09-12-1994 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

K rTTY SHOULD CONDOCT BEFORE- AND AFTER-MARKET IMPROVEMENT VALUATION STUDIES REGARDING PROPERTY TO BE ASSESSED TO DETERMINE THE AMOUNT OF SPECIAL ASSESSMENT Anoellants were landowners in Sibley County. They had platted and sold various parcels of land since 1957. Some of the lots were orovided with utility service after payment by the landowners of a $300 hook-up charge to the city. In 1974 and 1975 the city decided to make various improvements, such as curb, gutter, sewer, water, and street surfacing,^in those areas.of the city where these installations were not already made. The citv prepared assessment rolls in compliance with state law. However, the person who prepared the assessment rolls and the eacrtUtified that they did not make a before- and after-market improvment valuation study regarding the appellants assessed property. The appellants brought suite alleging that the assessments Sere excessive. The trial court held for the city, stating that the market value of the land increased by more than the assesse . •Upon appeal to the Minnesota'Supreme Court, however, the judgment was r0vecsed and rainanded. The Court had difficulty in finding that the special benefits «=eived by the appellants' property as a result of the exceeded the assessment made. The reaso,' ..or the difficulty was the fac*- that both of the patties presented conflicting evidence regarding thS^a^ket value of tL property before and after t^^Vt:^^“d7u" m\t: y made. The Court was faced with a battle of the experts and ultimately found that the appellants' expert (a real estate credible than the city's expert lanother real estate appraiser . Apparently the two appraisers had different methods of appraisal. The appellants' expert looked at the land itself, analyzed the current real fitate market in the city, and compared the similar property recently sold. The city = and sellingof the market value on his experience in building and selling speculation homes in a nearby city. The Couru, e'vidence, found the appellants' ^3® 3^3%”^ pursu”^^^Therefore, it ordered the assessments to be re ass P the re-estimated market values. The court also held that when * ““".“dTo^'/uryTrilt^l^^^^^^^^^ case to district court# he is not ^ there is no such trial is specifically granted trstatute for special assessments, the matter April 13, court judge. Evert v. City of Winthrop (Minn Sup. Ct., April i:>, 1979). i H . ■.