Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
03/10/1987
TENTATIVE AGENDA ADJ .REG.SESSION SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA MARCH 10, 1987 Mayor Reinke presiding 11 Roll Call at 7:00 P.M. at Citizens State Bank Building, 1100 E 4th 2] RECOGNITION BY CITY COUNCIL OF INTERESTED CITIZENS 3] 7:00 P.M. CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING - Downtown Redevelopment Project 1987-2 a] Verbal report from Howard Voigt, Shakopee Valley News, regard- ing March 4, 1987 Editorial b] Downtown Redevelopment Project c] Status of Existing Utilities 41 Other Business: a] P11) ab98 Qsidt . �.aJ -�J w` e > Jt2�..� b] C] 5] Recess for Executive Session: a] Labor Negotiations b] Right-Of-Way Litigation for Valley Park Drive North 6] Re-convene 7] Adjourn to Tuesday, March 17, 1987 at 7:00 P.M. John K. Anderson City Administrator 3b MEMO TO: John R. Anderson, City Administrator FROM: Barry A. Stock, Administrative Assistant RE: Downtown Redevelopment - Public Hearing DATE: March 6, 1987 Introduction: The continued Downtown public hearing will be held at 7:00 P.M. on Tuesday, March 10, 1987 in the Citizens State Bank meeting room. Staff will be prepared to discuss components of the project and assessment policies as directed by City Council at their February 3, 1987 meeting. Background• On February 3 , 1987 the City Council discussed the following concerns in regard to the downtown redevelopment project and directed staff to prepare answers to be presented at the public hearing: 1. Phasing of the project to reduce impact on the downtown businesses. 2. Inclusion/exclusion of Third Avenue in the downtown redevelopment plan. 3. Various assessment credits for streetscape costs included in the projected redevelopment costs. i.e. extra curbing, sidewalk, road design strength, etc. 4. Status of existing utilities and associated costs for improvement. Project Phasing Staff is proposing a phasing plan which incorporates the downtown redevelopment area, Third Avenue and the north- south streets between Third and Fourth Avenues. Phase I would consist of a 1987 and 1988 construction season. For the purposes of this memo, redevelopment shall be defined as total street reconstruction within the downtown redevelopment district. Rehabilitation shall be defined as total street reconstruction outside the downtown redevelopment district. Staff is recommending that Third Avenue be left out of the downtown redevelopment district. The reason for excluding Third Avenue from the downtown redevelopment district stems from the fact that the property owners on the south side of Third Avenue were not included in the project when the petitioning process was undertaken. Following is a plan which explains the streets to be included in Phase I and Phase II of the Downtown Redevelopment Project. Note that Phase I is comprised of a 1987 and 1988 construction season. PHASE I 1. 1987 Construction Season - Sommerville St. (First to Third) Redevelopment - Lewis St. (First to Third St. ) - Second Ave. (Holmes to Sommerville) 2. 1988 Construction Season - Holmes St. (First to Third) Redevelopment - Fuller (First to Third) - Atwood St. (First to Third) - Second Avenue (Atwood to Holmes) 3. 1988 Construction Season - Third Avenue (Spencer to Shumway) Rehabilitation - Scott, Atwood, Fuller, Lewis, Sommerville, Spencer (Third to Fourth) PHASE II 4. 1991 Construction Season Redevelopment - First Avenue (Atwood to Sommerville) A map identifying the various construction phases is shown in attachment #1. This phasing should minimize the impact on downtown businesses due to construction. Additionally, the project as proposed would eliminate the assessment inconsistency as it currently exists on Third Avenue. Staff is recommending that the rehabilitation portion of the project phasing ( #3 above) that occurs in the 1988 is to be completed as a separate City project (either Council initiated or petition initiated) . This portion of the project phasing would, therefore, require a separate public hearing. Cost Estimates In attachment #2, staff has broken down the costs for a typical lot within the downtown redevelopment project area. I have listed two different alternatives that the City Council may wish to consider. The first is to proceed with the downtown redevelopment project as previously discussed in this memo. That is to say that Third Avenue would be left out of the initial project area and upgraded at a later date. Under this scenario the estimated project cost for a typical lot is $3,393. 00. Lots abutting 3rd Ave. would only be assessed for a zonal improvement at this time. If Third Ave. is completed as a separate rehabilitation project in 1988, 3 � these properties would then be assessed for their frontage improvements. Staff estimates that this cost (FF) would be approximately $1816 per typical city lot. At the last Council meeting, it was suggested that staff send a letter to the property owners on the south side Third Avenue informing them of the possibility that Third Avenue may be eliminated from the Downtown Project. As of Friday, this letter had not been mailed. After deliberation, staff felt that in light of the fact that a public notice was sent out indicating the continued public hearing date and specification that Third Avenue was still being considered for redevelopment and that another letter would only confuse the residents. As it stands, if Third Avenue is deleted from the project area and rehabilitated at a later date, a separate public hearing would be necessary. At that time, property owners would again be able to voice their concerns in regard to the need for any improvements. I The second alternative is for Third Avenue to be included in to the downtown redevelopment project area. Under this scenario the estimated project cost for a typical lot within the downtown redevelopment area would be $4,238.00. This alternative would not assess property owners on the south side of Third Avenue. Note that all the cost estimates that I have given in this memo include assessment credits for extra curb required in connection with the streetscape, extra sidewalk width and additional costs for extra sidewalk width and the additional cost for enterprise fund work. If Third Avenue is constructed as a separate rehabilitation project in 1988, the estimated total cost ( zonal and frontage) for a typical lot is $3 ,632.00. This estimate is 7% higher than the projected 1987 cost. During the course of the presentation at the public hearing, the City Engineer will address the status of the existing utilities and associated costs. He will also address the issue of property owners individual service lines. One of the key issues that remains to be decided by City Council is whether or not Third Avenue should be included in the downtown redevelopment project or completed as a separate street rehabilitation project in 1988 or thereafter. Staff requests that City Council make a decision in regard to this issue prior to closing the public hearing. Shown in attachment #3 is a listing of the assessment policies that are being proposed in conjunction with the downtown redevelopment project. Please remember to bring your Downtown Feasibility Study Report and other pertinent information from previous meetings that you believe will be of assistance. If you require additional information or have any questions prior to the meeting please feel free to call me. Alternatives- 1. Move to close the public hearing. 2. Move to close the public hearing and direct the appropriate city officials to prepare plans and specifications for the downtown redevelopment project. 3 . Move to continue the public hearing. 4. Move to close the public hearing and discontinue any efforts on the part of the City of Shakopee to improve the downtown area. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends alternative #2. Action Requested: Move to close the public hearing and request the appropriate city officials to prepare plans and specifications for phase I of the downtown redevelopment project. . - — Attachment 01 - ? n I y _- 01 7 ZI;E V j # , r � v .: �� t s i Imo : YYYY d n o o n o [+ comm m £ OI 'J W � mm �! awm0 _ i Y1. YYa . . I 01- 0 o m m E N N N .i O r. O r. M TTJ a c Attachment #2 ASSESSMENT 3rd Ave. Not Built 3rd Ave. Built PROPERTY W/O Parking Lots W/O Parking Lots CATEGORY Assessed Assessed ( 08 Streetscape) (08 Streetscape) (258 Rehab) ( 258 Rehab) (Redevelop. depending lot location) #1 Phase I Phase II Phase I Phase II Properties with Phase II Frontage $0 $3,393 $0 $4,238 & Zonal Improvements Total $3 . 393 Total $ 4,238 #2 Properties with Phase II Frontage $1,697 $1,696 $2,219 $2,219 & Phase I Zonal Improvements Total $3 ,393 $ 4,238 #3 Properties with Phase I Frontage $3,393 $0 $4,238 $0 Phase I Zonal Improvements Total $3 , 393 $ 4 ,238 #4 Properties with Phase I Zonal $1,697 $0 NA NA 3rd Ave. Frontage to be Assessed when 3rd Ave. Rehabilitated* _Total $1,697 #5 Properties with Phase I Zonal and NA NA $4,238 $0 Frontage Improvements if 3rd Ave. is Built Total $4 ,238 *The estimated frontage cost for 3rd Ave. done as a separate project in 1988 are $1816 per typical lot. Note: The cost estimates shown above do not include the costs for property owners individual water and sewer services. If both water and sewer services are in need of replacement and the City follows standard policy, an estimated $2075 could beassessedto the affected property owners. March 5, 1987 Attachment #3 Proposed Assessment Policies Downtown Streetscape Project 1. The assessment district should include all parcels bounded by Atwood (both sides of the street) on the West, the North side of Third Avenue on the South, Sommerville on the East including the West side of Spencer abutting First Ave. on the East and the alley alignment between First Avenue and Levee Drive on the North. In addition, it includes parcels on the West side of Atwood that have front footage on said street. i 2. The assessment policy shall use the shortest distance along a street as the front footage. 3 . Each parcel shall receive a separate assessment. 4. City use and other parcels owned by non-profit entities will be considered as commercial for assessment purposes (consistent with other city assessment practices) . 5. Street Rehabilitation assessments on single family and two family residential properties within the assessment district shall be deferred with no interest until property is converted to commercial use. These assessments shall be paid for initially from tax-increment proceeds or other funds until the conversion use occurs. 6. Any city parking lot shall not be assessed but the cost for those areas shall be paid for from tax-increment proceeds. 7. The 70% FF/30% square foot formula shall be utilized for assessment purposes. 8. 25% of street rehabilitation project cost will be assessable to the property owners. 9. The entire streetscape portion of the project cost shall be paid for from tax-increment proceeds. 3c- MEMO TO: John K. Anderson, City Administrator FROM: Ken Ashfeld, City Engineer` SUBJECT: Proposed Downtown Redevelopment Project Status of Existing Utilities DATE: March 5, 1987 INTRODUCTION: At their February 3 , 1987 meeting, Council directed staff to develop estimated costs that would be assessed for various possibilities of utility replacement associated with a downtown redevelopment project. As the feasibility study stated, the estimated costs did not include utility costs. The estimated costs discussed to date , are for surface and lighting improvements. As this project, and its associated funding options, evolved through the preliminary engineering and public hearing process, it is apparent that the possible impact of utility service replacement costs is becoming relatively great. This is particularly the case for single lot developments. For example, the assessed cost of a service replacement is no longer resulting in an increased assessment of 5%-10% but, as proposed assessments decrease, this relative impact is on the order of 30%-40% . Obviously, this relative impact decreases on multiple lot development where one service serves one building occupying several lots. Certainly , this change in proposed assessments has modified my thinking as to the relative importance of service costs as a major cost issue on this project. BACKGROUND: Utility Replacement Policy The City' s current policy for the replacement of sanitary sewers provides for the sanitary sewer fund to fund the replacement of mains and the serviced property pay for service pipe replacement. It is my understanding that this policy is similar to the water systems replacement policy of SPUC. In the case of sanitary sewers, the condition of the main can be reviewed by televising the main and visually inspecting manholes. Unfortunately, the condition of the sewer services can not be reviewed unless exposed below the surface and visually inspected. Typically, a decision is made to replace a particular segment of sanitary sewer during preliminary engineering. If it is decided to replace a main, the need to replace a particular service pipe Status of Existing Utilities March 5 , 1987 Page 2 is determined when the service is exposed during main replacement. The need for replacement is reviewed based upon condition of the service and original pipe material used. In the case of watermains, a decision as to need of replacement is based upon the following factors: Final depth of cover History & experience of problems aovdition c& t%ve seraice pipe is reuieued whan and iS Again, t'ne or a main replacement . The need for replacement is exposed f dbased upon condition and pipe material . determine of Utilities — Downtown Area Condition time of installation of utilities in the downtown area The exact n. Research of old records has revealed that a large is unknow Df the sanitary sewer in the CBD area was assessed on portion 27 , 1910. A November, 1910 insurance map of the City September that the water system was inplace in the downtown area indicated ime. at that t on this information and review of television tapes, I Based up following concerns: have the age of the sanitary sewer system relative to the The eted life of new roadways. expe identified isolated problem areas and a few extensive Many lems areas. prob rial used at that time consisted of 2 foot lengths of Mate pipe resulting in many joints. clay ct on this aged and relatively fragile system by heavy Impa truction equipment on the surface over the system. cons .tion of sewer services are unknown but one would assume The condi services were installed in that same era . This that the n may be invalid if various service pipes were replaced assumptio over time ase of watermains, Lou VanHout, SPUC Utilities Manager, In the c� sated that they have not experienced inordinate has indi ce problems in the CBD area and depth of cover will not maintenan A decision as to the need to replace water mains has not change. e . SPUC is also analyzing the condition of mainline been mad � a Status of Existing Utilities March 5, 1987 Page 3 valves and manholes. As in the case of main replacement, this is a replacement fund cost. SPUC is aware of instances where service stop valves do not operate and/or the valve box is broke. If these need replacing, this is a property owner cost. Estimated Costa Sanitary Sewer - If Council orders all of the Phase 1 redevelopment improvements and the rehabilitation of 3rd Avenue from Spencer to Shumway, the estimated cost to replace all sanitary sewer mains is $198,000.00. The City' s finance Director, Gregg Voxland, indicated that the Sewer Replacement Fund can adequately fund this replacement. This systems replacement cost does not affect the proposed assessments for the project. In the event of a service line replacement, the estimated cost is $900.00. This would be a direct, 1005 assessment to the benefitted property by existing policy. Watermaia - Detailed evaluation of watermain replacement cost has not been completed at this point . Watermain replacement costs do not affect proposed assessments . If water service pipe and valving improvements are necessary, the following are estimated costs depending the extent of necessary work: Curb box riser pipe $175.00 Curb box riser & valve $300.00 - Curb box, valve & service pipe $700.00 This cost would be a direct, 100% assessment to the abutting benefitted properties. Unless there is a decision to replace all water services, these costs would result from isolated replacements. Lou also mentioned that he is aware of instances where a single service and meter is serving more than one business and/or building. This does not overly concern SPUC since all the water is metered and paid for. From the perspective of the property owners, they may wish to individualize their services and meters in anticipation of building rehabilitation. This will need to be coordinated with property owners if this project advances to final design. Without knowing if additional mains need to be installed , I cannot estimate this cost for individualizing services. Another issue involves vacant properties. At the present, there is an adequate water system in the CBD. If a major development or redevelopment occurred requiring an upgraded system for fire G/ Status of Existing Utilities March 5, 1987 Page 4 protection , a new trunk line may be necessary as well as additional looping. I suspect that predicting these needs would be speculative, at best. ALTERNATIVES WATER SYSTEM All alternatives for replacement of water systems has yet to be identified . It appears that most costs will be systems replacement cost with the exception of isolated replacement or if property owners wish to modify their existing service. Sanitary Sewer For the most part , sanitary sewer costs will be systems replacement cost. Council should consider the following alternatives relative to sanitary services. 1 . Maintain existing policy and have a mandatory replacement of "orangeburg" pipe and a conditional review of other materials. I do not anticipate much or any of "orangeburg" material. 2. Modify existing policy and require replacement of 1910 era clay services. This may be prudent based upon the proposed surface improvements. If Council chooses this alternative, the following funding alternatives may be considered. a. property owner pays 1005 of replacement cost. b. since clay pipe is normally expected to last 100 years, the current life is 75 years, Council may wish to consider a credit because this is modification of policy. If this is the case, a 255 credit is in order. RECOMMENDATION: Regarding the water system, I recommend that, if this project advances to final design, water system improvements be included in the design elements consistent with the requirements of SPUC. Regarding the sanitary sewer system, I recommend the following actions if the project advances. 1 . All sanitary sewer mains within the project area be replaced. Status of Existing Utilities March 5 , 1987 Page 5 2. All sanitary sewer services be replaced with the exception of those constructed of cast iron pipe. Action number 2 is contrary to standing policy since existing policy calls for mandatory replacement of "orangeburg" pipe only. I recommend this modification of the policy due to the uniqueness of the proposed project. On a residential street, for instance, if the project inspector' s judgement is in error and a service that was left in place fails before the life cycle of the street, replacement involves the bituminous street, grass boulevard and perhaps a narrow sidewalk. As a street receives occasional surface treatments (seal coat or overlay) , the streets appearance and integrity is maintained. In the case of the proposed downtown redevelopment, an unexpected service replacement amongst trees, decorative paving and lighting systems would not be a simple or inexpensive task. In the interest of protecting the property owners investment in the proposed surface improvements, as well as protection against much higher future replacement costs, it is my opinion that costs for service replacement now is a good investment for the future. I also recommend that Council consider a credit for the assumed 25% remaining life of inplace services. SUMMARY This memo includes various recommendations for utility improvements in conjunction with a proposed downtown redevelopment project . These recommendations would be essentially the same if the redevelopment project does not advance and instead substituted by a pavement rehabilitation project. In the case of the proposed downtown redevelopment project, I caution against leaving utilities inplace that may be marginal in condition but may have remaining life expectancy, particularly in the case of service pipe. During the hearing process of residential streets , property owners are usually told that replacement of their services are possible. I do not know how many sanitary sewer services have been replaced with cast iron over the years, but in this instance, I would suspect that the need to replace services is highly probable instead of possible. KA/pmp UTILITIES 1, MEMO TO: John K. Anderson, City Administrator FROM: Ken Ashfel d, City Engineer-- SUBJECT: Resolution No. 2698 Requesting a Variance of Design Standards for 10th Avenue Project DATE: March 10, 1987 INTRODUCTION: Engineering is requesting Council to consider Resolution No. 2698 at their March 10, 1987 special meeting which is requesting a variance to the state aid standards for the 10th Avenue Federal Aid Urban and State Aid overlay project. This prompt request is due to a recent development, that being the unexpected scheduling of the State Aid Variance Committee. This committee meets irregularly and usually, only a couple times a year. BACKGROUND: Engineering has completed the plans and specifications for the proposed 10th Avenue FAU & MSAS overlay project. The plans are being reviewed by Mn/DOT and the Federal Highway Administration. The requested variance concerns the width of the inplace roadway. The current state aid standards for a four lane roadway with parking on both sides requires a width of 66 feet. The existing roadway is 64 feet. The variance request consists of the proposal to continue with the existing width as a design element of the construction plans. Alternatives: 1 . Adopt Resolution No. 2698. 2. Restrict parking on one side of the street as a measure to conform with the minimum width. 3. Reconstruct one side of the street to add an additional two feet of width. 4. Discontinue efforts to advance the project. RECOMMENDATION: Adoption of Resolution No. 2698 is recommended. REQUESTED ACTION: Offer Resolution 2698 , A Resolution Requesting the Minnesota Commissioner of Transportation to Grant a Two Foot Width Variance in the Improvements of 10th Avenue (FAU 5060) from CSAH 17 to T.H. 300 and move its adoption. KA/pmp RES2698 RESOLUTION NO. 2698 A RESOLUTION REQUESTING THE MINNESOTA COMMISSIONER OF TRANSPORTATION TO GRANT A TWO FOOT WIDTH VARIANCE IN THE IMPROVEMENTS OF 10TH AVENUE (FAU 5060) FROM CSAH 17 TO T.H. 300 Be it resolved that the Commissioner of Transportation be hereby requested to grant a variance of Minnesota Rule for State Aid Operation, Chapter 8820.9919. Adopted in session of the City Council of the City of Shakopee, Minnesota, held this day of , 19 Mayor of the City of Shakopee ATTEST: City Clerk Approved as to form this day of , 19 City Attorney CL ATTACHMENT TO CITY OF SHAKOPEE RESOLUTION NO. 2698 SUPPLEMENTAL DATA FOR VARIANCE REQUEST 1 . Index Mao - Attached. 2. Typical Section - Attached. 3. Reasons for Reguest - 10th Avenue was constructed segmentally over a period of years to State-Aid standards at the time of construction. At this time, it would be very costly to reconstruct in order to widen from 64 feet to 66 feet. It is therefore proposed to resurface the existing 64 foot width. Parallel parking on both sides has been a feature of 10th Avenue since its original construction. 4. Resulting Impacts - Impacts resulting from the variance in width would be unchanged from the Project Development Report and Location and Design Study Report. 5. Effectiveness of the Proiect in Eliminating an Existing and Proiected Deficiency in the Transportation System - The present pavement structure is showing signs of distressin the pavement section such as aligated cracking, rutting, and severe pavement erosion. The proposed improvement would add an additional 1 .50 inches of bituminous surfacing to provide increased pavement strength and improved serviceability This would not only safeguard the City' s investment but will extend the service life of the facility a minimum of 15 years. 6. Effect on Adjacent Lands - None. T. Persons Affected - None by the Variance. 8. Safety Considerations - A two foot width variance would not be detrimental to the safety of pedestrians, bicyclists, the motoring public or fire, police, and emergency units. v vi --Im f� ioo = G')n cr im, mmO z _ n + � D I� om n � m ID o0 D 11 1 (P ,o -qo OLn o :CoZz I _To 11� 4� O .0 -q -I 'z >— > oZ m / avm N n gmo m Q;! m �7n z CD 0 { z m ' / ❑©❑ � U) -4 C 3 I I ❑QQ N v ❑Q m z Q I m 0 I , II 1 n = m I \ I O I I <n z EnT 1 � 1 I � e � � ' m � / 64' r---AREA TO BE MILLED �� r 1.5 BITUMINOUS OVERLAY 6 i II - EXIST. 4° BIT. PAVEMENT \- EXIST. BASE MATERIAL (DEPTH VARIES) 10th AV`. ► YPICAL SECTION =1GURE 21 aJIILIUS A.COLLER.II J�LIUS A.coLLca ArTOHNEY AT LAW zw is sa-ia.o SHAKOPEE,MINNESOTA 55329 March 9, 1987 Memo to: John K. Anderson, City Administrator From: Julius A. Collar, II, City Attorney In re: Deferred Assessments for Street Rehabilitation You ask: Does the City have the authority to defer assessments for street Rehabilitation. Minnesota Statute 429.061 (2) provides that payment of the assessment for steet rehabilitation may be deferred until a designated year upon unimproved property or until the platting of the property or the construction of improvements thereon. Minnesota Statute 435.193 provides for the deferment of special assessments for any homestead property owned by a person 65 years of age or older, or retired by virtue of a permanent and total disability for whom it would be a hardship to make the payment. �J V ASSESSABLE PROJECT COST: $414,319 H.NKI DOWMTONN REDEVELOPMENT ASSESSMENTS 251- STREET 4 t KID 3rd Avenue a 0: STREETSCAPE No Parking Lots PID ELK FF SOFT PROPTYPE PROPERTY PHASE 1 PHASE II TOTAL CREDIT FINAL OWNER AREA (1-4) ASSESS ASSESS ASSESS ASSESS :7-001028-0 2 60.00 B520.DU res koch I $0 $3,593 $1,593 $200 13,393 27-001029-0 2 60.00 6526.00 res McReynolds I f0 13,593 $3,543 $200 !3,393 27-001030-0 2 60.00 8520.00 res Thibodeaux 1 f0 $3,593 l3,54'a $200 $3,393 2i-001031-0 2 60.00 8520.00 res 6okern 1 SO 11,593 $3,593 $200 $3,393 27-001032-0 2 60.00 8520.00 res Miller 1 SO $3,593 $3,543 $200 !3,343 27-001034-0 3 73.50 10437.00 cot braobilla I t0 $4,402 $4,402 f245 $4,157 27-001035-0 3 42.50 6035.00 cos Topic 1 $0 12,545 $2,545 $142 $2,404 2i-001038-0 3 26.00 3642.00 coo Mahoney 1 f0 11,551 $1,557 187 $1,470 27-001037-0 3 52.70 7483.00 coo Mahoney 1 f0 $3,156 (1,156 $176 ;2,980 27-001038-0 3 90.00 7389.00 cos Kai-Shing 1 $0 $4,677 $4,677 $175 $4,501 117-001039-0 3 52.00 7542.00 cot Kwi-Shing t s0 $3,142 $3,142 1178 $2,963 27-001041-0 4 55.00 5555.00 coo RLK Properties 1 f0 !2,996 $2,996 $131 $2,864 2i-001042-0 4 41.00 2255.00 Cos ' 1 t0 $1,984 $1,484 154 $1,429 27-001043-1 4 20.00 2411.00 cps 1 $0 $1,207 $1,207 $69 $1,139 27-001044-1 4 25.00 3550.00 coo Heroott 1 SU $1,497 $1,497 $63 $1,414 27-001045-0 4 20.00 2840.00 cot Maser 1 t0 f1,19B $1,198 $67 $1,131 '-7-001046-0 4 30.00 4260.00 cot Hill 1 - $0 f1,7g7 $1,747 $100 $1,697 27-001041-04 31.00 4402.00 cot Hughes t SO $1,857 $1,857 $103 $1,753 27-001048-0 4 28.50 4047.00 cot Yohnoutka 1 s0 11,707 $1,707 $95 $1,612 27-001044-0 4 30.00 4260.00 cit City of Shakopee 1 $0 $1,747 $1,797 $100 $1,697 27-001050-0 4 40.00 5680.00 cot Topic 1 s0 $2,345 $2,345 $133 $2,262 27-001050-1 4 21.00 2982.00 cit City of Shakopee l S0 $1,250 $1,258 $70 $1.188 27-OOIOM-0 5 142.00 19BB0.00 coo Johnson 1 f0 38,466 $8,466 $467 SB,000 27-001060-0 5 101.00 17111.00 cot Brasbilia I 50 $6,415 $6,415 $401 $6,014 27-001061-0 5 39.00 2769.00 cos Yopei 1 $0 $1,969 $1,969 $66 $1,963 P.-00106^--0 5 0.00 0.00 cit State 04 MN Nty 1 f0 t0 f0 SO SL• 27-001466-0 6 60.00 8520.00 res Lebens 1 f0 $31593 $3,543 $200 $3,343 27-001084-0 6 60:00 8520.00 res O'Conner $0 $3,543 $3 X93 $200 $3,343 2?-001070-0 6 60.00 8520.00 res Dubois 1 fD $3,593 $3,543 $200 $2.92S5,392 2'-001071-0 6 60.00 4200.00 coo Halloran t f0 $3,022 $3,022 $100 $2.922 -001072-0 6 42.00 7890.00 cos Johnson 1 f0 ;2,770 52,770 $184 t2,585 27-001073-0 6 n.00 2700.00 coo Rein I SO $1,796 $1,796 $64 $1,732 27-001074-0 b 25.00 1150.00 cot Rein 1 $0 $1,325 !1,325 1-53 $1,272 27-001085-0 7 71.00 4260.00 res lerdenier 1 f0 ;1,482 $1,4B2 $102 33,386 27-001086-0 7 60.00 4260.04 res Fnnnier 1 f0 $1,030 $3,030 $102 $1,428 $0 f0 t0 $0 t0 27-001129-0 20 80.00 ',625.00 res lilies 3 $4,297 $0 $4,297 $Igo $4,117 27-001129-1 20 42.00 5040.00 CDs Cy? Standard 3 52,343 $0 f-IZ93 $119 '2,274 27-001130-0 20 100.00 12000.00 cos American Oil Co. 1 $1,088 $2,610 $5,698 $283 ;5,415 27-001134-0 21 31.83 2664.70 cos H k D Railway 3 $1,687 SO $1,687 468 $1,619 211-001135-0 21 110.17 22695.30 Cos Staks 2 $4,081 0,449 $7,530 $530 $7,000 7-1-001138-0 21 0.00 6.00 cip City of Shakopee f0 $0 s0 $U f0 27-001137-0 21 0.00 . 0.00 cip City of Shakopee f0 f0 f0 s0 $0 27-001138-0 21 0.00 0.00 Cip City of Shakopee $0 $0 fU t0 $0 27-001139-0 21 0.00 -- 0.00 cip City of Shakopee $0 $0 t0 $0 f0 21-00110-0 21 60.00 E520.00 cot Laurent Real Estate $1,948 $1,646 $11543 f200 S"34d 141-0 21 60.00 8520.00 res DuBois 51,448 $1,646 53,593 $200 53,393 142-0 21 55.00 6390.00 res htbovern $1,461 51,234 $2,695 $150 !2,545 143-0 21 1MAD 14170.00 cot habil 0errce/Narmar 2 $4,382 $3,103 $8,085 $450 57,635 144-0 22 142.00 25560.00 cot Berea 3 $9,218 10 $9,21B 1598 SE,620 145-0 22 60.00 6120.00 cat Beren 3 $3,216 t0 $3,276 $145 53,131 IIA-032.00 1420.00 cat Brom 3 $1,569 f0 $1,569 $46 51,523 147-0 22 20.00 2400.00 cot topic 3 $1,140 $0 $1,140 $57 $1,083 14E-0 20.00 2400.00 cam Sneffer 3 $1,140 $0 11,140 157 51,083 149-0 L" 30.00 1800.00 cot hert:-Horeish 1 $1,471 f0 $1,471 $43 51,42E .:50-0 22 40.00 2400.00 coo Lanl Els 3 $1,962 $0 11,962 $SB $1,904 151-0 22 20.00 600.00 cot Bolla $489 $413 $902 515 $8371 .152-0 22 51.00 7920.00 cot Goebel 2 $1,704 $1,440 53,144 $186 $2,958 .155-0 22 43.60 60B1.40 cam 6ustafson 2 $1,407 $1,109 52,597 $143 $2,454 154-0 22 27.40 2438.60 cos Shakopee finance 2 $785 $664 $1,449 t5B $1,391 '.155-0 22 60.00 B520.00 cot 6ustafson 2 $1,948 !1,646 $3,593 $200- $3,393 .156-0 22 67.00 15340.00 cot hensing 2 $2,521 $2,130 $4,651 $335 $4,316 .157-0 22 75.00 7200.00 res hensing 2 12,187 $1,848 $4,035 $170 $3,865 158-0 23 142.00 2B620.DO cot Ist hat. Bank 3 $9,622 f0 $9,622 $669 $2,454 159-0 23 90.00 4180.00 cum kerterskirchen 3 $4,914 $0 $4,914 $217 $4,697 X162-0 23 22.00 3720.00 coo 3 S1,396 f0 $1,396 1117 $1,309 :163-0 23 18.00 1080.00 coo topic 3 $883 $0 $883 $26 $857 .164-0 23 36.00 3120.00 cos Snak. Bast #4046 2 $1,026 $867 $1,892 $74 $1,E19 165-0 23 62.00 4650.00 coo Smith 2 $1,115 $1,449 53,164 $111 $3,053 .166-0 23 24.00 1680.00 cot Topic 2 $655 $554 $1,209 $40 (1,169 :167-0 23 30.00 3300.00 cam Barbershop 2 $905 $765 $1,670 $78 $1,592 -166-1 23 30.00 4260.00 cam Dressen 5974 $323 $1,797 $100 $1,697 :169-0 23 26.00 3692.00 cot Theis 2 $844 $713 $1,557 $87 $1,470 1170-0 23 39.00 5538.00 cat Czse Clothing $1,266 $1,070 (2,336 $130 $2,206 1171-0 23 25.00 3530.00 cam harness 2 $311 $686 $1,497 $83 £1,414 1172-0 23 31.00 4402.00 cot King Solomon Loge 2 $1,006 S250 tl,857 $103 51,753 :1T-0 23 38.50 5467.00 cot Latour 2 SIZO 51,056 52.306 $128 52,171 :174-1 T 21.50 3053.00 cot Bootie 2 $69B $590 $1,288 572 $1,216 !175-0 24 0.00 0.00 cip City of Snakooee t0 f0 t0 $0 $0 176-0 24 0.00 0.00 cip City of Snakopee $0 f0 f0 $0 SO '171-0 24 0.00 0.00 cip City of Shakooee $0 50 $0 $0 t0 :17B-0 24 0.00 0.00 cip City of Shakopee $0 t0 t0 $0 $0 :174-0 24 120.00 17040.00 car, Seibenaier 3 $7,186 $0 $7,186 5400 $6,186 .ISO-0 24 60.00 4650.00 coo Myers 3 $3,081 $0 1"081 $111 $2,911 :181-0 24 60.00 3670.00 cam hc6overn 3 $2,978 $0 f2,97B $93 $2,886 192-0 24 60.00 8520.00 cam Pearson 21 fl,948 tl,646 $3,593 £200 $3,343 :183-0 24 27.00 " 3957.00 cot Clay 2 $985 $748 51,633 $93 $1,540 184-0 24 33.00 4563.00 cot 5chroeuer 2 $1,062 5098 $1,960 £107 $1,853 :155-0 24 60.00 8520.00 coo Cavanaugh 2 $1,942 $1,646 $3,593 $200 $3,393 :186-0 24 60.00 8520.00 cos Siebenaler 2 $1,948 $1,646 53,543 $200 53,393 :IBB-0 24 26.00 1560.00 coo Mennen 2 $691 SSW 51,275 $37 51,238 :184-0 24 21.00 1260.00 cos Ferry1558 $572 51,030 $30 $!,000 :190-0 24 3`,-.45 2127.00 coo Kopp 2 $942 $796 $1,734 $51 $1,688 :141-0 24 59.55 3573.00 cos lmeber1 $1,5883 $1,338 $2,920 $86 52.835 :142-0 25 142.00 25560.00 coo Post Officei6art Inc 3 $4,218 f0 $4,218 $598 $2,624 :145-0 25 60.00 8520.00 cam Novak I £1,948 $1,646 $3,593 5200 33.343 119A-0 25 60.00 8520.00 cos Novak 2 $1,948 51,646 $3.543 £200 :.343 :191-0 25 60.00 8520.00 res Samyel 2 $1,448 $1,646 53,543 $200 53,343 1190-0 25 60.00 2520.00 cam Monroe 2 $1,948 $1,646 53,593 $200 S3,393 :145-0 25 60.00 8520.00 coo Eckart - I $1,948 $1,646 t"593 $200 131393 X16-0 28 90.30 106.00 res Houle 4 S2,789 $0 52,789 $348 52,39: 27-001219-0 28 51.70 6204.00 res Suchard 4 $1,597 s0 $1,597 $228 S1.36c 27-001:26-0 28 60.00 7050.00 cot Scherer 3 $1,399 t0 $3,399 $166 t--a,=, 27-001227-0 28 24.50 1470.00 cot Culhane 3 $1,202 SO $1,202 $35 $1,166 27-001225-0 29 120.00 17040.00 cit Library 4 $1,B95 t0 $3.095 $624 53,271 27-001229-0 29 0.00 0.00 tip City of Shakopee s0 s0 t0 SO SE 27-001230-0 29 0.00 0.00 Cip City of Snakopee $0 $0 t0 $0 if 27-001231-0 29 0.00 0.00 rip City of Shatopee t0 t0 t0 t0 S: 27-001232-0 29 0.00 0.00 Cip City of Shakopee s0 s0 t0 f0 fi 27-001233-0 29 12.00 1296.00 con MN Sell 3 $665 t0 $665 $31 $634 27-001231-0 29 108.00 14040.00 coo NN bell 3 $6,296 $0 $6,296 $330 55,96: 27-001235-0 29 9200 13064.00 cap ph Sell 1 $5,510 s0 15,510 $107 55,203 27-001236-0 29 95.00 14220.00 cot lopit/Oinnegasct 3 S ,7Bb $0 $5,706 5334 S5,452 27-0012384 30 70.00 8420.00 res Strunk 3 $3,991 t0 $3,991 $198 $:,77,- 217-00123H 3,74327-001'38-1 30 59.00 7080.00 con hoonen 3 $3,362 t0 $3,362 $167 !3,194 27-001239-0 30 50.00 2500.00 res Norelsi 3 $2,386 $0 S"386 $60 t2,326 27-001240-0 30 60.00 8520.00 cot Drown 3 $1,593 $0 $3,593 $200 53,39: 27-001241-0 30 60.00 13380.00 cot Shak. Inv. One 3 $4,236 f0 $4,236 5312 $3,924 27-001242-0 30 60.00 3600.00 cat Nofiaan 3. $2,943 t0 S2,943 $86 12,856 27-001243-0 30 0.00 0.00 cip City of Shakopee SO f0 f0 f0 t( 27-001244-0 30 0.00 0.00 Cip City of Shakopee f0 f0 f0 f0 f( 27-001245-0 31 60.00 8520.00 res Ryan 4 $1,948 f0 $1,948 $312 $1,636 27-001246-0 31 60.00 8520.00 res Monrens 4 $1,948 t0 $1,948 $312 $1,636 27-001247-0 31 150.00 27000.00 cot Ist Nat. Bank 4 $5,277 t0 S5,277 $985 54,292 27-001249-0 31 58.50 8820.00 cot Eastman Drug 3 $1,571 $0 $3,571 $207 $3,364 27-001249-0 31 50.00 7200.00 res Case 3 $3,008 f0 $3,008 $169 $2,139 27-001250-0 31 60.00 6660.00 can Eastman Drug 3 $3,347 $0 $3,347 $157 13,196 27-001251-0 11 60.00 8520.00 tot Stott Co. Nist Sot. 3 $3,593 t0 $3,593 $200 $11393 27-001212-0 31 60.00 8520.00 cos $tans Foundation 3 $3,593 s0 $1,593 $200 $3,393 27-00125xO 32 60.00 8520.00 res Yahake 4 f1,948 $0 $1,948 5312 $1,636 27-001254-0 32 60.00 8520.00 res Meiuind 4 $1,948 t0 $1,946 $112 $1,636 27-001255-0 32 60.00 8520.00 res Nein: 4 $1,948 $0 11,946 5112 11.636 27-001256-0 12 180.00 25560.00 Cat beseech 4 $5.843 $0 $5,843 $936 $4,907 27-001257_0 60.00 8520.00 Cot kaopach 3 $3.593 SO $3,593 $200 53,393 27-001258-0 32 98.00 13916.00 Cat Abein 3 $5.6b9 $0 55.869 0,27 15,542 27-001259-0 32 37.00 5254.00 Co. katpaCh 3 $2.216 f0 S"'Ib $123 $2.09. 27-001260-0 12 45.00 6390.00 cat Lebens 3 $2.695 SO 52,695 $150 12,545 27-001263-0 33 58:00 8374.00 cot Reis 4 51,893 f0 51,893 1307 Si,58t 27-001264-0 13 42.00 10800.00 res Rovittki 3 $3,155 t0 S3,155 $252 52,90: 7055.20 939861.00 5236,869 t/5i,229 1385,098 $21,894 $365,20- ASSESSABLE; FF SOFT COST COSTS - COSTS kith 3rd Avenue $949,090 594.17 $0.3029 670 3rd Ave. $784,030 $77.79 10.2.503 kith 3rd Ave./no park. lots $067,296 $86.05 $0.2761 b/0 3rd Ave./no park. Lots $414,319 $41.11 $0.0-° SPECIAL ASSESSMENT DECLINING BALANCE ------------------------=====1=====__________= YEAR INTEREST PRINCIPAL REMAINING 'RINCIPAL• £3,393.00 I YEARLY PAYMENT BALANCE :NTEREST: 10.00% I £552.20 1 £339.30 £339.30 £3,053.70 ;EARS: 10 1 10 2 £305.37 £339.30 £2,714.40 3 £271.44 £339.30 £2,375. 10 £5,521.95 4 £237.51 £339.30 £2,035.80 5 £203.58 £339.30 £1,696.50 'RINCIPAL: £3,393.00 1 YEARLY PAYMENT 6 £169.65 £339.30 £1,357.20 !NTEREST: 10.00% f £446.09 7 $135.72 £339.30 £1 ,017.90 (EARS: 15 X 15 B £101.79 £339.30 £678.60 9 £67.86 £339.30 £339.30 £6,691.36 10 £33.93 £339.30 1£.00) TOTAL £I,B66.15 £3,393.00 10 YEAR ASSESSMENT £5,259. 15 /10 YRS = £525.92 (PRINCIPAL + INTEREST)_ YEAR INTEREST PRINCIPAL REMAINING BALANCE 1 £339.30 £226.20 £3, 166.80 2 £316.613 £226.20 £2,940.60 3 £294.06 £226.20 £2,714.40 4 £271.44 £226.20 £2,489.20 5 £248.82 £226.20 £2,262.00 6 £226.20 £226.20 £2,035.80 7 £203.513 £226.20 £1,809.60 8 £180.96 £226.20 £1 ,583.40 9 £158.34 £226.20 £1,357.20 10 £135.72 £226.20 £1,131.00 11 £113. 10 £226.20 £904.80 12 £90.48 £226.20 £678.60 13 £67.86 £226.20 £452.40 14 £45.24 £226.20 £226.20 15 £22.62 £226.20 £.00 TOTAL £2,714.40 £3,393.00 15 YEAR ASSESSMENT £6,107.40 /15 YRS = £407. 16 (PRINCIPAL + INTEREST) ASSESSABLE PROJECT COST: $511,705 K.NKI OONNTONN REDEVELOPMENT ASSESSMENTS 251 STREET & a kith 3rd Avenue a OX STREETSCAPE No Parking Lots PID SLK FF SOFT PROPTYPE PROPERTY PHASE I PHASE If TOTAL CREDIT FINAL OWNER AREA (1-4) ASSESS ASSESS ASSESS ASSESS 27-001028-0 2 60.OD 8520.00 res Koch I t0 $4,438 $4,438 $200 $4,238 27-001029-0 2 60.00 8520.00 res McReynolds 1 $0 $4,438 $4,438 t200 $4,238 27-001030-0 2 60.00 8520.00 res Thibodeaux I t0 $4,438 $4,438 $200 $4,238 27-001031-0 2 60.00 8520.00 res Bokern 1 f0 $4,438 $4,438 $200 $4,238 27-001032-0 60.00 8520.00 res Miller 1 t0 $4,438 $4,43B 1200 $4,236 27-001034-0 3 73.50 10437.00 coo Sraobilla I f0 $5,436 $5,436 $245 $5,191 27-001035-0 3 42.50 605.00 coo Topic I 50 $3,143 53,143 $142 13,002 27-001036-0 3 26.00 3692.00 coo Mahoney 1 t0 $1,923 $1,923 $87 $1,836 27-001037-0 3 52.70 7483.00 coo Mahoney 1 $0 $3,898 $3,898 $176 $3,722 27-001038-0 3 90.00 7389.00 can Koi-Shing - I f0 $5,776 $5,776 $175 $5,601 27-001039-0 3 52.00 7592.00 coo Kwi-Shing 1 $0 S3,BBO $3,880 $178 $3,702 27-001041-0 4 55.00 5555.00 coo RU Properties t t0 $3,700 $3,700 $131 $3,568 27-001042-0 4 41.00 2255.00 cot • I f0 $2,450 $2,450 $54 $2,396 27-001043-1 4 20.00 2911.00 coo 1 $0 $1,491 $1,491 $6B 11,423 27-001044-1 4 25.00 3550.00 cot Hargett 1 50 $1,849 $1,849 $03 $1,766 27-001045-0 4 20.00 2B40.00 coo Mauer 1 $0 $1,479 $1,479 $67 $1,413 27-001046-0 4 30.00 4260.00 coo Hill I t0 $2,219 $2,219 $100 $2,119 27-001047-0 4 31.00 4402.00 can Hughes 1 $0 $2,293 $2,293 $103 $2,190 27-001048-0 4 28.50 4047.00 coo Vohnnutka I SO t2,IOB $2,108 $93 $2,013 27-001049-0 4 30.00 4260.00 cit City of Shakopee I f0 $2,219 $2,219 $100 $2,119 27-001050-0 4 40.00 5680.00 can Topic 1 f0 $2,959 S2,959 $133 $2,825 27-001050-1 4 21.00 2982.00 cit City of Shakopee I t0 t1,553 $1,553 $70 $1,483 27-001059-0 5 142.00 198110.00 coo Johnson 1 $0 $10,456 $10,456 $467 $9,990 27-001060-0 5 101.00 17111.00 cot 1.aabilla 1 $0 $7,923 $7,923 $401 $7,522 27-001061-0 5 39.00 2769.00 con Vogel t f0 $2,432 52,432 $66 $2,366 27-001062-0 5 0.00 0.00 cit State of MN Hwy 1 $0 f0 $0 $0 $0 27-001068-0 6 60.00 8520.00 res Lebens 1 $0 $4,438 $4,438 $200 $4,23B 27-001069-0 6 60.00 8520.00 res O'Conner I $0 $4,438 $4,430 $200 $4,238 27-001070-0 6 60.00 8520.00 res DuBois I $0 $4,438 $4,438 $200 $4,238 27-001071-0 6 60.00 4200.00 can Hallgren I t0 $3,732 53,732 $100 $3,632 27-001072-0 6 42.00 7B90.00 con Johnson 1 t0 $3,421 $3,421 $IB4 $3,237 27-001073-0 6 35.00 2700.00 cat Rein 1 $0 t2,218 $2,218 $64 $2,154 27-001074-0 6 25.00 2250.00 coo Rein 1 $0 $1,637 $1,637 153 $1,563 27-001085-0 7 71.00 4260.00 res Serdenier 1 t0 $4,300 $4,300 $102 $4,198 27-001086-0 7 60.00 4260.00 res Funnier 1 $0 $3,742 $3,742 $102 $3,640 $0 t0 $0 $0 t0 27-001129-0 20 80.00 7625.00 res Gilles 3 15,307 t0 $5,307 $180 $5,127 27-001129-1 20 42.00 5040.00 can Cy's Standard 3 $2,956 $0 $2,956 $119 $2,837 27-001130-0 20 100.00 12000.00 coo American Oil Co. 2 53,519 $3,519 $1,037 $283 $6,155 27-001134-0 21 31.63 2864.70 con H & O Railoay 3 $2,084 t0 $2,084 $69 $2,016 27-001135-0 21 (10.17 22695.30 coo Stalks 2 $4,650 $4,650 $9,300 $530 $8,770 27-001136-0 21 0.00 0.00 cip City of Shakopee $0 t0 $0 $0 $0 27-001137-0 21 0.00 0.00 cip City of Shakopee t0 $0 t0 $0 $0 27-001138-0 21 0.00 0.00 cip City of Shakopee $0 f0 f0 $0 SO 27-001139-0 21 0.00 0.00 cip City of Shakopee $0 f0 $0 $0 t0 27-001140-0 21 60.00 B520.00 coo Laurent Real Estate 2 $2,219 $2,219 $4,438 $200 $4,238 001141-0 21 60.00 8520.00 res Dubai 2 $2,219 52,219 $4,438 $200 $4,238 001142-0 21 45.00 4390.00 res X6overn S1,614 $1,664 $3,328 $150 $3,178 001143-0 21 135.00 19170.00 cam Xabil Service/Normar 2 $4,993 $4,993 $9,985 $450 $9,535 001144-0 22 142.00 25560.00 cos Beren 3 $11,384 $0 $11,384 $59B $10,786 001145-0 22 60.00 6120.00 cam Beren 3 $4,046 $0 $4,046 $145 $3,901 001146-0 22 32.00 1920.00 coe Brun 3 11,938 $0 $1,938 $46 $1,292 001147-0 22 20.00 2400.00 cam Topic 3 $1,407 f0 $1,407 557 $1,351 001146-0 22 20.00 2400.00 Coo Sheffer 3 $1,407 $0 $1,407 $57 $1,351 001149-0 22 30.00 1800.00 cam Mertz-Horeish 3 $1,817 $0 $1,817 $43 $1,774 001150-0 140.00 2400.00 cos Daniels 3 52,423 SO $2,423 f5B S"U5 001151-0 11 20.00 600.00 cam Galla 2 1557 $557 51,113 515 (1,098 001152-0 22 51.00 7920.00 coo Goebel 2 $1,941 $1,941 $3,883 $186 $3,697 0011155-0 22 43.60 6081.40 cam Gustafson 2 $1,603 $1,603 $3,207 $143 13,064 001154-0 22 27.40 2438.60 coo Shakopee Finance 2 $895 4995 $1,189 f5B $1,732 001155-0 22 60.00 2520.00 coo Gustafson 2 $2,219 521219 $4,438 $200 $4,238 001156-0 22 67.00 14340.00 cam Hensing 2 $2,872 $2,872 55,744 $335 $5,409 001157-0 22 75.00 7200.00 res Mensing 2 $2,492 $2,492 $4,984 $170 $4,813 001158-0 23 142.00 28620.00 cot 1st Nat. Bank 3 $11,884 $0 $11,884 $669 $11,215 001159-0 23 90.00 9180.00 cos Nermerskirchen 3 $6,069 f0 $6,069 $217 $5,182 )01162-0 23 22.00 3720.00 com 3 $1,725 $0 $1,725 $87 51,637 001163-0 23 18.00 1080.00 cam Topic 3 $1,090 f0 $1,090 $26 $1,064 001164-0 23 36.00 3120.00 cam Shak. Post $4046 2 $1,169 $1,169 12,337 $74 $2,263 )01165-0 23 62.00 4650.00 Cas Smith 2 $1,954 $1,954 $3,907 $111 $3,797 001166-0 23 2440 1690.00 cam Topic 2 $746 $746 $1,493 $40 $1,453 001167-0 23 30.00 3300.00 con Barbershop 2 $1,031 $1,031 $2,062 $78 $1,984 301168-1 23 30.00 4260.00 cam Dresses 2 $1,109 $1,109 $2,219 $100 $2,119 001169-0 23 26.00 3692.00 cot Theis 2 $962 1962 $1,923 $07 $1,836 001170-0 23 39.00 5538.00 coo Case Clothing 2 $1,442 $1,442 $2,885 1130 $2,155 001171-0 23 25.00 3550.00 can Garness 2 5925 $925 $1,849 $93 $1,766 001172-0 23 31.00 4402.00 coo King Salomon LdgeI 1 $1,146 51,146 $2,243 $103 52,190 00IM-0 23 32.50 5467.00 cos Latour 2 $1,424 $1,424 $2,848 $128 $2,719 001114-1 23 21.50 3053.00 cam koehle I $795 $795 $1,590 $72 $1,519 001175-0 24 0.00 0.00 cip City of Shakopee $0 $0 $0 $0 SO ))1176-0 24 0.00 0.00 cip City of Shakopee $0 $4 t0 $0 f0 )01177-0 24 0.00 0.00 cip City of Shakopee $0 t0 $0 $0 $0 J01178-0 24 0.00 0.00 cip City of Shakopee $0 $0 $0 f0 $0 101179-0 24 120.00 17040.00 cat Seibenaler 3 SB,876 $0 $6,876 $400 $8,476 )01180-0 24 60.00 4650.00 cos Hyers 3 $3,806 $0 $3,806 $111 $3,695 )O11B1-0 24 60.00 3870.00 coo McGovern 3 t3,67B $0 $3,678 $93 !3,596 )01182-0 24 60.00 8520.00 cot Pearson 2 S2,219 $2,219 $4,430 $200 $4,238 )01183-0 24 27.00 3957.00 cos Clay 2 $1,009 $1,009 $2,017 $93 $1,924 )01184-0 24 33.00 4563.00 coe Schroeder 2 $1,210 51,210 $2,421 $107 $2,314 )01125-0 24 60.00 8520.00 cot Cavanaugh I 1 $2,219 $2,219 $4,438 $200 $4,238 )0IIB6-0 24 60.00 8520.00 cot Sisbeniler 2 52,219 $2,219 $4,438 $200 $4.23B )01182-0 24 26.00 1560.00 cot Hannon 2 $787 $787 $1,575 $37 $1,537 :01189-0 24 21.00 1260.00 cam Perry 2 $636 5636 $1,272 $30 $1,242 A1190-0 24 35.45 2127.00 coo Kopp 2 $1,074 $1,074 $2,147 151 $2,096 101191-0 24 59.55 3573.00 coo Umber 2 91,803 $1,803 $3,607 $86 53,521 A1192-0 25 142.00 25560.00 cog Post Office(6art Inc 3 $11,384 $0 $11,384 $596 $10,786 01195-0 25 60.00 8520.00 Cot Novak 2 $2,219 52,219 $4,438 $200 $4,238 01196-0 25 60.00 8520.00 cot Novak 2 $2,219 $2,219 $4,438 $200 14,238 01197-0 25 60.00 8520.00 res Samuel 2 $2,219 12,219 $4,438 $200 $4,238 )01198-0 25 60.00 8520.00 cam Monroe 2 $2,219 52,219 $4,438 t200 $4,232 :01149-0 25 60.00 8520.00 cot Eckart 2 $2,219 !2,219 $4,43B $200 $4,236 )01216-0 28 90.30 10836.00 res Houle 4 $6,354 f0 $6,354 1398 $5,456 27-001219-0 20 51.70 6204.00 res Suchard 4 53,638 $0 $3,63B 5228 $3,410 27-001226-0 28 60.00 7050.00 coo Scherer 3 S4,19B SO $4,198 $166 54,032 27-001227-0 2B 24.50 1470.00 coo Culhane 3 $1,484 $0 51,484 $35 $1,449 27-001228-0 29 120.00 17040.00 cit Library 4 $8,676 SO $8,676 $624 $8,252 27-001229-0 29 0.00 0.00 cip City of Shakopee $0 50 s0 $0 50 27-001230-0 29 0.00 0.00 cip City of Shakopee s0 $0 s0 50 50 27-001231-0 29 0.00 0.00 cip City of Shakopee 50 $0 s0 50 t0 27-001232-0 29 0.00 0.00 cip City of Shakopee s0 50 50 t0 50 27-001233-0 29 1200 1296.00 coo NN Bell 3 $621 s0 $621 531 $790 27-001234-0 29 108.00 -14040.00 cot NN Hell 3 $7,776 $0 $7,776 $330 $7,446 27-001235-0 29 92.00 13064.00 coo NN Bell 3 $6,805 s0 $6,805 $307 S6,49B 27-001236-0 29 95.00 14220.00 cot Topic/Minnegasco 3 $7,146 $0 S7,146 $334 $6,812 27-00123B-0 30 70.00 8420.00 res Strunk 3 $4,929 $0 64,929 $198 $4,731 27-001239-1 30 59.00 7080.00 coo Noonan 3 $4,152 $0 $4,152 $167 $3,985 27-001239-0 30 50.00 2500.00 res Horejsi 3 $2,947 s0 52,947 $60 $2,866 27-001240-0 30 60.00 8520.00 coo Bromn 3 $4,438 s0 $4,438 $200 $4,238 27-001241-0 30 60.00 13380.00 coo Shak. Inv. One 3 $5,232 $0 55,232 $312 $4,919 27-001242-0 30 60.00 3600.00 cos Hoffman 3 $3,634 $0 $3,634 $86 53,540 27-001243-0 30 0.00 0.00 cip City of Shakopee - $0 s0 $0 $0 50 27-001244-0 30 0.00 0.00 cip City of Shakopee s0 $0 $0 t0 $0 27-001245-0 31 60.00 8520.00 res Ryan 4 $4,43B $0 $4,430 $312 $4,126 27-001246-0 31 60.00 8520.00 res Monrens 4 $4,436 $0 $4,438 $312 $4,126 27-001247-0 31 150.00 27000.00 cot lot Nat. Bank 4 $12,026 $0 $12,026 $985 $11,040 27-001246-0 31 58.50 8920.00 cat Eastman Drug 3 $4,411 s0 $4,411 $207 $4,204 27-001249-0 31 50.00 7200.00 res Case 3 13,715 $0 $3,715 1169 $3,546 27-001250-0 31 60.00 6660.00 cot Eastman Drug 3 $4,134 $0 $4,134 $157 $3,977 27-001251-0 31 60.00 8520.00 cog Scott Co. Hist SDC. 3 $4,438 $0 $4,438 $200 $4,238 27-001252-0 31 60.00 8520.00 cot Stans Foundation 3 $4,438 $0 $4,438 $100 $4,236 27-001253-0 32 60.00 0520.00 res Yahnke 4 $4,438 $0 $4,438 $312 $4,126 27-001254-0 32 60.00 0520.00 res Neimind 4 $4,438 s0 $4,430 i;12 $4,126 27-001255-0 32 60.00 8520.00 res Hein-, 4 $4,436 t0 $4,430 $312 54,126 27-001256-0 32 100.00 25560.00 cog Nampach 4 sl"313 $0 $13,313 $936 $12,377 27-001257-0 32 60.00 8520.00 cot Naopach 3 $4,438 s0 $4,438 $200 $4,238 27-001258-0 M 98.00 13916.00 coo Abeln 3 $7,248 s0 $7,248 $327 $6,922 27-001259-0 32 37.00 5254.00 Com Naopach 3 $2,737 $0 $2,737 $123 $2,613 27-001260-0 7,1. 45.00 6390.00 coo Lebens 3 $33,326 t0 $3,328 $150 $3,178 27-001263-0 33 58.00 8374.00 coo Reis 4 $4,312 $0 $4,312 $307 $4,006 27-001264-0 33 42.00 10800.00 res Novitzki 3 $3,096 s0 $3,896 $252 $3,645 7055.20 939B61.00 $319,149 $192,556 $511,705 $23,894 $487,911 ASSESSABLE FF SOFT COST COSTS COSTS With 3rd Avenue $379,636 $37.67 $0.1212 W/O 3rd Ave. $214,576 $21.29 $0.0685 With 3rd Are./no park. lots 1511,705 $50.77 $0.1633 N/O 3rd Ave.ino park. Lots $280,895 $27.67 $0.0897 SPECIAL ASSESSMENT DECLINING BALANCE YEAR INTEREST PRINCIPAL REMAINING 'RINCIPAL: S4,23B.00 1 YEARLY PAYMENT BALANCE 7NTEREST: 10.00% 1 $689.71 1 $423.80 $423.80 $3,814.20 EARS: 10 i % 10 2 $381.42 4423.80 £3,390.40 3 $339.04 $423.80 $2,966.60 £6,897. 15 4 5296.66 $423.B0 $2,542.80 5 $254.28 $423.80 $2,119.00 -F.'INCIPAL: $4,238.00 1 YEARLY PAYMENT 6 $211.90 $423.80 $1,695.20 :NTEREST: 10.00% 1 $557. 19 7 $169.52 S42-.BO $1,271.40 'EAAA-, tS X t5 8. St'>T.t4. t43'S.66 4t64'5.66 9 $84.76 $423.80 $423.80 $8.357.79 10 $42 3B S423.80 (50.00) TOTAL $2,330.90 $4,238.00_____________ 10 YEAR ASSESSMENT $6,568.90 /10 YRS = £656.89 YEAR INTEREST PRINCIPAL REMAINING BALANCE I $423.80 $282.53 $3,955.47 2 $395.55 $282.53 43,672.93 3 $367.29 $282.53 $3,390.40 4 $339.04 $282.53 $3,107.87 $310.79 $282.53 $2,825.33 6 $282.53 $282.53 $2,542.80 7 $254.26 $282.53 $2,260.27 8 $226.03 $282.53 $1,977.73 9 $197.77 $282.53 $1,695.20 10 $169.52 $282.53 $1,412.67 11 $141.27 $282.53 £1,130. 13 12 $113.01 $282.53 $847.60 13 $84.76 $282.53 t565.07 14 $56.51 $282.53 8282.53 15 $28.25 $282.53 $0.00 TOTAL $3,390.40 $4,238.00 15 YEAR ASSESSMENT 57,628.40 /15 YRS = $508.56 (PRINCIPAL + INTEREST)