My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
2012-05-23 CC Packet
Centerville
>
City Council
>
Agenda Packets
>
1996-2022
>
2012
>
2012-05-23 CC Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/27/2012 8:59:43 AM
Creation date
5/18/2012 1:23:29 PM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
33
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
City of Lino Lakes would contribute $50,000 to the street construction portion of the <br /> project and $9,000 to the storm sewer portion. Therefore, the district court should have <br /> subtracted the full amount of that credit, $59,000, from the pre - improvement value of the <br /> property. <br /> The city also argues that some of the district court's findings on the special benefit <br /> conferred fail to reflect the district court's removal of the $26,000 assessment credit from <br /> the city. But as Sheehy argues, any error in this regard is harmless because the district <br /> court made a "bottom line" increase to Herman's special - benefit figure, based on the <br /> disallowance of the Lino Lakes and the previous- assessment credits. We therefore affirm <br /> the district court's judgment setting aside the assessment and ordering a reassessment of <br /> the special benefit to Sheehy's property, as modified to reflect our correction of the <br /> mathematical error noted above. Accordingly, any reassessment shall not exceed <br /> $249,000. <br /> IV <br /> The city argues that the district court erred by denying its request for an <br /> evidentiary hearing on costs and disbursements. Although Sheehy contends that the city <br /> failed to raise this issue before the district court, the record establishes that the city <br /> requested a hearing on this issue. <br /> Under Minn. R. Civ. P. 54.04, a party who seeks to recover costs and <br /> disbursements files a sworn application for the taxation of costs and disbursements. <br /> Minn. R. Civ. P. 54.04(b). An objecting party may file written objections, specifying the <br /> grounds for those objections. Minn. R. Civ. P. 54.04(c). We have previously concluded <br /> 17 <br /> 30 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.