ST. CLOUD — After years of complaints from residents and squabbles among council members about the way the city assesses property owners for street projects, city staff here are proposing changes they say will ensure residents are not charged more than state law allows.
For the last decade, St. Cloud has assessed property owners based on how many feet of their property touch the street being improved. Minnesota case law has deemed this so-called "front footage" method valid because it is a fair approximation of the market value increase.
But some residents argued that method resulted in exorbitant — and often inequitable — assessments to pay for road projects.
The new proposed policy, which the City Council will consider at a meeting this fall, says an independent appraiser will look at the entire project area and give a range of estimated market value increases for the properties. The city would use this "special benefits report" to make sure the bill they are sending residents is less than the top end of the appraiser's range.
"While it's not an appraisal, the report can function as a test of reasonableness for the proposed assessments," said city attorney Renee Courtney at a September council meeting on the topic. "It provides guidance on market benefit for the entire project."
The council started discussing changes to the city's assessment policy in May after some members questioned whether the city's policy was equitable and transparent.
St. Cloud resident Kevin Carpenter, who has worked to get the city to amend its policy, took the city to court a few years ago after receiving a $14,000 assessment for a neighborhood project that resurfaced the road and replaced underground utilities. The city then had the property appraised by a third party and agreed to reduce the bill to $4,000.
But Carpenter continued to raise concerns about the unfairness of the policy for those who don't have the time or wherewithal to take the city to court. His neighbor who lives in a $100,000 house, for example, was assessed $6,300. Yet after the court case, Carpenter — who lives in a $330,000 historic house — ended up paying less than she did for the same project.