Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout4. Special Assessments 1~,06;97 THU 10:53 FAX 612 452 5550 CAMPBELL 141 002 CAMPBELL KNUTSON Professional Assnc tatiun A tton"\eys at Law .. ... ... Jm:IJ. .J;'lllIrllk Andre" McDnwdl PL,,,hkr Nhrrhcw k. Porokl;- .JL)hn F, Kelly Manhew.l. Foil M~n:lllTitl: M. McC"rmn George: T. Stephe:l\,,,li ~ ~\I'{I liL'r:m.:J ifl \1i'i.lou'mill Thoma,]. Campbell R'l!::cr N. Knut"Jn ThlJ(llil$ M. SeNt jiil11Co; nO, W:llstl1n ElIl(Jtl B, Knersch SueSill1 LQ;l P~('\'. (612) 452-5000 Fax (612) 452-5550 Writer's Direct Dial:234-6226 Writer's Fax: 4SZ-SS50 TO: Ai:tEJJf)A)f). t/ November 6, 1997 Mayor and City Council {)lC'di",,'i l~<il'y (;. Fuel,:; FROM: Frank Boyles Suesan Lea Pace RE: POLICY DISCUSSION CONCERNING USE OF SPECIAl.. ASSESSMENTS To ABATE PUBLIC NUlSANCES, ELIMINATE SAFETY AND HEALTH HAZARDS The purpose of this discussion is to present a policy question to the Council concerning the use of special assessments, Under Minnesota Chapter 429 the City Council has the authority to: 1. Remove or eliminate a public health or safety hazard "from private property"; 2, To abate nuisances on public or private property; and 3. To construct, reconstrUcI, extend and maintain retaining walls and area walls. We are bringing this discussion to the Council because of the situation involving the home whose back yard collapsed into Prior Lake and onto his neighbors property during this past summer's storms. The home is owned by Michael Harte and is located at 14964 Pixie Point Circle. The cost to cure the collapse is estimated to be $30,000. The Johnsons, Mr. Harte's neighbors, live at 14966 Pixie Point Circle, Mr. Johnson is disabled and cannot work. Recently, the Johnsons completed an improvement to their shoreland (at the cost of $10,000) and do not have the funds to remove the materials that have collapsed into their rear yard. Mr. Harte and Mr, and Mrs. Johnson have expressed concern that the retaining wall in the rear of Mr. Harte's property and just above the area that collapsed may also fail. The Johnsons are very concerned for the safety of their grandchildren, afraid that they could be injured if the retaining wall collapses. The house was constructed as a spec house by Dan Reiland who is also responsible for the construction of the retaining wall. The retaining wall was not on the plans submitted to obtain the building permit, The retaining wall is over four (4) feet and has not been certified by an registered civil engineer as required by City ordinance. Mr. Harte has received an opinion, as I understand itl that the retaining wall is in no immediate danger because of the cold weather, but iliat spring rains and run off, or the use of heavy equipment (such as that needed to repair the collapsed bluff) pose a different question. Suite11? Ei1gandaleOfficeCenter. 1380CorporatcCcnrerCurve. Eagan,MN55121 11/06/97 THU 16:03 FAX 612 452 5550 CAMPBELL i4l 002 Mayor Andren Councilmembers November 6, 1997 PalZ.e 2 of 3 The Johnsons complained to the City about the clear-cutting of the lot to construct the house and also about the drainage, The Johnsons believe that the City, Me Hane and Mr. Reiland are collectively responsible for the damage to their property, In an effort to facilitate some sort of solution to this situation. Mr. Boyles invited Mr. and Mrs. Johnson, Mr. Harte and Mr, Reiland to a meeting with City Staff. Mr. Harte has estimates that the costs to repair the collapsed slope, restore the Johnson property, and reconstrUct the retaining wall is between $20,000-30,000. He is financially unable to correct !.he problem at this time but could do so over the next 2-5 years. The City has authority under Minnesota Statutes Chapter 429 to construct whatever improvement might be needed to restore the bluff and to assess the cost of the improvement against the property over a period of up to ten (10) years. It is a matter of policy for the Council to consider whether and under what circumstances to use its authority under Chapter 429, From an administrative and legal perspective we would recommend, at a minimum, the following procedures and safeguards: 1. A petition signed by the Jobnsons and the Hartes requesting the City construct and specially assess the improvement necessary to remedy the situation; 2. A waiver of appeal and special assessment from both parties; and 3. A waiver and release of liability in recordable form from both the Johnsons and Hartes for the construction of the improvement. Mr. and Mrs. Johnson have agreed to be assessed for twenty-five percent (25%) of the cost of the improvement, up to a maximum of $10,000. Mr. Harte has agreed to pay seventy-five percent (75 %) of the cost, subject to the following three conditions: 1. The costs of the improvement are affordable; 2. The improvement is consistent with his long term landscaping plans; and 3. The architect and contractor guarantee their work. We have asked Mr. Reiland to pay $5,000 towards the cost of the solution. Mr. Reiland has agreed to forego the return of his builder's deposit on three (3) properties as his contribution. Mr. Harte's is one of the properties. It is Staff's opinion that Mr. Reiland is not entitled to the return of his deposit on the Harte property unless or until the retaining wall is certified by an engineer to the City's satisfaction. City Staff is checking on the status of the builder's deposit on the other two (2) properties and we will advise you of their status at the Council Study Session on November 10th. The City has used special assessments to abate nuisances on private property. Each year 1-3 parcels are assessed for mowing to eliminate weeds. About ten years ago, the City demolished a "bomb shelter" on Elmer Clark's property at the cost of $14,961.24. 11/06/97 THlT 12:04 FAX 612 452 5550 CAMPBELL I4J 003 Mayor Andren Councilmembers November 6, 1997 Page 3 of 3 Issues USE OF SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS TO ABATE PuBLIC NUISANCES 1. Does the Council believe that the circumstances and conditions affecting the Harte/Johnson properties should be considered for special assessment to abate a public nuisance and eliminate a safety hazard? 2, If so, does the Council believe that the procedures and safeguards proposed are adequate? 3. Does the Council want City Staff to prepare criteria relating to this situation which will help to mitigate against the precedent created by this action? 4. Does the Council concur that the following should be followed with respect to the assessment: . Assessment to be spread over ten years . Interest Rate @ 8 % . Administrative Fee of 15 % . Funds drawn from 1997 Budget surplus