Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - Minutes - City Council - Meeting Date: 6/16/2009 *PLEASE NOTE: Since the Glendale City Council does not take formal action at the Workshops,Workshop minutes are not approved by the City Council. 111 GLENE MINUTES OF THE GLENDALE CITY COUNCIL WORKSHOP SESSION Council Chambers—Workshop Room 5850 West Glendale Avenue June 16, 2009 1:30 p.m. PRESENT: Mayor Elaine M. Scruggs, Vice Mayor Manuel D. Martinez, and Councilmembers Joyce V. Clark, Steven E. Frate, David M. Goulet, Yvonne J. Knaack, and H. Phillip Lieberman ALSO PRESENT: Ed Beasley, City Manager; Pam Kavanaugh, Assistant City Manager; Craig Tindall, City Attorney; and Pamela Hanna, City Clerk 1. 2009 STATE AND FEDERAL LEGISLATIVE UPDATE CITY STAFF PRESENTING THIS ITEM: Jessica Blazina, Intergovernmental Programs Director, Jenna Goad, Legislative Coordinator; and Ryan Peters, Legislative Coordinator This is a request for City Council to provide guidance on proposed state legislation, consistent with the 2009 state legislative agenda; to provide a 2009 federal legislative update; and also to discuss the Governor's proposed FY09-10 budget. Governor Brewer's proposed FY09-10 budget proposes keeping municipalities whole in funding levels. The proposed budget does not recommend a reduction in shared revenue distributions or reductions in other fund sources. The purpose of the federal and state legislative agendas is to affect federal and state legislation and regulations as they relate to the interests of the city and its residents. The 2009 state and federal legislative agendas provide the policy framework by which Intergovernmental Programs staff engages on state and federal legislative issues. Throughout the 2009 legislative sessions, policy direction will be sought on proposed statutory changes which fall under the adopted Council policy statements relating to the financial stability 1 of the city, public safety issues, promoting economic development, managing growth and preserving neighborhoods. The Intergovernmental Programs staff recommends prioritizing the state legislative agenda to a few key issues to allow the city to have a stronger, more consistent message on the items of greatest priority. The legislative agenda defines the city's priorities for the upcoming session and will guide the city's lobbying activities at the Arizona State Legislature. The Intergovernmental Programs staff will update Council on a regular basis throughout the session for guidance on bills and amendments that may be introduced. The city's legislative agenda is a flexible document and may change, based on activities at the Legislature and Council direction. On May 5, 2009, the Intergovernmental Programs department presented the 2009 State and Federal Legislative Update. On March 17, 2009, the Intergovernmental Programs department presented the State Budget Update and the Federal Stimulus Update. On March 3, 2009 the Intergovernmental Programs department presented the 2009 State Legislative Update and 2009 Federal Legislative Update. On February 3, 2009, the Intergovernmental Programs department presented the 2009 State Legislative Update. On January 20, 2009, the Intergovernmental Programs department presented the 2009 State Legislative Update and 2009 Federal Legislative Update. The priorities and principles of Glendale's 2009 state legislative agenda provide the venue for the city to identify and engage on state legislative issues. The key principles of the state legislative agenda are: to preserve and enhance the city's ability to deliver quality and cost- effective services to citizens and visitors; to address quality of life issues for Glendale residents, and to enhance the City Council's ability to serve the community by retaining local decision making authority and maintaining state legislative and voter commitments for revenue sources. Development of a 2009 federal legislative agenda provides the venue for the city to identify and engage on federal issues of concern to the community, which will enhance the ability of the city to deliver superior services and to address quality of life issues for the residents of Glendale. Staff is requesting Council to provide policy guidance on the proposed state legislative issues, federal legislative program development and the Governor's proposed FY09-10 budget. Ms. Jessica Blazina, Intergovernmental Programs Director, stated that today marked the 156th day of the legislative session with only 14 days left to intact the state budget. She explained tempers were running high and tempers were short at the capitol. The House and Senate approved a fiscal year 2010 budget on June 4, 2009 after a two-day marathon. However, there are several provisions contained in the budget that are in question, including a vehicle license tax 2 hit to cities. This impact could have a hit to Glendale of approximately $2.5 million. Other problematic items in this budget include property tax ratios and impact fee moratoriums prohibiting the city from imposing or assessing impact fees for three years. She indicated this budget was in contrast to the budget proposed by Governor Brewer on June 1, 2009. The Governor's budget proposes to cut $948 million in spending, borrowing $650 million, deferring $104 million in payments and relying on more than $1 billion in federal stimulus dollars. She explained her proposed budget holds cities harmless from any revenue sharing reductions. The Governor held a special session to hear concerns from cities and counties, highlighting the differences in the two proposed budgets. She stated that Mayor Scruggs, the League of Cities and Towns, along with other city officials shared the municipal perspective on how the legislative budget would impair the ability of municipalities to provide key services. Ms. Blazina remarked that on June 3, 2009, the League of Arizona Cities and Towns' executive committee adopted a resolution supporting Governor Brewer's proposed fiscal year 2009/10 budget. The legislative budget has not been transmitted to the Governor, which has prompted her to file a request for special action with the Arizona Supreme Court to compel the legislature to forward their budget package. It is rumored she will veto parts of the budget if and when it is forward it to her. Negotiations continue to occur between legislative leaders and the Governor. She noted there were also rumors that contingency plans were being made, should a consensus not be reached by the June 30, 2009 deadline. Mr. Ryan Peters, Legislative Coordinator, stated this has been an unusual year in the legislative session with no.policy bills sent to the Governor thus far. He explained that usually by this point in the session, all regular committee work had been concluded and members were focused on moving their bills through conference committees and final reads. Since the budget deficit was the most significant problem facing the state of Arizona, this year senate committees will not be able to hear policy bills until a budget solution has been reached. He remarked that the issue of photo radar was a hot topic with many bills introduced. However, as the state revenue numbers continue to decline and bills are not moving through the process, they have seen limited action on these types of bills. He noted they will still continue to monitor these bills and will oppose any prohibition that affects the Glendale photo enforcement program. He also discussed House bill 2270, "state capitol restoration recapture district". He indicated that under this proposal, any net new state transaction privilege tax collected will be distributed as follows: 50% will be retained by the state general fund, 25% by the district and 25% to the newly established state capitol state restoration fund. He remarked that Senate bill 1002, "elected officials print visual media approbation", prohibits statewide elected officials from using public money to produce public communications such as print or broadcast media announcements. This bill is being held in the senate appropriations committee. He discussed Senate bill 1232, "body art establishments". This bill creates licensing guidelines and minimum standards for body art establishments and operators. This bill has not been heard. He noted the Council had expressed some interest in this issue, therefore, staff will watch for similar legislation next year. He added that the primary focus of this legislative session has been on the state budget and the result could possibly be a year without any policy bills made into law. However, staff will continue to monitor any new policies. Ms. Blazina stated they will also continue their involvement in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. She explained they have recently received a notification of new opportunities 3 involving stimulus dollars. The management team will continue to meet and evaluate opportunities in line with the goals of the organization. Ms. Jenna Goad, Legislative Coordinator, stated the Federal Department of Transportation recently released guidelines for a transportation grant program known as TIGER that is funded as part of the stimulus package. Staff is working to submit a grant on behalf of Glendale. The applications are due in September and all awards will be made before February 2010. She provided an update on the Federal Transportation Reauthorization Package. The current program is set to expire; however, later this week, the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee is expected to release a general outline of the bill and possibly a time frame for marking of the bill in committee. She added they will continue to keep the Council updated on any new progress. Councilmember Clark asked what type the TIGER grant is and what it implies for the City of Glendale. Ms. Goad replied the TIGER grants were for surface transportation projects such as transit or roadway projects. She noted there was $1.5 billion available nationally through this grant program, with a maximum of $300 million that can go to any one state. Councilmember Clark inquired whether staff had identified what Glendale will be submitting. Ms. Goad replied they had not yet identified which projects might be a good fit. She added the guidelines were recently released and they have yet to sort through which projects 6t the guidelines. Vice Mayor Martinez inquired as to statements that the stimulus dollars were slowly getting out to cities and asked how Glendale stood on the process. Ms. Blazina explained that those dollars were coming in and were being used on actual projects. She noted the dollars were slow in coming, however, in her opinion; it was not slower than any typical grant process. Councilmember Goulet asked if the Governor's filing action meant the legislature had yet another opportunity to delay discussing the budget until there was an outcome on the ruling. Ms. Blazina remarked that she was not sure, but believes it might hamper discussions. However, she hopes negotiations continue, to be able to reach the June 30, 2009 deadline. She added that the last thing anyone wants to see is the state shutting down. Councilmember Goulet inquired if the legislature had any concern for the 90 cities that had their budget affected with what they were proposing, as well as their delay in getting the budget to the Governor. Ms. Blazina explained staff has been communicating that message from the very beginning as well as the importance of the city's budget. Councilmember Goulet remarked he appreciated their efforts; however, they were all very frustrated to see what was going on in the legislature. Mayor Scruggs commented that Councilmember Goulet had a good point in stating that 90 cities were simply waiting on the legislature to see how this all will affect their budgets. She explained she had spoken to the Mayor of Tempe and he will be adopting a rolling budget since things remained unclear. She stated she will discuss this further next week when they adopt their budget. She noted the budget adopted next week should not be considered the city's final budget for fiscal year 2009/10. She asked for the support of the Council to make the budget its first order of business when they come back from the summer break. She indicated they will assess what they were left with after the state budget is passed, as well as issues such as revenue collections. She explained the city of Scottsdale was taking a two tier approach and cutting 4 another$9.5 million from their budget. In addition, the city of Gilbert recently passed a sales tax increase and was also looking to further cut their budget. Mayor Scruggs stated it was important to note that the League of Arizona Cities and Towns and many other cities and towns in the state of Arizona have passed resolutions supporting Governor Brewer's plan. She explained that Governor Brewer had dropped the sales tax portion in her budget. Mayor Scruggs indicated the Governor's plan did not include taking the city's money to solve the state's problems. She stated she would like to put forth for Council's consideration, a discussion about whether Glendale should adopt a resolution at the meeting next week supporting Governor Brewer. Vice Mayor Martinez stated he whole heartily supports adopting a resolution. He believes it is an excellent suggestion. Councilmember Clark stated she also supports the resolution, however, would like it to state that they support the Governor's proposed budget because it keeps intact Glendale's share of the VLT tax, property tax revenue, and their ability to acquire impact fees. She noted she would like to see those specific items emphasized, along with their associated figures. Councilmember Goulet agreed with enacting a resolution, as well as being specific with the items. He remarked that in doing so, they would send a strong message. Councilmember Lieberman also agreed. He stated it should be crafted with the strongest language possible that they support Governor Brewer and her attempt to get a budget bill passed. He also agrees with Mayor Scruggs on assessing the budget as their first order of business after the summer break. Councilmember Frate stated his support for the resolution. He noted he believes the legislators do not care about anything but the bottom line. He remarked that it seemed they were very far removed from the people in the community because of their actions. He indicated he has served on several committees with the Governor and believes she understands and has compassion for the ramifications of the legislature's budget proposal. He remarked that in his view, the Governor cares about the citizens of Arizona and is doing anything she can to pass a sensible budget. Mayor Scruggs agreed with Councilmember Frate's comments. She stated she was concerned that Arizona residents were not being told the truth on what the legislature was really trying to do. She added she agreed with Councilmember Frate that the legislators doing this did not have any care or compassion and were detached from humanity. She suggested re-circulating the resolution letter from the League of Arizona Cities and Towns and asked the Council to read the letter as a starting point and amend it if necessary. Mr. Craig Tindall, City Attorney, stated comments and suggestions should go first to the Intergovernmental Programs office and then ultimately to legal. Mayor Scruggs asked for this to be done swiftly. Councilmember Lieberman remarked they might have to come together earlier than the next workshop in eight weeks. He noted they might have to call a special session before the 18th of August. Mayor Scruggs agreed to do so if need be. 5 Vice Mayor Martinez asked Mr. Ed Beasley, City Manager, if he had a contingency plan regarding the budget should modification be necessary. Mr. Beasley replied, yes. He noted they are continuing to monitor the situation and were prepared to make any changes. He added it would be appropriate to take a look at the budget in the fall, after the state budget is adopted. Mayor Scruggs asked if any work had been done on what the change in assessment ratio would be to the city if this went through. Councilmember Clark agreed and added that staff could provide an estimated figure, if nothing else. She noted she would also like to know how this would affect their impact fees. Mayor Scruggs remarked that in a recent memo from Mr. Beasley, it mentioned the property figure was being worked on. Ms. Pam Kavanaugh, Assistant City Manager, stated she was correct. She noted that Ms. Schurhammer had completed the report and it should be delivered soon, if not already there. Ms. Blazina remarked that her information was that the secondary property revenue on commercial property was a loss of $5.5 million and the primary was a loss of $700,066. She explained these were initial estimates. Mayor Scruggs noted the figures did not sound correct. Mr. Beasley stated they will make sure they receive the information as soon as possible. Mayor Scruggs asked what the federal lobbyists were currently working on for the city. Ms. Blazina explained they have been very helpful in the appropriations process as well as the transportation requests. She added they have also been extremely helpful in navigating staff through the stimulus process in regards to the rules. They also work very closely with staff on legislative issues on a federal level. Councilmember Clark asked Ms. Blazina if'their help included work on the Indian Reservation issue. Ms. Blazina replied, yes. Councilmember Frate asked if the stimulus money was basically only for transportation and housing. Ms. Blazina explained the stimulus money was also for other areas such as public safety, energy grants and possibly redevelopment items. She stated they were currently working on finalizing an energy project they will submit for the Energy Efficiency Community Block Grant. Councilmember Frate asked Ms. Blazina to elaborate on the type of energy program. She explained the projects include lighting and educational components that otherwise could not be completed without this funding opportunity. 2. CITY COURT IMPROVEMENT FEE & CHAPTER 13 REVISIONS CITY STAFF PRESENTING THIS ITEM: Elizabeth Finn, Presiding Judge This is a request for City Council to provide guidance on a resolution to increase the Court Improvement Fee. A second request unrelated to the Court Improvement Fee seeks guidance on amending provisions of the City Code contained in Chapter 13, Articles I and III. The City Code Articles 6 concern appointment, removal and terms of judges pro tempore and court hearing officers. The Articles also address powers and duties of the Judicial Selection Advisory Board (JSAB) and the Special Judicial Officer Selection Committee (SJOSC). The proposed ordinance amendments are administrative in nature, and do not alter any current City business practices. The recommendations comply with Administrative Orders from the Arizona Supreme Court. The Court Improvement Fee request addresses the Council strategic goal of "A City that is Fiscally Sound" by pursuing and maintaining revenue streams that support service delivery through sound financial practices regarding infrastructure and upkeep. The Court Improvement Fee has not been raised since 1996. The fee paid by court customers helps recover current security and information technology costs incurred by the Court. It is imposed on all criminal cases and civil offenses such as traffic and code. Parking offenses are excluded. The fee is collected and deposited in a separate fund established for the payment of court expenses for technology, security or other needed improvements at the City Court. Raising the Court Improvement Fee is consistent with existing fees of other limited jurisdiction courts in Arizona. City Code currently states the JSAB may recommend to the Presiding Judge candidates for appointment as judge pro tempore. The appointments for judge pro tempore are actually made by the Presiding Judge upon recommendations from the SJOSC, as required by an Arizona Supreme Court Administrative Order. City Code currently addresses terms for judges pro tempore, but not for court hearing officers. Criteria for the removal of court hearing officers and judges pro tempore is also currently absent from City Code. This recommendation seeks to correct these and other technical discrepancies. These changes do not alter or remove any authority currently held by City Council. On June 8, 1993 Council adopted a resolution amending the City Code, Chapter 13, by adding section 13-9 relating to the imposition of a surcharge to pay for ongoing security costs for the court complex. The surcharge was applied to all persons convicted of criminal misdemeanors and civil traffic violations, excluding parking violations. It was identified as the court security surcharge. The amount of the surcharge was set at $8.00 per charge. On September 10, 1996 Council adopted a resolution increasing the surcharge to $12.00. A subsequent action was adopted to expand the purpose of this fee to include other court improvements. The Court improvement fee has remained at $12.00 since the 1996 resolution. On February 12, 2002, City Council adopted revisions to Chapter 13, Articles 1 and III, to create the JSAB and Court Hearing Officer. An increase in the court improvement fee will benefit court customers through a safer security environment. The increased fee will provide greater efficiencies from automation improvements. The Court seeks to raise the court improvement fee from $12.00 to $20.00. It is projected this could increase revenues within this fund by approximately $172,000 per year. This estimate is based on fees received in Fiscal Year 2007-2008 if the higher fee had been utilized. This 7 additional revenue will be recorded in the Court Fund (F1240) and used to support Court specific expenditures. No additional staffing requirements are needed. Staff is seeking policy guidance from the Council on the following: Provide direction on increasing the Court Improvement Fee. Provide direction on amendments to the City Code to conform to existing practices and administrative orders. Judge Elizabeth Finn provided a brief summary on this item. She also explained that the items being presented today were two separate items, both involving the court. She said it had made sense to combine them into one Council communication. Councilmember Clark referred to the next to last paragraph on their Council Communications. She inquired as to what other court expenses were not being specified that will be funded by this improvement fee. Judge Finn stated their initial goal is to be able fund security. She noted that at this point, they did not have sufficient funds to pay for full-time police officers as well as the three screeners contracted with Maricopa County Superior Court. She noted that once those were taken care of, they will be looking at maintaining the IGA that involves the Wizard. She explained the Wizard was an add-on to their case management system. She indicated that with funding, they will be able to have full deployment of Wizard, which would make it easier for staff to process things. She added they also needed IT support. Councilmember Clark said she appreciated her answer since security was identified as a top priority and IT resources second. However, the phrase "other needed improvements" was not specifically addressed. She inquired about other areas for which they might conceive of using these funds. Judge Finn explained she could not give her another area off the top of her head. She asked Ms. Cathy Clarich. Court Administrator, to further explain. Ms. Clarich clarified that the language in the Council Communication is consistent with the language in the ordinance. Councilmember Clark commented her concern was the use of broad language as the new courthouse comes on line and there is a need for other improvements. She asked if these funds will be used to support the new courthouse for issues other than security and IT needs. Judge Finn indicated that at this point, those were the two areas of greatest need. She explained at the moment, they were trying to get the security budget back up to zero. She stated it was now in a negative position, which started the year in the negative with a zero balance. She explained that technology was a way for them to be able to work more efficiently and provide a better product. Councilmember Clark asked a question regarding page two, pertaining to budget impacts and costs. She stated the Court seeks to raise the court improvement fee from $12.00 to $20.00. It is projected this could increase revenues within this fund by approximately $172,000 per year. She inquired as to the current amount received from this fund on an annual basis at the current rate. Judge Finn stated the fund had produced $257,736 based on the number of cases coming into the court. Councilmember Clark commented this increase would bring them approximately $429,000. She asked if this was a sufficient amount to cover funding for security cost and IT needs. Judge Finn explained that Maricopa County Superior Court raised their fee for security screeners by 58%. She noted they were not only paying for the cost of the screeners, but also a 58% administration charge. Therefore, they researched other security options and the decision was made to work with the city's procurement department and release a RFP, soliciting bids for security services. She indicated they have received proposals which are being evaluated. She added it was their hope to be able to provide the same high level of secured protection they 8 currently provide for a lesser amount. Councilmember Clark stated that a 58% increase was outrageous. Judge Finn stated it was their hope this will cover the security cost they have identified, as well the IT projects already started. Councilmember Clark asked if they anticipate using any funding for the retention of court documents. Judge Finn indicated they were currently in a pilot program with Ms. Pam Hanna, City Clerk, for that need and do not anticipate using those funds for that propose. She stated it would be premature for them to speculate at this time on what more those funds could cover. Councilmember Clark agreed, however, she suggests that if the funds meet their expectations, and there was available funding, she would like to see it go toward assisting the retention of records. She added it would be a good utilization of resources if there were any funds left after covering security and IT support needs. Vice Mayor Martinez asked if the $20.00 was an amount charged by most courts around the valley. Judge Finn explained it was charged by some, not all courts around the valley. She noted they know of at least one court that charges a higher fee; however, this fee keeps the city on par with several other courts in Arizona. Vice Mayor Martinez noted that at first he did have concerns with the large increase, however, after listening to her explanation, he supports the increase. He asked if any thought had been given to charging different fees for different actions such as criminal, traffic or civil. He suggested possibly charging $22.00 for criminal and $20.00 for traffic. Judge Finn indicated they had not considered that, however, they have surveyed other courts throughout the state and they were all consistent in charging one fee for all violations. She added this did not apply to parking offenses, which was adopted by the Council. Vice Mayor Martinez remarked that he still believes someone paying the same fee for a criminal infraction as would a code infraction did not seem reasonable to him. Councilmember Goulet said he supported both recommendations. He asked if since parking offenses were excluded, were there also other claims excluded from the fee, such as an order of protection. Judge Finn explained they were not allowed to charge any fees in connection with protective orders. She stated she was part of the Supreme Court Legislative Committee that helped get that statute adopted. In addition, it was also a requirement of the Violence Against Women Act that Arizona must certify to the federal government that they are no filing fees connected with any protective orders. Councilmember Goulet reiterated Vice Mayor Martinez's inquiry of whether there had been any discussion on different categories of offences incurring a different fee. Judge Finn stated they had not had that discussion and was not aware of it occurring at any other courts. She added the city court was really a pass through and that part was very small compared to the amount the customer pays to the Superior Court. Councilmember Knaack commented that she supports a level fee fine because of the difficulty of discriminating between cases. She noted this was a simple processing fee which was the same for all cases. She remarked she was curious why it had taken so long to raise this fee. Judge Finn explained that until this fiscal year, there had always been a balance in the court improvement account fund. This was the first year it will not be sufficient to address their security needs. She stated the budget process made them evaluate what their needs were. She noted that approximately 135,000 people came into the court last fiscal year. She said it was second only to the library in terms of people coming into the front door of a building. Additionally, there have been zero incidents involving guns or knives, and this continues to be their goal in keeping the public safe. She noted there have been other courts that have taken the time to assess this fee and raise it, Councilmember Knaack asked if inflation was causing this to happen or were there other issues. Judge Finn stated that a large part of this was the 58% increase in administrative fees that was added two years ago. She noted there were other courts giving notice to Maricopa County Superior Court that they will not renew their contract because of the added 58% administrative fee. 9 Councilmember Clark asked which other court's fees were comparable to Glendale's court fee. Judge Finn explained it was difficult to calculate because some courts charge per case and some charge per charge or offense. She noted many cases have more than one charge associated with them. She indicated in Glendale, it was per charge. She listed several courts that had differences in the way they charged. Councilmember Clark commented that she also had concerns regarding the high jump in fee. She asked if it was ever considered to charge a percentage rather than a flat fee to the higher charge cases, such as criminal cases. The cases that are charged the most would be paying a larger amount than someone that has a code violation. She explained that having a percentage takes care of the problem almost indefinitely; as the volume of court cases increases, so does the percentage charge on every incoming charge. She reiterated her concern of the increase almost doubling. She noted she does not know if she could support this increase. Councilmember Frate said he knows Judge Finn to be a fair and honest person and would not have suggested this fee if she believed it was not fair and equitable. He explained this comes out to approximately $.61 cents per year, had they raised it. He noted this fee was for people who violated the system and was told that 98% of code violations were taken care of before they went to court. He stated that after 9/11, security changed and believes the cost was fair and equitable since they were not trying to make money, but only making sure everyone was protected. Mayor Scruggs commented on several Councilmember's discomfort on issuing such a big hike. She suggested the court figure out a new system to measure their needs, instead of waiting 13 years to increase a rate. She understands that expenses were not an issue in the past; therefore, there had not been a need for an increase. However, she would like for this account to be reviewed annually so this type of discrepancy did not occur again. Ms. Clarich clarified that when the $20.00 fee was assessed, it was because of projections they made in looking at the security community, as well as an estimate on the types of proposals they would get back. She explained that based on those costs and the cost to retain a full time police officer and IT personnel, they came out with a figure of somewhere between $350,000 and $400,000 per year in order to meet those costs. She reiterated that this increase was based on the assessment of how much was need in order to continue providing these services. Mayor Scruggs stated she understood this increase was based on needs. However would still like to see a system to measure these needs on an ongoing basis. Judge Finn indicated they will be closely monitoring this fund so if it appears to need adjusting, they will come forward and make that request. Mayor Scruggs approved. Vice Mayor Martinez clarified he did feel some discomfort with the large increase, however, would support it and understood why it was necessary. Councilmember Clark reiterated her suggestion of possibly implementing the increase as a percentage instead of a flat fee. She stated she did not like the $20.00 fee, especially in this economy, however, will support it. Mayor Scruggs asked if everyone paid the fee or only if there was a fine imposed. Judge Finn explained it was only for the cases with fines. Mayor Scruggs asked if there were cases heard that had no fines. Judge Finn replied, yes. Mayor Scruggs moved on to item 2, City Code Charges. Judge Finn explained that the City Code currently addresses terms for judges pro tempore, but not for court hearing officers. Criteria for the removal of court hearing officers and judges pro tempore is also currently absent from City Code. This recommendation seeks to correct these and other technical discrepancies. These changes do not alter or remove any authority currently held by City Council. She stated they were seeking direction from the Council to revise the City Code and correct current practices. 10 Councilmember Clark had a question on the removal of an officer if found guilty of a felony, but not a misdemeanor. She asked why they would want to retain a person who had broken the law, especially if the officer worked in the court. Judge Finn explained they had not changed any of the criteria. The criterion has existed in the code since it was adopted. She indicated the change was to only add the judge pro tempore and the court hearing officer's removal. Councilmember Clark asked Council to consider changing the criteria to include a misdemeanor as well. Mayor Scruggs asked if code violations were also misdemeanors. Judge Finn replied, yes. She added there was also a general catch-all phase which can be used for misdemeanor conduct that is deemed inappropriate. Mayor Scruggs read from the code and found it adequately addressed misdemeanor actions without firing someone for not cutting their weeds. Councilmember Knaack commented that a misdemeanor could also be issued for a car accident. She stated she would not support changing the criteria to include misdemeanor actions. Councilmember Lieberman stated he supports it as written. Mayor Scruggs stated the Council was in full support of these two items. After hearing no further comments, Mayor Scruggs adjourned the meeting. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 3:00 p.m. 11