1980_0225.ws_packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

�2- to cover these projects as well as others to achieve the same 30% return, a rate of appro tely $800 per lot would be necessary. This would be difficult for the propel omers . It would also man that if a future project occurred which did not require street restor- ation, but a fib price were used, that those awners wed be paying this sates high fee unnecessarily. It is, there fore , recommended that the as ses snt policy be charged so that 25% of the costs of a project would be obtained through special assessments. This J s as low as we can safely set the rate without imperiling the bonding ability of the project and would be identical to those of the street inprcven-ents . To illustrate the effect of such a policy ,F the two pro 3 ects currently being shied would then end up with assessments of $390 on one and $670 on the second (plus or minus) . Again, rimer that if street restoration were not a part of these two projects, the costs would have been under $300 for the first and appro i- rrately.: $450 for the second, using the new policy. The sanitary sewer rate was est lisped in 1967 at $10 per assessable foot. At that time the rate also included the cast of the sewer service. It was anticipated that such a rate would be equal to the total cost of the typical 8 inch sanitary sewer and service. In the early 70's a change was made whereby the service was charged for separately, but the $10 rate was unchanged* Tease mote that these rates apply only to presently utilized properties, rather than urAevelcped or vacant properties. Once again inflation. has caused prices to go up to a point where it is desirable to alter the rate It is reCOMmnded that the rate be changed to l00% of the actual cost, Mess this is found not to be typical, and in such case the typical, cost of an 8 inch sanitary sewer and service vice would be used. The water main assessments are very sJun' lar to that of the sewer, -In 1969, a f ' price of $8.50 was established for presently utilized property to cover the oust of the water main and the service. Again, in the early 1970's, the policy was changed so that the services were charged for indep- endently, but the $8.5o per assessable foot was retained. min, it is reccmmded that the rate be changed to be 100% of the actual cost, unless this is found not to be typical, and in such case the typical cost of a 6 inch water nain would be used It is inportsnt that this utter be resolved as soon as possible so that the feasibility studies can be cmpleted and the hearings occur next r onth . The exact wording to acca plish the change would then be worked out with the attorney atmd the policy officially altered,