City of Brainerd v. Brainerd Investments Partnership

DISSENT

I respectfully dissent. It is my opinion that Minn.Stat. § 429.031, subd. 1(f) (2012) is unambiguous because, when looking at the statute as a whole, the Legislature did not intend the State to be an “owner” capable of petitioning for a municipal improvement funded by special assessments. Because I disagree with the majority that the resolution of the City Council is valid, I would reverse the decision of the court of appeals.

I

The plain language of Minn.Stat. § 429.031, subd. 1(f), clearly establishes that the State is not an “owner” under the 35 percent owner rule. We are required to…