Laserfiche WebLink
RELEVANT LINKS: <br />Ewert v. City of Winthrop, <br />278 N.W.2d 545 (Minn. <br />1979). <br />Bisbee v. City of Fairmont, <br />593 N.W.2d 714 (Minn. Ct. <br />App. 1999). Quality Homes, <br />Inc. v. Village of New <br />Brighton, 289 Minn. 274, <br />193 N.W.2d 555 (1971). <br />Anderson v. City of Bemidji, <br />295 N.W.2d 555 (Minn. <br />1980). Village of Edina v. <br />Joseph, 264 Minn. 84, 119 <br />N.W.2d 809 (Minn. 1962). <br />Roberts v. City of Crystal <br />Lake, 2003 WL 22481335, <br />A03-172 (Minn. Ct. App. <br />Nov. 4, 2003). Allen v. City of <br />Minneapolis, 2003 WL <br />1962012, C1-02-1506 (Minn. <br />Ct. App. April 23, 2003). <br />Haverberg v. City of <br />Madison, 2003 WL 178797, <br />C8-02-1146 (Minn. Ct. App. <br />Jan. 28, 2003). <br />Eagle Creek Townhomes v. <br />City of Shakopee, 614 N.W. <br />2d 246 (Minn. Ct. App. <br />2000). Shorma Family Trust <br />v. Maine Township, 2002 WL <br />555323, C9-01-1548 (Minn. <br />Ct. App. April 16, 2002). <br />Belanger v. City of Long <br />Lake, 2000 WL 563896, C1- <br />99-1347 (Minn. Ct. App. May <br />9, 2000). Reding v. City of <br />Lino Lakes, 2000 WL 69384, <br />C7-99-1594 (Minn. Ct. App. <br />Apr. 11, 2000). Anderson v. <br />City of Buffalo, 2000 WL <br />31791, C7-99-641 (Minn. Ct. <br />App. Jan. 18, 2000). Rohling <br />v. City of Champlin, 1999 <br />WL 71484, C3-98-1209 <br />(Minn. Ct. App. Feb. 16, <br />1999) (unpublished decision). <br />Gullard v. City of Lake Park, <br />1997 WL 457453, C8-97-207 <br />(Minn. Ct. App. Aug. 12, <br />1997). In re Appeal by <br />Eastside Development, C4- <br />01-582; C6-01-583 2001 WL <br />1035280 (Minn. Ct. App. <br />2001)(unpublished decision). <br />As the courts have made clear, the special benefit is the increase in market <br />value of the land as a result of the improvement. <br />If a city's assessment is challenged in district court, the assessment roll <br />constitutes prima facie (or initial) proof that an assessment does not exceed <br />the special benefit. The party contesting the assessment must introduce <br />evidence sufficient to overcome that presumption. If the evidence as to the <br />special benefit is conflicting it is the responsibility of the district court to <br />determine whether the assessment exceeds the market value increase and, if <br />so, by what amount. <br />For this reason, the city's assessment method should approximate market <br />analysis. A formula that does not consider an analysis of the increase in <br />market value of each parcel may be invalid. For instance, a method that <br />bases assessment amounts on the average costs of street improvement <br />projects from previous years and doesn't take into consideration the cost of <br />the currently proposed project has been found arbitrary and invalid on its <br />face. <br />Courts often uphold special assessments based on evidence from a city's <br />qualified and licensed appraiser that the assessment did not exceed the <br />increase in market value as a result of the improvement. <br />However, in recent unpublished opinions, the appellate courts have routinely <br />upheld decisions that went against the city because the district court found a <br />lack of adequate evidence of a market value increase equal to or exceeding <br />the amount of the special assessment. <br />League of Minnesota Cities Information Memo: 9/22/2011 <br />Special Assessment Guide Page 3 <br />