State Rep. Tony Cornish said it’s probably illegal and definitely cheats the state out of revenue while letting some unsafe drivers off the hook. And Cornish is pushing legislation to put an end to it.

Dozens of Minnesota cities, including a couple in south-central Minnesota, think it’s good for cities, good for local cops, good for drivers and might even be good for public safety. They’re supporting a bill to make it clearly legal.

The debate is over administrative fees in lieu of traditional fines for everything from illegal parking to speeding to failing to yield. An uncertain number of counties and cities, including Mapleton and Waseca, have added the civil penalties as an option that officers can offer some violators when they’re caught violating the law.

If the violator accepts the administrative fee option, they typically pay a smaller penalty that goes entirely to the city. And no mention of the violation goes on their state driving record, leaving insurance companies unaware of it.

“So bad drivers are rewarded by this,” said Cornish, a former town cop and sheriff’s deputy. “They can have a number of violations, and it doesn’t go on their record, it doesn’t go to the insurance company.”

That’s not an accurate picture of the impact of administrative fees, according to supporters of the option. They say the state has become gluttonous for revenue from traffic violations, tacking endless surcharges on to fines.

A typical ticket for a moving violation now brings $72 in surcharges that go to the state’s general fund, said Anne Finn, a lobbyist for the League of Minnesota Cities. On top of that is $40 that is split evenly between the state, the court system and the local city or county that employs the law officer issuing the ticket.

With a state fine approaching $120, many officers are reluctant to issue a ticket for a relatively minor violation. They also know the high fine makes it more likely the violator will challenge the ticket in court, driving up costs for the court system, for prosecutors and for police departments that see more days where officers are spending hours in a courthouse waiting to testify about a traffic stop.

“So they’re giving warnings,” Finn said. “And they’re not really comfortable with that either.”

The administrative fee, which is typically closer to $50 or $75, represents a middle ground between a warning and a state ticket, Finn said. And it reduces the amount of local property tax revenue needed to prosecute a traditional moving violation where the offender is fighting the large state ticket.

Cornish, R-Vernon Center, wonders if the cities’ motivation has more to do with coveting the revenue that previously went to the state. More police departments seemed to make the switch to administrative fees earlier this decade after the state, facing budget deficits and attempting to avoid tax increases, cut Local Government Aid to cities.

“I can even sympathize with them on the LGA and other things, but they can’t go around the barn and come in the back door like this,” Cornish said. “Administrative penalties circumvents the whole system and lets the city keep all the money.”

That hurts more than the state general fund, Cornish said. It also diverts money from the Peace Officers Standards and Training Board and a fund for law libraries. And it creates a mish-mash of penalties around the state.

“So it really skewers the whole system that we set up at the Legislature,” he said.

Mapleton City Administrator Patty Woodruff said revenue was one motivation for her city making the shift to administrative fees.

“After LGA cuts, it was one way to raise a few dollars,” Woodruff said.

But the amount is relatively minor. In 2006, the fees brought in $2,470 to Mapleton city coffers. By comparison, the LGA cuts in 2003 were $56,000.

Last month, Cornish saw his bill to prohibit administrative penalties set aside by a House committee that instead adopted a bill making the practice clearly legal. So far, the Senate hasn’t acted on either bill, and Cornish believes lawmakers won’t resolve the dispute this session.

If that’s the case, the legality of the practice will continue to be a bit hazy. Former State Auditor Pat Anderson issued a report in 2003 that suggested cities don’t have the legal authority to do it. Former Attorney General Mike Hatch essentially agreed.

There’s also the possibility the federal government might react to the practice as well, said Pat McCormick, the director of the state Division of Driver and Vehicle Services. Federal law prohibits states from “masking” traffic violations by commercial drivers on driving records, and federal officials could determine that’s what’s happening with administrative penalties.

If the feds decide the state is sanctioning the practice, they could impose financial penalties as high as $1 million in the first year and higher amounts in ensuing years, McCormick said.