Agenda - Council Work Session - 01/26/2016

Home

The Minnesota Court of Appeals held that the city of Minneapolis had a nondelegable duty of lateral support to a property owner with a retaining wall abutting a city sidewalk. Howell v. City of Minneapolis, 2013 WL 1707759 (April 22, 2013). A subsequent jury found that the city created the need for lateral support when it built the street and sidewalk adjacent to the property, making the city responsible for the maintenance the retaining wall, despite the fact that the property is clearly benefitted by the retaining wall. The special assessment statute anticipates the need for cities to create retaining walls when making public improvements, and this holding could create significant costs for cities forced to repair and maintain retaining walls that benefit a single property. A choice by a developer or previous property owner to build a retaining wall to improve the value or usefulness of property may appear to be necessary today, but determining who first created the need for lateral support in the past can involve costly and time- consuming historical research that may not reveal a clear answer. Response: The Legislature should amend the special assessment statute so that retaining walls needed to facilitate public improvements are treated the same as other local improvements. In cases where retaining walls located along public rights of way or within drainage and utility easements separate public improvements from adjacent properties, the Legislature should establish a rebuttable presumption that the need for lateral support was created by the property owner. LE -9. Development Disputes Issue: State law is clear that fees collected under Minn. Stat. ch. 462 are eligible for judicial review in the event of dispute. The Legislature recently limited the timeframe during which an aggrieved party may challenge planning and zoning fees to 60 days after approval of an application. However, the law is not clear about what notice requirements to the municipality are necessary, relative to the timing for a person aggrieved by an ordinance or decision under the municipal planning act to seek review. Response: The Legislature should amend Minn. Stat. § 462.361 to establish a 60 - day time limitation in which an aggrieved person may bring an action against the municipality. LE -10. Foreclosure and Neighborhood Stabilization Issue: Cities dedicate scarce resources to address public safety and maintenance challenges associated with foreclosed, vacant, and under -maintained homes. Left unaddressed, these properties destabilize neighborhoods, depressing neighborhood property values, and potential increasing the costs of municipal services. Cities' revenue also continue to decline due to delinquent utility payments and property tax payments as well as added costs for nuisance abatements. Although the number of those mortgage foreclosures has stabilized somewhat since the peak of the recession in 2008, issues surrounding community recovery are still ongoing. State and local governments can play an important role in spurring reinvestment in struggling neighborhoods, but without additional resources to address the variety and costly impacts of foreclosures and vacant properties, cities cannot maintain or increase those activities to meet local needs. The federal government has provided funds for neighborhood stabilization, but such funds are limited in eligible uses and scope League of Minnesota Cities 2016 City Policies Page 50