HomeMy WebLinkAbout2013-02-13 Glaser Presentationnts
- DU
History
June 2009 Nov 2010 Feb 2011
Resolution Adopting
Assessment:
Sheehy
Special Assessment
$379,000
District Court Decision
Special Benefit
$2417000
Sheehy claimed
Special Benefit
$164,000
March 2012 Feb 2013
Court of Appeals
Special Benefit
$2497000
Reassessment
of
Special Benefit
uOUrt's
uraer
011 "The City shall perform a reassessment of
the special benefit to the Sheehy property
that resulted from the Backage Road Project,
which shall be consistent with this oainion"
--s- "reassessment shall not exceed $249,000."
u -.rrs u
o--- u
-- - on - -- a-- - - - _c
%No
ON, "The special benefit to the Sheehy
Property from the Backage Road Project
was [$249,000]."
SDec-a- Benet
Special Benefit of an assessment is
" measured by the increase in market
value of the land owing to the
improvement."
SDec-a- Benet
sw Market value AFTER the public
improvements
sw Market value BEFORE the public
improvements
sw Difference = Special Benefit
New Special Benefit to Sheehy Property
sw Market value AFTER the public
improvements
sw Market value BEFORE the public
improvements
sw Difference = Special Benefit
$947,000
$675,000
$272,000
Court's Opinion
" reassessment of the special benefit ...
shall be consistent with this opinion"
ON, "The special benefit to the Sheehy
Property from the Backage Road Project
was [$249,000]."
Sioeda- Benefit Dete-m nat-on
-rf
s Orae
Cons -stent - - � - - tne -
Special benefit
Court imposed
benefit
per new appraisal
maximum special
$272,000
$249,000
09 Special Benefit $249,000
History
June 2009
Resolution Adopting
Assessment:
Sheehy
Special Assessment
Originally: $379,000
Reassessed- $249,000
Feb 2013
Reassessment
of
Special Benefit
$2497000
Assessment
Heso ut on Adoiot na Sioec a
%Z09
omea June 2009
-dam
s-- Resolution includes:
Sets interest rate
Defines installment payments
Number of years for payback
Explaining how to make payment
Date for first payment
Creating an "Assessment Roll"
a Defining each parcel which benefits from the
improvements
a Identifying the owners of each parcel
a Defining the amount of special benefit received by
each parcel
RESPONSE TO
s -yis LETTER
Issues: For Reassessment
Court Order: Reassessment of the Special
Benefit — "not to exceed" $249,000.
Court Opinion: "The special benefit to the
Sheehy Property from the Backage Road Project
was [$249,000].))
Court Order: Reassessment of Special Benefit
"shall be consistent with this opinion."
Issues: NOT Part of a Reassessment
Invalidating the Resolution adopting the
assessment as to the City's parcels.
Sheehy's $164,000 payment to City
$21,000 Credit
How To Calculate Interest
Sneeny's New Appraisal
Now
Sheehy claims benefit = $0
Then (to the court)
benefit = $164,000
The Court rejected Sheehy's appraisal and
presumed an amount greater than $164,000
The Court rejected City's appraisal and presumed
an amount less than $379,000
.61 "The special benefit to the Sheehy Property from
the Backage Road Project was [$249,000]."
Sheehy --s ------ew a-sa- — Peason #1
s-- Now
Preferred access is 21 St
Avenue
Then (to the court)
Preferred access is 21St
Avenue
s-- Court Rejected Sheehy's Argument:
"The evidence fails to establish any change in the
market value of the Sheehy Property due to the
alternative access via Commerce Drive."
Sheehy --s ------ew a-sa- — Peason #2
s-- Now
s-- Then (to the court)
Best access is Northern - Best access is Northern
Lights Boulevard
Lights Boulevard
s-- Court Rejected Sheehy's Argument:
Must consider conditions existing in 2008/2009.
"[T]he Court believes that the evaluation of the post -
improvement market value should usually coincide
with the completion of the project."
Sheehy --s ------ew a-sa- — Peason
s-- Now
s-- Then (to the court)
Sheehy to
connect to
- Sheehy to
connect to
utilities
on
21
St Avenue
utilities
on
21
St Avenue
s-- Court Rejected Sheehy's Argument
"It is not, for example, relevant whether Sheehy's lot is
physically served by only one holding pond. The project
must be evaluated as a whole with the special benefit to
the accessed lots measured by the change in their
market values."
Sheehy --s
-sa- —
- - - � - - - - Peason 4
s-- Now
Access to Sheehy
property using a portion
of Commerce Drive.
Then (to the Court)
e Various arguments for
only using pieces of the
Backage Road Project.
s-- Court Rejected Sheehy's Argument:
- same as Reason #3 —
Must look at the project as a whole
6 .gmmi 0 -
-000 _
s-- Now
Sheehy wants a
$21,000 credit from the
City
Then (to the Court)
Sheehy wanted a
$21,000 credit from the
City
s-- Court Rejected Sheehy's Argument:
"As a historical fact, the City did provide a credit to Sheehy ...
no evidence was presented to show the City had any
obligation to do so."
"The court concludes that the market value of the Sheehy
Property before the Backage Road Project would not reflect
this subsidy"
uAOWQ&alculating Interest
Minn.Statute 429.061 subd. 2 & 3
"The assessment, with accruing interest, shall be a lien
upon all private and public property including therein, from
the date of the resolution adopting the assessment."
"All assessments and interest thereon shall be collected
and paid over in the same manner as other municipal
taxes. "
Property tax law: After appealing a tax, interest on
property tax is calculated from the original date tax is due,
not from the date of the Court's order.
Resolution adopting the assessment = 6/10/2009
uA6WQ&alculating Interest
Summary Scenario C
nterest Rate 5.75%
-ourt Ordered Assessment Cap
249,000.00
Accrued Interest - 6/10/09 to 12/8/10
21,516.02
Assessed Amount
249,000.00
New Amount + accrued interest 12/9/10
270,516.02
�heehy Partial Payment
(164,000.00)
Sheehy Pays on 12/8/10
164,000.00
Accrued Interest 5.75%
35,075.36
Total Owed by Sheehy to
New Amount minus Payment
106,516.02
Centerville 2/13/13
120,075.36
Accrued Interest - 12/9/10 to 2/13/13
13,559.34
Sheehy Court Costs affirmed by
unt Due on 2/13/13 120,075.36 1court of appeals 56,908.61
Accrued Interest 3/11/11 to
.ped Interest - 2/14/13 to 12/31/13 6,156.36 /13/13 4.00% 4,396.77
unt Due and to be assessed 12/31/13 if not Total Owed by Centerville to
on 2/13/13 126,231.73 Sheehy 2/13/13 61,305.38
Sneeny,S Payment In 2010
e Sheehy paid $164,000 toward their assessment (12/8/10)
(Remember: Sheehy argued to Court their special assessment
should have been $164,000)
M.S. 429.071 subd. 2, allows for either:
reassessment, or
new assessment
Court did not order a "new assessment" as allowed by
statute
Court ordered a "reassessment" of the special benefit to
the property
4zto- ry
Dec 2010
June 2009 Nov 2010L Feb 2011
Resolution Adopting
ASSPSSmPnt-
Sheehy
Special Assessment
$3797000
Di rict Court Decision
Special Benefit
$2417000
Sheehy claimed
Special Benefit
$1647000
Sheehy paid City
$164,000
For special assessment
March 2012 Feb 2013
Court of Appeals
Special Benefit
$2497000
Reassessment
of
Special Benefit