Memo- Assessments For Downtown Parking Lots
.
.
.
PLANNING &
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
Memorandum
To: Steve Mielke, Steve Stadler, Lori Yager, JIm Hartshorn
From: {/l.Jim Kerrigan, Planning & Economic Development Director
Date: June 11, 1998
Subject:
Assessments for Downtown Parking Lots
Attached is miscellaneous information concerning a process that was approved by the
City Council in 1977 assessing costs of downtown parking lots. I think the original
intent of adopting this procedure was to recover public costs of acquiring and
developing these downtown parking lots; however, it would seem that this could also be
used to assess the cost of ongoing maintenance.
At the present time, HBCA is forming a task force to explore alternatives for financing
parking improvements and maintenance. I have asked Jim Hartshorn to set up a
meeting in the next few weeks with all of us to discuss what might be the "city position"
in dealing with this issue.
Attachments
.
METHOD OF ASSESSMENT
Downtown Parking Lots
Approved by City Council, August 2, 1977
1. Determination of Zoning Requirement for Parking - Calculated by dividing
commercial square footage on tax records by appropriate factor for the use,
obtained from the City Zoning Ordinance. Where zoning ordinance required,
other elements (number of seats, capacity of main hall, etc.) were used to
calculate the requirement. A minimum requirement of liS" was used for all
parcels at least one lot in size, reflecting potential benefit. This was
derived from the fact that a 1,000 sq. ft. structure.is a minimal development
of a city lot, and even a commercially zoned house would amount to that size.
1,000 sq. ft. of retail commercial space computes to a requirement of "5".
({here the zoning ordinance gave a choice of computational methods, the one
yielding the lower requirement was used.
2. Determining the Proximity Factor - On a 1:100 scale map showing all down-
town structures, prepared by Rieke,Carroll,Muller & Associates, the distance
from the subject property to the parking lot being assessed was measured.
Measurement was made from the closest point of the parking lot in a direct
line to the closest point of the structure on the parcel being assessed. If
there was no structure on the lot, the closest point on the lot was used.
The actual distance in feet was computed, and the proximity factor was cal-
culated from a table used for the last parking lot assessment in Hopkins.
.
3. Computation of Total Points and Assessment - The numbers obtained in Step 1
and 2 above were multiplied together to yield total points. All points for
each lot were totalled, and the total cost to be assessed for the lot was
djvided by the total number of points to yield point value. The point value
was then multiplied times total points for each parcel to yield the assessment.
4. Credit for Private Parking - Any parcel owner willing to sign a recordable
agreement for the term of the assessment providing that existing private park-
ing would be maintained, is given credit for that parking in proportion to
the zoning requirement. This credit is deducted from the assessment.
WPC: dmj
Augus t 26, 1977
.
Use of point system in figuring accessability to parking 1uts
.
Footages ,I- Number of points
500 plus 10
450 to 499 20
400 to 449 30
350 to 399 40
300 to 349 50 Deduct five points if a
250 to 299 60 street must be crossed
200 to 245 70
150 to 199 80
100 to 149 90
up to 100 100
*Figure footages from an interior
parking stall to nearest entrance uf
business.
.
A. Sala
ci ty of Hopkins
7/29/65
.
/
I '
.
.
.
Vl'.:SELY, OTTO, MILLEn, KEEFE a LA BORE
PROl'l\SSlONAL ASSOOIATION
LAWYERS
SU ITE 20.3 NORTH WESTERN BAN K SUI LDI NG
HOPKINS, MINNESOTA 55343
JOSEPH C.VESELY
K. MAXFIELD OTTO
JERRE A. MILLER
JOHN 8. KEEFE
LEE L LA BORE
(612) 938-7635
June 14, 1977
City of Hopkins
1010 - 1st street South
Hopkins, MN 55343
Attention: William Craig
City Manager
Dear Bill:
You asked for suggestions regarding the assessing of parking lots
in the down town area. I suggest that the assessments should be
based Upon, among other things, present use by the individual
landowners. In other words, if a residential home is within the
district and would not have any use they. should pay little or nothing
and if a person has a vacant lot, the same should apply. Other-persons
who have limited clientele' with some available parking should pro-
bably pay lot less than those who have a great turn over in customers.
One difficulty with this approach is if you spread the assessment on
this basis and use of the property changes, for example, the vacant
lot becomes a super market of some type or a residential home is con-
verted into commercial use or an existing structure that has its own
parking adds on a facility thus eliminating its own parking. Things
like this should be taken into account in spreading the assessments.
Accordingly, I believe that the assessments should be reassessed every
year or possible every other year and spread upon use by the owner.
I don't know whether or not this is possible with the existing laws
but I am enclosing herewith a special statute that we passed in the
1974 Session for the City of Eden Prairie allowing them to do this
very thing. Their interest, although similar, was in that they were
working with vacant land and the purpose of the act was to allow them
to assess special improvements such as water, sewer, street, curb and
gutter based upon the use principal as the commercial buildings were
/
PrtgP- Two
City of Hopkins
,] W18 14 r 1'77'1
erected upon the so called ring road project. If you think this
idea has some merit and you need special legislation, I feel relatively
confident that we could pass it in the next session rather quickly.
At any rate, these are my views on the subject and I would be happy
to discuss them with you further.
Very truly yours,
VESELY, OTTO., MILLER, KEEFE & LA BORE
.),
John B. Keefe
JBK:dmb
Enclosure
.
.
.
lklt"rll1l1H". ancJ III "It II'~ III lIle lourl II ,:I;ISS auLl '1Ilag.'" "I jI',""" I"
Inlion fir les,~, Irl such manlu'r as {hI:" rnulllClpalit~, shall dt'lt'rllllll" ,
In an unln,orporated or unorgani7,ed ;lrt'a l,f it count\' such 1'Sl;11111 '
nlPnl shall havt' facilities for sP;ltlng no( Ipss .han IOU ~\lf:'st.., ,II .'
(mlt' Of such greater Ilumbpr as the ,ounty board ma~' dt't"fmint'
Approved March 21,1974.
CHAPTER 197-H.F,No,3142
[Not Codl:"d]
...\n aCI n'hJftrlf III 0,., t'H.\' of E..h'l) Pr,lIrw: ,UlthflrtJ:JIIg rht-' pi,HIPITI"":. I 'IJ-'
rJon and fHlanr-illg uf a fll..}nr (,f'nte,- .ar~il rrrJ~ r4li.ld I'rn.14'cr
BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLA TURF OF THE STr\ n: OF :VII'
~E::S01.'\:
Section I. EDEN PRAIRIE, CITY OF; RING ROAD PROJECT,II..
city of Eden Prairil:' may plan and construct a major center ML"a "",
road (project STR 72-9-26), For purposes of planning and C'l'n5rrucl:'"
the city may expend any local, county. stale, federal "r pri,'ate IWI'!
available therefor.
Sec, 2, Any part of the cost of thf' pruject authorized by secll',I'
may be financed by the levy of special assessments against pro],""
within the city benefited by the project in thE' manner prE'scnb('d I,
law. In the assessment of benefits city authorities may utilize a Clfflll"
natIOn of assessment methods hasf'd upon thf' area of tracts bem'hr..d
the front footage of tracts benefited, and the land use of the trads I.",.
efited in accordance with such categories as may hp determmed by 111'
city
Sf'c. 3, Construction of the project and assessmpnt of bent'III'
may be undertaken in phases consistent with growth and de\'elopm,')I'
of the benefitled area, and the benefits deri\'l:,d from the project 1I1i,I
be redetermined a nd the value uf the benefits assessed against the III'"
efitted property as thp phases are completed.
See, 4, This act is effective upon approval bv the city counnl ,.~
th!' city of Eden Prairie and upon compliance with Minnesota S:atllll"'
Section 645,021.
Approved March 21, 1974,
Ch~n~['~ or additions indicate-<:! hy !c!_nderl[ne deleli"n~ h~ ~."
.
--...- --.....'.--.
. L __ .....I~-tt.~
~ ... " ..... :-J<'-.f:",,, ,"
---
CH
\"} "'},Hu,t.: llj ltj\
'dll)tll\ In/ /'ld,' }:!r
./111. '11,./ r': \j ':" .,. ~ 1(,J .'ll"rul
t II d .! . ., .... J.' III~! I' ;" 1"11 ~
H I-. I T I,...... \( 1 r l) II Y 1
N FS' \1-'.
,'-"" (" "' M innf-'Sl
Subdl\'I''''', ", I' amend,
SlIhd " r AXA Tl
I.IMITS. ......pcclallf'vies'
l~d b:- govnnmenlal suI
I;J I ...,HISt\ judgmel
'.11111 tl\ ,. '.'llurl of com
;H"tiul1 ',n .lfl "lipreSs c(
P>i y t h., ,'I'S! S "I ~eUlem
<I,v ISllln "1 iJ ny action
wllt'n '-Ubqantlatl'd by l
wil h t h,' rl 'Url I)f comp
Ilff ;J nd [h,' I"~al repre
"nlv III I h.' ,,~t('nt of thl
""tlr! ~':[! l..mt'nts over I
OJ) pay [he costs,
',,,..d hv th.' ,;tatt" of Mi
'.'lhdl\'I.S1'''l th..rl:'uf, wh
"'dill,lll' (. .lnd IS cnfon
"lIV SlIpulatlnn agrl:'em
'.\"~;[!'rn I"r p"llution ab
I:llvi.rnmenwl subdivisi
Sralt"S, or anv aJ?:/'ncy (
I 1111 rt of .'I)Tn pt'tent juri
',II;dJ in "'lnsultatlon w
Vl'lllp a <;uggt'sted form
,ltld subdi'''I~illns In issu
(el pay the costs (
h'J:ls!;tlurp or :1 prior or
,'lId direct Iv rf'quires a
''',t'S pd\'ablf' In 1971,
'.." h a{'[i"lt\" after levy
(d) I).IV tlw costs.
"111 1)1 the in.'re<lst' tn
. h.ul~t.., IH .utc1it ions
Sutd. 7.
EXCERPT FROM MINNESarA STA.TUTES
SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS, HEARING. An autorrobile parking facility is a local .
inproverrent within the rreaning of sections 429.01 to 429.091 and, except
as otherwise provided in this section, my be financed in whole or in part
by special assessrrents levied in accordance with those sections. In appor-
tioning such special assessrrents, the governing body shall take into con-
sideration the inproverrents on the land and the present and p:rtential use of
the respective lots, pieces or fB.rcels during the anticipated period of use-
fulness of the facility providing the benefits. If the governing rody in
levying such assess:rents determines that all or part of the berefited property
is benefited to a lesser extent than other property, it nay establish separate
tenefi t districts for an irrproverrent each canprising property benefited to a
like extent, whether or not contiguous, and rray provide either a different
rate of assessrrent or in lieu thereof, a different nUml:::er of instal1nents
payable at such t.iIres as the governing body shall detennine, subject only to
the condition that the assessrrents for such benefit districts be made payable
at such tirres as will pennit the use thereof for payment of principal of and
interest on any ronds issued for the improverrent with respect to which they
are levied. Interest on the W1fB.id balance of assessrrents levied nnder this
suJ:::division shall be payable semiarmually with other taxes levied on such
property .
.
.
,e
. ,
,
I
~-~-
~/~~4W{i~---11- r~rn~-~~'n _~~~L
I I .., ~ ~ IT ... Ie L
I III .", I W ' '. I .
~. I u, L.ltlIU L _ - ::m.-1t
--------. I, ~ .' ::im ~
''--~--''_'::'_~---~~-:;~r~~::-~:~
CITY OF HOPKINS
1 01 0 FIRST STREET SOUTH. HOPKINS, MINNESOTA 55343 . 61 2/935~8474
Deac DO'~'ntm~ll Pi"OpC rt)r O'vue:r.:
!t:' you Oh-n ,:.!.,~y_ ?nl"~(i.ng Sr}cc:(;~ v!;1C'.t:2'!er t.JiL;1in 500 f~ct 0'( your- prOtwrl:y,
usc' cl fe, r cu" tome):, t:'TI'p J.8\' C", ::J r r~j IJO.1 I';' rk ing, the', you n:ciy '-I1.1<\,l i 1y {or a
:::'-0 che l-LOIl n f tile ;1:; 8-2::: fi!!12 :ll: IhJ t:' d on cl1(: Crt c 10.';2 d s hc.Q t. '!';1'o"'. Ci. ty Co iW ci 1
h;lS Dffi~.l1!<~,d Sh;il: if iln~' ilic:H~rty (,';'-/ller .s~r;'-lect to thi...-; .J.sSL~:3Si'i1eJlt .::-:.:ha.l..l
e-i::::ll ~':1~~(I~orl;<-:})le ':'\i~.re0.m~r~[L ..Cot"" the. t{~lm of tlt:~ a.::ise:ssrr~eiLt't }):!..2dgL[L;~ to
lr_:? cp t!.:~ p.] rk ~~il g, ~hCll t:Le ;;l~j :-:~e~sm :~:l ~_ Ivi 1 i b '2 :r~f..~ c.: tieL:..:l by d':l ~ r 1,-" un t p 1"0 ~"'UT ~ Lou ~ll
tu Liw p<ldCL1',g ::equirelllent as (!ptermineci Ly C:.i.:::.y zeo'i.q:,;. i\~ Fl.l l~,{:.tilif1J.e, if
the zontng ~,'(lttld requi'ce you to have :_tr~nL:~r [)iJ:ldnr. :::fl.:.lce'; 'lC.C: you plulg~~ to
keep ten, h."l.lf your 2.2se~.sln(T,::: ~'JoulJ c.: e,n;~lJ(2(!.
.
This is eS9i:"'-;.all/ ilnport<Jn.t. :i.f ye'l! <lO'N b2.'.!e a -'!.::.canl~ io:: '-:lr parcel used
110 w for 9 a rki.r:.g, Sill ce it ilas al;:-~0 bC2:J ;1,S~ e:;sed .t 0 r i t ~ }?il_~~~1.~T.~t~ .~~ tni p iinlll:.l
pari,ing ckmand if it ',Jere: c~"'\j21ol)eG. Signing the ap,ree:uent fo'( sllo~h a lOt:
n.(.t ~"nly elimini:it:es the ~lSSt'SSll1ent on that lot, but reduces it on :rollY st-rncturc~.
Agre'~iI;c.nt forIilS Ui" l}c o'o'tair,ed at tllE; r.ity Hall IJfflcc, 1010 Fir~;i~ Street South.
Yours very truly,
1 P e .'
k. l, ------c.,-...J:j'
/
William P. Craig
City Hanager
~1I' c: cimj
J::.ncl:
8-- 27. - 77
.
Robert Howell
Helen Fowler
Hedberg and Lindpmen
Michelel DeMoss
Michae 1 Oe1105S
Jerry Mashek
Uwens R.ealty
Olin Johnson
Michael DeMoss
Mrs. Einc~ Jorgenson
G. P. Realty
Eugene Reilly (Archies)
M.B.Hagen (Jdck Yees)
M.B. Hagen REalty
M.B. Hagen (Put-ons)
C & J rroperties (Donovans)
J.L. Kakach (Mini-mall)
Crestland Properties
Hopkins Columbus Assoc.
Banco (N.W.Bank)
\>lest Mpls. Invest. (Grossman)
Idamax (Como)
T and H Markets (Hance)
First National Bank (Main)
David Thomas (Lancer)
Bruce W,-itsun (Montgomery Ward)
1978 Park illS Lot ^ssessment
.
Final assesSmen1
$4,424.54
322.82
189.92
316.15
531.70
151. 90
85.46
398.82
645.64
104.47
13.
~
4,196.64
2,962.35
1,234.41
1,542.88
2,160.05
4,443.52
180.37
337.06
1,120.27
Total asse~3sment
Credit
$4,424.54
322.82
237.37
47.45
1.091.89
775.74
531.70
493.72
341. 82
199.38
113.92
683.62
284.80
645.64
161. 41
56.94
132.92
4,505.24
308.60
2,962.35
1,234.41
1,542.88
2,.160.05
4,443.52
237.37
57.00
337.06
1,310.27
190.00
2,734.48
2,734.48
132.93
132.93
2,558.82
15,743.41;
.
1,637.84
1,637.84
356.05
356.05
Albe 1- t Pike Lodge 1,329.26 1,329.26
. C.D. Nygren 598.17 598.17
James Hance (Old Hance Hardware) 1,580.87 1,580.87
Nelson Shoes 1, 14 B . 86 1,148.86
Quinn's Clothing 417.77 208.88 208.89
Edina Realty 987.45 987 .45
Dr. Sheldon 265.85 265.85
First National Bank (Drive-in) 284.84 284.84
Tait's (new) 22,923.13 1,458.73 22,280.40
Richard's Liquor 1,519.15 759.60 759.55
Rose Kokesh 2,221.76 2,221.76
Rose Kokesh 1,281. 79 341. 80 939.99
Joe Lee 2,753.46 2,753.46
. Old Dahlberg Property 7,310.92 7,310.92
(Used car lot) 360.80 360.80 6'
Grossman
" 645.64 645.64
313.33 313.33
.
.
.
.
o
:?:
LLJ
~
To:
From:
Subject:
Date:
City of Hopkins
Rusty Fifield
Special Service District
July 8, 1999
What property can be included in the special
service district?
LEADERS IN PUBLIC FINANCE
3060 Centre Pointe Drive
Roseville, MN 55113-1105
<'.
EHLERS
" . :~.
& ASSOCIATES INC
Any property can be part of the special
service district. The important distinction is
that the power for the creation of the district
rests with the owners of property that would
be subject to the service charge. Control over
the district is targeted at commercial and
industrial property. For example, City
property could be in the district, but the City
-
is not subject to the service char2:e and cannot
participate in the petition veto process.
M.S. 428A.02. Only property that is classified
under section 273.13 and used for commercial,
industrial, or public utility purposes, or is vacant
land zoned or designated on a land use plan for
commercial or industrial use and located in the
special service district, may be subject to the
charges imposed by the city on the special sefVice
district. Other types of property may be included
within the boundaries of the special service district
but are not subject to the levies or charges imposed
by the city on the special service district. If 50
percent or more of the market value of a parcel of
property is classified under section 273.13 as
commercial, industrial, or vacant land zoned or
designated on a land use plan for commercial or
industrial use, or public utility for the current
assessment year, then the entire market value of
the property is subject to a service charge based on
net tax capacity for purposes of sections 428A.O 1
to 428A.1O.
t
651.697.8506 fax 651.697.8555
rusty@ehlers-inc.com
Special Service District
. Page 2
What are the petition and veto criteria for
establishing a district?
.
.
The power to oetition and to veto the creation
of a district ]ies with property owners.
The petition to start the process must be
signed by property owners representing 25%
or more both the land area and the net tax
capacity of property to be subject to the
service charge.
If the service charge is based on net tax
capacity, the district ordinance can be blocked
by property owners representing 35% of the
land area or 35% oUhe net tax capacity
subject to the service charge. It is not clear
what criteria apply to a service charge based
(in whole or in part) on factors other than net
tax capacity.
M.S. 428A.08. No action may be taken under
section 428A.02 unless owners of 25 percent or
more of the land area of property that would be
subject to service charges in the proposed special
service district and owners of 25 percent or more of
the net tax capacity of property that would be
subject to service charges in the proposed special
service district file a petition requesting a public
hearing on the proposed action with the city clerk.
M.S. 428A.09. If owners of 35 percent or more of
the land area in the district subject to the service
charge based on net tax capacity or owners of 35
percent or more of the net tax capacity in the
district subject to the service charge based on net
tax capacity file an objection to the ordinance
adopted by the city under section 428A.02 with
the city clerk before the effective date of the
ordinance, the ordinance does not become effective.
.
Special Service District
Page 3
What are the petition and veto criteria for
imposing service charges')
~ 17
.
.
If the service charge will be based on net tax
caeacity, then the petition requirements J~e
the same as establishing the district (owners
..... .
of 25% or more of b..nd area and tax
-L ~
capacit ). However, if another type of service
c arge is to be imposed. the petitioners must
represent 25% or more of the individual or
business organizations subject to the service
cnarge. The statute does not define
.
"individual or business organizations". The
term appears tied to the tenant or other user of
the property.
Like district creation, the veto threshold is
35% or more. The power for the veto lies the
with property owners or individual or
business organizations subject to the service
charge.
M.S. 428A.08. No action may be taken under
section 428A.03 to impose a service charge based
on net tax capacity unless owners of 25 percent or
more of the land area subject to a proposed service
charge and owners of 25 percent or more of the net
tax capacity subject to a proposed service charge
file a petition requesting a public hearing on the
proposed action with the city clerk. No action may
be taken under section 428A.03 to impose any
other type of service charge unless 25 percent or
more of the individual or business organizations
subject to the proposed service charge file a petition
requesting a public hearing on the proposed action
with the city clerk.
M.S. 428A.09. If owners of 35 percent or more of
the land area subject to the service charge based on
net tax capacity or owners of 35 percent or more of
the net tax capacity subject to the service charge
based on net tax capacity file an objection to the
resolution adopted imposing a service charge based
on net tax capacity under section 428A.03 with the
city clerk before the effective date of the resolution,
the resolution does not become effective. If 35
percent or more of individuals and business
organizations subject to a service charge file an
',_~ cc,,:,.;~:,"\;'~~ ::;
J!lt'" ""~'" ..~,. 'L .t!+
'.' . . . ",oj: '[ . '. '"., ""'Jc<i1ft' . '0."". ':[i~,
, I;" ."C- ',4'" ""0' ,., . '.. "
. .t ~l d Ji ..:.' I __ _". __._
-:...J.....J._. '~.r:- , :~~ '- .....-,. '---"---"--,
Introduction
The City of Hopkins has I eceived
legislative authol ity to 1I eate SpeCIal
Service Distncts undel Minnesota
Statutes, Chapter 428A The Dlstlict
is a tool that can be Llsed to
undeliake and finance a wide I ange nf
selvices and improvements in
commercial al-eas. One use of the
special service district IS the
constl uction and maintenance of
public pal+ing al eas.
State Law allows special setvice
distr Icts to underiake a variety of
selvices and impl-ovements. The uses
within this district are controlled by
the enabling ordinance, In
establishing the distnct, the City
Council will adopt an ordinance. The
ordinance will contain a list of activities
that could be undellaken through the
dlstl-ict, These activities will reflect the
specific needs in Hopkins,
The District
The District defines the al-ea for
undeliaklng the special services and
improvements, Under CUll ent State
Law, the selvice district can only
include propelLy that is classified and
used fOI LOmmel cial, industt-ial, 01-
public utility purposes, or IS vacant
land zoned or df'signated on a land
use plan fat corllmet-cial 01- industnal
uses. Only propelty in the Distnct
pay the "selvice charges" levied to
final Ice the special selvices and
impt ovemellts,
The Service Charge
Service charges al p the means of
finanCing at tivities in the district. The
SPECIAL SERVICE DISTRICT
method of allocating costs through the
service chal-ge can be set in any
reasonable manner, Factol-s that
could be considered In a setVlce
charge formula Include:
. PClrcei size/area,
. Front footage of parcel,
. Property valuation,
Specific parking related factors could
also be made pali of the foI'mula,
The specific amount and ter ms of the
service charge al'e determined during
the planning process, The payment
of the service charge OCCUI s through
the propelLy tax system,
The Process
A speCial sctVlce distl ict is Inherently a
publlc-pllvate pdllnershlp The City
carmot act Independently to create a
distl ict or impose selvice char-ges>
The process only begins u~~
petition of ro er owners.
roperLy owners also have the power
to veto actions. These provisions al e
designed to insure that the use of the
special selvice district meets the
needs of the people that I-eceive and
pay for the services.
Thet'e are two sepal C1tp, but related,
pt-ocesses involvpd With the use of a
special ~elvi,e distnrt: (I-eating the
distl ict and imposing the setvlce
charges. A petilion is requit-ed to
begin ea\h pmno:ss,
Ownel s of 25% or mot-e of the land
al ca of propeny and owners of 25%
UI mOl e of the net tax capacity of the
pmpelty that would be subject to
service chal-ges In lhe proposed
A Tool For Enhancing Commercial Areas
Summary
district must file a petition requesting a
public hearing un the proposed action
with the City Clel~k,
Following the I eceipt of a valid
petition, the City Council conducts
public hearings. Notice of the heat-ings
must be mailed to every properly
owner that could be included in the
distl ict and subject to the service
chal ge,
FollOWing a publiC hearing, the City
CounCIl may establish the district by
adoption of an ordinance, Among
othet- things, the ordinance shall
describe the panicular al~ea within the
city to be included in the distnct and
the special sel^vices to be furnished in
the dlstr-ict.
A second publiC hearing will be held
on the proposed selvi,e charge.
Following this hearing, the Council
has the ability adopt a resolution to
Impose the setVlce charges.
Veto
Properly owners have the power to
veto both the ordinance to
establish the distlict and the t-esolution
to impose the charges. To veto these
actions, the ownet-s of 35% or mOl P
of the land area in the dlStllct and
owners of 35% 01- mote ofthe nel
tax capacity in the distllct must file an
objection with the city clerk befol e
the effective date of the ordinance 01
lesolution, Neither the ordinance nOl
the resolution can take effect soonel
than 45 days aftel- their adoption.
. EHLERS
I & ASSOCIATES INC
PROPOSED SPECIAL SERVICE
DISTRICT BOUNDARIES
.
~~~ -
- -----=::;'/ .d
- ,~
f,\ ~..,_~~_-:..=~~;=;:=-~~==--~~
':. ~_rl...-~=--,-=:~-J Q~
r:.. ~.~-- ~~---::::...~ ~
'--- .~
.."
....
io.
- - - - -
Parking Lot 1999 2000
-
Lot 100
-
Lot 200 Seal Coat:
SA $1,540
PI $660
TOTAL $2,200
Lot 300
Lot 400
Parking Condition Audit,
Ramp Painting, Surface
Sealer:
SA $66,850
PI $28.650
TOTAL $95,500
2001
2002
-
-
-
Overlay:
SA $9,250
PI $3.950
TOTAL $13,200
Seal Coat:
SA $105
PI $45
TOTAL $150
PROPOSED
PARKING LOT CIP
2003 2004 2005
-
Seal Coat:
SA $1 ,400
PI $600
TOTAL $2,000
-
Seal Coat:
SA $1,750
PI $750
TOTAL $2,500
2006
2007
Seal Coat:
SA
PI
TOTAL
Seal
SA
PI
TOTAL
P
TOTAL
Overlay:
SA
2008
$123
$52
$175
Coat:
$1 ,400
$600
$2,000
$4,970
$2 130
$7,100
Overlay
n 2010
Future
Par~;ng Lot 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 Future
Lot 500 Reconstruction: Seal Coat:
SA $49,700 SA $2,600
,
PI $21.300 PI h15Q
TOTAL $71,000 TOTAL $3,750
Lot 600 Reconstruction: Seal Coat:
SA $68,100 SA $2,600
PI $29 200 PI $1.200
TOTAL $97,300 TOTAL $3,800
Lot 700 Seal Coat:
SA $1,120
PI $480
TOTAL $1,600
Lot 900 Reconstruction: Seal Coat:
SA $44,100 SA $2,200
PI $18900 PI $1,000
TOTAL $63,000 TOTAL $3,200
TOTALS SA $68,390 SA $117,800 SA $44,100 SA $9,355 --- SA $2,520 SA $1,750 SA $5,200 SA $2,200 SA $6,493
PI $29 310 PI $50.500 PI $18.900 PI $3 995 PI $1 080 PI $750 PI $2 350 PI $1 000 PI $2.782
$97,700 $168,300 $63,000 $13,350 $3,600 $2,500 $7,550 $3,200 $9,275
',sUII. I :Q'::" ;:~.~l~: '~II'I' ~
'~r~ ~.d ~ '
I i ~ 1s\ (l -- STIIEtT
I ~:'Pl ,~
I.~~.o~j~ .~
I '0 I "" I~ ]
i 0 .n ~
OQ m ""000
iD 0 (l
I:::J I:~~
1 b : ,u-<w.. ~
11;-\1 \' ~
i --~
,. 0-, I I"__~~-
i' '
',: ~-!) _ ',r-
~,:=,' !d~IH~l~;r - - ."
0- "I', I'
I ~~'1J i
~ '
I (II ~(M
IJ] ~ I ~
1 ~ !~._.~;~
IDIn ..0
w<l (I 2J
, .
" CJ -
I P \) ~
G'
o .
, ' L' " ,---
1111111 II I 1_-,
'LLJJ1-~}- -LLJ L-.._~J
I,b,'. '" r CJ '
\D,'. . .
, . c=J
I . (I (l
I~~ Ini
(
.
"M"
I
1
.
~U. b.d' ~-
.Da d. .: ~ D ~. i~~..O",'
Do- 00 C
Q ClOO <'I
1s\.
=
" 0 i ,-". D'
'-,'"', (l 0 i L..-lo
"'-, ''VI (I Q (l I QIXlO::l I
", '-,,<I I 0 (I 0
o~,,-,,. 0
'~: c::J 0'
~' D.r
D~ '<'''0:'-- . 0
"".", ~~"<",, B. O'
011 ~h, '-, (I ,
I ~
"~",,<"<<.O I . G
.~ n. .~
- . lj~'
=:-. -5!, !
Cou\InCCM\;- . l Ii
HopIl,," " ==.--- ~ ~
1~8b011l ;~Prllll '
_ ~'. $hotpOIIIOOConteI' ~ -,
~,f '~' ",[ . _" ! nil]- T
j 0 II DL: -wpnm,O-, _J
, LJ j~[~
[~.~ m
~II 1:::' ~ 0
~ tlQolfi
, ~ -.
io .oJl 1 u:
. ."~,,,"",,' [ .~ i:U . .
~ :\}. p
i
.
.
~
.
i