The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About8 - North Shore Oaks Assessment Appeals ,-- .:j;_C:O MAY 03 199) DISTRICT COURT STATE OF MINNESOTA r /. ,'\,11' I 1'lNTV r.OIJ:rr.1\ FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT COUNTY OF SCOTT -------------------------------- Fi. No. 90-13180 James K. Spieker and Lynn M. Spieker, husband and wife; Robert Scheeler and Linda Scheeler, husband and wife; Rev. Lane R. seitz and Donna K. s~itz, husband and wife: Robert Komorouski and Sharon Komorouski, husband and wife; Brad Roemer and Michelle Roemer, husband and wife; Tim Conners and Furnoko Conners, husband and wife; Rodger E. Olson and Elaine Olson, husband and wife; Tim Loonan and Dorothy Loonan, husband and wife: Keith W. Plath and Bonita K. Plath, husband and wife; GUY Lammers and Brenda Lammers, husband and wife, , I FINDINGS OF FA~ CONCLUSIONS OF LAW, lUfD ORDER LOMMEN, NELSON. CQ\..E & STAGEBERG. P.A. MAY 13 1991 Joint Appellants, 6 -vs- city of Prior Lake, Respondent. -------------------------------- The above-entitled matter came on before the unders igned on April 17, 1991, at the scott County courthouse, Shakopee, Minnesota. Norbert B. Traxler, Esq., appeared on behalf of the appellants and V. Owen Nelson, Esq., appeared on behalf of the defendant. Upon all the files I records, arguments of counsel and the Court being duly advised in the prer.\ises, the Court here.by makes the following: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. That appellants are owners of real property located within the boundaries of the city of Prior Lake, Minnesota and legally described as follows: OWNERS Tim and Dorothy Loonan Rodger and Elaine Olson Guy and Brenda Lammers Tim and Fumoko Conners Bradley A. Roemer " Robert and Sharon Komorouski Rev. Lane Seitz Keith and Bonita Plath James Spieker Robert and Linda Scheeler DESCRIPT.lSlN , , Lot 4, Second Addition to North Shore Oaks Lot 5, second Addition to North Shore Oaks Lot 6, Second Addition to North Shore Oaks Lot 1, BlocK 1, Third Addition to North Shore Oaks Lot 5, Block 2, Third Addition to North Shore oaks Lot 6, Block 2, Third Addition to North Shore Oaks Lot 7, Block 2, Third Addition to North Shore oaks Lot 8, Block 2, Third Addition to North S~ore Oaks Lot 9, Block 2, Third Addition to North Shore Oaks Lot 11, Block 2, Third Addition to North Shore Oaks 2. That respondent is a municipality duly organized under the laws of the State of Minnesota. 3. That in 1990 the re~pondent undertook a street improvement . project designated project 90-13 (hereinafter the project) for the installation of sewer, water, curb, gutter and paving. That this project was undertaken upon the petition of property owners in the area. 4. That all requirements pursuant to Minn. stat. Chapter 429 were complied with as set forth by stipulation of the parties. 5. That the assessments lev ied were uni forn upon the same class of property. 6. That respondent paid 8.5% of the project cost out of the ad valorem tax fund and assessed 91.5% of the project cost against the benefitted property owners. 7. That the properties owned by appellants were all specially benefitted by the project. That the parties dispute only the amount :-......_, -1_-_ r . 1_, _ of the special benefit conferred upon each of appellants' properties by the project. 8. That all properties owned by appellants are zoned R-1, Urban Residential, allowing for single family uses. That all , properties owned by appellants' had functioning private water and sewer utilities. 9. That one property in the immediate vicinity of app~llants had a contaminated well, and two properties in the area were required to install sealed tanks due to septic problems at the time the project was undertaken. 10. That appellants' properties were assessed as follows: OWNERS ASSESS~ENT Tim and Dorothy Loonan $11,115.00 Rodger and Elaine Olson $11,115.00 Guy and Brenda Lammers $11,013.20 Tim and Fumoko Conners $10,207.00 Bradley A. Roemer $13,907.50 Robert and Sharon Komorouski $11,789.00 Rev. Lane Seitz $12,138.30 Keith and Bonita Plath $11,742.20 James Spieker $13,673.50 Robert and Linda Scheeler $13,508.50 11. That appellants submitted, through the testimony of Jon J. Hentg~s, an appraisal by Bowler Appraisals, Inc., of the market value of appellants' property both prior to and after installation of the project. That the appellants' appraisal found a before market value of $20,000.00 and an after market value of $25,500.00 l ~ .I. _'..... r ,... ,_II I L_,j II ILl 4-; -.It.L =.Ul <4. ! it- L ~ /-': 1'_, :'....";' ..'::"~:, p.0t, for each of appellants' properties except for the Conners' parcel, which was found to have a before market value of $19,500.00 and an after market value of $25,000.00. 12. That appellants' appraisal assumed that all subject , , properties had a functioning private sewer and water system before the project. That Mr. Hentges testified that the appraisal did not " include an adjustment based upon the existence of faulty prL'ate systems in the i~~ediate area as he believed that that would have no impact on the market value of the appellants' properties. That the comparable properties considered by appellants' appraiser in determining the before market value were wi thin 3 miles of the appellants' properties. That the comparable properties used for the after market value were all wi thin the same development area as appellants' properties. That detailed adjustments to the features of the comparable properties with respect to each of appellants' properties are set out in appellants' appraisal. 13. That respondent submitted, through the testimony of Howard Lawrence, an appraisal by Howard Lawrence Appraisals, Inc., of the market value of appellants' property both prior to and after installation of the project. That the respondent's appraisal found before and after market values as follows: OWNERS . BEFORE VALUE AFTER V';LlJE Tim and Dorothy Loonan $10,000.00 $22,500.00 Rodger and Elaine Olson $10,000.00 $22,500.00 Guy and Brenda Lammers $10,000.00 $22,500.00 Tim and FUlnoko Conners $10,500.00 $24,500.00 Bradley A. Roemer $10,000.00 $22,500.00 . MH[-1~-1'?'31 13: .?t: FROM Lor 11 lEt H~ELSOt~. t'lF'L '; PS T[I '?~~7...j:...j: R.O? Robert and Sharon Komorouski $10,250.00 $23,000.00 Rev. Lane seitz $10,250.00 $22,500.00 t<eith and Benita Plath $10,500.00 $24,500.00 ,James Spieker $10,250.00 $23,000.00 , I Robert and Linda Scheeler $10,500.00 $24,500.00 14. That all comparable sales used by respondent's appraiser " to compute before and after market values for appellants' properties were sales of property in the same development area in which appellants live. That all sales data for respondent's comparable sales was obtained from Mr. Eugene Simpkins, one of the owners of North Shore oaks, Inc. That respondent I s appraisal did not include the value of a private sewer and water system when determining before values. That of the two comparable before sales used by respondent's appraiser, Lot 1, Block 1, Fifth Addition to North Shore Oaks was sold for $8000.00 plus th~ special assessment for an actual total of $23,900.00 at a time when a private system could no longer be installed, and Lot 1, Block 2, Fifth Addition to North Shore Oaks was sold to Mr. Simpkins' son. 15. That respondent's submitted appraisal contains no calculations as to how the comparable before and after sales were compared with and adjusted to the lot size and particular amenities of the appellants' properties. That it is impossible to determine from respondent's submitted appraisal how the before and after market value of each of appellants' properties was arrived at. 16. That Mr. Norman Erickson, an agent for Edina Realty who has extensive experience with the sales of homes in the Prior Lake area, testified that a neW well and septic system costs between $6,500.00 and $10,000.00. 17. That in calculating the before market value for appellants' properties, some credit must be given to the value of the functioning private utilities, tempered by consideration of the failure of some of the neighboring systems. 18. That, in light of all the evidence presented, the before " and after market values and resulting special benefits conferred by the project on appellants' properties are as follows: OWNERS BEFORE VALUE AFTER V~LUE SPECIAL BENEFIT Loonan $16,500.00 $25,500.00 $9,000.00 Olson $16,500.00 $25,500.00 $9,000.00 Lammers $16,500.00 $25,500.00 $9,000.00 Conners $16,000.00 $25,000.00 $9,000.00 Roemer $16,500.00 $25,500.00 $9,000.00 Kornorouski $16,500.00 $25,500.00 $9,000.00 Seitz $16,500.00 $25,500.00 $9,000.00 Plath $16,500.00 $25,500.00 $9,000.00 spieker $16,500.00 $25,500.00 $9,000.00 Scheeler $16,500.00 $25,500.00 $9,000.00 19. That the assessments levied by respondent against appellants' properties exceed the special benef its conferred as follows: OWNERS EXCESS ASSESSMENT Tim and Dorothy Loonan $2,115.00 Rodger and Elaine Olson $2,115.00 Guy and Brenda Lammers $2,013.20 $1,207.00 Tim and Furnoko Conners MHI-l-l-l '?'?l 1 ~:.2~ FI='Cl'l LCif'1I1Et H iEL,=.Cn nF'L~ F'S TO ~"';~~...1:'~:, P.D'? Bradley A. Roemer $4,907.50 Robert and Sharon Komorousk.i $2,789.00 Rev. Lane Seitz $3,138.30 Keith and Bonita Plath $2,742.20 , , James Spieker $4,673.50 Robert and Linda Scheeler $4,508.50 CONCLCSIONS OF LAW 1. That the amount of the asses~ments against appellants' properties exceeds the special benefit to appellants' properties due to the installation of the project. ORDER 1. That the special assessment against appellants' properties is set aside. 2. That the respondent, City of Prior Lake, shall reassess appellants' properties in accordance with Minn. Stat. 429.071, subdivision 2. 3. That the reassessment shall not. exceed the lncrease J.n market value for appellants' properties as found herein. 4. That the attached Memo is incorporated by reference herein. Dated: May 3, 1991. BY THE COURT Court MHI-l.J-19S1 13:30 FF'[It1 LCi~1f'1EtHlELSCnMPL~, P'::, TO ~~...r;' .J2.J5 P.W MEMO In a case such as this, where the only issue presented is whether a special assessment exceeded the special benefits to the property, constituting a taking of property without fair compensation in violation , I of the Fourteenth fu~endment to the Constitution of the United States, the Court's decision "must be " based upon independent consideration of all the evidence.1I B~ettner v. City of St. Cloud, 277 N.W.2d 199, 203 (Minn. 1979). The assessment made brings with ita presumption of val idi ty which, however, "disappears when adverse evidence on the ques~ion of value is introduced." Id. at 204 (citation omitted). "Special benefit is measured by the increase 1n the market value of the land owing to the improvement. II Carlson-Lang Realty Co. v. City of Windom, 240 N.W.2d 517, 519 (Minn. 1976) (citations omitted). That increase in value is measured' by the difference between IIwhat a willing buyer would pay a wi1li:1g seller for the property before, and then after, the improvement has been constructed." rd. at 519. The Court, in determining the special benefit accorded appellants' properties by the project, considered the whole of the evidence presented. Respondent's appraisal erred by not including the value. of the private well and septic systems serving appellants' properties in determining market values prior to the project. A property served by private utilities has a greater value than the same property with no utilities. As the project included the installation of pUblic utilities (sewer and water), an accurate measure of the special benefit provided by the project must r-lH ,'-14-1 '?'? 1 13: 31 FF'OIl LOt 11 lEI H JEL'::,[It l. r 1F'L'::, F"::, TO '=<,J..r: ,J~'.J: F'. 11 consider the value of the previous utilities. Appellants' appraisal, while including the value of the privatQ systems in detQrmining the beforQ valu~, did not make adjustment for the impact which the failure of private systems in . I the area would have on that value. The fact that private systems serving neighboring properties were not functioning properly would " have a negative effect on the price that a buyer who was aware of that fact would be willing to pay. Appellants' appraisal as to the market values after the installation of the project was better reasoned and factually supported than respondent's appraisal. Taking all of these factors and the entire record into account, the Court has determined the special benefit provided by the project to appellants' properties. ~ Proiect 96-13 Ash Circle. Ferndale Avenue, & HaIIpton Street ---~: ~ I!lIber 17, 1998 --~ $ .81/FF PAYING, $63. ~/FF S & W, $2758. N/OCRE TRlH< CHlRGE ~ iJIIt:: PAYIMi - 82 S & W - 83 OCREAGE - 76 115I' ..:: 8.~ .. PAYIMi - 10 years, S & W - 2il years, OCREAIiE - 5 years ....: 1991 I-. ....: 105 Da~ BIJ~: Equal incipal _ DESCRIPTI~ PROPERTY lMER current frontage deferred frontage current CURRENT CURROO CURRENT DEFERRED DEFERRED & & acreage PAY I Mi AIO.NT S&W IKU4T OCREAGE AIOJfT PAVIMi AIO.NT S&W AIOJfT ~L tulBER ADDRESS PAVIMi 5 & W PAVIMi 5 & W .. .... ..... a. ..... 1 Joseph & Dianne Zieska IN 100 0 0 0.3-\ 3,781.00 6,m.00 935.00 Ml8 e.00 68-001-8 5316 Huftton Street Prior La e, * 55372 ) Keith & Annette Dickie IN 100 0 0 0.3-\ 3,781.N 6,m.00 935.N i\.fIll e.N &8-8il2-8 SJ36 Huftton St reet Prior La e, * 55372 3 Bernard & Kathryn S. Havlik lee lee 0 0 0.3-\ 3,781.. G,m.N 935. fill e.N 0.ee &8-f1ll3-8 53S6 Hupton Street Prior Lake, * 55372 4 Ti~t~DorothY A. Loonan IN Ifill 0 0 0.3-\ 3,781.N 6,399.N 935. fill iI.fIll 0.N bB-ee4-8 5376 on Street Prior Lake, ~ 55372 5 ~er & Elaine Olson IN Ifill 0 0 0.3-\ 3,781.. G,m.N 935.00 e.fIll 0.ee bB-ilIl5-8 llaapton Street Prior Lake, ~ 55372 5 Guy W. & Brenda V. L~ 99 99 0 0 0.3-\ 3,743.19 6,335.01 935.ee iI.N 0.ee bB-806-8 ~I' Hu~on Street Prior La , ~ 55372 3 Wi lliall A. Farrell IN lee 0 0 0.3-\ 3,781.. G,m.N 935.ee 0.N 0.ee bB-ilIl9-8 5286 HuCtton Street Prior La e, MN 55372 10 David Seipp IN lee 0 0 0.3-\ 3,781.. 6,m.N 935.ee 0.ee 0.ee ibB-8IH 5313 HuCtton Street Prior La e, ~ 55372 11 Richard P. Duckstad lee lee 0 0 0.3-\ 3,781.. 6,m.N 935.ee iI. N 0.ee if>8-811-8 52<JS Hupton Street Prior Lake, MN 55372 12 Har,? & Viola Kohout Ifill lee 0 0 0.3-\ 3,781.N G,m.N 935.ee 0.N 0.ee lbB-812-8 527 HaIICtton Street Prior La e, ~ 55372 II .... ..... ~ 1Iti~ I IIlk 1 Ti. G. & F UIIOko Conners 90 90 0 13 13.38 3,482.90 5,759.10 1,045. ee iI.N 0.ee 174-001-8 14113 Ash Circle Prior Lake, ~ 55372 2 Blk I RaYllOnd & Edna Karvonen 110 110 0 0 0.48 1t,159.1i1 7,038.90 1,328. ee \'l.ee 0.N 17 4-8il2-8 Ilt149 Ash Circle Prior Lake, * 55372 3, Blk 1 Richard Krohn 105 105 0 0 0.42 3,971/1.05 6,718. 'l5 1,155.fIll \'l.ee 0.N 174-f1ll3-8 14179 Ash Circle Pr ior Lake, ~ ~72 LmL IlESCRIPTllJl PROPERTY lMER current frontage deferred frontage current CURRENT CURRENT CURRENT DEFERRED DEFERRED & & acreage PAVIItl AIO.M' SlW !MDT ~REA6E RIO.M' PAVIItl 110M SlW RIO.M' PARCEl. tUUlER ADDRESS PAVI tIi S & W PAVING S & W Lot ~ Blk 1 Robert 6eIie I ke 95 95 0 0 II.~ 3,591. 95 6,079.15 1,155.00 II. ill 0. ill 25-074-il14-8 14209 Ash Circle Prior Lake, ~ 55372 Lot 5 Blk 1 JollIeS J. Vi zenor ':Ie 90 0 0 0.38 3,402.90 5,759.10 1,045.00 0. ill 0. ill 25-07Hl0S-8 14251 Ash Circle Prior Lake, ~ 55372 Lot I Blk 2 Darrell HaStin~s 106 106 0 II 0.37 ~,ee7. 86 6, 782.. 94 1,1il17.50 II. ill 0. ill 25-074__-9 1411~ Ash Circ e Prior Lake, ~ 55372 Lot 2 Blk 2 64Th & Robert F arre II 108 108 0 0 0.39 4,083. 48 6,910.92 1,072.~li' 0. ill 0. ill 25-07HI07-9 I~I 8 Ash Circle Prior Lake, ~ 55372 Lot 3 Blk 2 Terrance Hanson 109 109 0 0 0.39 ~, 121. 29 6,974.91 1,072.50 0. ill 0.00 25-074__-9 141~ Ash Circle Prior Lake, ~ 55372 Lot 4 Blk 2 Bradley Haycraft 135 135 0 0 0.67 5,104.35 8,638.65 1,842.50 0. ill 0. ill 25-il74-t89-8 14156 Ash Circle Prior Lake, ~ 55372 Lot 5 Blk 2 Bridley A. Roner 125 125 0 0 0.~3 ~,7Zf,.25 7,998.75 I, 182..50 0.N 0. ill 25-il7~-tIH 1417il Ash Circle Pr iOl" Lake, ~ 55372 Lot 6 Blk 2 Robert & Sharon K~uski 115 115 0 II 0.48 3,9711.15 6,718.95 I. I ill. ill 0. ill 0.00 25-il74-t1l-8 14184 Ash Circle Prior Lake, IIN 55372 Lot 7 Blk 2 Lane Seitz 106 106 0 0 0.~9 4,ilI7.86 6, 782.. 94 1,347.50 0. ill 0. ill 25-il74-t12-8 141'38 Ash Circle Prior Lake, IIN 55372 Lot 8 Blk 2 Keith & Bonita Plath 104 104 0 0 0.~ 3, 932. 24 6, 654. 96 1,155. ill II. ill 0. ill 25-il74-t13-8 1~12 Ash Circle Prior Lake, ~ 55372 Lot 9 Blk 2 JollIeS Spieker 120 120 II 0 0.53 4,537.20 7,678.80 I, ~57. 50 0. ill 0. ill 25-il74-t14-8 14226 Ash Circle Prior Lake, IIN 55372 Lot 10 Blk 2 Charles V. Reuter 110 WI 0 iI 0.42 4,159. 10 7, il38. 90 1,155.ilI 0. ill 0. ill 25-il74-t15-8 1~48 Ash Circle Prior Lake, ~ 55372 Lot 11 Blk 2 Robert & Linda Scheeler 120 120 0 0 0.47 4,537.20 7,678.80 1,292.50 II. ill 0. ill 25-il74-t16"'1 . 14254 Ash Circle Prior Lake, ~ 55372 ....- E 200' of W 268' Do; & Donna Farrell 200 200 0 0 0.68 7,562.. 12, 7'38. ill 1,870. ill iI.ilI 0. ill of S 150' of N 398' 52 HMpton Street of 25-115-22 Prior Lake, ~ 55372 25-925-t21-9 W1I2 MlI/~ Fa:? N. Griffith 150 150 82.5 590 8.51 5,671.50 9, 5'38. 50 1,402.50 31,193.25 37.754.10 of 25-115-22 1 West 28th I40Z 25-925-tZ7-8 "pIs, ~ 55488 TOT~S 3,087 3,087 82.5 590 11.65 116,719.47 197,537.13 32,037.50 31,193.25 J7,754.10