D & P Terminal, Inc. v. City of Fargo, 2012 ND 149

D&P Terminal and Potter Enterprises own property abutting 12th Avenue North in Fargo, which underwent a major reconstruction ultimately placed in Improvement District 5547.
The City created the district and the Fargo Special Assessment Commission prepared proposed assessments, with notice given to the landowners who did not object to district creation.
After project completion, D&P and Potter objected to the final assessments; the Commission held meetings and the Board approved the final assessment list.
The district court affirmed the Board’s decision; D&P and Potter appealed, arguing the method used to calculate benefits was improper under Robertson Lumber Co. and related precedent.
The central dispute is whether using the Infrastructure Funding Policy (a formula based on front footage or square footage) to estimate benefits and determine assessments complies with state law.
The Supreme Court reaffirmed a limited standard of review for special assessments and held that using a policy-guided formula is permissible, given modern statutory changes and practical needs.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
May the commission use a formula-based formula to determine benefits?	D&P/Potter rely on Robertson to bar formulas.	City may use a formula-guided method consistent with law.	Formula-based methods permissible; not arbitrary or unreasonable.
Did use of Infrastructure Funding Policy violate Robertson or related precedent?	Policy improperly substitutes benefits, violating Robertson.	Policy is a guiding tool within statutory discretion and modern practice.	Policy use valid as a guide; not a dispositive exclusive measure.
Is the court’s review of the special assessment limited and deferential enough to affirm?	Challenge should reweigh evidence and require per-lot inspections.	Review is limited; requires showing arbitrariness, capriciousness, or unreasonableness with substantial evidence.	Yes; decision affirmed if not arbitrary, capricious, or unsupported by law.

Bateman v. City of Grand Forks, 747 N.W.2d 117 (2008 ND 72) (assessment method must be rationally related to benefits; not arbitrary)
Serenko v. City of Wilton, 593 N.W.2d 368 (1999 ND 88) (any reasonable basis for apportionment allowed when no statutory rule exists)
Hector v. City of Fargo, 788 N.W.2d 354 (2010 ND 168) (highlights broad discretion to choose apportionment method; formula-based methods permissible)
Robertson Lumber Co. v. City of Grand Forks, 147 N.W. 249 (ND 1914) (old rule requiring benefits to be determined; modern statutes relax personal inspection requirement)
Cloverdale Foods, Inc. v. City of Mandan, 364 N.W.2d 56 (ND 1985) (upholds use of a formula-based benefit determination)
Buehler v. City of Mandan, 239 N.W.2d 522 (ND 1976) (recognizes fairness of frontage/area-based assessments)