Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Noncriminal Disposition topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Uxbridge considers bylaw changes to impose fines through noncriminal disposition; Article 11 deferred
Summary
The committee briefly reviewed Article 11 (amending department fines) and moved it to the next meeting for detail; Article 12 (adopt noncriminal disposition) was discussed in depth, with staff outlining proposed fines, an appeals process handled by a certified hearing officer, and assurances the system is intended for compliance rather than revenue.
At its Sept. 17 meeting the Town of Uxbridge Finance Committee deferred Article 11 (amend general bylaws to establish or align departmental fees and fines) to the committee’s next session because specific fines and departmental lists were not yet available.
Article 12 — a proposed general bylaw to adopt noncriminal disposition — prompted a longer discussion. Staff presented draft language that would delete the current section 17 and replace it with a noncriminal-disposition framework allowing specified fines to be imposed administratively for certain bylaw and code violations. Sample schedules discussed included housing code fines of $10 to $500 per violation, food-code fines up to $100 for a first offense and up to $500 for subsequent offenses, and an escalating trash-hauler schedule (first offense: warning; second: $200; third: $400; subsequent: $500 per day). Staff said each day of ongoing noncompliance would constitute a separate violation.
Staff also described the appeals procedure: a person issued a fine could appeal to the town’s hearing officer, present facts and mitigation, and request time to correct the violation; staff said the hearing officer (a certified hearing officer) would adjudicate appeals and could stay enforcement while corrective action is underway. A staff member noted that the bylaw language had been adapted from another community and that Town Meeting could see amendments to tighten broad language.
Committee members emphasized safeguards: the process is not intended as a revenue generator, fines should be principled and progressive, and egregious behavior could warrant a larger single fine or criminal referral where appropriate. The committee closed the public hearing and moved to continue the hearing to Sept. 23 at 6:30 p.m.; the motion to continue and the later motion to adjourn were approved by roll call.
