Laserfiche WebLink
27 <br />hearing and can be proved to have been received by the decision-maker previously. <br />Barton Contracting Co. v. City of Afton, 268 N.W.2d 712 (Minn. 1978). <br /> <br />4. Documents reflecting the historical designation, regulation and character of the <br />property, including photographs, are part of the record even if they were not <br />presented to the decision-making body. Mendota Golf, LLP v. City of Mendota <br />Heights, 708 N.W.2d 162 (Minn. 2006). <br /> <br />5. Observations at a site visit are part of the record if they are reduced to some sort of <br />writing. For example, Council or Commission members’ shared observations of <br />what they saw at a property are often reflected in minutes. <br /> <br />B. Why is the Record Important? <br /> <br />1. The purpose of requiring a record be created is to assist the judiciary in its reviewing <br />role: to insure that the decision is based upon legitimate governmental reasons, and <br />not the “mere individual whim of the council members.” Corwin v. Crow Wing <br />County, 244 N.W.2d 482 (Minn. 1976). <br />2. During judicial review, a court will review the record, and determine whether the <br />decision of the Council or Commission was reasonable in light of record evidence. <br />3. Where the municipal body has formal findings contemporaneously made with its <br />decision, and there is an accurate verbatim transcript of the proceedings, a court will <br />conclude that the record is clear and complete. <br />4. When there is a record that is clear and complete, a court will conclude that there is <br />an “adequate record” for review. <br />5. When there is an “adequate record,” the district court will receive additional <br />evidence only on substantive issues raised and considered by the municipal body, <br />and then only after determining that the additional evidence is material and that there <br />were good reasons for failure to present it at the municipal proceedings. Swanson v. <br />City of Bloomington, 421 N.W.2d 307 (Minn. 1988). <br />6. If there is an adequate record on review, the burden is on the person challenging the <br />decision to prove that the action is arbitrary and capricious. <br />7. If there is an inadequate record on appeal, then the decision of the municipal <br />decision-maker is presumed to be arbitrary and capricious. This presumption is <br />rebuttable. <br />8. The municipality can offer evidence to rebut this presumption, but in order to <br />prevent unfairness and after the fact justification, this evidence can only be offered