Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council Minutes 05-01-2001 BOEAdopted Minutes Board of Review Reconvened May 1, 2001 The Board of Review Reconvened meeting was called to order by Deputy Mayor Slavik at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers, 3400 Plymouth Boulevard, on May 1, 2001. COUNCIL PRESENT: Deputy Mayor Slavik, Councilmembers Hewitt, Johnson, Stein, Black, and Harstad. ABSENT: Mayor Tierney. STAFF PRESENT: City Manager Johnson, Assistant City Manager Ahrens, City Assessor Bye, Senior Appraiser Olsson, Appraisers Kingsbury, Moos, and McCormick, Finance Director Hahn, Community Development Director Hurlburt, Public Works Director Moore, Park and Recreation Director Blank, and City Clerk Paulson. Council Action on Recommendations City Assessor Bye reported on staff's recommendations for those property owners who were appealing their valuations. Councilmember Harstad stated for future recommendations, he would suggest that the Council receive all the information on properties (i.e. total lot size, square footage, finished square footage, foundation size). He discussed Arthur Fretag's property (PIN No. 05-118-22-21-0004). He stated Mr. Fretag is requesting to have his property split classed as residential/agricultural. He explained that Mr. Fretag has represented by adding a paddock area that was previously used for horses to a previous hay area, this would satisfy the requirement of 10 acres of agricultural use for the split classification. Councilmember Harstad asked if the quality of the product or the ultimate use of the product is a factor in the Council's consideration. City Assessor Bye replied the quality of the hay that is being produced is not of quality for animals, but it is being utilized for commercial projects for erosion control. She stated an agricultural product would be defined as a product that could be utilized for animals or people. Councilmember Johnson asked if according to law, the land needs to be an agricultural use or just the potential for agricultural use. City Assessor Bye replied according to the City Attorney, a minimum of 10 acres must be used in the preceding year for agricultural use. Adopted Council Minutes Board of Review Meeting Reconvened — May 1, 2001 Page 2 of 3 Motion was made by Councilmember Black, and seconded by Councilmember Hewitt, to approve the staff recommendations as outlined in the City Assessor's report for the 10 prc that appealed their valuations and classifications. Councilmember Harstad offered a friendly amendment to the motion to increase the 2001 estimated market value to $180,000 for 6000 Kirkwood Lane North (PIN No. 02-118-22-24- 0011). He stated the current valuation of $168,000 is outside the guidelines, and staff was informed that they could view the property but not use any information to determine the valuation. This requested amendment was not accepted by Councilmembers Black and Hewitt. Art Fretag, 17110 County Road 47, requested a split residential/agricultural classification for his property. He stated the City Assessor and the County Assessor both differed in their calculations of his property. However, based on his calculations, he would slightly exceed the 10 -acre requirement. He explained he didn't remove the fence from the paddock area, but they dragged the land and planted three to four pounds of oats. They cut the hay, but it contained a lot of weeds. He acknowledged that the hay wasn't the best quality, but they sold it to a construction company for erosion control. This year, the hay has been sold to Stockholm Trucking. Councilmember Harstad stated agricultural classifications are determined by excluding the house, garage, and immediate one -acre of land. Based on these requirements, he feels Mr. Fretag's property would qualify for the split classification. Motion was made by Councilmember Johnson, and seconded by Councilmember Hewitt, to amend the main motion for a split classification classed as residential/agricultural for Art Fretag's property at 17010 County Road 47 (PIN No. 05-118-22-21-0001). Appraiser Moos explained the house, garage, and one acre is separated from the total classification and is at the residential rate. The agriculture use needs to be reviewed. She stated 11.56 is the total acreage, and a total of 1.6 acres constituted the house and garage. A portion of the 1.6 acres was removed from the site because of the paddock site being removed. Councilmember Black asked if the paddock area could be classified as agricultural. Appraiser Moos replied no, because the previous year there was no agricultural product taken from that area. Horses were in that area at the time, but they can't be considered an agricultural product. She stated the County has recommended that the City revisit the site this summer when the parcel in question is at the optimum peak of agriculture pursuit. Councilmember Johnson raised the scenario that if a farmer has a bad year for crops, and they are unable to harvest the product from the land, does their classification change. Appraiser Moos replied no. However, 40 or more acres constitute a farm. Adopted Council Minutes Board of Review Meeting Reconvened — May 1, 2001 Page 3 of 3 Councilmember Johnson stated she differs with staff on Mr. Fretag's request, and she believes that he has met the 10 -acre requirement for the split classification. She noted that Mr. Fretag is very limited as to what products he can produce from his property, and he is making the attempt to utilize it for agricultural purposes. Councilmember Harstad stated he is concerned about Mr. Fretag seeding all the way up to the creek as that is not cost effective. The Council voted on the amendment to the main motion. With all members voting in favor, the motion carried. The Council then voted on the amended main motion, and with all members voting in favor, the motion carried. Motion was made by Councilmember Black, and seconded by Councilmember Johnson to adjourn the meeting at 7:40 p.m. With all members voting in favor, the motion carried. Sandra R. Paulson, City Clerk