Laserfiche WebLink
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 />cities given that state law does not expressly <br />provide authority on other code matters. <br />Response: The League of Minnesota <br />Cities continues to support the use of city <br />administrative fines for local regulatory <br />ordinances, such as building codes, zoning <br />codes, health codes, public nuisance <br />ordinances, and regulatory matters that <br />are not duplicative of misdemeanor or <br />higher-level state traffic and criminal <br />offenses. The Legislature should clarify <br />that both statutory and home rules <br />charter cities have the authority to issue <br />administrative citations for code <br />violations. Further, state statute should <br />allow statutory and home rule charter <br />cities to adjudicate administrative <br />citations and to assess a lien on properties <br />for unpaid administrative fines. <br />SD -16. Contracting and Purchasing <br />Issue: Minnesota statutes stipulate <br />contracting and purchasing requirements for <br />Minnesota cities. The law prescribes the <br />process political subdivisions must use to <br />make purchases and award contracts, and <br />requires a competitive sealed bid procedure <br />for contracts or purchases over $100,000. <br />The intent of these statutory requirements is <br />to provide taxpayers with the best value for <br />their dollar and ensure integrity in the <br />process. However, imposing these statutory <br />requirements may, at times, result in <br />political subdivisions paying more for goods <br />and services than private entities under the <br />same circumstances. <br />The Legislature recognized the benefits <br />associated with alternative purchasing <br />methods when it amended municipal <br />contracting law in 2004 to authorize the use <br />of reverse auctions to purchase supplies, <br />materials, and equipment. Similarly, other <br />contracting procedures, including "design - <br />build" and direct negotiation are proven <br />alternatives to the formal bidding process. <br />Authorizing broader use of these types of <br />alternatives as the Legislature did in 2009 by <br />authorizing a design -build pilot program, <br />would enhance the ability of cities to make <br />appropriate and fiscally responsible <br />purchasing decisions. <br />Response: The League of Minnesota <br />Cities supports broader use of alternative <br />contracting and purchasing methods that <br />streamline the process and reduce local <br />purchasing costs. Specifically, the League <br />supports authorizing cities to use the <br />design -build procedure and providing <br />municipalities with broader authority, <br />similar to that of private businesses, to <br />directly negotiate contracts. The <br />Legislature should establish a task force <br />to review municipal contracting laws, and <br />consider contracting and purchasing <br />League of Minnesota Cities <br />2016 City Policies Page 10 <br />