Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Administrative Hearings topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee forwards new citations and hearing‑procedure ordinance to public hearing; staff to align with existing blight/zoning process
Summary
The Ordinance Committee voted April 15 to send a proposed citywide citations and hearing‑procedure ordinance to public hearing. Staff said the proposal draws on existing due‑process procedures used by planning and zoning and blight officials and recommends attorney hearing officers for impartiality.
The Ordinance Committee on April 15 voted unanimously to send to public hearing a proposed ordinance establishing procedures for issuance of citations and administrative hearing processes.
Brian (committee staff) told members the proposed ordinance was drafted after consultation with Planning & Zoning and blight officials, who use an existing 7‑152c hearing process. Brian said the new process would not supplant those existing ordinances but would expand the availability of a 7‑152c‑style hearing for additional municipal citations, including certain health and property violations. He said the city recommends using an attorney as a citation‑hearing officer — much as planning and zoning and blight currently do — to preserve due process and avoid perceptions of internal bias because the hearing officer would be an independent legal reviewer.
Committee members discussed the practicalities of finding volunteer attorney hearing officers and noted the option of procurement or modest per‑diems if volunteer capacity is insufficient. Brian said the law department currently handles parking‑ticket hearings but that transferring the work to independent citation hearing officers would reduce potential conflicts of interest and preserve process integrity.
Members also asked about timing: several noted the statute that governs the hearing window includes a 12‑month limit for certain enforcement actions; Brian said that 12‑month period is set by the state statute (7‑152c) and cannot be shortened by the city ordinance though the enforcement agency can act sooner. Councilmember Nora Nadelski Eitner asked about the 30‑day appeal period to superior court; staff said they would review statutory language and consider whether a longer appeal window (for example, 45 days) should be recommended before the public hearing.
The committee voted to send the citations/hearing‑procedure ordinance to public hearing at the next meeting so the municipality can proceed with developing hearing‑officer panels and associated administrative processes.
