Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout7C -Scherer Special AssessmentAGENDA #: PREPARED BY: SUBJECT: DATE: INTRODUCTION: BACKGROUND: DISCUSSION: 7C RALPH TESCEINER FINANCE DIRECTOR CONSIDER REQUEST FOR SPECIAL ASSESSMENT REFUND FROM BETTY SCHERER FOR LOT 19 GREEN HEIGHTS 1ST ADDITION JANUARY 3, 1995 Betty Scherer is requesting the City Council to consider the refund for special assessments pertaining to water and sewer on Lot 19 Green Heights 1st Addition (PID # 25 102 021 0). See attached map for location. The reason is due to the fact that the parcel is unbuildable, thereby receiving no benefit from such improvements. Initially the Council considered this item at their December 5, 1994 meeting and continued the discussion to obtain additional information. Staff was directed to research previous assessment refund decisions by the Council to determine past precedence regarding the basis for such actions. Attached to your agenda writeup is a summary of the most recent cases and the rationale associated with each decision. Also enclosed are the original agenda reports as reference documentation. Case #1 is the most similar when comparing. The argument in that instance also was if the lot was buildable. The Green Heights area was originally served with water and sewer in 1972-73 under Project 72-7. The lot was assessed 67.48' of frontage at $22.00/ff and .23 acres at $755.00/ac. for a total of $1658.21. Subsequently, in 1985 the street overlay program was initiated and an additional $1625.20 was assessed for the cost of upgrading the paving. During the early years of installing water and sewer service throughout the community, it was established practice to basically assess all parcels with little respect to lot size or physical features that would impede or prohibit the development of the parcel. As such, this lot was assessed in its entirety when in fact 75% of the lot lies within the flood plain and is unbuildable. From a legal standpoint, the window of appeal period has expired. Statutory law prescribes that a property owner may contest an assessment following written notice to the Council within 30 days of the adoption of the assessment roll and filed within 10 days after at district court. Since the assessment hearing was 19 years ago, this opportunity has obviously long since past. Due to this sequence of events, the City Council is not bound legally to abate any portion of the assessment. However the issue becomes more of 4629 Dakota St. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245 AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY F_~PLOYER ALTERNATIVES: RECOMMENDATION: ACTION REQUIRED: REVIEWED BY: a question of equity and fairness. Because the lot is not buildable it really receives no benefit and as such should never have been assessed. Correcting this mistake at this juncture would be consistent with the City's current assessment policy criteria. The parcel has been recently sold to Green Heights Club and the final sewer and water assessment installment has been paid with the 1994 property tax statement. However, before any form of assessment refund can be considered, Staff has requested that the new property owners prepare an official document (see attached statement) which basically recognizes that they will be responsible for a connection fee in lieu of assessment for the parcel if sewer and/or water connection would occur to an approved accessory structure on the property in the event the Council would approve an assessment rebate to Mrs. Scherer since such action would effectively leave the property unassessed for municipal utility improvements. Listed below are three options available for Council consideration: 1. De. ny the requested repayment because of the expiration of the appeal time period. 2. Refund the principal amount of $1,658.21 only as partial consideration of Mrs. Betty Scherer's request. 3. Refund the entire amount of $2,896.34, to Betty Scherer subject to Staff's payment requirements. Based upon the above discussion, Staff would recommend refunding all past sewer and water assessment installments, including principal and interest, in the amount of $2,896.34 to Betty Scherer. rMeOtion to ap~emative #2 or #3 if the Council supports a A9413.WRT LOT 19 GREEN HEIGHTS 1ST ADDITION 20 OUTLOT I 31 35 OUTLCT A ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF IMPOSITION OF CONNECTION FEES In consideration of the cancellation of and refund of amounts paid by Donald B. and Betty Jean Scherer upon certain special assessments levied by the City of Prior Lake (the City) against Lot 19, Green Heights First Addition, Scott County, Minnesota, by virtue of Lot 19 having been determined to be unbuildable, the undersigned record owners of and holders of mortgages upon Lot 19 acknowledge that in the event that Lot 19 is subsequently made or determined to be buildable, the City may impose connection or other fees in lieu of assessments as a condition to issuance of a building permit or to the connection of Lot 19 to the municipal water and sanitary sewer systems. Dated November~d, 1994 RECORD OWNERS · , D'a~iel E ~ 0 '~efe C~nthia D. O' Keefe~) '- MORTGAGEES NEW MARKET BANK D~'nald B. Scherer Betty Jean/ S~cherer STATE OF MINNESOTA) )ss. cOU T ) STATE OF MINNESOTA) __~ss. COUNTY OF .~~-- ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this daY of November, 1994, by Daniel O'Keefe and Cynthia D. O'Keefe, husband and wife.~/-~. ~//[~ The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of November, 1994, by~,~//m~,~-~ , the /,~ of New Market Bank, a Minnesota dorporation on its behalT. · NOTAI¥ II~IILIC- ~INNI~iOTA MY COMMISSION EXPIRES Notary ~ub~ic s~. o~ ~~.so~ co~ o~ ~~ ~' The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this-~'~ day of November, 1994, by Donald B. Scherer and Betty Jean Scherer, husband and wife. Not ' This instrument was drafted by: ~~~,~u~.~,~.~ ~ HUEMOELLER & BATES Attorneys at Law 16670 Franklin Trail Prior Lake, MN 55372 INTEROFFICE MEMOHANDUM TO: FROM: RE: DATE: Mayor & City Council Ralph Teschner, Finance Director Assessment Refund History 12/7/94 Staff has researched past decisions by the Council with respect to assessment refund requests by property owners that are similar in nature to Betty Scherer's and have found three specific instances, each with slightly varying circumstances. I have attached copies of the agenda report for each of these occurrences. A summary is provided along with a brief account listed below: Date Property Owner Refund Amount Council Action 10/15/90 Dale Hossler $1,742.31 APPROVED 12/06/93 Glenn Johnson $358.96 APPROVED 09/06/94 Wes Green $19,574.52 APPROVED Case #1 involved a substandard parcel of under 10,000 sq.ft, which the owner indicated could not provide a suitable building envelope under the current standards and the fact that the the lot was extremely shallow in depth. Benefit was determined to be lacking and the Council removed 0nly the balance of special assessments in the amount of $1,742.31. Case #2 concerned a property owner on Lime Road who discovered that the lot frontage for his paving special assessment was 8' less than the scaled frontage on his notice. However he did not realize this discrepancy until after the Council had adopted the official assessment roll. The new assessments were already certified to the County, however the Council made an exception and rolled back the assessment amount reflecting a reduction of $358.96. Case #3 occurred most recently whereby the Council waived the accrued interest on a deferred assessment as a compromise to the fact that the land abutting CSAH 42 would be of questionable benefit because no direct access would be granted. The original principal sum of $17,477.25 was reaffirmed but the interest was written off in consideration that the entire principal be paid upon sale of the property and subject to conveyance of a wetlands easement. While these three cases have different circumstances, the underlying reason for approving the requests was the attempt to reach a fair and equitable solution which would not compromise established City policies. Though such actions may establish certain precedence, the Council is not bound by these previous decisions and can judge such specific requests based upon their individual merit. MEMO27.WRT 4629 Dakota St. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245 AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER HERITAGE COMMUNITY 1891 1991 ES CONSENT AGENDA: REQUESTED BY : SUBJECT MATTER: DATE: 3 (i) RALPH TESCHNER, FINANCE DIRECTOR CONSIDER APPROVAL OF WAIVER OF ASSESSMENT BALANCE ON LOTS 1-3 OF OUTLOT A, MAPLE PARK SHORE ACRES OCTOBER 15, 1990 Introduction: Dale Hossler, the property owner of Lots 1-3 Subdivision of Outlot A Maple Park Shore Acres, (Parcel # 25 038 001 0 & 25 038 001 1), has requested the City Council to waive the balance of special assessments remaining upon his property. The aggregate amount outstanding is $1,742.31. BACKGROUND: Water and sewer utilities were installed in this area during 1978. At that time the three lots were determined to comprise a single, substandard building parcel and was assessed the equivalent of 50' and a total dollar amount of $3,871.86. The lots existed under separate ownership while the Wagon Bridge improvement project was being constructed. However, the intent during the assessment hearing process was for the lots to be consolidated for the purpose of building permit application. DISCUSSION: The reason for his request is that, under today's standards, the property no longer qualifies for an appropriate building envelope as is readily apparent on the attached map. The square footage of the parcel approximates 9300 sq. ft., which is slightly under the minimum requirement of 10,000. However, the extreme lack of depth of these lots prevents construction of any suitable home. The abandoned railroad right-of-way behind the lots is not owned by Hossler. It is also not practical to combine that p~operty with Lots 1-3 because the topography is a steep ravine not conducive or economical for building. Since the parcel cannot utilize utility service as provided, the property also no longer derives any benefit. Staff's contention is that while the Council is not presently obligated to waive the specials, an inequity does currently exist and there appears to be justification for the removal of the existing assessments. 4629 Da~taStS.E.P~or ~k~ M~nesota55372 / Ph.(612) 447-4230 / F~ (612) 447-4245 RECOMMENDATION: ACTION REQUIRED: Staff would recommend that the current special assessment balance of $1,742.31, representing all future installments beginning with 1991 be abated. This abatement will have no impact on debt service payments; and no refund of assessments paid will occur. Motion to approve as part of the consent agenda is in order. N SEC ~5 z&o~ l& SITE PR NE CONSENT AGENDA #: PREPARED BY: SUBJECT: DATE: INTRODUCTION: BACKGROUND: DISCUSSION: ALTERNATIVES: RECOMMENDATION: 4(d) RALPH TESCHNER FINANCE DIREC'I'OR CONSIDER GLENN & DOROTHY JOHNSON CORRECTION DECEMBER 6, 1993 ASSESSMENT Glen and Dorothy Johnson have requested thc Council to consider reducing their front frontage assessment for the paving of Center Road from 83' to 75' for their property located at 16863 Lime Road. On November 15th, the City Council approved Resolution 93-101 which adopted the assessment roll for Project g93-12 Center & Lime Road improvements. The assessment roll was subsequently filed with the Scott County Auditor's Office on 11/30/93 which is the statutory filing date. The Johnsons did not appear at the assessment hearing to contest their proposed frontage assessment. During the course of reviewing their Statement of Special Assessment notice, they did not initially realize the frontage difference. However, upon later examination they discovered the discrepancy. The map utilized by the City for the purpose of calculating front footage dimensions incorrectly shows the division line of Lots 3-6 Block 26 Spring Lake Townsite which resulted in the 8' difference. Mrs. Johnson has provided Staff a certified lot survey of their property which indicates the front footage to be 75' and not 83' as indicated on the assessment roll. The following alternatives are available to the City Council: 1. Amend the assessment of the Johnsons to reflect 75' thereby reducing their assessment amount from $3,724.21 to $3,365.25. 2. Deny the request and reaff'maa the original assessment. 3. Modify the assessment to an amount as determined by the City Council. Since the appeal occun~ following the date of the assessment hearing, the City Council is not required by statute to change the assessment. However, the issue here is one of equity and fairness. Therefore, Staff would recommend that the frontage assessed be amended from 83' to 75' and the amount on the assessment roll be reduced from $3,724.21 to $3,365.25. 4629 Dakota St. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245 AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY E,MPLOYER ACTION REQUIRED: A motion as part of the consent agenda to amend Project 93-12 Assessment Roll to reflect a front footage adjustment from 83' to 75' for PIN #25 133 016 2 and a reduction in the dollar amount frOm $3,724.21 to $3,365.25. CONSENT AGENDA #: PREPARED BY: SUBJECT: DATE: INTRODUCTION: BACKGROUND: DISCUSSION: 4 (c) RALPH TESCHNER FINANCE DIRECTOR CO 4SIDER HAI OR I' O?n TmS ^SSnSSME xrr ^T M NT REQUEST SEPTEMBER 6, 1994 Wes Green of Harbor Properties has requested the City Council to consider an assessment abatement on a 14.08 acre parcel (PINg 25 930 116 0) located between CSAH 42 and Conroy Street in Section 30-115-21 (See attached location map). Specifically, he is asking for the Council to write off the interest which has accrued over a period of 14 years on a mutually agreed upon deferred assessment. This property was served with water and sewer utilities in 1975 under Project 75-2 and was originally assessed 1189.66' of frontage and 13.37 acres for trunk acreage charges. Due to a large wetland area located in the western basin of the property, 330' of assessment frontage was later removed by Council action on March 14, 1977. Subsequently all special assessments were paid on 6/30/77 by Mrs. Anna Conroy. In 1980 the City installed a 12" watermain pipe within the right of way of CSAH 42 to provide an additional water loop in the the northeast quadrant of the City. This installation was required to provide adequate water pressure for the Harbor development and was installed by the City under a developer's agreement petition for utility services. Although, the 12" watermain constituted a trunk system expenditure, it was also necessary for the Harbor development, therefore Mr. Green agreed to share on a pro-rata basis the watermain line cost based upon the pipe length extended beyond his property and the Conroy parcel (See attached Memorandum dated September 29, 1980). While the memo is brief, the purpose was to stipulate the City's intent to also recover the portion of improvement costs attributed to the Conroy p~cel at some point in time subject to future development. Since then, Mr. Green has purchased the aforementioned property and is interested in selling the property which brings us up to the present. In order for him to market the land, it is necessary for him to resolve the pending assessment situation. Because the interest of $19,574.52 (calculated thru 12/31/94) now exceeds the principal amount of $17,477.25. Mr. Green has requested that the interest basically be waived. 4629 Dakota St. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 4474230 / Fax (612) 447-4245 AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER ALTERNATIVES: 'RECOMMENDATION: ACTION REQUIRED: REVIEWED BY: Ag412.WRT His reasons are based upon the fact that the parcel is already served with utilities in Conroy Street/Greenway Ave which have been assessed and while he acknowledged the need for the 12" watermain as a system requirement, he contends the parcel does not directly benefit due to the fact of restricted access onto CSAH 42. Because the amount in question actually does not represent an official deferred assessment, Staff indicated to Mr. Green that the City may be willing to accept payment of principal only if an easement description were prepared by Harbor Properties granting the City an easement over the entire wetland area that exists on the property. This would have to be conveyed to the City prior to final sale along with payment in full of the $17,477.25 at time of closing. The following alternatives are available for Council consideration: o Approve the interest waiver in return for full payment in the amount of $17,477.25 at time of sale and wetlands easement conveyance. 2. Deny the stated request and require the entire interest and principal to be paid. 3. Negotiate a middle ground settlement per Council direction and consensus. Both parties are in a win/win situation whereby the City will benefit by gaining control of a large wetland and receive compensation for a project that basically was granted an indefinite deferred status with respect to cost reimbursement. Therefore, Staff would recommend Alternative #1 which would remove all interest liability against the property in lieu of principal payment of $17,477.25 and an underlying wetlands easement. The proposed resolution is acceptable to Harbor Properties, Inc. Motion by the Council as part of the consent agenda to waive the accruing interest contingent! upon the conveyance of a wetlands easement satisfacttff~/)o the/~Zity Engineer and payment in full to the City of the in~M pr/n/;,ipal su~ of $17,477.25 at time of closing. IT! I-n ITl rn rn 0 e- o.