Senske Rentals v. City of Grand Forks, 988 N.W.2d 598

Senske Rentals owned commercial lots in a Grand Forks subdivision affected by a city project to pave gravel roads and install storm sewers and related infrastructure.
City Council approved plans, created a special assessment district and commission, and engineers estimated total project cost at about $3.5 million; initial notices estimated assessments at $0.98–$1.36 per sq ft.
Bids came in ~27% above the engineer estimate; the City updated the estimated assessment range to $1.57–$1.80 per sq ft and held public meetings (no objections initially).
Senske later requested reassessment; the City reduced costs and removed an administrative markup, setting the assessment at $1.41 per sq ft after hearings.
Senske appealed to the district court (which affirmed the Commission), then appealed to the North Dakota Supreme Court, which also affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the Special Assessment Commission acted arbitrarily, capriciously, or unreasonably in determining benefits and assessments under N.D.C.C. §40‑23‑07	Senske: Commission failed to properly determine benefits or use a fair method; assessment is excessive	City: Commission followed ordinance, past practice and reasonable methods (square footage/frontage), reduced costs, not arbitrary	Affirmed — presumption of validity applies; Senske failed to meet burden to show arbitrariness or statutory noncompliance
Whether the Court should take judicial notice of later-published City documents offered by Senske	Senske: Requests judicial notice of City publications showing assessments excessive	City: Documents were created after the assessment, were not in the record, and are disputable facts	Denied — Court declined to judicially notice or consider post‑record documents
Whether the assessments constitute a constitutional taking	Senske: Argues assessments equal the parcels’ improved value, constituting a taking	City: Issue not previously raised in district court; thus not preserved	Not considered — issue was raised for the first time on appeal and is forfeited

Holter v. City of Mandan, 948 N.W.2d 858 (recognizes presumption of validity for local assessments and limits judicial review)
Bateman v. City of Grand Forks, 747 N.W.2d 117 (articulates three statutory requirements for §40‑23‑07 compliance)
Serenko v. City of Wilton, 593 N.W.2d 368 (approves use of square‑footage/frontage formulas for apportioning assessments)
Ulvedal v. Bd. of County Comm’rs of Grand Forks County, 434 N.W.2d 707 (courts should not substitute their judgment for taxing authorities when supported by evidence)
Tibert v. City of Minto, 720 N.W.2d 921 (explains limited scope of review on appeals of local governing body decisions)
Spratt v. MDU Res. Grp., Inc., 797 N.W.2d 328 (issues not raised below cannot be raised for the first time on appeal)