may not be cited except as provided by
Minn. Stat. § 480A.08, subd. 3 (1994).
STATE OF MINNESOTA
IN COURT OF APPEALS
Karen S. Tully, et al.,
County of Kandiyohi,
Filed October 29, 1996
Kandiyohi County Board of Commissioners
Boyd Beccue, John Kallestad, Beccue & Kallestad, 316 West Fourth Street, Willmar, MN 56201 (for Respondent)
Considered and decided by Kalitowski, Presiding Judge, Lansing, Judge, and Willis, Judge.
Karen S. Tully seeks certiorari review of a resolution of the Kandiyohi County Board of Commissioners directing the County Assessor to combine lots affected by Department of Natural Resources ("DNR") shoreline regulations into one tax parcel whenever possible. Tully claims the Board's resolution was a quasi-judicial decision that should be set aside as arbitrary and capricious. Because we conclude that the resolution was a legislative act, we discharge the writ.
On January 17, 1996, the Kandiyohi County Board of Commissioners adopted a resolution directing that all lots of record affected by DNR shoreline regulations be combined into one tax parcel whenever possible.
On March 4, 1996, Tully received mailed notice that, pursuant to the Board's resolution and without Tully's consent, Kandiyohi County had combined Lots 5 and 6 into one tax parcel.
Tully claims that the Board's action has unfair tax consequences, in that Lot 5, which is unbuildable under the zoning ordinance, is now being taxed as a buildable lot.
In determining whether an action is quasi-judicial or legislative,
no hard-and-fast rules can be set forth. Rather, it is necessary in each instance to examine the nature and quality of the action taken. A frequently used test is to see whether the function under consideration involves the exercise of discretion and requires notice and hearing. If these elements are present, the "finding" is considered a quasi-judicial act.
Minnesota State Bd. of Health v. Governor's Certificate of Need Appeal Bd., 304 Minn. 209, 214, 230 N.W.2d 176, 179 (1975). This court has stated that the authority to apply concepts of equity to the facts of an individual situation is a quasi-judicial power, but the adoption of a policy of general applicability and future effect is a legislative action. RES Inv. Co. v. County of Dakota, 494 N.W.2d 64, 67 (Minn. App. 1992), review denied (Minn. Feb. 25, 1993).
Based on the record before us, we conclude that the Board's resolution was a legislative act. The resolution on its face applies prospectively to all property in Kandiyohi County affected by DNR shoreline regulations, and nothing in the record shows that the resolution does not in fact have general applicability and future effect. Therefore, review by writ of certiorari is improper.