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 )
-
.
.
.
"
~