The URL can be used to link to this page

4137 Rahn Rd411,11 City of Earn Date: 3830 Pilot Knob Road Eagan MN 55122 Phone: (651) 675-5675 Fax: (651) 675-5694 RECEIVED JAN 102011 Use BLUE or BLACK Ink Permit #: Permit Fee: J CC) Date Received: Staff: 2010 RESIDENTIAL PLUMBING P RMIT APPLICATION ISite Address: Othii Tenant: Ld I ( Johnson Suite #: RESIDENT / OWNER Name: Li LI Jo i1n Phone: (PS/ 065 01 OO Address / City / Zip: `f i 7 J: (-hn Pc CONTRACTOR Name: License #: A 2liance iueclions I Address: 1313 Cv City: a State: zipShakopee, I I P•r.', - 79 Contact: 952-445-M3 TYPE OF WORK Replacement Repair Rebuild Modify• _ - • Description of work: PERMIT TYPE RESIDENTIAL Water Softener Water Heater Add Plumbing Fixtures ( Main / _ Lower Level) Lawn Irrigation ( RPZ / PVB) _ Water Turnaround Septic System New _ Abandonment RESIDENTIAL FEES: $55.00 Minimum Water Heater, Water Softener, or Water Heater and Softener (includes $5.00 State Surcharge) $35.00 Lawn Irrigation $55.00 Add Plumbing "Water Turnaround $105.00 Septic System $95.00 Fire Repair (replace (includes $5.00 State Surcharge) Fixtures, Septic System Abandonment, Water Turnaround* (includes $5.00 State Surcharge) (add $166.00 if a 5/8" meter is required) New ($10.00 per as built) (includes County fee and $5.00 State Surcharge) burned out appliances, ductwork, etc.) (includes $5.00 State Surcharge) TOTAL FEES $ - __- CALL BEFORE YOU DIG. Call Gopher State One Call 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 pf plans. _,(1f(111 Applicants Printed Name FOR OFFICE USE Reviewed B' Required Inspections: Rough -In CITY OF EAGAN Remarks Cedar Grove Acquisition Addition Cedar Grove #3 Lot $ eik 3 Parcel 10 16702 080 03 Owner ??? ?.? ?J1 %?J Street 4137 Rahn Rd• State Eagan,MN 55122 Ir T, Improvement Date Amount Annual Years Payment Receipt Date STREET SURF. 1967 975•00 97-50 10 P' d, STREET RESTOR. GRADING SAN SEW TRUNK ?. SEWER LATERAL 1972 1304.60 2.1 2 Pa7.d WATERMAIN # WATER LATERAL 972 WATER AREA STORM SEW TRK STORM SEW LAT CURB & GUTTER SIDEWALK STREET LIGHT WATER CONN. 13UILDING PER. SAC PARK INSPECTION RECORD CITY OF EAGAN PERMIT TYPE: ''+" 1 0 1 M`' 3830 Pilot Knob Road Permit Number. Ea an, Minnesota 55122-1897 ?,, °.;" •;? ? F ? 9 Date Issued: (612) 681-4675 SITE ADDRESS: N I"i APPLICANT: 1 n t , ?1?)t:K , 1 s? VeviIM (+i.i !ai'I Is rI ? f {ir;l; i,?• t?'•?1 ildi! . ( ?> ! .' + 4'•°, .'9 hd ., PERMIT SUBTYPE: TYPE OF WORK: :4rP nir (1-041trM tIAMAWk ) 14 hi AIO; ?;: k i.:? W i N r:i . cM 1'f 1`" f: fv !3 Ii t-1 W. 11r1t! 1 Permit No. Permit Holder Date Telephone N ELECTRIC PLUMBING HVAC Inspection Date Insp. Comments FOOTINGS FOUND FRAMING ROOFING ROUGH PLUMBING PLBG AIR TEST ROUGH HEATING GAS SVC TEST INSUL GYP BOARD FIREPLACE FIREPLACE AIR TEST FINAL PLBG FINAL HTG ORSAT TEST BLDG FINAL I Z*qn ? ? BSMT R.I. BSMT FINAL DECK FfG DFCK FINAL CEDAR CREST MILTON PERMIT 41-7 RAJIDI RnAn 24X22 ATTAC'AM GQRAGF. ELMER TARBOX ALUMINUM SIDING 454-5582 $2500.00VALIIE - --- '12.0. Fo0 7- 1 h4s LOT #8 BLOCK #3 CIDAR GROVE #3 -- GARAGE WILL BE PLACID ATTACHID TO LEFT SIDE OF HOUSE AND FRONT OF GARAGE SET BACK 2-FEET - FROM THE FR(7P]T OF THE HOUSE. -- ? N -- - --- ?v - - - - ? r EAGAId TO\l1/N S H I P N° 15'7'7 BIeJILD11`IG PERNIIT "k-l-r --- ...... ..................................... Eagan Township Owner ...... 1. Address (p=esent) ...... ?___g'!' : .................... Town Hall Builder ..-.•?'i'? . ........ do--l-a-Z----?i_----•--•--•----------.... Daie •---•-•- •-.,,L,[.?.?,4-,.,••--- .-•?--.• •-•-•--••----?-------------- Address •-•-- •--f!.1..- - •-- ••• - -••----- ?. DESCRIPTION Sfories To Be Used For Froni Depth Height Est. Cosi Permit Fee Remarks ?? LOCATION Sireet, Road or other Descripfion of Location I Lo3 I Slock I Addition or Tract g '_5 I e-'&' -;? This permii does not suthorize the use of s2reets, roads, alleys or sidewalks nor does it give the owner or his agent !he right to create any situation which is a nuisance or which presenls a hazard !o the health, safety, convenience and general welfare fo anyone in the community. THIS PERMIT MUST BE KEPT ON THE PREMISE WHILE THE WORK IS IN PROGRESS. This is to certify, that??....... ........ haspermission to erect a ......:................................ ......... .......upon !he above dESCribed premise subject to the provisions of the Building Qrdinance for Eagan Township dopfe April 11, 1955. -•-•-•---••-••--- - •-------- -•- -. --- 47 Tnwn Board -- e. e. -••••---•-------?-?""_"l'`'`.".?..__. .............. - ...... .............. Building lfnspector ? ' :. E,AGAN 't'OWN S H I P BUILDING PERMIT Owner ...--...c--^-{•_.----O-s-yw--?--• ----------•--• Address (Preserit) -,.L •=••.:.?'? ?-......... -..................... ---- --- ? Builder -------••--••---•--•---•-............................. --••----------•-----•--•-•-••----•-••-•--•------- - ? DE$CRIPTION N° 13'7 9 Eagaa Township Town Hall • Date ..... W/:?.?:_- .--•----- 52oriesi To Se Used For -- - Frori! - Dapih Heighf -- Est. Cosi - Per it Fee Remarks I ? ? / rr-o - ?-- ----- ---- or oxner iiescnpnon G /313/ oZ ? - 13 -1 L LOCATION I 7 ?/ ? !3! G, Addiiion or Trac2 This. permit does not sufhorize the use of sfreets, roads, alleys or sidewalks nor does it give the owner or his agent , !he righ2 to creaSe any si2uation which is a nuisance or which presents a hazard to !he healih, safety, convenience and general welfare to anyone in the communify.. THIS PERMIT MUST BE?o KE?PT ON THE PREMISE WHILE THE WORK IS IN PROG SS. K'his is to cerlify, that._.¢_-_______?__? ?-4_ ___ __has ermission to_erecY a_._._ ?t??_.?.C?-?-E-?-,? ? N'?"-s-----••--.---• - - ---- - p --- -•-----------•-------•-••--,P- .... uPon the above dFSCribed premise subjecY to the provisions of the Building Ordinance for Eagan wnship adopled'./April 11, 1955. '---•'---•••------ ...... w?:r?als.,J,•-. ................ •-------•----•- Per •------ '"-•""- ......... - . . -• --- . - ??--•-? sirman of Tnwn Board Buildinq Inspeclor eL ?. . , FPOM ! . MEDITERRANEAN CRUISE CAFE 0o" Aquita Iaecernber 16, 2003 Laurei and Pat Hezuy 4137 Rahn Road Eagaa, MN 55122 Re: Naturat Gas Serr,ice Dear Mr. and 11irs. Henry: 2685 14-'4h 3eff %AM PO Bwc458 MosOrtWent, MN 55068-0455 ? 800-803-0'?52 i? b5x-423•93es 7his 2etser verefies that rcatwal gas servFCe from Aquila can ohly be served to 4137 RaEui Road off our 2" gas maiu located on gatn Road. Aquila does nnt have a gas zaain inst,a3led in the casemCnt located between Jade L.ane and Emerald Laae. Yhe ait,ached tnap shows the locatipn of our gas mains a.nd clearIy shaws tha2 the easet3nent area beiwecn Jade Lane and Emerald L.ane d,i,es reot hsve an Aquila gas mwrx, gdwever, Nvrthern Natural Gas at one rirne xxtay have had a nattxrsl gas transmissiwz linc in this easezxxeYlt. If I may be of fiirther sssistance, 3 may be reached at 651-322-$916_ - Sincerely, ••?'?_~??? ?--------_ _„r? Ax-t Barr, Jr. Extemat Relations iVianager . cc: D_ PCrron B• Kruger FAX NO. : 6514549392 Feb. 15 2004 05:18PM P2 P - G^Z -? Q ? ? 9 W N ? N m m A m ? N W 3 ?? OW W WESTERN coNSTRUCrIoN co. 3017 LYNDALE AVE. SO. MINNEAPOLIS 8, MINN. "Some of ihe nicest cars in fown live in Western Garages" ? ? i 60 : ? . CITY OF EAGAN 3830 Pilot Knob Road Eagan, Minnesota 55122-1897 (612) 681-4675 SIT-E ADDRESS: PERMIT TYPE: BUILp ING Permit Number: 027664 Date Issued: 05/23/9g 4137 RAHN FiD LOT"s 8 BLQGK: 3 GEDAR GROVE 3RD P.I.N.: 10-16702-080-03 DESCRIPTION: REMARKS: RQQFING, GUTI'ER & ClC1WN5POUT FEE SUMMARY: PERMIT 411 ? Y i ? ?iw 4 CONTRACTOR: - Appla.cant - sT. LIc.OWNER: LUGQNIC CONST 14552954 0004922 TRENARY RON 2001 PARKWqOp pR 4137 RAHN RD 5 Sl" PAUL MN 55075 EAGAN MN 56122 (612) 465-2954 (612)454--8864 (sraRm nAmAGE) ?ee e r m i t T y p e S,A--??G . ?.r.k Type REPRTR 434 ALT. RESZDENTTAL /4 U='?`?I P ?? +'\ u- ? APPLICAN /PERMITEE SIGNATURE ISSUED BY SIG ATUREr CITY OF EAGAN 3830 PILOT KNOB RD - 55122 MtIU4 1996 BUILDING PEaMIT APPLICATION (RESIDENTIAL) 681-4675 New Construction Requirements Remodel/Repair Reauirements ? 3 registered site surveys ? 2 copies of plan ? 2 copies of pians (inciude beam 8 window sizes; poured fnd. design; etc.) ? 2 site surveys (exterior additions 8 decks) ? 1 energy calculatians ? 1 energy catcutations for heated additions ? 3 copies of tree preservation plan if lot platted after 7/1/93 required: _ Yes _ No DATE: SS?r?? `?Tm U J T?ION COST:,3 ?50 00 DESCRIPTION OF WORK: TCAR-oFF $RL=-R?F )&N$TJ? LL 11.L-!j) 6uTT?? 41 Da,J J sPauT- STREET ADDRESS: 413 -7 79-\rlf' 14 e-) k D LOT ? BLOCK SUBD./P.I.D. #: PROPERTY Name: IOLWAO-" Phone #: OWNER u5T Street Address: ? ? 5-7 FIRST 4), Pz- "-k 'J R I> City: ?G??J State: 1'4 k) Zip: Ss?Z z CONTRACTOR Company: L1-l' or? ic- 0-6(j-al-, Phone #: ?D/?? ? Street Address: Zbns t PAR KL?mb 1) (2, G? Z License #. CitY: 5?6 . 57-_ Pm-c- L State: 114 A) Zip: 552S ?5- ARCHITECTI Company: Phone #: ENGINEER Name: Registration #: Street Address: City: State: Zip: Sewer & water licensed plumber: change are requested once permit is issued. Penalty applies when address change and lot I hereby acknowledge that I have read this application and state that the information is correct and agree to comply with all applicable State of Minnesota Statutes and City of Eagan Ordinances. Signature of Applicant: OFFICE USE ONLY Certiflcates of Survey Received Yes No Tree Preservation Plan Received Yes No OFFICE USE ONLY BUILDING PERMIT TYPE ? 01 Foundation o 06 Duplex a 02 SF Dwelling ? 07 4-plex ? 03 SF Addition ? 08 8-plex ? 04 SF Porch o 09 12-plex ? 05 SF Misc. ? 10 = plex WORK TYPE ? 31 New ? 33 Alterations ? 32 Addition ? 34 Repair GENERAL INFORMATION Const. (Actual) (Allowable) UBC Occupancy Zoning # of Stories Length Depth APPROVALS Planning . i f1 ?w& ?--? . ? 11 Apt./Lodging ? 16 Basement Finish ? 12 Multi Repair/Rem. ? 17 Swim Pool ? 13 Garage/Accessory ? 20 Public Facility 0 14 Fireplace ? 21 Miscellaneous 0 15 Deck ? 36 Move ? 37 Demolition Basement sq. ft. MC/WS System Main level sq. ft. City Water sq. ft. Fire Sprinklered sq. {{. PRV sq. ft. Booster Pump sq. ft. Census Code. Footprint sq. ft. SAC Code Census Bldg Census Unit Building Engineering Variance Permit Fee Surcharge Plan Review License MCNVS SAC City SAC Water Conn. Water Meter Acct. Deposit S/W Permit S/W Surcharge Treatment PL Road Unit Park Ded. Trails Ded. Other Copies Total: % SAC SAC Units Valuation: $ ?%???:?>??ki?3;d:>,t?cYd'?:•%????X??#;Y,ti;t:??.?i+>,c?X??'?k???u);iYnYt?,C);crX?;c$< CTl'Y OF'.Enr;?.?N C63t::1-l:1:f:::l°tc ,1y T'f---.F:i'iINAL N(h 045 IiATk:.s 02!22lt:1Q 'T'.T.MEe 12N57,;48 IQ Kh'-)MEg V:CNVI.. :l:MF'htJtiEMf:N1" PI;:f.JDUCT'ti :f:NL' 320 9001 407 RtMHrC RD 69.00 205 9001 407 RFiHh! RD 1. .(:li:l Tota:C F'tece:ipt tlmoun+,u 70.00 CW;.? r t:).::s ! sf`R :CDs ,1AN 2000 BUILDING PERMIT APPLICATION (RESIDENTIAL) ciTr oF EAcani 3830 PILOT KNOB RD - 55122 Q.d ? 651-681-4675 c) New Conatrucfion Reauirementa RemodeUReoair Reauiremenls ? S reoatered site wrveys ahowinp aq, ft. of bt, aq, it. of house and gl roofed areos (2096 maximum lof coveraae allowed) D 2 copiea of plana (ahow bedm & wtndow sizes; poured tnd. deatfln; etc.) ? 1 sef of eneryy Calculaitons D S copies of free preservaflon plan If lot plafted after 7/1/93 DATE: G. DESCRIFTION OF WORK: STREET ADDRESS: !!Z 7 A H N rQ? A U ' LOT: ? BLOCK: 3 SUBD./P.I.D. #: L)`? ?--? Name: P-Irl-SAe?0AJ ly,4fZ,e- Phone #: PROPERTY uat first OWNER Sheet Address: 3 7 ?LAffAj 40Q A o City _Lir<AitJ State: .? Zip: 5-51,;L "?-' ? . Company: >nj;ji- lnoor,1a.MIC.crT- Aooac,05 phone c 6/2 '977-"38 00 COMRACTOR (area code) Sheet Address ??SNN?' /?tI 4rJ cin J, ? ucense # ?/saS33 zoc. ?'?? City /V'DGS State: fVi? Zip: SSy4 SJ ARCHITECT/ ENGINEER Compcny: Name: Telephone #: ( 2 copies of plcn 1 set of energy calculations tor hecfed adcltlons 1 site survey tor extedor dditiona & decka d CONSTRUCTION COST: - ? D/us / v U//40 D W Street Address: RegishaNon #: City State• Dp: Sewer/water licensed plumber (N installinc sewerMrater): Phone #: ( ? I Fereby ccknowledge lhat I have reod fhis applicatbn, siate that 1he infortnaiion is cortect, and cgree to compy with aR applicable State of Minnesota Statutes and Ciy of Ecgan Ordincnces. , Signafure of Applicanh OFFICE USE ONLY Certificates of Survey Received Yes No FEB 2 2 Tree Preservation Plan Received Yes No Not Required OFFICE USE ONLY BUILDING PERMIT SUBTYPES O 01 Foundation 13 07 05-plex 0 13 16-plex ? 21 Porch (3-sea.) 0 31 Ext. Alt - Mufti 0 02 SF Dwelling ? 08 06-plex O 17 Garage ? 22 Porch/Addn. (4-sea.) ? 33 Ext. Aft - SF 0 03 01 of _ plex ? 09 07-piex ? 18 Deck ? 23 Porch (screened) ? 36 Multi ? 04 02-plex ? 10 08-plex 0 19 Lower Level O 24 Storm Damage ? 05 03-plex ? 11 10-piex Pibg Y or_ N ? 25 Miscellaneous ? 06 04-piex 0 12 12-piex 0 20 Pool 0 30 Accessory Bidg. WORK TYPE O 31 New ? 36 Move Bldg. ? 43 Reroof O 32 Addition ? 37 Demolish (Bldg)* ? 44 Siding O 33 Aiteration ? 38 Demolish (Interior) 0 45 Fire Repair ? 34 Repair 0 42 Demolish (Foundation) 0 46 WindowslDoors * Give PCA handout to applicant for demolition permit - GENERAL INFORMATION SAC Code # of Stories sq. ft. No. of Units Length sq. ft. No. of Buitdings Width Footprint sq. ft. Const. (Actual) Basement sq. ft. Census Code (Allowable) Main level sq. ft. MC/ES System UBC Occupancy sq. ft. City Water Zoning . sq. ft. Booster Pump PRV Fire Sprinklered MISCELLANEOUS INSPECTIONS 13 Stucco/Stone APPROVALS Planning B uilding Engineering Variance Permit Fee C9. 0 a Surcharge i ? c) C7 Plan Review License MC/ES SAC City SAC Water Conn. Water Meter Acct. Deposit SJW Permit S/W Surcharge Treatment PI. Park Ded. Trails Ded. Other Copies Total: -70 - 0 C) Valuation: $ ? i SAC Units % SAC LOT ? BL v SUBD. UACt/\ / a `^'1/kk`--' CITY USE ONLY °??col!F/ /v;a ? ? RECEIPT #: /o 7 / / _ RECEIPT DATE: `3 1w5I ? 9 Q 199$14IECHANICAL PEfiMIT (ftE.SID£N1'IAI.) I CTfY OF EA!filkN 3$30 PILOT KNO$ RD E4fiAN MN 55188 Date: (618) 6$1-4675 -I Complete this section onlv if you are installing HVAC in single family, townhomes or condos under construction and not owner /occupied ' • HVAC: 0-100 M B T U $ 24.00 e DDiTxnMA r«l MRT'i T 6_00. • Gas outlets ( minimum of one required @$3.00 ea.) • State Surcharge: .50 • TOTAL: Complete this section onlv if you are remodeling, adding to, or repairing existing single family dwellings, townhomes, or condos. Note: Mechanical permit is not required for alteration/add-on to ductwork in existing residential units; but is required for the following: -,X- Install furnace -?L Install air conditioning Install air exchanger, i.e. Vanee system, etc. Other Minimum fee applies to all remodel or add-ons of existing residences $ 20.00 State Surcharge .50 Total: 20.50 Gc' ' 'o?t a?- ?'/D°° = ?'?D• v SITE ADDRESS: y/37 &hn RO01,d OWNER NAME: l" 1 QrK Pe7 e.?cJol PHONE #: (Y 9 9 ? '•'p ?1 12'Q INSTALLER NAME : VV D I?YS I?S) • 1''? ?1?G,PHONE #: L13) -' ?? I STREET ADDRESS: Iq 7Jo. X,< 1'1 ve) CITY: AieP! C V U(ICV STATE: M N ZIP: 5'rJ' ] SIGNATURE OF PERMITTEE JS/FORMS BLD/MECH PERMIT (RES) - 1998 CITY USE ONLY L BL RECEIPT #: SUBD. RECEIPT DATE: APPROVED BY: INSPECTOR 1998 MEcHAxtcAL PERMrr (COMMEftCtAL) CI1'Y OF EAfiAN S$SO PILOT KNO$ ftD EA6?AN,MN 55188 (612) 6$1-4675 Please compiete for ali commercial/industriai buildings multi-family buildings when separate permits are not required for each dwelling unit DATE: CONTRACT PRICE: WOAK `r'vPV • ATE«1 /-(1T?T0_TA T T("?TTl1??T t?.T'rr_. ? 4?r+ dTT 7T _ _?.. . ? -...? ilN 1 ii`?Vi? ltvtr Z?V V L' l?li1V i DESCRIPTION OF WORK: FEES: 1% of contract price OR $25.00 minimum fee, whichever is greater. Processed piping - $25.00 . CONTRACT PRICE x 1 % PROCESSED PIPING PERMIT FEE STATE SURCHARGE TOTAL SITE ADDRESS: OWNER NAME: TENANT NAME (IWROVEMErrTS olvr.,Y): INSTALLER: PHONE #: ADDRESS: PHONE #: CITY: STATE: ($.50 per $1,000 of permit fee due on all permits.) ZIP: SIGNATURE OF PERMITTEE Tc?; Thomas Eoan 7homas Colbert David GLtsta-fson Thomas Hedges F'amel a McCrea Ti m F'awZ enty Eugene Van Overbeke Theodore Wachter t?,7o? 68o O.? hlayar I5i rector of F'ubI i c Works CounciZ Member City Administrator- Counci 1 Merr,ber Cc,uncil Member City Clerk: Counci 1 Mer;:bei- Fr-am: fivn and Lorri LuConi c-Trenary Re: Written Objection to ASSessmPnt fimount Svg `t This is our formal abjection to the proposed assessment against out proper-ty. 4Je reserve oitr right.to -aPPeaZ the assessment amaunt. PIease underst-and that d.o. n.ot_fe_e_]. the $b,C}1??e52 assessment ac?ainst our property at?41-?7 ?: _ahn f,naci is equitable or affordablE tc, aur family. We are hoping you will consic3Er bringinq our assessment down to the aver-age being charged our fellow'Rahn area - residents. That figure appears ta be about 1/4 --1l3.what.we are being e;:pected to pay. We Lcnderstand that the reason for assessi ng our pr-operty At _ a mitch hi gl-rer amount from many af aur nei ghbors ha5 to da wi th the new asses=ment f ormitl a that i s bei ng used f or the f i rst t i me i n Eagan. !ve are Gei.ng charged Gy the front -footage of our properties. We have an over-si zed 7. o'L whi ch i s pi e-shaped. it i s 3 arger- dLse to a gas easement that r-uns between our home and and MacDonald's. The two previous owners soc.ight city approval to subdivide that addi.tior.al pr-operty.. Both were turned dnwn because building`or diaging near the easernent l4dUId be dangerous. We even:thoiight- the 1arger1 ot mi ght mak:e our property more val uabl e, but every _ Real E3tate Agent we const?lted suggested that the lot size wr,uld be a negative in se2ling our horne.` In deed, several pc,tentiC-tl buyer-s have shared that opinian. As yau can see5 the si :e cf ac.tr- Z at has been a probl em 1 ong bef ore the Fiahn Road p:"'QjGL"t -FG1"' which aae are being assessed' 4te 1iave cansulted e:;perts that have e.•:plained that current 1aws s-L-ate that na property may Ge assessed at an arrcount higPier- than the property incr-eases in value as -a r-esult of the pr-oject for whi ch ti-ie assessment is made. We are awai ti ng documentati on frcrm a legal e:<pert as to how much our property value has increased C-:s a rLasult of this project. Rough estimate5 hasfe been $750 _ $1,000. ($5,010.52 -- $5,260.5: Iess than the cur-rent assessment. ) We are a yourtg fami i.y, bouncing bac}; from the same types at proGlems rr:arly of atir- cour7terpar-ts are e;:periencinc3. Lay-offs, a tigF?t jab rfark:et and the need to be a dauble income family tchild care! > At this iime, we can`t affard the home we wnuZd liF::e to have. Wi tt, the present c"1- SSCSSe(11[R't bef ore us, we may f i nd i t mucl-+ mare di f f i cul t to af f or-d the ane we dfl have. We si ncerel y hope that you wi 1 1 reconsi der the curr-ent assessment amaunt of our- property. ThanF:: You, Lorri LUConic-TrenartiJ F,o:-ial d L. Tr-enarv MEMO TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCILMEMBERS . . FROM: CI'I'Y ADMIMSTRAI'OR BEDGES -- ` ` ? . " - -_?. . ? _ ? :-? ? r •?:._ ;: _- .?_.? DATE: MARCH 17, 1992 . = _ . _ SUBJECT: ADMIIITISTRATIVE AGENDA FOR iVIARCH 17, -1992 ItEGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING CITY ATTORNEY There are no items for an executive session at tbis time. However, the Mayor, City Council and Ciry Attorney have reserved the right to call an executive session to address atry matters of pending litigation if desired. CITY ADMIIVISTRATOR Item 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 rofer to a oopy of the memo from the Ci Attorne}'s office endded "Rahn Road Appellants' Motion for Costs" enclosed on pages ?adthrough a-e- ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED ON THIS I1'EM: 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 CYty has rmived a Stipulation and Order resolving the Heller v. City of Eagan assessment appeal which 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 pagesUthroughQ?U is a copy of a memo from Annette Margarit entitled "Heller v. City of Eagan Assessment Appeal," a resolution adopting the settlement agreement and a copy of the Stipulation and Order. ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED ON THIS iTEM: To approve or deny a resolution that the Heller parce] be reassessed from its leyied assessment of $49,277.80 to $40,000 which in essence approves a Stipulation for Setdement resoh?ing the Heller assessment appeal. Item 3. Northview Building F"uv Restoration Contract/Defanit to Contrsctual Obligations-- As the City Council recalls, the Northview Park Building sustained considerable damage as a result of a lightening strike and fire during the summer of 1991. Beaoon Builders Incorporated were awarded a bid in the amount of $8,883 to oorrect the damage and assured staff that the 60 day completion timeframe was adequate to finish the -projecK. Unfortunately, the 60 day construction period expired and staff is of the opinion that the contractor did not meet its oontractual obligations which are now impendi.ng the City's operational needs for the building. For additional information on why staff is requesting ?-A l67,Da -ogo--o.3 MEMORANDUM TO: Tom Hedges, City Administrator" FROM: Annette M. Margarit DATE: March 4, 1992 RE: 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 concerning 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 tr.e sum of $5,593.00 as ordered by Judge Mansur. If you have any questions or need any further information, please contact me. ANIlM/wkt cc: Tom Colbert . taoua. or ru.a, erA.r. 0«.6A" FHOGTARD GROVES A1TY AT LAW 260 SRYLINE SQIIARE BLDG 12940 HARRIET AVE S LBRNS MN 55337 STATE OF MINNESOTA • COUNTY OF Dnkota NOTlCE OF: O F1LIN(3 OF ORDEA ?l ENTRY OF UDGMEtYT X3 DOCKEfING OF JUDGMENT , Court Flle No.: C5-91-7756 i ? 1- ANNETTE M MARGAItIT ATTY AT LAW 600 MIDWAY NAT BANK BLDG 7300 W 147TH ST LAPpLE vALI.EY rN 55124 !N RE: IN RE' ASSESSMENTS FOR PROJECT 584 RNOWN AS RAHN ROAD RECONSTRIICTION ETC. ? Nbu a» heraby noatled that on 19 an Order wa.s duly tllad ln tha above enlllled matter. MARCH 2-1992 Amended EF You aro hereby notlfled thst on , 19 a Judgmont waa duty cnterod (n the above entltfad mattor. 2M You are heroby notifled that on ?? 2-1992 @ J, ? S I? ?YY? , 18 a Judgmenl was duly docketad In the above enUttad matter In the amount o! $ 5593.00 AGAINST CITY OF EAGAN A true and correct copy ot thla Notice has been sarved by triaU upon the partlas named heratn at tha tast known address ot each, pursuant lo Mlnnesota Rulas of Clvll Procedure, Rule 77.04. Dntod_ MARCH 2ND 1992 ROCER X. SA?g:S Court AdmlNstrator by ' Oeputy ...c...,.s Fte ft day oi ?)-1 tg AOGFA W. SAMES, Court Adnunistrator BY UTY r 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 E agan on FINDINGS AND ORDER June 18, 1991: ? AM M ID JIIDGMENr Name Address P.I.N. Nathan R.'Benoy 4372 ftahn 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 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 ftock 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.--?? All of ??Yl c?? 19 c .? 1 ROGER W, SAMES, Court Aeriin:suzta R ? . I?. ' -- y (-:_.- r'r z 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, 5?93.00. 2. That the following Memorandum is incorporated herein by reference. 3. There being no justifiable reason for delay, the Court Administrator shall enter Judgment forthwith. 2 r ' DATED: 2-28-92 BY THE COURT: . AMIIIDID ? JODGrENT I hereby certify that the above Ordex modifies the AR,TIN J MAN R Judgment ente:ecl 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 .-Cief Deputy (Seal) Costs an is ursemnts - At oral argument the issue was not the amount or the reasonableness si:nce it is slightly n?ore 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. 1, 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 r i 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. While 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. 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. ANIlM/wkt cc: Tom Hedges Gene VanOverbeke 0 STA`iE 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 r i Assessments for Project 584, known as Rahn Road Reconstruction WAIVER OF NOTICE adopted by the City of Eagan on June 18, 1991: Name Address P.I.N. 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. 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-named Appellants, 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 ? , and said Appellants further hereby speeifically 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 : ? r A_ 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 uGS•too (4-ft) . r+wM a fA+o, L-Ary, ca?.r„a ?MR HOidARD J GROVES ATTY AT LAW STATE OF MINNESOTA STE 260 SKYI.INE SQ • 12940 HARRIET AVE S DAROTA COUN7Y OF ? BURNSVIILE MN 55337 NOTICE OF: - Iff- FILING OF ORDER [ MS ANATEITE M MARGARIT ATiR AT LAFT %Z ENTRY OF JUDGMENT 600 MIDTdAY NAT BANK BLDG : 7300 W 147TH ST ? DOCKETlNG OF JUDGMENT L PLE DALLEY MN 55124 ` - Court Flie No.: C5-91-7756 ' ASSESSMENTS FOR PROJECT 584, RNOWN AS RAHN RD RECONSTRIICTION ETC. !N RE: NATHAN R BENOY ETAI. V CITY OF EAGAN ETC. ? CP Ybu are hereby notiried that on JANUARy 24TH 1992 ?19an Order was duly flied ln tha above entltled matter. JANIIARY 24TH 1992 XE3 You are hereby notlhad that on' , 19 a Judgment wsa dui.y anterod In tha ahova eniltted matter. _ ? You are heroby notiflad that on . 18 a Judgmant wa.s duly docketed ln the above entltled matter In the amount o! $ A true and correct copy of thle Notlca has been sanrad by mait upon the parties named harein at the taat known addresa of each, purouant to Mlnnesota Rulas af Civli Procedure, Rule 77.04. Oated• JANUARY 24TH 1992 ROGER W SAASES ' Court Adminlstrator b,, Deputy a MICA a,19 Re ttds ? cr. day • of - '?-r 19 c/ , ? ROGER W. AMES, Gourt AQmsuatot _cPL ? 4 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, 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 Respondent. 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. C5-91-7756 FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW. ORDER FOR JIIDGMENT affidavits and the Fle this ? y day ot a- 19 -fl. D-, ROGEA IA7-SAMES. Court ndmintsvuar OE TY `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 result in a new trial. ORDERS 1. That the Respondent City's Motions be and the same are hereby denied in their entirety. 2. The following Memorandum is hereby incorporated by reference. 3. That the Court Administrator shall forthwith enter judgment accordingly. DATED: January 23, 1991 BY TSE COIIRT: ?I .?4..._..? ? Y)ARTIN J. S udge of is i c t Court ME40RANDIIM 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. Appraisal of the propsrties was of the greatest . import to the Eactfinder. As articulated in this Memorandum and in the December 18, 1991 Ffndings, C?rder and Memorandum, in the Factfincle.r's view, the Paats tp-nd to support Appellants. The crux of Appellants' olalm ia:that the city unfairly assesged them for street improvements. The standard for valid speCial assessmants is: (1) the land must receive a npecial benefit from the improvement being aonstructad; (2) the assessment must be unif orm upon the same alass of property, and (3) the assessment may not exceed the special benefit. Carlsor?- Lang Rez ty Co. v_ city of Winclom, 307 Minn. 368, 369, 240 N.W.2d 517, 519 (Mi.nn. 1976). Special bensfit fs meagured by the inc:rease in the m2rkgt value of the land owing to the improvement. id. In appraisinq the aubjeet property, an appraiser determines what 'a willing buyer would pay a willing seller far the property before, and then after, the improvement has been conatructed. Id. While the governmant entity is presumed to have set the assessment legally, an appellant may overaome tha presumption by introduoing cQmpetent evidenca that the assessmant is greater than the inorease i.n market value o£ the property due to the improvement. Id. These are the criteria whiah the Court applied to the Pacta pxasentad at trigl. It shouia be noted that in ita Memoxandum supnorting its motion for a new trial or amended findings, the City 'relies on Villag.Q. of Ed3na v. 2!2§ggh, 264 Miri?3. 84, 199 N.W.2d 809 (1962). In that aase, the residents whose property abutted the i.mproved 3 ,=,rn_? ?H??1N3o-la?lo?? lDIJlsIQ 0o d10>id?? 9t :?ti '5/L?/TO 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-Lana 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 law. ! 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 indieated 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 , 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, testified 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 the 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 the improvement from a 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 584, known as Rahn Road Reconstruction, 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 Weidenhoft 4345 Rahn Road File No. C5-91-7756 FINDINGS OF FACT. CONCLIISIONS OF LAW. C)RDER FOR J[JDGMENT 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 Appellants, rats? x ? vs. Q7 RL'uER W. SAty1ES, Caut /M, hur,,uur City of Eagan, a municipal corporation, Qy D??•J'? 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 ? • , • 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 FAGT 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 RaYin 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 £oot 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 f 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, 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 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 s legally 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 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 pardel 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 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. 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'an 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 1?athy 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 ilse of said parcel is 6 « for residential use. 14. Upon the trial of the above enumerated appeals the CityI 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. ' • Name Benoy Cox Gillespie Goche Haines Keeney Nelson Notermann Olwein Rock' Trenary Weidenhaft 14. follows: Name Benoy Cox Gillespie Goche Haines Keeney Nelson Notermann Olwein Rock Trenary Weidenhaft City's Value Witness's ODinion 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 21309.25 That the Appellant's value witnes 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 s testif ied as IIefore Value After Value $ 99,500.00 $ 99,500.00 89,000.00 89,000.00 72,500.00 . 72,500.00 80,000.00 80,000.00 72,500.00 . 72,500.00 , 130,000.00 130,000.00 95,000.00 95,000.00 ' -110,000.00 110,000.00 84,000.00 84,000.00 85,000.00 . • 85,000.00 74,500.00 74,500.00 95,000.00 95,000.0.0 7 Y 15. That the abuttir?g 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 AppellantsI 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 I,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 reference. . 3. Let judgment be entered accordingly after a stay of 30 8 , days. DATID: 12-18-91 BY TIiL CODRT: TIN SDR Judge o Di trict Court The assessment of benefit to Appellants' properties as indicated in the assessment roll was, sufficientl,y 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. Metzan 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 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 testified from his 10 . % .. . ,I. knowledge of the area, the builder whom he was acquainted with, . . and some comparables, and then he concluded that the properties benef itted in the amount that he testif ied without regard to the before and after value as to each. Itshould 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 ,. . uv•ioo (4 +91 ? - ?+?«a .r r?a crw, oea,?,o : F HOWARD J GROVES ATTY AT LAW STE 260 SRYLINE SQ 12940 HARRIET AVE S LBURNSVILLE MN 55337 ?o •??7ot - oft BTATE OF MINNESOTA CDUNTY OF DAROTA NOTICE OF; x FIUNt3 OF OROER O ENTRY OF JUDOMEM' ? DOCKETINa OF JUD(3MENT , . j ? ? ?ANNETTE M MARGARIT ATTY AT LAW 600 MIDWAY NATL BANR BLDG 7300 W 147TH ST LAPPLF. VALLEY MN 55124 0 Court Fli• No.: C5-91-7756 IN RE: NATHAN R. BENOY ET AL VS. CITY OF EAGAN ETC. FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLIISIONS OF LAW, ORDER FOR JIIDGMENT You nre heroby noUtiad thal on nFrMFx t 8TH - 19_ an Order was duly ftlad In lho above enlltied matior. ? 1'bu era horoby notltied lhal on , 19 s Judgment wea duly enlered In the.ebove enUUed metler. ? You ere heroby notlHed lhet on - 18 a Judpment wa.a duly dxketed In ihe sbove enUtled maNer in the amount of S - _- A lrue nnd correcl copy of lhte Nolios hne been eerved by mall upon lhs paniss namsd hsreln at Ihs, last known eddresa of oach, purnunnt to Minneaota Rulee of Clvtl Procedure, Rule 77.04. Oaled, DECF"ER 18TH 1991 ROGER W. SAMES Court Admtnistrator by ' Deputy cMft ev, )?) coc€.w W. saMEs. oWs aftft"W 6Y a2aa„1 _ cPJfY . wca of" p ?5 '' CIA z m p?er 4'_ ° o' 4.. 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 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 Weidenhoft 4345 Rahn Road File No. C5-91-7756 FINDINGS OF FACT. CONCLIISIONS OF LAW, QRDER FOR JUDGMENT 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, Appellants, t3? t? vs. ?p ts?1. ROuER i'V. SAt?tES. Caat AdrmnW.rzca City of Eagan, a municipal corporation, ey 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 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 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 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 and best use of said parcel is for residential use. 6. That Appellants Darrell and Pat Haines are the owners of 3 P ' a parcel of land abutting on the west side of Rahn Road and legally described as fo3lows: 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 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. 11. That Appellant Mary Rock is the owner of a parcel of II 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 Grov,e 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 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 %Ise 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. Enumerated herein is a swna?ary of the City's value witnesses. City's Value Witness's Oninion Amt of Name ScL ft. lhouse 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 1,236 2,309.25 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 testified as follows: Name Before Value Benoy $ 99,500.00 Cox 89,000.00 Gillespie 72,500.00 Goche 80,000.00 Haines 72,500.00 Keeney 130,000.00 Nelson 95,000.00 Notermann 110,000.00 Olwein 84,000.00 Rock 85,000.00 Trenary 74,500.00 Weidenhaft 95,000.00 After 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, P 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 accordingly after a stay of 30 8 days. DATED: 12-18-91 BY THE GOIIRT: ' Z-1 ' SIIR Judge J Di trict Court !?lsORANDU![ 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 3of 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 ]cnowledge 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 inf2ation and the f2at 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 Apgellants' vaZue 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 ` 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 oo? ` • C? C,lDlk% _ ? "f"reCeiaee..4 Z-c 7-i i ll; 6m 44?? &A;Znl DISTRICT COURT COUNTY OF DAKOTA FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT ? CASE TYPE: 10 OTHER CIVIL ? ? ;*??SPECIAL ASSESSMENT APPEAL ? ) ______________________________ .'-- ?.?? ________________________ In Re: Court File No. ? Assessments for Project 584, known as Rahn Road Reconstruction adopted by the City of Eagan k OTICE OF APP_EAL on June 18, 1991 T0: 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 this 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 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 Nathan R. Benoy 4372 Rahn Road Gregory Cox and 4369 Rahn Road Cindy Cox ` Irene Gillespie 4351 Rahn Road Dean Goche and 4065 Rahn Road Karen Goche Darrell Haines and 3990 Rahn Road Pat Haines Robert Keeney and 4370 Rahn Road Antoinette Keeney Vernon Nelson and 3996 Rahn Road Janet Nelson Pau1 Notermann and 4374 Rahn Road Deb Notermann Brian Olwin and 4363 Rahn Road Carrie Olwin Mary Rock 4339 Rahn Road Ron Trenary and 4137 Rahn Road Lorri Trenary Mark Weidenhaft and 4345 Rahn Road Kathy Weidenhaft 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 2 +?N Dated this day of July, 1991. 1 ? Howar J. Grove Attorney for Pr4erty Owners on Rahn Road 260 Skyline Square Building 12940 Harriet Avenue South Burnsville, Minnesota 55337 (612) 890-2477 Atty. I.D. No.: 38313 3 _ _ EXHIBI`? A Page 6JEAGAN C1TY COUNCIL MINtJTFS June 28, 1991 PRO]E&484fFT1VAL'.i?SE?'s.fiM£NT HEARING RAHN 1tOAD RLCONSTRUCI70N After inUodudion by Mayor EgaH and City Administrator Hodges, Dircdor of Public Works Tom Colbert provided a brief overview oI the a«tS*nents and the ncighborbood mr.eting 6e1d oa June 11,1991. He said seventy propertics with dirw access onto Rahn. Road reaived noticxs of asscssment on this project. Mayor Egan then opened the public hearing to public oomment. Mr. Charles MacDonald, of 4145 Rahn Road, said he had filed written objecxioti:tCC:the assc.csments against his property. Mr. MacDonald said the value of ?t bome had actually dropped because::ot the upgrade ot Rahn Road and the resultant besvy traffc. He said evidence of that is the Dakota County A4essor'a 6I6te lowering the value of Lis home by a S pereent due to Rahn Road. • • . . . Mayor Egan asked Mr. BiU Petttsoa o?theCoiitiiy.As3C?sor's office to explain the 5 perceat dedudion Gom propert}• taxes because a number of 6omeowners had teferenoed it in conned.ion wit6 t6e Rahn Road improvements. Mr. Petersoa said a misunderstanding exnsts among the 6omeowers as to the meaning of the S percent moditier. He said the modifier bas been used since 1983 and was used for propcrty along Rahn Road. It was done, 6owever, [or 1940 valuations and, t5erefore, prteteded reconstrudion of Rahn Road. The Dakota Counry Assessor's office uses mass appraisal and deals witb aYOrages and norms. He said they usc a standard site value and then look at each property and add or subtr* .ct:frtim this standard value considering a number of (ectors, including being located on a major.siroet:::: ?#c`Wd the County Assessor's o[(ice uses modifiers quite frequentl}' and is not implying tbat the imprCriipmefits on'itahn Road had any impact on the'v vatuations. Mr. Marlc Weidenhah, of 4345 Ra??9?tiad; said..widening and improving Rahn Road had compounded the negat;ve effect of the road on their properiy. l?t?'t?ed 1fiat.:the State Attorney General has neled that to be assessed for improvements, the City has to prove beneCt io:tbe property. He said his property could not be worth more v?itb more trafiic. Mr. Darrell Haines, o! 3990 Rahn Road, complained about the policy usod for assessments, the loss of home value and said additioaal properties on Bluestone, C.arneliaa, Jade, Flint, etc. should share ia the costs. Ms. Laurie Luconic, of 4137 Raha:116?4i` id she:hect:doibe an informal survey of other ddes and found that many do not assess by tront footage:;:;$?e also?cou?pl ?iiied6ecause the lacl? of doubl¢ sUiping on the road Las ied mcxorists to believe that passing hi :permissabw: Mr. Gerard Bents, represeatuig;mouat Ca?vzty Lutberan C'hwch, objected to the asseasment against the entire churcb property ai the public:lsi?iItics`:iatit: NiE;:pi?ted out that this rate w?as the same ss that of eommercial property. Ht said tbey have 'msae tbC'i'rhurd"av?e to orgaai:atioas Ior moetings free ot cbarge and have, as a result, generated addicional tra$ic. He pointed out, 6owever, that approximateiy 190 faet ot the Erontage on Rahn Road belongs to the parsoaege and telt it a6oWd be assessed at asingle-family rate. Mr. Beats wished to note that the 544,000 asstssment oonstitutcs 15 percent of the churcb's aanual budget. Diredor o[ Public Worlcs Colixrt said the eelire panxl 6as..qme.kgAl..desaiption aad id was asscsud at one rate based on the zoning. Mr. Colbert aaid tbat the assessments on a difierent case at the last City Council meeting and had determined tLst aEwissiatnts sboiildlitbased on zoning. Mt. Bents aslced tbat the City Council make an excepEian. ..... ... Councilmember Pawlenty then ?e;scussed the situation?iiI'erred to by Mr. Cotbert. 1D that instaacc, if the Ciry Coundl had assesacd at a higher.i?iot;:gtcs?tfyO;wz?es's-;C?iild have had'assessment-bacYed e?ectatioas' for a higher and bettcr use of the propeit}r;::?la #!ia'?ssian?ti??[btte is a higher zoning and the property owner is askiag for as,sessments based on a bwer nse. D'uoaor of PubL'c Works CatbeK naed cbat it the propeny Page 7/EAGAN CtTY COUNCIL MINUTFS , )une 28, 1991 is assessed at a lower rate and is WtimaiCly?'put to a hi.gher use, the City would not have tbe opportuaity, once tbe asscssments are lcviad, to teassesa at?a:.hi?}itt::LB?:e::?:???:?;?:.:::::::::: Mr. Terry Stover, o[ 3906 Rahp.:Road, objeec,led to tbe ?«s«?+ents kvied against Oudot A o[ t6e Woodhaven Addition. He said that ontlo[::does not have assess oato Rahn Road and, furiber, tbe development plan tor tbe property indicates that access?must be og Beau de Rue Drive. Mr. Stover said any posv'bility ot sccess onto Rahn Road aas a virtuai imposv'biliry due lo the new elevation o! the toad. He refened to tht fact that several properties along Rahn Road were not assessed because they had no driveway as,sess onto Rahn Road and said he believed Outlot A aas the oaly one witl?out access beiag ?sse,ssed. Ne said his property bas already been assessed for improvements to Beau:de Rue. • • Mr. Stover t6en pointed out bis:pircel's los3?of value because of a permanent storm aewer easement granted to the City. While 6e had receiv,od;38,00p fi?r:ihe easement, he said an appraiser had estimated the loss to his property at betweea S17,OQ0 and S18,OOU. '? Ms. Let?ie Knutson, of 2014 Shafe?Lernie;?said;s???ba3 ?e:?garag? with access ofi Rahn Road but her home 6as its drivew?ay access oa Shale Lana Ms: Kifulsoii`poiDted iyuE ihat two years ago 6er bome was appraised at 598,000 and now tbe County t? ass?ssor 6ad indicated the value as 591,000. She asked wby her property values had gone dow?n. Mr. Paul Notterman, of 4374 Rahn Road, said it only took commoa sense to realiu that values had gone dov?a with lhe widening and repairing ot Rahn Road. . Mayor Egan then asked City Attot;?e?:3i?i:S?ialdos?to explain the process for objccting to assessmenls. Mayor Egan said the City Council,had ttv.c6oice"tiut to make this road improvement as Rahn Road in its previo?u condition was ao longer funetioaa?: ?'?ie;?d:il:.i,c,one of tbe fust reconstrudion projeds in the City and the City Council has lned to adopt a eost lormiila t?ai::lli?y.believe equitable to all thost conceraed. McCrea moved, Wachter soconded a motion to c]ose the public beariag, approve t6e 6na1 assessment roll for Project 5&# (Rahn Road Reconstruction} and authoriu ee?cation to Dakota Couaty. Councilmember Gustafson asked, in regard to assossments based on paracls rather thao front footage, if Mount Calvary Lut6eran Church coWd havc:t6e issue of,?in,gk family and public Iacilities frontage resolved by t6e City or wbether the cour( would ba?+e'to:m:alce:ihat't?eitt?mmation. D'uector oi Public Works Colbert said an assessment hearing judge would nat ?v8luate tbe:tii?ihod used to arrive at lhe assessmcnts, however, suc6 method would be t6e prerogative of tbe City Couadt: ??S'tatute does require that the City Ueat all like propertics in a similar manner and there oould be a:?allenge froqa l6e Baptist Churcb if tbo City Counal sssessea Mount Caivary Lut6eran Churc6 at a lesur ratCi?:?:?...?: : : : : ?:? '?::?: . ? :•: : : . . Rccogaiiing tbat tbere was a motion and?a ?second??6etore the City Covndl, Mayor Egan uked City Attoroey Sbeldon whether tbc City Council ootild iacorporate some diwetionary poGcy in regard to tbe Mouat Calvary Lutheraa Church property. 1?ir. S6eldon aaid tbe City Couna! coutd oomplete !be motion and aend it on in the proccss and tben remove Mount Calvary Lutheran C'burcb trom the procz.ss at a Iater date or t6cy could request that ataPf malce a review ot tbat .?arpp?t;?tt?ation and return wit6 t6eu 6ndin?s at the ne? City Council meeting. . . Tbe motion betore iht Couna't w?s??en revised to r?ad; MeGYea moved, Wacbter seo?nded a motioa to close the pubtic heazin.g„ approve tbe f?nat;assestment roU forPtvjee! 584 (Rahn Road Reconstrudioa) noting all written objections, autboriu its artifat?fir?n to Dakota:?ow4t3;.?vitl? special iastructions to ataiT to review the situation involving the Mouat Calvary LaE?iaII;:t'?ric?:?tty witb particutaz attention being paid to any precedent-setting aciion. .... ............ ....:.. 04-Jun-91 ASSESSMENT COST BREAKDOWN PROJ NAME RAHN ROAD RECQNSTRUCTION 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 /Ff MOS 1ST YR INT 18 C1 75.160 /Ff YEAR 1991 WC 15.400 /Ff ASSESSMENT REC PROPERTY GROSS NET UNITS PRO-RATA RATE AMWNT NMBR IDENT# CL UNITS CREDITS SUBTOTAL FA ASS'BLE SHARE 1 10-01900-050-09MF 0 0 0 1 0 1 75.160 0.00 2 10-01900-031-10MP 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 10-01900-010-10C1 150 0 150 1 150 7 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 9 10-84700-060-01Sf 61.4 0 61.4 1 61.4 1 30.790 1890.51 10 10-84700-070-OtSF 112.76 0 112.76 1 112.76 1 30.790 3471.88 11 10-84700-010-00Mf 299.7 0 299.7 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 10-16700-060-09uC 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 3577.18 19 10-11700-010-02MF 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 30.790 2801.58 23 10-70775-010-01SF 125 0 125 1 125 1 30.790 3848.75 24 10-70775-020-OtSF 85 0 85 1 85 1 30.790 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 30.740 2309.25 27 10-16701-320-01SF 75 0 75 1 75 1 30.790 2309.25 28 10-16701-330-01SF 75 0 75 1 75 1 30.790 2309.25 24 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 30.740 2309.25 Np+e-r,n4r1 keen e-y Be,nel 04-Jun-91 RAHN ROAD RECONSTRUCTION SA NAME ST584 SA# 2183 YEARS 15 1NT RATE .085 MOS 1ST YR INT 18 YEAR 1991 REC PROPERTY GROSS NMBR IDENT# 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 10-16701-410-01SP 75 17 10-16701-420-01Sf 75 i8 10-16701-430-01SF 75 34 10-16701-440-01Sf 75 40 10-16701-450-01Sf 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 10-16703-220-01SF 75 48 10-16703-230-01SF 75 49 10-16703-240-01Sf 75 50 10-16703-250-01SF 75 51 10-16703-260-01SF 90 52 10-16703-010-02uC 121.96 53 10-16702-080-03SF 195.21 54 10-16702-110-04SF 115.7 55 10-46702-120-04SF 115.7 56 10-16702-170-07SF 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 BREAKDOIIN PROJ NAME RAHN ROAD RECONSTRUCTION PROJ NUM P584 SA NAME ST584 F SF 30.790 /fF MF 75.160 /PP ` CI 75.160 /FF WC 15.400 /FF ASSESSMENT NEi UNITS PRO-RATA RATE AMOUNT CREDITS SUBTOTAL fA ASS'BLE SHARE 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 7 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 95.73 1 95.73 1 30.790 2947.53 0 90 1 90 1 30.740 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 W? r? Q'" ha ?•!- 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 Co X 0 90 1 90 1 30.790 2771.10 0 121.96 1 121.96 1 15.400 1878.18 0 195.21 1 195.21 1 30.790 6010.52 ?r e- n:t*? 0 115.7 1 115.7 1 30.790 3562.40 0 115.7 1 115.7 1 30.790 3562.40 0 735.71 135.71 30.790 4178.20 hz 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 /Uelsa?- 0 120 1 120 1 30.790 3694.80 0 262.01 1 262.01 1 75.160 19692.67 0 95 1 95 1 30.790 2925.05 REG??""?` <<;,, q s? F<:,.'d 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 actiox?.' 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 ha.ve 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. ANIIM/ wkt . . ? ? . W100 (1?1) ?+?w ?r r?o. t?t, c«s? r?e POWARD J. GROVES . . ATTORNEY AT LAW . SUITE 260-SKYLINE SQUARE . 12940 HARRIET AVENUE SOUTH L BURNSVILLE MN 55337 . rANNETTE M. MARGARIT ATTORNEY AT LAW 600 MIDWAY NATIONAL BANK BLDG • 7300 WEST.147TH ST APPLE VALLEY MN 55124 L- 87ATE OF MINNESOTA COUMY OF DAKOT_A_ No71CE OFt . X'FII.ING OF ORDF-R E3 Et-tTRY OF JUDaMEKT . Ci DOCKETINC3 OF JUDOMEKT Cout-l FlI• No.t C5 91 7756 ASSESSMENTS FOR PROJECT 5$4 KNOWN AS RAHN-ROAD RECONSTRUCTION ECT. ? 1bu ara heroby nolltiod Ulal on OCTOBER 29 199L.. an Order waa duly ttled In l}io abovo onllUod mntlor, . ? Ybu aro horoby nollned lhnl on , 19_ - n Jvdpmonl wa.a duly onlerod In.lha e.bove onllllud mnHor; O You ere horoby notlned lhct on . , - • 10_.? A.ludpment w" duly dockelod in tho, nbove enliqad matter In lh• amounl o( $ ?,. .,. . . les kno n oddroaa o( oact?,puro'uanl to Mlnnoaol Autoo ol Clvll Procoduro Rule T7?Od?n a1 lh? OCTOBER 29 1991 _ ROGER W. 5AHES iintrator • • DA?od? ' - . • Co*Oty • bY . . Fl e th?s da?ot dAd! P , ROGER W. ? E, Co? BY D . Fle thts -- day C, ROGEIi W. SF.tiSES, Coun'Adrtunisuator STATE OF MINNESOTA By pEp DISTRICT 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 QRDER 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 OKDERED: 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 E OURT: ? ARTIN . UR Judge f D strict Court 1 Fde this day 01 1g-, . R06ER W. SAMES, Coun Adrtunistratot BY DEPUN . MEMOftANDUM 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 Kahn 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, the increased traffic to the business entities referred 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 MEMORANDUM TO: Tom Colbert, Director of Public Works FROM: Annette M. Margarit DATE: 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 location and basically are arguing the same issue that the project has not benefitted them at all but in fact has been a detriment to tMeir property. Through some of his ather 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 unigue 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 PERMIT City of Eagan Permit Type:Plumbing Permit Number:EA108937 Date Issued:01/25/2013 Permit Category:ePermit Site Address: 4137 Rahn Rd Lot:1 Block: 1 Addition: Mother Nature PID:10-48900-01-010 Use: Description: Sub Type:e - Water Softener Work Type:Replace Description:Water Softener Meter Size Meter Type Manufacturer Serial Number Remote Number Line Size Comments:Chad Bettin 3208 First Street South Waite Park, MN 56387 320-251-2505 Fee Summary:PL - Permit Fee (WS &/or WH)$55.00 0801.4087 Surcharge-Fixed $5.00 9001.2195 $60.00 Total: I hereby acknowledge that I have read this application and state that the information is correct and agree to comply with all applicable State of Minnesota Statutes and City of Eagan Ordinances. Contractor:Owner:- Applicant - Kent E Lageson 4137 Rahn Rd Eagan MN 55122 Ecowater Systems P.O. Box 428 Waite Park MN 56387 (320) 251-2505 Applicant/Permitee: Signature Issued By: Signature PERMIT City of Eagan Permit Type:Building Permit Number:EA114141 Date Issued:09/11/2013 Permit Category:ePermit Site Address: 4137 Rahn Rd Lot:1 Block: 1 Addition: Mother Nature PID:10-48900-01-010 Use: Description: Sub Type:Reroof Work Type:Replace Description: Census Code:434 - Zoning: Square Feet:0 Occupancy: Construction Type: Comments:If there is no ice protection inspection prior to final, the contractor must meet the inspector w/ a ladder and flat bar. Pictures are not acceptable in lieu of inspections. Carbon monoxide detectors are required by law in ALL single family homes . Elizabeth Hess Fee Summary:BL - Base Fee $4K $103.25 0801.4085 Surcharge - Based on Valuation $4K $2.00 9001.2195 $105.25 Total: I hereby acknowledge that I have read this application and state that the information is correct and agree to comply with all applicable State of Minnesota Statutes and City of Eagan Ordinances. Contractor:Owner:- Applicant - Kent E Lageson 4137 Rahn Rd Eagan MN 55122 Sela Roofing Remodeling 4100 Excelsior Blvd St. Louis Park MN 55416 (612) 823-8046 Applicant/Permitee: Signature Issued By: Signature PERMIT City of Eagan Permit Type:Building Permit Number:EA118204 Date Issued:10/29/2013 Permit Category:ePermit Site Address: 4137 Rahn Rd Lot:1 Block: 1 Addition: Mother Nature PID:10-48900-01-010 Use: Description: Sub Type:Siding Work Type:Replace Description: Census Code:434 - Zoning: Square Feet:0 Occupancy: Construction Type: Comments:When installing ventilated soffit material, remove existing material (i.e. debris that could block vents) and take steps to ensure maximum ventilation to attic. Call for final inspection after installation. Carbon monoxide detectors are required by law in ALL single family homes . Valuation: 4,000.00 Fee Summary:BL - Base Fee $4K $103.25 0801.4085 Surcharge - Based on Valuation $4K $2.00 9001.2195 $105.25 Total: I hereby acknowledge that I have read this application and state that the information is correct and agree to comply with all applicable State of Minnesota Statutes and City of Eagan Ordinances. Contractor:Owner:- Applicant - Kent E Lageson 4137 Rahn Rd Eagan MN 55122 Sela Roofing Remodeling 4100 Excelsior Blvd St. Louis Park MN 55416 (612) 823-8046 Applicant/Permitee: Signature Issued By: Signature