Laserfiche WebLink
subscribers or have at least 400 copies <br />distributed without charge to local residents. <br />As technology has evolved, citizens have <br />become more accustomed to the <br />instantaneous availability of online <br />information. Because cities are committed to <br />providing information to citizens and <br />responding to this demand, they have <br />invested heavily in their websites and in <br />growing a robust online presence. They <br />survey citizens about what method of <br />communication is preferred and based on <br />this, cities update, reform, evolve, and <br />advance communication tools and often, <br />they do so with limited means and resources <br />to ensure citizens have access to information <br />about their city. <br />Because of the publishing mandate outlined <br />in state statute, cities continue to publish in <br />newspapers with limited resources while <br />simultaneously providing information to <br />citizens in the format they actually demand: <br />online. These requirements originated in <br />1949 and to ensure the original intent of the <br />law — providing citizens access to their local <br />government — it is time to eliminate these <br />outdated requirements and make <br />communicating with citizens more efficient. <br />Response: The Legislature should <br />eliminate outdated and unnecessary <br />publication requirements that are no <br />longer relevant or representative of the <br />technology we now have that has <br />significantly increased access to <br />government. Cities should have the <br />authority to: <br />a) Determine whether web publication <br />should replace or supplement <br />newspaper publication based on the <br />unique needs of each community. <br />b) Designate an appropriate publication <br />that reaches the maximum number of <br />citizens possible. <br />c) Use alternative means of <br />communication to fulfill statutory <br />requirements such as city newsletters, <br />cable television, video streaming, e- <br />mail, blogs and city websites. <br />d) Expand the use of summaries where <br />information is technical or lengthy. <br />e) Publish and provide public access to <br />local codes of ordinances on a website <br />accessible to the public and to post <br />revisions and changes to city codes, <br />resolutions, and rules on the city <br />website, when feasible. <br />SD-16. Administrative Fines for <br />Code Violations <br />Issue: Many statutory and home rule charter <br />cities have implemented administrative <br />enforcement programs for violations of local <br />regulatory ordinances such as building <br />codes, zoning codes, health codes, and <br />public nuisance ordinances. This use of <br />administrative proceedings has kept <br />enforcement at the local level and reduced <br />pressure on over -burdened district court <br />systems. Cities using administrative <br />enforcement processes experience a lower <br />cost of enforcement and a quicker resolution <br />to code violations. <br />Minnesota statutes expressly provide the <br />authority for all cities to utilize <br />administrative enforcement of local codes <br />and enforcement of liquor license and <br />tobacco license violations. <br />In 2009, the Legislature amended Minn. <br />Stat. ch. 169, the chapter of law pertaining <br />to state traffic regulations, to allow cities <br />and counties to issue administrative citations <br />for certain minor traffic offenses. Since the <br />passage of the 2009 administrative traffic <br />citations law, some people have questioned <br />whether administrative citations for non - <br />traffic, liquor, and tobacco license code <br />violations can be legally issued by statutory <br />League of Minnesota Cities <br />2015 City Policies Page 10 <br />