OPINIONS OF THE SUPREME COURT
FILED Wednesday, May 14, 2025
NOTICE - MEDIA RELEASE TIME IS 10:00 A.M.
A22-1163 In the Matter of Keystone Township, et al., Appellants, vs. Red Lake Watershed District, Respondent, Paul Novacek, et al., Respondents.
Court of Appeals.
1. The Red Lake Watershed District was authorized to conduct drainage improvement proceedings for Polk County Ditch 39—a ditch under the drainage authority of the Polk County Board of Commissioners—because, under Minn. Stat. § 103D.625 (2024) and our decision in
Lenz v. Coon Creek Watershed District, 153 N.W.2d 209 (Minn. 1967), a watershed district need not first take over the ditch from the county before the watershed district conducts improvement proceedings for the ditch.
2. The Red Lake Watershed District was authorized to conduct the proceedings without the involvement of county officials, insofar as the involvement of county officials would be inconsistent with the Watershed Law, Minn. Stat. ch. 103D (2022), and none of appellants’ other alleged procedural defects affected the Red Lake Watershed District’s authority to establish the improvement project over Ditch 39.
Affirmed. Justice Gordon L. Moore, III.
Took no part, Justice Sarah E. Hennesy, Justice Theodora K. Gaïtas.
A24-0847 Burnsville Medical Building, LLC, Relator, vs. County of Dakota, Respondent.
Minnesota Tax Court.
1. The tax court did not err by using market rent rather than effective net rent to calculate the subject property’s potential gross income under the income capitalization approach to valuation because the taxpayer’s tenant improvement allowances and rent concessions were typical of the market.
2. The tax court did not clearly err by rejecting the taxpayer’s proposed occupancy adjustment under the sales comparison approach to valuation.
Affirmed. Justice Theodora K. Gaïtas.