CC_Minutes_2006_1204 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

May 3, 2006 Page 5 of6 the parties or those in privity with them from re-litigating issues that were or could have been raised in that action. See,~, Allen v. McCurrv, 449 U.S. 90 (1980). In Minnesota, our courts have held that principles of res judicata applied to actions by administrative agencies. See,~, Hough Transit, Ltd. v. Harig, 373 N.W.2d 327 (Minn. App. 1985). Certainly these principles, whether they are stated as res judicata, collateral estoppel, or law of the case, could be raised in a proceeding in front of the City Council. All of the above are theories that could be raised in any proceeding in which the City Council were to revisit the issue of the sanctions imposed by City Manager Beets on the three entities in question in the Fall of2005. Not one of them may be successful. On the other hand, and depending upon the facts that were to come out at any hearing, one or a combination of them could be successful. I therefore think that the City Council should consider what type of arguments might be raised in any proceeding that might be held as to these three past violations. The penalties that were imposed by City Manager Beets deviated from those set forth as the "presumed penalty" under Code Section 302.15 insofar as the one day suspension of a license. Therefore, ~vVhat the City Council1night be considering \vould be \vhether to do a license suspension. Under the provisions of State law, any suspension or revocation has to be accompanied by an opportunity for the license holder to request a contested case hearing under the provisions of the Administrative Procedures Act before an independent hearing officer. All of these legal arguments then come into play and might be put before an independent hearing officer. The final item I want the Council to keep in mind when they make a decision on this is whether or not the cost of such proceedings is a factor they want to consider. Interjecting the above issues into contested case proceedings, with briefings, legal arguments, etc., let alone the fact that the three license holders could each request contested case hearings, could conceivably run the cost of imposing further penalties anywhere in the range of$15,000 to $30,000. Furthermore, keep in mind that an independent hearing officer can determine that the nature of the violation does not warrant a penalty of suspension of a license for a day, even ifit is the "presumed" penalty set forth by an Ordinance. Mitigating factors could be present that an independent hearing officer could take into account. One final matter of law should be brought to your attention. Minn. Stat. S 340AA15, dealing with civil penalties, has within it the following statement: Imposition of a penalty or suspension by either the issuing authority or the commissioner does not preclude imposition of an additional penalty or suspension by the other so long as the total penalty or suspension does not exceed the stated maximum.