HomeMy WebLinkAbout2008 05-19 CCP Joint Meeting with Charter Commission r �u�
AGENDA
CITY COUNCIL/CHARTER COMMISSION JOINT MEETING
May 19, 2008
6:00 P.M.
City Hall
Council Commission Conference Room
1. Call to Order
2. Discussion of Charter Commission Recommendation
a. An Ordinance Relating to Administrative Fines; Adding a New Section 12.13 to
the Brooklyn Center City Charter
3. Adjourn
I
City of Brooklyn Center
A Millennium Community
MEMORANDUM COUNCIL/COMMISSION JOINT
MEETING
DATE: May 15, 2008
TO: Brooklyn Center City Council/Charter Commission
FROM: Curt Boganey, City Man����
SUBJECT: Charter amendment administrative fines
COUNCIL/COMMISSION ACTION REQUIRED
The intent of the meeting is to provide the Charter Commission with direct Council
feedback regarding its decision to table action on the proposed amendment. The Council
felt it would be helpful to have a dialogue with the Commission before the Commission
decided how it wished to respond or dispose of this matter.
BACKGROUND
Several months ago the City Council asked the Mayor and Manager to approach the
Commission about the possibility of amending the City Charter to authorize
administrative fines. After several meetings the Commission did prepare and submit
amendment language to the City Council for consideration.
On March 24�` the City Council voted to table action on the proposed City Charter
amendment to add a new section relating to administrative fines. In addition the Council
requested a joint meeting with the Charter Commission to discuss the issue.
Enclosed herein is memo to the Commission dated May 14 that outlines the optians
available to the Charter Commission. I have also enclosed a memo dated June 20, 2003 to
Attorney LeFevere that describes the legal issues related to administrative fines and
weighs the pros and cons of implementing a civil enforcement procedure system with or
without a charter amendment.
COUNCIL POLICY ISSUES
Is it in the interest of the City to proceed with a charter amendment by election?
Is it in the interest of the City to proceed with a civil enforcement procedure without a
charter amendment?
G: ICity ManagerlWORKSESSION.MEM.FRM.doc
6301 Shingle Creek Parkway Recreation and Community Center Phone TDD Number
Brookdyn Center, MN 55430-2199 (763) 569-3400
City Hall TDD Number (763) 569-3300 FAX (763) 569-3434
FAX (763) 569-3494
www. cityofbrooklyncenter.org
March 24 2008 Minutes Excerpt
ORDINANCE RELATING TO ADMINISTRATIVE FINES; ADDING A NEW SECTION
12.13 TO THE BROOKLYN CENTER CITY CHARTER
Mr. Boganey introduced the item, discussed the history, and stated the purpose of the proposed
ordinance. He advised adoption of this ordinance requires a unanimous vote by the City Council.
In the absence of a unanimous vote the matter is referred back to the Charter Commission, which
has the authority to determine whether it wants to require or request that this item be placed on a
special election for a referendum vote.
It was noted that the administrative fine process will streamline things and will be a much
quicker and likely less expensive process to administer the City's ordinances.
Councilmember Lasman moved and Councilmember O'Connor seconded to open the Public
Hearing.
Motion passed unanimously.
Councilmember Lasman moved and Councilmember Ryan seconded to close the Public Hearing.
Motion passed unanimously.
There was discussion on Section 12.13.a., Subdivision 1, specifically in relation to the third party
hearing officer that would decide whether an administrative penalty should be imposed. It was
suggested that the ordinance be tabled to allow for further discussion, as there does not seem to
be unanimous support of the Council.
Councilmember Lasman moved and Councilmember Yelich seconded to table an Ordinance
Relating to Administrative Fines; Adding a New Section 12.13 to the Brooklyn Center City
Charter.
Councilmember O' Connor voted against the same. Motion passed.
Councilmember Lasman moved and Councilmember Ryan seconded to request a joint City
Council meeting with the Charter Commission, City Attorney, and City Manager present.
Councilmembers O'Connor and Yelich voted against the same. Motion passed.
�'ii'y n�'
�l Q(I��� �l.���i.l www.cityofbrooklyncenter.org
6301 Shingle Creek Parkway, Brookiyn Center, Minnesota 55430-2199
Date: May 14, 2008
To: Stan Leino, Charter Commission Chair, and Charter Commission Members
From: Sharon Knutson, City Clerk S�/'1�%UI,D►��/��Uu.�
Vickie Schleunir��4ssistant to the City Manager
Re: Options for Charter Amendment
This is a follow up to your request to clarify options and applicable procedures available to the Charter
Commission regarding the amendment of the city charter to address an administrative enforcement
system. The Charter Commission submitted a recommended change to the city charter by ordinance
under M.S. 410.12 sub 7. The Charter Commission has two other options available if the City Council
does not unanimously approve the proposed charter amendment. One option is for the Charter
Commission to deliver a draft charter change under M.S 410.12 sub 1 to the City Council to require the
City Council to call a special election to place the item on the ballot to the voters. The other option is to
withdraw the proposal or agree to consider the item as a separate city ordinance, with possible
diminished legal standing. The standard requirements for adopting an ordinance would apply- two
readings, legal notice, public hearing, majority vote, etc.
The options for proceeding with a special election are further summarized below. The Charter
Commission may deliver a draft charter change under M.S 410.12 sub 1 to the City Council to require
the City Council to call a special election to place the item on the ballot to the voters. Upon delivery of
the draft, the Council is required to call a special election and place the amendment to the voters at the
next general election if the election occurs within 6 months. Otherwise, a special election may be held
within 90 days. Legal publication requirements apply and the Council determines the wording of the
ballot. (M.S. 410) The timing of the special election would depend on the time the draft is delivered to
the City CounciL
1. If the Charter Commission submits the draft to the City Council within 6 months of a general
election, the special election can be held concurrently with the general election. The following
procedures apply.
For the ballot question to be on the November 4, 2008, general election ballot, the Council must
adopt the resolution to call a special election by September 8, 2008.
o Minn. Stat. §205.16, sub. 4 requires notice to auditor 53 days prior to November
election
Memo Charter Amendment Options
May 14, 2008
Page 2
2. If the timing precludes the ability for the special election to be held concurrently with the
General Election, the Charter Commission may require the City Council to call a special election
within 30 days of delivery of the draft. The following information applies to a separate special
election.
A. Costs
The cost of a special election would be approximately $8,000. 7he cost includes
publishing legal notices, election judge pay, building rentals, truck rental, supplies,
printing ballots, postage for absentee voting, and personnel overtime for required extra
hours for absentee voting.
B. Calling a Special Election
1. By City Council Resolution
Monday, December 15, 2008, is the �rst day the special election could
be held following the November general election
Minn. Stat. §205.10, subd. 3 requires 40 days following general
election
C. Required Procedures for Special Election
The following tasks must be completed in the timeline shown. The date is dependent
upon the special election date.
Notify County Auditor of special election
o Minn. Stat. §205.16, subd. 4 requires notice to auditor 53 days prior to any
municipal election
Publish notice of election three weeks prior to election and publish for three weeks
(City Charter Section 4.03)
This information is intended as a guide to the timing of the special elections. Several other
requirements apply regarding wording and form of ballot, color of ballot, publication, etc.
MEMORANDUM
TO: Charlie LeFevere; City of Brooklyn Center
FROM: Bob Vose
DATE: June 20, 2003
RE: Administrative Fines
You asked that I evaluate legal issues related to enforcement of ordinance violations via civil
penalties. You also asked that I survey similar efforts by other Minnesota cities.
Background
Some cities have established a system for enforcing ordinance violations through an
administrative process involving civil penalties or fines. The City of Brooklyn Center is
considering creation of such a system.
I have discussed administrative enforcement programs with representatives from Minnetonka,
Columbia Heights, Brooklyn Park, and Bloomington, each of which have adopted such
programs, along with representatives of the League of Minnesota Cities. The purpose for such
systems is to offer a more effective and efficient alternative to formal court proceedings (i.e.
misdemeanor prosecutions) for certain types of offenses.
In cities that have established an administrative enforcement mechanism, the process is typically
initiated after a police officer or other responsible staff person determines that an ordinance
violation has occurred. The violator is issued a notice of violation normally in the form of a
"tag." The citation explains the penalty process. The alleged violator may then admit to the
offense by paying the fine or may request an informal hearing concerning the violation. This
administrative enforcement system is typically voluntary. That is, an alleged violator can refuse
to participate in which case the city would proceed with normal criminal (misdemeanor)
prosecution. Similarly, in the event a party participates in the administrative process but fails to
pay the fine/penalty, the city could proceed with criminal enforcement.
It appears that the practical issues that need to be addressed in establishing an administrative
ordinance enforcement process are: 1) how to administer the process including appeals from
disputed citations/tags; and 2) how to enforce the fines or penalties once issued. The civil
enforcement processes range from fairly sophisticated dispute resolution forums involving
neutral third parties to simply turning over disputed municipal tags to the district court. In
several cases, city staff or the council acts as the hearing body with appeal to district court.
RJV-233342v1 1
BR291-4
Analvsis
The primary legal question raised is whether there is authority to establish a system of enforcing
ordinances through an administrative process with fines. Notably, most cities that have enacted
civil enforcement mechanisms are charter cities, including each of the cities I contacted.
Exceptions include Roseville, which has a fairly sophisticated municipal enforcement process,.
and Spring Lake Park. Both are statutory cities.
Brooklyn Park is a charter city. Charter cities are organized under Minnesota Statutes Chapter
410. The power of charter cities is derived in large part from the local charter which is
essentially the local constitution. City ofBloomington v. Munson, 221 N.W2d 787 (1974). In
general, a charter may establish any municipal powers that the legislature could have delegated
as long as such power consistent with other state statutes. Minneapolis Street Ry v. City of
Mineapolis, 40 N.W.2d 353 (1949). Therefore, charter cities may enjoy fairly expansive
authority pursuant to the home rule charter.
Statutory cities, on the other hand, are organized under Minnesota Statutes Chapter 412.
Statutory cities axe defined as "any city which has not adopted a home rule charter pursuant to
the constitution and the laws of this state." Minn. Stat. §412A 16, subd. 1. Statutory cities have
only those powers explicitly provided by statute or reasonably implied therefrom. Welsh v. Ciry
of Orono, 355 N.W.2d 117 (Minn. 1984). Accordingly, statutory cities are only authorized to
adopt a civil ordinance enforcement system with penalties to the extent such power is implicit
from expressly granted powers.
The legislature has explicitly authorized statutory cities to make ordinance violations a penal
offense, and to prescribe misdemeanor penalties for such violations. Minn. Stat. 412.231.
However, there is no express statutory authority empowering cities to impose civil penalties.
The League of Minnesota Cities has identified two arguments in support of such implicit
authority: 1) the authority to establish ordinances inherently implies the power to enforce them;
and 2) the authority to impose criminal sanctions for ordinance violatians in Minnesota Statutes
Section 412.231 includes the "lesser" authority to civilly enforce violations. Administrative
Penalties in Minnesota, Kent Sulem, LMC Attorney, November 14, 1996 (presented at Update
for City Attorneys 1997). There are no court decisions evaluating these arguments.
These implied authority arguments might not succeed if challenged. In State ex rel. Village of
Fridley v. City of Columbia Heights, 53 N.W.2d 831 (Minn.1952), the state supreme court stated:
"It is clear that municipalities have no such powers except as are expressly conferred by statute
or implied as necessary in aid of those powers which have been expressly conferred." It is not
clear that authority to establish an administrative enforcement system is necessarily implicit in
state law since the courts currently process ordinance violations, albeit with some degree of
delay and expense.
In addition, state law does specifically authorize statutory and charter cities to establish licensing
requirements for tobacco and liquor sales, and enforce these requirements with administrative
penalties. See, Minn. Stat. 461.12. Accordingly, the Legislature has generally provided for
local ordinance enforcement using criminal (misdemeanor) enforcement mechanisms, but has
RJV-233342v1 2
BR291-4
also authorized enforcement of certain local licensing requirements through civil penalties.
Established principles of statutory interpretation suggest that where the legislature grants specific
authority, the grant of authority is limited to the matter speeified. City of St. Paul v. Stolz, 22
N.W. 634 (1885).
Based on these concerns, the League of Minnesota Cities sponsored legislation several years ago
that would have explicitly authorized both home rule charter and statutory cities to enforce
ordinance violations via civil penalties. The proposal would also have given cities authority to
establish an administrative hearing procedure. These procedures would have ensured
compliance with certain minimum due process requirements such as assuring alleged ordinance
violators notice and opportunity to be heard by a neutral hearing office or the city council. The
measure was opposed by the judges and was not enacted.
The opposition from judges and other state authorities appears to be highest where a city
attempts to administratively enforce violations of state statutes, rather than local ordinances.
Specific examples include traffic and vehicular operation requirements that are largely regulated
by state criminal law. LMC representatives indicated that judges were most concerned with a
local enforcement system adopted by White Bear Lake. The White Bear Lake enforcement
program includes enforcement of traffic violations. Bloomington recently amended its charter
and ordinance to provide for local civil enforcement but the City carefully avoided providing for
local enforcement of traffic violations. Primarily the City avoided these types of violations
because county sheriffs and state highway patrol officers and other non-city authorities can issue
citations for such offenses. Op. Atty. Gen., 390a-6, October 14, 1997. These non-city
enforcement agencies might be expected to resist requests to appear in a contested municipal
adjudicatory process.
Conclusion
Municipal civil ordinance enforcement has been active in a least one city as early as 1993. I
have not located any formal, legal challenges to such systems. Several municipal representatives
indicate that the public generally approves of these systems.
Brooklyn Center could attempt to establish a civil enforcement system based on authority
implied from existing state laws. However, for the reasons noted, such system is more likely to
withstand a challenge if based on authority granted in a home rule charter. Accordingly, I
recommend that the City seek a charter amendment authorizing establishment of an ordinance
enforcement system with administrative penalties or fines.
As the City considers creation of a civil enforcement system, I would encourage the City to limit
the system to a voluntary system with the normal misdemeanor enforcement mechanism as a
"backstop." In addition, I would recommend that the City consider the following:
L Neutrality of the appeal process. There is the potential for the appearance of a conflict of
interest if a City staff person hears and decides disputes concerning alleged ordinance
violations. The City should consider use of a neutral party not directly affiliated with the
City.
RJV-233342v1 3
BR291-4
2. Administrative v. criminal enforcement. The City may face claims of bias or improper
prosecution if the City can unilaterally decide how to seek enforcement of ordinance
violations. It may be prudent to create standards or criteria to be used in determining
whether to opt out of administrative enforcement.
3. Local ordinance matters. I recommend that the matters subject to administrative
enforcement be strictly limited to local ordinance matters or matters where administrative
enforcement authority has been expressly delegated to cities such as with respect to
alcohol violations.
Please let me know if you would like further assistance with this matter.
RJV-233342v1 q.
BR291-4
COUNCIL ITEM MEMORANDUM
ane Ci Mana er
TO: Curt Bog y, ty g
FROM: Vickie Schleuning, Assistant to the City Manager
DATE: March 24, 2008
SUBJECT: An Ordinance Relating to Administrative Fines; Adding a New
Section 12.13 to,the Brooklyn Center City Charter
Recommendation:
The City Charter Commission recommends that the Brooklyn Center City Council consider
approving second reading of an ardinance relating to administrative fines, adding a new section
12.13 to the Brooklyn Center City Charter.
Backgraund:
The City Council passed, without changes, the first reading of the ordinance an February 25,
2008, setting the public hearing and second reading for March 24, 2008 of an ordinance to
change the city charter to allow the city council to adopt an administrative enforcement system.
Notice of Public Hearing was published in the Brooklyn Center Sun Post on March 6, 2008.
Please refer to the attached Council Item Memorandum from February 25, 2008 for more
information.
Q charter amendment requires a unanimous vote from the City Council. If adopted, the
ordinance would go into effect on July 2, 2008.
If the proposed charter amendment is not unanimously approved by the City Council, the Charter
Commission may consider adopting the amendment by Resolution and placing the amendment to
the voters at the next general election if the election occurs within 6 months. Otherwise, a
special election may be held within 90 days. Legal publication requirements apply and the
Council determines the wording of the baltot. (M.S. 410) It is the prerogative of the Charter
Commission to determine if it wishes to have the voters consider the charter amendment.
Budget Issues:
An administrative penalty system will help improve enforcement system efficiencies, helping to
reduce the cost of service. Inirial setup of program will require staff tirne and upfront costs for
materials. This program would be an alternative to existing enforcement programs.
Attachments:
Ordinance
February 25, 2008 City Council Memorandum and Attachments
Page 1 of 3
CITY 4F BROOKLYN CENTER
Notice is hereby given that a public hearing will be held on the 24�` day of March, 2008 at
7:00 p.m. at the City Hall, 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway, to consider an Ordinance amending the
City's Charter to authorize the City Council to establish a procedure, by ordinance, for imposing
administrative penalties for violations of City Code and for the collection of such penalties by
the levy of special assessments in certain cases.
Auxiliary aids for handicapped persons are available upon request at least 96 hours in
advance. Please contact the City Clerk at 763-569-3300 to make arrangements.
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE RELATING TO ADMINISTRATIVE FINES; ADDING A NEW SECTION
12.13 TO THE BROOKLYN CENTER CITY CHARTER
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER DOES ORDAIN AS
FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Upon recommendatian of the Brooklyn Center Charter Commission pursuant to
Minnesota Statutes, section 410.12, subd. 7, the City Charter of the City. of Brooklyn Center is
hereby amended by adding a new Section 12.13 relating to administrative fines.
Section 2. Backgraund: findines: authoritv.
2,p1, The City of Brooklyn Center (City) is governed by home rule charter adopted
pursuant to the Constitution of the State of Minnesota and Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 410
(Act).
2.p2. The Charter Commission of the City has proposed the adoption of an Amendment
adding a New Section to Chapter 12 of the charter and recommended to the City Council that the
New Section be adopted by City Council ordinance in the manner prescribed by Section 410.12,
Subdivision 7, of the Act. The form of the Amendment is set out in Section 3.02.
2.03. A public hearing on the Amendment was held on March 24, 200$, by the City
Council after two weeks' published notice containing the text of the Amendment as required by
the Act. The notice contained a brief description of the nature and scope af the Amendment. All
persons desiring to be heard with reference to the Amendment were heard at the public hearing.
2.04. The Council finds and determines that it is in the best interests of the City and its
inhabitants that the Amendment be adopted.
Section 3. Adontion: effective date- filin�.
3.01. The Amendment as proposed by the Charter Commission is adopted.
Page 2 of 4
3.02. A new section 12.13 is added to the Brooklyn Center City Charter; the text of the
Amendment is as follows:
Section 12.13. FINES AND PENALTIES..
a. Subdivision 1. The Council maf� establish bv ordinance a nrocedure for imvosin�
an administrative !�enaltv for anv violation of the Cit�� Code or a City ordinance•
The tirocedure shall nrovide that any nartv char¢ed with an administrative penaltv
will receive notice of a violation and an opnorrtunitv to be heazd bv a neutral uartv
The nrocedure shall authorize the Cir� to use the services of a third �artv hearin�,
officer to decide whether an administrative penaltv should be iun�osed.
b. Subdivision 2. Uoon uassa�e of an administrative �enaltv ordinance. the Citv
Council mav nrovide bv ordinance that un}�aid adrninistrative penalties be
collected as a svecial assessment a�ainst �ronertv which was the subiect matter,
or related to the sub3ect matter, of the venaltv or a�ainst the nronertv which was
the location of �an activit��. vronosed use. deliveru of Citv service� ar other
circumstances that resulted in the penalt�. The ordinance shall provide that the
Citv will first attempt to obtain voluntar�t navment of the nenaltv. The ordinance,
shall also urovide that notice and an opnorhinitv to be heard be eiven to the
nronertv owner listed on the official tax records before the penaltv is assessed.
Section 4. This Ordinance shall become effective after adoption and upon ninety (90) days
following its legal publication, except that if within si�y (60) days after publication a petition
requesting a referendum an this ord.inance, signed by the number of registered voters of the City
required by Minnesota Statutes, section 410.12, subd. 7 is filed with the City Clerk, this
ordinance will not be effective until approved by 51% of the vaters voting on the question of its
adoption at the special election called by the Council for that purpose.
Section 5. On the effective date of this Ordinance, the City Clerk is authorized and directed to
file copies of the amendment with the Secretary of State of the Staxe of Minnesota, the Hennepin
County Recorder, and the City Clerk's office together with the certificate required by Minnesota.
Statutes, section 410.11.
Adopted this day of 2008.
Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
Date of Publication
Page 3 of 4
Effective Date
(Brackets indicate matter to be deleted, underline indicates new matter.)
Page 4 of 4
COUNCIL ITEM MEMORANDUM
TO: Curt Boganey, City Manager
s
ti
V ana er
t
to the Ci M
OM. Vickie Schleiuiing, Assistan S
FR
DATE: February 25, 2008
SUSJECT: An Ordinance Relating to Administrative Fines; Adding a New
Section 12.13 to the Brooklyn Center City Charter
Recommendation:
Staff recommends that the Brooklyn Center City Council consider approving first reading of an
ordinance relating to administrative fines, adding a new section 12.13 to the Brooklyn Center
City Charter, and scheduling second reading and Public Heari.ng for Mazch 24, 2008.
Background:
On January 30, 2008, the City Charter Commission approved a proposed amendment to the City
Charter, which would allow the City to adopt an administrative penalty and enforcemenf system.
The propased amendment would allow the City Council to establish an ordinance to develop
procedures for unposing administrative penalties for violations of City Codes and for the
collection of such penalties by the levy of special assessments in certain cases. The
administrative penalty system would provide an alternative option for citizens and staff to use in
certain cases, instead of the criminal enforcement system. The proposed Charter Amendment is
attached.
Need for Additional Corrective Tools,
Sta.ff is in the process of reviewi.ng current ordinances, enforcement tools and processes. With
the increased concerns about neighborhood livability issues and property codes, the need for
additional and creative corrective tools has increased. The majority of enforcement is achieved
through the Hennepin County Criminal Court system, which is oversaturated with a variety of
other crimes that may be considered by judges as more unportant, takes a significant amount of
time to process through the system, increases the cost of service, and often results in citizen
dissatisfaction due to the length of time required to achieve compliance.
Uses
An administrative penalty system would be used for neighborhood and property issues wnder the
purview of the city. It would be another option to use, where appropriate, to gain compliance
and address livability issues. The specific requirement and procedures for the administrative
penalty and enforcement system would be determined by an ordinance, to be considered at a later
date.
Outline of Process for Establishin? an Administrative Enfarcement S��stem
Some statutory cities (without a Charter) have enacted ordinances establishing administrative
penalty systems. However, since Brooklyn Center is a charter city, the City Attorney
recommends the Charter be changed to provide specific authority to the City Council to establish
an administrative penalty system. This process is as follows:
The Charter Commission recommends a Charter Amendment.
The City Council approves unanimously the proposed Charter Amendment.
An ordinance is developed setting the criteria for the administrative penalty system.
The City Council approves the administrative penalty ordinance. Typical ordinance
adoption requirements apply.
Working documents, manuals, processes and procedures are established in parallel to the
adopted ordinance.
Internal and external training is conducted.
The administrative penalty system is fully implemented.
Budget Issues:
An administrative penalty system will help improve enforcement system efficiencies, helping to
reduce the cost of service. Initial setup of program will require staff time and upfront costs for
materials.
Attachments:
Ordinance
Attachment I: Charter Commission Minutes, Subdivision 1 approval- November 28, 2007
Attachment II: Charter Commission Minutes, Subdivision 2 approval- January 30, 2008
Attachment I: Charter Commission Minutes, Subdivision 1 approval- November 28, 2007
BROOKLYN CENTER CHA.RTER COMMISSION
MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 28, 2007
The Brooklyn Center Charter Commission meeting was called to order by Chairman Stan Leino.
at 7:00 PM.
Roll Call: Secretary Gary Brown called roll; Gary Brown, Stan Leino, Bruce Lund, Mary
Nierengarten, Eileen Oslund, Richard Phillips, Ed Nelson, Harold Middleton, Richard Theis, and
Gail Ebert were present.
Absent: None.
Apnroval of Minutes: The draft minutes of the October 24, 2007, meeting were reviewed. Lund
made a motion, seconded by Phillips to approve the minutes as submitted. Passed unanimously
10- 0.
Old Business
Administrative Fines Charter Commission reviewed the proposed charter amendments by City
staff regarding Fines and Penalties (Chapter 12). The following changes to the proposed new
section 12.13 were affered by commission members:
Motion by Brown, seconded by Middleton, to strike "which may he the city council"
from the second sentence of Subdivision 1, passed unanimously 10-0.
Motion by Theis, seconded by Middleton, to change "person" to "party" in the same
sentence, passed unanixnously 10-0.
Motion by Ltuid, seconded by Middleton, to change "may" to "shall" in the third sentence,
passed unanimously 10-0.
Motion by Theis, seconded by Nelson, to change "non-City employee" to "third party
hearing officer" passed unanimously 10-0.
Motion by Nelson, seconded by Phillips, to add an introductory statement to Subdivision 2,
"Upon passage of an administrative penalty ordinance," and to strike out completely the
following from sentence one in subdivision 2``which was the subject matter, or related to the
subject matter, of the penalty or against the property which was the location of an activity,
proposed use, delivery af the City service, or other circumstances that resulted in the
penalty." as well as changing the remaining "may" and "must" to "sha11" and strike the word
"an" from the last sentence of Subdivision 2 passed unanimously 10-0.
Secretary Brown then read the following as changed by the commission and a11
commissioners agreed that these were the changes as voted upon.
Section 12.13. Fines and Penalties.
Subdivision l. The Council may establish by ordinance a procedure for imposing an
administrative penalty far any violation of the City Code or a City ordinance. The procedure
sha11 provide that any �sea partv_ charged with an administrative penalty will receive
notice of a violarion and an opportunity to be heard by a neutral party,
se�s�. The procedure sha11 authorize the City to use the services of a�eg-E'�
e�}e�ee third nartv hearins officer to decide whether an administrative penatty should be
imposed.
Subdivisian 2. Uvon nassage of an administrative �enaltv ordinance, �the City Council
shall provide by ordinance that unpaid administrative penalties be collected as a special
assessment against property
The ordinance
sha11 provide that the City will first attempt to obta.in voluntary payment of the penalty.
The ordinance shall also provide that notice and e� opportunity to be heard be
given to the property owner listed on the official ta�� records before the penalty is assessed.
Attendance Anthony Mills conta.cted Chairman Leino to indicate he had received secretary Brown's
letter regarding attendance and that he had moved out of the City of Brooklyn Center and thus Chair
Leino declared the that Commissioner Mills seat be open.
Motion, by. Brown seconded by Nelson to send Commissioner Richard Theis (on behalf of the
Charter Commission) to the City's annual meeting of commissions and council members, passed
unanimously 10-0.
Next meetin¢: January 23, 2008 (Annual Meeting).
Adiaurnment Brown made a motion and seconded by Middleton, to adjourn the meeting at 9:14
PM. Motian passed l�n�nimously 9-0 (Commissioner Nierengarten had to leave early).
Submitted for consideration,
Gary E. Brown
Secretary
Attachment II: Charter Commission Minutes, Subdivision 2 approval- January 30, 2008
Draft
MINUTES OF Januar�r 30, 2008
BROOKLYN CENTER
CHA.RTER COMMIS5ION ANNUAL MEETING
The Suspended Meeting of 3anuary 23 was called to order by Chairman Stan Leino at 7:00 PM
Roll Call: Secretary Gary Brown called roll; Gary Brown, Stan Leino, Bruce Lund, Harold
Middleton, Ed Nelson, Mary Nierengarten, Eileen Oslund, Richard Theis and Gail Ebert were
present.
Excused Absent: Richard Phillips
Absent: None
Alsa Present: Vickie Schieuning, Assistant to the City Manager, Council Member Mark Yelich
OId Business
Admi.nistrative Fines Charter Cornmission reviewed the proposed suggested changes by the city
attorney to the charter amendments that were approved by the charter commission at their last
meeting regazdi.ng Subdivision 2 of Fines and Penalties (Chapter 12) on January 23, 2008.
However, there were insufficient charter members (7) and therefore the meeting was suspended
until this eveni.ng. Secretary Brown read Subdivsion 2 as previously modified on January 23,
2008. A motion was macte by Theis, seconded by Lund to mocUfy Subdivision 2 as follows, in
conformance with the city attorney's recommendations and the actiorts of the Charter
commission at the last meeting.
Section 12.13. Fines and Penalties.,
Subdivision 2. Upon passage of an adminislrative penalty ordi.nance, the City
Council may provide by ordinance that unpaid adm.inistrative penalties be collected as a
special assessment against property which was the subject matter, or related to the subject
matter, of the penalty or against the property which was the location of an activity,
proposed use, delivery of City service, or other circumstances that resulted in the penalty.
The ordinance sha11 provide that the City will first attempt to obtain voluntary paym
ent of
the penalty. The ardinance sha11 also provide that notice and opportunity to be heard be
given to the property owner listed on the official tax records before the penalty is
assessed.
Passed unanimausly (9-0).
A motion by Brown, seconded by Nelson to adjourn the meeting at 7:05. Passed iin�nimously
(9-0),
Submitted for consideration,
Gary E. Brown
Secretary