3996 Rahn RdCITY OF EAGAN Remarks * Cetiar r.r_?ve?rquisitinn
Addition CEDAR GROVE #5 Lot 10 Blk 3 Parcei 10 16704 100 03
Owner ?/-?/lj?'3r-•?`v? ??'?? Street 3996 Rahn Road State_ E3g?,'?Il, MId 55122
?
/? L7r?n n:t
Improvement Date Amount Annual Years Payment Receipt Date
STREET SURF. 1967 600.00 60.00 10 Paid
STREET RESTOR.
GRADING
SAN SEW TRUNK V,%?, 1967 100.00 5.00 20 Paid
SEWER LATERAL ?; - 196ti 665.00 33.20 ZO Pdld
WATERMAIN
WATERLATERAL 1972 607.00 24.28 25 461.32 00410 5-24-77
AREA
STORM SEW TRK 1970 70.00 3.50 20 42.00 004102 --
STORM SEW LAT
CURB & GUTTER
SIDEWALK
STREET LIGHT
WATER CONN.
BUILDING PER.
sa,c 200.00 833 9-26-68
PARK
CITY OF EAGAN Remarks * Ceddr e:mvg ACcpiisit pn
Additiovn / CEDiAR GROVE #rJ Lot 10 Blk 3 Parcel 10 16704 100 03
Owner v-'Q//7-e?'%'- Street 3996 Rahn Road State EAqan, IrIld 55122
Improvement Date Amount Annual Years Payment Receipt Date
STREET SUFiF. 1967 ()00.00 60.00 10 Paid
STREET RESTOR.
GRADING
SAN SEW TRUNK 3,7- 1967 100.00 5.00 20 Paid
SEWERLATERAL 3 1968 665.00 33.20 20 Paid
WATERMAIN
* WATER LATERAL ? 1972 607.00 24.28 25 461.3 - -
WATER AREA
STORM SEW TRK 1970 70.00 3.50 ZO 42.00 004102 - -
STORM SEW LAT
CURB & GUTTER
SIDEWALK
STREET LIGHT
WATER CONN.
dUILDING PER.
s,nc 200.00 833 9-26-68
PARK
CITY OF EAGAN
3795 Pilot Knob Road Eagan, MN 55122 N2 5 814
PHONE: 464-8100
BUILDING PERMIT Receipt #
To be used for Est. Value Date , 19
Site Address Erect ? Occupancy
Lot Block Sec/Sub. Aiter ? Zoning
Parcel # Repair ? Fire Zone
Enlarge ? Type of Const.
W Name Move ? # Stories
Z Address
3 Demolish ? Front ft.
? Ci Phone Grade ? Depth ft.
w Name Approvols Fees
uO ? Address Assessment Permit
Water & Sew. Surcharge
~ Cit Phone Police Plan check
F
FW Name Fire SAC
?? Address Eng. Woter Conn.
aW Ci Phone Plunner Water Meter
Council Road Unit
I hereby acknowledge thot I hove reod this application and state that gldg. Off. -
the information is correct ond agree to comply with all opplicable
APC
Total
State of Minnesota Stotutes and Ciry of Eagan Ordinances.
Signature of Permittee
A Building Permit is issued to: on the express condition that
all work shall be done in accordance with all applicable Stute of Minnesota Statutes and City of Eogan Ordinances.
Official
ildin
B
g
u
Pennif # Date laued Permittw
Plumbin9
Mechanical
INSPECTIONS DATE INSP. Rough-In Fincl
Footings Date Insp. Date Insp.
Foundation Plumbing
Frame/ins. Mechanical
Final - z??
j I
Remarks:
Minnesota State Board of Electricity 1954 University Ave., St. Paul, Minn. 55104-Phone 645-7703
REQUEST FOR ELECTRICAL INSPECTION
CHECK BELOW WORK COVERED BY THIS REQUEST
?Y 4P-de
S 26822
Type of Building.New Add. Rep. Check Applian ces Wired For Check Equipment Wired For
Home ? ? ? Range ? Temporary Wiring ?
Duplex ? ? ? Water Heater ? Lighting Fixtures ?
Apt. Bldg. ? ? ? Dryer ? Electric Heating ?
Commercial Bldg. ? ? ? Furnace ? Silo Unloader ?
Industrial Bldg. ? ? ? Air Conditioner ? Bulk Milk Tank ?
Fazm ? ? ? List
hers? List
hers?
Other ? ? ? He Re
COMPUTE INSPECTION FEE BELOW
Sezvice Entrance Size: # F ee, Feeders&Subfeeders: # Fee Cucuits: # Fee
0 to 100 Am s. / ", yZ 0 to 30 Am eres 0 to 30 Am eres
101 to 200 Amps. 31 to 100 Amperes 31 to 100 Am eres
Above 200 Amps. Above 100 Amps. Above 100 Amps.
Transformers Remote Control Circ. Partial or other fee r
Signs Special Inspection Minimum fee $5 64Z)
Remarks TOTAL FEE + 00
I, the Electrical Inspector, hereby certify that the above inspection has been made.
(Rough-in) Date
(Final) ate
This request void 18 months from ?
? : cs-v ?a?-?.
This request void 18 months from / ?(Q O?
Date of this Request7 8 Q 2 6 8 2 2
I, as O Licensed Electrical Contractor Owner, do hereby request inspection of the above electri-
cal wiring installed at:
Street Address or Route No ? C? / 6, City ? ?
Section Township Range County _ ?
Which is occupied by C!?) ?
(Name of Occupant)
?
Is a roughin inspection required on this job? No b Ye&K Ready Now ? Will Call
Power Supplier Address
Electrical Contractor ???'?-?- Contractor's License No.
,?-- -
(Company Name)
Mailing Address
Cont
Authorized Signat'!R _6. !-'?.?'!
(Electrical- C tor or
T E BOAO'KhD COPY
nsta
g`?-- Phone
Installation)
This inspection request will not be accepted by the
State Board unless proper inspection fee is enclosed.
`'I CITY OF EAGAN Include 2 sets of plans,
? ` 1 site plan w/el.evations &
BUILDING PERMIT APPLICI?TION I set of energy ans.
To Be Used For C.'-"lrr ,.erT u? Valuation EJU s? Date ?
site Address: 4 oFFIGE uSE ONLY
Lot I0 BlocJc ? Sec./Sub. C Erect ? Occupancy ?
Alter Zoning
Parcel # : Repair Fire Zorbe
Owner: Enlarge Type of Const.
Nbve # Stories
---- --
-
- - - - -- - - ---
Address: Demolish Front ft.
City/Zip Code :'E Grade Depth f t.
Phone 4/5^ -2 - 3"'6 06
Contractor:
Address:
City/Zip Code:
Phone #:
Arch. /Fng. .
Address:
City/Zip Code:
Phone #:
APPROVALS - FEES
Assessments Pernnit 6 ?
Water/Sewer Surcharqe S
Police Plan Check
Fire SAC
Eng. Water Conn.
Planner Water Meter
Council Road Unit
Bldg. Off.
APC
To?r? ? ??
?
CITY OF EAGAN
_ 3795 Pilot Knob Rood Eagan, MN $5122 N2 5814
,. PHONE: 4 54-8100 ?
S
BUILDING PERMIT APPLICATION Receipt #
Cement Driveway
800.00 May 12 80
To be used for
Est. Value Dote 19
Site Address 3996 Rahn Road Erect Xo Occuponcy R3
Lot 10 Block 3 Sec/Sub. CG #5 Alter ? Zoning Rl
Repair ? Fire Zone III
Parcei .#
E
l f Co
t
T
n
arge ? ns
.
ype o
Nome Vern Nelson Move ? #' Stories `
W
3 Address 3996 Rahn Road Demolish ? Front ft.
Eagan, NIlV phone 452-5606 Grade ? Depth ft.
?
o Name S?e Approvals
• Fees
?F
?? Address
~ Ci Phone
??
WW Name
FW
?z
Address
Q W CiN Phone
t hereby acknowledge that I have read this application and state that
the informotion is correct and agree to wmply with all applicable
State of Minnesota Statut s and ity of Eagan Ordinances.
Signature of Permittee
A Building Permit is issued to: Vern NelsOU
all work sholl be done iri accordanq ?h o?ppl' e State of Mii
Assessment
Wiater & $ew.
Police
Fire
Eng.
Planner
Council
BIdg.Off. 5 12 80
APC
Permit > . vv
Surcharge • 50
Plan check
SAC
Water Conn.
Water Meter
Road Unit
Total 5.50
on the express condition that
and City of Eogan Ordinances.
Building Official
EAGAN TOWNSHIP
BUILDING PERMIT
Owner ...... &-fi.......y?..----.t,:sFrr.!-s4?:.?-•---d .........
Addresa (Preseni) :,.. ...........
Builder ..............------------------------------------------------------ .._.
Address --------•--••-•...••-----•------•------•-•----••-•------•--•--...-•••----•--•---•-••.._.__.._.
DESCRIPTION
N° 1806
Eagan Township
Town Hall
Date _a,K•?^t.`.'-• ..... 7}•?-96-.-.
O
5tories To Be Used For Fron! Depih Heigh! Esi. Cos! Permi! Fee Remarks
Sireet, Road or
?-
LOCATION
of Localion
?
/7
or Trac2
This permi2 does ao2 sulhoriae the use of sireets, roads, alleys or sidewalks nor does it give the owner or his agent
the righ! !o create any siluaiion which is a nuisance or which presenis a hazard to the healih, safety, convenience and
gene:al welfare !o aayone in the communiiy.
THIS PERMIT MUST BE KEP ON THE PREMISE WHILE THE WORK IS IN PROGR?/ESS. ,
This is to cerlify, iha!.... '__.__? .............. haspermission to erect a__ "z?.
,42--4??'? , ......?...........upon
the above described premise subjec! Yo the provisions of the Building Ordinance for Eagan _ .. ?wnship adbpied April 11,
1955.
.•• ??-c•r-•--• ?-?!G.J
. _..••-•-•-•-•• --' -?-?..?•-•••-•- 1?--- ---•
?=? .6.•--...
f ------------- Per ------- ......... ? ?t --••-
Chaiinan of Tnwn Board Building Inspector
? • ?
1999 BUILDING PERMIT APPLICATION (RESIDENTIAL)
CITY OF EAGAN
?130 14'?-] 6 Z 3830 PILOT KNOB RD - 55122
2 ` 651-681-4675
New Construction Reauirements Remodel/Repair Reauirement?
? 3 registered sNe surveys showing sq. ff. of lot, sq. ff. of house
and cll roofed areas (207a maximum lot coveraae ollowed)
? 2 coples of plans (show beam 3 window sizes; poured fnd. des(gn; etc.)
? 1 set of energy calculations
? 3 copies of tree preservation plan if lot platted after 7/1/93
DATE: ,/ ^_23_
DESCRIPTION OF WORK:
STREET ADDRESS:
LOT: I C)
b
BLOCK: SUBD./R:I.D. #: 1t a 0-
PROPERTY
OWNER
CONTRACTOR
ARCHITECT/
ENGINEER
Name• ? ? ? y m Phone #: Q6-!o 46?7-
last First
Street Address: ? ??b g? RCI•
City State: Ni Zip:
Company: LuvG?OA 1 51?fw-7 Phone #: .?
(area ?de)
Street Address: Yl ii ?? d??- ?+? • License #190' 39P I Exp. _
City R `,I rT ? State: m N Zip: 6-51.? 'Q-
Company:.
Telephone #: area code ( )
Name:
Street Address: Registration #:
City
Sewer 8 water licensed plumber (reauired for new construction onlv):
2 copies of plan
1 set of energy calculations for heated additions
1 site survey for exterior addHions 8 decks
CONSTRUCTION COST: 50 ? 3
State:
Zip:
Penalty applies when address change and lot change is requested once permff is issued.
I
I hereby acknowledge that 1 have read this application, state that the information is co ect, and agree to comply with all applicabl
State of Minnesota Statutes and City of Eagan Ordinances.
Signature of Applicant:
OFFICE USE ONLY
Certificates of Survey Received Yes No ?-
Tree Preservation Plan Received Yes No Not Required
. ?
OFFICE USE ONLY '
BUILDING PERMIT TYPE
0 01 Foundation ? 06 4-plex ? 11 10-plex ? 16 Fireplace ? 21 Porch (3-sea.)
? 02 SF Dwelling [3 07 5-plex ? 12 12-plex 0 17 Garage ? 22 Porch/Addn. (4-sea.
? 03 1 of _ plex ? 08 6-plex ? 13 16-plex ? 18 Deck ? 23 Porch (screened)
? 04 2-plex ? 09 7-plex 0 14 Apartments ? 19 Lower Level ? 24 Storm Damage
? 05 3-plex ? 10 8-plex ? 15 Lodging ? 20 Pooi'', ? 25 Miscellaneous
WORK TYPE
? 31 New ? 35
? 32 Addition ? 36
? 33 Alteration ? 37
? 34 Repair ? 38
GENERAL INFORMATION
Tenant Impr ? 39
Move Bldg. ? 40
Demolish Bldg.* 0 41
Demolish (Interior) ? 42
* Give PCA handout to appl
Gas Line Only ,, ? 43 Siding/Soffits/Fascia
Gas Insert ? 44 Windows/Doors
Wood Stove !? 45 Fire Repair
Reroof
icant for demolition'`permit
Const. (Actual) Basement sq. ft. Census Code
(Allowable) Main level sq. ft. 5AC Code
tJBC Occupancy sq. ft. No. ;?of Units
Zoning sq. ft. No.'?of Bldgs
# of Stor'?,es sq. ft. MClES System
Length sq. ft. City Water
Width Footprint sq. ft. Booster Pump
PRV
Fire Sprinklered
APPROVALS
Planning Building Engineering ' Variance
Permit Fee Valuation: $ '
Surcharge ?
Plan Review
License
MC/ES SAC
City SAC
Water Conn.
Water Meter
Acct. Deposit
S/W Permit
S/W Surcharge
Treatment PL
Park Ded.
Trails Ded.
Other
Copies
TotaL•
IL
i
SAC Units
% SAC
CITY USE ONLY
LOT ? BL _?; PERMIT #: ? o ?1);) q
SUBD. - - Cle-ir G`('O?'* _ RECEIPT #: I a ?J 7 ? ?
RECEIPT DATE: I- I D' 0()
2000 MECHANICAL PERMIT (RESIDENTIAL)
CITY OF EAGAN
3830 PILOT IQ108 RD
EAGAN 1rIld 55122
Date• 651-681-4675
Complete this section onlv if you are installing HVAC in a single family dwelling, townhome or condo under
eonstruction and not owner/occupied.
• HVAC: 0-100 M B T U
ADDITIONAL 50 M BTU
• Gas outlets (minimum of one required @$3.00 ea.)
? Air conditioning
Other
State Surcharge .50
Total $
Complete this section onlv if you aze remodelinQ, addin?to, or repairine an existing single-family dwelling,
townhome, or condo. Please indicate if it is a new item, alteration, or repair.
New _ Alteration ? Repair _ Other
Furnace
Air exchanger
Reminder: Call for inspections
SITE ADDRESS:
OWNER NAME:
INSTALLER NAME:
$ 30.00
6.00
Fee
State Surcharge
Total
$ 30.00
?A
PHONE #: q
(AREA C DE)
PHONE #: -
(AREA CODE)
414
STREET ADDRESS: I?E
CITY:
STAT'E: ZIP:
ag<lCh?-
SIGNA F PERMITTEE
CITY USE ONLY
L BL
SUBD.
APPROVED BY: , INSPECTOR
PERMIT #:
RECEIPT#:
RECEIPT DATE:
2000 MECHANICAL PERMIT (COIrMERCIAL)
CITY OF EAGAN
3830 PILOT IQi08 RD
EAGAN, MN 55122
651-681-4675
Please complete for: all commerciaUindustrial buildings
muiti-family buildings when separate permits are not required for each dweiling unit
DATE:
WORK TYPE: New construction Install U.G. Tank
Interior Improvement Remove U.G. Tank
Processed Piping
When installing/removing underground tank, call 651-681-4675 for inspection by fire marshal and
plumbing inspector.
Description of work:
Fees: 1% of contract price OR $30.00 minimum fee, vi+hichever is greater.
Underground tank removaUinstallation = minimum fee .
Contract price: $ x 1%= $ (Base Fee)
State surchazge calculate at $.50 for each $1,000 Base Fee
TOTAL
SITE ADDRESS:
$
OWNER NAME: PHONE #: -
(AREA CODE)
TENANT NAME (IMPROVEMENTS ONLY):
WAS TI-iERE A PREVIOUS TENANT IN THIS SPACE? Y N. NAME:
INSTALLER:
?.^&;,. .
" ' -
ADDRESS: '-PH0NEk#:'
? y '(AREAtODE) _
, . .;
CIT'Y: STATE: ZIP:
SIGNATURE OF PERMITTEE
";
:?;?
MEMO
_ cifiy of eagan
TO: DIANE DOWNS, UTILITY BILLING CLERK
FROM: ED KIRSCHT, SR. ENGINEERING TECHNICIAN
DATE: AUGUST 23, 1993
SUBJECT: STREETLIGHT ENERGY COSTS-CEDAR GROVE NO. 5(208 LOTS)
This memo is to inform your department to begin to invoice the energy costs at the single
family rate effective August 1,1993 to the property owners in Cedar Grove No. 5 Addition.
Block 1, Lots 1-22 22
Biock 2, Lots 1-19 19
Block 3, Lots 1-11 11
Biock 4, Lots 1-16 16
Block 5, Lots 1-25 25
Block 6, Lots 1-22 22
Block 7, Lots 1-25 25
Block 8, Lots 1-5 5
Block 9, Lots 1-2 2
Biock 10, Lots 1-23 23
Block 11, Lots 1-14 - 14
Block 12, Lots 1-9 9
Block 13, Lots 1-15 15
208
The City is currently being billed by Dakota Electric for streetiighting in the above listed
subdivision.
?d
Edward J. irsc t
Sr. Engineering Technician
cc: Mike Foertsch
EJK/je
I6704 !o0 03
-T -??-
.
?
EAGEiN T014NSHIP
3795 Pilot Kuob P,oad
St. Paul, Minnesota 55211
Telephone 454-5242
PERMIT FOR SEWER 5ERVICE CONNECTION
DATE: NUMBER
d
OWNEF.??? Address
a
PLUMBER TYPE OF PIPE
DESCRIPTION OF BUILUING
Industrial Commerrial Residential Multiple Dwelling No. of units
?
Locatfon of Connections:
Connection Charge
PermiC Fee
SCreeC Repairs
Tota 1
Inspected by:
Date
Remarks:
By
Chief Insgector
In consideration of the issue and delivery to me of the above permit, I
hereby agree to do the proposed work in accordance with the rules and
regulations of Eagan Toc-inship, Dalcota CounCy, Minnesota
By_.?
Please notify when ready for inspection and connection and before any porCion
of the wark is covered.
MEMO TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCILMEMBERS .
FROM: t'ITY ADMIrTISTRA'POR HEDGFS
DATE: MARCH 17, 1992
SUBJECT: ADMIrTISTRATIVE AGENDA FOR iVIARCH 179 1992 REGI.TLAR CITY
COUNCIL MEETING
CITY ATTORNEY
There are no items for an executive session at tbis time. However, the Mayor, City Council
and City Attorney have reserved the right to call an executive session to address any matters
of pending litigation if desired.
CITY ADMIrTISTRATOR
Jtem 1. Rahn Road Appellants' Motion for Costs--Judge Mansur bas granted the Rahn
Road Appellants' Motion for Costs in the sum of $5,593. Please refer to a copy of the
memo from the Ci Attomey's office entided 'Rahn Road Appellants' Motion for Costs"
enclosed on pages ?adthrough Q25-
ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED ON THIS ITEM: To approve or deny the issuance of a
check to the appellants in the sum of $5,593 as ordered- by Judge Mansur.
Item 2. Heller v. City of Eagan Assessment Appeal The City has received a Stipulation and
Order resolving the Heller v. City of Eagan assessment appeal whicb in summary causes the
Heller parcel to be reassessed from its levied assessment of $49,277.80 to $40,000 and to be
proportionately divided up among all of the assessed items as presented in the enclosed
memo. Enclosed on pages= ttiroughQj,i is acopy of a memo from Annette Margarit
entitled "Heller v. City of Eagan Assessment Appeal," a resolution adopring the settlement
agreement and a copy of the Stipulation and Order.
ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED ON THIS ITEM: To approve or deiry a resolution Lhat
the Heller parcel be reassessed from its levied assessment of $49,277.80 to $44,000 which
in essence approves a Stipulation for Settlement resolving the Heller assessment appeal.
Item 3. Northview-Bvilding Fire Restoration Contract/Defanlt to Contractual Obligations--
As the City Council recalls, the Norihview Park Buildi.ng sustained considerable damage as
a result of a lightening strike and fire during the summer of 1991. Beacon Builders
Incorporated were awarded a bid in the amount of $$,883 to eorrect the damage and
assured staff that the 60 day compleiion timeframe was adequate to finish ihe -project.
Unfortunately, the 60 day construction period expired and staff is of the opinion that the
contractor did not meet its contractual obligations which are now impending the Gity's
operational needs for the building. For additional information on why staff is roquesting
120
?
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
RE:
1670q -/ae - 03
Tom Hedges, City Administrator-
Annette M. Margarit
March 4, 1992
Rahn Road Appellants' Motion for Costs `
Enclosed please find a copy of Judge Mansur's Order granting the Rahn
Road Appellants' Motion for costs in the sum of $5,593.00. This
Motion was heard by Judge Mansur on February 28, 1992. We opposed the
granting any of Appellants' costs on the basis that the City Council
had followed the Legislature's process in adopting the appraisal and
the City should not be punished by having to pay expenses for the
Appellants when they have already been afforded their remedy namely,
vacation of the assessment.
A problem with our position, however, is that Minnesota Statutes
Chapter 429 conr:?erning special assessments specifically awards costs
to a prevailing municipality but is silent to whether a prevailing
property owner is entitled to costs. In a 1979 case involving
Burnsville, however, the Minnesota Supreme Court stated that it
"could see no logical reason why a prevailing municipality should be
entitled to costs but not a prevailing landowner." See Village of
Burnsville Assessments, 287 N.W.2d 375, 377 (Minn. 1979). The Court
futher noted that awarding costs is up to the discreation of the
trial judge. Id. In light of that case law, it is not surprising that
the Judge awarded the Appellants their costs.
I ask that this matter be placed on the March 17, 1992 City Council
Agenda for approval of the issuance of a check to the Appellants in
t'JIL':e sum of $5,593.00 as ordered by Judge Mansur.
If you have any questions or need any further information, please
contact me.
AMM/wkt
cc: Tom Colbert
UCF• f 00 (4*9)
Wum d F14.p, lr+MY. 00ck.rinp
rHOGTARD GROVES
A7TY AT LAW
260 SKYLINE SQUARE BLDG
12940 HARRIET AVE S (BRNS MN 55337
r-
ANNETTE M MARGAItIT
ATTY AT LAW
600 MIDWAY NAT BANK BLDG
7300 W 147TH ST ,
LAPPLE VALLEY MN 55124
f
SYATE OF MINNESOTA
COUNTY OF Dakota
NOTICE OF:
? F1UN0 OF ORDEA
%?1 ENTRY OF JUDGMEM'
X3 DOCKETING OF JUDGMENT
Court Flle No.: C5-91-7756
!N RE: IN RE' ASSESSMENTS FOR PROJECT 584 KNOWN AS RAHN ROAD RECONSTRIICTION ETC.
13 1'bu an hereby nodtlad that on 18 an Order
wa3 duty nred tn u,e above entitied maner.
? You are hersby notiflad that on MARCH 2-1992
wna duty ontorod (n ihe above onlitled matior.
Amended
19 ' a Judgment
? Ycw are heroby notlfled that on MARCH 2-1992 @
.19 a Judgment
was duly docketad In the above enlitled matter In the amount ot a5593.00 AGAINST CITY OF EAGAN
A true and correct copy o( thFs Notice has been served by mall upon the partlas named heretn al the
last known address ot each, pursusnl lo Minneaota Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 77.04.
Dated• MARCH 2ND 1992 ROCER W. SAHES
' Court AdmJnlstrator
by
' Deputy
,
a..u ..as
Fle ft daY
or ?? 19
ROGEH W. SAMES, Court Aennntstrazat
BY )"q-)
uTY
STATE OF MINNESOTA DISTRICT COURT
COUNTY OF DAKOTA FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT
In fte: Assessments for Project File No. C5-91-7756
584, known as Rahn Road Reconstruction,
adopted by the City of Eagan on FINDINGS AND ORDER
June 18, 1991:
'
ODGMENT
AND. AMUiDID J
Name Address P.I.N.
Nathan R.'Benoy 4372 Rahn Road 10-707775-020-01
Gregory/Cindy Cox 4369 Rahn Road 10-16703-250-01
Irene Gillespie .4351 Rahn Road 10-16703-220-01
Dean/Karen Goche 4065 Rahn ftoad 10-16702-170-07
Darrell/Pat Haines 3990 Rahn Road 10-16704-110-03
Robert/Antoinette Keeney 4370 Rahn Road 10-70775-010-01
Vernon/Janet Nelson 3996 Rahn Road 10-16704-100-03
Paul/Deb Notermann 4374 Rahn Road 10-48050-104-01
Brian/Carrie Olwein 4363 Rahn ftoad 10-16703-240-01.
Mary Rock , 4339 Rahn Road 10-16703-200-01
Ron/Lorri Trenary 4137 Rahn Road 10-16702-080-03
Mark/Kathy Weidenhoft 4345 Rahn Road 10-16703-210-01
Appellants,
vs.
City of Eagan, a municipal
corporation,
Respondent.
Motion of Appellants for an award of costs and disbursements
was heard by the undersigned as a telephone conference on
February 28, 1992, at the Dakota County Judicial Center,
Hastings, Minnesota.
The Appellants were represented by Howard Groves, their
attorney. The Respondent City was represented by Annette M.
Margarit, its attorney.
---z
? ?- -_-o?.- ?
s--
ot ry- )
1 R06ER W. SAMES, Court Adnun:strztot
•--
?:? ,. rr
ISSUE
Appellants seek an award of costs and disbursements in the
aggregate amount of $5,593.
Based upon the trial, the arguments of counsel, the
Memoranda submitted, the file and proceedings heretofore had,
the Court
FINDS
1. That there is no issue as to the award of $193.00 of
costs per statute and service of process fees.
2. That the protracted hearings were necessary because the
appeal was of twelve (12) individual properties consolidated for
trial by Order of this Court dated October 28, 1992.
3. That the appraisal costs of $350 per parcel is
reasonable, as is the cost of $100 per parcel for attendance at
trial by Appellants' expert.
4. That Appellants are entitled to reimbursement in the
aggregate sum of $5,593. ?
ORDERS
1. That Appellants are entitled to Judgment against the
Respondent City of Eagan, a municipal corporation, in the sum of
$5,593.00.
2. That the foll_ewino MPmnran(ium ic innnrrnrataA hcrPin hv
reference.
3. There being no justifiable reason for delay, the Court
Administrator shall enter Judgment forthwith.
2
DATED: 2-28=92 BY THE COURT:
. AMENDID
.TUDGMEIdT ?
I hereby certify that the above Order modifies the ABTIN J MAN R
Judgment ente:ed Jan .24-1992 and along with that ' .Judge Dis rict Court
Judgment constitutes the Amended Judgment of the Court.'
Date: March 2nd 1992 MEMORANDUM
Roger W. Sames, Crt Admr By??J ?-Chief Deputy
(Seal) Costs an is urse nts - At oral argument the issue was not
the amount or the reasonableness since i:t is slightls more than
$450 per parcel; rather, whether under the relevant statute and
case law the Appellants are entitled to reimbursement for expert
appraisal services and testimonial costs.
In Village of Burnsville Assessments, 287 N.W.2d 375 (Minn.
1979) the Minnesota Supreme Court stated "...we' can see no
logical reason why a prevailing municipality should be entitled
to costs but not a prevailing land owner..."
In addition, Minn. Stat. 549.04 provides, in part, as
" follows: "In every action in District Court, the prevailing
party...shall be allowed reasonable disbursements paid or
incurred, including fees and mileage for service of process by
the sheriff or by a private person."
The taxation of costs is governed by the Rules of Civil
Procedure and by Chapter 549 of Minnesota Statutes. The City
cites Minn. Stat. 645.21, Subd. 1, as a basis for the preclusion
of awarding of costs and disbursements. However, a full reading
of Minn. Stat. 645., and more specifically, 645.26, Subd.,l,
leads this Court to conclude that when a general provision in a
law is in conflict with a special provision in the same or
another law the two shall be construed, if possible, so that
3
effect may be given to both. In addition, this Court concludes
that where a conflict between two provisions is irreconcilable,
the special provision shall prevail and shall be. construed as an
exception to the general provision. Finally, in this particular
case, the provisions of Minn. Stat. 549.04 and 429.081 are not
irreconcilable and, pursuant to the specific provisions of Minn.
Stat. 645.26, this Court construes each so that effect may be
given to both of the aforementioned statutes. •
Whi.le the City's argument is one of inerit, under the facts
of the case the Court is persuaded that the Appellant land owners
are entitled to reimbursement and it is so ordered.
9
4
MEMORANDUM
TO: Deanna Kivi
FROM: Annette M. Margarit
DATE: March 9, 1992
RE: Rahn Road Assessments
Enclosed please find the Waiver of Notice provided by attorney Howard
Groves on behalf of the Rahn Road Appellants in which they waive any
public hearing for the purpose of reassessing the parcels. With this
document, you may proceed to direct Dakota County to reassess the
parcels. I have also included a copy of the Court's Order and
post-trial Order indicating that the parcels should be reassessed in
the sum of $0.
If you have any other questions, please do not hesitate to call.
ANIIM/wkt
cc: Tom Hedges
Gene VanOverbeke
STATE OF MINNESOTA DISTRICT COURT
COUNTY OF DAKOTA FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT
CASE TYPE: 10 OTHER CIVIL
(SPECIAL ASSESSMENT APPEAL)
In Re: Court File No. C5-91-7756
Assessments for Project 584,
known as Rahn Road Reconstruction WAIVER OF NOTICE
adopted by the City of Eagan
on June 18, 1991:
Name
Address
Nathan R. Benoy 4372 Rahn Road
Gregory/Cindy Cox 4369 Rahn Road
Irene Gillespie 4351 Rahn Road
Dean/Karen Goche 4065 Rahn Road
Darrell/Pat Haines 3990 Rahn Road
Robert/Antoinette Keeney 4370 Rahn Road
Vernon/Janet Nelson 3996 Rahn Road
Paul/Deb Notermann 4374 Rahn Road
Brian/Carrie Olwein 4363 Rahn Road
Mary Rock 4339 Rahn Road
Ron/Lorri Trenary 4137 Rahn Road
Mark/Kathy Weidenhaft 4345 Rahn Road
Appellants,
vs.
City of Eagan, a municipal
corporation,
Respondent.
P.I.N.
10-70775-020-01
10-16703-250-01
10-16703-220-01
10-16702-170-07
10-16704-110-03
10-70775-010=01
10-16704-100-03
10-48050-104-01
10-16703-240-01
10-16703-200-01
10-16702-080-03
10-16703-210-01
Y
The above-named Appellantsj by and through their attorney,
hereby waive notice of any meetings to be held by the Eagan City
Council and waive any public hearing as required by Minnesota
Statutes §429.071 for the purpose of adopting a resolution or
taking any other necessary action pursuant to the Judgment and
Decree entered in the above matter on January 24, 1992 vacating and
setting aside the assessments against the above-described parcels
n
and said Appellants further hereby specifically consent to the
adoption of any resolutions or the taking of any other action which
may be necessary to vacate and set aside the assessments against
the above-described parcels.
DATED : ? - 411 7 a"'
f c? -
Howard J. Grov
Attorney for Appellants
260 Skyline Square Building
12940 Harriet Avenue South
Burnsville, Minnesota 55337
(612) 890-2477
Atty. I.D. No.: 38313
2
ucs•100 c.-Ml
• ?+"m o+ fA+o, wy, o«""
r MR HOWARD J GROVES
ATTY AT LAGT
STE 260 SRYLINE SQ
12940 HARRIET AVE S
( BIIRNSVILLE MN 55337
STATE OF MINNESOTA
COUNTY OF DARQTA
NOTfCE OF:
? FtLlN(3 OF ORDER
[?MS ANNETTE M MARGARIT ATTY AT LAW BZ EM'RY OF JUDGMENT
600 MIDiiAY NAT BANK BLDG :
7300 w 147TH ST ? DOCKETING OF JUDGMENT
L PI.E VALLEY MN 55124
` .
Court Flle No.: C5-91-7756
' ASSESSMENTS FOR PROJECT 584, KNOWN AS RAHN RD RECONSTRIICTION ETC.
lN RE: NATHN R BENOY ETAL V CITY OF EAGAN ETC.
\
LX ltw ar'e heraby notlfled that on JANUARy 24TH 1992 19an Order
was duly filad ln tha above entltled matter.
? You are hereby notlfled that on' JANUARY 24TH 1992 , 19 e Judgment
wea duly anterod in tha above ontltted matter. -
? You aro heroby notlflad that on . 1 S a Judgment
waa duly docketed !n the above enllUed matter In the amount of $
A true and corroct copy of thte Notice has baen served by mail upon the part(as namad hereln at the
laat known addresa of each, pursuant to Mlnnesota Rufes of Clvll Procadure, Rule 77.04.
?ated• JANUARY 24TH 1992
ROGIIL W SAMES
Court Admintstrator
by ? -,k- ?_
' Deputy
MACA 4,49
FlIQ uµ1Cf
Of _MEM'.J
ROGEA W. AS, Coun a
sy
`_ day
_ 19
dminESUator
????
STATE OF MINNESOTA
DISTRICT COURT
. COUNTY OF DAKOTA FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT
In Re: Assessments for Project. 584, known as Rahn Road Reconstruction,
adopted by the City of Eagan on
June 18, 1991:
Name
Nathan R. Benoy
Gregory/Cindy Cox
Irene Gillespie
Dean/Karen Goche
Darrell/Pat Haines
Robert/Antoinette Keeney
Vernon/Janet Nelson
Paul/Deb Notermann
Brian/Carrie Olwein
Mary Rock
Ron/Lorri Trenary
Mark/Kathy Weidenhoft
Address
4372 Rahn Road
4369 Rahn Road
4351 Rahn Road
4065 Rahn Road
3990 Rahn Road
4370 Rahn Road
3996 Rahn Road
4374 Rahn Road
4363 Rahn Road
4339 Rahn Road
4137 Rahn Road
4345 Rahn Road
Appellants,
vs.
City of Eagan, a municipal
corporation,
Respondent.
P.I.N.
10-70775-020-01
10-16703-250-01
10-16703-220-01
10-16702-170-07
10-16704-110-03
10-70775-010-01
10-16704-100-03
10-48050-104-01
10-16703-240-01
10-16703-200-01
10-16702-080-03
10-16703-210-01
The above-entitled motion for amended findings or in the
alternative, a new trial came on for hearing on the Special Term
calendar at 9:00 a.m. on January 21, 1992 at the Dakota County
Judicial Center in Hastings, Minnesota before the undersigned
judge of district court. Annette M. Margarit, Attorney-at-Law,
appeared on behalf of the City. Howard Groves, Attorney-at-Law,
appeared for Appellants.
Based on the arguments, the memoranda,
\
1
File No. G5-91-7756
FINDINGS OF FACT,
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW.
ORDER FOR JUDGMENT
affidavits and the
Fie thfs da1?
ot l.. 19 ?. ?
ROGEA W. SAMES. Court aamu,isvuar
By
Q n
ile, the Court FINDS '
1. That it is not necessary for the Court to adopt the
ity's proposed amended findings.
2. That no new facts have been presented which could
esult in a new trial.
ORDERS
1. That the Respondent City's Motions be and the same are
?ereby denied in their entirety.
2. The following Memorandum is hereby incorporated by
-eference.
3. That the Court Administrator shall forthwith enter
judgment accordingly.
)ATED: January 23, 1991 BY TSE COURT:
.? I
TIN J. S
udge of is ict Court
MF?IORANDIIM
Those proposed "technical" amended Findings which are not
germane to the determination of the trial's outcome have not been
addressed herein.
The Court recognizes that there are two sides to this issue,
and the City's case was fully, competently and fairly presented ?
2
to the Court. Appraisll ot the properties was of the greatest
` import to the Eacifinder. As articulated in this Mamorandum and
in the December 18, 1991 Findingg, Order and Memorandum, in the
tactfincleris view, the FaatG tend to support Appellants.
The crux of Appellants' olalm is that the City unfairly
assegged them for strset improvements. The stnndard for valid
speoial-assessmants is: (1) the land must receive a spacial
benafit from the a.mpr'ovement being a4nstructed; (2) the
assessment musi: be uniform upon the same alass ef property, and
(3) the assessinent may not exceed the special benefit. carlson_
Lancr k?a1ty Co. v. City of Windom, 307 Minn. 368, 369, 240 N.W.2d
5170 519 (Minn. 1976). Special benafit is measured by the
inc:rease in the market value of the land owing td the
improvement. id. In appraising the subject property, an
appraiser determineg what 'a wi7.ling buyer would pay a willing
seller for the property before, and than after, the improvement
has been conatxucted. ?c. While the government entity is
presumed to have set the assessment legally, an appellant may
overcoine tha presumption by introduaing cpmpetent evidence that
the assessment is greater than the inorease in market va3.ue o£
the property due to the impxovement. ,?. These are the crfteria
whivh the Couxt applied to the Pacta pxesentad at trial.
It should be noted that in its Memoxandum sunporting its
motion for a naw trial or amended . findings, the City 'relies on
Villac(Q . F.lina v. blostnh, 264 Miril1. 84, 199 N.W.2d 809 (1962).
Yn that aass, tha residents whose praperty abutted the i,mproved
3
cCIO lUd1FI3'J-ldnuD loIJlsIQ 0o d10>it+Q 9ti :ST Z6iLZiTO
length of France Avenue objected to special'?' assessments for ,
widening and paving of the street. Minnesota's Supreme Court
stated the law in Village of Edina, without setting out a
standard or formula, by saying that "(t)he basis and
justification of a special assessment are benefits to the
property affected... [b]enefits which may be demonstrated by a
mathematical exactness are not always required in order to
support an assessment." VillaQe of Edina v. Joseph, 119 N.W.2d at 818. •\ Minnesota has also adopted a specific test, as cited in
Carlson-Lang Realty Co., above, which this Court has chosen to
apply. While the City asserts that Villaqe of Edina controls and
that the December, 1991 decision fails to abide by it, it appears
that the decision is consistent with both cases and in conformity ?
with Minnesota 1aw. `
I
Both parties attempted to establish evidence of the ?
I
properties' market value. Appellants' expert, Mr. Daniels,
appraised each property based on individualized, detailed inspection of the properties and analysis of "comparables". His
written appraisals were for both "before" and "after" values.
Mr. Daniels factored into his appraisals his analysis of the
. effect of the Rahn Road improvements. There was also evidence
that many prospective buyers refused to make offers for purchase
of Rahn Road property after the improvements, and because of
them, and testimony about the actual sales data available for
those properties. ,
Some of that data indicated that average sale prices of
4
Eagan homes in 1991 were 11.5% higher than 1988 averages. Yet,
= an assessed Rahn Road home whose owner did not participate in
this action, which was bought in 1988 (before improvements) and
sold in 1991 (after improvements) failed to achieve that 11.5%
increase. The City used this home in its effort to show that
some increased value occurred. But the home's appreciation plus
the cost of the improvements was significantly less than the
price needed to justify the 11.5% average sale-price plus the
assessment cost.
Mr. Daniels's credentials, his testimony and his exhibits
were persuasive. That evidence indicated that the Rahn Road
improvements had not only not benefitted the Appellants'
properties but that the real market value of the properties had
been adversely effected. Where no benefit is conferred by the
i
improvement, no.special assessment is permitted.
The City, on the other hand, offered evidence which was less
persuasive. The City's well-qualified expert, Mr. Metzen,
testif ied based upon more general presumptions. about the
individual properties. He did not inspect or appraise the
specific homes which were assessed but rather relied on square
, footage and frontage statistics to determine.comparable prices.
He further generalized from his comparables, using smaller homes,
based on square footage, to generalize fair market value for
larger homes. In its position as the finder of fact,. the Court must choose
one party's evidence over tYie other. Appellants' more specific
5 ?
testimony was simply more convincing. .
The determination of Rahn Road as a"collector" street and
the width of the improved road could be relevant as to whether
the improvements directly caused increased traffic, if the Court
had relied on that information alone, which is not the case. The
Court found, based on testimony from residents and real estate
experts, that Rahn Road changed after tne improvemenz =rom d
quiet street to one on which traffic increased. Determination of
the date that it was designated' a"collector" street and the
exact width of the street are not significant to the Court's
decision. Again, the criteria for the assessment must be whether
the improvement benefitted the property, and the evidence
indicated it did not.
Finally, the method of assessment is not pertinent to the
Court's conclusion that there is no benefit to the homeowners
from the improvement. Any asssessment, regardless of its
formula, is invalid. ,
6
STATE OF MINNESOTA
DISTRICT COURT
? COUNTY OF DAKOTA FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In Re: Assessments for Project File No. C5-91-7756
584, known as Rahn Road Reconstruction,
adopted by the City of Eagan on FINDINGS OF FACT.
June 18, 1991: CONCLi7SIONS OF LAW,
ORDER FOR JIIDGMENT
Name Address P.I.N.
Nathan R. Benoy 4372 Rahn Road 10-70775-020-01
Gregory/Cindy Cox 4369 Rahn Road 10-16703-250-01
Irene Gillespie 4351 Rahn Road 10-16703-220-01.
Dean/Karen Goche 4065 Rahn Road 10-16702-170-07
Darrell/Pat Haines 3990 Rahn Road 10-16704-110-03
Robert/Antoinette Keeney 4370 Rahn Road 10-70775-010-01
Vernon/Janet Nelson 3996 Rahn Road 10-16704-100-03
Paul/Deb Notermann 4374 Rahn Road 10-48050-104-01
Brian/Carrie Olwein 4363 Rahn Road 10-16703-240-01
. Mary Rock 4339 Rahn' Road 10-16703-200-01
. Ron/Lorri Trenary 4137 Rahn Road 10-16702-080-03
Mark/Kathy Weidenhoft 4345 Rahn Road 10-16703-210-01
Appellants,
VS. rats?
0l 193/,
FtJuER W. SAttitE5. Caut Adnbti?s:rxtur
City of Eagan, a municipal
corporation, py
'
fi?i•J
i Y
------------------- Respondent.
---------------
--------
---------------------
The above-entitled appeals from the assessments levied by
the City of Eagan have been consolidated for the purposes of the
trial and were heard by the undersigned on the Court calendar and
without a jury on Friday, November 15, 1991, and Friday,
November 22, 1991, at the Dakota County Judicial Center,
Hastings, Minnesota.
The Appellants appeared in person and were represented by
Howard Groves, their attorney. The Respondent City was
1
represented by Annette M. Margarit, its attorney. .
The Court having considered the evidence adduced at trial,
having examined the evidence offered by the respective parties
and all the records of the proceedings and being fully advised, _
makes the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT1. That the above-named property owners appealed from a
Special Assessment levied by the City of Eagan on June 18, 1991,
for Project No. 584. The Projeat as proposed by the city council
included the widening, grading, base and bituminous resurfacing,
curb and gutter and utility improvements on Rahn' Road between
Beau 'D Rue Drive and Shale Lane.
2. That Appellant Nathan R. Benoy is the owner of a parcel
of land abutting on' the west side of Rahn Road and legally
described as:
Lot 2, Block 1, Sons Addition, Dakota County,
Minnesota.
Said Appellant has 85. feet of frontage on Rahn Road and the
amount of the assessment levied against said property was $30.79
per front foot for a total of $2,617.15, and the highest and best
use of said parcel is residential.
. 3. That Appellants Gregory and Cindy Cox are the owners of
a parcel of land abutting on the east side of Rahn Road and
legally described.as:
Lot 25, Block 1, Cedar Grove No. 4, Dakota
County, Minnesota.
. 2
.
Said Appellants have 75 feet of frontage on Rahn Road and the .
amount of the assessment' levied against said property was $30.79
per front foot for,a , total of $2, 309. 25. ,The parcel is zoned for residential use, and the highest and best use.of said parcel is .
for residential use.
4. That Appellant Irene Gillespie is the owner of a?parcel
of land abutting on the east side of Rahn Road and legally
i
described as follows:
Lot 22, Block 1, Cedar Grove No. 4,.Dakota County,
Minnesota.
Said Appellant has 75 feet of frontage on Rahn Road and the
amount of the assessment levied against said property`was $30.79 per front foot for a total of $2,309.25. The parcel is zoned for
residential use and highest and best use of said parcel is for
residential use.
5. That Appellants Dean and Karen Goche are the owners of a
parcel of land abutting on the east side of Rahn Roadand legally
described as follows:
Lot 17, plock 7, Cedar Grove No. 3, Dakota County,
Minnesota.,
Said Appellants have 120 feet of frontage on Rahn Road and the
amount of the assessment levied' against such property was $30.79
per front foot for a total of $4,178.20. The parcel is zoned for
residential use and the highest ancl best use of said parcel is
for residential use.
6. That Appellants Darrell and Pat Haines are the owners of
3
*
a parcel of land abutting on the west side of Rahn Road and
Iegally described as follows: •
Lot 11, Block 3, Cedar Grove No. 3, Dakota County,
Minnesota. •
Said Appellants have 120 feet of frontage on Rahn Road and the
amount of the assessment levied against such property was $30.79
per front foot for a total of $3,694.80. The parcel is zoned for
residential use and the highest and best use of said parcel is
for residential use.
7. That Appellants Robert and Antoinette Keeney are the
owners of a parcel of land abutting on the west side of Rahn Road
and legally described as follows:
Lot 1, Block 1, Sons Addition, Dakota County,
Minnesota.
Said Appellants have 125 feel of frontage on Rahn Road and the
amount of the assessment levied against such property was $30.79
per front foot for a total af $3,848.75. The parcel is zoned for
residential use and the highest and best use of said parcel is
for residential use.
8. That Appellants Vernon and Janet Nelson'are the owners
o€ a parcel of land abutting on the west side of Rahn Road and
legally described as follows:
- Lot 10, Block 3, Cedar Grove No. 5, Dakota County,
Minnesota.
Said Appellants have 120 feet of frontage on Rahn Road and the
amount ot the assessment levied against said property was '$30.79
4
r '
per front foot for a total of $3,694.80.' The parcel is zoned for
residential use and the highest and best use of said parcel if
for residential use.
9. That Appellants Paul and Deb Notermann are the owners of
a parcel of land abutting on the west side of Rahn Road and
legally described as follows: Lot 104, Block l, Meadow Land, First Addition,
Dakota County, Minnesota.
Said Appellants have 90.98 feet of frontage on Rahn Road and the
amount of the assessment levied against such property was $30.79
per front foot for a total of $2,801.58. The pardel is zoned for
residential use and the highest and best use of said parcel is..
Por residential use. - 10. That Appellants Brian and Carrie Olwein are the owners
of a parcel of land• abutting on the east side of Rahn Road and
legally described as follows:
Lot 24, Block 1, Cedar Grove No. 4; Dakota County,
Minnesota.
. Said Appellants have 75 feet of frontage on Rahn Road and the
amount of the assessment levied against-said property was $30.79
per front Poot for a total of $2,309.25. The parcelJis zoned for
residential use and the highest and best use of said parcel is
for residential use. '
11. That Appellant Mary Rock is the owner of a parcel of
land abutting on the east side of Rahn Road and legally described
as follows:
5
Lot 20, Block 1, Cedar Grove No. 4,,Dakota County,
Minnesota. -
?
Said Appellant has 75 feet of frontage on Rahn Road and the
• amount of the assessment levied against such property was $30.79
`
per front foot for a total of $2,309.25. The parcel is zoned for
residential use and the highest and best use of said parcel is
for residential use. •
. ? •
12. That Appellants Ron and Lorri Trenary are the owners of
a parcel of land abutting on the east side of Rahn Road and
legally described as follows:
Lot 8, Block 3, Cedar Grove No. 3, Dakota County,
Minnesota.
Said Appellants have 195.21 feet of frontage on Rahn Road and the
amount of the assessment levied against -such property was $30.79
per front foot for a total of $6,010.52. The parcel is zoned for
residential use and the highest and best use of said parcel is
for residential use.
13. That Appellants Mark and Kathy Weidenhaft are the
owners of a parcel of land abutting on the east side of Rahn Road
and legally described as follows: Lot 21, Block 1, Cedar Grove No. 4, Dakota County
Minnesota. . •
Said Appellants have 75 feet of frontage.on Rahn 22oad and the
amount of the assessment Ievied against such property was $30.79
per front foot for a total of $2,3,09.25. The parcel is zoned for
residential use and the highest and best i ise of said parcel is
6
for residential use.
,
14. Upon the trial of the above enumerated appeals the
City's value witnesses offered testimony as to the amount of the
assessment that would be reasonable and did not specifically
address the before and after value as to each property that is
the subject of this appeal. Enumerated herein is a summary of
the City's value witnesses.
Citv's Value •
Witness's Opinion Amt of
Name SQ.ft. /house As to Amt of Benefit Assmt.
Benoy 1,176 $ 2,500.00 -$- 2,617.15
Cox 1,120 2,309.25 2,309.25
Gillespie 912 2,309.25 2,309.25
Goche 990 2,500.00 4,178.20
Haines 864 2,500.00 - 3,694.80
Keeney 2,184 2,500.00 3,048.75
Nelson 1;066 . 2,500.00 3,694.80
Notermann 1,112 2,500.00 2,801.58
Olwein 1,008 2,309.25 2,309.25
Rock' 11236 21309.25 2,309.25
Trenary 912. 2,500.00/3,000.00 6,010.52
Weidenhaft 1,232 2,309.25 2,309.25
14. That the Appellant's value witness testif ied
follows:
Name Iiefore Value After Value
Benoy $ 99,500.00 $ 99,500.00
Cox 89,000.00 89,000.00
Gillespie 72,500.00 . 72,500.00
GOChe 80,000.00 ,80,000.00
Haines 72,500.00 . 72,500.00
Keeney. , 130,000.00 130,000.00
Nelson 95,000.00 95,000.00
Notermann ' -110,000.00 110,000.00
Olwein 84,000.00 84,000.00
Rock 85,000.00 , • 85,000.00
Trenary . 74,500.00 74,500.00
Weidenhaft 95,000.00 95,000.00
7
as
15. That the abutting properties enumerated herein have
borne prior street resurfacing, curb and gutter assessments.
:
16. That prior to the improvement, Rahn Road was a quiet,
residential street.
17. That the improvement established Rahn Road as a heavy
capacity roadway, invited and did,- in fact, substantially,
increase truck and other vehicular traffic.
18. ?That the increased traffic flow, change in the type of
traffic and its attendant characteristics create hazards, noise
and pollution, all of which are detrimental to abutting
residential properties.
19. That the overall evidence shows that the fair market
value of the Appellants' property did not change in the before
and after value following in the installation of the improvement,
that is, the improvements did not increase the value of the
Appellants' property. •
20. That by reason thereof, the City of Eagan Improvement
Project N,o. 584 did not specifically benefit each of the
Appellants' properties. •
CONCLIISIONS OF T,AW
1. That the assessments levied against the Appellants'
properties be and the same are hereby vacated and set•aside.
2. The following Memorandum is incorporated herein by
ref erence . .
3. Let judgment be entered accordingly after-a stay of 30
8
days.
,
DATED: 12-18-91 BY THE COIIRT:
?..-:.
TIN SIIR
Judge o Di trict Court
I+IEMORriNDIIH
The assessment of benefit to Appellants' properties as
indicated in the assessment roll was sufficiently countered by
Appellants to require the fact issue as to the reasonable value
of the property assessed before and after the improvement, and to
what extent the properties may have benefitted.
In considering the evidence of the before and after value,
greater weight was given to the testimony of the Appellants'
witnesses. Mr. Daniels formed his conclusions as to the market
value of the respective properties in the year the assessment
roll was adopted. His opinion as to the properties was further
supported by realtors active in the sale of residential homes in
the area, one of whom testified that the improvements of Rahn
Road changed the character of the neighborhood, and this change
impacted in•a- negative manner as to value of the Appellants'
properties. In addition, one or more of these realtors cited
actual sales listing experiences to further support their
testimony. , .
;
Mr. Metzen's opinion as to value is based upon his knowledge
9
as to the builder of the homes in the area, and the type of homes ,
the builder constructs. He elected not to inspect the subject
homes. Additionally, the city offered no testimony in the before
and after value of the individual parcels. Its expert testimony
was based on a sale or sales that were not too remote in time but
were not within the affected time frame; that is, at or near the
improvement, or subject to the improvement. Mr. Metzen took into
consideration his knowledge, his experience, the type of homes
that the builder whom he was acquainted with constructs, and then
the sale or sales that he relied on as comparables,to the subject
properties in forming an opinion as to whether the assessment, as
adopted by the city, met the statutory requirements. One should
note that his opinion is that the assessment as adopted by the
city did not for the most part meet the statutory requirements.
As his testimony indicated, for most of the parcels he formed an
opinion that if there was a benefit, it was less than the
assessment levied by the city. Both value witnesses considered
the rate of inflation and the flat real estate market in arriving
at their conclusions. '
It is this Court's view that the difference between the
conclusions reached is that the city's value witness considered
the availability ot the use of the improvement rather than the
increase in value. Additionally, it should be noted- that the
Appellants' value"witness submitted written appraisals for each
parcel in support of his opinion as to value in the before and
the after, whereas the city's value witness testified from his
10
_ • . < < , ; ? :
r T •
, knowledge of the area, the builder whom he was acquainted with,
and some comparables, and then he concluded that the properties
benefitted in the amount that he testified without regard to the
before and after value as to each. It should be noted that five
of the parcels have 75 foot frontage and the square footage for
each of the dwellings ranges from 912 square feet to 'a high of
1;232 square feet. This approach appears to treat each parcel
i
the same, regardless of size, whereas in addition to the'
differences noted with the properties that have 75 foot frontage,
one need only review Finding No. 14 to see the further disparity.
' Finally, the,Court has determined the assessments must be
vacated for the reasons set forth herein. Therefore, it is not
necessary to determine whether the method employed by the City in
computing the assessment is statutorily proper.
?
,
11
;
uv•ioo(4 -") .
? Nor?o? o? ( IN4 [n1ry; Detuho
.
?
?
rHOWARD 1 GROVES
ATTY AT LAW
STE 260 SRYLINE SQ
12940 HARRIET AVE S
LBURxsvILLE MN 55337
' rANNETTE M MARGARIT
ATTY AT LAW
600 I+IIDWAY NATL BANR BLDG
7300 W 147TH ST
LPPLF. VALLEY MN 55124
/o.?G?o?- ieo •03
8TA7E OF MiNNESOTA
C O U NTY O F DAKOTA
NO71CE OF;
? FILING OF ORDER
O EPtTRY OF JUDGMENT
O DOCKETINC3 OF JUDC3MENT
Court FlI• No.: C5-91-7756
0 IN RE: NATHAN R. BENOY ET AL VS. CITY OF EAGAN ETC.
FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLIISIONS OF LAW, ORDER FOR JIIDGMENT
? Yc,u ere heroby noUtlod thot on nFrF3xFx tRTu - 19 91 .. sn Order
" was duly fiied ln the above enUtled matior.
? Ybu ere horoby notlMed lhnl on , 19_____ e Jud9ment
wn.e du(y enierod In the,a.bove enllltad matter. ? You nre heroby noUned lhei on - - 19_._, s Judpmsnt
w&e duly dxkeled in the ebove enlltled meNer In the amounl ol S
.? .?
A Irve nnd correcl copy o( thlt Nolloe hne been eerved by mati upon the partlee nsmsd hsretn a1 the
? lest known eddri"s of oach, pureunnt to Minneeote? Rulee ol Clvll Procedure, Rule 77.04.
Oaled* DECENNIBER 18TH 1991
/8 rll ?;
• roWR w. saMEs. oarc a~90r
eY
cFJiY
ROGER W. SAM:S
Court Adminislrator
by ? ?-M-1 -
Deputy
"Gt arM
t +3 « ? ?? -)# 64C vb!: ,. q, >
STATE OF MINNESOTA DISTRICT COURT
COUNTY OF DAKOTA FIRST JUDICIAL flISTRICT
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In Re: Assessments for Project
584, known as Rahn Road Reconstruction,
adopted by the City of Eaqan on
June 18, 1991:
Name Address
Nathan R. Benoy 4372 Rahn Road
Gregory/Cindy Cox 4369 IZahn Road
Irene Gillespie 4351 Rahn Road
Dean/Karen Goche 4065 Rahn Road
Darrell/Pat Haines 3990 Rahn Road
Robert/Antoinette Keeney 4370 Rahn Road
Vernon/Janet Nelson 3996 Rahn Road
Paul/Deb Notermann 4374 Rahn Road
Brian/Carrie Olwein 4363 Rahn Road
Mary Rock 4339 Rahn Road
Ron/Lorri Trenary 4137 Rahn Road
MarkjKathy Weidenhoft 4345 Rahn Road
File No. C5-91-7756
FTNDINGS OF FACT.
?'ONCLIISIONS OF LAW,
ORDER FOR JITDGMENT
.I.N
10-70775-020-01`
10-16703-250-01'
10-16703-220-01,.
10-16702-170-07
10-16704-110-03'
10-70775-010-01
10-16704-100-03
10-48050-104-01
10-16703-240-01
10-16703-200-01
10-16702-080-03
10-16703-210-01,
Appellants,
vs. ? 19'9(.
RfluER iY. SAMES. Court Adminls;rata
City of Eagan, a municipal
corporation, By ?
Respondent.
---------------------------------------------------------------
The above-entitled appeals from the assessments levied by
the City of Eagan have been consolidated for the purposes of the
trial and were heard by the undersigned on the Court calendar and
without a jury on Friday, November 15, 1991, and Friday,
November 22, 1991, at the Dakota County Judicial Center,
Hastings, Minnesota.
The Appellants appeared in person and were represented by
Howard Groves, their attorney. The Respondent City was
1
' represented by Annette M. Margari",,-.,_its attorney.
The Court having considered the evidence adduced at trial,
having examined the evidence offered by the respective parties
and all the records of the proceedings and being fully advised,
makes the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. That the above-named property owners appealed from a
Special Assessment levied by the City of Eagan on June 18, 1991,
for Project No. 584. The Project as proposed by the city council
included the widening, grading, base and bituminous resurfacing,
curb and gutter and utility improvements on Rahn Road between
Beau 'D Rue Drive and Shale Lane.
2. That Appellant Nathan R. Benoy is the owner of a parcel
of land abutting on the west side of Rahn Road and legally
described as:
Lot 2, Block 1, Sons Addition, Dakota County,
Minnesota. Said Appellant has 85 feet of frontage on Rahn Road and the
amount of the assessment levied against said property was $30.79 '
per front foot for a total of $2,617.15, and the highest and best
:
use of said parc.el is residential.
3. That Appellants Gregory and Cindy Cox are the owners of
a parcel of land abutting on the east side of Rahn Road and
legally described as:
Lot 25, Block 1, Cedar Grove No. 4, Dakota
County, Minnesota.
2
Said Appellants have 75 feet of frontaga on Rahn Road and the '
amount of the assessment levied against said property was $30.79
per front foot for a total of $2,309.25. The parcel is zoned for
residential use, and the highest and best use of said parcel is
for residential use.
4. That Appellant Irene Gillespie is the owner of a parcel
of land abutting on the east side of Rahn Road and legally
described as follows:
Lot 22, Block 1, Cedar Grove No. 4, Dakota County,
Minnesota.
Said Appellant has 75 feet of frontage on Rahn Road and the
amount of the assessment levied against said property was $30.79
per front foot for a total of $2,309.25. The parcel is zoned for
residential use and highest and best use of said parcel is for
residential use.
5. That Appellants Dean and Karen Goche are the owners of a
parcel of land abutting on the east side of Rahn Road and legally
described as follows:
Lot 17, Block 7, Cedar Grove No. 3, Dakota County,
Minnesota.
;
Said Appellants have 120 feet of frontaqe on Rahn Road and the
amount of the assessment levied against such property was $30.79
per front foot for a total of $4,178.20. The parcel is zoned for
residential use and the highest and best use of said parcel is
for residential use.
,
6. That Appellants Darrell and Pat Haines are the owners of
3
'. a parcel of land abutting on the west side of Rahn Road and
legally described as follows:
Lot il, Block 3, Cedar Grove No. 3, Dakota County,
Minnesota.
Said Appellants have 120 feet of frontage on Rahn Road and the
amount of the assessment levied against such property was $30.79
per front foot for a total of $3,694.80. The parcel is zoned for
residential use and the highest and best use of said parcel is
for residential use.
7. That Appellants Robert and Antoinette Keeney are the
owners of a parcel of land abutting on the west side of Rahn Road
and legally described as follows:
Lot 1, Block 1, Sons Addition,. Dakota County,
Minnesota.
Said Appellants have 125 feel of frontage on Rahn Road and the
amount of the assessment levied against such property_was $30.79
per front foot for a total of $3,848.75. The parcel is zoned for
residential use and the highest and best use of said parcel is
for residential use.
8. That Appellants Vernon and Janet Nelson are the owners
of a parcel of land abutting on the west side of Rahn Road and
legally described as follows:
- Lot 10, Block 3, Cedar Grove No. 5, Dakota County,
Minnesota.
Said Appellants have 120 feet of frontage on Rahn Road and the
amount of the assessment levied against said property was $30.79
4
per front foot for a total of $3,694.80. The parcel is zoned for ,
residential use and the highest and best use of said parcel if
for residential use.
9. That Appellants Paul and Deb Notermann are the owners of
a parcel of land abutting on the west side of Rahn Road and
legally described as follows: Lot 104, Block 1, Meadow Land, First Addition,
Dakota County, Minnesota.
Said Appellants have 90.98 feet of frontage on Rahn Road and the
amount of the assessment levied against such property was $30.79
per front foot for a total of $2,801.58. The parcel is zoned for
residential use and the highest and best use of said parcel is
for residential use.
10. That Appellants Brian and Carrie Olwein are the owners
of a parcel of land abutting on the east side of Rahn Road and
legally described as follows:
Lot 24, Block 1, Cedar.Grove No. 4, Dakota County,
Minnesota.
Said Appellants have 75 feet of frontage on Rahn Road and the
amount of the assessment levied against said groperty was $30.79
per front foot for a total of $2,309.25. The parcel is zoned for
residential use and the highest and best use of said parcel is
for residential use.
il. That Appellant Mary Rock is the owner of a parcel of
land abutting on the east side of Rahn Road and leqally described
as follows:
5
' Lot 20, Block 1, Cedar Grove No. 4,,Dakota County,
Minnesota.
Said Appellant has 75 feet of frontage on Rahn Road and the
amount of the assessment levied against such property was $30.79
`
per front foot for a total of $2,309.25. The parcel is zoned for
residential use and the highest and best use of said parcel is
for residential use.
12. That Appellants Ron and Lorri Trenary are the owners of
a parcel of land abutting on the east side of Rahn Road and
legally described as follows:
Lot 8, Block 3, Cedar Grove No. 3, Dakota County,
Minnesota.
Said Appellants have 195.21 feet of frontage on Rahn Road and the
amount of the assessment levied against such pr.operty was $30.79
per front foot for a total of $6,010.52. The parcel is zoned for
residential use and the highest and best use of said parcel is
for residential use.
13. That Appellants Mark and Kathy Weidenhaft are the
owners of a parcel of land abutting on the east side of Rahn Road
and legally described as follows:
Lot 21, Block 1, Cedar.Grove No. 4, Dakota County
Minnesota.
Said Appellants have 75 feet of frontage on Rahn Road and the
amount of the assessment levied against such property was $30.79
per front foot for a total of $2,309.25. The parcel is zoned for
residential use and the highest and best itse of said parcel is
6
I for residential use.
14. Upon the trial of the above enumerated appeals the
City's value witnesses offered testimony as to the amount of the
assessment that would be reasonable and did not specifically
address the before and after value as to each property that is
the subject of this appeal.
the City's value witnesses.
Name
Benoy
Cox
Gillespie
Goche
Haines
Keeney
Nelson
Notermann
olwein
Rock
Trenary
Weidenhaft
14.
follows:
Name
Benoy
Cox
Gillespie
Goche
Haines
Keeney
Nelson
Noterimann
Olwein
Rock
Trenary
Weidenhaft
Enumerated herein is a summary of
City's Value
Witness's Opinion
Sq_ ft. j house As to Amt of Benefit
1,176 $ 2,500.00
1,120 2,309.25
912 2,309.25
990 2,500.00
864 2,500.00
2,184 2,500.00
1,066 2,500.00
1,112 2,500.00
1,008 2,309.25
1,236 2,309.25
912 2,500.00/3,000.00
1,232 2,309.25
Amt of
Assmt.
$ 2,617.15
2,309.25
2,309.25
4,178.20
3,694.80
3,048.75
3,694.80
2,801.58
2,309.25
2,309.25
6,010.52
2,309.25
That -the Appellant's value witne.ss testified as
Before Value
$ 99,500.00
89,000.00
72,500.00
80,000.00
72,500.00
130,000.00
95,000.00
110,000.00
84,000.00
85,000.00
74,500.00
95,000.00
ter Value
$ 99,500.00 ;
89,000.00
72,500.00
80,000.00
72,500.00
130,000.00
95,000.00
110,000.00
84,000.00
• 85,000.00
74,500.00
95,000.00.
7
, 15. That the abutting properties enumerated herein have
borne prior street resurfacing, curb and gutter assessments.
16. That prior to the improvement, Rahn Road was a quiet,
residential street.
17. That the improvement established Rahn Road as a heavy
capacity roadway, invited and did, in fact, substantially increase truck and other vehicular traffic.
18.. That the increased traf f ic f low, change in the type of _
traffic and its attendant characteristics create hazards, noise
and pollution, all of which are detrimental to abutting
residential properties.
19. That the overall evidence shows that the fair market
value of the Appellants' property did not change in the before
and after value following in the installation of the improvement,
that is, the improvements did not increase the value of the
Appellants' property.
20. That by reason thereof, the City of Eagan Improvement
Project No. 584 did not specifically benefit each of the
Appellants' properties. '
CONCLIISIONS OF LAW ,
1. That the assessments levied against the Appellants'
properties be and the same are hereby vacated and set aside.
2. The following Memorandum is incorporated herein by
reference.
3. Let judgment be entered accordinqly after a stay of 30
8
days.
DATED: 12-18-91 BY THE COIIRT:
- , Z.
TIN ' SIIR
Judge o Di trict Court
?El+IORANDDl?
The assessment of benefit to Appellants' properties as
indicated in the assessment roll was sufficiently countered by
Appellants to require the fact issue as to the reasonable value
of the property assessed before and after the improvement, and to
what extent the properties may have benefitted.
In considering the evidence of the before and after value,
greater weight was given to the testimony of the Appellants'
witnesses. Mr. Daniels formed his conclusions as to the market
value of the respective properties in the year the assessment
roll was adopted. His opinion as to the properties was further
supported by realtors active in the sale of residential homes in
the area, one of whom testified that the improvements of Rahn
Road changed the character of the neighborhood, and this change
impacted in a negative manner as to value of the Appellants'
properties. In addition, one or more of these realtors cited
actual sales listing experiences to further support their
testimony.
Mr. Metzen's opinion as to value is based upon his knowledge
9
' as to the builder of the homes in the area, and the type of homes
the builder constructs. He elected not to inspect the subject
homes. Additionally, the city offered no testimony in the before
and after value of the individual parcels. Its expert testimony
was based on a sale or sales that were..not too remote in time but
were not within the affected time frame; that is, at or near the
improvement, or subject to the improvement. Mr. Metzen took into
consideration his knowledge, his experience, the type of homes
that the builder whom he was acquainted with constructs, and then
the sale or sales that he relied on as comparables to the subject
properties in forming an opinion as to whether the assessment, as
adopted by the city, met the statutory requirements. One should
note that his opinion is that the assessment as adopted by the
city did not for the most part meet the statutory requirements.
As his testimony indicated, for most of the parcels he formed an
opinion that if there was a benefit, it was less than the
assessment levied by the city. Both value witnesses consiaerea
the rate of inflation and the flat real estate market in arriving
at their conclusions.
It is this Court's view that the difference between the
conclusions reached is that the city'-s value witness considered
the availability of the use of the improvement rather than the
increase in value. Additionally, it should be noted that the
Appellants' value witness submitted written appraisals for each
parcel in support of his opinion as to value in the before and
the after, whereas the city's value witness testi.fied from his
10
knowledge of the area, the builder whom he was acquainted with, .
and some comparables, and then he concluded that the properties
benefitted in the amount that he.testified without regard to the
before and after value as to each. It should be noted that five
of the parcels have 75 foot frontage and the square footage for
each of the dwellings ranges from 912 square feet. to a high of 1,232 square feet. This approach appears to treat each parcel
the same, regardless of size, whereas in addition to the'
differences noted with the properties that have 75 foot frontage,
one need only review Finding No. 14 to see the further disparity.
Finally, the Court has determined the assessments must be
vacated for the reasons set forth herein. Therefore, it is not
necessary to determine whether the method employed by the City in
computing the assessment is statutorily.proper.
?
11
.
, STATE OF MINNESOTA
•??
?
?
lece???.cl ??c ?? i 1
DISTRICT COURT
COUNTY OF DAKOTA ? FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT
? CASE TYPE: 10 OTHER CIVIL
;*?rSPECIAL )
? ASSESSMENT APPEAL
--------------=--------------- -ao ---?-------------------------
In Re: 010'\%Court File No.
Assessments for Project 584,
known as Rahn Road Reconstruction
adopted by the City of Eagan Q OTICE OF APPEAL
on June 18, 1991
TO: THE ABOVE-NAMED COURT AND THE CITY OF EAGAN:
NOTICE is hereby given pursuant to Minn. Stat. Sec. 429.081
that each of the property owners listed below hereby appeal the
adoption of the above-referenced Assessment Roll as the same
relates to property owned by each of the parties set forth below at
the address and property identification number set forth next to
their respective names, all of which property is located in the
City of Eagan, County of Dakota, and State of Minnesota. Written
objections to said Assessments were duly made to the City by each
of the property owners listed below prior to or at the hearing at
which said Assessments were adopted.
Said Assessment Rolls were adopted by the City Council of the
City of Eagan at its meeting held on June 18, 1991 as evidenced by
a copy of the Minutes of said meeting which are attached hereto and
marked Exhibit "A" and made a part hereof.
The bases for th:is appeal with regard to each of the
properties listed is as follows:
1. There is no special benefit to the property as a result of
r
the "improvements".
2. The market value of the property has not been increased in
the amount of the assessments adopted.
3. The assessment was not regularly and properly adopted.
The property owners making this Appeal and the address and
property identification number of their respective properties are
set forth below:
NAME ADDRESS P.I.N.
Nathan R. Benoy 4372 Rahn Road 10-70775-020-01
Gregory Cox and 4369 Rahn Road 10-16703-250-01
Cindy Cox
Irene Gillespie 4351 Rahn Road 10-16703-220-01
Dean Goche and 4065 Rahn Road 10-16702-170-07
Karen Goche
Darrell Haines and 3990 Rahn Road 10-16704-110-03
Pat Haines
Robert Keeney and 4370 Rahn Road 10-70775-010-01
Antoinette Keeney
Vernon Nelson and 3996 Rahn Road 10-16704-100-03
Janet Nelson
Paul Notermann and 4374 Rahn Road 10-48050-104-01
Deb Notermann
Brian Olwin and 4363 Rahn Road 10-16703-240-01
Carrie Olwin
Mary Rock 4339 Rahn Road 10-16703-200-01
Ron Trenary and 4137 Rahn Road 10-16702-080-03
Lorri Trenary -
Mark Weidenhaft and 4345 Rahn Road 10-16703-210-01
Kathy Weidenhaft
2
Dated this
1?
?
day of July, 199-1.
Howar J. Grove
Attorney for Pr4erty Owners
on Rahn Road
260 Skyline Square 8uilding
12940 Harriet Avenue South
Burnsville, Minnesota 55337
(612) 890-2477
Atty. I.D. No.: 38313
3
EXHIBI:': A
Page 6/EAGAN CTTY COUNCIL MD?[TT'ES
June 28, 1991
PRO]ECC?384fF11VAL?ASSE§SIN£NT HEARING
RAHN XOAD RtCONSTRUC770N
After introdudioa by Mayor Egas aad City Administrator Hedges, Director ot Public Works Tom
Colbert provided a brief overview of the ass<«<*+ents and the neighborhood meet.ing bcld on )une 11,1991. He
aaid scventy properties with direct access onto Rahn Raad ruxived noticxs of assessment on this projed.
Mayor Egan thcn opened the public 6earing to public eomment. Mr. Charles MacDonald, of 4145 Rahn
Road, said 6e bad filed written objectioq:W:tbe asstssments against his property. Mr. MacDonald said the value
of his home had actually dropped because::ot the upgriAe of Rahn Road and the resultant heavy trafiic. He said
evidence of that is the Dakota County AssesSOr'a ttfart lowering the value ot bis 6ome by a S percent due to
Rahn Road. • • . • .
Mayor Egan asked Mr. Bill PetEtstia??p?thc:??ou?iry?As?C'ssor'a officc to explain the S percent deduccion
Gom propert}• taxes because s number of Lomeowners had referenced it in eonnection wit6 the Rahn Road
improvements. Mr. Petersoa said a misuaderstanding exdsts among the bomeowers as to the meaniag of the S
percent modifier. He said the moditier bas been used since 1983 and was used for propcrty along Rahn Road.
It wu done, however, for 1990 valuations and, therefore, preceeded reconswction of Rahn Road. The Dakota
County A.ssessor's office u.ses mass appraisal and deaLs witb avCragea and norms. He said they use a standard
site value and then look at each property and add or subtr. ct;frtim tbis standard value considering a number of
factors, including being located on a major.sireet:?::??c s?3d ihe County Assessor's office ttses modificrs quite
irequentl}' and is aot implying Lhat the itlapfciycmctits on :ltahn Road had any impad on their valuations.
Mr. Mark Weidenhah, oi4345 Ra?:ktiad, asid..widening and improving Rahn Road had eompounded
the negative effect of the road on their property. l3? fd?ed 1fiat,.the State Attorney General bas ruled tbat ro
be assessed for improvements, the City has to prove beneCt io:tbe property. He said his property eould aot be
aortb more witb more Uaftic.
Mr. Darrell Haines, of 3990 Rahn Road, complained about the poliry used for essessments, the toss of
6ome value and said additional properties on Bluestone, Caroelian, Jade, Flint, etc. abould ahare in the costs.
Ms. Laurie Luconic, of 4137 RahA:R64*?.4id shcUd, t3aiie an informal survey of otbcr aties and iound
that many do aot sssesc by [ront [ootage:;0edlso?ooct?pl??tined:6eca use the 1ac]c of double airiping on the road
has kd motorists to belicve that passing permissabF?:
Mr. Gerard Bents, representin&buat Cs?vi,'ty Lutberan C6urch, objected to the assessmeat against
the entire cburcb property at the public:t?iilts':ratt:::;HiE;:pddAted out that this rate was the same ts t6at oi
eommercial propcrty. He said they have?maaelbrieliu'rcb?availalile to organi:adons tor meetings fret of cbarge
and have, as a result, generated additional traHic. He pointed out, 6oaever, that approxdmately 190 feet ot the
frontage on Rahn Road belongs to the parsoaage and telt it sboWd be assessed at a single-family rate. Mr. Bents
wiched to note that the f44,000 assessment constitutes iS perant of the c6urcb's annual budget. Diredor of
Public Works Coibert said the entire pircxl haS .qme.ico..d?xiptioe and it ?vas assessed at one rate based on
the zoning. Mr. Colbert said tbat the Conpc3l'; ?a4;Ce asses.cments on a different eau at the last City
Council moeting aad had determined that a?s'saiients aboiil$:tit;based on zoning. IuU. Benta asted tbat the City
Council make an ex:oeptioo. ..... ...
Councilmember Pawlenty tbea ?`4ugused the eituation'Merred to by Mr. CoTbert. ln that instance, if
the Ciry Council had assesud at a higber;ittt'-pbpetf6ave had'assessment -bac]ced expedadons'
tor a higher and better tue of the propeity;:::Ia&te is a bigher zoning and the property owner
is asking for a.ssessments based oe a tower uu. D'uecior o[ Public Worhs Colbert noted that if the property
Page 7/EAGAN CITY COUNCIL MINIJTFS
June 28, 1991
is assessed at a lower rate aad is ullimattiy'put to a higher use, the City would oot have the.opportunity, once
the atsessments arc levied, to reassess at?a::
Mr. Terry Stover, o[ 3906 Rabn,.:Road, objecled to the assesaments kvied against Oudot A o[ the
Woodhaven Addition. He said that ontlo't;:does not bave asusa onto Raha Road and, furl6er, the development
plan tor the property iadicates that accessmust be oB Beau de Rue Driva Mi. Stover said any posvbility of
access onto Rahn Raad was a virtua( impossibiiiry due to thc-new elevation of the road. He referred to the [act
that several properties along Rahn Road were not assessed because they had no driveaay assess onto Rahn Road
and said he believed Outlot A was the only one witbout access being asussed. He said his property bas alrcady
been assessed for improvements to Beau:de Rue.
• Mr. Stover then pointed out his'parceTs loss?of value because oI a permanent storm sewer easement
granted to the City. While be had rutivo4 ;38,000 iiv;tbe easement, he said an appraiser had estimated the loss
to his property at between $17,000 and 518,000. Ms. l.ettie Knutson, of 2(?14 Shak??; saia:sbta:?gaiage wit6 access oB Rahn Road but her home
has ils driveway access on S6ale Lane. Ms: K6utson- pviDfed otit that two years ago ber 6ome was appraised at
$98,000 and now the County tax assossor had iadicated the value as $91,000. Sbe ssked why her property values
bad gone dowa.
Mr. Paul Notterman, of 4374 Rahn Road, said it only took common sense to realiu that values had gone
dowv with the widening and repairiag of Rahn Road. .
Mayor Egan then asked CityAtto;S#ieldos?to explain the process for objecting to assessments.
Mayor Egan said the City Council had ito.cboice"6ut to make this road improvement as Rahn Road in
its previous conditioa was ao longer funclioa3l: 0:*04.it:.i,sne of the fust teconsvudion projeds in the City
and tbe Ciry Council has Uied to adopt a cost [ormiila tliai;tli?y..qbeUeve equitable to all those concerned.
McCrea moved, Wachter seeonded a moGon to close the public bearing, approve the 5na1 assessment
roll for Project 584 (Rahn Road Reconstroction) and authoriu eertification to Dakota County. ,
Counc'?lmember Gustafson asked, in regard to assessments based on parcels rather than [ront footage,
if Mount Calvary Lutheran Church oould 6ve:i6e..issue of,san,gte family and public faciliGes [rontage resolved
by the City or whether the court would have*:to:riii&C:ibat:aCttt.ttimation. Diroctor ot Public Works Colbert said
iit6od used to urive at the asscssmcnts, however, suc6
an assessment hearing judge would noi ?valuate the.??'t
method would be the prerogative of the City Council:'atute does tequire that the City trest all like properties
m a similaz manner and there oould be a:"enge frc?w the Baptist C'hurch if the City Council assessea Mount
Calvary Lutheran Churcb at a lesser ratC:?:? ?..
Recogniring that tbere aas a motionanda aecond'before the City Couadt, Mayor F.gan asked City
Attorney Sheldon w6ct6er the City Couaci! could incorporate some disceGonary policy in tegard to the Mount
Calvary Lutheran C6urc6 property. Mr. Sheldon said the City Council coWd oomplete the motion and send it
oe in the process and then remove Mount Calvary Lutberan C6ureb from the process at a Iater date or they
could request that stafl make s review of that.p.a TC1puW:iltRadon and return witb tbe'u 6ndings at the neid City
Council meeting. ,
76e motion before the Couna'I wiil.hen teviud to ra?; McGYea moved,_ Wachter seoonded a motion
to dose the public hearing, approve the rpat;assessmeat roU [orPbjed 584 (Rahn Road Ruonstrud;on) notiag
all written objections, authoriu its arlif'it?f6n to Dakota.Cotttif?;.aitb speaa) iastructioac to ataff to review the
situation involving the Mount Catvary L?if?fjiii;?b?:?tty wilh particular attenlioa beiag paid to any
precedent-sett.ing aciion. .... ............ ......:.
04-Jun-91
ASSESSMENT COST BREAIm0WN
PROJ NAME RAHN ROAD RECONSTRUCTION
PROJ NUM P584
SA NAME ST584
F
RAHN ROAD RECONSTRUCTION
SA NAME ST584 .
sa# 2183
YEARS 15 SF 30.790 /FF
INT RATE .085 MF 75.160 /FP
MOS 1ST YR 1NT 18 CI 75.160 /FF
TEAR 1991 WC 15.400 /Pf ASSESSMENT
REC PROPERTY GROSS NET UNITS PRO-RATA RATE AMWNT
NMBR IDENT# CL UNITS CREDITS SUBTOTAL FA ASSIBLE SHARE ==-=-----=-=? =========
1 10-01900-050-09MF 0 0 0 1 0 1 75.160 0.00
2 10-01900-031-10MF 1245 0 1245 1 1245 1 75.160 93574.20
3 10-01900-020-10Ci 220 0 220 1 220 1 75.160 16535.20
4 10-01900-010-70CI 150 0 150 1 150 1 75.160 11274.00
5 10-84700-020-01SF 36.59 0 36.59 1 36.59 1 30.790 1126.61
? 10-84700-030-01SF 36.59 0 36.59 1 36.59 1 30.790 1126.61
. 10-84700-040-01Sf 36.59 0 36.59 1 36.59 1 30.790 1126.61
8 10-84700-050-01SF 36.59 0 36.59 1 36.59 1 30.790 1126.61
4 10-84700-060-01SF 61.4 0 61.4 1 61.4 1 30.790 1890.51
10 10-84700-070-01SF 112.76 0 112.76 1 112.76 1 30.790 3471.88
11 10-84700-010-OOMP 299.7 0 299.T 1 299.7 1 75.160 22525.45
12 10-16700-010-09SF 137.88 0 137.88 1 137.88 1 30.790 4245.33
13 10-16700-020-09Sf 85 0 85 1 85 1 30.790 2617.15
14 10-16700-030-09SF 85 0 85 1 85 1 30.790 2617.15
15 10-16700-040-09SF 85 0 85 1 85 1 30.790 2617.15
16 10-16700-050-09SF 85 0 85 1 85 1 30.790 2617.15
17 10-16700-060-09WC 0 0 0 1 0 1 15.400 0.00
18 10-16700-110-11SF 116.18 0 116.18 1 116.18 1 30.790 35T7.18
19 10-11700-010-02MP 155 0 155 1, 155 1 75.160 11649.80
20 10-22470-010-01MF 388.87 0 388.87 1 388.87 1 75.160 29227.47
21 10-32800-010-01MF 583.3 0 583.3 1 583.3 1 75.160 43840.83
22 10-48050-104-01SF 90.99 0 90.99 1 90.99 1 30.T90 2801.58
23 10-70T75-010-01SF 125 0 125 1 125 1 30.790 3848.75
24 10-70775-020-01SF 85 0 85 1 85 1 30.T90 2617.15
25 10-16701-300-01SF 115.7 0 115.7 1 115.7 1 30.790 3562.40
26 10-16701-310-01SF 75 0 75 1 75 1 30.790 2309.25
27 10-16701-320-01SF 75 0 75 1 75 1 30.790 2309.25
28 10-76701-330-01SP 75 0 75 1 75 1 30.790 2309.25
29 10-16701-340-01SF 75 0 75 1 75 1 30.790 2309.25
30 10-16701-350-01SF 75 0 75 1 75 1 30.790 2309.25
31 10-16701-360-01SF 75 0 75 1 75 1 30.790 2309.25
IV O'!'er 'n 4 n
ILee.n e.y
8e.ney
04-Jun-91
RAHN ROAD RECONSTRUCTION
SA NAME 5T584
SA# 2183
YEARS 15
INT RATE .085
MOS 1ST YR INT 18
TEAR 1991
REC PROPERTY 6R05S
NMBR IDENTtt CL UNITS
32 10-16701-370-01SF 75
33 10-16701-380-01SF 75
34 10-16701-390-01SF 75
35 10-16701-400-01Sf 75
36 10-16701-410-01SF 75
17 10-16701-420-01SF 75
.,8 10-16701-430-01SF 75
39 10-16701-440-01SF 75
40 10-16701-450-01SP 75
41 10-16701-460-01SF 95.73
42 10-16701-470-01SF 90
43 10-16703-180-01SF 75
44 10-16703-190-01Sf 75
45 10-16703-200-01SF 75
46 10-16703-210-01SF 75
47 10-16703-220-O7SF 75
48 10-16703-230-01SF 75
49 10-16703-240-01SF 75
50 10-16703-250-01SF 75
51 10-16703-260-O1SF 90
52 10-16703-010-02WC 121.96
53 10-16702-080-03SF 195.21
54 10-16702-110-04SF 115.7
55 10-16702-120-04SP 115.7
56 10616702-170-O7Sf 135.7
57 10-02000-010-28MF 589.43
58 10-02000-010-29MF 175.52
59 10-16704-100-03SF 120
60 10-16704-110-03SF 120
61 10-02000-011-52MF 262.01
62 10-16704-090-04SF 95
ASSESSMENT COST BREAKDOWN
PROJ NAME RAHN ROAD RECONSTRUCTION
PROJ NUM P584
SA NAME ST584
F
SF 30.790 /FF
MF 75.160 /FF •
CI 75.160 /ff
WC 15.400 /Ff ASSESSMENT
NET UNITS PRO-RATA RATE AMWNT
CREDITS SUBTOTAL FA ASSIBLE SHARE
0 75 1 75 1 30.790 2309.25
0 75 1 75 1 30.790 2309.z5
0 75 1 75 1 30.790 2309.25
0 75 1 75 1 30.790 2309.25
0 75 1 75 1 30.790 2309.25
0 75 1 75 1 30.790 2309.25
0 75 1 75 1 30.790 2309.25
0 75 1 75 1 30.790 2309.25
0 75 1 T5 1 30.790 2309.25
0 95.73 1 95.73 1 30.790 2947.53
0 90 1 90 1 30.T90 2771.10
0 75 1 75 1 30.790 2309.25
0 75 1 75 1 30.790 2309.25
0 75 1 75 1 30.790 2309.25 R D??
?i-
0 75 1 75 1 30.790 2309.25
0 75 1 75 1 30.790 2309.25 Gi'k-5P' "-'
0 75 1 75 1 30.790 2309.25
0 75 1 75 1 30.790 7309.25 D Lw; n
0 75 1 75 1 30.790 2304.25 Co x
0 90 1 90 1 30.T90 2771.10
0 121.96 1 121.96 1 15.400 1878.18
0 195.21 1 195.21 1 30.790 6010.52 ?r2 n:i ?1/
0 115.7 1 115.7 1 30.790 3562.40
0 115.7 1 115.7 1 30.T90 3562.40
0 135.7 1 135.7 1 30.790 4178.20 G fl?h ?-
0 589.43 1 589.43 1 75.160 44301.56
0 175.52 1 175.52 1 75.160 13192.08
0 120 1 120 1 30.790 3694.80 Nelsa''?
0 120 1 120 1 30.790 3694.80
0 262.01 1 262.01 7 75.160 19692.67
0 95 1 95 1 30.790 2925.05
? - RECEiV,_0
_ ..,.f ; ,..
-J
f _
MEMORANDIIM
TO: Tom Colbert, Director of Public Works
FROM: Annette M. Margarit
DATE: November 4, 1991
RE: Rahn Road Assessment Appeal
Enclosed please find Judge Mansur's Order and accompanying memorandum
denying our motion to sever the twelve assessment appeals for Rahn
Road that are combined into one action. The Judge seemed to basically
buy the argument that because the parties are raising the same issue,
namely, that increased traffic has diminished the value of their
properties, the combination is appropriate.
The trial is currently scheduled for November 15, 1991. I understand
that you will be on vacation on that date. Rather than continuing
this trial because there are so many appeals that have been set for
December and into January, I would prefer to have Mike Foertsch
testify or get someone from Bonestroo to be available for this trial.
I will contact Mike to see if he is available on that date.
ANIlM/wkt
. ? • •
• ' ' ' .
? . . .
' Ufl•?pC(t?1)
.. ?+?a .r r Ma. c?rr, cecL Me :
' POWARD J. GROVES . . . ' , ,
. ATTORNEY AT LAW ' . SUITE 260-SKYLINE squARE . 8TA7F. OF MINNESOTA
• 12940 HARRIET AVENUE SOUTH _ COUMY OF DAKOTA
L BURNSVILLE MN 55337 . , ' .
NO71CF. OFI .
. . ' ' X'FIUNQ OF ORDER •
[?ANNETTE M. MARGARIT -
ATTORNEY AT LAW OF_h47RY OF JUDOMEKT .
600 MIDWAY NATIONAL BANK BLDG .
7300 WEST. 147Tx ST ? DOCKETIN(3 OF JUDQMENT
?PLE VALLEY MN 55124 Cou?-t Fll• No.t '
CS 91 7756
ASSESSMENTS FOR PROJECT 584 KNOWN. AS RAHN-ROAD RECONSTRUCTION ECT.
;
? 1bu nra heroby noUflod l}ial on OCTOBER 29 18„ 91 en Order
wna duly flled In llio nbovo onltllod matlor. .
. . ?
? Ybu aro horaby nollned lhnl on s.IudQmcnt
we.a duly onlerod In.lho,nbove onllqod mntlor; ? You ero horoby nolltled thnl on . . 10 s Judpment
.
ws.e duly dxkelod In 1he_cbove enlitlad mallerln thrA amount ol $
A lrue nnd corrocl copy o( Itils Nolloe hae boon eervod bymall upon lhe pRrllet nsmed heteln al the.
lest known nddro"3 ot oaoti, purouanl lo Minnooola Ruloo of Civli Procoduro, Rulo 77.04.
Dn46d, OCTOBER 29, 1991 _ . ROGER W. SAHE:S
. • Court Adminlalralor • WY
. Dep tY •
y day
Fli e thls
oi ts P?
ROGER W. CouR Ad ator
BY n
?+?wt Nt
?? ??
.
F?e this ` 7 day
? - 19o/
' ROGtii W. SI:NSES, CouR Adrtunisuatat
STATE OF MINNESOTA ey pEp DISTRIGT COURT
COUNTY OF DAKOTA FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In Re: Assessments for Project 584, File No. C5-91-7756
known as Rahn Road Reconstruction
adopted by the City of Eagan on .. ftDE
June 18, 1991
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The above-entitled matter came on for hearing before the
'• undersigned on the Special Term calendar of the Court on Monday,
October 28, 1991, at the Dakota County Judicial Center, Hastings,
Minnesota. -
Annette Margarit, Attorney at Law, appeared on behalf of the
Respondent. Howard J. Groves, Attorney at Law, appeared on
behalf of the Petitioners.
The issue is the assessment for the improvement of Rahn
Road. The parties who are identified as the Petitioners
represent 12 property owners on Rahn Road and have filed a joint
appeal from the assessment promulgated by the Respondent City.
The City moves for severance and for separate trials for
?
each of the Petitioners. Based upon the file, the record made,
the file and proceedings heretofore had,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:
1. That the Respondent-City's motion be and the same is
hereby denied.
2. That the following Memorandum is incorporated herein by
reference.
DATED: 10-28-91 BY T :EOURT**,,.
ARTIN . UR
Judge f D strict Court
1
S 0.
MEMORANDUM
Fie tliis ' day
ROGER W. SAMES, Coun Adrtunistrator
ey OEPUTY The property is unique and, as such, the issue of benefits
versus costs of improvements must be determined for each property
exclusive of the other. Here the Petitioners apparently are
residents on Rahn Road in the city of Eagan and have joined
together in appealing the assessments that have been certified by
the City against their subject properties for what the City
alleges to be improvements by the widening of Rahn Road.
The Petitioners contend that the improvements were initiated
by the City to serve the primary interests of the Target store
and Cub Foods store and to provide for better access to these
locations. Further, the Petitioners allege that their subject
property has diminished in value by reason of the widening of the
road, tihe increased traffic to the business entities xeferred to
herein.
There being a common theme that forms the basis of the
.? .
appeal from the assessments, it is this Court's view that the
severance would not serve the interest of all parties, including
the City, but rather, would allow for an expeditious disposition
of the Petitioners' appeals and if either party is aggrieved by
the Court's decision, allow for the appellate process to go
forward without further delay. To grant the City's motion could
involve different judges for different property owners and could
possibly entail different results. This would cause confusion
for all and would not serve the best interest of all parties,
including the City. '
2
.
.
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
MEMORANDIIM
Tom Colbert, Director of Public Works
Annette M. Margarit
October 30, 1991
RE: Motion to Sever Rahn Road Appeals
On October 28, 1991 I appeared before the Honorable Judge Martin
Mansur to argue the City's motion to sever the twelve assessment
appeals currently filed as one action. The appellants' attorney
Howard Groves also appeared. Enclosed please find a copy of the
papers Mr. Groves had filed for the purposes of this motion.
Judge Mansurs' opening comments indicated his train of thought as he
told Mr. Groves that all parcels were unique, and inquired as to why
Mr. Groves believed the assessment appeals should be joined. Mr.
Groves argued that the properties are very similar in iocation and
basically are arguing the same issue that the project has not
benefitted them at all but in fact has been a detriment to their
property. Through some of his other questions, it seemed apparent the
Judge was not totally supportive of Mr. Groves' position.
The Court asked for the City's position and I reiterated the Judge's
own comments namely that each parcel is unique and by the very nature
of the special assessment, the City may not levy an assessment
greater than the benefit to that particular parcel. I pointed out to
the Court that the parcels were not all assessed the same amount
indicating that they differed in some respect. I also argued that, in
the event the Court did not agree that the properties had been
benefitted to the amount of the assessment, the Court would need to
be able to arrive at some equitable means of determining a reduction
in the assessment. Without knowledge of the individual
characteristics of the properties, the Court would have to resort to
a blanket type of reduction which would be unfair to the City and
likely also/the landowners. The Court noted that appellants paid only one filing fee. The Judge
stated that he would take the matter under advisement and issue an
order.
AMM/wkt
City of Eagan
3830 Pilot Knob Rd
Eagan, MN 55122
(651) 675 -5675
www.ci.eagan.mn.us
Site Address: 3996 Rahn Rd
Lot: 10 Block: 3 Addition: Cedar Grove 5th
PID:10- 16704 - 100 -03
Use:
Description:
Sub Type: e- Reroof & Siding
Work Type: Reroof & Siding
Description:
Census Code: 434 - Occupancy:
Zoning:
Square Feet: 0
Comments:
Fee Summary:
Valuation: 6,000.00
Contractor:
Restoration Resources
6850 Shingle Creek Parkway, #C -175
Brooklyn Center MN 55430
(763) 561 -2698
Reroof: If there is no ice protection inspection prior to final, you must meet inspector with ladder and flat bar.
Siding: When installing ventilated soffit material, remove existing material (ie: debris that could block vents) and take steps
to ensure maximum ventilation to attic. Call for final inspection after installation.
Paul Hunder
BL - Base Fee $6K
Surcharge - Based on Valuation $6K
Total:
I hereby acknowledge that I have read this application and state that the informa
of Minnesota Statutes and City of Eagan Ordinances.
on is correct and agree to comply
h all applicable State
Applicant/Permitee: Signature
PERMIT
City of Eaan
- Applicant -
Construction Type:
$132.75
$3.00
$135.75
Owner:
Yia Her
3996 Rahn Rd
Eagan MN 55122
Permit Type:
Permit Number:
Date Issued:
Permit Category:
0801
9001
Issued By: Signature
Building
EA087113
10/27/2008
ePermit
*°
City of Eaan
3830 Pilot Knob Road
Eagan MN 55122
Phone: (651) 675-5675
Fax: (651) 675-5694
Date: a/77
Use BLUE or BLACK Ink
For Office Use
Permit #:
Permit Fee:
al (of
Date Received: 0 Cil 13
Staff: c3
2.013 RESIDENTIAL BUILDING PERMIT APPLICATION
A.?/I.
/3 Site Address:
Unit #:
Name: DAc) Yer
Address / City / Zip: s9 %,' /Zd
Applicant is: Owner Contractor
Phone:
Description of work: I? e- Op / Fe_ S ; )12—
Construction Cost:y
Multi -Family Building: (Yes / No
Company: 5°- t C-4 CrAei6 reei.. 610154"g ct:
Address: l2,0 (eelP i ' - 6'e. tVe—
State: "f Zip: -/yd
Phone:
City:
Auk
ec‘4.. /�e4) his
657- 2c 3 «v
License #: Lead Certificate #:
If the project is exempt from lead certification, please explain why: (see Page 3 for additional information)
COMPLETE THIS AREA ONLY IF CONSTRUCTING A NEW BUILDING
In the last 12 months, has the City of Eagan issued a permit for a similar plan based on a master plan?
_Yes _No If yes, date and address of master plan:
Licensed Plumber: Phone:
Mechanical Contractor: Phone:
Sewer & Water Contractor: Phone:
CALL BEFORE YOU DIG. Call Gopher State One CaII at (651) 454-0002 for protection against underground utility damage. Call 48 hours
before you intend to dig to receive locates of underground utilities. www.gopherstateonecall.orq
I hereby acknowledge that this information is complete and accurate; that the work will be in conformance with the ordinances and codes of the City of
Eagan; that I understand this is not a permit, but only an application for a permit, and work is not to start without a permit; that the work will be in
accordance with the approved plan in the case of work which requires a review and approval of plans. /
Exterior work authorized by a building permit issued in accordance with the Minnesota State Building Co.� ust be completed within 180
days of permit issuance. /�
it)t /4
�.1•v
A .7Tir
Applicant's Printed Name
icant's Si
Page 1 of 3