State v. Alaniz, 2012 ND 76

Improvement District 5314 in south Fargo was created in 2007 to fund bridges, pavement, storm sewers, water main, signals, street lighting, bike trails, and incidentals.
A resolution of necessity declared the improvements necessary and that costs would be assessed proportionately to benefits; an engineer's report estimated probable costs and the district was to be funded by various sources including special assessments.
Project divided into three phases with some funding from state/federal sources; DOT involvement for phases 1 and 2; frontage roads were a focus of costs and funding arrangements.
Final project cost exceeded $50 million; total assessed against property owners was about $16.34 million; Hector owned four parcels within the district and was heavily assessed for frontage roads.
Hector objected to the assessments, including a ten-year deferral agreement with DOT; the Special Assessment Commission reviewed objections, then the City Commission approved the assessments; district court affirmed the City’s decision.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether total project cost for assessments was properly calculated	Hector: city included non-authorized costs and interest	Hector: costs align with statute and engineer’s report	Total cost properly calculated; no improper inclusion
Whether costs funded by federal/DOT arrangements were wrongly treated as city costs	Hector: federal funds converted to general fund	City: funds flow through DOT and City reimbursed; no conversion	No evidence of improper conversion of federal funds
Whether final assessed amount exceeded the resolution of necessity/engineer’s estimate	Hector: assessments cannot exceed estimated costs in resolution	City: statute allows final costs to exceed estimates; assessments may cover all or part of cost	Assessments did not exceed authorized costs; method permissible
Whether special assessments complied with statutory benefit-based process	Hector: relied on Infrastructure Funding Policy rather than benefits	City: policy used as guide; benefits determined per statute	Commission complied with statute; policy used appropriately to gauge benefits
Whether notice and review procedures were properly followed by the Special Assessment Commission and City Commission	Hector: alleged notice/process deficiencies	City: notice and hearings conducted; adequate opportunities to object	Statutory notice and review requirements satisfied

Bateman v. City of Grand Forks, 2008 ND 72 (2008 ND) (limits and discretion in determining benefits and assessments)
Cloverdale Foods Co. v. City of Mandan, 364 N.W.2d 56 (N.D. 1985) (benefit-based assessment principles; cap 196 NW 60)
Serenko v. City of Wilton, 1999 ND 88 (1999 ND) (reasonableness of benefit-based apportionment; fair methodology)
Reed v. City of Langdon, 54 N.W.2d 148 (1952 ND) (historic articulation of arbitrariness in assessments)
Go Comm. ex rel. Hale v. City of Minot, 701 N.W.2d 865 (2005 ND) (statutory interpretation and planning context)