Laserfiche WebLink
CHARTERED <br /> <br />470 Pillsbury Center <br />200 South Sixth Street <br />Minneapolis MN 55402 <br />(612) 337-9300 telephone <br />(612) 337-9310 fax <br />e-maih at tys@kennedy-graven.corn <br /> <br /> FLOYD B. OLSO~ <br /> Attorney at Law <br />Direct Dial (612) 337-9211 <br /> <br />October 13, 1997 <br /> <br />Mr. William K. Goodrich <br />Ramsey City Attorney <br />Randall, Dchn & Goodrich <br />2140 Fourth Avenue North <br />Anoka, MN 55303 <br /> <br />RE: Preemption of Charter Amendment <br /> <br />Dear Mr. Goodrich: <br /> <br /> You have requested that I review your memorandum of October 7, 1997, together with <br />the attached plat status chart and that I address the question as to whether Minnesota Statutes, <br />Section 462.358, subd. 3c preempts the application of Section 14.2 of the Ramsey City Charter <br />to the plats listed in your plat status chart. You have also advised me that the Section 14.2 of <br />the Charter will not become effective until October 22, 1997. This is important because the final <br />plat of Regency Pond 3rd Addition is to be considered for approval on October 14, 1997. With <br />respect to this plat, action taken on October 14, 1997 would not be affected by the later <br />application of the charter amendment. Thus, for the purpose of answering your inquiry, I will <br />assume that Regency Pond 3rd Addition will be approved finally on October 14, 1997. <br /> <br />tAs you are aware the general principles applicable to conflicts between local laws and <br /> te statutes and the preemption doctrine were set forth and distinguished in Mangold Midwest <br /> .. v... Village of Ri_chfi'eld, 143 N.W. 813 (Minn. 1965). Here, we ar,e, not dealing With conflict~t, <br /> with the doctrine of preemption. Mangold Midwest observed that 'some cases have confused <br /> the two and even used them interchangeably, [but] it is our opinion that preemption and conflict <br /> are separate concepts and should be governed by separate doctrines." P. 819. Thus, the <br /> Minnesota Supreme Court stated that in determining whether preemption applies or not four <br /> questions must be considered. - <br /> <br />~ "(1) What is the 'subject matter' which is to be regulatedv. (2) Has the subject' matter <br /> tbeenSOsfUlly covered by state law as to have become solely a matter of state concern? <br /> (3) Ha~th,e, legislature in p}rti-ally regulating the subject matter indicated that it is a <br /> matter soleb of state concern. (4) Is the subject matter itself of such a nature that local <br /> regulation would have unreasonably adverse effects upon the general populace of the <br /> ate?" l__d, page 820. <br /> <br />.5' <br /> <br /> <br />