CC_Minutes_2014_1006 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular City Council Meeting Monday, October 6,2014 Page 14 (currently estimated at $1.2 million annually), with the majority of those dollars used by the City throughout the City for its mill and overlay program. Mr. Culver noted that the City's practice was to maintain a balance to pay portions of larger projects such as this one, and the 2015 Victoria Street project. While not sure of the actual MSA dollar amount at tonight's meeting, Mr. Culver estimated that several hundred thousand remained; however, he noted that the City would yet need to draw down on those remaining funds against the 2014 mill and overlay project as well. At the request of Councilmember Laliberte, City Attorney Gaughan advised that it was within the authority of the district court could, if they deemed it appropriate, call for a review of the entire assessment roll if they found a problem with the core methodology used and it appears to their review that all properties were mis- assessed, not just those formally appealing. At the request of Councilmember McGehee, City Attorney Gaughan noted that other property owners not having formally filed an objection may choose to sub- sequently file a complaint, but would need to get past precedent to do so. Mr. Gaughan advised that individual property owners should consult their own private legal counsel if they so chose to investigate that possibility. Councilmember McGehee's recognized of the comments of Councilmember Willmus in evaluating or increasing assessed values historically distributed by the City across properties within the project and not specific to individual or unique properties within that project. City Attorney Gaughan responded that the City's current assessment policy provided a two-pronged approach: distributing the cost of a particular project, while assessing the value or benefit to each property, and the actual benefit each property would enjoy. Mr. Gaughan advised that this was why a professional and independent appraiser was used to determine the compo- nents of how a particular project negatively or positively affected properties af- fected by the project. At the request of Councilmember McGehee, City Engineer Culver reviewed the appraisal process, completed prior to his employment with the City of Roseville, and his personal review of the benefit report and benefit before and after method of analysis used based on the value of the land only, and not taking into account any existing buildings. Mr. Culver noted that this analysis was used for compari- son purposes with all residential properties equally, and used comparisons in that project area and projects in surrounding areas and their benefit rates from im- provement projects. At the request of Councilmember McGehee, City Engineer Culver displayed pho- tos of the two parcels submitting objections, using before and after project views. Mr. Culver noted that their driveways were steeper and addressed each front yard