The URL can be used to link to this page

4369 Rahn RdCITY OF EAGAN Remarks-* Cdar Gmve Acquisition Addition CEDA-R GRUVE #4 Lot 25 B'- 1 Parcel 10 16703 250 Ol Owner `A r'',- treet 4369 Rahn RDad State Eagaul, MN 55122 ? Improvement Date Amount Annual Years Payment Receipt Date STREETSURF. 1970 412.50 41.25 10 STREET RESTOR. GRADING SAN SEW TRUNK * SEWER LATERAL 1972 1,304.00 52.16 25 WATERMAIN * WATER LATERAL 1972 WATER AREA STORM SEW TRK STORM SEW LAT CURB & GUTTER SIDEWALK STREET LIGHT WATER CONN. BUILDING PER. SAC PARK CITY OF EAGAN 3830 Pilot Knob Road, P.O. Box 27•199, Eagan, MN 55121 PH ON E : 454-8100 BUILDING PERMIT Te be used for GARP,,GE Est. Value $7,000 iNo 9?02 Receipt n,..e JUNE 22 ,o 84 4369 RAHN RD X Site Ad?ess Erect ? Occuponcy Lot Block Sec/Sub. CED GR`' 4 Alter ? Zoning Parcel No. 10-16703-250-01 Re N/A pair ? Fire Zone oc z 9 oe 0 Zu o? u ? GRFG COX Enlarge ? Type of Const. Name O # Stories 43159 26 Addres?; T ?3 i Move H Demolish ? Length City Phone Grade ? Depth -? Sq. Ft. SANiF. 45-6010 FI Apurovals Fees Name _ Add ress City _ Phone Assessment _ Woter 8 Sew. Police Fire Eng. Plonner Council opplicotion and state that gldg. Off. _ omply oll opplicable .,,.A;.„,.,-c APC ? W Name _? Address u,Zu City Phor I hereby ocknowledge thot I have re the informotion is correct ond e State of Minnesota Stotutes a Signoture of Permittee A Building Permit is issued to: ? oll work shall be done in accordance Permit v .G. .jv I Surcharge 3.50 Plan check ' SAC Water Conn. Woter Meter Road Unit Totol 66.00 CO.1? on the express condition thm applicable State of, Minnesotc Statutes and City of Eagcn Ordinonces. Building Officiol Permit No. Permit Holder Misc. Permit No. Holder Plumbing H.V.A.C. Well Water Disp. Sewer Electric Inspection Date Insp. Other Footings .7d • Foundation Framing ?,- S, ?rr?? ,4./ r Rough Plbg. Rough HVAC Inwlation Final Plbg. Final HVAC Final Water Describe Location: w.,l. f - Sewer - ? ! Pr. Disp. RESIDENTIAL BUILDING PERMIT APPLICATION CITY OF EAGAN ?5q?..o 3830 PtLOT KNOB RD - 55122 651-681-4675 New Construction Reauirements • 3 registered site surveys showing sq. ft of lot, sq. ft of house; and ail roofed areas {20% maximum lot coverage aliowed} • 2 copies of plan showing beam & window sizes; poured found design, etc.) • 1 set of Energy Caic,;ations • 3 copiss of Tree Preservation Plan if lot platted after 7/1/93 • Rim Joist Detail Options selection sheet (bldgs with 3 or less uniLS) DATE .`7 ) I -':?' I 0 .;JB SITE ADDR RemodeliReaair Reauirements ? ? . 2 oopies of plan . 1 set of Energy CalculaGons (or heated additions . 1 site survey for exterior additions & decks VALUATION (EXCLUDING LAND) 1 3 rv (J Eo_,P?? iF MULTI-FAMILY BUILDING, HOW tAANY UNITS? PRO?E[?TY OWNE TYPE OF WORK APPLICANT ADDRESS ? PAGER # 4- ir--b°'+-'S FIREPLACE S) 0 1 2_3 1 nl oe-vJ ad- S I b?-?.. PHN?#1_ l . - FV50 C) &il V QJ , ???. IvI I-J ZIP CODE `?J? ? -DL` CEII PHONE # . FAX # '25 Z - IS'71 - '1ZJ2 NEW REStDENTIAL BUILDING ONLY - FILL OUT COMPLETELY Energy Code Category _ MINNESOTA RULES 7670 CATEGORY 1 (check one) - Residential Ventilation Category 1 Worksheet Submitted - Energy Envelope Calculations Submitted _ MINNESOTA RULES 7672 - New Energy Code Worksheet Submitted Plumbing Contractor: Plumbin? System Includes: Mechanical Contracfor: _ Mechanical System Includes: Sewer/Water Contractor: ? Air Conditioning Heat Recovery System Phone # Phone # Fee: $90.00 Fee: $70.00 Atl above information must be submitted prior to processing of application. 1 hereby acknowledge that I have read this application, 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 ? Certificates of Survey Received _ Tree Preservation Plan Rece d _ Not Required _ ? vVater Softener _ Water Heater ? No. of Baths Phone #: Lawn Sprinkler NO. of R.I. Baths Updated 1/01 OFFICE USE ONLY ? 01 Foundation ? 07 05-plex ? 13 16-plex ? 20 Pool ? 30 Accessory Bldg O 02 SF Dwelling O 08 06-piex ? 16 Fireplace ? 21 Porch (3-sea.) ? 31 Ext. Alt - Multi O 03 01 of _ plex ? 09 07-plex ? 17 Garage ? 22 PorchlAddn. (4-sea.) ? 33 Ext. Alt - SF ? 04 02-plex ? 10 08-plex ? 18 Deck [1 23 Porch (screened) t] 36 Multi ? 05 03-plex O 11 10-plex ? 19 Lower Level ? 24 Storm Damage - - O 06 04-plex 0 12, 12-plex Plbg_Y or _ N ? 25 Miscellaneous . O 31 New C] 35 Int Improvement ? 38 Demolish (interior) ? 44 Siding ' - ? 32 Addition O 36 Move Bldg. ? 42 Demolish (Foundation) ? 45 Fire Repair ? 33 Alteration ? 37 Demolish (Bldg)* ? 43 Reroof ? 46 Windows/Doors D 34 Replacement *Demolition (Entire Bldg only) - Give PCA handout to applicant Valuation Occupancy MC/ES System Census Code zoning Ciiy iNater SAC Units Stories Booster Pump Nbr. of Units Sq. Ft. PRV Nbr. of Bldgs Length Fire Sprinklered Type of Const Width , REQUIRED INSPECTIONS , Footings (new bldg) _ FinaUC.O. , Footings (deck) _ FinallNo C.O. ' _ Footings (addition) _ Plumbing Foundation HVAC Drain Tile " Roof Ice & Water Final Other - Framing _ Pool _ Ftgs _ Air/Gas Tests _ Final _ Fireplace _ R.I. _ Air Test _ Final _ Siding Stucco Stone - Insulation _ Windows (new/replacement) Approved By , Building Inspector Base Fee Surcharge - Plan Review MC/ES SAC City SAC Water Supply & Storage S&W Permit & Surcharge Treatment Plant Plumbing Permit Mechanical Permit ? . . ? :_ , r: • License Search Copies Other Total s-2 K 293 11 ?o ?1-?s ? 4 Request Date Fire o. Rough-in Inspection Required? Ready Now p Will Notify Inspector q Yes ? No When Ready? I icensed contractor D owner hereby request inspection of above electrical work at: Job Address (Street. Box or Ro No.) 4 3 69 ?c?.h n 2c?. City Section No. Township Name or No. R C _Le ? Occupant PRINT' ? Phone No. ? i?o Power Supplier Address Elect Contractor ( mpany Name) CC? 4-r i? Contractor's License No. CF?v I 1 a a. Mailing Addre (Contractoi or O er Making Installation) , 71 .V? ! 1? ? ? lo Auth riz Sig Wt(Cnt ctoriOwner Making Installation) :? ac Phone Nu i v 3ss5? ? ?, ? , l 1-1 MINNESOTA STATE 8 AR 0 EL TRICITV THIS INSPECTION REQUEST WILL NOT Griggs-Midway Bidg. R m BE ACCEPTED BY 7HE STATE BOARD 1821 University Ave., St. aul. MN 55104 UNLESS PROPER INSPECTION FEE IS Phone (612) 642-0800 ENCLOSED. ee REGIUEST FOR ELECTRICAL INSPECTION -oooo,-os / lo. See instructions for completing this form on back of yellow copy. `7 ? ?5 K29330 _ 'X" Below Work Covered by This Request ew A d Rep. ' TypeofBuilding AppliancesWired EquipmentWired Home Range Temporary Service Dupiex Water Heater Electric Heating Apt. Building Dryer Other- (Specify) Comm./Industrial Furnace Farm Air Conditioner ? Other (specify) Contractor's Remarks: C-1 Compute Inspection Fee Below: # Other Fee # Service Entrance Size Fee # Circuits/Feeders Fee Swimming Pool 0 to 200 Amps 0 to 100 Amps Transformers Above 200 Amps Above 100 Amps SignS Inspector's Use Only: TOTAL ? irrigation Booms ?J OC? ? Special Inspection S ? Alarm/Communication THIS INSTALLATION MAY BE ORDER DISCONNECTED IF NOT Other Fee COMPLETED WITHIN 181 ONTHS. I, the Electrical Inspector, hereby Rough-in Date certify that the above inspection has been made. Final r Da OFFICE USE ONLY This request void 18 months from CITY OF EAGAN ? 3830 Pilot Knob Road, P.O. Box 21-199, Eagan, MN 55121 AT l?l ? 9202 PHONE: 454-8100 BUILDING PERMIT - Receipt # To be used for GARAGE Est. Vclue $ 7,0 0 0 Date JUNE 22 , iq $ 4 4369 RAHN RD R3 Site Address ? Erect Occuponcy Lot 25 Block 1 Sec/Sub. C ED GRV 4 Alter ? Zoning 10-16 Parcel No 703-250- 01 air ? Re Fire Zone N/A . p E l T f C n arge ? ype o onst. oc Name GREG COX Move ? * Stories z 4369 res d RAHN RD Demolish Q Length 26 O Y EAGAN C Phone 452-1108 (g? Grod ? De th 24 Ft S e p q. . ce SAME 4 4 5- 6 O l 0 (W) Approvals Fees o Name ?? Address ?- City Phone f ? W Name _? Addre`ss a <u Z, City Phone I hereby acknowledge thot I have read this opplicotion ond state that the information is correct ond agree to tomply with oll applicable Stote of Minnesoto $totutes ond City of Eagan Ordinances. Signoture of Pertnittee A Building Permit is issued to: GREG COX all work sholl be done in accordonce wit opplica e State o Mii Building Officiol _ Assessment _ Woter & Sew Police Fire Eng. Plonner _ Council _ Bldg. Off. _ APC Permit v4. jv Surcharge 3.50 Plon check SAC Water Conn. Water Meter Road Unit Toto1 $ 66.00 on the express condition thm ond City of.Eagan Ordinances. ' z. ? CITY OF EAGAN Ir.clude ?_ sets o.f plans, 1 Gertificate of Survey- &_ BUILDING PE R ICATION 1 set cf energy calculations. ?, Dop, 'Ib Be Usecl For .,,,?,P,,?,(?.-R,? Valuation site A3dress I?ot Block lsec./sub. ?b?.?4 Parcel # : 1 O 1 t? ?127? ? '?? 0)_ MIT APPL _ Date ? ? o ! OFFICE USE.ONLY Erect Occupancy Alter Zoning Repair Fire Zone 1J K Enlarge Type of Const. ? Nlove # Stories Demolish Front Zlp ft. Grade Depth 2 g- f t. Owner : ??(* M)? Address: 43?4q fad d C:ity/Zip Code: E46tAtj ) Phone # : i U LH? 4 A 'r?' " (' ? I ? (w Contractor: ? Acldress: AS 69:?M(e City/Zip Code: Phone #: APPROVALS ' FEES Assessments Permi-t (? 2 • =? Taater/Sewer ° Surcharge Police Plan Check ? Fire SAC glg, Water Conn. .?-- Planner Water Meter --? Council Road Unit ?-- Bldg. Off. 42,z APC T-' 0 y??' Arch./Eng.. Address; City/Zip Code: Phone #: 'I'OTAL Y? ? C? ? `Z??2? -1?2q? x11 ? ?g??- . , _ ,,, „ , ' ?,' ??o? ? ?`?. ? , ? : ?> ? ?--?J ? ` ? i { i ), ?y "?-- ?,'`a EAGAN TOWN S H 1 P BUILDING PERMIT Owne: [.,e?',.?tl...... !!..,...-.= -` -•-?.:--•-•-•••---•-•------- Address (Present) ••--?is!...... ?•--?L¢,n,.4iL............. -.................. Builder ..-.- •---------------•••--•--••-----•••-•--.._...._... -------------•-••-•-• •- Address --.. ----••-•••-••-•-••••---•-•----•-••-----•--...-•••-••-•--••-•---•- DESCRIPTION N° 1262 Eagan Township Town Hall Date ... ??..._...._. ? . To Be Used For Fronf Depth Height Est. Cos! Permit Fee Remarks / ?'' p LOCATION Sireet, Road or oiher Descriplion of Location I Lo! Block Additioa oz Trac! --- ---- ?3-+?i This permii does not suthoriae the use of streets, roads, alleys or sidewalks nor does it give !he owner or his agent ihe right io creale any situation which is a nuisance or which presents a haaard io the health, safetp, convenience and general welfare to anyone in the community. THIS PERMIT MUST BE KEPT ON THE PREMISE WHILE THE WORK IS IN PROGRESS. . This is to ceriify, ihat__-..../ _:....??,ra............... has permission !o erect a_??: ...... ._ .._..... ........... .. ....___.. .upon !he above described premise subject to the provisions of the Building Ordinance for Eagaa nship adop d April 11, 1955. •--. ....--••-•-•-••-•-•--•- --••- ...... ..... -••• --•- -- • --- -•-•--•-•-••• Per •-------------•-•-• ?°-- -j-?---..r-?r.."•••:••.?.._..?._...._... Chai:man o Tnwn Board ! Build? ing Inspecior? a `B .. ? . ?? ? ? . ? ry I I ? .` z6 ? I ;- _ - E A CA N R E v?E W E a ! ?AM p.iwiorEi diggirig call local uYilities TE.LEPHONE - ELECTRIC - GAS Eic. REQUI RED BY t,.AW ^.,_....??.._____. _.__.. . cAU PoWFK cU. W ELECTRICALLY ?? NfAfEU , ? ? 4 ? t-i U ? `---?,4'-• t`? ?-'?.:,1_"?..: ? ? T? Q .a?..? . 6-1S-41 Juxf E l g? l 98"/ . kc- 6 /eAN 4 AU • /e&' (vNST1ecrCrrol C'-vX j C??9 0?-? A• ? ?SS/ ZL al??-c.??. ? A ?-r ?-,"eay,4? o ? 'rn y o b ? ? e ?-; o ?? ; c? ?"?- ti -t-h -P, 0 o s4- ci ss(t? SS m e.n -?s d a n e 61?1 ?? h?1 ed - , MEMO TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCILMEMBERS : . FROM: =CITY ADMIrTISTRATOR HEDGES DATE: MARCH 17, 1992 = _ . ... SUBJECT: ADMIrTISTRAT[VE AGENDA f'OR iVIARCH 17, - 1992 REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING CITY ATTORNEY There are no items for an executive session at tbis time. However, the Mayor, City Council and City Attorney have reserved tbe right to call an executive session to address atry matters of pending litigation if desired. CITY ADMITTISTRATOR Item i. Rahn Road Appellants' Motion for Costs--Judge Mansw has granted the Rahn Road Appellants' Motioa for Costs in the sum of $5,593. Please refer to a oopy of the memo from the Ci Attorney's office entided 'Rahn Road Appellants' Motion for Costs" enclosed on pages ?adthrough a;r ACI'ION TO BE CONSIDERED ON THIS ITEM: To approve or de.ny tbe 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--T6e City has reoeived 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 deiry a resolution tliat the Heller parcel be reassessed from its leyied assessment of $49,277.80 to $40,000 wbich. in essence approves a Stipulation for Settlement resoh?ing the Heller assessment appeal. Item 3. Northview-Building F"ire Restoration ContraM/Defaalt to Contrsctnal Obfigattons-- As the City Council recalls, the Northview Park Building sustained oonsiderable damage as a result of a lightening strike avd fire during the summer of 1991. Beaoon Builders Incorporated were awarded a bid in the amount of $8,883 to eorrect the damage and assured staff that the 60 day vompletion 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 contractual obligations which are now impeDding the City's operational needs for the building. For additional information on why staff is requesting ?/ ? , 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 concerninq special assessments specificall.y awards costs to a prevailing municipality but is silent to whether a prevailing property owner is entitled to costs. In a 1979 case involving Burnsville, however, the Minnesota Supreme Court stated that it "could see no logical reason why a prevailing municipality should be entitled to costs but not a prevailing landowner." See Village of Burnsville Assessments, 287 N.W.2d 375, 377 (Minn. 1979). The Court futher noted that awarding costs is up to the discreation of the trial judge. Id. In light of that case law, it is not surprising that the Judge awarded the Appellants their costs. I ask that this matter be placed on the March 17, 1992 City Council Agenda for approval of the issuance of a check to the Appellants in t:e sum of $5,593.00 as ordered by Judge Mansur. If you have any questions or need any further information, please contact me. ANIIM/wkt cc: Tom Colbert I.i4-. ? OI f t?q . EA{/y. 0OCka 11l10 r HOHARD GROVES A7TY AT LAW 260 SRYLINE SQIIARE BLDG STATE OF MINNESOTA 12940 HARRIET AVE S COUNTY pF Dakota (BRNS MN 55337 , NOTICE OF: F C! FILING OF OflDER ANNETTE PS MARGARIT ATTY AT LAW B? ENTRY OF JUDGMENT 600 MIDWAY NAT BANK BLDG X3 DOCKEZ'ING OF JUDGMENT 7300 W 147TH ST , LAPPLE VALLEY MN 55124 Court Flle No.: C5-91-7756 !N RE: IN RE= ASSESSMENTS FOR PROJECT 584 RNOWN AS RAHN ROAD RECONSTRIICTION ETC. 1:3 Nbu an herebY noUAad that on 18 an Ordar was duly fl(ad 1n tha above entllied marier. ? You aro hareby notlfled that on MARCH 2-1992 Amended , 19 " a Judgmont waa duty entorod fn the above ontltlad mattor. ? You are heroby notlRed that on MARCH 2-I992 @ J. ? S I-0 , 19 a Judgmant was duly docketad In the above enlltlad matter In the amount of a5593.00 AGAINST CITY OF EAGAN A trva and correct copy of thla Noltce has been served by mali upon the pertles named heretn at tne last known address of each, pursuant lo Mlnnasota Autas o( Clvil Procadure, Rule 77.04. Ontod- MARCH 2ND 1992 ROCER N. SAHES " Court Admtnlstrator by f_?) ` c--.? -- • Depury .•Au 4,„ Fle ft-dal? ' ROGEA W. SAMES, Coutt Adnunistrator r?urr STATE OF MINNESOTA DISTRICT COURT COUNTY OF DAKOTA -------- -- FIRST JUDICIAL DISTftICT - -------- In Re: Assessments --------------------- for Project ------------------------- File No. C5-91-7756 584, known as Rahn Road Reconstruction, adopted by the City of Eagan on FINDINGS AND ORDER June 18, 1991: ? AKUMID JUDGMEN,r Name Address P.I.N. Nathan R..'Benoy 4372 Rahn Road 10-707775-020-01 Gregory/Cindy Cox 4369 Rahn Road 10-16703-250-01 Irene Gillespie 4351 Rahn Road 10-16703-220-01 Dean/Karen Goche 4065 Rahn ftoad 10-16702-170-07 Darrell/Pat Haines 3990 Rahn Road 10-16704-110-03 Robert/Antoinette Keeney 4370 Rahn Road 10-70775-010-01 Vernon/Janet Nelson 3996 Rahn Road 10-16704-100-03 Paul/Deb Notermann 4374 Rahn Road 10-48050-104-01 Brian/Carrie Olwein 4363 Rahn Road 10-16703-240-01 Mary Rock 4339 Rahn Road 10-16703-200-01 Ron/Lorri Trenary 4137 Rahn Road 10-16702-080-03 Mark/Kathy Weidenhoft 4345 Rahn Road 10-16743-210-01 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. of 1 ROGER W. SAMES. CouK Adaun.suxtat ISSUE Appellants seek an award af 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 l. That there is no issue as to the award of $193.00 of costs per statute and service of process fees. 2. That the protracted hearings were necessary because the appeal was of twelve (12) individual properties consolidated for trial by Order of this Court dated October 28, 1992. 3. That the appraisal costs of $350 per parcel is reasonable, as is the cost of $100 per parcel for attendance at trial by Appellants' expert. 4. That Appellants are entitled to reimbursement in the aggregate sum of $5,593. ~ ORDERS 1. That Appellants are entitled to Judgment against the Respondent City of Eagan, a municipal corporation, in the sum of $5,593.00. 2. That the following Memorandum is incorporated herein by reference. 3. There being no justifiable reason for delay, the Court Administrator shall enter Judgment forthwith. 4 2 ` . . DATED: 2-28-92 BY THE COURT: , AMENDID . c JuDcrENr I hereby certify that the above Order modifies the ARTIN J MAN R Judgment ente:eci Jan 24-1992 and along with that " 4Judge Dis rict Court Judgment consti•tutes the Amended Judgment of the Court.` Date: March 2nd 1992 ' MEMORANDUM Roger W. Sames, Crt Admr By Deputy (Seal) Costs an is ursem,4?nts - At oral argument the issue was not the amount or the reasonableness since it is slightly niore 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 Cburt, 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 Civ.il 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 , ? 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 orderei-1. 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. ANM/wkt cc: Tom Hedges Gene VanOverbeke STAiE OF MINNESOTA DISTRICT COURT COUNTY OF DAKOTA FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT CASE TYPE: 10 OTHER CIVIL (SPECIAL ASSESSMENT APPEAL) In Re: Court File No. C5-91-7756 Assessments for Project 584, known as Rahn Road Reconstruction WAIVER OF NOTICE adopted by the City of Eagan on June 18, 1991: Name Address 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 0 , and said Appellants further hereby specifically consent to the adoption of any resolutions or the taking of any other action which may be necessary to vacate and set aside the assessments against the above-described parcels. DATED: ? - 4?1 ? a' I \ 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 0 2 ucs•100 (...o) • N"m or f74+Q, Erky. Doca.rnq rrm HoWexn J cxovEs ATTY AT LAH STE 260 SKYLINE SQ 12940 HARRIET AVE S (_BIIRNSVILLE MN 55337 STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF DAKOTA NOTICE OF: rMS ANNETTE M MARGARIT , 9 FILING OF ORDER ATTY AT LAW BZ ENTRY OF JUDGMENT. 600 PiLDtiAY NAT BANK BLDG : 7300 W 147TH ST 0 DOCKETING OF JUDGMENT L PLE VALLEY MN 55124 ` . Ccurt Flte No.: C5-91-7756 ' ASSESSMENTS FOR PRO.IECT 584, KNOWN AS RAHN RD RECONSTRIICTION ETC. f N R E: NATUM R BET10Y ETAL V CITY OF EAGAN ETC. ? L? lhw aro horeby notlflad tfiat on JANUARY 24TH 1992 1e an Order was duly filed ln the abcva entltled matter. XM You are hereb notiflad that on' '???Y 24TH 1992 y , 19 a Judgment w+aa duly enterod In tha abova entltted matter. _ ? You are heroby notiftad that on , 19 a Judgment was duly dockoted In the above enUUed mattar In the amount ot $ A true and correct copy of thla Notlce has been sarved by mall upon the parttes named heretn at the iaat known addrosa of each, pursuant to Mlnnesota Rules o( Clvtl Procadure, Rule 77.04, Oated• JANUARy 24TH 1992 ROGER W SAI4ES ' Coun Adminlstrator by J- . %-? `-I > ' Oeputy MwG 411 . FOQ ? ? ? day • oi --- 19 / . ? ROGER W. AMES, Court ACministrator By ? ? 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 GiTlespie Dean/Karen Goche Darrell/Pat Haines Robert/Antoinette Keeney Vernon/Janet Nelson Paul/Deb Not'ermann Brian/Carrie Olwein Mary Rock Ron/Lorri Trenary Mark/Kathy Weidenhoft vs. 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, 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 Fie thls day ot 19 C. D?' ROf ER W SAMES, Court Aammistrua BY r?? . ?I - - ? _ OE 7Y file, the Court FINDS . 1. That it is not necessary for the Court to adopt the City'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 THE COIIRT: I ? i Y)ARTIN J. S ?udge of is ict Court 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 properties was di the greatest ? import to the EaCtfindex. As artioulated in this Msmoranclum and in the Deoembar 18, 1991 Findings, Qrder and Memorandum, in the Factfincleris view, the far.ts tend to support Appellants. The crux of AppQllants' clnim ia that the city unfairly asseosad them for strset improvements. The standard for ,valid special assessmants is: (1) the 7:and must receive a apacial benefit from the impr'ovement being aonstxucted; (2) the a?sessment must be uniform upon the same alass of property, and (3) the aosessntent may not exceed the Special benef it . C1rlsorL- Lana Rea ty Co. v. Ci,ty of Winddm, 307 Minn. 368, 369, 240 N.W.2d 517, 519 (Minn. 1976). Special bensfit fs measured by the inc:rease in the market value of the l,and owing to the improvement. id. In appraising the aubject property, an appraiser determineg what 'a willing buyex wauld pay a willing se11er far the property before, and then after, the improvament has been conatructed. ?. While the government entity is presumed to have set the assessment legally, an appellant may overaome tha presumption by introduaing cQmpatant evidence that the assessment is qreater than the increase i.n market value o£ the property due to the impxovement. Id. These are the criteria whiah tha Court applied to the Paota pxasented at trinl. It should be noted that in its Memoxandum supporting its motian for a new trial or amended Pindings, the. City 'reliQS on Villactp. of Ed3.na v. !J!2sMg}a, 264 Mi2131. $4, 199 N.W.2d 809 (1962). zn that aase, the residents whose property abutted the tmprQVed 3 _.00 -lUd1N30-1YOD lD I US I Q 00 d10>1HQ 9'C :C-T Z5iLZiTO length of France Avenue objected to special assessments for widening and paving of the street. Minnesota's Supreme Court stated the law in Villaae 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... [b3enefits 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 Realtv 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. I Both parties attempted to establish evidence of the ? ? 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) failecl to achieve that 11.5% increase. The City used this home in its effort to show that some increased value occurred. But the home's appreciation plus . the cost of the improvements was significantly less than the price needed to justify the 11.5% average sale price plus the assessment cost. Mr. Daniels's credentials, his testimony and his exhibits were persuasive. That evidence indicated that the Rahn Road improvements had not only not benefitted the Appellants' properties but that the real market value of the properties had been adversely effected. Where no benefit is conferred by the , 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 far 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 File No. C5-91-7756 ? 584, known as Rahn Road Reconstruction, adopted by the City of Eagan on FINDINGS OF FACT. June 18, 1991: CONCLIISIONS OF LAW, ORDER FOR JLTDGMENT Name Address P•I-N- Nathan R. Benoy 4372 Rahn Road 10-70775-020-01 Gregory/Cindy Cox 4369 Rahn Road 10-16703-250-01 Irene Gillespie 4351 Rahn Road 10-16703-220-01. Dean/Karen Goche 4065 Rahn Road 10-16702-170-07 Darrell/Pat Haines 3990 Rahn Road 10-16704-110-03 Robert/Antoinette Keeney 4370 Rahn Road 10-70775-010-01 Vernon/Janet Nelson 3996 Rahn Road 10-16704-100-03 Paul/Deb Notermann 4374 Rahn Road 10-48050-104-01 Brian/Carrie Olwein 4363 Rahn Road 10 16703-240-01 Mary Rock 4339 Rahn' Road 10-16703-200-01 . Ron/Lorri Trenary 4137 Rahn Road 10-16702-080-03 Mark/Kathy Weidenhoft 4345 Rahn Road 10-16703-210-01 Appellants, vs. EtL'iiER W. SAtdES, Coiut AM, btitstiacur City of Eagan, a municipal corporation, py ?;:?•?rr Respondent. --------------------------------------------------------------- The above-entitled appeals from the assessments levied by the City of Eagan have been consolidated for the purposes of the trial and were heard by the undersigned on the Court calendar and without a jury on Friday, November 15, 1991, and Friday, November 22, 1991, at the Dakota County Judicial Center, Hastings, Minnesota. The Appellants appeared in person and were represented by Howard Groves, their attorney. The Respondent City was 1 represented by Annette M. Margarit, its attorney. The Court having considered the evidence adduced at trial, having examined the evidence offered by the respective parties and all the records of the proceedings and being fully advised, . makes the following: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. That the above-named property owners appealed from a Special As'sessment 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 onthe west side of Rahn Road and legally described as: Lot 2, Block 1, Sons Addition, Dakota County, Minnesota. Said Appellant has 85. feet of frontage on Rahn Road and the amount of the assessment levied against said property was $30.79 per front foot for a total of $2,617.15, and the highest and best use of said parcel is residential. . 3. That Appellants Gregory and Cindy Cox are the owners of a parcel of land abutting on the east side of Rahn Road and legally described.as: Lot 25, Block 1, Cedar Grove No. 4, Dakota .County, Minnesota. 2 Said Appellants have 75 feet of frontage on Rahn Road and the amount of the assessment'levied against said property was $30.79 per front foot for,a total of $2,309.25. The parcel is zoned for residential use, and the highest and best use of said parcel is for residential use. 4. .That Appellant Irene Gillespie is the owner of a parcel of land abiztting on the east side of Rahn Road and legally s 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 120feet 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 parcelis zoned for residential use and the highest and best use of said parcel is for residential use. • 6. That Appellants Darrell and Pat Haines are the owners of 3 a parcel of land abutting on the west side of Rahn Road and legally described as follows: . Lot 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 Rafin 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, a Minnesota. Said Appellant has 75 feet of frontage on Rahn Road and the amount of the assessment levied against such property was $30.79 ` per front foot for a total of $2,309.25. The parcel is zoned for residential use and the highest and best use of said parcel is for residential use. • . ? . 12. That Appellants Ron and Lorri Trenary are the owners of a parcel of land abutting on the east side of Rahn Road and legally described as follows: Lot 8, Block 3, Cedar Grove No. 3, Dakota County, Minnesota. Said Appellants have 195.21 feet of frontage'on Rahn Road and the amount of the assessment levied against -such property was $30.79 per front foot for a total of $6,010.52. The parcel is zoned for residential use and the highest and best use of said parcel is for residential use. 13. That Appellants Mark and Kathy Weidenhaft are the owners of a parcel of land abutting on the east side of Rahn Road and legally described as follows: Lot 21,'Block 1, Cedar Grove No. 4, Dakota County Minnesota. . • Said Appellants have 75 feet of frontage.on Rahn 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 dse of said parcel is 6 ? C . . for residential use. 14. Upon the trial of the above enumerated appeals the City's value witnesses offered testimony as to the amount of the assessment that would be reasonable and did not specifically address the before and after value as to each property that is the subject of this appeal. Enumerated herein is a summary of the City's value witnesses. i City•s Value Witness's Opinion Name Sa.ft. jhouse As to Amt of Benefit Benoy 1,176 $ 2,500.00 Cox 1,120 2,309.25 Gillespie 912 2,309.25 Goche 990. 2,500.00 ' Haines 864 2,500.00 - Keeney 2,184 2,500.00 Nelson 1,066 . 2,500.00 Notermann 1,112 2,500.00 ? Olwein 11008 21309.25 Rock' 1,236 2,309.25 Trenary 912. 21500.00/3,000.00 Weidenhaft - 1,232 2,309.25 14. That the Appellant's value witnes follows: 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 Name Before Value After Value Benoy $ 99,500.00 $ 99,500.00 Cox 89,000.00 89,000.00 Gillespie 72,500.00 . 72,500.00 Goche 80,000.00 80,000.00 Haines 72,500.00 . 72,500.00 Keeney. . 130,000.00 130,000.00 Nelson 95,000.00 95,000.00 Notermann ' -110,000.00 110,000.00 Olwein 84,000.00 84,000.00 Rock 85,000.00 85,000.00 Trenary . 74,500.00 74,500.00 Weidenhaft 95,000.00 95,000.00 as 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. iThat the increased traffic flow, change in the type of traffic and its attendant characteristics create hazards, noise and pollution, all of which are detrimental to abutting residential properties. 19. That the overall evidence shows that the fair market value of the Appellants' property did not change in the before and after value following in the installation of the improvement, that is, the improvements did not increase the value of the Appellants' property. . • 20. That by reason thereof, the City of Eagan Improvement Project 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 foll.owing Memorandum is incorporated herein by reference. . 3. _ Let judgment be entered accordingly after a stay of 30 8 C days. DATID: 12-18-91 BY THE COIIRT: ?/z-•,:. . TIN SDR Judge o Di trict Court The assessment of benefit to Appellants' properties as H indicated in the assessment roll was sufficient?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 z 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 0 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 . j ' L . . , 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. 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 toa high of 1;232 square feet. This approach appears to treat each parcel ? the same, regardless of size, whereas in addition to the' difterences 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 ., _?? . . ? ?,c?•??oi??.? . [flOWARD J GROVES ATTY AT LAW STE 260 SKYLINE SQ 12940 HARRIET AVE S LBUxxsvILLE MN 55337 . j , 1 _ ?ANNETTE M MARGARIT ATTY AT LAW 600 MIDWAY NATL BANR BLDG 7300 W 147TH ST ( APPLF. VALLEY MN 55124 /0 -/1o703-Zsb 0'4) / 8TA7E OF MINNESOTA COUPI'TY OF DAROTA NOTICE OF; . ? FILINt3 OF OROER O EMRY OF JUDaMENT • 0 DOCKETINC3 OF JUDC3MENT Court Fl!• No.: C5-91-7756 ? 1N RE: NATHAN R. BENOY ET AL VS. CITY OF EAGAN ETC. FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLIISIONS OF LAW, ORDER FOR JIIDGMENT 1^c,u ere heroby naUtled lhat on nF('FMRFR t 8TH .19 91 sn Order wa3 duiy med In the aeoYe enuuad manor. ? Ybu ere horoby noliMed ihnt on ? 19 a Judgment wna duly enlered in lhe ,?bove entlped matler. ` ? You ere heroby noliHed lhet on _ 19 e Jvdpment waa duly dxketed in the ebove antlUed maHet in the amounl of $ .r -- . A true nnd correcl copy ot lhle Nollos hae been eerved by mall upon the partlsa namsd herstn at the lasl known eddr"s ot oach, pureunni to Mlnneaota Rulee ol Civtl Proceduro, Rule 77.04. Da1ed, DECIIMBER 18TH 1991 ROGER W. SAHES Cour! AdmiN3trator by ? . =r . ' Deputy c? ss? /8 tll ?? • FiDGFA w. saMES. oarc Aonksr+aa + BY r ?7 ?L1-?-??1 cFJ7Y • wC4 4n \a °' 6-4b. - t 6C ??? - ?r STATE OF MINNESOTA DISTRICT COURT ? a 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 gTNDINGB OF FACT. CONCLIISIONS OF LAW, ORDER 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, t?a? ??? dY vs. 07 _19'q/ ROuER W. SAGAES, Caut Adm?nts;rxta City of Eagan, a municipal corporation, By ?ENt 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. I 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 asr Lot 25, Block 1, Cedar Grove No. 4, Dakota County, Minnesota. 2 . i 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 2oned 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 s 3 '. a parcel of land abutting on the west side of Rahn Road and legally described as follows: Lot 11, Block 3, Cedar Grove No. 3, Dakota County, Minnesota. Said Appellants have 120 feet af 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 l, Bloek 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. 51 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 y 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 Additian, Dakota County, Minnesota. Said Appellants have 90.98 feet of frontage on Rahn Road and the amount of the assessment Ievied 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. il. 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 Roaa 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 Appeilants Ron and Lorri Trenary are the owners of a parcel of land abutting on the east side of Rahn Road and legally described as follows: Lot 8, Block 3, Cedar Grove No. 3, Dakota County, Minnesota. Said Appellants have 195.21 feet of frontage on Rahn Road and the amount of the assessment levied against such property was $30.79 per front foot for a total of $6,010.52. The parcel is zoned for residential use and the highest and best use of said parcel is for residential use. 13. That Appellants Mark and Kathy Weidenhaft are the owners of a parcel of land abutting on the east side of Rahn Road and legally described as follows: ; Lot 21, Block 1, Cedar.Grove No. 4, Dakota County Minnesota. Said Appellants have 75 feet of frontage on Rahn 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 City's value witnesses offered testimony as to the amount of the assessment that would be reasonable and did not specifically address the before and after value as to each property that is the subject of this appeal. Enumerated herein is a summary of the City's value witnesses. Citv•s Value Witness's Opinion Name Sq.ft. /house As to Amt of Benefit Benoy 1,176 $ 2,500.00 Cox 1,120 2,309.25 Gillespie 912 2,309.25 Goche 990 2,500.00 Haines 864 2,500.00 Keeney 2,184 2,500.00 Nelson 1,066 2,500.00 Notermann 1,112 2,500.00 Olwein 1,008 2,309.25 Rock 1,236 2,309.25 Trenary 912 2,500.00/3,000..00 Weidenhaft 1,232 2,309.25 14. That -the Appellant's value witnes 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 Rack $5,000.00 Trenary 74,500.00 Weidenhaft 95,000.00 Amt of Assmt. $ 2,617.15 2,309.25 2,309.25 4,178.20 3,694.80 3,048.75 3,694.80 2,801.5$ 2,309.25 2,309.25 6,010.52 2,309.25 s testified 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. as 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 characteristicscreate hazards, noise and pollution, all _ of which are detrimental to abutting residential properties. 19. That the overall evidence shows that the fair market value of the Appellants' property did not change in the before and after value following in the installation of the improvement, that is, the improvements did not increase the value of the Appellants' property. 20. That by reason thereof, the City of Eagan; Improvement Project No. 584 y 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 OOtTRT: e- TIN SIIR Judge o Di trict Court ?SORANDDM 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 Gonclusions 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 tha sale of residential homes in the area, one of whom testified that the improvements of Rahn Road changed the character of the neighborhood, and this change impacted in a negative manner as to value of the Appellants' properties. In addition, one or more of these realtors cited actual sales listing experiences to further support their testimony. Mr. Metzen's opinion-as to value is based upon his knowledge 9 ' ? . as to the builder of the homes in the area, and the type of homes the builder constructs. He elected not to inspect the subject homes. Additionally, the city offered no testimony in the before and after value of the individual parcels. Its expert testimony was based on a sale or sales that were..not too remote in time but were not within the affected time frame; that is, at or near the improvement, or subject to the improvement. Mr. Metzen took into consideration his knowledge, his experience, the type of homes that the builder whom he was acquainted with'constructs, and then the sale or sales that he relied on as comparables to the subject properties in forming an opinian 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 opi-nion 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 i conclusions reached is that the city'.s value witness considered the availability of the use of the improvement rather than the I 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 , knowle3ge of the area, the builder whom he was acquainted with, a and some comparables, and then he concluded that the properties benefitted in the amount that he testified without regard to the before ancl 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. ? I 11 .? STATE OF MINNESOTA *0 %%"? ? ? 1l ; v s a, :r,.. DISTRICT COURT COUNTY OF DAKOTA ? FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRIGT ? CASE TYPE: 10 OTHER CIVIL ;*'!.7SPECIAL ) ? ASSESSMENT APPEAL ------------------------------ ."k- _ 006\ ------------------------- In Re: 01'r\% Cour't File No. Assessments for Project 584, known as Rahn Road Reconstruction adopted by the City of Eagan Q LTICE OF APPEAL 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 t,he 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 P.I.N. Nathan R. Benoy 4372 Rahn Road 10-70775-020-01 Gregory Cox and 4369 Rahn Road 10-16703-250-01 Cindy Cox Irene Gillespie 4351 Rahn Road 10-16703-220-01 Dean Goche and 4065 Rahn Road 10-16702-170-07 Karen Goche Darrell Haines and 3990 Rahn Road 10-16704-110-03 Pat Haines Robert Keeney and 4370 Rahn Road 10-70775-010-01 Antoinette Keeney Vernon Nelson and 3996 Rahn Road 10-16704-100-03 Janet Nelson Paul Notermann and 4374 Rahn Road 10-48050-104-01 Deb Notermann Brian Olwin and 4363 Rahn Road 10-16703-240-01 Carrie Olwin Mary Rock 4339 Rahn Road 10-16703-200-01 Ron Trenary and 4137 Rahn Road 10-16702-080-03 Lorri Trenary Mark Weidenhaft and 4345 Rahn Road 10-16703-210-01 Kathy Weidenhaft 2 . Dated this da of Jul Y Y, 199-1. ,'\ ( Howar J. Grove Attorney for Pr?erty 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.'- f-i Page 6/EAGAN CITY COUNCIL MIUJtJTES June 28, 1991 PR0IECI`??84i?AL? AU56'S.S,M£NT HEARING RA,MN kOAD RECONSTRUC770N Atter inUodudion by Mayor Eg;as and City Admiaistrator Hcdges, D'uector of Public Works Tom Colbert provided a brief overview of the ass«**+ents and the neighborhood mr.eting beid on June 11, 1991. He said seventy propertics with dirut acctss onto Rahn Road received notices of assessmcnt on this project. Mayor Egan then opened the pubGc 6earing to public wmment. Mr. Charles MacDonald, of 4145 Rahn Road, said 6e had filed writtea objettiod:t6:lhe asussments against his property. Mr. MacDonald said the value oi his home had actually dropped becsuse::of the upgiade o[ Rahn Raad aad the resultant heavy traffic. He said evidedce of that is the Dakota County A,tsessor's isffce lowering the value of his 6ome by a S pereent due to Rahn Road. .... . Mayor Egan asked Mr. Bill Petttsdn, pt t . hc:?oiinryA33s'ssor'a oflfice to ezplain the S percent deduction from property taxes because s number of bomeowners had reforenced it in connection witb the Rahn Road improvements. Mr. Peterson said s misunderstanding exdsts amoag the bomeowers as to the meaning of the S percent modifier. He said the modifier bas been ased since 1983 and was used for property a}ong Rahn Road. It was done, however, [or 1990 valuations and, thereforc, preceeded recoastructioa of Rahn Road. 7he Dakota County Assessor's office uses mass appraisal and deaLs wilb avtceges and norms. He said they use a standard site va]ue and then look at each property and add or subtr?ct:fitim this standard value eonsidering a number of faGors, including being located on a major.streeC`Ne ii3d the County Asussor'a office ttses modiiiers quite frequently and is aot implying that the imprciy+cmctitson ?ahn Road 6ad any impact on t6eir valuations. Mr. Mark Weidenhaft, of 4345 Ra? R , tiad; said,.widening and improving Rahn Road had compounded the negative effect of the road on their property. Ht 4t3?ed;fiat..tbe State Attoraey General bas ruled t6at to be assessed for improvements, the City has to prove benefit i?:t6e property. He aaid his property could not be worth more witb more Uat(ic. Mr. DarreU Haines, oi 3990 Rahn Road, camplained about the poticy uscd for assessmeats, the loss of Lome value and said additional propertir.s on Bluestoot, Carnelian, 7ade, flint, etc. a6ould ahare ia the costs. Ms. Laurie Luconic, of 4137 Raha:R?i,?.s?id she??eitt..d'c?ihe an informa] survey of other alics and [ound that many do not assess by [ront [ootage:; :$?e also?oamplwned'&cause the lack of double sUiping on the road bas lcd motorists 1o belicve that passin Mr. Gerard Bents, representiag:Vouat C.O}v;1ty I.vt6eraa Cburch, objected to the assGSSment against the entire cburcb property at the public:6diltie's':iaht::: :?ted out that this rate was tbe aame ss that oi eommercial property. He said they have:msae`tbe?urcb:availalile to organizations for meelings fiee o[ cLarge and have, as e result, generated additional traffic. He pointed out,.6owever, that approxnmatety 190 [eet of the [rontage on Rahn Road belongt to the parsonage aad felt it s6ould 6e assessed at a sing,Je-family rate. Mr. Bents wished to note that the 544,000 assessment coastitvtes LS peroent of the c6urc6's annual budget. Diredor o[ Public Works Colbort said the entire pa?txt 6as.ow.lcgAl. description and it was asses.ud a! one nte based on the zoning. Mr. Cotbcrt said t6at the Couocsf.3iad :i?si?eted assessments oo a diPfercnt case at the last City Council meetuig and had determined that ,eft,tisments s6oiild:Eitbasod on zaning. Mr. Beata as)ced that the City Council make an exoeptina ..... . Councitmember Pawleaty thea O,uu,ssed the situation4tTerred to by Mr. Cotbert, ln tbat iastance, J the Ciry Council 6ad assessed at a higher:it?.pttipetfYtivioett::o:o?ild have had'assessment-backed e?ectations' for a higher and better use of the propeity;:`:lis t?a'is'staoet{te is s higher zflnin,g and the property owner u asking for assessments based oe a bwer use. Direcior of Public Works Cotbert noted that if the property i < Page 7/EAGAN CTTY COUNCIL MINUTES June 28,1991 u assessed at a lower rate and 'u ultimalCCy 'put to a higher use, the City would nat have the opportunity, once the assessments are levied, lo reassess ut , Mr. Terry Stover, of 3906 Ra!?A.:Rosd, objected to the assessmenta kvied against Oatlot A of the Wood6aven Addition. He said that ondoi::tloes not 6ave assess onto Rahn Road and, furiber, the developmcnt plan tor the property indicates that acccss"must be oB Beau de Rut Drive. Mr. Stover said any possibility o( access onto Rahn Road was a virtuai imposu'bility due to thc•DCw elevation of the toad. He referred ro the !au that several properties along Rahn Road were not asscssed because tbey had no driveway as.sess onto Rahn Road aad said 6e beGeved OuUot A was the onty one witbout access being as.u.ssed. He said his property has already beea assessed for improvements to Beau:dt Rue. •' Mr. Stover then pointed out his:parcel's loss of va]ue because of a permanent storm sewer essement granted to the City. While he had rectiv,cd:38,000 fa:r:the eascment, he said an appraiser had estimatcd the loss to his property at betweea $17,000 and S18,000. Ms. Leuie Knutson, of 2014 Shak:Leriie;'said s?t &as??e44iage with accxss oR Rahn Road but 6er bome has its driveway access on Shale Laae. Ms: tCbiitsois`poinEed oiiE t6at two years ago 6er 6ome was appraised at $98,000 and now the County tax assessor 6ad indicated the value as 591,000. S6e asked why her propcrty values had gone dowa. Mr. Pau] Nottermaq oI4374 Rahn Road, said it only took commoa sease to realiu that values had gone dowa with the widening and repaiting of Rahn Road. . Mayor Egao then asked CityAttorne?'3i?i?S3ieldos?to explain thc process for objecxiag to assessments. Mayor Egan said the City Council.had:tta.choice'tiut to make this road improvement ac Rahn Road in its previous condition was no longer functional: it:.is.one of the Cust reconstruction projeds in the City and the Ciry Council has tried to adopt a cost [ormiila Aac :tliey.believe equitable to all those concerned. McCrea moved, Wachter secopded a motion to close the public bearing, approve the final assessment - roll for Project 584 (Rahn Road Reconstruction) and authoriu xrtificadoe to Dakota County. Councilmembet Gustafson asked, in regazd to assessments based on parceLs rather than frvnt footage, if Mount Calvary Lvtheran C6urcb could h?v??i6t..issue of,s,in,g?p lamily and public facilities hontage rtsolved by the City or whether the court would haYe:tti:ci:alcC:thwt;'deiCtmiaation. D'ue,ctor of Public Works Colbert said an assessment heariag judge would not ?valuate t?ie:.tttietbod used to amve at the assessments, 6owever, auc6 met6od would be the prerogative of the Ciry Council:'t'tatute does requirt that the City trcat all like pcopertics ia a similar manner and there oould be a'*tiallenge fropa tbc Baptist Cbureb J the Gty Couod assessea Mount Calvary Lutheran Churc6 at a ksser rstt:?: Recognizing chat tbere was a motioa anda second?'before the City Coundl, Mayor Egan asked Ciry Attorncy Sheldon whether the City Council eould iacorporate some disaetionary policy in regard to the Mount Calvary l,utberan C6urc6 property. Mr. S6eldon said the City Council oeuld oomplete the motion aad send it on in l6t process and lhen remove Mount Ca)vary Gut6eran Cburcb from the process at a later date or tbey coutd request that staR make a review of that.p.scppuW:Ot,tation and tetura witb tbeir 6ndings at the ntst City Council meeting. . T6c motion befoTe the Couna'1 io89-?6en revised to te?4 McGrea moved,,. Wacbter seconded a motion to ciose the public hcaring, approve the C;nsl;assessmeat roll forPivjed 584 (Rahn Road Ruonstruction) aoting all ,. . . : •. written objections, authoriu its certif?t,?aa to Dakota.!Cowat?;.*ith apecial instructioas to atafi to review the situation involving the Mount Calvary .b?tiy witb parti cular anention being paid to any precedent -set Ling action. .... ........... ...:. . ` 04-Jun-91 ASSESSMENT COST BREAIm041N PROJ NAME RAHN ROAD RECONSTRUCTION PROJ NUM P584 SA NAME ST584 F RAHN ROAD RECONSTRUCTION SA NAME ST584 SA# 2183 TEARS 15 SF 30.790 /FF 1NT RATE .085 MF 75.160 yFF MOS 1ST YR 1NT 18 CI 75.160 /fP YEAR 1991 WC 15.400 /FF ASSESSMENT REC PROPERTY GROSS NET UNITS PRO-RATA RATE AMOUNT NMBR IDENT# CL UNITS GREDITS SUBTOTAL FA ASS'BLE SHARE 1 10-01900-050-09Mf 0 0 0 1 0 1 75.160 0.00 2 10-01900-031-10MF 1245 0 1245 1 1245 1 75.160 93574.20 3 10-01900-020-10C1 220 0 220 1 220 1 75.160 16535.20 4 10-01900-010-10C1 150 0 150 1 150 1 75.160 11274.00 5 10-84700-020-01SF 36.59 0 36.59 1 36.59 1 30.790 1126.61 ? 10-84700-030-01SF 36.59 0 36.59 1 36.59 1 30.790 1126.61 . 10-84700-040-01SF 36.59 0 36.59 1 36.59 1 30.790 1126.61 8 10-84700-050-01SF 36.59 0 36.59 1 36.59 1 30.T90 1126.61 9 10-84700-060-01SF 61.4 0 61.4 1 61.4 1 30.790 1890.51 10 10-84700-070-01SF 112.76 0 112.76 1 112.76 1 30.790 3471.88 11 10-84700-010-OOMP 299.7 0 299.7 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 261T.15 15 10-16700-040-09SP 85 0 85 1 85 1 30.190 2617.15 16 10-16700-050-09SF 85 0 85 1 85 1 30.T90 2617.15 17 10 16700-060-091JC 0 0 0 1 0 1 15.400 0.00 18 10-16700-710-11SF 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 10-48050-104-015F 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 10-70775-020-01SF 85 0 85 1 85 1 30.T90 2617.15 25 10-16701-300-01SF 115.7 0 115.7 1 115.7 1 30.T90 3562.40 26 10-16701-310-01SF 75 0 75 1 75 1 30.790 2309.25 27 10-16701-320-01SF 75 0 75 1 75 1 30.790 2309.25 28 10-16701-330-01SF 75 0 75 1 75 1 30.790 2309.25 29 10-16701-340-01SF 75 0 75 1 75 1 30.790 2309.25 30 10-16701-350-01SF 75 0 75 1 75 1 30.T90 2309.25 31 10-16701-360-01SF 75 0 75 1 75 1 30.790 2309.25 Op4e r m a n IL¢.en ey Be,ney . 04-Jun-91 ASSESSMENT COST BREAKDOYN PROJ NAME RAHN ROAD RECONSTRUCTION PROJ NUM P584 SA NAME ST584 F RAHN ROAD RECONSTRUCTION SA NAME ST584 SA# 2183 , YEARS 15 SF 30.790 /FF INT RATE .085 MF 75.160 /FF ' MOS 1ST YR INT 18 CI 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 ASSIBLE SHARE 32 10-16701-370-01SP 75 0 75 1 75 1 30.790 2309.25 33 10-16701-380-01Sf 75 0 75 1 75 1 30.790 2309.25 34 10-16701-390-01SF 75 0 75 1 75 1 30.790 2309.25 35 10-16701-400-01SP 75 0 75 1 75 1 30.790 2309.25 36 10-16701-410-01Sf 75 0 75 1 75 1 30.790 2309.25 77 10-16701-420-01Sf 75 0 75 1 75 1 30.790 2309.25 A 10-16701-430-01SF 75 0 75 1 75 1 30.790 2309.25 39 10-16701-440-01SF 75 0 75 1 75 1 30.790 2309.25 40 10-16701-450-01SF 75 0 75 1 75 1 30.790 2309.25 41 10-16701-460-01SF 95.73 0 95.73 1 95.73 1 30.790 2947.53 42 10-16701-470-01SF 90 0 90 1 90 1 30.790 2771.10 43 10-16703-180-01SF 75 0 75 1 75 1 30.790 2309.25 44 10-16703-190-01Sf 75 0 75 1 75 1 30.790 2309.25 R o?u 45 10-16703-200-01SP 75 0 75 1 75 1 30.790 2309.25 ^ k 46 10-16703-210-01Sf 75 0 75 1 75 1 30.790 2309.25 47 10-16703-220-01SF 75 0 75 1 75 1 30.790 2309.25 48 10-16703-230-01SF 75 0 75 1 75 1 30.790 2309.25 49 10-16703-240-01SF 75 0 75 1 75 1 30.790 2309.25 50 10-16703-250-01SF 75 0 75 1 75 1 30.790 2309.25 C.o X 51 10-16703-260-01SF 90 0 90 1 90 1 30.790 2771.10 52 10-16703-010-02uC 121.96 0 121.96 1 121.96 1 15.400 1878.18 53 10-16702-080-03SF 195.21 0 195.21 1 195.21 1 30.790 ' 6010.52 ?i^e na•?/ 54 10-16702-110-04SF 115.7 0 115.7 1 115.7 1 30.790 3562.40 55 10-16702-120-04SF 115.7 0 115.7 1 115.7 1 30.790 3562.40 56 10-16702-170-07SF 135.7 0 135.7 1 135.7 1 30.790 4178.20 G a Lh z 57 10-02000-010-28MF 589.43 0 589.43 1 589.43 1 75.160 44301.56 58 10-02000-010-29MP 175.52 0 175.52 1 175.52 1 75.160 13192.08 59 10-16704-100-03SF 120 0 120 1 120 1 30.790 3694.80 1je-(s6?-- 60 10-16704-110-03SF 120 0 120 1 120 1 30.790 3694.80 I-h'h e'S 61 10-02000-011-52MF 262.01 0 262.01 1 262.01 1 75.160 19692.67 62 10-16704-090-04SP 95 0 95 1 95 1 30.790 2925.05 ?. TO: FROM: DATE: RECEIV; D . ?e :.J' . MEMORANDIIM Tom Colbert, Director of Public Works Annette M. Margarit November 4, 1991 RE: Rahn Road Assessment Appeal ?? SS?/ Enclosed please find Judge Mansur's Order and accompanying memorandum denying our motion to sever the twelve assessment appeals for Rahn Road that are combined into one action. The Judge seemed to basically buy the argument that because the parties are raising the same issue, namely, that increased traffic has diminished the value of their properties, the combination is appropriate. The trial is currently scheduled for November 15, 1991. I understand that you will be on vacation on that date. Rather than continuing this trial because there are so many appeals that have been set for December and into January, I would prefer to have Mike Foertsch testify or get someone from Bonestroo to be available for this trial. I will contact Mike to see if he is available on that date. ANIIM/wkt . ;r • . . ' • ' UV•?pp ?1?1) .. ?+?a .r r «?o. c.M-r, cda, ?•e ' POWARD J. GROVES . . . ' , . . ATTORNEY AT LAW . . SUITE 260-SKYLINE SQUARE . ' BTATE OF MINNESOTA • 12940 HARRIET AVENUE SOUTH C OU NTY O F DAKOTA LBURNSVILLE MN 55337 . . " . . NO71CE oFt-. . X'FIL1NC? OF ORD?R • rANNETTE M. MARGARIT - ' ATTORNEY AT LAW C] ENTRY OF JUDGMEKT . 600 MIDWAY NATIONAL BANK BLDG • . 7300 WEST. 147TH ST a DocKErlNa oF ,1vooMENT APPLE VALLEY MN 55124 L Court FlI• No•t CS 91 7756 . ... • iN FIF; ASSESSMENTS FOR PROJECT 584 KNOWN AS RAHN-ROAD REcONSTRUCTION ECT. ? ybu nro horoby notl(iod tlial on OCTOBER 29 jg ql an Order waa duly filed In l)io nbovo onllllod mnttor. . ? 1'bu aro horoby nolitiod lhnl on , 19 f n Jud9menl . was duly cntorod In tho o.bove enllUod matier: ? You ero horoby notltiod Ihal on e? Judpmenl , - . ., ws.e duly dockelod In llte.n6ove enllVad matler In lh• amount ol S . .,. .?" ' . A lrve ond corrocl copy o(11iIs Notloe hae boon eervod by mail upon the partles nAmed heieln a1 tn! ? Ie31 hnown addroaa o( oactI, purouanl lo Mlnnooota Ru{oo ot Clvll Procoduro, Ruto 77.04. Delod' OCTOBER 29. 1991 _ . ROGER H. SAHES .. . • Court Admhiintralor . ? • WY . Dep tY • Rle thls : ot --A ROGER ' l.- BY i 1144 41" . + .. . File this day e'._:?0 19? ROGEII 11. 5l.%MES, Court AdrtunfsUatof 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 ? ORDER 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 ftahn Road and have filed a joint appeal from the assessment promulgated by the Respondent City. The City moves for severance and for separate trials for .? each of the Petitioners. Based upon the file, the record made, the file and proceedings heretofore had, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: 1. That the Respondent-City's motion be and the same is hereby denied. 2. That the following Memorandum is incorporated herein by reference. DATED: 10-28-91 BY T E OURT: 6fD/Lstrict ARTIN UR Judge Court 1 ? day ' .? . File th?s 19 _.. , ot • ROGER W. SAMES, Coun Adrtnnistratot By DEPUTY MEMORANDUM The property is unique and, as such, the issue of benefits versus costs of improvements must be determined for each property exclusive of the other. Here the Petitioners apparently are residents on Rahn Road in the city of Eagan and have joined together in appealing the assessments that have been certified by the City against their subject properties for what the City alleges to be improvements by the widening of Rahn Road. The Petitioners contend that the improvements were initiated by the City to serve the primary interests of the Target store and Cub Foods store and to provide for better access to these locations. Further, the Petitioners allege that their subject property has diminished in value by reason of the widening of the road, 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 a].1 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 their property. Through some of his other questions, it seemed apparent the Judge was not totally supportive of Mr. Groves' position. The Court asked for the City's position and I reiterated the Judge's own comments namely that each parcel is unique and by the very nature of the special assessment, the City may not levy an assessment greater than the benefit to that particular parcel. I pointed out to the Court that the parcels were not all assessed the same amount indicating that they differed in some respect. I also argued that, in the event the Court did not agree that the properties had been benefitted to the amount of the assessment, the Court would need to be able to arrive at some equitable means of determining a reduction in the assessment. Without knowledge of the indiyidual 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. ANM/wkt City of Eagan 3830 Pilot Knob Rd Eagan, MN 55122 (651) 675 -5675 www.ci.eagan.mn.us Site Address: 4369 Rahn Rd Lot: 25 Block: 1 Addition: Cedar Grove 4th PID:10- 16703 - 250 -01 Use: Description: Sub Type: e - Air Conditioner Work Type: Replacement Description: Air Conditioner Comments: Questions regarding electrical perm 952- 445 -2840. Fee Summary: Contractor: Standard Heating & Air Conditioning 130 Plymouth Ave. N Minneapolis MN 55411 (612) 824 -2656 ME - Permit Fee (Replacements) Surcharge -Fixed Total: Applicant/Permitee: Signature PERMIT City of Eaan - Applicant - Owner: Randall C Rick 4369 Rahn Rd Eagan MN 55122 Permit Type: Permit Number: Date Issued: Permit Category: equirements should be directed to Mark Anderson, State Electrical Inspector, $50.00 0801.4088 $0.50 9001.2195 $50.50 I hereby acknowledge that I have read this application and state that the informa of Minnesota Statutes and City of Eagan Ordinances. on is correct and agree to comply h all applicable State Issued By: Signature Mechanical EA078662 07/03/2007 ePermit