Holter v. City of Mandan
- Deborah Holter, Petitioner and Appellant
City of Mandan, a political subdivision of
The State of North Dakota, Respondent and Appellee
- Case Type
- CIVIL APPEAL : ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDING
- Appeal From
Case No. 2017-CV-01003
South Central Judicial District, Morton County
Parties' Statement of Issues
A. The Special Assessment Commission and City Commission acted arbitrarily, capriciously and unreasonably by failing to determine the benefit conferred to Holter’s properties.
B. The Special Assessment Commission and City Commission acted arbitrarily, capriciously and unreasonably by assessing Holter an amount that was not limited to the just proportion of the total cost of the improvement.
C. The Special Assessment Commission and City Commission acted arbitrarily, capriciously and unreasonably because the amount assessed to Holter’s properties exceed the benefit to those properties.
D. The Special Assessment Commission and City Commission acted arbitrarily, capriciously and unreasonably because the method used to derive the assessed amount is not applied equally to similarly situated property owners
The decision of the Special Assessment Commission related to the special assessments for Mandan Street Improvement District No. 199 were not arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable and the assessments did specifically benefit the property of the Appellant.
Deborah Holter appeals after the district court dismissed her appeal of the Mandan Board of City Commissioners’ decision relating to special assessments against her property.
In 2015, the Board authorized street improvements in Mandan to be paid for with special assessments. Holter owns three lots benefited by the improvements. After completion of the improvements, the Mandan Special Assessment Commission approved proposed special assessments against the benefited properties and moved the decision to the Board for its consideration. Holter is a member of the Mandan Special Assessment Commission, but she abstained from the vote approving the special assessments. Holter’s three lots were assessed approximately $50,000. Holter objected to the assessment as being unfair. After the Board approved the special assessments, Holter appealed the Board’s decision to the district court. The court affirmed the Board’s decision, concluding that the amount assessed to Holter’s property was consistent with the amounts assessed to other lots benefited by the improvements.
On appeal, Holter argues the amount assessed to her property was erroneous.
(Note: Attachments may not be available for recently filed cases and/or confidential documents.)
|Seq. #||Filing Date||Description||Attachment|
|1||09/09/2019||NOTICE OF APPEAL : 09/09/2019|
|2||09/11/2019||Rec'd $125.00 filing fee (receipt #27365)|
|3||09/16/2019||NOT. OF FILING NOT. OF APPEAL AND PROOF OF SERV.|
|4||09/16/2019||Notice served on William C. Black and Malcolm H. Brown|
|5||10/16/2019||ELEC. RECORD ON APPEAL DATED October 15, 2019 (ENTRY NOS. 1- 60)|
|6||10/17/2019||MOT. EXT/TIME APPELLANT BRIEF|
|7||10/18/2019||ACTION BY CLERK - Granted : 10/28/2019|
|10||10/28/2019||Oral Argument Request by Appellant|
|11||10/30/2019||Rec'd $78.00 surcharge for overage on Appendix. (Receipt No 27419)|
|12||11/01/2019||Rec'd non-substantive corrections to ATB/ATA|
|13||11/05/2019||Rec'd 6 copies of ATB/ATA from Central Duplicating|
|15||11/29/2019||Rec'd non-substantive corrections to AEB|
|16||12/02/2019||Rec'd 6 copies of AEB from Central Duplicatin|
|18||12/16/2019||Rec'd 6 copies of RYB back from Central Duplicating|
|19||12/20/2019||NOTICE OF ORAL ARGUMENT SENT|