Laserfiche WebLink
1979) (reiterating de novo standard of review of municipality's decision when "the main <br /> thrust" of property owner's argument was focused on claim of absence of benefit to <br /> assessed property). We also note that Sheehy did not contest the city council's <br /> assessment decision in the context of an adversary hearing. See Tri -State Land Co. v. <br /> City of Shoreview, 290 N.W.2d 775, 778 n.2 (Minn. 1980) (citing Buettner and <br /> concluding that, because property owner was not contesting regularity of city - council <br /> proceeding and assessment was not adopted in adversary proceeding, limited scope of <br /> review did not apply). We therefore conclude that, on this record, the district court <br /> appropriately exercised its independent review to determine whether Sheehy's appraisal <br /> evidence was sufficient to overcome the city's "prima facie proof" that the assessment <br /> did not exceed the special benefit to its property. Carlson -Lang, 307 Minn. at 370, 240 <br /> N.W.2d at 519. <br /> III <br /> We therefore address the merits of the city's challenge to the district court's <br /> findings, conclusions, and judgment challenging the special assessment. This court <br /> conducts appellate review of the district court's decision by examining the record to <br /> determine whether the evidence as a whole supports the district court's findings. Id. at <br /> 2 The city also argues that, although Sheehy made an apportionment objection on appeal <br /> to the district court, it did not present expert testimony on such a challenge before the city <br /> council. But we conclude that Sheehy's additional evidence presented to the district <br /> court was appropriate and relevant to the central issue addressed by the city council: <br /> whether the assessment exceeded the special benefit to the property. See Uniprop <br /> Manufactured Haus., 474 N.W.2d 375, 379 (Minn. App. 1991) (stating that district court <br /> may consider new or additional evidence that is relevant to issues raised and considered <br /> before municipal decision - making body), review denied (Minn. Oct. 11, 1991). <br /> 12 <br /> 25 <br />