2012_0917_Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION Date: 9/17/12 Item No.: 13.a Department Approval City Manager Approval Item Description: Assessment Policy Discussion B ACKGROUND 1 One of the items on the City Council’s 2012 workplan was to review the City’s Assessment Policy. 2 Since the beginning of the year, Staff has been working with the Public Works, Environment and 3 Transportation Commission (PWETC) to review the existing policy and make recommendations for 4 updates. The policy was discussed at their February, March, April and June meetings. As part of the 5 discussion, the PWETC reviewed the assessment policies from other cities and how they relate to 6 Roseville. During the four meetings there was considerable discussion regarding the pros and cons of 7 the different approaches to assessments. Summary of the PWETC discussions: 8 Special Benefit Test: One of the major changes in the policy is the Special Benefit Test. It is 9 recommended that appraisals be completed to determine the influence of an improvement project on the 10 value of the properties proposing to be assessed. This is done in order to ensure that the proposed 11 assessment is equivalent or less than the anticipated increase in market value for properties being 12 assessed. Many cities have included this extra step in their assessment process as a check and balance to 13 protect the City and the property owners. 14 As a result, the assessment policy includes the language “up to” in front of the assessment rate for the 15 different property zoning. This allows the City to take into account the property value increase when 16 setting the rates and adjust if necessary. 17 Zoning: The Commission took a look at Residential vs. Commercial vs. Institutional land uses. In this 18 context they discussed property value, traffic generation, and assessment rates, looking at both the 19 previous city policy and how other cities treat different land uses. Higher intensity land uses have a 20 higher property value and consequently receive a higher property value increase from public 21 improvements. Also, they generate higher volumes of traffic on our street system. As a result, the 22 commission is recommending that we have a higher assessment rate for land uses that are not zoned 23 LDR-1 or LDR-2. 24 Street Construction project type: The Commission recommends that we assess for street reconstruction 25 and the required storm water improvements associated with the street reconstruction project. They do 26 not recommend that we assess mill and overlay or sealcoat mainly because of the Special Benefit Test. 27 Utilities: The Commission recommends that the City continue to fund major maintenance for City 28 utilities using existing utility infrastructure funds. However, in the case where additional utility capacity 29 is needed as a result of redevelopment or rezoning, then 100% of these costs would be assessed to 30 property owners 31 Pathway Construction: The Commission believes that pathways included as priority segments in the 32 Pathway Master Plan serve a regional benefit. As a result, they do not recommend that the costs to build 33 Page 1 of 2