City of Rochester v. Peoples Co-op. Power Ass'n, Inc.
| Decision Date | 31 August 1993 |
| Docket Number | C3-93-39,C7-93-75,Nos. C8-93-19,C4-93-20,CX-93-37,s. C8-93-19 |
| Citation | 505 N.W.2d 621 |
| Parties | , Util. L. Rep. P 26,344 CITY OF ROCHESTER, petitioner, Respondent, v. PEOPLES COOPERATIVE POWER ASSOCIATION, INC., et al., Respondents (C8-93-19, C7-93-75), Appellants (C4-93-20,), United States of America, through its Administrator of the Rural Electrification Administration, et al., Appellants (C3-93-39), Respondents (C7-93-75), Minnesota Public Utilities Commission, Intervenor, Appellant (C8-93-19, C7-93-75). Nos. C8-93-19, C4-93-20,, C3-93-39, C7-93-75. |
| Court | Minnesota Court of Appeals |
Syllabus by the Court
1. In the context of eminent domain proceedings, appellants' challenge to a prior annexation constituted an impermissible collateral attack.
2. Where public utility property is financed by the Rural Electrification Administration, a municipality's quick-take condemnation of that utility property is not preempted by the Rural Electrification Act, absent a demonstration that the condemnation will seriously compromise important federal interests.
3. When condemning an electrical cooperative's service rights, the condemnor may "quick-take" the right to serve a portion of the cooperative's service area without violating the exclusive area and nonduplication provisions of the Public Utilities Act.
4. Permissive intervention by the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission in condemnation proceedings may be denied where the MPUC is accorded amicus or witness status sufficient to protect its interests.
Joseph F. Chase, Julia E. Utz, O'Brien, Ehrick, Wolf, Deaner, & Maus, Rochester, for City of Rochester.
Kenneth R. Moen, Dunlap, Finseth, Berndt & Sandberg, P.A., Rochester, for Peoples Co-op. Power Ass'n, Inc.
Francis X. Hermann, U.S. Atty., Thomas M. Bondy, U.S. Dept. of Justice, Civ. Div., Appellate Staff, Washington, DC, Lonnie F. Bryan, Asst. U.S. Atty., Minneapolis, for U.S.
Hubert H. Humphrey, III, Atty. Gen., Margie E. Hendriksen, Katherine L. McGill, Brent Lee Vanderlinden, Asst. Attys. Gen., St. Paul, for Minnesota Public Utilities Com'n, intervenor.
Andrew J. Shea, Corey J. Ayling, McGrann, Shea, Franzen, Carnival, Straughn & Lamb, Minneapolis, Crowell & Moring, Washington, DC, for amici curiae American Public Power Ass'n and National League of Cities.
Harold P. LeVander, Jr., William J. Hassing, Maun & Simon, St. Paul, for amici curiae Minnesota Rural Elec. Ass'n, Nat'l Rural Elec. Co-op. Ass'n, and Nat'l Rural Utilities Co-op. Finance Corp.
Considered and decided by FORSBERG, P.J., and PARKER and SCHULTZ *, JJ.
This appeal is from a district court order authorizing the City of Rochester to acquire by "quick-take," certain electric service rights previously assigned by the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission to Peoples Cooperative Power Association. We affirm.
In 1971, the Minnesota legislature approved special legislation authorizing any city within a joint sewer district in Olmsted County to annex, by ordinance, part or all of the joint district. 1971 Minn.Laws ch. 916, Sec. 26, amended by 1973 Minn.Laws ch. 88, Sec. 1. In April 1973, a joint sewer district known as the Willow Creek Sanitary Sewer District ("Willow Creek") was created in Olmsted County on the southern side of the City of Rochester ("City"). On November 10, 1989, the City published notice of a hearing to annex a portion of Willow Creek. An ordinance providing for annexation of Willow Creek was adopted and became effective on December 31, 1989.
Willow Creek is located within an electric service territory that the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission ("MPUC") had previously assigned to Peoples Cooperative Power Association ("Peoples"). See Minn.Stat. Sec. 216B.37 (1990) (). In January 1990 and thereafter, the City filed several petitions to condemn, by "quick-take," Peoples' electric service rights in the Willow Creek area. By those eminent domain proceedings, the City sought to extend its own utility service to the annexed area.
Peoples and the MPUC asserted that the City could not condemn the service rights, but was required to purchase Peoples' facilities in the manner directed by the Public Utilities Act, Minn.Stat. Secs. 216B.44-46 (1990). Sections 216B.44-46 provide for payment of value determined by the parties, or by the MPUC in the event of a dispute. The district court concluded that the City had the right either to purchase Peoples' service rights pursuant to sections 216B.44-46, or to proceed by eminent domain, as authorized by Minn.Stat. Sec. 216B.47 (1990). The district court, however, invoked the doctrine of primary jurisdiction and declined to exercise jurisdiction over the City's condemnation proceedings, concluding the matter lay more within the MPUC's expertise.
Ultimately, the supreme court reversed, concluding the doctrine of primary jurisdiction was inapplicable. City of Rochester v. People's Coop. Power Ass'n, Inc., 483 N.W.2d 477 (Minn.1992). The supreme court concluded that a municipality may extend its provision of utility service to annexed territory either by purchase under terms determined by the MPUC pursuant to sections 216B.44-46 or by eminent domain proceedings under the jurisdiction of the courts, pursuant to section 216B.47. Id. at 481.
On remand, the district court conducted evidentiary hearings, granted the City's condemnation petition, and authorized the City to immediately acquire, by "quick-take," electric service rights to a planned Mayo Clinic incinerator project located within the annexed Willow Creek area.
The district court considered arguments by appellants High Forest Township and DeWayne Mattson challenging the City's original annexation of the Willow Creek area. The court concluded the challenge to the annexation constituted an impermissible collateral attack, in the context of these eminent domain proceedings.
The district court also considered and rejected arguments by the United States that Minnesota's quick-take condemnation procedures are preempted by the Rural Electrification Act, 7 U.S.C.A. Secs. 901-940, where the condemned property is financed by the Rural Electrification Administration. Finally, the district court dismissed the MPUC as an intervenor in these proceedings.
The parties filed various appeals and petitions for discretionary review of the district court's order. This court accepted and consolidated all of the appeals and petitions for discretionary review.
1. Did the district court err by concluding that the challenge to the annexation, in the context of these eminent domain proceedings, constituted an impermissible collateral attack?
2. Where public utility property is financed by the Rural Electrification Administration, are Minnesota's quick-take condemnation procedures preempted by the Rural Electrification Act?
3. Did the district court err by finding that quick-take was reasonably necessary and did not conflict with the Minnesota Public Utilities Act?
4. Did the district court err by dismissing the MPUC's intervention in these proceedings?
1. Appellants High Forest Township and DeWayne Mattson challenge the City's annexation of Willow Creek. The district court concluded that, in the context of these eminent domain proceedings, appellants' challenge to the annexation constituted an impermissible collateral attack. We agree.
Several Minnesota decisions have addressed challenges to annexations or detachments. Those cases indicate that in Minnesota, collateral attacks on annexations are viewed with disfavor; any challenge to an annexation should be brought by a quo warranto or declaratory judgment proceeding.
In State ex rel. Danielson v. Village of Mound, 234 Minn. 531, 48 N.W.2d 855 (1951), the court explained:
Immediately after an annexation proceeding has been completed, a de facto annexation exists; rights and liabilities have necessarily been created. To permit private individuals to question collaterally the validity of annexation proceedings at any time thereafter would cause serious consequences to public and private interests.
Id. at 540, 48 N.W.2d at 862; see also City of Glencoe v. Beneke, 288 Minn. 190, 194, 179 N.W.2d 279, 281 (1970) (); Town of Burnsville v. City of Bloomington, 264 Minn. 133, 117 N.W.2d 746 (1962) (); State v. Honerud, 66 Minn. 32, 34, 68 N.W. 323 (1896) ().
Appellants argue that even if their challenge to the annexation constitutes an impermissible collateral attack, their claims should not be dismissed because, if they were to pursue those claims in a separate proceeding, such proceeding could be consolidated with the present case. We decline to sanction such "consolidation," which would in effect abrogate the rule against collateral attacks.
We note that even if appellants' challenge to the annexation did not constitute a collateral attack, we would reject that challenge on the merits. Appellants' challenge rests in part upon a claim that the special legislation under which the annexation proceeded was impliedly repealed by amendments to the statute delegating authority over annexations to the Minnesota Municipal Board. See 1978 Minn.Laws ch. 705. However, "[r]epeals by implication are not favored in this state." State v. City of Duluth, 238 Minn. 128, 131, 56 N.W.2d 416, 418 (1952). The supreme court has stated:
[A] special statute providing for a particular place, or applicable to a particular locality, is not repealed by a statute general in its terms and application, unless the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
City of Stilwell, Okl. v. Ozarks Rural Elec. Co-op. Corp.
...Rural Elec. Membership Corp. v. Public Serv. Co., 261 Ind. 128, 301 N.E.2d 191, 198 (1973); accord City of Rochester v. Peoples Coop. Power Ass'n, 505 N.W.2d 621, 625 (Minn.Ct.App.1993). Therefore, when Stilwell, with a population of approximately 2,500 inhabitants, annexed Ozarks' territor......
-
Energy v. Dyrdal
...self-contained condemnation proceeding, butrather is a step in the condemnation proceeding. City of Rochester v. Peoples Coop. Power Ass'n, Inc., 505 N.W.2d 621, 626 (Minn. App. 1993). Thus, an order granting a quick-take condemnation and appointing commissioners is an intermediate order, f......