2012_1119_Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION Date: 11/19/12 Item No.: 12.c Department Approval City Manager Approval Item Description: Adopt Assessment Policy Page 1 of 2 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. 8 At the September 17, 2012 City Council meeting, staff discussed the revised City assessment policy 9 with the City Council. Information regarding this assessment policy Council discussion was included in 10 the News Update November 7. A summary of the proposed changes in the policy: 11 Special Benefit Test: One of the major changes in the policy is the Special Benefit Test. It is 12 recommended that appraisals be completed to determine the influence of an improvement project on the 13 value of the properties proposing to be assessed. This is done in order to ensure that the proposed 14 assessment is equivalent or less than the anticipated increase in market value for properties being 15 assessed. Many cities have included this extra step in their assessment process as a check and balance to 16 protect the City and the property owners. 17 As a result, the assessment policy includes the language “up to” in front of the assessment rate for the 18 different property zoning. This allows the City to take into account the property value increase when 19 setting the rates and adjust if necessary. 20 Zoning: The PWETC took a look at Residential vs. Commercial vs. Institutional land uses. In this 21 context they discussed property value, traffic ge neration, and assessment rates, looking at both the 22 previous city policy and how other cities treat different land uses. Higher intensity land uses have a 23 higher property value and consequently receive a higher property value increase from public 24 improvements. Also, they generate higher volumes of traffic on our street system. As a result, the 25 commission is recommending that we have a higher assessment rate for land uses that are not zoned 26 LDR-1 or LDR-2. 27 Street Construction project type: The PWETC recomme nds that we assess for street reconstruction and 28 the required storm water improvements associated with the street reconstruction project. They do not 29 recommend that we assess mill and overlay or sealcoat mainly because of the Special Benefit Test. 30 Utilities: The PWETC recommends that the City con tinue to fund major maintenance for City utilities 31 using existing utility infrastructure funds. However, in the case where additional utility capacity is 32 needed as a result of redevelopment or rezoning, then 100% of these costs would be assessed to property 33