2012-05-23 CC Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

court exercises a clearly- erroneous standard of review. Id. at 203. But if the issue presented is whether an assessment exceeds the special benefit to that property, so as to determine whether an unconstitutional taking has occurred, the district court's "[d]ecision must be based upon independent consideration of all the evidence." Id. An assessment is presumed to be legally valid, and evidence of an assessment roll constitutes "prima facie proof that the assessment does not exceed special benefit." Carlson -Lang, 307 Minn. at 370, 240 N.W.2d at 519. Appealing parties can overcome this presumption by introducing competent evidence that the assessment is greater than the benefit. Id.; McNally, 686 N.W.2d at 559. Once the presumption is rebutted by introducing adverse evidence on the question of value, the district court weighs conflicting evidence on the value of the benefit conferred. Buettner, 277 N.W.2d at 204; see In re Meyer, 176 Minn. 240, 243, 223 N.W. 135, 136 (1929) (stating that evidence to rebut the presumption of validity "raises an issue of fact upon which normally the decision of the trier of fact will be final "). The city initially argues that, to the extent that Herman's appraisal relied on Shopek's testimony, Sheehy's assessment appeal challenged the city's project — design decision, a legislative function, so that the district court should have examined the city's assessment decision under a clearly- erroneous standard, rather than making an independent consideration of all the evidence. We disagree. Although Sheehy raised various arguments, including a challenge to the apportionment of benefits, the main thrust of Sheehy's argument was that the assessment exceeded the special benefit to the property. See In re Vill. of Burnsville Assessments, 287 N.W.2d 375, 376 -77 (Minn. 11 24