Laserfiche WebLink
Alternative B: <br /> <br />Assessment would be $2,446 <br />Total project frontage = $42,029 ft. <br />Totalassessed cost per foot = $1 t0,396 + 42,029 fi = $2.63 per ft. <br />Subject property-assessment =930 ft. X $2.63/ft = $2,446 <br /> <br />· 'Example 2: <br /> Current' Practice: <br /> <br />Atternative'A: <br /> <br />Property has 382.feet of frontage along 149t~ .Lane <br />-Assess one share, $772' (see example 1) <br /> <br />Assess one share, $772: <br />Average lot-width = .29~- fl/units (see example <br />Subject.lot has 382 feet + 294 fi/unit = 1.3'0 units <br />Round down to one unit <br /> <br />Alternative <br /> <br />EXample 3: <br />'Current Practice: <br /> <br />Assessment would be $1~005 <br />Total. assessed,cost per foot = $2.63/ft. (see example 1) <br />Subject property assessment = 382 ft. x' $2.63/ft = $1,004.66 <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 ft./unit (see example i) <br />Subject lot has 80 ft + 294 fi/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 />Discussion: <br /> <br />WTfi.le at first glance it rmght seem thai 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 Iitfle benefit, but a lot of street frontage.. <br />Adm/nistrat/vely, the front footage system would cause sign/ficantly more effort since each <br />· individual frontage would need to be determined. This-is particularly time consuming .on <br />Ramsey'.s many curvilinear streets. <br /> <br />It should also be noted that the 'three assessment systems presented herein, do not'represent a/l <br />options. Certainl'y it is possible to combine certain elements-or set minimum chagges on frontage <br />lengths. Nonetheless~ it is .important that the selected system be fair, easy to administer, and' <br />relatively simple to explain. <br /> <br /> I <br />'1 <br /> I <br /> I <br /> I <br /> I <br /> <br /> I <br /> I <br /> <br /> <br />