res_7318 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

house address' is. The front of a lot is considered the shorter of the two sides. Using this lot as an example, with the Merrill Street improvement, this is the shorter of the two sides and the side on Merrill is considered to be the front. As you can maybe see here, it has 85 feet of frontage on Merrill Street - its assessable footage is 85 feet. If, for example, Terrace Drive was the street under construction, in that case the side abutting Terrace is the longer of the two - that's the side lot one. The City's policy in the past on side lot situations has been to consider only ten percent of that side lot dimension as assessable frontage. If Terrace Drive was the street under consideration this evening, the assessable footage on Terrace would be ten percent of 120 feet, or 12 feet. Again, we're talking about Merrill Street this evening, not Terrace Drive, and for this lot the assessable footage is 85. MR. POPOVICH: Mayor and members of the Council, the total published cost of this improvement was $41,057.04. According to the front footage computations made by the engineering staff, there are 1,050 feet that would be assessed. You divide that by the total cost, which comes out to $39.10 per front foot. The City staff recommends that the normal 25% of construction costs be assessed. The balance would be picked up by other City sources or general taxes. That comes down to $9.78 per front foot. If you have an 85 foot lot, multiply it by $9.78 - that would be the total assessment. The only other thing to consider is over what period of time should we spread that. Obviously our recommendation is not to spread it longer than a 15 year period because this is a smaller amount, with most of it on City taxes. In other words, 75,% is going to be paid by the City. We would really recommend a ten year assessment so that 1/10 of the $9.78 times 85 would be paid each year, together with the assessment carrying charge if there ~as no prepayment by the land owner to save the interest charges. That would help us in the financing of the issue and make for a shorter issue with lower interest rates. In this money market situation that we're in, it would be more helpful for the City's credit rating. In other words, it would be hard to explain to Moody's and Standard & Poor's why we're putting this off over 15 or 20 years, for example, when the City is paying 75% of it. That would really be our recommenda- tion. Assuming that the project was to go ahead this year and be constructed this year, hopefully the assessment hearing could be held this fall and the assessments started to be collected in 1983. If that couldn't be done it would be one year later, but no later than commencing in 1984 and hopefully commencing in 1983. MAYOR DEMOS: Are there any written statements? MR. ANDRE: There are none. 3