1A, Community Enhancement Program

Home Browse Search

J u ly 31, 2008 Page 6 and the former Attorney General issued an opinion, that cities are preempted from enforcing local traffic regulations. The current State Auditor has issued a Position Statement that her office will 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 collected, and demanding repayment to the State for any amount collected for traffic fines that should have been prosecuted in district court. Her office issued a 'Special 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 public nuisance violations, through an administrative process, despite statutory provisions that might apply (e.g., nuisance abatement of dangerous buildings). certainly, as noted above., a city may erxforce 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 explicit statement denying the existence of city authority for focal enforcement of all types, could be read as recognition that. code enforcement in these other areas is something inherently local, dealing directly with livability issues and community values, 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 cities' authority in this area. No bills have been passed thus far, but more are expected for the 2009 session beginning in February, In the mean time, the League has taken the following position: The League supports the use of city administrative fines for local regulatory ordinances, such as building codes, zoning codes, health codes, and public nuisance ordinances. The League supports the use of city administrative fines, at a minimum, for regulatory !natters 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 councils, 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 violator, any reduction should be made from the surcharge and not the fine.