Laserfiche WebLink
> Subject: Fines <br /> > Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2007 12:09:02 -0500 <br /> > From: JimE@ci.mounds-view.mn.us <br /> >To: barbaralthomas@hotmail.com <br /> > Barbara, <br /> > Good meeting--you all do a nice job going over all the issues. <br /> >Yes, the City Code is online. It was one of the first things we posted <br /> > online with the new website. It is under the "City Code and <br /> > regulations"tab along with the Charter, the Zoning Code, the Comp Plan, <br /> >the fee schedule... <br /> >According to our Code, any violation of the City Code, unless otherwise <br /> > stated, is considered a misdemeanor punishable by a $700 fine or 90 days <br /> > in jail. I think the amounts are actually higher per state law, but <br /> >that's what's in the code presently. Our prosecuting attorney has <br /> > suggested we bring our Code inline with the current court standards. <br /> > Despite that reference, we have heretofore limited AO fines to $100. <br /> >That amount was established in 1988 and has not been increased since. <br /> > It needs to increase, that much is a given. I'll ask Scott where the <br /> > "not to exceed $2000" comes from. I don't think that was an arbitrary <br /> > reference, however it was NOT intended as a blank check to increase <br /> >fines by 1900 percent. <br /> > Regarding the Commission's discussion about taking a position on moving <br /> >violation citations, I have no problem if the commission takes NO action <br /> > on that. Again, that was not my original intent despite my reference to <br /> > it in the lengthy e-mail earlier this week. My priority is the property <br /> > based violations, not the minor traffic violations. I would rather NOT <br /> > see the Charter Commission explicitly disallow that process--why take <br /> >that step until there is resolution on the matter at the state level. <br /> > Last year, as I'm sure you know, a bill was floated to legitimize the <br /> > practice at the municipal level. <br /> > I agree that we should explore an impartial hearing officer, however as <br /> >we have been learning, such a hearing judge adds some significant cost <br /> >to the process that the present fine structure ($100)would not cover. <br /> > I'd hate to charge the resident for simply requesting a hearing--one <br /> > should not be penalized for simply appealing an administrative citation. <br /> >All fines, fees and special assessments that PRESENTLY can be certified <br /> >to property taxes require a public hearing by the City Council with the <br /> > affected property owner provided an opportunity to speak. It's like a <br /> > second hearing since they would have already been provided with a <br /> > hearing to appeal the fine in the first place. The same would apply to <br /> > unpaid AO fines. <br /> >What about limitations on the usage of the AOs?There are THOUSANDS if <br /> > not TENS of thousands of requirements in the code, all of which may be <br /> >violated, and all of which can and should be cited by AO. Unless the <br /> > language is crafted to err on the side of being broadly interpreted, <br /> > explicitly limiting the usage may unintentionally prevent us from <br /> > attempting to correct a violation (whether that's the failure to provide <br /> > a required insurance certificate, failure to correct a leaky water line, <br /> > maintaining too many dogs, violations of the rental property minimum <br /> > maintenance guidelines, and so on and on) in an effective manner. Our <br /> > policies and procedures always require noticing the property owner of <br /> >the violation and providing them reasonable time to correct before we <br /> > issue a citation. Our goal naturally is to always work cooperatively <br /> >with property owners to gain compliance. Tickets are never written out <br /> > of spite, on a whim or as a means of revenue enhancement--we issue AOs <br />