HomeMy WebLinkAbout[09a] Assessment Policy f
CM' FST.Jo u'u 1/^1 �
OF Council Agenda Item 9(a)
MEETING DATE: June 16, 2011
AGENDA ITEM: Assessment Policy
SUBMITTED BY: Administration /Staff
•
BOARD /COMMISSION /COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION:
PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION: The Council reviewed a draft assessment policy in May requesting
modifications.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The attached documents include all the changes requested by the
Council. Included in this packet is the draft the Council was working from with all the suggested changes
with either strikeout or additions. Some of the changes re- organized the data in the policy, but when
reviewing the changes it can be hard to follow. Therefore a copy of the document has been provided
accepting all the changes.
At this time staff is looking for direction as to whether or not the policy can be adopted at this meeting
or if additional changes are desired. Once the final policy has been adopted a cover page and table of
contents will be added.
BUDGET /FISCAL IMPACT:
ATTACHMENTS: Request for Council Action 9(a):1 -2
Draft policy with strikeouts 9(a):3 -10
Draft policy accepting all corrections 9(a):11 -18
REQUESTED COUNCIL ACTION: If the changes are acceptable to the Council, the policy could be
adopted and the cover page and table of contents will be added and it will be part of the resource
material for the City. If additional changes are required they should be identified at this meeting.
9(a):1
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
9(a):2
Section I. Special Assessment Policy Goals
The goals of the City's special assessment policies and procedures are as follows:
1. In combination with federal, state, county, and other local financial resources available to the
City, provide a stable and continuing source of funding within the financial capacity of the City to
accommodate infrastructure needs for new development, redevelopment, and maintenance
within the existing community in the most cost - effective manner.
2. Balance needs and costs for new and existing infrastructure • support and promote economic
development and growth as well as maintenance within sting community by providing for
the equitable distribution of infrastructure costs to e • 4 at specific developments are
financially self- supporting to the extent warrante •
3. To provide a comprehensive, well - construe • well- maintai frastructure system that
provides service to individual properties . es advantage of ec• • ies on a regional scale
and flexibility in the timing of infrastructur_ elopment.
4. To be responsive to communit -eds and desir- , safety, welfare, essibility, and
mobility provided by new infra and the ma •ance of existing infrastructure.
5. To function in harmony with the co -nsive pl. • growth area plans by providing
the infrastructure - • "I enities su li:hti V _ . iated with those plans
thereby promo • •wth in a • re a .'ilable or can be provided at
the most rea • le cost.
6. Provide the City Co. an• 'th guide and methods to efficiently distribute
inf • sts to s in quitable and consistent manner_. thereby
410. 1 111k, -
7. To p . an effective for the w' agement of municipal services to support a highly
function. • well -maint -d system of infrastructure which promotes economic
developme • growth, ` ers a sense of pride throughout the community, and facilitates
the developme • a • • n of short and long range capital improvement plans by identifying
the magnitude an• of funding available.
7,8. To provide information to residents to gain a better understanding of the project and process.
The special assessment policy is intended to be a working document designed to guide the actions of the
City Council and program activities of City staff. Although the special assessment policies and
procedures are intended to provide for the equitable distribution of costs proportionate to the benefits
accruing to each improved property, the methods, in and of themselves, do not guarantee against
challenges, successful or not, to the special assessments derived from them.
9(a):3
The City recognizes that this policy cannot cover every situation. The Council must therefore use its
judgment in applying this policy, sometimes on a case by case basis, in order to assess benefitted
properties in a fair and equitable manner. The true measure of benefits resulting from the
improvement is the increase in market value of the land as a result of the improvement.
Section 11 Definitions
Assessable costs —Those costs of public improvements are those costs which, in the opinion of the City
Council, are attributable to the need for service in the area served by the improvement. Said costs shall
be equal to the "project costs" of the project as defined less the " •sts" minus any other financial
assistance credited in section 111 (C3) of this policy. • . - •••• • . • - • • •
as determined by the City Council.
. —44411 00/01W
.
Assessment Rate — The assessment rate is er • dividin: assessable costs of an
improvement by the total number of assess mt uni .s the t• -djusted front footage or square
footage, acreage, numb- z number o `�• reels
Assessable Unit —The .I assess t basis of rement, su as front foot, square foot, acre,
number of lots or numbe ' .reels
Cit Cost t cos the Ci, _" .s t wner of abutting or benefitting property on a
public '".'ement pre ° nd th. • roject co are not specially assessed.
Front Fron ' -The distance "" sure • : the property Tine that directly abuts or benefits from an
improvement.
Lot Definitions:
a. Adjusted fro = A modified lineal front footage designed to compensate for a
typical frontage • egularly shaped Tots and corner lots to make apportionment of
assessments more equitable. The adjusted front footage may be greater than or less than
the actual front footage.
b. Corner Lot: A lot which has a property line abutting on one street and an opposite line
abutting another street.
c. Double frontage Lot: A lot abutting two separate non - intersecting or intersecting streets
but not corner lot.
9(a):4
d. Irregularly Shaped Lot: A lot abutting a curved street, cul -de -sac, or other lot where there is
more than five feet of difference in length between the front and back lot lines.
e. Rectangular Shaped Lot: A lot with Tess than five feet of difference in length between the
front and back lines.
I f. Side Lot Footage – In the case of corner lots, the longest distance measured along the
property line shall be considered the side of the lot, regardless of the address the
orientation of the building on the lot, or the driveway location.
-Non abuttin. lot. A •ro•ert that is not direct) ad'a• • a •ublic im•rovement •ro'ect
but is determined to benefit from the •ublic im •r -nt such as a street water main or
sewer.
Project Costs: All costs incurred or estimated costs . .ted to be in • to complete the project
including land acquisition, construction, engineer' gal, administrative, ing and any contingent
costs.
Rural Street Design– A road that is usu. saved or hare hout curb and _ , r.
Special Assessment – A charge that is im -al prope elp pay for a local improvement that
1 benefits the property being charged.
Urban Street Design – A construct, ith t - urb a .utter.
Section 111 Gene sessme • olicies
It has been an • • tinues t• - e City , . Joseph that when infrastructure
improve P eet a ities) . tru providing benefit to an affected area, those
costs s = levied aga ` ,e be g prope he procedures for constructing improvements
and levy •sts against be ing p ies shall be that as identified as Minnesota Statutes,
Chapter 42'. Statutes Cha 429 p , that all, or part, of the cost of an improvement may be
assessed again Befitting prop -s in acc.rdance with the benefits received. The Statute does not
define a guide as t• the bene . re measured or how the costs are to be apportioned. Therefore,
the City Council shall , e Ass- ent Policy as a guide for fairly and equitably apportioning the costs
for City improvements.
A. Initiation of Public Improvements Projects
Public improvements projects may be initiated by petition of affected property owners or by a
majority vote of the City Council. If the improvement is requested by the affected property
owners, the owners must submit a petition for such to the City Administrator using the form
found in Appendix A of this policy. Once the petition has been reviewed and accepted for
consideration, the City Council will consider making of the improvement.
B. Service Life of Improvements
9(a):5
Public Improvements are judged to have a normal useful life expectancy. Below is a listing of
the major types of improvements completed by the City of St. Joseph with the anticipated life
expectancy.
1. Street Improvements
a) Bituminous Street Overlay — 10 years
b) Bituminous Street Reconstruction /Construction —15 years
c) Concrete Curb and Gutter — 25 years
d) Sidewalks — 25 years
e) Alley — residential —15 years
f) Alley — commercial —15 years
2. Subsurface Improvements
a) Water mains — 40 years
b) Sewer sewers - 40 years
c) Storm sewers — 40 years
When any existing improveme ordered to b- r• r replaced, the ment to be
levied therefore will be the pr. to share of • sts based on the ratio of the age of the
existing improvement to the use. -ctancy o • provement.
C. Assessment Police
Where an im • ent is . tructed • • ene operties within a defined area, it
is the intent of 'ty Coun , hat specia -ssments be levied against the benefited
properties within t -a t• - tent tha costs of such project can be deemed to benefit
the
1 1111‘1%
N rnikt
1. Where • roject co fan improvement are not entirely attributable to the need for
service to - rea s: by said improvement, or where unusual conditions beyond the
control of the the property in the area served by the improvement would result in
an inequitable di • ution of special assessments, the City, through the use of other funds,
will pay such "City cost" which in the opinion of the City Council, represents the excess cost
not directly attributable to the area served.
2. If financial assistance is received from the federal government or State of Minnesota, or
from any other source to defray a portion of the costs of a given improvement, such aid will
be used first to reduce the "City cost" of the improvement. If the financial assistance
received is greater than the normal "City cost ", the remainder of the aid will be used to
9(a):6
reduce the special assessments against the benefiting properties, such reductions to be
applied on a pro -rata basis.
d a b ov e (C3)
3. City -owned properties, including municipal building sit= 'arks, and playgrounds, but not
including public streets and alleys, shall be regarde • ng assessable on the same basis
as if such property were privately owned.
4. The term "lot" as used in this policy state • s all that . fined in section II of this
policy.
5. The Council may hold the assessment g and adopt the asses • t roll prior to, or
following, the installation of public impro - ts. . ssessment adopted prior to
the installation of public i ements then, se, the Council ma aive the
interest payment thereon , 'od betwee date of the adoption of the
assessment roll and October ,f • e year. 1 .ssessment is adopted after
October 1 of a calendar year, th sess . .11 be d ► 'thin 30 days of adoption.
6. The Coun on -ssessme -r • gt •ayment and interest rate) for each
proposed • -ct. Defe ts are a in accorda e with MN Statute 429.
Section IV ace Im • - ►
Surfac- •vemen 'nclu• ding an.. .n truction, sidewalks, curb and gutter, surfacing
and res. 'ng.
A. Asse t Formula fo ace Im . ements
The assess to be levi: gainst properties within the benefited areas shall be distributed to
those property. • the • of the following provisions:
1. The assessable • be assessed for all surface improvements, unless otherwise specified
by the City Council, shall be based on the "frontage" of the property. For surface
improvements, such "frontage" shall be determined as follows:
a) For rectangular interior lots, the "frontage" shall be equal to the dimensions of the side
of the lot abutting the improvement.
b) For rectangular corner lots, the "frontage" shall be equal to the sum of 100% of the
short side footage of the lot abutting the improvement 50% of the long side footage of
the lot abutting the improvement.
9(a):7
c) For irregularly shaped interior lots, the "frontage" shall be equal to the average width of
the lot.
d) For non - abutting benefitting lots, the "frontage" shall be determined by the specific
configuration of the parcel and on an "adjusted front footage" basis. The adjusted front
footage shall be computed using an area -to- frontage ratio+ representative of the area
frontage ratio prevalent in the lots of the special assessment improvement area.
In cases where the City Council determines that the assessable costs would be more
equitably distributed (including those instances where . eement can be reached between
the City and the developer of a subdivision), the ass- unit may be the `lot" (i.e. — a
uniform "per lot" assessment). Nothing is-in this hall prohibit the City Council from
considering other distributions formulas provi e ibute the "assessment cost"
equitably.
2. The following general provisions sha ed as a guide in dist 'ng the costs of a surface
improvement:
a) If the improvement is tructed as th - ew subdivision, entire cost of
the improvement shat able again i.erties within the subdivision.
b) If the improvement is co u • ropertie • exed to the City, where an
infrastructure project has 'rev'. • -en ass- the abutting properties owners
shall be a e entire c• •f the i - ents, -ss the Council determines
othe e . t to be a .sz i e benefit .rovided to the •ro•ert
by the •letion o - improve
c) If the imp • ent i nstructed i area that has previously been assessed for
•vemen o•erties shall be assessed 60 percent of the
o . t cos h the CI ' percent, unless the Council determines
otherwis- eve e improv- nt includes the construction of new curb and
gutter versu . cing . nd gutter, the benefiting property shall be responsible for
'0 %ofthe cure d gutte .ts.
d) • unicipal Sta ,'d or County State Aid Street improvement projects, assessments
sha -vied agn these properties where improvements of the type constructed
have n• -xisted. The project costs shall be allocated as identified in Section
VIII (32) s policy.
e) The following provisions shall apply on new sidewalk installation projects in developed
single - family residential areas:
1) If the sidewalk improvement is initiated by the City, the entire cost of the
improvement shall be charged as a "City cost ".
2) If the sidewalk improvement is required as part of a new subdivision, the
improvement cost shall be the responsibility of the developer.
9(a):8
3) If the sidewalk improvement is initiated by request of petition of affected property
owners, the cost shall be the responsibility of the affected property owners.
f) Alley improvements in residential neighborhoods will be assessed 90 percent of the
total project cost. Alley improvements in commercial and industrial areas shall be
assessed 100 percent of the total project costs.
g) Improvement costs for benefitting future development shall be held by the City as a
deferred assessment as provided in MN Statute 429 and will become payable at the
time of development or time specified by the City C• cil at the adoption of the
assessment.
h) Seal Coats shall not be assessed unless cause • deviate from this policy.
-i Im.rovements benefitin: Common Intere• alit. .ro•ert shall be calculated on
the front foota:e and shall be divided .o tionatel .arcel in the CIC.
Section V Subsurface Improvements
Subsurface improvements shall includ - er distributio tary sewer lines, . storm sewer
and drainage infrastructure.
A. Standards for Subsurface Im •rove •ts
Subsurface impr all be ma. o se .nd p -cted land use
B. Assessment F. . for Sub ace Impr• nts
The a . ent to b. • operti- 'thin the benefited areas shall be distributed to
t • en the of the • • : p sions:
he "assessme e" to •plied shal •e equal to the "assessable costs" of the project
•ed by the tot.. mber • .essable units benefited by the improvement.
£crvcd.
3 The following general provisions shall be used in distributing the costs of subsurface
improvements:
9(a):9
a) If the improvement is constructed as required by the subdivision regulations of the City,
the entire cost of the improvement shall be assessable against properties within the
subdivision served with the following exceptions:
1) Water main or sanitary sewer construction within a new subdivision that are
installed larger than the size of mains required to provide complete water (including
fire- fighting potential) or sewer service to the subdivision shall be the cost of the
developer. The City Council at their discretion may enter into an agreement
reimbursing the developer for future connections to the oversized service. The City
cannot guarantee repayment, but will establi rvice area for the improvements
and a unit cost. If the City is reimbursed, • unt collected shall be surrendered
to the developer.
2) Charges for undeveloped proper I be charge. nk charge and will become
payable at the time service is ted. If the area t. .ssessed contains a
disproportionate amount of elopable property, the Council will consider
alternative unit charges which w •ropo • .te to all be ing
properties.Water • or sanitary s- . ons initiated by . ity shall be
proportionately as • current an. re benefiting properties based on a per
unit charge with one t • • for each - ential equivalent as described in St.
Jose. h Code o Ordina 4. ∎ ,, .. - . - _ . -
l► A . - - - - - - -
impro t is a he. previously platted or developed area with
mu •rope the asses osts shall be divided equally among all
benefits ope-stablishing a per unit charge.
If the projec -a inclu• large platted or unplatted properties, the benefits shall
computed n equivalent basis using an area -to- frontage ratio representative
o area -t. ::'ntage ratio prevalent in the normal lots in the area to be served.
The • may consider alternative calculation methods for establishing the
trunk c
4) On projects which involve the reconstruction or replacement of existing sanitary
sewer, water main or storm drain utilities within single - family residential areas, the
assessment rate to be applied against each individual property shall be equal to 60
percent of the per full unit charge.
9(a):10
Section I. Special Assessment Policy Goals
The goals of the City's special assessment policies and procedures are as follows:
1. In combination with federal, state, county, and other local financial resources available to the
City, provide a stable and continuing source of funding within the financial capacity of the City to
accommodate infrastructure needs for new development, redevelopment, and maintenance
within the existing community in the most cost - effective manner.
2. Balance needs and costs for new and existing infrastructure • support and promote economic
development and growth as well as maintenance within sting community by providing for
the equitable distribution of infrastructure costs to e • + at specific developments are
financially self- supporting to the extent warrantee
3. To provide a comprehensive, well - construc • well- maintai frastructure system that
provides service to individual properties . es advantage of ec• • ies on a regional scale
and flexibility in the timing of infrastructur- elopment.
4. To be responsive to communit -eds and desir- safety, welfare, essibility, and
mobility provided by new infra - and the ma 'ance of existing infrastructure.
5. To function in harmony with the C co -nsive pl. • growth area plans by providing
the infrastructure . •senities, su lighti •ciate• those plans thereby
promoting ord: reas wh- .erv' ble • can be provided at the most
reasonable c•
6. Provide the City Co. 'th guide - and methods to efficiently distribute
inf •sts to g • -s in -quitable and consistent manner. .
7. 4.rovide an e tool •e manage " -' t of municipal services to support a highly
f anal and well - .ined -m of infrastructure which promotes economic
deve -nt and gro esters a -e of pride throughout the community, and facilitates
the deve •ent and ado < en of short and long range capital improvement plans by identifying
the magnit , d sourc funding available.
ti
8. To provide inform -sidents to gain a better understanding of the project and process.
The special assessment policy is intended to be a working document designed to guide the actions of the
City Council and program activities of City staff. Although the special assessment policies and
procedures are intended to provide for the equitable distribution of costs proportionate to the benefits
accruing to each improved property, the methods, in and of themselves, do not guarantee against
challenges, successful or not, to the special assessments derived from them.
The City recognizes that this policy cannot cover every situation. The Council must therefore use its
judgment in applying this policy, sometimes on a case by case basis, in order to assess benefitted
9(a):11
properties in a fair and equitable manner. The true measure of benefits resulting from the
improvement is the increase in market value of the land as a result of the improvement.
Section 11 Definitions
Assessable costs - Those costs of public improvements are those costs which, in the opinion of the City
Council, are attributable to the need for service in the area served by the improvement. Said costs shall
be equal to the "project costs" of the project as defined less the "City costs" minus any other financial
assistance credited in section III (C3) of this policy. Assessment Rate - The assessment rate is
determined by dividing the assessable costs of an improvement by otal number of assessment units
such as the total adjusted front footage or square footage, acr- mber of lots, or number of
parcels.
Assessable Unit - The special assessment b of mea sent, such as front
foot, square foot, acre, number of lots umber of pa s.Citv - Those
project costs that the City pays as the owner of a g or benefitting pro n a public
improvement project and those project costs that . • of specially assessed.
Front Frontage - The distance measure "long the prop- "• directly abuts • efits from an
improvement.
Lot Definitions:
a. Ad"usted fro • A modifi- eal fr• de -d to compensate for a
typical fr. of irr- ly shape, orn- o make apportionment of
assessmen re equit. . The adj , front footage may be greater than or less than
the actual fron age
• ..•►a. of w s a pro. • e . tting on one street and an opposite line
abutting ano treet.
c. .le fronta_e L• lot a . ' g two separate non - intersecting or intersecting streets
bu orner lot.
d. Irre_ular . •ed Lo lot abutting a curved street, cul -de -sac, or other lot where there is
more than erence in length between the front and back lot lines.
e. Rectangular Shap - • Lot: A lot with less than five feet of difference in length between the
front and back lines.
f. Side Lot Footage - In the case of corner lots, the longest distance measured along the
property line shall be considered the side of the lot, regardless of the address the
orientation of the building on the lot, or the driveway location.
Non abutting lot. A property that is not directly adjacent to a public improvement project but is
determined to benefit from the public improvement, such as a street, water main, or sewer. Project
9(a):12
Costs: All costs incurred or estimated costs anticipated to be incurred to complete the project including
land acquisition, construction, engineering, legal, administrative, financing and any contingent costs.
Rural Street Design— A road that is usually paved or hard surfaced without curb and gutter.
Special Assessment— A charge that is imposed on real property to help pay for a local improvement that
benefits the property being charged.
Urban Street Design — A road that is constructed with the use of curb and gutter.
Section 111 General Assessment Policies
It has been and continues to be the policy of the City of St. 1 , .t when infrastructure
improvements (such as street and utilities) are constructe• idi efit to an affected area, those
costs shall be levied against the benefiting propertie procedures • nstructing improvements
and levying costs against benefitting properties s hat as identified . nesota Statutes,
Chapter 429. MN Statutes Chapter 429 provide t I, or part, of the cost o provement may be
assessed against benefitting properties in accordanc- • the b- 'ts received. Statute does not
define a guide as to how the benefits a • easured or h • • - are to be appo - d. Therefore,
the City Council shall use the Assessme _as a guide • • ly and equitably apportioning the costs
for City improvements.
A. Initiation of Public • ements Pr•
Public impro s proj- ay be in •etiti• ffected property owners or by a
majority vote o City Cou If the im ement is requested by the affected property
owners, the owne t s •etition ch to the City Administrator using the form
fo • ix A o e p . • n has been reviewed and accepted for
eration, 'ty Co. will cons • - i g of the improvement.
B. S- - Life of Im • ro • nts
Public •vements are :ed to h. e a normal useful life expectancy. Below is a listing of
the major of improv - nts completed by the City of St. Joseph with the anticipated life
expectancy.
1. Street Improve
a) Bituminous Street Overlay — 10 years
b) Bituminous Street Reconstruction /Construction —15 years
c) Concrete Curb and Gutter— 25 years
d) Sidewalks — 25 years
e) Alley — residential -15 years
f) Alley — commercial —15 years
2. Subsurface Improvements
•
9(a):13
a) Water mains — 40 years
b) Sewer sewers — 40 years
c) Storm sewers — 40 years
When any existing improvement is ordered to be renewed or replaced, the assessment to be
levied therefore will be the proportionate share of the costs based on the ratio of the age of the
existing improvement to the useable life expectancy of the improvement.
C. Assessment Polices
Where an improvement is constructed which is of benef • perties within a defined area, it
is the intent of the City Council that special assessme evied against the benefited
properties within the area to the extent that the • roject can be deemed to benefit
the properties.
1. Where the project costs of an impro are not entirely at able to the need for
service to the area served by said imp . ' ent, or where unusua ' itions beyond the
control of the owners of the property in t -a se • y the impro - nt would result in
an inequitable distributio •ecial assessm ity, through the •f other funds,
will pay such "City cost" wh - opinion of 'ty Council, represents the excess cost
not directly attributable to th. ea •
2. If financial as ' received . the fe • •vern or State of Minnesota, or
from any • • ur - • efray a • ;'o - c. . given improvement, such aid will
be used fi reduce t City cost' improvem - If the financial assistance
received is gr- than ormal "Cit t ", the remainder of the aid will be used to
• - speci. - 'nst th. nefiting properties, such reductions to be
o -rat. .
'ty -owned pro. '-s, in municipal building sites, parks, and playgrounds, but not
ing public st and a hall be regarded as being assessable on the same basis
as i property w • rivatel • wned.
4. The term "as use his policy statement shall that as defined in section II of this
policy.
5. The Council may h• d the assessment hearing and adopt the assessment roll prior to, or
following, the installation of public improvements. If the assessment roll is adopted prior to
the installation of public improvements then, in that case, the Council may waive the
interest payment thereon for the period between the date of the adoption of the
assessment roll and October 31 of the same year. If the assessment is adopted after
October 1 of a calendar year, the assessment shall be due within 30 days of adoption.
6. The Council will consider assessment terms (length of repayment and interest rate) for each
proposed project. Deferments are available in accordance with MN Statute 429.
9(a):14
Section IV Surface Improvements
Surface improvements shall include grading and base construction, sidewalks, curb and gutter, surfacing
and resurfacing.
A. Assessment Formula for Surface Improvements
The assessment to be levied against properties within the benefited areas shall be distributed to
those properties on the basis of the following provisions:
1. The assessable unit to be assessed for all surface imp - nts, unless otherwise specified
by the City Council, shall be based on the "fronta: - e property. For surface
improvements, such "frontage" shall be deter , ows:
a) For rectangular interior lots, the "fro ' shall be eq . • the dimensions of the side
of the lot abutting the improvem:
b) For rectangular corner Tots, the " .ge" shall be equal to t of 100% of the
short side footage of the lot abuttin: "mprov: t 50% of th. • : side footage of
the lot abutting the im ' ement.
c) For irregularly shaped •ts, the "fro -' shall be equal to the average width of
the lot.
d) For non - abutting benefitti . ,ts, t ` - stage s - determined by the specific
configur. • • - parcel a an "a•' ront ge" basis. The adjusted front
foots be . ted usin_ • . .-fr. atio representative of the area
fronta: io preva in the lot e special as -ssment improvement area.
ere th- - mine .t the assessable costs would be more
.01 a • • ute • ding th • - n • where agreement can be reached between
the City and -velop. TM a subdivis the assessable unit may be the "lot" (i.e. — a
"form "per lot -ssme • othing in this policy shall prohibit the City Council from
c• ering other d • ution • las provided they distribute the "assessment cost"
equi
2. The folio - ner. visions shall be used as a guide in distributing the costs of a surface
improvement.
a) If the improvement is constructed as the result of a new subdivision, the entire cost of
the improvement shall be assessable against properties within the subdivision.
b) If the improvement is constructed on properties annexed to the City, where an
infrastructure project has not previously been assessed, the abutting properties owners
shall be assessed the entire cost of the improvements, unless the Council determines
otherwise. The amount to be assessed is limited to the benefit provided to the property
by the completion of the improvement.
9(a):15
c) If the improvement is constructed in an area that has previously been assessed for
improvements, the benefiting properties shall be assessed 60 percent of the total
project costs, with the City paying 40 percent, unless the Council determines otherwise.
However, if the improvement includes the construction of new curb and gutter versus
replacing curb and gutter, the benefiting property shall be responsible for 100% of the
curb and gutter costs.
d) On Municipal State Aid or County State Aid Street improvement projects, assessments
shall be levied against these properties where improvements of the type constructed
have not previously existed. The project costs shall - allocated as identified in Section
III (2) C of this policy.
e) The following provisions shall apply on new s' i installation projects in developed
single - family residential areas:
1) If the sidewalk improvement i ed by the City, tire cost of the
improvement shall be charg- a "City cost ".
2) If the sidewalk improvement is ed as pa ► .f a new su %ion, the
improvement cost s all be the res • . ' • ili e developer.
3) If the sidewalk im - nt is initiate, • uest of petition of a ected property
owners, the cost sh. ; ponsibilit e affected property owners.
f) Alley impr. is in resid - .1 neig' . ids wi • sessed 90 percent of the
total p -y impro ent I an. industrial areas shall be
asses 00 perce the tota costs.
g) Improve costs f• enefitting re development shall be held by the City as a
- rred as . • - ' • ed in tatute 429 and will become payable at the
-velop or tim - -d • e City Council at the adoption of the
assess
Seal Coats s • of be . sed unless cause exits to deviate from this policy.
provements fiting • on Interest Community property shall be calculated on
ont footage shall be divided proportionately per parcel in the CIC.
Section V Subs •. e Imp r „= ments
Subsurface improvements Nude water distribution lines, sanitary sewer lines, and storm sewer
and drainage infrastructure.
A. Standards for Subsurface Improvements
Subsurface improvements shall be made to serve current and projected land use.
B. Assessment Formula for Subsurface Improvements
The assessment to be levied against properties within the benefited areas shall be distributed to
those properties on the basis of the following provisions:
9(a):16
1. The "assessment rate" to be applied shall be equal to the "assessable costs" of the project
divided by the total number of assessable units benefited by the improvement.
2. The following general provisions shall be used in distributing the costs of subsurface
improvements:
a) If the improvement is constructed as required by the subdivision regulations of the City,
the entire cost of the improvement shall be assessable against properties within the
subdivision served with the following exceptions:
1) Water main or sanitary sewer construction • • new subdivision that are
installed larger than the size of mains re • o provide complete water (including
fire - fighting potential) or sewer servic- e • ivision shall be the cost of the
developer. The City Council at th etion m. er into an agreement
reimbursing the developer for connections to • •versized service. The City
cannot guarantee repaymen . will establish a servic- for the improvements
and a unit cost. If the City is rei sed, the . •• ount colle all be surrendered
to the developer.
2) Charges for undev- • •erty shall • • . rged a trunk charge and will become
payable at the time e - sted. If ea to be assessed contains a
disproportionate amou un • - - ble pro. the City Council will consider
alte harges will • • 'onat- all benefitting
p ies.W. • ain or s. , er e s initiated by the City shall be
pro. onately . -ssed to c and future benefiting properties based on a per
unit ch. wit - • it charge r each residential equivalent as described in St.
• • h Co. •
3) If the ovem. ' accompli • in a previously platted or developed area with
.ssessable costs shall be divided equally among . ` >erties, q y g all
benefiting • - rties, - , Iishing a per unit charge.
• e project . includes large platted or unplatted properties, the benefits shall
b- •ute• n equivalent basis using an area -to- frontage ratio representative
of th- ontage ratio prevalent in the normal lots in the area to be served.
The City •ncil may consider alternative calculation methods for establishing the
trunk charge.
4) On projects which involve the reconstruction or replacement of existing sanitary
sewer, water main or storm drain utilities within single - family residential areas, the
assessment rate to be applied against each individual property shall be equal to 60
percent of the per full unit charge.
9(a):17
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
9(a):18