HomeMy WebLinkAbout[08a] Assessment PolicyCIT\ OF ST. JOSH K
MEETING DATE:
AGENDA ITEM:
SUBMITTED BY:
Council Agenda Item-8(a)
July 7, 2011
Assessment Policy
Administration
BOARD /COMMISSION /COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION:
PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION:
BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The Council has been reviewing the assessment policy and requested
that language regarding the benefit be added to each of the provisions regarding the formula or policy.
Since the last meeting I have accepted all the changes to the document and the policy in the packet this
time only includes the changes since the last meeting.
BUDGET /FISCAL IMPACT:
ATTACHMENTS:
Request for Council Action
Assessment Policy
REQUESTED COUNCIL ACTION: Adopt the Assessment Policy.
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
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.
3.
4
5.
Balance needs and costs for new and existing infrastructureA&support and promote economic
development and growth as well as maintenance within sting community by providing for
the equitable distribution of infrastructure costs Joe at specific developments are
financially self - supporting to the extent warrante
To provide a comprehensive, well- constrL
provides service to individual properties 1
and flexibility in the timing of infrastructu
To be responsive to comn
mobility provided by new
To function in harmony with the
the infrastructure
promoting ord
reasonable c
6. Provide the City C
4ro"videan 7.
8.
icture system that
on a regional scale
PIT, safety, welfarelVessibility, and
nce of existing infrastructure.
growth area plans by providing
those plans thereby
M'can be provided at the most
and methods to efficiently distribute
hequitable and consistent manner. .
e manageWt of municipal services to support a highly
Wm of infrastructure which promotes economic
rs a e of pride throughout the community, and facilitates
of short and long range capital improvement plans by identifying
funding available.
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
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 II 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 (0) of this policy.
Assessment Rate —The assessment rate is determined by dividi ssessable costs of an
improvement by the total number of assessment units such tal adjusted front footage or square
footage, acreage, number of lots, or number of parcels.
Assessable Unit —The special assessment basis of
number of lots, or number of parcels.
City Costs — Those project costs that the City pays as
public improvement project and thoseiiIII&ct costs
Front Frontage —The distance mea
improvement.
Lot Definitions:
a.
C.
typical fro
but not c'11W lot.
foot, square foot, acre,
:ing or be?M
Ily assessed.
property on a
directly abuts or benefits from an
it footageMesigned to compensate for a
corner lots to make apportionment of
int footage may be greater than or less than
rty line abutting on one street and an opposite line
abutting two separate non - intersecting or intersecting streets
d. Irregularly Sha . A lot abutting a curved street, cul -de -sac, or other lot where there is
more than five fee of difference in length between the front and back lot lines.
e. Rectangular Shaped 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 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 too ay for a local improvement that
benefits the property being charged.
Urban Street Design A road that is constructed with the yl_and gutter.
Section III General Assessment Policies
It has been and continues to be the policy of the f St. Joseph that whelwstructure
improvements (such as street and utilities) are cons d provid' benefit to ected area, those
costs shall be levied against the benefitin properties. ro s for con struc provements
and levying costs against benefitting p s shall be th ntified as Minnesot tatutes,
Chapter 429. MN Statutes Chapter 429 t all, or pa he cost of an improvement may be
assessed against benefitting properties in rda h the be received. The Statute does not
define a guide as to how t fits are me ed or costs be apportioned. However,
the true measure of be from th ro incr se in market value of the land
as a result of the imp ent. The re, the G it shall u e Assessment Policy as a guide for
fairly and equitably appo 'ng the is for City i ovements.
A. Ini" � ' 'ic Imn
A
lic improvemffl \thlicy. be initia'Wby petition of affected property owners or by a
y vote of the ce he improvement is requested by the affected property
own Xinndix rs mit a ion for such to the City Administrator using the form
foun A Once the petition has been reviewed and accepted for
consCiI will consider making of the improvement.
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 improvement is ordered to be ren
levied therefore will be the proportionate share of th
existing improvement to the useable life expectanrg
C. Assessment Polices
Where an improvement is constructed s of benefit to
is the intent of the City Council that special sments b
properties within the area to the extent that th is
the properties. The true me benefits res on
in market value of the land as a improve
Pplaced, the assessment to be
sed on the ratio of the age of the
rope ithin a defined area, it
,ied again benefited
project can med to benefit
hie imorovemen is the increase
1. Where the project costs of an i vem not ent ttributable to the need for
service to th d by said rove ere ual conditions beyond the
control o wners prope ea se the improvement would result in
an inequita stributi f special a merits, the City, through the use of other funds,
will pay such ' st" the opi of the City Council, represents the excess cost
If financial as ce is ed from t'flderal government or State of Minnesota, or
m any other s to d a portion of the costs of a given improvement, such aid will
d first to red he "Cit t" of the improvement. If the financial assistance
rece s greater th a normal "City cost ", the remainder of the aid will be used to
reduce ecial ass ents against the benefiting properties, such reductions to be
applied on -ra is.
3. City -owned propWes, including municipal building sites, parks, and playgrounds, but not
including public streets and alleys, shall be regarded as being assessable on the same basis
as if such property were privately owned.
4. The term "lot" as used in this policy statement shall that as defined in section II of this
policy.
5. The Council may hold 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.
Section IV Surface Improvements
Surface improvements shall include grading and base const
and resurfacing.
A.
The assessment to be levied against
those properties on the basis of the
measured against the benefit of the
crease inmarket
sure of benefit
1. The assessable unit to be assets
by the City Co all be bas
improvem tage"
a) For rec lar
of the lot a
111vithin the
rovisions.
result
Iks, curb and gutter, surfacing
shall be distributed to
fo ace imp ents, unless otherwise specified
the ' " of t perty. For surface
;h e d 0110 s:
the " ge" shall be equal to the dimensions of the side
vement.
nn ula� "'Cont shall be equal to the sum of 100% of the
�otag a lot ab a mprovement 50% of the long side footage of
the lot abL11Wthe, iffiftement.
For irregularl ed in lots, the "frontage" shall be equal to the average width of
lot.
d) F - abutti;IWfitting lots, the "frontage" shall be determined by the specific
co i on oarcel and on an "adjusted front footage" basis. The adjusted front
footage uted using an area -to- frontage ratio representative of the area
frontage rat nt 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 agreement can be reached between
the City and the developer of a subdivision), the assessable unit may be the "lot" (i.e. — a
uniform "per lot" assessment). Nothing in this policy shall prohibit the City Council from
considering other distribution formulas provided they distribute the "assessment cost"
equitably.
2. The following general provisions 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.
c) If the improvement is constructed in an area t previously been assessed for
improvements, the benefiting properties s ssed 60 percent of the total
project costs, with the City paying 40 p , unles Council determines otherwise.
However, if the improvement inclu construction w curb and gutter versus
replacing curb and gutter, the b g property shall be risible for 100% of the
curb and gutter costs.
d) On Municipal State Aid or County Stat Stre rovement p s, assessments
shall be levied against roperties w kements of the t constructed
have not previously exi ro'ect cos II be allocated as identified in Section
III (2) C of this policy.
e) The followin rovisions sh ply o idewa allation projects in developed
sinele -ftial areas.
1) If t ewalk i
impro t s
g)
h)
i)
ment i ated by the City, the entire cost of the
hared a1WCitv cost ".
req as part of a new subdivision, the
II be o sibility of the developer.
J�he nt is ini fated by request of petition of affected property
responsibility of the affected property owners.
A proveme rW residential neighborhoods will be assessed 90 percent of the
total ct cofts y improvements in commercial and industrial areas shall be
assesse of the total project costs.
Improveme 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 Council at the adoption of the
assessment.
Seal Coats shall not be assessed unless cause exits to deviate from this policy.
Improvements benefiting Common Interest Community property shall be calculated on
the front footage and shall be divided proportionately per parcel in the CIC.
Section V Subsurface Improvements
Subsurface improvements shall include 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 wiAlandas fited areas shall be distributed to
those properties on the basis of the following proassessment amount shall be
measured a ainst the benefit of the ro ert and re of benefit resulting from the
improvement is the increase in market value f the im rovement. The
measure of benefit is applicable to all oroulgWristed below in thMbsection.
I. The "assessment rate" to be applied sh equal to "assessab ts" of the project
divided by the total number of assessable a by the impro nt.
2. The following general prove be used in buting the costs of subsurface
improvements:
a) If the iml t is constr as re the vision regulations of the City,
the a st o prove s a e against properties within the
subdi served the follo ceptions:
Water r wer co ion within a new subdivision that are
ed la
fire- g po
develo he G
reimbursin d
an not guars
a unit cos
to evel
Charges developed property shall be charged a trunk charge and will become
payable at the time service is requested. If the area to be assessed contains a
disproportionate amount of undevelopable property, the City Council will consider
alternative unit charges which will be proportionate to all benefitting properties.
Water main or sanitary sewer extensions initiated by the City shall be
proportionately assessed to current and future benefiting properties based on a per
unit charge with one unit charged for each residential equivalent as described in St.
Joseph Code of Ordinance 44.
n the ai quired to provide complete water (including
' I) or sew ice to the subdivision shall be the cost of the
ncil at their discretion may enter into an agreement
eve for future connections to the oversized service. The City
repay ent, but will establish a service area for the improvements
the City is reimbursed, the amount collected shall be surrendered
3) If the improvement is accomplished in a previously platted or developed area with
multiple properties, the assessable costs shall be divided equally among all
benefiting properties, establishing a per unit charge.
If the project area includes large platted or unplatted properties, the benefits shall
be computed on an equivalent basis using an area -to- frontage ratio representative
of the area -to- frontage ratio prevalent in the normal lots in the area to be served.
The City Council may consider alternative calculation methods for establishing the
trunk charge.
On projects which involve the
assessment rate to be applied agai
percent of the per full unit chargA
placement of existing sanitary
ngle- family residential areas, the
MI property shall be equal to 60