09-27-2006 Council Agenda - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

The 1- Ionorablo Skye Srn;l-, Minnesota House of Representatives October 2, 2003 Page 1 I The outright repeal of these statutes suggests that the legist ature did riot intend cities to create such bureaus. It appears that part of the reason that th statutes were repealed is that Municipal Courts were abolished in 1971. Rather than a lowing cities to continue such enforcement in another manner, it appears that the legislature abolished the ability of cities to adjudicate violations all together. The legislative history shows an intent by the legislature t conducted by thc courts. Both statutes created the bureaus each bureau was created as part of the courts, showing an i the enforcement of ordinances within the courts, not a city. The legislature has also shown an intent for such bureaus to the county level. County courts, not thc counties themsel misdemeanor violation bureaus,53 Therefore, if a county app violation, for example, it would still need to be heard through the Although the legislature has repealed municipalities' administrative penalties, it appears the legislature could ag municipalities. We are unaware of any constitutional co bureaus. Therefore, their reinstatement would appear to be up to 3. Due Process Concerns Some hearings for ordinance violations are heard by a muni determines whether a citizen violated an ordinance and what be. This system raises concerns about whether allowing a hearing officer would violate a citizen's due process Constitution. Constitutional due - process protections include: have ordinance enforcement "assist the courts." Further, ent by the legislature to keep e a part of the court system at s, have the power to establish oyes an ordinance for a traffic ourt system. .ility to hold hearings for in grant such authority to the gems with the prior hearing the legislature. ipal employee. The employee the appropriate penalty should unicipal employee to sit as a rights under the Minnesota Reasonable notice, a timely opportunity for a he ' g, the right to be represented by counsel, an opportunity to present vidence and argument, the right to an impartial decisionmaker, and th right to a reasonable decision based solely on the record.54 It is difficult to determine how a city or county would be able to find an employee that would be an impartial decisionmaker if a citizen challenged an administrative penalty. If the decision -maker were a municipal employee, the city council, or the county board, would have an interest in bringing money to the local govemmcntt " Minn. Stat. g 487.28 (2002). s° In re: lorries Brothers Furniture, Inc.. 642 N.W.2d 91. 103 (Minn Minn. Bd of Med. Excm.'. 525 N.W.26 559, 565 (Mir:. App. 199 review deeded (Minn. Feb ; '?95); see oso CUP Tooth, hrc. v. City 63 (Minn. App. 2001). rev.. Jinn. Nov. 13, 2001). - 2 6 - App. 2002) quoting Humenernsky v. )(citation omitted)(emphasis added). f Minneapolis, 633 N.W.2d 557, 562-