Agenda Packets - 2007/02/26 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Item No: 8F Meeting Date: 02/26/07 Type of Business: CA City of Mounds View Staff Report To: Honorable Mayor and City Council From: Kurt Ulrich, City Administrator Item Title/Subject: Resolution 7026 Supporting House File 847 Authorizing Cities to Adopt Ordinances to set and Impose Administrative Penalties Background: This item was discussed at previous work sessions and was adopted as one of the City’s legislative priorities. There is currently a bill before the House (HF 847) that would allow cities the ability to issue administrative penalties for minor traffic violations (see attached League of MN Cities article). In past years this issue has also been considered by the legislature without a clear resolution. In March 2005, two bills were considered that attempted to resolve the conflicting interpretations of existing law. HF 2004/SF 1042, a bill that would have allowed cities to impose administrative penalties for low-level moving violations, did not become law. It did advance after lengthy testimony in the Senate Transportation Committee, but was not heard at the next stop—in the Crime Prevention and Public Safety Committee. The current bill proposed (HF847) is very similar in language to this previous attempt. A companion bill in the Senate is expected to be introduced shortly. Discussion: In Mounds View’s case, the Administrative Offense is typically a petty misdemeanor level offense for which the city imposes a fine. Using the administrative offenses for these types of offenses has been referred to as "warnings with a consequence." Prior to the administrative offense option many of these lesser offenses were dealt with by a warning from the police officer. Having the administrative offense option gives the police a level of consequence between nothing (warnings) and getting hit with a large fine. The fine imposed for the use of an administrative offense is significantly less then a fine that would be imposed with the corresponding state citation for the same offense. For example, with a state citation, speeding by traveling 35 miles an hour in a 30 mph zone carries a fine of $105, while the city administrative offense carries a fine of $40 for the same violation. Police Officers have been concerned about the financial impact the large fine associated with the state citation would have on residents and have shown some reluctance to issue such citations. Many people working for minimum or minimal wages cannot afford a $105 fine. From a County perspective, increasing local authority could help relieve the congested court system. Administrative citations remove many minor offenses from that system freeing court staff for more serious cases. The administrative citation does not go on one's driving record. Opponents have argued this gives an inaccurate picture of one's true driving record, but then verbal and written warnings do not go on one's driving records either. Opponents have also accused cities of using administrative offenses to raise revenue. Citations are not moneymakers for cities, whether they are administrative or court citations. They do not pay the cost of the officer’s time, the records clerk's time, the prosecutor’s costs or equipment costs involved in issuing the citation.