Opinion ID: 2763977
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Existence of Deferment Procedures

Text: 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-