Laserfiche WebLink
2. MEASUREMENT AND ALLOCATION OF ASSESSMENTS. <br />Chapter 429: <br />Section 429.051 provides that cost "may be assessed <br />upon property benefited by the improvement, based <br />upon the benefits received, whether or not the property <br />abuts on the improvement." Section 429.061 states that <br />the clerk (with assistance of the engineer or other <br />qualified person), shall calculate the proper amount to be <br />assessed against each parcel, without regard to cash <br />value. Otherwise, the spread of assessments is governed <br />by case law. Generally, property must receive a "special <br />benefit," measured by the increase in market value <br />attributable to the improvement. <br />Existing Charter: Generally consistent with Chapter 429. Indicates that <br />the total assessment may not exceed the cost of the <br />improvement, and assessments may not exceed the <br />"benefits to the property." Section 8.01. <br />Task Force Proposal: Substantially the same as Existing Charter. <br />Charter Commission Proposal: Varies from Existing Charter and state law in three <br />ways: <br />Citizen Proposal: <br />(i) As noted above, requires "direct benefit" to <br />property that is "currently occupied." <br />Substantially narrower than state law and <br />Existing Charter. <br />(ii) Requires a special benefit to "adjacent or nearby <br />properties." Section 8.03, subdivision 1. <br />Somewhat narrower than state law and Existing <br />Charter, as benefit may not always depend on <br />proximity to the improvement. <br />(iii) Requires that assessments be imposed <br />"uniformly on similar properties." Possibly <br />narrower than state law and Existing Charter. <br />Case law requires that assessments be uniform <br />upon the same "class" of property, often <br />restated as a requirement that the assessments <br />on various properties be "roughly <br />proportionate" to the benefits accruing. See, <br />e.g., Anderson v. City of Bemidji, 295 NW2d 555 <br />(Minn. 1980). Unclear how courts would <br />interpret the specific language in the Charter <br />Commission Proposal. <br />Same as Charter Commission Proposal. <br />2 <br />