10-12-2007 AO-memo-Jim Ericson - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

> Subject: Fines > Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2007 12:09:02 -0500 > From: JimE@ci.mounds-view.mn.us > To: barbaralthomas@hotmail.com > > 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