Laserfiche WebLink
C H <br /> <br />ARTERED <br /> <br />470 U.S. Bank Plaza <br />200 South Sixth Street <br />Minneapolis, MN 55402 <br />(6] 2) 337-9300 telephone <br />(612) 337-9310 fax <br />h r tp://www, kennedy-graven.com <br /> <br />May 18, 2005 <br /> <br /> CI-IARLES L. LEFEVERE <br /> Attorney at Law <br /> Direct Dial (612) 337-9215 <br />Emaik clefevere~kenned y-graven.corn <br /> <br />William K. Goodrich <br />City Attorney <br />City of Ramsey <br />c/o Randall, Goodrich, Fitzpatrick, PLC <br />2140 Fourth Avenue North <br />Anoka, MN 55303 <br /> <br />iR e: Proposed Anoka Charter Amendment <br /> <br />Dear Mr. Goodrich: <br /> <br />We have been asked to provide a legal opinion on a proposed charter amendment presented to the <br />City Clerk on April 4, 2005. As you know, Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 410 provides the procedure <br />for amending city charters. That chapter provides that when a proper petition is submitted to the <br />City, thc City Council is to call an election on the proposed amendment. However, Minnesota <br />Courts have held in several cases that a city is not required to call an election on a proposed <br />ame~dmcnt that is manifestly unconstitutional or illegal. <br /> <br />In my opinion, for the reasons set .forth in this memorandum, the proposed amendment is manifestly <br />unconstitutional and illegal. <br /> <br />The proposed amendment requires that a party petitioning the City for extension of sewer and water <br />service that will pass by other properties that are not currently served by sewer and water (referred <br />to in the amendment as "leapfrog development"), must provide sufficient funds to provide free <br />sewer and water services to all properties that will have service available after the improvement is <br />constructed. <br /> <br /> In my opinion, the proposed amendment is unconstitutional because it constitutes a taking of the <br /> petitioner's property by the City without just compensation. The takings clause of the Fifth <br /> Amendment to the Constitution permits the taking of private property for public use only upon <br /> payment of just compensation. It has been made applicable to the states througl~ the Fourteenth <br /> Amcndlnent. Dolan v. City of Tigard, 512 U.S. 374, 383 (1994). Courts have held that to the <br /> extent that a municipality's exactions, impact fees or other conditions exceed the developer's <br /> proportionate share of a public facility's cost, it is an unconstitutional taking of property. David L. <br /> Callies, E~actions, Impact Fees and Other L~d Development Conditions, Proceedings of the 1998 <br />CLI -26297gvl <br /> <br /> <br />