HomeMy WebLinkAboutCommission vs City of Mounds View Ramsey Court STATE OF MINNESOTA DISTRICT COURT
COUNTY OF RAMSEY SECOND JUDICIAL DISTRICT
Civil Division
City of Mounds View Charter Court File No.: C4009168
Commission, Julie Olsen, Willard C Doty,
Jean Miller, Jonathan J Thomas, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
vs. Affidavit of Service
City of Mounds View, a Minnesota
Municipal Corporation,
Defendant
I, Jonathan J Thomas, being first duly sworn, deposes and states that I served a two
(2) copies of the Summons, Complaint, Notice of Motion and Motion, and Memorandum
of Law in Support of Motion, (which were previously filed with this Court) upon the City
of Mounds View on the 26th day of October, 2000, at 2401 Highway 10, Mounds View
Minnesota 55112-1523, in person. I also state that I delivered two (2) copies of said
documents with a request that one (1) set be delivered to the City Clerk/Administrator
and one (1) set be delivered to the City Attorney. I also informed the City that a
hearing date has been set for Friday, the 27th day of October, 2000 before the
Honorable Judge John Van de North at 1:30 P.M. in his courtroom (TBA). I also
personally called and spoke with Givonna Reed, Assistant to the City
Clerk/Administrator by telephone, 763-717-4007, at 11:50 A.M. this 26th day of October,
2000, regarding the service of papers and the hearing.
_- , iii
Jonathan J omas
Subscribed and sworn to before me •
=4_`
this g(A day of September, 2000. y .�ia BREANNA VESAAS
/ f4 NOTARY PUBLIC-MINNESOTA
A72(" aI/a-E26- C.s/.L�j r? My Commission Expires Jan.31,2005
Notary blic ` ■
VD"
rReceived By: on this 26th day of October, 2000 at 1 -- 1 ()P—
K_
i—
K
STATE OF MINNESOTA DISTRICT COURT
COUNTY OF RAMSEY SECOND JUDICIAL DISTRICT
Civil Division
City of Mounds View Charter Court File No.: 02-40 9/fig
Commission, Julie Olsen, Willard C Doty,
Jean Miller, Jonathan J Thomas, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
vs. SUMMONS
City of Mounds View, a Minnesota
Municipal Corporation,
Defendant
THE STATE OF MINNESOTA TO THE ABOVE-NAMED DEFENDANT:
You are hereby summoned and required to serve upon the Plaintiff's an Answer
to the Complaint which is herewith served upon you within twenty (20) days after
service of this Summons upon you, exclusive of the day of such service. If you fail to
do so, judgment by default will be taken against you for the relief demanded in said
Complaint.
Respectfully submitted on behalf of The Mounds View Charter Commission By:
Dated: This at —Day of October, 2000 ,ArZ !:��/'
Jonathan J omas
STATE OF MINNESOTA DISTRICT COURT
COUNTY OF RAMSEY SECOND JUDICIAL DISTRICT
Civil Division
City of Mounds View Charter Court File No.: C 700 9/1/
Commission, Julie Olsen, Willard C Doty,
Jean Miller, Jonathan J Thomas, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
vs. COMPLAINT
City of Mounds View, a Minnesota
Municipal Corporation,
Defendant
Plaintiffs for their Complaint against Defendant, state and aver as follows:
1. Plaintiffs are residents of the City of Mounds View and members of the Mounds
View Charter Commission, appointed by Ramsey County District Judge to act
in such capacity.
2. Defendant City of Mounds View is a Minnesota municipal corporation, a "home
rule charter city' pursuant to definition set forth in Minnesota Statutes 1998,
Chapter 410, specifically 410.015 Definitions relating to cities.
3. Defendant City of Mounds View had prepared Ordinance No. 661, which
proposes to amend various chapters of the Mounds View City Charter relating
to a City Manager form of government and Ordinance No. 662, which proposes
to amend Chapter 2 of the Mounds View City Charter, changing the term of
office of Mayor from two (2) to four (4) years.
4. The City Council of the City of Mounds View has voted to submit Ordinance
No. 661 and Ordinance No. 662 to City voters at the upcoming November 7,
2000, General Election pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 410.12,
subd. 4.
1
5. The contents of the amendments proposed by Ordinances 661 and 662 were
never discussed during any City Council meetings or work sessions, nor was
the Charter Commission allowed the time for review and therefore procedure,
pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 410.12, Subd.4., was not followed by
the City of Mounds View.
WHEREFORE Plaintiffs request the following relief:
1. That this Court issue a mandatory injunction directing the City of Mounds View
to submit the Ordinances 661 and 662 to the Charter Commission for review
and comment prior to presenting them to the voters of the City of Mounds
View.
2. That the City of Mounds View be enjoined from placing Ordinances 661 and
662 on the ballot for the November 7, 2000 General Election.
3. For such further relief as is just and equitable.
Respectfully submitted on behalf of The Mounds View Charter Commission By:
r foam 5,41 —
Dated: This air �Day of October, 2000 � � ��• '
Jonathan J Th• as
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
Pursuant to Minn. Stat. Section 549.21, Subd.1, the undersigned hereby
acknowledges that pursuant to Minn. Stat. Section 549.21, Subd.2, costs,
disbursements and reasonable attorney and witness fees may be awarded the
opposing party or parties in this litigation if the court should find that the
undersigned acted in bad faith, asserted a claim or defense that is frivolous and that
is costly to the other party, asserted an unfounded position solely to delay the
ordinary course of the proceedings or to harass, or committed a fraud upon the court.
Respectfully submitted on behalf of The Mounds View Charter Commission By:
f 411110
Dated: This,47 Day of October, 2000 - �� �ice/
Jonathan J T omas
2
STATE OF MINNESOTA DISTRICT COURT
COUNTY OF RAMSEY SECOND JUDICIAL DISTRICT
Civil Division
City of Mounds View Charter Court File No.: C1009i.‘i
Commission, Julie Olsen, Willard C Doty,
Jean Miller, Jonathan J Thomas, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
vs. NOTICE OF MOTION
AND MOTION
City of Mounds View, a Minnesota
Municipal Corporation,
Defendant
TO: City of Mounds View, a Minnesota Municipal Corporation, 2401 Highway 10,
Mounds View, Minnesota 55112-1523.
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on a4 ( r 12ocrat/ :DO _.m. or as soon thereafter as can
be heard before the presiding Judge of the District Court, in the Ramsey County
Courthouse, St. Paul, Minnesota, Plaintiffs will move the above-named Court for the
relief requested by Plaintiffs, a temporary injunction enjoining Defendant City of
Mounds View from placing Ordinance No. 661, which proposes to amend various
chapters of the Mounds View City Charter relating to a City Manager form of
government and Ordinance No. 662, which proposes to amend Chapter 2 of the
Mounds View City Charter, changing the term of office of Mayor from two (2) to four
(4) years, on a ballot for consideration of the qualified voters at the November 7, 2000
general election.
This Motion is made pursuant to Minnesota Rules of Civil Procedure and is based
upon the Memorandum of Law and Affidavit(s) submitted herewith, and all of the files,
records and proceedings herein.
Respectfully submitted on behalf of The Mounds View Charter Commission By:
Dated: This R Day of October, 2000
Jonathan J T omas
STATE OF MINNESOTA DISTRICT COURT
COUNTY OF RAMSEY SECOND JUDICIAL DISTRICT
Civil Division
City of Mounds View Charter Court File No.: C 100 ?/4
Commission, Julie Olsen, Willard C Doty,
Jean Miller, Jonathan J Thomas, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
vs. MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN
SUPPORT OF MOTION
City of Mounds View, a Minnesota
Municipal Corporation,
Defendant
STATEMENT OF FACTS
Plaintiffs in this action are residents of the City of Mounds View and members of the
Mounds View Charter Commission, appointed by Ramsey County District Judge to act
in such capacity.
Defendant City of Mounds View is a Minnesota municipal corporation, a "home rule
charter city" pursuant to definition set forth in Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 410,
specifically 410.015 Definitions relating to cities.
Defendant City of Mounds View has prepared Ordinance No. 661, which proposes to
amend various chapters of the Mounds View City Charter relating to a City Manager
form of government and Ordinance No. 662, which proposes to amend Chapter 2 of the
Mounds View City Charter, changing the term of office of Mayor from two (2) to four (4)
years, and the City Council of the City of Mounds View is intending to submit
Ordinance No. 661 and Ordinance No. 662 to City voters at the upcoming November 7,
2000, General Election pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 410.12, subd. 4.
ISSUE
1. Did the City of Mounds View act outside what is allowed by law in it's action
rejecting a 90 day extension for review of Ordinances 661 and 662 by the
Mounds View Charter Commission, and it's subsequent action to submit said
Ordinances 661 and 662 to City voters at the upcoming November 7, 2000
General Election. The Mounds View City Council did not follow procedure(s) set
forth in Minnesota Statutes 1998, Chapter 410.12, Subdivision 5?
"A temporary injunction may be granted if by affidavit, deposition testimony, or
oral testimony in court, it appears that sufficient grounds exist therefor." Minn.
R.Civ.P. 65.02 (b). The proper analysis for determining whether to grant a temporary
injunction is found in Dahlberg Bros. v. Ford Motor Co., 272 Minn. 264, 137 N.W.2d 314,
321-322 (Minn. 1965). Five factors are to be considered by the Court:
1. The nature and background of the relationship between the parties;
2. The harm to be suffered by plaintiff if the temporary injunctive relief is
denied as compared to the harm inflicted on defendant if the injunction
issues pending trial;
3. The likelihood that one party or the other will prevail on the merits;
4. The public policy/public interest; and
5. The administrative burdens involved in judicial supervision and
enforcement of the temporary injunction.
Id.
1. The nature of the relationship between the parties does support a temporary
injunction.
"A temporary injunction is an extraordinary equitable remedy...[which] purpose
is to preserve the status quo until adjudication of the case on its merits." Miller v.
Foley, 317 N.W.2d 710, 712 (Minn. 1982).
Plaintiffs in this action are residents of the City of Mounds View and also are
members of the Mounds View Charter Commission. Plaintiffs have participated in the
governmental process in Mounds View, as members of the Charter Commission, and
have performed their duties accordingly to case and statutory law. Defendant is the
City of Mounds View, by and through Mayor Dan Coughlin and the members of the City
Council. Under Minn. Stat. Section 410.12 Subd. 5, the City Council may propose
amendments to a home rule charter to the voters by ordinance. Any ordinance
proposing such an amendment shall be submitted to the Charter Commission, who
shall review the proposed amendment within 60 days thereafter. Before the expiration
Memorandum Page 2 of 6
of such period the Charter Commission may extend the time for review for an
additional 90 days by filing with the city clerk its resolution determining that an
additional time for review is needed. After its review, the Charter Commission shall
approve or reject the proposed amendment, or suggest a substitute amendment, and
shall notify the Council accordingly. The Council may then submit to the people, for a
vote at a general or special election, the amendment originally proposed by it or the
substitute amendment proposed by the Charter Commission. The amendment
becomes effective only when approved by the voters. In this case the proposed
amendments to the Mounds View Charter by Ordinance No. 661 and Ordinance No. 662
were mailed to the charter commission on the 20th day of June 2000, and received on
the 22"d day of June 2000. 23 days later, at the charter commissions next scheduled
meeting they discussed the proposed ordinances and voted by a unanimous vote to
request an extension of ninety days as allowed by Minnesota Statutes Section 410.12,
subd. 5. On the 10th day of August 2000, The request for an extension was signed and
dated by the Chair and the Vice Chair and the document was delivered to the city
offices by the Chair in person on or before the 14th day of August, 2000, which would be
only 54 days from the date of its postmark of being mailed to the Chair of the Charter
Commission and only 32 days from the next scheduled meeting of the commission
after it was sent to them.
2. The harm to be suffered by Plaintiffs if the temporary injunctive relief is denied
far exceeds that inflicted on Defendant if an injunction issues pending trial.
"In balancing the harms, [plaintiff] must show irreparable harm to trigger an
injunction, which [defendant] need only show substantial harm to bar it." Pacific
Equipment & Irr. Inc. v. Toto Co., 519 N.W.2d 911, 915 (Minn. Ct. App. 1994)(citing
Memorandum Page 3 of 6
Yager v. Thompson, 352 N.W.2d 71, 75 (Minn. Ct. App. 1984). Plaintiff must show
irreparable harm as distinguished from merely speculative damages based on an
apprehension of harm. Thomas v. Ramberg, 240 Minn. 1, 60 N.W.2d 18, 21 (Minn. 1953).
In this case the cost of implementing such a major change without properly
considering its scope and the impact of the many issues can be clearly seen by review
of the nearly one year spent on the same task by the Charter Commission of the City of
Northfield Minnesota and by the minutes of those meetings. And not rushing such a
change clearly does not do any significant harm since it can be properly reviewed and
amendments proposed and still submitted to the voters at a later time.
3. The likelihood of success on the merits at trial belongs to Plaintiff.
The affidavits submitted by Plaintiff clearly demonstrate that proper procedure
was not followed, that the City did not put forth the proposed amendments to Mounds
View's Charter in accordance with Minn. Stat. Section 410.12, Subd. 5. Which would
have required a ninety day extension be granted for the Charter Commission to review
and propose amendments. The City will not be harmed if directed to follow the law.
The process may ultimately result in the proposed amendments being adopted, but
simply after review and discussion, and most importantly, after input by Mounds View
residents. Because the Court will determine that the City proceeded improperly and
not in accordance with law, Plaintiffs will be successful.
4. Public interest balances in favor of Plaintiff.
"The court's authority to interfere in the management of municipal affairs is, and
should be, limited and sparingly invoked." White Bear Docking & Storage, Inc. v. City of
White Bear lake, 324 N.W.2d 174, 175 (Minn. 1982). However, taxpayers to have
"sufficient interest to enjoin illegal expenditures of...municipal funds." McKee v. Likins,
Memorandum Page 4 of 6
261 N.W.2d 566, 571 (Minn. 1977). Because the Mounds View City Council acted
outside their authority and have not complied with procedures provided by law, any
expenditure in having the proposed ordinances placed on a November ballot would be
money illegally spent.
Defendant has attempted to usurp plaintiffs' authority and powers to act on
behalf of the residents of the City of Mounds View. Rather than submitting the
ordinances for timely consideration and discussion, as well as possible modifications,
the City Council appears to have acted arbitrarily in determining what is in the City's
and residents', best interests in proposing changes to the City's Charter and drafting
the proposed ordinances before any opportunity for thorough study and examination,
and certainly without any opportunity for the residents to have any input whatsoever.
The contents of the amendments proposed by Ordinances 661 and 662 were never
discussed during any City Council meetings or work sessions, nor was the Charter
Commission allowed the time required by Minnesota Statute 410.12 subd. 5.
Accordingly, the Court should find that pubic policy strongly favors granting the
injunction. To hold otherwise would not only allow Defendant to circumvent procedure
regarding the exercise of powers under the City's Charter, but also tacitly give effect
to Defendant's proposed ordinances prior to a vote. Therefore, public policy clearly
favors the granting of the injunction.
5. Enforcing a temporary injunction in this matter would not pose an
administrative burden on the Court.
Since an order that would keep Ordinances 661 and 662 from being placed on
the ballot in the November 2000 general election in the City of Mounds View would not
require any additional litigation and would allow the issues to return to the normal
Memorandum Page 5 of 6
process prescribed by Minnesota State Statutes, it would not pose an undue burden on
the court.
CONCLUSION
By proceeding in the manner in which the Mayor and the City Council have, the
City of Mounds View has acted arbitrarily and capriciously in determining what might
be in the City's best interests. State statute has not been followed and Mounds View
residents, and the Mounds View Charter Commission on behalf the residents', have not
been afforded opportunity to properly review, discuss and offer input into possible
changes in their form of Charter and governmental operation. Accordingly, Plaintiffs
request that the Court issue a temporary injunction preventing the City of Mounds View
from allowing Ordinances 661 and 662 being placed on a ballot offered to the residents
of the City of Mounds View until the Mounds View Charter Commission is afforded
opportunity to review and consider the issues being proposed in Ordinances 661 and
662, in accordance with Minn. Stat. Section 410.12, Subd. 5, and at such time as this
process is complete, that any proposed Ordinances or Charter amendments be placed
on the ballot for consideration.
Respectfully submitted on behalf of The Mounds View Charter Commission By:
Dated: This of / —Day of October, 2000
Jonathan J Th- as
Memorandum Page 6 of 6