Electronically Served

8/30/2016 9:03:44 AM
Washington County, MN

f
STATE OF

State

of Minnesota County of Washington

Washington County District Court

Court Administrator

E
D

4:00 pm, Aug 29 2016

MINNESOTA

I
L
E
D
DISTRICT COURT

TENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT

COUNTY OF WASHINGTON

Melissa Douglas,

Court File No.

82CVl 6900

Petitioner,
ORDER GRANTING RESPONDENTS'
MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

v.

Stillwater Area Public Schools,

Independent School District 834, et al.,

Respondents.

The

above-entitled matter came for hearing before the Honorable John

R.

McBride, Judge of District Court, on June 24, 2016, at the Washington County

Courthouse, 14949 62nd

St. N.,

Stillwater, Minnesota. Erick G. Kaardal of Mohrman,

Kaardal & Erickson, P.A., Minneapolis, appeared on behalf of Petitioner. Peter G.

Mikhail of Kennedy & Graven, Chartered, Minneapolis, appeared on behalf of

Respondents.
The matter

came before the Court on Petitioners petition for a peremptory

writ of mandamus and Respondents motion forjudgment on the pleadings or, in

the alternative, summaryjudgment. The Court took the matter under advisement

at the conclusion of the hearing.

Now, based upon all of the files, records, and proceedings, the Court issues

the following:

ORDER

Respondents' motion for summaryjudgment

Petitioners petition

is

hereby DENIED and

is

hereby GRANTED.

DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.

attached Memorandum of Decision

made part of this order.

The

is

incorporated and specifically

The Washington County Court Administrator shall transmit notice of filing of

this order and a copy of this order by the designated efiling and esen/ice

system, e-mail, or mail to every party affected thereby or upon such partys
attorney of record, whether or not such party has appeared in the action,
at the party or attorney's last known mail or email address. Such transmittal
shall constitute due and proper notice of this order for all purposes.
LET

JUDGMENT

BE ENTERED

ACCORDINGLY.
'

BY THE COURT:

McBride, John (Judge)

2016.08.29 15:43:25
-05'00'

McBride
Judge of District Court
John

R.

JUDGMENT
Pursuant to the Rules of Civil Procedure, I hereby
certify that the foregoing Order constitutes the
judgment of this court.
Annette Fritz

CourtAdministrator
5

i; Q' 0
I

Date:

By

puty Clerk of District Court

Dated

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION

Background
While this case

is

brought in response to the Stillwater Area Public Schools,

Independent School District 834s (hereafter District") decision to close certain

schools, both parties have agreed that this case

may close schools. That matter

is

is

[t about whether the District

presently pending before the Minnesota Court

of Appeals. The only question before this Court, in this proceeding,

use of a limited

the proper

amount of the bond proceeds following a referendum. Review of

the District's decision to close schools

jurisdiction, and

is

is

is

not within this Courts authority or

not and cannot be addressed herein.

On February

6, 2015,

the District submitted a building project proposal to

the Minnesota Department of Education for review and comment. (App. 4.) The
proposal was based on a report, three months earlier, by the District's Long Range
Facilities Planning Committee. (App. 109.) The Department provided positive

review and comment (App. 199), and on February

19, 2015,

the School Board

resolved to seek voter approval fora bond issue of up to $97.5 million to fund the

project (App. 161). The question was to be submitted to the voters at a special
election.

conjunction therewith, the District published a description of the

In

project. (App. 2.)

It

included, but was not limited to the following:

Marine Elementary
Playground Improvements
Renovations
Fees

FF&E

/ Contingency
'

$101,000
$25,000
$45,019
$171,019

Oak Park Elementary

HVAC Upgrades
Playground Improvements
Renovations
Fees

$1,100,000
$101,000
$25,000

/ FF&E / Contingency

$438042
$1,664,042

Withrow Elementary
Playground Improvements
Renovations
Fees

The

FF&E

$101,000
$25,000
$45,019
$171,019

/ Contingency

District also published materials specifically highlighting the planned

improvements to Withrow, Marine, and Oak Park. (App. 193, 195, 197.) None of
the documents referenced above mentioned the closure of any elementary
schools.
The referendum was held on May 12, 2015. The ballot question presented

to the voters read as follows:

Shall the school board of [the District] be authorized to issue its
general obligation school building bonds in an amount not to

exceed $97,500,000 to provide funds for the acquisition and

the acquisition
betterment of school sites and facilities, including
and installation of HVAC systems and various other improvements to
existing elementary school sites and facilities?
. . .

(App.

1.) The

measure was approved and bonds were issued by the District to

fund the project.

Less

than a year later, on March

3, 2016,

the School Board resolved to close

Withrow Elementary, Marine Elementary, and Oak Park Elementary. (Mikhail Aft.
Ex. A.) If

the plan

is

upheld by the Court of Appeals, the previouslyproposed

improvements to Withrow and Marine, and the playground improvement to Oak

-4-

Park, will not be

made. The other improvements to Oak Park

w_i|I

be made,

because that building may be converted to another use. (Hoheisel Aff.

1t

14.)

Analysis
In

their motion, Respondents have moved for judgment on the pleadings

or, in the

alternative, summary judgment. When matters outside the pleadings

are presented to and not excluded by the court, [a motion for judgment on the

pleadings] shall be treated as one for summary judgment and disposed of as

provided for in Rule 56[.]" Minn.

R.

Civ.

P.

12.03. Rule 56 provides:

Judgment shall

be rendered forthwith if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories,

and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there
genuine issue as to any material fact and that either party

judgment

as a

is

is

no

entitled to a

matter of law." Since the District has produced and relies upon

matters outside the pleadings, the Districts motion will be treated as a Rule 56

motion for summaryjudgment. Both parties acknowledge that there are no facts
in dispute
In

and that the issue before this Court has been fully submitted.

her Petition, Petitioner repeated alleged that the District was using bond

proceeds to close three schools: Withrow Elementary, Marine Elementary, and

Oak Park Elementary.

In

response to these allegations, Respondents have

produced evidence by way of affidavit that Petitioner's allegations are not true
and that no bond funds are being used to effectuate the Boards resolution of
March

3, 2016.

Petitioner now concedes that the allegations in her Petition, that

the District was spending bond proceeds to close schools, were unfounded.

-5-

In

her Reply to the District's Affidavit and Memorandum, Petitioner no longer claims

that the District is spending bond proceeds to close schools.

In

her Reply, she takes

a new line of attack. Now, Petitioner contends that closing the schools would

entail violations of Minn. Stat. 475.58, subd.

In

4,

and/or 475.65.

her Petition, the only relief sought by Petitioner is the issuance by this Court

of a writ of mandamus. The writ of mandamus may be issued to any interior

tribunal, corporation, board, or person to compel the performance of a duty

imposed by law. Minn. Stat.

586.0l. The issuance of a writ of mandamus

is

governed by statute. In re D.F., 828 N.W.2d l38, l40 (Minn. Ct. App. 20l3) (citing
Minn. Stat. 586.0l586.l2). In order to obtain mandamus relief, a petitioner
must show that the defendant: (1) failed to perform an official duty clearly

imposed by law,

(2)

that, as a result, the petitioner suffered a public wrong

Specifically injurious to the petitioner, and (3) that there

remedy." N. States Power Co.

v.

is

no other adequate legal

Minnesota Metro. Council, 684 N.W.2d 485,

491

(Minn. 2004) (citations omitted). Courts generally agree that a petitioner in a

mandamus action must demonstrate a clear legal right to have the act in
question performed and must demonstrate every material fact necessary to show

the existence of the plain duty to act with respect to the relief sought." Mendota
Golf, LLP v. City ofMendota Heights, 708 N.W.2d 162, l7879 (Minn. 2006) (citation

and internal quotation marks omitted).

Mandamus

is

an extraordinary legal remedy. ld. at

l7l.

[A] writ of mandamus should issue only to compel an officer to

perform duties with respect to which he or she plainly has no
-6

To The precise manner of performance and where only

one course of acTion is open. If The ad or duTy of issue is discreTionary,
The parTy seeking The wriT musT esToblish ThaT failure To perform if was
so arbiTrary and capricious as To consTiTuTe a clear abuse of

discreTion as

discreTion.
In re D.F., 828 N.W.2d aT l4O (ciToTions
wriT

and inTernal auoTaTion marks omiTTed). [A]

of mandamus does noT conTroI The parTicular manner in which a duTy

performed and does

Golf, 708 N.W.2d

aT

noT dicTaTe

how discreTlon

is To

is To

be

be exercised. MendoTa

l7l.
I.

Closing WiThrow, Marine, and Oak Park

PeTiTioner argues ThaT 475.58, subd. 4, requires The DisTricT To hold a

referendum on

ifs

plan

To

close WiThrow ElemenTary, Marine ElemenTary, and Oak

Park ElemenTary. As will be explained below, ThaT

is

a misreading of The sTaTuTe.l

PeTiTioner also suggesTs ThaT The same sTaTuTe requires The DisTricT To

schools as

previously proposed

To

do. Subdivision

improve

provides:

proceeds of obligoTions issued afTer approval of The elecTors

under This secTion may only be spenT: (l) for The purposes sTaTed in
The balloT language; or (2) To pay, redeem, or defease obligoTions
and inTeresT, penalTies, premiums, and cosTs of issuance of The
obligoTions. The proceeds may noT be spenT for a differenT purpose
or for an expansion of The original purpose wiThouT The approval by
a majoriTy of The elecTors voTing on The auesTion of changing or
expanding The purpose of The obligoTions.

The

See ParT

III.

A. of This

Memorandum.

The

This

statute does forbid the expenditure of bond proceeds for unauthorized

purposes. However, Petitioner has not explained how the District could violate
subdivision 4 by not spending bond proceeds for an authorized purpose.2

Closing the schools would, on the other hand, potentially implicate

47565, which provides in pertinent part:

the contemplated use be afterward abandoned, or if any balance

of the proceeds of the obligations remains after the use is
accomplished, or if the governing body determines that at least 85
percent of the cost of the use has been paid or finally determined
and retains in the fund an amount sufficient to pay the estimated
costs of completion, the remainder of the fund may be devoted to
any other public use authorized bylaw, and approved by resolution
adopted or vote taken in the manner required to authorize bonds for
such new use and purpose. Any balance remaining after the
improvement has been completed and paid for, unless devoted to
a new use as herein authorized, shall become a part of the debt
service fund of the municipality.
If

By

electing to close three schools, the District has abandoned a portion of the

project authorized by referendum. Minnesota Statutes provide for a course of

action when the contemplated use

abandoned. Minnesota Statutes do not

is

require the District to make improvement to facilities that are being closed and

projects that have been abandoned.

Nor do Minnesota Statutes require the

District to submit the decision to abandon part of the project to the voters by way

of referendum. Petitioner has not provided any evidence which contradicts the
sworn testimony of Kristen Hoheisel, the Executive Director of Finance and

Le, not making the proposed improvements.

-8-

Operations for the District, which indicates that any such proceeds will be used
only as

475.65 permits. (See Hoheisel Aff.

1]

l8.)

Petitioner believes that the District has a duty to improve all of its elementary
schools, because it proposed to do so. Petitioner acknowledges, however, that a

school district may make changes to plans approved by the voters, provided that
it does not spend

bond proceeds for purposes that the voters did not authorize.3

Petitioner has not demonstrated that the District has failed to perform a clear legal

duty. As to the arguments above, therefore, Respondents motion for summary

judgment must be granted.

ll. Converting Oak Park to a Central Services Facility

Petitioner also argues that the District would violate

475.58, subd. 4, by

using bond proceeds to make the previouslyproposed improvements to Oak

Park,

because improving an Oak Park administrative building would amount to a

"different purpose than improving the Oak Park elementary school.4 On the
surface, this argument would appear to have more merit than those discussed

above.
Minnesota Statute

475.58, subd. 4, provides in pertinent part:

proceeds of obligations issued after approval of the electors

under this section may only be spent: (1) for the purposes stated in

The

The purposes authorized by the voters in this case are

contends. See Part II. C. of this Memorandum.

actually much broader than Petitioner

Petitioner also cites 475.65. On this issue, the two provisions are opposite sides of the same
coinhow bond proceeds may be spent v. how they must not be. Since the relevant language
of 475.65 (It the contemplated use be afterward abandoned . . ."l is permissive, it does not
impose a clear legal duty on the District. We therefore focus on 475.58, subd. 4.

-9_

the ballot language; or (2) to pay, redeem, or detease obligations

and interest, penalties, premiums, and costs of issuance of the
obligations. The proceeds may not be spent for a different purpose
or for an expansion of the original purpose without the approval by
a majority of the electors voting on the question of changing or
expanding the purpose of the obligations.
Under subdivision 4, the purposes authorized by the voters are defined by the

"ballot language."

This

presents a crucial threshold question: What constitutes the

ballot language"?
A. Ballot Language"

Petitioner contends that our inquiry as to what the voters authorized may

reach beyond the text of the ballot question to related documents (particularly
those cited in the first paragraph of this Memorandum). Respondents, on the other

hand, maintain that ballot language means the language on the ballot.
When interpreting a statute, the Court

plain and ordinary meaning. Engfer

is

to give words and phrases their

Gen. Dynamics Adv. Info. Sys., Inc., 869

v.

N.W.2d 295, 300 (Minn. 20l5). The plain meaning of the term ballot language

is

the meaning that Respondents propose: the language on the ballot. While there
is

little law on this issue, this interpretation

l2l,

T22 (Minn. T923),

campaign promises
B.

consistent with State

is

v. Trask, 193

NW.

where the Minnesota Supreme Court declined to consider

as

evidence of the purpose that the voters authorized.

The Existing-Elementary-Schools Clause

Petitioner argues that the District must improve all nine elementary schools,

because to improve

six

rather than nine would amount to a different purpose

that the voters did not authorize. Petitioner seems to have read the word all into
_

TO

the existingelementaryschools clause.

improvements to

g_l_|

In

fact, that clause does not require

elementary schools, or to any one in particular.

It is silent as

to which schools will be improved. Moreover, the argument that the District would
have the authority to improve nine, but not

six, is

contradictory.

If

the District has

authority to improve nine, it follows, a fortiori, that it has authority to improve

six.

Petitioner has loaded the word existing" with far more weight than it can
bear.5 A more important word in the text of the ballot question

word signifies that what follows

is

is

"including." That

a non-exclusive list. Hence, the District may

spend bond proceeds to improve the high school, the stadium, and existing

elementary schools, etc., but it may also spend proceeds on other projects that
are not specifically mentioned, i.e., the acquisition and betterment of school
sites

and facilities."

Th_at is

the purpose authorized by the voters. Those more

inclusive words, not the existing-elementary-schools" clause, define the extent of

the Districts authority to spend bond proceeds in this case. Therefore, it ultimately

doesnt much matter whether the improvements to Oak Park would be

authorized by the existing-elementary-schools" clause as it

is

already authorized

by the "acquisition and betterment of school sites and facilities" clause.

Even if we focus on the less inclusive language suggested by Petitioner, the

ballot language would not preclude improvements to Oak Park, as something

other than an elementary school. The voters authorized the District to spend bond

The word serves to distinguish existing elementary schools from the new one proposed two
clauses earlier.

-11-

proceeds to improve existing elementary school sites and facilities. Petitioner

agrees that Oak Park came within that category when the election was held
(Pet.s Reply

Br.

i2), and, indeed, it

an existing elementary school or facility,

because it has not been closed.6 Therefore, the ballot language plainly authorizes
the District to make improvements to Oak Park, whether it

is

improved as an

elementary school or as a facility.

For all

of the reasons above, the District would not violate

475.58,

subd. 4,

by using bond proceeds to make improvements to Oak Park. Because Petitioner

has not demonstrated that the District has failed to perform a clear legal duty

warranting mandamus relief, summaryjudgment must be granted.

Ill. The Relief Petitioner

HCIS

Requested

Even if Petitioner were entitled to a writ of mandamus, the Court has no

authority to grant the relief that she has requested.

A. Holding a Referendum

Petitioner suggests that

approval

in

475.58, subd. 4, requires the District to obtain voter

order to close the schools. That

The statute does not in this case,

is

a misunderstanding of the statute.

and would not under any circumstances, require

a referendum. The statute forbids unauthorized expenditures; it says nothing as to

whether a particular expenditure should be submitted to the voters for approval.

i4 of this year. [N]o schools may

on school closings may be
based
changes
no
and
boundary
or
sold,
marketed,
be closed,
appeal."
(Mikhail Aff. 1] 6.) It is unclear why Petitioner states that Oak
implemented, pending the
Park has been closed. (Pet.'s Reply Br. 12.)

The District's plan to close schools has been stayed since April

_]2_

To puT This dnoTher

way: if if would be unlowful for

proceeds for d pdrTiculdr purpose because

ThoT

under subdivision

The voTers, The DisTricTs duTy

The Disfricf To

spend bond

purpose was noT oufhorized by

would be

To noT

spend The

mnof To hold 0 referendum.

Moreover, if has been The low in

This SToTe

Tt The wriT of mandamus mdy noT be used

exercised. See Powell

v.

opprovol

in

There

how discreTion should be

163 (Minn. 1890)). WheTher To seek The voTers'

order moke porTiculor expendiTures

DisTricTs discreTion. See

bonds

dicTe

Carlos Twp., 225 NW. 2%, 297 (Minn. 1929) (ciTing Sfofe

of Somersef, 47 NW.

v. Town

To

for well over one hundred years

Minn.

STdT.

is

a decision commiTTed

475.57 (providing ThoT The resoluTion

To The

To issue

my provide for The submission of The quesTion To voTe of The elecTors).

is To

be 0 referendum, if is also for The

DisTricT To

deTermine

wt

l_f

The quesTion

should be:

school board or board of educofion my,

iudqmenf dnd discreTion, submif ds 0 single bolloT
quesTion or 05 Two or more sepdrdTe quesTions in The noTice of
elecTion dnd bolloTs The proposifion of Their issuonce for any one or
more of The following [purposes]
In any school
dccordinq To

disTricT, The
iTs

. . . .

Minn.

STdT.

noT possess,

475.59. PeTiTioner would have The CourT ossume ouThoriTy

Tt

and violoTe reams of published cose low by Trenching upon

discreTion of The peoples elecTed represenfofives ond dicToTing decisions

belong

To

does
The

Tt

Them. The porfies dffecTed by The DisTricTs pldn To close schools may

-13-

have a remedy of the Court of Appeals, or at the ballot box,7 but what they seek
is

not available in this proceeding.

If it

were the case that the Districts plan would violate

475.58, subd. 4, the

Court would issue an order requiring the District to comply with the law. But then
it would be for the District to

decide whether to seek approval from the voters,

modify or abandon the plan, or perhaps fund certain projects from other sources.
B.

Spending Bond Proceeds

Likewise, it would be inappropriate for the Court to order the District to

spend bond proceeds to improve the three schools. Decisions as to how bond

proceeds should be spent lie within a municipality's discretion. For example, in

State v. Trask, after voters authorized the village of Chisholm to issue bonds in the

amount of $650,000 to construct a public building, the village council issued only
$188,000 of that amount:
The council determined that it was unnecessary to build so expensive
a public building as had been contemplated. We see nothing
unlawful in this. We do not see that the bonds now proposed to be
sold are invalid because the council finds it inadvisable to use the full
amount of the original issue. It is urged that in the campaign of l920
the voters were promised that the building would contain a

recreational hall, and perhaps other features, thought desirable by

different classes of the general public. It is not for us to enter into a
consideration of the campaign arguments in the election of 1920. If
there is a case where inducements to secure votes at a bond
election invalidates it, this is not such. The ballot put before the public
was a plain statement of the purpose of the proposed issue, and the
proposition carried.

Once its fair judgment is exercised, there is no judicial remedy. For unsatisfactory action there
may be a political remedy." Powell v. Carlos Two, 225 NW. at 297.

_]4_

193

NW. 121, 122 (Minn. 1923) (citation omitted); see also Lindahl v. Indep. Sch.

Dist. No. 306

of Hubbard County, l33 N.W.2d

23, 28 (Minn. 1965) (stating If the

voters approve the issuance, the board has discretion to issue less than the

maximum so long as the funds received will fulfill the purpose for which they were

intended); Op. Atty. Gen.

l59A-5 (July

l6, 1982) (observing that

475.65

countenances the abandonment of previously authorized projects).

Conclusion
The Court

cannot grant Petitioner's request for a writ of mandamus,

because she has not demonstrated that the District has failed to perform a clear
legal duty. In addition, the relief that she has requested

is

beyond the Courts

authority.
J. R.

-15-

M.