Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout12-13-2007 Mounds View Charter Commission Minutes q"---S Thursday, December 13, 2007 1. Call to Order—The meeting came to order at time 7:04 pm. 2. Roll Call— Present: J. Thomas, J. Miller, M. Haubrich, B.Thomas, B. Doty Excused: Absent : 3. Approval of agenda Motion by B. Doty, second by M. Haubrich to approve agenda as written MOTION APPROVED Approval of minutes Motion by J. Miller, second by B. Doty to approve minutes of November 8, 2007 as amended MOTION APPROVED 4. Citizens comments from the floor None 5. Reports of the Chair Chair discussed conversations with City Staff regarding Ianguage about fee increases. Acting City Administrator, Jim Ericson spoke to some of those issues involving the changes that were adopted in Chapter 7. 6. Reports of members B. Doty provided the members with a copy of Pioneer Press story regarding the Charter Commission in Eagan and a failed Charter attempt. Discussion also included how to increase the visibility in the community and participation on Charter maintenance. 7. Unfinished Business Chair opened discussion on Administrative Offenses following the discussion points provided. • How do we define "property based"? • Administrative Offenses and Court Citations are two different pathways. By writing ani administrative offense citation,the city bypasses the court process. To take an unpaid citation to court,the city must go back to the original offense and write a new ticket—thus beginning the court process from the start again. • Some joint discussion between the City &Commission to coordinate amendments to Charter and Code may need to occur in order to coordinate a reasonable fee structure before authority is granted to certify all such fees to property taxes. • Mr. Ericson will pursue further research on where the late charges for unpaid fines are specified in city code or approved by Council. • Language excluding abatement costs from any Administrative Offense certification total should be pretty specific—language used in 607.09, subds 5-8 could be used as Pr example text for process langage. Mounds View Charter Commission Minutes Thursday, December 13, 2007 New Questions: • Administrative Rule—should have a clear definition • Fees included also need to be clearly defined and perhaps the fee schedule is not appropriate. However a system needs to exist to know which fines are included without listing them individually. • Administrative Offenses are an alternative to misdemeanor charges through the court system, not a misdemeanor charge in themselves. At some point, language more clearly defining Administrative Offenses should be added to clarify that distinction. Tentatively,the Council is planning a joint meeting for Feb 4th, 2008. If the majority of Commission members can't attend that meeting, the March work session is also available. 8. New Business M. Haubrich moved approval of the 2007 Summary Letter with a second from J. Miller. MOTION APPROVED Future Agenda Items: Next months agenda is sufficient to discuss language for Administrative Offenses. Meeting adjourned at 8:20 pm. City of11 CHARTER COMMISSION MEETING Mounds 7:00 PM Thursday, Dec 13, 2007 View Mounds View City Hall Charter Commission ,14 Preliminary AGENDA Chair hi 1. Call to Order Jonathan J Thomas 763.784.5205 5 2. Roll Call Vice Chair Bill Doty # —Jonathan J Thomas —Bill Doty 763.786.3421 I —Jean Miller Barbara Thomas Michael Haubrich 2"Vice Chair — Jean Miller 763.786.3959 3. Approval of agenda and minutes Secretary Review and approve agenda Barbara Thomas `' 763.780.6226 _ Approval of Nov 8, 2007 Minutes Michael Haubrich ri 4. Citizens comments from the floor 651.432.3181 5. Reports of the Chair 6. Reports of members 7. Unfinished Business 45 min, Continue work on Administrative Offenses language. 8. New Business 20 min, Review annual summary letter. , 10 min, Review open list of items and priorities to determine future agendas. 9. Adjournment 10. Next Regular Meeting Date - January 10, 2008 LI • ADMINISTRATIVE OFFENSE DISCUSSION POINTS 1. Administrative Offenses that are certified to Property Taxes should be property- based. P -1 &A-4-e - 2 The city agrees. 2. Should there be a neutral arbitrator? I would suggest that if the Charter addresses this in any fashion, it should provide the city with the authority to establish a third party neutral or hearing officer and not get into any specifics for the reasons articulated. 3. Can a property owner request a fine be certified to his taxes immediately rather than paid in cash? Yes, we already provide for this now with diseased tree removal and for some abatements. I would caution against using the word "immediately", however, as we typically go through the certification process just once a year. we could do it every March and every September, but the county only processes such requests once a year early in the fall in preparation for the following year's tax statements. 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? I would not recommend establishing a limit in the first place, although I understand why others may be more comfortable with a limit. That said, if a limit is truly deemed necessary by the Commission, then I would recommend the limit be established to reflect the sum of the three graduated fines plus respective late fees. In other words, if the first fine is $150, the second $300 and the third $450 (for same or similar violations) and all are unpaid and thus subject to late fee of$50 each, the total would be $1,050. Please keep in mind however that if court citations are issued for the same offenses rather than AOs, the maximum cumulative fines a judge could impose would be $3,000 with no provision for certifying against the property taxes. 5. Do we need to specify a minimum period of time between the receipt of a fine and the certification of unpaid fines to taxes? No. If we extend the time frame by which a recipient has to pay the fine to 30 days, I see no reason why we would need to further limit the time before a certification could move forward. Even if we acted immediately after the thirty-day period to begin the certification process, we would still need to provide notice to the property owner and then provide them with an opportunity to be heard before the city council. 6. Do abatement costs need to be included with A. 0. fines at the time of certification and should any limits on certification amounts specifically include or exclude abatement? It would not be a good idea to limit the amount of abatement costs that can be certified to taxes. If an abatement is substantial, often the property owner welcomes the assistance and acknowledges the responsibility to pay. What we can do for more substantial abatement assessments is perhaps offer to extend the assessment over more than just one year, but even this should be left more to the request of the resident upon approval of the council. The city presently has the authority to certify abatements under section 607.09, subds 5-8. 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? The City Code presently requires that an administrative offense be paid within 7 days. We start adding on late fees of$5 per week for every week the fine remains unpaid. For County Citations, typically a person is provided 21 days in which to pay. My suggestion, if there is a desire to modify this, would be that we provide 30 days to pay the fine rather than 7, and then AFTER the 30 days, if the recipient has not otherwise appealed the AO or scheduled a hearing, rather than charging a $5 weekly fee that after one year could total an additional $260, we charge a one-time flat late fee penalty of$50. 2. What is an Administrative Rule? An administrative rule is a provision, regulation or requirement imposed by the administrative body—the City Council. 3. Should we or Can we use the fee schedule on which to define the offenses included? No--the fee schedule would not be an appropriate document within which to include definitions. To the extent necessary to differentiate one fine or fee from another, then yes, some level of explanation might be in order, but in my opinion, definitions are better left in the City Code. In some instances we have arlydPrl rnnld references to some sections of the fee schedule to make it easier to refer back to the governing language. (e.g., See Chapter 502 of the City Code.) 4. Where are the late charges for unpaid fines specified? I conducted a cursory search of the City Code and the latest fee schedule did not find reference to what the late fee is. This *should* be reflected in the fee schedule adopted annually by the Council, and I would assert that a $5 per week late fee is both cumbersome to track and potentially more expensive in the long run. See my response to question #1. 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. There is no discrepancy. This reflects the two different mechanisms by which a person can be cited. If an officer (or other designated staff member) writes a Ramsey County Court Citation for a violation of Code, it is considered misdemeanor, punishable up to $700 and/or 90 days in jail. For the same violation logged as an admin offense, the fine is $100. It ikl�''uz1, vLv�1 �'1 Sk`��` `rC (� e-t should be noted that the maximum fine is now $1,000, an amount set by the state--not Mounds View--and if and when we amend the Code to update regarding AOs, we'll update that amount at the same time. 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. Correct. The AO process was intended to help expedite corrective action and to avoid having to send a resident to court in a different city just because they had some junk in the backyard or an unlicensed vehicle. This is even more of an issue today, in that I just received notice that due to the backlog of cases, court citations we wrote in October will not be heard by a judge until February. For violations which have not been resolved, waiting five months to have a judge order someone to clean their yard or remove a junk car is very frustrating, especially so for the neighbors who have to put up with the ongoing violations. That is why we use the AO process--to provide a more expedient citation review and resolution, a more convenient process, and a less expensive process. Toward that last point, given that the fines have not increased since their inception in the 1980s, and since the fines are generally ignored, we feel strongly that the new fine schedule and process for certifying unpaid property-based fines move forward. Jim Ericson From: Jim Ericson Sent: Wednesday, November 28, 2007 3:00 PM To: 'JThomas' Cc: 'Barbara Thomas' Subject: FW: Charter Fee Limitations Attachments: Levy Limit Resolution.pdf PDF I' Levy Limit tesolution.pdf(165.. Jonathan, Hope you had a nice Thanksgiving. I am writing with questions pertaining to the Charter levy & fee limits in Section 7.03 as they relate to Administrative Offense fines. As you know, we would like to amend the Charter to provide explicit allowance to certify unpaid property based AO fines to property taxes. The administrative offense fine of $100 has not changed since it was instituted in (or before) 1988, and my suggestion has been to institute a graduated fine schedule, with the first offense at $150, the second same or similar offense within 12 months would be $300, and a third same or similar offense within the 12 month period would carry a final $450 fine. My question is that the charter language regarding fee increase limitations, in my opinion, seems somewhat inconsistent as to whether the proposed increase falls within or outside of the limitation. Relevant language appears in two places. First, in Section 7.03, Sub 3a, the following is stated: "For the purposes of this Section, "fee" includes utility charges . . . , recycling fees, franchise fees . . . , Administrative offense fees, and shall also include any other fee that produces a tax burden or direct financial obligation to a simple majority of property owners and/or residents of Mounds View. " The way I read that section, a property-specific fine does NOT produce a tax burden or direct financial obligation to a simple majority of property owners--it only impacts ONE property owner, thus it should not be considered a fee. On the other hand, the section does clearly indicate that AO "fees" are subject to the increase limitations. In contrast, the very next section of the Charter, Section 7. 03, Subd 3b, states: "For the purposes of this Section, the term "fee" does not include: Filing for Office fee, park or recreational participation fees, charges for photo-copying, . . . Building and Zoning Permit or Inspection and Planning fees, or civil, criminal and banking fines and other charges collected in cases of restitution or violation of law or contract. " The way I read that, a civil fine (AO fine) should not be subject to the limit. Am I reading this the way it was intended? While I understand that the City Council is the body charged with the interpretation of the Charter, I'm sure it would be helpful to solicit comment from the Charter Commission for sake of clarification. Any guidance you can offer would be appreciated. Thank you! 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) 1 C yof Resolution No.2006-06a Mounds Mounds View Charter Commission View Dated July 20,2006 • Charter Commission The Mounds View Charter Commission in accordance with Minnesota Statute Chair 410.12 Subdivision 1, recommends the following amendments by the addition Jonathan J Thomas of the b id.and l l�anderlinec � language and by deletion of the bold and str - 763-784-5205 language. The Mounds View Charter Commission requests the City Council prepare the following Charter language amendment for a ballot in accordance Vice Chair with Minnesota Statute 410.12 Subdivision 4 and have it placed before the Bill Doty voters at the next general election. We also request the City Council response 763-786-3421 within 20 days for any questions or clarification to any item as presented in the modification of language for Chapter 7, Section 7.03 of the Mounds View 2nd Vice Chair Charter. Jean Miller 763-786-3959 This resolution supersedes the previously submitted Resolution 2006-06 Secretary Brian Amundsen This amendment, if approved by a majority of the voters shall become effective 763-786-5699 on March 1, 2007. Matthew Eenigenburg 763-783-7216 Objectives: 1) To update and correct language in 7.03 for system of taxation. Carol Mueller 2) In 7.03 to limit annual tax levy and certain fee increases, but provide a 763.780.1251 process to obtain voter referendum approval for needs beyond the limits. Barbara Thomas 763-780-6226 The section recommended for consideration with this resolution is attached. William Werner Sr 763-784-3603 Respectfully submitted, Jonathan J Thomas, Chair Brian R Amundsen, Secretary Mounds View Charter Commission Resolution 2006-06a Date: July 20, 2006 CHAPTER 7 TAXATION AND FINANCES Section 7.03. System of Taxation. Subject to the state constitution, and except as forbidden by it or by state law, the Council shall have full power to provide by ordinance for a system of local taxation. This authority includes the power by ordinance to assess, levy,and collect taxes on all subjects or objects of taxation except as limited or prohibited by the state constitution,by this Charter or by state laws imposing restrictions upon the City irrespective of Charter provisions. Subdivision. The City's annual resolution to levy ad valorem taxes (raisin_. n • le a_ainst rend personal property) shall not exceed the lesser of the following formulas:�either the r year tax levy dollar_amount increased bya maximus 5°f. • ` •__un_ '.i e dex_ _lus 2%._ The CPI_shall be the 12 month average of the most_recently published data for all Urban Consumers_ in the.Minneapolis. St. Paul metropolitan area as defined by the U.S. Dejartment_of Labor Bureau of Labor Statistics. Subdivision 2. The City Council may levy a tax against real and personal property in excess of the limit set in Subdivision 1 provided the Council shall-: A) Adopt a resolution declr g the necessity for an additional tax levy and specifying the purposes for which such additional tax levy is required. B) Hold a ;.:_uhtic_he_ r . .t -ast 10 dais osteo and ublished notice in the Ci 's official_ newsnaper,City newsletter, d,lfaaai _hle, ht_e Cit .web sile.._setting foth.._th_scontents....QII the resolutiion_e_scrib dJ ibdivisi_on_'A C) After such public hearing. adopt by an affirmative Vc. e of at least_fo (4)members of the Council such resolution language which is readily understandable and a summary of such resolution will be thtlot question for the electorate at the next regular municipal election or spe .sal election.per this Charter's Section 4_04. as amended,_prior to the f nal.letiv_ approval. D) If the additional tax levy resolut_ion.is then approved by the..v©ters under Chapter 4 of this Charter then the levy shall be implemented in the following fiscal year or later date as specified in the resolution. Subdivision 3. Any other fee or levy. created. or-increased beyond the limits set forth in Subdivision 1. shall require voter approval as stipulated in Subdivision 2 of this Section. A) FQr the....p rposes thi_Section.."fee" includes. .t' its charte“othet'.than...water, sanitary._ s. r,._s_torm_mater.a c streetlight) r.w•sl ng_f_e s._fr'anchiae._f_e ._(fg_cable—gas and. electric). Administratjve_gffense fee ,._and_sl Lasso.iF c d '_other fee_that prod.u.ces....a._ta burden ordirQctfinancial obligation.t_ _a simple_rajority of property owners and;or_res de its.. of Mounds View. B) For the purposes of this _ ectio 1 the term e " d•es cot include: i io or Ci ice.tce, park or recreationalparticipation fees charges for photo-copying. sales of municipal liquor store_ City of Mounds View Mounds View Charter Commission Resolution 2006-06a Date: July 20, 2006 products. Building and Zoning Permit or Inspection and Planni _ fees. or civil criminal and banking fines and other charges collected in cases of restitution or violation of law or contract. The term "fee" does not include charges collected by the direction of the State. okuity_..ororlierlax_ation aulhority., or as_a_rt,sult_of_joint.pow_ers_ag=nents. The term_ife.e"... alaQdoes not includc_renlal_housinae_cs_liquarlicen.seices..,cable__telev isiarrwry annual fees for_the_operatioThof a legulatcd_business_and any miscellaneous fce_s_for_ seryices_,_inchiding.health and safetyLr_ela.ted Code enforcemenLanoLother go_ods,_scrvice_s_or.. materials routinel provided by the Cit to its citizens or other members of the public which_ by law, must be limited to the actual cost of the service_being provided. The term "fee" shall not include any special assessments made under Minnesota Statutes Section 429. as am ended, C) For the_purposes of this Section. "fee increase" includes anewjax or fee. a monetary increase in an existing tax or fee,a tax or fee rate_increase. an expansion in the legal definition of a_.tax or fee base, and an extension of an expiring_tax_or fee. D) This Section does not apply to any specific emergency measure authorized in Chapter 7 Section 7.12. or MN Statute 475.754. as amended. Subdivision 4. The City shall not levy to increase an fund reserve beyond 50%of an average of that fund's previous five years annual expenditures. The Council may raise a fund's reserve beyond 50%_pravideth 1. the_cauncitdesignat_e_s___b_y_i_e_s_ollAionznd_liolds_a_p_u_b_b_c_hearingieviewing_th_e_p_urp_osof the_ reserve increase,and thc_CitY follows such proposes increase...with the ste.psoutline_din_ S_ukaision 2 of this_Section the__Ke.ar_priono thcsallection_Df_such_thmase_d taxation or f_e_e, 2. the Council modifies and adopts by resolution the Five Year Financial Plan, as defined in Chapter 7. Section 7.05,as amended, specifyin„ t e us erve pur •_.e .nd the City follows such proposed increase with the steps outlined in Subdivision 2 ofthis_Section the atpriato_ the collection ofs_uch increased taxation or fee. Moneys raised 12y_Tax Increment Financing shalt not be included in the calculation of reserve This Subdivision and Section shall not limit or_impair_the City's ability to create Fax Increment_ Financin! or enter into Develo ment Agreements specified byMN Statutes 469.174 to 469.1799. as amended. This Subdivision shall not require the Cit to divest or ex end any excess of any reserve fund(s) currently exceeding the specified limit, provided the Council.within 90 days of adopting this Section. desioates by resolution the purpose of the reserve or adopts a modified Five Year Financial Plan reflecting the reserve purpose Subdivision_5_,_Nothing....inthis_Section_shall be construed.toinapaiLam=nesal_ohligation_ the_City ma_Lhaye_in_s_upport.of.oilawise_lawfutin&W.dn_essor.similar,obligation supported the_ faith credit_afty,_provided_holve.vicr—tliaLlonocan.._generaLobligation.indeb-wdness_ shall_not_b_e_use_d_fox the...purposof funding theo_utine_and_daibLb_usiness_operations_ofthe_City., . . . City of Mounds View • city,O f Resolution No. 2007-05a Mounds View Charter Commission hounds Dated Dec 13, 2007 View Whereas, the Mounds View Charter Commission has received a request to change Charter the publishing requirements for the City Newsletter from six to four times each year Commission and whereas, there have been numerous requests to increase the distribution requirements to ensure that the city does a better job of delivering the newsletter to all Mounds View residents, Chair Jonathan J Thomas 763-784-5205 Therefore, the Mounds View Charter Commission acting under Minnesota Statute 410.12 Subdivision 7, recommends the following amendments by the addition of the Vice Chair blue and d=)14� fit iinca 49 and by the deletion of the Red-and stricken Bill Doty languagc. The Mounds View Charter Commission requests the City Council adopt 763-786-3421 this resolution by ordinance by the required unanimous vote. 2nd Vice Chair Jean Miller 763-786-3959 CHAPTER 12 Secretary MISCELLANEOUS AND TRANSITORY PROVISIONS Barbara Thomas 763-780-6226 Section 12.13. A newsletter shall be published by the City at regular intervals at least Michael Haubrich six (6) four (4) times each year. The postal roll for the City shall be used for the 763.432.3181 ,caution. The City of Mounds View may use several delivery methods if necessary to deliver the newsletter to at least each non-commercial postal delivery address within the City of Mounds View unless the resident has requested not to receive the city newsletter. If practicable, a copy of the newsletter shall be posted on the city website. Respectfully submitted, .41 Jonathan J Thomas, Chair Barbara Thomas, Secretary (Kc1c ca.e k) Jj /c9 /2) -- 09- ADMINISTRATIVE OFFENSE DISCUSSION POINTS 1 . Administrative Offenses that are certified to Property Taxes should be property- based. The city agrees. 2. Should there be a neutral arbitrator? I would suggest that if the Charter addresses this in any fashion, it should provide the city with the authority to establish a third party neutral or hearing officer and not get into any specifics for the reasons articulated. 3. Can a property owner request a fine be certified to his taxes immediately rather than paid in cash? Yes, we already provide for this now with diseased tree removal and for some abatements. I would caution against using the word "immediately", however, as we typically go through the certification process just once a year. we could do it every March and every September, but the county only processes such requests once a year early in the fall in preparation for the following year's tax statements. 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? I would not recommend establishing a limit in the first place, although I understand why others may be more comfortable with a limit. That said, if a limit is truly deemed necessary by the Commission, then I would recommend the limit be established to reflect the sum of the three graduated fines plus respective late fees. In other words, if the first fine is $150, the second $300 and the third $450 (for same or similar violations) and all are unpaid and thus subject to late fee of$50 each, the total would be $1,050. Please keep in mind however that if court citations are issued for the same offenses rather than AOs, the maximum cumulative fines a judge could impose would be $3,000 with no provision for certifying against the property taxes. 5. Do we need to specify a minimum period of time between the receipt of a fine and the certification of unpaid fines to taxes? No. If we extend the time frame by which a recipient has to pay the fine to 30 days, I see no reason why we would need to further limit the time before a certification could move forward. Even if we acted immediately after the thirty-day period to begin the certification process, we would still need to provide notice to the property owner and then provide them with an opportunity to be heard before the city council. 6. Do abatement costs need to be included with A. 0. fines at the time of certification and should any limits on certification amounts specifically include or exclude abatement? It would not be a good idea to limit the amount of abatement costs that can be certified to taxes. If an abatement is substantial, often the property owner welcomes the assistance and acknowledges the responsibility to pay. What we can do for more substantial abatement assessments is perhaps offer to extend the assessment over more than just one year, but even this should be left more to the request of the resident upon approval of the council. The city presently has the authority to certify abatements under section 607.09, subds 5-8. 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? The City Code presently requires that an administrative offense be paid within 7 days. We start adding on late fees of$5 per week for every week the fine remains unpaid. For County Citations, typically a person is provided 21 days in which to pay. My suggestion, if there is a desire to modify this, would be that we provide 30 days to pay the fine rather than 7, and then AFTER the 30 days, if the recipient has not otherwise appealed the AO or scheduled a hearing, rather than charging a $5 weekly fee that after one year could total an additional $260, we charge a one-time flat late fee penalty of$50. 2. What is an Administrative Rule? An administrative rule is a provision, regulation or requirement imposed by the administrative body—the City Council. 3. Should we or Can we use the fee schedule on which to define the offenses included? No--the fee schedule would not be an appropriate document within which to include definitions. To the extent necessary to differentiate one fine or fee from another, then yes, some level of explanation might be in order, but in my opinion, definitions are better left in the City Code. In some instances we have added Code references to some sections of the fee schedule to make it easier to refer back to the governing language. (e.g., See Chapter 502 of the City Code.) 4. Where are the late charges for unpaid fines specified? I conducted a cursory search of the City Code and the latest fee schedule did not find reference to what the late fee is. This *should* be reflected in the fee schedule adopted annually by the Council, and I would assert that a $5 per week late fee is both cumbersome to track and potentially more expensive in the long run. See my response to question #1. 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. There is no discrepancy. This reflects the two different mechanisms by which a person can be cited. If an officer (or other designated staff member) writes a Ramsey County Court Citation for a violation of Code, it is considered misdemeanor, punishable up to $700 and/or 90 days in jail. For the same violation logged as an admin offense, the fine is $100. It should be noted that the maximum fine is now $1,000, an amount set by the state--not Mounds View--and if and when we amend the Code to update regarding AOs, we'll update that amount at the same time. 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. Correct. The AO process was intended to help expedite corrective action and to avoid having to send a resident to court in a different city just because they had some junk in the backyard or an unlicensed vehicle. This is even more of an issue today, in that I just received notice that due to the backlog of cases, court citations we wrote in October will not be heard by a judge until February. For violations which have not been resolved, waiting five months to have a judge order someone to clean their yard or remove a junk car is very frustrating, especially so for the neighbors who have to put up with the ongoing violations. That is why we use the AO process--to provide a more expedient citation review and resolution, a more convenient process, and a less expensive process. Toward that last point, given that the fines have not increased since their inception in the 1980s, and since the fines are generally ignored, we feel strongly that the new fine schedule and process for certifying unpaid property-based fines move forward. • 607.09 607.09 (Rev. 3/02) (1) "NOTICE TO THE OWNER AND ALL PERSONS INTERESTED IN THE ATTACHED PROPERTY: This property, (setting forth brief description) is unlawfully upon property known as (setting forth brief description of location) and in violation of Section 607.07 of the Mounds View Municipal Code,and therefore is declared to constitute a public nuisance and must be removed within seventy two (72) hours from the date of this notice. If this vehicle is not removed from the premises or placed in a lawful garage or storage building on or before (setting forth date and time) it shall be removed by order of the City of Mounds View. Dated this: (setting forth date of posting of notice). Signed: (setting forth name, title, address and telephone number of enforcement officer)." (Ord. 694,3-11-02) (2) Such notice shall be not less than eight inches (8")by ten inches (10") and shall be sufficiently weather proof to withstand exposure to the elements. (Ord. 694, 3-11-02) Subd. 5. Abatement: Except for vehicles constituting a public nuisance, which shall follow the procedures set forth in Section 607.07, all violations of this Chapter may be corrected by abatement by the City at the expense of the property owner, occupant, or other responsible party following the procedures listed herein. (Ord. 694,3-11-02) • a. If the owner, occupant or other responsible party does not comply with the notice of violation within the time specified therein, the City Council may, after notice to the owner and occupant or other responsible party and an opportunity to be heard, provide for abating the nuisance by the City. (Ord. 694,3-11-02) b. The notice shall be served in the same manner as prescribed in Section 607.09, subdivision 4 and shall be given at least ten (10) days before the date stated in the notice when the Council will consider the matter. (Ord. 694, 3-11-02) c. If the notice of violation was served by posting, at least thirty (30) days shall elapse between the day of posting and the hearing. (Ord. 694,3-11-02) Subd. 6. Summary Abatement: The enforcing officer may provide for abating a public nuisance without following the procedure required in subdivision 5 above when: (Ord. 694,3-11-02) a. There is an immediate threat to the public health or safety. b. There is an immediate threat of serious property damage. c. A public nuisance has been caused by private parties on public property. (Ord. 694, 3- 11-02) • City of Mounds View 4111 607.09 607.09(Rev. 3/02) d. If the enforcing officer abates the nuisance pursuant to this Section, the officer must reasonably attempt to notify the owner, occupant, or other responsible party of the action and inform the owner, occupant, or other responsible party of the right to appeal any cost at the next regularly scheduled City Council meeting. (Ord. 694, 3-11-02) Subd. 7. Cost Recovery: The owner of property on which a nuisance has been abated by the City, or a person who has caused a public nuisance on property not owned by that person,shall be personally liable to the City for the cost of abatement, including administrative costs. As soon as the work has been completed and the cost determined, the Clerk-Administrator or their designee shall prepare a bill for the cost plus an additional ten percent(10%) and mail it to the owner or other responsible party. Thereupon, the amount shall be immediately due and payable at the office of the Clerk-Administrator. (Ord. 694,3-11-02) a. Record of Abatement Costs: The Clerk-Administrator or Clerk-Administrator's designee shall keep a record of the costs of abatements done under this Section and shall report monthly all work done to the appropriate officer for which assessments are to be made, stating and certifying the description of the land, lots, parcels involved and the amount assessable to each. (Ord. 694, 3-11-02) Subd. 8. Assessment: If the cost, or any portion of it, has not been paid under subdivision 7, • within thirty (30) days after the date of the bill, the unpaid cost may be certified against the property to which the cost is attributable. On or before September 1 of each year,the Clerk- Administrator or Clerk-Administrator's designee shall list the total unpaid charges for each abatement against each separate lot or parcel to which they are attributable. Before certification against the property, reasonable notice of the impending certification and an opportunity to be heard by the City Council must be given to the taxpayer of record. Failure of the taxpayer to receive the notice shall not invalidate the certification,however. The City Council may then spread the charges or any portion thereof against the property involved as a special assessment under Minnesota Statutes, Section 429.101,and other pertinent statutes, for certification to the County Auditor for collection the following year along with current taxes or in such annual installments, not exceeding ten (10), as the City Council may determine in each case. (Ord. 694,3-11-02) Subd. 9. Landlord's Liability: (Ord. 694, 3-11-02) a. For the purpose of this subdivision, "owner" is defined to include corporations and partnerships as well as individual owners. b. Violation of the noise control regulations shall be the act of the owner of the residential dwelling unit as well as the persons on the premises who violate said regulations; except, that the owner shall be liable only for those violations occurring after receipt of written notice from the City of violation of the noise control regulations having occurred at the residential dwelling unit. • City of Mounds View 429.101 UNPAID SPECIAL CHARGES MAY BE SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS. Subd. 1. Ordinances. (a) In addition to any other method authorized by law or charter, • the governing body of any municipality may provide for the collection of unpaid special charges for all or any part of the cost of: (1) snow, ice, or rubbish removal from sidewalks; (2) weed elimination from streets or private property; (3) removal or elimination of public health or safety hazards from private property, excluding any structure included under the provisions of sections 463.15 to 463.26; (4) installation or repair of water service lines, street sprinkling or other dust treatment of streets; (5) the trimming and care of trees and the removal of unsound trees from any street; (6) the treatment and removal of insect infested or diseased trees on private property, the repair of sidewalks and alleys; (7) the operation of a street lighting system; (8) the operation and maintenance of a fire protection or a pedestrian skyway system; (9) reinspections which find noncompliance after the due date for compliance with an order to correct a municipal housing maintenance code violation; (10) the recovery of any disbursements under section 5046.445, subdivision 4, clause (5), including disbursements for payment of utility bills and other services, even if provided by a third party, necessary to remedy violations as described in section 504B.445, subdivision 4, clause (2); or (11) [Repealed, 2004 c 275 s 5] as a special assessment against the property benefited. (b) The council may by ordinance adopt regulations consistent with this section to make this authority effective, including, at the option of the council, provisions for placing primary responsibility upon the property owner or occupant to do the work personally (except in the case of street sprinkling or other dust treatment, alley repair, tree trimming, care, and removal or the operation of a street lighting system) upon notice before the work is undertaken, and for collection from the property owner or other person served of the charges when due before unpaid charges are made a special assessment. Subd. 2. Procedure for assessment. Any special assessment levied under subdivision 1 shall bepayable in o single installment or her i in to ton equal ial anni ial installments as the council may v�. payable n i Cl single a installment,1L.i IL, v1 by up w wi i �uui ui ii IUGI installments i wi lw C .O the vvui ivn may provide. With this exception, sections 429.061, 429.071, and 429.081 shall apply to assessments made under this section. Subd. 3. Issuance of obligations. (a) After a contract for any of the work enumerated in subdivision 1 has been let, or the work commenced, the council may issue obligations to defray the expense of any such work financed in whole or in part by special charges and assessments imposed upon benefited property under this section. (b) Section 429.091 shall apply to such obligations with the following modifications: (1) such obligations shall be payable not more than two years from the date of issuance; (2) the amount of such obligations issued at one time in a municipality shall not exceed the cost of such work during the ensuing six months as estimated by the council; (3) a separate improvement fund shall be set up for each of the enumerated services referred to in subdivision 1 and financed under this section. (c) Proceeds of special charges as well as special assessments and taxes shall be credited to such improvement fund. History: 1953 c 398 s 10; 1955 c 811 s 6; 1963 c 771 s 5; 1965 c 323 s 2; 1973 c 337 s 1; 1974 c 340s1,2; 1984 c 548 s 7; 1984 c 582 s 7; 1984 c 591 s 6; 1984 c 633 s 5; 1986 c 444; 1 Sp2003 c 21 art 11 s 29; 2004 c 275 s 2 • City of CHARTER COMMISSION MEETING >4C , • Mounds 7:00 PM Thursday, Dec 13, 2007 7,: , 5, View Mounds View City Hall . 07A-4_ 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 4-Jean Miller 21 Barbara Thomas Michael Haubrich 2°d Vice Chair Jean Miller 3. Approval of agenda and minutes 763.786.3959 PP g Secretary Review and approve agenda Barbara Thomas Approval of Nov 8, 2007 Minutes 763.780.6226 Michael Haubrich 4. Citizens comments from the floor 651.432.3181 • 5. Reports of the Chair 6. Reports of members 7. Unfinished Business 45 min, Continue work on Administrative Offenses language. 8. New Business 20 min, Review annual summary letter. 10 min, Review open list of items and priorities to determine future agendas. 9. Adjournment 10. Next Regular Meeting Date - January 10, 2008