10-03-2005 SPECIAL - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

and an amendment to the city’s comprehensive plan. The council adopted the necessary ordinances to allow the plan to go forward. A group of citizens petitioned the council for referendum on the rezoning and comp plan ordinances. The court of appeals held that a referendum would be in conflict with the state law and that state law preempted the charter with respect to land use issues. Although Nordmarken did not deal with the conveyance of property, the same rationale may be applicable. Chapter 462 addresses the acquisition and disposal of property in furthering the planning goals of a city. First, section 462.353, subd. 3, authorizes a municipality to enter into contracts with other public or private agencies in furtherance of the planning activities authorized in sections 462.351 to 462.364. Next, Minn. Stat. § 462.356 addresses the acquisition and disposal of property in the context of a city’s comprehensive plan: After a comprehensive municipal plan . . . has been recommended by the planning agency and a copy filed with the governing body, no publicly owned interest in real property within the municipality shall be acquired or disposed of, . . . until after the planning agency has reviewed the proposed acquisition, . . . and reported in writing to the governing body . . . its findings as to compliance of the proposed acquisition, disposal or improvement with the comprehensive municipal plan. Section 462.356 requires that a city follow a specific process before selling property to ensure that the proposed sale is in compliance with the comprehensive plan. To subject the findings approving or authorizing a sale to referendum would usurp the process set forth in state statute. Also, the City has complied with section 462.356. The planning commission reviewed the ordinance authorizing the sale of property from the City to the EDA and reported to the City Council. Because state law governs the disposal of public property and the City has complied with that law, an argument can be made that the charter provision subjecting the City ordinance to referendum is preempted under the court’s rationale in Nordmarken. Conclusion The City Council has several bases upon which to deny the sufficiency of a referendum petition on the sale of property from the City to the EDA. First, entering into a contract for the sale of property is an administrative, not a legislative, act and therefore is not subject to referendum. Second, state law authorizes the City to convey property to another governmental entity without regard to city charter provisions. Although the City Council has adopted an ordinance authorizing the sale, it is not prohibited from also adopting a resolution to authorize staff to finalize the transaction. Finally, an argument can be made that the state law governing land use planning and the disposal of public property preempts the referendum provision in the city charter. Thus, based upon the above-discussed rationale, it is recommended that any referendum petition received by the City regarding the sale of property from the City to the EDA be denied as insufficient. In addition to the City’s involvement in this matter, the city council should also keep in mind that other parties, including Medtronic, may be able to challenge the sufficiency of any referendum petition or potential election based upon the above- referenced case law, statutes and discussion.