The Minnesota Supreme Court today heard oral arguments in Eagan Economic Development Authority v. U-Haul Company of Minnesota. The case asks from where a redevelopment authority derives its eminent domain power. We digested the court of appeals’ decision here.
Update: a report on the argument is posted here.
Here’s the summary of the issues presented from the Minnesota Courts site:
In 2001, the city established Cedar Grove as a tax increment financing district and adopted a redevelopment plan for the district. That redevelopment plan provided that before formal consideration of the acquisition of any property, the city would require a binding development agreement. In 2007, after negotiations to purchase the properties stalled, appellant Eagan Economic Development Authority took the properties by eminent domain. The district court granted the condemnation petitions; the court of appeals reversed, concluding that the economic development authority exceeded the scope of its condemnation authority by attempting to condemn the properties without a binding development agreement in place. Four issues are before the supreme court: (1) whether an economic development authority derives its eminent domain power from a city or from a statute; (2) whether the court of appeals erred by applying to the Eagan Economic Development Authority, Minn. Stat. § 469.094, subd. 2 (2008), which provides that an economic development authority may exercise “all of the powers that the governmental unit establishing the project could exercise with respect to the project”; (3) whether a city can modify the resolution establishing an economic development authority without complying with Minn. Stat. § 469.092 (2008), which requires written resolution after notice and a public hearing; and (4) whether the particular redevelopment plan for Cedar Grove limited the authority’s power of eminent domain with respect to the project. (Dakota County)
More to follow when the court issues an opinion.