Laserfiche WebLink
■ <br />C>i-- , <br />»■ "Mt <br />r:v-' <br />“N:: <br />f <br />Mlll- <br />^■msS;:-/.m <br />.t <br />^v-f <br />II <br />:SPv; <br />:■:£!'iXM' <br />AppraisalsIII order to hold down project costs, the City did not have formal appraisals done for the project properties. Because of the wide diversity of properties in terms of size, value and condition of <br />septic systems, property appraisals could have added over <br />$100,000 to the cost of the project. Again, the City chose to <br />participate in the funding of the project rather than adding <br />unnecessary costs to the project. <br />PROJECT ASSBSSMEN’/S <br />Comparison with Past Assessment Amounts <br />The attached chart shows the assessment amounts for sewer <br />projects undert«'3;en since 1980. The average assessment amount <br />was $10,516. Because these projects were completed at least <br />seven years ago, a more meaningful comparison involves the <br />current connection charges for those projects. The connection <br />charges are the initial assessment amounts inflated to today's <br />dollars based on annual increases in the Consumer Price Index. <br />The average connection charge is $15,000. All proposed Stubbs <br />Bay project assessments are below $15,000, most are substantially <br />below $15,000. <br />Assessments By Area Versus Total Project Assessments <br />The proposed assessments reflect a decision to assess the trunk <br />coat differently than the lateral cost. The cost of the trunk, <br />ifbich serves all properties, is being shared equally among all <br />properties. The cost of the laterals, which serve specific <br />properties, is being assessed to those properties specifically <br />served by the laterals. This has resulted in different <br />assessment amounts for different project areas. This is the most <br />fair and equitable method of assessment because none of the <br />Individual areas is subsidizing any of the other areas. <br />!•« .