Opinion ID: 1790807
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Additional Requirement

Text: By adding extra fees, the City has increased its role in the licensing system  if the applicant does not pay the City its additional administrative fee, the City will not forward the application on to the Division. This extra hurdle violates the application procedure established by the Act. See generally Richards v. City of Pontiac, 305 Mich. 666, 9 N.W.2d 885, 888 (1943) (finding conflict where a city imposed a licensing fee for trailer camps when the State had already entered the field and imposed a similar licensing fee). The City argues this extra hurdle does not conflict with the Act. The City contends the present ordinance is analogous to an ordinance which survived a preemption challenge in the court of appeals. Drawing on language from BeeRite Tire Disposal/Recycling, Inc. v. City of Rhodes, 646 N.W.2d 857, 860 (Iowa Ct.App.2002), the City claims its administrative fee further promotes the underlying policy of the Act with greater force and merely increased the details of the existing regulation. In BeeRite, the city of Rhodes passed an ordinance regulating the disposal of old tires. 646 N.W.2d at 858. This ordinance imposed, among other things, a $100 annual permit fee payable to the city on top of the existing $850 state fee payable to the Department of Natural Resources. Id. The court of appeals compared the legislative agenda to regulate the regulation of tire disposal with our decision in Goodell v. Humboldt County , where we considered the legislative agenda regarding livestock confinement. Id. at 860-61 (citing Goodell, 575 N.W.2d at 503-07). Noting there was a clear legislative purpose to issue regulations intending to limit local over-regulation in the area of livestock confinement, the court of appeals concluded there was no similar legislative agenda to regulate the regulation of tire disposal. Id. at 861. Unlike the livestock confinement regulations in Goodell, there was no statutory scheme which would be either bypassed, contradicted, or overridden by the City of Rhodes's tire disposal regulations. Id. at 860. Because there was less need for uniform state regulations for tire disposal than there was for livestock confinement waste, the court of appeals concluded the Rhodes ordinance did not unduly modify the tire disposal statutory scheme established by the State and did not stand in opposition to regulations promulgated by the Iowa Legislature. See id. at 860-61. Without determining the validity of the distinction made by the court of appeals in BeeRite, we are confident the same conclusion cannot be drawn here. The general assembly's footprint covers the area of alcoholic beverage permits. The general assembly limits the ability of local authorities to regulate alcoholic beverages and exclusively reserves in itself the power to establish beer permits, wine permits, and liquor licenses. See Iowa Code §§ 123.1,.3(21), .37. In addition, the City's administrative fee disrupts the uniformity in the statutory scheme. The ordinance does more than merely increase the details of regulation.