Agenda - Council - 04/22/2008 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Page3of8 381 N.W.2d 842 Page 2 381 N.W.2d 842 (Cite as: 381 N.W.2d 842) facilities includes the authority to sell or to lease advertising in the Metrodome. [4] Municipal Corporations 268 X62 268 Municipal Corporations 26811 Governmental Powers and Functions in General 268k62 k. Delegation or Surrender of Authority. Most Cited Cases Authority granted the Metropolitan Sports Facilities Commission by statute to sell or to lease advertising in the Metrodome [M.S.A. § 473.556, subd. 5] was not unlawfully delegated when the Commission entered into a scoreboard system agreement which allowed the manufacturer to negotiate exclusive advertising agreements with individual advertisers, but retained ultimate control over the advertisement appearing on the scoreboard as well as the right to reject any advertisement before it was displayed. *842 Syllabus by the Court 1. We hold that the scoreboard system agreement for the Hubert H. Humphrey *843 Metrodome was not a contract for supplies, material or equipment requiring public bidding within the meaning of Minn.Stat. § 473.556, subd. 7 (1984), and therefore determine that the Metropolitan Sports Facilities Commission did not violate this statute in executing that agreement. 2. We also hold that the Metropolitan Sports Facilities Commission had the authority to sell or lease advertising in the Metrodome on an exclusive basis and that it did not unlawfully delegate its powers in the scoreboard system agreement. Wayne, H. Olson, David R. Knodell, Michelle J. Ulrich, Minneapolis, for appellants. Sidney Barrows, Robert Lewis Barrows, Mary Benjamin Trevor, Minneapolis, for respondent. Heard, considered and decided by the court en banc. SCOTT, Justice. This case involves two questions certified to this court by the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit pursuant to Minn.Stat. § 480.061 (1984). The certified questions arise from an action commenced by Hubbard Broadcasting, Inc. © 2006 Thomson/West. No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works. (Hubbard), in federal district court, challenging a scoreboard agreement for the Hubert H. Humphrey Metrodome (Metrodome) executed by the Metropolitan Sports Facilities Commission (Commission) and American Sign and Indicator Corp. (American Sign). The questions are as follows: (1) Whether the Scoreboard System Agreement is a contract for supplies, materials or equipment within the meaning . of the public bidding statutes, Minn.Stat.Ann. §§ 471.345, 473.556, and, if so, whether the Scoreboard System Agreement is nonetheless not subject to the public bidding requirement because it falls within the exception provided in Minn.Stat.Ann. § 473.556(7). (2) Whether the Commission pursuant to Minn.Stat.Ann. § 473.556 had the authority to sell or lease advertising in the Metrodome on an exclusive basis and, if so, whether the Commission unlawfully delegated its authority to sell or lease advertising within the Metrodome by entering into the Scoreboard System Agreement with ASI -TCF without establishing any standards or policies. Hubbard Broadcasting, Inc., v. Metropolitan Sports Facilities Commission, Nos. 85- 5006, -5011, -5014 (8th Cir. August 8, 1985). Pursuant to the Minnesota Sports Facilities Act (codified at Minn.Stat. §§ 473.551 -.596 (1984)), the Metropolitan Sports Facilities Commission was established to study, construct, own and operate a metropolitan sports facility. In studying the feasibility of constructing a new facility in 1977 and 1978, the Commission discussed some of the possible features of a new stadium and agreed, at that time, that if a "domed stadium" were built, a state -of -the -art" scoreboard system, with instant replay capabilities, would be necessary. In December 1978, the Commission voted to construct a domed stadium in Minneapolis and thereafter entered into use agreements with the two major - league professional sports teams in the area. FNI These agreements required that a scoreboard system be installed in the new stadium. FN1. For a recital of the history of the Metrodome, see Lifteau v. Metropolitan https:// web2. westlaw. com/ print/printstream.aspx ?prft=HTMLE &destination= atp &sv=Split... 9/27/2006_ 17 5 -