State ex rel. v. Owsley, 122 Mo. 76; American Fire Alarm Co. v. Board of Police Commrs. of Kansas City, 227 S.W. 114; Sec. 8, Art. X, Constitution; Sec. 10, Art. X, Constitution; Charter of Kansas City. (4) The police statutes applicable to Kansas City must either be in violation of Section 8, Article X of the Constitution, in that the estimate of relators constitutes the levy of a state tax on property in an amount in excess of the constitutional limitations, or, in violation of Section 10, Article X of the Constitution, in that said estimate constitutes the levying of a tax by the General Assembly upon Kansas City for municipal purposes. Sec. 8, Art. X, Constitution; Sec. 1, Art. X, Constitution; Sec. 10, Art. X, Constitution; 19 R.C.L. 945, par. 245; People v. Chicago, 51 Ill. 7; Water Co. v. Steel, 21 Mont. 149; 37 L.R.A. 412; State v. Edwards, 42 Mont. 135; 32 L.R.A. (N.S.) 1078; State v. Ashbrook, 154 Mo. 375; 48 L.R.A. 265; State ex rel. v. Mason, 153 Mo. 58; State ex rel. v. Jost, 265 Mo. 75; State ex rel. Carpenter v. St. Louis, 318 Mo. 901; Brooks v. Schultz, 178 Mo. 222; Board of Commrs. v. Peter, 253 Mo. 537; State ex rel. v. Stephens, 146 Mo. 684; Brookfield v. Tooey, 141 Mo. 625; Black v. McGonigle, 103 Mo. 202; Arnold v. Hawkins, 95 Mo. 574; St. Joseph Board of Public Schools v. Patten, 62 Mo. 449; Secs. 6369, 7751, R.S. 1929; State ex rel. v. Ashbrook, 154 Mo. 388; State ex rel. v. St. Louis, 216 Mo. 91; Journal, Missouri Historical Society, Report on proceedings of the Constitutional Convention of 1875, Vol. 1. (5) The police statutes applicable to Kansas City violate Section 9, Article X of the Constitution if levied for state purposes, in that, if Kansas City be liable for the whole amount thereof, every other county or city and the inhabitants thereof are released from their

Thus, while questions may remain regarding the value of Margaret's interest and the collection of assets pursuant to the liens, those issues are outside the scope of this administrative appeal. See N. Am. Water Off. v. LTV Steel Mining Co., 481 N.W.2d 401, 405 (Minn.App. 1992) (stating that, for agency decisions, we will not consider issues the parties raise "for the first time on appeal"). We also note that equitable claims are outside the scope of judicial review in an agency appeal.

We thus decline to address U.S. Steel's arguments regarding domain. See N. Am. Water Office v. LTV Steel Mining Co., 481 N.W.2d 401, 405 (Minn. App. 1992) (declining to consider issue not raised in party's contested-case-hearing request). The MPCA addressed U.S. Steel's arguments regarding sulfate reactivity in its permit findings.

Reichmann waived this issue by not raising it below. See North Am. Water Office v. LTV Steel Mining Co., 481 N.W.2d 401, 405 (Minn.App.1992) (on appeal from an administrative agency decision, this court will not consider issues that were not raised before the agency). Moreover, because we conclude that Reichmann is not required to obtain an NPDES permit, see infra section II, this argument is moot.