09-20-2018 Council and Advisory Boards Joint Meeting Packet

Home Search

b. As a general rule, conflicts that would render an ordinance invalid exist only when both the ordinance and the statute contain express or implied terns that are irreconcilable with each other. c. More specifically, and within the above framework, it has been said that conflict exists where an ordinance penniits what the statute forbids, or where the ordinance forbids what a statute expressly peiniits. d. In attempting to determine conflict issues, Courts say that no conflict exists if the ordinance, though different than the statute, is merely additional and/or complimentary to, or in aid and furtherance of, the statute. e. For a representative discussion of the conflicts doctrine, see the cases Midwest Mangold Co. v. Village of Richfield, 143 N.W. 2d 813 (Minn. 1966) and State of Minnesota v Apple Valley Redi-Mix, Inc., 379 N.W. 2d 136 ( Minn. App. 1985). f. The conflicts doctrine also applies when dealing with a State Agency's Rules. See In re Denial of the Certification of the Haslund Variance, 759 N.W. 2d 680 (Minn. App. 2009). 2. The Doctrine of Preemption a. Preemption is a doctrine that invalidates a local ordinance when the State, through its body of laws, so occupies the field that there is no room left for local regulation. b. A court will look at 4 factors to determine this: (1) what is the subject matter being regulated; (2), has the subject matter been so covered by State law as to have become solely a mailer of state concern; (3), has the legislature in regulating the matter indicated that it is solely a matter of state concern; and (4), is the subject matter itself of such a nature that local regulation would have unreasonably adverse effects upon the public c. For a representative discussion of the doctrine of preemption, see the case of City of Morris v Sax Investments, Inc., 749 N.W. 2d 1 (Minn. 2008).