Loading...
Memo- Nuisance Abatemant . . . Memorandum I Community Services Department I To: Hopkins City Council Jim Genellie March 22, 2000 Nuisance Abatement From: Date: Subject: The Council discussed nuisance abatement at its January 11 Worksession. Staff presented proposals for improved enforcement. The Council directed staff to move forward with two items: 1. Adoption of a "City Court" procedure for enforcing ordinances, and 2. Revision of ordinance in order to clarify what is a nuisance "City Court" is an administrative procedure for enforcing various city ordinances. It provides an alternative to the criminal justice system. Alleged violators are issued administrative citations. They may either pay the fine established by the City Councilor may request a hearing. Hearings are held before neutral hearing officers. Cities currently using some form of administrative penalties include: Minnetonka, Mounds View, RoseviHe, White Bear Lake, Spring Lake Park, and Bloomington. City Attorney Wynn Curtiss prepared a memorandum regarding tlCity Court." His conclusion was: It would be necessary to amend the Hopkins City Charter to authorize the City to impose civil penalties for violation of its Ordinances and to provide for collection of those penalties by special assessment. The authority created by those amendments can be broadly established, with the details created by an enabling Ordinance. Such an Ordinance would establish the administrative citation, set forth the City Code sections subject to an administrative citation, establish a "City COllli" administrative hearing process to deal with administrative citations and set forth the procedures by which the administrative hearing would be conducted and the civil penalties enforced. Mr. Curtiss is drafting Charter amendments. Staff proposes to bring these amendments to the Charter Commission at its April 25 meeting. While the Charter amendment process is moving forward, staff would work with the City Attorney's office to prepare ordinances that would implement the administrative citation procedure. 1 .. " . The second issue the Council wanted staff to address was whether there were any ordinance changes that should be made. Staff is prepared to draft ordinances that would address the issues listed below. Staff is aware that some of these suggestions are controversial. Not all of them, or indeed any of them, have to be adopted. Staff would, however, like to clarify what will be allowed and what will be classified as a nuisance. Su~~estions Re~ardin~ Vehicles · Limit the number vehicles parked or stored outside to a maximum of three. No limit to the number of vehicles parked inside a structure. · Allow a household having more than three licensed drivers to have up to five vehicles parked outside of the garage. · Parking must be on hard surfaces or gravel areas. · One vehicle may be parked on the garage side yard on a residentially zoned lot provided the vehicle is five feet or more from the property line. (See Diagram A) · No parking of cars in the rear yard, but one vehicle can be parked next to a garage on an improved parking space in the rear yard. (See Diagram A) · Allow one recreational vehicle to be parked in the back yard but it could not be closer than five feet to any lot line. Vehicles over 18 feet in length would require screening. (See Diagram B) · Allow one non-passenger vehicle to be parked on a residential lot. · No non-passenger vehicle can be parked on a residential lot if the vehicle is not owned or leased by the occupant of the premises where it is parked or is a commercial vehicle owned by the employer of an occupant who is using the vehicle for business purposes. · The total area in the front yard of a single family lot improved for parking and driveway purposes shall not exceed 30 percent of the front yard area. · The average width of a driveway shall not be more than 24 feet wide. Su~gestions RegardinQ Accessory BUildings One garage and one storage building would be allowed on a lot. Size regulated by existing ordinance. (See Diagram B) Attachments: . Diagrams A & B · Appendix A - Violations in other cities that are addressed with administrative penalties · Appendix B - Administration Violation Procedure · Memorandum from Wynn Curtiss concerning "City Court" · Memorandum from Nancy Anderson concerning ordinance changes 2 '~+r,,~ } ~ ~.-'I y ~.. A l' f ~ "<.' ""::'\-- ',' ~ " , , <- c>-,,<;.'<! ( "" I ,," ~:~?:~, ,>~- - " - < .' ~. +P'o~~~~I\l~A:'. ..... '..~-!-,;tk:,,~w~ ~4?\)~~ '. ' . .., " ~. ;:GARA6& ',' . ' If , , 1=hr b 1"1'1 , Qre~ " :Si'de,. \;(.:or& . ,,~ ...." " ' ' - ,', ' <>: ,",' - s,c\e ~a('d ...., )." ~..." , ?ar"-'~ o.~ ,0 \\o~d " Pn" 5~'O~~'q :~~CL.~t"+~ ' ~'rl/~r-ali'e- -'lC i~~tb4tit,li; A'* ( ;<?~">~7~,,>:""''\ ~l Y__~~~""'~ ~:' ~ '-f~cL~1 5'"~~~' <, ,,< -' rear Ora "J~ ~~~'~'~'J , ',-~_ , ""'.'"'''' '~ ,::', >:~ t-t~"~~ ,~ ~' .I' .... ,," '\~ ... -:. -Str~~:t - A ~~ it' .Jl,.J.l.lI~__~~ +r6h+ 'lard' s~ 'iard \--\0 oS~- " I side '1a.,-d 'i6rhnQ . Qrea..., {J , 'J .--\ (:,_ t.:::.. '+:Or-k'r:\ IS q\ o~d~ On(L, ~\ de. on HV\.-pfoved :jl:1{'t:~ SptlUL., n~'l-+ -to qaraq~ ----- \~r \(<=tt'd' , G::t ro.q e. Dli~,/ .<~ '''''~f~ . ,I} ~ , . - ~-. 5tr9&<' B " , .- ;;'<~~', ,.' "'\" <:," " . ~:~:'f~'<<:J<; .' 1 ....~, ,J :: ~ ~-.> -;.. "\ I - I ~l .' , \ ~ -... . \.4Ob~, ) " " "", ,'s,'ck, V,~(l, ~;d, <.. ....\ l' ) ( .. ,'<. I,..; ,.,," ~ _ '< , ~~(A'(f~;. ~' ~ " '< t' I' ","-:: ",,:: ., <-" \ , ~ " :!\"_,l, , ,,;A\'p,,'^ , ,<. '5, \,C'~ ~ar~, ','" (;- /~ ~,~:t ~.,~ ' ),~V:;~Q ~ ~ \ ( ~... ..;~..'.,.., R.' . ; ""reat"' ~C\rd i J ,.' -r, , ; .''"~ ,~ "'-,It,,,"- ' , '," ~.. ,. -<t" .. L Str~1f . '-J 'l ~, " \ ., \ I +rOf\+ '1Qrd ~..........-~-.,~ . '. '5 idt2.- 'let t'd \-,oo~ SJda-. "Q~d, 5Md Go. r~q e.. Dn '<'eu.:o. '( 0"\'1 one...; , OOQ.Q.~'SO t i btil \d ~ ca- q\to~d on to;- o\\)Q1"" -+rnn (.( a f t\q -e.. / (<\ I..,." ~ j ":"".':":.'~';':"'~"'-"~~'( '\,Ad'd ''; ~'" '(, ~ 'f\..A , " , , , AII~ . . . APPENDIX A Some of the violations that are considered Administrative offenses. Bloomington Spring Lake Park Animal control violations Building code violations Environmental health violations Noise code violations Refuse violations Vehicle storage violations Housing violations Weed nuisances Building Code Violations Sign Violations Housing Code Violations Subdivision Regulation Violations Zoning Code Violations License and Permit Violations Snowmobile Violations Load Limit Violations Abandoned, Wrecked or Inoperative, Vehicles Intoxicating Beverages In Parks and Other Public Areas Curfew Hours In City Parks Waste Disposal Violations Fire Code Violations, Generally Blocking Fire Hydrant Fire Lane Violations Fire Prevention Violations Outdoor Storage of Wood Public Nuisances, Generally Loud Parties Animals Garbage Junk or Debris Fireworks Flammable Products Minnetonka Violations of park rules Animal regulations Curfew violations Alcoholic beverages in parks Noise regulations Violation of snow removal regulations White Bear Lake Housing Code Violations Noise complaints Loud party call Other complaints Park ordinance violations Public Nuisance Appendix 8 . . . ADMINISTRATION VIOLATION PROCEDURE (City Court) City Court Citation No- <-I I Yes Yes No Yes I t~ City Court Yes Po""" Eed, J No Yes I Yes Appeal to District Court? Yes ~ No City may: 1. Assess the penalty 2. Obtain a judgement 3. Suspend or revoke any licenses 4. Commence criminal proceedings Yes I Oh"g' o;,m;':t ~No- A Hearing Officers decision can only be appealed to the City Council in the following circumstances: o Failure to obtain a license from the City Council o Violation of the conditions of a license o Violation of license regulations No Yes No - No Charge Dismissed ~ City of J{op~ns 1010 Pirst Street Saudi · Hopkins, 5tf:N 55343-7573 · phone: 612 935-8474 · Pu.:{; 612-935-1834 MEMORANDUM DATE: February 18,2000 TO: Jim Genellie FROM: Wynn Curtiss RE: City Court . This Memo is in response to your January 19, 2000, Memo inquiring about the procedures for establishing a "City Court" in Hopkins to enforce citations issued for violations of certain Hopkins City Ordinances (the "Ordinances''). Specifically, your questions were whether Hopkins has the authority to establish such a court, whether it would be necessary to amend Hopkins' Charter to establish such a court and what steps Hopkins would need to follow to create such a program. In addition to those questions, I have reviewed the City Court information from Minnetonka and will address several questions I have regarding that program as well. 1. CHARTER AUTHORITY. Although the Hopkins City Charter ("Charter") provides that Hopkins has "all powers which shall be necessary to preserve, promote, advance and protect the health, safety and general welfare of persons, and to preserve and protect property" (Section 1.02), and the Hopkins City Council (the "Council") "has authority to enact ordinances to promote health, safety, morals and general welfare" (Section 12.14) and Minn. Stat. Section 429.01 et. seq. authorizes cities to impose special assessments for certain costs, neither the Charter nor the Statute specifically authorizes assessment of civil fines and penalties imposed for ordinance violations of the type anticipated to be included in the City Court program. Therefore, it would be advisable to amend the City Charter to provide for the assessment of any fees and civil penalties imposed by the City for matters falling within the jurisdiction of the City Court. . A second Charter amendment probably is needed to empower Hopkins to impose the fees and civil penalties to be dealt with by a Ci ty Court. Currently, the Ordinances provide for a civil penalty for violation of the tobacco sale ordinance. However, there are no similar civil penalties contained in the Ordinance for other violations, such as the building code, animal control or other similar types of regulations. One option would be to amend each regulatory ordinance to provide a civil penalty for violation of that section. Alternatively, the Charter itself could be amended to provide for both criminal and civil penalties for violation of the Ordinances. The Charter amendment could provide a broad scope for the ci viI penalty, with c.lti1e\hopciv\mell1n.gcnelll .~" 'EqlUJ[ OFport~nity 'Emp(oyer . . . the specifics for each type of violation to be provided by the Ordinance authorizing and implementing the City Court program. My suggestion would be to create a Charter amendment that would apply both to the penalties currently provided for in the City Code as well as any new penalties subject to the City Court program. 2. CITY COURT ORDINANCE. To Llse the remedies provided by the Chmier amendments, it would be necessary to enact an Ordinance establishing the administrative citation itself as well as the "City Court" to process the administrative citations. In addition, it would be necessary to establish which Ordinances would be subject to the administrative citation process, and it would be necessary to establish the procedures for conducting the City Court hearings. Although Hopkins is free to make the program as narrow or broad as it chooses, two procedural protections must be included. First, the administrative hearing process must provide a sufficient amount of due process (notice and opportunity to be heard) to withstand ajudicial challenge not only to the hearing examiner's decision, but to the hearing process itself. Second, because the penalties imposed will be subject to collection through special assessment, the City is required to follow the statutory restrictions for imposing a special assessment and providing for a challenge to that special assessment. It is not necessary to reinvent the wheel. Minnetonka's Ordinance is comprehensive and addresses both of the primary procedural concerns. As to the scope of the Ordinance, that need not be followed if Hopkins wishes to make its City Court program narrower or broader in scope. Enactment of the City Court program would simply require creation of an Ordinance similar to Minnetonka' s which would be proposed and enacted just like any other Ordinance. 3. IMPLEMENTATION QUESTIONS. The following are questions regarding the specifics of the administrative citation and City Court process. These questions are based on my review of Minnetonka's Ordinance, but should be considered when determining the language for any possible Hopkins Ordinance. a. Ordinance Sections Subject to Administrative Citations. A threshold decision needs to be made to determine which Ordinance sections will be subject to the administrative citation. Minnetonka makes its entire City Code subject to the administrative citation section. Rather than attempt to designate which Ordinance provisions will be subject to an administrative citation, it may provide more flexibility to make all Ordinance sections subiect to an administrative citation but, as a matter of policy, to use the City Court to enforce those Ordinance sections which involve the most frequent or substantial violations. It also may be beneficial to limit the number of Ordinance sections subj ect to an administrative citation since a fee schedule must be established for each provision to which the administrative citation process applies. c :\tile\hopciv\memo.genell i - 2 - . . . b. Administrative Hearine Process. Several questions arose in reviewing Minnetonka's administrative hearing process. 1. What city employee is responsible for receiving a request for an administrative hearing? 2. Must the request be in writing? 3. Does the seven day period to request a hearing include the date the citation is issued? 4. lfthe seventh day falls on a weekend or holiday, must the request be made before that day or by the end of the first business day after the seventh day? 5. Does the city employee receiving requests for a hearing have the right to deny such a request if the request is not timely? 6. Does the identity of a hearing officer get published in some fashion before the hearing? If so, how long before the hearing and in what form is the publication? 7. If an "accused" requests that a hearing officer be removed, must that request be in writing? 8. Can the City request the removal of a hearing officer? If yes, on what grounds? 9. Can a person be removed from the hearing officer list by the City and, if so, on what grounds? 10. If a person files an objection to a subpoena, do they have to provide a copy of the objection to all parties? 11. If the subpoena is canceled or modified, does the hearing officer have to provide a written reason for his decision? 12. Does the City serve the notice of hearing? 13. Why not require the notice of hearing to be served 14 days before the hearing and provide that service can be by mail and is complete upon mailing? c :\111 e\hopci v\memo.genelli .... - j - . . . 14. Who retains custody of the hearing officer's tape recording of the hearing as well as any exhibits offered? 1 S. Who provides the tape recording equipment? 16. Can a person be represented by an attorney at the hearing? 17. How long does a hearing officer have to decide following the conclusion of a hearing? 18. Can a hearing be continued to provide additional time? 19. How is the hearing officer's decision communicated to the parties? 20. How long after an appeal does the Council have to conduct a hearing? c. Appeals. In Minnetonka Section 1300.07(1), the Ordinance sets out the type of violations which can be appealed to the City Council. The language refers to things such as "an alleged failure to obtain a permit, license, or other approval from the City Council as required by an Ordinance." 1. What types of permits, licenses or other approvals does the Council itself grant as opposed to staff, and are all of those appropriate for appeal to the Council? 2. As to the Council hearing, why not provide for notice by mail at least 14 days in advance, with notice complete upon mailing? 3. Will a Council hearing allow for new or additional witnesses or evidence not presented at the administrative hearing? 4. How long does the Council have to decide after the conclusion of the hearing? 5. Does the late payment penalty begin from the deadline for payment imposed by the administrative hearing officer and/or Councilor does it begin from the time the citation was initially issued? d. Additional Considerations. Currently, Hopkins has a tobacco Ordinance which provides for an administrative penalty and a procedure for appealing that penalty. It will be necessary to either c :\fi I e\hopci v\mcmo.genclli - 4 - . . . , . conform the existing Ordinance provisions to the new City Court Ordinance or to exempt those provisions from the City Court Ordinance. In addition, although it is not provided tor in the Ordinances, Hopkins currently takes action against liquor license holders for violations of the liquor license Ordinances and statutes and provides an appeal to the Council for those civil penalties. Again, the City Court Ordinance would need to be conformed to the existing provisions for existing practices regarding alcohol or alcohol could be exempted from the City Court jurisdiction. Consideration should be given to coordinating the City Court program with the current practice in which certain license violations, such as alcohol and tobacco, are subject to hearing before the Council and possible Council sanctions, including financial penalties. If the suspension, revocation or cancellation of a license is a possible sanction, procedures currently provided for notice and a hearing before the Council should be coordinated with any jurisdiction and procedural safeguards provided through the City Court program. Finally, it should be made clear that the assessments imposed pursuant to Hopkins City Code Section 615 for nuisance violations would not be subj ect to City Court jurisdiction. CONCLUSION It would be necessary to amend the Hopkins City Charter to authorize the City to impose civil penalties for violation of its Ordinances and to provide for collection of those penalties by special assessment. The authority created by those amendments can be broadly established, with the details created by an enabling Ordinance. Such an Ordinance would establish the administrative citation, set forth the City Code sections subject to an administrative citation, establish a "City Court" administrative hearing process to deal with administrative citations and set forth the procedures by which the administrative hearing would be conducted and the civil penalties enforced. If you have any questions regarding the contents of this Memorandum or wish to discuss it further, pJease contact me. we WC/drs ~. \tile\hopc iv\mcmo .genelli - 5 -