10-02-79 CCM - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

CITY OF LAKE ELMO, CITY COUNCIL MEETING, OCTOBER 2, 1979 Mayor Armstrong convened the meeting at 7:32 p.m. Councilors present: Mottax, Johnson, Pott, Morgan (9:30), also, Administrator Whittaker AGENDA: Changes - Delete 1979 City Code, List of Special Use Permits - refer to Planning Commission, Add fees - per Administrators list Add - City policy relating to traffic signs. Armstrong moved, seconded by Johnson, to approve the Agenda as amended. Motion carried 4-0. IVE CONNIE LEVI: Representative Levi enlisted the Council's views and in -put on several bills coming before the legislature. Armstrong stated he is in favor of the Agriculture Preservation Bill. This bill proposes a tax break to those agreeing to set their land aside for agricultural purposes for a period of eight (8) years, and allows this designation on non-contiguous parcels. Representative Levi asked the Council's reaction of putting the control of this bill under the State Department of Agriculture rather than the Met Council. Administrator Whittaker suggested putting the control in the hands of local governing bodies, as the bill provides no out - clause and, the designation goes with the land and not the owner. All problems or questions concerning the land would have to be resolved by the Met Council, but with local control it is feared municipalities would "buckle under" developement pressure. Rep- resentative Levi feels_ since this is a tax break from the state it should be a state or regional controlled agency. Armstrong questioned the Minnesota Estate Tan Valuation. No -provision is made in the text for valuation for estate tax purposes. Value should be set for agricultural value (provided the property is in agricultural preservation), Armstrong feels. Possibly a pro- vision stating a length of time the land must continue to be farmed in order to qualify for an estate tax reduction, could be included. Administrator questioned the defination of "Family Farm Corporation". Who does this include? Also questioned, was the City's . ability to levy any 'assessments against land in this designation, even though the owner may be benefitted or be the cause of the assessment, (eg surface water, roads or drainage water improvements). The City would like some provision to collect assessments after the 8th year or when the land is no longer in the preservation designation. Pott suggested that valuation be established on a County basis with .disputes being resolved by the State Agriculture Department. Admin- istrator Whittaker suggested that this bill be tied to municipal zoning, thus enabling communities to zone and plan ag land for the eight year period. This would allow communities to use this desig- nat:ion as a tool to use in planning surrounding services and uses. Rep Levi stated this was intended to be used as a municipal planning aid. Further discussion of assessing watershed projects - The City wants a provision that protects watershed projects, with working that assessment for watershed improvements be based on the permability of the soil.- Any further additions, suggestions, or alterations should be forwarded to Representative Levi. The City requested to be notified when this bill comes before the Legislature. Watershed Law - One of the principal problems has been the $200,000 limit set on projects the District can initiate.