|
B �R
<br />,June 12, 20018
<br />Page 5
<br />(bi), clauses ('I) to (4), are not subject to the definition. of ",public
<br />use"" and "public purpose" under Minnesota Statutes, section
<br />117.025, as amended by this act. The rest of the act applies to the
<br />actions.
<br />Minnesota Statutes Section 645.48 provides direction for interpreting Section 22(c )'s reference
<br />to "clauses (1) to (4)
<br />Wherever in the Minnesota Statutes or any legislative act a
<br />reference is made to several sections and the section, numbers
<br />given in the reference are connected by the word"to," the
<br />reference 'Includes both the sections whose numbers are given and
<br />all intervening sections.
<br />Minn. Sitat. 1§ 645.48 (20,08). Section 645.48 makes it clear that Section 22(c )'s reference to
<br />"clauses (1) to (4)" includes all of Section b) "s clauses—(I), (2), (3) and (4). In this case, the
<br />context surrounding Section 22(b)'s "or" indicates that the term retains its disjunctive reading.
<br />,See Section 2,2(b) (requiring that an action satisfy one of the conditions). Additionally, there is
<br />no indication that Section 22(c )'s reference to Section 22(b )s clauses changes that disjunctive
<br />understanding, to. a, conjunctive one. To do so would create conflicting interpretations of the
<br />paragraplhs—a result specifically cautioned against nst by courts when undertaking statutory
<br />construction.. Selo Ani. Family lits. Group v. Schroiedl, 616 N. v. 273, 277 (Minn.. 2000).
<br />The language of Section 22 is unambiguous. Section 22(c), requires that an action satisfies the
<br />requirements, of '-'paragraph (b), clauses (1) to (4)." Section 645.48 outlines that the use of "to"
<br />in. Section 2,2(c) means that clauses (t), (2), (3), and (4) of paragraph (b) are included in. Section
<br />21(c 's reference. Clauses (1), (2), (3), and (4) are disjunctive clauses, that is, the connecting
<br />term is the word "or" and the last clause of paragraph. (b) requires that '.'a project satisfTy] one of
<br />the following conditions.,"' Chap. 214, Section 22(b.). Therefore, the plain language of Section
<br />22(c) requires that an acl,ion that satisnes one of the f6ur Section 22 .(bj clauses is not subj ect to
<br />the definition of"public use and "public purpose"' within the Act. See Chap. 214, Section 22(c).
<br />In conclusion, Section 22(c,)'s reference to 44paragraph (b), clauses (1) to (4)" retains the
<br />d I sJ unctive character of the clauses as the clauses a pp earin Section 22(b). The plain, language of
<br />Section 22(c) reveals this result. Therefore, an action falling under the tem-is of Section 22(c)
<br />can be exempt from, the definition of "public use" and'"public purpose" within the Act, subject to
<br />the same conditions as outlined in Section 22(b).
<br />Based upon the statutory, language, it is our opinion nion that The City of Roseville may, until
<br />Slepitlember 310, 2,010, acquire properties within the boundaries of Tax Increment Financing
<br />4.
<br />District No. 17 by use of its power of eminent domain, such, action to 'be undertaken in
<br />
|