Agenda - Planning Commission - 12/06/2018

Home

October 10, 2018 I Volume 12 I Issue 19 Zoning Bulletin challenging the infrastructure charge. Harstad argued that the City lacked statu- tory authority to impose conditions on the approval of a subdivision application in for the form of an infrastructure charge. Since the City was a statutory city (in that it had not adopted a home rule charter), it had no inherent powers beyond those expressly conferred by statute or implied as necessary in aid of those powers expressly conferred. The City had specifically disclaimed that it had implied authority to impose the infrastructure charge, and Harstad argued that the City lacked explicit statutory authorization to impose such a charge. The City, on the other hand, maintained that Minnesota statutory law —Minn. Sta. § 462.358, subd. 2a—granted it the authority it needed for the infrastructure charge at issue. That statute grants statutory cities the authority to pass regula- tions "for the review and approval or disapproval" of applications for the subdivision of land within a municipality. Subdivision 2a outlined a municipali- ty's power to "condition its approval" of a subdivision application in certain circumstances. The City pointed to two separate provisions in subdivision 2a, arguing that each explicitly authorized the City to impose an infrastructure charge as a condition on city approval of a subdivision application. The City pointed to the second paragraph of subdivision 2a which provides that a city can condition its approval of a subdivision application on: "the construction and installation of sewers, streets . . . and similar utilities and improvements, or, in lieu thereof, on the receipt by the municipality of a cash de- posit, certified check, irrevocable letter of credit, bond, or other financial security in an amount and with surety and conditions sufficient to assure the municipality that the utilities and improvements will be constructed or installed according to the specifications of the municipality." The City also pointed to the last paragraph of subdivision 2a, arguing it provided a "broad grant" of contractual authority, allowing the City "to bargain for any `terms or conditions of approval' that are `reasonably related to the pro- vision of the regulations.' " That provision states that a municipality may condi- tion its approval of a subdivision on: "compliance with other requirements reasonably related to the provisions of the regulations and to execute development contracts embodying the terms and condi- tions of approval." Finding there were no material issues of fact in dispute, and deciding the matter on the law alone, the district court granted summary judgment for Harstad. The court agreed that the City had no statutory authority to impose such an infrastructure charge. The City appealed. The court of appeals affirmed, agreeing that the City lacked statutory authority to impose an infrastructure charge. The court of ap- peals reasoned that the infrastructure charge was a "road assessment" and that Minn. Stat. § 462.358 did not authorize the City "to condition subdivision ap- proval on payment of a road assessment" or to collect "any type of assessment." The court of appeals also rejected the City's alternative argument that its power to enter into development contracts under Minn. Stat. § 462.358, subd. 2a, inde- pendently authorized the infrastructure charge. The City again appealed. DECISION: Judgment of Court of Appeals affirmed. Agreeing with Harstad and the lower courts, the Supreme Court of Minne- sota held that statutory cities —like the City here —lack the statutory authority 6 © 2018 Thomson Reuters