res_7359 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Mr. Popovich reviews the costs in a few minutes - the fact that t~ere aren't too many assessable feet is reflected in the assess- ment cost because also the City policy speaks of having to get at least 25% in assessments and one of the problems that's always been there is establishing an assessment rate that works for everyone. In this particular case we do have a tax exempt parcel that's owned by School District 621. Due to the fact that they would be paying so-called full 100% assessments, t~e policy says that we could reduce this to 22% instead of the normal 25%. That's still not a large change - only 3%. If this project is approved, it is anticipated that it could be combined with another local street of a somewhat similar nature and put into a contract so that the work could be done late this summer. MR. POPOVICH: Mayor and members of the Council, the total cost of this project is estimated to be $78,606.13. As the engi- neer said, including the school property, 60% of the abutting property petitioned for it. There's a total assessable frontage, based on the formula the engineer has given, making allowances for the side lot, of 895 feet. You divide that 895 by the total cost and it comes out to $87.82 per foot. If we take 22% of that, as the engineer has recommended because the school would be assessed 100%, it comes out to $19.32 per foot. The practical problem you have - which you may have to hear something on to- night - is that the south half has 14 to 15 feet average assess- able frontage and at $19 plus per foot, it really comes out to $300 or $400; whereas the lots on the north side, which average around 75 and some at 90 feet - if you multiply that by the $19 you get up close to $2,000. So you have property on the north side of the street, based on our historic form~la - because they front on the street - that would be paying more dollars than those on the south half. Bear in mind that eventually those that haven't been assessed before - when the side streets, like Albert and Sheldon are put in - then they. would receive the full assessment - whatever the cost may be at that time. So while there appears to be an anamoly, it's an explainable anamoly. We would propose that if the project goes ahead that it be spread over a period of not to exceed 15 years because of current market conditions for the last year or two and the foreseeable and at the assessment hearing we would charge what is permissible by law - which is the maximum of 1% over what we get on our bonds or the highest interest rate possible, which is now certi- fied at 13% - as the carrying charge. If we spread it over a 15 year period, they would pay 1/15 of the principal each year, plus the interest carrying charge. Those on the south half, it's a smaller figure; and for those on the north half, it's a more sizeable figure. Of course they have the right to prepay and save those interest costs if they wish. I would presume that if the project went ahead that it would be done this year, with the assessment hearing next year. We would not have time to get the assessment hearing in this fall. 3