Court Opinion

ID: 9736942
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 19:10:44.053001+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:23:55.589627
License: Public Domain

NIERENGARTEN, Judge,
dissenting.
I dissent because I believe North Branch complied with all relevant procedural requirements of Minn.Stat. §§ 429.031-.081 (1986) as those requirements reasonably pertain to ad valorem taxes levied under Minn.Stat. §§ 444.18, 444.20 (1986). Countryside asserts North Branch did not notify Countryside of its right to appeal to the district court under section 429.081. I be*209lieve the notice given was sufficient and that notice of appeal under section 429.081 was unnecessary under the circumstances.
The legislature authorized local governments to establish special storm sewer improvement tax districts and to recover the costs of those systems by levying ad valo-rem taxes on property within the districts. See Minn.Stat. §§ 444.17-18, 444.20 (1986). The legislation clearly contemplates taxation rather than special assessment because creation of special tax districts is superfluous if cost recovery is accomplished by assessment. Notwithstanding that obvious fact, local governments which choose to recover improvement costs by levying ad valorem taxes apparently still must conform to the procedural requirements of sections 429.031 to 429.081, even though those sections apply specifically to special assessments. See id. § 444.18, subd. 2. Under the circumstances, I do not believe the legislature reasonably intended local governments to apprise property owners of their right to appeal under section 429.081, if the property is not being specially assessed and the local government recovers the costs of the improvements by levying an ad valorem tax. See id. § 444.18, subd. 2. Even if a city council issues obligations without an election for the purpose of financing improvements, property owners still are adequately advised of the council’s action and potentiál levies against their property by the applicable notice provisions of sections 444.17 and 429.031, subdivision 1.
Special assessments and ad valorem taxation are fundamentally different methods for meeting the cost of public improvements; they serve different purposes and are used under different circumstances. See State v. Roselawn Cemetery Association, 259 Minn. 479, 481, 108 N.W.2d 305, 307 (1961) (the term “taxation” does not include an assessment); see also 15 Op. Att’y Gen. 4, 4 (1982). Ad valorem taxation and special assessments also are challenged under separate procedures. See, e.g., MinmStat. §§ 429.081, 278.01-05 (1986). The right of appeal established in chapter 429 was designed for the purposes of challenging special assessments and applies only to persons aggrieved by “assessments.” See id. § 429.081 (“This section provides the exclusive method of appeal from a special assessment levied pursuant to this chapter.”). Accordingly, unless storm sewer improvement costs are recovered via special assessments, notification of appeal rights under section 429.081 is unnecessary. See id. § 444.075, subd. 2 (“When special assessments are pledged for the payment of the obligations, they shall be authorized and issued in accordance with the provisions of chapter 429”).
I also do not believe section 429.081 applies when costs of storm sewer improvements are recovered by ad valorem taxes because application of section 429.081 to ad valorem tax situations conflicts with section 278.01 which establishes a different and more appropriate method for challenging ad valorem taxes levied against property. Consequently, I would conclude notification of a property owner’s right to appeal under section 429.081 is useless and therefore unnecessary under these circumstances. Since North Branch chose to recover costs by levying an ad valorem tax and complied with the relevant procedural requirements of sections 429.031 to 429.081,1 would reverse the district court.
In 1984 this court invited the legislature to examine section 429.081 and suggested the legislature clarify the notice requirements contained in subdivision 1. See Peterson v. City of Inver Grove Heights, 345 N.W.2d 274, 277 (Minn.Ct.App.1984). To its credit, the legislature responded to our suggestion and specified the contents of the required notice. See 1986 Minn. Laws ch. 473, § 10. I believe section 444.18, subdivision 2 should be clarified in light of the fact that local governments may recover costs of storm sewer improvements either by special assessment or by ad valo-rem tax levies. I would invite the legislature to re-examine section 444.18 and clarify its intent with respect to the procedures required when improvement costs are recovered by ad valorem taxation rather than by special assessment.