Agenda - Public Works Committee - 02/18/2003

Home

Alternative B: Assessment would be $2,446 Total project frontage = $42,029 ft. Total assessed cost per foot = $110,396 + 42,029 ft = $2.63 per ft. Subject property assessment = 930 ft. x $2.63/ft = $2,446 Example 2: Current Practice: Property has 382 feet of frontage along 149th Lane Assess one share, $772 (see example 1) Alternative A: Assess one share, $772 Average lot width = 294 ft/units (see example 1) Subject lot has 382 feet + 294 ft/unit = 1.30 units Round down to one unit 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 ft/unit = 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 Discussion: 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 curvilinear streets. It should also be 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.