RULES & REGULATIONS REVIEW COMMITTEE
2.	REVIEW AND DEVELOP RECOMMENDATION TO THE BOARD ON THE FINE SCHEDULE ASSOCIATED WITH DRAFT ORDINANCE NO. 133 – AMENDING THE DISTRICT’S PROCESS TO ENFORCE DISTRICT RULES AND REGULATIONS.
Meeting Date:		May 12, 2008	Budgeted:	N/A
From:		Darby Fuerst,	Program/	N/A
		General Manager	Line Item No.:
Prepared By:		David Laredo,	Cost Estimate:
		General Counsel
General Counsel Approval: Yes
CEQA Compliance: N/A

SUMMARY: The Board has referred to the Rules & Regulations Review Committee review of a fine schedule proposed for use in connection with the draft Administrative Enforcement Ordinance.

RECOMMENDATION: The Rules & Regulations Review Committee should review and make its recommendation on the draft fine schedule (Exhibit 2-A) and the draft implementing resolution (Exhibit 2-B). These matters are to be presented to the Board for adoption at its May 19, 2008 meeting, providing it chooses to enact the Administrative Enforcement Ordinance on second reading.

BACKGROUND: As a Strategic Objective from May 21, 2007, the Board directed staff and counsel to explore more efficient and practicable options available to the District to enforce its Rules and Regulations. Following extensive review, the Board unanimously approved the first reading of the Administrative Enforcement Ordinance at its April 21, 2008 meeting. Upon adoption on second reading, this ordinance shall implement an administrative enforcement process as allowed by Government Code Section 53069.4. Individual Board Members shall serve, in rotation, as hearing officers except for rare circumstances which will be referred to an administrative law judge (ALJ) through the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH) in accord with Government Code Section §27727.

One provision of the Administrative Enforcement Ordinance enacts Rule 113.1 which, among other things, confers authority upon the Board to adopt a resolution establishing and periodically amending the fines required to implement the administrative enforcement process. The ordinance requires the schedule of fines to specify increased fines for repeat violations of the same provision by the same person within twelve (12) months from the date of the citation or order.

Staff has proposed that the majority of fines (except for water rationing fines, discussed below) be consistent with penalties for violating non-serious state laws. Staff previously contacted the Monterey County Superior Court Administrator for assistance in determining the most appropriate and reasonable penalty amounts related to the Administrative Enforcement Ordinance. The court administrator recommended that the District refer to the Uniform Bail and Penalty Schedule (UBP Schedule) that provides guidance in setting penalties and bail forfeitures for first offenses involving violations of a less serious nature, such as those involving traffic, boating, forestry, fish and game, public utilities, parks and recreation, and business licensing (California Rules of Court, Rule 4.102, January 2007 edition). The proposed fine amounts, as shown in the draft fine schedule (Exhibit 2-A) set the “minimum total bail” amount at $150, the second violation fine in a one-year period would double to $300; and the third or more violations in a one-year period are set at $750. The Board may adjust these fines by subsequent resolution. The fine schedule sets the charge for payment of a fine after its due date at 10% of the fine if not paid within thirty (30) days of the date it is due, an additional 10% if not paid within forty-five (45) days of the date it is due, and thereafter an additional 100% of fine for each 12 months (or fraction thereof) during which payment was delayed. Interest as provided in Rule 115.3 on the delinquent fine and late payment charge accrues after 30 days.

Water rationing fines are treated differently, in accord with the proposal set forth for Rule 175 in draft Ordinance 134. The water rationing schedule incorporates the fine table (Rule 175) that increases fines based on (1) the level of water reduction required, (2) size of meter, and (3) number of violations within a twelve month period. This proposal is consistent with other water jurisdictions. By way of example, a violation that occurs through a 1" or less sized meter at Stage 5 would receive a courtesy notice.  No fine is imposed if the violator complies during the next month following the excess use.  After that, the second violation would cost $20 plus the deferred amount ($20).  The same meter size in Stage 6 after the courtesy notice would be $25 plus the deferred amount ($25).  Fines for third and fourth offenses are double the second offense amount in each stage with the added enforcement mechanism of flow restrictor installation. This approach emphasizes the growing importance of avoiding violations as the water supply becomes more perilous.

Graduated water rationing fines are as follows, according to Rationing Stage:

STAGE 5

Meter Size	1^st Offense	2^nd Offense	3^rd Offense	4^th Offense
1” and Less	Courtesy Notice	$20	$40	$40
>1” to 2”	Courtesy Notice	$40	$80	$80
> 2”	Courtesy Notice	$80	$160	$160

STAGE 6

Meter Size	1^st Offense	2^nd Offense	3^rd Offense	4^th Offense
1” and Less	Courtesy Notice	$25	$50	$50
>1” to 2”	Courtesy Notice	$50	$100	$100
> 2”	Courtesy Notice	$100	$200	$200

STAGE 7

Meter Size	1^st Offense	2^nd Offense	3^rd Offense	4^th Offense
1” and Less	Courtesy Notice	$50	$100	$100
>1” to 2”	Courtesy Notice	$100	$200	$200
> 2”	Courtesy Notice	$200	$400	$400

With respect to water rationing violations, the District must ensure that the proposed fines for both Ordinances 133 and 134 are consistent. Staff has made this assessment and concurs with the recommendation.

EXHIBITS

2-A Draft Schedule of Fines - Attachment One to Resolution No. 2008-08

2-B Draft Resolution Resolution No. 2008-08 - A Resolution of the Board of Directors of the Monterey Peninsula Water Management District Establishing Rule 113.1, Schedule of Fines

U:\staff\word\committees\RulesRegsReview\2008\20080512\02\item2.doc