HomeMy WebLinkAbout2012-05-23 CC Packet CITY OF CENTERVILLE COUNCIL
ervilCe MEETING & CLOSED MEETING AGENDA
Wednesday, May 23, 2012
6:30 p.m. or shortly thereafter
OPEN FORUM 6:30 p.m.: An opportunity for members of the public to address the City Council on items not on
the current agenda. Items requiring Council action may be deferred to staff or Boards and Commissions for
research and future Council Agendas if appropriate. You will be limited to two (2) minutes and we ask that you
conduct yourself in a professional, courteous manner, and refrain from the use of profanity. Failure to abide by this
policy may result in the loss of your privilege to speak. Persons wishing to speak will be required to complete a
sign -up sheet and give it to the Mayor or a Staff person by 6:15 p.m.
COUNCIL MEETING
CALL TO ORDER
1. Roll Call
II. PUBLIC HEARING(S)
III. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
1. May 9, 2012 City Council Meeting Minutes (Pages 1 -3)
2. May 9, 2012 City Council Joint Work Session Meeting Minutes (Pages 4 -5)
V. CONSENT AGENDA
1. City of Centerville May 10, 2012 through May 23, 2012 Claims (Check
#27233 - 27255) w/Voided Check #27241 (Pages 6 -7)
2. Centennial Police Department Claims through May 10, 2012 (Check #8938 -
8960) w/Voided Check #8855 (Page 8)
3. Encroachment Agreement —1729 Dupre Road, Boulder Retaining Wall in
Right -of -Way /Easement (Page 9)
4. Satisfactory Performance Review of Mr. Paul Palzer, Public Works
Director/Building Official
VI. AWARDS /PRESENTATIONS /APPEARANCES
1. Mr. John Thill, Centerville Lions Club — 2012 Fete des Lacs
VII. OLD BUSINESS
VIII. NEW BUSINESS
1. Proclamation for Reverend Thomas Fitzgerald — Sunday, June 10, 2012
Father Thomas Fitzgerald Day (Page 10)
2. 2012 Fete des Lacs Permits — Centerville Lions (Laurie LaMotte Memorial
Park) (Page 11)
a. Special Event Permit
b. Noise Permit (July 27, 2012 — 8:00 a.m. — 11:00 p.m., July 28, 2012 —
8:00 a.m. — Midnight & July 29, 2012 8 a.m. — 8:00 p.m.)
c. Temporary On Sale Liquor License (July 27, 2012 — 10:00 a.m. —
11:00 p.m., July 28, 2012 — 10:00 a.m. — Midnight & 10:00 a.m. — 8:00
p.m.)
d. Fireworks (July 27, 2012 - Dusk w /Alternate Date July 28, 2012 —
Dusk)
e. Temporary Charitable Gambling Permit (Raffle) (July 29, 2012 —
3:00 p.m.)
3. St. Genevieve's Parish Festival — Annual Chicken Dinner (Parish Center,
6995 Centerville Road) (Pages 12 -13)
a. Special Event Permit
b. Temporary On Sale Liquor License (Sunday, August 19, 2012 —
10:00 a.m. — 6:00 p.m.)
c. Temporary Charitable Gambling Permit (Bingo, Raffle(s),
Paddlewheels & Pull -Tabs)
IX. ANNOUNCEMENTS /UPDATES
1. City Administrator Larson
CLOSED MEETING
1. CALL TO ORDER
1. Roll Call
II. DISCUSSION ITEMS
1. Special Assessment — Sheehy (Appeal to MN Supreme Court ?) (Pages 14 -31)
2. Tree RemovaVOlson Sewer (Update)
3. Easements — Purchase Offer(s)
4. Labor Negotiations
5. Annual Performance Review — City Administrator Dallas Larson (Cont'd
from Previous Meeting)
III. ADJOURNEMNT
* *REMINDERS **
City Hall Closed — May 28, 2012 Observance of Memorial Day
Cub Scout Rocket Launch — June 2, 2012 — Laurie LaMotte Memorial Park
Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting — June 5, 2012, 6:30 p.m. Council
Parks & Recreation Committee Meeting — June 6, 2012, 6:30 p.m. Council Chambers
City Council Meeting — June 13, 2012, 6:30 p.m. Council Chambers & Work Session
Centerville Annual Garage Sale Days — June 15 & 16, 2012
Centerville Annual Cleanup /Recycle Day — June 16, 2012
Waste Management — Rubbish & Electronics (8:00 a.m. — 4:00 p.m.)
Shred -It — Paper, CDs & DVDs (8:00 a.m. — Noon)
Mr. Michael Recycles Bicycles — Old bicycles (8:00 a.m. — 4:00 p.m.)
St. Francis of Assisi Animal Rescue — Towels, Washcloths, Carrying Kennels, Dog & Cat Cages, etc.
(8:00 a.m. — 4:00 p.m.)
ALL AT LAURIE LAMOTTE MEMORIAL PARK
Music in the Park — June 12, 2012 - Layton Avenue Boys; June 19, 2012 — Dirty Shorts; June 26, 2012 — Mean
Gene & The Woodticks; July 10, 2012 — Seven Cats Swing; July 17, 2012 — Porch Pickers; July 24, 2012 — Maple
Street Ramblers; July 27, 2012 - "THE JAM "; & July 31, 2012 — Tom Lee (All Concerts Will Take Place @
Hidden Spring Park Commencing @ 6:30 p.m.)
City Council Meeting — June 27, 2012, 6:30 p.m. Council Chambers
CITY OF CENTERVILLE
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
May 9, 2012
6:30 p.m.
Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, the City of Centerville held their regularly
scheduled meeting of May 9, 2012, at City Hall, 1880 Main Street.
PRESENT: Mayor Tom Wilharber
Council Member Ben Fehrenbacher
Council Member Steve riocri
Council Member D. Love
Council Member Jeff Paar po
ABSENT: None
STAFF: City Administrator Dallas Larson
City Engineer Mark Statz (Arrived @ 6:46 p.m.)
City Attorney Kurt Glaser
Public Works Director Paul Palzer
I. CALL TO ORDER
Mayor Wilharber called the meeting to order at 6:34 p.m.
II. PUBLIC HEARING(S)
Mayor Wilharber called the SWPPP/MS4 Information/Public Hearing meeting to order at
6:35 p.m.
Director Palzer gave a brief overview of the 2011 annual report that was contained in
Council's packet, its requirements and opened the floor to any member of the audience
that desire to speak on the matter. None were present.
Mayor Wilharber closed the public hearing at 6:38 p.m.
III. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
The Mayor reviewed the Agenda with Council.
Motion by Council Member Love, seconded by Council Member Paar, to approve
the Agenda as presented. All in favor. Motion carried unanimously.
IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
1. April 25, 2012 City Council Meeting Minutes
1
City of Centerville
Council Meeting Minutes
May 9, 2012
Motion by Council Member Fehrenbacher, seconded by Council Member King, to
approve the April 25, 2012 City Council Meeting Minutes as presented. All in favor.
Motion carried unanimously.
V. CONSENT AGENDA
1. City of Centerville April 26, 2012 through May 9, 2012 Claims (Check #27210-
27232)
2. Centennial Police Department Claims through April 26, 2012 (Check #8919 —
8937)
3. Centennial Fire District Claims through April 9, 2012 (Check #5287)
Motion by Council Member King, seconded by Council Member Fehrenbacher, to
approve the Consent Agenda as presented. All in favor. Motion carried
unanimously.
VI. AWARDS /PRESENTATIONS /APPEARANCES
None.
VII. OLD BUSINESS
1. City Code, Chapter #156.030, (L) Conditional uses (1), (2) and 3 — Automotive
Vehicle and Motorized Equipment Sales & Service, Excluding Salvage
Operations, Farm Implements Sales & Service and Building Supply Sales &
Storage Yards
Administrator Larson stated that this item was referred back to the Planning and Zoning
Commission from Council's previous meeting due to conflicting language between City
Code, Chapter 156.030 and City Code, Chapter 90, Section 91.06. Administrator Larson
explained that the Planning and Zoning Commission is again forwarding it to Council
with language modifications being made regarding the allowable outside storage area
being two times the building square footage. Administrator Larson also stated that the
Commission recommends language modification to allow the exemption is unlicensed,
unregistered or inoperable motor vehicle parts or components are stored outside if in a
commercially zoned district and regulated by a conditional use permit.
Motion by Council Member Love, seconded by Council Member Fehrenbacher, to
Adopt Ordinance #56, Second Series with the Planning and Zoning Commission's
recommended language modifications as presented. All in favor. Motion carried
unanimously.
2. City Code, Chapter #91, Section 91.06, (X) — Public Nuisances Affecting Peace
and Safety
Administrator Larson reviewed above.
Page 2 of 3
2
City of Centerville
Council Meeting Minutes
May 9, 2012
Motion by Council Member Love, seconded by Council Member Fehrenbacher, to
Adopt Ordinance #57, Second Series with the Planning and Zoning Commission's
recommended language modifications. All in favor. Motion carried unanimously.
VIII. NEW BUSINESS
1. Res. #12 -0XX — Authorizing Increases in Firefighter Pension
Mayor Wilharber stated that at the last Centennial Fire District Governing Board meeting
a recommendation was made to increase the volunteer firefighter pension to $4,200 /year
of service from $4,000 /year of service. Mayor Wilharber stated that the Governing
Board felt that if this was increased, it would aid in retaining and obtaining volunteer
firefighters. Council Member Love stated that the pension fund has not increased since
2006. Administrator Larson stated that no levy increase will be experienced. Mayor
Wilharber stated that all three member cities need to approve a similar resolution to allow
this adjustment.
Motion by Council Member Paar, seconded by Council Member Love, to approve
Res. #12 -0XX — Authorizing Increases in Firefighter Pension as presented. All in
favor. Motion carried unanimously.
IX. ANNOUNCEMENTS/UPDATES
City Administrator reminded Council that May 17, 2012 the City would be hosting a
demonstration of the recently installed irrigation system at Laurie LaMotte Memorial
Park, 6970 LaMotte Drive.
Mayor Wilharber stated that both he and Council Member Fehrenbacher will be in
attendance at the next Police Governing Board meeting.
Council Member Love stated that the Centennial Fire District recently received a grant
allowing them to purchase three (3) new thermal imaging units and a air tank fill station.
Council Member Love stated that the grant is in the amount of $48,000 with a matching
amount coming from member cities of $5,000 combined.
X. ADJOURNMENT
Motion by Council Member Fehrenbacher, seconded by Council Member Paar, to
adjourn the regularly scheduled Council meeting of May 9, 2012 at 6:50 p.m. All in
favor. Motion carried unanimously.
Transcribed by City Clerk, Teresa Bender
Page 3 of 3
3
DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT
City Council 2012 -05 -09 at 7:00 p.m.
Minutes of Work Session
Present were Mayor Tom Wilharber, Council members Jeff Paar, Steve King, D Love,
and Ben Fehrenbacher. Representing P &Z were Darin Mosher, Eric Larson, Olaf Lee,
Russ Koski and representing Park and Rec were Pat Branch, Suzanne Seeley and John
Grahek. Staff present were Public Works Director Paul Palzer, City Attorney Kurt
Glaser, and Finance Director Mike Jeziorski.
1. Council reviewed a draft set of questions for the Business Outreach
Survey. Consensus was that the questions were okay and it would be
about the right number of questions. Staff will finalize the question form
with space for notes. The next step will be to break the list among the
council members and then schedule the visits.
2. Council goals for 2012 were reviewed by Administrator Larson. Park and
Rec member Branch asked that additional goals be added relating to park
and recreation activities. The Park and Rec Committee will draft a set of
goals and submit them for Council approval to be included in the list.
P &Z members Lee and Larson asked what land the city currently owns
and then asked if some could be sold to place them back on the tax rolls.
The Council responded by saying that efforts are being made to sell some
of the commercial parcels but that the market has been weak. Also, the
land on Commerce Drive needs to be sold at a high enough price to cover
the bulk of the road costs to avoid that being a cost that transfers to the tax
levy. That means being patient in hopes that development near the
interchange in Lino Lakes occurs, which should increase the likelihood
that the city land will bring the maximum return.
The topic turned to industrial development and whether there are untried
options that could make development in Centerville more likely. The
council expressed a willingness to consider tax increment financing and
creative options with the zoning if an industrial user is willing to look at
Centerville.
With regard to budgeting and utility charges, P &Z member Koski asked if
an alternative method could be found for sewer charges. The charge is
currently a flat rate and may not be fair to low volume users. This will be
looked at when rates are considered for 2013.
Staff explained the street maintenance program that will include mill and
overlay of streets as a budgeted maintenance item. Streets will routinely
get a mill and overlay about every 12 -15 years and the cost will be paid by
the city, except where the street needs reconstruction or in cases where
4
DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT
underground utilities need to be extended in the street. The program
funding is included in the budget for 2012, but the first work will be done
in 2013.
3. Finance Director Jeziorski reviewed the budget, including results for 2011,
the planned expenditures for 2012 and preliminary runs for 2013. The
Street Mill and Overlay Program is continued into 2013 along with other
planned capital expenditures, while the anticipated levy is likely to remain
at 2012 levels.
4. Park and Rec needs were discussed. P &R chair Pat Branch reviewed the
activities that the Committee is working on in 2012, noting that not much
money is being spent. The Committee is sponsoring Fete des lacs
activities, 8k and youth run events, winter skating nights, music in the
parks, and have encouraged residents to adopt a park to reduce
maintenance expenses. He noted that the plantings in Cornerstone Park
may not have survived the winter. P &R member Seeley expressed concern
that adequate resources may not have been committed to maintaining
parks and suggested that Hidden Springs park needs more crushed rock
added to the path. Council asked staff to look at adding a summer worker
to maintain parks in 2013 budgeting
5. Mayor Wilharber asked if the joint work session has been useful.
Consensus was that a joint meeting two or three times per year may be an
appropriate way to share feedback.
The meeting adjourned at about 9:00 p.m.
Dallas Larson, Administrator
5
CITY OF CENTERVILLE
Page 1
Check Detail — May 23, 2012
Date Check # Vender Name Comments Amount
5/23/2012 027233 10,000 LAKES CHAPTER P.PALZER - 7 -18, 7 -19 & 7 -20
Check Nbr 027233 10,000 LAKES CHAPTER $90.00
5/23/2012 027234 CAPITOL LIEN RECORDS & RESEARC REFUND CONVENIENCE FEE FOR SPECIAL ASSESSMENT SEARCH
Check Nbr 027234 CAPITOL LIEN RECORDS & RESEARC S3.99
5/23/2012 027235 CLEARWATER RECREATION TOT SWING SEAT
Check Nbr 027235 CLEARWATER RECREATION $98.85
5/23/2012 027236 COMCAST HIGH SPEED INTERNET
Check Nbr 027236 COMCAST $24.40
5/23/2012 027237 DELTA DENTAL #PF99867701 - JUNE DENTAL INS. $431.15
5/23/2012 027237 DELTA DENTAL #PF99867701 - K. STEPHAN COBRA $29.20
Check Nbr 027237 DELTA DENTAL $460.35
5/23/2012 027238 EMBEDDED SYSTEMS INC 6 MOS SIREN MAINTENANCE FEE
Check Nbr 027238 EMBEDDED SYSTEMS INC $502.08
5/23/2012 027239 HEALTH PARTNERS JUNE 2012 HEALTH INSURANCE
Check Nbr 027239 HEALTH PARTNERS $4,750.00
5/23/2012 027240 KONICA MINOLTA BUSINESS SOLUTI MONTHLY SERVICE & SUPPLY FOR COPIER
Check Nbr 027240 KONICA MINOLTA BUSINESS SOLUTI $352.48
5/23/2012 027241 LARSON, ERIC REPLACEMENT CHECK FOR CK #26994 - LOST CHECK
Check Nbr 027241 LARSON, ERIC $40.00
5/23/2012 027242 LEAGUE OF MN CITIES D. LARSON - LAND USE - CREATING GROUND RULES
Check Nbr 027242 LEAGUE OF MN CITIES $30.00
5/23/2012 027243 LEE SPORT SURFACING LLC TENNIS COURT REPAIRS & RESURFACING EAGLE PARK
Check Nbr 027243 LEE SPORT SURFACING LLC $1,200.00
5/23/2012 027244 MCMA D. LARSON - RENEWAL MEMBERSHIP - 5 -1 -12 THRU 4 -30 -13
Check Nbr 027244 MCMA $100.00
5/23/2012 027245 MET. COUNCIL ENV. SERV. (SDS) WASTE WATER SERVICES FOR JUNE 2012
Check Nbr 027245 MET. COUNCIL ENV. SERV. (SDS) $15,7F
5/23/2012 027246 MN DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH P. PALZER - WATER SUPPLY SYSTEM OPERATOR
Check Nbr 027246 MN DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH $23.00
5/23/2012 027247 NATIONWIDE RETIREMENT SOLUTION DEF. COMP W/H PAY PERIOD 11
Check Nbr 027247 NATIONWIDE RETIREMENT SOLUTION $160.0Q
5/23/2012 027248 NORTH STAR PUMP SERVICE SERVICE TRIP -LIFT STAT. 3
Check Nbr 027248 NORTH STAR PUMP SERVICE $2,760.93
5/23/2012 027249 NORTHLAND TRUST SERVICES, INC. $2,760,000 GEN. OBLG. IMPROV. REFUNDING BOND $21,813.75
5/23/2012 027249 NORTHLAND TRUST SERVICES, INC. ANNUAL AGENT FEES $425.00
5/23/2012 027249 NORTHLAND TRUST SERVICES, INC. $2,760,000 GEN. OBLG. IMPROV. REFUNDING BOND $195,000.00
Check Nbr 027249 NORTHLAND TRUST SERVICES. INC. 5217,238.75
5/23/2012 027250 OLSON SEWER SERVICE, INC. INSTALL SANITARY SEWER MANHOLE CONE $3,044.84
5/23/2012 027250 OLSON SEWER SERVICE, INC. 1715 PELTIER LKAE DR - REPAIR CURP STOP $1,659.31
Check Nbr 027250 OLSON SEWER SERVICE, INC. $4.704.15
5/23/2012 027251 SAM S CLUB MEMBERSHIP DUES
Check Nbr 027251 SAM S CLUB $70.00
5/23/2012 027252 SAVAGE CONTROLS SERVICE WELL #1 & SCADA $529.92
5/23/2012 027252 SAVAGE CONTROLS SERVICE SCADA $314.96
:heck Nbr 027252 SAVAGE CONTROLS
$844.88
5/23/2012 027253 SMITH & GLASER, LLC 7047 -21ST AVE SHEEHY CONSTR. - ASSESSMENT - SERV THRU 1 $2,101.87
5/23/2012 027253 SMITH & GLASER, LLC GENERAL - SERV FROM - 1 -1 -12 THRU 3 -31 -12 $4,246.50
5/23/2012 027253 SMITH & GLASER, LLC PROSECUTION MATTER - SERV FROM 1 -1 -12 THRU 3 -31 -12 $11,545.50
:heck Nbr 027253 SMITH & GLASER, LLC $17,893.87
5/23/2012 027254 SWEENEY, KRIS MILEAGE REIMBURSEMENT - CONCESSION STAND $12.55
5/23/2012 027254 SWEENEY, KRIS MILEAGE REIMBURSEMENT - BANK DEPOSITS $20.88
heck Nbr 027254 SWEENEY, KRIS $33.43
6
CITY OF CENTERVILLE
Page 2
Check Detail — May 23, 2012
Date Check # Vender Name Comments Amount
5/23/2012 027255 XCEL ENERGY 1745 MAIN ST - SERV THRU 5 -6 -12 $118.99
5/23/2012 027255 XCEL ENERGY 7285 MAIN ST - SERV THRU 5 -6 -12 $59.81
5/23/2012 027255 XCEL ENERGY 1600 LAMOTTE DR - BALLFIELD LIGHTS - SERV THRU 5 -6 -12 $18.28
5/23/2012 027255 XCEL ENERGY 1889 CENTER ST - SEWER LIFT - SERV THRU 5 -6 -12 $17.95
5/23/2012 027255 XCEL ENERGY 7300 MILL RD - SERV THRU 5 -6 -12 $145.50
5/23/2012 027255 XCEL ENERGY 1875 FOX RUN - PUMP - SERV THRU 5 -6 -12 $163.40
5/23/2012 027255 XCEL ENERGY STREET LIGHTS - SERV THRU 5 -6 -12 $2,352.00
5/23/2012 027255 XCEL ENERGY 1600 LAMOTTE DR - WARMING HOUSE - 5 -6 -12 $14.10
5/23/2012 027255 XCEL ENERGY 1601 LAMOTTE DR - SERV THRU 5 -6 -12 $41.75
5/23/2012 027255 XCEL ENERGY 1682 MAIN ST - SERV THRU 5 -6 -12 $118.99
5/23/2012 027255 XCEL ENERGY 6970 LAMOTTE DR - SERV THRU 91.13 $91.13
5/23/2012 027255 XCEL ENERGY 1880 MAIN ST - SERV THRU 5 -5 -12 $918.09
5/23/2012 027255 XCEL ENERGY 1880 MAIN ST - Ll 1 Y HALL/FIRE STATION - SERV THRU 5 -5 -12 $352.74
5/23/2012 027255 XCEL ENERGY 7098 CENTERVILLE RD- SERV THRU 5 -6 -12 $9.90
Check Nbr 027255 XCEL ENERGY $4,422.63
Total Checks $271,573.50
VOIDED CHECK #26994 REPLACE WITH CHECK 27241
7
CENTENNIAL LAKES POLICE DEPT Check Register - Police GL without invoice numbers Page: 1
Check Issue Dates: 4/27/2012 - 5/10/2012 May 10, 2012 12:20PM
Report Criteria:
Report type: Summary
GL Check Ck No Description Check
Period Issue Date Payee Amount
05/12 05/10/2012 8855 PUBLIC AGENCY TRAINING COUNCIL TRAINING /RB 350.00- V
05/12 05/10/2012 8938 ASPEN MILLS, INC UNIFORMS 231.44
05/12 05/10/2012 8939 CENTENNIAL UTILITIES APRIL UTILITIES 266.76
05/12 05/10/2012 8940 CENTURY LINK CENTERVILLE PH 168.06
05/12 05/10/2012 8941 COVERALL OF TWIN CITIES, INC MAY CLEANING SERVICE 798.08
05/12 05/10/2012 8942 DELTA DENTAL JUNE DENTAL INS 1,132.45
05/12 05/10/2012 8943 DEPUTY REGISTRAR #150 LICENSE PLATES FOR UNMARKED 56.25
05/12 05/10/2012 8944 DON'S CIRCLE SERVICE, INC VEH REPAIRS & MTC 2,068.83
05/12 05/10/2012 8945 ENVENTIS TELECOM, INC PHONES & LONG DISTANCE 407.97
05/12 05/10/2012 8946 FRATTALLONES HARDWARE, INC. BATTERIES 90.57
05/12 05/10/2012 8947 HOLIDAY FLEET FUEL 4,385.15
05/12 05/10/2012 8948 HOLIDAY INN & SUITES LODGING CONFERENCE PA 190.92
05/12 05/10/2012 8949 IMAGE PRINTING & GRAPHICS, INC TOWED VEH REPORTS 119.37
05/12 05/10/2012 8950 MAACO COLLISION REPAIR & VEH REPAIR 751.77
05/12 05/10/2012 8951 METRO SALES, INC COPIER CONTRACT 99.65
05/12 05/10/2012 8952 METRO COUNT USA, INC EQUIPMENT BATTERY PACK 91.00
05/12 05/10/2012 8953 NEAL A. NOREN BLDG MTC HOURS 120.00
05/12 05/10/2012 8954 O'REILLY AUTOMOTIVE, INC VEH REPAIR PART 13.92
05/12 05/10/2012 8955 PETTY CASH / BRITNI AUSTIN MISC REG FEE 68.42
05/12 05/10/2012 8956 QUILL CORPORATION PRINTER SUPPLIES 130.00
05/12 05/10/2012 8957 SHRED -N -GO, INC SHREDDING SERVICE 33.00
05/12 05/10/2012 8958 SMART SIGN CRIME PREVENTIONS SIGNS 89.75
05/12 05/10/2012 8959 TELECIDE PRODUCTIONS, INC COMPUTER MTC /SUPPORT 45.00
05/12 05/10/2012 8960 UNIFORMS UNLIMITED, INC UNIFORMS 266.49
Grand Totals: 11 27485
M = Manual Check, V = Void Check
8
r .. 0.
TO: Honorable Mayor and Council Members
FROM: Staff
SUBJECT: Encroachment Agreements
1. 1729 Dupre Road
DATE: May 18, 2012
Property owners have submitted the appropriate permit application, sketch plan,
agreements and fees for the permit and agreement. The Building Official has signed off
on the permit and the location of the items.
9
CITY OF CENTERVILLE
WHEREAS, the Reverend Thomas Fitzgerald has devoted 46 years of his life serving
the Catholic faith with over twelve years at the Church of Saint Genevieve, Centerville,
Minnesota, and
WHEREAS, through these years, Father Fitzgerald has provided guidance, leadership,
support and strength to those that seek spiritual guidance during life's difficult moments
and life's greatest moments, and
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF
CENTERVILLE, ANOKA COUNTY, MINNESOTA:
Council desires to extend their appreciation to Father Fitzgerald for his exemplary
service and value that he has provided to the City of Centerville through his
achievements, faith and dedication by Proclaiming Sunday, June 10, 2012 Father
Thomas Fitzgerald Day.
Council also desires to wish Father Fitzgerald best wishes in what lies before him and
every success in his future.
Adopted by the City Council this 9th day of May, 2012.
Thomas Wilharber, Mayor
ATTEST:
Teresa Bender, City Clerk
10
Dear Mayor and City Council of Centerville,
The Centerville Lions are requesting several City Permits for the 2012 Fete des Lacs. We
would like to ask again, that those permit fees be waived by City Council, to the
Centerville Lions Club, a non - profit organization in Centerville.
We're asking for the following permits in our event application.
Noise:
Laurie LaMotte Park, Friday July 27 8am to 11 pm
Laurie LaMotte Park, Saturday July 28 8am to Midnight
Laurie LaMotte Park, Sunday July 29 8am to 8pm
1 to 4 Day Temporary/Event On Sale Liquor License:
Laurie LaMotte Park, Friday July 27 10am to 11 pm.
Laurie LaMotte Park, Saturday July 28 loam to Midnight.
Laurie LaMotte Park, Sunday July 29 10am to 8pm
Fireworks:
Laurie LaMotte Park, Friday July 27
Laurie LaMotte Park, Saturday July 28
Raffle:
City: NA; $50 dollar fee paid to State of MN.
We appreciate your help and support for this years City Festival.
Tk you,
an
Lio4ohn N. Thill
Centerville Lion's President
11
Church of St. Genevieve
7087 Goiffon Road • CenterviCCe, 24innesota 55058 • (651) 429 -7937
May 14, 2012
Centerville City Council
City of Centerville
1880 Main Street
Centerville, MN 55038
Subject: St. Genevieve's Parish Festival
Sunday, August 19, 2012
Dear Council Members:
We are requesting your support in approving our gaming permit for our annual Parish
Festival. Enclosed is the completed form. We respectfully request your signature and the
return of the form to us.
Please feel free to contact the undersigned with any questions.
Sincerely,
A046_1 Iketd1A
Andrew A. Melcher
St. Genevieve Festival Coordinator
952- 927 -2431 days
12
Church of St. Genevieve
r
. 7087 Go ffon Road CentervzOE Minnesota 55058 • (651) 429 -7937
May 14, 2012
City of Centerville
1880 Main Street
Centerville, MN 55038
Subject: St. Genevieve's Parish Festival
Sunday, August 19, 2012
Liquor License
Enclosed is the completed Application for a temporary license for sale of liquor.
This year the sale of beer will take place on our Parish Community Center grounds,
6995 Centerville Road.
Please feel free to contact the undersigned with any questions.
Sincerely,
CLICL
Andrew A. Melcher
St. Genevieve Festival Coordinator
952- 927 -2431 days
13
This opinion will be unpublished and
may not be cited except as provided by
Minn. Stat. § 480A.08, subd. 3 (2010).
STATE OF MINNESOTA
IN COURT OF APPEALS
A11 -0827
A11 -1375
Sheehy Construction Company,
Respondent,
vs.
City of Centerville,
Appellant.
Filed May 14, 2012
Affirmed as modified
Hudson, Judge
Anoka County District Court
File No. 02 -CV -09 -5300
Dean B. Thomson, Kristine Kroenke, Fabyanske, Westra, Hart & Thomson, P.A.,
Minneapolis, Minnesota (for respondent)
Kurt Glaser, Smith & Glaser, LLC, Minneapolis, Minnesota (for appellant)
Considered and decided by Ross, Presiding Judge; Halbrooks, Judge; and Hudson,
Judge.
UNPUBLISHED OPINION
HUDSON, Judge
Appellant city challenges the district court's judgments setting aside and
remanding a special assessment adopted with respect to real property owned by
respondent construction company and granting respondent its associated costs and
14
disbursements. We affirm the district court's judgment relating to the assessment, as
modified to correct a mathematical error, and affirm the judgment relating to costs and
disbursements.
FACTS
In 2009, the city council of appellant City of Centerville adopted a special
assessment of $379,000 relating to an approximately 5 -acre parcel of property owned by
respondent Sheehy Construction Company. The assessment related to a city development
project, which included construction of an east -west road to the immediate south of
Sheehy's property, between 20th and 21st Avenues; construction of sanitary sewer and
water -main connections to Sheehy's property; realignment of a drainage ditch located on
city property; and additional wetland and drainage improvements. The project also
allowed the city to fill portions of previously acquired property, which was located to the
west of Sheehy's property, for the purpose of constructing three new lots suitable for
commercial development.
In 2006, in connection with the project, the city had instituted an eminent - domain
proceeding, which resulted in the condemnation of approximately 1.6 acres of Sheehy's
5 -acre parcel of property. As a result of that proceeding, Sheehy signed a settlement
agreement accepting a commissioners' panel recommendation of $200,000 as damages
for the taking. The property acquired by eminent domain was comprised mostly of
wetlands located immediately to the south of Sheehy's current parcel.
Sheehy objected to the 2009 assessment and appealed to district court, alleging,
among other things, that the assessment amounted to an unconstitutional taking because
2
1 5
the amount of the assessment exceeded the benefit to the property. At a bench trial, the
city presented the testimony of its appraiser, William Schwab, who had also conducted
the appraisal for the 2006 condemnation proceeding. In his 2006 condemnation
appraisal, Schwab noted that 65% of the property was located in a flood zone. Here,
Schwab testified that he arrived at the before - project value for the special assessment by
dividing the $200,000 condemnation award by the square footage of the amount taken,
and then applying that $2.77 - per - square -foot value to the property remaining after the
condemnation, which resulted in a value of $550,000.
With respect to the post - project value of the property, Schwab noted that the
property would no longer be subject to flooding and would therefore not be restricted by
a Rice Creek Watershed District (RCWD) flooding easement. He testified that the
removal of the easement provided a benefit to Sheehy, but that if the project were not
necessary to remove the easement, that portion of the project would not have provided a
benefit. Schwab also assigned a value of $145,000 to an existing pole barn on the
property. Schwab's post - project appraisal valued the property after the project at $6.30
per square foot, for a total value of $950,000. He therefore opined that the special
assessment resulted in a benefit to the property of $400,000, which he then reduced to the
assessed figure of $379,000.
Sheehy presented evidence from its appraiser, Ellen Herman. To support
Herman's appraisal, Sheehy sought to introduce evidence from an additional expert,
Jeffrey Shopek. Shopek, a civil engineer, had developed an engineering plan that would
provide sewer and water to the property in a different fashion from the city's project.
3
16
Shopek's plan also provided for RCWD's removal of the floodplain easement in light of
a 1999 change in the floodplain, which removed most of Sheehy's property from the
floodplain. The city moved in limine to exclude Shopek's opinion, arguing that
testimony on the RCWD's potential removal of the floodplain easement was speculative,
and that because the proposed engineering plan was hypothetical, it did not relate to the
actual benefit conferred by the project. The district court permitted Shopek's testimony,
but limited its use to foundation for Herman's appraisal.
Shopek testified that without the city's new lots added to the project, it would not
have been necessary from an engineering standpoint to "loop" the water line extended to
Sheehy's property to connect it in more than one direction. He suggested a less -
expensive plan that would have connected sanitary sewer and water to Sheehy's property
by bringing those connections along 21st Avenue to the south end of the property. He
also testified that, after the floodplain elevation was revised in 1999, "just a small sliver"
of Sheehy's property remained in the floodplain. He testified that he estimated that the
City of Lino Lakes, which adjoins Sheehy's property on its east side, would likely
contribute $59,000 to fund a portion of the proposed infrastructure, so that its total cost to
the city would be approximately $135,000.
Herman testified regarding her appraisal. She opined that, based in part on the
property's location outside the floodplain, its highest and best use both before and after
the project was as commercial property. She used vacant properties with existing
infrastructure improvements as comparables. To arrive at a pre - project value, she used a
value of $7.25 per square foot. She then deducted $135,000 for constructing the
4
17
improvements proposed by Shopek and $25,000 for the cost of removing the pole barn,
which she believed to have minimal value. She also added a credit of $26,000, based on
the estimated value of a previous assessment for work performed on Sheehy's property in
1998, for a total pre- improvement value of $946,000. Herman valued the property post
improvement at $1,110,000. She concluded that the project conferred a special benefit of
$164,000.
The city and Sheehy both presented testimony by water - resources experts.
Nicholas Tomczik, a permit coordinator with the RCWD, testified for the city that some
of Sheehy's property remains in the 100 -year floodplain and that the RCWD board does
not always follow staff recommendations about matters such as removing easements.
Sheehy presented the testimony of Carl Almer, a former water - resources engineer at
RCWD, who testified that the designated floodplain elevation had changed in 1999 and
that in 2005, when he worked at RCWD and reviewed a wetland delineation for the city's
purchase of related property, no portion of Sheehy's property was designated as wetland.
He testified that, at that time, RCWD had no knowledge of an existing wetland easement,
that he would have recommended release of such an easement, and that the RCWD board
followed his recommendations "[a]lmost without exception."
The district court found that Herman's appraisal provided the most accurate and
fair representation of the property's market value after the project, and, with some
adjustment, before the project. The district court found that the per - square -foot value of
the 2006 condemnation award, on which Schwab based his opinion in this matter, did not
provide an accurate and fair representation of the property's pre - project market value
5
18
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
The city's consolidated appeal of the judgments relating to the special assessment and to
costs and disbursements follows.
DECISION
I
As a preliminary, procedural matter, the city argues for the first time on appeal
that Sheehy is precluded from challenging the city's assessment because Schwab's
appraisal is based on the earlier 2006 condemnation award, which, it argues, has
collateral - estoppel effect in this proceeding. As the city acknowledges, it did not raise
this argument before the district court. This court will not generally address issues not
raised before, and considered by, the district court. Thiele v. Stich, 425 N.W.2d 580, 582
(Minn. 1988). The city argues, however, that because the preclusive effect of the 2006
condemnation award is dispositive, it may be considered for the first time on appellate
review. See Watson v. United Servs. Auto. Ass'n, 566 N.W.2d 683, 687 (Minn. 1997)
(stating that issues not raised before district court may be considered on appeal if they are
"plainly decisive of the entire controversy on its merits" and when "there is no possible
advantage or disadvantage to either party in not having had a prior ruling by the [district]
court" (quotation omitted)). We reject this argument for two reasons. First, even if all of
the requirements for applying the doctrine of collateral estoppel are satisfied, the district
court still has discretion to decline to apply the doctrine. Pope Cnty. Bd. of Comm'rs v.
Pryzmus, 682 N.W.2d 666, 669 (Minn. App. 2004), review denied (Minn. Sept. 29,
2004); see AFSCME Council 96 v. Arrowhead Reg'l Corrs. Bd., 356 N.W.2d 295, 299
(Minn. 1984) (stating that collateral estoppel is not rigidly applied and is rejected or
7
20
qualified when its application would contravene overriding public policy); see also
Falgren v. State Bd. of Teaching, 545 N.W.2d 901, 905 (Minn. 1996) (noting that
"collateral estoppel is not rigidly applied" and stating that "[a]s a flexible doctrine, the
focus is on whether its application would work an injustice on the party against whom
estoppel is urged" (quoting Johnson v. Consol. Freightways, Ins., 420 N.W.2d 608, 613-
14 (Minn. 1988) (quotation marks omitted)).
Second, there is a significant difference in the character of the property involved in
these two proceedings. We acknowledge that the district court received evidence of the
2006 condemnation award in the context of Schwab's appraisal. But the district court
was not bound to determine the special benefit of the current project based solely on that
award, which involved a portion of Sheehy's property that consisted mostly of wetlands.
We therefore decline to consider the city's collateral - estoppel argument based on Thiele.
Substantively, the city argues that the district court abused its discretion by
admitting Shopek's testimony because that testimony failed to meet the evidentiary
foundational requirements to admit evidence based on the "development -cost approach"
to market value as articulated in Buzick v. City of Blaine, 491 N.W.2d 923 (Minn. App.
1992), affd, 505 N.W.2d 51 (Minn. 1993).' Specifically, Buzick requires that before the
1 The supreme court has recognized that, in certain circumstances, in determining the
value of a special benefit conferred on assessed property, courts may consider property
appraisals based on a development -cost approach. Cnty. of Ramsey v. Miller, 316
N.W.2d 917, 919 -20 (Minn. 1982). Such an approach "is designed to reflect, through
cash flow analysis, the current price a developer - purchaser would be warranted in paying
for the land, given the cost of developing it and the probable proceeds from the sale of
developed sites." Id. at 920. We have previously affirmed the district court's exclusion
of evidence on the development -cost approach for lack of foundation, when calculations
8
21
development -cost approach may be used, traditional methods of valuations must be
inadequate. Buzick, 491 N.W.2d at 926. The district court did not address Buzick.
Sheehy contends that our consideration of this issue is inappropriate because the city
failed to raise it before the district court. See Thiele, 425 N.W.2d at 582. Even if we
concluded that the city adequately raised its objection to Shopek's testimony by its
motion in limine, we would still be foreclosed from addressing this argument because the
city failed to seek a new trial or amended findings based on its asserted error in the
district court's evidentiary ruling.
The Minnesota Supreme Court has recently reiterated that "a motion for a new
trial or amended findings is a prerequisite to appellate review regarding matters of `trial
procedure, evidentiary rulings, and jury instructions' that arise `during the course of
trial.'" Conti Retail, LLC v. Cnty. of Hennepin, 801 N.W.2d 395, 399 (Minn. 2011)
(quoting Alpha Real Estate Co. v. Delta Dental Plan, 664 N.W.2d 303, 310 (Minn.
2003)) (other quotation omitted). Therefore, "evidentiary rulings made at trial must be
assigned as error in a motion for a new trial or amended findings in order to properly
preserve an objection for appellate review," and "failure to bring such a motion precludes
appellate review." Id. This rule applies to assessment proceedings. See Am. Bank of St.
Paul v. City of Minneapolis, 802 N.W.2d 781, 790 (Minn. App. 2011) (in appellate
used in an appraisal were based on speculation as to when market demand would support
profitable development. Buzick v. City of Blaine, 491 N.W.2d 923, 926-27 (Minn. App.
1992), aff'd, 505 N.W.2d 51 (Minn. 1993). Because the city's arguments on the
development -cost approach were not asserted in a motion for a new trial, we do not
address the issue of whether Shopek's testimony, admitted as foundation for Herman's
appraisal, constituted development -cost evidence.
9
22
review of street assessment, declining to address evidentiary objections on ground that
appellant failed to raise objections in motion for new trial). Therefore, we conclude that
the city's failure to move for a new trial or amended findings based on the district court's
evidentiary ruling allowing Shopek's testimony as foundation for Herman's appraisal
precludes our review of this issue.
II
"A special assessment is a tax, intended to offset the cost of local improvements
such as sewer, water and streets, which is selectively imposed upon the beneficiaries."
Dosedel v. City of Ham Lake, 414 N.W.2d 751, 755 (Minn. App. 1987). A municipality
may assess "[t]he cost of any improvement, or any part thereof . . . upon property
benefited by the improvement, based upon the benefits received." Minn. Stat. § 429.051
(2010). "A municipality's power of assessment, however, is limited by three conditions:
(1) the land must receive a special benefit from the improvement being constructed;
(2) the assessment must be uniform upon the same class of property; and (3) the
assessment may not exceed the special benefit." David E. McNally Dev. Corp. v. City of
Winona, 686 N.W.2d 553, 558 (Minn. App. 2004) (citing Carlson -Lang Realty Co. v.
City of Windom, 307 Minn. 368, 369, 240 N.W.2d 517, 519 (1976)).
The district court's standard of review of a special assessment varies according to
the challenge asserted. Buettner v. City of St. Cloud, 277 N.W.2d 199, 202 (Minn. 1979).
If a property owner challenges matters within the city's legislative discretion, such as the
proportionate distribution of the total costs of an improvement, the determination of the
area benefitted by the project, or the regularity of the assessment process, the district
10
23
court exercises a clearly- erroneous standard of review. Id. at 203. But if the issue
presented is whether an assessment exceeds the special benefit to that property, so as to
determine whether an unconstitutional taking has occurred, the district court's "[d]ecision
must be based upon independent consideration of all the evidence." Id.
An assessment is presumed to be legally valid, and evidence of an assessment roll
constitutes "prima facie proof that the assessment does not exceed special benefit."
Carlson -Lang, 307 Minn. at 370, 240 N.W.2d at 519. Appealing parties can overcome
this presumption by introducing competent evidence that the assessment is greater than
the benefit. Id.; McNally, 686 N.W.2d at 559. Once the presumption is rebutted by
introducing adverse evidence on the question of value, the district court weighs
conflicting evidence on the value of the benefit conferred. Buettner, 277 N.W.2d at 204;
see In re Meyer, 176 Minn. 240, 243, 223 N.W. 135, 136 (1929) (stating that evidence to
rebut the presumption of validity "raises an issue of fact upon which normally the
decision of the trier of fact will be final ").
The city initially argues that, to the extent that Herman's appraisal relied on
Shopek's testimony, Sheehy's assessment appeal challenged the city's project — design
decision, a legislative function, so that the district court should have examined the city's
assessment decision under a clearly- erroneous standard, rather than making an
independent consideration of all the evidence. We disagree. Although Sheehy raised
various arguments, including a challenge to the apportionment of benefits, the main thrust
of Sheehy's argument was that the assessment exceeded the special benefit to the
property. See In re Vill. of Burnsville Assessments, 287 N.W.2d 375, 376 -77 (Minn.
11
24
1979) (reiterating de novo standard of review of municipality's decision when "the main
thrust" of property owner's argument was focused on claim of absence of benefit to
assessed property). We also note that Sheehy did not contest the city council's
assessment decision in the context of an adversary hearing. See Tri -State Land Co. v.
City of Shoreview, 290 N.W.2d 775, 778 n.2 (Minn. 1980) (citing Buettner and
concluding that, because property owner was not contesting regularity of city - council
proceeding and assessment was not adopted in adversary proceeding, limited scope of
review did not apply). We therefore conclude that, on this record, the district court
appropriately exercised its independent review to determine whether Sheehy's appraisal
evidence was sufficient to overcome the city's "prima facie proof" that the assessment
did not exceed the special benefit to its property. Carlson -Lang, 307 Minn. at 370, 240
N.W.2d at 519.
III
We therefore address the merits of the city's challenge to the district court's
findings, conclusions, and judgment challenging the special assessment. This court
conducts appellate review of the district court's decision by examining the record to
determine whether the evidence as a whole supports the district court's findings. Id. at
2 The city also argues that, although Sheehy made an apportionment objection on appeal
to the district court, it did not present expert testimony on such a challenge before the city
council. But we conclude that Sheehy's additional evidence presented to the district
court was appropriate and relevant to the central issue addressed by the city council:
whether the assessment exceeded the special benefit to the property. See Uniprop
Manufactured Haus., 474 N.W.2d 375, 379 (Minn. App. 1991) (stating that district court
may consider new or additional evidence that is relevant to issues raised and considered
before municipal decision - making body), review denied (Minn. Oct. 11, 1991).
12
25
373, 240 N.W.2d at 521. We defer to the district court's determinations regarding the
weight and credibility of expert evidence. Alstores Realty, Inc. v. State, 286 Minn. 343,
353, 176 N.W.2d 112, 118 (1970).
"[S]pecial benefits [are] measured by considering the increase in the market value
of the property attributable to the improvement." Am. Bank of St. Paul, 802 N.W.2d at
785. Market value is the amount that a willing buyer would pay to a willing owner,
taking into account the property's highest and best use. Cnty. of Ramsey v. Miller, 316
N.W.2d 917, 919 (Minn. 1982). The district court found that it could not rely on the
city's appraisal evidence because Schwab's appraisal did not provide a fair
approximation of the increase in value of Sheehy's property due to the project. The
district court found that, with two exceptions, Herman's general methodology provided a
fair and accurate approximation of the pre - and post- improvement value of the property.
The district court therefore credited Herman's appraisal, with the exception of her pre -
project use of a credit provided to Sheehy with respect to an earlier assessment and her
assumption that the City of Lino Lakes would contribute to private improvements
constructed on the east side of Sheehy's property.
Schwab's appraisal
The city argues that the district court erred by discrediting Schwab's appraisal of
the pre- improvement value of the property at $2.77 per square foot. Schwab
acknowledged that this figure was based on his previous appraisal of Sheehy's additional
property taken in the 2006 condemnation proceeding. The district court found that the
per - square -foot value of the portion of the property taken in the 2006 condemnation
13
26
action did not provide an accurate and fair representation of the pre- improvement market
value of the remainder of the property. The district court cited Schwab's testimony that
about 65% of the property was located within a flood zone, which affected his opinion of
the property's highest and best use. But the district court found that the floodplain
designation on Sheehy's property had actually been reduced in 1999, removing nearly all
of the property from the floodplain.
The city argues that the district court misinterpreted Schwab's appraisal, citing his
testimony that he assumed for valuation purposes that Sheehy's property was all located
on high ground. But Schwab testified that "[a]t the time [he] did the appraisal for the
Sheehy property, [he] believed it was in the floodplain." This statement is consistent
with Schwab's 2006 condemnation appraisal, which examined the whole of Sheehy's
property, stated that the property's highest and best use was for cold storage, and
recommended that, under a current flood restriction, the property could be used for
storage of materials that could be readily removed in case of a flood warning.
The city also maintains, based on the testimony of Tomczik, an RCWD permit
coordinator, that any evidence of increased property value due to removal of the ponding
and flowage easement would be speculative because Sheehy would need to seek approval
of a formal development plan before the easement could be removed. But the district
court credited the testimony of Almer, the water resource engineer and former RCWD
employee, who testified that there was no engineering reason not to recommend release
of the easement given that the floodplain designation had changed and that the RCWD
board followed his recommendations nearly 100% of the time. This court defers to the
14
27
district court's credibility determinations, Alstores, 286 Minn. at 353, 176 N.W.2d at 118,
and we conclude that the evidence sustains the district court's findings rejecting
Schwab's appraisal and crediting Almer's testimony on the release of the flooding
easement.
Herman's appraisal
The city also argues that the district court erred by crediting Herman's appraisal,
maintaining that it is unreliable because she used valuation comparables of property
already improved with infrastructure, rather than completely unimproved property. The
supreme court has observed that "the priority and quantum of reliance [on a valuation
approach] depends on the facts of each case." Lewis & Harris v. Cnty. of Hennepin, 516
N.W.2d 177, 180 (Minn. 1994). The district court found that although "generally
speaking, a market analysis of sales of similar unimproved properties would be more
useful.... Given that the court has determined that it cannot rely on those sales selected
by Schwab, the court has no such market analysis before it." In this context, based on the
district court's findings and the record evidence, we conclude that the district court did
not err in determining that Herman's approach generally "result[ed] in a fair
approximation of the increase in market value" due to the assessment. Eagle Creek
Townhomes, LLP v. City of Shakopee, 614 N.W.2d 246, 251 (Minn. App. 2000)
(quotation omitted), review denied (Minn. Sept. 13, 2000).
The city also argues that Herman's appraisal did not provide the court sufficient
evidence on which to base the two adjustments it made in the pre- improvement value of
the property; specifically, the removal of a $26,000 credit to Sheehy from the city based
15
28
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
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
that "[t]o make sufficient findings of the reasonableness of costs and disbursements, .. .
the [district] court must take oral testimony ... so a full record is available for review."
Quade & Sons Refrigeration, Inc. v. Minn. Mining & Mfg. Co., 510 N.W.2d 256, 260
(Minn. App. 1994) (quotation omitted), review denied (Minn. Mar. 15, 1994). But the
supreme court has noted that Minn. R. Civ. P. 54.04 does not require the district court to
conduct a hearing to determine the reasonableness of costs and disbursements. Buller v.
A.D. Smith Harvestore Prods., Inc., 518 N.W.2d 537, 543 (Minn. 1994).
Sheehy submitted detailed affidavits in support of its motion for costs and
disbursements, and the city submitted a thorough memorandum in opposition to the
motion. The district court issued specific findings stating its reasons for allowing some
claimed costs and disbursements and rejecting others. Under these circumstances, the
district court did not err in declining to hold a hearing on this issue, and we affirm the
district court's judgment relating to costs and disbursements.
Affirmed as modified.
18
31