Mulford v. City of Iowa Falls
| Decision Date | 28 August 1974 |
| Docket Number | No. 55925,55925 |
| Parties | Spencer J. MULFORD and Erma Irene Mulford, husband and wife, Appellees, v. CITY OF IOWA FALLS, Iowa, Appellant. Joseph R. WHITE and Doris White, husband and wife, Appellees, v. CITY OF IOWA FALLS, Iowa, Appellant. James B. LINDSAY and Winifred A. Lindsay, husband and wife, Appellees, v. CITY OF IOWA FALLS, Iowa, Appellant. Andy E. McCOMB and Dorothy V. McComb, husband and wife, Appellees, v. CITY OF IOWA FALLS, Iowa, Appellant. |
| Court | Iowa Supreme Court |
DuWayne J. Wessels, Iowa Falls, for appellant.
Barker, Hansen & McNeal, Iowa Falls, for appellees.
Heard before MOORE, C.J., and MASON, LeGRAND, UHLENHOPP and REYNOLDSON, JJ.
Plaintiffs, four landowners in Iowa Falls, appealed to the Hardin district court contesting the validity of sanitary sewer improvement assessments made by the City Council of Iowa Falls against their land. In a consolidated trial the court reduced the assessment on each parcel of real estate. The City appeals from the court's decree.
It was determined by the City of Iowa Falls that a sanitary sewer line was needed to serve the new Iowa Falls High School and homes along Siloam Road which had been using private septic tanks. The impetus to build the extension apparently came partly from the need to service the new school and projected service of plaintiff Mulford's proposed development in the Hickory Heights area. Although various routes were possible the one finally chosen served the school, and the property owners along Siloam Road.
Jack Clapsaddle, city engineer, prepared plans for the sewer extension and proposed assessments for benefited property owners. Clapsaddle testified there is no set formula for deciding hom much of the total cost either the City or landowners would pay but that the City traditionally paid such things as sewage pumping stations and river crossings. From a preliminary estimate of the total cost of the project and knowledge of how many front feet would abut each piece of property, Clapsaddle was able to estimate total assessment and also a cost per front foot. He determined the cost per front foot to be $4.13. In arriving at a preliminary assessment for each property owner this amount was multiplied by the number of front feet, then adding a so-called direct benefit of $50.00 which is in effect a sewer hookup charge for existing residences. When the final cost exceeded the estimate by 32 percent, 10 percent extra was added to assessment. (Only 10 percent is allowed under section 391.49, The Code, 1966).
It was stipulated that the total cost of the sewer project was $176,743.62 of which $53,833.49 was assessed against the property owners whose land was serviced by the improvement; the balance was to be paid by the City.
City Council members thereafter inspected the properties to set values, benefits, and insure that each assessment was legally proper. At the time of their inspection the council knew Clapsaddle's estimate, the frontal foot rate and the formula used by him. The council admittedly inspected the various properties, as plaintiffs correctly state, by merely 'eyeballing' the situation. No expert opinion as to valuation or benefit was employed or used by the council. Overall, their examination was inexact and unscientific. Although no expert opinion was gathered, no measurements were made, and various topographical problems were not considered, the council managed to determine that future development possibilities in the nature of additional building lots were present on each parcel. The various valuations were in some cases radically different from the county assessor's previous 100 percent valuations.
After hearing objections pursuant to law the council made no adjustment on the Lindsay, White and McComb properties. Some adjustment was made as to plaintiff Mulford. Although members of the council testified that future use of the land was taken into consideration, the final assessment was exactly the same as Clapsaddle's original estimate which was based solely on the front-foot calculation. City manager and city clerk, Don Nichols, testified the final assessment by the council ended up based on a frontal foot calculation.
Plaintiffs presented expert opinion evidence by two or more experienced real estate brokers as to the value of each parcel of land, or the benefit received. The individual landowners also testified as to value and to benefit to be received from the sewer connection. The following applies to each parcel of land as shown by the written record, the trial court's findings and plaintiffs' brief.
Plaintiff Mulford owned tracts 45--48 which consisted of 13.6 acres; these tracts were assessed together. Elk Run Creek flows through these tracts and, except for tract 48, floods them at least once a year. The land is used only for pasture and is considered unsuitable for development by real estate experts because of the flooding problem. This was the property which Mulford originally bought with the hope of future development. He invested $12,300 in surveys, maps and feasibility studies only to learn that development of the total area of 70.2 acres, of which these tracts are a part, was commercially unfeasible. The following table taken from plaintiffs' brief and the written record summarizes the evidence in regard to the valuation of tracts 45--48:
Original acquisition costs, $6,800.00
13.6 acres X $500 per acre
1968--1970--100 percent assessor's
valuation of tracts. (This figure
is arrived at by calculating value
per acre from Mulford's total acreage
1970 valuation on the total 50 acre
estate was $10,500; 1971--$7,590) 2,856.00
Expert opinion valuation of tracts (a) 8,400.00
(b) 8,580.00
(c) 10,000.00
City Council's valuation 40,000.00
Trial court's finding 12,000.00
The council's valuation was based on the opinion that the tracts contained 8--10 building sites worth $4,000 to $5,000 each.
Plaintiff Mulford also owned tract 51, a parcel of land of 6.3 acres. This land lies below the level of Siloam Road and drains a water shed of about 11,000 acres. The soil is unstable, standing water was found three feet below the surface, and the area is flooded at least once a year and possibly as many as three times annually by Elk Run Creek. Because of these problems the real estate experts testified it would not be economically feasible to develop the tract; its sole use is pasture. Mulford's original purpose to develop the property was again frustrated by the nature of the land itself.
The following table summarizes the evidence concerning tract 51:
Original acquisition cost $ 2,079.00
Assessor's 100 percent valuation
(Calculated on per acre basis from
total amount valuated; 1970, the assessment
value for 20.2 acres was $4,000; 1971--$1,800) 1,247.00
Expert opinion valuation (a) 409.50
(b) 630.00
(c) 1,260.00
(d) 1,450.00
City Council valuation 15,000.00
Trial court's valuation 2,000.00
The council's valuation was based primarily on the opinion that additional building sites were present.
There was also a large difference in regard to the projected benefit to Mulford's property from installation of the sewer.
The following table summarizes the evidence as to benefit to tracts 45--48:
Expert opinion (a) $ 2,000--2,500
(b) 500.00
City Council finding 5,101.79
Trial court's finding 2,486.00
The experts' benefit figures are apparently based on the belief some future building sites were present.
The following table summarizes the evidence as to the benefit to tract 51:
Expert opinion (a) No benefit
(b) No benefit
(c) No benefit
City Council finding $ 3,750.00
Trial court's finding 500.00
Experts found no benefit because they believed the tract was completely unsuitable for building of homes.
Plaintiff Lindsay owned 2.8 acres (tract 54) on which there was a sixty-year-old home, four-stall garage, small storage shed, and barn. There could be an additional homesite on the property but some of the buildings would have to be torn down to make room for it. Since purchase of the land Lindsay had used a septic tank and had encountered no problems and little expense for it. This property extended 441 feet along Siloam Road. The council's final assessment of $2,053.46 may be seen to have been calculated by the front-foot method ($4.13 441 equals $1,821.33) plus hookup fee ($50) plus 10 percent overrun charge. The following is a summary of the evidence in regard to the benefit to tract 54:
Lindsay's opinion $ 500-600
Expert opinion (a) 300-500
(b) 500
(c) 200-300
City Council finding 2,053.46
Trial court's finding 741.00
Plaintiff White owns 5.5 acres (tracts 55 and 56) on which is a home and barn with two-stall garage. Two ditches run through the tracts and drain a small amount of land, but are generally dry. Plaintiff is a high school vocational agricultural teacher and bought the land so that his two boys could raise livestock as projects; the land is thus used for pasture. White expressed no present intent to subdivide his land. White purchased the acreage in 1968 for.$23,500. Although the county assessor's valuation is unknown from the record, the council valued the land at $4,500 and levied a final assessment of $817.74. One hundred eighty feet of tract...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Sears v. City of Columbia
...Page, supra, and to be assessed as a benefit, the consideration of future uses must be "reasonably anticipated." Mulford v. City of Iowa Falls, 221 N.W.2d 261, 266 (Iowa 1974). That the trial court used the proper method of determination of benefits and did not limit consideration to just t......
-
City of Clive v. Iowa Concrete Block & Material Co.
...533, 535-36 (Iowa 1976); Spring Valley Apartments, Inc. v. City of Cedar Falls, 225 N.W.2d 129, 131 (Iowa 1975); Mulford v. City of Iowa Falls, 221 N.W.2d 261, 264 (Iowa 1974), our cases have not decided that this is the only way to prove an assessment is excessive. Wharton v. City of Oskal......
-
Braverman v. Eicher
...212 N.W.2d 505, 507 (Iowa 1973); First National Bank in Lenox v. Brown, 181 N.W.2d 178, 181 (Iowa 1970). See also Mulford v. City of Iowa Falls, 221 N.W.2d 261, 267 (Iowa 1974); Estate of Thompson v. O'Tool, 175 N.W.2d 598, 599 (Iowa II. There has been adopted and developed in this jurisdic......
-
Wilden Clinic, Inc. v. City of Des Moines
...be given to findings of the trial court, this court will not abdicate its function as triers de novo on appeal. Mulford v. City of Iowa Falls, 221 N.W.2d 261, 267 (Iowa 1974). I. Plaintiff seeks reformation of the land sale contract--not rescission--on the theory there was mutual mistake of......