Potential 2018 Legislative Policy Positions Intergovernmental - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

CITY OF MINNEAPOLIS

Potential 2018 Legislative Policy Positions

Intergovernmental Relations Committee, 10-26-17

1

October 26, 2017

Departmental Presentations

• Enhanced Driving After Revocation based on

impaired driving offense license revocation (City Attorney's Office, Criminal)

• Fix to restitution expungement hearings in

light of State V. Willis (City Attorney's Office, Criminal)

• Preparing for new transportation technologies

(Public Works)

• Clarifying tax increment financing pooling laws

(Finance/CPED Housing)

2

Presentation 1:

Enhanced Driving After Revocation based on impaired driving offense license revocation (City Attorney's Office, Criminal)

3

Enhanced Driving after Revocation (DAR):

Creating a higher penalty for driving during the revocation period of an impaired driving conviction.

Enhanced Driving After Revocation - 4

Proposal

• Create a gross misdemeanor driving after

revocation (DAR) offense if the revocation is based

• n an impaired driving offense and the individual

violates during the period of the “hard” revocation.

Enhanced Driving After Revocation - 5

Why is this important?

• Put some teeth into the administrative penalties

associated with DWIs.

• In Hennepin County the violation would be a

payable offense punishable with a fine.

• Exception: If a prosecutor files a formal complaint to

bring it into the court system as a misdemeanor.

• Encourage use of Ignition Interlock.

Enhanced Driving After Revocation - 6

“Hard” revocation times for DWI/Refusal Convictions

Effective July 1 st, 2011

0.08 BAC/Drug 0.16 BAC Test Refusal Revoked (no rehab requirements, no ignition interlock requirements, no implied consent revocation) Limited license (15 day wait, 18 years or older) No limited license Limited license (15 day wait, 18 years or older) 1st incident on record 30 days (180 days for under age 21) 1 year 90 days (180 days for under age 21) 2nd incident on record with the first one over 10 years old Revoked (special review required, no rehab requirements, no ignition interlock requirements) No limited license No limited license No limited license 2nd incident on record in 10 years 1 year 2 years 1 year 3rd incident on record with one over 10 years old 3rd incident on record with two over 10 years old All the above have the option of being reinstated with installation of ignition interlock device for the withdrawal period specified if 18 years of age or older. Canceled and Denied as Inimical to Public Safety (rehab required, ignition interlock required) 3rd incident on record in 10 years 3 years 3 years 3 years 4th incident on record with first 3 over 10 years old 4th incident on record with last 2 over 10 years old 4th incident on record in 10 years 4 years 4 years 4 years 5th incident or subsequent incident on record 6 years 6 years 6 years

Enhanced Driving After Revocation - 7

What would not be affected

• No enhanced penalty for:
• Driving after suspension or cancellation
• i.e. couldn’t pay fines or fees
• Failing to reinstate license after revocation period
• The “soft” revocation
• Driving after being revoked for insurance violations, hit

& run, etc.

Enhanced Driving After Revocation - 8

Presentation 2:

Fix to restitution and expungement hearings in light

• f State V. Willis

(City Attorney's Office, Criminal)

9

Modification of Restitution and Expungement Hearings:

Why the Rules of Evidence should not apply in these hearings.

Restitution and Expungement Hearings - 10

What happened?

• In State v. Willis the Minnesota Supreme Court

decided that the rules of evidence now apply to restitution hearings because they are not specifically enumerated in the list of miscellaneous proceedings where the rules do not apply. See, Rule 1101(b)(3).

• Previously courts had interpreted that a restitution

hearing was part of a sentencing hearing, which is listed under 1101(b)(3) as an exception to the rules. Now that we know they Courts are going to strictly interpret the list we anticipate the rules of evidence will also apply to expungement hearings.

State v. Willis, 898 N.W.2d 642 (Minn. 2017)

Restitution and Expungement Hearings - 11

Why is this important in the restitution context?

Justice McKeig, Minnesota Supreme Court (Dissenting):

• “Accordingly, I respectfully dissent from the majority’s

decision, which misinterprets Rule 1101(b) in a manner that will prove burdensome to parties, victims, and district courts.”

• “Parties and district courts will be forced to stretch

their resources even thinner to accommodate restitution trials. And victims who have often endured traumatic violence at the hands of the defendant will be required to face their aggressors to testify, not only at trial, but again at a restitution trial.”

Restitution and Expungement Hearings - 12

The practical considerations

• A great deal of the evidence used by the State on

behalf of victim’s seeking restitution will now be inadmissible.

• EXAMPLES:
• Victim does not wish to face their accuser again and

wishes to submit their claim by affidavit will now be forced to come to Court.

• A victim who comes to testify would be precluded

from introducing an estimate from a repair company to show their damages. Such a document is hearsay, and now inadmissible.

Restitution and Expungement Hearings - 13

Why is this important in the expungement context?

• For the State:
• When someone applies for an expungement the State

would no longer be able to introduce a copy of the

• riginal police report to argue against the expungement
• f a criminal record. Such evidence would be hearsay.
• For the Petitioner:
• A Petitioner would be unable to introduce letters of

support or letters from prospective employers to show adverse impact and thus the necessity for the

• expungement. Such evidence would be hearsay.

Restitution and Expungement Hearings - 14

The proposed fix:

• Adding the following language to Minn. Stat. 600A.03

(Petition to Expunge Criminal Records):

• The rules of Evidence other than those with respect to

privileges do not apply in expungement hearings.

• Adding the following language to Minn. Stat. 611A.045

(Procedure for Issuing Order of Restitution):

• The rules of Evidence other than those with respect to

privileges do not apply in restitution hearings.

Restitution and Expungement Hearings - 15

Questions?

CONTACT INFORMATION: Chris Dixon Supervising Attorney – Criminal Division christopher.dixon@minneapolismn.gov (612) 673-2240

16

Presentation 3:

Preparing for new transportation technologies (Public Works)

17

Changing Transportation Technologies

(Public Works)

• The City should request that the state examine local

needs when considering any modifications to state legislation to accommodate automated and connected vehicles.

• State legislation, if considered, should ensure that

local traffic laws are followed, and that performance and safety information is freely shared.

• Committees that have been formed, or will be

formed should include local representation from the City of Minneapolis.

Changing Transportation Technologies - 18

Changing Transportation Technologies

Changing Transportation Technologies - 19

Presentation 4:

Clarifying tax increment financing pooling laws (Finance/CPED Housing)

20

Clarifying Tax Increment Financing (TIF) Pooling Rules

(CPED Housing and Development Finance)

• TIF in Minnesota is governed by the TIF Act (M.S.

Section 469.174 – 469.1799).

• The Office of the State Auditor (“OSA”) is

responsible for overseeing the use of TIF.

• Spending TI revenue outside the boundaries of a

TIF district is referred to as “pooling”.

• From 2011-2017, $16.75M in TI revenue has been

contributed/pooled to the City’s Affordable Housing Trust Fund (AHTF).

Clarifying TIF Pooling Rules - 21

Clarifying TIF Pooling Rules (cont.)

• TIF Act states that up to 35% of TI from a

redevelopment TIF district may be pooled.

• City staff believes this is a cumulative test that is

performed once, when the TIF district is decertified (terminated).

• Under a new interpretation, OSA staff believes the

test must also be performed annually.

• A simple amendment is needed to the TIF Act to

clarify the TIF pooling rules, to specify that only the cumulative test is required.

Clarifying TIF Pooling Rules - 22

Clarifying TIF Pooling Rules - 23

Clarifying TIF Pooling Rules - 24

Impact to City of Minneapolis of Clarifying TIF Pooling Rules

• Currently projected that $15.87 million more TI

revenue could be contributed to City’s AHTF in 2019-2028 (10 years).

• Maximum assistance from AHTF is currently

$25,000 per apartment unit.

• At least 635 more affordable apartment units in

City could receive assistance from AHTF.

Clarifying TIF Pooling Rules - 25

Thank you!

26