1A, Community Livability - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

# July 31~ 2008 Page 6 and the former Attorney General issued an opinionl that cities are preempted from enforcing local traffic regulations. The current State Auditor has issued a Position Statement that her office wiU follow the opinion of the AG as it relates to traffic code enforcement. Her office issued letters/surveys to cities, asking whether they have an administrative process for traffic offenses~ how much revenue has been coUected, and demandrng repayment to the State for any amount coUectedfor traffic fines that should have been prosecuted in district court. Her office issued a SJSpecial Study" in February 2008 discussing the findings. It is important to note that the former and current State Auditors and the AG do not specifically deny a city's authority to enforce other code provisions, such as building code, zoning code, housing code or pubfic nuisance violations, through an administrative process, despite statutory provisions that might apply (e.g., nuisance abatement of dangerous buildings). Certainly 1 as noted above} a city may enforce these other code provisions by citation in district court if the city.s code provides that such violations are misdemeanors. Arguably! the focus of the State Auditor and of the Attorney General on preemption in the field of traffic violations without an expticit statement denying the existence of city authority for focal enforcement of aU types" courd be read as recognition that code enforcement in these other areas is something inherently focaly dealing directly with livability issues and community valuesy and should be enforced locally. The league of Minnesota Cities has been working each legislative session over the past several years for a clarification of citiesJ authority in this area. No bills have been passed thus far, but more are expected for the 2009 session beginning in February. fn the mean time, the league has taken the following po~it;on: The League supports the use of city administrative fines for local regulatory ordinances, such as buitding codes, zoning codes, hearth codes, and public nuisance ordinances. The league supports the use of city administrative fines, at a minimum, for regulatory matters that are not duplicative of misdemeanor or higher state traffic and criminal offenses. Further, the League endorses the concept that administrative penalty hearings should be held before disinterested third parties, which may include city councifsJ to ensure fairness in the proceedings. If state leaders enact legislation that prohibits cities from using administrative fines for minor traffic offenses, they should also change the distribution of statutory violations fine revenues so that cities are adequately compensated for enforcement and prosecution costs. Finally, the state should require that if a court reduces the amount paid by a viofatoft any reduction should be made from the surcharge and not the Hne.