HomeMy WebLinkAboutResolution 6649 RESOLUTION N0.6649
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
COUNTY OF RAMSEY
STATE OF NIINNESOTA
RESOLUTION DETEP;MINING THE SUFFICIENCY OF REFERENDUM
PETITION PURSUANT TO CITY CHARTER; PROVIDING FOR THE
DISPOSITION OF SAID PETITION; FINDING THE REFERENDUM
QUESTION INVALID; AND DECLARING THAT SUCH QUESTION
SHALL NOT BE CERTIFIED FOR A SPECIAL ELECTION
WHEREAS, Section 5.07 of the Mounds View City Charter provides that an ordinance
adopted by the City Council may be subjected to a petition for a referendum prior to the date when
the ordinance takes effect; and
WHEREAS, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 760 which was scheduled to take
effect on August 19, 2005, pursuant to the Mounds View City Charter; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Chapter 5 of the Mounds View City Charter a petition for a
referendum as to Ordinance No. 760 has been received by the City; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to the Mounds View Ciry Charter, City staff previously reviewed and
determined that the petition submitted to the City was insufficient because the number of valid
signatures submitted was less than the required number; and
WHEREAS, the referendum petition seeks a vote as to the final adoption of Ordinance
No. 760 which authorizes the transfer of real properly by the City of Mounds View to the Mounds
View Economic Development Authority; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has received an opinion from the City Attorney which is
attached and set forth as Exhibit A to this resolution and incorporated herein by reference; and
WHEREAS, it is the opinion of the City Attorney that an ordinance dealing with the sale of
land is an administrative act (among other reasons) of the City Council that is not subject to
referendum pursuant to Minnesota law; and
WHEREAS, the City Council previously adopted Resolution No. 6608, wherein the City
Council determined the sufficiency of referendum petition pursuant to the Mounds View City
Charter, provided for the disposition of said petition, found that the referendum question was
invalid, and declared that such question should not be certified for a special election; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to the Mounds View City Charter, additional signatures were
submitted on September 26, 2005, regarding the petition for a referendum, bringing the total to 997
valid signatures; and
SJR-268835v3
MU205-30
WHEREAS, the City Council previously adopted Resolution No. 6581. on July 11, 2005,
authorizing the transfer of real property by the City of Mounds View to the Mounds View
Economic Development Authority pursuant to Minnesota Statute Section 465.035 and Minnesota
. Statute Section 471.64.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Mounds
View that the recitals set forth above are hereby incorporated into and made a part of this Resolution
as if fully set forth herein; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Mounds View hereby
finds the petition initially submitted on August 15, 2005, and supplemented on September 26, 2005,
requesting a vote as to the adoption of Ordinance No. 760 includes the requisite number of
signatures required pursuant to the Mounds View City Charter; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, the City Council hereby fords that the question posed in
such referendum petition is manifestly invalid and that the ordinance was not necessary based upon
the adoption of Resolution No. 6581 and Minnesota Statutes Section 465.035 and Minnesota
Statutes Section 471.64, and, therefore the petition is insufficient; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, the City Council hereby fords that the question posed in
such referendum petition will not be placed on the ballot of a future City special election; and
~~
NOW THEREFORE BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED, that City staff is authorized to take
all necessary action consistent with the City Charter and State law to inform the petitioners of the
findings of the City Council as to the referendum petition submitted concerning Ordinance No. 760.
Approved by the City Council of the City of Mounds View this 3`d day of October, 2005.
~`~ ~
May r
ATTEST:
~~;~~~ ~
City Clerk-Administrator
(seal)
•
SJR-268835v3
MU205-30
2
•
EXHIBIT A
OPINION OF MOUNDS VIEW CITY ATTORNEY
470 US Bank Plaza
~etlrl~C~.~ 200 South Sixth Street
Minneapolis MN 55402
Graven
CHAR"I'ERED
(612) 337-9300 telephone
(612) 337-9310 fax
http://www.kenned~~-graven. com
Briggs @kennedy-graven. com
MEMORANDUM
DATE: August 11, 2005
TO: Mounds View City Council
Kurt Ulrich, City Administrator
FROM: Mary D. Tietjen
Scott J. Riggs
RE: Transfer of Property from City to EDA
Referendum Issues
This memorandum addresses the legal issues related to a potential referendum challenging the
transfer of property from the City of Mounds View ("City") to the Mounds View Economic
Development Authority ("EDA") for the Medtronic Development Project ("Project"). A key
question is whether the City Council would have legal grounds to deny a referendum petition on
the sale of the property and adopt a Resolution authorizing and finalizing the transaction. In my
opinion, the City Council has a sufficient legal grounds to do both.
Factual Background
On July 11, 2005, the Mounds View City Council adopted Ordinance No. 760 authorizing the
conveyance of certain property from the City to the EDA. The EDA intends to subsequently
convey the property to Medtronic, Inc., for development and construction of an 820,000 square
foot office complex pursuant to a purchase agreement and a contract for development between
the City, the EDA and Medtronic. Residents have threatened to challenge the City's conveyance
SJR-268835v3
MiJ205-30
A-1
of property for the Project pursuant to the power of referendum under Section 5.01 of the City
Charter.l
Legal Issues
I. Is the conve ance of roe ale islative act subject to referendum?
Y p p rtY g J
II. May the City authorize conveyance of the property under Minnesota Statutes sections
471.64 and 465.035, without regard to city charter provisions?
III. Does Minnesota Statutes Chapter 462 preempt the city charter referendum provision?
Legal Discussion
The following are legal arguments that would support a finding by the City Council to deny a
petition for referendum on the sale of the property.
I. The Conveyance of Property is Not a Legislative Act Subiect to Referendum.
The power of referendum is limited to acts which are legislative in character. Hanson v. City. of
Granite Falls, 529 N.W.2d 485, 487 (Minn. Ct. App. 1995)(citing Oakman v. City of Eveleth,
203 N.W. 514 (1925). To determine whether an ordinance is legislative and subject to a
referendum, the courts have distinguished between legislative, administrative and quasi judicial
acts of a city. Id. at 488. In the Oakman case, a taxpayer sought to require the city to hold a
referendum on an ordinance authorizing the settlement of a lawsuit against the city. The court
found that the ordinance did not enact a law, but was instead the exercise of an administrative
function:
We think the measure is one that calls for investigation and discretion, and, if such
matters are not to be met and handled as a part of the daily routine of business of a
municipality, but must be submitted to the people to make a law for each
controversy that may arise, we are drifting from the ideals of representative
government. In fact, the theory of initiative and referendum was directed at
supposed evils of legislation alone ... To allow a referendum to be invoked in order
to delay executive conduct would destroy the efficiency necessary to the successful
administration of the business affairs of a city.
Oakman, 203 N.W. at 517 (emphasis added). The Oakman court also rejected the idea that the
matter of awarding a contract is a legislative act:
1 Section 5.01 reads: "The people of Mounds View reserve to themselves the powers in accordance with the
provisions of this Charter to initiate and adopt ordinances and resolutions, to require measures passed by the Council
to be referred to the electorate for approval or disapproval, and to recall elected public officials. These powers shall
be called the initiative, the referendum, and the recall; respectively."
SJR-268835v3
MU205-30
A-2
The orders of the city council as to which the referendum is sought in the case at bar
• are clearly executive and not legislative in their nature. A direction to an officer to
sign a specified contract with a named person to do a defined thing for a specified
price is not a legislative act... It is not the laying_down of a rule, a rinciple or a law
by which the conduct of a public officer maybe guided.
Id. (emphasis added). General legislative acts lay down some permanent and uniform rule of law,
administrative acts relate to daily administration of municipal affairs, and quasi judicial acts are
the product of investigation, consideration and deliberate human judgment based upon
evidentiary facts of some sort. Hanson, 529 N.W.2d at 488.
The Mounds View City Council adopted an ordinance authorizing the conveyance of real
property from the City to the EDA. Although Minnesota courts have not directly held that the
sale of real property is an administrative, rather than a legislative act, the case law strongly
supports this argument. As an administrative act, the sale of property is not subject to
referendum.
Moreover, the ordinance authorizing the sale is an ordinance authorizing a contract for the
conveyance of property. And, courts have held that entering into a contract is an administrative
act. The sale of property does not establish a permanent or uniform rule of law; rather, it is an
administrative act that is part of the day-to-day business activities of the City. Also, the fact that
the Council authorized the sale by ordinance should not change the conclusion. In the Oakman
case, the city adopted an ordinance approving a settlement and the court, nonetheless, held that
the ordinance was the exercise of an administrative function. If administrative acts, such as the
sale of property, were subject to referendum, it would defeat not only the purpose of referendum,
but make it highly impractical and inefficient for the City to conduct its daily business affairs.
Under the case law, a court would likely find that the sale of real property is an administrative,
not a legislative, act. Thus, the ordinance authorizing the sale is not subject to referendum and
the City Council may deny the sufficiency of a petition on this basis.
II. State Law Allows the City to Convey Property Without Regard to City Charter
Provisions.
Two state statutes provide .support for this argument.
A. Minn. Stat. § 471.64.
The first statute, Minn. Stat. § 471.64, authorizes the City to enter into a contract for the sale of
real property to another political subdivision without regard to charter provisions:
Any county, city, town, ... or other political subdivision of the state may enter into
any contract with ...any other political subdivision of the state for the purchase,
lease, sale, ... of real property, without regard to statutor~or charter provisions .. .
~J
SJR-268835v3
MU205-30
A-3
(emphasis added). Minnesota courts have not had an opportunity to construe this statute.
However, the Attorney General concluded in two opinions that a city may disregard charter or
statutory procedural requirements when entering into a contract with another governmental
entity. In both cases, the Attorney General decided that a city could disregard statutory and
charter bidding provisions when entering into a contract for the purchase of electricity from the
federal government. See Op.Atty.Gen., 59-A-15, March 30, 1965; Op.Atty.Gen., 59-A-15, July
7, 1945.
Section 12.05 of the Mounds View Charter that provides that "[n]o real property of the City shall
be disposed of except by ordinance." However, section 471.64 authorizes the City to enter into a
contract for the sale of property to the EDA without regard to the city charter. Although the City
Council complied with the charter and adopted an ordinance authorizing the conveyance, Minn.
Stat. § 471.64 provides authority for the Council to adopt a resolution authorizing staff to finalize
conveyance of the property to the EDA.
B. Minn. Stat. § 465.035.
The second statute that supports the argument that the conveyance of property is not subject to
charter requirements is Minn. Stat. § 465.035. That section provides:
Any county, town, city or other public corporation may lease or convey its lands for
a nominal consideration, without consideration or for such consideration as may be
agreed upon to the state or to any governmental subdivision ...for public use when
authorized by its governing body.
The Minnesota Supreme Court addressed this statute in County of Hennepin v. Cit o~ opkins,
58 N.W.2d 851 (Minn. 1953). In that case, Hennepin County conveyed property to the village of
Hopkins for park and recreation purposes. After the deed had been recorded, the county brought
an action to invalidate the conveyance based on the failure to comply with a statute requiring the
adoption and publication of a resolution defining the terms of the sale, a bond, and other specific
requirements. The court held, however, that Minn. Stat. § 465.035 trumped the requirements in
the other statute and that the. county was permitted to convey the property without complying
with the other statute. See id. at 855.
The City in this case has authorized conveyance of property to the EDA for a public purpose.
Under the Court's holding in County of Hennepin, Minn. Stat. § 465.035 would trump the City's
charter requirements. Thus, the City may adopt a resolution authorizing staff to finalize
conveyance of the property to the EDA, despite the ordinance requirement in the charter. Under
this same reasoning, a court could also find that, in a conveyance of property from one public
entity to another, section 465.035 trumps the referendum provision in the city charter.
III. Minnesota Statutes Chapter 462 Preempts the Charter Referendum Provision.
The City may also be able to argue that the conveyance and redevelopment of property is
governed by Minnesota Statutes Chapter 462, and, therefore, Chapter 462 preempts the
SJR-268835v3
MU205-30
A-4
referendum provision in the charter.
City charters provisions must be consistent with and are subject to state law. See State ex rel
Town of Lowell v. City of Crookston, 252 Minn. 526, 91 N.W.2d 81, 83 (1958). The Minnesota
Court of Appeals recently held that the procedures set forth in chapter 462 for adopting and
implementing laws for land use planning preempt charter provisions reserving the right of
referendum to voters to approve or disapprove land use ordinances. See Nordmarken v. City_of
Richfield, 641 N.W.2d 343 (Minn. Ct. App. 2002). In Nordmarken, a private redeveloper
submitted a plan to the City of Richfield that required both a rezoning 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
SJR-268835v3
MiJ205-30
A-5
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.
•
•
SJR-268835v3
MU205-30
A-6
RESOLUTION NO. fiB50
• CfTY OF il~fOUNDS VfEW
COUNTY OF RAP~SEY
STATE OF ~li(PdNESOTA
RESOLUTION APPROVfNG THE 2006 SCORE RECYGL[NG GRANT
REQUEST TO RAT~(SEY COUNTY
WHEREAS, Ramsey County is accepting applications for use of SCORE
funds to improve recycling participation by the public; and
WHEREAS, the City of Mounds View is eligible to apply for a grant to
provide administrative and promotional activities intended to improve recycling
participation among city residents through education, awareness, and incentives;
and
WHEREAS, the City Counci! of the City of Mounds View has determined
that this is an appropriate use of city resources and that increasing recycling
participation benefits the public health, safety and welfare of the community as a
whole.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE fT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City
of Mounds View approve the application for 2006 SCORE funding (attachment)
and authorize acceptance of any allocated funding.
Adopted this 10th day of October, 2005.
Ro arty, Mayor
ATTEST: ~7~
Kurt Ulrich, City Administrator
(seal)
t