Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Councilmember Dehen stated from his perspective this is a positive step. It recaptures some of <br />the revenue and provides people with a break that the violation will not go on their driving <br />record. Insurance companies will not be able to track some people getting tickets, but his <br />experience as a lawyer is that some of these people getting tickets do not have insurance <br />anyways. The more insurance companies increase the rates the more these people will not be <br />able to afford the insurance, and the more they will drive without insurance. <br /> <br />Mayor Gamec suggested this be reviewed after the nuisance ordinance administrative penalty <br />process has been established. He pointed out that ordinance will take a lot of support and <br />dollars. <br /> <br />Councilmember Strommen suggested consideration of this administrative process after it is <br />known what the parameters will be once the proposed legislation has gone through the process at <br />the State. <br /> <br />Councilmember Dehen questioned the purpose of waiting. <br /> <br />Police Chief Way indicated there are not many tickets that would be allowed under this process. <br />The City currently does not write tickets to gain revenue, which would be the case with this <br />process. <br /> <br />Interim City Administrator advised the League of Minnesota Cities supports a policy that would <br />not impact State or County revenues. <br /> <br />Consensus of the Council (with Councilmember Dehen having expressed his strong support of <br />implementing the policy) was to direct' staff to bring the policy for administrative fees for minor <br />traffic violations before the Council for further review at the end of the legislative session. <br /> <br />4) Highway #10 Commercial Performance Standards <br /> <br />Ass't Community Development Dir/HRA Executive Dir. Frolik reviewed that Council discussed <br />enforcement of site performance standards along the Highway 10 corridor at the January 23, <br />2007 work session. Staff reported that the most common areas of violations were illegal outside <br />storage, nonconforming accessory buildings, operations that could be defined as salvage, and <br />lack of required pavement for employee/customer/display areas. At the work session Council <br />discussed providing some alternative surfacing materials along the corridor. Staff understands <br />this direction applies to the H-l Highway District, but is requesting clarification of what <br />Council's intentions are for possible code amendments in the B-2 Business and E-l Employment <br />districts. Ms. Frolik stated she would like to review staff s position regarding pavement <br />improvements on the Highway 10 corridor. The record reflects that the image of Highway 10 <br />over the past ten years has been a Council concern. She questioned where else a car dealer can <br />go and not be required to pave. Ms. Frolik stated the transition period for the Highway 10 <br />corridor could go on for 10 to 15 years. Any pavement installed would realize the end of its life <br />in that time period. She questioned the concern regarding reimbursing property owners for the <br />pavement on their property while there would be an obligation to reimburse them for new <br />buildings that are not prohibited. Ms. Frolik stated the City is working to rejuvenate Town <br /> <br />City Council Work Session / May 1,2007 <br />Page 10 of 16 <br />