My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
CC_Minutes_2003_0728
Roseville
>
City Council
>
City Council Meeting Minutes
>
200x
>
2003
>
CC_Minutes_2003_0728
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/17/2007 9:35:55 AM
Creation date
4/4/2006 1:02:13 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Roseville City Council
Document Type
Council Minutes
Meeting Date
7/28/2003
Meeting Type
Regular
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
50
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).
View images
View plain text
<br />July 27, 2003 <br />Page 5 <br /> <br />B. Potential Conflicts Between State Statute and Code Provisions in Chapter 105. <br /> <br />Municipalities have no inherent powers.3 They possess only such powers as are <br />expressly conferred by statute or implied as necessary in aid of those powers which have been <br />expressly conferred. See ~ Mangold Midwest Co. v. Village of Richfield, 143 N.W.2d 813 <br />(Minn. 1966). Thus a municipality, in order to justify the enactment of an ordinance, must <br />have the power to do so under the specific enabling legislation, or the power must implicitly <br />exist as necessary in aid of the specific enumerated powers. <br /> <br />Ordinances passed by a municipality which can find their basis in express or implied <br />grants of authority are generally upheld, with the exception of the application of two doctrines <br />that may be used to find ordinances, or a part of them, invalid. One is the doctrine of <br />preemption. The other is the doctrine called conflicts. <br /> <br />Generally, the doctrine of conflict would render a municipal ordinance invalid as <br />contrary to state law when the ordinance and statute contain express or implied terms that are <br />irreconcilable. Either the ordinance permits what the statute forbids, or the ordinance forbids <br />what the statute permits. Mangold, supra. Generally, no conflict exists between municipal <br />ordinances and state statutes where the ordinance, though different, is merely additional and <br />complimentary to, or in aid and furtherance of the statute. <br /> <br />Chapter 105 of the Roseville Code appears, in our judgment, to be in conflict with <br />Minn. Stat. 9 465.76. Chapter 105 appears to allow, and in fact encourage, that which state <br />law does not allow. The significant area of conflict relates to who makes a decision as to <br />whether the costs of a criminal defense may be reimbursed to an employee or officer. <br /> <br />Under Minn. Stat. 9 456.76, it is the governing body of a municipality that makes the <br />decision as to whether costs and attorney's fees incurred by the person to defend charges of a <br />criminal nature will be paid. This is a discretionary decision. What that means is that even if <br />all of the requirements of the statute are met, by statute a municipality does not have to <br />reimburse criminal defense expenses. Under the statute, only when less than a quorum of the <br />governing body is disinterested does a judge decide whether there shall be reimbursement. 4 <br /> <br />Chapter 105, with its attempt to incorporate Minn. Stat. 9 317A.521 (versus Minn. Stat. <br />9 465.76) as a standard for action, is structured in such a way as to potentially take the decision <br />away from the City Council on a criminal reimbursement issues when in fact the specific <br />statutory provision relating to reimbursement lays the decision making squarely at the feet of <br /> <br />3 Prior to the passage of Minn. Stat. S 465.76, the Attorney General had rendered an opinion that there was no implied <br />power of a municipality to payor reimburse an employee or officer for criminal defense expenses. Op. Att'y Gen. 124-A- <br />25 (July 28, 1980). <br />4 Disinterested in this sense means that there is a non-pecuniary interest. See Rowell v. Board of Adjustment of the City of <br />Moorhead, 446 N.W.2d 917 (Minn. App. 1989). <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.