Agenda Packets - 1995/05/01 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

MEMORANDUM TO: Jim Thomson • FROM: Charlie LeFevere DATE: March 21, 1995 RE: City of Mounds View Proposed Assessment Policy Statement I have reviewed the draft Assessment Policy Statement for the City of Mounds View and offer the following comments. The last two sentences of section I, C, second paragraph, state: "It is important to recognize the actual cost of extending an improvement past a particular parcel is not the sole determining factor in determining the amount to be assessed. An exception might be a project initiated by a single property owner/developer where market value increase may not be a relevant factor given the nature of the improvement." I am not sure what was intended by this language. However, for special assessments to be constitutionally permissible, they must be supported by an increase in fair market value which is at least equal to the amount of the assessment. To that extent, increase in market value is always a relevant factor in special assessments. Therefore, I would recommend that these sentences be deleted. As an alternative, it may be that this language is intended to state a principal which I do not fully understand. Therefore, it may be that, following discussions with city staff about the intent of the language, appropriate modifications could be made to express that principal without conveying the idea that fair market value increase is not relevant in projects initiated by a single property owner. The last sentence of the following paragraph states "For example, the use of a front foot assessment for some properties and the use of a per lot assessment for other properties of the same class for a related improvement could result in a non-uniform assessment rate which could mean the assessment would be set aside or could be thrown out by the courts." I am not sure what was intended by the words "related improvement". There is no general rule which would prevent the city from using different assessment formulas for different projects, as long as each of the formulas was reasonably related to the increase in fair market value resulting from the improvement. However, I would agree that it would be a problem to use different formulas for the same class of property for one improvement project. I believe that this language would be more clear if the words "a related improvement" were changed to "the same improvement". Section I, D, 1 provides, in the last sentence, that the city must still follow all statutory provisions related to the local improvement process. This is not altogether accurate. The city charter, section 8.02, provides that all local improvements shall be carried out exclusively under the provisions of the charter. Section 8.03 provides that the city council shall adopt ordinances relating to special assessments and that after the adoption of such ordinances, all procedures shall CLL85803 1 MU125-19