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