Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout12-01-2007 AO Discussion Points - City ResponseADMINISTRATIVE 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. O. 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.