CIVIL RIGHTS
Fair housing

U.S. Department of Justice Dear Colleague Letter, Aug. 15, 2024

The facts: In August 2024, the Department of Justice (DOJ) issued a Dear Colleague Letter addressing crime-free rental ordinances. Dear Colleague Letters provide guidance from the federal government, but are not regulations or laws. The DOJ’s primary concern was about crime-free ordinances that may allow landlords to evict tenants based on criminal activity or excessive calls to law enforcement. However, these ordinances often include proactive measures, like requiring landlords to attend trainings and develop processes to improve communication between law enforcement, landlords, and tenants. Crime-free ordinances are common across the country, including in Minnesota. The Minnesota Crime Prevention Association states that over 120 law enforcement agencies currently participate in some sort of crime-free housing program.

The issues: According to the DOJ, crime-free ordinances can violate the following civil rights laws:

• The Fair Housing Act (FHA) bans discrimination based on race, national origin, disability, and sex and applies to both public and private housing. Programs may violate the FHA if they have restrictions based on criminal histories, arrest records, or calls for emergency assistance.
• Title VI of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, which applies only to entities receiving federal financial assistance, may be violated when programs are implemented selectively, such as only being enacted in a predominantly Black community.
• The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) bans discrimination against people with disabilities. Programs that impose penalties for disability-related calls or share private information with landlords may violate the ADA.
• The Violence Against Women Act protects the right to report a crime or emergencies from one’s home without being penalized for requesting assistance.

What this means for cities: Crime-free ordinances are not banned, and the Dear Colleague Letter is intended only to serve as guidance. However, the DOJ has made clear it will bring lawsuits when it believes a civil rights law is being violated. Lawsuits have also been brought by private individuals and advocacy groups. However, there is no standard crime-free ordinance, so cities may have provisions that implicate civil rights laws. Cities should consider examining, with the assistance of the city attorney, whether they have a crime-free ordinance and how it has been implemented. For reference, view the City of Faribault’s ordinance, rental license applications, and a crime-free housing lease addendum, which have been reviewed by the DOJ, at bit.ly/rental-licensing-ordinance.

NUISANCE LAW
Interpretation of nuisance-accumulation ordinance

City of St. Cloud v. Schaefer, No. A23-1880 (Minn. Ct. App. Oct. 28, 2024) (nonprecedential opinion)

The facts: In May 2023, a compliance specialist from the City of St. Cloud’s Health and Inspections Department went to Matthew Schaefer’s residential property after receiving a complaint. The specialist observed “nuisance accumulation” outside of Schaefer’s garage, including rusting metal file cabinets, wooden cabinets, pallets, boxes, lumber, and carpet. The city, pursuant to its ordinance, gave Schaefer 10 days to address the violations or to be subject to a fine of up to $750. When the compliance inspector returned to Schaefer’s property in June, they found most items had been addressed, except for the metal filing cabinets and wooden cabinets. When the city mailed Schaefer a second notice of violation, he appealed to the city. The city upheld the notice and told Schaefer to remove all items or show they were intended for outdoor use. A reinspection in July 2023 showed the cabinets remained, so the city mailed Schaefer an administrative citation, fining him $300. Schaefer requested a hearing with the city’s health and inspections department. After an administrative hearing where the hearing officer heard testimony and reviewed exhibits, the officer ordered Schaefer to pay the $300 fine.

The type of case: The hearing officer’s determination that Schaefer violated the nuisance-accumulation statute is a quasi-judicial determination. Quasi-judicial determinations are like court proceedings but are conducted by administrative agencies or officers. Such decisions can be reviewed by petitioning the Minnesota Court of Appeals.

The issues: Schaefer argued the nuisance-accumulation ordinance was unclear, and the hearing officer incorrectly interpreted the term “rubbish” found in the ordinance. Next, he stated the decision was arbitrary and that the perception of waste is a matter of personal opinion. Finally, he argued that the city’s enforcement of the nuisance-accumulation statute was not a reasonable exercise of police powers.

The court’s ruling: The court ruled against Schaefer on all three issues. It found the city’s nuisance-accumulation ordinance defined “rubbish” to include furniture, trash, material no longer of value for its original purpose, and construction materials not being currently used, and that the hearing officer interpreted the term correctly. The appellate court also rejected Schaefer’s argument that the decision was arbitrary, saying the record reviewed by the hearing officer included testimony and exhibits showing the cabinets stacked outside Schaefer’s garage. Finally, the court ruled that cities have wide discretion in using police power to abate public nuisances and that St. Cloud’s ordinance provided authority to issue an administrative citation.

What this means for cities: Cities should ensure that any nuisance ordinance provides thorough definitions of anything prohibited under the ordinance. Additionally, any nuisance ordinance should also specify what actions the city may take, such as citations and fines. Finally, if cities conduct their own administrative hearings when a resident challenges a fine or other action, those hearings should include testimony from city inspectors and other relevant personnel and should include a review of exhibits, such as photographs of the nuisance conditions.

COMPETITIVE BIDDING LAWS
Responsible bidders

Nordic Underwater Servs., Inc. v. City of Proctor, No. A24-0199 (Minn. Ct. App. Sept. 23, 2024) (nonprecedential opinion)

The facts: In March 2023, the City of Proctor put out a call for construction bids for a new public works garage. The estimated cost exceeded $175,000 and was therefore subject to Minnesota’s competitive bidding laws, which require that the lowest “responsible bidder” be awarded the contract. Nordic Underwater Services (Nordic) was the lowest bidder. However, Proctor determined that Nordic was not a responsible bidder and awarded the contract to the next-lowest bidder, Ray Riihiluoma, Inc. (RRI). RRI began work on the project, but Nordic filed a lawsuit asking the court to declare that awarding the contract to RRI was unlawful and asking the court to prohibit the award, execution, and performance of the contract. The district court found that Nordic was the lowest responsible bidder and granted Nordic’s request for a permanent injunction, requiring the city to stop all work and payments for the public works garage project. The city appealed.

The type of case: A request for an injunction asks the court to prevent a city from taking certain actions, either temporarily or permanently. Nordic’s request was granted only after the court determined it was indeed a responsible bidder, which relates to factors like a bidder’s financial responsibility, integrity, skill, and likelihood of providing satisfactory performance.

The issues: Both parties agreed that since the lower court found Nordic was the lowest responsible bidder and therefore the city violated competitive bidding laws, the contract with RRI was void. However, the city argued that the permanent injunction issued by the district court was too broad, because it prohibited all work and payment on the public works garage project, which blocked the city from protecting the work already completed by RRI and using already-purchased materials that would otherwise go to waste.

The court’s ruling: The Minnesota Court of Appeals found that the lower court did not err by granting the permanent injunction because the injunction was necessary to prevent irreparable injury to Nordic. The permanent injunction did not stop the city from rebidding the project, which was required once the contract with RRI was void. The appellate court did agree to remand the case back to the lower court for clarification on the scope of the permanent injunction, but ruled that the city could not perform under its contract with RRI.

What this means for cities: For contracts subject to competitive bidding requirements, cities should make sure that bid specifications are clear regarding evaluation criteria for responsible bidders. If a city chooses to reject the lowest responsible bidder, it will likely need to be prepared to address the issue in court and will need to provide information on how the decision was made. Cities should also be aware that contracts that violate statutorily required bidding procedures are void and work cannot be conducted under such a contract.

Written by Lisa Needham, research attorney with the League of Minnesota Cities. Contact: lneedham@lmc.org or (651) 281-1271.