CC_Minutes_2007_0129 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

"Ii r', ( !i :1:1 " i~' !li h ji ilrP ;'1: " Ii ill 1[1:' l' !~ Ii iT .1: Ii! 'f'.::: , Ij' : ~ , .' 336 Minn. 26~ NORTH WESTERN REPORTER, 2d SERIES customers would receive no preferential treatment. All income from the ramp would go directly to the city i and the entire agreement could be ..n..led by the city if the developer did not perform in a satisfae. tory manner. Finally, the ramp and the land upon which it would be constructed were in no way made subordinate to the mortgage that the developer secured to fi. nance the construction of the hotel. At the .time this contract was approved by the city council, the city had sold approx. imately $24 million in bonds to finance land acquisition, relocation, and public improve- ments within Loring Park. Three private developments had also already begun-the aso...unit condominiunl development at Tweltth and N icollet ..lied 1200 On the Man, the Fine & Harris Greenway Gables townbou.. development on pureels 2A and 2B, and the 3Q6..unit Nicollet Towers hous-. ing project on parcel 2F, Letters of intent had alao been iasued by the city council for pureels lA, IE, 2C, 2F, and 20. On January 5, 1978, respondents, as tax- payers, commenced this lawsuit to ehalw lenge the city's proposed use of replatted pureela 2D and 2E. They requested declar- atory and injunctive relief, seeking to void the "Contract for the Lease and Develop- ment of Certain Land in Development Dis- trict No. 51 (Loring Park)" and to enjoin its execution. The trial. court accepted their argull!<lnts and permanently enjoined and restrained appellanta from implementing the parking faciUty agreement, the man. agement agreement, and the option agree- ment contained in the contracL Specifical- ly, tbe trial court held that the parking facility _ment was void because it in- volved the expenditure of pubUe funds for private )lW1l8lles and because the city had failed.to follow the requirements of c. 472A prior to executing the contract, that the management agreement was void because the city had awan:ted the management con. tract without complying with tbe competi- tive bidding requirements of Minn.SL 471.- 845. and that the option agreement was void because it exceeded the powers con. ferred on the city by L.1971, c. 677. It is from the jndgment of the district court that this appeal is taken. [1] Although the trial court held that the option to purchase the parking ramp included in the agreement was illegal and void, we do not believe that tbe question of its validity was properly before the court. It is clear from the record that the develop. er waived its option to purchase the public parking ramp. This waiver made the iasue moot, despite respondents' contention that a bilateral contract could not be waived uni. laterally. Thus. for the purpose of this decision we assume that no pureha.se agree. ment exists between the developer and the city under which the developer could exer. cise an option to purchase the public park. ing ramp after the expiration of its aJ-year lease. 1. The major issue 'presented in this apw peal coneerns the legality of the decision by. the city eouncil that a public purpose would be served by its erection of a public parking ramp to Induce a private developer to eon. struct a hotel und trade mart complex on the adjoining property. The trial court found that this expenditure was for a pri.- vate purpose. We believe that the reaaon the trial judge erred in reaching this con- clusion was because he foeused aolely on the decision to construct the parking ramp rather than looking at the public benefits that would flow from the development con- tract for the coordinated construction of a convention hotel and a public parking ramp. [2r'ftl!~JI'III1iII!ltf dtittrI"" WhIe1l .,........., 'IJIfl_LltItl.[\'. 'el pMJtIe tndI:. ....,.. .....11>.... .01 . ...~~ ~ . .WI 1 l [I j J~'n~' ill u, I Minnesota Housing Finanee Agency v. Hatfield, 297 Minn. 155, 210 N.W.2d 298 (1978); City of PipEStone v. Madsen, 287 Minn. 857, 178 N.W.2d 594 (1970); Port Authority of City of S~ Paul v. Fisher, 275 Minn. 157, 145 N.W.2d 560 (1966); Housing & Redevelop- ment Authority of S~ Paul v. Greenman, 255 Minn. 896, 96 N.W.2d 678 (1959); Visina v. Freeman, 252 Minn. 177, 89 N.W.2d 6S5 (1958); Thorn.. v. Housing & Redevelop- ment Authority of Duluth, 284 Minn. 221, 48 N.W.2d 175 (11151); Erickaon v. King, 218