My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Search
07/09/2012 Council Packet
LinoLakes
>
City Council
>
City Council Meeting Packets
>
1982-2020
>
2012
>
07/09/2012 Council Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/29/2014 2:44:28 PM
Creation date
1/10/2014 8:32:23 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council
Council Document Type
Council Packet
Meeting Date
07/09/2012
Council Meeting Type
Regular
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
195
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
In re Cartway Petition <br />July 9'2OlZ <br />Page Gof9 <br />60 feet wide. The only reasonable solution is to allow public use of the entire width of the <br />cartway and to define the cartway to include the entire 60 foot wide width of the cartway to <br />a[Iow for snow storage. <br />V. Damages Due to the Association Members Upon the Taking <br />As with any use of eminent domain authority, the Association Members are entitled <br />to damages for the taking. If the City establishes a cartway upon the Association's private <br />road, Mr. Johnson is required to pay damages to the affected Landowners. Minn.Stat. §435.37, <br />subd. 1(c). It is the City's statutory obligation to determine damages by a preponderance of <br />the evidence. Slayton Gun Club u Town ofShetekl76N.VV.2d544,547(&8imn.197O). <br />Because the establishment of a cartway is use of eminent dornain, the measure of <br />damages used is the same as those employed in determining damages in a partial taking. <br />Bruns v. Town Board of Nicollet To, 243 N.W. 7 (Minn. 1932). In a partial taking , ^[]the <br />measure of damages is ordinarilythe difference between the market value o[ the entire tract <br />before the taking and the market vatue of what is left after the taking." Alexandria Lake Area <br />Service Region v. /ohnson.295 N.VV.2d 588, 590 (Minn. 1980). These damages are referred to <br />as severance damages. That can also include other damages such as the cost of restoring <br />the remaining property to a condition that will make it available for use after the taking." Id. <br />In eminent domain proceedings, the cost of improvements can also be included in the <br />damages award. Iowa f]ec Light & Power Co. v. City of Fairmont, 67 N.W.2d L41, 47 (Minn, <br />1954). <br />On )une 29, 2012' an appraisal was completed by Wendy Walker, MAI, ARA, RPRA. The <br />Appraisal is attached hereto as Exhibit 2 and incorporated herein by reference. Ms. Walker <br />divided the valuation impact on the affected property owners into three categories; a) the <br />vatue of the easement being taken, b) the value of the private improvements the City Council <br />is contemplating taking for pubtic use and c) the severance damage - the reduction in value <br />of the remaining property that continues to be owned by the affected property owners, but <br />with a public road instead ofa public road. <br />A. Easement Value <br />The appraisal values the land at $0.50 per square foot or $65.653.00 for the value of <br />the right-of-way being considered for pubLic use. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.