Laserfiche WebLink
<br /> Jif- <br /> (N, <br /> -"-- - <br /> JAMES S. LvNDEN <br /> ATTORNEY AT LAw <br /> . <br /> Apr il 27, 1987 <br /> The Bon. Robert L. Woodburn <br /> Mayor of Arden Hills <br /> 1220 Ingerson Court <br /> 'Arden Hills, MN 55112 <br /> Re: Apportionment of Assessment <br /> Dear Bob: <br /> As I indicated to you in an earlier letter in regards to the <br /> above-referenced matter, the limitations on a city's power of <br /> special assessments are the following: <br /> . (a) The land must received a special benefit from the <br /> improvement being constructed, <br /> (b) the assessment must be uniform upon the same class of <br /> property, and <br /> (c) the assessment may not exceed the special benefit. <br /> 10u asked me to research point "(b)' . <br /> I have been unable to find any cases which provide a satisfactory <br /> explanation of what is meant in "(b) . above. Numerous decisions <br /> of the Minnesota Supreme Court recite the foregoing standards <br /> without amplifying what is meant by them. <br /> The case of Anderson vs; 'City'of"Bemidji, 295 N.W.2d 555 (1980), <br /> however, did involve a situation where one lot being assessed was <br /> given a higher portion of the assessment than other lots in the <br /> same development. In that case, the Court noted that Minnesota <br /> law requires that assessments on various properties be roughly <br /> proportionate to the benefits accruing to 'each as result of the <br /> improvement. It pointed out that the lower court had failed to <br /> consider the comparative benefits accrued to the various lots, <br /> ignori ng the testimony of the city's witnesses who had <br /> distinguished the subject tract of land from the other lots in <br /> that its highest and best use was to be subdivided whereas the <br /> . other lots could not be subdivided. Countering the property <br /> 612223-5436 612297-6400 <br /> 800 AM HOIST TOWER ST, PAUL, MINNESOTA 55102 <br />