01.01.2015 Views

June 15, 2009 - District of Mission

June 15, 2009 - District of Mission

June 15, 2009 - District of Mission

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.

219<br />

DISTRICT OF<br />

1S S ion --44*<br />

ON THE FRASER<br />

Inspection Services<br />

Memorandum<br />

To:<br />

Chief Administration Officer<br />

From: Senior Bylaw Enforcement Officer<br />

Date: May 26, <strong>2009</strong><br />

Subject: Enforcement <strong>of</strong> Lawn Sprinkling<br />

Recommendation:<br />

Staff recommends increasing the Municipal Ticket Information (MTI) fine amount for lawn<br />

sprinkling from $50.00 to $100.00 per <strong>of</strong>fence and to keep the current procedure <strong>of</strong> enforcement<br />

as is.<br />

Background:<br />

Staff was directed to provide a report containing options to create an increasing fine scale for<br />

lawn sprinkling <strong>of</strong>fences similar to that <strong>of</strong> the false alarm bylaw. Staff was also requested to<br />

provide fewer warnings prior to issuing MTI fines.<br />

Escalating Fine Scale:<br />

The Community Charter sets out what a municipality can do under an MTI system<br />

It is not permitted under the MTI system to use an escalating fine system but does provide the<br />

ability to issue a ticket for each day an <strong>of</strong>fence occurs, or continues to occur. The idea<br />

underlying the system is that the municipality obtains provincial government approval for a list <strong>of</strong><br />

set fines before it implements an MTI bylaw and then it can take advantage <strong>of</strong> a more<br />

streamlined court process. The maximum permissible fine is $1,000.<br />

The difference between the MTI fine for non-compliance <strong>of</strong> the Lawn Sprinkling Bylaw and the<br />

escalating fees for the False Alarm Bylaw is that one is a fine for non-compliance <strong>of</strong> a bylaw and<br />

the other is the recovery <strong>of</strong> the cost <strong>of</strong> a service provided by the <strong>District</strong>.<br />

Enforcement Procedure:<br />

The issuing <strong>of</strong> a MTI fine is the last solution that a bylaw enforcement <strong>of</strong>ficer uses to gain<br />

compliance. The goal <strong>of</strong> a bylaw enforcement <strong>of</strong>ficer is to achieve voluntary compliance and<br />

understanding <strong>of</strong> the bylaw which is being enforced.<br />

When appearing in Provincial Court on a disputed ticket one <strong>of</strong> the main elements the Local<br />

Government must prove is whether the alleged <strong>of</strong>fender was given every opportunity to rectify<br />

the situation through warnings and education <strong>of</strong> the <strong>of</strong>fence. If voluntary compliance after a<br />

couple <strong>of</strong> warnings and education has not resolved the matter, then an MTI fine may be issued<br />

to the alleged <strong>of</strong>fender for the said <strong>of</strong>fence. Circumstances are different with every call and<br />

should be judged on its own merits.<br />

Warnings and education are the standard and appropriate procedure used by the <strong>District</strong> (and<br />

other Local Government) and assists in a positive outcome in court and maintains that the<br />

<strong>District</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Mission</strong> proceeded in a fair and just way when dealing with the public.<br />

FILE: ADM.BYL.PRO PAGE 1 OF 2<br />

Water Bylaw

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!