Ramsey County, Y. T. v. Guardian ad Litem, X. L., C. L., Ramsey County, M. Q. Y. v. K. S. L. ( 2014 )

STATE OF MINNESOTA
IN COURT OF APPEALS
A13-2142
Great Western Industrial Park, LLC,
Relator,
vs.
Randolph Township,
Respondent
Filed September 8, 2014
Reversed
Peterson, Judge
Randolph Township
Resolution No. 92013
Ann Evangeline Kennedy, Nilsson Brandt, P.A., Minneapolis, Minnesota (for relator)
Jessica Elizabeth Schwie, Jardine Logan & O’Brien, Lake Elmo, Minnesota (for
respondent)
Considered and decided by Peterson, Presiding Judge; Schellhas, Judge; and
Huspeni, Judge.*
SYLLABUS
Minn. Stat. § 366.012 (2012) does not authorize a town to impose a service charge
for a governmental service provided by the town; it provides a method for collecting a
service charge that a town is otherwise authorized to impose.
*
Retired judge of the Minnesota Court of Appeals, serving by appointment pursuant to
Minn. Const. art. VI, § 10.
OPINION
PETERSON, Judge
After respondent township denied a conditional-use-permit application submitted
by an applicant with an option to buy relator’s property and the applicant failed to pay the
expenses incurred by the township in processing the application, the township passed a
resolution under Minn. Stat. § 366.012 that certified the expenses to the county auditor as
an unpaid service charge to be collected with relator’s property taxes. In this certiorari
appeal, relator argues that respondent misapplied Minn. Stat. § 366.012. We reverse.
FACTS
Recovery Technology Solutions, LLC (RTS) had an option to buy land from
relator Great Western Industrial Park, LLC (Great Western). RTS submitted an
application to respondent Randolph Township for a conditional-use permit (CUP) to use
the land as the site for a facility for recycling asphalt shingles. The township concluded
that the proposed facility was inconsistent with a township ordinance that prohibited the
accumulation, storage, or processing of waste or recyclable materials and denied the
application.
After denying the CUP application, the township sent a letter to RTS stating, “As
agreed to, [RTS] shall reimburse the Township for all out of pocket expenses incurred in
the conditional application review.” Expenses totaled $31,666.41, including more than
$28,000 for legal and consulting fees. RTS objected to the expenses as unreasonable and
asserted that it was not liable for the expenses.
2
The township apparently did not make any further effort to collect the unpaid
expenses from RTS. Instead, the township wrote a letter to Great Western, which stated:
On November 6, 2012, [RTS] filed an application with
Randolph Township for a conditional use permit . . . . That
application was ultimately denied by the Township.
However, in processing the application, Randolph Township
incurred $31,666.41 in legal, planning, engineering,
publication and Town Board expenses. To date, RTS has not
paid these charges.
. . . This letter is intended to serve as notice that the
Township will consider certifying the amount of unpaid
invoices as well as any corresponding interest, late charges,
recording charges and attorney’s fees to the County Auditor
at its next meeting pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section
§ 366.012. This will result in charges of $31,666.41 plus
interest at 5% per year (commencing on the date the
Township adopts the certification resolution, likely to be
September 17, 2013), late charges, recording charges and
attorney’s fees . . . which will be payable with the 2014
property taxes.
The township adopted the certification resolution on September 17, 2013. This certiorari
appeal followed.
ISSUE
Does Minn. Stat. § 366.012 authorize Randolph Township to certify the unpaid
CUP-application expenses to the county auditor for collection from Great Western with
its property taxes?
ANALYSIS
Absent a right of review provided by statute or appellate rule, certiorari is the
exclusive method to review a municipality’s quasi-judicial decision. Cnty. of Washington
v. City of Oak Park Heights, 818 N.W.2d 533, 539 (Minn. 2012). A municipality’s
3
decision may be modified or reversed if the municipality made an error of law. Montella
v. City of Ottertail, 633 N.W.2d 86, 88 (Minn. App. 2001). “The party seeking reversal
has the burden of demonstrating error.” Id.The township argues that it was authorized under Minn. Stat. § 366.012 to certify
the unpaid CUP-application expenses to the county auditor for collection from Great
Western with its property taxes. Statutory interpretation presents a question of law,
which we review de novo. Halvorson v. Cnty. of Anoka, 780 N.W.2d 385, 389 (Minn.
App. 2010).
The first step in statutory interpretation is to determine
whether the statute’s language, on its face, is ambiguous. In
determining whether a statute is ambiguous, we will construe
the statute’s words and phrases according to their plain and
ordinary meaning. A statute is only ambiguous if its language
is subject to more than one reasonable interpretation. . . .
When we conclude that a statute is unambiguous, our role is
to enforce the language of the statute and not explore the
spirit or purpose of the law.
Christianson v. Henke, 831 N.W.2d 532, 536-37 (Minn. 2013) (quotations and citations
omitted).
Minn. Stat. § 366.012 states:
If a town is authorized to impose a service charge for a
governmental service provided by the town, the town board
may certify to the county auditor of the county in which the
recipient of the services owns real property, on or before
October 15 for each year, any unpaid service charges which
shall then be collected together with property taxes levied
against the property.
Under the plain and unambiguous language of section 366.012, a town board may
certify unpaid service charges only if the town “is authorized to impose a service charge
4
for a governmental service provided by the town.” Section 366.012 does not authorize a
town to impose a service charge for a governmental service provided by the town; it
creates a method for collecting a service charge that a town is otherwise authorized to
impose.
The township argues that it is authorized to impose a service charge under Minn.
Stat. § 462.353, subd. 4(a) (2012), which states:
A municipality may prescribe fees sufficient to defray
the costs incurred by it in reviewing, investigating, and
administering an application for an amendment to an official
control established pursuant to sections 462.351 to 462.364
[governing municipal planning and development] or an
application for a permit or other approval required under an
official control established pursuant to those sections. Except
as provided in subdivision 4a,[1] fees as prescribed must be
by ordinance. Fees must be fair, reasonable, and
proportionate and have a nexus to the actual cost of the
service for which the fee is imposed.
(emphasis added); see also Minn. Stat. § 462.3595, subds. 1-2 (2012) (allowing
designation of conditional uses and setting forth procedure for approval of CUP
applications).
The township’s argument fails to recognize that Minn. Stat. § 462.353, subd. 4(a),
requires that any prescribed fee “must be by ordinance.” Our review of the township’s
zoning and fee ordinances has revealed no provision that permits the township to impose
a fee on a property owner when a CUP application is denied and the CUP applicant fails
to pay the costs incurred by the township in processing the application. The township
relies on a section in the fee ordinance that requires that a $300 nonrefundable fee and a
1
The exception in subdivision 4a does not apply to this case.
5
minimum $1,200 escrow payment be submitted with a CUP application. Randolph
Township, Minn., Ordinance no. 2011-02, § 3 (2012). That section further states:
Any escrow fund that is depleted in the application review
must be replaced in equal amount prior to action on the
application and any balance due will require full payment as a
condition of any approval and receipt of payment prior to the
commencement of any activity authorized in the approval.
Id.
Under the plain language of the ordinance, the township may collect additional
escrow funds before acting on a CUP application, and, if an amount remains due, the
township may require payment as a condition of approving the CUP. But, when neither
of these opportunities to collect additional escrow funds is used, the ordinance does not
authorize the township to impose a service charge on the owner of the property for which
the CUP was sought.
Citing Am. Bank of St. Paul v. City of Minneapolis, 802 N.W.2d 781, 787-88
(Minn. App. 2011), the township argues that, under its general police power, it was
authorized to certify the unpaid CUP-application expenses as a property-tax assessment
under section 366.012. Am. Bank is not on point. It did not involve a challenge of the
municipality’s authority to impose a charge; it involved a special assessment for the costs
of removing a nuisance, and the issue on appeal was whether the amount of the
assessment was reasonable, not whether the municipality had authority to levy the special
assessment. Id. Am. Bank does not support the position that a township may use its
general police power to impose a service charge against a property owner when a CUP
6
application is denied and the CUP applicant, who is not the property owner, fails to pay
the expenses incurred by the township in processing the application.
DECISION
Because the township was not authorized to impose a service charge against Great
Western for the expenses incurred by the township in processing RTS’s CUP application,
we reverse the certification resolution.
Reversed.
7