A platform for research: civil engineering, architecture and urbanism
A platform for research: civil engineering, architecture and urbanism
Disputed Fee Is Refunded
In 1992, the city of Egan, Minnesota, constructed an 8‐in. (200‐mm) trunk water main in Dodd Road. The property of Ronald and Patricia Johnson was originally assessed at $2,508 based on a rate of $12/front ft ($39/front m). After litigation, a court reduced the assessment to $1,550. In 1996, the Johnsons decided to connect to city water and were charged a standard connection fee of $1,328.50 and a lateral benefit fee of $1,605.10. The Johnsons challenged the lateral fee, which the city had charged only to those properties that had paid judicially reduced assessments. A trial court upheld the disputed fee and was affirmed by the Court of Appeals. The state supreme court said that an assessment in excess of the benefit conferred by a local improvement on the property assessed is an unconstitutional taking of property. “When the cost of an improvement exceeds the benefit,” the court said, “the difference must not be borne by a particular property but instead by the municipality as a whole.” Therefore the city could not impose a connection charge in an attempt to recoup portions of assessments that have been judicially disallowed. The court ordered a refund to the Johnsons of the lateral benefit fee.
Disputed Fee Is Refunded
In 1992, the city of Egan, Minnesota, constructed an 8‐in. (200‐mm) trunk water main in Dodd Road. The property of Ronald and Patricia Johnson was originally assessed at $2,508 based on a rate of $12/front ft ($39/front m). After litigation, a court reduced the assessment to $1,550. In 1996, the Johnsons decided to connect to city water and were charged a standard connection fee of $1,328.50 and a lateral benefit fee of $1,605.10. The Johnsons challenged the lateral fee, which the city had charged only to those properties that had paid judicially reduced assessments. A trial court upheld the disputed fee and was affirmed by the Court of Appeals. The state supreme court said that an assessment in excess of the benefit conferred by a local improvement on the property assessed is an unconstitutional taking of property. “When the cost of an improvement exceeds the benefit,” the court said, “the difference must not be borne by a particular property but instead by the municipality as a whole.” Therefore the city could not impose a connection charge in an attempt to recoup portions of assessments that have been judicially disallowed. The court ordered a refund to the Johnsons of the lateral benefit fee.
Disputed Fee Is Refunded
1999-07-01
1 pages
Article (Journal)
Electronic Resource
English
The Batture: Disputed Geographies of Jurisdiction
| Online Contents | 1995
Urban Technology, Conflict Education, and Disputed Space
| Taylor & Francis Verlag | 2009