2012-05-23 CC Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

because the 2006 condemned property contained mostly wetland and because the settlement agreement did not necessarily indicate the price that a willing buyer and seller would reach for the purchase of the property. The district court found that the 1999 removal of the floodplain designation undermined Schwab's analysis of the highest and best use of the property and his opinion that the project's removal of the ponding and flowage easement would provide a special benefit to the property. The district court found Herman's testimony on the highest and best use of the property to be credible and credited her post - project valuation. The district court, however, rejected two aspects of Herman's pre - project valuation: her use of an assessment credit previously provided to Sheehy by the city and the assumption that Lino Lakes would pay for half the cost of constructing Shopek's proposed improvements. The district court determined that the property's pre- improvement value was $869,000, and the special benefit from the project amounted to $241,000. The district court declined to consider whether specific, individual aspects of the project provided benefits to the property, stating that it was evaluating the project as a whole, based on its special benefit, as measured by the change in market value before and after the project. The district court therefore set aside the city's assessment and directed the city to reassess the special benefit in an amount not exceeding $241,000. Sheehy served its notice of taxation of costs and disbursements to the court administrator, who awarded costs of $1,364.88. Both Sheehy and the city appealed to the district court; both parties requested a hearing, which the district court denied. The district court issued its order granting Sheehy $56,830.76 in costs and disbursements. 6 19