1. (1) The following cities may establish an administrative adjudication system under this section:

(a) Any city not within a county;

(b) Any home rule city with more than four hundred thousand inhabitants and located in more than one county;

(c) Any home rule city with more than seventy-three thousand but fewer than seventy-five thousand inhabitants; and

(d) Any home rule city with more than one hundred fifty-five thousand but fewer than two hundred thousand inhabitants.

(2) The cities listed in subdivision (1) of this subsection may establish, by order or ordinance, an administrative system for adjudicating housing, property maintenance, nuisance, parking, and other civil, nonmoving municipal code violations consistent with applicable state law. Such administrative adjudication system shall be subject to practice, procedure, and pleading rules established by the state supreme court, circuit court, or municipal court. This section shall not be construed to affect the validity of other administrative adjudication systems authorized by state law and created before August 28, 2004.

2. The order or ordinance creating the administrative adjudication system shall designate the administrative tribunal and its jurisdiction, including the code violations to be reviewed. The administrative tribunal may operate under the supervision of the municipal court, parking commission, or other entity designated by order or ordinance and in a manner consistent with state law. The administrative tribunal shall adopt policies and procedures for administrative hearings, and filing and notification requirements for appeals to the municipal or circuit court, subject to the approval of the municipal or circuit court.

3. The administrative adjudication process authorized in this section shall ensure a fair and impartial review of contested municipal code violations, and shall afford the parties due process of law. The formal rules of evidence shall not apply in any administrative review or hearing authorized in this section. Evidence, including hearsay, may be admitted only if it is the type of evidence commonly relied upon by reasonably prudent persons in the conduct of their affairs. The code violation notice, property record, and related documentation in the proper form, or a copy thereof, shall be prima facie evidence of the municipal code violation. The officer who issued the code violation citation need not be present.

4. An administrative tribunal may not impose incarceration or any fine in excess of the amount allowed by law. Any sanction, fine or costs, or part of any fine, other sanction, or costs, remaining unpaid after the exhaustion of, or the failure to exhaust, judicial review procedures under chapter 536 shall be a debt due and owing the city, and may be collected in accordance with applicable law.

5. Any final decision or disposition of a code violation by an administrative tribunal shall constitute a final determination for purposes of judicial review. Such determination is subject to review under chapter 536 or, at the request of the defendant made within ten days, a trial de novo in the circuit court. After expiration of the judicial review period under chapter 536, unless stayed by a court of competent jurisdiction, the administrative tribunal’s decisions, findings, rules, and orders may be enforced in the same manner as a judgment entered by a court of competent jurisdiction. Upon being recorded in the manner required by state law or the uniform commercial code, a lien may be imposed on the real or personal property of any defendant entering a plea of nolo contendere, pleading guilty to, or found guilty of a municipal code violation in the amount of any debt due the city under this section and enforced in the same manner as a judgment lien under a judgment of a court of competent jurisdiction. The city may also issue a special tax bill to collect fines issued for housing, property maintenance, and nuisance code violations.