1f. Amended Assessment Roll for Minnewashta Meadows 11 . t
CITYOF --
1 ,
„) CHANHASSEN
I690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5INA by City Administrator
I ,
MEMORANDUM Endorsed_._._._,_
Mod:iied!
TO: Don Ashworth, City Manager Rejected._
Duty /I_Z _4 <�
FROM: Gary Warren, City Engineer Submitted to Commissatt
IDATE: November 2, 1989 Dete Submitted to Council
SUBJ: Adoption of Amended Assessment Roll for
IMinnewashta Meadows Improvement Project No. 88-2 & 88-2A
I On September 25 , 1989, the City Council adopted the final
assessment roll for the Minnewashta Meadows Improvement Project
No. 88-2 and 88-2A. As noted in the attached meeting minutes,
II Mr. Carlson was present at the assessment hearing and requested
that staff look into three items of concern relating to the
assessment roll . The three items are as follows:
IIA. Church Road Assessment Rationale
The Minnewashta Meadows project scope included the extension
I of sanitary sewer and watermain along the southeasterly boun-
dary of the property (see map) . In order to take advantage of
construction efficiency with the Metropolitan Waste Control
I Commission ' s Lake Virginia Forcemain project on Church Road,
this element of the Minnewashta Meadows improvements was
incorporated as a change order to the MWCC ' s forcemain pro-
ject. As noted in the attached invoice, the City was billed
I for the services by the Commission and these costs have been
incorporated into the Minnewashta Meadows assessment roll
since these improvements were required as a part of the ori-
II ginal scope for Minnewashta Meadows . At issue, I believe, is
the fact that the Kerber property and the Larson First
Addition property also have access to this sewer and water
line and indeed utility stubs were constructed to service
Ithem in the future.
The difficulty arises in that these two properties were
I excluded from the assessment roll by the City Council. While
it is therefore appropriate and correct that the Church Road
improvement costs are to be assessed to Mr. Carlson, it simi-
I larly would be appropriate for the City to consider reim-
bursing Mr. Carlson if and when these parcels do ultimately
take service from the Church Road utilities . This poses an
II
I
1 1
1
1
1
1
1
I
Don Ashworth
November 2, 1989
' Page 2
administrative headache to keep track of a condition such as -
this since it could be quite some time in the future before
these properties are connected and the appropriate connection
' fees paid.
It would therefore be my recommendation that the City
' Treasurer be directed to place on the property records for
the Kerber property and Lot 1 , Block 1 , Larson First Addition
an appropriate comment such that if and when an assessment
search is done on these properties for future sale of the
' property, that the prospective buyers will be notified that
connection to the Church Road utilities will be required and
also noting for our information that Mr. Carlson is entitled
' to reimbursement of the connection fees collected from these
properties to a maximum of $12 , 987. 56 which represents one-
half of the cost of the Church Road improvements abutting
this property .
B. Capitalized Interest
A question was raised about the interest charged the project
for the bond issue, specifically that the City was charging
capitalized interest to the project while not recognizing
' interest earned on the proceeds while in the City treasury
and prior to disbursements being made to the contractor. The
previous assessment rolls have utilized a capitalized
interest figure of $14 ,016 . This is a net capitalized
interest representing 90% of the total interest expense the
City anticipated incurring on the bonds for this project.
Since the City ' s sub-ledger actually does recognize interest
earnings on a monthly basis, it was decided to utilize the
full capitalized interest amount of $15,573 as shown on
Attachment #4 when calculating the revised roll and also then
' recognize interest earnings to be credited to the project in
the amount of $11 , 354. 33.
The bad news for Mr. Carlson is that this deduction is offset
1 partially by an increase in the administrative charge for the
project which was also found in error. As it turns out, the
City ' s administrative charge, as described in Attachment #5 ,
had not been applied to the 1989 project costs . This
resulted in an additional $4 ,486 .78 which was applied to the
project cost. The project cost summary has been revised and
is shown in the attachments as Revision II (Attachment #6) .
The total project cost nets out to be $183, 956 . 76 . When
distributed amongst the 16 units , this results in a net
assessment per unit of $11, 497 . 30 or $288. 75 less than the
' previously adopted roll . A revised assessment roll has been
prepared and is attached which reflects this amount.
I
I
Mi
Don Ashworth
November 2, 1989
Page 3 '
C. Assessment Credits from Project No. 75-5 '
I have not had an opportunity to delve into the history and
details of the assessment roll for Project No. 75-5 which Mr.
Carlson alleges he has credits due from. I have indicated to
Mr. Carlson previously this is a separate assessment roll and
issue and if credits indeed are warranted that they would be
provided on the merits of that project and not intermingled
with the Minnewashta Meadows project. On first impressions ,
however , contrary to Mr. Carlsons allegations, Minnewashta
Meadows is not a "stand alone" project since the sanitary
sewer and water service for the Meadows is ultimately taken
•
from the utilities along the west side of the his property '
which were installed under Project No. 75-5 . I intend to ry
more specifically look into this project file and if any cre-
dits are appropriate it would be brought back to Council for
consideration .
It is therefore recommended that the City Council adopt the
attached revised assessment roll dated November 2, 1989 for
Minnewashta Meadows public Improvement Project No. 88-2 and
further that the City Treasurer be directed to make an
appropriate entry in City records concerning the Kerber property
and Lot 1, Block 1 of Larson First Addition to recognize that Mr.
Carlson is to be reimbursed in a cost not to exceed $12 , 987 . 56
from the connection charges which the City collects from these
properties if and when they connect to the City ' s utilities on
Church Road. 1
Attachments
1 . September 25 , 1989 City Council minutes.
2 . Map.
3. MWCC Invoice.
4 . Bonds of 1988 Capitalized Interest summary sheet.
5 . February 17 , 1987 Administrative Charge Policy.
6 . Project Cost Summary - Revision II.
7. Assessment Roll - Revision II dated 11/2/89 .
8. September 20, 1989 staff report.
c: Bill Engelhardt
Gary Carlson
r
I
r
I
City Council Meeting - September 25, 1989
Councilman Workman: But again, it's a unique area up there and there's some
frustrations.
Councilman Boyt moved, Councilman Workman seconded to table approving a Purchase
Agreement for sale of a portion of Murray Hill Water Tower Site to Gilbert and
Jillene Kreidberg so staff can notify neighbors. All voted in favor and the `:
motion carried.
VISITOR PRESENTATIONS: There were none.
' PUBLIC HEARING: ASSESSMENT HEARING AND ADOPTION OF ASSESSMENT ROLLS:
A. KERBER BOULEVARD IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 87-9.
Bill Engelhardt: Your Honor, members of the Council, this is the assessment '
hearing for the Kerber Blvd. improvement project. The total cost of the project
' was $444,840.12. The project was covered by 55% tax increment funds and general
obligation with the balance of the cost to be spread against the benefitted
properties along Kerber Blvd.. The developers of than Vista, Saddlebrook, the
James property, all had development agreements where they agreed to the
assessment and those assessments have been collected as the lots have been sold.
The lots that have not been sold, those assessments are on the assessment roll.
The project cost was slightly under the original bid amount which showed up as
' about a $2,700.00 reduction in the feasibility study cost for the tax increment
and general obligation. With that I'd be happy to answer any questions you
might have on the project.
Mayor Chniel: Anyone have any questions at this time? Is there anyone wishing
to address this for the public hearing? If so, this is your opportunity to come
forth and address it and if you do, please state your name and your address.
' Councilman Johnson moved, Councilwoman Dimler seconded to close the public
hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was
' closed.
Resolution #89-104: Councilman Johnson moved, Councilwoman Dimler seconded to
' adopt the Kerber Boulevard assessment roll as modified dated Septemember 11,
1989 with a payback term of 8 years with an established with interest at the
rate of nine percent (9%) of the unpaid balance. All voted in favor and the
motion carried.
--� B. MINNEWASHTA MEADOWS IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 88-2.
Public Present:
Name Address
Gary Carlson 3831 West 62nd Street
25 A'i rptt PD • I
I
City Council Meeting - September 25, 1989
Bill Engelhardt: Your Honor, members of the Council. This again is a public
hearing. It's for the Minnewashta Meadows subdivision consisting of, I believe
16 lots. The developer of the project, Mr. Gary Carlson, petitioned for these
improvements. The original feasibility study called for an assessment of
approximately $11,900.00 per unit. The revised assessment roll indicates that
the cost is within $120.00 of the original feasibility study. Mr. Carlson is
here tonight. We have worked with him on the project to try to address any of
his concerns and we'd be happy to again answer any questions that he might have
tonight or the Council.
Gary Carison: Good evening Mayor and Council. My name is Gary Carlson and I'm
the owner of Minnewashta Meadows and I live at 3831 West 62nd. I think on the
listing it shows my address, house number as wrong. It should be 3831. As I
previously mentioned at the last Council meeting, I again just want to briefly
thank this City for it's very expert and cooperative manner in which this
project was brought on line and completed. I especially want to thank the
engineer, Bill Engelhardt and his company. To see an undeveloped corner and see
it brought, put down on paper with ideas and see it accepted by the City and to
see it let and properly built by B and D Underground from Mound, Bob and Dennis
Frobar, they immediately came out and did the project and it's been done
excellently so I want to thank the City for it's ability to be able to move on a
starter home residential development and get it done. Get it done correctly and
also get it done within budget. There is just a couple items. When you're
doing single family, starter have development, just as I'm sure all the Council
when you bought your first starter hare, you looked at every item in that have
and did you need it and was it necessary and was it correct. So I'm looking at
a few, actually there's 3 items within the assessment that I think if we could
accept the assessment roll tonight and just let this, because a couple of the
items staff hasn't quite had a chance to answer sane of the questions. If we
can bring those three things up to resolve with me, then that will be possibly
lower the assessment because in single family starter homes, although we're
within budget, there are some items that aren't answered. There are three
things as I said and we can discuss than or we can just accept the assessments
with the contention that they be resolved and if they can't be resolved,
possibly the Council can again act on then. Sometimes it takes Council
decision. The three items would be how the Church Road assessment. You see I
was, my project was a stand alone project but there were same costs coming off
of Church Road and those were basically, in other words, how they're being 11 assessed is not resolved to my satisfaction and I explained that. The other
item is the interest charged on my bond issue that wasn't used for a year.
Other cities do different things with that interest rather than charge it to the
development because those funds, although they were, the funds were obtained by
the City through a bond last year. The funds weren't paid out until August of
this year. Those funds were deposited in the City construction account which
drew interest of which I had no use of. Minnewashta Meadows had no use of so
other cities take that interest earned on that bond and take it off of your
capitalized interest cost which I'm being charged a capital interest cost from
the beginning the bond was let. Or they take that as interest that are accrued
and they credit overages in the construction. We had a few overages which soil
conditions were such that we had to do a little bit more with that road to bring
it up to stand up so we had same overages but our city just, in my case, I
wouldn't mind if I had a 160 lots to charge and spread it out. So what's a few '
hundred dollars there? It's several thousand in this case. The third item is
this property had 8 sewer and water units charged against it on the western
26 11
City Council Meeting - September 25, 1989
1
boundary, none of which I'll ever use and I have Minutes from previous Council
' and letters from previous councils that state that some of those original
assessments that came with the original north end sewer project on undeveloped
property, if you developed in the future, they've stated in here that there's
' possibility that they can be credited to future assessments. In other words,
I've charged 8 water and 8 sewer units on the western boundary which I'm not
using. I'm a stand alone project. i have my own sewer and water that came in
' the middle so same of those charges so it's just resolving these little its
and whatever we can do to do it. I don't want to take up your time tonight. I
think it's just a matter of sitting down and saying what's fair. My interest is
of course to get starter home lots under $30,000.00 if possible and I have to
keep assessments down as low. Other than that, I'm very happy with the project
and I just want it to go ahead and be assessed out.
' Mayor Chmiel: I appreciate the fact that it's good to hear someone come in say
something good about the City. Thank you Gary. I would make a recommendation
that we do accept that assessment roll as indicated with further discussion with
staff to come up with conclusions on those other three items rather than
discussing them here.
Councilman Workman: I'll second it.
' Councilman Johnson: If we accept the roll, aren't we accepting $11,786.05
lot? pe r
' Mayor Cmiel: That's correct.
Councilman Johnson: Then it would have to come back to modify that in the
' future if there's a change?
Mayor Cfimiel: That's correct.
Councilman Johnson: Did we credit him with the interest we earned on that money
that we stuck in our bank account or whatever?
Don Ashworth: I checked with Andy Merry. He informed me that the capitalized
interest that he had shown was a net and it does show the word net because I
went back and I checked the sale. Now we're getting down into the technical
Iportion of what did he consider in the word net. That's what they've done
previously and I did not have a chance to get into it in any further detail than
just that conversation and I believe...
Councilman Johnson: If we borrowed $188,000.00 for one year and got $14,000.00
interest off of that, charged to us, I think we sold these bonds but this
$14,000.00 isn't interest to date. That's the full interest of the bonds until
we pay all the bonds off so that would be, are they 5 year bonds?
Don Ashworth: I believe these are going out over an 8 year period.
1 Councilman Johnson: It's 8 years but the $14,000.00 is 8 years worth of
interest on these bonds.
Don Ashworth: No. It would include the interest... I think the Mayor's point
is a good one. Let staff work with the developer. Mr. Carlson presented the
27
a
V Metropolitan Waste Control Commission (7) '
Mears Park Centre, 230 East Fifth Street, St. Paul, MN 55101
t
cr. Date:Gary G. Warren, PE.
City Engineer September 19 ,199
I City of Chanhassen
P.O. Box 147
LChanhassen, Minnesota 55317 1 INVOICE No. 3041-A
RFNUSFD INVOICF 7'70.3041
I
RE: Request
for reimbursement on Contract No. C-2417 F
Billing of final construction costs (see attached breakdown)
I
Construction
88-2A
<::;::::::::
87-5 12 ,790 .96 I
Engineering 1 ,699 .31
88-2A
87-5 :95. 36
TOTAL AMOUNT DUE: $39 ,661.44
I
I
eg17 it- sz--ei
. - Z y' Z, I
Co i5, it CITY OF CIIANHASSE
'G SE? 2 1 299
I
F HilINEF.R E DEPT.
Y t.
Ai-rot-GinAA .3
1 1
I
ai c 1
° " •0 o°S$o°o4°0� j iii t og j} �'
O II 8 vii
Y!11 O LCI CrOi CL.r�er I .41'0'} 11 1... 1 �T II
1 Ill 11
1 A II
iII iii '
44 II
i t it
ot
11
II VC j �111l '
^
II
1 v It to I LON70tw..•MA I A i x l
4i:. � ;, v ; •�v_vTN•e• 1 OS 1 O II ---- 0^ l�v7 1 0 1 II
_ OI+�O P7.r wpb 1 p co.Cy I G0 ' Il)O I A 11•II{{ m I ; .. I+.+W ; taO ; 1911 S •i1` i N It w +'.f`0t 1 -CU I IT II mS I A.A N.41/ VI tvG II
I A 1; .�CO al I t`y 11 lL N 11
ii
•a A II i i o l a'ii
1 ^Ii
1 ti' IL it N i frf Nf•7,��.A
m
it
M Ii 0.1 ; N 0 0 t!7 t17.�. I CO a i 1:, }} I O N lf7 Ot Mt N
VI
I N- •- I ^ • I 4G II
m 11 If! I In'�^N N O . ...A 1 v 11 I CO I CO..,
m II ��;^I 1 11 0� I - A_ 1 IA I U9 _. 1 O II
tL -, N^ iN11 /7010 to
N 4.. IO 1 ^
II ^
11
Ir en II 1 I t I I II 11
11}} x i II i} ^ Ii RI N q7 O a N t$ O tl
M Z)
I
1 It7 1 Ct U7An7A 0 01 11 / x II
! 1 II 6 Qt 40117M Cr.a0•M ry In 0 II f�\ m•am'• CU • �O • IO f II
I i a�0 ii —
^e' aU)Qt YW'7 II m m ."n 0 1"! • I r]O M Ii ir, I �tT 11
II 11 O i v 11
It
11 i 11
II II I } 1 }I
49 II }I I I II
11 x It
t
II
A � ii O 1'7In N.^w 4N0N M UU,eV Dt II I17O CU 117 Ol7 0x CU II II V N II
0 v^1.17 CU CU NO v It mm ti^ co O uS Li If
1 11
II ti II m o ..._ (1 -0O� If
II I II i — ~� 11
} i I
II
1 i
i '4';
II x ; 11 I I II
tU N. u ^CU ;or.tot U7 IL vA O w II x I II
n
17D
CU II • WG"'1011�.�.m �L� M II CU S.�-. �N 117
00 A II
fNL II to 1"J 40 N•••.^t7�Pry O I► m II CO S �.1s �• ...C7 . II
U7 II v CU 0 U, U'7 II !` 11 ten II it,
IL II ti N 11 "" .A.. U l M 11
I`.7 i 14]ii
II
I H I N ti i 1 II
1 •
LIJ1 i I
U
1
CO Q
W
I - I
Ca
0
I J V
ii W
H I _ ti 10: Z
Lu
i �W o N^ CO Icc w
17D 1 • 1.•. J LL.
~
;gym co I �? =Eli g 6� is' o= ..
.�
g I I I ...... a-W ¢ `r LL¢ ~ A 10 I en 1 ^�.,ox o CO �. W ai
.,J xo�p7 C o as.: ,r.
161 i W 1 Wralr-Q^O ~ J pZ G.i WG C►~-
,,���... {{W,� J ¢ LY ttt�uuu
W 1 O Q.JCC Q•~•.. Ca I. ~Nu N�'f 1a W uCO ni l//w. II•
"' t6ari I d i 1~.i ~ crNi ~ j C RO 1¢O ���1 • •'�`��l
r I I N Ytr l� OW
It
3i
ali
I •
CITY of
ANHASSEN
,
1 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937-1900
MEMORANDUM
TO: • Mayor and City Council
FROM: Don Ashworth, City Manager
DATE: February 17, 1987 ,
SUBJ: Administrative Charges - Construction Funds
Background
In 1968, the Village adopted the following schedule for the City
administering construction activity:
"SPECIAL PROJECT FUNDS: A discussion was held on special
project funds the Village undertakes. When these projects
are under construction, considerable time and expense under
general administration is incurred. The following schedule
was then outlined. Project costs amounting from:
$1.00 to $ 9, 999. 00 = 5%
$10, 000.00 to $49, 999. 00 = 4%
$50,000.00 to $99,999. 00 = 3$•
$100,000.00 and over = 2% I;
The amount of percentage of the various projects would go
into the general fund for administration purposes. The
Council feels that this should be drawn up in resolution form (�
and presented at a future Council meeting for approval."
This schedule has been used for the past 20 years without change.
The size of our staff and the demands placed upon them in admi-
nistering construction projects has significantly changed over
the past 20 years. Environmental concerns, such as the amount of
runoff, erosion control, sedimentation berms, have added signifi-
cant time committments to our projects. Accordingly, this office
would recommend the following modifications to our fee schedule
to be placed in resolution format if approved. 11.
Costl
( in 1,000's) Percentage2 h �
0 - 100 5% 00+ F•M.} loo,way
I
100 - 1,000 4% o' AA&t o" I°°)°°° 4O 411iD°.
1 ,000+ 3% or kiwi 1,ow,aoJ
1• Mayor and City Council i
. Fe'bruary 17, 1987
Page 2
1
1 1 Represents total
expenses including outside consultant
costs.
1 2 To be applied against total expenses year
Projects having minor costs consistingt solely eof o
I tual services in a current year ( legal/engineeringinr it the
aggregate of $10,000 or less) and which have or will see
construction costs incurring in the previous or next year
s
I
hall be excluded from current year charges.
1
Ii
I
I
ID
1 ;D
i
'i
1 '
is
1
IN
i Wm
i
I
I
1
I
. 11
1
: 1
1 ;1111;
—, III
1 i
Iii
1
1
IIF
1 „
CITY OF CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA
MINNEWASHTA MEADOWS '
IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 88-2
PROJECT COST SUMMARY - REVISION II
11/2/89
Expenditures '
Construction Cost
A. Minnewashta Meadows (88-2) $116,367.18
B. Church Road portion (88-2A) 25,975.12
Subtotal: $142,342.30 1
Engineering, Staking & Inspection 22,120.00
Soil/Construction Materials Testing 3,000.00
Bonding 2,218.21 '
Printing/Publishing 306.95
Assessment Preparation/As-builts 1,500.00
Administration 7,977.78
Interest Expense (pre-bond sale) 272.85
Capitalized Interest (one year) 15,573.00 i
Expense Total: $195,311.09
Revenues
Interest Earnings Credit
1988 $ 603.89
1989 10,750.44
Subtotal: $ 11,354.33
Revenue Total: $ 11,354.33
TOTAL PROJECT COST $183,956.76
ASSESSMENT:• =ASb iti�l $183,956.76 divided by 16 units $11,497.30/unit
AT-ra. KJ( Imo. (o
1
_ .
I .
. . . . CITYOF
c.,,,#) k ,
...
1
onANHAssEN
1
. ‘ittiviiii„,.,
,5 ‘ , ., . . .
I690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 5317
(612) 937-1900
MEMORANDUM ✓
ITO: Don Ashworth, City Manager 94- -A'771
FROM: Gary Warren, City Engineer &--% u�
IDATE: September 20, 1989 _
94;/r) • .
I SUBJ: Assessment Hearing and Adoption of Assessment Roll
Minnewashta Meadows
Project No. 88-2
IIThis is the assessment hearing for the Minnewashta Meadows
assessment roll . The attached September 7 , 1989 staff report
I addresses the specifics of the roll. The preliminary assessment
roll was found to be in error and our consultant has recalculated
the final assessment roll which Mr. Carlson has been appraised
II of. The net impact of this correction is a reduction in the per
lot assessment to $11 ,786 .05 per unit. The revised assessment is
within $120 of the feasibility study estimate. No written objec-
tions have been filed against the assessment roll as of the
I writing of this staff report and the developer has waived his
rights to contest in the development contract.
I One point which Council might consider is when the Church Road
portion of this project was pursued, the City Council deleted the
Kerber and Frizzell properties from the project area (see map) .
Since Mr. Carlson has two lots which front on Church Road he was
I required to construct the sewer and water in this area and these
costs have been included in his assessments. Sewer and water
stubs have actually been made to the Kerber and Frizzell proper-
, ties but no connections have been made.
It would be difficult to include these properties now in the
I assessment roll; however , I believe it would be reasonable that
when these two properties do make connection (some time in the
future) that their connection charges be refunded to Mr. Carlson
when collected.
IAgain, Mr. Engelhardt will be present on my behalf to address any
questions that might be raised at the assessment hearing. At the
I close of the hearing it would be appropriate for the Council to
adopt the Minnewashta Meadows assessment roll for Improvement
Project No. 88-2 and that the assessment term be set for eight
I
■
44011 •
CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 11/2/89
MINNEWASHTA MEADOWS
IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 88-2
ASSESSMENT ROLL - REVISION II
ASSESSMENT
PID NUMBER PROPERTY OWNER LOT UNITS COST/UNIT TOTAL ASSESSMENT
25-5080010 Gary Carlson 1 1 $ 11,497 . 30 $ 11 , 497 . 30
3831 West 62nd Street
Excelsior, MN 55331
25-5080020 II 2 1 11 ,497 . 30 11 ,497 . 30
25-5080030 u 3 1 11, 497 . 30 11 ,497 . 30
25-5080040 u 4 1 11,497. 30 11 ,497. 30
25-5080050 is 5 1 11,497. 30 11 ,497. 30
25-5080060 II 6 1 11 ,497 . 30 11 ,497 . 30
25-5080070 u 7 1 11 , 497 . 30 11, 497 . 30
25-5080080 II 8 1 11,497 . 30 11,497 . 30
25-5080090 u 9 1 11 ,497 . 30 11 ,497 . 30
25-5080100 u 10 1 11 ,497 . 30 11 ,497 . 30
25-5080110 11 11 1 11,497 . 30 11 ,497 . 30
25-5080120 II 12 1 11 ,497. 30 11 , 497 . 30
25-5080130 u 13 1 11 ,497 . 30 11 ,497 . 30
g25-5080140 11 14 1 11, 497 . 30 11 ,497 . 30
25-5080150 15 1 11 ,497 . 30 11 , 497130
25-5080160 u 16 1 _ 11 ,497 . 30 ,, 11 ,497 . 30
be ■
j l
COLLECTION TERMS: 8 years at 9% interest.
MI r MN - - MN — • MN N — MI MI — — — — NM r
Don Ashworth
September 20 , 1989
Page 2
years at nine percent interest. The development contract
requires that these assessments be paid at the time of sale of
the property and the security remain in force until they are paid .
off.
1
Attachments
1. Revised project cost sheet.
2. Final assessment roll dated September 11 , 1989 .
3. September 7 , 1989 staff report w/attachments.
' 4. Location Map.
5. Public Hearing Notice to newspaper.
6. Affidavit of Mailing.
c: Bill Engelhardt
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
PROJECT COST 1
MINNEWASHTA MEADOWS
CITY OF CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA
PROJECT COSTS:
Construction Cost $ 116 ,367. 18
Engineering , staking, and
Inspection 22, 120•00
Soil Tests 3, 000.00
Printing 306.95
Bonding 1 , 800.61 '
Capital Interest 14,016.00
Assessments /As-builts 1 , 500.00 '
Administration 3, 491 .00
MWCC Cost of Church Road 25, 975 . 12
TOTAL PROJECT COST $ 188, 576. 86 1
Assessment - $188 , 576. 86/ 16 = $11 , 786. 05/unit
i
1