Vasseur v. City of Minneapolis, A16–1367.

• Decision Date: 23 November 2016
• Docket Number: No. A16–1367.,A16–1367.
• Parties: Tyler VASSEUR, et al., petitioners, Respondents, v. CITY OF MINNEAPOLIS, et al., Appellants, Ginny Gelms, in her official capacity as Elections Manager, Hennepin County, Respondent.
• Court: Minnesota Supreme Court

887 N.W.2d 467

Tyler VASSEUR, et al., petitioners, Respondents,

v. CITY OF MINNEAPOLIS, et al., Appellants,Ginny Gelms, in her official capacity as Elections Manager, Hennepin County, Respondent.

No. A16–1367.

Supreme Court of Minnesota.

Nov. 23, 2016.

Paul J. Lukas, Nichols Kaster, PLLP, Bruce D. Nestor, De León & Nestor, LLC, Minneapolis, MN; Karen E. Marty, Marty Law Firm, LLC, Bloomington, MN; and Laura Huizar, National Employment Law Project, Washington, D.C., for respondents Tyler Vasseur, et al.

Charles N. Nauen, David J. Zoll, Rachel A. Kitze Collins, Lockridge Grindal Nauen P.L.L.P., Minneapolis, MN; and Susan L. Segal, Minneapolis City Attorney, Tracey N. Fussy, Brian S. Carter, Assistant City Attorneys, for appellants City of Minneapolis, et al.

Michael O. Freeman, Hennepin County Attorney, Daniel P. Rogan, Senior Assistant

County Attorney, Minneapolis, MN, for respondent Ginny Gelms.

Bruce Jones, Faegre Baker Daniels LLP, Minneapolis Minnesota, for amici curiae Minneapolis Regional Chamber of Commerce, Minneapolis Downtown Council, Warehouse District Business Association, Lake Street Council, Northeast Minneapolis Chamber of Commerce, Southwest Business Association, Minnesota Restaurant Association, Minnesota Lodging Association, Minnesota Grocers Association, Minnesota Retailers Association, Minnesota Recruiting & Staffing Association, and West Broadway Business & Area Coalition.

Thomas L. Grundhoefer, Edward S. Cadman, Saint Paul, MN, for amicus curiae League of Minnesota Cities.

OPINION

PER CURIAM.

In August 2016, respondents Tyler Vasseur, et al. (collectively, “Vasseur”) filed a petition with Hennepin County District Court pursuant to Minn.Stat. § 204B.44(a) (Supp.2015), asking the court to order the Minneapolis City Council to place a charter amendment before the voters on the November 2016 general election ballot establishing a local minimum-wage standard in the City of Minneapolis. The district court granted Vasseur's petition, concluding that the proposed charter amendment was the proper subject of a citizen initiative and, therefore, ordered the proposed amendment placed on the general election ballot. We granted the petition for accelerated review filed by the City of Minneapolis. This opinion confirms our order, filed August 31, 2016, reversing the district court. We reverse because we conclude that the proposed minimum-wage amendment falls within the exclusive authority vested in the City Council over legislation and policymaking.

The respondents are members of Vote for 15MN, a coalition of organizations and individual citizens working together to advocate for minimum-wage standards for those who live and work in the City of Minneapolis. In April 2016, Vote for 15MN began collecting signatures on a petition to amend the Minneapolis City Charter to require provisions establishing minimum-wage standards and regulations. By June 2016, Vote for 15MN had collected the required number of signatures for a petition to amend the City Charter, and submitted the petition to the Minneapolis Charter Commission. The Commission transmitted the petition to the Minneapolis City Council. On July 20, 2016, the City Clerk certified that Vote for 15MN's petition met the statutory signature requirements. See Minn.Stat. § 410.12, subd. 1 (2014) (stating that a petition to amend a municipal charter must be signed by “voters equal in number to five percent of the total votes cast at the last previous state general election in the city”).

The proposed charter amendment sets standards and regulations for minimum wages paid to those who work in the City (“the wage amendment”). In general, the wage amendment aims to address “[i]ncome inequality, low wages, and a high cost of living” based on the City's interest in promoting the “health, safety, and welfare of workers, their families, and their communities” by gradually phasing in minimum-wage standards for employees who work within the geographic boundaries of the City.¹ Additional provisions address enforcement, penalties for violating the law, and public outreach and education.

The Minneapolis City Attorney issued an opinion to the City Council on whether the wage amendment is “a proper subject for a charter amendment.” Reasoning that the wage amendment “is legislative in nature,” and the “Minneapolis City Charter does not provide for voter initiatives for the passage of ordinances by a ballot referendum,” the City Attorney recommended that the City Council “decline to place the provision on the ballot.” The City Council voted not to include the wage amendment on the ballot for the general election.

Vasseur filed a petition pursuant to Minn.Stat. § 204B.44(a) with Hennepin County District Court.² Arguing that the City Council can refuse to put a proposed charter amendment on the ballot only if it is “manifestly unconstitutional or in clear conflict with existing state law,” Vasseur contended that the wage amendment “constitutes a proper subject for a charter amendment” because city charters “are not narrowly limited to matters concerning the structure, authority and procedures of government.” Vasseur asked the district court to order the City to place the wage amendment on the ballot because the City Council “had no basis on which to deem the proposed Amendment unconstitutional” and therefore had “a duty to” put it on the ballot.

The district court granted Vasseur's petition. The court noted that the “state constitution does not identify what matters may be included in a charter amendment,” but after review of the statutory authority for charter cities, Minn.Stat. ch. 410 (2014), the court concluded that section 410.07 “defines what legislative powers can be included in a charter” and “a charter, in turn, distributes those legislative powers to a City Council (through enacting ordinances) and/or to citizens (through initiative and referendum) while itself all the while being constitutionally subject to citizen amendment [by petition].” The court also relied on our decision in Markley v. City of St. Paul, 142 Minn. 356, 172 N.W. 215 (1919), to conclude that employment matters are a proper subject for municipal charter provisions.

The City filed a notice of appeal with the court of appeals and, at the same time, filed a petition for accelerated review with our court. Minn. R. Civ.App. P. 118 (“Any party may petition the Supreme Court for accelerated review of any case pending in the Court of Appeals....”). We granted the City's petition for accelerated review.

I.

On appeal, the City asserts that the district court erred in granting Vasseur's petition because the Minneapolis City Charter vests in the City Council sole responsibility for legislation regarding the general welfare of City residents. Because Minneapolis did not choose, in its charter, to permit citizens to “submit[ ] ordinances to the council by petition” of those residents, Minn.Stat. § 410.20, the City argues that the wage amendment conflicts with state law and therefore cannot be placed on the ballot. Vasseur urges us to affirm the district court, arguing that the wage amendment must be included on the ballot because Vote for 15MN collected the number of signatures necessary to place the charter amendment before Minneapolis voters. 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. Pawn Am. Minn., LLC v. City of St. Louis Park, 787 N.W.2d 565, 570 (Minn.2010) (stating that the court reviews issues of statutory construction de novo); see also City of Morris v. Sax Invs., Inc., 749 N.W.2d 1, 8 (Minn.2008) (“The application of statutes, administrative regulations, and local ordinances to undisputed facts is a legal conclusion and is reviewed de novo.”).³

Minneapolis is a home-rule charter city. See Minn. Const. art. XII, § 4 (permitting “[a]ny local government unit ... [t]o adopt a home rule charter for its government”); Minn.Stat. § 410.04 (authorizing “[a]ny city in the state” to “frame a city charter for its own government in the manner” prescribed by chapter 410). Minnesota Statutes § 410.07 describes the “framing” of a municipal charter. “Subject to the limitations” in chapter 410, a 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. A municipal charter may also “provide for submitting ordinances to the council by petition of the electors of [the] city.” Minn.Stat. § 410.20. Amendments to a municipal charter may be proposed by the city's charter commission and shall be proposed “upon the petition of voters equal in number to five percent of the total votes cast” at the last previous general election. Minn.Stat. § 410.12, subd. 1. Proposed amendments must outline “any proposed new scheme or frame work of government” and “inform the signers of the petition as to what change in government is sought to be accomplished by the amendment.” Id. Additional sections in chapter 410 address matters that may be governed by a municipal charter and the powers conferred by the charter, see, e.g., Minn.Stat. §§ 410.09, .121, .18. For our purposes, it is noteworthy that apart from the right to propose charter amendments by citizen petition, the matters that charter provisions may address are framed in permissive terms. See Minn.Stat. § 645.44, subds. 15, 16 (2014) (stating “may” is permissive, “shall” is mandatory); see, e.g., Minn.Stat. § 410.07 (stating a charter “may provide for any scheme of municipal government”).

With these statutory provisions in mind, we turn to the form of government adopted in the Minneapolis City Charter. See Park v. City of Duluth, 134 Minn. 296, 298, 159 N.W. 627, 628 (1916) (“The Constitution and general laws of the state confer upon the people of a city the power to...