From the Court syllabus:

1. A city may adopt ordinary ordinances when no state law exists on the subject or when a uniform law applicable to all cities exists on the subject but the Legislature has not expressed a clear intent to preempt the field and there is no conflict between the state and local law.

2. Legislative intent to preempt the field must be clearly manifested on the face of the statute. Courts will not find legislative preemption by implication.

3. The provisions of K.S.A. 79-3301 et seq., do not show a clear manifestation of intent by the Legislature to prohibit cities from enacting ordinances on the same subject.

4. When the Legislature has enacted a statute without preempting cities from acting in the same area, the ordinance will stand as long as the ordinance does not conflict with the statute.

5. In order for an actual conflict to exist, the state statute must expressly authorize what the ordinance prohibits, or expressly prohibit what the ordinance authorizes.

6. Ordinance No. 20099 does not conflict with K.S.A. 79-3301 et seq., because it does not prohibit what the statute expressly authorizes, nor does it expressly authorize what the statute prohibits.

Read the opinion.