04-14-2005 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

T CHAPTER 26 Anderson v.City of Bemidji,295 When a court determines whether the evidence defeats the presumption that N.W.2d 555(Minn.1980). the benefit exceeds the assessment,the city is not required to show that the Village of Edina v.Joseph,264 special assessment corresponds exactly to the benefits received.The Minn.84, 119 N.W.2d 809(Minn. assessments,however,must be roughly proportionate to the benefits 1962). accruing to each property as a result of the improvement. And,the benefits should be uniform as to the same class of property. Johnson v.City of Eagan,584 When a court disallows a portion of an assessment where the disallowed N.W.2d 770(Minn.1998). portion was in excess of the benefit to the property assessed,the city may In re Village of Burnsville,310 not try to recoup the disallowed amount through another method—such as by Minn.32,245 N.W.2d 445(1976). imposing a utility lateral benefit charge on only that property and not on the other properties involved in the assessment. When the cost of an improvement exceeds the benefit,the difference must not be borne by a particular property,but instead by the city as a whole. Nordgren v. City of Maplewood Although the Minnesota Supreme Court has held that connection charges are 326 N.W.2d 640(Minn. 1982). not assessments and may be imposed on top of prior assessments,one Court Drawer v.Spring Lake Township, of Appeals decision held that the cost of the connection charges should be 2001 WL 1464455,co-01-370 included with the amount of special assessments in determining the special (Minn.Ct.App.Nov.20,2001) benefit to the property. (connection charges). • Cities that finance local improvements by special assessments must use great care in conducting proceedings. Before ordering an improvement,the council should gather as much evidence as possible on whether the benefits of a particular improvement sufficiently justify the cost. But the council must also determine the increases in market value to the benefited property. If voters have petitioned for an improvement, and the benefit does not substantially exceed the cost, a council might use different strategies depending on its objectives and the potential for appeals. Minn.Stat.§429.081. The council could,under certain circumstances, obtain waivers of rights to Minn.Stat.§462.3531. appeal before entering into the contract and ordering the improvement. That plan may be feasible only if the assessable area is small. Also, any waiver of rights is effective only for the amount of assessment estimated or for the assessment amount agreed to in a developer's agreement. An effective waiver of rights of appeal may contain additional conditions providing for the increases in assessments that will not be subject to appeal,under the provisions specified in the law. HANDBOOK FOR MINNESOTA CITIES 26-7 This chapter last revised 12/15/2004