|
<br />
<br />:d SERIES-
<br />
<br />:atutory construc~on, that JaJ'
<br />m-ued together, if possible, ~
<br />both provisions, even if thei
<br />Iflict. See Minn.Stat. ~ 645.11
<br />"y law shall be construed. If
<br />re effect to all its provisions"};
<br />45.26, subd. 1 (1994) ("(w]hen "
<br />ion · · · is in conflict With a:'
<br />)D in the same or another law ':
<br />e construed, if possible, so that
<br />~en to both"). _'
<br />
<br />m.Stat. ~ 388.18 and PELRA'
<br />elieve that the . legislature iJ}..'.
<br />ier system to determine sala-!~
<br />taft of the county attorney's.'
<br />ally, this means that the em. ~
<br />'0 times at bat" with regard to"
<br />~tiations: one with the union:
<br />oard and the other with the'}
<br />r and district court.
<br />
<br />the district court did indeed ":
<br />natter jurisdiction, we must
<br />its of the action.
<br />II. Merits
<br />
<br />:ubst.aD.tive question, then, is
<br />~ court correctly decided that
<br />rd, in violation of Minn.Stat.
<br />6, arbitrarily and capriciously ..
<br />unty attorney's office budget
<br />1Sider the responsibilities and
<br />ffice. On appeal, the role of
<br />, review the record indepen-
<br />ennine whether the county
<br />I arbitrarily or unreasonably
<br />the standards prescribed by
<br />i v. County of Faribault, 365
<br />1 (Minn.1985) (citing ResmJe
<br />Herbst, 256 N.W.2d 808, 824
<br />:nother words, we need not
<br />!rance to the trial court. Re.
<br />56 N.W.2d at 824.
<br />
<br />tiles that Jts own actions can-
<br />:oed arbitrary, capricious, or
<br />use the salaries of the assis-
<br />meys were set through good-
<br />
<br />al documents cannot be signed
<br />pens; and an irrebuttable pre.
<br />11 defendants in personal injury
<br />tred). That Crow Wing County
<br />of controlling local common law
<br />=ct.
<br />
<br />ARCADIA DEVELOP. V. CITY OF BLOOMINGTON
<br />Cite as 552 N.W.2d 281 (M1nD.App. 1996)
<br />
<br />faith PELRA negotiations between the coun-
<br />d the assistant county attorneys' bar-
<br />.. ~.~ g unit. We disagree, for mere inclu-
<br />~ in a group-negotiated wage increase
<br />lIOn not automatically shield that increase
<br />:: subsequent attack. See In re Mille
<br />[AeS County AtWrney Salary & Budget far
<br />1987, 422 N.W.2d ~91, 294-95 .(Minn.App.
<br />1988) (reaching ments, then niling that to
<br />set assistant . county attorneys' salaries as
<br />part of ''blanket'' county employee increase,
<br />without regard to their duties, was arbitrary
<br />and capricious), review dismissed (Minn.
<br />June 22, 1988).
<br />
<br />finally, the evidence presented at trial
<br />showed that the assistant county attorneys
<br />were paid significantly less (roughly $15,OO{}-
<br />$24,000 less) than their counterparts in simi-
<br />larly populated counties with notably lower
<br />workloads.3 Furthermore, one commissioner
<br />even testified that the salary increases were
<br />set in proportion to the salary increases giv-
<br />en other Crow Wmg county employees (i.e., a
<br />standard across-the-board increase).
<br />
<br />These facts make apparent that. the board
<br />based its salary decision on factors other
<br />than the duties and responsibilities of the
<br />office. We therefore agree with the trial
<br />court that the board acted in unreasonable
<br />disregard for the duties and responsibilities
<br />of the office and the experience, qualifica-
<br />tions, and performance of the assistant coun-
<br />ty attorneys.
<br />
<br />DECISION
<br />
<br />The trial court correctly held that the
<br />board acted arbitrarily and unreasonably by
<br />not taking into consideration the assistant
<br />county attorneys' duties, experience, qualifi-
<br />cations, and performance when it set the
<br />county attorney's 1993 office budget. We
<br />affirm the order that this matter be remand-
<br />ed to the board for it to make a proper
<br />
<br />3. For example, iD 1993, while Crow Wing Coun-
<br />ty, population 44,000, had 44 serious felony
<br />cases, Goodhue and Itasca Counties, both popu-
<br />lation 41.000, had 24 and 30 serious felony
<br />cases, respectively, and Sherburne County, popu-
<br />lation 42,000, had 17 serious felony cases. In
<br />terms of juvenile delinquency cases. Crow Wing
<br />
<br />Minn. 281
<br />
<br />determination as to the wages of the assis-
<br />tant county attorneys.
<br />
<br />Affirmed.
<br />
<br />
<br />ARCADIA DEVELOPMENT CORP.,
<br />et a!., Petitioners, Appellants,
<br />
<br />v.
<br />
<br />CITY OF BLOOMINGTON, Respondent.
<br />No. Co-96-157.
<br />Court of Appeals. of Minnesota.
<br />Aug. 13, 1996.
<br />Review Denied Oct. 29, 1996.
<br />
<br />Mobile home park owners brought ac-
<br />tion challenging constitutionality of city ordi-
<br />nance requiring mobile home park owners
<br />who close their parks to pay relocation costs
<br />of park residents. The District Court, Hen-
<br />nepin County, entered judgment in favor of
<br />city, and owners appealed. The Court of
<br />Appeals, Toussaint, C.J., held that: (1) ordi-
<br />nance did not effect unconstitutional taking;
<br />(2) ordinance did not violate equal protection
<br />or substantive due process; and (3) adoption
<br />of ordinance did not support intentional in-
<br />fliction of emotional distress claim.
<br />
<br />Affirmed.
<br />
<br />1. Constitutional Law <e:=>48(1)
<br />Municipal Corporations e:>122.1(2)
<br />
<br />Statutes and locai ordinances are pre-
<br />sumed valid and will not be declared uncon-
<br />stitutional unless clearly shown to be so.
<br />
<br />County had 152 cases, while Goodhue, Itasca.
<br />and Sherburne Counties had 91. 120, and 132
<br />cases, respectively. As to dependency and ne.
<br />glect cases, Crow Wing had 129 cases, while
<br />Goodhue had 47, Itasca had 61, and Sherburne
<br />had 32.
<br />
|