Memo Special Assessments 90-02
.
..
.
.J~
CITY OF HOPKINS
MEMORANDUM
DATE: May 7, 1991
TO: Honorable Mayor and CitY,council
FROM: James Gessele, Engin~ering Superintendent J..1. /J.
SUBJECT: -Special Assessment Appeals
Project 90-02, Cambridge Street
The following appeals to the above-referenced project have
been received to date. A brief summary of the appeal and
staff's recommendation are outlined in each case~
1. Appeal Request:
Attorney for Ember's Restaurant located at 1111
Cambridge Street requests revision of the
assessment by reason that: "assessment. does not
adhere to the provisions of Minn. Stat. 429..05lo
The test of validity of special assessment is
whether improvement for which assessment was levied
has increased market value of property. The
appellant in this case does not believe the
statutory test has been met."
Staff Recommendation:
The assessment against this property is two-fold:
assessment of front footage for street improvements
and assessment of front footage for watermain
installation. The appeal is not clear whether one
or both segments of the assessment are being
contested. In the case of watermain, Council
ordered an improvement project in part because
water service, e.g. water flows/fire protection,
fell below acceptable standards. The suggested
remediation was to install a 12" main in Cambridge
with connections near Blake Road and again at
Hiawatha Avenue, thus completing a looping system.
Clearly, such a project benefits the abutting
properties.
In the case of street reconstruction, the City
deemed the street to be in substandard condition
based on its 1988 IMS street inventory and its mere
physical condition. Assessments for street work
have been based on the City's Roadway Improvement
Policy 7-D and the cost split of 60-40 in force at
that time. The policy of residents assumfng 60% of
.
.
.
~
May 7, 1991
Page 2
JG/rr
qtreet improvement costs was based partially on an
opinion rendered by an appraiser that such cost
sharing met the test of increased market values
given the market street construction costs and the
average size lots in the city of Hopkins.
Staff recommends Council deny the appeal for
revision of assessment by reason that the project
has benefitted the property and that the City's
adherence to its Roadway Improvement Policy meets
the test of increased market value of property.
.
.'
.
NEW YORK OFFICE
210 DELAWARE AVENUE
LAW OFFICES
DANIEL J. BIERSDORF & ASSOCIATES, RA.'
SUITE 425
100 LUMBER EXCHANGE BUILDING
TEN SOUTH FIFTH STREET
MINNEAPOLIS. MINNESOTA 55402
TELEPHONE (612) 339-1242
BUFFALO, NEWVORK 14202
TEl.EPHONE t716} .S2.6H50
...'
April29,1991
City Clerk
Hopkins City Hall
1010 - Is".. Street South
Hopkins, MN 55343
Dear Clerk:
DB/gao
RE: Assessment Appeal
Project No. 90-02
Cambridge Street Improvement
WISCONSIN OFFICE
250 EAST WISCONSIN AVENUE
SUITE 1050
MILWAUKEE, WISCONSIN 53202-421 0
TELEPHONE (4114) 278.8558
, CERTIFffiD MAIL
RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED
Enclosed for filing is the Assessment Hearing Appeal Form for the above-referenced matter,
Sincerely,
~
Dan Biersdorf,
, Enclosure
cc: Henry Krista!
C:\HOUR\DB\EMBR-LTR,CLK
.
ASSESSMENT HEARING APPEAL FORM
PROJECT NO. 90-02
Address of Assessed Parcel 1111 Cambridge Street
"
What assessment does this concern Reconstruction of Cambridge Street N .E.
Property Identification Number:
1 9 117 2 1 1 2 0 0 2 2
-- --- -- --
I 9 117 2 1 1 2 0 0 4 1
Do you wish to address the City Council at the hearing?
(_) Yes (xx...X)No
Please complete this form if you intend to appeal ,to the
council to defer, revise or cancel your assessment. This
form must be completed and filed with the City Clerk no
later than the close of the City Council assessment hearing.
Your request will become part of the public hearing record.
I request that the City Council consider (check one):
a . (-) *Deferral of assessment (retired by virtue of
. permanent disability)
b. (-) *Senior Citizen deferment (over 65 years of age)
c. (-) Cancellation of assessment
d. LX) Revision of assessment
Reason for the request:
Assessment does not adhere to the provisions of Minn.' Stat. S 429.051. The
. test of validity of special, assessment. is whether improvement for. which
) assessment was levied has increased market value of property. The Appellant
in this case does not believe the statutory test has been met. .
* You will need to fill out a special form for deferral of
assessment and provide the city verification of your income
, or disability .
Dan Biersdorf as
Attorney for
Embers, Inc.
(print name)
-f-~?- Cf'/
(date)
.
, 1664'University Avenue
(address of property owner)
\ ( ~(2 ) s:??-72. ',/2-
telephone
St. Paul, MN
Zip
55104
.
.
.
c
T Y
o F
HOP K
N S
MEMO
Date: May 7, 1991
To: Jim Gessele
From: Jerre Miller
Re: Assessment Appeal By Embers
This is. in response to your letter concerning the assessment
appeal by Embers Restaurant concerning the Cambridge Street
project.
The basis of the appeal contests the amount of the benefit to
be equal to the assessment.
M.S. 429.051 and cases cited thereunder establish the test of
the validity of a special assessment is based on whether the
improvement for which the assessment was levied has increased
the market value property in at least the amount of the
assessment. Continental Sales . & Equipment v. Town' of Stuntz, ,
(1977) 257 N.W.2d 546.
It has been held that it is the benefit in increased market
value to assessed property rather than the cost itself of the
improvement that constitutes meeting the test of benefit~
Rodenbaugh v. Bay Port, 450 N.W.2d 608.
It has been held that an assessment procedure which has been
accomplished in legal fashion has benefited the assessed
property. This presumption is rebuttable in nature and it is
the burden of the party appealing from the assessment to
overcome the presumption that the special assessment
increased the value of the property by at least .the assessed
amount. Preserve v. Eden Prairie, 421 N.W.2d 419.
You have indicated the project consisted of installation of a
watermain and reconstruction of a roadway which was in poor
condition based on an IMS study performed in 1988~
1010 First Street South, Hopkins, Minnesota 55343 612/935-8474
An Equal Opportunity Employer
...' r ~
.
.
.
The benefit is then measured by the upgraded access and the
ability to draw on City water rather .than private wells.
Even if the Embers was served by City water, the City dan
establish the poor water supply which would threaten existing
properties in the event of a fire because the necessity to
pump extraordinary amounts of water from the system would
have exhausted it prior to the improvement.
Based on all of the above, I believe the City should be able
to establish the benefit and it may be appropriate to select
an appraiser for this purpose experienced in determining and
measuring benefit in assessable projects.
JAM
.
.'
.
CITY OF HOPKINS
Hennepin County, Minnesota
RESOLUTION NO. 91-58
ADOPTION OF THE ASSESSMENT ROLL
PROJECT 90-02
WHEREAS, pursuant to proper notice duly given as
required by law, the City Council has met and heard and
passed upon all objections to the proposed assessment for
the construction of street, curb and gutter, storm sewer and
watermain, Cambridge Street, as described in the files of
the city Clerk as Project 90-02, and has amended such
proposed assessment as it deems just, ;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF
HOPKINS, MINNESOTA:
1. Such proposed assessment, as amended, a copy of
which is attached hereto and made a part hereof, is hereby
accepted and shall constitute the special assessment against
the lands named therein, and each tract of land therein
included is hereby found to be benefited by the proposed
improvement in the amount of the assessment levied against
it.
2. Such assessment shall be payable in equal annual
installments extending over a period of 15 years, the first
of the installments to be payable on or after the first
Monday in January, 1992, and shall bear interest at the rate
of 8 percent per annum from the date of the adoption of this
assessment resolution. To the first installment shall be
added interest on the entire assessment from May 7, 1991
until December 31, 1992. To each subsequent installment
when due shall be added interest for one year on all unpaid
installments.
3. It is hereby declared to be the intention of the
Council to reimburse itself in the future for the portion of
the cost of this improvement paid for from municipal funds
by levying additional assessments, on notice and hearing as
provided for the assessments herein made, upon any
properties abutting on the improvement but not made, upon
any properties abutting on the improvement but not herein
assessed for the improvement, when changed conditions
relating to such properties make such assessment feasible.
4. To the extent that this improvement benefits
nonabutting properties which may be served by the
improvement when one or more later extensions or
improvements are made, but which are not herein assessed,
.
.
.
.
therefore, it is hereby declared to be the intention of the
Council, as authorized by Minnesota statutes section
420.051, to reimburse the City by adding any portion of the
cost so paid to the assessments levied for any of such later
extension or improvements.
5. The clerk shall forthwith transmit a certified
duplicate of this assessment to the County Auditor to~be
extended on the property tax lists of the County, and such
assessments shall be collected and paid qver in the same
manner as other municipal taxes.
Adopted by the City Council of the city of Hopkins this 7th
day of May, 1991.
, BY
ATTEST:
James A. Genellie, City Clerk
Nelson W. Berg, Mayor