Agenda - Council - 04/08/2003 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Alternative B: Assessment would be $1,005 Total assessed cost per foot = $2.63/ft. (see example 1) Subject property assessment = 382 ft. x $2.63/ft = $1,004.66 Example 3: Current Practice: Property has 80 feet of frontage on cUl de sac Assess one share at $772 (see example 1) Alternative A: Assess one share $772 Average lot width = 294 ft/unit (see. example 1) Subject lot has 80 ft + 294 fVunit = 0.27.units Assess one unit Alternative B: ~ Assessment would be $210 .... Total assessed cost per foot -- $2.63/ft (see example 1) Subject property assessment = 80 ft. x $2.63/ft. = $210.40 While at first glance it might seem that assessing based on front footage might be the fairest system, it is obvious from the examples that significant disparities would occur. This inequity can be even further exacerbated by the fact that extremely large frontages are often times caused by wetlands, which provide the property little benefit, but a lot of street frontage. Administratively, the front footage system would cause significantly more effort since each individual frontage would need to be determined. This is particularly time consuming on Ramsey's many c urvilinear streets. It was noted that the three assessment systems presented herein do not represent all options. Certainly it is possible to combine certain, elements or set minimum charges on frontage lengths. Nonetheless, it is important that the selected system be fair, easy to administer, and relatively simple to explain. Staff recommended that in order to more fairly assess 1 ors having unusually 1 ong frontages, Alternative A b e added to the list of assessment procedures. Councilmember Zimmerman stated that dividing the project cost evenly amongst the properties is probably the fairest, but there are certain instances where there is a very large lot placed within 'the development. He inquired if it was possible to combine the two policies. City Engineer Jankowski expressed concem with making the policy to complex. Councilmember Zimmerman stated that he could agree With what is being proposed-in certain circumstances, but for the standard situations, they should stay with what they have done in the past. Councilmember Cook replied that staff is proposing to assess property owners the same assessment as they have done in the past unless there was a piece of property that was two times larger than the other lots within the project area. Public Works Committee/February 25, 2003 Page 3 of 9 -85-