City Council Minutes 1984 01 17 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

1/1'7/84 Page -9- ENDMENT TO THE MOTION Councilman Luce moved an amendment on Ordinance #820, section 10.24.020 - Penalty clause to say that any person in violation of the above provision shall be subject to a fine of not less than twenty-five dollars nor more than seventy-five dollars. Councilwoman Morris seconded the motion for purposes of discussion. Councilman Luce stated he wished to speak in :Favor of the amendment. It seemed to him $300.00 for a possible negligence or careless- ness is a little bit stiff. Was certainly in :Favor of the intent of the ordinance; however felt that monetary amount is incredibly ex- ces~sive for somebody that has violated what at this point and time is something that has some local discretion in terms of en- forcement. Thought that the $300.00 was an awful stiff penalty for being careless. Repeated Offenses Councilman Woodson asked if this penalty clause held for repeated offenses? Attorney Rautenstraus advised one of the rationale for having a higher fine would be for a person who has habitually violated an ordinance. That particular piece of in- formation can be taken into consideration by the Judge in issuing the summons. Mayor Meier commented that it was his feeling that the $300.00 was a standard maximum that all city ordinances go up to, which as Attorney Rautenstraus stated, allows discretion with the Judge to have a repeat offender and raise the fine as an option. Didn't see it as any more of a problem in this ordinance than any other of the City ordinances. Councilman Cussen reiterated what had been said. Thought we needed some teeth. The very fact that we are passing this as an ordinance; he assumed if the ordinance were to pass, felt strongly about the severity of the fine as it is needed - all our ordinances do carry that maximum of $300.00. Felt we were taking away the discretion of the Court by removing a stiff penalty of $300.00. Would assume, as in the past, would not fine someone on the first offense; but thought if for someone that is a habitual offender would make him more at ease that there is something that is going to make that person be in com- pliance with the $300.00 fine rather than $75.00. Would vote against the amendment.