Loading...
CR 01-047 Appointment Of Hearing Officers For Violations of the Tobacco Ordinance . April 17,2001 Council Report 2001-47 Appointment of Hearing Officers for Violations of the Tobacco Ordinance Proposed Action Staff recommends adoption of the following motion: Approve Resolution 2001-21 appointing Hearing Officers for hearings regarding the alleged violation of the City's tobacco ordinance. This action will appoint hearing officers to hear appeals. Overview City Code 1155.17, establishes the administrative penalty procedure for violations of the City's tobacco ordinance. The alleged violator can request a hearing within 20 days of being issued a citation. Section 1155.17, Subd. 3 states that "The City Councilor such other person as the Council may by resolution designate, shall serve as the hearing officer." Now that the City has established an Administrative Hearing Process, staff is' recommending that these hearing officers also serve as the hearing officers for tobacco violations. Primary Issues to Consider Who should act as hearing officer? Supportine Information Resolution 2001-21 Section 1155.17 of the Hopkins City Code. s Genellie sistant City Manager Financial Impact: $ None Budgeted: Y/N Related Documents (CIP, ERP, etc.): Notes: Source: Council Report 2001-47 Page 2 Analysis of the Issues Who should act as hearing officer? The police department is responsible for enforcing this ordinance. A citation is issued to the alleged violator of the ordinance. The alleged violator can request a hearing. The question before the hearing office is whether a violation occurred. Appeals of any decision made by the hearing officer are made to district court. It is there important that alleged violators be granted the appropriate due process. The City Council can act as the hearing officer. However, this would require the council to hold a hearing whenever there was an appeal. The City Manager or the Police Chief could also act as hearing officers. There may, however, be the appearance of a conflict of interest with either of these individuals, especially with the Police Chief. Administrative Citation Hearing Officers. These individuals are experienced in conducting hearings. They are neutral third parties that have no connection with the City. The only downside to having the Administrative Hearing Officers act as hearing officers for the purpose of the tobacco ordinance is the cost associated with these hearings. It is expected, however, that the income from fines will more than offset any cost associated with hearings. Alternatives 1. Approve Resolution 2001-21 appointing the Administrative Hearing Officers as hearing officers for the purpose of the tobacco ordinance. 2. Approve a revised Resolution 2001-21 appointing someone else as the hearing officer for the purpose of the tobacco ordinance. Staff recommends Alternative #1. City of Hopkins Hennepin County, Minnesota RESOLUTION 2001-21 WHEREAS, Section 1155.17 of the Hopkins City Code requires that the City Council designate a hearing officer to preside over hearings of alleged violations of the-City's tobacco ordinance; and WHEREAS, the City Council wishes to ensure that alleged violators of the tobacco ordinance be given due process and a fair hearing, NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Hopkins hereby appoints the following individuals as hearing officers to be chosen at random to hear appeals: Steve Bergeson John C.DeMoss Timothy Dunn Robert Fine Robert Greising James Gurovitsch Joel Lavintman Robert Reutiman Adopted by the City Council of the City of Hopkins this 17th day of April 2001. By Gene Maxwell, Mayor ATTEST: Terry Obermaier, City Clerk 1155.17. Administrative Penalty Procedure. Subd. 1. Notice. Upon discovery of a suspected violation, the alleged violator shall be issued, either personally or by mail, a citation that sets forth the alleged violation and which shall inform the alleged violator of his or her right to be heard on the allegation. Subd. 2. Hearings. If, within 20 days after receipt of a citation, a person accused of violating this ordinance so requests, a hearing shall be scheduled, the date, time and place, of which shall be published and provided to the accused violator. Subd.3. Hearing Officer. The City Council or such other person as the Council may by resolution designate, shall serve as the hearing officer. Subd. 4. Decision. If the hearing officer determines that a violation of this ordinance did occur, that decision, along with the hearing officer's reasons for finding a violation and the penalty to be imposed under Section 1155.19 of this ordinance, shall be recorded in writing a copy of which shall be provided to the accused violator. Likewise, if the hearing officer finds that no violation occurred or finds grounds for not imposing any penalty, such findings shall be recorded and a copy provided to the acquitted accused violator. Subd.5. Appeals. Appeals of any decision made by the hearing officer shall be filed in the district court for the city in which the alleged violation occurred. Subd.6. Misdemeanor Prosecution. Nothing in this Section shall prohibit the City from seeking prosecution as a misdemeanor for any alleged violation of this ordinance. If the City elects to seek misdemeanor prosecution, no administrative penalty shall be imposed. Subd. 7. Continued Violation. Each violation, and every day in which a violation occurs or continues, shall constitute a separate offense.