This opinion will be unpublished and
may not be cited except as provided by
Minn. Stat. § 480A.08, subd. 3 (2002).
STATE OF MINNESOTA
IN COURT OF APPEALS
The Money Store,
Filed August 5, 2003
Reversed and Remanded
Hennepin County District Court
File No. CD2682
Lawrence P. Marofsky, Boulevard Plaza Office Suites, 7022 Brooklyn Boulevard, Brooklyn Center, MN 55429 (for appellants)
Loren A. Magsam, 33 Fourth Street Northwest, Osseo, MN 55369 (for respondent City of Osseo Economic Development Authority)
Amy Klobuchar, Hennepin County Attorney, Gayle Hendley, Assistant County Attorney, C-2000 Government Center, 300 South Sixth Street, Minneapolis, MN 55487 (for respondent Hennepin County)
State of Minnesota, Department of Revenue, Harold Stassen Building, 600 North Robert Street, St. Paul, MN 55146-1176
Considered and decided by Peterson, Presiding Judge, Anderson, Judge, and Parker, Judge. *
G. BARRY ANDERSON, Judge
Appellants challenge the district court’s approval of respondent’s petition to condemn appellants’ property and the grant of respondent’s motion for a “quick take” of title and possession of appellants’ property. Because respondents did not follow the proper statutory process required of a housing-and-redevelopment authority when condemning property, we reverse and remand.
Appellants Richard and Karen Seaberg own property in Osseo, Minnesota, legally described as the West 56 feet of Lot 6, Block 6, City of Attraction, Hennepin County, MN. Appellants live and operate a small business, Terre Quatics, on the property. In May 2002, respondent City of Osseo Economic Development Authority (EDA), which is authorized to acquire property by condemnation under Minn. Stat. § 469 (2002), entered into an agreement with Wiley Properties to develop appellants’ property along with adjacent real estate. The EDA determined that it would be necessary to acquire appellant’s property through Minn. Stat. ch. 117 (2002) (eminent domain) for public use and purposes.
Originally, the redevelopment plan included the erection of a 10,000-square-foot building, at least partially on appellants’ property. The plan was later substantially changed and the proposed 10,000-square-foot building was deleted. But, the plan still required acquisition of appellant’s property to meet parking requirements to accommodate doctors and patients for the expanded North Clinic, which is nearby. There was no public hearing to discuss the new proposal.
On August 9, 2002, acting under Minn. Stat. § 469.012 (2002) (powers and duties of a housing-and-redevelopment authority), respondents filed their petition in condemnation and also filed a motion to take title and possession of appellants’ property under Minn. Stat. § 117.042 (2002) (exercise of eminent domain by “quick take” proceeding). Appellants resisted, arguing, among other things, that the EDA did not follow the proper procedures under Minn. Stat. § 469.003, subds. 1, 2 (2002). Following a bench trial, the district court found that the EDA had acted within its authority and approved the EDA’s condemnation petition and granted respondent’s motion for a “quick take.” This appeal followed.
Appellants argue that because the EDA did not follow statutory notice and hearing requirements, it was error for the district court to give great weight to the decision of the EDA.
An appellate court’s review of condemnation proceedings is very narrow. State ex rel. Simpson v. Rapp, 39 Minn. 65, 67, 38 N.W. 926, 928 (1888); County of Dakota (C.P.46-06) v. Lakeville, 559 N.W.2d 716, 719 (Minn. App. 1997). The determination of the condemning authority must be given great weight. In re Condemnation by Minneapolis Comm. Development Agency, 582 N.W.2d 596, 598 (Minn. App. 1998), review denied (Minn. Oct. 29, 1998). But this court may reverse the decision of the condemning authority if the decision is “[i]n excess of the statutory authority or jurisdiction of the agency.” Minn. Stat. § 14.69(b) (2002); Frost-Benco Elec. Ass’n v. Minnesota Pub. Utils. Comm’n, 358, N.W.2d 639, 642 (Minn. 1984).
Minn. Stat. § 469.091, subd. 1 (2002), provides that a city may, by adopting an enabling resolution, establish an economic-development authority (EDA) that may exercise, among others, the powers of a housing-and-redevelopment authority. Subdivision 1 further states that if the EDA exercises the powers of a housing-and-redevelopment authority, the city must exercise the powers relating to a housing-and-redevelopment authority as granted to the city by sections 469.001 to 469.047. Here, the city stated in its condemnation petition that it was acting pursuant to its powers as granted by Minn. Stat. § 469.012, which outlines the powers and duties of a housing-and-redevelopment authority. At trial, in response to appellants’ assertion that respondents failed to follow proper procedures, respondents’ attorney did not deny that respondents had acted under the housing-and-redevelopment statutes, but simply asserted that respondents were statutorily authorized to do so.
Minn. Stat. § 469.003, subd. 1 (2002), of the housing-and-redevelopment authority subchapter, states that no city
shall transact any business or exercise any powers until the governing body of the city shall, by resolution, find that in that city (1) substandard, slum, or blighted areas exist which cannot be redeveloped without government assistance, or (2) there is a shortage of decent, safe, and sanitary dwelling accommodations available to persons of low income and their families at rentals they can afford, and shall declare that there is need for a housing-and-redevelopment authority to function in that city.
Subsection 2 of section 469.003 states:
[t]he governing body of a city shall consider such a resolution only after a public hearing is held on it after publication of notice in a newspaper of general circulation in the city at least once not less than ten days nor more than 30 days prior to the date of the hearing. Opportunity to be heard shall be granted to all residents of the city and to all other interested persons. The resolution shall be published in the same manner in which ordinances are published in the municipality.
Here, there was no finding by resolution or otherwise of the existence of either
(1) substandard, slum, or blighted areas * * * which cannot be redeveloped without government assistance, or (2) a shortage of decent, safe, and sanitary dwelling accommodations available to persons of low income and their families at rentals they can afford[,]
as required by Minn. Stat. § 469.003, subd. 1. Additionally, there was no public hearing to consider the resolution regarding the new redevelopment plan, excluding the 10,000-square-foot building, as required by Minn. Stat. § 469.003, subd. 2. Accordingly, we conclude that the city and EDA failed to follow the procedures set forth in the statutes under which they chose to proceed. Because the EDA acted contrary to the controlling statutory authority, it was erroneous for the district court to conclude that the EDA had acted within its authority and to rely on the EDA’s recommendation.
In light of the failure of the EDA to follow proper statutory procedure, it was error for the district court to give great weight to the EDA’s recommendation, and because we reverse on these grounds, we do not reach the issues of whether the condemnation of appellants’ property was necessary to serve a public purpose or whether condemnation through a “quick take” proceeding was appropriate.
Reversed and remanded.
* Retired judge of the Minnesota Court of Appeals, serving by appointment pursuant to Minn. Const. art. VI, § 10.
 Under Minn. Stat. 469.091, subd. 1 (2002),
[a] city may, by adopting an enabling resolution in compliance with the procedural requirements of section 469.093, establish an economic development authority that, subject to section 469.092, has the powers contained in sections 469.090 to 469.108 and the powers of a housing-and-redevelopment authority under sections 469.001 to 469.047 or other law, and of a city under sections 469.124 to 469.134 or other law. If the economic development authority exercises the powers of a housing-and-redevelopment authority contained in sections 469.001 to 469.047 or other law, the city shall exercise the powers relating to a housing-and-redevelopment authority granted to a city by sections 469.001 to 469.047 or other law.
 We note that the economic-development-authority statutes (Minn. Stat. §§ 469.090 to 469.1082), do not require specific findings and notice and opportunity for a public hearing in a condemnation proceeding as do the housing-and-redevelopment statutes. But we also note that the condemnation at issue in this appeal was not commenced under the economic-development statutes.