Special Assessments Research 2008

Home Browse Search

House Research Department Updated: September 2008 Special Assessments Page 4 Determining the Amount of the Special Assessment The assessment amount charged to the property cannot exceed the amount by which the property benefits from the improvement, as measured by the increase in the market value of the land due to the improvement. The assessment must be uniformly applied to the same class of property. A local improvement may benefit properties that are not abutting the improvement and those benefited properties also may be assessed.6 In order for a special assessment to be valid: • the land must receive a special benefit from the improvement being constructed, • the assessment must be uniform upon the same class of property, and • the assessment may not exceed the special benefit. Special benefit is measured by the increase in the market value of the land owing to the improvement. A special assessment that does not meet these requirements is an unconstitutional taking.7 The benefit is measured by the difference between what a willing buyer would pay a willing seller for the property before and after the improvement, based on the highest and best use of the land.8 Present use of the land is not the controlling factor.9 The assessment roll is prima facie evidence that the assessment does not exceed the special benefit. The contesting party has the burden of introducing competent evidence to overcome this presumption.10 6 Minn. Stat. § 429.051 (“cost of any improvement, or any part thereof, may be assessed upon property benefited by the improvement, based upon the benefits received, whether or not the property abuts on the improvement”). 7 Southview Country Club v. City of Inver Grove Heights, 263 N.W.2d 385, 387-388 (Minn. 1978) (citing Carlson-Lang Realty Co. v. City of Windom, 307 Minn. 368, 369, 240 N.W.2d 517, 519 (1976); Quality Homes, Inc. v. Village of New Brighton, 289 Minn. 274, 183 N.W.2d 555 (1971); In re Improvement of Superior Street, Duluth, 172 Minn. 554, 559, 216 N.W. 318, 320 (1927)). 8 Eagle Creek Townhomes, LLP v. City of Shakopee, 614 N.W.2d 246, 250 (Minn. App. 2000) review denied (Sept. 13, 2000) (citing EHW Properties v. City of Eagan, 503 N.W.2d 135, 139 (Minn. App. 1993) and Buzick v. City of Blaine, 491 N.W. 2d 923, 925 (Minn. App. 1992), aff’d 505 N.W. 2d 51 (Minn. 1993)). 9 Anderson v. City of Bemidji, 295 N.W.2d 555, 560 (Minn. 1980). 10 Tri-State Land Co. v. City of Shoreview, 290 N.W.2d 775, 777 (Minn. 1980) (citing Carlson-Lang Realty Co. v. City of Windom, 307 Minn. 368, 369-370, 240 N.W.2d 517, 519 (1976)).