Laserfiche WebLink
<br /> <br />'lJt1JYll TTE E RE COililAfEiYDA TIO lYS <br /> <br />~ ,c/l1~ .I'6//?y A-t""'tk",--I <br /> <br />F~lI'th~r, when Il vloltltm' !'eCILlests ('(:llief frQlll p(tying the tilll UnWLlI1t of the tine ~lnd surch~1I'ge, the <br />CO~l1.ts hU\/(;l b\i;!;:n more inclined to wui ve thl;l r1ne th~lO to I'Odl,lCl:: the SUI'Gllol'ge. 'tVhen this OCCl,lrs. <br />3 the klGul LU11t1:l of government recover no costs even thOLlgh the city hus lncLll''I'ed expensi;ls. <br />4 <br />5 Response: The Le*lgu~ supports the use of city ndministr~ltive tines 1'01' loent regulutory <br />6 ordinnrlces, !luch as building codes,2oning codes. health codt!s, and public nuisance. <br />7 ordinances. The League !!!!!..!1..snpport5 the llse of' city lldministr.ltivc fines, at a minimum, <br />8 for reguhltory matters that are not duplicative of misdeme.unor 01' higher level state traffic <br />9 and criminal offenses. Cities should have the authoritv to issue administrative citations for <br />o low-level moving: llndequipment violations that: 1) would otherwise result in warnint!s! <br />and 2) occur on rondw~lY!l where the soeed limit is 45 miles Det' I~our or less. Further, the <br />~ League endorses the concept that administrntive penalty hearings lihouldbe held before <br />didnttwested third parties, ~,,'hich may include city councils, to (H1!HII'C flllrness in th~ <br />p.'oceedings, <br /> <br />If stute leader!! .ennct legislation that prohibits cities from using adminbtrative tines for <br />minor traffic offenses, they should nlso chllnge the distribution of statutory violation fine <br />revenues so th~lt dties are ndequ~ltely compensated for enforcement und prosecution costs. <br />FinaUy, the state should require thnt if l.l court reduces the amount paid by a viohltor, any <br />reduction should be made from the surcharge and not the fine. <br /> <br />SD~27. Homeland Security Costs and Liability (AF) <br /> <br />1:.'Sue: The federal government's response to telTOrlam has resulted in new re$ponsibilities for <br />local governments in a number of areas. For ex.u:mplt, shortly after the terrorist attack'!! on Sept <br />1 I, 200 I, the f'edel'ul government tapped \ocallaw enforcement personnel t~l provide security ilnd <br />perto'l'l'll soree'l'lil'l.g at ou):' nation's ail'ports. These new responsibiHties incre'l$e I,;ities' liability <br />exposure and result in higher local costs tor public safety s~l'Yices. In addition, local <br />governments t\re e:;'f.pected to continue emergency planning and captlcity building efforts, provide <br />udditionul truining ~lnd equipment tor first responders, und improve emergency response <br />;oordinution and. communication. <br /> <br />34 <br /> <br />-41- <br />