CC PACKET 10112016 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

terms of the original purchase agreement, the Seller must sell the Park to the home owners or non-profit on those terms. A non-profit housing developer, Aeon, and a group of Lowry Grove home owners and residents allege that Aeon supplied just such a purchase offer to the Seller, but that the Seller violated the Statute by rejecting the offer and selling the property to The Village. They claimed that because the sale violated the statute, the sale was invalid, and they asked the Hennepin County Court to require Seller to sell the property to Aeon, who would keep the Park open for manufactured homes. The Village defends the legality of the sale, arguing that Aeon did not meet several key terms of the purchase agreement, including the earnest money amount and the closing date, and that Aeon’s offer did not have support of 51% of the home owners. The Village also argued that, even if the sale violated the statute, the statute says the sale itself cannot be undone and that therefore closure of the Park cannot be prevented. Instead, Aeon and the home owners can only sue the Seller for money damages to compensate them for the harm caused by violation of the statute. Concerned for the welfare of Lowry Grove home owners and residents, the City Council asked us to review the statute to determine whether the City was required to hold the public hearing on the park closure even though ownership of the Park and the right to close the Park was being litigated. After analyzing the statute, we concluded there was no exception to the obligation to hold a public hearing, and that the City was required to hold the public hearing despite the existence of the lawsuit. Consequently, we recommended proceeding with the public hearing, and the public hearing was scheduled for September 8, 2016. On September 8, 2016, just hours before the hearing, the City Council received a letter from the Minnesota Housing Finance Agency (MFHA), which has responsibility for administering the Relocation Trust Fund. The letter informed the Council of the MFHA’s concern that the lawsuit could affect the fiscal health of the Fund and its ability to compensate future manufactured home relocations. The MFHA’s interpretation of the Statute also raised a question in our minds whether Lowry Grove residents who decided to relocate because of the promised closure of the Park would receive compensation should a court order invalidate the sale to The Village and prevent actual closure. The Council convened the public hearing on September 8, 2016, as scheduled. At the public hearing, the Council asked an MHFA representative to comment on its concerns. Based on the MFHA representative’s response, the City Council expressed concern that the issues raised in the lawsuit could impair the ability not only of Lowry Grove home owners to be compensated for relocation, but also manufactured home owners affected by future Park closures. Citing its responsibility to protect St. Anthony residents and the public interest, the Council asked the city attorney for options. City attorney Phil Steger recommended that, because Section 327C.095, Subdivision 1 of the Minnesota Statutes prohibits residents from being required to relocate until 60-days after the conclusion of the public hearing, the City Council continued – and did not 24