My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Search
02/27/2008 Council Packet
LinoLakes
>
City Council
>
City Council Meeting Packets
>
1982-2020
>
2008
>
02/27/2008 Council Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/6/2014 12:19:43 PM
Creation date
5/6/2014 9:30:58 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council
Council Document Type
Council Packet
Meeting Date
02/27/2008
Council Meeting Type
Work Session Special
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
52
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
2. MEASUREMENT AND ALLOCATION OF ASSESSMENTS. <br />Chapter 429: <br />Existing Charter: <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 />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: <br />Varies from Existing Charter and state law in three <br />ways: <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 />Citizen Proposal: Same as Charter Commission Proposal. <br />2 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.