My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
02-24-1986 Council Packet
Orono
>
City Council
>
1986
>
02-24-1986 Council Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
12/18/2025 10:26:27 AM
Creation date
12/18/2025 10:18:42 AM
Metadata
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
263
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
22086. 2 <br />TO: <br />FROM: <br />DATE: <br />tlayor and City Council <br />Mark Bernhardson, City Administrator�,.l' <br />February 20, 1986 <br />SUBJECT: Take Minnetonka Violation Prosecutions <br />OUNCYA 110ETING <br />F 2 ,1 1986 <br />Attached please find a letter from L.M.C.D. outlining the <br />research they have done on the prosecution efforts of the <br />individual communities regar3ing the issuance of tags on the <br />!a k ,� . <br />T t is presently the proposal of L.M.C.D. that they take over <br />prosecution of all the tickets. The benefit of having L.M.C.D <br />to the prosecution. through one individual is that they coulc. <br />p�3ssihly keep better tabs on all the violations on the lake <br />together with the fact that one individual would be very f.lmiliar <br />with the ins and nuts of th- special needs of on -lake cases. It <br />is expectee that if this is to go into force that the re �e <br />,3enerated M )u ld go to L.M.C.D. to pay for the pr.osecut, r ial , :s <br />rather than coming to the cities for such. In a revs • of fin= <br />generated in Orono in 1984 verses prosecution costs it proba., <br />costs the City more to do the cases than is generated in revenue. <br />Therefore it is the staff's position anJ recommendation that <br />L.M.''.D. take over the prosecution of all ors -lake cases. <br />-here are two other issues related to enforcement on the lake <br />`,:hat should be additional' be pursued with L.M.C.D. <br />a. Showi icy Enforcement - Several months ago JoEl len <br />Hu ha � requested L.M.C.D.'s legal counsel to give a <br />wriLten opinion ro.!l.ating to City :)f Orono's ability to <br />enforce violations on the lake. Under the legislation <br />granting authority to L.M.C.D. it reduireu that they <br />contract out such enforcement and therefore short of a <br />contract oetween Orono and L.M.C.D. it's be-n the City's <br />position that we can not the on-lakr> violations. <br />b. Violations Under L.M.C.D. Cole or Minnesota State <br />S_taCdCe - !3er_ausC t7�'thr-�-vaclueneasvOF certatn dsp- t.s of <br />file t.�a.C.D. codes it is our understanding that the <br />:dater Patrol often writes tickets under State Statute <br />rather than un,ier the i,.M.C.D. code. The result of this <br />iss.ie is that. the moni- !_ t<-)r the f ine>,; g > to the State <br />ra ther than to r,.M.C.D. ot. the loc 3 i communities. It is <br />u lgest,> l r'�at the .l a k of c 1 a i ty of L.M.C.D.'s <br />. 1 .0 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.