Agenda - Council - 03/27/2012 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

As part of the Ramsey City Council's 2011 strategic goals, it was established that developing an inventory of city owned land was a high priority. Staff developed and introduced an inventory of City owned land at the July 17 City Council worksession. The purpose of this case is to respond to the requests made by the City Council in the July meeting. Observations: JULY 17 CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION below are topics reviewed by staff in July when the "City Owned Lands" case was introduced: • Process used by staff to determine an inventory of all City owned lands • Categories used by staff to display the current/intended use of each City owned parcel • List of potentially sellable City owned land (based on preliminary research) • Multiple City owned land maps (i.e. all city owned parcels, potentially sellable parcels, wetland overlay) • Difference between dedicated and non -dedicated parcels (many of the parcels are known to be dedicated) In summary, 37 parcels were identified by staff as potentially developable. Twenty (20) properties had foreseeable restrictions. Seventeen (17) properties were identified as low or moderately restricted. CITY COUNCIL REQUESTS-- As a result of the July 17 meeting, staff received direction to further investigate all the properties identified as low to moderately restricted. Below is a summary of the specific Council requests: • Attain owner and encumbrance (O&E) reports for each identified parcel. NOTE: the purpose of an O&E report is to identify the last recorded owner, legal description, and recorded deed of trust. Additionally, outstanding easements or restrictions recorded to the title are uncovered. In order to be sure a property is sellable, the City Attorney needs to review the O&E report for each parcel. • Determine if the identified parcels can be used for wetland banking; and, if the identified parcels are hindered by wetlands or storm water drainage. • Determine City maintenance costs for each of the identified parcels. • Determine disposition process for each of the identified parcels. NOTE: Attached to this case is a detailed profile of each identified parcel (which includes responses to each individual City Council request). FINDINGS: Many of the properties thought to have low restriction, or thought to be non -dedicated, are in fact dedicated or have restrictions attached to their title. In other words, less properties than previously anticipated are ready to sell today. Please see the attached "breakdown of city owned lands" for more detail. In summary, of the 37 City owned properties reviewed, 26 are dedicated or restricted, two (2) are owned by the State of Minnesota, and eight (8) are sellable today. IMPORTANT CONSIDERATIONS Beyond the requests made at the July 17 meeting, staff would like to note several important items regarding the sale of City Owned Land: PROCESS/COST OF REMOVING RESTRICTIONS (I.E. PARK DEDICATION) FROM A PROPERTY TITLE: Dedicated park land does not belong to the City, but rather is "The property of the dedicator or his successor in interest, in which the City, as trustee for the benefit of the public and not in its own right as such has such an interest as is necessary to enjoy the use thereof as a public [park]" Headley v. City of Northfield 35 N.W.2d 605 (1949). To remove the "park use" designation will require a district court action with notification to the person/entity who dedicated the property, adjacent property owners and the Attorney General's Office. The Attorney General acts somewhat as the caretaker of the public's interest in property held in trust. The court will then decide if the park purpose restriction may be removed, and if so, who is entitled to receive title to the property. Meaning, even if the "park use" designation is removed the courts may still require the parcel to be given back to the original owner.