09-27-2006 Council Agenda - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

The honorable Stc v Srn;lh Minnesota House of Representatives October 2, 2003 Page 13 Minnetonka, and Northfield C2 In addition, other municipa adding administrative penalties. It appears that the use of al government units is a growing trend across the State. Hov cases, they are being issued for violations that are outside regulate. ities are currently considering ministrative penalties by local ever, it appears that in some a municipality's authority to We have heard additional concerns with allowing cities to issue administrative penalties for these offenses. When administrative penalties go straight into a municipality's coffers, there may be an incentive for law enforcement offic ia s to seek penalties. Law enforcement officials may see administrative penalties as way to pay for their own salaries. This appearance of impropriety, although it may not actually be the case, is of great concern. With administrative penalties in place for criminal acts, a nunicipality has the ability to offer a citizen a seemingly simple choice of paying an adm nistrative penalty or be subject . to criminal penalties. However, an administrative penalty s /stem may contain a threat of criminal prosecution as a trade off for citizen paying a sm ler administrative fine directly to the city without getting the court involved. It certainly miry be easier for. citizens to pay a smaller local fine, but the legitimacy of the initial ticket .r penalty should be subject to review by an independent party. Administrative penalties should be issued to prevent future ordinance violations, not as a funding source. While the legislature should consider these concems, my who adopted administrative ordinances prior to 2003 are effective resolution of quality of life and nuisance issues. not using administrative penalties as a revenue generating using them as a more effective way to deal with minor probl White Bear Lake obtained $94,000 from criminal citations in were told, White Bear Lake obtained only $11,000 from ad appears that if administrative penalties were being used to been more money raised through the administrative penalty prow Conclusion It is clear that there is no express authority for cities or penalties for tragic violations. An administrative penalty from enforcing its own laws in areas such as speeding an Statutory counties are limited to issuing administrative penal legislature. Statutory cities, on the other hand. may 61 See e.g. Pioneer Press "New Brighton: City turns to tickets for cities switch to local citations to raise more money" (July 20, 2003): (July 2 2003); St. Cloud Times "State studies ticket option" (September I 6' Speeding violations tend to be petty offenses. Petty misdemeanor Stat. § 609.02, subd. 4a (2002). A sentence of not more than o misdemeanor offenses. Id. - 2 8 - ffice has observed that cities tying to use them as a more t appears that many cities are mechanism. Rather they are ms. For example, the City of a year. In that same year, we ninistrative code violations. It nake money, there could have ss. ounties to issue administrative system would limit the State other state traffic offenses. 63 ies only where allowed by the have some ability to issue avenue" (July 20. 2003): AP "Some Minnesota Public Radio "Fine fight" 5. 2003). ,•.`tenses are n: '. a crime. See t'h ar.. fines may c. imposed for - ..