Laserfiche WebLink
EN HILLS <br /> • opinion about the project. This process can take several months from the order of feasibility to <br /> the final Council approval of plans and specifications. <br /> Overhead costs: Staff recommends not listing a percentage in the policy, only listing what is <br /> considered an overhead cost. <br /> Appraisals: By state statute, we cannot assess more than what each property will benefit from the <br /> project. We have had some appeals from properties. At that point we need to get appraisals on <br /> that property. Should we consider getting appraisals upfront or on a case by case basis? Three <br /> property owners appealed their assessments for the 2007 project; there was one appeal in 2006. <br /> Upfront appraisals would be based off of global appraisals. If staff or City Council initiate a <br /> project, it needs a 4/5 approval by Council. Projects can be petitioned by more than 35% of the <br /> property owners of a street. <br /> Interest Rate: The current assessment policy set the inter rate on unpaid balances to prime plus <br /> 2%. Staff recommends that Council sets the percen based off of the Finance Director's <br /> recommendation. Finance Director Iverson recom nds over the going bond rate for a <br /> project similar to the proposed project at that time his woul e a good practice so it could be <br /> used whether the City financed the project or b ed r the project. Once established it is set <br /> for the life of the assessment. Future project in t rates would fluctuate with the current <br /> market at the time of the projects and be ,euita to the property owner. The current <br /> assessment policy states that payments are ual principal payments, which is less <br /> affordable for residents. Finance Direc very suggests that it be switched to equal annual <br /> installments (which is more like a ou- ea ent and amortized over the length of the <br /> assessment), to be more affordable . e= the residents to budget. This was done for the <br /> 2007 project. The interest rate fo * .roject was changed from 2% over prime to 2% over <br /> the interest rate the City was c ntl i on its investment portfolio. <br /> Other questions to consider: <br /> • Commercial properties are eing assessed 70%; residential properties 50%. Is 70% an <br /> appropriate rate for commercial properties? Is 50% an appropriate rate for residential <br /> properties? <br /> • Assessment for mill and overlay is based on 5 years. An assessment for reconstruction <br /> is based on 10 years. Can make deviations as needed. Typically assessment periods <br /> shouldn't last longer than the life of the asset. <br /> • Residential properties are assessed on a per unit basis; if a property is able to be <br /> subdivided, it is assessed additional units. The old assessment policy based <br /> assessments on front footage. There is a need to clarify how commercial lots are <br /> assessed given the range in size of commercial properties. <br /> • Residential assessments are based on address, so residential corner lots are not double <br /> assessed. How do we address alleys or lots that have other double frontage? Alleys are <br /> currently assessed. <br /> • Do we want to set a minimum number of years between assessments? However, we do <br /> Snot want to restrict ourselves. The committee asked if other cities have a policy for this <br /> situation, staff replied that they would check to see if they could find policies of other <br /> City of Arden Hills <br />