Bloomington, Minn., Code of Ordinances § 15 § 15.106
APPEAL FROM INTRUSION DETECTION DEVICE REQUIREMENTS (Bloomington Buildings and Structures Code)
Operative Text
(a) Within ten days after the receipt of written notice from the Chief of Police requiring the installation and maintenance of photoelectric, ultrasonic or other intrusion detection device, the person responsible for compliance therewith may appeal in writing to the City Manager. In filing such notice of appeal, the appellant shall set forth the specific grounds wherein it is claimed there was an error or abuse of discretion by the Chief of Police or wherein the issuance of said written notice was not supported by proper evidence. (b) Upon receipt of such appeal, the City Manager shall set said matter for hearing and cause notice thereof to be given to the appellant and to the Chief of Police, or his or her authorized representative, not less than five days prior to the date set for said hearing. At such hearing the appellant shall show cause on the grounds specified in the Notice of Appeal why the action excepted to should not be affirmed. (c) The City Manager may affirm, reverse or modify the decision of the Chief of Police requiring the installation and maintenance of a photoelectric, ultrasonic or other intrusion detection device. If said decision is affirmed or modified by the City Manager, the appellant shall be given written notice thereof by the Chief of Police setting forth the installation to be made and the period of time within which the same shall be completed. In no event shall the period be less than that originally granted appellant. Failure to comply with the City Manager’s decision shall be deemed a misdemeanor. (d) Provided, however, any person excepting to the decision of the City Manager may within ten days after the date of such decision appeal in writing to the City Council by filing with the City Clerk a written notice of appeal setting forth the specific grounds thereof. The City Clerk shall forthwith set said matter for hearing before the City Council and cause notice thereof to be given to the appellant, to the City Manager, and to the Chief of Police, or his or her authorized representative, not less than five days prior to date set for said hearing. At such hearing before the City Council the appellant shall show cause on the grounds specified in the notice of appeal why the decisions of the City Manager should not be affirmed. (e) If the City Council affirms or modifies the decision of the City Manager the appellant shall be notified in writing by the Chief of Police of the installation to be made and the period of time within which the same shall be completed. In no event shall the new period of time be less than that granted originally. Failure to comply with the decision of the Council, on appeal, shall be deemed a misdemeanor. (1958 Code, § 40.15) (Ord. 67-71, passed 12-28-1967; Ord. 2002-1, passed 1-14-2002)
Bloomington, Minn., Code of Ordinances § 15.106 establishes a multi-step appeal process for property owners or managers who receive a written notice from the Chief of Police requiring the installation of an intrusion detection device. The responsible party has ten days to appeal to the City Manager, who must schedule a hearing with at least five days' notice and may affirm, reverse, or modify the original requirement. If still unsatisfied, the appellant has a further ten days to escalate the appeal to the City Council, which holds its own hearing and issues a final decision. Failure to comply with either the City Manager's or the City Council's affirmed or modified decision is classified as a misdemeanor.
Plain English — not legal advice.
Under § 15.106, property owners or managers who receive a written notice from the Chief of Police mandating an intrusion detection device should be aware that a formal appeal pathway exists and must be initiated within ten days of receiving that notice. A compliant operator who chooses to appeal documents specific claims of error or abuse of discretion by the Chief of Police and participates in the scheduled hearings before the City Manager and, if necessary, the City Council. Operators who do not appeal, or whose appeal is unsuccessful, generally ensure installation is completed within the time period specified in the written notice, since non-compliance after a final affirmed or modified decision constitutes a misdemeanor under this section.
General guidance for property managers — not legal advice for your specific situation. Consult an attorney for advice on your case.
While § 15.106 primarily governs the obligations of the person responsible for compliance with intrusion detection device requirements, tenants should understand that this provision creates a structured process ensuring that such requirements are subject to review and cannot be imposed without an opportunity for challenge. If a tenant believes that the presence or absence of a required intrusion detection device affects their safety or housing conditions, they may wish to contact the City of Bloomington or consult a tenant-rights organization to understand how this provision interacts with any broader habitability or safety obligations. Tenants can also review the public record of any City Manager or City Council hearing held under § 15.106 to understand the status of compliance at their property.
General guidance for tenants — not legal advice for your specific situation. Consult a tenant-rights organization or attorney for advice on your case.
Generated September 15, 2026 — auto-generated, not yet human-reviewed. See /transparency for methodology.
Effective Timeline
References Out
No outbound references recorded yet for this provision.
References In
No inbound references recorded yet for this provision.