My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Minutes - Public Works Committee - 02/25/2003
Ramsey
>
Public
>
Minutes
>
Public Works Committee
>
2003
>
Minutes - Public Works Committee - 02/25/2003
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/17/2025 3:28:50 PM
Creation date
5/2/2019 11:37:15 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Document Type
Minutes
Meeting Type
Public Works Committee
Document Date
02/25/2003
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
9
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
Current Practice: <br /> <br />Each lot of record within a project is considered as one benefited <br />unit within t he p roj ect group. ( The only exceptions are wetland <br />outlots which would have a great likelihood of going tax forfeit if <br />assessed). <br /> <br />Alternative A: <br /> <br />Where a benefited property exceeds the average frontage within a <br />project, the property shall be assessed multiple shares determined <br />by dividing its total project frontage by the average frontage within <br />the project. The number of assessed shares shall be rounded down <br />to the lowest whole number, but not less than one unit. The <br />average width shall be determined by dividing the total project <br />centerline mileage times two by the total number of benefited <br />properties. <br /> <br />Alternative B: <br /> <br />Base entire assessment solely on total front frontage (some special <br />consideration might b e given t o corner 1 ors, such a s, u se 1 ongest <br />side or average of all sides). <br /> <br />Below are three examples of how each of the above assessment procedures would affect <br />individual assessment or selected lots. The examples selected are from project 02-11, an overlay <br />project from last year's program. <br /> <br />Example 1: <br />Current Practice: <br /> <br />Property has 930 feet of frontage along 149th Avenue. <br />Assess one share $772, since there is one lot of record. <br />Total assessed project cost = $110,396; Total assessed units = 143 <br />Assessed cost per unit = $110,396 + 143 units = $772 unit <br /> <br />Alternative A: <br /> <br />Assessed three shares $2,316 <br />Total project frontage = 3.98 mi x 5280 fl/mi, x 2 sides = 42,049 fl. <br />Average lot frontage = 42,029 ft + 143 units = 294 ft/unit <br />Subject lot has 930 ft + 294 units = 3.16 unit, rounded by 3 units <br /> <br />Alternative B: <br /> <br />Assessment would be $2,446 <br />Total project frontage = $42,029 ft. <br />Total assessed cost per foot = $110,396 + 42,029 ft = $2.63 per ft. <br />Subject property assessment = 930 fl. x $2.63/ft = $2,446 <br /> <br />Example 2: <br />Current Practice: <br /> <br />Property has 382 feet of frontage along 149th Lane <br />Assess one share, $772 (see example 1) <br /> <br />Alternative A: <br /> <br />Assess one share, $772 <br />Average lot width = 294 fl/units (see example 1) <br />Subject lot has 382 feet + 294 fl/unit = 1.30 units <br />Round down to one unit <br /> <br />Public Works Committee/February 25, 2003 <br /> Page 2 of 9 <br /> <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.