My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
CC_Minutes_2006_0717
Roseville
>
City Council
>
City Council Meeting Minutes
>
200x
>
2006
>
CC_Minutes_2006_0717
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/17/2007 9:39:00 AM
Creation date
8/2/2006 2:38:27 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Roseville City Council
Document Type
Council Minutes
Meeting Date
7/17/2006
Meeting Type
Work Session
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
68
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
<br />House of Representatives DFL Caucus Research Department Room 248-E State Office Building 651/296-5319 <br /> <br /> <br />Memo <br /> <br />June 15, 2006 <br /> <br />To: <br /> <br />Rep. Mindy Greiling <br /> <br />From: <br /> <br />Brad Kelly, Research Consultant, House DFL Caucus Research, 651/296-5319 <br /> <br />Subject: <br /> <br />Eminent Domain Reform Law <br /> <br />Here is a summary of the new eminent domain reform law - 2006 Minnesota Session Laws Chapter 214 (SF 2750 <br />conference report.) <br /> <br />FISCAL IMPACT: A fiscal note on an earlier version of the bill estimates $7 million annual cost to the Trunk Highway <br />Fund due to highway related projects by Mn DOT. However, MnDOT said this is a conservative estimate and if that more <br />land needed for right-of-way goes through the condemnation process, an additional $6 to $10 million impact could be felt. <br />Also, per a Local Impact Note, the Department of Finance concludes that the bill could result in increased acquisition costs <br />or litigation expenses to cities and counties. It is unclear to how the costs have changed as a result of the conference <br />committee's actions. <br /> <br />Some changes (or items of note) in the bill. as compared with the bill was passed by the House <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />Evidentiary standard - The conference committee adopted the "preponderance of evidence" standard, which was the <br />Senate position. The House bill had a stricter "clear and convincing" standard." This standard is one level below <br />"beyond a reasonable doubt," which is the standard in criminal cases. The typical civil case standard is a <br />"preponderance of evidence. HI <br />Attorney fees - the conference committee created a two-tier mechanism. lfthe final judgment or award for damages is <br />more than 40% greater than the last written offer - the court shall award attorney fees. If the final award is between 20- <br />40% greater- the court may award attorney fees. lfthe final judgment or award of damages is under $25,000, then no <br />attorney fees may be awarded. (Section 4) <br />TIP/effective date - A Rep. Abrams amendment was adopted on this issue. (See Section 22.) <br />Blighted standard - The Senate position was adopted (section 1, subd. 6). <br />Removal of a non-conforming land use a.k.a. "regulatorv takings" -- This item is in the final conference report. The <br />provision requires that when a local unit of government or local zoning authority requires the removal of a <br />nonconforming use as a condition or prerequisite for the issuance of a permit or license for any "use, structure, <br />development, or activity" - this constitutes a taking and is prohibited without payment of just compensation.' (Section <br />10) <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />1 '''Preponderance of evidence' is the burden of proof in a civil trial, in which the jury is instructed to find for the party, that on the whole, has the <br />stronger evidence, however, slight the edge may be." (Black's Law Dictionary, ill Edition) <br />2 Here is the explanation from Deb Dyson (House Research counsel): The property has to be a nonconforming use first ~ a use that was proper <br />under the zoning code when begun or built, but the zoning code for the area has changed and the use is grandfathered in as "nonconforming" (e.g., <br />concrete mixing plant in an area that was zoned industrial when the plant started but is now zoned for residential and commercial uses). Peter Coyle <br />(lobbyist who drafted it) may have meant to include permits and licenses for something like liquor. In the past, he has focused on permits that are <br />approvals for land uses and development. The amendment is meant to require compensation if a permit or approval for a land use is canting,ent on <br />removing a nonconforming land use. (Consider the billboard controversies in 81. Paul that Rep. Paymar has brought up each year for a few years. If <br />billboards are nonconforming uses in 81. Paul, then if the owner of the building on which the billboard is perched applies for a permit to expand, does <br />the city require the owner to get rid of the billboard as a condition of approval? If so, the amendment would require compensation for the billboard.) I <br />believe the amendment adopted would apply to permits or approvals sought on or after the effective date but would affect existing nonconforming <br />land uses. Per the city of 81. Paul, if a city requires removal of a non~conforming land use, such as a septic tank located too close to a water source, <br />or a grandfathered feedlot waste pool, the city may have to pay for the removal as if it were a condemnation taking. If towns and cities are unable to <br />afford such payments non~conforming uses will not be removed and land improvements may slow down. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.