Case Information
*1 STATE OF MINNESOTA
IN SUPREME COURT
A16-1367 Hennepin County Per Curiam
Tоok no part, Stras, Lillehaug, Tyler Vasseur, et al., petitioners, Chutich, and McKeig, JJ.
Peterson, Randolph, and Respondents, Bjorkman, Louise, Acting Justices vs.
City of Minneapolis, et al., Filed: November 23, 2016
Office of Appellate Courts Appellants,
Ginny Gelms, in her official capacity as
Elections Manager, Hennepin County,
Respondent.
________________________ Paul J. Lukas, Nichols Kaster, PLLP, Minneapolis, Minnesota; Bruce D. Nestor, De León & Nestor, LLC, Minneapolis, Minnesota; Karen E. Marty, Marty Law Firm, LLC, Bloomington, Minnesota; 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, Minnesota; and
Susan L. Segal, Minneapolis City Attorney, Tracey N. Fussy, Brian S. Carter, Assistant City Attorneys, for appellants City of Minneapolis, et al.
Appointed pursuant to Minn. Const. art. VI, § 2, and Minn. Stat. § 2.724, subd. 2 (2014).
Michael O. Freeman, Hennepin County Attorney, Daniel P. Rogan, Senior Assistant County Attorney, Minneapolis, Minnesota, 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, Minnesota, for amicus curiae League of Minnesota Cities.
_______________________
S Y L L A B U S The district court erred in granting respondеnts’ petition pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 204B.44(a) (Supp. 2015), and directing the Minneapolis City Council to include a question regarding a proposed minimum-wage amendment to the Minneapolis City Charter on the ballot for the general election because the City Charter vests general legislative authority solely in the City Council.
Reversed.
O P I N I O N
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 *3 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 Minneaрolis 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 *4 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 Counсil 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 fоr 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 *5 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
аfter 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
,
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 rеview.
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
*6
with state law and therefore cannot bе 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
,
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 municipаl 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. *7 § 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
,
Because the plain language of the Minneapolis City Charter places the responsibility
for the general welfare of City residents in the City Council, it is clear that the wage
amendment is improper. There is no doubt that the wage amendment constitutes an
exercise of general legislative authority. Indeed, Vasseur in his brief expressly
characterizes the wage amendment as an expression of legislative authority, arguing that if
adopted, the amendment “would protect the welfare of city residents.” Nothing in the
Minneapolis City Charter, however, authorizes an exercise of legislative action through a
citizen petition that circumvents the City Council’s authority for legislation and
policymaking.
See, e.g.
,
Berent v. City of Iowa City
,
In urging us to reach the opposite conclusion, Vasseur contends that the powers of
a home-rule charter city, and therefore the powers vested in the residents of that city, “are
liberally construed.” Thus, if a city has the power to legislate under a charter, Vasseur
argues, then that city’s residents hold the same legislative power. Next, relying on
Markley
v. City of St. Paul
,
First, Vasseur’s effort to equate the legislative power held by the city with powers held by the city’s residents assumes that the powers expressly granted to a municipality in a charter are implicitly granted in equal measure and to the same degree to the residents of that municipality. This assumption ignores the plain language of chapter 410. While the powers conferred on a municipality by a home-rule charter may be broad, the charter “may provide for any scheme of municipal government,” Minn. Stat. § 410.07. Under the plain language of this statute, a municipality may adopt charter provisions that vest some powers in its government and not in its residents, or the municipality may adopt charter provisions that vest some powers in its government and in its residents. See, e.g. , Minn. Stat. § 410.20 (stating a charter “may also provide for submitting ordinances to the council by petition of the electors of such city”). Thus, the form of the municipal government adopted in a charter defines the powers held by that government and by its residents. In Minneapolis, that form vests legislative and policymaking authority solely in the City Council.
*11
The fact that Vote for 15MN collected the requisite number of signatures in order
to request that the wage amendment be included on the ballot does not compel a different
outcome. This is so because we have said that charter provisions (and therefore charter
amendments) must be consistent with state law and state public policy.
See State ex rel.
Lowell v. City of Crookston
,
Second,
Markley
does not speаk to the scope of permissible regulations in a
municipal charter and it therefore does not control the outcome of this appeal. In
Markley
,
a provision in the St. Paul City Charter extended benefits to injured
city employees
.
142 Minn. at 357, 172 N.W. at 215. When an injured firefighter employed by the city
*12
sought benefits under this provision, the city argued that benefits were only available to its
employee under the workers’ compensation provisions enacted by the Legislature.
Id.
at
357,
Third, we cannot conclude that the regulatiоn of “local municipal functions,” Minn. Stat. § 410.07, includes the right of municipal residents to petition for charter provisions that regulate the general welfare of a municipality’s residents. The City argues that the regulation of “local municipal functions” is limited to charter provisions that address the “form, structure, and functioning” of municipal government. Permissible charter provisions are, according to the City, narrow in scope because a charter governs thе *13 functions of the municipal government, while ordinances enacted in an exercise of a municipality’s legislative powers regulate the functions and activities of persons, businesses, or entities residing or operating in the municipality. See, e.g. , Oakman v. City of Eveleth , 163 Minn. 100, 106, 203 N.W. 514, 516 (1925) (explaining that a charter provision granting power to the city’s residents “to enact legislation has reference to ordinances of general legislation which lay down some permanent and uniform rule of law for the guidance of the municipality and the people” and stating that “[a]n ordinance is a local law”).
We do not need to define the precise meaning of the phrase “local municipal
functions” in Minn. Stat. § 410.07. Vasseur acknowledges that the wage amendment
proposes to regulate businesses operating in the City in order to advance the general
welfare of the City’s residents. Relying on the City’s authority to “exercise any power that
а municipal corporation can lawfully exercise at common law,” City Charter § 1.4(a),
Vasseur contends that citizen petitions to amend the charter can address all subjects of
interest to the City or its residents, including matters of general welfare.
See, e.g.
,
State ex
rel. Zien v. City of Duluth
,
The general welfare clause in the Minneapolis City Charter may be broad, but the Charter vests the exercise of that power in “the boards, commissions, committees, departments, and officers” through which the City acts. City Charter § 1.4(a). Thus, regardless of the breadth of the general welfare clause or the precise contours of the phrase “local municipal functions” in Minn. Stat. § 410.07, the Minneapolis City Charter does not extend to its residents the authority to “exercise any power that a municipal corporation can lawfully exercise at common law,” because nothing in the plain language of this provision confers that power on the City’s residents, City Charter § 1.4(a).
Because Minneapolis residents do not have legislative and policymaking authority under the City Charter, we hold that the district court erred in granting the petition and ordering the City to place the wage amendment on the ballot for the general election.
Reversed.
STRAS, LILLEHAUG, and CHUTICH, JJ., took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.
M C KEIG, J., not having been a member of this court at the time of submission, took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.
Notes
[1] The wage amendment includes provisions that distinguish between employers based on the number of employees, require a minimum number of hours worked to qualify for the minimum wage, and explain how gratuities are factored into the wage calculation.
[2] Minnesota Statutes § 204B.44(a) allows an individual to file a petition seeking the correction of any error or omission in the preparation or printing of a ballot for an election.
[3] The wаge amendment includes a statement regarding the impact of income
inequality on the economic and social concerns of City residents. Policy arguments that
might support a proposed charter amendment are not relevant to our analysis.
See City of
Morris
,
[4]
See St. Paul Citizens for Human Rights v. City Council
,
[5] The district court declined to consider Haumant , concluding the discussion in that published opinion regarding prohibited initiative pеtitions was non-binding dicta. We need not decide whether this conclusion is correct because Haumant is not binding on our court. We simply note that Haumant is consistent with the views expressed by other courts that have considered this question.
[6] In contrast, the charter we considered in
St. Paul Citizens for Human Rights
granted
to its residents “ ‘the right to propose ordinances, to require ordinances to be submitted to
a vote, and to recall elective officials by processes known respectively as initiative,
referendum, and recall.’ ”
[7] The Minneapolis City Charter includes provisions regarding City “officers” and “employees,” “classified” and “unclassified” service of those officers and employees, and employment rules and regulations governing City officers and employees. See City Charter art. VIII.
[8] In ordering the City to place the wage amendment before the voters, the district court relied on the fact that the City Charter includes provisions relating to liquor sales and regulating slaughterhouses. Whether those provisions are properly included in the Minneapolis City Charter is not before us and so we express no opinion about them.