Agenda - Council - 03/09/2004 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

The ~ollr)wi ~g d isct lssion presents a number of alternate methods for assessing this and simile.' tow',lhouse projects. A brief description of each method is provided and attached lo this {::_ts~c~ in ;~ table illustrating the assessment for each single family unit, townhouse unit (~1'I I): ;~ ml thc golf' course (RRH) under these various assessment methods. Method 1 rcprcs~:~;~.~': til~ method presently proposed in the draft feasibility study where the townh,:)m,;'¢ xx,'cxrc assessed a single unit and the golf course three units, one for each outlet. ;~4cth,~r/? represents th e project assessed on a strict front foot basis, which is another c:tm~l}~mly utilized assessment method. The reason Ramsey has not used this method it'~ thc mst is apparent m reviewing the difference between the high and low asscssm~.:~il s i~_~ ~' individual single family lots (highlighted in bold). Method 2 also transl'~:rs ~ l~igl~ p(xrccntage of the project cost to the golf course, for which it maybe di 1'15 cu 1l t, ~ l~'o',"r: an equal degree of benefit. Mealie4 3 t)~ (,i,oscs to assess each townhouse unit a full share the same as a single family unit. D'his r~,zthod is used in the City of Prior Lake. Method 4 is similar to method 3 with thc cxt:c~pi ic~,~ t~-~at all single fatnily units a charged equally and the golf course and the townh,m~, ::.; ~c· assessed an equivalent number of units based on the relation of their front tbotag~: tc~ li~ ~,.verage single family frontage (203 feet). The resulting assessments for this m~'tl ~:1 art. vt:fy similar to those resulting from method 2. Method 4A is a variation on mci 1'~o(I ¥ i~[ which only the townhouse units are assessed the equivalent units based on fi;ont f::)ot~t.,~?, l'his remedies the large assessment to the golf course which appears d ifficu I[ t(~.j u si/l?. Method 5 and Method 6 are both unit assessment methods which assign ~::~c I~ t,~)x?nhousc unit 0.75 and 0.6 assessment units respectively. These values were cht~s~'~ b('cause they a typical of what other communities are utilizing for inultifi~!~ily ~t.~;. It wouid ai~l,t;at~- thai method 4A would be an appropriate method of assessing IP 04-14 and otl~c:~-~,:~ ix(:d ust~ projects in the future which involve multifamily units. Although this metho~l is ~x~ot',:/'avorable to multifamily units than those employed by other cities sttrvcy~.x], it cit){¢s represent an increase in the assessed cost proposed for these units in the currcn~ dr'41-i/k::x~;ibility study. Sta I't' n ~l(,~s th,' tb Ilowing recommendations relating to this case: /\~,..~'(?~.~¢ projects which contain townhouse units such that townhouses make up fi ted properti es, whenever possible. t'~tixcct land use projects ca~ot be avoided, the assessment policy should be to alloxv fbr the assessment on a number of units equal to the ~ont o ~ thc multifhmily prope~y divided by average frontage of single family within thc mixed use project. :~tafY to amend the 2004 Street Maintenance Program Feasibility S~dy to p~>,-atc lbo above changes to ~ 04-14.