Laserfiche WebLink
' III <br /> REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION DATE: 9/27/93 <br /> ITEM NO, �.. <br /> Department ,1� manager Reviewed: Agenda Section: <br /> Ordinances and Resolutions <br /> Item Description: Resolution amending assessment policy of May 9, 1983 <br /> Background: At recent assessment hearings during 1992 atd 1993 , <br /> extensive discussions have taken place regarding the city's odd shaped <br /> lot formula• While the formula provides a reasonable method for <br /> calculating assessable frontage for the irregularly shaped lots, it <br /> sometimes treats larger parcels inequitably in that it assigns <br /> considerably larger assessable frontages than what is a "typical" <br /> frontage for other lets in the area. <br /> To make this situation more equitable, staff suggests that a cap on <br /> maximum assessable frontage for RP1 and Ra-2 properties be considered as <br /> an amendment to the assessment policys, <br /> Policy objectives: The assessment policy was adopted in 1983 to provide <br /> a means of uniformly apportioning assessments for all properties in the <br /> City of Roseville* The assessment policy has worked well with several <br /> minor exceptions. The odd shaped lot formula needs consideration to make <br /> the overall frontage assessments equitable in providing some reasonable <br /> upper limit. <br /> It is suggested that the policy be amended for R-1 and R-2 property <br /> which is not further sub-dividable to require that the maximum frontage <br /> charged to the parcel for any assessment covered under the May 9, 1983, <br /> policy will be 1. 5 times the standard lot width required under the current <br /> zoning ordinance for the R-1 zoned parcel* This would mean that the <br /> maximum assessable footage would be 127s5 feet for R-1 and R-2 <br /> properties under the current ordinance. <br /> Financial implications: For the 1993 assessment rolls, adoption of this <br /> policy will mean a slight reduction in the assessments for five or six <br /> parcels. This can be met without adjusting the overall assessment roll <br /> and the city share of the assessment w1*11 be increased by approximately <br /> $2.pOOOO <br /> staff recommendation s@ Staff recommends the council consider language <br /> amending the assessment policy of May 9, 1983, as f of lows e <br />