7/19/1994 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Commissioner Bird opposed the proposed surcharge because he believed it would be a further burden to those who could least afford it, had no relationship to offense, and could diminish the numbers of traffic tickets written due to the compassion of law enforcement officers. Commissioner Eggert contended that if it were tied to a driver's license or tag, she could agree it was unfair, but this surcharge would be levied on those who deliberately break the law. Commissioner Macht remarked that it was easy to exceed the speed limit in a moment of inattention. He believed the surcharge was not justifiable and the costs for the communication system should be borne by all. Administrator Chandler explained that a surcharge on a penalty for a moving violation was a funding source provided by State law for maintenance of emergency communication systems. Commissioner Adams inquired whether an additional 25 cents to the 911 telephone bill charge was possible, and Emergency Services Director Wright explained it could not be considered as a funding source. The Chairman opened the public hearing and asked if anyone wished to be heard. Clerk of Circuit Court Jeff Barton advised that surrounding counties impose a surcharge. His office is prepared to manage collection and disbursement of the surcharge, and requested that it be effective October 1, 1994, if adopted. He detailed current difficulties incurred by his office because surrounding counties impose the surcharge and reminded the Board that his office receives only 520 per ticket for collection and disbursement processing. John Olbermann, 1950 South U.S. #1, felt that IRC shouldn't impost a surcharge just because other counties do. He maintained that the cost should be applied equitably to all county citizens. Bill Roolage,.Vista Gardens Trail, believed it would be inappropriate to tie a moving violation penalty to the maintenance cost of the communication system, and he encouraged the Board to find another way to pay for it. Joseph Guffanti, registered voter, contended the proposed surcharge would be taxation without representation or increased taxation without a compensating increase in representation by arbitrarily and capriciously discriminating against people whose behavior had only a far-fetched connection with the alleged need of the radio system. Secondly, he asserted it violated the cruel and 93 _ 92 ��%� 9S8 July 19, 1994 I