Memorandum Mann vs Showalter, Cmmss'r mn mng't & Budget

1/10/14 10:34 AM

State of Minnesota Supreme Court MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF Doug Mann, Linda Mann, David Tilsen PETITION FOR WRIT OF PROHIBITION Petitioners, vs. Supreme Court Case Number:

Jim Showalter, Commissioner of Minnesota Management and Budget Respondent MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF THE PETITION ISSUES

1. Respondent is poised to unlawfully use public funds 2. Petitioner has standing to sue Respondent 3. Petitioner has no other adequate legal remedy. RESPONDENT IS POISED TO UNLAWFULLY USE PUBLIC FUNDS

City of Minneapolis sales tax revenues are to be dedicated to the repayment of state appropriation bonds sold and issued to pay for the construction of a new Vikings Stadium in Minneapolis, as described in point 6 of the petition. This cannot be done. Article X, section 1 of the Minnesota Constitution states: "The power of taxation shall never be surrendered, suspended or contracted away. . ." . . .Under Section 1, Article 9 of the Minnesota Constitution, "a tax cannot be imposed exclusively on any subdivision of the State, to pay an indebtedness or claim which is not peculiarly the debt of such subdivision of the State, or to raise money for any purpose not peculiarly for the benefit of such subdivision." Sanborn v. Rice Cnty. Comm'rs, 9 Minn. 273, 278 (1864). An arrangement whereby the City of Minneapolis would impose a suite of local sales taxes to pay an indebtedness incurred by the State was evidently designed to circumvent a provision of the Minneapolis home rule charter that requires a referendum to incur debt in an amount exceeding $15,000,000 to pay for a stadium.

Page 1 of 4

Memorandum Mann vs Showalter, Cmmss'r mn mng't & Budget

1/10/14 10:34 AM

Minneapolis City Charter, chapter 9 states in pertinent part: Where, with respect to any and all types and forms of obligation or indebtedness authorized by this Charter and by the laws of Minnesota, the aggregate amount of any such obligations or indebtedness to be issued or incurred for any improvement, including but not limited to acquisition, development, construction or betterment, of any public building, stadium, or other capital improvement project, shall in all phases from inception to completion exceed Fifteen Million Dollars ($15,000,000), the Board of Estimate and Taxation shall not issue or sell any bonds or other obligations nor incur any indebtedness for such purpose without the approval of a majority of the electors voting on the question of issuing such obligations or incurring such indebtedness at a general or special election

The Appropriation bonds to be sold and issued to pay for construction of the Vikings Stadium are not valid without the contribution of the City of Minneapolis to the payment of debt service. The Legislature authorized the sale and issue of bonds in an amount up to $498,000,000. The City of Minneapolis is required to pay debt service on its share of a principal amount of $150,000,000 plus interest and the state's liability is limited to payment of debt service on appropriation bonds up to an amount of $348,000,000 plus interest. Without the City's contribution, there is no provision in the 2012 Stadium Act to pay in full the principal and interest on the appropriation bonds. PETITIONER HAS STANDING TO SUE RESPONDENT Petitioners have standing to seek a writ of prohibition because, as a residents of the City of Minneapolis, Minnesota, they have an interest restraining a public official from unlawful use of public funds raised by the imposition of local sales taxes by the City of Minneapolis. The standing of a taxpayer to seek an extraordinary writ to restrain public officials from unlawful use of public funds is recognized by the Minnesota Courts and addressed in the following four paragraphs from OLSON v. STATE, No.A06-2324., December 18, 2007 - MN Court of Appeals:! [W]hile the activities of governmental agencies engaged in public service ought not to be hindered merely because a citizen does not agree with the policy or discretion of those charged with the responsibility of executing the law, the right of a taxpayer to maintain an action in the courts to restrain the unlawful use of public funds cannot be denied.! In contrast with standing rules in federal courts, it is generally recognized that a Minnesota taxpayer has a broader basis for standing than a litigant in federal court. Id. at 570.

Page 2 of 4

Memorandum Mann vs Showalter, Cmmss'r mn mng't & Budget

1/10/14 10:34 AM

As early as 1888, the Minnesota Supreme Court held that taxpayers may bring an action to compel county officers to perform their public duties. State ex rel. Currie v. Weld, 39 Minn. 426, 428, 40 N.W. 561, 562 (1888). In 1928, the Minnesota Supreme Court stated, “it is well settled that a taxpayer may, when the situation warrants, maintain an action to restrain unlawful disbursements of public moneys.” Oehler v. City of St. Paul, 174 Minn. 410, 417-18, 219 N.W. 760, 763 (1928). The supreme court has also more recently reaffirmed the requirement that the party seeking to challenge legislative action on the basis of his status as a taxpayer must have more than just a disagreement with a discretionary decision. See In re Sandy Pappas Senate Comm., 488 N.W.2d 795, 798 (Minn.1992) (finding that a citizen did not have standing solely as a taxpayer to file a claim seeking judicial review of an election board's disposition of a campaign violation). In Rukavina, we acknowledged that taxpayer status alone does not confer standing. 684 N.W.2d at 531. Simple “disagreement with policy or the exercise of discretion by those responsible for executing the law” does not supply the “unlawful disbursements” or “illegal action” of public funds required for standing to support a taxpayer challenge. Id. When the taxpayer's individual challenges to the state action “are based primarily on appellants' disagreement with policy or the exercise of discretion by those responsible for executing the law,” they are insufficient to confer standing. Id. PETITIONER HAS NO OTHER ADEQUATE LEGAL REMEDY The 2012 Stadium Act, Article 2 section 1, subd. 10 c. states: "The Minnesota Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction to determine the validation of appropriation bonds and all matters connected therewith." The commissioner of Minnesota Minnesota is authorized by the 2012 Stadium Act to determine that he has authority to issue appropriation bonds without a validation hearing before the Supreme Court, and has chosen to proceed with the sale and issue of appropriation bonds without a validation hearing. The authority conferred on the commissioner by the Legislature to determine the legality of the bond sales without a validation hearing before the Supreme Court is an attempt to vest judicial powers in the commissioner in violation of Article 3 of the Minnesota constitution. The interpretation of law

Page 3 of 4

Memorandum Mann vs Showalter, Cmmss'r mn mng't & Budget

1/10/14 10:34 AM

is a function properly invested in judicial branch of government. Minnesota Constitution ARTICLE III DISTRIBUTION OF THE POWERS OF GOVERNMENT Section 1. Division of powers. The powers of government shall be divided into three distinct departments: legislative, executive and judicial. No person or persons belonging to or constituting one of these departments shall exercise any of the powers properly belonging to either of the others except in the instances expressly provided in this constitution. CONCLUSION For the forgoing reasons, Petitioners request that the petition for a writ of prohibition be, in all respects, granted.

Dated: 10 January 2014

___________________________ Doug Mann Petitioner, pro se 3706 Logan Avenue N. Minneapolis, MN 55412 Phone: (612) 824-8800 _____________________________ Linda Mann Petitioner, pro se 1821 First Avenue South, #303 Minneapolis, MN 55403 Phone: (612) 871-4102 ______________________________ David M. Tilsen Petitioner, pro se 3220 10th Ave S. Minneapolis, MN 55407 Phone: (612) 823-8169

Page 4 of 4

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful