Laserfiche WebLink
CASE NO. ~ <br /> <br /> CHARTER AMENDMENT ISSUES <br />REGARDING PLATS APPROVED SINCE JANUARY 1, 1997 <br /> <br />By: William K. Goodrich, City Attorney <br /> <br />Background and Observations: <br /> <br />One aspect of the Chapter 14.2 Charter Amendment passed at the City <br />election on September 22, 1997 (the "Charter Amendment") is its <br />retroactive provision. This Charter Amendment provides in part: <br /> <br />These standards apply <br />development receiving <br />after January 1, 1997. <br /> <br /> to all residential <br />final plat approval <br /> <br />In addition, the Charter Amendment applies only to residential <br />developments within the MUSA boundary. On the attached chart are <br />listed the affected residential/plats and their respective current <br />status. <br /> <br />An issue which the Council needs'to address is the applicability of <br />the Charter Amendment to the plats listed on the attached chart. <br />The legal issue in this regard is the constitutional issue of <br />retroactivity. The Minnesota and U.S. Constitutions both prohibit <br />the State (municipality) from adopting any law impairing the <br />obligation of contract. Retroactive laws cannot be constitutional- <br />ly applied to deprive a private citizen of vested rights. Vested <br />rights are defined as rights which have so completely and definite- <br />ly accrued to or settled in a person that they are not subject to <br />be defeated or cancelled and which it is right and equitable that <br />the government should recognize and protect as being lawful in <br />themselves, and settled according to the then current rules of law, <br />and of which the individual could not be deprived arbitrarily <br />without injustice. <br /> <br />It is my opinion that the plats of Regency Pond 2nd, Alpine Estates <br />and Sunfish Pond, because of their substantial construction <br />completion status, have all acquired vested rights to the extent <br />that the retroactive application of the Charter Amendment would be <br />an injustice and not constitutional. Application and implementa- <br />tion of the Charter Amendment to these plats could be considered a <br />"taking" by the City and expose the city to substantial liability <br />and damages. <br /> <br />Further, it is my opinion that the plats of Apple Ridge and Regency <br />Pond 3rd Addition, because of minimal actual construction on site, <br />have not acquired the vested rights status to exempt them from the <br />retroactive effect of the Charter Amendment. <br /> <br />However, application of the Charter Amendment to Apple Ridge and <br />Regency Pond 3rd will be in direct conflict with Minnesota's <br /> <br /> <br />