May 23, 2010

Alderman looks to overhaul UNIT's inspection fees

If you don't shovel your sidewalks or throw away your garbage, the city's building inspectors or members of the UNIT can charge you a $50 inspection fee. But there may not be any city ordinance that allows the fee. 

That's what one City Council member is alleging in an effort to overhaul how UNIT violations are assessed.

Alderman Eric Marcus wants to create a system that gives property owners a chance to get first-time UNIT violations waived for failing to shovel snow or property throw away garbage if the violation are promptly corrected. 

In a letter to Mayor John Dickert and the City Council, Marcus said the city's current system isn't defined in its municipal code. City law allows inspectors to issue citations, but not inspection fees, Marcus said. 

"I have received several concerns from property owners in my district about inspection fees being assessed without being given an opportunity to promptly comply with the Code," Marcus wrote on May 13. 

He added: "... there is no ordinance that provides for the $50 inspection fee that can be assessed by the Building Department."  

Marcus wants to pass an ordinance that creates an  inspection fee for people who don't shovel their sidewalks or pickup their garbage. But it would also create a one-time pass if they clean up the violation within 24 hours of receiving notice, and they haven't had a violation within the past year. 

Marcus's proposal would also create an appeals system for any inspection fee, first to the Chief Building Inspector, second to the Commissioner of Public Works and third to the Common Council. 

"Please note this would not affect the right to issue a citation if the property owner has violated the ordinance more than once during the previous year," Marcus wrote. 

The council's Public Works Committee is scheduled to take up the ordinance at its meeting on Wednesday.

20 comments:

  1. There is no way Dickert will go for this. It is free money for him to spend on real estate deals.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Good work. My 87 year-old neighbor got a fee from the ice-police less than a day after a wet snowstorm, and there was no way to even appeal to the better senses of the unresponsive bureacrats who answered the phone. "SIR, and she will just have to monitor her walks better next time, SIR. SIR we have to have rules, SIR."

    ReplyDelete
  3. That is why I don't live in the city. Seriously!

    ReplyDelete
  4. Once, I got the "letter" for not shoveling when we had less than an inch of snow. I got the letter with the ticket in it (for $75), and the letter stated that I had 24 hours from receipt of the letter to clean it up - within 12 hours, they were there to shovel it and to try to charge me again. That's where they need to also learn some consistency in application of any ordinance and how to read a freakin' clock.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Good to have someone with a law degree on the City Council!

    ReplyDelete
  6. Is this why Helding wants backyard chickens, so his UNIT can write more fines.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Another "inspection" fee? I already have hundreds of $ tacked on to my property tax bill for a business for annual inspections and the only inspections I get are two visits from the FD, lasting about 2 minutes each. If you call the unit to complain about neighbors make sure your property is spotless, they like to issue tickets to places that complain. A complaint makes them do their job and they don't like that!

    ReplyDelete
  8. This, along with fees, extreme real estate taxes, horrible government, et.al. was the reason I moved from the City of Racine to an adjacent community.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Apologies to anyone who commented on this post earlier. We're switching to a new comment system and what we thought would happen, didn't happen. So, we had to reset things and lost some of the latest comments in the process.

    ReplyDelete
  10. I hate too much government but I do support this, slobs should not get away with either of these two issues. If you can't remove your garbage or clean your walk - find another place to live.

    ReplyDelete
  11. The UNIT is funded by fees. No fees no UNIT. Therefore they will fight this internally. The UNIT and the groups uber manager Jones has way too much power in Racine.

    Talk to an alderman and find out how fast they don't want to challenge Jones and the UNIT.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Thanks for looking into this Eric. But let's not kid ourselves about these "fees." They are fines masquerading as fees. If these were actually fees, wouldn't there be fees for inspections where violations are not found? The reason the city calls these fines instead of fees is so they can circumvent the traditional appeals process. Instead of appealing to the judiciary, in your proposal, the appeal goes to the executive and legislative branches, both of which arguably have a financial interest in collecting fees, thus creating a conflict of interest. Separation of powers works just fine in our constitution, why not do the same here in Racine?

    ReplyDelete
  13. Good to hear, The unit set up is a mess. We should not be trying to support a department based on fining our citizens. There are better and more economical ways to get the city cleaned up. Why should we be paying all those inspectors?

    ReplyDelete
  14. I appreciate Alderman Marcus' efforts to regularize the system, and his proposal makes sense, but I also agree with Denis. Warning, then citation rather than fines masquerading as fees.

    ReplyDelete
  15. kate remington5/24/2010 7:18 PM

    I agree with Denis, too. Also, why not revisit the BID#1 and direct funds to a snow removing machine ambassador to business during the snow and ice season rather than paper picking or even better revisit the allocations in toto regarding BID#1 which have not been revised and have wasted property owners' dollars since its inception. Instead of terrorizing property owners, the city and especially the BID #1 allocations could be helping the abused property owner in downtown rather than harassing the property owner who incredible as it may seems goes somewhere other than Racine for his and her sanity for a few days and it snows! What is the BID #1 for anyway? Isn't supposed to help us? I'd rather have my money back thank you if it cannot be better spent. I also think it is outrageous to charge people fifty dollars!

    ReplyDelete
  16. On our block there is a walkway to the next block, because the block is long. We use this year round. In winter we can no longer use it because it is full of snow and ice. We called the city asking why it is no longer plowed, and the answer was WE DON'T HAVE THE MONEY TO CLEAR IT ANYMORE!! This is city property, and many times we see a small plow go passed at the end of the block to plow the park sidewalk up the street. Will the city be required to meet the same requirements as the property owners or just ignore it like other DO AS I SAY NOT DO AS I DO! mentality in this city.

    ReplyDelete
  17. I appreciate this opportunity to let the community know what this ordinance is about. As noted in the article, I do not see any ordinance on the books today that provides for the $50 "inspection fee" many of us -- including me -- have been assessed. Further, there is no ordinance that allows us to appeal the fee.

    The current ordinance only allows a citation to be issued and like a traffic ticket, you can fight that. How do you fight an"inspection fee"? I initially proposed an ordinance that would give property owners a warning every time they are found in violation of the snow clearance, waste and grass code sections with an opportunity to fix the situation in a timely manner. The Chief Building Inspector felt that this would return the City to serious public safety problems that had previously been the case.

    I agreed to change the proposed ordinance to give property owners one warning a year (by written notice) before assessing the fee they are currently assessing without a warning. The proposed ordinance also provides three levels of appeal of the fee.

    I believe that government should be transparent and if fees are going to be charged we should know about them, have a chance to challenge them at a Council hearing before they are enacted and be able to appeal any assessment. Would I prefer to see warnings always issued - yes - but I am also concerned that abuses could lead to people getting hurt. I think this is a fair compromise.

    The courts reviewed a Milwaukee "re-inspection" ordinance and held that the fee could be charged if it actually was tied to the costs of the inspection and not merely revenue generating. It is certainly my hope that the City will not argue that it needs these fees for revenue generation as I do not believe (just my opinion) that the Courts would permit it. (Court of Appeals case can be found at http://www.wisbar.org/res/capp/2006p/2005AP002630.pdf)

    I strongly suggest that those who support or oppose this ordinance or feel it should be revised let their Alderman know, speak at any scheduled public hearings (check the city website to make sure you know when the actual public hearing is being held) and/or speak at the public comment time at an upcoming Common Council meeting.

    As to Denis' comment about an appeal to the courts (1) I believe that is still permitted by law - thus the Court of Appeals case cited above) and (2) I think it may be expensive and time consuming to go to court and I am hopeful that the proposed appeal will be less costly, and easier. If it does not work out that way (and I would like to give it a chance) I am prepared to introduce a revision to the ordinance - if it passes - to change to an immediate municipal court appeal.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Mr. Marcus,

    Well reasoned, sir. Thank you.

    ReplyDelete
  19. 10:57, I don't get your comments. No one's arguing for all the rules to be repealed, just for a reasonable appeals process and a government agency that a) isn't incentivized to find fault where there is none, b) makes sure the city clears walks in the way they make us do it, and c) actually follows the 24-hour rule.

    I (11:53, yesterday) would also like someone to give our bureacrats a seminar on how to talk to PEOPLE. They weren't listening to what I said, and just kept repeating the same, non-responsive lines. I wasn't loud, mad, or anything, and I got that verbal hand-in-the-face. It was like the "phone company" commercials from SNL in the 70s.

    Alderman Marcus, I live in your district. Good work; this is what I want to see from my elected officials. I hope you keep it up.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Several things bother me about UNIT: a) no forethought or consideration to circumstances are given before a citation and its corresponding inspection fee (i.e. fine) are imposed. If your grass (or a weed) gets over 9" tall, you get a ticket and possible fee. But, the street Nazis that ticket you don't stop to think that it's been raining for two weeks straight and the lawn needs time to dry out before it can be mowed. They don't bother to find out if someone living in a house is too old or infirm or ill before citing them for a snow covered walk. All they are interested in is writing citations and imposing fees to insure their next pay check. That it unethical, and I do believe unconstitutional. It is a definite conflict of interest. Look at the thinking behind the inspectors, “If I don’t charge enough inspection fees this month there may not be enough money to pay my salary next month. I’d better write as many citations as I can and charge as many inspection fees as I can to insure that I get paid.” What a crock of BS!!!!!

    ReplyDelete