Laserfiche WebLink
<br />- <br /> <br />/ <br />.. .. <br />f <br /> <br />page 2 <br />steve Wilson <br />October 24, 1988 <br /> <br />I..' <br /> <br />~n <br />~\'I'l I <br />. I,: 1 Note that two scenarios a.re considered tor Lot 2. The first <br />'1~~;4 1 separates the excess area from tha corner lot. The second adds , <br />'ii'~'. 'I the excess area to the corner lot, tnus, changing the orientation : <br />'II of the front of the lot trom Minnesota Avenue to the new proposed , <br />'J ~ r: street. This change is significant because scenario A assesses '.~ <br />'. r. 1,1 the 145 teot contiquou8 to the proposed right-ot-way at lOt (a l~' ~ , <br />~~~~~ ,: r .~d,.: as~es~ment) .WhilO scen~~~~, B .assefllses the 145 feet a~ 10Gt. ,,).~ar Ii' <br /> <br />~~n IJ' I In order to determine th\1 actual assessment for I:lach lot, divide !I ~~~h <br />~21 ,I the total project cost by the total number ot assessable teet to ~ l~~ <br />'11 ,! . 'I" I determine the cost per assessable toot. Then multiply the cost 'Ill f ~J. <br />i:: ~~ per assessable foot by the assessable footage for each lot to get I, .t;"~~ <br />ti:..~t. \! ~he total assessment for: each lot. ' ll~r~\ <br />"~It " .. ~ ,=df;"tl <br />~~'.I I These numbors have been calculated according to the city'S . ~Tr..~ <br />"~I' assessment policy. In this case, it seems unreasonable to assess :or',;~ <br />those properties that do not benefit from this proposed street. ' ' ,; II' <br />since Brutger Companies, Country KitChen, and the Gordie Howe 0 ~ <br />Property beneCit trom this improvement, it seems appropriate to <br />charge only those properties for the improvoment. The actual.' <br />distribution of the project costs should bE' agreed upon by those ';;: <br />Parties.' ~.I~' <br />, M~.. <br /> <br />_..JIt yo-U- ;ish to p~r;u~ - this im;~~~nt furth~r, -the next- st-~~ 'is' -'.( <br />to petition the city to build this road. ~hat petition should i' <br />include an asseasment proposal it you teGl the city policy is I . I <br />unreason~ble. Once petitioned, the council will be asked to <br />authorize a fca~lbility study, Yhich would further detail the <br />cost and assessments to be charged. In January, the council <br />would then vote to authorize this project to be built in 1989. <br /> <br />! III '''': <br />t~ f.. ~ -+ <br /> <br />I, <br /> <br />'. <br /> <br />Please contact me it I may hoe ot any further assistance. <br />Sincerely, <br />~P. ~. <br /> <br />.' <br />. . <br />"'. <br /> <br />Karl P. Keel <br />Assistant Public Work~ Director <br /> <br />KPI<: ..;y <br />Enclosure <br />