Laserfiche WebLink
May 20, 1993 4 <br /> Page 2 , <br /> In reviewing the 1979 attorney general opinion,I Iooked at the shade tree law that it <br /> cites. That law charges property owners for the cost of removing diseased trees from their <br /> property, on grounds that the diseased trees are a public nuisance. I have trouble thinking <br /> that a property could be a public nuisance just becaue water runs off it. If the property had <br /> been heavily modified so as to aggravate the runoff,perhaps,but typical normal property <br /> development would seem an awkward basis for declaring its runoff a public nuisance. fi <br /> As noted in the 1979 attorney general's opinion, our office does not express opinions <br /> on the constitutionality of statutes. The considerations we have noted, however, might <br /> motivate a prudent watershed district to be cautious in using clause (2) of section <br /> -103D.725, subd. 2 as a-basis for special assessments, 4 <br /> As I discussed with Doug Thomas on the telephone, special assessments on a y's <br /> watershed-wide basis might not come out much different in dollar value than a district-wide <br /> ad valorem tax. The latter would be based on market value,where the former could be <br /> based on gross square footage,or on area adjusted by a runoff coefficient. <br /> f It appears that this question is part of a larger project to upgrade the statutes <br />►' regarding watershed/WMO financing, about which Doug is planning a meeting soon. +p <br /> cc: Beth Carlson <br /> Doug Thomas <br /> ' Tibor Gallo <br /> alo.CTI s. <br /> 4 <br /> +A <br /> • <br /> 4 <br /> Ir <br /> LTd E9b2 b82, ZT9 :01 89217178L2T9 '011 EldelHOS bT:LT 176, 90 Ndt <br />