11/08/1999 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Search

110/08/99 12:02 LAW OFFICES 2140 4TH AVE 4 651 982 2499 NO.480 I03 Linda Waite Smith October 8, 1999 Page 2 THE TRIAL The eminent domain case came on for jury trial on March 22, 1999 in Anoka County District Court. One of the claims made by Mr. Vaughan during the trial was that the property we acquired actually encroached upon his preliminary plat in a number of areas. During the trial we had our surveyors sit down with the engineers, go over the maps and attempt to determine whether or not there was in fact an encroachment. We learned that the sketch map prepared for the City by Mr. Rud that was the basis for the eminent domain acquisition was slightly inaccurate and that the acquisition did encroach upon Mr. Vaughan's preliminary plat along some of the edges. For a variety of reasons, including a desire to be fair with Mr. Vaughan by adjusting the acquisition to its original intent, we entered into a settlement on the fourth day of trial. The settlement was read into the record and explained in detail. The judge excepted the settlement. The case was dismissed and the jury was sent home. THE SETTLEMENT The terms of the settlement between the City and Mr. Vaughan are somewhat complicated and contain some default provisions. Specifically, the agreement is as follows: (1) the City has agreed to pay Mr. Vaughan a total of $290,000 for the entire acquisition. These funds have been paid. (2) We agreed to request that Anoka County reconvey some property to the City in order to adjust the dimensions of the acquisition so as to avoid the encroachments upon Mr. Vaughan's preliminary plat. If we were unable to obtain a reconveyance from Anoka County and the encroachments are left in place, then a default provision is applicable and the City would pay Mr. Vaughan an additional $5,000 for each lot subject to an encroachment. (3) One of the encroachments may have the effect of interfering with the configuration of one of Mr. Vaughan's subdivisions by causing a right -of -way for one of his proposed roads to be narrower than required by ordinance. We agreed to request that the County reconvey sufficient property to the City so as to avoid this encroachment and allow the right -of -way to be of sufficient width. If we are unable to obtain this reconveyance then another default provision is activated and the City would pay Mr. Vaughan an additional $5.000 for each of two lots if they are reduced in size, or $60,000 if the lots are lost completely. We further agreed that we would not use the right -of -way problems as a basis for denying final plat approval. (4) We agreed to request that the County reconvey to the City two "fingers" of property in the East Parcel. These are narrow inlets that exist between the proposed subdivisions. A failure to obtain this reconveyance, however, does not trigger a default provision and no additional compensation would be due Mr. Vaughan. (5) Mr. Vaughan owns an area of high ground south of the West Parcel that was described as the island. Mr. Vaughan has a desire to develop the "island" for residential purposes in the future. We agreed to request that Anoka County reconvey to the City property along the southern line of the taking so as to avoid any encroachment on the "island." Again, however, there is no default provision involved and a failure to obtain a reconveyance would not result in any further compensation due Mr. Vaughan. (6) We agreed to