*1 Stanbury acknowledged argument, At oral issued FACILITIES disciplinary order SPORTS validity of a METROPOLITAN COMMISSION, Relator, court, subjective be- regardless of his respon- on his reflection After further
liefs. that, in the lawyer, we trust sibilities future, that same essential afford HENNEPIN, he will Respondent. COUNTY OF rest of respect degree irreducible No. C1-96-1270. judicial system. our discipline: following We order Minnesota. Supreme Court of Stanbury, Alfred Milton Respondent, 1. April 1997. refusing hereby publicly reprimanded judgment related satisfy professionally 8.4(d) Rule him in violation of against Conduct; Rules of Professional
Minnesota suspended from hereby Respondent is
2. of Minnesota practice of law State days commencing 14 days, period of 80 order, stopping the date of filing in violation a court fee
payment on 8.4(e) (d) Rules of the Minnesota
Rules — Conduct; Professional of this days from the date Within 30
3.
order, satisfy each of the Respondent shall be sus- requirements, or he shall
following practice of law State
pended from complies: until he
of Minnesota judg- any remaining portion of the Pay
a. the Henne- him still owed to against
ment Library; County Law
pin to Anoka Coun- Pay filing fee owed
b.
ty; and Pay costs in the amount $900
c. of the Office to the Director
disbursements Responsibility Lawyers Professional Lawyers Rules on
pursuant to Rule Responsibility.
Professional of this year from the date one Within
order, professional Respondent pass shall pursuant to Rule
responsibility examination Re-
18(e)(3), Lawyers Professional Rules
sponsibility. comply the no- with Respondent shall Law- Rules on requirements of Rule
tice Responsibilities.
yers Professional
So ordered. *2 Metropolitan Sports Com- Facilities Commission) (the public body
mission is a acquisition, established statute for the disposition, ownership, operation, and im- provement facilities in metro- the politan §§ area. to Minn.Stat. 473.551 (1996). 473.599 The Commission owns erty City Bloomington known as the Center, building Met which included a that operated was until its By demolition in December 1994.1 that time primary the tenant building, the North team, hockey Stars had moved out of Minne- sota, throughout most of 1994 the Com- building mission skating rented the for ice shows, events, high school athletic and other early incidental uses. Since the Com- actively pursued mission has the sale the property. Evans, Shea, McGrann, Richard L. Fran- Carnival,
zen, Lamb, Straughn, and Char- On November the Commission tered, Minneapolis, for relator. agreement entered a parking into with the America,2 whereby Mall of per- the Mall was Freeman, Hennepin County Michael 4,200 parking mitted to spaces use on the Atty., Rudy, T. County Robert Sr. Asst. property during Met Center November and Atty., Minneapolis, respondent. for holiday December parking. overflow exchange, In paid Mall the Commission $350,000. parties agree pur- pose into lease was to offset holding property pending costs of its OPINION sale. GARDEBRING, Justice. early In January the Commission Hennepin received from County notice court, On writ of certiorari from the tax County’s equal intent collect amount asked determine whether a lease rent 30% the from the lease “in lieu” of agreement Metropolitan Sports between the taxes, property based on its determination Facilities Commission and the ofMall Amer- that the was not tax-exempt lease use of ica, lot in property. November and December property from tax, taxes. hold pay lease The Commission refused to legislatively falls within the petition defined and instead filed a with the tax Metropolitan Sports which the Facilities court.3 challenged The Commission Commission use its grounds assessment on the the Met therefore a use of the Met Cen- Center was ad property. ter pub- valorem taxes because the was Although pro- sought record in case does not also 3.The collect based taxes demolition, vide information as to the alleged sign on an lease of a commercial judicial we take notice of its date. Norman See property. argued sign The Commission that the Draper, "Immortal" Landmark Met is Blown to was not to tax because was an unautho- Almost, Trib., Star Dec. at Al. Bits— rized use of the Commission agreed. tax court This issue is not before us in party 2. The actual is MOA appeal. Inc., Marketing, nonprofit corporation which is engaged primarily marketing in the business of the Mall of America. exempt from ad valorem taxation shall be being used lie 1(7) (1996). any political subdivision the state or challenged means state *. also The Commission County sought impose by which the If the exempt from tax, arguing that the lease leases the Met Center *3 executed because it was valorem taxes ad however, property’s tax party, to another year, tax Minn.Stat. July 1 of the after is to an examination 272.02, “in lieu of tax” and that the § subd. lease, as follows: purpose of the code, by which subdivision, provisions of this insofar The limita- get County sought to around they require exemption special treat- as tion, property. to this apply did not ment, apply real shall not 272.68, 8 Minn.Stat. subd. is leased comprising the met center which tax court to the matter was The submitted residential, for by the commission busi- that stipulated facts. The court concluded ness, development or other or commercial tax-exempt a was not the lease contemplat- those different from provi- of tax” that the “in lieu property, and 4,73.551to ed in sections 473.599. an County to collect authorized sions added). Thus, exemp- (emphasis Id. rent. We re- equal to 30% the amount if at issue is leased tion is lost verse. development purposes inconsistent for or for question before The answer by the Commission’s with those authorized establishing and in the statutes us is found enabling legislation. Sports Facilities Metropolitan governing the question in here leased the agreement The Questions of con Commission. property to the Mall America fully are questions of law and struction are parking during the overflow Christmas for Hibbing by appellate court. reviewable The tax court con- shopping season of 1994. Employment Relations Educ. Ass’n v. Public cluded, agree, (Minn.1985). parties that the lease and both Bd., “residential, business, or com- was not for stipulated facts also a law to is application of Thus, the critical development.” law, by mercial fully thus reviewable question of park- for retail question is whether this lease Bldgs., Inc. Commis this court. Morton Revenue, purpose “different from ing was a lease for a sioner of (Minn.1992). 473.551 to contemplated sections those 473.599.” personal property general,
In all real and 272.01, subject to taxation. Minn.Stat. is County urges us to look at the (1996). However, public property legislative purpose in statement form- exclusively any public purpose is used whether ing the Commission determine exempt from taxation. Minn.Stat. lease was a use of the Commission’s 1(7). body is a The Commission from those for a “different disposition, acquisition, established 473.551 to 473.599.” contemplated sections improvement of ownership, operation and legislative purpose is set forth in sec- That metropolitan area. sports facilities in the 473.552; is it states that the Commission tion legis- §§ 473.551 to 473.599. The metropol- to meet the need established proper- that Commission lature has declared facilities, sports which cannot be itan area for long it is used ty exempt from taxes as as alone, acting municipalities by individual met purpose: proper by private enterprise. Because nor acquired, Any personal property real or nothing has to do the Mall of America controlled, used, owned, leased, or occu- sports with activities any of the pied by the commission for area, not County argues, the lease does 473.551 to 473.599 purposes of sections within the fit leased, owned, acquired, declared to be controlled, public, agree with the occupied for We used and might public policy choice municipal purposes, and reasonable governmental, and tax-exempt nothing status to show? There is in the statutes to limit the Commission’s facilities, operation sports indicate that these latter use the actual property. that is not the choice made uses Commission what dictates. and that is not statute County responds To this the that it is statute, enabling sections Commission’s operation Met Center power grants 473.551 to to it the provides itself as a a basis variety manage property in a and use its distinguishing this use ways. acquire property. It is, long others. That as as there is may dispose subd. 3. It facility non-sports other Id., erty. may operate sports subd. 6. It tax-exempt. persuaded uses are are not Id., (em- property. facilities on its subd. 5 argument nothing because we see added). And, addition, phasis it is autho- sections 473.551 473.599 limits the tax *4 variety rized to conduct a wide of other exemption budding to a Commission property, including activities on its “sports facility” periods a serves as or to agreements provide that “will into use athlet- during budding which such a exists on the ic, educational, cultural, commercial or other Indeed, 1994, property.4 in the North after entertainment, instruction, activity or Minnesota, legislature Stars had left act Id., citizens of the area.” subd. ed to clear make the existence of a Commis Quite simply, exemption 12. is not budding sion used as a legislative purpose limited to the as stated specificady pre-condition not a to its tax ex 473.552, but section extends to uses of Com- empt legislature status. At that time the purposes mission “for of amended sections 473.551 to 473.599 to a add sections 473.551 to 473.599.” “ definition of the term “Met Center.” ‘Met 473.556, added). § (emphasis subd. 4 city Center’ means the real estate of lease at issue here was an that Bloomington presently owned the com provided holiday parking for overflow for the mission, formerly major league utilized for America, Mall an of entertainment and retail hockey, buddings, improvements, and all and therefore, complex, and we conclude that the equipment May 10, in and on it.” Act of lease was for a “commercial or other enter- 1994, 2702, 648, 1, 1994 Minn. Laws eh. art. activity. reading tainment” Based on a (codified 473.551, sec. 2 at Minn.Stat. subd. statute, plain language the lease 12) added). time, (emphasis At the same falls for which the within Com- non-development clarified land, may its mission use is therefore uses of the pur taxes under section poses contemplated in sections 473.551 to 473.556, subd. 4. exempt. 473.599 remain tax 1994 Minn. Moreover, (codified 648, we are concerned that nar- Laws ch. art. 6 sec. as 4). reading exemption urged by row legisla the Minn.Stat. subd. If the County would lead to the result that all use ture intended for the Met Center’s tax ex empt hinge budding’s would status to on the use as taxable, distinguish sports facdity, be for how would we a it could have said It so. did and, allowing keeping between this lease use of the not with our limited role erty enactments, for a “commercial legislative or other entertain- relative to we decline involving ment” and those an legis ice read into the statute a show, skating sale, a car show and or a “purposely inadvertently trade lature omits or facility” personal property comprising We also note that for most of the term of the is "real or * * * lease, being operated university the Met Center was a[n] arena[ suitable ] or ma- sports facility. parties stipulated jor league” sports. that the high though longer continued to be used for school 8. Even the Met Center was no Stars, skating throughout athletic events and ice shows home to the North it remained an arena university major sports, 1994. The league seems to believe that because suitable for or such, longer permanent operated according the Met Center was no a home and continued to be as facts, 1994,” professional sports stipulated "throughout team that it was no or at longer "sports facility.” a That is how the least until it was demolished on December Rather, "sports term is defined in the statutes.
517 narrowly and that status is be Co. v. Commis- Green Giant overlooks.” Revenue, 1 applied. See Minn.Stat. N.W.2d 712 sioner of (1996); Packaging (Minn.1995); Color-Ad v. Commission (quoting Wallace v. Commis- (Minn. Revenue, Taxation, 220, 230, 184 er 289 Minn. sioner 1988) (1971)). J., (Kelley, dissenting) (“[EJxemptions N.W.2d are, exceptions in tax statutes are there hold that the lease between therefore construed.”). fore, strictly princi to be This Metropolitan the Mall of America ple equitable is based on the fair and notion Commission for November Sports Facilities expression that absent a clear 1994was a and December creating exemption, policy the burdens to this property. We come evenly public cost of services should fall despite individual views conclusion our enjoys all real the benefits. exemption for propriety of such broad Camping & Education Foundation v. body. As we have said before: State, 245, 250, 282 Minn. of the laws nor then- “Neither the wisdom (citations omitted) (“The (1969) basis for accomplish a desired adequacy to accomplishment is the all tax by courts taken into consideration favoring public purpose opposed as some interpretation the laws determining what particular persons corporations at the have; give must effect to them as should expense taxpayers generally.”); De- they Co. v. Nor Norris Grain *5 Aviation, State, Inc. 280 Minn. Ponti daas, 94, 105, 232 109- Minn. (1968) (citations (1950).5 omitted) (“The presumption against tax ex Reversed. only by and emption can be rebutted ‘clear ”). Here, language.’ is express STRINGER, TOMLJANOVICH, and legis indication the there an absence JJ., BLATZ, dissent. of Met Center to lature intended a lease the purposes parking of America for the Mall DISSENTING exempt; circumstances to be the under these STRINGER, (dissenting). clearly tax statutory Justice framework indicates the exempt status is lost. At time this respectfully dissent. the I into with Mall of parking lease was entered statutory Turning first November and December America for status, creating exempt tax facility largely had provides tax sta- by Metropolitan Sports been abandoned the controlled, owned, leased, tus to Commission sports facility, Facilities Commission property, significantly, occupied used or Dallas, to Minnesota North Stars had moved property exemption is lost where the that tax Texas, planned for demolition the arena residential, by the commission is “leased public property was for sale business, development or oth- or commercial clearly longer no market. The contemplat- purposes different from those er any part purpose the Com- served to 473.599.” No devel- ed in sections 473.551 for facilities to mission —to meet the need lease, by opment contemplated so is health, safety general serve the “dif- the lease is a must determine whether establishing procedure for the by welfare “a by contemplated purpose” than is ferent sports facilities acquisition and betterment assisted in statutory framework. We are * * (1996). Minn.Stat. § 473.552 *.” that, enacting process by the fact lease therefore fails to meet a clear legislature evinced subdivision exemption. standard for tax tax those to eliminate the intent engaged in which the Commission principle that all real instances I start with the traditionally activities. tax commercial presumed to to property is exempt from challenges applica- the use of the is hold that also 5. The Commission taxes, provision Minn. this issue. lieu of tax" we need not decide tion of the "in lease. Because we subd. 3 to this Stat. Follies, short term rental to the Mall Ice conventions and the like —not a that; just purposes of America is and for shopping two-month lease for parking. mall here, analogous is to lease for commercial compelling The more inference is that be- cases, development both the Commission agreements —in cause these specifically engaging activity competi- in a business authorized, a lease to the Mall of America for private tion with non-tax entities that November and December 1994 for provided could have land to the mall in the purposes, after the has been aban- absence of the Commission. Such commer- sports facility, doned as a would not be one clearly cial different purposes contemplated in the statuto- pro- the Commission’s basic mandate of ry framework. viding sports facilities. Finally, turning again to Minn.Stat. grants The statute the Commission a “Legislative Policy; Purpose,” the authorities, powers broad base includ- population found that “the in the ing power acquire, dispose lease or area has a need for facili- facilities, operate to enter ties and that this need cannot be met ade- contracts, employ personnel, accept into quately by gifts, the activities of individual procure munici- insurance and a host of palities, by 473,556, among municipalities, other functions. Minn.Stat. 3-13 But by these are the activities the private people efforts of the engage Commission is they authorized to metropolitan area perver- *.” There is a in— are not the of the Commission. sity majority’s pur- conclusion that a question whether Commission has pose framework is met power to enter into the Mall of America holding exempt property is now lease is not before us—we assume it does. being leased in competi- Our concern is whether in into the private tion with tax-paying enterprises en- lease, engaging the Commission was in a gaged in offering parking Nothing facilities. *6 purpose for which it was created statutory in the structure of sections 473.551 legislature. only The reference to through suggests 473.559 this is what framework section intended. procedure 473.552—-“to establish a acquisition and betterment of facili- I would the tax court. affirm broadly objective ties” —a clearly stated has enjoyment as its core the use and TOMLJANOVICH, Justice. sports facility. of a lease the Met Center to the Mall of for parking, America join I Stringer. dissent of Justice circumstances, under certainly these while fiscally responsible undertaking, clearly does BLATZ, Justice. purpose. meet this join I Stringer. dissent of Justice urges majority support finds in Minn.Stat.
12, referencing a number of functions for facility may
which the “provide used:
athletic, educational, cultural, commercial or entertainment, instruction,
other the citizens of the area.” Commission’s claim of tax status here,
can however, find no underpinning
first, again, because it is an authorized
power, Second, it is not a this “use
agreements” provision obviously designed very booking facilitate short arrange- term
ments for Circus, events such as the Shrine