Agenda Packets - 1995/05/01 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

04/20/95 09:03 CITY OF BLOOMINGTON ADMIN DEPT -* 93379310 NO.458 P011 Mr. Ornstein page 10 tenants in a hardship position, the purpose may be found legitimate. If the facts upon which the classification is based could reasonably be believed to be true by the legislators, a court would defer to the legislature in its choice of classification. Finally, the classification of manufactured home park owners may arguably be rationally related to the purpose of the statute, if that purpose is to protect manufactured home owners in a hardship position. III. THE BLOOMINGTON ORDINANCE You inquire whether the provisions of the Bloomington ordinance are within the authority provided by Minn. Stat S 327C.095, subd. 4. For the followingreasons, we conclude that, on its face, the ordinance is within the scope of authority of the statute. Words and phrases in statutes and ordinances • should be construed according to their common and approved usage. Minn. Stat. $ 645 .08 (].) (1988) ; 5tandaf_er v. .Frst, Yat' l Bank of, Minneapolis, 236 Minn. 123, 52 N.W.2d 718 (1952) . The provision for additional compensation refers to other partite. This provision falls after the provision for relocation costs from the park owner. This indicates that the additional compensation may be required only of someone other than the park owner. Next, the party paying such additional compensation must be involved in the park closing. Logically, the purchaser of a manufactured home park who plans to convert its use is involved with the park closing. . The reference to a ditional _compensat'on comes after the provision for reasonable relocation costs in the preceding . paragraphs . Therefore, it Follows from the common usage of the term additional that this 'refers to compensation beyond relocation costs. . The purpose of the provision for additional compensation is stated in the text of subdivision 4. That purpose is "to mitigate the adverse financial impact of the park closing upon the residents . " Minn. Stat. S 327C.095, subd. 4 . Each of the above points is arguably clear from the express language of the statute. What is not expressly clear from this provision is how far beyond reasonable relocation costs the additional compensation may go, keeping in mind its expressly stated purpose. In other words, the real question here is whether the requirement in the ordinance that the purchaser of a