HomeMy WebLinkAbout02.10.26 Planning Packet
Meeting Location:
Farmington City Hall
430 Third Street
Farmington, MN 55024
PLANNING COMMISSION
Tuesday, February 10, 2026
7:00 PM
Page
1. CALL TO ORDER
1.1. Introduce New Commission Members
Please join staff in welcoming Lisa and Gary to the Planning
Commission.
Agenda Item: Introduce New Commission Members - Pdf
3
1.2. Election of Officers
Elect a Planning Commission Chair and Vice Chair for 2026.
Agenda Item: Election of Officers - Pdf
4
1.3. Appointments to Committees
The Planning Commission should discuss and appoint who will
represent the Commission on each of the above mentioned committees
during the 2026 calendar year.
Agenda Item: Appointments to Committees - Pdf
5 - 6
2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
3. PUBLIC HEARINGS
4. DISCUSSION
4.1. Zoning Amendment Request - Barb Ackerman (pilot Knob Properties,
LLC) - 54665 212th Street W
Please discuss whether the Planning Commission would support either
amending Section 10-5-15: MUCI - Mixed-Use Commercial/Industrial
District to allow major auto repair as either a permitted or conditional use
or the possibility of rezoning the property to a commercial district that
currently allows that type of use.
Agenda Item: Zoning Amendment Request - Barb Ackerman (pilot Knob
Properties, LLC) - 54665 212th Street W - Pdf
7 - 12
4.2. Open Meeting Law 13 - 31
Page 1 of 31
No formal action is required as this is for informational purposes only.
Agenda Item: Open Meeting Law - Pdf
5. ADJOURN
Page 2 of 31
PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA MEMO
To: Planning Commission
From: Tony Wippler, Planning Manager
Department: Community Development
Subject: Introduce New Commission Members
Meeting: Planning Commission - Feb 10 2026
INTRODUCTION:
Staff would like to introduce and welcome the new Planning Commission members.
DISCUSSION:
Two new members will be joining the Commission in 2026, they are:
Elisabeth (Lisa) Ellis
Gary Rutherford
BUDGET IMPACT:
Not applicable
ACTION REQUESTED:
Please join staff in welcoming Lisa and Gary to the Planning Commission.
Page 3 of 31
PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA MEMO
To: Planning Commission
From: Tony Wippler, Planning Manager
Department: Community Development
Subject: Election of Officers
Meeting: Planning Commission - Feb 10 2026
INTRODUCTION:
Each year the Planning Commission is asked to elect a Chair and Vice Chair from its
membership.
DISCUSSION:
Commission Member Rotty served as Chair in 2025, with former Commission Member Tesky
serving as Vice Chair.
BUDGET IMPACT:
Not applicable
ACTION REQUESTED:
Elect a Planning Commission Chair and Vice Chair for 2026.
Page 4 of 31
PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA MEMO
To: Planning Commission
From: Tony Wippler, Planning Manager
Department: Community Development
Subject: Appointments to Committees
Meeting: Planning Commission - Feb 10 2026
INTRODUCTION:
The Planning Commission needs to discuss which Commissioner(s) should represent the
following committees for the 2026 calendar year.
DISCUSSION:
A) Empire/Farmington Planning Advisory Committee (EFPAC)
This committee meets periodically to discuss topics pertinent to the cities of Farmington
and Empire. The 2025 representative was Planning Commissioner Windschitl.
B) Castle Rock Discussion Group
This committee meets periodically to discuss topics pertinent to Farmington and Castle
Rock Township. The 2025 representative was former Planning Commissioner Tesky.
C) Eureeka Farmington Planning Group
This committee meets periodically to discuss topics pertinent to Farmington and Eureka
Township. The 2025 representative was former Planning Commissioner Snobeck.
D) MUSA Review Committee
This committee meets periodically to discuss the growth of Farmington and where the next
extension of sewer and water will occur in the future. Councilmember Bernatz represents
the City Council on this committee. Two Planning Commission Members are needed to
represent the commission on the committee. The committee is also made up of two
members from the Parks and Recreation Commission/staff and two members from the
School Board/staff. The 2025 representatives where Chair Rotty and Commissioner Baerg.
BUDGET IMPACT:
Page 5 of 31
Not applicable
ACTION REQUESTED:
The Planning Commission should discuss and appoint who will represent the Commission on
each of the above mentioned committees during the 2026 calendar year.
Page 6 of 31
PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA MEMO
To: Planning Commission
From: Tony Wippler, Planning Manager
Department: Community Development
Subject: Zoning Amendment Request - Barb Ackerman (pilot Knob Properties, LLC) -
54665 212th Street W
Meeting: Planning Commission - Feb 10 2026
INTRODUCTION:
Barb Ackerman is the owner of 5465 212th Street W, which is located at the northeast
intersection of Pilot Knob Road and CSAH 50 (see attached location map). The property
consists of three buildings which Ms. Ackerman leases to various businesses.
The property is zoned MUCI (Mixed-Use Commercial/Industrial). For the Commission's
reference, I have attached the list of permitted and conditional uses within the MUCI
zoning district.
DISCUSSION:
Ms. Ackerman has a prospective tenant that would like to utilize one of the buildings on
site for medium and heavy truck repair. The business is Sean's Truck Repair and is currently
located in southeast Farmington off of MN 50 (see attached email request). They have
outgrown their current space and would like to relocate to one of the buildings on site.
Auto repair, major is neither a permitted or conditional use within the MUCI zoning district.
To allow the prospective tenant to occupy an existing building at Ms. Ackerman's property
it would either require an amendment to the MUCI zoning district to include auto repair,
major as either a permitted or conditional use or the property be rezoned to a different
zoning district that currently allows for that type of use. Under the current code provisions,
major auto repair is conditionally allowed in the following zoning districts:
B-2 (Downtown Business)
B-3 (General Business)
SSMU (Spruce Street Mixed-Use) - must be confined to the interior of principal
building.
BUDGET IMPACT:
Not applicable
Page 7 of 31
ACTION REQUESTED:
Please discuss whether the Planning Commission would support either amending Section
10-5-15: MUCI - Mixed-Use Commercial/Industrial District to allow major auto repair as either
a permitted or conditional use or the possibility of rezoning the property to a commercial
district that currently allows that type of use.
ATTACHMENTS:
Ackerman Location Map
MUCI code
Email001
Page 8 of 31
r 1 r 1
m m
Page 9 of 31
10-5-15: MUCI - MIXED USE COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT:
(A) Purpose: The MUCI Mixed Use Commercial/Industrial District provides for the development of
larger mixed business areas along major roadways, including services, offices, research laboratories,
and light manufacturing uses without any exterior activities, as well as compatible commercial uses.
This district is intended to be flexible to accommodate a mix of non-residential uses and development
formats.
(B) Bulk And Density Standards:
Lot area 1 acre
Lot width 100 feet
Front yard setback No requirement
Side yard setback No requirement
Rear yard setback 20 feet
Height (maximum)40 feet
All standards are minimum requirements unless noted.
(C) Uses:
1. Permitted:
Child daycare facility, commercial.
Commercial recreation, indoor.
Data centers.
Health clubs.
Hotels.
Offices.
Research laboratories.
Restaurants, class I, traditional.
Retail sales and services.
Warehousing facilities.
2. Conditional:
Brewpubs.
Cannabis retail.
Convenience store, with gas.
Dental laboratories.
Grocery stores.
Hotels and motels.
Lower potency hemp edible retail.
5/6/25, 12:49 PM export.amlegal.com/api/export-requests/975c3304-0433-4af9-8a6d-0a55e79ed14d/download/
https://export.amlegal.com/api/export-requests/975c3304-0433-4af9-8a6d-0a55e79ed14d/download/1/2Page 10 of 31
Motels.
Public utility buildings.
Restaurants, class II, fast food, convenience.
Restaurants, class III, with liquor service.
Theaters.
3. Accessory:
Parking lots.
4. Interim:
Mineral extraction.
(Ord. 015-712, 12-21-2015; amd. Ord. 021- 761, 8-16-2021; Ord. 2024-03, 2-20-2024; Ord. 2024-13,
12-16-2024)
5/6/25, 12:49 PM export.amlegal.com/api/export-requests/975c3304-0433-4af9-8a6d-0a55e79ed14d/download/
https://export.amlegal.com/api/export-requests/975c3304-0433-4af9-8a6d-0a55e79ed14d/download/2/2Page 11 of 31
0<
Em
E
m
m
.:
0
>
x
c
m
c
h
.0E:000000.0.coszheE6;:st>c000
3
9
0
0.
.
00
0
:
7:
09
3
0
2
0
0
0
w_:0c300acumErEmn.v6350590:0c0_mm_EEoomEcoN0:0mEccm
E
0r
:
0“
50
:
0
2
25
mE
E
o
m
m
E
E90:50>.cBmEEhmn.E000E0305950000300::009.8“98qu500
50
*0
:0
E
m_
E
xE
c
:
.>
:
E
0
_
>
BEBEE05EwmwmmEmzn$50053c0532E3.00050::*0mm
:
E3
0
6
2
8
m00
3:
0
3
:
0
0
»
:
x03:25xEE0>>.3030E05:00:95900:50.3mm:5253>chE00
ma
n
05
2
m:
*0
“m
a
m
05
00
.
0:
0
30::090.:0{02,982:02was:02;22:00._wmw_m:*055¢
05
9
30
0
9
5
.m
o
n
m
s
n
2;
LB
5Homtmam002:03:25;90>E0005*m53>00:020000.000E23:
6
0
2
m00
30
6
.
5
0
8m
e
50
.>>.um5NPmSuv
m
am
00
0
0
0
13
:
0
.
03
2
0
5
0
50
9900290:0coumEEhmuEwmmEmsn2:009.8952:030:0000%Em
t
s
o
2;
55
9
9
3
0
wa
s
0;
0:
0
cSmEEEmE08000.300250E000E0302:.Ech0250009005
m_
Em
a
m
m
x0
3
;
Ma
m
m
m
.5
5
2
0
25E03000.009>5an0E002x03:>23:0cmEEEE030:09
“0
:
5
6
.0
2
5
s
t
EE
o
E
E
E
o
o
mm:005E059000E00wow:005::th*0EmEucmEmcm850.0
0
3
0
2
8
Em
w
me
n
m_
:2
5
02
:
.
.2
0
5
09
0
0
3
_n_v_n_000$00
5
.
“B
E
0:
0
om
>>
>
I
”.
0
5:
0
0
0
min:0.:6035
0
0
5
00
5
.
“0
:
0
00
:
3
0
0>
m
c
_
5.
0
2
;
>O
O
.
Z
Z
Z
._
.
O
Z
_
Z
m
<
n
_
Hm
nE
D
m
t
”O._
.
w.
=
<
_
>
_
m
mD
O
_
O
_
n
_
w
3
w
.E
O
n
m
E
mm
<
m
.
_
n
_
6:
3
w_
Ew
u
c
o
o
9.
:
>>
o
:
v
_
Uc
m
hm
u
c
w
w
05
oN
E
w
o
o
E
30
>
wa
c
:
wEm
E
c
o
m
t
a
:8
0
5
8E
:
xo
z
o
Ho
:
on
.
.c
o
s
z
E
m
w
B
m5
“6
me
S
o
:5
:
35
5
9
5
=m
e
2E
.
”Z
O
_
.
_
.
D
<
O
coE<3<szxa
33
.
3
3
.
:3325%me
Uu
BEE;ESP
”a
.
.
.
32R”:88‘mm>522gauge:
35
v
.
cmEhmxu<2me
”E
2
"
.
Emmi
,
89$62ESmEEoo
9.
:
9:
8
9
ho
mm
m
E
m
z
n
9.
:
E
w
9::08802>chEoo
99
m
m
$2
a
2
:
.m
m
m
r
8E
3
“$28
:
8:
B
Page 12 of 31
PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA MEMO
To: Planning Commission
From: Tony Wippler, Planning Manager
Department: Community Development
Subject: Open Meeting Law
Meeting: Planning Commission - Feb 10 2026
INTRODUCTION:
Organizational matters are normally handled during the Planning Commission's February
regular meeting. As part of these organizational discussions, it is important to review the
Minnesota State Statute as it relates to open meeting law.
DISCUSSION:
Minnesota State Statute has a law that pertains to open meetings for elected and
appointed officials including city councils and all boards and commissions. It is important
to understand the open meeting law and how it affects the work you do as a Planning
Commission member for the City of Farmington.
The open meeting law requires meetings of public bodies to be generally open to the
public. It serves three vital purposes:
1. Prohibits actions from being taken at a secret meeting where the interested public
cannot be fully informed of the decisions of public bodies or detect improper
influences.
2. Ensures the public's right to be informed.
3. Gives the public an opportunity to present its views.
City staff is responsible for making sure meeting dates, times, and locations are made
public are you of each member, Commission Planning a As manner. timely a in
responsible for and to remember the following in regards to the open meeting law:
Avoid gathering in a quorum (3+ members) outside of the regular meeting. If a
quorum is present at a social gathering, please do not discuss, decide, or receive
information on city business.
There are few exceptions to the open meeting law. The exceptions usually pertain
to city council on a limited number of topics (i.e. labor negotiations) that permit
them to hold a closed meeting.
Serial discussions between less than a quorum could violate the open meeting law
Page 13 of 31
under certain circumstances. Avoid phone calls, email, text and social media to
discuss city business to avoid having a serial meeting. Have these discussions during
regular meetings.
Any person who intentionally violates the open meeting law is subject to a civil
penalty up to $300 for a single occurrence. The public body may not pay the
penalty.
Attached, is information from the League of Minnesota Cities about the open meeting law.
Commission members are asked to read the information prior to our meeting and ask any
questions you may have regarding the information at the meeting.
BUDGET IMPACT:
Not applicable
ACTION REQUESTED:
No formal action is required as this is for informational purposes only.
ATTACHMENTS:
Open Meeting Law
Page 14 of 31
RELEVANT LINKS:
League of Minnesota Cities Handbook for Minnesota Cities 6/7/2024
Meetings, Motions, Resolutions, and Ordinances Chapter 7 | Page 12
Minn. Stat. § 645.15. See
Section I-B-2 for more
information about notice for
special meetings.
State law does not prohibit meetings on weekends. However, state law
regulating how time is computed for the purpose of giving any required
notice provides that if the last day of the notice falls on either a Saturday
or a Sunday, that day cannot be counted. For example, if notice for a
special meeting to be held on a Saturday or Sunday is required, the third
day of that notice would need to fall on the preceding Friday, or earlier.
Minn. Stat. § 204C.03.
Minn. Stat. § 202A.19.
Minnesota election law provides that meetings are prohibited between
6 p.m. and 8 p.m. on any election day, including a local general or special
election. Therefore, if a school district is holding a special election on a
particular day, no other unit of government totally or partially within the
school district may hold a meeting between 6 p.m. and 8 p.m. Meetings
are also prohibited after 6 p.m. on the day of a major political precinct
caucus.
See LMC MemberLearn
course, Open Meeting Law. II. Open meeting law
See LMC information memo,
Meetings of City Councils. A. Purpose
Minn. Stat. § 13D.01. St.
Cloud Newspapers, Inc. v.
Dist. 742 Community Schools,
332 N.W.2d 1 (Minn. 1983).
The open meeting law requires that meetings of public bodies must
generally be open to the public. It serves three vital purposes:
• Prohibits actions from being taken at a secret meeting where the
interested public cannot be fully informed of the decisions of public
bodies or detect improper influences.
• Ensures the public’s right to be informed.
• Gives the public an opportunity to present its views.
B. Public notice
See section I-Types of council
meetings and notice
requirements.
Minn. Stat. § 13D.04, subd. 7.
Public notice generally must be provided for meetings of a public body
subject to the open meeting law. The notice requirements depend on the
type of meeting. However, if a person receives actual notice of a meeting
at least 24 hours before the meeting, all notice requirements under the
open meeting law are satisfied with respect to that person regardless of the
method of receipt.
C. Location
Quast v. Knutson, 276 Minn.
340, 150 N.W.2d 199 (1967).
(Holding that a school board
violated the open meeting law
when it held a meeting in a
room located 20 miles outside
the school district). DPO 18-
003.
The Minnesota Supreme Court has held that, to meet the statutory
requirement that meetings of public bodies shall be open to the public, “it
is essential that such meetings be held in a public place located within the
territorial confines of the [public body] involved.”
Page 15 of 31
RELEVANT LINKS:
League of Minnesota Cities Handbook for Minnesota Cities 6/7/2024
Meetings, Motions, Resolutions, and Ordinances Chapter 7 | Page 13
D. Printed materials
Minn. Stat. § 13D.01, subd. 6.
DPO 08-015. DPO 17-006.
DPO 13-015 (noting that the
open meeting law “is silent
with respect to agendas; it
neither requires them nor
prohibits them”). DPO 18-
003. DPO 18-011. Minn. Stat.
§ 13D.01, subd. 6.
At least one copy of the printed materials relating to agenda items that are
provided to the council at or before a meeting must also be made available
for public inspection in the meeting room while the governing body
considers the subject matter. This requirement does not apply to materials
classified by law as other than public or to materials relating to the agenda
items of a closed meeting.
E. Groups governed by the open meeting law
Minn. Stat. § 13D.01, subd. 1.
Under the Minnesota open meeting law, all city council meetings and
executive sessions must be open to the public with only a few exceptions.
Minn. Stat. § 465.719, subd.
9.
The open meeting law also requires meetings of a public body or of any
committee, subcommittee, board, department, or commission of a public
body to be open to the public. For example, the governing bodies of local
public pension plans, housing and redevelopment authorities, economic
development authorities, and city-created corporations are subject to the
open meeting law.
Southern Minnesota
Municipal Power Agency v.
Boyne, 578 N.W.2d 362
(Minn. 1998).
The Minnesota Supreme Court has held, however, that the governing body
of a municipal electric power agency is not subject to the open meeting
law because the Legislature has granted these agencies authority to
conduct their affairs as private corporations.
F. Gatherings governed by the open meeting law
Moberg v. Indep. Sch. Dist.
No. 281, 336 N.W.2d 510
(Minn. 1983). St. Cloud
Newspapers, Inc. v. Dist. 742
Community Schools, 332
N.W.2d 1 (Minn. 1983).
The open meeting law does not define the term “meeting.” The Minnesota
Supreme Court, however, has ruled that meetings are gatherings of a
quorum or more members of the governing body—or a quorum of a
committee, subcommittee, board, department, or commission thereof—at
which members discuss, decide, or receive information as a group on
issues relating to the official business of that governing body.
Minn. Stat. § 412.191, subd.
1.
Minn. Stat. § 645.08(5).
For most public bodies, including statutory cities, a majority of its
qualified members constitutes a quorum. Charter cities may provide that a
different number of members of the council constitutes a quorum.
See Section II-G-4 for more
information about serial
meetings.
The open meeting law does not generally apply in situations where less
than a quorum of the council is involved. However, serial meetings, in
groups of less than a quorum, that are held to avoid the requirements of
the open meeting law may be found to violate the law, depending on the
specific facts.
Page 16 of 31
RELEVANT LINKS:
League of Minnesota Cities Handbook for Minnesota Cities 6/7/2024
Meetings, Motions, Resolutions, and Ordinances Chapter 7 | Page 14
G. Open meeting law exceptions
Minn. Stat. § 13D.01, subd. 3.
Minn. Stat. § 13D.05, subd. 1
(d).
See Closing a Meeting from
DPO. See LMC
MemberLearn course, How to
Close a Meeting, for more
information
There are seven exceptions to the open meeting law that authorize the
closure of meetings to the public. Under these exceptions some meetings
may be closed, and some meetings must be closed. Before a meeting is
closed under any of the exceptions, the council must state on the record
the specific grounds permitting the meeting to be closed and describe the
subject to be discussed.
DPO 14-005.
DPO 13-012.
DPO 14-014.
The commissioner of the Minnesota Department of Administration has
advised that a member of the public body (and not its attorney) must make
the statement on the record. The open meeting law does not define the
phrase “on the record,” but the commissioner has advised that the phrase
should be interpreted to mean a verbal statement in open session.
Free Press v. County of Blue
Earth, 677 N.W.2d 471
(Minn. Ct. App. 2004).
The commissioner has also advised that citing the specific statutory
authority that permits the closed meeting is the simplest way to satisfy the
requirement for stating the specific grounds permitting the meeting to be
closed.
Free Press v. County of Blue
Earth, 677 N.W.2d 471
(Minn. Ct. App. 2004)
(holding that a county’s
statement that it was closing a
meeting under the attorney-
client privilege to discuss
“pending litigation” did not
satisfy the requirement of
describing the subject to be
discussed at a closed
meeting).
Both the commissioner and the Minnesota Court of Appeals have
concluded that something more specific than a general statement is needed
to satisfy the requirement of providing a description of the subject to be
discussed.
Minn. Stat. § 13D.05, subd. 1
(d).
All closed meetings, except those closed as permitted by the attorney-
client privilege, must be electronically recorded at the expense of the
public body. Unless otherwise provided by law, the recordings must be
preserved for at least three years after the date of the meeting.
Minn. Stat. § 13D.04, subd. 5. The same notice requirements that apply to open meetings also apply to
closed meetings. For example, if a closed meeting takes place at a regular
meeting, the notice requirements for a regular meeting apply. Likewise, if
a closed meeting takes place as a special meeting, the notice requirements
for a special meeting apply.
1. Meetings that may be closed
The public body may choose to close certain meetings. The following
types of meetings may be closed:
Page 17 of 31
RELEVANT LINKS:
League of Minnesota Cities Handbook for Minnesota Cities 6/7/2024
Meetings, Motions, Resolutions, and Ordinances Chapter 7 | Page 15
a. Labor negotiations under PELRA
Minn. Stat. § 13D.03.
DPO 13-012. A meeting to consider strategies for labor negotiations, including
negotiation strategies or development or discussion of labor-negotiation
proposals, may be closed. However, the actual negotiations must be done
at an open meeting if a quorum of the council is present.
Minn. Stat. § 13D.03.
Minn. Stat. § 13D.01, subd. 3. The following procedure must be used to close a meeting under this
exception:
See Closing a Meeting from
DPO.
DPO 05-027.
DPO 00-037.
• The council must decide to close the meeting by a majority vote at a
public meeting and must announce the time and place of the closed
meeting.
• Before closing the meeting, the council must state on the record the
specific grounds permitting the meeting to be closed and describe the
subject to be discussed.
• A written record of all people present at the closed meeting must be
available to the public after the closed meeting.
• The meeting must be recorded.
• The recording must be kept for two years after the contract is signed.
• The recording becomes public after all labor agreements are signed by
the city council for the current budget period.
Minn. Stat. § 13D.03, subd. 3. If an action claiming that other public business was transacted at the
closed meeting is brought during the time the tape is not public, the court
will review the recording privately. If the court finds no violation of the
open meeting law the action will be dismissed and the recording will be
preserved in court records until it becomes available to the public. If the
court determines there may have been a violation, the entire recording
may be introduced at the trial. However, the court may issue appropriate
protective orders requested by either party.
b. Performance evaluations
Minn. Stat. § 13D.05, subd.
3(a). A public body may close a meeting to evaluate the performance of an
individual who is subject to its authority.
Minn. Stat. § 13D.05, subd.
3(a).
Minn. Stat. § 13D.01, subd. 3.
The following procedure must be used to close a meeting under this
exception:
DPO 05-013 (advising that a
government entity could close
a meeting under this
exception to discuss its
contract with an independent
contractor when that
contractor is an individual
human being).
• The public body must identify the individual to be evaluated prior to
closing the meeting.
• The meeting must be open at the request of the individual who is the
subject of the meeting; so some advance notice to the individual is
needed to allow the individual to make a decision.
Page 18 of 31
RELEVANT LINKS:
League of Minnesota Cities Handbook for Minnesota Cities 6/7/2024
Meetings, Motions, Resolutions, and Ordinances Chapter 7 | Page 16
DPO 14-007, DPO 15-002,
and DPO 16-002 (discussing
what type of summary is
sufficient).
• Before closing the meeting, the council must state on the record the
specific grounds permitting the meeting to be closed and describe the
subject to be discussed.
• The meeting must be electronically recorded, and the recording must
be preserved for at least three years after the meeting.
• At the next open meeting, the public body must summarize its
conclusions regarding the evaluation. The council should be careful
not to release private or confidential data in its summary.
c. Attorney-client privilege
Minn. Stat. § 13D.05, subd.
3(b).
Brainerd Daily Dispatch,
LLC v. Dehen, 693 N.W.2d
435 (Minn. Ct. App. 2005).
Prior Lake American v.
Mader, 642 N.W.2d 729
(Minn. 2002). DPO 16-003.
DPO 17-003.
Meetings between the governing body and its attorney to discuss active,
threatened, or pending litigation may be closed when the balancing of the
purposes served by the attorney-client privilege against those served by
the open meeting law dictates the need for absolute confidentiality. The
need for absolute confidentiality should relate to litigation strategy, and
will usually arise only after a substantive decision on the underlying
matter has been made.
Northwest Publications, Inc.
v. City of St. Paul, 435
N.W.2d 64 (Minn. Ct. App.
1989). Minneapolis Star &
Tribune v. Housing and
Redevelopment Authority in
and for the City of
Minneapolis, 251 N.W.2d 620
(Minn. 1976).
This privilege may not be abused to suppress public observations of the
decision-making process, and does not include situations where the
council will be receiving general legal opinions and advice on the
strengths and weaknesses of a proposed action that may give rise to future
litigation.
Minn. Stat. § 13D.01, subd. 3. The following procedure must be used to close a meeting under this
exception:
See Free Press v. County of
Blue Earth, 677 N.W.2d 471
(Minn. Ct. App. 2004)
(holding that a general
statement that a meeting was
being closed under the
attorney-client privilege to
discuss “pending litigation”
did not satisfy the
requirement of describing the
subject to be discussed).
• Before closing the meeting, the council must state on the record the
specific grounds permitting the meeting to be closed and describe the
subject to be discussed.
• The council should also describe how a balancing of the purposes of
the attorney-client privilege against the purposes of the open meeting
law demonstrates the need for absolute confidentiality.
• The council must actually communicate with its attorney at the
meeting.
d. Purchase or sale of property
A public body may close a meeting to:
Minn. Stat. § 13D.05, subd.
3(c).
• Determine the asking price for real or personal property to be sold by
the public body.
Page 19 of 31
RELEVANT LINKS:
League of Minnesota Cities Handbook for Minnesota Cities 6/7/2024
Meetings, Motions, Resolutions, and Ordinances Chapter 7 | Page 17
Vik v. Wild Rice Watershed
Dist., No. A09-1841 (Minn.
Ct. App. 2010) (unpublished
opinion).
• Review confidential or nonpublic appraisal data.
• Develop or consider offers or counteroffers for the purchase or sale of
real or personal property.
Minn. Stat. § 13D.05, subd.
3(c). The following procedure must be used to close a meeting under this
exception:
DPO 14-014.
DPO 08-001 (advising that a
public body cannot authorize
the release of a tape of a
closed meeting under this
exception until all property
discussed at the meeting has
been purchased or sold or the
public body has abandoned
the purchase or sale).
• Before closing the meeting, the council must state on the record the
specific grounds for closing the meeting, describe the subject to be
discussed, and identify the particular property that is the subject of the
meeting.
See Closing a Meeting from
DPO.
• The meeting must be recorded and the property must be identified on
the recording. The recording must be preserved for eight years, and
must be made available to the public after all property discussed at the
meeting has been purchased or sold or after the public body has
abandoned the purchase or sale.
• A list of council members and all other persons present at the closed
meeting must be made available to the public after the closed meeting.
• The actual purchase or sale of the property must be approved at an
open meeting, and the purchase or sale price is public data.
e. Security reports
Minn. Stat. § 13D.05, subd.
3(d). A meeting may be closed to receive security briefings and reports, to
discuss issues related to security systems, emergency response procedures,
and security deficiencies in, or recommendations regarding. public
services, infrastructure, and facilities, if disclosure of the information
would pose a danger to public safety or compromise security procedures
or responses. Financial issues related to security matters must be
discussed, and all related financial decisions must be made, at an open
meeting.
Minn. Stat. § 13D.05, subd.
3(d). The following procedure must be used to close a meeting under this
exception:
• Before closing the meeting, the council must state on the record the
specific grounds for closing the meeting and describe the subject to be
discussed.
• When describing the subject to be discussed, the council must refer to
the facilities, systems, procedures, services or infrastructure to be
considered during the closed meeting.
• The closed meeting must be recorded, and the recording must be
preserved for at least four years.
Page 20 of 31
RELEVANT LINKS:
League of Minnesota Cities Handbook for Minnesota Cities 6/7/2024
Meetings, Motions, Resolutions, and Ordinances Chapter 7 | Page 18
2. Meetings that must be closed
There are some meetings that the open meeting law requires to be closed.
The following meetings must be closed:
a. Misconduct allegations
Minn. Stat. § 13D.05, subd.
2(b).
Minn. Stat. § 13.43, subd.
2(4).
DPO 03-020.
A public body must close a meeting for preliminary consideration of
allegations or charges against an individual subject to the public body’s
authority.
DPO 14-004. The commissioner of the Minnesota Department of Administration has
advised that a city could not close a meeting under this exception to
consider allegations of misconduct against a job applicant who had been
extended a conditional offer of employment.
(The job applicant was not a city employee). The commissioner reasoned
that the city council had no authority to discipline the job applicant or to
direct his actions in any way; therefore, he was not “an individual subject
to its authority.”
DPO 10-001.
Minn. Stat. § 13.43. The commissioner has also advised that a recording of a closed meeting
for preliminary consideration of misconduct allegations is private
personnel data under Minn. Stat. § 13.43, subd. 4, and is accessible to the
subject of the data but not to the public. The commissioner noted that at
some point in time, some or all of the data on the tape may become public
under Minn. Stat. § 13.43, subd. 2.
For example, if the employee is disciplined and there is a final disposition,
certain personnel data becomes public.
Minn. Stat. § 13D.01, subd. 3.
Minn. Stat. § 13D.05, subd. 1. The following procedure must be used to close a meeting under this
exception:
Note: There is a special
provision dealing with
allegations of law
enforcement personnel
misconduct; see Minn. Stat. §
13D.05, subd. 2(a) and
section II.G.2.b.- Certain not-
public data.
• Before closing the meeting, the council must state on the record the
specific grounds for closing the meeting and describe the subject to be
discussed.
• The meeting must be open at the request of the individual who is the
subject of the meeting. Thus, the individual should be given advance
notice of the existence and nature of the charges against him or her, so
that the individual can make a decision.
• The meeting must be electronically recorded, and the recording must
be preserved for at least three years after the meeting.
• If the public body decides that discipline of any nature may be
warranted regarding the specific charges, further meetings must be
open.
Page 21 of 31
RELEVANT LINKS:
League of Minnesota Cities Handbook for Minnesota Cities 6/7/2024
Meetings, Motions, Resolutions, and Ordinances Chapter 7 | Page 19
DPO 03-020. (Advising that
when a meeting is closed
under this exception, Minn.
Stat. § 13.43, subd. 2 requires
the government entity to
identify the individual who is
being discussed).
While the law permits the council to announce that it is closing a meeting
to consider charges against an individual, it is still the best practice not to
refer to that individual by name. The council should state only that it is
closing the meeting to give preliminary consideration to allegations
against someone subject to its authority. However, if someone requests the
name of the employee who is the subject of the closed meeting, the name
will probably have to be furnished since the existence and status of any
complaints against an employee are public data.
b. Certain not-public data
The general rule is that meetings cannot be closed to discuss data that are
not public under the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. A
meeting must be closed, however, if the following not-public data is
discussed:
Minn. Stat. § 13D.05, subd.
2(a).
Minn. Stat. § 13.32.
Minn. Stat. § 13.3805, subd.
1.
Minn. Stat. § 13.384.
Minn. Stat. § 13.46, subds. 2,
7.
Minn. Stat. §§ 144.291-
144.298.
• Data that would identify alleged victims or reporters of criminal
sexual conduct, domestic abuse, or maltreatment of minors or
vulnerable adults.
• Internal affairs data relating to allegations of law enforcement
personnel misconduct or active law enforcement investigative data.
• Educational data, health data, medical data, welfare data or mental
health data that are not-public data.
• Certain medical records.
Minn. Stat. § 13D.01, subd. 3.
Minn. Stat. § 13D.05, subd.1. The following procedure must be used to close a meeting under this
exception:
• The council must state on the record the specific grounds for closing
the meeting and describe the subject to be discussed.
• The meeting must be electronically recorded, and the recording must
be preserved for at least three years after the meeting.
H. Common issues
1. Data practices
Minn. Stat. § 13D.05, subds.
1(a), 2(a).
See section II.G.2.b.-Certain
not-public data.
Generally, meetings may not be closed to discuss data that is not public
under the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act (MGDPA).
However, the public body must close any part of a meeting at which
certain types of not-public data are discussed.
Minn. Stat. § 13D.05, subd.
2(a).
Minn. Stat. § 13.03, subd. 11.
If not-public data is discussed at an open meeting when the meeting is
required to be closed, it is a violation of the open meeting law.
Discussions of some types of not-public data may also be a violation of
the MGDPA.
Page 22 of 31
RELEVANT LINKS:
League of Minnesota Cities Handbook for Minnesota Cities 6/7/2024
Meetings, Motions, Resolutions, and Ordinances Chapter 7 | Page 20
However, not-public data may generally be discussed at an open meeting
without liability or penalty if both of the following criteria are met:
Minn. Stat. § 13D.05, subd.
1(b). • The disclosure relates to a matter within the scope of the public body’s
authority.
• The disclosure is necessary to conduct the business or agenda item
before the public body.
Minn. Stat. § 13D.05, subd.
1(c). Data that is discussed at an open meeting retains its original classification
under the MGDPA. However, a record of the meeting is public, regardless
of the form. It is suggested that not-public data that is discussed at an open
meeting not be specifically detailed in the minutes.
2. Interviews
Channel 10, Inc. v. Indep.
Sch. Dist. No. 709, 215
N.W.2d 814 (Minn. 1974).
The Minnesota Supreme Court has ruled that a school board must
interview prospective employees for administrative positions in open
sessions. The court reasoned that the absence of a statutory exception
indicated that the Legislature intended such sessions to be open.
As a result, a city council should conduct any interviews of prospective
officers and employees at an open meeting if a quorum or more of the
council will be present.
Mankato Free Press v. City of
North Mankato, 563 N.W.2d
291 (Minn. Ct. App. 1997).
The Minnesota Court of Appeals considered a situation where individual
council members conducted separate, serial interviews of candidates for a
city position in one-on-one closed interviews.
The district court found that no “meeting” of the council had occurred
because there was never a quorum of the council present during the
interviews.
However, the court of appeals sent the case back to the district court for a
determination of whether the council members had conducted the
interview process in a serial fashion to avoid the requirements of the open
meeting law.
Mankato Free Press v. City of
North Mankato, No. C9-98-
677 (Minn. Ct. App. Dec. 15,
1998) (unpublished decision).
On remand, the district court found that the individual interviews were not
done to avoid the requirements of the open meeting law. This decision
was also appealed, and the court of appeals affirmed the district court’s
decision. Cities that want to use this type of interview process should first
consult their city attorney.
3. Informational meetings and committees
St. Cloud Newspapers, Inc. v.
Dist. 742 Community Schools,
332 N.W.2d 1 (Minn. 1983).
The Minnesota Supreme Court has held that informational seminars about
school board business, which the entire board attends, must be noticed and
open to the public.
Page 23 of 31
RELEVANT LINKS:
League of Minnesota Cities Handbook for Minnesota Cities 6/7/2024
Meetings, Motions, Resolutions, and Ordinances Chapter 7 | Page 21
As a result, it appears that any scheduled gatherings of a quorum or more
of a city council must be properly noticed and open to the public,
regardless of whether the council takes or contemplates taking action at
that gathering. This includes meetings and work sessions where members
receive information that may influence later decisions.
Many city councils create committees to make recommendations
regarding a specific issue. Commonly, such a committee will be
responsible for researching the issue and submitting a recommendation to
the council for its approval.
DPO 08-007.
DPO 13-015.
These committees are usually advisory, and the council is still responsible
for making the final decision. This type of committee may be subject to
the open meeting law. Some factors that may be relevant in deciding
whether a committee is subject to the open meeting law include: how the
committee was created and who its members are; whether the committee
is performing an ongoing function, or instead, is performing a one-time
function; and what duties and powers have been granted to the committee.
DPO 05-014. For example, the commissioner of the Minnesota Department of
Administration has advised that “standing” committees of a city hospital
board that were responsible for management liaison, collection of
information, and formulation of issues and recommendations for the board
were subject to the open meeting law. The advisory opinion noted that the
standing committees were performing tasks that relate to the ongoing
operation of the hospital district and were not performing a one-time or
“ad hoc” function.
DPO 07-025. In contrast, the commissioner has advised that a city’s Free Speech
Working Group, consisting of citizens and city officials appointed by the
city to meet to develop and review strategies for addressing free-speech
concerns relating to a political convention, was not subject to the open
meeting law. The advisory opinion noted that the group did not have
decision-making authority.
A.G. Op. 63a-5 (Aug. 28,
1996).
Sovereign v. Dunn, 498
N.W.2d 62 (Minn. Ct. App.
1993).
DPO 07-025.
It is common for city councils to appoint individual council members to
act as liaisons between the council and particular council committees or
other government entities. The Minnesota Court of Appeals considered a
situation where the mayor and one other member of a city council
attended a series of mediation sessions regarding an annexation dispute
that were not open to the public.
The Court of Appeals held that the open meeting law did not apply to
these meetings concluding “that a gathering of public officials is not a
‘committee, subcommittee, board, department or commission’ subject to
the open meeting law unless the group is capable of exercising decision-
making powers of the governing body.”
Page 24 of 31
RELEVANT LINKS:
League of Minnesota Cities Handbook for Minnesota Cities 6/7/2024
Meetings, Motions, Resolutions, and Ordinances Chapter 7 | Page 22
The Court of Appeals also noted that the capacity to act on behalf of the
governing body is presumed where members of the group comprise a
quorum of the body and could also arise where there has been a delegation
of power from the governing body to the group.
If a city is unsure whether a meeting of a committee, board, or other city
entity is subject to the open meeting law, it should consult its city attorney
or consider seeking an advisory opinion from the commissioner of the
Minnesota Department of Administration.
Thuma v. Kroschel, 506
N.W.2d 14 (Minn. Ct. App.
1993).
DPO 16-005.
Notice for a special meeting of the city council may be needed if a
quorum of the council will be present at a committee meeting and will be
participating in the discussion. For example, when a quorum of a city
council attended a meeting of the city’s planning commission, the
Minnesota Court of Appeals ruled that there was a violation of the open
meeting law not because the council members simply attended the
meeting but because the council members conducted public business in
conjunction with that meeting.
A.G. Op. 63a-5 (Aug. 28,
1996). Based on this decision, the attorney general has advised that mere
attendance by council members at a meeting of a council committee held
in compliance with the open meeting law would not constitute a special
city council meeting requiring separate notice. The attorney general
cautioned, however, that the additional council members should not
participate in committee discussions or deliberations absent a separate
special-meeting notice of a city council meeting.
4. Social gatherings
St. Cloud Newspapers, Inc. v.
Dist. 742 Community Schools,
332 N.W.2d 1 (Minn. 1983).
Moberg v. Indep. Sch. Dist.
No. 281, 336 N.W.2d 510
(Minn. 1983). Hubbard
Broadcasting, Inc. v. City of
Afton, 323 N.W.2d 757
(Minn. 1982).
Social gatherings of city council members will not be considered a
meeting subject to the requirements of the open meeting law if there is not
a quorum present, or, if a quorum is present, if the quorum does not
discuss, decide, or receive information on official city business. The
Minnesota Supreme Court has ruled that a conversation between two city
council members over lunch about a land-use application did not violate
the open meeting law because a quorum of the council was not present.
5. Serial meetings
Moberg v. Indep. Sch. Dist.
No. 281, 336 N.W.2d 510
(Minn. 1983). DPO 10-011.
DPO 06-017.
The Minnesota Supreme Court has noted that meetings of less than a
quorum of a public body held serially to avoid a public meeting or to
fashion agreement on an issue of public business may violate the open
meeting law.
Page 25 of 31
RELEVANT LINKS:
League of Minnesota Cities Handbook for Minnesota Cities 6/7/2024
Meetings, Motions, Resolutions, and Ordinances Chapter 7 | Page 23
Mankato Free Press v. City of
North Mankato, 563 N.W.2d
291 (Minn. Ct. App. 1997).
The Minnesota Court of Appeals considered a situation where individual
council members conducted separate, serial interviews of candidates for a
city position in one-on-one closed interviews. The district court found that
no “meeting” of the council had occurred because there was never a
quorum of the council present during the interviews.
However, the court of appeals sent the case back to the district court for a
determination of whether the council members had conducted the
interview process in a serial fashion to avoid the requirements of the open
meeting law.
Mankato Free Press v. City of
North Mankato, No. C9-98-
677 (Minn. Ct. App. Dec. 15,
1998) (unpublished decision).
On remand, the district court found that the individual interviews were not
done to avoid the requirements of the open meeting law. This decision
was also appealed, and the court of appeals affirmed the district court’s
decision. Cities that want to use this type of interview process with job
applicants should first consult their city attorney.
6. Training sessions
Compare St. Cloud
Newspapers, Inc. v. Dist. 742
Community Schools, 332
N.W.2d 1 (Minn. 1983) and
A.G. Op. 63a-5 (Feb. 5,
1975). DPO 16-006.
It is not clear whether the participation of a quorum or more of the
members of a city council in a training program would be defined as a
meeting under the open meeting law. The determining factor would likely
be whether the program includes a discussion of general training
information or a discussion of specific matters relating to an individual
city.
A.G. Op. 63a-5 (Feb. 5,
1975). DPO 16-006. The attorney general has advised that a city council’s participation in a
non-public training program devoted to developing skills was not a
meeting subject to the open meeting law.
The commissioner of the Department of Administration has likewise
advised that a school board’s participation in a non-public team-building
session to “improve trust, relationships, communications, and
collaborative problem solving among Board members,” was not a meeting
subject to the open meeting law if the members are not “gathering to
discuss, decide, or receive information as a group relating to ‘the official
business’ of the governing body.”
However, the opinion also advised that if there were to be any discussion
of specific official business by the attending members, either outside or
during training sessions, it could be a violation of the open meeting law.
7. Telephone, email, and social media
Moberg v. Indep. Sch. Dist.
No. 281, 336 N.W.2d 510
(Minn. 1983).
It is possible that communication through telephone calls, email, or other
technology could violate the open meeting law.
Page 26 of 31
RELEVANT LINKS:
League of Minnesota Cities Handbook for Minnesota Cities 6/7/2024
Meetings, Motions, Resolutions, and Ordinances Chapter 7 | Page 24
DPO 17-005 (advising
communication through a
letter violated the open
meeting law).
The Minnesota Supreme Court has indicated that communication through
letters and telephone calls could violate the open meeting law under
certain circumstances. Best practice to share information with the entire
council is to send it to city staff and have them distribute it. If a council
member needs to email the entire council, they should use blind carbon
copy (BCC) to add recipients to avoid accidental use of reply all which
may constitute the initiation of a discussion among a quorum of the public
body.
DPO 09-020. DPO 14-015.
The commissioner of the Department of Administration has advised that
back-and-forth email communications among a quorum of a public body
that was subject to the open meeting law in which the members
commented on and provided direction about official business violated the
open meeting law.
However, the commissioner also advised that “one-way communication
between the chair and members of a public body is permissible, such as
when the chair or staff sends meeting materials via email to all board
members, as long as no discussion or decision-making ensues.”
O’Keefe v. Carter, No. A12-
0811 (Minn. Ct. App. Dec.
31, 2012) (unpublished
decision).
In contrast, an unpublished decision by the Minnesota Court of Appeals
concluded that email communications are not subject to the open meeting
law because they are written communications and are not a “meeting” for
purposes of the open meeting law.
The decision also noted that even if email communications are subject to
the open meeting law, the substance of the emails in question did not
contain the type of discussion that would be required for a prohibited
“meeting” to have occurred. The court of appeals noted that the substance
of the email messages was not important and controversial; instead, the
email communications discussed a relatively straightforward operational
matter. The decision also noted that the town board members did not
appear to make any decisions in their email communications.
Because this decision is unpublished, it is not binding precedent on other
courts. In addition, the outcome of this decision might have been different
if the email communications had related to something other than
operational matters, for example, if the board members were attempting to
build agreement on a particular issue that was going to be presented to the
town board at a future meeting.
Minn. Stat. § 13D.065. The open meeting law was amended in 2014 to provide that “the use of
social media by members of a public body does not violate the open
meeting law as long as the social media use is limited to exchanges with
all members of the general public.” Email is not considered a type of
social media under the new law.
Page 27 of 31
RELEVANT LINKS:
League of Minnesota Cities Handbook for Minnesota Cities 6/7/2024
Meetings, Motions, Resolutions, and Ordinances Chapter 7 | Page 25
The open meeting law does not define the term “social media,” but this
term is generally understood to mean forms of electronic communication,
including websites for social networking like Facebook, LinkedIn,
Instagram, and X through which users create online communities to share
information, ideas, and other content.
It is important to remember that the use of social media by council
members could still be used to support other claims such as claims of
defamation or of conflict of interest in decision-making. As a result,
council members should make sure that any comments they make on
social media are factually correct and should not comment on issues that
will come before the council in the future for a quasi-judicial hearing and
decision, such as the consideration of whether to grant an application for a
conditional use permit.
See II-H-5 - Serial meetings. It is also important to remember that serial discussions between less than a
quorum of the council could violate the open meeting law under certain
circumstances.
As a result, city councils and other public bodies should take a
conservative approach and should not use telephone calls, email, or other
technology to communicate back and forth with other members of the
public body if both of the following circumstances exist:
• A quorum of the council or public body will be contacted regarding
the same matter.
• Official business is being discussed.
Minn. Stat. § 13.02, subd. 7. Another thing council members should be careful about is which email
account they use to receive emails relating to city business because such
emails likely would be considered government data that is subject to a
public-records request under the Minnesota Government Data Practices
Act (MGDPA).
The best option would be for each council member to have an individual
email account that the city provides, and city staff manage. However, this
is not always possible for cities due to budget, size, or logistics.
If council members don’t have a city email account, there are some things
to think about before using a personal email account for city business.
First, preferably only the council member should have access to the
personal email account. Using a shared account with other family
members could lead to incorrect information being communicated from
the account, or incoming information being inadvertently deleted. Also,
since city emails are government data, city officials may have to separate
personal emails from city emails when responding to a public-records
request under the MGDPA.
Page 28 of 31
RELEVANT LINKS:
League of Minnesota Cities Handbook for Minnesota Cities 6/7/2024
Meetings, Motions, Resolutions, and Ordinances Chapter 7 | Page 26
Second, if the account a city council member wants to use for city
business is tied to a private employer, that private employer may have a
policy that restricts this kind of use.
Even if a private employer allows this type of use, it is important to be
aware that in the event of a public-records request under the MGDPA or a
discovery request in litigation, the private employer may be compelled to
have a search done of a council member’s email communications on the
private employer’s equipment or to restore files from a backup or archive.
See Handbook, Records
Management, for more
information about records
management.
What may work best is to use a free, third-party email service, such as
Gmail or Outlook, for your city account and to avoid using that email
account for any personal email or for anything that may constitute an
official record of city business since such records must be retained in
accordance with the city’s adopted records retention schedule.
I. Advisory opinions
1. Department of Administration
Minn. Stat. § 13.072, subd. 1
(b). See Minnesota
Department of
Administration, Data
Practices for an index of
advisory opinions.
The commissioner of the Minnesota Department of Administration has
authority to issue non-binding advisory opinions on certain issues related
to the open meeting law. The Data Practices Office (DPO) handles these
requests.
See Requesting an Open
Meeting Law Advisory
Opinion.
A public body, subject to the open meeting law, can request an advisory
opinion. A person who disagrees with the way members of a governing
body perform their duties under the open meeting law can also request an
advisory opinion.
2. Attorney General
Minn. Stat. § 8.07.
See index of Attorney
General Advisory Opinions
from 1993 to present.
The Minnesota Attorney General is authorized to issue written advisory
opinions to city attorneys on “questions of public importance.” The
Attorney General has issued several advisory opinions on the open
meeting law.
J. Penalties
Minn. Stat. § 13D.06, subd. 1.
Claude v. Collins, 518
N.W.2d 836 (Minn. 1994).
Any person who intentionally violates the open meeting law is subject to
personal liability in the form of a civil penalty of up to $300 for a single
occurrence. The public body may not pay the penalty. A court may
consider a council member’s time and experience in office to determine
the amount of the civil penalty.
Page 29 of 31
RELEVANT LINKS:
League of Minnesota Cities Handbook for Minnesota Cities 6/7/2024
Meetings, Motions, Resolutions, and Ordinances Chapter 7 | Page 27
Minn. Stat. § 13D.06, subd. 2.
O’Keefe v. Carter, No. A12-
0811 (Minn. Ct. App. Dec.
31, 2012) (unpublished
decision).
An action to enforce this penalty may be brought by any person in any
court of competent jurisdiction where the administrative office of the
governing body is located.
In an unpublished decision, the Minnesota Court of Appeals concluded
that this broad grant of jurisdiction authorized a member of a town board
to bring an action against his own town board for alleged violations of the
open meeting law. This same decision also concluded that a two-year
statute of limitations applies to lawsuits under the open meeting law.
Minn. Stat. § 13D.06, subd. 4.
See LMC information memo,
LMCIT Liability Coverage
Guide, for information about
insurance coverage for
lawsuits under the open
meeting law.
The court may also award reasonable costs, disbursements, and attorney
fees of up to $13,000 to any party in an action alleging a violation of the
open meeting law. The court may award costs and attorney fees to a
defendant only if the action is found to be frivolous and without merit. A
public body may pay any costs, disbursements, or attorney fees incurred
by or awarded against any of its members.
Minn. Stat. § 13D.06, subd. 4. If a party prevails in a lawsuit under the open meeting law, an award of
reasonable attorney fees is mandatory if the court determines that the
public body was the subject of a prior written advisory opinion from the
commissioner of the Minnesota Department of Administration, and the
court finds that the opinion is directly related to the lawsuit and that the
public body did not act in conformity with the opinion. A court is required
to give deference to the advisory opinion.
Minn. Stat. § 13D.06, subd. 4
(d). Coalwell v. Murray, No.
C6-95-2436 (Minn. Ct. App.
Aug 6, 1996) (unpublished
decision). Elseth v. Hille, No
A12-1496 (Minn. Ct. App.
May 13, 2013) (unpublished
decision).
No monetary penalties or attorney fees may be awarded against a member
of a public body unless the court finds that there was intent to violate the
open meeting law.
Minn. Stat. § 13D.06, subd. 3
(a). Brown v. Cannon Falls
Twp., 723 N.W.2d 31 (Minn.
Ct. App. 2006).
If a person is found to have intentionally violated the open meeting law in
three or more separate actions involving the same governing body, that
person must forfeit any further right to serve on the governing body or in
any other capacity with the public body for a period of time equal to the
term of office the person was serving.
Minn. Stat. § 13D.06, subd. 3
(b).
Minn. Const. art. VIII, § 5.
If a court finds a separate, third violation that is unrelated to the previous
violations, it must declare the position vacant and notify the appointing
authority or clerk of the governing body. As soon as practicable, the
appointing authority or governing body shall fill the position as in the case
of any other vacancy. Under the Minnesota Constitution, the Legislature
may provide for the removal of public officials for malfeasance or
nonfeasance.
Page 30 of 31
RELEVANT LINKS:
League of Minnesota Cities Handbook for Minnesota Cities 6/7/2024
Meetings, Motions, Resolutions, and Ordinances Chapter 7 | Page 28
Jacobsen v. Nagel, 255 Minn.
300, 96 N.W.2d 569 (1959).
To constitute malfeasance or nonfeasance, a public official’s conduct must
affect the performance of official duties and must relate to something of a
substantial nature directly affecting the rights and interests of the public.
Jacobsen v. Nagel , 255
Minn. 300, 96 N.W.2d 569
(1959). Claude v. Collins, 518
N.W.2d 836 (Minn. 1994).
“Malfeasance” refers to evil conduct or an illegal deed. “Nonfeasance” is
described as neglect or refusal, without sufficient excuse, to perform what
is a public officer’s legal duty to perform. More likely than not, a
violation of the open meeting law would be in the nature of nonfeasance.
Although good faith does not nullify a violation, good faith is relevant in
determining whether a violation amounts to nonfeasance.
Sullivan v. Credit River Twp.,
299 Minn. 170, 217 N.W.2d
502 (1974). Hubbard
Broadcasting, Inc. v. City of
Afton, 323 N.W.2d 757
(Minn. 1982). In re D & A
Truck Line, Inc., 524 N.W.2d
1 (Minn. Ct. App. 1994).
The open meeting law does not address whether actions taken at a meeting
that does not comply with its requirements would be valid.
Sullivan v. Credit River
Township, 217 N.W.2d 502
(Minn. 1974). Lac Qui Parle-
Yellow Bank Watershed Dist.
v. Wollschlager, No. C6-96-
1023 (Minn. Ct. App. Nov.
12, 1996) (unpublished
decision). DPO 11-004.
Minnesota courts have generally refused to invalidate actions taken at an
improperly closed meeting because this is not a remedy the open meeting
law provides.
Quast v. Knutson, 276 Minn.
340, 150 N.W.2d 199 (1967). But the Minnesota Supreme Court has held that an attempted school
district consolidation was fatally defective when the initiating resolution
was adopted at a meeting that was not open to the public.
III. Meeting procedures
A. Citizen involvement
Any person may observe council meetings. In fact, the council should
encourage citizen attendance to help raise awareness of the city’s
problems and help create support for programs suggested by the council.
Minn. Stat. § 13D.01, subd. 6. Citizens must be able to hear the discussion at a meeting and must be able
to determine who votes for or against a motion.
DPO 08-015. DPO 17-006. One copy of any printed materials relating to the agenda items of the
meeting that have been distributed or made available to all members of the
council must be made available to the audience unless doing so would
violate the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act.
Minn. Stat. § 412.191, subd.
2.
Although anyone can attend council meetings, citizens cannot speak or
otherwise participate in any discussions unless the mayor or the presiding
officer recognizes them for this purpose.
Page 31 of 31