The cost of any improvement, or any part thereof, may be assessed upon property benefited by the improvement, based upon the benefits received, whether or not the property abuts on the improvement and whether or not any part of the cost of the improvement is paid from the county state-aid highway fund, the municipal state-aid street fund, or the trunk highway fund. The area assessed may be less than but may not exceed the area proposed to be assessed as stated in the notice of hearing on the improvement, except as provided below. The municipality may pay such portion of the cost of the improvement as the council may determine from general ad valorem tax levies or from other revenues or funds of the municipality available for the purpose. The municipality may subsequently reimburse itself for all or any of the portion of the cost of a water, storm sewer, or sanitary sewer improvement so paid by levying additional assessments upon any properties abutting on but not previously assessed for the improvement, on notice and hearing as provided for the assessments initially made. To the extent that such an improvement benefits nonabutting properties which may be served by the improvement when one or more later extensions or improvements are made but which are not initially assessed therefor, the municipality may also reimburse itself by adding all or any of the portion of the cost so paid to the assessments levied for any of such later extensions or improvements, provided that notice that such additional amount will be assessed is included in the notice of hearing on the making of such extensions or improvements. The additional assessments herein authorized may be made whether or not the properties assessed were included in the area described in the notice of hearing on the making of the original improvement.
In any city of the fourth class electing to proceed under a home rule charter as provided in this chapter, which charter provides for a board of water commissioners and authorizes such board to assess a water frontage tax to defray the cost of construction of water mains, such board may assess the tax based upon the benefits received and without regard to any charter limitation on the amount that may be assessed for each lineal foot of property abutting on the water main. The water frontage tax shall be imposed according to the procedure and, except as herein provided, subject to the limitations of the charter of the city.
Notes of Decisions
City of Brainerd v. Brainerd Investments P'ship, 827 N.W.2d 752 (Minn. 2013).
· cites it 2× “1(f), and the *756 cost of the improvement “may be assessed upon property benefited by the improvement,” Minn.Stat. § 429.051 (2012). The parties dispute whether CLC is an “owner” for the purpose of the petition process set forth in subdivision 1(f).”
David E. McNally Dev. Corp. v. City of Winona, 686 N.W.2d 553 (Minn. Ct. App. 2004).
· cites it 8× “” Minn.Stat. § 429.051 (2002). A municipality’s power of assessment, however, is limited by three conditions: (1) the land must receive a special benefit from the improvement being constructed; (2) the assessment must be uniform upon the same class of property; and (3) the…”
Harstad v. City of Woodbury, 902 N.W.2d 64 (Minn. Ct. App. 2017).
· cites it 4× “9 Compare Minn. Stat. §§ 429.051 (2016), and 444.075, subd.”
Am. Bank of St. Paul v. City of Minneapolis, 802 N.W.2d 781 (Minn. Ct. App. 2011).
· cites it 2× “And Minn.Stat. § 429.051 (2010) provides that “[t]he cost of any improvement, or any part thereof, may be assessed upon property benefited by the improvement, based upon the benefits received.”
Schumacher v. City of Excelsior, 427 N.W.2d 235 (Minn. 1988).
· cites it 4× “Broadly stated, the issue is whether the evidence sustains the trial court's findings and conclusion of no special benefit.”
Anderson v. City of Bemidji, 295 N.W.2d 555 (Minn. 1980).
· cites it 2× “The city responds that it is authorized to defer assessments as it chooses under § 429.051, which provides: The cost of any improvement, or any part thereof, may be assessed upon property benefited by the improvement, based upon the benefits received, whether or not the property…”
Indep. Sch. Dist. 254 v. City of Kenyon, 411 N.W.2d 545 (Minn. Ct. App. 1987).
· cites it 4× “Appellant and amicus curiae also assert Minn. Stat. § 429.051 (1984) provides that water, storm sewer, and sanitary sewer costs may be assessed even though a feasibility hearing has not been held pursuant to Minn.”
Peterson v. City of Elk River, 312 N.W.2d 243 (Minn. 1981).
· cites it 2× “Minn.Stat. § 429.051 (1980). An improvement is defined as “any type of improvement made under authority granted by section 429.”
Dosedel v. City of Ham Lake, 414 N.W.2d 751 (Minn. Ct. App. 1987).
· cites it 2× “Minn.Stat. § 429.051 provides that the cost of any improvement “may be assessed upon property benefited by the improvement, based upon the benefits received * * Id.”
Hartle v. City of Glencoe, 226 N.W.2d 914 (Minn. 1975).
· cites it 3× “Respondent, pursuant to § 429.051, deferred the assessment of these areas until a time when these areas are connected to the system by additional improvements.”
Quality Homes, Inc. v. Vill. of New Brighton, 183 N.W.2d 555 (Minn. 1971).
· cites it 2× “) The actual assessment upon the property actually served may be delayed by resort to the method authorized by § 429.051, which provides in part: “* * * To the extent that such an improvement benefits non-abutting properties which may be served by the improvement when one or…”
Blankenburg v. City of Northfield, 462 N.W.2d 417 (Minn. Ct. App. 1990).
· cites it 10× “The trial court held that Minn.Stat. § 429.051 (1988) authorized the deferred assessments provided that the earlier improvement benefited the assessed property.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.