02-08-2021 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, January 11, 2021 6:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 5 of 12 13. LA20-75 – BRIAN HUISMAN, SALE OF A PORTION OF LAND ADJACENT TO 1121 NORTH ARM DRIVE Barnhart clarified the Council saw this last June and at that time it was a request for a boundary line adjustment because there is some land in the middle of the lake. He said the exhibit is what he provided in June and there is also an attached survey; the survey shows the City actually owns some land, landward of the ordinary high water line and they cannot just give that land away, they must sell it as it is an asset for the City. The property owner came back with a proposal to buy it for $100 which is the value the County has put on the land two lots to the north as it is about the same amount of land, although it is a much bigger parcel because 7/8ths of it is in the lake. That is how the property owner arrived at the fair market value which seems reasonable. Walsh said back in June the Council said it sounded completely reasonable, whatever the fair price was but the property owner also had to pay the costs. He clarified they are just bringing back the value at this point. Johnson said that is the one component he wonders about; personally he does not think they can do a straight vacation of this, so the City Attorney wants there to be a sale. Walsh said it is because there is nothing to vacate, it is actually owned land. Johnson said the Applicant’s methodology of $100 is based on the County’s assessment to a property that is ultimately non-taxable. Johnson thinks there will be more of these in this bay as they want to get things cleaned up, and he would like to see the Council avoid the value component and when it is just a straight “land that is in the way,” it usually conveys as a dollar. He would like to think about standardizing this when they see these chunks that make no sense so when someone else comes before the Council they do not get into the debate of value. Walsh thinks that is a good point, especially if it is just a true “clean up.” Johnson noted the caveat is that the Applicant incurs all of the expenses from generating the new legal description, the exhibit, the City’s legal review, etcetera. If the Applicant is doing all that, what is traditional in his real estate business is that just conveys at a dollar, they are not getting into a value. Walsh said it is like a quick claim issue and he is good with that methodology as well. Crosby said it makes sense. Printup noted there could be more of these in that area, and so that it does not translate into the right-of- ways, the fire lanes, where people all of a sudden hear this and it turns into an assumption. Johnson asked if they could define this in a bucket as to what they are trying to do here. Printup stated word will travel fast, and he does not want it to become an assumption. Barnhart noted the Council will see both sides of that coin going forward because the adjacent property owner is going through the vacation process for the adjacent alleyway. He clarified there is a distinction between platted right-of-way or easements and land. He thinks they can easily make that distinction. Attorney Conklin said an easement vacation or right-of-way vacation is very different and they typically would not be seeking compensation for that. However, for parcels of land like this that the City is just