Loading...
060986 CC BR AgP SHOREWOOD MEMO: TO: FROM: (l () . ' Qi!-y--e'.x'-~ "cJ ~-8-1',-~_.~/0 ael o cL,~~ DATE: ",.,..~v , " . J.c C.t"..f? ;~J -# /9JSC{f~ 0/ CJ () ~~cud cj 4u-~~.j . _ Q /1 c"p ~ V ~.~ '7'./ /,;, G i i ,.11 ; / ;JD~ ,/L~J~ - 1:- (:~, '- d-"~.." / i '1<3 00 Q 4CJL':) ,(~C(~ ,; ~l () () k' ~/I'-' /~!L / 9 / () 4; b-t) [) C)fiU,L A. .~ /b O. r/'~ ~CLu--'-~ S/I.2) ~ y' R~ 41 (51()f) ~ ()~ C;to 0 - 024J ,.[1- 0 (/9f()j (!-/C v (v' cv:":o , ,- I ./ ~..(,. (, '-.. < . 4 /}C,L,,-<-. If /- #CLs. ,~~c/ &e..;/ /If-~l :' ):!:.~)-i~,~~ / ~fN-/ ~~~ X;t v fr->-L.-1J . , /V> [d.d;} a:-li:J (/J7~, 0)C7Ck~~ 0~(,6. -. ~<./( (';P';:{) c1U">iL L. CeJ)(l"'{~ cya7 /u1 ,(ytLf-/' J ~- ~ dJ:"r' 'if' W (~-{I ( tf'l ~ /?'- ~)L /';.-V-t~1 Jac:O/s CJt?(I cL,.'-'1\dC.,'-?v,I'{) ai.d J'/..LL{_ ) ,U a /{/ aJ~r\ (j. KJ G cc L <--. U__L ':/71 t '-' ~2--J>?(:C4 Z:.-{ c "" '__ e-/c (0/' 0)( 9~7',A :2...; ~ CI:.Ut \cud ,l ~ /9tS ea...:} (I (/2 "_ - GL6 ):z"~ )L IL<.1 . LLt, i LeA_) vl/- ' ' (3jv~, U4~ " - .. 4 ..71 ~:r<u..-/ ).6</Cc,c .-t., cL.kiu/ - -L2~L 00/-<<. P2 () d () '<~ CU./LU (J,a.( I (-PI Ct (j!- S6 f ~j/) c<.-.aL-.:J. )t2~ (L.O)J //Z/~):Z__? ~ ~~ (_A<. /4 p-r ~ I L&/ ..' - /,/ .e:- . (?T ttJ..::J. ~_~LJ<SI-1: k-' ~7 ~~ ~ a~ a)J,-:t4/ tJ-.1:J L-__r"c~/~ ~ d . 0-, <-II (; ~I :~U-, {7 ,J,j a,;pt' ~~.r;. j ~ ".., C: Q'L#--r- / ~.",. ,..1' - d~"""\J' a. (! c.-A.;"" ~_. cpr;',/- bt<~ yJ,/y..>?~ W-eP'/)<...... ~{t,/A..'~f? ~L"~_""U te' ~~ ,--,;':')C,..."j".. t. .LJ .;2 A_.~. ;";7/ ." ~GiL'x''O ~vd~ ~(~ ... ,.,jJ.cL~:::V {2 f-...y~ d~~ ~.... CSt' /7 ~ ~~ 1500 NORTHWESTERN FINANCIAL CENTER 7900 XERXES AVENUE SOUTH BLOOMINGTON, MINNESOTA 55431 TELEPHONE: (612) 835-3800 TELECOP!ER: (612) 835-5102 LARKIN, HOFFMAN, DALY & LINDGREN, LTD. ATTORNEYS AT LAW 2000 PIPERJAFFRAY TOWER 222 SOUTH NINTH STREET MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 55402 TELEPHONE: (612) 338-6610 TELECOPIER: (612) 338-1002 May 14, 1986 Local Board of Review City of Shorewood Shorewood Board of Review City Hall 5755 Country Club Road Shorewood, Minnesota 55331 Re: James Winstead - 25-117-23-41-0040 19425 Highway 7, Shorewood Dear Members of the Board of Review: Our firm represents the above-referenced claimant with regard to the January 2, 1986, assessment of the above-referenced property. Pursuant to Minn. Stat. ~~ 271.01, subd. 5, and 278.01, subd. 1, we are mailing this letter to you on behalf of the claimant as an appearance by written communication before 'this Board to appeal the assessment of the property. We do not intend to make a personal appearance. Please direct all further communications regarding this matter to the undersigned. Thank you. s~relY, ~~;,~~ LARKIN, HOFFMAN, DALY & LINDGREN, Ltd. dp cc: James Winstead ADG:BE6 j 1 I l 2 I ~, cl::'/; p' ~.' ~~) /:: /' J ,;- e , f7'L /' :/r t- /' ,J^;. c The following is a summary of golf courses either municipally or privately owned which are open for public play: J ~ i -. ~3 k 1 ~ , ~ ~ '"' t ,. 'I '~~ . BROOKVIEW HOLLYDALE HA1WTON HILLS MAJESTIC OAKS sur-lDANCE OATONA GREEN H.lWEN COON RAPIDS ,j ~~ -~ 1 " j ~ t I i I 1 j 1 .: .~ .r: V'> I- <lJ C 3' o ~\ ~l ~\ ~ municipal 18 72 6,720 ~\ '" u c ::> o 0:: 36,800 18 71 confidential 18 71 6,176 66/67 confidential 18 9 72 72 D. f.1 D.f. D. f. D.f. D.F. 2 N.A. N.A. 18 1 ate N . A . 71 18 72 6,800 municipal 18 71 6,200 37 municipal 18 72 6,670 municipal 18 71 6,200 19 72 FRANCIS GROSS 3 municipal 18 71 6,361 25 THEODORE WIRTH 3 municipal 18 71 5,380 16 9 27 1 ,240 62 COLUMBIA3 BROOKlAlm3 BROOKl YN PARK COUNTRY CLUB municipal 9 27 1,031 64 D. f. VILLAGE GOLF BRIGHTWOOD HILLS D.f. ELM CREEK 9 32 2,355 D. f. municipal 9 27 9 30 1,721 69 9 34 2,417 9 27 1,293 tickets 25,144 40,000 39,466 in 1967 55,504 34 ,293 34,127 8,000 64 25,000 23,000 v. '" Q! ~.> co 0:: "'C' co <lJ -"" <lJ ClJ :;;:: i }~, '" CJ ..... '" c:.: >, 11 ~I <lJ -'" U 0,.- f- '" .- Q. 190 4.25 3.75 2.75 3.85 2.50 X 4.00 3.50 2.60 2.35 X X X 3.85 X 2.50 4.50 3.50 3.75 2.50 4.25 3.50 X 2.50 4.75 4.00 X 2.75 2.75 c o "'. ~I VJi (closed last 4 years) X 3.75 3.75 2.75 1.40 1.40 X X 2.25 2.00 X 2.00 2.00 X 3.60 3.60 No 2.60 2.35 1 Daily fee course. 2 Not availavle. 3 Indicates some type of discount - student, twilight, Minneapolis Park Board tickets, etc. 15 . .. ,..."'~~ ''''~m.!;j ~11'~IP~""<ll'~" .Id'........" ,~.''\,.' <,t,. "4'" ,.,' '.' ...J(' "",'';; " , J ".... ,i~,~j '\, ....~' -\;;, ~f.l.'" f.:o~ ~,\i ~ - .. ~ ~ ~"r"J'" ".' "~ ~ I-...;~Ii~ ~ "':. -.,.,. :'" .....1, 7< t... ",.AI.". ~~, ~ -"I. J<..'-t."y "' "f ......r~4;.. ~ i' ,..(~ ,. j ...~ 7J. " .. , . . 0r' '1.," ,.. . .....,.... " ~. l.t . '. -. *'~ '. ~. . ",> , 1 ';'l\;'>;; . ~... I '.. ~ .~ ..:..1;~, " -I;' . t. >lI?:I. .'}' " '1 "l I' 1"..t4'~:'.;:I ~':4l.f;:'Sl1 t ~:;~ ;:__,:J ~'I"~' -1'4",'1. )~,,"'lI!f _.; I; '.,,'\'11. 'l''i:.~;l'l~ \0 ',~" ."~" F" .', 'r : ...... _. ,,"_ II' f'." :'!If ,,' v ~. ~:J .'"J;""i t ,-~~,,~~, .. , I' Brookviel'; F 0 I'm e I' 1 y il P r i vat (' c 1 u b c 0 u r s e pur c hilS (' d by t h (' V ill age 0 f G old e n Valley. Recently remodeled, to ildd a driving range. The former club- house is used as a community recreation area including s~limming pool. ^ slightly rolling course with a creek running through it, fairly o p (' n II u t \'1 i t h 111 a t 1I1' C t r c c s . Hollydale A daily-fee 18, enlarged from an original 9-hole layout, this is essentially an open, flat courSe with a few hills and relatively few mature trees. While not a difficult test, the course has adequate length, is very well maintained, and provides enjoyable golfing. Should be considered as one of the better daily fee courses in this area. f I Hampton Hills Opened about six years ago as a 9-hole layout, the course has recently been expanded to 18 holes, short but within regulation length. Moderately rolling and with a good number of trees, the course is not irrigated as has yet to reach the quality of the better public courses in the metro area. Majestic Oaks Completely rebuilt in 1971 over the site of a mediocre pasture course, this will open shortly as a complete, 27-hole, daily-fee operation, consisting of a regulation 18 of championship design, plus a 9-hole "executive" length layout, and a driving range for lessons and prac- tice. As the terrain varies from well-wooded hills to sandy, slightly rolling farmland and reclaimed marsh, the course is alternately tight and wooded, or long and open, with abundant trapping, multiple tees, and a variety of water hazards. Clubhouse facilities are quite com- plete, and membership will be available. Opened this year, its input on the market area cannot yet be determined. Sundance 1 t I t i t . I f 1 i, A daily-fee 18, opened late last season in a relatively undeveloped area northwest of Osseo, almost bounding Hennepin County's Elm Creek Park Reserve. The course is rolling but virtually treeless; hence. fairways lack definition at present. The course is fully irrigated and owner designed by a long-time top local amateur. Men's and women's clubs have been formed, and a club pro retained. The clubhouse is quite small, and an existing barn is retained for storage. It has been promoted and could develop into a good public course. i' I I , t . t f , . I f t I f ! ~ i 1/ " Green Haven A regulation lB-hole course operated adjacent to U.S. Highway 52. Moderately rolling with a good number of mature trees, the COUI'se opened in 1937, with a second nine added in 1955. The course has men's and women's clubs, quite complete clubhouse facilities, is fully irrigated with a manual system, and is \'Iell patronized-- though not pressed near capacity. Coon Rapids An excellent municipal 18 of championship length and potential, with an unconventional fan-shaped layout ideal for tournament spectator ac6ommodation. Opened a half dozen years ago, the course is set on slightly rolling, very sandy ground with rather sparse stands of red oak. A large practice fairway is located in the center of the course. Generous greens and tees, ample trapping, and several water features combine for a challenging layout which has seen steadily increasing patronage. A good example of a quality course building its own market. Columbia The second Park Board course in Minneapolis, it opened in 1919 with six holes and a 5~ fee. The large clubhouse dates from 1925. Always hilly and far shorter than regulation length, Columbia has been . closed for several years of extensive rebuilding, much of which consists of lengthening the course and lowering some of the hills. It should be open for play this year and will take some pressure off the heavily-played Francis A. Gross Golf Course. Francis A. Gross Most heavily played of the Minneapolis Park Board courses. The pressure has been even greater since the closing of Columbia for rebuilding. Opened in 1925, it was bought on installments from course revenue from the original owner, Armour & Co. and operated meanwhile by the Park Board, being named Armour Golf Course. Located on some of the highest ground in the city, the course is of average length, moderately rolling with mature tree cover. Theodore Wirth Formerly called Glenwood, this is the oldest and probably the most scenic of the Minneapolis Park Board courses. First opened in 1916 with no greens fee, the course enjoyed heavy patronage from the outset, seeing an all-time maximum of 63,762 rounds in 1922. The chalet was opened in 1923 and there has been a winter skiing program for many years. The course was partially rebuilt in 1970, cutting down the more hills but causing a slight patronage slump in 1971 as players temporar- ily moved elsewhere. Well covered with mature trees, the course is also bounded by Basset's Creek. A nine-hole Par 3 layout was added in 1962, and has seen almost an equal number of yearly rounds to the regulati.on 18. . 18 '~~~';i~t>>-, ~',:.;:.._,:.;...;. -,,'_~," ~~.;"_~~..";"L. ""~"'c"',:t\'...~ Broollilnd --_._-- A very short, flat, open course purchased a few years ago by the Village of Brooklyn Park. The clubhouse is small, parking very limited, and the blandness of the layout may contribute to the limited patronage this course has received ___ below capacity. While not a course for the serious golfer, it seems well suited to beginners, and has an active instruction program. Brooklyn Park Country Club A daily-fee nine of "executive" length, that is, about 2/3 the length of the regulation nine.- The course is flat and open, but has several water features and is crGssed by Shingle Creek west to east. Fronting on U.S. Highway 52, the course is very accessible and is operated in conjunction with a driving range. The course is formerly named Osseo Park Brook. ~ Brightwood Hills Located north of 1-494 in New Brighton, this 3-year old, daily fee "executive" nine is slightly rolling with several 'rlater features, generally open with small greens, but nicely wooded around the clubhouse. There are no traps. Full irrigation, with water' taken from one of the ponds. The course was supplemented by a well last year. The clubhouse snackbar is quite attractive, housing the owner's law office. Season tickets are available, and patronage has been increasing steadily on this attractive course. Village Golf This 9-hole Par 3 course was purchased last year by the Village of New Hope. Brauer & Associates, Inc. had previously prepared a report for the Village outlining limitations and improvements required because of the hole layout, unusable areas, and poor condition of the course due to lack of maintenance. This last factor has been corrected, and the course is presently an attractive asset to the Village. Elm Creek Two daily fee nines of par 27 and 34, at the intersection of T.H. 55 and T.H. 101, but difficult to find in Hamel, run as a family operation. The course was designed and constructed over a period of about five years by the owner as a hobby. The layout includes several ponds which require accurate shots. The topography is very steep over half of the course, and a mature oak forest gives much of the course a beautiful setting. . 19 <:. ~(/.~:~. ~f'~~l';~~ l~.t{'::::'~f.;'",/~ .~:,:.., ,,('1.lI" ,i ~ ;.,:.}" .1iJt;j\~ <21 ."t~t't,.'trHJ:l';""'~~~{<'" ;:~~,"~~t"~' i~' I l'~' t"",,::1'1\!1~;~:1\ '. . . 1. ", t;:,.'!iI:t' li;;,,t\V ';f:' If i., "1 r.. ~"'.. 'if .\ ~ " >Of' ,"-'" l'j. j,. j> "'- ., ...""'~: 1 ,-..,.,.. .4H4.,,,,,, '!. ;:'tt.,,, ., P t- J, ;..', 'f .,.~, "..x,l;~ ..i~" I _ ~~^~" '. "r , ',.~ ".n l~ .:~ "\f~' ".. t""~. "' \1" t ~t." l". t ~ - .' u:;;...'f' ~ ~)! ... 't-,..~ot, f" e"'? .~... , "'I ~ .It r "J" ~ t ,."t. ~."J~ 't ... <t." ;,f,l i1\'.. l"~l- .' ~l-"' \, < .. 14-' ~-; .. ANALYSIS The population of the market area (ilpproximate 10 mile radius) in 1971 was estimated at 488,000. It contained 20 total courses, 1 private course, 11 public courses, and 8 9-hole courses, These figures will be compared with National Golf Course Foundation figures for 1971 for state and national ratios, relating the number of courses to the population. The unit of measurement used here is population per 18-hole regulation public course. Each 9-hole course counts as 1/2 a unit. The market area has 15 such l8-hole equivalents. However, we feel that the Brookland, Brooklyn Park and Brightwood Hills courses will lation course. are 9-hole Par 3 courses; the two in the City are short, of marginal quality and offer little challenge or attraction to the serious golfers. The Brightwood Hills course is also a 9-hole Par 3 but is located so far away as to attract few golfers from the Brooklyn Park area. Par 31s have limited appeal and drawing power, therefore, these three courses should be given a smaller value for calculation purposes. The following is a comparison of population to public golf facilities: National State Metro Market Area Population per 18-Hole Regulation Course 40,667/course 40,9l8/course 51,800/course 35.000/course This indicates that at present, the market area has slightly more golf courses than the state and nation in terms of golf facilities available to the public, while the metropolitan area overall has a comparative shortage of courses. This particular area has an unusual distribution of existing courses. A look at the accompanying plate shows almost all 18-hole courses tncluding the good ones (Theodore Wirth, Francis Gross, Columbia, Hollydale, Brookview, Coon Rapids and Majestic Oaks), all occur at the extreme edge of the lO-mile radius. The only courses within the immediate vicinity of the City and proposed sites are three 9-hole Par 3's. None of the communities making up the bulk of the market; Brooklyn Park, Brooklyn Center, New Hope, Crystal, Fridley, etc. have 18-hole courses. These communities alone have a population of over 130,000 and an estimated population of over 200,000 by 1990. Thus, the overall market areas ratio of courses to population is somewhat misleading. A course in the proposed location would have a good competitive position. In addition to the number of courses and their location, it is necessary to look at how heavily the courses are played. . ,.,,, LV , ~.'., ~,.; ". >f~~.~'f~ .';"".i!\,,:<1p~'~f' "'\.r,..t"!!~.. 'i"! ' ,,~~.~, 4~W}4l';' '~4.t,': -- 'J: ". ~ '.1 ," t)~ ,f '. ,.'~ ,.. tf.r ~tl ...." r;;fft..~.',:.t;'1, :AJ ~~"~-'.'~;.~ .'1'.' ., ~, ... ,.. . 1 <', ..fif..tl, ""J \Jl'^~''#.'-''''r~.I. ,'\', . i'., , " . " .. ., . " .' -., l~ u.1 t~.~ '<!,i ~'1\~),~,"j'"l'.r""'" 1'4<'fr4("T~~JE'Tt:.'!it th...- ,",hl..-n' .,t,,'.,,;J l'Mo 1. .'...h4 '1'''/1''''1 >f*<!' ~ ~.".~'" "'.. """"'J .!...~ ". 1 JI- 1 . ~ ... -~ ~ ~l{;t""'f~ .~,. ,", ... .~" <ri\\~':.;E ~i., ,,'.1 I"" ''', 7' ~~(." ,," ,Ll ~ ~ ,~j ~ ii'~ .J}j;}.Cii,~f'1b ii'~l :"'ft, ";,~d"Aiij;j! ''I- ~:f.~\ f!o\.!t<~~~ .<~"J.~.&" .F ."-,,,'lft 'let., ,~~ ." -Ii''/; ir- 1" ' "" ",i'" ~ 4.tC.t_.}~tf ffJl~~l~l. . f~~';i~:ri#'":~~~;;~1~'~~~'~r}j~'\:'~+~:~~i.{'~<if~F<~~1~ ~.~~t 1~~ ~l 4;-r ~':'''':,ft'l ~;f>>'+J...;~-:J~. "~' > ~~ :'t"' There are approximately 200 playing days per year in this climate, A review of National Golf Foundation statistics for puhlic courses in the midwest region indicates an average of slightly less than 40,000 rounds, per year (pro-rated on 200 playing days per year) for 18-hole courses. With this amount of play, courses are full to capacity during weekends and peak afternoon hours. At this level, golf reaches a less enjoyable 1 eve 1; i n ill) i 1 i t Y tOg c t tee t i Iii e s, 1 0 n g, t i III C - con s u:n i n 9 r 0 u n d s and crowded courses are comlllon to many golfers at this time. A summary of the 18-hole regulat~on courses in the market area indicates the following amounts of play: Brookviel'l Hollydale Hampton Hills Francis Gross Theodore Wirth Coon Rapids Sundance Majestic Oaks Columbia Datona 36,800 confidential confidential 55,504 34,293 40,000 new course reopened this year reopened this year not available Francis Gross and Coon Rapids are the only courses that reach or exceed this level. (Francis Gross has traditionally been one of the heaviest played courses in the Twin Cities.) Where the level of play was below this level, an attempt was made to determine the cause. Both Brookview and Theodore Wirth have experienced recent remodeling, and Brookview has had a history of peat problems. Two courses, Hollydale and Hampton Hills; did not wish to divulge their rounds of play. However, Hollydale is well played, and reservations are needed during weekends. Hampton Hills probably has less play. Three courses with no recent record are entering the market area this year. Given this lack of complete information and the new courses, it is difficult to accurately a~sess the current market, but it seems evident there is some capacity for more golf in the areas just in the existing courses. However, the addition of new, good-quality courses in an area can generate increased interest and play in the region. School systems can use the courses to teach golf and introduce new golfers to the game. If the projected population rates are realized, the course to popu- lation ratios will increase radically. The population of the market area will be almost 3/4 of a million people by 1990. Many projections indicate that leisure time available to people in our society will increase greatly in the next two decades. This can already be seen in the advent of the 4-day workweek and in increased vacations. This factor, plus projected increases in discretionary income will increase consumption of all recreational services. . ~:,.",.,~w~., ..u.. ;~~.;J...<"~..,.,.;,, .', ......; .:.' 4..' ,:. .....~, .1. ...."'., . , . ,"'" ,q 'J"'7K' l \I"~ '.,'.. -.-,\,,' 't ~'l!l""; ,.:~.. ; ~c.f[j.'- i'}.,.' '.:..:-~ '..,,'. ....."iJ..~ "'~i'" "'I' " 'A. "<,< "., l't ~}'-). r ,.+ '4 ~!!t ~....\,~" ~, .~J'llf'tr",'J. ~rt *:.",~.f .. .~..., ;t,~~~~~, ~ ltr.\iJ~":)~,l,'~~ .~1.:~ . ~i t i , ;.yI, }, ~~ ~. , "t, .~. .~, "" , ".i~. .l- 'J',':"" '. I " "'f'~", '1"'~ ~,~;'t~~, "*, ~ .~! '''' '.. ,..,.. .....;~" ,J -, :. ' -.,\ 'f' . , . .1 The remainder of this section is broken down as follows: 1. A s a In p 1 e 0 f the rat i n 9 she e t s h 0 \'i i n gal 1 the f act 0 I' sin vol v e d and the relative values in the selection process. 2. A bl'ief description of each of the factors and their impact on golf course development. 3. Ratings of each site with an accompanying evaluation of the relative strengths and weaknesses of each. 4. An overall summary of the sites. SITE EVALUATION CRITERIA Location Vehicular Access - The ability to reach the course easily from all portions of the market area is a primary element in the success of any recreational facility. Pedestrian Access - This is directly related to adjacent land use and whether there are people living and working in the area who can walk to the course. This is more of a bonus than a major factor in overall feasibility. Urban Suitability - What effect will the course have on the city and its growth pattern? Is a golf course compatible with existing land use patterns, parks, or projected community and regional plans? Exposure - The visibility of the course and facilities to the general public. This can be a strong element in the marketability of the course. Also, will the green space afforded by a golf course have a maximum impact upon the city and its image? Tax Base - This refers to the loss of future tax revenues from using a site for public purposes rather than permitting private develop- ment. Is the site good developable land or of marginal quality unsuited for construction? Design Factors Size:Overall - Is there sufficient gross acreage to support a quality golf facility; 18 or 27-holes? Size:Usable - Are there portions of the site which cannot be used for golf due to soils, topography, deed restrictions, easements, drainage, etc. Shape:Orientation - Will the site in question lend itself to a proper golf layout, fairway orientation, sequence of holes, flow of traffic and safety of play, etc.? Topography - Rolling or undulating land is an asset to providing visual interest and range of challenges. graphy can be wasteful, costly and frustrating for player while a flat site is bland and monotonous. a golf course Severe topo- the average . Vegetation - Mature trees and plant materials provide much of the character of any golf course. They provide scale, background and framing for greens and fairways and are a primary factor in pro~ viding a more challenging and enjoyable experience for the golfer. 25 ~~.l)'.fn~"';~"""""~'<ill"1~.,,,,,,'f' ,~~:r:-,~>::;~Y~-~~: ,0_ ,.,~' " ',>- '~-"::,:~,:,4'C'-:_~~t";~:_-'~ . ," - . , ,~ <' . I" ,~ ":i .,,1 ~J"'. ,ft.,\, "'N-~~:' l _,ot 4~'\:J '~"i. ",~.~~~!t?~f'! l'.'" ~: ~'1't. i -,,,-:.....-.,. . t"'" ~ ~,'. "7ft..~. ' ;"4"" ," ,~.Jo,,, ~,r,; if+ t ,."" l<'~'" - . \; "';0" -L" , '.. ~ f'~'r:~\f,.t t~ft.'...8..; ">>, ,,~ "\:'tf~.tl,;:.~,l). ~~~tj: l "', ~ t l,> 'Jl~",.I..,. ~~:r '" SITE EVALUATIOrJ BflCKGROUiiD The City of Brooklyn Park reviewed a wide range of potential sites throuqhout the community. These were narrowed down to the four most favorable sites. The function of this report is to provide a thorouoh evaluation of these four sites as to their suitability for a golf course. PROCESS A wide range of factors must be considered in any golf course site selection. As in any comparative evaluation process, a set of con- sistent criteria must be established and applied to all the alternative choices. In this analysis a total of 29 factors have been set up, and the potential sites judged against these factors in the following manner: * A numerical rating system is employed with each factor having a range from 9 (Excellent) to 1 (Unsatisfactory). * These individual site factors are weighted to give the most emphasis to those factors most critical to golf development. This is also done on a numerical basis from 9 to 1. * An assessment of each of these concerns is made after an exami- nation of site conditions, projected community plans and all available background material. Each factor then receives a numerical score consisting of the numerical rating of the site multiplied by its relative weight. * The factors are grouped into four primary areas of concern: location, design potential, construction, and maintenance; the scores for the factors are added and a subtotal is established for each primary factor. * A sum of the factors is totaled for each site with the site receiving the highest total being the most suitable for golf purposes. It must be understood that these are comparative values,not hard or absolute numbers. There is no way to place an absolute value on intangible or qualitative factors such as topography, location, vegetation, or orientation, etc. However, in any situation such as this, where a great number of factors must be considered and compared for four different sites, some type of comparative rating system must be established. The process presented here provides a workable framework for evaluating the individual strengths and weaknesses of a range of sites. It further shows how the individual factors make up the composite potential of the site for golf development. . ',., CRITERIA SITE u +-' '" c:: 4- ClJ (l) VI r- 0) r- to +-' ClJ ~ l\J U Q) VI >< > c w c:( ::;:l ~!eioht 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 Score GOLF COURSE SITE [VALUATION LOCATION - vehiculcr 9 7 4 DP::TGN Size - overall t: Si7P - liS?)'n <} ShaDe/OriF~tation 7 TODocra~hv 8 Veoetation / Flexibility 7 Control 7 I Intrusions 5 I Overa 11 Golf Qua 1 itv 8 , Subtotal Subtota 1 Tonsoi1 8 Sub-soi 1 7 Ea rth\.:ork 6 Reclamation - fi 11 7 Drainace 7 r,rnund ~;ii ter 7 Clearina [, GnJbbina 4 Pl;:>nt r.'.:>toY'i;l1 c; I 5 Utilitips I 5 Construction Cost I 7 CONSTRUCTION Subtotal MAINTENMlCE Accessibilit Draina p - Settle~ent Soil Off-Site Drainoge Subtotal TOTAL . 26 Flexibility - This factor is a cOlllposite derived from the previous criteria. It invulvcs the capacity of the site to provide several good design alternatives to the course designer. Control - This involves two factors relating to clubhouse and facility location: First, the potential ability to easily control play on both nines and visually supervise play (not always possible); and second, to control unwanted ingress and egress to the site. Intrusions - Those activities or physical factors generating noise, odor, glare, unwanted activity or unSightly views which would effect the quality of the golfing environment and experience. Overall Golf Potential - Every golf course has its own image; held by its regular golfers and presented to its visitors. This quality is a composite of all the above factors and yet, in the case of a golf course, the whole is more than the sum of its parts. This quality is an intangible factor, hard to quantify or measure in hard numbers, yet is an overriding factor in site consideration, and we have given it a corresponding weight in the evaluation process. The character of the land forms the basis for any course. Is the site somewhat small, the cost higher, or harder to get to? Perhaps any or all of these concerns may be outweighted by the presence of a lake, stream or particularly interesting topography or natural feature which will give the course a unique character. Construction Topsoil - Obviously important is maintenance of turf and plant materials and the appearance of the course. Availability of good soil is particularly critical in tee and green construction. If topsoil is not available on the site, it must be acquired and construction costs will be higher. Subsoil and General Soil Conditions - The presence of large peat areas, rock or boulders, large amounts of stones will increase costs. Peat soils native to Minnesota require more costly construction methods. Earthwork - The amount of grading and shaping required for drainage, playability, safety and to add interest to the course. Reclamation:Fill - The amount of material necessary to fill or sub- stantially alter a low bog area for the purpose of golf course construc- tion. The presence of sufficient fill on the site is of particular importance. If there is no source of fill immediately available, construction cost will substantially increase. Drainage - The ability of the site to drain water. The need for construc- tion of drain tile, culverts, bridges, ponds or stream bed altera- tions and improvements. Ground Water - A high water table and poorly drained soils mean extra expense in construction and in maintenance of the course and a less- than-good playing surface much of the time. Clearing and Grubbing - Any necessary tree and brush removal. Plant Materials - How much additional plantin~ will be requir~d? Is there planting stock available on the site? 27 f :;',.\~~( ~ C LN rTR LARKIN, HOFFMAN, DALY & LINDCJREN, LTD. TEt['r H~);\f. A TTORNEY5 AT L.-'\ \Y./ f)iPEH jA.FFHf,y TevvEH _1.').1 ~UUTH i'-JiNIH '~rHr:[T MINNE;\P()Li~. M1NNf.':>()['\ ,)t;;.tUc' n-LE'f"ri()~n~' jlJI }', ~ 1('\ ,; rt~U:( \.~PiLR i,()l~) 1 .~n 1002 May 14, 1986 Local Board of Review City of Shorewood Shorewood Board of Review City Hall 5755 Country Club Road Shorewood, Minnesota 55331 Re: James Winstead - 25-117-23-41-0040 19425 Highway 7, Shorewood Dear Members of the Board of Review: Our firm represents the above-referenced claimant with regard to the January 2, 1986, assessment of the above-referenced property. Pursuant to Minn. Stat. SS 271.01, subd. 5, and 278.01, subd. 1, we are mailing this letter to you on behalf of the claimant as an appearance by written communication before this Board to appeal the assessment of the property. We do not intend to make a personal I appearance. Please direct all further communications regarding this matter to the undersigned. Thank you. S~rely, ~~/~~~ LARKIN, HOFFMAN, DALY & LINDGREN, Ltd. dp cc: James Winstead ADG:BE6 NO BASIS EXISTS FOR ANY CHAN~E IN LAND OR rnJILDIN~ VALUES There was no chanpe in 1986 assessments for the ~eneral area. There were no chanpes at the Minnetonka ~ountry Club that would trig~er an increase. The Assessor's increase of 161% over the 1985 values is incredible and should be disallowed in its entirety. In the past the Assessor's office had a special "squad" that re- viewed polf course values and so-called t1equali~ed them" where nec- essary. Their representative came out to measure and value our buildin~ for assessment purposes and even supplied a copy of his print for our files. Increases have been made in our assessment to reflect chanpes in real-estate values over the years and there- fore our 1985 assessed values are up-to-date. THE ORCHARD CARDENS COUNTRY CLUB CASE CLEI\RLY DEMONSTRATES THAT THE METHOD OF VALUATION USED BY THE ASSESSOR IS ILLEGAL. The Assessor values shown in ~hibit #1 and an analysis thereof on Exhibit #2 clearly shows how ludicrous and illoP'ical their data is. The Supreme Court held: "Under the Minnesota Open Space Prop- erty Tax Law, Minn. Stat. # 273.112 (1978) the Dakota County Assess- or may not determine that the open space value per acre for all p'olf courses in Dakota County is equal." Exhibit #3 illustrates the form- ula used by our Assessor: nUsin1'" $950.00 Acre as the Value of Land Suitable for a Golf Course.1t Accordin~ to the Hennepin County Assess- or Lafayette's lake-shore property is worth $950 per acre. Assuming an acre of land with 200 feet on the lake shore, at a current value of $2000.00 per front foot, Lafayette's m~rket value would approxi- mate $400,000.00 per acre. Professional appraisers have" advised that there is no basic value for wet peatland such as ours. In the .supreme Courts's rulinp: "The Tax ~ourt found that the open space value had been arbitra rily set at $2,200 for each acre of golf course land. The ~ourt concluded that the open space value should be directly oroportional to the market value of the land....t1. It is to be noted that our Assessor had arbitrarily set a value of $950 an acre, has arbitrarily set a golf course size of 170 acres, (Mtka has 116 acres), has arbitrarily ignored any market value of land. Exhibi t No. 2 shows the "Open Space Illa lue per J\cre". You w ill note that the Minnetonka Country Club has the third highest valuation. We ere higher than such Clubs as Interlachen, Oak Ridge, Wayzata, Woodhill, Minneapolis, Golden Valley, etc. Visualize real-estate values in those areas closer in to MinaBDolis and hi~hly developed, high priced realestate, as compared with our location with our wet- peatland type of p'olf course We also have an oddity in our situation. The golf course is besic- aly situation on peat land. History has shown that it's highest and best use is as a golf course. Under the open-land law the assessor is forbidden to tax such land at its market value (its hiphest and best use). It would f~llow therefore, that by taxing Minnetonka Country ~lub as a polf course the Assessor is v ioletinp: the law again. The Land should be taxes as wet peat-land, not -1- at $9,189 per acre. Weare being assessed on an open space value which is hi~her than our market value. LAND VALUE: The ~olf course is situated on low-lyin~ land, approximately 80% of which is wet-peatland. Exhibit #5, showin~ the Basic ~olf course layout, indicates via the pink shading the extent of our peat land. The areas colored in blue are actual open draina~e ditches which were dug, as a last-ditch effort, to drain the land so a person could walk on it. ~he normal buried drain tile method cannot drain peatland. The ~olf course property can be compr:red to the center of a saucer. All the surrounding property on all sides drains onto the ~olf course. There ere culverts under Country Club Road, Yellowstone Trail which drain directly on the ~olf course. The land to the west and north of club property also drain onto the golf course. The water table on the golf course is down only 2-3 feet. There is one 12" drain f or the golf course and the entire surround- in~ area, which runs under Yellowstone Trail, under Hiway 7, and drains into Minnewashta Lake. This is a man-made drain. In the past it has often plu~ged up from excessive rainfall, with a result- in~ lake, 3 feet in depth,coverin~ fairways #14, 15, 2, 1, 16, 13, 4, 8, 5, and part of 9. We had to build a cart path elevated three feet above ground level on #4 fairway so golfers could I1walkl1 through. The land surface is so ungt~ble it is not posstble to drive regular equipment without trackin~ up, cutting into, and ~ettin~ stuck. We have purchased specially designed lipht-weight equipment to minimi~e tearing up the surface. When we were forced to dig the "blue" drain- a~e ditches it had to be scheduled for the winter months, until the ~round was frozen down at least two feet so that standard small trucks could haul. We are the only golf course in the Twin City area that owns its own trench-dirtrlm,: machine. This was necess8ry because we are constantly intallin~ new plastic drain lines to feed into the draina~e ditches. Water will not drain laterally throu~h peRt, so where one drain line will handle 8 wide area of regular ~round, peRt requires drain lines to be installed much closer to~ether. After two or three winters, the freezinr ection heaves up the peat and the drain line and thus disrupts the flow of water, requirin~ new lines to be installed adjacent to the old lines. Last week four new drain lines were installed, with many more on the schedule to handle recurrin~ wet spotso If the rolf course were to be abandoned, the only buildinr lots feasible would be those fronting on Smithtown rioad, Country Club Road, and perhaps two or three lots on Yellowstone Trail. All other land is wet peatland wi th no roads possible because the r round is not stable to carry the loads and buildin~ foundationso -2- BUILDING VALUES: The Clubhouse buildin~ value does not refledt the application of the Open Space Law. The Hennepin ~ounty Pssessors have advised that if the buildinp is a special-purpose buildin~ for use as a private country club its valuation would be lower than the rep-ular market-value based on the fact that if the p'olf course were to be abandoned, the buildinp' would have a severely-limited re-sale value. The Assessed buildinp' values as shown in Exhibit #1 show the dis- crepancies in comparinpo Minnetonka' s buildin.~ to those at the "luxury cltl.bs.tt Lafayette for example is only $240,000 hi~her, yet its buildin~ is four times our size, not to mention the $400,000.00 spent on their swimminp' pool buildin~. Golden Valley is also only $240,000.00 hi~her with a clubhouse twice our size, and also with a swimminp pool complex. Similpr comparisons can be made with the other clubs in the exhibit. GO:t.F COURSE uQUALITY" RATINGS: The Assessor attempted to rate the "quality' of the courses li~ted in Exhibit #2. The rankin~ of the courses as indicated by the "Value Per Acre" shows Minnetonka the third hi~hest, exceeded only by Lafayette and Bdina. Accordin~l~ Minnetonka has a better polf course than Oolden Valley, Interlachen, Minneapolis, Oak Rid~e, Wayzata, Woodhill, Olympic Hills etc. The above rankinp' has brought snickers from the members of the Minnesota Section of the Professional Golfers Association. These men have played all the courses mentioned inumerable times and are in a far better position to evaluate the "quality" of a p-olf course. Exhibit #6 is the photostat from their pUblication,"1986 Minnesota PGA Annual't pap'es 42 and 43, entitled "Best 18 Holes...." and "The 20 Best Golf <'-ourses in the l'1innesota Secti(m." 1'1innetonka Country (jlub is conspicuous by its absence from both pa~es, yet the Assessor says we pre better than all except Edina Country Club. Prestigous tournaments soonsored by the United States Golf Associa- tion have never been held at Minnetonka. Durinp' the current ~olf season four US".A tournaments will be held as follows: June 17 Senior Open Qualifyinp' Golden Valley Aup'. 12 Amateur-Qualifyinp. Olympic Hills Sept. 8 Mid-P.mateur Qualifyinp: Way~ata Sept 15-20 Senior Amateur Championship Interlachen The "quality" of a p'olf course is reflected in the cost of member- shlp. Exhibit #7 shows the relative costs of the private clubs in the Assessor's jurisdiction. Minnetonka has the second lowest over-all cost. After addin~ the yearly dues and assessments, to the amortized cost of the entry fees, the total yearly cost of the other clubs shows a ranp'e of 50-100% hi~her than what l'1innetonka can char~e its members. Minnetonka <'-ou~trl Club is considered a "second-class" club be- cause of its "wet' p'olf-course. Jlfter a heavy rain we have to close the course to members for a day or more. Our members are then forced to go to other courses to play. As a result many of our -3- members have transferred to the other clubs with a dry course. We have never been able to have a full membership of 325-350. Our aVera~e over the years has been 200-225. IN SUMivrJ'~ RY : The Plymouth City Council at their tax-review meetin~ held on June 2, 1986 completely rejected the Hennepin County Assessor's valuation as shown in Exhibit #1, and concluded that there should be no chan~e over the 1985 assessed valuations. The ~ol~ courses involved there were, Elm Creek, Hampton Hills, and Hu~h's nrivin~ Ranpe. The Eden Prairie City Council at their tax-review meetin~ held on June 3, 1986 also completely rejected the Hennepin County Assessor's valuations and concluded that there should be no chan~e over the 1985 assessed valuations. The ~olf course involved there was Edenvale. Minnetonka country Llub respectfully holds that the 1986 assessments should not be increased over the 1985 assessments" (~' ~'---< ('I ,~fl --- / i 21(. -4- MINNESOTA OPEN SPACE PROPERTY TAX LAW Laws 1969, Chapter 1135 (M.S. 273.112) Subdivision 1. This section may be cited as the "Minnesota Open Space Property Tax Law." Subd. 2. The present general system of ad valorem property taxation in the State of Minnesota does not provide an equitable basis for the taxation of certain private outdoor recreational, open space and park land property and has resulted in excessive taxes on some of these lands. Therefore, it is hereby declared that the public policy of this state would be best served by eq\1alhing tax burdens upon private outdoor, recreational, open space and park land within this state through appropriate taxing measures to encouraae private development of these lands which would otherwise have to be provided by goveI'lllllental authority. Subd. 3. Real estate shall be entitled to valuation and tax deferment under this section only if it is: (a) actively and exclusively devoted to golf or skiing recreational use or uses and other recreational uses carried on at such golf or skiing establishment; (b) five acres in size or more; and (c) (1) operated by private individuals and open to the p\1blic; or (2) operated by firms or corporations for the benefit of employees or guests; or (3) operated by private cluhs having a membership of SO or morc. Subd. 4. The value of any real estate described in subdivision 3 shall upon timely application by the owner, in the manner provided in subdivision 6, be determined solely with reference to its appropriate private outdoor, recreational open space and park land classification and val\1e notwithstandina Minnesota Statutes 1961, Sections 272.03, S\1bdivision 8, and 273.11. ln determining s\1ch value for ad valorem tax purposes the assessor shall not consider the val\1e s\1ch real estate wO\1ld have if it were converted to com- mercial, industrial, residential or seasonal residential use. Subd. S. The assessor shall, however, make a separate determi nation of the market val\1e of such real estate. The tax based \1pon the appropriate mill rate applicable to such property in the taxing district shall be recorded on the property assessment records. Subd. 6. Application for deferment of taxes and assessment under this section shall be made at least 60 days prior to Jan\1ary 2 of each year. Such application shall be filed with the assessor of the taxina district in which the real property is located on such form as may be prescribed by the Convnissioner of Taxation. The a~sessor may req\1ire proof by affidavit or otherwise that the property qualifies under subdivision 3. Subd. 1, When real property which is being, or has been, valued and assessed under this section is sold or no longer qualifies under subdivision 3, the portion sold or the portion which no longer qualifies under subdivision 3 shall be subject to additional taxes, in the amount equal to the difference between the taxes determined in accordance with subdivision 4. and the amount determined under subdivision S, provided, how- ever, that the amount determined under subdivision 5 shall not be great.er than it would have been had the actual bona fide sale price of the real property at an arms length transaction been used in lieu of the market value determined under subdivision 5. Such additional taxes shall be extended against the property on the tax list for the current )'ear, provided, however, that no interest or penalties shall be levied on such additional taxes if timely paid, and provided further, that such additional taxes shall only be levied with respect to the last seven years that the said property has been valued and assessed under this section. Subd. 8. The tax imposed by this section shall be a lien upon the property assessed to the same extent and for the same duration as other taxes imposed upon property wi thin this state. The tax shall be annually ex- tended by the county auditor and shall be collected and distributed in the manner provided by law for the collection and distribution of other property taxes. Subd. 9. This section shall apply to assessments for tax p\1rposes made beginning in 1970 used to determine taxes payable in 1971. HC211 Commissioner of Taxation Fora 132 APPLICATION FOR VALUATION AND TAX DEFERMENT OF PRIVATE OUTDOOR RECREATIONAL, OPEN SPACE AND PARK LANDS Laws 1969, Chapter 1135 (M.S. 273.112) To Assessor, County of State of ~Iinnesota. , beina first duly sworn, deposes and says that_he_ is/are the owner(s), or a duly authorized officer of such owner(s). of the followina described real estate situated in the of , in said County of , State of Minnesota: Affiant herewith requests that the aforesaid real estate be valued in the forthcomina assessment and that taxes based on any such higher valuation be deferred under the provisions of the Minnesota Open Space Property Tax Law, Laws 1969, Chap- ter 1135. In support of this request affiant submits that the conditions of use and of ownership of the above described property does, as herein provided, meet all of the requirements of this act. 1. The above described real estate is actively and exclusively devoted to golf or sHine recreational use or uses and other recreational uses carried on at such golf or ski ing establishment. "Yes" or "No" 2. The above described real property consists of five or more acres. uYes" or "No" 3. All of the above described real estate is operated in accordance with the requirements of this law and is: (a) Operated by private individuals and open to the public. "Yes" or "No" ; or (b) Operated by firms and corporations for the benefits of employees or guests. "Yes" or "No" ___.; or (c) Operated by private clubs having a membership of 50 or more. "Yes" or "No" _ hereby declare .that I have read the provisions of this act and that the information contained in this application is, to the best of my knowledee, true and correct. further agree to provide information relating to the operation. use or the sale of ..ny portion of the real estate described herein which would cause this property to be no longer eligible for the deferment of taxes under provisions of the law. Subscribed and sworn to before me this_ day of SI~ATUAE 19 tITLE N.IME OF OVINER O~ER' S AOORESS STATEMENT OF ASSESSOR certify that I have reviewed the aforegoing application and upon due consideration do herewith APPROVE _ DENY (cross out one) such request for consideration in assessment for the year beginning January 2, 19_. 19_ ccu.TY ASSESSOR Application for deferment of valuation with respect to taxes payable under the provision of this act shall be filed annually on or before November 3rd of the year prior to the assessment date on which such taxes are based. ... SITE EVALUATION CR1TER1A location Vehicular Access - The ability to reach the course easily from all portions of the mat"ket area is a primary element in the success of any recreational facility. Pedestrian Access - This is directly related to adjacent land use and whether there are people living and working in the area who can walk to the course. This is more of a bonus than a major factor in overall feasibility. Urban Suitability - What affect will the course have on the city and its growth pattern? Is a golf course compatible with existing land use patterns, parks, or projected community and regional plans? Exposure - The visibility of the course and facilities to the general public. This can be a strong element in the marketability of the course. Also, will the green space afforded by a golf course have a maximum impact upon the city and its image? Design Factors Size:Overall - Is there sufficient gross acreage to support a quality golf facility; 18 or 27-holes? Size:Usable - Are there portions of the site which cannot be used for golf due to soils, topography, deed restrictions, easements, drainage, etc. Shape:Orientation - Will the site in question lend itself to a proper golf layout, fairway orientation, sequence of holes, flow of traffic and safety of play, etc.? Topography - Rolling or undulating land is an visual interest and range of challenges. wasteful, costly and frustrating for the site is bland and monotonous. asset to a golf' course providing Severe topography can be average player while a flat Trees - Mature trees and plant materials provide much of the character of any .golf course. They provide scale, background and framing for greens and fairways and are a primary factor in providing a more challenging and enjoyable experience for the golfer. Overall Golf Quality - Every golf course has its own image; held by its regular golfers and presented to its visitors. This quality is a composite of all the above factors and yet, in the case of a golf course, the whole is more than the sum of its parts. This quality is an intangible factor, hard to quantify or measure in hard numbers, yet is an overriding factor in site consideration, and we have given it a corresponding weight in the evaluation process. The character of the land forms the basis for any course. Is the site somewhat small, the cost higher, or harder to get to? Perhaps any or all of these concerns may be outweighted by the presence of ~ lake, stream or particularly interesting topography or natural feature which will give the course unique character. Maintenance Turf - The ability of the topsoil to maintain a good turf cover. Drainage - Involves possible siltation and erosion resulting from flooding caused from conditions up-stream from the site. Also refers to the ability to drain water from the site. Watering System - Manual to fully automated, sprinklered greens to fully sprinklered course. Accessibility - The ability to get maintenance equipment to all site areas. (F't.~; sr:.(l TOP GOLF COU::SE 170 ACRES, 18 Hole Galf Course with t~E Highest Possible Score cf 91:)0 Points Using S950jAcre as the ValJe of le~d Suitable for a GJlf C~urse Land: 170 Acres @ S950!Acre = S lE-l,OOa Improve~ents: 18 Greens @ S20,OOD = $1,440,000 (SeO,OOO/green represents the estis2ted cost to construct the top quality golf course) Total Sl,601,5CID 51.601,500 13 Greens = s E:2.972 sey s 89,OOO/Green This value per Green is used as the Base to Calculate an Open Space Value for Each Golf Ccurse. PM R 3 ..:. : ; L) ~', IN I 9 :-: ;J L E GOLF COIJRSES say S 28,500 $ 450,000 S ':78,500 $ 53,166 ~. 53,000 30 Acres X 9S0/Acre = 9 Greens X S50,OOO/Green = $473,500 t 9 = ,,' ) PID 33-117-23-24-0013; 33-117-23-31-0002 33-117-?3-31-0004: 33-117-?3-32-0014 MUNIC NAME: Shorewood Mi nnetonka I I I I 51 4 3 2 1 SCORE CRITERIA WEIGHT 9 8 71 6 I i- f Location I x I Wei ht Ra te ,- Sc ore t I I i Access 10 I X I 60 Urban Suitability 20 X , 100 Exposure 6 X 36 I ! t , j DESIGN Size 6 X 18 t Shape/Orientation 7 X 42 I , Topography 8 I X 56 I I I I Trees 7 I I X 49 I Overa 11 Golf Quality 10 X 70 ! j MAINTENANCE - CONDITION I I I Turf 8 X 56 i Drainage 7 X 42 Watering System 7 X 49 Accessibility 4 X 24 I , TOTAL SCORE , 100 602 I , r-- :z: I.J...I .-J .-J I.J...I U >< I.J...I I.J...I c.!:l c::r:: oc. w > c::r:: >- 0::: o r-- u c::r:: L.l.. V'l ...... r-- c::r:: V'l :z: => score (Mtka CC) perfect score 602 90iJ = .6689 X 89000 Per Hole (perfect course) = 59531 i3er hole ~ltka CC) X 18 holes = 1,071,600 tentative 1987 taxable land value . .. ..."'. NAtv1E : M I NNETONKA C C DATE: 1-2-86 I.D.# / ADDRESS: 33 117 23 31 0004 APPRAISER: R ERICKSON 4 OCCUPANCY 5 BUILDING CLASS BUILDING QUALITY 6 EXTERIOR WALL 7 NUMBER STORIES HEIGHT 8AVERAGE FLOOR AREA 9 AVERAGE PERIMETER 10 EFFECTIVE AGE A LIFE EXPECTANCY CONDITION AREA SECTIOr,J 1 COUNTRY CLUB c SECTION 2 SECTION 3 8ASEMENTTENNIS 8LDG C C (JOC)D GOOD vJOOD SECT I.ON 4 GOCJD 8R I U( 1 1:::: 11 305 ~;02 20 50 GOOD 1 1 305 10::::37 864 o 11 BASE SQ. FT. COST 57.41 1'=' '.J 14 12 HEAT VENT COOLING 13 ELEVATOR DEDUCT. 14 MISCELLANEOUS 2. :~:5 2.35 15 TOTAL 5';::'.7.5 10 14 2.35 1 .00 1 .00 1 .00 1 .00 1 .0,::;. 1 .00 1 .00 1 .00 . '7',;::. 1 .00 1 .00 1 .01 1 .00 1 .00 0.00 16NO. STO MULTIPLIER 17 HT/STO MULTIPLIER 18FLR AREA/PER MULTP 19COMBINED MULTPLIER FINAL CALCULATIONS 20REFINED SQ FT COST 21 CURRENT COST MULT 22 LOCAL MULTIPLIER 23 FINAL SQ FT COST 24 AREA 25 AREA X COST 26 LUMP SUMS 27 REPLACEMENT COST 28 DEPRECIATION % 29DEPRECIATION AMOUN 30 DEPRECIATED COST 60 .4,:::' 1::::.00 14.00 0.00 1 .01 1 .00 1 .00 1 .00 1 . 1 1 1 .00 1 .00 1 .00 67. ::::::;: 1::::.00 14.00 0 .00 1 1 ::::05 10:::::37 864 0 766::::27 1'~50 1~1'::' 12096 0 766827 1 '7'50 ~1e.1 12096 0 .~'j r~::- 0'"jC" .35 . 0:::'-'_' . '-"'0_1 26::::::::::::':';' 6B27~: 4234 0 4984:3:::: 12'~17'7':3 7862 0 63~:,~,17';:: 633700 TOTAL DEPRECIATED 13t.Df- ROUNDED VALUE June 3, 1986 Villap;~.of Plymouth City Clerk: Lorri Houk 559-2800 City Assessor: Scott Hovett Golf Coursea Involved: ~lm Creek Hampton.Hills Hugh's Drivln~ Range MEETING HELD ON MONDAY June 2, 1986, BY THE VILLAGE COlJCIL TO HEAR PROTESTS ON 19Ab REAL-ESTATE ASSESSMENTS: The Villa~e touncl1 rejected the new 1986 valuea completely and ruled that there should be no increase on the 1985 values.