This opinion will be unpublished and
may not be cited except as provided by
Minn. Stat. § 480A.08, subd. 3 (2014).
STATE OF MINNESOTA
IN COURT OF APPEALS
A14-1610
The Centennial Fire Fighters Relief Association, et al., petitioners,
Appellants,
vs.
The City of Lino Lakes, et al.,
Respondents,
Anoka County Auditor, Jonell Sawyer in her official capacity, et al.,
Respondents,
Minnesota Secretary of State, Steve Simon, in his official capacity,
Respondent.
Filed June 1, 2015
Affirmed
Rodenberg, Judge
Anoka County District Court
File No. 02-CV-14-4959
Erick G. Kaardal, Mohrman, Kaardal & Erickson, P.A., Minneapolis, Minnesota (for
appellants)
Joseph J. Langel, Ashley R. Geisendorfer, Ratwik, Roszak & Maloney, P.A.,
Minneapolis, Minnesota (for respondents City of Lino Lakes, et al.)
Anthony C. Palumbo, Anoka County Attorney, Christine Carney, Assistant County
Attorney, Anoka, Minnesota (for respondents Jonell Sawyer, et al.)
Lori Swanson, Attorney General, Nathan J. Hartshorn, Kimberly Middendorf, Assistant
Attorneys General, St. Paul, Minnesota (for respondent Steve Simon)
Considered and decided by Rodenberg, Presiding Judge; Johnson, Judge; and
Stoneburner, Judge.*
UNPUBLISHED OPINION
RODENBERG, Judge
Appellants challenge the district court’s denial of their request for a writ of
mandamus. We affirm.
FACTS
The cities of Centerville, Circle Pines, and respondent Lino Lakes entered into a
Joint Powers Agreement (JPA) in January 1990 pursuant to their authority under Minn.
Stat. § 471.59, subd. 1 (1990). The JPA created the Centennial Fire District (Fire
District) “to jointly and cooperatively provide fire protection services” to all three cities.
The JPA allows any signatory city to withdraw from the Fire District by providing “a
minimum of two years notice to the remaining municipalities” involved in the JPA. In
January 2014, the city council of respondent Lino Lakes adopted a resolution to withdraw
from the Fire District and provide two years’ notice of its intent to do so. City staff,
acting pursuant to the resolution, gave notice of respondent’s withdrawal to the other two
cities.
The Centennial Fire Fighters Relief Association and members of the Lino Lakes
electorate (appellants) circulated an initiative petition to place a proposed ordinance on
the November 2014 general election ballot.1 The proposed ordinance provides:
*
Retired judge of the Minnesota Court of Appeals, serving by appointment pursuant to
Minn. Const. art. VI, § 10.
2
219.01 Voter Approval. Any action taken by the City
Council, the effect of which authorizes the withdrawal from
the Centennial Fire District, shall require the City Council to
submit the question of withdrawal to the qualified electors of
the City of Lino Lakes at either a special election called for
that purpose or at a regularly scheduled general municipal or
statewide election. The City Council shall thereafter take
such action only if the withdrawal is affirmed by a vote of the
City’s qualified electors at such election. Any such action to
withdraw from the Centennial Fire District pending at the
time this ordinance is adopted shall be subject to the
requirements stated herein.
In August 2014, the city council declined to put the proposed ordinance before the voters
on the November 2014 general election ballot, concluding that “the petition seeks to
annul the Council’s authority over this administrative matter [the withdrawal from the
Fire District] and is, therefore, invalid.”
Appellants sought a peremptory writ of mandamus from the district court
“requiring voter approval for withdrawal from the Centennial Fire District and ensure it
be placed on the November 4, 2014 ballot.” The district court denied the petition for writ
of mandamus and this appeal followed.
DECISION
I.
Respondents Lino Lakes and Anoka County argue that the issue of whether the
district court erred in denying appellants’ petition for a writ of mandamus is moot
because the November 2014 general election has passed and we are therefore unable to
grant the requested relief. Although appellants concede, as they must, that the mandamus
1
It is undisputed that the petition was brought appropriately under the Lino Lakes City
Charter.
3
petition by its terms sought only to have the question placed on the November 2014
ballot, appellants maintain that the issue is not moot. Appellants argue there is an
adequate remedy, and that we might either order the placement of the proposed initiative
on the ballot for a future general election or that we might order a special election.
Appellants also argue that, even if it is moot, this case presents an important public issue
of statewide significance and that we should therefore resolve this case on the merits.
It is well settled that courts may only decide actual controversies. State ex rel.
Bennett v. Brown, 216 Minn. 135, 138, 12 N.W.2d 180, 181 (1943); In re Guardianship
of Tschumy, 853 N.W.2d 728, 735 (Minn. 2014). “If the court is unable to grant effectual
relief, the issue raised is deemed to be moot resulting in dismissal of the appeal.” Houck
v. E. Carver Cnty. Schs., 787 N.W.2d 227, 231 (Minn. App. 2010) (quotation omitted).
An exception to the mootness doctrine includes issues capable of repetition and
yet evading review. Id. This exception requires that “(1) the challenged action was in its
duration too short to be fully litigated prior to its cessation or expiration, and (2) there
was a reasonable expectation that the same complaining party would be subjected to the
same action again.” Id. (citing Kahn v. Griffin, 701 N.W.2d 815, 821 (Minn. 2005)
(quotation marks omitted)). Ultimately, “[m]ootness is . . . a flexible discretionary
doctrine, not a mechanical rule that is invoked automatically.” Houck, 787 N.W.2d at
231 (quotation omitted).
The only relief requested in appellants’ petition for a writ of mandamus was that
the proposed ordinance “requiring voter approval for withdrawal from the Centennial
Fire District be placed on the November 4, 2014 ballot.” Whether designedly or by
4
inadvertence, appellants’ petition to the district court requested neither a special election
nor placement of the question on the ballot at any post-2014 general election. On appeal,
appellants have substantially changed their request for relief, now requesting that we
order a special election or that we order respondents to put the ballot question before the
voters at the November 2015 general election. These arguments for relief were not raised
to the district court and are therefore waived.2 Thiele v. Stitch, 425 N.W.2d 580, 582
(Minn. 1988).
As we are unable to grant the relief requested of the district court, placement of
this ballot petition on the November 2014 general election ballot, this case is moot.
Houck, 787 N.W.2d at 231. However, because this issue is capable of repetition but
likely to evade review, we exercise our discretion to reach the merits of the question of
whether this petition was lawful for placement of the proposed ballot question before the
electorate.
2
We also observe that, in requesting on appeal that we order a special election, appellants
would have us ignore or overwrite the city ordinance pertaining to the signature
requirements for a special election. Lino Lakes, Minn., City Charter ch. V, § 5.03
(2014). Appellants cite no authority for the notion that three appellate judges might
under any circumstances undertake to rewrite a home-rule charter city’s requirements for
a special election.
5
II.
“Mandamus is an extraordinary remedy.” N. States Power Co. v. Minn. Metro.
Council, 684 N.W.2d 485, 491 (Minn. 2004). A writ of mandamus may issue “to compel
the performance of an act which the law specially enjoins.” Minn. Stat. § 586.01 (2014).3
In order to prevail, appellants are required to show that (1) respondents “failed to
perform an official duty clearly imposed by law”; (2) appellants “suffered a public
wrong” and were “specifically injured” by respondents’ failure to perform that official
duty; and (3) appellants have no adequate remedy other than a writ of mandamus. Breza
v. City of Minnetrista, 725 N.W.2d 106, 109-10 (Minn. 2006) (quotations omitted).
We review the language of ordinances in the same manner we review statutes.
Eagle Lake of Becker Cnty. Lake Ass’n v. Becker Cnty. Bd. of Comm’rs, 738 N.W.2d
788, 792 (Minn. App. 2007). First, we look to whether the language in an ordinance is
clear and unambiguous. Id. If the language is unambiguous, then we apply the plain
language. Amaral v. St. Cloud Hosp., 598 N.W.2d 379, 384 (Minn. 1999). Language in
an ordinance is ambiguous only if it “is subject to more than one reasonable
interpretation.” Id.Lino Lakes is a home-rule charter city and has adopted a charter. See Minn. Stat.
§ 410.015 (2014). The charter allows for the voters in Lino Lakes “to initiate and adopt
ordinances, to require ordinances passed by the Council to be referred to the electorate
for approval or disapproval, and to recall elected public officials.” Lino Lakes, Minn.,
3
Appellant sought a peremptory writ. A peremptory writ is appropriate when “the right
to require performance of the act is clear, and no valid excuse for nonperformance can be
given.” Coyle v. City of Delano, 526 N.W.2d 205, 208 (Minn. App. 1995).
6
City Charter ch. V, § 5.01 (2014) The right of the electorate to influence the affairs of a
city council is limited to influencing the passage and repeal of ordinances, and recall and
removal (which is not involved in this case). Minn. Stat. § 410.20 (2014); Hous. &
Redev. Auth. v. City of Minneapolis, 293 Minn. 227, 234-35, 198 N.W.2d 531, 536-37
(1972), Hanson v. City of Granite Falls, 529 N.W.2d 485, 487 (Minn. App. 1995). Said
differently, the power of referendum is limited to legislative acts and may not interfere
with administrative or quasi-judicial acts. Hanson, 529 N.W.2d at 488; see also Oakman
v. City of Eveleth, 163 Minn. 100, 107, 203 N.W. 514, 517 (1925) (stating that “the
theory of initiative and referendum was directed at supposed evils of legislation alone”).
The district court held that, because the proposed ordinance sought to submit to a
vote “any action” of the city council concerning withdrawal from the Fire District, the
proposed ordinance unlawfully encompassed administrative acts. And because the
proposed ordinance was unlawful, the petition for its inclusion on the November 2014
general election ballot imposed no duty on respondents, and therefore no writ could be
issued.
The district court based its denial of mandamus relief on the conclusion that the
proposed ordinance was unlawful. “When a decision on a writ of mandamus is based
solely on a legal determination, we review that decision de novo.” Breza, 725 N.W.2d at
110.
Appellants concede that the power of referendum in a home-rule charter city is
limited to legislative acts. But they argue that the word “actions” in the proposed
ordinance is properly limited to legislative actions only. Appellants reason that the word
7
“action” is used in the charter to refer to legislative actions and therefore the word
“action” in the proposed ordinance mirrors the charter and may be circumscribed as such.
But the city charter refers explicitly to both legislative actions and administrative
actions. It also uses the word “action” to encompass the adoption of ordinances,
resolutions, and motions, the latter two of which are explicitly considered by the charter
to be “administrative business” of the council. Appellants’ argument amounts to a
request that we refine their petition and draft it anew. Appellants, who chose the
language of the petition, broadly defined the scope of the proposed ordinance to include
“any action.”
The plain language of the proposed ordinance is subject to only one reasonable
interpretation. The proposed ordinance plainly states that a vote of the electorate is
required for “any action . . . the effect of which authorizes the withdrawal from the
Centennial Fire District.” “Any action” plainly includes both legislative and
administrative actions. Appellants’ failure to limit the language in the proposed
ordinance to legislative actions, appropriate under the law for required referenda, renders
the proposed ordinance unlawful under Minn. Stat. § 410.20. Respondents were
therefore under no duty to place the proposed ordinance on the ballot. Hanson, 529
N.W.2d at 488; see also Hous. & Redev. Auth., 293 Minn. at 235, 198 N.W.2d at 537.
Appellants would have us act beyond our proper role as an error-correcting court.
Sefkow v. Sefkow, 427 N.W.2d 203, 210 (Minn. 1988); Lake George Park, L.L.C. v. IBM
Mid-America Emps. Fed. Credit Union, 576 N.W.2d 463, 466 (Minn. App. 1998), review
8
denied (Minn. June 17, 1998). It is not for us to repair the obvious infirmities of
appellants’ proposed ordinance. The district court properly denied the writ.
Respondent Lino Lakes agreed at oral argument that, if a proposed ordinance
complying with Minn. Stat. § 410.20 and the city charter is presented for inclusion on a
future general or special election ballot, it will not oppose a placement of such a question
before the electorate. But, as Lino Lakes rightly notes, and as the district court properly
determined, an ordinance that, by its terms, improperly seeks to require voter approval for
administrative city actions may not properly be put before the voters. The district court
was correct and the writ was properly denied.4
Affirmed.
4
Respondents Anoka County and the Secretary of State argue that they are not proper
parties to this action. Because our holding affirms the district court’s refusal to grant the
writ of mandamus, we do not reach the issue of whether they were properly parties to this
suit.
9