A dog rushes past its owner, runs out the door and bites a neighbor. An employer refuses to offer sick pay to his workers. A landlord fails to fix a broken toilet at the height of summer or hikes the rent, ignoring the city’s rent control regulations. A homeowner gets repeated warning letters for chipped paint. In each instance, officials with the city’s Department of Safety and Inspections or Human Rights and Equal Economic Opportunity have found themselves at a loss for how to respond effectively when outreach fails. Filing criminal charges can be an onerous, pricey and time-consuming process that takes months, even years, to resolve, without necessarily correcting the underlying behavior, and it can leave a damaging paper trail for all involved. Most cities in the metro exercise some right to impose administrative citations, or non-criminal fines aimed at those who violate city ordinances. With the limited exceptions of parking tickets or business, tobacco and alcohol license suspensions, St. Paul officials have no such authority under the city charter. The city council’s efforts to amend the St. Paul city charter in recent years have repeatedly run aground, with critics voicing fears that city inspectors will attempt to balance cash-strapped departmental budgets by issuing pricey citations for mundane concerns, such as tall weeds and chipped paint. Many of those citations could land in low-income, high minority neighborhoods with the fewest resources to pay them, and in a city as old as St. Paul, many homes have some visible wear and tear. Earlier this week, the St. Paul Charter Commission took up the question of a charter amendment for the third time in seven years. This time, officials with DSI, HREEO, St. Paul Public Works and the city attorney’s office arrived with a lengthy presentation outlining how administrative citations may help gain compliance with city ordinances in any number of scenarios, without unduly burdening all involved. “I think it comes down to whether or not we want the status quo, or do we want new tools,” said DSI director Angie Wiese. addressing the room. 69 dog owners seek expungement In their presentation, DSI, HREEO and Public Works officials listed 15 areas where administrative citations could be “used to achieve better results,” from dogs at large to construction work completed without proper permits, rent control violations, the city’s new wage theft ordinance and illicit discharges to storm and sanitary sewers. Wiese noted there are 69 participants in the ETHOS program who have sought to have their criminal histories expunged in the last four years due to dog bite convictions alone. In one particular case, the family dog ran past a single mom attempting to get her kids out the door and bit a person in the hallway. She was issued a criminal citation, which raised the possibility of eviction. The mother was able to get the case expunged, but the court process left her feeling like a criminal, Wiese said. In another case, a dog owner was arrested on a warrant and spent two hours in jail after failing to make a court appearance they seemed oblivious to. In yet another case, a bus driver lost their job after learning they had been cited for not painting their house in a timely manner. Efforts to amend the charter to allow for administrative citations withered in 2018 and again in 2021, when the charter commission voted 7-6 against an amendment. Turnover on the commission has since changed its make-up, but some commissioners on Wednesday still seemed unconvinced. If the charter amendment is approved by the Charter Commission and then the city council, the council would gain wide latitude to alter city ordinances and craft citations as they choose, ordinance by ordinance, following a public hearing process for each rule change. Supporters, skeptics weigh in As such, it’s still not clear which ordinances will be amended to allow for administrative citations, and how much the fines would amount to. Would a repeat violation for tall grass net the city $50 or $500? Would the citation be issued upon the renter, the homeowner or the property manager? “In essence, we would be giving the city council full rein to make up those policies as they see fit,” said Charter Commission member Maisue Thao, who voted against the amendment in 2021. “We don’t have all the specifics,” Thao added later. “I am concerned about that. It feels like it’s the same conversation we were having three or four years ago.” The Charter Commission hearing drew comments from three audience members, two of whom were opposed to amending the charter and one of whom was supportive. The hearing will continue on Dec. 12, when the Charter Commission could vote to approve, deny or further amend the proposed language. “Criminal citations … can lead to high stakes consequences for lower-level offenses,” said Yvonne Cournoyer, an East Side resident and organizer with the progressive interfaith organization ISAIAH. “Administrative citations give the city leverage to resolve these situations more quickly.” Attorney Patricia Hartmann, who also was in the audience, said she was worried about giving the council leeway to create new fines when the city could just alter the tools it already has. “It looks like you’re giving an awful lot of power, just building an atomic bomb, when tweaking a fly swatter would do,” Hartmann said. If the Charter Commission supports the charter amendment, the question goes to the city council, which must vote unanimously to support a charter amendment for it to be approved. Otherwise, supporters can attempt to get the proposed amendment before city voters on a public ballot. Support from mayor, majority of city council St. Paul Mayor Melvin Carter and a majority of the city council have voiced support for the charter amendment. Council President Mitra Jalali has likened the city’s existing menu of options for errant property owners to an all-or-nothing approach. The city can send out a firmly-worded but otherwise toothless letter of concern, or the city council can revoke the building’s certificate of occupancy, which could leave occupants homeless. Otherwise, if the sidewalk is slick with ice or the lawn weeds have grown too tall, the city can contract a crew to handle the work, and then charge the property owner for the abatement. Along similar lines, if a neglected property appears uninhabitable, the city can issue reinspection fees to update a fire certificate of occupancy, but that too is a fee for service, not a penalty for non-compliance. Related Articles Local News | St. Paul ‘Truth in Taxation’ hearing scheduled Monday, but Carter and city council are still $6 million apart Local News | With time running out, St. Paul City Council asks mayor to cut up to $6 million from 2025 budget proposal Local News | St. Paul City Council delays vote again on funding ‘Familiar Faces’ rooming house conversion Local News | St. Paul City Council votes to increase franchise fees for Xcel Energy Local News | Funding, zoning questions dog St. Paul ‘Familiar Faces’ homeless project on Marshall Avenue