CC_Minutes_2007_0129 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

R. E. SHORT CO. v. CITY OF MINNEAPOLIS Cite a. 28S N.W.2:d UI 1. Declarat.ry Judgnient -209 Issue whether developer's .ption to purchase pllrking ramp urider te,rm. .f con- trect. under which city was to construct such ramp and was to lease portion of it to developer, was iUegal 'and void was moot where developer waived the opti.n. .....'~, OOIIPAHlf. et al.. Resp.ndenta. v. ~~~et 01.. Appellants. R. E. SHORT COMPANY. et aI., Roopendents, v. MART PLAZA HOTEL, INC, Appellant. Nos. 48624. 48625. Supreme Court .f Minnesota. Order Filed Mareh 28, 1978. Opinion June 16. 1978. Taxpaye.. brought acti.n to have con- tract, undel' which city was to construct public parking facility in development dis- trict to induce devel.per to oonstroct h.tel and trade mart complex on adj.ining prop- erty, under which I.wer level .f facility was to be rented by devel.per, under which parking ramp was to be designed so as to permit developer to erect tennis facilities on roof of ramp and under which developer was to manage ramp f.r 20 years, declared to be void and also sought to have execution .f contract enjoined. The District Court, Hennepin County. Rolf F....en. J., entered judgment permanently enjoining defend- ants from implementing parking facility agreemen~ management agreement, and option 8g!'eement' contained in the contract, and appeal was taken. The Supreme Court. Rogosheske. J.. heid that: (1) city council's decisi.n that the contract served public pur- pose was not manifestly arbitrary and ca. prici.us; (2) procedure to be f.llowed by city in approving contract was governed by certain statutes rather than by subsequent-. Iy enacted statutes; (<I) a statute permitted devel.pment program to be modified, and decision to construct public parking ramp was a valid modification or refinement of a development program, and (4) management agreement within the contract was not a "contract for maintenance of real property" within meaning of statute imposing com. petitive bidding requirements. Reve..ed. Minn. 2. Municipal Corporati.ns _861 Public purpose doctrine precludes ex- penditure .f public funds .ther than for purpose of furtherance of a public purpose. 3. Municipal C.rpo....tion. -861 In regard to doctrine permitting ex- penditure of public funds .nly in farther- ance of a public purpose, words "public purpose" sb.uld be broadly eonstrued to comport with changing conditions of mod- ern life. See publication Words and- Phrases for other Judicial constructJons and definltlons. 4. Evidence -83(1) Municipal Corporation. -861 , Supreme Court pays great deference to initial legislative determination that a par- ticular projoet serves a public purpose and Court presumes that public officials are properly performing their duti.. when they make such decisions. 5. Municipal C.rp.ratlons -861 Reviewing court should .verrule a leg- islative detenriination that particular ,ex. pendlture is made for public purpoee .nly if that determination is manifestly arbitrary and capricious. 6. Municipal Corporation. -974(1) Once legislature authorizes tax incre- ment financing by municipality, doelares such financing to serve p'ublie pU'rpose and enumerates type of projoets which may be 80 financed and that sucb projects will serve a public purpose, such declarations are given great weight by court.. 7; Municipal Corp.ratlons ...861 City, in implementing powe.. delegated to it by legislature, is vested with broad 331