09-12-1994 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

I THE FOLLOWIHG ARTICLES ARE FROM THE MAY, 1979 ISSUE OF MINNESOTA CITIES SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS Are special assessments still a viable means of raising funds for city improvements? In Buettner v. City of St. Cloud (Minn. Sup. Ct., March 16, 1979), summarized in the May issue of Minnesota Cities, the Minnesota Court decided that when a dissatisified property owner appeals from a special assessment and alleges that the assessment exceeds the increase in market value of his property resulting from the improvement, the reviewing court will not grant any deference to the decision of the governing body. Instead, on such appeals, the court will take new evidence and determine the amount of benefit as if the council had never made a decision on that issue. In the past, special assessment proceedings have been a rapid, relatively certain, and inexpensive means of raising money to finance needed local improvements. However, the Buettner decision now control the action of district judges, and entices property owners to have a second go at the process in hopes of getting a teouceo assessment. Special assessments in the future seem much less likely to be swift, inexpensive, and certain. Undoubtedly, cities will continue to need the special assessment process as a means of financing local improvements, but a good deal more care should now go into the execution of such a proceeding. Certainly^ before ordering an improvement^ the council should now, as in the oast, gather as much evidence as possible on the issue of wnether or not the benefits to be derived from installation of a particular imorovement are sufficient to justify the cost, and make specific findings as to increases in market value. (See =-wert v. Ci^y of Winthrop, Minn. Sup. Ct. April 12, 1979, summarized elsewhere in this issue.) Where an improvement has been petitioned for and the benefit does not substantially exceed the cost, a council mi gh^t ^dopt different strategies depending upon its objectives and what it sees as the potential for appeals. the contract and ordering the improvement. That works only if the area affected by the improvement is For larger projects of a similar nature, a council could con^der yaking the improvement contract itself conditional ® ® objections being filed for the period up to 30 days would not be hearing. If this plan were followed, a binding entered nor would any of the improvement work star time for improvement and assessment unforeseenappeal had run. Of course, the city might be stuck for some unforeseen ^ 1C - - - -'