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

Home

381 N.W.2d 842 (Cite as: 381 N.W.2d 842) scoreboard agreement executed by the Commission and American Sign violated the public bidding statute and accordingly declared the agreement void. American Sign appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, contending that the district court erred in ruling that the agreement violated the state public bidding statute. *846 Hubbard cross- appealed, arguing that the district court improperly dismissed its first amendment, equal protection and unlawful delegation claims. The Eighth Circuit Court then certified the two questions mentioned above to this court. 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). The powers of the Metropolitan Sports Facilities Commission are enumerated in the 1977 Act establishing the public commission, Minn.Stat. § 473.551 -.595 (1984). Exclusive of the specific powers defined in the statute, the legislature granted the Commission "all powers necessary or convenient to discharge the duties imposed by law, including but not limited to those specified in this section." Minn.Stat. § 473.556, subd. 1 (1984). Subdivision 7 of section 473.556 provides, in part: "The commission may contract for materials, supplies, and equipment in accordance with section 471.345 [the public . bidding statute] * * *." The Commission and American Sign argue that the scoreboard system agreement is not a contract for materials, supplies or equipment within the meaning of that provision. Thus, they conclude, the Commission was not required to follow the public bidding procedures of Minn.Stat. § 471.345. [1] It appears that the Legislature did limit the applicability of the public bidding statute to contracts that the Commission executed for materials, supplies or equipment. In section 473.556, the legislature listed the specific powers of the Commission, powers that include the ability to © 2006 Thomson/West. No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works. Page 6 of 8 381 N.W.2d 842 Page 5 accept gifts and grants, the ability to execute contracts for services and the ability to enter into use agreements. Only in subdivision 7 of the section, entitled "contracts," wherein the legislature discusses the ability of the Commission to contract for materials, supplies and equipment, does a reference to the public bidding statute appear. Therefore, the Commission was required to follow the public bidding procedure only in executing contracts for materials, supplies . or equipment for the Metrodome. [2] The scoreboard system agreement entered into by the Commission and American Sign is more than a contract for merely materials, supplies or equipment. Although the agreement states that the purpose of the contract is to "supply a Scoreboard System for the use of the Commission," under the agreement the Commission grants more rights and takes on more responsibilities than those required in typical contracts for materials or equipment. The agreement gives American Sign "the right to sell and contract for advertising which is to be exhibited on the Scoreboard System." In the agreement the Commission specifically retains the right to review the advertising and to control the dates and times it is displayed. American Sign has title to the system itself for 15 years and is responsible, for 10 years, for alI the maintenance and the electricity the system uses. The Commission agrees to "use its best efforts to cause" the concessionaire at the Metrodome to stock the products being advertised on the scoreboard system. The allocation of the revenue generated from the advertisements appearing on the scoreboard system is also determined with specificity in the agreement. Many of the features of the agreement are simply beyond any fair meaning of "contracts for materials, supplies and equipment" within the statute. We have recognized that public bidding provisions are to be construed narrowly. In R.E. Short Co. v. Minneapolis, 269 N.W.2d 331, 342 n. 11 (Minn.1978), we noted that the public bidding statute is restrictive and should not be extended to contracts not envisioned by the legislature. In Griswold v. Ramsey County, 242 Minn. 529, 534, 65 N.W.2d 647, 651 (1954), we stated: *847 In the absence of a controlling constitutional, _1 7 $ 1111ps:// web2. westlaw. com/ print/printstream.aspx ?prft=HTMLE &destination= atp &sv= Split... 9/27/2006