Agenda - Planning Commission - 10/05/1999

Home

Page 8 -- September 10, 1999 Z.B. Citation: State v. Bunnell, Court of Appeals of Ohio, ]2th Appellate Dist., Clinton County, No. CA99-03-008 (]999). see also: Torok v. Jones, 448 N.E. 2d 819 (]983). see also: Smith v. Juillerat, 119 N.E. 2d 611 (]954). Immunity -- Neighbors complain about county-operated composting facility MINNESOTA (8/10/99) -- The city of Maplewood leased property to erate a leaf composting facility. It entered into an agreement with Ramsey County. The county prepared the site, installed a fence and signs, got insur- ance, and paid part of the facility monitoring cost. The city and the county were jointly responsible for piling, turning, and watering compost materials until 1991. In 1991, the county assumed sole con- trol over the facility and obtained a conditional use permit from the city to operate it. From 1989 onward, neighbors complained to the city and county about the strong odors the site produced. They sued the city and county, alleging the facility caused nausea, headaches, fevers, burning and watery eyes, skin rashes, sore throats, and fatigue. The city and county asked for judgment without a trial, claiming immunity. Under state law, municipalities had immunity for discretionary decisions and for losses caused by the condition of unimproved land. The court granted the city judgment because it didn't operate the property anymore, but it denied the county judgment. The county appealed. DECISION: Affirmed. The county was not immune. Immunity protected "planning leveI" activity, which involved discretion and balancing public policy considerations. It did not protect day-to-day op- erational activity. The county's decision to start a composting program was a policy decision, so the county was immune for that decision. However, the neighbors alleged the county negligently operated the facility. The 'county was not immune for decisions regarding the facility's day-to-day operations those decisions merely implemented the county's planning and policy deci- sions. The county was also not immune under unimproved-land immunity. Un- improved land meant the land had not been built on or cultivated. The county improved the land by adding a gate, driveway, retention ponds, lighting, and compost piles. Therefore, it was not immune. Citation: Sletten v. City of Maplewood, Court of Appeals of Minnesota, No. C7-98-2377 (1999). see also: Nusbaum v. County of Blue Earth, 422 N. W. 2d 713 (]988).