## Facts

- Bloomington, a Minnesota home-rule charter city, historically used an open solid-waste collection system in which residents contracted directly with haulers.
- In 2014, the City began the statutory process to move to organized collection, where the City contracts with haulers and assigns service areas.
- Residents opposing organized collection pursued a charter amendment after earlier efforts to regulate the change by ordinance.
- The proposed charter amendment would (1) require majority voter approval at a general election before replacing open collection with organized collection and (2) supersede conflicting ordinances on trash collection.
- The City refused to place the proposed charter amendment on the ballot, asserting state-law preemption, improper use of the referendum power, and facial invalidity under the federal and state Contract Clauses due to existing hauling contracts.

## Issues

1. Whether the proposed charter amendment was an improper attempt to exercise referendum power—by effectively repealing or vetoing ordinances—rather than a valid charter amendment.
2. Whether the proposal was “manifestly unconstitutional” under the federal and state Contract Clauses because it would impair the City’s existing organized-collection contract.

## Decision

- The Minnesota Supreme Court affirmed the determination that the proposal was not manifestly unconstitutional under the Contract Clauses.
- The court reversed the ruling that the proposal was an improper referendum.
- The court held the measure was a proper charter amendment because it changed the municipal decision-making process for adopting organized collection and included a standard supersession clause for conflicting ordinances.
- The court held the proposal did not, on its face, substantially impair contractual obligations; at most, it affected the City’s performance under the contract.
- The case was remanded with instructions that the proposed charter amendment be placed on the ballot.

## Legal Principles

- In a home-rule charter city, a charter amendment is permissible when it modifies the process by which the city council may implement a policy change and provides that conflicting ordinances are superseded; such a measure is not an improper referendum merely because it affects existing ordinances.
- A proposed charter amendment may be excluded from the ballot as “manifestly unconstitutional” only when invalidity is clear on the face of the proposal without factual development.
- For Contract Clause purposes, a measure that affects municipal performance under a contract does not amount to a facial, substantial impairment of contractual obligations sufficient to deem the proposal manifestly unconstitutional at the ballot-placement stage.

## Conclusion

The court required Bloomington to place the resident-proposed charter amendment on the ballot, holding that it validly altered the City’s process for adopting organized trash collection and was not facially barred by the Contract Clauses because it did not clearly and substantially impair contractual obligations.


Jennissen v. City of Bloomington, 938 N.W.2d 808 (Minn. 2020)