1B, Administrative Fines - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

July 31., 2008 Page 5 Administrative Fines as an Alternative. The issue of cities' authority to establish administrative fines for certain violations has been the center of debate and controversy in Minnesota over the past several years. Some, including the State Auditor, have concluded that cities do not have the authority to take such action in certain areas of enforcement. At the same time, there has been great legislative effort over the past several sessions for at least some clarity on the issue. Again in 2008, the Legislature did not take any steps to clarify city authority to implement a scheme for administrative fines. Accordingly, a city should proceed cautiously before passing such an ordinance, and consider the following: 1. Authority. As a general rule, cities have only the authority expressly granted to them in statute or in a city charter, or necessarily implied by the express authority given to them. Mangold Midwest Co. v. Village of Richfield, 143 N.w.2d 813, 819-20 (Minn. 1955). Except in two specific circumstances, there is no express authority for a statutory city to impose administrative penalties. The two specific circumstances are set out in (1) Minnesota Statutes § 461.12, subd. 3, which allows cities (or a licensing authority) to impose administrative penalties for sale of tobacco to a minor; and in (2) 340A.415, which establishes an administrative penalty for certain violations involving the sale of alcohol. Otherwise, statutory cities generally rely on more general powers granted by the legislature: The council shall have the power to declare that the violation of any ordinance shall be a penal offense and to prescribe penalties therefor. No such penalty shall exceed a fine of $1,000 or imprisonment in a city or county jail for a period of 90 days, or both, but in either case the costs of prosecution may be added. Minn.Stat. § 412.231 (emphasis added). Most cities interpret this section as either an express grant of authority to establish administrative penalties, or at the very least, to be authority "necessarily implied" in their general powers to do so. See also, State v. Robitshek 60 Minn. 123, 125, 01 N.W. 1023, 1024 (1895) (enforcement of ordinances is as much within the authority and power of city council as is enactment). Based on this general authority, many Minnesota cities, bath statutory and charter, have established administrative penalties for a Variety of ordinance violations. However, this has not been without controversy, specifically as it relates to cities enforcing their own traffic regulations rather than state traff is laws. In 2003, the former Stage Auditor took the position,