Sec. 15-75. Radios, phonographs, etc. on the public way.
No person shall play, use, operate
or permit to be played, used or operated any radio, tape recorder, cassette
player, device for receiving broadcast sound or reproducing recorded sound, or
any other sound amplification system if the device is located:
(1) On the public way; or
(2) In any motor vehicle on the public way;
and the
sound can be heard from 75 feet or more. This section does not apply to
authorized emergency vehicles. This section does not apply when such sound
amplification system is being operated to request assistance or warn of a
hazardous condition.
"Public way" means any and all streets, alleys,
sidewalks, boulevards and rights-of-way.
The minimum fine for a violation of
this section shall be $200.00.
(Ord. No. 14718, § 1, 4-27-99; Ord.
No. 15771, § 2, 5-17-05; Ord. No. 15922, § 1,
4-25-06)
The minimum fine for a violation of
Article III of this chapter, sections 15-61--15-75, shall be $200.00.
(Ord. No. 15400, § 2, 12-10-02)
Sec. 15-77. Vehicle
seizure and impoundment.
a) A
motor vehicle, operated with the permission, express or implied, of the owner
of record, that is used in violation of section 15-75 of this code shall be
subject to seizure and impoundment under this section. A motor vehicle used in
violation of section 15-75 of this Code shall be declared a public nuisance.
The owner of record of such vehicle shall be liable for the towing and storage
of the vehicle. For a second offense within a two-year period involving the
same vehicle, the owner of record of such vehicle shall be liable to the city
for a penalty of $250.00 in addition to fees for the towing and storage of the
vehicle; for a third or subsequent offense within a two-year period, the owner
of record of such vehicle shall be liable to the city for a penalty of $500.00
in addition to fees for the towing and storage of the vehicle.
(b) Whenever
a police officer has probable cause to believe that a vehicle is subject to
seizure and impoundment pursuant to this section, the police officer shall
provide for the towing of the vehicle to a facility controlled by the city or a
tow company from the rotation tow list set forth in Chapter 30 of this Code.
When the vehicle is towed, the police officer shall notify the person who is
found to be in control of the vehicle at the time of the alleged violation, if
there is such a person, of the fact of the seizure and of the vehicle owner's
right to request a preliminary hearing to be conducted under this section. Said
vehicle shall be impounded pending the completion of hearings provided for in
subsections (c) and (d) herein, unless the owner of the vehicle pays for the
towing and storage of the vehicle. For a second offense, said vehicle shall be
impounded pending the completion of hearings provided for in subsections (c)
and (d) herein, unless the owner of the vehicle posts with the city a cash bond
in the amount of $250.00, or, for a third or subsequent offense within a
two-year period, $500.00, plus fees for the towing and storage of the vehicle.
(c) Whenever
the owner of a vehicle seized pursuant to this section requests a preliminary
hearing within 24 hours after the seizure, a hearing officer of the city shall
conduct such preliminary hearing within 72 hours after said seizure. All
interested persons shall be given a reasonable opportunity to be heard at the
preliminary hearing. The formal rules of evidence will not apply at the hearing
and hearsay evidence shall be admissible. If, after the hearing, the hearing
officer determines that there is probable cause to believe that the vehicle,
operated with the permission, express or implied, of the owner, was used in the
commission of any crime set forth in this section, the hearing officer shall order
the continued impoundment of the vehicle as provided in this section unless the
owner of the vehicle posts with the city a cash bond in the amount of $250.00,
or, for a third or subsequent offense within a two-year period, $500.00, plus
fees for the towing and storage of the vehicle. If the hearing officer
determines that there is no such probable cause, the vehicle will be returned
without penalty or other fees.
(d) Within
ten days after a vehicle is seized and impounded pursuant to this section, the
city shall notify by certified mail, return receipt requested, the owner of
record at his/her last know address as indicated by the vehicle's registration
of his/her right to request a hearing before the hearing officer that will be
conducted to determine whether the subject vehicle is eligible for impoundment
pursuant to this section. However, no such notice need be sent to the owner of
record if the owner is personally served with the notice within ten days after
the vehicle is impounded, and the owner acknowledges receipt of the notice in
writing. The notice shall state the penalties that may be imposed if no hearing
is requested, including that a vehicle not released by payment of the penalty
and fees and remaining towing/storage facility may be sold or disposed of by
the city or the tow operator in accordance with applicable law. The owner of
record seeking a hearing must file a written request for a hearing with the
city legal department no later than 15 days after the notice was mailed or
otherwise given under this subsection. The hearing shall be scheduled and held
unless continued by order of the hearing officer, no later than 45 days after
the request for a hearing has been filed. All interested persons shall be given
a reasonable opportunity to be heard at the hearing. The formal rules of
evidence will not apply at the hearing, and hearsay evidence shall be
admissible. If, after the hearing, the hearing officer determines by a
preponderance of evidence that the vehicle was used in the commission of a
violation of section 15-75, the hearing officer shall enter an order requiring
the vehicle to continue to be impounded until the owner pays towing and storage
of the vehicle, or for a second offense, a penalty of $250.00, or, for a third
or subsequent offense within a two-year period, $500.00, plus fees for towing
and storage of the vehicle. The penalty and fees shall be a debt due and owing
the city. However, if a cash bond has been posted, the bond shall be applied to
the penalty. If the hearing officer determines that the vehicle was not used in
commission of such a violation, he/she shall order the return of the vehicle or
cash bond and the city shall be liable for towing and storage fees.
(e) Any
motor vehicle that is not reclaimed within 30 days after the expiration of the
time during which the owner of record may seek judicial review of the city's
action under this section, or the time at which a final judgment is rendered in
favor of the city, may be disposed of as an unclaimed vehicle as provided by
law. As used in this section, the "owner of record" of a vehicle
means the record title holder.
(f) Fees
for towing and storage of a vehicle under this section shall be the same as
those charged pursuant to section 30-298 of this Code.
(g) This
section shall not replace or otherwise abrogate any existing state or federal
laws or local ordinances pertaining to vehicle seizure and impoundment. Nothing
herein precludes prosecution for violation of section 15-75 in addition to or
in lieu of the procedures set forth in this section.
(h) Notwithstanding
any other provision of this section, whenever a person with a lien of record
against a vehicle impounded under this section has commenced foreclosure
proceedings, possession of the vehicle shall be given to that person if he/she
agrees in writing to refund to the city the net proceeds of any foreclosure
sale, less any amounts necessary to pay all lien holders of record, up to the
total amount of penalties and fees imposed under this subsection (a).
(Ord. No. 15922, § 2, 4-25-06)
Secs. 15-78--15-95. Reserved.
(06-161) Communication from the City Manager and Corporation Counsel
Requesting Adoption of an ORDINANCE Amending CHAPTER 15 of the Code of the City
of Peoria Relating to NOISE
and IMPOUNDMENT OF VEHICLES.
Corporation Counsel Randy Ray distributed a
replacement Ordinance to all members of the City Council.
Council Member Van Auken
explained the replacement Ordinance excluded motorcycle noise.
She said the proposed Ordinance addressed
music that was electronically magnified to a great extent. She said the
proposed Ordinance would encourage respect for others in neighborhoods, which
was the number one complaint she heard from her constituents.
City Manager Randy Oliver said two Council
Members had suggested a change to the proposed Ordinance that would impose a
$500 impoundment fee on a third offense that occurred in a two-year period, and
this was reflected in the replacement Ordinance.
Police Chief Settingsgaard said he had been
to a number of neighborhood association meetings and residents felt loud music
was a major issue. He said he would submit that no one would be cited or
impounded on their first offense of playing loud music. He added he felt
there were some problems with a warning system. He said it would be
difficult for an Officer to know if a warning had been issued for a particular
driver, and whether or not there would be a conviction for the offense.
He said it would also require an Officer to determine if the driver had a criminal
history. He said he was not a supporter of issuing warnings. He
said the proposed compromise resolved some of the concerns. He said the
compromise was that the vehicle
would be impounded, but there would be no impound fee on the first offense, and the driver
would pay the towing fee or storage fee. He said a check for prior
offenses would be conducted when the driver came to claim their vehicle.
APRIL 25,
2006
CITY COUNCIL PROCEEDINGS
27485
Police Chief Settingsgaard said clearly the
enforcement of loud music would impact young people, males, and
African-American males. He said currently 75% of the citations issued
were to African-Americans, 85% of the citations issued for loud music were to
males, and 75% were for people less than 28 years of age. He explained
the process further and he said the end result was that people received
warrants because they did not take care of the citation and failed to appear
for court hearings, etc. He said the outcome of this neglect to the
citation could result in a warrant for the person’s arrest. He said the
person could be stopped for another reason and, because there was a warrant,
would be arrested. He said, if the person did not show up for court
again, the cycle would continue.
Police Chief Settingsgaard said, if the City was an advocate for the young in
Council Member Turner said the Council had
increased fines for noise problems in the past, but he said he did not feel the
noise ordinance had been aggressively enforced. He said he wanted to make
sure the Ordinance was taken seriously and enforced aggressively.
Council Member Sandberg expressed concern
that not all the current laws had been explored that could directly affect the
behavior of those violating the noise Ordinance. He said he felt impounding a vehicle was too harsh of a
punishment for an Ordinance violation.
City Manager Randy Oliver said the proposed
Ordinance had already been held constitutional by the Federal Court in this
jurisdiction.
In discussion with Council Member Gulley
regarding how it would be determined that the Ordinance was being violated,
Police Chief Settingsgaard said the determination would be made the same way it
had always been handled. He said, under the current Ordinance which
specified a distance of 50 feet, there had not been complaints that there was
over-enforcement by the Police. He said the vehicles, which were
currently being stopped for loud music, were at much greater sound levels than
what could be heard well beyond 50 feet or 75 feet. He said this was not
about the faint sound of music. He said this discussion was about music
played so loud the sound rattled windows and caused vibration. He said,
in these cases, usually the base sound was audible at a much greater distance
than the 75 feet specification.
In discussion with Police Chief
Settingsgaard, Council Member Nichting requested a
report back regarding the number of outstanding warrants there were in the
community for the issue of loud music. He said the City relied on the
Judicial System, but adoption of the proposed Ordinance would allow the City to
control and hopefully change the behavior of these individuals who disturbed
neighborhoods with loud music.
In discussion with Council Member Grayeb regarding the change from 50 feet to 75 feet, Corporation Counsel Randy Ray said that 75 feet was
not mandated and the City would have Home Rule authority. He said the
Council Member Grayeb
expressed concern that Police Officers, who were already over-burdened with
enforcements, would have a disincentive to impound on the first offense. He said he
was concerned there would be less enforcement by the Police, if impoundment was
the punishment for the first offense. He recommended maintaining the 50
foot distance and imposing a $500 impoundment fee on the second offense, in
addition to charging for fees for towing and storage, and imposing $1,000 on
the third offense.
City Manager Randy Oliver explained
typically it took a minimum of 30 to 60 days to get adjudication through the
Court system, so the City would not be able to impound until the ticket was adjudicated by the
Court.
Council Member Van Auken
moved to adopt the replacement Ordinance amending Chapter 15 of the Code of the
City of
Council Member Sandberg moved to grant
Privilege of the Floor for anyone who wished to address this issue; seconded by
Council Member Morris.
Hearing no objections, Mayor Ardis granted Privilege of the Floor to anyone who wished
to address this issue.
Mr. Jeremy Bracken spoke in opposition to adoption of the proposed
Ordinance. He said he did not think a $200 fine was that much compared to the
investment some people had in their in-car stereo system. He said he did
not feel that impounding a vehicle
would have a big effect on people either. He suggested the Council
consider other alternatives.
Ms. Levetta Ricca, President
of Olde Towne South Neighborhood Association, spoke
in support of the proposed Ordinance. She expressed concern that the
threat of a fine did not deter the practice of listening to loud music, which
disturbed people in their homes. She encouraged enforcement of the noise
Ordinance.
Ms. Nancy Mitchell, 1619 N.
Ms. Shirley Brown, 307 E. Thrush, questioned what assistance this
Ordinance would provide for homeowners. Corporation Counsel Randall Ray explained
other parts of the Noise Ordinance Code that provided assistance for
homeowners. Ms. Brown expressed concerned for younger children riding in
cars who were exposed to this level of noise.
Mr. Richard Mitchell, 1619 N.
Mr. Mike Sprecher, member of A.B.A.T.E., 3613
Ms. Rose Sullivan expressed concern regarding the level of music
coming from homes and expressed concern for the neighborhoods which had to deal
with high volumes of music.
Ms. Rosilee
Walker,
Following further discussion, Council Member
Spears said he understood that something needed to be done to deter the
practice of loud music, but he felt the punishment of impoundment was greater
than the practice of listening to loud music.
Council Member Spears said, if the Ordinance
was adopted, it should be enforced, but he would like to review the impact of
the Ordinance next November. He said, at that time, he would like to hear
from neighborhood groups to determine if the Ordinance had brought the expected
results.
Council Member Van Auken
said she would include the suggestion in her motion.
APRIL 25,
2006
CITY COUNCIL PROCEEDINGS
27487
In further discussion, Mayor Ardis pointed out the Ordinance would be effective June 1,
2006, if passed. He added that the proposed Ordinance was a different
approach. He expressed concern that the issuance of fines had not been a
deterrent in the past.
Motion
to adopt ORDINANCE NO. 15,922, as
amended, amending Chapter 15 of the Code of the City of Peoria relating to noise and
impoundment of vehicles, and direct the City Manager to request information
from neighborhood groups to determine the impact of the Ordinance, and bring
the information back to the City Council in November, 2006, was approved by
roll call vote.
Yeas: Jacob,
Manning, Nichting, Turner, Van Auken,
Mayor Ardis – 6;
Nays: Grayeb, Gulley, Morris, Sandberg, Spears - 5.
(06-194) Communication
from the City Manager and Director of Public Works Requesting Approval of a
RESOLUTION Amending Resolution No. 00-117-A SETTING FEES for the PEORIA COMBINED AND SANITARY
SEWER DISTRICT from 0.2629/CCF to 0.4839/CCF for the Property Owners who, While
Owning Property in the City of Peoria,
are Directly Served by Sanitary Sewer Lines Owned by the City of Peoria; In General, the Portion
of the City Served by City-Owned Sewer Lines is the Central, East and West
Bluff Areas South of War Memorial Drive Along with Both the North and South
Valley Areas, with the Net Impact on the Cost of Sewer Service for Those Served
by City-Owned Sewer Lines will be Neutral, and Requesting to Receive and File
Supplemental Communication.
City Clerk’s Note: Motion on the floor
was to approve a Resolution amending Resolution No. 00-117-A setting fees for
the Peoria Combined
and Sanitary Sewer District from 0.2629/CCF to 0.4839/CCF for the property
owners who, while owning property in the City of Peoria, are directly served by sanitary sewer
lines owned by the City of Peoria;
in general, the portion of the City served by City-owned sewer lines is the
Central, East and West Bluff areas South of War Memorial Drive along with both
the North and South Valley areas, with the net impact on the cost of sewer
service for those served by City-owned sewer lines will be neutral, and to
receive and file the supplemental communication.
Council Member Sandberg presented a power
point presentation regarding the sewer user fee and combined sewer outfall
projects. He focused on a section of the City bordered by
Motion
to approve RESOLUTION NO. 06-194
amending Resolution No. 00-117-A setting fees for the Peoria Combined and Sanitary
Sewer District from 0.2629/CCF to 0.4839/CCF for the property owners who, while
owning property in the City of Peoria,
are directly served by sanitary sewer lines owned by the City of Peoria, and to receive and
file the supplemental communication was approved by roll call vote.
Yeas: Grayeb, Gulley, Jacob, Morris, Nichting,
Spears, Turner, Mayor Ardis – 8;
Nays: Manning,
Sandberg, Van Auken - 3.
From:
http://peoriapundit.com/blogpeoria/2006/03/28/boomcar-ordinance-is-worse-than-the-crime/?cat=57