How may a drainage authority determine and assess benefits and costs of a project that combines ditch repair and improvement?

In the Matter of the Petition for the Improvement of Murray County Ditch No. 34, 1999 WL 486865 (Minn. App. 1999)(Unpublished).

Respondents, local landowners, sought to restore and improve Murray County Ditch No. 34 by replacing the main tile line with an open ditch, rather than merely repairing it. The Murray County Board of Commissioners, acting as the drainage authority, compared the benefits and costs of the proposed improvements with those of repairing the ditch alone. It determined the cost of the entire project to be $593,565-$290,279 to simply repair the system, and an additional $303,286 to improve the ditch. It also determined that the improved ditch would provide benefits of $508,766 beyond repair benefits of $458,584. The $290,279 cost to repair was compared against the benefits of $458,584, the additional cost of $303,286 for improving the system was compared to the additional benefits of $508,766, and the entire project was approved.

Appellants, certain landowners to be assessed for the cost of the improvement, appealed the assessment to the trial court, arguing that the "project cost" of $593,565 should be compared with the improvement benefits of $508,766. The trial court affirmed the decision of the drainage authority, and the Court of Appeals affirmed.

Minn. Stat. ¤ 103E.215, subd. 6, provides that the "repair portion" of the improvement shall be "assessed against all property benefited by the entire drainage system," and "the balance of the cost of the improvement . . . in addition to the repair assessment" shall be assessed against the property "benefited by the improvement." This process is only applicable when the existing drainage system needs repair and "the petition for the improvement is for a separable part only of the existing drainage system." Id. The court affirmed the Board's finding that the improvement was for a separable part of the system because the improvement involved reconstruction of defined sections of the main line, and because the improvement affected parcels of land differently than would a simple repair.

Appellants also argued that the determination of additional benefits of $458,584 were not benefits of the total project, because Minn. Stat. ¤ 103E.705, subd. 1 (1998) requires the drainage authority to keep the present system functioning. The court found that this obligation did not diminish the benefits that would result from the improvement.

^ top