*1 strictly must be construed tax-

ing authority taxpayer.” favor of the In the Matter of the IM Petition for Girard, Benda v. 592 N.W.2d PROVEMENT OF COUNTY DITCH (Minn.1999). NO. BRANCH COUNTY OF EARTH, Minnesota, Respon BLUE representative’s Nor is the objec dent, tion that Schilling dealt with a different persuasive. statute As a v. matter of statu construction, tory presume we that “the PHILLIPS, al., Blaine Appellants. et legislative body uses the same term consis tently in different Angell statutes.” v. Wayne Pestka, al., Appellants, et Hennepin County, 565 N.W.2d (Minn.App.1997), aff'd, 578 N.W.2d 343 (Minn.1998). County Earth, Krengel of Blue Construction, Brothers together, Taken Supreme Inc., Respondents. Court’s decision in Schilling and the can ons statutory presuming construction C7-99-2051, Nos. C4-99-2105. that phrases identical mean the same Appeals Court of of Minnesota. thing in different requiring statutes and ambiguous that tax statutes be construed July strictly in favor of taxpayer lead to the conclusion that phrase “individu

al’s last known address” in Minn.Stat. 268.063(e) refers to an individual’s resi Thus,

dence address. because the de

partment properly never mailed the initial personal

determinations of liability to Pe address,

rovich’s home the time which protest

he could the determinations never Curtis,

started. Curtis v. Cf. 173, 176 (Minn.App.1989) (appeal filed

several years after order issued was time

ly because adverse never started

appeal period by serving written notice of order).

filing of rep commissioner’s

resentative therefore erred concluding Perovieh’s untimely. was

DECISION representative commissioner’s erred

in deciding department lacked

jurisdiction over appeal. Perovich’s

Reversed. *2 costs;

exceeded the dismissal of the claim relief was error with- out a factual determination as to whether or not would suffer irreparable injury; stipulation signed by *3 parties the preclude appellants did not from subsequently appealing the effect of drainage the authority’s orders on non- parcels of land. We affirm.

FACTS petitions, Two improvement one for of part the lower of Branch 1 of Earth Blue Arneson, Ross Blue Earth County At- County Ditch No. 86 and one for upper the torney; Wendland, and Avid Wendland part, were by consolidated the Blue Earth Timmerman, P.A., Earth, Blue respon- for County Board in its capacity as a drainage County dent of Blue Earth. authority. The improvement was estab- Frundt, K. Johnson, Charles Frundt & by lished order dated December 1997. Ltd., Earth, Blue appellants. for No appealed one from the establishment pursuant itself to MinmStat. DAVIES, Considered and by decided (1998). § 103E.095 But Minn.Stat. Presiding HALBROOKS, Judge, Judge, (1998) § provides 103E.341 that: HUSPENI, and Judge.* drainage authority must dismiss the proceedings petition, order, and OPINION if it determines that: HALBROOKS, Judge. (1) the benefits of proposed the drain- In the context of a petition for improve- age project cost, than less the total ment County of Ditch No. Branch * * including damages awarded *. Phillips Blaine Wayne and Pest- 103E.341, § MinmStat. subd. 1. ka contend that the district court erred first, dismissing, their Appellants and some other affected indi- adoption of the report amended viewers’ challenged viduals the benefits-and-dam- by respondent County and, of Blue Earth ages awards contained the establish- second, separate action seeking order, a de- ment pursuant Minn.Stat. claratory judgment injunction (1998). § to stop total, 103E.091 In the determi- construction of the drainage project by nation of benefits and par- for 13 respondent Krengel Brothers Construc- cels of appealed. land were Appellants, tion, Appellants (1) Inc. claim that under who each parcels land, own four of appeal- § (1998), Minn.Stat. 103E.511 the original ed the benefits and damages allocated report viewers’ was final and the parcels Blue they own. Their consolidated Earth County Board lacked authority appeals were tried a jury in January approve (2) report; amended pursu- trial, 1999. During jury heard testi- ant 103E.606, § MinmStat. subd. 2 mony from the viewers1 had (1998), the construction contract could not made error in capitalization of be awarded until there was a final projected determi- stream of income resulting from nation that improvement benefits of the anticipated productivity enhanced of * judge Retired Ap Minnesota Court of 1. "Viewers” are defined in Minn.Stat. peals, serving by appointment § pursuant 103E.305 as three disinterested resi VI, qualified Minn. dents Const. art. of state to assess property. than up of front rather have them offset improvement result of the land as a benefits; error, Phillips No. 1. As result Branch get crossing. an extra field originally calculated amounts benefit cost of these terms was negotiated total in each class increased the viewers were $10,000. about this first advised of were land. trial and two weeks before error settlement, stipulated Prior to cross-examined rigorously

lants’ counsel County accepted Earth had Blue Board at trial. this issue the viewers on improvement bids construction project.. amount the low- Assuming 20,1999, returned January On cost, ap- bid for construction est received verdict, in the amount finding benefits petition with the pellants filed $293,720 damages in the amount *4 pro- the (cid:127) seeking board dismissal of entire $29,438. jury’s net effect of the deter- The ceeding grounds on the that the total cost improve- the of the mination was that cost improvement by the exceeded benefits of $28,950. by the benefits ment exceeded $22,994.86, making project the unlawful. trial. filed a motion for new Appellants parties entry judgment, of the Before the 1999, 7, the original On June one of settle- signed stipulation of drafted and .a improvement upper to petitioners for the 26, 1999, the day the ment dated March 1, who not been part of Branch had appellants’ post-trial motion hearing on lawsuit, original peti- appellants’ to filed a relating stipulation, The was scheduled. county petition with The the board. issue, at subse- parcels the then was to report the to sought amend viewers’ the court’s incorporated into trial quently the in original report-. correct errors the fact, law, of and conclusions findings of report The increased total bene- amended for judgment. order $324,186, project the lawful. making fits to following the contained stipulation separate petitions A filed hearing on among provisions, others: respondents was held on appellants and parties hereby 9, The above entitled Following hearing, the August 1999. resolve stipulate agree and to settle and county adopting an order the board issued parties relating to determining all issues between the report viewers’ the amended $324,186 and dam- project- the determination of benefits and the the benefits to be proceeding $313,577. in the above as follows: ages improvement to be ed cost the 9,1999 the August order did affect bene- 1. That the verdict damages appellants’ previ- benefits for damages and the bene- fits will become on or- appealed parcels. Based ously Ap- damages and for fits as determined der, project the exceeded benefits the improvement in pellants land the cost. the 86, 1, Blue County No. Branch Ditch County,

Earth Minnesota. the entry days Within 30 after n n n n order, appellants, although county board’s any par- the affected they do not own entering Stipulation, into this By cels, ap- filed their notices of served and estopped do are not pursuant Minn. court peal district their right not waive par- respect each Stat. 103E.091 if the feasibility of ditch estimated had an increase cel of land that exceed benefits. costs Respondents resulting from order. (1) appellants agreed It was also on to dismiss the motion served crops if ease- paid be for loss of would 8,1999. September flagged prior planting; were not ments 5, meeting replace At an October would contractors remove entered, board, over order was topsoil ground; disturbed on awarding con- objections, appellants’ paid lants be cash Where, ous” review. respondent Krengel struction contract to standard of on the Construction, hand, acting trial Inc. The other court is itself Brothers contract 15, $129,834.60. appellate respect amount was On October as an tribunal with 1999, decision, appellants a separate agency served sum- this court will inde- complaint seeking declaratory pendently mons and the agency’s review record. against respondents. relief Hutchinson, In re A hearing appellants’ combined on the (Minn.App.1989) (quotation and citations temporary restraining motion for a (Minn. omitted), denied Aug. review and respondents’ motion for dismissal was 1989). instance, In this the district court held on 1999. Respondents October on legal based its decisions rather than argued proper was dismissal on the factual considerations. This court con- grounds that had settled all ducts a de novo review such issues and their claims on March and were is not legal bound conclusions of the precluded from an appealing from increase the agency district court or itself. Id. land benefits on other Furthermore, statutory construction is people. Following hearing, the district law, question of we which review de novo. court appellants’- statutory ap- dismissed Ctr., Ramsey Sorenson v. Paul St Med. *5 peal pursuant to Minn.Stat. 103E.091. (Minn.1990). 188,190 457 N.W.2d appellants’ The court then dismissed de- 2. The District Court’s Dismissal claratory injunctive judgment relief Appellants’ Appeal Bene- Second action as moot. No memorandum was Damages fits and filed. appeal This follows. Stipulation A. of Settlement ISSUES Respondents appellants’ maintain that 1. Did stipulation a settlement entered second district court is into act parties as a bar to any barred stipulation of settlement en- appeals future relating to the same 26, parties tered into by the on March drainage project? 1999, following verdict in 2. judicata applicable Is res challenge lants’ benefits and costs administrative-agency from decisions parcels they determined for and others specifically drainage-im- related to owned. Respondents contend that provement projects? stipulation would not have entered into the seeking Does a landowner to challenge if litigation the threat of future was not the amount of benefits or damages precluded “global” in a fashion. awarded in an establishment order for a drainage project “Stipulations have are standing to treated and inter preted exclusively binding awards relate as contracts.” Emerick ex Sanchez, 109, Howley lands not rel. party? v. 547 N.W.2d (citation omitted). 112 (Minn.App.1996) 4. Was the district court’s dismissal of parties dispute But the meaning appellants’ for declaratory action judg- paragraph stipulation. five of the ment and relief proper? provision A contract is unambigu ANALYSIS meaning ous can when its be ascertained 1. Standard of Review any “without guide other than knowledge the trial Where court review of the facts on the language depends which ing agency an indepen decision makes for meaning.” VanderLeest v. Vander Leest, dent 54, factual determinations and other 57 (Minn.App.1984) 352 N.W.2d (citations omitted). wise acts as a court of impression, first Absent ambiguity, it is applies “clearly court not proper interpret errone- for a stipu- court a

761 T.F., Starr, n. R.W. v. 528 N.W.2d 872 3 v. contract. See Starr lation or a (Minn.1995). 562-63, The court must focus on Minn. 312 (1977) (court stipula- judicata construe work applying cannot whether res unambigu- plain it injustice that is on the whom language Corp., ous); v. Data Prods. has Corp. urged. previously Telex is Id. This court 288, 295, 686- N.W.2d judicata 271 Minn. stated that the doctrine of res (if clear, “it is is a contract may applicable not be administrative proper construing necessary nor neither it agencies as is to court decisions because wording of the instru- beyond the go it to of fundamental differences between the itself’). par- five of the Paragraph ment two: spe- It ambiguous. is not stipulation

ties’ judg- are reflected in a Court decisions right reserves a cifically final; which is docketed and ment ditch if estimated feasibility work is an end with court’s at re- trial damages exceed the benefits. costs and In the gard to matter. administra- not and could stipulation “global” is however, process, agencies typically tive preclude subsequent entirely continuing supervisory regula- exert way it is drafted. per- jurisdiction the affected tory over addition, policies son. In administrative B. Res Judicata of change, are in a state constant next contend that Respondents administrative decision-makers are not judicata as a bar to the second applies res adjudicating policy-mak- but often availability of res appeal. Determining the Finally, agencies administrative ing. which. this judicata legal question, charged by legislative body Johnson, novo. Paulos court reviews de health, protecting public safety, and wel- (Minn.App.1999) 319-20 N.W.2d *6 fare, past adjudica- merely resolving v. Educ. Ass’n Public Em (citing Hibbing existing of light tive facts in law. Bd., 527, Relations 369 N.W.2d ployment Safety, Pub. Wangen Commissioner , of (Minn. (Minn.1985)), review denied 529 120, (Minn.App.1989) 437 N.W.2d 123 1999). 28, a Ordinarily, judg final Sept. Gilbert, & D. Minne (quoting Keppel W. an absolute ment on the merits serves as Practice and Proce sota Administrative involving suit identical bar to second (1982)), § 119-20 review de dure 624 at action, of parties and the same cause 1989). (Minn. 12, May Given the nied every matter that conclusively determines case, application of res of this facts may litigated. have been litigated was or judicata equitable. would not be Prods., A.O. Harvestore Beutz v. Smith (ci (Minn.1988) Inc., 528, 431 N.W.2d 531 Property and Stand- C. Non-Owned omitted). tation ing maintain that the benefits Respondents that the statute Respondents contend to non-owned lands could have allocated only party non- does not allow a to appeal. This litigated in the first is been This is one of first owned lands. issue 103E.091, § correct. See Minn.Stat. subd. impression. 2(a) (1998). out, correctly point however, that the action of the for benefits procedure appealing raising the benefits respect board with damages is set out as follows: non-owned lands had not on the occurred to bene- related Procedure being on the prior judgment to the entered (a) person ap- A who damages, fits appeal. first of peals the amount benefits or include judicata may, is also considered an Res af- not owned fecting property in applied doctrine that must be equitable appeal must be Notice of the individual case. lant. light of the of each facts 762 standing auditor and the owner be to

served such action would confer occupant in property party of included on that to intrude on the affairs of attorney representing party or to the others when the has no interest of property proceedings. owner in the its own. (b) notice must file a of “Standing jurisdictional is a days auditor 30 within question to be determined this court.” appealed after the to be is filed. Implementation Energy re In Util. of particular The notice must state the Programs, 368 Improvement Conservation damages appealed benefits or and the (citation 308, (Minn.App.1985) N.W.2d 312 appeal. days basis for the Within 30 omitted). filed, after the is must notice the auditor legisla- In the absence of a discernible file original notice with the court intent contrary, long tive it has of administrator the district court. that person been established has (1998) (em- 103E.091, § Minn.Stat. subd. 2 standing judicial of invoke review added). phasis Respondents emphasize if agency person action that suffers ” * * * “may language include sub- “injury in fact” that consequence of (a). argue They appellants, section action. lands, seeking appeal only non-owned Comm., Sandy In re Pappas Senate 488 2 attempting to read subdivision (Minn.1992) 795, (citation N.W.2d 797 permit appeals. bifurcation omitted). objective statutory “The in aspect standing fundamental [T]he terpretation ascertain is to and effectuate it party seeking focuses on the legislature.” the intent State v. * * * complaint his get before a court Coauette, 443, 601 (Minn.App. N.W.2d 445 and not he on the issues have wishes to 1999) (1998)), (citing Minn.Stat. 645.16 adjudicated. 1999). (Minn. review denied Dec. As a Abbott, Sundberg v. principle statutory fundamental inter Cohen, (Minn.App.1988) (quoting Flast v. pretation, this court “should look first to 83, 99, 392 U.S. S.Ct. specific statutory and be language (Minn. (1968)), L.Ed.2d review denied natural guided its and most obvious 1988). “A June must have more *7 Freeman, meaning.” Heaslip v. 511 an than abstract injury concern and the 21, 22 (Minn.App.1994), N.W.2d review de speculative.” merely must not be State v. (Minn. 24, 1994). nied Feb. Knutson, 523 (Minn.App. N.W.2d 911 It is clear the legislature that intended (citation 1994) omitted), review denied appeals to allow for when it enacted Minn. (Minn. 1995). Jan. standing, “To have § 103E.091, * * * respondents Stat. subd. 2. But plaintiff allege specific, a must con- contend legislature that if the had intend- facts showing [they per- crete have] been to ed allow an appeal individual to non- sonally Provo, harmed.” Villars v. 440 property only, owned it could have used (citation (Minn.App.1989) N.W.2d 162 the language “may appeal” place in of omitted). Appellants have alleged not “may include.” in injury they fact because have not dem- onstrated that personally were As by indicated Minn.Stat. by report harmed the amended viewers’ (1998), § 645.16 the “consequences of a 9,1999. adopted August on particular interpretation” important is an legislative consideration ascertaining Appellants’ when objective ultimate has § intent. If Minn.Stat. improvement 103E.091 inter been to thwart in project the preted party unilaterally so, to allow to ap entirety. a appellants its To do chal peal own, the property not does the in lenged ratio own benefits/cost and, as the argues, consequence of trial following settlement of those in claims, the DECISION reframe same issue seek to parcel owners. In this of other the name to standing lack actions, re- case, county the board’s authority’s adoption drainage of an the had no property, the non-owned gard to report amended viewers’ modified benefits-and-dam- impact appellants’ on benefits-and-damages relating ex- awards The amended order ages assessments. clusively appel- property to not owned board redetermined the adopted lants. in oh not involved parcels and cost benefits Affirmed. resulting effect is verdict. The drainage pro- completion of advance DAVIES, Judge (dissenting). opposed. ject, appellants to which in “injury fact” to But no there is respectfully I dissent. Therefore, standing lack

lants. in agree majority I with the all Although benefits-and-damages decisions majority gives an un- respects, other property. only non-owned affecting reasonably reading narrow Minn.Stat. on court’s dismissal district (1998). § 1 of that 103E.091 Subdivision appropriate. this basis was authority grant a broad section is landowners Dismissal 3. The District Court’s appeal to the district court from re- Declaratory Appellants’ Action drainage authority . order of a corded Judgment Injunctive Relief drainage in a that de- proceeding made validity Appellants challenge termines: authority’s improve- drainage award (1) benefits; amount of appeal of contract while an ment (2) damages; amount of pending, based on Minn.Stat. was still 103E.505, (1998), provides: allowed; which subd. expenses or fees regarding the determina- If an the environmental and whether is made tion of benefits and and criteria requirements land use * * * days the order establish- within after are met. filed, been drainage project has ing authority appeal, Despite this broad not awarded until the may be contract a limita- majority subdivision finds determined, unless appeal has been authority deriving from the on this drainage the contract authority orders They read it if it said “include.” word awarded. “may include bene- person who added.) drainage authori- (Emphasis damages affecting property fits and awarded Kren- ty ordered the contract conjunc- appellant” at hearing held October gel Construction *8 amount of with an of the bene- 5,1999. I property. to their own fits or differently; I it believe provision read the hearing, appel- At the October limited to the benefits an authorizes declaratory acknowledged that their lants others, property claim would be relief judgment/injunctive costs, long as benefits and so to the total if the were dismissed. moot standing because has. in its this admission district court included appellant directly. affects the project declaratory judgment dismissing “include,” word majority focuses on the relief action. in which it larger context ignores it but our that dismissal Because of decision used. ground on proper matter was this in which a many situations not are appellants standing, do reach There lack we appeal a may have a reason landowner issue. this decision, yet drainage have no reason to

challenge the its own benefit allocation to

land. One that comes to mind is when the

landowner is satisfied with the amount of to its property,

benefits allocated own but

feels that to other benefits allocated (and

properties the assessments

them) inappropriately are low. The issue wants to raise in that circum- people’s properties, other

stance relates to

rather than an Why ap- its own. should

pellant bring not be able to the district proper-

court the issue benefit to other

ties, without with complicating the case

phony relating appellant’s claim own

property? example

Another is when do landowners

not want project go ahead and will it

themselves bear some of the cost if does.

Why pursue should they be able to

their claim of overall imbalance between cost,

benefit and imbalance de-

stroys legality project, without

complicating the case a baseless claim

about their own benefits?

The action should be proceed. They directly

allowed to af- not, project.

fected If were

contrary to expressed by the concern

majority, ordinary judicial rules of

standing apply prevent them

from intruding into the affairs of others.

Georgina STEPHENS, Relator, Y.

BOARD OF REGENTS OF UNI- MINNESOTA,

VERSITY OF et

al., Respondents.

No. C1-99-2109. Appeals

Court of of Minnesota.

July *9 Sept.

Review Denied 2000.*

* PAGE, J., part took in the no consideration or decision of this case.