HomeMy WebLinkAbout2026-02-24
1685 CROSSTOWN BOULEVARD N.W. ANDOVER, MINNESOTA 55304 (763) 755-5100
FAX (763) 755-8923 WWW.ANDOVERMN.GOV
Andover Planning and Zoning Commission
MeetingAgenda
February 24, 2026
Andover City Hall
Council Chambers
7:00 p.m.
1.Call to Order
2.Pledge of Allegiance
3.Oath of Office –Commissioners Jonathan Weinhold, Nicole Wicklund, & Ryan Winge
4.Approval of Minutes –January27, 2026, Regular Meeting
5.Election of Chairperson & Vice Chairperson (effective next meeting)
6.Other Business
7.Adjournment
Workshop Meeting–Tofollow regular meeting
1.Call to Order
2.Discussion –Planning & Zoning Commission Training
3.Adjournment
STAFF REPORT
Agenda Item #3
TO: Planning and Zoning Commissioners
FROM: Peter Hellegers, City Planner
SUBJECT:Oath of Office for Appointed Planning Commissioners
DATE: February 24, 2026
REQUEST
Administer the Oath of Office for the appointed Planning Commissioners
BACKGROUND
Commissioner Nicole Wicklund has been appointed to the Planning Commission by the City
Council to fill the vacancy on the Commission.
Commissioners Jonathan Weinhold and Ryan Winge have been reappointed to the Planning
Commission by the City Council.
The term for all three of these commissioners will end on January 1, 2029.
STAFF REPORT
Agenda Item #4
TO: Planning and Zoning Commissioners
FROM: Peter Hellegers, City Planner
SUBJECT:Approval of Minutes
DATE: February 24, 2026
REQUEST
The Planning & Zoning Commission is requested to approve the January 27, 2026, regular
meeting minutes.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING –JANUARY 27, 2026
9
10 The Regular Bi-Monthly Meeting of the Andover Planning and Zoning Commission was
11 called to order by Chairperson Loehleinon January 27, 2026, at 7:00 p.m., at the Andover
12 City Hall, 1685 Crosstown Boulevard NW, Andover, Minnesota.
13
14 Commissioners present:Chairperson Nick Loehlein, Commissioners Roger Grout,
15 Scott Hudson, Chuck Naughton, Jonathan Weinhold, and
16 Ryan Winge.
17
18 Commissioners absent: None.
19
20 Also present: City Planner Peter Hellegers and Associate Planner Aidan
21 Breen.
22
23
24 PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE.
25
26 APPROVAL OF MINUTES – November 12, 2025 Regular Meeting.
27
28 Motion. The Chair assumed a motion to approve the November 12, 2025, Andover
29 Planning and Zoning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes as presented. The Motion
30 passed on unanimous consent, with Commissioners Naughton and Winge being present.
31
32
33 PUBLIC HEARING: Interim Use Permit for Mining and Land Reclamation – 3261
th
34 160Lane NW, Andover, MN 55304 (Applicants: Scott and Heidi Jenkins).
35
36 City Planner Hellegers reviewed the applications requesting an Interim Use Permit (IUP)
37 for mining/land reclamation, not to exceed 1,680 cubic feet of dirt, for the construction of
th
38 a berm on their property at 3261 160Lane NW.The location was indicated on a map.
39
40 During the summer of 2025, the property owners began stockpiling dirt on the property
41 butdid not have an Interim Use Permit for mining and land reclamation. City staff notified
42 the property owners that an IUP would be required, and the applicants have been working
43 on the materials they need for a complete application.
44
45 Staff are proposing an expiration date of February 1, 2028 (5 years is the longest amount
46 of time an IUP can be granted under City Code 12-14-12-E). If at that time the applicant is
47 not complete with the proposed berm and has additional need for mining/land reclamation,
Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
Minutes – January 27, 2026
Page 2
1 they would need to apply for a new IUP or IUP extension and obtain City Council
2 approval.
3
4 Mr. Hellegers reviewed the Amount/Type of Fill Permitted, Haul Route, Erosion Control,
5 Coordination with other Agencies, and Interim Use Permit Standards. The Conditions for
6 IUP Approval were also provided.
7
8 Also provided for Commission consideration were Draft Resolution of Approval, Draft
9 Resolution of Denial, Site Location Map, Staff Review #1 of Grading Plan, Applicant
10 Narrative, Applicant Response to Questions, and Proposed Grading Plan (Currently Under
11 Review).
12
13 The Planning and Zoning Commission is asked to hold a public hearing and make a
14 recommendation to the City Council regarding the interim use permit request.
15
16 Commissioner Winge asked if the IUP will need to be renewed at the expiration or if the
17 work needs to be completed by that date. Mr. Hellegers stated there is a maximum of 5
18 years, and the applicant intends to have the work completed by the due date. If needed, the
19 IUP could be requested to be extended. Commissioner Winge noted this is a newer home
20 and asked if there was consideration for a secondary drain field. Mr. Hellegers stated sites
21 like this generally have two drain field locations. There should be significant space.
22
23 Commissioner Weinhold referred to the property owner's letter asking if the City would be
24 adding sound barriers to the area and asked if that had been answered. Mr. Hellegers
25 stated he does not believe there is a sound barrier plan at this time.
26
27 Commissioner Grout referred to the haul road and asked if provisions been made for
28 erosion control for the haul road. Mr. Hellegers stated Staff will work with the applicant.
29
30 Chair Loehlein opened the public hearing at 7:15 p.m.
31
32 Mr. JustinRossmeisl, 3098 162nd Ln NW, representing the applicant. He stated that if silt
33 fencing is needed,it will be provided. Commissioner Weinhold stated that the IUP is good
34 through February 1, 2028. Is there a reasonable expectation that the project will be
35 completed? Mr. Rossmeisl stated it will be done.
36
37 Chair Loehlein closed the public hearing at 7:17 p.m.
38
39 Commissioner Weinhold stated his only concern is if the work doesn’t get done after
40 approval is granted, and what the recourse of the City would be. Mr. Hellegers stated that
41 typically the City would require the property owner have the material be restored or have a
42 securityto have the work completed or restored.
43
44 Motion by Commissioner Hudson, seconded by Commissioner Winge, to recommend that
45 the City Council approve the Interim Use Permit for Mining and Land Reclamation –
Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
Minutes – January 27, 2026
Page 3
th
1 3261 160Lane NW, Andover, MN 55304 (Applicants: Scott and Heidi Jenkins). Motion
2 carried on a 6-ayevote.
3
4
5 PUBLIC HEARING: Consider a City Code Amendment to 12-14-17: Residential
6 Building Standards; to allow roof pitches of less than 4:12 on single-family dwellings –
7 City of Andover (Applicant).
8
9 Mr. Hellegers reviewed a resident who contacted the City and was looking into a custom
10 architectural design for a new home that would utilize sections of flat and low-sloped
11 roofs. The Zoning Regulations chapter of City Code requires that single-family dwellings
12 have a sloped roof with a 4:12 pitch. The request is to consider a proposed change to City
13 Code Section §12-14-17-C to allow exceptions for flat or low-sloping roofs on properties
14 outside of the Metropolitan Urban Service Area.
15
16 The Code 12-14-17-C was provided. The proposed revision is “Deviations from these
17 standards, for architectural purposes, located outside of the metropolitan urban service
18 area, may be approved by the Board of Design Control.”
19
20 Mr. Hellegers reviewed a PowerPoint presentation.
21
22 The Commission is requested to provide a recommendation to the City Council. It is
23 anticipated that the City Council will review the City Code Amendment at its meeting on
24 Monday, February 2, 2026.
25
26 The draft ordinance for approval was provided.
27
28 Commissioner Naughton asked if requests would be approved administratively rather than
29 coming before the Commission. Mr. Hellegers stated the ARC Committee would review
30 any requests.
31
32 Commissioner Winge referred to the proposed revision and asked how MUSA factors in
33 this. Mr. Hellegers stated that for properties outside of MUSA, there would be less impact.
34 There is further discussion needed for including it within the MUSA.
35
36 Chair Loehlein asked if this could be tied to a particular zoning district. Mr. Hellegers
37 stated it could. Associate Planner Breen stated it could be limited to a particular zone.
38
39 Chair Loehlein opened the public hearing at 7:35 p.m.
40
41 Mr. Brandon Pakola, 15420 Kiowa Street NW, currently lives in Maple Grove. He said
42 the staff did a great job presenting this. He stated his lot in Andover is on the Rum River
43 and is a secluded 5-acre lot. He spoke to the zoning discrepancyabout flat and low slope
44 roofs..
45
Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
Minutes – January 27, 2026
Page 4
1 Chair Loehlein closed the public hearing at 7:40 p.m.
2
3 Commissioner Grout would open the City to some more modern architectural homes. He
4 would be more supportive if this wereavailable to all residents regardless of zoning.
5
6 Commissioner Weinhold stated the City is looking for more flexibilityin this amendment.
7 Staff is looking to test the water, and this could be extended in the future. He would be in
8 favor of applying this to non-MUSA at this time.
9
10 Commissioner Winge stated that the added language is an opportunity for the design board
11 to approve this. He would be more on board with opening this up. He asked who made up
12 the board. Mr. Hellegers stated that the board includes many departments within the City.
13 Commissioner Winge would be more inclined to open it up city-wide. This is a more
14 objective review than a subjective review. If a request goes through ARC and meets all the
15 building standards, that would be the end of the line. It could be appealed to the City
16 Council if ARC denied the request. Mr. Breen stated that individual homes do not
17 generally come before the building department. There are a few other provisions in the
18 building section of the Code related to design and architecture.
19
20 Chair Loehlein stated that the suggestion was made to remove the MUSA portion and
21 open it to all of the City. Staff was asked about review through ARC versus review
22 through the Commission. Mr. Hellegers stated in the latter scenario it would come before
23 the Planning Commission as a CUPif that were the process were determined. One of the
24 biggest issues in that type of process is time. The ARC Board meets every two weeks and
25 allows for faster turnaround of requeststhan to run it through the commission. He would
26 not recommend the CUP and commission review process for this issue.
27
28 Commissioner Winge asked the Commissioners their thoughts on the proposed language
29 or opening it up to the entire City. Commissioner Hudson is in favor of opening it up.
30 Commissioner Naughton agreed and noted some variations in architecture would be good.
31 Commissioner Winge stated his only reservation would be if there was a PUD with 10
32 units stacked with one sloped roof.
33
34 Motion by Commissioner Hudson, seconded by Commissioner Weinhold, to recommend
35 that the City Council approve the City Code Amendment to 12-14-17: Residential
36 Building Standards; to allow for roof pitches of less than 4:12 on single-family dwellings
37 –City of Andover (Applicant), deleting the “outside the MUSA” provision. Motion
38 carried on a 6-aye vote.
39
40
41 PUBLIC HEARING: Consider City Code Amendment – City Code 4-1-2-F; 12-14-3;
42 and 12-14-8-D-3 –Increased Penalties for Repeat Infractions of City Code Within One
43 Year – City of Andover (Applicant).
44
Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
Minutes – January 27, 2026
Page 5
1 Associate Planner Breen reviewed that the Planning and Zoning Commission is requested
2 to review a City Code Amendment to increase penalties for repeating City Code violations
3 for some of the most frequently received City Code Complaints.
4
5 On July 22, 2025, and November 25, 2025,during City Council work sessions, the City
6 Council discussed various proposals for additional enforcement avenues for properties that
7 had frequent violations of the Andover City Code and/or those properties that do not make
8 meaningful progress in resolving their violations after an initial citation is issued.
9
10 Mr. Breen reviewed a PowerPoint presentation.
11
12 For the 3 most commonly enforced violations of City Code, provisions added for:
nd
13 2 violation within a year.
rd
14 3 or more violations within a year.
15
nd
16 2violation:
17 Double fines.
18
rd
19 3violation:
20 Triple fines.
21 Option for a mandatory court hearing.
22
23 This amendment would have applied to 2-3 properties in 2025.
24
25 The Planning and Zoning Commission is requested to hold a public hearing and make a
26 recommendation on the City Code Amendments to the City Council. The text of the
27 proposed amendments was provided for the Commission.
28
29 Also provided for Commission consideration were the Draft Ordinance, City Council
30 Workshop Meeting Minutes of July 22, 2025,and November 2, 2025.
31
32 Commissioner Weinhold stated a possible scenario. He asked how he would be notified if
33 he had a violation on his property. Mr. Breen provided the Code enforcement process on a
34 chart. The enforcement process will not change with the increased penalties.
35
36 Commissioner Naughton stated he does not believe the City can mandate a court
37 appearance.Fines can be paid before going to Court. Mr. Breen stated that one of the
38 options when the city sets its citation penalties with the Minnesota court system is whether
39 or not a citation requires a mandatory hearing.
40
41 Chair Loehlein noted that there were slight variations in the added code text across the
42 different sections of code and asked if this was intentional. Mr. Breen stated that these
43 discrepancies were not intentional and the same language would be added to each section
44 of city code.
45
Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
Minutes – January 27, 2026
Page 6
1 Commissioner Winge stated this is straightforward and asked if this is like what other
2 Cities do. Mr. Breen stated this is the recommendation from the City Attorney, who is
3 aware of what other Cities do.
4
5 Chair Loehlein opened the public hearing at 8:20 p.m.
6
7 No one appeared to address the Commission.
8 Chair Loehlein closed the public hearing at8:22p.m.
9
10 Motion by Commissioner Winge, seconded by Commissioner Naughton, to recommend
11 the City Council approve City Code Amendment – City Code 4-1-2-F; 12-14-3; and 12-
12 14-8-D-3 –Increased Penalties for Repeat Infractions of City Code Within One Year –
13 City of Andover (Applicant). Motion carried on a 6-aye vote.
14
15 Motion by Commissioner Grout, seconded by Commissioner Winge, to recommend that
16 the changes be consistent. Motion carried on a 6-aye vote.
17
18
19 OTHER BUSINESS.
20 The items from the November12, 2025,Planning and Zoning meeting were approved by
21 the City Council.
22
23 On January 28, 2026, there will be a meeting on the Bluebird roundabout.
24
25 The 2025 Annual Report will be finalized shortly.
26
27
28 ADJOURNMENT
29
30 Chair Loehlein adjourned the meeting at 8:30 p.m.
31
32
33 Respectfully Submitted,
34
35
36 Debbie Wolfe, Recording Secretary
37 TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc.
STAFF REPORT
Agenda Item #5
TO: Planning and Zoning Commissioners
FROM: Peter Hellegers, City Planner
SUBJECT:Appointment of Chairperson and Vice Chairperson
DATE: February 24, 2026
REQUEST
Appoint a Chairperson and Vice Chairperson for the Planning Commission.
DISCUSSION
The Commission is requested to nominate and appoint a Chairperson and Vice Chairperson.
Commissioner Loehlein is the current Chairperson and Commissioner Hudson is the current Vice
Chairperson. The Chairperson and Vice Chairperson selected this evening will begin those roles
at the next regular meeting of the Planning Commission.
STAFF REPORT
Workshop Agenda - Item #2
TO: Planning and Zoning Commissioners
COPY: Joe Janish, Community Development Director
FROM: Peter Hellegers, City Planner
SUBJECT:Discussion: Planning and Zoning Commissioner Training
DATE: February 24, 2026
DISCUSSION
For informational purposes the following topics will be reviewed during the workshop:
A. Planning and Zoning Procedures
B.Open Meeting Law / Remote Meeting Participation Policy
C.Meeting Cadence
D. Other Topics/Questions
Planning and Zoning Commission Procedures
(Revised 2026)
1.General Information
1.Role of the Planning and Zoning Commission
The Planning and Zoning Commission serves as an advisory board
to the City Council. The seven-member board makes
recommendations to the City Council based on the city’s
Comprehensive Plan, City Code,andpublicinput. The City Council
makes all final decisions.
A summary of the types of items reviewed by the Planning and
Zoning Commission is shown in a subsequent section within this
packet.
2. Procedures
The Commission abides by the rules of parliamentary procedure
known as “Roberts Rules.”A brief overview is provided within this
packet as well. Please keep in mind that the Commission does not
follow Roberts Rules “by the book” and instead uses them as
guardrails to help run an orderly and efficient meeting. A meeting
cadence example is also provided within this packet to explain
procedures within the meeting.
3. Meeting Dates and Times
The Commission typically meets on the second Tuesday and
sometimes on the fourth Tuesday of each month. Meetings are held
in the City Council Chambers at City Hall. The meetings begin at
7:00 p.m. and typically last between one and three hours. On
occasion there may be other meetings, such as workshops or open
houses, which do not occur at the regular meeting time.
4. Length of Term
Commissioners are appointed to serve three-year terms beginning in
January. Members may reapply to serve consecutive terms. At the
expiration of a term, Commissioners serve until the City Council fills
their seat.
5. Staff Reports
Staff reports will be prepared for each item on the agenda. The
reports will include general information, applicable ordinances as
well as information provided by the applicant. A packet including all
the materials for each meeting will be available the Friday before
the meeting.
Currently, Planning and Zoning Commission packets areprovided to
commissioners in two ways: via the public portal on the City’s
website, and via a paper copy that is delivered to the
commissioners. When the packets are available commissioners will
receive an email alerting them that the packets are posted on the
City’s website. Packets are also delivered to Commissioner’s homes
on the Friday before the meeting by an Anoka County Sheriff’s
Department Community Service Officer.
6. Attendance
If you are unable to attend a meeting, please contact a staff member
in the Planning Department in advance of the meeting. This is
important to ensure that a quorum (majority) of Commissioners will
be present at each meeting. Three consecutive absences will result
in automatic removal from the Commission.
7. Payment
Commission members receive a small stipend per meeting that they
attend. Payments are made quarterly. Commissioners are asked to
fill out a W-4 form prior to receiving compensation.
8. Public Hearing Notification Process
Approximately 10 days prior to the meeting: A Public Hearing Notice
is published in the Anoka County Union Herald,and a notice is also
mailed to all property owners within 350 feetof the site in the urban,
and within 700-feet of the site if it is rural. This follows the
requirements established by Minnesota State Statute for public
hearing notice and notification distances. In addition, the City of
Andover will place a sign stating “Proposed Change” on the site to
inform interested residents of the public hearing. The sign has City
contact information that residents can call for information on the
public hearing.
9. Recusal
From time to time a member of the Commission may have a conflict
of interest in an application being reviewed, in these situations
Commissioners may need to recuse themselves from the agenda
item. Please contact City staff prior to the meeting if you feel you
have a conflict of interest in a specific application. Please note that
living in close proximity to an application alone is generally not a
conflict of interest.
10. 60-Day Rule
Commissioners should generally be aware of Minnesota State
Statute 15.99, commonly referred to as the “60-day Rule”, which
requires a City to make a decision on all zoning applications within
60-days of the date of submittal, or 120-days if the City issues an
extension. If a City fails to act on the request in that amount of time,
2
the request is automatically approved. The underlying purpose of
the rule is to keep governmental agencies from taking too long in
deciding onland use issues.City staff monitor each application for
compliance and will inform the Commission if its motion, especially
motions to table, may conflict with the rule.
2.Summary of Items Reviewed by the Planning and Zoning
Commission
The graphic below, the “pyramid of discretion,”is provided as a way to
visualize how much discretion the City has when considering different
types of land use applications. Generally the City has the most
discretion when creating law (the areas in green at the base of the
pyramid), some discretion when they are acting in a quasi-judicial role
of applying the law (yellow section in the middle of the pyramid), and
the least discretion when acting in an administrative capacity.
The Planning Commission does review some items where they are
establishing laws, such as comprehensive plans,amendments and
rezonings. However, many of the itemsreviewed by the Planning and
Zoning Commissionwill be from applying lawand will require particular
attention to the scope of what can be considered for that item under
City Codes and State Statute.
3
(Creating Law)
1. Comprehensive Plan
A Comprehensive Plan is a “road map” for the community. This
document establishes the vision and goals for the future of the
community and City Code is required to be consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan. As the City of Andover is part of theseven-
county metropolitan area, our Comprehensive Plan is also required
to be consistent with Metropolitan Council (Met Council) Policy
Statements and guidance from the Met Council. This plan provides
the foundation for all land use regulations in the city.
Overall the information within a Comprehensive Plan follows three
basic questions:
a.What is the state of the community today?
b.What should the community be like in the future?
c.How will the community get there?
2. Comprehensive Plan Amendment
Most Comprehensive Plan Amendments (CPA) involve changes to
the Future Land Use Map. This map provides a land use designation
for each property in the city. These designations regulate the types
of activities that can occur on a property; such as residential,
commercial, or industrial development. In other cases, a CPA may
involve a change to the text of the plan to more accurately reflect
changing times and conditions. Criteria for the review of these
amendments are provided in Chapter One of the Comprehensive
Plan.
STATE LAW: All Comprehensive Plan Amendments require a 4/5ths
vote of the City Council to be approved rather than a
simple majority. Comprehensive Plan Amendments
also must be approved by the Metropolitan Council.
3. Zoning Ordinance
This is a tool to implement the comprehensive plan. Zoning is a
method of establishing a land use pattern by regulating how land is
used by owners/renters. Zoning ordinances include area standards
(size, setbacks, height, etc.), various zoning districts (residential,
commercial, industrial) with standards and allowed uses within those
zoning districts.
4. Zoning (City Code) Amendment
City Code amendments typically involve changes to the text of the
City Code. These requests can be initiated by an applicant or the
city. In many cases changes to existing regulations are made to
4
reflect changes in times and conditions or to address situations that
havenot previously been contemplated.
5. Rezoning
Rezoning is a change (amendment) to the city’s official zoning map.
These change the zoning district of one or more properties. Zoning
districts prescribe land uses that are allowed as well as dimensional
standards for lot size, building setbacks and other items as detailed
in Title 12 of the City Code.
STATE LAW: When property is rezoned from residential to
commercial or industrial, a two–thirds majority of all
members of the city council is required. Other zoning
changes only require a simple majority, and rezoning
should be consistent with the comprehensive plan
land use map.
(Applying Law)
6. Sketch Plan (review only – no formal action)
A sketch plan allows input from the Commission on a conceptual
development proposal. The purpose is to allow a discussion
between the Commission and applicantsto help determine whether
a concept has merit and what types of adjustments are needed
before proceeding to a formal recommendation by the Commission.
This is an inexpensive way to determine if what a person is asking
for is viable.
Ghost Plat
A “Ghost Plat” is not an application type, but it is related to the
process of sketch planning and property subdivision. When a
property is proposed for a new subdivision City Code requires
that the development plan show a “ghost plat” onto adjacent
properties that have not been developed. A “ghost plat” is a
reference to a conceptual development layout for surrounding
properties that is used to show how the properties around a
proposed development could develop, and that the proposed
development still leaves options for those adjacent properties.
7. Preliminary Plat
Preliminary plats involve the subdivision of one or more properties
into more than two properties. These items are more complex than
lot splits and require additional application materials including a
grading plan, storm water management plat, geotechnical report,
and tree protection plan. City Code Title 11 provides specific
regulations for preliminary plats.
8. Conditional Use Permit (CUP)
5
Conditional use permits (CUP’s) are required for land uses that have
the potential for adverse impacts on adjacent properties. CUP’s
allow the city to place reasonable conditions on the approval of a
project to mitigate these impacts. In some cases, with sufficient
findings, the Commission can recommend denial of a CUP if
reasonable conditions are deemed not to be sufficient to adequately
address adverse impacts on adjacent properties. The burden of
proof is the applicant’s responsibility. The criteria for considering
conditional use permits are provided in City Code 12-15-7.
Criteria for granting Conditional Use Permits (CUP):
a. In granting a Conditional Use Permit, the City Council shall
consider the advice and recommendation of the Planning and
Zoning Commission and:
i. The effect of the proposed use upon the health, safety,
morals, and general welfare of occupants of surrounding
lands.
ii. Existing and anticipated traffic conditions, including
parking facilities on adjacent streets and land.
iii. The effect on values of property and scenic views in the
surrounding area, and the effect of the proposed use on
the Comprehensive Plan.
9. Interim Use Permit (IUP)
The purpose and intent of an Interim Use Permit (IUP) is a
temporary use of property until a particular date, until the
occurrence of a particular event, or until zoning regulations no
longer permit it.
IUP’s include uses such as mining, home occupations, interim
performance standards (for the Hughs/Westview area), land
reclamation, storage of construction highway materials, subordinate
classroom structures, and other uses that the City establishes a
sunset clause, a date of expiration. The criteria for considering
interim use permits are provided in City Code 12-15-8.
Review Criteria:
a.The Planning and Zoning Commission shall recommend an
interim use permit,and the Council shall issue such interim
use permit only if it finds that such use at the proposed
location:
i. Will not create an excess burden on parks, streets,
and other public facilities;
6
ii. Will not be injurious to the surrounding
neighborhood or otherwise harm the public health,
safety, and general welfare;
iii. Will not have a negative effect on values of
property and scenic views;
iv.Will be subject to, by agreement with the owner,
any conditions that the City Council has deemed
appropriate for permission of the use, including a
condition that the owner may be required to
provide an appropriate financial surety to cover the
cost of removing the interim use and any interim
structures upon the expiration of the interim use
permit.
b. Termination. An interim use permit shall terminate upon the
occurrence of any of the following events, whichever occurs
first;
i. Five (5) years from the date of approval; or
ii. The date or event stated in the permit; or
iii. An amendment to the City Code that either no longer
allows the interim use or now permits the interim use;
or
iv. The use has been discontinued for six months.
10.Variance
Variances are essentially a waiver of a specific City Code
requirement that may be granted when unique circumstances are
demonstrated by the applicant. The Commission is asked to
compare an applicant’s request to the Zoning Code and the criteria
of City Code §12-15-9to determine if a recommendation of approval
or denial is appropriate.
Review Criteria:
a. Variance shall only be permitted when they are in harmony with
the general purposes and intent of the official control and when
the variances are consistent with the comprehensive plan.
b. Variances may be granted when the applicant for the variance
establishes that there are practical difficulties in complying with
the official control. “Practical difficulties,” as used in connection
with the granting of a variance, means:
i. The property owner proposes to use the property in a
reasonable manner not permitted by an official control;
7
Means the landowner would like to use the property in a
particular reasonable way but cannot do so under the
current ordinance. It does not mean that the land cannot be
put to any reasonable use without the variance.
For example, if the variance application is for building too
close to a lot line, or does not meet the required setback,
the focus of the first factor is whether the request to place a
building there is reasonable.
ii.The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique
to the property not created by the landowner;
The uniqueness generally relates to the physical
characteristics of the property.
iii.The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential
character of the locality;
Will the resulting structure be out of scale, out of place or
inconsistent with the surrounding area?
iv. Economic considerations alone do not constitute practical
difficulties.
Economic considerations can be considered, however,
cannot be the sole factor.
11. Planned Unit Development (PUD)
CITY CODE
13-3-1: PURPOSE: The purpose of a Planned Unit Development (PUD) is to
encourage more efficient allocation of density and intensity of land use
where such arrangement is desirable and feasible by providing the means
for greater creativity and flexibility in environmental design than provided
under the strict application of this code. It must be demonstrated to the
satisfaction of the City Council that a higher quality development will result
than could be otherwise achieved through strict application of this code.
(Ord. 298, 8-4-2004)
13-3-6: ZONING AND SUBDIVISION STANDARDS AND REQUIREMENTS: All
standards and provisions relating to an original zoning district shall apply,
unless otherwise approved as part of the PUD. All standards may be
modified or waived provided the applicant demonstrates harmony with the
purpose of the PUD and the findings described in Section 13-3-9 of this
chapter. (Ord. 298, 8-4-2004)
8
If the PUD does not change the underlining zoning,then the standards
still apply. For example in the R-1 Single Family-Rural zoning district, the
following are lot standards:
Lot size of 2.5 acres
Lots 300 feet wide at the front yard setback line
Lot depth of 150 feet
Density of 0.4 units per acre
13-3-9: FINDINGS REQUIRED: In order for a PUD to be approved, the City shall
find that the following are present:
A. The proposed development is not in conflict with the goals of the
Comprehensive Plan of the city.
B. The proposed development is designed in such a manner as to form a
desirable and unified environment within its own boundaries.
C. The proposed development demonstrates how each modified or
waived requirement contributes to achieving the purpose of a PUD.
D. The PUD is of composition, and arrangement that its construction,
marketing, and operation are feasible as a complete unit without
dependence upon any subsequent unit. (Ord. 298, 8-4-2004)
13-3-11: DESIRABLE PUD DESIGN QUALITIES: The following design qualities
will be sought in any PUD:
A. Achieves efficiency in the provision of streets and utilities and
preserves area to achieve the elements of design qualities described
in this chapter.
Minimizing soil disturbances for the construction of roadways?
Minimizing impacts to wetlands?
Openness to modifying design standards, such as street width,
setbacks, lot dimensions, lot sizes?
B.Provides convenient and safe access for vehicles and pedestrians
and all types of activity that are anticipated to be a part of the
proposed development.
Review of access into and out of the development?
Review of multimodal traffic within the development?
Review of multimodal traffic to connect to existing amenities?
C. Provides a buffer between different uses, adjacent properties,
roadways, between backyards of back-to-back lots.
9
Tree stand preservation?
Landscaping plans?
Restrictive Easements?
Home Owners Association (HOA)?
D.Preserves existing stands of trees and/or significant trees.
Tree stand preservation?
Moving roadways to avoid trees or significant trees?
Smaller lots than the 2.5 acres are considered in order to place a
roadway in an area to preserve trees?
E. Provides considerable landscaping treatments that complement the
overall design and contribute toward an overall landscaping theme.
Additional trees for each lot?
Monument entrances?
Raingardens?
F. Preserves significant usable space on individual lots or through the
provision of open space within the development.
R-1 zoning requires a total of 8,600 square feet of upland (3,600
sq ft for home and 5,000 square feet for primary and secondary
septic location); would a half (.5) acre of upland or more per lot
be considered “significant usable space?
If a developer could provide more upland per lot vs. 8,600 square
feet, would council consider a smaller lot than 2.5 acres?
If a developer provided open space either as HOA owned or
provided additional parkland or preserve to the City, would
council consider smaller lots than 2.5 acres?
Clustering?
G. Provides an attractive streetscape through the use of undulating
topography, landscaping, decorative street lighting, decorative
mailbox groupings, retaining walls, boulders, fencing, area
identification signs, etc.
If “Undulating topography” creates lots that are less than 2.5
acres, is that acceptable?
If minimizing the impact of construction creates smaller lots, is
that acceptable?
H. The proposed structures within the development demonstrate quality
architectural design and the use of high-qualitybuilding materials for
unique design and detailing.
Custom home sites?
Limitations on building materials?
10
Color restrictions?
Home style restrictions (ramblers, two story, patio/slab, etc.)?
I. The lasting quality of the development will be ensured by design,
maintenance and use guidelines established through an owners’
association. (Ord. 298, 8-4-2004).
If the HOA restricts uses that the City Code allows, is that
acceptable?
Limit home occupations?
Not allow for accessory structures, additional limits on accessory
structures size,
Restrict parking in driveways?
Require additional landscaping?
Other code restrictions?
13-3-12: APPROVAL OF PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT: The developer
must demonstrate that the amenities and qualities of the Planned Unit
Development are beneficial and in the public interest to allow the
development to be approved. A substantial amount of the design
qualities identified in Section 13-3-11 of this chapter shall be found to be
present in order to approve a PUD. The amount of amenities and type
of qualities that constitute an acceptable PUD are at the sole discretion
of the City Council to determine. (Ord. 298, 8-4-2004)
11
General Applications Process
12
Making Recommendations
Based on Findings of Fact
Working with municipal land use regulations can be difficult for both city
officials and residents. Sometimes cities need to make controversial
decisions, and no matter what the result, someone will be unhappy. An
important part of the process is developing and adopting written “findings
of fact” that explain the decision. Carefully and thoughtfully developing
written findings of fact can help solve a contentious problem because it
forces officials to focus their reviewon the merit of an application. It also
produces a record that makes it easier for a court to uphold the decision if
it is challenged. This is especially important when making a
recommendation to deny an application.
Findings of fact should explain to the reader how and why the City
reached its decision and should:
1. Identify the relevant legal criteria, such as City Code or
Comprehensive Plan requirements.
2. Explain the relevant facts relating to the particular application.
3. Apply those facts to the legal criteria.
For example, a finding of fact for denial could be: City Code 12-3-5
requires a minimum lot size in the R-4 zoning district of 11,400 square
feet. The proposed application is proposing a minimum lot size of 8,000
square feet. Since the proposed application is located in the R-4 zoning
district and does not meet the minimum lot size established by City Code
12-3-5, the Planning & Zoning Commission recommends denial to the City
Council.
Please keep in mind that the findings must be facts, and not opinion or
hearsay. For example, if the Commission wanted to recommend denial of
an application but as part of the application a traffic study was conducted
showing that the amount of traffic created would not burden adjacent
streets, the Commission should not cite traffic concerns as a finding for
its recommendation of denial as the facts would not support its
recommendation. Additionally, the findings should only relate to items
under the City’s jurisdiction. For example, denying a proposed residential
development out of concern that it could increase classroom sizes at a
school is not a good finding of fact as schools are outside of the City’s
jurisdiction. The same is true for private utility infrastructure such as
power or natural gas. Resident opposition alone also cannot be a reason
for denial.
City staff are available during the meeting to assist with creating findings
of fact. Through its recommendation, the Commission can also allow City
staff to review the entirety of a meeting and produce findings to be
forwarded to the City Council based off the Commission’s discussion.
13
Processes Which Are Not Part of the Planning
Commission Review
1.Environmental Reviews
The State of Minnesota has standards under which environmental
review must be completed based on the type, size, and location of the
development. These environmental reviews do not approve or deny a
development; they are used to determine potential environmental
impacts and potential mitigation measures. Environmental reviews
include; Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW), Environmental
Impact Statement (EIS), and Alternative Urban Areawide Review
(AUAR).
2. Final Plat
The Final Plat is the formal document that will record the subdivision
of property. This process takes the Preliminary Plat that has been
approved and puts the plat into recordable format. At the time of Final
Plat the document will be reviewed for consistency with the approved
Preliminary Plat and any changes required as part of that process.
Once the plat has been checked and approved by Council it will be
signed and then recorded at Anoka County.
3.Dedication of Easement
Some easements are allowed to be dedicated through the platting
process and depicted on the plat (i.e., Drainage and Utility
easements). The easement dedication process applies to other
easements which need to be dedicated separately (i.e., conservation
easements, ditch, trail, vehicle maintenance access) or may be
dedicated after the property has been platted. The easement
dedication process involves a deed/agreement, legal description,and
survey of the easement area.
4. Vacation of Easement
Should an easement need to be removed, the easement vacation
process requires a public hearing at the City Council preceded by
notice as required by law. The vacation is similar to the easement
dedication with the legal description and survey of the property to be
vacated.
G:/Planning\\Planning Commission/Planning Commission Training/P&Z Procedures –Revised 2026
14
Creating / Establishing Law Applying Law Administering Law
Comprehensive Plan Conditional Use Permit (CUP) Site Plan Review
Comprehensive Plan Amendment Interim Use Permit (IUP) Building Permits
Establishing Zoning Code/Ordinance Planned Unit Development (via CUP) Lot Split
Zoning (City Code) Text Amendment Preliminary Plat Sign Permits
Rezoning Sketch Plan (review / no formal action)
Variance
Easement Dedication (Council only)
Environmental Reviews (Council only)
Final Plat (Council only)
Vacation of Easement (Council only)
Reviewed by: (Planning Commission / Reviewed by: (Planning Commission /
Council) Council)
Applying Law –In this category the items
Creating/Establishing Law – In this are reviewed against standards and the
category the items involve establishing Administering Law – These items are
the laws of the city. While there are based on how the requested actions meet
standards that apply, the city has more the requirements. Any conditions that are are not reviewed at the Planning
latitude to shape the laws which govern applied need to have a reasonable nexus Commission level.
the city. to the issue being addressed by the
condition.
Minnesota Open Meeting
Law
September2025
The Minnesota Open Meeting Law requires that meetings of governmental bodies
generally be open to the public. This publicationdiscusses the groups and types of
meetings covered by the open meeting law(page 2), and then reviews the requirements
of(page 6)and exceptions to the law(page 13),the penalties for its violation(page 17),
and sources of advice (page 18).
Executive Summary
1
The Minnesota Open Meeting Law was originally enacted in 1957.It is now codified in
Minnesota Statutes, chapter 13D. The Minnesota Supreme Court has articulated three
purposes of the open meeting law:
To prohibit actions being taken at a secret meeting where it is impossible for the
interested public to become fully informed about a public board’s decisions or to
detect improper influences
To assure the public’s right to be informed
2
To afford the public an opportunity to present its views to the public body
“These purposes are deeply rooted in the fundamental proposition that a well-informed
3
populace is essential to the vitality of our democratic form of government.”Courts interpret
the law liberally and in favor of openness.
Entities covered by the law.The law applies to state and local multimember governmental
bodies, including committees and subcommittees, and nonprofits created by political
4
subdivisions. A separate law applies to the legislature.
1
Laws 1957, chapter 773, section 1.
2
Prior Lake American v. Mader,642 N.W.2d 729, 735 (Minn. 2002) (en banc) (citing St. Cloud Newspapers, Inc. v.
District 742 Community Schools, 332 N.W.2d 1, 4 (Minn. 1983)). While the courts consistently say that the open
meeting law is to afford the public an opportunity to present its views to the public body, there is no general
right for members of the public to speak at a meeting. Some statutes, and perhaps some home rule charters,
specify that a hearing on a particular matter must be held at which anyone who wishes to address the public
body may do so. See, e.g., Minn. Stat. § 117.0412, subd. 2.
3
Prior Lake American, 642 N.W.2d at 735.
4
Minn. Stat. §3.055.
By Chelsea Griffin,chelsea.griffin@house.mn.gov
Minnesota Open Meeting Law
Situations where the law applies. A meeting is a “meeting” for purposes of the law when a
quorum or more of the governmental body is gathered—in person or by interactive
technology, whether or not action is taken or contemplated. The open meeting law does not
address whether the governmental body must keep or publish meeting minutes, hold a
meeting for a particular purpose, or allow members of the public to address the body. For
any particular governmental body, there may be other laws or charter provisions that
address those topics.
What constitutes an open meeting. A meeting is open when proper notice was given in
advance of the meeting, the public may attend and observe, and relevant materials are
available to the public.
Exceptions to the law. A meeting may be closed based on a limited attorney-client privilege,
and for the purposes of discussing labor negotiations strategy, evaluating employees, and
discussing security issues and property transactions. The law does not apply to a
governmental body exercising quasi-judicial functions involving disciplinary proceedings.
Violations of the law. While actions taken at a meeting held in violation of the law are still
valid, the law provides for penalties and potentially removal from office.
Where to get advice. A governmental entity can seek advice from its attorney, the
Minnesota Attorney General, or the Commissioner of Administration. An individual may seek
advice from a private attorney or the Commissioner of Administration.
Groups and Meetings Governed by the Open Meeting
Law
The law applies to all levels of state and local government.
The open meeting law applies to:
a state agency, board, commission, or department when it is required or permitted
by law to transact public business in a meeting;
the governing body of any school district, unorganized territory, county, city, town,
or other public body;
a committee, subcommittee, board, department, or commission of a public body
subject to the law; and
5
the governing body or a committee of a statewide or local public pension plan.
5
Minn. Stat. § 13D.01, subd. 1.
Minnesota House Research Department Page 2
Minnesota Open Meeting Law
“Public body” is not defined but the Minnesota Supreme Court has stated that “\[i\]n common
understanding, ‘public body’ is possibly the broadest expression for the category of
6
governmental entities that perform functions for the public benefit.”
In determining whether the open meeting law applies to a particular entity, one should look at
all of the entity’s characteristics. For example, in a 1998 case, the Minnesota Supreme Court
held that because the statute authorizing creation of a municipal power agency authorized an
7
agency to conduct its affairs as a private corporation,it could hold closed meetings. The court
held so notwithstanding the statute that provides for municipal power agencies to be political
8
subdivisions of the state.
The law generally applies to nonprofit corporations created by governmental
entities.
The list of groups covered by the open meeting law does not refer to nonprofit corporations
created by a governmental entity. However, the law creating a specific public nonprofit
9
In addition, any corporation
corporation may specify that it is subject to the open meeting law.
created by a political subdivision before May 31, 1997, is clearly subject to the open meeting
10
law.
Gatherings of less than a quorum of a public body are not subject to the law; a
“meeting” is held when the group is capable of exercising decision-making
powers.
The Minnesota Supreme Court has held that the open meeting law applies only to a quorum or
more of members of the governing body or a committee, subcommittee, board, department, or
11
commission of the governing body. Serial meetings in groups of less than a quorum held in
6
Star Tribune Co. v. University of Minnesota Board of Regents, 683 N.W.2d 274, 280-282 (Minn. 2004) (en banc).
7
Southern Minn. Mun. Power Agency v. Boyne, 578 N.W.2d 362, 364 (Minn. 1998) (en banc) (citing Minn. Stat. §
453.54, subd. 21, and discussing the factors that distinguish a public corporation from a private corporation). See
also Minnesota Joint Underwriting Ass’n v. Star Tribune Media Co., 862 N.W.2d 62, 65 (Minn. 2015) (discussing
Boyne; stating whether a particular entity is a “government entity” under the Data Practices Act is a question of
law subject to the court’s de novo review).
8
Minn. Stat. § 453.53, subd. 1, para. (b), cl. (1) (The agency agreement shall state: “(1) That the municipal power
agency is created and incorporated . . . as a municipal corporation and a political subdivision of the state, to
exercise thereunder a part of the sovereign powers of the state;”).
9
E.g., Minn. Stat. §§ 62Q.03, subd. 6 (Minnesota Risk Adjustment Association); 85B.02, subd. 6 (Lake Superior
Center Authority); 116V.01, subd. 10 (Agricultural Utilization Research Institute); 124D.385, subd. 4 (Minnesota
Commission on National and Community Service may create a nonprofit but it is subject to the open meeting
law); and 128C.22 (State High School League).
10
Minn. Stat. § 465.719, subd. 9.
11
Moberg v. Independent School Dist. No. 281, 336 N.W.2d 510 (Minn. 1983) (en banc).
Minnesota House Research Department Page 3
Minnesota Open Meeting Law
order to avoid open meeting law requirements may also be found to be a violation, depending
12
on the facts of the case.
A public body subject to the law should be cautious about using e-mail to communicate with
other members of the body. Although the statute does not specifically address the use of e-
mail, it is likely that the court would analyze use of e-mail in the same way as it has telephone
13
That is, private communication about official business through
conversations and letters.
telephone conversations or letters by a quorum of a public body subject to the law would
violate the law.
Serial communication through telephone conversations or letters by less than a quorum with
the intent to avoid a public hearing or to come to an agreement on an issue relating to official
business could also violate the law. In a 1993 case, the Minnesota Court of Appeals held that
the open meeting law was not violated when two of five city council members attended private
mediation sessions related to city business. The court determined that the two council
members did not constitute a committee or subcommittee of the council because the group
14
was not capable of exercising decision-making powers.
The law applies to informational meetings.
The Minnesota Supreme Court has held that the open meeting law applies to all gatherings of
members of a governing body, whether or not action is taken or contemplated. This means that
a gathering of members of a public body for an informational seminar on matters currently
15
However,
facing the body or that might come before the body must be conducted openly.
12
Id. at 518; see also Mankato Free Press Co. v. City of North Mankato, 563 N.W.2d 291, 295 (Minn. App. 1997). On
remand to the district court for a factual finding on whether the city used serial interviews to avoid the open
meeting law, the trial court found, and the court of appeals affirmed, that the serial meetings were not held to
avoid the law. Mankato Free Press Co. v. City of North Mankato, No. C9-98-677, 1998 WL 865714 (Minn. App.
1998) (unpublished opinion), review denied (Minn. Feb. 24, 1999).
13
Moberg, 336 N.W.2d at 518. The Commissioner of Administration stated in a July 9, 2008, opinion that an e-mail
sent to all members of a city council by the city manager was effectively “printed material” that should be
available to members of the public and also suggested that the legislature revise the statute to recognize the use
of electronic and other types of communications. Minn. Dept. of Admin. Advisory Op. 08-015. A September 8,
2009, opinion by the commissioner states that the exchange of e-mails by staff and members of the Metro Gang
Strike Force Advisory Board violated the open meeting law because it was not just a matter of a quorum receiving
information, but a quorum of the body discussing and then giving the staff person direction on the action to take.
Minn. Dept. of Admin. Advisory Op. 09-020. In June 2017, the Commissioner of Administration issued an opinion
that a letter signed by a quorum of a school board that was sent without public notice, or discussion and decision
on the substance of the letter in an open meeting violated the law. The school board said one member drafted it,
sent it to the superintendent, who made minor revisions, placed it on letterhead, and then sent it to the other
members to sign. The board asserted it did not discuss or take action on it. The commissioner however found
that unlikely. “The Board’s assertion that it did not discuss, decide, or take action on the contents of the letter or
sending the letter is not plausible based on the very existence of the letter purporting to be from “the Board” and
bearing the signatures of a quorum of members of the Board.” Minn. Dept. of Admin. Advisory Op. 17-005
(Eveleth-Gilbert Public Schools, I.S.D. No. 2154, and a letter sent to the IRRRB).
14
Sovereign v. Dunn, 498 N.W.2d 62 (Minn. App. 1993), review denied (Minn. May 28, 1993).
15
St. Cloud Newspapers, Inc., 332 N.W.2d 1.
Minnesota House Research Department Page 4
Minnesota Open Meeting Law
there are some exceptions. A 1975 attorney general opinion stated that city council attendance
at a League of Minnesota Cities training program for city officials did not violate the open
16
meeting law if the members did not discuss specific municipal business. The statute governing
the Lessard-Sams Outdoor Heritage Council allows members of the council to travel together to
visit sites and learn about projects without it being a violation of the law as long as the
17
members do not decide, or agree to decide, matters under the council’s jurisdiction.
The law does not cover chance or social gatherings.
The open meeting law does not apply to chance or social gatherings of members of a public
18
body.However, a quorum of a public body may not, as a group, discuss or receive information
19
on official business in any setting under the guise of a private social gathering.
The law does not apply to certain types of advisory groups.
The Minnesota Court of Appeals has held that the open meeting law does not apply to certain
20
types of advisory groups.In that case, a presidential search advisory committee to the
University of Minnesota Board of Regents was held not to be a committee of the governing
body for purposes of the open meeting law. In reaching its holding, the court pointed out that
no regents were on the search committee and that the committee had no power to set policy
or make a final decision. It is not clear if a court would reach the same result if members of the
governing body were also on the advisory committee. Depending on the number of members
of the governing body involved and on the form or extent of the delegation of authority from
the governing body to the members, a court might consider the advisory committee to be a
committee of the governing body.
A separate law applies to the legislature.
In 1990, the legislature passed a law separate from the open meeting law that requires all
21
The law applies to House and Senate floor sessions
legislative meetings be open to the public.
and to meetings of committees, subcommittees, conference committees, and legislative
commissions. For purposes of this law, a meeting occurs when a quorum is present and action
is taken regarding a matter withinthe jurisdiction of the group.Each house of the legislature
must adopt rules to implement these requirements. Remedies provided under these rules are
the exclusive means of enforcing this law.
16
Op. Att’y Gen. 63a-5, Feb. 5, 1975.
17
Minn. Stat. § 97A.056, subd. 5, para. (b), provides “Travel to and from scheduled and publicly noticed site visits
by council members for the purposes of receiving information is not a violation of paragraph (a). Any decision or
agreement to make a decision during the travel is a violation of paragraph (a).”
18
St. Cloud Newspapers, Inc., 332 N.W.2d at 7.
19
Moberg, 336 N.W.2d at 518.
20
The Minnesota Daily v. University of Minnesota, 432 N.W.2d 189 (Minn. App. 1988).
21
Minn. Stat. § 3.055.
Minnesota House Research Department Page 5
Minnesota Open Meeting Law
Hybrid groups—those made up of both legislators and nonlegislators—may have different open
meeting law requirements. The Legislative-Citizen Commission on Minnesota Resources is
22
subject to the Minnesota Open Meeting Law, except that a meeting only occurs when a
23
In contrast,
quorum is present and action is taken, similar to the legislative open meeting law.
the Lessard-Sams Outdoor Heritage Council, which also has both legislators and nonlegislators
24
on it, is subject to the Minnesota Open Meeting Law, and a meeting occurs when a quorum is
25
present whether or not action is taken.
Requirements of the Open Meeting Law
Generally
Meetings must be open to the public.
The law also requires that votes in open meetings be recorded in a journal or minutes and that
26
the journal or minutes used to record votes of a meeting be open to the public. The vote of
each member must be recorded on appropriations of money, except for payments of
27
A straw ballot to narrow the list of
judgments and claims and amounts fixed by statute.
candidates for city administrator and not made public was held to be a secret vote in violation
of the open meeting law, particularly in light of the fact that the straw vote was acted on and
28
given the same effect as an official act.
22
Minn. Stat. ch. 13D.
23
Minn. Stat. § 116P.08, subd. 5, “(a) Meetings of the commission, committees, or subcommittees of the
commission, technical advisory committees, and peer reviewers must be open to the public and are subject to
chapter 13D. The commission shall attempt to meet throughout various regions of the state during each
biennium. For purposes of this subdivision, a meeting occurs when a quorum is present and action is taken
regarding a matter within the jurisdiction of the commission, a committee or subcommittee of the commission, a
technical advisory committee, or peer reviewers.
(b) For legislative members of the commission, enforcement of this subdivision is governed by section 3.055,
subdivision 2. For nonlegislative members of the commission, enforcement of this subdivision is governed by
section 13D.06, subdivisions 1 and 2.” (emphasis added).
24
Minn. Stat. ch. 13D.
25
Minn. Stat. § 97A.056, subd. 5.
26
Minn. Stat. § 13D.01, subds. 4 and 5. See also Minn. Dept. of Admin. Advisory Op. 22-002, finding that a town
that did not keep regular hours where town records were kept did not provide appropriate access to the voting
records when it directed an individual who requested review of the township journals to the meeting minutes
posted on the town’s website, which documented the voting record.
27
Minn. Stat. § 13D.01, subd. 4.
28
Mankato Free Press Co., 563 N.W.2d at 295-96. See also Minn. Dept. of Admin. Advisory Op. 25-001 (concluding
that a township board violated the Open Meeting Law when supervisor candidate interview scoring sheets were
tallied outside of a public meeting). In contrast, the Commissioner of Administration issued an advisory opinion
finding that a secret straw ballot taken and its results described and discussed at the same meeting as the ballot
was not a violation. Minn. Dept. of Admin. Advisory Op. 10-011.
Minnesota House Research Department Page 6
Minnesota Open Meeting Law
29
Open meetings must be held in a public place within the borders of the public body. Meetings
may also be held by interactive technology if specified conditions are met to ensure openness
30
and accessibility for those who wish to attend. Please see the section in this publication on
meetings by interactive technology for further information.
Public bodies mustgive notice of their meetings.
In 1974, the Minnesota Supreme Court held that failure to give notice of a meeting is a violation
31
of the open meeting law.The court has also held that it is a violation of the open meeting law
32
to conduct business before the time publicly announced for a meeting.
In 1987, the legislature spelled out the notice requirements in statute for regular, special,
emergency, and closed meetings. Public bodies must do the following:
33
Keep schedules of regular meetings on file at their offices.
Post written notice of the date, time, place, and purpose of the special meetings
(meetings held at a time or place different from regular meetings) on their principal
bulletin boardor on the door of the usual meeting room if the public body does not
have a principal bulletin board. The public body must also either mail notice to
people who have requested such mailings, or publish notice in the official
34
newspaper, at least three days before the meetings.
Make good faith efforts to notify news media that have filed written requests (with
telephone numbers) for notice of emergency meetings (special meetings called
35
because of circumstances that require immediate consideration).
36
The same notice requirements apply to closed meetings.
29
Quast v. Knutson, 276 Minn. 340, 341, 150 N.W.2d 199, 200 (1967) (school board meeting held 20 miles outside
the jurisdiction of the school board at a private office did not comply with open meeting law; consolidation
proceedings were fatally defective because the resolution by which the proceedings were initiated was not
adopted at a public meeting as required by law). The legislature may provide exceptions to this geographic
requirement. See, e.g., Laws 2014, chapter 272, article 3, section 54 (authorizing the school board of
Independent School District No.2142, St. Louis County, to hold its meetings at the district’s administrative office
or at a convenient location for school board members and district residents outside of the school district
boundaries if notice requirements are met).
30
Minn. Stat. §§ 13D.015, 13D.02, 13D.021.
31
Sullivan v. Credit River Township, 299 Minn. 170, 217 N.W.2d 502 (1974).
32
Merz v. Leitch, 342 N.W.2d 141, 145 (Minn. 1984) (en banc).
33
Minn. Stat. § 13D.04, subd. 1.
34
Minn. Stat. § 13D.04, subd. 2; Rupp v. Mayasich, 533 N.W.2d 893 (Minn. App. 1995) (bulletin board must be
reasonably accessible to the public). A February 3, 2004, advisory opinion by the Commissioner of Administration
stated that a public body’s actions at a special meeting are limited to those topics included in the notice of special
meeting. Minn. Dept. of Admin. Advisory Op. 04-004.
35
Minn. Stat. § 13D.04, subd. 3.
36
Minn. Stat. § 13D.04, subd. 5.
Minnesota House Research Department Page 7
Minnesota Open Meeting Law
Absent any other specific law governing notice by a state agency, a state agency required or
permitted by law to transact public business in a meeting satisfies notice requirements if it
publishes notice in the State Register or posts notice on the agency’s website. In addition, a
schedule of the regular meetings must be kept on file at the primary offices or posted on the
37
agency’s website.
Additional notice is not necessary for a recessed or continued session of a previous meeting if
the time and place of the meeting was established during the previous meeting and recorded in
38
the minutes of that meeting.
Relevant materials mustbe publicly available.
The open meeting law requires that for open meetings, at least one copy of any printed
material prepared by the public body and distributed or available to all members of the public
body also be available in the meeting room for inspection by the public. This requirement does
not apply to materials that are classified as other than public under the Government Data
39
Practices Act.
A public body cannot fulfill its obligation to make members’ materials available in the meeting
room for inspection by the public if the public does not know they are available for inspection.
While there is not an affirmative duty to distribute copies to each member of the public in
attendance at the meeting, liberally construing the law to protect the public’s right to full
access to the decision-making process of public bodies requires a public body to provide easy
40
access to the materials.
41
Meetings by Interactive Technology
Public bodies may hold meetings by interactive technology so long as certain requirements are
met to ensure openness and accessibility for those who wish to attend. There are three statutes
42
under the Minnesota Open Meeting Law that provide requirements for such meetings for
different entities:
37
Minn. Stat. § 13D.04, subd. 6.
38
Minn. Stat. § 13D.04, subd. 4. See also Minn. Dept. of Admin. Advisory Op. 25-002.
39
Minn. Stat. § 13D.01, subd. 6.
40
Minn. Dept. of Admin. Advisory Op. 18-011.
41
The term “interactive technology” replaced “interactive television” and “other electric means” throughout
chapter 13D in Laws 2021, chapter 14, which contained technical updates to the open meeting law. It is defined
under section 13D.001, subdivision 2, as “a device, software program, or other application that allows individuals
in different physical locations to see and hear one another.”
42
Minn. Stat. ch. 13D.
Minnesota House Research Department Page 8
Minnesota Open Meeting Law
43
1) one section applies to state entities such as agencies, boards, commissions,
departments, and certain statewide public pension plans, and any committee,
subcommittee, board, department, or commission of any of those entities;
2) one section applies to public bodies other than state entities that are subject to the
44
; and
Minnesota Open Meeting Law
3) one section applies tomeetings of public bodies during a health pandemic or a declared
45
emergency.
Various statutes for specific public bodies also allow for meetings by interactive technology,
46
telephone, or other electronic means.
The Minnesota Open Meeting Law interactive technology statutesare similar in many ways, but
there are differences in the requirements.The followingtable outlines the requirements under
each of the statutes.
43
Minn. Stat. § 13D.015.
44
Minn. Stat. § 13D.02.
45
Minn. Stat. § 13D.021. An emergency is an emergency declared under chapter 12 of the Minnesota Statutes.
46
E.g. Minn. Stat. §§ 35.0661 (Board of Animal Health during restricted travel for animal health reasons); 41A.0235
(Minnesota Agricultural and Economic Development Board); 41B.026 (Rural Finance Authority); 116L.03, subd. 8
(Minnesota Job Skills Partnership Board); 116M.15, subd. 5 (Minnesota Emerging Entrepreneur Board); 116T.02,
subd. 6 (Northern Technology Initiative, Inc.); 116U.24 (Explore Minnesota Councils); 116U.25 (Explore
Minnesota Tourism Council); 123A.16, subd. 1 (education district boards); 129C.105 (Board of the Perpich Center
for Arts Education); 134.31, subd. 7 (Advisory Committee for the Minnesota Braille and Talking Book Library);
176.102, subd. 3c (rehabilitation review panels); 176.103, subd. 3 (Medical Services Review Board); 248.10
(Rehabilitation Council for the Blind); 256.482, subd. 5b (Minnesota State Council on Disability); 256.975, subd.
2a (Minnesota Board on Aging); 256C.28, subd. 7 (Commission of the Deaf, DeafBlind and Hard of Hearing);
268A.02, subd. 3 (State Rehabilitation Council and Statewide Independent Living Council); 326B.32, subd. 7
(Board of Electricity); 326B.435, subd. 7 (Plumbing Board); 326B.925, subd. 7 (Board of High Pressure Piping
Systems); 462A.041 (Minnesota Housing Finance Agency); 471.59, subd. 2 (joint powers board for educational
purposes).
Minnesota House Research Department Page 9
Minnesota Open Meeting Law
Interactive Meeting Requirements for Different Entities
Health Pandemic or
State Entities Other Public Bodies
Declared Emergency
47
(Section 13D.015) (Section 13D.02)
(Section 13D.021)
Technology authorized Interactive Technology Interactive Technology Interactive Technology
to conduct meeting
Telephone Telephone
Quorum/Participation Each member Each member Each member
participating by the participating by the participating by the
authorized technology authorized technology authorized technology
is considered present at is considered present at is considered present at
the meeting the meeting the meeting
Remote monitoring The public body must The public body must The public body must
and participation allow a person to allow a person to allow a person to
requirements monitor the meeting monitor the meeting monitor the meeting
electronically from a electronically from a electronically from a
remote location, to the remote location, to the remote location, to the
extent practical extent practical extent practical
If attendance at the
regular meeting
location is not feasible
due to the health
pandemic or declared
emergency and the
public body’s practice is
to offer a public
comment period at in-
person meetings,
members of the public
must be permitted to
comment from a
remote location, to the
extent practical
Notice Must include: Must include: Must include:
1) regular meeting 1) regular meeting 2) regular meeting
location; location; and location;
2) a statement that 2) a statement that 2) a statement that
some members some members some members
may participate by may participate by may participate by
47
A member of a public body may participate in board meetings while out of state via interactive technology,
pursuant to section 13D.02, as long as the conditions of that section are met. Minn. Dept. of Admin. Advisory Op.
18-019.
Minnesota House Research Department Page 10
Minnesota Open Meeting Law
Health Pandemic or
State Entities Other Public Bodies
Declared Emergency
47
(Section 13D.015) (Section 13D.02)
(Section 13D.021)
interactive interactive authorized
technology; and technology technology; and
3) information about 3) information about
Timing and method is
remote monitoring remote monitoring
governed by section
13D.04
Timing and method is Timing and method is
governed by section governed by section
13D.04 13D.04
Notice must be posted
on the public body’s
website at least ten
days before any regular
meeting.
Recording None specifiedThe minutes must None specified
requirements reflect the names of
any members
appearing by
interactive technology
and state the reason or
reasons for the remote
appearance
Conditions for use of technology
All conditions must be met for participation by members and the public, physical presence, and
48
conduct of votes.
Member participation Members participating Members participating Members participating
in the meeting can hear in the meeting can hear in the meeting can hear
one another and can and see one another one another and can
hear all discussion and and can hear and see all hear all discussion and
testimony discussion and testimony
testimony
48
Prior to May 24, 2025, section 13D.02 required each location of a public body member to be open and accessible
to the public. Further, a public body member could only participate up to three times a year from a nonpublic
location if the member was serving in the military and was at a required drill, deployed, or on active duty, or the
member had been advised by a health care professional against being in a public place for personal or family
medical reasons. A temporary exception to these limitations was included in Laws 2021, chapter 14, section 7,
which allowed a member of a public body to participate from a nonpublic location more than three times during
the first half of calendar year 2021 due to the COVID-19 health pandemic. The remote participation restrictions
were eliminated for public bodies subject to section 13D.02 under Laws 2025, chapter 39, article 6, section 1.
Amendments were also made to the notice requirements under section 13D.02 to reflect these changes (Laws
2025, ch. 39, art. 6, § 2).
Minnesota House Research Department Page 11
Minnesota Open Meeting Law
Health Pandemic or
State Entities Other Public Bodies
Declared Emergency
47
(Section 13D.015) (Section 13D.02)
(Section 13D.021)
Public participation Members of the public Members of the public Members of the public
at the regular meeting at the regular meeting at the regular meeting
location can hear all location can hear and location can hear all
discussion and all votes see all discussion and discussion and
of members and can testimony and all votes testimony and all votes
participate in testimony of members of members, unless
attendance at the
regular meeting
location is not feasible
due to the health
pandemic or declared
emergency
Physical presence At least one member of At least one member of At least one member of
the public body is the public body is the public body, chief
physically present at physically present at legal counsel, or chief
the regular meeting the regular meeting administrative officer is
location location physically present at
the regular meeting
location, unless
unfeasible due to the
health pandemic or
declared emergency
Conduct of votes All votes are conducted All votes are conducted All votes are conducted
by roll call by roll call by roll call
The presiding officer,
chief legal counsel, or
chief administrative
officer for the public
body determines that
an in-person meeting or
a meeting conducted
under the other
interactive technology
statutes is not practical
or prudent because of a
health pandemic or
declared emergency
Minnesota House Research Department Page 12
Minnesota Open Meeting Law
Exceptions to the Open Meeting Law
A closed meeting, except one closed under the attorney-client privilege, must be electronically
recorded at the expense of the public body. Unless otherwise provided by law, the recordings
49
must be preserved for at least three years after the date of the meeting.
The law does not apply to state agency disciplinary hearings.
The open meeting law does not apply to any state agency, board, or commission when
50
exercising quasi-judicial functions involving disciplinary hearings.
Certain meetings involving employee evaluation or discipline must be closed.
A public body must close meetings for preliminary consideration of allegations or charges
51
against an individual subject to its authority.If the members of the public body conclude that
discipline may be warranted as a result of those charges or allegations, further meetings or
52
hearings relating to the charges or allegations must be open. Meetings must also be open at
the request of the individual who is the subject of the meeting. If an outside investigator is
hired, the meeting should be open because the public body has moved past the preliminary
53
consideration of allegations or charges.
Statutes other than the open meeting law may permit or require closed meetings for certain
local governmental bodies to conduct specific kinds of disciplinary hearings. For example,
school board hearings held to discharge or demote a teacher are private unless the affected
54
teacher wants a public hearing.
A public body may close a meeting to evaluate the performance of an individual who is subject
to its authority. Before closing a meeting, the public body must identify the individual to be
evaluated. The public body must summarize the conclusions of the evaluation at its next open
55
meeting. An evaluation meeting must be open at the request of the subject of the meeting.
49
Minn. Stat. § 13D.05, subd. 1.
50
Minn. Stat. § 13D.01, subd. 2. This subdivision also says that the law does not apply to meetings of the
Commissioner of Corrections, which does not really make sense since such a meeting is not of a multimember
body. It may be explained by the legislative history, however. Until 1982, the exception was for meetings of the
Corrections Board, a multimember body. A 1983 instruction directed the Revisor of Statutes to change
“Corrections Board” to “Commissioner of Corrections” throughout statutes. Laws 1983, ch. 274, § 18.
51
Minn. Stat. § 13D.05, subd. 2.
52
Minn. Dept. of Admin. Advisory Op. 23-004.
53
Minn. Dept. of Admin. Advisory Op. 19-008. The Commissioner of Administration found that the Tower City
Council violated the open meeting law when it did not open a meeting to the public, claiming that hiring an
outside investigator was still a primary consideration of employee misconduct allegations under section 13D.05.
54
Minn. Stat. § 122A.41, subd. 9.
55
Minn. Stat. § 13D.05, subd. 3.
Minnesota House Research Department Page 13
Minnesota Open Meeting Law
A meeting may be closed to discuss labor negotiations strategy.
The open meeting law permits a public body to hold a closed meeting to discuss strategy and
56
proposals for labor negotiations conducted under the Public Employment Labor Relations Act.
The statute specifies procedures for tape-recording of these meetings, and for the recordings to
57
become public when negotiations are completed. Another law permits the Commissioner of
the Bureau of Mediation Services to close negotiations and mediation sessions between public
employers and public employees. These negotiations are public meetings, unless the
58
commissioner closes them.
The law permits closed meetings based on a limited attorney-client privilege.
In 1976, the Minnesota Supreme Court held that there is a limited exception, based on the
59
attorney-client privilege, for meetings to discuss strategy for threatened or pending litigation.
60
In 1990, the legislature added the attorney-client exception to the open meeting law.
Although the statute is not limited, the courts have since held that the scope of the exception
61
A balancing test must be applied,
remains limited in relation to the open meeting law.
weighing the purposes of attorney-client privilege against the purposes for holding open
62
meetings.
The attorney-client privilege exception does not apply to a mere request for general legal
advice. Nor does it apply when a governing body seeks to discuss with its attorney the strengths
56
Minn. Stat. § 13D.03, subd. 1.
57
Minn. Stat. § 13D.03, subd. 2.
58
Minn. Stat. § 179A.14, subd. 3.
59
Minneapolis Star & Tribune Co. v. Housing & Redevelopment Auth., 310 Minn. 313, 324, 251 N.W.2d 620, 626
(1976).
60
Minn. Stat. § 13D.05, subd. 3.
61
Star Tribune v. Board of Ed., Special School Dist. No. 1, 507 N.W.2d 869 (Minn. App. 1993) review denied (Minn.
Dec. 22, 1993). The court of appeals did not accept the argument that the statutory exception encompassed the
full attorney-client privilege because that would result in the exception swallowing the rule in favor of open
meetings. In 2002, the Minnesota Supreme Court restated that the attorney-client privilege exception only
applies when the purposes for the exception outweigh the purposes of the open meeting law. In that case, the
city council was threatened with a lawsuit if it did not grant a request. The court found that the threat of a
lawsuit did not warrant closing the meeting. Prior Lake American v. Mader, 642 N.W.2d 729 (Minn. 2002) (en
banc). Cf. Brainerd Daily Dispatch v. Dehen, 693 N.W.2d 435 (Minn. App. 2005) (applying analysis of Star Tribune
and Prior Lake American, finding threats were sufficiently specific and imminent that confidential consultation
with legal counsel appointed by city’s insurer to discuss defense strategy or reconciliation to address a
threatened lawsuit justified closing the meeting).
62
Prior Lake American v. Mader, 642 N.W.2d 729 (Minn. 2002). See also Minn. Dept. of Admin. Advisory Op. 23-
005, where the Commissioner of Administration found the Woodbury City Council was in violation of the open
meeting law by going into closed session with the city attorney pursuant to section 13D.05, subdivision 3,
paragraph (b), to discuss issues regarding a contract between Independent School District No. 833 and the city to
provide school resource officer services. The commissioner concluded that the possibility of litigation was not
enough to justify closing the meeting and “the public’s right to hear the discussion about the contract
outweighed the need for absolute confidentiality.”
Minnesota House Research Department Page 14
Minnesota Open Meeting Law
and weaknesses of a proposed legislative enactment (like a city ordinance) that may lead to
future lawsuits because that can be viewed as general legal advice. Furthermore, discussion of
63
proposed legislation is just the sort of discussion that should be public. In order to close a
meeting under the attorney-client privilege exception, the governing body must give a
particularized statement describing the subject to be discussed. A general statement that the
64
meeting is being closed to discuss pending or threatened litigation is not sufficient.
A meeting may be closed to address certain security issues.
If disclosure of the information discussed would pose a danger to public safety or compromise
security procedures or responses, a meeting may be closed to:
receive security briefings and reports;
discuss issues related to security systems;
discuss emergency response procedures; and
discuss security deficiencies in or recommendations regarding public services,
infrastructure, and facilities.
Before closing a meeting, the public body must refer to the facilities, systems, procedures,
services, or infrastructures to be considered during the closed meeting. A closed meeting must
be tape-recorded at the expense of the governing body, and the recording must be preserved
for at least four years.
Financial issues related to security matters must be discussed and all related financial decisions
65
must be made at an open meeting.
A meeting may be closed to discuss certain issues relating to government
property sales or purchases.
A public body may close a meeting to:
determine the asking price for real or personal property to be sold by the
government entity;
review confidential or nonpublic appraisal data; and
develop or consider offers or counteroffers for the purchase or sale of real or
personal property.
Before holding a closed meeting, the public body must identify on the record the particular
property that is the subject of the closed meeting. The proceedings must be tape-recorded at
the expense of the public body. The recording must be preserved for eight years after the date
of the meeting and made available to the public after all property discussed at the meeting has
been purchased or sold or the governing body has abandoned the purchase or sale. The
63
Star Tribune, 507 N.W.2d at 872.
64
The Free Press v. County of Blue Earth, 677 N.W.2d 471 (Minn. App. 2004).
65
Minn. Stat. § 13D.05, subd. 3.
Minnesota House Research Department Page 15
Minnesota Open Meeting Law
property that is the subject of the closed meeting must be specifically identified on the tape. A
list of members and all other persons present at the closed meeting must be made available to
the public after the closed meeting. If an action is brought claiming that public business other
than discussions allowed under this exception was transacted at a closed meeting held during
the time when the tape is not available to the public, the court would review the recording of
the meeting in camera and either dismiss the action if the court finds no violation, or permit
66
use of the recording at trial (subject to protective orders) if the court finds there is a violation.
An agreement reached that is based on an offer considered at a closed meeting is contingent
on approval of the public body at an open meeting. The actual purchase or sale must be
approved at an open meeting after the notice period required by statute or the governing
67
body’s internal procedures, and the purchase price or sale price is public data.
Other laws may authorize closed meetings under certain circumstances.
68
Statutes outside of the Minnesota Open Meeting Law and session laws may provide that a
meeting may be closed for a specific public body under certain circumstances. For example:
Boards of public hospitals and certain health organizations may close meetings to
69
discuss competitive market activities and contracts.
The Supervised Release Board may meet in closed session to receive and review a
70
victim’s statement, at the request of the victim.
The Public Employment Relations Board may close a meeting when the board is
reviewing or deliberating on certain unfair labor practice charges, orders, and
71
decisions.
On-site inspections by town board members are not subject to the law.
The law does not apply to a gathering of town board members to perform on-site inspections, if
the town has no employees or other staff able to perform the inspections and the town board
is acting essentially in a staff capacity. The town board must make good faith efforts to provide
notice of the inspections to the media that have filed a written request, including a telephone
number, for notice. Notice must be by telephone or by any other method used to notify the
72
members of the public body.
66
Minn. Stat. § 13D.05, subd. 3, referring to § 13D.03, subd. 3.
67
Minn. Stat. § 13D.05, subd. 3. Property appraisal data covered by this law is described in Minnesota Statutes,
section 13.44, subdivision 3.
68
Minn. Stat. ch. 13D.
69
Minn. Stat. § 144.581, subds. 4 and 5.
70
Minn. Stat. § 244.05, subd. 5, para. (g).
71
Minn. Stat. § 179A.041, subd. 10.
72
Minn. Stat. § 366.01, subd. 11.
Minnesota House Research Department Page 16
Minnesota Open Meeting Law
The law specifies how it relates to the Government Data Practices Act.
Except as specifically provided, public meetings may not be closed to discuss data that are not
73
public data under theGovernment Data Practices Act.Data that are not public may be
discussed at an open meeting without liability, if the matter discussed is within the public
body’s authority and if it is reasonably necessary to conduct the business before the public
74
body.Because statute only authorizes the disclosure of not public data “reasonably
necessary” to conduct the public body’s item of business, the extent of the disclosure should be
75
minimized. This may be accomplished by redactions or the use of pseudonyms.
76
A portion of a meeting must be closed if the following data are discussed:
Data that would identify alleged victims or reporters of criminal sexual conduct,
domestic abuse, or maltreatment of minors or vulnerable adults.
Active investigative data collected by a law enforcement agency, or internal affairs
data relating to alleged misconduct by law enforcement personnel.
Certain types of educational, health, medical, welfare, or mental health data that are
not public data.
77
An individual’s medical records governed by the Minnesota Health Records Act.
The legislature has addressed social media.
In 2014, the legislature added a provision relating to use of social media. “The use of social
media by members of a public body does not violate this chapter so long as the social media
use is limited to exchanges with all members of the general public. For purposes of this section,
78
e-mail is not considered atype of social media.” “Social media” is not defined.
Penalties
79
The open meeting law provides a civil penalty of up to $300 for intentional violation. A person
who is found to have intentionally violated the law in three or more legal actions involving the
same governmental body forfeits the right to serve on that body for a time equal to the term
the person was serving. The Minnesota Supreme Court has held that this removal provision is
constitutional as to removal of elected officials only if the conduct constitutes malfeasance or
73
Minn. Stat. § 13D.05, subd. 1.
74
Minn. Stat. §§ 13.03, subd. 11; 13.05, subd. 4; and 13D.05, subd. 1.
75
Minn. Dept. of Admin. Advisory Op. 02-033.
76
Minn. Stat. § 13D.05, subd. 2.
77
Minn. Stat. §§ 144.291 to 144.298.
78
Minn. Stat. § 13D.065.
79
Minn. Stat. § 13D.06, subd. 1.
Minnesota House Research Department Page 17
Minnesota Open Meeting Law
nonfeasance and provided that the violations occurred after the person had a reasonable
80
amount of time to learn the responsibilities of office.
A public body may not pay a civil penalty on behalf of a person who violated the law. However,
a public body may pay any costs, disbursements, or attorney fees incurred by or awarded
against a member of the body in an action under the open meeting law if the member was
81
found not guilty of a violation.
A court may award reasonable costs, disbursements, and reasonable attorney fees of up to
$13,000 to any party in an action under the open meeting law. However, the following
conditions apply:
A court may award costs and attorney fees to a defendant only if it finds that the
action was frivolous and without merit.
A court may award monetary penalties or attorney fees against a member of a
public body only if the court finds there was an intent to violate the open meeting
law.
The court must award reasonable attorney fees to a prevailing plaintiff if the public body was
also the subject of a prior written opinion issued by the Commissioner of Administration, and
the court finds that the opinion is directly related to the cause of action being litigated and that
82
the public body did not follow the opinion.
The appropriate mechanism to enforce the open meeting law is to bring an action in district
court seeking injunctive relief or damages. The statute does not provide for a declaratory
83
judgment action.
The Minnesota Supreme Court has held that actions taken at a meeting held in violation of the
84
open meeting law are not invalid or rescindable.
Advice
Public bodies subject to the open meeting law may seek advice on the application of the law
and how to comply with it from three sources:
The governmental entity’s attorney
80
Minn. Stat. § 13D.06, subd. 3; Claude v. Collins, 518 N.W.2d 836, 843 (Minn. 1994); see also Brown v. Cannon
Falls Township, 723 N.W.2d 31, 41-44 (Minn. App. 2006) (discussing the statutory history and that since 1994 the
statute has required three or more legal actions).
81
Op. Att’y Gen. 471-a, Dec. 31, 1992; Minn. Stat. § 13D.06, subd. 4.
82
Minn. Stat. § 13D.06, subd. 4.
83
Rupp v. Mayasich, 561 N.W.2d 555 (Minn. App. 1997).
84
Sullivan v. Credit River Township, 299 Minn. 170, 176-177, 217 N.W.2d 502, 507 (Minn. 1974).
Minnesota House Research Department Page 18
Minnesota Open Meeting Law
85
The attorney general
86
TheCommissioner of Administration
An individual may seek advice from two sources:
The individual’s attorney
TheCommissioner of Administration
An individual who disagrees with the manner in which members of a governing body perform
their duties under the open meeting law may request the Commissioner of Administration to
give a written opinion on the governing body’s compliance with the law.The Department of
87
Administration’s Data Practices Office handles such requests.
The commissioner may decide not to issue an opinion. If the commissioner decides not to issue
an opinion, the commissioner must notify the requesterin writingwithin five days of receipt of
the request. If the commissioner decides to issue an opinion, it must be done within 50days of
the request. The governing body must be allowed to explain how it performs its duties under
88
the law.
Opinions of the Commissioner of Administration are not binding, but a court must give the
opinions deference. However, a governing body that follows an opinion is not liable for fines,
89
attorney’s fees or any other penalty, or forfeiture of office.
The Data Practices Office maintains a searchableopinion library accessible to the publicon its
90
website.
Minnesota House Research Department provides nonpartisan legislative, legal, and
information services to the Minnesota House of Representatives. This document
can be made available in alternative formats.
www.house.mn.gov/hrd| 651-296-6753 | Third Floor, Centennial Office Building | St. Paul, MN 55155
85
Under Minnesota Statutes, section 8.06, the attorney general is the attorney for all state officers and boards or
commissions created by law. Under Minnesota Statutes, section 8.07, the attorney general, on request from an
attorney for a county, city, town, public pension fund, school board, or unorganized area, gives written opinions
on matters of public importance.
86
Minn. Stat. § 13.072, subds. 1 and 2.
87
https://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/. The Data Practices Office was formerly known asthe Information Policy
Analysis Division(IPAD).
88
Minn. Stat. § 13.072, subd. 1.
89
Minn. Stat. § 13.072, subd. 2.
90
https://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/opinions-library/
Minnesota House Research DepartmentPage 19
Uzqjdbm!Qmboojoh!boe!\[pojoh!Nffujoh!Dbefodf
2/Dbmm!up!Psefs
3/Qmfehf!pg!Bmmfhjbodf
4/Bqqspwbm!pg!Njovuft!)Npujpo-!Tfdpoe-!Nbkpsjuz!Wpuf*
5/Qvcmjd!Ifbsjoh)t*
5/2/!!Jouspevdujpo!cz!Dibjs
5/3/!!Qsftfoubujpo!cz!Tub
5/4/!!Rvftujpot!gps!Tub!gspn!Dpnnjttjpo
5/5/!!Pqfo!uif!Qvcmjd!Ifbsjoh!)Npujpo-!Tfdpoe-!Nbkpsjuz!Wpuf*
5/5/2/!!Qsftfoubujpo!gspn!Bqqmjdbou
5/5/3/!!Rvftujpot!gps!Bqqmjdbou!gspn!Dpnnjttjpo
5/5/4/!!Tubufnfout0Rvftujpot!gps!Dpnnjttjpo!gspn!Qvcmjd
5/5/5/!!Rvftujpot!gps!Qvcmjd!gspn!Dpnnjttjpo
5/5/6/!!Sfdbmm!Bqqmjdbou!)Sfqfbu!5/3!uisv!5/6!voujm!bmm!gbdut0pqjojpot!bsf!
pcubjofe*
5/6/!!Dmptf!uif!Qvcmjd!Ifbsjoh!)Npujpo-!Tfdpoe-!Nbkpsjuz!Wpuf*
5/7/!!Ejtdvttjpo!po!upqjd!gspn!Dpnnjttjpo
5/7/2/!!Rvftujpot!gps!Tub!gspn!Dpnnjttjpo!evsjoh!Ejtdvttjpo/
5/8/!!Jg!op!sfdpnnfoebujpo!jt!sfrvftufe-!uif!ifbsjoh!jt!dpnqmfufe!xifo!uif!
Dpnnjttjpo!foet!Ejtdvttjpo/!Uif!nffujoh!bhfoeb!bewbodft/!
5/9/!!Jg!b!sfdpnnfoebujpo!jt!sfrvftufe-!pof!pg!uxp!npujpot!bsf!uzqjdbm;!
5/9/2/!!B!npujpo!up!BQQSPWF!jt!pfsfe!gspn!b!Dpnnjttjpofs
5/9/2/2/!!Uif!npujpo!jt!tfdpoefe
5/9/2/3/!!Uif!npujpo!jt!ejtdvttfe/
5/9/2/4/!!B!wpuf!jt!dbmmfe!)Nbkpsjuz!sfrvjsfe!up!tvddffe*
5/9/2/4/2/!!Jg!uif!npujpo!tvddffet-!uif!ifbsjoh!jt!pwfs/
5/9/2/4/3/!!Jg!uif!npujpo!gbjmt-!sfuvso!up!jufn!5/7/
5/9/3/!!B!npujpo!up!EFOZ!jt!pfsfe!gspn!b!Dpnnjttjpofs
5/9/3/2/!!B!npujpo!up!EFOZ!nvtu!jodmvef!sfbtpot!gps!efojbm!uibu!bmjho!
xjui!djuz!dpef/
5/9/3/3/!!Uif!npujpo!jt!tfdpoefe
5/9/3/4/!!Uif!npujpo!jt!ejtdvttfe/
5/9/3/5/!!B!wpuf!jt!dbmmfe!)Nbkpsjuz!sfrvjsfe!up!tvddffe*
5/9/3/5/2/!!Jg!uif!npujpo!tvddffet-!uif!ifbsjoh!jt!pwfs/
5/9/3/5/3/!!Jg!uif!npujpo!gbjmt-!sfuvso!up!jufn!5/7/
6/Puifs!Cvtjoftt
6/2/!!Tubufnfout!gspn!Tub
6/2/2/!!Rvftujpot!gspn!Dpnnjttjpo
6/3/!!Tubufnfout!gspn!Dpnnjttjpo
7/Bekpvso!)Npujpo-!Tfdpoe-!Nbkpsjuz!Wpuf*