Laserfiche WebLink
Chairperson Vogt replied that at this time he was only taking Commission input. <br /> <br />Commissioner Deemer stated that in reviewing the case of Deborah Nordmarken, et al vs City of <br />Richfield, Minnesota, it states "The doctorine of preemption is premised on the right of the state <br />to so extensively and intensively occupy a particular field or subject with state laws that there is <br />no reason for municipal regulation." "If preemption has occurred, a local law puporting to <br />govern, regulate, or control an aspect of the preempted field will be void, even if the local law is <br />not in conflict with the state law." Mr. Deemer stated that what that means is that the City can <br />not just arbitrarily place something in when it relates to the land planning act, even if they agree. <br /> <br />Commissioner Ebel inquired as to how the process gets started to adopt an ordinance. <br /> <br />City Attorney Goodrich replied that the City Council adopts ordinances. He explained that an <br />ordinance is proposed and then introduced. If it is approved, it is adopted 30 days later. <br /> <br />Commissioner Ebel inquired if that process has started. She stated that it seemed that there had <br />been a lot of thought process to protect the citizens of Ramsey and felt it was important to keep it <br />together. She stated that she would like to see more legal opinions. Ms. Ebel stated that she <br />moved into Ramsey to have space, not be on top of people. She felt that they needed to think it <br />through very carefully to protect the City. <br /> <br />Chairperson Vogt stated that what is in the Charter today cannot be enforced in a court of law. <br />What staff is saying is that they have some of the language moving forward as an ordinance. <br />The traffic analysis section is very important. <br /> <br />Commissioner Ebel stated that pushing the language forward and adopting the appropriate <br />ordinance would be very important. <br /> <br />Commissioner Swanson inquired if it was an opinion that the amendment is unenforceable. <br /> <br />City Attorney Goodrich replied that it is law that it is unenforceable. The law is not saying that <br />the City cannot do density type things and traffic analysis but it has to be done through the <br />correct process. <br /> <br />Mr. Hendriksen stated that he agreed with much of what had been said. He stated that the term <br />"straw horse" is when you put up a false argument and knock it down. He stated that there has <br />been no legal opinion on the process as he envisions it and believes it should occur. They have <br />on the table at the Council a density transition ordinance, which for the most part reflects what is <br />in the Charter, ready for adoption. He inquired of the City Attorney if that was a reasonable <br />statement. <br /> <br />City Attorney Goodrich replied yes in regards to Chapter 14.2 not 14.1. <br /> <br />Mr. Hendriksen stated that that particular ordinance was voted on in December 1999, and had <br />that vote gone 4-1 or 5-0 it would be law. He questioned if that was a correct statement. <br /> <br />Charter Commission/July 18, 2002 <br /> Page 15 of 22 <br /> <br /> <br />