Jennissen v. City of Bloomington

• Decision Date: 20 November 2017
• Docket Number: A17-0221
• Citation: 904 N.W.2d 234
• Parties: Joel JENNISSEN, et al., Appellants, v. CITY OF BLOOMINGTON, Respondent.
• Court: Minnesota Court of Appeals

904 N.W.2d 234

Joel JENNISSEN, et al., Appellants,

v.CITY OF BLOOMINGTON, Respondent.

A17-0221

Court of Appeals of Minnesota.

Filed November 20, 2017

Review Granted January 24, 2018

Gregory J. Joseph, Joseph Law Office PLLC, Bloomington, Minnesota (for appellants)

George C. Hoff, Shelley M. Ryan, Hoff Barry, P.A., Eden Prairie, Minnesota (for respondent)

Susan L. Naughton, League of Minnesota Cities, St. Paul, Minnesota (for amicus curiae League of Minnesota Cities)

Considered and decided by Florey, Presiding Judge; Schellhas, Judge; and Kalitowski, Judge.^*

SCHELLHAS, Judge

Appellants challenge the district court's summary judgment in favor of the city and the ruling that appellants' proposed city charter amendment to require voter approval before the city establishes a system of organized collection of solid waste is preempted by Minn. Stat. § 115A.94. Because we conclude that by enacting Minn. Stat. § 115A.94 the legislature has preempted the field of legislation on a municipality's establishment of organized collection, we affirm.

FACTS

In late 2014, respondent City of Bloomington began the statutory process under the MWMA to change from an open system of collection of solid waste to a system of organized collection. Under an open system, residents are free to hire a city-licensed collector to collect their solid waste; under an organized-collection system, the city contracts with a specific collector or group of collectors to remove garbage in defined areas. Minn. Stat. § 115A.94, subd. 1.

Bloomington is a home-rule charter city under Minnesota Statutes chapter 410. The city's charter reserves for its citizens the power to bring forth ballot initiatives, referenda, and amendments to the city charter. Bloomington, Minn., City Charter (BCC) §§ 5.01-.12 (2017); see Minn. Stat. § 410.12 (2016).

In March 2015, appellants, a group of city residents opposed to the city's efforts to implement organized collection, petitioned the city for a ballot initiative on an ordinance that would require voter approval as a prerequisite to the city's adoption of organized collection. The city attorney determined that the MWMA preempts appellants' proposed ordinance and that a ballot initiative for the proposed ordinance constituted a "premature referendum" because it sought to refer an issue to the voters before the city council actually passed an ordinance. In late June 2015, appellants sued the city, seeking an order to compel approval of the petition for a ballot initiative. (Jennissen I).

After a public hearing on June 22, 2015, the city council resolved to adopt a system of organized collection of solid waste. On December 21, the city council adopted an organized-collection ordinance, effective December 31. On December 21, the city also executed a five-year contract with Bloomington Haulers LLC, a consortium of solid-waste collectors. The contract detailed the types of waste to be collected, the dates and times of waste pickup in specified city zones, and the rights and responsibilities of the parties.

On April 25, 2016, the district court granted summary judgment in favor of the city in Jennissen I. The court concluded that appellants' proposed ordinance was neither a proper initiative nor a proper referendum because it did not actually propose a new ordinance or refer to an ordinance passed by the city council. The court concluded that appellants' goal to limit the power of the city council could only be achieved through amendment of the city charter under Minn. Stat. § 410.12.

Appellants next submitted to the city a petition for a proposed charter amendment to be placed on a ballot. Appellants' proposed charter amendment was nearly identical to the prior proposed ordinance and read:

Unless first approved by a majority of the voters in a state general election, the City shall not replace the competitive market in solid waste collection with a system in which solid waste services are provided by government-chosen collectors or in government-designated districts. The adoption of this charter amendment shall supersede any ordinances ... related to solid waste adopted by the City Council in 2015-2016.

On June 27, 2016, the city council found that the proposed amendment was "manifestly unconstitutional" because it impaired the city's contract with the consortium, interfered with the city's "lengthy and thoughtful legislative process," and was preempted by the MWMA. The city council therefore rejected the proposed charter amendment.

In July 2016, appellants sued the city, seeking to compel the city to place the proposed charter amendment on the next general-election ballot. (Jennissen II). The district court granted the city summary judgment on preemption grounds.

Appellants challenge the summary judgment in favor of the city. The city cross-appeals the district court's denial of its other grounds for summary judgment.

ISSUE

Does Minnesota Statutes section 115A.94 of the MWMA preempt a proposed city charter amendment that requires a city to seek and obtain voter approval before establishing a system of organized collection of solid waste?

ANALYSIS

Appellants argue that the district court erred as a matter of law by concluding that the MWMA preempts the proposed city charter amendment. The question of whether a state statute preempts a municipal charter provision is a question of law, which appellate courts review de novo. Bicking v. City of Minneapolis, 891 N.W.2d 304, 312 (Minn. 2017). Because this is an appeal from summary judgment and the facts are not in dispute, this court reviews de novo whether the district court erred in its application of the law. Morton Bldgs., Inc. v. Comm'r of Revenue, 488 N.W.2d 254, 257 (Minn. 1992) ; State by Cooper v. French, 460 N.W.2d 2, 4 (Minn. 1990).

The Minnesota Constitution allows any local government unit to adopt a home-rule charter for its government. Minn. Const. art XII, § 4 ; see Bicking, 891 N.W.2d at 306 (explaining how a city charter is framed and amended). A city may frame a charter for its own government in a manner as provided under Minn. Stat. §§ 410.01 -.33 (2016), and it may provide for a scheme of municipal government that is not inconsistent with the Minnesota Constitution. Minn. Const. art XII, § 5 ; Minn. Stat. § 410.04 ; Bicking, 891 N.W.2d at 306. A "charter commission" is appointed to both frame and later amend a city charter. Minn. Const. art XII, § 5 ; Minn. Stat. § 410.05.

Municipalities have no inherent powers and "can enact regulations only expressly conferred by statute or implied as necessary in aid of those powers which have been expressly conferred." Bicking, 891 N.W.2d at 312 (quotations omitted). "[C]harter provisions (and therefore charter amendments) must be consistent with state law and state public policy."¹ Id. ; see also State ex rel. Town of Lowell v. City of Crookston, 252 Minn. 526, 528, 91 N.W.2d 81, 83 (1958) ("The power conferred upon cities to frame and adopt home rule charters is limited by the provision that such charter shall always be in harmony with and subject to the constitution and laws of the state." (quotation omitted)). A home-rule charter does not preclude the legislature from preempting charter authority on matters of state concern. Town of Lowell, 252 Minn. at 528–29, 91 N.W.2d at 83–84.

Once a city adopts a charter, proposals to amend the charter can be made by the city's charter commission or by "petition of five percent of the voters of the local government unit." Minn. Const. art XII, § 5 ; Minn. Stat. § 410.12, subd. 1. After voters have submitted a valid petition to amend the city charter and the city clerk verifies the signatures on the petition, the proposed charter amendment must be "submitted to the qualified voters at a general or special election." Minn. Stat. § 410.12, subds. 3, 4 ; Bicking, 891 N.W.2d at 306–07.

A state statute may preempt a local law in three ways. First, "express preemption" exists when the state statute declares the extent to which it preempts local regulation. See In re Estate of Barg, 752 N.W.2d 52, 63–64 (Minn. 2008) (discussing three types of preemption in context of federal law preempting state law); State v. Kuhlman, 722 N.W.2d 1, 4 (Minn. App. 2006), aff'd, 729 N.W.2d 577 (Minn. 2007) (explaining three ways state statute may preempt local ordinance). Second, "conflict preemption" exists between state and local laws when the laws "contain express or implied terms that are irreconcilable with each other, when the ordinance permits what the statute forbids, or when the ordinance forbids what the statute expressly permits." Bicking, 891 N.W.2d at 313 (quotation omitted). Third, "field preemption" exists when the legislature intends a state law to exclusively occupy a particular field of legislation, allowing no room for local laws attempting to impose additional regulation in the same field. Mangold Midwest Co. v. Village of Richfield, 274 Minn. 347, 350–52, 143 N.W.2d 813, 815 (1966). When field preemption occurs, a municipal law attempting to regulate any aspect of the preempted field is void, even if the local law does not conflict with the state statute. Id.

In this case, we need only address the question of field preemption. In order to determine if the proposed charter amendment is field preempted, we must examine the organized-collection section of the MWMA and the MWMA as a whole. The legislature declared that the purpose of the MWMA is to "protect the state's land, air, water, and other natural resources and the public health by improving waste management in the state" in order to, among other things, (1) reduce waste, (2) coordinate solid-waste management among political subdivisions, and (3) promote the orderly and deliberate development and financial security of waste facilities. Minn. Stat. § 115A.02(a). The waste-management goal of the MWMA is to "foster an integrated waste management system in a manner appropriate to the characteristics of the waste stream." Id. (b). The MWMA also encourages...