At-Large City Councilor Brian Santaniello and Ward 6 City Councilor Victor Davila proposed a new ordinance inside City Hall that aims to solve the issue of unpaid ordinance tickets across the city. The two councilors are working with the Law Department on refining the language over the next 30 days.
Reminder Publishing file photo
SPRINGFIELD — Springfield’s Law Department will work with two city councilors on improving the first draft of a proposed ordinance that addresses the issue of unpaid tickets across the city.
At a press conference on Aug. 8, City Councilor At-Large Brian Santaniello and Ward 6 City Councilor Victor Davila introduced the “Springfield Fair Enforcement and Public Accountability Ordinance” to simultaneously improve quality of life and ensure the city is not leaving revenue on the table.
“We have anywhere from $1 to $3 million in unpaid ordinance tickets across the city,” Davila said. “In a time where the city needs revenue, that is completely unacceptable.”
According to Santaniello, the new ordinance does not aim to punish people, but it does hold chronic offenders accountable for their inability to pay tickets for ordinance violations.
In an interview, Davila said an ordinance violation can range from different quality of life issues, such as open container infractions, parking tickets, trash violations and infringements stemming from noise complaints.
The proposed ordinance
The proposed ordinance states that a property owner will receive a notice with no late fine after the first ordinance violation. After 30 days of no payment, the owner must pay a $10 monthly payment, which increases to $25 a month after 90 days of no payment. If the owner still has not paid their ordinance ticket after six months, a lien may be placed on the property — but only after multiple notices and opportunities to resolve the matter have not been taken care of.
Santaniello and Davila’s ordinance proposal also features a three strikes rule for those who have received three unpaid ordinance violations.
“We support publicly publishing the names of violators — but only after three unpaid ordinance violations,” the ordinance language reads. “This ‘three strikes’ rule distinguishes between the occasional mistake and a chronic offender. Once you’ve failed to pay three separate tickets — despite repeated notice and opportunity to resolve — you forfeit anonymity. That’s fair warning, not public shaming.”
For low-income residents and seniors who carry financial struggles, the ordinance would produce a Springfield Ordinance Assistance Program to help those residents “meet their obligations without fear of losing their homes.” The proposed law states that residents may qualify for payment plans or partial waivers depending on income verification.
The councilors say this program ensures “equity in enforcement.”
The proposed ordinance would also require quarterly reports to the City Council on ticket enforcement, including how many were issued, how many remain unpaid, how many entered assistance programs and how many reached the third-strike threshold.
What the Law and Administration and Finance departments are saying
The two councilors once again presented the proposed ordinance at a General Government subcommittee meeting on Aug. 25 to receive input from various city departments, including the Law Department and Administration and Finance Department.
City Solicitor Stephen Buoniconti said the Law Department agrees with what Santaniello and Davila are trying to accomplish, but codifying an ordinance such as this one is a challenging task.
“Violations and fines … [are] a complicated issue with no easy solutions,” Buoniconti said during the meeting. “I think overall, the city does its best [to address them].”
Buoniconti shared that state and city ordinances relating to fines are extremely rigid and disciplined about how they treat individuals, stating that most regulations try to take a equitable approach to each situation.
“Enforceability, when you get into that gray area as to how are you going to treat people who come in and maybe ask for additional time or ask for a waiver of a late fee, [it] always leads to a challenging situation and one that we don’t want to get into because you’re starting to disparately treat the citizens and the residents who are coming in,” Buoniconti said. “Those are circumstances that [are] ripe with peril, and we don’t want to get into that. We want to be extremely disciplined and treat everybody equally.”
Some unpaid fines are easier to enforce than others, according to Buoniconti. If someone has not paid for a building code violation within a certain amount of time, the city can lien that to the property owner’s tax bill and file a municipal lien to the Registry of Deeds, according to City Comptroller Steve Lonergan.
In the case of parking violations, if a motorist does not pay their fine within a certain amount of time, the city can attach the fine to the motorist’s driver’s license so they can’t renew their license or registration unless they pay the fine.
However, Buoniconti said that fines that aren’t attached to a vehicle or property are more difficult to enforce.
“Whether it’s a noise issue [at a park], whether it’s a loitering issue, whether it’s a panhandling issue, or something to that effect, the city can issue as many fines as we’d like in those circumstances, but the collectability is the real challenge because we don’t have any enforcement mechanism to do that,” Buoniconti said.
First Associate City Solicitor Thomas Moore said the city must “nail down” specifics in the proposed ordinance to make sure that it is consistent with Mass. General Law, including language around timeframes.
“Statutes at the state level do address some of the things we’re talking about,” Moore said.
The subcommittee ultimately decided to meet with the city departments in 30 days to rehash the conversation and discuss updated language. In that time, the Law Department will research a possible percentage-based structure around late fines for unpaid tickets and figure out the different nuances involved with publicly publishing the name of frequent violators.
Davila said nothing is set in stone at this moment, and the proposed ordinance is a first draft.
“Again, for the record, the purpose of this is to not punish anybody… that’s not the business of the city” Davila said. “But we need to set our foot down and say, this is our city, we appreciate quality of life.”
Readers can learn more about the unpaid ordinances discussion by visiting previous Reminder Publishing reporting.
