Tuesday, October 30, 2007

Municipal Boundaries Adjustments Rejects Proposed Annexation

At the public hearing last spring, citizens stood before the Onamia Mayor and City Council to voice their objections to the annexation of the 38 acres in Bradbury Township. At that time, they pointed out the City's failure to follow proper procedures, as well as concern for the government's ineptitude as Larry Milton and the gang continue to make one mistake after another. Maybe the city council should have listened.

Now the disgruntled Sex Defenders can shout, "We told you so!" with news that the annexation proposal has been rejected by the Executive Director of Municipal Boundaries Adjustments. As usual, thinking only of themselves, the Milton Gang neglected to consider the reimbursement of the money they are taking away from Bradbury Township. Now the City has to go through the process of applying for annexation all over again... until they get it right.

But the plot thickens. Nobody has yet officially addressed the Bye/Grosslein tax fraud issue. Its a confusing scheme. Steve Bye sort of sold the property several years ago but still sort of pays about $60 in property taxes, claiming homestead status although Marvin D. and Avis Grosslein, the new owners live in Massachusetts. It might not be what Jesus would do, but its a pretty clever scam, actually.

The alleged tax fraud has been reported to the County Assessor. There is a possibility that approximately seven years of non-homestead back-taxes are owed on this land. According to the following letter, all debts must be settled before the annexation can go through.

The questions now are: 1) Is this specific location worth all of the hassle? 2) Is the City government so stubborn, so tunnel-visioned that they won't see that it really isn't? 3) What makes D'Angelo so mean to little old ladies?

This property is not clean. This deal is dirty. But that won't stop the Milton Gang.

Read the Boundaries Adjustments letter below.

October 25, 2007

Shannon Sweeney

David Drown Associates, Inc.

2078 Feather Circle

Waconia, MN  55387

 

Re:  A-7591 Onamia/Bradbury Township

                        (Ordinance No. 79; Bye/Grosslein Property; 38.81 acres)

 

Dear Ms. Sweeney:

The Office of Administrative Hearings acknowledges receipt of the above-referenced ordinance for annexation to the City of Onamia.  Please refer to the above-referenced docket number in future communications regarding this proposed annexation.

As you may be aware, recent legislative amendments to Chapter 414 became effective on August 1, 2006.  Included in the amendments is a requirement that all proposed annexations provide for reimbursements from municipalities to townships for property taxes following annexation and for special assessments or debt attributable to the annexed property.

Previously, Minn. Stat.414.033 subd.12 provided for a gradual reduction of payments to townships over a five year period for certain annexations by ordinance.  That statutory provision was repealed.  The provision in new amendments dealing with reimbursements are now mandatory for all annexations by ordinance, unless the city and affected township otherwise agree, and there have also been changes to the reimbursement schedule.  For your information, Minn. Stat. Sec. 414.036 now reads:

Unless otherwise agreed to by the annexing municipality and the affected town, when an order or other approval under this chapter annexes part of a town to a municipality the order or other approval must provide a reimbursement from the municipality to the town for all or part of the taxable property annexed as part of the order.  The reimbursement shall be completed in substantially equal payments over not less than two nor more than eight years from the time of annexation.  The municipality must reimburse the township for all special assessments assigned by

the township to the annexed property and any portion of debt incurred by the town prior to the annexation and attributable to the property to be annexed but for which no special assessments are outstanding, in substantially equal payments over a period of not less than two or no more than eight years.

Again, as the amended language indicates, the Director must now include a reimbursement determination in every order or approval of annexed taxable property, unless the municipality and township otherwise agree.

Ordinance No. 79 does not include a provision dealing with reimbursement to the township, and we do not have other information that allows the Director to comply with the new requirement that “the order or other approval must provide a reimbursement.” 

We suggest either one of two approaches to bringing your proposed annexations into conformity with the new amendment to Minn. Stat. 414.036:  (1) the City can amend Ordinance No. 79 to include a reimbursement provision consistent with the statutory requirements of substantially equal payments over not less than two nor more than eight years; or (2) the City can provide this office with information or a recommendation on how much you believe the annual reimbursement for property taxes should be and whether the time for payment should be from two years, or up to eight years as the statute now provides.

If the City chooses to use a reimbursement schedule different from that which Minn. Stat. 414.036 now requires, written documentation from the township indicating their agreement is required to qualify for the statutory option of parties agreeing to a different provision.

In addition, please indicate whether any special assessments are due and what the payout schedule for those obligations should be.  Such information will be considered when this file is scheduled for review.

Please let us know as soon as possible how you plan to proceed.  When our record on this matter is complete, they will be scheduled for review by the Director.

If you have any questions, please contact this office.

Sincerely,

Christine M. Scotillo

Executive Director

Municipal Boundary Adjustments

 

CMS:sjh

 

c:  Kathleen McCullum, Onamia City Clerk