My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
09.02 - Administrative Fines
Laserfiche
>
City Council (Permanent)
>
Agenda Packets (Permanent)
>
2006
>
05-02-2006 Council Meeting
>
09.02 - Administrative Fines
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/6/2016 2:05:45 PM
Creation date
7/6/2016 2:05:44 PM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
17
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
�... The Honorable Steve Smith <br /> December 1,2003 <br /> Page 3 <br /> S. Do local administrative hearing procedures deny alleged ordinance violators any <br /> of their constitutionally protected due process or equal protection rights? <br /> 6. Do local administrative hearing procedures violate the principle of separation of <br /> powers between the executive branch and the judicial branch by infringing on the <br /> district court's original jurisdiction? <br /> Our analysis of these issues is set forth below. <br /> LAW AND ANALYSIS <br /> As a preliminary matter, this Office does not render opinions on hypothetical questions, <br /> conduct general reviews of local enactments or proposals to identify possible legal issues or <br /> evaluate the constitutionality of legislative enactments. See Op. Atty. Gen.629x,May 9-, 1975. <br /> Consequently,we are unable to render definitive opinions that fully address the complete range <br /> of.issues implicit in your questions_ We can,however, offer the following eamrnents which we <br /> hope will,be helpful to the committee in its deliberations. <br /> First, as you probably know, cities, as subdivisions of the state,have only those powers <br /> that are expressly granted by statute or charter,or are reasonable and necessary to implementation <br /> of such express powers. See, e.g., County Joe, Inc. v. City of Eagan, 560 N.W_2d 681 (lviinn. <br /> 1997). <br /> Second, in the exercise of their general express or implied powers, cities may not <br /> establish programs or procedures that are incompatible with state statutes or address areas of the <br /> law that have been preempted by state law either expressly or by implication. See, e.g., <br /> LaCrescent Twp v. City of LaCrescent, 515 N.W.2d 608 (Minn. Ct. app. 1994); Norlhwest <br /> Residence v. City of Brooklyn Park, 352 N.W.2d 764 (Minn. Ct. App. 1984). This principle <br /> applies notwithstanding the brpad powers of self-government generally exercised under home- <br /> rule charters. As noted by the Court in State ex rel. Town of Lowell v. City of Crookston, <br /> 202 Minn. 526,91 N.W.2d 81 (1958): <br /> The power conferred upon cities to frame and adopt home rule charters is limited <br /> by the provisions that such charter shall always be in harmony with and subject to <br /> the constitution and laws of the state. <br /> Id. at 528,91 N.W.2d at 83. <br /> In general, (a)direct conflict occurs when"[he ordinance and the statute contain express <br /> or implied terms that are irreconcilable;" (b)more specifically, an ordinance conflicts with state <br /> law if it"permits what the statute forbids;"(e)similarly,there is conflict if the ordinance"forbids <br /> what the statute expressly permits;- and (d)"no conflict exists where the ordinance, though <br /> different, is merely additional and complementary to or in aid and furtherance of the statute." <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.