09-24-1984 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

THE FOLLOWING ARTICLES ARE. FROM THE MAY, 1979 ISSUE OF MINN ESOTA 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 C #urt decided that when a dissatisified property owner appeals fi)m a special assessment and alleges that the assessment exceed! the increase in market value of his property resulting fro. the improvement, the reviewing court will not grant any 9eference to the decision of the governing body. Instead, on such appeals, the court will take new evidence a^d 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, -nd inexpensive means of raising money to finance needed local improvements. However, the Buettner decision now control the action of district judges, and entices propercy owner:,- to have a second go at the process in hopes of getting a reduced assessment. Special assessments in the fiture seem much less likely to be swift, inexpensive, and certain. Undoubtedly, cities will continue to need the special assessment process as a means of f inancinq local improvements, but a good deal more care should now go int- the execution of such a proceeding. Certainly, before orderi.,(3 an improvement, the council should now, as in the past, gather as much evidence as possible on the issue of wnc:ther or not the benefits to be derived from installation of a part -•Iar imprnvo,rcnt OLU buiiicient to justify the cost, and make specific findings as to increases in market value. (See Ewert v. City 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 might adopt different strategies depending upon its objectives and what it sees as the potential for appeals. Where the council would not order in the improvement unless virtually all of the cost can be collected through special assessments, the council may want to obtain waivers of r i ghts to appeal before enter i nq the contract and ordering the improvement. That strategy probably works only if the area affected by tae improvement is small. For larger projects of a similar nature, a council could consider making the improvement contract itself conditional on the abse.ice of any objections being filed for the period up to 30 days after the assessment hearing. If this plan were followed, a binding contract would not be entered nor would any of the improvement work start unt i 1 afterbotn the improvernent and assPssmtnt hearings were conciuded and the time for appea 1 had run. Of course, the city might be stuck for some unforeseen page 13 of 15