Until Latrobe City Council chooses to formalize a policy, anyone who appeals a parking ticket must go before a district judge.
Council members and City Manager Alex Graziani addressed the issue at Tuesday night's meeting.
Jim Gebicki, a former mayor, again questioned the number of dismissed tickets, which had been the responsibility of the police chief but is now the task of the city manager.
Since 2012, Graziani has attempted to formalize the unwritten practice of dismissing tickets on a case-by-case basis. In July, the policy required a completed form,
The most recent change prohibits city staff from dismissing the tickets.
Gebicki said he is concerned that the changes were made without council's approval.
“However council approaches that, I think you're justified in what you do, and you need to do it because we continually revisit this same situation,” he commented during the meeting. “There may not be anything wrong with any single one of those tickets, but the fact it was done outside council approval, outside an ordinance, outside any oversight by this council as a whole is problematic, in my estimation.”
Councilwoman Rosie Wolford said the practice should be formalized by council so that visitors aren't discouraged from returning to Latrobe.
“I'm sure we've had this practice for many, many years, and the city has always looked at each specific incident and decided whether or not a mistake was made. ... There are a lot of reasons why we want to be friendly with people who come to this city,” said Wolford, who will take office as mayor in January.
She said she agreed with the policy that included a required form and believes council should adopt it. Until then, she said, she trusts Graziani's judgment.
Councilman Robert “Stuffy” Forish asked why the same license plate had been forgiven 24 tickets this year.
The city manager said the requests come to his desk without that identifying information, but it is recorded for the police department.
“I don't know the plate itself; I don't know the person. ... They were pretty much coming in to my desk anonymously,” he said, offering to check with police Chief James Bumar. The chief did not attend the meeting and could not be reached for comment Wednesday.
Wolford called Gebicki's requests a witch hunt, saying council should be spending time on the city's finances.
“I think the thing that concerns me the most is this is not going to balance our budget,” she said. “This is not something that is going to turn things around here. We will fix and develop a policy so that this is addressed and addressed appropriately.”
So far in 2013, Latrobe has made $280,000 in parking revenue, Graziani said.
Ticket fines accounted for 10 percent, he said. The amount recovered if the dismissed tickets had been paid is 1 percent of that revenue, or $2,800.
“Where you are making money in parking is in working meters and compliance. ... You don't make money off of fines,” Graziani said.
Wolford said until the policy is formally changed, visitors would have to request any ticket changes at the district judge's office.
“Until directed otherwise from this council in a formal vote and policy, I see no reason to do anything differently,” she said. “But whether we made a mistake or not, let it go to the magistrate and allow the customer to have the inconvenience of taking it that way.”
Stacey Federoff is a staff writer for Trib Total Media. She can be reached at 724-836-6660 or firstname.lastname@example.org.
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.