After nearly 90 minutes of testimony and deliberation, the Haines Borough Assembly agreed to refund $600 of a $1,200 fine levied against a Skyline Estates property owner.
The assembly voted 4-1 to refund half of the $1,200 fine manager David Sosa levied against property owner Paul Nelson when Nelson failed to meet the deadline for removing improperly-processed glass fill from his property.
Assembly member George Campbell, who opposed the motion, voted in favor of several failed motions to refund $900 of the fine.
The assembly deadlocked on several motions before coming to a resolution, with assembly members Diana Lapham and Joanne Waterman in favor of upholding the manager’s decision to fine Nelson $300 per day for the four days he exceeded the deadline.
The assembly in June ordered Nelson to remove and properly dispose of the glass fill surrounding his property within 10 days. He was also required to cap the foundation on the lot – full of the improperly-processed fill – and pay a $300 fine.
According to a letter sent to Nelson by manager David Sosa on Feb. 10, borough staff inspected Nelson’s property on June 20, 21, and 22 and found while Nelson had made progress, he hadn’t completed the task in the required time period.
Nelson was initially fined $1,500 – $300 for the initial violation and $1,200 for the four days he failed to complete the assembly’s directive. He appealed the $1,200 fine.
Nelson argued that according to borough code, the assembly cannot fine people more than $300, and that his $1,200 should be refunded. Assembly members George Campbell, Mike Case and Ron Jackson agreed with his interpretation.
“I don’t see any way in here that you can come up with per day,” Campbell said. “If we had a history of per-day fines on this kind of stuff then maybe I could be convinced, but at this point it’s a $300 fine and to do anything else would be mistreating the public, because we’ve got to do what we say.”
Case said he wasn’t trying to “cast aspersions” on the manager’s decision, but agreed with Nelson that the borough couldn’t levy a daily fine of $300.
“I think (Sosa) made a mistake, but if he never made any mistakes that means he’s not trying hard enough,” Case said. “I think that he probably did what he thought was best. On the other hand, this is in the code.”
During his testimony, Nelson said he requested and received information from the borough confirming no one had been fined on a per-day basis for littering or similar nuisances. When Campbell asked Sosa to confirm this, Sosa said he didn’t have that information but analogized the situation to ticketing vehicles.
“If we were to look at a car parked inappropriately, it would receive a ticket for that day. The next day it’s still there, it’s going to receive another ticket. And the next day it is still there, it is going to receive another ticket. It will probably get towed away at some point. So that is a clear example of a case in which a violation continues to occur on successive days,” Sosa said.
Assembly member Waterman said she also interpreted the code as per violation, with every day of missing the deadline counting as another violation. “Every day that it was delayed was a violation. So it’s $300 a day. He violated it every day he was late,” Waterman said.
Assembly member Diana Lapham said it was within the manager’s authority to levy the fine. “In this case I am going to give my support to the manager. I am going to support him in what he has done with this appeal because I believe it is done right and it sends a message that the borough is now starting to take things back in hand,” she said.