2012-05-23 CC Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

City of Lino Lakes would contribute $50,000 to the street construction portion of the project and $9,000 to the storm sewer portion. Therefore, the district court should have subtracted the full amount of that credit, $59,000, from the pre - improvement value of the property. The city also argues that some of the district court's findings on the special benefit conferred fail to reflect the district court's removal of the $26,000 assessment credit from the city. But as Sheehy argues, any error in this regard is harmless because the district court made a "bottom line" increase to Herman's special - benefit figure, based on the disallowance of the Lino Lakes and the previous- assessment credits. We therefore affirm the district court's judgment setting aside the assessment and ordering a reassessment of the special benefit to Sheehy's property, as modified to reflect our correction of the mathematical error noted above. Accordingly, any reassessment shall not exceed $249,000. IV The city argues that the district court erred by denying its request for an evidentiary hearing on costs and disbursements. Although Sheehy contends that the city failed to raise this issue before the district court, the record establishes that the city requested a hearing on this issue. Under Minn. R. Civ. P. 54.04, a party who seeks to recover costs and disbursements files a sworn application for the taxation of costs and disbursements. Minn. R. Civ. P. 54.04(b). An objecting party may file written objections, specifying the grounds for those objections. Minn. R. Civ. P. 54.04(c). We have previously concluded 17 30