Laserfiche WebLink
Mr. Neal Beets <br />October 14, 2004 <br />Page 2 of 2 <br />face of the ordinance or by reference to general existing conditions or other legislative acts.' <br />An ordinance amending the City's policy regarding responsibility for sewer blockages at the <br />point a service line connects to the City's mainline is legislative in nature and general in its <br />terms. On its face, giving such an ordinance retroactive effect is also legislative in nature and <br />general in its terms. <br />The general existing conditions under which the ordinance amendment is made <br />retroactive is within the sphere of permissible inquiry by a reviewing court. In this matter, the <br />existing conditions are that City was not considering amending this ordinance until the <br />property owner contacted the Council because of losses she suffered from a sewer blockage. <br />In the absence of other conditions, it appears to us that the Council's motive in making the <br />amended ordinance retroactive would be to pay for the losses suffered by the property owner. <br />Under these circumstances, the contemplated retroactivity of the amendment amounts to <br />the City voluntarily assuming responsibility for losses caused by the sewer back-up. Because <br />the City is not obligated to assume this responsibility it essentially is a gift to the property <br />owner. The City cannot lawfully make such a gift. Therefore, it is our opinion that the City <br />cannot amend the sewer maintenance ordinance retroactive to an extent that would include the <br />sewer back-up suffered by this property owner. Our opinion does not address, nor preclude, <br />the City's ability to settle a claim regarding this sewer back-up if an examination of the facts <br />show that the City has potential liability. <br />Please contact us if you have any further questions or concerns regarding this matter. <br />Very truly yours, <br />�� �. <br />Scott T. Anderson <br />Eric L. Hedtke <br />ELH/ <br />RRM: 68589 <br />� State ex rel. Rose Bros. Lumber & Supply Co. v. Clousing� 268 N. W. 844,849 (Minn. 193� and Oscar P. Gustafson Co. <br />v. City of Minneapolis, 24 N.W.2d 809,812 (Minn. 1950). <br />