Laserfiche WebLink
FRONT FOOTAGE BASIS <br />Pro "-s <br />1. A property owner with smaller frontage would pay less than an <br />owner with greater frontage, regardless of overall property <br />size, home improvement size, and water demand. <br />2. Directly addresses actual construction cost to cross (i.e., <br />serve) said property. <br />Con 's• <br />1. Less equitable- if neighboring/ area properties have less <br />frontage but are larger; i.e., greater depth, cul-de-sac <br />properties, etc. <br />2. Does not address additional pressure or flow requirements <br />necessary, for larger home on larger lot (for consumption or <br />.fire protection). <br />PER UNIT BASIS <br />Pro's: <br />1. A larger lot owner would not pay more than a smaller lot owner. <br />2. Addresses only current property use, lowering assessment on <br />large undeveloped properties (see No. 1 of Conts). <br />Con, s: <br />1. If per unit used, do you address existing units or ultimate <br />zoned number of units? <br />If existing is used, the rest of the project picks up the cost <br />of construction for ultimate use of that property; i.e., system <br />must be constructed for the potential ultimate use of property. <br />If the Utilities Department was to pick the difference between <br />current use assessed and ultimate use assessed on larger <br />tracts, for the purpose of future assessment at the time of <br />development, the cost would have to be increased annually (at a <br />set interest rate). Potentially, after enough years, the <br />assessment could be more than the property value. <br />2. Some properties may have the size and potential of development <br />of additional residences, rezoning potential, possibly <br />including commercial, multi -family, etc. Larger, more <br />expensive, replacement cost improvements have greater fire <br />protection/water needs. <br />3 <br />���� 8J Fr�-jF <br />J U 1% 41991 uC � <br />L_ <br />