Agenda - Council - 10/14/1997 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

CHARTERED 470 Pillsbury Center 200 South Sixth Street Minneapolis MN 55402 (612) 337-9300 telephone (612) 337-9310 fax e-mail: attys@kennedy-graven.com FLOYD B. OLSON Attorney at L~w D/re, ct Dial (612) 337-9211 October 13, 1997 Mr. William K. Goodrich Ramsey City Attorney Randall, Dehn & Goodrich 2140 Fourth Avenue North Anoka, MN 55303 RE: Preemption of Charter Amendment Dear Mr. Goodrich: You have requested that I review your memorandum of October 7, 1997, together with the attached plat status chart and that I address the question as to whether Minnesota Statutes, Section 462.358, subd. 3c preempts the application of Section 14.2 of the Ramsey City Charter to the pla[s listed in your plat status chart. You have also advised me that the Section 14.2 of the Charter will not become effective until October 22, 1997. This is important because the final plat of Regency Pond 3rd Addition is to be considered for approval on October 14, 1997. With respect to this plat, action taken on October 14, 1997 would not be affected by the later application of the charter amendment. Thus, for the purpose of answering your inquiry, I will assume that Regency Pond 3rd Addition will be approved finally on October 14, 1997. - As you are aware the general principles applicable to conflicts between local laws and te statutes and the preemption doctrine were set forth and distinguished in Mangold Midwest · v. Village of R. ichfield, 143 N.W.813 (Minn. 1965). Here, we are not dealing with conflict, t with the doctrine of preemption. Mangold Midwest observed that "some cases have confused the two and even used them interchangeably, [but] it is our opinion that p, reemption and conflict are separate concepts and should be governed by separate doctrines. P. 819. Thus, the Minnesota Supreme Court stated that in determining whether preemption applies or not four questions must be Considered. "(1) What is the 'subject matter' which is to be regulated? (2) Has the subject matter been so fully covered by state law as to have become solely a matter of state concern? (3) Has the legislature in partially regulating the subject matter indicated that it is a matter solely of state concern? (4) Is the subject matter itself of such a nature that local regulation would have unreasonably adverse effects upon the general populace of the state'?" l_~d, page 820.