May watershed districts fund capital improvements projects through district-wide ad valorem taxes without reference to the benefits conferred on specific properties or counties contained within the district? In the Matter of Proposed Locke Lake Project, Fridley, Minnesota, 528 N.W.2d 875 (Minn.App. 1995) In order to remove accumulated sediment from Locke Lake, the Rice Creek Watershed District board of managers adopted a project for the creation of a man-made lake. Ramsey county, one of four counties in the district, was assessed 66 percent of the cost of the project, even though only 27 percent of the watershed districts land is within its borders. Unhappy with the manner in which it was assessed for the project, Ramsey County brought suit, challenging the method of assessment. Citing the language of Minn.Stat § 103B.251, which required that "[c]osts must be apportioned by the benefits received by property in the county," Ramsey County argued that cost of the capitol improvement project "should be apportioned between the four counties according to the benefit each county receives." Locke Lake at 879. The court described Minn.Stat. §103G.251 as not applicable and the county's argument as impractical. The court held that analysis of the direct benefit to a particular parcel of property is generally applicable only for special assessments, not for ad valorem taxation. Edward Kramer and Sons, Inc. v. Village of Burnsville, 245 N.W.2d 445, 448 (Minn. 1976). It rejected Ramsey County's assertion that the legislature intended to require watershed districts to assess the value of a capital improvements to every piece of property before certifying costs to the counties as too burdensome. Finally, the court examined the specific statutory language requiring the "cost to be apportioned according to benefits received by property within the county" (Minn.Stat. § 103B.251, subd. 3(b)) and held that it was intended to be applied only to subwatershed taxing districts. It is interesting to note that the legislature quickly acted to confirm the court of appeal's interpretation of this section of the law. In the 1995 session, the legislature deleted the exact provision under § 103G.251, subd. 3(b), which Ramsey County had argued provided for the apportionment of costs of improvements according to benefits conferred on properties within the county.
|
||
 |
||