Agenda - Public Works Committee - 02/17/2004

Home

The following discussion presents a number of alternate methods for assessing this and similar toWnhouse projects. A brief description of each method is provided and.attached to this case in a table illustrating the assessment for each single family unit, townhouse unit (TH), and the golf course (RRH) under these various assessment methods. Method represents the method presently proposed in the draft feasibility study where the townhom~s were assessed a single unit and the golf course three units, one for each outlot. Method 2 represents the project assessed on a strict front foot basis, which is another commonly utilized assessment method. The reason Ramsey has not used this method in, the past is apparent in reviewing the difference between the high and low assessments for individual single family lots (highlighted in bold). Method 2 also transfers a, high percentage of the project cost to the golf course, for which it may be difficult tO prove an equal degree of benefit. .~ Method 3 proposes to assess each townhouse unit a full share the same as a sing~ ~mily-. unit. This method is used in the City of Prior Lake. Method 4 is similar to method 3 with the exception that all single family units a charged equally and the golf course and the townhomes are assessed an equivalent number of units based on the relation of their front footage toilthe average single family frontage (203 feet). The resulting assessments for this method are very similar to those resulting from method 2. Method 4A is a variation on method 4 in which only the townhouse units are assessed the equivalent units based on front footage. This remedies the large assessment to the golf course which appears difficult to justify. Method 5 and Method 6 are both unit assessment methods which assign each townhouse unit 0.75 and 0.6 assessment units respectively. These values were chosen because they a typical of what other comrnunities are utilizing for multifamity units. It would appear that method 4A would be an appropriate method of assessing IP 04-14 and other mixed use projects in the future which involve multifamily units. Although this method ismore favorable to multifamily units than those employed by other cities surveyed, !it does represent an increase in the assessed cost proposed for these units in the current draft feasibility study. Recommendations: Staff makes the following recommendations relating to this case: · Ai~gregate Projects which contain townhouse units such that townhouses make up all benefited properties, whenever possible. · When mixed land use projects cannot be avoided, the assessment policy should be an{ended to allow for the assessment on a number of units equal to the front footage of the multifamily property divided by average frontage of single, family frontage within the mixed use project. · Direct staff to amend the 2004 Street Maintenance Program Feasibility Study ~to incorporate the above changes to [P 04-14.