Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11-08-2007 404P-e0r. I Mounds View Charter Commission Minutes \ III Thursday,November 8, 2007 i.P, ,y 1. Call to Order—The meeting came to order at time 7:05 pm. 2. Roll Call— Present: J. Thomas, J. Miller, M. Haubrich, B.Thomas, Excused: B. Doty Absent : 3. Approval of agenda Motion by M. Haubrich, second by J. Miller to approve agenda as written MOTION APPROVED Approval of minutes Motion by M. Haubrich, second by J. Miller to approve minutes of Sept. 11, 2007 as amended MOTION APPROVED I 4. Citizens comments from the floor None 5. Reports of the Chair None 1 1 6. Reports of members • M. Haubrich asked the viewing audience to consider joining the commission. 7. Unfinished Business Acting City Administrator, Jim Ericson, answered various questions from members about the city's request to certify unpaid Administrative Offenses to property taxes. Mr.Ericson asked if the Commission members would entertain the idea of reducing the number of meetings being cablecast for city programming. The consensus from the members was that would be counter to the city's stated goals of communication with the residents and that reduction of meeting broadcasts should not be the authority of individual commissions. The commission also questioned Mr. Ericson regarding the status of the advisory requests that the Commission had sent to the City Council. He stated that the Report and letters, as well as the possibility of a joint meeting, would be on the agenda for the Council meeting on Nov. 13th 8. New Business Discussion began regarding the Street and Utility Improvement Program recently adopted by the City Council and how that relates to discussions regarding amendments to Section 8.04 of the Charter. Discussion of next months agenda included: the year-end summary letter, draft language for Administrative Offense amendments, and a social gathering for current and past members. • 9. Adjournment Meeting adjourned at 8:29 pm. City of CHARTER COMMISSION MEETING Mounds 7:00 PM Thursday, Nov 8, 2007 / 1//'►!� • View Mounds View City Hall Preliminary AGENDA 144 Charter Commission b Chair 1. Call to Order �' - I i Jonathan J Thomas 763.784.5205 2, Roll Call Vice Chair Bill Doty Jonathan J Thomas C:.2'Bill Doty 763.786.3421 Jean Miller 2i Barbara Thomas Michael Haubrich 2°'Vice Chair Jean Miller 3. Approval of agenda and minutes 763.786.3959 PP g Secretary Review and approve agenda Barbara Thomas Approval of Oct 11, 2007 Minutes 763.780.6226 Michael Haubrich 4. Citizens comments from the floor 651.204.6848 • ` 5. Reports of the Chair 6. Reports of members Ii 7. Unfinished Business 45 min, Continue work on Administrative Offenses language. 8. New Business 30 min, Look at StreetUtilitiesReport and discuss implications for chapter 8. 15 min, Review open list of items and priorities to determine future agendas. 9. Adjournment 10. Next Regular Meeting Date - December 13, 2007 tl • City of CHARTER COMMISSION MEETING Mounds 7:00 PM Thursday, Nov 8, 2007 • View Mounds View City Hall Charter Commission Preliminary AGENDA Chair 1. Call to Order Jonathan J Thomas 763.784.5205 2. Roll Call Vice Chair Bill Doty `. Jonathan J Thomas Bill Doty 763.786.3421 ti Jean Miller X Barbara Thomas Michael Haubrich ;.��r'r Lit c5or1 2°d Vice Chair Jean Miller 763.786.3959 3. Approval of agenda and minutes `� 1311rovag Secretary Review and approve agenda wit chat Jt c,, "0 Barbara Thomas Approval of Oct 11, 2007 Minutes 763.780.6226 Michael Haubrich 4. Citizens comments from the floor 651.204.6848 5. Reports of the Chair • 6. Reports of members 7. Unfinished Business ir 45 min, Continue work on Administrative Offenses language. 8. New Business 30 min, Look at StreetUtilitiesReport and discuss implications for chapter 8. 15 min, Review open list of items and priorities to determine future agendas. 9. Adjournment 10. Next Regular Meeting Date - December 13, 2007 4 ya ?`V - atv l-b L{, &.54-10 t (,k eet,v{ vv ,()).)1 m rv►E S -? I v (3 -- rte,-, \41 A c�,�.s -cm • rYI ek,X /14`t'jf PA P lit o r orn Lk 7 ,^ 4,1 ;� L.NM c e : N Am i Lte t"wy ct is e4 s 1 `�AN- Administrative Offense Discussion Points • 1. Administrative Offenses that are certified to Property Taxes should be property-based. a. General consensus that agrees b. Language should clearly state that whenever authority is granted, it should specify for property-based offenses only. 2. Should there be a neutral arbitrator? a. Discussions with staff have led to the conclusion that a mechanism for a 3rd Party arbitrator should be in place but it should be optional to account for the extra cost which can be significant. b. We should be careful with language that requires the city to have a plan in place via resolution so that it can be easily edited and maintained versus detailed plans in the Charter. 3. Can a property owner request a fine be certified to his taxes immediately rather than paid in cash? a. More research is needed on this point but initially, it sounds applicable. 1111 4. What should be the limit of total amount of fines certified rather than submitted to the Court and over what period of time should this be applied? a. Much more discussion is needed on this topic—options could include any of the following or a combination: i, One-time certification limit of no more than $X ii. Time period where further certifications for a single property are prohibited following a certification. iii. Aggregate total of dollars over a 12-month period of$X 5. Do we need to specify a minimum period of time between the receipt of a find and the certification of unpaid fines to taxes? a. Determined that a minimum period does not need to be specified as long as the language covered under item #4 is specific enough. 6. Do abatement costs need to be included with A. O. fines at the time of certification and should any limits on certification amounts specifically include or exclude abatement? a. Needs significantly more discussion with Staff and Commissioners regarding total dollar amounts under discussion and further research on the authority for certification of abatement costs. New Questions for the Commission and City Staff 1. Do we want to change the amount of time citizens are granted to pay fines and is that under the purview of the Charter? 2. What is an Administrative Rule? 3. Should we or Can we use the fee schedule on which to define the offenses included? • 4. Where are the late charges for unpaid fines specified? 5. A comparison of the language in 702.02 and 104.01 seems to show a discrepancy of dollar maximums for fines: ie, misdemeanors=$700.00 and Administrative Offenses = $100. 6. What is an Administrative Offense as opposed to a misdemeanor and when does it become a misdemeanor? We have language stating, "Any violation of this section constitutes a misdemeanor. This would seem to imply no difference at all. 702.02: ADMINISTRATIVE 0 FFENSES1: Subd. 1. Defmition of Administrative Offense: An administrative offense is a violation of a section, subdivision, paragraph or provision of this Code when one performs an act prohibited, or fails to act when such failure is thereby prohibited and is subject to the penalty set forth in Section 104.01 of this Code, and the schedule set forth hereafter. (1988 Code §400.01) Subd. 2. Misdemeanors and Administrative Offenses: Offenses that are declared misdemeanors by this Code may be charged as administrative offenses, at the election of the City, when notice of violation is issued pursuant to subdivision 3 of this Section and there is a scheduled penalty established herein. (1988 Code §400.09) Subd. 3. Notice of Violation: Any member of the City Police Department and/or any other person employed by the City with authority to enforce this Code2 shall,upon determining that there has been a violation,notify the violator or person responsible for the violation or, in the case of a vehicular violation, by attaching to said vehicle notice of the violation, said notice setting forth the nature, date,time of the violation,the name of the official issuing the notice and the amount of the scheduled initial penalty and, where applicable, any charges relating • thereto. Subd. 4. Scheduled Penalties;Penalties Imposed: Penalties shall be imposed for a violation of the scheduled administrative offenses according to a schedule established by resolution of the City Council. (1988 Code §400.09) Subd. 5. Payment of Fine;Late Charges: a. Once such notice is given,the person responsible for the violation shall,within seven(7) days of the time of issuance of the notice, pay full satisfaction of the stated violation schedule to the City Finance Director/Treasurer. b. The penalty may be paid in person or by mail, and payment shall be admission of the violation. c. A late charge shall be imposed for each seven (7) days the penalty remains unpaid after the first seven(7)day period. (1988 Code §400.02) 1 See also subdivisions 104.01(3)and(6)of this Code. 2 See subdivision 104.01(6) of this Code for enumeration of officials and specific citations each is authorized to • issue. City of Mounds View • 702.02 702.02 Subd. 6. Failure to Pay: If a violator fails to pay the penalty imposed, the Clerk-Administrator may order the issuance of an ordinance complaint as authorized by law', and the violation shall be processed as a crime by the Ramsey County Municipal Court as provided for in Minnesota Statutes, section 488A.18, subdivision 7(2). (1988 Code §400.05) Subd. 7. Hearing: a. Request for Hearing: Any person aggrieved by this Section may request,within seven(7) days of the time of issuance of the notice, to be heard by the hearing officer who shall hear and determine the grievance. (1988 Code §400.04) b. Hearing Officer: The Clerk-Administrator shall be the hearing officer, and the Clerk- Administrator or a designee is authorized to hear or determine a case or controversy relative to this Section. The hearing officer is not a Judicial officer and is a public officer as defined by Minnesota Statutes, section 609.415 and subject to Minnesota Statutes relating to public officers. (1988 Code §400.03) c. Determination of Case: The hearing officer shall have the authority to dismiss the violation for cause, reduce or waive the penalty upon such terms and conditions as can be agreed upon by the parties;however,reasons for such dispositions shall be stated, in writing, by said hearing officer. If the violation is sustained by the hearing officer, the violator shall • pay satisfaction of the penalty or shall sign an agreement to pay upon such terms and conditions as set forth by the hearing officer. (1988 Code §400.04) Subd. 8. Administration: a. Enforcement of Provisions: In addition to all other duties set forth in the Code and the Home Rule Charter2, the Clerk-Administrator may delegate and supervise the work of any City employees implementing and administering this Chapter. The Clerk-Administrator shall make and have custody of all records necessary and shall keep proper accounts of the proceeds received. (1988 Code §400.07) b. Disposition of Penalties: All penalties collected shall be paid over to the City Finance Director/Treasurer. The Clerk-Administrator may receive negotiable instruments in payment of penalties as conditional payment and shall not be held accountable therefor. Receipt shall be issued for cash payments.(1988 Code §400.06) ' M.S.A. §412.861. • 2 See Charter Section 6.03. City of Mounds View • Item No. 7A Meeting Date: October 22, 2007 Type of Business: WK WK: Work Session;PH:Public Hearing; CA:Consent Agenda;CB: Council Business City Administrator Review City of Mounds View Staff Report To: Honorable Mayor and City Council From: Greg Lee, Director of Public Works Item TitlelSubject: Street and Utility Improvement Program Public Hearing Resolution 7176 Adopting the Street and Utility Improvement Program as Submitted by the Streets and Utilities Task Force • Background: On March 5, 2007 the City Council discussed options pertaining to the City Street and Utility Improvement Program. On March 12, 2007 the City Council approved Resolution 7045 establishing the Streets and Utilities Task Force. The Streets and Utilities Task Force was comprised of the Mayor, City Council, City Administrator, Public Works Director, Finance Director, and interested volunteer citizens. The charge of the Task Force was to: o Develop a Financial Plan for the entire reconstruction program o Develop a street standard or standards that will best meet the needs of the City in partnership with its residents o Develop a Prioritization and Implementation Plan o Develop a Communication Plan The Streets and Utilities Task Force has been meeting on the 1st and 3rd Mondays of the month, from 5:30 p.m. to 7:00 p.m. from April 16, 2007 to September 17, 2007. On April 2, 2007 the City Council reviewed and discussed various aspects associated with the establishment of the Task Force. Topics discussed included: Task Force notification, Task Force member list, proposed bus tour, meeting • schedule, and the agenda for the first meeting. • On April 14, 2007 a bus tour to review street issues was conducted. In addition to reviewing the current conditions of City streets, the purpose of bus tour was also to identify issues that could be addressed as part of a street and utility rehabilitation program. On September 24, 2007, the City Council adopted Resolution 7163 approving the printing and distribution of the Summary Report Document and setting a Public Improvement Hearing date for the proposed Street and Utility Improvement Program. Discussion: Street and Utility Improvement Program Final Report as submitted by the Streets and Utilities Task Force is attached for City Council review. One of the objectives of the Task Force was to develop a communication plan. The communication plan which was developed included recommendations to conduct two public meetings. The purpose of the first meeting was to present the proposed program to the public and answer questions. The second meeting will be a Public Hearing for this proposed program. 1110 Public Informational Meeting On October 15, 2007 a Public Informational Meeting was conducted to present the proposed program. There were approximately 150 property owners present at the meeting. The meeting was broadcasted live on CTV 15 and has been re- broadcasted several times since. The meeting involve dl an open house format, welcome/introduction, a brief presentation, and a question and answer session. Documents associated with the Public Informational Meeting are included in Section 10 of the Street and Utility Improvement Program Final Report as submitted by the Streets and Utilities Task Force. Some of these documents include: a copy of the presentation, handouts, sign in sheet, list of property owners who spoke at the meeting and a summary of issues and questions that were posed. A Feedback Form was included as a handout at the Public Informational Meeting. The intent of the Feedback Form is to provide property owners an opportunity to inform the City of their preferences, comments, thoughts, and concerns regarding the draft report and the proposed project in general. The deadline for submitting the Feedback Forms was on October 17, 2007. The City received a total of 47 Feedback Forms (including some emails). A summary of the general question posed in the Feedback Form is as follows. • • Having reviewed the Public Information Summary for the Street and Utility Improvement Program, please check what your preference is: I am generally in favor of this program. 31 Responses, 66.0% of those responding I am generally opposed to this program. 11 Responses, 23.4% of those responding There were five ballots or emails that were unmarked with a preference (10.6%) A copy of all Feedback Forms along with related email received by the deadline of October 17, 2007, are included in Section 10 of the Street and Utility Improvement Program Final Report as submitted by the Streets and Utilities Task Force. Previously Assessed Properties - One of the biggest issue that was raised at the meeting was how previously assessed properties are to be addressed with the proposed program. The recommendation of the Streets and Utilities Task • Force is to provide an opportunity to eliminate the assessments that are currently payable for these properties. There are currently two projects where assessments are still payable: County Road H2 Street Project and the 2003 Street Project. For property owners that paid their assessment in full, they would be refunded a portion of their original assessment— 50% for the H2 project and 60% for the 2003 project. 8 of the 11 Feedback forms that indicated that they were generally opposed to the program indicated that did not agree with the recommended method for addressing previously assessed properties. To eliminate the assessment for these properties or to allow for a rebate, the City will need to re-assess these properties. This process will take several months. It is therefore recommended that should this proposed program be adopted, the assessment elimination process be initiated immediately. The Task Force recommendation to address previously assessed properties is both legally and logistically feasible. • Public improvement Hearing — The purpose of the Public Hearing is to provide interested parties an opportunity to learn more about the proposed program and to comment on it. Pursuant to Resolution 7163, a Public Hearing was set for October 22, 2007. Notice of this hearing was mailed to every property owner with in the City of Mounds View on October 5, 2007. The property owner mailing list was derived from the Ramsey County property records. The hearing was advertised in the City's official newspaper, The New Brighton- Mounds View Bulletin, on October 10th and 17th of this year. The Public Hearing Notice and information on this project was also published on the City's web site and advertised on the City's electronic message board. What's Next — Following the Public Hearing for this proposed program, the City Council should evaluate the proposed Street and Utility Improvement Program and consider the pubic input that has been received on this program. The City Council can approve, deny, or table the program as proposed or may wish to make modifications or amendments to the proposed program. Resolution 7176 is provided in the event the City Council wishes to approve the proposed program. If approved, Staff will be seeking official authorization from the City Council at a • future meeting to initiate the first project of the program, initiate a raingarden program / policy, initiate any and all financial activities associated with establishing the program including, but not limited to, initiating the process of eliminating current street and utility assessments for previously assessed properties. Recommendation: It is recommended the City Council approve a resolution approving the Street and Utility Improvement Program and the Final Report as submitted by the Streets and Utilities Task Force. Respectfully Submitted, ."(1/1" 44.4_ Greg Lee, Director of Public Works • RESOLUTION 7176 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA APPROVING THE STREET AND UTILITY IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM WHEREAS, on March 12, 2007 the City Council approved Resolution 7045 establishing the Streets and Utilities Task Force; and WHEREAS, the charge of the Task Force was to: o Develop a Financial Plan for the entire reconstruction program o Develop a street standard or standards that will best meet the needs of the City in partnership with its residents o Develop a Prioritization and Implementation Plan o Develop a Communication Plan; and WHEREAS, the Street and Utility Improvement Program Final Report has been submitted by the Streets and Utilities Task Force. • NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Mounds View, Ramsey County, Minnesota as follows: 1. The Final Report including all recommendations except for recommendations as they pertain to previously assessed properties for the Street and Utility Improvement Program as submitted by the Streets anal I Teck Fnrr ig hrrrahv annrrniarl 2. Said program is adopted and shall hereafter be known and referred to as the Street and Utility Improvement Program. 3. This resolution shall supersede, replace, and/or nullify any and all previous resolutions that are in direct conflict with the Street and Utility Improvement Program and associated recommendations. Adopted this 22nd day of October 2007. (ATTEST) Rob Marty, Mayor (SEAL) James Ericson, Interim City Administrator > 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 heSn 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 411) >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!! > Jim Ericson > Community Development Director > City of Mounds View >2401 County Road 10 > Mounds View, MN 55112 > 763-717-4021 (Phone) > 763-784-3462 (Fax) >www.ci.mounds-view.mn.us(Web) 411) 104.01 104.01 CHAPTER 104 GENERAL PENALTY SECTION: 104.01:General Penalty 104.02:Application of Provisions 104.01:GENERAL PENALTY: Subd. 1. Misdemeanors: Unless another penalty is expressly provided in this Code and except for the provisions of subdivision 2 hereafter,any person violating any provisions of this Code or any rule or regulation adopted or issued in pursuance thereof or any provision of any Code adopted herein by reference shall, upon conviction, be punished by a fine of not more than seven hundred dollars ($700.00) or by imprisonment for not more than ninety (90) days or both.' Subd. 2. Petty Misdemeanors: Any person convicted of apetty misdemeanor shall be subject to a fine of not more than two hundred dollars($200.00). Subd. 3. Administrative Offenses3: Any person violating an administrative rule shall be subject to the scheduled penalty not to exceed one hundred dollars ($100.00) for each offense. Subd. 4. Separate Violations: Unless otherwise provided, each act of violation and every day upon which a violation occurs or continues constitutes a separate offense. Subd. 5. Failure of Officers to Perform Duties: The failure of any officer or employee of the Municipality to perform any official duty imposed by this Code shall not subject such officer or employee to the penalty imposed for violation of this Code unless a penalty is specifically provided for such conduct or omission. 1 M.S.A. §§412.231,609.03(3),609.33 and 609.034. 2 M.S.A. §609.0332. IP3 See Section 702.02 of this Code for administrative offenses. City of Mounds View • 104.01 104.01 Subd. 6. Non-Peace Officer Citations or Administrative Offenses: a. Non-peace officer employees that are specifically authorized herein may issue citations or administrative offenses as authorized pursuant to the following sections, chapters and titles of this Code: Chapter 502;Intoxicating Liquor: Clerk-Administrator Chapter 503;Nonintoxicating Liquor: Clerk-Administrator Chapter 506;Amusement Devices and Amusement Centers: Clerk-Administrator Chapter 507;Bowling Alleys: Clerk-Administrator Chapter 508;Rides,Carnivals and Circuses: Clerk-Administrator Chapter 509;Gasoline Stations: Clerk-Administrator Chapter 510;New and Used Cars Dealers: Clerk-Administrator • Chapter 511;Recuperative Homes and Half-Way Houses: City Planner Chapter 601; Emergency Services: Director of Emergency Services and Clerk-Administrator Chapter 603;Garbage and Rubbish: Clerk-Administrator Chapter 604;Nuisances: Community Service Officer Chapter 605;Tree Disease Control: Director of Parks,Recreation and Forestry Chapter 701;Animals and Animal Control: Community Service Officer Section 702.02;Administrative Offenses: As set forth in Section 702.02 Chapter 802;Parking Regulations: Community Service Officer Chapter 902; Streets Openings;Driveways: Building Official Chapter 903;Building Numbers: Community Service Officer Chapter 906; Municipal Water System: Building Official, Public Works Director/City Engineer,Finance Director/Treasurer • City of Mounds View S 104.01 104.01 Chapter 907; Municipal Sanitary Sewer System: Building Official, Public Works Director/City Engineer,Finance Director/Treasurer Chapter 1001;Building Code: Building Official Chapter 1003; Electrical Code: Electrical Inspector,Building Official Chapter 1004;Plumbing Code: Building Official Chapter 1006; Building Permits and Fees: Building Official,Electrical Inspector Chapter 1007; Building Relocation: Building Official Chapter 1008; Signs and Billboards: City Planner Chapter 1009; Swimming Pools: Building Official Chapter 1010; Wetland Zoning Regulations: Director of Public Works/City Engineer, City • Planner Title 1100;Zoning Regulations: City Planner Title 1200;Land Subdivisions: City Planner Chapter 1301;Flood Plain Zoning: Director of Public Works/City Engineer, City Planner Chapter 1302; Surface Water Drainage Management and Development Control: City Engineer Chapter 1401; Gas Franchise: Clerk-Administrator Chapter 1402; Electric Franchise: Clerk-Administrator b. In the event that non-peace officer employee position is vacant, the Clerk-Administrator or a designee is authorized to issue citations as provided in this subdivision. (Ord. 434, 6-27-88; 1993 Code) • City of Mounds I View 104.02 104.02 104.02:APPLICATION OF PROVISIONS: Subd. 1. The penalty provided in this Chapter shall be applicable to every section of this Municipal Code the same as though it were a part of each and every separate section. (1993 Code) Subd. 2. The penalties provided by this Chapter or any section of this Code apply to the amendment of any section of this Code or any Code adopted herein by reference to which the penalty relates, whether or not such penalty is re-enacted in the amendatory provision, unless otherwise provided in the amendment. Subd. 3. Reference to any sections of this Code shall be understood also to refer to and include the penalty section relating thereto,unless otherwise expressly provided. (1988 Code §1.11) Subd. 4. In all cases where the same offense is made punishable or is created by different clauses or sections of this Municipal Code, the prosecuting officer may elect under which to proceed, but not more than one recovery shall be had against the same person for the same offense; provided, that the revocation of a license or permit shall not be considered a recovery or penalty so as to bar any other penalty being enforced. • Subd. 5. Whenever the doing of any act or the omission to do any act constitutes a breach of any section or provision of this Municipal Code and there shall be no fine or penalty specifically declared for such breach,the provisions of this Chapter shall apply. (1993 Code) i City of Mounds View Jim Ericson From: Jim Ericson Sent: Wednesday, October 10, 2007 1:09 AM To: Barbara Thomas Subject: RE: questions for upcoming Charter Commission mtg Hi Barbara. I 'll respond to your questions in the order they were posed. 1. Where in the Charter would it go? The Administrative Offense (AO) matter has two components--the allowance to be granted by the Charter to issue AOs and the allowance to certify unpaid property-based AO fines, as we presently do for nuisance abatements, diseased tree removals, unpaid utility bills, etc. As to the latter of the two components, I would propose adding a new section very similar to Section 8. 05. The new section could be worded along the following lines: Section 8.06. Other Miscellaneous Assessments. The Council may provide by ordinance that the costs associated with code abatements, diseased tree removals and unpaid administrative fines or utlity bills may be assessed against the associated property and may be collected in the same manner as special assessments. Regarding the authority to issue AOs in the first place, the City has been doing so for many years--I think the practice began in 1988 but am not certain. At some point subsequent to 1996 the scope of the AOs was expanded to include minor moving violations, a tool designed to be used at an officer's discretion. The City Attorney feels that given the uncertainty relating to a City's statutory right to issue Administrative Offenses for minor moving violations, it might help legitimize or validate our practice if articulated in the Charter. I would suggest such a clause be added under the miscellaneous provisions of Chapter 12, specifically, a new Section 12.14 (the existing 12. 14 would become 12.15. ) The clause could read something like. . . : Section 12.14. Notwithstanding any state law to the contrary, the Council may by ordinance establish an Administrative Offense enforcement procedure to address property-based code violations and minor moving violations. Fines associated with such Administrative Offenses shall be established by ordinance and recipients of an Administrative Offense shall be provided with a hearing if so requested. I'll need to check with City Attorney Riggs whether in his opinion we already have the ability to issue AO tags for property based violations. If we do, adding such language to the Charter may be unnecessary although it probably wouldn't hurt to do so. 2. What will the process be? The process is already spelled out in Section 702.02 of the Code. We'd likely tweak the language a bit for clarification purposes, but for the most part it would remain as originally drafted in 1988. 3. What limitations do we need to include for application? The Code, in Chapters 104 and 702, is fairly straightforward as to its application. Not sure anything further is needed, although I need to double-check the language specific to minor moving violations. 4 . What fees/ fines will it include? As for property-based violations, the Code presently limits the fines to $100. We will propose increasing this fine in 2008 (twenty years after the fine was first instituted) and may consider a graduated fine schedule for repeated "same or similar" violations within a twelve month period. For police issued AOs, the fee schedule presently limits 1 their application to speeding, stop sign, semaphore or unsafe lane-use infractions with a fine of $40 (significantly less than a Court Citation, if such a ticket were issued. ) 5. How do you limit increased usage where enforcement is subjective? I'm not sure there's a need to impose limitations to prevent increased usage. In Community Development, we always give property owners ample time to correct violations, probably too much time if you ask the neighbor of an offending property. It's never our intent to blanket someone with tickets despite the Code allowing for a ticket to be issued EVERY DAY a violation persists. We seek compliance and use the tickets to help achieve that simple goal when other avenues have proven fruitless. The problem presently with an AO is that the ticket has no "teeth", which by that I mean if the property owner ignores it, we have no recourse but to issue a Ramsey County Court Citation for the offense. A Court Citation naturally is a more serious step and requires the offender to appear in court and potentially pay a fine that greatly exceeds our AO fine. This course of action however is slow, often taking months to schedule the court hearing, all the while the original violation may still persist. Because of this, we've actually skipped the AO process altogether in many cases to help expedite resolution of the violation. Establishing the authority to certify these unpaid AO fines to the offending party's property taxes gives the AO the teeth it needs to resolve violations by creating a disincentive for the property owner to simply ignore the problem. 6. Does a change of this nature require a ballot measure? No. The requested Charter amendments would formailize our authority to issue AOs, a practice we've employed since 1988. Some would suggest that we already have the ability to issue AOs and certify unpaid property-based fines even absent explicit Charter authorization, and if that's the case, then the amendments serve to reinforce this authority. Besides, the community has long been clammoring for tighter enforcement against habitual offenders--the amendments will help to address that by reinforcing our ability to issue tags and assess any unpaid fines. I would think the changes suggested are minor in nature, esp when compared to other recently adopted Charter amendments. 7. Is there language currently in code and where is it? Yes. Chapter 702 establishes the AO process. All we would need to add is the authority to certify unpaid property based fines to the property taxes as a special assessment, in the exact same manner as we do for abatements, diseased tree removals and delinquent utility bills. 8. Do we need a list of specific offenses or is there an existing category to reference? The Code, in Section 104 .01 as well as in Section 702. 02, essentially indicates that ANY violation of ANY section of City Code can result in an AO being issued, so long as there is a penalty articluated therein. Specifically, Section 104 .01 says, "Any person violating an administrative rule shall be subject to the scheduled penalty not to exceed one hundred dollars ($100.00) for each offense. " Section 702.02 indicates that "Offenses that are declared misdemeanors by this Code may be charged as administrative offenses, at the election of the City. . . " Most of the sections of the Code conclude with an enforcement provision which reiterates that any violation of the Code constitutes a misdemeanor. 2 9. Do we want a separate appeal process or use the original fine process already in place? The existing Code provides for a hearing opportunity for any person having received an administrative offense. Section 702.02, Subd 7 outlnies the steps pertaining to an appeal: a. Request for Hearing: Any person aggrieved by this Section may request, within seven (7) days of the time of issuance of the notice, to be heard by the hearing officer who shall hear and determine the grievance. b. Hearing Officer: The Clerk-Administrator shall be the hearing officer, and the Clerk- Administrator or a designee is authorized to hear or determine a case or controversy relative to this Section. The hearing officer is not a Judicial officer and is a public officer as defined by Minnesota Statutes, section 609.415 and subject to Minnesota Statutes relating to public officers. (1988 Code §400.03) c. Determination of Case: The hearing officer shall have the authority to dismiss the violation for cause, reduce or waive the penalty upon such terms and conditions as can be agreed upon by the parties; however, reasons for such dispositions shall be stated, in writing, by said hearing officer. If the violation is sustained by the hearing officer, the violator shall pay satisfaction of the penalty or shall sign an agreement to pay upon such terms and conditions as set forth by the hearing officer. Jeremiah and I have been discussing for some time now the possibility of revising this process to establish an impartial hearing officer rather than the City Administrator. Some residents, when faced with appealing an A0, have expressed doubt that the City Administrator would provide a fair and impartial ruling. To that extent we agree, in that the administrator probably would *not* be an unbiased arbiter. Some communities contract with independent administrative hearing judges to consider city-issued tickets and fines. If there's a way to do this economically (for both the City and the person receiving the ticket) we may want to give that serious consideration. Ultimately, the City Council would make the final determination pertaining to any such fine via the assessment hearing, if it got to that point. Whew. . . . I think I addressed all your questions. If you have any follow up questions, please do not hesitate to give me a call. I will *try* and make it to the Charter Commission meeting on Thursday, however my kids have conferences at 5:30 and 6:00 so I would not be there right at 7:00 pm. Thanks, Jim 3 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 Jim Ericson Community Development Director City of Mounds View 2401 County Road 10 Mounds View, MN 55112 763-717-4021 (Phone) 763-784-3462 (Fax) www.ci.mounds-view.mn.us (Web) 2 Jim Ericson From: Jim Ericson Sent: Friday, October 12, 2007 9:57 AM To: 'Barbara Thomas' Subject: RE: Charter Commission Meeting Attachments: Chapter 702.02.pdf; Chapter 104.pdf PDFk F'DF � Chapter 702.02.pdf Chapter 104.pdf (20 KB) (2:30) Hi Barbara. The issue of administrative offenses for minor moving violations is ancillary to the more important goal of gaining charter concurrence and authority for a process we've been employing for 20 years and to establish a mechanism by which we can collect the unpaid fines. The proposed amendment to Chapter 8 emphasizes that the process is limited to property-based violations. Attached are the referenced City Code Chapters 104 and 702. I'll plan on attending the Nov 8th meeting. Also, regarding the Commission's request for guidance, do you have the letter or letters within which the specific issues are addressed? If so, can you forward these to my attention? I'll bring it up under reports on Oct 22 and attempt to schedule a joint meeting. Thanks, Jim Original Message From: Barbara Thomas [mailto:barbaralthomas@hotmail.com] Sent: Friday, October 12, 2007 9:01 AM To: Jim Ericson Subject: RE: Charter Commission Meeting no worries. We decided that since you provided so much information that we are going to take the next month to go over it in addition to the code sections you referenced and kind of get a feel for what we are working with. there are some reservations because it seems that the scope of the violations has grown since we first started discussing this; ie, moving violations. That is a completely different arena and will require much more discussion. We would love to have you be present for the next meeting on November 8th however because that is when I expect that we'll have gotten our heads a bit more around the possibilities here. If you could provide me a new electronic copy of the pertinent code sections, that would be excellent. Also, this is more the Chair's responsibility but could you bring up a discussion with the Council regarding the letter/s requesting guidance from the Commission to the Council?? There are many issues there that we need to have addressed - soon. We would definitely be interested in a joint meeting with the latest letter as the basis for agenda at this point. But even without the meeting, an answer to those issues is necessary. 1 > Subject: Charter Commission Meeting > Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2007 08:53:33 -0500 > From: JimE@ci.mounds-view.mn.us > To: barbaralthomas@hotmail.com > I > Barbara, > > Sorry I missed the meeting. The school conferences took longer than > expected. . . The new system is "student led" conferences with the > student introducing the parents to the teachers and going over self > assessments, grades, etc. The teachers provide input on goals and > review any issues they may have. It's a great concept, except it takes > longer than just having a scheduled time, sitting down, and then > leaving. Oh well. > > I'm going to watch the meeting and get caught up on your discussion > regarding the agenda items. If there's any additional information you > need from me (us) in the meantime, please don't hesitate to write or > call. > > By the way, I worked with Scott to simplify the draft language affecting > section 12.14 . I've attached it for your reference. > > Jim Ericson > Community Development Director > City of Mounds View > 2401 County Road 10 > Mounds View, MN 55112 > 763-717-4021 (Phone) > 763-784-3462 (Fax) > www.ci.mounds-view.mn.us (Web) > Windows Live Hotmail and Microsoft Office Outlook — together at last. Get it now! <http: //office.microsoft.com/en-us/outlook/HA102225181033.aspx?pid=CL100626971033> 2 ORDINANCE NO. CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE MOUNDS VIEW CITY CHARTER BY ADDING SECTION 8.06 OF THE CITY CHARTER THE CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW DOES HEREBY ORDAIN: SECTION 1. The City Council of the City of Mounds View, pursuant to the recommendation of the City of Mounds View Charter Commission, has hereby determined that a new Section 8.06 be added to the City Charter as follows: Section 8.06. Fees and Civil Penalties. The Council may provide by ordinance that fees, civil penalties, and late payment penalties imposed by the City may be assessed against (a) property that was the subject matter, or related to the subject matter, of the fees and penalties, or (b) property that was the location of an activity, proposed use, city service, or other circumstance that resulted in the fees and penalties. The ordinance must require the City to attempt to obtain voluntary payment of the fees and penalties before imposing the assessments. The ordinance must require the City to give notice to the property owner listed on the official tax records before imposing the assessments and must provide an opportunity for a hearing before a neutral party, which may be the Council. The assessments will be collected like special assessments. SECTION 2. This ordinance shall take effect ninety days after the date of its publication. Read by the City Council of the City of Mounds View on this day of , 2007. Read and passed by the City Council of the City of Mounds View on this day of , 2007. Rob Marty, Mayor ATTEST: Jim Ericson, Interim City Clerk-Administrator (SEAL) 305641v1 SJR MU210-4 ORDINANCE NO. CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE MOUNDS VIEW CITY CHARTER BY ADDING A NEW SECTION 12.14 AND RENUMBERING EXISTING SECTION 12.14 TO 12.15 OF THE CITY CHARTER THE CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW DOES HEREBY ORDAIN: SECTION 1. The City Council of the City of Mounds View, pursuant to the recommendation of the City of Mounds View Charter Commission, has hereby determined that a new Section 12.14 be added to the City Charter as follows: Section 12.14. Fines and Criminal and Civil Penalties. The Council may provide by ordinance that a violation of a City ordinance is either a misdemeanor or a petty misdemeanor, punishable in accordance with State law. In addition, the Council may establish by ordinance a procedure for imposing a civil penalty known as an administrative offense not exceeding $2,000 for each ordinance violation. This procedure must provide an opportunity for a hearing before a neutral party, which may be the Council. SECTION 2. Existing Charter Section 12.14 shall be renumbered as Section 12.15. SECTION 3. This ordinance shall take effect ninety days after the date of its publication. Read by the City Council of the City of Mounds View on this day of , 2007. Read and passed by the City Council of the City of Mounds View on this day of , 2007. Rob Marty Mayor ATTEST: James Ericson Interim City Clerk-Administrator (SEAL) 322403v1 SJR MU210-4