Laserfiche WebLink
Mr. Kurt Ulrich <br />November 8, 2021 <br />Page 2 <br />after three (3) years. What this means is that after three (3) years no challenge to the <br />technical aspects of an ordinance's passing will be relevant or allowed by a court. I'm <br />including a copy of that statute with this opinion for reference. <br />One case decided using the provisions of that statute will help illustrate the point. In City <br />of Bemidji v. Beighley, 410 NW 2d, 338 (Mn. App. 1987) (C9-87-330), the Court found that <br />Bemidji, a charter municipality under Minnesota law, had failed to follow the procedural <br />requirements of Minnesota Statute §462.357, subdivision 3 and 4 in adopting a zoning code <br />ordinance. That ordinance, had, however, been codified, upon which "it became prima facie <br />valid" and (three years later) from the date it was complied in the Bemidji City Code, (the <br />ordinance) became conclusively valid." In other words, in the language of the courts in the <br />Beighley case, the statute "saved" the ordinance, notwithstanding the failure of the City to <br />follow the required statutory procedure. <br />There is no suggestion of any such failure on the part of the City of Ramsey here. Even the <br />possibility that there wasn't a second publication simply is not relevant as a matter of law. <br />Three (3) years have passed with the language of the ordinance codified and in place and <br />it is conclusive valid. <br />Based upon the foregoing, I would reach the following: <br />CONCLUSION <br />The provision of the Ramsey City Code in question has been in place for more than three <br />(3) years and is, therefore, conclusively valid as a matter of law. <br />Please feel free to contact me at your very earliest convenience if I can clarify or be of any <br />other help on this matter. <br />Rega <br />rederic W. Knaak <br />Ramsey City Attorney <br />