2012-05-23 CC Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

on a previous assessment, and a $51,000 credit based on the estimate of costs that would be contributed to Shopek's proposed infrastructure by the City of Lino Lakes. The factfinder may accept or reject all or part of an expert's opinion. Kundiger v. Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 219 Minn. 25, 29, 17 N.W.2d 49, 52 (1944). The district court found that, although the city did provide such a previous- assessment credit to Sheehy, there was no evidence that the city had an obligation to do so. The district court also found that there was insufficient evidence to support Herman's conclusion that the City of Lino Lakes would contribute one -half the costs of constructing improvements on the east side of Sheehy's property. The record supports the district court's findings that these two credits were not properly included in the pre- improvement market value of the property. The city also argues that the district court improperly failed to consider the cost of acquiring land from the city or from Lino Lakes, which would be required to construct the improvements specified in Shopek's testimony. But Shopek's testimony was admitted only as foundation for Herman's appraisal, neither party presented evidence on this issue, and the district court appropriately did not speculate by making findings on the possible cost of such an acquisition. The city additionally contends that the district court made mathematical errors in adjusting Herman's pre- improvement appraisal to arrive at the benefit conferred by the special assessment. The district court adjusted Herman's pre- improvement appraisal downward by $77,000 to reflect its disallowance of $51,000 Lino Lakes credit and the $26,000 previous- assessment credit. We agree with the city that the district court clearly erred by subtracting only $51,000 for the Lino Lakes credit. Shopek testified that the 16 29