When a case is decided on stipulated facts, the only issue on appeal is whether the trial court erred in its application of the law. We do not defer to the trial court's analysis of purely legal issues. Ass'n v. Minnesota Pub. The construction of an ordinance is a question of law, which is subject to de novo review. I. A city's police power allows it both to regulate the keeping of animals, and to define nuisances and provide for their abatement.
Municipal ordinances are presumptively constitutional.
The burden of proving an ordinance unreasonable and unconstitutional rests on the party attacking its validity. Where the reasonableness of an ordinance is debatable, courts will refrain from interfering with the municipality's exercise of legislative discretion. In challenging the ordinance's constitutionality, Schuler contends there is no rational basis for the dog limitation ordinance. Schuler has failed to offer evidence that regulating the number of dogs per household is unrelated to controlling the problems of dog noise and odor as they affect the health and general welfare of the community. Thus, it is at least debatable that the dog limitation ordinance is reasonable.