09-24-1984 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

cost if this plan were used, but a council might determine that avoidance of litigation costs are worth that chance. Another means of reducing the number of appeals on all special assessments is simply to pay some substantial portion of the cost of al l improvements out of general funds. This would reduce the chance that any individual assessment would exceed the benefit from the improvement aE measured by the increased market value resulting from the improvment. Finally, some cities may wish to pick up on a hint that the Court gave in its Buettner decision, by making available to the property owner, as a part of the municipal assessment process, an adversary proceeding where evidence of market value improvement could be considered and made a part of the assessment determination. Without further pronouncements from tl;e Minnesota Supreme Court, this approach is by no means a guaranteed cure for assessment appeal problems. However, it would seem reasonable that the assessment hearing notice could contain a statement that those who wish to dispute their assessment as determined in usual formula fashion may notify the council, and the council can then arrange for a hearing before an impartial hearing officer. The property owner could then put in such testimony as he thinks is relevant concerning the improvement_ in market value of his property, and the city could do likewise. The city could then adopt the assessment role, including assessments determined on a conventional formula basis and also including those determined in adversary proceedings. The language of Buettner seems to indicate that the Supreme Cou t would limit the trial court to a review upon the record (without new testimony) if .3uch adversary hearings were held and an adegcate record made as part of the city's assessment proceedings. If that is the u'.timat e decision of the Supreme Court, the city would have some greater certainty as to the amount of money it could expect to collect, much earlier than if it waited for a district court trial which disregards all prior municipal proceedings. This last potential solution offers no real certainty to a city until such a procedure is appealed to the Supreme Cour and sustained. Undoubtedly, before the nex ;pion of the legislature, proposals will be made to address prob._ms raised by the Buettner ase by amendment to the statutes. However, a statutory remedy will not be easi ly f(-und, since the problem the Court found with local ass,.ssment proceedings is constitutional in its origin. In the mEantime, governing bodies will have to examine their assessment rolls in a very practical way to determine whether or not an appeal is likely to result froma particular assessment and whether that assessment is realistic view of the real estate market in their city. page 14 of 15