| LovelandPolitics.com |
| Staff Delivers Council A Red Herring On a follow-up item staff presented misleading information to council on Loveland's "fee" for driver who cannot demonstrate proof of insurance |
Loveland - April 6, 2013
During the April 2, 2013 Loveland Council meeting the Loveland City Council considered an item raised by
local attorney and longtime Loveland Planning Commissioner, Troy Krenning, last January.
For reasons not shared with the public, Krenning failed to appear at the meeting therefore leaving the
obligation to Loveland's staff and City Attorney, John Duval, to brief the council on why the issue was raised
previously and why the re-consideration of a $15 service fee for citizens showing proof of insurance in
court had been challenged two months prior.
Instead, city staff pretended another issue was the cause of the attorney's concern, whether or not his
daughter should be forced to pay the city $15 as a result of not presenting proof of insurance when sopped
by Loveland Police. Absent from the discussion was an explanation by staff, city attorney or municipal
judge as to why a person deemed innocent by the statute would still be charged a fee.
Even more troubling was Judge Starks' refusal to dismiss a charge against Krenning's daughter after the
city's attorney requested it be dismissed. Playing prosecutor and third world judge, Starks told Krenning
(listen to recording in upper right of this page) that he would not allow the charges to be dismissed nor
schedule a date for trial where the defendant could prove her innocence.
Two months later, upon request of council, staff brought the item back for consideration but mislead the
city council by proping-up a Red Herring by claiming the complaint centered in the AMOUNT of the fee.
Councilors later took to defending what they called a "penalty" and "fine" though the city has niether for
failure to provide prove of insurance. They allowed a so-called voluntary "service fee" to grow into a
penalty or fine by defending it as if it were. Please read the state statute below which is mirrored in city
code and watch the following video.
According to Colorado state law and Loveland's own traffic code,
"No person charged with violating subsection (1),(2), or (3) of this section shall be convicted if he
produces in court a bona fide complying policy or certification of self-insurance which was in full force
and effect, as required by sections 10-4-619 and 10-4-620, C.R.S., at the time of the alleged violation.
(Ord. 5218 Section 8, 2007)
During the April 2, 2013 Loveland Council meeting the Loveland City Council considered an item raised by
local attorney and longtime Loveland Planning Commissioner, Troy Krenning, last January.
For reasons not shared with the public, Krenning failed to appear at the meeting therefore leaving the
obligation to Loveland's staff and City Attorney, John Duval, to brief the council on why the issue was raised
previously and why the re-consideration of a $15 service fee for citizens showing proof of insurance in
court had been challenged two months prior.
Instead, city staff pretended another issue was the cause of the attorney's concern, whether or not his
daughter should be forced to pay the city $15 as a result of not presenting proof of insurance when sopped
by Loveland Police. Absent from the discussion was an explanation by staff, city attorney or municipal
judge as to why a person deemed innocent by the statute would still be charged a fee.
Even more troubling was Judge Starks' refusal to dismiss a charge against Krenning's daughter after the
city's attorney requested it be dismissed. Playing prosecutor and third world judge, Starks told Krenning
(listen to recording in upper right of this page) that he would not allow the charges to be dismissed nor
schedule a date for trial where the defendant could prove her innocence.
Two months later, upon request of council, staff brought the item back for consideration but mislead the
city council by proping-up a Red Herring by claiming the complaint centered in the AMOUNT of the fee.
Councilors later took to defending what they called a "penalty" and "fine" though the city has niether for
failure to provide prove of insurance. They allowed a so-called voluntary "service fee" to grow into a
penalty or fine by defending it as if it were. Please read the state statute below which is mirrored in city
code and watch the following video.
According to Colorado state law and Loveland's own traffic code,
"No person charged with violating subsection (1),(2), or (3) of this section shall be convicted if he
produces in court a bona fide complying policy or certification of self-insurance which was in full force
and effect, as required by sections 10-4-619 and 10-4-620, C.R.S., at the time of the alleged violation.
(Ord. 5218 Section 8, 2007)
| The official record of Loveland Municipal Court for January 24, 2013. In the above audio there is a silence after the exchange before Troy Krenning discovers he is being asked to sign an IOU - so keep listening through the silence. |
| 1409. Compulsory insurance - penalty. (1) No owner of a motor vehicle required to be registered in this state shall operate the vehicle or permit it to be operated on the public highways of this local government when the owner has failed to have a complying policy or certificate of self-insurance in full force and effect as required by sections 10-4-619 and 10-4-620, C.R.S. (2) No person shall operate a motor vehicle on the public highways of this local government without a complying policy or certificate of self insurance in full force and effect as required by sections 10-4-619 and 10-4-620, C.R.S. (3) When an accident occurs, or when requested to do so following any lawful traffic contact or during any traffic investigation by a peace officer, no owner or operator of a motor vehicle shall fail to present to the requesting officer immediate evidence of a complying policy or certificate of self-insurance in full force and effect as required by sections 10-4-619 and 10-4-620, C.R.S.. (4) Any person who violates the provisions of subsection (1), (2), or (3) of this section commits a traffic offense. (5) Testimony of the failure of any owner or operator of a motor vehicle to present immediate evidence of a complying policy or certificate of self-insurance in full force and effect as required by sections 10-4-619 and 10-4-620, C.R.S., when requested to do so by a peace officer, shall constitute prima facie evidence, at a trial concerning a violation charged under subsection (1) or (2) of this section, that such owner or operator of a motor vehicle violated subsection (1) or (2) of this section. (6) No person charged with violating subsection (1), (2), or (3) of this section shall be convicted if he produces in court a bona fide complying policy or certificate of selfinsurance which was in full force and effect, as required by sections 10-4-619 and 10-4-620, C.R.S., at the time of the alleged violation. (Ord. 5218 § 8, 2007) |