/8/2011 -3/26/2011
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
10,344.00SSD 1 G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESTWIN CITY OUTDOOR SERVICES INC
32,277.00SSD 3 G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
42,621.00
200.58GENERAL REPAIR EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICEUNITED STATES TREASURY
200.58
211.00EMPLOYEE FLEXIBLE SPENDING B/S UNITED WAYUNITED WAY OF MINNEAPOLIS AREA
211.00
31.18WATER UTILITY G&A TELEPHONEUSA MOBILITY WIRELESS INC
31.18
60.00HUMAN RESOURCES RECRUITMENTVERIFIED CREDENTIALS
60.00
1,260.14VOICE SYSTEM MTCE TELEPHONEVERIZON WIRELESS
73.76COMMUNICATIONS/GV REIMBURSEABL TELEPHONE
1,333.90
47.70WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICEVESSCO INC
47.70
17.27PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH INVENTORYWALSER CHRYSLER JEEP
17.27
135.00INSPECTIONS G & A BUILDINGWANGARD, ELIZABETH
135.00
661.20WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICEWATER CONSERVATION SERVICE INC
661.20
2,706.91WATER UTILITY G&A BUILDING MTCE SERVICEWEBER ELECTRIC
2,706.91
165.38BASKETBALLOTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESWILLIAMS, MANDI
165.38
47.00YOUTH PROGRAMS PROGRAM REVENUEYAROSH, JULIE
47.00
City Council Meeting of April 25, 2011 (Item No. 4k)
Subject: Vendor Claims Page 17
4/19/2011CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 9:56:06R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
17Page -Council Check Summary
4/8/2011 -3/26/2011
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
153.77PATCHING-PERMANENT SMALL TOOLSZACKS INC
61.97PARK GROUNDS MAINTENANCE GENERAL SUPPLIES
215.74
55.78PUBLIC WORKS OPS G & A GENERAL SUPPLIESZEE MEDICAL SERVICE
55.78PARK MAINTENANCE G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES
55.77VEHICLE MAINTENANCE G&A GENERAL SUPPLIES
55.78WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL SUPPLIES
223.11
48.16AQUATIC PARK BUDGET PRINTING & PUBLISHINGZIP PRINTING
48.16
Report Totals 721,897.18
City Council Meeting of April 25, 2011 (Item No. 4k)
Subject: Vendor Claims Page 18
Meeting Date: April 25, 2011
Agenda Item #: 6a
Regular Meeting Public Hearing Action Item Consent Item Resolution Ordinance
Presentation Other:
EDA Meeting Action Item Resolution Other:
Study Session Discussion Item Written Report Other:
TITLE:
Public Hearing and Final Bond Resolution - Issuance of Private Activity Revenue Bonds for
Benilde-St. Margaret’s School.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Mayor to open and close the public hearing. Motion to Adopt Final Bond Resolution Authorizing
the Issuance of Private Activity Revenue Bonds for Benilde-St. Margaret’s School.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Does the City Council wish to undertake the action as proposed?
The proposed action is consistent with the City’s approved policy for issuing private activity
revenue bonds.
BACKGROUND:
The City of St. Louis Park issued private activity revenue bonds on behalf of Benilde-St.
Margaret’s School on August 3, 2000. The proceeds were applied to finance the construction of
improvements to the school facility, including a new performing arts center, additional
classrooms, a new library, new administrative offices, the replacement of existing bleachers, and
the equipping and remodeling of existing classrooms and office areas. The property is located at
2501 Highway 100 South in St. Louis Park.
Benilde-St. Margaret’s School is requesting that the City of St. Louis Park issue private activity
revenue bonds for the purposes of refunding the entire existing debt from the 2000 bond issue of
approximately $8.4 million. Since the City anticipates issuing up to $3.0 million of additional
bonds during the course of 2011, the City can only provide up to $7.0 million of Series 2011A
bank qualified bonds to the School. In order to obtain sufficient funds to redeem and prepay all
of the outstanding Series 2000 Bonds, the School is requesting that the City of Deephaven issue
the remaining amount of obligations, up to an amount of approximately $1.5 million. This is an
acceptable joint effort for Benilde-St. Margaret’s School, and the cities of St. Louis Park and
Deephaven to participate in.
The synopsis for finalizing this process is as follows: a public hearing scheduled for the regular
City Council meeting of April 25, 2011 will be conducted. After the public hearing is closed, the
City Council will be asked to consider a resolution authorizing issuance of the bonds. If the City
Council approves the resolution, this would allow the bonds to be issued on a date agreed upon
by the parties. Representatives from Kennedy and Graven and Benilde-St. Margaret’s School
will be available to answer any questions the City Council or public may have.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
These bonds are not obligations of the City in any respect, but rather are payable solely from
revenues of Benilde-St. Margaret’s School. They will also pay a fee of 1/8th of one percent in
City Council Meeting of April 25, 2011 (Item No. 6a) Page 2
Subject: Public Hearing & Final Bond Resolution - Issuance of Pvt Activity Rev Bonds for BSM
two semi-annual payments to the City on based on the amount of bonds outstanding each year.
These monies will be deposited in the City’s Housing Rehabilitation fund.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
Not Applicable
Attachment: Resolution
Prepared by: Brian A. Swanson, Controller
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
City Council Meeting of April 25, 2011 (Item No. 6a) Page 3
Subject: Public Hearing & Final Bond Resolution - Issuance of Pvt Activity Rev Bonds for BSM
RESOLUTION NO. 11-____
AUTHORIZING THE ISSUANCE AND SALE OF
AN EDUCATIONAL FACILITIES REVENUE REFUNDING NOTE
(BENILDE-ST. MARGARET’S SCHOOL PROJECT), SERIES 2011A,
IN THE ORIGINAL AGGREGATE PRINCIPAL AMOUNT OF $7,000,000;
APPROVING THE FORM OF AND AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION
AND DELIVERY OF THE NOTE, A LOAN AGREEMENT, AND
CERTAIN RELATED DOCUMENTS; AND PROVIDING FOR THE
SECURITY, RIGHTS, AND REMEDIES WITH RESPECT TO THE NOTE
WHEREAS, the City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota (the “City”), is a home rule city and
political subdivision duly organized and existing under its Charter and the Constitution and laws
of the State of Minnesota; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to the Constitution and laws of the State of Minnesota,
particularly Minnesota Statutes, Sections 469.152-469-165, as amended (the “Act”), the City is
authorized to carry out the public purposes described therein and contemplated thereby by
issuing its revenue bonds or other obligations to make a loan to finance or refinance a revenue
producing enterprise, including the financing and refinancing of the costs of the construction of
an expansion to and remodeling of an educational facility; and
WHEREAS, the City received a request from Benilde-St. Margaret’s School, a Minnesota
nonprofit corporation (the “Borrower”), that the City issue its Educational Facilities Revenue
Refunding Note (Benilde-St. Margaret’s School Project), Series 2011A (the “Note), in an original,
aggregate principal amount not to exceed $7,000,000, and loan the proceeds derived from the sale of
the Note to the Borrower; and
WHEREAS, the proceeds of the loan are proposed to be applied by the Borrower to (i) the
redemption and prepayment of a portion of the outstanding principal amount of the Variable Rate
Demand Revenue Bonds (Catholic Finance Corporation/Benilde-St. Margaret’s School Project),
Series 2000 (the “Prior Bonds”), issued by the City in the original aggregate principal amount of
$10,345,000, and currently outstanding in the principal amount of $8,135,000; and (ii) pay a portion
of the costs of issuance of the Note and other related expenses of the Borrower; and
WHEREAS, at the request of the Borrower, the City Council of the City of Deephaven,
Minnesota (“Deephaven”), has authorized the issuance of its Educational Facilities Revenue
Refunding Note (Benilde-St. Margaret’s School Project), Series 2011B (the “Deephaven Note), in an
original, aggregate principal amount not to exceed $1,500,000, and a loan of the proceeds derived
from the sale of the Note to the Borrower, and the proceeds of such loan are proposed to be applied by
the Borrower to (i) the redemption and prepayment of the portion of the outstanding principal amount
of the Prior Bonds not redeemed and prepaid with the proceeds of the Note issued by the City; and
(ii) pay a portion of the costs of issuance of the Deephaven Note and other related expenses of the
Borrower; and
City Council Meeting of April 25, 2011 (Item No. 6a) Page 4
Subject: Public Hearing & Final Bond Resolution - Issuance of Pvt Activity Rev Bonds for BSM
WHEREAS, the Prior Bonds were issued to finance the construction of improvements to a
secondary school facility operated by the Borrower and located at 2501 Highway 100 South in the
City (the “School Facility”), including a new performing arts center, additional classrooms, a new
library, new administrative offices, the replacement of existing bleachers, and the equipping and
remodeling of existing classrooms and office areas; and
WHEREAS, a notice of a public hearing (in which a general, functional description of
the School Facility was provided, as well as the maximum aggregate face amount of the
obligations to be issued with respect to the redemption and prepayment of the Prior Bonds, the
identity of the initial owner, operator, or manager of the School Facility, and the location of the
School Facility by street address) was published in a newspaper circulating generally in the City
at least fourteen (14) days before the regularly-scheduled meeting of the City Council of the City
on April 25, 2011; and
WHEREAS, on April 25, 2011, the City Council conducted a public hearing at which a
reasonable opportunity was provided for interested individuals to express their views, both orally
and in writing, on the proposed issuance of the Note, and the location and nature of the School
Facility; and
WHEREAS, Bremer Bank, N.A., a national banking association (the “Lender”), has
agreed to purchase the Note in a manner consistent with the policies of the City relating to the
issuance and sale of non-rated conduit revenue bonds; and
WHEREAS, the proceeds derived from the sale of the Note are proposed to be loaned to
the Borrower under the terms of a Loan Agreement, dated on or after May 1, 2011 (the “Loan
Agreement”), between the City and the Borrower, and applied by the Borrower, together with
other funds of the Borrower, to redeem and prepay the Prior Bonds, and to pay certain costs of
issuing the Note; and
WHEREAS, the loan repayments required to be made by the Borrower under the terms
of the Loan Agreement will be assigned to the Lender under the terms of an Assignment of Loan
Agreement, dated on or after May 1, 2011 (the “Assignment”), between the City, the Borrower,
and the Lender; and
WHEREAS, the obligations of the Borrower under the terms of the Loan Agreement and
the Assignment will be secured by a Mortgage, Security Agreement, Assignment of Leases and
Rents and Fixture Financing Statement, dated on or after May 1, 2011 (the “Mortgage”), from
the Borrower in favor of the Lender; and
WHEREAS, the Note and the interest on the Note: (i) shall not constitute general or
moral obligations of the City and shall be payable solely from the revenues pledged therefor;
(ii) shall not constitute a debt of the City within the meaning of any constitutional or statutory
limitation; (iii) shall not constitute nor give rise to a pecuniary liability of the City or a charge
against its general credit or taxing powers; and (iv) shall not constitute a charge, lien, or
City Council Meeting of April 25, 2011 (Item No. 6a) Page 5
Subject: Public Hearing & Final Bond Resolution - Issuance of Pvt Activity Rev Bonds for BSM
encumbrance, legal or equitable, upon any property of the City other than the City’s interest in
the Loan Agreement.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA, AS FOLLOWS:
1. For the purpose of redeeming and prepaying a portion of the Prior Bonds and
paying a portion of the costs of issuing the Note, there is hereby authorized the issuance of the
Note in the original aggregate principal amount not to exceed $7,000,000. The Note shall bear
interest at such rates, shall be in such denomination, shall be numbered, shall be dated, shall
mature, shall be subject to redemption prior to maturity, shall be in such form, and shall have
such other details and provisions as are prescribed by the form of the Note on file with the City
on the date hereof.
The Note shall be a special limited obligation of the City payable solely from revenues of
the School Facility, in the manner provided in this resolution and the Loan Agreement. The Note
does not constitute a general or moral obligation of the City, or a pledge of the faith and credit or
any taxing power of the City, the State of Minnesota, or any political subdivision thereof. The
City hereby authorizes and directs the Mayor of the City (the “Mayor”) and the City Manager of
the City (the “City Manager”) to execute the Note, and to deliver the Note to the Lender, and
hereby authorizes and directs the execution of the Note in accordance with its terms and the
terms of this resolution. The Mayor is hereby authorized to approve the interest rate or rates on
the Note, approve changes to the maturity schedules, optional and mandatory redemption terms,
and other terms and provisions of the Note; provided that the maturity date for the Note shall not
be later than the date set forth in the form of the Note on file with the City on the date hereof.
The Note shall contain a recital that it is issued pursuant to the Act, and such recital shall
be conclusive evidence of the validity of the Note and the regularity of the issuance thereof, and
that all acts, conditions, and things required by the laws of the State of Minnesota relating to the
adoption of this resolution, to the issuance of the Note, and to the execution of the
aforementioned documents have happened, exist, and have been performed as so required by
law.
2. The proceeds derived from the sale of the Note shall be loaned by the City to the
Borrower pursuant to the Loan Agreement. The loan repayments to be made by the Borrower
under the Loan Agreement are to be fixed so as to produce revenues sufficient to pay the
principal of, premium, if any, and interest on the Note when due. The loan made pursuant to the
Loan Agreement (the “Loan”), and the City’s rights to the Loan repayments and certain other
rights under the Loan Agreement shall be assigned to the Lender as security for payment of the
Note pursuant to the terms of the Assignment. The Note, the Loan Agreement, and the
Assignment shall be substantially in the forms on file with the City on the date hereof, and are
hereby approved, with such necessary and appropriate variations, omissions, and insertions as do
not materially change the substance thereof, or as the Mayor and City Manager, in their
discretion, shall determine, and the execution and delivery thereof by the Mayor and City
Manager shall be conclusive evidence of such determination. The Note, the Loan Agreement,
and the Assignment are directed to be executed in the name and on behalf of the City by the
Mayor and the City Manager.
City Council Meeting of April 25, 2011 (Item No. 6a) Page 6
Subject: Public Hearing & Final Bond Resolution - Issuance of Pvt Activity Rev Bonds for BSM
3. The offer of the Lender to purchase the Note at a price of par is hereby accepted.
The Mayor and the City Manager are authorized to execute a purchase agreement with respect to
the Note, if deemed appropriate by the City and the Lender, and Mayor and the City Manager are
directed to prepare and execute the Note and deliver the Note to the Lender.
4. The City has not participated in the preparation of any disclosure documents
relating to the offer and sale of the Note and has made no independent investigation with respect
to the information contained in any such disclosure documents. The City assumes no
responsibility for the sufficiency, accuracy, or completeness of any information set forth in any
such disclosure documents.
5. The Mayor, the City Manager, and other officers of the City are authorized and
directed to prepare and furnish to the Lender and to Bond Counsel certified copies of all
proceedings and records of the City relating to the Note, and such other affidavits and certificates
as may be required to show the facts relating to the legality of the Note as such facts appear from
the books and records in the officers’ custody and control or as otherwise known to them; and all
such certified copies, certificates and affidavits, including any heretofore furnished, shall
constitute representations of the City as to the truth of all statements contained therein.
6. The approval hereby given to the various documents referred to above includes
approval of such additional details therein as may be necessary and appropriate and such
modifications thereof, deletions therefrom, and additions thereto as may be necessary and
appropriate and approved by the officials authorized herein to execute said documents, which
approval shall be conclusively evidenced by the execution thereof. The Mayor, the City
Manager, and other officers and employees of the City are hereby authorized to execute and
deliver, on behalf of the City, all other certificates, instruments, and other written documents that
may be requested by Bond Counsel, the Lender, or other persons or entities in conjunction with
the issuance of the Note and the expenditure of the proceeds of the Note. Without imposing any
limitations on the scope of the preceding sentence, such officers and employees are specifically
authorized to execute and deliver a certificate relating to federal tax matters including matters
relating to arbitrage and arbitrage rebate, a receipt for the proceeds derived from the sale of the
Note, a general certificate of the City, and an Information Return for Tax-Exempt Private
Activity Bonds Issues, Form 8038 (Rev. June 2010).
7. All covenants, stipulations, obligations, representations, and agreements of the
City contained in this resolution or contained in the Loan Agreement, Assignment, or other
documents referred to above shall be deemed to be the covenants, stipulations, obligations,
representatives, and agreements of the City to the full extent authorized or permitted by law, and
all such covenants, stipulations, obligations, representations, and agreements shall be binding
upon the City. Except as otherwise provided in this resolution, all rights, powers, and privileges
conferred, and duties and liabilities imposed upon the City by the provisions of this resolution or
of the Loan Agreement, Assignment, or other documents referred to above shall be exercised or
performed by the City, or by such officers, board, body, or agency as may be required or
authorized by law to exercise such powers and to perform such duties. No covenant, stipulation,
obligation, representation, or agreement herein contained or contained in the Loan Agreement,
Assignment, or other documents referred to above shall be deemed to be a covenant, stipulation,
City Council Meeting of April 25, 2011 (Item No. 6a) Page 7
Subject: Public Hearing & Final Bond Resolution - Issuance of Pvt Activity Rev Bonds for BSM
obligation, representation, or agreement of any elected official, officer, agent, or employee of the
City in that person’s individual capacity, and neither the members of the City Council nor any
officer or employee executing the Note shall be liable personally on the Note or be subject to any
personal liability or accountability by reason of the issuance thereof.
8. Except as herein otherwise expressly provided, nothing in this resolution or in the
Loan Agreement, expressed or implied, is intended or shall be construed to confer upon any
person, firm, or corporation, other than the City and the registered and beneficial owners of the
Note, any right, remedy, or claim, legal or equitable, under and by reason of this resolution or
any provision hereof or of the Loan Agreement or any provision thereof; this resolution, the
Loan Agreement and all of their provisions being intended to be, and being for the sole and
exclusive benefit of the City and the registered and beneficial owners of the Note issued under
the provisions of this resolution and the Loan Agreement, and the Borrower to the extent
expressly provided in the Loan Agreement.
9. In case any one or more of the provisions of this resolution, or of the documents
mentioned herein, or of the Note issued hereunder shall for any reason be held to be illegal or
invalid, such illegality or invalidity shall not affect any other provision of this resolution, or of
the aforementioned documents, or of the Note, but this resolution, the aforementioned
documents, and the Note shall be construed and endorsed as if such illegal or invalid provisions
had not been contained therein.
10. All acts, conditions, and things required by the laws of the State of Minnesota,
relating to the adoption of this resolution, to the issuance of the Note, and to the execution of the
Loan Agreement, the Assignment, and the other documents referred to above to happen, exist,
and be performed precedent to and in the enactment of this resolution, and precedent to the
issuance of the Note, and precedent to the execution of the Loan Agreement, the Assignment,
and the other documents referred to above have happened, exist, and have been performed as so
required by law.
11. The members of the City Council, officers of the City, and attorneys and other
agents or employees of the City are hereby authorized to do all acts and things required by them
by or in connection with this resolution and the Loan Agreement and the other documents
referred to above for the full, punctual, and complete performance of all the terms, covenants,
and agreements contained in the Note, the Loan Agreement, the Assignment, and the other
documents referred to above, and this resolution.
12. If for any reason the Mayor is unable to execute and deliver those documents
referred to in this resolution, any other member of the City Council, or any officer of the City
duly delegated to act on behalf of the Mayor, may execute and deliver such documents with the
same force and effect as if such documents were executed by the Mayor. If for any reason the
City Manager is unable to execute and deliver the documents referred to in this resolution, such
documents may be executed and delivered by any member of the City Council or any officer of
the City duly delegated to act on behalf of the City Manager, with the same force and effect as if
such documents were executed and delivered by the City Manager.
City Council Meeting of April 25, 2011 (Item No. 6a) Page 8
Subject: Public Hearing & Final Bond Resolution - Issuance of Pvt Activity Rev Bonds for BSM
13. The City hereby consents to the issuance of the Deephaven Note and the
application of the proceeds derived from the sale of the Deephaven Note to the redemption and
prepayment of the Prior Bonds.
14. The City hereby determines that the reasonably anticipated amount of tax-exempt
obligations which will be issued by the City during calendar year 2011 does not exceed
$10,000,000. For purposes of the preceding sentence, the term “tax-exempt obligation” does not
include the tax-exempt obligations described in Section 265(b)(3)(C)(ii) of the Internal Revenue
Code of 1986, as amended. The Note is hereby designated as a “qualified tax-exempt
obligation” by the City for the purposes of Section 265(b)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code of
1986, as amended.
15. This resolution shall be in full force and effect from and after its passage.
(The remainder of this page is intentionally left blank.)
City Council Meeting of April 25, 2011 (Item No. 6a) Page 9
Subject: Public Hearing & Final Bond Resolution - Issuance of Pvt Activity Rev Bonds for BSM
Adopted by the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota, on April 25, 2011.
Jeff Jacobs, Mayor
Tom Harmening, City Manager
Meeting Date: April 25, 2011
Agenda Item #: 8a
Regular Meeting Public Hearing Action Item Consent Item Resolution Ordinance
Presentation Other:
EDA Meeting Action Item Resolution Other:
Study Session Discussion Item Written Report Other:
TITLE:
Project Report: 2011 MSA Street Rehab (Park Center Boulevard) - Project No. 2010-1100.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Motion to Adopt Resolution Accepting the Project Report, establishing Improvement Project No.
2010-1100 approving plans and specifications, and authorizing advertisement for bids for
Improvement Project No. 2010-1100.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Does the Council wish to adopt the resolution and proceed with this project?
BACKGROUND:
History
The Municipal State Aid (MSA) street system is a network of streets, designated by the City,
which are eligible for funding from the state for periodic maintenance and reconstruction. MSA
streets are typically those major streets which have higher volumes of traffic and are required to
be constructed to a higher standard.
During the past several years, staff identified the need to rehabilitate portions of the MSA street
system through the City’s Pavement Management Program. The Pavement Management
Program was developed to extend pavement life and enhance system-wide performance in a
cost-effective and efficient way by providing the right maintenance or repair at the right time.
Using the City’s pavement management software, staff obtains street condition ratings and
monitors their performance. Staff then evaluates the condition of streets and selects cost-
effective treatments to extend pavement life.
The MSA system is analyzed at the same time as the rest of the residential street network as part
of the overall pavement management program. However, rather than maintaining MSA streets
on an area basis, like the residential street pavement management methodology, these streets are
identified for repair or reconstruction based on their current condition. Through the CIP process,
MSA projects are then programmed for major maintenance, rehabilitation or reconstruction.
Proposed Project
The following State Aid street segments identified for major maintenance, rehabilitation or
reconstruction efforts in 2011 are:
Street Start Point End Point Repair/Rehab. Type
Park Center Boulevard W. 36th Street 300 feet North of
Excelsior Boulevard
Mill and Overlay
City Council Meeting of April 25, 2011 (Item No. 8a) Page 2
Subject: Project Report: 2011 MSA Street Rehab (Park Center Boulevard) - Project No. 2010-1100
The Park Center Boulevard project involves pavement resurfacing by a mill and overlay process
where the top two (2) inches of pavement is ground off and then a new asphalt surface is paved.
The project also includes minor repairs on the concrete curb and sidewalk, minor storm sewer
repairs, and updates to the pedestrian curb ramps to meet current ADA standards. The project
construction is anticipated to last about one month. The project will be constructed under traffic.
Motorists will be guided through the work zone during periods of temporary lane closures.
The Engineering Staff has prepared plans and specifications for the Park Center Boulevard
project. Because MSA funds will be used to pay for this project, it is necessary for Mn/DOT to
review and approve the plans prior to construction. Mn/DOT performed a preliminary review of
our plan set and has noted minor corrections. We anticipate final approval by Mn/DOT in early
May. Mn/DOT approval must be obtained prior to opening of bids to obtain MSA
reimbursement for this work.
Park Summit Redevelopment Project
Staff from Community Development and Engineering are currently working with the owners of
the proposed Park Summit Redevelopment, located at the southeast corner of W. 36th Street and
Park Center Boulevard, and Target Corporation to consolidate driveway accesses from both
properties into a common intersection on Park Center Boulevard. At this time, concept drawings
are being developed and refined for the property owners’ review (see attached). The work to
consolidate the driveways into one intersection will require removal of an existing center
median, closure of existing driveways, construction of new median and construction of turn
lanes. As a result, staff has determined it would be best to postpone the mill and overlay work in
this redevelopment area until a development agreement is finalized between the property owners
and the City. However, it is recommended that the mill and overlay work further south of the
proposed new intersection move forward as the condition of the pavement on Park Center
Boulevard south of Target is in need of immediate rehabilitation and should not be delayed.
Staff will continue work with the two owners to develop final plans for consolidating the
driveways into a new intersection. This work is best suited to be performed under a separate
project from the mill and overlay work. Upon completion of final plans, cost participation will
be determined, agreements will be drafted and a Project Report will be presented for Council
approval. If approved by Council, the proposed driveway consolidation and intersection work
could yet be constructed during this construction season.
Summary
Due to the Park Summit Redevelopment Project, staff has revised this planned mill and overlay
project on Park Center Boulevard to start at the curve by Byerly’s and end about 300 feet north
of Excelsior Boulevard. Pavement rehabilitation on the north end of Park Center Boulevard will
be done in the future in conjunction with the planned Park Summit Redevelopment Project.
PUBLIC PROCESS:
Staff has met with each of the property owners/managers to review the proposed project and
answer any questions. Prior to the start of construction, letters will be mailed to the adjacent
property owners and tenants providing details of the work and project schedule. The city’s
website will also provide information on the proposed project.
City Council Meeting of April 25, 2011 (Item No. 8a) Page 3
Subject: Project Report: 2011 MSA Street Rehab (Park Center Boulevard) - Project No. 2010-1100
Project Timeline:
Should the City Council approve the Project Report, it is anticipated that the following schedule
can be met:
Approval of Plans/Authorization to Bid by City Council April 25, 2011
Advertise for bids Early to Mid-May
Bid Opening May 26, 2011
Bid Tab Report to City Council; Award contract June 6, 2011
Begin Construction Mid June 2011
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
This project was planned for and is included in the City’s adopted Capital Improvement Program
(C.I.P.). The project will be funded by Municipal State Aid funds (gas tax monies). The
estimated costs are as follows:
Estimated Costs
Construction Cost $230,912
Contingencies (10%) $ 23,091
Engineering & Administration (12%) $ 27,674
$281,677
Funding Sources
Municipal State Aid Funds $281,677
VISION CONSIDERATION:
Not Applicable.
Attachments: Resolution
Map of Project Location
Concept Drawing
Prepared by: Jim Olson, Engineering Project Manager
Reviewed by: Scott Brink, City Engineer
Mike Rardin, Public Works Director
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
City Council Meeting of April 25, 2011 (Item No. 8a) Page 4
Subject: Project Report: 2011 MSA Street Rehab (Park Center Boulevard) - Project No. 2010-1100
RESOLUTION NO. 11-______
RESOLUTION ACCEPTING THE PROJECT REPORT,
ESTABLISHING IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 2010-1100
APPROVING PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS, AND AUTHORIZING
ADVERTISEMENT FOR BIDS FOR IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS NO. 2010-1100
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park has received a report from the
City Engineer related to the 2011 MSA Street Improvement Program.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of St. Louis
Park, Minnesota, that:
1. The Project Report regarding Project No. 2010-1100 is hereby accepted.
2. Such improvements as proposed are necessary, cost effective, and feasible as detailed in
the Project Report.
3. The proposed project, designated as Project No. 2010-1100 is hereby established and
ordered.
4. The plans and specifications for the making of these improvements, as prepared under the
direction of the City Engineer, or designee, are approved.
5. The City Clerk shall prepare and cause to be inserted at least two weeks in the official
newspaper and in the Construction Bulletin an advertisement for bids for the making of
said improvements under said-approved plans and specifications. The advertisement
shall appear not less than ten (10) days prior to the date and time bids will be received by
the City Clerk, and that no bids will be considered unless sealed and filed with the City
Clerk and accompanied by a bid bond payable to the City for five (5) percent of the
amount of the bid.
6. The City Engineer, or designee, shall report the receipt of bids to the City Council shortly
after the letting date. The report shall include a tabulation of the bid results and a
recommendation to the City Council.
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council April 25, 2011
City Manager
Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
City Council Meeting of April 25, 2011 (Item No. 8a) Subject: Project Report: 2011 MSA Street Rehab (Park Center Boulevard) - Project No. 2010-1100Page 5
City Council Meeting of April 25, 2011 (Item No. 8a) Subject: Project Report: 2011 MSA Street Rehab (Park Center Boulevard) - Project No. 2010-1100Page 6
Meeting Date: April 25, 2011
Agenda Item #: 8b
Regular Meeting Public Hearing Action Item Consent Item Resolution Ordinance
Presentation Other:
EDA Meeting Action Item Resolution Other:
Study Session Discussion Item Written Report Other:
TITLE:
Resolution Approving 2011 International Association of Firefighters (IAFF) Local #993 Labor
Agreement.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Motion to Adopt the attached Resolution approving a Labor Agreement between the City and the
IAFF Local #993, establishing terms and conditions of employment for one year, from 1/1/11 –
12/31/11.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Does Council wish to approve the Labor Agreement between the City and the Local #993
Union?
BACKGROUND:
Staff is pleased to bring to Council the details of this contract agreement between the City and
Union for 2011. This is the second of three open contracts for 2011. Our Dispatch (Local 220)
group is still open.
The City and the Local 993 Union have had several negotiation sessions and have come to
agreement on the following changes to the contract:
Duration of 1 year (1/1/11 – 12/31/11).
Wage increase of 0% for 2011 (consistent with non-union and other settled groups).
Employer contribution for health insurance consistent with other groups for 2011 at $815
per month. If electing the high deductible health plan, the employer contribution is set at
$606.66 for premiums and $208.34 for VEBA contribution (consistent with other
groups).
Lump Sum Payment: A one time payment will be made to each union member in 2011
in the amount of $130.00.
o COMMENT: Our Police and Sergeant unions agreed to a Deferred Compensation
contribution of $10 per pay period ($260/year). A similar program was offered to
this group. The Union chose to instead receive a portion of that contribution as a
lump sum payment.
Clothing Allowance: The amount the employer provides as an annual clothing allowance
was increased by $130 to compensate for increases in clothing costs.
New License Requirement: New state statute requires Firefighter Licensing. The City
has agreed to pay the licensing fee.
New language was added to the employees’ sick and funeral leave banks, allowing leave
to be used in accordance with the City’s new ordinance for registered domestic partners.
Injury on Duty language was changed to more resemble the language in other contracts
and clarify the procedure.
City Council Meeting of April 25, 2011 (Item No. 8b) Page 2
Subject: Resolution Approving 2011 Intl Assoc Firefighters (IAFF) Local #993 Labor Agreement
Staff is pleased with this agreement and recommends approval. The proposed contract is on file
with the City Clerk. More detail is available upon request.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
Funds for this settlement are in the 2011 budget.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
Not directly applicable.
Attachment: Resolution
Prepared by: Ali Fosse, HR Coordinator
Reviewed by: Nancy Deno, Deputy City Manager
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
City Council Meeting of April 25, 2011 (Item No. 8b) Page 3
Subject: Resolution Approving 2011 Intl Assoc Firefighters (IAFF) Local #993 Labor Agreement
RESOLUTION NO. 11-____
RESOLUTION APPROVING THE LABOR AGREEMENT
BETWEEN
THE CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK
AND
INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF FIREFIGHTERS, LOCAL #993
JANUARY 1, 2011 – DECEMBER 31, 2011
WHEREAS, the City and the Union have reached a negotiated settlement covering the
terms and conditions of a Labor Agreement as permitted by the State of Minnesota Public
Employees Labor Relations Act, and
WHEREAS, the City Council may enter into such agreements as authorized by its
Charter;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of St. Louis
Park that the Mayor and City Manager are authorized to execute a Collective Bargaining
Agreement, City Contract #______ between the City of St. Louis Park and International
Association of Firefighters (IAFF), Local #993, effective January 1 – December 31, 2011.
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council April 25, 2011
City Manager Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk