Opinion ID: 2105637
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Is the assessment valid and should the valuations determined by a reevaluation be used in allocating the assessment?

Text: In assaying the validity of the assessment, several of the basic statutory provisions must be remembered: N.J.S.A. 40:56-26 provides in part:    [The commissioners] shall thereupon make a just and equitable assessment of the benefits conferred upon any real estate by reason of such improvement having due regard to the rights and interests of all persons concerned, as well as to the value of the real estate benefited. N.J.S.A. 40:56-27 provides: All assessments levied under this chapter for any local improvement shall in each case be as nearly as may be in proportion to and not in excess of the peculiar benefit, advantage or increase in value which the respective lots and parcels of real estate shall be deemed to receive by reason of such improvement. Peculiar benefit, advantage or increase in value has been defined as follows: The foundation of the power to lay a special assessment or a special tax for a local improvement of any character, whether it be opening, improving or paving a street or sidewalk or constructing a sewer, or cleaning or sprinkling a street, is the benefit which the object of the assessment or tax confers on the owner of the abutting property, or the owners of property in the assessment or special taxation district, which is different from the general benefit which the owners enjoy in common with the other inhabitants or citizens of the municipal corporation.    `Benefit' is the increment of value to land affected by improvement. It represents the difference between the market value of the lands before the improvement and the market value of the land immediately after the improvement. In re Public Service Electric and Gas Co., 18 N.J. Super. 357, 363-365 (App. Div. 1952). The most troublesome problem involved in making a proper local assessment is the ascertainment of the difference between the market value of the lands before the improvement and the market value of the lands immediately after the improvement. As evidence, observe the multitude of opinions treating of this subject. Concededly, the classical and perfect method is to obtain an expert appraisal of the dollar value of each individual parcel of land  ante and post improvement. This is not to say, however, that some other method may not as well result in a just and equitable assessment of the benefits conferred. One possible course to pursue to attain that objective is that here employed, i.e., the ascertainment of the actual value of the properties involved immediately preceding the improvement and the percentage of increase in that value immediately succeeding and rationally attributable to the improvement. The keystone to such a method is self-evidently the reliability of the ante and post values. It should also be noted that the Board corroborated their conclusion by viewing all the properties involved, taking photographs thereof, examining zoning ordinances, considering the size and shape of the properties, reviewing past sales and studying traffic flow. In the matter sub judice, although very little testimony was taken as to the 1955-1957, 1961-1963 study, plaintiffs failed to adduce any affirmative testimony to discredit the findings of that survey. N.J.S.A. 40:56-33 provides in part:    All assessments for local improvements shall be presumed to have been regularly assessed and confirmed and every assessment or proceeding preliminary thereto shall be presumed to have been regularly made or conducted until the contrary be shown. As stated in In re Public Service, 18 N.J. Super. 357 (App. Div. 1952), In the absence of other proof, the commissioner's report is conclusive [on benefits] and the burden of overcoming the presumption of validity is cast upon the owner and it must be by clear and cogent proof. As far as the truncated record discloses, plaintiffs have failed to adduce any testimony to contradict the conclusion of the market report that the property involved had an increase in value of 12.90% over the pre-improvement value attributable to the improvement. The position that those properties fronting the parking lot enjoyed a greater increase than those more remote also remains uncontradicted. The period for which the values were ascertained is sufficiently close to the date of the improvement to reasonably reflect the required immediately before and after figure for the assessment purposes. This is especially so in view of the lapse of time since the completion of the improvement, i.e., 1956, which is now some 14 years, and the improbability that a more accurate appraisal could now be developed. The assessment for the peculiar benefit cannot exceed this 12.90% percentage of the pre-improvement true value. N.J.S.A. 40:56-27. Nor can the total of all the assessments exceed the cost of the improvement. N.J.S.A. 40:56-24. It may, therefore, be necessary to reduce the assessment percentage below 12.90%. However, as it is now admitted that the 1957 general assessment did not represent true nor common value, the application of the above percentage to said 1957 assessment values is unjustified. The assessment upon that basis did not result in a just and equitable assessment. Plaintiffs' brief states:    it is respectfully urged that the valuations determined by the re-evaluation of 1958 should be used in allocating the individual assessments. Defendants at oral argument did not dispute the validity or accuracy of the 1958 valuation. The year 1958 is sufficiently close to the pivotal year  1956  to reflect the true valuation preceding the completion of the improvement and to form a reasonable basis for a computation of a just and equitable assessment. Accordingly, this matter will be remanded for a reassessment, using the proper percentage of the 1958 valuations.