Loading...
CR 93-36 Assessment Appeal Embers Restaurant - ~-- ( '1 .--.",,-,.:. ...- i \ "I V 0 I ~ ~ ~~ ... I CI ~ i:Z: I I i i i . March 10, i Council Report: 1993 i 0 p ~ I 93-36 I K I [ i Settlement of Assessment Appeal Embers Restaurant -Cambridge street Reconstruction Proposed Action. Staff recommends adoption of the following motion: Move that Council approve a settlement and authorize the City Attorney to siqn same in behalf of the City as it pertains to the Embers Restaurant assessment appeal - Cambridqe Street Improvement Proiect. Overview. Upon completion of the Cambridge Street reconstruction project, project costs were compiled and-Council upon due notice to property owners conducted an assessment hearing. Council adopted the assessment roll in May 1991 after consideration and denial of an Embers Restaurant appeal. Embers Restaurant then filed an appeal in district court where the appeal has remained in litigation until now. e Primary Issues to Consider. · What are the details of the original assessment? · What are the terms of the settlement? · Alternatives/Recommendation Supportinq Information. . Settlement Agreement ~~ James Gessele Engineering Superintendent . " ...-"' - --- " ;-~~- -"'-''''~ . ~.;: . Analvsis. · What are the details of the original assessment? The original assessment amounts of $13,662.41 and $6,170.12 were levied against two Embers Restaurant parcels in conjunction with the street and water main improvements .on Cambridge street. Embers Restaurant appealed these assessments for a revision of the amount on the basis that the assessment did not meet the test of whether the improvement had increased the market value of the property. Council denied the appeal and went on to adopt the assessment roll. Embers subsequently filed their appeal in district court and because of various procedural delays the matter has not been settled until now. · What are the terms of the settlement? The City Attorney has reached a compromise settlement with the Embers attorney. The city is prepared to reduce its special assessment on the two parcels from $19,832.53 to $10,000.00 and to recertify the assessment with Hennepin County. Embers agrees to withdraw its appeal without award of costs or attorney's fees. · Alternatives/Recommendation Council can give its approval to the settlement and the . appeal will draw to a close. Council can deny the settlement and the appeal will proceed in a formal court hearing: staff recommends approval of the settlement in light of the City Attorney's assessment that estimated court costs would exceed the difference between the original assessment amount and the compromise settlement. ~'\ ........... . -' " ~-. . -" ,- ~. STATE OF MINNESOTA DISTRICT COURT COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ' FOURTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT -------------------------------------------------------------- . Highway #7 Embers, FILE NO: AP 91-010116 P1aintiff(s), STIPULATION FOR AND DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE vs. City of Hopkins, Defendant(s). ------------------------------------------------------------- . The above named parties, by and through their respective undersigned attorneys of record, do hereby stipulate, compromise and. settle all issues, controversies and claims on the following terms and conditions; . . 1. City , shall reduce the 1992 Special Assessments 9f $19,832.53 on Embers real estate to $10,000.00 and recertify said amount in the fo~lowing manner: Parcel 19-117-21-12-0022 -- $6,878.00 Parcel 19-117-21~12-0022 -_. $3,122.00 All other terms and condi tions,' of said assessments shall remain in force and effect. 2. Embers hereby withdraws and dismisses the above entitled matter with prejudice and without award of costs, disbursements or attorney's fees in favor of either party. Daniel Biersdorf Jerre A. Miller Attorney for High Attorney for City of Embers Hopkins .. . 0\ .' -:..~ .,"\ .,~ .- ORDER The undersigned judge of the above named court, having reviewed the terms of the stipulation of the parties, the stipulation is approved and the above matter is hereby dismissed with prejudice. Richard B. Solum Judge of District Court Dated: Ie ) - . . . " ~