Jennissen v. City of Bloomington

• Citation: 938 N.W.2d 808
• Decision Date: 12 February 2020
• Docket Number: A17-0221
• Parties: Joel JENNISSEN, et al., Appellants/Cross-Respondents, v. CITY OF BLOOMINGTON, Respondent/Cross-Appellant.
• Court: Supreme Court of Minnesota (US)

938 N.W.2d 808

Joel JENNISSEN, et al., Appellants/Cross-Respondents,

v.CITY OF BLOOMINGTON, Respondent/Cross-Appellant.

A17-0221

Supreme Court of Minnesota.

Filed: February 12, 2020

OPINION

MCKEIG, Justice.

In 2015, respondent and cross-appellant City of Bloomington ("the City") changed from a system of open trash collection to a system of organized collection. A group of residents opposed this change and attempted, through an amendment to the City Charter, to require that voters pre-approve a change in the method of trash collection. The City refused to put the proposed charter amendment on the ballot, reasoning that it: (1) was preempted by state law, (2) was an attempt to exercise the voter referendum power through an improper means, and (3) was manifestly unconstitutional as a violation of the Contract Clauses of the United States and Minnesota Constitutions.

This appeal is the second time we have reviewed this case. In the original proceeding, the district court held that the proposed charter amendment would not violate the Contract Clauses of the United States and Minnesota Constitutions, but was preempted by state law. On appeal, we held that the proposed amendment was not preempted by state law. Jennissen v. City of Bloomington , 913 N.W.2d 456 (Minn. 2018) ( Jennissen II ). We remanded the case to the court of appeals for a decision on whether the proposed amendment would violate the Contract Clauses and whether it was, in fact, an "improper referendum." Id. at 462. On remand, the court of appeals held that the proposed charter amendment was not "manifestly unconstitutional," but determined that it was an improper referendum. Jennissen v. City of Bloomington , No. A17-0221, 2018 WL 5316187, at *5–6 (Minn. App. Oct. 29, 2018) ( Jennissen III ).

We hold that the proposed amendment is not an improper exercise of the charter amendment power and is not manifestly unconstitutional.

FACTS

The facts of this case are undisputed. The City of Bloomington is a home-rule charter city. Its city charter permits residents to legislate by initiative, recall its elected officials, and veto ordinances by referendum. Bloomington, Minn., City Charter § 5.01 (2019). Residents can also amend the city charter by popular vote. Bloomington, Minn., City Charter § 5.09 (2019); see Minn. Stat. § 410.12, subd. 4 (2018).

Before December 2015, Bloomington had an open trash collection system, meaning that residents contracted individually with trash hauler companies to have their waste removed. In October 2014, the City began the statutory process for changing to an organized trash collection system. See Minn. Stat. § 115A.94 (2018). Before this process was complete, appellants submitted an initiative petition proposing an ordinance that would require the City to seek voter approval before implementing organized trash collection. Appellants brought suit in Hennepin County on June 16, 2015, to compel the City to put the initiative on the ballot. Jennissen v. City of Bloomington , No. 27-CV-15-11494 (Henn. Cty. Dist. Ct. filed Apr. 25, 2016) (Jennissen I ).

The City continued the process of implementing organized trash collection while Jennissen I was pending. On December 21, 2015, the City adopted Ordinance 2015-45, implementing organized trash collection, and the Bloomington City Council approved a contract with the trash haulers for a term of five years, effective that same day.

On April 25, 2016, the district court in Jennissen I granted summary judgment to the City and denied summary judgment to appellants, holding that the proposed initiative was not a proper ordinance. Appellants did not appeal the district court’s decision. Instead, on May 18, 2016, appellants filed a petition to amend the city charter with Bloomington’s Charter Commission Secretary.¹ The petition proposed adding the following language to the charter:

Unless first approved by a majority of 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-designed districts. The adoption of this Charter amendment shall supersede any ordinances, ordinance amendments, or charter amendments related to solid waste adopted by the City Council in 2015-2016.

The City declined to allow a vote by residents on the amendment, concluding that it was preempted by state law, manifestly unconstitutional because it impaired the obligation of the City’s contract with the haulers, and an attempted improper referendum.

Appellants then sued to have the proposed amendment put on the ballot. The parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment, and the district court granted summary judgment to the City. Although the court held that the amendment was not manifestly unconstitutional, it granted summary judgment to the City on the theory that state law preempted the amendment. The district court did not reach the improper referendum question. The court of appeals affirmed, holding that the amendment was preempted without reaching the other issues. We reversed the court of appeals, holding that the proposed amendment was not preempted and remanded for consideration of the remaining issues. Jennissen II , 913 N.W.2d at 462.

On remand, the court of appeals held that the amendment was not manifestly unconstitutional because, under an automatic-termination provision, the contract had already terminated and thus could not be unconstitutionally impaired. Jennissen III , 2018 WL 5316187 at *4–5. On the improper-referendum issue, the court held that the amendment was impermissible because its second sentence stated an intent to repeal an ordinance by charter amendment. Id. at *6. Because the charter already provided a method by which the residents could repeal an ordinance, the court of appeals reasoned, appellants could not use the charter amendment power to accomplish that repeal. Id.

Appellants requested review of the decision of the court of appeals on the improper-referendum issue, and the City filed a conditional cross-petition for review on the issue of the constitutionality of the proposed amendment. We granted review on both issues.

ANALYSIS

On appeal from summary judgment, we examine whether any genuine issues of material fact are present and whether the district court erred in its application of the law. Osborne v. Twin Town Bowl, Inc. , 749 N.W.2d 367, 371 (Minn. 2008). This case involves "[t]he application of statutes ... and local ordinances to undisputed facts," which is "a legal conclusion and is reviewed de novo." City of Morris v. Sax Invs., Inc. , 749 N.W.2d 1, 5 (Minn. 2008) ; see also Vasseur v. City of Minneapolis , 887 N.W.2d 467, 469–70 (Minn. 2016) ("The parties’ arguments, requiring us to interpret provisions in state statute and in the City Charter, present a legal question subject to de novo review.").

I.

We first address the City’s argument that the charter amendment is an attempt to evade the requirements of a referendum. Municipalities may refuse to put a proposed city charter amendment to a vote if it is not in proper form. Vasseur , 887 N.W.2d at 471 ; see Hous. & Redev. Auth. of Minneapolis v. City of Minneapolis , 293 Minn. 227, 198 N.W.2d 531, 536 (1972). To determine whether the City was correct in its refusal, we must look at the powers granted to the residents of the City of Bloomington through its charter and the powers granted to residents of charter cities, more generally, by state law.

A.

We begin with a brief discussion of municipal governance. The Minnesota Constitution permits "[a]ny local government unit ... [to] adopt a home rule charter for its government." Minn. Const. art. XII, § 4. Subject to the limitations in Minnesota Statutes chapter 410, a city charter "may provide for any scheme of municipal government not inconsistent with the constitution, and may provide for the establishment and administration of all departments of a city government, and for the regulation of all local municipal functions." Minn. Stat. § 410.07 (2018). By adopting or amending a city charter, residents "may prescribe methods of procedure in respect to the operation of the [city] government thereby created." See id.

Charter amendments are a mechanism for residents to change their form of city government. Minn. Stat. § 410.12 (2018). The process for amending a city charter is governed by state statute. According to state law, residents of home-rule charter cities who are registered to vote may petition for a proposed amendment to be placed on their ballots. Id. , subd. 1. If the petitioning residents solicit enough signatures, meet filing deadlines, and satisfy other procedural requirements, their proposed charter amendment must be put to a vote. Id. If an amendment is not in "proper form," a city may refuse to put it to a vote to avoid the expense of holding an election only to have the results invalidated. Hous. & Redev. Auth. , 198 N.W.2d at 536.

A fundamental premise of home-rule city charters is that they may provide for any scheme of municipal government that is "not inconsistent" with the constitution, state law, and state public policy. See Minn. Stat. § 410.07. A city charter may grant its citizens broad legislative power or vest legislative power in its city council alone. See, e.g. , Vasseur , 887 N.W.2d at 471–72. For example, one way a city charter may permit residents to exercise legislative authority is through referenda. Minn. Stat. § 410.20 (2018) ; see also Clark v. City of Saint Paul , 934 N.W.2d 334, 344 (Minn. 2019) ("[A] referendum simply acts as a vote on an ordinance by a broader group—local residents—similar to the vote by elected officials."). The referendum process allows voters to temporarily suspend and, by majority vote, repeal an ordinance passed by city council. See St. Paul Citizens for Human Rights v. City Council , 289 N.W.2d 402, 404 n.2 (Minn. 1979). In addition to any powers granted by city...