2012_1210_Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION Date: 12/10/2012 Item No.: 12.c Department Approval City Manager Approval Item Description: Approve Resolution Adopting City Assessment Policy Page 1 of 3 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. 11 A summary of the proposed changes in the policy: 12 Special Benefit Test: One of the major changes in the policy is the Special Benefit Test. It is 13 recommended that appraisals be completed to determine the influence of an improvement project 14 on the value of the properties proposing to be assessed. This is done in order to ensure that the 15 proposed assessment is equivalent or less than the anticipated increase in market value for 16 properties being assessed. Many cities have included this extra step in their assessment process 17 as a check and balance to protect the City and the property owners. 18 As a result, the assessment policy includes the language “up to” in front of the assessment rate 19 for the different property zoning. This allows the City to take into account the property value 20 increase when setting the rates and adjust if necessary. 21 Zoning: The PWETC took a look at Residential vs. Commercial vs. Institutional land uses. In 22 this context they discussed property value, traffic generation, and assessment rates, looking at 23 both the previous city policy and how other cities treat different land uses. Higher intensity land 24 uses have a higher property value and consequently receive a higher property value increase 25 from public improvements. Also, they generate higher volumes of traffic on our street system. 26 As a result, the commission is recommending that we have a higher assessment rate for land uses 27 that are not zoned LDR-1 or LDR-2. The proposed assessment rate of up to 50% of the project 28 costs would apply to all commercial, industrial and institutional land uses. This includes 29 churches and school district properties. 30 Street Construction project type: The PW ETC recommends that we assess for street 31 reconstruction and the required storm water improvements associated with the street 32 reconstruction project. They do not recommend that we assess mill and overlay or sealcoat 33