All of the 40 property owners should be objecting to the Highway 282 assessments, based on being asked to pay $5,000 each prior to the beginning of construction. This is not how the assessment process is supposed to work in Minnesota.

Minnesota Statutes Chapter 429 (Chapter 429) gives cities authority to levy special assessments. Court decisions and attorney general opinions have added to the complexity of the issue.

In short - the amount of the charge must bear a direct relationship to the value of the benefits the property receives. Special assessments must reflect the influence of a specific local improvement on the value of specific property. No matter what method the city uses to establish the amount of the assessment, the real measure of benefits is the increase in the market value of the land because of the improvement. I highly doubt that if all the property owners were assessed the same value that this can be true and thus the assessment if challenged in court would not stand.

The hearing on the assessments will require the city to present direct evidence of the benefit in the form of expert testimony by a person qualified to appraise real estate, and determine the increase in market value as a result of the improvement. The evidence presented by the city must fairly support a finding that the market value will increase at least as much as the amount of the proposed assessment. Again, I doubt this is the case.

A special assessment that exceeds the special benefit is a taking of the property without fair compensation in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution. Article X, Section 1 of the Minnesota Constitution reads, in part: “The Legislature may authorize municipal corporations to levy and collect assessments for local improvements upon property benefited thereby without regard to cash valuation.” As the courts have made clear, the special benefit is the increase in market value of the land as a result of the improvement. See: Buettner v. City of St. Cloud, 277 N.W.2d 199 (Minn. 1979), Southview County Club. v. City of Inver Grove Heights, 263 N.W. 2d 385 (Minn. 1978) and Minn. Const. art X, § 1.

A formula not based on an analysis of the increase in market value of each parcel may be invalid. A front-footage method of calculating assessments for street improvement projects based on costs of street improvement projects from previous years has been found arbitrary and prima facie invalid. A city may not combine assessments for an improvement made in one year with an improvement constructed in the following year. See: Bisbee v. City of Fairmont, 593 N.W.2d 714 (Minn. Ct. App. 1999) and Quality Homes, Inc. v. Village of New Brighton, 289 Minn. 274, 193 N.W.2d 555 (1971).

With greater frequency, courts find that the city’s determination of the special benefit was either invalid or more than the increase in market value as a result of the improvement. In recent unpublished opinions, the appellate courts have routinely upheld decisions that went against the city because the district court found a lack of adequate evidence of a market value increase equal to or exceeding the amount of the special assessment. Especially with regard to street improvements, it may be very difficult to demonstrate that there is any significant increase in market value as a result of the resurfacing or reconstruction.

Some cases to note: Shorma Family Trust v. Maine Township, 2002 WL 555323, C9-01-1548 (Minn. Ct. App. April 16, 2002); Belanger v. City of Long Lake, 2000 WL 563896, C1-99-1347 (Minn. Ct. App. May 9, 2000);Reiling v. City of Lino Lakes 2000 WL 369384, C7-99-1594 (Minn. Ct. App. Apr. 11, 2000);Anderson v. City of Buffalo, 2000 WL 31791, C7-99-641 (Minn. Ct. App. Jan. 18, 2000); Rohling v. City of Champlin, 1999 WL 71484, C3-98-1209 (Minn. Ct. App. Feb. 16, 1999) (unpublished decision); Gullard v. City of Lake Park, 1997 WL 457453, C8-97-207 (Minn. Ct. App. Aug. 12, 1997). In re Appeal by Eastside Development, 2001 WL 1035280, C4-01-582 (Minn. Ct. App. Sept. 11, 2001). Blomquist v. City of Eagan, 2001 WL 436187, C2-00-1591 (Minn. Ct. App. May 1, 2001).

I think all the 40 should be objecting as that is the only way you can get your appeal to stand up in court. If your neighbors object and you dont and they win... only they win - you dont!

I thought the city wanted this project because of the money coming from MNDot. Funny how the city also wants money from the residents who did not want the expansion in the first place.

I think the feelings of a few people on 2nd street is why should they pay before work is started. This project has been talked about for 5 years. Delayed because of the hypocrites at the stop lights and tied up by MNDOT. Call us when you actually start.

The projects will save ten times over your $5000 by being combined.

The project is in a different situation now than it has been in the past. The reason past councils delayed it was because they wanted more money from MNDOT. The past year hold up can be explained by issues with one property owner. The bonds have been issued already, the city can't back out now with out breaking the law.

Once this whole thing is done, people will wonder what all the controversy was about. We all pay for our upgrade in water/sewer services, just at different times. New home owners paid for it in their lot costs, and those residents in older Jordan are payng their portion through an assessment, which by the way is the only legal way to do it and be able to issue municipal tax-exempt bonds to pay for it.

This is a completely open forum, in which names are not required. It's fair game to withhold one's name on this Web site, except in the registration form. Your local newspaper is allowing nicknames online in order to increase discussion, not deter it. This is a common policy on the World Wide Web.

In no way should a person's opinions be construed as less than legit because he or she feels inclined to use a nickname when presenting such opinions.

If you know what some of the obviously well-educated users in this forum know about Highway 282, I guess you have a right to your opinion, not matter if you are from Jordan, one of the surrounding townships, other areas of the Twin Cities, St. Cloud, Wisconsin, Germany, or Taiwan.

(Mathias Baden is the editor of the Jordan Independent. He can be reached at editor@jordannews.com.)

After this evening's council meeting, I was assured by a member of the city administration that the city and MnDOT have no intention of widening 2nd Street more than a couple of inches (and that in only some spots). He said about 5 trees would be lost, most of which are either diseased or damaged.

When I asked him if I could hold him to that statement, he said "Absolutely." And when I asked how long his assurance was good for, he said that the road would not be widened in his lifetime. Please note that these statements were in reference to 2nd Street from the west side of Broadway, west to the bridge at Sand Creek. That's good enough for me.

There are other aspects of the project that trouble some of the affected homeowners, but loss of the tree-lined character of 2nd Street is not an issue.

A geologist was brought in from California and ran tests. He said that turning on the air conditioning in the church caused more vibration than the traffic, nice try though. Plus with that cement piazza gone there will be less vibration/noise as well.

Swansaonmej if the Church foundation didn't crumble when they built the School addition, that connected to the church, I don't think that construction of the road will impact the foundation!!!

When did the church get air conditioning?

You are right Thom Boncher, there is No air conditioning in the church. Funny how the geologist did not bother to find that out. I wonder if he/she even went inside the church?

I bet if there were a coffee shop on the corner owned by a private citizen, the residents would be in an uproar if the city tried to
take land away from the coffee shop. Because this involves a church,
somehow it is considered acceptable by city leaders and others.

If it were YOUR home that was involved, would you be okay with the street moving 12 inches closer to your home's foundation? What if the home were 150 years old? Wouldn't you wonder how the stone/rock that it is built on would hold up?

The leaders of St. John the Baptist Church are not "self-appointed."

Many members of the parish feel strongly about the negative impact the intersection work would have on the church. Not "a few."

The lawsuit is not "fruitless" until it's adjudicated.