11-08-2007 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Jim Ericson From: Jim Ericson Sent: Friday, October 12, 2007 12:09 PM To: 'Barbara Thomas' Subject: Fines Barbara, Good meeting--you all do a nice job going over all the issues. Yes, the City Code is online. It was one of the first things we posted online with the new website. It is under the "City Code and regulations" tab along with the Charter, the Zoning Code, the Comp Plan, the fee schedule. . . According to our Code, any violation of the City Code, unless otherwise stated, is considered a misdemeanor punishable by a $700 fine or 90 days in jail. I think the amounts are actually higher per state law, but that's what's in the code presently. Our prosecuting attorney has suggested we bring our Code inline with the current court standards. Despite that reference, we have heretofore limited AO fines to $100. That amount was established in 1988 and has not been increased since. It needs to increase, that much is a given. I'll ask Scott where the "not to exceed $2000" comes from. I don't think that was an arbitrary reference, however it was NOT intended as a blank check to increase fines by 1900 percent. Regarding the Commission's discussion about taking a position on moving violation citations, I have no problem if the commission takes NO action on that. Again, that was not my original intent despite my reference to it in the lengthy e-mail earlier this week. My priority is the property based violations, not the minor traffic violations. I would rather NOT see the Charter Commission explicitly disallow that process--why take that step until there is resolution on the matter at the state level. Last year, as I'm sure you know, a bill was floated to legitimize the practice at the municipal level. I agree that we should explore an impartial hearing officer, however as we have been learning, such a hearing judge adds some significant cost to the process that the present fine structure ($100) would not cover. I'd hate to charge the resident for simply requesting a hearing--one should not be penalized for simply appealing an administrative citation. All fines, fees and special assessments that PRESENTLY can be certified to property taxes require a public hearing by the City Council with the affected property owner provided an opportunity to speak. It's like a second hearing since they would have already been provided with a hearing to appeal the fine in the first place. The same would apply to unpaid AO fines. What about limitations on the usage of the AOs? There are THOUSANDS if not TENS of thousands of requirements in the code, all of which may be violated, and all of which can and should be cited by AO. Unless the language is crafted to err on the side of being broadly interpreted, explicitly limiting the usage may unintentionally prevent us from attempting to correct a violation (whether that's the failure to provide a required insurance certificate, failure to correct a leaky water line, maintaining too many dogs, violations of the rental property minimum maintenance guidelines, and so on and on) in an effective manner. Our policies and procedures always require noticing the property owner of the violation and providing them reasonable time to correct before we issue a citation. Our goal naturally is to always work cooperatively with property owners to gain compliance. Tickets are never written out of spite, on a whim or as a means of revenue enhancement--we issue AOs as a last resort when compliance is not otherwise occurring. And even so, issuance of an AO does not guarantee compliance. Again--please forward to my attention any outstanding issues for which the Commission has been expecting responses back from the Council. Now that I 'm aware of this, I can help get this process back on track. Let's chat at some point next week. Thanks again for presenting the material last night! ! 1