Opinion ID: 2763977
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: City’s Jurisdiction

Text: Under Minnesota law, a municipality lacks jurisdiction to levy a special assessment unless it gives proper notice. See Klapmeier v. Town of Ctr. of Crow Wing Cnty., 346 N.W.2d 133, 136 (Minn. 1984) (“Proper notice of assessment proceedings is a jurisdictional prerequisite to any action by the town board.”). DRB -3- contends the notice it received from the city was defective and, as such, the thirty-day appeal period in § 429.081 never began to run. See, e.g., Sykes v. City of Rochester, 787 N.W.2d 192, 197 (Minn. Ct. App. 2010). As a threshold matter, we must determine whether the notice provisions of Minn. Stat. § 429.061, subdiv. 1 or M.C.O. § 227.100(d) govern the city’s assessment. Although DRB claims the state statute must govern because it preempts the city ordinance, the Minnesota state legislature explicitly gave Minneapolis the option either to enact special assessments under its charter or apply the assessment procedures outlined in Chapter 429 of the Minnesota Statutes. See 1969 Minn. Laws, ch. 499, sec. 1.3 The legislature stated, “The procedure for the levy of said special assessment shall, if the city elects to proceed under the provisions of said Chapter 429, be as provided in said Chapter 429.” Id. sec. 2 (emphasis added). This language unambiguously shows the notice procedures outlined in § 429.061 only apply in the absence of Minneapolis charter law, meaning there is no overlap to trigger conflict preemption. See Curiskis v. City of Minneapolis, 729 N.W.2d 655, 658 (Minn. Ct. App. 2007); Gadey v. City of Minneapolis, 517 N.W.2d 344, 348 (Minn. Ct. App. 1994). The notice requirements in M.C.O. § 227.100 govern this case. DRB claims the city’s notice was inadequate under M.C.O. § 227.100 because it did not disclose the basis for the fee or the existence of deferment procedures. We disagree. 3 This provision is a session law that was never incorporated into the Minnesota statutory code. Regardless, it remains binding law. See Granville v. Minneapolis Pub. Sch., Special Sch. Dist. No. 1, 732 N.W.2d 201, 208 (Minn. 2007) (“The actual laws of Minnesota as passed by the legislature are contained in the session laws.” (quotation and internal marks omitted)). -4-
The city’s notice of its intent to assess the fee must disclose the “amount and basis for the costs.” M.C.O. § 227.100(d). The 2011 Notice of Intent to Assess specified: “VACANT BUILDING REGISTRATION FEE Total cost is: $6,550.00” and the 2012 Notice declared: “VACANT BUILDING REGISTRATION . . . Total cost is: $6,746.00.” DRB argues these notices do not adequately disclose the basis of the fees because they do not provide a “foundation, development, calculation, or explanation” of the fees, but the ordinance does not require a detailed calculation or explanation. The district court correctly reasoned, “The term ‘basis for the costs’ is most reasonably interpreted in this situation to mean a description of what the costs are for, not a thorough calculation of or justification for the [fee].” Notice of a special assessment is required to give the individual being assessed “an opportunity to question the validity of the amount of the assessment.” Meadowbrook Manor, Inc. v. City of St. Louis Park, 104 N.W.2d 540, 543 (Minn. 1960). The phrase “vacant building registration” was sufficient to give DRB notice of the basis for the fee so DRB could determine the fee’s validity and challenge the application of the fee at an administrative hearing.
When giving notice of its intent to assess a vacant building registration fee, the city must also “inform the owner of . . . the existence of any deferment procedure.” M.C.O. § 227.100(d). Both the notices of intent to assess informed: Payment of this assessment may be deferred if the person homesteading the property can demonstrate a financial hardship and is 65 years of age or older or is retired due to permanent and total disability (Minnesota Statutes 435.193 to 435.195). For questions regarding deferment due to age and/or disability, call [the Minneapolis Senior Ombudsman at a given phone number]. -5- DRB argues this language was insufficient because it did not disclose the circumstances under which the fee could be “waived or suspended,” see id. § 249.80(j)(1) (“This fee may be waived or suspended for the current year as a term or condition of a written restoration agreement or order issued pursuant to section 249.50.”). Fundamental rules of statutory construction compel us to reject DRB’s argument. “‘[W]hen different words are used in the same context, we assume that the words have different meanings.’” State v. Nelson, 842 N.W.2d 433, 439 (Minn. 2014) (quoting Dereje v. State, 837 N.W.2d 714, 720 (Minn. 2013)); accord Johnson v. Paynesville Farmers Union Co-op. Oil Co., 817 N.W.2d 693, 709 (Minn. 2012). Here, the M.C.O. uses “defer” in some provisions, and “waiver” or “suspension” in others. Compare M.C.O. § 509.910 (describing “deferred payment agreements” entered into when an individual cannot pay utility bills), with id. § 447.150 (providing the city may “waive” a parade permit fee in the case of indigence), and id. § 249.80(j)(1). Given the M.C.O.’s differentiation between these terms, the waiver or suspension mentioned in § 249.80(j)(1) is not a “deferment procedure” necessitating disclosure under § 227.100(d). The city gave proper notice of its intent to assess the vacant building registration fees. By failing to appeal its claims within thirty days after the assessment was levied, in compliance with Minn. Stat. § 429.081, DRB waived its substantive attacks on the fees.4 4 DRB vaguely appears to argue the city lacked jurisdiction to assess the fees because the fees were unreasonable. Although clad as a jurisdictional issue, this is a substantive attack on the assessment that also must have been brought within the statutory thirty-day appeal period under § 429.081. -6-