09-24-1984 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

A CITY SHOULD CONDUCT BEFORE- AND AFTER -MARKET IMPROVEMENT VALUATION STUDIES REGARDING PROPERTY TO BE ASSESSED TO DETERMINE THE AMOUNT OF SPECIAL ASSESSMENT Appellants were landowners in Sibley County. They had platted and sold various parcels of land since 1957. Some of the lots were provided 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 imp -ovements, such as curb, gutter, sewer, water, and street surfacing, in those areas of the city where these installations were not already made. The city prepared assessment rolls in compliance with state law. However, the person who prepared the assessment rolls and the mayor each testified that they did not make a before- and after -market improvment valuation study regarding the appellants' assessed property. The appellants brou,htsuite aliegingthat the assessments were excessive. Th., trial co, rt held for the city, stating that the market value of the lane; incr-eased by more than the amounts assessed. Upon appeal to the Minnesota Supreme Court, however, the judgment was reversed and remanded. The Court had difficulty in finding that the special benefits received by the appellants' property as a • esult of the improvements equalled or exceeded the assessment made. The reason for the difficulty was the fact that both of the parties presented conflicting ev:denct- regarding the market value of the property before and after the improve -merits were made. The Court was faced with a battle of the experts and ultimately found that the appellants' expert (a real estate a credible than the city's expert (anther real estatesap was more Apparently the two appraisers had different methods of praiser) The appellants' exp, rt looked at the land itself, analyzed tthecurrent real estate market in the city, and compared the property in question to similar property recently sold. The city's expert based his estimate of the market value on his experience in building and selling speculation homes in a nearby city. The Court, upon review of the evidence, found the appellants' expert to bp more believable. Therefore, it ordered the assessments to be re -assessed pursuant to the re -estimated market values. The Court also held that when a landowner appeals a special assessment case to district court, he is not entitled to a jury trial unless such trial is specifically granted by statute. Since there is no such statute for special assessments, the matter is to by tried by the trial court judge. Evert v. City of 197y), Winthrop (Minn Sup. Ct., April 13, page 15 u! 15