No preview available
 /
     
10/09/1984 - City Council SpecialSPECIAL MEETING NOTIFICATION DATE: OCTOBER 9, 1984 TIME: 4:00 P.M. LOCATION: a City Council Chambers City Administrator's Office F] City Hall Conference Room ElOther Location: CONTACT PERSON: THOMAS A. COLBERT TYPE OF MEETING SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING FINANCE COMMITTEE MEETING EJ PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE MEETING E] PERSONNEL COMMITTEE MEETING nCOMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE MEETING 0 OTHER: EJ SPECIAL ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING SPECIAL A.P.C. SUB -COMMITTEE MEETING OTHER: SPECIAL ADVISORY PARKS & RECREATION COMMISSION MEETING SPECIAL ADVISORY PARKS h REC. COMMISSION SUB -COMMITTEE MEETING F] OTHER: MEETING TOPIC aSPECIAL ASSESSMENTS COMMITTEE MEETING nJOINT BURNSVILLE/EAGAN CABLE COMMISSION MEETING nOTHER: POSTED FOR PUBLIC NOTIFICATION BY THE OFFICE OF THE CITY ADMINISTRATOR DATE: October r ; 1984'IME: 12:00 P.M. A G E N D A SPECIAL ASSESSMENT COMMITTEE MEETING EAGAN MUNICIPAL CENTER 3830 PILOT KNOB ROAD EAGAN, MN 55122 TUESDAY, OCTOBER 9, 1984 4:00 P.M. I. 4:00 - Roll Call & Pledge of Allegiance II. 4:05 - Adopt Agenda III. 4:10 - OLD BUSINESS A. Project 372. I -35E Utilities & Streets 1. Francis C. Franz (10-02100-010-50) 2. Anna S. Heuer (10-02100-010-78) IV. 5:00 - NEW BUSINESS -Pending Assessment Review A. Project 411, Patrick Eaean Trunk Storm Sewer 1. George & Miriarv)Nall (10-02200-040-27) 2. Anthony Caponi (10-02200-010-80 & 84) 3. Thomas Rooney (10-02200-012-86) 4. Thomas Bergin (10-02200-011-85) V. 6:00 - Adjourn (Dinner Break) VI. 6:30 - Reconvene VII. 6:35 - NEW BUSINESS (Continued) - Final Assessment Appeals ,—�B. Project 383, Schwanz Lake Trunk Storm Sewer 1. Heide Schiela (10-02500-010-52) C. Project 384, Walden Heights Trunk Storm Sewer 1. Arthur Koestner (10-78200-030-01) t D. Project 371SR, Water Treatment Plant Trunk Storm Sewer 1. Albert Perron (10-00900-010-09) E. Project 381, Borchert Ingersoll Trunk Storm Sewer 1. Gopher Smelting (10-01100-010-76) (10-01200-010-51, 55 & 56) (over) SPECIAL ASSESSMENT CO`MITTEE MEETING AGENDA (continued) TUESDAY, OCTOBER 9, 1984 4:00 P.M. F. Project 317. Blackhawk Road Streets & Utilities 1. Jay Tscherne (10-02900-040-05) 2. James Ashworth (10-02900-010-10) 3, Robert Keuger (10-02900-010-08) 4. Darold Holden (10-02900-030-05) (10-02900-060-05) (10-02900-070-05) G. Project 368. Robin Lane Streets 1. Herbert Bergstrom, Jr. (10-14300-100-00) VIII. 10:15 - Other Business A. Special Assessment Deferment Policy IV. 10:30 - Adjourn SUBJECT. TO APPROVAL MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE SPECIAL ASSESSMENT COMMITTEE EAGAN, MINNESOTA OCTOBER 9, 1984 A meeting of the Eagan Special Assessment Committee was held on Tuesday, October 9, 1984 at 4:00 p.m. at the Eagan Municipal Center. Present were Chairman Don Knight, Mayor Blomquist, Dale Vogt, Councilman Tom Egan, and Bill Rydrich. Absent was Garrett Mulrooney. Mayor Blomquist chaired the meeting until Don Knight arrived at about 5:00 p.m. Also present were Public Works Director Tom Colbert and City Attorney Paul Hauge. AGENDA Vogt moved, Egan seconded the motion to approve the Agenda as presented. All voted yes. The Public Works Director, Tom Colbert, explained to the persons present the purpose of the meeting beingrural meeting to review special assess- ments where circumstances warrant review prior to City Council adoption. He indicated that property owners with specific questions were invited to attend the meeting and to present information that would be helpful to the members of the assessment committee in making recommi§ndations to.the Council. FRANCIS C. FRANZ - PROJECT #372 I-359 STREETS 8 UTILITIES Mr. Colbert reviewed the proposed assessments along Deerwood Drive cover- ing the Francis Franz property, noting the assessments have arisen primarily because of the improvement of I -35E and Deerwood Drive in that vicinity. A portion of the improvements have been installed by the Minnesota Department of i Transportation through a Cost Participation Agreement with lateral benefit, trunk watermain, trunk area and lateral storm sewer, street, sidewalk and bituminous trailway construction in the area. Pat Farrell, attorney with the firm of Grannis, Campbell, Farrell and Knutson, P.A. of South St. Paul, appeared for Mr. Franz and Mr. Franz also was present. The matter had been continued from the July 30, 1984 Special Assessment Committee meeting at the request of the property owner. Mr. Farrell had objections to the assessment regarding sidewalk assess- ments on collector streets, that the property has not benefited any more greatly than other property in the general area. There were objections to the rate of the storm sewer assessments against the property, noting that there are three residue parcels after the MnDOT acquisition and also that the City is attempting to assess for improvements that have been paid for through the State of Minnesota. Mr. Colbert indicated that the assessments for street Assessment Minutes October 9, 1984 improvements is based upon a residential equivalent and there was also discus- sion concerning the proposed sidewalk assessment and whether it ought to be on a residential equivalent basis. After extended discussion, Egan moved, Blomquist seconded the motion to continue consideration of the objections until a later assessment committee meeting to allow the staff to research the following issues: a. To review and submit a proposed assessment policy for sidewalks. b. To recommend revisions to the lateral assessments for areas where setback requirements may prevent building permits or specific uses under existing ordinances. c. To review City policy covering residential access locations on collector streets, including the State requirements concerning setbacks on Deerwood Drive for access purposes adjacent to the overpass. d. Further, that the assessments could be referred directly to the Council if the owner and the staff reached a general agreement relative to the assessments. All members voted in favor. ARRA S. HEUER - PROJECT #372 I -35E STREETS & UTILITIES Mr. Colbert briefly reviewed the assessments covering the sidewalk and street assessments proposed to be assessed against the Anna Heuer property on the south side of Deerwood Drive, noting there are 304.08 assessable front feet. He also indicated that there would be a future project covering the easterly extension of Deerwood Drive to Pilot Knob Road at which time it would be anticipated that the balance of the Heuer property would be assessed for street and sidewalk improvements. Mrs. Heuer's son was present and had objec- tions to the assessments. Egan moved, Blomquist seconded the motion to con- tinue the consideration of the assessments with the staff to review the same items as directed by the committee relative to the Francis Franz property. All voted yes. 2 Assessment Minutes October 9, 1984 GEORGE & mrRIAm NALL - PROJECT #411 PATRICK RAGAN TRUNK STORM SEVER The next item brought before the Committee dealt with the objections of Mr. and Mrs. George Nall regarding the large lot credit applied to the approximately 4 acre parcel owned by them on the east side of Pilot Knob Road, south of proposed Pilot Point Addition. Mr. Colbert stated the property is not homesteaded and that the largelot olicy of the City covers parcels less than 5 acres in size providing for 16, 00 square feet of assessment for each assessable acre. The Nalls request to be included within the large lot policy and also that the ponding area to the east of the property should not be assessed. Mariam Nall was present and explained the peculiar circumstances of the parcel. The staff recommended after reviewing topography configuration and proposed future development of the property, that it is highly unlikely that the 4 acre parcel would ever be subdivided and recommended that the parcel be classified as a large lot and given the appropriate credits. Egan moved, Vogt seconded the motion to accept the staff recommendations and recom- mend to the City Council that the large lot policy be adopted and that an agreement be entered into between the City and the Nalls, providing that in the event that the property is subdivided or developed in the future, that the existing rates for the development zoned category, then be assessed against the property. Mrs. Nall indicated that she had no objection to the proposal. All members voted in favor. ANTHONY CAPONI, THOMAS ROONEY 6 THOMAS BERGIN - PROJECT #411 PATRICK EAGAN TRUNK STORM SEWER Mr. Colbert introduced the subject and indicated that the three owners mentioned above who have objected to the assessments, own property south of Deerwood Drive and generally west of Patrick Eagan Park. He stated that generally the property lies within the major drainage district outletting to Patrick Eagan Park. Mr. Bergin indicated that he would not be able to be present at the meeting. The objections generally were that the property did not drain directly into Patrick Eagan Park Pond, but rather into the pond further south which was not having storm sewer improvements installed at the present time. Two lawsuits have been started, including that by Mr. Caponi and Mr. Rooney to enjoin the City from proceeding with the assessments. Project #411 has been authorized by the City Council to be installed. Larry Nielson appeared for Mr. Caponi and Mr. Rooney and objected to the following: 1. The cost of the entire project is less than the amount of the proposed assessments. 2. The property is not benefited to the extent that it is being pro- posed to be assessed. W Assessment Minutes October 9, 1984 3. Hilltop Estates Addition to the west is not being assessed for the improvements. 4. The excess amount of money necessary to install the improvements should be paid from the general revenue fund. It was noted that the assessments are not necessarily commensurate with the cost of the project, but that the funds are taken from a general storm sewer trunk fund and eventually, land in the entire City will be assessed for storm sewer trunk purposes. Tony Caponi appeared and stated that there was not adequate benefit and suggested additional ponding of water in JP -8 and Patrick Eagan Park Lake, with some overland outflow, rather than storm sewer pipes. It was noted that an outlet from JP -7 will be required at some time in the very near future. Kathleen Boyle appeared as an owner of the property along Deerwood Drive and stated that she and her husband had not been notified of the hearing for the improvements. Mr. Nielson indicated that unless the City Attorney were to hear otherwise, that answers to the two lawsuits could be continued indefinitely. After extended discussion, Blomquist moved to continue consideration of the request until a later meeting, but there was no second and the motion died. Next, Egan moved, Vogt seconded the motion to recommend the proposed assessment be referred back to the Council to review the feasibility of expanding Project 0411 to include Pond* JP -7 and further, that the Caponi property and Rooney property be deleted from Project 0411 but should be in- cluded in a proposed future storm sewer project. All voted in favor except Rydrich who abstained. HEIDE SCBIEU - PROJECT #383 SCRWANZ LABB TRUNK STORM SEWER The Committee next reviewed the proposed assessments against the Heide Schiele property located on Dodd Road, covering a 9.95 acre parcel. It was noted that the size of the parcel precluded its being considered a large lot under the City policy, but that the assessment clerk had deducted 20% for future right-of-way dedication and also 2.2 acres of existing pond over the eastern portion of the property. Attorney Ried Hanson appeared and noted the main objection consisted of a 200 foot NSP easement, indicating it would not be a benefit to that property. He also indicated that the water generally drains into the pond on the Schiela property and there is no increase in value because the water is still there. Further, in 1981, the City gave credit for the NSP easement for the area water and sanitary sewer assessments. After discussion, Blomquist moved, Egan seconded the motion to recommend to the City Council that an agreement be entered into to consider the entire policy as a large lot to provide for 16,500 square feet of assessment per acre, due to the unusual configuration of the property, the large NSP easement and noted that because of those circumstances, would not be considered as a precedent. All members voted in favor. Assessment Minutes October 9, 1984 ALBERT PERRON - PROJECT #371SR NATER TREATMENT PLANT TRUNK STORM SEWER Mr. Colbert reviewed with the Council the proposed assessments against the Albert Perron property on the north side of Yankee Doodle Road, noting that 11.38 acres of the Perron property was being assessed with a 20% credit, resulting in 9.1 acres at the agricultural rate of 0.4314 per square foot. Reid Hanson, attorney, again appeared and objected to the City land not being assessed for improvements, but it was noted that none of the City property is being assessed for this purpose and that the rate is a predetermined rate on an annual basis and not affected by the amount of the area being assessed within a drainage district. Another objection was that the property was not benefited to the extent proposed to be assessed. The staff recommended approval of the assessment roll. Vogt moved, Rydrich seconded the motion to recommend to the City Council that the assessment roll covering the Perron property be adopted. All voted in favor. ARTHUR KOESTNER - PROJECT #384 WALDEN HEIGHTS TRUNK STORM SEWER Assessment objection has been received from Arthur Koestner, an owner of property in Twin View Manor, noting that' $711.00 was proposed to be assessed after applying the large lot assessment policy, whereby only 16,500 square feet were assessed. The City Attorney and Public Works Director. -met with Mr. Roestner and reviewed the basis of his objections, noting that Mr. Roestner does not qualify for the Senior Citizens Deferment. Mr. Roestner did not appear but indicated that he was not going to further object to the assess- ments. Upon motion by Egan, seconded Vogt, it was resolved to recommend approval of the assessments to the City Council. All members voted aye. GOPHER SMELTING CO. - PROJECT #381 BORC®tT INGERSSOLL TRUNK STORM SEWER Project #381 covers the lift station and trunk storm sewer outlet from Borchert Ingersoll Pond, part of which property is located on the Gopher Smelting property. Mr. Colbert indicated a meeting had been held with Mark Kutoff and the general objections were as follows: 1. The assessments are premature for development of the property. 2. The rough topography of the property precludes feasible development based upon the amount of assessments being proposed. 3. The amount of assessments is disproportionate to the overall cost of the project. E Assessment Minutes October 9, 1984 Ried Hanson appeared for the property owner and stated the following objections: 1. The assessments are more than the total cost of the property. 2. That other land is being drained into the Borchert Pond and there- fore Gopher Smelting is required to help pay for the assessments caused by excess water from property outside of the drainage district. It was noted that part of the Gopher Smelting property is developed, that the outlet from Borchert Pond was put in out of sequence but would have resulted from earlier assessments, had it been installed in regular sequential order. It was further noted that there is an approved PUD on the property, and that the property is zoned, the land is presently being marketed and the increase in value comes from the ability to discharge water into the pond. After extended discussion, Blomquist moved, Vogt seconded the motion to recom- mend that the assessment roll covering the property be approved and forwarded to the City Council. All voted in favor. JAY TSCBERNB - PROJECT #317 - BLACRBANB ROAD STREETS A UTILITIES Tom Colbert addressed the entire project and noted there are four objecting property owners on Blackhawk Road covering streets and utilities in that general vicinity. He noted that Blackhawk Road is a municipal state aid street and certain design standards must be complied with. The four objecting property owners did not petition for the improvements and expressed objections at the time of the original public hearing. A meeting had been held with the owners by the City Public Works Director and City Attorney to review the concerns, including objections that the amount of the assessment exceeded the benefit to the property and the amount of the assessment is excessive as to what each property owner can afford on a monthly and yearly basis. It was noted that Dan Dwyer, an appraiser, has been hired by the City Council to evaluate the increase in valuation, but that the appraisals for the City have not been completed. Dan Beeson, attorney, appeared for the Tschernes and indicated the best use is single family and noted several unique features, including the 340 feet of frontage with 800 foot depth, the topography is very rough, including swamp, steep terrain and the neighboring owner is not ready to develop the property. Also the location of the residence detracts from the benefit to the property, based upon the proposed assessments. Roger Rohrer, appraiser for the Tschernes, also appeared and indicated that the Tscherne paid $70,000.00 for the property three years ago, the value is not much more today, and it is being used as single family, although the Comprehensive Land Use Guide is R - III. He stated that the assessments would not create a great deal more value 6 Assessment Minutes October 9, 1984 r even by tearing down the house on' the property. He stated that townhouses may be a logical use, and if the house weren't there, the value would increase by perhaps $15,000.00 to $20,000.00, or $5,000.00 with the house remaining on the property. Egan moved to forward the assessment objections to the City Council without recommendation. There was no second and the motion died. Rydrich then moved, Blomquist seconded the motion to recommend to the City Council that the staff recommendations be adopted with the maximum assessment based upon the appraisal submitted by the City's appraiser and in the event of development, or subdivision of the property in the future, that the assessment be increased commensurate with the area not being assessed at the present time, and that the assessments then be levied at the then current rates. All members voted yes. JAMS ASHWORTH - PROJECT #317 - BLACKHAVK ROAD STREETS & UTILITIES Mr. Colbert also reviewed the Ashworth property lying on the west side of Blackhawk Road. Mr. Ashworth was present and objected to the total amount of the assessment proposed to be assessed against his property and that the assessments were not being spread equitably amongst the individual parcels. He noted that the pond to the west is increased in its level, that there is intense development around the property and the grading on the adjacent lots is higher than his property. He further objected, based upon lack of benefit and requested reduction in the assessment. Egan moved, Vogt seconded the motion to recommend to the City Council that the maximum amount of assessments be based upon the City's appraisal covering benefit to the property and that an agreement be entered into with the property owner, that the assessments to the property be increased at such time as the development or subdivision of the property takes place, commensurate with the assessment., rates then in effect. All members voted yes. ROBERT KRUGER - PROJECT #317 - BLACKRAVK ROAD STREETS & UTILITIES Mr. Kruger appeared and noted that the north half of his property is zoned Neighborhood Business with the south half zoned Agricultural. Mr. Colbert stated that the assessment policy concerning reduction of assessments for single family purposes, generally cover only homesteaded property and in the event that the north half was reduced to Agicultural or Single Family residential rates, the assessment would be reduced by about $4,400.00. Mr. Kruger also indicated a severe driveway access problem has resulted due to the road improvements. Mr. Egan indicated that the owners along Blackhawk Road should be prepared for the September 18 hearing with an appraiser and with a representative on their behalf, if they desire to do so. Egan moved, Vogt seconded the motion to recommend that the City Council approve the assessment roll based upon the City appraiser's evaluation of benefit and that the Neighborhood Business parcel on the north be assessed at an R-1 Single Family residential rate, and in the event that the property is upgraded in use or subdivided in the future, that the property then be assessed at the then existing rates for that use. All members voted yes. 7 Assessment Minutes October 9, 1984 DAROLD HOLDEN - PROJECT #317 - BLAC®AHB ROAD STREETS 8 UTILITIES Mr. and Mrs. Holden were present and Mr. Holden strongly objected to the assessments being proposed to be levied against the Holden property. He indicated that it's not economical to run a sanitary sewer line to the rear of his property where his residence is located and further that a pond has been created on the west side of his property that did not have water prior to the MnDOT construction of I -35E. After extended discussion, Egan moved, Vogt seconded the motion to recommend to the City Council that the assessments be based upon the City Appraiser's determination of benefit to the property, that it not exceed the amount appraised, and further subject to an agreement being entered into providing that in the event of subdivision or upgrading of the property that the then existing assessment rates covering the property, be implemented and assessed. All members voted yea. HERBERT BERGSTROM - PROJECT #368 ROBIN LANE - STREETS Tom Colbert reviewed with the Committee the improvements to Robin Lane and the cooperation given by Mr. and Mrs. Bergstrom toward granting easements for the newly reconstructed Robin Lane. He noted that the objection covered Lot 10 on the Bergstrom property, consisting of a triangular parcel and recom- mended that the front footage be reduced by 70 feet from 243 feet to 173 feet due to the strange configuration of the property. This would result in an increase in the assessment per front foot along the street. Mr. Bergstrom was present and stated that he felt that the reduction should be greater than 70 feet. He noted that the gas easement and street easement infringe on the property and that the property may not be buildable except for single family purposes. Committee members inquired whether the triangle was being used to determine density for the balance of the area, noting that the property had been approved for 25 townhouse units. After extended discussion, Blomquist moved, Vogt seconded the motion to accept the staff recommendation with the understanding that the applicant can apply to the City and request a higher density which would be considered by the Planning Commission and Council, based upon the uses, noting that no guarantee of increase in density could be given by the Committee. All members voted yes. SPECIAL ASSESSMENT DEFERMENT POLICY ORDINANCE A proposed Ordinance revision in Chapter 2 covering deferment of special assessments was submitted and recommended for approval by the staff. Mr. Colbert reviewed the deferment policy with the Council and noted that eleven twin city area cities have been contacted and asked whether they had deferment policies due to financial hardship. None of the cities had such an ordinance or policy indicating that such requests were reviewed on a case by case basis. After discussion, Blomquist moved, Egan seconded the motion to recommend the City Council amend to the Ordinance. All members voted yes. 0 Assessment Minutes October 9, 1984 Upon motion duly made and seconded, the meeting adjourned at 10:35 p.m. PHH MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE SPECIAL ASSESSMENT COMMITTEE EAGAN, MINNESOTA OCTOBER 9, 1984 A meeting of the Eagan Special Assessment Committee was held on Tuesday, October 9, 1984 at 4:00 p.m. at the Eagan Municipal Center. Present were Chairman Don Knight, Mayor Blomquist, Dale Vogt, Councilman Tom Egan, and Bill Rydrich. Absent was Garrett Mulrooney. Mayor Blomquist chaired the meeting until Don Knight arrived at about 5:00 p.m. Also present were Public Works Director Tom Colbert and City Attorney Paul Hauge. AGENDA Vogt moved, Egan seconded the motion to approve the Agenda as presented. All voted yes. INTRODUCTION The Public Works Director, Tom Colbert, explained to the persons present the purpose of the meeting being a formal meeting to review special assessments where circumstances warranted review prior to City Council adoption. He indicated that property owners with specific questions were invited to attend the meeting and to present informatign that would be helpful TO the members of the assessment committee makinrecommendationsnto the n Council. FRANCIS C. FRANZ - PROJECT #372 I -35E STREETS & UTILITIES Mr. Colbert reviewed the proposed assessments along Deerwood Drive covering the Francis Franz property, noting the assessments have arisen primarily because of the improvement of I -35E and Deerwood Drive in that vicinity. A portion of the improvements have been installed by the Minnesota 1 The trial, court determined .child, support- in! accordance with Minn. Stat. 518.17,' based --primarily,. upon �the,,total, ne ,i come .of the parties. The -trial court -assessed- the fairness of -the esul :by, noting ..that it left. the Petitioner with more than her claimed eeds It left Respondent, with much less than his claimed needs.., An•_a reinforces the fairness of the result effect require the Respondent to suppo 1 previous marriage. Under -the facts of th' departedifrom-the. child: support1guidelii burden of proving, the! trial court,terred as ISSUEI­ 11 .�11 / I . a ive method, used in Oregon, require more support would in e Appellant's two children by a :ase,;the trial court ,justifiably _The Appellant has not met,her mattesof�law.,, .- DID THE -TRIAL CLEARLY ABUSE ITS D SCRETIOH IN AWARDING TO RESPONDENT A GREATER +SHARE OF THE MARITAL INTEREST 'I THE HOMESTEAD BASED UPON EXTENSIVE IMPROVEMENTS MADE PRIMARILY BY RESPOND NT. The•,trial�, court made express fi ings as to the\value of the,home and, the marital' and -non -marital portions -of, -the homestead .-based upon .-the formula of Schmitz vs: Schmitz, 309-N:W.2d 748 (Minn:S,Ct. 1981-)\\ d-these.,findings,are note challenged- here ,by Appellant. ., hat Appellant challenges 'is the division of the marital portion -of -the -home The trial court aw rded the,Respondent•a lien of $6,415.00 which amounts to 75% of the $7,340.00 increase in value due to improvements financed by the p,rties' and made primarily by the Respondent and 50% of the $1,821.00 marital portion.of,the $5,460.00 increase due to inflation of..housing.prices...: _. The increase in value due to inflation was allocated according to the 7 Department of Transportation through a Cost Participation Agreement with lateral benefit, trunk watermain, trunk area and lateral storm sewer, street, sidewalk and bituminous trailway construction in the area. Pat Farrell, attorney with the firm of Grannis, Campbell, Farrell and Knutson, P.A. of South St. Paul, appeared for Mr. Franz and Mr. Franz also was present. The matter had been continued from the July 30, 1984 Special Assessment Committee meeting at the request of the property owner. Mr. Farrell had seine objections to the assessment sidewalk assessments on collector streets, that the property has not benefited any more greatly than other property in the general area. There were objections to the rate of the storm sewer assessments against the property, noting that there are three residue parcels after the MnDOT acquisition and also that the City is attempting to assess for improvements that have been paid for through the State of Minnesota. Mr. Colbert indicated that the assessments for e street improvements is based upon a residential equivalent and there was also discussion concerning the proposed sidewalk assessment and whether it ought to be on a residential equivalent basis ,, ee � After extended discussion, Egan moved, Blomquist seconded the motion to continue t�e,consideration of the objections until a later assessment committee meeting to allow the staff to research the following issues: a. To review and submitposed assessment policy for sidewalks. b. To recommend revisions to the lateral assessments for areas where setback requirements may prevent building permits or specific uses under existing ordinances. C. To review City p icy c vering residential access location including the U1}t,/ concerning setbacks Q�pf� 1 2 The Appellant claims that thr court erred in setting the support figure so as to keep the Respondenting to work long overtime hours to meet his expenses of $1,500.00 per d 9.a cites Bakke vs. Bakke, C4-84- 110 (Minn.Ct.App. July 10, 1984) tofectll. Bakke does say that private debts, personal investments andpurchases can't be considered in setting support. The trial c different rationale. It is based the needs of the parties are us fairness of the result. They sis fair and dust. The Respondent's 11 's award of support has a completely narily on the incomes of the parties, and as a po nt of reference to assess the affirm that the child support award is isporta ion expenses are high, but they are necessary for him to earn the i come to pay child support. They are different from what would generally be ons dered "private debts" because they are ordinary and necessary expenses th® even if different vehicles are obtained. relates to the Respondent's motorcyc alternative transportation. The Appell car, partly due to the Respondent's effo to make monthly payments for his tran been debt -free if he had not been so remain in one form or another hnly a small amount of the $1,500.00 nd the motorcycle is important s the luxury of an unencumbered nd she criticizes him for having tat on. The Respondent could have Ions n helping purchase Appellant's car outright and in allocating his inc me to re bilitating Appellant's home. The Appellant suggests that Res ndent wor extensive overtime to meet his needs, but she is certainly not of ering to wo Christopher. The interests of Chris pher take i Respondent is willing to work some ov rtime. Appa willing to make an equivalent sacci ice. Some overtime in setting support; see Rreidler vs. F (Minn.Ct.App. 1984); while here 5 hours per week was 5 part time to help support ity and this is why the ly, the Appellant is not its do not consider any eidler, 348 N.A.2d 780 Deerwood Drive for access purposes adjacent to the overpass. T* trnr-�a� 3 ! 1 r edit -r a tt d. Further, that the assessments could be referred directly to the Council if the owner and the staff reached a general agreement relative to the assessments. All members voted in favor. ANNA S. HEUER - PROJECT X1372 I -35E STREETS & UTILITIES Mr. Colbert briefly reviewed the assessments covering the sidewalk and street assessments proposed to be assessed against the Anna Heuer property on the south side of Deerwood Drive, noting there t*qy�04.08 assessable front feet. He also indicated that there would be a future project covering the easterly extension of Deerwood Drive to Pilot Knob Road at which time it would be anticipated that the balance of the Heuer property would be assessed for street and sidewalk improvements. Mrs. Heuer's son was present and had objections to the assessments. Egan moved, Blomquist seconded the motion to continue the consideration of the assessments with the staff to review the same items as directed by the committee relative to the Francis Franz property. All voted yes. GEORGE & MIRIAM MALL - PROJECT #411 PATRICK EAGAN TRUNK STORM SEWER The next item brought before the Committee dealt with the objections of Mr. and Mrs. George Nall regarding the large lot credit applied to the approximately 4 acre parcel owned by them on the east side of Pilot Knob Road, south of proposed Pilot Point Addition. Mr. Colbert stated the property is not homesteaded and that the large lot policy of the City covers parcels less than 5 acres in size providing for 16,000 square f, t of assessment for each assessable acre. The Nalls requested to be included within the large lot 3 TABLE OF A ORITIES - PAGE CASES: Bakke vs. Bakke, C4-84-110 (Minn.Ct App. Ju y 10, 1984) . . . . . 3, 6 Bogen vs. Bogen, 261 N.W. 2d 606 (M nn.S.0 1977) . . . . . . . . 9 Faus vs. Faus, 319 N.W. 2d 408 at 12 (Mi n.S.Ct. 1982) . . 9, 10 Gale vs. Commissioner of Taxation, 28 Mi 345,,.. 37 N.W. 2d 711 (1949) . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 Kelly vs. Kelly, C6-83-1863 (Minn.Ct App. May.29, 1984) . . . . . 8 Kreidler'vs. Kreidler, 348 N.W. 2d 7 0 ( inn.Ct.App. 1984) . . . . 5, 6 Letourneau vs. Letourneau, C3-83-1710 (M nn.Ct.App.. July 6, 1984) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 Reck vs. Reek, 346 N.W. 2d 675 (Minn.0 Ap. 1984) . . . . . . . . 9 Ruzic vs. Ruzic, 218 N.W. 2d 502 (Minn. .Ct. 1979) . . . . . . . 8 .. .. - Schmitz vs. Schmitz, 309 N.W. 2d 748 ( i n.S.Ct. 1981) . . . . . . 2, 7, 8 Smith vs. Smith, 626 P.2d 342 (Sup.Ct. r. 1981) . . . . . . . 5 Stassen vs. Stassen, C8-83-1492 (Minn Ct.A p. June,19, 1984) 8, 9 STATUTES: Minn. Stat. 518.17- . . . 3, 6 - Minn. Stat.o518.17,-Subd. 4. .- 2, 3, 4,-5 Minn. Stat. 518.17, Subd. 5: . ... . . . .. . . . . . . . 2, 3, 5, Minn. Stat. 518.551, Subd. 5 . . ., .. . . . . . . . . . 2 Minn. Stat. 518.58 ..... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8, 10 Minn. Stat. '645.17 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 SECONDARY AUTHORITIES: Franks, "How to Calculate Child Support", 86 Case & Comment 3 ('Jana Feb. 1981). policy and alsot' he ponding area to the east of the property should not be assessed. Mariam Nall was present and explained the peculiar circumstances of the parcel. The staff recommended tq after reviewing topography ,and-- configuration and ex#�g proposed future development of the propertyr' ll highly unlikely that the 4 acre parcel would ever be subdivided and recommended that the parcel be classified as a large lot and given the appropriate credits. Egan moved, Vogt seconded the motion to accept the staff recommendations and recommend to the City Council that � laarge lot policy be adopted and that an agreement be entered into between the City and the Nalls, providing that in the event that the property is subdivided or developed in the future, that the existing rates for the development zoned category, then be assessed against the property. Mrs. Nall indicated that she had no objection to the proposal. All members voted in favor. ANTHONY CAPONI, THOMAS ROONEY & THOMAS BERGIN - PROJECT #411 PATRICK EAGAN TRUNK STORM SEWER Mr. Colbert introduced the subject and indicated that the three owners mentioned above who have objected to the assessments, own property south of Deerwood Drive and generally west of Patrick Eagan Park. He stated that generally the property lies within the major drainage district outletting to Patrick Eagan Park. Mr. Bergin indicated that he would not be able to be present at the meeting. The objections generally were that the property did not drain directly into Patrick Eagan Park Pond, but rather into the pond further south which was not having storm sewer improvements installed at the present time. Two lawsuits have been started, including that by Mr. Caponi and Mr. Rooney to enjoin the City from proceeding with the assessme . UT Project #411 has been authorized by the City Council to be installed. Larry Nielson appeared for Mr. Caponi�and Mr. Rooney,_ ice, 4 The trial court determined child support in accordance with Minn. Stat. 518.17, based primarily upon the total net income of the parties. The trial court assessed t e fairness of the result by noting that it left the Petitioner with mo than her claimed needs. It left Respondent with much less than his alai ed needs. An alternative method, used in Oregon, reinforces the fairne s of the result. To require more support would in effect require the Resp ndent to supp t the Appellant's two children by a previous marriage. Under the facts of his case, the trial court justifiably departed from the child s pport guid lines. The Appellant has not met her burden of proving the trial ourt err as a matter of law. DID THE TRIAL CLEARLY A GREATER SHARE OF THE MARITAL IMPROVEMENTS MADE PRIMARILY BY R The trial court made marital and non -marital port Schmitz vs. Schmitz, 309 N.W not challenged here by Appel', of the marital portion of thi lien of $6,415.00 which amoun to improvements financed by and 50% of the $1,821.00 mai inflation of housing prices. The increase in value d II S DISCRETION IN AWARDING TO RESPONDENT A IN THE HOMESTEAD BASED UPON EXTENSIVE ings as to the value of the home and the s o the homestead based upon the formula of d 748 (Minn.S.Ct. 1981) and these findings are nt. W t Appellant challenges is the division home. The trial court awarded the Respondent a -s to 75 of the $7,340.00 increase in value due he part es and made primarily by the Respondent ital p rtion of the $5,460.00 increase due to flation was allocated according to the 7 M=a oGney--appeared and objected to the following: 1. The cost of the entire project is less than the amount of the 1. proposed assessments. Y2 -e --t- 2. Z15e the property is not benefited to the exteneing proposed to be assessed. 3. *e Hilltop Estates Addition to the west is not being assessed for improvements. 4. %at he excess amount of money necessary to install the improvements be paid from the general revenue fund. It was noted that the assessments are not necessarily commensurate with the cost of the project, but that the funds are taken from a general storm sewer trunk fund and eventually, land in the entire City will be assessed for storm sewer trunk purposes. Tony Caponi appeared and stated that there was not adequate benefit and suggested additional ponding of water in JP -8 and Patrick Eagan Park Lake, with some overland outflow, rather than storm sewer pipes. It was noted that an outlet from JP -7 will be required at some time in the very near future. Kathleen Boyle appeared as an owner of the property along Deerwood Drive and stated that she and her husband had not been notified of the hearing for the improvements. Mr. Nielson indicated that unless the City Attorney were to hear otherwise, that answers to the two lawsuits could be continu���ejjd indefinitely. Tfter extended discussion, Blomquist moved to continue ?l consideration of the request until a later meeting, but there was no second and the motion died. Next, Egan moved, Vogt seconded the motion to recommend the proposed assessment be referred back to the Council to review the feasibility of expanding Project 0411 to include Pond JP -7 and further, that the Caponi property and Rooney property be deleted from Project 0411 but �e included in a proposed future storm sewer project. All voted in favor except Rydrich who abstained. E The Appellant claims that' the' trial' court"erred in setting the support figure so -as to keep\he Respondent, from -having to work long'overtime hours to meet his expenses of $1,500.00 per month and she cites Bakke vs: Bskke. C4 -84- -I inn. Ct:App.July 0, 1984) to that effect. Bakke does say -that private debts, personal invest ents and luxury purchases-can't"be con'si'dered in setting support. The't ial court's' award of' support 'ties a completely different rationale. It is used primarily on the incomes of the parties, and the 'needs ofl the'parties`a used'as'a'point of reference'to assess the fairness of the result. They imply"aff'rm that'the child'support award is -fair, and- just: The Respondent' transp rtation expenses are high', bu't they rare necessary for him-to'earn he'in ome`to pay ch'iTd "support. They 'are different from what would 'general) b considered''"private debts" because they 'rare ordinary and 'necessary expense "hat will remainr'in one''form or another even if different vehicles are A ed: Only a small' amount of the $1,500:00 'relates' to the Respondent's cle and the motorcycle 'is"important alternative transportation.' -Tl int'`tias' the luxury -'of an 'unencumbered car,' partly due to the Respondefo ts; 'and she critioizes him for having to make monthly payments for 'hisnsp station. "The Respondent 'could have been debt=free if tfe' tiad' not bgen 'rows' in helping" purchase Appellant's oar outri'ght'and in'all'ocating ome "rehabilitating Appellant's home.• 'The Appellant suggests thponde 'Work '',extensive overtime to 'meet his needs,''but'she' is certainlyfering to work" part`time'to`help'support 'Christopher.' The interests �ofopher' ke"priority and 'this is 'why the Re'spondent'is willing to work spme' overtime' Apparently, 'the Appellant is not •willing to make an equivalent sac'rifi'ce.`' Some 'courts do not'c'on"sirder'a� overtime in setting support;) see tKreidl 'r vi `'Rreidl'er', '348 'N.W.2d 780 (Minn.Ct.App. 1984); while here 5 hours-06r week was considered: IN HEIDE SCHIELA - PROJECT #383 - SCHWANZ LAKE TRUNK STORM SEWER The Committee next reviewed the proposed assessments against Heide Schie1 Flo ate on Dodd Road, covering a 9.95 acre parcel. It was noted that the size of the parcel precluded its being considered a large lot under the City policy, but that the assessment clerk had deducted 20% for future right- of-way dedication and also 2.2 acres of existing pond over the eastern portion of the property. Attorney Ried Hanson appeared and noted the main objection consisted of a 200 foot NSP easement, indicating it would not be a benefit to that property. He also indicated that the water generally drains into the pond on the Schiela property and there is no increase in value because the water is still there. Further, in 1981, the City gave credit for the NSP easement for the area water and sanitary sewer assessments. After discussion, Blomquist moved, Egan seconded the motion to recommend to the City Council that an agreement be entered into to consider the entire policy as a large lot to provide for 16,500 square feet of assessment per acre, due to the unusual configuration of the property, the large NSP easement and noted that because of those circumstances, would not be considered as a precedent. All members voted in favor. ALBERT PERRON - PROJECT 0371SR WATER TREATMENT PLANT TRUNK STORM SEWER Mr. Colbert reviewed with the Council the proposed assessments against the Albert Perron property on the north side of Yankee Doodle Road, noting that 11.38 acres of the Perron property was being assessed with a 20% credit, resulting in 9.1 acres at the agricultural rate of 0.4314 per square foot. Reid Hanson, attorney, again appeared and objected to the City land not being assessed for improvements, but it was noted that none of the City property is being assessed for this purpose and that the rate is a predetermined rate on E TABLE OF:- AUTHORITIES PAGE CASES: . Bakke vs..Bakke, C4-84-110 (Minn.0 .App. July 10, 1984) . . . . . 3, 6 Bogen vs. Bogen, 261 N.W. 2d:606 Minn.S.Ct. 977) . . . . . . . . 9 Faus,vs. Faus, 319.N.W. 2d 408 t 412 (Minn. .Ct. 1982) . . 9,'10 Gale vs. Commissioner of .Taxati 228 Minn. 45,,. 37 N.W. 2d 711 (1949) . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 Kelly vs. Kelly, C6-83-1863 (Mi Ct.App., Ma 29, 1984) . . . . . 8 Kreidler vs. Kreidler, 348 N.W. d 780 (Minn. t.App. 1984) 5, 6 Letourneau vs. Letourneau, C3-83- 710 (Minn. t.App. July 6, 1984) . . . . o, , . . . . . . . . . . 3 Reck vs,. Reek, 396 N.W. 2d 675'(Mi n.Ct.Ap. 984) . . . . . . . . 9 Ruzic.vs. Ruzic,-218 N.W..2d 502 ( nn.S.Ct 1979)-. 8 Schmitz vs. -Schmitz, 309 N.W. 2d 748 (Minn. .Ct. 1981) 2, :7, 8 Smith vs. Smith, 626 P.2d 342 (Sup.Ct Or.. 81) 5 Stassen vs. Stassen, C8-83-1492 (Minn. t.A p. June.. 19, 1984) 8, 9 STATUTES: 11 \I a Minn. Stat. 518.17 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3, 6 Minn. Stat. 518.17, Subd. 4. . . . . . . . . . . . 2, 3, 4, 5 Minn. Stat. 518.17, Subd. 5. . . . . . . 2, 3, 5, Minn. Stat. 518.551, Subd. 5 . . . . . . . . \ 2 Minn. Stat. 518.58 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8, 10 Minn. Stat. 645.17 . . . . . . . ". . . . . . 8 SECONDARY AUTHORITIES: Franks., "How.to Calculate.Child Support", 86 Case 6 Comment 3 (Jan. Feb. 1981). (ii) an annual basis and not effected by the amount of the area being assessed within a drainage district. Another objection was that the property was not b benefited to the extent to b ssessedw aad Jhe staff recommended approval of A the assessment roll. Vogt moved, Rydrich seconded the motion to recommend to the City Council that the assessment roll covering the Perron property be adopted. All voted in favor. ARTHUR KOESTNER - PROJECT 0384 WALDEN HEIGHTS TRUNK STORM SEWER Assessment objection has been received from Arthur Koestner, an owner of property in Twin View Manor, noting that $711.00 was proposed to be assessed after applying the large lot assessment policy, whereby only 16,500 square feet were assessed. The City Attorney and Public Works Director met with Mr. Koestner and reviewed the basis of Wobjectior!� noting that Mr. Koestner I does not qualify for the Senior. Citizens Deferment. Mr. Koestner did not appear but indicated that he was not going to further object to the assessments. Upon motion by Egan, seconded Vogt, it was resolved to recommend approval of the assessments to the City Council. All members voted aye. GOPHER SMELTING CO. - PROJECT 0381 BORCHERT INGERSOLL TRUNK STORM SEWER Project 0381 covers the lift station and trunk storm sewer outlet from Borchert Ingersoll Pond, part of which property is located on he Gopher Smelting property. Mr. Colbert indicated a meeting had been hiith Mark Kutoff and the general objections were as follows: 1. The assessments are premature for development of the property. 2. The rough topography of the property precludes t feasible development based upon the amount of assessments being proposed., ` 3. The amount of assessments is disproportionate to the overall cost of the project. 7 The trial court determined child support in accordance with Minn. Stat. 518.17, based primarily \ Von the total net income of the parties. The trial court assessed the fair as of the result by noting that it left the Petitioner with more than her claimed needs. It left Respondent with much less than his claimed nee 11 An alternative method, used in Oregon, reinforces the fairness of th result. To require more support would in effect require the Respondent o support the Appellant's two children by a previous marriage. Under the facts of this case, the trial court justifiably departed from the child support uidelines. The Appellant has not met her burden of proving the trial court a re� as a matter of law. II DID THE TRIAL CLEARLY ABUSE IT GREATER SHARE OF THE MARITAL INTER] IMPROVEMENTS MADE PRIMARILY BY The trial court made express nding: marital and non -marital portions f the Schmitz vs. Schmitz, 309 N.W.2d 748 (Mini not challenged here by Appellant. What 1 of the marital portion of the ho e. The lien of $6,415.00 which amounts 75% of to improvements financed by the arties e and 50% of the $1,821.00 marita port RETION IN AWARDING TO RESPONDENT A THE HOMESTEAD BASED UPON EXTENSIVE z to the value of the home and the nestead based upon the formula of .Ct. 1981) and these findings are ellant challenges is the division ial court awarded the Respondent a is $7,340.00 increase in value due made primarily by the Respondent of the $5,460.00 increase due to inflation of housing prices. \1 j The increase in value due to inflation was allocated according to the Y1 Ried Hanson appeared for the property owner and stated the following objections: 1. The assessments are more than the total cost of the property. 2. That other land is being drained into the Borchert Pond and therefore Gopher Smelting is required to help pay for the assessments caused by excess water from property outside of the drainage district. It was noted that part of the Gopher Smelting property is developed, that the outlet from Borchert Pond was put in out of sequence but would have resulted from earlier assessments, had it been installed in regular sequential order. It was further noted that there is an approved PUD on the property, and that the property is zoned, the land is presently being marketed and thorn increase in value comes from the ability to discharge water into the pond. After extended discussion, Blomquist moved, Vogt seconded the motion to recommend that the assessment roll covering the property be approved and forwarded to the City Council. All voted in favor. JAY TSCHERNE - PROJECT #317 - BLACKHAWK ROAD STREETS & UTILITIES Tom Colbert addressed the entire project and noted there are four objecting property owners on Blackhawk Road covering streets and utilities in that general vicinity. He noted that Blackhawk Road is a municipal state aid street and certain design standards must be complied with. The four objecting property owners did not petition for the improvements and expressed objections at the time of the original public hearing. A meeting had been held with the owners by the City Public Works Director and City Attorney to review the concerns, including objections that the amount of the assessment. exceeded the benefit to the property the amount of the assessment is excessive, as to what each property owner can afford on a monthly and yearly basis. It was noted 1*1 The Appellant claims that the trial court erred in setting the support figure so as to keep the Res \ondent from having to work long overtime hours to meet his expenses of $1,500.0 \ per month and she cites Bakke VS. Bakke. C4-84- 110 (Minn.Ct.App.July 10, 1984) to that effect. Bakke does say that private debts, personal investments \nd luxury purchases can't be considered in setting support. The trial court's ward of support has a completely different rationale. It is based \ rimari y on the incomes of the parties, and the needs of the parties are use as point of reference to assess the fairness of the result. They simpl of rm that the child support award is fair and just. The Respondent's tran po tation expenses are high, but they are necessary for him to earn the in me to pay child support. They are different from what would generally be c nsidered "private debts" because they are ordinary and necessary expenses the ill remain in one form or another even if different vehicles are obtained. On y a small amount of the $1,500.00 relates to the Respondent's motorcy le an the motorcycle is important alternative transportation. The Appel ant has the luxury of an unencumbered car, partly due to the Respondent's of orts, and she criticizes him for having to make monthly payments for his tr sportation The Respondent could have been debt -free if he had not been so generous in helping purchase Appellant's car outright and in allocating his i come to rehabilitating Appellant's home. The Appellant suggests that He pondent wori extensive overtime to meet his needs, but she is certainly not ffering to work part time to help support Christopher. The interests of Christopher takq/priority and this is why the Respondent is willing to work some pvertime. Apparently, the Appellant is not willing to make an equivalent sacrificZ ome courts do not consider ayovertime in setting support; sel Rrei vs. Rreidler. 348 N.W.2d 780 (Minn.Ct.App. 1984); while here 5 hour. er week was considered. 3 that Dan Dwyer, an appraiser, has been hired by the City Council to evaluate the increase in valuation, but that the appraisals for the City have not been completed. Dan Beeson, attorney, appeared for the Tschernes and indicated the best use is single family and noted several unique features, including the 340 feet of frontage with 800 foot depth, the topography is very rough, including swamp, steep terrain and the neighboring owner is not ready to develop the property aand ,Zd1so the location of the residence detracts from the benefit to the property, based upon the proposed assessments. Roger Rohrer, appraiser for the Tschernes, also appeared and indicated that the Tscherne paid $70,000.00 for the property three years ago, the value is not much more today, and it is being used as single family, although the Comprehensive Land Use Guide is R -III. He stated that the assessments would not create a great deal more value even by tearing down the house on the property. He stated that townhouses may be a logical use, and if the house weren't there, the value DU ) would increase by perhaps $15,000.00 to $20,000.00, wh4reupetr-$5,000.00 with the house remaining on the property. Egan moved to forward the assessment objections to the City Council without recommendation. There was no second and the motion died. Rydrich then moved, Blomquist seconded the motion to recommend to the City Council that the staff recommendations be adopted with the maximum assessment based upon the appraisal submitted by the City's appraiser and in the event of development, or subdivision of the property in the future, that the assessment be increased commensurate &o,t' he area not being assessed at the present time, and that the assessments then be levied at the then current rates. All members voted yes. JAMES ASHWORTH - PROJECT 0317 - BLACKHAWK ROAD STREETS 8 UTILITIES Mr. Colbert also reviewed the Ashworth property lying on the west side of I A1 TABLE OF, O'R`ITIES PAGE SECONDARY AUTHORITIES: Franks, "How to Calculate Child Support", 86 Case &:Comment 3 (Jan:'Feb. 1981).' ' (ii) CASES: App. July Bakke vs. Bakke, C4-84-11J408t 10, 1984) . . . . . 3, 6 Bogen vs. Bogen, 261 N.W.nn.S.Ct. 1977) . . . . . . . . 9 Faus vs. Faus, 319 N.W. 12 1982) (Minn;.y 9, 10 Gale vs. Commissioner of 28 Minn. 345,37 N.W. 2d 711-(1949 ... . . . . . . 8 Kelly. vs. Kelly, C6-83-1863 (Mi n.Ct.App., 29., 1984) 8 Kreidler vsr. Kreidler, 348 N.W. d -780 -(Min .Ct.App. 1984) 5,16: Letourneau vs. Letourneau, C3-83- 710 -(Min :Ct.App. July 6, 1984) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 Reck vs. Reck, 346 N.W. 2d 675 (Mi .Ct.A 1984) . . . . . . 9 Ruzic vs. Ruzic, 218 N.W. 2d 502 (Mi n.S. t. 1979) . . . . . . . . 8 Schmitz vs. Schmitz, 309 N.W. 2d 748 Mi n.S.Ct. 1981) . . . . 2, 7, 8 Smith vs. Smith, 626 P.2d 342 (Sup.Ct. 1981) . . . . . . . . . 5 Stassen vs. Stassen, C8-83-1492 (Minn.0 .App. June 19, 1984) . . . 8, 9 STATUTES: Minn. Stat. 518.17. . . . . ., 3, 6 Minn. -Stat -518.17, Subd. 4.,. 2, 34''4; 5 Minn. State -518.17, Subd. 5... 2, 3, 5, Minn. Stat. 518.551-; • Subd. 5 . 2 Minn. Stat. 518.58 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8'.10. Minn. Stat. 645.17. 8 SECONDARY AUTHORITIES: Franks, "How to Calculate Child Support", 86 Case &:Comment 3 (Jan:'Feb. 1981).' ' (ii) Blackhawk Road. Mr. Ashworth was present and objected to the total amount of the assessment proposed to be assessed against his property and that the assessments were not being spread equitably amongst the individual parcels. He noted that the pond to the west is increased in its level, that there is intense development around the property and the grading on the adjacent lots is higher than his property. He further objected, based upon lack of benefit and requested reduction in the assessment. Egan moved, Vogt seconded the motion to recommend to the City Council that the maximum amount of assessments be based upon the City's appraisal covering benefit to the property and that an agreement be entered into with the property owner /hat the assessments to the property be increased at such time as the development or subdivision of the property takes place, commensurate with the assessment rates then in effect. All members voted yes. ROBERT KRUGER - PROJECT #317 - BLACKHAWK ROAD STREETS & UTILITIES Mr. Kruger appeared and noted that the north half of his property is zoned Neighborhood Business with the south half zoned Agricultural. Mr. Colbert stated that the assessment policy concerning reduction of assessments for single family purposes, generally cover only homesteaded property and in the event that the north half was reduced to Agicultural or Single Family residential rates, the assessment would be reduced by about $4,400.00. Mr. Kruger also indicated a severe driveway access problem has resulted due to the road improvements. Mr. Egan indicated that the owners along Blackhawk Road should be prepared for the September 18 hearing with an appraiser and with a representative on their behalf, if they desire to do so. Egan moved, Vogt seconded the motion to recommend that the City Council approve the assessment roll based upon the City appraiser's evaluation of benefit and that the 10 The trial court determined child support in accordance with Minn. Stat. 518.17, based primarily upon the total net income of the parties. The trial court assessed the fairness of the res It by noting that it left the Petitioner with more than H\r claimed need It left Respondent with much less than his claimed nee S. An alterative method, used in Oregon, reinforces the fairness of the result. T require more support would in effect require the Responden 7t`o support he Appellant's two children by a previous marriage. Under the facts of thi case, the trial court justifiably departed from the child supportguidelin s. The Appellant has not met her burden of proving the trial court eared as a matter of law. DID THE TRIAL CLEARLY ABUSE ITS IN AWARDING TO RESPONDENT A GREATER SHARE OF THE MARITAL INTEREST NrE HOMESTEAD BASED UPON EXTENSIVE IMPROVEMENTS MADE PRIMARILY BY RESPOND The trial court made express fin ngs a's to the value of the home and the marital and non -marital portions of he ho estead based upon the formula of Schmitz vs. Schmitz, 309 N.W.2d 748 (Minn. .Ct. 1981) and these findings are not challenged here by Appellant. hat Ap ellant challenges is the division of the marital portion of the hom/. The ial court awarded the Respondent a lien of $6,415.00 which amounts td 75% of the $7,340.00 increase in value due to improvements financed by thei�iarties and made primarily by the Respondent and 50% of the $1,821.00 marital por ion of the $5,460.00 increase due to inflation of housing prices. The increase in value due to inflation was allocated according to the 7 Neighborhood Business parcel on the north be assessed at an R-1 Single F wily residential rate, and in the event that the property is upgradedor subdivided in the future, that the property then be assessed at the then existing rates for that use. All members voted yes. DAROLD HOLDEN - PROJECT #317 - BLACRHAWK ROAD STREETS & UTILITIES Mr. and Mrs. Holden were present and Mr. Holden strongly objected to the assessments being proposed to be levied against the Holden property. He indicated that it's not economical to run a sanitary sewe rftothe rear of his. property where his residence is located and further that a pond has been created on the west side of his property that did not have water prior to the MnDOT construction of I -35E. After extended discussion, Egan moved, Vogt seconded the motion to recommend to the City Council that the assessments be based upon the City Appraiser's determination of benefit to the property, that it not exceed the amount appraised, and further subject to an agreement being entered into providing that in the event of subdivision or upgrading of the property e then existing assessment rates covering the property, be implemented and assessed. All members voted yea. HERBERT BERGSTROM - PROJECT #368 - ROBIN LANE - STREETS Tom Colbert reviewed with the Committee the improvements to Robin Lane and the cooperation given by Mr. and Mrs. Bergstrom toward granting easements for the newly reconstructed Robin Lane. He noted that the objection covered Lot 10 on the Bergstrom property, consisting of a triangular parcel and recommended that the front footage be reduced by 70 feet from 243 feet to 173 feet due to the strange configuration of the property. This would result in an increase in the assessment per front foot along the street. Mr. Bergstrom was present and stated that he felt that the reduction should be greater than 70 feet,.e noted that the gas easement and street easement infringe on the 11 The Appellant claims that the trial court erred in setting the support figure so as to keep the Respondent from having to work long overtime hours to meet his expenses of $1,5001 per month and she cites Bakke vs. Bakke, C4-84- 110 (Minn.Ct.App. July 10, 198 \) to that effect. Bakke does say that private debts, personal investments and luxury rchases can't be considered in setting support. The trial 1ourt's awa of support has a completely different rationale. It is basedrimarily n the incomes of the parties, and the needs of the parties are us d as. a int of reference to assess the fairness of the result. They simp y affi m that the child support award is fair and dust. The Respondent's tra spor ation expenses are high, but they are necessary for him to earn the i cc to pay child support. They are different from what would generally be co sidered "private debts" because they are ordinary and necessary expenses tha will remain in one form or another even if different vehicles are obtained. Only a small amount of the $1,500.00 relates to the Respondent's motorcyc and the motorcycle is important alternative transportation. The Appel an has the luxury of an unencumbered car, partly due to the Respondent's of ort , and she criticizes him for having to make monthly payments for hi7sgen spo tation. The Respondent could have been debt -free if he had not beeroux in helping purchase Appellant's car outright and in allocating hime to rehabilitating Appellant's home. The Appellant suggests that ant work extensive overtime to meet his needs, but she is certainly not off ring to work part time to help support Christopher. The interests of Christ pher take priority and this is why the Respondent is willing to work some o ertime. Apparently, the Appellant is not willing to make an equivalent orifice. Some courts do not consider any overtime in setting support; see Rreidler vs. Rreidler, 948 N.W.2d 780 (Minn.Ct.App. 1984); while here 5 hours per week was considered. U property and that the property may not be buildable except for single family purposes. Committee members inquired whether the triangle was being used to determine density for the balance of the area, noting that the property had been approved for 25 townhouse units. After extended discussion, Blomquist moved, Vogt seconded the motion to accept the staff recommendation with the understanding that the applicant can apply to the City and request a higher density which would be considered by the Planning Commission and Council, based upon the uses, noting that no guarantee of increase in density could be given by the Committee. All members voted yes. SPECIAL ASSESSMENT DEFERMENT POLICY ORDINANCE A proposed Ordinance revision in Chapter 2 covering deferment of special assessments was submitted and recommended for approval by the staff. Mr. Colbert reviewed the deferment policy with the Council and noted that eleven twin city area cities have been contacted and asked whether they had deferment policies due to financial hardship. None of the cities had t v r ordinance/ or polioieA/indicating that requests were reviewed on a case by case basis. After d`isl6oussion9 Blomquist moved, Egan seconded the motion to Ct recommend the amendmaatt.Je the Ordinance for-a*+��orza� o All members voted yes. ADJOURNMENT Upon motion duly made and seconded, the meeting adjourned at 10:35 p.m. PHH 12 TABLE OF CASES: PAGE Bakke vs. Bakke, C4-84-110 (Minn.Ct.Ap July 10, 1984) 3, 6 Bogen vs. Bogen, 261 N.W. 2d 606 (Mi .S.Ct. 1977) . . . . . . . . 9 Faus vs. Faus, 319 N.W. 2d 408 at 12 (Minnis xt. 1982).. . 9, 10 Gale vs., Commissioner of.Taxatiom, 228 Minn. 345,,- 37 N.W. 2d 711 (1949) . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 Kelly vs. Kelly, C6-83-1863 (Min .Ct.App., May 29, 1984) 8 Kreidler vs. Kreidler , 348 N.W. d 780 (MinnlCt.App. 1984).. . . . 5, 6 Letourneau vs. Letourneau, C3-8.-1710 (Minn.0 .App. July 6, 1984) ... 3 :=-198 Reck-vs. Reck,-3461N.W., 2d•6750,(Min.sxt. 9 Ruzic vs. Ruzic, 218•N.W. 2d,5: 979) 8- Schmitz vs. Schmitz, 309 N.W. .S.Ct. 198) . . . . . . 2, 7, 8 Smith -.vs. Smith, 626 P.2d342 981) -. . . 5Stassen vs. Stassen, C8 -83-149p. June 1 1984) 8, 9•' i STATUTES: Minn. Stat. 518.17 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3, 6 Minn. Stat. 518.17, Subd.' 4. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2, 3, 4, 5 Minn. Stat. 518.17, Subd. 5. . . . . . . . . 2, 3, 5, Minn. Stat. 518.551, Subd. 5 . . . . . . . . . . 2 _. Minn. Stat. 518.58 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8, 10 Minn. Stat. 645.17 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 SECONDARY•AUTHORITIES: Franks,••"How to Calculate.Child Support", f' 86 Case 6 Comment 3 (Jan. Feb. 1981). (ii) E 0 MINUTES OF A lERTING OF THE SPECIAL ASSESSMENT COMMITTEE EAGAN, lINNE6TA OCTOBER 9, 1984 A meeting of the Eagan Special Assessment Committee was held on Tuesday, October 9, 1984 at 4:00 p.m. at the Eagan Municipal Center. Present were Chairman Don Knight, Mayor Blomquist, Dale Vogt, Councilman Tom Egan, and Bill Hydrich. Absent was Garrett Mulrooney. Mayor Blomquist chaired the meeting until Don Knight arrived at about 5:00 p.m. Also present were Public Works Director Tom Colbert and City Attorney Paul Hauge. AGENDA Vogt moved, Egan seconded the motion to approve the Agenda as presented. All voted yes. The Public Works Director, Tom lbert, explained to the persons present the purpose of the meeting being aarormal meeting to review special assess- ments where circumstances warranted review prior to City Council adoption. He indicated that property owners with specific questions were invited to attend the meeting and to present information that would be helpful to the members of the assessment committee in making recommendations to.the Council. FRANCIS C. FRANZ - PROJECT #372 I-359 STREETS A UTILITIES Mr. Colbert reviewed the proposed assessments along Deerwood Drive cover- ing the Francis Franz property, noting the assessments have arisen primarily because of the improvement of I -35E and Deerwood Drive in that vicinity. A portion of the improvements have been installed by the Minnesota Department of Transportation through a Cost Participation Agreement with lateral benefit, trunk watermain, trunk area and lateral storm sewer, street, sidewalk and bituminous trailway construction in the area. Pat Farrell, attorney with the firm of Grannis, Campbell, Farrell and Knutson, P.A. of South St. Paul, appeared for Mr. Franz and Mr. Franz also was present. The matter had been continued from the July 30, 1984 Special Assessment Committee meeting at the request of the property owner. Mr. Farrell had objections to the assessment regarding sidewalk assess- ments on collector streets, that the property has not benefited any more greatly than other property in the general area. There were objections to the rate of the storm sewer assessments against the property, noting that there are three residue parcels after the MnDOT acquisition and also that the City is attempting to assess for improvements that have been paid for through the State of Minnesota. Mr. Colbert indicated that the assessments for street 1 0 0 Assessment Minutes October 9, 1984 improvements is based upon a residential equivalent and there was also discus- sion concerning the proposed sidewalk assessment and whether it ought to be on a residential equivalent basis. After extended discussion, Egan moved, Blomquist seconded the motion to continue consideration of the objections until a later assessment committee meeting to allow the staff to research the following issues: a. To review and submit a proposed assessment policy for sidewalks. b. To recommend revisions to the lateral assessments for areas where setback requirements may prevent building permits or specific uses under existing ordinances. c. To review City policy covering residential access locations on collector streets, including the State requirements concerning setbacks on Deerwood Drive for access purposes adjacent to the overpass. d. Further, that the assessments could be referred directly to the Council if the owner and the staff reached a general agreement relative to the assessments. All members voted in favor. ARRA S. HE06R - PROJECT #372 I-356 STREETS A OTII.ITI&4 Mr. Colbert briefly reviewed the assessments covering the sidewalk and street assessments proposed to be assessed against the Anna Heuer property on the south side of Deerwood Drive, noting there are 304.08 assessable front feet. He also indicated that there would be a future project covering the easterly extension of Deerwood Drive to Pilot Knob Road at which time it would be anticipated that the balance of the Heuer property would be assessed for street and sidewalk improvements. Mrs. Heuer's son was present and had objec- tions to the assessments. Egan moved, Blomquist seconded the motion to con- tinue the consideration of the assessments with the staff to review the same items as directed by the committee relative to the Francis Franz property. All voted yes. 2 Assessment Minutes October 9, 1984 GEORGE 6 NIHIAM HALL - PROJECT #411 PATRICK EAGAN TRUNK STORK SEVER The next item brought before the Committee dealt with the objections of Mr, and Mrs. George Nall regarding the large lot credit applied to the approximately 4 acre parcel owned by them on the east side of Pilot Knob Road, south of proposed Pilot Point Addition. Mr. Colbert stated the property is }ot homesteaded and that the large lot olicy of the City covers parcels less /than 5 acres in size providing for 16, 0 square feet of assessment for each 111/// assessable acre. The Nalls requeste to be included within the large lot policy and also that the ponding area to the east of the property should not be assessed. Mariam Nall was present and explained the peculiar circumstances of the parcel. The staff recommended after reviewing topography configuration and proposed future development of the property, that it is highly unlikely that the 4 acre parcel would ever be subdivided and recommended that the parcel be classified as a large lot and given the appropriate credits. Egan moved, Vogt seconded the motion to accept the staff recommendations and recom- mend to the City Council that the large lot policy be adopted and that an agreement be entered into between the City and the Nalls, providing that in the event that the property is subdivided or developed in the future, that the existing rates for the development zoned category, then be assessed against the property. Mrs. Nall indicated that she had no objection to the proposal. All members voted in favor. ANTHONY CAPONI, THOMAS ROONEY & THOMAS RERGIN - PROJECT #411 PATRICK EAGAN TRUNK STORK SEVER Mr. Colbert introduced the subject and indicated that the three owners mentioned above who have objected to the assessments, own property south of Deerwood Drive and generally west of Patrick Eagan Park. He stated that generally the property lies within the major drainage district outletting to Patrick Eagan Park. Mr. Bergin indicated that he would not be able to be present at the meeting. The objections generally were that the property did not drain directly into Patrick Eagan Park Pond, but rather into the pond further south which was not having storm sewer improvements installed at the present time. Two lawsuits have been started, including that by Mr. Caponi and Mr. Rooney to enjoin the City from proceeding with the assessments. Project #411 has been authorized by the City Council to be installed. Larry Nielson appeared for Mr. Caponi and Mr. Rooney and objected to the following: 1. The cost of the entire project is less than the amount of the proposed assessments. 2. The property is not benefited to the extent that it is being pro- posed to be assessed. 3 0 Assessment Minutes October 9, 1984 0 3. Hilltop Estates Addition to the west is not being assessed for the improvements. 4. The excess amount of money necessary to install the improvements should be paid from the general revenue fund. It was noted that the assessments are not necessarily commensurate with the cost of the project, but that the funds are taken from a general storm sewer trunk fund and eventually, land in the entire City will be assessed for storm sewer trunk purposes. Tony Caponi appeared and stated that there was not adequate benefit and suggested additional ponding of water in JP -8 and Patrick Eagan Park Lake, with some overland outflow, rather than storm sewer pipes. It was noted that an outlet from JP -7 will be required at some time in the very near future. Kathleen Boyle appeared as an owner of the property along Deerwood Drive and stated that she and her husband had not been notified of the hearing for the improvements. Mr. Nielson indicated that unless the City Attorney were to hear otherwise, that answers to the two lawsuits could be continued indefinitely. After extended discussion, Blomquist moved to continue consideration of the request until a later meeting, but there was no second and the motion died. Next, Egan moved, Vogt seconded the motion to recommend the proposed assessment be referred back to the Council to review the feasibility of expanding Project 11411 to include Pond JP -7 and further, that the Caponi property and Rooney property be deleted from Project #411 but should be in- cluded in a proposed future storm sewer project. All voted in favor except Rydrich who abstained. BRIDE SCHIELA - PROJECT #383 SCHYANZ LAKE TRUNK STORM SERER The Committee next reviewed the proposed assessments against the Heide Schiela property located on Dodd Road, covering a 9.95 acre parcel. It was noted that the size of the parcel precluded its being considered a large lot under the City policy, but that the assessment clerk had deducted 20% for future right-of-way dedication and also 2.2 acres of existing pond over the eastern portion of the property. Attorney Ried Hanson appeared and noted the main objection consisted of a 200 foot NSP easement, indicating it would not be a benefit to that property. He also indicated that the water generally drains into the pond on the Schiela property and there is no increase in value because the water is still there. Further, in 1981, the City gave credit for the NSP easement for the area water and sanitary sewer assessments. After discussion, Blomquist moved, Egan seconded the motion to recommend to the City Council that an agreement be entered into to consider the entire policy as a large lot to provide for 16,500 square feet of assessment per acre, due to the unusual configuration of the property, the large NSP easement and noted that because of those circumstances, would not be considered as a precedent. All members voted in favor. 4 J Assessment Minutes October 9, 1984 0 L ALBERT PERRON - PROJECT #37138 WATER TREATMENT PLANT TRUNK STORM SEWER Mr. Colbert reviewed with the Council the proposed assessments against the Albert Perron property on the north side of Yankee Doodle Road, noting that 11.38 acres of the Perron property was being assessed with a 20% credit, resulting in 9.1 acres at the agricultural rate of 0.431d per square foot. Reid Hanson, attorney, again appeared and objected to the City land not being assessed for improvements, but it was noted that none of the City property is being assessed for this purpose and that the rate is a predetermined rate on an annual basis and not affected by the amount of the area being assessed within a drainage district. Another objection was that the property was not benefited to the extent proposed to be assessed. The staff recommended approval of the assessment roll. Vogt moved, Rydrich seconded the motion to recommend to the City Council that the assessment roll covering the Perron property be adopted. All voted in favor. ARTHUR %OESTNER - PROJECT #384 WALDEN HEIGHTS TRUNK STORM SEEM Assessment objection has been received from Arthur Roestner, an owner of property in Twin View Manor, noting that $711.00 was proposed to be assessed after applying the large lot assessment policy, whereby only 16,500 square feet were assessed. The City Attorney and Public Works Director met with Mr. Roestner and reviewed the basis of his objections, noting that Mr. Roestner does not qualify for the Senior Citizens Deferment. Mr. Roestner did not appear but indicated that he was not going to further object to the assess- ments. Upon motion by Egan, seconded Vogt, it was resolved to recommend approval of the assessments to the City Council. All members voted aye. I: � [ ya ail 1.. a;_ 1 q;{11;1: Project #381 covers the lift station and trunk storm sewer outlet from Borchert Ingersoll Pond, part of which property is located on the Gopher Smelting property. Mr. Colbert indicated a meeting had been held with Mark Rutoff and the general objections were as follows: 1. The assessments are premature for development of the property. 2. The rough topography of the property precludes feasible development based upon the amount of assessments being proposed. 3. The amount of assessments is disproportionate to the overall cost of the project. 5 0 Assessment Minutes October 9, 1984 Ried Hanson appeared for the property owner and stated the following objections: 1. The assessments are more than the total cost of the property. 2. That other land is being drained into the Borchert Pond and there- fore Gopher Smelting is required to help pay for the assessments caused by excess water from property outside of the drainage district. It was noted that part of the Gopher Smelting property is developed, that the outlet from Borchert Pond was put in out of sequence but would have resulted from earlier assessments, had it been installed in regular sequential order. It was further noted that there is an approved PUD on the property, and that the property is zoned, the land is presently being marketed and the increase in value comes from the ability to discharge water into the pond. After extended discussion, Blomquist moved, Vogt seconded the motion to recom- mend that the assessment roll covering the property be approved and forwarded to the City Council. All voted in favor. JAY TSCHERAE - PROJECT #317 - BLAC®AYH ROAD STREETS & UTILIT19S Tom Colbert addressed the entire project and noted there are four objecting property owners on Blackhawk Road covering streets and utilities in that general vicinity. He noted that Blackhawk Road is a municipal state aid street and certain design standards must be complied with. The four objecting property owners did not petition for the improvements and expressed objections at the time of the original public hearing. A meeting had been held with the owners by the City Public Works Director and City Attorney to review the concerns, including objections that the amount of the assessment exceeded the benefit to the property and the amount of the assessment is excessive as to what each property owner can afford on a monthly and yearly basis. It was noted that Dan Dwyer, an appraiser, has been hired by the City Council to evaluate the increase in valuation, but that the appraisals for the City have not been completed. Dan Beeson, attorney, appeared for the Tschernes and indicated the best use is single family and noted several unique features, including the 340 feet of frontage with 800 foot depth, the topography is very rough, including swamp, steep terrain and the neighboring owner is not ready to develop the property. Also the location of the residence detracts from the benefit to the property, based upon the proposed assessments. Roger Rohrer, appraiser for the Tschernes, also appeared and indicated that the Tscherne paid $70,000.00 for the property three years ago, the value is not much more today, and it is being used as single family, although the Comprehensive Land Use Guide is R - III. He stated that the assessments would not create a great deal more value U 0 Assessment Minutes October 9, 1984 even by tearing down the house on the property. He stated that townhouses may be a logical use, and if the house weren't there, the value would increase by perhaps $15,000.00 to $20,000.00, or $5,000.00 with the house remaining on the property. Egan moved to forward the assessment objections to the City Council without recommendation. There was no second and the motion died. Rydrich then moved, Blomquist seconded the motion to recommend to the City Council that the staff recommendations be adopted with the maximum assessment based upon the appraisal submitted by the City's appraiser and in the event of development, or subdivision of the property in the future, that the assessment be increased commensurate with the area not being assessed at the present time, and that the assessments then be levied at the then current rates. All members voted yes. JAMBES ASBVORT9 - PBOJECT #317 - BLACKRAW ROAD STREETS & UrMITIE,S Mr. Colbert also reviewed the Ashworth property lying on the west side of Blackhawk Road. Mr. Ashworth was present and objected to the total amount of the assessment proposed to be assessed against his property and that the assessments were not being spread equitably amongst the individual parcels. He noted that the pond to the west is increased in its level, that there is intense development around the property and the grading on the adjacent lots is higher than his property. He further objected, based upon lack of benefit and requested reduction in the assessment. Egan moved, Vogt seconded the motion to recommend to the City Council that the maximum amount of assessments be based upon the City's appraisal covering benefit to the property and that an agreement be entered into with the property owner, that the assessments to the property be increased at such time as the development or subdivision of the property takes place, commensurate with the assessment rates then in effect. All members voted yes. ROBERT KRUGER - PROJECT #317 - BLAC®AUB ROAD STREETS & UTILITIES Mr. Kruger appeared and noted that the north half of his property is zoned Neighborhood Business with the south half zoned Agricultural. Mr. Colbert stated that the assessment policy concerning reduction of assessments for single family purposes, generally cover only homesteaded property and in the event that the north half was reduced to Agicultural or Single Family residential rates, the assessment would be reduced by about $4,400.00. Mr. Kruger also indicated a severe driveway access problem has resulted due to the road 'improvements. Mr. Egan indicated that the owners along Blackhawk Road should be prepared for the September 18 hearing with an appraiser and with a representative on their behalf, if they desire to do so. Egan moved, Vogt seconded the motion to recommend that the City Council approve the assessment roll based upon the City appraiser's evaluation of benefit and that the Neighborhood Business parcel on the north be assessed at an R-1 Single Family residential rate, and in the event that the property is upgraded in use or subdivided in the future, that the property then be assessed at the then existing rates for that use. All members voted yes. 7 0 0 Assessment Minutes October 9, 1984 DAROLD HOLDEN - PROJECT #317 - BLACEHAN[ ROAD STREETS 8 Ornxrm Mr. and Mrs. Holden were present and Mr. Holden strongly objected to the assessments being proposed to be levied against the Holden property. He indicated that it's not economical to run a sanitary sewer line to the rear of his property where his residence is located and further that a pond has been created on the west side of his property that did not have water prior to the MnDOT construction of I -35E. After extended discussion, Egan moved, Vogt seconded the motion to recommend to the City Council that the assessments be based upon the City Appraiser's determination of benefit to the property, that it not exceed the amount appraised, and further subject to an agreement being entered into providing that in the event of subdivision or upgrading of the property that the then existing assessment rates covering the property, be implemented and assessed. All members voted yea. I HERBERT BERGSTROM - PROJECT 0368 ROBIN LANE - STREETS N d Tom Colbert reviewed with the Committee the improvements to Robin Lane and the cooperation given by Mr. and Mrs. Bergstrom toward granting easements for the newly reconstructed Robin Lane. He noted that the objection covered Lot 10 on the Bergstrom property, consisting of a triangular parcel and recom- mended that the front footage be reduced by 70 feet from 243 feet to 173 feet due to the strange configuration of the property. This would result in an increase in the assessment per front foot along the street. Mr. Bergstrom was present and stated that he felt that the reduction should be greater than 70 feet. He noted that the gas easement and street easement infringe on the property and that the property may not be buildable except for single family purposes. Committee members inquired whether the triangle was being used to determine density for the balance of the area, noting that the property had been approved for 25 townhouse units. After extended discussion, Blomquist moved, Vogt seconded the motion to accept the staff recommendation with the understanding that the applicant can apply to the City and request a higher density which would be considered by the Planning Commission and Council, based upon the uses, noting that no guarantee of increase in density could be given by the Committee. All members voted yes. A proposed Ordinance revision in Chapter 2 covering deferment of special assessments was submitted and recommended for approval by the staff. Mr. Colbert reviewed the deferment policy with the Council and noted that eleven twin city area cities have been contacted and asked whether they had deferment policies due to financial hardship. None of the cities had such an ordinance or policy indicating that such requests were reviewed on a case by case basis. After discussion, Blomquist moved, Egan seconded the motion to recommend the City Council amend to the Ordinance. All members voted yes. E Assessment Minutes October 9, 1984 Upon motion duly made and seconded, the meeting adjourned at 10:35 p.m. PHH HAUGE, EIIDE & KELLER, P.A. // lorney] a WOW TOWN CENTRE PROFESSIONAL BLDG., SUITE 200 1260 YANKEE DOODLE ROAD EAGAN, MINNESOTA 55123 (612) 456-9000 January 13, 1988 Tom Colbert City of Eagan 3830 Pilot Knob Road P.O. Box 21199 Eagan, Minnesota 55121 RE: Assessment for Street Lighting in Advance of Costs Being Incurred - Town Centre Project Dear Mr. Colbert: QUESTIONS PAULH, HAUGE KEVIN W. EIDE DAVID G. KELLER LORI M. BELLIN DEBRA E. SCHMIDT THOMAS P. LOWE You recently requested that our office look into whether it would be possible to assess for street light maintenance costs in advance of the actual user costs being incurred with respect to the above - captioned project. DISCUSSION Minnesota Statutes §429.061, Subd. 1, states as follows: "At any time after the expense incurred or to be incurred, in making an improvement shall be calculated under the direction of the Council, the Council shall determine by resolution, the amount of the total expense a municipality will pay, other than the amount, if any, which it will pay as a property owner, and the amount to be assessed. (emphasis added)" Minnesota Statutes §429.101 allows for special assessments to be instituted against a benefited property for the operation of a street lighting system. The Council may, by ordinance, adopt regulations allowing the benefited property owner to pay the charges and costs for this operation when due prior to the unpaid charges being made a special asseEsment against the property. The question here would be, when do the charges become due. I would venture to state that the most common definition of the term "when payment is due" implies that some sort of service or product has been previously rendered. Therefore, §429.101 may not clearly allow for a pre -assessment. The Eagan Assessment Policy further states that all assessments must be implemented in a consistent and equitable manner and that the assessment roll can be prepared at any time after a contract is awarded and assessable costs can be determined. Tom Colbert January 13, 1988 Page Two These authorities appear to allow the assessment process to commence not only when charges are incurred, but also prior to that point in time but only if the amount of the assessment can be calculated or determined. There is no case law in Minnesota which speaks directly to this issue. The general rule according to McQuillin's Municipal Corporation, is that payment of an assessment cannot be requited before the completion of the improvement. However, local law may modify the general rule and allow for an assessment to be made when the cost of the improvement is ascertained, or at least estimated. Mcquillin Mun. Corp. Sect. 38.108 (3rd Ed.) CONCLUSION Minnesota law appears to allow the assessment process to commence and the assessment roll to be prepared at any time after a contract for an improvement is awarded and assessable costs can be determined as long as the assessment is implemented in a consistent and equitable manner. Some methods of resolving the issue may be as follows: 1. If the contract amount can be determined with the power company prior to the commencement of the 5 year period, it would then appear permissible to assess. 2. If written consent can be acquired form the benefitted property owners, it would also be possible to do so. Very truly yours, HAUGE, EIDE S KELLER, P.A. Lori M. Bellin LMB:ras I' HAUGE, EIDE & KELLER, P.A. Alomeys at cnnaw TOWN CENTRE PROFESSIONAL BLDG., SUITE 200 1260 YANKEE DOODLE ROAD EAGAN, MINNESOTA 55123 (612) 456.9000 January 13, 1988 Tom Colbert City of Eagan 3830 Pilot Knob Road P.O. Box 21199 Eagan, Minnesota 55121 RE: Assessment for Street Lighting in Advance of Costs Being Incurred - Town Centre Project Dear Mr. Colbert: QUESTIONS PAULH.HAUGE KEVIN W. EIDE DAVID G. KELLER LORI M. BELLIN DEBRA E. SCHMIDT THOMAS P. LDWE You recently requested that our office look into whether it would be possible to assess for street light maintenance costs in advance of the actual user costs being incurred with respect to the above - captioned project. DISCUSSION Minnesota Statutes §429.061, Subd. 1, states as follows: "At any time after the expense incurred or to be incurred, in making an improvement shall be calculated under the direction of the Council, the Council shall determine by resolution, the amount of the total expense a municipality will pay, other than the amount, if any, which it will pay as a property owner, and the amount to be assessed. (emphasis added)" Minnesota Statutes §429.101 allows for special assessments to be instituted against a benefited property for the operation of a street lighting system. The Council may, by ordinance, adopt regulations allowing the benefited property owner to pay the charges and costs for this operation when due prior to the unpaid charges being made a special assessment ag is nst the property. The question here would be, when do the charges become due. I would venture to state that the most common definition of the term "when payment is due" implies that some sort of service or product has been previously rendered. Therefore, §429.101 may not clearly allow for a pre -assessment. The Eagan Assessment Policy further states that all assessments must be implemented in a consistent and equitable manner and that the assessment roll can be prepared at any time after a contract is awarded and assessable costs can be determined. Tom Colbert January 13, 1988 Page Two These authorities appear to allow the assessment process to commence not only when charges are incurred, but also prior to that point in time but only if the amount of the assessment can be calculated or determined. There is no case law in Minnesota which speaks directly to this issue. The general rule according to M_cQuillin's Municipal Corporation, is that payment of an assessment cannot be requited before the completion of the improvement. However, local law may modify the general rule and allow for an assessment to be made when the cost of the improvement is ascertained, or at least estimated. Mcquillin Mun. Corp. Sect. 38.108 (3rd Ed.) CONCLUSION Minnesota law appears to allow the assessment process to commence and the assessment roll to be prepared at any time after a contract for an improvement is awarded and assessable costs can be determined as long as the assessment is implemented in a consistent and equitable manner. Some methods of resolving the issue may be as follows: 1. If the contract amount can be determined with the power company prior to the commencement of the 5 year period, it would then appear permissible to assess. 2. If written consent can be acquired form the benefitted property owners, it would also be possible to do so. Very truly yours, HAUGE, EIDE & KELLER, P.A. Lori M. Bellin LMB:ras a RIM & / January 12, 1988 Tom Colbert City of Eagan 3830 Pilot Knob Road P.O. Box 21199 Eaoan. Minnesota 55121 RE: Assessment for Street Light in Advance of Costs Being Incurred - Town Centre Project Dear Mr. Colbert: QUESTIONS You recently requested that our offic look into whether it would be possible to assess for street light in advance of the actual user costs being incurred with respect the above -captioned project. DISCUSSION Minnesota Statutes §429.061, Subd. 1, states as follows: "At any time after the expense incurred or to be incurred, in making an improvement shall be calculated under the direction of the Council, the Council shall determine by resolution, the amount of the total expense a municipality will pay, other than the amount, if any, which it will pay as a property owner, and the amount to be assessed. (emphasis added)" Minnesota Statutes §429.101 allows for special assessments to be instituted against a benefited property for the operation of a street lighting system. The Council may, by ordinance, adopt regulations allowing the benefited property owner to pay the charges and costs for this operation when due prior to the unpaid charges being made a special assessment ag is nst the property. The question here would be, when do the charges become due. I would venture to state that the most common definition of the term "when payment is due" implies that some sort of service or product has been previously rendered. Therefore, §429.101 may not clearly allow for a pre -assessment. The Eagan Assessment Policy further states that all assessments must be implemented in a consistent and equitable manner and that the assessment roll can be prepared at any time after a contract is awarded and assessable costs can be determined. J 1 � N v �Q�-o,�� � ,,, .,,. _ Tom Colbert January 12, 1988 Page Two These authorities appear to allow the assessment process to commence not only when charges are incurred, but also prior to that point in time but only if the amount of the assessment can be calculated or " determined. There is no case law in Minnesota which speaks directly to this issue. The general rule according to McQuillin's Municipal -Corporation, is that payment of an assessment cannot be required before the completion of the improvement. However, local law may modify the general rule and allow for an assessment to be made when the cost of the improvement is ascertained, or at least estimated. Mcquillin Mun. Corp. Sect. 38.108 (3rd Ed.) CONCLUSION Minnesota law appears to allow the assessment process to commence and the assessment roll to be prepared at any time after a contract for an improvement is awarded and assessable costs can be determined as long as the assessment is implemented in a consistent and equitable manner. O -e methods of resolving the issue may be as follows: 1. If the contract amount can be determined with the power company prior to the commencement of the 5 year period, it would then appear permissible to Xassess. 2. If written consent can be acquired form the benefitted property owners, it would also be possible to do so. Very truly yours, HAUGE, EIDE & KELLER, P.A. Lori M. Bellin LMB:ras City December 22, 1987 RE: Assessment for Street Lights in Advance of Costs Being Incurred - Town Centre Project / Dear You recently requested our offi(�oelook into whether it would be possible to assess for street lights in advance of the actual user costs being incurred with refect to the above -captioned project. —DISCUSSION Minnesota Statutes §429.061, Subd. 1, states as follows: "At any time after the expense incurred or to be incurred, in making an impr,ovemen� shall be calculated under the direction of the Council, ti`Le the Counc 1 shall deternine y resolution, the amount of the total expense a municipality will pay, other than the amount, if any, which it will pay as a property owner, and the amount to be assessed. (emphasis added)" The Eagan Assessment Policlestate2 that all assessments must be implemented in a consistent and equitable manner and that—the assessment roll can be prepared at any time after a�contract is awarded and assessable costs can be determined. These authorities appear to allow the assessment process to commence notgnly when charges are incurred, but also prior to that point in time, my if the amount of the assessment can be calculated or determined. There is no case law in Minnesota which speaks directly to is issue. Minnesota Statutes §429.101 allows for special assessments to be instituted against a benefited property for the operation of a street lighting system. The Council may, by ordinance, adopt regulations allowing the benefited property owner to pay the charges F and costs for this operation when dueekf 'the unpaid charges a made a special assessment against the property. The question here would be, when do the charges become due. I would venture to state that the most common definition of the term "when payment is 'due" implies that some sort of service or product has been previously rendered. Therefore, §429.101 may not clearly allow for tilde pre -assessment. f The general rule according to McQuillinsMunicipal Corporation, is that payment of an assessment cannot be required before the completion of the improvement. However, t*19 local law may modify the general rule and allow for an assessment to be made when the cost of the improvement is ascertained, or at least estimated. Mcquillin Mun. Corp. Sect. 38.108 (3rd Ed.) o ^RtatP that of- - _v .. _ ' �z viea oeror the spent is–raFmrtn r-n�nnl�t in of CONCLUSION Minnesota law appears to allow the assessment and the assessment roll to be prepared at any for an improvement is awarded and assessable as long as the assessment is implemented in a equitable manner. LMB;r/�as ,4,T 32— " process to time after costs can be consistent Very truly yours, law commence a contract determined and HAUGE, EIDE & KELLER, P.A. Lori M. Bellin 120A Mez ._- 01i PAUL NEED TO DETERMINE WHETHER IT IS POSSIBLE TO ASSESS FOR STREET LIGHTS' IN ADVANCE OF THE ACTUAL USER COST BEING INCURRED, SUCH AS A 5 -YEAR ADVANCE ASSESSMENT. WITH THE UNDERSTANDING THAT POSSIBLY GET CONSENT FROM ALL PROPERTY OWNERS - THIS IS THE TOWN CENTRE PROJECT. O uu,,t,cd 'pr - ,P�(.Q tll� -jai 29�t �/ /LkAj L aLG�I�owC/Q� Cryo/<�1 �Ca wCL�,``ll�_ rvk1�t: CITY OF EAGAN PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT FEASIBILITY REPORT FOR STREETLIGHTING — PROJECT NO. 519 TOWN CENTRE 70 AND 100 SEPTEMBER 17, 1987 I hereby certify this report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly registered Professional Engineer under the laws of the State of Minnesota. l � Thomas A. Colbert, P.E. Registration Number 12049 a PRELIMINARY REPORT ON STRE FOR TOWN CENTRE 70 AND 100 PROJECT NO. 519 EAGAN MN SEPTEMBER 17, 1987 SCOPE: This project covers the installation of streetlights serving Town Centre 70 and 100 in the northwest and northeast quarter of Section 15. FEASIBILITY AND RECOMMENDATIONS: This project is feasible and is in accordance with the City's policy on the installation of streetlights in this community shopping center district. It can best be accomplished as outlined herein and not as a part of any other project. DISCUSSION: The developer of Town Centre 70 and 100 has petitioned for the installation of streetlights. This addition contains 23 lots and/or outlots which would benefit from streetlighting. Under the City's streetlighting policy, the cost of streetlight installation is assessed on an area basis against the benefitted property. (An alternate is included in this report with the assessments spread on a front foot basis). The energy costs will be calculated on an area basis and will be billed quarterly to the existing developed properties along with the utility bill and the undeveloped outlots are to be billed through the 5 Year Assessment Plan. The energy needs for Town Centre 70 and 100 are serviced by Dakota Electric Association, and they offer the type of streetlighting poles, lighting fixtures, and the necessary maintenance service required by the City's streetlighting policy. The project is proposed to have 56 streetlights installed. OVERHEAD STREETLIGHTS: These 56 streetlights would be the standard overhead design with 30' fiberglass poles, a 6' aluminum sodium "Cobra" type fixture. These lights, underground wires, and transformers are proposed to be installed by Dakota Electric Association. 1 PRELIMINARY REPORT ON STREETLIGHTING FOR TOWN CENTRE 70 AND 100 PROJECT NO. 519 EAGAN MN SEPTEMBER 17, 1987 INSTALLATION COST ESTIMATES: The following cost estimate includes the cost of construction, administration, legal and other related project costs. 56 ea. 250 watt Overhead High Pressure Sodium @ $1,414.00 $79,189.50 5% Contingency Factor 3,959.48 15$ Administration Cost 11,878.43 TOTAL $95,027.41 ENERGY COST ESTIMATES: $9.85/light/month - 56 ea. @ $9.85 x 12 months $6,619.20/year REVENUE SOURCES: Revenue sources to cover the cost of this project are assessments against the benefitted property. Cost Assessment Revenue Balance Item Sq. Foot Front Foot Sq. Foot Front Foot Sq• Ft. F.F Energy Cost - (5 Yr. Assessment $ 25,079.69 $ 25,497.68 $ 25,079.66 $ 25,497.68 Plan) Installation Cost 95,027.41 95,027.41 95,027.41 95,027.41 TOTAL $120,107.10 $120,525.09 $120,107.10 $120,525.09 0 0 ASSESSMENTS: Assessments are proposed to be levied in accordance with current City policy. All costs of the project, including installation and energy, will be assessed and spread over 10 years at a rate of interest determined by the bond sale used to finance this project. INSTALLATION: Square Foot Front Foot (F.F.) (Construction Cost Total Assessable Square Footage) _ $.015800485/S.F. 2 (Construction Cost Total Assessable $ 5.11 Lineal Front Foot) PRELIMINARY REPORT ON STREETLIGHTING FOR TOWN CENTRE 70 AND 100 PROJECT 519 EAGAN MN SEPTEMBER 17, 1987 ENERGY: Energy costs will be recovered either through a quarterly user fee or a 5 Yr. Assessment Plan. Quarterly user fees apply to all developed lots with a current sewer/water bill, whereas the 5 Yr. Assessment Plan applies to all lots not platted or developed at the time of the final assessment hearing. The energy rates are identified as follows: Quarterly User Fee (Developed Lots): Square Foot Basis ($9.85) x (56 Lights) x (3 Months) = $1,654.80 69.03 S.L.L.E. v = $23.97218601/S.L.L.E. • S.L.L.E. = Street Light Lot Equivalent. This unit is equivalent to two acres and is used to determine the energy cost on an area basis. Front Foot Basis ($9.85) x (56 Lights) x (3 Months) 18,583.34 Total Lineal Ft. = $1,654.80 = $.089047502 per assessable front ft. per quarter 5 Yr. Assessment Plan (Undeveloped Lots): Square Foot Basis (52.31 S.L.L.E. (Outlots)) x ($23.97/S.L.L.E.) x (20 quarters) _ $25,079.69 Front Foot Basis (Alternate): 5 Year Assessment = (14316.90 F.F. (Outlots)) x ($.089 per Assess. F.F.) x (20 quarters) = $25,497.68 �(R 4 I PRELIMINARY REPORT ON STRE, FOR TOWN CENTRE 70 AND 100 PROJECT 519 EAGAN MN SEPTEMBER 17, 1987 AREA TO BE INCLUDED: TOWN CENTRE 70 1st Addition Outlot B Outlot E 2nd Addition Lot 1, Block 1 Lot 2, Block 1 Outlot A 3rd Addition Lot 1, Block 1 4th Addition Lot 1, Block 1 5th Addition Lot 1, Block 1 6th Addition Lot 1, Block 1 Outlot A 7th Addition Lot 1, Block 1 PROJECT SCHEDULE: Present Feasibility Report Public Hearing Approve Plans & Specifications Construction Completion Final Assessment Hearing 10 4 TOWN CENTRE 100 1st Addition Lot 1, Block 1 Outlot B Outlot E Outlot F Outlot G 2nd Addition Lot 1, Block 1 Lot 2, Block 1 v Outlot A 3rd Addition Lot 1, Block 2 Outlot A Outlot B Outlot C October 6, 1987 December 1, 1988 December, 1988 June, 1988 September, 1988 81.75 114.83 u 12.94 10.79 8.15 44.59 7.91 SUMMARY - PRELIMINARY ASSESSMENT ROLL i STREETLIGHTING PROJECT NO. 519 - TOWN CENTRE 70 AND 100 SLLE 5 YR ASSESSMENT INSTALLATION TOTAL 198 AREA EQUIV. FAC)$ ENERGY COST COST ASSESSABLE ENERGY COST PROJECT S.F. ACRES (2 RATE/S.F. $ COST RATE/S.L.L Town Centre 70 1st Addition Outlot B 188,614.80 4.33 2.17 1,040.39 .0158 2,980.21 40020.60 23.97/S.L.L.E Outlot E 1,221,422.40 28.04 14.02 6,721.80 it 19,299.07 26,020.86 to 2nd Addition Lot 1, Block 1 296,643.60 6.81 3.41 ■ " 4,687.11 4,687.11 " Lot 2, Block 416,869.20 9.57 4.79 ■ 6,586,74 6,586.74 " Outlot A 132,858.00 3.05 1.53 733.55 " 2,099.22 2,832.77 " 3rd Addition Lot 1, Block 1 47,044.80 1.08 .54 • " 743.33 743.33 " 4th Addition Lot 1, Block 1 39,204.00 .90 .45 " 619.44 619.44 5th Addition Lot 1, Block 1 29,185.20 .67 .34 • " 461.14 461.14 " 6th Addition Lot 1, Block 1 161,570.14 3.71 1.86 • " 2,552.89 2,552.89 " Outlot A 108,081.94 2.48 1.24 594.51 " 1,707.75 2,302.26 " 7th Addition Lot 1, Block 1 28,749.60 .66. .33 ■ " 454.26 454.26 " 81.75 114.83 u 12.94 10.79 8.15 44.59 7.91 SUMMARY - PRELIMINARY ASSESSMENT ROLL HTING PROJECT NO. 519 - TOWN CENTRE 70 AND 100 " - Energy charge assessed quarterly for these developed Lots. 0 - Energy charge assessed on 5 Yr. Assessment Plan for these undeveloped lots. AREA EQUIV. ENERGY COST COST ASSESSABLE ENERGY COST PER QTR. PROJECT S.F. ACRES (2 AC) $ RATE/S.F. $ COST RATE/S.L.L.E. COST $ Town Centre 100 1st Addition - Lot 1, Block 1 250,470.00 5.75 2.88 " .0158 3,957.55 3,957.55 23.97/S.L.L.E. 69.04 Outlot B 1,088,564.40 24.99 12.50 5,993.05 of 17,199.85 23,192.89 " Outlot E 278,348.40 6.39 3.20 1,534.22 of 4,398.04 5,932.26 It 0 Outlot F' 219,542.40 5.04 2.52 1,208.20 Is 3,468.88 4,677.08 "' 0 Outlot G. ' 311,018.40 7.14 3.57 1,711.61 4,914.24 6,625.85 " if 2nd Addition Lot 1, Block 1 98,010.00 2.25 1.13 " " 1,548.61 1,548.61 " 27.09 (� Lot 2, Block 1 48,351.60 1.11 .56 " " 763.98 763.98 " 13.42 Outlot A 69,260.40 1.59 .80 383.55 1,094.35 1,477.90 U 3rd Addition Lot 1, Block 2 370026.00 .85 .43 " 585.03 585.03 10.31 Outlot A 568,893.60 13.06 6.50 3,116.38 8,988.79 12,119.58 U Outlot B 374,479.66 8.60 4.26 2,042.43 " 5,916.93 7,944.97 " U TOTAL 6,014,208-54 138.07 69.03 25,079.69 - 95,027.41 120,107-10 $400.82 " - Energy charge assessed quarterly for these developed Lots. 0 - Energy charge assessed on 5 Yr. Assessment Plan for these undeveloped lots. ALTERNATE SUMMARY - PRELIMINARY ASSESSMENT ROLL HTING PROJECT NO. 519 - TOWN CENTRE 70 AND 100 .F. CORNER TOTAL 1987 E FRONT LOT ADJUSTED 5 -YR ENERGY INSTALLATION COST ASSESSABLE COST PER PROJECT FOOTAGE CREDIT F.F. ASSESSMENT COST RATE/F.F. $ COST @.089047502/ Town Centre 70 1st Addition Outlot B 877.87 - 877.87 11,563.44 $5.11 49489.06 6,052.50 0 Outlot E 3,683.73 150' 3,533.73 6,293.40 " 18,070.01 24,363.41 U 2nd Addition Lot 1, Block 1 1,406.94 75' -. 1,331.94 * 6,810.98 6,810.98 118.61 Lot 2, Block 1 473.18 - 473.18 * " 2,419.64 2,419.64 42.13 Outlot A 625.89 - 625.89 1,114.68 " 3,200.54 4,315.22 J 3rd Addition Lot 1, Block 1 534.03 75' 459.03 * " 2,347.29 2,347.29 40.88 4th Addition Lot 1, Block 1 148.63 - 148.63 it 760.03 760.03 13.24 5th Addition Lot 1, Block 1 156.39 - 156.39 * 799.71 799.71 13.93 6th Addition Lot 1, Block 1 798.36. 75' 723.36 * " 3,698.96 3,698.96 64.41 Oudot A 514.36 - 514.36 916.05 " 20630.22 3,546.27 # 7th Addition Lot 1, Block 1 107.93 - 107.93 * " 551.91 551.91 9.61 .F. ALTERNATE SUMMARY - PRELIMINARY ASSESSMENT ROLL HTING PROJECT NO. 519 - TOWN CENTRE 70 AND 100 • Energy charge billed quarterly for these developed lots. 0 Undeveloped lots billed on a 5 Yr. Assessment Plan. F.F. CORNER TOTAL 1987 ENERC FRONT LOT ADJUSTED 5 -YR ENERGY INSTALLATION COST ASSESSABLE COST PER QUAI PROJECT FOOTAGE CREDIT F.F. ASSESSMENT COST RATE/F.F. $ COST @.089047502/ASSE Torn Centre 100 1st Addition Lot 1, Block 1 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- Outlot B 3,189.42 75' 3,114.42 5,546.63 $5.11 15,925.84 21,472.47 11 Outlot E 860.35 75' 785.35 1,•398.67 It 4,015.95 5,414.62 11 Outlot F 702.46 - 702.46 1;251.05 " 3,592.09 4,843.14 11 Outlot G 1,168.89 - 1,168.89 2,081.73 " 5,977.21 8,058.94 11 2nd Addition Lot 1, Block 1 620.98 75' 545.98 0 2,791.91 2,791.91 48.62 Lot 2, Block 1 155.00 - 155.00 ■ 792.61 792.61 13.80 Outlot A 534.54 75' 459.54 818.42 " 2,349.89 3,168.31 # 3rd Addition Lot 1, Block 1 165.00 - 165.00 843.74 843.74 14.69 Outlot A 1,415.51 75' 1,340.51 2,387.38 6,854.81 9,242.19 # Outlot B 19193.88 - 1,193.88 2,126.23 " 6,105.01 8,231.24 # TOTAL 199333.34 750.00' 18,583.34 25,497.68 95,027.41 120,525.09 379.92 • Energy charge billed quarterly for these developed lots. 0 Undeveloped lots billed on a 5 Yr. Assessment Plan. F.F. TOWN CENTER STREETLIGHT CONCEPT PLAN i LL--� n•e nRON3fD g ..LEp MLv3[CRp., + . a. • S�D..Lf D IMLNSECIIDN :.. � � �~•.. N.Q DOODLE ____ \ . i � 'o r corm wm.e O.. � I I:T� • 11i+/J E�/ _ [I 1 1 li \`.�"-9 I � it Qyij'/.��+�Y�°°�—`�iln/9 ���,1 �•� Iy\���\li e�'! ".i S: .��// . ..Oen �`Y. ____ � I y • .L �• ..%® .l,, uc�`"�_— .`_: 1;� �+�` ' � / /� .. // C' a .c � _ —� �✓ �— ... ��� ��..c ee —J 11 el l0=•.;^.. .. ._...r. u:v__—�V__�—�J _ u.. ..a.w .. .c I i' Y 1 m7 d .f ! LOi� ' .....w \P / / ....TOWN LENTEN FAGAN u •: — �'/. o �\ 4`'� `'�] Jjjf CONCEPT PLAN yeY 1 1 �I E` U mwm. :EDEN_ "ND COWANY MSED� •�YA.��T Ee3[c^O" , ivui iewlR --- I hi �'J` —__m • 1 n m..m u.e w•..•+.. ..r. �� KD .SKY.KRANK.MCKBON.MCMTECT WQ C Ib 1 EI Q PROBE ENTJNEEDDNG COMPANY NQ PRELIMINARY ASSESSMENT - PROJECT NO. 519 (SO. FOOT BASIS) c v:•c ....:: .1 .. w.�E O]]0.F � ROOD ........ •.... •... Pa]a]E Eo (co 93 110 ]PI -�r...1. Fc OEP.-! Ln:O CO.•as CY ••.- 1 KO?5'J':5•.Y. r;Ran:. ESi'v:50': LRC9rt2C T5 c:[ PRELIMINARY ASSESSMENT - PROJECT 519 (FRONT FOOT BASIS) 75' CORNER LOT 11 COSNEF' LOT CRED1 76 lco no 1:0 ?9) 75 Lt v I;- 7 5' CORNER LOT ASSESSABLE FRONT FOOTAGE TON -04 CE14TER EAGAN CONCERT PLAN FEDERAL L6140 CD'-TANy KORSU!:SKY. KR4141;. ERICI:SON LRCHZTECIS I'!- PROmE El*-NmEmvj7 co..:M:y IN: LJ 4 7, --- 75' CORNER LOT 11 COSNEF' LOT CRED1 76 lco no 1:0 ?9) 75 Lt v I;- 7 5' CORNER LOT ASSESSABLE FRONT FOOTAGE TON -04 CE14TER EAGAN CONCERT PLAN FEDERAL L6140 CD'-TANy KORSU!:SKY. KR4141;. ERICI:SON LRCHZTECIS I'!- PROmE El*-NmEmvj7 co..:M:y IN: fl - - - r -L - - - --- 1w Ali I HA El DE K KELLER, P.A. i TOWN CENTRE PROFESSIONAL BLDG., SUITE 200 1260 YANKEE DOODLE ROAD EAGAN, MINNESOTA 55123 (6 12) 456-9000 February 9, 1988 Mr. Gene VanOverbeke Finance Director City of Eagan 3830 Pilot Knob Road Eagan, MN 55122 RE: Postponed Assessments Dear Mr. VanOverbeke: Question: PAULH.HAUGE �) KEVIN Y.'_ EIDE DAVID G. KELLER LORI M. BELLIN DEBRA E. SCHMIDT THOMAS P. LOWE You asked our office to look into the question as to whether postponed assessments show up against a parcel when the subject parcel is divided after the Certificate of Postponed Assessment has been recorded in accordance with Minnesota Statute §429.06, Subd. 2. Decision: The answer to this question is no. According to the Recorder's office personnel, after the City records the postponement, the Recorder's office simply records it and files it against the parcel set forth in the Certificate. If the parcel should later become divided, the County Auditor will then inform the City of the division, but will take no action to insure that the postponed assessment shows up against the divided properties. It is up to the City to re-record the postponed assessment against each of the divided properties. The County Auditor's office personnel neither takes responsibility for re-recording nor do they even check to see whether any assessment is outstanding against a parcel. They simply send notification of a division to the City and let the City take whatever action the City deems to be appropriate. Thus, City personnel, upon receiving notification from the County Auditor's office of a division, should proceed to check to verify whether any postponed assessments have been recorded against the parcel and then take action to re-record with the County Recorder's office. Feel free to contact me with any questions you may have regarding any of the above. Sincerely, BAUGE, EIDE S KELLER, P.A. Lori M. Bellin LMB :jjm Mr. Gene VanOverbeke Finance Director City of Eagan 3830 Pilot Knob Road Eagan, MN 55122 RE: Postponed Assessments January 22, 1988 Dear Mr. VanOverbeke: our office to look into the question as to whether postponed assessments show up against a parcel when the subject parcel is divided after the Certificate f Postponed Assessment b en recorded.(,. acCelc(2t�-cc wC� �ltiAss¢Wi�•o� /,GS•�. ,-A lis has T>ft-s�msrbe answer to this question is no. AAfter the City records the postponement, the Recorder's office simply records it and files it against the parcel set forth in the Certificate. If the parcel should later become divided, the County Auditor will then inform the City of the division, but will take no action to insure that the postponed assessment shows up against the divided properties. It is up to the City to re-record the post ned assessment against each of the divided properties. The County Auditor's C evf 'ce neither takes responsibility for re- recording nor do"en Vheck to see whether any assessment is outstanding against a parcel. They simply send notification of a division to the City and let the City take whatever action the City deems to be appropriate. Thus, City personnel, upon receiving notification from the County Auditor's office of a division, should proceed to check to verify whether any postponed assessments have been recorded against the parcel and then take action to re-record with the County Recorder's office. Feel free to contact me with any questions you may have regarding any of the above. Sincerely, HAUGE, EIDE & KELLER, P.A. Lori M. Bellin LMB: jjm / n r l„Vn� MEMO TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: CITY ATTORNEY HAUGE r ��1 FINANCE DIRECTOR/CITY CLERK VAN OVERBEKE4Y-7NM.- DECEMBER 9, 1987 ASSESSMENTS RECORDED WITH COUNTY RECORDER As we have previously discussed, your letter to me dated November 11, 1987, missed the question that we had r ed. As I recall, the question was: "When assessments ar ost off' y the City and recorded as such at the County Recorder's Office and the subject parcel is divided, do the new parcels show what had been recorded against the parent parcel?" These postponed assessments have nothing to do with the County Auditor's Office because they have never been certified by the City for collection. Also to my knowledge the County Recorder's Office has nothing to do with assessments that have been certified to the County Auditor. If they do, it is through a County process which has nothing to do with the City. s and note Please refer to the attached list of assessment ("that that it is only the category "postponed assessment we a required to record with the County Recorder. Perhaps it would be appropriate with this additional information to take another shot at the original question. Please let me, know if it would be helpful to discuss this in more detail. V Finan Director City Clerk cc: Tom Colbert, Director of Public Works Attachment EJV/jeh t1.21. o(oi 4_ttj- L q,L �. o-71 HAUGE, EIDE & KELLER, P.A. %� :l lomeys al eaw TOWN CENTRE PROFESSIONAL BLDG., SUITE 200 1260 YANKEE DOODLE ROAD EAGAN, MINNESOTA 55123 (612)456-9000 November 11, 1987 Mr. Eugene VanOverbeke City Treasurer City of Eagan 3830 Pilot Knob Road Eagan, MN 55121 RE: Reapportionment of Special Assessments Dear Mr. VanOverbeke: PAULH.HAUGE KEVIN W. EIDE DAVID G. KELLER LORI M. BELLIN DEBRA E. SCHMIDT THOMAS P. LOWE It has recently been brought to my attention that after the City reapportions certain special assessments, these changes on occasion, are not showing up against the property on the tax rolAs. t:i After reviewing procedures with the County Auditor's and Recorder's office in Dakota County, the following procedure should be followed by City personnel in order to Psure that reapportionment of special assessments is properly taken/—care of: 1. Complete special assessment input form available from the County Auditor and deliver to the County Auditor's office. 2. County Auditor's office will submit to the City a new assessment sheet. 3. The City must then record the new special assessment reapportionment request with the Recorder's office. The County Auditor's office simply takes care of the reapportionment of the assessment and does not take any responsibilities for recording the change in assessments against the property. The City must actively take steps with both the Auditor's and Recorder's office in order to properly record a special assessment reapportionment against a property. Feel free to contact me with any questions you may have regarding any of the above. Very truly yours, H E, IDE & KELL R, P.A. H. Hauge PHH:jjm cc: Tom Colbert CITY OF EAGAN TERMINOLOGY USED AT THE CITY IN THE ENGINEERIO—MAR= Usage of terms - Adopted Assessment - An assessment that was approved by the City Council. Certified Assessment - An assessment that has been adopted and for- warded to the County for extension on the pro- perty tax rolls. Levied Assessment - An assessment that is extended onto the property tax rolls for collection by the County. Abated Assessment - The cancellation of an existing adopted, cer- tified or levied assessment. Postponed Assessment - An assessment that was not certified to the County, but will be enforced through contractual agreement between the City and the property owner. The future amount of the assessment, the interest rate and the length of spread of the assessment are to be determined at a later date. Deferred Assessnent - An assessment for which the levy or cer- tification is delayed. These may be legislative deferrals, i.e., Green Acres or Senior Citizen Deferrals or other deferral of payment by the Council. The amount of the assessment and interest rate are set; as is the term of the assessment. Page 1 HAUGE, EIDE & KELLER, P.A. Alor eys at el",aW TOWN CENTRE PROFESSIONAL BLDG., SUITE 200 1260 YANKEE DOODLE ROAD EAGAN, MINNESOTA 55123 (612)456-9000 November 11, 1987 Mr. Eugene VanOverbeke City Treasurer City of Eagan 3830 Pilot Knob Road Eagan, MN 55121 RE: Reapportionment of Special Assessments Dear Mr. VanOverbeke: PAULH.HAUGE KEVIN W. EIDE DAVID G. KELLER LORI M. BELLIN DEBRA E. 5CHMIDT THOMAS P. LOWE It has recently been brought to my attention that after the City reapportions certain special assessments, these changes on occasion, are not showing up against the property on the tax roles. After reviewing procedures with the County Auditor's and Recorder's office in Dakota County, the following procedure should be followed by City personnel in order to insure that reapportionment of special assessments is properly taken care of: 1. Complete special assessment input form available from the County Auditor and deliver to the County Auditor's office. 2. County Auditor's office will submit to the City a new assessment sheet. 3. The City must then record the new special assessment reapportionment request with the Recorder's office. The County Auditor's office simply takes care of the reapportionment of the assessment and does not take any responsibilities for recording the change in assessments against the property. The City must actively take steps with both the Auditor's and Recorder's office in order to properly record a special assessment reapportionment against a property. Feel free to contact me with any questions you may have regarding any of the above. Very.truly yours, HAUGE, EIDE & KELLER, P.A. Paul H. Hauge PHH:jjm cc: Tom Colbert November 9, 1987 City of Eagan 3830 Pilot Knob Road Eagan, MN 55121 RE: Reapportionment of Special Assessments Dear It has recently been brought to my attenti that after the City reapportions certain special assessments these changes on occasion, are not showing up against the property After reviewing the procedures with the County Auditor's and Recorder's office in Dakota County, the following procedure should _ 5 e followed by personnel in order to insure that reapportionment of special assessments is properly taken care of: 1. Complete special assessment input form t ard deliver r o the County Auditor's office. A 2. County Auditor's office will assessment sheet. 3. The City must then record the the Recorder's office. submit to the City a new new special s essmen with The County Auditor's office simply takes care of the reapportionment of the assessment and does not take any responsibilities for recording the change in assessments against the property. The City must actively take steps with both the Auditor's and Recorder's office in order to properly record a special assessment reapportionment against a property. Feel free to contact me with any questions you may have regarding any of the above. Very truly yours, HAUGE, EIDE & KELLER, P.A. 0 PROCEDURE FOR REAPPORTIONMENT OF SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS 1. Notify County Auditor (Peg) by letter that certain property is being sub-divided/platted or that assessments are being reapportioned, and then request the Auditor to send to the City a present listing of existing special assessments on the involved properties. 2. After the City completes its procedures regarding reapportionment of the special assessments, the resulting figures should be sent by letter to the Auditor's office so that they may be transferred onto the Auditor's records. 3. The City may then record .the final special assessment amounts against the respective properties. The Auditor's office does not transfer the documentation of the assessment reapportionment over to the Recorder's office and as such, the City must actively take this upon itself. Dated: November 4, 1987 )57 I REQU&S7 FORrREAPPORTLONMED9P OF. SPECIAL- ASSESSME I/We hereby request of the City Council, City of EaRan, Minnesota, Reapportion- ment of pending special assessments for Project 034S on nronerty owned by me/us and legally described as follows: CANTERBURY FOR:'ST,_ all lots and blocks REASSESSMENT to be spread over the following legal descriptions: 10-02600-010-29 Legal Description: The NIP, of the NW of Section 26, Township -27, Range 23, Dakota County, Minnesota. KIND OF IMPROVEMENT PENOlt:G AMOUNT_ •L%Stleejt _._. _ — . _ $10,172.76 B' Storm. Sewer-1ater-a1 C_ Storm Sewer Trunk - - _ $14,596.92 E. — — - — - I/WE hereby waive notice of ;.ny and all hearings necessary fou she r"i-vortion•• went ov reassessment of said 'assessments and further waive my/our right to appeal the reapportionment or reassessment under Minnesota Statutes 429.071. Il is furtler understood that this request shall be reviewed by the City Council of the City of Eagan or its agent and I/WE will be given reasonable notice as to whether this request is approved or modified. The undersigned agrees to pay all administrative costs incurred and billed by the City in such reassessments. The undersigned is/are all of the persons who have an interest in the property affected by the reassessment, includine_ fee LILIc wwnecs, contract for deed holders or op[ionees. , The undersigned agrees that this, waiver shall run with the affected land and bind the heirs, successors and assigns of such land. �cxvtclton 5oLdh �jssocrc _ JIM -BAR INVESTMENT COMPANY DATED:nctnh _r .19_1982 by� _ **pany, partner of Lexington South Associates, J es ry, pes $is -Bar Investment Com-*' a partnership, on behalf of the partnership, Svend_ eersen; S. .e-tersen o u6t10n, nc. /President REQUEST accepted bDATED:_�L� REQUEST referred to City Council for Action: DATED: November 9, 1982 CITY COUNCIL ACTION: Approved //_ 0-f„? �•�- Approved as Modified -- Denied AIVEWF• HEARING MQUEST, FORT REAPPORTIONMEN'1} OF> SPECIA • ASSESSMENTS I/We hereby request of the City Council, City of Eagan, Minnesota, Reapportion- ment of pending special assessments for Project 0345 on property owned by me/us and legally described as follows: CANTERBURY FOREST, all lots and blocks REASSESSMENT to be spread over the following legal descriptions: 10-02600-010-28 Legal Description: The A of the NFh of the Nr9N of Section 26, - 4bwnship 27, Range 23, Dakota County, Minnesota. KIND OF IMPROVEMENT PENDIi:r_ AMOUNT .`•. Street .. $2608.40__—_ u•.5t0zM_5.2w2T.LatCr4l__._ --- $1185 -§0 C•Storm Sewer Trunk _ — — 3742.80_ D. E. I/BE hPrehy wzii;e rnri.r:: UP a -LY and A) ). 4..Fi In S nPCPc ,a I• fqr ile rF.a �: went o: ....:`F.-:::.:a...r. .•ii ..S.r.• ::, s :.:; g 9 1 P,ortion- :: !,y/our. right CC appeal the L•F.i t.S ci: Ci4nh::'.ai. !:: !. i'%,gig-"i; r: S:,1C:(: i.:±(.�1 •�.a11±ieC e.:�aA :: F: f:`. ![l•E /:'1.7. :�/1. I It is ;h:,.c; �r :I,r'Erst od. [h ,r: phis request si,vll bu reviewed by Lhe City Council of the City of Eagan of its agent I.nri 04F, will be given reasonablE notice ar to whether this request is approved r. yo•?ified. The undersigned agrees to n -y ,;).). administrative costs incurred and billed b}• the City in such reassfscmeuts. The undersigned is/are all of the persons who have an interest In the property affected by the reassessment. Lnclurii.ne fPP L::.ie u..ners, contract. for deep holders or optionees. - The undersigned agrees that this waiver shall run with the affected land and bind the heirs, successors and assigns of such land. ��x,nQi�a _5-uih AsscciitEA TM -BAR INVEEPMONT OMPANY DATED: October_ 19,_198.2 bydZ m" r �/�l i p _ ... es neruo Y' -re - cii�ii"�sIme 'es, aCgari lam- 3�rership.onbehalf of Sven Petersen, S. Petersen Construction, Inc. /President REQUEST accepted by,,, the partner -M P Y' a i. DATED: //- � shin REQUEST referred to City Council for Action: DATED: November 9, 1982 CITY COUNCIL ACTION: Approved Approved as Modified Denied REQUES'P FORS REAPPORTIONMENT OF, S'PECI'AL ASSESSMENTS I/We hereby request of the City Council, City of Eagan, Minnesota, Reapportion- ment of pending special assessments for Project #345 on property owned by me/us and legally described as follows: CANTERBURY FOREST, all lots and blocks REASSESSMENT to be spread over the following legal descriptions: 1� _ Parcel 10 02600 015 30 KIND OF IMPROVEMENT A. Street Is. Storm Sewer Lateral C•__J5t4 a_aE wer, runk _ D. F. PENDING AhOUNT $10,824.86 4920_24 .$15,532 62 I/WE hereby waive notice of any and all hearings necessary for the reapportion- ment or reassessment of said 'assessments and further waive my/our right to appeal the reapportionment or reassessment under Minnesota Statutes 429.071. It is further understood that this request shall be reviewed by the City Council of-the'City of Eagan or its agent and I/WE will be given reasonable notice as to whether this request is approved or modified. The undersigned agrees to pay all administrative costs incurred and billed by the City in such reassessments. The undersigned is/are all of the persons who have an interest in the property affected by the reassessment, including fee titin „_.,_:B, C....t.-act fo: deed holders or optionees. The undersigned agrees that this waiver shall run with the affected land and bind the heirs, successors and assigns of such land. Lr ,,gj,rt $ouch Assxica-fe_5 JIM -BAR INVESTMENT COMPANY DATED: flrtnher 1� 1982 by Mwt� amen 1�2urrty, P Jm-Ba Investm nt C m an AS r ego exing o u ucaas,� Rai nels�iA �d i- 0 Svend Petersen, S. Petersen Cons ucti mr,�nnep ip, ell � /President REQUEST accepted by- ,t ('s,tV— DATED: REQUEST referred to City Council for Action: DATED: November 9. 1982 CITY COUNCIL ACTION: Approved //_ q_ F x Tsk Approved as Modified v� Denied �"15iTI T3[�7� Til :1 �Tr_9 x'73. � •. • . • � . I/We hereby request of the City Council, City of EaRan, Minnesota, Reapportion- ment of pending special assessments for Project 9365 on property owned by me/us and legally described as follows: WEDGWOOD ADDITION. All lots and blocks REASSESSMENT to be soread over the followine leeal descriptions: 10-02500-011-51 Legal: • lbat part of the F,. of the SIO; of Section 25, 4bwnshiD 27, Range 23, Dakota County, Minnesota lyingt tf a oenterline of New Dodd Road. KIND OF IMPROVEMENT • PENDTilr AMOUNT A•St-eet $8599.20 B•Storm_Sexcr lateral 393A9_l2_ _- C. Storm Sewer Trunk $7791.68 D. E. 1 F. — �. I/WE hereby waive notice of any and all hearings necessary for the reapportion, i i mens or reassessment of said "assessments and Further waive my/our right to appeal ' the reapportionment or reassessment under Minnesota Statutes 429.071. d It is further understood that this request shall be reviewed by the City Council of the City of Eagan or its agent and I/WE will be given reasonable notice as to whether this request is approved or modified. The undersigned agrees to pay all administrative costs incurred and billed by the City in such reassessments. The undersigned is/are all of the persons who have an interest in the property affected by the reassessment, including fee title owners, contract for deed holders or optionees. The undersigned agrees that this waiver shall run with the affected land and bind the heirs, successors and assigns of such land. L.r.rInrra?'om 5o, -fY /{,soc�gte_S _ JIM -BAR INVESTMENT COMPANY DATED: n,tnlar iq 1982 by6AA44,r- **partner of Lexington South Associates, C ,Pre :,g T' --B Investment. Com- a partnership, on behalf.of he partner- pany, William G. Huttner,William Huttner Construe - ship, /President tion, Inc. REQUEST accepted by _ -e'l Id.��nr�` DATED: //_ ,� -�� REQUEST referred to City Council for Action: DATED: November 9. 1982 CITY COUNCIL ACTION: Approved //_ ¢•2 0 qtr_ Approved as Modified Denied M. ,w,µd a., V. r-1— i EOllES1*FORt=REAPPOR'DION[tEIiLLOF- �R A6 - n►Fnrrc. I/Wc hereby request of the City Council, City of EaRan, Minnesota, Reapportion- ment of pending special assessments for Project #345 on nronerty owned by me/us and legally described as follows: WEDGWOOD ADDITION All lots and Blocks REASSESSMENT to be spread over the following legal descriptions: 10-02500-01050 Legal Description: The WS of the Sid, of Section 25, whip 27, P Range 23, Dakota County, liinnesota. KIND OF IMPROVEMENT A- Street B•_SZQrm Sa%j9r l.a ral C•Storm Sewer Trunk D. E. F. PENDINCAMOUNT $42.996.00 - 21 745.60 $38,958.40 I/WE hereby waive notice of any and all hearings necessary for the reapportion- ment or reassessment of said assessments and further waive my/our right to appeal the reapportionment or reassessment under Minnesota Statutes 429.071. It is further understood that this request shall be reviewed by the City Council of the City of Eagan or its agent and I/WE will be given reasonable notice as to whether this request is approved or modified. The undersigned agrees to pay all administrative costs incurred and billed by the City in such reassessments. The undersigned is/are all of the persons who have an interest in the property affected by the reassessment, including fee title owners, contract for deed holders or optionees. ' The undersigned agrees that, this waiver shall run with the affected land and bind the heirs, successors and assigns of such land, jEA,nq_t�N Soc{h ��ocrAf�t JIM -BAR INVESTMENT COMPANY DATED: October 19, 1982 b kCompany, partner o Lexington ou y• >sociates, a partnership, on behalf of e,.^ Y, P i� o -Bar Investment. ie partnership, William G. uttner, Wi iam u ner C-on—H—uc- REQUEST accepted by: ti,,,.e, D - /President tion, Inc. J --�A-c — DATED: //_ j k ] REQUEST referred CO City Council for Action: DATED: November 9, 1982 CITY COUNCIL ACTION: Approved_ ZZ_ Approved as Modified Denied I/We hereby request of the City Council, City of Cagan, Minnesota, Reapportion- ment of pending special assessments for Project N345 on nroperty owned by me/us and legally described as follows: OAKWOOD I1L•IGNTS ADDITION, Blocks 1 thru 5, and Outlot A and B REASSESSMENT to be spread over the following legal descriptions: _Section 26, _parcel N10 02600-014 KIND OF IKPROVEIiEN1 PENT AMOUNT S wer,-Trunk _ _ $8569.55�f Blocks 1 thru 5 & Outlot A i1._ _Storm w Seer Lateral $3366.09 $7403.48 C. Street_ —_— -- E. — I/WE hereby waive noci.ce of any and all heari.r!gs necessary for the reapportion- ment or reassessment of said assessments an-, 1'S'it}IP.Y waive my/our right to appeal the reapportionment or reassessment under fii.rt[a"ca Statutes 429.071. It is further understood that this request shall be reviewed by the City Council of the City of Eagan c:,. its agent: and I/WE will be given reasonable notice as to whether this request is approved or modified. The undersigned agrees to pay all administrative costs incurred and billed by the City in such reassessmenrs.The undersigned is/are all of the persons who have an interest in the property affected by the reassessment, including fee title owners, contract for deed holders or optionees. ' The undersigned agrees that this' waiver shall run with the affected land and bind the heirs, successors and assigns of such land. LXX,ngton .56�vfh AAssocI&Ci.t•a DATED:er_�,___—_--_ —fairmrtyner rLagro/ oo�u,1teyCide Bulil"ers, Inc. (A e t —' A. Curry, PreB• of Jim -Bar Investment Company of Lexington South Associates, a partner - REQUEST accepted by DATED:ship, on behalf of the i partneryhi REQUEST referred to City Council for Action: DATED:—_ h 4 to82 CITY COUNCIL ACTION: Approved j/-�— Approved as Modified Denied 1`5 Te dl-- via rw) A'V /.SoVia//����i"i �• �� '(.�'1���"COY �'l L I V , V r A-Lcu iblt,�o m 0 i �l October 9, 1987 MR DOUG LEE 1543 SHERWOOD WAY EAGAN, MN 55123 RE: LOT 2, BLOCK 1, BRITTANY 7TH Dear Mr. Lee: Per your request, on September 29, 1987, Steve Hanson, Bill Bruestle and I made an inspection of your residence at 1543 Sherwood Way which was constructed in the summer of 1985. Results of this inspection revealed the following concerns: 1. At present, construction is inadequate to support roof loads and deviates from the plan. 2. Two steel pipe columns in the garage should be protected with 5/8" gypsum board. 3. Construction of the 2' dining room cantilever is inadequate to support loads. 4. Foyer floor is not completely level. 5. All joist hangers should be rechecked and nailed properly. 6. Inspection of living room roof framing was impossible at this time; however, it appears there may be a problem in that area. This could be verified by an inspection of this area by a designer and/or building inspector making access through the attic or by removing gypsum board. 7. Two sets of steps need handrails. 8. Installation of the siding needs to be inspected by the manufacturer's representative to verify installation procedures. 9. Framing and structural concerns could further be determined by removal of the gypsum board. This inspection has revealed some concerns with the construction of your home. We appreciate your bringing these concerns to our attention. It is my understanding that you are involved in legal action against your builder and therefore, the comments I am noting are based on a brief review and no detailed findings have been made. Sincerely, Doug Reid Chief Building Official DR/js cc: Tollefson Builders 12617 Fairgreen Ave Apple Valley, MN 55124 October ( 1987 MR DOUG LEE 1543 SHERWOOD WAY EAGAN, MN 55123 RE: LOT 2, BLOCK 1, BRITTANY 7TH Dear Mr. Lee: At your request, on September 29, 1987, Steve Hanson, Bill Bruestle and I made an inspection of your residence at 1543 Sherwood Way which was constructed in the summer of 1985. Results of this inspection revealed the following concerns: p� 1. Garage roof co truction i inadequate d deviates from the plan, � `--'6 h 2. Two steel pipe columns in the arage should be protected with 5/8" gypsum board. 3. Construction of the 2' dining room cantilever is inadequate ..9, �- 4. Foyer floor is not �lev� el. 0 5. All joist hangers should be rechecked and nailed properly. 6. Inspection of living room roof framing was impossible at' this time. However, it appears there may be a problem in that area. This could be %verified by an inspection of that area�R—�Cirn� (/7. Two sets of steps need handrails c0 �/ (JG p 8. Installationf the a siding needs to be inspected by the manufacturer's representative 9. The cause of some of the concerns baeei{ up could further be determined by removal of the gypsum board. ( \-Y4 R r &11' �--- PeL� This inspection as r_evealedd(�Jsome concerns with the construction of your home. We appreciate your bringing these concerns to our attention. Mie-ae4"r%- Sincerely, Doug Reid Chief Building Official DR/js cc: Tollefson Builders 12617 Fairgreen Ave Apple Valley, MN 55124 HUGE. LJDE & KELLER, P.A //�� ( PAUL M. MAUGE ,A110"Ievs al claw KEVIN W. EIDE TO%%7N CENTRE PROFESSIONAL BLDG., SUITE 200 DAVID G. KELLER 1260 YANKEE DOODLE ROAD LORI M. BELLIN FAGAN, MINNESOTA 55123 DEBRA E.T (612) 456-9000 THOMAS P..OWE LLO WE January 15, 1988 Eugene VanOverbeke Eagan City Clerk 3830 Pilot Knob Road Eagan, MN 55121 RE: Dissemination of Data to Individual Requesting Assessment Information Dear Mr. VanOverbeke: QUESTION: The issue presented here is whether the City of Eagan must provide the requested assessment information to an individual requesting it at no charge to the individual. DISCUSSION: Minnesota Statute S 13.03 is applicable to the issue in this matter. First, the requested information is classified as government data that is public, inasmuch as the assessment information has not been classified otherwise statute, temporary classification or federal law, as described in Minn. Stat. 513.03(1). As the information requested is public, under 13.03(2), full, convenience and comprehensive accessibility must be allowed to researchers to carry out extensive research and complete copying of all records. While the researchers alluded to in the statute refers to historians, genealogists and other scholars, it is arguable that the person requesting the assessment information here would fall into that category and full accessibility to the records would have to be allowed. Section 13.03(3) relates to the procedure and costs of supplying the requested data. It states that a person shall be allowed to inspect and copy public government data upon request, and the responsible authority may not charge the requesting party to pay a fee to inspect the data. However, the requesting party may be required to pay the actual costs of searching for and retrieving government data, as well as to pay the cost of making, certifying and compiling the copies of the data. Eugene VanOverbeke January 18, 1988 Page 2 Additionally, when the request, as here, involves any person's receipt of copies of public government data that has commercial value and is an entire formula, pattern, compilation, program, device, method, technique, process, data base or system developed with a significant expenditure of public funds by the agency, the responsible party may charge a reasonable fee for the information in addition to the costs described above. However, any fee charged must be clearly demonstrated to relate to the actual development costs of the information. Minn. Stat. 13.03(3). The Eagan City Policy on dissemination of information is right in line with the Minnesota Statutes. Section III, Procedures for obtaining public data specifies: (c)(1) any person requesting the opportunity to inspect . . . shall be allowed to do so . . . under the direct supervision of the responsible City employee; (c)(2) copies of requested information shall be provided at rates specified under the City's Comprehensive Code; and (c)(3) no original City documents may be loaned or checked out. An option worth considering would be to install a computer terminal for public use at the Eagan City Hall. Dakota County has such a terminal, but the cost of providing one to the City could be prohibitive. If the person requests copies, there is a charge. In order to cover the cost of the terminal, it could be passed on to those using it, in accordance with Minnesota Statutes 13.03(3). However, this scenario would defeat the purpose of providing the information at no or little cost. CONCLUSION: In conclusion, the City may charge for copies made upon request by an individual. Also, as the person involved here is requesting information that has commercial value, a reasonable fee may be charged for compiling the information, provided that there is sufficient documentation to justify the fee charged. Very truly yours, HAUGE, EIDE & KELLER, P.A. Thomas P. Lowe TPL:ras FJ BRENNER, WORKINGER & THOMPSON, P. A. a, ATTORNEYS AT LAW FQ SUITE 1000 7900 INTERNATIONAL DRIVE C 7 LOUIS W. BRENNER GERALD G. WORHINGER. JR. JOSEPH G. THOMPSON JOHN T. HARTMANN TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN: MINNEAPOLIS. MINNESOTA 55420 TELEPHONE: 16121 654.7600 TELECOPI ER: 16121 854A502 January 8, 1988 \ L,A J�"', AoV`^ q MARY S. VUJOVICH DAVID J. MEYERS JOHN T. RICHARDSON JEFFREY M. LANG MARGARET M. MORSCM WILLIAM L. MORAN We are attorneys for Twin Cities Legal Support Services ("LSS") and Mr. Thomas von Behren, President. Part of LSS' business involves searches and reviews of government data, including, but not limited to, levied and pending special assessments on real estate in various cities in the State of Minnesota. Although most cities readily comply with requests for access to government data reflecting levied and pending special assessments on real estate, several have denied access on various grounds, including the ground that non -protected data is stored in a computer with otherwise protected data, thereby denying LSS access to the computer, and also denying access to such information through city employees. LSS has been informed by the Minnesota Attorney General's Office and by several County Attorneys that the cities may not deny access to such government data. They do not, however, issue opinions to the public with respect to such matters. This letter is intended to set forth the applicable law in the State of Minnesota, which applies to all cities located in Minnesota, which mandates that persons be allowed access to the type of public data referred to herein. Minnesota Statutes Section 13.03 (a copy of which is attached hereto for your reference) provides in Subdivision 1 that all government data collected, created, received, maintained or otherwise disseminated by a state agency or political. subdivision shall be public unless classified by statute or other specific grounds making such data non-public. Subdivision 1. further provides that the responsible authority in every state agency or political subdivision must keep records containing government data in such an arrangement and condition as to make them easily accessible for convenient use. Subdivision 2 provides that the responsible authority in every state agency or political subdivision must also establish procedures, consistent with the statute, to ensure that requests for government data are received and complied with in an appropriate and prompt manner. January 8, 1988 Page Two Subdivision 3, regarding requests for access to data, provides that upon request to a responsible authority, persons must be permitted to inspect and copy public government data at reasonable times and places, and upon request, must be informed of the data's meaning. If a person requests access to such data for the purpose of inspection, no charge or fee may be assessed for such inspection. Further, no charge or fee is to be assessed for separating public from non-public data. If access to data is denied on the grounds that it is classified, the responsible authority must inform the requesting person of the determination, either orally at the time of the request, or in writing as soon as possible after the request is made, and must cite the specific statutory section, temporary classification, or specific provision of federal law upon which that determination was based. For purposes of Section 13.03 of Minnesota Statutes a "political subdivision" is defined to mean any county, statutory or home rule charter city. (see Section 13.02, Subdivision 11, attached hereto for your reference). We believe it is very clear, and that there can be no dispute, that government data reflecting levied and pending special assessments on real estate located within a city is public data which a city must provide access to under Minnesota Statutes Section 13.03. The only fee that may be charged for access to such data is for copying charges or any actual costs incurred in connection with searching for and retrieving such government data, and for making, certifying and compiling copies of such data. In connection with searching for information on levied or pending special assessments on real estate, we believe that the only charge or fee that may be assessed is for copying, since anyone requesting access to such data should be allowed to review such data without the necessity of a government employee searching for or retrieving such data. Again, Minnesota Statutes Section 13.03, Subdivision 3 provides that no charge may be made for separating public from non-public data. Accordingly, if a computer program of a city commingles public and non-public data, it is the responsibility of the city to provide such public data information requested without charge. If you should have any question as to the applicability of the Minnesota Statutes cited hereinabove and attached hereto, we request that you immediately discuss them with your city or county attorney, or the undersigned. We believe that the Minnesota Statutes referred to are quite clear on this subject, and respectfully request that LSS be allowed access to such information in a voluntary and prompt manner. Very truly yours, BRENNER, WORKINGER & HOMPSON, P.A. By: -7 , . John T. Hartmann Enclosures :::.::.,:.....:.. § 13.02 Note t Arrest information should be made available at reasonable times, including normal business GOVERNMENT DATA PRACMES Lours, but need not be available on a 24-hour pe day basis. Id. 13.03. Access to government data 'e Subdivision 1. Public data All government data collected, created, received, main- twined or disseminated by a state agency, political subdivision, or statewide system shall be public unless classified by statute, or temporary classification pursuant to section 13.06, or federal law, as nonpublic or protected nonpublic, or with respect to data on K individuals, as private or confidential. The responsible authority in every state agency, political subdivision and statewide system shall keep records containing government data in such an arrangement and condition as to make them easily accessible for convenient use. Photographic, photostatic, microphotographic, or microfilmed records shall be considered as accessible for convenient use regardless of the size of such records. '. Subd. 2. Procedures. The responsible authority in every state agency, political = K subdivision, and statewide system shall establish procedures, consistent with this chapter, / to insure. that requests for government data are received and complied with in an appropriate, and prompt manner. Full convenience and comprehensive accessibility shall be allowed to researchers including historians, genealogists and other scholars to carry out extensive research and complete copying of all records containing government data except as otherwise expressly. provided by law. ' " A responsible authority may designate one or more designees. • - ., " .-Subd. S. Request for access to data'Upon request to a responsible authority or designee, a person shall be permitted to inspect and copy public. government data at - :1 reasonable times and places, and, upon request, shall be informed of the data's meaning. If a person irequests access for the purpose of inspection, the responsible authority maw not rpay afee to inspect data.. The i responsible ,authority or designee shall provide copies of public government data upon ; request. If a'person requests copies,'the responsible authority may require the request- ing equest ing personactual costs of�Funn �or�inevmg governm€ntsad for ma g, .� g an comp ' g the copies o e to u may ao e r separating public from not public data., If the responsible authority or designee is not able to provide copies at the time a request is made, copies shall be supplied as soon as - i:When a regwest ander this s olves an n's recei t of co iea f pub'c V government data that has commercial g8lue an >s an en orm pa m on; Program, device, method, technique,, process, data base, or system de�e: . significant expenditure of public funds by the agency, the responsible authority may charge a reasonable fee for the information in addition to the costs of making, certifying, and compiling the copies.. Any fee charged must be clearly demonstrated by the agency to relate to the actual development coslis 1 a responsuthority, We the requestto any person, sufficient documentation to explain and justify the -fee being charged. .If the responsible authority or designee determines that the requested data is classified eo as to deny the requesting person access, the responsible authority or designee shall inform the requesting person of the determination either orally atthe'time of the request, or in writing as soon after that time as possible, and shall cite the specific statutory section, temporary classification, or specific provision of .federal lawon which the determination .is based Upon the request of any person denied access to data, the responsible authority or designee shall certify in writing that the request has been denied and cite the specific statutory section, temporary classification, or specific provision of federal law upon which the denial was based. . .Subd. d.. Change In classification of data The clasaiification of data in the posses- sion of an agency shall change if it is required to do go to comply with.either judicial or 90 "' Tom.,-Y�5!!�: �+•S y- ts4� - .. ;. r GOVERNMENT DATA PRACTICES § 13.03 administrative rules pertaining to the conduct of legal actions or with a spec statute applicable to the data in the possession of the disseminating or receiving agency. If data on individuals is classified as both private and confidential by this chapter, or any other statute or federal law, the data is private. To the extent that government data is disseminated to state agencies, political subdivi- sions, or statewide systems by another state agency, political subdivision, or statewide system, the data disseminated shall have the same classification in the hands of the agency receiving it as it had in the hands of the entity providing it. . Subd. b. Copyright or patent of computer program. Nothing in this chapter or any other statute shall be construed to prevent a state agency, statewide system, or political subdivision from acquiring a copyright or patent for a computer software program or components of a program created by that government agency. In the event that a . government agency does acquire a patent or copyright to a computer software program or component of a program, the data shall be treated as trade secret information pursuant to section 13.37. Subd. 6. Discoverability of not public data If a state agency, political subdivision, or statewide system opposes discovery of government data or release of data pursuant to court order on the grounds that the data are classified as not public, the party that seeks access to the data may bring before the appropriate presiding judicial officer, arbitrator, or administrative law judge an action to compel discovery or an action in the nature of an action to compel discovery. The presiding officer shall first decide whether the data are discoverable or releasable pursuant to the rules of evidence and of criminal,civil, or administrative procedure appropriate to the action. -If the data are discoverable the presiding officer shall decide whether the benefit to the party seeking access to the data outweighs any harm to the confidentiality interests of the agency maintaining the data, or ;Df any person who has. provided the data or who is the subject of the 'data, or to the privacy interest 6f an individual identified in the data. In making the decision, the presiding officer shall consider whether notice to the subject of the data is warranted and, if warranted, what type of notice must be given.The presiding officer may fashion and issue any protective ordersnecessary to Assure proper handling of the data by the.parties: Subd. 7. Data transferred to archiv@s."When'governinent.data-that'is classified as not public by this chapter of any other etatute,IIncluding private data on'decedents and confidential data on decedents, is physically transferred 'bo •the state archives; -the data shall no longer be classified As pot -public pn8 access to and -use of the data'shall' be . governed by section. 138.17:;:::- . Subd.,S...Change, to olessification Of data not on z-` ti Except for security information, nonpublic and protected nonpublic data shall become public either ten years After the creation of the data by the government agency or ten years after the data was received or collected by any governmental agency unless the responsible authority for. the originating or custodial agency. for the data reasonably determines that, if the data were made. available to the public or to the data subject, the'harm to the public or to a data subject would outweigh the benefit to -the public or to the data subject If the -responsible authority denies access to the data, the. person, denied access may challenge.the denial by bringing an action in- district court seeking please: of :the, data.. The action shall -be brought in the district eourt-located in the county where the data are being maintained, or, in the case of data maintained. by, a state agency, in any county..The data in dispute shall be examined by the court in camera , In deciding whether or not tp release the data, the court shall consider the benefits and harms in the same manner as set forth above. The court shall make a. written. statement of findings in support of its decision,: Ainended by Laois 1984, c.-436, if 2 to'4,-eff. April 24,-199C Uvii 1985, e. 298, 11 1 to 4, eH. Jane b, 1985: Laws 1987, e. 851, 1 1. Bl J 13.03 GOVERNMENT .DATA PRACTICES Historical Note ;. _ - .1987 Legislation Derivation: - The 1987 amendment, in subd. 3, substituted laws 1982, c. 545, if 2, 24. "If a person requests access for the purpose of Laws 1981, 1st Sp., C. 4, art. 1, § 6. inspection, the responsible authority may not Laws 1981, c. 311, § 39. - assess a charge or' for "The responsible authori- SL1980, § 15.1621. ty may not" in the second sentence, and.inserted Laws 1980, e. 603, § 7. If a person requests copies" in the third sen. Laws 1979, c. 328, ¢ 7. tence. The 1984 amendment, in solid. 3, inserted Law Review Commentaries "public" in the first and second sentences, added Data privacy: Everything you wanted W know the second paragraph, and, is the fourth para- about the Minnesota Government Data Practices graph substituted "or" for "and" preceding "in AM—from "A" to "Z". Donald A. Gemberling writing as soon" in the fust sentence and added and Gary A. Weissman. 1982, 8 Wm. -Mitchell the second sentence; added the last two para- l.ltev. b73. graphs in subd. 4; and added subd. 5. The 1985 amendment, in subd. 3, rewrote the Library References _ first paragraph, which formerly mad: Records 0=50 et seq. "Upon request to a responsible authority or .Reco Records 35. designee, a person shall be permitted to inspect § . and copy public government data at reasonable times and places, and if the person requests, he Notes of. Decisions shall be informed of the data's meaning. The - - responsible authority or designee shall provide 1. Construction with other laws -- copies of public government data upon request General language of Data privacy Act [MS.A. The responsible authority may require the re-,. -113.03, subd.41 which merely indicates in gener- .questing person to pay the actual costa of mak-: � terms that certain personnel data should be mg, certifying and compiling the copies. If the normally considered '.'private" does not create ,responsible authority or designee is not able to exception to Open Meeting Law [MS.A. g47L- provide copies at the time, a request is made he. 4051 thus, special provisions of Open Meeting shall supply copies as noon as reasonably poser ,LAW, limiting way in which exception' may be ibis." :. avated, prevails over general language in Data The 1985 amendment also added subds. 6, 7 -. -Privacy Act Itasca County Bd. of Com'rs v. and 8. Olson, App.1985, 372 N.W.2d SM. " 13.04. Rights of subjects of data .. Subdivision 1. Type of data The rights of individuals on whom the datais stored or to be stored shall be as set forth m gtis section. J. Solid. 2. information required to be given individual. An individual asked .to'aupply private or confidential data eoneerning the individual shall be informed of: is) the purpose and intended use of the requested data within the collecting state agency, political -subdivision, or statewide system; (b) whether the individual may refuse or is legally 'required to supply the requested data; (c) any known consequence arising from supplying or refusing to supply private or confidential data; and (d) the identity of other persons or entities authorized'by state or federal law to receive the data. This requirement shall not 'apply when an individual is asked to supply investigative data, pursuant to section 13.82, .-subdivision 5, to a law enforcement officer. Solid. S. Access to date by Individual. Upon'request to a iesponsble authority; an dividual shall be informed whether the individual is the subject of stored data on Individuals, ,and whether it is classified as public, private or confidential. Upon further request, an individual who is the subject of stored private or public data on individuals shall be shown the data without any charge and, if desired, shall be informed of the content and meaning of that data: After an individual has been shown the private data and informed of its meaning, the data need.not be disclosed to that individual for six months thereafter unless a dispute or action pursuant to this section is pending or additional data on the individual has been collected or created. The responsible authority shall provide copies of the private or public data upon request by the individual subject of the data. The responsible authority may regeire the requesting person to pay.the actual costa of making, certifying. and compt7ing the copies. 92 I 13.02 GOVERNMENT DATA PRACTICES I '-a0 statewide system means the state official designated by law or by the commissioner as the individual responsible for the collection, use and dissemination of any set of data on individuals, government data, "Responsible or summary data. authority" in any political subdivision means the individual designated by the governing body of that political subdivision as the individual responsible for the collection, use, and dissemi. nation of any set of data on individuals, government data, or summary data, unless otherwise provided by state law. Subd. 17. State agency. "State agency' means the state, the university of Minnesota, and any office, officer, department, division, bureau, board, commission, authority, district or agency of the state. q;l Subd. 18. Statewide system. "Statewide system" includes any record keeping a ` system in which government data is collected, stored, disseminated and used by means of a system common to one or more state agencies or more than one of its political subdivisions or any combination of state agencies and political subdivisions. ,k Subd. 19. Summary data. "Summary data" means statistical records and reports derived from data on individuals but in ;f which individuals are not identified and from which neither their identities nor any other characteristic that ii could uniquely identify an individual is ascertainable. History: 1974 c 479 s 1; 1975 c 401 s 1; 1976 c 239 s 2; 1976 c 283 s 1-5.-1977 c 375 s 1-5; 1978 c 790 s 1; 1979 c 318 s 2-6; 1980 c 603 s 1-6; 1980 618 25; .i di c s 1981 c 311 s 2-6,39; 1982 c 545 s 1.24; 1984 c 436 s 1 13.03 ACCESS TO GOVERNMENT DATA. Subdivision 1. Public data. All government data collected, created, received, maintained or disseminated by a state agency, political subdivision, 1, or statewide system shall be public unless classified by statute, or temporary classification pursuant to section 13.06, or federal law, as nonpublic or protected nonpublic, or with respect to data on individuals, as private or confidential. The responsible authority in every state agency, political subdivision and statewide system shall keep records containing government data in such an arrangement and condition as to make them easily accessible for convenient use. Photographic, photostatic, microphotographic, or microfilmed records shall be considered as accessible for convenient use regardless of the size of such records. Subd. 2. Procedures. The responsible authority in every state agency, political subdivision, and statewide system shall establish procedures, consistent with this chapter, to insure that requests for government data are received and complied with in an appropriate and prompt manner. Full convenience and comprehensive accessi- bility shall be allowed to researchers including historians, genealogists and other scholars to carry out extensive research and complete copying of all records containing government data except as otherwise expressly provided by law. A responsible authority may designate one or more designees. ? Subd. 3. Request for access to data. Upon request to a responsible authority or designee, a person shall be permitted to inspect and copy public government data at reasonable times and places, and, upon request, shall be informed of the data's mean- ing. The responsible authority may not require the requesting person to pay a fee to inspect data. The responsible authority or designee shall provide copies of public government data upon request. The responsible authority may require the requesting person to pay the actual casts of searching for and retrieving government data and for making, certifying and compiling the copies of the data but may not charge for separating public from not public data. If the responsible authority or designee is not able to provide copies at the time a request is made, copies shall be supplied as soon as reasonably possible. When a request under this subdivision involves any person's receipt of copies of public government data that has commercial value and is an entire formula, pattern, compilation, program, device, method, technique, process, data base, or system devel- 240 'T-'^ 241 GOVERNMENT DATA PRACME5 11.07 A as ' oped with a significant expenditure of public funds by the agency, the responsible Ila authority may charge a reasonable fee for the information in addition to the costs of ny „t, making, certifying. and compiling the copies. Any fee charged must be clearly demon- lat strated by the agency to relate to the actual development costs of the information. The ni- S responsible authority, upon the request of any person, shall provide sufficient documen- ess = ration to explain and justify the fee being charged. If the responsible authority or designee determines that the requested data is ofclassified 4 so as to deny the requesting person access, the responsible authority or tn, designee shall inform the requesting person of the determination either orally at the �.: time of the request, or in writing as soon after that time as possible, and shall cite the ;ng _ specific statutory section, temporary classification, or specific provision of federal law ins 7. on which the determination is based. Upon the request of any person denied access cat to data, the responsible authority or designee shall certify in writing that the request has been denied and cite the specific statutory section, temporary classification, or ns specific provision of federal law upon which the denial was based. )m Subd. 4. Change in classification of data. The classification of data in the ify possession of an agency shall change if it is required to do so to comply with either judicial or administrative rules pertaining to the conduct of legal actions or with a '75 specific statute applicable to the data in the possession of the disseminating or receiving 5 If data on individuals is classified as both private and confidential by this chapter, cr any other statute or federal law, the data is private. To the extent that government data is disseminated to state agencies, political _d ` -. subdivisions, or statewide systems by another stale agency, political subdivision, or ;de- statewide system, the data disseminated shall have the same classification in the hands int ? °• of the agency receiving it as it had in the hands of the entity providing it. ect _4, Subd. 5. Copyright or patent of computer program. Nothing in this chapter or any other statute shall be construed to prevent a state agency, statewide system, or political ing Ti,- ing �' - subdivision from acquiring a copyright or patent for a computer software program or .ily components of a program created by that government agency. In the event that a or - - government agency does acquire a patent or copyright to a computer software program of _`; or component of a program, the data shall be treated as trade secret information pursuant to section 13.37. cal a. 3 Subd. 6. Discoverability of not public data. If state agency, political subdivision, his or statewide system opposes discovery of government data or release of data pursuant ith 10 court order on the grounds that the data are classified as not public, the party that -:: seeks access to the data may bring before the appropriate presiding judicial officer, j ner • +> arbitrator, or administrative law judge an action to compel discovery or an action in ! ; ing a the nature of an action to compel discovery. The presiding officer shall first decide whether the data are discoverable or releas- I able pursuant to the rules of evidence and of criminal, civil, or administrative proce- a or ': dure appropriate to the action. 1 at ' If the data are discoverable the presiding officer shall decide whether the benefit F' an- -_ to the party seeking access to the data outweighs any harm to the confidentiality to interests of the agency maintaining the data, or of any person who has provided the data t ,li.c - or who is the subject of the data, or to the privacy interest of an individual identified ;ng '',x;,, in the data. In making the decision, the presiding officer shall consider whether notice for to the subject of the data is warranted and, if warranted, what type of notice must be for given. The presiding officer may fashion and issue any protective orders necessary to lot —_ assure proper handling of the data by the parties. ,on Subd. 7. Data transferred to archives. When government data that is classified 1 as not public by this chapter or any other statute, including private data on decedents .of and confidential data on decedents, is physically transferred to the state archives, the rn, data shall no longer be classified as not public and access to and use of the data shall el- Y by governed by section 138.17. GOVERNMENT DATA PRACTICES Section § 13.0$ 13.79. Department of labor and Indus 13.791. Rehabilitation data - industry data Section .13.83. Medicalcrammer data services data DATA MAINTAIN ED BY CRIMINAL ' JUSTICE AGENCIES 19.85. �°1ti .. rrectious and detention data ' --13.86. Investigative detention ds 18.87. . 18.88. �� l history data. ,. .Oeater 13.80. Domestic abuse data 13.81. Repealed. data mty' dispute resolution 13.82. .Comprehensive law enforcement data 1889. Disse Dissemination of data to protection and Cross References :13.90. Goyder� t data practices. - Public corporation for delivery of health are and related services, Data eiderta noon ublig at closed meeting cos nonpublic, Application of chapter, Consideration as P see i 246A.06. see ?A6A.16. WESTLAW Electronic see f 246A.17. Political .subdivision", Research See WESTLAW guide following the Preface of this supplement. . .: GENERAL REQUIREMENTS 13.01. Government da ffi Subdivision I. APPlicabilit . systems shall be .governed b y All state agencies, political subdivisions and statewide Subd. 2. Citation. Y the chapter. . :0 ` Practices act,, T6ts chs ter Y coed 8s the _ .. Minnesota government data Derivation.; 24 ;r:; i - A 9 A Weiss, ,Ronald e g'' Laws 1982, c'bd5, and A 'Gemberlin laws 1981, lets ., c 4, :ILRev. WS _ 1j.: 8_;d K.i�en a, laws 1981. a all . art .l, g1 4, 6. _ 05 1,,a9. SL1990,§ 16.1611.; - .. _.-'•:v. +arySefereaem laws 1979, r 328, y .r.,. girds i>l:' law Review Commentaries ' z .4-4. Records 41 y ' t about thenvacy: Everytlaug you wanted ta'lmow Minnesota Government Data Practiceb ... 13.02. Collection ' -. security.and dlsseminatr Subdivision 1.ty: on of records; ideftnMold section have the meean nr �Lv m °S?a m this thilliter, the';erms' dem , Subd. 2 Conimlaeloner. ' = t.': of administration. 'Contmiasioaee"'Reans the oomatisaioner of the de Subd. 3 Confidential_ `' +; Partment data�stb a to the ' blit by effituteuorlede den ffiw data on mdividuajs"means made not p- -data mdioldual eubjed of that data... aPPlicable:to. the data,and.is data which rsD not IMOt data On inddi�� ata data individuals".means:all'8aoetnment individuals....- - t.;:..y . i whichu6 �5. 'Daffi on lndividn "'Dsffi'on m Y individual is dividuals" means'all v appearance of the or can be identified ae the sub' go ernment data in incidental to the name or other ' Jett of that data, anless the data and- identifying ac data can . clearly demonstrated. to be only Of any lntiividual. fbe daffi:are not eoceesed bj the name orother idea 84bd. 6 Designee.thO..DesIY g data meeive and coto be mply $e of indivviidual 161 Y Person estynated by a responsible` sn= P Ywith'-requests Ifor government' datang by data and to 97 .. _. . 13.02 GOVERNMENT DATA .PRACTICE9�1 Subd. 7. Government data "Government data" means all data collected, tree �. received, maintained or disseminated b an state agency, � " wide system re p Y Y gg cy, political sabdivision; or state y regardless of its physical form, sutra a media or conditions of use. "4 4 Subd. 8. Individual. "Individual" means a natural person. _ In the case of a minor or an individual adjudged mentally incompetent, "individual" includes a parent or guardian or an individual acting as a parent or guardian in the absence of a parent or guardian, except that the responsible authority shall withhold data from parents or guardians, or - individuals acting as parents or guardians in the absence of parents or guardians, upon request by the minor if the responsible authority determines that withholding the data would be in the best interest of the minor. Subd. 8a. Not public data "Not public data" means any government data which. is classified by statute, federal law, or temporary classification as confidential, private, nonpublic, or protected nonpublic . Subd. 9. Nonpublic data. .-"Nonpublic data" -means data not on individuals which is '. made by statute or federal law applicable to the data: (a) not public; and (b) accessible to the subject, if any, of the data. Subd. 16. Person. "Person" means any individual, partnership, corporation, associa- tion, business trust, or a legal representative of an organization. Subd. 11. Political subdivision. "Political subdivision" means any-eounty,'a(atutory or home rule charter: city, school -district, special district ;and .any'board, commission, : s district or authority created pursuant to law, local ordinance or charter provision...•it includes any nonprofit corporation which is a community action agency organized •punsu- ant to the economic opportunity act of 1964 (P,L.'88--452) as amended, to qualify'for public + funds, or any nonprofit social service agency which performs services under contract't" any political subdivision, statewide system or state agency,: tp.,the .extent that the nonprofit social serviceagen.ey or, nonprofit corporation collects, attires, disseminates, and uses data on individuals because of contractual relationship with state agencigii, political ' subdivisions or statewide systems. Subd. 12. Private data o6- viduah. "Private data on •individuals" means data which is made by statute or federal Saw applicable to the data:(a) s aot'public;'Vnd (b) accessible to the individual subject of that data. • i •' ` Subd. 13. Protected nonpublic data "Protected non-public idata"• means data bot ori individuals which is made by statute or federal law applicable,io:theAata ta) not ,public and (b) not accessible to the subject of the .. , Subd. 14. Public data hot bn individuals.:: 'Public idata not -on individuals" means ':1 plata Which is,Accessible.to the,public,pursuant•to section 18.os..:j.; ` -; r;:; .;•:.,u_:< Subd. 15. Public data on individuals. "Public'data 6n individuals" -means data'which is accessible.to the public in.accordanee with the provisions of sectioa13.03. .: + •. Subd. 16. • Responsible authority. "Responsible authority" in e_'state"ageiicy; or statewide 'system means the state official -designated by law or'by the commissioner'as the individual responsible'foi the eolleetion,' use and dissemination.of any set of dataun individuals, government data, or summary data_:' "Responsible iinthority" in say political subdivision means the"individual designated by the governing body: -of dhat political subdivision as the individual responsible for the collection; use, and "dissemination of any set of data on individuals, government data, or summary data, unless otherwise provided by`state law..:;`.• :::: ,,.-.,.:.; ::. a' ::,,., -.... • ... ,.- , ' 8u6d. ii. ,"State agency:': "State gency".meal s the 9tate, •the •aniverslty:of Minneso fa, and any"'office,' officer,'departinent,diviaion, bureau; board, commission, autho districtor agency of the state. . ...... rity , •, . - ,... Subd. 18 -. Statewide system "Statewide system includes any. record-keeping system in which government data is collected,:atored, disseminated and used by means of a xc 1. GOVERNMENT DATA .PRACTICES § 13.02 Note 1 system common to one or' more_ state agencies or more than one of its political subdivi- sions or any combination of state agencies and political subdivisions. Subd. 19. Summary data "Summary data" means statistical. records and reports derived from data on individuals but in which individuals are" not identified and from which neither their identities.norany other characteristic that could uniquely identify an individual is ascertainable...• .. " Amended by Laws 1984, c. 436, ¢ ], eft. April 24, 1984. Historical Note 'Information concerning names of those receiv- Derivation: Ing payment for abortion services provided to Laws .1982, c. 545, §§.l, 24. " _ medical assistance recipients and amount of pay- . laws 1981, C. 911, §§ 2 to 6, 99. - ments received is neither confidential nor private -within § 15.162, subds. 1 to 12-withinmeaning of Data Privacy Act.Minnesota Medical Ass'n v_ State, 1978, 274 N.W.2d 84. Laws 1980, c. 618, § 25. - ' - Whether records ere, "public records within Laws 1990, c: 609,'¢§ 1 to 6. meaning of Data Privacy Act depends not on the Laws 1979, e. 928, §§ 2 to 6.' - - form in which they are kept but on whether they Laws 1978, c. 790, § 1. are necessary to a full and accurate knowledge laws 1977, c.'375, §§ I to 5. `' `of official activities. "M. laws 1976, c. 283, §§ 1"to B. Data concerning payments to medical assist - Laws 1976, c. 239, § 2. "ance vendors and stored on computer tapes of laws 1975, c. 401, ¢ 1. ..:the..Department of Public .Welfare are., public Laws 1974, a 479,,§ 1. - a i-ecords'accessble to the public so that informa- tion contained in such records is "public data on The 1989 amendment added subd 8s defining .;dividuals". subject to disclosure under AM, _ -1d."Nof public"date'. . - ' :.. i • .:.. • s_' ; [:•: a _SeCtion 257.91, :providing •Sar " privacy -:of Cross References ':records".of paternity proceedings, does not per- Registry of -persons 'typed for-huni ii leuko- :' mit concealment of .names of the parties to the cyte antigens,- classification of data; see i44. action. C.M.C. v- A.P.F., 1977, 257 N.W.2d 282, 9S6• •. ��; :appeal dismissed 98 S.Ct 759, 434 U.S. 1029,64 a .. ;..:.; : _3LFA.2d Law Review Commentanes 'In all cases *here'statutes so,piovide, court is Criminal procedure: " Expnngement of driest dearly 'empowered to order expungement -of records. 1976, 62 Minn. Isw.Reviery 229.:.:. criminal record; -in eases to which the statutory Data privacy: Everything you wanted to Imow ' 'deme does' not -extend, the 'court's 'inherent about the Minnesota Government Data Practices power is limited to instances where petitioner's Act from "A" to "Z 'Donald A. Gemberling . byte otio�of his may de _ be se io jly infringed and Gary A. Weissman. -.'1982,.l Win. ,Mitchell e, 256 ent10 803. LRev. Z78. of>:' t ". _ .: z;_. Due process right to a In action .m 'which it was determined #hat prior 40 �' � rator of chain of Lansmiseioa service facility 1980, 64 pMinn. lan of 'w Review 1107.Iaura.Cooper,rlian chisel properly terminated "franchise after :Tortious invasion of privacy: evidence of consumer fraud "vias obtained, fact p very: Minnesota as a•' that issue whether methods employed to gather model. .1978, 4 Wm.'Mitchell LRev,-163_:',..-id gainst franchisee prior to termination evence e Victims Reparations Act- A preliminary anally- violated his rights_ under Privacy Act was not !is. 1976, 2 Wm. Mitchell I,Rev,187: : ;sided before trial court foreclosed consideration ,tr�such issue on appeal, particularly in'light of ;.•sfaet that issue was evidentiary in nature and did :. Notes of Dedsio8i ;: '_ ... t':sot'-appear'dispositive of case.on its merits. 1. In general 1. + = :rA=eo.rindustries, -Inc.-v..DeWolf, "1977; 812 Federal &irictcourt`lailied 'subject 'matter": Minn. 95, 260- N.W.2d 896. • . ^ . .. ...... - jurisdiction over claims under Minnesota Privacy 3:-'-County.-law enforcement authorities are: not Act, even though such law was mandated by':'authorized to,withhold the arrest information Congress, inview of fact that plaintiffs would _jwhichis otherwise. public,. under _§.15.17 for, 86 sot ordinarily be expected to try their additional ;. hours or until arraignment of the arrested per federal claims m same judicial proceeding with son. Op-Atty.Ges:, 851, Sept lb, 1976. �ivRey Act claims.- Reyes V. Edmunds '-D Countysheriffs die the responsible authorities - 1076, 416 FSupp. 649. :. :: r.:.:.. }: ziforthe release of arrest information. Id: :... 89 It Gy QAcLf•-v --- CD men 166ti �- t V �® G� tii�( G Ls GC J ...0 �.... e. r C -P: !s .4 G -? "C'{ � ".,/ k� Y F(:\UG E. L:ILE: S, hF,L.L11- Illonleps al X nu TO%VN CENFFRE PROFESSIONAL BLDG., SUITE 200 1260 YANKEE DOODLE ROAD EAGAN, MINNESOTA 55123 (612) 456-9000 January 15, 1988 Eugene VanOverbeke Eagan City Clerk 3830 Pilot Knob Road Eagan, MN 55121 RE: Dissemination of Data to Individual Requesting Assessment Information Dear Mr. VanOverbeke: QUESTION: PALLH.4AUGE KEVIN W. EIDE DAVID G. KELLER LORI M. BELLIN DEBRA E. SCHMIDT THOMAS P. LOWE The issue presented here is whether the City of Eagan must provide the requested assessment information to an individual requesting it at no charge to the individual. DISCUSSION: Minnesota Statute § 13.03 is applicable to the issue in this matter First, the requested information is classified as government data that is public, inasmuch as the assessment information has not been classified otherwise statute, temporary classification or federal law, as described in Minn. Stat. §13.03(1). As the information requested is public, under 13.03(2), full convenience and comprehensive accessibility must be allowed to researchers to carry out extensive research and complete copying of all records. While the researchers alluded to in the statute refers to historians, genealogists and other scholars, it is arguable that the person requesting the assessment information here would fall into that category and full accessibility to the records would have to be allowed. Section 13.03(3) relates to the procedure and costs of supplying the requested data. It states that a person shall be allowed to inspect and copy public government data upon request, and the responsible authority may not charge the requesting party to pay a fee to inspect the data. However, the requesting party may be required to pay the actual costs of searching for and retrieving government data, as well as to pay the cost of making, certifying and compiling the copies of the data. Eugene VanOverbeke January 18, 1988 Page 2 Additionally, when the request, as here, involves any person's receipt of copies of public government data that has commercial value and is an entire formula, pattern, compilation, program, device, method, technique, process, data base or system developed with a significant expenditure of public funds by the agency, the responsible party may charge a reasonable fee for the information in addition to the costs described above. However, any fee charged must be clearly demonstrated to -relate to the actual development costs of the information. Minn. Stat. 13.03(3). The Eagan City Policy on dissemination of information is right in line with the Minnesota Statutes. Section III, Procedures for obtaining public data specifies: (c)(1) any person requesting the opportunity to inspect . . . shall be allowed to do so . . . under the direct supervision of the responsible City employee; (c)(2) copies of requested information shall be provided at rates specified under the City's Comprehensive Code; and (c)(3) no original City documents may be loaned or checked out. An option worth considering would be to install a computer terminal for public use at the Eagan City Hall. Dakota County has such a terminal, but the cost of providing one to the City could be prohibitive. If the person requests copies, there is a charge. In order to cover the cost of the terminal, it could be passed on to those using it, in accordance with Minnesota Statutes 13.03(3). However, this scenario would defeat the purpose of providing the information at no or little cost. CONCLUSION: In conclusion, the City may charge for copies made upon request by an individual. Also, as the person involved here is requesting information that has commercial value, a reasonable fee may be charged for compiling the information, provided that there is sufficient documentation to justify the fee charged. Very truly yours, HAUGE, EIDE & KELLER, P.A. / P. TPL:ras A G E N D A SPECIAL ASSESSMENT COMMITTEE MEETING EAGAN MUNICIPAL CENTER 3830 PILOT KNOB ROAD EAGAN, MN 55122 TUESDAY, OCTOBER 9, 1984 4:00 P.M. I. 4:00 - Roll Call & Pledge of Allegiance II. 4:05 - Adopt Agenda III. 4:10 - OLD BUSINESS A. Project 372, I -35E Utilities & Streets 1. Francis C. Franz (10-02100-010-50) 2. Anna S. Heuer (10-02100-010-78) IV. 5:00 - NEW BUSINESS- Pending Assessment Review A. Project 411, Patrick Eagan Trunk Storm Sewer 1. George & Mirian Nall (10-02200-040-27) 2. Anthony Caponi (10-02200-010-80 & 84) 3. Thomas Rooney (10-02200-012-86) 4. Thomas Bergin (10-02200-011-85) V. 6:00 - Adjourn (Dinner Break) VI. 6:30 - Reconvene VII. 6:35 - NEW BUSINESS (Continued) - Final Assessment Appeals B. Project 383, Schwanz Lake Trunk Storm Sewer 1. Heide Schiela (10-02500-010-52) C. Project 384, Walden Heights Trunk Storm Sewer 1. Arthur Koestner (10-78200-030-01) D. Project 371SR, Water Treatment Plant Trunk Storm Sewer 1. Albert Perron (10-00900-010-09) E. Project 381, Borchert Ingersoll Trunk Storm Sewer 1. Gopher Smelting (10-01100-010-76) (10-01200-010-51, 55 & 56) (over) SPECIAL ASSESSMENT COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA (continued) TUESDAY, OCTOBER 9, 1984 4:00 P.M. F. Project 317, Blackhawk Road Streets & Utilities 1. Jay Tscherne (10-02900-040-05) 2. James Ashworth (10-02900-010-10) 3, Robert Keuger (10-02900-010-08) 4. Darold Holden (10-02900-030-05) (10-02900-060-05) (10-02900-070-05) G. Project 368, Robin Lane Streets 1. Herbert Bergstrom, Jr. (10-14300-100-00) VIII. 10:15 - Other Business A. Special Assessment Deferment Policy IV. 10:30 - Adjourn ,1 LAw OFFIcEs GRANNIS, CAMPBELL, FARRELL & KNUTSON DAVID L. GRANNIS 18941961 PRDFFESSIONAL ASSOCIATION DAVID L. GRANNIS, JR. 19101990 POST OMCE BOX 59 VANCB B. GRANNIS 407 NORWESf BANK BUILDING, VANCE B. GRANNIS. JR. 161 NORTH CONCORD EXCHANGE THOMAS J. CAMPBELL PATRICK A. FARRSLL SOUTH ST. PAUL, MINNESOTA 55075 DAVID L. GRANNIS, 111 ROGER N. KMITSON 612.455.1661 THOMAS M. SCOTT GARY C. FUCHS MARY S. VUJOVICH THOMAS L. GRUNDHOEMER DAVID L. HARMEVF.R October 9, 1984 Mr. Paul H. Hauge Attorney at Law Cedarvale Professional Building 3908 Sibley Memorial Highway Eagan, MN 55122 RE: Project No. 371 S.R. Dear Paul: Pursuant to our conversatio^ vn A----4-+ -- ----.-- withdraws their objections to th the above matter. Ver YD BY: VBG/lmg cc: Bill Muske J" OF 3830 PILOT KNOB ROAD. P.O. BOK 21199 EAGAN. MINNESOTA 55121 PHONE: (612) 454-8100 Vance Grannis c/o.Y.D. Associates P.O. Box 57 403 Norwest Bank Bldg. 161 No. Concord Exchange South St. Paul, MN 55075 Dear Mr. Grannis: September 17, 1984 V/ BEA BLOMQUIST Maya THOMAS EGAN JAMES A SMITH JERRY THOMAS THEODORE WACHTER C Wnd Members THOMAS HEDGES Cnv AC r mftalw EUGENE VAN OVERBEKE ON Ci ,k You have filed an objection with the City of Eagan covering assessments against _land owned by you. This is to notify you that the hearing on the assessments was continued by the City Council until October 16, 1984 at 7:00 p.m. at the Eagan City Hall. Generally, when objections are filed by a property owner, the City staff attempts to meet with the objecting property owner to determine whether there are any specific objections that can be dealt with before the hearing and in addition, the City has a special assessment committee made up of lay persons, members of the City Council and Planning Commission that review special assessment objections prior to the Council hearing. The following schedule is being suggested in order to review the objections and to deal with them prior to a final appeal: 1. We are suggesting that members of the City staff, including Tom Colbert, the Public Works Director, and a member of the City Attorney's office meet with you in the morning of September 20, or the afternoon of Septem- ber 25, at the Eagan City Hall to discuss the assessment objections. 2. Your objections are also being placed on the agenda of the Special Assessment Committee which meets at 7:00 on October 9, 1984 at the City Hall. 3. The continued hearing on the assessments is now scheduled for October 16, 1984 at 7:00 p.m. In the event that the agenda of that evening becomes excessively long, you will be contacted with an alternate date for the hearing. We would ask that you contact the City Attorney's office at #454-4224 and arrange for a time to get together at the City Hall on September 20 in the a.m. or on September 25, in the afternoon and would appreciate your call as soon as pqssible. Very truly yours, Thomas Colbert TC:ras Public Works Director THE LONE OAK TREE ... THE SYMBOL OF STRENGTH AND GROWTH IN OUR COMMUNITY 0 CITY OF EAGAN DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS FOR IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 371 and 371SR OBJECTIONS TO SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS TO: The Honorable City of Eagan, 3795 Pilot Knob Road, Eagan, Minnesota 55112. YD Associates, a limited partnership, the owner of Parcels Section 9, Parcel No. 10 00900 011 52, Section 9, Parcel No. 10 00900 020 52, and Fox Ridge Addition, Parcel No. 10 27500-010 01, included in the above special assessment projects object to said assessments on the grounds that the undersigned is not and will not be benefited by said special assessments or proposed • improvements, and on the further ground that said assessments insofar as they relate to the property of the undersigned are discrimatory and constitute taking of the undersigned's property without due process of law in violation of the Constitution of the Unite St t and the State of Minnesota. Dated: YD WS • . DAvm L GRANNIE - 1871.1961 DAVM L GRANNLS.JR 19101980 VANCR B. GRANNIE VANCE B. GRANNIS. JIL THOMAS J. CAMPBELL PATRICK A. FARRELL DAVM L. GRANNIS. 111 ROGER N. KNUTSON THOMAS M. SCOTT GARY G. FUCKS MARV S. VOJOVICH THOMAS L. GRUNDHOEFER DAVM L HARMEYER LAW OFFICES GRANNIS, CAMPBELL, FARRELL & KNUTSON PROPFP.GSIONAL ASSOCIATION POST OFFICE BOK 57 40.7 NORWPSF BANK BDILDING 161 NORTH CONCORD EXCHANGE SOUTH ST. PAUL, MINNESOTA 55075 612455-1661 E. J. VanOverbeke Eagan City Clerk 3795 Pilot Knob Road Eagan, MN 55122 August 3, 1984 RE: Special Assessments for Improvement Project 371 and 371SR Dear Mr. VanOverbeke: I am enclosing herewith Objections to Special Assess- ments in the above projects. Kindly file the same. • VBG/lmg Enclosure cc: Bill Muske • Ver GRA BY: /70� SAC 10/9/84 G. PROJECT 368, ROBIN LANE STREETS 1. Herbert Bergstrom, Jr. (10-14300-100-00) BACKGROUND INFORMATION Project 368 provided for the surfacing of Robin Lane from Blackhawk Road north to its intersection with Blackhawk Road near Trunk Highway 13. During the construction of this street, it was desirable to eliminate the "right angle" [urn as dedicated as a part of Blackhawk Acres. Subsequently, the staff acquired the necessary right of way from Lot 10 under the ownership _. of Herbert Bergstrom, Jr. In excharge, the City vacated the old right of way platted with Blackhawk Acres. However, wi r— is new a ignment t rough Lot 10, it created a triangular .configuration for this lot. Enclosed on pageis the written objection as submitted by Mr. Bergstrom in response to the final assessment hearing held on September 4, 1984, for this project. Enclosed on page 7--!1 is a section map showing the configuration of this lot resulting from the new alignment of Robin Lane. Enclosed on page_ is a topographic overview of this property showing the side hill configuration adjacent to Robin Lane. As a part of the final asse sm nt roll, the staff had assessed the entire 243 feet of frontage for Lo 10Iat the rate of $39.49 per foot, resulting in an assessment of $9,596. 9 This rate per front foot was arrived at by dividing the total cost of the project by the assessable footage. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Research into the parcel has found that the no hly 70 f t of the triangular portion of this lot is underdevelopable due to its in ility to meet proper setback conditions. Taking into consideration the act that the realignment of Robin Lane severed this parcel creating this situation, the staff has determined that the front footage should be reduced by 70 feet frnm 943 feet lo 133 17—ee�ly o project does not change, the assessable footage is reduced which results in an increase in the per front foot rate from $39.49 to $40.05. This would resu n for Lot 10 of $6,928.65 and would increase a other parcels by $.56 per front oot. Therefore, staff is recommencing that the Specta ssessment Comm i trteL5—app rove the reduction in the front footage and the recalculation of the final assessment roll for Project 368 to take into consideration the reduction in the assessable footage. COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION/COMMENTS 13 01^-B� H1ucq[sT Deve�ov. r oy ,c►Ile Pond �!5 Rc. 030,-10 fire. iCRrsr t7GV. 9 c° �O � 11 2 / 416 4 � � w � 9 1 2 3 4 h .o Z to .fi ao-�S �oar•rs � 1 t 1. P�vbBn 6 Donngl aa '47 Md/y K rfd//anp' 04C -Y S a Sus J D/�°n L s P' � t per 4s s c sc !'ac/ lricrsd K. ac -81 eifha,•d 6 Thr//!ie ,Pii P g o r- / 73 Ac- •sn 1 2 3 4 5 6 n T _ N LOT 1 � �BLK.21 to O 1ff � m 4 F,721F 4 2 3 4 5 6 p9�.-7f ad�� �1 r _ : 1_eaov t. a L-uctt-tee Bono Gt9 l�. M h Z tee,7 cas rsc so OMON TEPE ) 4,5 / 6 9 e ,r HILLCREST OEVELOPMMNT .N/Ofs Z301 LF -ROY 1. &LL)CtLLE PCNA P/10 a vt Mc•19 se Sisk � c� � 01^-B� H1ucq[sT Deve�ov. r oy ,c►Ile Pond �!5 Rc. 030,-10 fire. iCRrsr t7GV. 9 c° �O � 11 2 / 416 4 � � w � 9 1 2 3 4 h .o Z to .fi ao-�S �oar•rs � 1 t 1. P�vbBn 6 Donngl aa '47 Md/y K rfd//anp' 04C -Y S a Sus J D/�°n L s P' � t per 4s s c sc !'ac/ lricrsd K. ac -81 eifha,•d 6 Thr//!ie ,Pii P g o r- / 73 Ac- •sn 1 2 3 4 5 6 n T _ N LOT 1 � �BLK.21 to O 1ff � m 4 F,721F 4 2 3 4 5 6 p9�.-7f ad�� �1 CITY OF EAGAN ASSESSMENT AGREEMENT PROJECT NO. THIS AGREEMENT dated this day of , 1984, between the CITY OF EAGAN, (called City), and Uerbert 1�' erocs}rorv\ '7r, (called Owner) of ��a1 ��(►eb��� ���.ceaaU. ar�.Slzz-, (address);' WHEREAS, the City proposes to assess the following described premises in Dakota County, Minnesota owned by Owner: (legal description) 1-0+ to, Block 1, Acres . for the following improvements pursuant to.City Projec t 36 : WHEREAS, such assessments would normally be based upon the present zoning classification of said premises, that is, ; and NOW THEREFORE, upon consideration of the mutual covenants herein, the parties agree as follows: 1. The City agrees to assess said property for the Project and purposes described above as if it were zoned at the rates now in existence for property so zoned. 2. The Owner agrees for tILMself, LL.5 heirs, executors, administrators, successors, and assigns, that in the event that the actual use of the property is changed in the future, or in the event of subdivision of the property, then in that event the City may reassess or levy a supplemental assessment at such time equal to the difference between the assessment for the new land use and the assessment for the present land use at the assessment rates, according to City policy, in effect at such future time. 3. The Owner, for KLM_self, K;s heirs, executors, administrators, successors and assigns, further waives notice of any and all hearings 1 necessary and waives any and all objections to the present or future assessments agreed to herein or to the proceedings related thereto and waives the right to appeal such assessments. 4. The undersigned hereby agree that this agreement may be recorded with the Dakota County Recorder and that the owner shall execute any and all documents necessary to implement the recording of this agreement including the delivery of the Owner's Duplicate Certificate of 'Title to the affected lands if necessary. 5. The undersigned agrees that this agreement shall run with the affected land and binds the heirs, successors and assigns of such land. 6. The undersigned heirs, successors and assigns of such land, includes all of the persons, firms or corporation that hold an interest in the assessed land and the reapportioned land described above, including the fee title owners, contract for deed vendees or vendors or holders of any other interest under contract for deed, option or otherwise. 7. Other conditions: The undersigned have read and understand the above agreement and hereby bind themselves to it in all respects. OWNER erbe zs'r- I This Document Drafted By - Hauge Smith 8 Eide, P.A. 3908 Sibley emorial Highway Eagan, Minnesota 55122 2 CITY OF EAGAN By: Its Mayor Attest: Its Clerk APPROVED: Public Works Director EXEMPT FROM STATE DEED TAX SAC 10/9/84 C. PROJECT 384. WALDEN HEIGHTS TRUNK STORM 1. ARTHUR KOESTNER (10-78200-030-01) BACKGROUND INFORMATION Project 384 provided for the trunk storm sewer outlet from the southside of Cliff Road into Thomas Lake to handle the drainage generated from the Walden Heights, Twin View Manor and Twin View Manor 2nd Additions. All those subdivisions prepaid their trunk area assessments under previous projects or asa condition of final platting with the exception of a few minor unplatted parcels and Mr. Koestner's property. Enclosed on page is a location map referencing Mr. Koestner's property to the improvement. Enclosed on page ,sp w,f/ is the written objection submitted by Mr. Koestner requesting consideration for the proposed trunk area storm sewer assessment. Mr. Koestner's special assessment amounted to $711.00 after applying the "large lot" assessment policy whereby only the first 16,500 square feet was assessed. The City Attorney and Public Works Director personally met with Mr. Koestner to review the basis of his objection and any other possible alternatives. While Mr. Koestner qualifies for the senior citizen deferment by age, his Sncome does not qualify for this deferment. TAFF RECOMMENDATION The staff feels that the increase in value to Mr. Koestner's property exceeds the amount of the special assessment. All special assessment policies were adhered to in computing his assessment amount. Consequently, staff is recom- mending that the final assessment for Mr. Koestner's property be reaffirmed, adopted and certified to the County for collection. COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION/COMMENTS 4� 69, to oml I ' j /I� �,`\--ooa� -'l/'wnMow i oaf; it ozzl mc. 1 City of I f tl 7 v-m,cpx 811 mvl 91 SZ 8 I. i8 ZI all, lH WALDEN Eogan 9 j'?,' f ��S all- I II 11 IL_°!E•L^�J _ro_aw_ JI: e HEIGHTS I P• YI �I. CIs CI Id �.Ir ym,woe r7Av,be� 01,•. 1;� ;�'$ 1-0'1'0 PARK 61 I I M h t M r ` II �i I 110 bZ•��r l Ip ° - I 1 I •� 1 !/ Iwo i ♦• A 0 \\ 1v.v11 a ZZ 11 qll� v ~ - - 18 e°¢ II 'I I. ___. zx_Lrt maa_ /P /� (.'J IZ 11 g': IISa Bi_I LJo-o� mo. .�.A r.._—_J I� ao$°% uiw ��—oo.—Il—� ` in 61 )\' l T 8 L- a a� n "` `♦]. 1 I ' 7 aq 1 �J-�v,.'8 _�s���N3 w yP/' wc'v7 rvc2r r__ y�=i (:<'w•� CJs\\ �'i l�q `II JIB+ / YIOzC 3AtlC: rwa +' �w"a.• �r"a .d \ \ a 7,' a/ 'III \\\s \\ "j \-s ��I I r9a �� J '° ee�'� / nY° 1 I Y e� a (.u• 6 s/ o g e td Ig e,' IS h� \\ ,.••., /_ I �' es1, .•R�m•v l .r. 1 yl 11 IIs 4 �". ,; /. x .� $I lq \ b °ti's' tw. ' _ �x.o• I - . i �Q x.> � 1 g'• OI a �q4; 8 L 8 Y .✓ 1 91 y SI I_e bl I I- £1 y a IS i .. n ?' / m a.2' gay l� i yi �3\Nye �, eoimr oj �y.m�J�Ir l L �1 dro s F }— /`,n v II I 1 11 \\ g�w 6 �/• ...... +i.:... .�• ♦ u _/_va•°1 —_ T: -I JI_MM-1 aoa Jl_°°<a Jl_ffi J .elg4 Yn-ww'\\\ I ^i'a 1 a am ieco"-eioc -.��-am �'--e]uo-:r-o ,.->'•'i•d : 4i i°r1x +a'p°•I x\\��s•/'`I' z_I _'' 1 li3 ro e I•.rbw.ol dna ":l aowl�•auvlrinlet•\\ ZMaz JSI '1 K ^• // x'o.Ro•v I I_ .csxt• r s\ _a, a GI ne S I I >\ N �� I_ •� 4 'l N 6 �,-lip,7 d "♦m\'o£ lwd P'N yx3 s86 o om j um um uoo sem n_ m f� ez oa J '_v9vc JL_vcxn _/L nava J L ��_ - _ zuu x.v eau 1. uo/ RICHA D LANE M no w w° 110 I' _ ••xmerfx__ ]l __ xlti tfr lu O Xm l01]� O a "� , •.I RB xfe fly VI a 6 � � � � =a: Y .a x• o . 7 .� C xne xi'e mM- A ma fA xmn.l ao ry O� e(V h�'S SynezY{��_ 8, � J / BS1E ♦].w� Y n S Y Tjp�_1�jgry ••�° x. ab:gJ`netz I 1 pR a. ♦ero¢Y = W _ = ig g t Iq I ' / Y8• // J �• pA'O3 911 +J x.51♦� / 1]'I Y99 I]0 .x aw v ERIK'$ BOULEVARD EVARD ,Sy e� ,_� r-�nezn ex9 ue ra .�y "n°xYx vo ' 9 Iw uo F.4 uo _ -_]1e- ;•}y1 °o mrn o0Z 1 ee it aw :•::-0ii•:•::•: Iw uo _` xe x CO. R0. NO. 8i: 31 (PILOT � IKIWO RCD D.) I une.l.en T v C: �. ---- n m m � TO: The Mayor and City Council Cit;* of Eagan i,ECEIaE-...,; e7 ':.filer FROM: Arthur T. Koestner 475 Pilot Knob Rd. Eagan, Minn. 55122 SUBJECT: Appeal for exemption from rropoeed storm sewer assessment relating to PROJECT 384 (Walden Heights) DESCRIPTION OF PF OPFRTY beim; referred to in this letter: LOT 3 BLOCK 1 TWIN VIEW P.ANOR I hereby appeal to the mayor and Council members of Ea;,an that the above mentioned lot should not be included in the proposed storm sewer aseessmeut for Project 384 for the follow- ing reasons: 1. That although the lot lies within the "benefitted area", the lot itself is not benefitted by this project. a) The lot is virtually inaceessable for road, driveway, sewer or rater and therefore is almost valueless. The city engineer, Mr. Rosene, can verify that the cost of utilities and driveway would be exhorbitart and -,probably riot even available at any cost. b`) I have tried to:sell this property ( toaraise funds to pay the very high assessment load on adjoining property) but it is so value- less that the real'estate agency doesn:'t even.want to bother with it._'7h.1s can be verified by Mr. Don Rifenberick of Thorpe Realtors. 0 Since the property is virtually useless and I can't sell it, the effect of a storm sewer is irrelevant and 'of no.;benefit. 2:: For the above reasons, I feel that this property does not qualify as benefitted property. a Arthur J. D Koestner Additional:.information The adjacent property on which my house is located is now carrying a very high assessment load and ever increasing assessments are becoming a very severe financdal burden. There are now 6 separate assessments on ay house and property totaling,.almoet $2,000 per: year and consume about 2010" of ay total yearly income. Add property tax. and I'm paying almost a third of qr income on property valued at a modest 470,000. Yearly income SociallSecurlty 46120 Interest Income 3996 410,116 Assessments 41975 Property Tax 1200 43175 With a poverty level income, almost half of it is going fori. taxes and assessments.. M. 3830 PILOT KNOB ROAD, P.O. BOX 21199 EAGAN. MINNESOTA 55121 PHONE: (612) 454-8100 October 10, 1984 Arthur Koestner 4755 Pilot Knob Road Eagan, MN 55122 RE: Eagan - Improvement Project 0384 Dear Mr. Koestner: BEA BLOMQUIST Moves THOMAS EGAN JAMES A SMITH JERRY THOMAS THEODORE WACHTER CourcA Mgrr.pBrs 1HOMAS HEDGES Cdy Ad.m?10101 EUGENE VAN OVERBEKE C11v Clerk You filed objections to the special assessments levied by the Eagan City Council covering the improvement project that's mentioned above. Paul Hauge and I met with you several weeks ago to discuss the assessments and also reviewed the possiblity of your being eligible under the Senior Citizens Deferment provision of the Special Assessment City Ordinance. It is our finding.that you are not eligible because of your income and the amount of the assessment, and this is to notify you that the Special Assessment Committee met on October 9, 1984 and reviewed your objections. You chose not to appear at that meeting and through a telephone call, we understand you are dropping your objections to the assessments. Assuming this is true, the City Council will consider your objections at its meeting on October 16, 1984 and determine whether to proceed with the adoption of the special assessments against your property. If you wish to be present, I would suggest that you call Julie at my office to get an approximate time when the Council will review your assessments and if you have any comments to make at that time, you are certainly welcome to do so. Please call me or Paul Hauge at 0454-4224 if you have any other questions. TAC:ras Very truly yours, Thomas A. Colbert Eagan Public Works Director THE LONE OAK TREE... THE SYMBOL OF STRENGTH AND GROWTH IN OUR COMMUNITY OF 3830 PILOT KNOB ROAD, P.O. BOX 21199 EAGAN, MINNESOTA 55121 PHONE: (612) 454-8100 October 10, 1984 Arthur Koestner 4755 Pilot Knob Road Eagan, MN 55122 RE: Eagan - Improvement Project 11384 Dear Mr. Koestner: BEA BLOMQUIST Maya THOMAS EGAN JAMES A. SMITH JERRY THOMAS THEODORE WACHTER Co and Mem"s THOMAS HEDGES Of, Adm,Mfralcl EUGENE VAN OVERBEKE City CIer4 You filed objections to the special assessments levied by the Eagan City Council covering the improvement project that's mentioned above. Paul Hauge and I met with you several weeks ago to discuss the assessments and also reviewed the possiblity of your being eligible under the Senior Citizens Deferment provision of the Special Assessment City Ordinance. It is our finding that you are not eligible because of your income and the amount of the assessment, and this is to notify you that the Special Assessment Committee met on October 9, 1984 and reviewed your objections. You chose not to appear at that meeting and through a telephone call, we understand you are dropping your objections to the assessments. Assuming this is true, the City Council will consider your objections at its meeting on October 16, 1984 and determine whether to proceed with the adoption of the special assessments against your property. If you wish to be present, I would suggest that you call Julie at my office to get an approximate time when the Council will review your assessments and if you have any comments to make at that time, you are certainly welcome to do so. Please call me or Paul Hauge at 11454-4224 if you have any other questions. TAC:ras Very tru yours, Thomas A. Colbert Eagan Public Works Director THE LONE OAK TREE ... THE SYMBOL OF STRENGTH AND GROWTH IN OUR COMMUNITY • G 40 TO: The Mayor ane City Council Cit,• of Eagan FROM: Arthur J. Koestner 4755 Pilot Knob Rd. Eeq;an, ?Finn. 55122 SUBJECT: Arpeal for exemption from _r-roposed storm sewer assessment relating to PROJECT 384 (Walden Heights) LESCRIPTION OF PI:OPMTY being referred to in this letter: LOT 3 BLOCX 1 TWIN I'IMV LUROF I hereby acpeal to the Mayor and Council members of Eagan that the above mentioned lot should not be incluaed in the pro;:osed storm newer assessment for Project 384 for the follow- ing reasons: 1. That although the lot lies within the "benefitted area", the lot itself is not benefitted by this project. a) The lot is virtually inaccessable for road, driveway, sewer or rater and therefore is almost valueless. The city engineer, Yx. Rosene, can verify that the cost of utilities and driveway would be exhorbitant and probably not even available at any cost. b) I have tried to.sell this property ( tocraise funds to pay the very* high assessment load on adjoining property) but it is so value- less that the real estate agency doesn't even want to bother T"ith it. "his can be verified by Mr. Don Rifenberick of Thorpe Realtors. c) Since the property is virtually useless and I can't sell it, the effect of a storm sewer is irrelevant and of no.:benefit. 2: For the above reasons, I feel that this property does not qualify as benefitted property. 7J A C� Arthus J. Koestner I MW city of acigan 3830 PILOT KNOB ROAD. P.O. BOX 21199 BEA BLOMOUIST EAGAN. MINNESOTA 55121 MW PHONE: (612) 454-8100 September 17, 1984 THOMAS s A. SMITH JERRY THOMAS THEODORE WACHTER Cwm, Mems THOMAS HEDGES Arthur Koestner _ oLj (a �l 17-1 `9'gCfly wi« 4755 Pilot Knob Road LI ���iJ- ���/u EUGENE VAN OVERBEKE Eagan, MN 55122 01v Crew Dear Mr. Koestner: You have filed an objection with the City of Eagan covering assessments against land owned by you. This is to notify you that the hearing on the assessments was continued by the City Council until October 16, 1984 at 7:00 p.m. at the Eagan City Hall. Generally, when objections are filed by a property owner, the City staff attempts to meet with the objecting property owner to determine whether there are any specific objections that can be dealt with before the hearing and in addition, the City has a special assessment committee made up of lay persons, members of the City Council and Planning Commission that review special assessment objections prior to the Council hearing. The following schedule is being suggested in order to review the objections and to deal with them prior to a final appeal: 1. we are suggesting that members of the City staff, including Tom Colbert, the Public works Director, and a member of the City Attorney's office meet with you in the morning of September 20, or the afternoon of Septem- ber 25, at the Eagan City Hall to discuss the assessment objections. 2. , Your objections are also being placed on the agenda of the Special Assessment Committee which meets at 7:00 on October 9, 1984 at the City Hall. 3. The continued hearing on .the assessments is now scheduled for October 16, 1984 at 7:00 p.m. In the event that the agenda of that evening becomes excessively long, you will be contacted with an alternate date for the hearing. We would ask that you contact the City Attorney's office at 9454-4224 and arrange for a time to get together at the City Hall on September 20 in the a.m. or on September 25, in the afternoon and would appreciate your call as soon as possible. Very truly yours, Thomas Colbert TC:ras Public works Director THE LONE OAK TREE ... THE SYMBOL OF STRENGTH AND GROWTH IN OUR COMMUNITY AAUGE. SDUM, FIDE & KELLER, P. A. ATTORNEYS AT LAW CEDARVALE PROFESSIONAL BUILDINGS 3908 SIBLEY MEMORIAL HIGHWAY EAGAN. MINNESOTA 88122 PAUL M. NAUGE BRADLEY SMITH KEVIN W. EIDE DAVID G. KELLER Mr. Dan Dwyer Appraiser NW National Bank Bldg. St. Paul, MN 55102 Mr. Mark Parranto 3908 Sibley Memorial Highway Eagan, MN 55122 October 23, 1984 HE: City of Eagan - Assessment Objections Dear Dan and Mark: AREA COCK 812 TELEPMome 484.4224 Tom Colbert and I met with you several weeks ago concerning the objections that have been raised covering special assessments in the City of Eagan. There are a total of ten parcels that require hearings, according to the best information that we had at that time, and each of you agreed to prepare written appraisal summaries for the following: Heidi Shiela, Dodd Road - Mark Parranto Albert Perron, Yankee Doodle Road - Mark Parranto Gopher Smelting Co., Yankee Doodle Road - Mark Parranto Don Larsen, Parkview Golf Course - Mark Parranto Patrick McCarthy, Project 4382, Storm Sewer - Dan Dwyer Patrick McCarthy, Project 4361, Sanitary Sewer - Dan Dwyer Blackhawk Road - 4 parcels - Dan Dwyer The attorney for Patrick McCarthy has indicated that he will not pursue the sanitary sewer objections, but as yet we do not have a Dismissal from him. I would ask that Dan not proceed with the sanitary sewer appraisal until we have had a chance to talk further with him. I would expect that the storm sewer objections under Project 4382 will proceed. The hearing date has tentatively been set for January 8, 1985 at 7:00 p.m. at the City Hall, but very likely, there could be a change in that date. I would appreciate as soon as you have the appraisal information completed, to send it to me so that we can review it and arrange to get it to property owners where it's necessary to do so. Very truly yours, NAUGE, SMITH, EIDE 8 KELLER, P.A. PHH:ras Paul H. Hauge . I P, rranto - Associates iii, Commercial and Induslrial Realtors Appraisal Real Estale Development J.E. dirranto ssociates inc. Commercial and Industrial Realtors Appraisals Real Estate Development January 8, 1985 Mr.. Tom Colbert City of Eagan' 3830 Pilot Knob Road Eagan, Minnesota 55122 RE: Storm Sewer Assessment Albert Perron Property Yankee Doodle Road Dear Mr. Colbert: Pursuant to your request, we have appraised the property known as the Albert Perron property located on Yankee Doodle Road adjacent to the Univac Park. We have determined the market value of the property prior to assessing the property for storm trunk and, in addition, the value of the property after the assessment for the storm sewer trunk charges. We report the following values; Value before the Assessment: $287,500 Value after the Assessment: 313,000 Value Increase Resulting from Assessment: 25,5UU The accompanying report details the method of the appraisal and the facts and methodology used in arriving at the valuation and conclusions as stated above. It you have any ' questions, please feel free to call. Respectfully submitted, 44k S. arranto ' MSP/sah 3908 Sibley Memorial Highway • Eagan, Minnesota 0 55122 0 (612) 454-1600 TABLE OF CONTENTS Date Purpose of the Appraisal Property Rights Appraised Property Identification Description of the Project Record Data Plat Map Zoning Map Topographic Map Comprehensive Guide Plan Trunk Storm Sewer Diagram Photos of Subject Property Market Value Defined Eagan Profile Property Description Highest and Best Use Analysis Estimate of Highest and Best Use Market Approach to Value Correlation and Conclusion Certificate of Appraisal Limiting Conditions and Assumptions Appraisal Qualifications Page 1 1 1 1 1- 2 2 3 4 5 6 7 8- 9 10 11-16 17-18 18-19 19 20-25 26 27 28 29 DATE This appraisal is completed the 7th day of January, 1985. The property was viewed, and the market value estimate made as of October 23, 1984. PURPOSE OF THE APPRAISAL The appraisal is being made in anticipation of the property being assessed for trunk storm sewer under Project No. 371 of the City of Eagan The project is a trunk storm sewer outlet for Pond CP -2 located at the corner of Yankee Doodle Road and Coachman Road. PROPERTY RIGHTS APPRAISED The property rights appraised consist of the fee simple interest in the property unencumbered by any mortgage, lien or special assessments. PROPERTY IDENTIFICATION The subject property consists.of approximately 24.5 acres, in total, of which approximately 11.5 acres are being assessed. The property proposed to be assessed is the southern 60U feet of the entire parcel. The 'Gangle residence located at 1555 Yankee Doodle Road is an exception to the area included within the property. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROJECT The overall project is utility and street improvements, in the area of the new City of Eagan Water Treatment Plant. As a part of this project and outlet to Pond CP -2 located adjacent to Yankee Doodle Road, westerly of Coachman Road will be constructed southerly along the property lines between Blue Cross and the City of Eagan to Pond JP -1 adjacent to the Hlackhawk' Hills Addition. This is approximately a fifteen to twenty-four inch diameter pipe which will run a distance of approximately one-half mile. The area included within the front 6UU feet of depth of the subject property drains to Yankee Doodle Road and then toward Pond CP -2 which is the subject of this work. At the time the project was constructed, this pond was approximately six feet over its normal ordinary high water level. It should be noted that the proposed assessment is for trunk storm sewer and not for lateral storm sewer. The trunk storm sewer charge is an area charge Dased upon the net developable area of the land. It is a charge for the storm -1- sewer mains which connect the various ponds in order to provide a drainage system for the City. Lateral charges would be made based upon the actual pipe placed in the ground to serve the subject property. The trunk storm sewer charge is similar to the sanitary sewer area and water area assessments currently made by the City of Eagan. Information supplied to your appraiser by Bonestroo, Rosene, Anderlik and Associates indicates that the subject property is to be assessed on the basis of the agricultural, residential trunk storm sewer rate of $0.0431/S.F.. This generates a total assessment to the property of $17,075 after allowing for the twenty percent deduction in total area for future street right-of-way. It should be noted that this proposed assessment is on residential rates and is not based upon the commercial/industrial rate of $0.0647/S.F.. If the higher comnmercial/industrial rate were used, the resulting proposed assessment would be $25,633. The basis of this appraisal is that the highest and best use of the subject property is for R and,D which is a form of industrial use. It is expected that the higher assessment will eventually apply to the subject property althoughapparently the City is choosing not to assess at the higher rate at this time. RECORD DATA The following information was obtained from county offices in Dakota County. It is public record information and is available for anyone caring to make a phone call to the proper office. Property ID No. l0-UU9U0-U1U-79 1984 Real Estate Taxes: $3U5.26 Subject to Green Acres Non -Homestead No Special Assessments 1984 Assessor's Market Value (Land only): Low High $19,80U 5480,000 -2- 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Plat Map l\\ I rr I of 0 - "`- �Y-IMENdOTA H\ -f91 '-'> ______ 3 div =__i _i • ____—___ � ____ ___—___—_ ,`-- __. � Y___ �h.�Y I. � -___ j.• � ., "�6_ •�r".� _ v�/—. — _ •LOST EPUR I \I I � \�'' M_ _7 LB RB III ICENrBR LI •— ~•—•, ,,/4Y GUN US; .,_ :POSY RO! A .r �. --z nGk IVR- - — / •. _. .II) ,/_-�J�I __ —,4 � acEs CiRYI L, �iMO, Y�• A ._ PK F1r � l ....E.. y — R -I I H -I 9 vim; EAcuI�A: -R!I: I TREME ACRES- �R�,`. I i\�/ A Q' FP.. �` EExRp�i-I 'a R -I El �: G& 9 GB I.I F • ILI 4r 0 R•3 R I R-4 me co.cw.+ PF ISR 1 L I Np;— f. 'rteIY us POSTAL SERVICE GB (/ � ' Y1RBhi /6 'R•F _- SIFT_ T AONA __— _ � MDIb'IYBLIPoRF R -I � R_q RU �ARmn � •� ll vA d iR-4 R-4 ��/� R•4II _ GB _'__ _ 'co"sE.v �':�'`�� R_q _I R•4 NBr B. A Lam— i s`�R�. 4 is xntr B RB f (:SC GB kI A— a. PF: _ / ERY" pD1i_ �! LB R -q `cf ods Ij Re! Ts -3 CSC / eDOITIC LI / BI I R-4 I �; r -y Pll_s A � ' MOUS IAL )/RARIf� �.J. A L Poor oaR-14 ��.R tam _3 A R-4 Zoning Map R_q _ p R,..2 { ,... R_q 1 �. fR s I .Ac i R -I F15= R I :I Rtt, ,� �I I R' R-1 _ PF An / FSD PPF { A i A R��iY =• i � 4rJ / ••_' _may.; .Y A -c-.—1 -:ti.. 4 V •C PF Zoning Map 3.21 1 11.5 a u h 1 i m ' x 1 J 1 J Qu oI 2 0 d WATER TREATMENT PLANT TRUNK STORM SEWER PROJECT NO. 371 SR PROPOSED TRUNK AREA ASSESSMENT ® Single Family a Agriculture ® Commercial 8 Industrial 0 100 200 300 400 omu3i°00, msW A1199" & ASH C, ML 0 EA z H m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m _��� ter. � ` a.�, �, / ;�, y i,, —y,� y � '. .�io�'.. 19'.4 1 �� i'i3/.. �' i �.s� m a.��pjgS.� {q''/ �.s� m �„� �y11�9S !.. �F o � J 5i' ,�.A � � ,.- _ }., y,,... ..� � �y } k iu7 q .��.. ' MARKET VALUE DEFINED ' Fair market value, or alternately, most probably selling price, as estimated An this valuation report, conforms to the following definitions; . ' "Market value is defined as the estimated price, in, terms of money, which a property should bring in a competitive and ' open market under all conditions requisite to a fair sale with the buyer and seller each acting prudently and knowledgeably and presuming the price is not affected by - undue influence. Implicit in this definition is the consummation of a sale as of a specified date and the passing of title from seller to ' buyer under conditions whereby; 1. Buyer and seller are typically motivated. 1. Both parties are well informed or well advised acting ' in what they consider their own best interests. 3. A reasonable time is allowed for exposure in the open market. ' 4, Equity payment is made in cash or its equivalent. 5. Financing, if any, is on terms which are specifically enumerated within this report. ' 6. The price represents a normal consideration for the property sold based upon the appraiser's analysis of the current economic environment and its effects on equity yield demands exclusive of any special services, fees, ' costs or credits except those which may be defined within this report. ' Alternatelythe highest price in terms of money which a property will bring in a competitive and open market under all conditions requisite to a fair sale, the buyer and seller each acting prudently, knowledgeably and assuming the price is not affected by undue influence." (1) (1) Adapted from "A Critique of the Definition ' of Fair Market Value", by Harold D. Albritton, MAI, "The Appraisal Journal", April, 1980 -lu- 1 EAGAN PROFILE The City of Eagan is the second tier suburb in the Twin Cities metropolitan area. Eagan is located approximately ten miles South of the downtown areas of the Twin Cities. Unlike many second tier suburbs, Eagan employs a very substantial number of its citizens within the corporation limits of the City. In total, Eagan is estimated to employ 14,000 persons in 198U.- Many Eagan residents are employed• in the Eagandale Center Industrial Park and in several large= corporate headquarters. located in the City. Some of the larger employers include Sperry Univac, Blue Cross and Blue Shield, Economics Laboratories, and the U. S. Post Office. The current population of Eagan, according to the_198U - census, is 12,3UU which is contrasted with the 196U ... population number 3,382 and the 1970 census population figure of 10,398. The population in Eagan as of 1982 is estimated to be 23,590 by the Metropolitan Council. Eagan has been the fastest growing city in the metropolitan area for the last two years according to the Metropolitan Countil estimates. ' In terms of physical size, Eagan is a relatively larye community. The corporate limits of the City encompass approximately thirty four square miles or approximately 21,000 acres. It is estimated by the City staff of Eagan that the City is less than thirty percent developed. ' The City of Eagan has designated approximately 3,200 acres for industrial development of which an estimated 65U acres have been developed. It is recognized that the City has ' considerable potential for indusrial development because these properties are located near major highways, rail service is available, and public utilities service_ is available. There is also a considerable area of industrial ' development in Eagan at the present time which tends toi attract more industrial development. Three promnent industrial parks account for about eighty five percent of ' the industrial development in the City. These parks are the Cedar Industrial Park located west of S.T.H. 13, the Sibley Terminal Industrial Park also located west of S.T.H. 13 and the Eagandale Center Industrial Park located in the North ' Central area of the community. Practically, all industrial ._ development in the City has occurred on platted property with public improvements. Eagan has also required high ' standards for development during the past ten years wherein improvements are required. A large percentage of the industrial development within the City consists of office and warehouse facilities. There is little or no heavy industry located in Eagan. Included on the next several pages, for the readers -11- reference, are copies of the Eagan Profile as prepared by the Minnesota Department of Economic Development. This community profile gives many interesting statistics concerning the City of Eagan. -12- ■_■ � o�.Tnes ME , , c OULUTH n Minnesota MINNESOTA AINT PAUL DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC COMMUNITY PROFILE Own DEVELOPMENT TOWN Eagan COUNTY Dakota REGION 11 Distance and Direction from Minneapolis/St. Paul 10 miles South Duluth 140 miles South City 1950 Census 1,185 1960 Census 3,382 1970 Census 10,398 1979 estimate 20,460 POPULATION County 49,019 78,303 139,808 194,9nn IMSA 1,186,684 1,535,297 1,874,612 1,991,140 ■ (Metropolitan Council) INDUSTRY Major employers in area: ' Union % No. (Give of Emp. Firm Product/Service employees Initials) In Union ' Sperry Univac Computer Services 3,260 Blue Cross & Blue Shield Health Insurance 1,227 U. S. Postal Service Bulk Mail Service 450 ' Donaldson Company, Inc. 111r 11 Screening stem 350 American Fruit & Produce Company Fresh & Frozen Produce 325 3M Company Twin Cities Sales Div. 294 ' Coca Cola Bottling Beverage Distributor 250 K. W. McKee Enterprises Auto Transporting 185 ' Villaume Industries Trusses/Wood _Products 175 Brown -Minneapolis Tank & Fab. Co. Build Storage Tanks 160 Warner Hardware Central Office 150 ' West Publishing Company Books Warehouse 125 '*EMPLOYMENT Labor survey date Number of Employees ' Manufacturing 241,400 Unemployment rate 3.1% (1979) Nonmanufacturing 819,500 Number in labor force available ' Total labor. force 1,060.900 1979 annual average 9 county metro area 1 ' *Manufacturing Occupations In Area 1979 (Production and Clerical) Occupation or Job Title Median Wage Warehouseperson $ 7.55 /hr. ' Engine Lathe Operator $ 7.00 /hr. Coremaker $ 6.86 /hr. ' Punch Press Operator $ 6.00 /hr. Drill Press Operator $ 6.09 /h r. Bookkeeping Machine Operator $ 3.90 ;hr. Electronic Assembler $ 4.40 /hr. Experienced Typist 4.37 TRANSPORTATION ' Rail Lines (companies) Milwaukee Road.("C.M.S.T.P..&P.R.R.)- Frequency of Service Unlimited ' Reciprocal Switching Yes Distance to Main Line Switching 16 miles Piggy -back Service Yes - through MMT Passenger St. Paul * Truck Lines (companies) 27 headquartered in metro area (over 100 1St class carriers) ' * No. of terminals 60 * Airport 12 Nearest Minneapolis -St. Paul International '* Commercial: -(X ) Yes ( ) No Charter Service:.( X I Yes ( ) No Jet Service: ( X ) Yes ( ) No * Airlines 6 National 3 Regional 6 Local 5 National/International Navigation Aids All FAA aids for international airport '* * Runway length, surface 10,000 feet concrete Distance to CBD * Bus - Inter city Greyhound, Jefferson, Zephyr Intra City MTC United Parcel Yes Ull ri Highway route numbers, Interstate/Distance I -35E I-494 Adjacent ' Federal State #55, #49, #13 Load Limits 9 tong Navigable water No Depth ' 1q72_COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL TAXES PAYABLE 1980 Specials 3.215 Municipal rate $ 1r, RIO /$1000/assessed valuation METHOD OF ASSESSMENT ' Minnesota real estate taxes are based on market value. Market value is County s 19-873 /Sl000/assessed valuation construed to be the price that a willing buyer would pay to a willing seller in a 51.$20 free market. A two-step formula is used for determining property School rate $ /$1000/assessed valuation Minnesota. taxes in 90.518 1. Market value times 43% equals assessed valuation. Total rate $ /S100o/assessed valuation 2. Assessed valuation times the mill rate equals property taxes. ' (Taxes payable for residential development are determined by market value times the appropriate classification rate.) ' GOVERNMENT Organization: IX ) mayor council ( ) limited mayor 1 I manager council ( I commission 1 ) other ' Refuse service: 1 ) public ( X ) private ( ) none Police Force, regular 20 part time 2 Fire dept., regular Annual budgets 2.4 million Master Plan: ' Industrial plans must be approved by Hays: Insurance rating in community: class 1 2 3 4 5 WATER volunteer 80 (X ) yes 1 1 no sion 7 8 9 10 (circle) UTILITIES Municipal water source: ( 1 stream ( ) lake ( X 1 wells Storage capacity 7,500,000 .gals. Pumping capacity 7,360 gal./min. Avg, demand 2.000.000 G/D Peak demand 8 to 10 million G/D Industrial water rate Minimum 15.000 gallons $13.50 and 5201,000 gallons for all usage over 15,000 gallons Total hardness tapwater 329 ppm 'SEWER Metro Waste Control Capacity sewage treatment plant G/D; Peak demand G/D; Avg. demand 65-75 mi l l iorG/D Sewerusecharge Minimum 15,000 gallons $13.90 and 8101,000 gallons usage over�6, 6T, gallons ELECTRICITY based on current water consumption Electric service: By Dakota Electric Association Northern States Power For rate data, contact 612/454-6080 612/459-7977 GAS Gas service: By i Natural _Gas Com Northern States Power For rate data, contact 617./454-6080 612/459-7977 I TELEPHONE Telephone company serving area Northwestern Bell Telephone Company ' COMMUNITY SERVICES Number of hotels *52 total rms. *9,500 Number of motels 3 total units 71 Hospital beds 10,545 Nursing Home Beds 17>184 Doctors 3,061 Dentists 1,493 Nearest hospital, if not in town South St. Paul - Divine Redeemer Memorial 'No. No. junior high schools Number churches: Protestant 7 Catholic 1 Jewish 0 Other 0 Main cultural attraction, festivals MN Orchestra, Guthrie Theatre, Walker Art Center, MN.Zoo, MN Science Museum, Mpls. Inst. of Art, St. Paul Arts & Science Center, Aquatennial, Winter Carnival, State Fair, all those normally associated with a metro area of 1.9 million population ' Parks & Playgrounds: municipal 20 State I private County — 1 Golf courses: municipal *72 private 3 Tennis courts 13 Swimming pools 1 * t Sports: college ( X) yes ( ) no professional Baseball, Basketball, Football, Hockey, Soccer _ News Media: papers: daily 4 weekly 44 radio stations: AM 20 FM 15 Cable TV: ( ) yes ( 1 no 'Meeting facilities: no. of 3 Capacity of largest three 200 Retail sales (county) S 558,654,000 (1978) Per capita income (county) S 71502 (1977) Names of banks/S&L/deposits for each Mid-America National Bank of Eagan,,$25 million 'Minnesota Federal Savings & Loan, First Minnehaha National Bank *147 banks and 124 savings and loan branch offices ' Public libraries: ( ) local ( X) county ( ) regional ( X) bookmobile Post office': 1st class ' Service organizations Lions, Cedar Athletic Association, Mend -Eagan . total membership 220 Athletic Association EDUCATION elementary schools 5 total enrollment 2,744 grades included K — 6 'No. No. junior high schools I total enrollment 1,104 grades included — 9 No. high schools total enrollment grades included ' Cost per pupil unit $ 1,840.00 Pupil to teacher ratio: elementary 25/1 1 high school No. parochial schools 1 total enrollment 100 grades included K — 8 No. private schools total enrollment grades included Nearest area vocational -training school Rosemount Distance 6 miles Nearest community college Inver Grove Heights Distance 6 miles '* Nearest college or university 4 year: 19 in metro area Distance *Liberal Arts Programs: 15 colleges and universities Distance *Engineering University of Minnesota (degree); 3 colleges Distance ' *Business Admi nistrat ion 7 colleges and universities Distance *Graduate Schools 10 colleges and universities Distance ' CLIMATE ' Coldest Month Jan. Mean Daily Max. 22.4 OF Mean Daily Min. 2.3 OF No. days over 90 degrees 14 Hottest Month July Mean Daily Max. 83.9 OF Mean Daily Min. 60.7 OF No. days between killing frosts 767 Average annual precipitation 24.78 inches Snow 42.2 inches **INDUSTRIAL SITES Name or number of site: Eagandal a Ctr. Ind. Park Name or number of site: Si bel y Ind. Park ' Total available acreage in site: 650 acres Total available acreage in site: 75. acres Owner of site is: Rauenhorst Corporation Ownerofsiteis: Ownership is diversified ' Option held by local industrial development group: Yes Option held by local industrial development group: NO Site is zoned: ( X) yes ( ) no In city limts: (X I yes ( ) no Site is zoned: (() yes ( ) no In city limits: (X) yes ( I no If not in city, miles from city limits: If not in city, miles from city limits: ' Services available at site: 1 X ) rail ( x) electricity (X 1 gas Services available at site: (X I rail ( X) electricity (X ) gas (X ) treated water 1 )0 sanitary sewer I X) storm sewer (X 1 treated water ( X ) sanitary sewer (X ) storm sewer ' (X 1 curb and gutter ( X) paved roads IX 1 curb and gutter (X I paved roads LOCATION SERVICES ' Name of local development corporation None Full time chamber of commerce manager ( X ) yes ( 1 no ' Community contacts: - Catherine L. DeCourcy ' Executive Director Northern Dakota County Chamber of Commerce 33 East Wentworth Avenue, Suite 101 West St. Paul, MN 55118 ' 612/457-4921 Thomas L. Hedges ' City Administrator 3795 Pilot Knob Road Eagan, MN 55122 ' 612/454-8100 REMARKS * Seven County Metropolitan Statistics ' **Additional Industrial Sites Gopher -Eagan Industrial Park Cedar Industrial Park Acres: 274 Acres: 80 Owner: Gopher Smelting & Ref. Owner: J. E. Parranto, Inc. All services available All services available except rail ' Business and Community Contact Division County City Code No. 19.20 ' Department of Economic Development ' 3/ 1980 480 Cedar Street Prepared/Revised St, Paul, Minnesota 55101 Senate District -53 District 612,296-5021 ' Form: 1/69, Reviseo 1979 PROPERTY DESCRIPTION Area The property contains approximately 24.5 acres in total of which 11.5 acres is proposed to be assessed. The property has 817 feet of total width and 1,268 of depth. The property fronts on Yankee Doodle Road and has 685 feet of frontage. The property is rectangular with a rectangular lot removed from its frontage. This exception is currently developed as a single family dwelling. The property is generally open and gently rolling. The property has a high point of approximately 88U feet and a low at the northern end of the property of approximately 844 feet. At the time the property was viewed by your appraiser, most of it was plowed field. However, the easterly portion of the property apparently was, at one time, a residence area although the dwelling has been removed. A portion of this area is heavily wooded. Surrounding the property on its easterly and northerly boundaries is the Univac headquarters area consisting of approximately 20U acres of open, rolling land -developed with two very large office/manufacturing facilities. To the West of the subject property is a small commercial area. Presently, there is one store located in the area which is a Carbonne's Pizza Restaurant. Northerly of the commercial area adjacent to the western boundary of the subject is an approximately ten acre tract owned by the City of Eagan zoned for park. Southerly of the subject property is the Surrey Heights townhouse and apartment complex development. The townhouses range from two to ten years old and in value from 675,000 to S95,00U. The apartment portion of the complex is still under construction. Utilities At the present time, the subject property is served with city water and city sewer which is available in Yankee Doodle Road. Zoning Currently the property is zoned A -Agriculture by the City of Eagan. This zoning requires a minimum of five acres in order to construct a single family dwelling. The property is currently farmed. Comprehensive Plan The Comprehensive Plan of the City of Eagan indicates that the probable future development of the parcel would be as R and D zoning which is Research and Development. This is similar to the existing Univac facility which surrounds the property. -17- 1 Soils Soils tests have not been examined by your appraiser. Any ' adverse soil conditions which may be discovered after the date of this appraisal would render this appraisal subject to re-evaluation and re-analysis. ' HIGHEST AND BEST USE ANALYSIS ' The highest and best or most profitable use, as defined in the "Appraisal of .Real Estate", 7th Edition,-is "that use which, at the time of appraisal, is the most profitable ' likely use. It is the use that will provide the greatest return on the land after the requirements of labor, capital and coordination have been satisfied. Thus, it may be also ' defined as the available use and program of future utilization that produces the highest present land value." Underlying the theory of the highest or most profitable use is the theory of change. ' Change is ever present as all real estate, improved or unimproved can be described within the context of its place ' in a particular development cycle. Downtown urban land in the Central Core District of Minneapolis, for example, can be regarded as having a significant demand and, for tnose ' sites still in the core which remain as parking lots, or other types or vacant ground, the future, potential for development and transition from their present use to a markedly different one is readily foreseeable. tThe highest and best use of any given piece of ground should be analyzed not only in terms of its existing use with ' improvements constructed thereon, but also other possible uses would be considered which may be affected by zoning and planning changes, social needs and market demand. ' It should also be noted that land in its transitional state may appear physically to the eye to have a suitable existing improvement constructed thereon. In fact, the value of the ' underlying ground may have risen to such a degree that the existing improvements cannot- contribute sufficient income stream to provide a fair return of capital on both the value ' of the ground and the improvements, therefore, creating a situation where, although immediate development may not be warranted, the existing improvements have effectively become obsolete. ' Therefore, in estimating highest and best use, we should consider those uses which are physically possible for the ' site: permissible uses are those uses which may be permitted by current zoning and deed restrictions to the site; feasible uses are those possible uses which would produce to the highest net return to the owners and finally, 1 -18- 1 I the highest and best use or among all feasible uses, that ' use which produces the highest net return to ownership. - It is my opinion, based upon an analysis of this property in ' its improved state, the improvements as constructed represent the highest and best use of the parcel if vacant. ' ESTIMATE OF HIGHEST AND BEST USE Based upon all the data reported above, it is my opinion ' that the highest and best use of the subject property will be for R and D, Research and Development zoning. This zoning will allow for continuation of the existing high ' technology office industrial park surrounding the property. -19- MARKET APPROACH TO VALUE The Market Data Approach is based upon the definition of "Market Value" as defined earlier in. this report and postulates that there is a wiling seller and a willing buyer, that neither is under abnormal pressure, both are ' fully informed concerning the property and its uses, and the state of the market for that property and finally that the property has been exposed on the open market for a reasonable time. ' Market Value has been described as a reflection of the reactions of typical users and investors in the market. As ' in the Cost Approach, the Market Data Approach is also based upon the principle of substitution which, in this Approach, implies that a prudent investor will not pay more to buy or t rent a property than it will cost him to buy or rent a substitute property with equally desirable characteristics. The Market Data Approach is essential in almost every ' appraisal of the value of real property. The application of this Approach produces an estimate of value of a property by comparing it with similar properties of the same type and ' class which have been sold recently or are currently offered for sale in the same or competing areas. The comparative processes utilized in determining the degree of comparability between two properties involves judgment as to ' their similarity with respect to many value factors such as location, construction, age and condition. The sale price of these properties deemed most comparable tend to set the ' range in which the value of the subject property will fall. Further consideration of the comparative data will indicate to the appraiser a figure representing the value of the ' subject property; that is, the probable price at which it could be sold by a willing seller to a willing buyer as of the date of the appraisal. ' The data involved in the application of this process concerns comparable properties as well as the subject property and will vary with the type of property. Four ' categories of data, however, are basic and apply regardless of the type of property. They are; 1. Sales or asking prices of comparable 2. Conditions influencing each sale. 3. Location of each property. 4. Description of land and improvements property. -2U- properties. of each i ' I rSAGAN DA:ER ' MDUSTRiAL PAK i W I � i ' YANKEE DOODLE RD. (RTE. 28) ' GSCI -30.Cu'ly A ate- � � w �� ^ EAGAN 3 0 z ' DUcr.w OOD ESIATES COMPARABLE SALE NO. 1 ' LOCATION: Southwest corner of Yankee Doodle Road and Lexington Avenue ' LEGAL DESCRIPTION: The North 1/2 of the Northeast 1/4 and the East 1/2 of the Northeast 1/4 of the Northwest 1/4, ' Section 15, Eagan. DATE OF SALE: February, 1982 ' BUYER: Colon Brothers SELLER: St. Paul Companies ' PARCEL SIZE: 93.5 Acres ZONING: R-4 3U Acres; Community Shopping 3U Acres; Limited ' Business 30 Acres; General Business 3.5 Acres. TOPOGRAPHY: Rolling, open land; apparently stable soils. ' SELLING PRICE: $1,542,750 SELLING PRICE/ACRE: $16,5UU REMARKS: Assessments included city sewer and water trunks. Storm sewer trunk has not been assessed. -, -21- COMPARABLE NO. 2 LOCATION: Highway 13 and Yankee Doodle Road LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Part of the Northwest 1/4 of the Northeast 1/4 Section 17 and part of the Southest 1/4 of Section 8, Eagan. DATE OF SALE: March, 1982 BUYER: Comsery Corporation SELLER: H. B. Fuller Co. LOT SIZE: 66 Acres ZONING: I-1, Light Industrial TOPOGRAPHY: Gently rolling to level; no access to Highway 13. SELLING PRICE: $1,50U,000 UNPAID SPECIALS: $27,773 TOTAL SELLING PRICE: $1,527,773 SELLING PRICE/ACRE: $23,148 REMARKS: Assessments assumed by the buyer included city sewer and water trunks. Storm sewer had not yet been assessed. -22- e� �PPta vv +I� PART O, 7 I_ PpRi OF PLAI NVI E s'<,����<,�ss�b•�snsL ;43 13 Q 10 9 KENNETH STREET, la O\i '.z Is iP " 'O COMPARABLE SALE NO. 3 LOCATION: Lexington Avenue South of Highway 55 LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot 7, Plainview Addition DATE OF SALE: December, 1984 BUYER: Nolan Bros., Inc. SELLER: Union Bank and Trust LOT SIZE: 4.77 Acres ZONING: I-1, Light Industrial TOPOGRAPHY: Generally level SELLING PRICE: $220,ODU SELLING PRICE/ACRE: $46,1.22 I REMARKS: The property has a narrow frontage of approximately 189 feet and a depth of 1,100 feet. The odd shape contributed to the depression on the selling price. The purchase price included assessments paid for sewer, water, storm sewer and street. -23- (See Attached) OFFERING NO. 4 LOCATION: The Southwest Corner, Highway 49 and Yankee Doodle Road, Eagan . SELLER: Gopher Smelting Company PARCEL SIZE: 185 Acres TOPOGRAPHY: Rolling; several small pond areas; part heavily wooded, part open. ZONING: R-4, 15 Acres; R-1 and R-3, 16.5 Acres; Commercial 15.3 Acres; Industrial 139.5 Acres. UTILITIES: All available to serve the site and will be included within the selling price. ASKING PRICE: $4,6-25,000 $/ACRE: 25,000 -24- m m i, I CORRELATION AND CUNCLUSION All of the comparable sales are located. within a reasonable ' distance to the subject property. Comparable Sale No. 1 requires adjustment for the date of sale which was 1982. In addition at the date of sale, the Comparable was in an inferior location as ' compared to the subject, Comparable No. 2 was a very similar property to the subject) ' property; however, it requires adjustment for the date of sale. Access is excellent. Visibility is excellent and equal to the subject property. i ' Comparable No. 3 is a completely developed parcel and shows an approximate $22,000 per acre differential primarily because of parcel size and the utilities in place. Itis the opinion of ' your appraiser that the parcel size, in this case, is offset by the odd shape which leaves the majority of the differential between selling prices to be accounted for by the utilities. ' Offering No. 4 is located approximately five miles from the subject on the far eastern endof the Yankee Doodle Road and demonstrates the asking price for bulk land in the Eagan area. ' It is my opinion that Comparable No. 2 best represents ,the market value of the subject property and requires the least adjustments. ' It is my opinion that the comparable sales indicate the market value of the subject property to be $25,000 per acre for the entire the 24.5 acre tract. The market value of the -11.5 acres to be assessed, therefore, is $287,500. ' TWO HUNDRED EIGHTY SEVEN THOUSAND FIVE HUNDRED DOLLARS ' The comparable sales indicate that the buyer paid additional) funds for trunk storm sewer charges which are currently proposed to be assessed against the subject property by the City Project. ' The normal bulk of land sale price does not include storm sewer, assessments. None of° the comparable sales included storm sewer) assessments in the selling price. Each of the properties would) have been assessed storm sewer at the time of platting. ' Comparable No. 3 is an exception to this wherein all utilities were provided; however, it showed a $22,000 per acre increase ins price to cover all utilities. ' It is my opinion, therefore, that the market value of the.subjecti property, after the assessment.of storm trunk, will increase by! an amount appropriate to cover the assessment for industrials ' property which is $U.0647/S.F. or. $25,650. Therefore the market value of the subject property, after the assessment for storm' sewer trunk, will be $313,15U which is rounded to $313,000. ' THREE HUNDRED THIRTEEN THOUSAND DOLLARS ' -26- CERTIFICATE OF APPRAISAL The undersigned does hereby certify that, except as otherwise noted in this appraisal report: 1. I have personally inspected the subject property. 2. I have present or contemplated future interest in the real estate that is the subject of this,appraisal report. 3. I have no personal interest or bias with respect to the subject matter of this appraisal report or the parties involved. 4. That the compensation is in no manner contingent upon the value reported. 5. To the best of my knowledge and belief, the statements of tact contained in this appraisal report, upon which the analyses., opinions, and conclusions expressed herein are based, are true and correct. 6. This appraisal report sets forth all of the limiting conditions (imposed by the terms of my assignment or by the undersigned) affecting the analyses, opinions, and conclusions contained in this report. No pertinent imformaiton has knowingly been withheld. 7. This appraisal report has been made in conformity with the provisions of the Code of Ethics, the.Standards of Professional Practice and Conduct, and the By -Laws of the Society of Real Estate Appraisers as the same may be.amended from time to time. 8. No one other than the undersigned prepared the analyses, conclusions, and opinions concerning real estate that are set forth in this appraisal report. 9. Neither all nor any part of the contents of this report (especially any conclusions as to value, the identity of the. appraiser or the firm with which he is connected) shall be disseminated to the public through advertising media, public relations media, news media, sales media, or any other public means of communication without the prior written consent and approval of the undersigned. Jak S..Parranto -27- ' LIMITING CONDITIONS AND.ASSUMPTIONS ' This appraisal is made subject to the following limiting conditions and assumptions: ' The legal description furnished me is assumed to be correct. I assume no responsibility for matters legal in character, ' nor do I render any opinion as to the title, which is assumed to be marketable. This property is appraised as though under responsible ownership and competent management, and unencumbered. ' Any sketches and pictures in this report are included to assist the reader in visualizing the property. ' I have made no survey of.the property and assume no responsibility in connection with such matters. ' I believe to be reliable the information identified in this report as being furnished to me by others but I assume no responsibility for its accuracy. ' Possession of this report, a copy thereof, or any part thereof, does not carry with it the right of publication, ' nor may it be used for any purpose by anyone but the applicant or by previous written consent of the appraiser and the applicant and in any event, only with proper qualifications. 1 I am not required to give testimony or attendance in court by reason of this appraisal with reference to the property ' in question, unless arrangements have previously been made therefor. ' The distribution of the total valuation in this report between land and improvements, it any, applies only under the existing plan of utilization. ' Neither all nor any part of the contents of this report shall be conveyed to the public through advertising, public relations, news, sales or other media, without the written ' consent and approval of the author, particularly as to - valuation conclusions, the identity of the appraiser or firm with which he is connected. 1 -28- ' APPRAISAL QUALIFICATIONS OF ' MARK S. PARRANTO 39U8 Sibley Memorial Highway Eagan, Minnesota 55122 '(61 2) 454-1600 GENERAL BACKGROUND ' * Life -Long resident of St. Paul area * B. A. Degree - College of St. Thomas 1968 * 1969-1974 Accountant, Gould, Inc. Mendota Heights, MN; Plant Controller, Gould, Inc., Memphis, TN ' * 1974 -Present, J. E. Parranto Associates, Inc., Realtors, Vice President * Former member on Board of Directors Northern Dakota County Chamber of Commerce * Former member of Eagan City Council ' APPRAISAL EXPERIENCE AND EDUCATION * Society of Real Estate Appraisers, Course 101 Residential Appraisal * American Institute of Real Estate Appraisers, Course I -B ' * Society of Real Estate Appraisers Course 2U1, Principles of Income Property Appraising * Society of Real Estate Appraiers Course 2U2, Applied ' Income Property Valuation * Partial client list: Northwestern Mutual Life Insurance Co. ' Minnesota Bank of Eagan Metropolitan Waste Control Commission Hennepin County Parks Department ' City of Falcon Heights City of Eagan St. Paul Companies ' Cliffroad Properties Dunn and Curry, Inc. Chrysler Credit, Inc. Chrysler, Inc. ' Kline Oldsmobile Cummins Engine Tilsen Homes, Inc. ' Pine Bend Development Numerous appraisals for attorneys and individuals ' MEMBERSHIPS * Dakota County Board of Realtors * Minneapolis Board of Realtors * Northern Dakota County Chamber of Commerce ' ASSOCIATION MEMBERSHIP * Candidate Member - Society of Real Estate Appraisers 1 -29- ROBINS, ZELLE, LARSON 8 KAPLAN ATTORNEYS AT LAW FOUNDED IN 1936 AS ROBINS, DAVIS 6 LYONS ATLANTA, GEORGIA 1800 INTERNATIONAL CENTRE DALLAS, TEXAS 900 SECOND AVENUE SOUTH MINNEAPOLIS, MINNE50TA MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 55402 NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA TELEPHONE (612) 349-8500 SAINT PAUL, MINNESOTA TELECOPIER (612) 339-4181 WELLESLEY, MASSACHUSETTS TWX 910-57G-2737 January 24, 1985 Mr. Thomas A. Colbert P.E. Director of Public Works CITY OF EAGAN 3830 Pilot Knob Road P.O. Box:21199 Eagan, MN 55121 Paul H. Hauge, Esq. HAUGE, SMITH, EIDE & KELLER, P.A. Cedarvale Professional Building 3908 Sibley Memorial Highway Eagan, MN 55122 ANDREW W. HORSTMAN 19121 349-9537 Re: City of Eagan - Project 317, Parcel #10-02900-202-.05.. Our File No. 18250-0044 Gentlemen: I have been authorized by Amoco Oil Company to dismiss its appeal of the special assessment for project No. 317. I appreciate your cooperation in responding to Amoco's questions on this matter. Very truly yours, ROBINS, ZELLE, LARSON & KAPLAN Andrew W. Horstman AWH/mch ATLANTA, GEORGIA GALLAS, TEXAS MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA SAINT PAUL, MINNESOTA WELLESLEY. MASSACHUSETTS ROBINS, ZELLE, LARSON S KAPLAN ATTORNEYS AT LAW FOUNDED IN 1938 AS ROBINS, DAVIS & LYONS 1800 INTERNATIONAL CENTRE 900 SECOND AVENUE SOUTH MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 55402 TELEPHONE (612) 349-8500 TELECOPIER (612) 339-4181 TWX 910-576-2737 January 24, 1985 Clerk of District Court Dakota County Courthouse Hastings, MN 55033 Re: State of Minnesota vs. Amoco Oil Co. Our File No. 18250-0044 Court File No. 95686 Dear Sir or Madam: ANDREW W. HORSTMAN 1912)3-8-8537 Please find enclosed Notice of voluntary dismissal of appeal of special assessment. This dismissal applies only to the appeal which was filed on October 18, 1984 for matter no. 95686 and does not apply to an earlier appeal of a commissioners award for the condemnation which is clerk's nos. 92782-92783. Please feel free to call if there is any confusion. Very truly yours, ROBINS, ZELLE, LARSON & KAPLAN Andrew W. Horstman AWH/mch Enclosure cc: Paul--H.—Hauge,—Esq.— Thomas A. Colbert STATE OF MINNESOTA IN DISTRICT COURT COUNTY OF DAKOTA FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT NOTICE OF DISMISSAL AND DISMISSAL OF APPEAL OF ASSESSMENT PROJECT NO. 317 TO: City of Eagan and its attorney Paul Hauge. Please take notice that Amoco Oil Company hereby voluntarily dismisses its Appeal dated October 18, 1984, of the Special Assessment for Project No. 317. DATED: This Al'yh day of January, 1985. ROBINS, ZELLE, LARSON & KAPLAN ByY/ �1 Andrew W. Iforstman 1800 International Centre 900 Second Avenue South Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402 (612) 349-8500 of 3830 PILOT KNOB ROAD, P.O. BOX 21199 BEA BLOMQUIST EAGAN. MINNESOTA 55121 Mayor PHONE: (612) 454-8100 THOMAS EGAN JAMES A. SMITH JERRY THOMAS THEODORE WACHTER January 18, 1985 Council Membes THOMAS HEDGES CIN AdmiNstraror EUGENE VAN OVERBEKE City Clerk MR ANDREW W HORSTMAN ROBINS, ZELLE, LARSON.AND KAPLAN ATTORNEYS AT LAW 1800 INTERNATIONAL CENTER 900 2ND AVENUE SOUTH MINNEPOLIS, MN 55402 Re: Project 317, Parcel 10-02900-0202-05 Your File No. 18250-0044 Dear Mr. Horstman: On January 10, you forwarded to my attention a 1968 survey of the above -referenced parcel in its original configuration before any taking by MnDOT along with excerpts from the appraisals of Robert LaFond, W. Pitzen and Michael Stapp. You asked that 'I review this information to verify whether the City's assessable area of 1.89 acres was accurate in relationship to the 1.84 acres that .you have been informed constitutes the remaining parcel after MnDOT taking. The following information shows how the assessable area of 1.89 acres has been verified to be accurate based on the information you submitted: AREA COMMENTS .5.049 Acres Area calculated from the 1968 survey through a survey clo- sure. —0.634 Acres = 4.415 Acres -2.53 Acres 33 ft. half right-of-way for County Road 30 as calculated from the 1968 survey. Remaining area before MnDOT taking. MnDOT acquisition according to 3 appraisal descriptions. THE LONE OAK TREE ... THE SYMBOL OF STRENGTH AND GROWTH IN OUR COMMUNITY MR ANDREW W HORSTMAN JANUARY 18, 1985 PAGE 2 AREA 1.885 Acres COMMENTS Net area of remaining parcel after MnDOT taking. If this remaining parcel were rounded to the nearest 0.01 acre, it results in 1.89 acres of net assessable area which was levied under Project 317. Please contact me if you have any questions pertaining to the City's review of your information supporting our original assessable area. Sincerely, p /q���sy� Vomas A. Colbert, P.E. Director of Public Works TAC/jj cc: Paul Hauge, City Attorney ATLANTA, GEORGIA I DALLAS, TERAS MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA SAINT PAUL, MINNESOTA WELLESLEY, MASSACHUSETTS ROBINS, ZELLE, LARSON 8 KAPLAN ATTORNEYS AT LAW FOUNDED IN 1938 AS ROBINS, DAVIS 6 LYONS 1800 INTERNATIONAL CENTRE 900 SECOND AVENUE SOUTH MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 55402 TELEPHONE (612) 349-8500 TELECOPIER (612) 339-4181 TWX 910-576-2737 January 10, 1985 Mr. Thomas A. Colbert P.E. Director of Public Works CITY OF EAGAN 3830 Pilot Knob Road P.O. Box 21199 Eagan, MN 55121 Re: Project 317, Parcel #10-02900-202-05 Our File No. 18250-0044 Dear Mr. Colbert: ANDREW W. HORSTMAN (612) 349-6531 As I mentioned in our telephone discussion on Thursday, January 10, 1985, it is Amoco's position that after the taking by the State of Minnesota only 1.84 acres remains to be assessed rather than the 1.89 acres which was assessed. I:am enclosing for your review certain materials which appear to support Amoco's position and may help clarify the discrepancy. The following documents are enclosed: 1. 1968 survey of the parcel; 2. Excerpts from the appraisal of Robert LaFond, including a legal description of the taking, a description after the taking and copies of the Minnesota Department of Transportation right of way plat and map drawing with respect to the taking.; 3. Map and fee acquisition statement taken from the appraisal of W. Pitzen performed for MnDot; 4. Excerpts noted as pages F and G from the appraisal of Michael Stapp performed for MnDot. Mr. Thomas A. Colbert Page Two After you have had a chance to review these materials please give me a call to let me know whether the assessment can be adjusted. Very truly yours, ROB�INpS, Z/fE�LLE, �LA�RSSOON� & KAPLAN ndrew W. Horstman AWH/mch Enclosure Fc—c. Paul H. Haug (w/encs..) J 1968 SURVEY LAFOND EXCERPTS 9 9. la9ond CO. 9ne- LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF THE TAKING That part of the Northwest Quarter of the Northeast Quarter of Section 29, Township 27 North, Range 23 West, shown as Parcel 45B on the plat designated as Minnesota Department of Transportation Right of Way Plat No. 19-39 on file and of record in the Office of the County Recorder in and for Dakota County, Minnesota; containing 2.53 acres, more or less, together with other rights as set forth in Plat No. 19-39. A copy of Plat No. 19-39 is included in the Addenda. DESCRIPTION OF THE TAKING The taking consists of 2.53 acres, more or less, being the approximate north half of the subject and the southeast corner. The 2.53 acres of the taking does not include the .63 acres currently subject to the existing 33' right of way easement along the subject's north boundary. Additionally, there will be a temporary easement consisting of. .44 acres along the north central portion of the remainder, which will remain in effect until December 1, 1986. See the Plot Map on the facing page. DESCRIPTION AFTER THE TAKING The remaining land will consist of 1.84 acres. The remaining land will be approximately 120' deep and frontage on County Road 30 will be reduced to approximately 630', and this reduced frontage will be subject to in- creased access control along the eastern 215' of frontage. The temporary easement is irregular shaped, having a maximum depth of 55' and being 485' wide along the northern boundary of the remainder. This easement reduces the depth of the unencumbered remaining land to approximately 65' for a width of approximately 215' in the center area. As noted, this temporary easement remains in effect until December 1, 1986. The Eagan zoning office was contacted for confirmation of setback requirements on the subject parcel, in addition to reviewing the zoning ordinance in the Addenda. There is a 50' minimum front setback from the C.S.A.H. 30 right of way line, a 50' minimum rear setback, since the land adjacent behind the subject is zoned Agricultural, and 10' side lot line minimums. Considering the front,and rear setback requirements, the reduction in depth of the remaining parcel to 115' - 125' makes the remainder of very little utility as a commercial parcel. auxw.m.nSA.o as m.®. - - ra s w.� o �wla1 w rmr, ..1-.v w4w rw,rar..w Aw.r aw w.w N-q,L{p.4 rr q O.11Hlia �mlm.m ! m m m a a m 5 b. 120 ZE DAKOTA CO. CAST IRON WN. AT 1/4 CORNER YI SEI/4-N'IN1/4 I DAKOTA CO. CAST IRON I WN. AT 1/4 CORNER I x1Y$.25' _ i 6 u-.a'rx' @IT L A T ww mr..a asr r sa -. e- ew+m.-.n•r -,�'. a 6�I..r...•-.w.... w.a r w-w-4a.rw r v A mm. f d.Y b. wdW a�,a, as w..wa.wa! Mww �q Amw.l� s. sr aY. w• A.q w.w adr . w A.q Y.sf fLs.IA-.,q ww. wi.T.w•wv\rO.iM1M�[a•+\/ Tae. au26L� I PY1..5a1 PARCEL 450 $0• pumA M. MEMIC mV. WMITr EASE CITY NW 1/4 -NE 1/4 lIK PARCEL 408 M a PARCEL 450 E4 OF PARCEL 45D\- I PARCEL 450 all ,PARCEL 40E� so ! i SWI/4-NEI/4 q e' PARCEL 40 Sa- ffsf. mar. nvn b 55'.. me .a vxws ALiM ft 0l l (DAKOTA CO. CAST IRON YON. AT 1 /4 CORNER A32 MI -45] 1/. LIK FOR uvws O r..IQL .0 Sff R.$ IPu 10 `�II 1 DAKOTA CO. CAST IRON Y0N AT 1/4 CORNER 0130Te m]I MAIM R T 12-0 PARCEL 4SE r eT e� 2 YC /1®[AIT LI•E iNE1/4-NE:/ DAKOTA CO. CAST IRON iN.60• 30x'(0 ]A� a• -u WN. AT SEC. COR. as - MINN. STATE PLANE m.�ir.n LOCATION N ua COOR.. SOUTH ZONE - Gxxl_ ]1,15 a•1( .5,.y 23.97 -4-%. 2210060.64 ` u-e,o max's2+'a xe T 656-64.94 Am )r ii 'e ns$ai c u.ro-csxai ]iq'MN, ]LrT, NE M. SIC.$1 TO M ]]a.m' xIaras'55 - 813-524 _ 1. x]' eu-a $8.1)211• x MAM L:ML SEC.2a- (FEE . a 0118520 el4.19 jtml•NN it.13' c .816 33- M3.S50 300.55' a'w ss ! -T`AR• PARCEL 45- 4g PARCEL 45X' r.1 E. .5 - 510. m' ai •c 5i n p us• . c o e l $p ,'•I\ i am"; Is, POM LJA _IP�1 �I O.m' x NWI/4NEI/: eiieiS x]x..0' •].my en -u. ]ar. re' xl v a. u.ea n5.m' 12 .0, 112--86.FEE I 45C OARDLO L. HOLOEN INV 1/4NEI/4 e21 eZ. ur-30- x.01: ' exa. use ml.lo'.1 'y MC 13 IT I' K21 -uv ra•.rs' u'u'n. i W u. n' ni n 1. ORROLO L. HOLDEN NWI/4NE1:4 D FEE m I RICHT OF WAY SECTICrS 28 8 29 I 45E ROBERT E.:OALI 'NEI/4NEI/4SEC 291 NWI/4NWl/4SEC 231 1 0.18 Y � FEE I ALFRED E.LY NEI/4NEI/4SEC 291 NVI/4NWI/4S C 2 0.43 -I_ NWI/4-NWI/4 I2 -I -86 I z RICHT OF WAY IN SECTIONS 28 8 29 8 MALLARD PARK THIRD ADDITION ' 1 45N THOMAS M. V[LLMU9 ' NVI/4hY1/4SEC 28 EI 2NEI/4SEC 29 L0T5 1-11 dL4 I YI•i I I Y / SEI/4-NEI/4 , 2 F � a EAGAN`' 1 b' N ACOL CASTDAKOTA OER I I pl-pa iN.60• 30x'(0 ]A� a• -u irx. m' 2u12 as 565 45 233 1 TO OWNER m.�ir.n LOCATION N ua 40 Gxxl_ ]1,15 a•1( .5,.y 23.97 12. u-e,o max's2+'a xe ele-su Am )r ii 'e ns$ai c u.ro-csxai ]iq'MN, ]LrT, elxau ]]a.m' xIaras'55 - 813-524 _ 1. x]' eu-a $8.1)211• x ."'Oae xN1'W329-e]p (FEE . a 0118520 el4.19 jtml•NN it.13' c .816 ue-eiA M3.S50 300.55' a'w ss e.4 -en Asra I"SpR c en -en ,u.0 nr ]..] su-260 510. m' ai •c 5i 261-sm sv.ss' $ia 35 exo-01 O.m' ALICE NIEMEYER NWI/4NEI/: eiieiS x]x..0' •].my en -u. ]ar. re' xl v a. u.ea n5.m' 12 .0, 112--86.FEE I 45C OARDLO L. HOLOEN INV 1/4NEI/4 e21 eZ. ur-30- x.01: ' exa. use ml.lo'.1 'y Osn-uaS! 13 IT I' K21 -uv ra•.rs' u'u'n. msl-sl u. n' ni n 1. MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION RIGHT OF WAY PLAT NO. 19-39 STATE PROJECT NO. 1982135E-3901904 " IN THE NORTH HALF OF SECTION 29. T.27 N. R.23 W.. AND IN THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 28. T.27 N.. R.23 W. DAKOTA COUNTY. MINNESOTA 1 1 21 DAKOTA CO. CAST IRON 9 VON. AT 1/4 CORNER - . _ I xm.®ulo raravram•swm.ma.�xmrnE Imov,orn$N,orin a xo1.sN.wav m.0 mrlN wsr.a.,.w,.r Ma a1.•.avl�wv,WEua a.® Id..m l.e.s, mYaf w.Y.O Ir• I Iq Cq Im Onw�aY Owl. Im qu-. Fw 65377 PLAT 19-39 `AiYaew•�� • 1��.KUV A ti Isw ov.. .R.•w. Atli O-`�aWrwsYY, 1.a w+.frwr.,.owwraYV N.wwY..w.y WY•�Al.Y rSw., Musam�.x4�.. mla YaA�lwfas li® w. y w.aYa w aq mOe.e a�J m w i.a f.. w. saw�.�-w nw•er a...Yw n.a '- MwwY Ya e.w lyA Y Ilw Iw a..r w a. y a w sr• IN.r.....�....w w w.a Asu�/i�ee 1_ n N. R.m oa err,b CONVENTIONAL SYMBOLS RICHT OF WAY IN SECTION 29 ww w 6lICC V COUwrr IICCLw•JER PARCEL OWNER m.�ir.n LOCATION N ua 40 CLIFF ROAD PROPERTIES SWI/4NEI/4 SEI/4NV1/4 23.97 0.12 12-1-8 FEE 408 OU KOEBN ICK SWl/4NEI/: 1.97 [(SCALES pwawn TO PffT 166.&C CC. uNE CE xa lnS:f raL1.E5. FEE 400 ELMER RAH" SWI/4NEI/4 0,01 (FEE 40E ELMER RAHN SYI/4NEI/4 7.25I FEE 45 OCR THY L. VO[T NWI/4NEI/4 0.56 IFEE 45A ALICE NIEMEYER NWI/4NEI/: 0.03FFEE : AMOCO LLA.W- NWI/4rsEI/4 9eKyl 112--86.FEE I 45C OARDLO L. HOLOEN INV 1/4NEI/4 0.74 0.02 5-28-84:FEE 45D DOUGLAS M. JOHNSON NE 1/4 4.IT IFEE 457 ORROLO L. HOLDEN NWI/4NE1:4 0.61 FEE RICHT OF WAY SECTICrS 28 8 29 45E ROBERT E.:OALI 'NEI/4NEI/4SEC 291 NWI/4NWl/4SEC 231 8.89 1450 0.18 12-1-86 FEE ALFRED E.LY NEI/4NEI/4SEC 291 NVI/4NWI/4S C 2 0.43 0.07 I2 -I -86 FEE RICHT OF WAY IN SECTIONS 28 8 29 8 MALLARD PARK THIRD ADDITION ' 1 45N THOMAS M. V[LLMU9 ' NVI/4hY1/4SEC 28 EI 2NEI/4SEC 29 L0T5 1-11 dL4 I 1.471 fl 0.02 I -6c 1, FEE 1 3d0¢- CONVENTIONAL SYMBOLS Saw M ww w 6lICC V COUwrr IICCLw•JER �rnr COSM1. YIM. 4 K4e; 0-11.eVN .-. yfm. w.M ..ww .• • +ars w ♦ - C [(SCALES pwawn TO PffT 166.&C CC. uNE CE xa lnS:f raL1.E5. 3d0¢- q. Vg%',2 6lICC V COUwrr IICCLw•JER �rnr COSM1. YIM. 4 K4e; Al��µnYfIC[ 4,j CT V � CC. PITZEN EXCERPTS S. P. (3SE %'i0) 9r"i CCIJi+TY _ n' KC r' _ PARCEL N0. �,Su gWNER 141101zrr Ate+ Ori. Co,.rp,4A)y__ S Topographic information required: Show North Arrow. Proposed R/01 line and access taking. Lot lines and dimensions. Outline and location of all buildings and improvements, Stroet or highway frontage. Scale f": %s0 (t H EN{,rel !RAe-f a. �Wyaoyee- OOS /�`feS '�- QE S' 4 67S b W. Vii: ;,�,; 3' ( • iI � October 20, 1980 81400000235 FEE ACQUISITION Parcel 450 S.P. 1982 (35E=390) 904 I 35E-4 (40) 100 All of the following: That part of the Northwest Quarter of the Northeast Quarter of Section'29, Township 27 North, Range 23 West shown as Parcel 450 on the plat designated as Minnesota Department of Transportation Right of Way Plat Numbered. J 19-39 on file and of record in the office of the County Recorder in and for Dakota County, Minnesota; containing 2.53 acres, more or less; together with other rights as set forth below, forming and being -part of said Parcel 458: Access All right of access as shown on said plat by the access restriction symbol. Temporary Easement: A temporary easement for highway purposes as shown on said plat as to said Parcel 450 by the temporary easement symbol, said easement shall cease on December 1, 1806, or on such earlier date upon which the Commissioner of Transportation determines by formal order that it is no longer needed for highway purposes. STAPP EXCERPTS DESCRIPTION OF THE ACQUISITION: The acquisition consists of the easterly plus or minus: 125 fret of the subject and a strin along the County Road $30 frontage the entire length of tho tract. Said strip is approximately 110 feet wide. In addition, the 33 feet presently encumbered in road casement is now acquired in Ler-. Unencumbered area acquired in fee totals 2.53 acres. Included in the acquisition are all existing improvements e and the perimeter fencing along Watts of the subject's spurt: and west sides and all that fencing along the east and north sides. A temporary easement area approximately 460 feet long and reaching a naxinmum dnpth of 50 feet,is also acquired alorr_ a portion of the subjoct remainder fronting on County oau ;30. Said roseawnt area totals 0.4.4 acre and docs riot expire until Decenil,cr 1, 1906. Land acquired will be used in the construction of a, diamond interchanne at the intersection of now Interstate 35E and County Road n30 with the area acquired along the existing County Road k30 used .to expand said road to a four lane divided highway. !! S IPTIGN AFTER T!!f: ACnUISI•i IOP:: :he _ul:ject's remainder will consist of 1.01 acres w�:; ch includes the easement rncu;:;brance of 0.44 acre. No improvements remain. Access is closed on the remainder'3 tact ride and fur a di:;f.auce of approximatul. L!0 feet wccLward,form, Lhr, remainder':, northeast corner. From this point went along new County Road "40, the access will remain unrestricted except for the fact a large percentage of this remainder =rontage is encumbered with the temporary easement. A concrete median will be x:on:;lructLd in County Rnaci "30 .^.,!p;iratinq t.!,n va::t ,tnrl wr:!;t lctn or: of traffic with �,�i.l �au�lian �:xCunJirn3 Lhr entire Lernllli of the subjccC rcmainrlr.r. 'L'I�r: rxiutirr.7 Ir, D?P.0 RIFTIO'I AF'F?;R TiiE tUISITI07:: (continued) county koad 430 right of way will be used for westhound traffic with a new cast!wurd county Road 430 constructed across ti:e accuisiticn. Due to the elevation of the subject above the old county, right of way, cuts will vary across the acquisition to the maxinmum of 14 feet. The grade of the subject remainder in relation to the new portion of County Road 130 will not vary more than five feet. AFTER VALUE: As previously mentioned in the highest and best use paragraph, the after value subject is based on some type of commercial use to take advantace of the new diamnond interchange. The subject's size of 1.84 acres is large enough to support numerous types of commercial ventures including the use as a ga=soline station which was the intended use by the fee owner. However, the remainder's configuration as a long narrow strip varying in depth from approximately 115 to 125 feet will, in the opinion of this appraiser, present development problems as far as placing any improvements so as to conform to the city zoning ordinance as far as improvement setbacks. As outlined _.. the enclosed zoning ordinance, the setback for any improvements which in the subject's case if it were used as a service station site would include the puma islands, is 50 feet. Measuring back from the new interstate right of wav and county road right of way would leave a building area with less than 75 feet of depth. The subject remainder abuts an agriculturally zoned district and under the zoning ordinance for a General Business use requires a 50 foot setback from such a district. This makes the actual building area of the subject remainder a strip less than 25 feet deep, for which all practical purposes is unbuildable. In the opinion.of this appraiser, the subject would have to be combined with the adjoining land to the south,in order to he commercially used in the after situation. After value of the 1.84 acres is estimated -at -25% -of -the - - before value, 02 1-3 7-7, HAU(;E. SMITH. EIDE & HELLER. P. A. ATTORNEYS AT LAW CEOARVALE PROFESSIONAL BUILDINGS 9908 SIBLEY MEMORIAL HIGHWAY RAGAN. MINNESOTA 80122 PAUL H. HAUGE BRADLEY SMITH KEVIN W. EIDE DAVID G. KELLER Mr. Andrew W. Horstman Robins, Zelle, Larson & Kaplan Attorneys at Law 33 South 5th Street Minneapolis, MN 55402 November 20, 1984 RE: City of Eagan - Project 4317 - Amoco Oil Dear Mr. Horstman: AREA CODE 812 TELEPHONE 404-4224 I have received a copy of the Calendar Notice in the above action from the Clerk of District Court in Dakota County on the court hearing for February 6, 1985. I also have a copy of the letter dated October 23, 1984 from Tom Colbert, the Eagan Public Works Director, indicating that there is a residue of property that was assessed under Project #317.' I assume that Amoco will not proceed with its appeal in light of the facts that Mr. Colbert has laid out in his letter, and also, to the best of my knowledge, your client. did not file objections prior to the adoption of the assessment roll by the City Council. I would ask that you forward a dismissal of your appeal to the Clerk of District Court and a copy to my office to avoid a motion, prior to February 6, 1985. Very truly yours, HAUGE, SMITH, EIDE & KELLER, P.A. Paul H. Hauge PHH:ras cc: Tom Colbert Clerk of District Court n C/ G V& -t) File No. 98118 FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT STATE OF MINNESOTA CARVER, DAKOTA, GOODHUE, LESUEUR, MCLEOD, SCOTT 8. SIBLEY COUNTIES CALENDAR NOTICE , DATE: November 14, 1984 ATTORNEYS: Andrew W. Horstman Paul H. Hauge RE: [fl District Amoco Oil Co. vs ❑ County Cal. No. File THE ABOVE MENTIONED CASE IS: 0 City of Eagan M1 ❑ Stricken from the Calendar. (File a new Note of Issue when this case is ready for trial) ❑ Set for Omnibus on at A.M./P.M fI: Set for C rnirt- trial on 2/6/85 at 9:00 A.M.11MM. ❑ Continued to at A.M./P.M. for ❑ Other All motions must be made prior to the trial date. County Dakota ❑ Chaska 9 Hastings -Govt. Ctr. ❑ Red Wing In ❑ Le Center ❑ Glencoe ❑ Shakopee ❑ Gaylord If the status of this case changes, Immediate notice must be given to the Clerk of District Court. PLEASE BE ADVISED THAT THE FOLLOWING CONTINUANCE POLICY IS IN EFFECT: One continuance will be granted by the Assignment Clerk with the agreement of all parties and for good cause shown. Subsequent requests for continuances must be made by a motion, unless all parties agree to have the case stricken from the calendar. ESTHER S. FELDMAN, ADMINISTRATOR FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT DAKOTA COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER HASTINGS, MINNESOTA 55033 TELEPHONE: (612) 437.0325 Mv�� %, 01 i Administrative Assistant �.� 3830 PILOT KNOB ROAD. P.O. BOX 21199 BEA BLOMQUIST EAGAN, MINNESOTA 55121 Mwa PHONE: (612) 454-8100 THOMAS EGAN JAMES A SMITH October 23, 1984 JERRY THOMAS THEODORE WACHTER cwf it MBI iI s THOMAS HEDGES MR ANDREW W HORSTMAN Oty Adm atm C/O ROBINS, ZELLE, LARSON & KAPLAN EUGENE VAN OVERBEKE ATTORNEYS AT LAW city Clark 33 S 5TH ST MINNEAPOLIS MN 55402 Re: Project 317, Final Assessment Appeal Parcel #10-02900-020-05 Dear Mr. Horstman: Your letter of October 18 to our City Clerk, Mr. VanOverbeke, forwarding the enclosed Notice of Appeal for the special assessment to the above -referenced parcel under Project 317 has been forwarded to my attention for review and response. In your Notice of Appeal, you indicate that it is based on the fact that the property was taken in a condemnation proceeding by the State of Minnesota, who now holds title to that property. While MnDOT did acquire through condemnation property owned by Amoco under the --above referenced parcel I.D. number, it was not a total taking of the entire property. The enclosed map show that portion of the residual parcel that was assessed under Project 317. This assess- ment was based on the 82,500 sq. ft. (1.89 acres) that remained after MnDOT's condemnation action. This property was assessed at its present commercial zoned rate of $0.0647/sq.ft. for trunk area storm sewer in the amount of $5,337.75 relating to improvements installed under Project 317. Therefore, due to the information contained in this letter and the fact that the City did not include any of the property acquired by MnDOT as defined by their right-of-way plat #19-39 for parcel 45B, I would appreciate your concurrence with this information and a letter retracting your appeal of the assessment to District Court based on that fact that the area assessed was not included in the condemnation acquisition by MnDOT. If you would like further clarification of the situation, please feel free to contact me. Sincerely, omaTh s A olbe//rt,4 Director of Public Works cc: <Paul Hauge, City Attorney TAC/j j THE LONE OAK TREE ... THE SYMBOL OF STRENGTH AND GROWTH IN OUR COMMUNITY Enclosures STATE OF MINNESOTA IN DISTRICT COURT COUNTY OF DAKOTA FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT NOTICE OF APPEAL OF ASSESSMENT Project No. 317 TO: The Mayor or City Clerk of the City of Eagan. Please take notice that Amoco Oil Company hereby appeals the Special Assessment for Project No. 317 approved and adopted on September 18, 1984, against the following described property: Section 29 NE;, 020, 05. Amoco's appeal is based on the fact that said property was taken in a condemnation proceeding by the State of Minnesota with title and possession vesting in the State of Minnesota as of March 1, 1982. DATED: This 18th day of October, 1984. ROBINS, ZELLE, LARSON & KAPLAN By 4z ndrew W. Horstman 33 South Fifth Street Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402 (612) 349-8500 ATTORNEYS FOR AMOCO OIL COMPANY r =J— -`r \o 3 0 N. E. I/4 SECO-214 I!x•xaN iY lY nr.lD PART 50I 50 OF PART OF \_< .:...1.,010-05 1 /02/0-05 n LR]XIn�iMFl N / FART OF IIC Q 050 - 05 II O°'�; I� 77 i 040-05 rDulc"MmNu "c"lc. " " DEED.o Y 'a 1J Gm i 00 050-05 ~ PART OF It0 -05 .. IllII PART OF 011-07 - \VVJJ 9 010-00 f4 �. 00 f i A.. ' 11%If I I!•p40q lOIAO NaENTA1101 AND CPoD CONVERSION uNa are oriented to Minnesota State gene Coordinate System with 0 degeeey 0 seconds being 'GPoD NOMI -r-. 'toes are ground ler i and can be converted to Minnesota Stale "110ying pat d'etanow by 0-9998976 ph, Cid GME: 1 inch • 210 feet SURVEY STANDARDS L Thx pat value. azrr tU, and distancea. are base 2 The boundary morxrrneNy shown on this pat h: devia8on for the moms ant position is 0. 1 k 3. The'tate plana Coordinate shown on one monun 4. Cestificatea of Location have been fled at the Co Office for the section corner monuments shwm 5. For delab of this survey Cortes the Sururying er Trarsportatpn OAKDALE !deme of Di'lrict _ 277.52 ' o 0 �.� 89 55X43 " �vm __ / 33' PARCEL < f-- --- -C, A, 45 W \ o J 45 45B PARCEL 45B R /W N 45B/ 2 0 3 I `r 0 _ m _ Cy 29 �� r Um 4 1 4 / a a: B27 a PAR. 49;R d / 58 :0. CAST IRON I /4 CORNER B26� QPQ�'yS I � W U 825 / 20' DAKOTA C tv� 0. ELECTRIC 4 V. QPQz ci � COOP. UTILITY EASE t (BK.78.M.R..PG.87) P 824(NOT ON CITY 45D PROP. i L I.NE p ,�I cr VV i 1 3 Q B23 (Yj _ m Np\=Op PARCEL 45D THF 822 R i •3 TG � 9040 Rq�\ 45D . \ O e�O CAS hagsterw Wry au�e��i ^a .- Mn OOT District Offm RIGHT OF WAY IN SECTION 29 TORREN'S BUILDING NEW TEMPORARY REMOVAL EASEMENT OWNER LOCATION CERTIFICATE T.X. R/W EASEMENT EASEMENT EMPIRES ON PARCEL NO• ACRES (MORE OR LESS) 40 CLIFF ROAD PROPERTIES SWI/4NE1/-4 .. 23,.971 0..-1.2 SE1/4NW1/4 F 40B DUANE KOEBNICK SWI/4NE1 /4 1.97 Fl 40D ELMER RAHN SW1/4NE1/4 0.01 IF F 40E ELMER RAHN SWI/4NE1/4 0.25 F 45 DOROTHY L. VOIT NW1/4NE1/4 0.56 F 45A ALICE NIEMEYER NW1/4NE1/4 0.03 12-1-86F 45B JAMOCO OIL CO. NW1/4NE1/4 2.53 0.44 0.02 5-28-84F 45C DAROLD L. HOLDEN NW1/4NEI/4 _ 0.74 F 45D DOUGLAS M. JOHNSON NE 1/4 17 24. F 45J DAROLD L. HOLDEN NW1/4NE1/4 0.61 RIGHT OF WAY SECTIONS 28 & 29 45E ROBERT E. DALY NE1/4NE1/4SEC 29 8.89 0.18 12-1-86F NW1/4NW1/4 SEC 28 NE1/4NE1/4 SEC 29 0.43 0.07 12-1-861 45G ALFRED E. DALY NWI/4NW1/4SEC 28 RIGHT OF WAY IN SECTIONS 28 & 29 8 MALLARD PARK THIRD NW1/4NW1/4SEC 28 1.47 0.02 12DDI8T6I( 45H THOMAS M. WILLMUS E I /2NE I /4 SEC 29 LOTS 1-11 BLK I SYMBOLS B'id"g R r,.,, � R R E R/W Parcd Nunbar 3 Doc. No. 578662 mess c«ma D Aooe s OP�B — o o ' ate' 0— ? OF COUNTY 'REC Cast Iran M,,,Wd a 25¢' DOT. Iran Pipe with TA COUNT Alumir ($ THA EBY CERTIFY rAT9:000-CLOCKAM-ON- 3/a" D.O.T.ImPkl r hw banMonml• o February -1.2 , 1985 Mr. Paul H. Hauge Hauge, Smith, Eide & Keller Cedarvale Professional Buildings' 3908 Sibley Memorial Highway Eagan,- Minnesota 55122 Re: Al Perron/City of Eagan Assessment Dear Mr. -Hauge TELEPHONE 400.115E AREA CODE 012 After reviewing the above captioned matter with my client, I am authorized to advise you that Albert Perron will no longer continue to contest the assessment upon his property as set forth in the City of Eagan's Notice of Special -Assessment dated July 10, 1984. If you have any questions, please -do not hesitate to contact the undersigned. Very truly yours, F F RJH:kk cc: Mr. Albert Perron Mr. Thomas Colbert LAW OPPICES MCMENOMY, SHELDON, DusIou, HANSEN & MOLENDA PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATION DAEOTA CENTRAL OPFIOBS 1"50 ROUTII 80RSRT TRAIL EDWARD R.M-MENOMY ROSEMOUNT, MINNESOTA 66068 ' JAMES P. SLOONS[ BERNIE M. DUCH 8E[D a.I[ANRBN MICHAEL 8 MOLRNDA February -1.2 , 1985 Mr. Paul H. Hauge Hauge, Smith, Eide & Keller Cedarvale Professional Buildings' 3908 Sibley Memorial Highway Eagan,- Minnesota 55122 Re: Al Perron/City of Eagan Assessment Dear Mr. -Hauge TELEPHONE 400.115E AREA CODE 012 After reviewing the above captioned matter with my client, I am authorized to advise you that Albert Perron will no longer continue to contest the assessment upon his property as set forth in the City of Eagan's Notice of Special -Assessment dated July 10, 1984. If you have any questions, please -do not hesitate to contact the undersigned. Very truly yours, F F RJH:kk cc: Mr. Albert Perron Mr. Thomas Colbert oCt; 9tv ®F 3830 PILOT KNOB ROAD, P.O. BOX 21199 EAGAN, MINNESOTA 55121 PHONE: (612) 454-8100 January 16, 1985 Re: Continued Final Assessment Hearing Parcel # - 10-00900-010-79 Project 371, Trunk Storm Sewer Dear Mr. Perron: BEA BLOMQUIST Moyor THOMASEGAN JAMES A SMITH JERRY THOMAS THEODORE WACHTER Council Members THOMAS HEDGES City Atlminisnbtor EUGENE VAN OVERBEKE City clerk As you are aware, the original final assessment hearing for benefits received in the above referenced project to your property was considered by the City Council on August 7, 1984. Due to the written objection that was submitted on your behalf at that time, the City Council continued the public hearing until October 16, for further consideration of your final assessement. On October 16, 1984, the City Council again continued the public hearing to January 8, 1985, to allow additional time for the City to perform and review the appraisals prepared for your property in relationship to the benefit received from the related improvements under the above referenced project. Due to the fact that the City was unable to have the appraisals completed in a time frame necessary for proper review by the City Council, on January 8, 1985, the City Council again continued the public hearing for consideration of the final assessments to Februar 19, 1985,. Please consider this letter formal notifica- tion in orming you of this newly scheduled final assessment hearing which will begin at 7:00 P.M. at the Eagan Municipal Center. A copy of the City's appraisal performed on your property will be forwarded to your attention under separate cover in the very near future. Any additional information that you wish to have the Council review in consideration of your final assessment should be forwarded to my attention no later than 3:00 P.M. February 12. This will allow staff to insure that this information is passed on to the City Council in a timely manner for their consideration of your proposed final assessment amount. It is anticipated that the City Council will approve or modify the original proposed assessment at the February 19, 1985, meeting based on information received for their review and evaluation or presented for their consideration that evening. THE LONE OAK TREE... THE SYMBOL OF STRENGTH AND GROWTH IN OUR COMMUNITY Continued Final Assessment Hearing January 16, 1985 Page 2 If you have any questions assessment hearing process, Citv Attorney, Mr. Paul Hauge ience. Sincerely, /7 G7tF /ft, Thomas A. Colbert, P.E. Director of Public works TAC/sl pertaining to please feel (454-4224) or cc: Paul Hauge, City Attorney Tom Hedges, City Administrator Ann Goers, Special Assessment Clerk the continued final free to contact our myself at your conven- M 3830 PILOT KNOB ROAD, P.O. BOX 21199 EAGAN, MINNESOTA 55121 PHONE: (612) 454-8100 January 16, 1985 Re: Continued Final Assessment Hearing Parcel # - 10-02500-010-52 Project 383, Trunk Storm Sewer Dear Ms. Schiela: BEA BLOMQUIST Maya THOMAS EGAN JAMES A. SMITH JERRY THOMAS THEODORE WACHTER Council Members THOMAS HEDGES Clty Administrator EUGENE VAN OVERBEKE City Clerk As you are aware, the original final assessment hearing for benefits received in the above referenced project to your property was considered by the City Council on August 7, 1984. Due to the written objection that was submitted on your behalf at that time, the City Council continued the public hearing until October 16, for further consideration of your final assessement. On October 16, 1984, the City Council again continued the public hearing to January 8, 1985, to allow additional time for the City to perform and review the appraisals prepared for your property in relationship to the benefit received from the related improvements under the above referenced project. Due to the fact that the City was unable to have the appraisals completed in a time frame necessary for proper review by the City Council, on January 8, 1985, the City Council again continued the public hearing for consideration of the final assessments to March 5, 1985. Please consider this letter formal notification informing you of this newly scheduled final assessment hearing which will begin at 7:00 P.M. at the Eagan Municipal Center. A copy of the City's appraisal performed on your property will be forwarded to your attention under separate cover in the very near future. Any additional information that you wish to have the Council review in consideration of your final assessment should be forwarded to my attention no later than 3:00 P.M. February 26. This will allow staff to insure that this information is passed on to the City Council in a timely manner for their consideration of your proposed final assessment amount. It is anticipated that the City Council will approve or modify the original proposed assessment at the March 5, 1985, meeting based on information received for their review and evaluation or pre- sented for their consideration that evening. THE LONE OAK TREE... THE SYMBOL OF STRENGTH AND GROWTH IN OUR COMMUNITY Continued Final Assessment Hearing January 16, 1985 Page 2 If you have any questions pertaining to the continued final assessment hearing process, please feel free to contact our City Attorney, Mr. Paul Hauge (454-4224) or myself at your conven- ience. Sincerely, Thomas A. Colbert, P.E. Director of Public Works TAC/sl cc: Paul Hauge, City.Attorney Tom Hedges, City Administrator Ann Goers, Special Assessment Clerk Re Y- nor OF 3830 PILOT KNOB ROAD, P.O. BOX 21199 EAGAN. MINNESOTA 55121 PHONE: (612) 454-8100 January 16, 1985 Re: Continued Final Assessment Hearing Parcel # - 10-00900-010-79 Project 371, Trunk storm sewer Dear Mr. Perron: Mayor THOMAS EGAN JAMES A. SM17H JERRY THOMAS THEODORE WACHTER CWMd Memoerf THOMAS HEDGES Qly Ad strolor EUGENE VAN OVERBEKE CIN Clerk As you are aware, the original final assessment hearing for benefits received in the above referenced project to your property was considered by the City Council on August 7, 1984. Due to the written objection that was submitted on your behalf at that time, the City Council continued the public hearing until October 16, for further consideration of your final assessement. On October 16, 1984, the City Council again continued the public hearing to January 8, 1985, to allow additional time for the City to perform and review the appraisals prepared for your property in relationship to the benefit received from the related improvements under the above referenced project. Due to the fact that the City was unable to have the appraisals completed in a time frame necessary for proper review by the City Council, on January 8, 1985, the City Council again continued the public hearing for consideration of the final assessments to Februar 19, 19y85. Please consider this letter formal notifica- tion iing ou of this newly scheduled final assessment hearing which will begin at 7:00 P.M. at the Eagan Municipal Center. A copy of the City's appraisal performed on your property will be forwarded to your attention under separate cover in the very near future. Any additional information that you wish to have the Council review in consideration of your final assessment should be forwarded to my attention no later than 3:00 P.M. February 12. This will allow staff to insure that this information is passed on to the City Council in a timely manner for their consideration of your proposed final assessment amount. It is anticipated that the City Council will approve or modify the original proposed assessment at the February 19, 1985, meeting based on information received for their review and evaluation or presented for their consideration that evening. THE LONE OAK TREE . - THE SYMBOL OF STRENGTH AND GROWTH IN OUR COMMUNITY Continued Final Assessment Hearing January 16, 1985 Page 2 If you have any questions pertaining to the assessment hearing process, please feel free City Attorney, Mr. Paul Hauge (454-4224) or myself ience. Sincerely, Thomas A. Colbert, P.E. Director of Public Works TAC/sl Cc: Paul Hauge, City Attornev Tom Hedges, City Administrator Ann Goers, Special Assessment Clerk continued final to contact our at your conven- M 3830 PILOT KNOB ROAD, P.O. BOX 21199 EAGAN. MINNESOTA 55121 PHONE: (612) 454$100 October 12, 1984 MR. ALBERT PERRON 2996 PILOT KNOB ROAD EAGAN MN 55122 RE: SPECIAL ASSESSMENT APPEALS - BEA BLOMQUIST MWw THOMAS EGAN JAMES A. SMITH JERRY THOMAS THEODORE WACHTER CMl 11 Memt�,S THOMAS HEDGES City Admniif ota EUGENE VAN OVERBEKE City CIBM CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARINGS During the past several weeks, you have been pursuing an appeal to a special assessment that is proposed against your property. At the time of the original final assessment hearing, you had submitted an objection and/or subsequent appeal to those assessments. Con- sequently, the City Council did not "adopt your final assessment but continued the Public Hearing to a special meeting to be held on October 18, 1984. This continuation was necessary to allow the Staff an opportunity to meet with you and to have a formal appraisal per- formed relating the assessments to the benefit received by your property. Due to the fact that it is not anticipated that the appraisals will be completed in a timeframe sufficient to be reviewed in detail by the City Council before the October 18th Council Meeting, that special meeting has been postponed to a later date. At the October 16th regular City Council Meeting, the Council will re-establish a new date for reconsideration of your proposed final assessments. You will recieve additional future notification once the time and date has been established. We hope this re -scheduling does not create any inconvenience for you or your representatives. It is hoped that this continuance will allow the City to provide you with more information and time to review all facts associated with your assessment. Again, the previously scheduled Special City Council Meeting on October 18, 1984 has been postponed. We will inform you when the new meeting date has been established by the City Council. THE LONE OAK TREE ... THE SYMBOL OF STRENGTH AND GROWTH IN OUR COMMUNITY SPECIAL ASSESSMENT APPEALS - CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARINGS PAGE TWO. Your cooperation and understanding in pursuing this special assess- ment appeal process has been greatly appreciated. Sincerely, Thomas A. Colbert, P.E. Director of Public Works TAC: jbd cc: The Mayor & City Council Thomas-L..—Hedges, City Administrator Paul Hauge.,_City"ttorney Ann Goers, Special Assessment Clerk SAC 10/9/84 VII., NEW BUSINESS: —' Final!iAssessment Appeals D. PROJECT 371SR, WATER TREATMENT PLANT TRUNK STORM SEWER 1. Albert Perron (10-00900-010-09 BACKGROUND INFORMATION Project 371 provided for the installation of sanitary sewer, water, streets and storm sewer for Coachman Road, south of Yankee Doodle Road. Project 371SR provided for the trunk storm sewer outlet from the ponds located on either side of Coachman Road, south of Yankee Doodle Road. Under Project 371SR, in addition to the property south of Yankee Doodle Road being benefitted by this improvement, certain properties north of Yankee Doodle Road are located within the drainage basin serviced by these improvements and contribute runoff directly into the ponds serviced by the storm sewer outlet. Enclosed on page S,3 is a general layout showing the trunk storm sewer improvements, the pond serviced and the property assessed under Poroject 371. Enclosed on page -rY is a map referencing the parcels included to be assessed under Project 371SR which drain directly into the pond and have not previously been assessed for any trunk storm sewer improvements. On August 7, 1984, a final assessment hearing was scheduled for the previously referenced project. Enclosed on page SS is a letter dated August 2 from Mr. Perron expressing his objections to these proposed assessments. In addition, enclosed on pages .SG and 7 is a formal Notice of Appeal submitted by the law firm representing Mr. Perron reiterating their objections and notice to appeal the assessments. Enclosed on page Sd is a topographic map showing the area assessed (11.38 acres) in relationship to the entire parcel (24.5 acres). The trunk area storm sewer assessment for this parcel was determined by applying a 20% credit to the 11.38 acres and assessing the resulting 9.1 acres at the agricul- tural rate of 4.31 cents per square foot resulting in an assessment of $17,075.70. Of the 11.38 acres assessed under Project 371SR, 3.21 acres does not directly drain into the pond serviced but is located within another minor subdistrict. However, due to the difficulty in trying to define an accurate drainage district by legal description, the City has historically "squared" off a parcel for inclusion to insure that the majority of the property lies within the benefitted drainage district. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The majority of the property assessed has direct runoff into the pond serviced by the improvements installed under Project 371SR. All appropriate credits were given to this unplatted agriculturally zoned property in determining the final assessments. Therefore, the staff is recommending that the assessments as prepared and presented on August 7, 1984, be reaffirmed, adopted and certified to the County. COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION/COMMENTS �t TREATMENT PLANT �UNK STORM SEWER PROJECT No. 371 PROPOSED TRUNK AREA ASSESSMENT ® Single Family Q Multiple Family 44 2 � I Z i Q 1 t o YAN EE O I �eentteeee of2 Het® /I I I I L . Q• Gem" 2 0, olo-za E I ►om IIIItI 010 -DO ��-i• ( Blue Crate Blue Shieldj- f� i G Punpewee M . �eentteeee Het® /I I I I L . cir, Gem" olo-za ( City of Eagan ) 1 \ ( Blatenaoe Hills 2nd Addition 1 ta Z O OUTLOT A C z\ao -1 JPIx : u Punpewee M . 2A WL MWL,IB l2.0 H,WL. 879.0/ 014-a1 011-01 ROAD 0 cr ! 1 HNL. 8290' �1letL B2B0 , 1 010-50 s30 ,00 :on too •oo 010-1a 010-04 0 ( Harry L,meaue ) �eentteeee Het® /I I I I L . cir, Gem" olo-za ( City of Eagan ) 2A WL MWL,IB l2.0 H,WL. 879.0/ 014-a1 011-01 ROAD 0 cr ! 1 HNL. 8290' �1letL B2B0 , 1 010-50 s30 ,00 :on too •oo 010-1a 010-04 0 ( Harry L,meaue ) 1 to 4 14 e 17 a �. 12 i a 12 o 10 10 s I1 e GIGUERE 2 ' LT m 7 3 A0b- a mmm1fl ID j e 6 mmmmmmm 4 a IJ WATER TREATMENT PLANT TRUNK STORM SEWER PROJECT NO. 371 SR PROPOSED TRUNK AREA ASSESSMENT ® Single Family 6 Agriculture ® Commercial 6 Industrial a 100 200 300 400 "BOL -101011— e01MMIM INIMME. AMOMX i ASSOC, et •%' '�: � oto-ia' i",'� '� `�(' ���<� 6 010-a0 o° 4 s 2 o'` 4 2 WATER TREATMENT PLANT TRUNK STORM SEWER PROJECT NO. 371 SR PROPOSED TRUNK AREA ASSESSMENT ® Single Family 6 Agriculture ® Commercial 6 Industrial a 100 200 300 400 "BOL -101011— e01MMIM INIMME. AMOMX i ASSOC, et •%' '�: � oto-ia' i",'� '� `�(' ���<� 6 010-a0 E40 August 2, 1984 Mr. E. J. VanOverbeke City Clerk City of Eagan 3830 Pilot Knob Road P. 0. Box 21199 Eagan, MN 55121 Re: Project No. 37152"Special Assessment Section 9, Parcel No. 10 00900 010 79 Amount: $17,075.00 Property Owner: Albert Perron Dear Mr. VanOverbeke: I am hereby responding to the Notice of Special Assessment and Notice of Assessment Hearing, recently received by me in regard to the above assessment on my property. This letter is to serve as my notice of written objections. I object to the amount of the assessment proposed to be levied against my property because my property has received no benefit from the storm sewer, any benefit that has resulted is a general benefit and not a special benefit which is therefore not assessable and lastly, if there has been some benefit to my property from this improvement, such benefit is a small one and no where near equal to the amount of the proposed assessment to be levied against my property. I am further writing to inform you that I have become widowed and therefore request that the name of my deceased wife, Mary, be omitted from any further mailings to me by the City of Eagan. Lastly, on the description of the property that you have indicated I own, I only own property in Section 9, which is the first paragraph of the description. I do not own any property in Section 16, which is described in the second paragraph of the property, a copy of which description I enclose for your reference. Sincerely yours, Albert Perron- Enc. erronEnc. SS/ I STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF DAKOTA Albert Perron, Appellant, VS. City of Eagan, Dakota County, Minnesota, Respondent. -Jtk a �".� \ 4 g,3\,BP M V. 35 DISTRICT COURT FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT `cc CO[` ,torr ----------------------------------- TO: RESPONDENT ABOVE-NAMED and ROGER SAMES, CLERK OF DISTRICT COURT. NOTICE OF APPEAL OF STORM SEWER ASSESSMENT (PROJECT No. 371)$,2. NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Appellant above-named hereby appeals to the District Court from the proposed assessment more particularly described in Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. Said assessment relates to the land of the above-named Appellant, more particularly described in said Exhibit A, which Exhibit also shows the amount of said assessment Said appeal is taken upon the following grounds and upon such further and additional grounds as may appear from the record of hearing on said appeal: 1. That Respondent herein lacks jurisdiction to levy said assessment. 2. That the proposed assessement is arbitrary, capri- cious, confiscatory and unreasonable. SG 3. That the levying of said assessment constitutes an unconstitutional taking of the Appellant's property. 4. That the proposed assessment does not result in any benefit, special or otherwise, to the subject property; or if there is any benefit to Appellant's property, said benefit is less than the, amount of the proposed assessment; or in the alternative, is a general benefit which is not assessable. 5. Appellant's property has not and will not increase in market value as a result of the improvement of Respondent. WHEREFORE, Appellant respectfully prays that said assessment will be set aside and cancelled pursuant to law, and for such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and equitable. / DATED: e/oy/ McMENOMY, SHELDON, DUSICH, HANSEN 6 MOLENDA By ernie M. Dusich Attorneys for Appellant Dakota Central Offices 14450 South Robert Trail Rosemount, 'MN 55068 (612) 423-1155 Attorney ID No. 123638 S7 E F /o. HAIIGE, SMITH. HIDE & RELLER. P.A. ATTORNEYS AT LAW CEDARVALE PROFESSIONAL BUILDINGS SSOS SIBLEY MEMORIAL HIGHWAY KAGAN. MINNESOTA 66122 PAUL H. HAUCK BRADLEY SMITH KEVIN W. EIDE DAVID O. KELLER Clerk of District Court First Judicial District Dakota County Government Center Hastings, MN 55033 RE: Perron vs. City of Eagan File No. 97943 Dear Clerk: October 30, 1984 AREA COOK 612 TKLKFHONK 464.4224 I have received a Court trial date for Decemebr 14, 1984 at 9:00 a.m. concern- ing the above action. The appeal was brought by the Plaintiff Perron, for special assessments levied by the City of Eagan. The assessments have not been levied at the present time and apparently, the Appellant mistakenly appealed the assessments to the District Court, although the final hearing by the City Council has not as yet been held. That hearing was continued and is now scheduled for January 8, 1985 and I would therefore ask that the case be stricken from the calendar. Very truly yours, HAUGE, SMITH, EIDE h KELLER, P.A. Paul H. Hauge PHH:ras cc: Bernie Dusich Y , FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT STATE OF MINNESOTA CARVER, DAKOTA, GOODHUE, LESUEUR, MCLEOD, SCOTT& SIBLEY COUNTIES CALENDAR NOTICE DATE: September 19, 1984 ATTORNEYS:. Bernie M. Dusich Paul H. Hauge .,T RE: ❑C District Perron vs. City of Eagan ❑ County Cal. No. File No. 070AI County i THE!ABOVE MENTIONED CASE IS: r ❑ Stricken from the Calendar. (File a new Note of Issue when this case is ready foe trial) ❑ Set for Omnibus on _ at A.M./P.M. El Chaska :O: Hastings -Govt. Ctr. XZ Set for Court trial on 12-14—R4 at 9cn0 A.M./:PYMXXK ❑ Red Wing In ❑ Le Center ❑ Continued to at A.M./P.M.: for ❑ Glencoe ❑ Shakopee ❑ Other ❑ Gaylord All motions must be made prior to the trial date. If the status of this case changes, Immediate notice must be given to the Clerk of District Court. PLEASE BE ADVISED THAT THE FOLLOWING CONTINUANCE POLICY IS IN EFFECT: One continuance will be granted by the Assignment Clerk with the agreement of all parties and for good :�___cause shown. Subsequent requests for continuances must be made by a motion, unless all parties agree to have the case stricken from the calendar. �V ESTHER S. FELDMAN, ADMINISTRATOR FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT DAKOTA COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER HASTINGS, MINNESOTA 55033 TELEPHONE: (612) 437-0325 Administrative Assistant OF 3830 PILOT KNOB ROAD, P.O. BOX 21199 EAGAN. MINNESOTA 55121 PHONE: (612) 454-8100 Albert Perron 2996 Pilot Knob Road Eagan, MN 55122 Dear Mr. Perron: September 17, 1984 BEA BLOMQUIST Mora THOMAS EGAN JAMES A. SMITH JERRY THOMAS THEODORE WACHTER CWn ,-ml­i5 THOMAS HEDGES Cuy AomimsVotor EUGENE VAN OVERBEKE Giv Ciers You have filed an objection with the City of Eagan covering assessments against land owned by you. This is to notify you that the hearing on the assessments was continued by the City Council until October 16, 1984 at 7:00 p.m. at the Eagan City Hall. Generally, when objections are filed by a .property owner, the City staff attempts to meet with the objecting property owner to determine whether there are any specific objections that can be dealt with before the hearing and in addition, the City has a special assessment committee made up of lay persons, members of the City Council and Planning Commission that review special assessment objections prior to the Council hearing. The following schedule is being suggested in order to review the objections and to deal with them prior to a final appeal:. 1. We are suggesting that members of the City staff, including Tom Colbert, the Public Works Director, and a member of the City Attorney's office meet with you in the morning of September 20, or the afternoon of Septem- ber 25, at the Eagan City Hall to discuss the assessment objections. 2.. Your objections are also being placed on the agenda of the Special Assessment Committee which meets at 7:00 on October 9, 1984 at the City Hall. 3• The continued hearing on the assessments is now scheduled for October 3{r, 1984 at 7:00 p.m. In the event that the agenda of that evening becomes excessively long, you will be contacted with an alternate date for the hearing. We would ask that you contact the City Attorney's office at 0454-4224 and arrange for a time to get together at the City Hall on September 20 in the a.m. or on September 25, in the afternoon and would appreciate your call as soon as possible. Very truly yours, Thomas Colbert TC:ras Public Works Director THE LONE OAK TREE ... THE SYMBOL OF STRENGTH AND GROWTH IN OUR COMMUNITY hJ to e`R` 0-k STATE OF MINNESOTA g,II- P ^^' V-35 3 s COUNTY OF DAKOTA ----------------------------------- Albert Perron, Appellant, VS. City of Eagan, Dakota County, Minnesota, Respondent. ----------------------------------- TO: RESPONDENT ABOVE-NAMED and ROGER SAMES, CLERK OF DISTRICT COURT. DISTRICT COURT FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT `Zc NOTICE OF APPEAL OF STORM SEWER ASSESSMENT (PROJECT No. 371) NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Appellant above-named hereby appeals to the District Court from the proposed assessment more particularly described in Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. Said assessment relates to the land of the above-named Appellant, more particularly described in said Exhibit A, which Exhibit also shows the amount of said assessment Said appeal is taken upon the following grounds and upon such further and additional grounds as may appear from the record of hearing on said appeal: 1. That Respondent herein lacks jurisdiction to levy said assessment. 2. That the proposed assessement is arbitrary, capri- cious, confiscatory and unreasonable. U 3. That the levying of said assessment constitutes an unconstitutional taking of the Appellant's property. 4. That the proposed assessment does not result in any benefit, special or otherwise, to the subject property; or if there is any benefit to Appellant's property, said benefit is less than the, amount of the proposed assessment; or in the alternative, is a general benefit which is not assessable. 5. Appellant's property has not and will not increase in market value as a result of the improvement of Respondent. WHEREFORE, Appellant respectfully prays that said assessment will be set aside and cancelled pursuant to law, and for such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and equitable. / DATED: McMENOMY, SHELDON, DUSICH, HANSEN S MOLENDA Jernie M. Dusich Attorneys for Appellant Dakota Central Offices 14450 South Robert Trail Rosemount, 'MN 55068 (612) 423-1155 Attorney ID No. 123638 Any portion of the total amount of these special assessments may be paid within thirty (30) days after adoption of the assessment roll without interest at the EAGAN CITY MAIL. The remaining unpaid balance pall be certified to the Dakota County Auaitc: at Hastings for annual installment. payments (principal and interest) which will appear on your future property rax statements. If the special assessment balance is not paid within this 30 day period but paid prior to Novenber 15th in the year of adoption, interest will be charged ffE m the date Of adoFtion to date cf payment at an equ`.valent annual rate of5 8. If the assess- ment is not paid by November 15th, in the year of adoption, it wil certified to be Paid in annual installments at the rate of 10.5 per year interest ort any remaining unpaid balance. The first year's installment to show on a tax statement will include the interest fztsn the date of adoption to December 31st, plus all the interest for the follo ring year. 3ievised 8-2-82 9-6-83 SPMOL ASS:T DIVISIfl4 City of Eagan 3795 Pilot Knob Road Eagan, M 55122 SI';\Tl;SaTT OF SPFCLIL PSSFSSi-n-2.T ' Project 9371 The Ma7N CITY COU\CIL meeting on Aueist 7 1984 approved and adopted special assessments against the tollaiing described ,property: � Section 9 Parcel 1110 00900 010 79 For the following improvements in the designated amounts_ 11MTM AVC NT NO. YRS. SANITARY A[,OU "T NO. Y?S. Area Area laterals Iatert3s Service Service Lateral ben/ Lateral ben/ from t--ur:k frcm tru--Lk STO^4 ST? 5 Area 17,075.00 15 Grath_,/ Gravel Base Laterals Surfacing Res. Ecuiv. TOTAL $ 17,075.00 Any portion of the total amount of these special assessments may be paid within thirty (30) days after adoption of the assessment roll without interest at the EAGAN CITY MAIL. The remaining unpaid balance pall be certified to the Dakota County Auaitc: at Hastings for annual installment. payments (principal and interest) which will appear on your future property rax statements. If the special assessment balance is not paid within this 30 day period but paid prior to Novenber 15th in the year of adoption, interest will be charged ffE m the date Of adoFtion to date cf payment at an equ`.valent annual rate of5 8. If the assess- ment is not paid by November 15th, in the year of adoption, it wil certified to be Paid in annual installments at the rate of 10.5 per year interest ort any remaining unpaid balance. The first year's installment to show on a tax statement will include the interest fztsn the date of adoption to December 31st, plus all the interest for the follo ring year. 3ievised 8-2-82 9-6-83 SPMOL ASS:T DIVISIfl4 City of Eagan 3795 Pilot Knob Road Eagan, M 55122 HAUGE. SMITH & Ems. P. A. ATTORNEYS AT LAW 'CEDARVALE PROPESSIONAL BUILDINGS 7000 SIBLEY MEMORIAL HIGHWAY EAGAN. MINNESOTA 55122 PAUL H. HAUGE BRADLEY SMITH KEVIN W. EIDE RALPH W. COREY TO: Tom Hedges Tom Colbert X Gene VanOverbeke Dale Runkle FROM: X Pau]. Hauge Brad Smith Kevin Fide Ralph W. Corey RE: Project No. Enclosed please find: DATED: April 3, 1985 (SEE BELOW) Development Contract PUD Agreement Easement Deed X Other ASSESSMENT AGREEMENTS ENCLOSED PLEASE FIND THE FOLLOWING FOR YOUR PERMANENT FILE: Action requested: v71) Assessment Agreement, PROJECT No. 391, (METZ) - Doc. 11671199 2) Assessment Agreement, PROJECT No. 381, (METZ) - Doc. 11671200 3) Assessment APseement PROJECT No. 391, (MYRLIE) - Doc, 11668197 4) Assessment Agreement, PROJECT No. 381, (MYRLIE) - Doc. 11668196 u�7 f" - ANEW Cao[ B 12 Tff 2 HON2 454-A22A CITY OF EAGAN �f ASSESSMENT AGREEMENT //— Iy-�/ LAND USE DIFFERS FROM ZONINGl-� qq PROJECT NO. 391 lSJ THIS AGREEMENT dated this 29th day of August , 1984, between the CITY OF EAGAN, (called City), and Melvin J. & Martha A. Metz (called Owner) of 810 Lone Oak Road , (address); WHEREAS, the City proposes to assess the following described premises owned by Owner: (legal description) Tp,4` Part of the Northeast k of the Northeast k beginning on the North line 33 feet West of the Northeast corner. Thence West 123 feet, thence South 232.33 feet, thence East 123 feet, thence North 232.33 feet to beginning subject to Highway exceptions all being located in Section 11, Township 27, Range 23, in Dakota County. TAX PARCEL # i8v9libEAl944210 TTi:'J .A NT38a for the following improvements pursuant to City';PgjP^raU Lateral Benefit from Trunk Water Main WHEREAS, such assessments would normally be based upon the present zoning classification of said premises, that is, Light Industrial ; and WHEREAS, the present use of said property is different from said zoning classification and if zoned at the present use, assessments would be for Single Family Residential zoning. NOW THEREFORE, upon consideration of the mutual covenants herein, the w parties agree as follows: 0 1. The City agrees to assess said property for the Project and purposes CU w described above as if it were zoned Single Family at the rates now in s existence for property so zoned. Resi entia L 2. The Owner agrees for himself, his heirs, executors, administrators, N v successors, and assigns, that if the actual use of said property is changed in m w the future to a use or zoning category which is assessable at a higher rate �.o than the rate for the present use, the City may reassess or levy a supple - :3 mental assessment at such time equal to the difference between the assessment E F for the new land use and the assessment for the present land use at the v F assessment rates, according to City policy, in effect at such future time. o 3. The Owner, for himself, his heirs, executors, administrators, u successors and assigns, further waives notice of any and all hearings c� a s necessary and waives any and all objections to the present or future 2 assessments agreed to herein or to the proceedings related thereto and waives a the right to appeal such assessments. S 4. Other conditions: None 3 O O 'e C U m The undersigned have read and understand the above agreement and hereby m E- bind themselves to it in all respects. En F. a OWNER L 'J rz C x $4 .a •M Iv 1 J._ Me z N C �� •� >+x M a A. Metz o a e This Document Drafted �I o 00 Hauge, Smith, Eide & KI 3908 Sibley Memorial Hi x w Eagan, Minnesota 55122 0 01 H m E. FJ. C �anet L. Coine ltui E•1 Q Cl N01.4Y OUBlIC-MIF11E;0VFiOlA LO V W - HENNEPIN COUNTY pAy c,mrni,ion "pirw Sept. 28. 1989 CITY OF EAGAN By: Ul�f.Jl�►l Attest: 2�__ I W Clerk P.A. (dyL EXEMPT FROM STATE DEED TAX 5, y dyfn���Q.�/lz NWMV PLWJC-M00139 A DAKOTA COUNTY my oommlalon EKPWu Feb. +e. err r CITY OF EAGAN ASSESSMENT AGREEMENT LAND USE DIFFERS FROM ZONING PROJECT NO. 381 C� THIS AGREEMENT dated this 29th day of August , 1984,_between the CITY OF EAGAN, (called City), and Melvin & Martha Metz (called Owner) of 810 Lone oak Road , (address); WHEREAS, the City proposes to assess the following described premises owned by Owner: (legal description) -T1j,%JPart of the Northeast k of the Northeast k beginning on the North line 33 feet West of the Northeast corner. Thence West 123 feet, thence South 232.33 feet, thence East 123 feet, thence North 232.33 feet to beginning subject to Highway exceptions all bein loc d in.Sgq.tion �111 Lown hip 27, Range 23, in Dakota County. TAX PARCE RIIAOQ-10.42-04�,� �. ' ::'. i•I CIM :iiUV•+rNA:UN + for the following improvements pursuanto Cmj"aC 4=AA311 Tr,mk Aron Rrnrm Rowor ,9ft ,fll .Oel e+6,;.1:.:.•:..• WHEREAS, such assessments would normally be based upon the present zoning classification of said premises, that is, Light Industrial ; and WHEREAS, the present use of said property is different from said zoning classification and if zoned at the present use, assessments would be for Single Eamily Residential zoning. NOW THEREFORE, upon consideration of the mutual covenants herein, the w parties agree as follows: o 1. The City agrees to assess said property for the Project and purposes described above as if it were zoned Single Family at the rates now in v 3 existence for property so zoned. Residential 410 c 2. The Owner agrees for himself, his heirs, executors, administrators, ,n m successors, and assigns, that if the actual use of said property is changed in v the future to a use or zoning category which is assessable at a higher rate s0 than the rate for the present use, the City may reassess or levy a supple - L m mental assessment at such time equal to the difference between the assessment a for the new land use and the assessment for the present land use at the N assessment rates, according to City policy, in effect at such future time. W H 3• The Owner, for himself, his heirs, executors, administrators, successors and assigns, further waives notice of any and all hearings a� necessary and waives any and all objections to the present or future assessments agreed to herein or to the proceedings related thereto and waives othe right to appeal such assessments. L!. Other conditions: None 3 O G O mM The undersigned have read and understand the above agreement and hereby In N bind themselves to -it in all respects. OWNER CITY OF EAGAN 6 z x By:< - Z > M lv . etz s ayor 1 v .a < Attest:np Metz IU Clerk This Document Drafted N o Hauge, Smith, Eide & Keller, P.A. APPROV Public W I D ec or m y a, 3908 Sibley Memorial Highway All1-a6 ry m Eagan, Min eypt 5122 -V w o w a �✓ !. EXEMPT FROM STATE DEME TAX W i W H N u.nefiu! r .inrf C. C' f971IAGT vuPUC _ rWN'SOfAE. oy HENNEPIN COUTYOUNTY W U N 1)1)1) MY on yAPirw SoPI. Z8, 1989 +Iwwm r.u. le. Toon HAUGE. SMITR. EIDE & KELLER. P. A. ATTORNEYS AT LAW IV/ CEDARVALE PRO►2WIONAL BUILDINGS 2000 SISLEY MEMORIAL HIGHWAY EAGAN (ST. PAUL). MINNESOTA 00122 PAUL H. NAUSS BRADLEY SMITH November 7, 1984 KEVIN W. EIDE DAVID O. KELLER TO: County Recorder DAKOTA COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER Hastings, MN 55033 r M1 ARY CODE I2 TREPNONE 424.4224 ABSTRACT PROPERTY RE: Assessment Agreement - MELVIN J. METZ & MARTHA A. METZ - CITY OF EAGAN Part of NEk of NEk, Sec. 11, T. 27, R. 23 Projects 4381 and 11391 Dear Clerk: Enclosed herewith for recording, please find: Warranty Deed Quit Claim Deed Contract for Deed Assignment of Contract for Deed Certificate of Real Estate Value Affidavit of Purchaser Certifiied copy of Judgment and Decree Mortgage Deed _ Easement Owner's Duplicate Certificate of Title 11 Our check in the sum of $ for recording fees X Two (2) ASSESSMENT AGREEMENTS Very truly yours, HAUGE, SMITH, EIDE & KELLER, P.A. Paul H. Hauge %. CITY OF EAGAN ASSESSMENT AGREEMENT LAND USE DIFFERS FROM ZONING PROJECT NO 381 w 0 m• .0 X Ln N N .a . • / L 107 THIS AGREEMENT dated this 29th day of August 1984 �beine/ CITY OF EAGAN, (called City), and Melvin & Martha Metz �a (called( Owner) of 810 Lone Oak Road I , (address); WHEREAS, the City proposes to assess the following described premises owned by Owner: (legal description) Part of the Northeast k of the Northeast 1 beginning on the North line 33 feet West of the Northeast corner. Thence West 123 feet, thence South 232.33 feet, thence East 123 feet, thence North 232.33 feet to beginning subject to Highway exceptions all beim loca gd in Se�,tion.11�oTi ship 27, Range 23, in Dakota County. TAX PARCEL 10-0110070.,-0j; for the following improvements pursuant o Ciltwear�em..)Aml Trunk Area Storm Sewer reer,er•ee1"""""" "" WHEREAS, such assessments would normally be based upon the present zoning classification of said premises, that is, Light Industrial ; and WHEREAS, the present use of said property is different from said zoning classification and if zoned at the present use, assessments would be for Singlp Family Residential zoning. NOW THEREFORE, upon consideration of the mutual covenants herein, the parties agree as follows: 1. The City agrees to assess said property for the Project and purposes described above as if it were zoned Single Family at the rates now in a existence for property so zoned. Residential 0 2. The Owner agrees for himself, his heirs, executors, administrators, successors, and assigns, that if the actual use of said property is changed in v the future to a use or zoning category which is assessable at a higher rate m than the rate for the present use, the City may reassess or levy a supple- r mental assessment at such time equal to the difference between the assessment .c for the new land use and the assessment for the present land use at the assessment rates, according to City policy, in effect at such future time. H 3. The Owner, for himself, his heirs, executors, administrators, successors and assigns, further waives notice of any and all hearings necessary and waives any and all objections to the present or future c assessments agreed to herein or to the proceedings related thereto and waives zthe right to appeal such assessments. 4. Other conditions: None? h The undersigned have read and understand the above agreement and hereby bind themselves to it in all respects. OWNER CITY OF EAGAN e\ > c c x M lv etz By: s yor f Attest: A. letz IU Clerk ys Document Drafted .Y. Hauge, Smith, Eide & Keller, P.A. APPnROVF,DZ Public W i D ector /3908 Sibley Memorial Highway Eagan, Min eypt . 5122 /� ! �✓ / [A� EXEMPT FROM STATE DEME TAX L ZASEni A WITT n" aarnrl C. Coxni(ius sr nue wrfn-5s.•ci 101AR1 Mbt'C — ""rI4S01A =flew Npp*A TDLV'r- / 4 H[NNMN COU Ty DAKOTA COUNTY MY comminion •.P'06 S*P' 28, 1989 Mr Co,"mW91" E'1m Feb. 10, 1901 .l3'OL'c� �•( r C// STATE OF MINNESOTA) ) ss. COUNTY OF DAKOTA ) CITY ACKNOWLEDGEMENT On this 1 ,nm day of S-eo-6, er , 198y, before me a Notary Public within and for said County, personally appeared BEATTA BLOMQUIST and EUGENE VANOVERBEKE to me personally known, who being each by me duly sworn, each did say that they are respectively the Mayor and Clerk of the CITY OF EAGAN, the municipality named in the foregoing instrument, and that the seal affixed to said instrument was signed and sealed on behalf of said municipality by authority of its City Council and said Mayor and Clerk acknowledged said instrument to be the free act and deed of said municipality. ELIZABETH A. WITT ��/ti��✓`� /-) Nor�nrweuc-M�HwesorA Notary blic DAKOTA COUNTY Mr eo�on a!a�+ ha �� 7N1 STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ss. PERSONAL ACKNOWLEDGEMENT COUNTY OF ) On this day of 198_, before me a Notary Public within and for said County, personally appeared to me known to be the person described in and who executed the foregoing instrument and acknowledged that executed the same as free act and deed. STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF Notary Public CORPORATE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of , 198_, by (name) , (title of officer) , of (corp. name) I a (state)7-corporation, on behalf of the corporation. STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ss. COUNTY OF ) Notary Public PARTNERSHIP ACKNOWLEDGEMENT The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of '198 , by , partner (or agent) on behalf of , a Partnership. ► TT1W A H108AS111 ? ri4':.r'i•• • CITY OFRw a� ASSESSMENT AGREEMENT USE DIFFERS FROM ZONING /2,-8-�tZ ROJECT NO. 391 M49 �L THIS AGREEMENT da ed t s 29th day of 6V ust , 1984 b � " ),-t CITY OF EAGAN, (called City), and Melvin J Martha A. Metz Willed Owner) of 810 Lone Oak Road ( ddress); WHEREAS, the City proposes to assess the following described premises owned by Owner: (legal description) Part of the Northeast ): of the Northeast (: beginning on the North line 33 feet West of the Northeast corner. Thence West 123 feet, thence South 232.33 feet,'thence East 123 feet, thence North 232.33 feet to beginning ! subiect to Highway exceptions all being located in Section 11, Township 27, Range 23, in Dakota County. TAX PARCEL # tM9tlb0�9!•Ps T?i.'i .A 111311A•,I.; i for the following improvements pursuant to City Prq'jeq -'"0 �, -14 t Lateral Benefit from Trunk Water Main WHEREAS, such assessments would normally be based upon the present zoning classification of said premises, that is, Light Industrial • and WHEREAS, the present use of said property is different from said zoning classification and if zoned at the present use, assessments would be for Single Family Residential zoning. NOW THEREFORE, upon consideration of the mutual covenants herein, the parties agree as follows: 1. The City agrees to assess said property for the Project and purposes = described above as if it were zoned Single Family at the rates now in o existence for property so zoned. esi entia m 2. The Owner agrees for himself, his heirs, executors, administrators, o s successors, and assigns, that if the actual use of said property is changed in the future to a use or zoning category which is assessable at a higher rate ° than the rate for the In m present use, the City may reassess or levy a supple- d mental assessment at such time equal to the difference between the assessment for the new land use and the assessment for the present land use at the L y assessment rates, according to City policy, in effect at such future time. 3. The Owner, for himself, his heirs, executors, administrators, successors and assigns, further waives notice of any and all hearings H necessary and waives any and all objections to the present or future vassessments agreed to herein or to the proceedings related thereto and waives a the right to appeal such assessments. d 4. Other conditions: None v ¢ 00 V v s The undersigned have read and understand the above agreement and hereby ° bind themselves to it in all .� respects. c u ca U) N OWNER CITY OF EAGGAANy 3 x By: �61 M lv n J. Me z v n 9 y0 13 z Attest:, 5 ax M a A. Metz Its Clerk y y This Document Drafted y H th, Eide d Keller, P.A. APPRO ED• ublic W r f ector ^� to ibley Memorial Highwa P•_y Minnesota 5 122 u. �'Crl I 1 ok (S If2 EXEMPT FROM STATE DEED TAAACX��� W N ' �:ini'I (�. CnTnt(lY� ' � � jy lll6J.'Ci�/l�•C/. l��i.� 11o'MI11� NIA 18881�OTA ✓ HENNII RIM 'IN (W - O N1N7 WXOTA COUNTY r My cemmn.ior. exp".. sow !e. 1089Mr C0nwroe ■�pw h0. i8, 1261 n m •''— ...................... OF 3830 PILOT KNOB ROAD. P.O. BOX 21199 EAGAN, MINNESOTA 55121 PHONE: (612) 454-8100 October 15, 1984 PAUL HAUGE CITY ATTORNEY 3908 SIBLEY MEMORIAL HIGHWAY EAGAN MN 55122 Re: Parcel #10-01100-012-04 Special Assessment Agre Dear Paul, t, Project No. 381 & 391 BEA BLOMQUIST Mayor THOMAS EGAN JAMES A. SMITH JERRY THOMAS THEODORE WACHTER Council Members THOMAS HEDGES CIty Administrator EUGENE VAN OVERBEKE City Clork Enclosed please find a fully executed and notorized agreement for the above -referenced tax parcel number for each of Projects No. 381 (Boerchert-Ingersoll trunk storm sewer) and No. 391 (Lone Oak Road trunk water main) which should be recorded at the County against the legally described parcel. Please return a copy of the recorded agreements to my attention as soon as possible. Sincerely, Thomas A. Colbert, P.E. Director of Public Works TAC/jj Enclosure THE LONE OAK TREE... THE SYMBOL OF STRENGTH AND GROWTH IN OUR COMMUNITY C HAUGE. $!IPPS & EIDE, P. A. ATTORNEYS AT LAW CEDARVALE PROFESSIONAL BUILDINGS 2008 SIBLEY MEMORIAL HIGHWAY EAGAN. MINNESOTA 00122 PAUL H. HAUCK BRADLEY SMITH KEVIN W. EIDE RALPH W. COREY TO: Tom Hedges Tom Colbert .x Gene VanOverbeke Dale Runkle FROM: X Pau]. Hauge Brad Smith Kevin Fide Ralph W. Corey RE: Project No. Enclosed please find: DATED: April 3, 1985 (SEE BELOW) Development Contract PPD Agreement Easement Deed X Other Action requested: ASSESSMENT AGREEMENTS ENCLOSED PLEASE FIND THE FOLLOWING FOR YOUR PERMANENT FILE: 1) Assessment Agreement, PROJECT No. 391, (METZ) - Doc. 11671199 2) Assessment Agreement, PROJECT No. 381, (METZ) - Doc. 11671200 (/3) Assessment Agreement PROJECT No. 391. (MYRLIE) - Doc. 11668197 1/4) Assessment Agreement, PROJECT No. 381, (MYRLIE) - Doc. 11668196 I'c'y An" Cool a12 TaLEFNON9 A04.1224 0 HAUGE, SMITH, EIDE & RELLER. P. A. ATTORNEYS AT LAW GEDARVALE PROFE66IONAL BUILDINGS 9000 SIBLEY MEMORIAL HIGHWAY EAGAN 46T. PAUL). MINNESOTA 66112 PAUL H. HAUGF. ARSA DOM 612 BRADLEY SMITH September 17, 1984 TELKPNOM[ 464.4224 KEVIN W. EIDE DAVID G, KELLER TO: County Recorder ABSTRACT PROPERTY Dakota County Government Center Hastings, MN 55033 RE: Assessment Agreement - City of Eagan/Orlin Myrlie Part of NEti of NE114, Sec. 11, T. 27, R. 23 Projects 11381 and 391 Dear Clerk: Enclosed herewith for recording, please find: Warranty Deed Quit Claim Deed Contract for Deed _ Assignment of Contract for Deed Certificate of Real Estate Value _ Affidavit of Purchaser Certifiied copy of Judgment and Decree Mortgage Deed _ Easement _ Owner's Duplicate Certificate of Title 11 Our check in the sum of $ for recording fees X ASSESSMENT AGREEMENT (2) Very truly yours, HAUGE, SMITH, EIDE & KELLER, P.A. Paul H. Hauge CITY OF EAGAN ASSESSMENT AGREEMENT I LAND USE DIFFERS FROM ZONING PROJECT NO. 391 1dIA THIS AGREEMENT dated this 29th day ofAugust 198_; between the CITY OF EAGAN, (called City), and Orlin D. & Judith Myr ie (called Owner) of 820 Lone Oak Rd., Eagan, MN husband & wife, (address); WHEREAS, the City proposes to assess the following described premises owned by Owner: (legal description) Part of the NEk of the NEy beginning on the North line 156 ft. West of the NE corner. Thence continuing West 136 ft., thence south 232.33 ft., thence East 136 ft., thence North 232.33 ft. to point of beginning subject to Highway exceptions all being located in Section 11, Township 27, Range 23 in Dakota County. TAX PARCEL # 10-01100-014-04 TTIW .A HT3AASIJ for the following improvements pursuan tet_0 ttgNPtsdyt+bf7%A Lateral Benefit from Trunk Watdr MaiTil�uc TQHA WHEREAS, such assessments would normally be based upon the present zoning classification of said premises, that is, Light Industrial ; and WHEREAS, the present use of said property is different from said zoning classification and if zoned at the present use, assessments would be for Single Family Residential zoning. NOW THEREFORE, upon consideration of the mutual covenants herein, the parties agree as follows: 1. The City agrees to assess said property for the Project and purposes described above as if it were zoned Single Family at the rates now in existence for property so zoned. Residential 2. The Owner agrees for himself, his heirs, executors, administrators, successors, and assigns, that if the actual use of said property is changed in the future to a use or zoning category which is assessable at a higher rate than the rate for the present use, the City may reassess or levy a supple- mental assessment at such time equal to the difference between the assessment for the new land use and the assessment for the present land use at the assessment rates, according to City policy, in effect at such future time. 3• The Owner, for himself, his heirs, executors, administrators, successors and assigns, further waives notice of any and all hearings necessary and waives any and all objections to the present or future assessments agreed to herein or to the proceedings related thereto and waives the right to appeal such assessments. 4. Other conditions: None The undersigned have read and understand the above agreement and hereby bind themselves to. it in all respects. x Orlku Myrlie,�y x _Irx Judith Myrlib This Document Drafted By - Hauge, Smith, Eide & Keller, P.A. 3908 Sibley Memorial Highway Eagan, Minnesota 55122 CITY OF EAG/ANN By: Attest: Fal A V ubllc , k it etor . EXEMPT FROM STATE DEED TAX r CITY OF EAGAN ASSESSMENT AGREEMENT LAND USE DIFFERS FROM ZONING PROJECT NO. 381 THIS AGREEMENT dated this 29th day of August , 1984, between he CITY OF EAGAN, (called City), and Orlin D. & Judith Myrlie (called Owner) of 820 Lone Oak Rd., Eagan, MN husband 6 wife , (address); WHEREAS, the City proposes to assess the following described premises owned by Owner: (legal description) Part of the NE'y of the NE'y beginning on the North line 156 ft. West of the NE corner. Thence continuing West 136 ft., thence South 232.33 ft., thence East 136 ft., thence North 232.33 ft. to point of beginning subject to Highway exceptions all being located in Section 11, Township 27, Range 23 in Dakota County. TAX PARCEL # 10-01100-014-04 for the following improvements pursuant to City Project 381 Trunk Area Storm Sewer WHEREAS, such assessments would normally be based upon the present zoning classification of said premises, that is, Light Industrial ; and WHEREAS,. the present use of said property is different from said zoning classification and if zoned at the present use, assessments would be for Single Family Residential zoning. NOW THEREFORE, upon consideration of the mutual covenants herein, the parties agree as follows: 1. The City agrees to assess said property for the Project and purposes described above as if it were zoned Single Family at the rates..now in existence for property so zoned. Residential 2. The Owner agrees for himself, his heirs, executors, administrators, successors, and assigns, that if the actual use of said property is changed in the future to a use or zoning category which is assessable at a higher rate than the rate for the present use, the City may reassess or levy a supple- mental assessment at such time equal to the difference between the assessment for the new land use and the assessment for the present land use at the assessment rates, according to City policy, in effect at such future time. 3• The Owner, for himself, his heirs, executors, administrators, successors and assigns, further waives notice of any and all hearings necessary and waives any and all objections to the present or future assessments agreed to herein or to the proceedings related thereto and waives the right to appeal such assessments. 4. Other conditions: None The undersigned have read and understand the above agreement and hereby bind themselves to it in all respects.. x0 Z& " Orlin D. Myrlie x �q_. i; --I juairin riyriie - This Document Drafted Hauge, Smith, Eide & Keller, P.A. 3908 Sibley Memorial Highway Eagan, Minnesota 55122 CITY OF EAGAN By: As'&t.I eza't % M or O Attest: arn It lerk APPR YE�;��blic }foe}c} sAVregto�� EXEMPT FROM FROM STATE DEED TAX G' d"- 3 Pc`�/—i3-r3 of eac�an 3830 PILOT KNOB ROAD. P.O. BOX 21199 BEA BLOMQUIST EAGAN. MINNESOTA 55121 Mayor PHONE: (612) 45d-8100 THOMAS EGAN JAMES A. SMITH JERRY THOMAS THEODORE WACHTER September 17, 1984 Coumil Members THOMAS HEDGES City AdmlNstrolor EUGENE VAN OVERBEKE City Clerk PAUL HAUGE CITY ATTORNEY 3908 SIBLEY MEMORIAL HIGHWAY EAGAN MN 55122 RE: PROJECT 381, SPECIAL ASSESSMENT DEFERMENT AGREEMENT - RECORDING PARCEL # 10-01100-014-04 Dear Paul: I am forwarding to your attention two original copies of a Special Assessment Agreement which should be recorded against the referenced parcels to protect the City's ability to assess these properties in the future if, and when, the use of the property is consistent with the present zoning. Please return a copy of these Agreements to my attention after they have been recorded at the County. Sincerely, homas A. Colbert, P.E. Director of Public Works TAC/jj Enclosures THE LONE OAK TREE ... THE SYMBOL OF STRENGTH AND GROWTH IN OUR COMMUNITY .) HAU(3E. ..SMITH. :IDE & HELLER. P. A. 'ATTORNEYS AT LAW CEDARVALE PROFESSIONAL BUILDINGS 7908 SISLEY MEMORIAL HIGHWAY EAGAN (ST. PAUL). MINNESOTA 5312S PAUL H. HAUGE AREA CORE III BRADLEY SMITH September 17, 1984 TZLEP,1ONE 494.4224 KEVIN W. EIDE DAVID O. KELLER TO: County Recorder ABSTRACT PROPERTY Dakota County Government Center Hastings, MN 55033 RE: Assessment:Agreement - City of Eagan/Orlin Myrlie Part of NE14 of NE`z, Sec. 11, T. 27, R. 23 Projects 11381 and 391 Dear Clerk: Enclosed herewith for recording, please find: Warranty Deed Quit Claim Deed ' _ Contract for Deed _ Assignment of Contract for Deed Certificate of Real Estate Value _ Affidavit of Purchaser Certifiied copy of Judgment and Decree Mortgage Deed _ Easement _ Owner's Duplicate Certificate of Title 11 Our check in the sum of $ for recording fees X ASSESSMENT AGREEMENT (2) Very truly yours, HAUGE, SMITH, EIDE S KELLER, P.A. Paul H. Hauge CITY OF EAGAN ASSESSMENT AGREEMENT LAND USE DIFFERS FROM ZONING PROJECT NO. 381 THIS AGREEMENT dated this 29th day of August , 1984, between the CITY OF EAGAN, (called City), and Orlin D. & Judith Myrlie (called Owne,r) of 820 Lone Oak Rd., Eagan, MN husband & wife , (address); WHEREAS, the City proposes to assess the following described premises owned by Owner: (legal description) Part of the NE'y of the NE'y beginning on the North line 156 ft. West of the NE corner. Thence continuing West 136 ft., thence South 232.33 ft., thence East 136 ft., thence North 232.33 ft. to point of beginning subject to Highway exceptions all being located in Section 11, Township 27, Range 23 in Dakota County. TAX PARCEL # 10-01100-014-04 for the following improvements pursuant to City Project 381 Trunk Area Storm Sewer WHEREAS, such assessments would normally be based upon the present zoning classification of said premises, that is, Light Industrial ; and WHEREAS,. the present use of said property is different from said zoning classification and if zoned at the present use, assessments would be for Single Family Residential zoning. NOW THEREFORE, upon consideration of the mutual covenants herein, the parties agree as follows: 1. The City agrees to assess said property for the Project and purposes described above as if it were zoned Single Family at the rates -now in existence for property so zoned. Residential 2. The Owner agrees for himself, his heirs, executors, administrators, successors, and assigns, that if the actual use of said property is changed in the future to a use or zoning category which is assessable at a higher rate than the rate for the present -use, the City may reassess or levy a supple- mental assessment at such time equal to the difference between the assessment for the new land use and the assessment for the present land use at the assessment rates, according to City policy, in effect at such future time. 3. The Owner, for himself, his heirs, executors, administrators, successors and assigns, further waives notice of any and all hearings necessary and waives any and all objections to the present or future assessments agreed to herein or to the proceedings related thereto and waives the right to appeal such assessments. 4. Other conditions: None The undersigned have read and understand the above agreement and hereby bind themselves to it in all respects. 0 NE W 7, Orlin D. Myrlie x a-. i:_2 ?37../.w juaivn Myrlie This Document Drafted By. Hauge, Smith, Eide & Keller, P.A. 3908 Sibley Memorial Highway Eagan, Minnesota 55122 CITY OF EAGAN By: a M.or O Attest It lerk APPR VE .yu�b�lic jJo jcpj sn�egtor ` EXEMPT FROM FROM STATE DEED TAX STATE OF MINNESOTA) ) ss. CITY ACKNOWLEDGEMENT COUNTY OF DAKOTA ) 1 On this 4T* day of Se_j -em, wv- , 1981, before me a Notary Public within and for said County, personally appeared BEATTA BLOMpUIST and EUGENE VANOVERBEKE to me personally known, who being each by me duly sworn, each did say that they are respectively the Mayor and Clerk of the CITY OF EAGAN, the municipality named in the foregoing instrument, and that the seal affixed to said instrument was signed and sealed on behalf of said municipality by authority of its City Council and said Mayor and Clerk acknowledged said instrument to be the free act and deed of said municipality. MARY K. ENGEN /yAi MAIN NmR. &atJ Cam,Y. 14,6 R ,h c,,,, toW, E,01 FM.,..+W, Notary Pu is STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF-bal bbt, ) PERSONAL ACKNOWLEDGEMENT On this _D day of Qc--�a4 ' _, 198_4, before me a Notary Public within and for said County, personally appeared ry li.x r � A to me known to be the person.5 described in and Vho executed the fore oin instrument and acknowledged that 8 g executed the same as / jr free act and deed. XAAL W AAAA4,WAAAAAAAAA.%AAAAAAAAAAx P.iUE rIN9,;F+G NnrABY PUBLIC -.`Ai N3L36TA HENNEPIN COUNTY 37 YIYYYY4�v�•1vYY•JVYWWYYVYYVT/r�/YY� STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ss. COUNTY OF 0.7 ,i �m =—Af CORPORATE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of 198_, by (name) (title of officer) , of (corp. name) a (state) corporation, on behalf of the corporation. STATE OF MINNESOTA ) as. COUNTY OF ) Notary Public PARTNERSHIP ACKNOWLEDGEMENT The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of , 198_, by , partner (or agent) on behalf of , a Partnership. Notary Public CITY OF EAGAN ASSESSMENT AGREEMENT LAND USE DIFFERS FROM ZONING PROJECT NO. 391 THIS AGREEMENT dated this 29th day of August , 198_; between the CITY OF EAGAN, (called City), and Orlin D. 8 Judith Myrlie (called Owger) of 820 Lone Oak Rd., Eagan, MN husband S wife, (address); WHEREAS, the City proposes to assess the following described premises owned by Owner: (legal description) Part of the NE'Z of the NEk beginning on the North line 156 ft. West of the NE corner. Thence continuing West 136 ft., thence south 232.33 ft., thence East 136 ft., thence North 232.33 ft. to point of beginning subject to Highway exceptions all being located in Section 11, 1Township 27, Range 23 in Dakota County. TAX PARCEL # 10-01100-014-04 TM .A MT39ASJJ3 for the following improvements pursue. tw CPtg'VE)Pb"f7"TQ�1. Lateral Benefit from Trunk Watdr MatA'-!''03ATQHA wnxxcAzi, such assessments would normally be based upon the present zoning classification of said premises, that is, Light Industrial ; and WHEREAS,. the present use of said property is different from said zoning classification and if zoned at the present use, assessments would be for Single Family Residential zoning. NOW THEREFORE, upon consideration of the mutual covenants herein, the parties agree as follows: 1. The City agrees to assess said property for the Project and purposes described above as if it were zoned Single Family at the rates now in existence for property so zoned. Residential 2. The Owner agrees for himself, his heirs, executors, administrators, successors, and assigns, that if the actual use of said property is changed in the future to a use or zoning category which is assessable at a higher rate than the rate for the present use, the City may reassess or levy a supple- mental assessment at such time equal to the difference between the assessment for the new land use and the assessment for the present land use at the assessment rates, according to City policy, in effect at such future time. 3. The Owner, for himself, his heirs, executors, administrators, successors and assigns, further waives notice of any and all hearings necessary and waives any. and all objections to the present or future assessments agreed to herein or to the proceedings related thereto and waives the right to appeal such assessments. 4. Other conditions: None The undersigned have read and understand the above agreement and hereby bindthemselves to it in all respects. Orl' D. Myr x lie � Judith yr ie This Document Drafted Hauge, Smith, Eide b Keller, P.A. 3908 Sibley Memorial Highway Eagan, Minnesota 55122 CITY OF EAGAN By•. Attest: C,)L Ao ua�li'Y elkf.Y. EXEMPT FROM STATE DEED TAX STATE OF MINNESOTA) ) ss. CITY ACKNOWLEDGEMENT COUNTY OF DAKOTA ) On this 41.b- _day of S e e , 198'x, before me a Notary Public within and for said County, personally appeared BEATTA BLOMQUIST and EUGENE VANOVERBEKE to me personally known, who being each by me duly sworn, each did say that they are respectively the Mayor and Clerk of the CITY OF EAGAN, the municipality named in the foregoing instrument, and that the seal affixed to said instrument was signed and sealed on behalf of said municipality by authority of its City Council and said Mayor and Clerk acknowledged said instrument to be the free act and deed of said municipality. aizne�T►� �. wirT Nor.�r ruw,o-ynre+eeorA, , OAKOTA COUNTY wreo�ml.Wa, a=Po-.. Fee. �e. itrJt STATE OF :. xa ) as. COUNTY OF DikO bo- ) Notary(/Public . PERSONAL ACKNOWLEDGEMENT k On this �h_ day of Ad.IQU5L , 19 before me a Notary Public within and for said County, personalq appeared Irl'rr1 Q11/l adjl-h /i ;e/ to me known to be the person 5 described in and who executed the foregoing instrument and acknowledged that �:hf-V executed the same as jLbjLr free act A d d an ee , x,iAAAAA JI1.UE fINOcRG HOLARY PU9LIC MIt7?;:�OfA \;, ...... FtCf�flEPI NOUN fY k rl'iYY�T.r�Y .+r i,mim�o� lroirm Mnr J. 190 rioY�'YYVV" Vrn- Vt STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF The foregoing officer) a (state) as. CORPORATE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT instrument was acknowledged before me this day of 198_, by (name) , (title of STATE OF MINNESOTA ) of (corp. name) 9 corporation, on behalf of the corporation. Notary Public ss. PARTNERSHIP ACKNOWLEDGEMENT COUNTY OF ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of 198_, by , partner (or agent) on behalf of , a Partnership. Notary Public 14 July 1980 :nr Bonestroo, Roasne, Anderlik 6 Associates, Inc. MR. ROBERT W. ROSENE 2335 W. Trunk Highway 36 St. Pail, Minnesota 55113 RE: BLHCKHAWK LAKE OUTLET . EAGAN, MINNESOTA Dear Bob: In response to your letter of 9 July 1980, it is our intention to cooperate with you in the design of a 34" trunk storm sewer across Tract F of our Cedar Industrial Park; however several items must be answered to our sat- isfaction prior to our full concurrence. 1. Initially the early design was for a 48" storm sewer. What has happened to cause that 12" change? 2. For a number of gears, we have been cooperating with the MWCC in its Seneca plant fly ash land fill on Tract F, which is mutually beneficial to both parties. MWCC has a willing owner to accept its disposable material within close proximity to its plant, and Landmark receives desirable land fill for its site; therefore we wish to continue this relationship with MWCC, and your 36" R.C.P. must be of a design sufficient to withstand an additional 10'-15' of fill on top. In addition, any manholes must be oxtendable to accommodate a similar amount of fill. This may have some effect on your profile design. We would also suggest you have a conversation with the MWCC as to the amount of fill they might generate over the next 5 years. 3. Since this is a direct benefit to the City, we do not believe we should be assessed for any improve- ments thereto, and we'd like an understanding on that issue. 14r. Robert W. Roeene 19 July 1980 Page Two If we are in accord on the above items, we ask for Your lett rweowillsn design tge and then YOU may begin your Pport your efforts. Sincerely, Tom Van Houeen Vice President TVH Iml cc' R. F. Jacobsen R..Hcffman R. Nerson 2335 V. 71+ "iiJ A my 36 &. Pa.L M&,."dla 55113 PA.. 612.636.4600 August 8, 1980 Mr. Tom Van Housen Landmark One Appletree Square Bloomington, Mn. 55420 Re: Blackhawk Lake Outlet �� Fagan, Minnesota File No. 49175 Dear Tom, Ono G. Bonulroo, P.E. p f Robert W. Round P.P. Joseph C. Anded& P.E. Bradford A. Lemberg, P.E. Robed D. Frlgaard. P.E. Richard 6. Tome,. P.E. James C. 01to.. P.E. Glenn R. Cook. P.P. Kenk A. Gordon. P.E. Thomaw E. Hayes. P.E. Rkhard W. Paster. P.E. Ruben G. Schonlcht, P.E. Marvin L. soreala. P.E. Donald C. 8argardt. P.E. Jerry A. Bourdon Mark A. Hanan steeen M. Ou&cey Kee& K. We" P.C. Chader A. Crkk,on Leo M. Pa.ekky Har&u M. Okon Meld E. Oko. The following are answers in response to your letter of 14 July 1980. The answers are in the order of the questions asked. 1. The storm sewer will be 48" in diameter. The 36" diameter shown on the preliminary plan is in error. 2. We anticipate additional fill over the top of this storm sewer. It will be designed to accommodate 15' of fill through your prop- erty if you so desire. We will appreciate getting final grading plans of your property if these can be provided so that you can be assured of the property strength of this pipe. 3. There will be no assessments os i roveme owever, i should be noted that all proper y with n t e ity of Eagan will pay its fair share of the trunk storm sewer system by paying the arr-�aa charge either when lines are in- stalled to benefit the properly or when the property develops. It is the City's intention to proceed with the project. We would appreciate receiving an indication from you that the proposed alignment is satisfactory so that we may proceed with the preparation of the necessary easement papers. It is anticipated that a 201 wide permanent easement will.be requested to- gether with the necessary construction easement so that the line can be in- stalled. Please respond to this request at your earliest convenience. Yours very truly, BONESTR00, ROSENE, ANDERLIK 6 ASSOCIATES, INC. Robert W. Rosene RWR:li 32a S RECEWED -AUG 1 1. !'.',00 MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE SPECIAL ASSESSMENT COMMITTEE EAGAN, MINNESOTA OCTOBER 9, 1984 C A meeting of the Eagan Special Assessment Committee was held on Tuesday, October 9, 1984 at 4:00 p.m. at the Eagan Municipal Center. Present were Chairman Don Knight, Mayor Blomquist, Dale Vogt, Councilman Tom Egan, and Bill Rydrich. Absent was Garrett Mulrooney. Mayor Blomquist chaired the meeting until Don Knight arrived at about 5:00 p.m. Also present were Public Works Director Tom Colbert and City Attorney Paul Hauge. AGENDA Vogt moved, Egan seconded the motion to approve the Agenda as presented. All voted yes. The Public Works Director, Tom Colbert, explained to the persons present the purpose of the meeting being a formal meeting to review special assess- ments where circumstances warranted review prior to City Council adoption. He indicated that property owners with specific questions were invited to attend C' the meeting and to present information that would be helpful to the members of the assessment committee in making recommendations to.the Council. FRANCIS C. FRANZ - PROJECT 1372 I-359 STREETS & UTILITIES Mr. Colbert reviewed the proposed assessments along Deerwood Drive cover- ing the Francis Franz property, noting the assessments have arisen primarily because of the improvement of I -35E and Deerwood Drive in that vicinity. A portion of the improvements have been installed by the Minnesota Department of Transportation through a Cost Participation Agreement with lateral benefit, trunk watermain, trunk area and lateral storm sewer, street, sidewalk and.. _ bituminous trailway construction in the area. Pat Farrell, attorney with the �_ firm of Grannis, Campbell, Farrell and Knutson, P.A. of South St. Paul; appeared for Mr. Franz and Mr. Franz also was present. The matter had been continued from the July 30, 1984 Special Assessment Committee meeting at the request of the property owner. Mr. Farrell had objections to the assessment regarding sidewalk assess- ments on collector streets, that the property has not benefited any more greatly than other property in the general area. There were objections to the rate of the storm sewer assessments against the property, noting that there are three residue parcels after the MnDOT acquisition and also that the City 1s attempting to assess for improvements that have been paid for through the `.' State of Minnesota. Mr. Colbert indicated that the assessments for street Assessment Minutes October 9, 1984 improvements is based upon a residential equivalent and there was also discus- sion concerning the proposed sidewalk assessment and whether it ought to be on a residential equivalent basis. After extended discussion, Egan moved, Blomcuist seconded the motion to continue consideration of the objections until a later assessment committee meeting to allow the staff to research the following issues: a. To review and submit a proposed assessment policy for sidewalks. b. To recommend revisions to the lateral assessments for areas where setback requirements may prevent building permits or specific uses under existing ordinances. C. To review City policy covering residential access locations on collector streets, including the State requirements concerning setbacks on Deerwood Drive for access purposes adjacent to the overpass. d. Further, that the assessments could be referred directly to the Council if the owner and the staff reached a general agreement relative to the C, assessments. All members voted in favor. ANNA S. HEOER - PROJECT #3T2 I -35E STREETS & UTILIi'IES Mr. Colbert briefly reviewed the assessments covering the sidewalk and street assessments proposed to be assessed against the Anna Heuer property on the south side of Deerwood Drive, noting there are 304.08 assessable front..'_ feet. He also indicated that there would be a future project covering the easterly extension of Deerwood Drive to Pilot Knob Road at which time it would be anticipated that the balance of the Heuer property would be assessed for street and sidewalk improvements. Mrs. Heuer's son was present and had objec- tions to the assessments. Egan moved, Blomquist seconded the motion to con - tine the consideration of the assessments with the staff to review the same items as directed by the committee relative to the Francis Franz property. All voted yes. Assessment Minutes C . October 9, 1984 GEORGE & MIRIAM BALL - PROJECT #411 PATRICK EAGAN TRUNK STORM SEWER The next item brought before the Committee dealt with the objections of Mr. and Mrs. George Nall regarding the large lot credit applied to the approximately 4 acre parcel owned by them on the east side of Pilot Knob Road, south of proposed Pilot Point Addition. Mr. Colbert stated the property is not homesteaded and that the large lot policy of the City covers parcels less than 5 acres in size providing for 16,000 square 'feet of assessment for each assessable acre. The Nalls requested to be included within the large lot policy and also that the ponding area to the east of the property should not be assessed. Mariam Nall was present and explained the peculiar circumstances of the parcel. The staff recommended after reviewing topography configuration and proposed future development of the property, that it is highly unlikely that the 4 acre parcel would ever be subdivided and recommended that the parcel be classified as a large lot and given the appropriate credits. Egan moved, Vogt seconded the motion to accept the staff recommendations and recom- mend to the City Council that the large lot policy be adopted and that an agreement be entered into between the City and the Nalls, providing that in the event that the property is subdivided or developed in the future, that the existing rates for the development zoned category, then be assessed against the property. Mrs. Nall indicated that she had no objection to the proposal. All members voted in favor. ARMNY CAPONI, THOMAS ROONEY & THOMAS BERGIN - PROJECT #411 PATRICK EAGAN TRUNK STORM SEWER Mr. Colbert introduced the subject and indicated that the three owners mentioned above who have objected to the asses6ments, own property south of Deerwood Drive and generally west of Patrick Eagan Park. He stated that generally the property lies within the major drainage district outletting to Patrick Eagan Park. Mr. Bergin indicated that he would not be able to be present at the meeting. The objections generally were that the property did_ not drain directly into Patrick Eagan Park Pond, but rather into the pond further south which was not having storm sewer improvements installed at the present time. Two lawsuits have been started, including that by Mr. Caponi and Mr. Rooney to enjoin the City from proceeding with the assessments. Project 8411 has been authorized by the City Council to be installed. Larry Nielson appeared for Mr. Caponi and Mr. Rooney and objected to the following: 1. The cost of the entire project is less than the amount of the ( proposed assessments. \_ 2. The property is not benefited to the extent that it is being pro- posed to be assessed. Assessment Minutes October 9, 1984 3. Hilltop Estates Addition to the west is not being assessed for the improvements. C4. The excess amount of money necessary to install the improvements should be paid from the general revenue fund. It was noted that the assessments are not necessarily commensurate with the cost of the project, but that the funds are taken from a general storm sewer trunk fund and eventually, land in the entire City will be assessed for storm sewer trunk purposes. Tony Caponi appeared and stated that there was not adequate benefit and suggested additional ponding of water in JP -8 and Patrick Eagan Park Lake, with some overland outflow, rather than storm sewer pipes. It was noted that an outlet from JP -7 will be required at some time in the very near future. Kathleen Boyle appeared as an owner of the property along Deerwood Drive and stated that she and her husband had not been notified of the hearing for the improvements. Mr. Nielson indicated that unless the City Attorney were to hear otherwise, that answers to the two lawsuits could be continued indefinitely. After extended discussion, Blomquist moved to continue consideration of t the request until a later meeting, but there was no second and the motion died. Next, Egan moved, Vogt seconded the motion to recommend the proposed �_. assessment be referred back to the Council to review the feasibility of expanding Project 0411 to include Pond JP -7 and further, that the Caponi property and Rooney property be deleted from Project 0411 but should be in- cluded in a proposed future storm sewer project. All voted in favor except Rydrich who abstained. BEIDE SCBIELA - PROJECT #383 SCSWANZ LAKE TRUNK STOR24 SEWER The Committee next reviewed the proposed assessments against the Heide Schiela property located on Dodd Road, covering a 9.95 acre parcel. It Sias noted that the size of the parcel precluded its being considered a large lot_ under the City policy, but that the assessment clerk had deducted 20% fog " ' future right-of-way dedication and also 2.2 acres of existing pond over the eastern portion of the property. Attorney Ried Hanson appeared and noted the main objection consisted of a 200 foot NSP easement, indicating it would not be a benefit to that property. He also indicated that the water generally drains into the pond on the Schiela property and there is no increase in value because the water is still there. Further, in 1981, the City gave credit for the NSP easement for the area water and sanitary sewer assessments. After discussion, Blomquist moved, Egan seconded the motion to recommend to the City Council that an agreement be entered into to consider the entire policy as a large lot to provide for 16,500 square feet of assessment per acre, due to the unusual configuration of the property, the large NSP easement and noted that -'' because of those circumstances, would not be considered as a precedent. All members voted in favor. Assessment Minutes October 9, 1984 ALBERT PERRON — PROJECT #371SR WATER TREATMOT PLANT TRUNK STORM SEWER Mr. Colbert reviewed with the Council the proposed assessments against the Albert Perron property on the north side of Yankee Doodle Road, noting that 11.38 acres of the Perron property was being assessed with a 20% credit, resulting in 9.1 acres at the agricultural rate of 0.4314 per square foot. Reid Hanson, attorney, again appeared and objected to the City land not being assessed for improvements, but it was noted that none of the City property is being assessed for this purpose and that the rate is a predetermined rate on an annual basis and not affected by the amount of the area being assessed within a drainage district. Another objection was that the property was not benefited to the extent proposed to be assessed. The staff recommended approval of the assessment roll. Vogt moved, Rydrich seconded the motion to recommend to the City Council that the assessment roll covering the Perron property be adopted. All voted in favor. ARTHUR KOESTNER — PROJECT #384 WALDEN HEIGHTS TRUNK STORM SEWER Assessment objection has been received from Arthur Koestner, an owner of property in Twin View Manor, noting that $711.00 was proposed to be assessed after applying the large lot assessment policy, whereby only 16,500 square feet were assessed. The City Attorney and Public Works Director met with Mr. Koestner and reviewed the basis of his objections, noting that Mr. Koestner does not qualify for the Senior Citizens Deferment. Mr. Koestner did not appear but indicated that he was not going to further object to the assess— ments. Upon motion by Egan, seconded Vogt, it was resolved to recommend approval of the assessments to the City Council.' All members voted aye. GOPHER SMELTING CO. — PROJECT #381 BORCHERT INGERSOLL TRUNK STORM SEWER Project #381 covers the lift station and trunk storm sewer outlet from Borchert Ingersoll Pond, part of which property is located on the Gopher Smelting property. Mr. Colbert indicated a meeting had been held with Mark Kutoff and the general objections were as follows: 1. The assessments are premature for development of the property. 2. The rough topography of the property precludes feasible development based upon the amount of assessments being proposed. 3• The amount of assessments is disproportionate to the overall cost of the project. 5 Assessment Minutes October 9, 1984 Hied Hanson appeared for the property owner and stated the following objections: 1. The assessments are more than the total cost of the property. 2. That other land is being drained into the Borchert Pond and there- fore Gopher Smelting is required to help pay for the assessments caused by excess water from property outside of the drainage district. It was noted that part of the Gopher Smelting property is developed, that the outlet from Borchert Pond was put in out of sequence but would have resulted from earlier assessments, had it been installed in regular sequential order. It was further noted that there is an approved PUD on the property, and that the property is zoned, the land is presently being marketed and the increase in value comes from the ability to discharge water .into the pond. After extended discussion, Blomquist moved, Vogt seconded the motion to recom- mend that the assessment roll covering the property be approved and forwarded to the City Council. All voted in favor. JAY TSCHERRE - PROJECT 1317 - BLACKRAWK ROAD STREETS 6 UTILITIES Tom Colbert addressed the entire project and noted there are four objecting property owners on Blackhawk Road covering streets and utilities in that general vicinity. He noted that Blackhawk Road is a municipal state aid street and certain design standards must be complied with. The four objecting property owners did not petition for the improvements and expressed objections at the time of the original public hearing. A meeting had been held with the owners by the City Public Works Director and City Attorney to review the concerns, including objections that the amount of the assessment exceeded the benefit to the property and the amount of the assessment is excessive as to what each property owner can afford on a monthly and yearly basis. It was noted that Dan Dwyer, an appraiser, has been hired by the City Council to,:�.;..._ evaluate the increase in valuation, but that the appraisals for the City have not been completed. Dan Beeson, attorney, appeared for the Tschernes and indicated the best use is single family and noted several unique features, including the 340 feet of frontage with 800 foot depth, the topography is very rough, including swamp, steep terrain and the neighboring owner is not ready to develop the property. Also the location of the residence detracts from the benefit to the property, based upon the proposed assessments. Roger Rohrer, appraiser for the Tschernes, also appeared and indicated that the Tscherne paid $70,000.00 for the property three years ago, the value is not much more today, and it is being used as single family, although the Comprehensive Land Use Guide is R- \: III. He stated that the assessments would not create a great deal more value Assessment Minutes October 9, 1984 even by tearing down the house on the property. He stated that townhouses may be a logical use, and if the house weren't there, the value would increase by perhaps $15,000.00 to $20,000.00, or $5,000.00 with the house remaining on the property. Egan moved to forward the assessment objections to the City Council C without recommendation. There was no second and the motion died. Rydrich then moved, Blomquist seconded the motion to recommend to the City Council that the staff recommendations be adopted with the maximum assessment based upon the appraisal submitted by the City's appraiser and in the event of development, or subdivision of the property in the future, that the assessment be increased commensurate with the area not being assessed at the present time, and that the assessments then be levied at the then current rates. All members voted yes. JAMES ASHWORTH - PROJECT #317 - BLACKHAwK ROAD STREETS & UTILITIES Mr. Colbert also reviewed the Ashworth property lying on the west side of Blackhawk Road. Mr. Ashworth was present and objected to the total amount of the assessment proposed to be assessed against his property and that the assessments were not being spread equitably amongst the individual parcels. He noted that the pond to the west is increased in its level, that there is intense development around the property and the grading on the adjacent lots is higher than his property. He further objected, based upon lack of benefit and requested reduction in the assessment. Egan moved, Vogt seconded the C motion to recommend to the City Council that the maximum amount of assessments be based upon the City's appraisal covering benefit to the property and that an agreement be entered into with the property owner, that the assessments to the property be increased at such time as the development or subdivision of the property takes place, commensurate with the assessment rates then in effect. All members voted yes. ROBERT KRUCER - PROJECT #317 - BLACKHAWK ROAD STREETS & UTILITIES Mr. Kruger appeared and noted that the north half of his property is zoned Neighborhood Business with the south half zoned Agricultural. Mr. Colbert stated that the assessment policy concerning reduction of assessments= -- for single family purposes, generally cover only homesteaded property and in the event that the north half was reduced to Agicultural or Single Family residential rates, the assessment would be reduced by about $4,400.00. Mr. Kruger also indicated a severe driveway access problem has resulted due to the road improvements. Mr. Egan indicated that the owners along Blackhawk Road should be prepared for the September 18 hearing with an appraiser and with a representative on their behalf, if they desire to do so. Egan moved, Vogt seconded the motion to recommend that the City Council approve the assessment roll based upon the City appraiser's evaluation of benefit and that the Neighborhood Business parcel on the north be assessed at an R-1 Single Family residential rate, and in the event that the property is upgraded in use or subdivided in the future, that the property then be assessed at the then existing rates for -that use. All members voted yes. 7 Assessment Minutes C : October 9, 1994 DAROLD HOLDER - PROJECT #317 - BLACKHAWK ROAD STREETS S UTILITIES Mr. and Mrs. Holden were present and Mr. Holden strongly objected to the assessments being proposed to be levied against the Holden property. He indicated that it's not economical to run a sanitary sewer line to the rear of his property where his residence is located and further that a pond has been created on the west side of his property that did not have water prior to the MnDOT construction of I -35E. After extended discussion, Egan moved, Vogt -. seconded the motion to recommend to the City Council that the assessments be based upon the City Appraiser's determination of benefit to the property, that it not exceed the amount appraised, and further subject to an agreement being entered into providing that in the event of subdivision or upgrading of the property that the then existing assessment rates covering the property, be implemented and assessed. All members voted yea. HERBERT BERGSTROM - PROJECT #368 ROBIN LANE - STREETS Tom Colbert reviewed with the Committee the improvements to Robin Lane and the cooperation given by Mr. and Mrs. Bergstrom toward granting easements for the newly reconstructed Robin Lane. He noted that the objection covered Lot 10 on the Bergstrom property, consisting of a triangular parcel and recom- mended that the front footage be reduced by 70 feet from 243 feet to 173 feet due to the strange configuration of the property. This would result in an increase in the assessment per front foot along the street. Mr. Bergstrom was present and stated that he felt that the reduction should be greater than 70 feet. He noted that the gas easement and street easement infringe on the property and that the property may not be buildable except for single family purposes. Committee members inquired whether the triangle was being used to determine density for the balance of the area, noting that the property had been approved for 25 townhouse units. After extended discussion, Blomquist moved, Vogt seconded the motion to accept the staff recommendation with .the understanding that the applicant can apply to the City and request a higher . density which would be considered by the Planning Commission and Council; -- based upon the uses, noting that no guarantee of increase in density could be given by the Committee. All members voted yes. SPECIAL ASSESSMENT DEFERMENT POLICY ORDINANCE A proposed Ordinance revision in Chapter 2 covering deferment of special assessments was submitted and recommended for approval by the staff. Mr. Colbert reviewed the deferment policy with the Council and noted that eleven twin city area cities have been contacted and asked whether they had deferment policies due to financial hardship. None of the cities had such an ordinance or policy indicating that such requests were reviewed on a case by case basis. C' Y After discussion, Blomquist moved, Egan seconded the motion to recommend the City Council amend to the Ordinance. All members voted yes. Assessment Minutes October 9, 1984 ' ADJOURNMENT CUpon motion duly made and seconded, the meeting adjourned at 10:35 P.M. PHH I d t I I / ' 12SO NORWEST CENTER TOWER ST, PAUL,, R RINESOTA 55101 ter_ DAHLEN & DMrMt INC. AN APPRAISAL REPORT Pro BENEFITS RESULTING FROM PROJECTS NO. 411 and 361 AT 1275 Deerwood Drive Eagan, Minnesota OWNED BY Patrick McCarthy Etal. AS OF September 18, 1984 FOR Mr. Paul H. Hauge Hauge, Smith, Eide and Keller, P.A. Cedarvale Professional Building 3908 Sibley Memorial Highway Eagan, Minnesota BY Daniel E. Dwyer, Appraiser I I I 1 1 1 i I� DAHLEN & DMIM9 INC. 1260 NORWEST CENTER TOWER • ST. PAUL, MINNESOTA 55101 • (612) 2241381 DWIGHT W. DAHLEN, M.A.I., S.R P.A. DANIEL E: DWYER BEVERLY H. DWYER MARK M. HANNAHAN February 5, 1985 Mr. Paul H. Hauge Hauge, Smith, Eide and Keller, P.A. Cedarvale Professional Building 3908 Sibley Memorial Highway Eagan, Minnesota 55112 Dear Mr. Hauge: MICHAEL J. BETTENDORF, M.A.I. SCOTT C. PETERSEN. MICHAEL P. McCLELLAN Pursuant to your request, I have made an inspection and an appraisal of the 70t acre parcel located on the south side of Wescott Road, approximately 1/4 -mile to the west of Lexington Avenue in Eagan, Minnesota. The purpose of this appraisal is to estimate the market value of the fee simple interest in the property and to determine the benefits, if any, accruing to the property by virtue of the installation of Sanitary Sewer Project No. 361 and Storm Sewer Project No. 411 b'y the City of Eagan. I have estimated the value of the property for the install- ation of sanitary sewer and storm sewer and the value of the property after the installation of sanitary sewer and storm sewer, the difference between the two being the benefits accruing to the property as of September 18, 1984. These values are as follows: Value of the land before the installation of Sanitary Sewer Project No. 361 and Storm Sewer Project No. 411: $ 630,000.00 Value of the land after the installation of Sanitary Sewer Project No. 361 and Storm Sewer Project No. 411: $ 820,000.00 Benefits accruing to the proeprty as a result of Sanitary Sewer Project No. 361 and Storm Sewer Project No. 411: $ 190,000.00 This appraisal is made subject to certain limiting conditions and assumptions as hereinafter expressed. Such facts and information as contained herein were obtained from sources that I consider reliable and are true to the best of my knowledge and belief'. The following report describes my method of approach, contains data gathered in my investigation and demonstrates my analysis in arriving at the eTRes tion of market e. pectfully su mitted, zz Daniel E. Dwyer, Appraiser DED/ka 11 I I Patrick McCarthy, Etal. Feburary 5, 1985 Page 2 The benefits accruing to the subject be broken down as follows: property can further Benefits accruing to the :subject property as a result of Sanitary Sewer Project No. 361: $ 140,000.00 Benefits accruing to the subject property as a result of Storm Sewer Project No. 411: $ 50,000.00 Total Benefits: $ 190,000.00 This appraisal is made subject to certain limiting conditions and assumptions as hereinafter expressed. Such facts and information as contained herein were obtained from sources that I consider reliable and are true to the best of my knowledge and belief'. The following report describes my method of approach, contains data gathered in my investigation and demonstrates my analysis in arriving at the eTRes tion of market e. pectfully su mitted, zz Daniel E. Dwyer, Appraiser DED/ka 11 I I DAHLEN & DWYER, INC. TABLE OF CONTENTS Summary of Salient Facts and Conclusions ................. ".1 Acknowledgement .......................................... 2 Purpose of the Appraisal .................................. 2 LegalDescription ........................................ 3 Market Value Defined ...................................... 4 Highest and Best Use .................................. 5 Estimate of Highest and Best Use - Before 5 Estimate of Highest and Best Use - After 5 Real Estate Taxes and Assessments ........................ 6 Zoning................................................... 6 EaganProfile ............................................. 7 Eagan Project No. 361 .................................... 10 Eagan Project No. 411 .................................... 10 Exhibit B - Map of Site .................................. 12 Site Description ......................................... 13 Method of Valuation ...................................... 14 Land Value Estimate - Before ............................. 15 Land Value Estimate - After 19 Benefits................................................. 22 Summary.and Conclusions .................................. 23 Certification ............................................ 25 Contingent and Limiting Conditions ....................... 26 ADDENDUM: Photographs Topographical Map Aerial Map Concept Plan Zoning Map Zoning Code Metropolitan Map Appraiser's Qualifications 0 yi �I r DABLEN & DWYER, INC. SUMMARY OF SALIENT FACTS AND CONCLUSIONS General Description: This is a 70.92 acre parcel which was rolling and mostly wooded. There is a single family dwelling and miscellaneous farm buildings located in the southwesterly portion of the parcel. Location: South side of Wescott Road approx- imately 1/4 mile to the west of Lexington Avenue in Eagan, Minnesota. Parcel I.D. Number: 10-02200-011-04 Parcel Size: 70.92 acres, more or less. Zoning: Present - Agricultural Proposed - R-1 Fee Owner: Patrick McCarthy, Etal. Estimated Market Value of Land - Before: $ 630,000.00 Estimated Market Value of Land - After: $ 820,000.00 Benefits Attributable To Project No. 411: $ 50,000.00 Benefits Attributable To Project No. 361: $ 140,000.00 Total Benefits: $ 190,000.00 Date of Value Estimate: September 18, 1984 Appraiser: Daniel E. Dwyer -1- f] I d DAHLEN & DWYER, INC. ACKNOWLEDGEMENT All of the judgements and conclusions contained within this report are those of the appraiser for which he assumes full professional responsibility. PURPOSE OF THE APPRAISAL The purpose of this appraisal is to estimate the. market value of the fee simple interest in the property as of September 18, 1984.,. and to ascertain the benefits, if any, that would accrue to the property by virtue of the installation of sanitary sewer and storm sewer improvements under Eagan Projects No. 361 and 411. -2- DAHLEN & DWYER, INC. LEGAL DESCRIPTION The West z of the Northeast IF and the North Two Rods of the Southwest 4, except the Southeast u of the Southwest y of the Northeast y, all in Section 22, Township 27, Range 23, Dakota County, Minnesota. -3- DAHLEN & DWYER, INC. MARKET VALUE DEFI14ED The highest price in terms of money which a property will bring in a competitive and open market under all conditions requisite to a fair sale, the buyer and seller, each acting prudently, knowledgably and assuming the price is not affected by undue stimulus. Implicit in this definition as of a specified date and the :)uyer under conditions whereby: is the consummation of a sale passing of title from seller 1. buyer and seller are typically motivated; 2. both parties are well informed or well advised and each acting in what he considers his own best interest; 3. a reasonable time is allowed for exposure in the open market; 4. payment is made in cash or its equivalent; 5. financing, if any, is on terms generally available in the community at the specified date and typical for the property type in its location; and, G. the price represents a normal consideration for thu properly sold .unaffected by special. financing a^_Iounts and/or terms, servi.ces,fee:, ,rcrc<ii±:. i.ncri!,red ii Ch•2 :ans,accion -4- '1 11 1 DAHLEN & DWYER, INC. HIGHEST AND BEST USE Highest and'best use, as defined in Real Estate Appraisal Terminology, edited by Byrl Boyce, Ph.D., sponsored jointly by e merican Institute of Real Estate Appraisers and the Society of the Real Estate Appraisers, copyright 1975, page 107, .is: "...that reasonable and probable use that will support the highest present value, as defined, as of the effective date of the appraisal. Alternatively, that use, from among reasonably probable and legal alternative uses, found to be physically possible, appropriately supported, financially feasible, and which results in the highest land value." ESTIMATE OF HIGHEST AND BEST USE - BEFORE It is my opinion, after analyzing the exi-sting zoning ordinance, adjacent development characteristics, land use patterns, traffic flows, environment, competitive space and site character- istics, that the highest and best use of the subject property is its present use, that is, as agricultural land served by water, electricity and paved road. I have considered alternative uses which would be legally permissible, economically feasible and physically possible and have to conclude that the most effective utilization of the site is its present usage. ESTIMATE OF HIGHEST AND BEST USE - AFTER It is my opinion, after analyzing the existing zoning ordinance, adjacent development characteristics, land use patter traffic flows, environment, competitive space and site character- istics, that the highest and best use of the subject property after the installation of sanitary sewer and storm sewer under Projects No. 3611and 411 will be for single family development in keeping with -the R-1 Zoning Code of the City of Eagan. In the after situation, the property will now be served by all utilities making it available for development. -5- DAHLEN & DWYER, INC. REAL ESTATE TAXES AND ASSESSMENTS 1 According to the assessment records in file in the Department oC Taxation, Dakota County, the following taxes, special assessments and market values are applicable to the subject property, for taxes payable in 1984: Taxes: $ 387.98 Homestead Special Assessments �'. Included: None Assessor's Makrket Value: $ 70,300 (low) $371,500 (high) The Assessor's market value is used for assessment purposes only and is based upon a concept of physical comparison between similar properties and is not a given mathematical percentage of price paid and/or market value. It must be borne in mind that the Tax Administrator s function is to establish his estimated market value for tax purposes only. I� ZONING The subject property is currently zoned Agricultural District. Permitted uses under the Eagan zoning code include all types of agricultural pursuits and accessory farm structures, commercial greenhouses and nurseries, stands for the sale of agricultural products provided said products are raised on the / premises, one family detached dwellings, public parks and play— grounds and a public utility service facility. Within an Agri- ; cultural District, any accessory use permitted in the R-1 District shall be permitted. The proposed zoning for the subject property under the S� Eagan Land Use Guide Plan dated February, 1980 is R-1 or Single Family Residential which would permit up to three units per acre. The only permitted use under this zoning would be for one family detached dwellings. The reader's attention is directed to the Zoning Code located in the Addendum of this report as an aid in determining conditional uses, accessory uses, and minimum area �� and setback requirements for the R-1 Zoning District. DAHLEN & DWYER, INC. EAGAN PROFILE The City of Eagan is a second tier suburb in the Twin City Metropolitan Area of Minneapolis/St. Paul. Eagan is located approximately 10 miles south of the downtown area of the Twin Cities. Unlike many second tier suburbs, Eagan employs a very substantial number of its citizens within the corporate limits of the CIty. In total, Eagan was estimated to employ 14,000 persons in 1980. The current population of Eagan is estimated to be 20,720 contrasted with the 1960 Census population of 3,382 and the 1970 Census population figure of 10,398. Until the early 19601s, Eagan was an agricultural community, but in the past two decades, tremendous transitions have occurred wherein the City has been experiencing a rapid growth rate adding approximately 1,000/year. In terms of physical size, Eagan is a relatively large community. Corporate limits of the City encompass approximately 34 square miles, or approximately 21,000 acres. The City of Eagan has designated approximately 3,200 acres for industrial development, of which an estimated 650 acres has already been developed. It is recognized that the City has considerable potential for industrial development because these properties are located near major freeways, rail service is available, public utility service is available and there is a considerable area of industrial development in Eagan at the present timewhich tends to attract more industrial development. Three" prominent, industrial parks account for about 85% of the industrial development in the City. These parks are the Cedar Industrial Park located of Highway 13, the Sibley Terminal Industrial Park located west of Highway 13, and the Eagandale Industrial Park' located in the north central area of the community, generally in the vicinity of Lexington Avenue and Lone Oak Road. Practically all industrial development in the City has occurred on platted property with public improvements. Eagan also has required high performance standards, particularly during the last 10 years, wherein landscaping, bituminous surfacing and similar site improvements have been required. A very large percentage of the industrial devleopment within the City consists of office and warehouse facilities. Commercial development in Eagan has occurred almost exclu- sively in five general areas of the City. At this point, commercial development is comprised of major retail services at the southeast quadrant of the intersection of Cedar Avenue and Highway 13 (Cedarvale Development), and a commercial area developed at the intersection of Yankee Doodle and Pilot Knob Roads (Yankee Square shopping area). The other three commercial areas that exist in the -7- DAHLEN & DWYER, INC. City can generally be described as the commercial developments along highway 55, commercial development along Highway 13 and commercial development along Cedar Avenue. Residential development in the City of Eagan has also. been r•eachi'ng.new levels each year. Eagan's population is expected to .increase from 20,72.0 in 1980 to between 30,000 and 40,000 .in 1990, depending on the economy. There is a high concentration of residential development along Pilot Knob Road between County Roads 30 and 32, and to the east of Cedar Avenue and north of County Road 30. Although residential development has tapered off in many areas of the Twin Cities, the Eagan area is expected to remain strong through the 1980's. The City of Eagan is well served by churches of all denominations, public and parochial schools, parks, shopping, freeways and transportation. Your appraiser has found Eagan to be a well balanced community, socially and economically and has found nothing detrimental that would restrict residential, industrial or commercial growth. Neighborhood Profile The immediate area in which the subject property is located consists of approximately 50% undeveloped 1 -and and 50% developed land. The southwest corner of Wescott Road and Lexington Avenue is in the process of being developed with new single family dwellings. The homes are being built by Joe Miller Homes, Inc. and are being marketed by Edina Realty, Inc. The St. Francis Wood Addition is located on the south side of Duckwood Drive approximately 1/4 mile to the west of Lexington Avenue. This is a development of custom built single family dwellings ranging in value from $95,000 to $175,000 and up. The southwest corner of Duckwood Drive and Lexington Avenue is an undeveloped 40 acre parcel which is zoned Multiple Family and is currently for sale by John J. Klein. This parcel is wooded and rolling. Windcrest, a development of townhomes, single family dwellings and twinhomes, is located on the south side of the south side of Wescott Road, just to the west of the subject property. Just across Wescott Road from Windcrest is a development of single family homes. Eagan Park is located approximately 1/2 mile to the south of the subject property. Orrin Thompson Homes, Inc. is developing N A 1 DAHLEN & DWYER, INC. a large tract to the north and east of the subject property near Carriage Hills Golf Course. The appraiser has found nothing detrimental in the immediate area that would restrict residential growth. -9- �1 It `I I DAHLEN & DWYER, INC. EAGAN PROJECT NO. 361 Eagan Project No. 361 provides for the construction of a trunk sanitary sewer within Subdistrict C -MM in the Central District as designated in the 1982 Comprehensive Sewer Policy Plan for the City of Eagan. A lift station is proposed at the westerly end of Windcrest Addition and adjacent to the westerly side of Pond JP -6. The proposed lift station will ultimately provide service to 1,100 acres. The ultimate lift station will be a three pump station with a wet well and dry well. It is recommended that the third pump be installed in the future as needed. The trunk sanitary sewer proposed includes construction of 18" and 15" sanitary sewer from the proposed lift station to Lexington Avenue at Wescott Road. The depth of the sanitary sewerat its deepest location is 48 feet. Assessments are proposed to be levied against the benefited properties. A Feasibility Study was completed in July of 1982 by Bonestroo, Roesene, Anderlik and Associates, Inc. EAGAN PROJECT NO. 411 Eagan Project No. 411 provides for the construction of a trunk storm sewer from Pond JP -6 and Pond JP -9 (McCarthy Lake) to Pond JP -11 (Hurley Lake) as designated in the Comprehensive Storm Sewer Plan. This project was deemed feasible from an engineering standpoint and was in accordance with the Comprehensive Storm Sewer Plan for the City of Eagan. The feasibility study was completed in June, 1984 by Bonestroo, Roesene, Anderlik and Associates, Inc. The trunk storm sewer proposed provides for constructing a gravity storm sewer from Pond JP -6 to Pond JP -11 and from Pond JP -9 to Pond JP -11. The 1978 Comprehensive Storm Sewer Plan was changed when the Department of Natural Resources established normal water levels for Pond JP -6 and Pond JP -9 at 818.7 which was considerably higher than proposed. As a result, it now is feasible to outlet Pond JP -6 and Pond JP -9 to Pond JP -11 by gravity storm sewer thus eliminating two pumping facilities. A computer analysis determined the high water level for Pond JP -6, Pond JP -8, Pond JP -9, Pond JP -10, Pond JP -11 and Pond JP -49 to be 830.00. It was also assumed that Pond JP -7 would discharge -10- I it ij 1 DAHLEN & DWYER, INC. directly into JP -8, thus bi-passing Pond JP -38. It was anti- cipated that Pond JP -38 would not be required for some time since it would never incur any additional run-off except that which is directly tributary to it. It was determined that the construction costs for the proposed gravity system are nearly equal to providing two pumping stations with a force.main, as -a result, considerable cost savings to the City can be realized in long term operation and maintenance. The construction proposed includes a gravity storm sewer 15" and 18" in diameter. It is proposed that gravity storm sewer from Pond JP -6 to Pond JP -11 parallel the Wescott Trunk Sanitary Sewer being constructed as part of City Contract 84-2. The trunk storm sewer from Pond JP -10 to Pond JP -9 is proposed to be constructed in the right-of-way of a future street of Parcel 011-04 which will ultimately connect to Westbury Addition. It is not proposed to construct an outlet pipe from Pond JP -10 at this time since it does not incur any additional runoff from existing or proposed future developments. Assessments are proposed to be levied against benefiting properties. - 11 - �-•1 _ _ .,\ / �, .. __�,.': '; �',� 411 �. � 6' dott: Hoa -'T� f ;�l /�r• a _ _ ... (I _\• S �• • �(j^ Y \� I � �� �\�, I ill �.+. - , /� Iii,. �, �1� \,T ,,, \`�i.ti '•` I/���\\�' �I,;IP.'ler r—_ _ r � r -Y r��n ,�i � ,• / ���� . !, �`` n \\,i � \\ '��•\d x � : 4+/r 1 iY yri—ISN rl �� � f : r r I i.:i V--�i �1//� \ - / \ �1 l �. J�.-� \ ' � v\ a - ? \ //� 1/ � �•i �� ! �F ��'� '� i //� 'y.i; , \.), ( � 11 l (.I �, \\\c9i \\\\C _� ., � � r ,•1,�� Ci, ���\I ( �t�_/I '.,�. I I° , / '�!, . _` 1��'��'�' II I\ \ l rt -;�`i \�xtH; Y,•r- y>��I �I / r, / I. i / \ �� ! �. � ,rte `,,� r i /rr % R•`' ��\\.'' p .. /'''�/( u,�� �• �����. i���� �� ��4 L4, �\ + �+) 1 j411 jbl'`\��-�� \ \ " / ( a�O : f)� : Cl ��\ ` • ♦ <-` : lam; •\L- `:i r 4' �\;:/,.�,/ rl,l, ��t�7l`'!�' GRAVITY STORM SE i PROPOSED31, Zvi mg .•..1'` , I SAAIITA Y Ju 0. HWL830 830' 7 is r •' . — Z ,' ;�• li �'„ill lI .>l \ \• \ :.,•\ .,. -'%!.• :1•.. _ ,j1 jr J -i � I � -L' '-' ' ' \ NX ��:i: Wim.%'/ ZL �.. ( S /I �.'� ���� r�\��.F � 11� \\' 11\``1\•\, ��' ^�< Int ./+i_ � `�;� \„-`�\r r�ll � �`. x ♦ �\ .� `\\ ����\\'. ,, T Citi• � • / `\ -, `: � � '`.. °` : . o iick�l�a�a�`,, `a ✓�J,,,. o 'i ;l It I I It JI DAHLEN & DWYER, INC. SITE DESCRIPTION The subject site is an irregular, shaped site containing 70t acres, subject to survey. The site is located on the south side of Wescott Road, approximately 1/4 mile to the west of Lexington Avenue. Access to the site is via Deerwood Drive. The northernmost portion of the site does not front on Wescott Road. There is a parcel between Wescott Road and the subject site. This site is under the same ownership as the subject parcel, and, for purpose of this appraisal, it is assumed that access from Wescott Road to the subject parcel could be acquired. .The topography of the site ranges from gently rolling and open to rolling and heavily wooded. The reader's attention is directed to the map located on the adjoining page as an aid in visualizing the size, shape, and topography of the site. There are two small ponds at the northeasterly corner of the site and another larger pond known as Eagan Pond JP -10 located near the southeasterly corner of the site. Elevations range from a low of just over 800 in the northeasterly corner to a high of approximately 909 at the northwesterly corner. The front of the site is rolling and wooded with the middle and southerly portions of the site being gently rolling and mostly open. The improvements are located near the southwesterly corner of the property. Pond JP -10 contains a total of 5.3 acres and has a normal water level of 820.8 and a high water level of 827.8. In the before situation, the property is served by roadway, electricity and water along Wescott Road. In the after situation, the property will be served by electricity, roadway, water along Wescott Road, sanitary sewer and storm sewer. -13- DAHLEN & DWYER, INC. METHOD OF VALUATION The preferred way to determine benefits, if any, accruing to a property is by the "before and after" method. Under this method, which is usually the simplest approach, the value of the property is estimated both before and after the installation of Sanitary Sewer Project No. 361 and Storm Sewer Project No. 411, the difference between the two being the benefits accruing to the property. The measure of benefits is dictated by State Law to be the comparative market value.of the property in the before and after the sanitary and storm sewer project. While the subject property is improved, your appraiser has determined through commonly accepted appraisal practices, that all the benefits accruing to the property would accrue to the land only. A physical inspection of the improvements has been made along with a review of courthouse records and, it is felt, the value contributions to that of the land remain the same in the "before" and "after" situations. The highest and best use of the subject property has been determined to be•as a parcel for single family residential development under R-1 Zoning Code of the City of Eagan. Only sales of vacant land were used in.this analysis. The sales included parcels served by all and/or some utilities and street improvements and parcels not served by all utilities and/or street improvements. The sales were adjusted to reflect physical characteristics such as size, shape, topography, and drainage; zoning and other public controls such as set back requirements and use restrictions; access; utilities; financing; and, availability. The values were then determined for the subject property in both the "before" and ".after" situations. Your appraiser has employed commonly accepted appraisal techniques. The analysis and opinions of these techniques are described on the following pages of this report. -14- I I I tj I I DAHLEN & DWYER, INC. LAND VALUE ESTIMATE - BEF013E 1. County Road 30, approximately 1/2 mile East of Lexington Avenue: Being the E2 of the W2 of the SE'r, and the S 30 rods of the E40 rods of the SWI of the NE'r, of Section 23. This was a 47.5 acre parcel which sold in March of 1981 for $261,500.00. or $5,500/acre. The seller was Slater and the buyer was Indepen- dent School District #196. Zoning was agricultural., The site was gently rolling with some wooded areas. No utilities were available. This was to be part of the future high school site for the Rosemount School District. 2. County Road 30, approximately 1/2 mile East of Lexington Avenue: Being the W2 of the W2 of the SWG and part of the W2 of the W2 of _the NEI of Section 23. Sold in March of 1981 for $255,750.00 or $5,500/acre. This was a 46.5 acre site which was zoned Agricultural and was gently rolling with some wooded areas. The buyer was Independent School District 11196 and the seller was Edwin Herrmann. No utilities were available. The site was part of an assemblege for.the Rosemount High School site. 3. Approximately 3/4 mile East of Lexington Avenue on the north side of County Road 30: I Being the EI of the SEG of Section 23. Sold in December of 1981 for $351,000.00 or $4,500/acre. This was a 78, acre site which was zoned Agricultural and was not served by utilities. The site was gently rolling, had some wooded areas and a small low area near the northern edge. The buyer was Slater and the seller was Sell. 4. East side of Pilot Knob Road, north of Deerwood Drive, Eagan: Being part of the SEG of the NEI, Section 22, Township 27, Range 23• This was an irregular shaped 8.46 acre parcel which had approximately 367 feet of frontage on Pilot Knob Road. The parcel sold in August of 1980 for $48,500.00 or $5,733/acre. The buyer was Eagan Grove Company. The parcel was below the grade of Pilot Knob Road, gently rolling and it had some wooded areas. Water was available along Pilot Knob Road while sanitary sewer was in the.area. There is no storm sewer. -15- I I I It I I I I DAHIEN & DWYER, INC. 5. East end of Deerwood Drive, 1/2 mile east of Pilot Knob Road: Being the N 360, of the Wili of the SE4, Section 22, Township 27, Range 23, except the E 330.2' thereof and subject to Deerwood ()rive. This is a 5 acre parcel which was purchased by Ron and Kathleen Boil from Tom and Barbara Rooney in November of 1979 for $35,000.00 or $7,000/acre. At the gime of purchase, the zoning was agricultural. The site was served by electricity and road only. 6. Southwest corner of Cliff Road and Pilot Knob Road: Being part of the EZ of the NE4' of Section 33, Township 27, Range 23. Sold in December of 1979 for $352,640.00 plus unpaid specials of $16,592.00 for a total of $369,232.00 or $7,958/acre. The seller was S.K.S., Inc., and the buyer was Pilot Knob Estates, inc. This was a rolling and wooded site which sold with a combina- tion of a cash downpayment plus a new C/D and an assumption of a previous C/D. The site totaled 46.4 acres. All utilities were available with the exception of storm sewer. 7. West side' of Lexington Avenue, approximately 1/2 mile northeasterly or McCarthy Lake: Being the N 365' of the S 9931of the 470' of the SEI of the NE'r, of Section 22, Township 27, Range 23. Sold in December of 1981 for $57,695.00 or $11,500/acre. This was a 5.017 acre parcel which was rectangular in shape but was not served by any utilities. Water was in the general area. This was a cash sale with the buyer being the Board of Trustees of United Methodist Church and the seller being Lexington South, Inc. 8. Southwest corner of Lexington Avenue and Wesco-tt Road: Being the Nerly 51 acres of the Ej of the NE,' of Section 22. Sold in December of 1983 for $642,000.00 or $12,588/acre.' The buyer was Gabbert development and the seller was Lexington South, Inc. This was a 51 acre parcel which was zoned R-1 and P.U.D. The property was served by all utilities with the exception of sanitary sewer. The topography was gently rolling with some steep slopes. The buyer assumed special assessments of approx- mately $30,000 for water main and laterals. Sanitary sewer was expected to be available to serve the property in 1984. The buyer will pay the special assessments for sanitary sewer. The property is expected to contain a total of 129 single family lots. -16- I I f Il r 1 I DAMEN & DWYER, INC. 9. Southeast corner of Lexington Avenue and Wescott Road: Being part of the NW4 of Section 23. Sold in December of 1983 for $1,584,000.00 or $12,000/acre. This is a 132 acre, parcel which was zoned R-1 and P.U.D. The buyer was Northland Mortgage Company and the seller was Lexington South, Inc. All utilities were available with the exception of sanitary sewer which was to be installed in 1984. The parcel was mostly flat and open. The buyer is'currently platting the property into approximately 330 single family lots. The buyer has agreed to pay all assessments relating to the installation of sanitary sewer. Galaxy Road, at its frontage, is not improved but is a gravel road with the improvements being charged to the development. 10. 1/2 mile East of County Road 31, just south of Wescott Road: Being the Ef of the NW4 of Section 22. Sold in March of 1979 for $41.7,024.00 or $5,213/acre: This was an 80 acre parcel which was sold by Hollis to Niekwa, Inc. At -,.time of sale the parcel was zoned Agricultural but was subsequently zoned single family and townhouse. Approximately 50% of the parcel was wooded rolling land. There is a small pond located on the property. No utilities were available at the time of sale. Sewer and water were subsequently available at the installation of Wescott Road. -17- DAHLEN & DWYER, INC. LAND VALUE ESTIMATE - BEFORE In the before situation, the subject parcel contains 70t acres and is served by roadway, water and electricity. As previously mentioned access to the parcel is via Deerwood.Drive, not Wescott Road. The parcel immediately to the north of the subject parcel and to the south of Wescott Road is owned by the same family, and, it is assumed, for purposes of this appraisal, that at least an easement could be obtained for access to the subject parcel from the north or off of Wescott Road. Your appraiser has reviewed and visibly inspected many comparable land sales and offerings within the immediate and general areas. Sales in competitive areas were also analyzed. Adjustments to these sales were made to reflect physical consider- ations, locational attributes, zoning considerations, access, topography, utilities and financing. The previously reported sales, along with other sales, have been analyzed and indicate a value in the before situation as follows: 70t acres @ $9,000/acre $ 630,000.00 As previously mentioned in the before situation, the property is served by roadway, electricity and water. There is no sanitary sewer or storm sewer. 11 .1 1 11 I 11 i I 1 DAHLEN & DWYER, INC. LAND VALUE ESTIMATE - AFTER 1A. Southwest corner of Lexington Avenue and Wescott Road: Being the Nerly 51 acres of the EZ of the NEZ of Section 22. Sold in December of 1983 for $642,000.00 or $12,588/acre. The buyer was Gabbert Development and the seller was Lexington South, Inc. This was a 51 acre parcel which was zoned R-1 and P.U.D. The property was served by all utilities with the exception of sanitary sewer. The topography was gently rolling with some steep slopes. The buyer assumed special assessments of approx- imately $30,000 for water main and laterals. Sanitary sewer was expected to be available to serve the property in 1984. The buyer will pay the special assessments for sanitary sewer. The property is expected to contain a total of 129 single family lots. 2A. Southeast corner of Lexington Avenue and Wescott Road: Being part of the NW,' of Section 23. 'Sold in December of 1983 for $1,584,000.00 or $12,000/acre. This is a 132 acre parcel which was zoned R-1 and P.U.D. The buyer was Northland Mortgage Company and the seller was Lexington South, Inc. All utilities were available with the exception of sanitary sewer which was to be installed in 1984. The parcel was mostly flat and open. The buyer is currently platting the property into approximately 330 single family lots. The buyer has agreed to pay all assessments relating to the installation of sanitary sewer. Galaxy Road, at its frontage, is not improved but is a gravel road with.the improvements being chargedto the development. 3A. Galaxv Avenue, south of Cliff Road: Being the Ez of the NWS of Section 32, lying southerly of' the Minesota Department of Transportation Flat No. 19-22. This was a 37.6 acre site which was sold in February of 1983 for $405,689.00 or $10,786/acre. The parcel was zoned Agricultural but was rezoned to R-1, Single Family P.D. The buyer was Riverdale Development and the seller was the Zylka Estate. The property was subsequently developed as the Park View Addition.and is currently the site of Ruscon Homes Construction. -19- I I .1 DAHLEN & DWYER, INC. 11A. North side of Wilderness Run Road, about 500 feet easterly of Waterford Drive: Sold in September of 1982 for $148,645.00 or $15,500/acre. This was an irregular shpaed parcel containing 9.59 acres which was purchased by Count'ry3ide Builders from Lexington South, Inc. All utilities were available. The site was rolling and wooded. The site was being developed with 56 townhouse units which indicates a density of 5.8 units/acre. The seller was under considerable pressure to sell at the time. 5A. Southwest corner of Pilot Knob and Lone Oak Road:' Being part of the NEG of the NE4 of Section 9, Township 27, Range 23. Sold in June of 1981 for $214,100.00 or $15,293/acre. The buyer was Midwest Associates and the seller was Martin Shields. This was a 14 acre parcel having 1,320 feet of frontage on Pilot Knob Road and about 400 feet of frontage on Lone Oak Road. The parcel is served by all utilities, was rolling an apparently. -had stable soils. There was an old farm building on the site which was razed. The financing was not disclosed but was short term since development started shortly after the sale. Zoning was R-3 and R-4. 6A. Blackhawk Road, approximately 1/2 mile North of Cliff Road: Being the NW4 of the SE4 of Section 29. Sold in July of 1979 for $418,324.00 or $10,224/acre. This was a 40 acre parcel which was purchsed by Tilsen Homes from First National Bank of Saint Paul. Zoning was R-3 and R-1. This was rolling open land, with all utilities available. -20- DAHLEN & DWYER, INC. LAND VALUE ESTIMATE - AFTER In the after situation, the size of the subject parcel remains the same at 70t acres. The parcel will not be served by all utilities including roadway, water, sanitary sewer, storm sewer and electricity. Storm sewer will serve only 50 acres of the parcel with the remaining 20t acres draining ina different direction. The 50 acres served by this storm sewer improvement can be visualized from maps located elsewhere in this report. Your appraiser ha's reviewed and visibly inspected many comparable land sales and offerings in the immediate and general areas. After a thorough analysis, I feel my estimate of land values in the after situation is well supported and.well documented. Adjustments have been made to these sales for physical consideration; locational attributes, zoning considerations, access, topography, utilities and financing. After a thorough analysis, it was found that the benefits attributable to storm sewer were approximately $1,000/acre which benefits attributable to a sanitary sewer improvement were between $2,000 and $3,000/acre. The value in the after situation is as follows: 70t acres @ $11,700/acre $ 820,000.00 The value in the after situation reflects an increase of $2,700/acre. $2,000 of this increase can be attributed to the sanitary sewer while $50,000 total can be attributed to the storm sewer improvements. The storm sewer improvement is based on 50 acres at an increment of value of $1,000/acre. This would indicate an overall value per acre of $11,700.00. -21- I I I 11 I 1] '' I I a DAHLEN & DWYER, ' INC. BENEFITS Your appraiser has analyzed the value of the subject in the before and after situations. This difference between the before and after values would be the benefits accruing to the subject property as a result of the sanitary sewer and storm sewer improvements under the City of Eagan Project Nos. 361 and 411. These benefits can be summarized as follows: Value of land before the installation of Sanitary Sewer Project No. 361 and Storm Sewer'Project No. 411: $ 630,000.00 Value of land after the installation of Sanitary Sewer Project No. 361 and Storm Sewer Project No. 411: $ 820,000.00 Benefits Accruing to the property as a result of the installation of Sanitary Sewer Project No. 361 and Storm Sewer Project No. 411: $ 190,000.00 These benefits can further be divided between sanitary sewer and storm sewer as follows: Benefits Attributable to Sanitary Sewer Project No. 361: $ 140,000.00 Benefits Attributable to Storm Sewer Project No. 411: $ 50,000.00 Total Benefits $ 190,000.00 -22- DAHLEN & DWYER, INC. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS Municipalities such as Eagan are authorized by Statute to make local improvements and to assess properties benefited by such improvements. Minnesota Statute 429.021 and 429.051 (1980). The Statute provides that appeal from the levy of the local entity may be taken to the District Court by the aggrieved party within 30 days after the adoption of the assessment. Minnesota Statute 429.081. The Minnesota Supreme Court has established guidelines for special assessments. These guidelines are: 1. The land must receive a benefit from the improvement being constructed. 2. The assessment must be uniform upon the same class of property; and; 3. The assessment may not exceed the benefit. The preferred way to determine benefits, if any, accruing to a property is by the "before and after" method. Under this method, which is usually the simplest approach, the value of the property is estimated before the installation of sanitary sewer and storm sewer and after the installation of these utilities, the difference between the two being the benefits accruing to the property. In appaising the property, your appraiser has deter- mined that a willing buyer will pay a willing seller more for the property due to the installation of sanitary sewer and storm sewer. This is strongly supported by land sales in the after situation. In the after situation, the property is now served by all utilities including sanitary sewer and storm sewer. With the availability of sanitary sewer and storm sewer, the property is now readily developable. Storm sewer enhances the marketability of the property in that it eliminates hazards created by on-site ponding, gives the ability to develop the site more intensely, eliminates recurring street maintenance and flooding problems in the immediate and general areas and controls the water level of the existing ponding area on the subject site. Benefits to the parcel for sanitary sewer in the amount of $2,000/acre are at the low end of the range. This is due to the depth of the parcel and the fact that to develop the property in the most feasible manner, access must be acquired to Wescott Road through or over an adjoining property. -2R- I I I I I I I I 1 I 1 I I .1 I DAHLEN & DWYER, INC. 0 Therefore, after analysis of all factors, it is my opinion that the following values are applicable to the subject property. Value of the land before the installation of Sanitary Sewer Project No. 361 and Storm Sewer Project No. 411: $ 630,000.00 Value of the land after the installation of Sanitary Sewer Project No. 361 and Storm Sewer Project No. 411: $ 820,000.00 Benefits accruing to the property as a result of Sanitary Sewer Project No. 361 ar.d Storm Sewer Project No. 411: $ 190;000.00 The benfits accruing to the subject property can further be broken down as follows: Benefits accruing to the subject property as a result of Sanitary Sewer Project No 361: $ 140,000.00 Benefits accruing to the subject property as a result of Storm Sewer Project No. 411: $ 50,000.00 Total Benefits -24- $ 190,000.00 I I I I I I 1 I I I I I .1 DAHLEN & DWYER, INC. CERTIFICATION The preceding appraisal analysis was performed according to commonly accepted appraisal doctrine and is in conformity with and subject to the requirements of the Code of Profes- sional Ethics and Standards of Professional Conduct as pro- fessed by' the Society of Real Estate Appraisers and the American Institute of Real Estate Appraisers. As a practicing professional Real Estate Appraiser, I hereby certify that: 1. The Appraiser has no present or contemplated future interest in the property appraised; and neither the employment to make the appraisal, nor the compensa- tion for it, is contingent upon the appraised value of the property. 2. The Appraiser has no personal interest in or bias with respect to the subject matter of the appraisal report or the participants to the sale. The "Estimate of Market Value" in the appraisal report is not based in whole or in part upon the race, color, or national origin of the prospective owners or occupants of the property appraised, or upon the race, color or national origin of the present owners or occupants of the properties in the vicinity of the property appraised. The Appraiser has personally inspected the property, both inside and out, and has made an exterior inspec- tion of all comparable sales listed in the report. To the best of the Appraiset's knowledge and belief, all statements and information in this report are true and correct, and the Appraiser has not knowingly withheld any significant information. 4. All contingent and limiting conditions are contained herein (imposed by the terms of the assignment or by the undersigned,affecting the analyses, opinions, and conclusions contained in the report). 5. This appraisal report has been made in conformity with and is subject to the requirements of the Code of Pro- fessional Ethics and Standards of Professional Conduct of the appraisal organizations with which the Appraiser is affiliated. 6. All conclusions and opinions concerning the real estate that are set forth in the appraisal report were prepared by the Appraiser whose signature appears on the appraisal report, 'unless indicated as "Review Appraiser". No change of any item in the appraisal report shall be made by anyone other than the Appraiser, and the Appr shall have no responsibility for such unau orized change. -25- By, I 1 'i I I ,1 1 I I I I I I I DAHLEN & DWYER, INC. REAL PROPERTY ANALYSTS CONTINGENT AND LIMITING CONDITIONS The certification of the Appraiser appearing in the appraisal report is subject to the following conditions and to such other specific and limiting conditions ae are set forth by the Appraiser in the report. 1. The Appraiser assumes no re sponsibilityfor matters of a legal nature affecting the property appraised or the title thereto, nor does the Appra ir.er render any opinion as to the title, which is assumed to be good and marketable. The property is appraised as though under responsible ownership. 2. Any sketch in the report may show approximate dimensions and is included to assist the render in visualizing the property. The Appraiser has made no survey of the property. 3: The Appraiser is not required to give testimony or appear in court because of having made the appraisal with reference to the property in question, unless arrangements have been pre- viously made therefore. 4. Any distribution of the valuation in the report between land and improvements applies only under the existing program utilization. The separate valuations for land and building must not be used in conjunction with any other appraisal and are invalid if so used. 5. The Appraiser assumes that, there are no hidden or unapparent conditions of the property, subsoil, or structures, which would render it more or less valuable. The Appraiser assumes no responsibility for such conditions, or for engineering which might be required to discover such factors. 6. Information, estimates, and opinions furnished to the Appraiser, and contained in the report, were obtained from sources considered reliable and believed to be true and coriect. However, no responsibility for accuracy of such items furnished the Appraiser can be assumed by the Appraiser. 7. Disclosure of the contents of the appraisal report is governed by the Bylaws and Regulations of the professional appraisal organizations With which the Appraiser is affiliated. 8. Neither all, nor any part of the content of the report, or copy thereof (including conclusions as to the property, value, the identity of the Appraiser., professional designations, reference to any professional appraisal organizations, or the firm with which the Appraiser is connected),' shall be used for any purposes by anyone but the client specified in the report, without the previous written consent of the Appraiser; nor shall it be conveyed by anyone to the public through advertis- ing, public relations, news, sales, or other media, without the written consent and approval of the Appraiser. 9. On all appraisals, subject to satisfactory completion, repairs, or alterations, the appraisal report and value conclusions are contingent upon completion of the improvements in a workmanlike -26- I I I 1 a 1 I I I 11 I 1 I DAHLEN & DWYER, INC. A D D E N D U M DAHLEN & DWYER, INC. Looking Southwesterly at Northerly portion of subject property with Wescott Road in the foreground Looking Southerly at subject property from Wescott Road DAHLEN & DWYER, INC. RMM"M -t, Open and rolling land towards Southerly end of property with improvements in background Looking Westerly along Wescott Road from intersection of Lexington Avenue I 1 I t I 1 1 I 1 1 I I I I I 1 I I IDAHLEN & IDWYER, INC. New single family development adjacent to subject property on Gast \\ 31 'RDD l '% TRI SWR. �, __.1 � - - , � �_ - • "/ f��y �,/ \d � 1, \, �::• �' �� - -. �> fes' � . ,,i.::E• /'� POND JP-10 /, t M l dwa 1 DRAINAGE EASEMENT 11ONDI' PVEIK 'I. a CONCEPT PLAN—MC. ARTHY•P� CITY OF EAGAN-MINNE501 PARCEL 011-04. SITE DATA ` Lam._ `• �8�` , � 1 MIN. LOT,\ WtOTN = Oe! � r • .MIN.LOT ARCA-1=0008.1. 'ova-Loi AaeA=taaor S.F. ,40TA1 No. ol�iorN=SID ,• (' ' •7r ; "t OTAL PLAT A11IA=88:'LAC.-IODS I ' Subdivision 2. Zoning Map The boundaries of the above districts are hereby established as shown on; that certain map entitled "Zoning Map of the City of Eagan, Minnesota," which map is properly approved and filed :in the _Office -of the City.Clerk', hereinafter referred to as the "Zoning Map." Said map and all of ,the notations, references and .other information shown thereon shall have the some force and effect•as,if fully set down therein and are hereby made a part of this Ordinance by reference and incorporated herein as fully as if set forth herein at length. ' It shall be the responsibility of the City Clerk to maintain the "Zoning Map" and make same available to the public. Where a dispute arises over the City Clerk's determination of the exact location of a district boundary, said dispute shall be heard by the Board ' of Appeals And Adjustments for recommendation, with final determination to be made by the City Council. ,Subdivision 3. "All AGRICULTURAL DISTRICT 'A. Permitted Uses Within any Agricultural District -no structure or land shall be used except for. one or more of the following uses or uses deemed similar by the City Council. 1, All types of agricultural pursuits and accessory farm structures. 2. Commercial greenhouses and nurseries. 3,. Stands for the sale of agricultural,products provided said products are -raised on the premises. 4. One -family detached dwelling. S. Public parks, playgrounds and public utility service facilities. B. Conditional Uses Within any Agricultural District no structure or land shall be used for the following uses or uses deemed similar by the City Council except by a conditional use permit: 1. Any conditional use in the "R-1" district as regulated therein. 2. Riding stables, boarding stables, auction facilities or sales barns, commercial feed lots or dog kennels subject to the requirements of Ordinance No. 5 and revisions thereto. 3. Commercial storage facilities. C. Accessory Uses Within any Agricultural "A" District, any accessory use permitted in an "R-1" District shall be permitted. ui,d:vIsion i A. RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS Permitted U'-e..n W'thin any k•1; R-2, R-3, n-4 or R-5 District, no structure or land shall be used except for one or more of the follow- ing use or uses'deemed similar by the City Council: 1. One family detached dwellings. 2. Two family dwellings (R-2, R-3, R-4 only) 3. Townnouses (only in R-3 and R-4 to a maximum density o•. 6,000 square feet per unit.) 4. Apartments (R-4 only) 5. Home occupations as definers in Section '.,2.05, Subdivision 2CC. 6.. Mobile homes (R-5 only and developed under requirementE of Ordinance No. 2 and revisions thereto) B. Conditional Uses Within any R-1, R-2, R-3, R-4 or R-5 District, no structure or land shall be used for the following use o; uses deemed similar by the City Council except by conditional use per^rt. 1. Golf courses, country clubs and tennis clubs. C. Permitted Accessory Uses Within any R-1, R-2, R-3, R-4 or R-5 Cistrict, no structure or land or use of land shall be permitted except for one or mere of the follov.ing use or uses deemed siirn lar by the City Council: 1. Private garages and parking space ?. Private swimming pool, tennis court, recreation building it tot -lot. 3. Buildings temporarily located for purpuses of construction on the premises for a period of nut to exceed time neces- sary for such construction. 4. Gardening and other horticultural uses where no sale of products is conrhicted nn the premises 5. -Decorative landscape features. 6. The keeping of domestic animals (household) for non-com- mercial purposes., for the use of the occupants of the pre- mises. Subdivisicn 5. Minimum Arca, Setback and Height Requirements fhe foil;..ming chart shall Pstablish the minimum lot area, lot width, building setback and maximum heiqht req:iirements for the Agricultural and Residential Districts, Where a conflict may arise between the minimum requirements of -this Section and those contained in the General Provision Section 52.06 Subdivision.6C, the greater requirement shall be required. SIDE -YARD SETBACK A. M7HIMUM AREA, SETBACK AND HEIGHT REGULATIONS (Also See Section 52.06 Subdivision GC) SIDE -YARD SETBACK GARAGE OR FRONT -YARD OR MAXIMUM SETBACK ALONG DWELLING ACCESSORY REAR -YARD HEIGHT ;YMOOL USE DISTRICT LOT AREA LOT WIDTH PUBLIC STREET UNIT STRUCTURE SETBACK LIMITATIONS A Agricultural 5 ac. per 300.feet 30'feet 30 feet 5 feet 30 feet - - - - - dwelling unit R-1 Single Family 12,000 85 feet 30 feet 10 feet 5 feet 15 feet 2-1/2 storie: sq. ft. 1 ac. w/o municipal sewer 6 water R-2 Double 15,000 100 feet 30 feet 10 feet 5 feet 15 feet 2-1/2 storie: sq. ft. R-3 Townhouse 6,000 sq. - - - - 30 feet 30 feet 10 feet. 30 ft. for a 3 stories ft. per dwelling unit unit. 10 ft. for a accessory • building R-4 Multiple See Section 52.07 50 feet 30 feet 10 feet 30 ftfor a Dwelling Subdivision 58 dwelling unit 10 ft. for a accessory - building I DAHLEN & DW M, INC. 1 I I .1 1 I I I 1 ' DANIEL E. DWYER Dahl n n wyer me 750 Northwestern National Bank Bldg. St. Paul, Minnesota 55101 EDUCATION: ' Graduate of the College of St. Thomas 1967 Course 1-A, American Institute of Real Estate Appraisers 1971 ' Course 1-B, American Institute of Real Estate Appraisers 1973 American Appraisal Company Cost estimating Seminar 1973 Course II, American Institute of Real Estate Appraisers 1974 Course, IV, American Institute of Real Estate Appraisers 1979 ' I Eminent Domain - Advanced .Legal Education 1980 ' EXPERIENCE; Since 1971 actively involved in the appraisal of residential, commercial and industrial real estate President, Dahlen & Dwyer, Inc., a Minnesota Corporation Instructor, appraisal seminars, Minneapolis/St. Paul Metropolitan Area ' Qualified as expert witness on real estate values 'APPRAISAL ASSIGNMENTS: Homequity, Inc. Merrill Lynch Employee Transfer ' Relocation Resources, Inc. Residential Relocation Service Corp. Employee Transfer -Corp. ' U. S. Steel Corp. Deluxe Check Printers United First Mortgage United Mortgage Co. ' Northland Mortgage Co. First Bank St. Paul First Bank Minnehaha ' First Bank Grand Western State Bank Commercial State Bank Northwestern National Bank City of Eagan City of St. Paul City of Roseville ' City of White Bear Lake City of Vadnais Heights Ramsey County Parks & Oper. Space Department Numerous attorneys and private individuals oo�o 3830PILOT KNOB ROAD. P.O. BOX 21199 BEA BLOMQUIST EAGAN, MINNESOTA 55121 Mayor PHONE: (612) 454-8100 THOMAS EGAN JAMES A. SMITH VIC ELLISON THEODORE WACHTER Cauncll Memb rs THOMAS HEDGES January 10, 1986 city rmml"I"'aia EUGENE VAN OVERBEKE City Clerk Dear Assessment Committee Member: In official action at the January 21, 1986, City Council meeting, members of the various advisory commissions and committees will be appointed or reappointed to those advisory groups by the City Council. If you are interested in being reappointed to membership on the Assessment Committee, please contact Karen Finnegan at the office of the City Administrator by phone or letter no later than Thursday, January 16. Your past interest and dedicated service to the City of Eagan have been deeply appreciated. I.look forward to hearing from you. Sincerely, Thomas L. Hedges City Administrator TLH/jj THE LONE OAK TREE, . THE SYMBOL OF STRENGTH AND GROWTH IN OUR COMMUNITY MEMO TO: SPECIAL ASSESSMENT COMMITTEE WILLARD BERFELZ, PETITIONER FROM: THOMAS A COLBERT, DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS DATE: JANUARY 14, 1986 SUBJECT: PARCEL 10-03800-010-121 SPECIAL ASSESSMENT OBJECTION (WILLARD BERFELZ) SPECIAL ASSESSMENT COMMITTEE MEETING 1/16/86 ITEM VII - B.1 PACKET/RECOMMENDATION REVISION After additional background information research was performed, it was determined that a revised recommendation pertaining to the pending assessments should be processed for consideration by the Special Assessment Committee at their January 16 meeting. Therefore, enclosed with this memo is a revised packet pertaining to this item which incorporates the additional background information that was used to justify the revision in the Staff's original recommendation. PLEASE NOTE: Discard the previous information (Pages 36 - 41) that was previously distributed and replace this information with the revised packet enclosed herein. I apologize for any inconvenience or confusion created by this revision. However, it is felt that this will more fairly address the assessment issue to be discussed. WAIW I 5W nnw�dwmwz 'A -A '/ Attachments TAC: jh ARNOLD E. KEMPE ATTORNEY AT LAW 6121457 5535 1 SIGNAL HILLS WEST ST. PAUL. MINNESOTA 33113 RECEIVED I A Al January 15, 1986 Mr. Thomas Hedges Director of Public Works City of Eagan 3830 Pilot Knob Road Eagan, Minnesota 55122 Mr. Thomas A. Colbert, Engineer City of Eagan 3830 Pilot Knob Road Eagan, Minnesota 55122 Re: Special Assessment Committee Meeting January 16, 1986 — 4:30 p.m. Dear Mr. Hedges and Mr. Colbert: I received, from a courier who delivered to my office at the and of the day of January 14, 1986, a Notice of a Committee :fearing scheduled for January 16, 1986 at 4:30 p.m. on.the special assessments against my client, Patrick McCarthy. Because of,the short two—day notice, I am unable to attend the scheduled meeting and accordingly, request that the same be continued. I will be in trial in the City of Fagan on January 17th, 1986, on another assessment matter in the District Court and consequently will be unable to attend any continued hearing of this matter that might be put over to the 17th. I would appreciate your advising me of a new Committee Hearing date for this matter and giving me a reasonable and timely notice of hearing. Also, this will serve as a reminder that the subpoena served on Thomas A. Colbert in August 1985 in the matter of Patrick McCarthy vs. City of Eagan which has now been continued to January 17, 1986, is still in effect and a photocopy of the subpoena is herewith enclosed as a reminder. am encl. Yours very myy,,, I Arnold E. Kempe SAC 1/16/86 A. PROJECT 372, I -35E UTILITIES & STREETS - ASSESSMENT OBJECTIONS 1. Francis C. Franz (10-02100-010-50) 2. Anna S. Heuer (10-02100-010-78) BACKGROUND INFORMATION The two properties owners referenced above,, have previously been addressed by the Special Assessment Committee at the October 9, 1984 meeting pertaining to their similar objections associated with the recent completion of the upgrading .of Deerwood Dr from Riverton Av to the east side of I -35E. This upgrading of Deerwood Dr was performed under project 372 by MnDot through cost participa- tion agreement #16932. The information that was previously reviewed by the Special Assessment Committee at the October 9, 1984 meeting has been reproduced and is included with this packet for reference and discussion on these continued assessment objections. A copy of the minutes of the October 9, 1984 Special Assesment Committee meeting has also been included without page number for reference and discussion pertaining to these issues. Enclosed on page (s) 19 - LO is a proposed Special Assessment Policy that has been prepared by staff for the committee's review and adoption pertaining to assessments associated with the installa- tion of sidewalks or trailways. Although a portion of the Anna Heuer property has been acquired by School .District #196 for the construction of the new Deerwood Elementary School, the frontage location is not affected by this proposed project but w1-1-1 be addressed under project—#455 in a manner that anticipates adoption of the recommended policy #86-1. The second and third concerns expressed by the committee at the previous meeting pertained to the determination of "benefitted frontage" by taking into consideration the configuration, topography and setback restrictions that may be unique to that parcel.' Due to the varying degrees that any of these items can be applied to any particular parcel, it is difficult to create a uniform policy. Therefore_, each parcel should be addressed on its own merits. In the situation o regrvpert�trre two severed residual portions of his property are located east of I-35E/nortfi of--Drwo6d—Dr an _ w_of ?-35F/south of Deerwood Dr. As can be seen on page 9, by themselves these parcels have limitations based on their configuration. However, if combined with adjacent parcels (which is likely for development) it will benefit by its full frontage. /A SAC 1/16/86 PROJECT 372, I -35E UTILITIES & STREETS (Page 2) In relation to the last item discussed by the committee, it was felt that this issue should again be addressed by the Special Assessment Committee to the necessity of the adoption of a new Special Assessment Policy. It is anticipated that the committee's recommendations pertaining to the new policy and disposition of these assessment objections will be forwarded to the Council for formal consideration. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS The staff recommends that Special Assessment Policy #86-1 be adopted and applied to all future and pending public improvement projects. In addition, it is recommended that a 400frontage reduction be allocated to Mr. Francis C. Franz (10-02100-010-50) due to the configuration of the residual parcels remaining after MnDot's taking, subject to an agreement whereby this reduction will be assessed at the time of development if combined with adjacent parcels which would eliminate the configuration restriction to benefit. All other assessments as proposed under project #372 for both parcels, shall remain as proposed with the exceptions so noted in this recommendation. COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS/COMMENTS WMA SAC 10/9/84 I13:: OLDh BUSINESS A. PROJECT 372, I -35E UTILITIES & STREETS - ASSESSMENT OBJECTIONS 1. Francis C. Franz (Parcel No. 10-02100-010-50 BACKGROUND INFORMATION The two property owners referenced above share the same concern pertaining to the assessments associated with Project 372 for the installation of utilities and street improvements along Deerwood Drive as a part of the I -35E freeway construction. These utility and street improvements are being performed in conjunction with a Cost Participation—Agreement No: 16932—between_MN—DOT_and_the City of Eagan. Enclosed on pages -' and IV- are the letters staff received from Mr. Franz (No. 010-50) and Mrs. Heuer (No. 010-78) requesting consideration by the Special Assessment Commit- tee pertaining to their proposed assessments under Project 372. Enclosed on page < is the preliminary assessment role associat- ed with Project 372 which identifies the various types of assess- ments associated with each parcel. The improvements being provided to the Francis Franz property (010-50) include lateral benefit from trunk watermain, trunk area and lateral s orm sewer, street, sidewalk and—bituminous trail -way construction. The location of these proposed utilities in relaton- ship to Mr. Franz parcel (010-50) are identified on pages through a for watermain, storm sewer lateral, trunk storms sewer and street with sidewalk and/or trail improvements. Enclosed on pages /O through 1AJ - are the computations that were used to determine the assessment obligation of Mr. Franz's parcel for each of the'improvements respectively. Mrs. Heuer's el (010-78) is proposed to be assessed or street and si ew * provements only. Enclosed 6n page 1:5� is the" map s owing the relationship of Mrs. Heuer's property to the Deerwood Drive proposed improvements. Enclosed on pages and /I is the computations used to determine the assessment obligation of this property. . Based on previous conversations held with the affected property owners, it is staffs understanding that the basis for the petitioners objection relate to the street and sidewalk improve- ments associated with the upgrading of Deerwood Drive. These improvements are being performed by MN DOT under Cost Participation Agreement No. 61824. Enclosed on page / &V is Special Assessment Policy No. 82-5 which addresses the issue pertaining to assessments associated with street improvements funded through Cost Participa- tion Agreements. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Utility modifications_ and improvements being performed along Deer - wood Drive provide direct benefit to the property being served, Mr. F-ancis Franz (0.1_0-50). Subsequently, staff recommends that all assessments associated with these utility improvements be reaffirm- ed as proposed under Project.372. In relationship to the common objection pertaining to assessments associated with the street improvements of Deerwood Drive, staff feels that Special Assessment Policy No. 82-5 is fair and equitable and that the assessments proposed under Project 372 to Mr. Franz and Mrs. Heuer should be reaffirmed as outlined in the feasibility report due to the fact that these properties receive the benefit associated with having Deerwood Drive upgraded to present day City standards for residential streets. COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS/COMMENTS Mr. Francis C. Franz 1620 Deerwood Drive Eagan, Minnesota 55122 March 2, 1984 Mr. Thomas L. Hedges City Administrator City of Eagan, Minnesota 3830 Pilot Knob Road Eagan, Minnesota 55122 Re: I -35E Utility Crossings and Street Improvements Project Number 372 Dear Mr. Hedges: This is a formal request for a meeting with the City Engineer to discuss the hereinabove referenced project as it more particularly relates to my property, and, subsequent to that meeting, to appear before the Assessment Committee to discuss matters relative to the pending assessments to be levied on my property as a result of said improvement project. Thank you for attending to this request. Sincerely, Mr. Francis C. Franz Parcel Number 10-02100-010-50 cc: Thomas A. Colbert City Engineer IS Mrs. Anna S. Heuer 1530 Deerwood Drive Eagan, Minnesota 55122 March 2, 1984 Mr. Thomas L. Hedges City Administrator City of Eagan, Minnesota 3830 Pilot Knob Road Eagan, Minnesota 55122 Re: I -35E Utility Crossings and Street Improvements Project Number 372 Dear Mr. Hedges: This is a formal request for a meeting with the City Engineer to discuss the hereinabove referenced project as it more particularly relates to my property, and, subsequent to that meeting, to appear before the Assessment Committee to discuss matters relative to the pending assessments to be levied on my property as a result of said improvement project. Thank you for attending to this request. Sincerely, 4✓I.tt of, 5 - Mrs. Mrs. Anna S. Heuer Parcel Number 10-02100-010-78 CC: Thomas A. Colbert City Engineer PRELIMINARY ASSESSMENT ROLL PROJECT NO. 372 BITUMINOUS WATER MAIN SANITARY SEWER STORM SEVER STREET SIDEWALK PATHWAY Lateral Bene- Lateral Bene- Trunk Parcel fit from Trunk fit from Trunk Lateral Area Lateral NE 1/4 SECTION E1'II-DZ-- $ 941 010-02 21,264 010-05 64,087 NW 1/4 SECTION 10 010-57 1,555 030-26 77 SV 1/4 SECTION 10 010-56 $ 1,810 27,446 010-57 17,107 020-56 1,961 NE 1/4 SECTION 16 010-07 020-06 Bicentennial 6th Adda. Lot 1, Block 1 SE I/4 SECTION 16 010-81 010-82 SW 1/4 SECTION 16 010-50 Blatkhavk Bills Addn. Outlot B Outlot C SE I/4 SECTION 20 Oak rtd-' Re Ae rea First Adda. Lot 5, Block 1 Hillandale Addition No. 1 Outlot C NW 1/4 SECTION 21. 012-28 HE 1/4 SECTION 21 010-08 020-08 SW 1/4 SECTION 21 4E -Am?,-> 010-50 011-51 SE 1/4 SECTION 21 EVFR 010-78 NEI/4 SECTION 29 020-05 1,690 1,690 TOTAL ...... $3,380 $1,810 3554b $2,450 $ 63,]31 18,754 $2,450 $216,925 S 12,196 $ 65,987 $ 7,042 5,5441. 8,994 2,818 29,994 3,201 2,898 15,680 3,347 19,818 63,256 8,195 26,158 1,257 4,011 4,675 14,922 3,419 10,911 1,946 3,300 23,022 3,790 16,505 10,784 4,947 3,971 18,505 89,914 24,559 8,968 3,245 4,027 28,095 $105,157 $411,060 $ 45,184 $ 2,228 1,072 861 4,176 2,770 $ 11,107 TOTAL $ 941 21,264 64,087 1,555 77 29,256 17,109 1,961 85,225 -14,538 36,013 21,925 83,074 34,353 5,268 19,597 14,330 1,946 30,112 35,157 6,019 4,832 202,575.E FR4ut 18,754 12,213 � pew 34,892 $791,073 FUTURE 18"D.LP i ib 0 "A. 4�0 i, TAT 10 lb lb h13 0 Ia." . p" a goo zoo foo ase - a j3 CASING tFUTURE 240 D.I.P I' a. 5M� FUT&E 6WATE�t RESE.� 1 n •. \� \ 010 �l` i .. I35 -E UTILITY CROSSINGS ASSESSMENTS FIGURE No -20 DEERWOOD DRIVE WATRRMAIN CROSSING EAGAN , 14INNESOTA i ASSESSMENT LATERAL BENEFIT i FROM TRUNK WATERMAIN= I FUTURE 18"D.LP i ib 0 "A. 4�0 i, TAT 10 lb lb h13 0 Ia." . p" a goo zoo foo ase - a j3 CASING tFUTURE 240 D.I.P I' a. 5M� FUT&E 6WATE�t RESE.� 1 n •. \� \ 010 �l` i .. I35 -E UTILITY CROSSINGS ASSESSMENTS FIGURE No -20 DEERWOOD DRIVE WATRRMAIN CROSSING EAGAN , 14INNESOTA E ITRAIL F ASSESSMENT LATERAL STORM SEWER (RATE/,17:I Exist. 24" //// oec'—/1J 'a ,. � FUTURE EXTENSIONS � BY CITY —265---z41301 12° \ L265'-24•• CONNECT o, TO EXISTING °0010 -SO / K4' \0o I'd I35 -E UTILITY CROSSINGS ASSESSMENTS FIGURE No -25 DEERWOOD DRIVE STOItM SEWER 7-.A.r' AN. MINNESOTA •— Pit:._ t'm r � 11 -gar m �" 1111 Proposed 1 I Assml. Area r R l I ` as ...Apnlgll q ` �--- f, a._ T Proposed Assm't. Area I35 -E UTILITY CROSSINGS TRUNK AREA STORM SEWER FIGURE No. 24 EAGAN ., MINNESOTA 50 TIUL OI F.F. LAK RIDGE ACRES F R:T AQD I -35E UTILITY CROSSINGS ASSESSMENTS FIGURE No.27 DEERWOOD DRIVE STREET,SIDEWALK & TRAIL IMPROVEMENTS 012.28 010.25 NWi 1/4 SEC. 21 nr ERWJ D DR ww", ci0- 010-25 010-50 1 010-08 010-78 111111 1 I� 1 I APPENDIX A PRELIMINARY ASSESSMENT ROLL I-35 UTILITY CROSSINGS AND STREET IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 372 I. WATER MAIN A) Lateral Benefit from Trunk (Deerwood Drive West End) Assessable Parcel Footage Rate/F.F. NW 1/4 Section 21 012-28 100, $16.90 SW 1/4 Section 21 —> 010-50 100' $16.90 Total II. SANITARY SEWER A) Lateral Benefit from Trunk (Effress Addition Extension) Assessable Parcel Footage Rate/F.F. SW 1/4 Section 10 . 010-56 100, $18.10 B) Lateral (Deerwood Drive West End) NW 1/4 SECTION 21 012-28 Actual Cost Page 49. 3554b Total Assessment.. $1,690 1,690 cc $3,380 Total Assessment $1,810 $2,450 III. STORM SEWER A) Trunk Area Storm Sewer (Fixture No. 11) 609,915 300,160 43,568 1,416,240 416,756 Page 50. 3554b �1 $0.045/s.f.(2) 27,446 $0.057/s.f.(3) 17,109 $0.045/s.f. 1,961 $0.045/s.f. $0.045/s.f. 63,731 18,754 $216,925 Total Area Credit Assess. Area Assessment Total Parcel (Sq.ft.) (Sq.ft.) (Sq.ft.) Rate Assessment NE 1/4 SECTION 10 (1)$ 010-01 13,837 -- 13,837 $0.068/s.f. 941 010-02 390,885 Street 20% 312,708 $0.068/s.f. 21,264 010-05 1,195,575 Pond 17,500 942,460 $0.068/s.f. 64,087 (3) Multi -Family Rate Street 20% NW 1/4 SECTION 10 010-57 22,863 -- 22,863 $0.068/s.f. 1,555 ., 030-26 1,137 -- 1,137 $0.068/s.f. 77 609,915 300,160 43,568 1,416,240 416,756 Page 50. 3554b �1 $0.045/s.f.(2) 27,446 $0.057/s.f.(3) 17,109 $0.045/s.f. 1,961 $0.045/s.f. $0.045/s.f. 63,731 18,754 $216,925 SW 1/4 SECTION 10 010-56 1,037,194 Pond 274,800 Street 20% 010-57 375,200 Street 20% 020-56 43,568 SW 1/4 SECTION 21 —X010-50 1,770,300 Street 20%. 011-51 520,945 Street 20% A (1) Commercial -Industrial Rate (2) Single Family Rate (3) Multi -Family Rate 609,915 300,160 43,568 1,416,240 416,756 Page 50. 3554b �1 $0.045/s.f.(2) 27,446 $0.057/s.f.(3) 17,109 $0.045/s.f. 1,961 $0.045/s.f. $0.045/s.f. 63,731 18,754 $216,925 B) Lateral Storm Sewer a) Deerwood Drive (West End) Assessable Total Parcel Footage Rate/F.F. Assessment NW 1/4 SECTION 21 012-28 265' $69.83 $ 18,505 SW 1/4 SECTION 21 :>010-50 265' 69.83 18,505 530' $ 37,010 b) Federal Drive (West Frontage Road) NE 1/4 SECTION 16 010-04 1,320' $ 9.24 $ 12,196 010-07 ♦6001e, 9.24 -•5,544•. 020-06 305" 9.24 2,818 ' Bicentennial 6th Addition Lot 1, Block 1 313.67 $ 9.24 $ 2,898 SE 1/4 SECTION 16 010-81 010-82 2,145' $ 9.24 $ 19,818 887' 9.24 8,195 SW 1/4 SECTION 16 010-50 136' $ 9.24 $ 1,257 Blackhawk Hills Addition Outlot B 506' $ 9.24 $ 4,675 Outlot C 370' 9.24 3,419 6,582.67 $ 60,820 c) Diffley Road (Co.Rd. No. 30) SE 1/4 SECTION 20 Hillandale Addition No. 1 Outlot C 355.22 $ 9.29 (1) $ 3,300 NE 1/4 SECTION 29 020-05 433.50 9.29 4,027 788.72 $ 7,327 (1) To determine assessment rate non -assessable footage was included: (788.72 + 940.64 m 1729.36, Assessment Rate - $16,070/1729.36 a $9.29/F.F. Page 51. 3554b 66 (1) $29.49(2) $ 1,946 348.70 $29.49 - $ 10,284 167.72 $29.49 $ 4,947 134.67 29.49 3,971 3,048.92 $29.49 $ 89,914 -rzz- 304.08 $29.49 $ 8,968 4,C70.19 $120,030 (1) Previous one-half of front footage was assessed as part of Project #277. It is, therefore, proposed to assess remaining one-half as part of this project. (2) Residential Equivalent Rate. Page 52. 3554b J3 IV. STREET A) DEERWOOD DRIVE a.) Street j SE 1/4 SECTION 20 i Oak Ridge Acres First Addition Lot 5, Block 1 I NW 1/4 SECTION 21 Parcel 012-28 NE 1/4 SECTION 21 Parcel 010-08 Parcel 020-08 23- SW 1/4 SECTION 21 —j Parcel 010-50 SE 1/4 SECTION 21 Parcel 010-76 66 (1) $29.49(2) $ 1,946 348.70 $29.49 - $ 10,284 167.72 $29.49 $ 4,947 134.67 29.49 3,971 3,048.92 $29.49 $ 89,914 -rzz- 304.08 $29.49 $ 8,968 4,C70.19 $120,030 (1) Previous one-half of front footage was assessed as part of Project #277. It is, therefore, proposed to assess remaining one-half as part of this project. (2) Residential Equivalent Rate. Page 52. 3554b J3 Assessable Footage. 2,395.38 304.08 2,699.46 348.70 167.72 134.67 653.54 1,304.63 Page 53. Total Rate/F.F. Assessment $10.67 $ 24,559 10.67 3,245 $ 27,804 $ 6.39 $ 2,228 $ 6.39 $ 1,072 6.39 b) Sidewalk 6.39 4,176 �— Parcel SW 1/4 SECTION 21 —� 010-50 SE 1/4 SECTION 21 010-76 c) Trailwav NW 1/4 SECTION 21 012-28 NE 1/4 SECTION 21 010-08 020-08 SW 1/4 SECTION 21 —>010-50 3554b Assessable Footage. 2,395.38 304.08 2,699.46 348.70 167.72 134.67 653.54 1,304.63 Page 53. Total Rate/F.F. Assessment $10.67 $ 24,559 10.67 3,245 $ 27,804 $ 6.39 $ 2,228 $ 6.39 $ 1,072 6.39 861 6.39 4,176 �— $ 8,337 N I -35E UTILITY CROSSINGS ASSESSMENTS 010-25 W FIGURE No. 27 1 DEERWOOD DRIVE NW 1/4 SEC. 21 W STREET,SIDEWALK & s TRAIL IMPROVEMENTS I 010.08 E zo 21 012•2e 1 010- 25 FEFERwO 6--DR- 50 OTOTAL FG I FF. TGRf I 010-50 iAk RIDGE ACRES F RST A D. 3 4 5 010-50 OFF Ak. 00 �O LEGEND: SWII/4 SEC. 21 01000 STREET BIB. IQUIV. (BATS/F.F.) r CONC. SIDEWALK (RATE/F.F.) G� BIT. TRAIL (HATE/F.Fj �r 66(1) $29.49(2) $ 1,946 348.70 $29.49 $ 10,284 167.72 $29.49 $ 4,947 134.67 29.49 3,971 3,048.92 $29.49 $ 89,914 304.08 $29.49 $ 8,968 4,070.19 $120,030 (1) Previous one-half of front footage was assessed as part of Project #277. It is, therefore, proposed to assess remaining one-half as part of this project. (2) Residential Equivalent Rate. : —:• Page 52. 3554b IV. STREET A) DEERWOOD DRIVE a.) Street SE 1/4 SECTION 20 Oak Ridge Acres First Addition Lot 5, Block 1 NW 1/4 SECTION 21 Parcel 012-28 NE 1/4 SECTION 21 Parcel 010-08 Parcel 020-08 SW 1/4 SECTION 21 Parcel 010-50 SE 1/4 SECTION 21 Parcel 010-7@ 66(1) $29.49(2) $ 1,946 348.70 $29.49 $ 10,284 167.72 $29.49 $ 4,947 134.67 29.49 3,971 3,048.92 $29.49 $ 89,914 304.08 $29.49 $ 8,968 4,070.19 $120,030 (1) Previous one-half of front footage was assessed as part of Project #277. It is, therefore, proposed to assess remaining one-half as part of this project. (2) Residential Equivalent Rate. : —:• Page 52. 3554b b) Sidewalk Assessable Total Parcel Footage. Rate/F.F. Assessment SW 1/4 SECTION 21 010-50 2,395.38 $10.67 $ 24,559 SE 1/4 SECTION 21 �> 010-78 304.08 10.67 3,245 2,699.46 $ 27,804 c) Trailwav NW 1/4 SECTION 21 012-28 348.70 .$ 6.39 $ 2,228 NE 1/4 SECTION 21 010-08 167.72 $ 6.39 $ 1,072 020-08 134.67 6.39 861 SW 1/4 SECTION 21 010-50 653.54 6.39 4,176 1,304.63 $ 8,337 i Page 53. 3554b l� e. POLICY # 82-5 STR= ASSESSMENT - STATE AND COUNTY ROAD CCNSTRUCTION SU=.Zr: Determination of zoning equivalent street assessments for property adjacent to State and/or County -funded roadway construction. POLICY: Properties adjacent to road. -jay imarovements that incorporate cost participation by the City in carbiraticn with Federal, State and/or County funds should be assessed an amount equal to the benefit received as determined by the predetermined equivalent front foot assessment rate for the appropriate zoning classification of the benefited property irregardless of the ratio of financial contribution by any outside funding source involved. OBJECTIVE-: To insure that all property located within the City of Fagan ultimately pays its fair share for benefit received from new and/or upgraded roadway improvements adjacent to that proper- ty. JUSTIFICATION: Due to the fact that there are different levels of service C;• and classifications for streets within the City of Eagan, there are respective different construction costs associated with providing street thoroughfares to their different con- struction design criteria standards. Therefore, it is felt that a specific property should not have to be responsible for any oversizing costs above and beyond that which would normally be required to service that specific zoned parcel of land to current City standards. All oversizing costs are then absorbed and beocre the responsibility of the City's Major Street Construction Fund. Because the City's Major Street Construction Fund has several sources of revenue (i.e, MSAS funds, major road mill levy, road unit charge surcharge, grants, etc.), it is determined that an unequal advantage would be realized by a specific parcel of land whose adjacent street could potentially qualify for some specific outside finding source. Therefore, because the benefit received frau the improved roadway remains the same irreoardless of the source of funds, the assessment should be based on the bene- fit received as determined by the annual zoning classifica- tion equivalent rate and should not take into consideration any financial contribution towards the construction from an outside source and/or agency. Reviewed and acted upon by: CITY COL:.CIL: SPflVIAL ASSESSMCIr CCtTIIT'=: X_ Approved 7 -G -5x Date X Approved 6-14-82 Date Denied Date _ Denied Date / tV • SAC 1/16/86 SPECIAL ASSESSMENT POLICY #86-1 Sidewalk/Trailway Assessment SUBJECT: Assessmentsf-Tor the installation of concrete and/or bituminous trailways and sidewalks. POLICY: Sidewalks and trailways shall be installed in accordance with the City of Eagan's master street and trailway plan ,which also incorporates related County and State installations. At the time of Council adoption of a project, through the public hearing process, sidewalks and trailways shall be assessed at the City's rate in effect at the time of the public hearing against all properties zoned Multiple R tial R-3 ommercial, Institu lona or Public Facility (P or pu s oseo this policy, land use —guide plans and planned unit developments (P.U.D.) shall not be considered as existing zoning at the time of the public hearing. Properties zoned agricultural (Ag), single family (R-1) or duplex (R-2) shall not be assessed for any costs associated with the installation of sidewalks or trailways. If applicable, properties that are subsequently rezoned at a later date to a higher q ,a]`fying zoning classification shall be assessed at the rates in effect at the time o t e rezoning as a cond3Eion of development approval in accordance with policy #82-1. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this policy is to require higher density residential developments, commercial property, public facilities. and institutions to participate in the cost of the installation of sidewalks and trailways which are necessary due to the pedestrian traffic generated and/or benefitted by these off-street improvements. JUSTIFICATION: Due to the fact that agricultural zoned property does not generate pedestrian traffic and taking into consideration the fact that single family (R-1) and duplex lots (R-2) are not allowed frontage on collector and arterial streets where sidewalks and trailways are constructed, the benefit associated with the related sidewalks and trailways are minimized accordingly. However, multiple SAC 1/16/86 SPECIAL ASSESSMENT POLICY NUMBER 86-1 PAGE 2 residential, commercial, institutional and public facilities generate the need for off-street pedestrian access. They should be assessed the related costs associated with their appropriate zoning. Reviewed and acted upon by: CITY COUNCIL: SPECIAL ASSESSMENT COMMITTEE: Approved Date Approved Date Denied Date Denied Date 2- ID SAC 1/16/86 B. PROJECT 447, LONE OAK ADDITION - TRUNK WATER MAIN (T.H. 149) Willard Berfelz (10-03800-010-12) BACKGROUND INFORMATION On August 6, a public hearing was held for the installation of a trunk water main along T.H. 149 from Yankee Doodle Rd to T.H. 55 to provide additional water supply and pressure to the Lone Oak Addition (Northwest Airlines Corporate Headquarters) and the proposed Robins Addition adjacent to I-494 and T.H. 149. Enclosed on page 37 is the assessment objection as submitted by Mr. Berfelz requesting consideration by the Assessment Committee. Enclosed on pages 38 - 38-B are maps showing the location of Mr. Berfelz's property in relationship to the proposed improvement. Also enclosed on pages 39 - 41 are copies of the proposed final assessment roll showing the calculated assessable footage and related assessments. Although this property is present ly,,,usedas—a-�single family resi- dential dwelling, it is zoned light/industrial (,LI). Subsequently, the propose,d76sessmr�ent rate used � n—project-447 was at the commer- cial/industlrial - e. Special Assessment Policy #82-2 (page 41-A) .presen.t.ly__'�provides for this property to be assessed at its present use instead of its existing zoning if the property owner executes the required agreements (page 41-B). As can be seen on page 38-A, this property has a triangular confi- guration with an excessive mnnnf of f ontagealong T.H. 149 in relationship to the -size and depth of the parcel. Present Special Assessment Policies indicate that the assessable. frontage for these types of lots should be the average of the front and rear footage (270 + 0)„ 2 = 135 ft. If the the as the assessable footage policy had been implemented and if property owner executes the agreement document on page 41-B, pending assessment could be reduced by existing policies follows: Lateral Benefit Total Service Assessment 135 x 11.88/ff = $1,603.80 $620.00 $2,223.80 STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS If the property owner executes the agreement for Special Assessment Policy #82-2, the staff recommends that the rate be reduced to the agricultural/single family rate. In addition, the staff recommends that the assessable footage be reduced to 135 feet in accordance with present policies. COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS/COMM J fO N y7 RECEIVED AL16 - G ` Btr- - - -//� _ _ �.-,.— - _ -p tet_ ��a�•e . ------ \ %OSS ADD. � I � GSA.H. No. 26 sL,b«t PAW EL SUBDIVISION 0' 500' 1000' BONESTROO. ROSENE..ANDERLIK LONE OAK ADDITION & ASSOCIATES. INC. TRUNK HIGHWAY 149 Consulting Engineers St. Paul, Minn. TRUNK WATERMAIN Date: JUNE, 19e5 PROJ. No. EAGAN, MINNESOTA Comm. 49359 1 1 447 f /C� \ Cd • PART OF INTI■. O S N4 \ i A �O� a LOT 12 AUD. SUB. Na 38 1 I 010-28 LOT 8 --186.0-- i .;:y 82366.8: m M / ` 26 tS.SO (RES) r '-EAST g11.9B-. t sE�M nV 0 57 IRA, .90 t n CHD=48.81 R-100 .. 2 "- FART OF _ o -W�p 010-30 . `. m , $ H A R• 15 �1o \. N a^ A, 38 q� _ APPENDIX B PRELIMINARY ASSESSMENT ROLL LONE OAK ADDITION TRUNK WATER MAIN PROJECT NO. 447 I. LATERAL BENEFIT FROM TRUNK 8598c 3 Assessable Footage Total Legal Description (Front Foot) Rate/F.F. Assessment SECTION 12, SW% Parcel 010-30 100 $20.07 $ 2,007.00 Parcel 010-52 115 20.07 2,308.015 Parcel 010-53 1,095 20.07 21,976.65 Parcel 010-54 890 20.07 17,862.30 Parcel 010-55 (W. side T.H. 149) 815 20.07 16,357.05 Parcel 010-55 (E. side T.H. 149) 1,125 20.07 22,578.75 Parcel 020-52 125 20.07 2,508.75 Parcel 030-52 320 12.18 3,897.60 Parcel 050-52 225 12.18 2,740.50 SECTION 12, NA Parcel 010-27 475 $20.07 $ 9,533.25 Parcel 010-28 155 20.07 3,110.85 Parcel 010-29 310 20.07 6,221.70 Parcel 010-30" 380 20.07 7,626.60 Aud. Subd. No. 38, Lot 12 275 20.07 5,519.25 TOTALS 6,405 $124,248.30 8598c 3 II. TRUNK AREA WATER ASSESSMENT SECTION 12. NWk Parcel 020-25 0.71 $1,190 Total Legal Description Assessable Area Rate/Ac. Assessment SECTION 12, SVh Parcel 010-28 2.69 $1,190 $ 3,201.10 Lot 2 0.37 1,190 440.30 Parcel 010-51 20.12(1) 1,190 23,942.80 Parcel 010-54 7.74(1) 1,190 .9,210.60 Parcel 010-55 19.40(1) 1,190 23,086.00 SECTION 12. NWk Parcel 020-25 0.71 $1,190 $ 844.90 Parcel 030-25 4.52(1) 1,190 5,378.80 Moss Addition: Lot 1 1.09 1,190 1,297.10 Lot 2 0.37 1,190 440.30 SECTION 12. SEAL Parcel 010-79(2) 24.00(1 6 2) 1,190 28,560.00 TOTALS 99.59 $ 95,961.60 (1) Includes 20% credit for future streets. (2) Includes 1.36 acre credit for storm water ponding area. III. SERVICES Legal Description SECTION 12, NWf Parcel 010-27 Aud. Subd. No. 38, Lot 12 SECTION 12, Sw� Parcel 010-30 Parcel 030-52 Parcel 050-52 8598c TOTAL "F� . ye4 Total Number Services Assessment 1 $ 620 1 620 49*� 1 $ 620 1 620 1 620 $3,100 SUMMARY PRELIMINARY ASSESSMENT ROLL PROJECT NO. 447 Parcel Lateral Benefit Total Description From Trunk Trunk Area Services Assessment SECTIO Pa el 010- $ 3,201.10 $ 3,201.10 Parce 010-30 $ 2,007.00 $ 620 2,627.00 Parcel 010-51 23,942.80 23,942.80 Parcel 010-52 2,308.05 2,308.05 Parcel 010-53 21,976.65 21,976.65 Parcel 010-54 17,862.30 9,210.60 27,072.90 Parcel 010-55 38,935.80 23,086.00 62,021.80 Parcel 020-52 2,508.75 2,508.75 Parcel 030-52 3,897.60 620 4,517.60 Parcel 050-52 2,740.50 620 3,360.50 SECTION 12, NVk Parcel 010-27 $ 9,533.25 $ 620 $ 10,153.25 Parcel 010-28 3,110.85 3,110.85 Parcel 010-29 6,221.70 6,221.70 Parcel 010-30 7,626.60 7,626.60 Parcel 020-25 $ 844.90 844.90 Parcel 030-25 5,378.80 5,378.80 SECTION 12, SE'2 Parcel 010-79 $28,560.00 $ 28,560.00 AUDITOR'S SUBDIVISION NO. 38 �r- Lot 12 $ 5,519.25 $ 620 $ 6,139.25 MOSS ADDITION Lot 1 $ 1,297.10 $ 1,297.10 Lot 2 440.30 440.30 TOTALS $124,248.30 $95,961.60 $3,100 $223,309.90 8598c -AaSaA • ' POLICY # 82-2 EXISTING LAND USE VS ZONING SUBJECT: Assessments against land whose present use is different'frcm the current underlying zoning. POLICY: Where the existing land use is different (less than the high- est and best use permitted by current zoning) than the current underlying zoning, all trunk area and/or lateral benefit assess- ments against the property in question shall be levied in ac- oordance with the current underlying zoning and not in accor- dance with the current land use unless the attached standard agreement is notorized and executed by all persons holding in- terest in the title to the property. fixture rates would be cal- culated in accordance with Policy 82-1. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this policy is to provide a method by which pro- perty owners whose land is developed at a use that is less than permitted by the current zoning, may receive consideration for assessments being levied in accordance with the property's pre- sent use and defer the additional assessments until the current use is upgraded to a use permitted by the underlying zoning. JUSTIFICATION: While trunk utilities are planned, designed and constructed based on the highest and best use of all property in the City in accordance with the Comprehensive Guide Plan and/or current zoning, their benefit is not fully realized by land that is presently developed at a use less than allowed by the current zoning. Further, if the property is presently developed at a different use, it is assumed that it would not change in the foreseeable future. Reviewed and acted upon by: CITY COUNCIL: SPECIAL ASSESSEZ?r MMITI£E: ;K _ Approved 7-6_bZ Date . X Approved 6-14-82 Date Denied _ Date L11 A _ Denied Date Ci% r l CITY OF EAGAN ASSESSMENT AGREEMENT LAND USE DIFFERS FROM ZONING PROJECT NO. 447 THIS AGREEMENT dated this day of '198 , between the CITY OF EAGAN, (called City), and Willar & er ru a Berfelz (called Owner) of 3285 Dodd Road , (address); WHEREAS, the City proposes to assess the following described premises owned by Owner: (legal description) Lot 12, Auditor's Subdivision $38 for the following improvements pursuant to City Project 447 Lateral Benefit from Trunk Watermain WHEREAS, such assessments would normally be based upon the present zoning classification of said premises, that is, Light Industrial ; and WHEREAS,. the present use of said property is different from said zoning classification and if zoned at the present use, assessments would be for Single Family Residential (R-1) zoning. . NOW THEREFORE, upon consideration of the mutual covenants herein, the parties agree as follows: 1. The City agrees to assess said property for the Project and purposes described above as if it were zoned Single Family at the rates now in existence for property so zoned. Resi en is R-1) 2. The Owner agrees for himself, his heirs, executors, administrators, successors, and'assigns, that if the actual use of said property is changed in the future to a use or zoning category which is assessable at a higher rate than the rate for the present use, the City may reassess or levy a supple- mental assessment at such time equal to the difference between the assessment for the new land use and the assessment for the present land use at the assessment rates, according to City policy, in effect at such future time. 3. The Owner, for himself, his heirs, executors, administrators, successors and assigns, further waives notice of any and all hearings necessary and waives any and all objections to the present or future assessments agreed to herein. or to the proceedings related thereto and waives the right to appeal such assessments. 4. Other conditions: None The undersigned have read and understand the above agreement and hereby bind themselves to it in all respects. OWNER CITY OF EAGAN Willard Berfelz Gertrude Berfelz This Document Drafted B Hauge, Smith, Eide &. Keller, P.A. - 3908 Sibley Memorial Highway Eagan, Minnesota 55122 By: Its Mayor Attest: Its Clerk APPROVED: Public Works Director EXEMPT FROM STATE DEED TAX 441-,13 w V SAC 1/16/86 B. PROJECT 447, LONE OAK ADDITION - TRUNK WATER MAIN (T.H. 149) 1. Willard Berfelz (10-03800-010-12) BACKGROUND INFORMATION On August 6, a public hearing was held for the installation of a trunk water main along T.H. 149 from Yankee Doodle Road to T.H. 55 to provide additional water supply and pressure to the Lone Oak Addition (Northwest Airlines Corporate Headquarters) and the proposed Robins Addition adjacent to I-494 and T.H. 149. Enclosed on page(,`) 437 is the assessment objection as submitted by Mr. Berfelz requesting, consider ation by the � Assessment Committee. Enclosed on page(s) - is a map showing the location of Mr. Berfelz's property in relationship to the proposed improvement. Also enclosed on page(s) %3f X1 is a copy of the proposed final assessment roll showing the calculated assessable footage and related assessments. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Due to the fact that a utility service is being provided to Mr. Berfelz's property and that his parcel does not qualify for any ,other type of reduction—or—deferment, it is recommended that the assessment as proposed be reaffirmd. COMMITTEE Os II. TRUNK AREA WATER ASSESSMENT Legal Description Assessable Area SECTION 12, SVh Parcel 010-28 2.69 Parcel 010-51 20.12(1) Parcel 010-54 7.74(1) Parcel 010-55 19.40(1) SECTION 12. NW% Parcel 020-25 Parcel 030-25 Moss Addition: Lot 1 Lot 2 SECTION 12. SEk 0.71 4.52(1) 1.09 0.37 Rate/Ac. $1,190 1,190 1,190 1,190 $1,190 1,190 1,190 1,190 Parcel 010-79(2) 24.00(1 6 2) 1,190 TOTALS 99.59 (1) Includes 202 credit for future streets. (2) Includes 1.36 acre credit for storm water ponding area. III. SERVICES Legal Description SECTION 12, N* Parcel 010-27 -pp Aud. Subd. No. 38, Lot 12 SECTION 12, W4 Parcel 010-30 Parcel 030-52 Parcel 050-52 TOTAL 8598c� Number Services 1 1 Total $ 3,201.10 23,942.80 9,210.60 23,086.00 $ 844.90 5,378.80 1,297.10 440.30 28,560.00 $ 95,961.60 Total Assessment $ 620 �;:..... 620 A*� $ 620 620 620 $3,100 Q.D C3 LLJ ::I.b w L) LLJ ot a SECTION 12. SE% Parcel 010-79(2) 24.00(1 6 2) 1,190 TOTALS 99.59 (1) Includes 20% credit for future streets. (2) Includes 1.36 acre credit for storm water ponding area. III. SERVICES Legal Description SECTION 12, N04 Parcel 010-27 .....Jpp Aud. Subd. No. 38, Lot 12 SECTION 12, S* Parcel 010-30 Parcel 030-52 Parcel 050-52 TOTAL 8598c$ Number Services 1 1 Total Assessment $ 3,201.10 23,942.80 9,210.60 23,086.00 $ 844.90 5,378.80 1,297.10 440.30 28,560.00 $ 95,961.60 Total Assessment $ 620 <: 620 $ 620 620 620 $3,100 111 II. TRUNK AREA WATER ASSESSMENT Legal Description Assessable Area Rate/Ac. SECTION 12, S* Parcel 010-28 2.69 $1,190 Parcel 010-51 20.12(1) 1,190 Parcel 010-54 7.74(1) 1,190 Parcel 010-55 19.40(l) 1,190 SECTION 12, NWk Parcel 020-25 0.71 $1,190 Parcel 030-25 4.52(1) 1,190 Moss Addition: Lot 1 1.09 1,190 Lot 2 0.37 1,190 SECTION 12. SE% Parcel 010-79(2) 24.00(1 6 2) 1,190 TOTALS 99.59 (1) Includes 20% credit for future streets. (2) Includes 1.36 acre credit for storm water ponding area. III. SERVICES Legal Description SECTION 12, N04 Parcel 010-27 .....Jpp Aud. Subd. No. 38, Lot 12 SECTION 12, S* Parcel 010-30 Parcel 030-52 Parcel 050-52 TOTAL 8598c$ Number Services 1 1 Total Assessment $ 3,201.10 23,942.80 9,210.60 23,086.00 $ 844.90 5,378.80 1,297.10 440.30 28,560.00 $ 95,961.60 Total Assessment $ 620 <: 620 $ 620 620 620 $3,100 111 0 44 � « r 0 sib,/• «•r PARCELI- Ea 20- D.1. 010-27 Ou-50 010-51 ADD. 010-53 \\\ 010-54 010-53 \i\ \ U I LONE OAK ADDITION TRUNK HIGHWAY 149 TRUNK WATERMAIN EAGAN, MINNESOTA 010-79 012-80 I Ea ' D.I.P. L 1 020-57 010-55 010-57 010 -56 BONESTROO• ROSENE..ANDERLIK & ASSOCIATES. INC. Consulting Engineers St. Paul. Minn. Date: JUNE, 1985 PROD. NO. Comm. 49359 447 APPENDIX B PRELIMINARY ASSESSMENT ROLL LONE OAK ADDITION TRUNK WATER MAIN PROJECT NO. 447 I. LATERAL BENEFIT FROM TRUNK 8598c 3 Assessable Footage Total Legal Description (Front Foot) Rate/F.F. Assessment SECTION 12, S* Parcel 010-30 100 $20.07 $ 2,007.00 Parcel 010-52 115 20.07 2,308.05 Parcel 010-53 1,095 20.07 21,976.65 Parcel 010-54 890 20.07 17,862.30 Parcel 010-55 (W. side T.H. 149) 815 20.07 16,357.05 Parcel 010-55 (E. side T.N. 149) 1,125 20.07 22,578.75 Parcel 020-52 125 20.07 2,508.75 Parcel 030-52 320 12.18 3,897.60 Parcel 050-52 225 12.18 2,740.50 SECTION 12, NA Parcel 010-27 475 $20.07 $ 9,533.25 Parcel 010-28 155 20.07 3,110.85 Parcel 010-29 310 20.07 6,221.70 Parcel 010-30 380 20.07 7,626.60 Aud. Subd. No. 38, Lot 12 275 20.07 5,519.25 TOTALS 6,405 $124,248.30 8598c 3 SECTION 12. NW14 Total Rate/Ac. Assessment $1,190 $ 3,201.10 1,190 II. TRUNK AREA WATER ASSESSMENT .9,210.60 Legal Description Assessable Area SECTION 12, S* Parcel 010-28 2.69 Parcel 010-51 20.12(1) Parcel 010-54 7.74(1) Parcel 010-55 19.40(1) SECTION 12. NW14 Parcel 020-25 0.71 $1,190 Parcel 030-25 4.52(1) 1,190 Moss Addition: Lot 1 1.09 1,190 Lot 2 0.37 1,190 SECTION 12. SEAL Parcel 010-79(2) 24.00(1 6 2) 1,190 TOTALS 99.59 (1) Includes 20% credit for future streets. (2) Includes 1.36 acre credit for storm water ponding area. III. SERVICES Legal Description SECTION 12, NW$ Parcel 010-27 �p Aud. Subd. No. 38, Lot 12 SECTION 12, SA Parcel 010-30 Parcel 030-52 Parcel 050-52 TOTAL 8598c Number Services 1 1 $ 844.90 5,378.80 1,297.10 440.30 28,560.00 $ 95,961.60 Total Assessment $ 620 620 $ 620 620 620 $3,100 Total Rate/Ac. Assessment $1,190 $ 3,201.10 1,190 23,942.80 1,190 .9,210.60 1,190 23,086.00 Parcel 020-25 0.71 $1,190 Parcel 030-25 4.52(1) 1,190 Moss Addition: Lot 1 1.09 1,190 Lot 2 0.37 1,190 SECTION 12. SEAL Parcel 010-79(2) 24.00(1 6 2) 1,190 TOTALS 99.59 (1) Includes 20% credit for future streets. (2) Includes 1.36 acre credit for storm water ponding area. III. SERVICES Legal Description SECTION 12, NW$ Parcel 010-27 �p Aud. Subd. No. 38, Lot 12 SECTION 12, SA Parcel 010-30 Parcel 030-52 Parcel 050-52 TOTAL 8598c Number Services 1 1 $ 844.90 5,378.80 1,297.10 440.30 28,560.00 $ 95,961.60 Total Assessment $ 620 620 $ 620 620 620 $3,100 Parcel Description SECTION 12, S* Parcel 010-28 Parcel 010-30 Parcel 010-51 Parcel 010-52 Parcel 010-53 Parcel 010-54 Parcel 010-55 Parcel 020-52 Parcel 030-52 Parcel 050-52 SECTION 12, NVh Parcel 010-27 Parcel 010-28 Parcel 010-29 Parcel 010-30 Parcel 020-25 Parcel 030-25 SUMMARY PRELIMINARY ASSESSMENT ROLL PROJECT NO. 447 Lateral Benefit Total From Trunk Trunk Area Services Assessment $ 2,007.00 2,308.05 21,976.65 17,862.30 38,935.80 2,508.75 3,897.60 2,740.50 $ 9,533.25 3,110.85 6,221.70 7,626.60 SECTION 12, SES Parcel 010-79 AUDITOR'S SUBDIVISION NO. 38 �-� Lot 12 $ 5,519.25 MOSS ADDITION Lot 1 Lot 2 TOTALS 8598c $124,248.30 $ 3,201.10-- $ 3,201.10 $ 620 2,627.00 23,942.80 23,942.80 2,308.05 21,976.65 9,210.60 27,072.90 23,086.00 62,021.80 2,508.75 620 4,517.60 620 3,360.50 $ 620 $ 10,153.25 3,110.85 6,221.70 7,626.60 $ 844.90 844.90 5,378.80 5,378.80 $28,560.00 $ 28,560.00 $ 620 $ 6,139.25 $ 1,297.10 $ 1,297.10 •440.30 440.30 $95,961.60 $3,100 $223,309.90 SAC 1/16/86 A. PROJECT 427, YANKEE DOODLE RD - STREETS 8 STORM SEWER - ASSESSMENT OBJECTIONS 1. Don Sandberg (10-01600-010 BACKGROUND INFORMATION On October 15, 1985, the public hearing was held to discuss the proposed improvement under project 427 for Yankee Doodle Rd from T.H. 13 to Federal Dr. This improvement provides for the upgrading of Yankee Doodle Rd from a present two lane, rural ditch section .. to a four lane road with concrete curb .and gutter and related storm sewer facilities.. Enclosed on page(s) ..2J is aletter submitted by Mr. Sandberg requesting consideration by the Special Assessment Committee pertaining to the amount of his related assessments under this project. Enclosed on pagescbPO a 6 are maps showing the location of this parcel. Enclosed on page(s)oT 7.- o e is the proposed assessment roll identifying Mr. Sandbergs and the related street and storm sewer frontage calculations used for determining the amount of the assessments. Although Mr. Sandberg's property incorporates 390 feet of—f_r-ontage—a-l-ong Yankee_Do_odle_Rd, it is presently. homesteaded as a single family use_by Mr_.—Sandber.g... The future subdivision and development of this 7.5 ± acres is greatly hampered by the protected wetland incorporating the middle one—Ch';r_d-of his property Mr. Sandberg has requested consideration that his assessable frontage be reduced to take into consideration his present single family use and not the entire frontage due to the unlikelyhood of its future subdivision. STAFF RECOMMENDATION There is a similar policy that has been used by staff in the past when an existing dwelling wanted to connect to a trunk utility adjacent to thei ron a enreviously assesse . This norma y occurs in situations where the private we or septic system has failed and they want to connect to the City'-- system without changing the use of the property. If the following conditions could be met, the property would be assessed for only a comparable single family residential frontage: The parcel must be unplatted. The parcel must have a net area of 3 acres (excludes allpublicly dedicated right-of-way and ponding easements). �AMust have a minimum of 200' of frontage on the public right-of-way where the connection is being made. Due to the fact that Mr. Sandberg's property meets all of these qualifications and' that his "connection" will be a driveway to SAC 1/16/86 Page 2 PROJECT 427 - Don Sandberg (10-016-010-26) a "trunk" street in lieu of the utility connection where this policy has been previously applied, it is recommended that Mr. Sandberg's assessment be reduced to a comparable single family frontage of 100 feet and that the additional assessments associated with .the remaining frontage would be assessed at the time of rezoning or development to a higher use under Special Assessment Policy #82-1. COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS/COMMENTS . .. .... ... ..... W,.,-zt ic —41co DONALD I. SANDBERG 1560 YANKEE DOODLE ROAD EAGAN. MINNESOTA 55 121 16121 454-SO37 7-e tz GGA_ LCtA A - -4,2 I ,.11 41, - .7 . .. .... ... ..... W,.,-zt ic —41co DONALD I. SANDBERG 1560 YANKEE DOODLE ROAD EAGAN. MINNESOTA 55 121 16121 454-SO37 7-e tz GGA_ LCtA A - -4,2 I ,.11 41, - 0�7;'9111 City of Eagan Public Works 010-20 C 10-30 0�7;'9111 .Blue nwaal own* — _ ----___ BLUE CROS$ ADDITION On -a r 011.58 moat ROBERT....,,. BARATZ ADDITION ...... 0 ... . 0.0.10* (0,0", ou.s] I o>o•n I I olo-LG EllW LETCNDRC z I J ru .—PS J 41 CENTURY —D0 _0 —_ 1 � t 0.0.29 D.C." soar •j-dlo•]L Y v}:{. e0nm . (. -1 BURR[T R[IGMB THIRD ADDITION lu ••. 1:. N N _ ::::•J: -•.. ••: •• :. S�O7ECT PARCEL 'J ,PCARY PARR —. —. a BUAREY GARDEN! ADDITION ] I M -M) N 0 ' ADDITI X ADDITION ] I M -M) FO4 RIpDC g ADDITI X 'J ................................................................. —. —. O Q.� Imo_—.—.—_ N W_ ---------------------- ..1 �~............. — II � ON-tr II � —.—.—.—. BP=RRY PARA 0 SUARCT GARDEN! %t t Er wo4n.__ .EW Buul 4erX.rlbe� ', 'J ................................................................. —. —. —.— ....r—_w......__..._'__= Q.� Imo_—.—.—_ ---------------------- ..1 �~............. CD 1 ,ICENTENIAL ]Y ADDITION BICENTENUI ADDITION \ E,ICDITDGAL Ya GG ]GDmON UMISHEIIICA AxxroA- A 76 Fact Cann Lot Crd] ■ 16 Foot Slam WA11a Pad 6611111 • 310 Foot Storm WSW Pad 6Wt *WATERMAN SERVICE ASSESSMENT COUNTY ROAD No. 28 UTILITY & STREET IMPROVEMENTS FRONT FOOTAGE ASSESSMENTS EAGAN, MINNESOTA STREET t STORM SEWER ASSESSMENTS ---_ RESIDENTIAL NOMESTTE ------ RESIDENTIAL / AGRICULTURAL _. MULTIPLE -- COMMERCIAL / INDUSTRIAL TRAILWAY ASSESSMENT BONESTROO, ROSENEA .ANDERLIK & ASSOCIATES, INC. Consulting Engineers St. Paul. Minn. Date:SeptembeE, 1985PROJ No. Comm. 49331 4 2 7 • 13 •w` YY �--- 39` _ P • 1' a T`B3Y ...�� i I� ' 11 1b61• �_�• ir olr J •1 k .,. i L Tb b _ ------- sa- `ww `YY ]�. T-821/!��`-`♦♦ -f "j' �, - `\ �. � .170_ �` w\' •• �� •r�.t�V t.� `r. � JfN �7 1,• `/TBS^o^ 1' _( . .� \ \�. /.. xeT,i •Y... I 'I. __ \ l �T8s7,.•r lie! is�D6 I.e . L � Fr ♦, r. - APPdOAiMg1[ tOViTO w - . �{ • �.`: I/¢ CORNER 1 1 Total Assessment 28,454.58 2,711.28 11,907.40 09 — 2,054.00 vW(— $45,127.26 $ 60,901.10 42,435.73 75,162:75 11,563.50 11,563.50 25,054.25 28,480.90 27,275.21 17,564.96 $300,001.90 APPENDIX C PRELIMINARY ASSESSMENT ROLL COUNTY ROAD NO. 28 STREET AND UTILITY IMPROVEMENTS ;,• PROJECT NO. 427 I. STREET AND STORM SEWER IMPROVEMENT A) Residential Equivalent Assessable Parcel Footage Rate/F.F. SECTION 9 010-79 Perron 693 $41.06 010-80 Gangl 132 20.54 SECTION 16 010-26 Sandberg: Agricultural 290 41.06 �Owl- Homesite 100 20.54 TOTAL ESTIMATED RESIDENTIAL EQUIVALENT ...................... B) Multiple Equivalent SECTION 8 023175 Kennedy 790 $77.09 SECTION 9 (1) Robert Karatz Addition Lot 12, Block 1 550.47, 77.09 SECTION 16 (2) 010-30 MN Hosp. Servs. Association 975.0 77.09 Blue Cross 5 Blue Shield of Minnesota: 012-29 150.00 77.09 011-29 150.00 77.09 (1) 012-27 Hay 325 77.09 (1) Surrey Heights Third Addition: Outlot A 369.45 77.09 Surrey Gardens: (1) Lot 1, Block 1 353.81 77.09 (1) Lot 2, Block 1 227.85 77.09 TOTAL ESTIMATED MULTIPLE EQUIVALENT ......................... a 7 Page 17. 9436c Total Assessment 28,454.58 2,711.28 11,907.40 09 — 2,054.00 vW(— $45,127.26 $ 60,901.10 42,435.73 75,162:75 11,563.50 11,563.50 25,054.25 28,480.90 27,275.21 17,564.96 $300,001.90 ,. Page 22. 9436c '? { Commercial/Industrial Residential Multiple Water Main Trunk Storm Total Parcel Equivalent Equivalent Equivalent Trailways Services Sewer Assessment NE 1/4, SECTION 17 BLUE CROSS ADDITION: Lot 1, Block 1 $75,011.97 $ 9,046.99 $ 84,058.96 NW 1/4, SECTION 16 010-30 MN Hosp. Serv. Assn. $ 75,162.75 $ 11,076.00 $ 3,136.67 89,375.42 012-29 Blue Cross 6 Blue Shield of MN Life Estate to Rahn 11,563.50 1,704.00 P3,267.50 011-29 Blue Cross 6 Blue Shield of MN 11,563.50 1,704.00 13,267.50 012-27 Hay 25,054.25 3,692.00 28,746.25 —�j 010-26 Sandberg $ 13,961.40 13,961.40 010-28 City of Eagan 8,006.15 965.60 8,971.75 ,. Page 22. 9436c '? { SAC 1/16/86 A. PROJECT 427, Yankee Doodle Road - Streets & Storm Sewer 2. YD Associates (Parcels No. 10-27500-010-01 No. 10-00900-011-52 No. 10-00900-020-52) BACKGROUND INFORMATION At the October 15, 1985, Council meeting, a public hearing was held for Project 427, which provided for the upgrading of Yankee Doodle Road from T.H. 13 to Federal Drive from its present two-lane rural ditch section to a four -lane urban street with concrete curb and gutter and related storm sewer facilities. Enclosed on page(s) .30 —3/ is the objection—to tthe -assessments for these three parcels as submitted by M william Muske at that public hearing. Enclosed on page(s) 0 is�a map showing the location of these three parcels in .the northeast corner of Yankee Doodle Road and Coachman Road. Also enclosed on page(s) p3��is the proposed final assessment roll showing the as- sessable footage for each parcel for its related street and storm sewer improvements. Mr. Muske contends that the assessments associated with these proposed improvements overburdens the property beyond the extend that it can be recovered through a future sale or development. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Due to the present zoning, anticipated future use of this property and its corner location, staff feels that this property does benefit by the proposed improvements and that the assessments should remain as proposed. COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS/COMMENTS STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF DAKOTA --------------------------- In Re Improvement Project No. 427 and the proposed assessments in connection therewith W0 RQ�PO4 DISTRICT COURT FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT C OQi eS Too. To.� C ol�r T OBJECTION TO ,I ASSESSMENTS Tonx tt�jge5 16tu.t Ra.u(Q_ THE HONORABLE MAYOR OR CLERK OF THE CITY OF EAGAN, DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA Pursuant to Minnesota Statute §429.061, the undersigned YD Associates hereby objects to the following improvements and proposed assessments to be considered by the City Council of Eagan, Minnesota on October 15, 1985, for the following described property: PARCEL NO. 10-27500-010-01 PARCEL NO. 10-00900-011-52 PARCEL NO. 10-00900-020-52 street, storm sewer, trailways, water and traffic signal improve- ments to Yankee Doodle Road between Highway,13 and Federal Drive identified as Project No. 427. This objections are made on the following grounds: the property is not benefited by the project; the proposed assessment exceeds the benefit to the property; the proposed assessment and improvement_== -- is contrary to Minnesota Statute Chapter 429; the proposed assess- ment and improvement is discriminatory and violates Appellant's constitutional rights of equal protection and due process of law. The property of the undersigned has been assessed for storm sewer, water and street improvements. In accordance with the above cited statute, please furnish the undersigned with certified copies of objections filed, the assessment roll, exact minutes authorizing the proposed assessment and improvement, affidavit of publication of notices involved herein, copies of resolutions, contracts or other instruments involving the project and agreement, if any, with other governmental units for participating in the cost of the project. Dated: A0 YD ASSOCIATES, a Limited Partnership BY: William H. Mu Ake General Pai}tier J 12-7-83 . ,• ��®� � 10 • �S 972 7A 812'3 REVISED1-27-84 ` 10-9-84 ur' Y 12-14-84 1-22-85 G ° Q --]1•• - -aY CI HO.-- � c: g 2 111, YGa Q` Vcum Oii•Ol ` Q LOT I f ' ('mAvx aOAD BLOCK.. LOCK 1 I {ISA -0 -DDG 0•\ I I m i • , YI... •OOYD• i•r• � L�-LW LLLLJ �' - yt es x010 [AmurT. rn jl uI/ •••• : - . a Ixl rT1• 1 1 ••• •• ,n .1 • ••+- see.00a0 ul[aea ru as Lnn,n.xr.. nu, 1 ; Lu I4 L 2 Q 1 r O D,r a[r•s,Y I « R I t.r e B rrr j' BLK. 1 � lc re �` 5 5 W04 ..,W. Os.,•�,� •-Y F',YO .� ya t Gi pUore n -"- S U B J E PARCEL • ' 0.' uu a+wr0 rur r0, 0aun I,yw /\ �. ��..— —_�' •.':. - - CENTURY 3 i + ADDITIPN s+ r 016-51 Lid„ E 6 469.41'0 E. --656.1-- Uzi QUARRY a CIry of Ets O - 014.51 a Y PARK 00 b 4.14. Y 69•-1'A w. -651:5- - - _ L.A.. �a.�W•>riMt. clnson 1 . 14 ,•. !•. , 01252 riw;i:piii:•.i . a • iq i P.i� D 4} ARM 0.3.29 1 FLUE CROSS ADDITION RCDEAT NARATZ ADDITION O 011.26 I mono* o 0 1DY ltCT PARC :•::...::.:.. 1� 11'y 1: b I:4do ii :;i}::• 012.62 I 030-M I1 I 010.00 LLTLNDRE ¢11 I11W ADDITION CD51I�:IgO 2 0.0.30 I 0.1.29 SussEcr PARCEL CLNTY® ADD ION I 010•!3• I 010•!! I OVTLO A CURACY HEIGMS THIRD ADDITION 1 WRIT GARDENS O 1 GICENICNLAL 2" ADDITION 0.0.28 OI I I I I 011.21 ---- x_._.—.—.—.—._._. I SIFRR6 RARN J I 1 O SURMT GARDEN! SYLRRY PARR ------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------ CD 1 \ M R FIUNTIINNL ADWTNW 1\ 1\ EFIfl331LTIIALL ADdT10N YFGAIQ'3UCA ADDRIDRI- a s A 75 Fact Carer Lm Cf*M ■ 15 Foot SIWm WOW Pana 6FJt • 310 FOOT Storm WAtr POW GROt *W ATERMAIN SERVICE ASSESSMENT COUNTY ROAD No. 28 UTILITY & STREET IMPROVEMENTS FRONT FOOTAGE ASSESSMENTS EAGAN, MINNESOTA STREET\ STORM SEWER ASSESSMENTS — — — — RESIDENTIAL NOMESITE ------ RESIDENTIAL L AGRICULTURAL — WLTIPLE — COMMERCIAL I INDUSTRIAL — TRAILWAY ASSESSMENT BONESTROO, ROSENE, .ANDERLIK & ASSOCIATES, INC. Consulting Engineers St. Paul. Minn. Date:Seplember, 1985 PROJ No. Comm. 49331 427 N o 0 1DY O 1 GICENICNLAL 2" ADDITION 0.0.28 OI I I I I 011.21 ---- x_._.—.—.—.—._._. I SIFRR6 RARN J I 1 O SURMT GARDEN! SYLRRY PARR ------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------ CD 1 \ M R FIUNTIINNL ADWTNW 1\ 1\ EFIfl331LTIIALL ADdT10N YFGAIQ'3UCA ADDRIDRI- a s A 75 Fact Carer Lm Cf*M ■ 15 Foot SIWm WOW Pana 6FJt • 310 FOOT Storm WAtr POW GROt *W ATERMAIN SERVICE ASSESSMENT COUNTY ROAD No. 28 UTILITY & STREET IMPROVEMENTS FRONT FOOTAGE ASSESSMENTS EAGAN, MINNESOTA STREET\ STORM SEWER ASSESSMENTS — — — — RESIDENTIAL NOMESITE ------ RESIDENTIAL L AGRICULTURAL — WLTIPLE — COMMERCIAL I INDUSTRIAL — TRAILWAY ASSESSMENT BONESTROO, ROSENE, .ANDERLIK & ASSOCIATES, INC. Consulting Engineers St. Paul. Minn. Date:Seplember, 1985 PROJ No. Comm. 49331 427 II. TRAILWAYS Assessable Total Parcel Footage Rate/F.F. Assessment C) Commercial/Industrial Equivalent Century Addition: 790 $11.36 $ 8,974.40 Lot 1, Block 2 300:•32 $94.19 $ 28,287.14 (1) Lot 2, Block 2 84.89 94.19 7,995.79 Fox Ridge Addition: Lot 1, Block 1 114.61 94.19 10,795.12 dg*-- SECTION 9 020-52 Y -D Associates 250 94.19 23,547.50 �- -�- 011-52 Y -D Associates 33.6 94.19 3,164.78 �-- 012-52 Kontinakis 246.4 94.19 23,208.42 030-52 Carbonne et al 130 94.19 12,244.70 Sperry Park, Lot 1, Block 1 495 94.19 46,624.05 SECTION 17 246.4 11.36 2,799.10 Blue Cross Addn., Lot 1, Block 1 796.39 94.19 75,011.97 SECTION 16 (1)(3)010-28 City of Eagan 85 94.19 8,006.15 TOTAL ESTIMATED COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL EQUIVALENT ............ $238,885.62 TOTAL ESTIMATED STREETS b STORM SEWER ASSESSMENTS ........... $584,014.78 II. TRAILWAYS .2�.Jy Assessable Total Parcel Footage Rate/F.F. Assessment SECTION 8 023-75 Kennedy 790 $11.36 $ 8,974.40 SECTION 9 (1)Robert Karatz Addition Lot 12, Block 1 550.47 11.36 6,253.34 �-�" ' Century Addition: Lot 1, Block 2 300.32 11.36 3,411.64 (1) Lot 2, Block 2 84.89 11.36 964.35 .��► Fox Ridge Addition, Lot 1, Block 1 114.61 11.36 1,301.97 -� 020-52 Y -D Associates 250 11.36 2,840.00 -- -Vb 011-52 Y -D Associates 33.6 11.36 381.70 -4-- 012=52 Kontinakis 246.4 11.36 2,799.10 .2�.Jy Parcel SE 1/4, SECTION 8 023-75 Kennedy SW 1/4, SECTION 9 ROBERT KARATZ ADDITION: Lot .12, Block 1 G CENTURY ADDITION: 1 Lot 1, Block 2 Lot 2, Block 2 FOR RIDGE ADDITION: �W Lot 1, Block 1 020-52, Y -D Assocs. 011-52, Y -D Assocs. 012-52, Kontinakis 030-52, Carbone et al SE 1/4. SECTION 9 010-80 Gang) 010-79 Perron SPERRY PARK: Lot 1, Block 1 9436c SUMMARY PRELIMINARY ASSESSMENT ROLL PROJECT NO. 427 r STREET AND STORM SEWER Commercial/ Residential Multiple Industrial Water Main Trunk Storm Total Equivalent Equivalent Equivalent Trailways Services Sewer Assessment $ 60,901.10 $ 8,974.40 $ 3,136.67 $ 73,012.17 $ 42,435.73 6,253.34 48,689.07 $ 28,287.14 3,411.64 31,698.78 7,995.79 964.35 8,960.14 10,795.12 1,301.97 12,097.0941f -- 2,097.09E23,547.50 23,547.50 2,840.00 26,387.50 3,164.78 381.70 3,546.48 23,208.42 2,799.10 26,007.52 12,244.70 1,476.80 13,721.50 $ 2,711.28 $ 2,711.28 28,454.58 $ 3,136.67 31,591.25 $ 46,624.05 $20,153.78 66,777.83• j' Page 21. SAC 1/16/86 C. PROJECT 404, LEXINGTON PLACE ADDITION - UTILITIES (LEXINGTON AVENUE TRUNK WATER- -MAIN) -- 1. Patrick McCarthy (10-01500-013-76) BACKGROUND INFORMATION At the September 17, 1985, final assessment hearing before the City Council, Mr. Patrick McCarthy submitted the written objection enclosed on page(s) 4,AJ pertaining to the assessments associated with the installation of the trunk water main along Lexington Avenue. Enclosed on page(s) Vj/-44-rare maps showing the location of the McCarthy parcel in relations ip. to .the trunk utility improvement. Also enclosed on page(s) (p is the final assessment roll which shows the amount of the assessment determined from the calculated frontage and related assessable rates. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS Due to the fact that trunk water main for future, and taking i not qualify for any have not already been that the proposed final this 40 ± acre tract will require this internal looping when developed in the ito consideration that this property does reductions, credits or deferments that allocated, it is the staff's recommendation assessment be reaffirmed. COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS/COMMENTS September 16, 1985 Honorable Mayor, Bea Blomquist and Members of the City Council City of Eagan Eagan Municipal Building Eagan, Minnesota Re: Project #404.and #411 Dear Mayor and Members of the Council: I hereby object to the proposed assessment for sanitary sewer, water and storm sewer improvements in Eagan Improvement Projects #404 and #411 as these proposed assessments will exceed the benefits conferred on my property: Patrick McCarthy I I 14 63 12 EXHIBIT "D 7 S 9 10 . T� \ \ I lcY , + , E d ' /0 /O)TL f� 11 050-53 ` T / OUTLOT A !/ �G�r, y�T�o�i a ` IGS I 041-53 c ° e T 3 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 A 2 9 _ 1 1 1 1 1 1 _J_�_1_�_1_�_J 1 10 7 LOT EQUIVALENT 1 030-53 = _ 044-53 - I F 2 OUTLOT C I.- 1 9 ° 7 ° S \ \ J Z WILLIAMS 9 LARUE 00. O 043-33 1 2 3 4 1 LEXINGTON AVE. (CO. RDNO. 43 ) ST. FRANCIS WOOD AOD. p, I -Cc I r 47Ir AEulric+J °D' WATER _ LATERAL BENEFIT FROM TRUNK ASSESSMENT 391 •>•m RESIDENTIAL RATE ®®® COMMERCIAL HIGH DENSITY RATE LEXINGTON PLACE SOUTH UTILITY IMPROVEMENTS EAGAN, MINNESOTA WATER MAIN 441�11 013=76 SUBJECT PARCEL NORTH 0 400 SCALE IN FEET BONESTROO, ROSENE, ANDERLIK & ASSOCIATES, INC. Consulting Engineers St. Paul, Minn. Date: MAY, 1984 PROJ. NO. Comm, 49306 4-t±,' S. E.1 /4 SEC. 15, T. 279 R. 23 NT -:,1 DUCK W000 "' ••� : 1 O'Q • +'"VV'0 -441 SUBJECT PARCEL �► REVISED 2-17-84 3-30-84 7 -25-84 12-14-84 10-4-85 BERNARD N LARSON C0UxM1 SURVEYOR OCSOIR COUNTY, YINN N .qA DRIVE'�n--- r r. h1 7 F. AMC i .I 4TH, - x'17.. • i n' _ •� AD •'r -o ao�f�=Lii'.�.....�-•... ..••%w y'.- .,�YL-•��n.E.1-- 1 n' _ •� AD •'r -o ao�f�=Lii'.�.....�-•... ..••%w y'.- .,�YL-•��n.E.1-- PROJECT NO. 404 SEPTEMBER 24, 1985 Lateral Benefit from Trunk Water Continued No. of Lots Cost/Lot Parcel Description or Units or Unit Assessment Lexington Place South Continued Block 8, Lots 1-11 11 $111.98 $1,231.78 Block 9, Lots 1-8 8 111.98 '895.84 TOTAL 134 $15,005.32 Lexington Place 2nd Addition(732 FF x $17.87/FF(4)=$13,080.84/116 = $112.77) Block 1, Lot 1 16 $112.77 $1,804.32 Block 1, Lot 2 12 112.77 1,353.24 Block 1, Lot 3 16 112.77 1,804.32 Block 2, Lot 1 16 112.77 1,804.32 Block 2, Lot 2 16 112.77 1,804.32 Block 2, Lot 3 8 112.77 902.16 Block 2, Lot 4 16 112.77 1,804.32 Block 2, Lot 5 16 112.77 1,804.32 TOTAL 116 $13,081.32 SUBTOTAL $ 28,086.64 Assessable . Parcel Description Front Footage Rate/FF Assessment Williams and LaRue Addition Block 1, Lot 1 179 $10.84 (3) $1,940.36 Block 1, Lot 2 135 10.84 (3) 1,463.40 Block 1, Lot 3 156 10.84 (3) 1,691.04 Block 1, Lot 4 140 10.84 (3) 1,517.60 $6,612.40 SE1/4 Section 15 St. Francis Wood 4th Add. 479.92 (5) 17.87 (4) $8,576.17,,`;;,.__ St. Francis Wood 4th Add. 161.50 (5) $17.87 ,(4) 2,886.01 Outlot A Parcel 013-76 604.36 (5) 10.84 (3) 6,551.26 �— $18,013.44 SWI/4 Section 14 Parcel 043-53 417.36 $10.84 (3) $4,524.18 Parcel 044-53 242.64 10.84 (3) 2,630.22 $7,154.40 SUBTOTAL $31,780.24 (3) Single Family Rate. G) (5) Represents 50% of total front footage abutting Lexington Aven,:-, ` O n►' [ city of soden 3830 PILOT KNOB ROAD, P.O. BOX 21199 BEA BLOMQUIST EAGAN. MINNESOTA 55121 Mme, PHONE: (612) 454-8100 THOMAS EGAN JAMES A. SMITH VAC ELLISON THEODORE WACHTER January 16, 1986 Coumil MemWm THOMAS HEDGES City AGminowoi EUGENE VAN OVERBEKE City Clek MR ARNOLD KEMPE, ATTORNEY 1 SIGNAL HILLS WEST ST. PAUL MN 55118 Re: Special Assessment Committee Meeting, January 16, 1986 Projects 404 & 411 Assessment Appeal (Patrick McCarthy) Dear Mr. Kempe: I received your letter of January 15, 1986, wherein you requested a continuation of the Special Assessment Committee's consideration of your appeal regarding trunk area storm sewer assessments under project 411 and lateral benefit from trunk water main assessments under project 404. In that letter, you indicated that you only received notice of this hearing "at the end of the day of January 14, 1986". Checking our files, it has been verified that the packet information pertain- ing to the above referenced assessment appeal was hand delivered to your office at 10:00 a.m. on January 14th and signed for by Anita Murr. In addition, on December 27, 1985, a notice of the January 16th Special Assessment Committee meeting was sent to your attention along with a copy of the agenda showing that this item would be discussed at approximately 7:00 p.m. on that evening. Due to the fact that all other notices were received by all other parties, we are surprised to hear that you did not receive the earlier statement. Therefore, I will address all future correspondence and notices to Mr. Patrick McCarthy's attention including the Special Assessment Committee's recommendations pertaining to his special assessment appeal and your request for continuation. Mr. McCarthy can then inform you at his discretion. Sincere , LT'homas A. Colbert, P.E. Direction of Public Works cc: Thomas L. Hedges, City Administrator TAC/jbd THE LONE OAK TREE ... THE SYMBOL OF STRENGTH AND GROWTH IN OUR COMMUNITY D. PROJECT 411, BIRCH PARK ADDITION/PATRICK TRUNK STORM SEWER 1. Patrick McCarthy (10-02200-011-04 BACKGROUND INFORMATION SAC 1/16/86 EAGAN PARK - At the September 17, 1985, final assessment hearing held by the City Council for the above -referenced project, Mr. Arnold Kempe, attorney for Mr. Patric McCarthy, submitted a written objection enclosed on page(s) pertaining to the assessments associated with the trunk storm sewer installation through his property under that project. Enclosed on page(s) N 4 -.V1 are maps showing the location of Mr. McCarthy's property in relationship to the proposed improvement. Also enclosed on page(s) SL is the final assessment roll identifying the proposed assessments and their related calculations. The acquisition of the permanent and temporary construction easements for the installation of this facility as--negotiated,-as a part,_�f the resolution of a special assessment appeal for a previous, trunk storm sewer project on another—parcel owned by Mr -.—McCarthy. As a part of these negotiations, considerable care and detail were given to insuring that the pond located—on McCarthy's property would be provided with a storm sewer outl t i to the storm sewer system at a location and elevationacceptable to im. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Due to the fact that the area' proposed to be assessed under this project drains into the storm sewer system and that this property is not entitled to any additional reductions, credits or deferments that have not already been applied, it is the staff's recommendation that the assessments be reaffirmed as proposed. COMMITTEE/RECOMMENDATIONS/COMMENTS KEMPE & MURPHY /ATTORNEYS AT LAW ARNOLD E. KEMPE THOMAS M. MURPHY 912/C57-9599 I SIGNAL HILLS WEST ST. PAUL. MINNESOTA 95119 September 16, 1985 Mr. Eugene Van Overbeke City Clerk Eagan Municipal Center Pilot Knob and Westcott Roads Eagan, Minnesota 55121 Re: Proposed Special Assessment for Eagan Projects #404 and #411. Dear Mr. Van Oberbeke: Objection is herewith made on behalf of my clients, the McCarthys, to the proposed Special Assessments in the above captioned Projects for sanitary sewer and storm sewer. Very truly yours, KEMPE AND MURPHY ajm Arnold E. Kempe �za EX. LIFT STA. 14 11 JP -11 JP NORTH 0 1000 2000 SCALE IN FEET PATRICK EAGAN PARK / BONESTROO. ROSENE, ANDERLIK 3 ASSOCIATES, INC. BIRCH PARK ADDITION T / Consulting Engineers STORM SEWER LAYOUT St. Paul, Minn. Date: JUNE, 1984 PROJECT POND JP -6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 38, 47, & 49 Comm. 49311 11 NO.411 H F JT / ..... __ ` J ® SINGLE FAMILY RATE PATRICK EAGAN PARK / BIRCH PARK ADDITION TRUNK AREA STORM SEWER So EAGAN. MINNESOTA / \ N 0 R T H 0 1000 2000 SCALE IN FEET BONESTROO, ROSENE, ANDERLIK & ASSOCIATES, INC. Consulting Englneere St. Paul, Minn. Date: JUNE, 1984 PROJECT Comm. 49311 11 NO.411 REVISED FINAL ASSESSMENT ROLL, SEPTEMBER 11, 1985 PATRICK EAGAN PARK/BIRCH PARK ADDITION TRUNK STORM SEWER OUTLET PROJECT 411.. Parcel Area Description sq.ft.) NE 1/4, Section 22 Parcels 010-02 I 169,554 Credit Assessable (sq -ft-) Area(sq.ft.) Lot (1) 66,000 (5) Rate (per sq.ft.) $0.045 Total Assessment $2,970.00 011-04 (4) 11,868,172 Pond 19348,447 0.045 60,680.12 182,614 St. R/W (20%) 1337,112 TOTAL(NEI/4, Section 22) .......................................... $63,650.12 (4) Parcel 011-04 of the NE 1/4 of Section 22 was previously_ assessed for j 900,080 sq. ft. under Project No. 396. The balance of the area for this parcel was assessed under this project. NW 1/4, Section 22 Parcels 012 -26 -Eagan 761,084 St R/W(20%) 152,217 608,867 $0.045 $27,399.02 013 -26 -Eagan 428,999 St R/W(20%) 85,800 343,199 0.045 159443.96 014-26-Dak.Co. 370,518 - - - 370,518 0.045 16,673.31 010-27 174,200 - - - 174,200 0.045 7,839.00 020-27 191,114 - - - 191,114 0.045 8,600.13 030-27 112,320 - - - 112,320 0.045 1 5,054.40 040-27 170,300 - - - 170,300 0.045 7,663.50 ZSUB TOTAL ............... $88,673.32 4 D. PROJECT 411, BIRCH PARK ADDITION/PATRICK TRUNK STORM SEWER 2. Don Vogtman (Lot 7 & N'h of 6, Block 1, Skovdale) BACKGROUND INFORMATION SAC 1/16/86 EAGAN PARK - At the September 17, 1985, final assessment hearing held before the City Council, Mr. & Mrs. Vogtman submitted a written objection pertaining to the proposed assessments associated with trunk storm sewer under the above -referenced project. Enclosed on page (s) is a copy of this submitted written objection. Enclosed on page(sLAAW-�T7 are maps showing the location of this parcel in relat'onship to the proposed improvement. Also enclosed on page(s) fy is the proposed final assessment roll showing the assessment obligation and the related calculations of detemina- tion. On November 22, staff met with Mr. Vogtman to explain the benefits to his property and the observed drainage patterns resulting from the recent fill that has been placed on this property over the past several years, which has enhanced its ability to be developed in the near future. Due- to the fact that Mr. Vogtman came -.about this property through a financial settlement and his lack of desire to develop tiilsF property, he wanted an op - pecial_Asses relating to these assess ee Due to the fact that this property is presently undeveloped and vacant, the "large lot" credit was not applied and the property was assessed based on its entire net area. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Due to the recent fill that has been placed on this property eliminating the previous low drainage—basin—and—redirecting the drainage flow into the storm sewer system service by Project 411, it is the staff's recommendation that this property be' determined as being benefitted by this improvement and that the assessment as proposed be reaffirmed. ` COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS/COMMENTS ,Iro�Z ENVIRONMENTAL SPECIALISTS FOR GOVERNMENT OR INDUSTRY ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT ECOLOGICAL ASSESSMENTS BIOLOGICAL CONSULTING ECOLOGICAL PLANNING OVER 60 YEARS NATURAL RESOURCES EXPERIENCE DON VOGTMAN ASSOCIATES 6309 FRANCE AVENUE SOUTH EDINA, MINNESOTA, 55410 S (612) 927-9170 Sept. 17, 1985 Mr. E. J. VanOverbeke City Clerk - City of Eagan Dakota County, MN Re: Proj #411 3830 Pilot Knob Road Eagan, MN 55122 Dear Mr. VanOverbeke: Regarding our property in Skovdale Addition (Your code 10-68700-070-00 & North half Lot 6) and your Notice of Special assessment, I wish to protest and appeal this assessment, based on Minnesota Statute section 429.081 (right to appeal). I took this land in on a bad debt. The land is generat- ing no income and is costing me substantial taxes. The land is not being damaged by storm water runoff and we would derive little or no benefit from the storm water improvements proposed for Patrick Eagan Park, Birch Pk. Addition or Improvement Project #411. Furthermore, the proposed assessment would impose substantial hardship on us, since we are.both retired. For the foregoing reasons, we object to the proposed assessment against our property. Sincerel}�, onald B. gtma Inez Vo gtm 's- T x 111 EX. LIFT STA. 14 47 jp-ll JP -II I C K 0 r L HILA -TO H4TTO OF ........ PLA-z'A' AG"m "Ztq"'o R T �H H I A- 0 1000 2000 SCALE IN FEET PATRICK EAGAN PARK BONES ROO, ROSENE. AN6ERLIK & ASSOCIATES, INC. BIRCH PARK ADDITION Consulting Engineers STORM SEWER LAYOUT St. Paul, Minn. POND JP -6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 38, 47, & 49 Date: JUNE, 1984 PROJECT Comm. 4931 I �9 NO. 11 I� _- 1 ,:. Vi4 ��11b O / I 0 0 C Y F I HIj.L ILLTOF OF EAGAN ® SINGLE FAMILY RATE PATRICK EAGAN PARK / BIRCH PARK ADDITION TRUNK AREA STORM SEWER EAGAN, MINNESOTA —PROPOSED ESSMENTr BOUNDARY. , EI PATRICK EaGAN PARK / \ N 0 R T H 0 1000 2000 SCALE IN FEET BONESTROOI ROSENE, ANDERLIK & ASSOCIATES, INC. Consulting Engineers St. Paul, Minn. Date: JUNE, 1984 PROJECT Comm. 49311 NC.4 ; I mL 1' _ v � P' I rI•, ILLTOF OF EAGAN ® SINGLE FAMILY RATE PATRICK EAGAN PARK / BIRCH PARK ADDITION TRUNK AREA STORM SEWER EAGAN, MINNESOTA —PROPOSED ESSMENTr BOUNDARY. , EI PATRICK EaGAN PARK / \ N 0 R T H 0 1000 2000 SCALE IN FEET BONESTROOI ROSENE, ANDERLIK & ASSOCIATES, INC. Consulting Engineers St. Paul, Minn. Date: JUNE, 1984 PROJECT Comm. 49311 NC.4 ; I Lpm Now -p- oil : W-61 TRUNK STORM SEWER OUTLET REVISED FINAL ASSESSMENT ROLL - PROJECT 411 CONTINUED, SEPTEMBER 11, 1985 Parcel Area Credit Assessable Rate Total Description (sq.ft.) sq.ft.) Area(sq.ft.) (per sq.ft.) Assessment NW 1/4 Section 22 Continued-,_ S%OVDALE Lot 1 + E1/2 Lot 2 120,879 ILarge Lot (1) 49,500 (5) $0.045 $2,227.50 Lot 3 + W1/2 Lot 2 120,879 Large Lot (1) 49,500 (5) 0.045 2,227.50 Lot 4 49,500 (5) 80,586 Large Lot (1) 33,000 (5) 0.045 1,485.00 Lot 5 0.045 1,485.00 80,586 Large Lot (1) 33,000 (5) 0.045 1,485.00 Lot 6 W1/2 of S1/2 21,143 Large Lot (1) 116,500 (5) 0.045 742.50 Lot 6 E1/2 of S1/219,150 Large Lot (1) 16,500 (5) 0.045 742.50 Lot 7 + N1/2 Lot 6 76,781 1 - - - 76,781 0.045 3,455.15 SUB TOTAL...............$12,365.15 SROVDALE NO. 2 , Lot 1 40,672 Large Lot (1) 16,500 (5) $0.045 742.50 Lot 2 92,548 Large Lot (1) 49,500 (5) 0.045 2,227.50 Lot 3 99,880 Large Lot (1) 49,500 (5) 0.045 2,227.50 Lot 4 87,120 Large Lot 1 33 0005 0.045 1,485.00 Lot 5 161,908 Pond Large 25,765 Lot (1) 66,000 (5) 0.045 2,970.00 SUB TOTAL ................. $99652.50 i- (1) Large lot credit was applied and assessed at 16,500 sq. ft, per acre. t SAC 1/16/86 D. PROJECT 4.11, BIRCH PARK ADDITION/PATRICK EAGAN PARK - TRUNK STORM SEWER 3. Victor Staff(Lot 5, Block 1, Skovdale 2nd Addition) BACKGROUND INFORMATION At the September 19, 1985, final assessment hearing before the City Council for the above -referenced project, an attorney re- presenting Mr. & Mrs. Staff submitted a written notice of appeal to the proposed speci }1as essments. A copy of this appeal is enclosed on page(s) -I g Enclosed on pages %O' %L are maps showing the location of this parcel. in relationship to the storm sewer improvement. Also enclosed on page(s) �? is the final assessment roll showing the amount of the assessments and the related calculations. In addition to the special assessment appeal action, Mr. & Mrs. Staff have also initiated an adverse condemnation action against the City pertaining to the taking of their property for ponding purposes under this project. On December 20, the City Attorney's office and City staff met with the property owners to discuss the City's acquisition of a ponding and utility easement across their property and the explanation for the storm sewer area assessment. The Committee will be updatedregarding the status of this acquisition and any relevance it may have pertaining to their special assessment appeal. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Due to the fact that this property definitely benefits by the establishment of a controlled water elevation protecting their property from excessive flooding and that all appropriate credits, reductionand deferments. have been taken into consideration, it is thetrsed. ff's recommendation that the proposed final assessments be reaffi COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS/COMMENTS l I EX. LIFT STA. 14 0 P.Iio%K E At:' At, �. NOR T H 0 1000 2000 SCALE IN FEET PATRICK EAGAN PARK / rcvv, KUbhr t, AHDERLIK 8 ASSOCIATES, INC. BIRCH PARK ADDITION Consulting Engineers STORM SEWER LAYOUT 70 St. Paul, Minn. Date: JUNE, 1984 PROJECT POND JP -6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 38, 47, 8 49 Comm. 49311 1 NO.411 W H F ® SINGLE FAMILY RATE PATRICK EAGAN PARK / BIRCH PARK ADDITION TRUNK AREA STORM SEWER 7/ / \ N 0 R T H 0 1000 2000 SCALE IN FEET BONESTROO, ROSENE, ANDERLIK & ASSOCIATES, INC. Consulting Engineers St. Paul, Minn. Date: JUNE, 1984 PROJECT r�nmm. 49311 TRUNK STORM SEWER OUTLET REVISED FINAL ASSESSNENT ROLL - PROJECT 411 CONTINUED, SEPTEMBER 11, 1985 Parcel Area Credit Assessable Rate Total Description (sq.ft.) (sq.ft.) Area(sq.ft.) (per sq.ft.) Assessment NW 1/4 Section 22 Continued S%OVDALE Lot 1 + E1/2 Lot 2 120,879 Large Lot (1) 49,500 (5) $0.045 $2,227.50 Lot 3 + W1/2 Lot 2 120,879 Large Lot (1) 49,500 (5) 0.045 2,227.50 Lot 4 Large 80,586 Large Lot (1) 33,000 (5) 0.045 1,485.00 Lot 5 Lot 80,586 Large Lot (1) 33,000 (5) 0.045 1,485.00 Lot 6 W1/2 of S1/2 21,143 Large Lot (1) 1 16,500 (5) 1 0.045 742.50 Lot 6 E1/2 of S1/2 19,150 Large Lot (1) 16,500 (5) 0.045 742.50 Lot 7 + N1/2 Lot 6 76,781 - - - 76,781 0.045 39455.15 SUBTOTAL...............$129365.15 SKOVDALE NO. 2 Lot 1 40,672 1 Large Lot (1) 16,500 (5) $0.045 742.•50 Lot 2 92,548 Large Lot (1) 49,500 (5) 0.045 2,227.50 Lot 3 99 880 Large Lot (1) 49,500 (5) 0.045 2,227.50 Lot 4 87,120 Larme Lot 1 33.000 5 0.045 1,485:00 Lot 5 161,908 Pond 25,765 Large Lot (1)1 66,000 (5) 1 0.045 2,970.00 SUB TOTAL ................. $9.652.50 (1) Large lot credit was applied and assessed at 16,500 sq. ft. per acre. 73 STATE OF MINNESOTA. COUNTY OF DAKOTA Victor V. Staff and Sharon L. Staff, husband and wife, VS. City of Eagan, Plaintiffs, Defendant. DISTRICT COURT FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT CoQ A:p �aw\ NOTICE OF APPEAL OF SPECIAL ASSESSMENT TO: City Clerk and Mayor, City of Eagan, Eagan City Hall, 3830 Pilot Knob Rd., Eagan, Minnesota 55122 PLEASE TAKE NOTICE, that the Plaintiffs above named hereby appeal the special assessment adopted by the Eagan City Council at their meeting on September 17, 1985 regarding Patrick Eagan Park and Birch Park Addition - Improvement Project Number 411. Plaintiffs, as owners of Lot 5, Block 1, Skovdale 2nd Addition, have been assessed $2,970.00. Plaintiffs contend that their property has not been benefited or improved. Plaintiffs have complied with M.S.A. 429.081 by timely filing written and oral objection with the City of Eagan. Dated: September 27, 1985 44 gic Darrel A. Baska Attorney for Plaintiffs 3435 Washington Drive Eagan, Minnesota 55122 454-0505 d NOTICE OF OBJECTION PROPOSED ASSESSMENT - IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 411 To: Eagan City Administrator - Eagan City Council PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that the undersigned affected property owners, Sharon and Victor Staff, object to the proposed assessment of storm sewer improvements relating to Patrick Eagan Park and Birch Park Addition - Improvement Priject No. 411. The undersigned occupy property containing approximately 3.7 acres commonly known as 1340 Rocky Lane legally described as follows: Lot Five (5), Block One (1), Skovdale 2nd On information and belief, the City of Eagan proposes to assess the undersigned owners at the rate of $743.00 per acre for a total sum of $2,749.00. The undersigned complainants allege that their property has not been benefited by the improvements relating to Project No. 411 based upon the following: 1. Project No. 411 provides for the construction of trunk storm,.. sewer affecting ponds JP -6, JP -9 and JP -11 as designated in the Comprehensive Storm Sewer Plan. Pond JP -6 is located in the Birch Park Addition immediately to the west of complainants' property. Water runoff from the Birch Park Addition is dis- charged into Pond JP -6. (See Storm Sewer Layout Map, attached hereto as Exhibit "A") 6/ 1 2. On information and belief, as part of the 1978 Comprehensive Storm Sewer Plan it was originally -proposed that Pond JP -6 outlet by means of a pumping facility to Pond JP -10 which, in turn would discharge by means of a.:gravity storm sewer to Pond JP -9. 3. At the request of the City of Eagan, the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) in 1981 determined the ordinary high V/ water level (OHW) for Pond JP -6 to be 8.18.7 feet. The OHW level is defined in Minnesota Statute 105.37, subd. 16, as being "the boundary of public waters and wetlands, and shall be an elevation delineating the highest water level which has been maintained for a sufficient period of time to leave evidence upon the landscape..." (See letter from David Leuthe, Area Hydrologist - DNR, attached hereto as Exhibit "B") 4. Eagan's consulting engineering firm, Bonestroo, Rosene, Anderlick & Assoc., Inc. stated in the feasibility report to Project No. 411 that "since the DNR has recently established normal water levels_for Pond JP -6 and Pond JP -9 at 818.7 which is considerably higher than proposed in the Comprehensive Storm Sewer Plan, it now becomes feasible to outlet Pond JP -,6 and Pond JP -9 to Pond JP -11 by gravity storm sewer thus - eliminating two pumping facilities:" (See page 1 - Bonestroo report, attached hereto as Exhibit "C") 5. Complainants allege that construction.of Storm Sewer Project No. 411 has resulted in a significant raising of the water level of Pond JP -6 causing Pond JP -6 to encroach upon and inundate their property. (See Affidavit of Sharon Staff attached hereto as Exhibit "D" and Dakota County Airial Photograph attached hereto as Exhibit "E") 6. Complainants allege that construction of Project 411 not only has not benefited their property in any respect, it has resulted in a taking of their property for which they have not been compensated. Dated: Victor V. Staff Sharon L. Staff % p .: t I Are Be r I/.li; ��� i ��� ilYaiei " �• i. DAx3 • tltl0. ..' 887/. CP 4 0 • r r K vo^ P-3 !s. f onno/�j.91 jBfe.O 8a7.a' OgPy-II 41:0 - CPab 866.3 886 ii j pIL I i$ FOX PAFN fN - E,•r�' IEi+^j4• w:'•'etl RIDGE •~ 4-,., B �7 /Ed -3'i (T(T 790 _ 1 -�[g� .' DP -4 L.S. _ / 877.2! x0a i BO1. •/ r • 9a4.1 'f9: le : 0+ I L 42• 4 gp3 p � - ' .. � AaaO Qs0 D -e n �„J�- RD 288 I I 829.7 iJ _ f.a �I;a�EhSi ' i / 1 • 848.0 ! 0P,9 - RK". f 4 //•/ DP -20 0-r 860.0 938.3 9LTI HILLS t Did G,iUR[ff•T1 B N! - J • .. �J 901.0o \ TC . B62B "BESCOYIi _ I ii31DHrS A 4Q" % �` v 9013 ' J /7 -0 �I CP -12' L''\ CPW�I. I! I;y B9SD :--fir+ ._r - DP -T,. ,iiai p Q wESCGrT e l (,.; I 8897.6' •G'I EARY tip Pk. 882.21 �1; 826.5 I 825.0 z.e j ///h,�� I CARRIAGE --- II 829.6f� BB o- K iILLS _-_ E -x i^ _ I' J 10 ::.., _ 12• .°CLF 9ARDEx P-6 I' OP•22:'' ' .., - DP=I SE i� • -833 10.7�. /!a / .rLJP-g8�8 g9 I 1 - 877aX 7 834 )6.0 I -r---.11 8922,']i:�'_ '_-t 882A _. OP -25 +'r.•:"' >/•: _ � I� CEviEP � �P V.F. ar �•.. _.:. g8�4 -. _c ' � IL I_ 891.0���. _-�JgP9-59 Oil ! B eO-I� 'n� �:I�Q f I �JgP•6gg .JPi 4_ la BOB./ P-2 B80A- -9S/.S JP -62 /z• (�/y X72 8879 f�3�LklcRh+w 844.0 friIF ,e ,0'�t_ti-1 8930 v BBBi- Bl\=• `a BS/.3/'' I \!; '')J,' 1095 '4hl.ii` 8933 .._S J�PP% ^ .'.. L.£ -IS I 2iT 'd UK B9i3 BVI JP -41 4 .FIS B J le _ .. ._ _ _ i2• 985.3-.._ e it -\•e�; B _ tNq. ''\�0�0 I� ��. I_ SJP-L K ad1�:uJ I _ 99.77 1 r700hlurHl Jp 3Z �E JP -31 8891.11 876.3 JP=44-- P-1 JOB0.79"`IIY +8Oe JIS5_ "ADI,_++ .Jn.. I k _ CITY JP-SBQ 9a BLACKMAIM XALL 'i _."ry'11'1![� g'7�S \1. B PARK $1' . ' S �i // To qq.. 1&=I7tIIl �. 6823R\ 7392 sa .8 jP riqM+.' 8870.0 Cl +.:7>, SC ) 879.1 P-29 / e J T _� l •• ^.� SQUARE JP -20 19ao _ _ _ /.� 8•a BgPg-�- 1 `f` -Jr -49 `. _ JP -i ' _BP 85Y%,i'' B6B B -a OVCALE I 8300 - iI^� BeO. 7.0.6 JP 9 JP-�7 rCHI 870.0 -Ae?Fs N w / pp I r B72.t4 �aY'' lEt R` 898. / I . . _ JP- \� J-• IOrAL �Ppp-gg3QQ5 _F903 / 8-e / JP �1 L• l- g,1Ppj9_� °A!NCK `• 884.0 78874 12• BJO. EAGAII ¢ \ - 871 PARK - -N BP -4 BP -25 / 974.2 �, _ JP -.0 �: «I sx4.p r BP• I �r'•v- 927.2 n I BB6.3 BB ! •! al �'-�+__ L. '.• 8828.0 B-•7`""� n . B 9150 ,a,. i - /II 42.1 �4� �I. �giLG'iIEAG -�` _ ! -BP--Z41 -B99Pqq�T-�.f� I�:� -�• J9P-51 _ _. 916JI LP -43 \ 9800 J-0• I! Ba - _ TW OER� 877 3w BSL1 ` .-r• -`J9Pg-9291 ,I i m icy 16 :.,17f'`��t BSJB LecC 969.9 _�, 2 7 rte' I . BP -23 •I9�I �i 8443-t�� ._.�/•• \ I �, wr,.; 9 : r THOr�p M1 - BP_ S. 3I/vH.El G� V 1. '.ua y RLeA'C� 6•aC,A• 12'".rP, +`i'- BMESS. �1 964. I ! xT, 1 9/0.� 'SICOr " i .4 f UTILITY ., �ss�xcgr - l 999, JJJJ u_ T• 3 97 ..a . q•.• V�.•A• LS� • Bgg r,L P� - I. RARK _69 6 x,MJ00 T oAK 3FSi sE 4 r P• _. F` .; I 997019` \ A `_rj' r I n �. J _. B -n Fu I •- LB 37 r0�O,-`DSL 1- 3ArARI y Enc,1 "Wei Id 'y p• 1 FaF - i`^_� �'r� _x agsteJ L� '�.•12 - I M^^SnnT2AATE OF yr% DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES PHONENO. 296-7523 1200 Warner Road, St. Paul, MN 55106 September 3, 1985 Darrell Baska 3435 Washington Drive Suite 200 Eagan, MN 55122 RE: Ordinary High Water Level (OHW) Protected Wetland 1119-144W Dear Mr. Baska: At the request of the City of Eagan, we made OHW determinations for numerous basins in 1981. Protected Wetland #19-144W (JP -6) was one of these. The Ordinary High Water Level is defined in Minnesota Statute §105.37, Subdivision 16, ,as being "the boundary of public waters and wetlands, and shall be an elevation delineating the highest water level which has been maintained for a sufficient period of time to leave evidence upon the landscape...." We determined the OHW for protected wetland 1119-144W to be 818.7. On July 9, 1984, the City applied for a permit (#85-6017) to construct an outlet to this wetland as the water level was three to five feet above the OHW. After review of the application for consistency with our rules (Minnesota Rules §6115.0220 - §6115.0222, copy enclosed), the permit was issued. On April 19, 1985, the City applied for a permit to construct a storm - water outfall structure into this wetland. After review of this applica- tion for consistency with our rules (Minnesota Rules 56115-0230 - 66115-0232, copy enclosed), this permit was also issued. If you have any questions or need additional information, please feel free to contact me at your convenience. Sincerely, David Leuthe Area Hydrologist dl71 enclosures X's - AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER SCOPE: This project provides for the construction of trunk storm sewer from Pond JP -6 and Pond JP -9 (McCarthy Lake) to Pond JP -11 (Hurley Lake) as desig- nated in the Comprehensive Storm Sewer Plan. Pond JP -6 is located in the ex- isting Windcrest Addition which is presently being replated as Birch Park Ad— dition. Pond JP -9 is located in Patrick Eagan Park. FEASIBILITY AND RECOMMENDATION: This project is feasible from an engineering standpoint and is in accordance with the Comprehensive Storm Sewer Plan for the City of Eagan. The project as outlined herein can best be carried out as one contract. DISCUSSION: Trunk storm sewer proposed herein provides for constructing grav- ity storm sewer from Pond JP -6 to Pond JP -11 and from JP -9 to Pond JP -11 as shown on the attached drawing. As part of the 1978 Comprehensive Storm Sewer Plan it was proposed that Pond JP -6 outlet by a pumping facility (L.S.-12) to Pond JP -LO which in turn would discharge by a gravity storm sewer to Pond JP -9. Pond JP -9 would then outlet by a pumping facility (L.S.-13) to Pond JP -11. However, since this time the Department of Natural Resources has re- cently established normal water levels for Pond JP -6 and Pond JP -9 at 818.7 which is considerably higher than proposed 'in the Comprehensive Storm Sewer Plan. As a result, it now becomes feasible to outlet Pond JP -6 and Pond JP -9 to Pond JP -11 by gravity storm sewer thus eliminating two pumping facilities._;,,_ As part of the 1984 Comprehensive Storm Sewer Plan Update a computer analysis was done to evaluate the effect of raising the normal water levels of these ponds and its effect on the high water level based on a 100 year storm. As part of this analysis, the high water level for Pond JP -6, 8, 9, 10, 11 and 49 Page 1. 1s60c .was determined to be 830.00. It was also assumed Pond JP -7 would discharge directly into pond JP -8 thus by-passing Pond JP -38 as shown on the attached Page 1. 1s60c EXHIBIT "D" AFFIDAVIT OF SHARON L. STAFF Sharon Staff, having been duly sworn and under oath, states as follows: 1. Your affiant and her husband, Victor Staff are present fee owners of property legally described as Lot 5, Block 1, Skovdale 2nd Addition, City of Eacan. 2. Your affiant has resided on the subject property from and since October 6, 1958. 3. From and since the date your affiant has occupied said property, water contained within the pond now designated as Pond JP -6 has never inundated affiant's property. Although the northwest corner of the property would, on occasion, become soggy in the spring -time, the -land always dried and your affiant and her parents planted a garden on an annual basis in the north section of the property. 4. As development commenced in the surrounding area in the late 1970's, Pond JP -6 accumulated additional water. In the Spring of 1984 water from Pond JP -6 inundated affiant's property covering the northerly one arce. From and since the Spring of 1984 the water has continued to stand upon affiant's property. 5. Said standing water is causing affiant's fence line posts to uproot and prevents your affiant from using the northerly one acre of the property. 6.. Your affiant fails to realize any benefit accruing to the property and believes the storm sewer project has caused a 417 diminution in her property value. Dated: Sharon L. Staff Subscribed and sworn to before me this day of September, 1985. I l I Notary 4e DARREL C BHSKA .%J�!I NOTARY PUBLIC � `•I��'=$pTA DAKOTA COI. T: My Commlwlon Eapee;.<o, -2, lyji T 4 L ij IMF L SAC 1/16/86 D. PROJECT 411, BIRCH PARK ADDITION/PATRICK EAGAN PARK - TRUNK STORM SEWER 4. Ron Boyle (10-02200-011-86) BACKGROUND INFORMATION At the September 17, 1985 final assessment hearing for the above -referenced project held before the City Council, Mr. Ronald Boyle submitted a written objection to the trunk area storm sewer assessments for his parcel. Enclosed on page r is the written objection submitted by Mr. Boyle. Enclosed on page(s) 74 7r are maps showing the.location of the property in relationshi to the proposed improvements. Also enclosed on page (s) `% 9 is the proposed final assessment roll with the related calculations. As the Committee may recall, similar type objections were reviewed by the Special Assessment Committee at the October 9, 1984, meeting as it pertains to neighboring property owned by Thomas Bergin, Thomas Rooney and Anthony Caponi. As a result of these neighboring objections and the relationship . of the property to the storm sewer improvements installed under Project 411, the City Council subsequently deleted these properties from the final assessment roll with the understanding they would be included with any future storm sewer project directly benefitting their property. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Based on the action taken by the Special Assessment Committee and City Council pertaining to similar objections of neighboring property owners under this same project, it is the staff's recom- mendation that the assessment against this parcel be deferred until some future project directly benefitting the proper y. COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION/COMMENTS September 17, 1985 Mayor and City Council of the City of Eagan 3830 Pilot Knob Road Eagan, Minnesota 55122 Re: Parcel 010 -02200 -011 -*&(O Dear Sirs: P MU;r My objections are on the grounds that the assessment unfairly, illegally, and arbitrarily assesses my property which will receive no benefits from the improvements proposed to be assessed. I object in addition to the anticipation of revenue from the assessment of an amount of approximately $100,000.00 above the anticipated cost and the failure to include land located in the southwest quarter of Section 22 and Hilltop Estates as assessed for this project. I have an additional objection that the parks areas located within the area intended to be drained have not been included for assessment purposes. ours truly, RONALD A. i3o'l LE I Z S O �fetz- W b0� C11°r6 A VYl 1v . 7s 1 ' JEX. LIFT STA. 14 JP -ll JP I JP -8 _-;,. -11 =Jf.• N.O. RT H '.0 1000 2000 SCALE IN FEET PATRICK EAGAN PARK IrONESTROO. ROSENE, ANDERLIK & ASSOCIATES, INC. BIRCH PARK ADDITION Consulting Engineers STORM SEWER LAYOUT 74 St. Paul, Minn. Date: JUNE, 1984 PROJECT POND JP -6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 38, 47, & 49 Comm. 49311 11 NO.411 H F ® SINGLE FAMILY RATE PATRICK EAGAN PARK / BIRCH PARK ADDITION TRUNK AREA STORM SEWER 77 C "T A T— i <�z ...II N 0 R T H 0 1000 2000 SCALE IN FEET BONESTROO, ROSENE, ANDERLIK & ASSOCIATES, INC. Consulting Engineera St. Paul, Minn. Date; JUNE, 1984 PROJECT %O S • TRUNK STORM SEVER OUTLET /l « l REVISED FINAL ASSESSMENT. ROLL - PROJECT 411 CONTINUED, SEPTEMEER 11, 1985 Parcel Area Credit Assessable Rate Total Description (sq.ft.) (sq.ft.) Area(sq.ft.) (per sq.ft.) Assessment SE 1/4, SECTION 22 013-75 289,674 St R/W(20%) 57,935 231;739 $0.045 $10,428.26. 015-75 206,910 Large Lot (1) 82,500(5) 0.045 3,712.50 020-75 124,146 Large Lot (1) 49,500(5) 0.045 2,227.50 011-76 116,930 Large Lot (1) 49,500(5) 0.045 2,227.50 012-76 209,088 - - - 209,088 0.045 9,408.96 031-76 228,291 St R/W(20%) 182,633 0.045 8,218.49 010-77 295,691 ,off St R/W(20%) 59,138 236,553 0.045 10,644.89 010-80 412,230 St R/W(20%) 82,446 329,784 0.045 14,840.28 010-84 412,393 St R/W(20%) 82,479 329,914 0.045 14,846.13 012-86 451,423 St R/W(20%) 90,285 361,138 $0.045 $16,251.21 011-85 207,035 1 Large Lot (I)l 82,500 (5) 1 0.045 1 3,712.50 . 011-86 206,916 Large Lot (1) 82,500 (5) 0.045 1 3,712.504 SUB TOTAL ................ $100,230.72 W. SCHMIDT ADDITION Lot 1 1 24,310 Large Lot (1)1 16,500 (5) $0.045 $742.50 Lot 2 124,052 Large Lot (1) 49,500 (5) 0.045 2,227.50 SUB TOTAL ................ $2,970.00 TOTAL(SE 1/4, SECTION 22) ...................................... $103,200.72 7f (1) Large lot credit was applied and assessed at 16,500 sq. ft. per acre. SAC 1/16/86 D. PROJECT 411, BIRCH.PARK ADDITION/PATRICK EAGAN PARK TRUNK STORM SEWER 5. Lilian McCarthy (10-02200-010-02) INFORMATION At the September 17, 1985 Final Assessment Hearing, a written objection was submitted by the attorney representing Lilian Mc Carthy for the trunk area storm sewer assessments proposed under the above -referenced project. A .copy of that objection is enclosed on page(s) Maps showing the location of this parcel in relationship to the project are enclosed on page(s) grZ through C{. Also enclosed on page(s) is a copy of the proposed final assessment roll showing —Fow the amount was calculated. As can be seen, although the property incorporates 3.91 acres, only 1.5 acres were assessed at the agricultural/Single family rate due to the "large lot" credit allocated this parcel. All drainage from this property directly enters Patrick Eagan Park where the storm sewer system was installed. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Based on the fact that all drainage from this property enters the storm sewer system installed under Project 411 and that all available credits and reductions were applied, it is the staff's recommendation that the assessment be reaffirmed as proposed. COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS/COMMENTS: OBJECTIONS TO NOTICE OF SPECIAL ASSESSMENT Project No. 411 /0-0.2200 - 010-6,;L TO: EAGAN CITY COUNCIL NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN on behalf of Lillian. M. McCarthy of objections to the area storm sewer assessment proposed to be levied against her property in the amount of $2,970.00, pursu- ant to Project 411. The City is hereby notified that Mrs. McCarthy objects to said assessment on the following basis: 1. That the City lacks jurisdiction to levy said assess- ment. 2. That the proposed assessment is arbitrary, capricious, and unreasonable. 3. That the levying of said assessment constitutes an unconstitutional taking of Mrs. McCarthy's property. 4. That the proposed assessment does not result in any benefit to the -subject property, special or otherwise, or if there is benefit, said benefit is less than the amount of the proposed assessment. 5. That the.subject property has not, and will not increase in market value as the result of the improvement. Dated this 17th day of September, 1985. McMENOMY, SHELDON, DUSICH, HANSEN 6 MOLENDA By Bernie M. Dusich Attorneys for Lillian M. McCarthy Dakota Central Offices 14450 South Robert Trail Rosemount, MN 55068 (612) 423-1155 :r V • C r j: PROPOSED A6§ESSMEN CITY�,}— 1el,i �� BOUNDAR"P HALL -"Li.• :i �r._� • SKr I P tt �`�- .'�w.;N•.;�- - Salo 'x7 /e` • gip,% / a1- Ou - 3- O O -7 yl f _ oaa.� FArRICK-EAGANHI L n-- 4(PARKFHILLTOOF PLAZA EAGAN ofa- LEGEND ® SINGLE FAMILY RATE PATRICK EAGAN PARK / BIRCH PARK ADDITION TRUNK AREA STORM SEWER EAGAN, MINNESOTA eL N O R T H 0 1000 2000 SCALE IN FEET BONESTROO, ROSENE. ANDERLIK 8 ASSOCIATES. INC. Consulting Engineers St. Paul, Minn. Date: JUNE, 1984 PROJECT Comm. 49311 11 NO.411 IFT STA. 14 JP -11 JP 9 E q.;A JP -8 N. NORTH 0 1000 2000 SCALE IN FEET PATRICK EAGAN PARK / BONESTROO, ROSENE, ANDERLIK 3 ASSOCIATES, INC. BIRCH PARK ADDITION Consulting Engineers STORM SEWER LAYOUT C3 L.St. Paul, Minn. Date: JUNE, 1984 PROJECT POND JP -6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 38, 471 & 49 Comm. 49311 1 NO.411 Q O WIMOF G •! 1v•I � fw l INN, r C ADD / REVISED FINAL ASSESSMENT ROLL, SEPTEMBER 11, 1985 PATRICK FAGAN PARK/BIRCH PARK ADDITION TRUNK STORM SEWER OUTLET ,PROJECT Parcel Area Description (sq.ft.) HE 1/4, Section 22 Parcels 010-02 I 169,554 Credit Assessable (sq.ft.) Area(sq.ft.) Lot (1) 66,000 (5 Rate (per sq.ft.) $0.045 011-04 (4) 11,868,172 Pond 1,348,447 0.045 182,614 St. R/W (20%) 1337,112 TOTAL (NE1/4, Section 22) .......................................... NW 1/4, Section 22 Parcels Total Assessment $2,970.00 60,660.12 $63,650.12 012 -26 -Eagan 761;084 St R/W(20%) 152.217 608,867• $0.045 $27,399.02 013 -26 -Eagan 428,999 St R/W(20%) 85,800 343,199 0.045 15,443.96 014-26-Dak.Co. 370,518 - - - 370,518 0.045 16,673.31 010-27 174,200 - - - 174,200 0.045 7,839.00 020-27 191,114 - - - 191,114 0.045 8,600.13 030-27 112,320 1 112,320 1 0.045 1 5,054.40 040-27 170,300 - - - 170,300 0.045 7,663.50 SUB TOTAL ............... $88,673.32 (1) Large lot credit was applied and assessed at 16,500 sq. ft. per acre. 8� SAC 1/16/86 SPECIAL ASSESSMENT POLICY - PARKLAND BACKGROUND INFORMATION The City is presently involved in the preparation of a feasibility report for Project 4448 which discusses the proposed trunk storm sewer outlet for the Holland Lake area along Cliff Road. The necessity of this storm sewer outlet is being dictated by the increased runoff ass= atad with the development in the vicinity of W' rness Run Road and Do major trunk storm sewer project 00,000. Normally, the revenue necessary to finance these types of projects is derived from trunk area assessments over previously unassessed property within the benefitted drainage basin. In this particular project, the majority of the assessable area within this drainage basin incorporates the Lebanon Hills Regional Park under the jurisdiction of Dakota County. Although the entire regional park lies within the drainage basin that would ultimately be serviced by this trunk storm sewer lift station outlet, it would require interconnection of the several 1akes and ponds within the par's. d The map enclosed on page(s) 'yshows the relationship of the park property to the drainage area to the assessment area. In calculating the assessment liability for the county park property, the agricultural/sin le residential rate was used for the 42.9.acres dir e s " m sewer outlet which resulted in a proposed assessment of aporoxima $300,000. Due to the fact that the City cannot legally assess another ff governmental entity, this revenue can only be derived through V a cooperative agreement. Preliminary discussions with Dakota County indicate that they do not have the resources available to finance the estimated $300,000 assessment. Subsequently, they requested the City to see if any credits, special provisions, etc. can be applied to reduce their assessments to an amount that can be financially acceptable. l The county staff has argued that the runoff generated from an undeveloped large re-g,ional—pa-r-k—s-ys-te+_s much less than agricHltural or residential property. Subsequently, they feel a new Crate classification should be established for parkland property which more accurately reflects the runoff generated and the subsequent benefit received from any proposed storm sewer project. Enclosed on pages8 through �L is a summary of the assessment issue as described by our consulting engineering firm. Enclosed on page(s) f Z- is the present special assessment policy pertaining to trunk area storm sewer. Also enclosed on A4 SPECIAL ASSESSMENT POLICY - PARKLAND (continued) on page(s) !F%3 is the present policy pertaining to parkland and other governmental jurisdiction property. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS Runoff generated from parkland is dependent upon the amount of development associated with its use (active vs. passive). Most neighborhood and community parks are developed and maintained in a manner that generates a comparable amount of runoff as agricultural/single family residential property. However, larger county, regional and state parkland do not significantly increase the amount of runoff from its previous undeveloped passive condition. Therefore, it is the staff's recommendation that consideration be given to establishing 'a new rate for large undeveloped passive parkland equal to one-half the agricultural/ single family residential rate. This reduced rate would be subject to the execution of an agreement with other jurisdictional agencies whereby additional assessments will be paid with any subsequent development or intensified use. COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS/COMMENTS 87 2335 W 7..A #,qA,a 36 81. Pad. M• 55„3 PA.— 612-636-4600 December 31, 1985 City of Eagan 3830 Pilot Knob Road Eagan, MN 55122 Attn: Mr. Tom Colbert & 4"Ac'kk , Jots. Onn G. Bnn,rr.n, P.E. C/rr �i/,tb'Ll p Rnhrn B'. Ran r, P.E. lavPh C. Andrrlik, P.E. Povdlard A. Lrmhrq, P.E. Rirh.M E. Turnrr. P.E. Jumn C. Ohm P.E, Re: Holland Lake Area - Trunk Storm Sewer Imprs. Project No. 444 - Our File No. 49355 Dear Tom, Gl,.n R. Cook, P.E. Krirh A. Gordon, P.E. Thomas E. Noy,, P.E. Richard W. Forr,. P.E. Ro&rl G. Srhunichr, P.E, Marvin L. Sorvak P.E. Donald C. BuMordl. P.E. lrrry A. Bandon, P.E. Mark A. Mo... P.E. Trd K. Firld. P.E. MBharrT. Raum,onn. P.E. Robrrr R. P/rllrr, P.E. David 0. Lmkara, P.E. Chad, A. Erlckron Lro M. Pawrhky Marla.,N. Man The draft preliminary report for the above project proposed assessing Dakota County Park for trunk storm improvements. Stated below is a paragraph from the assessment portion explaining the proposed method for assessing Dakota Co. and their proposed assessment. "The property south of Cliff Road included in the City of Eagan is all Dakota County Park. The total area of Dakota County Park which benefits from the storm sewer project is 1,209 acres of which 232 acres is pond or lake. All these ponds or lakes are interconnected by existing drainage swales or channels once each pond obtains a certain elevation. As part of this project, however, it is proposed to assess only the first level of ponding south of Cliff Road which includes 429 acres of which 72 acres is pond. The same method in de- termining the proposed assessment to Dakota County Park was used as determining assessments within the City of Eagan with the exception that the residential assessment rate was reduced in half. The reason for this is based on the theory that the park will generate half of the runoff as residential property. In any event, Dakota county will have to agree to the assessment through a cooperative agreement." Assessable Parcel Total Area Credit Area Assessment Total Description (Acres) (Acres) (Acres) Rate Assessment Dakota Co. 429 Pond 72) 285.6 $0.024/s.f. $298,578 Park St. (20%) In reviewing this draft report with Dakota Co. Staff, they have indicated that a $298,578 assessment may be difficult for the board to accept. Therefore, it was felt if an alternate was prepared within the report not to construct the outlet for McDonough Lake that their assessment would be reduced in half 2658d 8!' City of Eagan December 31, 1985 Eagan, MN Re: File No. 49355 (approx. $150,000) because the area tributary to McDonough Lake would not be assessed. As a result the board may be more agreeable to a $150,000 assess- ment as opposed to $300,000 assessment. The construction cost for the proj- ect, however, would not chang e. The entire system would be designed and con- structed assuming the outlet for McDonough Lake would be built sometime in the future and that Dakota Co. would be assessed at that time. The only construc- tion required in the future would be a few pipe and a flared end section from a manhole adjacent to Cliff Road. In determining a fair method for assessing Dakota Co., it was felt that be- cause the proposed storm sewer system was designed assuming a runoff coeffi- cient of 0.2 from the park as opposed to 0.4 from residential property, the trunk area assessment rate for residential property should also be reduced ac- cordingly or by half (0.048 x 0.5 = 0.024). In addition, only those areas tributary to McDonough Lake and Holland Lake are proposed to be assessed. It is felt, due to the significant ponding upstream from McDonough Lake and Hol- land Lake, that through the effort of the county restricting the flow through existing channels, these areas may be eliminated entirely from the drainage system. As a result, these areas would not benefit from the proposed storm sewer project and therefore are not proposed to be assessed. Again, this as- sumes the County attempts to limit the overland flow between their various ponds and lakes. As noted, I also deducted 20% for future street right-of-way after deducting the pond area. The only reason this was done was to be con- sistent with the assessment policy. If it is intended to deviate from the as- sessment policy which I feel is appropriate for this project, then maybe the future street right-of-way credit of 20% should be reconsidered. In reality there will never be future street rightof-way within the park so why should a credit be given. Another expense which should be given additional consideration is the sedimen- tation pond located on the north side of Cliff Road across from Holland Lake. The purpose of this pond is to reduce pollutants from entering Holland Lake. Hopefully, the first flush through the system will be contained in the pond and only the clear runoff generated after the first flush will be stored in - Holland Lake. The estimated cost for this pond is $30,000 to $35,000 ($20,000 construction and $10-$15,000 pond easement). Obviously, preserving Holland Lake is a benefit to all who use it and Dakota Co. Park is the one promoting the use of Holland Lake. In summary, I have attempted to explain the reasons and concerns in determin- ing a fair assessment to Dakota Co. Park based on our. draft report. I don't feel the scope or cost of the project can be reduced. The County obviously needs an outlet for Holland Lake to control it at a desirable level and the City needs Holland Lake for storage (588 acre-feet). In addition, ponds adja- cent to Wilderness Run Road (Schwanz Lake, Pond LP -61, etc.) need outlets due to development and once these outlets are constructed the outlet for Holland 2658d cog 7 d City of Eagan December 31, 1985 Eagan, MN Re: File No. 49355 Lake must be also constructed at the same time. Bob and I have met with Barb and Chuck from Dakota Co. Park and we have attempted to express their con- cerns. They have discussed the project with John Voss who indicated the board may be agreeable to a $150,000 assessment. In any event, the County must be presented with a report approved by the City so they have something to present to their board. If you have any questions, please contact this office. Yours very truly, BONEST_R0.0,, ROSENE, ANDERLIK 6 ASSOCIATES, INC. Mark A. Hanson MAH:li 2658d Page 3. f/ X. ADDITIONAL CONSIDERATIONS Assessable Cost The total assessable cost of an improvement project shall include construction and engineering costs, plus administrative, legal, and other expenses appurten;mP tO the project. Assessment of City -owned Property For all City -owned property other than parkland, the City shall pay the assessment. Such assessment will be determined at the rate used for Public Facility property and payment will be made from the General Fund. For City -owned parkland,the following shall apply: a) All assessments against park land which exist at the time of acquisition of title to the land by the City, wi-l-l-be-considered=as= part--of-ttie acquisition cost of the land unless paid by t�hh�e seller-. b) When park land is dediciated as a part ,of a resid'ential"'' development, the developer shall bered sible for payment of all ssessments against thd'^� n existing at the time of I�thededication. C c) When new assessments are incur•/':d u' �ponJpark lanes owned by the City, the costs of these assessments will be born by the General Fund in the case of Community Parks. Assessments will be spread over the normal."assessment area (less the park) in the case of neighborhood parks or walkways. City owned property which abuts a•street improved. through Municipal State Aid Road funds will not be assessed for the street improvements. Assessment of Property Owned by Other Political Units Property owned by other political units will be assessed on the basis of benefit received from a particular pro- ject. Errors and Omissions in Assessment Upon discovery that a parcel had been omitted from or . an error made on the original assessment, the Assessment Clerk will notify the property owner of the amount due. The property owner will have thirty days upon receipt of the notice to pay the assessment without interest. The total -amount will be based on the rate in effect at the time of the omission or error. C. B. Policies It is the policy of the City to assess property which has benefited from the storm sewer system. The method used to assess for both trunk and lateral benefit will be the Area Method. a) The rate will be'computed on a "per square foot" basis. b) The street and ponding credits will be allowed, as defined in the section on area assessment. The assessment rate for storm sewer trunk -is calculated by dividing the estimated cost of completing the system b%• the net assessable area which has not yet been assessed for storm sewer trunk benefit. The rate is adjusted each year to reflect current construction costs. The assessment rate for storm sewer laterals is calculated by dividing the cost of providing the laterals by the assessable area which has received benefit from the project. STORM SEWER TRUNKS All land within a drainage area will be considered as having benefited from a trunk project, as all land con- tributes runoffto the system. Assessment rates will be progressively higher for s'in.110 family, multi -family, and commercial/industrial land, since the proportion of impervious surface varies with each land use. In all new subdivisions, storm sewer trunk assessments will be levied. When trunk oversizing occurs, a portion of the cost may be assessed as a trunk area charge to a portion of the drainage area outside the developed area which will be benefited in the future. When future benefit is so far off as to be impractical to be assessed at the time of initial construction, the assessment will be deferred with the City temporarily financing that portion of the construction. The City will later be reimbursed as the area is developed and assessed. Where a tr•ink serves as a lateral, part of its cost will t fnr assessment purposes. -a-6 43 CE SPECIAL ASSESSMENT COMMITTEE MEETING January 16, 1986 4:30 P.M. S City Hall, Eagan MN A G E N D A I. 4:30 - Pledge of Allegiance II. .4:35 - Roll Call III. 4:40 - Review/Adopt Agenda IV. 4:45 - OLD BUSINESS py 14L A. Project 372, I -35E - Utilities & Streets (Deerwood Dr) 1. Francis C. Franz (10-02100-010-50) 2. Anna S. Heuer (10-02100-010-78) V. 5:30 - Adjourn (dinner.break) VI. 6:00 - Reconvene VII. - NEW BUSINESS A. Project 427, Yankee Doodle Rd - Streets & Storm Sewer }!Don Sandberg (10-01600-010-26) py a 2� YD Associates (10-27500-010-01) - BV William Muske (10-00900-011-52) (10-00900-020-52) B. Project -447, Lone Oak Add - Trunk Watermain (T.H. 149) pg 31p 1. Willard Berfelz (10-03800-010-12). C. Project 404, Lexington Place Add - Utilities (Lexington AV Z1W'11 I\R \.GLllla 111/ pyYA 1. Patrick McCarthy (10-01500-013-76) D. Project 411, Birch Park Add/Patrick Eagan Park - Trunk--�r..-. Storm Sewer p� V7 1. Patrick McCarthy (10-02200-011-04) pBSJ 2. Don Vogtman (Lot 7 & N� of 6, Blk 1, Skovdale) P� 513. Victor Staff (Lot 5, Blk 1, Skovdale 2nd) P8 N 4. Ron Boyle (10-02200-011-86) P7 y65. Lilian McCarthy (10-02200-010-02) VIII. 8:00 - Other Business pa Sip 1 . Special Assessment Policy - Parkland Ix. 8:30 Adjourn n - -- ---- III r. - 1i i 9 0 :- �. �, / �" � �' � � i% � � � / . '' � i �/� '' � � y � i � i� a f / / i i ' �. � / � r � ryii. -- _ _ - - v �" �D - �� _ _ �. _ i/ - �-�/ ___ �/ __ �,�-�_- J', � � � � � i � � o �' � SBS �� Z VI. NEW BUSINESS A. PROJECT 460, NICOLS ROAD 2. Brandt Management Company (Lots 1, 2 & 3, Cedarview Addn.) BACKGROUND INFORMATION As a part of the public hearing process to consider the proposed improvement of Nicols Road, the written objection enclosed on page , was submitted by the Brandt Management Company pertaining to their assessments and the overall project itself. In scheduling the agenda for the July 9 Special Assessment Committee meeting, the Public Works Director contacted Mr. William Brandt on June 29, 1987. As a result of that phone conversation,J M t raw is o Tec ion consideration by the Special Assessment Committee. a §E-a-E€d that his primary purpose o 0 7ecting was to prevent the project more so than in regards to the proposed assessments. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS Based on the verbal request of Mr. Brandt to have his objection withdrawn, the staff is recommending that the Special Assessment Committee acknowledge his initial written objection but that no action be taken based on his request for it to be withdrawn. COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS/COMMENTS C?S— M Brandt Management Company 15010 GLAZIER AVENUE APPLE VALLEY, MN 55124 (612) 4323200 William F. Brandt P,esidem February 14, 1986 Mayor Bea Bloomquist City Council Members CITY OF EAGAN 3838 Pilot Knob Road Eagan, Mn 55122 Dear Mayor & Council Members: 1020-T 4/60 This letter shall serve as our protest to the current plans for upgrading and improving Nicola Road, south of Cliff Road. We lodge this protest as owners of three office buildings located at 4635, 4651, and 4655 Nicols Road. It is our understanding this improvement would cost us in the neighborhood of $30,000.00 in assessments and this plus interest is too much of a cash drain on our cash flow. We, as most businesses, are in business to make a profit and our profit is sparse enough, let alone to absorb this type of unexpected expenditure. Our buildings do not generate enough traffic to even think of justifying this type of cash out flow. Because of the lack of traffic beyond Durnings, Hardees, and the Flour Bin, upgrading beyond this point just doesn't make sense. This is an awful lot of money and shall inflict serious financial wounds to us, and we therefore request a :fearing with a special assessment committee to review this further. Thank you for your understanding. WFB/ls Kindest r Bards, William F. Brandt W f7 VI. NEW BUSINESS. D. PROJECT 179, GENERAL TRUNK AREA WATER 1. Willard Berfelz (10-03800-010-12) In 1976, the City provided an opportunity to the entire community to pay a trunk area water assessment in accordance with the rates in effect during that year unless the property owner requested in writing to be excluded from that proposed assessment. Enclosed on page _y3 is a letter from Mr. Berfelz requesting his "deferment" from the proposed assessment. You will note that word "defer" was crossed off and replaced with the word "excluded" by the City Clerk at that time, Alice Bolke. Enclosed on page 4 is Mrs. Bolke's response to Mr. and Mrs. Berfelz informing them of the City's receipt of their written request for deletion. This response refers to the "exclusion" rather than "deferment" with a later assessment to be in accordance with the rates in effect at that time. Enclosed on page V,� is a letter from Mr. Berfelz indicating his original request and intent was to have that 1976 assessment ($242.20) "deferred" rather than excluded, similar to a senior citizen's deferment. This would have locked in the 1976 rate but it would have continued to accrue interest at the rate of 88 per year. On September 2, 1986, a final assessment hearing was held for the trunk water main installed along the frontage of this property. If the trunk area assessment were levied at that time in accordance with those rates, it would have amounted to $702.10 for the 0.59 acres of this parcel. For comparison, a "deferred" assessment from 1976 at 88 per year would have equalled $564.72. Mr. Berfelz requests consideration for the original 1976 assessment to be classified as a "deferred" and not as an "exclusion." However, in researching the matter further, it has been discovered that the trunk ent was not included in the final assessmen .off- ptember 2, 198 ,9. Because of the original exclusion, it sho ncluded. Therefore, it is necessary for the City to determine what the proper trunk area assessment rate is for the 0.59 acres of this referenced parcel. In 1976, it was the City's intention that either the assessment be levied at that time at those rates or that it be excluded and assessed at a later date when either connection or development of the property occurred in accordance with the rates then in effect. Also, due to the fact that the inadvertently omitted from Project be added to the amount proposed to COMMITTEE RECOMl4NDATIONS/COMMENTS trunk area assessment was 447, it is recommended that it be levied. t LqL6v ()7' inr 17 Af 0/0 00,500 a/ dpJ CITY OF SA GAN 0700 PILOT KNOB ROAD EAGAN. MINNESOTA 001sa August 5, 1976 Willard and Gertrude Berfelz 3285 Dodd Rd. Eagan, Minnesota 55121 Re: Water Main Oversizing Assessment Parcel 10.01200'010 28 $1022.20 Parcel 10 03800 010 12 $224.20 Dear Mr. and Mrs. Berfelz: The Eagan Assessment Committee and the Eagan City Council have both reviewed and approved your request to have the above parcels excluded from the assessment roll for water main oversizing, Project 179, which is being assessed at the 1:75 rate. It is our understanding that you hereby agree that when this prrcel is connected to the municipal water system you %fill be assessed at the rate then in effect. very truly yours, (;Ars.) Alyce Bolke clerk - City of Eagan AD: Wk. PHONE 494.8100 3a S� Aadd 2d VV7 q s 4 HAUGE. EIDE & HELLER. P.A. ATTORNEYS AT LAW WATER VIEW OFFICE TOWER, SUITE 909 1200 YANKEE DOODLE ROAD EAOAN. MINNESOTA 88121 PAUL W. HAUOE KEVIN W. EIDE DAVID G. KELLER LORI M. BELLIN MICHAEL J. MAYER Deanna Kivi Assessment Clerk City of Eagan 3830 Pilot Knob Road Eagan, Minnesota 55121 May 5, 1986 Re: Deferral of Assessments—Fred L. Maves and Erik Erikstrup, et al. Dear Deanna: : ► ARIA Coo[ 812 TtL[PNONC 486.8000 484.4224 You sent a copy of a Stipulation of Dismissal covering an assessment hearing dated May 6, 1980 regarding the Erikstrup property near Cliff Road and Pilot Knob Road. Your questions included whether interest was forgiven and whether the assessments were made at the current rate when the land use changes. The wording of the agreement clearly states that the assessments would be deferred until the property is platted, sold, subdivided or Mr. Erikstrup reaches the age of 65 and is eligible for deferment under Ordinance #66. I would read that to provide under M.S.A. 429.061, Subd.2 that any assessment may be deferred until a designated future time, or until the platting of the property or the construction of improvements thereon upon the terms and conditions that are provided by resolution of the Council. It is important, though, that the City file with the County Recorder a certificate containing the legal description of the affected property and the amount deferred. There were a number of deferments from that Thomas Lake trunk storm sewer assessment in 1980 and I am not certain whether the resolutions were filed and should mention that it was in the 1980 session that the change in the law provided for the filing with the County Recorder. The effective date, as you may know, of the requirement was that the filing should take place prior to January 1, 1982. In addition, the interest rate should not exceed eight percent (8X) except that the rate may in the event equal the average annual interest rate in the bond issue to the finance the improvement for which the assessments are levied. Therefore, the interest rate effective for the bond issue used to finance the Thomas Lake trunk storm sewer project should be the effective rate that would be used for interest which will continue to accrue until the property is platted, sold or subdivided. Ms. Deanna Kivi May 5, 1986 Page Two I would suggest that you check the Council action in 1980 dealing with the deferral of the assessments and the agreement with the Erikstrups to see if there was any other wording that may affect the agreement. If you have any other questions, certainly get in touch with me. PHH:cjb cc: E.J. VanOverbeke Very truly yours, HAUGE, EIDE & KELLER, P.A. Paul H. Hauge //21,d- &6— cd R% /L O�-CC. Gu-/��,:/ J' til( ct. LC ✓-c: C� �c {:.c. p -e 7 STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF DAKOTA Fred L. Maves and Madonna M. Maves, husband and wife; et al., William C. Tschida; et al., Appellants, VS. City of Eagan, a Minnesota Municipal corporation, DISTRICT COURT FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT File No. 90181 and 90182 STIPULATION OF DISMISSAL I Respondent. ----------------------------- WHEREAS, Erik G. Erikstrup and Shirley L. Erikstrup, husband and wife, have appealed the City Council's adoption of the Special Assessment for Proj- ect No. 257; and WHEREAS, it is now the desire of the parties to amicably resolve this cause of action dealing with the Appellants herein named; and WHEREAS, the Eagan City Council on the 5th day of November, 1980, re- viewed the Appellants' herein named request for a deferment of the payment of these special assessments pursuant to Minn. Stat. 429.061, Subd. 2; and WHEREAS, Appellants herein named will, in fact, dismiss their appeal with prejudice upon their receiving this deferral of the first installment of the special assessment. IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED: 1. That the first installment of the assessment levied upon the unimproved property now owned by Erik G. Erikstrup and Shirley L. Erikstrup and legally described as follows: Parcel I.D. No. 10-02800-010-80-9 I See attached Exhibit A _ shall be deferred until the property is platted, sold, subdivided or Mr. Erik- strup reaches the ace of 65 and is._.el.gible for a deferment under Ordinance�— 66. Said Ordinance 66 was enacted pursuant to Minn. Stat. 435.193 and the , guidelines and procedures for obtaining this deferment shall be as adopted by the City of Eagan and in effect at the date of this Stipulation. r n � 2. Upon the execution of this agreement by and for the City of Eagan, the specific appeal by the Appellants herein named is and can be dismissed. 3. That both sides shall be responsible for their own costs, disburse- ments and attorney's fees in this proceeding. A 11 Erik G. Erikstrup Appellant i Shirley L. Erikstrup Appellant -2- Kenneth P. Ketcham Attorney for Appellants 1456 Yankee Doodle Road Eagan, MN 55121 (612) 454-6981 Bea Blomquist - Mayor, City of Eagan 3795 Pilot Knob Road Eagan, MN 55122 Paul H. Hauge V City Attorney, City of Eagan 3908 Sibley Memorial Highway Eagan, MN 55122 (612) 454-4224 y s Fe' Co JACKSON y F ` - LAND $URVRrOR REGISTERED UNDER LAW* or OTATf O/ MNMCMTA .'.� LYCENSm fT ORDINANCE or C1T1 O/ WIOIfAPOLM .. - . 3010 fAWr OOTN OTRmrr PA. 44001 - rte` � A• _. :. '•�..., '-_ ._. fisc. 1 MERESV CERTIFY THAT THE ABOVE IE A TRUE AND CORRECT RAT D/ A aURVRV G/ / "=. 2 aD' That cart of the of the ".?,.1/4 of Ser -tion 28,Tcwuah!7) 27,L.artge 23 desr.ribed as follows; lin inning at the 3.h. corder of suid 1/4-1/4; thence North along the East line of said 1/4-11/4 distant 52E.0 feet; thence 'nest at right angles 435.#3 fMet; thence North at riEht angles 50.0 feet; thence Nest at right nnalea 350.0 feet; thence Soiith at right anglus along a line pwrallel with said Fant lino 24ti.f.7 feet more or less to its intersection with a line drawn parallel to Lind 321.0E feet Forth of the South line of said 1/4-1/4; thence Luat elonE said! parallel line 104.b !'set more or less to its intersection with a line drawn parallel to and 680.b feet hest of said East line; thence South along sold parallel 11ne 325.0E feet to said South line; thence East along said South line 6E0.8 feet to the point of beginningmcontaining 9.0E Area more or less. AE SURvzvga BY wt THIa-7.ShE _ DAY Dr_P49 a -.o. 1967 • _ F. C. JI V H. M1N NfSOTAIda sow 4 I° Y 1 MERESV CERTIFY THAT THE ABOVE IE A TRUE AND CORRECT RAT D/ A aURVRV G/ / "=. 2 aD' That cart of the of the ".?,.1/4 of Ser -tion 28,Tcwuah!7) 27,L.artge 23 desr.ribed as follows; lin inning at the 3.h. corder of suid 1/4-1/4; thence North along the East line of said 1/4-11/4 distant 52E.0 feet; thence 'nest at right angles 435.#3 fMet; thence North at riEht angles 50.0 feet; thence Nest at right nnalea 350.0 feet; thence Soiith at right anglus along a line pwrallel with said Fant lino 24ti.f.7 feet more or less to its intersection with a line drawn parallel to Lind 321.0E feet Forth of the South line of said 1/4-1/4; thence Luat elonE said! parallel line 104.b !'set more or less to its intersection with a line drawn parallel to and 680.b feet hest of said East line; thence South along sold parallel 11ne 325.0E feet to said South line; thence East along said South line 6E0.8 feet to the point of beginningmcontaining 9.0E Area more or less. AE SURvzvga BY wt THIa-7.ShE _ DAY Dr_P49 a -.o. 1967 • _ F. C. JI V H. M1N NfSOTAIda sow 4 PARTIES: CITY OF EAGAN called "Eagan" 3830 Pilot Knob Road Eagan, MN 55121 AGREEMENT ailed 'Owners" ADDRESS Eagan, MN RECITALS: 1. The Eagan City Council conaucted a public hearing concerning Improvement Project #472 consisting of street improvements for certain streets within Clearview Addition in the City of Eagan at its regular meeting on May 6, 1986. 2. Due to the fact that there were objections from a significant number of affected owners that would be specially assessed by such improvements, the City Council determined to improve only a small portion of the west ena of Beecher Drive, adjacent to Blackhawk Road, at the present time, with the understanding that the balance of Beecher Drivviee Clover Lane and Lenore Lane will be upgraded through an improvement projec nC some time in the future. 41 3. are the owners of Lot 6, Block 2, Clearview Addition, which will be specially benefited by the improvements intended to be installed at the present time under Improvement Project #472 but to said owners of Lot 6, Block 2, have objected to the assessments. 4. Eagan agrees to install the improvements for Beecher Drive, adjacent to Lot 6, Block 2, Clearview Addition, and further agrees that the assessments for such improvements shall not be levied at the present time. u E �1'1J 1 I-ale/k,a9 u ki 5. , themselves, their heirs and assigns, hereby agree that the assessments for a street improvement to Beecher Drive shall be levied against Lot 6, Block 2, Clearview Addition at such time as the balance of Beecher Drive to the east, is improved and assessed by the City against the other lots benefited by such Beecher Drive improvements, and further agrees to waive any and all objections to such assessments, which assessments shall be levied at the same rates as those ['�� _� assessed aih the lots east of said Lot 6, Block 2, Ase for the improvements then installed. _ CITY OF EAGAN By: Beatta Blomquist, Mayor Attest: E. J. VanOverbeke, City Clerk Dated: Dated: FA 5-14-86 _.; PARTIES: CITY OF EAGAN called "Eagan" 3830 Pilot Knob Road Eagan, MN 55121 called "Owners" Eagan, MN RECITALS: AGREEMENT Lot 6, Block 2, Clearview, Addition 1. The Eagan City Council conducted a public hearing concerning Improvement Project #472 consisting of street improvements for certain streets within Clearview Addition in the City of Eagan at its regular meeting on May 6, 1986. 2. Due to the fact that there were objections from a significant number of affected owners that would be specially assessed by such improvements, the City Council determined to improve only a small portion of the west end of Beecher Drive, adjacent to Blackhawk Road, at the present time, with the understanding that the balance of Beecher Drive, Clover Lane and Lenore Lane will be upgraded through an improvement project at some time in the future. 3. are the owners of Lot 6, Block 2, Clearview Addition, which will be specially benefited by the improvements intended to be installed at the present time under Improvement Project #472 but said owners of Lot 6, Block 2, have objected to the assessments. 4. Eagan agrees to install the improvements for Beecher Drive, adjacent to Lot 6, Block 2, Clearview Addition, and further agrees that the assessments for such improvements shall not be levied at the present time. 5. , for themselves, their heirs and assigns, hereby agree that the assessments for the street improvements to Beecher Drive shall be levied against Lot 6, Block 2, Clearview Addition at such time as the balance of Beecher Drive to the east, is improved and assessed by the City against the other lots benefitea by such Beecher Drive improvements, and further agrees for themselves, their heirs ana assigns, to waive any ana all objections to such assessments, which assessments shall be levied at the same rates as those assessed against the lots east of said Lot 6, Block 2, on Beecher Drive, for the improvements then installed. 6. This agreement may be recorded with the Dakota County Recorder. CITY OF EAGAN By: Beatta Blomquist, Mayor Attest: E. J. VanOverbeke, City Clerk Datea: 2 Dated: STATE OF MINNESOTA) sa. COUNTY OF ) On this day of , 19 , before me a Notary Public within and for said County, personally appeared BEATTA BLOMQUIST and E. J. VanOVERBEKE to me personally known, who being each by me duly sworn, each aid say that they are respectively the Mayor and Clerk of the CITY OF EAGAN, the municipality named in the foregoing instrument, and that the seal affixed to said instrument was signed and sealed in behalf of said municipality by authority of its City Council and said Mayor and Clerk acknowledged said instrument to be the free act and deed of -said municipality. (SEAL) STATE OF MINNESOTA) ) as. COUNTY OF ) On this day of , 19_, before me a Notary Public within and for said County, personally appeared to me personally known to be the person described in and who executed the foregoing instrument and acknowledged that he executed the same as h_ free act and deed. (S E A L) 0 HAUGE, FADE & ]KET.TXX P. A. ATTORNEYS AT LAW WATER VIEW OFFICE TOWER, SUITE 009 ILOO YANKEE DOODLE ROAD EAOAN. MINNESOTA 00121 PAUL W. HAUGE KEVIN W. EIDE DAVID G. KELLER LORI M. BELLIN MICHAEL J. MAYER TO: rom Hedges XX Tom Colbert Gene Vanoverbeke Dale Runkle FROM: XX Pau:' 3!3uge Kevin Eide Dave Keller Lori Bellin Mike *layer RE: Clearview Project No. Enclosed please f Development Contract PDD Agreement Easement Deed Other DATrD: May 14, 1986 Proiect #4 AREA COD[ 012 TELVHONE 400.9000 404.4224 Action requested: At the last City Council meeting there was action by the Council regarding Project x!472 relating to Clearview Addition and I have prepared a draft Agreement for Lot 6, Block 2 that might be helpful. If you have questions or comments, please let me know. gAUGE. EIDE IN KEW-Elt. P. A. ATTORNEYS AT LAW WATER VIEW OFFICE TOWER. SUITE 202 1200 YANKEE DOODLE ROAD FAOAN. MINNESOTA 55121 PAUL W-HAUGE KEVIN W. EIDE DAVID 0. KELLER LORI M. BELLIN MICHAEL J. MAYER TO: rom Hedges XX Tom Colbert Gene VanOverbeke Dale Runkle FROM: XX �Pai31`:'.aug Kevin Eide Dave Keller Lori Bellin Mike Mayer RE: Clearview Addition Im Project NO-.---- 472 - 41ynTS Enclosed please find: r �\ Development Contract PGD Agreement Easement Deed Other AREA CODs 612 TEL2PHONE 456.9000 454-4224 DATED: May 14, 1986 S, Project #47200 vr Action requested: At the last City Council meeting there -was action by the Council regarding Project #472 relating to Clearview Addition and I have prepared a draft Agreement for Lot 6, Block 2 that might be helpful. If you have questions or comments, please let me know. PARTIES: CITY OF EAGAN called "Eagan" 3830 Pilot Knob Road Eagan, MN 55121 AGREEMENT Lot 6, Block 2, Clearview Addition called "Owners" Eagan, MN RECITALS: 5-14-86 1. The Eagan City Council conducted a public hearing concerning Improvement Project #472 consisting of street improvements for certain streets within Clearview Addition in the City of Eagan at its regular meeting on May 6, 1986. 2. Due to the fact that there were objections from a significant number of affected owners that would be specially assessed by such improvements, the City Council determined to improve only a small portion of the west end of Beecher Drive, adjacent to Blackhawk Road, at the present time, with the understanding that the balance of Beecher Drive, Clover Lane and Lenore Lane will be upgraded through an improvement project at some time in the future. 3, are the owners of Lot 6, Block 2, Clearview Addition, which will be specially benefited by the improvements intended to be installed at the present time under Improvement Project #472 but said owners of Lot 6, Block 2, have objected to the assessments. 4. Eagan agrees to install the improvements for Beecher Drive, adjacent to Lot 6, Block 2, Clearview Addition, and further agrees that the assessments for such improvements shall not be levied at the present time. 5. , for themselves, their heirs and assigns, hereby agree that the assessments for the street improvements to Beecher Drive shall be levies against Lot 6, Block 2, Clearview Addition at such time as the balance of Beecher Drive to the east, is improved and assessed by the City against the other lots benefited by such Beecher Drive improvements, and further agrees for themselves, their heirs ana assigns, to waive any and all objections to such assessments, which assessments shall be levied at the same rates as those assessed against the lots east of said Lot 6, Block 2, on Beecher Drive, for the improvements then installed. 6. This agreement may be recorded with the Dakota County Recorder. CITY OF EAGAN By: Beatta Blomquist, Mayor Attest: E. J. VanOverbeke, City Clerk Datea: 2 Dated: STATE OF MINNESOTA) ) as. COUNTY OF ) On this day of , 19 , before me a Notary PubLiC within and for said County, personally appeared BEATTA BLOMQUIST-and E. J. VanOVERBEKE to me personally known, who being each by me duly sworn, each aid say that they are respectively the Mayor and Clerk of the CITY OF EAGAN, the municipality named in the foregoing instrument, and that the seal affixed to said instrument was signed and sealed in behalf of said municipality by authority of its City Council and said Mayor and Clerk acknowledged said instrument to be the free act and deed of said municipality. (S EA L) STATE OF MINNESOTA) as. COUNTY OF ) On this day of , 19_, before me a Notary Public within and for said County, personally appeared to me personally known to be the person described in and who executed the foregoing instrument and acknowledged that he executed the same as h_ free act and deed. (S E A L) 3 VI. NEW BUSINESS A. PROJECT 460, NICOLS ROAD 1 Metram Properties (10-01900-011-54) BACKGROUND INFORMATION Project 460 provided for the upgrading of Nicols Road from its previous county rural section to a city urban section with concrete and gutter, bituminous surfacing and related trailways from Kings Road on the south end to Beau D'Rue Drive on the north end. Public hearings were held on February 4 with final approval by Council being issued on February 18, 1986. Subsequent to that public hearing process, the City received the written objection from the property owners enclosed on page 0Z O pertaining to this referenced parcel. Enclosed on pages 11;2/ through o23 are the appropriate portions of the feasibility report delineating the pending assessments against this parcel in relationship to the proposed improvements. Parcel 011-54 being assessed under Project 460 is a portion of a larger 40 -acre tract that was severed when the Cedar Avenue Freeway was built. The relationship of this assessable parcel to the overall original parcel is identified by the section map enclosed on page Q I/ . Further detailed analysis indicates that Parcel 011-54 has only 1096.0' of frontage along Cedar Avenue instead of the proposed pending assessable footage of 1260. This parcel is only 82' deep at its north end and 200' deep at its south end resulting in a disproportionate frontage (1096') to its area (3.52 acres) fronting on Nicols Road. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS While this property is zoned General Business (GB) and will definitely benefit from the upgrading of Nicols Road to an urban roadway section to handle traffic movements for the future development of this property, it is obvious that the assessable frontage for this property is dispropor innate to the developable ares_ e s a f f lRis received inquires rom poten ia1 buyers/developers of this property which indicates that it will be developed. However, they have indicated that the excessive amount of the pending assessments precludes their interest in purchasing this property for development. Therefore, the staff is recommending a reduction of the assessable frontage to approximately one-half of what is presently pending. COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS/COMMENTS /9 MEITRAM PROPERTIES CO. July 14, 1986 Mr. Tom Colbert Director of Public Works City of Eagan 3830 Pilot Knob Rd. Eagan, Mn 55121 Re: Project 460 - Nicols Road Dear Mr. Colbert: Zao CCP( - tAX%LC-0 q/z-I/ZG We have learned that we are facing a special assessment of $98,847 on a strip of land we own along Nicols Road. We would like to begin immediately the appeals process to have this amount reconsidered. The parcel of land is only 3.46 acres and is long and narrow and difficult to either market or develop. We understand that the property has a lot of road frontage, but we do not understand how the assessments can possibly be so high. The amount of the proposed assessment will, in effect, render the property worthless to us. We cannot sell the land for enough money to pay off the assessments and cover the costs of the sale. If the amount of the proposed assessment is not lowered substantially, we will have no choice but to forfeit the property to the city. Is it possible that in calculating the amount of the assessment, that the city staff included the approximately nine acres we own on the west side of New Cedar Avenue? If this is the case, we hasten to point out that this parcel is not served by Nicols Road and will not be benefitted by any of those improvements. We hope you will agree with us that the situation as it now exists is grossly unfair and that our protest is very reasonable. We want your help in gettting the amount of the assessment reduced.. Please notify us as to when we may appear before the Special Assessment Review Committee and keep us informed before the Final Assessment Hearing in September or October. We would greatly appreciate a response to this letter. Sincerely, Dale Ahlquist Project Manager ao 7401 Mefrll IS(I(Ilevilr(I., tilllll`; 51.E W& Edina. hfinllesolil :i. i•I:S.i ��i H:S.. i••4111 PARCEL DESCRIPTION. ------------------ Section 19 10-01900-011-54 10-01900-011-55 Cedar Grove #1 Blk 2, Lt 12 Blk Sr Lt 4 -- Blk 8, Lt 3 Blk 8, Lt 2 Blk 8, Lt 1 Section 30 10-03000-011-25 10-03000-020-25 10-03000-030-25 10-03000-011-27 10-03000-010-29 10-03000-191-08 10-03000-192-08 10-03000-012-76 Peaceful Hgts Outlot A ; Blk 1, Lt 1 Cedar Ridge 1st Blk 1, Lt 1 Blk 1, Lt 3 Blk 2, Lt 1 Cedar Grove No 4 Blk 6, Lt 12-16 Mari Acres Blk 1, Lt 1 Mari Acres 2nd Blk 1, Lt 1 Blk 3, Lt 2 Blk 3, Lt 3 Cedar Ridge Comm Park Add'n Blk 1, Lt 1 Blk 2, Lt 1 Page 1 APPENDIX B PRELIMINARY ASSESSMENT ROLL PROJECT 460 NICOLS ROAD STREET IMPROVEMENTS FRONT LESS ASSESSABLE PROPOSED PROPOSED FOOTAGE ---------------------------------------------------- CREDIT FOOTAGE RATE ASSESSMENT 1,260 1,260 $78.45 $98r8474 155 155 $78.45 $12,160 592 592 $78.45 $46,442 130 75 55 $78.45 $4,315 166 166 $78.45 $13,008 75 75 $78.45 $5,884 75 75 $78.45 $5,884 200 200 $78.45 $15,690 75 75 $78.45 $5,884 100 100 $78.45 $7,845 596 596 $78.45 $46,782 270 270 $78.45_ $21,182— 150 -- -"150 $78.45 $11,768 712 712 $78.45 $55,856 817 817 $78.45 $64,094 285 75 210 $78.45 $16,474 236 75 161 $33.75 $5,434 225 225 $33.75 $7,594 207 75 132 $78.45 $10,330 350 75 275• $78.45 $21,574 388 388 $33.75 $13,095 280 75 205 $78.45 -$16,082 327 327 $78.45 $25,645 693 693 $78.45 $54,396 270 75 195' $78.45 $15,298 310' 75 235 $78.45 $18,436 341 75 266 ,$78.45 $20,868 C) /. 26-6ec=85 FINANCING Staff estimates this project will cost $1,178,816. Appendix A contains a detailed breakdown of the estimated costs. This figure includes 5% contingency and 25$ overhead for administration and legal expenses. This does not include any costs for easement acquisition. The funding to finance the estimated project cost will come from the following sources: 1) Special Assessments. 2) County Turn Back Funds. 3) Municipal State -Aid Funds. 4) Major Street Fund. Special Assessments: Staff proposes to assess benefitted properties adjacent Nicols Road in accordance with City policy at a front foot rate based upon the property's zoning and use. The different rates estimated for this project are: 1) Commercial/Multiple. . . . . . . . $78.45/ff 2) Full Residential . . . . . . . . . $33.75/££ 3) Half Residential . . . . . . . . . $16.88/ff Based on these rates, staff estimates revenues of $746,927. Appendix B contains a preliminary assessment roll identifying the benefitted property and listing proposed assessments. 1. Commercial/Multiple Rate: This rate proposes to include all street construction costs to build a 44-52' 9 -ton urban street, 50% of the grading, and the 8' trailway. The retaining.wall construction cost is assigned to be part of the grading costs. Staff proposes assessing this rate to school; commercial; limited, neighborhood, or general business; and multiple zoning classifications. a a Ex: 278 RCP' St. 44' MINNESOTA . DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION RIGHT OF WAY PLAT NO. 19-5 Proposed Catch Bas�ip� 0 I I 3 32 31 •30 2 9 2e CEDAR 27 GROVE 4' 6" F8— 7:' .6 9 10'' • 2. • 52' Roadway I _ • NO. 1 8' Trail .i ' Ex: 33'' R P' t: I : � � 12._ 19. 011-65 :. 30 • : I • _ -- - - - ST 74+F91- — -- DlfffeY-Road — _-rQLmty:aioad Nom 30•— .MN DOT ( I X191 -os - ROW - 011-25 a CEDAR PLAT -NO. 19-7 " • ' GROVE .. 020-25: 030-26 I : NO• 2 .. 8 ■ i 011=27- i I i O 100 - - - 40 ...... .. • ! 60 .200 city of eagan NICHOLS ROAD PROPOSED approved: standar PUBLIC STREET IMPROVE ENTS plate #: WORKS PROJECT 460 of 6 DEPARTMENT .. /'6'L.%� ,Yer,«raL __ .Ya/u.../ __._._.. _�' \ O � •. <s • l C.' i 0 cio \ ? t S c a vj .41 MIN NCSoT C " p EPT w OF rR➢ ��� � �p 4 A Nsp O NO O Jyt 0 9 5 N RIWIT 4 VVVV /y � n 4r • g ,... Qy D '� v a •- r+ � V s J jD 1 n J D I- / ._ D a o L pos we •ooaz� _ tsr . •oCxa <aaaze f • . °0..O°°0 '• ,• R .. /O4b•0 _ _ m° a eoccz° O xo do . e . s' n • w � D IA .V I f GARNET DRIVE W /O�NT • ` _ U r... _ '"d`CD.`'''y°..,."e�:.��a�.u. — S : ... _ l.. G a I: -' , � '0.. ` �` � v ., • t t -4 •I _ � D � G�z�•.—� _ —___ w.^,rmos«z�amaws,,.. , 1.: -�. .v.. ...... ,,. ..v. .�. .�--_ ... ... _... ... ••.+._....-...__... -Council Minutes September 2, 1986 - PROJECT #453 The public hearing regardidg:: aeasA¢x against Robins Addition under Project #453 was convened by 'tfiitjbX�"'Tom Colbert briefly explained the project regarding the installation of 'sanitary sewer and water main and there were no objections. Wachter moved, Egan seconded the motion to close the public hearing and approve the assessment roll and authorize the roll to be certified to the County for collection. All members voted yes. EAGANDALE COORT - PROJECT: x+56 -::ASSESSMENT HEARING The assessment hearing regarding:: rojecY4:i::#456 consisting of street and utility improvements in the:;;:SaZ;.1' pikYf area next was convened by the Frli%::C8liiev9:::kshe' assessments as proposed and no Mayor. The public works direc objections were submitted. Egan moved, Elliaon seconded the motion to close the hearing, to approve the roll as submitted and authorize the Clerk to forward the roll to the County for collection. All members voted affirmatively. HAMPTON HEIGHTS-:'fg137$(; ;:; A51 - ASSESSMENT HEARING The public hearing regarding t1* inetaTlAkn of trunk water main in the Hampton Heights Addition areau�;dP=;RsRg¢EC:i51 was then convened by Mayor Blomquiat. Mr. Colbert detailed: r:yfi!P�'eC't for the City Council and there were no written objections s$EisB'. Harry Lemieux of 1565 Violet Lane appeared and stated that he'*'•objected on the basis of no benefit to his 10 acres but stated that in the event that he developed the property or connects to the system, that he would then authorize the assessment of. his property. Mr. Colbert explained the ;gason;foxbuilding the trunk with the capacity sized to allow the developm'*iL i{*f::;$2:F.:?m::*is benefited property. He also explained that the Hampton Heig$tBev 1f p 'f':aae required to lower its storm sever line to avoid ponding on the LI proWty. Judy Lemieux also appeared as the :::gyner d a 2 1/2 acre affected parcel -y/ and objected to the assessments veAally : Mr. Colbert recommended the assessments be spread against the two Lemieux parcels over a 15 year period. Smith moved, Ellison seconded the motion to close -the hearing as to all property within the- assessment roll --other than the Harry Lemieux and Judy Lemieux parcels, and to authorize the assessment against those two parcels after negotiation with the staff, with th¢::::%nderstanding that assessments could be spread over a 15 year term, but i4 .. -*Abe event that the negotiations..,"•' with the Lemieuxe are not Bucca$6� y�:+;;xhG4:.,Lb6;.;;esseasment as to those two - parcels will be returned to the;:;:a�k� l..... Pr further. consideration. All members voted yea. •�y t, �gkt1= f & �dR� Y i ,-r VI. NEW BUSINESS B. PROJECT 428, KENNEBEC DR/CEDAR INDUSTRIAL PK - STORM SEWER 1. Ellerbe, Inc., (Tract F, RLS #4,019-00) BACKGROUND INFORMATION Project 428 provided for the installation of the trunk storm sewer system through the Cedar Industrial Park with its outlet to the Minnesota River and also included the construction of Kennebec Drive and a portion of Blackhawk Road to provide for the interconnection of these two industrial streets. The public hearing was held and the project approved on February 19, 1985, with the final assessment hearing for the trunk area storm sewer assessment being held on March 4, 1986, and the Blackhawk Road/Kennebec Drive street and lateral storm sewer assessment hearing being held on September 16, 1986. Enclosed on pages CP S and (;?q- are the written objections from the property owners relating to these proposed assessments. Enclosed on pages 3_ through 3 are maps showing the related improvements in relationship to this property. Enclosed on page �� is the final assessment roll identifying their trunk area assessment as proposed at the Mar 5, 1986, final assessment hearing. Enclosed on page 3 V is a copy of the final assessment calculations for the street and lateral storm sewer assessments for the Kennebec Drive/Blackhawk Road construction as proposed at the September 16, 1986, final assessment hearing. This property is currently zoned Light Industrial (LI) and was assessed at the appropriate zoning rates, a STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS All improvements installed were necessary to allow the development of this property at its highest and best use consistent with its current zoning. Subsequently, the staff recommends that the assessments as pronged at thp,--Ma;ch 5 and September 16, 1986, final assessment hearings fuer trunk and lateral storm sewer and street improvements be reaffirmed. COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS/COMMENTS 6t/7 0 VANCE K. OPPERMAN ROBERT J. SCHMIT JOSEPH R, KERNAN, JR. JAMES E. SCHATZ JEROME F. PAQUIN RICHARD A. LOCKRIDGE AUDREY L. ESTEBO CHARLES N. NAUEN H. THEODORE GRINDAL LINDA L. HOLSTEIN RICHARD M. PLUNKETT DIANE M. HELLAND ALISON ECKSTEIN COLTON OPPERMAN & PAQUIN ATTORNEYS AT LAW 2200 WASHINGTON SOUARE OF COUNSEL JAY B. KELLY 100 WASHINGTON AVENUE SOUTH MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 55401 TELEPHONE 10121339-0900 �(,• CJ0 vl- Y TELECOPIER 10121339-0981 G ,. Clerk City of Eagan 3830 Pilot Knob Road Eagan, Minnesota 55122 HAND DELIVERED Dear Clerk: September 15, 1986 Re: Assessments against Ellerbe, Inc. Project 428 Please be advised that the undersigned represents Ellerbe, Inc. and on behalf of Ellerbe, Inc. objects to all assessments against Ellerbe, Inc. on Project 428. Previous correspondence to you from Mr. Jeff Coleman, corporate counsel of Ellerbe, Inc., outlines our position. Sincerely, OPPERMAN & PAQUIN Kid C :� 1;7c.l:fJ�„? u 1. Richard A..Lockridge RAL: j"f ,t; cc: Mr. Jeff Coleman Ellerbe, Inc. One Appletree Square Minneapolis MN 55420 612 653 2000 Telex 29 0814 April 28, 1986 Mr. Tom Colbert City of Eagan 3830 Pilot Knob Road P. 0. Box 21199 Eagan, MN 5$121 Dear Mr. Colbert: Regarding the City's improvement assessment following concern: Project No. 428 RLS No. 4-90040 Tract F (019-00) claim for $37,749.00 for a storm and street on the above-named property, we have the It was our understanding that your request for a temporary and permanent storm sewer easement was for a trunk storm sewer drainage system servicing the City, not our property. Not at any time during the process of gaining an easement did any City representative discuss a charge is s orm ewer is may or may not—b-e-n-eflr­ our pr ere ore, we do not see an obligation to pay any amount for the storm sewer. We would appreciate reviewing with you any information which is contrary to our understanding. Sincerely, effrev Coleman General Counsel IJP C- M i' ^N^ Ellerbe Associates, Inc. Ellerbe Architects & Engineers, Inc. Ellerbe Architects & Engineers / Ellerbe Builders, Inc. Appletree Enterprises, Inc. Finance/Design/Construct, Inc. JACK 84'1 µ a CD a' ?2 -A i� i JACK 72" j R.L.S. NO.4 010-31 n F« � 4 p 1 TRACT A 2 O: O NNEeEC DR . c KE 010-50 /i2 i,i Q s 6 � i 4 J \ TRACT C TRACT F ?Q T 2 ----a-- E%. SANITARY SEWER I /- s-----< E%. STORM SEWER Np �3 R+ 4 SCALE: I"= 400' PART 3 ALTERNATE "A" STORM SEWER IMPROVEMENTS CEDAR INDUSTRIAL PARK �D� EAGAN, MINNESOTA DITCH BONESTROO, ROSENE, ANDERLIK 8 ASSOCIATES, INC. Consulting Engineers St. Paul. Minn. Date: JAN., 198511 PROJ. NO.428 Comm.49338 Jl iI 010-30 TRACT C 44' STREET KENN-DRIVE 020-00 � Q\ \ 019-00 K� PART 1 STREETIMPROVEMENTS CEDAR INDUSTRIAL PARK EAGAN. MINNESOTA 31 II 017-00 R.L.S. NO.4 TRACT E 010-28 EX. 44'STREET > TRACT H .: •• 1 I N�RT I 0 200 400 I SCALE IN FEET BONESTROO, ROSENE, ANOERLIK & ASSOCIATES, INC. Consulting Engineers St. Paul, Minn. Date: JAN., 1985 Comm. 49338 PROD. N0.428 REVISED FINAL ASSESSMENT ROLL (MARCH 5, 1986) CEDAR INDUSTRIAL PARK TRUNK STORM SEWER PROJECT NO. 428 ASSESSABLE AREA CREDIT AREA RATE TOTAL PARCEL DESCRIPTION (SQ. FT.) SQ. FT. SQ. FT. PEA SQ. FT. ASSESSMENT NW1/4 SECTION 17 01700-010-30 186,500 1869500 $0.072 $139428.00 01700-010-31 658,750 658,750 0.072 47,430.00 R.L.S. NO. 4 - 90040 TRACT A C/ -00 TRACT C G/ "= -00 TRACT F (020-00) TRACT F (019-00) SW1/4 SECTION 17 01700-010-50 01700-010-52 01700-010-53 01700-011-51 NEI/4 SECTION N0. 19 01900-010-03 01900-010-04 01900-020-04 SUBTOTAL $609858.00 270,575 270,575 $0.072 $19,481.40 1,444,010 19444,010 0.072 103,968.72 151,200 151,200 0.072 10,886.40 5249300 524,300 0.072 37,749.60 SUBTOTAL $172,086.12 43,560 43,560 $0.072 $3,136.32 ST R/W 263,650 (20%) 210,920 52,730 ST R/W 373,600 (20%) 298,880 74,720 ST R/W 10447,450 (20%) 1057,960 289,490 0.048(1) 10,124.16 0.048(1) 14,346.24 0.048(1) 55,582.08 SUBTOTAL $83,188.80 31,000 31,000 $0.072 $2,232.00 30,400 30,400 0.072 2,188.80 48,350 48,350 0.072 3,481.20 33 9-140-er, FINAL ASSESSMENT ROLL PROJECT NO. 428 CEDAR INDUSTRIAL PARS - KENNEBEC DRIVE Parcel Storm Sewer Total Description Lateral Street Assessment R.L.S. No. 4 (10-90040) Tract C (012-00) $ 4,533.30 $ 27,025.80 $ 31,559.10 Tract E (014-00) 3,698.22 22,047.36 25,745.58 Tract F (200-00) 7,416.33 44,213.27 51 629.60 --�j Tract F (019-00) 2,236.83 13,335.10 15,571.93 F� Tract H (017-00) 29216.94 139216.56 15,433.50 Totals $20,101.62 $119038.09 $139,939.77 3� CITY OF EAGAN CONSENT TO SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS PROJECT NO. 419 - SLATER'S ACRES The undersigned, for themselves, their heirs, executors, administrators, successors and assigns, hereby consent to the levy of special assessments under City of Eagan Improvement Project 1419 consisting of sanitary sewer lateral, water lateral,,services, storm sewer lateral, storm sewer trunk and street improvements, which assessment hearing was held before the Eagan City Council on September 16, 1986. It is understood that the assessments have been levied at the rate of $13,304.50 per lot within the Slater's Acres subdivision according to the assessment consideration worksheet prepared by the Eagan Public Works Director dated September 16, 1986, a copy of which is attached to this Consent. It is also understood that the objections to the special assessments submitted by the undersigned are hereby waived and that the undersigned further waives the right to appeal from any assessments relating to Project X1419. The undersigned has received a copy of this Consent and has read and understands the contents thereof. Dated: Dated: Dated: Dated: Dated: Dated: Dated: Dated: Dated: Dated: Dated: Dated: Dated: Dated: Dated: Dated: THIS INSTRUMENT DRAFTED BY: HAUGE, EIDE 6 KELLER, P.A. 1200 Yankee Doodle Road Water View Office Tower, Suite 303 Eagan, MN 55123 (612) 456-9000 Eagan Public Works Department CONSENT TO - TOWN CENTRE 70 6 100 ADDITIONS The undersigned, for themselves, their heirs, executors, administrators, successors and assigns, hereby consent to revision of the levy of special assessments under City of Eagan Improvement Project #429 consisting of sanitary sewer lateral, water lateral, services, storm sewer lateral, storm sewer trunk and street improvements, which assessment hearing was held before the Eagan City Council on September 16, 1986. It is understood that the assessments have been revised to incorporate an additional assessment due to the deletion of a ponding area on a parcel, resulting in a proportionate increase in the assessment against the remaining parcels within the assessment roll, according to the , a copy of which is attached to this Consent. It is also understood that all objections to the special assessments submitted by the undersigned are hereby waived and that the undersigned further waives the right to appeal from any assessments relating to Project #429. The undersigned has received a copy of this Consent and has read and understands the contents thereof. Dated: Dated: Dated: Dated: Dated: Dated: THIS INSTRUMENT DRAFTED BY: HAUGE, EIDE S KELLER, P.A. 1200 Yankee Doodle Road Water View Office Tower, Suite 303 Eagan, MN 55123 (612) 456-9000 Eagan Public Works Department • • Agenda Information Memo, September 16, 1986, City Council Meeting Page Sixteen FINAL ASSESSMENT HEARING - SLATERS ACRES E. Final Assessment Hearing, Project 419 (Slaters Acres) -- Project 419 provided for the installation of streets and utilities to service the Slaters Acres, Northern Oaks and unplatted parcels to the south. As indicated at the time of presenting final assessment roll*for the Council's consideration of scheduling this final assessment hearing, cost overruns beyond the feasibility report estimates were identified resulting from unexpected cost increases for easement -acquisition and r wnaa_ orders during construction. A detailed analysis of these cost overruns will be provided as part of the administrative packet prior to the hearing on September 16. All notices have to all property project. As of_ objection from Hi been published in the legal newspaper and sent owners proposed to be assessed under this this date. the staff has received a written a Construction Company pertaining to a of the as sments for sane teras resulting rrom• their request fo der to lower -the -elevation to better serve t eir future developments. The basis of their objections relate to the addition of the City's overhead to actual construction 'cost or --the order. A meeting has been scheduled with them for 9:00 a.m. Monday, September 15 to further discuss this issue. A summary of this meeting will also be provided with the administrative packet regarding the overall assessments for this project. ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED ON THIS ITEM: To close the public hearing and approve/modify the final assessment roll for Project 419 (Slaters Acres - Streets and Utilities) and authorize certification to the County for collection. *A copy of the final assessment roll is enclosed on page �j% all FINAL ASSESSMENT HEARING PROJECT NO: 419 SUBDIVISION/AREA: Slaters Acres FINAL ASSESSMEENT HEARING: September 16, 1986 IMPROVEMENTS INSTALLED AND/OR ASSESSED: F. R. Feasibility Report FINAL F.R. NATER RATES RATES 0 Area • $ 1.0 F.F. F.F. Laterals $2,206.31/Lot $1,850/Lot $698.50/Lot of D Service $,741.69/Lot $280/Lot 0 Lat. Benefit/Trunk STORM aArea ❑x Laterals $0.045/S.F. $0.045/S.F. $745.77/Lot $837/Lot SANITARY MArea FINAL F. R. RATES RATES $Z -877F —F $3 .7 F.F ❑X Laterals $5,371.78/Lot $4,133/Lot Service Lat. Benefit/Trunk STREETS Gravel Base DSurfacing Res. Equiv. NUMBER OF PARCELS AFFECTED: 25 NUMBER OF YEARS ASSESSED: 15 RATE OF INTEREST: 9.0% TOTAL AMOUNT ASSESSED: $342,369.38 CONSTRUCTED UNDER THE FOLLOWING CONTRACTS: 85-3 PUBLIC HEARING DATE: December 18, 1984 $5,787.20/Lot $4,382/Lc PROJECT 419 SLATER'S ACRES ASSESMENT CONSIIERA Total Final Assessment Feasibility Report Est. (F.H.) Net Overrun A. Typical Cost/Lot 6 Cost/FF F.H. Sanitary Sewer Lateral Water Lateral Services (S & W) Storm Sewer Lateral Storm Sewer Trunk Street Subtotal $342,369.38 280,792.00 $61,577.38 $/Lot $/FF 4,133 33.76 1,850 17.61 889 NA 837 NA 743 NA 4,382 NA $12,834/Lot $51.37/FF B. Possible Reductions/Credits 1. Sanitary Sewer Lateral a. Oversized 8" to 12" b. Unbalanced Bid c. Easement Acquisition d. Overdepth vs. Add'1 Esmt. Cost 2. Storm Sewer Lateral a. Lateral Benefit from Trunk b. Easement Acquisition 3. Water Lateral a. Easement Acquisition Subtotal C. Proposed Revised Asesssment vs. F.B. Estimate % Comparison +over/ -under Final Mot OFF 5,371.78 43.78 2,206.31 21.03 698.50 NA 745.77 of 742.50 is 5.787.20 to $15,552.06/Lot $64.81/FF Total $/Lot $/FF $79066.85 - $316.06 - $2.581 12,356.82 - 552.58 - 4.514 5,228.51 - 233.83 - 1.91 8,235.28 - 368.24 - 3.01 6,000.78 - 400.59 NA 1,507.78 - 100.52 NA 5,228.51 - 275.67 - 2.645 $459632.53-$2,247.49/Lot-$14.66/FF $13,304.57/Lot $50.15/FF 51.37/FF +3.67% -2,37% i IIM AMPAD 23.000 50 SHT. PAD ® e EFFICIENCY® 23-001 250 SHT. DISPENSER BOX To Date Time WHILE YOU WEgE OUT of PhonJA e Area Code Number Extension TELEPHONED LEASE CALL CALLED TO SEEYOU WILL CALL AGAIN WANTS TO SEE YOU URGENL/�� RETURNED Y ALL Message r Operator of 3830 PILOT KNOB ROAD, P.O. BOX 21199 EAGAN, MINNESOTA 55121 PHONE; (612) 454-8100 September 22, 1986 CERTIFIED MAIL Re: Project 419, Slaters Acres (Streets and Utilities) Final Assessment Objections Consent to Special Assessments Dear Property Owner: BEA BLOMQUIST Moyor THOMAS EGAN .LAMES A SMITH VC ELLISON THEODORE WACHTER Coumil Members THOMAS HEDGES Oty A min&otor EUGENE VAN OVERBEKE City Clerk On September 16, 1986, during the public hearing for the adoption of final assessments associated with the installation of improvements under the above referenced project, Mr. William J. Kuhlmeyer, acting on behalf of the Homeowner's Association, submitted the enclosed written objection to the proposed assessments. During that public hearing, the City Council recognized the cost overrun of the final assessment amount as compared to the original estimates contained in the feasibility report presented at the public hearing held December 18, 1984. In response to Council's direction, the staff reviewed and researched these cost overruns in detail and presented the enclosed proposed credits to the final assessment amounts which were subsequently approved in consideration of adopting the final assessment roll. However, the Council's action to approve these credits reducing the amount of the assessments is subject to each property owner removing their written objection and accepting this reduced final assessment amount. Therefore, I am requesting you to sign the enclosed Consent to Special Assessments form that was prepared by our City Attorney's office to allow these assessments to be certified to the County. Due to the County's deadline of October 15 for receiving any payments, certifications, etc., of special assessments to be recorded on the property tax statements payable in 1987, it was necessary that the Council approve the assessment roll on September 16 in order to meet that deadline. Any continuation would result in accruing additional construction financing charges and/or annual interest installments against these assessments resulting in higher costs to the property owner. THE LONE OAK TREE ... THE SYMBOL OF STRENGTH AND GROWTH IN OUR COMMUNITY SEPTEMBER 22, 1986 PAGE TWO Therefore, due to the Council's action to reduce these assessments to the approximate amount originally approved at the final assessment hearing, I would request that you execute the enclosed form and return it to my attention no later than October 1, 1986. If it is not received by that time, the City will have to remove your parcel from the final assessment roll being certified to the County and continue it to a later date resulting in additional costs of the amount to be spread as a special assessment. We sincerely regret any concerns or problems created by the cost overruns and hope that the Council's action to reduce these assessments and the finished product meet with your satisfaction. I will anxiously await your execution of the enclosed statement and receipt of same by October 1. If you have any questions regarding this request, please contact either myself or,City Attorney, Paul Hauge, at 456-9000. Sincerely, Thomas A. Colbert Director of Public Works Attachment cc: [Paul Hauge;' City Attorney TAC/cks Agenda Information September 16, 1986, Page Thirteen Memo, City Council Meeting PROJECT 428, KENNEBEC DRIVE - STREETS AND UTILITIES B. Final Assessment Hearing for Project .428, Kennebec Drive - Streets and Utilities --Project 428 provided for the installation of streets and utilities along Kennebec Drive, connecting Blackhawk Road with the Seneca Road/Comanche Drive intersection, in addition to trunk storm sewer improvements. The final assessment hearing. for the trunk storm sewer improvements was previously held on March 4, 1986, with the remaining streets and utilities for Kennebec Drive being discussed on September 16. • Enclosed on page is a summary of the final assessment roll, showing the relationship of the final assessments to the estimates contained in the feasibility report presented at the public hearing held on February 19, 1985. All notices have been published in the legal newspaper and sent to all property owners proposed to be assessed under this project. As of this date, the staff has not received any objections to this project. • ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED ON THIS ITEM: To close the public hearing and approve/modify the final assessment roll for Project 428 (Kennebec Drive - Streets and Utilities) and if approved, authorize the certification to the County for collection. 5�� FINAL ASSESSMENT HEARING PROJECT NO: 428 . SUBDIVISION/AREA: Cedar Industrial Park — Kennebec Drive FINAL ASSESSMEENT HEARING: Seotember 16. 1986 IMPROVEMENTS INSTALLED AND/OR ASSESSED: F. R. a Feasibility Report . FINAL F.R. RATER RATES RATES 0 Area 0 Laterals 0 Service 0 Lat. Benefit/Trunk STORM C1Area Laterals NUMBER C NUMBER 0 RATE OF $9 94•FF $17.89/FF FINAL F. R. SANITARY RATES RATES Area Laterals Service _ Lat. Benefit/Trunk STREETS Gravel Base QX Surfacing Res. Equiv. $59.27/FF $68,00/FF TOTAL AMOUNT ASSESSED: 139,939,71 (FR = $171-100) CONSTRUCTED UNDER THE FOLLOWING CONTRACTS: 85-5 PUBLIC HEARING DATE: February 19, 1985 0 Agenda IAformation Memo, September 16, 1986, City Council Meeting Page Fifteen FINAL ASSESSMENT HEARING D. Final Assessment Hearing, Project 417, Birchpark (Streets & Utilities) --Project 417 provided for the installation of streets and utilities servicing the Birchpark Addition and property on the south side of Deerwood Drive under two contracts: 85-9 (Denmark Avenue and Deerwood Drive. surfacing) and 85-10 (internal streets and utilities). Enclosed on page 57 is a summary of the final assessment rates and a comparison t6the estimated rates contained in the feasibility report presented at the public hearing • held on September 18, 1984. As a result of that initial public hearing, several property owners along the south side of Deerwood Drive submitted objections and pursued a reduction request through the Special Assessment Committee which was ultimately reviewed by the Council on September 17, 1985. Those final maximum assessment amounts based on benefit received as verified by formal appraisals have been included in this final assessment roll. Although there was an error in the amount identified in the notice of this public hearing, it has been corrected by a subsequent notice to those affected property owners. All notices have been published in the legal newspaper and sent to all property owners proposed to be assessed under this project. As of this date, the staff has not received any formal objections to these assessments. ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED ON THIS ITEM: To close the public hearing • and to approve/modify the final assessment roll for Project 417 (Birchpark Addition - Streets & Utilities) and authorize the certification to the County for collection. 6( FINAL ASSESSMENT HEARING PROJECT NO: 417 SUBDIVISION/AREA: Birch Park Addition FINAL ASSESSMEENT HEARING: September 16, 1986 IMPROVEMENTS INSTALLED AND/OR ASSESSED: F. R. ;=Feasibility Report FINAL F.R. WATER RATES RATES Birch Park: $433.12/Lot $467/Lot I� Area Section 22:$1120/Acre $1720/Acre. Laterals $11:87/F.F. $16.47/F.F. Service (1) $838,58/1_ot $1064/Lot ® Lat. Benefit/Trunk $10.84/F. F. $10.84/F.F. SANITARY Area ❑X Laterals Service E] Lac. Benefit/Trunk FINAL F. R. RATES RATES -$14.72/F.F. $17.04/F.F. STORM STREETS Area -_ _ Gravel Base ® Laterals Birch Park: $31.99/F.F. $31.35/F.F. $12.91 /F. F. 517.R5/F.F © SurfaCin$Deerwood $30.49/F.F. $30.49/F.F. Lots. Res. Equiv. �(1') Includes both sanitary sewer and Ovate (services. NUMBER OF PARCELS AFFECTED: 80 NUMBER OF YEARS ASSESSED: 5 RATE OF INTEREST: 9% TOTAL AMOUNT ASSESSED: $589,047.08 CONSTRUCTED UNDER THE FOLLOWING CONTRACTS: 85-9, 85-10 PUBLIC HEARING DATE: September 18, 1984 . s.,-.. / 1 1280 Deerwood Dr. Eagan, MN 55123 September 11, 1986 Mr. Thomas Hedges, City Administrator Eagan City Hall 3795 Pilot Knob Rd. Eagan, MN 55121 Dear Mr. Hedges: We have received notice that the final assessment hearing on Project #417, Birch Park Addition, will be held at the city council • meeting on September 16, 1986. You may recall that last September we were allowed to have a preliminary hearing on this matter: The city council put a cap on the assessment amount, in accordance with our appraiser's testimony, and also told us that there would be no final assessment hearing until the project was completed. However, the two retaining walls on the south side of Deerwood Drive have not yet been built. The road was paved last fall,.but the easement area was only seeded last month, so the land below -the proposed retaining wall has received a large amount of silt due to the construction, particularly near our 21" oak tree.- The Hosford and Kohler properties have received even more silt in their pond area. At one time objections were raised about this silt, and then someone dumped some logs and old lumber down the hillside. This did not stop the erosion. The June 1985 blueprints clearly show that a 75 -foot retaining wall was to be built on our property easement, and an 80 -foot wall on the easement north of Hosfords and Kohlers.. ` • Would you please explain before the hearing opens why the hearing is being held before the project is completed? We question the legality of this procedure, and object to having any assessment adopted (and therefore begin accruing interest) before this project has been completed. Sincerely, Teresa A. Fritz Bernard S. Fritz 5741 e September 10, 1986 To: Mayor Bea Blomquist E. J. VanOverbeke, City Clerk Subject: Notice of Special Assessment Project #417 Please be advised that we the owners of the property located at 1270 Deerwood Drive, wish to exercise our right to appeal the proposed assessment levied against our property. The assessment is for Birch Park Addition utilities relating to Improvement Project #417. We would also like to go on notice to the Mayor and City Clerk, of the City of Eagan of our intent to appeal this assessment to the District.. Court pursuant to the Minnesota Statutes, Section 429.081. ' Reasons being: 1. The Mayor, City Clerk and Eagan City Council are extremely insensitive to the established individual property owner and tax payer as to the financial hard- ships they impose to them. EXAMPLE Increasing this property owners annual tax $4,761.16 on top of present tax, (extra $583.00 per month) making a total of $7,000 on a $120,000 home. 2. The Improvement Project #417 concerning Birch Park • Addition utilities, has not been.completed to the engineers plans and recommendations. There are no retaining walls built (as planned and taxed) on the South side of Deerwood to prevent fill, sand, dirt, debris from sliding into said properties land. Since this was not done it has resulted in dying trees and filling up a portion of a duck pond with fill, sand and debris. Also bringing the water table down in said pond to a degree that it will not support any natural.wildlife at all. 3. There has been so many figures and estimates (all different) on the proposed taxes and assessments throughout the past 3 years that is has been impossible to plan for and manage ones financial future. And to explore the options available to individual property owners residing on the South side of Deerwood. 57,a =2- 4. The last figure we talked over and agreed upon at the Council Meeting,was $14,000 total assessment, with 15 years to pay and water and sewer deferred until hook-up occurs. 5.:..Other,reasons will be filed with the District : Court of the State of Minnesota. _Thank you for the opportunity to express ourselves concerning .this gross injustice. • Attorneys: E John and Karen Hosford R. M. Bracewell & Associates 1270 Deerwood Drive Eagan, Mn. 55123 454-8539 MINUTES OF A REGMAR MEETING OF THE EAGAN CITY COUNCIL :::::::LAGAN, MINNESOTA SEPTEMBER 16. 1986 A regular meeting of the''Eagan City Council was held on Tuesday, September 16, 1986 at 6:30 p.m. at the Eagan Municipal Center. Present were Mayor Blomquist and Councilmembers Smith, Wachter, Egan and Ellison. Also present were City Administrator Tom Hedges, City Engineer Tom Colbert, City Planner Dale Runkle, Consulting EngUeers Bob Rosene and Mark Hanson, and City Attorney Paul Hauge. .... ... ;AGENDA....... Wachter moved, Egan secon eit''''tlie'-labE on to approve the agenda as submitted. All voted in favor. MINUTES September 2, 1986 - Regular MeeG:iu ::i.:.::on motion by Ellison, seconded Wachter, it was reaolved . ;t�tBC:::$}ie iuit�tea of the September 2, 1986 regular council meeting be approved F*t#t"t:he exc .Otion on page 7 regarding liquor license investigation policy,.;t::;Lhere be an additional escrow requirement of $200.00 for each investigaE!:Oii:lieji044::..5..:persons in-state is incurred, and an additional $400.00 for out-of-state;''siiIfp page 9, regarding Kevin Murphy Building Permit, that the staff would not ie'ei'ie the permit and suggested an overall plan. All councilmembers voted yea. RIDS -'N -KINSHIP PROCLAMATION A proclamation was submitt6d:::kij(:; a;:;xGQYeaentative of the Kids -'N -Kinship requesting the Mayor declezg> the-;:::V.e'ek of September 21 through 28, 1986 as National Kinship Week to help"promote'""'the program. The proclamation was submitted and Mayor BlomquisE::::4provad:::and read the Proclamation. PARK b RECREATION DEPARTMENT - THOMAS LAKE PARK - LAWCON/LCMR GRANT City Administrator Tom Hedges announced that the City has received notification that its application for a Lawcon/LCMR grant for Thomas Lake Park was ranked No. 1 for all metrgpoll:%*:Aii:oQ=unities, and funding in the amount of $330,000.00 should be certifi:'''fY.'.:tlie:. project. The total coat is $458,000.00 with the City mat....:pg $120,0ITQ:00 from existing Park Site funds. 1 Council Minutes r September 16, 1986 Park Director Ren Vraa was :resent and shared in the announcement. Smith moved, Wachter seconded thic::;i6btion to approve the adoption of the Resolution to authorize the filing of the application and execution of a Grant Project Agreement with the State of I#£Rp sd....::en3 ;Cq:::.complete all grant documentation on the Thomas Lake Project. JOINT BUPSSVILLE/EAGAN CABLE COMMISSION Ralph Campbell, the Cable Commission Coordinator, was present and answered questions of the City Council regarding the sale of the joint cable system by Group W that is now progegding through the Joint Cable Commission. He indicated that at the meeting::::iin September 25, the Commission is expected to review the sale proposal. 1?iRL`: d #1G TAIMITY Mr. Hedges discussed the potential joint construction of a fire training facility with several neighboring cities, including Burnsville. He stated that the proposed contribution from the City of Eagan would be about $25,000.00 and that further information will be submitted to the City Council at a later time. SPE�I .O%TY COUNCIL MEETING A special City Council meeting:::::::k :::::::Wrther consider the 1987 City Budget will be held on October 14, 1986 at 7:OfT :g:tR::;at the Eagan Municipal Center. CONSENT AGENDA The following consent agenda items were submitted by the staff and recommended that they be approved;;:::;:.. 1. Contractor's License9 A'f:::'hedule of contractors, homeowners and plumbers licenses was submitted' and r'pt'ommended to be approved by the Council. 2. Personnel Items. a. Compost Site Monitor. It was recommended that Lori Belz be hired for the position of part-time seasonal compost monitor. b. Clerk Typist/Protective Inspections. The staff recommended the hiring of Cheryl Malmanger as•::R;Gt:er$•;.Typist in the Protective Inspections Department subject to success the City's physical examination requirement. c. City Administratar:•:Car Allowanc&;:: The staff recommended approval of the car allowance increa6:j�:of3.8•.q,r; tk e:: calendar year 1986 for the City Administrator. 2 .Council Minutes September 16, 1986 3. Rahn Contract 885 - as completed Valley Paving and facine - 5. The staff recommended to the Council that it accept the work for City CoCfiact;:;.%i85 ^2ti`:;;nd authorize the final payment to in the amount 4. Lexington Square 6th:;:;`•Addition - Project #485. A Petition had been received requesting the up&ading of Northview Park Road with streets and utilities to service the Lexington Square 6th Addition. It was recommended that the Council receive the Petition and authorize the preparation of the feasibility report and plans for Project 8485. 5. Burr Oak Addition - F6ject ::8484. The feasibility report for Project #484 consisting of streetg::::::and Sktilities for the Burr Oak Addition were completed and it was recommended to t3ie Councilmembers that they receive the feasibility report and order'''s''' public.: hearing for October 21, 1986 at 7:00 p.m. at the Eagan Municipal CRtt:CeF::::::::::::<:::>%;:>...... 6. Eagandale Office Park 4th Addition - Final Plat. The application for final plat approval of Eagandale Office Park 4th Addition (Compri Hotel) was submitted to the Council and it was recommended that the final plat application be approved and that the Mayor and Clerk be authorized to execute all related documents, subject to compliance •::S4ith all City requirements. 7. Eagandale Park 4th Ad submitted authorizing conn#. Metropolitan Waste Control Com was recommended that the Resol be approved. C Sewer Permit. A Resolution was Eagandale Park 4th Addition to the ry sewer trunk facility, and it upon the request of the Developer, S. Town Centre 70 Fifth Addition - Final Plat. The final plat application for Town Centre 70 Fifth Addition has been submitted and according to staff, the necessary requirements are complete. It was recommended that the final plat application be approved. Upon motion by Wachter, seeojk� : gair•,•'.;::; i:C was resolved that the foregoing consent agenda items be approved andAtiWl'orized to be implemented according to the recommendations. All vo& yes.:.?: PILOT KNOB ROAD TRUNK C41 3:::$EW L2;; :PROJECT #473 - PUBLIC HEARING Mayor Bea Blomquist convened the public hearing regarding Project #473 consisting of trunk storm sewer improvements on Pilot Knob Road in three parts, mainly Evergreen Park area, Berry Patch Park area, and the City Hall area. Tom Colbert introduced the;:;:pFa}ect and Mark Hanson of the consulting engineering firm explained tkk9:: 1:t' Sjete ;alignmenta. It was noted that the hearing was originally held:iT"y 15, 19$:it;.at which time there were several concerns and objections raise'd::::$ertaining tit :Che proposed storm sewer outlet for Mooney Lake to McCarthy Nike within the.Patrick Eagan Park, through the wooded back yard areas of seaEY:al single fas;j:-y homes. The Council continued the public hearing until Sep ;*mlXe�;:::�;fieii:::Yir: allow staff to investigate various alternatives and to meet with% tti4:::e:i`feted' 'property owners regarding the proposed alignment. 3 Council Minutes September 16, 1986 On August 5, 1986, City aiAnistrator and Consulting Engineer met with the affected property owners. The alternate report, dated September 2, 1986 was reviewed by the City Council::::;`;'}tTe;:::83'teif;8es were explained, including the following: 1. A gravity line from oney Lake "JP -7" to JP -8, along Berry Ridge Road. It was noted that deep cuts would be required under this alternate. 2. A lift station with the storm sewer line along Berry Ridge Road, noting long term maintenance would be an issue. 3. Or the storm water w0upld be::::koved to the west with a force main and lift station. It would inclikde a g'.E:4vity sewer line across Pilot Knob Road, but extensive easement acgq sition :would be required with no easements necessary for alternates 1 of..2.•.;.:.;.:,.;..;.-.,.,,.,_,:,: Attorney Tom Rooney appeased"'*'"'atid""obj*eiEted to the project and to the proposed assessments against his property. Several alternates were available to the City, including review of the benefits, proceeding on a portion of the project only, and proceeding on all the project with the City to pick up a portion of the coats. It was noted that the Council had held an.assessment hearing before ordering in the project foz_:.-:Acerwood Drive. Bruce -Pair-ick-of.-lU9 -Barr ;i#xdge: KOBQ -appeared and -asked whether the City could retain the water by 41:96harging ::%t into an aquifer, but Mr. Colbert indicated that it would not::lae;feasib2'e. There are about 250 ponds in the City and Eagan continues to use tlrem::ss:::z6:Cention ponds. Teresa Fritz of Deerwood Drive stated the neighboring 6..... $:44pport the line down Berry Ridge Road while certain owners recommended running.'.the water to the west to avoid the disruption of the pond area. The proposed lift station carrying the water through Berry Ridge Road would be located near the street and it was noted that Alternate 1 would impact substantial trees and require significant cuts. Egan moved, Wachter seconded tithe., motion;.;:::to close the hearing and approve the project utilizing AlterTd:td. 2:;end:;:;gj2G3idrize the Engineer to prepare the plana and specifications, not;iqg thaQi::Chie project is feasible and essential to the overall master plan, and 'that mos[:': -of the owners favor that route. The park commission recommended 91kErnatex-2 as the most logical location. It was noted completion is expec�;?A';; in-.- iflf{;:q:t;:J:t -.y of 1987. All members voted in favor. KENNEBEC DRIVE - PROJECT #428 - STREET S UTILITY IMPROVEMENTS The final assessment hearing,:rtg:dld {ig:Project #428 consisting of Kennebec Drive street and utility improv:&id tt-s--W":.::::jtonvened by the Mayor. Tom Colbert reviewed the assessments and,:j�t.ed an objP :}on from Ellerbe Associates. Mr. Colbert explained the benefitbs-'-Yo the affected parcels and there being no J further objections, upon mot;oirr by Wachterj:::seconded Egan, it was resolved that the assessment roll be ij5 ov,ed and:.thdiC: it be authorized to be certified to the County Auditor with:#j:ieiiGeitiaa::df.irhe Ellerbe property which would be continued indefinitely, aft9''''`th'a'C'"'tiie"'City be authorized to hire an appraiser and to hold a future hearing regarding the assessments. All voted in favor. 4 Council Minutes September 16, 1986 TOWN CENTRE 70'AND 100 ADDITIONS — PROJECT #429 STRFE:;&; iTC:ifiT:x;:MPROVEMENTS The Mayor then convengd.. the public 'hearing regarding Project #429 consisting of street and u¢kity improvements in Town Centre 70 and 100 Additions. The Mayor tuxired the hearing over to Public Works Director Tom Colbert who explained the project in some detail, including the proposed assessments, providing for an interest rate of 9% spread over 10 years, covering 37 parcels. He also explained the special request of Federal Land Company regarding overhead cost and proposed reduction in the administrative and legal fees commensurate iM--th the.;Feduction in the engineering fees. Ren Applebaum, an affectSd::owner..;r:?ras present and stated that his partners desire to dedicate a pond easement iifid requested credit from the Council for the pond area, but notedthat:GiSm;�lgevotmttxg::;hed not been signed at the time of the meeting. Mr. Colbert eo=enE0ii::::tba.t-C6Rre was no objection by the staff as to the easement grant, but that it would increase the other assessable areas slightly. Martin Colon of Federal Land Company appeared and indicated that Federal Land had no objection to the revision in the assessment and the Council requested a consent and waiver of objection from all other owners. Charles Bartholdi, attorney stated that the roll was th Council and requested 'reduct 94::. He noted that the bonds were, -:i,4' being proposed, with 1.2% '1'4 - costs. He also objected to the the corresponding work. ,:l Land Company was present and hat had been presented to the City istrativ6"iee and the legal fee. interest with a 9% interest charge collection and some other related being greater than the amount of Mr. Hedges presented the staff recommendations that no change be granted, noting that the developers could choose whether the public had the opportunity to determine whether to finance the projects through public or private contracts and such a change would.;ipvite revisions by other developers and create a precedent issue. CounpNUs. ;6f4;Cii:`;etated that it is a policy issue and the staff did not h�vg. 'a `0. fiE.e'`'[o assess the request. He suggested adopting the roll and having::slie CounaTi review the issue at a later time, noting that the purpose is tn::avoid ..S:subsidy to the developer at the expense of the taxpayer. CounciEfgBn Elli:sdn recommended there be no change in the roll, but that the Council aLjgd:::CltigS;G::charges with other cities. An amended or supplementary r01T`"'also 'wA'A"'discussed. Egan moved, Ellison seconded the motion to close the hearing, to approve the assessment roll with the understanding that the Applebaum easement area will be stricken from the roll upon the submission of an acceptable easement and a revision to the roll, provided there are no objections ,that:::;;;.4Fe submitted by any of the affected property owners. All members vOted:dYdiBEively. 5 Council Minutes September 16, 1986 BIRCH PARK ADDITION,-,.RROJECT #417 - FINAL ASSESSMENT HEARING The final assessment hearing regarding Project #417 consisting of Birch Park Addition area atree t:AAd.: util,kt.y...improvements next was convened by the Mayor. Two contracts were iiju2i.gei :.ii ja:ibg: X85-9 consisting of Denmark Avenue and Deerwood Drive surfacingarid"k85-I0 consisting of internal streets and utilities, according to A]:;: Colbert. The feasibility report was presented at a public hearing before tfi�* Council on September 18, 1984 and the special assessment committee recommended a reduction in the assessments on Deerwood Drive, based upon an appraisal covering the improvements. Objections were received from Teresa and Bernard Fritz, John and Karen Hoaford, and from Mr. and Mrs. Michael Kohler. The September 1985 appraisals provided for maximum benefit of $14,000.00 per loC:for the building parcel site on the south side of Deerwood. Karen Hosford appeared arid.::objec.led that the work was not completed and also the water area assessmenga::: e:aaegaaed...at an earlier time, according to information that she presei#[e.. - .4�4: t}?e::::CA2khcil. Mr. Colbert noted that the retaining wall was eliminated and for all practical purposes, the work is complete with only final clean up yet to be done. He recommended incorporating the appraisals into the assessments for each parcel. Teresa Fritz appeared and indicated that notices of the assessment hearing had included errors and requested reduct:idlt:::::7iecause of the elimination of the retaining wall. After exten sive;;dSCtiss%6h, Egan moved, Wachter seconded the motion to -.close the, hearing; ta: d iprove-t3je assessment roll based upon the reduction of the assessments=along.,the sq#i:th side of Deerwood Drive, according to the appraisals acquired by'EftiO:::£:3:ty.:::.:A11 voted in favor. SLATERS ACRES - FINAL ASSESSMENT HEARING - PROJECT #419 The next final assessment hearing convened covered Project #419 consisting of Slaters Acres street and utility improvements. Mr. Colbert identified the cost over -runs beyond the feasibility report estimates resulting from unexpected coat increases for ,.e ;semerit ;ac yj;0:'tion and change orders during construction. He stated that:�:a: iiricYetf :i7b'j-eetion had been received from Hills Construction Co. but that :zspreaeitfatives of Hills Construction Co. were present at the hearing and dgeired to :withdraw their objection. A number of other objectati4fe::;$'r'::o:C3k8f:propert y owners in Slaters Acres and Norvin Oaks, including:' 14:'-''o�E *t ie :i-7"oiwners were submitted to the City Council. Mr. Colbert then reviewed a recalculation of the assessment consideration with some recommendations for reduction from $15,552.06 per lot to $13,304.57 per lot. He noted that $12,500.00 had been paid for easement acquisition costs. Aubrey Hall of James Court.*:::& iewe9':::[fie history and was concerned about the increases in the rates.:::f#s noted thae'::�he affected owners had petitioned to scale back the project buE the Council prdCeeded with the original proposal and that the estimate had gon ;:;:from $12,800.": to the final cost of $15,552.00 6 Council Minutes September 16, 1986 per lot in the assessment roi:1:2 He was opposed to paying costs of the entire 18 inch storm sewer line:::i:ifnd Mr. Colbert stated the staff had recommended reduction in the total assessment. Also, there were objections to the Hills Construction Co, property beii ':?"g;aeSs d;:;;at;:::: an alleged lower rate but it was explained that it cover ed:::::d&-'..::t'hc:::f outage on Rusten Road, and that there would be internal improvement•s•:also for the development. After extensive discussion, Egan moved, Wachter seconded the motion to continue the hearing until later in the meeting' for deliberation by the property owners present regarding the recommended revision in the assessment roll. All voted yes. GROUP W CABLE The final assessment he under Project #423 then w project and there were no o to close the hearing, to ap the County for collection. PROJECT #423 — FINAL ASSESSMENT HEARING ding Group W Cable street improvements by the Mayor. Mr. Colbert detailed the Wachter moved, Egan seconded the motion i]1::::�ttr3::authorize the certification to LEXINGTON SQUARE 2ND ADDITION — PROJECT #433 — FINAL ASSESSMENT HEARING The final assessment hearing for...the':]*:trunk storm and sanitary sewer Project #433 in Lexington Square' came came then to the City Council for.its,consideration. .,Mr. Curt:;:F:eeirted the roll to the Council and explained it in some detail.;:;::::Clfsrlea gall appeared on behalf of the Trustee for the Hall property on Wesrr'o.GC:'Road aRi# submitted a written objection based upon the fact that he had not re&di ei9:4d6quate information whether or not to make an objection to the roll.He''::66jC[ed to 91.3 acres of assessments whereas, it was noted there would only be 2U'':acres that would be assessed. He further indicated that there may not be an objection after information has been reviewed and had questions about the elevation of the sewer line. Egan moved, Smith seconded the motion to close the hearing and to approve the final assessment roll with;:t;h4&:;exceptiop.::of the Hall property, which will be continued indefinitely and certification of the balance of the roll for collection. The:;:;;'Otaff`;::;:yiS9 further authorized to select an appraiser in the event it w8s:'nece4aary because of objections regarding the Hall property. All voted aff:ifmativs:ky;. SLATERS ACRES — PROJECT #419 — FINAL ASSESSMENT HEARING The Mayor then reconvened the public hearing regarding Project #419 special assessments. Representatives of the property owners appeared and indicated that all owners present.:.d1;8t"pss.ed. the proposed revisions to the assessments and approved them.::;LgBn miiYe:y;:::Smith seconded the motion to close the hearing and to authoriz&:::::;the certT:W;cation of the assessment roll as revised with the condition:'''fhat all objet:Cions will be removed, noting the final assessment would be in•:tbe sum of $13,3Q4.57 for each platted lot. All >: » members voted yea. '''"'' • 7 Council Minutes September 16, 1986 FAGAN IN6.ftTRIAL ROAD — STREET VACATION The public hearing regardfitg::::t1e::NBcatiiii::of a portion of Eagan Industrial Road at the intersection witfi:':$agn'aileie.:<':B-ivd.,was convened. Mr. Colbert was asked to review the vacation and there were no objections. Egan moved, Ellison seconded themotion to:::close the hearing and approve the vacation and authorize the execution of tFi' appropriate documents. All voted yes. 1987 GENERAL FUND — BUDGET NEARING The public hearing regard .pg the:'::proposed 1987 General Operating Budget was convened by Mayor Bea:)-lomqui:SC:and the City Administrator reviewed the budget, noting that guidelines::;had been determined by the City Council to avoid a mill levy increase in.. 19a7.,...'... Budget workshops had been held and the r total budget being considered:::;fir::::}.481;:::£x:: X289,630.00. After review by the City Administrator, thee be3.ng''fi3''6lijecYibtis;' Smith moved, Wachter seconded the motion to close the hearing and direct the City Administrator to further develop the operating budget. All members voted yea. COMPRI HOTEL — CONDITIONAL The applieation-of the CcmVrJ'::.'.0.6tgl':;il'e for liquor license was bepiijtht to the conditional approval of the;:::r"oud .tional about the fact that there would b'E':iia:::o't3i,#t Wachter moved, Egan seconded the moti6'&X:t the conditional use permit. All members vo — LIQUOR LICENSE elopers for conditional use permit Council. The APC recommended use permit. There was discussion licenses on the hotel site and :::::close the hearing and to approve ed: yea. BOW AND ARROW HUNTING SEASON The City Administrator stated:that 6e;;.;;ilsd been contacted by John Parker, area wildlife manager forst;>MiRlYeaq:t;d;::f?t:Fiartment of Natural Resources and recommended that the City perbii:t bow'-`Apj1'arrow deer hunting during 1987. The Police Department suggested eo'iltrollift all bow and arrow hunting to unplatted areas of no less than 5 acre9:::; There:::4as discussion as to where bow and arrow hunting should be allowed wik' n;: then :.£x.Ky:r;:;:;poting that a minimum size parcel should be determined for bow:::eilcl::::s;tov:ii:iiut:ipg purposes. Smith moved, Wachter seconded the motion to acknowledge the 1987 bow and arrow deer hunting season set forth by the DNR, and that the hunting be permitted in unplatted areae of no less than 5 acres with the understanding that the owner will accompany the deer hunters or give written permission to do so. All voted in favor except Blomquist who voted no. - Council Minutes September 16, 1986 ::ZVCC - WAIVER OF FIAT The application of the Mi'tiopolitan Waste Control Commission for waiver of plat to split a 5.36 acre parcel in the Cedar Industrial Park came to the Council for 4 .::the building permit was issued in 1985 for the 32,000 square f%wt maintenance facility, and on October 1, 1985, the City Council denied a re 'a . i.at to calculate user fee on the 5.5 acre area, suggesting a waiver of plat The APC recommended approval, subject to conditions. Mr. Runkle described the application and two representatives of the MWCC were present. Ellison moved, Egan seconded the motion to approve the application, subject to the following conditions: 1. All applicable Ordin'A'-&es be adhered to. 2. The Waiver of Plat s"'I*l be iiit'3bject to a parks dedication fee. -X All voted yea. KILLDEER ADDITION - REZONING The application of Michael R. Wills and two other owners for rezoning from R-2 to R-1 on Lots 6 through 13 in the Ki -1: ' W i :8er Addition next came before the Council. The APC recommended Planner Dale Runkle noted that i4b all reoidencea.constructed irk..thid;*� that :the market at the present time R-1 ::.Purposes. Mr. and Mrs. Michael Wills was present and requested apprv�:al.. WiiL�hter moved, Egan seconded the motion to approve the application, '':S':iz single family code compliance requirements. All members voted yes. TOWN CENTRE 100 THIRD ADDITION - PRELIMINARY PLAT The application of Federal Land Company for preliminary approval of Town Centre 100 Third Addition caliv.j.p.ting o.f-.-;-:-two lots and two outlots on approximately 2.5 acres The plat will allow an additional acre of land t o b .....ed W"xt' e day care facility along Lexington Avenue and the lot line was 0ff . fted .'hiking the Fall of 1985. Also, the plat created approximately a three:::*cre p4q�4el to be dedicated to the City for park purposes. The APC Bartholdi was present on behalf of the applicant. Egan move4,,.::::.U*I.,3:'ski$tl::::61tt;lbmid the motion to approve the ........... application, subject to compliance with all City Code requirements. All voted aye. FAIRWAY HILLS 2ND-:-A00�-1ON-.7- PRELIMINARY PLAT The application of Derrick:I;.h - nd Compafi'.:�:i*for approval of the Fairway Hills iyt n*'of 59 lots on 25 acres next came 2nd Addition preliminary �iconsisti :' .:.! before the Council. Dale RurLIC3,e detailed thik:::planner's report and the APC recommended approval subject::1:6 condi.tioas.,...:':':'Egan moved, Wachter seconded the motion to approve the following: 9 Council Minutes September 16, 1986 1. A variance to the ::%: grades at intersections shall be granted as discussed within this report.'" 2. Utilities shall be ex filtled::::t :::::::3:G9'''.southeasterly most corner of the development and also to the:.easterly boundary within the right-of-way stub to the Parkview Golf Course. 3. The developer shall provide the necessary documents whereby the owner of Lot 1, adjacent to the golf course and between the public street and the park area, agree to maintain a private driveway within public right-of-way. 4. The developer shall also pr�W-are documents whereby the owner of Lot 1 and 2 of the block adjacent::#G the gpif course and between the public street, and also the owner of Lot 2 ia::the bl:dtk north of the Northern Natural Gas Company easement and adjacenE"to the'-'gblf course, acknowledge the existence of public right-of-way and the :::xd$e::::City to construct a residential street within that right-of-wa)r-upoi4-'deve l'op'ment of the golf course property. 5. This development shall be responsible for obtaining all necessary regulatory agency permits prior to the City releasing the final plat for recording. bilSiiiie for dedicating a 65 foot half 6. This development shall be ..;es p,:.:.: g rightcofcway,;,f=.Pilot•.Knob,•Road::4h...s"6p.foot, full ... right-of-way for. internal public roads. 7. This development shall lie'':xGsiop9Lble for dedicating a 30 foot utility easement over the sanitary sewer and Va:tei::)WA).n extended to the southeasterly most corner of this development and a miii'="um of a 20 foot utility easement over any public utilities not installed within public right-of-way. This development will be required to dedicate a 40 foot drainage easement over the back yards adjacentto the Northern Natural Gas pipeline and a 10 foot drainage easement adjacent to rear lot lines used for drainage swails. This development will be responsible::Eor:..providing.;a 30 foot temporary construction easement along all lots adjac®ii:i d" Road Road north of the Rebecca Lane street extension. 8. This development shal:i:::: be yesponsible for the remaining trunk area, street improvements and tra :way; ass .... sn.t•9::not covered by the Fairway Hills 1st Addition. This developmeikgt►lt:asck:3i:responeible for the additional street and trailway assessments for frontage along Pilot Knob Road as a result of the parkland swap at the rates in effect at the time of final platting. 9. All standard plan conditions shall be adhered to. 10. This plat shall be : rij:ieWeq::::::bji::::; the Advisory Parks and Recreation Commission and shall be subjeo:g:tb their 'r'eeommendations. 11. Home buyers shall b.p...-.notified by.::::the developer or its agents and assigns .of the risks of ::$Being ad jacent.;e,i:the golf course and gas line in negotiating for lots adjacent; ta:::ftie:§®:: Ek�1J::krles and the method of notice shall be reviewed and approv29:::&%* :eg`xtafii` 10 Council Minutes September 16, 1986 12. The Building Ine:prtion Department shall closely monitor the construction of the dwelling'.on the corner lot backing to Parkview Golf Course on Lot 2, Block 1, and spec33J::::iai)iEBii#etRt'4DA will be given that the building pad will not encroach on the ea:9'eiiE»::::::+•: All councilmembers voted :y'Es. SUNPOINTB ADDITION - PRELIMINARY PLAT The application of RMC D&yelopment and Advance Developers for preliminary plat approval of the Sunpointe Adil:ition covering 90 townhouse units on 10.5 acres was next considered. 'j'tg AP&:..::::at its meeting recommended approval, subject to certain condittAs. `:Dale Runkle described the proposed development, noting the location.;Q.­.ihe.-north side of Diffley Road is an area that had been zoned for high:: tis :t .:::ok::y�+:::ain:its per acre. The proposed plat would include an overall density 'of''8':{"iiilYCB'`per acre with 9 separate lots, including six with 12 -unit buildings and three with 6 -unit buildings. The balance of the 44.35 acres would consist of Outlot A. The planned development provided for a 15 foot buffer and Bob Carlson, the applicant, was present and he noted that the developer will comply with enhanced landscaping in the buffer area. It was understood that.:.tbg*:cul-de-sac is under 500 feet in length and that all City requiremegGs2:a:::.b;d'complied with. Pat Hoffman also appeared -for the. developer.- Jack Willenburg, a neighbor ttg;owner;' was concerned about the use of the balance of the vacant parcel and ''wfiezliR`.;eddition al park is being planned. It was noted that there are no fur thei''pl:att:for parks in the area, except for possible tot lot installation. Another neigAbring owner objected to there being no direct access to park land and the potential that traffic volume will be excessive. He recommended an R-3 density maximum on the parcel. Dennis Castle of Jade Lane stated that the northerly parcels would generally be the least desira§jg,:;and rgo.ommended buffering along the north. The staff was concerned aligiC::Eiie:::iar}:::pattern throughout the entire development, and recommended;:tbe road.'eoiifiguration as proposed. There were also strong ::�pncernsx:i:from neighboring owners regarding the possibility of higher dens itc`•on.the:;taF$p.;portion of the parcel, whereas the planned development concept mfi1 C#e ;: sl;iipJ:i!..is on the north, with higher density moving southerly to Diffley Road. Mayor Blomquist recommended the schematic plans be submitted on the balance of the parcel before proceeding further. Mr. Hoffman stated that only blob concept plans were attachek::::rP::::Ct*;:planned development agreement. Mr. c•:::•.:.:::... Carlson noted that the in tentioCc:::�s tb$;cteYelop for -sale homeowner -occupied units throughout the entire pop., p.,;el and noted that the market now calls for unite comparable to those of'Soilthpointe on':t.be south side of Diffley Road. 11 Council Minutes September 16, 1986 Councilman Wachter reflected on the special consideration on the north area when the planned deU:dopment was originally approved and recommended reviewing the planned developtilent agreement more carefully. Blomquist moved, Egan seotitldBd:::ili ::'ritaGl-4.4:::to continue consideration of the application until a concept ;understanding is reached with the developer for the entire parcel. All memb�o voted yea. JOHNNY CAKE RIDGE 5TH ADDITION — PRELIMINARY PLAT The application of Good Yalue Homes, Inc. for approval of the preliminary plat of proposed Johnny Cake:::Xidge 5Lh;Addition came next to the Council. The plat would consist of three:*plex buildings on Outlot B of Johnny Cake Ridge 4th Addition. The plat was i0mitteQ:'by Orrin Thompson Homes and approved in 1984 but no construction had ''Eaken place on Outlot B or on the building sites in Johnny Cake Ridge 4th Add;Gio%ii::::i1e:':CCk'1 number of units in the 4th and 5th Additions would increase from 5b::tb:'68:uikits, with a gross area for the Outlot being 5.1 acres. Twelve additional units provides overall density of 7.01 units per acre with the area outside of the building sites being designated as Outlot common space. Mr. Runkle detailed the application the developer would be required to coir-€ drainage and building suitabiliC:}%::::' Hf on behalf of the Advisory PL ..T.xng'Commi owners and noted the P1Anning::..Com application. Surrounding owner:A'`'.::p.1;a understanding that open space was inteifd ited that there was poor soil and He soil in order to insure proper kle also explained the objections and the neighboring property on recommended denial of the that they bought houses with the 'r:: the site. John Peterson, the Vice President of Good Value Homes, Inc. was present as was its attorney, Lawrence Johnson. Mr. Peterson argued that the change did not alter the nature of the neighborhood and that the total proposal would be within ordinance requirements. He also indicated that the applicant was willing to delete one of the buil 1ding sitga. within the complex and noted that Orrin Thompson Romes did noE;;:CYelop;titeei'te because Thompson determined it was not feasible to correcG::-Xhe Bail ''conditions, but Good Value Homes determined it is feasible at-tTr6 presaht time. Mayor Blomquist objected that the proposal would increase;;:ghe denai.ty and it was noted that no services or stubs were installedoriginaii:j�,.to..tiiei:.eite: because of the intention that the property would not be develijQedIC';:`'f�!aa:::further noted that no homeowners association was organized at the present time but that the developers would organize such an association. The common area outlot also encompasses the parcels between the platted lots in the 4th Addition. A proposed Resolution was ..suiwR3tted to the City Council covering alternates including pro posed:':':::fitY4zali3:':nd unfavorable actions by the City .:.. Council. After extended discu9'g�nn, Blomgtil:gt moved, Wachter seconded the motion to deny the application based 40ii the reasons outlined in the Resolution attached to and.•::made a part.:.'. --of these Minutes. A copy of the Resolution was given to Mr. ft; erson during:Gke course of the meeting. All members voted in favor. ..................... 12 -Council Minutes September 16, 1986 EAtIK LIGHTING CONTRACTS Contract #86-21.t...............seconded the motion to approve award of Contract #86-21 .b,..:ti ... ... ....... :in the amount of $20,646.50. All voted yes. Contract #86-22. Wachtei iaoved, Egan seconded the motion to approve the award of the contract for the installation of light poles and fixtures in the amount of $19,200.00 to Midland Electric Company. All members voted yea. HOLLAND LAKE -::.DUNK STORM SEWER - CONTRACT #86-23 The plans and specificati-6hs for,: .:: 0)ntract #86-23 consisting of trunk storm sewer in the Holland Lake,­C],UfR'oad area were submitted. Mr. Colbert recommended proceeding wit�.*::i���iiiie:::::p.r4,4:tdt:�*::::::::: Blomquist was concerned that contacts had not been made ezted`jiroperty owners, and Mr. Colbert emphasized the need to avoid additional future flooding in the spring and that all contacts will be made with the affected property owners. Notices had been sent to the owners concerning the proposed condemnation. Bob Ferguson was present with certajn.:.9)6iieerns as was Bob Lane of Lakewood Hills Addition. Mr. Lane requpl.q:::.a':':*:"::':*he"*" contractor be given specific instructions regarding constrw;:. in Lakewood Hills because of the sensitivity of the area . andortan .. e I of maintaining access. Upon motion by Egan, seconded Smith, it was -::::'"'$p me at the plans and specifications for Contract #86-23 be approved a4:: t :-:t ....,.,.C.Ier be authorized to advertise for bids to be opened at 10:30 a.m. on 17, 1986 at the Municipal Center, subject to instructions given to ..'.fie contractor and that the staff continue to work with the property owners regarding the acquisition of the easements. All voted yes. BLACMW.&-::FLAZA. -.-FIKAL PLAT Tom Colbert described to.:IE& Cit',.�r::::'Council, the information received from Peter Stalland in the late a ffl' r noon September 16, 1986 regarding the final plat. He stated that a Letti.Y::::of Int-e;itt had been submitted but that no review had taken place in pl e t ion of all requirements for plat approval. Because all ...t . i . t:ik . :.::had not been reviewed by the ........ staff, Blomquist moved, Egan seconded the motion to continue consideration of the application until a later meeting. All voted in favor. TOWERVIEW ROAD AND )I .I.-(;II-V-ftj4:::AVENUE - CONTRACT #86-24 The bids for Contract #864�2:4::" concernihi-'::::street improvements for Towerview Road and Highview Avenue had received 4& it was recommended that the low bid from Alexander ConstrVA.T..ion Co. in the sum of $63,156.25 be approved. Upon motion by Wachter, secoig4d resolved that the contract be awarded to the low bidder '-imd;ft:&t;kiL4ihg that the final surfacing will not be completed until 1987;:':::::'&iffl"":'%t : ff ' 6 - i I i I i -'f - 6 1 i . ii X,the alternate will be included. All voted yes. 13 Council Minutes September 16, 1986 BURR OMCs ADDITION - CONTRACT #86-25 Ellison moved, Wachter :eeaatfdei#>:'cfie>`'teotion to approve the plans for Contract #86-25 in the Burr Oaks Addition and authorize the Clerk to advertise for bids in the legal newspaper with the opening to be held at the Municipal Center at 10:30 a.m. on Frid&y'; October 17, 1986. All voted yea. R. L. JOHNSON 2ND ADDITION - PROJECT #85 -BB - FINAL ACCEPTANCE The developer of R. L. Jaliikson I& Addition requested approval of Project #85 -BB consisting of a p DNate ajprovement project. Smith moved, Egan seconded the motion to accept::::::Project: #85 -BB for the R. L. Johnson 2nd Addition for perpetual maintQnance....;Al,l.members voted yea. RAHN RIDGE ADDITION - PROJECT #85 -RR - FINAL ACCEPTANCE At the request of the developer, upon motion by Egan, seconded Ellison, it was resolved that Project #85 -RR consisting -.of the Rahn Ridge improvements installed privately, be accepted and:;;th9:t the City accept the project for perpetual maintenance. All member a::vpta d;::y64`. UPDATE City Administrator Tom Hedges reviewed::CEl�:final results of the comparable worth point values for each position classaTled in the City of Eagan. He noted the Personnel Committee met on Tuesday, September 9, 1986 and reviewed the point values and recommended final action by the City Council. Upon motion by Egan, seconded Wachter, it was resolved that the Council approve the comparable worth point values and authorize the release of the information to allow the City employees to rev.iia3#::them...:.Al:l: voted affirmatively. DEERFIELD ADDITION :TOWN CENTRE 70 - EAW's The City Planning De par tprent::.;:.bd5:;:; g;o�esaed two environmental worksheets including Deerfield Additi07f ::a i3;-'T4iehk:::Cd:K.-i'e 70. According to Dale Runkle, comments had been significant regarding Town Centre 70. After discussion and upon motion by Egan, seconded Blomquist, it was resolved that the City will issue a negative declaration for Deerfield Addition and Town Centre 70 Addition, with the understanding that a traffic study will be conducted for the intersection of Yankee Doodle:•Rk�l::;::::BP.d, Pilot Knob Road under Town Centre 70 Addition. All voted yes. 14 Council Minutes September 16, 1986 PARR MOLL ADDITION - FINAL PLAT Staff recommended approval of the final plat application for Park Knoll Addition, located north of:;5#liu6::Iiati;::Road and east of Oakwood Heights Addition. Smith moved, Egan:9Pco4iii:etl::tee:Wixtion to approve the final plat and authorize the Mayor and City:.Q.erk to execute all related documents. All voted yes. The City Attorney subm program and development agr was recommended that the seconded Smith, it was reso by Sperry Corporation, enla approved and authorized to Wachter; those against were FACILITY AMENDMENTS amendments to the tax increment financing fo;;the Sperry consolidation facility and it meats be approved. Upon motion by Egan, aV:::t#ie amendments as submitted and requested he area covered by the TIF financing, be in favor were Smith, Egan and n`a.61.1I0.mauist. LEXINGTON SQUARE 4TH ADDITION - FINAL PLAT Staff recommended approval of the ;fats plat application of Lexington Square 4th Addition. Wachter moy.ed:�. .:90ait:-:'seconded the motion to approve the plat subject to compliance.;...s�XCq:::;:a%!';:;:City requirements. All voted affirmatively. BORCHERT-INGERSOLL - STORM SEW$it:'P:"9ESSMENT APPEAL - PROJECT #381 There was discussion concerning the proposed settlement of a claim by Borchert Ingersoll to commence an action appealing storm sewer improvements under Project #381. Smith moved, Egan seconded the motion to 'adthorize settlement of up to $18,500.00 based upon the information submitted by the Public Works Director and City AGto:rney...A,l};.voted in favor. GOODWILL Bbk" FIRE -?.ADMINISTRATION BUILDING There were concerns amo4 the.. ;.0 G.�.,.. Co.urc.ilmembers regarding the piles of debris around the Goodwill lidif$Aiu:;[ieto'::Eime in recent months. Blomquist moved, Wachter seconded the motion to direct the staff to contact Goodwill Industries and request that the deposits be removed on a more regular basis, or that the Goodwill box be removed because of the blighted appearance in the area. All voted in favor. 15 Council Minutes September 16, 1986 DEERWOOD DRIVE - PROJECT #455 - CONDEMNATION SETTLEMENTS The City Attorney's offidle' submitted a schedule of proposed settlements covering 7 of the 9 projj*'-tt.. :::::pini... .;:: #painst whom condemnation had been commenced in the Spring Drive under Project #455. Negotiations had taken plaC.P;:. and tentative settlements had been reached covering the following: Parcel 010-05 - TXI, Inc. (Dunn) - $4,200.00 pursuant to the City's appraisal; Parcel 020-03 - TXIs.:;Inc. (Dunn) - $4,950.00 pursuant to the City's appraisal; Parcel 010-08 - AQty Fr;aji'z - $1,050.00 pursuant to the City's appraisal plus $300:010 appriY.8al fee. Parcel 010-07 - Tti8i1' FY:aiti2:'''' $3:;250.00 per City appraisal plus $300.00 appraisal fee pursuant to Statute; and $450.00 for.any and all damage to owner's vehicle due to road construction. Parcel 030-03 - George Dougherty - $5,650.00 paid pursuant to the City's appraisal. Parcel 010-78 -Anna HeuB:X:::t' :$8d:Q:.00 pursuant to the City's appraisal plus $300.00 appraisal-::&ee,: Parcel 010-77 - Elme ''::1U1 iVr::;::r.:. $2,200.00 consisting of $1,250.00 (City's appraisal); $950.00''>$:jggage: to future lot; and $300.00 appraisal fee. ... After review, Egan moved, Ellison seconded the motion to accept the recommendation of the staff and authorize settlement according to the schedule above. All councilmembers voted affirmatively. Egan moved, Wachter secor4pd the:.Wtion to approve the following Checklist dated September 16, 1986 in Elie amout?:t.i`of..$ :.... All voted yes. ADJOURNMENT 16 M 3830 PILOT KNOB ROAD, P.O- BOX 21199 EAGAN. MINNESOTA 55121 PHONE: (612) 45d-8100 Septemberr26, 1986 Re: Project 429, Town Centre 70 6 100 Additions Revision to Final Assessment Roll Dear Property Owner: BEA BLOMQUIST Mayor THOMAS EGAN JAMES A. SMITH VIC ELLISON THEODORE WACHTER C.Mll Members THOMAS HEDGES GN Adminlstioloi EUGENE VAN OVERBEKE City Clerk on September 16, 1986, the final assessment hearing for improvements installed under the above -referenced project was held before the City Council. Each of you were sent a notice of this final assessment hearing indicating the amount of assessment proposed to be adopted by Council action as a result of that hearing. However, during the course of that hearing, certain additional information was made available which resulted in a slight adjustment to the assessable footage that the entire costs were to be spread over. Subsequently, with the same total improvement cost being spread over a smaller front footage, the rate per front foot subsequently increased slightly. Therefore, the Council adopted the final assessment roll for the above -referenced project subject to each property owner signing the enclosed consent form acknowledging that the final assessment rates as adopted were slightly higher than those contained in the final assessment roll presented for consideration at the final assessment hearing on September 16. With the general consensus of those property owners in attendance at that final assessment hearing, we do not anticipate any objections to this procedure. However, if any of you would like additional information or clarification regarding this request, please contact me as soon as possible so that we may resolve the issue prior to certifying these assessments to the County on October 10. Your anticipated cooperation in executing the enclosed consent form and returning it to my attention by October 8 will be greatly appreciated. Sincerel$, cc: .Paul Hauge, City Attorney Deanna Kivi, Special Assessment Clerk oma. A. Colbert, P.E. Director of Public Works TAC/jj Enclosure THE LONE OAK TREE... THE SYMBOL OF STRENGTH AND GROWTH IN OUR COMMUNITY �_ _ Geo '. - - G�� .�=� 3- S --ick-i-8s- am -S S �ci� e - 4Z- - C / ,f�' 7 7 // o F a - R7 .i -� cl-775- / ,5- a0 3.7ei-� // 3((-q- 3� a �s o i-5(0--.5 � 1280 Deerwood Dr. Eagan, MN 55123 October 9, 1986 Thomas Colbert Eagan City Hall Eagan, MN 55123 Dear Mr. Colbert: Thank you very much to you, Paul Hauge, and Deanna Kivi for spending the time to go through the city records with Hosfords and us. After all was muddled through, we have to agree it appears that the water area assessment was never levied against our property. We do not intend to further challenge the water area assessment. I apologize for getting excited when we then asked about checks and balances on city offices. It does make us extremely -angry to think that there is no accountability of city employee work, and that in order to force a legal assessment figure from you, we had to pay several thousand dollars in legal and appraisal fees. We believe that the city hall business should be conducted in a legal and ethical manner to begin with. This would also save the citizens a lot of money fighting the city, both in direct legal costs and the city defense costs passed on in the form of higher taxes. You were angered by our repeated reference to your previous justification of the $51,000 preliminary assessment figure for our property by the suggestion that we could sell off several lots along Deerwood Drive and recoup the $51,000. You kept ordering me not to say that, as if to imply to Mr. Hauge and Ms. Kivi that I was lying. This in turn made me extremely angry. So please reply in writing what your recollection is of your justification of the $51,000 assessment, and also what is your claim to $3300 benefit to out .property for Project 0473. Mr. Hauge never did answer us about a "ball park" estimate of what it would cost us to hire counsel to fight this new assessment. I request a written reply from Mr. Hauge, too, as he must surely retain enough contact with independent lawyers to be able to do this easily. Isn't it true that as long as the city keeps a certain critical ratio between an illegal assessment and the cost to fight an illegal assessment, that they can be assured of collecting a large proportion of the assessment roll? This is why I believe Mr. Wachter was able to boast at the city council meeting that the city hasn't had too much trouble so far collecting the assessments, and so (erroneously) concluded that there was no need to change the city's policies for special assessments. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Sincerely, , Teresa A. Fritz cc: (Paul Hauge Deanna Kivi Mayor Blcmquist HAUGE, EIDE & KELLER, P. A. ATTORNEYS AT LAW WATER VIEW OFFICE TOWER, SUITE 303 1200 YANKEE DOODLE ROAD EAGAN. MINNESOTA 55123 PAULH.HAUGE KEVIN W. EIDE DAVID G. KELLER LORI M. BELLIN DEBRA E. SCHMIDT November 3, 1986 Thomas Colbert Eagan Public Works Director 3830 Pilot Knob Road Eagan, MN 55121 RE: Miscellaneous Assessment Objections Dear Tom: AREA CODE 612 TELEPHONE 456-OOM 464-4224 I am trying to reconstruct the assessment appeals and objections that we've received to determine exactly which appeals are currently pending. The following are at least some of the objections that were received by the City Council during the Fall of 1986 and I would suggest that you review them and let me know which ones you understand continue to be in process. 1. Slater's Acres — Project #419. A new assessment hearing has now been scheduled and therefore, any objections that were raised will have to be resubmitted by property owners. 2. Deerwood Drive — Area Storm Sewer — Project #473. If I'm not mistaken, there are no outstanding appeals regarding any of the projects in Deerwood Drive, except Project #417, but the most recent storm sewer project, of course, has not advanced to the stage of assessment hearings yet. Under n .Project X417, the objections were received from Theresa and Bernard Fritz, John ani Karen Hosford, and Mr. and Mrs. Kohler. Projec#381.— Borchert Ingersoll. We are in the process of circulating the Stipulation regarding the settlement of the Borchert Ingersoll assessment objections. / $ S-0-6 Project #451 — Hampton Heights. The two objections that you received from Harry Lemieux and Judy Lemieux, as I understand it, have now been settled and of course neither has appealed the assessments within the 30 day time frame. 4t1.� Q�/r% �. Project #428 — Kennebec Drive. An objection was received from Ellerbe Associates. I am not certain whether you've had a chance to talk with anyone from Ellerbe, but I can certainly help you with that. 7Ary U�� � Thomas Colbert November 3, 1986 Page 2 �. Project #443 — O'Neil Pond Assessments. We received an objection from Robert O'Neil dated August 11, 1986 to the assessments covering the O'Neil property. I asked Mark Parranto to prepare the appraisal for the City and have not received it as yet. Very truly yours, HAUGE, EIDE 6 KELLER, P.A. Paul H. Hauge PHH:ras VII. OTHER A. PROJECT 88 6 237 - STREETS 8 UTILITIES (THOMAS LK RD) 1. Dan Dolan (10-02800-010-25) BACKGROUND INFORMATION Project 88 provided for the installation of trunk water main along the south side of County Road 30 adjacent to this parcel. Project #257 provided for the installation of trunk storm sewer. Project 239A provided for the trunk water main along Thomas Lake Road and Project 237 for the street improvements for Thomas Lake Road south of County Road 30 splitting Parcel 010-25. Enclosed on page 11d is a map showing the relationship of these utilities and streets to the property in question. The applicant's issue pertains to the deferred assessments associated with this project to the 2.2 acre parcel on the east side of Thomas Lake Road. In 1979, Mr. Dolan objected to the assessments proposed to be levied against the eastern 2.2 acre parcel. This was reviewed by the SpecAuction Assessment Committee on August 16, 1979. Enclosed on pageis a copy of the minutes from that meeting indicating the in the assessable footage, zoning rate and deferring the imposition of those assessments until the property is developed. With the recent application for the development of the Boulder Ridge Addition to the east of this property, that developer has expressed an interest in acquiring this 2.2 acre parcel for inclusion within that development. As a condition of development, the additional assessment obligations for these deferred assessments and the future assessments for County Road 30 were identified as indicated on page SO . In response to these concerns, the City had an appraisal done of the property to evaluate the increased value in relationship to the benefits received from these deferred assessments under Projects 88, 237, 239A and 257. The appraisal indicated an increased value of $24,000 as compared to the calculated assessment obligation of $26,922 for these deferred assessments. The second portion of the additional assessment obligations pertain to the prepayment for the future upgrading of County Road 30 which is anticipated to occur in 1989. It has been City policy to require all new developments to prepay any potential future assessments as a condition of development. These additional assessment obligations have been estimated at $16,561. Mr. Dolan indicates that the amount of the deferred assessments combined with the potential future assessments of County Road 30 place a financial burden on the property beyond a reasonable amount precluding its sale and incorporation into the proposed �91G Boulder Ridge Addition. Enclosed on page -15� / is the summary of the appraisal performed by the City for the deferred assessments related to the improvements installed in Thomas Lake Road during 1978 and 1979 STAFF RECOMMENDATION Based on the appraisal performed by the City, it is recommended that the deferred assessments for Projects 88, 237, 239A and 257 .be reduced to the maximum increase in property value of $24,000. It is also recommended that the future assessments for County Road 30 improvements be postponed until the time of improvement to be incorporated with that public hearing process and not as a condition of development approval. COMMITTEE RECOMMENATIONS/COMMENTS 117 I / P RD. AMID AMERICA PIPELINE 27 2�° -- — - �s" WET M 40 TAP h )a 111 ,......:•........ ' <..: ]] , 59 010-25 010-2 s ''..:.... •::•::•>:•::•::•::• ::::�-• '° d%. / :.,..... ' T :; SS 40 HEINE it LAKE o. d 4s (1 I y • M t . (2 °] / 1! Ic li I W 'r a 844711 i i c� Of fl [E MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE EAGAN ASSESSMENT EAGAN, MINNESOTA AUGUST 16, 1979 A regular meeting of the Eagan Assessment Committee met on August 16, 1979, at 7 p.m. at the Eagan City Hall. Those present were: Chairman Knight, Committee members Vogt, Smith and Egan. Also present were City Public Works.Director Colbert, City Attorney Hauge, and City Administrator Hedges. DAN DOLAN - EAGAN 40 PROPERTY A letter from Mr. Dan Dolan dated August 14, 1979, concern- ing his objection for water and street improvements on the Thomas Lake Road portion of the Eagan 40 property south of . County Road #30 was reviewed. Mr. Dolan was present and indi- cated that he had given an easement without cost for Thomas Lake Road to the City and that there was a residue of a two acre triangular parcel to the east of Thomas Lake Road. The staff recommended an assessment of 50% on the east side for water, sewer and street improvements at the normal commercial rate which is the intended use in the PUD for that property. Mr. Dolan explained that the two acre parcel could not logically be used for commercial purposes and asked that the assessments be waived because the benefit to that parcel would be substantially reduced. After considerable discussion, Smith moved to recommend that the assessment on the east side of Thomas Lake Road for water and street improvements be postponed until such time as it is subdivided or developed. Egan seconded the motion, and further that the east side be assessed one-half of the normal assessment rate for the frontage at the rates then in existence at the time of the imposition of the assessments due to the fact that the road is located in along the west edge of the two acre parcel. It was understood that the property to the west would be assessed at the commercial rate. All members voted in favor. KENNETH HASSLER - 3745 BLACKHAWK ROAD A letter from Kenneth Hassler objecting to the assessments levied against his property, Lot 6, Block 1, Blackhawk Acres in 1971 for sewer, water and street improvements based upon two potential buildable lots was discussed. He indicated that there was only one buildable lot and it was noted that under present lot size requirements, this would be true. Mr. Colbert recom- mended that the back portion of the lot on Robin Lane assessment, be reevaluated and that the lot be determined one buildable lot and an adjustment to future assessments be made according to the then existing City policy. Rahn moved and Vogt seconded the motion to recommend that the assessment be determined on the basis of the original assessment date and that interest be computed and that a determination be made as to whether credit �9 PARCEL #10-02800-010-25 ASSESSMENT RESEARCH FOR DEVELOPMENT MARCH 17, 1987 (GW) The following assessment obligations have been researched and deemed to be the responsibility of the eastern 2.2 acre portion of the above -referenced parcel: ITEM Lateral Benefit from Trunk Water Main (County Rd. 30) Thomas Lake Road Streets Storm Sewer Lateral - Thomas Lk. Rd. Lateral Benefit from Trunk Water Main - Thomas Lk. Rd. Trunk Area Storm Sewer Future County Road 30 Assessments ITEM PROJ. # 88 237 239A 239A 257 Subtotal PROJ. # County Rd. 30 Upgrading Future Lateral Storm Sewer - County Rd. 30 Future Trailway - County Rd. 30 Future Subtotal RATE QTY AMOUNT $20.55/ff 175' $ 3,596 17.72/ff 569.75' 10,096 5.20/ff 570' 2,960 6.24/ff 570' 3,557 0.067/sf 100,188/sf 6,713 RATE QTY $66.53/ff 175/ff 10.39/ff 175' 12.40/ff 250' TOTAL FUTURE ASSESSMENT OBLIGATIONS 0 "5'0 $26,922 AMOUNT $11,643 1,818 3,100 $16,561 $43,483 DAHLEN & DVVM, INC. SUMMARY OF SALIENT FACTS AND CONCLUSIONS General Description: Location: Parcel I.D. Number: Parcel Size: Zoning: Fee Owner: Estimated Market Value of Land - Before: Estimated Market Value of Land - After: Benefits Attributable to Projects #88, 237, & 239A: Date of Value Estimate: Appraiser: This is a 2.2 acre parcel of land with an older boarded up single family dwelling which is in the process of being removed. The topography is gently rolling and wooded. The southeast corner of County Road 30 and Thomas Lake Road in Eagan, Minnesota. 10-02800-010-25 2.2 acres PD' Eagan 40 Limited Partnership $48,000.00 $72,000.00 $24,000.00 June 1, 1987 Daniel E. Dwyer SPECIAL MEETING NOTIFICATION DATE: OCTOBER 9, 1984 TIME: 4:00 P.M. LOCATION: a City Council Chambers City Administrator's Office F] City Hall Conference Room ElOther Location: CONTACT PERSON: THOMAS A. COLBERT TYPE OF MEETING SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING FINANCE COMMITTEE MEETING EJ PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE MEETING E] PERSONNEL COMMITTEE MEETING nCOMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE MEETING 0 OTHER: EJ SPECIAL ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING SPECIAL A.P.C. SUB -COMMITTEE MEETING OTHER: SPECIAL ADVISORY PARKS & RECREATION COMMISSION MEETING SPECIAL ADVISORY PARKS h REC. COMMISSION SUB -COMMITTEE MEETING F] OTHER: MEETING TOPIC aSPECIAL ASSESSMENTS COMMITTEE MEETING nJOINT BURNSVILLE/EAGAN CABLE COMMISSION MEETING nOTHER: POSTED FOR PUBLIC NOTIFICATION BY THE OFFICE OF THE CITY ADMINISTRATOR DATE: October r ; 1984'IME: 12:00 P.M. A G E N D A SPECIAL ASSESSMENT COMMITTEE MEETING EAGAN MUNICIPAL CENTER 3830 PILOT KNOB ROAD EAGAN, MN 55122 TUESDAY, OCTOBER 9, 1984 4:00 P.M. I. 4:00 - Roll Call & Pledge of Allegiance II. 4:05 - Adopt Agenda III. 4:10 - OLD BUSINESS A. Project 372. I -35E Utilities & Streets 1. Francis C. Franz (10-02100-010-50) 2. Anna S. Heuer (10-02100-010-78) IV. 5:00 - NEW BUSINESS -Pending Assessment Review A. Project 411, Patrick Eaean Trunk Storm Sewer 1. George & Miriarv)Nall (10-02200-040-27) 2. Anthony Caponi (10-02200-010-80 & 84) 3. Thomas Rooney (10-02200-012-86) 4. Thomas Bergin (10-02200-011-85) V. 6:00 - Adjourn (Dinner Break) VI. 6:30 - Reconvene VII. 6:35 - NEW BUSINESS (Continued) - Final Assessment Appeals ,—�B. Project 383, Schwanz Lake Trunk Storm Sewer 1. Heide Schiela (10-02500-010-52) C. Project 384, Walden Heights Trunk Storm Sewer 1. Arthur Koestner (10-78200-030-01) t D. Project 371SR, Water Treatment Plant Trunk Storm Sewer 1. Albert Perron (10-00900-010-09) E. Project 381, Borchert Ingersoll Trunk Storm Sewer 1. Gopher Smelting (10-01100-010-76) (10-01200-010-51, 55 & 56) (over) SPECIAL ASSESSMENT CO`MITTEE MEETING AGENDA (continued) TUESDAY, OCTOBER 9, 1984 4:00 P.M. F. Project 317. Blackhawk Road Streets & Utilities 1. Jay Tscherne (10-02900-040-05) 2. James Ashworth (10-02900-010-10) 3, Robert Keuger (10-02900-010-08) 4. Darold Holden (10-02900-030-05) (10-02900-060-05) (10-02900-070-05) G. Project 368. Robin Lane Streets 1. Herbert Bergstrom, Jr. (10-14300-100-00) VIII. 10:15 - Other Business A. Special Assessment Deferment Policy IV. 10:30 - Adjourn SUBJECT. TO APPROVAL MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE SPECIAL ASSESSMENT COMMITTEE EAGAN, MINNESOTA OCTOBER 9, 1984 A meeting of the Eagan Special Assessment Committee was held on Tuesday, October 9, 1984 at 4:00 p.m. at the Eagan Municipal Center. Present were Chairman Don Knight, Mayor Blomquist, Dale Vogt, Councilman Tom Egan, and Bill Rydrich. Absent was Garrett Mulrooney. Mayor Blomquist chaired the meeting until Don Knight arrived at about 5:00 p.m. Also present were Public Works Director Tom Colbert and City Attorney Paul Hauge. AGENDA Vogt moved, Egan seconded the motion to approve the Agenda as presented. All voted yes. The Public Works Director, Tom Colbert, explained to the persons present the purpose of the meeting beingrural meeting to review special assess- ments where circumstances warrant review prior to City Council adoption. He indicated that property owners with specific questions were invited to attend the meeting and to present information that would be helpful to the members of the assessment committee in making recommi§ndations to.the Council. FRANCIS C. FRANZ - PROJECT #372 I-359 STREETS 8 UTILITIES Mr. Colbert reviewed the proposed assessments along Deerwood Drive cover- ing the Francis Franz property, noting the assessments have arisen primarily because of the improvement of I -35E and Deerwood Drive in that vicinity. A portion of the improvements have been installed by the Minnesota Department of i Transportation through a Cost Participation Agreement with lateral benefit, trunk watermain, trunk area and lateral storm sewer, street, sidewalk and bituminous trailway construction in the area. Pat Farrell, attorney with the firm of Grannis, Campbell, Farrell and Knutson, P.A. of South St. Paul, appeared for Mr. Franz and Mr. Franz also was present. The matter had been continued from the July 30, 1984 Special Assessment Committee meeting at the request of the property owner. Mr. Farrell had objections to the assessment regarding sidewalk assess- ments on collector streets, that the property has not benefited any more greatly than other property in the general area. There were objections to the rate of the storm sewer assessments against the property, noting that there are three residue parcels after the MnDOT acquisition and also that the City is attempting to assess for improvements that have been paid for through the State of Minnesota. Mr. Colbert indicated that the assessments for street Assessment Minutes October 9, 1984 improvements is based upon a residential equivalent and there was also discus- sion concerning the proposed sidewalk assessment and whether it ought to be on a residential equivalent basis. After extended discussion, Egan moved, Blomquist seconded the motion to continue consideration of the objections until a later assessment committee meeting to allow the staff to research the following issues: a. To review and submit a proposed assessment policy for sidewalks. b. To recommend revisions to the lateral assessments for areas where setback requirements may prevent building permits or specific uses under existing ordinances. c. To review City policy covering residential access locations on collector streets, including the State requirements concerning setbacks on Deerwood Drive for access purposes adjacent to the overpass. d. Further, that the assessments could be referred directly to the Council if the owner and the staff reached a general agreement relative to the assessments. All members voted in favor. ARRA S. HEUER - PROJECT #372 I -35E STREETS & UTILITIES Mr. Colbert briefly reviewed the assessments covering the sidewalk and street assessments proposed to be assessed against the Anna Heuer property on the south side of Deerwood Drive, noting there are 304.08 assessable front feet. He also indicated that there would be a future project covering the easterly extension of Deerwood Drive to Pilot Knob Road at which time it would be anticipated that the balance of the Heuer property would be assessed for street and sidewalk improvements. Mrs. Heuer's son was present and had objec- tions to the assessments. Egan moved, Blomquist seconded the motion to con- tinue the consideration of the assessments with the staff to review the same items as directed by the committee relative to the Francis Franz property. All voted yes. 2 Assessment Minutes October 9, 1984 GEORGE & mrRIAm NALL - PROJECT #411 PATRICK RAGAN TRUNK STORM SEVER The next item brought before the Committee dealt with the objections of Mr. and Mrs. George Nall regarding the large lot credit applied to the approximately 4 acre parcel owned by them on the east side of Pilot Knob Road, south of proposed Pilot Point Addition. Mr. Colbert stated the property is not homesteaded and that the largelot olicy of the City covers parcels less than 5 acres in size providing for 16, 00 square feet of assessment for each assessable acre. The Nalls request to be included within the large lot policy and also that the ponding area to the east of the property should not be assessed. Mariam Nall was present and explained the peculiar circumstances of the parcel. The staff recommended after reviewing topography configuration and proposed future development of the property, that it is highly unlikely that the 4 acre parcel would ever be subdivided and recommended that the parcel be classified as a large lot and given the appropriate credits. Egan moved, Vogt seconded the motion to accept the staff recommendations and recom- mend to the City Council that the large lot policy be adopted and that an agreement be entered into between the City and the Nalls, providing that in the event that the property is subdivided or developed in the future, that the existing rates for the development zoned category, then be assessed against the property. Mrs. Nall indicated that she had no objection to the proposal. All members voted in favor. ANTHONY CAPONI, THOMAS ROONEY 6 THOMAS BERGIN - PROJECT #411 PATRICK EAGAN TRUNK STORM SEWER Mr. Colbert introduced the subject and indicated that the three owners mentioned above who have objected to the assessments, own property south of Deerwood Drive and generally west of Patrick Eagan Park. He stated that generally the property lies within the major drainage district outletting to Patrick Eagan Park. Mr. Bergin indicated that he would not be able to be present at the meeting. The objections generally were that the property did not drain directly into Patrick Eagan Park Pond, but rather into the pond further south which was not having storm sewer improvements installed at the present time. Two lawsuits have been started, including that by Mr. Caponi and Mr. Rooney to enjoin the City from proceeding with the assessments. Project #411 has been authorized by the City Council to be installed. Larry Nielson appeared for Mr. Caponi and Mr. Rooney and objected to the following: 1. The cost of the entire project is less than the amount of the proposed assessments. 2. The property is not benefited to the extent that it is being pro- posed to be assessed. W Assessment Minutes October 9, 1984 3. Hilltop Estates Addition to the west is not being assessed for the improvements. 4. The excess amount of money necessary to install the improvements should be paid from the general revenue fund. It was noted that the assessments are not necessarily commensurate with the cost of the project, but that the funds are taken from a general storm sewer trunk fund and eventually, land in the entire City will be assessed for storm sewer trunk purposes. Tony Caponi appeared and stated that there was not adequate benefit and suggested additional ponding of water in JP -8 and Patrick Eagan Park Lake, with some overland outflow, rather than storm sewer pipes. It was noted that an outlet from JP -7 will be required at some time in the very near future. Kathleen Boyle appeared as an owner of the property along Deerwood Drive and stated that she and her husband had not been notified of the hearing for the improvements. Mr. Nielson indicated that unless the City Attorney were to hear otherwise, that answers to the two lawsuits could be continued indefinitely. After extended discussion, Blomquist moved to continue consideration of the request until a later meeting, but there was no second and the motion died. Next, Egan moved, Vogt seconded the motion to recommend the proposed assessment be referred back to the Council to review the feasibility of expanding Project 0411 to include Pond* JP -7 and further, that the Caponi property and Rooney property be deleted from Project 0411 but should be in- cluded in a proposed future storm sewer project. All voted in favor except Rydrich who abstained. HEIDE SCBIEU - PROJECT #383 SCRWANZ LABB TRUNK STORM SEWER The Committee next reviewed the proposed assessments against the Heide Schiele property located on Dodd Road, covering a 9.95 acre parcel. It was noted that the size of the parcel precluded its being considered a large lot under the City policy, but that the assessment clerk had deducted 20% for future right-of-way dedication and also 2.2 acres of existing pond over the eastern portion of the property. Attorney Ried Hanson appeared and noted the main objection consisted of a 200 foot NSP easement, indicating it would not be a benefit to that property. He also indicated that the water generally drains into the pond on the Schiela property and there is no increase in value because the water is still there. Further, in 1981, the City gave credit for the NSP easement for the area water and sanitary sewer assessments. After discussion, Blomquist moved, Egan seconded the motion to recommend to the City Council that an agreement be entered into to consider the entire policy as a large lot to provide for 16,500 square feet of assessment per acre, due to the unusual configuration of the property, the large NSP easement and noted that because of those circumstances, would not be considered as a precedent. All members voted in favor. Assessment Minutes October 9, 1984 ALBERT PERRON - PROJECT #371SR NATER TREATMENT PLANT TRUNK STORM SEWER Mr. Colbert reviewed with the Council the proposed assessments against the Albert Perron property on the north side of Yankee Doodle Road, noting that 11.38 acres of the Perron property was being assessed with a 20% credit, resulting in 9.1 acres at the agricultural rate of 0.4314 per square foot. Reid Hanson, attorney, again appeared and objected to the City land not being assessed for improvements, but it was noted that none of the City property is being assessed for this purpose and that the rate is a predetermined rate on an annual basis and not affected by the amount of the area being assessed within a drainage district. Another objection was that the property was not benefited to the extent proposed to be assessed. The staff recommended approval of the assessment roll. Vogt moved, Rydrich seconded the motion to recommend to the City Council that the assessment roll covering the Perron property be adopted. All voted in favor. ARTHUR KOESTNER - PROJECT #384 WALDEN HEIGHTS TRUNK STORM SEWER Assessment objection has been received from Arthur Koestner, an owner of property in Twin View Manor, noting that' $711.00 was proposed to be assessed after applying the large lot assessment policy, whereby only 16,500 square feet were assessed. The City Attorney and Public Works Director. -met with Mr. Roestner and reviewed the basis of his objections, noting that Mr. Roestner does not qualify for the Senior Citizens Deferment. Mr. Roestner did not appear but indicated that he was not going to further object to the assess- ments. Upon motion by Egan, seconded Vogt, it was resolved to recommend approval of the assessments to the City Council. All members voted aye. GOPHER SMELTING CO. - PROJECT #381 BORC®tT INGERSSOLL TRUNK STORM SEWER Project #381 covers the lift station and trunk storm sewer outlet from Borchert Ingersoll Pond, part of which property is located on the Gopher Smelting property. Mr. Colbert indicated a meeting had been held with Mark Kutoff and the general objections were as follows: 1. The assessments are premature for development of the property. 2. The rough topography of the property precludes feasible development based upon the amount of assessments being proposed. 3. The amount of assessments is disproportionate to the overall cost of the project. E Assessment Minutes October 9, 1984 Ried Hanson appeared for the property owner and stated the following objections: 1. The assessments are more than the total cost of the property. 2. That other land is being drained into the Borchert Pond and there- fore Gopher Smelting is required to help pay for the assessments caused by excess water from property outside of the drainage district. It was noted that part of the Gopher Smelting property is developed, that the outlet from Borchert Pond was put in out of sequence but would have resulted from earlier assessments, had it been installed in regular sequential order. It was further noted that there is an approved PUD on the property, and that the property is zoned, the land is presently being marketed and the increase in value comes from the ability to discharge water into the pond. After extended discussion, Blomquist moved, Vogt seconded the motion to recom- mend that the assessment roll covering the property be approved and forwarded to the City Council. All voted in favor. JAY TSCBERNB - PROJECT #317 - BLACRBANB ROAD STREETS A UTILITIES Tom Colbert addressed the entire project and noted there are four objecting property owners on Blackhawk Road covering streets and utilities in that general vicinity. He noted that Blackhawk Road is a municipal state aid street and certain design standards must be complied with. The four objecting property owners did not petition for the improvements and expressed objections at the time of the original public hearing. A meeting had been held with the owners by the City Public Works Director and City Attorney to review the concerns, including objections that the amount of the assessment exceeded the benefit to the property and the amount of the assessment is excessive as to what each property owner can afford on a monthly and yearly basis. It was noted that Dan Dwyer, an appraiser, has been hired by the City Council to evaluate the increase in valuation, but that the appraisals for the City have not been completed. Dan Beeson, attorney, appeared for the Tschernes and indicated the best use is single family and noted several unique features, including the 340 feet of frontage with 800 foot depth, the topography is very rough, including swamp, steep terrain and the neighboring owner is not ready to develop the property. Also the location of the residence detracts from the benefit to the property, based upon the proposed assessments. Roger Rohrer, appraiser for the Tschernes, also appeared and indicated that the Tscherne paid $70,000.00 for the property three years ago, the value is not much more today, and it is being used as single family, although the Comprehensive Land Use Guide is R - III. He stated that the assessments would not create a great deal more value 6 Assessment Minutes October 9, 1984 r even by tearing down the house on' the property. He stated that townhouses may be a logical use, and if the house weren't there, the value would increase by perhaps $15,000.00 to $20,000.00, or $5,000.00 with the house remaining on the property. Egan moved to forward the assessment objections to the City Council without recommendation. There was no second and the motion died. Rydrich then moved, Blomquist seconded the motion to recommend to the City Council that the staff recommendations be adopted with the maximum assessment based upon the appraisal submitted by the City's appraiser and in the event of development, or subdivision of the property in the future, that the assessment be increased commensurate with the area not being assessed at the present time, and that the assessments then be levied at the then current rates. All members voted yes. JAMS ASHWORTH - PROJECT #317 - BLACKHAVK ROAD STREETS & UTILITIES Mr. Colbert also reviewed the Ashworth property lying on the west side of Blackhawk Road. Mr. Ashworth was present and objected to the total amount of the assessment proposed to be assessed against his property and that the assessments were not being spread equitably amongst the individual parcels. He noted that the pond to the west is increased in its level, that there is intense development around the property and the grading on the adjacent lots is higher than his property. He further objected, based upon lack of benefit and requested reduction in the assessment. Egan moved, Vogt seconded the motion to recommend to the City Council that the maximum amount of assessments be based upon the City's appraisal covering benefit to the property and that an agreement be entered into with the property owner, that the assessments to the property be increased at such time as the development or subdivision of the property takes place, commensurate with the assessment., rates then in effect. All members voted yes. ROBERT KRUGER - PROJECT #317 - BLACKRAVK ROAD STREETS & UTILITIES Mr. Kruger appeared and noted that the north half of his property is zoned Neighborhood Business with the south half zoned Agricultural. Mr. Colbert stated that the assessment policy concerning reduction of assessments for single family purposes, generally cover only homesteaded property and in the event that the north half was reduced to Agicultural or Single Family residential rates, the assessment would be reduced by about $4,400.00. Mr. Kruger also indicated a severe driveway access problem has resulted due to the road improvements. Mr. Egan indicated that the owners along Blackhawk Road should be prepared for the September 18 hearing with an appraiser and with a representative on their behalf, if they desire to do so. Egan moved, Vogt seconded the motion to recommend that the City Council approve the assessment roll based upon the City appraiser's evaluation of benefit and that the Neighborhood Business parcel on the north be assessed at an R-1 Single Family residential rate, and in the event that the property is upgraded in use or subdivided in the future, that the property then be assessed at the then existing rates for that use. All members voted yes. 7 Assessment Minutes October 9, 1984 DAROLD HOLDEN - PROJECT #317 - BLAC®AHB ROAD STREETS 8 UTILITIES Mr. and Mrs. Holden were present and Mr. Holden strongly objected to the assessments being proposed to be levied against the Holden property. He indicated that it's not economical to run a sanitary sewer line to the rear of his property where his residence is located and further that a pond has been created on the west side of his property that did not have water prior to the MnDOT construction of I -35E. After extended discussion, Egan moved, Vogt seconded the motion to recommend to the City Council that the assessments be based upon the City Appraiser's determination of benefit to the property, that it not exceed the amount appraised, and further subject to an agreement being entered into providing that in the event of subdivision or upgrading of the property that the then existing assessment rates covering the property, be implemented and assessed. All members voted yea. HERBERT BERGSTROM - PROJECT #368 ROBIN LANE - STREETS Tom Colbert reviewed with the Committee the improvements to Robin Lane and the cooperation given by Mr. and Mrs. Bergstrom toward granting easements for the newly reconstructed Robin Lane. He noted that the objection covered Lot 10 on the Bergstrom property, consisting of a triangular parcel and recom- mended that the front footage be reduced by 70 feet from 243 feet to 173 feet due to the strange configuration of the property. This would result in an increase in the assessment per front foot along the street. Mr. Bergstrom was present and stated that he felt that the reduction should be greater than 70 feet. He noted that the gas easement and street easement infringe on the property and that the property may not be buildable except for single family purposes. Committee members inquired whether the triangle was being used to determine density for the balance of the area, noting that the property had been approved for 25 townhouse units. After extended discussion, Blomquist moved, Vogt seconded the motion to accept the staff recommendation with the understanding that the applicant can apply to the City and request a higher density which would be considered by the Planning Commission and Council, based upon the uses, noting that no guarantee of increase in density could be given by the Committee. All members voted yes. SPECIAL ASSESSMENT DEFERMENT POLICY ORDINANCE A proposed Ordinance revision in Chapter 2 covering deferment of special assessments was submitted and recommended for approval by the staff. Mr. Colbert reviewed the deferment policy with the Council and noted that eleven twin city area cities have been contacted and asked whether they had deferment policies due to financial hardship. None of the cities had such an ordinance or policy indicating that such requests were reviewed on a case by case basis. After discussion, Blomquist moved, Egan seconded the motion to recommend the City Council amend to the Ordinance. All members voted yes. 0 Assessment Minutes October 9, 1984 Upon motion duly made and seconded, the meeting adjourned at 10:35 p.m. PHH MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE SPECIAL ASSESSMENT COMMITTEE EAGAN, MINNESOTA OCTOBER 9, 1984 A meeting of the Eagan Special Assessment Committee was held on Tuesday, October 9, 1984 at 4:00 p.m. at the Eagan Municipal Center. Present were Chairman Don Knight, Mayor Blomquist, Dale Vogt, Councilman Tom Egan, and Bill Rydrich. Absent was Garrett Mulrooney. Mayor Blomquist chaired the meeting until Don Knight arrived at about 5:00 p.m. Also present were Public Works Director Tom Colbert and City Attorney Paul Hauge. AGENDA Vogt moved, Egan seconded the motion to approve the Agenda as presented. All voted yes. INTRODUCTION The Public Works Director, Tom Colbert, explained to the persons present the purpose of the meeting being a formal meeting to review special assessments where circumstances warranted review prior to City Council adoption. He indicated that property owners with specific questions were invited to attend the meeting and to present informatign that would be helpful TO the members of the assessment committee makinrecommendationsnto the n Council. FRANCIS C. FRANZ - PROJECT #372 I -35E STREETS & UTILITIES Mr. Colbert reviewed the proposed assessments along Deerwood Drive covering the Francis Franz property, noting the assessments have arisen primarily because of the improvement of I -35E and Deerwood Drive in that vicinity. A portion of the improvements have been installed by the Minnesota 1 The trial, court determined .child, support- in! accordance with Minn. Stat. 518.17,' based --primarily,. upon �the,,total, ne ,i come .of the parties. The -trial court -assessed- the fairness of -the esul :by, noting ..that it left. the Petitioner with more than her claimed eeds It left Respondent, with much less than his claimed needs.., An•_a reinforces the fairness of the result effect require the Respondent to suppo 1 previous marriage. Under -the facts of th' departedifrom-the. child: support1guidelii burden of proving, the! trial court,terred as ISSUEI­ 11 .�11 / I . a ive method, used in Oregon, require more support would in e Appellant's two children by a :ase,;the trial court ,justifiably _The Appellant has not met,her mattesof�law.,, .- DID THE -TRIAL CLEARLY ABUSE ITS D SCRETIOH IN AWARDING TO RESPONDENT A GREATER +SHARE OF THE MARITAL INTEREST 'I THE HOMESTEAD BASED UPON EXTENSIVE IMPROVEMENTS MADE PRIMARILY BY RESPOND NT. The•,trial�, court made express fi ings as to the\value of the,home and, the marital' and -non -marital portions -of, -the homestead .-based upon .-the formula of Schmitz vs: Schmitz, 309-N:W.2d 748 (Minn:S,Ct. 1981-)\\ d-these.,findings,are note challenged- here ,by Appellant. ., hat Appellant challenges 'is the division of the marital portion -of -the -home The trial court aw rded the,Respondent•a lien of $6,415.00 which amounts to 75% of the $7,340.00 increase in value due to improvements financed by the p,rties' and made primarily by the Respondent and 50% of the $1,821.00 marital portion.of,the $5,460.00 increase due to inflation of..housing.prices...: _. The increase in value due to inflation was allocated according to the 7 Department of Transportation through a Cost Participation Agreement with lateral benefit, trunk watermain, trunk area and lateral storm sewer, street, sidewalk and bituminous trailway construction in the area. Pat Farrell, attorney with the firm of Grannis, Campbell, Farrell and Knutson, P.A. of South St. Paul, appeared for Mr. Franz and Mr. Franz also was present. The matter had been continued from the July 30, 1984 Special Assessment Committee meeting at the request of the property owner. Mr. Farrell had seine objections to the assessment sidewalk assessments on collector streets, that the property has not benefited any more greatly than other property in the general area. There were objections to the rate of the storm sewer assessments against the property, noting that there are three residue parcels after the MnDOT acquisition and also that the City is attempting to assess for improvements that have been paid for through the State of Minnesota. Mr. Colbert indicated that the assessments for e street improvements is based upon a residential equivalent and there was also discussion concerning the proposed sidewalk assessment and whether it ought to be on a residential equivalent basis ,, ee � After extended discussion, Egan moved, Blomquist seconded the motion to continue t�e,consideration of the objections until a later assessment committee meeting to allow the staff to research the following issues: a. To review and submitposed assessment policy for sidewalks. b. To recommend revisions to the lateral assessments for areas where setback requirements may prevent building permits or specific uses under existing ordinances. C. To review City p icy c vering residential access location including the U1}t,/ concerning setbacks Q�pf� 1 2 The Appellant claims that thr court erred in setting the support figure so as to keep the Respondenting to work long overtime hours to meet his expenses of $1,500.00 per d 9.a cites Bakke vs. Bakke, C4-84- 110 (Minn.Ct.App. July 10, 1984) tofectll. Bakke does say that private debts, personal investments andpurchases can't be considered in setting support. The trial c different rationale. It is based the needs of the parties are us fairness of the result. They sis fair and dust. The Respondent's 11 's award of support has a completely narily on the incomes of the parties, and as a po nt of reference to assess the affirm that the child support award is isporta ion expenses are high, but they are necessary for him to earn the i come to pay child support. They are different from what would generally be ons dered "private debts" because they are ordinary and necessary expenses th® even if different vehicles are obtained. relates to the Respondent's motorcyc alternative transportation. The Appell car, partly due to the Respondent's effo to make monthly payments for his tran been debt -free if he had not been so remain in one form or another hnly a small amount of the $1,500.00 nd the motorcycle is important s the luxury of an unencumbered nd she criticizes him for having tat on. The Respondent could have Ions n helping purchase Appellant's car outright and in allocating his inc me to re bilitating Appellant's home. The Appellant suggests that Res ndent wor extensive overtime to meet his needs, but she is certainly not of ering to wo Christopher. The interests of Chris pher take i Respondent is willing to work some ov rtime. Appa willing to make an equivalent sacci ice. Some overtime in setting support; see Rreidler vs. F (Minn.Ct.App. 1984); while here 5 hours per week was 5 part time to help support ity and this is why the ly, the Appellant is not its do not consider any eidler, 348 N.A.2d 780 Deerwood Drive for access purposes adjacent to the overpass. T* trnr-�a� 3 ! 1 r edit -r a tt d. Further, that the assessments could be referred directly to the Council if the owner and the staff reached a general agreement relative to the assessments. All members voted in favor. ANNA S. HEUER - PROJECT X1372 I -35E STREETS & UTILITIES Mr. Colbert briefly reviewed the assessments covering the sidewalk and street assessments proposed to be assessed against the Anna Heuer property on the south side of Deerwood Drive, noting there t*qy�04.08 assessable front feet. He also indicated that there would be a future project covering the easterly extension of Deerwood Drive to Pilot Knob Road at which time it would be anticipated that the balance of the Heuer property would be assessed for street and sidewalk improvements. Mrs. Heuer's son was present and had objections to the assessments. Egan moved, Blomquist seconded the motion to continue the consideration of the assessments with the staff to review the same items as directed by the committee relative to the Francis Franz property. All voted yes. GEORGE & MIRIAM MALL - PROJECT #411 PATRICK EAGAN TRUNK STORM SEWER The next item brought before the Committee dealt with the objections of Mr. and Mrs. George Nall regarding the large lot credit applied to the approximately 4 acre parcel owned by them on the east side of Pilot Knob Road, south of proposed Pilot Point Addition. Mr. Colbert stated the property is not homesteaded and that the large lot policy of the City covers parcels less than 5 acres in size providing for 16,000 square f, t of assessment for each assessable acre. The Nalls requested to be included within the large lot 3 TABLE OF A ORITIES - PAGE CASES: Bakke vs. Bakke, C4-84-110 (Minn.Ct App. Ju y 10, 1984) . . . . . 3, 6 Bogen vs. Bogen, 261 N.W. 2d 606 (M nn.S.0 1977) . . . . . . . . 9 Faus vs. Faus, 319 N.W. 2d 408 at 12 (Mi n.S.Ct. 1982) . . 9, 10 Gale vs. Commissioner of Taxation, 28 Mi 345,,.. 37 N.W. 2d 711 (1949) . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 Kelly vs. Kelly, C6-83-1863 (Minn.Ct App. May.29, 1984) . . . . . 8 Kreidler'vs. Kreidler, 348 N.W. 2d 7 0 ( inn.Ct.App. 1984) . . . . 5, 6 Letourneau vs. Letourneau, C3-83-1710 (M nn.Ct.App.. July 6, 1984) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 Reck vs. Reek, 346 N.W. 2d 675 (Minn.0 Ap. 1984) . . . . . . . . 9 Ruzic vs. Ruzic, 218 N.W. 2d 502 (Minn. .Ct. 1979) . . . . . . . 8 .. .. - Schmitz vs. Schmitz, 309 N.W. 2d 748 ( i n.S.Ct. 1981) . . . . . . 2, 7, 8 Smith vs. Smith, 626 P.2d 342 (Sup.Ct. r. 1981) . . . . . . . 5 Stassen vs. Stassen, C8-83-1492 (Minn Ct.A p. June,19, 1984) 8, 9 STATUTES: Minn. Stat. 518.17- . . . 3, 6 - Minn. Stat.o518.17,-Subd. 4. .- 2, 3, 4,-5 Minn. Stat. 518.17, Subd. 5: . ... . . . .. . . . . . . . 2, 3, 5, Minn. Stat. 518.551, Subd. 5 . . ., .. . . . . . . . . . 2 Minn. Stat. 518.58 ..... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8, 10 Minn. Stat. '645.17 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 SECONDARY AUTHORITIES: Franks, "How to Calculate Child Support", 86 Case & Comment 3 ('Jana Feb. 1981). policy and alsot' he ponding area to the east of the property should not be assessed. Mariam Nall was present and explained the peculiar circumstances of the parcel. The staff recommended tq after reviewing topography ,and-- configuration and ex#�g proposed future development of the propertyr' ll highly unlikely that the 4 acre parcel would ever be subdivided and recommended that the parcel be classified as a large lot and given the appropriate credits. Egan moved, Vogt seconded the motion to accept the staff recommendations and recommend to the City Council that � laarge lot policy be adopted and that an agreement be entered into between the City and the Nalls, providing that in the event that the property is subdivided or developed in the future, that the existing rates for the development zoned category, then be assessed against the property. Mrs. Nall indicated that she had no objection to the proposal. All members voted in favor. ANTHONY CAPONI, THOMAS ROONEY & THOMAS BERGIN - PROJECT #411 PATRICK EAGAN TRUNK STORM SEWER Mr. Colbert introduced the subject and indicated that the three owners mentioned above who have objected to the assessments, own property south of Deerwood Drive and generally west of Patrick Eagan Park. He stated that generally the property lies within the major drainage district outletting to Patrick Eagan Park. Mr. Bergin indicated that he would not be able to be present at the meeting. The objections generally were that the property did not drain directly into Patrick Eagan Park Pond, but rather into the pond further south which was not having storm sewer improvements installed at the present time. Two lawsuits have been started, including that by Mr. Caponi and Mr. Rooney to enjoin the City from proceeding with the assessme . UT Project #411 has been authorized by the City Council to be installed. Larry Nielson appeared for Mr. Caponi�and Mr. Rooney,_ ice, 4 The trial court determined child support in accordance with Minn. Stat. 518.17, based primarily upon the total net income of the parties. The trial court assessed t e fairness of the result by noting that it left the Petitioner with mo than her claimed needs. It left Respondent with much less than his alai ed needs. An alternative method, used in Oregon, reinforces the fairne s of the result. To require more support would in effect require the Resp ndent to supp t the Appellant's two children by a previous marriage. Under the facts of his case, the trial court justifiably departed from the child s pport guid lines. The Appellant has not met her burden of proving the trial ourt err as a matter of law. DID THE TRIAL CLEARLY A GREATER SHARE OF THE MARITAL IMPROVEMENTS MADE PRIMARILY BY R The trial court made marital and non -marital port Schmitz vs. Schmitz, 309 N.W not challenged here by Appel', of the marital portion of thi lien of $6,415.00 which amoun to improvements financed by and 50% of the $1,821.00 mai inflation of housing prices. The increase in value d II S DISCRETION IN AWARDING TO RESPONDENT A IN THE HOMESTEAD BASED UPON EXTENSIVE ings as to the value of the home and the s o the homestead based upon the formula of d 748 (Minn.S.Ct. 1981) and these findings are nt. W t Appellant challenges is the division home. The trial court awarded the Respondent a -s to 75 of the $7,340.00 increase in value due he part es and made primarily by the Respondent ital p rtion of the $5,460.00 increase due to flation was allocated according to the 7 M=a oGney--appeared and objected to the following: 1. The cost of the entire project is less than the amount of the 1. proposed assessments. Y2 -e --t- 2. Z15e the property is not benefited to the exteneing proposed to be assessed. 3. *e Hilltop Estates Addition to the west is not being assessed for improvements. 4. %at he excess amount of money necessary to install the improvements be paid from the general revenue fund. It was noted that the assessments are not necessarily commensurate with the cost of the project, but that the funds are taken from a general storm sewer trunk fund and eventually, land in the entire City will be assessed for storm sewer trunk purposes. Tony Caponi appeared and stated that there was not adequate benefit and suggested additional ponding of water in JP -8 and Patrick Eagan Park Lake, with some overland outflow, rather than storm sewer pipes. It was noted that an outlet from JP -7 will be required at some time in the very near future. Kathleen Boyle appeared as an owner of the property along Deerwood Drive and stated that she and her husband had not been notified of the hearing for the improvements. Mr. Nielson indicated that unless the City Attorney were to hear otherwise, that answers to the two lawsuits could be continu���ejjd indefinitely. Tfter extended discussion, Blomquist moved to continue ?l consideration of the request until a later meeting, but there was no second and the motion died. Next, Egan moved, Vogt seconded the motion to recommend the proposed assessment be referred back to the Council to review the feasibility of expanding Project 0411 to include Pond JP -7 and further, that the Caponi property and Rooney property be deleted from Project 0411 but �e included in a proposed future storm sewer project. All voted in favor except Rydrich who abstained. E The Appellant claims that' the' trial' court"erred in setting the support figure so -as to keep\he Respondent, from -having to work long'overtime hours to meet his expenses of $1,500.00 per month and she cites Bakke vs: Bskke. C4 -84- -I inn. Ct:App.July 0, 1984) to that effect. Bakke does say -that private debts, personal invest ents and luxury purchases-can't"be con'si'dered in setting support. The't ial court's' award of' support 'ties a completely different rationale. It is used primarily on the incomes of the parties, and the 'needs ofl the'parties`a used'as'a'point of reference'to assess the fairness of the result. They imply"aff'rm that'the child'support award is -fair, and- just: The Respondent' transp rtation expenses are high', bu't they rare necessary for him-to'earn he'in ome`to pay ch'iTd "support. They 'are different from what would 'general) b considered''"private debts" because they 'rare ordinary and 'necessary expense "hat will remainr'in one''form or another even if different vehicles are A ed: Only a small' amount of the $1,500:00 'relates' to the Respondent's cle and the motorcycle 'is"important alternative transportation.' -Tl int'`tias' the luxury -'of an 'unencumbered car,' partly due to the Respondefo ts; 'and she critioizes him for having to make monthly payments for 'hisnsp station. "The Respondent 'could have been debt=free if tfe' tiad' not bgen 'rows' in helping" purchase Appellant's oar outri'ght'and in'all'ocating ome "rehabilitating Appellant's home.• 'The Appellant suggests thponde 'Work '',extensive overtime to 'meet his needs,''but'she' is certainlyfering to work" part`time'to`help'support 'Christopher.' The interests �ofopher' ke"priority and 'this is 'why the Re'spondent'is willing to work spme' overtime' Apparently, 'the Appellant is not •willing to make an equivalent sac'rifi'ce.`' Some 'courts do not'c'on"sirder'a� overtime in setting support;) see tKreidl 'r vi `'Rreidl'er', '348 'N.W.2d 780 (Minn.Ct.App. 1984); while here 5 hours-06r week was considered: IN HEIDE SCHIELA - PROJECT #383 - SCHWANZ LAKE TRUNK STORM SEWER The Committee next reviewed the proposed assessments against Heide Schie1 Flo ate on Dodd Road, covering a 9.95 acre parcel. It was noted that the size of the parcel precluded its being considered a large lot under the City policy, but that the assessment clerk had deducted 20% for future right- of-way dedication and also 2.2 acres of existing pond over the eastern portion of the property. Attorney Ried Hanson appeared and noted the main objection consisted of a 200 foot NSP easement, indicating it would not be a benefit to that property. He also indicated that the water generally drains into the pond on the Schiela property and there is no increase in value because the water is still there. Further, in 1981, the City gave credit for the NSP easement for the area water and sanitary sewer assessments. After discussion, Blomquist moved, Egan seconded the motion to recommend to the City Council that an agreement be entered into to consider the entire policy as a large lot to provide for 16,500 square feet of assessment per acre, due to the unusual configuration of the property, the large NSP easement and noted that because of those circumstances, would not be considered as a precedent. All members voted in favor. ALBERT PERRON - PROJECT 0371SR WATER TREATMENT PLANT TRUNK STORM SEWER Mr. Colbert reviewed with the Council the proposed assessments against the Albert Perron property on the north side of Yankee Doodle Road, noting that 11.38 acres of the Perron property was being assessed with a 20% credit, resulting in 9.1 acres at the agricultural rate of 0.4314 per square foot. Reid Hanson, attorney, again appeared and objected to the City land not being assessed for improvements, but it was noted that none of the City property is being assessed for this purpose and that the rate is a predetermined rate on E TABLE OF:- AUTHORITIES PAGE CASES: . Bakke vs..Bakke, C4-84-110 (Minn.0 .App. July 10, 1984) . . . . . 3, 6 Bogen vs. Bogen, 261 N.W. 2d:606 Minn.S.Ct. 977) . . . . . . . . 9 Faus,vs. Faus, 319.N.W. 2d 408 t 412 (Minn. .Ct. 1982) . . 9,'10 Gale vs. Commissioner of .Taxati 228 Minn. 45,,. 37 N.W. 2d 711 (1949) . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 Kelly vs. Kelly, C6-83-1863 (Mi Ct.App., Ma 29, 1984) . . . . . 8 Kreidler vs. Kreidler, 348 N.W. d 780 (Minn. t.App. 1984) 5, 6 Letourneau vs. Letourneau, C3-83- 710 (Minn. t.App. July 6, 1984) . . . . o, , . . . . . . . . . . 3 Reck vs,. Reek, 396 N.W. 2d 675'(Mi n.Ct.Ap. 984) . . . . . . . . 9 Ruzic.vs. Ruzic,-218 N.W..2d 502 ( nn.S.Ct 1979)-. 8 Schmitz vs. -Schmitz, 309 N.W. 2d 748 (Minn. .Ct. 1981) 2, :7, 8 Smith vs. Smith, 626 P.2d 342 (Sup.Ct Or.. 81) 5 Stassen vs. Stassen, C8-83-1492 (Minn. t.A p. June.. 19, 1984) 8, 9 STATUTES: 11 \I a Minn. Stat. 518.17 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3, 6 Minn. Stat. 518.17, Subd. 4. . . . . . . . . . . . 2, 3, 4, 5 Minn. Stat. 518.17, Subd. 5. . . . . . . 2, 3, 5, Minn. Stat. 518.551, Subd. 5 . . . . . . . . \ 2 Minn. Stat. 518.58 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8, 10 Minn. Stat. 645.17 . . . . . . . ". . . . . . 8 SECONDARY AUTHORITIES: Franks., "How.to Calculate.Child Support", 86 Case 6 Comment 3 (Jan. Feb. 1981). (ii) an annual basis and not effected by the amount of the area being assessed within a drainage district. Another objection was that the property was not b benefited to the extent to b ssessedw aad Jhe staff recommended approval of A the assessment roll. Vogt moved, Rydrich seconded the motion to recommend to the City Council that the assessment roll covering the Perron property be adopted. All voted in favor. ARTHUR KOESTNER - PROJECT 0384 WALDEN HEIGHTS TRUNK STORM SEWER Assessment objection has been received from Arthur Koestner, an owner of property in Twin View Manor, noting that $711.00 was proposed to be assessed after applying the large lot assessment policy, whereby only 16,500 square feet were assessed. The City Attorney and Public Works Director met with Mr. Koestner and reviewed the basis of Wobjectior!� noting that Mr. Koestner I does not qualify for the Senior. Citizens Deferment. Mr. Koestner did not appear but indicated that he was not going to further object to the assessments. Upon motion by Egan, seconded Vogt, it was resolved to recommend approval of the assessments to the City Council. All members voted aye. GOPHER SMELTING CO. - PROJECT 0381 BORCHERT INGERSOLL TRUNK STORM SEWER Project 0381 covers the lift station and trunk storm sewer outlet from Borchert Ingersoll Pond, part of which property is located on he Gopher Smelting property. Mr. Colbert indicated a meeting had been hiith Mark Kutoff and the general objections were as follows: 1. The assessments are premature for development of the property. 2. The rough topography of the property precludes t feasible development based upon the amount of assessments being proposed., ` 3. The amount of assessments is disproportionate to the overall cost of the project. 7 The trial court determined child support in accordance with Minn. Stat. 518.17, based primarily \ Von the total net income of the parties. The trial court assessed the fair as of the result by noting that it left the Petitioner with more than her claimed needs. It left Respondent with much less than his claimed nee 11 An alternative method, used in Oregon, reinforces the fairness of th result. To require more support would in effect require the Respondent o support the Appellant's two children by a previous marriage. Under the facts of this case, the trial court justifiably departed from the child support uidelines. The Appellant has not met her burden of proving the trial court a re� as a matter of law. II DID THE TRIAL CLEARLY ABUSE IT GREATER SHARE OF THE MARITAL INTER] IMPROVEMENTS MADE PRIMARILY BY The trial court made express nding: marital and non -marital portions f the Schmitz vs. Schmitz, 309 N.W.2d 748 (Mini not challenged here by Appellant. What 1 of the marital portion of the ho e. The lien of $6,415.00 which amounts 75% of to improvements financed by the arties e and 50% of the $1,821.00 marita port RETION IN AWARDING TO RESPONDENT A THE HOMESTEAD BASED UPON EXTENSIVE z to the value of the home and the nestead based upon the formula of .Ct. 1981) and these findings are ellant challenges is the division ial court awarded the Respondent a is $7,340.00 increase in value due made primarily by the Respondent of the $5,460.00 increase due to inflation of housing prices. \1 j The increase in value due to inflation was allocated according to the Y1 Ried Hanson appeared for the property owner and stated the following objections: 1. The assessments are more than the total cost of the property. 2. That other land is being drained into the Borchert Pond and therefore Gopher Smelting is required to help pay for the assessments caused by excess water from property outside of the drainage district. It was noted that part of the Gopher Smelting property is developed, that the outlet from Borchert Pond was put in out of sequence but would have resulted from earlier assessments, had it been installed in regular sequential order. It was further noted that there is an approved PUD on the property, and that the property is zoned, the land is presently being marketed and thorn increase in value comes from the ability to discharge water into the pond. After extended discussion, Blomquist moved, Vogt seconded the motion to recommend that the assessment roll covering the property be approved and forwarded to the City Council. All voted in favor. JAY TSCHERNE - PROJECT #317 - BLACKHAWK ROAD STREETS & UTILITIES Tom Colbert addressed the entire project and noted there are four objecting property owners on Blackhawk Road covering streets and utilities in that general vicinity. He noted that Blackhawk Road is a municipal state aid street and certain design standards must be complied with. The four objecting property owners did not petition for the improvements and expressed objections at the time of the original public hearing. A meeting had been held with the owners by the City Public Works Director and City Attorney to review the concerns, including objections that the amount of the assessment. exceeded the benefit to the property the amount of the assessment is excessive, as to what each property owner can afford on a monthly and yearly basis. It was noted 1*1 The Appellant claims that the trial court erred in setting the support figure so as to keep the Res \ondent from having to work long overtime hours to meet his expenses of $1,500.0 \ per month and she cites Bakke VS. Bakke. C4-84- 110 (Minn.Ct.App.July 10, 1984) to that effect. Bakke does say that private debts, personal investments \nd luxury purchases can't be considered in setting support. The trial court's ward of support has a completely different rationale. It is based \ rimari y on the incomes of the parties, and the needs of the parties are use as point of reference to assess the fairness of the result. They simpl of rm that the child support award is fair and just. The Respondent's tran po tation expenses are high, but they are necessary for him to earn the in me to pay child support. They are different from what would generally be c nsidered "private debts" because they are ordinary and necessary expenses the ill remain in one form or another even if different vehicles are obtained. On y a small amount of the $1,500.00 relates to the Respondent's motorcy le an the motorcycle is important alternative transportation. The Appel ant has the luxury of an unencumbered car, partly due to the Respondent's of orts, and she criticizes him for having to make monthly payments for his tr sportation The Respondent could have been debt -free if he had not been so generous in helping purchase Appellant's car outright and in allocating his i come to rehabilitating Appellant's home. The Appellant suggests that He pondent wori extensive overtime to meet his needs, but she is certainly not ffering to work part time to help support Christopher. The interests of Christopher takq/priority and this is why the Respondent is willing to work some pvertime. Apparently, the Appellant is not willing to make an equivalent sacrificZ ome courts do not consider ayovertime in setting support; sel Rrei vs. Rreidler. 348 N.W.2d 780 (Minn.Ct.App. 1984); while here 5 hour. er week was considered. 3 that Dan Dwyer, an appraiser, has been hired by the City Council to evaluate the increase in valuation, but that the appraisals for the City have not been completed. Dan Beeson, attorney, appeared for the Tschernes and indicated the best use is single family and noted several unique features, including the 340 feet of frontage with 800 foot depth, the topography is very rough, including swamp, steep terrain and the neighboring owner is not ready to develop the property aand ,Zd1so the location of the residence detracts from the benefit to the property, based upon the proposed assessments. Roger Rohrer, appraiser for the Tschernes, also appeared and indicated that the Tscherne paid $70,000.00 for the property three years ago, the value is not much more today, and it is being used as single family, although the Comprehensive Land Use Guide is R -III. He stated that the assessments would not create a great deal more value even by tearing down the house on the property. He stated that townhouses may be a logical use, and if the house weren't there, the value DU ) would increase by perhaps $15,000.00 to $20,000.00, wh4reupetr-$5,000.00 with the house remaining on the property. Egan moved to forward the assessment objections to the City Council without recommendation. There was no second and the motion died. Rydrich then moved, Blomquist seconded the motion to recommend to the City Council that the staff recommendations be adopted with the maximum assessment based upon the appraisal submitted by the City's appraiser and in the event of development, or subdivision of the property in the future, that the assessment be increased commensurate &o,t' he area not being assessed at the present time, and that the assessments then be levied at the then current rates. All members voted yes. JAMES ASHWORTH - PROJECT 0317 - BLACKHAWK ROAD STREETS 8 UTILITIES Mr. Colbert also reviewed the Ashworth property lying on the west side of I A1 TABLE OF, O'R`ITIES PAGE SECONDARY AUTHORITIES: Franks, "How to Calculate Child Support", 86 Case &:Comment 3 (Jan:'Feb. 1981).' ' (ii) CASES: App. July Bakke vs. Bakke, C4-84-11J408t 10, 1984) . . . . . 3, 6 Bogen vs. Bogen, 261 N.W.nn.S.Ct. 1977) . . . . . . . . 9 Faus vs. Faus, 319 N.W. 12 1982) (Minn;.y 9, 10 Gale vs. Commissioner of 28 Minn. 345,37 N.W. 2d 711-(1949 ... . . . . . . 8 Kelly. vs. Kelly, C6-83-1863 (Mi n.Ct.App., 29., 1984) 8 Kreidler vsr. Kreidler, 348 N.W. d -780 -(Min .Ct.App. 1984) 5,16: Letourneau vs. Letourneau, C3-83- 710 -(Min :Ct.App. July 6, 1984) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 Reck vs. Reck, 346 N.W. 2d 675 (Mi .Ct.A 1984) . . . . . . 9 Ruzic vs. Ruzic, 218 N.W. 2d 502 (Mi n.S. t. 1979) . . . . . . . . 8 Schmitz vs. Schmitz, 309 N.W. 2d 748 Mi n.S.Ct. 1981) . . . . 2, 7, 8 Smith vs. Smith, 626 P.2d 342 (Sup.Ct. 1981) . . . . . . . . . 5 Stassen vs. Stassen, C8-83-1492 (Minn.0 .App. June 19, 1984) . . . 8, 9 STATUTES: Minn. Stat. 518.17. . . . . ., 3, 6 Minn. -Stat -518.17, Subd. 4.,. 2, 34''4; 5 Minn. State -518.17, Subd. 5... 2, 3, 5, Minn. Stat. 518.551-; • Subd. 5 . 2 Minn. Stat. 518.58 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8'.10. Minn. Stat. 645.17. 8 SECONDARY AUTHORITIES: Franks, "How to Calculate Child Support", 86 Case &:Comment 3 (Jan:'Feb. 1981).' ' (ii) Blackhawk Road. Mr. Ashworth was present and objected to the total amount of the assessment proposed to be assessed against his property and that the assessments were not being spread equitably amongst the individual parcels. He noted that the pond to the west is increased in its level, that there is intense development around the property and the grading on the adjacent lots is higher than his property. He further objected, based upon lack of benefit and requested reduction in the assessment. Egan moved, Vogt seconded the motion to recommend to the City Council that the maximum amount of assessments be based upon the City's appraisal covering benefit to the property and that an agreement be entered into with the property owner /hat the assessments to the property be increased at such time as the development or subdivision of the property takes place, commensurate with the assessment rates then in effect. All members voted yes. ROBERT KRUGER - PROJECT #317 - BLACKHAWK ROAD STREETS & UTILITIES Mr. Kruger appeared and noted that the north half of his property is zoned Neighborhood Business with the south half zoned Agricultural. Mr. Colbert stated that the assessment policy concerning reduction of assessments for single family purposes, generally cover only homesteaded property and in the event that the north half was reduced to Agicultural or Single Family residential rates, the assessment would be reduced by about $4,400.00. Mr. Kruger also indicated a severe driveway access problem has resulted due to the road improvements. Mr. Egan indicated that the owners along Blackhawk Road should be prepared for the September 18 hearing with an appraiser and with a representative on their behalf, if they desire to do so. Egan moved, Vogt seconded the motion to recommend that the City Council approve the assessment roll based upon the City appraiser's evaluation of benefit and that the 10 The trial court determined child support in accordance with Minn. Stat. 518.17, based primarily upon the total net income of the parties. The trial court assessed the fairness of the res It by noting that it left the Petitioner with more than H\r claimed need It left Respondent with much less than his claimed nee S. An alterative method, used in Oregon, reinforces the fairness of the result. T require more support would in effect require the Responden 7t`o support he Appellant's two children by a previous marriage. Under the facts of thi case, the trial court justifiably departed from the child supportguidelin s. The Appellant has not met her burden of proving the trial court eared as a matter of law. DID THE TRIAL CLEARLY ABUSE ITS IN AWARDING TO RESPONDENT A GREATER SHARE OF THE MARITAL INTEREST NrE HOMESTEAD BASED UPON EXTENSIVE IMPROVEMENTS MADE PRIMARILY BY RESPOND The trial court made express fin ngs a's to the value of the home and the marital and non -marital portions of he ho estead based upon the formula of Schmitz vs. Schmitz, 309 N.W.2d 748 (Minn. .Ct. 1981) and these findings are not challenged here by Appellant. hat Ap ellant challenges is the division of the marital portion of the hom/. The ial court awarded the Respondent a lien of $6,415.00 which amounts td 75% of the $7,340.00 increase in value due to improvements financed by thei�iarties and made primarily by the Respondent and 50% of the $1,821.00 marital por ion of the $5,460.00 increase due to inflation of housing prices. The increase in value due to inflation was allocated according to the 7 Neighborhood Business parcel on the north be assessed at an R-1 Single F wily residential rate, and in the event that the property is upgradedor subdivided in the future, that the property then be assessed at the then existing rates for that use. All members voted yes. DAROLD HOLDEN - PROJECT #317 - BLACRHAWK ROAD STREETS & UTILITIES Mr. and Mrs. Holden were present and Mr. Holden strongly objected to the assessments being proposed to be levied against the Holden property. He indicated that it's not economical to run a sanitary sewe rftothe rear of his. property where his residence is located and further that a pond has been created on the west side of his property that did not have water prior to the MnDOT construction of I -35E. After extended discussion, Egan moved, Vogt seconded the motion to recommend to the City Council that the assessments be based upon the City Appraiser's determination of benefit to the property, that it not exceed the amount appraised, and further subject to an agreement being entered into providing that in the event of subdivision or upgrading of the property e then existing assessment rates covering the property, be implemented and assessed. All members voted yea. HERBERT BERGSTROM - PROJECT #368 - ROBIN LANE - STREETS Tom Colbert reviewed with the Committee the improvements to Robin Lane and the cooperation given by Mr. and Mrs. Bergstrom toward granting easements for the newly reconstructed Robin Lane. He noted that the objection covered Lot 10 on the Bergstrom property, consisting of a triangular parcel and recommended that the front footage be reduced by 70 feet from 243 feet to 173 feet due to the strange configuration of the property. This would result in an increase in the assessment per front foot along the street. Mr. Bergstrom was present and stated that he felt that the reduction should be greater than 70 feet,.e noted that the gas easement and street easement infringe on the 11 The Appellant claims that the trial court erred in setting the support figure so as to keep the Respondent from having to work long overtime hours to meet his expenses of $1,5001 per month and she cites Bakke vs. Bakke, C4-84- 110 (Minn.Ct.App. July 10, 198 \) to that effect. Bakke does say that private debts, personal investments and luxury rchases can't be considered in setting support. The trial 1ourt's awa of support has a completely different rationale. It is basedrimarily n the incomes of the parties, and the needs of the parties are us d as. a int of reference to assess the fairness of the result. They simp y affi m that the child support award is fair and dust. The Respondent's tra spor ation expenses are high, but they are necessary for him to earn the i cc to pay child support. They are different from what would generally be co sidered "private debts" because they are ordinary and necessary expenses tha will remain in one form or another even if different vehicles are obtained. Only a small amount of the $1,500.00 relates to the Respondent's motorcyc and the motorcycle is important alternative transportation. The Appel an has the luxury of an unencumbered car, partly due to the Respondent's of ort , and she criticizes him for having to make monthly payments for hi7sgen spo tation. The Respondent could have been debt -free if he had not beeroux in helping purchase Appellant's car outright and in allocating hime to rehabilitating Appellant's home. The Appellant suggests that ant work extensive overtime to meet his needs, but she is certainly not off ring to work part time to help support Christopher. The interests of Christ pher take priority and this is why the Respondent is willing to work some o ertime. Apparently, the Appellant is not willing to make an equivalent orifice. Some courts do not consider any overtime in setting support; see Rreidler vs. Rreidler, 948 N.W.2d 780 (Minn.Ct.App. 1984); while here 5 hours per week was considered. U property and that the property may not be buildable except for single family purposes. Committee members inquired whether the triangle was being used to determine density for the balance of the area, noting that the property had been approved for 25 townhouse units. After extended discussion, Blomquist moved, Vogt seconded the motion to accept the staff recommendation with the understanding that the applicant can apply to the City and request a higher density which would be considered by the Planning Commission and Council, based upon the uses, noting that no guarantee of increase in density could be given by the Committee. All members voted yes. SPECIAL ASSESSMENT DEFERMENT POLICY ORDINANCE A proposed Ordinance revision in Chapter 2 covering deferment of special assessments was submitted and recommended for approval by the staff. Mr. Colbert reviewed the deferment policy with the Council and noted that eleven twin city area cities have been contacted and asked whether they had deferment policies due to financial hardship. None of the cities had t v r ordinance/ or polioieA/indicating that requests were reviewed on a case by case basis. After d`isl6oussion9 Blomquist moved, Egan seconded the motion to Ct recommend the amendmaatt.Je the Ordinance for-a*+��orza� o All members voted yes. ADJOURNMENT Upon motion duly made and seconded, the meeting adjourned at 10:35 p.m. PHH 12 TABLE OF CASES: PAGE Bakke vs. Bakke, C4-84-110 (Minn.Ct.Ap July 10, 1984) 3, 6 Bogen vs. Bogen, 261 N.W. 2d 606 (Mi .S.Ct. 1977) . . . . . . . . 9 Faus vs. Faus, 319 N.W. 2d 408 at 12 (Minnis xt. 1982).. . 9, 10 Gale vs., Commissioner of.Taxatiom, 228 Minn. 345,,- 37 N.W. 2d 711 (1949) . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 Kelly vs. Kelly, C6-83-1863 (Min .Ct.App., May 29, 1984) 8 Kreidler vs. Kreidler , 348 N.W. d 780 (MinnlCt.App. 1984).. . . . 5, 6 Letourneau vs. Letourneau, C3-8.-1710 (Minn.0 .App. July 6, 1984) ... 3 :=-198 Reck-vs. Reck,-3461N.W., 2d•6750,(Min.sxt. 9 Ruzic vs. Ruzic, 218•N.W. 2d,5: 979) 8- Schmitz vs. Schmitz, 309 N.W. .S.Ct. 198) . . . . . . 2, 7, 8 Smith -.vs. Smith, 626 P.2d342 981) -. . . 5Stassen vs. Stassen, C8 -83-149p. June 1 1984) 8, 9•' i STATUTES: Minn. Stat. 518.17 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3, 6 Minn. Stat. 518.17, Subd.' 4. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2, 3, 4, 5 Minn. Stat. 518.17, Subd. 5. . . . . . . . . 2, 3, 5, Minn. Stat. 518.551, Subd. 5 . . . . . . . . . . 2 _. Minn. Stat. 518.58 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8, 10 Minn. Stat. 645.17 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 SECONDARY•AUTHORITIES: Franks,••"How to Calculate.Child Support", f' 86 Case 6 Comment 3 (Jan. Feb. 1981). (ii) E 0 MINUTES OF A lERTING OF THE SPECIAL ASSESSMENT COMMITTEE EAGAN, lINNE6TA OCTOBER 9, 1984 A meeting of the Eagan Special Assessment Committee was held on Tuesday, October 9, 1984 at 4:00 p.m. at the Eagan Municipal Center. Present were Chairman Don Knight, Mayor Blomquist, Dale Vogt, Councilman Tom Egan, and Bill Hydrich. Absent was Garrett Mulrooney. Mayor Blomquist chaired the meeting until Don Knight arrived at about 5:00 p.m. Also present were Public Works Director Tom Colbert and City Attorney Paul Hauge. AGENDA Vogt moved, Egan seconded the motion to approve the Agenda as presented. All voted yes. The Public Works Director, Tom lbert, explained to the persons present the purpose of the meeting being aarormal meeting to review special assess- ments where circumstances warranted review prior to City Council adoption. He indicated that property owners with specific questions were invited to attend the meeting and to present information that would be helpful to the members of the assessment committee in making recommendations to.the Council. FRANCIS C. FRANZ - PROJECT #372 I-359 STREETS A UTILITIES Mr. Colbert reviewed the proposed assessments along Deerwood Drive cover- ing the Francis Franz property, noting the assessments have arisen primarily because of the improvement of I -35E and Deerwood Drive in that vicinity. A portion of the improvements have been installed by the Minnesota Department of Transportation through a Cost Participation Agreement with lateral benefit, trunk watermain, trunk area and lateral storm sewer, street, sidewalk and bituminous trailway construction in the area. Pat Farrell, attorney with the firm of Grannis, Campbell, Farrell and Knutson, P.A. of South St. Paul, appeared for Mr. Franz and Mr. Franz also was present. The matter had been continued from the July 30, 1984 Special Assessment Committee meeting at the request of the property owner. Mr. Farrell had objections to the assessment regarding sidewalk assess- ments on collector streets, that the property has not benefited any more greatly than other property in the general area. There were objections to the rate of the storm sewer assessments against the property, noting that there are three residue parcels after the MnDOT acquisition and also that the City is attempting to assess for improvements that have been paid for through the State of Minnesota. Mr. Colbert indicated that the assessments for street 1 0 0 Assessment Minutes October 9, 1984 improvements is based upon a residential equivalent and there was also discus- sion concerning the proposed sidewalk assessment and whether it ought to be on a residential equivalent basis. After extended discussion, Egan moved, Blomquist seconded the motion to continue consideration of the objections until a later assessment committee meeting to allow the staff to research the following issues: a. To review and submit a proposed assessment policy for sidewalks. b. To recommend revisions to the lateral assessments for areas where setback requirements may prevent building permits or specific uses under existing ordinances. c. To review City policy covering residential access locations on collector streets, including the State requirements concerning setbacks on Deerwood Drive for access purposes adjacent to the overpass. d. Further, that the assessments could be referred directly to the Council if the owner and the staff reached a general agreement relative to the assessments. All members voted in favor. ARRA S. HE06R - PROJECT #372 I-356 STREETS A OTII.ITI&4 Mr. Colbert briefly reviewed the assessments covering the sidewalk and street assessments proposed to be assessed against the Anna Heuer property on the south side of Deerwood Drive, noting there are 304.08 assessable front feet. He also indicated that there would be a future project covering the easterly extension of Deerwood Drive to Pilot Knob Road at which time it would be anticipated that the balance of the Heuer property would be assessed for street and sidewalk improvements. Mrs. Heuer's son was present and had objec- tions to the assessments. Egan moved, Blomquist seconded the motion to con- tinue the consideration of the assessments with the staff to review the same items as directed by the committee relative to the Francis Franz property. All voted yes. 2 Assessment Minutes October 9, 1984 GEORGE 6 NIHIAM HALL - PROJECT #411 PATRICK EAGAN TRUNK STORK SEVER The next item brought before the Committee dealt with the objections of Mr, and Mrs. George Nall regarding the large lot credit applied to the approximately 4 acre parcel owned by them on the east side of Pilot Knob Road, south of proposed Pilot Point Addition. Mr. Colbert stated the property is }ot homesteaded and that the large lot olicy of the City covers parcels less /than 5 acres in size providing for 16, 0 square feet of assessment for each 111/// assessable acre. The Nalls requeste to be included within the large lot policy and also that the ponding area to the east of the property should not be assessed. Mariam Nall was present and explained the peculiar circumstances of the parcel. The staff recommended after reviewing topography configuration and proposed future development of the property, that it is highly unlikely that the 4 acre parcel would ever be subdivided and recommended that the parcel be classified as a large lot and given the appropriate credits. Egan moved, Vogt seconded the motion to accept the staff recommendations and recom- mend to the City Council that the large lot policy be adopted and that an agreement be entered into between the City and the Nalls, providing that in the event that the property is subdivided or developed in the future, that the existing rates for the development zoned category, then be assessed against the property. Mrs. Nall indicated that she had no objection to the proposal. All members voted in favor. ANTHONY CAPONI, THOMAS ROONEY & THOMAS RERGIN - PROJECT #411 PATRICK EAGAN TRUNK STORK SEVER Mr. Colbert introduced the subject and indicated that the three owners mentioned above who have objected to the assessments, own property south of Deerwood Drive and generally west of Patrick Eagan Park. He stated that generally the property lies within the major drainage district outletting to Patrick Eagan Park. Mr. Bergin indicated that he would not be able to be present at the meeting. The objections generally were that the property did not drain directly into Patrick Eagan Park Pond, but rather into the pond further south which was not having storm sewer improvements installed at the present time. Two lawsuits have been started, including that by Mr. Caponi and Mr. Rooney to enjoin the City from proceeding with the assessments. Project #411 has been authorized by the City Council to be installed. Larry Nielson appeared for Mr. Caponi and Mr. Rooney and objected to the following: 1. The cost of the entire project is less than the amount of the proposed assessments. 2. The property is not benefited to the extent that it is being pro- posed to be assessed. 3 0 Assessment Minutes October 9, 1984 0 3. Hilltop Estates Addition to the west is not being assessed for the improvements. 4. The excess amount of money necessary to install the improvements should be paid from the general revenue fund. It was noted that the assessments are not necessarily commensurate with the cost of the project, but that the funds are taken from a general storm sewer trunk fund and eventually, land in the entire City will be assessed for storm sewer trunk purposes. Tony Caponi appeared and stated that there was not adequate benefit and suggested additional ponding of water in JP -8 and Patrick Eagan Park Lake, with some overland outflow, rather than storm sewer pipes. It was noted that an outlet from JP -7 will be required at some time in the very near future. Kathleen Boyle appeared as an owner of the property along Deerwood Drive and stated that she and her husband had not been notified of the hearing for the improvements. Mr. Nielson indicated that unless the City Attorney were to hear otherwise, that answers to the two lawsuits could be continued indefinitely. After extended discussion, Blomquist moved to continue consideration of the request until a later meeting, but there was no second and the motion died. Next, Egan moved, Vogt seconded the motion to recommend the proposed assessment be referred back to the Council to review the feasibility of expanding Project 11411 to include Pond JP -7 and further, that the Caponi property and Rooney property be deleted from Project #411 but should be in- cluded in a proposed future storm sewer project. All voted in favor except Rydrich who abstained. BRIDE SCHIELA - PROJECT #383 SCHYANZ LAKE TRUNK STORM SERER The Committee next reviewed the proposed assessments against the Heide Schiela property located on Dodd Road, covering a 9.95 acre parcel. It was noted that the size of the parcel precluded its being considered a large lot under the City policy, but that the assessment clerk had deducted 20% for future right-of-way dedication and also 2.2 acres of existing pond over the eastern portion of the property. Attorney Ried Hanson appeared and noted the main objection consisted of a 200 foot NSP easement, indicating it would not be a benefit to that property. He also indicated that the water generally drains into the pond on the Schiela property and there is no increase in value because the water is still there. Further, in 1981, the City gave credit for the NSP easement for the area water and sanitary sewer assessments. After discussion, Blomquist moved, Egan seconded the motion to recommend to the City Council that an agreement be entered into to consider the entire policy as a large lot to provide for 16,500 square feet of assessment per acre, due to the unusual configuration of the property, the large NSP easement and noted that because of those circumstances, would not be considered as a precedent. All members voted in favor. 4 J Assessment Minutes October 9, 1984 0 L ALBERT PERRON - PROJECT #37138 WATER TREATMENT PLANT TRUNK STORM SEWER Mr. Colbert reviewed with the Council the proposed assessments against the Albert Perron property on the north side of Yankee Doodle Road, noting that 11.38 acres of the Perron property was being assessed with a 20% credit, resulting in 9.1 acres at the agricultural rate of 0.431d per square foot. Reid Hanson, attorney, again appeared and objected to the City land not being assessed for improvements, but it was noted that none of the City property is being assessed for this purpose and that the rate is a predetermined rate on an annual basis and not affected by the amount of the area being assessed within a drainage district. Another objection was that the property was not benefited to the extent proposed to be assessed. The staff recommended approval of the assessment roll. Vogt moved, Rydrich seconded the motion to recommend to the City Council that the assessment roll covering the Perron property be adopted. All voted in favor. ARTHUR %OESTNER - PROJECT #384 WALDEN HEIGHTS TRUNK STORM SEEM Assessment objection has been received from Arthur Roestner, an owner of property in Twin View Manor, noting that $711.00 was proposed to be assessed after applying the large lot assessment policy, whereby only 16,500 square feet were assessed. The City Attorney and Public Works Director met with Mr. Roestner and reviewed the basis of his objections, noting that Mr. Roestner does not qualify for the Senior Citizens Deferment. Mr. Roestner did not appear but indicated that he was not going to further object to the assess- ments. Upon motion by Egan, seconded Vogt, it was resolved to recommend approval of the assessments to the City Council. All members voted aye. I: � [ ya ail 1.. a;_ 1 q;{11;1: Project #381 covers the lift station and trunk storm sewer outlet from Borchert Ingersoll Pond, part of which property is located on the Gopher Smelting property. Mr. Colbert indicated a meeting had been held with Mark Rutoff and the general objections were as follows: 1. The assessments are premature for development of the property. 2. The rough topography of the property precludes feasible development based upon the amount of assessments being proposed. 3. The amount of assessments is disproportionate to the overall cost of the project. 5 0 Assessment Minutes October 9, 1984 Ried Hanson appeared for the property owner and stated the following objections: 1. The assessments are more than the total cost of the property. 2. That other land is being drained into the Borchert Pond and there- fore Gopher Smelting is required to help pay for the assessments caused by excess water from property outside of the drainage district. It was noted that part of the Gopher Smelting property is developed, that the outlet from Borchert Pond was put in out of sequence but would have resulted from earlier assessments, had it been installed in regular sequential order. It was further noted that there is an approved PUD on the property, and that the property is zoned, the land is presently being marketed and the increase in value comes from the ability to discharge water into the pond. After extended discussion, Blomquist moved, Vogt seconded the motion to recom- mend that the assessment roll covering the property be approved and forwarded to the City Council. All voted in favor. JAY TSCHERAE - PROJECT #317 - BLAC®AYH ROAD STREETS & UTILIT19S Tom Colbert addressed the entire project and noted there are four objecting property owners on Blackhawk Road covering streets and utilities in that general vicinity. He noted that Blackhawk Road is a municipal state aid street and certain design standards must be complied with. The four objecting property owners did not petition for the improvements and expressed objections at the time of the original public hearing. A meeting had been held with the owners by the City Public Works Director and City Attorney to review the concerns, including objections that the amount of the assessment exceeded the benefit to the property and the amount of the assessment is excessive as to what each property owner can afford on a monthly and yearly basis. It was noted that Dan Dwyer, an appraiser, has been hired by the City Council to evaluate the increase in valuation, but that the appraisals for the City have not been completed. Dan Beeson, attorney, appeared for the Tschernes and indicated the best use is single family and noted several unique features, including the 340 feet of frontage with 800 foot depth, the topography is very rough, including swamp, steep terrain and the neighboring owner is not ready to develop the property. Also the location of the residence detracts from the benefit to the property, based upon the proposed assessments. Roger Rohrer, appraiser for the Tschernes, also appeared and indicated that the Tscherne paid $70,000.00 for the property three years ago, the value is not much more today, and it is being used as single family, although the Comprehensive Land Use Guide is R - III. He stated that the assessments would not create a great deal more value U 0 Assessment Minutes October 9, 1984 even by tearing down the house on the property. He stated that townhouses may be a logical use, and if the house weren't there, the value would increase by perhaps $15,000.00 to $20,000.00, or $5,000.00 with the house remaining on the property. Egan moved to forward the assessment objections to the City Council without recommendation. There was no second and the motion died. Rydrich then moved, Blomquist seconded the motion to recommend to the City Council that the staff recommendations be adopted with the maximum assessment based upon the appraisal submitted by the City's appraiser and in the event of development, or subdivision of the property in the future, that the assessment be increased commensurate with the area not being assessed at the present time, and that the assessments then be levied at the then current rates. All members voted yes. JAMBES ASBVORT9 - PBOJECT #317 - BLACKRAW ROAD STREETS & UrMITIE,S Mr. Colbert also reviewed the Ashworth property lying on the west side of Blackhawk Road. Mr. Ashworth was present and objected to the total amount of the assessment proposed to be assessed against his property and that the assessments were not being spread equitably amongst the individual parcels. He noted that the pond to the west is increased in its level, that there is intense development around the property and the grading on the adjacent lots is higher than his property. He further objected, based upon lack of benefit and requested reduction in the assessment. Egan moved, Vogt seconded the motion to recommend to the City Council that the maximum amount of assessments be based upon the City's appraisal covering benefit to the property and that an agreement be entered into with the property owner, that the assessments to the property be increased at such time as the development or subdivision of the property takes place, commensurate with the assessment rates then in effect. All members voted yes. ROBERT KRUGER - PROJECT #317 - BLAC®AUB ROAD STREETS & UTILITIES Mr. Kruger appeared and noted that the north half of his property is zoned Neighborhood Business with the south half zoned Agricultural. Mr. Colbert stated that the assessment policy concerning reduction of assessments for single family purposes, generally cover only homesteaded property and in the event that the north half was reduced to Agicultural or Single Family residential rates, the assessment would be reduced by about $4,400.00. Mr. Kruger also indicated a severe driveway access problem has resulted due to the road 'improvements. Mr. Egan indicated that the owners along Blackhawk Road should be prepared for the September 18 hearing with an appraiser and with a representative on their behalf, if they desire to do so. Egan moved, Vogt seconded the motion to recommend that the City Council approve the assessment roll based upon the City appraiser's evaluation of benefit and that the Neighborhood Business parcel on the north be assessed at an R-1 Single Family residential rate, and in the event that the property is upgraded in use or subdivided in the future, that the property then be assessed at the then existing rates for that use. All members voted yes. 7 0 0 Assessment Minutes October 9, 1984 DAROLD HOLDEN - PROJECT #317 - BLACEHAN[ ROAD STREETS 8 Ornxrm Mr. and Mrs. Holden were present and Mr. Holden strongly objected to the assessments being proposed to be levied against the Holden property. He indicated that it's not economical to run a sanitary sewer line to the rear of his property where his residence is located and further that a pond has been created on the west side of his property that did not have water prior to the MnDOT construction of I -35E. After extended discussion, Egan moved, Vogt seconded the motion to recommend to the City Council that the assessments be based upon the City Appraiser's determination of benefit to the property, that it not exceed the amount appraised, and further subject to an agreement being entered into providing that in the event of subdivision or upgrading of the property that the then existing assessment rates covering the property, be implemented and assessed. All members voted yea. I HERBERT BERGSTROM - PROJECT 0368 ROBIN LANE - STREETS N d Tom Colbert reviewed with the Committee the improvements to Robin Lane and the cooperation given by Mr. and Mrs. Bergstrom toward granting easements for the newly reconstructed Robin Lane. He noted that the objection covered Lot 10 on the Bergstrom property, consisting of a triangular parcel and recom- mended that the front footage be reduced by 70 feet from 243 feet to 173 feet due to the strange configuration of the property. This would result in an increase in the assessment per front foot along the street. Mr. Bergstrom was present and stated that he felt that the reduction should be greater than 70 feet. He noted that the gas easement and street easement infringe on the property and that the property may not be buildable except for single family purposes. Committee members inquired whether the triangle was being used to determine density for the balance of the area, noting that the property had been approved for 25 townhouse units. After extended discussion, Blomquist moved, Vogt seconded the motion to accept the staff recommendation with the understanding that the applicant can apply to the City and request a higher density which would be considered by the Planning Commission and Council, based upon the uses, noting that no guarantee of increase in density could be given by the Committee. All members voted yes. A proposed Ordinance revision in Chapter 2 covering deferment of special assessments was submitted and recommended for approval by the staff. Mr. Colbert reviewed the deferment policy with the Council and noted that eleven twin city area cities have been contacted and asked whether they had deferment policies due to financial hardship. None of the cities had such an ordinance or policy indicating that such requests were reviewed on a case by case basis. After discussion, Blomquist moved, Egan seconded the motion to recommend the City Council amend to the Ordinance. All members voted yes. E Assessment Minutes October 9, 1984 Upon motion duly made and seconded, the meeting adjourned at 10:35 p.m. PHH HAUGE, EIIDE & KELLER, P.A. // lorney] a WOW TOWN CENTRE PROFESSIONAL BLDG., SUITE 200 1260 YANKEE DOODLE ROAD EAGAN, MINNESOTA 55123 (612) 456-9000 January 13, 1988 Tom Colbert City of Eagan 3830 Pilot Knob Road P.O. Box 21199 Eagan, Minnesota 55121 RE: Assessment for Street Lighting in Advance of Costs Being Incurred - Town Centre Project Dear Mr. Colbert: QUESTIONS PAULH, HAUGE KEVIN W. EIDE DAVID G. KELLER LORI M. BELLIN DEBRA E. SCHMIDT THOMAS P. LOWE You recently requested that our office look into whether it would be possible to assess for street light maintenance costs in advance of the actual user costs being incurred with respect to the above - captioned project. DISCUSSION Minnesota Statutes §429.061, Subd. 1, states as follows: "At any time after the expense incurred or to be incurred, in making an improvement shall be calculated under the direction of the Council, the Council shall determine by resolution, the amount of the total expense a municipality will pay, other than the amount, if any, which it will pay as a property owner, and the amount to be assessed. (emphasis added)" Minnesota Statutes §429.101 allows for special assessments to be instituted against a benefited property for the operation of a street lighting system. The Council may, by ordinance, adopt regulations allowing the benefited property owner to pay the charges and costs for this operation when due prior to the unpaid charges being made a special asseEsment against the property. The question here would be, when do the charges become due. I would venture to state that the most common definition of the term "when payment is due" implies that some sort of service or product has been previously rendered. Therefore, §429.101 may not clearly allow for a pre -assessment. The Eagan Assessment Policy further states that all assessments must be implemented in a consistent and equitable manner and that the assessment roll can be prepared at any time after a contract is awarded and assessable costs can be determined. Tom Colbert January 13, 1988 Page Two These authorities appear to allow the assessment process to commence not only when charges are incurred, but also prior to that point in time but only if the amount of the assessment can be calculated or determined. There is no case law in Minnesota which speaks directly to this issue. The general rule according to McQuillin's Municipal Corporation, is that payment of an assessment cannot be requited before the completion of the improvement. However, local law may modify the general rule and allow for an assessment to be made when the cost of the improvement is ascertained, or at least estimated. Mcquillin Mun. Corp. Sect. 38.108 (3rd Ed.) CONCLUSION Minnesota law appears to allow the assessment process to commence and the assessment roll to be prepared at any time after a contract for an improvement is awarded and assessable costs can be determined as long as the assessment is implemented in a consistent and equitable manner. Some methods of resolving the issue may be as follows: 1. If the contract amount can be determined with the power company prior to the commencement of the 5 year period, it would then appear permissible to assess. 2. If written consent can be acquired form the benefitted property owners, it would also be possible to do so. Very truly yours, HAUGE, EIDE S KELLER, P.A. Lori M. Bellin LMB:ras I' HAUGE, EIDE & KELLER, P.A. Alomeys at cnnaw TOWN CENTRE PROFESSIONAL BLDG., SUITE 200 1260 YANKEE DOODLE ROAD EAGAN, MINNESOTA 55123 (612) 456.9000 January 13, 1988 Tom Colbert City of Eagan 3830 Pilot Knob Road P.O. Box 21199 Eagan, Minnesota 55121 RE: Assessment for Street Lighting in Advance of Costs Being Incurred - Town Centre Project Dear Mr. Colbert: QUESTIONS PAULH.HAUGE KEVIN W. EIDE DAVID G. KELLER LORI M. BELLIN DEBRA E. SCHMIDT THOMAS P. LDWE You recently requested that our office look into whether it would be possible to assess for street light maintenance costs in advance of the actual user costs being incurred with respect to the above - captioned project. DISCUSSION Minnesota Statutes §429.061, Subd. 1, states as follows: "At any time after the expense incurred or to be incurred, in making an improvement shall be calculated under the direction of the Council, the Council shall determine by resolution, the amount of the total expense a municipality will pay, other than the amount, if any, which it will pay as a property owner, and the amount to be assessed. (emphasis added)" Minnesota Statutes §429.101 allows for special assessments to be instituted against a benefited property for the operation of a street lighting system. The Council may, by ordinance, adopt regulations allowing the benefited property owner to pay the charges and costs for this operation when due prior to the unpaid charges being made a special assessment ag is nst the property. The question here would be, when do the charges become due. I would venture to state that the most common definition of the term "when payment is due" implies that some sort of service or product has been previously rendered. Therefore, §429.101 may not clearly allow for a pre -assessment. The Eagan Assessment Policy further states that all assessments must be implemented in a consistent and equitable manner and that the assessment roll can be prepared at any time after a contract is awarded and assessable costs can be determined. Tom Colbert January 13, 1988 Page Two These authorities appear to allow the assessment process to commence not only when charges are incurred, but also prior to that point in time but only if the amount of the assessment can be calculated or determined. There is no case law in Minnesota which speaks directly to this issue. The general rule according to M_cQuillin's Municipal Corporation, is that payment of an assessment cannot be requited before the completion of the improvement. However, local law may modify the general rule and allow for an assessment to be made when the cost of the improvement is ascertained, or at least estimated. Mcquillin Mun. Corp. Sect. 38.108 (3rd Ed.) CONCLUSION Minnesota law appears to allow the assessment process to commence and the assessment roll to be prepared at any time after a contract for an improvement is awarded and assessable costs can be determined as long as the assessment is implemented in a consistent and equitable manner. Some methods of resolving the issue may be as follows: 1. If the contract amount can be determined with the power company prior to the commencement of the 5 year period, it would then appear permissible to assess. 2. If written consent can be acquired form the benefitted property owners, it would also be possible to do so. Very truly yours, HAUGE, EIDE & KELLER, P.A. Lori M. Bellin LMB:ras a RIM & / January 12, 1988 Tom Colbert City of Eagan 3830 Pilot Knob Road P.O. Box 21199 Eaoan. Minnesota 55121 RE: Assessment for Street Light in Advance of Costs Being Incurred - Town Centre Project Dear Mr. Colbert: QUESTIONS You recently requested that our offic look into whether it would be possible to assess for street light in advance of the actual user costs being incurred with respect the above -captioned project. DISCUSSION Minnesota Statutes §429.061, Subd. 1, states as follows: "At any time after the expense incurred or to be incurred, in making an improvement shall be calculated under the direction of the Council, the Council shall determine by resolution, the amount of the total expense a municipality will pay, other than the amount, if any, which it will pay as a property owner, and the amount to be assessed. (emphasis added)" Minnesota Statutes §429.101 allows for special assessments to be instituted against a benefited property for the operation of a street lighting system. The Council may, by ordinance, adopt regulations allowing the benefited property owner to pay the charges and costs for this operation when due prior to the unpaid charges being made a special assessment ag is nst the property. The question here would be, when do the charges become due. I would venture to state that the most common definition of the term "when payment is due" implies that some sort of service or product has been previously rendered. Therefore, §429.101 may not clearly allow for a pre -assessment. The Eagan Assessment Policy further states that all assessments must be implemented in a consistent and equitable manner and that the assessment roll can be prepared at any time after a contract is awarded and assessable costs can be determined. J 1 � N v �Q�-o,�� � ,,, .,,. _ Tom Colbert January 12, 1988 Page Two These authorities appear to allow the assessment process to commence not only when charges are incurred, but also prior to that point in time but only if the amount of the assessment can be calculated or " determined. There is no case law in Minnesota which speaks directly to this issue. The general rule according to McQuillin's Municipal -Corporation, is that payment of an assessment cannot be required before the completion of the improvement. However, local law may modify the general rule and allow for an assessment to be made when the cost of the improvement is ascertained, or at least estimated. Mcquillin Mun. Corp. Sect. 38.108 (3rd Ed.) CONCLUSION Minnesota law appears to allow the assessment process to commence and the assessment roll to be prepared at any time after a contract for an improvement is awarded and assessable costs can be determined as long as the assessment is implemented in a consistent and equitable manner. O -e methods of resolving the issue may be as follows: 1. If the contract amount can be determined with the power company prior to the commencement of the 5 year period, it would then appear permissible to Xassess. 2. If written consent can be acquired form the benefitted property owners, it would also be possible to do so. Very truly yours, HAUGE, EIDE & KELLER, P.A. Lori M. Bellin LMB:ras City December 22, 1987 RE: Assessment for Street Lights in Advance of Costs Being Incurred - Town Centre Project / Dear You recently requested our offi(�oelook into whether it would be possible to assess for street lights in advance of the actual user costs being incurred with refect to the above -captioned project. —DISCUSSION Minnesota Statutes §429.061, Subd. 1, states as follows: "At any time after the expense incurred or to be incurred, in making an impr,ovemen� shall be calculated under the direction of the Council, ti`Le the Counc 1 shall deternine y resolution, the amount of the total expense a municipality will pay, other than the amount, if any, which it will pay as a property owner, and the amount to be assessed. (emphasis added)" The Eagan Assessment Policlestate2 that all assessments must be implemented in a consistent and equitable manner and that—the assessment roll can be prepared at any time after a�contract is awarded and assessable costs can be determined. These authorities appear to allow the assessment process to commence notgnly when charges are incurred, but also prior to that point in time, my if the amount of the assessment can be calculated or determined. There is no case law in Minnesota which speaks directly to is issue. Minnesota Statutes §429.101 allows for special assessments to be instituted against a benefited property for the operation of a street lighting system. The Council may, by ordinance, adopt regulations allowing the benefited property owner to pay the charges F and costs for this operation when dueekf 'the unpaid charges a made a special assessment against the property. The question here would be, when do the charges become due. I would venture to state that the most common definition of the term "when payment is 'due" implies that some sort of service or product has been previously rendered. Therefore, §429.101 may not clearly allow for tilde pre -assessment. f The general rule according to McQuillinsMunicipal Corporation, is that payment of an assessment cannot be required before the completion of the improvement. However, t*19 local law may modify the general rule and allow for an assessment to be made when the cost of the improvement is ascertained, or at least estimated. Mcquillin Mun. Corp. Sect. 38.108 (3rd Ed.) o ^RtatP that of- - _v .. _ ' �z viea oeror the spent is–raFmrtn r-n�nnl�t in of CONCLUSION Minnesota law appears to allow the assessment and the assessment roll to be prepared at any for an improvement is awarded and assessable as long as the assessment is implemented in a equitable manner. LMB;r/�as ,4,T 32— " process to time after costs can be consistent Very truly yours, law commence a contract determined and HAUGE, EIDE & KELLER, P.A. Lori M. Bellin 120A Mez ._- 01i PAUL NEED TO DETERMINE WHETHER IT IS POSSIBLE TO ASSESS FOR STREET LIGHTS' IN ADVANCE OF THE ACTUAL USER COST BEING INCURRED, SUCH AS A 5 -YEAR ADVANCE ASSESSMENT. WITH THE UNDERSTANDING THAT POSSIBLY GET CONSENT FROM ALL PROPERTY OWNERS - THIS IS THE TOWN CENTRE PROJECT. O uu,,t,cd 'pr - ,P�(.Q tll� -jai 29�t �/ /LkAj L aLG�I�owC/Q� Cryo/<�1 �Ca wCL�,``ll�_ rvk1�t: CITY OF EAGAN PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT FEASIBILITY REPORT FOR STREETLIGHTING — PROJECT NO. 519 TOWN CENTRE 70 AND 100 SEPTEMBER 17, 1987 I hereby certify this report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly registered Professional Engineer under the laws of the State of Minnesota. l � Thomas A. Colbert, P.E. Registration Number 12049 a PRELIMINARY REPORT ON STRE FOR TOWN CENTRE 70 AND 100 PROJECT NO. 519 EAGAN MN SEPTEMBER 17, 1987 SCOPE: This project covers the installation of streetlights serving Town Centre 70 and 100 in the northwest and northeast quarter of Section 15. FEASIBILITY AND RECOMMENDATIONS: This project is feasible and is in accordance with the City's policy on the installation of streetlights in this community shopping center district. It can best be accomplished as outlined herein and not as a part of any other project. DISCUSSION: The developer of Town Centre 70 and 100 has petitioned for the installation of streetlights. This addition contains 23 lots and/or outlots which would benefit from streetlighting. Under the City's streetlighting policy, the cost of streetlight installation is assessed on an area basis against the benefitted property. (An alternate is included in this report with the assessments spread on a front foot basis). The energy costs will be calculated on an area basis and will be billed quarterly to the existing developed properties along with the utility bill and the undeveloped outlots are to be billed through the 5 Year Assessment Plan. The energy needs for Town Centre 70 and 100 are serviced by Dakota Electric Association, and they offer the type of streetlighting poles, lighting fixtures, and the necessary maintenance service required by the City's streetlighting policy. The project is proposed to have 56 streetlights installed. OVERHEAD STREETLIGHTS: These 56 streetlights would be the standard overhead design with 30' fiberglass poles, a 6' aluminum sodium "Cobra" type fixture. These lights, underground wires, and transformers are proposed to be installed by Dakota Electric Association. 1 PRELIMINARY REPORT ON STREETLIGHTING FOR TOWN CENTRE 70 AND 100 PROJECT NO. 519 EAGAN MN SEPTEMBER 17, 1987 INSTALLATION COST ESTIMATES: The following cost estimate includes the cost of construction, administration, legal and other related project costs. 56 ea. 250 watt Overhead High Pressure Sodium @ $1,414.00 $79,189.50 5% Contingency Factor 3,959.48 15$ Administration Cost 11,878.43 TOTAL $95,027.41 ENERGY COST ESTIMATES: $9.85/light/month - 56 ea. @ $9.85 x 12 months $6,619.20/year REVENUE SOURCES: Revenue sources to cover the cost of this project are assessments against the benefitted property. Cost Assessment Revenue Balance Item Sq. Foot Front Foot Sq. Foot Front Foot Sq• Ft. F.F Energy Cost - (5 Yr. Assessment $ 25,079.69 $ 25,497.68 $ 25,079.66 $ 25,497.68 Plan) Installation Cost 95,027.41 95,027.41 95,027.41 95,027.41 TOTAL $120,107.10 $120,525.09 $120,107.10 $120,525.09 0 0 ASSESSMENTS: Assessments are proposed to be levied in accordance with current City policy. All costs of the project, including installation and energy, will be assessed and spread over 10 years at a rate of interest determined by the bond sale used to finance this project. INSTALLATION: Square Foot Front Foot (F.F.) (Construction Cost Total Assessable Square Footage) _ $.015800485/S.F. 2 (Construction Cost Total Assessable $ 5.11 Lineal Front Foot) PRELIMINARY REPORT ON STREETLIGHTING FOR TOWN CENTRE 70 AND 100 PROJECT 519 EAGAN MN SEPTEMBER 17, 1987 ENERGY: Energy costs will be recovered either through a quarterly user fee or a 5 Yr. Assessment Plan. Quarterly user fees apply to all developed lots with a current sewer/water bill, whereas the 5 Yr. Assessment Plan applies to all lots not platted or developed at the time of the final assessment hearing. The energy rates are identified as follows: Quarterly User Fee (Developed Lots): Square Foot Basis ($9.85) x (56 Lights) x (3 Months) = $1,654.80 69.03 S.L.L.E. v = $23.97218601/S.L.L.E. • S.L.L.E. = Street Light Lot Equivalent. This unit is equivalent to two acres and is used to determine the energy cost on an area basis. Front Foot Basis ($9.85) x (56 Lights) x (3 Months) 18,583.34 Total Lineal Ft. = $1,654.80 = $.089047502 per assessable front ft. per quarter 5 Yr. Assessment Plan (Undeveloped Lots): Square Foot Basis (52.31 S.L.L.E. (Outlots)) x ($23.97/S.L.L.E.) x (20 quarters) _ $25,079.69 Front Foot Basis (Alternate): 5 Year Assessment = (14316.90 F.F. (Outlots)) x ($.089 per Assess. F.F.) x (20 quarters) = $25,497.68 �(R 4 I PRELIMINARY REPORT ON STRE, FOR TOWN CENTRE 70 AND 100 PROJECT 519 EAGAN MN SEPTEMBER 17, 1987 AREA TO BE INCLUDED: TOWN CENTRE 70 1st Addition Outlot B Outlot E 2nd Addition Lot 1, Block 1 Lot 2, Block 1 Outlot A 3rd Addition Lot 1, Block 1 4th Addition Lot 1, Block 1 5th Addition Lot 1, Block 1 6th Addition Lot 1, Block 1 Outlot A 7th Addition Lot 1, Block 1 PROJECT SCHEDULE: Present Feasibility Report Public Hearing Approve Plans & Specifications Construction Completion Final Assessment Hearing 10 4 TOWN CENTRE 100 1st Addition Lot 1, Block 1 Outlot B Outlot E Outlot F Outlot G 2nd Addition Lot 1, Block 1 Lot 2, Block 1 v Outlot A 3rd Addition Lot 1, Block 2 Outlot A Outlot B Outlot C October 6, 1987 December 1, 1988 December, 1988 June, 1988 September, 1988 81.75 114.83 u 12.94 10.79 8.15 44.59 7.91 SUMMARY - PRELIMINARY ASSESSMENT ROLL i STREETLIGHTING PROJECT NO. 519 - TOWN CENTRE 70 AND 100 SLLE 5 YR ASSESSMENT INSTALLATION TOTAL 198 AREA EQUIV. FAC)$ ENERGY COST COST ASSESSABLE ENERGY COST PROJECT S.F. ACRES (2 RATE/S.F. $ COST RATE/S.L.L Town Centre 70 1st Addition Outlot B 188,614.80 4.33 2.17 1,040.39 .0158 2,980.21 40020.60 23.97/S.L.L.E Outlot E 1,221,422.40 28.04 14.02 6,721.80 it 19,299.07 26,020.86 to 2nd Addition Lot 1, Block 1 296,643.60 6.81 3.41 ■ " 4,687.11 4,687.11 " Lot 2, Block 416,869.20 9.57 4.79 ■ 6,586,74 6,586.74 " Outlot A 132,858.00 3.05 1.53 733.55 " 2,099.22 2,832.77 " 3rd Addition Lot 1, Block 1 47,044.80 1.08 .54 • " 743.33 743.33 " 4th Addition Lot 1, Block 1 39,204.00 .90 .45 " 619.44 619.44 5th Addition Lot 1, Block 1 29,185.20 .67 .34 • " 461.14 461.14 " 6th Addition Lot 1, Block 1 161,570.14 3.71 1.86 • " 2,552.89 2,552.89 " Outlot A 108,081.94 2.48 1.24 594.51 " 1,707.75 2,302.26 " 7th Addition Lot 1, Block 1 28,749.60 .66. .33 ■ " 454.26 454.26 " 81.75 114.83 u 12.94 10.79 8.15 44.59 7.91 SUMMARY - PRELIMINARY ASSESSMENT ROLL HTING PROJECT NO. 519 - TOWN CENTRE 70 AND 100 " - Energy charge assessed quarterly for these developed Lots. 0 - Energy charge assessed on 5 Yr. Assessment Plan for these undeveloped lots. AREA EQUIV. ENERGY COST COST ASSESSABLE ENERGY COST PER QTR. PROJECT S.F. ACRES (2 AC) $ RATE/S.F. $ COST RATE/S.L.L.E. COST $ Town Centre 100 1st Addition - Lot 1, Block 1 250,470.00 5.75 2.88 " .0158 3,957.55 3,957.55 23.97/S.L.L.E. 69.04 Outlot B 1,088,564.40 24.99 12.50 5,993.05 of 17,199.85 23,192.89 " Outlot E 278,348.40 6.39 3.20 1,534.22 of 4,398.04 5,932.26 It 0 Outlot F' 219,542.40 5.04 2.52 1,208.20 Is 3,468.88 4,677.08 "' 0 Outlot G. ' 311,018.40 7.14 3.57 1,711.61 4,914.24 6,625.85 " if 2nd Addition Lot 1, Block 1 98,010.00 2.25 1.13 " " 1,548.61 1,548.61 " 27.09 (� Lot 2, Block 1 48,351.60 1.11 .56 " " 763.98 763.98 " 13.42 Outlot A 69,260.40 1.59 .80 383.55 1,094.35 1,477.90 U 3rd Addition Lot 1, Block 2 370026.00 .85 .43 " 585.03 585.03 10.31 Outlot A 568,893.60 13.06 6.50 3,116.38 8,988.79 12,119.58 U Outlot B 374,479.66 8.60 4.26 2,042.43 " 5,916.93 7,944.97 " U TOTAL 6,014,208-54 138.07 69.03 25,079.69 - 95,027.41 120,107-10 $400.82 " - Energy charge assessed quarterly for these developed Lots. 0 - Energy charge assessed on 5 Yr. Assessment Plan for these undeveloped lots. ALTERNATE SUMMARY - PRELIMINARY ASSESSMENT ROLL HTING PROJECT NO. 519 - TOWN CENTRE 70 AND 100 .F. CORNER TOTAL 1987 E FRONT LOT ADJUSTED 5 -YR ENERGY INSTALLATION COST ASSESSABLE COST PER PROJECT FOOTAGE CREDIT F.F. ASSESSMENT COST RATE/F.F. $ COST @.089047502/ Town Centre 70 1st Addition Outlot B 877.87 - 877.87 11,563.44 $5.11 49489.06 6,052.50 0 Outlot E 3,683.73 150' 3,533.73 6,293.40 " 18,070.01 24,363.41 U 2nd Addition Lot 1, Block 1 1,406.94 75' -. 1,331.94 * 6,810.98 6,810.98 118.61 Lot 2, Block 1 473.18 - 473.18 * " 2,419.64 2,419.64 42.13 Outlot A 625.89 - 625.89 1,114.68 " 3,200.54 4,315.22 J 3rd Addition Lot 1, Block 1 534.03 75' 459.03 * " 2,347.29 2,347.29 40.88 4th Addition Lot 1, Block 1 148.63 - 148.63 it 760.03 760.03 13.24 5th Addition Lot 1, Block 1 156.39 - 156.39 * 799.71 799.71 13.93 6th Addition Lot 1, Block 1 798.36. 75' 723.36 * " 3,698.96 3,698.96 64.41 Oudot A 514.36 - 514.36 916.05 " 20630.22 3,546.27 # 7th Addition Lot 1, Block 1 107.93 - 107.93 * " 551.91 551.91 9.61 .F. ALTERNATE SUMMARY - PRELIMINARY ASSESSMENT ROLL HTING PROJECT NO. 519 - TOWN CENTRE 70 AND 100 • Energy charge billed quarterly for these developed lots. 0 Undeveloped lots billed on a 5 Yr. Assessment Plan. F.F. CORNER TOTAL 1987 ENERC FRONT LOT ADJUSTED 5 -YR ENERGY INSTALLATION COST ASSESSABLE COST PER QUAI PROJECT FOOTAGE CREDIT F.F. ASSESSMENT COST RATE/F.F. $ COST @.089047502/ASSE Torn Centre 100 1st Addition Lot 1, Block 1 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- Outlot B 3,189.42 75' 3,114.42 5,546.63 $5.11 15,925.84 21,472.47 11 Outlot E 860.35 75' 785.35 1,•398.67 It 4,015.95 5,414.62 11 Outlot F 702.46 - 702.46 1;251.05 " 3,592.09 4,843.14 11 Outlot G 1,168.89 - 1,168.89 2,081.73 " 5,977.21 8,058.94 11 2nd Addition Lot 1, Block 1 620.98 75' 545.98 0 2,791.91 2,791.91 48.62 Lot 2, Block 1 155.00 - 155.00 ■ 792.61 792.61 13.80 Outlot A 534.54 75' 459.54 818.42 " 2,349.89 3,168.31 # 3rd Addition Lot 1, Block 1 165.00 - 165.00 843.74 843.74 14.69 Outlot A 1,415.51 75' 1,340.51 2,387.38 6,854.81 9,242.19 # Outlot B 19193.88 - 1,193.88 2,126.23 " 6,105.01 8,231.24 # TOTAL 199333.34 750.00' 18,583.34 25,497.68 95,027.41 120,525.09 379.92 • Energy charge billed quarterly for these developed lots. 0 Undeveloped lots billed on a 5 Yr. Assessment Plan. F.F. TOWN CENTER STREETLIGHT CONCEPT PLAN i LL--� n•e nRON3fD g ..LEp MLv3[CRp., + . a. • S�D..Lf D IMLNSECIIDN :.. � � �~•.. N.Q DOODLE ____ \ . i � 'o r corm wm.e O.. � I I:T� • 11i+/J E�/ _ [I 1 1 li \`.�"-9 I � it Qyij'/.��+�Y�°°�—`�iln/9 ���,1 �•� Iy\���\li e�'! ".i S: .��// . ..Oen �`Y. ____ � I y • .L �• ..%® .l,, uc�`"�_— .`_: 1;� �+�` ' � / /� .. // C' a .c � _ —� �✓ �— ... ��� ��..c ee —J 11 el l0=•.;^.. .. ._...r. u:v__—�V__�—�J _ u.. ..a.w .. .c I i' Y 1 m7 d .f ! LOi� ' .....w \P / / ....TOWN LENTEN FAGAN u •: — �'/. o �\ 4`'� `'�] Jjjf CONCEPT PLAN yeY 1 1 �I E` U mwm. :EDEN_ "ND COWANY MSED� •�YA.��T Ee3[c^O" , ivui iewlR --- I hi �'J` —__m • 1 n m..m u.e w•..•+.. ..r. �� KD .SKY.KRANK.MCKBON.MCMTECT WQ C Ib 1 EI Q PROBE ENTJNEEDDNG COMPANY NQ PRELIMINARY ASSESSMENT - PROJECT NO. 519 (SO. FOOT BASIS) c v:•c ....:: .1 .. w.�E O]]0.F � ROOD ........ •.... •... Pa]a]E Eo (co 93 110 ]PI -�r...1. Fc OEP.-! Ln:O CO.•as CY ••.- 1 KO?5'J':5•.Y. r;Ran:. ESi'v:50': LRC9rt2C T5 c:[ PRELIMINARY ASSESSMENT - PROJECT 519 (FRONT FOOT BASIS) 75' CORNER LOT 11 COSNEF' LOT CRED1 76 lco no 1:0 ?9) 75 Lt v I;- 7 5' CORNER LOT ASSESSABLE FRONT FOOTAGE TON -04 CE14TER EAGAN CONCERT PLAN FEDERAL L6140 CD'-TANy KORSU!:SKY. KR4141;. ERICI:SON LRCHZTECIS I'!- PROmE El*-NmEmvj7 co..:M:y IN: LJ 4 7, --- 75' CORNER LOT 11 COSNEF' LOT CRED1 76 lco no 1:0 ?9) 75 Lt v I;- 7 5' CORNER LOT ASSESSABLE FRONT FOOTAGE TON -04 CE14TER EAGAN CONCERT PLAN FEDERAL L6140 CD'-TANy KORSU!:SKY. KR4141;. ERICI:SON LRCHZTECIS I'!- PROmE El*-NmEmvj7 co..:M:y IN: fl - - - r -L - - - --- 1w Ali I HA El DE K KELLER, P.A. i TOWN CENTRE PROFESSIONAL BLDG., SUITE 200 1260 YANKEE DOODLE ROAD EAGAN, MINNESOTA 55123 (6 12) 456-9000 February 9, 1988 Mr. Gene VanOverbeke Finance Director City of Eagan 3830 Pilot Knob Road Eagan, MN 55122 RE: Postponed Assessments Dear Mr. VanOverbeke: Question: PAULH.HAUGE �) KEVIN Y.'_ EIDE DAVID G. KELLER LORI M. BELLIN DEBRA E. SCHMIDT THOMAS P. LOWE You asked our office to look into the question as to whether postponed assessments show up against a parcel when the subject parcel is divided after the Certificate of Postponed Assessment has been recorded in accordance with Minnesota Statute §429.06, Subd. 2. Decision: The answer to this question is no. According to the Recorder's office personnel, after the City records the postponement, the Recorder's office simply records it and files it against the parcel set forth in the Certificate. If the parcel should later become divided, the County Auditor will then inform the City of the division, but will take no action to insure that the postponed assessment shows up against the divided properties. It is up to the City to re-record the postponed assessment against each of the divided properties. The County Auditor's office personnel neither takes responsibility for re-recording nor do they even check to see whether any assessment is outstanding against a parcel. They simply send notification of a division to the City and let the City take whatever action the City deems to be appropriate. Thus, City personnel, upon receiving notification from the County Auditor's office of a division, should proceed to check to verify whether any postponed assessments have been recorded against the parcel and then take action to re-record with the County Recorder's office. Feel free to contact me with any questions you may have regarding any of the above. Sincerely, BAUGE, EIDE S KELLER, P.A. Lori M. Bellin LMB :jjm Mr. Gene VanOverbeke Finance Director City of Eagan 3830 Pilot Knob Road Eagan, MN 55122 RE: Postponed Assessments January 22, 1988 Dear Mr. VanOverbeke: our office to look into the question as to whether postponed assessments show up against a parcel when the subject parcel is divided after the Certificate f Postponed Assessment b en recorded.(,. acCelc(2t�-cc wC� �ltiAss¢Wi�•o� /,GS•�. ,-A lis has T>ft-s�msrbe answer to this question is no. AAfter the City records the postponement, the Recorder's office simply records it and files it against the parcel set forth in the Certificate. If the parcel should later become divided, the County Auditor will then inform the City of the division, but will take no action to insure that the postponed assessment shows up against the divided properties. It is up to the City to re-record the post ned assessment against each of the divided properties. The County Auditor's C evf 'ce neither takes responsibility for re- recording nor do"en Vheck to see whether any assessment is outstanding against a parcel. They simply send notification of a division to the City and let the City take whatever action the City deems to be appropriate. Thus, City personnel, upon receiving notification from the County Auditor's office of a division, should proceed to check to verify whether any postponed assessments have been recorded against the parcel and then take action to re-record with the County Recorder's office. Feel free to contact me with any questions you may have regarding any of the above. Sincerely, HAUGE, EIDE & KELLER, P.A. Lori M. Bellin LMB: jjm / n r l„Vn� MEMO TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: CITY ATTORNEY HAUGE r ��1 FINANCE DIRECTOR/CITY CLERK VAN OVERBEKE4Y-7NM.- DECEMBER 9, 1987 ASSESSMENTS RECORDED WITH COUNTY RECORDER As we have previously discussed, your letter to me dated November 11, 1987, missed the question that we had r ed. As I recall, the question was: "When assessments ar ost off' y the City and recorded as such at the County Recorder's Office and the subject parcel is divided, do the new parcels show what had been recorded against the parent parcel?" These postponed assessments have nothing to do with the County Auditor's Office because they have never been certified by the City for collection. Also to my knowledge the County Recorder's Office has nothing to do with assessments that have been certified to the County Auditor. If they do, it is through a County process which has nothing to do with the City. s and note Please refer to the attached list of assessment ("that that it is only the category "postponed assessment we a required to record with the County Recorder. Perhaps it would be appropriate with this additional information to take another shot at the original question. Please let me, know if it would be helpful to discuss this in more detail. V Finan Director City Clerk cc: Tom Colbert, Director of Public Works Attachment EJV/jeh t1.21. o(oi 4_ttj- L q,L �. o-71 HAUGE, EIDE & KELLER, P.A. %� :l lomeys al eaw TOWN CENTRE PROFESSIONAL BLDG., SUITE 200 1260 YANKEE DOODLE ROAD EAGAN, MINNESOTA 55123 (612)456-9000 November 11, 1987 Mr. Eugene VanOverbeke City Treasurer City of Eagan 3830 Pilot Knob Road Eagan, MN 55121 RE: Reapportionment of Special Assessments Dear Mr. VanOverbeke: PAULH.HAUGE KEVIN W. EIDE DAVID G. KELLER LORI M. BELLIN DEBRA E. SCHMIDT THOMAS P. LOWE It has recently been brought to my attention that after the City reapportions certain special assessments, these changes on occasion, are not showing up against the property on the tax rolAs. t:i After reviewing procedures with the County Auditor's and Recorder's office in Dakota County, the following procedure should be followed by City personnel in order to Psure that reapportionment of special assessments is properly taken/—care of: 1. Complete special assessment input form available from the County Auditor and deliver to the County Auditor's office. 2. County Auditor's office will submit to the City a new assessment sheet. 3. The City must then record the new special assessment reapportionment request with the Recorder's office. The County Auditor's office simply takes care of the reapportionment of the assessment and does not take any responsibilities for recording the change in assessments against the property. The City must actively take steps with both the Auditor's and Recorder's office in order to properly record a special assessment reapportionment against a property. Feel free to contact me with any questions you may have regarding any of the above. Very truly yours, H E, IDE & KELL R, P.A. H. Hauge PHH:jjm cc: Tom Colbert CITY OF EAGAN TERMINOLOGY USED AT THE CITY IN THE ENGINEERIO—MAR= Usage of terms - Adopted Assessment - An assessment that was approved by the City Council. Certified Assessment - An assessment that has been adopted and for- warded to the County for extension on the pro- perty tax rolls. Levied Assessment - An assessment that is extended onto the property tax rolls for collection by the County. Abated Assessment - The cancellation of an existing adopted, cer- tified or levied assessment. Postponed Assessment - An assessment that was not certified to the County, but will be enforced through contractual agreement between the City and the property owner. The future amount of the assessment, the interest rate and the length of spread of the assessment are to be determined at a later date. Deferred Assessnent - An assessment for which the levy or cer- tification is delayed. These may be legislative deferrals, i.e., Green Acres or Senior Citizen Deferrals or other deferral of payment by the Council. The amount of the assessment and interest rate are set; as is the term of the assessment. Page 1 HAUGE, EIDE & KELLER, P.A. Alor eys at el",aW TOWN CENTRE PROFESSIONAL BLDG., SUITE 200 1260 YANKEE DOODLE ROAD EAGAN, MINNESOTA 55123 (612)456-9000 November 11, 1987 Mr. Eugene VanOverbeke City Treasurer City of Eagan 3830 Pilot Knob Road Eagan, MN 55121 RE: Reapportionment of Special Assessments Dear Mr. VanOverbeke: PAULH.HAUGE KEVIN W. EIDE DAVID G. KELLER LORI M. BELLIN DEBRA E. 5CHMIDT THOMAS P. LOWE It has recently been brought to my attention that after the City reapportions certain special assessments, these changes on occasion, are not showing up against the property on the tax roles. After reviewing procedures with the County Auditor's and Recorder's office in Dakota County, the following procedure should be followed by City personnel in order to insure that reapportionment of special assessments is properly taken care of: 1. Complete special assessment input form available from the County Auditor and deliver to the County Auditor's office. 2. County Auditor's office will submit to the City a new assessment sheet. 3. The City must then record the new special assessment reapportionment request with the Recorder's office. The County Auditor's office simply takes care of the reapportionment of the assessment and does not take any responsibilities for recording the change in assessments against the property. The City must actively take steps with both the Auditor's and Recorder's office in order to properly record a special assessment reapportionment against a property. Feel free to contact me with any questions you may have regarding any of the above. Very.truly yours, HAUGE, EIDE & KELLER, P.A. Paul H. Hauge PHH:jjm cc: Tom Colbert November 9, 1987 City of Eagan 3830 Pilot Knob Road Eagan, MN 55121 RE: Reapportionment of Special Assessments Dear It has recently been brought to my attenti that after the City reapportions certain special assessments these changes on occasion, are not showing up against the property After reviewing the procedures with the County Auditor's and Recorder's office in Dakota County, the following procedure should _ 5 e followed by personnel in order to insure that reapportionment of special assessments is properly taken care of: 1. Complete special assessment input form t ard deliver r o the County Auditor's office. A 2. County Auditor's office will assessment sheet. 3. The City must then record the the Recorder's office. submit to the City a new new special s essmen with The County Auditor's office simply takes care of the reapportionment of the assessment and does not take any responsibilities for recording the change in assessments against the property. The City must actively take steps with both the Auditor's and Recorder's office in order to properly record a special assessment reapportionment against a property. Feel free to contact me with any questions you may have regarding any of the above. Very truly yours, HAUGE, EIDE & KELLER, P.A. 0 PROCEDURE FOR REAPPORTIONMENT OF SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS 1. Notify County Auditor (Peg) by letter that certain property is being sub-divided/platted or that assessments are being reapportioned, and then request the Auditor to send to the City a present listing of existing special assessments on the involved properties. 2. After the City completes its procedures regarding reapportionment of the special assessments, the resulting figures should be sent by letter to the Auditor's office so that they may be transferred onto the Auditor's records. 3. The City may then record .the final special assessment amounts against the respective properties. The Auditor's office does not transfer the documentation of the assessment reapportionment over to the Recorder's office and as such, the City must actively take this upon itself. Dated: November 4, 1987 )57 I REQU&S7 FORrREAPPORTLONMED9P OF. SPECIAL- ASSESSME I/We hereby request of the City Council, City of EaRan, Minnesota, Reapportion- ment of pending special assessments for Project 034S on nronerty owned by me/us and legally described as follows: CANTERBURY FOR:'ST,_ all lots and blocks REASSESSMENT to be spread over the following legal descriptions: 10-02600-010-29 Legal Description: The NIP, of the NW of Section 26, Township -27, Range 23, Dakota County, Minnesota. KIND OF IMPROVEMENT PENOlt:G AMOUNT_ •L%Stleejt _._. _ — . _ $10,172.76 B' Storm. Sewer-1ater-a1 C_ Storm Sewer Trunk - - _ $14,596.92 E. — — - — - I/WE hereby waive notice of ;.ny and all hearings necessary fou she r"i-vortion•• went ov reassessment of said 'assessments and further waive my/our right to appeal the reapportionment or reassessment under Minnesota Statutes 429.071. Il is furtler understood that this request shall be reviewed by the City Council of the City of Eagan or its agent and I/WE will be given reasonable notice as to whether this request is approved or modified. The undersigned agrees to pay all administrative costs incurred and billed by the City in such reassessments. The undersigned is/are all of the persons who have an interest in the property affected by the reassessment, includine_ fee LILIc wwnecs, contract for deed holders or op[ionees. , The undersigned agrees that this, waiver shall run with the affected land and bind the heirs, successors and assigns of such land. �cxvtclton 5oLdh �jssocrc _ JIM -BAR INVESTMENT COMPANY DATED:nctnh _r .19_1982 by� _ **pany, partner of Lexington South Associates, J es ry, pes $is -Bar Investment Com-*' a partnership, on behalf of the partnership, Svend_ eersen; S. .e-tersen o u6t10n, nc. /President REQUEST accepted bDATED:_�L� REQUEST referred to City Council for Action: DATED: November 9, 1982 CITY COUNCIL ACTION: Approved //_ 0-f„? �•�- Approved as Modified -- Denied AIVEWF• HEARING MQUEST, FORT REAPPORTIONMEN'1} OF> SPECIA • ASSESSMENTS I/We hereby request of the City Council, City of Eagan, Minnesota, Reapportion- ment of pending special assessments for Project 0345 on property owned by me/us and legally described as follows: CANTERBURY FOREST, all lots and blocks REASSESSMENT to be spread over the following legal descriptions: 10-02600-010-28 Legal Description: The A of the NFh of the Nr9N of Section 26, - 4bwnship 27, Range 23, Dakota County, Minnesota. KIND OF IMPROVEMENT PENDIi:r_ AMOUNT .`•. Street .. $2608.40__—_ u•.5t0zM_5.2w2T.LatCr4l__._ --- $1185 -§0 C•Storm Sewer Trunk _ — — 3742.80_ D. E. I/BE hPrehy wzii;e rnri.r:: UP a -LY and A) ). 4..Fi In S nPCPc ,a I• fqr ile rF.a �: went o: ....:`F.-:::.:a...r. .•ii ..S.r.• ::, s :.:; g 9 1 P,ortion- :: !,y/our. right CC appeal the L•F.i t.S ci: Ci4nh::'.ai. !:: !. i'%,gig-"i; r: S:,1C:(: i.:±(.�1 •�.a11±ieC e.:�aA :: F: f:`. ![l•E /:'1.7. :�/1. I It is ;h:,.c; �r :I,r'Erst od. [h ,r: phis request si,vll bu reviewed by Lhe City Council of the City of Eagan of its agent I.nri 04F, will be given reasonablE notice ar to whether this request is approved r. yo•?ified. The undersigned agrees to n -y ,;).). administrative costs incurred and billed b}• the City in such reassfscmeuts. The undersigned is/are all of the persons who have an interest In the property affected by the reassessment. Lnclurii.ne fPP L::.ie u..ners, contract. for deep holders or optionees. - The undersigned agrees that this waiver shall run with the affected land and bind the heirs, successors and assigns of such land. ��x,nQi�a _5-uih AsscciitEA TM -BAR INVEEPMONT OMPANY DATED: October_ 19,_198.2 bydZ m" r �/�l i p _ ... es neruo Y' -re - cii�ii"�sIme 'es, aCgari lam- 3�rership.onbehalf of Sven Petersen, S. Petersen Construction, Inc. /President REQUEST accepted by,,, the partner -M P Y' a i. DATED: //- � shin REQUEST referred to City Council for Action: DATED: November 9, 1982 CITY COUNCIL ACTION: Approved Approved as Modified Denied REQUES'P FORS REAPPORTIONMENT OF, S'PECI'AL ASSESSMENTS I/We hereby request of the City Council, City of Eagan, Minnesota, Reapportion- ment of pending special assessments for Project #345 on property owned by me/us and legally described as follows: CANTERBURY FOREST, all lots and blocks REASSESSMENT to be spread over the following legal descriptions: 1� _ Parcel 10 02600 015 30 KIND OF IMPROVEMENT A. Street Is. Storm Sewer Lateral C•__J5t4 a_aE wer, runk _ D. F. PENDING AhOUNT $10,824.86 4920_24 .$15,532 62 I/WE hereby waive notice of any and all hearings necessary for the reapportion- ment or reassessment of said 'assessments and further waive my/our right to appeal the reapportionment or reassessment under Minnesota Statutes 429.071. It is further understood that this request shall be reviewed by the City Council of-the'City of Eagan or its agent and I/WE will be given reasonable notice as to whether this request is approved or modified. The undersigned agrees to pay all administrative costs incurred and billed by the City in such reassessments. The undersigned is/are all of the persons who have an interest in the property affected by the reassessment, including fee titin „_.,_:B, C....t.-act fo: deed holders or optionees. The undersigned agrees that this waiver shall run with the affected land and bind the heirs, successors and assigns of such land. Lr ,,gj,rt $ouch Assxica-fe_5 JIM -BAR INVESTMENT COMPANY DATED: flrtnher 1� 1982 by Mwt� amen 1�2urrty, P Jm-Ba Investm nt C m an AS r ego exing o u ucaas,� Rai nels�iA �d i- 0 Svend Petersen, S. Petersen Cons ucti mr,�nnep ip, ell � /President REQUEST accepted by- ,t ('s,tV— DATED: REQUEST referred to City Council for Action: DATED: November 9. 1982 CITY COUNCIL ACTION: Approved //_ q_ F x Tsk Approved as Modified v� Denied �"15iTI T3[�7� Til :1 �Tr_9 x'73. � •. • . • � . I/We hereby request of the City Council, City of EaRan, Minnesota, Reapportion- ment of pending special assessments for Project 9365 on property owned by me/us and legally described as follows: WEDGWOOD ADDITION. All lots and blocks REASSESSMENT to be soread over the followine leeal descriptions: 10-02500-011-51 Legal: • lbat part of the F,. of the SIO; of Section 25, 4bwnshiD 27, Range 23, Dakota County, Minnesota lyingt tf a oenterline of New Dodd Road. KIND OF IMPROVEMENT • PENDTilr AMOUNT A•St-eet $8599.20 B•Storm_Sexcr lateral 393A9_l2_ _- C. Storm Sewer Trunk $7791.68 D. E. 1 F. — �. I/WE hereby waive notice of any and all hearings necessary for the reapportion, i i mens or reassessment of said "assessments and Further waive my/our right to appeal ' the reapportionment or reassessment under Minnesota Statutes 429.071. d It is further understood that this request shall be reviewed by the City Council of the City of Eagan or its agent and I/WE will be given reasonable notice as to whether this request is approved or modified. The undersigned agrees to pay all administrative costs incurred and billed by the City in such reassessments. The undersigned is/are all of the persons who have an interest in the property affected by the reassessment, including fee title owners, contract for deed holders or optionees. The undersigned agrees that this waiver shall run with the affected land and bind the heirs, successors and assigns of such land. L.r.rInrra?'om 5o, -fY /{,soc�gte_S _ JIM -BAR INVESTMENT COMPANY DATED: n,tnlar iq 1982 by6AA44,r- **partner of Lexington South Associates, C ,Pre :,g T' --B Investment. Com- a partnership, on behalf.of he partner- pany, William G. Huttner,William Huttner Construe - ship, /President tion, Inc. REQUEST accepted by _ -e'l Id.��nr�` DATED: //_ ,� -�� REQUEST referred to City Council for Action: DATED: November 9. 1982 CITY COUNCIL ACTION: Approved //_ ¢•2 0 qtr_ Approved as Modified Denied M. ,w,µd a., V. r-1— i EOllES1*FORt=REAPPOR'DION[tEIiLLOF- �R A6 - n►Fnrrc. I/Wc hereby request of the City Council, City of EaRan, Minnesota, Reapportion- ment of pending special assessments for Project #345 on nronerty owned by me/us and legally described as follows: WEDGWOOD ADDITION All lots and Blocks REASSESSMENT to be spread over the following legal descriptions: 10-02500-01050 Legal Description: The WS of the Sid, of Section 25, whip 27, P Range 23, Dakota County, liinnesota. KIND OF IMPROVEMENT A- Street B•_SZQrm Sa%j9r l.a ral C•Storm Sewer Trunk D. E. F. PENDINCAMOUNT $42.996.00 - 21 745.60 $38,958.40 I/WE hereby waive notice of any and all hearings necessary for the reapportion- ment or reassessment of said assessments and further waive my/our right to appeal the reapportionment or reassessment under Minnesota Statutes 429.071. It is further understood that this request shall be reviewed by the City Council of the City of Eagan or its agent and I/WE will be given reasonable notice as to whether this request is approved or modified. The undersigned agrees to pay all administrative costs incurred and billed by the City in such reassessments. The undersigned is/are all of the persons who have an interest in the property affected by the reassessment, including fee title owners, contract for deed holders or optionees. ' The undersigned agrees that, this waiver shall run with the affected land and bind the heirs, successors and assigns of such land, jEA,nq_t�N Soc{h ��ocrAf�t JIM -BAR INVESTMENT COMPANY DATED: October 19, 1982 b kCompany, partner o Lexington ou y• >sociates, a partnership, on behalf of e,.^ Y, P i� o -Bar Investment. ie partnership, William G. uttner, Wi iam u ner C-on—H—uc- REQUEST accepted by: ti,,,.e, D - /President tion, Inc. J --�A-c — DATED: //_ j k ] REQUEST referred CO City Council for Action: DATED: November 9, 1982 CITY COUNCIL ACTION: Approved_ ZZ_ Approved as Modified Denied I/We hereby request of the City Council, City of Cagan, Minnesota, Reapportion- ment of pending special assessments for Project N345 on nroperty owned by me/us and legally described as follows: OAKWOOD I1L•IGNTS ADDITION, Blocks 1 thru 5, and Outlot A and B REASSESSMENT to be spread over the following legal descriptions: _Section 26, _parcel N10 02600-014 KIND OF IKPROVEIiEN1 PENT AMOUNT S wer,-Trunk _ _ $8569.55�f Blocks 1 thru 5 & Outlot A i1._ _Storm w Seer Lateral $3366.09 $7403.48 C. Street_ —_— -- E. — I/WE hereby waive noci.ce of any and all heari.r!gs necessary for the reapportion- ment or reassessment of said assessments an-, 1'S'it}IP.Y waive my/our right to appeal the reapportionment or reassessment under fii.rt[a"ca Statutes 429.071. It is further understood that this request shall be reviewed by the City Council of the City of Eagan c:,. its agent: and I/WE will be given reasonable notice as to whether this request is approved or modified. The undersigned agrees to pay all administrative costs incurred and billed by the City in such reassessmenrs.The undersigned is/are all of the persons who have an interest in the property affected by the reassessment, including fee title owners, contract for deed holders or optionees. ' The undersigned agrees that this' waiver shall run with the affected land and bind the heirs, successors and assigns of such land. LXX,ngton .56�vfh AAssocI&Ci.t•a DATED:er_�,___—_--_ —fairmrtyner rLagro/ oo�u,1teyCide Bulil"ers, Inc. (A e t —' A. Curry, PreB• of Jim -Bar Investment Company of Lexington South Associates, a partner - REQUEST accepted by DATED:ship, on behalf of the i partneryhi REQUEST referred to City Council for Action: DATED:—_ h 4 to82 CITY COUNCIL ACTION: Approved j/-�— Approved as Modified Denied 1`5 Te dl-- via rw) A'V /.SoVia//����i"i �• �� '(.�'1���"COY �'l L I V , V r A-Lcu iblt,�o m 0 i �l October 9, 1987 MR DOUG LEE 1543 SHERWOOD WAY EAGAN, MN 55123 RE: LOT 2, BLOCK 1, BRITTANY 7TH Dear Mr. Lee: Per your request, on September 29, 1987, Steve Hanson, Bill Bruestle and I made an inspection of your residence at 1543 Sherwood Way which was constructed in the summer of 1985. Results of this inspection revealed the following concerns: 1. At present, construction is inadequate to support roof loads and deviates from the plan. 2. Two steel pipe columns in the garage should be protected with 5/8" gypsum board. 3. Construction of the 2' dining room cantilever is inadequate to support loads. 4. Foyer floor is not completely level. 5. All joist hangers should be rechecked and nailed properly. 6. Inspection of living room roof framing was impossible at this time; however, it appears there may be a problem in that area. This could be verified by an inspection of this area by a designer and/or building inspector making access through the attic or by removing gypsum board. 7. Two sets of steps need handrails. 8. Installation of the siding needs to be inspected by the manufacturer's representative to verify installation procedures. 9. Framing and structural concerns could further be determined by removal of the gypsum board. This inspection has revealed some concerns with the construction of your home. We appreciate your bringing these concerns to our attention. It is my understanding that you are involved in legal action against your builder and therefore, the comments I am noting are based on a brief review and no detailed findings have been made. Sincerely, Doug Reid Chief Building Official DR/js cc: Tollefson Builders 12617 Fairgreen Ave Apple Valley, MN 55124 October ( 1987 MR DOUG LEE 1543 SHERWOOD WAY EAGAN, MN 55123 RE: LOT 2, BLOCK 1, BRITTANY 7TH Dear Mr. Lee: At your request, on September 29, 1987, Steve Hanson, Bill Bruestle and I made an inspection of your residence at 1543 Sherwood Way which was constructed in the summer of 1985. Results of this inspection revealed the following concerns: p� 1. Garage roof co truction i inadequate d deviates from the plan, � `--'6 h 2. Two steel pipe columns in the arage should be protected with 5/8" gypsum board. 3. Construction of the 2' dining room cantilever is inadequate ..9, �- 4. Foyer floor is not �lev� el. 0 5. All joist hangers should be rechecked and nailed properly. 6. Inspection of living room roof framing was impossible at' this time. However, it appears there may be a problem in that area. This could be %verified by an inspection of that area�R—�Cirn� (/7. Two sets of steps need handrails c0 �/ (JG p 8. Installationf the a siding needs to be inspected by the manufacturer's representative 9. The cause of some of the concerns baeei{ up could further be determined by removal of the gypsum board. ( \-Y4 R r &11' �--- PeL� This inspection as r_evealedd(�Jsome concerns with the construction of your home. We appreciate your bringing these concerns to our attention. Mie-ae4"r%- Sincerely, Doug Reid Chief Building Official DR/js cc: Tollefson Builders 12617 Fairgreen Ave Apple Valley, MN 55124 HUGE. LJDE & KELLER, P.A //�� ( PAUL M. MAUGE ,A110"Ievs al claw KEVIN W. EIDE TO%%7N CENTRE PROFESSIONAL BLDG., SUITE 200 DAVID G. KELLER 1260 YANKEE DOODLE ROAD LORI M. BELLIN FAGAN, MINNESOTA 55123 DEBRA E.T (612) 456-9000 THOMAS P..OWE LLO WE January 15, 1988 Eugene VanOverbeke Eagan City Clerk 3830 Pilot Knob Road Eagan, MN 55121 RE: Dissemination of Data to Individual Requesting Assessment Information Dear Mr. VanOverbeke: QUESTION: The issue presented here is whether the City of Eagan must provide the requested assessment information to an individual requesting it at no charge to the individual. DISCUSSION: Minnesota Statute S 13.03 is applicable to the issue in this matter. First, the requested information is classified as government data that is public, inasmuch as the assessment information has not been classified otherwise statute, temporary classification or federal law, as described in Minn. Stat. 513.03(1). As the information requested is public, under 13.03(2), full, convenience and comprehensive accessibility must be allowed to researchers to carry out extensive research and complete copying of all records. While the researchers alluded to in the statute refers to historians, genealogists and other scholars, it is arguable that the person requesting the assessment information here would fall into that category and full accessibility to the records would have to be allowed. Section 13.03(3) relates to the procedure and costs of supplying the requested data. It states that a person shall be allowed to inspect and copy public government data upon request, and the responsible authority may not charge the requesting party to pay a fee to inspect the data. However, the requesting party may be required to pay the actual costs of searching for and retrieving government data, as well as to pay the cost of making, certifying and compiling the copies of the data. Eugene VanOverbeke January 18, 1988 Page 2 Additionally, when the request, as here, involves any person's receipt of copies of public government data that has commercial value and is an entire formula, pattern, compilation, program, device, method, technique, process, data base or system developed with a significant expenditure of public funds by the agency, the responsible party may charge a reasonable fee for the information in addition to the costs described above. However, any fee charged must be clearly demonstrated to relate to the actual development costs of the information. Minn. Stat. 13.03(3). The Eagan City Policy on dissemination of information is right in line with the Minnesota Statutes. Section III, Procedures for obtaining public data specifies: (c)(1) any person requesting the opportunity to inspect . . . shall be allowed to do so . . . under the direct supervision of the responsible City employee; (c)(2) copies of requested information shall be provided at rates specified under the City's Comprehensive Code; and (c)(3) no original City documents may be loaned or checked out. An option worth considering would be to install a computer terminal for public use at the Eagan City Hall. Dakota County has such a terminal, but the cost of providing one to the City could be prohibitive. If the person requests copies, there is a charge. In order to cover the cost of the terminal, it could be passed on to those using it, in accordance with Minnesota Statutes 13.03(3). However, this scenario would defeat the purpose of providing the information at no or little cost. CONCLUSION: In conclusion, the City may charge for copies made upon request by an individual. Also, as the person involved here is requesting information that has commercial value, a reasonable fee may be charged for compiling the information, provided that there is sufficient documentation to justify the fee charged. Very truly yours, HAUGE, EIDE & KELLER, P.A. Thomas P. Lowe TPL:ras FJ BRENNER, WORKINGER & THOMPSON, P. A. a, ATTORNEYS AT LAW FQ SUITE 1000 7900 INTERNATIONAL DRIVE C 7 LOUIS W. BRENNER GERALD G. WORHINGER. JR. JOSEPH G. THOMPSON JOHN T. HARTMANN TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN: MINNEAPOLIS. MINNESOTA 55420 TELEPHONE: 16121 654.7600 TELECOPI ER: 16121 854A502 January 8, 1988 \ L,A J�"', AoV`^ q MARY S. VUJOVICH DAVID J. MEYERS JOHN T. RICHARDSON JEFFREY M. LANG MARGARET M. MORSCM WILLIAM L. MORAN We are attorneys for Twin Cities Legal Support Services ("LSS") and Mr. Thomas von Behren, President. Part of LSS' business involves searches and reviews of government data, including, but not limited to, levied and pending special assessments on real estate in various cities in the State of Minnesota. Although most cities readily comply with requests for access to government data reflecting levied and pending special assessments on real estate, several have denied access on various grounds, including the ground that non -protected data is stored in a computer with otherwise protected data, thereby denying LSS access to the computer, and also denying access to such information through city employees. LSS has been informed by the Minnesota Attorney General's Office and by several County Attorneys that the cities may not deny access to such government data. They do not, however, issue opinions to the public with respect to such matters. This letter is intended to set forth the applicable law in the State of Minnesota, which applies to all cities located in Minnesota, which mandates that persons be allowed access to the type of public data referred to herein. Minnesota Statutes Section 13.03 (a copy of which is attached hereto for your reference) provides in Subdivision 1 that all government data collected, created, received, maintained or otherwise disseminated by a state agency or political. subdivision shall be public unless classified by statute or other specific grounds making such data non-public. Subdivision 1. further provides that the responsible authority in every state agency or political subdivision must keep records containing government data in such an arrangement and condition as to make them easily accessible for convenient use. Subdivision 2 provides that the responsible authority in every state agency or political subdivision must also establish procedures, consistent with the statute, to ensure that requests for government data are received and complied with in an appropriate and prompt manner. January 8, 1988 Page Two Subdivision 3, regarding requests for access to data, provides that upon request to a responsible authority, persons must be permitted to inspect and copy public government data at reasonable times and places, and upon request, must be informed of the data's meaning. If a person requests access to such data for the purpose of inspection, no charge or fee may be assessed for such inspection. Further, no charge or fee is to be assessed for separating public from non-public data. If access to data is denied on the grounds that it is classified, the responsible authority must inform the requesting person of the determination, either orally at the time of the request, or in writing as soon as possible after the request is made, and must cite the specific statutory section, temporary classification, or specific provision of federal law upon which that determination was based. For purposes of Section 13.03 of Minnesota Statutes a "political subdivision" is defined to mean any county, statutory or home rule charter city. (see Section 13.02, Subdivision 11, attached hereto for your reference). We believe it is very clear, and that there can be no dispute, that government data reflecting levied and pending special assessments on real estate located within a city is public data which a city must provide access to under Minnesota Statutes Section 13.03. The only fee that may be charged for access to such data is for copying charges or any actual costs incurred in connection with searching for and retrieving such government data, and for making, certifying and compiling copies of such data. In connection with searching for information on levied or pending special assessments on real estate, we believe that the only charge or fee that may be assessed is for copying, since anyone requesting access to such data should be allowed to review such data without the necessity of a government employee searching for or retrieving such data. Again, Minnesota Statutes Section 13.03, Subdivision 3 provides that no charge may be made for separating public from non-public data. Accordingly, if a computer program of a city commingles public and non-public data, it is the responsibility of the city to provide such public data information requested without charge. If you should have any question as to the applicability of the Minnesota Statutes cited hereinabove and attached hereto, we request that you immediately discuss them with your city or county attorney, or the undersigned. We believe that the Minnesota Statutes referred to are quite clear on this subject, and respectfully request that LSS be allowed access to such information in a voluntary and prompt manner. Very truly yours, BRENNER, WORKINGER & HOMPSON, P.A. By: -7 , . John T. Hartmann Enclosures :::.::.,:.....:.. § 13.02 Note t Arrest information should be made available at reasonable times, including normal business GOVERNMENT DATA PRACMES Lours, but need not be available on a 24-hour pe day basis. Id. 13.03. Access to government data 'e Subdivision 1. Public data All government data collected, created, received, main- twined or disseminated by a state agency, political subdivision, or statewide system shall be public unless classified by statute, or temporary classification pursuant to section 13.06, or federal law, as nonpublic or protected nonpublic, or with respect to data on K individuals, as private or confidential. The responsible authority in every state agency, political subdivision and statewide system shall keep records containing government data in such an arrangement and condition as to make them easily accessible for convenient use. Photographic, photostatic, microphotographic, or microfilmed records shall be considered as accessible for convenient use regardless of the size of such records. '. Subd. 2. Procedures. The responsible authority in every state agency, political = K subdivision, and statewide system shall establish procedures, consistent with this chapter, / to insure. that requests for government data are received and complied with in an appropriate, and prompt manner. Full convenience and comprehensive accessibility shall be allowed to researchers including historians, genealogists and other scholars to carry out extensive research and complete copying of all records containing government data except as otherwise expressly. provided by law. ' " A responsible authority may designate one or more designees. • - ., " .-Subd. S. Request for access to data'Upon request to a responsible authority or designee, a person shall be permitted to inspect and copy public. government data at - :1 reasonable times and places, and, upon request, shall be informed of the data's meaning. If a person irequests access for the purpose of inspection, the responsible authority maw not rpay afee to inspect data.. The i responsible ,authority or designee shall provide copies of public government data upon ; request. If a'person requests copies,'the responsible authority may require the request- ing equest ing personactual costs of�Funn �or�inevmg governm€ntsad for ma g, .� g an comp ' g the copies o e to u may ao e r separating public from not public data., If the responsible authority or designee is not able to provide copies at the time a request is made, copies shall be supplied as soon as - i:When a regwest ander this s olves an n's recei t of co iea f pub'c V government data that has commercial g8lue an >s an en orm pa m on; Program, device, method, technique,, process, data base, or system de�e: . significant expenditure of public funds by the agency, the responsible authority may charge a reasonable fee for the information in addition to the costs of making, certifying, and compiling the copies.. Any fee charged must be clearly demonstrated by the agency to relate to the actual development coslis 1 a responsuthority, We the requestto any person, sufficient documentation to explain and justify the -fee being charged. .If the responsible authority or designee determines that the requested data is classified eo as to deny the requesting person access, the responsible authority or designee shall inform the requesting person of the determination either orally atthe'time of the request, or in writing as soon after that time as possible, and shall cite the specific statutory section, temporary classification, or specific provision of .federal lawon which the determination .is based Upon the request of any person denied access to data, the responsible authority or designee shall certify in writing that the request has been denied and cite the specific statutory section, temporary classification, or specific provision of federal law upon which the denial was based. . .Subd. d.. Change In classification of data The clasaiification of data in the posses- sion of an agency shall change if it is required to do go to comply with.either judicial or 90 "' Tom.,-Y�5!!�: �+•S y- ts4� - .. ;. r GOVERNMENT DATA PRACTICES § 13.03 administrative rules pertaining to the conduct of legal actions or with a spec statute applicable to the data in the possession of the disseminating or receiving agency. If data on individuals is classified as both private and confidential by this chapter, or any other statute or federal law, the data is private. To the extent that government data is disseminated to state agencies, political subdivi- sions, or statewide systems by another state agency, political subdivision, or statewide system, the data disseminated shall have the same classification in the hands of the agency receiving it as it had in the hands of the entity providing it. . Subd. b. Copyright or patent of computer program. Nothing in this chapter or any other statute shall be construed to prevent a state agency, statewide system, or political subdivision from acquiring a copyright or patent for a computer software program or components of a program created by that government agency. In the event that a . government agency does acquire a patent or copyright to a computer software program or component of a program, the data shall be treated as trade secret information pursuant to section 13.37. Subd. 6. Discoverability of not public data If a state agency, political subdivision, or statewide system opposes discovery of government data or release of data pursuant to court order on the grounds that the data are classified as not public, the party that seeks access to the data may bring before the appropriate presiding judicial officer, arbitrator, or administrative law judge an action to compel discovery or an action in the nature of an action to compel discovery. The presiding officer shall first decide whether the data are discoverable or releasable pursuant to the rules of evidence and of criminal,civil, or administrative procedure appropriate to the action. -If the data are discoverable the presiding officer shall decide whether the benefit to the party seeking access to the data outweighs any harm to the confidentiality interests of the agency maintaining the data, or ;Df any person who has. provided the data or who is the subject of the 'data, or to the privacy interest 6f an individual identified in the data. In making the decision, the presiding officer shall consider whether notice to the subject of the data is warranted and, if warranted, what type of notice must be given.The presiding officer may fashion and issue any protective ordersnecessary to Assure proper handling of the data by the.parties: Subd. 7. Data transferred to archiv@s."When'governinent.data-that'is classified as not public by this chapter of any other etatute,IIncluding private data on'decedents and confidential data on decedents, is physically transferred 'bo •the state archives; -the data shall no longer be classified As pot -public pn8 access to and -use of the data'shall' be . governed by section. 138.17:;:::- . Subd.,S...Change, to olessification Of data not on z-` ti Except for security information, nonpublic and protected nonpublic data shall become public either ten years After the creation of the data by the government agency or ten years after the data was received or collected by any governmental agency unless the responsible authority for. the originating or custodial agency. for the data reasonably determines that, if the data were made. available to the public or to the data subject, the'harm to the public or to a data subject would outweigh the benefit to -the public or to the data subject If the -responsible authority denies access to the data, the. person, denied access may challenge.the denial by bringing an action in- district court seeking please: of :the, data.. The action shall -be brought in the district eourt-located in the county where the data are being maintained, or, in the case of data maintained. by, a state agency, in any county..The data in dispute shall be examined by the court in camera , In deciding whether or not tp release the data, the court shall consider the benefits and harms in the same manner as set forth above. The court shall make a. written. statement of findings in support of its decision,: Ainended by Laois 1984, c.-436, if 2 to'4,-eff. April 24,-199C Uvii 1985, e. 298, 11 1 to 4, eH. Jane b, 1985: Laws 1987, e. 851, 1 1. Bl J 13.03 GOVERNMENT .DATA PRACTICES Historical Note ;. _ - .1987 Legislation Derivation: - The 1987 amendment, in subd. 3, substituted laws 1982, c. 545, if 2, 24. "If a person requests access for the purpose of Laws 1981, 1st Sp., C. 4, art. 1, § 6. inspection, the responsible authority may not Laws 1981, c. 311, § 39. - assess a charge or' for "The responsible authori- SL1980, § 15.1621. ty may not" in the second sentence, and.inserted Laws 1980, e. 603, § 7. If a person requests copies" in the third sen. Laws 1979, c. 328, ¢ 7. tence. The 1984 amendment, in solid. 3, inserted Law Review Commentaries "public" in the first and second sentences, added Data privacy: Everything you wanted W know the second paragraph, and, is the fourth para- about the Minnesota Government Data Practices graph substituted "or" for "and" preceding "in AM—from "A" to "Z". Donald A. Gemberling writing as soon" in the fust sentence and added and Gary A. Weissman. 1982, 8 Wm. -Mitchell the second sentence; added the last two para- l.ltev. b73. graphs in subd. 4; and added subd. 5. The 1985 amendment, in subd. 3, rewrote the Library References _ first paragraph, which formerly mad: Records 0=50 et seq. "Upon request to a responsible authority or .Reco Records 35. designee, a person shall be permitted to inspect § . and copy public government data at reasonable times and places, and if the person requests, he Notes of. Decisions shall be informed of the data's meaning. The - - responsible authority or designee shall provide 1. Construction with other laws -- copies of public government data upon request General language of Data privacy Act [MS.A. The responsible authority may require the re-,. -113.03, subd.41 which merely indicates in gener- .questing person to pay the actual costa of mak-: � terms that certain personnel data should be mg, certifying and compiling the copies. If the normally considered '.'private" does not create ,responsible authority or designee is not able to exception to Open Meeting Law [MS.A. g47L- provide copies at the time, a request is made he. 4051 thus, special provisions of Open Meeting shall supply copies as noon as reasonably poser ,LAW, limiting way in which exception' may be ibis." :. avated, prevails over general language in Data The 1985 amendment also added subds. 6, 7 -. -Privacy Act Itasca County Bd. of Com'rs v. and 8. Olson, App.1985, 372 N.W.2d SM. " 13.04. Rights of subjects of data .. Subdivision 1. Type of data The rights of individuals on whom the datais stored or to be stored shall be as set forth m gtis section. J. Solid. 2. information required to be given individual. An individual asked .to'aupply private or confidential data eoneerning the individual shall be informed of: is) the purpose and intended use of the requested data within the collecting state agency, political -subdivision, or statewide system; (b) whether the individual may refuse or is legally 'required to supply the requested data; (c) any known consequence arising from supplying or refusing to supply private or confidential data; and (d) the identity of other persons or entities authorized'by state or federal law to receive the data. This requirement shall not 'apply when an individual is asked to supply investigative data, pursuant to section 13.82, .-subdivision 5, to a law enforcement officer. Solid. S. Access to date by Individual. Upon'request to a iesponsble authority; an dividual shall be informed whether the individual is the subject of stored data on Individuals, ,and whether it is classified as public, private or confidential. Upon further request, an individual who is the subject of stored private or public data on individuals shall be shown the data without any charge and, if desired, shall be informed of the content and meaning of that data: After an individual has been shown the private data and informed of its meaning, the data need.not be disclosed to that individual for six months thereafter unless a dispute or action pursuant to this section is pending or additional data on the individual has been collected or created. The responsible authority shall provide copies of the private or public data upon request by the individual subject of the data. The responsible authority may regeire the requesting person to pay.the actual costa of making, certifying. and compt7ing the copies. 92 I 13.02 GOVERNMENT DATA PRACTICES I '-a0 statewide system means the state official designated by law or by the commissioner as the individual responsible for the collection, use and dissemination of any set of data on individuals, government data, "Responsible or summary data. authority" in any political subdivision means the individual designated by the governing body of that political subdivision as the individual responsible for the collection, use, and dissemi. nation of any set of data on individuals, government data, or summary data, unless otherwise provided by state law. Subd. 17. State agency. "State agency' means the state, the university of Minnesota, and any office, officer, department, division, bureau, board, commission, authority, district or agency of the state. q;l Subd. 18. Statewide system. "Statewide system" includes any record keeping a ` system in which government data is collected, stored, disseminated and used by means of a system common to one or more state agencies or more than one of its political subdivisions or any combination of state agencies and political subdivisions. ,k Subd. 19. Summary data. "Summary data" means statistical records and reports derived from data on individuals but in ;f which individuals are not identified and from which neither their identities nor any other characteristic that ii could uniquely identify an individual is ascertainable. History: 1974 c 479 s 1; 1975 c 401 s 1; 1976 c 239 s 2; 1976 c 283 s 1-5.-1977 c 375 s 1-5; 1978 c 790 s 1; 1979 c 318 s 2-6; 1980 c 603 s 1-6; 1980 618 25; .i di c s 1981 c 311 s 2-6,39; 1982 c 545 s 1.24; 1984 c 436 s 1 13.03 ACCESS TO GOVERNMENT DATA. Subdivision 1. Public data. All government data collected, created, received, maintained or disseminated by a state agency, political subdivision, 1, or statewide system shall be public unless classified by statute, or temporary classification pursuant to section 13.06, or federal law, as nonpublic or protected nonpublic, or with respect to data on individuals, as private or confidential. The responsible authority in every state agency, political subdivision and statewide system shall keep records containing government data in such an arrangement and condition as to make them easily accessible for convenient use. Photographic, photostatic, microphotographic, or microfilmed records shall be considered as accessible for convenient use regardless of the size of such records. Subd. 2. Procedures. The responsible authority in every state agency, political subdivision, and statewide system shall establish procedures, consistent with this chapter, to insure that requests for government data are received and complied with in an appropriate and prompt manner. Full convenience and comprehensive accessi- bility shall be allowed to researchers including historians, genealogists and other scholars to carry out extensive research and complete copying of all records containing government data except as otherwise expressly provided by law. A responsible authority may designate one or more designees. ? Subd. 3. Request for access to data. Upon request to a responsible authority or designee, a person shall be permitted to inspect and copy public government data at reasonable times and places, and, upon request, shall be informed of the data's mean- ing. The responsible authority may not require the requesting person to pay a fee to inspect data. The responsible authority or designee shall provide copies of public government data upon request. The responsible authority may require the requesting person to pay the actual casts of searching for and retrieving government data and for making, certifying and compiling the copies of the data but may not charge for separating public from not public data. If the responsible authority or designee is not able to provide copies at the time a request is made, copies shall be supplied as soon as reasonably possible. When a request under this subdivision involves any person's receipt of copies of public government data that has commercial value and is an entire formula, pattern, compilation, program, device, method, technique, process, data base, or system devel- 240 'T-'^ 241 GOVERNMENT DATA PRACME5 11.07 A as ' oped with a significant expenditure of public funds by the agency, the responsible Ila authority may charge a reasonable fee for the information in addition to the costs of ny „t, making, certifying. and compiling the copies. Any fee charged must be clearly demon- lat strated by the agency to relate to the actual development costs of the information. The ni- S responsible authority, upon the request of any person, shall provide sufficient documen- ess = ration to explain and justify the fee being charged. If the responsible authority or designee determines that the requested data is ofclassified 4 so as to deny the requesting person access, the responsible authority or tn, designee shall inform the requesting person of the determination either orally at the �.: time of the request, or in writing as soon after that time as possible, and shall cite the ;ng _ specific statutory section, temporary classification, or specific provision of federal law ins 7. on which the determination is based. Upon the request of any person denied access cat to data, the responsible authority or designee shall certify in writing that the request has been denied and cite the specific statutory section, temporary classification, or ns specific provision of federal law upon which the denial was based. )m Subd. 4. Change in classification of data. The classification of data in the ify possession of an agency shall change if it is required to do so to comply with either judicial or administrative rules pertaining to the conduct of legal actions or with a '75 specific statute applicable to the data in the possession of the disseminating or receiving 5 If data on individuals is classified as both private and confidential by this chapter, cr any other statute or federal law, the data is private. To the extent that government data is disseminated to state agencies, political _d ` -. subdivisions, or statewide systems by another stale agency, political subdivision, or ;de- statewide system, the data disseminated shall have the same classification in the hands int ? °• of the agency receiving it as it had in the hands of the entity providing it. ect _4, Subd. 5. Copyright or patent of computer program. Nothing in this chapter or any other statute shall be construed to prevent a state agency, statewide system, or political ing Ti,- ing �' - subdivision from acquiring a copyright or patent for a computer software program or .ily components of a program created by that government agency. In the event that a or - - government agency does acquire a patent or copyright to a computer software program of _`; or component of a program, the data shall be treated as trade secret information pursuant to section 13.37. cal a. 3 Subd. 6. Discoverability of not public data. If state agency, political subdivision, his or statewide system opposes discovery of government data or release of data pursuant ith 10 court order on the grounds that the data are classified as not public, the party that -:: seeks access to the data may bring before the appropriate presiding judicial officer, j ner • +> arbitrator, or administrative law judge an action to compel discovery or an action in ! ; ing a the nature of an action to compel discovery. The presiding officer shall first decide whether the data are discoverable or releas- I able pursuant to the rules of evidence and of criminal, civil, or administrative proce- a or ': dure appropriate to the action. 1 at ' If the data are discoverable the presiding officer shall decide whether the benefit F' an- -_ to the party seeking access to the data outweighs any harm to the confidentiality to interests of the agency maintaining the data, or of any person who has provided the data t ,li.c - or who is the subject of the data, or to the privacy interest of an individual identified ;ng '',x;,, in the data. In making the decision, the presiding officer shall consider whether notice for to the subject of the data is warranted and, if warranted, what type of notice must be for given. The presiding officer may fashion and issue any protective orders necessary to lot —_ assure proper handling of the data by the parties. ,on Subd. 7. Data transferred to archives. When government data that is classified 1 as not public by this chapter or any other statute, including private data on decedents .of and confidential data on decedents, is physically transferred to the state archives, the rn, data shall no longer be classified as not public and access to and use of the data shall el- Y by governed by section 138.17. GOVERNMENT DATA PRACTICES Section § 13.0$ 13.79. Department of labor and Indus 13.791. Rehabilitation data - industry data Section .13.83. Medicalcrammer data services data DATA MAINTAIN ED BY CRIMINAL ' JUSTICE AGENCIES 19.85. �°1ti .. rrectious and detention data ' --13.86. Investigative detention ds 18.87. . 18.88. �� l history data. ,. .Oeater 13.80. Domestic abuse data 13.81. Repealed. data mty' dispute resolution 13.82. .Comprehensive law enforcement data 1889. Disse Dissemination of data to protection and Cross References :13.90. Goyder� t data practices. - Public corporation for delivery of health are and related services, Data eiderta noon ublig at closed meeting cos nonpublic, Application of chapter, Consideration as P see i 246A.06. see ?A6A.16. WESTLAW Electronic see f 246A.17. Political .subdivision", Research See WESTLAW guide following the Preface of this supplement. . .: GENERAL REQUIREMENTS 13.01. Government da ffi Subdivision I. APPlicabilit . systems shall be .governed b y All state agencies, political subdivisions and statewide Subd. 2. Citation. Y the chapter. . :0 ` Practices act,, T6ts chs ter Y coed 8s the _ .. Minnesota government data Derivation.; 24 ;r:; i - A 9 A Weiss, ,Ronald e g'' Laws 1982, c'bd5, and A 'Gemberlin laws 1981, lets ., c 4, :ILRev. WS _ 1j.: 8_;d K.i�en a, laws 1981. a all . art .l, g1 4, 6. _ 05 1,,a9. SL1990,§ 16.1611.; - .. _.-'•:v. +arySefereaem laws 1979, r 328, y .r.,. girds i>l:' law Review Commentaries ' z .4-4. Records 41 y ' t about thenvacy: Everytlaug you wanted ta'lmow Minnesota Government Data Practiceb ... 13.02. Collection ' -. security.and dlsseminatr Subdivision 1.ty: on of records; ideftnMold section have the meean nr �Lv m °S?a m this thilliter, the';erms' dem , Subd. 2 Conimlaeloner. ' = t.': of administration. 'Contmiasioaee"'Reans the oomatisaioner of the de Subd. 3 Confidential_ `' +; Partment data�stb a to the ' blit by effituteuorlede den ffiw data on mdividuajs"means made not p- -data mdioldual eubjed of that data... aPPlicable:to. the data,and.is data which rsD not IMOt data On inddi�� ata data individuals".means:all'8aoetnment individuals....- - t.;:..y . i whichu6 �5. 'Daffi on lndividn "'Dsffi'on m Y individual is dividuals" means'all v appearance of the or can be identified ae the sub' go ernment data in incidental to the name or other ' Jett of that data, anless the data and- identifying ac data can . clearly demonstrated. to be only Of any lntiividual. fbe daffi:are not eoceesed bj the name orother idea 84bd. 6 Designee.thO..DesIY g data meeive and coto be mply $e of indivviidual 161 Y Person estynated by a responsible` sn= P Ywith'-requests Ifor government' datang by data and to 97 .. _. . 13.02 GOVERNMENT DATA .PRACTICE9�1 Subd. 7. Government data "Government data" means all data collected, tree �. received, maintained or disseminated b an state agency, � " wide system re p Y Y gg cy, political sabdivision; or state y regardless of its physical form, sutra a media or conditions of use. "4 4 Subd. 8. Individual. "Individual" means a natural person. _ In the case of a minor or an individual adjudged mentally incompetent, "individual" includes a parent or guardian or an individual acting as a parent or guardian in the absence of a parent or guardian, except that the responsible authority shall withhold data from parents or guardians, or - individuals acting as parents or guardians in the absence of parents or guardians, upon request by the minor if the responsible authority determines that withholding the data would be in the best interest of the minor. Subd. 8a. Not public data "Not public data" means any government data which. is classified by statute, federal law, or temporary classification as confidential, private, nonpublic, or protected nonpublic . Subd. 9. Nonpublic data. .-"Nonpublic data" -means data not on individuals which is '. made by statute or federal law applicable to the data: (a) not public; and (b) accessible to the subject, if any, of the data. Subd. 16. Person. "Person" means any individual, partnership, corporation, associa- tion, business trust, or a legal representative of an organization. Subd. 11. Political subdivision. "Political subdivision" means any-eounty,'a(atutory or home rule charter: city, school -district, special district ;and .any'board, commission, : s district or authority created pursuant to law, local ordinance or charter provision...•it includes any nonprofit corporation which is a community action agency organized •punsu- ant to the economic opportunity act of 1964 (P,L.'88--452) as amended, to qualify'for public + funds, or any nonprofit social service agency which performs services under contract't" any political subdivision, statewide system or state agency,: tp.,the .extent that the nonprofit social serviceagen.ey or, nonprofit corporation collects, attires, disseminates, and uses data on individuals because of contractual relationship with state agencigii, political ' subdivisions or statewide systems. Subd. 12. Private data o6- viduah. "Private data on •individuals" means data which is made by statute or federal Saw applicable to the data:(a) s aot'public;'Vnd (b) accessible to the individual subject of that data. • i •' ` Subd. 13. Protected nonpublic data "Protected non-public idata"• means data bot ori individuals which is made by statute or federal law applicable,io:theAata ta) not ,public and (b) not accessible to the subject of the .. , Subd. 14. Public data hot bn individuals.:: 'Public idata not -on individuals" means ':1 plata Which is,Accessible.to the,public,pursuant•to section 18.os..:j.; ` -; r;:; .;•:.,u_:< Subd. 15. Public data on individuals. "Public'data 6n individuals" -means data'which is accessible.to the public in.accordanee with the provisions of sectioa13.03. .: + •. Subd. 16. • Responsible authority. "Responsible authority" in e_'state"ageiicy; or statewide 'system means the state official -designated by law or'by the commissioner'as the individual responsible'foi the eolleetion,' use and dissemination.of any set of dataun individuals, government data, or summary data_:' "Responsible iinthority" in say political subdivision means the"individual designated by the governing body: -of dhat political subdivision as the individual responsible for the collection; use, and "dissemination of any set of data on individuals, government data, or summary data, unless otherwise provided by`state law..:;`.• :::: ,,.-.,.:.; ::. a' ::,,., -.... • ... ,.- , ' 8u6d. ii. ,"State agency:': "State gency".meal s the 9tate, •the •aniverslty:of Minneso fa, and any"'office,' officer,'departinent,diviaion, bureau; board, commission, autho districtor agency of the state. . ...... rity , •, . - ,... Subd. 18 -. Statewide system "Statewide system includes any. record-keeping system in which government data is collected,:atored, disseminated and used by means of a xc 1. GOVERNMENT DATA .PRACTICES § 13.02 Note 1 system common to one or' more_ state agencies or more than one of its political subdivi- sions or any combination of state agencies and political subdivisions. Subd. 19. Summary data "Summary data" means statistical. records and reports derived from data on individuals but in which individuals are" not identified and from which neither their identities.norany other characteristic that could uniquely identify an individual is ascertainable...• .. " Amended by Laws 1984, c. 436, ¢ ], eft. April 24, 1984. Historical Note 'Information concerning names of those receiv- Derivation: Ing payment for abortion services provided to Laws .1982, c. 545, §§.l, 24. " _ medical assistance recipients and amount of pay- . laws 1981, C. 911, §§ 2 to 6, 99. - ments received is neither confidential nor private -within § 15.162, subds. 1 to 12-withinmeaning of Data Privacy Act.Minnesota Medical Ass'n v_ State, 1978, 274 N.W.2d 84. Laws 1980, c. 618, § 25. - ' - Whether records ere, "public records within Laws 1990, c: 609,'¢§ 1 to 6. meaning of Data Privacy Act depends not on the Laws 1979, e. 928, §§ 2 to 6.' - - form in which they are kept but on whether they Laws 1978, c. 790, § 1. are necessary to a full and accurate knowledge laws 1977, c.'375, §§ I to 5. `' `of official activities. "M. laws 1976, c. 283, §§ 1"to B. Data concerning payments to medical assist - Laws 1976, c. 239, § 2. "ance vendors and stored on computer tapes of laws 1975, c. 401, ¢ 1. ..:the..Department of Public .Welfare are., public Laws 1974, a 479,,§ 1. - a i-ecords'accessble to the public so that informa- tion contained in such records is "public data on The 1989 amendment added subd 8s defining .;dividuals". subject to disclosure under AM, _ -1d."Nof public"date'. . - ' :.. i • .:.. • s_' ; [:•: a _SeCtion 257.91, :providing •Sar " privacy -:of Cross References ':records".of paternity proceedings, does not per- Registry of -persons 'typed for-huni ii leuko- :' mit concealment of .names of the parties to the cyte antigens,- classification of data; see i44. action. C.M.C. v- A.P.F., 1977, 257 N.W.2d 282, 9S6• •. ��; :appeal dismissed 98 S.Ct 759, 434 U.S. 1029,64 a .. ;..:.; : _3LFA.2d Law Review Commentanes 'In all cases *here'statutes so,piovide, court is Criminal procedure: " Expnngement of driest dearly 'empowered to order expungement -of records. 1976, 62 Minn. Isw.Reviery 229.:.:. criminal record; -in eases to which the statutory Data privacy: Everything you wanted to Imow ' 'deme does' not -extend, the 'court's 'inherent about the Minnesota Government Data Practices power is limited to instances where petitioner's Act from "A" to "Z 'Donald A. Gemberling . byte otio�of his may de _ be se io jly infringed and Gary A. Weissman. -.'1982,.l Win. ,Mitchell e, 256 ent10 803. LRev. Z78. of>:' t ". _ .: z;_. Due process right to a In action .m 'which it was determined #hat prior 40 �' � rator of chain of Lansmiseioa service facility 1980, 64 pMinn. lan of 'w Review 1107.Iaura.Cooper,rlian chisel properly terminated "franchise after :Tortious invasion of privacy: evidence of consumer fraud "vias obtained, fact p very: Minnesota as a•' that issue whether methods employed to gather model. .1978, 4 Wm.'Mitchell LRev,-163_:',..-id gainst franchisee prior to termination evence e Victims Reparations Act- A preliminary anally- violated his rights_ under Privacy Act was not !is. 1976, 2 Wm. Mitchell I,Rev,187: : ;sided before trial court foreclosed consideration ,tr�such issue on appeal, particularly in'light of ;.•sfaet that issue was evidentiary in nature and did :. Notes of Dedsio8i ;: '_ ... t':sot'-appear'dispositive of case.on its merits. 1. In general 1. + = :rA=eo.rindustries, -Inc.-v..DeWolf, "1977; 812 Federal &irictcourt`lailied 'subject 'matter": Minn. 95, 260- N.W.2d 896. • . ^ . .. ...... - jurisdiction over claims under Minnesota Privacy 3:-'-County.-law enforcement authorities are: not Act, even though such law was mandated by':'authorized to,withhold the arrest information Congress, inview of fact that plaintiffs would _jwhichis otherwise. public,. under _§.15.17 for, 86 sot ordinarily be expected to try their additional ;. hours or until arraignment of the arrested per federal claims m same judicial proceeding with son. Op-Atty.Ges:, 851, Sept lb, 1976. �ivRey Act claims.- Reyes V. Edmunds '-D Countysheriffs die the responsible authorities - 1076, 416 FSupp. 649. :. :: r.:.:.. }: ziforthe release of arrest information. Id: :... 89 It Gy QAcLf•-v --- CD men 166ti �- t V �® G� tii�( G Ls GC J ...0 �.... e. r C -P: !s .4 G -? "C'{ � ".,/ k� Y F(:\UG E. L:ILE: S, hF,L.L11- Illonleps al X nu TO%VN CENFFRE PROFESSIONAL BLDG., SUITE 200 1260 YANKEE DOODLE ROAD EAGAN, MINNESOTA 55123 (612) 456-9000 January 15, 1988 Eugene VanOverbeke Eagan City Clerk 3830 Pilot Knob Road Eagan, MN 55121 RE: Dissemination of Data to Individual Requesting Assessment Information Dear Mr. VanOverbeke: QUESTION: PALLH.4AUGE KEVIN W. EIDE DAVID G. KELLER LORI M. BELLIN DEBRA E. SCHMIDT THOMAS P. LOWE The issue presented here is whether the City of Eagan must provide the requested assessment information to an individual requesting it at no charge to the individual. DISCUSSION: Minnesota Statute § 13.03 is applicable to the issue in this matter First, the requested information is classified as government data that is public, inasmuch as the assessment information has not been classified otherwise statute, temporary classification or federal law, as described in Minn. Stat. §13.03(1). As the information requested is public, under 13.03(2), full convenience and comprehensive accessibility must be allowed to researchers to carry out extensive research and complete copying of all records. While the researchers alluded to in the statute refers to historians, genealogists and other scholars, it is arguable that the person requesting the assessment information here would fall into that category and full accessibility to the records would have to be allowed. Section 13.03(3) relates to the procedure and costs of supplying the requested data. It states that a person shall be allowed to inspect and copy public government data upon request, and the responsible authority may not charge the requesting party to pay a fee to inspect the data. However, the requesting party may be required to pay the actual costs of searching for and retrieving government data, as well as to pay the cost of making, certifying and compiling the copies of the data. Eugene VanOverbeke January 18, 1988 Page 2 Additionally, when the request, as here, involves any person's receipt of copies of public government data that has commercial value and is an entire formula, pattern, compilation, program, device, method, technique, process, data base or system developed with a significant expenditure of public funds by the agency, the responsible party may charge a reasonable fee for the information in addition to the costs described above. However, any fee charged must be clearly demonstrated to -relate to the actual development costs of the information. Minn. Stat. 13.03(3). The Eagan City Policy on dissemination of information is right in line with the Minnesota Statutes. Section III, Procedures for obtaining public data specifies: (c)(1) any person requesting the opportunity to inspect . . . shall be allowed to do so . . . under the direct supervision of the responsible City employee; (c)(2) copies of requested information shall be provided at rates specified under the City's Comprehensive Code; and (c)(3) no original City documents may be loaned or checked out. An option worth considering would be to install a computer terminal for public use at the Eagan City Hall. Dakota County has such a terminal, but the cost of providing one to the City could be prohibitive. If the person requests copies, there is a charge. In order to cover the cost of the terminal, it could be passed on to those using it, in accordance with Minnesota Statutes 13.03(3). However, this scenario would defeat the purpose of providing the information at no or little cost. CONCLUSION: In conclusion, the City may charge for copies made upon request by an individual. Also, as the person involved here is requesting information that has commercial value, a reasonable fee may be charged for compiling the information, provided that there is sufficient documentation to justify the fee charged. Very truly yours, HAUGE, EIDE & KELLER, P.A. / P. TPL:ras A G E N D A SPECIAL ASSESSMENT COMMITTEE MEETING EAGAN MUNICIPAL CENTER 3830 PILOT KNOB ROAD EAGAN, MN 55122 TUESDAY, OCTOBER 9, 1984 4:00 P.M. I. 4:00 - Roll Call & Pledge of Allegiance II. 4:05 - Adopt Agenda III. 4:10 - OLD BUSINESS A. Project 372, I -35E Utilities & Streets 1. Francis C. Franz (10-02100-010-50) 2. Anna S. Heuer (10-02100-010-78) IV. 5:00 - NEW BUSINESS- Pending Assessment Review A. Project 411, Patrick Eagan Trunk Storm Sewer 1. George & Mirian Nall (10-02200-040-27) 2. Anthony Caponi (10-02200-010-80 & 84) 3. Thomas Rooney (10-02200-012-86) 4. Thomas Bergin (10-02200-011-85) V. 6:00 - Adjourn (Dinner Break) VI. 6:30 - Reconvene VII. 6:35 - NEW BUSINESS (Continued) - Final Assessment Appeals B. Project 383, Schwanz Lake Trunk Storm Sewer 1. Heide Schiela (10-02500-010-52) C. Project 384, Walden Heights Trunk Storm Sewer 1. Arthur Koestner (10-78200-030-01) D. Project 371SR, Water Treatment Plant Trunk Storm Sewer 1. Albert Perron (10-00900-010-09) E. Project 381, Borchert Ingersoll Trunk Storm Sewer 1. Gopher Smelting (10-01100-010-76) (10-01200-010-51, 55 & 56) (over) SPECIAL ASSESSMENT COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA (continued) TUESDAY, OCTOBER 9, 1984 4:00 P.M. F. Project 317, Blackhawk Road Streets & Utilities 1. Jay Tscherne (10-02900-040-05) 2. James Ashworth (10-02900-010-10) 3, Robert Keuger (10-02900-010-08) 4. Darold Holden (10-02900-030-05) (10-02900-060-05) (10-02900-070-05) G. Project 368, Robin Lane Streets 1. Herbert Bergstrom, Jr. (10-14300-100-00) VIII. 10:15 - Other Business A. Special Assessment Deferment Policy IV. 10:30 - Adjourn ,1 LAw OFFIcEs GRANNIS, CAMPBELL, FARRELL & KNUTSON DAVID L. GRANNIS 18941961 PRDFFESSIONAL ASSOCIATION DAVID L. GRANNIS, JR. 19101990 POST OMCE BOX 59 VANCB B. GRANNIS 407 NORWESf BANK BUILDING, VANCE B. GRANNIS. JR. 161 NORTH CONCORD EXCHANGE THOMAS J. CAMPBELL PATRICK A. FARRSLL SOUTH ST. PAUL, MINNESOTA 55075 DAVID L. GRANNIS, 111 ROGER N. KMITSON 612.455.1661 THOMAS M. SCOTT GARY C. FUCHS MARY S. VUJOVICH THOMAS L. GRUNDHOEMER DAVID L. HARMEVF.R October 9, 1984 Mr. Paul H. Hauge Attorney at Law Cedarvale Professional Building 3908 Sibley Memorial Highway Eagan, MN 55122 RE: Project No. 371 S.R. Dear Paul: Pursuant to our conversatio^ vn A----4-+ -- ----.-- withdraws their objections to th the above matter. Ver YD BY: VBG/lmg cc: Bill Muske J" OF 3830 PILOT KNOB ROAD. P.O. BOK 21199 EAGAN. MINNESOTA 55121 PHONE: (612) 454-8100 Vance Grannis c/o.Y.D. Associates P.O. Box 57 403 Norwest Bank Bldg. 161 No. Concord Exchange South St. Paul, MN 55075 Dear Mr. Grannis: September 17, 1984 V/ BEA BLOMQUIST Maya THOMAS EGAN JAMES A SMITH JERRY THOMAS THEODORE WACHTER C Wnd Members THOMAS HEDGES Cnv AC r mftalw EUGENE VAN OVERBEKE ON Ci ,k You have filed an objection with the City of Eagan covering assessments against _land owned by you. This is to notify you that the hearing on the assessments was continued by the City Council until October 16, 1984 at 7:00 p.m. at the Eagan City Hall. Generally, when objections are filed by a property owner, the City staff attempts to meet with the objecting property owner to determine whether there are any specific objections that can be dealt with before the hearing and in addition, the City has a special assessment committee made up of lay persons, members of the City Council and Planning Commission that review special assessment objections prior to the Council hearing. The following schedule is being suggested in order to review the objections and to deal with them prior to a final appeal: 1. We are suggesting that members of the City staff, including Tom Colbert, the Public Works Director, and a member of the City Attorney's office meet with you in the morning of September 20, or the afternoon of Septem- ber 25, at the Eagan City Hall to discuss the assessment objections. 2. Your objections are also being placed on the agenda of the Special Assessment Committee which meets at 7:00 on October 9, 1984 at the City Hall. 3. The continued hearing on the assessments is now scheduled for October 16, 1984 at 7:00 p.m. In the event that the agenda of that evening becomes excessively long, you will be contacted with an alternate date for the hearing. We would ask that you contact the City Attorney's office at #454-4224 and arrange for a time to get together at the City Hall on September 20 in the a.m. or on September 25, in the afternoon and would appreciate your call as soon as pqssible. Very truly yours, Thomas Colbert TC:ras Public Works Director THE LONE OAK TREE ... THE SYMBOL OF STRENGTH AND GROWTH IN OUR COMMUNITY 0 CITY OF EAGAN DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS FOR IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 371 and 371SR OBJECTIONS TO SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS TO: The Honorable City of Eagan, 3795 Pilot Knob Road, Eagan, Minnesota 55112. YD Associates, a limited partnership, the owner of Parcels Section 9, Parcel No. 10 00900 011 52, Section 9, Parcel No. 10 00900 020 52, and Fox Ridge Addition, Parcel No. 10 27500-010 01, included in the above special assessment projects object to said assessments on the grounds that the undersigned is not and will not be benefited by said special assessments or proposed • improvements, and on the further ground that said assessments insofar as they relate to the property of the undersigned are discrimatory and constitute taking of the undersigned's property without due process of law in violation of the Constitution of the Unite St t and the State of Minnesota. Dated: YD WS • . DAvm L GRANNIE - 1871.1961 DAVM L GRANNLS.JR 19101980 VANCR B. GRANNIE VANCE B. GRANNIS. JIL THOMAS J. CAMPBELL PATRICK A. FARRELL DAVM L. GRANNIS. 111 ROGER N. KNUTSON THOMAS M. SCOTT GARY G. FUCKS MARV S. VOJOVICH THOMAS L. GRUNDHOEFER DAVM L HARMEYER LAW OFFICES GRANNIS, CAMPBELL, FARRELL & KNUTSON PROPFP.GSIONAL ASSOCIATION POST OFFICE BOK 57 40.7 NORWPSF BANK BDILDING 161 NORTH CONCORD EXCHANGE SOUTH ST. PAUL, MINNESOTA 55075 612455-1661 E. J. VanOverbeke Eagan City Clerk 3795 Pilot Knob Road Eagan, MN 55122 August 3, 1984 RE: Special Assessments for Improvement Project 371 and 371SR Dear Mr. VanOverbeke: I am enclosing herewith Objections to Special Assess- ments in the above projects. Kindly file the same. • VBG/lmg Enclosure cc: Bill Muske • Ver GRA BY: /70� SAC 10/9/84 G. PROJECT 368, ROBIN LANE STREETS 1. Herbert Bergstrom, Jr. (10-14300-100-00) BACKGROUND INFORMATION Project 368 provided for the surfacing of Robin Lane from Blackhawk Road north to its intersection with Blackhawk Road near Trunk Highway 13. During the construction of this street, it was desirable to eliminate the "right angle" [urn as dedicated as a part of Blackhawk Acres. Subsequently, the staff acquired the necessary right of way from Lot 10 under the ownership _. of Herbert Bergstrom, Jr. In excharge, the City vacated the old right of way platted with Blackhawk Acres. However, wi r— is new a ignment t rough Lot 10, it created a triangular .configuration for this lot. Enclosed on pageis the written objection as submitted by Mr. Bergstrom in response to the final assessment hearing held on September 4, 1984, for this project. Enclosed on page 7--!1 is a section map showing the configuration of this lot resulting from the new alignment of Robin Lane. Enclosed on page_ is a topographic overview of this property showing the side hill configuration adjacent to Robin Lane. As a part of the final asse sm nt roll, the staff had assessed the entire 243 feet of frontage for Lo 10Iat the rate of $39.49 per foot, resulting in an assessment of $9,596. 9 This rate per front foot was arrived at by dividing the total cost of the project by the assessable footage. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Research into the parcel has found that the no hly 70 f t of the triangular portion of this lot is underdevelopable due to its in ility to meet proper setback conditions. Taking into consideration the act that the realignment of Robin Lane severed this parcel creating this situation, the staff has determined that the front footage should be reduced by 70 feet frnm 943 feet lo 133 17—ee�ly o project does not change, the assessable footage is reduced which results in an increase in the per front foot rate from $39.49 to $40.05. This would resu n for Lot 10 of $6,928.65 and would increase a other parcels by $.56 per front oot. Therefore, staff is recommencing that the Specta ssessment Comm i trteL5—app rove the reduction in the front footage and the recalculation of the final assessment roll for Project 368 to take into consideration the reduction in the assessable footage. COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION/COMMENTS 13 01^-B� H1ucq[sT Deve�ov. r oy ,c►Ile Pond �!5 Rc. 030,-10 fire. iCRrsr t7GV. 9 c° �O � 11 2 / 416 4 � � w � 9 1 2 3 4 h .o Z to .fi ao-�S �oar•rs � 1 t 1. P�vbBn 6 Donngl aa '47 Md/y K rfd//anp' 04C -Y S a Sus J D/�°n L s P' � t per 4s s c sc !'ac/ lricrsd K. ac -81 eifha,•d 6 Thr//!ie ,Pii P g o r- / 73 Ac- •sn 1 2 3 4 5 6 n T _ N LOT 1 � �BLK.21 to O 1ff � m 4 F,721F 4 2 3 4 5 6 p9�.-7f ad�� �1 r _ : 1_eaov t. a L-uctt-tee Bono Gt9 l�. M h Z tee,7 cas rsc so OMON TEPE ) 4,5 / 6 9 e ,r HILLCREST OEVELOPMMNT .N/Ofs Z301 LF -ROY 1. &LL)CtLLE PCNA P/10 a vt Mc•19 se Sisk � c� � 01^-B� H1ucq[sT Deve�ov. r oy ,c►Ile Pond �!5 Rc. 030,-10 fire. iCRrsr t7GV. 9 c° �O � 11 2 / 416 4 � � w � 9 1 2 3 4 h .o Z to .fi ao-�S �oar•rs � 1 t 1. P�vbBn 6 Donngl aa '47 Md/y K rfd//anp' 04C -Y S a Sus J D/�°n L s P' � t per 4s s c sc !'ac/ lricrsd K. ac -81 eifha,•d 6 Thr//!ie ,Pii P g o r- / 73 Ac- •sn 1 2 3 4 5 6 n T _ N LOT 1 � �BLK.21 to O 1ff � m 4 F,721F 4 2 3 4 5 6 p9�.-7f ad�� �1 CITY OF EAGAN ASSESSMENT AGREEMENT PROJECT NO. THIS AGREEMENT dated this day of , 1984, between the CITY OF EAGAN, (called City), and Uerbert 1�' erocs}rorv\ '7r, (called Owner) of ��a1 ��(►eb��� ���.ceaaU. ar�.Slzz-, (address);' WHEREAS, the City proposes to assess the following described premises in Dakota County, Minnesota owned by Owner: (legal description) 1-0+ to, Block 1, Acres . for the following improvements pursuant to.City Projec t 36 : WHEREAS, such assessments would normally be based upon the present zoning classification of said premises, that is, ; and NOW THEREFORE, upon consideration of the mutual covenants herein, the parties agree as follows: 1. The City agrees to assess said property for the Project and purposes described above as if it were zoned at the rates now in existence for property so zoned. 2. The Owner agrees for tILMself, LL.5 heirs, executors, administrators, successors, and assigns, that in the event that the actual use of the property is changed in the future, or in the event of subdivision of the property, then in that event the City may reassess or levy a supplemental assessment at such time equal to the difference between the assessment for the new land use and the assessment for the present land use at the assessment rates, according to City policy, in effect at such future time. 3. The Owner, for KLM_self, K;s heirs, executors, administrators, successors and assigns, further waives notice of any and all hearings 1 necessary and waives any and all objections to the present or future assessments agreed to herein or to the proceedings related thereto and waives the right to appeal such assessments. 4. The undersigned hereby agree that this agreement may be recorded with the Dakota County Recorder and that the owner shall execute any and all documents necessary to implement the recording of this agreement including the delivery of the Owner's Duplicate Certificate of 'Title to the affected lands if necessary. 5. The undersigned agrees that this agreement shall run with the affected land and binds the heirs, successors and assigns of such land. 6. The undersigned heirs, successors and assigns of such land, includes all of the persons, firms or corporation that hold an interest in the assessed land and the reapportioned land described above, including the fee title owners, contract for deed vendees or vendors or holders of any other interest under contract for deed, option or otherwise. 7. Other conditions: The undersigned have read and understand the above agreement and hereby bind themselves to it in all respects. OWNER erbe zs'r- I This Document Drafted By - Hauge Smith 8 Eide, P.A. 3908 Sibley emorial Highway Eagan, Minnesota 55122 2 CITY OF EAGAN By: Its Mayor Attest: Its Clerk APPROVED: Public Works Director EXEMPT FROM STATE DEED TAX SAC 10/9/84 C. PROJECT 384. WALDEN HEIGHTS TRUNK STORM 1. ARTHUR KOESTNER (10-78200-030-01) BACKGROUND INFORMATION Project 384 provided for the trunk storm sewer outlet from the southside of Cliff Road into Thomas Lake to handle the drainage generated from the Walden Heights, Twin View Manor and Twin View Manor 2nd Additions. All those subdivisions prepaid their trunk area assessments under previous projects or asa condition of final platting with the exception of a few minor unplatted parcels and Mr. Koestner's property. Enclosed on page is a location map referencing Mr. Koestner's property to the improvement. Enclosed on page ,sp w,f/ is the written objection submitted by Mr. Koestner requesting consideration for the proposed trunk area storm sewer assessment. Mr. Koestner's special assessment amounted to $711.00 after applying the "large lot" assessment policy whereby only the first 16,500 square feet was assessed. The City Attorney and Public Works Director personally met with Mr. Koestner to review the basis of his objection and any other possible alternatives. While Mr. Koestner qualifies for the senior citizen deferment by age, his Sncome does not qualify for this deferment. TAFF RECOMMENDATION The staff feels that the increase in value to Mr. Koestner's property exceeds the amount of the special assessment. All special assessment policies were adhered to in computing his assessment amount. Consequently, staff is recom- mending that the final assessment for Mr. Koestner's property be reaffirmed, adopted and certified to the County for collection. COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION/COMMENTS 4� 69, to oml I ' j /I� �,`\--ooa� -'l/'wnMow i oaf; it ozzl mc. 1 City of I f tl 7 v-m,cpx 811 mvl 91 SZ 8 I. i8 ZI all, lH WALDEN Eogan 9 j'?,' f ��S all- I II 11 IL_°!E•L^�J _ro_aw_ JI: e HEIGHTS I P• YI �I. CIs CI Id �.Ir ym,woe r7Av,be� 01,•. 1;� ;�'$ 1-0'1'0 PARK 61 I I M h t M r ` II �i I 110 bZ•��r l Ip ° - I 1 I •� 1 !/ Iwo i ♦• A 0 \\ 1v.v11 a ZZ 11 qll� v ~ - - 18 e°¢ II 'I I. ___. zx_Lrt maa_ /P /� (.'J IZ 11 g': IISa Bi_I LJo-o� mo. .�.A r.._—_J I� ao$°% uiw ��—oo.—Il—� ` in 61 )\' l T 8 L- a a� n "` `♦]. 1 I ' 7 aq 1 �J-�v,.'8 _�s���N3 w yP/' wc'v7 rvc2r r__ y�=i (:<'w•� CJs\\ �'i l�q `II JIB+ / YIOzC 3AtlC: rwa +' �w"a.• �r"a .d \ \ a 7,' a/ 'III \\\s \\ "j \-s ��I I r9a �� J '° ee�'� / nY° 1 I Y e� a (.u• 6 s/ o g e td Ig e,' IS h� \\ ,.••., /_ I �' es1, .•R�m•v l .r. 1 yl 11 IIs 4 �". ,; /. x .� $I lq \ b °ti's' tw. ' _ �x.o• I - . i �Q x.> � 1 g'• OI a �q4; 8 L 8 Y .✓ 1 91 y SI I_e bl I I- £1 y a IS i .. n ?' / m a.2' gay l� i yi �3\Nye �, eoimr oj �y.m�J�Ir l L �1 dro s F }— /`,n v II I 1 11 \\ g�w 6 �/• ...... +i.:... .�• ♦ u _/_va•°1 —_ T: -I JI_MM-1 aoa Jl_°°<a Jl_ffi J .elg4 Yn-ww'\\\ I ^i'a 1 a am ieco"-eioc -.��-am �'--e]uo-:r-o ,.->'•'i•d : 4i i°r1x +a'p°•I x\\��s•/'`I' z_I _'' 1 li3 ro e I•.rbw.ol dna ":l aowl�•auvlrinlet•\\ ZMaz JSI '1 K ^• // x'o.Ro•v I I_ .csxt• r s\ _a, a GI ne S I I >\ N �� I_ •� 4 'l N 6 �,-lip,7 d "♦m\'o£ lwd P'N yx3 s86 o om j um um uoo sem n_ m f� ez oa J '_v9vc JL_vcxn _/L nava J L ��_ - _ zuu x.v eau 1. uo/ RICHA D LANE M no w w° 110 I' _ ••xmerfx__ ]l __ xlti tfr lu O Xm l01]� O a "� , •.I RB xfe fly VI a 6 � � � � =a: Y .a x• o . 7 .� C xne xi'e mM- A ma fA xmn.l ao ry O� e(V h�'S SynezY{��_ 8, � J / BS1E ♦].w� Y n S Y Tjp�_1�jgry ••�° x. ab:gJ`netz I 1 pR a. ♦ero¢Y = W _ = ig g t Iq I ' / Y8• // J �• pA'O3 911 +J x.51♦� / 1]'I Y99 I]0 .x aw v ERIK'$ BOULEVARD EVARD ,Sy e� ,_� r-�nezn ex9 ue ra .�y "n°xYx vo ' 9 Iw uo F.4 uo _ -_]1e- ;•}y1 °o mrn o0Z 1 ee it aw :•::-0ii•:•::•: Iw uo _` xe x CO. R0. NO. 8i: 31 (PILOT � IKIWO RCD D.) I une.l.en T v C: �. ---- n m m � TO: The Mayor and City Council Cit;* of Eagan i,ECEIaE-...,; e7 ':.filer FROM: Arthur T. Koestner 475 Pilot Knob Rd. Eagan, Minn. 55122 SUBJECT: Appeal for exemption from rropoeed storm sewer assessment relating to PROJECT 384 (Walden Heights) DESCRIPTION OF PF OPFRTY beim; referred to in this letter: LOT 3 BLOCK 1 TWIN VIEW P.ANOR I hereby appeal to the mayor and Council members of Ea;,an that the above mentioned lot should not be included in the proposed storm sewer aseessmeut for Project 384 for the follow- ing reasons: 1. That although the lot lies within the "benefitted area", the lot itself is not benefitted by this project. a) The lot is virtually inaceessable for road, driveway, sewer or rater and therefore is almost valueless. The city engineer, Mr. Rosene, can verify that the cost of utilities and driveway would be exhorbitart and -,probably riot even available at any cost. b`) I have tried to:sell this property ( toaraise funds to pay the very high assessment load on adjoining property) but it is so value- less that the real'estate agency doesn:'t even.want to bother with it._'7h.1s can be verified by Mr. Don Rifenberick of Thorpe Realtors. 0 Since the property is virtually useless and I can't sell it, the effect of a storm sewer is irrelevant and 'of no.;benefit. 2:: For the above reasons, I feel that this property does not qualify as benefitted property. a Arthur J. D Koestner Additional:.information The adjacent property on which my house is located is now carrying a very high assessment load and ever increasing assessments are becoming a very severe financdal burden. There are now 6 separate assessments on ay house and property totaling,.almoet $2,000 per: year and consume about 2010" of ay total yearly income. Add property tax. and I'm paying almost a third of qr income on property valued at a modest 470,000. Yearly income SociallSecurlty 46120 Interest Income 3996 410,116 Assessments 41975 Property Tax 1200 43175 With a poverty level income, almost half of it is going fori. taxes and assessments.. M. 3830 PILOT KNOB ROAD, P.O. BOX 21199 EAGAN. MINNESOTA 55121 PHONE: (612) 454-8100 October 10, 1984 Arthur Koestner 4755 Pilot Knob Road Eagan, MN 55122 RE: Eagan - Improvement Project 0384 Dear Mr. Koestner: BEA BLOMQUIST Moves THOMAS EGAN JAMES A SMITH JERRY THOMAS THEODORE WACHTER CourcA Mgrr.pBrs 1HOMAS HEDGES Cdy Ad.m?10101 EUGENE VAN OVERBEKE C11v Clerk You filed objections to the special assessments levied by the Eagan City Council covering the improvement project that's mentioned above. Paul Hauge and I met with you several weeks ago to discuss the assessments and also reviewed the possiblity of your being eligible under the Senior Citizens Deferment provision of the Special Assessment City Ordinance. It is our finding.that you are not eligible because of your income and the amount of the assessment, and this is to notify you that the Special Assessment Committee met on October 9, 1984 and reviewed your objections. You chose not to appear at that meeting and through a telephone call, we understand you are dropping your objections to the assessments. Assuming this is true, the City Council will consider your objections at its meeting on October 16, 1984 and determine whether to proceed with the adoption of the special assessments against your property. If you wish to be present, I would suggest that you call Julie at my office to get an approximate time when the Council will review your assessments and if you have any comments to make at that time, you are certainly welcome to do so. Please call me or Paul Hauge at 0454-4224 if you have any other questions. TAC:ras Very truly yours, Thomas A. Colbert Eagan Public Works Director THE LONE OAK TREE... THE SYMBOL OF STRENGTH AND GROWTH IN OUR COMMUNITY OF 3830 PILOT KNOB ROAD, P.O. BOX 21199 EAGAN, MINNESOTA 55121 PHONE: (612) 454-8100 October 10, 1984 Arthur Koestner 4755 Pilot Knob Road Eagan, MN 55122 RE: Eagan - Improvement Project 11384 Dear Mr. Koestner: BEA BLOMQUIST Maya THOMAS EGAN JAMES A. SMITH JERRY THOMAS THEODORE WACHTER Co and Mem"s THOMAS HEDGES Of, Adm,Mfralcl EUGENE VAN OVERBEKE City CIer4 You filed objections to the special assessments levied by the Eagan City Council covering the improvement project that's mentioned above. Paul Hauge and I met with you several weeks ago to discuss the assessments and also reviewed the possiblity of your being eligible under the Senior Citizens Deferment provision of the Special Assessment City Ordinance. It is our finding that you are not eligible because of your income and the amount of the assessment, and this is to notify you that the Special Assessment Committee met on October 9, 1984 and reviewed your objections. You chose not to appear at that meeting and through a telephone call, we understand you are dropping your objections to the assessments. Assuming this is true, the City Council will consider your objections at its meeting on October 16, 1984 and determine whether to proceed with the adoption of the special assessments against your property. If you wish to be present, I would suggest that you call Julie at my office to get an approximate time when the Council will review your assessments and if you have any comments to make at that time, you are certainly welcome to do so. Please call me or Paul Hauge at 11454-4224 if you have any other questions. TAC:ras Very tru yours, Thomas A. Colbert Eagan Public Works Director THE LONE OAK TREE ... THE SYMBOL OF STRENGTH AND GROWTH IN OUR COMMUNITY • G 40 TO: The Mayor ane City Council Cit,• of Eagan FROM: Arthur J. Koestner 4755 Pilot Knob Rd. Eeq;an, ?Finn. 55122 SUBJECT: Arpeal for exemption from _r-roposed storm sewer assessment relating to PROJECT 384 (Walden Heights) LESCRIPTION OF PI:OPMTY being referred to in this letter: LOT 3 BLOCX 1 TWIN I'IMV LUROF I hereby acpeal to the Mayor and Council members of Eagan that the above mentioned lot should not be incluaed in the pro;:osed storm newer assessment for Project 384 for the follow- ing reasons: 1. That although the lot lies within the "benefitted area", the lot itself is not benefitted by this project. a) The lot is virtually inaccessable for road, driveway, sewer or rater and therefore is almost valueless. The city engineer, Yx. Rosene, can verify that the cost of utilities and driveway would be exhorbitant and probably not even available at any cost. b) I have tried to.sell this property ( tocraise funds to pay the very* high assessment load on adjoining property) but it is so value- less that the real estate agency doesn't even want to bother T"ith it. "his can be verified by Mr. Don Rifenberick of Thorpe Realtors. c) Since the property is virtually useless and I can't sell it, the effect of a storm sewer is irrelevant and of no.:benefit. 2: For the above reasons, I feel that this property does not qualify as benefitted property. 7J A C� Arthus J. Koestner I MW city of acigan 3830 PILOT KNOB ROAD. P.O. BOX 21199 BEA BLOMOUIST EAGAN. MINNESOTA 55121 MW PHONE: (612) 454-8100 September 17, 1984 THOMAS s A. SMITH JERRY THOMAS THEODORE WACHTER Cwm, Mems THOMAS HEDGES Arthur Koestner _ oLj (a �l 17-1 `9'gCfly wi« 4755 Pilot Knob Road LI ���iJ- ���/u EUGENE VAN OVERBEKE Eagan, MN 55122 01v Crew Dear Mr. Koestner: You have filed an objection with the City of Eagan covering assessments against land owned by you. This is to notify you that the hearing on the assessments was continued by the City Council until October 16, 1984 at 7:00 p.m. at the Eagan City Hall. Generally, when objections are filed by a property owner, the City staff attempts to meet with the objecting property owner to determine whether there are any specific objections that can be dealt with before the hearing and in addition, the City has a special assessment committee made up of lay persons, members of the City Council and Planning Commission that review special assessment objections prior to the Council hearing. The following schedule is being suggested in order to review the objections and to deal with them prior to a final appeal: 1. we are suggesting that members of the City staff, including Tom Colbert, the Public works Director, and a member of the City Attorney's office meet with you in the morning of September 20, or the afternoon of Septem- ber 25, at the Eagan City Hall to discuss the assessment objections. 2. , Your objections are also being placed on the agenda of the Special Assessment Committee which meets at 7:00 on October 9, 1984 at the City Hall. 3. The continued hearing on .the assessments is now scheduled for October 16, 1984 at 7:00 p.m. In the event that the agenda of that evening becomes excessively long, you will be contacted with an alternate date for the hearing. We would ask that you contact the City Attorney's office at 9454-4224 and arrange for a time to get together at the City Hall on September 20 in the a.m. or on September 25, in the afternoon and would appreciate your call as soon as possible. Very truly yours, Thomas Colbert TC:ras Public works Director THE LONE OAK TREE ... THE SYMBOL OF STRENGTH AND GROWTH IN OUR COMMUNITY AAUGE. SDUM, FIDE & KELLER, P. A. ATTORNEYS AT LAW CEDARVALE PROFESSIONAL BUILDINGS 3908 SIBLEY MEMORIAL HIGHWAY EAGAN. MINNESOTA 88122 PAUL M. NAUGE BRADLEY SMITH KEVIN W. EIDE DAVID G. KELLER Mr. Dan Dwyer Appraiser NW National Bank Bldg. St. Paul, MN 55102 Mr. Mark Parranto 3908 Sibley Memorial Highway Eagan, MN 55122 October 23, 1984 HE: City of Eagan - Assessment Objections Dear Dan and Mark: AREA COCK 812 TELEPMome 484.4224 Tom Colbert and I met with you several weeks ago concerning the objections that have been raised covering special assessments in the City of Eagan. There are a total of ten parcels that require hearings, according to the best information that we had at that time, and each of you agreed to prepare written appraisal summaries for the following: Heidi Shiela, Dodd Road - Mark Parranto Albert Perron, Yankee Doodle Road - Mark Parranto Gopher Smelting Co., Yankee Doodle Road - Mark Parranto Don Larsen, Parkview Golf Course - Mark Parranto Patrick McCarthy, Project 4382, Storm Sewer - Dan Dwyer Patrick McCarthy, Project 4361, Sanitary Sewer - Dan Dwyer Blackhawk Road - 4 parcels - Dan Dwyer The attorney for Patrick McCarthy has indicated that he will not pursue the sanitary sewer objections, but as yet we do not have a Dismissal from him. I would ask that Dan not proceed with the sanitary sewer appraisal until we have had a chance to talk further with him. I would expect that the storm sewer objections under Project 4382 will proceed. The hearing date has tentatively been set for January 8, 1985 at 7:00 p.m. at the City Hall, but very likely, there could be a change in that date. I would appreciate as soon as you have the appraisal information completed, to send it to me so that we can review it and arrange to get it to property owners where it's necessary to do so. Very truly yours, NAUGE, SMITH, EIDE 8 KELLER, P.A. PHH:ras Paul H. Hauge . I P, rranto - Associates iii, Commercial and Induslrial Realtors Appraisal Real Estale Development J.E. dirranto ssociates inc. Commercial and Industrial Realtors Appraisals Real Estate Development January 8, 1985 Mr.. Tom Colbert City of Eagan' 3830 Pilot Knob Road Eagan, Minnesota 55122 RE: Storm Sewer Assessment Albert Perron Property Yankee Doodle Road Dear Mr. Colbert: Pursuant to your request, we have appraised the property known as the Albert Perron property located on Yankee Doodle Road adjacent to the Univac Park. We have determined the market value of the property prior to assessing the property for storm trunk and, in addition, the value of the property after the assessment for the storm sewer trunk charges. We report the following values; Value before the Assessment: $287,500 Value after the Assessment: 313,000 Value Increase Resulting from Assessment: 25,5UU The accompanying report details the method of the appraisal and the facts and methodology used in arriving at the valuation and conclusions as stated above. It you have any ' questions, please feel free to call. Respectfully submitted, 44k S. arranto ' MSP/sah 3908 Sibley Memorial Highway • Eagan, Minnesota 0 55122 0 (612) 454-1600 TABLE OF CONTENTS Date Purpose of the Appraisal Property Rights Appraised Property Identification Description of the Project Record Data Plat Map Zoning Map Topographic Map Comprehensive Guide Plan Trunk Storm Sewer Diagram Photos of Subject Property Market Value Defined Eagan Profile Property Description Highest and Best Use Analysis Estimate of Highest and Best Use Market Approach to Value Correlation and Conclusion Certificate of Appraisal Limiting Conditions and Assumptions Appraisal Qualifications Page 1 1 1 1 1- 2 2 3 4 5 6 7 8- 9 10 11-16 17-18 18-19 19 20-25 26 27 28 29 DATE This appraisal is completed the 7th day of January, 1985. The property was viewed, and the market value estimate made as of October 23, 1984. PURPOSE OF THE APPRAISAL The appraisal is being made in anticipation of the property being assessed for trunk storm sewer under Project No. 371 of the City of Eagan The project is a trunk storm sewer outlet for Pond CP -2 located at the corner of Yankee Doodle Road and Coachman Road. PROPERTY RIGHTS APPRAISED The property rights appraised consist of the fee simple interest in the property unencumbered by any mortgage, lien or special assessments. PROPERTY IDENTIFICATION The subject property consists.of approximately 24.5 acres, in total, of which approximately 11.5 acres are being assessed. The property proposed to be assessed is the southern 60U feet of the entire parcel. The 'Gangle residence located at 1555 Yankee Doodle Road is an exception to the area included within the property. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROJECT The overall project is utility and street improvements, in the area of the new City of Eagan Water Treatment Plant. As a part of this project and outlet to Pond CP -2 located adjacent to Yankee Doodle Road, westerly of Coachman Road will be constructed southerly along the property lines between Blue Cross and the City of Eagan to Pond JP -1 adjacent to the Hlackhawk' Hills Addition. This is approximately a fifteen to twenty-four inch diameter pipe which will run a distance of approximately one-half mile. The area included within the front 6UU feet of depth of the subject property drains to Yankee Doodle Road and then toward Pond CP -2 which is the subject of this work. At the time the project was constructed, this pond was approximately six feet over its normal ordinary high water level. It should be noted that the proposed assessment is for trunk storm sewer and not for lateral storm sewer. The trunk storm sewer charge is an area charge Dased upon the net developable area of the land. It is a charge for the storm -1- sewer mains which connect the various ponds in order to provide a drainage system for the City. Lateral charges would be made based upon the actual pipe placed in the ground to serve the subject property. The trunk storm sewer charge is similar to the sanitary sewer area and water area assessments currently made by the City of Eagan. Information supplied to your appraiser by Bonestroo, Rosene, Anderlik and Associates indicates that the subject property is to be assessed on the basis of the agricultural, residential trunk storm sewer rate of $0.0431/S.F.. This generates a total assessment to the property of $17,075 after allowing for the twenty percent deduction in total area for future street right-of-way. It should be noted that this proposed assessment is on residential rates and is not based upon the commercial/industrial rate of $0.0647/S.F.. If the higher comnmercial/industrial rate were used, the resulting proposed assessment would be $25,633. The basis of this appraisal is that the highest and best use of the subject property is for R and,D which is a form of industrial use. It is expected that the higher assessment will eventually apply to the subject property althoughapparently the City is choosing not to assess at the higher rate at this time. RECORD DATA The following information was obtained from county offices in Dakota County. It is public record information and is available for anyone caring to make a phone call to the proper office. Property ID No. l0-UU9U0-U1U-79 1984 Real Estate Taxes: $3U5.26 Subject to Green Acres Non -Homestead No Special Assessments 1984 Assessor's Market Value (Land only): Low High $19,80U 5480,000 -2- 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Plat Map l\\ I rr I of 0 - "`- �Y-IMENdOTA H\ -f91 '-'> ______ 3 div =__i _i • ____—___ � ____ ___—___—_ ,`-- __. � Y___ �h.�Y I. � -___ j.• � ., "�6_ •�r".� _ v�/—. — _ •LOST EPUR I \I I � \�'' M_ _7 LB RB III ICENrBR LI •— ~•—•, ,,/4Y GUN US; .,_ :POSY RO! A .r �. --z nGk IVR- - — / •. _. .II) ,/_-�J�I __ —,4 � acEs CiRYI L, �iMO, Y�• A ._ PK F1r � l ....E.. y — R -I I H -I 9 vim; EAcuI�A: -R!I: I TREME ACRES- �R�,`. I i\�/ A Q' FP.. �` EExRp�i-I 'a R -I El �: G& 9 GB I.I F • ILI 4r 0 R•3 R I R-4 me co.cw.+ PF ISR 1 L I Np;— f. 'rteIY us POSTAL SERVICE GB (/ � ' Y1RBhi /6 'R•F _- SIFT_ T AONA __— _ � MDIb'IYBLIPoRF R -I � R_q RU �ARmn � •� ll vA d iR-4 R-4 ��/� R•4II _ GB _'__ _ 'co"sE.v �':�'`�� R_q _I R•4 NBr B. A Lam— i s`�R�. 4 is xntr B RB f (:SC GB kI A— a. PF: _ / ERY" pD1i_ �! LB R -q `cf ods Ij Re! Ts -3 CSC / eDOITIC LI / BI I R-4 I �; r -y Pll_s A � ' MOUS IAL )/RARIf� �.J. A L Poor oaR-14 ��.R tam _3 A R-4 Zoning Map R_q _ p R,..2 { ,... R_q 1 �. fR s I .Ac i R -I F15= R I :I Rtt, ,� �I I R' R-1 _ PF An / FSD PPF { A i A R��iY =• i � 4rJ / ••_' _may.; .Y A -c-.—1 -:ti.. 4 V •C PF Zoning Map 3.21 1 11.5 a u h 1 i m ' x 1 J 1 J Qu oI 2 0 d WATER TREATMENT PLANT TRUNK STORM SEWER PROJECT NO. 371 SR PROPOSED TRUNK AREA ASSESSMENT ® Single Family a Agriculture ® Commercial 8 Industrial 0 100 200 300 400 omu3i°00, msW A1199" & ASH C, ML 0 EA z H m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m _��� ter. � ` a.�, �, / ;�, y i,, —y,� y � '. .�io�'.. 19'.4 1 �� i'i3/.. �' i �.s� m a.��pjgS.� {q''/ �.s� m �„� �y11�9S !.. �F o � J 5i' ,�.A � � ,.- _ }., y,,... ..� � �y } k iu7 q .��.. ' MARKET VALUE DEFINED ' Fair market value, or alternately, most probably selling price, as estimated An this valuation report, conforms to the following definitions; . ' "Market value is defined as the estimated price, in, terms of money, which a property should bring in a competitive and ' open market under all conditions requisite to a fair sale with the buyer and seller each acting prudently and knowledgeably and presuming the price is not affected by - undue influence. Implicit in this definition is the consummation of a sale as of a specified date and the passing of title from seller to ' buyer under conditions whereby; 1. Buyer and seller are typically motivated. 1. Both parties are well informed or well advised acting ' in what they consider their own best interests. 3. A reasonable time is allowed for exposure in the open market. ' 4, Equity payment is made in cash or its equivalent. 5. Financing, if any, is on terms which are specifically enumerated within this report. ' 6. The price represents a normal consideration for the property sold based upon the appraiser's analysis of the current economic environment and its effects on equity yield demands exclusive of any special services, fees, ' costs or credits except those which may be defined within this report. ' Alternatelythe highest price in terms of money which a property will bring in a competitive and open market under all conditions requisite to a fair sale, the buyer and seller each acting prudently, knowledgeably and assuming the price is not affected by undue influence." (1) (1) Adapted from "A Critique of the Definition ' of Fair Market Value", by Harold D. Albritton, MAI, "The Appraisal Journal", April, 1980 -lu- 1 EAGAN PROFILE The City of Eagan is the second tier suburb in the Twin Cities metropolitan area. Eagan is located approximately ten miles South of the downtown areas of the Twin Cities. Unlike many second tier suburbs, Eagan employs a very substantial number of its citizens within the corporation limits of the City. In total, Eagan is estimated to employ 14,000 persons in 198U.- Many Eagan residents are employed• in the Eagandale Center Industrial Park and in several large= corporate headquarters. located in the City. Some of the larger employers include Sperry Univac, Blue Cross and Blue Shield, Economics Laboratories, and the U. S. Post Office. The current population of Eagan, according to the_198U - census, is 12,3UU which is contrasted with the 196U ... population number 3,382 and the 1970 census population figure of 10,398. The population in Eagan as of 1982 is estimated to be 23,590 by the Metropolitan Council. Eagan has been the fastest growing city in the metropolitan area for the last two years according to the Metropolitan Countil estimates. ' In terms of physical size, Eagan is a relatively larye community. The corporate limits of the City encompass approximately thirty four square miles or approximately 21,000 acres. It is estimated by the City staff of Eagan that the City is less than thirty percent developed. ' The City of Eagan has designated approximately 3,200 acres for industrial development of which an estimated 65U acres have been developed. It is recognized that the City has ' considerable potential for indusrial development because these properties are located near major highways, rail service is available, and public utilities service_ is available. There is also a considerable area of industrial ' development in Eagan at the present time which tends toi attract more industrial development. Three promnent industrial parks account for about eighty five percent of ' the industrial development in the City. These parks are the Cedar Industrial Park located west of S.T.H. 13, the Sibley Terminal Industrial Park also located west of S.T.H. 13 and the Eagandale Center Industrial Park located in the North ' Central area of the community. Practically, all industrial ._ development in the City has occurred on platted property with public improvements. Eagan has also required high ' standards for development during the past ten years wherein improvements are required. A large percentage of the industrial development within the City consists of office and warehouse facilities. There is little or no heavy industry located in Eagan. Included on the next several pages, for the readers -11- reference, are copies of the Eagan Profile as prepared by the Minnesota Department of Economic Development. This community profile gives many interesting statistics concerning the City of Eagan. -12- ■_■ � o�.Tnes ME , , c OULUTH n Minnesota MINNESOTA AINT PAUL DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC COMMUNITY PROFILE Own DEVELOPMENT TOWN Eagan COUNTY Dakota REGION 11 Distance and Direction from Minneapolis/St. Paul 10 miles South Duluth 140 miles South City 1950 Census 1,185 1960 Census 3,382 1970 Census 10,398 1979 estimate 20,460 POPULATION County 49,019 78,303 139,808 194,9nn IMSA 1,186,684 1,535,297 1,874,612 1,991,140 ■ (Metropolitan Council) INDUSTRY Major employers in area: ' Union % No. (Give of Emp. Firm Product/Service employees Initials) In Union ' Sperry Univac Computer Services 3,260 Blue Cross & Blue Shield Health Insurance 1,227 U. S. Postal Service Bulk Mail Service 450 ' Donaldson Company, Inc. 111r 11 Screening stem 350 American Fruit & Produce Company Fresh & Frozen Produce 325 3M Company Twin Cities Sales Div. 294 ' Coca Cola Bottling Beverage Distributor 250 K. W. McKee Enterprises Auto Transporting 185 ' Villaume Industries Trusses/Wood _Products 175 Brown -Minneapolis Tank & Fab. Co. Build Storage Tanks 160 Warner Hardware Central Office 150 ' West Publishing Company Books Warehouse 125 '*EMPLOYMENT Labor survey date Number of Employees ' Manufacturing 241,400 Unemployment rate 3.1% (1979) Nonmanufacturing 819,500 Number in labor force available ' Total labor. force 1,060.900 1979 annual average 9 county metro area 1 ' *Manufacturing Occupations In Area 1979 (Production and Clerical) Occupation or Job Title Median Wage Warehouseperson $ 7.55 /hr. ' Engine Lathe Operator $ 7.00 /hr. Coremaker $ 6.86 /hr. ' Punch Press Operator $ 6.00 /hr. Drill Press Operator $ 6.09 /h r. Bookkeeping Machine Operator $ 3.90 ;hr. Electronic Assembler $ 4.40 /hr. Experienced Typist 4.37 TRANSPORTATION ' Rail Lines (companies) Milwaukee Road.("C.M.S.T.P..&P.R.R.)- Frequency of Service Unlimited ' Reciprocal Switching Yes Distance to Main Line Switching 16 miles Piggy -back Service Yes - through MMT Passenger St. Paul * Truck Lines (companies) 27 headquartered in metro area (over 100 1St class carriers) ' * No. of terminals 60 * Airport 12 Nearest Minneapolis -St. Paul International '* Commercial: -(X ) Yes ( ) No Charter Service:.( X I Yes ( ) No Jet Service: ( X ) Yes ( ) No * Airlines 6 National 3 Regional 6 Local 5 National/International Navigation Aids All FAA aids for international airport '* * Runway length, surface 10,000 feet concrete Distance to CBD * Bus - Inter city Greyhound, Jefferson, Zephyr Intra City MTC United Parcel Yes Ull ri Highway route numbers, Interstate/Distance I -35E I-494 Adjacent ' Federal State #55, #49, #13 Load Limits 9 tong Navigable water No Depth ' 1q72_COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL TAXES PAYABLE 1980 Specials 3.215 Municipal rate $ 1r, RIO /$1000/assessed valuation METHOD OF ASSESSMENT ' Minnesota real estate taxes are based on market value. Market value is County s 19-873 /Sl000/assessed valuation construed to be the price that a willing buyer would pay to a willing seller in a 51.$20 free market. A two-step formula is used for determining property School rate $ /$1000/assessed valuation Minnesota. taxes in 90.518 1. Market value times 43% equals assessed valuation. Total rate $ /S100o/assessed valuation 2. Assessed valuation times the mill rate equals property taxes. ' (Taxes payable for residential development are determined by market value times the appropriate classification rate.) ' GOVERNMENT Organization: IX ) mayor council ( ) limited mayor 1 I manager council ( I commission 1 ) other ' Refuse service: 1 ) public ( X ) private ( ) none Police Force, regular 20 part time 2 Fire dept., regular Annual budgets 2.4 million Master Plan: ' Industrial plans must be approved by Hays: Insurance rating in community: class 1 2 3 4 5 WATER volunteer 80 (X ) yes 1 1 no sion 7 8 9 10 (circle) UTILITIES Municipal water source: ( 1 stream ( ) lake ( X 1 wells Storage capacity 7,500,000 .gals. Pumping capacity 7,360 gal./min. Avg, demand 2.000.000 G/D Peak demand 8 to 10 million G/D Industrial water rate Minimum 15.000 gallons $13.50 and 5201,000 gallons for all usage over 15,000 gallons Total hardness tapwater 329 ppm 'SEWER Metro Waste Control Capacity sewage treatment plant G/D; Peak demand G/D; Avg. demand 65-75 mi l l iorG/D Sewerusecharge Minimum 15,000 gallons $13.90 and 8101,000 gallons usage over�6, 6T, gallons ELECTRICITY based on current water consumption Electric service: By Dakota Electric Association Northern States Power For rate data, contact 612/454-6080 612/459-7977 GAS Gas service: By i Natural _Gas Com Northern States Power For rate data, contact 617./454-6080 612/459-7977 I TELEPHONE Telephone company serving area Northwestern Bell Telephone Company ' COMMUNITY SERVICES Number of hotels *52 total rms. *9,500 Number of motels 3 total units 71 Hospital beds 10,545 Nursing Home Beds 17>184 Doctors 3,061 Dentists 1,493 Nearest hospital, if not in town South St. Paul - Divine Redeemer Memorial 'No. No. junior high schools Number churches: Protestant 7 Catholic 1 Jewish 0 Other 0 Main cultural attraction, festivals MN Orchestra, Guthrie Theatre, Walker Art Center, MN.Zoo, MN Science Museum, Mpls. Inst. of Art, St. Paul Arts & Science Center, Aquatennial, Winter Carnival, State Fair, all those normally associated with a metro area of 1.9 million population ' Parks & Playgrounds: municipal 20 State I private County — 1 Golf courses: municipal *72 private 3 Tennis courts 13 Swimming pools 1 * t Sports: college ( X) yes ( ) no professional Baseball, Basketball, Football, Hockey, Soccer _ News Media: papers: daily 4 weekly 44 radio stations: AM 20 FM 15 Cable TV: ( ) yes ( 1 no 'Meeting facilities: no. of 3 Capacity of largest three 200 Retail sales (county) S 558,654,000 (1978) Per capita income (county) S 71502 (1977) Names of banks/S&L/deposits for each Mid-America National Bank of Eagan,,$25 million 'Minnesota Federal Savings & Loan, First Minnehaha National Bank *147 banks and 124 savings and loan branch offices ' Public libraries: ( ) local ( X) county ( ) regional ( X) bookmobile Post office': 1st class ' Service organizations Lions, Cedar Athletic Association, Mend -Eagan . total membership 220 Athletic Association EDUCATION elementary schools 5 total enrollment 2,744 grades included K — 6 'No. No. junior high schools I total enrollment 1,104 grades included — 9 No. high schools total enrollment grades included ' Cost per pupil unit $ 1,840.00 Pupil to teacher ratio: elementary 25/1 1 high school No. parochial schools 1 total enrollment 100 grades included K — 8 No. private schools total enrollment grades included Nearest area vocational -training school Rosemount Distance 6 miles Nearest community college Inver Grove Heights Distance 6 miles '* Nearest college or university 4 year: 19 in metro area Distance *Liberal Arts Programs: 15 colleges and universities Distance *Engineering University of Minnesota (degree); 3 colleges Distance ' *Business Admi nistrat ion 7 colleges and universities Distance *Graduate Schools 10 colleges and universities Distance ' CLIMATE ' Coldest Month Jan. Mean Daily Max. 22.4 OF Mean Daily Min. 2.3 OF No. days over 90 degrees 14 Hottest Month July Mean Daily Max. 83.9 OF Mean Daily Min. 60.7 OF No. days between killing frosts 767 Average annual precipitation 24.78 inches Snow 42.2 inches **INDUSTRIAL SITES Name or number of site: Eagandal a Ctr. Ind. Park Name or number of site: Si bel y Ind. Park ' Total available acreage in site: 650 acres Total available acreage in site: 75. acres Owner of site is: Rauenhorst Corporation Ownerofsiteis: Ownership is diversified ' Option held by local industrial development group: Yes Option held by local industrial development group: NO Site is zoned: ( X) yes ( ) no In city limts: (X I yes ( ) no Site is zoned: (() yes ( ) no In city limits: (X) yes ( I no If not in city, miles from city limits: If not in city, miles from city limits: ' Services available at site: 1 X ) rail ( x) electricity (X 1 gas Services available at site: (X I rail ( X) electricity (X ) gas (X ) treated water 1 )0 sanitary sewer I X) storm sewer (X 1 treated water ( X ) sanitary sewer (X ) storm sewer ' (X 1 curb and gutter ( X) paved roads IX 1 curb and gutter (X I paved roads LOCATION SERVICES ' Name of local development corporation None Full time chamber of commerce manager ( X ) yes ( 1 no ' Community contacts: - Catherine L. DeCourcy ' Executive Director Northern Dakota County Chamber of Commerce 33 East Wentworth Avenue, Suite 101 West St. Paul, MN 55118 ' 612/457-4921 Thomas L. Hedges ' City Administrator 3795 Pilot Knob Road Eagan, MN 55122 ' 612/454-8100 REMARKS * Seven County Metropolitan Statistics ' **Additional Industrial Sites Gopher -Eagan Industrial Park Cedar Industrial Park Acres: 274 Acres: 80 Owner: Gopher Smelting & Ref. Owner: J. E. Parranto, Inc. All services available All services available except rail ' Business and Community Contact Division County City Code No. 19.20 ' Department of Economic Development ' 3/ 1980 480 Cedar Street Prepared/Revised St, Paul, Minnesota 55101 Senate District -53 District 612,296-5021 ' Form: 1/69, Reviseo 1979 PROPERTY DESCRIPTION Area The property contains approximately 24.5 acres in total of which 11.5 acres is proposed to be assessed. The property has 817 feet of total width and 1,268 of depth. The property fronts on Yankee Doodle Road and has 685 feet of frontage. The property is rectangular with a rectangular lot removed from its frontage. This exception is currently developed as a single family dwelling. The property is generally open and gently rolling. The property has a high point of approximately 88U feet and a low at the northern end of the property of approximately 844 feet. At the time the property was viewed by your appraiser, most of it was plowed field. However, the easterly portion of the property apparently was, at one time, a residence area although the dwelling has been removed. A portion of this area is heavily wooded. Surrounding the property on its easterly and northerly boundaries is the Univac headquarters area consisting of approximately 20U acres of open, rolling land -developed with two very large office/manufacturing facilities. To the West of the subject property is a small commercial area. Presently, there is one store located in the area which is a Carbonne's Pizza Restaurant. Northerly of the commercial area adjacent to the western boundary of the subject is an approximately ten acre tract owned by the City of Eagan zoned for park. Southerly of the subject property is the Surrey Heights townhouse and apartment complex development. The townhouses range from two to ten years old and in value from 675,000 to S95,00U. The apartment portion of the complex is still under construction. Utilities At the present time, the subject property is served with city water and city sewer which is available in Yankee Doodle Road. Zoning Currently the property is zoned A -Agriculture by the City of Eagan. This zoning requires a minimum of five acres in order to construct a single family dwelling. The property is currently farmed. Comprehensive Plan The Comprehensive Plan of the City of Eagan indicates that the probable future development of the parcel would be as R and D zoning which is Research and Development. This is similar to the existing Univac facility which surrounds the property. -17- 1 Soils Soils tests have not been examined by your appraiser. Any ' adverse soil conditions which may be discovered after the date of this appraisal would render this appraisal subject to re-evaluation and re-analysis. ' HIGHEST AND BEST USE ANALYSIS ' The highest and best or most profitable use, as defined in the "Appraisal of .Real Estate", 7th Edition,-is "that use which, at the time of appraisal, is the most profitable ' likely use. It is the use that will provide the greatest return on the land after the requirements of labor, capital and coordination have been satisfied. Thus, it may be also ' defined as the available use and program of future utilization that produces the highest present land value." Underlying the theory of the highest or most profitable use is the theory of change. ' Change is ever present as all real estate, improved or unimproved can be described within the context of its place ' in a particular development cycle. Downtown urban land in the Central Core District of Minneapolis, for example, can be regarded as having a significant demand and, for tnose ' sites still in the core which remain as parking lots, or other types or vacant ground, the future, potential for development and transition from their present use to a markedly different one is readily foreseeable. tThe highest and best use of any given piece of ground should be analyzed not only in terms of its existing use with ' improvements constructed thereon, but also other possible uses would be considered which may be affected by zoning and planning changes, social needs and market demand. ' It should also be noted that land in its transitional state may appear physically to the eye to have a suitable existing improvement constructed thereon. In fact, the value of the ' underlying ground may have risen to such a degree that the existing improvements cannot- contribute sufficient income stream to provide a fair return of capital on both the value ' of the ground and the improvements, therefore, creating a situation where, although immediate development may not be warranted, the existing improvements have effectively become obsolete. ' Therefore, in estimating highest and best use, we should consider those uses which are physically possible for the ' site: permissible uses are those uses which may be permitted by current zoning and deed restrictions to the site; feasible uses are those possible uses which would produce to the highest net return to the owners and finally, 1 -18- 1 I the highest and best use or among all feasible uses, that ' use which produces the highest net return to ownership. - It is my opinion, based upon an analysis of this property in ' its improved state, the improvements as constructed represent the highest and best use of the parcel if vacant. ' ESTIMATE OF HIGHEST AND BEST USE Based upon all the data reported above, it is my opinion ' that the highest and best use of the subject property will be for R and D, Research and Development zoning. This zoning will allow for continuation of the existing high ' technology office industrial park surrounding the property. -19- MARKET APPROACH TO VALUE The Market Data Approach is based upon the definition of "Market Value" as defined earlier in. this report and postulates that there is a wiling seller and a willing buyer, that neither is under abnormal pressure, both are ' fully informed concerning the property and its uses, and the state of the market for that property and finally that the property has been exposed on the open market for a reasonable time. ' Market Value has been described as a reflection of the reactions of typical users and investors in the market. As ' in the Cost Approach, the Market Data Approach is also based upon the principle of substitution which, in this Approach, implies that a prudent investor will not pay more to buy or t rent a property than it will cost him to buy or rent a substitute property with equally desirable characteristics. The Market Data Approach is essential in almost every ' appraisal of the value of real property. The application of this Approach produces an estimate of value of a property by comparing it with similar properties of the same type and ' class which have been sold recently or are currently offered for sale in the same or competing areas. The comparative processes utilized in determining the degree of comparability between two properties involves judgment as to ' their similarity with respect to many value factors such as location, construction, age and condition. The sale price of these properties deemed most comparable tend to set the ' range in which the value of the subject property will fall. Further consideration of the comparative data will indicate to the appraiser a figure representing the value of the ' subject property; that is, the probable price at which it could be sold by a willing seller to a willing buyer as of the date of the appraisal. ' The data involved in the application of this process concerns comparable properties as well as the subject property and will vary with the type of property. Four ' categories of data, however, are basic and apply regardless of the type of property. They are; 1. Sales or asking prices of comparable 2. Conditions influencing each sale. 3. Location of each property. 4. Description of land and improvements property. -2U- properties. of each i ' I rSAGAN DA:ER ' MDUSTRiAL PAK i W I � i ' YANKEE DOODLE RD. (RTE. 28) ' GSCI -30.Cu'ly A ate- � � w �� ^ EAGAN 3 0 z ' DUcr.w OOD ESIATES COMPARABLE SALE NO. 1 ' LOCATION: Southwest corner of Yankee Doodle Road and Lexington Avenue ' LEGAL DESCRIPTION: The North 1/2 of the Northeast 1/4 and the East 1/2 of the Northeast 1/4 of the Northwest 1/4, ' Section 15, Eagan. DATE OF SALE: February, 1982 ' BUYER: Colon Brothers SELLER: St. Paul Companies ' PARCEL SIZE: 93.5 Acres ZONING: R-4 3U Acres; Community Shopping 3U Acres; Limited ' Business 30 Acres; General Business 3.5 Acres. TOPOGRAPHY: Rolling, open land; apparently stable soils. ' SELLING PRICE: $1,542,750 SELLING PRICE/ACRE: $16,5UU REMARKS: Assessments included city sewer and water trunks. Storm sewer trunk has not been assessed. -, -21- COMPARABLE NO. 2 LOCATION: Highway 13 and Yankee Doodle Road LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Part of the Northwest 1/4 of the Northeast 1/4 Section 17 and part of the Southest 1/4 of Section 8, Eagan. DATE OF SALE: March, 1982 BUYER: Comsery Corporation SELLER: H. B. Fuller Co. LOT SIZE: 66 Acres ZONING: I-1, Light Industrial TOPOGRAPHY: Gently rolling to level; no access to Highway 13. SELLING PRICE: $1,50U,000 UNPAID SPECIALS: $27,773 TOTAL SELLING PRICE: $1,527,773 SELLING PRICE/ACRE: $23,148 REMARKS: Assessments assumed by the buyer included city sewer and water trunks. Storm sewer had not yet been assessed. -22- e� �PPta vv +I� PART O, 7 I_ PpRi OF PLAI NVI E s'<,����<,�ss�b•�snsL ;43 13 Q 10 9 KENNETH STREET, la O\i '.z Is iP " 'O COMPARABLE SALE NO. 3 LOCATION: Lexington Avenue South of Highway 55 LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot 7, Plainview Addition DATE OF SALE: December, 1984 BUYER: Nolan Bros., Inc. SELLER: Union Bank and Trust LOT SIZE: 4.77 Acres ZONING: I-1, Light Industrial TOPOGRAPHY: Generally level SELLING PRICE: $220,ODU SELLING PRICE/ACRE: $46,1.22 I REMARKS: The property has a narrow frontage of approximately 189 feet and a depth of 1,100 feet. The odd shape contributed to the depression on the selling price. The purchase price included assessments paid for sewer, water, storm sewer and street. -23- (See Attached) OFFERING NO. 4 LOCATION: The Southwest Corner, Highway 49 and Yankee Doodle Road, Eagan . SELLER: Gopher Smelting Company PARCEL SIZE: 185 Acres TOPOGRAPHY: Rolling; several small pond areas; part heavily wooded, part open. ZONING: R-4, 15 Acres; R-1 and R-3, 16.5 Acres; Commercial 15.3 Acres; Industrial 139.5 Acres. UTILITIES: All available to serve the site and will be included within the selling price. ASKING PRICE: $4,6-25,000 $/ACRE: 25,000 -24- m m i, I CORRELATION AND CUNCLUSION All of the comparable sales are located. within a reasonable ' distance to the subject property. Comparable Sale No. 1 requires adjustment for the date of sale which was 1982. In addition at the date of sale, the Comparable was in an inferior location as ' compared to the subject, Comparable No. 2 was a very similar property to the subject) ' property; however, it requires adjustment for the date of sale. Access is excellent. Visibility is excellent and equal to the subject property. i ' Comparable No. 3 is a completely developed parcel and shows an approximate $22,000 per acre differential primarily because of parcel size and the utilities in place. Itis the opinion of ' your appraiser that the parcel size, in this case, is offset by the odd shape which leaves the majority of the differential between selling prices to be accounted for by the utilities. ' Offering No. 4 is located approximately five miles from the subject on the far eastern endof the Yankee Doodle Road and demonstrates the asking price for bulk land in the Eagan area. ' It is my opinion that Comparable No. 2 best represents ,the market value of the subject property and requires the least adjustments. ' It is my opinion that the comparable sales indicate the market value of the subject property to be $25,000 per acre for the entire the 24.5 acre tract. The market value of the -11.5 acres to be assessed, therefore, is $287,500. ' TWO HUNDRED EIGHTY SEVEN THOUSAND FIVE HUNDRED DOLLARS ' The comparable sales indicate that the buyer paid additional) funds for trunk storm sewer charges which are currently proposed to be assessed against the subject property by the City Project. ' The normal bulk of land sale price does not include storm sewer, assessments. None of° the comparable sales included storm sewer) assessments in the selling price. Each of the properties would) have been assessed storm sewer at the time of platting. ' Comparable No. 3 is an exception to this wherein all utilities were provided; however, it showed a $22,000 per acre increase ins price to cover all utilities. ' It is my opinion, therefore, that the market value of the.subjecti property, after the assessment.of storm trunk, will increase by! an amount appropriate to cover the assessment for industrials ' property which is $U.0647/S.F. or. $25,650. Therefore the market value of the subject property, after the assessment for storm' sewer trunk, will be $313,15U which is rounded to $313,000. ' THREE HUNDRED THIRTEEN THOUSAND DOLLARS ' -26- CERTIFICATE OF APPRAISAL The undersigned does hereby certify that, except as otherwise noted in this appraisal report: 1. I have personally inspected the subject property. 2. I have present or contemplated future interest in the real estate that is the subject of this,appraisal report. 3. I have no personal interest or bias with respect to the subject matter of this appraisal report or the parties involved. 4. That the compensation is in no manner contingent upon the value reported. 5. To the best of my knowledge and belief, the statements of tact contained in this appraisal report, upon which the analyses., opinions, and conclusions expressed herein are based, are true and correct. 6. This appraisal report sets forth all of the limiting conditions (imposed by the terms of my assignment or by the undersigned) affecting the analyses, opinions, and conclusions contained in this report. No pertinent imformaiton has knowingly been withheld. 7. This appraisal report has been made in conformity with the provisions of the Code of Ethics, the.Standards of Professional Practice and Conduct, and the By -Laws of the Society of Real Estate Appraisers as the same may be.amended from time to time. 8. No one other than the undersigned prepared the analyses, conclusions, and opinions concerning real estate that are set forth in this appraisal report. 9. Neither all nor any part of the contents of this report (especially any conclusions as to value, the identity of the. appraiser or the firm with which he is connected) shall be disseminated to the public through advertising media, public relations media, news media, sales media, or any other public means of communication without the prior written consent and approval of the undersigned. Jak S..Parranto -27- ' LIMITING CONDITIONS AND.ASSUMPTIONS ' This appraisal is made subject to the following limiting conditions and assumptions: ' The legal description furnished me is assumed to be correct. I assume no responsibility for matters legal in character, ' nor do I render any opinion as to the title, which is assumed to be marketable. This property is appraised as though under responsible ownership and competent management, and unencumbered. ' Any sketches and pictures in this report are included to assist the reader in visualizing the property. ' I have made no survey of.the property and assume no responsibility in connection with such matters. ' I believe to be reliable the information identified in this report as being furnished to me by others but I assume no responsibility for its accuracy. ' Possession of this report, a copy thereof, or any part thereof, does not carry with it the right of publication, ' nor may it be used for any purpose by anyone but the applicant or by previous written consent of the appraiser and the applicant and in any event, only with proper qualifications. 1 I am not required to give testimony or attendance in court by reason of this appraisal with reference to the property ' in question, unless arrangements have previously been made therefor. ' The distribution of the total valuation in this report between land and improvements, it any, applies only under the existing plan of utilization. ' Neither all nor any part of the contents of this report shall be conveyed to the public through advertising, public relations, news, sales or other media, without the written ' consent and approval of the author, particularly as to - valuation conclusions, the identity of the appraiser or firm with which he is connected. 1 -28- ' APPRAISAL QUALIFICATIONS OF ' MARK S. PARRANTO 39U8 Sibley Memorial Highway Eagan, Minnesota 55122 '(61 2) 454-1600 GENERAL BACKGROUND ' * Life -Long resident of St. Paul area * B. A. Degree - College of St. Thomas 1968 * 1969-1974 Accountant, Gould, Inc. Mendota Heights, MN; Plant Controller, Gould, Inc., Memphis, TN ' * 1974 -Present, J. E. Parranto Associates, Inc., Realtors, Vice President * Former member on Board of Directors Northern Dakota County Chamber of Commerce * Former member of Eagan City Council ' APPRAISAL EXPERIENCE AND EDUCATION * Society of Real Estate Appraisers, Course 101 Residential Appraisal * American Institute of Real Estate Appraisers, Course I -B ' * Society of Real Estate Appraisers Course 2U1, Principles of Income Property Appraising * Society of Real Estate Appraiers Course 2U2, Applied ' Income Property Valuation * Partial client list: Northwestern Mutual Life Insurance Co. ' Minnesota Bank of Eagan Metropolitan Waste Control Commission Hennepin County Parks Department ' City of Falcon Heights City of Eagan St. Paul Companies ' Cliffroad Properties Dunn and Curry, Inc. Chrysler Credit, Inc. Chrysler, Inc. ' Kline Oldsmobile Cummins Engine Tilsen Homes, Inc. ' Pine Bend Development Numerous appraisals for attorneys and individuals ' MEMBERSHIPS * Dakota County Board of Realtors * Minneapolis Board of Realtors * Northern Dakota County Chamber of Commerce ' ASSOCIATION MEMBERSHIP * Candidate Member - Society of Real Estate Appraisers 1 -29- ROBINS, ZELLE, LARSON 8 KAPLAN ATTORNEYS AT LAW FOUNDED IN 1936 AS ROBINS, DAVIS 6 LYONS ATLANTA, GEORGIA 1800 INTERNATIONAL CENTRE DALLAS, TEXAS 900 SECOND AVENUE SOUTH MINNEAPOLIS, MINNE50TA MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 55402 NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA TELEPHONE (612) 349-8500 SAINT PAUL, MINNESOTA TELECOPIER (612) 339-4181 WELLESLEY, MASSACHUSETTS TWX 910-57G-2737 January 24, 1985 Mr. Thomas A. Colbert P.E. Director of Public Works CITY OF EAGAN 3830 Pilot Knob Road P.O. Box:21199 Eagan, MN 55121 Paul H. Hauge, Esq. HAUGE, SMITH, EIDE & KELLER, P.A. Cedarvale Professional Building 3908 Sibley Memorial Highway Eagan, MN 55122 ANDREW W. HORSTMAN 19121 349-9537 Re: City of Eagan - Project 317, Parcel #10-02900-202-.05.. Our File No. 18250-0044 Gentlemen: I have been authorized by Amoco Oil Company to dismiss its appeal of the special assessment for project No. 317. I appreciate your cooperation in responding to Amoco's questions on this matter. Very truly yours, ROBINS, ZELLE, LARSON & KAPLAN Andrew W. Horstman AWH/mch ATLANTA, GEORGIA GALLAS, TEXAS MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA SAINT PAUL, MINNESOTA WELLESLEY. MASSACHUSETTS ROBINS, ZELLE, LARSON S KAPLAN ATTORNEYS AT LAW FOUNDED IN 1938 AS ROBINS, DAVIS & LYONS 1800 INTERNATIONAL CENTRE 900 SECOND AVENUE SOUTH MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 55402 TELEPHONE (612) 349-8500 TELECOPIER (612) 339-4181 TWX 910-576-2737 January 24, 1985 Clerk of District Court Dakota County Courthouse Hastings, MN 55033 Re: State of Minnesota vs. Amoco Oil Co. Our File No. 18250-0044 Court File No. 95686 Dear Sir or Madam: ANDREW W. HORSTMAN 1912)3-8-8537 Please find enclosed Notice of voluntary dismissal of appeal of special assessment. This dismissal applies only to the appeal which was filed on October 18, 1984 for matter no. 95686 and does not apply to an earlier appeal of a commissioners award for the condemnation which is clerk's nos. 92782-92783. Please feel free to call if there is any confusion. Very truly yours, ROBINS, ZELLE, LARSON & KAPLAN Andrew W. Horstman AWH/mch Enclosure cc: Paul--H.—Hauge,—Esq.— Thomas A. Colbert STATE OF MINNESOTA IN DISTRICT COURT COUNTY OF DAKOTA FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT NOTICE OF DISMISSAL AND DISMISSAL OF APPEAL OF ASSESSMENT PROJECT NO. 317 TO: City of Eagan and its attorney Paul Hauge. Please take notice that Amoco Oil Company hereby voluntarily dismisses its Appeal dated October 18, 1984, of the Special Assessment for Project No. 317. DATED: This Al'yh day of January, 1985. ROBINS, ZELLE, LARSON & KAPLAN ByY/ �1 Andrew W. Iforstman 1800 International Centre 900 Second Avenue South Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402 (612) 349-8500 of 3830 PILOT KNOB ROAD, P.O. BOX 21199 BEA BLOMQUIST EAGAN. MINNESOTA 55121 Mayor PHONE: (612) 454-8100 THOMAS EGAN JAMES A. SMITH JERRY THOMAS THEODORE WACHTER January 18, 1985 Council Membes THOMAS HEDGES CIN AdmiNstraror EUGENE VAN OVERBEKE City Clerk MR ANDREW W HORSTMAN ROBINS, ZELLE, LARSON.AND KAPLAN ATTORNEYS AT LAW 1800 INTERNATIONAL CENTER 900 2ND AVENUE SOUTH MINNEPOLIS, MN 55402 Re: Project 317, Parcel 10-02900-0202-05 Your File No. 18250-0044 Dear Mr. Horstman: On January 10, you forwarded to my attention a 1968 survey of the above -referenced parcel in its original configuration before any taking by MnDOT along with excerpts from the appraisals of Robert LaFond, W. Pitzen and Michael Stapp. You asked that 'I review this information to verify whether the City's assessable area of 1.89 acres was accurate in relationship to the 1.84 acres that .you have been informed constitutes the remaining parcel after MnDOT taking. The following information shows how the assessable area of 1.89 acres has been verified to be accurate based on the information you submitted: AREA COMMENTS .5.049 Acres Area calculated from the 1968 survey through a survey clo- sure. —0.634 Acres = 4.415 Acres -2.53 Acres 33 ft. half right-of-way for County Road 30 as calculated from the 1968 survey. Remaining area before MnDOT taking. MnDOT acquisition according to 3 appraisal descriptions. THE LONE OAK TREE ... THE SYMBOL OF STRENGTH AND GROWTH IN OUR COMMUNITY MR ANDREW W HORSTMAN JANUARY 18, 1985 PAGE 2 AREA 1.885 Acres COMMENTS Net area of remaining parcel after MnDOT taking. If this remaining parcel were rounded to the nearest 0.01 acre, it results in 1.89 acres of net assessable area which was levied under Project 317. Please contact me if you have any questions pertaining to the City's review of your information supporting our original assessable area. Sincerely, p /q���sy� Vomas A. Colbert, P.E. Director of Public Works TAC/jj cc: Paul Hauge, City Attorney ATLANTA, GEORGIA I DALLAS, TERAS MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA SAINT PAUL, MINNESOTA WELLESLEY, MASSACHUSETTS ROBINS, ZELLE, LARSON 8 KAPLAN ATTORNEYS AT LAW FOUNDED IN 1938 AS ROBINS, DAVIS 6 LYONS 1800 INTERNATIONAL CENTRE 900 SECOND AVENUE SOUTH MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 55402 TELEPHONE (612) 349-8500 TELECOPIER (612) 339-4181 TWX 910-576-2737 January 10, 1985 Mr. Thomas A. Colbert P.E. Director of Public Works CITY OF EAGAN 3830 Pilot Knob Road P.O. Box 21199 Eagan, MN 55121 Re: Project 317, Parcel #10-02900-202-05 Our File No. 18250-0044 Dear Mr. Colbert: ANDREW W. HORSTMAN (612) 349-6531 As I mentioned in our telephone discussion on Thursday, January 10, 1985, it is Amoco's position that after the taking by the State of Minnesota only 1.84 acres remains to be assessed rather than the 1.89 acres which was assessed. I:am enclosing for your review certain materials which appear to support Amoco's position and may help clarify the discrepancy. The following documents are enclosed: 1. 1968 survey of the parcel; 2. Excerpts from the appraisal of Robert LaFond, including a legal description of the taking, a description after the taking and copies of the Minnesota Department of Transportation right of way plat and map drawing with respect to the taking.; 3. Map and fee acquisition statement taken from the appraisal of W. Pitzen performed for MnDot; 4. Excerpts noted as pages F and G from the appraisal of Michael Stapp performed for MnDot. Mr. Thomas A. Colbert Page Two After you have had a chance to review these materials please give me a call to let me know whether the assessment can be adjusted. Very truly yours, ROB�INpS, Z/fE�LLE, �LA�RSSOON� & KAPLAN ndrew W. Horstman AWH/mch Enclosure Fc—c. Paul H. Haug (w/encs..) J 1968 SURVEY LAFOND EXCERPTS 9 9. la9ond CO. 9ne- LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF THE TAKING That part of the Northwest Quarter of the Northeast Quarter of Section 29, Township 27 North, Range 23 West, shown as Parcel 45B on the plat designated as Minnesota Department of Transportation Right of Way Plat No. 19-39 on file and of record in the Office of the County Recorder in and for Dakota County, Minnesota; containing 2.53 acres, more or less, together with other rights as set forth in Plat No. 19-39. A copy of Plat No. 19-39 is included in the Addenda. DESCRIPTION OF THE TAKING The taking consists of 2.53 acres, more or less, being the approximate north half of the subject and the southeast corner. The 2.53 acres of the taking does not include the .63 acres currently subject to the existing 33' right of way easement along the subject's north boundary. Additionally, there will be a temporary easement consisting of. .44 acres along the north central portion of the remainder, which will remain in effect until December 1, 1986. See the Plot Map on the facing page. DESCRIPTION AFTER THE TAKING The remaining land will consist of 1.84 acres. The remaining land will be approximately 120' deep and frontage on County Road 30 will be reduced to approximately 630', and this reduced frontage will be subject to in- creased access control along the eastern 215' of frontage. The temporary easement is irregular shaped, having a maximum depth of 55' and being 485' wide along the northern boundary of the remainder. This easement reduces the depth of the unencumbered remaining land to approximately 65' for a width of approximately 215' in the center area. As noted, this temporary easement remains in effect until December 1, 1986. The Eagan zoning office was contacted for confirmation of setback requirements on the subject parcel, in addition to reviewing the zoning ordinance in the Addenda. There is a 50' minimum front setback from the C.S.A.H. 30 right of way line, a 50' minimum rear setback, since the land adjacent behind the subject is zoned Agricultural, and 10' side lot line minimums. Considering the front,and rear setback requirements, the reduction in depth of the remaining parcel to 115' - 125' makes the remainder of very little utility as a commercial parcel. auxw.m.nSA.o as m.®. - - ra s w.� o �wla1 w rmr, ..1-.v w4w rw,rar..w Aw.r aw w.w N-q,L{p.4 rr q O.11Hlia �mlm.m ! m m m a a m 5 b. 120 ZE DAKOTA CO. CAST IRON WN. AT 1/4 CORNER YI SEI/4-N'IN1/4 I DAKOTA CO. CAST IRON I WN. AT 1/4 CORNER I x1Y$.25' _ i 6 u-.a'rx' @IT L A T ww mr..a asr r sa -. e- ew+m.-.n•r -,�'. a 6�I..r...•-.w.... w.a r w-w-4a.rw r v A mm. f d.Y b. wdW a�,a, as w..wa.wa! Mww �q Amw.l� s. sr aY. w• A.q w.w adr . w A.q Y.sf fLs.IA-.,q ww. wi.T.w•wv\rO.iM1M�[a•+\/ Tae. au26L� I PY1..5a1 PARCEL 450 $0• pumA M. MEMIC mV. WMITr EASE CITY NW 1/4 -NE 1/4 lIK PARCEL 408 M a PARCEL 450 E4 OF PARCEL 45D\- I PARCEL 450 all ,PARCEL 40E� so ! i SWI/4-NEI/4 q e' PARCEL 40 Sa- ffsf. mar. nvn b 55'.. me .a vxws ALiM ft 0l l (DAKOTA CO. CAST IRON YON. AT 1 /4 CORNER A32 MI -45] 1/. LIK FOR uvws O r..IQL .0 Sff R.$ IPu 10 `�II 1 DAKOTA CO. CAST IRON Y0N AT 1/4 CORNER 0130Te m]I MAIM R T 12-0 PARCEL 4SE r eT e� 2 YC /1®[AIT LI•E iNE1/4-NE:/ DAKOTA CO. CAST IRON iN.60• 30x'(0 ]A� a• -u WN. AT SEC. COR. as - MINN. STATE PLANE m.�ir.n LOCATION N ua COOR.. SOUTH ZONE - Gxxl_ ]1,15 a•1( .5,.y 23.97 -4-%. 2210060.64 ` u-e,o max's2+'a xe T 656-64.94 Am )r ii 'e ns$ai c u.ro-csxai ]iq'MN, ]LrT, NE M. SIC.$1 TO M ]]a.m' xIaras'55 - 813-524 _ 1. x]' eu-a $8.1)211• x MAM L:ML SEC.2a- (FEE . a 0118520 el4.19 jtml•NN it.13' c .816 33- M3.S50 300.55' a'w ss ! -T`AR• PARCEL 45- 4g PARCEL 45X' r.1 E. .5 - 510. m' ai •c 5i n p us• . c o e l $p ,'•I\ i am"; Is, POM LJA _IP�1 �I O.m' x NWI/4NEI/: eiieiS x]x..0' •].my en -u. ]ar. re' xl v a. u.ea n5.m' 12 .0, 112--86.FEE I 45C OARDLO L. HOLOEN INV 1/4NEI/4 e21 eZ. ur-30- x.01: ' exa. use ml.lo'.1 'y MC 13 IT I' K21 -uv ra•.rs' u'u'n. i W u. n' ni n 1. ORROLO L. HOLDEN NWI/4NE1:4 D FEE m I RICHT OF WAY SECTICrS 28 8 29 I 45E ROBERT E.:OALI 'NEI/4NEI/4SEC 291 NWI/4NWl/4SEC 231 1 0.18 Y � FEE I ALFRED E.LY NEI/4NEI/4SEC 291 NVI/4NWI/4S C 2 0.43 -I_ NWI/4-NWI/4 I2 -I -86 I z RICHT OF WAY IN SECTIONS 28 8 29 8 MALLARD PARK THIRD ADDITION ' 1 45N THOMAS M. V[LLMU9 ' NVI/4hY1/4SEC 28 EI 2NEI/4SEC 29 L0T5 1-11 dL4 I YI•i I I Y / SEI/4-NEI/4 , 2 F � a EAGAN`' 1 b' N ACOL CASTDAKOTA OER I I pl-pa iN.60• 30x'(0 ]A� a• -u irx. m' 2u12 as 565 45 233 1 TO OWNER m.�ir.n LOCATION N ua 40 Gxxl_ ]1,15 a•1( .5,.y 23.97 12. u-e,o max's2+'a xe ele-su Am )r ii 'e ns$ai c u.ro-csxai ]iq'MN, ]LrT, elxau ]]a.m' xIaras'55 - 813-524 _ 1. x]' eu-a $8.1)211• x ."'Oae xN1'W329-e]p (FEE . a 0118520 el4.19 jtml•NN it.13' c .816 ue-eiA M3.S50 300.55' a'w ss e.4 -en Asra I"SpR c en -en ,u.0 nr ]..] su-260 510. m' ai •c 5i 261-sm sv.ss' $ia 35 exo-01 O.m' ALICE NIEMEYER NWI/4NEI/: eiieiS x]x..0' •].my en -u. ]ar. re' xl v a. u.ea n5.m' 12 .0, 112--86.FEE I 45C OARDLO L. HOLOEN INV 1/4NEI/4 e21 eZ. ur-30- x.01: ' exa. use ml.lo'.1 'y Osn-uaS! 13 IT I' K21 -uv ra•.rs' u'u'n. msl-sl u. n' ni n 1. MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION RIGHT OF WAY PLAT NO. 19-39 STATE PROJECT NO. 1982135E-3901904 " IN THE NORTH HALF OF SECTION 29. T.27 N. R.23 W.. AND IN THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 28. T.27 N.. R.23 W. DAKOTA COUNTY. MINNESOTA 1 1 21 DAKOTA CO. CAST IRON 9 VON. AT 1/4 CORNER - . _ I xm.®ulo raravram•swm.ma.�xmrnE Imov,orn$N,orin a xo1.sN.wav m.0 mrlN wsr.a.,.w,.r Ma a1.•.avl�wv,WEua a.® Id..m l.e.s, mYaf w.Y.O Ir• I Iq Cq Im Onw�aY Owl. Im qu-. Fw 65377 PLAT 19-39 `AiYaew•�� • 1��.KUV A ti Isw ov.. .R.•w. Atli O-`�aWrwsYY, 1.a w+.frwr.,.owwraYV N.wwY..w.y WY•�Al.Y rSw., Musam�.x4�.. mla YaA�lwfas li® w. y w.aYa w aq mOe.e a�J m w i.a f.. w. saw�.�-w nw•er a...Yw n.a '- MwwY Ya e.w lyA Y Ilw Iw a..r w a. y a w sr• IN.r.....�....w w w.a Asu�/i�ee 1_ n N. R.m oa err,b CONVENTIONAL SYMBOLS RICHT OF WAY IN SECTION 29 ww w 6lICC V COUwrr IICCLw•JER PARCEL OWNER m.�ir.n LOCATION N ua 40 CLIFF ROAD PROPERTIES SWI/4NEI/4 SEI/4NV1/4 23.97 0.12 12-1-8 FEE 408 OU KOEBN ICK SWl/4NEI/: 1.97 [(SCALES pwawn TO PffT 166.&C CC. uNE CE xa lnS:f raL1.E5. FEE 400 ELMER RAH" SWI/4NEI/4 0,01 (FEE 40E ELMER RAHN SYI/4NEI/4 7.25I FEE 45 OCR THY L. VO[T NWI/4NEI/4 0.56 IFEE 45A ALICE NIEMEYER NWI/4NEI/: 0.03FFEE : AMOCO LLA.W- NWI/4rsEI/4 9eKyl 112--86.FEE I 45C OARDLO L. HOLOEN INV 1/4NEI/4 0.74 0.02 5-28-84:FEE 45D DOUGLAS M. JOHNSON NE 1/4 4.IT IFEE 457 ORROLO L. HOLDEN NWI/4NE1:4 0.61 FEE RICHT OF WAY SECTICrS 28 8 29 45E ROBERT E.:OALI 'NEI/4NEI/4SEC 291 NWI/4NWl/4SEC 231 8.89 1450 0.18 12-1-86 FEE ALFRED E.LY NEI/4NEI/4SEC 291 NVI/4NWI/4S C 2 0.43 0.07 I2 -I -86 FEE RICHT OF WAY IN SECTIONS 28 8 29 8 MALLARD PARK THIRD ADDITION ' 1 45N THOMAS M. V[LLMU9 ' NVI/4hY1/4SEC 28 EI 2NEI/4SEC 29 L0T5 1-11 dL4 I 1.471 fl 0.02 I -6c 1, FEE 1 3d0¢- CONVENTIONAL SYMBOLS Saw M ww w 6lICC V COUwrr IICCLw•JER �rnr COSM1. YIM. 4 K4e; 0-11.eVN .-. yfm. w.M ..ww .• • +ars w ♦ - C [(SCALES pwawn TO PffT 166.&C CC. uNE CE xa lnS:f raL1.E5. 3d0¢- q. Vg%',2 6lICC V COUwrr IICCLw•JER �rnr COSM1. YIM. 4 K4e; Al��µnYfIC[ 4,j CT V � CC. PITZEN EXCERPTS S. P. (3SE %'i0) 9r"i CCIJi+TY _ n' KC r' _ PARCEL N0. �,Su gWNER 141101zrr Ate+ Ori. Co,.rp,4A)y__ S Topographic information required: Show North Arrow. Proposed R/01 line and access taking. Lot lines and dimensions. Outline and location of all buildings and improvements, Stroet or highway frontage. Scale f": %s0 (t H EN{,rel !RAe-f a. �Wyaoyee- OOS /�`feS '�- QE S' 4 67S b W. Vii: ;,�,; 3' ( • iI � October 20, 1980 81400000235 FEE ACQUISITION Parcel 450 S.P. 1982 (35E=390) 904 I 35E-4 (40) 100 All of the following: That part of the Northwest Quarter of the Northeast Quarter of Section'29, Township 27 North, Range 23 West shown as Parcel 450 on the plat designated as Minnesota Department of Transportation Right of Way Plat Numbered. J 19-39 on file and of record in the office of the County Recorder in and for Dakota County, Minnesota; containing 2.53 acres, more or less; together with other rights as set forth below, forming and being -part of said Parcel 458: Access All right of access as shown on said plat by the access restriction symbol. Temporary Easement: A temporary easement for highway purposes as shown on said plat as to said Parcel 450 by the temporary easement symbol, said easement shall cease on December 1, 1806, or on such earlier date upon which the Commissioner of Transportation determines by formal order that it is no longer needed for highway purposes. STAPP EXCERPTS DESCRIPTION OF THE ACQUISITION: The acquisition consists of the easterly plus or minus: 125 fret of the subject and a strin along the County Road $30 frontage the entire length of tho tract. Said strip is approximately 110 feet wide. In addition, the 33 feet presently encumbered in road casement is now acquired in Ler-. Unencumbered area acquired in fee totals 2.53 acres. Included in the acquisition are all existing improvements e and the perimeter fencing along Watts of the subject's spurt: and west sides and all that fencing along the east and north sides. A temporary easement area approximately 460 feet long and reaching a naxinmum dnpth of 50 feet,is also acquired alorr_ a portion of the subjoct remainder fronting on County oau ;30. Said roseawnt area totals 0.4.4 acre and docs riot expire until Decenil,cr 1, 1906. Land acquired will be used in the construction of a, diamond interchanne at the intersection of now Interstate 35E and County Road n30 with the area acquired along the existing County Road k30 used .to expand said road to a four lane divided highway. !! S IPTIGN AFTER T!!f: ACnUISI•i IOP:: :he _ul:ject's remainder will consist of 1.01 acres w�:; ch includes the easement rncu;:;brance of 0.44 acre. No improvements remain. Access is closed on the remainder'3 tact ride and fur a di:;f.auce of approximatul. L!0 feet wccLward,form, Lhr, remainder':, northeast corner. From this point went along new County Road "40, the access will remain unrestricted except for the fact a large percentage of this remainder =rontage is encumbered with the temporary easement. A concrete median will be x:on:;lructLd in County Rnaci "30 .^.,!p;iratinq t.!,n va::t ,tnrl wr:!;t lctn or: of traffic with �,�i.l �au�lian �:xCunJirn3 Lhr entire Lernllli of the subjccC rcmainrlr.r. 'L'I�r: rxiutirr.7 Ir, D?P.0 RIFTIO'I AF'F?;R TiiE tUISITI07:: (continued) county koad 430 right of way will be used for westhound traffic with a new cast!wurd county Road 430 constructed across ti:e accuisiticn. Due to the elevation of the subject above the old county, right of way, cuts will vary across the acquisition to the maxinmum of 14 feet. The grade of the subject remainder in relation to the new portion of County Road 130 will not vary more than five feet. AFTER VALUE: As previously mentioned in the highest and best use paragraph, the after value subject is based on some type of commercial use to take advantace of the new diamnond interchange. The subject's size of 1.84 acres is large enough to support numerous types of commercial ventures including the use as a ga=soline station which was the intended use by the fee owner. However, the remainder's configuration as a long narrow strip varying in depth from approximately 115 to 125 feet will, in the opinion of this appraiser, present development problems as far as placing any improvements so as to conform to the city zoning ordinance as far as improvement setbacks. As outlined _.. the enclosed zoning ordinance, the setback for any improvements which in the subject's case if it were used as a service station site would include the puma islands, is 50 feet. Measuring back from the new interstate right of wav and county road right of way would leave a building area with less than 75 feet of depth. The subject remainder abuts an agriculturally zoned district and under the zoning ordinance for a General Business use requires a 50 foot setback from such a district. This makes the actual building area of the subject remainder a strip less than 25 feet deep, for which all practical purposes is unbuildable. In the opinion.of this appraiser, the subject would have to be combined with the adjoining land to the south,in order to he commercially used in the after situation. After value of the 1.84 acres is estimated -at -25% -of -the - - before value, 02 1-3 7-7, HAU(;E. SMITH. EIDE & HELLER. P. A. ATTORNEYS AT LAW CEOARVALE PROFESSIONAL BUILDINGS 9908 SIBLEY MEMORIAL HIGHWAY RAGAN. MINNESOTA 80122 PAUL H. HAUGE BRADLEY SMITH KEVIN W. EIDE DAVID G. KELLER Mr. Andrew W. Horstman Robins, Zelle, Larson & Kaplan Attorneys at Law 33 South 5th Street Minneapolis, MN 55402 November 20, 1984 RE: City of Eagan - Project 4317 - Amoco Oil Dear Mr. Horstman: AREA CODE 812 TELEPHONE 404-4224 I have received a copy of the Calendar Notice in the above action from the Clerk of District Court in Dakota County on the court hearing for February 6, 1985. I also have a copy of the letter dated October 23, 1984 from Tom Colbert, the Eagan Public Works Director, indicating that there is a residue of property that was assessed under Project #317.' I assume that Amoco will not proceed with its appeal in light of the facts that Mr. Colbert has laid out in his letter, and also, to the best of my knowledge, your client. did not file objections prior to the adoption of the assessment roll by the City Council. I would ask that you forward a dismissal of your appeal to the Clerk of District Court and a copy to my office to avoid a motion, prior to February 6, 1985. Very truly yours, HAUGE, SMITH, EIDE & KELLER, P.A. Paul H. Hauge PHH:ras cc: Tom Colbert Clerk of District Court n C/ G V& -t) File No. 98118 FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT STATE OF MINNESOTA CARVER, DAKOTA, GOODHUE, LESUEUR, MCLEOD, SCOTT 8. SIBLEY COUNTIES CALENDAR NOTICE , DATE: November 14, 1984 ATTORNEYS: Andrew W. Horstman Paul H. Hauge RE: [fl District Amoco Oil Co. vs ❑ County Cal. No. File THE ABOVE MENTIONED CASE IS: 0 City of Eagan M1 ❑ Stricken from the Calendar. (File a new Note of Issue when this case is ready for trial) ❑ Set for Omnibus on at A.M./P.M fI: Set for C rnirt- trial on 2/6/85 at 9:00 A.M.11MM. ❑ Continued to at A.M./P.M. for ❑ Other All motions must be made prior to the trial date. County Dakota ❑ Chaska 9 Hastings -Govt. Ctr. ❑ Red Wing In ❑ Le Center ❑ Glencoe ❑ Shakopee ❑ Gaylord If the status of this case changes, Immediate notice must be given to the Clerk of District Court. PLEASE BE ADVISED THAT THE FOLLOWING CONTINUANCE POLICY IS IN EFFECT: One continuance will be granted by the Assignment Clerk with the agreement of all parties and for good cause shown. Subsequent requests for continuances must be made by a motion, unless all parties agree to have the case stricken from the calendar. ESTHER S. FELDMAN, ADMINISTRATOR FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT DAKOTA COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER HASTINGS, MINNESOTA 55033 TELEPHONE: (612) 437.0325 Mv�� %, 01 i Administrative Assistant �.� 3830 PILOT KNOB ROAD. P.O. BOX 21199 BEA BLOMQUIST EAGAN, MINNESOTA 55121 Mwa PHONE: (612) 454-8100 THOMAS EGAN JAMES A SMITH October 23, 1984 JERRY THOMAS THEODORE WACHTER cwf it MBI iI s THOMAS HEDGES MR ANDREW W HORSTMAN Oty Adm atm C/O ROBINS, ZELLE, LARSON & KAPLAN EUGENE VAN OVERBEKE ATTORNEYS AT LAW city Clark 33 S 5TH ST MINNEAPOLIS MN 55402 Re: Project 317, Final Assessment Appeal Parcel #10-02900-020-05 Dear Mr. Horstman: Your letter of October 18 to our City Clerk, Mr. VanOverbeke, forwarding the enclosed Notice of Appeal for the special assessment to the above -referenced parcel under Project 317 has been forwarded to my attention for review and response. In your Notice of Appeal, you indicate that it is based on the fact that the property was taken in a condemnation proceeding by the State of Minnesota, who now holds title to that property. While MnDOT did acquire through condemnation property owned by Amoco under the --above referenced parcel I.D. number, it was not a total taking of the entire property. The enclosed map show that portion of the residual parcel that was assessed under Project 317. This assess- ment was based on the 82,500 sq. ft. (1.89 acres) that remained after MnDOT's condemnation action. This property was assessed at its present commercial zoned rate of $0.0647/sq.ft. for trunk area storm sewer in the amount of $5,337.75 relating to improvements installed under Project 317. Therefore, due to the information contained in this letter and the fact that the City did not include any of the property acquired by MnDOT as defined by their right-of-way plat #19-39 for parcel 45B, I would appreciate your concurrence with this information and a letter retracting your appeal of the assessment to District Court based on that fact that the area assessed was not included in the condemnation acquisition by MnDOT. If you would like further clarification of the situation, please feel free to contact me. Sincerely, omaTh s A olbe//rt,4 Director of Public Works cc: <Paul Hauge, City Attorney TAC/j j THE LONE OAK TREE ... THE SYMBOL OF STRENGTH AND GROWTH IN OUR COMMUNITY Enclosures STATE OF MINNESOTA IN DISTRICT COURT COUNTY OF DAKOTA FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT NOTICE OF APPEAL OF ASSESSMENT Project No. 317 TO: The Mayor or City Clerk of the City of Eagan. Please take notice that Amoco Oil Company hereby appeals the Special Assessment for Project No. 317 approved and adopted on September 18, 1984, against the following described property: Section 29 NE;, 020, 05. Amoco's appeal is based on the fact that said property was taken in a condemnation proceeding by the State of Minnesota with title and possession vesting in the State of Minnesota as of March 1, 1982. DATED: This 18th day of October, 1984. ROBINS, ZELLE, LARSON & KAPLAN By 4z ndrew W. Horstman 33 South Fifth Street Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402 (612) 349-8500 ATTORNEYS FOR AMOCO OIL COMPANY r =J— -`r \o 3 0 N. E. I/4 SECO-214 I!x•xaN iY lY nr.lD PART 50I 50 OF PART OF \_< .:...1.,010-05 1 /02/0-05 n LR]XIn�iMFl N / FART OF IIC Q 050 - 05 II O°'�; I� 77 i 040-05 rDulc"MmNu "c"lc. " " DEED.o Y 'a 1J Gm i 00 050-05 ~ PART OF It0 -05 .. IllII PART OF 011-07 - \VVJJ 9 010-00 f4 �. 00 f i A.. ' 11%If I I!•p40q lOIAO NaENTA1101 AND CPoD CONVERSION uNa are oriented to Minnesota State gene Coordinate System with 0 degeeey 0 seconds being 'GPoD NOMI -r-. 'toes are ground ler i and can be converted to Minnesota Stale "110ying pat d'etanow by 0-9998976 ph, Cid GME: 1 inch • 210 feet SURVEY STANDARDS L Thx pat value. azrr tU, and distancea. are base 2 The boundary morxrrneNy shown on this pat h: devia8on for the moms ant position is 0. 1 k 3. The'tate plana Coordinate shown on one monun 4. Cestificatea of Location have been fled at the Co Office for the section corner monuments shwm 5. For delab of this survey Cortes the Sururying er Trarsportatpn OAKDALE !deme of Di'lrict _ 277.52 ' o 0 �.� 89 55X43 " �vm __ / 33' PARCEL < f-- --- -C, A, 45 W \ o J 45 45B PARCEL 45B R /W N 45B/ 2 0 3 I `r 0 _ m _ Cy 29 �� r Um 4 1 4 / a a: B27 a PAR. 49;R d / 58 :0. CAST IRON I /4 CORNER B26� QPQ�'yS I � W U 825 / 20' DAKOTA C tv� 0. ELECTRIC 4 V. QPQz ci � COOP. UTILITY EASE t (BK.78.M.R..PG.87) P 824(NOT ON CITY 45D PROP. i L I.NE p ,�I cr VV i 1 3 Q B23 (Yj _ m Np\=Op PARCEL 45D THF 822 R i •3 TG � 9040 Rq�\ 45D . \ O e�O CAS hagsterw Wry au�e��i ^a .- Mn OOT District Offm RIGHT OF WAY IN SECTION 29 TORREN'S BUILDING NEW TEMPORARY REMOVAL EASEMENT OWNER LOCATION CERTIFICATE T.X. R/W EASEMENT EASEMENT EMPIRES ON PARCEL NO• ACRES (MORE OR LESS) 40 CLIFF ROAD PROPERTIES SWI/4NE1/-4 .. 23,.971 0..-1.2 SE1/4NW1/4 F 40B DUANE KOEBNICK SWI/4NE1 /4 1.97 Fl 40D ELMER RAHN SW1/4NE1/4 0.01 IF F 40E ELMER RAHN SWI/4NE1/4 0.25 F 45 DOROTHY L. VOIT NW1/4NE1/4 0.56 F 45A ALICE NIEMEYER NW1/4NE1/4 0.03 12-1-86F 45B JAMOCO OIL CO. NW1/4NE1/4 2.53 0.44 0.02 5-28-84F 45C DAROLD L. HOLDEN NW1/4NEI/4 _ 0.74 F 45D DOUGLAS M. JOHNSON NE 1/4 17 24. F 45J DAROLD L. HOLDEN NW1/4NE1/4 0.61 RIGHT OF WAY SECTIONS 28 & 29 45E ROBERT E. DALY NE1/4NE1/4SEC 29 8.89 0.18 12-1-86F NW1/4NW1/4 SEC 28 NE1/4NE1/4 SEC 29 0.43 0.07 12-1-861 45G ALFRED E. DALY NWI/4NW1/4SEC 28 RIGHT OF WAY IN SECTIONS 28 & 29 8 MALLARD PARK THIRD NW1/4NW1/4SEC 28 1.47 0.02 12DDI8T6I( 45H THOMAS M. WILLMUS E I /2NE I /4 SEC 29 LOTS 1-11 BLK I SYMBOLS B'id"g R r,.,, � R R E R/W Parcd Nunbar 3 Doc. No. 578662 mess c«ma D Aooe s OP�B — o o ' ate' 0— ? OF COUNTY 'REC Cast Iran M,,,Wd a 25¢' DOT. Iran Pipe with TA COUNT Alumir ($ THA EBY CERTIFY rAT9:000-CLOCKAM-ON- 3/a" D.O.T.ImPkl r hw banMonml• o February -1.2 , 1985 Mr. Paul H. Hauge Hauge, Smith, Eide & Keller Cedarvale Professional Buildings' 3908 Sibley Memorial Highway Eagan,- Minnesota 55122 Re: Al Perron/City of Eagan Assessment Dear Mr. -Hauge TELEPHONE 400.115E AREA CODE 012 After reviewing the above captioned matter with my client, I am authorized to advise you that Albert Perron will no longer continue to contest the assessment upon his property as set forth in the City of Eagan's Notice of Special -Assessment dated July 10, 1984. If you have any questions, please -do not hesitate to contact the undersigned. Very truly yours, F F RJH:kk cc: Mr. Albert Perron Mr. Thomas Colbert LAW OPPICES MCMENOMY, SHELDON, DusIou, HANSEN & MOLENDA PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATION DAEOTA CENTRAL OPFIOBS 1"50 ROUTII 80RSRT TRAIL EDWARD R.M-MENOMY ROSEMOUNT, MINNESOTA 66068 ' JAMES P. SLOONS[ BERNIE M. DUCH 8E[D a.I[ANRBN MICHAEL 8 MOLRNDA February -1.2 , 1985 Mr. Paul H. Hauge Hauge, Smith, Eide & Keller Cedarvale Professional Buildings' 3908 Sibley Memorial Highway Eagan,- Minnesota 55122 Re: Al Perron/City of Eagan Assessment Dear Mr. -Hauge TELEPHONE 400.115E AREA CODE 012 After reviewing the above captioned matter with my client, I am authorized to advise you that Albert Perron will no longer continue to contest the assessment upon his property as set forth in the City of Eagan's Notice of Special -Assessment dated July 10, 1984. If you have any questions, please -do not hesitate to contact the undersigned. Very truly yours, F F RJH:kk cc: Mr. Albert Perron Mr. Thomas Colbert oCt; 9tv ®F 3830 PILOT KNOB ROAD, P.O. BOX 21199 EAGAN, MINNESOTA 55121 PHONE: (612) 454-8100 January 16, 1985 Re: Continued Final Assessment Hearing Parcel # - 10-00900-010-79 Project 371, Trunk Storm Sewer Dear Mr. Perron: BEA BLOMQUIST Moyor THOMASEGAN JAMES A SMITH JERRY THOMAS THEODORE WACHTER Council Members THOMAS HEDGES City Atlminisnbtor EUGENE VAN OVERBEKE City clerk As you are aware, the original final assessment hearing for benefits received in the above referenced project to your property was considered by the City Council on August 7, 1984. Due to the written objection that was submitted on your behalf at that time, the City Council continued the public hearing until October 16, for further consideration of your final assessement. On October 16, 1984, the City Council again continued the public hearing to January 8, 1985, to allow additional time for the City to perform and review the appraisals prepared for your property in relationship to the benefit received from the related improvements under the above referenced project. Due to the fact that the City was unable to have the appraisals completed in a time frame necessary for proper review by the City Council, on January 8, 1985, the City Council again continued the public hearing for consideration of the final assessments to Februar 19, 1985,. Please consider this letter formal notifica- tion in orming you of this newly scheduled final assessment hearing which will begin at 7:00 P.M. at the Eagan Municipal Center. A copy of the City's appraisal performed on your property will be forwarded to your attention under separate cover in the very near future. Any additional information that you wish to have the Council review in consideration of your final assessment should be forwarded to my attention no later than 3:00 P.M. February 12. This will allow staff to insure that this information is passed on to the City Council in a timely manner for their consideration of your proposed final assessment amount. It is anticipated that the City Council will approve or modify the original proposed assessment at the February 19, 1985, meeting based on information received for their review and evaluation or presented for their consideration that evening. THE LONE OAK TREE... THE SYMBOL OF STRENGTH AND GROWTH IN OUR COMMUNITY Continued Final Assessment Hearing January 16, 1985 Page 2 If you have any questions assessment hearing process, Citv Attorney, Mr. Paul Hauge ience. Sincerely, /7 G7tF /ft, Thomas A. Colbert, P.E. Director of Public works TAC/sl pertaining to please feel (454-4224) or cc: Paul Hauge, City Attorney Tom Hedges, City Administrator Ann Goers, Special Assessment Clerk the continued final free to contact our myself at your conven- M 3830 PILOT KNOB ROAD, P.O. BOX 21199 EAGAN, MINNESOTA 55121 PHONE: (612) 454-8100 January 16, 1985 Re: Continued Final Assessment Hearing Parcel # - 10-02500-010-52 Project 383, Trunk Storm Sewer Dear Ms. Schiela: BEA BLOMQUIST Maya THOMAS EGAN JAMES A. SMITH JERRY THOMAS THEODORE WACHTER Council Members THOMAS HEDGES Clty Administrator EUGENE VAN OVERBEKE City Clerk As you are aware, the original final assessment hearing for benefits received in the above referenced project to your property was considered by the City Council on August 7, 1984. Due to the written objection that was submitted on your behalf at that time, the City Council continued the public hearing until October 16, for further consideration of your final assessement. On October 16, 1984, the City Council again continued the public hearing to January 8, 1985, to allow additional time for the City to perform and review the appraisals prepared for your property in relationship to the benefit received from the related improvements under the above referenced project. Due to the fact that the City was unable to have the appraisals completed in a time frame necessary for proper review by the City Council, on January 8, 1985, the City Council again continued the public hearing for consideration of the final assessments to March 5, 1985. Please consider this letter formal notification informing you of this newly scheduled final assessment hearing which will begin at 7:00 P.M. at the Eagan Municipal Center. A copy of the City's appraisal performed on your property will be forwarded to your attention under separate cover in the very near future. Any additional information that you wish to have the Council review in consideration of your final assessment should be forwarded to my attention no later than 3:00 P.M. February 26. This will allow staff to insure that this information is passed on to the City Council in a timely manner for their consideration of your proposed final assessment amount. It is anticipated that the City Council will approve or modify the original proposed assessment at the March 5, 1985, meeting based on information received for their review and evaluation or pre- sented for their consideration that evening. THE LONE OAK TREE... THE SYMBOL OF STRENGTH AND GROWTH IN OUR COMMUNITY Continued Final Assessment Hearing January 16, 1985 Page 2 If you have any questions pertaining to the continued final assessment hearing process, please feel free to contact our City Attorney, Mr. Paul Hauge (454-4224) or myself at your conven- ience. Sincerely, Thomas A. Colbert, P.E. Director of Public Works TAC/sl cc: Paul Hauge, City.Attorney Tom Hedges, City Administrator Ann Goers, Special Assessment Clerk Re Y- nor OF 3830 PILOT KNOB ROAD, P.O. BOX 21199 EAGAN. MINNESOTA 55121 PHONE: (612) 454-8100 January 16, 1985 Re: Continued Final Assessment Hearing Parcel # - 10-00900-010-79 Project 371, Trunk storm sewer Dear Mr. Perron: Mayor THOMAS EGAN JAMES A. SM17H JERRY THOMAS THEODORE WACHTER CWMd Memoerf THOMAS HEDGES Qly Ad strolor EUGENE VAN OVERBEKE CIN Clerk As you are aware, the original final assessment hearing for benefits received in the above referenced project to your property was considered by the City Council on August 7, 1984. Due to the written objection that was submitted on your behalf at that time, the City Council continued the public hearing until October 16, for further consideration of your final assessement. On October 16, 1984, the City Council again continued the public hearing to January 8, 1985, to allow additional time for the City to perform and review the appraisals prepared for your property in relationship to the benefit received from the related improvements under the above referenced project. Due to the fact that the City was unable to have the appraisals completed in a time frame necessary for proper review by the City Council, on January 8, 1985, the City Council again continued the public hearing for consideration of the final assessments to Februar 19, 19y85. Please consider this letter formal notifica- tion iing ou of this newly scheduled final assessment hearing which will begin at 7:00 P.M. at the Eagan Municipal Center. A copy of the City's appraisal performed on your property will be forwarded to your attention under separate cover in the very near future. Any additional information that you wish to have the Council review in consideration of your final assessment should be forwarded to my attention no later than 3:00 P.M. February 12. This will allow staff to insure that this information is passed on to the City Council in a timely manner for their consideration of your proposed final assessment amount. It is anticipated that the City Council will approve or modify the original proposed assessment at the February 19, 1985, meeting based on information received for their review and evaluation or presented for their consideration that evening. THE LONE OAK TREE . - THE SYMBOL OF STRENGTH AND GROWTH IN OUR COMMUNITY Continued Final Assessment Hearing January 16, 1985 Page 2 If you have any questions pertaining to the assessment hearing process, please feel free City Attorney, Mr. Paul Hauge (454-4224) or myself ience. Sincerely, Thomas A. Colbert, P.E. Director of Public Works TAC/sl Cc: Paul Hauge, City Attornev Tom Hedges, City Administrator Ann Goers, Special Assessment Clerk continued final to contact our at your conven- M 3830 PILOT KNOB ROAD, P.O. BOX 21199 EAGAN. MINNESOTA 55121 PHONE: (612) 454$100 October 12, 1984 MR. ALBERT PERRON 2996 PILOT KNOB ROAD EAGAN MN 55122 RE: SPECIAL ASSESSMENT APPEALS - BEA BLOMQUIST MWw THOMAS EGAN JAMES A. SMITH JERRY THOMAS THEODORE WACHTER CMl 11 Memt�,S THOMAS HEDGES City Admniif ota EUGENE VAN OVERBEKE City CIBM CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARINGS During the past several weeks, you have been pursuing an appeal to a special assessment that is proposed against your property. At the time of the original final assessment hearing, you had submitted an objection and/or subsequent appeal to those assessments. Con- sequently, the City Council did not "adopt your final assessment but continued the Public Hearing to a special meeting to be held on October 18, 1984. This continuation was necessary to allow the Staff an opportunity to meet with you and to have a formal appraisal per- formed relating the assessments to the benefit received by your property. Due to the fact that it is not anticipated that the appraisals will be completed in a timeframe sufficient to be reviewed in detail by the City Council before the October 18th Council Meeting, that special meeting has been postponed to a later date. At the October 16th regular City Council Meeting, the Council will re-establish a new date for reconsideration of your proposed final assessments. You will recieve additional future notification once the time and date has been established. We hope this re -scheduling does not create any inconvenience for you or your representatives. It is hoped that this continuance will allow the City to provide you with more information and time to review all facts associated with your assessment. Again, the previously scheduled Special City Council Meeting on October 18, 1984 has been postponed. We will inform you when the new meeting date has been established by the City Council. THE LONE OAK TREE ... THE SYMBOL OF STRENGTH AND GROWTH IN OUR COMMUNITY SPECIAL ASSESSMENT APPEALS - CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARINGS PAGE TWO. Your cooperation and understanding in pursuing this special assess- ment appeal process has been greatly appreciated. Sincerely, Thomas A. Colbert, P.E. Director of Public Works TAC: jbd cc: The Mayor & City Council Thomas-L..—Hedges, City Administrator Paul Hauge.,_City"ttorney Ann Goers, Special Assessment Clerk SAC 10/9/84 VII., NEW BUSINESS: —' Final!iAssessment Appeals D. PROJECT 371SR, WATER TREATMENT PLANT TRUNK STORM SEWER 1. Albert Perron (10-00900-010-09 BACKGROUND INFORMATION Project 371 provided for the installation of sanitary sewer, water, streets and storm sewer for Coachman Road, south of Yankee Doodle Road. Project 371SR provided for the trunk storm sewer outlet from the ponds located on either side of Coachman Road, south of Yankee Doodle Road. Under Project 371SR, in addition to the property south of Yankee Doodle Road being benefitted by this improvement, certain properties north of Yankee Doodle Road are located within the drainage basin serviced by these improvements and contribute runoff directly into the ponds serviced by the storm sewer outlet. Enclosed on page S,3 is a general layout showing the trunk storm sewer improvements, the pond serviced and the property assessed under Poroject 371. Enclosed on page -rY is a map referencing the parcels included to be assessed under Project 371SR which drain directly into the pond and have not previously been assessed for any trunk storm sewer improvements. On August 7, 1984, a final assessment hearing was scheduled for the previously referenced project. Enclosed on page SS is a letter dated August 2 from Mr. Perron expressing his objections to these proposed assessments. In addition, enclosed on pages .SG and 7 is a formal Notice of Appeal submitted by the law firm representing Mr. Perron reiterating their objections and notice to appeal the assessments. Enclosed on page Sd is a topographic map showing the area assessed (11.38 acres) in relationship to the entire parcel (24.5 acres). The trunk area storm sewer assessment for this parcel was determined by applying a 20% credit to the 11.38 acres and assessing the resulting 9.1 acres at the agricul- tural rate of 4.31 cents per square foot resulting in an assessment of $17,075.70. Of the 11.38 acres assessed under Project 371SR, 3.21 acres does not directly drain into the pond serviced but is located within another minor subdistrict. However, due to the difficulty in trying to define an accurate drainage district by legal description, the City has historically "squared" off a parcel for inclusion to insure that the majority of the property lies within the benefitted drainage district. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The majority of the property assessed has direct runoff into the pond serviced by the improvements installed under Project 371SR. All appropriate credits were given to this unplatted agriculturally zoned property in determining the final assessments. Therefore, the staff is recommending that the assessments as prepared and presented on August 7, 1984, be reaffirmed, adopted and certified to the County. COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION/COMMENTS �t TREATMENT PLANT �UNK STORM SEWER PROJECT No. 371 PROPOSED TRUNK AREA ASSESSMENT ® Single Family Q Multiple Family 44 2 � I Z i Q 1 t o YAN EE O I �eentteeee of2 Het® /I I I I L . Q• Gem" 2 0, olo-za E I ►om IIIItI 010 -DO ��-i• ( Blue Crate Blue Shieldj- f� i G Punpewee M . �eentteeee Het® /I I I I L . cir, Gem" olo-za ( City of Eagan ) 1 \ ( Blatenaoe Hills 2nd Addition 1 ta Z O OUTLOT A C z\ao -1 JPIx : u Punpewee M . 2A WL MWL,IB l2.0 H,WL. 879.0/ 014-a1 011-01 ROAD 0 cr ! 1 HNL. 8290' �1letL B2B0 , 1 010-50 s30 ,00 :on too •oo 010-1a 010-04 0 ( Harry L,meaue ) �eentteeee Het® /I I I I L . cir, Gem" olo-za ( City of Eagan ) 2A WL MWL,IB l2.0 H,WL. 879.0/ 014-a1 011-01 ROAD 0 cr ! 1 HNL. 8290' �1letL B2B0 , 1 010-50 s30 ,00 :on too •oo 010-1a 010-04 0 ( Harry L,meaue ) 1 to 4 14 e 17 a �. 12 i a 12 o 10 10 s I1 e GIGUERE 2 ' LT m 7 3 A0b- a mmm1fl ID j e 6 mmmmmmm 4 a IJ WATER TREATMENT PLANT TRUNK STORM SEWER PROJECT NO. 371 SR PROPOSED TRUNK AREA ASSESSMENT ® Single Family 6 Agriculture ® Commercial 6 Industrial a 100 200 300 400 "BOL -101011— e01MMIM INIMME. AMOMX i ASSOC, et •%' '�: � oto-ia' i",'� '� `�(' ���<� 6 010-a0 o° 4 s 2 o'` 4 2 WATER TREATMENT PLANT TRUNK STORM SEWER PROJECT NO. 371 SR PROPOSED TRUNK AREA ASSESSMENT ® Single Family 6 Agriculture ® Commercial 6 Industrial a 100 200 300 400 "BOL -101011— e01MMIM INIMME. AMOMX i ASSOC, et •%' '�: � oto-ia' i",'� '� `�(' ���<� 6 010-a0 E40 August 2, 1984 Mr. E. J. VanOverbeke City Clerk City of Eagan 3830 Pilot Knob Road P. 0. Box 21199 Eagan, MN 55121 Re: Project No. 37152"Special Assessment Section 9, Parcel No. 10 00900 010 79 Amount: $17,075.00 Property Owner: Albert Perron Dear Mr. VanOverbeke: I am hereby responding to the Notice of Special Assessment and Notice of Assessment Hearing, recently received by me in regard to the above assessment on my property. This letter is to serve as my notice of written objections. I object to the amount of the assessment proposed to be levied against my property because my property has received no benefit from the storm sewer, any benefit that has resulted is a general benefit and not a special benefit which is therefore not assessable and lastly, if there has been some benefit to my property from this improvement, such benefit is a small one and no where near equal to the amount of the proposed assessment to be levied against my property. I am further writing to inform you that I have become widowed and therefore request that the name of my deceased wife, Mary, be omitted from any further mailings to me by the City of Eagan. Lastly, on the description of the property that you have indicated I own, I only own property in Section 9, which is the first paragraph of the description. I do not own any property in Section 16, which is described in the second paragraph of the property, a copy of which description I enclose for your reference. Sincerely yours, Albert Perron- Enc. erronEnc. SS/ I STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF DAKOTA Albert Perron, Appellant, VS. City of Eagan, Dakota County, Minnesota, Respondent. -Jtk a �".� \ 4 g,3\,BP M V. 35 DISTRICT COURT FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT `cc CO[` ,torr ----------------------------------- TO: RESPONDENT ABOVE-NAMED and ROGER SAMES, CLERK OF DISTRICT COURT. NOTICE OF APPEAL OF STORM SEWER ASSESSMENT (PROJECT No. 371)$,2. NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Appellant above-named hereby appeals to the District Court from the proposed assessment more particularly described in Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. Said assessment relates to the land of the above-named Appellant, more particularly described in said Exhibit A, which Exhibit also shows the amount of said assessment Said appeal is taken upon the following grounds and upon such further and additional grounds as may appear from the record of hearing on said appeal: 1. That Respondent herein lacks jurisdiction to levy said assessment. 2. That the proposed assessement is arbitrary, capri- cious, confiscatory and unreasonable. SG 3. That the levying of said assessment constitutes an unconstitutional taking of the Appellant's property. 4. That the proposed assessment does not result in any benefit, special or otherwise, to the subject property; or if there is any benefit to Appellant's property, said benefit is less than the, amount of the proposed assessment; or in the alternative, is a general benefit which is not assessable. 5. Appellant's property has not and will not increase in market value as a result of the improvement of Respondent. WHEREFORE, Appellant respectfully prays that said assessment will be set aside and cancelled pursuant to law, and for such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and equitable. / DATED: e/oy/ McMENOMY, SHELDON, DUSICH, HANSEN 6 MOLENDA By ernie M. Dusich Attorneys for Appellant Dakota Central Offices 14450 South Robert Trail Rosemount, 'MN 55068 (612) 423-1155 Attorney ID No. 123638 S7 E F /o. HAIIGE, SMITH. HIDE & RELLER. P.A. ATTORNEYS AT LAW CEDARVALE PROFESSIONAL BUILDINGS SSOS SIBLEY MEMORIAL HIGHWAY KAGAN. MINNESOTA 66122 PAUL H. HAUCK BRADLEY SMITH KEVIN W. EIDE DAVID O. KELLER Clerk of District Court First Judicial District Dakota County Government Center Hastings, MN 55033 RE: Perron vs. City of Eagan File No. 97943 Dear Clerk: October 30, 1984 AREA COOK 612 TKLKFHONK 464.4224 I have received a Court trial date for Decemebr 14, 1984 at 9:00 a.m. concern- ing the above action. The appeal was brought by the Plaintiff Perron, for special assessments levied by the City of Eagan. The assessments have not been levied at the present time and apparently, the Appellant mistakenly appealed the assessments to the District Court, although the final hearing by the City Council has not as yet been held. That hearing was continued and is now scheduled for January 8, 1985 and I would therefore ask that the case be stricken from the calendar. Very truly yours, HAUGE, SMITH, EIDE h KELLER, P.A. Paul H. Hauge PHH:ras cc: Bernie Dusich Y , FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT STATE OF MINNESOTA CARVER, DAKOTA, GOODHUE, LESUEUR, MCLEOD, SCOTT& SIBLEY COUNTIES CALENDAR NOTICE DATE: September 19, 1984 ATTORNEYS:. Bernie M. Dusich Paul H. Hauge .,T RE: ❑C District Perron vs. City of Eagan ❑ County Cal. No. File No. 070AI County i THE!ABOVE MENTIONED CASE IS: r ❑ Stricken from the Calendar. (File a new Note of Issue when this case is ready foe trial) ❑ Set for Omnibus on _ at A.M./P.M. El Chaska :O: Hastings -Govt. Ctr. XZ Set for Court trial on 12-14—R4 at 9cn0 A.M./:PYMXXK ❑ Red Wing In ❑ Le Center ❑ Continued to at A.M./P.M.: for ❑ Glencoe ❑ Shakopee ❑ Other ❑ Gaylord All motions must be made prior to the trial date. If the status of this case changes, Immediate notice must be given to the Clerk of District Court. PLEASE BE ADVISED THAT THE FOLLOWING CONTINUANCE POLICY IS IN EFFECT: One continuance will be granted by the Assignment Clerk with the agreement of all parties and for good :�___cause shown. Subsequent requests for continuances must be made by a motion, unless all parties agree to have the case stricken from the calendar. �V ESTHER S. FELDMAN, ADMINISTRATOR FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT DAKOTA COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER HASTINGS, MINNESOTA 55033 TELEPHONE: (612) 437-0325 Administrative Assistant OF 3830 PILOT KNOB ROAD, P.O. BOX 21199 EAGAN. MINNESOTA 55121 PHONE: (612) 454-8100 Albert Perron 2996 Pilot Knob Road Eagan, MN 55122 Dear Mr. Perron: September 17, 1984 BEA BLOMQUIST Mora THOMAS EGAN JAMES A. SMITH JERRY THOMAS THEODORE WACHTER CWn ,-ml­i5 THOMAS HEDGES Cuy AomimsVotor EUGENE VAN OVERBEKE Giv Ciers You have filed an objection with the City of Eagan covering assessments against land owned by you. This is to notify you that the hearing on the assessments was continued by the City Council until October 16, 1984 at 7:00 p.m. at the Eagan City Hall. Generally, when objections are filed by a .property owner, the City staff attempts to meet with the objecting property owner to determine whether there are any specific objections that can be dealt with before the hearing and in addition, the City has a special assessment committee made up of lay persons, members of the City Council and Planning Commission that review special assessment objections prior to the Council hearing. The following schedule is being suggested in order to review the objections and to deal with them prior to a final appeal:. 1. We are suggesting that members of the City staff, including Tom Colbert, the Public Works Director, and a member of the City Attorney's office meet with you in the morning of September 20, or the afternoon of Septem- ber 25, at the Eagan City Hall to discuss the assessment objections. 2.. Your objections are also being placed on the agenda of the Special Assessment Committee which meets at 7:00 on October 9, 1984 at the City Hall. 3• The continued hearing on the assessments is now scheduled for October 3{r, 1984 at 7:00 p.m. In the event that the agenda of that evening becomes excessively long, you will be contacted with an alternate date for the hearing. We would ask that you contact the City Attorney's office at 0454-4224 and arrange for a time to get together at the City Hall on September 20 in the a.m. or on September 25, in the afternoon and would appreciate your call as soon as possible. Very truly yours, Thomas Colbert TC:ras Public Works Director THE LONE OAK TREE ... THE SYMBOL OF STRENGTH AND GROWTH IN OUR COMMUNITY hJ to e`R` 0-k STATE OF MINNESOTA g,II- P ^^' V-35 3 s COUNTY OF DAKOTA ----------------------------------- Albert Perron, Appellant, VS. City of Eagan, Dakota County, Minnesota, Respondent. ----------------------------------- TO: RESPONDENT ABOVE-NAMED and ROGER SAMES, CLERK OF DISTRICT COURT. DISTRICT COURT FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT `Zc NOTICE OF APPEAL OF STORM SEWER ASSESSMENT (PROJECT No. 371) NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Appellant above-named hereby appeals to the District Court from the proposed assessment more particularly described in Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. Said assessment relates to the land of the above-named Appellant, more particularly described in said Exhibit A, which Exhibit also shows the amount of said assessment Said appeal is taken upon the following grounds and upon such further and additional grounds as may appear from the record of hearing on said appeal: 1. That Respondent herein lacks jurisdiction to levy said assessment. 2. That the proposed assessement is arbitrary, capri- cious, confiscatory and unreasonable. U 3. That the levying of said assessment constitutes an unconstitutional taking of the Appellant's property. 4. That the proposed assessment does not result in any benefit, special or otherwise, to the subject property; or if there is any benefit to Appellant's property, said benefit is less than the, amount of the proposed assessment; or in the alternative, is a general benefit which is not assessable. 5. Appellant's property has not and will not increase in market value as a result of the improvement of Respondent. WHEREFORE, Appellant respectfully prays that said assessment will be set aside and cancelled pursuant to law, and for such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and equitable. / DATED: McMENOMY, SHELDON, DUSICH, HANSEN S MOLENDA Jernie M. Dusich Attorneys for Appellant Dakota Central Offices 14450 South Robert Trail Rosemount, 'MN 55068 (612) 423-1155 Attorney ID No. 123638 Any portion of the total amount of these special assessments may be paid within thirty (30) days after adoption of the assessment roll without interest at the EAGAN CITY MAIL. The remaining unpaid balance pall be certified to the Dakota County Auaitc: at Hastings for annual installment. payments (principal and interest) which will appear on your future property rax statements. If the special assessment balance is not paid within this 30 day period but paid prior to Novenber 15th in the year of adoption, interest will be charged ffE m the date Of adoFtion to date cf payment at an equ`.valent annual rate of5 8. If the assess- ment is not paid by November 15th, in the year of adoption, it wil certified to be Paid in annual installments at the rate of 10.5 per year interest ort any remaining unpaid balance. The first year's installment to show on a tax statement will include the interest fztsn the date of adoption to December 31st, plus all the interest for the follo ring year. 3ievised 8-2-82 9-6-83 SPMOL ASS:T DIVISIfl4 City of Eagan 3795 Pilot Knob Road Eagan, M 55122 SI';\Tl;SaTT OF SPFCLIL PSSFSSi-n-2.T ' Project 9371 The Ma7N CITY COU\CIL meeting on Aueist 7 1984 approved and adopted special assessments against the tollaiing described ,property: � Section 9 Parcel 1110 00900 010 79 For the following improvements in the designated amounts_ 11MTM AVC NT NO. YRS. SANITARY A[,OU "T NO. Y?S. Area Area laterals Iatert3s Service Service Lateral ben/ Lateral ben/ from t--ur:k frcm tru--Lk STO^4 ST? 5 Area 17,075.00 15 Grath_,/ Gravel Base Laterals Surfacing Res. Ecuiv. TOTAL $ 17,075.00 Any portion of the total amount of these special assessments may be paid within thirty (30) days after adoption of the assessment roll without interest at the EAGAN CITY MAIL. The remaining unpaid balance pall be certified to the Dakota County Auaitc: at Hastings for annual installment. payments (principal and interest) which will appear on your future property rax statements. If the special assessment balance is not paid within this 30 day period but paid prior to Novenber 15th in the year of adoption, interest will be charged ffE m the date Of adoFtion to date cf payment at an equ`.valent annual rate of5 8. If the assess- ment is not paid by November 15th, in the year of adoption, it wil certified to be Paid in annual installments at the rate of 10.5 per year interest ort any remaining unpaid balance. The first year's installment to show on a tax statement will include the interest fztsn the date of adoption to December 31st, plus all the interest for the follo ring year. 3ievised 8-2-82 9-6-83 SPMOL ASS:T DIVISIfl4 City of Eagan 3795 Pilot Knob Road Eagan, M 55122 HAUGE. SMITH & Ems. P. A. ATTORNEYS AT LAW 'CEDARVALE PROPESSIONAL BUILDINGS 7000 SIBLEY MEMORIAL HIGHWAY EAGAN. MINNESOTA 55122 PAUL H. HAUGE BRADLEY SMITH KEVIN W. EIDE RALPH W. COREY TO: Tom Hedges Tom Colbert X Gene VanOverbeke Dale Runkle FROM: X Pau]. Hauge Brad Smith Kevin Fide Ralph W. Corey RE: Project No. Enclosed please find: DATED: April 3, 1985 (SEE BELOW) Development Contract PUD Agreement Easement Deed X Other ASSESSMENT AGREEMENTS ENCLOSED PLEASE FIND THE FOLLOWING FOR YOUR PERMANENT FILE: Action requested: v71) Assessment Agreement, PROJECT No. 391, (METZ) - Doc. 11671199 2) Assessment Agreement, PROJECT No. 381, (METZ) - Doc. 11671200 3) Assessment APseement PROJECT No. 391, (MYRLIE) - Doc, 11668197 4) Assessment Agreement, PROJECT No. 381, (MYRLIE) - Doc. 11668196 u�7 f" - ANEW Cao[ B 12 Tff 2 HON2 454-A22A CITY OF EAGAN �f ASSESSMENT AGREEMENT //— Iy-�/ LAND USE DIFFERS FROM ZONINGl-� qq PROJECT NO. 391 lSJ THIS AGREEMENT dated this 29th day of August , 1984, between the CITY OF EAGAN, (called City), and Melvin J. & Martha A. Metz (called Owner) of 810 Lone Oak Road , (address); WHEREAS, the City proposes to assess the following described premises owned by Owner: (legal description) Tp,4` Part of the Northeast k of the Northeast k beginning on the North line 33 feet West of the Northeast corner. Thence West 123 feet, thence South 232.33 feet, thence East 123 feet, thence North 232.33 feet to beginning subject to Highway exceptions all being located in Section 11, Township 27, Range 23, in Dakota County. TAX PARCEL # i8v9libEAl944210 TTi:'J .A NT38a for the following improvements pursuant to City';PgjP^raU Lateral Benefit from Trunk Water Main WHEREAS, such assessments would normally be based upon the present zoning classification of said premises, that is, Light Industrial ; and WHEREAS, the present use of said property is different from said zoning classification and if zoned at the present use, assessments would be for Single Family Residential zoning. NOW THEREFORE, upon consideration of the mutual covenants herein, the w parties agree as follows: 0 1. The City agrees to assess said property for the Project and purposes CU w described above as if it were zoned Single Family at the rates now in s existence for property so zoned. Resi entia L 2. The Owner agrees for himself, his heirs, executors, administrators, N v successors, and assigns, that if the actual use of said property is changed in m w the future to a use or zoning category which is assessable at a higher rate �.o than the rate for the present use, the City may reassess or levy a supple - :3 mental assessment at such time equal to the difference between the assessment E F for the new land use and the assessment for the present land use at the v F assessment rates, according to City policy, in effect at such future time. o 3. The Owner, for himself, his heirs, executors, administrators, u successors and assigns, further waives notice of any and all hearings c� a s necessary and waives any and all objections to the present or future 2 assessments agreed to herein or to the proceedings related thereto and waives a the right to appeal such assessments. S 4. Other conditions: None 3 O O 'e C U m The undersigned have read and understand the above agreement and hereby m E- bind themselves to it in all respects. En F. a OWNER L 'J rz C x $4 .a •M Iv 1 J._ Me z N C �� •� >+x M a A. Metz o a e This Document Drafted �I o 00 Hauge, Smith, Eide & KI 3908 Sibley Memorial Hi x w Eagan, Minnesota 55122 0 01 H m E. FJ. C �anet L. Coine ltui E•1 Q Cl N01.4Y OUBlIC-MIF11E;0VFiOlA LO V W - HENNEPIN COUNTY pAy c,mrni,ion "pirw Sept. 28. 1989 CITY OF EAGAN By: Ul�f.Jl�►l Attest: 2�__ I W Clerk P.A. (dyL EXEMPT FROM STATE DEED TAX 5, y dyfn���Q.�/lz NWMV PLWJC-M00139 A DAKOTA COUNTY my oommlalon EKPWu Feb. +e. err r CITY OF EAGAN ASSESSMENT AGREEMENT LAND USE DIFFERS FROM ZONING PROJECT NO. 381 C� THIS AGREEMENT dated this 29th day of August , 1984,_between the CITY OF EAGAN, (called City), and Melvin & Martha Metz (called Owner) of 810 Lone oak Road , (address); WHEREAS, the City proposes to assess the following described premises owned by Owner: (legal description) -T1j,%JPart of the Northeast k of the Northeast k beginning on the North line 33 feet West of the Northeast corner. Thence West 123 feet, thence South 232.33 feet, thence East 123 feet, thence North 232.33 feet to beginning subject to Highway exceptions all bein loc d in.Sgq.tion �111 Lown hip 27, Range 23, in Dakota County. TAX PARCE RIIAOQ-10.42-04�,� �. ' ::'. i•I CIM :iiUV•+rNA:UN + for the following improvements pursuanto Cmj"aC 4=AA311 Tr,mk Aron Rrnrm Rowor ,9ft ,fll .Oel e+6,;.1:.:.•:..• WHEREAS, such assessments would normally be based upon the present zoning classification of said premises, that is, Light Industrial ; and WHEREAS, the present use of said property is different from said zoning classification and if zoned at the present use, assessments would be for Single Eamily Residential zoning. NOW THEREFORE, upon consideration of the mutual covenants herein, the w parties agree as follows: o 1. The City agrees to assess said property for the Project and purposes described above as if it were zoned Single Family at the rates now in v 3 existence for property so zoned. Residential 410 c 2. The Owner agrees for himself, his heirs, executors, administrators, ,n m successors, and assigns, that if the actual use of said property is changed in v the future to a use or zoning category which is assessable at a higher rate s0 than the rate for the present use, the City may reassess or levy a supple - L m mental assessment at such time equal to the difference between the assessment a for the new land use and the assessment for the present land use at the N assessment rates, according to City policy, in effect at such future time. W H 3• The Owner, for himself, his heirs, executors, administrators, successors and assigns, further waives notice of any and all hearings a� necessary and waives any and all objections to the present or future assessments agreed to herein or to the proceedings related thereto and waives othe right to appeal such assessments. L!. Other conditions: None 3 O G O mM The undersigned have read and understand the above agreement and hereby In N bind themselves to -it in all respects. OWNER CITY OF EAGAN 6 z x By:< - Z > M lv . etz s ayor 1 v .a < Attest:np Metz IU Clerk This Document Drafted N o Hauge, Smith, Eide & Keller, P.A. APPROV Public W I D ec or m y a, 3908 Sibley Memorial Highway All1-a6 ry m Eagan, Min eypt 5122 -V w o w a �✓ !. EXEMPT FROM STATE DEME TAX W i W H N u.nefiu! r .inrf C. C' f971IAGT vuPUC _ rWN'SOfAE. oy HENNEPIN COUTYOUNTY W U N 1)1)1) MY on yAPirw SoPI. Z8, 1989 +Iwwm r.u. le. Toon HAUGE. SMITR. EIDE & KELLER. P. A. ATTORNEYS AT LAW IV/ CEDARVALE PRO►2WIONAL BUILDINGS 2000 SISLEY MEMORIAL HIGHWAY EAGAN (ST. PAUL). MINNESOTA 00122 PAUL H. NAUSS BRADLEY SMITH November 7, 1984 KEVIN W. EIDE DAVID O. KELLER TO: County Recorder DAKOTA COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER Hastings, MN 55033 r M1 ARY CODE I2 TREPNONE 424.4224 ABSTRACT PROPERTY RE: Assessment Agreement - MELVIN J. METZ & MARTHA A. METZ - CITY OF EAGAN Part of NEk of NEk, Sec. 11, T. 27, R. 23 Projects 4381 and 11391 Dear Clerk: Enclosed herewith for recording, please find: Warranty Deed Quit Claim Deed Contract for Deed Assignment of Contract for Deed Certificate of Real Estate Value Affidavit of Purchaser Certifiied copy of Judgment and Decree Mortgage Deed _ Easement Owner's Duplicate Certificate of Title 11 Our check in the sum of $ for recording fees X Two (2) ASSESSMENT AGREEMENTS Very truly yours, HAUGE, SMITH, EIDE & KELLER, P.A. Paul H. Hauge %. CITY OF EAGAN ASSESSMENT AGREEMENT LAND USE DIFFERS FROM ZONING PROJECT NO 381 w 0 m• .0 X Ln N N .a . • / L 107 THIS AGREEMENT dated this 29th day of August 1984 �beine/ CITY OF EAGAN, (called City), and Melvin & Martha Metz �a (called( Owner) of 810 Lone Oak Road I , (address); WHEREAS, the City proposes to assess the following described premises owned by Owner: (legal description) Part of the Northeast k of the Northeast 1 beginning on the North line 33 feet West of the Northeast corner. Thence West 123 feet, thence South 232.33 feet, thence East 123 feet, thence North 232.33 feet to beginning subject to Highway exceptions all beim loca gd in Se�,tion.11�oTi ship 27, Range 23, in Dakota County. TAX PARCEL 10-0110070.,-0j; for the following improvements pursuant o Ciltwear�em..)Aml Trunk Area Storm Sewer reer,er•ee1"""""" "" WHEREAS, such assessments would normally be based upon the present zoning classification of said premises, that is, Light Industrial ; and WHEREAS, the present use of said property is different from said zoning classification and if zoned at the present use, assessments would be for Singlp Family Residential zoning. NOW THEREFORE, upon consideration of the mutual covenants herein, the parties agree as follows: 1. The City agrees to assess said property for the Project and purposes described above as if it were zoned Single Family at the rates now in a existence for property so zoned. Residential 0 2. The Owner agrees for himself, his heirs, executors, administrators, successors, and assigns, that if the actual use of said property is changed in v the future to a use or zoning category which is assessable at a higher rate m than the rate for the present use, the City may reassess or levy a supple- r mental assessment at such time equal to the difference between the assessment .c for the new land use and the assessment for the present land use at the assessment rates, according to City policy, in effect at such future time. H 3. The Owner, for himself, his heirs, executors, administrators, successors and assigns, further waives notice of any and all hearings necessary and waives any and all objections to the present or future c assessments agreed to herein or to the proceedings related thereto and waives zthe right to appeal such assessments. 4. Other conditions: None? h The undersigned have read and understand the above agreement and hereby bind themselves to it in all respects. OWNER CITY OF EAGAN e\ > c c x M lv etz By: s yor f Attest: A. letz IU Clerk ys Document Drafted .Y. Hauge, Smith, Eide & Keller, P.A. APPnROVF,DZ Public W i D ector /3908 Sibley Memorial Highway Eagan, Min eypt . 5122 /� ! �✓ / [A� EXEMPT FROM STATE DEME TAX L ZASEni A WITT n" aarnrl C. Coxni(ius sr nue wrfn-5s.•ci 101AR1 Mbt'C — ""rI4S01A =flew Npp*A TDLV'r- / 4 H[NNMN COU Ty DAKOTA COUNTY MY comminion •.P'06 S*P' 28, 1989 Mr Co,"mW91" E'1m Feb. 10, 1901 .l3'OL'c� �•( r C// STATE OF MINNESOTA) ) ss. COUNTY OF DAKOTA ) CITY ACKNOWLEDGEMENT On this 1 ,nm day of S-eo-6, er , 198y, before me a Notary Public within and for said County, personally appeared BEATTA BLOMQUIST and EUGENE VANOVERBEKE to me personally known, who being each by me duly sworn, each did say that they are respectively the Mayor and Clerk of the CITY OF EAGAN, the municipality named in the foregoing instrument, and that the seal affixed to said instrument was signed and sealed on behalf of said municipality by authority of its City Council and said Mayor and Clerk acknowledged said instrument to be the free act and deed of said municipality. ELIZABETH A. WITT ��/ti��✓`� /-) Nor�nrweuc-M�HwesorA Notary blic DAKOTA COUNTY Mr eo�on a!a�+ ha �� 7N1 STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ss. PERSONAL ACKNOWLEDGEMENT COUNTY OF ) On this day of 198_, before me a Notary Public within and for said County, personally appeared to me known to be the person described in and who executed the foregoing instrument and acknowledged that executed the same as free act and deed. STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF Notary Public CORPORATE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of , 198_, by (name) , (title of officer) , of (corp. name) I a (state)7-corporation, on behalf of the corporation. STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ss. COUNTY OF ) Notary Public PARTNERSHIP ACKNOWLEDGEMENT The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of '198 , by , partner (or agent) on behalf of , a Partnership. ► TT1W A H108AS111 ? ri4':.r'i•• • CITY OFRw a� ASSESSMENT AGREEMENT USE DIFFERS FROM ZONING /2,-8-�tZ ROJECT NO. 391 M49 �L THIS AGREEMENT da ed t s 29th day of 6V ust , 1984 b � " ),-t CITY OF EAGAN, (called City), and Melvin J Martha A. Metz Willed Owner) of 810 Lone Oak Road ( ddress); WHEREAS, the City proposes to assess the following described premises owned by Owner: (legal description) Part of the Northeast ): of the Northeast (: beginning on the North line 33 feet West of the Northeast corner. Thence West 123 feet, thence South 232.33 feet,'thence East 123 feet, thence North 232.33 feet to beginning ! subiect to Highway exceptions all being located in Section 11, Township 27, Range 23, in Dakota County. TAX PARCEL # tM9tlb0�9!•Ps T?i.'i .A 111311A•,I.; i for the following improvements pursuant to City Prq'jeq -'"0 �, -14 t Lateral Benefit from Trunk Water Main WHEREAS, such assessments would normally be based upon the present zoning classification of said premises, that is, Light Industrial • and WHEREAS, the present use of said property is different from said zoning classification and if zoned at the present use, assessments would be for Single Family Residential zoning. NOW THEREFORE, upon consideration of the mutual covenants herein, the parties agree as follows: 1. The City agrees to assess said property for the Project and purposes = described above as if it were zoned Single Family at the rates now in o existence for property so zoned. esi entia m 2. The Owner agrees for himself, his heirs, executors, administrators, o s successors, and assigns, that if the actual use of said property is changed in the future to a use or zoning category which is assessable at a higher rate ° than the rate for the In m present use, the City may reassess or levy a supple- d mental assessment at such time equal to the difference between the assessment for the new land use and the assessment for the present land use at the L y assessment rates, according to City policy, in effect at such future time. 3. The Owner, for himself, his heirs, executors, administrators, successors and assigns, further waives notice of any and all hearings H necessary and waives any and all objections to the present or future vassessments agreed to herein or to the proceedings related thereto and waives a the right to appeal such assessments. d 4. Other conditions: None v ¢ 00 V v s The undersigned have read and understand the above agreement and hereby ° bind themselves to it in all .� respects. c u ca U) N OWNER CITY OF EAGGAANy 3 x By: �61 M lv n J. Me z v n 9 y0 13 z Attest:, 5 ax M a A. Metz Its Clerk y y This Document Drafted y H th, Eide d Keller, P.A. APPRO ED• ublic W r f ector ^� to ibley Memorial Highwa P•_y Minnesota 5 122 u. �'Crl I 1 ok (S If2 EXEMPT FROM STATE DEED TAAACX��� W N ' �:ini'I (�. CnTnt(lY� ' � � jy lll6J.'Ci�/l�•C/. l��i.� 11o'MI11� NIA 18881�OTA ✓ HENNII RIM 'IN (W - O N1N7 WXOTA COUNTY r My cemmn.ior. exp".. sow !e. 1089Mr C0nwroe ■�pw h0. i8, 1261 n m •''— ...................... OF 3830 PILOT KNOB ROAD. P.O. BOX 21199 EAGAN, MINNESOTA 55121 PHONE: (612) 454-8100 October 15, 1984 PAUL HAUGE CITY ATTORNEY 3908 SIBLEY MEMORIAL HIGHWAY EAGAN MN 55122 Re: Parcel #10-01100-012-04 Special Assessment Agre Dear Paul, t, Project No. 381 & 391 BEA BLOMQUIST Mayor THOMAS EGAN JAMES A. SMITH JERRY THOMAS THEODORE WACHTER Council Members THOMAS HEDGES CIty Administrator EUGENE VAN OVERBEKE City Clork Enclosed please find a fully executed and notorized agreement for the above -referenced tax parcel number for each of Projects No. 381 (Boerchert-Ingersoll trunk storm sewer) and No. 391 (Lone Oak Road trunk water main) which should be recorded at the County against the legally described parcel. Please return a copy of the recorded agreements to my attention as soon as possible. Sincerely, Thomas A. Colbert, P.E. Director of Public Works TAC/jj Enclosure THE LONE OAK TREE... THE SYMBOL OF STRENGTH AND GROWTH IN OUR COMMUNITY C HAUGE. $!IPPS & EIDE, P. A. ATTORNEYS AT LAW CEDARVALE PROFESSIONAL BUILDINGS 2008 SIBLEY MEMORIAL HIGHWAY EAGAN. MINNESOTA 00122 PAUL H. HAUCK BRADLEY SMITH KEVIN W. EIDE RALPH W. COREY TO: Tom Hedges Tom Colbert .x Gene VanOverbeke Dale Runkle FROM: X Pau]. Hauge Brad Smith Kevin Fide Ralph W. Corey RE: Project No. Enclosed please find: DATED: April 3, 1985 (SEE BELOW) Development Contract PPD Agreement Easement Deed X Other Action requested: ASSESSMENT AGREEMENTS ENCLOSED PLEASE FIND THE FOLLOWING FOR YOUR PERMANENT FILE: 1) Assessment Agreement, PROJECT No. 391, (METZ) - Doc. 11671199 2) Assessment Agreement, PROJECT No. 381, (METZ) - Doc. 11671200 (/3) Assessment Agreement PROJECT No. 391. (MYRLIE) - Doc. 11668197 1/4) Assessment Agreement, PROJECT No. 381, (MYRLIE) - Doc. 11668196 I'c'y An" Cool a12 TaLEFNON9 A04.1224 0 HAUGE, SMITH, EIDE & RELLER. P. A. ATTORNEYS AT LAW GEDARVALE PROFE66IONAL BUILDINGS 9000 SIBLEY MEMORIAL HIGHWAY EAGAN 46T. PAUL). MINNESOTA 66112 PAUL H. HAUGF. ARSA DOM 612 BRADLEY SMITH September 17, 1984 TELKPNOM[ 464.4224 KEVIN W. EIDE DAVID G, KELLER TO: County Recorder ABSTRACT PROPERTY Dakota County Government Center Hastings, MN 55033 RE: Assessment Agreement - City of Eagan/Orlin Myrlie Part of NEti of NE114, Sec. 11, T. 27, R. 23 Projects 11381 and 391 Dear Clerk: Enclosed herewith for recording, please find: Warranty Deed Quit Claim Deed Contract for Deed _ Assignment of Contract for Deed Certificate of Real Estate Value _ Affidavit of Purchaser Certifiied copy of Judgment and Decree Mortgage Deed _ Easement _ Owner's Duplicate Certificate of Title 11 Our check in the sum of $ for recording fees X ASSESSMENT AGREEMENT (2) Very truly yours, HAUGE, SMITH, EIDE & KELLER, P.A. Paul H. Hauge CITY OF EAGAN ASSESSMENT AGREEMENT I LAND USE DIFFERS FROM ZONING PROJECT NO. 391 1dIA THIS AGREEMENT dated this 29th day ofAugust 198_; between the CITY OF EAGAN, (called City), and Orlin D. & Judith Myr ie (called Owner) of 820 Lone Oak Rd., Eagan, MN husband & wife, (address); WHEREAS, the City proposes to assess the following described premises owned by Owner: (legal description) Part of the NEk of the NEy beginning on the North line 156 ft. West of the NE corner. Thence continuing West 136 ft., thence south 232.33 ft., thence East 136 ft., thence North 232.33 ft. to point of beginning subject to Highway exceptions all being located in Section 11, Township 27, Range 23 in Dakota County. TAX PARCEL # 10-01100-014-04 TTIW .A HT3AASIJ for the following improvements pursuan tet_0 ttgNPtsdyt+bf7%A Lateral Benefit from Trunk Watdr MaiTil�uc TQHA WHEREAS, such assessments would normally be based upon the present zoning classification of said premises, that is, Light Industrial ; and WHEREAS, the present use of said property is different from said zoning classification and if zoned at the present use, assessments would be for Single Family Residential zoning. NOW THEREFORE, upon consideration of the mutual covenants herein, the parties agree as follows: 1. The City agrees to assess said property for the Project and purposes described above as if it were zoned Single Family at the rates now in existence for property so zoned. Residential 2. The Owner agrees for himself, his heirs, executors, administrators, successors, and assigns, that if the actual use of said property is changed in the future to a use or zoning category which is assessable at a higher rate than the rate for the present use, the City may reassess or levy a supple- mental assessment at such time equal to the difference between the assessment for the new land use and the assessment for the present land use at the assessment rates, according to City policy, in effect at such future time. 3• The Owner, for himself, his heirs, executors, administrators, successors and assigns, further waives notice of any and all hearings necessary and waives any and all objections to the present or future assessments agreed to herein or to the proceedings related thereto and waives the right to appeal such assessments. 4. Other conditions: None The undersigned have read and understand the above agreement and hereby bind themselves to. it in all respects. x Orlku Myrlie,�y x _Irx Judith Myrlib This Document Drafted By - Hauge, Smith, Eide & Keller, P.A. 3908 Sibley Memorial Highway Eagan, Minnesota 55122 CITY OF EAG/ANN By: Attest: Fal A V ubllc , k it etor . EXEMPT FROM STATE DEED TAX r CITY OF EAGAN ASSESSMENT AGREEMENT LAND USE DIFFERS FROM ZONING PROJECT NO. 381 THIS AGREEMENT dated this 29th day of August , 1984, between he CITY OF EAGAN, (called City), and Orlin D. & Judith Myrlie (called Owner) of 820 Lone Oak Rd., Eagan, MN husband 6 wife , (address); WHEREAS, the City proposes to assess the following described premises owned by Owner: (legal description) Part of the NE'y of the NE'y beginning on the North line 156 ft. West of the NE corner. Thence continuing West 136 ft., thence South 232.33 ft., thence East 136 ft., thence North 232.33 ft. to point of beginning subject to Highway exceptions all being located in Section 11, Township 27, Range 23 in Dakota County. TAX PARCEL # 10-01100-014-04 for the following improvements pursuant to City Project 381 Trunk Area Storm Sewer WHEREAS, such assessments would normally be based upon the present zoning classification of said premises, that is, Light Industrial ; and WHEREAS,. the present use of said property is different from said zoning classification and if zoned at the present use, assessments would be for Single Family Residential zoning. NOW THEREFORE, upon consideration of the mutual covenants herein, the parties agree as follows: 1. The City agrees to assess said property for the Project and purposes described above as if it were zoned Single Family at the rates..now in existence for property so zoned. Residential 2. The Owner agrees for himself, his heirs, executors, administrators, successors, and assigns, that if the actual use of said property is changed in the future to a use or zoning category which is assessable at a higher rate than the rate for the present use, the City may reassess or levy a supple- mental assessment at such time equal to the difference between the assessment for the new land use and the assessment for the present land use at the assessment rates, according to City policy, in effect at such future time. 3• The Owner, for himself, his heirs, executors, administrators, successors and assigns, further waives notice of any and all hearings necessary and waives any and all objections to the present or future assessments agreed to herein or to the proceedings related thereto and waives the right to appeal such assessments. 4. Other conditions: None The undersigned have read and understand the above agreement and hereby bind themselves to it in all respects.. x0 Z& " Orlin D. Myrlie x �q_. i; --I juairin riyriie - This Document Drafted Hauge, Smith, Eide & Keller, P.A. 3908 Sibley Memorial Highway Eagan, Minnesota 55122 CITY OF EAGAN By: As'&t.I eza't % M or O Attest: arn It lerk APPR YE�;��blic }foe}c} sAVregto�� EXEMPT FROM FROM STATE DEED TAX G' d"- 3 Pc`�/—i3-r3 of eac�an 3830 PILOT KNOB ROAD. P.O. BOX 21199 BEA BLOMQUIST EAGAN. MINNESOTA 55121 Mayor PHONE: (612) 45d-8100 THOMAS EGAN JAMES A. SMITH JERRY THOMAS THEODORE WACHTER September 17, 1984 Coumil Members THOMAS HEDGES City AdmlNstrolor EUGENE VAN OVERBEKE City Clerk PAUL HAUGE CITY ATTORNEY 3908 SIBLEY MEMORIAL HIGHWAY EAGAN MN 55122 RE: PROJECT 381, SPECIAL ASSESSMENT DEFERMENT AGREEMENT - RECORDING PARCEL # 10-01100-014-04 Dear Paul: I am forwarding to your attention two original copies of a Special Assessment Agreement which should be recorded against the referenced parcels to protect the City's ability to assess these properties in the future if, and when, the use of the property is consistent with the present zoning. Please return a copy of these Agreements to my attention after they have been recorded at the County. Sincerely, homas A. Colbert, P.E. Director of Public Works TAC/jj Enclosures THE LONE OAK TREE ... THE SYMBOL OF STRENGTH AND GROWTH IN OUR COMMUNITY .) HAU(3E. ..SMITH. :IDE & HELLER. P. A. 'ATTORNEYS AT LAW CEDARVALE PROFESSIONAL BUILDINGS 7908 SISLEY MEMORIAL HIGHWAY EAGAN (ST. PAUL). MINNESOTA 5312S PAUL H. HAUGE AREA CORE III BRADLEY SMITH September 17, 1984 TZLEP,1ONE 494.4224 KEVIN W. EIDE DAVID O. KELLER TO: County Recorder ABSTRACT PROPERTY Dakota County Government Center Hastings, MN 55033 RE: Assessment:Agreement - City of Eagan/Orlin Myrlie Part of NE14 of NE`z, Sec. 11, T. 27, R. 23 Projects 11381 and 391 Dear Clerk: Enclosed herewith for recording, please find: Warranty Deed Quit Claim Deed ' _ Contract for Deed _ Assignment of Contract for Deed Certificate of Real Estate Value _ Affidavit of Purchaser Certifiied copy of Judgment and Decree Mortgage Deed _ Easement _ Owner's Duplicate Certificate of Title 11 Our check in the sum of $ for recording fees X ASSESSMENT AGREEMENT (2) Very truly yours, HAUGE, SMITH, EIDE S KELLER, P.A. Paul H. Hauge CITY OF EAGAN ASSESSMENT AGREEMENT LAND USE DIFFERS FROM ZONING PROJECT NO. 381 THIS AGREEMENT dated this 29th day of August , 1984, between the CITY OF EAGAN, (called City), and Orlin D. & Judith Myrlie (called Owne,r) of 820 Lone Oak Rd., Eagan, MN husband & wife , (address); WHEREAS, the City proposes to assess the following described premises owned by Owner: (legal description) Part of the NE'y of the NE'y beginning on the North line 156 ft. West of the NE corner. Thence continuing West 136 ft., thence South 232.33 ft., thence East 136 ft., thence North 232.33 ft. to point of beginning subject to Highway exceptions all being located in Section 11, Township 27, Range 23 in Dakota County. TAX PARCEL # 10-01100-014-04 for the following improvements pursuant to City Project 381 Trunk Area Storm Sewer WHEREAS, such assessments would normally be based upon the present zoning classification of said premises, that is, Light Industrial ; and WHEREAS,. the present use of said property is different from said zoning classification and if zoned at the present use, assessments would be for Single Family Residential zoning. NOW THEREFORE, upon consideration of the mutual covenants herein, the parties agree as follows: 1. The City agrees to assess said property for the Project and purposes described above as if it were zoned Single Family at the rates -now in existence for property so zoned. Residential 2. The Owner agrees for himself, his heirs, executors, administrators, successors, and assigns, that if the actual use of said property is changed in the future to a use or zoning category which is assessable at a higher rate than the rate for the present -use, the City may reassess or levy a supple- mental assessment at such time equal to the difference between the assessment for the new land use and the assessment for the present land use at the assessment rates, according to City policy, in effect at such future time. 3. The Owner, for himself, his heirs, executors, administrators, successors and assigns, further waives notice of any and all hearings necessary and waives any and all objections to the present or future assessments agreed to herein or to the proceedings related thereto and waives the right to appeal such assessments. 4. Other conditions: None The undersigned have read and understand the above agreement and hereby bind themselves to it in all respects. 0 NE W 7, Orlin D. Myrlie x a-. i:_2 ?37../.w juaivn Myrlie This Document Drafted By. Hauge, Smith, Eide & Keller, P.A. 3908 Sibley Memorial Highway Eagan, Minnesota 55122 CITY OF EAGAN By: a M.or O Attest It lerk APPR VE .yu�b�lic jJo jcpj sn�egtor ` EXEMPT FROM FROM STATE DEED TAX STATE OF MINNESOTA) ) ss. CITY ACKNOWLEDGEMENT COUNTY OF DAKOTA ) 1 On this 4T* day of Se_j -em, wv- , 1981, before me a Notary Public within and for said County, personally appeared BEATTA BLOMpUIST and EUGENE VANOVERBEKE to me personally known, who being each by me duly sworn, each did say that they are respectively the Mayor and Clerk of the CITY OF EAGAN, the municipality named in the foregoing instrument, and that the seal affixed to said instrument was signed and sealed on behalf of said municipality by authority of its City Council and said Mayor and Clerk acknowledged said instrument to be the free act and deed of said municipality. MARY K. ENGEN /yAi MAIN NmR. &atJ Cam,Y. 14,6 R ,h c,,,, toW, E,01 FM.,..+W, Notary Pu is STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF-bal bbt, ) PERSONAL ACKNOWLEDGEMENT On this _D day of Qc--�a4 ' _, 198_4, before me a Notary Public within and for said County, personally appeared ry li.x r � A to me known to be the person.5 described in and Vho executed the fore oin instrument and acknowledged that 8 g executed the same as / jr free act and deed. XAAL W AAAA4,WAAAAAAAAA.%AAAAAAAAAAx P.iUE rIN9,;F+G NnrABY PUBLIC -.`Ai N3L36TA HENNEPIN COUNTY 37 YIYYYY4�v�•1vYY•JVYWWYYVYYVT/r�/YY� STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ss. COUNTY OF 0.7 ,i �m =—Af CORPORATE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of 198_, by (name) (title of officer) , of (corp. name) a (state) corporation, on behalf of the corporation. STATE OF MINNESOTA ) as. COUNTY OF ) Notary Public PARTNERSHIP ACKNOWLEDGEMENT The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of , 198_, by , partner (or agent) on behalf of , a Partnership. Notary Public CITY OF EAGAN ASSESSMENT AGREEMENT LAND USE DIFFERS FROM ZONING PROJECT NO. 391 THIS AGREEMENT dated this 29th day of August , 198_; between the CITY OF EAGAN, (called City), and Orlin D. 8 Judith Myrlie (called Owger) of 820 Lone Oak Rd., Eagan, MN husband S wife, (address); WHEREAS, the City proposes to assess the following described premises owned by Owner: (legal description) Part of the NE'Z of the NEk beginning on the North line 156 ft. West of the NE corner. Thence continuing West 136 ft., thence south 232.33 ft., thence East 136 ft., thence North 232.33 ft. to point of beginning subject to Highway exceptions all being located in Section 11, 1Township 27, Range 23 in Dakota County. TAX PARCEL # 10-01100-014-04 TM .A MT39ASJJ3 for the following improvements pursue. tw CPtg'VE)Pb"f7"TQ�1. Lateral Benefit from Trunk Watdr MatA'-!''03ATQHA wnxxcAzi, such assessments would normally be based upon the present zoning classification of said premises, that is, Light Industrial ; and WHEREAS,. the present use of said property is different from said zoning classification and if zoned at the present use, assessments would be for Single Family Residential zoning. NOW THEREFORE, upon consideration of the mutual covenants herein, the parties agree as follows: 1. The City agrees to assess said property for the Project and purposes described above as if it were zoned Single Family at the rates now in existence for property so zoned. Residential 2. The Owner agrees for himself, his heirs, executors, administrators, successors, and assigns, that if the actual use of said property is changed in the future to a use or zoning category which is assessable at a higher rate than the rate for the present use, the City may reassess or levy a supple- mental assessment at such time equal to the difference between the assessment for the new land use and the assessment for the present land use at the assessment rates, according to City policy, in effect at such future time. 3. The Owner, for himself, his heirs, executors, administrators, successors and assigns, further waives notice of any and all hearings necessary and waives any. and all objections to the present or future assessments agreed to herein or to the proceedings related thereto and waives the right to appeal such assessments. 4. Other conditions: None The undersigned have read and understand the above agreement and hereby bindthemselves to it in all respects. Orl' D. Myr x lie � Judith yr ie This Document Drafted Hauge, Smith, Eide b Keller, P.A. 3908 Sibley Memorial Highway Eagan, Minnesota 55122 CITY OF EAGAN By•. Attest: C,)L Ao ua�li'Y elkf.Y. EXEMPT FROM STATE DEED TAX STATE OF MINNESOTA) ) ss. CITY ACKNOWLEDGEMENT COUNTY OF DAKOTA ) On this 41.b- _day of S e e , 198'x, before me a Notary Public within and for said County, personally appeared BEATTA BLOMQUIST and EUGENE VANOVERBEKE to me personally known, who being each by me duly sworn, each did say that they are respectively the Mayor and Clerk of the CITY OF EAGAN, the municipality named in the foregoing instrument, and that the seal affixed to said instrument was signed and sealed on behalf of said municipality by authority of its City Council and said Mayor and Clerk acknowledged said instrument to be the free act and deed of said municipality. aizne�T►� �. wirT Nor.�r ruw,o-ynre+eeorA, , OAKOTA COUNTY wreo�ml.Wa, a=Po-.. Fee. �e. itrJt STATE OF :. xa ) as. COUNTY OF DikO bo- ) Notary(/Public . PERSONAL ACKNOWLEDGEMENT k On this �h_ day of Ad.IQU5L , 19 before me a Notary Public within and for said County, personalq appeared Irl'rr1 Q11/l adjl-h /i ;e/ to me known to be the person 5 described in and who executed the foregoing instrument and acknowledged that �:hf-V executed the same as jLbjLr free act A d d an ee , x,iAAAAA JI1.UE fINOcRG HOLARY PU9LIC MIt7?;:�OfA \;, ...... FtCf�flEPI NOUN fY k rl'iYY�T.r�Y .+r i,mim�o� lroirm Mnr J. 190 rioY�'YYVV" Vrn- Vt STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF The foregoing officer) a (state) as. CORPORATE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT instrument was acknowledged before me this day of 198_, by (name) , (title of STATE OF MINNESOTA ) of (corp. name) 9 corporation, on behalf of the corporation. Notary Public ss. PARTNERSHIP ACKNOWLEDGEMENT COUNTY OF ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of 198_, by , partner (or agent) on behalf of , a Partnership. Notary Public 14 July 1980 :nr Bonestroo, Roasne, Anderlik 6 Associates, Inc. MR. ROBERT W. ROSENE 2335 W. Trunk Highway 36 St. Pail, Minnesota 55113 RE: BLHCKHAWK LAKE OUTLET . EAGAN, MINNESOTA Dear Bob: In response to your letter of 9 July 1980, it is our intention to cooperate with you in the design of a 34" trunk storm sewer across Tract F of our Cedar Industrial Park; however several items must be answered to our sat- isfaction prior to our full concurrence. 1. Initially the early design was for a 48" storm sewer. What has happened to cause that 12" change? 2. For a number of gears, we have been cooperating with the MWCC in its Seneca plant fly ash land fill on Tract F, which is mutually beneficial to both parties. MWCC has a willing owner to accept its disposable material within close proximity to its plant, and Landmark receives desirable land fill for its site; therefore we wish to continue this relationship with MWCC, and your 36" R.C.P. must be of a design sufficient to withstand an additional 10'-15' of fill on top. In addition, any manholes must be oxtendable to accommodate a similar amount of fill. This may have some effect on your profile design. We would also suggest you have a conversation with the MWCC as to the amount of fill they might generate over the next 5 years. 3. Since this is a direct benefit to the City, we do not believe we should be assessed for any improve- ments thereto, and we'd like an understanding on that issue. 14r. Robert W. Roeene 19 July 1980 Page Two If we are in accord on the above items, we ask for Your lett rweowillsn design tge and then YOU may begin your Pport your efforts. Sincerely, Tom Van Houeen Vice President TVH Iml cc' R. F. Jacobsen R..Hcffman R. Nerson 2335 V. 71+ "iiJ A my 36 &. Pa.L M&,."dla 55113 PA.. 612.636.4600 August 8, 1980 Mr. Tom Van Housen Landmark One Appletree Square Bloomington, Mn. 55420 Re: Blackhawk Lake Outlet �� Fagan, Minnesota File No. 49175 Dear Tom, Ono G. Bonulroo, P.E. p f Robert W. Round P.P. Joseph C. Anded& P.E. Bradford A. Lemberg, P.E. Robed D. Frlgaard. P.E. Richard 6. Tome,. P.E. James C. 01to.. P.E. Glenn R. Cook. P.P. Kenk A. Gordon. P.E. Thomaw E. Hayes. P.E. Rkhard W. Paster. P.E. Ruben G. Schonlcht, P.E. Marvin L. soreala. P.E. Donald C. 8argardt. P.E. Jerry A. Bourdon Mark A. Hanan steeen M. Ou&cey Kee& K. We" P.C. Chader A. Crkk,on Leo M. Pa.ekky Har&u M. Okon Meld E. Oko. The following are answers in response to your letter of 14 July 1980. The answers are in the order of the questions asked. 1. The storm sewer will be 48" in diameter. The 36" diameter shown on the preliminary plan is in error. 2. We anticipate additional fill over the top of this storm sewer. It will be designed to accommodate 15' of fill through your prop- erty if you so desire. We will appreciate getting final grading plans of your property if these can be provided so that you can be assured of the property strength of this pipe. 3. There will be no assessments os i roveme owever, i should be noted that all proper y with n t e ity of Eagan will pay its fair share of the trunk storm sewer system by paying the arr-�aa charge either when lines are in- stalled to benefit the properly or when the property develops. It is the City's intention to proceed with the project. We would appreciate receiving an indication from you that the proposed alignment is satisfactory so that we may proceed with the preparation of the necessary easement papers. It is anticipated that a 201 wide permanent easement will.be requested to- gether with the necessary construction easement so that the line can be in- stalled. Please respond to this request at your earliest convenience. Yours very truly, BONESTR00, ROSENE, ANDERLIK 6 ASSOCIATES, INC. Robert W. Rosene RWR:li 32a S RECEWED -AUG 1 1. !'.',00 MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE SPECIAL ASSESSMENT COMMITTEE EAGAN, MINNESOTA OCTOBER 9, 1984 C A meeting of the Eagan Special Assessment Committee was held on Tuesday, October 9, 1984 at 4:00 p.m. at the Eagan Municipal Center. Present were Chairman Don Knight, Mayor Blomquist, Dale Vogt, Councilman Tom Egan, and Bill Rydrich. Absent was Garrett Mulrooney. Mayor Blomquist chaired the meeting until Don Knight arrived at about 5:00 p.m. Also present were Public Works Director Tom Colbert and City Attorney Paul Hauge. AGENDA Vogt moved, Egan seconded the motion to approve the Agenda as presented. All voted yes. The Public Works Director, Tom Colbert, explained to the persons present the purpose of the meeting being a formal meeting to review special assess- ments where circumstances warranted review prior to City Council adoption. He indicated that property owners with specific questions were invited to attend C' the meeting and to present information that would be helpful to the members of the assessment committee in making recommendations to.the Council. FRANCIS C. FRANZ - PROJECT 1372 I-359 STREETS & UTILITIES Mr. Colbert reviewed the proposed assessments along Deerwood Drive cover- ing the Francis Franz property, noting the assessments have arisen primarily because of the improvement of I -35E and Deerwood Drive in that vicinity. A portion of the improvements have been installed by the Minnesota Department of Transportation through a Cost Participation Agreement with lateral benefit, trunk watermain, trunk area and lateral storm sewer, street, sidewalk and.. _ bituminous trailway construction in the area. Pat Farrell, attorney with the �_ firm of Grannis, Campbell, Farrell and Knutson, P.A. of South St. Paul; appeared for Mr. Franz and Mr. Franz also was present. The matter had been continued from the July 30, 1984 Special Assessment Committee meeting at the request of the property owner. Mr. Farrell had objections to the assessment regarding sidewalk assess- ments on collector streets, that the property has not benefited any more greatly than other property in the general area. There were objections to the rate of the storm sewer assessments against the property, noting that there are three residue parcels after the MnDOT acquisition and also that the City 1s attempting to assess for improvements that have been paid for through the `.' State of Minnesota. Mr. Colbert indicated that the assessments for street Assessment Minutes October 9, 1984 improvements is based upon a residential equivalent and there was also discus- sion concerning the proposed sidewalk assessment and whether it ought to be on a residential equivalent basis. After extended discussion, Egan moved, Blomcuist seconded the motion to continue consideration of the objections until a later assessment committee meeting to allow the staff to research the following issues: a. To review and submit a proposed assessment policy for sidewalks. b. To recommend revisions to the lateral assessments for areas where setback requirements may prevent building permits or specific uses under existing ordinances. C. To review City policy covering residential access locations on collector streets, including the State requirements concerning setbacks on Deerwood Drive for access purposes adjacent to the overpass. d. Further, that the assessments could be referred directly to the Council if the owner and the staff reached a general agreement relative to the C, assessments. All members voted in favor. ANNA S. HEOER - PROJECT #3T2 I -35E STREETS & UTILIi'IES Mr. Colbert briefly reviewed the assessments covering the sidewalk and street assessments proposed to be assessed against the Anna Heuer property on the south side of Deerwood Drive, noting there are 304.08 assessable front..'_ feet. He also indicated that there would be a future project covering the easterly extension of Deerwood Drive to Pilot Knob Road at which time it would be anticipated that the balance of the Heuer property would be assessed for street and sidewalk improvements. Mrs. Heuer's son was present and had objec- tions to the assessments. Egan moved, Blomquist seconded the motion to con - tine the consideration of the assessments with the staff to review the same items as directed by the committee relative to the Francis Franz property. All voted yes. Assessment Minutes C . October 9, 1984 GEORGE & MIRIAM BALL - PROJECT #411 PATRICK EAGAN TRUNK STORM SEWER The next item brought before the Committee dealt with the objections of Mr. and Mrs. George Nall regarding the large lot credit applied to the approximately 4 acre parcel owned by them on the east side of Pilot Knob Road, south of proposed Pilot Point Addition. Mr. Colbert stated the property is not homesteaded and that the large lot policy of the City covers parcels less than 5 acres in size providing for 16,000 square 'feet of assessment for each assessable acre. The Nalls requested to be included within the large lot policy and also that the ponding area to the east of the property should not be assessed. Mariam Nall was present and explained the peculiar circumstances of the parcel. The staff recommended after reviewing topography configuration and proposed future development of the property, that it is highly unlikely that the 4 acre parcel would ever be subdivided and recommended that the parcel be classified as a large lot and given the appropriate credits. Egan moved, Vogt seconded the motion to accept the staff recommendations and recom- mend to the City Council that the large lot policy be adopted and that an agreement be entered into between the City and the Nalls, providing that in the event that the property is subdivided or developed in the future, that the existing rates for the development zoned category, then be assessed against the property. Mrs. Nall indicated that she had no objection to the proposal. All members voted in favor. ARMNY CAPONI, THOMAS ROONEY & THOMAS BERGIN - PROJECT #411 PATRICK EAGAN TRUNK STORM SEWER Mr. Colbert introduced the subject and indicated that the three owners mentioned above who have objected to the asses6ments, own property south of Deerwood Drive and generally west of Patrick Eagan Park. He stated that generally the property lies within the major drainage district outletting to Patrick Eagan Park. Mr. Bergin indicated that he would not be able to be present at the meeting. The objections generally were that the property did_ not drain directly into Patrick Eagan Park Pond, but rather into the pond further south which was not having storm sewer improvements installed at the present time. Two lawsuits have been started, including that by Mr. Caponi and Mr. Rooney to enjoin the City from proceeding with the assessments. Project 8411 has been authorized by the City Council to be installed. Larry Nielson appeared for Mr. Caponi and Mr. Rooney and objected to the following: 1. The cost of the entire project is less than the amount of the ( proposed assessments. \_ 2. The property is not benefited to the extent that it is being pro- posed to be assessed. Assessment Minutes October 9, 1984 3. Hilltop Estates Addition to the west is not being assessed for the improvements. C4. The excess amount of money necessary to install the improvements should be paid from the general revenue fund. It was noted that the assessments are not necessarily commensurate with the cost of the project, but that the funds are taken from a general storm sewer trunk fund and eventually, land in the entire City will be assessed for storm sewer trunk purposes. Tony Caponi appeared and stated that there was not adequate benefit and suggested additional ponding of water in JP -8 and Patrick Eagan Park Lake, with some overland outflow, rather than storm sewer pipes. It was noted that an outlet from JP -7 will be required at some time in the very near future. Kathleen Boyle appeared as an owner of the property along Deerwood Drive and stated that she and her husband had not been notified of the hearing for the improvements. Mr. Nielson indicated that unless the City Attorney were to hear otherwise, that answers to the two lawsuits could be continued indefinitely. After extended discussion, Blomquist moved to continue consideration of t the request until a later meeting, but there was no second and the motion died. Next, Egan moved, Vogt seconded the motion to recommend the proposed �_. assessment be referred back to the Council to review the feasibility of expanding Project 0411 to include Pond JP -7 and further, that the Caponi property and Rooney property be deleted from Project 0411 but should be in- cluded in a proposed future storm sewer project. All voted in favor except Rydrich who abstained. BEIDE SCBIELA - PROJECT #383 SCSWANZ LAKE TRUNK STOR24 SEWER The Committee next reviewed the proposed assessments against the Heide Schiela property located on Dodd Road, covering a 9.95 acre parcel. It Sias noted that the size of the parcel precluded its being considered a large lot_ under the City policy, but that the assessment clerk had deducted 20% fog " ' future right-of-way dedication and also 2.2 acres of existing pond over the eastern portion of the property. Attorney Ried Hanson appeared and noted the main objection consisted of a 200 foot NSP easement, indicating it would not be a benefit to that property. He also indicated that the water generally drains into the pond on the Schiela property and there is no increase in value because the water is still there. Further, in 1981, the City gave credit for the NSP easement for the area water and sanitary sewer assessments. After discussion, Blomquist moved, Egan seconded the motion to recommend to the City Council that an agreement be entered into to consider the entire policy as a large lot to provide for 16,500 square feet of assessment per acre, due to the unusual configuration of the property, the large NSP easement and noted that -'' because of those circumstances, would not be considered as a precedent. All members voted in favor. Assessment Minutes October 9, 1984 ALBERT PERRON — PROJECT #371SR WATER TREATMOT PLANT TRUNK STORM SEWER Mr. Colbert reviewed with the Council the proposed assessments against the Albert Perron property on the north side of Yankee Doodle Road, noting that 11.38 acres of the Perron property was being assessed with a 20% credit, resulting in 9.1 acres at the agricultural rate of 0.4314 per square foot. Reid Hanson, attorney, again appeared and objected to the City land not being assessed for improvements, but it was noted that none of the City property is being assessed for this purpose and that the rate is a predetermined rate on an annual basis and not affected by the amount of the area being assessed within a drainage district. Another objection was that the property was not benefited to the extent proposed to be assessed. The staff recommended approval of the assessment roll. Vogt moved, Rydrich seconded the motion to recommend to the City Council that the assessment roll covering the Perron property be adopted. All voted in favor. ARTHUR KOESTNER — PROJECT #384 WALDEN HEIGHTS TRUNK STORM SEWER Assessment objection has been received from Arthur Koestner, an owner of property in Twin View Manor, noting that $711.00 was proposed to be assessed after applying the large lot assessment policy, whereby only 16,500 square feet were assessed. The City Attorney and Public Works Director met with Mr. Koestner and reviewed the basis of his objections, noting that Mr. Koestner does not qualify for the Senior Citizens Deferment. Mr. Koestner did not appear but indicated that he was not going to further object to the assess— ments. Upon motion by Egan, seconded Vogt, it was resolved to recommend approval of the assessments to the City Council.' All members voted aye. GOPHER SMELTING CO. — PROJECT #381 BORCHERT INGERSOLL TRUNK STORM SEWER Project #381 covers the lift station and trunk storm sewer outlet from Borchert Ingersoll Pond, part of which property is located on the Gopher Smelting property. Mr. Colbert indicated a meeting had been held with Mark Kutoff and the general objections were as follows: 1. The assessments are premature for development of the property. 2. The rough topography of the property precludes feasible development based upon the amount of assessments being proposed. 3• The amount of assessments is disproportionate to the overall cost of the project. 5 Assessment Minutes October 9, 1984 Hied Hanson appeared for the property owner and stated the following objections: 1. The assessments are more than the total cost of the property. 2. That other land is being drained into the Borchert Pond and there- fore Gopher Smelting is required to help pay for the assessments caused by excess water from property outside of the drainage district. It was noted that part of the Gopher Smelting property is developed, that the outlet from Borchert Pond was put in out of sequence but would have resulted from earlier assessments, had it been installed in regular sequential order. It was further noted that there is an approved PUD on the property, and that the property is zoned, the land is presently being marketed and the increase in value comes from the ability to discharge water .into the pond. After extended discussion, Blomquist moved, Vogt seconded the motion to recom- mend that the assessment roll covering the property be approved and forwarded to the City Council. All voted in favor. JAY TSCHERRE - PROJECT 1317 - BLACKRAWK ROAD STREETS 6 UTILITIES Tom Colbert addressed the entire project and noted there are four objecting property owners on Blackhawk Road covering streets and utilities in that general vicinity. He noted that Blackhawk Road is a municipal state aid street and certain design standards must be complied with. The four objecting property owners did not petition for the improvements and expressed objections at the time of the original public hearing. A meeting had been held with the owners by the City Public Works Director and City Attorney to review the concerns, including objections that the amount of the assessment exceeded the benefit to the property and the amount of the assessment is excessive as to what each property owner can afford on a monthly and yearly basis. It was noted that Dan Dwyer, an appraiser, has been hired by the City Council to,:�.;..._ evaluate the increase in valuation, but that the appraisals for the City have not been completed. Dan Beeson, attorney, appeared for the Tschernes and indicated the best use is single family and noted several unique features, including the 340 feet of frontage with 800 foot depth, the topography is very rough, including swamp, steep terrain and the neighboring owner is not ready to develop the property. Also the location of the residence detracts from the benefit to the property, based upon the proposed assessments. Roger Rohrer, appraiser for the Tschernes, also appeared and indicated that the Tscherne paid $70,000.00 for the property three years ago, the value is not much more today, and it is being used as single family, although the Comprehensive Land Use Guide is R- \: III. He stated that the assessments would not create a great deal more value Assessment Minutes October 9, 1984 even by tearing down the house on the property. He stated that townhouses may be a logical use, and if the house weren't there, the value would increase by perhaps $15,000.00 to $20,000.00, or $5,000.00 with the house remaining on the property. Egan moved to forward the assessment objections to the City Council C without recommendation. There was no second and the motion died. Rydrich then moved, Blomquist seconded the motion to recommend to the City Council that the staff recommendations be adopted with the maximum assessment based upon the appraisal submitted by the City's appraiser and in the event of development, or subdivision of the property in the future, that the assessment be increased commensurate with the area not being assessed at the present time, and that the assessments then be levied at the then current rates. All members voted yes. JAMES ASHWORTH - PROJECT #317 - BLACKHAwK ROAD STREETS & UTILITIES Mr. Colbert also reviewed the Ashworth property lying on the west side of Blackhawk Road. Mr. Ashworth was present and objected to the total amount of the assessment proposed to be assessed against his property and that the assessments were not being spread equitably amongst the individual parcels. He noted that the pond to the west is increased in its level, that there is intense development around the property and the grading on the adjacent lots is higher than his property. He further objected, based upon lack of benefit and requested reduction in the assessment. Egan moved, Vogt seconded the C motion to recommend to the City Council that the maximum amount of assessments be based upon the City's appraisal covering benefit to the property and that an agreement be entered into with the property owner, that the assessments to the property be increased at such time as the development or subdivision of the property takes place, commensurate with the assessment rates then in effect. All members voted yes. ROBERT KRUCER - PROJECT #317 - BLACKHAWK ROAD STREETS & UTILITIES Mr. Kruger appeared and noted that the north half of his property is zoned Neighborhood Business with the south half zoned Agricultural. Mr. Colbert stated that the assessment policy concerning reduction of assessments= -- for single family purposes, generally cover only homesteaded property and in the event that the north half was reduced to Agicultural or Single Family residential rates, the assessment would be reduced by about $4,400.00. Mr. Kruger also indicated a severe driveway access problem has resulted due to the road improvements. Mr. Egan indicated that the owners along Blackhawk Road should be prepared for the September 18 hearing with an appraiser and with a representative on their behalf, if they desire to do so. Egan moved, Vogt seconded the motion to recommend that the City Council approve the assessment roll based upon the City appraiser's evaluation of benefit and that the Neighborhood Business parcel on the north be assessed at an R-1 Single Family residential rate, and in the event that the property is upgraded in use or subdivided in the future, that the property then be assessed at the then existing rates for -that use. All members voted yes. 7 Assessment Minutes C : October 9, 1994 DAROLD HOLDER - PROJECT #317 - BLACKHAWK ROAD STREETS S UTILITIES Mr. and Mrs. Holden were present and Mr. Holden strongly objected to the assessments being proposed to be levied against the Holden property. He indicated that it's not economical to run a sanitary sewer line to the rear of his property where his residence is located and further that a pond has been created on the west side of his property that did not have water prior to the MnDOT construction of I -35E. After extended discussion, Egan moved, Vogt -. seconded the motion to recommend to the City Council that the assessments be based upon the City Appraiser's determination of benefit to the property, that it not exceed the amount appraised, and further subject to an agreement being entered into providing that in the event of subdivision or upgrading of the property that the then existing assessment rates covering the property, be implemented and assessed. All members voted yea. HERBERT BERGSTROM - PROJECT #368 ROBIN LANE - STREETS Tom Colbert reviewed with the Committee the improvements to Robin Lane and the cooperation given by Mr. and Mrs. Bergstrom toward granting easements for the newly reconstructed Robin Lane. He noted that the objection covered Lot 10 on the Bergstrom property, consisting of a triangular parcel and recom- mended that the front footage be reduced by 70 feet from 243 feet to 173 feet due to the strange configuration of the property. This would result in an increase in the assessment per front foot along the street. Mr. Bergstrom was present and stated that he felt that the reduction should be greater than 70 feet. He noted that the gas easement and street easement infringe on the property and that the property may not be buildable except for single family purposes. Committee members inquired whether the triangle was being used to determine density for the balance of the area, noting that the property had been approved for 25 townhouse units. After extended discussion, Blomquist moved, Vogt seconded the motion to accept the staff recommendation with .the understanding that the applicant can apply to the City and request a higher . density which would be considered by the Planning Commission and Council; -- based upon the uses, noting that no guarantee of increase in density could be given by the Committee. All members voted yes. SPECIAL ASSESSMENT DEFERMENT POLICY ORDINANCE A proposed Ordinance revision in Chapter 2 covering deferment of special assessments was submitted and recommended for approval by the staff. Mr. Colbert reviewed the deferment policy with the Council and noted that eleven twin city area cities have been contacted and asked whether they had deferment policies due to financial hardship. None of the cities had such an ordinance or policy indicating that such requests were reviewed on a case by case basis. C' Y After discussion, Blomquist moved, Egan seconded the motion to recommend the City Council amend to the Ordinance. All members voted yes. Assessment Minutes October 9, 1984 ' ADJOURNMENT CUpon motion duly made and seconded, the meeting adjourned at 10:35 P.M. PHH I d t I I / ' 12SO NORWEST CENTER TOWER ST, PAUL,, R RINESOTA 55101 ter_ DAHLEN & DMrMt INC. AN APPRAISAL REPORT Pro BENEFITS RESULTING FROM PROJECTS NO. 411 and 361 AT 1275 Deerwood Drive Eagan, Minnesota OWNED BY Patrick McCarthy Etal. AS OF September 18, 1984 FOR Mr. Paul H. Hauge Hauge, Smith, Eide and Keller, P.A. Cedarvale Professional Building 3908 Sibley Memorial Highway Eagan, Minnesota BY Daniel E. Dwyer, Appraiser I I I 1 1 1 i I� DAHLEN & DMIM9 INC. 1260 NORWEST CENTER TOWER • ST. PAUL, MINNESOTA 55101 • (612) 2241381 DWIGHT W. DAHLEN, M.A.I., S.R P.A. DANIEL E: DWYER BEVERLY H. DWYER MARK M. HANNAHAN February 5, 1985 Mr. Paul H. Hauge Hauge, Smith, Eide and Keller, P.A. Cedarvale Professional Building 3908 Sibley Memorial Highway Eagan, Minnesota 55112 Dear Mr. Hauge: MICHAEL J. BETTENDORF, M.A.I. SCOTT C. PETERSEN. MICHAEL P. McCLELLAN Pursuant to your request, I have made an inspection and an appraisal of the 70t acre parcel located on the south side of Wescott Road, approximately 1/4 -mile to the west of Lexington Avenue in Eagan, Minnesota. The purpose of this appraisal is to estimate the market value of the fee simple interest in the property and to determine the benefits, if any, accruing to the property by virtue of the installation of Sanitary Sewer Project No. 361 and Storm Sewer Project No. 411 b'y the City of Eagan. I have estimated the value of the property for the install- ation of sanitary sewer and storm sewer and the value of the property after the installation of sanitary sewer and storm sewer, the difference between the two being the benefits accruing to the property as of September 18, 1984. These values are as follows: Value of the land before the installation of Sanitary Sewer Project No. 361 and Storm Sewer Project No. 411: $ 630,000.00 Value of the land after the installation of Sanitary Sewer Project No. 361 and Storm Sewer Project No. 411: $ 820,000.00 Benefits accruing to the proeprty as a result of Sanitary Sewer Project No. 361 and Storm Sewer Project No. 411: $ 190,000.00 This appraisal is made subject to certain limiting conditions and assumptions as hereinafter expressed. Such facts and information as contained herein were obtained from sources that I consider reliable and are true to the best of my knowledge and belief'. The following report describes my method of approach, contains data gathered in my investigation and demonstrates my analysis in arriving at the eTRes tion of market e. pectfully su mitted, zz Daniel E. Dwyer, Appraiser DED/ka 11 I I Patrick McCarthy, Etal. Feburary 5, 1985 Page 2 The benefits accruing to the subject be broken down as follows: property can further Benefits accruing to the :subject property as a result of Sanitary Sewer Project No. 361: $ 140,000.00 Benefits accruing to the subject property as a result of Storm Sewer Project No. 411: $ 50,000.00 Total Benefits: $ 190,000.00 This appraisal is made subject to certain limiting conditions and assumptions as hereinafter expressed. Such facts and information as contained herein were obtained from sources that I consider reliable and are true to the best of my knowledge and belief'. The following report describes my method of approach, contains data gathered in my investigation and demonstrates my analysis in arriving at the eTRes tion of market e. pectfully su mitted, zz Daniel E. Dwyer, Appraiser DED/ka 11 I I DAHLEN & DWYER, INC. TABLE OF CONTENTS Summary of Salient Facts and Conclusions ................. ".1 Acknowledgement .......................................... 2 Purpose of the Appraisal .................................. 2 LegalDescription ........................................ 3 Market Value Defined ...................................... 4 Highest and Best Use .................................. 5 Estimate of Highest and Best Use - Before 5 Estimate of Highest and Best Use - After 5 Real Estate Taxes and Assessments ........................ 6 Zoning................................................... 6 EaganProfile ............................................. 7 Eagan Project No. 361 .................................... 10 Eagan Project No. 411 .................................... 10 Exhibit B - Map of Site .................................. 12 Site Description ......................................... 13 Method of Valuation ...................................... 14 Land Value Estimate - Before ............................. 15 Land Value Estimate - After 19 Benefits................................................. 22 Summary.and Conclusions .................................. 23 Certification ............................................ 25 Contingent and Limiting Conditions ....................... 26 ADDENDUM: Photographs Topographical Map Aerial Map Concept Plan Zoning Map Zoning Code Metropolitan Map Appraiser's Qualifications 0 yi �I r DABLEN & DWYER, INC. SUMMARY OF SALIENT FACTS AND CONCLUSIONS General Description: This is a 70.92 acre parcel which was rolling and mostly wooded. There is a single family dwelling and miscellaneous farm buildings located in the southwesterly portion of the parcel. Location: South side of Wescott Road approx- imately 1/4 mile to the west of Lexington Avenue in Eagan, Minnesota. Parcel I.D. Number: 10-02200-011-04 Parcel Size: 70.92 acres, more or less. Zoning: Present - Agricultural Proposed - R-1 Fee Owner: Patrick McCarthy, Etal. Estimated Market Value of Land - Before: $ 630,000.00 Estimated Market Value of Land - After: $ 820,000.00 Benefits Attributable To Project No. 411: $ 50,000.00 Benefits Attributable To Project No. 361: $ 140,000.00 Total Benefits: $ 190,000.00 Date of Value Estimate: September 18, 1984 Appraiser: Daniel E. Dwyer -1- f] I d DAHLEN & DWYER, INC. ACKNOWLEDGEMENT All of the judgements and conclusions contained within this report are those of the appraiser for which he assumes full professional responsibility. PURPOSE OF THE APPRAISAL The purpose of this appraisal is to estimate the. market value of the fee simple interest in the property as of September 18, 1984.,. and to ascertain the benefits, if any, that would accrue to the property by virtue of the installation of sanitary sewer and storm sewer improvements under Eagan Projects No. 361 and 411. -2- DAHLEN & DWYER, INC. LEGAL DESCRIPTION The West z of the Northeast IF and the North Two Rods of the Southwest 4, except the Southeast u of the Southwest y of the Northeast y, all in Section 22, Township 27, Range 23, Dakota County, Minnesota. -3- DAHLEN & DWYER, INC. MARKET VALUE DEFI14ED The highest price in terms of money which a property will bring in a competitive and open market under all conditions requisite to a fair sale, the buyer and seller, each acting prudently, knowledgably and assuming the price is not affected by undue stimulus. Implicit in this definition as of a specified date and the :)uyer under conditions whereby: is the consummation of a sale passing of title from seller 1. buyer and seller are typically motivated; 2. both parties are well informed or well advised and each acting in what he considers his own best interest; 3. a reasonable time is allowed for exposure in the open market; 4. payment is made in cash or its equivalent; 5. financing, if any, is on terms generally available in the community at the specified date and typical for the property type in its location; and, G. the price represents a normal consideration for thu properly sold .unaffected by special. financing a^_Iounts and/or terms, servi.ces,fee:, ,rcrc<ii±:. i.ncri!,red ii Ch•2 :ans,accion -4- '1 11 1 DAHLEN & DWYER, INC. HIGHEST AND BEST USE Highest and'best use, as defined in Real Estate Appraisal Terminology, edited by Byrl Boyce, Ph.D., sponsored jointly by e merican Institute of Real Estate Appraisers and the Society of the Real Estate Appraisers, copyright 1975, page 107, .is: "...that reasonable and probable use that will support the highest present value, as defined, as of the effective date of the appraisal. Alternatively, that use, from among reasonably probable and legal alternative uses, found to be physically possible, appropriately supported, financially feasible, and which results in the highest land value." ESTIMATE OF HIGHEST AND BEST USE - BEFORE It is my opinion, after analyzing the exi-sting zoning ordinance, adjacent development characteristics, land use patterns, traffic flows, environment, competitive space and site character- istics, that the highest and best use of the subject property is its present use, that is, as agricultural land served by water, electricity and paved road. I have considered alternative uses which would be legally permissible, economically feasible and physically possible and have to conclude that the most effective utilization of the site is its present usage. ESTIMATE OF HIGHEST AND BEST USE - AFTER It is my opinion, after analyzing the existing zoning ordinance, adjacent development characteristics, land use patter traffic flows, environment, competitive space and site character- istics, that the highest and best use of the subject property after the installation of sanitary sewer and storm sewer under Projects No. 3611and 411 will be for single family development in keeping with -the R-1 Zoning Code of the City of Eagan. In the after situation, the property will now be served by all utilities making it available for development. -5- DAHLEN & DWYER, INC. REAL ESTATE TAXES AND ASSESSMENTS 1 According to the assessment records in file in the Department oC Taxation, Dakota County, the following taxes, special assessments and market values are applicable to the subject property, for taxes payable in 1984: Taxes: $ 387.98 Homestead Special Assessments �'. Included: None Assessor's Makrket Value: $ 70,300 (low) $371,500 (high) The Assessor's market value is used for assessment purposes only and is based upon a concept of physical comparison between similar properties and is not a given mathematical percentage of price paid and/or market value. It must be borne in mind that the Tax Administrator s function is to establish his estimated market value for tax purposes only. I� ZONING The subject property is currently zoned Agricultural District. Permitted uses under the Eagan zoning code include all types of agricultural pursuits and accessory farm structures, commercial greenhouses and nurseries, stands for the sale of agricultural products provided said products are raised on the / premises, one family detached dwellings, public parks and play— grounds and a public utility service facility. Within an Agri- ; cultural District, any accessory use permitted in the R-1 District shall be permitted. The proposed zoning for the subject property under the S� Eagan Land Use Guide Plan dated February, 1980 is R-1 or Single Family Residential which would permit up to three units per acre. The only permitted use under this zoning would be for one family detached dwellings. The reader's attention is directed to the Zoning Code located in the Addendum of this report as an aid in determining conditional uses, accessory uses, and minimum area �� and setback requirements for the R-1 Zoning District. DAHLEN & DWYER, INC. EAGAN PROFILE The City of Eagan is a second tier suburb in the Twin City Metropolitan Area of Minneapolis/St. Paul. Eagan is located approximately 10 miles south of the downtown area of the Twin Cities. Unlike many second tier suburbs, Eagan employs a very substantial number of its citizens within the corporate limits of the CIty. In total, Eagan was estimated to employ 14,000 persons in 1980. The current population of Eagan is estimated to be 20,720 contrasted with the 1960 Census population of 3,382 and the 1970 Census population figure of 10,398. Until the early 19601s, Eagan was an agricultural community, but in the past two decades, tremendous transitions have occurred wherein the City has been experiencing a rapid growth rate adding approximately 1,000/year. In terms of physical size, Eagan is a relatively large community. Corporate limits of the City encompass approximately 34 square miles, or approximately 21,000 acres. The City of Eagan has designated approximately 3,200 acres for industrial development, of which an estimated 650 acres has already been developed. It is recognized that the City has considerable potential for industrial development because these properties are located near major freeways, rail service is available, public utility service is available and there is a considerable area of industrial development in Eagan at the present timewhich tends to attract more industrial development. Three" prominent, industrial parks account for about 85% of the industrial development in the City. These parks are the Cedar Industrial Park located of Highway 13, the Sibley Terminal Industrial Park located west of Highway 13, and the Eagandale Industrial Park' located in the north central area of the community, generally in the vicinity of Lexington Avenue and Lone Oak Road. Practically all industrial development in the City has occurred on platted property with public improvements. Eagan also has required high performance standards, particularly during the last 10 years, wherein landscaping, bituminous surfacing and similar site improvements have been required. A very large percentage of the industrial devleopment within the City consists of office and warehouse facilities. Commercial development in Eagan has occurred almost exclu- sively in five general areas of the City. At this point, commercial development is comprised of major retail services at the southeast quadrant of the intersection of Cedar Avenue and Highway 13 (Cedarvale Development), and a commercial area developed at the intersection of Yankee Doodle and Pilot Knob Roads (Yankee Square shopping area). The other three commercial areas that exist in the -7- DAHLEN & DWYER, INC. City can generally be described as the commercial developments along highway 55, commercial development along Highway 13 and commercial development along Cedar Avenue. Residential development in the City of Eagan has also. been r•eachi'ng.new levels each year. Eagan's population is expected to .increase from 20,72.0 in 1980 to between 30,000 and 40,000 .in 1990, depending on the economy. There is a high concentration of residential development along Pilot Knob Road between County Roads 30 and 32, and to the east of Cedar Avenue and north of County Road 30. Although residential development has tapered off in many areas of the Twin Cities, the Eagan area is expected to remain strong through the 1980's. The City of Eagan is well served by churches of all denominations, public and parochial schools, parks, shopping, freeways and transportation. Your appraiser has found Eagan to be a well balanced community, socially and economically and has found nothing detrimental that would restrict residential, industrial or commercial growth. Neighborhood Profile The immediate area in which the subject property is located consists of approximately 50% undeveloped 1 -and and 50% developed land. The southwest corner of Wescott Road and Lexington Avenue is in the process of being developed with new single family dwellings. The homes are being built by Joe Miller Homes, Inc. and are being marketed by Edina Realty, Inc. The St. Francis Wood Addition is located on the south side of Duckwood Drive approximately 1/4 mile to the west of Lexington Avenue. This is a development of custom built single family dwellings ranging in value from $95,000 to $175,000 and up. The southwest corner of Duckwood Drive and Lexington Avenue is an undeveloped 40 acre parcel which is zoned Multiple Family and is currently for sale by John J. Klein. This parcel is wooded and rolling. Windcrest, a development of townhomes, single family dwellings and twinhomes, is located on the south side of the south side of Wescott Road, just to the west of the subject property. Just across Wescott Road from Windcrest is a development of single family homes. Eagan Park is located approximately 1/2 mile to the south of the subject property. Orrin Thompson Homes, Inc. is developing N A 1 DAHLEN & DWYER, INC. a large tract to the north and east of the subject property near Carriage Hills Golf Course. The appraiser has found nothing detrimental in the immediate area that would restrict residential growth. -9- �1 It `I I DAHLEN & DWYER, INC. EAGAN PROJECT NO. 361 Eagan Project No. 361 provides for the construction of a trunk sanitary sewer within Subdistrict C -MM in the Central District as designated in the 1982 Comprehensive Sewer Policy Plan for the City of Eagan. A lift station is proposed at the westerly end of Windcrest Addition and adjacent to the westerly side of Pond JP -6. The proposed lift station will ultimately provide service to 1,100 acres. The ultimate lift station will be a three pump station with a wet well and dry well. It is recommended that the third pump be installed in the future as needed. The trunk sanitary sewer proposed includes construction of 18" and 15" sanitary sewer from the proposed lift station to Lexington Avenue at Wescott Road. The depth of the sanitary sewerat its deepest location is 48 feet. Assessments are proposed to be levied against the benefited properties. A Feasibility Study was completed in July of 1982 by Bonestroo, Roesene, Anderlik and Associates, Inc. EAGAN PROJECT NO. 411 Eagan Project No. 411 provides for the construction of a trunk storm sewer from Pond JP -6 and Pond JP -9 (McCarthy Lake) to Pond JP -11 (Hurley Lake) as designated in the Comprehensive Storm Sewer Plan. This project was deemed feasible from an engineering standpoint and was in accordance with the Comprehensive Storm Sewer Plan for the City of Eagan. The feasibility study was completed in June, 1984 by Bonestroo, Roesene, Anderlik and Associates, Inc. The trunk storm sewer proposed provides for constructing a gravity storm sewer from Pond JP -6 to Pond JP -11 and from Pond JP -9 to Pond JP -11. The 1978 Comprehensive Storm Sewer Plan was changed when the Department of Natural Resources established normal water levels for Pond JP -6 and Pond JP -9 at 818.7 which was considerably higher than proposed. As a result, it now is feasible to outlet Pond JP -6 and Pond JP -9 to Pond JP -11 by gravity storm sewer thus eliminating two pumping facilities. A computer analysis determined the high water level for Pond JP -6, Pond JP -8, Pond JP -9, Pond JP -10, Pond JP -11 and Pond JP -49 to be 830.00. It was also assumed that Pond JP -7 would discharge -10- I it ij 1 DAHLEN & DWYER, INC. directly into JP -8, thus bi-passing Pond JP -38. It was anti- cipated that Pond JP -38 would not be required for some time since it would never incur any additional run-off except that which is directly tributary to it. It was determined that the construction costs for the proposed gravity system are nearly equal to providing two pumping stations with a force.main, as -a result, considerable cost savings to the City can be realized in long term operation and maintenance. The construction proposed includes a gravity storm sewer 15" and 18" in diameter. It is proposed that gravity storm sewer from Pond JP -6 to Pond JP -11 parallel the Wescott Trunk Sanitary Sewer being constructed as part of City Contract 84-2. The trunk storm sewer from Pond JP -10 to Pond JP -9 is proposed to be constructed in the right-of-way of a future street of Parcel 011-04 which will ultimately connect to Westbury Addition. It is not proposed to construct an outlet pipe from Pond JP -10 at this time since it does not incur any additional runoff from existing or proposed future developments. Assessments are proposed to be levied against benefiting properties. - 11 - �-•1 _ _ .,\ / �, .. __�,.': '; �',� 411 �. � 6' dott: Hoa -'T� f ;�l /�r• a _ _ ... (I _\• S �• • �(j^ Y \� I � �� �\�, I ill �.+. - , /� Iii,. �, �1� \,T ,,, \`�i.ti '•` I/���\\�' �I,;IP.'ler r—_ _ r � r -Y r��n ,�i � ,• / ���� . !, �`` n \\,i � \\ '��•\d x � : 4+/r 1 iY yri—ISN rl �� � f : r r I i.:i V--�i �1//� \ - / \ �1 l �. J�.-� \ ' � v\ a - ? \ //� 1/ � �•i �� ! �F ��'� '� i //� 'y.i; , \.), ( � 11 l (.I �, \\\c9i \\\\C _� ., � � r ,•1,�� Ci, ���\I ( �t�_/I '.,�. I I° , / '�!, . _` 1��'��'�' II I\ \ l rt -;�`i \�xtH; Y,•r- y>��I �I / r, / I. i / \ �� ! �. � ,rte `,,� r i /rr % R•`' ��\\.'' p .. /'''�/( u,�� �• �����. i���� �� ��4 L4, �\ + �+) 1 j411 jbl'`\��-�� \ \ " / ( a�O : f)� : Cl ��\ ` • ♦ <-` : lam; •\L- `:i r 4' �\;:/,.�,/ rl,l, ��t�7l`'!�' GRAVITY STORM SE i PROPOSED31, Zvi mg .•..1'` , I SAAIITA Y Ju 0. HWL830 830' 7 is r •' . — Z ,' ;�• li �'„ill lI .>l \ \• \ :.,•\ .,. -'%!.• :1•.. _ ,j1 jr J -i � I � -L' '-' ' ' \ NX ��:i: Wim.%'/ ZL �.. ( S /I �.'� ���� r�\��.F � 11� \\' 11\``1\•\, ��' ^�< Int ./+i_ � `�;� \„-`�\r r�ll � �`. x ♦ �\ .� `\\ ����\\'. ,, T Citi• � • / `\ -, `: � � '`.. °` : . o iick�l�a�a�`,, `a ✓�J,,,. o 'i ;l It I I It JI DAHLEN & DWYER, INC. SITE DESCRIPTION The subject site is an irregular, shaped site containing 70t acres, subject to survey. The site is located on the south side of Wescott Road, approximately 1/4 mile to the west of Lexington Avenue. Access to the site is via Deerwood Drive. The northernmost portion of the site does not front on Wescott Road. There is a parcel between Wescott Road and the subject site. This site is under the same ownership as the subject parcel, and, for purpose of this appraisal, it is assumed that access from Wescott Road to the subject parcel could be acquired. .The topography of the site ranges from gently rolling and open to rolling and heavily wooded. The reader's attention is directed to the map located on the adjoining page as an aid in visualizing the size, shape, and topography of the site. There are two small ponds at the northeasterly corner of the site and another larger pond known as Eagan Pond JP -10 located near the southeasterly corner of the site. Elevations range from a low of just over 800 in the northeasterly corner to a high of approximately 909 at the northwesterly corner. The front of the site is rolling and wooded with the middle and southerly portions of the site being gently rolling and mostly open. The improvements are located near the southwesterly corner of the property. Pond JP -10 contains a total of 5.3 acres and has a normal water level of 820.8 and a high water level of 827.8. In the before situation, the property is served by roadway, electricity and water along Wescott Road. In the after situation, the property will be served by electricity, roadway, water along Wescott Road, sanitary sewer and storm sewer. -13- DAHLEN & DWYER, INC. METHOD OF VALUATION The preferred way to determine benefits, if any, accruing to a property is by the "before and after" method. Under this method, which is usually the simplest approach, the value of the property is estimated both before and after the installation of Sanitary Sewer Project No. 361 and Storm Sewer Project No. 411, the difference between the two being the benefits accruing to the property. The measure of benefits is dictated by State Law to be the comparative market value.of the property in the before and after the sanitary and storm sewer project. While the subject property is improved, your appraiser has determined through commonly accepted appraisal practices, that all the benefits accruing to the property would accrue to the land only. A physical inspection of the improvements has been made along with a review of courthouse records and, it is felt, the value contributions to that of the land remain the same in the "before" and "after" situations. The highest and best use of the subject property has been determined to be•as a parcel for single family residential development under R-1 Zoning Code of the City of Eagan. Only sales of vacant land were used in.this analysis. The sales included parcels served by all and/or some utilities and street improvements and parcels not served by all utilities and/or street improvements. The sales were adjusted to reflect physical characteristics such as size, shape, topography, and drainage; zoning and other public controls such as set back requirements and use restrictions; access; utilities; financing; and, availability. The values were then determined for the subject property in both the "before" and ".after" situations. Your appraiser has employed commonly accepted appraisal techniques. The analysis and opinions of these techniques are described on the following pages of this report. -14- I I I tj I I DAHLEN & DWYER, INC. LAND VALUE ESTIMATE - BEF013E 1. County Road 30, approximately 1/2 mile East of Lexington Avenue: Being the E2 of the W2 of the SE'r, and the S 30 rods of the E40 rods of the SWI of the NE'r, of Section 23. This was a 47.5 acre parcel which sold in March of 1981 for $261,500.00. or $5,500/acre. The seller was Slater and the buyer was Indepen- dent School District #196. Zoning was agricultural., The site was gently rolling with some wooded areas. No utilities were available. This was to be part of the future high school site for the Rosemount School District. 2. County Road 30, approximately 1/2 mile East of Lexington Avenue: Being the W2 of the W2 of the SWG and part of the W2 of the W2 of _the NEI of Section 23. Sold in March of 1981 for $255,750.00 or $5,500/acre. This was a 46.5 acre site which was zoned Agricultural and was gently rolling with some wooded areas. The buyer was Independent School District 11196 and the seller was Edwin Herrmann. No utilities were available. The site was part of an assemblege for.the Rosemount High School site. 3. Approximately 3/4 mile East of Lexington Avenue on the north side of County Road 30: I Being the EI of the SEG of Section 23. Sold in December of 1981 for $351,000.00 or $4,500/acre. This was a 78, acre site which was zoned Agricultural and was not served by utilities. The site was gently rolling, had some wooded areas and a small low area near the northern edge. The buyer was Slater and the seller was Sell. 4. East side of Pilot Knob Road, north of Deerwood Drive, Eagan: Being part of the SEG of the NEI, Section 22, Township 27, Range 23• This was an irregular shaped 8.46 acre parcel which had approximately 367 feet of frontage on Pilot Knob Road. The parcel sold in August of 1980 for $48,500.00 or $5,733/acre. The buyer was Eagan Grove Company. The parcel was below the grade of Pilot Knob Road, gently rolling and it had some wooded areas. Water was available along Pilot Knob Road while sanitary sewer was in the.area. There is no storm sewer. -15- I I I It I I I I DAHIEN & DWYER, INC. 5. East end of Deerwood Drive, 1/2 mile east of Pilot Knob Road: Being the N 360, of the Wili of the SE4, Section 22, Township 27, Range 23, except the E 330.2' thereof and subject to Deerwood ()rive. This is a 5 acre parcel which was purchased by Ron and Kathleen Boil from Tom and Barbara Rooney in November of 1979 for $35,000.00 or $7,000/acre. At the gime of purchase, the zoning was agricultural. The site was served by electricity and road only. 6. Southwest corner of Cliff Road and Pilot Knob Road: Being part of the EZ of the NE4' of Section 33, Township 27, Range 23. Sold in December of 1979 for $352,640.00 plus unpaid specials of $16,592.00 for a total of $369,232.00 or $7,958/acre. The seller was S.K.S., Inc., and the buyer was Pilot Knob Estates, inc. This was a rolling and wooded site which sold with a combina- tion of a cash downpayment plus a new C/D and an assumption of a previous C/D. The site totaled 46.4 acres. All utilities were available with the exception of storm sewer. 7. West side' of Lexington Avenue, approximately 1/2 mile northeasterly or McCarthy Lake: Being the N 365' of the S 9931of the 470' of the SEI of the NE'r, of Section 22, Township 27, Range 23. Sold in December of 1981 for $57,695.00 or $11,500/acre. This was a 5.017 acre parcel which was rectangular in shape but was not served by any utilities. Water was in the general area. This was a cash sale with the buyer being the Board of Trustees of United Methodist Church and the seller being Lexington South, Inc. 8. Southwest corner of Lexington Avenue and Wesco-tt Road: Being the Nerly 51 acres of the Ej of the NE,' of Section 22. Sold in December of 1983 for $642,000.00 or $12,588/acre.' The buyer was Gabbert development and the seller was Lexington South, Inc. This was a 51 acre parcel which was zoned R-1 and P.U.D. The property was served by all utilities with the exception of sanitary sewer. The topography was gently rolling with some steep slopes. The buyer assumed special assessments of approx- mately $30,000 for water main and laterals. Sanitary sewer was expected to be available to serve the property in 1984. The buyer will pay the special assessments for sanitary sewer. The property is expected to contain a total of 129 single family lots. -16- I I f Il r 1 I DAMEN & DWYER, INC. 9. Southeast corner of Lexington Avenue and Wescott Road: Being part of the NW4 of Section 23. Sold in December of 1983 for $1,584,000.00 or $12,000/acre. This is a 132 acre, parcel which was zoned R-1 and P.U.D. The buyer was Northland Mortgage Company and the seller was Lexington South, Inc. All utilities were available with the exception of sanitary sewer which was to be installed in 1984. The parcel was mostly flat and open. The buyer is'currently platting the property into approximately 330 single family lots. The buyer has agreed to pay all assessments relating to the installation of sanitary sewer. Galaxy Road, at its frontage, is not improved but is a gravel road with the improvements being charged to the development. 10. 1/2 mile East of County Road 31, just south of Wescott Road: Being the Ef of the NW4 of Section 22. Sold in March of 1979 for $41.7,024.00 or $5,213/acre: This was an 80 acre parcel which was sold by Hollis to Niekwa, Inc. At -,.time of sale the parcel was zoned Agricultural but was subsequently zoned single family and townhouse. Approximately 50% of the parcel was wooded rolling land. There is a small pond located on the property. No utilities were available at the time of sale. Sewer and water were subsequently available at the installation of Wescott Road. -17- DAHLEN & DWYER, INC. LAND VALUE ESTIMATE - BEFORE In the before situation, the subject parcel contains 70t acres and is served by roadway, water and electricity. As previously mentioned access to the parcel is via Deerwood.Drive, not Wescott Road. The parcel immediately to the north of the subject parcel and to the south of Wescott Road is owned by the same family, and, it is assumed, for purposes of this appraisal, that at least an easement could be obtained for access to the subject parcel from the north or off of Wescott Road. Your appraiser has reviewed and visibly inspected many comparable land sales and offerings within the immediate and general areas. Sales in competitive areas were also analyzed. Adjustments to these sales were made to reflect physical consider- ations, locational attributes, zoning considerations, access, topography, utilities and financing. The previously reported sales, along with other sales, have been analyzed and indicate a value in the before situation as follows: 70t acres @ $9,000/acre $ 630,000.00 As previously mentioned in the before situation, the property is served by roadway, electricity and water. There is no sanitary sewer or storm sewer. 11 .1 1 11 I 11 i I 1 DAHLEN & DWYER, INC. LAND VALUE ESTIMATE - AFTER 1A. Southwest corner of Lexington Avenue and Wescott Road: Being the Nerly 51 acres of the EZ of the NEZ of Section 22. Sold in December of 1983 for $642,000.00 or $12,588/acre. The buyer was Gabbert Development and the seller was Lexington South, Inc. This was a 51 acre parcel which was zoned R-1 and P.U.D. The property was served by all utilities with the exception of sanitary sewer. The topography was gently rolling with some steep slopes. The buyer assumed special assessments of approx- imately $30,000 for water main and laterals. Sanitary sewer was expected to be available to serve the property in 1984. The buyer will pay the special assessments for sanitary sewer. The property is expected to contain a total of 129 single family lots. 2A. Southeast corner of Lexington Avenue and Wescott Road: Being part of the NW,' of Section 23. 'Sold in December of 1983 for $1,584,000.00 or $12,000/acre. This is a 132 acre parcel which was zoned R-1 and P.U.D. The buyer was Northland Mortgage Company and the seller was Lexington South, Inc. All utilities were available with the exception of sanitary sewer which was to be installed in 1984. The parcel was mostly flat and open. The buyer is currently platting the property into approximately 330 single family lots. The buyer has agreed to pay all assessments relating to the installation of sanitary sewer. Galaxy Road, at its frontage, is not improved but is a gravel road with.the improvements being chargedto the development. 3A. Galaxv Avenue, south of Cliff Road: Being the Ez of the NWS of Section 32, lying southerly of' the Minesota Department of Transportation Flat No. 19-22. This was a 37.6 acre site which was sold in February of 1983 for $405,689.00 or $10,786/acre. The parcel was zoned Agricultural but was rezoned to R-1, Single Family P.D. The buyer was Riverdale Development and the seller was the Zylka Estate. The property was subsequently developed as the Park View Addition.and is currently the site of Ruscon Homes Construction. -19- I I .1 DAHLEN & DWYER, INC. 11A. North side of Wilderness Run Road, about 500 feet easterly of Waterford Drive: Sold in September of 1982 for $148,645.00 or $15,500/acre. This was an irregular shpaed parcel containing 9.59 acres which was purchased by Count'ry3ide Builders from Lexington South, Inc. All utilities were available. The site was rolling and wooded. The site was being developed with 56 townhouse units which indicates a density of 5.8 units/acre. The seller was under considerable pressure to sell at the time. 5A. Southwest corner of Pilot Knob and Lone Oak Road:' Being part of the NEG of the NE4 of Section 9, Township 27, Range 23. Sold in June of 1981 for $214,100.00 or $15,293/acre. The buyer was Midwest Associates and the seller was Martin Shields. This was a 14 acre parcel having 1,320 feet of frontage on Pilot Knob Road and about 400 feet of frontage on Lone Oak Road. The parcel is served by all utilities, was rolling an apparently. -had stable soils. There was an old farm building on the site which was razed. The financing was not disclosed but was short term since development started shortly after the sale. Zoning was R-3 and R-4. 6A. Blackhawk Road, approximately 1/2 mile North of Cliff Road: Being the NW4 of the SE4 of Section 29. Sold in July of 1979 for $418,324.00 or $10,224/acre. This was a 40 acre parcel which was purchsed by Tilsen Homes from First National Bank of Saint Paul. Zoning was R-3 and R-1. This was rolling open land, with all utilities available. -20- DAHLEN & DWYER, INC. LAND VALUE ESTIMATE - AFTER In the after situation, the size of the subject parcel remains the same at 70t acres. The parcel will not be served by all utilities including roadway, water, sanitary sewer, storm sewer and electricity. Storm sewer will serve only 50 acres of the parcel with the remaining 20t acres draining ina different direction. The 50 acres served by this storm sewer improvement can be visualized from maps located elsewhere in this report. Your appraiser ha's reviewed and visibly inspected many comparable land sales and offerings in the immediate and general areas. After a thorough analysis, I feel my estimate of land values in the after situation is well supported and.well documented. Adjustments have been made to these sales for physical consideration; locational attributes, zoning considerations, access, topography, utilities and financing. After a thorough analysis, it was found that the benefits attributable to storm sewer were approximately $1,000/acre which benefits attributable to a sanitary sewer improvement were between $2,000 and $3,000/acre. The value in the after situation is as follows: 70t acres @ $11,700/acre $ 820,000.00 The value in the after situation reflects an increase of $2,700/acre. $2,000 of this increase can be attributed to the sanitary sewer while $50,000 total can be attributed to the storm sewer improvements. The storm sewer improvement is based on 50 acres at an increment of value of $1,000/acre. This would indicate an overall value per acre of $11,700.00. -21- I I I 11 I 1] '' I I a DAHLEN & DWYER, ' INC. BENEFITS Your appraiser has analyzed the value of the subject in the before and after situations. This difference between the before and after values would be the benefits accruing to the subject property as a result of the sanitary sewer and storm sewer improvements under the City of Eagan Project Nos. 361 and 411. These benefits can be summarized as follows: Value of land before the installation of Sanitary Sewer Project No. 361 and Storm Sewer'Project No. 411: $ 630,000.00 Value of land after the installation of Sanitary Sewer Project No. 361 and Storm Sewer Project No. 411: $ 820,000.00 Benefits Accruing to the property as a result of the installation of Sanitary Sewer Project No. 361 and Storm Sewer Project No. 411: $ 190,000.00 These benefits can further be divided between sanitary sewer and storm sewer as follows: Benefits Attributable to Sanitary Sewer Project No. 361: $ 140,000.00 Benefits Attributable to Storm Sewer Project No. 411: $ 50,000.00 Total Benefits $ 190,000.00 -22- DAHLEN & DWYER, INC. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS Municipalities such as Eagan are authorized by Statute to make local improvements and to assess properties benefited by such improvements. Minnesota Statute 429.021 and 429.051 (1980). The Statute provides that appeal from the levy of the local entity may be taken to the District Court by the aggrieved party within 30 days after the adoption of the assessment. Minnesota Statute 429.081. The Minnesota Supreme Court has established guidelines for special assessments. These guidelines are: 1. The land must receive a benefit from the improvement being constructed. 2. The assessment must be uniform upon the same class of property; and; 3. The assessment may not exceed the benefit. The preferred way to determine benefits, if any, accruing to a property is by the "before and after" method. Under this method, which is usually the simplest approach, the value of the property is estimated before the installation of sanitary sewer and storm sewer and after the installation of these utilities, the difference between the two being the benefits accruing to the property. In appaising the property, your appraiser has deter- mined that a willing buyer will pay a willing seller more for the property due to the installation of sanitary sewer and storm sewer. This is strongly supported by land sales in the after situation. In the after situation, the property is now served by all utilities including sanitary sewer and storm sewer. With the availability of sanitary sewer and storm sewer, the property is now readily developable. Storm sewer enhances the marketability of the property in that it eliminates hazards created by on-site ponding, gives the ability to develop the site more intensely, eliminates recurring street maintenance and flooding problems in the immediate and general areas and controls the water level of the existing ponding area on the subject site. Benefits to the parcel for sanitary sewer in the amount of $2,000/acre are at the low end of the range. This is due to the depth of the parcel and the fact that to develop the property in the most feasible manner, access must be acquired to Wescott Road through or over an adjoining property. -2R- I I I I I I I I 1 I 1 I I .1 I DAHLEN & DWYER, INC. 0 Therefore, after analysis of all factors, it is my opinion that the following values are applicable to the subject property. Value of the land before the installation of Sanitary Sewer Project No. 361 and Storm Sewer Project No. 411: $ 630,000.00 Value of the land after the installation of Sanitary Sewer Project No. 361 and Storm Sewer Project No. 411: $ 820,000.00 Benefits accruing to the property as a result of Sanitary Sewer Project No. 361 ar.d Storm Sewer Project No. 411: $ 190;000.00 The benfits accruing to the subject property can further be broken down as follows: Benefits accruing to the subject property as a result of Sanitary Sewer Project No 361: $ 140,000.00 Benefits accruing to the subject property as a result of Storm Sewer Project No. 411: $ 50,000.00 Total Benefits -24- $ 190,000.00 I I I I I I 1 I I I I I .1 DAHLEN & DWYER, INC. CERTIFICATION The preceding appraisal analysis was performed according to commonly accepted appraisal doctrine and is in conformity with and subject to the requirements of the Code of Profes- sional Ethics and Standards of Professional Conduct as pro- fessed by' the Society of Real Estate Appraisers and the American Institute of Real Estate Appraisers. As a practicing professional Real Estate Appraiser, I hereby certify that: 1. The Appraiser has no present or contemplated future interest in the property appraised; and neither the employment to make the appraisal, nor the compensa- tion for it, is contingent upon the appraised value of the property. 2. The Appraiser has no personal interest in or bias with respect to the subject matter of the appraisal report or the participants to the sale. The "Estimate of Market Value" in the appraisal report is not based in whole or in part upon the race, color, or national origin of the prospective owners or occupants of the property appraised, or upon the race, color or national origin of the present owners or occupants of the properties in the vicinity of the property appraised. The Appraiser has personally inspected the property, both inside and out, and has made an exterior inspec- tion of all comparable sales listed in the report. To the best of the Appraiset's knowledge and belief, all statements and information in this report are true and correct, and the Appraiser has not knowingly withheld any significant information. 4. All contingent and limiting conditions are contained herein (imposed by the terms of the assignment or by the undersigned,affecting the analyses, opinions, and conclusions contained in the report). 5. This appraisal report has been made in conformity with and is subject to the requirements of the Code of Pro- fessional Ethics and Standards of Professional Conduct of the appraisal organizations with which the Appraiser is affiliated. 6. All conclusions and opinions concerning the real estate that are set forth in the appraisal report were prepared by the Appraiser whose signature appears on the appraisal report, 'unless indicated as "Review Appraiser". No change of any item in the appraisal report shall be made by anyone other than the Appraiser, and the Appr shall have no responsibility for such unau orized change. -25- By, I 1 'i I I ,1 1 I I I I I I I DAHLEN & DWYER, INC. REAL PROPERTY ANALYSTS CONTINGENT AND LIMITING CONDITIONS The certification of the Appraiser appearing in the appraisal report is subject to the following conditions and to such other specific and limiting conditions ae are set forth by the Appraiser in the report. 1. The Appraiser assumes no re sponsibilityfor matters of a legal nature affecting the property appraised or the title thereto, nor does the Appra ir.er render any opinion as to the title, which is assumed to be good and marketable. The property is appraised as though under responsible ownership. 2. Any sketch in the report may show approximate dimensions and is included to assist the render in visualizing the property. The Appraiser has made no survey of the property. 3: The Appraiser is not required to give testimony or appear in court because of having made the appraisal with reference to the property in question, unless arrangements have been pre- viously made therefore. 4. Any distribution of the valuation in the report between land and improvements applies only under the existing program utilization. The separate valuations for land and building must not be used in conjunction with any other appraisal and are invalid if so used. 5. The Appraiser assumes that, there are no hidden or unapparent conditions of the property, subsoil, or structures, which would render it more or less valuable. The Appraiser assumes no responsibility for such conditions, or for engineering which might be required to discover such factors. 6. Information, estimates, and opinions furnished to the Appraiser, and contained in the report, were obtained from sources considered reliable and believed to be true and coriect. However, no responsibility for accuracy of such items furnished the Appraiser can be assumed by the Appraiser. 7. Disclosure of the contents of the appraisal report is governed by the Bylaws and Regulations of the professional appraisal organizations With which the Appraiser is affiliated. 8. Neither all, nor any part of the content of the report, or copy thereof (including conclusions as to the property, value, the identity of the Appraiser., professional designations, reference to any professional appraisal organizations, or the firm with which the Appraiser is connected),' shall be used for any purposes by anyone but the client specified in the report, without the previous written consent of the Appraiser; nor shall it be conveyed by anyone to the public through advertis- ing, public relations, news, sales, or other media, without the written consent and approval of the Appraiser. 9. On all appraisals, subject to satisfactory completion, repairs, or alterations, the appraisal report and value conclusions are contingent upon completion of the improvements in a workmanlike -26- I I I 1 a 1 I I I 11 I 1 I DAHLEN & DWYER, INC. A D D E N D U M DAHLEN & DWYER, INC. Looking Southwesterly at Northerly portion of subject property with Wescott Road in the foreground Looking Southerly at subject property from Wescott Road DAHLEN & DWYER, INC. RMM"M -t, Open and rolling land towards Southerly end of property with improvements in background Looking Westerly along Wescott Road from intersection of Lexington Avenue I 1 I t I 1 1 I 1 1 I I I I I 1 I I IDAHLEN & IDWYER, INC. New single family development adjacent to subject property on Gast \\ 31 'RDD l '% TRI SWR. �, __.1 � - - , � �_ - • "/ f��y �,/ \d � 1, \, �::• �' �� - -. �> fes' � . ,,i.::E• /'� POND JP-10 /, t M l dwa 1 DRAINAGE EASEMENT 11ONDI' PVEIK 'I. a CONCEPT PLAN—MC. ARTHY•P� CITY OF EAGAN-MINNE501 PARCEL 011-04. SITE DATA ` Lam._ `• �8�` , � 1 MIN. LOT,\ WtOTN = Oe! � r • .MIN.LOT ARCA-1=0008.1. 'ova-Loi AaeA=taaor S.F. ,40TA1 No. ol�iorN=SID ,• (' ' •7r ; "t OTAL PLAT A11IA=88:'LAC.-IODS I ' Subdivision 2. Zoning Map The boundaries of the above districts are hereby established as shown on; that certain map entitled "Zoning Map of the City of Eagan, Minnesota," which map is properly approved and filed :in the _Office -of the City.Clerk', hereinafter referred to as the "Zoning Map." Said map and all of ,the notations, references and .other information shown thereon shall have the some force and effect•as,if fully set down therein and are hereby made a part of this Ordinance by reference and incorporated herein as fully as if set forth herein at length. ' It shall be the responsibility of the City Clerk to maintain the "Zoning Map" and make same available to the public. Where a dispute arises over the City Clerk's determination of the exact location of a district boundary, said dispute shall be heard by the Board ' of Appeals And Adjustments for recommendation, with final determination to be made by the City Council. ,Subdivision 3. "All AGRICULTURAL DISTRICT 'A. Permitted Uses Within any Agricultural District -no structure or land shall be used except for. one or more of the following uses or uses deemed similar by the City Council. 1, All types of agricultural pursuits and accessory farm structures. 2. Commercial greenhouses and nurseries. 3,. Stands for the sale of agricultural,products provided said products are -raised on the premises. 4. One -family detached dwelling. S. Public parks, playgrounds and public utility service facilities. B. Conditional Uses Within any Agricultural District no structure or land shall be used for the following uses or uses deemed similar by the City Council except by a conditional use permit: 1. Any conditional use in the "R-1" district as regulated therein. 2. Riding stables, boarding stables, auction facilities or sales barns, commercial feed lots or dog kennels subject to the requirements of Ordinance No. 5 and revisions thereto. 3. Commercial storage facilities. C. Accessory Uses Within any Agricultural "A" District, any accessory use permitted in an "R-1" District shall be permitted. ui,d:vIsion i A. RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS Permitted U'-e..n W'thin any k•1; R-2, R-3, n-4 or R-5 District, no structure or land shall be used except for one or more of the follow- ing use or uses'deemed similar by the City Council: 1. One family detached dwellings. 2. Two family dwellings (R-2, R-3, R-4 only) 3. Townnouses (only in R-3 and R-4 to a maximum density o•. 6,000 square feet per unit.) 4. Apartments (R-4 only) 5. Home occupations as definers in Section '.,2.05, Subdivision 2CC. 6.. Mobile homes (R-5 only and developed under requirementE of Ordinance No. 2 and revisions thereto) B. Conditional Uses Within any R-1, R-2, R-3, R-4 or R-5 District, no structure or land shall be used for the following use o; uses deemed similar by the City Council except by conditional use per^rt. 1. Golf courses, country clubs and tennis clubs. C. Permitted Accessory Uses Within any R-1, R-2, R-3, R-4 or R-5 Cistrict, no structure or land or use of land shall be permitted except for one or mere of the follov.ing use or uses deemed siirn lar by the City Council: 1. Private garages and parking space ?. Private swimming pool, tennis court, recreation building it tot -lot. 3. Buildings temporarily located for purpuses of construction on the premises for a period of nut to exceed time neces- sary for such construction. 4. Gardening and other horticultural uses where no sale of products is conrhicted nn the premises 5. -Decorative landscape features. 6. The keeping of domestic animals (household) for non-com- mercial purposes., for the use of the occupants of the pre- mises. Subdivisicn 5. Minimum Arca, Setback and Height Requirements fhe foil;..ming chart shall Pstablish the minimum lot area, lot width, building setback and maximum heiqht req:iirements for the Agricultural and Residential Districts, Where a conflict may arise between the minimum requirements of -this Section and those contained in the General Provision Section 52.06 Subdivision.6C, the greater requirement shall be required. SIDE -YARD SETBACK A. M7HIMUM AREA, SETBACK AND HEIGHT REGULATIONS (Also See Section 52.06 Subdivision GC) SIDE -YARD SETBACK GARAGE OR FRONT -YARD OR MAXIMUM SETBACK ALONG DWELLING ACCESSORY REAR -YARD HEIGHT ;YMOOL USE DISTRICT LOT AREA LOT WIDTH PUBLIC STREET UNIT STRUCTURE SETBACK LIMITATIONS A Agricultural 5 ac. per 300.feet 30'feet 30 feet 5 feet 30 feet - - - - - dwelling unit R-1 Single Family 12,000 85 feet 30 feet 10 feet 5 feet 15 feet 2-1/2 storie: sq. ft. 1 ac. w/o municipal sewer 6 water R-2 Double 15,000 100 feet 30 feet 10 feet 5 feet 15 feet 2-1/2 storie: sq. ft. R-3 Townhouse 6,000 sq. - - - - 30 feet 30 feet 10 feet. 30 ft. for a 3 stories ft. per dwelling unit unit. 10 ft. for a accessory • building R-4 Multiple See Section 52.07 50 feet 30 feet 10 feet 30 ftfor a Dwelling Subdivision 58 dwelling unit 10 ft. for a accessory - building I DAHLEN & DW M, INC. 1 I I .1 1 I I I 1 ' DANIEL E. DWYER Dahl n n wyer me 750 Northwestern National Bank Bldg. St. Paul, Minnesota 55101 EDUCATION: ' Graduate of the College of St. Thomas 1967 Course 1-A, American Institute of Real Estate Appraisers 1971 ' Course 1-B, American Institute of Real Estate Appraisers 1973 American Appraisal Company Cost estimating Seminar 1973 Course II, American Institute of Real Estate Appraisers 1974 Course, IV, American Institute of Real Estate Appraisers 1979 ' I Eminent Domain - Advanced .Legal Education 1980 ' EXPERIENCE; Since 1971 actively involved in the appraisal of residential, commercial and industrial real estate President, Dahlen & Dwyer, Inc., a Minnesota Corporation Instructor, appraisal seminars, Minneapolis/St. Paul Metropolitan Area ' Qualified as expert witness on real estate values 'APPRAISAL ASSIGNMENTS: Homequity, Inc. Merrill Lynch Employee Transfer ' Relocation Resources, Inc. Residential Relocation Service Corp. Employee Transfer -Corp. ' U. S. Steel Corp. Deluxe Check Printers United First Mortgage United Mortgage Co. ' Northland Mortgage Co. First Bank St. Paul First Bank Minnehaha ' First Bank Grand Western State Bank Commercial State Bank Northwestern National Bank City of Eagan City of St. Paul City of Roseville ' City of White Bear Lake City of Vadnais Heights Ramsey County Parks & Oper. Space Department Numerous attorneys and private individuals oo�o 3830PILOT KNOB ROAD. P.O. BOX 21199 BEA BLOMQUIST EAGAN, MINNESOTA 55121 Mayor PHONE: (612) 454-8100 THOMAS EGAN JAMES A. SMITH VIC ELLISON THEODORE WACHTER Cauncll Memb rs THOMAS HEDGES January 10, 1986 city rmml"I"'aia EUGENE VAN OVERBEKE City Clerk Dear Assessment Committee Member: In official action at the January 21, 1986, City Council meeting, members of the various advisory commissions and committees will be appointed or reappointed to those advisory groups by the City Council. If you are interested in being reappointed to membership on the Assessment Committee, please contact Karen Finnegan at the office of the City Administrator by phone or letter no later than Thursday, January 16. Your past interest and dedicated service to the City of Eagan have been deeply appreciated. I.look forward to hearing from you. Sincerely, Thomas L. Hedges City Administrator TLH/jj THE LONE OAK TREE, . THE SYMBOL OF STRENGTH AND GROWTH IN OUR COMMUNITY MEMO TO: SPECIAL ASSESSMENT COMMITTEE WILLARD BERFELZ, PETITIONER FROM: THOMAS A COLBERT, DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS DATE: JANUARY 14, 1986 SUBJECT: PARCEL 10-03800-010-121 SPECIAL ASSESSMENT OBJECTION (WILLARD BERFELZ) SPECIAL ASSESSMENT COMMITTEE MEETING 1/16/86 ITEM VII - B.1 PACKET/RECOMMENDATION REVISION After additional background information research was performed, it was determined that a revised recommendation pertaining to the pending assessments should be processed for consideration by the Special Assessment Committee at their January 16 meeting. Therefore, enclosed with this memo is a revised packet pertaining to this item which incorporates the additional background information that was used to justify the revision in the Staff's original recommendation. PLEASE NOTE: Discard the previous information (Pages 36 - 41) that was previously distributed and replace this information with the revised packet enclosed herein. I apologize for any inconvenience or confusion created by this revision. However, it is felt that this will more fairly address the assessment issue to be discussed. WAIW I 5W nnw�dwmwz 'A -A '/ Attachments TAC: jh ARNOLD E. KEMPE ATTORNEY AT LAW 6121457 5535 1 SIGNAL HILLS WEST ST. PAUL. MINNESOTA 33113 RECEIVED I A Al January 15, 1986 Mr. Thomas Hedges Director of Public Works City of Eagan 3830 Pilot Knob Road Eagan, Minnesota 55122 Mr. Thomas A. Colbert, Engineer City of Eagan 3830 Pilot Knob Road Eagan, Minnesota 55122 Re: Special Assessment Committee Meeting January 16, 1986 — 4:30 p.m. Dear Mr. Hedges and Mr. Colbert: I received, from a courier who delivered to my office at the and of the day of January 14, 1986, a Notice of a Committee :fearing scheduled for January 16, 1986 at 4:30 p.m. on.the special assessments against my client, Patrick McCarthy. Because of,the short two—day notice, I am unable to attend the scheduled meeting and accordingly, request that the same be continued. I will be in trial in the City of Fagan on January 17th, 1986, on another assessment matter in the District Court and consequently will be unable to attend any continued hearing of this matter that might be put over to the 17th. I would appreciate your advising me of a new Committee Hearing date for this matter and giving me a reasonable and timely notice of hearing. Also, this will serve as a reminder that the subpoena served on Thomas A. Colbert in August 1985 in the matter of Patrick McCarthy vs. City of Eagan which has now been continued to January 17, 1986, is still in effect and a photocopy of the subpoena is herewith enclosed as a reminder. am encl. Yours very myy,,, I Arnold E. Kempe SAC 1/16/86 A. PROJECT 372, I -35E UTILITIES & STREETS - ASSESSMENT OBJECTIONS 1. Francis C. Franz (10-02100-010-50) 2. Anna S. Heuer (10-02100-010-78) BACKGROUND INFORMATION The two properties owners referenced above,, have previously been addressed by the Special Assessment Committee at the October 9, 1984 meeting pertaining to their similar objections associated with the recent completion of the upgrading .of Deerwood Dr from Riverton Av to the east side of I -35E. This upgrading of Deerwood Dr was performed under project 372 by MnDot through cost participa- tion agreement #16932. The information that was previously reviewed by the Special Assessment Committee at the October 9, 1984 meeting has been reproduced and is included with this packet for reference and discussion on these continued assessment objections. A copy of the minutes of the October 9, 1984 Special Assesment Committee meeting has also been included without page number for reference and discussion pertaining to these issues. Enclosed on page (s) 19 - LO is a proposed Special Assessment Policy that has been prepared by staff for the committee's review and adoption pertaining to assessments associated with the installa- tion of sidewalks or trailways. Although a portion of the Anna Heuer property has been acquired by School .District #196 for the construction of the new Deerwood Elementary School, the frontage location is not affected by this proposed project but w1-1-1 be addressed under project—#455 in a manner that anticipates adoption of the recommended policy #86-1. The second and third concerns expressed by the committee at the previous meeting pertained to the determination of "benefitted frontage" by taking into consideration the configuration, topography and setback restrictions that may be unique to that parcel.' Due to the varying degrees that any of these items can be applied to any particular parcel, it is difficult to create a uniform policy. Therefore_, each parcel should be addressed on its own merits. In the situation o regrvpert�trre two severed residual portions of his property are located east of I-35E/nortfi of--Drwo6d—Dr an _ w_of ?-35F/south of Deerwood Dr. As can be seen on page 9, by themselves these parcels have limitations based on their configuration. However, if combined with adjacent parcels (which is likely for development) it will benefit by its full frontage. /A SAC 1/16/86 PROJECT 372, I -35E UTILITIES & STREETS (Page 2) In relation to the last item discussed by the committee, it was felt that this issue should again be addressed by the Special Assessment Committee to the necessity of the adoption of a new Special Assessment Policy. It is anticipated that the committee's recommendations pertaining to the new policy and disposition of these assessment objections will be forwarded to the Council for formal consideration. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS The staff recommends that Special Assessment Policy #86-1 be adopted and applied to all future and pending public improvement projects. In addition, it is recommended that a 400frontage reduction be allocated to Mr. Francis C. Franz (10-02100-010-50) due to the configuration of the residual parcels remaining after MnDot's taking, subject to an agreement whereby this reduction will be assessed at the time of development if combined with adjacent parcels which would eliminate the configuration restriction to benefit. All other assessments as proposed under project #372 for both parcels, shall remain as proposed with the exceptions so noted in this recommendation. COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS/COMMENTS WMA SAC 10/9/84 I13:: OLDh BUSINESS A. PROJECT 372, I -35E UTILITIES & STREETS - ASSESSMENT OBJECTIONS 1. Francis C. Franz (Parcel No. 10-02100-010-50 BACKGROUND INFORMATION The two property owners referenced above share the same concern pertaining to the assessments associated with Project 372 for the installation of utilities and street improvements along Deerwood Drive as a part of the I -35E freeway construction. These utility and street improvements are being performed in conjunction with a Cost Participation—Agreement No: 16932—between_MN—DOT_and_the City of Eagan. Enclosed on pages -' and IV- are the letters staff received from Mr. Franz (No. 010-50) and Mrs. Heuer (No. 010-78) requesting consideration by the Special Assessment Commit- tee pertaining to their proposed assessments under Project 372. Enclosed on page < is the preliminary assessment role associat- ed with Project 372 which identifies the various types of assess- ments associated with each parcel. The improvements being provided to the Francis Franz property (010-50) include lateral benefit from trunk watermain, trunk area and lateral s orm sewer, street, sidewalk and—bituminous trail -way construction. The location of these proposed utilities in relaton- ship to Mr. Franz parcel (010-50) are identified on pages through a for watermain, storm sewer lateral, trunk storms sewer and street with sidewalk and/or trail improvements. Enclosed on pages /O through 1AJ - are the computations that were used to determine the assessment obligation of Mr. Franz's parcel for each of the'improvements respectively. Mrs. Heuer's el (010-78) is proposed to be assessed or street and si ew * provements only. Enclosed 6n page 1:5� is the" map s owing the relationship of Mrs. Heuer's property to the Deerwood Drive proposed improvements. Enclosed on pages and /I is the computations used to determine the assessment obligation of this property. . Based on previous conversations held with the affected property owners, it is staffs understanding that the basis for the petitioners objection relate to the street and sidewalk improve- ments associated with the upgrading of Deerwood Drive. These improvements are being performed by MN DOT under Cost Participation Agreement No. 61824. Enclosed on page / &V is Special Assessment Policy No. 82-5 which addresses the issue pertaining to assessments associated with street improvements funded through Cost Participa- tion Agreements. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Utility modifications_ and improvements being performed along Deer - wood Drive provide direct benefit to the property being served, Mr. F-ancis Franz (0.1_0-50). Subsequently, staff recommends that all assessments associated with these utility improvements be reaffirm- ed as proposed under Project.372. In relationship to the common objection pertaining to assessments associated with the street improvements of Deerwood Drive, staff feels that Special Assessment Policy No. 82-5 is fair and equitable and that the assessments proposed under Project 372 to Mr. Franz and Mrs. Heuer should be reaffirmed as outlined in the feasibility report due to the fact that these properties receive the benefit associated with having Deerwood Drive upgraded to present day City standards for residential streets. COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS/COMMENTS Mr. Francis C. Franz 1620 Deerwood Drive Eagan, Minnesota 55122 March 2, 1984 Mr. Thomas L. Hedges City Administrator City of Eagan, Minnesota 3830 Pilot Knob Road Eagan, Minnesota 55122 Re: I -35E Utility Crossings and Street Improvements Project Number 372 Dear Mr. Hedges: This is a formal request for a meeting with the City Engineer to discuss the hereinabove referenced project as it more particularly relates to my property, and, subsequent to that meeting, to appear before the Assessment Committee to discuss matters relative to the pending assessments to be levied on my property as a result of said improvement project. Thank you for attending to this request. Sincerely, Mr. Francis C. Franz Parcel Number 10-02100-010-50 cc: Thomas A. Colbert City Engineer IS Mrs. Anna S. Heuer 1530 Deerwood Drive Eagan, Minnesota 55122 March 2, 1984 Mr. Thomas L. Hedges City Administrator City of Eagan, Minnesota 3830 Pilot Knob Road Eagan, Minnesota 55122 Re: I -35E Utility Crossings and Street Improvements Project Number 372 Dear Mr. Hedges: This is a formal request for a meeting with the City Engineer to discuss the hereinabove referenced project as it more particularly relates to my property, and, subsequent to that meeting, to appear before the Assessment Committee to discuss matters relative to the pending assessments to be levied on my property as a result of said improvement project. Thank you for attending to this request. Sincerely, 4✓I.tt of, 5 - Mrs. Mrs. Anna S. Heuer Parcel Number 10-02100-010-78 CC: Thomas A. Colbert City Engineer PRELIMINARY ASSESSMENT ROLL PROJECT NO. 372 BITUMINOUS WATER MAIN SANITARY SEWER STORM SEVER STREET SIDEWALK PATHWAY Lateral Bene- Lateral Bene- Trunk Parcel fit from Trunk fit from Trunk Lateral Area Lateral NE 1/4 SECTION E1'II-DZ-- $ 941 010-02 21,264 010-05 64,087 NW 1/4 SECTION 10 010-57 1,555 030-26 77 SV 1/4 SECTION 10 010-56 $ 1,810 27,446 010-57 17,107 020-56 1,961 NE 1/4 SECTION 16 010-07 020-06 Bicentennial 6th Adda. Lot 1, Block 1 SE I/4 SECTION 16 010-81 010-82 SW 1/4 SECTION 16 010-50 Blatkhavk Bills Addn. Outlot B Outlot C SE I/4 SECTION 20 Oak rtd-' Re Ae rea First Adda. Lot 5, Block 1 Hillandale Addition No. 1 Outlot C NW 1/4 SECTION 21. 012-28 HE 1/4 SECTION 21 010-08 020-08 SW 1/4 SECTION 21 4E -Am?,-> 010-50 011-51 SE 1/4 SECTION 21 EVFR 010-78 NEI/4 SECTION 29 020-05 1,690 1,690 TOTAL ...... $3,380 $1,810 3554b $2,450 $ 63,]31 18,754 $2,450 $216,925 S 12,196 $ 65,987 $ 7,042 5,5441. 8,994 2,818 29,994 3,201 2,898 15,680 3,347 19,818 63,256 8,195 26,158 1,257 4,011 4,675 14,922 3,419 10,911 1,946 3,300 23,022 3,790 16,505 10,784 4,947 3,971 18,505 89,914 24,559 8,968 3,245 4,027 28,095 $105,157 $411,060 $ 45,184 $ 2,228 1,072 861 4,176 2,770 $ 11,107 TOTAL $ 941 21,264 64,087 1,555 77 29,256 17,109 1,961 85,225 -14,538 36,013 21,925 83,074 34,353 5,268 19,597 14,330 1,946 30,112 35,157 6,019 4,832 202,575.E FR4ut 18,754 12,213 � pew 34,892 $791,073 FUTURE 18"D.LP i ib 0 "A. 4�0 i, TAT 10 lb lb h13 0 Ia." . p" a goo zoo foo ase - a j3 CASING tFUTURE 240 D.I.P I' a. 5M� FUT&E 6WATE�t RESE.� 1 n •. \� \ 010 �l` i .. I35 -E UTILITY CROSSINGS ASSESSMENTS FIGURE No -20 DEERWOOD DRIVE WATRRMAIN CROSSING EAGAN , 14INNESOTA i ASSESSMENT LATERAL BENEFIT i FROM TRUNK WATERMAIN= I FUTURE 18"D.LP i ib 0 "A. 4�0 i, TAT 10 lb lb h13 0 Ia." . p" a goo zoo foo ase - a j3 CASING tFUTURE 240 D.I.P I' a. 5M� FUT&E 6WATE�t RESE.� 1 n •. \� \ 010 �l` i .. I35 -E UTILITY CROSSINGS ASSESSMENTS FIGURE No -20 DEERWOOD DRIVE WATRRMAIN CROSSING EAGAN , 14INNESOTA E ITRAIL F ASSESSMENT LATERAL STORM SEWER (RATE/,17:I Exist. 24" //// oec'—/1J 'a ,. � FUTURE EXTENSIONS � BY CITY —265---z41301 12° \ L265'-24•• CONNECT o, TO EXISTING °0010 -SO / K4' \0o I'd I35 -E UTILITY CROSSINGS ASSESSMENTS FIGURE No -25 DEERWOOD DRIVE STOItM SEWER 7-.A.r' AN. MINNESOTA •— Pit:._ t'm r � 11 -gar m �" 1111 Proposed 1 I Assml. Area r R l I ` as ...Apnlgll q ` �--- f, a._ T Proposed Assm't. Area I35 -E UTILITY CROSSINGS TRUNK AREA STORM SEWER FIGURE No. 24 EAGAN ., MINNESOTA 50 TIUL OI F.F. LAK RIDGE ACRES F R:T AQD I -35E UTILITY CROSSINGS ASSESSMENTS FIGURE No.27 DEERWOOD DRIVE STREET,SIDEWALK & TRAIL IMPROVEMENTS 012.28 010.25 NWi 1/4 SEC. 21 nr ERWJ D DR ww", ci0- 010-25 010-50 1 010-08 010-78 111111 1 I� 1 I APPENDIX A PRELIMINARY ASSESSMENT ROLL I-35 UTILITY CROSSINGS AND STREET IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 372 I. WATER MAIN A) Lateral Benefit from Trunk (Deerwood Drive West End) Assessable Parcel Footage Rate/F.F. NW 1/4 Section 21 012-28 100, $16.90 SW 1/4 Section 21 —> 010-50 100' $16.90 Total II. SANITARY SEWER A) Lateral Benefit from Trunk (Effress Addition Extension) Assessable Parcel Footage Rate/F.F. SW 1/4 Section 10 . 010-56 100, $18.10 B) Lateral (Deerwood Drive West End) NW 1/4 SECTION 21 012-28 Actual Cost Page 49. 3554b Total Assessment.. $1,690 1,690 cc $3,380 Total Assessment $1,810 $2,450 III. STORM SEWER A) Trunk Area Storm Sewer (Fixture No. 11) 609,915 300,160 43,568 1,416,240 416,756 Page 50. 3554b �1 $0.045/s.f.(2) 27,446 $0.057/s.f.(3) 17,109 $0.045/s.f. 1,961 $0.045/s.f. $0.045/s.f. 63,731x- 18,754 $216,925 Total Area Credit Assess. Area Assessment Total Parcel (Sq.ft.) (Sq.ft.) (Sq.ft.) Rate Assessment NE 1/4 SECTION 10 (1)$ 010-01 13,837 -- 13,837 $0.068/s.f. 941 010-02 390,885 Street 20% 312,708 $0.068/s.f. 21,264 010-05 1,195,575 Pond 17,500 942,460 $0.068/s.f. 64,087 (3) Multi -Family Rate Street 20% NW 1/4 SECTION 10 010-57 22,863 -- 22,863 $0.068/s.f. 1,555 ., 030-26 1,137 -- 1,137 $0.068/s.f. 77 609,915 300,160 43,568 1,416,240 416,756 Page 50. 3554b �1 $0.045/s.f.(2) 27,446 $0.057/s.f.(3) 17,109 $0.045/s.f. 1,961 $0.045/s.f. $0.045/s.f. 63,731x- 18,754 $216,925 SW 1/4 SECTION 10 010-56 1,037,194 Pond 274,800 Street 20% 010-57 375,200 Street 20% 020-56 43,568 SW 1/4 SECTION 21 —X010-50 1,770,300 Street 20%. 011-51 520,945 Street 20% A (1) Commercial -Industrial Rate (2) Single Family Rate (3) Multi -Family Rate 609,915 300,160 43,568 1,416,240 416,756 Page 50. 3554b �1 $0.045/s.f.(2) 27,446 $0.057/s.f.(3) 17,109 $0.045/s.f. 1,961 $0.045/s.f. $0.045/s.f. 63,731x- 18,754 $216,925 B) Lateral Storm Sewer a) Deerwood Drive (West End) Assessable Total Parcel Footage Rate/F.F. Assessment NW 1/4 SECTION 21 012-28 265' $69.83 $ 18,505 SW 1/4 SECTION 21 :>010-50 265' 69.83 18,505 530' $ 37,010 b) Federal Drive (West Frontage Road) NE 1/4 SECTION 16 010-04 1,320' $ 9.24 $ 12,196 010-07 ♦6001e, 9.24 -•5,544•. 020-06 305" 9.24 2,818 ' Bicentennial 6th Addition Lot 1, Block 1 313.67 $ 9.24 $ 2,898 SE 1/4 SECTION 16 010-81 010-82 2,145' $ 9.24 $ 19,818 887' 9.24 8,195 SW 1/4 SECTION 16 010-50 136' $ 9.24 $ 1,257 Blackhawk Hills Addition Outlot B 506' $ 9.24 $ 4,675 Outlot C 370' 9.24 3,419 6,582.67 $ 60,820 c) Diffley Road (Co.Rd. No. 30) SE 1/4 SECTION 20 Hillandale Addition No. 1 Outlot C 355.22 $ 9.29 (1) $ 3,300 NE 1/4 SECTION 29 020-05 433.50 9.29 4,027 788.72 $ 7,327 (1) To determine assessment rate non -assessable footage was included: (788.72 + 940.64 m 1729.36, Assessment Rate - $16,070/1729.36 a $9.29/F.F. Page 51. 3554b 66 (1) $29.49(2) $ 1,946 348.70 $29.49 - $ 10,284 167.72 $29.49 $ 4,947 134.67 29.49 3,971 3,048.92 $29.49 $ 89,914 -rzz- 304.08 $29.49 $ 8,968 4,C70.19 $120,030 (1) Previous one-half of front footage was assessed as part of Project #277. It is, therefore, proposed to assess remaining one-half as part of this project. (2) Residential Equivalent Rate. Page 52. 3554b J3 IV. STREET A) DEERWOOD DRIVE a.) Street j SE 1/4 SECTION 20 i Oak Ridge Acres First Addition Lot 5, Block 1 I NW 1/4 SECTION 21 Parcel 012-28 NE 1/4 SECTION 21 Parcel 010-08 Parcel 020-08 23- SW 1/4 SECTION 21 —j Parcel 010-50 SE 1/4 SECTION 21 Parcel 010-76 66 (1) $29.49(2) $ 1,946 348.70 $29.49 - $ 10,284 167.72 $29.49 $ 4,947 134.67 29.49 3,971 3,048.92 $29.49 $ 89,914 -rzz- 304.08 $29.49 $ 8,968 4,C70.19 $120,030 (1) Previous one-half of front footage was assessed as part of Project #277. It is, therefore, proposed to assess remaining one-half as part of this project. (2) Residential Equivalent Rate. Page 52. 3554b J3 Assessable Footage. 2,395.38 304.08 2,699.46 348.70 167.72 134.67 653.54 1,304.63 Page 53. Total Rate/F.F. Assessment $10.67 $ 24,559 10.67 3,245 $ 27,804 $ 6.39 $ 2,228 $ 6.39 $ 1,072 6.39 b) Sidewalk 6.39 4,176 �— Parcel SW 1/4 SECTION 21 —� 010-50 SE 1/4 SECTION 21 010-76 c) Trailwav NW 1/4 SECTION 21 012-28 NE 1/4 SECTION 21 010-08 020-08 SW 1/4 SECTION 21 —>010-50 3554b Assessable Footage. 2,395.38 304.08 2,699.46 348.70 167.72 134.67 653.54 1,304.63 Page 53. Total Rate/F.F. Assessment $10.67 $ 24,559 10.67 3,245 $ 27,804 $ 6.39 $ 2,228 $ 6.39 $ 1,072 6.39 861 6.39 4,176 �— $ 8,337 N I -35E UTILITY CROSSINGS ASSESSMENTS 010-25 W FIGURE No. 27 1 DEERWOOD DRIVE NW 1/4 SEC. 21 W STREET,SIDEWALK & s TRAIL IMPROVEMENTS I 010.08 E zo 21 012•2e 1 010- 25 FEFERwO 6--DR- 50 OTOTAL FG I FF. TGRf I 010-50 iAk RIDGE ACRES F RST A D. 3 4 5 010-50 OFF Ak. 00 �O LEGEND: SWII/4 SEC. 21 01000 STREET BIB. IQUIV. (BATS/F.F.) r CONC. SIDEWALK (RATE/F.F.) G� BIT. TRAIL (HATE/F.Fj �r 66(1) $29.49(2) $ 1,946 348.70 $29.49 $ 10,284 167.72 $29.49 $ 4,947 134.67 29.49 3,971 3,048.92 $29.49 $ 89,914 304.08 $29.49 $ 8,968 4,070.19 $120,030 (1) Previous one-half of front footage was assessed as part of Project #277. It is, therefore, proposed to assess remaining one-half as part of this project. (2) Residential Equivalent Rate. : —:• Page 52. 3554b IV. STREET A) DEERWOOD DRIVE a.) Street SE 1/4 SECTION 20 Oak Ridge Acres First Addition Lot 5, Block 1 NW 1/4 SECTION 21 Parcel 012-28 NE 1/4 SECTION 21 Parcel 010-08 Parcel 020-08 SW 1/4 SECTION 21 Parcel 010-50 SE 1/4 SECTION 21 Parcel 010-7@ 66(1) $29.49(2) $ 1,946 348.70 $29.49 $ 10,284 167.72 $29.49 $ 4,947 134.67 29.49 3,971 3,048.92 $29.49 $ 89,914 304.08 $29.49 $ 8,968 4,070.19 $120,030 (1) Previous one-half of front footage was assessed as part of Project #277. It is, therefore, proposed to assess remaining one-half as part of this project. (2) Residential Equivalent Rate. : —:• Page 52. 3554b b) Sidewalk Assessable Total Parcel Footage. Rate/F.F. Assessment SW 1/4 SECTION 21 010-50 2,395.38 $10.67 $ 24,559 SE 1/4 SECTION 21 �> 010-78 304.08 10.67 3,245 2,699.46 $ 27,804 c) Trailwav NW 1/4 SECTION 21 012-28 348.70 .$ 6.39 $ 2,228 NE 1/4 SECTION 21 010-08 167.72 $ 6.39 $ 1,072 020-08 134.67 6.39 861 SW 1/4 SECTION 21 010-50 653.54 6.39 4,176 1,304.63 $ 8,337 i Page 53. 3554b l� e. POLICY # 82-5 STR= ASSESSMENT - STATE AND COUNTY ROAD CCNSTRUCTION SU=.Zr: Determination of zoning equivalent street assessments for property adjacent to State and/or County -funded roadway construction. POLICY: Properties adjacent to road. -jay imarovements that incorporate cost participation by the City in carbiraticn with Federal, State and/or County funds should be assessed an amount equal to the benefit received as determined by the predetermined equivalent front foot assessment rate for the appropriate zoning classification of the benefited property irregardless of the ratio of financial contribution by any outside funding source involved. OBJECTIVE-: To insure that all property located within the City of Fagan ultimately pays its fair share for benefit received from new and/or upgraded roadway improvements adjacent to that proper- ty. JUSTIFICATION: Due to the fact that there are different levels of service C;• and classifications for streets within the City of Eagan, there are respective different construction costs associated with providing street thoroughfares to their different con- struction design criteria standards. Therefore, it is felt that a specific property should not have to be responsible for any oversizing costs above and beyond that which would normally be required to service that specific zoned parcel of land to current City standards. All oversizing costs are then absorbed and beocre the responsibility of the City's Major Street Construction Fund. Because the City's Major Street Construction Fund has several sources of revenue (i.e, MSAS funds, major road mill levy, road unit charge surcharge, grants, etc.), it is determined that an unequal advantage would be realized by a specific parcel of land whose adjacent street could potentially qualify for some specific outside finding source. Therefore, because the benefit received frau the improved roadway remains the same irreoardless of the source of funds, the assessment should be based on the bene- fit received as determined by the annual zoning classifica- tion equivalent rate and should not take into consideration any financial contribution towards the construction from an outside source and/or agency. Reviewed and acted upon by: CITY COL:.CIL: SPflVIAL ASSESSMCIr CCtTIIT'=: X_ Approved 7 -G -5x Date X Approved 6-14-82 Date Denied Date _ Denied Date / tV • SAC 1/16/86 SPECIAL ASSESSMENT POLICY #86-1 Sidewalk/Trailway Assessment SUBJECT: Assessmentsf-Tor the installation of concrete and/or bituminous trailways and sidewalks. POLICY: Sidewalks and trailways shall be installed in accordance with the City of Eagan's master street and trailway plan ,which also incorporates related County and State installations. At the time of Council adoption of a project, through the public hearing process, sidewalks and trailways shall be assessed at the City's rate in effect at the time of the public hearing against all properties zoned Multiple R tial R-3 ommercial, Institu lona or Public Facility (P or pu s oseo this policy, land use —guide plans and planned unit developments (P.U.D.) shall not be considered as existing zoning at the time of the public hearing. Properties zoned agricultural (Ag), single family (R-1) or duplex (R-2) shall not be assessed for any costs associated with the installation of sidewalks or trailways. If applicable, properties that are subsequently rezoned at a later date to a higher q ,a]`fying zoning classification shall be assessed at the rates in effect at the time o t e rezoning as a cond3Eion of development approval in accordance with policy #82-1. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this policy is to require higher density residential developments, commercial property, public facilities. and institutions to participate in the cost of the installation of sidewalks and trailways which are necessary due to the pedestrian traffic generated and/or benefitted by these off-street improvements. JUSTIFICATION: Due to the fact that agricultural zoned property does not generate pedestrian traffic and taking into consideration the fact that single family (R-1) and duplex lots (R-2) are not allowed frontage on collector and arterial streets where sidewalks and trailways are constructed, the benefit associated with the related sidewalks and trailways are minimized accordingly. However, multiple SAC 1/16/86 SPECIAL ASSESSMENT POLICY NUMBER 86-1 PAGE 2 residential, commercial, institutional and public facilities generate the need for off-street pedestrian access. They should be assessed the related costs associated with their appropriate zoning. Reviewed and acted upon by: CITY COUNCIL: SPECIAL ASSESSMENT COMMITTEE: Approved Date Approved Date Denied Date Denied Date 2- ID SAC 1/16/86 B. PROJECT 447, LONE OAK ADDITION - TRUNK WATER MAIN (T.H. 149) Willard Berfelz (10-03800-010-12) BACKGROUND INFORMATION On August 6, a public hearing was held for the installation of a trunk water main along T.H. 149 from Yankee Doodle Rd to T.H. 55 to provide additional water supply and pressure to the Lone Oak Addition (Northwest Airlines Corporate Headquarters) and the proposed Robins Addition adjacent to I-494 and T.H. 149. Enclosed on page 37 is the assessment objection as submitted by Mr. Berfelz requesting consideration by the Assessment Committee. Enclosed on pages 38 - 38-B are maps showing the location of Mr. Berfelz's property in relationship to the proposed improvement. Also enclosed on pages 39 - 41 are copies of the proposed final assessment roll showing the calculated assessable footage and related assessments. Although this property is present ly,,,usedas—a-�single family resi- dential dwelling, it is zoned light/industrial (,LI). Subsequently, the propose,d76sessmr�ent rate used � n—project-447 was at the commer- cial/industlrial - e. Special Assessment Policy #82-2 (page 41-A) .presen.t.ly__'�provides for this property to be assessed at its present use instead of its existing zoning if the property owner executes the required agreements (page 41-B). As can be seen on page 38-A, this property has a triangular confi- guration with an excessive mnnnf of f ontagealong T.H. 149 in relationship to the -size and depth of the parcel. Present Special Assessment Policies indicate that the assessable. frontage for these types of lots should be the average of the front and rear footage (270 + 0)„ 2 = 135 ft. If the the as the assessable footage policy had been implemented and if property owner executes the agreement document on page 41-B, pending assessment could be reduced by existing policies follows: Lateral Benefit Total Service Assessment 135 x 11.88/ff = $1,603.80 $620.00 $2,223.80 STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS If the property owner executes the agreement for Special Assessment Policy #82-2, the staff recommends that the rate be reduced to the agricultural/single family rate. In addition, the staff recommends that the assessable footage be reduced to 135 feet in accordance with present policies. COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS/COMM J fO N y7 RECEIVED AL16 - G ` Btr- - - -//� _ _ �.-,.— - _ -p tet_ ��a�•e . ------ \ %OSS ADD. � I � GSA.H. No. 26 sL,b«t PAW EL SUBDIVISION 0' 500' 1000' BONESTROO. ROSENE..ANDERLIK LONE OAK ADDITION & ASSOCIATES. INC. TRUNK HIGHWAY 149 Consulting Engineers St. Paul, Minn. TRUNK WATERMAIN Date: JUNE, 19e5 PROJ. No. EAGAN, MINNESOTA Comm. 49359 1 1 447 f /C� \ Cd • PART OF INTI■. O S N4 \ i A �O� a LOT 12 AUD. SUB. Na 38 1 I 010-28 LOT 8 --186.0-- i .;:y 82366.8: m M / ` 26 tS.SO (RES) r '-EAST g11.9B-. t sE�M nV 0 57 IRA, .90 t n CHD=48.81 R-100 .. 2 "- FART OF _ o -W�p 010-30 . `. m , $ H A R• 15 �1o \. N a^ A, 38 q� _ APPENDIX B PRELIMINARY ASSESSMENT ROLL LONE OAK ADDITION TRUNK WATER MAIN PROJECT NO. 447 I. LATERAL BENEFIT FROM TRUNK 8598c 3 Assessable Footage Total Legal Description (Front Foot) Rate/F.F. Assessment SECTION 12, SW% Parcel 010-30 100 $20.07 $ 2,007.00 Parcel 010-52 115 20.07 2,308.015 Parcel 010-53 1,095 20.07 21,976.65 Parcel 010-54 890 20.07 17,862.30 Parcel 010-55 (W. side T.H. 149) 815 20.07 16,357.05 Parcel 010-55 (E. side T.H. 149) 1,125 20.07 22,578.75 Parcel 020-52 125 20.07 2,508.75 Parcel 030-52 320 12.18 3,897.60 Parcel 050-52 225 12.18 2,740.50 SECTION 12, NA Parcel 010-27 475 $20.07 $ 9,533.25 Parcel 010-28 155 20.07 3,110.85 Parcel 010-29 310 20.07 6,221.70 Parcel 010-30" 380 20.07 7,626.60 Aud. Subd. No. 38, Lot 12 275 20.07 5,519.25 TOTALS 6,405 $124,248.30 8598c 3 II. TRUNK AREA WATER ASSESSMENT SECTION 12. NWk Parcel 020-25 0.71 $1,190 Total Legal Description Assessable Area Rate/Ac. Assessment SECTION 12, SVh Parcel 010-28 2.69 $1,190 $ 3,201.10 Lot 2 0.37 1,190 440.30 Parcel 010-51 20.12(1) 1,190 23,942.80 Parcel 010-54 7.74(1) 1,190 .9,210.60 Parcel 010-55 19.40(1) 1,190 23,086.00 SECTION 12. NWk Parcel 020-25 0.71 $1,190 $ 844.90 Parcel 030-25 4.52(1) 1,190 5,378.80 Moss Addition: Lot 1 1.09 1,190 1,297.10 Lot 2 0.37 1,190 440.30 SECTION 12. SEAL Parcel 010-79(2) 24.00(1 6 2) 1,190 28,560.00 TOTALS 99.59 $ 95,961.60 (1) Includes 20% credit for future streets. (2) Includes 1.36 acre credit for storm water ponding area. III. SERVICES Legal Description SECTION 12, NWf Parcel 010-27 Aud. Subd. No. 38, Lot 12 SECTION 12, Sw� Parcel 010-30 Parcel 030-52 Parcel 050-52 8598c TOTAL "F� . ye4 Total Number Services Assessment 1 $ 620 1 620 49*� 1 $ 620 1 620 1 620 $3,100 SUMMARY PRELIMINARY ASSESSMENT ROLL PROJECT NO. 447 Parcel Lateral Benefit Total Description From Trunk Trunk Area Services Assessment SECTIO Pa el 010- $ 3,201.10 $ 3,201.10 Parce 010-30 $ 2,007.00 $ 620 2,627.00 Parcel 010-51 23,942.80 23,942.80 Parcel 010-52 2,308.05 2,308.05 Parcel 010-53 21,976.65 21,976.65 Parcel 010-54 17,862.30 9,210.60 27,072.90 Parcel 010-55 38,935.80 23,086.00 62,021.80 Parcel 020-52 2,508.75 2,508.75 Parcel 030-52 3,897.60 620 4,517.60 Parcel 050-52 2,740.50 620 3,360.50 SECTION 12, NVk Parcel 010-27 $ 9,533.25 $ 620 $ 10,153.25 Parcel 010-28 3,110.85 3,110.85 Parcel 010-29 6,221.70 6,221.70 Parcel 010-30 7,626.60 7,626.60 Parcel 020-25 $ 844.90 844.90 Parcel 030-25 5,378.80 5,378.80 SECTION 12, SE'2 Parcel 010-79 $28,560.00 $ 28,560.00 AUDITOR'S SUBDIVISION NO. 38 �r- Lot 12 $ 5,519.25 $ 620 $ 6,139.25 MOSS ADDITION Lot 1 $ 1,297.10 $ 1,297.10 Lot 2 440.30 440.30 TOTALS $124,248.30 $95,961.60 $3,100 $223,309.90 8598c -AaSaA • ' POLICY # 82-2 EXISTING LAND USE VS ZONING SUBJECT: Assessments against land whose present use is different'frcm the current underlying zoning. POLICY: Where the existing land use is different (less than the high- est and best use permitted by current zoning) than the current underlying zoning, all trunk area and/or lateral benefit assess- ments against the property in question shall be levied in ac- oordance with the current underlying zoning and not in accor- dance with the current land use unless the attached standard agreement is notorized and executed by all persons holding in- terest in the title to the property. fixture rates would be cal- culated in accordance with Policy 82-1. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this policy is to provide a method by which pro- perty owners whose land is developed at a use that is less than permitted by the current zoning, may receive consideration for assessments being levied in accordance with the property's pre- sent use and defer the additional assessments until the current use is upgraded to a use permitted by the underlying zoning. JUSTIFICATION: While trunk utilities are planned, designed and constructed based on the highest and best use of all property in the City in accordance with the Comprehensive Guide Plan and/or current zoning, their benefit is not fully realized by land that is presently developed at a use less than allowed by the current zoning. Further, if the property is presently developed at a different use, it is assumed that it would not change in the foreseeable future. Reviewed and acted upon by: CITY COUNCIL: SPECIAL ASSESSEZ?r MMITI£E: ;K _ Approved 7-6_bZ Date . X Approved 6-14-82 Date Denied _ Date L11 A _ Denied Date Ci% r l CITY OF EAGAN ASSESSMENT AGREEMENT LAND USE DIFFERS FROM ZONING PROJECT NO. 447 THIS AGREEMENT dated this day of '198 , between the CITY OF EAGAN, (called City), and Willar & er ru a Berfelz (called Owner) of 3285 Dodd Road , (address); WHEREAS, the City proposes to assess the following described premises owned by Owner: (legal description) Lot 12, Auditor's Subdivision $38 for the following improvements pursuant to City Project 447 Lateral Benefit from Trunk Watermain WHEREAS, such assessments would normally be based upon the present zoning classification of said premises, that is, Light Industrial ; and WHEREAS,. the present use of said property is different from said zoning classification and if zoned at the present use, assessments would be for Single Family Residential (R-1) zoning. . NOW THEREFORE, upon consideration of the mutual covenants herein, the parties agree as follows: 1. The City agrees to assess said property for the Project and purposes described above as if it were zoned Single Family at the rates now in existence for property so zoned. Resi en is R-1) 2. The Owner agrees for himself, his heirs, executors, administrators, successors, and'assigns, that if the actual use of said property is changed in the future to a use or zoning category which is assessable at a higher rate than the rate for the present use, the City may reassess or levy a supple- mental assessment at such time equal to the difference between the assessment for the new land use and the assessment for the present land use at the assessment rates, according to City policy, in effect at such future time. 3. The Owner, for himself, his heirs, executors, administrators, successors and assigns, further waives notice of any and all hearings necessary and waives any and all objections to the present or future assessments agreed to herein. or to the proceedings related thereto and waives the right to appeal such assessments. 4. Other conditions: None The undersigned have read and understand the above agreement and hereby bind themselves to it in all respects. OWNER CITY OF EAGAN Willard Berfelz Gertrude Berfelz This Document Drafted B Hauge, Smith, Eide &. Keller, P.A. - 3908 Sibley Memorial Highway Eagan, Minnesota 55122 By: Its Mayor Attest: Its Clerk APPROVED: Public Works Director EXEMPT FROM STATE DEED TAX 441-,13 w V SAC 1/16/86 B. PROJECT 447, LONE OAK ADDITION - TRUNK WATER MAIN (T.H. 149) 1. Willard Berfelz (10-03800-010-12) BACKGROUND INFORMATION On August 6, a public hearing was held for the installation of a trunk water main along T.H. 149 from Yankee Doodle Road to T.H. 55 to provide additional water supply and pressure to the Lone Oak Addition (Northwest Airlines Corporate Headquarters) and the proposed Robins Addition adjacent to I-494 and T.H. 149. Enclosed on page(,`) 437 is the assessment objection as submitted by Mr. Berfelz requesting, consider ation by the � Assessment Committee. Enclosed on page(s) - is a map showing the location of Mr. Berfelz's property in relationship to the proposed improvement. Also enclosed on page(s) %3f X1 is a copy of the proposed final assessment roll showing the calculated assessable footage and related assessments. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Due to the fact that a utility service is being provided to Mr. Berfelz's property and that his parcel does not qualify for any ,other type of reduction—or—deferment, it is recommended that the assessment as proposed be reaffirmd. COMMITTEE Os II. TRUNK AREA WATER ASSESSMENT Legal Description Assessable Area SECTION 12, SVh Parcel 010-28 2.69 Parcel 010-51 20.12(1) Parcel 010-54 7.74(1) Parcel 010-55 19.40(1) SECTION 12. NW% Parcel 020-25 Parcel 030-25 Moss Addition: Lot 1 Lot 2 SECTION 12. SEk 0.71 4.52(1) 1.09 0.37 Rate/Ac. $1,190 1,190 1,190 1,190 $1,190 1,190 1,190 1,190 Parcel 010-79(2) 24.00(1 6 2) 1,190 TOTALS 99.59 (1) Includes 202 credit for future streets. (2) Includes 1.36 acre credit for storm water ponding area. III. SERVICES Legal Description SECTION 12, N* Parcel 010-27 -pp Aud. Subd. No. 38, Lot 12 SECTION 12, W4 Parcel 010-30 Parcel 030-52 Parcel 050-52 TOTAL 8598c� Number Services 1 1 Total $ 3,201.10 23,942.80 9,210.60 23,086.00 $ 844.90 5,378.80 1,297.10 440.30 28,560.00 $ 95,961.60 Total Assessment $ 620 �;:..... 620 A*� $ 620 620 620 $3,100 Q.D C3 LLJ ::I.b w L) LLJ ot a SECTION 12. SE% Parcel 010-79(2) 24.00(1 6 2) 1,190 TOTALS 99.59 (1) Includes 20% credit for future streets. (2) Includes 1.36 acre credit for storm water ponding area. III. SERVICES Legal Description SECTION 12, N04 Parcel 010-27 .....Jpp Aud. Subd. No. 38, Lot 12 SECTION 12, S* Parcel 010-30 Parcel 030-52 Parcel 050-52 TOTAL 8598c$ Number Services 1 1 Total Assessment $ 3,201.10 23,942.80 9,210.60 23,086.00 $ 844.90 5,378.80 1,297.10 440.30 28,560.00 $ 95,961.60 Total Assessment $ 620 <: 620 $ 620 620 620 $3,100 111 II. TRUNK AREA WATER ASSESSMENT Legal Description Assessable Area Rate/Ac. SECTION 12, S* Parcel 010-28 2.69 $1,190 Parcel 010-51 20.12(1) 1,190 Parcel 010-54 7.74(1) 1,190 Parcel 010-55 19.40(l) 1,190 SECTION 12, NWk Parcel 020-25 0.71 $1,190 Parcel 030-25 4.52(1) 1,190 Moss Addition: Lot 1 1.09 1,190 Lot 2 0.37 1,190 SECTION 12. SE% Parcel 010-79(2) 24.00(1 6 2) 1,190 TOTALS 99.59 (1) Includes 20% credit for future streets. (2) Includes 1.36 acre credit for storm water ponding area. III. SERVICES Legal Description SECTION 12, N04 Parcel 010-27 .....Jpp Aud. Subd. No. 38, Lot 12 SECTION 12, S* Parcel 010-30 Parcel 030-52 Parcel 050-52 TOTAL 8598c$ Number Services 1 1 Total Assessment $ 3,201.10 23,942.80 9,210.60 23,086.00 $ 844.90 5,378.80 1,297.10 440.30 28,560.00 $ 95,961.60 Total Assessment $ 620 <: 620 $ 620 620 620 $3,100 111 0 44 � « r 0 sib,/• «•r PARCELI- Ea 20- D.1. 010-27 Ou-50 010-51 ADD. 010-53 \\\ 010-54 010-53 \i\ \ U I LONE OAK ADDITION TRUNK HIGHWAY 149 TRUNK WATERMAIN EAGAN, MINNESOTA 010-79 012-80 I Ea ' D.I.P. L 1 020-57 010-55 010-57 010 -56 BONESTROO• ROSENE..ANDERLIK & ASSOCIATES. INC. Consulting Engineers St. Paul. Minn. Date: JUNE, 1985 PROD. NO. Comm. 49359 447 APPENDIX B PRELIMINARY ASSESSMENT ROLL LONE OAK ADDITION TRUNK WATER MAIN PROJECT NO. 447 I. LATERAL BENEFIT FROM TRUNK 8598c 3 Assessable Footage Total Legal Description (Front Foot) Rate/F.F. Assessment SECTION 12, S* Parcel 010-30 100 $20.07 $ 2,007.00 Parcel 010-52 115 20.07 2,308.05 Parcel 010-53 1,095 20.07 21,976.65 Parcel 010-54 890 20.07 17,862.30 Parcel 010-55 (W. side T.H. 149) 815 20.07 16,357.05 Parcel 010-55 (E. side T.N. 149) 1,125 20.07 22,578.75 Parcel 020-52 125 20.07 2,508.75 Parcel 030-52 320 12.18 3,897.60 Parcel 050-52 225 12.18 2,740.50 SECTION 12, NA Parcel 010-27 475 $20.07 $ 9,533.25 Parcel 010-28 155 20.07 3,110.85 Parcel 010-29 310 20.07 6,221.70 Parcel 010-30 380 20.07 7,626.60 Aud. Subd. No. 38, Lot 12 275 20.07 5,519.25 TOTALS 6,405 $124,248.30 8598c 3 SECTION 12. NW14 Total Rate/Ac. Assessment $1,190 $ 3,201.10 1,190 II. TRUNK AREA WATER ASSESSMENT .9,210.60 Legal Description Assessable Area SECTION 12, S* Parcel 010-28 2.69 Parcel 010-51 20.12(1) Parcel 010-54 7.74(1) Parcel 010-55 19.40(1) SECTION 12. NW14 Parcel 020-25 0.71 $1,190 Parcel 030-25 4.52(1) 1,190 Moss Addition: Lot 1 1.09 1,190 Lot 2 0.37 1,190 SECTION 12. SEAL Parcel 010-79(2) 24.00(1 6 2) 1,190 TOTALS 99.59 (1) Includes 20% credit for future streets. (2) Includes 1.36 acre credit for storm water ponding area. III. SERVICES Legal Description SECTION 12, NW$ Parcel 010-27 �p Aud. Subd. No. 38, Lot 12 SECTION 12, SA Parcel 010-30 Parcel 030-52 Parcel 050-52 TOTAL 8598c Number Services 1 1 $ 844.90 5,378.80 1,297.10 440.30 28,560.00 $ 95,961.60 Total Assessment $ 620 620 $ 620 620 620 $3,100 Total Rate/Ac. Assessment $1,190 $ 3,201.10 1,190 23,942.80 1,190 .9,210.60 1,190 23,086.00 Parcel 020-25 0.71 $1,190 Parcel 030-25 4.52(1) 1,190 Moss Addition: Lot 1 1.09 1,190 Lot 2 0.37 1,190 SECTION 12. SEAL Parcel 010-79(2) 24.00(1 6 2) 1,190 TOTALS 99.59 (1) Includes 20% credit for future streets. (2) Includes 1.36 acre credit for storm water ponding area. III. SERVICES Legal Description SECTION 12, NW$ Parcel 010-27 �p Aud. Subd. No. 38, Lot 12 SECTION 12, SA Parcel 010-30 Parcel 030-52 Parcel 050-52 TOTAL 8598c Number Services 1 1 $ 844.90 5,378.80 1,297.10 440.30 28,560.00 $ 95,961.60 Total Assessment $ 620 620 $ 620 620 620 $3,100 Parcel Description SECTION 12, S* Parcel 010-28 Parcel 010-30 Parcel 010-51 Parcel 010-52 Parcel 010-53 Parcel 010-54 Parcel 010-55 Parcel 020-52 Parcel 030-52 Parcel 050-52 SECTION 12, NVh Parcel 010-27 Parcel 010-28 Parcel 010-29 Parcel 010-30 Parcel 020-25 Parcel 030-25 SUMMARY PRELIMINARY ASSESSMENT ROLL PROJECT NO. 447 Lateral Benefit Total From Trunk Trunk Area Services Assessment $ 2,007.00 2,308.05 21,976.65 17,862.30 38,935.80 2,508.75 3,897.60 2,740.50 $ 9,533.25 3,110.85 6,221.70 7,626.60 SECTION 12, SES Parcel 010-79 AUDITOR'S SUBDIVISION NO. 38 �-� Lot 12 $ 5,519.25 MOSS ADDITION Lot 1 Lot 2 TOTALS 8598c $124,248.30 $ 3,201.10-- $ 3,201.10 $ 620 2,627.00 23,942.80 23,942.80 2,308.05 21,976.65 9,210.60 27,072.90 23,086.00 62,021.80 2,508.75 620 4,517.60 620 3,360.50 $ 620 $ 10,153.25 3,110.85 6,221.70 7,626.60 $ 844.90 844.90 5,378.80 5,378.80 $28,560.00 $ 28,560.00 $ 620 $ 6,139.25 $ 1,297.10 $ 1,297.10 •440.30 440.30 $95,961.60 $3,100 $223,309.90 SAC 1/16/86 A. PROJECT 427, YANKEE DOODLE RD - STREETS 8 STORM SEWER - ASSESSMENT OBJECTIONS 1. Don Sandberg (10-01600-010 BACKGROUND INFORMATION On October 15, 1985, the public hearing was held to discuss the proposed improvement under project 427 for Yankee Doodle Rd from T.H. 13 to Federal Dr. This improvement provides for the upgrading of Yankee Doodle Rd from a present two lane, rural ditch section .. to a four lane road with concrete curb .and gutter and related storm sewer facilities.. Enclosed on page(s) ..2J is aletter submitted by Mr. Sandberg requesting consideration by the Special Assessment Committee pertaining to the amount of his related assessments under this project. Enclosed on pagescbPO a 6 are maps showing the location of this parcel. Enclosed on page(s)oT 7.- o e is the proposed assessment roll identifying Mr. Sandbergs and the related street and storm sewer frontage calculations used for determining the amount of the assessments. Although Mr. Sandberg's property incorporates 390 feet of—f_r-ontage—a-l-ong Yankee_Do_odle_Rd, it is presently. homesteaded as a single family use_by Mr_.—Sandber.g... The future subdivision and development of this 7.5 ± acres is greatly hampered by the protected wetland incorporating the middle one—Ch';r_d-of his property Mr. Sandberg has requested consideration that his assessable frontage be reduced to take into consideration his present single family use and not the entire frontage due to the unlikelyhood of its future subdivision. STAFF RECOMMENDATION There is a similar policy that has been used by staff in the past when an existing dwelling wanted to connect to a trunk utility adjacent to thei ron a enreviously assesse . This norma y occurs in situations where the private we or septic system has failed and they want to connect to the City'-- system without changing the use of the property. If the following conditions could be met, the property would be assessed for only a comparable single family residential frontage: The parcel must be unplatted. The parcel must have a net area of 3 acres (excludes allpublicly dedicated right-of-way and ponding easements). �AMust have a minimum of 200' of frontage on the public right-of-way where the connection is being made. Due to the fact that Mr. Sandberg's property meets all of these qualifications and' that his "connection" will be a driveway to SAC 1/16/86 Page 2 PROJECT 427 - Don Sandberg (10-016-010-26) a "trunk" street in lieu of the utility connection where this policy has been previously applied, it is recommended that Mr. Sandberg's assessment be reduced to a comparable single family frontage of 100 feet and that the additional assessments associated with .the remaining frontage would be assessed at the time of rezoning or development to a higher use under Special Assessment Policy #82-1. COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS/COMMENTS . .. .... ... ..... W,.,-zt ic —41co DONALD I. SANDBERG 1560 YANKEE DOODLE ROAD EAGAN. MINNESOTA 55 121 16121 454-SO37 7-e tz GGA_ LCtA A - -4,2 I ,.11 41, - .7 . .. .... ... ..... W,.,-zt ic —41co DONALD I. SANDBERG 1560 YANKEE DOODLE ROAD EAGAN. MINNESOTA 55 121 16121 454-SO37 7-e tz GGA_ LCtA A - -4,2 I ,.11 41, - 0�7;'9111 City of Eagan Public Works 010-20 /� C 10-30 /er, . , Im- 0�7;'9111 .Blue nwaal own* — _ ----___ BLUE CROS$ ADDITION On -a r 011.58 moat ROBERT....,,. BARATZ ADDITION ...... 0 ... . 0.0.10* (0,0", ou.s] I o>o•n I I olo-LG EllW LETCNDRC z I J ru .—PS J 41 CENTURY —D0 _0 —_ 1 � t 0.0.29 D.C." soar •j-dlo•]L Y v}:{. e0nm . (. -1 BURR[T R[IGMB THIRD ADDITION lu ••. 1:. N N _ ::::•J: -•.. ••: •• :. S�O7ECT PARCEL 'J ,PCARY PARR —. —. a BUAREY GARDEN! ADDITION ] I M -M) N 0 ' ADDITI X ADDITION ] I M -M) FO4 RIpDC g ADDITI X 'J ................................................................. —. —. O Q.� Imo_—.—.—_ N W_ ---------------------- ..1 �~............. — II � ON-tr II � —.—.—.—. BP=RRY PARA 0 SUARCT GARDEN! %t t Er wo4n.__ .EW Buul 4erX.rlbe� ', 'J ................................................................. —. —. —.— ....r—_w......__..._'__= Q.� Imo_—.—.—_ ---------------------- ..1 �~............. CD 1 ,ICENTENIAL ]Y ADDITION BICENTENUI ADDITION \ E,ICDITDGAL Ya GG ]GDmON UMISHEIIICA AxxroA- A 76 Fact Cann Lot Crd] ■ 16 Foot Slam WA11a Pad 6611111 • 310 Foot Storm WSW Pad 6Wt *WATERMAN SERVICE ASSESSMENT COUNTY ROAD No. 28 UTILITY & STREET IMPROVEMENTS FRONT FOOTAGE ASSESSMENTS EAGAN, MINNESOTA STREET t STORM SEWER ASSESSMENTS ---_ RESIDENTIAL NOMESTTE ------ RESIDENTIAL / AGRICULTURAL _. MULTIPLE -- COMMERCIAL / INDUSTRIAL TRAILWAY ASSESSMENT BONESTROO, ROSENEA .ANDERLIK & ASSOCIATES, INC. Consulting Engineers St. Paul. Minn. Date:SeptembeE, 1985PROJ No. Comm. 49331 4 2 7 • 13 •w` YY �--- 39` _ P • 1' a T`B3Y ...�� i I� ' 11 1b61• �_�• ir olr J •1 k .,. i L Tb b _ ------- sa- `ww `YY ]�. T-821/!��`-`♦♦ -f "j' �, - `\ �. � .170_ �` w\' •• �� •r�.t�V t.� `r. � JfN �7 1,• `/TBS^o^ 1' _( . .� \ \�. /.. xeT,i •Y... I 'I. __ \ l �T8s7,.•r lie! is�D6 I.e . L � Fr ♦, r. - APPdOAiMg1[ tOViTO w - . �{ • �.`: I/¢ CORNER 1 1 Total Assessment 28,454.58 2,711.28 11,907.40 09 — 2,054.00 vW(— $45,127.26 $ 60,901.10 42,435.73 75,162:75 11,563.50 11,563.50 25,054.25 28,480.90 27,275.21 17,564.96 $300,001.90 APPENDIX C PRELIMINARY ASSESSMENT ROLL COUNTY ROAD NO. 28 STREET AND UTILITY IMPROVEMENTS ;,• PROJECT NO. 427 I. STREET AND STORM SEWER IMPROVEMENT A) Residential Equivalent Assessable Parcel Footage Rate/F.F. SECTION 9 010-79 Perron 693 $41.06 010-80 Gangl 132 20.54 SECTION 16 010-26 Sandberg: Agricultural 290 41.06 �Owl- Homesite 100 20.54 TOTAL ESTIMATED RESIDENTIAL EQUIVALENT ...................... B) Multiple Equivalent SECTION 8 023175 Kennedy 790 $77.09 SECTION 9 (1) Robert Karatz Addition Lot 12, Block 1 550.47, 77.09 SECTION 16 (2) 010-30 MN Hosp. Servs. Association 975.0 77.09 Blue Cross 5 Blue Shield of Minnesota: 012-29 150.00 77.09 011-29 150.00 77.09 (1) 012-27 Hay 325 77.09 (1) Surrey Heights Third Addition: Outlot A 369.45 77.09 Surrey Gardens: (1) Lot 1, Block 1 353.81 77.09 (1) Lot 2, Block 1 227.85 77.09 TOTAL ESTIMATED MULTIPLE EQUIVALENT ......................... a 7 Page 17. 9436c Total Assessment 28,454.58 2,711.28 11,907.40 09 — 2,054.00 vW(— $45,127.26 $ 60,901.10 42,435.73 75,162:75 11,563.50 11,563.50 25,054.25 28,480.90 27,275.21 17,564.96 $300,001.90 ,. Page 22. 9436c '? { Commercial/Industrial Residential Multiple Water Main Trunk Storm Total Parcel Equivalent Equivalent Equivalent Trailways Services Sewer Assessment NE 1/4, SECTION 17 BLUE CROSS ADDITION: Lot 1, Block 1 $75,011.97 $ 9,046.99 $ 84,058.96 NW 1/4, SECTION 16 010-30 MN Hosp. Serv. Assn. $ 75,162.75 $ 11,076.00 $ 3,136.67 89,375.42 012-29 Blue Cross 6 Blue Shield of MN Life Estate to Rahn 11,563.50 1,704.00 P3,267.50 011-29 Blue Cross 6 Blue Shield of MN 11,563.50 1,704.00 13,267.50 012-27 Hay 25,054.25 3,692.00 28,746.25 —�j 010-26 Sandberg $ 13,961.40 13,961.40 010-28 City of Eagan 8,006.15 965.60 8,971.75 ,. Page 22. 9436c '? { SAC 1/16/86 A. PROJECT 427, Yankee Doodle Road - Streets & Storm Sewer 2. YD Associates (Parcels No. 10-27500-010-01 No. 10-00900-011-52 No. 10-00900-020-52) BACKGROUND INFORMATION At the October 15, 1985, Council meeting, a public hearing was held for Project 427, which provided for the upgrading of Yankee Doodle Road from T.H. 13 to Federal Drive from its present two-lane rural ditch section to a four -lane urban street with concrete curb and gutter and related storm sewer facilities. Enclosed on page(s) .30 —3/ is the objection—to tthe -assessments for these three parcels as submitted by M william Muske at that public hearing. Enclosed on page(s) 0 is�a map showing the location of these three parcels in .the northeast corner of Yankee Doodle Road and Coachman Road. Also enclosed on page(s) p3��is the proposed final assessment roll showing the as- sessable footage for each parcel for its related street and storm sewer improvements. Mr. Muske contends that the assessments associated with these proposed improvements overburdens the property beyond the extend that it can be recovered through a future sale or development. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Due to the present zoning, anticipated future use of this property and its corner location, staff feels that this property does benefit by the proposed improvements and that the assessments should remain as proposed. COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS/COMMENTS STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF DAKOTA --------------------------- In Re Improvement Project No. 427 and the proposed assessments in connection therewith W0 RQ�PO4 DISTRICT COURT FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT C OQi eS Too. To.� C ol�r T OBJECTION TO ,I ASSESSMENTS Tonx tt�jge5 16tu.t Ra.u(Q_ THE HONORABLE MAYOR OR CLERK OF THE CITY OF EAGAN, DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA Pursuant to Minnesota Statute §429.061, the undersigned YD Associates hereby objects to the following improvements and proposed assessments to be considered by the City Council of Eagan, Minnesota on October 15, 1985, for the following described property: PARCEL NO. 10-27500-010-01 PARCEL NO. 10-00900-011-52 PARCEL NO. 10-00900-020-52 street, storm sewer, trailways, water and traffic signal improve- ments to Yankee Doodle Road between Highway,13 and Federal Drive identified as Project No. 427. This objections are made on the following grounds: the property is not benefited by the project; the proposed assessment exceeds the benefit to the property; the proposed assessment and improvement_== -- is contrary to Minnesota Statute Chapter 429; the proposed assess- ment and improvement is discriminatory and violates Appellant's constitutional rights of equal protection and due process of law. The property of the undersigned has been assessed for storm sewer, water and street improvements. In accordance with the above cited statute, please furnish the undersigned with certified copies of objections filed, the assessment roll, exact minutes authorizing the proposed assessment and improvement, affidavit of publication of notices involved herein, copies of resolutions, contracts or other instruments involving the project and agreement, if any, with other governmental units for participating in the cost of the project. Dated: A0 YD ASSOCIATES, a Limited Partnership BY: William H. Mu Ake General Pai}tier J 12-7-83 . ,• ��®� � 10 • �S 972 7A 812'3 REVISED1-27-84 ` 10-9-84 ur' Y 12-14-84 1-22-85 G ° Q --]1•• - -aY CI HO.-- � c: g 2 111, YGa Q` Vcum Oii•Ol ` Q LOT I f ' ('mAvx aOAD BLOCK.. LOCK 1 I {ISA -0 -DDG 0•\ I I m i • , YI... •OOYD• i•r• � L�-LW LLLLJ �' - yt es x010 [AmurT. rn jl uI/ •••• : - . a Ixl rT1• 1 1 ••• •• ,n .1 • ••+- see.00a0 ul[aea ru as Lnn,n.xr.. nu, 1 ; Lu I4 L 2 Q 1 r O D,r a[r•s,Y I « R I t.r e B rrr j' BLK. 1 � lc re �` 5 5 W04 ..,W. Os.,•�,� •-Y F',YO .� ya t Gi pUore n -"- S U B J E PARCEL • ' 0.' uu a+wr0 rur r0, 0aun I,yw /\ �. ��..— —_�' •.':. - - CENTURY 3 i + ADDITIPN s+ r 016-51 Lid„ E 6 469.41'0 E. --656.1-- Uzi QUARRY a CIry of Ets O - 014.51 a Y PARK 00 b 4.14. Y 69•-1'A w. -651:5- - - _ L.A.. �a.�W•>riMt. clnson 1 . 14 ,•. !•. , 01252 riw;i:piii:•.i . a • iq i P.i� D 4} ARM 0.3.29 1 FLUE CROSS ADDITION RCDEAT NARATZ ADDITION O 011.26 I mono* o 0 1DY ltCT PARC :•::...::.:.. 1� 11'y 1: b I:4do ii :;i}::• 012.62 I 030-M I1 I 010.00 LLTLNDRE ¢11 I11W ADDITION CD51I�:IgO 2 0.0.30 I 0.1.29 SussEcr PARCEL CLNTY® ADD ION I 010•!3• I 010•!! I OVTLO A CURACY HEIGMS THIRD ADDITION 1 WRIT GARDENS O 1 GICENICNLAL 2" ADDITION 0.0.28 OI I I I I 011.21 ---- x_._.—.—.—.—._._. I SIFRR6 RARN J I 1 O SURMT GARDEN! SYLRRY PARR ------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------ CD 1 \ M R FIUNTIINNL ADWTNW 1\ 1\ EFIfl331LTIIALL ADdT10N YFGAIQ'3UCA ADDRIDRI- a s A 75 Fact Carer Lm Cf*M ■ 15 Foot SIWm WOW Pana 6FJt • 310 FOOT Storm WAtr POW GROt *W ATERMAIN SERVICE ASSESSMENT COUNTY ROAD No. 28 UTILITY & STREET IMPROVEMENTS FRONT FOOTAGE ASSESSMENTS EAGAN, MINNESOTA STREET\ STORM SEWER ASSESSMENTS — — — — RESIDENTIAL NOMESITE ------ RESIDENTIAL L AGRICULTURAL — WLTIPLE — COMMERCIAL I INDUSTRIAL — TRAILWAY ASSESSMENT BONESTROO, ROSENE, .ANDERLIK & ASSOCIATES, INC. Consulting Engineers St. Paul. Minn. Date:Seplember, 1985 PROJ No. Comm. 49331 427 N o 0 1DY O 1 GICENICNLAL 2" ADDITION 0.0.28 OI I I I I 011.21 ---- x_._.—.—.—.—._._. I SIFRR6 RARN J I 1 O SURMT GARDEN! SYLRRY PARR ------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------ CD 1 \ M R FIUNTIINNL ADWTNW 1\ 1\ EFIfl331LTIIALL ADdT10N YFGAIQ'3UCA ADDRIDRI- a s A 75 Fact Carer Lm Cf*M ■ 15 Foot SIWm WOW Pana 6FJt • 310 FOOT Storm WAtr POW GROt *W ATERMAIN SERVICE ASSESSMENT COUNTY ROAD No. 28 UTILITY & STREET IMPROVEMENTS FRONT FOOTAGE ASSESSMENTS EAGAN, MINNESOTA STREET\ STORM SEWER ASSESSMENTS — — — — RESIDENTIAL NOMESITE ------ RESIDENTIAL L AGRICULTURAL — WLTIPLE — COMMERCIAL I INDUSTRIAL — TRAILWAY ASSESSMENT BONESTROO, ROSENE, .ANDERLIK & ASSOCIATES, INC. Consulting Engineers St. Paul. Minn. Date:Seplember, 1985 PROJ No. Comm. 49331 427 II. TRAILWAYS Assessable Total Parcel Footage Rate/F.F. Assessment C) Commercial/Industrial Equivalent Century Addition: 790 $11.36 $ 8,974.40 Lot 1, Block 2 300:•32 $94.19 $ 28,287.14 (1) Lot 2, Block 2 84.89 94.19 7,995.79 Fox Ridge Addition: Lot 1, Block 1 114.61 94.19 10,795.12 dg*-- SECTION 9 020-52 Y -D Associates 250 94.19 23,547.50 �- -�- 011-52 Y -D Associates 33.6 94.19 3,164.78 �-- 012-52 Kontinakis 246.4 94.19 23,208.42 030-52 Carbonne et al 130 94.19 12,244.70 Sperry Park, Lot 1, Block 1 495 94.19 46,624.05 SECTION 17 246.4 11.36 2,799.10 Blue Cross Addn., Lot 1, Block 1 796.39 94.19 75,011.97 SECTION 16 (1)(3)010-28 City of Eagan 85 94.19 8,006.15 TOTAL ESTIMATED COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL EQUIVALENT ............ $238,885.62 TOTAL ESTIMATED STREETS b STORM SEWER ASSESSMENTS ........... $584,014.78 II. TRAILWAYS .2�.Jy Assessable Total Parcel Footage Rate/F.F. Assessment SECTION 8 023-75 Kennedy 790 $11.36 $ 8,974.40 SECTION 9 (1)Robert Karatz Addition Lot 12, Block 1 550.47 11.36 6,253.34 �-�" ' Century Addition: Lot 1, Block 2 300.32 11.36 3,411.64 (1) Lot 2, Block 2 84.89 11.36 964.35 .��► Fox Ridge Addition, Lot 1, Block 1 114.61 11.36 1,301.97 -� 020-52 Y -D Associates 250 11.36 2,840.00 -- -Vb 011-52 Y -D Associates 33.6 11.36 381.70 -4-- 012=52 Kontinakis 246.4 11.36 2,799.10 .2�.Jy Parcel SE 1/4, SECTION 8 023-75 Kennedy SW 1/4, SECTION 9 ROBERT KARATZ ADDITION: Lot .12, Block 1 G CENTURY ADDITION: 1 Lot 1, Block 2 Lot 2, Block 2 FOR RIDGE ADDITION: �W Lot 1, Block 1 020-52, Y -D Assocs. 011-52, Y -D Assocs. 012-52, Kontinakis 030-52, Carbone et al SE 1/4. SECTION 9 010-80 Gang) 010-79 Perron SPERRY PARK: Lot 1, Block 1 9436c SUMMARY PRELIMINARY ASSESSMENT ROLL PROJECT NO. 427 r STREET AND STORM SEWER Commercial/ Residential Multiple Industrial Water Main Trunk Storm Total Equivalent Equivalent Equivalent Trailways Services Sewer Assessment $ 60,901.10 $ 8,974.40 $ 3,136.67 $ 73,012.17 $ 42,435.73 6,253.34 48,689.07 $ 28,287.14 3,411.64 31,698.78 7,995.79 964.35 8,960.14 10,795.12 1,301.97 12,097.0941f -- 2,097.09E23,547.50 23,547.50 2,840.00 26,387.50 3,164.78 381.70 3,546.48 23,208.42 2,799.10 26,007.52 12,244.70 1,476.80 13,721.50 $ 2,711.28 $ 2,711.28 28,454.58 $ 3,136.67 31,591.25 $ 46,624.05 $20,153.78 66,777.83• j' Page 21. SAC 1/16/86 C. PROJECT 404, LEXINGTON PLACE ADDITION - UTILITIES (LEXINGTON AVENUE TRUNK WATER- -MAIN) -- 1. Patrick McCarthy (10-01500-013-76) BACKGROUND INFORMATION At the September 17, 1985, final assessment hearing before the City Council, Mr. Patrick McCarthy submitted the written objection enclosed on page(s) 4,AJ pertaining to the assessments associated with the installation of the trunk water main along Lexington Avenue. Enclosed on page(s) Vj/-44-rare maps showing the location of the McCarthy parcel in relations ip. to .the trunk utility improvement. Also enclosed on page(s) (p is the final assessment roll which shows the amount of the assessment determined from the calculated frontage and related assessable rates. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS Due to the fact that trunk water main for future, and taking i not qualify for any have not already been that the proposed final this 40 ± acre tract will require this internal looping when developed in the ito consideration that this property does reductions, credits or deferments that allocated, it is the staff's recommendation assessment be reaffirmed. COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS/COMMENTS September 16, 1985 Honorable Mayor, Bea Blomquist and Members of the City Council City of Eagan Eagan Municipal Building Eagan, Minnesota Re: Project #404.and #411 Dear Mayor and Members of the Council: I hereby object to the proposed assessment for sanitary sewer, water and storm sewer improvements in Eagan Improvement Projects #404 and #411 as these proposed assessments will exceed the benefits conferred on my property: Patrick McCarthy I I 14 63 12 EXHIBIT "D 7 S 9 10 . T� \ \ I lcY , + , E d ' /0 /O)TL f� 11 050-53 ` T / OUTLOT A !/ �G�r, y�T�o�i a ` IGS I 041-53 c ° e T 3 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 A 2 9 _ 1 1 1 1 1 1 _J_�_1_�_1_�_J 1 10 7 LOT EQUIVALENT 1 030-53 = _ 044-53 - I F 2 OUTLOT C I.- 1 9 ° 7 ° S \ \ J Z WILLIAMS 9 LARUE 00. O 043-33 1 2 3 4 1 LEXINGTON AVE. (CO. RDNO. 43 ) ST. FRANCIS WOOD AOD. p, I -Cc I r 47Ir AEulric+J °D' WATER _ LATERAL BENEFIT FROM TRUNK ASSESSMENT 391 •>•m RESIDENTIAL RATE ®®® COMMERCIAL HIGH DENSITY RATE LEXINGTON PLACE SOUTH UTILITY IMPROVEMENTS EAGAN, MINNESOTA WATER MAIN 441�11 013=76 SUBJECT PARCEL NORTH 0 400 SCALE IN FEET BONESTROO, ROSENE, ANDERLIK & ASSOCIATES, INC. Consulting Engineers St. Paul, Minn. Date: MAY, 1984 PROJ. NO. Comm, 49306 4-t±,' S. E.1 /4 SEC. 15, T. 279 R. 23 NT -:,1 DUCK W000 "' ••� : 1 O'Q • +'"VV'0 -441 SUBJECT PARCEL �► REVISED 2-17-84 3-30-84 7 -25-84 12-14-84 10-4-85 BERNARD N LARSON C0UxM1 SURVEYOR OCSOIR COUNTY, YINN N .qA DRIVE'�n--- r r. h1 7 F. AMC i .I 4TH, - x'17.. • i n' _ •� AD •'r -o ao�f�=Lii'.�.....�-•... ..••%w y'.- .,�YL-•��n.E.1-- 1 n' _ •� AD •'r -o ao�f�=Lii'.�.....�-•... ..••%w y'.- .,�YL-•��n.E.1-- PROJECT NO. 404 SEPTEMBER 24, 1985 Lateral Benefit from Trunk Water Continued No. of Lots Cost/Lot Parcel Description or Units or Unit Assessment Lexington Place South Continued Block 8, Lots 1-11 11 $111.98 $1,231.78 Block 9, Lots 1-8 8 111.98 '895.84 TOTAL 134 $15,005.32 Lexington Place 2nd Addition(732 FF x $17.87/FF(4)=$13,080.84/116 = $112.77) Block 1, Lot 1 16 $112.77 $1,804.32 Block 1, Lot 2 12 112.77 1,353.24 Block 1, Lot 3 16 112.77 1,804.32 Block 2, Lot 1 16 112.77 1,804.32 Block 2, Lot 2 16 112.77 1,804.32 Block 2, Lot 3 8 112.77 902.16 Block 2, Lot 4 16 112.77 1,804.32 Block 2, Lot 5 16 112.77 1,804.32 TOTAL 116 $13,081.32 SUBTOTAL $ 28,086.64 Assessable . Parcel Description Front Footage Rate/FF Assessment Williams and LaRue Addition Block 1, Lot 1 179 $10.84 (3) $1,940.36 Block 1, Lot 2 135 10.84 (3) 1,463.40 Block 1, Lot 3 156 10.84 (3) 1,691.04 Block 1, Lot 4 140 10.84 (3) 1,517.60 $6,612.40 SE1/4 Section 15 St. Francis Wood 4th Add. 479.92 (5) 17.87 (4) $8,576.17,,`;;,.__ St. Francis Wood 4th Add. 161.50 (5) $17.87 ,(4) 2,886.01 Outlot A Parcel 013-76 604.36 (5) 10.84 (3) 6,551.26 �— $18,013.44 SWI/4 Section 14 Parcel 043-53 417.36 $10.84 (3) $4,524.18 Parcel 044-53 242.64 10.84 (3) 2,630.22 $7,154.40 SUBTOTAL $31,780.24 (3) Single Family Rate. G) (5) Represents 50% of total front footage abutting Lexington Aven,:-, ` O n►' [ city of soden 3830 PILOT KNOB ROAD, P.O. BOX 21199 BEA BLOMQUIST EAGAN. MINNESOTA 55121 Mme, PHONE: (612) 454-8100 THOMAS EGAN JAMES A. SMITH VAC ELLISON THEODORE WACHTER January 16, 1986 Coumil MemWm THOMAS HEDGES City AGminowoi EUGENE VAN OVERBEKE City Clek MR ARNOLD KEMPE, ATTORNEY 1 SIGNAL HILLS WEST ST. PAUL MN 55118 Re: Special Assessment Committee Meeting, January 16, 1986 Projects 404 & 411 Assessment Appeal (Patrick McCarthy) Dear Mr. Kempe: I received your letter of January 15, 1986, wherein you requested a continuation of the Special Assessment Committee's consideration of your appeal regarding trunk area storm sewer assessments under project 411 and lateral benefit from trunk water main assessments under project 404. In that letter, you indicated that you only received notice of this hearing "at the end of the day of January 14, 1986". Checking our files, it has been verified that the packet information pertain- ing to the above referenced assessment appeal was hand delivered to your office at 10:00 a.m. on January 14th and signed for by Anita Murr. In addition, on December 27, 1985, a notice of the January 16th Special Assessment Committee meeting was sent to your attention along with a copy of the agenda showing that this item would be discussed at approximately 7:00 p.m. on that evening. Due to the fact that all other notices were received by all other parties, we are surprised to hear that you did not receive the earlier statement. Therefore, I will address all future correspondence and notices to Mr. Patrick McCarthy's attention including the Special Assessment Committee's recommendations pertaining to his special assessment appeal and your request for continuation. Mr. McCarthy can then inform you at his discretion. Sincere , LT'homas A. Colbert, P.E. Direction of Public Works cc: Thomas L. Hedges, City Administrator TAC/jbd THE LONE OAK TREE ... THE SYMBOL OF STRENGTH AND GROWTH IN OUR COMMUNITY D. PROJECT 411, BIRCH PARK ADDITION/PATRICK TRUNK STORM SEWER 1. Patrick McCarthy (10-02200-011-04 BACKGROUND INFORMATION SAC 1/16/86 EAGAN PARK - At the September 17, 1985, final assessment hearing held by the City Council for the above -referenced project, Mr. Arnold Kempe, attorney for Mr. Patric McCarthy, submitted a written objection enclosed on page(s) pertaining to the assessments associated with the trunk storm sewer installation through his property under that project. Enclosed on page(s) N 4 -.V1 are maps showing the location of Mr. McCarthy's property in relationship to the proposed improvement. Also enclosed on page(s) SL is the final assessment roll identifying the proposed assessments and their related calculations. The acquisition of the permanent and temporary construction easements for the installation of this facility as--negotiated,-as a part,_�f the resolution of a special assessment appeal for a previous, trunk storm sewer project on another—parcel owned by Mr -.—McCarthy. As a part of these negotiations, considerable care and detail were given to insuring that the pond located—on McCarthy's property would be provided with a storm sewer outl t i to the storm sewer system at a location and elevationacceptable to im. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Due to the fact that the area' proposed to be assessed under this project drains into the storm sewer system and that this property is not entitled to any additional reductions, credits or deferments that have not already been applied, it is the staff's recommendation that the assessments be reaffirmed as proposed. COMMITTEE/RECOMMENDATIONS/COMMENTS KEMPE & MURPHY /ATTORNEYS AT LAW ARNOLD E. KEMPE THOMAS M. MURPHY 912/C57-9599 I SIGNAL HILLS WEST ST. PAUL. MINNESOTA 95119 September 16, 1985 Mr. Eugene Van Overbeke City Clerk Eagan Municipal Center Pilot Knob and Westcott Roads Eagan, Minnesota 55121 Re: Proposed Special Assessment for Eagan Projects #404 and #411. Dear Mr. Van Oberbeke: Objection is herewith made on behalf of my clients, the McCarthys, to the proposed Special Assessments in the above captioned Projects for sanitary sewer and storm sewer. Very truly yours, KEMPE AND MURPHY ajm Arnold E. Kempe �za EX. LIFT STA. 14 11 JP -11 JP NORTH 0 1000 2000 SCALE IN FEET PATRICK EAGAN PARK / BONESTROO. ROSENE, ANDERLIK 3 ASSOCIATES, INC. BIRCH PARK ADDITION T / Consulting Engineers STORM SEWER LAYOUT St. Paul, Minn. Date: JUNE, 1984 PROJECT POND JP -6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 38, 47, & 49 Comm. 49311 11 NO.411 H F JT / ..... __ ` J ® SINGLE FAMILY RATE PATRICK EAGAN PARK / BIRCH PARK ADDITION TRUNK AREA STORM SEWER So EAGAN. MINNESOTA / \ N 0 R T H 0 1000 2000 SCALE IN FEET BONESTROO, ROSENE, ANDERLIK & ASSOCIATES, INC. Consulting Englneere St. Paul, Minn. Date: JUNE, 1984 PROJECT Comm. 49311 11 NO.411 REVISED FINAL ASSESSMENT ROLL, SEPTEMBER 11, 1985 PATRICK EAGAN PARK/BIRCH PARK ADDITION TRUNK STORM SEWER OUTLET PROJECT 411.. Parcel Area Description sq.ft.) NE 1/4, Section 22 Parcels 010-02 I 169,554 Credit Assessable (sq -ft-) Area(sq.ft.) Lot (1) 66,000 (5) Rate (per sq.ft.) $0.045 Total Assessment $2,970.00 011-04 (4) 11,868,172 Pond 19348,447 0.045 60,680.12 182,614 St. R/W (20%) 1337,112 TOTAL(NEI/4, Section 22) .......................................... $63,650.12 (4) Parcel 011-04 of the NE 1/4 of Section 22 was previously_ assessed for j 900,080 sq. ft. under Project No. 396. The balance of the area for this parcel was assessed under this project. NW 1/4, Section 22 Parcels 012 -26 -Eagan 761,084 St R/W(20%) 152,217 608,867 $0.045 $27,399.02 013 -26 -Eagan 428,999 St R/W(20%) 85,800 343,199 0.045 159443.96 014-26-Dak.Co. 370,518 - - - 370,518 0.045 16,673.31 010-27 174,200 - - - 174,200 0.045 7,839.00 020-27 191,114 - - - 191,114 0.045 8,600.13 030-27 112,320 - - - 112,320 0.045 1 5,054.40 040-27 170,300 - - - 170,300 0.045 7,663.50 ZSUB TOTAL ............... $88,673.32 4 D. PROJECT 411, BIRCH PARK ADDITION/PATRICK TRUNK STORM SEWER 2. Don Vogtman (Lot 7 & N'h of 6, Block 1, Skovdale) BACKGROUND INFORMATION SAC 1/16/86 EAGAN PARK - At the September 17, 1985, final assessment hearing held before the City Council, Mr. & Mrs. Vogtman submitted a written objection pertaining to the proposed assessments associated with trunk storm sewer under the above -referenced project. Enclosed on page (s) is a copy of this submitted written objection. Enclosed on page(sLAAW-�T7 are maps showing the location of this parcel in relat'onship to the proposed improvement. Also enclosed on page(s) fy is the proposed final assessment roll showing the assessment obligation and the related calculations of detemina- tion. On November 22, staff met with Mr. Vogtman to explain the benefits to his property and the observed drainage patterns resulting from the recent fill that has been placed on this property over the past several years, which has enhanced its ability to be developed in the near future. Due- to the fact that Mr. Vogtman came -.about this property through a financial settlement and his lack of desire to develop tiilsF property, he wanted an op - pecial_Asses relating to these assess ee Due to the fact that this property is presently undeveloped and vacant, the "large lot" credit was not applied and the property was assessed based on its entire net area. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Due to the recent fill that has been placed on this property eliminating the previous low drainage—basin—and—redirecting the drainage flow into the storm sewer system service by Project 411, it is the staff's recommendation that this property be' determined as being benefitted by this improvement and that the assessment as proposed be reaffirmed. ` COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS/COMMENTS ,Iro�Z ENVIRONMENTAL SPECIALISTS FOR GOVERNMENT OR INDUSTRY ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT ECOLOGICAL ASSESSMENTS BIOLOGICAL CONSULTING ECOLOGICAL PLANNING OVER 60 YEARS NATURAL RESOURCES EXPERIENCE DON VOGTMAN ASSOCIATES 6309 FRANCE AVENUE SOUTH EDINA, MINNESOTA, 55410 S (612) 927-9170 Sept. 17, 1985 Mr. E. J. VanOverbeke City Clerk - City of Eagan Dakota County, MN Re: Proj #411 3830 Pilot Knob Road Eagan, MN 55122 Dear Mr. VanOverbeke: Regarding our property in Skovdale Addition (Your code 10-68700-070-00 & North half Lot 6) and your Notice of Special assessment, I wish to protest and appeal this assessment, based on Minnesota Statute section 429.081 (right to appeal). I took this land in on a bad debt. The land is generat- ing no income and is costing me substantial taxes. The land is not being damaged by storm water runoff and we would derive little or no benefit from the storm water improvements proposed for Patrick Eagan Park, Birch Pk. Addition or Improvement Project #411. Furthermore, the proposed assessment would impose substantial hardship on us, since we are.both retired. For the foregoing reasons, we object to the proposed assessment against our property. Sincerel}�, onald B. gtma Inez Vo gtm 's- T x 111 EX. LIFT STA. 14 47 jp-ll JP -II I C K 0 r L HILA -TO H4TTO OF ........ PLA-z'A' AG"m "Ztq"'o R T �H H I A- 0 1000 2000 SCALE IN FEET PATRICK EAGAN PARK BONES ROO, ROSENE. AN6ERLIK & ASSOCIATES, INC. BIRCH PARK ADDITION Consulting Engineers STORM SEWER LAYOUT St. Paul, Minn. POND JP -6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 38, 47, & 49 Date: JUNE, 1984 PROJECT Comm. 4931 I �9 NO. 11 I� _- 1 ,:. Vi4 ��11b O / I 0 0 C Y F I HIj.L ILLTOF OF EAGAN ® SINGLE FAMILY RATE PATRICK EAGAN PARK / BIRCH PARK ADDITION TRUNK AREA STORM SEWER EAGAN, MINNESOTA —PROPOSED ESSMENTr BOUNDARY. , EI PATRICK EaGAN PARK / \ N 0 R T H 0 1000 2000 SCALE IN FEET BONESTROOI ROSENE, ANDERLIK & ASSOCIATES, INC. Consulting Engineers St. Paul, Minn. Date: JUNE, 1984 PROJECT Comm. 49311 NC.4 ; I mL 1' _ v � P' I rI•, ILLTOF OF EAGAN ® SINGLE FAMILY RATE PATRICK EAGAN PARK / BIRCH PARK ADDITION TRUNK AREA STORM SEWER EAGAN, MINNESOTA —PROPOSED ESSMENTr BOUNDARY. , EI PATRICK EaGAN PARK / \ N 0 R T H 0 1000 2000 SCALE IN FEET BONESTROOI ROSENE, ANDERLIK & ASSOCIATES, INC. Consulting Engineers St. Paul, Minn. Date: JUNE, 1984 PROJECT Comm. 49311 NC.4 ; I Lpm Now -p- oil : W-61 TRUNK STORM SEWER OUTLET REVISED FINAL ASSESSMENT ROLL - PROJECT 411 CONTINUED, SEPTEMBER 11, 1985 Parcel Area Credit Assessable Rate Total Description (sq.ft.) sq.ft.) Area(sq.ft.) (per sq.ft.) Assessment NW 1/4 Section 22 Continued-,_ S%OVDALE Lot 1 + E1/2 Lot 2 120,879 ILarge Lot (1) 49,500 (5) $0.045 $2,227.50 Lot 3 + W1/2 Lot 2 120,879 Large Lot (1) 49,500 (5) 0.045 2,227.50 Lot 4 49,500 (5) 80,586 Large Lot (1) 33,000 (5) 0.045 1,485.00 Lot 5 0.045 1,485.00 80,586 Large Lot (1) 33,000 (5) 0.045 1,485.00 Lot 6 W1/2 of S1/2 21,143 Large Lot (1) 116,500 (5) 0.045 742.50 Lot 6 E1/2 of S1/219,150 Large Lot (1) 16,500 (5) 0.045 742.50 Lot 7 + N1/2 Lot 6 76,781 1 - - - 76,781 0.045 3,455.15 SUB TOTAL...............$12,365.15 SROVDALE NO. 2 , Lot 1 40,672 Large Lot (1) 16,500 (5) $0.045 742.50 Lot 2 92,548 Large Lot (1) 49,500 (5) 0.045 2,227.50 Lot 3 99,880 Large Lot (1) 49,500 (5) 0.045 2,227.50 Lot 4 87,120 Large Lot 1 33 0005 0.045 1,485.00 Lot 5 161,908 Pond Large 25,765 Lot (1) 66,000 (5) 0.045 2,970.00 SUB TOTAL ................. $99652.50 i- (1) Large lot credit was applied and assessed at 16,500 sq. ft, per acre. t SAC 1/16/86 D. PROJECT 4.11, BIRCH PARK ADDITION/PATRICK EAGAN PARK - TRUNK STORM SEWER 3. Victor Staff(Lot 5, Block 1, Skovdale 2nd Addition) BACKGROUND INFORMATION At the September 19, 1985, final assessment hearing before the City Council for the above -referenced project, an attorney re- presenting Mr. & Mrs. Staff submitted a written notice of appeal to the proposed speci }1as essments. A copy of this appeal is enclosed on page(s) -I g Enclosed on pages %O' %L are maps showing the location of this parcel. in relationship to the storm sewer improvement. Also enclosed on page(s) �? is the final assessment roll showing the amount of the assessments and the related calculations. In addition to the special assessment appeal action, Mr. & Mrs. Staff have also initiated an adverse condemnation action against the City pertaining to the taking of their property for ponding purposes under this project. On December 20, the City Attorney's office and City staff met with the property owners to discuss the City's acquisition of a ponding and utility easement across their property and the explanation for the storm sewer area assessment. The Committee will be updatedregarding the status of this acquisition and any relevance it may have pertaining to their special assessment appeal. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Due to the fact that this property definitely benefits by the establishment of a controlled water elevation protecting their property from excessive flooding and that all appropriate credits, reductionand deferments. have been taken into consideration, it is thetrsed. ff's recommendation that the proposed final assessments be reaffi COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS/COMMENTS l I EX. LIFT STA. 14 0 P.Iio%K E At:' At, �. NOR T H 0 1000 2000 SCALE IN FEET PATRICK EAGAN PARK / rcvv, KUbhr t, AHDERLIK 8 ASSOCIATES, INC. BIRCH PARK ADDITION Consulting Engineers STORM SEWER LAYOUT 70 St. Paul, Minn. Date: JUNE, 1984 PROJECT POND JP -6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 38, 47, 8 49 Comm. 49311 1 NO.411 W H F ® SINGLE FAMILY RATE PATRICK EAGAN PARK / BIRCH PARK ADDITION TRUNK AREA STORM SEWER 7/ / \ N 0 R T H 0 1000 2000 SCALE IN FEET BONESTROO, ROSENE, ANDERLIK & ASSOCIATES, INC. Consulting Engineers St. Paul, Minn. Date: JUNE, 1984 PROJECT r�nmm. 49311 TRUNK STORM SEWER OUTLET REVISED FINAL ASSESSNENT ROLL - PROJECT 411 CONTINUED, SEPTEMBER 11, 1985 Parcel Area Credit Assessable Rate Total Description (sq.ft.) (sq.ft.) Area(sq.ft.) (per sq.ft.) Assessment NW 1/4 Section 22 Continued S%OVDALE Lot 1 + E1/2 Lot 2 120,879 Large Lot (1) 49,500 (5) $0.045 $2,227.50 Lot 3 + W1/2 Lot 2 120,879 Large Lot (1) 49,500 (5) 0.045 2,227.50 Lot 4 Large 80,586 Large Lot (1) 33,000 (5) 0.045 1,485.00 Lot 5 Lot 80,586 Large Lot (1) 33,000 (5) 0.045 1,485.00 Lot 6 W1/2 of S1/2 21,143 Large Lot (1) 1 16,500 (5) 1 0.045 742.50 Lot 6 E1/2 of S1/2 19,150 Large Lot (1) 16,500 (5) 0.045 742.50 Lot 7 + N1/2 Lot 6 76,781 - - - 76,781 0.045 39455.15 SUBTOTAL...............$129365.15 SKOVDALE NO. 2 Lot 1 40,672 1 Large Lot (1) 16,500 (5) $0.045 742.•50 Lot 2 92,548 Large Lot (1) 49,500 (5) 0.045 2,227.50 Lot 3 99 880 Large Lot (1) 49,500 (5) 0.045 2,227.50 Lot 4 87,120 Larme Lot 1 33.000 5 0.045 1,485:00 Lot 5 161,908 Pond 25,765 Large Lot (1)1 66,000 (5) 1 0.045 2,970.00 SUB TOTAL ................. $9.652.50 (1) Large lot credit was applied and assessed at 16,500 sq. ft. per acre. 73 STATE OF MINNESOTA. COUNTY OF DAKOTA Victor V. Staff and Sharon L. Staff, husband and wife, VS. City of Eagan, Plaintiffs, Defendant. DISTRICT COURT FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT CoQ A:p �aw\ NOTICE OF APPEAL OF SPECIAL ASSESSMENT TO: City Clerk and Mayor, City of Eagan, Eagan City Hall, 3830 Pilot Knob Rd., Eagan, Minnesota 55122 PLEASE TAKE NOTICE, that the Plaintiffs above named hereby appeal the special assessment adopted by the Eagan City Council at their meeting on September 17, 1985 regarding Patrick Eagan Park and Birch Park Addition - Improvement Project Number 411. Plaintiffs, as owners of Lot 5, Block 1, Skovdale 2nd Addition, have been assessed $2,970.00. Plaintiffs contend that their property has not been benefited or improved. Plaintiffs have complied with M.S.A. 429.081 by timely filing written and oral objection with the City of Eagan. Dated: September 27, 1985 44 gic Darrel A. Baska Attorney for Plaintiffs 3435 Washington Drive Eagan, Minnesota 55122 454-0505 d NOTICE OF OBJECTION PROPOSED ASSESSMENT - IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 411 To: Eagan City Administrator - Eagan City Council PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that the undersigned affected property owners, Sharon and Victor Staff, object to the proposed assessment of storm sewer improvements relating to Patrick Eagan Park and Birch Park Addition - Improvement Priject No. 411. The undersigned occupy property containing approximately 3.7 acres commonly known as 1340 Rocky Lane legally described as follows: Lot Five (5), Block One (1), Skovdale 2nd On information and belief, the City of Eagan proposes to assess the undersigned owners at the rate of $743.00 per acre for a total sum of $2,749.00. The undersigned complainants allege that their property has not been benefited by the improvements relating to Project No. 411 based upon the following: 1. Project No. 411 provides for the construction of trunk storm,.. sewer affecting ponds JP -6, JP -9 and JP -11 as designated in the Comprehensive Storm Sewer Plan. Pond JP -6 is located in the Birch Park Addition immediately to the west of complainants' property. Water runoff from the Birch Park Addition is dis- charged into Pond JP -6. (See Storm Sewer Layout Map, attached hereto as Exhibit "A") 6/ 1 2. On information and belief, as part of the 1978 Comprehensive Storm Sewer Plan it was originally -proposed that Pond JP -6 outlet by means of a pumping facility to Pond JP -10 which, in turn would discharge by means of a.:gravity storm sewer to Pond JP -9. 3. At the request of the City of Eagan, the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) in 1981 determined the ordinary high V/ water level (OHW) for Pond JP -6 to be 8.18.7 feet. The OHW level is defined in Minnesota Statute 105.37, subd. 16, as being "the boundary of public waters and wetlands, and shall be an elevation delineating the highest water level which has been maintained for a sufficient period of time to leave evidence upon the landscape..." (See letter from David Leuthe, Area Hydrologist - DNR, attached hereto as Exhibit "B") 4. Eagan's consulting engineering firm, Bonestroo, Rosene, Anderlick & Assoc., Inc. stated in the feasibility report to Project No. 411 that "since the DNR has recently established normal water levels_for Pond JP -6 and Pond JP -9 at 818.7 which is considerably higher than proposed in the Comprehensive Storm Sewer Plan, it now becomes feasible to outlet Pond JP -,6 and Pond JP -9 to Pond JP -11 by gravity storm sewer thus - eliminating two pumping facilities:" (See page 1 - Bonestroo report, attached hereto as Exhibit "C") 5. Complainants allege that construction.of Storm Sewer Project No. 411 has resulted in a significant raising of the water level of Pond JP -6 causing Pond JP -6 to encroach upon and inundate their property. (See Affidavit of Sharon Staff attached hereto as Exhibit "D" and Dakota County Airial Photograph attached hereto as Exhibit "E") 6. Complainants allege that construction of Project 411 not only has not benefited their property in any respect, it has resulted in a taking of their property for which they have not been compensated. Dated: Victor V. Staff Sharon L. Staff % p .: t I Are Be r I/.li; ��� i ��� ilYaiei " �• i. DAx3 • tltl0. ..' 887/. CP 4 0 • r r K vo^ P-3 !s. f onno/�j.91 jBfe.O 8a7.a' OgPy-II 41:0 - CPab 866.3 886 ii j pIL I i$ FOX PAFN fN - E,•r�' IEi+^j4• w:'•'etl RIDGE •~ 4-,., B �7 /Ed -3'i (T(T 790 _ 1 -�[g� .' DP -4 L.S. _ / 877.2! x0a i BO1. •/ r • 9a4.1 'f9: le : 0+ I L 42• 4 gp3 p � - ' .. � AaaO Qs0 D -e n �„J�- RD 288 I I 829.7 iJ _ f.a �I;a�EhSi ' i / 1 • 848.0 ! 0P,9 - RK". f 4 //•/ DP -20 0-r 860.0 938.3 9LTI HILLS t Did G,iUR[ff•T1 B N! - J • .. �J 901.0o \ TC . B62B "BESCOYIi _ I ii31DHrS A 4Q" % �` v 9013 ' J /7 -0 �I CP -12' L''\ CPW�I. I! I;y B9SD :--fir+ ._r - DP -T,. ,iiai p Q wESCGrT e l (,.; I 8897.6' •G'I EARY tip Pk. 882.21 �1; 826.5 I 825.0 z.e j ///h,�� I CARRIAGE --- II 829.6f� BB o- K iILLS _-_ E -x i^ _ I' J 10 ::.., _ 12• .°CLF 9ARDEx P-6 I' OP•22:'' ' .., - DP=I SE i� • -833 10.7�. /!a / .rLJP-g8�8 g9 I 1 - 877aX 7 834 )6.0 I -r---.11 8922,']i:�'_ '_-t 882A _. OP -25 +'r.•:"' >/•: _ � I� CEviEP � �P V.F. ar �•.. _.:. g8�4 -. _c ' � IL I_ 891.0���. _-�JgP9-59 Oil ! B eO-I� 'n� �:I�Q f I �JgP•6gg .JPi 4_ la BOB./ P-2 B80A- -9S/.S JP -62 /z• (�/y X72 8879 f�3�LklcRh+w 844.0 friIF ,e ,0'�t_ti-1 8930 v BBBi- Bl\=• `a BS/.3/'' I \!; '')J,' 1095 '4hl.ii` 8933 .._S J�PP% ^ .'.. L.£ -IS I 2iT 'd UK B9i3 BVI JP -41 4 .FIS B J le _ .. ._ _ _ i2• 985.3-.._ e it -\•e�; B _ tNq. ''\�0�0 I� ��. I_ SJP-L K ad1�:uJ I _ 99.77 1 r700hlurHl Jp 3Z �E JP -31 8891.11 876.3 JP=44-- P-1 JOB0.79"`IIY +8Oe JIS5_ "ADI,_++ .Jn.. I k _ CITY JP-SBQ 9a BLACKMAIM XALL 'i _."ry'11'1![� g'7�S \1. B PARK $1' . ' S �i // To qq.. 1&=I7tIIl �. 6823R\ 7392 sa .8 jP riqM+.' 8870.0 Cl +.:7>, SC ) 879.1 P-29 / e J T _� l •• ^.� SQUARE JP -20 19ao _ _ _ /.� 8•a BgPg-�- 1 `f` -Jr -49 `. _ JP -i ' _BP 85Y%,i'' B6B B -a OVCALE I 8300 - iI^� BeO. 7.0.6 JP 9 JP-�7 rCHI 870.0 -Ae?Fs N w / pp I r B72.t4 �aY'' lEt R` 898. / I . . _ JP- \� J-• IOrAL �Ppp-gg3QQ5 _F903 / 8-e / JP �1 L• l- g,1Ppj9_� °A!NCK `• 884.0 78874 12• BJO. EAGAII ¢ \ - 871 PARK - -N BP -4 BP -25 / 974.2 �, _ JP -.0 �: «I sx4.p r BP• I �r'•v- 927.2 n I BB6.3 BB ! •! al �'-�+__ L. '.• 8828.0 B-•7`""� n . B 9150 ,a,. i - /II 42.1 �4� �I. �giLG'iIEAG -�` _ ! -BP--Z41 -B99Pqq�T-�.f� I�:� -�• J9P-51 _ _. 916JI LP -43 \ 9800 J-0• I! Ba - _ TW OER� 877 3w BSL1 ` .-r• -`J9Pg-9291 ,I i m icy 16 :.,17f'`��t BSJB LecC 969.9 _�, 2 7 rte' I . BP -23 •I9�I �i 8443-t�� ._.�/•• \ I �, wr,.; 9 : r THOr�p M1 - BP_ S. 3I/vH.El G� V 1. '.ua y RLeA'C� 6•aC,A• 12'".rP, +`i'- BMESS. �1 964. I ! xT, 1 9/0.� 'SICOr " i .4 f UTILITY ., �ss�xcgr - l 999, JJJJ u_ T• 3 97 ..a . q•.• V�.•A• LS� • Bgg r,L P� - I. RARK _69 6 x,MJ00 T oAK 3FSi sE 4 r P• _. F` .; I 997019` \ A `_rj' r I n �. J _. B -n Fu I •- LB 37 r0�O,-`DSL 1- 3ArARI y Enc,1 "Wei Id 'y p• 1 FaF - i`^_� �'r� _x agsteJ L� '�.•12 - I M^^SnnT2AATE OF yr% DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES PHONENO. 296-7523 1200 Warner Road, St. Paul, MN 55106 September 3, 1985 Darrell Baska 3435 Washington Drive Suite 200 Eagan, MN 55122 RE: Ordinary High Water Level (OHW) Protected Wetland 1119-144W Dear Mr. Baska: At the request of the City of Eagan, we made OHW determinations for numerous basins in 1981. Protected Wetland #19-144W (JP -6) was one of these. The Ordinary High Water Level is defined in Minnesota Statute §105.37, Subdivision 16, ,as being "the boundary of public waters and wetlands, and shall be an elevation delineating the highest water level which has been maintained for a sufficient period of time to leave evidence upon the landscape...." We determined the OHW for protected wetland 1119-144W to be 818.7. On July 9, 1984, the City applied for a permit (#85-6017) to construct an outlet to this wetland as the water level was three to five feet above the OHW. After review of the application for consistency with our rules (Minnesota Rules §6115.0220 - §6115.0222, copy enclosed), the permit was issued. On April 19, 1985, the City applied for a permit to construct a storm - water outfall structure into this wetland. After review of this applica- tion for consistency with our rules (Minnesota Rules 56115-0230 - 66115-0232, copy enclosed), this permit was also issued. If you have any questions or need additional information, please feel free to contact me at your convenience. Sincerely, David Leuthe Area Hydrologist dl71 enclosures X's - AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER SCOPE: This project provides for the construction of trunk storm sewer from Pond JP -6 and Pond JP -9 (McCarthy Lake) to Pond JP -11 (Hurley Lake) as desig- nated in the Comprehensive Storm Sewer Plan. Pond JP -6 is located in the ex- isting Windcrest Addition which is presently being replated as Birch Park Ad— dition. Pond JP -9 is located in Patrick Eagan Park. FEASIBILITY AND RECOMMENDATION: This project is feasible from an engineering standpoint and is in accordance with the Comprehensive Storm Sewer Plan for the City of Eagan. The project as outlined herein can best be carried out as one contract. DISCUSSION: Trunk storm sewer proposed herein provides for constructing grav- ity storm sewer from Pond JP -6 to Pond JP -11 and from JP -9 to Pond JP -11 as shown on the attached drawing. As part of the 1978 Comprehensive Storm Sewer Plan it was proposed that Pond JP -6 outlet by a pumping facility (L.S.-12) to Pond JP -LO which in turn would discharge by a gravity storm sewer to Pond JP -9. Pond JP -9 would then outlet by a pumping facility (L.S.-13) to Pond JP -11. However, since this time the Department of Natural Resources has re- cently established normal water levels for Pond JP -6 and Pond JP -9 at 818.7 which is considerably higher than proposed 'in the Comprehensive Storm Sewer Plan. As a result, it now becomes feasible to outlet Pond JP -6 and Pond JP -9 to Pond JP -11 by gravity storm sewer thus eliminating two pumping facilities._;,,_ As part of the 1984 Comprehensive Storm Sewer Plan Update a computer analysis was done to evaluate the effect of raising the normal water levels of these ponds and its effect on the high water level based on a 100 year storm. As part of this analysis, the high water level for Pond JP -6, 8, 9, 10, 11 and 49 Page 1. 1s60c .was determined to be 830.00. It was also assumed Pond JP -7 would discharge directly into pond JP -8 thus by-passing Pond JP -38 as shown on the attached Page 1. 1s60c EXHIBIT "D" AFFIDAVIT OF SHARON L. STAFF Sharon Staff, having been duly sworn and under oath, states as follows: 1. Your affiant and her husband, Victor Staff are present fee owners of property legally described as Lot 5, Block 1, Skovdale 2nd Addition, City of Eacan. 2. Your affiant has resided on the subject property from and since October 6, 1958. 3. From and since the date your affiant has occupied said property, water contained within the pond now designated as Pond JP -6 has never inundated affiant's property. Although the northwest corner of the property would, on occasion, become soggy in the spring -time, the -land always dried and your affiant and her parents planted a garden on an annual basis in the north section of the property. 4. As development commenced in the surrounding area in the late 1970's, Pond JP -6 accumulated additional water. In the Spring of 1984 water from Pond JP -6 inundated affiant's property covering the northerly one arce. From and since the Spring of 1984 the water has continued to stand upon affiant's property. 5. Said standing water is causing affiant's fence line posts to uproot and prevents your affiant from using the northerly one acre of the property. 6.. Your affiant fails to realize any benefit accruing to the property and believes the storm sewer project has caused a 417 diminution in her property value. Dated: Sharon L. Staff Subscribed and sworn to before me this day of September, 1985. I l I Notary 4e DARREL C BHSKA .%J�!I NOTARY PUBLIC � `•I��'=$pTA DAKOTA COI. T: My Commlwlon Eapee;.<o, -2, lyji T 4 L ij IMF L SAC 1/16/86 D. PROJECT 411, BIRCH PARK ADDITION/PATRICK EAGAN PARK - TRUNK STORM SEWER 4. Ron Boyle (10-02200-011-86) BACKGROUND INFORMATION At the September 17, 1985 final assessment hearing for the above -referenced project held before the City Council, Mr. Ronald Boyle submitted a written objection to the trunk area storm sewer assessments for his parcel. Enclosed on page r is the written objection submitted by Mr. Boyle. Enclosed on page(s) 74 7r are maps showing the.location of the property in relationshi to the proposed improvements. Also enclosed on page (s) `% 9 is the proposed final assessment roll with the related calculations. As the Committee may recall, similar type objections were reviewed by the Special Assessment Committee at the October 9, 1984, meeting as it pertains to neighboring property owned by Thomas Bergin, Thomas Rooney and Anthony Caponi. As a result of these neighboring objections and the relationship . of the property to the storm sewer improvements installed under Project 411, the City Council subsequently deleted these properties from the final assessment roll with the understanding they would be included with any future storm sewer project directly benefitting their property. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Based on the action taken by the Special Assessment Committee and City Council pertaining to similar objections of neighboring property owners under this same project, it is the staff's recom- mendation that the assessment against this parcel be deferred until some future project directly benefitting the proper y. COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION/COMMENTS September 17, 1985 Mayor and City Council of the City of Eagan 3830 Pilot Knob Road Eagan, Minnesota 55122 Re: Parcel 010 -02200 -011 -*&(O Dear Sirs: P MU;r My objections are on the grounds that the assessment unfairly, illegally, and arbitrarily assesses my property which will receive no benefits from the improvements proposed to be assessed. I object in addition to the anticipation of revenue from the assessment of an amount of approximately $100,000.00 above the anticipated cost and the failure to include land located in the southwest quarter of Section 22 and Hilltop Estates as assessed for this project. I have an additional objection that the parks areas located within the area intended to be drained have not been included for assessment purposes. ours truly, RONALD A. i3o'l LE I Z S O �fetz- W b0� C11°r6 A VYl 1v . 7s 1 ' JEX. LIFT STA. 14 JP -ll JP I JP -8 _-;,. -11 =Jf.• N.O. RT H '.0 1000 2000 SCALE IN FEET PATRICK EAGAN PARK IrONESTROO. ROSENE, ANDERLIK & ASSOCIATES, INC. BIRCH PARK ADDITION Consulting Engineers STORM SEWER LAYOUT 74 St. Paul, Minn. Date: JUNE, 1984 PROJECT POND JP -6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 38, 47, & 49 Comm. 49311 11 NO.411 H F ® SINGLE FAMILY RATE PATRICK EAGAN PARK / BIRCH PARK ADDITION TRUNK AREA STORM SEWER 77 C "T A T— i <�z ...II N 0 R T H 0 1000 2000 SCALE IN FEET BONESTROO, ROSENE, ANDERLIK & ASSOCIATES, INC. Consulting Engineera St. Paul, Minn. Date; JUNE, 1984 PROJECT %O S • TRUNK STORM SEVER OUTLET /l « l REVISED FINAL ASSESSMENT. ROLL - PROJECT 411 CONTINUED, SEPTEMEER 11, 1985 Parcel Area Credit Assessable Rate Total Description (sq.ft.) (sq.ft.) Area(sq.ft.) (per sq.ft.) Assessment SE 1/4, SECTION 22 013-75 289,674 St R/W(20%) 57,935 231;739 $0.045 $10,428.26. 015-75 206,910 Large Lot (1) 82,500(5) 0.045 3,712.50 020-75 124,146 Large Lot (1) 49,500(5) 0.045 2,227.50 011-76 116,930 Large Lot (1) 49,500(5) 0.045 2,227.50 012-76 209,088 - - - 209,088 0.045 9,408.96 031-76 228,291 St R/W(20%) 182,633 0.045 8,218.49 010-77 295,691 ,off St R/W(20%) 59,138 236,553 0.045 10,644.89 010-80 412,230 St R/W(20%) 82,446 329,784 0.045 14,840.28 010-84 412,393 St R/W(20%) 82,479 329,914 0.045 14,846.13 012-86 451,423 St R/W(20%) 90,285 361,138 $0.045 $16,251.21 011-85 207,035 1 Large Lot (I)l 82,500 (5) 1 0.045 1 3,712.50 . 011-86 206,916 Large Lot (1) 82,500 (5) 0.045 1 3,712.504 SUB TOTAL ................ $100,230.72 W. SCHMIDT ADDITION Lot 1 1 24,310 Large Lot (1)1 16,500 (5) $0.045 $742.50 Lot 2 124,052 Large Lot (1) 49,500 (5) 0.045 2,227.50 SUB TOTAL ................ $2,970.00 TOTAL(SE 1/4, SECTION 22) ...................................... $103,200.72 7f (1) Large lot credit was applied and assessed at 16,500 sq. ft. per acre. SAC 1/16/86 D. PROJECT 411, BIRCH.PARK ADDITION/PATRICK EAGAN PARK TRUNK STORM SEWER 5. Lilian McCarthy (10-02200-010-02) INFORMATION At the September 17, 1985 Final Assessment Hearing, a written objection was submitted by the attorney representing Lilian Mc Carthy for the trunk area storm sewer assessments proposed under the above -referenced project. A .copy of that objection is enclosed on page(s) Maps showing the location of this parcel in relationship to the project are enclosed on page(s) grZ through C{. Also enclosed on page(s) is a copy of the proposed final assessment roll showing —Fow the amount was calculated. As can be seen, although the property incorporates 3.91 acres, only 1.5 acres were assessed at the agricultural/Single family rate due to the "large lot" credit allocated this parcel. All drainage from this property directly enters Patrick Eagan Park where the storm sewer system was installed. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Based on the fact that all drainage from this property enters the storm sewer system installed under Project 411 and that all available credits and reductions were applied, it is the staff's recommendation that the assessment be reaffirmed as proposed. COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS/COMMENTS: OBJECTIONS TO NOTICE OF SPECIAL ASSESSMENT Project No. 411 /0 -0.2200 - 010-6,;L TO: EAGAN CITY COUNCIL NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN on behalf of Lillian. M. McCarthy of objections to the area storm sewer assessment proposed to be levied against her property in the amount of $2,970.00, pursu- ant to Project 411. The City is hereby notified that Mrs. McCarthy objects to said assessment on the following basis: 1. That the City lacks jurisdiction to levy said assess- ment. 2. That the proposed assessment is arbitrary, capricious, and unreasonable. 3. That the levying of said assessment constitutes an unconstitutional taking of Mrs. McCarthy's property. 4. That the proposed assessment does not result in any benefit to the -subject property, special or otherwise, or if there is benefit, said benefit is less than the amount of the proposed assessment. 5. That the.subject property has not, and will not increase in market value as the result of the improvement. Dated this 17th day of September, 1985. McMENOMY, SHELDON, DUSICH, HANSEN 6 MOLENDA By Bernie M. Dusich Attorneys for Lillian M. McCarthy Dakota Central Offices 14450 South Robert Trail Rosemount, MN 55068 (612) 423-1155 :r V • C r j: PROPOSED A6§ESSMEN CITY�,}— 1el,i �� BOUNDAR"P HALL -"Li.• :i �r._� • SKr I P tt �`�- .'�w.;N•.;�- - Salo 'x7 /e` • gip,% / a1- Ou - 3- O O -7 yl f _ oaa.� FArRICK-EAGANHI L n-- 4(PARKFHILLTOOF PLAZA EAGAN ofa- LEGEND ® SINGLE FAMILY RATE PATRICK EAGAN PARK / BIRCH PARK ADDITION TRUNK AREA STORM SEWER EAGAN, MINNESOTA eL N O R T H 0 1000 2000 SCALE IN FEET BONESTROO, ROSENE. ANDERLIK 8 ASSOCIATES. INC. Consulting Engineers St. Paul, Minn. Date: JUNE, 1984 PROJECT Comm. 49311 11 NO.411 IFT STA. 14 JP -11 JP 9 E q.;A JP -8 N. NORTH 0 1000 2000 SCALE IN FEET PATRICK EAGAN PARK / BONESTROO, ROSENE, ANDERLIK 3 ASSOCIATES, INC. BIRCH PARK ADDITION Consulting Engineers STORM SEWER LAYOUT C3 L.St. Paul, Minn. Date: JUNE, 1984 PROJECT POND JP -6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 38, 471 & 49 Comm. 49311 1 NO.411 Q O WIMOF G •! 1v•I � fw l INN, r C ADD / REVISED FINAL ASSESSMENT ROLL, SEPTEMBER 11, 1985 PATRICK FAGAN PARK/BIRCH PARK ADDITION TRUNK STORM SEWER OUTLET ,PROJECT Parcel Area Description (sq.ft.) HE 1/4, Section 22 Parcels 010-02 I 169,554 Credit Assessable (sq.ft.) Area(sq.ft.) Lot (1) 66,000 (5 Rate (per sq.ft.) $0.045 011-04 (4) 11,868,172 Pond 1,348,447 0.045 182,614 St. R/W (20%) 1337,112 TOTAL (NE1/4, Section 22) .......................................... NW 1/4, Section 22 Parcels Total Assessment $2,970.00 60,660.12 $63,650.12 012 -26 -Eagan 761;084 St R/W(20%) 152.217 608,867• $0.045 $27,399.02 013 -26 -Eagan 428,999 St R/W(20%) 85,800 343,199 0.045 15,443.96 014-26-Dak.Co. 370,518 - - - 370,518 0.045 16,673.31 010-27 174,200 - - - 174,200 0.045 7,839.00 020-27 191,114 - - - 191,114 0.045 8,600.13 030-27 112,320 1 112,320 1 0.045 1 5,054.40 040-27 170,300 - - - 170,300 0.045 7,663.50 SUB TOTAL ............... $88,673.32 (1) Large lot credit was applied and assessed at 16,500 sq. ft. per acre. 8� SAC 1/16/86 SPECIAL ASSESSMENT POLICY - PARKLAND BACKGROUND INFORMATION The City is presently involved in the preparation of a feasibility report for Project 4448 which discusses the proposed trunk storm sewer outlet for the Holland Lake area along Cliff Road. The necessity of this storm sewer outlet is being dictated by the increased runoff ass= atad with the development in the vicinity of W' rness Run Road and Do major trunk storm sewer project 00,000. Normally, the revenue necessary to finance these types of projects is derived from trunk area assessments over previously unassessed property within the benefitted drainage basin. In this particular project, the majority of the assessable area within this drainage basin incorporates the Lebanon Hills Regional Park under the jurisdiction of Dakota County. Although the entire regional park lies within the drainage basin that would ultimately be serviced by this trunk storm sewer lift station outlet, it would require interconnection of the several 1akes and ponds within the par's. d The map enclosed on page(s) 'yshows the relationship of the park property to the drainage area to the assessment area. In calculating the assessment liability for the county park property, the agricultural/sin le residential rate was used for the 42.9.acres dir e s " m sewer outlet which resulted in a proposed assessment of aporoxima $300,000. Due to the fact that the City cannot legally assess another ff governmental entity, this revenue can only be derived through V a cooperative agreement. Preliminary discussions with Dakota County indicate that they do not have the resources available to finance the estimated $300,000 assessment. Subsequently, they requested the City to see if any credits, special provisions, etc. can be applied to reduce their assessments to an amount that can be financially acceptable. l The county staff has argued that the runoff generated from an undeveloped large re-g,ional—pa-r-k—s-ys-te+_s much less than agricHltural or residential property. Subsequently, they feel a new Crate classification should be established for parkland property which more accurately reflects the runoff generated and the subsequent benefit received from any proposed storm sewer project. Enclosed on pages8 through �L is a summary of the assessment issue as described by our consulting engineering firm. Enclosed on page(s) f Z- is the present special assessment policy pertaining to trunk area storm sewer. Also enclosed on A4 SPECIAL ASSESSMENT POLICY - PARKLAND (continued) on page(s) !F%3 is the present policy pertaining to parkland and other governmental jurisdiction property. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS Runoff generated from parkland is dependent upon the amount of development associated with its use (active vs. passive). Most neighborhood and community parks are developed and maintained in a manner that generates a comparable amount of runoff as agricultural/single family residential property. However, larger county, regional and state parkland do not significantly increase the amount of runoff from its previous undeveloped passive condition. Therefore, it is the staff's recommendation that consideration be given to establishing 'a new rate for large undeveloped passive parkland equal to one-half the agricultural/ single family residential rate. This reduced rate would be subject to the execution of an agreement with other jurisdictional agencies whereby additional assessments will be paid with any subsequent development or intensified use. COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS/COMMENTS 87 2335 W 7..A #,qA,a 36 81. Pad. M• 55„3 PA.— 612-636-4600 December 31, 1985 City of Eagan 3830 Pilot Knob Road Eagan, MN 55122 Attn: Mr. Tom Colbert & 4"Ac'kk , Jots. Onn G. Bnn,rr.n, P.E. C/rr �i/,tb'Ll p Rnhrn B'. Ran r, P.E. lavPh C. Andrrlik, P.E. Povdlard A. Lrmhrq, P.E. Rirh.M E. Turnrr. P.E. Jumn C. Ohm P.E, Re: Holland Lake Area - Trunk Storm Sewer Imprs. Project No. 444 - Our File No. 49355 Dear Tom, Gl,.n R. Cook, P.E. Krirh A. Gordon, P.E. Thomas E. Noy,, P.E. Richard W. Forr,. P.E. Ro&rl G. Srhunichr, P.E, Marvin L. Sorvak P.E. Donald C. BuMordl. P.E. lrrry A. Bandon, P.E. Mark A. Mo... P.E. Trd K. Firld. P.E. MBharrT. Raum,onn. P.E. Robrrr R. P/rllrr, P.E. David 0. Lmkara, P.E. Chad, A. Erlckron Lro M. Pawrhky Marla.,N. Man The draft preliminary report for the above project proposed assessing Dakota County Park for trunk storm improvements. Stated below is a paragraph from the assessment portion explaining the proposed method for assessing Dakota Co. and their proposed assessment. "The property south of Cliff Road included in the City of Eagan is all Dakota County Park. The total area of Dakota County Park which benefits from the storm sewer project is 1,209 acres of which 232 acres is pond or lake. All these ponds or lakes are interconnected by existing drainage swales or channels once each pond obtains a certain elevation. As part of this project, however, it is proposed to assess only the first level of ponding south of Cliff Road which includes 429 acres of which 72 acres is pond. The same method in de- termining the proposed assessment to Dakota County Park was used as determining assessments within the City of Eagan with the exception that the residential assessment rate was reduced in half. The reason for this is based on the theory that the park will generate half of the runoff as residential property. In any event, Dakota county will have to agree to the assessment through a cooperative agreement." Assessable Parcel Total Area Credit Area Assessment Total Description (Acres) (Acres) (Acres) Rate Assessment Dakota Co. 429 Pond 72) 285.6 $0.024/s.f. $298,578 Park St. (20%) In reviewing this draft report with Dakota Co. Staff, they have indicated that a $298,578 assessment may be difficult for the board to accept. Therefore, it was felt if an alternate was prepared within the report not to construct the outlet for McDonough Lake that their assessment would be reduced in half 2658d 8!' City of Eagan December 31, 1985 Eagan, MN Re: File No. 49355 (approx. $150,000) because the area tributary to McDonough Lake would not be assessed. As a result the board may be more agreeable to a $150,000 assess- ment as opposed to $300,000 assessment. The construction cost for the proj- ect, however, would not chang e. The entire system would be designed and con- structed assuming the outlet for McDonough Lake would be built sometime in the future and that Dakota Co. would be assessed at that time. The only construc- tion required in the future would be a few pipe and a flared end section from a manhole adjacent to Cliff Road. In determining a fair method for assessing Dakota Co., it was felt that be- cause the proposed storm sewer system was designed assuming a runoff coeffi- cient of 0.2 from the park as opposed to 0.4 from residential property, the trunk area assessment rate for residential property should also be reduced ac- cordingly or by half (0.048 x 0.5 = 0.024). In addition, only those areas tributary to McDonough Lake and Holland Lake are proposed to be assessed. It is felt, due to the significant ponding upstream from McDonough Lake and Hol- land Lake, that through the effort of the county restricting the flow through existing channels, these areas may be eliminated entirely from the drainage system. As a result, these areas would not benefit from the proposed storm sewer project and therefore are not proposed to be assessed. Again, this as- sumes the County attempts to limit the overland flow between their various ponds and lakes. As noted, I also deducted 20% for future street right-of-way after deducting the pond area. The only reason this was done was to be con- sistent with the assessment policy. If it is intended to deviate from the as- sessment policy which I feel is appropriate for this project, then maybe the future street right-of-way credit of 20% should be reconsidered. In reality there will never be future street rightof-way within the park so why should a credit be given. Another expense which should be given additional consideration is the sedimen- tation pond located on the north side of Cliff Road across from Holland Lake. The purpose of this pond is to reduce pollutants from entering Holland Lake. Hopefully, the first flush through the system will be contained in the pond and only the clear runoff generated after the first flush will be stored in - Holland Lake. The estimated cost for this pond is $30,000 to $35,000 ($20,000 construction and $10-$15,000 pond easement). Obviously, preserving Holland Lake is a benefit to all who use it and Dakota Co. Park is the one promoting the use of Holland Lake. In summary, I have attempted to explain the reasons and concerns in determin- ing a fair assessment to Dakota Co. Park based on our. draft report. I don't feel the scope or cost of the project can be reduced. The County obviously needs an outlet for Holland Lake to control it at a desirable level and the City needs Holland Lake for storage (588 acre-feet). In addition, ponds adja- cent to Wilderness Run Road (Schwanz Lake, Pond LP -61, etc.) need outlets due to development and once these outlets are constructed the outlet for Holland 2658d cog 7 d City of Eagan December 31, 1985 Eagan, MN Re: File No. 49355 Lake must be also constructed at the same time. Bob and I have met with Barb and Chuck from Dakota Co. Park and we have attempted to express their con- cerns. They have discussed the project with John Voss who indicated the board may be agreeable to a $150,000 assessment. In any event, the County must be presented with a report approved by the City so they have something to present to their board. If you have any questions, please contact this office. Yours very truly, BONEST_R0.0,, ROSENE, ANDERLIK 6 ASSOCIATES, INC. Mark A. Hanson MAH:li 2658d Page 3. f/ X. ADDITIONAL CONSIDERATIONS Assessable Cost The total assessable cost of an improvement project shall include construction and engineering costs, plus administrative, legal, and other expenses appurten;mP tO the project. Assessment of City -owned Property For all City -owned property other than parkland, the City shall pay the assessment. Such assessment will be determined at the rate used for Public Facility property and payment will be made from the General Fund. For City -owned parkland,the following shall apply: a) All assessments against park land which exist at the time of acquisition of title to the land by the City, wi-l-l-be-considered=as= part--of-ttie acquisition cost of the land unless paid by t�hh�e seller-. b) When park land is dediciated as a part ,of a resid'ential"'' development, the developer shall bered Bible for payment of all ssessments against thd'^� n existing at the time of Irthee dedication. .c) C c) When new assessments are incur•/r:d u' �ponJpark lanes owned by the City, the costs of these assessments will be born by the General Fund in the case of Community Parks. Assessments will be spread over the normal."assessment area (less the park) in the case of neighborhood parks or walkways. City owned property which abuts a•street improved. through Municipal State Aid Road funds will not be assessed for the street improvements. Assessment of Property Owned by Other Political Units Property owned by other political units will be assessed on the basis of benefit received from a particular pro- ject. Errors and Omissions in Assessment Upon discovery that a parcel had been omitted from or . an error made on the original assessment, the Assessment Clerk will notify the property owner of the amount due. The property owner will have thirty days upon receipt of the notice to pay the assessment without interest. The total -amount will be based on the rate in effect at the time of the omission or error. C. B. Policies It is the policy of the City to assess property which has benefited from the storm sewer system. The method used to assess for both trunk and lateral benefit will be the Area Method. a) The rate will be'computed on a "per square foot" basis. b) The street and ponding credits will be allowed, as defined in the section on area assessment. The assessment rate for storm sewer trunk -is calculated by dividing the estimated cost of completing the system b%• the net assessable area which has not yet been assessed for storm sewer trunk benefit. The rate is adjusted each year to reflect current construction costs. The assessment rate for storm sewer laterals is calculated by dividing the cost of providing the laterals by the assessable area which has received benefit from the project. STORM SEWER TRUNKS All land within a drainage area will be considered as having benefited from a trunk project, as all land con- tributes runoffto the system. Assessment rates will be progressively higher for s'in.110 family, multi -family, and commercial/industrial land, since the proportion of impervious surface varies with each land use. In all new subdivisions, storm sewer trunk assessments will be levied. When trunk oversizing occurs, a portion of the cost may be assessed as a trunk area charge to a portion of the drainage area outside the developed area which will be benefited in the future. When future benefit is so far off as to be impractical to be assessed at the time of initial construction, the assessment will be deferred with the City temporarily financing that portion of the construction. The City will later be reimbursed as the area is developed and assessed. Where a tr•ink serves as a lateral, part of its cost will t fnr assessment purposes. -a-6 43 CE SPECIAL ASSESSMENT COMMITTEE MEETING January 16, 1986 4:30 P.M. S City Hall, Eagan MN A G E N D A I. 4:30 - Pledge of Allegiance II. .4:35 - Roll Call III. 4:40 - Review/Adopt Agenda IV. 4:45 - OLD BUSINESS py 14L A. Project 372, I -35E - Utilities & Streets (Deerwood Dr) 1. Francis C. Franz (10-02100-010-50) 2. Anna S. Heuer (10-02100-010-78) V. 5:30 - Adjourn (dinner.break) VI. 6:00 - Reconvene VII. - NEW BUSINESS A. Project 427, Yankee Doodle Rd - Streets & Storm Sewer }!Don Sandberg (10-01600-010-26) py a 2� YD Associates (10-27500-010-01) - BV William Muske (10-00900-011-52) (10-00900-020-52) B. Project -447, Lone Oak Add - Trunk Watermain (T.H. 149) pg 31p 1. Willard Berfelz (10-03800-010-12). C. Project 404, Lexington Place Add - Utilities (Lexington AV Z1W'11 I\R \.GLllla 111/ pyYA 1. Patrick McCarthy (10-01500-013-76) D. Project 411, Birch Park Add/Patrick Eagan Park - Trunk--�r..-. Storm Sewer p� V7 1. Patrick McCarthy (10-02200-011-04) pBSJ 2. Don Vogtman (Lot 7 & N� of 6, Blk 1, Skovdale) P� 513. Victor Staff (Lot 5, Blk 1, Skovdale 2nd) P8 N 4. Ron Boyle (10-02200-011-86) P7 y65. Lilian McCarthy (10-02200-010-02) VIII. 8:00 - Other Business pa Sip 1 . Special Assessment Policy - Parkland Ix. 8:30 Adjourn n - -- ---- III r. - 1i i 9 0 :- �. �, / �" � �' � � i% � � � / . '' � i �/� '' � � y � i � i� a f / / i i ' �. � / � r � ryii. -- _ _ - - v �" �D - �� _ _ �. _ i/ - �-�/ ___ �/ __ �,�-�_- J', � � � � � i � � o �' � SBS �� Z VI. NEW BUSINESS A. PROJECT 460, NICOLS ROAD 2. Brandt Management Company (Lots 1, 2 & 3, Cedarview Addn.) BACKGROUND INFORMATION As a part of the public hearing process to consider the proposed improvement of Nicols Road, the written objection enclosed on page , was submitted by the Brandt Management Company pertaining to their assessments and the overall project itself. In scheduling the agenda for the July 9 Special Assessment Committee meeting, the Public Works Director contacted Mr. William Brandt on June 29, 1987. As a result of that phone conversation,J M t raw is o Tec ion consideration by the Special Assessment Committee. a §E-a-E€d that his primary purpose o 0 7ecting was to prevent the project more so than in regards to the proposed assessments. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS Based on the verbal request of Mr. Brandt to have his objection withdrawn, the staff is recommending that the Special Assessment Committee acknowledge his initial written objection but that no action be taken based on his request for it to be withdrawn. COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS/COMMENTS C?S— M Brandt Management Company 15010 GLAZIER AVENUE APPLE VALLEY, MN 55124 (612) 4323200 William F. Brandt P,esidem February 14, 1986 Mayor Bea Bloomquist City Council Members CITY OF EAGAN 3838 Pilot Knob Road Eagan, Mn 55122 Dear Mayor & Council Members: 1020-T 4/60 This letter shall serve as our protest to the current plans for upgrading and improving Nicola Road, south of Cliff Road. We lodge this protest as owners of three office buildings located at 4635, 4651, and 4655 Nicols Road. It is our understanding this improvement would cost us in the neighborhood of $30,000.00 in assessments and this plus interest is too much of a cash drain on our cash flow. We, as most businesses, are in business to make a profit and our profit is sparse enough, let alone to absorb this type of unexpected expenditure. Our buildings do not generate enough traffic to even think of justifying this type of cash out flow. Because of the lack of traffic beyond Durnings, Hardees, and the Flour Bin, upgrading beyond this point just doesn't make sense. This is an awful lot of money and shall inflict serious financial wounds to us, and we therefore request a :fearing with a special assessment committee to review this further. Thank you for your understanding. WFB/ls Kindest r Bards, William F. Brandt W f7 VI. NEW BUSINESS. D. PROJECT 179, GENERAL TRUNK AREA WATER 1. Willard Berfelz (10-03800-010-12) In 1976, the City provided an opportunity to the entire community to pay a trunk area water assessment in accordance with the rates in effect during that year unless the property owner requested in writing to be excluded from that proposed assessment. Enclosed on page _y3 is a letter from Mr. Berfelz requesting his "deferment" from the proposed assessment. You will note that word "defer" was crossed off and replaced with the word "excluded" by the City Clerk at that time, Alice Bolke. Enclosed on page 4 is Mrs. Bolke's response to Mr. and Mrs. Berfelz informing them of the City's receipt of their written request for deletion. This response refers to the "exclusion" rather than "deferment" with a later assessment to be in accordance with the rates in effect at that time. Enclosed on page V,� is a letter from Mr. Berfelz indicating his original request and intent was to have that 1976 assessment ($242.20) "deferred" rather than excluded, similar to a senior citizen's deferment. This would have locked in the 1976 rate but it would have continued to accrue interest at the rate of 88 per year. On September 2, 1986, a final assessment hearing was held for the trunk water main installed along the frontage of this property. If the trunk area assessment were levied at that time in accordance with those rates, it would have amounted to $702.10 for the 0.59 acres of this parcel. For comparison, a "deferred" assessment from 1976 at 88 per year would have equalled $564.72. Mr. Berfelz requests consideration for the original 1976 assessment to be classified as a "deferred" and not as an "exclusion." However, in researching the matter further, it has been discovered that the trunk ent was not included in the final assessmen .off- ptember 2, 198 ,9. Because of the original exclusion, it sho ncluded. Therefore, it is necessary for the City to determine what the proper trunk area assessment rate is for the 0.59 acres of this referenced parcel. In 1976, it was the City's intention that either the assessment be levied at that time at those rates or that it be excluded and assessed at a later date when either connection or development of the property occurred in accordance with the rates then in effect. Also, due to the fact that the inadvertently omitted from Project be added to the amount proposed to COMMITTEE RECOMl4NDATIONS/COMMENTS trunk area assessment was 447, it is recommended that it be levied. t LqL6v ()7' inr 17 Af 0/0 00,500 a/ dpJ CITY OF SA GAN 0700 PILOT KNOB ROAD EAGAN. MINNESOTA 001sa August 5, 1976 Willard and Gertrude Berfelz 3285 Dodd Rd. Eagan, Minnesota 55121 Re: Water Main Oversizing Assessment Parcel 10.01200'010 28 $1022.20 Parcel 10 03800 010 12 $224.20 Dear Mr. and Mrs. Berfelz: The Eagan Assessment Committee and the Eagan City Council have both reviewed and approved your request to have the above parcels excluded from the assessment roll for water main oversizing, Project 179, which is being assessed at the 1:75 rate. It is our understanding that you hereby agree that when this prrcel is connected to the municipal water system you %fill be assessed at the rate then in effect. very truly yours, (;Ars.) Alyce Bolke clerk - City of Eagan AD: Wk. PHONE 494.8100 3a S� Aadd 2d VV7 q s 4 HAUGE. EIDE & HELLER. P.A. ATTORNEYS AT LAW WATER VIEW OFFICE TOWER, SUITE 909 1200 YANKEE DOODLE ROAD EAOAN. MINNESOTA 88121 PAUL W. HAUOE KEVIN W. EIDE DAVID G. KELLER LORI M. BELLIN MICHAEL J. MAYER Deanna Kivi Assessment Clerk City of Eagan 3830 Pilot Knob Road Eagan, Minnesota 55121 May 5, 1986 Re: Deferral of Assessments—Fred L. Maves and Erik Erikstrup, et al. Dear Deanna: : ► ARIA Coo[ 812 TtL[PNONC 486.8000 484.4224 You sent a copy of a Stipulation of Dismissal covering an assessment hearing dated May 6, 1980 regarding the Erikstrup property near Cliff Road and Pilot Knob Road. Your questions included whether interest was forgiven and whether the assessments were made at the current rate when the land use changes. The wording of the agreement clearly states that the assessments would be deferred until the property is platted, sold, subdivided or Mr. Erikstrup reaches the age of 65 and is eligible for deferment under Ordinance #66. I would read that to provide under M.S.A. 429.061, Subd.2 that any assessment may be deferred until a designated future time, or until the platting of the property or the construction of improvements thereon upon the terms and conditions that are provided by resolution of the Council. It is important, though, that the City file with the County Recorder a certificate containing the legal description of the affected property and the amount deferred. There were a number of deferments from that Thomas Lake trunk storm sewer assessment in 1980 and I am not certain whether the resolutions were filed and should mention that it was in the 1980 session that the change in the law provided for the filing with the County Recorder. The effective date, as you may know, of the requirement was that the filing should take place prior to January 1, 1982. In addition, the interest rate should not exceed eight percent (8X) except that the rate may in the event equal the average annual interest rate in the bond issue to the finance the improvement for which the assessments are levied. Therefore, the interest rate effective for the bond issue used to finance the Thomas Lake trunk storm sewer project should be the effective rate that would be used for interest which will continue to accrue until the property is platted, sold or subdivided. Ms. Deanna Kivi May 5, 1986 Page Two I would suggest that you check the Council action in 1980 dealing with the deferral of the assessments and the agreement with the Erikstrups to see if there was any other wording that may affect the agreement. If you have any other questions, certainly get in touch with me. PHH:cjb cc: E.J. VanOverbeke Very truly yours, HAUGE, EIDE & KELLER, P.A. Paul H. Hauge //21,d- &6— cd R% /L O�-CC. Gu-/��,:/ J' til( ct. LC ✓-c: C� �c {:.c. p -e 7 STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF DAKOTA Fred L. Maves and Madonna M. Maves, husband and wife; et al., William C. Tschida; et al., Appellants, VS. City of Eagan, a Minnesota Municipal corporation, DISTRICT COURT FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT File No. 90181 and 90182 STIPULATION OF DISMISSAL I Respondent. ----------------------------- WHEREAS, Erik G. Erikstrup and Shirley L. Erikstrup, husband and wife, have appealed the City Council's adoption of the Special Assessment for Proj- ect No. 257; and WHEREAS, it is now the desire of the parties to amicably resolve this cause of action dealing with the Appellants herein named; and WHEREAS, the Eagan City Council on the 5th day of November, 1980, re- viewed the Appellants' herein named request for a deferment of the payment of these special assessments pursuant to Minn. Stat. 429.061, Subd. 2; and WHEREAS, Appellants herein named will, in fact, dismiss their appeal with prejudice upon their receiving this deferral of the first installment of the special assessment. IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED: 1. That the first installment of the assessment levied upon the unimproved property now owned by Erik G. Erikstrup and Shirley L. Erikstrup and legally described as follows: Parcel I.D. No. 10-02800-010-80-9 I See attached Exhibit A _ shall be deferred until the property is platted, sold, subdivided or Mr. Erik- strup reaches the ace of 65 and is._.el.gible for a deferment under Ordinance�— 66. Said Ordinance 66 was enacted pursuant to Minn. Stat. 435.193 and the , guidelines and procedures for obtaining this deferment shall be as adopted by the City of Eagan and in effect at the date of this Stipulation. r n � 2. Upon the execution of this agreement by and for the City of Eagan, the specific appeal by the Appellants herein named is and can be dismissed. 3. That both sides shall be responsible for their own costs, disburse- ments and attorney's fees in this proceeding. A 11 Erik G. Erikstrup Appellant i Shirley L. Erikstrup Appellant -2- Kenneth P. Ketcham Attorney for Appellants 1456 Yankee Doodle Road Eagan, MN 55121 (612) 454-6981 Bea Blomquist - Mayor, City of Eagan 3795 Pilot Knob Road Eagan, MN 55122 Paul H. Hauge V City Attorney, City of Eagan 3908 Sibley Memorial Highway Eagan, MN 55122 (612) 454-4224 y s Fe' Co JACKSON y F ` - LAND $URVRrOR REGISTERED UNDER LAW* or OTATf O/ MNMCMTA ..• LICENSta A ORDUYNCf or CIT' O/ WI21RAPOL10 3010 KAWr OOTN OTRmrr PA. 44001 - �• - r� f`I rte` � A• _. :. '•�..., '-_ ._. fisc. 1 MERSEY CERTIFY THAT THE ABOVE If A TRUE AND CORRECT /LAT D/ A aURVRV O/ / "=. 2 aD' That cart of the of the ".?,.1/4 of Ser -tion 28,Tcwuah!7) 27,L.anEe 23 desr.ribed as follows; :snt:inning at the 3.h. cortser of suid 1/4-1/4; thence North along the East line of said 1/4-11/4 distant 52E.0 feet; thence 'nest at right angles 435.#3 feet; thence North at riEht angles 50.01 feet; thence Nest at right nnalea 350.0 feet; thence So11th at right anglus along a line pwrallel with said Fant lino 24ti.f.7 feet more or less to its intersection with a line drawn parallel to Lind 321.0E feet Forth of the South line of said 1/4-1/4; thence Luat elonE said! parallel line 104.b !'set more or less to its intersection with a line drawn parallel to and 680.b feet hest of said East line; thence South along sold parallel 11ne 325.0E feet to said South line; thence East along said South line 6E0.8 feet to the point of beginningmcontaining 9.0E hErea more or less. AR AURvzvga BY Na THIa-7.Sh� _ DAY Dr_P49 a -.o. 1967 V H. M1N NfSCTAIda sow 4 I° Y 1 MERSEY CERTIFY THAT THE ABOVE If A TRUE AND CORRECT /LAT D/ A aURVRV O/ / "=. 2 aD' That cart of the of the ".?,.1/4 of Ser -tion 28,Tcwuah!7) 27,L.anEe 23 desr.ribed as follows; :snt:inning at the 3.h. cortser of suid 1/4-1/4; thence North along the East line of said 1/4-11/4 distant 52E.0 feet; thence 'nest at right angles 435.#3 feet; thence North at riEht angles 50.01 feet; thence Nest at right nnalea 350.0 feet; thence So11th at right anglus along a line pwrallel with said Fant lino 24ti.f.7 feet more or less to its intersection with a line drawn parallel to Lind 321.0E feet Forth of the South line of said 1/4-1/4; thence Luat elonE said! parallel line 104.b !'set more or less to its intersection with a line drawn parallel to and 680.b feet hest of said East line; thence South along sold parallel 11ne 325.0E feet to said South line; thence East along said South line 6E0.8 feet to the point of beginningmcontaining 9.0E hErea more or less. AR AURvzvga BY Na THIa-7.Sh� _ DAY Dr_P49 a -.o. 1967 V H. M1N NfSCTAIda sow 4 PARTIES: CITY OF EAGAN called "Eagan" 3830 Pilot Knob Road Eagan, MN 55121 AGREEMENT ailed 'Owners" ADDRESS Eagan, MN RECITALS: 1. The Eagan City Council conaucted a public hearing concerning Improvement Project #472 consisting of street improvements for certain streets within Clearview Addition in the City of Eagan at its regular meeting on May 6, 1986. 2. Due to the fact that there were objections from a significant number of affected owners that would be specially assessed by such improvements, the City Council determined to improve only a small portion of the west ena of Beecher Drive, adjacent to Blackhawk Road, at the present time, with the understanding that the balance of Beecher Drivviee Clover Lane and Lenore Lane will be upgraded through an improvement projec nC some time in the future. 41 3. are the owners of Lot 6, Block 2, Clearview Addition, which will be specially benefited by the improvements intended to be installed at the present time under Improvement Project #472 but to said owners of Lot 6, Block 2, have objected to the assessments. 4. Eagan agrees to install the improvements for Beecher Drive, adjacent to Lot 6, Block 2, Clearview Addition, and further agrees that the assessments for such improvements shall not be levied at the present time. u E �1'1J 1 I-ale/k,a9 u ki 5. , themselves, their heirs and assigns, hereby agree that the assessments for a street improvement to Beecher Drive shall be levied against Lot 6, Block 2, Clearview Addition at such time as the balance of Beecher Drive to the east, is improved and assessed by the City against the other lots benefited by such Beecher Drive improvements, and further agrees to waive any and all objections to such assessments, which assessments shall be levied at the same rates as those ['�� _� assessed aih the lots east of said Lot 6, Block 2, Ase for the improvements then installed. _ CITY OF EAGAN By: Beatta Blomquist, Mayor Attest: E. J. VanOverbeke, City Clerk Dated: Dated: FA 5-14-86 _.; PARTIES: CITY OF EAGAN called "Eagan" 3830 Pilot Knob Road Eagan, MN 55121 called "Owners" Eagan, MN RECITALS: AGREEMENT Lot 6, Block 2, Clearview, Addition 1. The Eagan City Council conducted a public hearing concerning Improvement Project #472 consisting of street improvements for certain streets within Clearview Addition in the City of Eagan at its regular meeting on May 6, 1986. 2. Due to the fact that there were objections from a significant number of affected owners that would be specially assessed by such improvements, the City Council determined to improve only a small portion of the west end of Beecher Drive, adjacent to Blackhawk Road, at the present time, with the understanding that the balance of Beecher Drive, Clover Lane and Lenore Lane will be upgraded through an improvement project at some time in the future. 3. are the owners of Lot 6, Block 2, Clearview Addition, which will be specially benefited by the improvements intended to be installed at the present time under Improvement Project #472 but said owners of Lot 6, Block 2, have objected to the assessments. 4. Eagan agrees to install the improvements for Beecher Drive, adjacent to Lot 6, Block 2, Clearview Addition, and further agrees that the assessments for such improvements shall not be levied at the present time. 5. , for themselves, their heirs and assigns, hereby agree that the assessments for the street improvements to Beecher Drive shall be levied against Lot 6, Block 2, Clearview Addition at such time as the balance of Beecher Drive to the east, is improved and assessed by the City against the other lots benefitea by such Beecher Drive improvements, and further agrees for themselves, their heirs ana assigns, to waive any ana all objections to such assessments, which assessments shall be levied at the same rates as those assessed against the lots east of said Lot 6, Block 2, on Beecher Drive, for the improvements then installed. 6. This agreement may be recorded with the Dakota County Recorder. CITY OF EAGAN By: Beatta Blomquist, Mayor Attest: E. J. VanOverbeke, City Clerk Datea: 2 Dated: STATE OF MINNESOTA) sa. COUNTY OF ) On this day of , 19 , before me a Notary Public within and for said County, personally appeared BEATTA BLOMQUIST and E. J. VanOVERBEKE to me personally known, who being each by me duly sworn, each aid say that they are respectively the Mayor and Clerk of the CITY OF EAGAN, the municipality named in the foregoing instrument, and that the seal affixed to said instrument was signed and sealed in behalf of said municipality by authority of its City Council and said Mayor and Clerk acknowledged said instrument to be the free act and deed of -said municipality. (SEAL) STATE OF MINNESOTA) ) as. COUNTY OF ) On this day of , 19_, before me a Notary Public within and for said County, personally appeared to me personally known to be the person described in and who executed the foregoing instrument and acknowledged that he executed the same as h_ free act and deed. (S E A L) 0 HAUGE, FADE & ]KET.TXX P. A. ATTORNEYS AT LAW WATER VIEW OFFICE TOWER, SUITE 009 ILOO YANKEE DOODLE ROAD EAOAN. MINNESOTA 00121 PAUL W. HAUGE KEVIN W. EIDE DAVID G. KELLER LORI M. BELLIN MICHAEL J. MAYER TO: rom Hedges XX Tom Colbert Gene Vanoverbeke Dale Runkle FROM: XX Pau:' 3!3uge Kevin Eide Dave Keller Lori Bellin Mike *layer RE: Clearview Project No. Enclosed please f Development Contract PDD Agreement Easement Deed Other DATrD: May 14, 1986 Proiect #4 AREA COD[ 012 TELVHONE 400.9000 404.4224 Action requested: At the last City Council meeting there was action by the Council regarding Project x!472 relating to Clearview Addition and I have prepared a draft Agreement for Lot 6, Block 2 that might be helpful. If you have questions or comments, please let me know. gAUGE. EIDE IN KEW-Elt. P. A. ATTORNEYS AT LAW WATER VIEW OFFICE TOWER. SUITE 202 1200 YANKEE DOODLE ROAD FAOAN. MINNESOTA 55121 PAUL W-HAUGE KEVIN W. EIDE DAVID 0. KELLER LORI M. BELLIN MICHAEL J. MAYER TO: rom Hedges XX Tom Colbert Gene VanOverbeke Dale Runkle FROM: XX �Pai31`:'.aug Kevin Eide Dave Keller Lori Bellin Mike Mayer RE: Clearview Addition Im Project NO-.---- 472 - 41ynTS Enclosed please find: r �\ Development Contract PGD Agreement Easement Deed Other AREA CODs 612 TEL2PHONE 456.9000 454-4224 DATED: May 14, 1986 S, Project #47200 vr Action requested: At the last City Council meeting there -was action by the Council regarding Project #472 relating to Clearview Addition and I have prepared a draft Agreement for Lot 6, Block 2 that might be helpful. If you have questions or comments, please let me know. PARTIES: CITY OF EAGAN called "Eagan" 3830 Pilot Knob Road Eagan, MN 55121 AGREEMENT Lot 6, Block 2, Clearview Addition called "Owners" Eagan, MN RECITALS: 5-14-86 1. The Eagan City Council conducted a public hearing concerning Improvement Project #472 consisting of street improvements for certain streets within Clearview Addition in the City of Eagan at its regular meeting on May 6, 1986. 2. Due to the fact that there were objections from a significant number of affected owners that would be specially assessed by such improvements, the City Council determined to improve only a small portion of the west end of Beecher Drive, adjacent to Blackhawk Road, at the present time, with the understanding that the balance of Beecher Drive, Clover Lane and Lenore Lane will be upgraded through an improvement project at some time in the future. 3, are the owners of Lot 6, Block 2, Clearview Addition, which will be specially benefited by the improvements intended to be installed at the present time under Improvement Project #472 but said owners of Lot 6, Block 2, have objected to the assessments. 4. Eagan agrees to install the improvements for Beecher Drive, adjacent to Lot 6, Block 2, Clearview Addition, and further agrees that the assessments for such improvements shall not be levied at the present time. 5. , for themselves, their heirs and assigns, hereby agree that the assessments for the street improvements to Beecher Drive shall be levies against Lot 6, Block 2, Clearview Addition at such time as the balance of Beecher Drive to the east, is improved and assessed by the City against the other lots benefited by such Beecher Drive improvements, and further agrees for themselves, their heirs ana assigns, to waive any and all objections to such assessments, which assessments shall be levied at the same rates as those assessed against the lots east of said Lot 6, Block 2, on Beecher Drive, for the improvements then installed. 6. This agreement may be recorded with the Dakota County Recorder. CITY OF EAGAN By: Beatta Blomquist, Mayor Attest: E. J. VanOverbeke, City Clerk Datea: 2 Dated: STATE OF MINNESOTA) ) as. COUNTY OF ) On this day of , 19 , before me a Notary PubLiC within and for said County, personally appeared BEATTA BLOMQUIST-and E. J. VanOVERBEKE to me personally known, who being each by me duly sworn, each aid say that they are respectively the Mayor and Clerk of the CITY OF EAGAN, the municipality named in the foregoing instrument, and that the seal affixed to said instrument was signed and sealed in behalf of said municipality by authority of its City Council and said Mayor and Clerk acknowledged said instrument to be the free act and deed of said municipality. (S EA L) STATE OF MINNESOTA) as. COUNTY OF ) On this day of , 19_, before me a Notary Public within and for said County, personally appeared to me personally known to be the person described in and who executed the foregoing instrument and acknowledged that he executed the same as h_ free act and deed. (S E A L) 3 VI. NEW BUSINESS A. PROJECT 460, NICOLS ROAD 1 Metram Properties (10-01900-011-54) BACKGROUND INFORMATION Project 460 provided for the upgrading of Nicols Road from its previous county rural section to a city urban section with concrete and gutter, bituminous surfacing and related trailways from Kings Road on the south end to Beau D'Rue Drive on the north end. Public hearings were held on February 4 with final approval by Council being issued on February 18, 1986. Subsequent to that public hearing process, the City received the written objection from the property owners enclosed on page 0Z O pertaining to this referenced parcel. Enclosed on pages 11;2/ through o23 are the appropriate portions of the feasibility report delineating the pending assessments against this parcel in relationship to the proposed improvements. Parcel 011-54 being assessed under Project 460 is a portion of a larger 40 -acre tract that was severed when the Cedar Avenue Freeway was built. The relationship of this assessable parcel to the overall original parcel is identified by the section map enclosed on page Q I/ . Further detailed analysis indicates that Parcel 011-54 has only 1096.0' of frontage along Cedar Avenue instead of the proposed pending assessable footage of 1260. This parcel is only 82' deep at its north end and 200' deep at its south end resulting in a disproportionate frontage (1096') to its area (3.52 acres) fronting on Nicols Road. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS While this property is zoned General Business (GB) and will definitely benefit from the upgrading of Nicols Road to an urban roadway section to handle traffic movements for the future development of this property, it is obvious that the assessable frontage for this property is dispropor innate to the developable ares_ e s a f f lRis received inquires rom poten ia1 buyers/developers of this property which indicates that it will be developed. However, they have indicated that the excessive amount of the pending assessments precludes their interest in purchasing this property for development. Therefore, the staff is recommending a reduction of the assessable frontage to approximately one-half of what is presently pending. COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS/COMMENTS /9 MEITRAM PROPERTIES CO. July 14, 1986 Mr. Tom Colbert Director of Public Works City of Eagan 3830 Pilot Knob Rd. Eagan, Mn 55121 Re: Project 460 - Nicols Road Dear Mr. Colbert: Zao CCP( - tAX%LC-0 q/z-I/ZG We have learned that we are facing a special assessment of $98,847 on a strip of land we own along Nicols Road. We would like to begin immediately the appeals process to have this amount reconsidered. The parcel of land is only 3.46 acres and is long and narrow and difficult to either market or develop. We understand that the property has a lot of road frontage, but we do not understand how the assessments can possibly be so high. The amount of the proposed assessment will, in effect, render the property worthless to us. We cannot sell the land for enough money to pay off the assessments and cover the costs of the sale. If the amount of the proposed assessment is not lowered substantially, we will have no choice but to forfeit the property to the city. Is it possible that in calculating the amount of the assessment, that the city staff included the approximately nine acres we own on the west side of New Cedar Avenue? If this is the case, we hasten to point out that this parcel is not served by Nicols Road and will not be benefitted by any of those improvements. We hope you will agree with us that the situation as it now exists is grossly unfair and that our protest is very reasonable. We want your help in gettting the amount of the assessment reduced.. Please notify us as to when we may appear before the Special Assessment Review Committee and keep us informed before the Final Assessment Hearing in September or October. We would greatly appreciate a response to this letter. Sincerely, Dale Ahlquist Project Manager ao 7401 Mefrll IS(I(Ilevilr(I., tilllll`; 51.E W& Edina. hfinllesolil :i. i•I:S.i ��i H:S.. i••4111 PARCEL DESCRIPTION. ------------------ Section 19 10-01900-011-54 10-01900-011-55 Cedar Grove #1 Blk 2, Lt 12 Blk Sr Lt 4 -- Blk 8, Lt 3 Blk 8, Lt 2 Blk 8, Lt 1 Section 30 10-03000-011-25 10-03000-020-25 10-03000-030-25 10-03000-011-27 10-03000-010-29 10-03000-191-08 10-03000-192-08 10-03000-012-76 Peaceful Hgts Outlot A ; Blk 1, Lt 1 Cedar Ridge 1st Blk 1, Lt 1 Blk 1, Lt 3 Blk 2, Lt 1 Cedar Grove No 4 Blk 6, Lt 12-16 Mari Acres Blk 1, Lt 1 Mari Acres 2nd Blk 1, Lt 1 Blk 3, Lt 2 Blk 3, Lt 3 Cedar Ridge Comm Park Add'n Blk 1, Lt 1 Blk 2, Lt 1 Page 1 APPENDIX B PRELIMINARY ASSESSMENT ROLL PROJECT 460 NICOLS ROAD STREET IMPROVEMENTS FRONT LESS ASSESSABLE PROPOSED PROPOSED FOOTAGE ---------------------------------------------------- CREDIT FOOTAGE RATE ASSESSMENT 1,260 1,260 $78.45 $98r8474 155 155 $78.45 $12,160 592 592 $78.45 $46,442 130 75 55 $78.45 $4,315 166 166 $78.45 $13,008 75 75 $78.45 $5,884 75 75 $78.45 $5,884 200 200 $78.45 $15,690 75 75 $78.45 $5,884 100 100 $78.45 $7,845 596 596 $78.45 $46,782 270 270 $78.45_ $21,182— 150 -- -"150 $78.45 $11,768 712 712 $78.45 $55,856 817 817 $78.45 $64,094 285 75 210 $78.45 $16,474 236 75 161 $33.75 $5,434 225 225 $33.75 $7,594 207 75 132 $78.45 $10,330 350 75 275• $78.45 $21,574 388 388 $33.75 $13,095 280 75 205 $78.45 -$16,082 327 327 $78.45 $25,645 693 693 $78.45 $54,396 270 75 195' $78.45 $15,298 310' 75 235 $78.45 $18,436 341 75 266 ,$78.45 $20,868 C) /. 26-6ec=85 FINANCING Staff estimates this project will cost $1,178,816. Appendix A contains a detailed breakdown of the estimated costs. This figure includes 5% contingency and 25$ overhead for administration and legal expenses. This does not include any costs for easement acquisition. The funding to finance the estimated project cost will come from the following sources: 1) Special Assessments. 2) County Turn Back Funds. 3) Municipal State -Aid Funds. 4) Major Street Fund. Special Assessments: Staff proposes to assess benefitted properties adjacent Nicols Road in accordance with City policy at a front foot rate based upon the property's zoning and use. The different rates estimated for this project are: 1) Commercial/Multiple. . . . . . . . $78.45/ff 2) Full Residential . . . . . . . . . $33.75/££ 3) Half Residential . . . . . . . . . $16.88/ff Based on these rates, staff estimates revenues of $746,927. Appendix B contains a preliminary assessment roll identifying the benefitted property and listing proposed assessments. 1. Commercial/Multiple Rate: This rate proposes to include all street construction costs to build a 44-52' 9 -ton urban street, 50% of the grading, and the 8' trailway. The retaining.wall construction cost is assigned to be part of the grading costs. Staff proposes assessing this rate to school; commercial; limited, neighborhood, or general business; and multiple zoning classifications. a a Ex: 278 RCP' St. 44' MINNESOTA . DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION RIGHT OF WAY PLAT NO. 19-5 Proposed Catch Bas�ip� 0 I I 3 32 31 •30 2 9 2e CEDAR 27 GROVE 4' 6" F8— 7:' .6 9 10'' • 2. • 52' Roadway I _ • NO. 1 8' Trail .i ' Ex: 33'' R P' t: I : � � 12._ 19. 011-65 :. 30 • : I • _ -- - - - ST 74+F91- — -- DlfffeY-Road — _-rQLmty:aioad Nom 30•— .MN DOT ( I X191 -os - ROW - 011-25 a CEDAR PLAT -NO. 19-7 " • ' GROVE .. 020-25: 030-26 I : NO• 2 .. 8 ■ i 011=27- i I i O 100 - - - 40 ...... .. • ! 60 .200 city of eagan NICHOLS ROAD PROPOSED approved: standar PUBLIC STREET IMPROVE ENTS plate #: WORKS PROJECT 460 of 6 DEPARTMENT .. /'6'L.%� ,Yer,«raL __ .Ya/u.../ __._._.. _�' \ O � •. <s • l C.' i 0 cio \ ? t S c a vj .41 MIN NCSoT C " p EPT w OF rR➢ ��� � �p 4 A Nsp O NO O Jyt 0 9 5 N RIWIT 4 VVVV /y � n 4r • g ,... Qy D '� v a •- r+ � V s J jD 1 n J D I- / ._ D a o L pos we •ooaz� _ tsr . •oCxa <aaaze f • . °0..O°°0 '• ,• R .. /O4b•0 _ _ m° a eoccz° O xo do . e . s' n • w � D IA .V I f GARNET DRIVE W /O�NT • ` _ U r... _ '"d`CD.`'''y°..,."e�:.��a�.u. — S : ... _ l.. G a I: -' , � '0.. ` �` � v ., • t t -4 •I _ � D � G�z�•.—� _ —___ w.^,rmos«z�amaws,,.. , 1.: -�. .v.. ...... ,,. ..v. .�. .�--_ ... ... _... ... ••.+._....-...__... -Council Minutes September 2, 1986 - PROJECT #453 The public hearing regardidg:: aeasA¢x against Robins Addition under Project #453 was convened by 'tfiitjbX�"'Tom Colbert briefly explained the project regarding the installation of 'sanitary sewer and water main and there were no objections. Wachter moved, Egan seconded the motion to close the public hearing and approve the assessment roll and authorize the roll to be certified to the County for collection. All members voted yes. EAGANDALE COORT - PROJECT: x+56 -::ASSESSMENT HEARING The assessment hearing regarding:: rojecY4:i::#456 consisting of street and utility improvements in the:;;:SaZ;.1' pikYf area next was convened by the Frli%::C8liiev9:::kshe' assessments as proposed and no Mayor. The public works direc objections were submitted. Egan moved, Elliaon seconded the motion to close the hearing, to approve the roll as submitted and authorize the Clerk to forward the roll to the County for collection. All members voted affirmatively. HAMPTON HEIGHTS-:'fg137$(; ;:; A51 - ASSESSMENT HEARING The public hearing regarding t1* inetaTlAkn of trunk water main in the Hampton Heights Addition areau�;dP=;RsRg¢EC:i51 was then convened by Mayor Blomquiat. Mr. Colbert detailed: r:yfi!P�'eC't for the City Council and there were no written objections s$EisB'. Harry Lemieux of 1565 Violet Lane appeared and stated that he'*'•objected on the basis of no benefit to his 10 acres but stated that in the event that he developed the property or connects to the system, that he would then authorize the assessment of. his property. Mr. Colbert explained the ;gason;foxbuilding the trunk with the capacity sized to allow the developm'*iL i{*f::;$2:F.:?m::*is benefited property. He also explained that the Hampton Heig$tBev 1f p 'f':aae required to lower its storm sever line to avoid ponding on the LI proWty. Judy Lemieux also appeared as the :::gyner d a 2 1/2 acre affected parcel -y/ and objected to the assessments veAally : Mr. Colbert recommended the assessments be spread against the two Lemieux parcels over a 15 year period. Smith moved, Ellison seconded the motion to close -the hearing as to all property within the- assessment roll --other than the Harry Lemieux and Judy Lemieux parcels, and to authorize the assessment against those two parcels after negotiation with the staff, with th¢::::%nderstanding that assessments could be spread over a 15 year term, but i4 .. -*Abe event that the negotiations..,"•' with the Lemieuxe are not Bucca$6� y�:+;;xhG4:.,Lb6;.;;esseasment as to those two - parcels will be returned to the;:;:a�k� l..... Pr further. consideration. All members voted yea. •�y t, �gkt1= f & �dR� Y i ,-r VI. NEW BUSINESS B. PROJECT 428, KENNEBEC DR/CEDAR INDUSTRIAL PK - STORM SEWER 1. Ellerbe, Inc., (Tract F, RLS #4,019-00) BACKGROUND INFORMATION Project 428 provided for the installation of the trunk storm sewer system through the Cedar Industrial Park with its outlet to the Minnesota River and also included the construction of Kennebec Drive and a portion of Blackhawk Road to provide for the interconnection of these two industrial streets. The public hearing was held and the project approved on February 19, 1985, with the final assessment hearing for the trunk area storm sewer assessment being held on March 4, 1986, and the Blackhawk Road/Kennebec Drive street and lateral storm sewer assessment hearing being held on September 16, 1986. Enclosed on pages CP S and (;?q- are the written objections from the property owners relating to these proposed assessments. Enclosed on pages 3_ through 3 are maps showing the related improvements in relationship to this property. Enclosed on page �� is the final assessment roll identifying their trunk area assessment as proposed at the Mar 5, 1986, final assessment hearing. Enclosed on page 3 V is a copy of the final assessment calculations for the street and lateral storm sewer assessments for the Kennebec Drive/Blackhawk Road construction as proposed at the September 16, 1986, final assessment hearing. This property is currently zoned Light Industrial (LI) and was assessed at the appropriate zoning rates, a STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS All improvements installed were necessary to allow the development of this property at its highest and best use consistent with its current zoning. Subsequently, the staff recommends that the assessments as pronged at thp,--Ma;ch 5 and September 16, 1986, final assessment hearings fuer trunk and lateral storm sewer and street improvements be reaffirmed. COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS/COMMENTS 6t/7 0 VANCE K. OPPERMAN ROBERT J. SCHMIT JOSEPH R, KERNAN, JR. JAMES E. SCHATZ JEROME F. PAQUIN RICHARD A. LOCKRIDGE AUDREY L. ESTEBO CHARLES N. NAUEN H. THEODORE GRINDAL LINDA L. HOLSTEIN RICHARD M. PLUNKETT DIANE M. HELLAND ALISON ECKSTEIN COLTON OPPERMAN & PAQUIN ATTORNEYS AT LAW 2200 WASHINGTON SOUARE OF COUNSEL JAY B. KELLY 100 WASHINGTON AVENUE SOUTH MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 55401 TELEPHONE 10121339-0900 �(,• CJ0 vl- Y TELECOPIER 10121339-0981 G ,. Clerk City of Eagan 3830 Pilot Knob Road Eagan, Minnesota 55122 HAND DELIVERED Dear Clerk: September 15, 1986 Re: Assessments against Ellerbe, Inc. Project 428 Please be advised that the undersigned represents Ellerbe, Inc. and on behalf of Ellerbe, Inc. objects to all assessments against Ellerbe, Inc. on Project 428. Previous correspondence to you from Mr. Jeff Coleman, corporate counsel of Ellerbe, Inc., outlines our position. Sincerely, OPPERMAN & PAQUIN Kid C :� 1;7c.l:fJ�„? u 1. Richard A..Lockridge RAL: j"f ,t; cc: Mr. Jeff Coleman Ellerbe, Inc. One Appletree Square Minneapolis MN 55420 612 653 2000 Telex 29 0814 April 28, 1986 Mr. Tom Colbert City of Eagan 3830 Pilot Knob Road P. 0. Box 21199 Eagan, MN 5$121 Dear Mr. Colbert: Regarding the City's improvement assessment following concern: Project No. 428 RLS No. 4-90040 Tract F (019-00) claim for $37,749.00 for a storm and street on the above-named property, we have the It was our understanding that your request for a temporary and permanent storm sewer easement was for a trunk storm sewer drainage system servicing the City, not our property. Not at any time during the process of gaining an easement did any City representative discuss a charge is s orm ewer is may or may not—b-e-n-eflr­ our pr ere ore, we do not see an obligation to pay any amount for the storm sewer. We would appreciate reviewing with you any information which is contrary to our understanding. Sincerely, effrev Coleman General Counsel IJP C- M i' ^N^ Ellerbe Associates, Inc. Ellerbe Architects & Engineers, Inc. Ellerbe Architects & Engineers / Ellerbe Builders, Inc. Appletree Enterprises, Inc. Finance/Design/Construct, Inc. JACK 84'1 µ a CD a' ?2 -A i� i JACK 72" j R.L.S. NO.4 010-31 n F« � 4 p 1 TRACT A 2 O: O NNEeEC DR . c KE 010-50 /i2 i,i Q s 6 � i 4 J \ TRACT C TRACT F ?Q T 2 ----a-- E%. SANITARY SEWER I /- s-----< E%. STORM SEWER Np �3 R+ 4 SCALE: I"= 400' PART 3 ALTERNATE "A" STORM SEWER IMPROVEMENTS CEDAR INDUSTRIAL PARK �D� EAGAN, MINNESOTA DITCH BONESTROO, ROSENE, ANDERLIK 8 ASSOCIATES, INC. Consulting Engineers St. Paul. Minn. Date: JAN., 198511 PROJ. NO.428 Comm.49338 Jl iI 010-30 TRACT C 44' STREET KENN-DRIVE 020-00 � Q\ \ 019-00 K� PART 1 STREETIMPROVEMENTS CEDAR INDUSTRIAL PARK EAGAN. MINNESOTA 31 II 017-00 R.L.S. NO.4 TRACT E 010-28 EX. 44'STREET > TRACT H .: •• 1 I N�RT I 0 200 400 I SCALE IN FEET BONESTROO, ROSENE, ANOERLIK & ASSOCIATES, INC. Consulting Engineers St. Paul, Minn. Date: JAN., 1985 Comm. 49338 PROD. N0.428 REVISED FINAL ASSESSMENT ROLL (MARCH 5, 1986) CEDAR INDUSTRIAL PARK TRUNK STORM SEWER PROJECT NO. 428 ASSESSABLE AREA CREDIT AREA RATE TOTAL PARCEL DESCRIPTION (SQ. FT.) SQ. FT. SQ. FT. PEA SQ. FT. ASSESSMENT NW1/4 SECTION 17 01700-010-30 186,500 1869500 $0.072 $139428.00 01700-010-31 658,750 658,750 0.072 47,430.00 R.L.S. NO. 4 - 90040 TRACT A C/ -00 TRACT C G/ "= -00 TRACT F (020-00) TRACT F (019-00) SW1/4 SECTION 17 01700-010-50 01700-010-52 01700-010-53 01700-011-51 NEI/4 SECTION N0. 19 01900-010-03 01900-010-04 01900-020-04 SUBTOTAL $609858.00 270,575 270,575 $0.072 $19,481.40 1,444,010 19444,010 0.072 103,968.72 151,200 151,200 0.072 10,886.40 5249300 524,300 0.072 37,749.60 SUBTOTAL $172,086.12 43,560 43,560 $0.072 $3,136.32 ST R/W 263,650 (20%) 210,920 52,730 ST R/W 373,600 (20%) 298,880 74,720 ST R/W 10447,450 (20%) 1057,960 289,490 0.048(1) 10,124.16 0.048(1) 14,346.24 0.048(1) 55,582.08 SUBTOTAL $83,188.80 31,000 31,000 $0.072 $2,232.00 30,400 30,400 0.072 2,188.80 48,350 48,350 0.072 3,481.20 33 9-140-er, FINAL ASSESSMENT ROLL PROJECT NO. 428 CEDAR INDUSTRIAL PARS - KENNEBEC DRIVE Parcel Storm Sewer Total Description Lateral Street Assessment R.L.S. No. 4 (10-90040) Tract C (012-00) $ 4,533.30 $ 27,025.80 $ 31,559.10 Tract E (014-00) 3,698.22 22,047.36 25,745.58 Tract F (200-00) 7,416.33 44,213.27 51 629.60 --�j Tract F (019-00) 2,236.83 13,335.10 15,571.93 F� Tract H (017-00) 29216.94 139216.56 15,433.50 Totals $20,101.62 $119038.09 $139,939.77 3� CITY OF EAGAN CONSENT TO SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS PROJECT NO. 419 - SLATER'S ACRES The undersigned, for themselves, their heirs, executors, administrators, successors and assigns, hereby consent to the levy of special assessments under City of Eagan Improvement Project 1419 consisting of sanitary sewer lateral, water lateral,,services, storm sewer lateral, storm sewer trunk and street improvements, which assessment hearing was held before the Eagan City Council on September 16, 1986. It is understood that the assessments have been levied at the rate of $13,304.50 per lot within the Slater's Acres subdivision according to the assessment consideration worksheet prepared by the Eagan Public Works Director dated September 16, 1986, a copy of which is attached to this Consent. It is also understood that the objections to the special assessments submitted by the undersigned are hereby waived and that the undersigned further waives the right to appeal from any assessments relating to Project X1419. The undersigned has received a copy of this Consent and has read and understands the contents thereof. Dated: Dated: Dated: Dated: Dated: Dated: Dated: Dated: Dated: Dated: Dated: Dated: Dated: Dated: Dated: Dated: THIS INSTRUMENT DRAFTED BY: HAUGE, EIDE 6 KELLER, P.A. 1200 Yankee Doodle Road Water View Office Tower, Suite 303 Eagan, MN 55123 (612) 456-9000 Eagan Public Works Department CONSENT TO - TOWN CENTRE 70 6 100 ADDITIONS The undersigned, for themselves, their heirs, executors, administrators, successors and assigns, hereby consent to revision of the levy of special assessments under City of Eagan Improvement Project #429 consisting of sanitary sewer lateral, water lateral, services, storm sewer lateral, storm sewer trunk and street improvements, which assessment hearing was held before the Eagan City Council on September 16, 1986. It is understood that the assessments have been revised to incorporate an additional assessment due to the deletion of a ponding area on a parcel, resulting in a proportionate increase in the assessment against the remaining parcels within the assessment roll, according to the , a copy of which is attached to this Consent. It is also understood that all objections to the special assessments submitted by the undersigned are hereby waived and that the undersigned further waives the right to appeal from any assessments relating to Project #429. The undersigned has received a copy of this Consent and has read and understands the contents thereof. Dated: Dated: Dated: Dated: Dated: Dated: THIS INSTRUMENT DRAFTED BY: HAUGE, EIDE S KELLER, P.A. 1200 Yankee Doodle Road Water View Office Tower, Suite 303 Eagan, MN 55123 (612) 456-9000 Eagan Public Works Department • • Agenda Information Memo, September 16, 1986, City Council Meeting Page Sixteen FINAL ASSESSMENT HEARING - SLATERS ACRES E. Final Assessment Hearing, Project 419 (Slaters Acres) -- Project 419 provided for the installation of streets and utilities to service the Slaters Acres, Northern Oaks and unplatted parcels to the south. As indicated at the time of presenting final assessment roll*for the Council's consideration of scheduling this final assessment hearing, cost overruns beyond the feasibility report estimates were identified resulting from unexpected cost increases for easement -acquisition and r wnaa_ orders during construction. A detailed analysis of these cost overruns will be provided as part of the administrative packet prior to the hearing on September 16. All notices have to all property project. As of_ objection from Hi been published in the legal newspaper and sent owners proposed to be assessed under this this date. the staff has received a written a Construction Company pertaining to a of the as sments for sane teras resulting rrom• their request fo der to lower -the -elevation to better serve t eir future developments. The basis of their objections relate to the addition of the City's overhead to actual construction 'cost or --the order. A meeting has been scheduled with them for 9:00 a.m. Monday, September 15 to further discuss this issue. A summary of this meeting will also be provided with the administrative packet regarding the overall assessments for this project. ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED ON THIS ITEM: To close the public hearing and approve/modify the final assessment roll for Project 419 (Slaters Acres - Streets and Utilities) and authorize certification to the County for collection. *A copy of the final assessment roll is enclosed on page �j% all FINAL ASSESSMENT HEARING PROJECT NO: 419 SUBDIVISION/AREA: Slaters Acres FINAL ASSESSMEENT HEARING: September 16, 1986 IMPROVEMENTS INSTALLED AND/OR ASSESSED: F. R. Feasibility Report FINAL F.R. NATER RATES RATES 0 Area • $ 1.0 F.F. F.F. Laterals $2,206.31/Lot $1,850/Lot $698.50/Lot of D Service $,741.69/Lot $280/Lot 0 Lat. Benefit/Trunk STORM aArea ❑x Laterals $0.045/S.F. $0.045/S.F. $745.77/Lot $837/Lot SANITARY MArea FINAL F. R. RATES RATES $Z -877F —F $3 .7 F.F ❑X Laterals $5,371.78/Lot $4,133/Lot Service Lat. Benefit/Trunk STREETS Gravel Base DSurfacing Res. Equiv. NUMBER OF PARCELS AFFECTED: 25 NUMBER OF YEARS ASSESSED: 15 RATE OF INTEREST: 9.0% TOTAL AMOUNT ASSESSED: $342,369.38 CONSTRUCTED UNDER THE FOLLOWING CONTRACTS: 85-3 PUBLIC HEARING DATE: December 18, 1984 $5,787.20/Lot $4,382/Lc PROJECT 419 SLATER'S ACRES ASSESMENT CONSIIERA Total Final Assessment Feasibility Report Est. (F.H.) Net Overrun A. Typical Cost/Lot 6 Cost/FF F.H. Sanitary Sewer Lateral Water Lateral Services (S & W) Storm Sewer Lateral Storm Sewer Trunk Street Subtotal $342,369.38 280,792.00 $61,577.38 $/Lot $/FF 4,133 33.76 1,850 17.61 889 NA 837 NA 743 NA 4,382 NA $12,834/Lot $51.37/FF B. Possible Reductions/Credits 1. Sanitary Sewer Lateral a. Oversized 8" to 12" b. Unbalanced Bid c. Easement Acquisition d. Overdepth vs. Add'1 Esmt. Cost 2. Storm Sewer Lateral a. Lateral Benefit from Trunk b. Easement Acquisition 3. Water Lateral a. Easement Acquisition Subtotal C. Proposed Revised Asesssment vs. F.B. Estimate % Comparison +over/ -under Final Mot OFF 5,371.78 43.78 2,206.31 21.03 698.50 NA 745.77 of 742.50 is 5.787.20 to $15,552.06/Lot $64.81/FF Total $/Lot $/FF $79066.85 - $316.06 - $2.581 12,356.82 - 552.58 - 4.514 5,228.51 - 233.83 - 1.91 8,235.28 - 368.24 - 3.01 6,000.78 - 400.59 NA 1,507.78 - 100.52 NA 5,228.51 - 275.67 - 2.645 $459632.53-$2,247.49/Lot-$14.66/FF $13,304.57/Lot $50.15/FF 51.37/FF +3.67% -2,37% i IIM AMPAD 23.000 50 SHT. PAD ® e EFFICIENCY® 23-001 250 SHT. DISPENSER BOX To Date Time WHILE YOU WEgE OUT of PhonJA e Area Code Number Extension TELEPHONED LEASE CALL CALLED TO SEEYOU WILL CALL AGAIN WANTS TO SEE YOU URGENL/�� RETURNED Y ALL Message r Operator of 3830 PILOT KNOB ROAD, P.O. BOX 21199 EAGAN, MINNESOTA 55121 PHONE; (612) 454-8100 September 22, 1986 CERTIFIED MAIL Re: Project 419, Slaters Acres (Streets and Utilities) Final Assessment Objections Consent to Special Assessments Dear Property Owner: BEA BLOMQUIST Moyor THOMAS EGAN .LAMES A SMITH VC ELLISON THEODORE WACHTER Coumil Members THOMAS HEDGES Oty A min&otor EUGENE VAN OVERBEKE City Clerk On September 16, 1986, during the public hearing for the adoption of final assessments associated with the installation of improvements under the above referenced project, Mr. William J. Kuhlmeyer, acting on behalf of the Homeowner's Association, submitted the enclosed written objection to the proposed assessments. During that public hearing, the City Council recognized the cost overrun of the final assessment amount as compared to the original estimates contained in the feasibility report presented at the public hearing held December 18, 1984. In response to Council's direction, the staff reviewed and researched these cost overruns in detail and presented the enclosed proposed credits to the final assessment amounts which were subsequently approved in consideration of adopting the final assessment roll. However, the Council's action to approve these credits reducing the amount of the assessments is subject to each property owner removing their written objection and accepting this reduced final assessment amount. Therefore, I am requesting you to sign the enclosed Consent to Special Assessments form that was prepared by our City Attorney's office to allow these assessments to be certified to the County. Due to the County's deadline of October 15 for receiving any payments, certifications, etc., of special assessments to be recorded on the property tax statements payable in 1987, it was necessary that the Council approve the assessment roll on September 16 in order to meet that deadline. Any continuation would result in accruing additional construction financing charges and/or annual interest installments against these assessments resulting in higher costs to the property owner. THE LONE OAK TREE ... THE SYMBOL OF STRENGTH AND GROWTH IN OUR COMMUNITY SEPTEMBER 22, 1986 PAGE TWO Therefore, due to the Council's action to reduce these assessments to the approximate amount originally approved at the final assessment hearing, I would request that you execute the enclosed form and return it to my attention no later than October 1, 1986. If it is not received by that time, the City will have to remove your parcel from the final assessment roll being certified to the County and continue it to a later date resulting in additional costs of the amount to be spread as a special assessment. We sincerely regret any concerns or problems created by the cost overruns and hope that the Council's action to reduce these assessments and the finished product meet with your satisfaction. I will anxiously await your execution of the enclosed statement and receipt of same by October 1. If you have any questions regarding this request, please contact either myself or,City Attorney, Paul Hauge, at 456-9000. Sincerely, Thomas A. Colbert Director of Public Works Attachment cc: [Paul Hauge;' City Attorney TAC/cks Agenda Information September 16, 1986, Page Thirteen Memo, City Council Meeting PROJECT 428, KENNEBEC DRIVE - STREETS AND UTILITIES B. Final Assessment Hearing for Project .428, Kennebec Drive - Streets and Utilities --Project 428 provided for the installation of streets and utilities along Kennebec Drive, connecting Blackhawk Road with the Seneca Road/Comanche Drive intersection, in addition to trunk storm sewer improvements. The final assessment hearing. for the trunk storm sewer improvements was previously held on March 4, 1986, with the remaining streets and utilities for Kennebec Drive being discussed on September 16. • Enclosed on page is a summary of the final assessment roll, showing the relationship of the final assessments to the estimates contained in the feasibility report presented at the public hearing held on February 19, 1985. All notices have been published in the legal newspaper and sent to all property owners proposed to be assessed under this project. As of this date, the staff has not received any objections to this project. • ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED ON THIS ITEM: To close the public hearing and approve/modify the final assessment roll for Project 428 (Kennebec Drive - Streets and Utilities) and if approved, authorize the certification to the County for collection. 5�� FINAL ASSESSMENT HEARING PROJECT NO: 428 . SUBDIVISION/AREA: Cedar Industrial Park — Kennebec Drive FINAL ASSESSMEENT HEARING: Seotember 16. 1986 IMPROVEMENTS INSTALLED AND/OR ASSESSED: F. R. a Feasibility Report . FINAL F.R. RATER RATES RATES 0 Area 0 Laterals 0 Service 0 Lat. Benefit/Trunk STORM C1Area Laterals NUMBER C NUMBER 0 RATE OF $9 94•FF $17.89/FF FINAL F. R. SANITARY RATES RATES Area Laterals Service _ Lat. Benefit/Trunk STREETS Gravel Base QX Surfacing Res. Equiv. $59.27/FF $68,00/FF TOTAL AMOUNT ASSESSED: 139,939,71 (FR = $171-100) CONSTRUCTED UNDER THE FOLLOWING CONTRACTS: 85-5 PUBLIC HEARING DATE: February 19, 1985 0 Agenda IAformation Memo, September 16, 1986, City Council Meeting Page Fifteen FINAL ASSESSMENT HEARING D. Final Assessment Hearing, Project 417, Birchpark (Streets & Utilities) --Project 417 provided for the installation of streets and utilities servicing the Birchpark Addition and property on the south side of Deerwood Drive under two contracts: 85-9 (Denmark Avenue and Deerwood Drive. surfacing) and 85-10 (internal streets and utilities). Enclosed on page 57 is a summary of the final assessment rates and a comparison t6the estimated rates contained in the feasibility report presented at the public hearing • held on September 18, 1984. As a result of that initial public hearing, several property owners along the south side of Deerwood Drive submitted objections and pursued a reduction request through the Special Assessment Committee which was ultimately reviewed by the Council on September 17, 1985. Those final maximum assessment amounts based on benefit received as verified by formal appraisals have been included in this final assessment roll. Although there was an error in the amount identified in the notice of this public hearing, it has been corrected by a subsequent notice to those affected property owners. All notices have been published in the legal newspaper and sent to all property owners proposed to be assessed under this project. As of this date, the staff has not received any formal objections to these assessments. ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED ON THIS ITEM: To close the public hearing • and to approve/modify the final assessment roll for Project 417 (Birchpark Addition - Streets & Utilities) and authorize the certification to the County for collection. 6( FINAL ASSESSMENT HEARING PROJECT NO: 417 SUBDIVISION/AREA: Birch Park Addition FINAL ASSESSMEENT HEARING: September 16, 1986 IMPROVEMENTS INSTALLED AND/OR ASSESSED: F. R. ;=Feasibility Report FINAL F.R. WATER RATES RATES Birch Park: $433.12/Lot $467/Lot I� Area Section 22:$1120/Acre $1720/Acre. Laterals $11:87/F.F. $16.47/F.F. Service (1) $838,58/1_ot $1064/Lot ® Lat. Benefit/Trunk $10.84/F. F. $10.84/F.F. SANITARY Area ❑X Laterals Service E] Lac. Benefit/Trunk FINAL F. R. RATES RATES -$14.72/F.F. $17.04/F.F. STORM STREETS Area -_ _ Gravel Base ® Laterals Birch Park: $31.99/F.F. $31.35/F.F. $12.91 /F. F. 517.R5/F.F © SurfaCin$Deerwood $30.49/F.F. $30.49/F.F. Lots. Res. Equiv. �(1') Includes both sanitary sewer and Ovate (services. NUMBER OF PARCELS AFFECTED: 80 NUMBER OF YEARS ASSESSED: 5 RATE OF INTEREST: 9% TOTAL AMOUNT ASSESSED: $589,047.08 CONSTRUCTED UNDER THE FOLLOWING CONTRACTS: 85-9, 85-10 PUBLIC HEARING DATE: September 18, 1984 . s.,-.. / 1 1280 Deerwood Dr. Eagan, MN 55123 September 11, 1986 Mr. Thomas Hedges, City Administrator Eagan City Hall 3795 Pilot Knob Rd. Eagan, MN 55121 Dear Mr. Hedges: We have received notice that the final assessment hearing on Project #417, Birch Park Addition, will be held at the city council • meeting on September 16, 1986. You may recall that last September we were allowed to have a preliminary hearing on this matter: The city council put a cap on the assessment amount, in accordance with our appraiser's testimony, and also told us that there would be no final assessment hearing until the project was completed. However, the two retaining walls on the south side of Deerwood Drive have not yet been built. The road was paved last fall,.but the easement area was only seeded last month, so the land below -the proposed retaining wall has received a large amount of silt due to the construction, particularly near our 21" oak tree.- The Hosford and Kohler properties have received even more silt in their pond area. At one time objections were raised about this silt, and then someone dumped some logs and old lumber down the hillside. This did not stop the erosion. The June 1985 blueprints clearly show that a 75 -foot retaining wall was to be built on our property easement, and an 80 -foot wall on the easement north of Hosfords and Kohlers.. ` • Would you please explain before the hearing opens why the hearing is being held before the project is completed? We question the legality of this procedure, and object to having any assessment adopted (and therefore begin accruing interest) before this project has been completed. Sincerely, Teresa A. Fritz Bernard S. Fritz 5741 e September 10, 1986 To: Mayor Bea Blomquist E. J. VanOverbeke, City Clerk Subject: Notice of Special Assessment Project #417 Please be advised that we the owners of the property located at 1270 Deerwood Drive, wish to exercise our right to appeal the proposed assessment levied against our property. The assessment is for Birch Park Addition utilities relating to Improvement Project #417. We would also like to go on notice to the Mayor and City Clerk, of the City of Eagan of our intent to appeal this assessment to the District.. Court pursuant to the Minnesota Statutes, Section 429.081. ' Reasons being: 1. The Mayor, City Clerk and Eagan City Council are extremely insensitive to the established individual property owner and tax payer as to the financial hard- ships they impose to them. EXAMPLE Increasing this property owners annual tax $4,761.16 on top of present tax, (extra $583.00 per month) making a total of $7,000 on a $120,000 home. 2. The Improvement Project #417 concerning Birch Park • Addition utilities, has not been.completed to the engineers plans and recommendations. There are no retaining walls built (as planned and taxed) on the South side of Deerwood to prevent fill, sand, dirt, debris from sliding into said properties land. Since this was not done it has resulted in dying trees and filling up a portion of a duck pond with fill, sand and debris. Also bringing the water table down in said pond to a degree that it will not support any natural.wildlife at all. 3. There has been so many figures and estimates (all different) on the proposed taxes and assessments throughout the past 3 years that is has been impossible to plan for and manage ones financial future. And to explore the options available to individual property owners residing on the South side of Deerwood. 57,a =2- 4. The last figure we talked over and agreed upon at the Council Meeting,was $14,000 total assessment, with 15 years to pay and water and sewer deferred until hook-up occurs. 5.:..Other,reasons will be filed with the District : Court of the State of Minnesota. _Thank you for the opportunity to express ourselves concerning .this gross injustice. • Attorneys: E John and Karen Hosford R. M. Bracewell & Associates 1270 Deerwood Drive Eagan, Mn. 55123 454-8539 MINUTES OF A REGMAR MEETING OF THE EAGAN CITY COUNCIL :::::::LAGAN, MINNESOTA SEPTEMBER 16. 1986 A regular meeting of the''Eagan City Council was held on Tuesday, September 16, 1986 at 6:30 p.m. at the Eagan Municipal Center. Present were Mayor Blomquist and Councilmembers Smith, Wachter, Egan and Ellison. Also present were City Administrator Tom Hedges, City Engineer Tom Colbert, City Planner Dale Runkle, Consulting EngUeers Bob Rosene and Mark Hanson, and City Attorney Paul Hauge. .... ... ;AGENDA....... Wachter moved, Egan secon eit''''tlie'-labE on to approve the agenda as submitted. All voted in favor. MINUTES September 2, 1986 - Regular MeeG:iu ::i.:.::on motion by Ellison, seconded Wachter, it was reaolved . ;t�tBC:::$}ie iuit�tea of the September 2, 1986 regular council meeting be approved F*t#t"t:he exc .Otion on page 7 regarding liquor license investigation policy,.;t::;Lhere be an additional escrow requirement of $200.00 for each investigaE!:Oii:lieji044::..5..:persons in-state is incurred, and an additional $400.00 for out-of-state;''siiIfp page 9, regarding Kevin Murphy Building Permit, that the staff would not ie'ei'ie the permit and suggested an overall plan. All councilmembers voted yea. RIDS -'N -KINSHIP PROCLAMATION A proclamation was submitt6d:::kij(:; a;:;xGQYeaentative of the Kids -'N -Kinship requesting the Mayor declezg> the-;:::V.e'ek of September 21 through 28, 1986 as National Kinship Week to help"promote'""'the program. The proclamation was submitted and Mayor BlomquisE::::4provad:::and read the Proclamation. PARK b RECREATION DEPARTMENT - THOMAS LAKE PARK - LAWCON/LCMR GRANT City Administrator Tom Hedges announced that the City has received notification that its application for a Lawcon/LCMR grant for Thomas Lake Park was ranked No. 1 for all metrgpoll:%*:Aii:oQ=unities, and funding in the amount of $330,000.00 should be certifi:'''fY.'.:tlie:. project. The total coat is $458,000.00 with the City mat....:pg $120,0ITQ:00 from existing Park Site funds. 1 Council Minutes r September 16, 1986 Park Director Ren Vraa was :resent and shared in the announcement. Smith moved, Wachter seconded thic::;i6btion to approve the adoption of the Resolution to authorize the filing of the application and execution of a Grant Project Agreement with the State of I#£Rp sd....::en3 ;Cq:::.complete all grant documentation on the Thomas Lake Project. JOINT BUPSSVILLE/EAGAN CABLE COMMISSION Ralph Campbell, the Cable Commission Coordinator, was present and answered questions of the City Council regarding the sale of the joint cable system by Group W that is now progegding through the Joint Cable Commission. He indicated that at the meeting::::iin September 25, the Commission is expected to review the sale proposal. 1?iRL`: d #1G TAIMITY Mr. Hedges discussed the potential joint construction of a fire training facility with several neighboring cities, including Burnsville. He stated that the proposed contribution from the City of Eagan would be about $25,000.00 and that further information will be submitted to the City Council at a later time. SPE�I .O%TY COUNCIL MEETING A special City Council meeting:::::::k :::::::Wrther consider the 1987 City Budget will be held on October 14, 1986 at 7:OfT :g:tR::;at the Eagan Municipal Center. CONSENT AGENDA The following consent agenda items were submitted by the staff and recommended that they be approved;;:::;:.. 1. Contractor's License9 A'f:::'hedule of contractors, homeowners and plumbers licenses was submitted' and r'pt'ommended to be approved by the Council. 2. Personnel Items. a. Compost Site Monitor. It was recommended that Lori Belz be hired for the position of part-time seasonal compost monitor. b. Clerk Typist/Protective Inspections. The staff recommended the hiring of Cheryl Malmanger as•::R;Gt:er$•;.Typist in the Protective Inspections Department subject to success the City's physical examination requirement. c. City Administratar:•:Car Allowanc&;:: The staff recommended approval of the car allowance increa6:j�:of3.8•.q,r; tk e:: calendar year 1986 for the City Administrator. 2 .Council Minutes September 16, 1986 3. Rahn Contract 885 - as completed Valley Paving and facine - 5. The staff recommended to the Council that it accept the work for City CoCfiact;:;.%i85 ^2ti`:;;nd authorize the final payment to in the amount 4. Lexington Square 6th:;:;`•Addition - Project #485. A Petition had been received requesting the up&ading of Northview Park Road with streets and utilities to service the Lexington Square 6th Addition. It was recommended that the Council receive the Petition and authorize the preparation of the feasibility report and plans for Project 8485. 5. Burr Oak Addition - F6ject ::8484. The feasibility report for Project #484 consisting of streetg::::::and Sktilities for the Burr Oak Addition were completed and it was recommended to t3ie Councilmembers that they receive the feasibility report and order'''s''' public.: hearing for October 21, 1986 at 7:00 p.m. at the Eagan Municipal CRtt:CeF::::::::::::<:::>%;:>...... 6. Eagandale Office Park 4th Addition - Final Plat. The application for final plat approval of Eagandale Office Park 4th Addition (Compri Hotel) was submitted to the Council and it was recommended that the final plat application be approved and that the Mayor and Clerk be authorized to execute all related documents, subject to compliance •::S4ith all City requirements. 7. Eagandale Park 4th Ad submitted authorizing conn#. Metropolitan Waste Control Com was recommended that the Resol be approved. C Sewer Permit. A Resolution was Eagandale Park 4th Addition to the ry sewer trunk facility, and it upon the request of the Developer, S. Town Centre 70 Fifth Addition - Final Plat. The final plat application for Town Centre 70 Fifth Addition has been submitted and according to staff, the necessary requirements are complete. It was recommended that the final plat application be approved. Upon motion by Wachter, seeojk� : gair•,•'.;::; i:C was resolved that the foregoing consent agenda items be approved andAtiWl'orized to be implemented according to the recommendations. All vo& yes.:.?: PILOT KNOB ROAD TRUNK C41 3:::$EW L2;; :PROJECT #473 - PUBLIC HEARING Mayor Bea Blomquist convened the public hearing regarding Project #473 consisting of trunk storm sewer improvements on Pilot Knob Road in three parts, mainly Evergreen Park area, Berry Patch Park area, and the City Hall area. Tom Colbert introduced the;:;:pFa}ect and Mark Hanson of the consulting engineering firm explained tkk9:: 1:t' Sjete ;alignmenta. It was noted that the hearing was originally held:iT"y 15, 19$:it;.at which time there were several concerns and objections raise'd::::$ertaining tit :Che proposed storm sewer outlet for Mooney Lake to McCarthy Nike within the.Patrick Eagan Park, through the wooded back yard areas of seaEY:al single fas;j:-y homes. The Council continued the public hearing until Sep ;*mlXe�;:::�;fieii:::Yir: allow staff to investigate various alternatives and to meet with% tti4:::e:i`feted' 'property owners regarding the proposed alignment. 3 Council Minutes September 16, 1986 On August 5, 1986, City aiAnistrator and Consulting Engineer met with the affected property owners. The alternate report, dated September 2, 1986 was reviewed by the City Council::::;`;'}tTe;:::83'teif;8es were explained, including the following: 1. A gravity line from oney Lake "JP -7" to JP -8, along Berry Ridge Road. It was noted that deep cuts would be required under this alternate. 2. A lift station with the storm sewer line along Berry Ridge Road, noting long term maintenance would be an issue. 3. Or the storm water w0upld be::::koved to the west with a force main and lift station. It would inclikde a g'.E:4vity sewer line across Pilot Knob Road, but extensive easement acgq sition :would be required with no easements necessary for alternates 1 of..2.•.;.:.;.:,.;..;.-.,.,,.,_,:,: Attorney Tom Rooney appeased"'*'"'atid""obj*eiEted to the project and to the proposed assessments against his property. Several alternates were available to the City, including review of the benefits, proceeding on a portion of the project only, and proceeding on all the project with the City to pick up a portion of the coats. It was noted that the Council had held an.assessment hearing before ordering in the project foz_:.-:Acerwood Drive. Bruce -Pair-ick-of.-lU9 -Barr ;i#xdge: KOBQ -appeared and -asked whether the City could retain the water by 41:96harging ::%t into an aquifer, but Mr. Colbert indicated that it would not::lae;feasib2'e. There are about 250 ponds in the City and Eagan continues to use tlrem::ss:::z6:Cention ponds. Teresa Fritz of Deerwood Drive stated the neighboring 6..... $:44pport the line down Berry Ridge Road while certain owners recommended running.'.the water to the west to avoid the disruption of the pond area. The proposed lift station carrying the water through Berry Ridge Road would be located near the street and it was noted that Alternate 1 would impact substantial trees and require significant cuts. Egan moved, Wachter seconded tithe., motion;.;:::to close the hearing and approve the project utilizing AlterTd:td. 2:;end:;:;gj2G3idrize the Engineer to prepare the plana and specifications, not;iqg thaQi::Chie project is feasible and essential to the overall master plan, and 'that mos[:': -of the owners favor that route. The park commission recommended 91kErnatex-2 as the most logical location. It was noted completion is expec�;?A';; in-.- iflf{;:q:t;:J:t -.y of 1987. All members voted in favor. KENNEBEC DRIVE - PROJECT #428 - STREET S UTILITY IMPROVEMENTS The final assessment hearing,:rtg:dld {ig:Project #428 consisting of Kennebec Drive street and utility improv:&id tt-s--W":.::::jtonvened by the Mayor. Tom Colbert reviewed the assessments and,:j�t.ed an objP :}on from Ellerbe Associates. Mr. Colbert explained the benefitbs-'-Yo the affected parcels and there being no J further objections, upon mot;oirr by Wachterj:::seconded Egan, it was resolved that the assessment roll be ij5 ov,ed and:.thdiC: it be authorized to be certified to the County Auditor with:#j:ieiiGeitiaa::df.irhe Ellerbe property which would be continued indefinitely, aft9''''`th'a'C'"'tiie"'City be authorized to hire an appraiser and to hold a future hearing regarding the assessments. All voted in favor. 4 Council Minutes September 16, 1986 TOWN CENTRE 70'AND 100 ADDITIONS — PROJECT #429 STRFE:;&; iTC:ifiT:x;:MPROVEMENTS The Mayor then convengd.. the public 'hearing regarding Project #429 consisting of street and u¢kity improvements in Town Centre 70 and 100 Additions. The Mayor tuxired the hearing over to Public Works Director Tom Colbert who explained the project in some detail, including the proposed assessments, providing for an interest rate of 9% spread over 10 years, covering 37 parcels. He also explained the special request of Federal Land Company regarding overhead cost and proposed reduction in the administrative and legal fees commensurate iM--th the.;Feduction in the engineering fees. Ren Applebaum, an affectSd::owner..;r:?ras present and stated that his partners desire to dedicate a pond easement iifid requested credit from the Council for the pond area, but notedthat:GiSm;�lgevotmttxg::;hed not been signed at the time of the meeting. Mr. Colbert eo=enE0ii::::tba.t-C6Rre was no objection by the staff as to the easement grant, but that it would increase the other assessable areas slightly. Martin Colon of Federal Land Company appeared and indicated that Federal Land had no objection to the revision in the assessment and the Council requested a consent and waiver of objection from all other owners. Charles Bartholdi, attorney stated that the roll was th Council and requested 'reduct 94::. He noted that the bonds were, -:i,4' being proposed, with 1.2% '1'4 - costs. He also objected to the the corresponding work. ,:l Land Company was present and hat had been presented to the City istrativ6"iee and the legal fee. interest with a 9% interest charge collection and some other related being greater than the amount of Mr. Hedges presented the staff recommendations that no change be granted, noting that the developers could choose whether the public had the opportunity to determine whether to finance the projects through public or private contracts and such a change would.;ipvite revisions by other developers and create a precedent issue. CounpNUs. ;6f4;Cii:`;etated that it is a policy issue and the staff did not h�vg. 'a `0. fiE.e'`'[o assess the request. He suggested adopting the roll and having::slie CounaTi review the issue at a later time, noting that the purpose is tn::avoid ..S:subsidy to the developer at the expense of the taxpayer. CounciEfgBn Elli:sdn recommended there be no change in the roll, but that the Council aLjgd:::CltigS;G::charges with other cities. An amended or supplementary r01T`"'also 'wA'A"'discussed. Egan moved, Ellison seconded the motion to close the hearing, to approve the assessment roll with the understanding that the Applebaum easement area will be stricken from the roll upon the submission of an acceptable easement and a revision to the roll, provided there are no objections ,that:::;;;.4Fe submitted by any of the affected property owners. All members vOted:dYdiBEively. 5 Council Minutes September 16, 1986 BIRCH PARK ADDITION,-,.RROJECT #417 - FINAL ASSESSMENT HEARING The final assessment hearing regarding Project #417 consisting of Birch Park Addition area atree t:AAd.: util,kt.y...improvements next was convened by the Mayor. Two contracts were iiju2i.gei :.ii ja:ibg: X85-9 consisting of Denmark Avenue and Deerwood Drive surfacingarid"k85-I0 consisting of internal streets and utilities, according to A]:;: Colbert. The feasibility report was presented at a public hearing before tfi�* Council on September 18, 1984 and the special assessment committee recommended a reduction in the assessments on Deerwood Drive, based upon an appraisal covering the improvements. Objections were received from Teresa and Bernard Fritz, John and Karen Hoaford, and from Mr. and Mrs. Michael Kohler. The September 1985 appraisals provided for maximum benefit of $14,000.00 per loC:for the building parcel site on the south side of Deerwood. Karen Hosford appeared arid.::objec.led that the work was not completed and also the water area assessmenga::: e:aaegaaed...at an earlier time, according to information that she presei#[e.. - .4�4: t}?e::::CA2khcil. Mr. Colbert noted that the retaining wall was eliminated and for all practical purposes, the work is complete with only final clean up yet to be done. He recommended incorporating the appraisals into the assessments for each parcel. Teresa Fritz appeared and indicated that notices of the assessment hearing had included errors and requested reduct:idlt:::::7iecause of the elimination of the retaining wall. After exten sive;;dSCtiss%6h, Egan moved, Wachter seconded the motion to -.close the, hearing; ta: d iprove-t3je assessment roll based upon the reduction of the assessments=along.,the sq#i:th side of Deerwood Drive, according to the appraisals acquired by'EftiO:::£:3:ty.:::.:A11 voted in favor. SLATERS ACRES - FINAL ASSESSMENT HEARING - PROJECT #419 The next final assessment hearing convened covered Project #419 consisting of Slaters Acres street and utility improvements. Mr. Colbert identified the cost over -runs beyond the feasibility report estimates resulting from unexpected coat increases for ,.e ;semerit ;ac yj;0:'tion and change orders during construction. He stated that:�:a: iiricYetf :i7b'j-eetion had been received from Hills Construction Co. but that :zspreaeitfatives of Hills Construction Co. were present at the hearing and dgeired to :withdraw their objection. A number of other objectati4fe::;$'r'::o:C3k8f:propert y owners in Slaters Acres and Norvin Oaks, including:' 14:'-''o�E *t ie :i-7"oiwners were submitted to the City Council. Mr. Colbert then reviewed a recalculation of the assessment consideration with some recommendations for reduction from $15,552.06 per lot to $13,304.57 per lot. He noted that $12,500.00 had been paid for easement acquisition costs. Aubrey Hall of James Court.*:::& iewe9':::[fie history and was concerned about the increases in the rates.:::f#s noted thae'::�he affected owners had petitioned to scale back the project buE the Council prdCeeded with the original proposal and that the estimate had gon ;:;:from $12,800.": to the final cost of $15,552.00 6 Council Minutes September 16, 1986 per lot in the assessment roi:1:2 He was opposed to paying costs of the entire 18 inch storm sewer line:::i:ifnd Mr. Colbert stated the staff had recommended reduction in the total assessment. Also, there were objections to the Hills Construction Co, property beii ':?"g;aeSs d;:;;at;:::: an alleged lower rate but it was explained that it cover ed:::::d&-'..::t'hc:::f outage on Rusten Road, and that there would be internal improvement•s•:also for the development. After extensive discussion, Egan moved, Wachter seconded the motion to continue the hearing until later in the meeting' for deliberation by the property owners present regarding the recommended revision in the assessment roll. All voted yes. GROUP W CABLE The final assessment he under Project #423 then w project and there were no o to close the hearing, to ap the County for collection. PROJECT #423 — FINAL ASSESSMENT HEARING ding Group W Cable street improvements by the Mayor. Mr. Colbert detailed the Wachter moved, Egan seconded the motion i]1::::�ttr3::authorize the certification to LEXINGTON SQUARE 2ND ADDITION — PROJECT #433 — FINAL ASSESSMENT HEARING The final assessment hearing for...the':]*:trunk storm and sanitary sewer Project #433 in Lexington Square' came came then to the City Council for.its,consideration. .,Mr. Curt:;:F:eeirted the roll to the Council and explained it in some detail.;:;::::Clfsrlea gall appeared on behalf of the Trustee for the Hall property on Wesrr'o.GC:'Road aRi# submitted a written objection based upon the fact that he had not re&di ei9:4d6quate information whether or not to make an objection to the roll.He''::66jC[ed to 91.3 acres of assessments whereas, it was noted there would only be 2U'':acres that would be assessed. He further indicated that there may not be an objection after information has been reviewed and had questions about the elevation of the sewer line. Egan moved, Smith seconded the motion to close the hearing and to approve the final assessment roll with;:t;h4&:;exceptiop.::of the Hall property, which will be continued indefinitely and certification of the balance of the roll for collection. The:;:;;'Otaff`;::;:yiS9 further authorized to select an appraiser in the event it w8s:'nece4aary because of objections regarding the Hall property. All voted aff:ifmativs:ky;. SLATERS ACRES — PROJECT #419 — FINAL ASSESSMENT HEARING The Mayor then reconvened the public hearing regarding Project #419 special assessments. Representatives of the property owners appeared and indicated that all owners present.:.d1;8t"pss.ed. the proposed revisions to the assessments and approved them.::;LgBn miiYe:y;:::Smith seconded the motion to close the hearing and to authoriz&:::::;the certT:W;cation of the assessment roll as revised with the condition:'''fhat all objet:Cions will be removed, noting the final assessment would be in•:tbe sum of $13,3Q4.57 for each platted lot. All >: » members voted yea. '''"'' • 7 Council Minutes September 16, 1986 FAGAN IN6.ftTRIAL ROAD — STREET VACATION The public hearing regardfitg::::t1e::NBcatiiii::of a portion of Eagan Industrial Road at the intersection witfi:':$agn'aileie.:<':B-ivd.,was convened. Mr. Colbert was asked to review the vacation and there were no objections. Egan moved, Ellison seconded themotion to:::close the hearing and approve the vacation and authorize the execution of tFi' appropriate documents. All voted yes. 1987 GENERAL FUND — BUDGET NEARING The public hearing regard .pg the:'::proposed 1987 General Operating Budget was convened by Mayor Bea:)-lomqui:SC:and the City Administrator reviewed the budget, noting that guidelines::;had been determined by the City Council to avoid a mill levy increase in.. 19a7.,...'... Budget workshops had been held and the r total budget being considered:::;fir::::}.481;:::£x:: X289,630.00. After review by the City Administrator, thee be3.ng''fi3''6lijecYibtis;' Smith moved, Wachter seconded the motion to close the hearing and direct the City Administrator to further develop the operating budget. All members voted yea. COMPRI HOTEL — CONDITIONAL The applieation-of the CcmVrJ'::.'.0.6tgl':;il'e for liquor license was bepiijtht to the conditional approval of the;:::r"oud .tional about the fact that there would b'E':iia:::o't3i,#t Wachter moved, Egan seconded the moti6'&X:t the conditional use permit. All members vo — LIQUOR LICENSE elopers for conditional use permit Council. The APC recommended use permit. There was discussion licenses on the hotel site and :::::close the hearing and to approve ed: yea. BOW AND ARROW HUNTING SEASON The City Administrator statgA-:that 6e;;.;;ilsd been contacted by John Parker, area wildlife manager forst;>MiRlYeaq:t;d;::f?t:Fiartment of Natural Resources and recommended that the City perbii:t bow'-`Apj1'arrow deer hunting during 1987. The Police Department suggested eo'iltrollift all bow and arrow hunting to unplatted areas of no less than 5 acre9:::; There:::4as discussion as to where bow and arrow hunting should be allowed wik' n;: then :.£x.Ky:r;:;:;poting that a minimum size parcel should be determined for bow:::eilcl::::s;tov:ii:iiut:ipg purposes. Smith moved, Wachter seconded the motion to acknowledge the 1987 bow and arrow deer hunting season set forth by the DNR, and that the hunting be permitted in unplatted areae of no less than 5 acres with the understanding that the owner will accompany the deer hunters or give written permission to do so. All voted in favor except Blomquist who voted no. - Council Minutes September 16, 1986 ::ZVCC - WAIVER OF FIAT The application of the Mi'tiopolitan Waste Control Commission for waiver of plat to split a 5.36 acre parcel in the Cedar Industrial Park came to the Council for 4 .::the building permit was issued in 1985 for the 32,000 square f%wt maintenance facility, and on October 1, 1985, the City Council denied a re 'a . i.at to calculate user fee on the 5.5 acre area, suggesting a waiver of plat The APC recommended approval, subject to conditions. Mr. Runkle described the application and two representatives of the MWCC were present. Ellison moved, Egan seconded the motion to approve the application, subject to the following conditions: 1. All applicable Ordin'A'-&es be adhered to. 2. The Waiver of Plat s"'I*l be iiit'3bject to a parks dedication fee. -X All voted yea. KILLDEER ADDITION - REZONING The application of Michael R. Wills and two other owners for rezoning from R-2 to R-1 on Lots 6 through 13 in the Ki -1: ' W i :8er Addition next came before the Council. The APC recommended Planner Dale Runkle noted that i4b all reoidencea.constructed irk..thid;*� that :the market at the present time R-1 ::.Purposes. Mr. and Mrs. Michael Wills was present and requested apprv�:al.. WiiL�hter moved, Egan seconded the motion to approve the application, '':S':iz single family code compliance requirements. All members voted yes. TOWN CENTRE 100 THIRD ADDITION - PRELIMINARY PLAT The application of Federal Land Company for preliminary approval of Town Centre 100 Third Addition caliv.j.p.ting o.f-.-;-:-two lots and two outlots on approximately 2.5 acres The plat will allow an additional acre of land t o b .....ed W"xt' e day care facility along Lexington Avenue and the lot line was 0ff . fted .'hiking the Fall of 1985. Also, the plat created approximately a three:::*cre p4q�4el to be dedicated to the City for park purposes. The APC Bartholdi was present on behalf of the applicant. Egan move4,,.::::.U*I.,3:'ski$tl::::61tt;lbmid the motion to approve the ........... application, subject to compliance with all City Code requirements. All voted aye. FAIRWAY HILLS 2ND-:-A00�-1ON-.7- PRELIMINARY PLAT The application of Derrick:I;.h - nd Compafi'.:�:i*for approval of the Fairway Hills iyt n*'of 59 lots on 25 acres next came 2nd Addition preliminary �iconsisti :' .:.! before the Council. Dale RurLIC3,e detailed thik:::planner's report and the APC recommended approval subject::1:6 condi.tioas.,...:':':'Egan moved, Wachter seconded the motion to approve the following: 9 Council Minutes September 16, 1986 1. A variance to the ::%: grades at intersections shall be granted as discussed within this report.'" 2. Utilities shall be ex filtled::::t :::::::3:G9'''.southeasterly most corner of the development and also to the:.easterly boundary within the right-of-way stub to the Parkview Golf Course. 3. The developer shall provide the necessary documents whereby the owner of Lot 1, adjacent to the golf course and between the public street and the park area, agree to maintain a private driveway within public right-of-way. 4. The developer shall also pr�W-are documents whereby the owner of Lot 1 and 2 of the block adjacent::#G the gpif course and between the public street, and also the owner of Lot 2 ia::the bl:dtk north of the Northern Natural Gas Company easement and adjacenE"to the'-'gblf course, acknowledge the existence of public right-of-way and the :::xd$e::::City to construct a residential street within that right-of-wa)r-upoi4-'deve l'op'ment of the golf course property. 5. This development shall be responsible for obtaining all necessary regulatory agency permits prior to the City releasing the final plat for recording. bilSiiiie for dedicating a 65 foot half 6. This development shall be ..;es p,:.:.: g rightcofcway,;,f=.Pilot•.Knob,•Road::4h...s"6p.foot, full ... right-of-way for. internal public roads. 7. This development shall lie'':xGsiop9Lble for dedicating a 30 foot utility easement over the sanitary sewer and Va:tei::)WA).n extended to the southeasterly most corner of this development and a miii'="um of a 20 foot utility easement over any public utilities not installed within public right-of-way. This development will be required to dedicate a 40 foot drainage easement over the back yards adjacentto the Northern Natural Gas pipeline and a 10 foot drainage easement adjacent to rear lot lines used for drainage swails. This development will be responsible::Eor:..providing.;a 30 foot temporary construction easement along all lots adjac®ii:i d" Road Road north of the Rebecca Lane street extension. 8. This development shal:i:::: be yesponsible for the remaining trunk area, street improvements and tra :way; ass .... sn.t•9::not covered by the Fairway Hills 1st Addition. This developmeikgt►lt:asck:3i:responeible for the additional street and trailway assessments for frontage along Pilot Knob Road as a result of the parkland swap at the rates in effect at the time of final platting. 9. All standard plan conditions shall be adhered to. 10. This plat shall be : rij:ieWeq::::::bji::::; the Advisory Parks and Recreation Commission and shall be subjeo:g:tb their 'r'eeommendations. 11. Home buyers shall b.p...-.notified by.::::the developer or its agents and assigns .of the risks of ::$Being ad jacent.;e,i:the golf course and gas line in negotiating for lots adjacent; ta:::ftie:§®:: Ek�1J::krles and the method of notice shall be reviewed and approv29:::&%* :eg`xtafii` 10 Council Minutes September 16, 1986 12. The Building Ine:prtion Department shall closely monitor the construction of the dwelling'.on the corner lot backing to Parkview Golf Course on Lot 2, Block 1, and spec33J::::iai)iEBii#etRt'4DA will be given that the building pad will not encroach on the ea:9'eiiE»::::::+•: All councilmembers voted :y'Es. SUNPOINTB ADDITION - PRELIMINARY PLAT The application of RMC D&yelopment and Advance Developers for preliminary plat approval of the Sunpointe Adil:ition covering 90 townhouse units on 10.5 acres was next considered. 'j'tg AP&:..::::at its meeting recommended approval, subject to certain condittAs. `:Dale Runkle described the proposed development, noting the location.;Q.­.ihe.-north side of Diffley Road is an area that had been zoned for high:: tis :t .:::ok::y�+:::ain:its per acre. The proposed plat would include an overall density 'of''8':{"iiilYCB'`per acre with 9 separate lots, including six with 12 -unit buildings and three with 6 -unit buildings. The balance of the 44.35 acres would consist of Outlot A. The planned development provided for a 15 foot buffer and Bob Carlson, the applicant, was present and he noted that the developer will comply with enhanced landscaping in the buffer area. It was understood that.:.tbg*:cul-de-sac is under 500 feet in length and that all City requiremegGs2:a:::.b;d'complied with. Pat Hoffman also appeared -for the. developer.- Jack Willenburg, a neighbor ttg;owner;' was concerned about the use of the balance of the vacant parcel and ''wfiezliR`.;eddition al park is being planned. It was noted that there are no fur thei''pl:att:for parks in the area, except for possible tot lot installation. Another neigAbring owner objected to there being no direct access to park land and the potential that traffic volume will be excessive. He recommended an R-3 density maximum on the parcel. Dennis Castle of Jade Lane stated that the northerly parcels would generally be the least desira§jg,:;and rgo.ommended buffering along the north. The staff was concerned aligiC::Eiie:::iar}:::pattern throughout the entire development, and recommended;:tbe road.'eoiifiguration as proposed. There were also strong ::�pncernsx:i:from neighboring owners regarding the possibility of higher dens itc`•on.the:;taF$p.;portion of the parcel, whereas the planned development concept mfi1 C#e ;: sl;iipJ:i!..is on the north, with higher density moving southerly to Diffley Road. Mayor Blomquist recommended the schematic plans be submitted on the balance of the parcel before proceeding further. Mr. Hoffman stated that only blob concept plans were attachek::::rP::::Ct*;:planned development agreement. Mr. c•:::•.:.:::... Carlson noted that the in tentioCc:::�s tb$;cteYelop for -sale homeowner -occupied units throughout the entire pop., p.,;el and noted that the market now calls for unite comparable to those of'Soilthpointe on':t.be south side of Diffley Road. 11 Council Minutes September 16, 1986 Councilman Wachter reflected on the special consideration on the north area when the planned deU:dopment was originally approved and recommended reviewing the planned developtilent agreement more carefully. Blomquist moved, Egan seotitldBd:::ili ::'ritaGl-4.4:::to continue consideration of the application until a concept ;understanding is reached with the developer for the entire parcel. All memb�o voted yea. JOHNNY CAKE RIDGE 5TH ADDITION — PRELIMINARY PLAT The application of Good Yalue Homes, Inc. for approval of the preliminary plat of proposed Johnny Cake:::Xidge 5Lh;Addition came next to the Council. The plat would consist of three:*plex buildings on Outlot B of Johnny Cake Ridge 4th Addition. The plat was i0mitteQ:'by Orrin Thompson Homes and approved in 1984 but no construction had ''Eaken place on Outlot B or on the building sites in Johnny Cake Ridge 4th Add;Gio%ii::::i1e:':CCk'1 number of units in the 4th and 5th Additions would increase from 5b::tb:'68:uikits, with a gross area for the Outlot being 5.1 acres. Twelve additional units provides overall density of 7.01 units per acre with the area outside of the building sites being designated as Outlot common space. Mr. Runkle detailed the application the developer would be required to coir-€ drainage and building suitabiliC:}%::::' Hf on behalf of the Advisory PL ..T.xng'Commi owners and noted the P1Anning::..Com application. Surrounding owner:A'`'.::p.1;a understanding that open space was inteifd ited that there was poor soil and He soil in order to insure proper kle also explained the objections and the neighboring property on recommended denial of the that they bought houses with the 'r:: the site. John Peterson, the Vice President of Good Value Homes, Inc. was present as was its attorney, Lawrence Johnson. Mr. Peterson argued that the change did not alter the nature of the neighborhood and that the total proposal would be within ordinance requirements. He also indicated that the applicant was willing to delete one of the buil 1ding sitga. within the complex and noted that Orrin Thompson Romes did noE;;:CYelop;titeei'te because Thompson determined it was not feasible to correcG::-Xhe Bail ''conditions, but Good Value Homes determined it is feasible at-tTr6 presaht time. Mayor Blomquist objected that the proposal would increase;;:ghe denai.ty and it was noted that no services or stubs were installedoriginaii:j�,.to..tiiei:.eite: because of the intention that the property would not be develijQedIC';:`'f�!aa:::further noted that no homeowners association was organized at the present time but that the developers would organize such an association. The common area outlot also encompasses the parcels between the platted lots in the 4th Addition. A proposed Resolution was ..suiwR3tted to the City Council covering alternates including pro posed:':':::fitY4zali3:':nd unfavorable actions by the City .:.. Council. After extended discu9'g�nn, Blomgtil:gt moved, Wachter seconded the motion to deny the application based 40ii the reasons outlined in the Resolution attached to and.•::made a part.:.'. --of these Minutes. A copy of the Resolution was given to Mr. ft; erson during:Gke course of the meeting. All members voted in favor. ..................... 12 -Council Minutes September 16, 1986 EAtIK LIGHTING CONTRACTS Contract #86-21.t...............seconded the motion to approve award of Contract #86-21 .b,..:ti ... ... ....... :in the amount of $20,646.50. All voted yes. Contract #86-22. Wachtei iaoved, Egan seconded the motion to approve the award of the contract for the installation of light poles and fixtures in the amount of $19,200.00 to Midland Electric Company. All members voted yea. HOLLAND LAKE -::.DUNK STORM SEWER - CONTRACT #86-23 The plans and specificati-6hs for,: .:: 0)ntract #86-23 consisting of trunk storm sewer in the Holland Lake,­C],UfR'oad area were submitted. Mr. Colbert recommended proceeding wit�.*::i���iiiie:::::p.r4,4:tdt:�*::::::::: Blomquist was concerned that contacts had not been made ezted`jiroperty owners, and Mr. Colbert emphasized the need to avoid additional future flooding in the spring and that all contacts will be made with the affected property owners. Notices had been sent to the owners concerning the proposed condemnation. Bob Ferguson was present with certajn.:.9)6iieerns as was Bob Lane of Lakewood Hills Addition. Mr. Lane requpl.q:::.a':':*:"::':*he"*" contractor be given specific instructions regarding constrw;:. in Lakewood Hills because of the sensitivity of the area . andortan .. e I of maintaining access. Upon motion by Egan, seconded Smith, it was -::::'"'$p me at the plans and specifications for Contract #86-23 be approved a4:: t :-:t ....,.,.C.Ier be authorized to advertise for bids to be opened at 10:30 a.m. on 17, 1986 at the Municipal Center, subject to instructions given to ..'.fie contractor and that the staff continue to work with the property owners regarding the acquisition of the easements. All voted yes. BLACMW.&-::FLAZA. -.-FIKAL PLAT Tom Colbert described to.:IE& Cit',.�r::::'Council, the information received from Peter Stalland in the late a ffl' r noon September 16, 1986 regarding the final plat. He stated that a Letti.Y::::of Int-e;itt had been submitted but that no review had taken place in pl e t ion of all requirements for plat approval. Because all ...t . i . t:ik . :.::had not been reviewed by the ........ staff, Blomquist moved, Egan seconded the motion to continue consideration of the application until a later meeting. All voted in favor. TOWERVIEW ROAD AND )I .I.-(;II-V-ftj4:::AVENUE - CONTRACT #86-24 The bids for Contract #864�2:4::" concernihi-'::::street improvements for Towerview Road and Highview Avenue had received 4& it was recommended that the low bid from Alexander ConstrVA.T..ion Co. in the sum of $63,156.25 be approved. Upon motion by Wachter, secoig4d resolved that the contract be awarded to the low bidder '-imd;ft:&t;kiL4ihg that the final surfacing will not be completed until 1987;:':::::'&iffl"":'%t : ff ' 6 - i I i I i -'f - 6 1 i . ii X,the alternate will be included. All voted yes. 13 Council Minutes September 16, 1986 BURR OMCs ADDITION - CONTRACT #86-25 Ellison moved, Wachter :eeaatfdei#>:'cfie>`'teotion to approve the plans for Contract #86-25 in the Burr Oaks Addition and authorize the Clerk to advertise for bids in the legal newspaper with the opening to be held at the Municipal Center at 10:30 a.m. on Frid&y'; October 17, 1986. All voted yea. R. L. JOHNSON 2ND ADDITION - PROJECT #85 -BB - FINAL ACCEPTANCE The developer of R. L. Jaliikson I& Addition requested approval of Project #85 -BB consisting of a p DNate ajprovement project. Smith moved, Egan seconded the motion to accept::::::Project: #85 -BB for the R. L. Johnson 2nd Addition for perpetual maintQnance....;Al,l.members voted yea. RAHN RIDGE ADDITION - PROJECT #85 -RR - FINAL ACCEPTANCE At the request of the developer, upon motion by Egan, seconded Ellison, it was resolved that Project #85 -RR consisting -.of the Rahn Ridge improvements installed privately, be accepted and:;;th9:t the City accept the project for perpetual maintenance. All member a::vpta d;::y64`. UPDATE City Administrator Tom Hedges reviewed::CEl�:final results of the comparable worth point values for each position classaTled in the City of Eagan. He noted the Personnel Committee met on Tuesday, September 9, 1986 and reviewed the point values and recommended final action by the City Council. Upon motion by Egan, seconded Wachter, it was resolved that the Council approve the comparable worth point values and authorize the release of the information to allow the City employees to rev.iia3#::them...:.Al:l: voted affirmatively. DEERFIELD ADDITION :TOWN CENTRE 70 - EAW's The City Planning De par tprent::.;:.bd5:;:; g;o�esaed two environmental worksheets including Deerfield Additi07f ::a i3;-'T4iehk:::Cd:K.-i'e 70. According to Dale Runkle, comments had been significant regarding Town Centre 70. After discussion and upon motion by Egan, seconded Blomquist, it was resolved that the City will issue a negative declaration for Deerfield Addition and Town Centre 70 Addition, with the understanding that a traffic study will be conducted for the intersection of Yankee Doodle:•Rk�l::;::::BP.d, Pilot Knob Road under Town Centre 70 Addition. All voted yes. 14 Council Minutes September 16, 1986 PARR MOLL ADDITION - FINAL PLAT Staff recommended approval of the final plat application for Park Knoll Addition, located north of:;5#liu6::Iiati;::Road and east of Oakwood Heights Addition. Smith moved, Egan:9Pco4iii:etl::tee:Wixtion to approve the final plat and authorize the Mayor and City:.Q.erk to execute all related documents. All voted yes. The City Attorney subm program and development agr was recommended that the seconded Smith, it was reso by Sperry Corporation, enla approved and authorized to Wachter; those against were FACILITY AMENDMENTS amendments to the tax increment financing fo;;the Sperry consolidation facility and it meats be approved. Upon motion by Egan, aV:::t#ie amendments as submitted and requested he area covered by the TIF financing, be in favor were Smith, Egan and n`a.61.1I0.mauist. LEXINGTON SQUARE 4TH ADDITION - FINAL PLAT Staff recommended approval of the ;fats plat application of Lexington Square 4th Addition. Wachter moy.ed:�. .:90ait:-:'seconded the motion to approve the plat subject to compliance.;...s�XCq:::;:a%!';:;:City requirements. All voted affirmatively. BORCHERT-INGERSOLL - STORM SEW$it:'P:"9ESSMENT APPEAL - PROJECT #381 There was discussion concerning the proposed settlement of a claim by Borchert Ingersoll to commence an action appealing storm sewer improvements under Project #381. Smith moved, Egan seconded the motion to 'adthorize settlement of up to $18,500.00 based upon the information submitted by the Public Works Director and City AGto:rney...A,l};.voted in favor. GOODWILL Bbk" FIRE -?.ADMINISTRATION BUILDING There were concerns amo4 the.. ;.0 G.�.,.. Co.urc.ilmembers regarding the piles of debris around the Goodwill lidif$Aiu:;[ieto'::Eime in recent months. Blomquist moved, Wachter seconded the motion to direct the staff to contact Goodwill Industries and request that the deposits be removed on a more regular basis, or that the Goodwill box be removed because of the blighted appearance in the area. All voted in favor. 15 Council Minutes September 16, 1986 DEERWOOD DRIVE - PROJECT #455 - CONDEMNATION SETTLEMENTS The City Attorney's offidle' submitted a schedule of proposed settlements covering 7 of the 9 projj*'-tt.. :::::pini... .;:: #painst whom condemnation had been commenced in the Spring Drive under Project #455. Negotiations had taken plaC.P;:. and tentative settlements had been reached covering the following: Parcel 010-05 - TXI, Inc. (Dunn) - $4,200.00 pursuant to the City's appraisal; Parcel 020-03 - TXIs.:;Inc. (Dunn) - $4,950.00 pursuant to the City's appraisal; Parcel 010-08 - AQty Fr;aji'z - $1,050.00 pursuant to the City's appraisal plus $300:010 appriY.8al fee. Parcel 010-07 - Tti8i1' FY:aiti2:'''' $3:;250.00 per City appraisal plus $300.00 appraisal fee pursuant to Statute; and $450.00 for.any and all damage to owner's vehicle due to road construction. Parcel 030-03 - George Dougherty - $5,650.00 paid pursuant to the City's appraisal. Parcel 010-78 -Anna HeuB:X:::t' :$8d:Q:.00 pursuant to the City's appraisal plus $300.00 appraisal-::&ee,: Parcel 010-77 - Elme ''::1U1 iVr::;::r.:. $2,200.00 consisting of $1,250.00 (City's appraisal); $950.00''>$:jggage: to future lot; and $300.00 appraisal fee. ... After review, Egan moved, Ellison seconded the motion to accept the recommendation of the staff and authorize settlement according to the schedule above. All councilmembers voted affirmatively. Egan moved, Wachter secor4pd the:.Wtion to approve the following Checklist dated September 16, 1986 in Elie amout?:t.i`of..$ :.... All voted yes. ADJOURNMENT 16 M 3830 PILOT KNOB ROAD, P.O- BOX 21199 EAGAN. MINNESOTA 55121 PHONE: (612) 45d-8100 Septemberr26, 1986 Re: Project 429, Town Centre 70 6 100 Additions Revision to Final Assessment Roll Dear Property Owner: BEA BLOMQUIST Mayor THOMAS EGAN JAMES A. SMITH VIC ELLISON THEODORE WACHTER C.Mll Members THOMAS HEDGES GN Adminlstioloi EUGENE VAN OVERBEKE City Clerk on September 16, 1986, the final assessment hearing for improvements installed under the above -referenced project was held before the City Council. Each of you were sent a notice of this final assessment hearing indicating the amount of assessment proposed to be adopted by Council action as a result of that hearing. However, during the course of that hearing, certain additional information was made available which resulted in a slight adjustment to the assessable footage that the entire costs were to be spread over. Subsequently, with the same total improvement cost being spread over a smaller front footage, the rate per front foot subsequently increased slightly. Therefore, the Council adopted the final assessment roll for the above -referenced project subject to each property owner signing the enclosed consent form acknowledging that the final assessment rates as adopted were slightly higher than those contained in the final assessment roll presented for consideration at the final assessment hearing on September 16. With the general consensus of those property owners in attendance at that final assessment hearing, we do not anticipate any objections to this procedure. However, if any of you would like additional information or clarification regarding this request, please contact me as soon as possible so that we may resolve the issue prior to certifying these assessments to the County on October 10. Your anticipated cooperation in executing the enclosed consent form and returning it to my attention by October 8 will be greatly appreciated. Sincerel$, cc: .Paul Hauge, City Attorney Deanna Kivi, Special Assessment Clerk oma. A. Colbert, P.E. Director of Public Works TAC/jj Enclosure THE LONE OAK TREE... THE SYMBOL OF STRENGTH AND GROWTH IN OUR COMMUNITY �_ _ Geo '. - - G�� .�=� 3- S --ick-i-8s- am -S S �ci� e - 4Z- - C / ,f�' 7 7 // o F a - R7 .i -� cl-775- / ,5- a0 3.7ei-� // 3((-q- 3� a �s o i-5(0--.5 � 1280 Deerwood Dr. Eagan, MN 55123 October 9, 1986 Thomas Colbert Eagan City Hall Eagan, MN 55123 Dear Mr. Colbert: Thank you very much to you, Paul Hauge, and Deanna Kivi for spending the time to go through the city records with Hosfords and us. After all was muddled through, we have to agree it appears that the water area assessment was never levied against our property. We do not intend to further challenge the water area assessment. I apologize for getting excited when we then asked about checks and balances on city offices. It does make us extremely -angry to think that there is no accountability of city employee work, and that in order to force a legal assessment figure from you, we had to pay several thousand dollars in legal and appraisal fees. We believe that the city hall business should be conducted in a legal and ethical manner to begin with. This would also save the citizens a lot of money fighting the city, both in direct legal costs and the city defense costs passed on in the form of higher taxes. You were angered by our repeated reference to your previous justification of the $51,000 preliminary assessment figure for our property by the suggestion that we could sell off several lots along Deerwood Drive and recoup the $51,000. You kept ordering me not to say that, as if to imply to Mr. Hauge and Ms. Kivi that I was lying. This in turn made me extremely angry. So please reply in writing what your recollection is of your justification of the $51,000 assessment, and also what is your claim to $3300 benefit to out .property for Project 0473. Mr. Hauge never did answer us about a "ball park" estimate of what it would cost us to hire counsel to fight this new assessment. I request a written reply from Mr. Hauge, too, as he must surely retain enough contact with independent lawyers to be able to do this easily. Isn't it true that as long as the city keeps a certain critical ratio between an illegal assessment and the cost to fight an illegal assessment, that they can be assured of collecting a large proportion of the assessment roll? This is why I believe Mr. Wachter was able to boast at the city council meeting that the city hasn't had too much trouble so far collecting the assessments, and so (erroneously) concluded that there was no need to change the city's policies for special assessments. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Sincerely, , Teresa A. Fritz cc: (Paul Hauge Deanna Kivi Mayor Blcmquist HAUGE, EIDE & KELLER, P. A. ATTORNEYS AT LAW WATER VIEW OFFICE TOWER, SUITE 303 1200 YANKEE DOODLE ROAD EAGAN. MINNESOTA 55123 PAULH.HAUGE KEVIN W. EIDE DAVID G. KELLER LORI M. BELLIN DEBRA E. SCHMIDT November 3, 1986 Thomas Colbert Eagan Public Works Director 3830 Pilot Knob Road Eagan, MN 55121 RE: Miscellaneous Assessment Objections Dear Tom: AREA CODE 612 TELEPHONE 456-OOM 464-4224 I am trying to reconstruct the assessment appeals and objections that we've received to determine exactly which appeals are currently pending. The following are at least some of the objections that were received by the City Council during the Fall of 1986 and I would suggest that you review them and let me know which ones you understand continue to be in process. 1. Slater's Acres — Project #419. A new assessment hearing has now been scheduled and therefore, any objections that were raised will have to be resubmitted by property owners. 2. Deerwood Drive — Area Storm Sewer — Project #473. If I'm not mistaken, there are no outstanding appeals regarding any of the projects in Deerwood Drive, except Project #417, but the most recent storm sewer project, of course, has not advanced to the stage of assessment hearings yet. Under n .Project X417, the objections were received from Theresa and Bernard Fritz, John ani Karen Hosford, and Mr. and Mrs. Kohler. Projec#381.— Borchert Ingersoll. We are in the process of circulating the Stipulation regarding the settlement of the Borchert Ingersoll assessment objections. / $ S-0-6 Project #451 — Hampton Heights. The two objections that you received from Harry Lemieux and Judy Lemieux, as I understand it, have now been settled and of course neither has appealed the assessments within the 30 day time frame. 4t1.� Q�/r% �. Project #428 — Kennebec Drive. An objection was received from Ellerbe Associates. I am not certain whether you've had a chance to talk with anyone from Ellerbe, but I can certainly help you with that. 7Ary U�� � Thomas Colbert November 3, 1986 Page 2 �. Project #443 — O'Neil Pond Assessments. We received an objection from Robert O'Neil dated August 11, 1986 to the assessments covering the O'Neil property. I asked Mark Parranto to prepare the appraisal for the City and have not received it as yet. Very truly yours, HAUGE, EIDE 6 KELLER, P.A. Paul H. Hauge PHH:ras VII. OTHER A. PROJECT 88 6 237 - STREETS 8 UTILITIES (THOMAS LK RD) 1. Dan Dolan (10-02800-010-25) BACKGROUND INFORMATION Project 88 provided for the installation of trunk water main along the south side of County Road 30 adjacent to this parcel. Project #257 provided for the installation of trunk storm sewer. Project 239A provided for the trunk water main along Thomas Lake Road and Project 237 for the street improvements for Thomas Lake Road south of County Road 30 splitting Parcel 010-25. Enclosed on page 11d is a map showing the relationship of these utilities and streets to the property in question. The applicant's issue pertains to the deferred assessments associated with this project to the 2.2 acre parcel on the east side of Thomas Lake Road. In 1979, Mr. Dolan objected to the assessments proposed to be levied against the eastern 2.2 acre parcel. This was reviewed by the SpecAuction Assessment Committee on August 16, 1979. Enclosed on pageis a copy of the minutes from that meeting indicating the in the assessable footage, zoning rate and deferring the imposition of those assessments until the property is developed. With the recent application for the development of the Boulder Ridge Addition to the east of this property, that developer has expressed an interest in acquiring this 2.2 acre parcel for inclusion within that development. As a condition of development, the additional assessment obligations for these deferred assessments and the future assessments for County Road 30 were identified as indicated on page SO . In response to these concerns, the City had an appraisal done of the property to evaluate the increased value in relationship to the benefits received from these deferred assessments under Projects 88, 237, 239A and 257. The appraisal indicated an increased value of $24,000 as compared to the calculated assessment obligation of $26,922 for these deferred assessments. The second portion of the additional assessment obligations pertain to the prepayment for the future upgrading of County Road 30 which is anticipated to occur in 1989. It has been City policy to require all new developments to prepay any potential future assessments as a condition of development. These additional assessment obligations have been estimated at $16,561. Mr. Dolan indicates that the amount of the deferred assessments combined with the potential future assessments of County Road 30 place a financial burden on the property beyond a reasonable amount precluding its sale and incorporation into the proposed �91G Boulder Ridge Addition. Enclosed on page -15� / is the summary of the appraisal performed by the City for the deferred assessments related to the improvements installed in Thomas Lake Road during 1978 and 1979 STAFF RECOMMENDATION Based on the appraisal performed by the City, it is recommended that the deferred assessments for Projects 88, 237, 239A and 257 .be reduced to the maximum increase in property value of $24,000. It is also recommended that the future assessments for County Road 30 improvements be postponed until the time of improvement to be incorporated with that public hearing process and not as a condition of development approval. COMMITTEE RECOMMENATIONS/COMMENTS 117 I / P RD. AMID AMERICA PIPELINE 27 2�° -- — - �s" WET M 40 TAP h )a 111 ,......:•........ ' <..: ]] , 59 010-25 010-2 s ''..:.... •::•::•>:•::•::•::• ::::�-• '° d%. / :.,..... ' T :; SS 40 HEINE it LAKE o. d 4s (1 I y • M t . (2 °] / 1! Ic li I W 'r a 844711 i i c� Of fl [E MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE EAGAN ASSESSMENT EAGAN, MINNESOTA AUGUST 16, 1979 A regular meeting of the Eagan Assessment Committee met on August 16, 1979, at 7 p.m. at the Eagan City Hall. Those present were: Chairman Knight, Committee members Vogt, Smith and Egan. Also present were City Public Works.Director Colbert, City Attorney Hauge, and City Administrator Hedges. DAN DOLAN - EAGAN 40 PROPERTY A letter from Mr. Dan Dolan dated August 14, 1979, concern- ing his objection for water and street improvements on the Thomas Lake Road portion of the Eagan 40 property south of . County Road #30 was reviewed. Mr. Dolan was present and indi- cated that he had given an easement without cost for Thomas Lake Road to the City and that there was a residue of a two acre triangular parcel to the east of Thomas Lake Road. The staff recommended an assessment of 50% on the east side for water, sewer and street improvements at the normal commercial rate which is the intended use in the PUD for that property. Mr. Dolan explained that the two acre parcel could not logically be used for commercial purposes and asked that the assessments be waived because the benefit to that parcel would be substantially reduced. After considerable discussion, Smith moved to recommend that the assessment on the east side of Thomas Lake Road for water and street improvements be postponed until such time as it is subdivided or developed. Egan seconded the motion, and further that the east side be assessed one-half of the normal assessment rate for the frontage at the rates then in existence at the time of the imposition of the assessments due to the fact that the road is located in along the west edge of the two acre parcel. It was understood that the property to the west would be assessed at the commercial rate. All members voted in favor. KENNETH HASSLER - 3745 BLACKHAWK ROAD A letter from Kenneth Hassler objecting to the assessments levied against his property, Lot 6, Block 1, Blackhawk Acres in 1971 for sewer, water and street improvements based upon two potential buildable lots was discussed. He indicated that there was only one buildable lot and it was noted that under present lot size requirements, this would be true. Mr. Colbert recom- mended that the back portion of the lot on Robin Lane assessment, be reevaluated and that the lot be determined one buildable lot and an adjustment to future assessments be made according to the then existing City policy. Rahn moved and Vogt seconded the motion to recommend that the assessment be determined on the basis of the original assessment date and that interest be computed and that a determination be made as to whether credit �9 PARCEL #10-02800-010-25 ASSESSMENT RESEARCH FOR DEVELOPMENT MARCH 17, 1987 (GW) The following assessment obligations have been researched and deemed to be the responsibility of the eastern 2.2 acre portion of the above -referenced parcel: ITEM Lateral Benefit from Trunk Water Main (County Rd. 30) Thomas Lake Road Streets Storm Sewer Lateral - Thomas Lk. Rd. Lateral Benefit from Trunk Water Main - Thomas Lk. Rd. Trunk Area Storm Sewer Future County Road 30 Assessments ITEM PROJ. # 88 237 239A 239A 257 Subtotal PROJ. # County Rd. 30 Upgrading Future Lateral Storm Sewer - County Rd. 30 Future Trailway - County Rd. 30 Future Subtotal RATE QTY AMOUNT $20.55/ff 175' $ 3,596 17.72/ff 569.75' 10,096 5.20/ff 570' 2,960 6.24/ff 570' 3,557 0.067/sf 100,188/sf 6,713 RATE QTY $66.53/ff 175/ff 10.39/ff 175' 12.40/ff 250' TOTAL FUTURE ASSESSMENT OBLIGATIONS 0 "5'0 $26,922 AMOUNT $11,643 1,818 3,100 $16,561 $43,483 DAHLEN & DVVM, INC. SUMMARY OF SALIENT FACTS AND CONCLUSIONS General Description: Location: Parcel I.D. Number: Parcel Size: Zoning: Fee Owner: Estimated Market Value of Land - Before: Estimated Market Value of Land - After: Benefits Attributable to Projects #88, 237, & 239A: Date of Value Estimate: Appraiser: This is a 2.2 acre parcel of land with an older boarded up single family dwelling which is in the process of being removed. The topography is gently rolling and wooded. The southeast corner of County Road 30 and Thomas Lake Road in Eagan, Minnesota. 10-02800-010-25 2.2 acres PD' Eagan 40 Limited Partnership $48,000.00 $72,000.00 $24,000.00 June 1, 1987 Daniel E. Dwyer