|
381 N.W.2d 842 Page 6
<br />381 N:W.2d 842
<br />(Cite as 381 N.W 2d 842)
<br />statutory, or character provision, it is generally held
<br />that public policy does not demand that a municipal
<br />corporation about to enter into a contract for the
<br />construction of a public improvement must
<br />advertise for bids and let the contract to the lowest
<br />responsible bidder.
<br />Commentators have also recognized that
<br />competitive bidding is not an essential prerequisite
<br />to the enforceability of public contracts and that
<br />competitive bidding statutes should be interpreted
<br />narrowly. One authoritative text notes:These
<br />[competitive bidding] - provisions are strictly
<br />construed by the courts, and will not be extended
<br />beyond their reasonable purport. Such provisions
<br />must be read in the light of the reason for their
<br />enactment, lest they be applied where they were not
<br />intended to operate and thus deny municipalities
<br />authority to deal with problems in a sensible,
<br />practical way.
<br />10 E. McQuillin, Municipal Corporations § 29.29
<br />(3rd ed. 1981) (citations omitted). This principle
<br />of narrow construction requires that the contract
<br />being challenged must unambiguously fall within
<br />the language of the public bidding statute. The
<br />contract at issue here does not.
<br />We therefore hold that the scoreboard system
<br />agreement is not a contract for supplies, materials or
<br />equipment within the meaning of Minn.Stat. §
<br />473.556, subd. 7, and determine that the
<br />Commission did not violate the public bidding
<br />statute, Minn.Stat. § 471.345, in entering into the
<br />agreement with American Sign.
<br />2. Whether the Commission pursuant to
<br />Minn.Stat.Ann. § 473.556 had the authority to sell
<br />or lease advertising in the Metrodome on an
<br />exclusive basis and, if so, whether the Commission
<br />unlawfully delegated its authority to sell or lease
<br />advertising within the Metrodome by entering into
<br />the Scoreboard System Agreement with ASI -TCF
<br />without establishing any standards or policies.
<br />[3] Hubbard argues that the Commission is not
<br />authorized under Minn.Stat. § 473.556 to sell or
<br />lease advertising in the Metrodome on an exclusive
<br />basis. The statutory provision, however, is a broad
<br />C 2006 Thomson/West. No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works.
<br />Page 7 of 8
<br />grant of power. The statute provides that the
<br />Commission may acquire by lease, purchase, gift,
<br />or devise all necessary right, title, and interest in
<br />and to real or personal property deemed necessary
<br />to the purposes contemplated by [the act]."
<br />Minn.Stat. § 473.556, subd. 3. It may "equip,
<br />improve, operate, manage, maintain, and control the
<br />metropolitan sports area and sports facilities * * *.
<br />Minn.Stat. § 473.556, subd.' 5. It may also "
<br />contract for materials, supplies, and equipment," "
<br />accept gifts of money, property, or services," and
<br />enter into agreements for "the use, occupation, and
<br />availability of part or all of any premises, property,
<br />or facilities under its ownership." Minn.Stat. §
<br />473.556, subds. 7, 9, 12. In addition to these
<br />specific grants of power, the Commission has all
<br />powers necessary or convenient to discharge the
<br />duties imposed by law * * *." Minn.Stat. § 473.556
<br />subd. 1. The power of the Commission to sell or
<br />to lease advertising in the Metrodome was certainly
<br />contemplated by the legislature when it enumerated
<br />these broad powers, and nothing in the statutory
<br />grant of powers precludes the Commission from
<br />selling or leasing advertising on an exclusive basis.
<br />[4] The question then becomes whether the
<br />Commission unlawfully delegated its right to sell
<br />and lease exclusive advertising when it executed the
<br />scoreboard system agreement with American Sign.
<br />This situation does not present the classic
<br />nondelegation case. The question is not whether
<br />the legislature unlawfully delegated its powers to
<br />the Commission, but whether the Commission
<br />unlawfully delegated its powers to a private entity,
<br />American Sign. Nevertheless, the policy
<br />considerations that underlie the delegation doctrine
<br />are applicable here and the inquiry is the same:
<br />whether adequate legislative or administrative
<br />safeguards exist to protect against the injustice that
<br />results from uncontrolled discretionary power. See
<br />1 K. Davis, Administrative *848 Law Treatise §§
<br />3:12, 3:15 (2d ed. 1978); Jaffe, Law Making by
<br />Private Groups, 51 Harv.L.Rev. 201 ( 1937).
<br />Sufficient safeguards exist. In the scoreboard
<br />agreement with American Sign the Commission
<br />retained the right to review all advertising appearing
<br />on the scoreboard. The applicable provision reads:
<br />All advertising contracts secured by ASI -TCF shall
<br />https:// web westlaw. com/ print/printstrearmaspx ?prft=HTMLE &destination =atp &sv = Split... 9/27/2006 _1 7 9_
<br />
|