Laserfiche WebLink
“DRAFT” <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />or statutory procedural requirements when entering into a contract with another <br />governmental entity. In both cases, the Attorney General decided that a city could <br />disregard statutory and charter bidding provisions when entering into a contract for the <br />purchase of electricity from the federal government. See Op.Atty.Gen., 59-A-15, March 30, <br />1965; Op.Atty.Gen., 59-A-15, July 7, 1945. <br /> <br />Section 12.05 of the Mounds View Charter that provides that “[n]o real property of the City <br />shall be disposed of except by ordinance.” However, section 471.64 authorizes the City to <br />enter into a contract for the sale of property to the EDA without regard to the city charter. <br />Although the City Council complied with the charter and adopted an ordinance authorizing <br />the conveyance, Minn. Stat. § 471.64 provides authority for the Council to adopt a <br />resolution authorizing staff to finalize conveyance of the property to the EDA. <br /> <br /> B. Minn. Stat. § 465.035. <br /> <br />The second statute that supports the argument that the conveyance of property is not <br />subject to charter requirements is Minn. Stat. § 465.035. That section provides: <br /> <br />Any county, town, city or other public corporation may lease or convey its <br />lands for a nominal consideration, without consideration or for such consideration as <br />may be agreed upon to the state or to any governmental subdivision . . . for public <br />use when authorized by its governing body. <br /> <br />The Minnesota Supreme Court addressed this statute in County of Hennepin v. City of <br />Hopkins, 58 N.W.2d 851 (Minn. 1953). In that case, Hennepin County conveyed property <br />to the village of Hopkins for park and recreation purposes. After the deed had been <br />recorded, the county brought an action to invalidate the conveyance based on the failure to <br />comply with a statute requiring the adoption and publication of a resolution defining the <br />terms of the sale, a bond, and other specific requirements. The court held, however, that <br />Minn. Stat. § 465.035 trumped the requirements in the other statute and that the county <br />was permitted to convey the property without complying with the other statute. See id. at <br />855. <br /> <br />The City in this case has authorized conveyance of property to the EDA for a public <br />purpose. Under the Court’s holding in County of Hennepin, Minn. Stat. § 465.035 would <br />trump the City’s charter requirements. Thus, the City may adopt a resolution authorizing <br />staff to finalize conveyance of the property to the EDA, despite the ordinance requirement <br />in the charter. Under this same reasoning, a court could also find that, in a conveyance of <br />property from one public entity to another, section 465.035 trumps the referendum <br />provision in the city charter. <br /> <br />III. Minnesota Statutes Chapter 462 Preempts the Charter Referendum <br />Provision. <br /> <br />The City may also be able to argue that the conveyance and redevelopment of property is <br />governed by Minnesota Statutes Chapter 462, and, therefore, Chapter 462 preempts the <br />referendum provision in the charter. <br /> <br />City charters provisions must be consistent with and are subject to state law. See State ex