HomeMy WebLinkAbout05/12/1981 f r r
¢
I A
/ r / TENTATIVE AGENDA
ADJ.REG. SSSION SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA MAY 12 , 1981
Mayor H4bdck presiding
1 ] Roll Call at 7 : 30 P.M.
2 ] Convene as the Board of Review (bring May 5th handout) at 7 : 30 P.M.
3] Adjourn Board of Review to . . .
4] Agenda Items from May 5th Council Meeting:
a] Tax Increment Financing Policy - tabled 5/5/81 (Bring 5i)
b] Police Patrol Vehicle Reconstruction (bring 8d)
c ] Firemen' s Annual Physicals (bring 8f)
d] Bus Service for Shakopee (bring 8g)
e ] Proposed 1982-86 Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP) Portion
of Metro Waste Control ' s Development Program - informational
(bring 8h)
f] Unbudgeted Capital Outlay Purchase Exceeding $300 (bring 8i)
g] League Action Alert - Revised Governor ' s Budget with a new
8% Levy Limit Proposal - Direct staff to contact the
Governor and our legislators emphasizing our opposition to
the Governor ' s levy limit proposal (bring 8j)
i ] Engineering Department Monthly Report (bring 10a)
5] New Business :
a] Mn. DOT re : Minnesota Ride Share
b] Tables for Highrise
c] Legal Counsel for Cable Communications
d] Authorize payment of the bills
6 ] Other Business :
a] I received no comments regarding informational items on the
May 5th agenda. Is there anyone who is concerned about these
items?
b]
c ]
•
d]
7 ] Adjourn to Tuesday, May 19th at 7 : 30 P.M.
John K. Anderson, City Administrator
If you do not have any of the above information, please call .
Ofbltire, CITY OF SHAKOPEE
At: r; €f 129 East First Avenue, Shakopee, Minnesota 55379
MEMO
TO: Board of Review
FROM• Larry Martin, City Assessor
SUBJECT: #27-910-005-0 & 27-910-002-0 - 650 Valley Park
DATE: May 8, 1981
Introduction:
Kawasaki Motor Corporation has requested that the valuation
of their Shakopee Research and Development Center be reviewed.
Background :
Inspection of the property and interviews with Lee Markgraf,
Administrative Supervisor, has revealed underutilization of the
improvements because of economic conditions this has resulted
in a change in highest and best use . (See Attached)
Considering a change in highest and best use from research
and development to office/warehouse/distribution, the City
Assessor would recommend changing the market value of the entire
Kawasaki property from $1 , 567,000 to $1 ,374,000.
Recommendation:
Change value to $1 ,374,000.
LDM:plk
KAWASKAI MOTOR CORP.
Highest and Best Use Analysis
The Shakopee Kawaskai facility is a research and development
center designed with specific detail given to construction, for
the testing of snowmobiles.
Along with the testing of snowmobiles, they are involved in the
testing of Jet Ski ' s, and the sale and distribution of small in-
dustrial engines.
Up until recent times the center has proven to be an asset to its
corporation, and the extensive partitioning in the work area for
test cells ( i . e. Dyno chambers, cold room, accoustic chamber)
and their respective control rooms, machine shop , laboratory,
mock up and general shop area were all necessary components in the
operating plants physical makeup ; however, in recent years we can
note that the snowmobile industry has entered into dire financial
difficulty.
Presently there is a slump in snowmobile production and sales .
This has primarily been caused by the lack of snow cover over the
last 2 seasons. The slump in sales, due to the lack of snow, has
been magnified by the current recession and ongoing inflation.
The impact that the snowmobile slump has had on the local research
center has been tremendous. Research and development has slowed
considerably; there exists a large carry over of old models, and
production of new models is not anticipated for the next three years.
This is exemplified by a 40% layoff that occurred at the local
center on April 6th.
All of the above indicates that a transition of highest and best
use has taken place, considering that Minnesota does not have a
favorable climate for the testing of motorcycles and Jet Ski ' s.
(Field tests on Jet Ski ' s do take place here, but they do nct
conduct engineering and tests here. Instead they conduct those
tests in warmer climates where a year round market exists. )
With the above in mind, the City Assesscr has come to the opinion
that the highest and best use of the property, as improved, as of
January 2, 1981 , has tranferred from a research and development
center to an office/warehouse and distribution center and should
be valued as such.
KAWASAKI VALUATION
Class C - Good Distribution
Exterior Walls: Steel frame, brick, block
Interior Finish: Dryway, masonary, partitions, good offices
Lighting/Plumbing/
Heat Vent & A.C . : Adequate
Base Rate 25 .47
Add .47 Cold Climate
Add 1 .00 Sprinkler
Refined Base 26. 94
26. 94
x 1 .00 Story height
x . 916 Floor area perimeter
x 1 .02 Current Cost
x 1 .03 Local Cost
x .93 1980 level *
x .93 Depreciation
22 .42 Modified Cost
$22 .42 x 38 , 528 sq. ft . _ $863, 797 Indicated Bldg. Value
65 , 280 Fence
22, 896 Paving
$951, 973 Indicated Improvement Value
*Marshall Cost Index
& Trend Multipliers SAY 952,000
Add Land 422,000
1 $1 , 374,000
( 1108. 1 + 1028 .4)
(f„efiti4t7;;N\ CITY OF HAKOPE +',;, 129 East First Avenue, Shakopee, Minnesota 55379
jeJ `1
MEMO
TO: Board of Review
FROM: Larry Martin. City Assessor
SUBJECT: Parcel #27-003-0000-014-0 - 1235 W. 4th Ave.
DATE: May 5. 1981
Introduction:
The property owner contends the property value is too high
Background:
In reviewing the market value of this property the City Assessor
applied the Income and Market Approach. My findings are as follows:
Market Approach $ 99 , 200
Income Approach $105 , 600
The 1981 valuation placed on the property is $72, 105 which would
indicate a level of assessment of around 70/ which is below the
City wide mean, therefore , I would recommend no change .
Recommendation:
No change be made
LDM:plk
INCOME APPROACH
To produce an estimate of market value by the income approach, I
have located 3 rental properties that have sold within one year
of the appraisal date to determine a gross rent multiplier. They
are as follows :
GRM Sale #1
Grantor: Wiggin Realty
Grantee: Arnold Colgrove
Date of Sale : January, 1979
Legal : Lot 1 , Block 1 , Wiggin' s 1st Addn.
Parcel : 27-094-001-0
Lot Size: Approximately 80 x 150
Terms: Warranty Deed
Sale Price: $126,850 ($6, 850 personal property)
Gross Annual Rent : $16, 500
Indicated Gross Rent Multiplier 120,000 x 1 . 15* = 8 . 36
16, 500
GRM Sale #2
Grantor: Michael & Birginia Casanova
Grantee : Marjorie & Jeffrey Henderson
Date of Sale : September, 1980
Legal : Lot 5, Block 2, Minn. Valley 2nd Addn.
Parcel : 27-074-012-0
Lot Size: Irregular
Terms: Warranty Deed
Sale Price : $108,000 ($5 , 700 personal property)
Gross Annual Rent : $10, 200
Indicated Gross Rent Multiplier 102, 300 = 10.03
10, 200
*15% is added for appreciation because of construction period.
GRM Sale #3
Grantor: Steven Majerius
Grantee: James Allen
Date of Sale: December, 1979
Legal : Lot 6 & P/O 7, Block 49, 0 .S .P.
Parcel : 27-001-355-0
Lot Size: 90 x 142 - •25 x 75
Terms: Contract for Deed
Sale Price: $140,000
Gross Annual Rent : $12, 840
Indicated Gross Rent Multiplier: 140,000 25/* = 8 . 18
12 , 840
The most consideration is given to Sales #1 & #3. Sale #2 has
been disregarded because it is not considered to be receiving
market rents.
To further check the accuracy of the Gross Rent Multipliers
represented, the appraiser located 13 apartment sales outside of
the city occurring in the 1979-1980 period. They indicated an
average G.R.M. of 7 .85.
Given the above information it is the appraisers opinion that an
appropriate G.R.M. would be 8.
The reported gross rent of the subject is $13, 200 per year ($275 x
4 units x 12 months) . Therefore the market value can be estimated
as follows:
$13, 200 x 8 = $105, 600 Indicated Market Value
*25% is deducted because of financing
. R 3
MARKET APPROACH
To produce an estimate of market value by the market approach,
I have located comparable properties that have sold v,ithin one
year of the appraisal date to make a market comparison. The reader
will note that they are also used in the Income Approach.
Sale #1
Grantor: Wiggin Realty
Grantee: Arnold Colgrove
Date of Sale : January, 1979
Legal : Lot 1 , Block 1 , Wiggin' s 1st Addn.
Parcel : 27-094-001-0
Lot Size : Approximately 80 x 150
Terms: Warranty Deed
Sale Price : $126, 850 ($6, 850 personal property)
Gross Building Area: 4, 160 square feet
Sale #2
Grantor: Michael & Virginia Casanova
Grantee : Majorie & Jeffrey Henderson
Date of Sale : September, 1980
Legal : Lot 5, Block 2, Minn. Valley 2nd Addn.
Parcel : 27-074-012-0
Lot Size : Irregular
Terms : Warranty Deed
Sale Price : $108,000 ($5 , 700 personal property)
Gross Building Area: 2, 016 square feet
Subject Sale #1 Sale #2
Sale Price N/A 126,850 108,000
Less Per.Prop. 6, 850 5, 700
Adjusted Price 120,000 102, 300
Date of Sale Jan. 1980 Jan. ' 79 Sept ' 80
Adjustment x 1 . 15 T 1 . 11
Adjusted Price 138,000 92, 162
Garage None 4 single 2 single
Adjustment - 7, 680 - 3, 840
Adjusted Price 130,320 88, 322
Size 2 , 752 sq. ' 4, 160 sq. ' 2, 016 sq. '
Adjustment + 15% - 10%
Adjusted Price 149 , 868 79 , 489
Indicated square foot value $36.03 S39 . 43
Credence is given to Sale #1 because it is a 4-plex unit like
our subject
INDICATED VALUE 2 , 752 x $36 .03 = $99 , 154
SAY $99 , 200
p4.p%s CITY OF SHA, C) 6
g#'-.- : 129 East First Avenue, Shakopee, Minnesota 55379
w �-11.� i tw
..MEMO
TO: Board of Review
FROM: Larry D. Martin, City Assessor
SUBJECT: #27-015-001-0 - 100 Jackson Park
DATE: May 7. 1981
Introduction:
Property owner contests change in lot value
Background:
City Assessor increased lot value from 11 ,400 to 17 ,300 for the
1981 assessment.
In reviewing this matter the City Assessor cross checked the lot
valuation with comparable properties and found the assessment to be
below city wide level .
To further cross check this matter, the City Assessor reviewed sales
data to determine if the total valuation is uniform. The data indicates
that properties inferior to the subject are selling for close to
the $82,015 market value of the subject, therefore the City Assessor
recommends that no change be made.
Recommendation:
No change
G
SALE 1
BUYER: Laurent Builders , Inc .
SELLER: Renden Development
PROPERTY ADDRESS : 1767 Presidental Lane
PARCEL NUMBER: 27-074-018-0
LOT SIZE : front feet 79 . 13
DATE OF SALE: January 1980
SALE PRICE: $16 , 500
TERMS : Warranty Deed
SALE 2
BUYER: Donald E . and Shirley O ' Loughlin
SELLER: Prairie View Developers
PROPERTY ADDRESS: 631 Hennes
PARCEL NUMBER: 27-083-005-0
LOT SIZE : front feet 88.7
DATE OF SALE : July 1980
TERMS : Warranty Deed
SALE 3
BUYER: Thomas H. and Ann M. Walerius
SELLER: Raymond L. and Jane M. Lemmons
PROPhRTY ADDRESS : 1934 11th Avenue
PARCEL NUMBER: 27-065-021-0
LOT SIZE : front feet 82
DATE OF SALE : September 1980
TERMS: Warranty Deed
#27-015-001-0
Subject 1 2 3
Sale Price N/A 16, 500 17 , 500 17 ,000
Sale Date (Jan. ' 80) 1/1980 7/1980 9/1980
Front Feet 104. 95 79. 13 88. 7 82
Price per F. F. N/A 208 197 207
Time Adj . N/A N/A + 1 .075 t 1 . 1125
Adjusted Price 208 183 186
Size Adj . N/A -10% -5% -5%
Adjusted Price 187 174 177
Indicated Value 19 , 625 18, 261 18,576
The market value placed on the land is $17 , 300. This would indicate
a level of assessment range of 88% to 9b%.
Please keep in mind that the depth of the subject lost is greater
than any of the comparables and no adjustment was made , therefore,
the level of assessment level would be even lower. With the above
in mind, the City Assessor recommends no change.
SALE 1
BUYER: Virgil S . Mears and Carol J . Mears
SELLER : . Leonard J . Mayer and Mary J . Mayer
PROPERTY ADDRESS : 1813 E. Shakopee Avenue-Shakopee
PARCEL NUMBER: 27-052-038-0
HOUSE SIZE: 1188 sq. ft.
GARAGE SIZE : 24 X 24
LOT SIZE: 90 X 164.35
DATE OF SALE: September 1979
SALE PRICE: $85,000
TERMS : Warranty Deed
•
DWELLING year built / 9 7e
�!P X 38 sq. ft. //PP
story height -26 .sdc T L
no. rooms y
no. baths
no. bedrooms 7
basement percent �0 M
basement fin. c o 6% h 111
heat
electrical r
built ins
rooms carpeted
Lot size O X /4 4/.3)
GARAGE _
X ‘,/o
attached yes (- no
single wall
double wall
wired yes __ ✓ no
OBSERVED CONDITION:
Exc.
Good ESTIMATED MARKET VALUE
Fair • SOLD FOR:
Poor •
DATE SOLD
•
C-
SALE
2 1
BUYER: Gary J . & Mary L. Bongard
SELLER : . Norbert F . & Magdalen Geis
PROPERTY ADDRESS : 1127 Harrison St . - Shakopee
PARCEL NUMBER: 27-040-045-0
HOUSE SIZE : 1232 sq. ft .
GARAGE SIZE: 24 X 22
LOT SIZE: 71 X 135
DATE OF SALE : September 1979
SALE PRICE : $84,000
TERMS : Warranty Deed
DWELLING ye r built / .74C4
::-1,-C' X (`/_sq. ft. ,/,2 ,5--)
story height ti >P-IT Z.
no. rooms -
116,
no. baths _
nobedrooms
basement percent L k __
basement fin. — .
heat _ • f
electrical
built ins div •
rooms carpeted
Lot size _ .I_X ° `s . --
GARAGE __ .X _ .j
attached yes– ' no
single wall
double wall –
wired yes no —_.__—_.
OBSERVED CONDITION:
Exc. --
Goad _ 'v j/, L
1
Poor •
/ ,1 /v �
� 1
s
SALE 3
BUYER : Carl A. Noterman and Marcella C . Noterman
SELLER: _ Bill R. White and Charlotte M. White
PROPERTY ADDRESS : 926 Dakota Street - Shakopee
PARCEL NUMBER: 27-033-020-0
HOUSE SIZE : 988 sq. ft .
GAR.t.GE SIZE : 20 X 22
LOT SIZE : 82 X 164
DATE OF SALE : June 1979
SALE PRICE : $82 , 500
TERMS : Warranty Deed
•
•
DWELLING year built /9
—%Co _X &F s4. ft. 9B8
story height 73 /fUC _
•
no. rooms ti 6, I
no. baths / --"4111411111,11111111111.111111111111\a„s
_
no. bedrooms 3
basement percent /00% r
j
T_'
10/P4
basement fin. _ ; i
heatt0 ii--14' t ...D
if
electrical .t3.f't��hr.,
built ins _ Of
i
rooms carpeted .,,w.
Lot size g402. X /6 y q 70 .570)
GARAGE 0?0 X o>d='/y0 E 9J?3O
attached yes �' no — ....iri
single wall /
double wall
wired yes ✓ no
OBSERVED CONDITION:
Exc. L-----
Good
/Good _ ESTIMATED MARKET VALUE do. 590
Fair _ SOLD FOR: 3.3, 500
Poor _— ___.—___ DATE SOLD 7/7- 7J
i
•
C
s
SALE 4
BUYER: Gerald and Sharon Beer
SELLER : . Laurent Builders , Inc .
PROPERTY ADDRESS : 1767 Presidential Lane - Shakopee
PARCEL NUMBER: 27-074-018-0
HOUSE SIZE : 1810 sq. ft .
GARAGE SIZE : 24 X 26
LOT SIZE: Irreg.
DATE OF SALE: Feb . 1980
SALE PRICE : $111 , 980
TERMS : Warranty Deed
DWELLING year built '7
—X sq. ft. l4;1/0 .
�,�,��
story height /'"ti •
no. rooms ti _
no. baths
no. bedrooms
X40
basement percent „
basement fin.
heat
electrical
built ins < f
rooms carpeted
. �
Lot size — X � An
GARAGE ' �X
attached yes G— no
single wall
double wall
wired yes —_ no
OBSERVED CONDITION:
Exc.
Good
Fair •
Poor
C.•
SALE 5
BUYER: Michael & Patricia Pennington
SELLER : Laurent Builders, Inca
PROPERTY ADDRESS.: 1722 Presidental Circle - Shakopee
PARCEL NUMBER: 27-074-025-0
HOUSE SIZE: 1344 sq. ft .
GARLGE SIZE: 24 X 24
LOT SIZE: Irreg.
DATE OF SALE : September 1980
SALE PRICE : $96,000
TERMS : Warranty Deed
DWELLING year built / 98'0
X sq. ft. - 34ti
story height P ,
no. rooms
nobaths
no. bedrooms
basement percent
basement fin.
heat
electrical
built ins _
rooms carpeted
Lot size X
GARAGE y X
attached yes V no
single wall
double wall
wired yes ___ _no •
OBSERVED CONDITION:
Exc.
Good
Fair
Poor .
C-
SALE 6
BUYER: Loren R. Bartelt and Joyce D .
SELLER: _ LeRoy R. Menke and Darlene A.
PROPERTY ADDRESS : 720 Menke Circle - Shakopee
PARCEL NUMBER: 27-083-049-0
HOUSE SIZE: 1231 sq. ft .
GARAGE SIZE : 24 X 33 5 X 9
LOT SIZE : 85 . 55 X 134.02
DATE OF SALE : November 1979
SALE PRICE : $86 ,000
TERMS : Warranty Deed
DWELLING year built 7
X sq. ft. / -
story height
r
no. rooms t
no. baths /
no. bedrooms
basement percent
basement fin.
_ ,
heat
electrical
-- —
built ins
rooms carpeted
Lot size �;' X
GARAGE r' X
attached yes ` no
single wall
double wall _
wired yes no
OBSERVED CONDITION:
Exc.
Good
Fair
Poor ��
G
SALE 7
BUYER : Fred E. Krueger and Mary C . Krueger
SELLER : Ronald H. and Beverly Duesterman
ee
1028 So. Pierce Street - Shako
PROPERTY ADDRESS: P
PARCEL NUMBER: 27-021-016-0
HOUSE SIZE: 1636 sq. ft .
GARAGE SIZE: 26 X 26 tuck
LOT SIZE: Irreg.
DATE OF SALE: January 1980
SALE PRICE: $84,000
TERMS : Warranty Deed
DWELLING year built /
,�X X scle ft.
story he it'4 CVO t- //‘A
no. rooms /O
no. baths _
no. bedrooms
basement percent R ■ -
basement fin. '^ r
heat '„' 11111'1
electrical `
built ins
rooms carpeted " .w
Lot size X •j _ s.,_.- R
GARAGE cglo 71A C/C_
attached yes no
single wall
double wall
wired yes - no
OBSERVED CONDITION:
Exc.
,
Good
•
Fair
Poor
G
SALE 8
BUYER: Gary K. Indrehus
SELLER : . Charles D . and Helen R. Norton
PROPERTY ADDRESS : 1743 Presidental Lane - Shakopee
PARCEL NUMBER: 27-074-015-0
HOUSE SIZE : 912 sq. ft .
GARAGE SIZE : 24 X 26
LOT SIZE : 85 X 135
DATE OF SALE : July 1980
SALE PRICE : S83 ,000
TERMS : Warranty Deed
n / 7L
S-� �.
DWELLING year built 7 7
;)1 X c=% sq. ft. 7/
story height I
no. rooms
no. baths Y _
no, bedrooms
basement percent /
basement fin.
heat
electrical
built ins
rooms carpeted
Lot size eve x /3„
GARAGE •V �X
attached yes no /� �
single wall ;
double wall °'*k�
wired yes no
OBSERVED CONDITION:
Exc.
Good
Fair
Poor .
r
SALE 9
BUYER : Ronald L. Sacks and Janie S . Sacks
SELLER : _ Dennis E . and Alice L. Furtney
PROPERTY ADDRESS : 1749 E . Shakopee Avenue - Shakopee
PARCEL NUMBER: 27-031-025-0
HOUSE SIZE : 1311 sq. ft .
GARAGE SIZE : 23 X 23
LOT SIZE : 80 X 137 . 5
DATE OF SALE: May 1980
SALE PRICE : $81 , 950
TERMS : Warranty Deed
DWELLING year built / / 7� /�� w
X VG sq. ft. /-//
story height
no. rooms ti
no. baths _
no. bedrooms
basement percent Ipiliisifiiiiifsr
II 4basement fin. I 11,[ • r
heat
electrical r 1' `
built ins r .� /• 1 f ; f ''�1;; •
fe4
rooms carpeted _..
Lot size ?O X /. �6 AVO
GARAGE X ��� :.�:.
attached yes v no
single wall /
double wall / / %• C54re tier
wired yes no
OBSERVED CONDITION:
Exc.
Good ESTIMATED MARKET VALUE i5—ann
Fair SOLD FOR:
Poor DATE SOLD
ire c.r rPee CITY OF SHAKOPEE
rA ti, ,
t"1 129 East First Avenue, Shakopee, Minnesota 55379
i•Ii"� � r4
MEMO
Board of Review (0//
TO:
FROM: Larry Martin, City Assessor ,
SUBJECT: #27-015-001-0 - 100 Jackson Park Supplemental
DATE: May 11 . 1981
Introduction;
On May 11 , 1981 , the City Assessor was able to inspect the
interior of the subject property.
Background:
Inspection revealed a 50% basement completion. Field card
indicated 100% basement finish. Adjustment equals:
728 sq. ft. x .50% x $5 x . 85% = $1 , 547
Recommendation:
Lower building value by $1 , 550.
4f4.4F r. CITY OF SHAKOPEE
hs .
r 129 East First Avenue, Shakopee, Minnesota 55379
a ,17�
MEMO
TO: Board of Review
FROM: Larry Martin, City Assessor
SUBJECT: #27-918-009-04 - 2021 Marschall Rd.
DATE: May 12 , 1981
INTRODUCTION :
Petitioner has brought forth 4 areas of concern of which he
asks consideration be given.
BACKGROUND :
The first area of concern that the property owner discusses is
depreciation. Under depreciation the property owner addresses
the cities depreciation table of which he states "the assessor' s
cost table shows no depreciation for excellent grade homes, which
mine is classed at , for twenty years . " If this were true I would
be concerned also ; however the categories listed in our depre-
ciation table (page 15 of 1981 Board of Review booklet) reflect
the condition of the improvement not the quality, therefore, any
grade home can fall within the un-sound to excellent range
depending on the age.
In regard to the subjects roof damage, the City Assessor concurs
with the property owners claim. Inspection revealed that some
water damage has occurred. Discussions with local builders in-
dicated that it may be possible to get by with the present roof
for a few years which would tend to substantiate the 90% depre-
ciation. Adjusting for a 1.5% uniformity factor indicates a proper
adjustment of $3,060 .
The property owners second and third areas of concern are in regard
to the properties lot valuation. The first point made is the
properties location on Co.Rd. 17. In developing the valuation
schedule (see page 14 of the handout ) for residential acreage, sales
on Co.Rd. 17 were used and support it ' s valuation indications. The
second point made states "the assessment rate for land is the same
as it is for exclusive subdivisions like Deerview Acres, Hillside
Estates and other. " Actually the improved lot values are $21 ,000 in
the MtNTiou4d platted tracts The valuation schedule for the plats
in question was developed from actual sales within each one , the
range is from $11 ,000 for an improved lot in Killarney Hills et Tu
$21 ,000 for an improved lot in Deerview Acres, Hillside Estates,
Horizon Heights and Riverview Estates . Thirdly the property owner
addresses his lot value in relationship to other jurisdictions.
Here the property owner states that the rest of the County is at
$15,000 for 2.5 acre tracts improved. This is true with the
exception of Savage, Prior Lake, and Shakopee where 2 .5 acres
improved are at $20,000. This would seem to be quite a difference ,
however, we found last year, when making the Shakopee/Jackson
comparison that although the lot values were lower the building
values tended to be higher, which gave a fair balance. Please
note on page 18 of your looklet the 2 year residential study
indicates Shakopee close to the center.
In the fourth area of concern the property owner addresses the
valuation added for a fireplace and brick trim. When the house
was originally built a fireplace was installed; however it was
replaced with a free standing wood burning stove, which is non-
taxable. There is however, a sizeable amount of brick trim around
the stove and a brick chimney. If this were a complete fireplace
a figure of $1 , 500 would have been placed on the rolls. The $500
allowance is to account for the absence of a firebox.
In regard to the second point discussed brick trim the property
owner states that the presence of brick has not been accounted for
on Gene Brown' s, Jerry Wampach' s, and Chuck Norton' s houses. This
is true with the exception of Chuck Norton' s house. The brick
trim was picked up during 1980' s 25% inspection for the 1981
assessment. This is a valid concern because both Gene Brown' s
and Jerry Wampach ' s homes have stone or brick exterior walls. The
problem rests within our cost schedule where there is no factor
for brick or stone houses. This should probably be looked at
for the 1982 assessment to see if an adjustment should be used.
Gene Brown purchased his home in Nov. of 1979 for $104,000.
The 1981 market value is $102, 890, an approximate ratio of 99%
is indicated, therefore, no change is recommended on the brick
homes for the 1981 assessment.
RECOMMENDATION:
Lower the building value by $3,060 for physical depreciation.
LDM:plk
RETURN TO : CITY OF SHAKOPEE ASSESSOR
129 E . 1st Ave . , Shakopee , Minn . 55379
I WISH TO APPEAR BEFORE THE BOARD OF REVIEW RELATIVE TO MY ASSESSMENT FOR THE
1981 ASSESSMENT YEAR.
j :
PARCEL It 9— o G( /rI 9//) SIGNED : ) iNt - �` L--
•
n i
PHONE NO . �,474/1 ; •-`3 J (� ADDRESS :
,
Honorable Board Members :
Relative to my 1981 real estate assessment, I have the following concerns.
1. DEPRECIATION:
The Assessor's cost table shows no depreciation for excellent grade homes,
which mine is classed at for twenty years. He has indicated the market does
not show any. It should be pointed out that when V.A , F.H.A or any lender
appraises a residence for guarantee of mortgage commitment, It is appraised
" as repaired " In other words if a property sells for $ 100,000.00 and is
recorded as such, it could very well have had $ 20,000.00 worth of repairs
done on it to be able to sell it at $ 100,000.00. This cost comes out of the
sellers pocket and there is no indication of it on the certificate of real
estate value which the Assessor uses to base his market value bench mark on.
In the case of this poor affiant dwelling, the roof cover is 90% shot
because of the July 15, 1980 hail storm and it has not been repaired nor
can it be until I can gather together the $ 4,000.00 it takes to repair it.
It is evident what condition it is in if some one would care to take a
look at it.
Based on physical depreciation ( actual ) and on a comparative basis the
depreciation this property suffers from is ; Replacement cost; $ 4,000.00
90% depreciated = $ 3,600.00
2. LOCATION:
I am concerned about the land value rate being charged for properties on C.R
# 17.. This is a very heavily traveled minimum control artery. The life expect–
ency of a family pet on this road is about two weeks. Yet, the assessment
rate for land is the same as it is for exclusive sub divisions like Deer View
Acres, Topics Hillside Estates and others.
3. UNIFORM ASSESSMENT 'WITHIN DISTRICTS:
I am concerned with the assment rates being used in districts with County
assessment contpacts. The rates, particulary the land assessment rates are
considerably lower. This renders my assessment defective also as the county
levy is part and parcel of my tax dollar. I have included the county assess–
ment land rate sheet for your review. Based on this, My tract should be at
$ 15,000.00 and not $ 20,200.00
"�1111oa
t t4'
th.,.
4. UNIFORMITY WITHIN THE DISTRICT
I am concerned my fire place is on the tax rolls for 51,000,00 when in
fact the fire place has been removed and a wood stove has been installed.
To my knowledge, no other wood stove or wood stove chimney is on the tax
roll-S.
I am concerned that $ 2,830.00 in brick is on the tax rolls when I find
Gene Browns, Gerry Wampachs Chuck Nortons and many others are not on the
tax rolls and the Assessor has them classed in the same grade mine is in.
Poor petitioners plea:
Based on the information at hand one can only conclude that poor petitioners
assessment is defective in the amount of:
1. Physical depreciation $ 3,600.00
2. Districts uniformity and location $ 5,200.00
3. Uniformity within disrict 5 3,830.00
TOTAL REDUCTION REQUESTED 5 12,830.00
1981 estimated market value set by Assessor 5 88,700.00
1981 estimated market value requested by poor
petitioner
$ 75,870.00
Poor petitioner :
LeRoy Houser
P.
I will not be attending board of review however, I would appreciate your
review of my concerns and consideration given to my request.
1, -- ues continued
a al ^E
d✓
I
Residential - Acreage
0 to 2.499 Ac $12500
t 2-.5 t_0__4.999 Ac 15000
5.0 to 9.999 Ac 1st 5 acres 4 15000
Balance 4 $1600 per acre up to a
value of 19,500
Unimproved Building Site $1600. per acre(M n of $7500
(per site
Residential - Platted Lots
Platted Lots $12500 to $15000
Unimproved Building Site $7500 to $12500
Lakeshore
Unimproved $200 per front foot
Improved $300 per front foot .
1 .
- - i.....-- — ' *- '
---..4.•ii-. -- -•-i-
”-.-• --- --0,-"-"*"` , • •. .;., . '... '0*(6. "6 *1'0'4'4"litlEtMle
-- , ---"'', ''''. ` "— *- . . - :, ,. .".::!:t.i•••:iz.tils”-i:;;I:::::?,!-'-iii,* c• ,,,
, '1. • , .:- .,- ' ..,•• . • • ,Iia• :• _-...,., -. . . ..,.._....r.1.-4iai ...-......-__, .::iiiLi,i ;;;, ,ii.,..:.11&...tif..4. :,,11..• . . ' . ._ . -,,,,..,,:,„:..„1:4'.. ' 4'
it ,. '-':„.it• ...'::"„:"; 7
G. F. JUERGENS CONSTRUCTION (DATE
2231 Hillside Drive 5/12/81
SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA 55379 NUMBER
^ . ,
.i."•;:t.t:itiitir:.:.::,; .... ' \.. 1 1.r434- 4.
. :::'::it•:::::,...:, Phone 445-4624
#4W414W°40 :Iiiit4:gl',*1,401; •
•Leroy Houser
•
2021 Marsckall Rd.
Skakopee, Ma. 55379
•
•
:....s..,;;s7.....]:•.-ss.i:7 -. 0,,, ,4:' ,:,t,„p7.,tri
... .. . .:!.,,,, ..'''...4 TERMS:
,fIr..77141');17177,4
PLEASE DETACH AND RETURN WITH YOUR REMITTANCE $
--_
DATE CHARGES AND CREDITS
BALANCE
BALANCE FORWARD
5/12/41 Estimate for removal and replacement
of 18 square of Timberline skingles
'i411411.4tV.,:gti: A.
4144 *
damaged in storm.
,:-• ;.,,i,::::.-r--;::
Labor and materials $ 4,000 06
tieittz:`Pi4iii;, all
ii,„:,.:,;,,,;,!:i.;.•=%,
,
Cyoui PAY LAST AMOUNT
IN THIS COLUMN
' .
G. F. JUERGENS CONSTRUCTION
itr4-vtlioPr.t47610
i,l,
' .:,....'.--•..-• ..,-,7-:::',:77, •—.771,z-7:iiiffr- iliiiiiiiir:', ..': -.•---`",-.;i7itisr::1,'"7---Foirrr-Icil:Tr,1-- --7:-- i-,-%7'-- . let., -,iis,,t4f. ,,:411. '• ** . :' ' . ''' .
.-.-",..-1 .. ;.- ' ,.**--.'"*,& ,',,,,,,..V/Z=7,444*, '.... -,•-'-' '.',"-
•
:' "• . ,• . . , ... . . - ' l'itreri:::,..i.,:,!,::::;:iti .', .....:,..*:,:...:;.i,l,i-:+:..:li,... •.:!' ;
. . . ,... - t, . . : 7.,„ . ' .' r..:: ; , . ' •••:'':.* : . --:.'.'-'•'•:i: :'iiqtit:Si.:ii ;.::'i..ii..!*iii1V.::'iill!II-I'...;;;..1.. '',,::-:.: :;;:'::iii..:•i'...7:. 1.1.:,:i.;.'. .g.!..1*'''' :
. :.;,,,;..--!.:P..',. .:0...: - . ::..., .7.- .•:,,, •-• - ..: .' ., .$ .;:,,,,11. ::;,,,,iit •,1,119::.SI- t.•: :;.!;,,.: „:t 4.:,;:!;;,....., • ',..14i ,„
.A.'4,, ' '' f., ' , .174.•" Iiiii4;4444'* 4:040,4411/04* ' ' '' ' ' 1 .' ' '''''' ' ': I' 10/17 '::/ • ' *Sgi.111.1.91iitt4 "1.4k0 '; .til:,"1: .-ifeM
.t..-4;fiv...• ;,... l'''' . '-...'; • :•,',..it ,. . ' .. : ' .tit' .:,1:,-. f.. t.,' ' 011 t!Ottt:',..''. .,, * ,,' ,
0, CITY OF SHAKOPEE
C . 129 Fast First Avenue, Shakopee, Minnesota 55379
mss•4. o
MEMO
TO: Board of Review
FROM Larry D . Martin, City Assessor
SUBJECT: #27-904-007-0 - Peavp,y
DATE: May 12 , 1981
Introduction:
Property owner requests additional depreciation be allowed
for economic obsolescence.
Background:
Owner contends that economic obsolescence factors should be
greater. City Assessor has referred this matter to the State
Property Equalization Department to render an opinion. I
therefore recommend no action be taken at this level .
Recommendation:
No action be made .
LDM:plk
CITY OF SHAKOPEE ASSESSOR 55379
ETURN TO : Shakopee , Minn .
129 E . 1st Ave . FOR THE
HE BOARD OF REVIEW RELATIVE TO MY ASSESSMENT
WISH TO APPEAR BEFORE T , , �g
980 ASSESSMENT YEAR . �/ ...
02 SIGNED : ► f. ► AI"' '
ADDRESS : ___J ,��A �� w'
'HONE N0 .
MEMO TO: File
FROM: Larry Martin, City Assessor
RE: K-Mart Distribution Center Construction Contracts
DATE: April 30, 1981
On April 30, 1981 the Ass ' t City Attorney Mr. Rod Krass and
myself met with H.C . Brown and Chuck Yessian of K-mart Corp.
Also present were members of M.A. Mortensons Co. staff. The
purpose of this meeting was to review construction contracts
relating to the K-mart Distribution Center.
In reviewing the contract files , we found that Mr. Browns reporting
of construction costs , in this letter of January 27 , were quite
accurate with the exception of a few adjustments made after his report .
After reviewing the contract information a discussion regarding the
quality of the improvements took place , ie . interior warehouse
painting, footing size , floor structure , structural reinforcing and
structural steel . Mr. Brown then addressed the long term benefit
rationale that justifies the extra expense of quality construction.
A discussion of the Certificate of Occupancy then took place between
the Ass ' t . City Attorney, H.C . Brown and Mortenson' s staff.
We then talked about dates when contracts were initiated. The
contracts were initiated in roughly 4 separate series in the period
of 4-79 to 5-80; construction actually started in the latter part
of 1979 . This would indicate 100% level close to the January 1st
assessment date.
LDM:plk
K-mart Valuation
Cost Approach
#27-076-001-0
To estimate the Market Value of the improvements to the K-mart
site, the appraiser has reviewed actual construction contracts,
in the files of M.A. Mortenson Co. , the projects general contractor.
After reviewing the contracts the appraiser cross checked there
accuracy by way of the Marshall Valuation Service. During the
project analysis, a great deal of concern was given to the
accuracy of the service in relation to a warehouse improvement of
this size; however, in December of 1980 a revised garages, lofts,
industrials and warehouse calculation section which specifically
addressed distribution warehouses was provided. Also, in the
segregated section the sprinkler costs were expanded to represent
buindings as large as 1 ,000,000 sq. ft . To insure that a proper
floor area perimeter multiplier was used the appraiser contacted
the service ' s headquarters in Los Angeles for a special calculation.
The results of my findings are as follows :
K-mart Distribution
Cost Approach to Value Part I
Verified construction costs
Previous Rep. Actual To Date
M.A. Mortenson, General Cont. $ 4, 615,099.47 $ 4, 928 , 641 . 57
Sub Contracts 15,450,387. 59 15 , 574, 269 .88
TOTAL 20,065,487.06 20, 502, 911.45
(or more)
City of Shakopee Contracts
Barbarosa - Site Work $ 1 ,529 . 700.00
Crowley Fence-Fencing 64,835.00
Estimate - Landscaping 75,000.00 -(not done-to be let;
TOTAL $ 1 , 669, 535.00 $ 1 , 669 , 535.00
Permits and Fees paid to date:
Site Permit $ 24, 921 .00
Foundation Permit 8, 238. 55
Building Permit ( $15, 359.00) 31 ,832. 60
Included in Bldg. Permit
Plan Check Fee 9, 983.35
Grade Survey 6.00
Park & Land Dedication Fee 21 , 394.00
4" Water Tap 600.00
2-12," Water Taps 3, 600.00
26 SAC Units 11 ,050.00
State Surcharge 3,000.00
13 Additional SAC Units 5, 525.00
Engineering Fee 6,007. 58
Adjusted Permit Fee 6, 976.36
TOTAL $ 133, 134.44 $ 133, 134.44
$22, 305 , 580. 89
Less Landscaping 75 ,000.00
Less (Storm Damage) 119 ,181 . 94
Indicated B1dg.Value $22 , 111 ,398. 95
Completion Percentage @ 95%
$21 ,005, 829.00
Add Land ($12,000 x 95A) 1 , 140,000.00
Indicated Value $22, 145, 829 .00
ROUNDED $22 , 100,000.00
The reader will note that no adjustment for level of assessment is
made. The reason being nc accounting of indirect ccsts were made . It
is the appraisers opinion that cne •would roughly balance the other.
Cost Approach to Value Part II
Marshall Valuation Service
The subject structure is considered to be a Class 5 Good Distri-
bution Center characterized by good steel frame, siding and fene-
stration, some good offices and interior finish, distribution areas,
good lighting and plumbing, forced air heat.
The Valuation is as follows :
Base square foot rate 19. 67
Add for cold climate .42
Add for sprinklers . 68
20.77
Adjusted Base Rate 20.77
Height Multiplier 1 .382
Floor area perimeter multip. . 839
Current Cost Multiplier 1 .02
Local Cost Multiplier 1 .02
25.05
Modified Base Rate 25 .05
Jan. 1980 Actual Cost . 93
LevIl of Assessment . 90
Partial Completion . 95
19. 91
e I
1 , 110, 225 Total square feet
19. 91 Assessment Rate
$22 , 104, 579. 75 Indicated Bldg. Value
440,476. 12 Add Yard Improvements
50,065 .00 Add Railroad Spur
$22,595, 120. 87 Indicated Improvement Value
1 , 140,000.00 Add Land-95 acres @ $12,000
$23, 735, 120.87 Indicated Value
$23, 700,000.00 ROUNDED
CORRELATION:
A range of value of $22, 100,000 to $23, 700,000 is indicated, or an
approximate 7% difference. Becuase the valuation indication in part
one is based on actual construction costs, and the valuation in
part two required an extensive amount of adjustment, it is the opinion
of the appraiser that weight should be given to the valuation put
forth in part one .
I
Indicated Assessors Market Value of subject property;
Twenty Two Million One Hundred Thousand Dollars
$22, 100,000.00
Allocation: $ 1 , 100,000 Land
21 ,000,000 Improvements
$22, 100,000 Total
•
- Minnesota
TA,
° Department of Transportation
District 5
'�ti a �
2055 No. Lilac Drive
OF TW- Golden Valley, Minnesota 55422.
April-30, 1981 (612) .ri45 3761
Honorable Walt Harbeck •
Mayor of Shakopee
1305 West Sixth Avenue
Shakopee, Minnesota 55379
Dear Mayor Harbeck: •
Funding for the "Minnesota Ride Share" Program is in trouble in the
Legislature. Mn/DOT's efforts to encourage and facilitate increased
ridesharing would virtually come to a halt without this funding and
one of the few practical solutions to our energy and transportation
management problems would be curtailed.
Since the inception of the Ride Share Program in November,- 1980, many
car and van-pools have been formed. As the cost of gasoline increases,
.the formation of car and van-pools will accelerate. In the event of an
energy emergency, it is the only alternative at the present time that
we have to keep the business community functioning.
I feel that the Minnesota Ride Share Program is most desirable for
the State and the communities in the Metropolitan Area. If you concur
in this assessment, please let your legislators know that you think the
Minnesota Ride Share Program should be an ongoing program.
Sincerely
.,
W. M. Crawf d, P.i.
District Engineer
WMC:bn
•
•
•
An Equal Opportunity Employer
,s b
MEMO TO: John K. Anderson, City Administrator
FROM: Jeanne Andre , Administrative Assistant
RE: Tables for Highrise
DATE: April 8 , 1981
Introduction
The Mayor sent a letter to the Scott-Carver Economic Council
requesting use of tables acquired by them under a federal
grant for senior citizen activities . Attached is a copy of
the response by Judson Kenyon, Director of the Scott-Carver
Economic Council .
Background
Mr. Kenyon reported to me that the tables and chairs were
purchased under a grant received by Scott-Carver Economic
Council approximately 12 years ago. Their records on this
grant are very sketchy. As there is no official correspon-
dence indicating the tables were formally given to any other
body, Mr. Kenyon assumes the Economic Council is still in
control of the tables and offers use of the tables until the
end of the year. He explained that the initial offer is for
a short term in case other details about the ownership of the
tables should surface .
Ruth Gronneberg, Director of the Congregate Dining, inquired
and determined that the chairs are now in storage at Public
Utilities and the tables are in storage at the First National
Bank Community Room. The tables have been used occasionally
when bank tables generally used were needed for other purposes .
Alternatives
1 . Pursue Mr. Kenyon' s offer to use the tables .
2 . Purchase tables with $450 donated by Rotary Club.
JA/jms
. .
Scott-Cautuek 2eoote Coue , glie.
Corporate Officers: Sixth and Oak CAP
Wallace Ess-Chairperson CARVER, MINN. 55315
Chaska
Margaret Brown-Vice Chairperson Phone: 448-2302
Chaska
Sheila Hyde-Secretary/Treasurer
COMMUNITY
ACTION
New Prague PROGRAM
Mr.Judson L. Kenyon
Executive Director
May 5, 1981
Walter Harbeck, Mayor
City of Shakopee
Shakopee, MN 55379
Dear Mayor Harbeck:
I am writing in regard to your letter of April 10, 1981 in which you outlined
the City's involvement and commitment to SCEC's Senior Congregate Dining Program
located at the new Senior Multipurpose Center complex.
In reviewing past records of grant awards and inventory property listings of
equipment purchased by the grant some 12 years ago, I find it difficult to come
to a definite conclusion as to the actual current ownership of the tables in question.
I can only draw the following conclusion from what records I have looked at. I find
there are no letters or agreements on file at SCEC which transfers ownership of the
tables involved. I am certain that there were verbal communications and very
likely written correspondence, however since there now appears to be no written
transactions and the people involved in the project 12 years ago are no longer
involved, I have to conclude that the rightful ownership of the tables is still SCEC's.
Having reached that conclusion I find that SCEC would certainly encourage the use of
the tables in the Senior Congregate Dining Site at the Senior Multipurpose Center
complex and this letter will serve as SCEC's permission to use the equipment at the
site until December 31, 1981. This will allow time for all parties involved to
determine the rightful owner of it if it's not SCEC and also to formulate a new
agreement for the use of the equipment for next year's program.
If I can be of further assistance please do no hesitate to contact me.
Sincerely,
�u. c.� fi .�(-46-44A,
n L. Kent' Ec
Executive Director
MAY 198
c.c. Jean Andre
Peg Subby titY Of $140
"An Equal Opportunity Employer
sc
MEMO TO: John K. Anderson, City Administrator
FROM: Jeanne Andre, Administrative Assistant
RE:_ Legal Counsel for Cable Communications
DATE: May 7 , 1981
Introduction and Background
The City Council authorized the hiring of Mr. Adrian Herbst to
draft a preliminary and final cable communications franchise
ordinance at its April 28 , 1981 meeting. Staff has confirmed
this arrangement with Mr. Herbst and he has drawn up the
attached contract with terms outlined by the City.
Requested Action
Authorize appropriate City officials to execute contract with
Mr. Adrian Herbst to provide legal services in the area of
cable communications , not to exceed $5 ,000.00.
JA/jms
C`
AGREEMENT FOR LEGAL SERVICES
THOMSEN, NYBECK, HERBST & JOHNSON, P.A. (hereinaft Law Firm) and
CITY OF SHAKOPEE (hereinafter City) on this '7 day of May, 1981 ,
agree to the following terms regarding legal services to be provided in
conjunction with the awarding of a cable communications franchise.
DESCRIPTION OF LEGAL SERVICES
A. Law Firm will review the policies and decisions of City and develop a
preliminary franchise ordinance to be used by City together with its
request for proposals for a cable communications franchise.
1 . Ordinance will be prepared to conform to Minnesota Cable
Communications Board (MCCB) rules and other required laws .
2. Law Firm will attend a joint meeting of the City Council and
the Ad Hoc Cable Communications Committee to review and explain
the preliminary franchise ordinance and to answer questions .
B. Law Firm will review the policies and decisions of City, the proposal
of a cable applicant selected by City and develop a final franchise
ordinance that will incorporate the required features of the applicant's
proposal into the preliminary ordinance and in a form that may be
acted on by City and accepted by the cable applicant as the franchise
grant.
1 . Ordinance will include the provisions of the MCCB.
2. Law Firm will coordinate with consultant of MCCB so that the
final franchise ordinance can be acted on by MCCB at the time
the cable applicant applies for the certificate of confirmation.
3. Law Firm will attend a joint meeting of the City Council and the
Ad Hoc Cable Communications Committee to review and explain the
final franchise ordinance and answer questions .
II .
CITY RESPONSIBILITY
A. City will furnish Law Firm with minutes of the Council and Ad Hoc Cable
Communications Committee and all information, documents and records of
City in conjunction with its study, evaluation, and policy determination
regarding a cable communications system for City.
B. City will provide its cooperation and assistant to Law Firm as needed by
it to perform the legal services described herein.
III .
CHARGES FOR LEGAL SERVICES
A. Basic Charge. For the legal services described in Paragraph I , Law
rim will be paid up to Five Thousand Dollars ($5,000.00) .
1 . Law Firm shall provide City with billing statements on a
monthly basis detailing its charges based on its hourly
rate. Also, all expenses to be reimbursed shall be itemized.
City shall promptly pay Law Firm after receipt of each billing.
B. Expenses. Law Firm will be reimbursed for any out-of-pocket expenses.
C. Additional Legal Services. Any additional legal services requested by
City, such as additional meetings or representation in litigation related
to the franchise ordinance, shall be paid for by City at the hourly rate
of Law Firm upon receipt of billings made by Law Firm for such additional
legal services.
IV.
GENERAL PROVISIONS
A. Communications.
1 . To Law Firm.
Thomsen, Nybeck, Herbst & Johnson, P.A.
Suite 102
7250 France Avenue South
Edina, Minnesota 55435
Attention: Adrian E. Herbst, Attorney
2. To City.
Jeanne Andre, Administrative Assistant
City of Shakopee
129 East First Avenue
Shakopee, Minnesota 55379
B. Law Firm agrees to sign a standard form "Conflict of Interest Statement"
of City acknowledging that it does not have a conflict of interest in
this legal representation.
C. Both parties agree to cooperate and coordinate with each other and
with a consultant hired by City to achieve the successful awarding
of a cable communications franchise for City. However, it is agreed
that this Agreement may be terminated by either party without reason
by the giving of thirty (30) day written communication to the other.
-2-
IN WITNESS OF the foregoing terms and conditions , the parties hereto
have signed this Agreement below.
CITY OF SHAKOPEE THOMSEN, NYBECK, HERBST & JOHNSON, P.A.
l:-,
a /
4
By By
A RIAN E. HERBST
-3-
•
3
MEMO TO: John K. Anderson, City Administrator
FROM: Gregg Voxland, Finance Director
RE: Authorization for Payment
DATE: May 8, 1981
The following is a list of the final agreed settlements on the
VIP condemnations. Request approval for payment.
1) Valley Industrial Park, LTD
Scottland Inc. $ 1,900.00
2) Scottland, Inc. 25.00
3) Jane Hauer 102.50
4) James Hauer/Jane Hauer 162.50
5) Eugene Hauer and Virginia Hauer 1,200.00
6) James Hauer, Eugene Hauer, Jane
Hauer and Virginia Hauer 1,350.00
7) Al's Landscaping & Nursery 50.00
8) Henry G. & Mabel L. Johnson and
Christian & Gross 2,175.00
Total Payments $ 6,965.00
GV/ljw