Laserfiche WebLink
administrative fines related to property or zoning violations. While reviewing administrative <br />fine programs, staff also reviewed programs that address the excessive use of city services <br />related to property and zoning code violations. These excessive use programs allow cities to <br />collect special charges to cover the cost of inspections related to violations. Staff is requesting <br />feedback from the City Council on both programs. <br />Settin! Goals and Priorities <br />Before continuing, it is important to examine what the City Council would like to get out of an <br />administrative fine or excessive use of city services program. The goals of the program will help <br />dictate the type of program that might be implemented by the City. The programs described in <br />this memo have different strengths, weaknesses, benefits, and costs. Determining which tools <br />will work best will depend on the goals and priorities of the City. What are the City's goals for <br />an administrative fine program? What results are desired? What is the best and most cost <br />effective method for achieving those results? <br />Code Violation Trends <br />To help put these programs into context, it is helpful to review code violation trends. There were <br />292 complaints registered in the first three quarters of 2009. The majority of the complaints had <br />to do with improper parking of vehicles, which includes recreational vehicles and street parking. <br />Other complaints had to do with objectionable weed and grass growth and property maintenance <br />issues. By comparison there were a total of 398 registered complaints in the first three quarters <br />of 2008, though 146 of those complaints were from one person. <br />In 2008, there were a total of 491 code enforcement cases involving 509 issues. The majority of <br />those pending cases were unresolved parking of vehicles, recreational vehicle (RV) storage <br />issues, and situations that require continued monitoring. In 2007 there were a total of 191 code <br />enforcement cases involving 255 issues. In 2006, there were a total of 325 issues of which some <br />properties had more than one issue. The majority of those code enforcement cases are for <br />parking issues (too many vehicles and/or parking on lawns), garbage container location, <br />drainage/erosion control, animal control, and unmaintained lawns. <br />An estimated 80 percent of complaints are resolved upon first contact with the property owner. <br />Most of the remaining 20 percent are resolved with a second phone call or notice, and it is not <br />uncommon for a few of those properties to fall back out of compliance over time. A very small <br />number of properties refuse to comply or stay in compliance, and it is those properties that are <br />issued citations. Due to the ongoing nature of their violation, they tend to draw attention from <br />the neighborhood and require an inordinate amount of staff resources. In 2009, 13 properties had <br />violations that resulted in citations, which compares to six in 2008. The increase in 2009 is <br />largely attributable to a stronger code enforcement policy. <br />City of Arden Hills <br />City Council Work Session for December 21, 2009 <br />C.•IDocuments and Settings lbecky. brazys lLocal Settings) Temporary Internet FilesDLK15F112-21-09 - Work Session - Admin Fines and <br />Excessive Consumption.doc <br />Page 2 of 6 <br />