Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11.16.99 Special Council Minutes SPECIAL COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES City Hall Council Chambers November 16, 1999 Members Present: Members Absent: Also Present: Mayor Ristow, Council Members Cordes, Soderberg, Strachan, Verch None City Administrator Erar, City Attorney Jamnik, Finance Director Roland, City Engineer Mann The Mayor called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. The agenda was reviewed and approved by Council. The purpose of the meeting was to consider County Road 31 special assessment objections. At the October 18, 1999 Special Assessment Hearing, 39 property owners raised objections to the CSAH 31 assessment. These objections were presented to Council. The first category of objection is that the method of assessment was unfair or there was no reason given. Each property in the project area was determined to specifically benefit from the reconstruction of the road. Which means, the value of the properties within the project area could be shown to have an appraised increase by a specific dollar amount. An individual property may be assessed for up to the amount of the appraisal, but not in excess of that appraisal amount. The assessment of$392.56 per household equivalent in the area north of 195th Street is within the Special Assessment Policy parameters. Mr. Anthony Pena, 18906 Embry Avenue, does not see benefit for 1/2 mile either side of CSAH 31. He does not use CSAH 31, he uses Akin Road. Most cars are coming from or going to downtown Farmington. He feels the downtown benefits as much as anyone else. He does not think CSAH 31 is safe. He also wanted to know if they are paying for the road going past the trailer park. The Mayor replied no, the assessment only goes to the Farmington border. Mr. Pena did not have an independent appraisal, but last year the county raised his appraisal by $54,000. Mr. David Buntjer, 5532 Upper 182nd Street W, stated since CSAH 31 has been widened, there is increased traffic and a new stop light. When there is a busy road, it decreases the property value. He did not get an independent appraisal on his house. At the stop light, cars are revving engines and squealing tires. There is an access plate in his front yard. He told the County he was not notified and it is an eyesore. Hill Dee Park is across the street, and wanted to know why the plate was not put there. The County said this is the first time they know that an access plate was placed in a front yard. The County installed the plate when the turning lane was installed. It is an access to the stop light. City Engineer Mann stated he has reviewed the situation and it is well within the public right-of-way. Mr. Buntjer stated it may be in the public right-of-way, but it is still in his yard, he mows it and it shows when he decides to sell his house. Mr. Kenneth Chin, 19066 Estate Avenue, asked where the assessment numbers came from. He saw someone taking a picture of his house and wanted to know if the City was given a specific value for his house. Houses in the area are not selling for $147,000. When his neighbor sold his house the realtor told him he could ask for $10,000 more if he was across the street. Mr. Chin has 10 feet of yard from the edge of his deck. His kids can no longer pitch a tent in the backyard because it is not safe and he has no privacy. The County is saying his house is worth more than it is. When he complains at County assessment meetings, the value is always lowered. The County told him the value of his land will be cut 15%. How can the value go up? Staff replied the sales data used is based on market data. Values of homes are based on what homes are selling for in a certain time frame. Some time ago, there was a review of lots being sold at the time the road was identified, and some lots were discounted because of the fact the road was being planned there. He does not know if Mr. Chinn's lot was included. Mayor Ristow stated the appraiser stated the $392.56 assessment will be applied to Mr. Chinn's house as a benefit. Attorney Jamnik stated the appraisal information of$147,412 is an average figure for sales in the area. The appraisal information indicates individual properties in the area may be sold for more or less than that figure. The appraiser did not do an individual appraisal on each house. That will be done if it goes to court. Comparable properties are identified that are located in very similar situations, and the unique features of each individual house are considered. The appraiser did view the houses and indicated in his opinion the amount of benefit exceeded the amount of assessment. Mayor Ristow stated if the County states Mr. Chinn's property is worth $120,000 he should be able to add the $392.56 to the market value and it should show that much benefit to sell. Councilmember Soderberg asked Mr. Chinn if he had anything from the County showing his land value will be decreased by 15%. Mr. Chinn replied no, just what the County told him over the phone. Staff stated Mr. Chinn can provide that information to the court rather than the Council, as the appraisal information the City has indicates the property value would increase by that amount. Staff is not aware of any information from the County that would selectively identify a property as a reduction. Mr. Thor Seufer, 19183 Enchanted Way, bought his house 2 years ago in March and did not know the assessment was coming, especially at Christmas. A lot of people are on a fixed income and $400 is Christmas to a lot of people. He then asked if there were any other fees he should expect. He asked if it was correct that if he declined to pay the assessment, it would go on his taxes spread over 15 years, and if he sells his home, it would be passed on to the new owner? Councilmember Strachan stated it would be paid at closing and it can be paid in full at any time. Councilmember Cordes asked Attorney Jamnik, a lot of people are stating they were not informed of the assessment when they bought their house. By law should they have been informed by the realtor or the seller? Attorney Jamnik replied there is a fiduciary duty to disclose certain items that realtors are aware of. When real estate documents are signed, there is a paragraph specifically listed for special assessments. It requires in the Purchase Agreement to circle if the seller or buyer will pay the assessments. Mr. Anthony Pena, 18906 Embry Avenue, asked if seal coating is maintenance of the road and should it come out of the Road and Bridge Fund? He was assessed $50 to do their street. Mayor Ristow replied it was a policy set up by Council to go on a seven year program. There are a lot of tax-exempt properties in the City and residents pay directly for these properties. Mr. Pena 2 asked why CSAH 31 could not be handled the same? We are all benefiting from it. Ifwe do seal coating, that is maintenance on the road. Mayor Ristow stated when a County road is in the City, the County and City each pay a share of the cost of the road. Councilmember Strachan stated Farmington has a ton of tax exempt property. Assessments (for seal coating) can be thrown into everyone's taxes and hide it, or go up front and have the people getting the benefit, including tax exempt properties, pay their fair share, which reduces the overall burden to home owners. Weare trying to get taxes down and spread the burden out to those who benefit. That is what these hearings are for, it is more straightforward. The next category is for owners who stated the assessment was a financial hardship. These assessments have now been paid in full. The next category is for single households on acreage. These properties will be assessed for one household equivalent in the amount of $1 ,000.38 for properties south of 195th Street regardless of acreage. The balance of the assessment amount will be deferred until the property is developed. If it is never developed, no further assessment will occur. Mr. Steve Wilson, 5200 203rd Street W, thanked the Council for dropping his assessment from $11,204 to $1,000.38 as long as it remains a single household. He wanted to know how they were assessed. He has a letter from April 6, 1998, saying he would be assessed $826.27. Staff replied at that time the estimated assessment per household equivalent on property south of 195th was estimated at $826.27. The City was working with best estimates the County had at that time. In August 1999 the City received new final estimate amounts and a review was done of the number of assessable acreage. Proj ect cost went up by $257,193 and the number of acres assessable went down by 43 112 acres. The result is an increase up to $1,000.38 per household equivalent. Mr. Wilson stated there are more houses north of 195th than south of 195th. The City is assessing this on a per household value. On a per house value he is paying 2 112 times more than those north of 195th. Staff replied under the City Special Assessment Policy, new road construction is assessed at 100%. While the County pays 55% of the new alignment south of 195th, the City policy assesses residents for the balance, 100% of the City's portion. The appraisal data is different south of 195th due to the fact there was no road. Having a road increases the value of the property as the property is not landlocked. If there had been no road from the City's north border to County Road 50, the value would have increased substantially more. Because there already was a road north of 195th, there was an improvement to an existing road. Mr. Dan McCarthy, 5014 203rd Street W, would like to be appraised as a single family household. He stated their house was thrown in with a different type of group - business, industrial and large agricultural. A business or industry with direct access to the road would benefit, but they are a single family household. Councilmember Strachan stated Mr. McCarthy is in that group because he is south of 195th where there are only three houses and because it is a new road, not an existing road. Mr. McCarthy stated there should be a separate category for the three residents and they should be assessed $392.56. Staff stated all of the lots in Charleswood are also paying $1,000.38 each. 3 Mr. Harvey Briesacher, 21075 Eaton Avenue, stated due to the nature of his property, it would be resold as a residence. He asked if a potential buyer would want to keep it as a residence, would he have to pay this assessment? Staff replied as long as the buyer maintains it as a single residence the assessments are deferred on the balance of the property. If the rest of the property is developed, the buyer would have to pay the assessment. The next category is specific objections regarding access to the road. Direct access to CSAH 31 is not a requirement in determining project benefit. CSAH 31 serves as a primary north-south transportation corridor and as such, benefit is conferred to those properties in the project area. The appraised value of the benefit exceeds project assessments. Mr. Jeff Thelen, owns property in the Industrial Park on Eaton Avenue, read the City will develop land in the Industrial Park and will be continuing 20gth Street. He recognizes the answer for not having direct access. He questioned the acreage and how it is being assessed. From 19Sth Street south to CR 50 there are approximately 1100 acres ofland. But there is only 734 acres being assessed. Staff had told him there are certain types of property not included - ag preserve, green acres, wetlands, and acres that the road itself takes up. He owns approximately 2 acres. He feels he is paying 150%. If there is one green acre, is he paying a lar~er portion to cover that green acre? Staff replied the way the calculation was done south of 195t Street, is the total acreage was looked at for 112 mile on either side of the road. Then the flood plains and wetlands were taken out, as well as the right-of-way for the new road alignment and the right-of-way for the streets in the industrial park. Since green acres and ag preserve were not part of the flood plain or wetlands they were left in the calculation. Mr. Thelen then asked who is covering that portion? Attorney Jamnik replied the City is covering it through bonding costs. Staff stated the City did not exclude itself. City property on the comer of CSAH 31 and 195th, as well as water board sites are also being assessed. Mr. Thelen then stated he has a gas line easement of 50 feet x 300 feet, he cannot do anything with. He also has a water drainage easement on two sides of his property he cannot do anything with. Staff replied they did consider those possibilities. The pipeline easement runs east and west. There are also two other pipeline easements that go to the north. Those areas were not taken out of the calculation, so those pipeline easement areas are going to be assessed except where they go through flood plains or wetlands. All the properties in Charleswood that currently are there have drainage and utility easements that ring their lots like every lot and they are all being assessed. In addition, all the property undeveloped right now that gets developed will have drainage and utility easements on those lots and in addition public streets which are all being assessed. Mr. Thelen stated the drainage easements in residential areas are just for that lot to drain to the street. Staff replied the front of the lot drains to the street, the rear of the lot typically drains to the back. Mr. Thelen stated what drains through his property is about 10 acres. Plus whatever comes off the curb backs up in the parking lot and runs in because the catch basin is not large enough. He wondered if that was common that someone has to give up that much of a drainage easement. Staff will have to look at his specific situation. Mayor Ristow stated he did hear from Mr. Gerald Stelzel, 18875 Chippendale Avenue, that since his assessment was deferred he had no further objections. The next category is for those who stated the road is of no benefit to their property. A letter was received from the Seed Trust withdrawing the objection for PID# 14.16500.030.00 with the 4 understanding this is deferred until the parcel develops. Staff recommended the objection for PID#14.16500.02I.OO be extended until such time as further consideration can be given to a request from Seed Trust. They have a portion of this parcel which is only accessible from ag preserve land which is owned by another party. That particular parcel cannot be developed for at least eight years. It is isolated by a wetland and is not accessible by any other way. Seed Trust wishes to petition for ag preserve status for that particular parcel. Staff recommended that until such time that ag preserve request is submitted and addressed by the City that this particular parcel be held open. At the time designation is made, the assessment would be addressed. Councilmember Strachan asked if a corporation can place land in ag preserve? Staff replied they can only if the City allows them to. This is a City decision. Astra Genstar is asking for consideration for ag preserve since it is not a developable parcel. It is surrounded on three sides by ag preserve land which is one of the requirements of the ag preserve statute. Astra Genstar is asking that this be left open until that is considered. Councilmember Soderberg stated this is a question he specifically asked at the initial public hearing, if someone could subsequent to the hearing apply for ag preserve. At that time, Attorney Jamnik stated it would not benefit the property, or that it would not change the status of the assessment. Attorney Jamnik stated we would have to re-assess. If a property wants to go into ag preserve, they have to apply to the City. The City approves it contingent on all the criteria being met. The assessments on that parcel currently have to be paid. But if one of the conditions upon application is to ask for re- assessment to defer that amount, they would not have to make installment payments. The assessment could be approved now, but when they apply for ag preserve, they would probably bring a re-assessment request for that parcel and there would be another process to follow. By holding this open the City avoids another legal proceeding. The final category covers property currently undeveloped and does not benefit from the road improvement. Properties are agricultural, green acres or ag preserve. Under State Statute the City is not allowed to levy special assessments against ag preserve properties. When the property is developed, the City reserves the right to assess the property for road improvement costs. Green acres parcels will be deferred until development occurs. Interest is being accrued during deferment period. If it is a green acres deferred parcel, the interest accrues and is kept track of by the County. Ifit is a City deferred parcel, the interest is kept track of by the City. Mr. John Devney, 5788 212th Street W, stated he was surprised ag preserve property could be assessed. If this was not developed for 20 years, would there be an assessment due at that time? Staff replied the City reserves the right to assess the property when it comes out of ag preserve. However, if the property is in ag preserve until after the assessment period ends, it would be very difficult for the City to assess the principal and interest at that time. The City can only assess on a property as long as the bonds the City issued to pay for the project are outstanding, in this case 15 years. No interest will accrue on the assessment while in ag preserve. Interest starts to accrue when the property comes out of ag preserve. The three properties under ag preserve are shown as there was an objection to the assessment. In terms of a motion to adopt the special assessments, it would be with an exception to the three parcels shown as ag preserve. MOTION by Cordes, second by Soderberg to close the public hearing. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. 5 Councilmembers Soderberg and Strachan stated if Mr. Chinn can provide documentation from the County showing that the value of his property has been reduced, they would reconsider his assessment amount. Staff stated if Mr. Chinn can provide information, the City should conduct a full independent appraisal of the property to determine whether or not the reduction on the part of the County still had the effect of actually reducing the market value of the property in light of the assessment being proposed. The City would have to fund the cost of an independent appraiser. Mr. Chinn will need to provide the documentation from the County to Finance Director Roland by the December 20, 1999 Council Meeting. Staff stated this document would not suggest there has been a reduction in market value. While the land value may have decreased, the house itself could have appreciated beyond the value of the land. Council agreed the objection to the assessment for the parcel of the Seed Trust property (PID#14.16500.02I.OO) will be extended until the ag preserve application has been approved or denied. MOTION by Soderberg, second by Strachan to adopt the special assessment with the exception of the Seed Trust property and the ag preserve property. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. Staff stated objectors to the assessments have another 30 days from November 16, 1999 to pay the assessments. After the 30 days, they will be certified to the tax rolls for payment over the next 15 years. MOTION by Cordes, second by Strachan to adjourn at 8:50 p.m. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. Respectfully submitted, ?~{~ /?-?~ Cynthia Muller Executive Assistant 6