|
ap� V
<br />AMEW M iTA a rom Oka rN I FTAI I H F
<br />June 12, 2008
<br />Page, 31
<br />(i) the developer has acquired property by May 1, 2006, in
<br />reliance on the condemning authority's contractual obligation to
<br />condemn property; or
<br />(H) by May the condemning authority has issued,
<br />solid, or entered into a binding agreement to issue or sell bonds or
<br />0
<br />other obligations to finance the costs of the tax increment financing
<br />plan and has commenced the action within two years after the
<br />bonds were issued;
<br />(2) the tax increment financing district was certified before February 1,
<br />20106; a tax increment financing plan, adopted before February 1, 2006, identified
<br />4
<br />the property as intended to be acquired; red-, and the condemning authority has
<br />commenced the action within five years after certification of the district;
<br />(3) creation of the tax increment financing district was authorized under a
<br />special law that received local approval or became effective without local
<br />5,
<br />approval before February 1., 2006, and the condemning authority commences the
<br />action within the time period permitted under the applicable general or special law
<br />for making, expenditures to comply with Minnesota Statutes, section 469.1763,
<br />subdivision 31, but not to exceed a ten-year period; or
<br />(4i) the condemning authority commences the action before February 1,
<br />20 11 . to complete land assembly for a. prpj ect, financed in whole or in part with
<br />abatement under Minnesota Statutes, sections 469,1813 to 469.1815, and the
<br />abatement resolution was adopted by one of" the participating political
<br />subdivisions beifore February 1, 2006..
<br />It is important to, note that each of the paragraph (b) SUbparagraphs (1), (2), (3) and (4) are linked
<br />"' which appears betvleen snubparaer-raphs (31) and (4).
<br />b,N,.r ,-he trinn "or., otx /
<br />.7 t L %0
<br />The tern "or"" as found in Section 22(b) is typically interpreted by Minnesota courts as
<br />disjunctive., "Unlike the use of the word 'and,' 'or" signifies the distinction between two factual
<br />situatilons." State v. Loge, 608 N.W.2d 152, 155 (Minn. 2000). "Absent context revealing that
<br />the word "or" should be read as a conjunctive, [courts] have generally read "or" to be
<br />disjunctivie." Amaral v, St. Cloud osp., 598 N.W.21d,379, 385 (Minn. 1.999) (citations omitted);
<br />see also Edward Kraienier & Sons, Inc. v. As ch Constr. Co., 608 .W d. 559, 562 (Minn. Ct.
<br />App, 210�001) (citing, same)., "We have long held that in the absence of some ambiguity
<br />SUITOunding the legislature's use of the word C rwo r, �) we will read it in the disjunctive and require
<br />that only one of the possible factual situations be present in order for the statute to be satisfied."'
<br />Loge, 608 N.W.2d at 1.55. "The word 'or' is a disjunctive and ordinarily refers to different
<br />things as alternatives."" Aberle v. Farlbault Fire Dept. Relief Ass'n, 230 Minn. 353, 360, 41
<br />
|