2004_1018_Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Mr. Neal Beets October 1l, 2004 Page 3 of 4 City can require that a lando�vner mow the boulevard property the landowner owns but cannot require a landowner to mow boulevard property it does not own. 2. Requiring the State and County to Mow Their Property. For the reasons stated below, we believe the City cannot force the State of Minnesota to abide by the City's nuisance ordinance. Arguments can be made that the City can require Ramsey County to adhere to the City's nuisance ordinance. Under Minnesota Statute $645.27, the State of Minnesota is only bound by a law if the legislature clearly intended that the State be bound by the law. The Minnesota Attorney General has issued an opinion tliat under this statute, local zoning ordinances do not apply to the State.3 The reasoning of the Attorney General's opinion is that under the concept of sovereign immunity, the power of the State supersedes local regulation. Cities only enjoy the powers that are granted by the State in its sovereign capacity. For it to be deemed that a city is granted the power to regulate the State, there niust be a clear statement of that intent from the legislature. We have not located any statements that can be construed as the legislature granting the City authority to enforce its nuisance ordinance against the State or requiring thE= State to maintain its property. Therefore, we believe that the City does not have authority to require the State to maintain its property along roadways. The analysis for the City�s ability to require Ramsey County to maintain its property in the City is more complex. In determining the ability of one local government to regulate another, the Minnesota Supreme Court has adopted a"balancing-of-pubic-interests" test.' This test requires that the interests of the City be weighed against those of the County. As the Attorney General has said, "[t]he interests to be balanced are many and will vary depending upon the specific use to which the property will be p4i�."� In this case, we believe this test amounts to balancing the interests of the City in enforcing its nuisance ordinance against the County's interests in operating its roadways. We believe the following are relevant factors in balancing-the-interests: the City's interest in the health, safety and welfare of the City (this interest is bolstered to the extent that it can be shown that the unmowed property is an actual threat to health or safety; for instance, if it obstructed the sight lines at an intersection); the fact that the nuisance provision is a reasonable regulation of the County's property; and, the negative aesthetics tall grass and weeds have on the community. Interests that might be raised by the County include: devoting resources when there is not a health or safety issue, that it is acting in its governmental ; Op.Atty.Gen., 59-A-9, July 5, 1949. `` Town of Oronoco v. C�i.y of Rocl�ester�, 197 N.W.2d 426, 429 (Minn. 1972) � Op,Atty.Gen., 59A-32, October, 24, 1980.