HomeMy WebLinkAbout11.a. Administrator Performance Evaluation and Assessment Settlement�0
D�
CONFIDENTIAL — PRIVILEGED MATERIALS
NOT FOR PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION
MEMORANDUM
0�
TO: Charlie LeFevere
FROM: Mary Tietjen
DATE: April 6, 2004
RE: E & E Enterprises v. City of Rosemount
Settlement of Special Assessment Appeal
On October 15, 2002, the City of Rosemount adopted special assessments for the Trunk Highway 3
Street and Utility Improvements, City Project No. 318. This appeal involved assessments to six
separate parcels of land located at the KenRose Shopping Center in Rosemount. The improvements
benefiting this property included street, sidewalk, and drainage and utility improvements along State
Highway 3 and County Road 42. As part of the project, one of the three driveways to the E & E
property adjacent to Highway 3 was eliminated pursuant to a cooperative agreement with MNDot.
The total assessment amount to the E & E Enterprises property was $19,895.00. This total amount
included $4,199.00 for the cost of new water service that was specifically requested by the property
owner. E & E Enterprises did not dispute the amount assessed for the water service, but - challenged
the remaining assessment in the amount of $15,696. The primary challenge by E & E Enterprises
on the appeal was that the elimination of the driveway caused the loss of several parking stalls and
therefore, diminished the value of the property.
The City discussed the alleged loss of parking with a professional appraiser to determine whether a
value could be placed on such a loss and how that might affect the value of the property as a whole.
The appraiser informed us that it would be difficult to determine value in these circumstances and
that it was further complicated by the fact that the assessment was spread out over six parcels of
land.
E & E Enterprises has offered to settle this matter for a reduction of the total assessment in the
amount of $3,000, or a settlement amount of $16,895. Subject to City Council approval, the
proposed settlement offer is that the appeal be dismissed, with no fees or costs awarded to either
party. Due to the complex nature of the appraisal and the additional fees and costs that would be
involved in defending this appeal, I recommend that the City approve the proposed settlement.
MDT-246158v1
RS220 -140