1031 Cliff Rd - Special Assessment Appealr '
r ? •
BOTICE OF A33FS.SlM HAHING
CITY OF EAGAN
DASO'!1 COOHTY9 !IIl19SSOSA
NOTICE IS HEREHy GI9ENO that the City Council of the City of Eagan,
Dakota County, Flinnesota, xill meet at the Eagan lfimicipal Ceater located
at 3830 Pilot Rnob Road, in said City on October 6. 1988, at 7:00 p.m. to
consider the proposed assessment of Parcel # 10-02600-011-52
For Project # 444R in Eagan.
The proposed area to be assessed is described in the assesameat roll
on file with t4e City Clerk in his officep xhich roll is open to public
inspection. Writtea or oral ob3ections will be conaidered at the public
hearing.
An owner may appeal an assessment to distriet court purauant to H.S.A.
429.081 by serving notice of the appeal upon the Mayor or Clerk of the City
of Eagan within thirty (30) days after the adoption of the assesament and
Piling such notice vith the Distriet Court of Dalcota County vithin ten (10)
days after service upoa the Mayor or Clerk.
Further informatioa relatiag to these assessments may be obtained Prom
the Special Assessment Division oP the Fiaanee Department and any questioas
ahould be directed to that Diviaioa.
Dated: September 220 198$
E J aa0verbeke
Citq lerk, Eagan
e - • Iv - o aboo -o//-s- z-
UCF.100(4491
- w«o. a Fw4h erw. oou,.ww
rJoseph P. Earley
Attorney at Law
7300 W. 147th St., Sox 24329
Apple-Valley, MN 55124
L
- rThomas W. Bihus
Attorney at Law
Box 2038, Suite 103
6575 Cahill Ave. E.
LInver Grove Aeights, MN 55075
STATE OF MINNESOTA
COUNTY OF Dakota
NOTICE OF:
10 FILING OF ORDER
m ENTRY OF JUDGMEM
? DOCKETtNG OFJUDGMENT
Court File No.: C2-88-8935
IN RE:
City of Eagan etc.
vs
Martin DesLauriers etal eec.
13 Ybu ere hereby nodfted thet on Mav 24th , 18 $9 an Order
was duly flled in ihe ebove entitled matter.
? You ere hereby notifled that on Mav 24th , 1g 89 g Judgment
was duly antered 1n the above entltied marier.
13 You ere hereby notiHed that on , 19 a Judgment
was duly dxketed In the above entiUed matter In the amount of
_ A true and correct copyof thla Notlce has been aerved by mall upon lhe parllea named herein at the
last known address of each, pursuant to Minnesota Rules of Ctvfl Procedure, Rule 77.04.
Dated• Mav 24th 1489 RoQer W. Sames
• Court Administrator
by S?lLeLL? JLaZtj? eA-,/
Deputy
COURT ADMINISTRATOR
DAKOTA COUNTY, MfNN.
s.. F I l E D
« MAY 24 1989
RO(iER W. 5AME3, CLERK '""0A?
x? °' ?+?BEPUTY
5"1:17'E OP h1]NNESOTA
couNr'y vr u,uioTA
COURT ADMINISTRATOR
DAKOTA COUNTY, MINN.
F I!E D
MAY 24 1989
N93ER W. SAMES, CLEhK
,! DErurr
City of Lagan, a miinicipal
corporat'ton.
I'etitioner/ftespondent,
cs.
Plartin DesLauriers and hfarie
I)e:;I,auriers, husbflnd and caife,
Appellants.
IN DISTRICT COURT
FIRS'P JUDiCLAL DiST}tl(.1'
Court Pile No. C2-88-8935
FINDINGS OF FACT
CONCLUSIONS ON' LAW
ORllER FOR JUDCMENT
AND JUDGMENT
'Che above-entitled matter came on for trial befure the
undox•signed Judge of liistrict Court on the 4th duy oP May, 1989,
.it the C.overntnent Cent.er, Hastings, Minnesota, regarding an
apPeal of the assessment of the DesLaur.iers Yarcel 10-02600-0011-
52..
Jo3Pph 11. Earlep, l:sq., appearec] representing the
Pet,itiouer•/he:;pondent. Thomas W. Bibus, Esq., appeared
?epresentin, the Appe.tlants.
Nocc, theref'ore, based upon the file, records and proceedinqs
hcrcin, the i;otirt being diily advised in the premises makes the
foi.lowing
FINDINGS OP PACT:
ILI 7'hat, the City of Engan shall be hereinafter referred to
a^, Cit}- 1nd the Appellants hereinafter referred to as
DesLauri.crs.
(2) '1'bat the Itespondent herein is s municipal corporation
1
c,nd. as si.ich, has completed a storm sewer project for the
}'urposes herein thut runs in front of the Appellants' home
located on Cliff Ctoad in Psagan, Minnesot.a. Said project is known
as
the liollniid Lxlce Trunk Storm Sewer Yroject 4•14R.
(3) Phat the DesLauriers own a 6.3 acre tract on Cliff
Itoad; that a portion uf that property had previously been subject
to a r.ondemnation, and the CiCy has erected a lift station on
13<fid 1]['pj](J•tV. SII1CI li.ft station is used in connection wzth this
storm sewer pro,ject.
1=11 That the DesLauriers bought this propertv in 1977 and,
shortly ttiex•eai'ter, erected a home in the northeast portion of
Lhc propert.y; that distances were not made available to the
Cour•t, but it is some distance from the house to Cliff Road and
servicr-.d I,t- fl gravel drivewaY; that the portion that is nearest
Cliff Rond i¢ lower arid, E'rom time to time, wottld acCUmulate
weiter. T1ie nltural runoff of the surrounding terrain ran the
+;at cr into that ].ow nrea. 'Phe wuter then passed through a
riilvert nnder the DesLauriers' driveway into the propertc
i.mmediat(-lz• east, referred to as Carlson Pond. When Carlson Pond
x•eached ti cer-tain lecel, the water exited Y.hrough a culvert under
rliff Koad iiito Lalce Ilc>lland. 1'his flowage of water apparently
has exi:7tecl for some period of t,ime.
(5) 'Chat FAL LI]e apperent urgi.ng of the County of Uakota to
close oi'F Lhe storm water runoff into Lake Holland, the Citp
rrected t.his sl;orm seraer system.
(G) 'fhat the City has determined that the DesLauriers'
2
f"ropert.y has improved L.v $9,500.00 due to the construction of the
storm scwer, and have so nssessed the propertv in thaL Amount.
171 That Che UesLauriers hace objected; hence, this
LiLigntion.
(8) That the memorandum attached hereto shall be
incorporated herein and made part of the Findings.
Ivoca, theref'ore, based upon the foregoing, the Court makes
tlie following
CONCLUSION OF LAW:
'Chat the llesLauriers' property, Parcel 10-02600-0011-52, has
not, beneFited by the storm sewer installation; that, as such,
this property sJlould net be assessed for this pro,iect.
LGT JUDGMGN'I' EtE ENTERED Ai;COliDiNGLY,
BY THL C'()Uft'I':
UateJ: May 23, 1989
MEP10Rr1NllUP1
The citp in thi.s matter finds itselt' with the usuall,r-
difi'icult problr-m of endeavoring Lo prove that the DesLauriers'
i-irayerty ha:; improved tlirough the install.ation of an overall city
improvemenl. A subst.ariti-al lmount of acreage is serviced b,y the
storm ,^,ec.-cr und ]ifL stution t.haC was put on the DesLauriers'
propcrty :;s it 1i['1..=; the water uut, of Carlson Pond. Said w,tter
preriously ran under C'l.iCf Road and into Lake Fiolland. The
i.'oifrt, heiug aware of Lalte Halland, Tinds that it would tal.e a
3
storm of biblical proportions to overflow the banks of Lake
11011aiid and Plnod ClifF Itoad.
The City does have t}ie burden of showing that Che assessment
of $9,950.00 improves the DesLauriers' property bp an amount
eqtial or grenter than that. The Court does not find that the
City has mct its burden.
"Che City in its presentation to the Court stated that the
his;hest and best use of the property would be single family
dwvlling. It now serves that purpose. The home owner had no
problem dealing with his runoff water Uefore this sewer was
inst;alled by Lhe City. It was not for his benefit that the sewer
s}stem wns inst.alled, but for the henefit of the community at
lcnr-;e. 7'Ite Coiu•t, reca.lls the fit;ure of approximately 2,700 acres
i m m o diatel>• cast of the ?esLauriers' property being served by
this set.ei• sgslem. Apparently, there is ].itt].e or no ittcrease in
thc- amount si.rvir_ed through the DesLauriers' property bp this
s}'s
, i.em. Fvoti tliough ttiis new sz'stem does not ylace any- $reater
burden ou t,he besLauriers' propert,v, it is not more beneficinl to
Lis runo ff sitiiation. Zf the hiqhest and best use of the
properL3', as set 1'orth by the City, is as it is now, single
1'amily dwe7.]ing, then it makes little sense for the City to talce
the? position that it, is a substantisal improvement to the
De;;L.%iurier property if theg eaer wanted to develop the same,
'I'Le Court hus difYic:ulty in accepting the evaluations placed
uu the property by Clie Cit,Y. The CourC noted that, bef'ore the
ral lec;ed irnprovement, Chc° property was served by cL bituminous
4
roadwav and electri.r_ity; that, in tlie after situation, the
prupertc was served by bitum.inous roadwa}•, electricity and trunk
amx sLorm sewer. ln ever}• compArable, the comparative property
s.as serve(l L,c all ut.i7.ities, whi.ch are described as i.ncluding
:zas, clectricity, Snnitary sewer, water, storm sewer and
bittnni.nous roadwacs.
There has been no objection to the process or the procedure
involved hereiu. The matter simply comes down to a judgement
cal.l by the Court bzsed upon the evidence that was presented, the
cvaluai,ion oF the documentation, nnd the evulufltion of the
witnesses calJ.ed before the Court in malting its determination.
A. sucii then, the Courl, finds4t,hat t,he City has not sustained its
hurden 1.^, i:o showing, by a fair preponderance of the evidence,
thnt there hus been any improvement to the DesLaurier property.
The Court also notes t.he 1'act that it received, unsolicited,
n lettei frnrn John J. Iilein, the home owners' appraiser. Upon
opcuing 1hN entie]ope, the Court, noted that .it contained a letter
direct.ed t.n t.he Courl:, plus some appflrent, eshibits. When the
Court. resi] ircd thtit it r.elated to this case, the material was
placed bnck in the envel.ope and not read or reviewed 6y the
iiudersi.v,ned. Mr. lU_cin may he well menning, but the Court takes
?i•ievous offense at a witness who, apparently on his own
\oliti.on, attempts Lo intervenn and, et parte, influence the
C'ourC. 'Che parties c:in be assured that Ptr. Klein's e>:traneous
efl'orts d,d not: inftuence the Court in making its determination
uuc wn}- ur the other. '1'.P1.M.
5
2 '. . ?
I hereby certify that the Conclusion Of Law contained in this document
shall constitute the Judgment of this Court.
Date: May 24th 1989 ROGER W. SAMES
Court Administrator
Seal
By
Deputy Clerk
STATE OF MINNESOTA
COUNTX OF DAKOTA
Martin DesLauriers and Marie
DesLauriers, husbanci ano wife,
Appellants,
v.
City of Eagan, a municipal
corporation,
Responaent,
DISTRICT COURT
FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT
Court File No.: C2-88-8935
Case Type: Special
Assessment Appeal
RESPONDENT'S CLOSING
ARGOMENT BRIEF
Respondent, City of Eagan, respectfully submits the following
brief in lieu of a final argument in the above-captioned matter.
INTRODUCTION
Respondent submitted a trial brief at the commencement of the
trial which set out the facts, a synopsis of the anticipated
testimony, the issues and law as it pertains to this case. In this
brief, the Respondent will not restate what has already been stated
but will high-light the testimony of witnesses at trial as it
pertains to the issue and 1aw in this case.
APPELLANTS' WITNESSES
In the Appellants' case in chief, they called two witnesses. The
two witnesses were Martin DesLauriers, lanaowner ana John Klein,
appraiser.
Page 2/RESPONDENT'S CLOSING ARGUMENT SRIEF -
City of Eagan/DesLauriers
RESPONDENT'S WITNESSES
Respondent called three witnesses. Thomas Colbert, Director of
Public Works for the City of Sagan, Robert Rosene, City of Eagan
Consulting Engineer, and Daniel Dwyer, appraiser.
ARGDMENT
Appellants and Respondent stipulated at the beginning of the
trial that the sole issue to be decided by the Court was whether or
not the assessment of Appellants' property exceeded the special
benefit to that property resulting from the storm sewer improvement.
To determine the value of a special benefit, the taxing authority
must consider what increase, if any, there has been in the fair
market value of the benefited land. Carlson-L•ancae Realty Co. v. C.tv
of Win6om, 307 Minn. 368, 369; 240 N.W.2u 517, 519 (1976)
The standard of review in this matter is f or the Court to make a
clecision based upon inclependent ana cIe novo consideration of all the
evidence. "... [W]here the sole issue presented is whether there has
been an unconstitutional taking, the trial court cannot abrogate its
duty to uphold constitutional safeguariis and defer to the judgment of
the taxing authority. Decision must be based upon independent
consideration of all the evidence." Buettner v. Gity of St. Cloud,
277 N.W.2d 199, 203 (1979)
Page 3/RESPONDENT'S CLOSING ARGUMENT BRIEF -
City of Eagan/DesLauriers
I. Appellants' pronerty benefited by the storm sewer
improvement.
Respondent, through the testimony of Mr. Colbert ana Mr. Rosene,
demonstrated a qualitative specific benefit to Appellants' property.
"Usually if property receives better municipal services ana
amenities, it is woxth more." Schumacher v. City of Excelsior, 427
N.W.2d 235, 238 (Minn. 1988)
Mr. Colbert, the City's Public Works Director, has years of
experience as a civil engineer. He is also very familiar with Project
444R. Mr, Colbert testified that Appellants' property is better off
with the current storm sewer availability than it was with gravity
drainage into Hollan3 Lake.
Both Mr. DesLauriers and Mr. Klein admitted on the stand that
the highest and best use of the Appellants' parcel is development as
single family lots. Mr. DesLauriets stated that the property is well
suited for executive style family homes. He f urther adrnitteci that he
purchased the property for a homesite anci "investment" reasons.
Mr. Colbert concurtea with Appellants' conclusion that the
parcel's hiqhest and best use was resiaential ueveloXxnent. However,
Mr. Col6ert also testified that the development of the parcel woula
increase the drainage in the system. Mr. Colbert, after explaining
how the old drainage system was nearing capacity, explained the
DesLauriers parcel was undevelopable without the storm sewer
improvement of 444R. The drainage system was reaching capacity before
the storm sewer project was installed. Mr. Colbert explained how the
Page 4/RESPONDENT'S CLOSING ARGUMENT BRIEF -
City of Eagan/DesLauriers
lift station on the Carlson Pond (east of DesLauriers property) gives
the City control over the level of the pond, The City has also
acquired a ponding easement over the Carlson Pond. This prevents
Carlson from altering the pond's capacity. Mr. Colbert testified that
the acquisition of this easement eliminated the need for an easement
on the DesLauriers property and also gave the City control over the
level of the pond using its newly installetl lift station.
Mr. Klein, in his testimony for Appellants, said there was no
benefit to the ptoperty as a result of the storm sewer improvement.
He based his conclusions in large part on his perception that the
drainage across the DesLauriers parcel was increased from 70 acres to
over 2,000 acres. These statements concerning the increased drainage
across Appellants' parcel are false. Mr. Colbert testified that prior
to the storm sewer improvement, the arainage flowing into ana across
the Appellants' property was less than 70 acres and that after the
storm sewer improvement, the drainage flowing into and across
Appellants' parcel remained less than 70 acres. Mr. Colbert testifieo
that there was no alteration to the existing culvert connection
between Appellants' property and the Carlson Pond. While the arainage
into the Carlson Pona has been increased, the Carlson Pona is four
feet lovrer than the DesLauriers pond. The capacity of the lift
station to remove water from the Carlson Pond exceeds the flow into
the Carlson Pond ana this capacity has never been exceeded. Mr.
Colbert testified that there has never been any water backing up into
the DesLauriers' pona.
Page 5/RESPONDENT'S CLOSING ARGUMENT BRIEF -
City ot Eagan/DesLauriers
Mr. Rosene, the City's consulting engineer, also confirmed that
the Appellants' property was benefiteu by the storm sewer
improvement. He explained how Holland Lake was backing up aue to the
excessive drainage into it; that it had already risen five feet and
could have risen another five feet if corrections hadn't been made.
This rising of Holland Lake which is directly across the street from
the DesLauriers parcel yave rise to the possibility oE flooding of
Cliff Roaa and the DesLauriexs property. Without this storm sewer
improvement, the Appellants' would have had to substantially increase
the on-site ponding capacity if the property were to ever develop.
Mr. Rosene is well-qualifiEd to speak to benefit to the
property. He has been a consulting engineez for the City of Eagan for
over 30 years and has been personally involvea in the original storm
sewer plan and every revision of that plan to the present.
Mx. Klein is well aware of the benefit accruing to property as
the result of a storm sewer improvement. He acsmitted the necessity of
the storm sewer system in Eagan. He testified that he was
instrumental in its design. Mr. Klein admitteci that during his tenure
on the Eagan Town Board, he approved the assessment of many
residential properties for the installation of storm sewer systems.
Mr. DesLauriers admits that his property always had water on it
for aday or two after a rain. He also admitted that he had altered
the terrain of his property by clearing and dreaging to create a
permanent pond after the installation of the storm sewer system. The
current ponding on Appellants' parcel is a result of the grading and
not the storm sewer system, P1r. DesLauriers has been awaraea tlamages
Page 6/RESPONDENT'S CLOSING ARGUMENT BRIEF -
City of Eagan/DesLauriers
for the taking oE the lift station in a previous condemnation action.
Mr. DesLauriers also questioned the Lact that he was not credited for
a ponding easement in his assessment. However, he admitted that he
has never given an easement to the City of Eagan for ponUing on his
property. The City is not obligated to credit a non-existing
easement. If an easement is needed in the future, the City will have
to acquire it by negotiation or eminent domain.
II. gppe7lants' property has bePn benefiterl by the storm sewer
improvement in an amount aual to or greater than the $9.500.00 the
p.zooerty was asses n fnn c co t P oject 444R.
"To determine the value of a special bene£it, the taxing
authority must consider what increase, if any, there has been in the
fair market of the benefiteci land.... The increase in market value is
calculateci by determining what a willing buyer uncier ordinary
circumstances woulU pay a willing seller for the property betore an?
then after the improvement has been maae." Carlson-Lange Realty Co.,
307 P7inn, at 369-70, 240 N.W.2d at 519.
Mr. Daniel Dwyer, the City's consulting appraiser, establishea
that the special benefit realized by the Appellants increased the
market value of their property by $9,500.00. Mr. Dwyer is an expert
appraiser with over 17 years of experience. He personally inspected
the property on several occasions. His appraisal was based on the
market value before and after the storm sewer improvement. He
testified that a developer would be willing to pay more for the
Page 7/RESPONDENT'S CLOSING ARGUMENT HRIEF -
City of Eagan/DesLauriers
property with one of the three utilities (storm sewer, sanitary sewer
and water) already present. Mr. Dwyer based his appraisal on
residential use of the property.
Mr. Dwyer based his appraisal on the value of the land only. He
submitted a written report ana reviewed it for the Court. This report
included ten comparables, both in the before anci after situation
which were used anc3 adjusted by Mr. Dwyer to determine the current
market value and benefit to Appellants' property. Mr. Dwyer's
conclusions as to value were based on the potential ability to
develop the site more intensely; the elimination of hazaros created
by on-site ponding; the elimination of recurring street maintenance
and floocaing problems in the immediate and general areas and
controlling the water level of the various ponding areas in the
immediate area.
Mr. Dwyer made an impartial ctetermination of market value for
Appellants' property. His value was less than that proposed to be
assessed by the City. The City, through their Special Assessment
Committee recommendeci that the market value be adopted as opposeo to
the original proposed assessment. This shows the City's good faith
effort to determine and assess for market value increase only.
Compaze Mr. Dwyer's determination of value with that
determination mane by Mr. Klein. Mr. Klein's claim of no increase in
value is not substantiated by any credible evidence. Mr. Klein
presented no appraisal report evaluating the before and aftet market
value due to the storm sewer improvement. He presented no comparables
by which to judge market value increase. Mr. Klein's credibility as
Page 8/RESPONDENT'S CLOSING ARGUMENT BRIEF -
City ot Eagan/DesLauriers
an appraiser is questionable based on the appraisal he aid do for the
DesLauriers parcel for the condemnation action, in that appraisal, he
admitted finding a before taking value of the property of over
$498,000.00. This, when Mr. DesLauriers had attempted to sell the
entire parcel unsuccessf ully for three years for no more than
$230,000.00.
CONCLUSION
Appellants' property has been benefited by the storm sewer
improvement in an amount equal to or qreater than the $9,500.00 the
property was assessed for the cost of Project No. 444R.
The Court should enter its ortler dismissing Appellants' appeal
of the special assessment,
Dated: McMENOMY & SEVERSON, P.A.
By: Joseph P. Earley
Attorneys for Responcaent,
City of Gagan
7300 West 147th Stxeet
P.O. Box 24329
Apple Valley, MN 55124
(612) 432-3136
I.D. No. 189595
STATE OF MINNESOTA
COUNTY OF DAKOTA
Martin DesLaur.iers and Marie
DesLauriers, husband and wife,
Appellants,
v.
City of Eagan, a municipal
corporation,
Respondent.
DISTRICT COURT
FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT
Court File No: C2-88-8935
Case Type: Special Assessment
Appeal
APPELLANTS' TRIAL BRIEF
Appellants, Martin DesLauriers and Marie DesLauriers, husband
and wife, zespectfully submit the following Trial Brief in the
above-captioned matter.
INTRODUCTION
This case is a special assessment appeal atising out of a
decision by the City of Eagan to adopt a final assessment of
$9,509.00 against property owned by Maztin and Marie DesLauriers
located at 1031 Cliff Road, Eagan, Dakota County, Minnesota (Tax
Parcel No. 19-92600-0011-52). The City's position is that the
landowner.s received both qualitative.and quantitative benefit at
least in the amount of $9,500.00 as a result of the Storm Sewer
Pcoject No. 444R. The Landowner/Appellants' position is that the
land did not benefit in any manner from the storm sewet project and
in fact was damaged as a result of it.
ARGUMENT
"The cost of any improvement or any part thereof, may be
assessed upon property benefited by the improvement, based upon the
benefits received." Minn. Stat. Section 429.051 (1988). The value
of a special benefit is determined by considering the subject
property's increase in fair market value. Carlson-Lang Realty
Company vs. City of Windom, 307 Minn. 368, 369, 240 N.W.2d 517, 519
(1976). The increase in market value is determined by "what a
willing bnyer would pay a willing seller for the property before,
and then after, the improvement has been constructed." Id. at
369-70, 240 N.W.2d at 519. There is a presumption of assessment
validity which may be overcome by competent evidence. Id. at 370,
240 N.W.2d at 519. "(AJ special assessment which exceeds the
special benefits to the property is a taking of property without
Eair compensation in violation of the Eourteenth Amendment,"
Buettner vs. City of St. Cloud, 277 N.W.2d 199, 202 (Minn. 1979).
I.
APPELLANTS' PROPERTY llAMAGED BY STORM SEWER PROJECT N0. 444R.
The Appellant/Landowners' property has not benefited by the
Storm Sewer project No. 444R and in fact has been significantly
damaged by the pxoject. As the testimony and exhibits indicate, a
new HWL (high watee level) of 880 has been imposed on Appellants'
land as a result of the storm sewer project. This now effectively
eliminates any development on Appellants' property below that HWL.
In fact, the exhibits and the facts available to both sides clearly
indicate that there will be a significantly large ponding area of 1
to 2 acres now required on the landowners' property as a result of
the storm sewer project.
Although witnesses for the City testified that they did not
feel a ponding area would be required, the facts speak differently:
2
1. By the very nature and design of the lift station on
Appellants' property, any amounts of water in the
adjoining landowners' (Carlson) pond that exceeds the
pumping capacity of the lift station will flow through a
culvert onto the DesLauriers property. The system
reguires ponding area on the DesLauriers property for time
periods when the pnmping capacity is overcome or the lift
station is not operable. As mentioned in the testimony
of Public Works Director and City Engineet Thomas A.
Colbert, the lift station does not have an independent
source of electrical power and has no emergency generator.
Thus, in any storm situation where the lightning causes a
power failure, DesLauriers' property will flood.
2. The City of Eagan Appraiser, Daniel E. Dwyer, indicated in
his testimony on cross-examination about his earliet
Condemnation Appraisal Report dated July 1, 1987, that he
did in fact indicate in that report that some portions of
the DesLauriers property could be flooded or suffer
increased water flowage as a result of the project. He
also admitted stating in his earlier Condemnation
Appraisal Report that the City of Eagan has requiiements
foc developers to allow for starage or ponding capacity to
handle any proposed development of a parcel. If the
DesLauriets property was developed to a more intense use
than a single-family dwelling, he admitted indicating in
3
his report that the owner/developer would have to allow
for water storage or ponding on the property.
3. The original Assessment Roll for the DesLauriers property
indicated an estimate of futuxe right-of-way for ponding
purposes of 20,094 square feet.
4. The City of Eagan Consulting Engineer, Robert W. Rosene,
indicated in one of the exhibit lettecs dated October 21,
1986, that "it is anticipated that 4.2 acre feet of
storage will be the total volume required on your
property."
5. The exhibit diagrams originally prepar.ed by the City all
indicate ponding area on the DesLauriers property as part
of the Storm Sewer Project No. 444R.
Quite apart from the argument that there has been a"taking"
of Appellants' land as a result of the storm sewer project, (an
argument that more appropriately belongs in a condemnation
proceeding), is the valid and mote pertinent argument that the
DesLauriers property has been damaged and not benefited by the storm
sewer "improvement". The City of Eagan's argument is that the
DesLautiers property, which has as its highest and best use a
single-family dwelling, is qualitatively and quantitatively
benefited by the storm sewer project. Yet the single-family
residence is located in the back corner of the property on
considerably higher ground than where the lift station is located.
4
If, as the City argues, the highest and best use of the property is
for a single-family residence located on very high ground, then how
could the DesLauriers' conceivably benefit from this storm sewer
project? The City attempts to argue thinqs both ways and states
that there is now more "potential ability" to develop the
DesLauriers property more intensely, but in fact the City's storm
sewer project has resulted in a higher HWL which will prevent any
development below that figure of 880. The storm sewer project has
hindered not improved the potential ability to develop the site.
The City also argues that thexe has been a benefit to the
property in that there has been an elimination of hazards created by
on-site ponding. On the DesLauriers property, there used to be no
ponding requirement and now there is. There used to be no stopage
of the normal flow of water off of the DesLauriers property and into
Holland Lake and ?ow there is. There used to be no requirement of
trusting a machine (lift station) subject to frequent malfunctions
and now there is. The so-called "new control" of the water levels
in the immediate area is at a level higher than ever before. For
the pzivilege of the DesLauziers' sufferinq such serious damage to
their property, they are now being assessed in the amount oE
$9,500.90.
An example of how a piece of property can be damaged and not
benefited as a result of a storm sewer project, as measuted by the
market value of the property beEore and after the storm sewer
project/ is contained in the Comparable Sales of the City of Eagan's
Appraiser, Daniel E. Dwyer. The Appellant/Landowners' Appraiser,
John J. Klein, pointed out in his testimony that Before Comparable
5
Sale No. 3 and After Comparable Sale No. 1 are adjoining pieces of
property. Before Sale No. 3 occurred in June of 1985 and this
property was served by electricity and sanitary sewer only. This
was a"cash" sale which generally shnuld be for less money than a
"time" sale. Yet this property sold for $17,360.00 per acre in
compaxison to the Aftez Sale No. 1 which sold for a total price of
$16,000.00 per acre. After Sale No, 1, which occured July 23, 1987,
was a parcel that was served by all utilities and involved a large
contract for deed. After Sale No. 1 was in the immediate area of
the DesLauriers property. At the very least, this calls into
question the City's general philosophy that properties axe
"benefited" by any storm sewer improvements afEecting subject
properties.
Another area where the Appellant/Landowners take issue with
the City of Eagan's Appraiser's Report is Mr. Dwyer's failure to
consider either 20,000 square feet of future ponding right-of-way or
twenty percent future right-of-way for road or other purposes in
arrivinq at his estimate 4&f the benefits to the property as a result
of the Storm Sewer Project 444R. For example, Mr. Dwyer states in
his report section titled "Land Value Estimate - After" that:
"Therefore, after a thorough analysis of
all factors, it is the opinion of your
appraiser that an increment in value of
$1,500.09 per acre can be substantiated
for the su6ject ptoperty in the after
situation. This wonld indicate a value
as follows: 6.36 acres at $17,500.09
per acre equals $111,500.00."
in this calculatinn, Mr. Dwyer gives no consideration to the future
right-of-way of twenty percent listed in the Final Assessment Roll
figures foz the DesLauriers property and also no consideration to
6
the originally indicated additional right-of-way of 20,000 square
feet for ponding purposes (as contained in the Original Assessment
Roll figures). To this extent then, Mr. Dwyer's Appraisal Report is
invalid.
The City's own actions are also called into question on this
specific issue, in that they expressly stated that "proper credits
were applied for potential future right-of-way and easement
dedications if and when the property should ever develop." Exhibit
containing special assessment committee meeting staff
recommendations on the DesLauriers parcel. Of further note is the
fact that in the final assessment roll figures, any notation as to
future right-of-way for ponding purposes of 20,009 square feet is
deleted; the result is an increase in assessable area and thus an
increase in the total assessment figure for the DesLauriers. A
ponding requirement of 4,2 acze feet or approximately 2 acres of
area on the present topography of the nesLauriers property is now
already required, and yet the Appellant/Landowners have not been
given credit for this on their total assessment.
II.
ASSESSMENTS NON-UNIFORM
The assessment of the DesLauriers proper.ty is not uniform in
comparison with adjacent landowners being assessed for Storm Sewer
Project 444R. A glance down the page af the exhibit titled "Einal
Assessment Roll Holland Lake Area Outlet Project No. 444" indicates
that the pesLauriers property, far from being the largest piece of
property, is assessed in the highest amount. The Court will note
that some of the parcels have been given "large lot" credits in
7
exchange for utility easements while some have not. The fact is
that a numUer of larger paccels under similar circumstances aee
receiving a total assessment amount far less than the DesLauriers
parcel. And, the DesLauriecs' are forced to put up with an
unsightly lift station right at the entrance to their property. No
adequate reason has been put forth by the City, as required by law,
to justify this large disparity in the total assessment figures.
Lundexberg vs. City of St. Peter, 398 N.W.2d 579 (Minn. App. 1986).
CONCLUSION
The Appellants' property has not been benefited by the Storm
Sewer Project 444R in an amount to or greater than $9,500.00, and in
fact it has been damaged consider.ably by this pzoject. The
Appellant/Landowners request the Court to enter an Order determining
that there has been no benefit to the su6ject property as a result
of the Storm Sewer Project No. 444R, or in the alternative, to set a
limit to the assessment far lower than the current total assessment
figure of $9,500.00.
Dated: May 11, 1989. Respectfully submitted,
BIBUS AND LARSON, LAW FIRM
c--? 420i' ?o
By . ?
Thomas W. ibus 8114)
Attorney for Appellants
P. 0. Eox 2838
6575 Cahill Avenue East
Invec Grove Heights, MN 55075
(612) 457-2046
8
. - -C o S QVI
?, ?. ? °? '( ?j • ,? ?
6A
J
STATE OF MINNESOTII DISTRICT COURT
COUN'PY OF D71KOT11 FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT
--------------------------------------------------------------
CITY OF EAGAN, a Municipal
corporation,
Petitioner/Respondent,
vs. NOTICE OF APPEAL AS TO
THE DesLAURIERS PARCEL
Martin DesLauriers and Marie S (Parcel 10=02600=0011-52)?-i
DesLauriers, husband and wife, ' -- - - - --
APPellants.
IN THE MATTER OF THE nSSESSMENT UPON THE SUBJECT
PROPERTY FOR THE HOLLnND L11KE TRUNK STORM SEWER
PROJECT 444R. OWNERS: MnRTIN AND MARIE DESLAURIERS,
HUSBAND AND WIFE.
T0: THE CLERK OF THE CITY OF EAGAN: ROGER S11MES, Clerk of
the above-named District Court; HAUGE, EIDE & KELLER, P.A.,
Water View Office Tower, Suite 303, 1200 Yankee Doodle
Road, Eagan, Minnesota 55123, attorneys for the City of
Eagan on this and related condemnation matter (District
Court file no. 10262E3.
PLEASE T11KE NOTICE that the appellants herein, to wit:
Martin DesLauriers and Marie DesLauriers, husband and wife,
hereby appeal to the above-named District Cour.t from the special
assessment levied upon said property in the amount of $9,500.00
as approved by the City Council on October 6, 1988.
Appellants' objections to the special assessment are on
the following grounds:
1. The property is improperly assessed and is not based
upon the benefits received.
2. The assessment amount is gr.ossly excessive and not
in accordance with current zoning and use of the property.
3. No deduction has been made for future right of way
for ponding or flooding purposes.
WHEREFORE, the Appellants pray that:
l. Tlie special assessment not be confirmed; and that,
2. The assessment be set aside and there be a reassessment
as provided in M.S. 429.071, Subd. 2.
Dated: /ve-z? ev, / 9 ?'OP
BIBUS & LAR ON LAW FIR M
B y : /?-t - q`!
Thomas W. Bibus, ID#8114
nttorney £or Appellants
P. 0. Box 2038
6575 Cahill Avenue
Inver Grove Heights, MN 55075
(612) 457-2046
J Bonestroo, Rosene, Anderlik & Associates, Inc.
O
2335 W. Trunk Highway 36
St. Paul, MN 55113
612•636-4600
Englneers & Architects
October 21, 1986
Mr, Mertin DeeLauriere
1031 Cliff Road ?
Lagan, MN 55122
Be: Holland Lake Lift Station
Project No. 444
E&&&ri, 'PIN
File No, 49355
Dear Martin,
`^ OQ
V
ill Q??w
Ouo G &.nnuw. P E
Nunrn W Nwrn+. Y.t
lwryAC, A?Wer41.Yl.
NruJ/md A, l mihr.?. P E
MaM1m? L ivrnn, Y.1
611 S2
G/rnn R. Cuw. F G
Ani?A LwJun Y!
1 numw G Nryn. Y f.
R. nma W hw", P[
N?rtG Sc"A" nr,PG
.,?,.,,, ?., .,.,...,?. ,•,
rw?ww c. a?.r?.e? r r.
Jflry A. BUY?Jun. Y l.
Mur4 A. /luiuon, Y !
1rvf K £1rld. !? F
MuAuH T kumnwnn, Pt
x,.e,•„ x rr.l?.,n. r L
IhrdU Lu?A?w, P!
lnur. K' Wuu..•?, Pt
MnnuelC lrmn Yf
Aunn f., Wrtln. l'J
lurnr? k Mulmrl. P t
Arnnnh /' nnJu?.,x P F
ArulrA bwhmmo? I'!
Mu'i N. )fidp. Y f
Nobrr C kuuex, n / •
lhoixu? t .InMu., i• I
.4 un L Yuunx. 1' I
Churlre A beA?er?
Lru Af PowrbAy
llurlon M Wmn
.lurun M. tbr.lm
You have requeeted a letter confirming the potential future ponding volume to
be required on your property in the event that you or a future owner decides
to develop the property.
The Maeter Storm Sever Plan for many yeare hae anticipated that the low land
an ypur property would be dedicated for ponding when and if the land wae de-
veloped. Baeed upon the moet recent plan, iC is anticipated that 4.2 ac. ft.
of etorage vill be the total volume required on your propecty.
The location of thie atorage is normally in the lowea[ portion of the existing
topography. However, if development of the land indicatea that regrading
would be more desirable, thie volume can be placed in other locatioas on the
property.
It is also poesible that development of adjacent parcels within the drainage
area could reduce thie total volume required if atorage is provided some place
elee in the drainage area. In eny event, iC is anticipated that the total
volume required would not exceed 4.2 ac. ft.
As we indicated in our diecueaione with you, we will be pleaaed to meet with
any potential purchaeer of your property to explain the preeent and future re-
quiremente which would be anticipated for the development of thie property.
Please call if there are further queetions.
Yours very truly,
SONSSTR00, RDSENE, ANDERLIK & ASSOCIATES, INC.
Robert W. Roaene
RWR:li
V"'
cc: Mr. Tom Colbert
Mr. Paul Hauge, Atty.
30 Year
0065e Anniversary
oF eagan
3830 PILOT KNOB ROAD, P.O BOX 21199 _ BFA BLOMQUISi
EAGAId, MINNESOTA 55121 MO+'O'
PHONE (612) 454-8100 1HOMA5 EGAN
JAMES A SMITH
VIC ELLISON
5eptember 21, ].987 7H?DOR?embersER
iHOMAS HEDGES
Gly Atlminclrator
MARTIN & MARIE DESLAURIES EUGENE VAN OVERBEKE
Ciry Clerk
1031 CLIFF ROAD
EAGAN MN 55122 55123
Re: Project #444R, Parcel #10-02600-011-52
Special Assessment Objection
Dear Mr. & Mrs. DesLauries:
At the formal public hearinq before the City Council, you
submitted a written objection to the proposed final assessments
against your property for the improvements associated with that
project. Subsequently, the Council deleted your property from
the final assessment roll that was formally adopted and certified
to the County for certification onto the tax rolls. Your
objection was then referred to the Special Assessment Committee
for an in-depth review of the improvements, the related benefit
to your property and the proposed assessments.
This Special Assessment Committee is comprised of two Council
members, two Planning Commission members and three residents of
the community. After their review, they will forward a
recommendation to the City Council for formal consideration of
final adoption of the proposed assessments. The Council's
consideration of the Special Assessment Committee's
recommendations will be held at a future formal public hearing
and mailed notification similar to the public hearing process you
recently completed.
While there is no definitive schedule for the Special Assessment
Committee meetings, it is i3ot anticipated that this item will
come before that Committee any sooner than April of next year.
In the interim, the City will be performing a formal appraisal of
your property to verify that the benefit to your property through
increased value was at least equal to the amount of the proposed
assessments. This appraisal process will be coordinated through
our City Attorney's office during the ensuing months.
When the Special Assessment Committee meeting has heen scheduled,
you will be so notified in writing with a request to provide any
iHE LONE OAK TREE. .. THE SYMBOI OF STRENGTH AND GROWfH IN OUR COMMl1NI1V
September 21, 1987
Page 2
additional information or appraisals you may have compiled in the
interim. Once all this information has been gathered , a staff
report will be prepared for the Committee meeting with a copy
forwarded to your attention prior to that meeting.
In the interim, this special assessment will continue to be
listed as a"pending" assessment but there will be no interest
accrued beyond the amounts proposed at the time of the recent
final assessment hearing.
IE you have any other questions regarding this procedure or your
assessment, please feel free to contact me at your convenience.
Si rely,
? ?.e'rn.a.a-r
Thomas A. Colber , .E.
Director of Public Works
TAC/jj
cc: Paul Hauge, City Attorney
Deanna Kivi, Special Assessment Clerk
.
Page 20/CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
October 6, 1988
McCrea moved, Egan seCOnded, the tation to close the public
hearing and reaffirm the oi:aginal fina3:;:assessment roll for Project
476 (Wescott Road) as it pectains to.paccel 10-01400-030-53 ann
authorize its certification-tounty. All voted in favor.
PRQ7ECT 444R, HOLLAND LAKE STORM SEWER (PARCEL 10-02600-011-52)
Public Works Director Tom Colbert stated that the improvement
that was installed hanole$_the.storm water runoff fzom the subject
property through the City??::::triink;;starm sewer system all the way to
the biinnesota River. He furEher,:staEea::,proper ctedits were applie6
for potential future right-of-way and easement dedications if and
when the property should ever develop.:::He stated it is properly
assessed in accordance with City:;p.olicyes and procedures and the
current zoning and use of.th.e:.:propex:ty:: However, due to the fact that
the City's appraisal report indicaCed that the increased market value
is less than the proposed assessments, it was staff's recommennation
that the proposed final assessment be reduced to $9,500.00.
Martin DesLauriers objected to any assessment as he stated there
was no benefit to his proger.ty. He stated his property had lost
value. He distributed a handti:ut:<..to the Council and showed the
location. He stated he felt the:::pt:o.perty would be flooded and further
explained reasons for his obj:ection, 'He.requested deferment until the
holding pond was defined.
Mr. Colbert stated thei:`starm`sewer plan locates 340 drainage
areas. He further stated the City was not in need of it now, but that
upon saturation it may be needed. He stated the plan would be reviseci
in the future but he did not know what the future woula bring. He
outlined the benefit to DesLauriers' property. Councilmember Egan
questioned how the assessment would be abated. Mr. Colbert stated by
agreement. He stated the r.eaI;:::isanesa:as:-:how much of the area shoula
be included and that at tHe?::.pr:esetit;tzr?e, he was uncertain of that
amount. He stated he would need :to see,..the development proposal and
he would prefer to postpone, not::::abate:<
M[. DesLauziexs stated it w8s not:.:acceptable to him to 3ust
postpone the matter. Much discussion was held regarding the ponding.
Councilmember Egan questioned that if the City would abate, if
there would be a need for a ponding area.
City Attorney Jim Sheldon stated i'ktere were two issues:
1. Benefit to the
2. Acguiring the ponding'easement._::
COtV oF czagnn
3830 PILOT KNOB ROAD, P.O BOX 21199 V1C ELLISON
EAGAN, MINNESOTA 55121 M?r
PHONE: (612) 454-8100 niOnMS EGAN
DAVID K, GUSTAFSON
PAMEIA MCCREA
September 21. 198$ iHEODOREWACHTER
Counal Members
n+oMus HEOCEs
GtyAdmimsfrolor
EUGENE VAN OVERBEKE
MR & MRS MARTIN DESLAURIERS ciNaen
1031 CLIFF ROAD
EAGAN MN 55123
Re: Parcel 10-02600-011-52
Project 444R, Special Assessment Objection
Dear Mr. & Mrs. Deslauries:
On June 30, the Special Assessment Committee reviewed the formal
objections that you submitted at the original final assessment
hearing held on September 1, 1987, pertaining to the trunk area
storm sewer assessments of $10,965,20 associated with Project
444R, Holland Lake Trunk Storm Sewer. Enclosed you will find a
copy of the portion of the minutes pertaining to your objection.
You will note that the Committee recommended that the assessment
be reduced to $9,500 in compliance with the special appraisal
report performed by the City of Eagan pertaining to this
assessment and your objection.
The Committee's comments and recommendations are being forwarded
to the City Council for formal consideration on Thursday, October
6, 1988. If you have any additional information that you would
like to have considered by the Council, please provide it to my
attention no later than October 3 so that it can be distributed
to the Council for their timely review.
Sincerely,
Pv'.o-."'`i-`+s
Thomas A. Colbert, P.E.
Director of Public Works
TAC/ jj
cc: Deanna Kivi, Special Assessment Cierk
Enclosure
THE LONE OAK TREE.. THE SYMBOL OF STRENGTH AND GROYVTH IN OUR COMMUNItt
NOTICE OF ASSESSMENT HEARING
CITY OF EAGAN
DA%OTA COIINTY, MMpggOT6
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN, that the City Council of the City of Eagan,
Dakota County, Minnesota, will meet at the Eagan Municipal Center located
at 3830 Pilot Knob Road, in said City on October 6, 1988, at 7:00 p.m. to
consider the proposed assessment of Parcel 0 10-02600-011-52
for Projeet # 444R
in Eagan.
The proposed area to be assessed is described in the assessment roll
on file with the City Clerk in his office, whieh roll is open to public
inspeetion. Written or oral ohjections will be considered at the public
hearing.
An owner may appeal an assessment to distriet court pursuant to M.S.A.
429.081 by serving notice of the appeal upon the Mayor or Clerk of the City
of Eagan?within thirty (30) days after the adoption of the assessment and
filing such notice with the District Court oP Dakota County wlthin ten (10)
days after service upon the Mayor or Clerk.
Further information relating to these assessments may be obtained from
the Special Assessment Division of the Finance Department and any questions
should be directed to that Division.
Dated: September 22, 1988
? V
E J anOverbeke
City lerk, Eagan
;.?
i
SPECIAI. ASSESSIDii' COhYNITTEE MINUI'ES
.IUNE 30, 1988
PAGE 3
Egan moved, Colton seeonded the motian to affirm the proposed final
assessmenC subject to the available reduction tmder public Policy 86-3,
i£ and only if, Mr. Bratland executes the appropriate docwnents required
uzxler the policy. All troted in favor.
WILLIAMS & T.ARI]E ].Si' ADDITION STORM SE4JER
KGLMGR BRATCADID
Public works AirecCOr Tom Colbert stated that imder Project 450
the City installed sanitary sewer, water main and stiorm sewer servi.ces
to service the Williams & TaRue 1sC and 2nd-Additions which are located
adjacenC Co ard wesC of Mr. BraClanci's properCy. The storm sewer
improvement provides drainage to Mr. Sratland's properCy. Mr. Bratlancl
had never been assessed for a trumk area storm sewer improvement. Of
the 4.75 acres of properCy owned by Mr. Sratlarid and after applying the "large
lot credit" urder SpeciaL Assessment Policy 82-4, the residual neC assessable
area was reduced Co 1.89 acres and assessed at the single-family residential/
agrzcultural rate. The property b2ne£its by having a controlled storm sewer
outlet provided for the pording area that incorporates a portion of the
Bratland property.
Merk].ey moved, Egan secocxled the mota.on eo reaffirm the original assessment
with the application of Speci.al AssessmEnt Polfcy 82-4. All voted in favor.
FiOLLADID LAKE TRUNK STORM SEWGR
MATtTIN DES LAURTERS
that the increased market value is less than the proposed assessment ard
that the SCaff's recomnendation is that the proposed final assessment be
reduced ti6 $9,500.00,per the appraisal.
Public Works Dzrector Tom Colbert sCaCed ChaC under Project 444R
the City installed a compleac tx7mk storm sewer system generally located
along C1iff road. It pzwided for the installatzon of a sCorn sewer
li£t station on Mr. Desiauriers' property providfng a controlled outlet
strucCwre £or the pvnd locaCed adjacent to and east of AesLauriers' properCy.
The City's appraisal report performad by Dahlen & Dwyer, Inc. indicates
A Zekter was sutmitted by MarCin and Marie DesLauriers indicaCing
thaC Chey objer:,ed Co the assessment but would he out of tam on the night
of the meeting. Tt is the lardowmers' posiCion that the project did noC
provide arry benefits to Cheir pzroperty. Public Works DirecCOr Ton C?1berC
indicated that DesLauriers were not eligible far the "large 1ot credit"
because their parcel was larger Chan 5 acres. Mr. besLauriers was not
eligi6le foY the "large lpt credit" since it can be anCicipaCed Chat the
Iot wou7.d be subdivided at a fuCUre daCe. There was a credit given for
future righC--o£-way acxi easement dedzcations. Ttaaddell asked whether
or not there was a credit given far the lift station. Colhert indicated
tt,at the lift sCaCian had just been acquired Chrough condercmation process
?. ti??
SPECIAL ASSESSMEKI' CCNMITTEE MIiv'ITITS
JLTNE 30, 1988
PAGE 4
and that the City now conerolled the lift station and that no crediC
was chen afforded Co Mr. AesLauriers. Egan asked Colbert to caamnt
on the assertion by DesLauriers that his property weuld be used as a
holding pond in cormection with the li£t station an3 the culvert cormecCing
the pond to the easC of the DesLauriers property. Public Works Dixector
CoZbert stated that the Staff arid the consulting engineers disagreed with
AesLauriers an3 that afCer the "super storms" of July, 1987, that the water
level in the poixl to the east of the DesLauriers properCy did not raise to
a level thaC it wouid back-up through the culvert to the DesLauriers property.
Anne Marie nestauriers was present on behalf o£ the property otimer.
Egan moved, Colton seconded, the motion to modi£y the original assessrrent
to $9,500.00. AL1 voted in favor.
The meeCing was then called to recess by Chairpezson 'Itaaddell.
Zhe Special Assessment Cortmittee was recoxrvened at 6:30 p.m.
PARCEL 10-03000-010-29/HERB AC»LMMAANN
Public Works Director Tan Colbert sCated thaC under Project 460A
the City provided £or the reconstruction o£ Nicols Road fran an old rural
Coimty road ditch to an urban street section wiCh curb and gutter and
trailways. T'he property currently carries a comroerciai zoning under
the Limited Business classificaCion. Its use is tmder-util.ized by the
presence of an existing single family dwelling. In accordance with SpeciaL
Assessment Policy 82-2 (Assessments Against Lard Whose Present Use is
Different from the Llzrrent Underlying 'Loni.r?,) the property owner could
reduce the proposed assessments Co $9,112.50 subject Co the execuCion of
the appropriate agreemenCS in accordance with the policy.
Tom Scott, an attorney at 3460 Washingtcm Drive, Eagan, MN, appeared
on beha7.f of the Adelmatms. Nrr. ScoCt indicaCed that he beiieved the
present zoning on the property was R-4. public Works 17irecCOr Colbert
indicaCed that Mr. ScoCC was correct. htr. ScotC indicated that the Adelnarnls
were the only re?idents an thaC particular stretCh of Nicols Road and that
iCS present use-would be R--1. Mr. ScoCC objected to the special assessments
being at the R--? -;;lassifi.caCian. Mr. ScoCt i.ndi.caCed that under the present
R-1 zoning thaC rnere shouid noC be arry amount included in the assessmenCs
for a trailway buC that because it was bein,, assessed urder the R-4 zoning
the cost was being borne by the AdeZmanns. Mr. ScatC irxlicaCed Chat he
believed that the Adelmanns were the only residenCS being assessed at the
higher rate in connectian with this project. Mr. Scott indicaced ehat
his o6jecCions were 6ased on his belief that the properCy had noti been ,
benefiCCed by the $24,000.00 assessmenC. Mr. ScpCC submi.tted a J.etter
fr«n gay Connel],y, a realtor and appraiser, sCaCirg that there has been
little if any increase in the value o£ the property due to the project.
P:--:, .
0
REcEIvED €ED 2 ?
??/ ":7a-
74-
i'
7-1 .?
f
?
/ Gpe 0G L) Y
r ?
SGG e2 C?5 ? ssi ?/?°
s??1)4z
,'ZGrIG 7' i 6
Martin ft Marie Des LauriOrs
M?, qtimna 85205
PROPERTY TAX STATEMENT '
1989
?? ? ? ?? ?
V ,
? ?? /?[f coveRNMeN-r ceNTER ,n
HASTINGS, MN 55033 ?•.s...w:,:?.»?.l:?ho'?!s«,'ab%.M' Y.?:aa w?.'??'??..?`i'.?w?'.3{'"tc
?? ?? Y
. THE STATE PAVS AtDS TO LOCAL UNITS OF t
DAKOTA COUNTY TREASUREF 36VERN0IENT TO RcDUCE VOUR PROP ERTV TAX F
.` .., . •-. . ? •:P^..i.?.:,.} ' ? ? •
TA
YOUR
.:_.. ?.::,.?.: >.. ,:r ..?.c .,..c.c:.e?[7i,Y:ii?.:i:s'`.?'lw??:si?G'S':?? a.''.r.,..''? PROPERTY TAX REDUCTION FROM2
TAX RELIEF S
838
75
PROVERTYIDEN?liiCAT10N PflOPERTYHOMESTEHDED SCHOOL' LOAN s:;? rt
- _--------
-
CODE W/5 ? ,
.
?°•
'?
'
e [
-
-
FSOi
.. ?n1'M1t_C_?S?_ ?r.ab":;-??.i?
?IST PCAT L?T BLN JAA 2. 19890F JUNE 1. 1988 DIST ? CODE 1 r^_.:?
t
T
?,'"m
:??,ip •?
,?,<- .
.
R
{
`
10
02600 011 52
^ c7?TF'
YES 196 G ° ^r ' ` o.00 ?
?
cpUNTY
9'I7
O1
' SSTAX
ESTMAtED MAFKET VALIIE GRO CI+PACITY NEWIMPFOVEMENTS , ?or.wnonmr ?=`? .
73
900
__"_'*STOWNSHIPORC!TY
o?,; S.. ^
HOOL DISTRICT
00
;.
715 0
4
76728
•
2,
.
0 ?
ELIGI '
"_'__"
BLE FOR A flEFUND. TO RNC, CJT Ir'vGJ .
,
e
aTFICT
TN=_P TFXIN^ .? 01"
y O'
'
=- c! i3!3LE FOF THE MINNESOTA PROPERTY TAX REFUND.'. ;6Z
'
6
? AND
y SPECIAL PROPERTY TAX REFUND.
A 1' USIN3 THE
1.4
RLL
J• cJ -y ' - `isc;.LoisPaF?av
?•r _ c. - 2??: ?cs:: o?: un='"ye-r_od.- ?.?
MENT OISi
e
i ^ O . OO
O. OO
?
p j
^
i?:r
FI.'.J ':T° P"'F^, W 0 0
: W T=-_
RSHEC
4,432.00 725.00t'?,.---_- --_-_-_--
----O-.DO-
?
::
'
:aF
:
?
?a
4
K?
?
y
?'
?
eTAzse=oaecHor:s -------
wddv
.'nu-?
wer
'`h
:w.
a,
t- o
- ^-'?v::
?
-
?
+*
+i
-
-
:?:
EOITS VJHI
: YOUR TAX
-
N REDII
^ -4..432._DO_
i r
. ?. ±? ,r.
_
.
,
?c.easl.
:
S:p.rz:,.
-.:,.•.:
a
s r....
.
?
.
?a?
,n
s
:_
a
.
a
.
.
.are.
rw
.r
-
,R
.
,
C
IF THIS 80% IS CHECKED .-
m YOUDWEDEUNQUENT
?f ^ STATE PAIC AG91GL"?TL1RhL CREUIt 00
0
i ? TAXEAN?MA? NOT .
? F
o?,
MARTIN DESLAURIERS qpPLY FOH THE E STHTE P41D Hp1.SESicSD GFEGIT
,aaorearrTwxaecuNOS
725.00
i FN
G AG PP,ESeRVE CREOR
0.00
' F= 1031 CLIFF RD =oisnseacaeort
l R ?
T
FTEF CREDI75
i ? AY. A
1C 3? 7_OZ_D 0
' EAGAN MN 551 L3 ' '?"• SPCCIAL ASSESSMcMS
.__.------
,
i ?
A aau401anL 633 . 33
e wTEFESr 942.03
a
I A ? MARTIN DESLAURIERS
18
E . .
1031 CLIFF RD ,?: .? ??• • :
„
? _ _
?
i F
: ft sc.r :t ,-f
?r. .
; : W ? ,
2 641
18
EAGAN MN 55123 = .
'
-*1 - _
eNTS
1031 CLIFF RD 1798 SSTK 444 1,575.36
EAGAN MN 55123 k?.
OF
3830 PoLOT KNOB ROAD. P.O. BOX 27199
EA6AN, MINNESOTA 55121
VFIONE: (612) 454-8100
March 6, 1989
MR & MRS MARTZN DESLAURIERS
5459 E HERMOSA VISTA
MASA ARIZONA 85205
Re: - 86=9Y1=5'Z-J7
Project 444R-,Special Assessment Objection/Appeal
Dear Mr. & Mrs. DesLauriers:
\AC ELLISON
MUr*N
?K)MAS EGiNI
U4V1D K GUSTAfSON
PPMEtA McCRfA
THEOOORE WACHfER
Carci Marnbers
IViOlAlS HEDGES
CRYPt4*JNSkalor
EUGENE VAN OVEfffiEKE
cm c?
On February 27, I received a letter from you expressing your
shock that the amount of the special assessment for the above-
referenced project was certified to your property tax statement
while you are appealing that assessment to District Court. As
you zecall, on October 6, 1988, after considerable discussion and
review of the facts and information pertaining to your original
objection, the City Council adopted the special assessment and
authorized its certification to t'he County.
Subsequent to that action, your attorney filed a Notice of Appeal
dated November 4, 1988, to District Court regarding this
assessment. To this date, the City has not received any judicial
direction or restraining order compelling us to remove the
special assessment that was properly adopted by Council action
and certified to your property. By the mere fact of filing an
appeal with District Court does not remove a special assessment.
It requires the Court's determination that the assessment in fact
was improper. This has not yet been detezmined.
I do not believe you have to hire an attorney
matter as you have already done so by proceeding
of Appeal to District Court. Therefore, the
remain an obligation of your property until th
formally directed to the contrary.
I hope this information helps clarify the issue
the special assessment was certified to your tax
to handle this
with your Notice
assessment will
: City has been
and explain why
statement.
Sincer , ec: Mayor Vic Ellison
?? Thomas L. Hedges, City Administrator
Gene VanOverbeke, Director of Finance
omas A. Colbert, P.E. Jim Sheldon, City Attorney
Director of Public Works
TAC/jj
THE LONE OAK TREE. ..THE SVMBOI OF STRENGTH AND GROWTH IN OUR COMMUNIiY
Lj' ? ?•
3
?09?• `? ? \\AN`
\e°? C)n
ST11TE OI' MINNESOTII S, y,96 UISTRICT COURT
COUN'PY OF UAKO'1'A kF1RS'P .IUb1C1AL DISTRICI'
--------------------------------------------------------------
CI'1'Y OF EAGAN, a Municipal
corporation,
Petitioner/Respondent,
vs. NO'I'ICP•. OF l1PPEAL AS TO
TI113 Ues1.AURIERS PARCEL
Martin llesLauriers and Marie (Parcel 10-02600-0011-52)
DesLauriers, husband and wife,
1lppellants.
IN THE MATTER OF THE ASSESSMENT UFON TFiC SUBJECT
PROPERTY FOR THE EiOLLAND LAKE TRUNK STORM SEWER
PROJECT 444R. OWNERS: MnRTIN AND M11RIE DESLAURIERS,
FIUSBIIND AND WIFE.
TO: THE CLERK OF THE CITY OF E11GAN: ROGER SAMES, Clerk of
the above-named District Court; H11UGE, EIDE & KELLER, P.A.,
Water View Office Tower, Suite 303, 1200 Yankee Doodle
Road, Eagan, Minnesota 55123, attorneys for the City of
Eagan on this and related condemnation matter (District
Court file no. 102628.
PLEASE TF1KE NOTICE that the appellants herein, to wit:
Martin DesLauriers and Marie DesLauriers, liusbancl and wife,
hereby appeal to the above-named District C'ourt Prom the special
assessment levied upwi said property in the amount of $9,500.00
as approved by the City Council on October 6, 1988.
nppellants' objections to the special assessment are on
the following grounds:
1. The property is improperly assessed and is not based
?pon the benefits received.
2. The assessment amount is grossly excessive and not
in accordance with current zoning and use of the property.
3. No deduction has been made for future right of way
for ponding or flooding purposes.
WAEREFORE, the Appellants pray that:
1. Tlie special assessment not be confirmecl; and that,
2. 7'he assessment be set aside and there be a reassessment
as provided in M.S. 429.071, Subd. 2.
Dated: er / 'u'k
BIBUS & LARSON LAW FIRM
By: qv ?
Thomas W. Ribus, IDN8114
nttorney for 1lppellants
P. O. Box 2038
6575 Cahill Avenue
Inver Grove Heights, MN 55075
(612) 457-2046
r
sity oF eegan
9830 PROT KNOB ROAD. P.O. BOl( 21199 yC gisqN
EAGAN. MiNNESOTA 55121 MOW
PViONE (612) 454-8100 7HOMAS EGAN
MVID K GUSfAiSON
September 21. 1988 PANEIA LACCREA
nffoooREwacHU
cw,d MWnbn
AaMnsHMCEs
cer?
?E
??
MR & MRS MARTIN DESLAURIERS ??
1031 CLIFF ROAD
EAGAN MN 55123 -
Re: Parcel 10-02600-011-52
pco3ect 444R.'Special Aasessment Objection
Dear Mr. & Mrs. I3ealauries:
On June 30, the Special Assessment Committee reviewed the formal
objections that you submitted at the original final assessment
hearing held on September 1, 1987, pertaining to the trunk area
storm sewer assessments of $10,965.20 associated with Project
444R, Holland Lake Trunk Storm Sewer. Enclosed you wi11 find a
copy of the portion of the minutes pertaining to your objection.
You will note that the Committee recommended that the assessment
be reduced to $9,500 in compliance with the special appraisal
report performed by the City of Eagan pertaining to this
assessment and your objection.
The Committee's comments and recommendations are being forwarded
to the City Council for formal consideration on Thursday, October
6, 1988. If you have any additional information that you would
like to have considered by the Council, please provide it to my
attention no later than October 3 so that it can be distributed
to the Council for their timely review.
Sincerely,
LO7Gto?
Thomas A. Colbert, P.E.
Director of Public Works
TAC/jj
cc: Deanna Kivi, Special Assessment Clerk
Enclosure
THE LONF OAK TREE. .THE SYMBOL OF SiRENGTH AND GRONRH IN WR COMMUtrIiY
• • SG.rilW lfJJG34y,y KA'i'LLiLLi `IYWIGJ
JtA+IE 30, 1988
PAGE 3
Egan mDved, Co1ton secanded the wotion to affi:m the proposed ffnal
assessnent subject to the available redtactim tmder Public Polity 86-3,
i£ and anly if, Mr. Bratland executes the appiropriate docimec?ts required
under the pplicy. All, voted in favor.
WILLIAMS & LARLIE 15T AWITI@i SM SOIER
KELMM BdtATLAPID
Fublic works Airector Tan Colbert stated that uasder Pro3ect 454
the City installed sanitary sewer, water maSn and storm sewer services
to service the Willians & LaRue Ist and 2nd Additions which are located
adjacerit to ard west of Mr. Bratlarxi's pxoperty. Zhe storm sewer
improvenent pravides drainage to Mr. Bratland's property. Mk. Sratland
had never been assessed far a tnmk area storm sewer impravement. Of
the 4.75 acres of property owned by Mr. Bratlard and after applying the "Isrge
lot credit" under Special Assessment Paliey 62J4, the residual net assessable
area was reduced to 1.89 acres and assessed at the single-family residential/
agrzcultural rate. 1he property beaefits by having a con[rolled storm sewer
outlet pmvided for the pording area that ircorporates a portion of the
Bratlard property.
Merkley naved, Fgan seconded Che motian to reaffirm Che original assessment
with Che apglication of Speci.al Assessment Policy 82-4. All voted in fawr.
mmLW"Im? $[DW
?O.LJ.?? 36i7 ?S
Public Works Director Tom Colbert sCated ChaC vnder Project 444R
the City installed a complex tnask storm sewer system generally located
aZong Cliff road. It pxavided for Che installation of a sCoxm sewer
lift station an Mr. Deslatwiers' pcnperty providing a controlled outlet
strvcture for the pond locaCed adjacent to and east of DesLauriers' property.
The City's appraisal report perfoxned by Dahlen & Dwyer, Inc. itidicates
that the increased market vaiue is less than the proposed assessment aKl
that the SCaff's reccmnendetion is that the proposed £inal assessment be
reduced i36 $9,500.00.per the appraisal.
A letter- was submitted by MarCin end Marie DesLauriers ixdicatfng
thaC they objected to the assessment but would be out of town on the night
of the meetiTg. TC is the landownexs' position that the project did not
provide airy benefits to their property. Public Warks Director Taa Colbert
indicated that Deslatsiers were not eligible far the "large lot credit"
because their paYCe1, was larger tban 5 acres. tYr. DesLauriers was not
eligihle for the "large.lot credit" since it car be anticipated thaC Che
lot wail.d be subdivided at a future date. There was a credit given for
fucure right-of-way and easemesst dedications. Twmddell asked whether
or not there was a credit given far the lift station. Colhert indicated
that the 11ft station had just been acquired Chrough candeamtion process
John J. Klein
1495 Lone Oak Road
Eagan, Minnesota 55121
May 19, 1989
Honorable Judge Thomas M. Murphy
District Court
First Judicial District
Dakota County Government Center
Hastings, Minnesota 55033
Re: Court File No. : C2-88-8935
Respondent's Closing Argument Brief
Your Honar:
Today, I received a copy of the hereinabove referenced brief, and after reading
the second paragraph on Page 4, I am mighty angry at being called a liar.
To prove the validity of my testimony, I am submitting pages from the City of
Eagan's 1978 and 1984 Comprehensive Storm Sewer Plans which were prepared by
Bonestro, Rosene, Anderlik, & Associates, Inc., Consulting Engineers for the
City of Eagan. These plans were certified by Robert W. Rosene, a principal of
that firm, and both plans were certified for approval by Thomas Colbert, Eagan's
City Engineer, Rosene and Colbert testified contrary to the drainage and ponding
figures in those reports.
Appendix C, Pond Data, Page C-9 of the 1478 Report, shows clearly that there are
70 Tributary Acres which flow across the DesLauriers' property to Pond LP-51, and
the "Storm Sewer Layout Map" shows that the Storm Water is directed under C]iff
Road directly into Holland Lake, then westerly along the south side of Cliff Road.
Appendix C, Pond Data, Page C-18 of the 1984 Report shows that previously only 70
acres flowed directly across the DesLauriers property. Under this new engineering
plan, 2885 Tributary Acres have now been directed, by man-made means to LP-51, and
now flow westerly along the southerly side of the DesLauriers property on the north
side of Cliff Road.
Table A, Pond Data, dated 5/16/86 clearly shows the Existing Level at the 867.7 foot
elevation, and the Proposed HWL (High Water Level) to be at the 880 foot elevation,
which I showed on the contour map at the trial to reveal the height at which the
DesLauriers property is now potentially subjected to flooding under the City's new
Storm Sewer Program.
Your Honor, I submit these figures and maps from the City's own documents to support
the validity of my testimony. I did not testify falsely at the trial!
Thank you for your consideration of this matter.
Sincerely,
? •- i
John J. Klein
cc: Thomas W. Bibus
Joseph P. Earley
Martin DesLauriers
HAUGE, E3DE & KELLER, P.A.
/7y n PAUL H. MAl10E
? JRttorneya at eLaw KEVIN W. EIDE
TOWh CENTRE PROFESSIONAL BLDG., SU1TE 400 DAVIDG.KEl1ER
? 1260 YANKEE DOODLE ROAD oEerue.sa+NnD?
EAGAN, MINNESOTA 55123-2201 TMO1`°^SP•LOWE
(612) 456-9000
FAX: (612) 454-4292 RECEIVED '
P9AY 2 6 9989
May 29, 1989
Mr. Thomas Hedges
City of Eagan
Dear Tom:
!v - vaGoo ' 0 [r-s2.
Enclosed please find a copy of the decision received May 23, 1984
from the Court of Appeals in regard to the Appeal of Martin
DesLauriers from the jury verdict of the City's Appeal of the
Commissioner's Award in the condemnation of the lift station site
foz Project 444R.
We are pleased to advise you that the Court of Appeals affirmed the
Trial Court's decision and jury verdict to reduce the Commissioner's
Award of $60,000.00 to $16,000.00.
It is my understanding that Mr. DesLauriers did deposit the
difference between the $16,000.00 and the amount paid pursuant to
the 3/4's deposit requirement for appeal with the Trial Court. We
will request that Mr. Bibus, the Delauriers attorney, confirm our
request that the Clerk of Court release those funds to the City of
Eagan at the earliest possible date.
Sincerely,
DGK:jh
Enclosure
AAUGE, EIDE & RELLER, P.A.
David G. Keller
cc: I/Tnomas Colbert
James Sheldon
NOTICE: A4EDIA AN1,? COUNSEL AP.E PROHtB1TED FRO*d MP-K1NG
- Tf-US Ot II3;ON OR Ofi:'LR P'?Ei?C ri IOR TO
12:01 A.M. ON :'f'.E FILE DATE
This oDini4n..will-,Ds.,unr)ublished and
inn. Stat. S 450A.08, subd.
STATE OF MINNESOTA
IN COURT OF APFEALS
C3-88-2133
Dakota CoUnty
City of Eagan,
Respondent,
vs.
Martin DesLauriers, et al.,
Appellants.
David Keller
Town Centre Professional Bldg.
1260 Yankee Doodle Road, $200
Eagan, MN 55123-2210
Thomas W. Bibus
P. O. Box 2038
6575 Cahill Avenue
Inver Grove Heights, MN 55075
Filed May 23, 1989
Office of Apgellate Courts
tleard, considered and decided by Short, Presiding Judge,
Randall, ,7udge, and Kalitowski, Judge.
RANDALL, Judge
Randall, Judge
U N P U B L I S H E D O P I N I O N
EACTS
Appellants Martin and Marie DesLauriers appeal a jury award
for a permanent easement and consequential damages resulting from
an action in eminent domain by the City of Eagan (respondent).
The City of Eagan's Project 444R, expanding the existing
sturm sewer system, was necessitated by development east and
north of appellant's property and by the demand of Dakota County
that storm water no longer flow into Holland Lake. Project 444R
essentially blocked the natural drainage from appellants'
r
property into Holland Lake, established a holding pond on
property east and adjacent to appellants' property, and
established location and construction of a lift station on the
southeast corner of appellants' property.
In 1986, respondent commenced an action in eminent domain in
Dakota County District Court for permanent and temporary
easements for trunk storm sewer, ponding and lift station
purposes over at least two parcels of land. The district court
awarded respondent a permanent easement of approximately 2800
square feet (.064 acres) and a temporary construction easement of
approximately 3800 sguare feet (.087 acres) for the construction
of a lift station on appellants' property. A hearing was held
before court-appointed commissioners. Their report awarded
$60,000 to appellants with no part of the award apportioned to
consequential damages. Respondent appealed this award, and a
jury trial was held.
Pursuant to a motion in limine, the trial court ruled that
testimony would be limited to the petition of condemnation and to
damages to the remaining parcel of land directly resulting from
construction of the lift station. After the evidence was
presented and after viewing appellants' property and the lift
station, the jury awarded appellants $2000 for the permanent
easement and $14,000 generai damages, far less than the
commissioners' fiyure. The trial court denied appellants' motion
for a new trial, and they appealed.
-2-
D E C I S I O N
, Respondent moved in limine that the trial court restrict
tesLimony to the petition of condemnation: a permanent easement
for a 35-foot by 82-foot parcel in the southeast corner of
appellants' property, and consequential damages which occurred to
the remaining property as a direct result of this taking.
"The question of whether land has been damaged so as to
require condemnation is a question of law which the trial court
must decide before submitting the damaqe question to the
commissioners in the first instance." City of Mankato v.
Hilgers, 313 N,W.2d 610, 612-13 (Minn. 1981). The commissioners'
conclusion that the storm sewer project, not the .064 acre taking
or the lift station construction, had a potential impact on
approximately two acres was beyond the authority conferred by the
condemnation petition. A trial court has appellate jurisdiction
when reviewing a commissioners' award, and it has no authority to
modify the condemnation petition at the appellate stage. Id. at
612-13. Therefore, the trial court properly restricted evidence
to the petition for condemnation.
Property uwners are entitled to just compensation for
property taken for public use. Minn. Const. art. 1, § 13. Where
only part of a tract is taken, landowners are entitled to
compensation for loss to the remaining land. Victor Co. v.
State, 290 Minn. 40, 44, 186 N.W.2d 168, 171 (1971). "In such a
case, the measure oE damages is ordinarily the difference between
the market value of the entire tract before the taking and the
-3-
.
' market value of what is left after the taking." Alexandria Lake
; Area Service Reyion v. Johnson, 295 N.W.2d 588, 590 (Minn.
1980). To deterrciine fair market value, the highest and best use
of the proper[y and any competent evidence which legitimately
bears on market value may be considered. Ramsey County v.
Miller, 316 N.W.2d 917, 919 (Minn. 1982) (citations omitted).
The jury heard testimony from appellants' appraiser who
claimed the highest and best use of the 6.5 acre parcel would be
a 15-lot subdivision. He estimated the loss of approx2mately two
acres of potential development at $277,406.
Appellant Martin DesLauriers, a real estate broker,
testified the property's highest and best use was as a single
family dwelling. He stated the fair market value was $225,000,
and damages of $80,000-$100,000 had occurred due to potential
ponding. Respondent's appraiser valued the taking and
consequential damages for the permanent easement at $1000 and for
the temporary easement at $150. The jury valued the taking at
$2000 and damages at $14,000.
The jury heard sharply conflicting otal testimony from
appellants and the various experts. We aifirm
acknowledging that when factual determinations
dependent on conflicting oral testimony, great
the factfinder. See Shymanski v. Nash, 312 Mii
N.W.2d 854, 657 (1977) (weight and credibility
testimony is generally for the jury).
the jury verdict
are largely
deference is owed
m. 304, 306, 251
of expert
-4-
F*? 1
It is not the appellate court's function to substitute its
judgment for that of the jury. Cardinal Consulting Co. v. Circo
Resorts, 297 N.W.2d 260, 265 (Minn. 1980). Our decision today
does not impinge on appellants' future right to possible
compensation if fiooding of the two-acre area occurs. For this,
the remedy of inverse condemnation could be available to
appellants. Wilson v. Ramacher, 352 N.W.2d 389, 394 (Minn.
1984).
Affirmed.
ry?
-5-
/,_-a,i-S?
?, _ n .?^ -
P:llWARD R. McMENOMY
LARRY S SF:VLRS(lN*
JAMF,S N. SHN:i.DON
J.PATRICK WILCOX*
TtiRLNCE Y UUHKIN
MICHAb;L G. ?OUGHERTY
REIDJ.HANSEN
M1CHAh:I. N: MOLF:NDA**
'ALSOI.IC6NtiP;D fV IOWA
*"A[SO IdCHNSA:U 1N WLSCONfiIN
{AISU LICIiNSh;f17N NEBRASRA
.7une 22, 1989
A PROFFSS[ONAL A530CIATION
ATTpANti'S AT LAW
0 REPLY TO:
4300 WF.ST t47TH 3TREE7'
Y O BOX 29329
APl'I.E \'ALLEY, MINNE30TA 55124
1'EI.Eb'AX NUMBER 4323180
(612) 9a2a1ss
? REPLY TO.
144W SOUTH ROHERT TRAIL
ROSEMOUNT, MINNESOTA 560fi8
(612) 4231165
Deanna Kivi
Eagan City Hall
3830 Pilot Knob Road
Box 21199
Eagan, Minnesota 55121
Re: DesLauriers Assessment Appeal
Qur File No.: 206-6050
Dear Deanna:
17 42
PAUL1J J. STIk:R
PATRICK W.STP:WART
KFNIN P. CAR20LL
Kh.NNN.1H R HALL
? SCO1"P D. JOI-INSTON}
JOSEYH P EARLLY
? MARY i. GOLIKN:
MICHAliL C. McCANN
OF COUN9A:L
. L'C?.?(. aYC- Gk..?• JpHN k WKF:LlCH
Per our telephone conversatian on June 21, 1989, I am enclosing a
copy of the Order for Judgment in the Eagan vs. pesLauriers
Assessment Appeal. The Court has ruled that the DesLaurier progerty
(Parcel 10-2600-0011-52) has not benefited hy the storm sewer
installation and that the property should not be assessed for
Project 444R.
I am also enclosing a copy of the Special Assessments Input Form
showing the original assessment amount to be $9,500.00. The City
should request that the County delete this amount from their
assessment rolls. I have also been informed by the DesLauriers'
Attorney that they have already made their first payment on this
assessment. The City should also refund the amount of this first
payment.
Please contact me with any further questions or concerns,
Sincerely,
M MENOMY & SEVERSON, P.A.
J se h P. Earley
JP /dms
Enclosure
cc: Tom Hedges,
McMENOMY 8L SEVERSON
Eagan City Administrator
Equal Opportunity/Attirmative Aclion Employer
BPECIAL A88E813MENTB
INPUT FORM - AUOITOR ?c• ?r..?' ?
,
- sr?-tauiege I ?`( nrs?ia-oisr I c, eec-YEnx ?%?f ?,
--- --- --?----
? E'IRST YEM ItlrO itEGULAR 2NT•L)`G U p TOTAL ASSESStFSn
.vity X MU nssUsieVr c-ehaescs _ oectNOUerrr aMuars
? ASSESSHQ{P UPDATE ADD/UPDATE PARCELS Divislon
IlJCE2m
vo10 r 1 j5a.1 17.`1R1 1."' 1... 1 p I ncrza,
A. - 1v3d
C - Chanqe
0 - Deletc
P - Print
• boolcnhe e t
O - Old Parcel
(dlvision)
H - NeW Parcel
(division)
DEF CUDE
S - Senior
? Cltixen
C - Ci ty •
•DeFcrred
,
pe9. 8PECIAL, AHBESSMENT8 ?t? f0 ?PO
'-' ?--- INPUT FORM - AUDITOR
o1.1,ntcr 10 sA-cacrwEt 17I$ sx-rune 5s7'v?_?lqjR orsrnio-nzsr 10 eEr--YEn/7f 9_
ua-YEvM 15 ezRSi Y= nr T 0 99 i? zecvrsR ixr.28 5 0 oToznz nssessmerrr %sv v. o 0
Hark Activi[y ? NB1 ASSE531Et1f L--PAR66[,S DELINQUENr ANNUALS
_ ASSF_SS.YFNt UPOA1E -? ADD/UPDATE PHRCELS Diviaion
IST
P[J1T
LL71'
BLK
FA 1 lSSESSNEb7r
JJ10lMP OEF
CODE EFF
YEAR FCT-
ION
lo Llo o ol 25.1 1?58 95co 00 . !988 ff
?
'--
M;QiO
ncriCU
A - Jk3d '
C - Ctwnqe
p '- 0.1ete
P = Print
boolcshee C
O - 02d Parccl
(divisfon)
N - Ncu Parccl
(divi9lon)
DEF CODE
S - Senior
' Citizcn
C - ci ty •
• [x:fcrred
ucF•,oo a4sM
- r+oaM a ruig. &w. o«wwro
r-Joseph P. Earley
Attorney at Law
7300 W. 147th St., Box 24329
Applil-Valley, MN 55124
L
' rThomas W. Bibus
Attorney at Law
Box 2038, Suite 103
6575 Cahill Ave. E.
LInver Grove Heights, MN 55075
STATE OF MINNESOTA
COUNTYOF Dakota
NOTICE OF:
El FILING OF ORDER
El ENTRY OFJUDOMENT
O DOCKEfING aF JUDGMENT
Court Flle No.: C2-88-8935
_ IN RE:
Ci[y of Eagan etc.
vs
Martin DesLauriers etal etc.
13 Ybu are hereby nodfied that on Mav 24th ? 1989 an Order
was duly flled In the above entitled matter.
O You aro hareby notlfled that on Mav 24th , 19 82_ a Judgment
was duly entered in the above enGUed matter.
? You are hereby notlfled that on , 18 a Judgment
was duly docketed In the above enGUed malter in the amount of
_ A true and correct copy of thia Notioe hes been aerved by mall upon the paAles nemed herein at the
Iast known address of each, purauant to Minnesota Rules ot Civll Procedure, Rule 77.04.
Osted_ May 24th 1989 Ro¢er W. Sames
• Court Adminlstrator
py ???L¢-?? ??ra ?r?ehJ
Deputy
COURT ADMINISTRATOR
DAKOTA COUNTY, MINN.
? F I L E D
? MAY 241989
ROGER W. SAMES, CLERK ""C"'09
x'r? ?EPUT7
5TA7'L OF MI.NNESOTA
i;OUNT'Y UF 1I,1KqTA
COURT ADMINISTRATOR
DAKOTA COUNTY, MINN.
F I L E D
MAY 241989
N93ER W. SAMES, CLERf(
-?DEPUTY
Citp of Lagari, a municipal
corporati.on.
Fetitioner/ltespondent,
vs.
MarY.in llesLauriers and Marie
UesL.auriers, husbflnd and wife,
Appellants.
IN DISTRICT COURT
NINS'P JUDICLAL D1S'CH1CT
Court Pile No. C2-88-8935
FINDINGS OE FACT
CONCLUSIONS Or' LAW
ORDSN FUR JUDGMENT
AND ,7[IDGMENT
1'he above-entitled matter came on for trial before the
unclersigned Judge of Uistrict Court on.the 4th day oP May, 1989,
:it the Government Center, Hastings, Minnesota, regardittg an
apPea] of the assessment of the DesLauriers Parcel 10-02600-0011-
52..
Jos?ph P. Earley, Esq „ appeared representing the
Pet.itiouer/hc5pondent.. Thomas W. Bibus, Esq., appeared
reprc:;ent.ing the ;1ppeLlahts.
Now, t.herefore, based upon the file, records and proceedings
horcin, ihe Court being duly advised in the premises makes the
f<;! lotcing
L?INDINCS OP FACT:
(1) 7'hat the c;ity of Eagan shall be hereinafter referred to
aa City 1nd the Appellants hereinafter referred to as
UesLxuricrs.
('L) 7'hr;L Lhn itespondent herein is a municipal corporation
1
and, as such, has completed e storm sewer project for the
Purpc>ses herein Lhzzt runs in front of the Appellants' home
LocateQ on Clif.'L Road in Etagan, Minnesota. Said project is known
sis the HoJ.laud Lal:e Trunk Sturm Sewer Project 444N.
(3) Pliat the DesLauriers own a 6.3 acre tract on Cliff
Itoacl; that a pnrtion uf that property hnd previously been subject
to a condemnati.on, and the City has erected a lift station on
naid propertp. SAid Li.ft station is used in connection with this
sLorm sewer pro,ject.
(4) Thtit the DesLauriers bought this property in 1977 and,
shortly thereafLer, erected a home in the northeast portion of
t.he property; that distances were not made available to the
Court, but it is some distance Yrom the house to Cliff Road and
serviced Ly ti gr.xxvel driveway; that the portion that is nearest.
Cliff Itoad is lower arid, £rom time to time, would acc.umulate
vriCer. The natural runoff of the surrounding terrain ran the
w:iier in1:o that ].ow area. The water then passed through a
r"].vert urider the DesLrxurier.s' driveway into the propertp
i.mmediately cast, referred to rzs Carlson Pond. When Carlson Pond
c•eached a cei•tain level, ttie water exited throttgh a culvert under
('].ifl' Road into Lalce Holland. 7'his flowage of water apparently
hss eaisted foi snme period of time.
(5) That rit the apparent urging of the County of Lakota to
rlose off the storm water runoff into Lake Holland, the Citv
ex•ecled this storm sc:cuer system.
(Ei) Thai: the City has determined that the UesLauriers'
2
,
prc,pertp has improved by $9,500.00 due to the construction of the
storm sec:er, and hace so flssessed the propertv in that amount.
f71 Thut the UesLauriers have objected; hence, this
liLigation.
(tf) That Lhe memorandum attached hereto shall be
incorporated herein and made psrt of the Pindings.
Now, tlierefore, based upon the foregoing, the Court makes
t6e following
(:ONCLUSION OF LAW:
'Chat the llesLauriers' property, Parcel 10-02600-0011-52, has
not benefitec9 by the storm sewer installation; that, as such,
this property should nut be ussessed for this pro,iect.
LE.:T JUD(3MEN'P BE ENTERED ACCORlliNULY.
Uatod: Me5• 23, 1989
MEMOHt1NllUPf
The City in this matter finds i.tself with the usually
difficult problem of endeavoring to prove thut the DesLauriers'
property h<4;; impruved tlirough thc installAtion of an overall city
improvemenl. A substant.i.al amount of acreaqe is serviced by the
storm sewei and li.PL stution thAt was put on the DesLauriers'
property as it lil'1.:; the water uiit of Carlson Pond. Said wlter
previousl}• t;;n under Cliff Ruad and into Lake !{olland. The
Court, being awnre of Lalte Fiulland, Pinds that it would take A
3
B]' TH1: C()UR'I':
storm uf biblical proportions to overflow the banks of Lake
Hulland and flnod ClifF Road.
1'he City daes have the burden of showing that the assessment
oY' $9,950.00 improves the DesLauriers' property by an amount
eqiial or qreater than that. The Court does not find that the
Citc has met its burden.
The Citp in its presenLati.on to the Court stated that the
highest and best use of the propertg would be single family
CIiJE'.lling, lt nota serves that purpose. The home owner had no
Problem dealing with his runoff wnter Uefore this sewer was
itist:alled b}• the Citp. It was not for his benefit that the sewer
scst.em wns installed, Uut for the benefit of the commwiity at
l;ir;e. The CnurC recn.lls the fi.gure of approximutely 2,700 acres
immcdiatelc casL of the UesLauriers' property being served by
thi:; sewei• sysLrm. Apparently, thete is little or no inctease in
the amount serviced through the DesLauriers' property bc this
sti•si,em. L;von though tkiis new aystem does not ylace uny greater
bu+•deri on Lbe llesl,auriers' property, it is not more beneficial to
his runoPf si.tunCion. if the highest and 6est use of the
property, as set 1'orth by the City, is as it is now, single
fnmily dwe]ling, t.hen it makes little sense for the City to talce
the position that, it, is a substantial improvement to the
DeSt,efurier property if they evcr wanted to develop the same.
'I'Le Court hAS di.fficulty in acceptinq the evaluations placed
nu the propex•ty by the City. The Court noted that, before the
alleged improvement, the propertv was served bv n bituminous
4
roadcaAy and electri.city; that, in the after situation, the
pruperty was served by bituminous roadway, electricitp and trunk
arca storm sewer. l.n every comparable, the comparative property
was serced Ly- a].1 u1.il.ities, which are described as including
?as, el.ectricity, sunitary sewer, water, storm sewer and
6ituminotts TOSdW84-5.
Therc has been rio objection to the process or the procedure
im-olved hereiti. TLe matter simply comes down to a judgement
call bp the Gourt based upon the evidence that was presented, the
evaluation of the documentation, and the evaluation of the
iaitnesses called before the Court in making its determination.
As such then, the Caurt, finds thflt the Citv has not sustuined its
burden 1s to showing, by a fair preponderance of the evidence,
t}iat there has been nn}• improvement to the DesLaurier propertv.
'Che Coi.trt also notes the fact that it received, unsolicited,
n ietter I'rom John J. Iilein, the home osaners' appraiser. Upon
npu uing I.IiN envelope, the CaurC noted thet it contained a letter
direct.ed to the Court, plus some ayparent exhibits. When the
Court roal.irccl that it r.elated to this case, the material was
placed bacl: in the envelope and not read or reviewed bq the
uudersigned. Ptr. lilein ma,y be well meaning, but the Court takes
grievous oFfense flt a witness who, apparently on his own
voliti.on, attempts Co intervene and, es parte, influence the
Conrt. 'Clic parties can be Assured that Ptr. 1{lein's extraneous
ef'1'ort:: did noi: inf luence the Cottrt in making its determination
onc wa}- ur the other. T.M.M.
5
I hereby certify that the Conclusion Of Law contained in this document
shall constitute the JudgmenY of this Court.
?ate: May 24th 1989 ROGER W. SAMES
Court Administrator
Seal ?-(
BY .? Y-?r_?i /J?.7i1?j
Deputy Clerk
/
,
?
`
HAUGE, EIDE & KELLER, P.A.
J'lllorneys at al.aw
TOWN CENTRE PROFESSIONAL $LDG.. SUITE 200
1260 YANKEE DOODLF ROAD
EAGAN, MINNESOTA 55123-2201
(612) 456-9000
FAX: (612) 454-4232
July 21, 1989
Mr. Eugene VanOverbeke
City of Eagan
3838 Pilot Knob Road
Eagan, Mn 55121
Vr4-
RE: City of Eagan v. DesLauriers
Condemnation Action
Dear Mr. VanOverbeke:
PAULH HAUOE
KEVIN W EIpE
DAVID G KELLER
DEBRA E SCHMID7
THOMAS P. LOWE
Enclosed please find a check in the amount of $27,754.66 on check
number 5699 from the Dakota County Court Administrator in regard to
the above captioned action.
I have also enclosed a copy of an Order and Judgment and a copy of
the Cashier's Check closing out an account established by the Clerk
of Court.
If you will recall, the condemnation commissioner's originally
awarded $60,000.00. We appealed on behalf of the City of Eagan and
obtained a jury award of $16,000.00. The land owner was
unsuccessful on a motion for a new trial. We were successful in a
motion to require him to deposit $30,595.00 with the Court
representing the difference between the jucy award and the
$45,000.00 paid (inc2uding the origina2 quick take deposit) to the
land owner pending appeal to the District Court pursuant to
^?innesota Statute. We tried to calcuiate the proper interest
factors when arriving at that number.
The land owner appealed the denial of a near trial and the City was
again successful. Most recently the land awners attorney brought a
motion for costs and disbursements totaling approximately
$11,800.00. The Court may award costs and disbursements under
Statute J117.195. We argued the case on July 11, 1989, and
basically pointed out that most of the costs incurred by the land
owner were due to the presentation of an improper claim for damage
to two acres of potential ponding area.
RECE(VEQ ,lul Z 4 9989
As you can see by the Order, the Court awarded the original
$30,595.00 plus interest to the City of Eagan per our request except
that $643.00 of interest which was due to the land owner was awarded
,
.
Mr. Eugene Vanoverbeke
July 21, 1989
Page 2
to the land owner. The Court then finally did award the land owner
$3,000.00 of the $11,800.00 of costs and disbursements requested.
Sincerely yours,
HAUGE, EIDE, ANDERSON & KELLER, P.A.
David G. Keller
DGK:jh
cc: Thomas Hedges
Thomas Colbert
James Sheldon
i
TRUST ACCOUNT
ROGER SAME& COURT ADMINISiqqTOR
DAKOTA COUNTV GOV'T. CENTEP
HASTINGS, MN 55033
5699
15-110/919
PAV - `J?7 f 79 18..$9
70 THE CS'Y OY E
ORDEROF J ?an $ ?nip 7?.66
Trrenty-Seven Thousand Seven Eundred FiYt -FOUr pol].e,rs An-d 66/100 j
- - - - - - - . -DOLLARS
e?:: NOrwesf Benk Hastmgs, N.A.
N01111'lABnMKS Hestmgs,MN55033
XMIS
Foq Fi1e #102628 & 104877
Iaeposzt release ursuan
t ?`,p??Qrd??6?.
11'0056?9911¦
-_-
' C/
_ r?l. ?irn,d
09 02L Dil'
.__--
mr•1oo (.+n
hbra d fiq Rry, p"lmp
rDavid G. Keller
Attorney at Law
Suite 200 Town Center Professional Building
1260 Yankee Doddle Raad '
LEagan, Mittnesota 55123-2201
STATE OF MINNESOTA
COUNTY OF Dakota
NOTICE OF:
r O FILINa pF ORbER
Thomas W. Bibus Attorney at Law X ENTRYOFJUDdMEIYT
P. 0. Box 2038 '
6575 Cahill Avenue East 0 DOCKETINO OFJUDC3MENT
L-;nver Grove Heights, Minnesota 55075
CouR Ffle No.: C4-87-104877
IN RE; City of Eagan vs. Martln DesLauriers , et al
C3 Yo+ am heiebY noUtled that on 19 an Otder
was duly tiled In the above entitled meNer.
You ero hereby noliflad that on July 14th ?g 89 a Judgment
was duly enterod In the above enGUed maHar.
r-3 1'ui ero hereby noUfled that on 19 a Judyment
waa duly dxksted In the above enUUed mattsr in the amount o( s
A trve and correct copyo( Ih?a Nottoe has been aerved bymall upon the partlss named hsrsin atlAs
Inat known addresa of eaeh, purauent to Minnesota Rulea oi Clvil Procedure, RWa 77,04.
D8ted- July 14th 1989 ROGER W. SAMES
' Court AdminlalraWr
by IC
• Depuly
couRr i,Dn?liVisrr,atoR
DAKera cou:vn•, R; INN.
? ! l [ E'1,
?
JUL 141989
ROC+ER W. uAMES, CLEFiK
J3EPUTY
"W..,..
STATE OF MINNESOTA
C`JUnT AU."Ocivi5TRATOR
C,qKOTA GOU;,'T}', N:lNPJ.
? I L [ ?j
JUl 14 1989
?
FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT
COiTNTY OF DAKOTA DISTRICT COURT
RE;GEii W. SAt:lES, 61ERk -------------- -
---------- . zj?urr-------------------------
City of Eagan,
Petitioner,
V5. ORDER
Martin DesLauriers and FILE NO. C4-87-104877
Marie DesLauriers,
Respondent.
AND JUDGMENT
The above entitled matter came on for hearing before the
undersigned, vne of the Judges of the above named Court, at
the Dakota County Government Center, Hastings, on July 11,
1989. The Petitioner appeared through its attorney, David G.
Keller, Esq. The Respondents appeared through their attorney,
Thomas W. Bibus, Esq,
The Court, having reviewed all of the files, records and
proceedings herein, makes the following:
ORDER
1. That the funds on deposit in file #102628 in the
sum of $1,700.00, together with accrued interest, shall be
paid to the Respondents. This sum represents condemnation
proceeds deposited by the Petitioner on December 15, 1986.
2. The funds on deposit in file #104877 in the sum
of $30,595.00, together with accrued interest, shall be
disbursed as follows:
a. The sum of $643.00 shall be paid to the
Respondents, said sum representing interest due the
Respondents.
b. The sum of $3000.00 shall be paid to the
Respondents, said sum representing costs and dis-
bursements awarded to the Respondents.
c. The balance of the funds in this account
shall be, paid to the City of Eagan.
3. Except as Ordered herein, the Respondent's requests
for an award of additional costs and disbursements is denied.
LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY
DATED: This 13th day of July, 1989.
BY THE COURT
WILLIAM F. THUET
JUDGE
JUDGMENT
I hereby certify the above Order constitutes the Judgment
ef the Court.
Dated: July 14th 1989 ROGER W. SAMES
COURT ADMINISTRATOR
(Seal)
$Y_;,' Depu[y Clerk
T
?? Norwest 8ank Minnesota, N.A. C3SI?%@l's 5 3 4 6 5 2 0
monwisra4
Check
LOLPAPFP@wkcopY1
US TO CLDSE ACCf, 23330:?'8
NI OO ? mu\JISLJI°1W(v cSL'TS
CLEFK Of DIS'fRICT COUR? •
DAKDTA COUHTY
JULY 171 1989
*31,397.65
? NoswesrBankMinnesora,N.A. G3Sh/Er'S
AWR*VW enNKs
Check 5346519
L00fT-"WW,aYYI
US i0 CLOSE ACCT. 520655 JULY 17, 1989
MO? m'?'{'mT???}L?61CTS **11962.61
UV l?l u
??J
CLERK OF AISTRICT CDURT
BAKOTA COUMTY
%??? CitV Of eCICJC111
3830 PILOT KNOB ROAD
FAGAN, MINNESOTA 55122-1897
PHONE: (612) 454-8100
FAX: (612) 454-8363
MR. DAVID RELLER
SAIIGE, EIDE, RELLERt P.A.
ATTORNEY6 AT LAW
TOWN CENTRE PROF. BLDCi., SIIITS 200
1260 YANREE DOODLE ROAD
EAGAN, MN. 55123
RE: 10-02600-011-52
Project 444, Condemnation of Easemeats (DesLauriers)
Dear Dave:
VIC ELLISON
Moyor
1HOPMS EGP.N
DAV1D K GUSTAFSON
PfNAEIA McCRFA
THEODORE WP.CHfER
C?II Members
IHOMPS HEDGES
Cily Admin'afralor
EUGENE VAN OVERBEKE
cny c??
I received a copy of your July 21st letter to Gene VanOverbeke
closing out the condemnation action for the Martin DesLauriers
property for the above-reference project. I just wanted to let you
know that I was impressed with your representation of the City of
Eagan in the handling of this matter in the best interests of the
City of Eagan. Your efforts and expertise on behalf of the City
of Eagan is emphasized by the favorable rulings of District Court
in light of the numerous appeals by the property owner.
Thanks for handling this matter through its favorable conclusion.
Sincerely yours,
7 c -e-? -L.-
Thomas A. Colbert, P.E.
Director of Public Works
cc: Thomas L. Hedges, City Administrator
TAC/jf
THE LONE OAK TREE...THE SYMBOL OF STRENGTH AND GROWfH IN OUR COMMUNIN
Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer
/. r!.
Page 20/CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
October 6, 1988
McCrea moved, Egan seconded, the motion to close the public
hearing and reaffirm the original final assessment roll for Pro7ect
476 (Wescott Road) as it pertains to Parcel 10-01400-030-53 and
authorize its certification to the County. All voted in favor.
PRQ7ECT 444R, HOLLAND LllRS STORM SE1?iSR {(PIIRCBL 10-02600=011=52T,
Public works Director Tom Colbert stated that the improvement
that was installed handles the storm water runoff fran the subject
property through the City's trunk storm sewer system all the way to
the Minnesota River. He further stated proper credits were applieb
foc potential future cight-of-way and easement dedications if and
when the property should ever fievelop, ee stated it is properly
assessed in accordance with City policies and procedures and the
current zoning and use of the property. However, due to the fact that
the City's appraisal report indicated that the increased market value
is less than the proposed assessments, it was staff's recommendation
that the proposed final assessment be reduced to $9,500.00.
Martin DesLauriers objected to any assessment as he stated there
was no benefit to his property. He stated his property had lost
value. He distributed a han6out to the Council and showed the
location. He stated he felt the property would be flooded and f urther
explained reasons for his objection. He requested deferment until the
holding pond was defined.
Mr. Colbert stated the storm sewer plan locates 340 drainage
areas. He further stated the City was not in need of it now, but that
upon saturation it may be needed. He stated the plan would be revised
in the future but he did not know what the future would bring. He
outlined the benefit to DesLauriers' property. Councilmember Egan
questioned how the assessment would be abated. l1r. Colbert stated by
agreement. He stated the real issue was how much of the area should
be included ana that at the present time, he was uncertain of that
amount. He stated he would need to see the develognent proposal ana
he would prefer to postpone, not abate.
Mr. DesLauriers stated it was not acceptable to him to just
postpone the matter. Much discussion was held regarding the ponding.
Councilmember Egan questioned that if the City would abate, if
there would be a need for a ponding area.
City Attorney Jim Sheldon stated there were two issues:
1. Benefit to the land nowf and
2. Acquiring the ponding easement.
Page 21/CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES y
October 6, 1988
He stated the City should deal with the second issue at the time
of the development, ee further stated the appraisal amount was
separate from the issue of the future developaent.
Mr. DesLauriers reiterated his concerns. There was much
discussion regarding the ponding and the assessments.
Egan moved, Gustafson seconded, the motion to close the public
hearing and approve the final assessment roll for Project 444R
(8olland Lake Storm Sewer) as ft pertains to Parcel 10-02600-011-52,
as recommended by the Special Assessment Committee, ana authorized
its certification to the County. Wachter, Gustafson, Ellison and Egan
votea in favor; McCrea votea against.
PROJECT 460A, NIC80LS ROAD, PARCBL 10-03000-010-29
Public Works Director Tom Colbert informed the Council the
affected property was properly assessed in accordance with its zoning
classification, and opportunities to reduce the assessment in
accordance with its present use were extended to the property owner.
Therefore, it was the staff's recommendation that the original
assessment be reaffirmed based on its zoning classification or that
the reduced assessment be certified subject to the timely execution
of the required agreements.
Mr. Adelman stated that he agreed to the $4,500.00 amount but
would not sign the agreement. He stated he would like the matter
settled. He informed the Council that he had lived on the prope rty
for 29 years. Councilmember Egan informed Mr. Adelman that unless he
took the step to re-zone, nothing would happen and that he had
complete control of the matter. Mr. Egan explained the effect of the
agreement. He stated it was a non-issue. Mayor Ellison stated he felt
it was fair to tax commercial higher than residential. Mr. Colbert
stated the agreement allows a way to find the exact amount if the use
was changed.
McCrea moved, Egan seconded, the motion to close the public
hearing and reaffirm the final assessment roll for Project 460A
(Nichols Road) as it pertafns to Parcel 10-03000-010-29 and authorize
its certification to the County. All voted in favor.
PROJBCT 460A, NICHOLS ROADo LOT 1t BLOCH 2# CBDJlR RIDGB 1ST ADDITION
Public Works Director Tom Colbert informed the Council the
assessments were properly calculated and allocated in accordance with
adopted policies and procedures #or all similar zoned-type property.
Based on the appraisal by the City verifying an increase in market
value at least equal to the amount of the proposed assessments, it
was the staff's recommendation that the original assessment as
proposed be reaffirmed.
oF
3830 PILOT KfVOB ROAD, P.O BOX 21199 VC fLLV50w
EAGAN, MINNESOiA 55121 M?r
PHONE(612) 454-8700 TMpMws EGqiv
DAV1D K GUSTAFSON
PAMEIA McCR64
February 9, 1988 nieoooaEwncHTEa
CouncllMembers
Martin & Marie Des Lauriers n+onnasHEOeEs
5459 Hermosa Vista C?rynOministmtw
AN OVERBEKE
EUGENF N 1e
Mesa, AZ 85205
RE: SPECIAL ASSESSMENT OBSECTION - PROPERTY APPRAISAL/VIEWING
PARCSL NO. 10=02600=011-52 7
Dear Mr. and Mrs. Des Lauriers:
On September 21, 1987, a letter was sent to your attention
informing you that your written objection to the proposed final
assessments for the above-referenced project was being forwarded
to the Special Assessment Committee scheduled to meet in April of
1988. That letter also informed you that the City would be
performing a formal appraisal of the property to verify that the
benefit to your property through increased value was at least
equal to the amount of the proposed assessments.
This letter is to inform you that Mr. Dan Dwyer of the appraisal
firm of Dahlen & Dwyer will be contacting you in the near future
to review your property in detail. This will require access to
your house to help determine the valuations associated with your
property.
While I recognize that this may be an inconvenience, it would be
greatly appreciated if you could extend every courtesy to Mr.
Dwyer in performing this property appraisal so that the zeport
can be completed in a timely manner to be forwarded to the
Special Assessment Committee. Mr. Dwyer will be contacting you
in advance to schedule a time convenient for both parties.
Your continued patience and cooperation through this process is
greatly appreciated.
Sincerely,
? Thomas A. Colbert, P.E.
Director of Public Works
ec: Paul Hauge, City Attorney
Dan Rwyer, City Appraiser
TAC/jf
THE LONE OAK TREE. ..THE SYMBOL OF STRENGTH AND GROWTH IN OUR COMMUNIiY
itv oF
3830 PILOT KN08 ROAD. P.O. BOX 21199 _ BEA BLOMQUIST
EAGAN. MINNESOTA 55127 Mwor
PHONE' (612) 454-8100 TMOM,yq EC-AN
JAMES A SMIIFi
VIC ELLISON
September 21, 1987 oa?m? a
n+?o
o
nionnas HeoeEs
Ciry Admmistrafar
MARTIN & MARIE DESLAURIES EUGENEVANpVERBEKE
1031 CLIFF ROAD Ciry clerk
EAGAN MN 55122 55123
Re: Project #444R, Parcel #10-02600-011-52 ?
Special Assessment Objection
Dear Mr. & Mrs. DesLauries:
At the formal public hearing before the City Council, you
submitted a written objection to the proposed final assessments
against your property for the improvements associated with that
project. Subsequently, the Council deleted your property from
the final assessment roll that was formally adopted and certified
to the County for certification onto the tax rolls. Your
objection was then referred to the Special Assessment Committee
for an in-depth review of the improvements, the related benefit
to your property and the proposed assessments.
This Special Assessment Committee is comprised of two Council
members, two Planning Commission members and three residents of
the community. After their review, they will forward a
recommendation to the City Council for formal consideration of
final adoption of the proposed assessments. The Council's
consideration of the Special Assessment Committee's
recommendations will be held at a future formal public hearing
and mailed notification similar to the public hearing process you
recently completed.
While there is no definitive schedule for the Special Assessment
Committee meetings, it is riot anticipated that this item will
come before that Committee any sooner than April of next year.
In the interim, the City will be performing a formal appraisal of
your property to verify that the benefit to your property through
increased value was at least equal to the amount of the proposed
assessments. This appraisal process will be coordinated through
our City Attorney's office during the ensuing months.
When the Special Assessment Committee meeting has been scheduled,
you will be so notified in writing with a request to provide any
iHE LONE OAK TREE. ..iHE SYMBOL Of STRENGiH AND GROWfH IN OUR COMMUNITY
September 21, 1987
Page 2
additional information or appraisals you may have compiled in the
interim. Once all this information has been gathered , a staff
report will be prepared for the Committee meeting with a copy
forwarded to your attention prior to that meeting.
In the interim, this special assessment will continue to be
listed as a"pending" assessment but there will be no interest
accrued beyond the amounts proposed at the time of the recent
final assessment hearing.
If you have any other questions regarding this procedure or your
assessment, please feel free to contact me at your convenience.
Si rely,
? ??
(.? '. ??
'
Thomas A. Colberr-P
.E.
Director of Public Works
TAC/jj
cc: Paul Hauge, City Attorney
Deanna Kivi, Special Assessment C1eYk
IV. NEW BUSINESS
C. PROJECT 444R, HOLLAND LAKE TRUNK STORM SEWER
1. Martin Des Lauriers (Parael 10-02600-0011-52)
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
This project provided for the installation of a complex trunk
storm sewer system generally located along Cliff Road by EIOlland
Lake. It provided for the installation of a storm sewer lift
station on Mr. Des Lauriers property providing a controlled
outlet structure for the pond located adjacent to and east of
this property. This project was approved on June 17, 1986, with
construction being completed by July of 1987 and the final
assessment hearing held on September 1, 1987.
Enclosed on page q I_ is the written
property owner regarding these propose
pages ?? through ?? is some recen
the property owner further supporting
original objection. Enclosed on page
maps showing the relationship of the
improvements as well as the calculatio
fin assessment amounts. Also encl
are excerpts of the forsal appr
t is property identifying the inc
resulting from this improvement.
STAEE RECOMMENDATIONS
objection submitted by the
d assessments. Enclosed on
t information submitted by
his osition regarding his
s through C? are
property to the proposed
ns used to arrive at the
osed on pages ?e through
aisal report performed on
reased value of property
The improvement installed handles the storm water runoft from the
subject property throuqh the City's trunk storm sewer system all
the way to the Minnesota River. Proper credits were applied for
potential future right-of-way and easement dedications if and
when the property should ever develop. It is properly assessed
in accordance with City policies and procedures and the current
zoning and use of the property. However, due to the fact that
the City's appraisal report indicates that the increased market
value is less than the proposed assessments, it is staff's
recommendation that the proposed final assessment be reduced to
$9,500.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS/COMMENTS
t *9, s ° ° PtA'
yd
r -1``
??
Q?
June 21,1988
To: Special Assessment Committee
Reference: Assessment of Martin and Marie Des Lauriers property
at 1031 Cliff Rd PID # 10-02600-011-52. Containing approx. 6
and one half acres and single family home.
We received a notice in the mail on June 16th,1988 of this hearing
to be held on June 30th,198II (only fourteen days notice). We have
made arrangements some time ago to be out of the area on June 30th.
We are objecting to the assessment on our property on the basis
that project #444R did not benifit our property, and in fact it
has caused a damage to the property. Rather that removing storm
water, this project raised the water level, causing flooding that
normally or naturally flowed into Holland Lake.
Our property drained naturally from a low elevation of 872 feet
into the Carlson property to the east of ours, then from Carlson's
through a culvert into Holland Lake at an elevation of 867 feet.
The culvert under Ciiff Rd to Holland Lake has been closed. Project
#445 states a high water level of 880 feet elevation on our property.
(See attachments 1,2 and 3)
We had a concern in 1979 when the city allowed Ches-Mar East to
develop and drain storm water into Dr Frank Nuttalls' property,
which is west of our property. Then from Dr Nuttalls', water flowed
onto our property. At that time we were assured incorrectly by
Robert Rosene and Tom Colbert not to be concerned beCause all the
water would continue into a storm sewer from our property at time
of development. Now with project #444R our property is to be part
of holding ponds at high water levels! (see attachment4).
It is our understanding for a governmental body to assess a parcel
of property, the property assessed must be benifited. Our property
is not benifited!
We are disappointed not to be able to attend this hearing on June
30th at such a short notice.
Si ely
v `
M tin Des Lauriers
" 014ke,? &,
Marie Des Lauriers
/J C?