*1 erred, clearly the trial court negotiations and the surround- parties, finding circumstances parties in the the $7000 supplemental agreement to be additional $30,000 purchase price “previously prior agreement,

out” in the $23,000 “previously paid”

additional to buyer. VILLAGE,

COUNTRYSIDE

Petitioner, Respondent, BRANCH, Appellant.

CITY OF NORTH

No. CX-88-1125. Appeals of Minnesota.

Court of

Oct. 16, 1988. Nov.

Review Granted Edina, Christensen,

Joseph respon- for J. dent.

Barry Blomquist, L. Branch, appellant. Atty., Grundhoefer, Paul, L. St. amicus Thomas curiae, League of Minnesota Cities. *2 Heard, tax, considered and decided side had the to appeal the North LANSING, P.J., and NIERENGARTEN Branch did not have *, JJ. and IRVINE court trial denied North Branch’s

OPINION motion to dismiss the granted LANSING, Judge. Countryside’s motion summary judg- ment. The court found that a storm sewer City appeals North Branch the improvement tax levied under Minn.Stat. summary judgment court’s invalidat- trial incorporates 444.16-.21 §§ ing an ad valorem tax for a storm sewer appeal procedures outlined Minn.Stat. improvement comply for failure to the 429.031-.081. The court set aside the §§ of Minn.Stat. 429.- §§ tax and ordered a “reassessment” under (1986). 031-.081 Minn.Stat.

FACTS ISSUE flooding problems, alleviate the North Branch Council established Is notice to owners of the improvement storm a district appeal, required by as Minn.Stat. constructed storm sewer facilities jurisdictional prerequisite a (1986). 444.16-.21 Before §§ levying a tax under Minn.Stat. 444.- §§

levying costs, a tax to recover construction 16-.21? published North notice of Novem- a public hearing certify ber the ANALYSIS proposed provided tax and Historically, a allowed owners. city to constructing recover the costs of a Countryside Village owned property through within the district and was notified See Minn.Stat. § $13,413.21. Countryside tax of 1(2) (1986); Minn.Stat. attended the November imposing Prior and served Branch with written ob- city to show that jection levy. North Branch certified property to assessed received a hearing. Countryside the tax at filed improvement. from the benefit timely court. City Bemidji, 295 N.W.2d Anderson v. ap- Branch moved dismiss the peal, arguing that an ad valorem tax difficulty proving Because of according proce- appealed property specially from an each benefited dures Minn.Stat. improvement, legislature, enacted Minn. summary judgment, moved for ar- These statutes (1986), guing that Minn.Stat. city allow to recover the of a permitting the establishment a tax through imposition of provement to finance district tax, city provements, requires city to follow the proper only general show benefit purpose. forth Minn.Stat. 429.031-.081. ar- Under Minn.Stat. 444.16-.21 a further gued Branch failed to a storm sewer because North state the nature of the ment tax district ordinance. Prior ment, ordinance, adopting pub failed state that no could After public hearing. be taken unless the affected own- lish notice and hold a properly objected hearing, city may failed construct Country- to state in written notice that finance construction * Const, Acting judge Appeals pointment pursuant 2.§ as of the Court of to Minn. art. strict on located within the a tax 429.061, stating: “Proper no- municipali- with section the council

district. When proceedings jurisdic- tice ty determines make *3 prerequisite any by the chapter tional to pursuant to “[t]he (citations omitted). apply.” Id. 429.031 to 429.081 shall town board.” of sections subd. Minn.Stat. § No law addresses case applies spe- whether this strict rule imposes Minn.Stat. §§ to ad valorem taxes. Because of the appeal cific on cities notice ownership portance property to individu- special for local im- of assessments similarity effects requires This that als between the provements. section * * * of an the ad assessment and valorem an owner Notice shall state that significant distinguish reason to we no an to district appeal two for of notice of between the section 429.081. pursuant to strong In reason appeal rights. Minn. Minn.Stat. § allowing notice provisions exists for provides property for a 429.081 § normally special pertaining to appeal of a tax assessment apply in storm cases district court. arising in cases un- because pro- the specific The court held that city coun- der Minn.Stat. 444.16-21 the 444.18 over the visions of section control issuing improvement by cil finance the statutory provisions for other ad Op.Atty. an bonds without election. See ch. 278. valorem taxes found Minn.Stat. 1982). (March 10, Gen. 387-6 effect, give In section order 444.18 however, note, that the trial that Branch was re- court stated We “reas court set aside the tax and ordered a quired provide Countryside with pursuant sessment” right under appeal section 429.- Because the give failure to § and that tax tax was an ad valorem rather than impose deprived jurisdiction of special tax should “re- levied” than “reassessed.” Accord rather arguments Branch’s modify order. ingly, the trial court’s we contrary persuasive. are not We cannot only read 429.081 § DECISION appeal right not to create setting did err in aside The trial court can owner. Neither we proposed ad a storm agree provisions of that the city failed way 429 in such a conflict with in its notice to affected to include of notice of owners given section 429 should effect. We peal the tax. agree interpretation the trial court’s AS AFFIRMED MODIFIED. plain wording of Minn. statute. The 444.18 Stat. § NIERENGARTEN, J., dissents. NIERENGARTEN, Judge, dissenting. provide proper Failure to I appeal rights deprive has held to dissent because believe North been procedural re- all relevant as quirements of Minn.Stat. sessment. Center Town reasonably (1986) requirements as those Wing County, Crow pertain ad valorem taxes levied under Klapmeier, the court held hearings must state Minn.Stat. that notice notify North Branch did not has the asserts owner appeal and must indicate the time which under 429.081. be- 136. The district court section must be taken. Id. at given (“This

lieve the notice sufficient and was ments.” See id. provides that notice of under section 429.081 exclusive method of from a the circumstances. assessment levied chapter.”). to this Accordingly, unless govern- authorized local costs are recov- ments to special assessments, ered via notification of provement tax districts and recover the appeal rights under section 429.081 is un- systems by levying costs of those ad valo- necessary. See id. subd. 2 rem taxes on within the districts. (“When special assessments pledged are 444.17-18, See Minn.Stat. payment the obligations, they legislation clearly contemplates taxa- shall be authorized and issued in accord- assessment be- *4 429”). ance cause creation is districts do also superfluous if recovery is accom- plies when costs of storm sewer plished by Notwithstanding assessment. by ments are recovered ad valorem taxes governments obvious local of section to ad by choose to recover costs valorem tax situations conflicts with sec- levying ad valorem apparently taxes still tion 278.01 which establishes a different procedural require- conform the appropriate challeng- and more method for ments sections 429.031 to even against ad proper- valorem taxes levied though those sections ty. Consequently, I would conclude notifi- See id. § cation of a circumstances, Under do not under section 429.081 useless and there- legislature reasonably believe the fore under these circumstanc- governments apprise local property own- es. Since Branch chose to recover their under section ad costs valorem tax and 429.081,if being special- is not procedural with the relevant re- ly government assessed and the re- local quirements 429.081,1 sections improvements by covers the costs of the would reverse the district court. levying an ad valorem tax. id. See if subd. 2. Even legislature In 1984 this invited the obligations issues without election to examine section 429.081 suggested the purpose improvements, of financing legislature require- clarify adequately owners still are ad- ments contained in subdivision 1. Pe- See vised potentiál of the council’s Heights, terson v. Inver Grove 345 against levies their property applica- 274, (Minn.Ct.App.1984). To ble notice of sections 444.17 and credit, its responded our subdivision suggestion specified the contents of notice. 1986 Minn. Laws Special ad assessments and valorem tax 473, I believe section ation are fundamentally different methods subdivision should be clarified in meeting cost of governments may the fact local recov- ments; they purposes serve different improvements er of storm costs ei- are used under different circumstances. ther valo- ad Cemetery See State v. Roselawn Associa legisla- rem tax levies. I would invite the tion, 259 Minn. 108 N.W.2d ture to re-examine section 444.18 and clari- (1961) (the term “taxation” does not fy respect intent assessment); Op. include an also when costs are re- Att’y Gen. Ad valorem taxa by covered valorem taxation rather than also are chal by special assessment. See, lenged separate procedures. e.g., MinmStat. 278.01-05 established designed challenging special ap assessments and

plies only persons aggrieved by “assess-