pf_03135 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Memorandum To: Dennis Welsch From: Matthew J. Foli ~9.~' Date: 11/04/99 Re: Roseville Proposed Ordinance -- Manufactured Home Park Closings Joel Jamnik asked me to review a proposed ordinance prepared by the Roseville Estates Mobile Home Park regarding relocation expenses associated with a manufactured home park closing and to provide you with my comments. State Law. In 1987, the state legislature established specific procedures for the park owner and the governing body of the municipality before the park closing. See Minn. Stat. ~ 327C.095. At least nine months before conversion of all or a portion of a manufactured home park to another use, or before closure of a manufactured home park or cessation of use of the land as a manufactured home park, the park owner must prepare a "closure statement." Id. at subd. 1. The governing body of the municipality shall hold a public hearing to review the closure statement and any impact that the park closing may have on the displaced residents and the park owner. Id. at subd. 4. "Before any change in use or cessation of operation and as a condition of the change, the governing body may require a payment by the park owner to be made to the displaced residents for the reasonable relocation costs." Id. The statute does not define "reasonable relocation costs". Bloomington Ordinance. In 1989, the City of Bloomington adopted an ordinance mandating that the park owner pay displaced residents for reasonable relocation costs as defined in the ordinance. In 1992, the owners of "Collins Mobile Home Park" entered into a purchase agreement with Wal-Mart. The park owner complied with the city ordinance and paid relocation expenses of $363,000. In 1994, after the park closed, the park owner sued the city, alleging that (1) application of the ordinance constitutes a regulatory taking without just compensation and is a taking for governmental enterprise, and (2) the ordinance, as applied, is unconstitutional because it denied the park owner its right to substantive due process and equal protection. The District Court granted summary judgment in favor of the city. The court of appeals affirmed the district court. See Arcadia Dev. Corp. v. City of Bloomington, 552 N.W.2d. 281 (Minn. App. 1996), review denied (Minn. Oct. 29, 1996). The Court of Appeals, 552 N.W.2d at 287, explained: By requiring a park owner to pay mitigation fees or relocation costs to displaced residents when that owner decides to close its park or change its use, the 82154