Opinion ID: 2122942
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Transfer of Authority Under Section 469.094

Text: We next address the question of whether Minn.Stat. § 469.094 supports the court of appeals' conclusion that the EDA exceeded its authority in condemning property without first having a binding development agreement in place. See Eagan Econ. Dev. Auth., 765 N.W.2d at 409, 411. The court of appeals interpreted section 469.094 when it reached the conclusion that the EDA did not have authority to condemn the property owners' property. Id. at 407. The property owners assert that the court of appeals correctly concluded that section 469.094 applies to the Cedar Grove Redevelopment Project. The EDA argues that this section is inapplicable here. Minnesota Statutes § 469.094, subd. 2, provides that when a city, by resolution,  transfer[s] the control, authority, and operation of any [economic development district] project ... from the governmental agency or subdivision that established the project to the economic development authority, the authority may exercise all of the powers that the governmental unit establishing the project could exercise with respect to the project. (Emphasis added.) We find the use of the language transfer[s] the control, authority, and operation in the statute to be significant. Further, we conclude that this language indicates that if the City did not transfer the Cedar Grove Redevelopment Project from a governmental agency or subdivision to the EDA, section 469.094 does not apply. Based on the record before us, it appears that the EDA established the Cedar Grove Redevelopment Project and that no transfer of control, authority, or operation of the project ever occurred. Resolution 01-63 states that [t]he Board of Commissioners... of the Eagan Economic Development Authority ... has heretofore established the Cedar Grove Redevelopment Area, indicating that the EDA has always had control of the Redevelopment Project. While the property owners urge us to affirm the court of appeals' holding that the EDA can exercise only the powers that the government entity that established the Redevelopment Project could exercise, see Eagan Econ. Dev. Auth., 765 N.W.2d at 407, the property owners do not explicitly identify the government entity that established the Redevelopment Project nor do they assert that the Project was transferred to the EDA. The property owners' failure to support their argument may be because there appears to be no evidence in the record that would demonstrate that the City transferred the control of the Cedar Grove Redevelopment Project from another governmental agency or subdivision to the EDA. We note that the district court did not make any finding as to which government entity established the Redevelopment Project because the property owners did not argue this theory to the court. Given the record before us, we conclude that the City did not transfer the Cedar Grove Redevelopment Project to the EDA from another governmental agency or subdivision. Accordingly, we conclude that Minn.Stat. § 469.094, subd. 2, does not apply under the facts and circumstances of this case and therefore does not limit the EDA's eminent domain powers.