Listen to this article
The ongoing dispute between the cities of Orono and Long Lake over fire protection has reached the Minnesota Court of Appeals, where a former Minnesota Supreme Court justice and three former Orono mayors filed an amicus brief Oct. 4 criticizing Orono’s current leaders.
Former Justice James Gilbert, on behalf of the Orono mayors, authored the brief requesting that the appellate court affirm a district court’s injunction order temporarily enjoining the city of Orono from violating a mutual-aid fire-protection contract with Long Lake, as well as two subsequent orders finding Orono in contempt.
They have submitted the brief “because of their concern for the safety of the citizens of Orono and the unnecessary risks to safety that have been created by Orono’s current leadership.”
“This leadership has taken blatant action to undermine and interfere with the mutual-aid status quo and disregard the clear directives of the district court that were carefully crafted to preserve the status quo,” states the amicus brief submitted by Barbara Peterson, Gabriel Jabbour and Jim White, all former mayors of Orono.
Adjacent western suburbs of Minneapolis, Long Lake and Orono have been in contention surrounding fire service for the last couple of years. The Long Lake Fire Department (LLFD) has provided service to surrounding communities, including Orono, since 1915. LLFD operates two fire stations (Fire Station 1 and Fire Station 2) with roughly 40 firefighters. Orono, Long Lake, and Medina, are parties to a 2002 “Contract for Fire Protection.” While Orono and Long Lake each own 50% of Fire Station 1, Orono solely owns Fire Station 2.
The Orono City Council passed a resolution in 2022 that established the Orono Fire Department. It took steps to establish its own fire departments and take control of Fire Stations 1 and 2.
Problems first arose when Long Lake found a ladder truck that it intended to purchase. As it needed approval from each contracting city for the purchase, Orono became aware of the plans. Allegedly using this information about the ladder truck, it then purchased the truck for itself. Orono also hired the former LLFD Chief of 15 years to be the chief of the Orono Fire Department.
In May 2023, Orono drafted a Needs Assessment that included a plan for Orono to take over control of Fire Station 2 in 2023. The following month, Long Lake requested a temporary injunction enjoining Orono from violating the Contract for Fire Protection, soliciting Long Lake firefighters over to Orono, and from hindering Long Lake’s use of Fire Station 1 and 2. This temporary injunction was granted on June 30, 2023.
Orono was enjoined from recruiting Long Lake firefighters to work for the Orono Fire Department in a July 14, 2023, order. The court also ordered Orono to not violate the Contract for Fire Protection or hinder Long Lake’s use of Fire Station 1 and 2.
But Long Lake claimed that Orono violated the court’s order, as Orono allegedly, without consulting with Long Lake, planned for an architect to construct a building next to Fire Station 2 to house Orono’s fire trucks. Additionally, Orono held a gathering for the new fire department, which was referred to as a “Firefighter Recruitment Open House” in advertisements that were circulated before the event.
The court agreed that the gathering was a recruitment event.
“The Court further notes that Chief [James] Van Eyll’s statements at the Orono City Council meeting indicate that he has not felt bound by the Court’s ruling to avoid communicating with Long Lake firefighters as part of his marketing efforts for the new Orono Fire Department,” wrote Judge District Judge Laurie Miller. “Instead, it appears that he believes his employer desires him to maintain his connections with Long Lake firefighters as part of Orono’s campaign to fill out the ranks of the Orono Fire Department, and he view himself as free to have any discussion he wishes with any LLFD firefighter who applies for employment with Orono.”
The court also found that Orono violated its order when it made plans to construct a structure on the Fire Station 2 property.
“The Court further finds that Orono took these steps unilaterally, without informing Long Lake, consulting with Long Lake, or seeking Long Lake’s approval for expansion of Fire Station 2,” Miller wrote. “Orono seems to regard its planning process to expand Fire Station 2 as entirely within its own control, unaffected by anything set forth in the July 14 order.”
In a November 2023 order, the court ordered Orono to pay a fine of $2,000 for each instance of any future contact for recruitment purposes. Orono was also ordered to pay the costs and attorney’s fees incurred by Long Lake. Orono was informed that any other violations of the court’s order could result in the issuance of a bench warrant or other contempt sanctions. It found that Orono willfully disobeyed the court’s order and placed Orono in constructive civil contempt.
Then, in March 2024, the district court issued a second contempt order, finding that Orono violated the Temporary Injunction that enjoined Orono from hindering operations of the LLFD when it hired ten LLFD firefighters, which caused the number of LLFD firefighters serving two department to rise above 25%.
It also found that Orono willfully disobeyed the prohibition against recruitment by offering to waive the standard physical and psychological exam requirements for a group of people that only included currently LLFD firefighters.
“[A] fire at a multistory apartment building in Long Lake would stress the department’s resources even at its current staffing levels, and a significant reduction in the number of paid-on-call firefighters would be catastrophic for the LLFD’s effectiveness,” Miller wrote.
Orono appealed the 2023 injunction order and two contempt orders issued against it by the 4th Judicial District Court. It argued that the district court erred in issuing the first contempt order because the temporary injunction “did not clearly define the actions Orono was prohibited from.” Similarly, it argued that the district court erred in issuing the second contempt order. “Orono cannot be held in contempt because the actions it was required to perform or prohibited from performing were not clearly defined,” Orono argued in its brief.
The mayors, in the amicus brief, argued that, given their backgrounds, they are “uniquely positioned to provide this Court with valuable information about how the current Orono Mayor and City Counsel have engaged in wrongful conduct by competing with the LLFD for the mutual aid fire protection resources and hindering the LLFD operations before the expiration of the contracts at issue.”
They maintained that the temporary injunction and contempt orders should be affirmed. “The district court’s decision should be affirmed, especially considering the Long Lake Mayor’s testimony provided in support of Long Lake’s motion for a temporary injunction that outlined how Orono’s continued attempts to raid and dismantle the LLFD amounted to an unquantifiable risk to public safety,” the mayors noted. “The Orono Fire Needs Assessment acknowledges the difficulty in hiring and training firefighters, yet knowing this, Orono took numerous concerted actions to deplete the community firefighting enterprise.”
RELATED: Court: Orono violated order in dispute over fire departments