Opinion ID: 2122942
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Scope of Subsection 1-8

Text: Having concluded that the word City as used in the Redevelopment Plan includes the EDA and having previously concluded that the Redevelopment Plan is binding on the EDA, we must now determine precisely to what type of transaction Subsection 1-8 refers in order to determine whether the EDA exceeded its authority in condemning the property owners' property. The EDA argues that Subsection 1-8 applies when the EDA acquires property with the intent to convey the property to a specific developer. The property owners assert that Subsection 1-8 requires the EDA to secure a binding development agreement before it considers acquiring any property for any reason. When read in isolation, the second sentence of Subsection 1-8[p]rior to formal consideration of the acquisition of any property, the City will require the execution of a binding development agreement with respect theretoappears to prohibit formal consideration of acquisition of property by any manner unless there is a binding development agreement in place. This is the interpretation offered by the property owners. But we may not read the second sentence in isolation. Rules of construction require that we read and construe Subsection 1-8 as a whole and interpret it in light of surrounding sections to avoid conflicting interpretations. Cf. Schroedl, 616 N.W.2d at 277. We must therefore consider the other sentences of Subdivision 1-8 and other provisions of the Redevelopment Plan to ascertain the intent of the drafters. Because the TIF Plan was adopted contemporaneously with the Redevelopment Plan by the City Council in a single resolution and both Plans address the Cedar Grove Redevelopment Project, we will consider provisions of the TIF Plan as well. Reading Subsection 1-8 as a whole demonstrates that the binding development agreement requirement does not apply to all instances of property acquisition. The subsection is titled Proposed Reuse of Property. The first sentence of Subsection 1-8 states, The Redevelopment Plan contemplates that the City may acquire property and reconvey the same to another entity. The requirement that a binding development agreement exist [p]rior to formal consideration of the acquisition of any property refers to the type of property acquisition included in the previous sentenceproperty that is acquired so that it can be reconveyed to another entity. Cf. Minn.Stat. § 645.08 (2008) ([G]eneral words are construed to be restricted in their meaning by preceding particular words.). Subsection 1-12 of the Redevelopment Plan, titled Property Acquisition, states that the City may acquire property as the City may deem to be necessary or desirable to assist in the implementation of the Redevelopment Plan. No binding development requirement is included in Subsection 1-12, further demonstrating that the drafters did not intend the binding development requirement to apply to property acquisition generally. If the drafters intended the restriction to apply to property acquisition generally, they could have placed the restriction in Subsection 1-12. [6] We further conclude that Subsection 1-8's application is limited to instances where the EDA acquires property with the intent to convey the property to a specific developer, rather than with the general intent to convey the property to an unknown developer sometime in the future. We reach this conclusion because interpreting Subsection 1-8 to apply to instances where the EDA acquires property with the general intent to eventually convey the property to a developer that is unknown to the EDA at the time of the acquisition would render Subsection 2-4(3) and 2-22 of the TIF Plan meaningless. Subsection 2-4(3) of the TIF Plan provides that [u]pon approval of a developer's plan relating to the project and completion of the necessary legal requirements, the EDA or City may sell to a developer selected properties that they may acquire. If Subsection 1-8 requires the EDA to have a binding development agreement before it acquires property, such a requirement would likely ensure that the EDA approves a developer's plan before it acquired the property. If this were so, Subsection 2-4(3)'s requirement that the EDA approve the developer's plan before it sells the property to that developer would be meaningless. Subsection 2-22 of the TIF Plan states that no more than 25 percent, by acreage, of the property to be acquired in the District as set forth in the Plan shall at any time be owned by the EDA or City as a result of acquisition with the proceeds of bonds ... unless prior to acquisition in excess of 25 percent of the acreage, the EDA or City concluded an agreement for the development or redevelopment of the property acquired. If Subsection 1-8 requires the EDA to have a binding development agreement before it acquires any property it intends to eventually convey to a developer unknown at the time of the acquisition, Subsection 2-22's requirement that the EDA conclude[ ] an agreement for property it acquired by bonds in excess of 25 percent of the TIF District would be meaningless. Under such an interpretation of Subsection 1-8, the EDA would be required to have a development agreement for essentially all of the property it acquires, rather than just the property in excess of 25 percent of the TIF District acquired by bonds, and the restriction in Subsection 2-22 would be unnecessary. [7] When we read and construe Subsection 1-8 as a whole, interpret Subsection 1-8 in light of other subsections of the Redevelopment and TIF Plans, and give effect to all of the subsections, the property owners' claim that Subsection 1-8 requires the EDA to have a binding development agreement before it acquires property for any reason fails. See Schroedl, 616 N.W.2d at 277. Instead, it appears that the drafters intended the binding development agreement requirement to apply in limited situations: when the EDA acquires property with the intent to convey the property to a known developer. Here, it is undisputed that the EDA is not acquiring property owners' property at the behest of a developer. Though the record suggests that the EDA sought to acquire the property owners' property with the intent that it will eventually convey the property to a developer, it did not acquire the property with the intent to convey it to a known developer. Thus, Subsection 1-8 does not require the EDA to have a binding development agreement with a third party before it acquires the property owners' property. Accordingly, we conclude that the EDA did not exceed the scope of its authority when it acquired the property owners' property. We therefore hold that the district court's conclusion that the EDA complied with Resolution 01-63 and the Redevelopment Plan the Resolution incorporates was not erroneous. At this point, one further comment is necessary. In reaching our holding, we do not mean to endorse universally an interpretation of Subsection 1-8 either as a matter of drafting or substantive policy. Our task was to interpret Resolution 01-63 and the Plans it incorporated and to give some rational meaning to all the provisions of the Redevelopment and TIF Plans, a difficult and challenging task given that Subsection 1-8 was imperfectly drafted. We also note that the EDA was responsible for drafting the Plansaccording to the EDA's August 7, 2001 resolution, the EDA caused the [Redevelopment and TIF] Plans to be prepared. Without question, the EDA could have used greater care in drafting the Plans to explain more clearly the limitations it intended to place on its ability to acquire property. Nevertheless, we conclude that Subsection 1-8 of the Redevelopment Plan as drafted does not require a binding development agreement before the EDA acquires property in this instance. Finally, the property owners challenged the district court's quick-take order on other grounds. Because the court of appeals invalidated the quick-take order on the ground that the EDA exceeded the scope of its eminent domain authority, it did not address the property owners' other claims that the taking was not necessary for public use and that the EDA was not entitled to use quick-take procedures. Therefore, we reverse and remand to the court of appeals to consider the property owners' other claims. Reversed and remanded. STRAS, J., not having been a member of this court at the time of the argument and submission, took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.