06-13-1979 Council Agenda - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

amount of special benefits. Appellants were landowners in Sibley County. They had platted and sold various parcels of land since 1957. Some of the lots were provided with utility service after payment by the landowners of a $300 hook -up charge to the city. In 1974 and 1975 the city decided to make various improvements, such as curb, gutter, sewer, water, and street surfacing, in those areas of the city where these installations were not already made. The city prepared assessment rolls in compliance with state law. However, the person who prepared the assessment rolls and the mayor each testified that they did not make a before- and after - market improvement valua- tion study regarding the appellants' assessed property. The appellants brought suit alleging that the assessments were excessive. The trial court held for the city, stating that the market value of the land increased by more than the amounts assessed. Upon appeal to the Minnesota Supreme Court, however, the judgment was reversed and remanded, The Court had difficulty in finding that the special benefits received by the appellants' proper- ty as a result of the improvements equalled or exceeded the assess- ment made. The reason for the difficulty was the fact that both of the parties presented conflicting evidence regarding the market value of the property before and after the improvements were made. The Court was faced with a battle of the experts and ultimately found that the appellants' expert (a real estate appraiser) was more credible than the city's expert (another real estate appraiser). Apparently the two appraisers had different methods of appraisal. The appellants' expert looked at the land itself, analyzed the current real estate market in the city, and compared the property in question to similar property recently sold. 114\To Keep A Cit ` om Bre Hyd 1 g Down... ult ally . al ities innesot hydrau n modet RAULI CO PA IY . e ancean Many munic throughout depend on th specialists a facilities of H SPECIALTY for early mai m quality repair. r ■t: We Help Keep Your Moving ... Better, c 4N .A CYLINDERS b."? VALVES v' MOTORS. A ' PUMPS is HOSE &F TTINGS ALSEALS & KITS A:SHAFT &:TUBING A''DESIGN LS FABRICATION ent Longer! HYDRAULIC SPECIALTY CO 4101st AVE.. N.E. s MINNEAPOLIS. MN 55413 zH,. ._. zI Phone (612)`338.7641; 28 The city's expert based his estimate of the market value on his exper- ience in building and selling speculation homes in a nearby city. The Court, upon review of the evidence, found the appellants' expert to be more believable. Therefore, it ordered the assess- ments to be re- assessed pursuant to the re- estimated market values. The Court also held that when a landowner appeals a special assess- ment case to district court, he is not entitled to a jury trial unless such trial is specifically granted by statute. Since there is no such statute for special assessments, the matter is to be tried by the trial court judge. Evert v. City of Winthrop (Minn. Sup. Ct., April 13, 1979). CONSTITUTIONAL LAW — DUE PROCESS A New Hampshire statute makes parents criminally liable for a minor child's violation of the laws related SLUDGE ANALYSIS ea; altioa, wRtr „ YES! We Can Do It ALL! • SLUDGE ANALYSIS • SOIL ANALYSIS • PLANT ANALYSIS MINNESOTA VALLEY TESTING LABORATORY, INC. Cuter i ham itt. Nn Ulm YIN 55072 15071 2541511 35 Vitt tltttinn NmU. 1Un 50201 15151 2521466 1411 $nt 1117 it. IIWrtk. 110 51501 17011 2511720 MINNESOTA CITIES