Jennissen v. City of Bloomington
| Decision Date | 29 October 2018 |
| Docket Number | A17-0221 |
| Parties | Joel Jennissen, et al., Appellants, v. City of Bloomington, Respondent. |
| Court | Minnesota Court of Appeals |
This opinion will be unpublished and may not be cited except as provided by Minn. Stat. § 480A.08, subd. 3 (2016).
Affirmed
Hennepin County District Court
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; Cleary, Chief Judge; and Schellhas, Judge.
UNPUBLISHED OPINION
On remand from the supreme court for consideration of issues not addressed in this court's previous opinion, respondent argues that appellants' proposed city charter amendment is manifestly unconstitutional, and an improper referendum. We affirm.
In late 2014, respondent City of Bloomington began the process under the Minnesota Waste Management Act (MWMA), Minn. Stat. §§ 115A.01-.99 (2016), to change from an open system of collection of solid waste to a system of organized collection. In an open system of collection, individual residents contract with city-licensed solid-waste collectors of their choice. In contrast, a system of organized collection allows a municipality to contract with a single solid-waste collector or an organization of collectors, who "collect from a defined geographic service area or areas." Minn. Stat. § 115A.94, subd. 1.
In March 2015, appellants Joel Jennissen et al., a group of city residents who opposed 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 rejected the ballot initiative because (1) the MWMA preempted appellants' proposed ordinance; and (2) it put an issue to the voters relating to an ordinance that the city had not yet passed, rendering the proposed ordinance premature.
Appellants initiated a civil action challenging the city attorney's decision not to approve the ballot initiative (the first lawsuit). In the meantime, the city held publichearings on its proposal for organized collection. The city council then voted for organized collection, and in December 2015, adopted an organized-collection ordinance, effective December 31. The city then entered into a five-year contract with Bloomington Haulers, LLC, a consortium of garbage collectors. The contract detailed the types of waste to be collected, the dates and times of garbage pickup in specific city zones, and the rights and responsibilities of the parties. The contract also addressed the matter of the pending litigation and provided for termination or continuation of the contract depending on whether the district court ruled that the city's process of instituting organized collection was "proper and authorized" by state statute.
In April 2016, the district court granted summary judgment in favor of the city. The court determined that appellants' proposed initiative 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 of limiting the power of the city council could only be achieved through amendment of the city charter under Minn. Stat. § 410.12.
The next month, appellants submitted a petition to the city for a proposed charter amendment to be placed on a ballot. It read:
Unless first approved by a majority of the voters in a state general election, the City shall not replace the competitive market in a 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.
The city council determined on June 27, 2016, that the proposed charter amendment was "manifestly unconstitutional" because it impaired the city's contract with Bloomington Haulers, 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.
Appellants again sued the city, this time seeking to compel the city to place the proposed charter amendment on the next general-election ballot. The parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment. In an order dated January 11, 2017, the district court concluded that the proposed charter amendment did not impair the city's contract with Bloomington Haulers and therefore was not "manifestly unconstitutional on those grounds." But the court also determined that Minn. Stat. § 115A.94 preempted the proposed charter amendment by fully occupying the field of regulation of the process by which a city organizes collection. The court further noted that "in light of its findings," it need not address the city's additional argument "that the charter amendment is an improper referendum." The court therefore granted the city's motion for summary judgment and denied appellants' motion for summary judgment.
On appeal to this court, appellants argued that the district court erred by concluding that the MWMA preempts the proposed city charter amendment. The city filed a notice of related appeal challenging the district court's rejection of its arguments that the proposed charter amendment is manifestly unconstitutional and an improper referendum. This court affirmed, holding that "[s]ection 115A.94 of the MWMA occupies the field of legislation regarding the process that a city must follow to establish a system of organized collectionof solid waste," and that the district court therefore "properly determined that the MWMA preempts appellants' proposed city charter amendment to require advance voter approval of a municipality's statutory establishment of organized collection." Jennissen v. City of Bloomington, 904 N.W.2d 234, 243 (Minn. App. 2017) (Jennissen I). This court also determined that "[b]ecause we agree with the district court on the preemption issue, we do not address appellants' additional request for a mandatory injunction and the other issues raised by the city on cross-appeal." Id.
Upon review, the supreme court reversed the decision of this court, concluding that because "the Legislature did not intend to occupy the field of regulation of the process of organizing collection of solid waste," appellants' "proposed charter amendment is not preempted by state law." Jennissen v. City of Bloomington, 913 N.W.2d 456, 462 (Minn. 2018) (Jennissen II). The supreme court also remanded to this court "for consideration of the remaining issues not previously addressed by the court of appeals." Id.
A district court may "dispose of an action on the merits if there is no genuine dispute regarding the material facts, and a party is entitled to judgment under the law applicable to such facts." DLH, Inc. v. Russ, 566 N.W.2d 60, 69 (Minn. 1997); Minn. R. Civ. P. 56.03.1Where, as here, the material facts are undisputed, this court reviews de novo the district court's application of the law to those facts. See Citizens State Bank v. Raven Trading Partners, Inc., 786 N.W.2d 274, 277 (Minn. 2010) ().
The legislature has set forth methods of charter amendment in Minn. Stat. § 410.12, including a certification process for amendments proposed by a citizens' petition. Minneapolis Term Limits Coal. v. Keefe, 535 N.W.2d 306, 308 (Minn. 1995). Amendments meeting the statutory requirements "shall be submitted to the qualified voters at a general or special election and published as in the case of the original charter." Minn. Stat. § 410.12, subd. 4 (2016). But "when a proposed charter amendment is manifestly unconstitutional, the city council may refuse to place the proposal on the ballot." Keefe, 535 N.W.2d at 308. A city council must have this power because placing a manifestly unconstitutional charter amendment on a ballot "would amount to a futile election and a total waste of taxpayers' money." Davies v. City of Minneapolis, 316 N.W.2d 498, 504 (Minn. 1982).
The United States and Minnesota Constitutions both prohibit state laws impairing the obligations of contracts. U.S. Const. art. I, § 10, cl. 1; Minn. Const. art. I, § 11. "A law impairs the obligations of a contract when it renders those obligations invalid or releases or extinguishes them." Gretsch v. Vantium Capital, Inc., 846 N.W.2d 424, 435 (Minn. 2014). The United States Supreme Court has "adopted a three-part test to evaluate whether a statute unconstitutionally impairs contractual obligations." In re Individual 35W Litig.,806 N.W.2d 820, 834 (Minn. 2011) (citing Energy Reserves Grp., Inc. v. Kan. Power & Light Co., 459 U.S. 400, 411-13, 103 S. Ct. 697, 704-05 (1983)). First, the court "considers whether the state law has, in fact, operated as a substantial impairment of a contractual obligation." Jacobsen v. Anheuser-Busch, Inc., 392 N.W.2d 868, 872 (Minn. 1986). Second, "if a substantial impairment exists, those urging the constitutionality of the legislative act must demonstrate a significant and legitimate public purpose behind the legislation." Id. And third, "the legislature's action is examined in the light of this public purpose to see whether the adjustment of the rights and liabilities of the contracting parties is based upon reasonable conditions and is of a character appropriate to the public purpose justifying the law's adoption." Id.
The city argues that the proposed charter amendment is unconstitutional because it impairs the city's contract...
To continue reading
Request your trial