Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - Minutes - City Council - Meeting Date: 12/6/2011 *PLEASE NOTE: Since the Glendale City Council does not take formal action at the Workshops,Workshop minutes are not approved by the City Council. rip'i ibi GLEN1V1 MINUTES OF THE GLENDALE CITY COUNCIL WORKSHOP SESSION Council Chambers—Workshop Room 5850 West Glendale Avenue December 06, 2011 1:30 p.m. PRESENT: Mayor Elaine M. Scruggs, Vice Mayor Steven E. Frate and Councilmembers Norma S. Alvarez, Joyce V. Clark, Yvonne J. Knaack, H. Phillip Lieberman, and Manuel D. Martinez ALSO PRESENT: Ed Beasley, City Manager; Horatio Skeete, Assistant City Manager; Craig Tindall, City Attorney; and Pamela Hanna, City Clerk 1. COURT FEES PRESENTED BY: Elizabeth Finn, Presiding City Judge Catherine Clarich, Court Administrator This is a request for City Council to provide guidance on a proposed ordinance amending Glendale City Code Section 13-9 to establish a contract fee and revise how City Court fees will be set. This item addresses Council's goals of one community that is fiscally sound and one community committed to public safety. Glendale City Court utilizes a variety of tools to maximize receipt of all court-ordered financial sanctions. One of the City Court's current strategies involves the review of comprehensive financial applications completed by defendants. These applications include negotiation of electronic payment contracts executed when defendants are unable to pay their fines and fees in full on the day of sentencing, as required by 1 law. Thereafter, City Court collections staff reviews contract compliance on an ongoing basis with defendants who remain financially current or delinquent. The City Court is spending more time tailoring a contract based on a defendant's revenue stream. An additional service provided is reminder calls that a payment is overdue. This enhanced process, which helps ensure better compliance, places a greater demand on the City Court staff and its resources. The proposed contract fee would be cost recovery to assist offsetting these staffing costs. Many other courts are utilizing a contract fee to recover their costs associated with negotiating contracts. The contract fee would apply to each case where a payment contract is established at time of final case adjudication on a court-ordered penalty, fine, assessment or sanction including parking penalties and restitution. The proposed contract fee is "user assessed," and only intended for defendants who require these additional services. A city judge may waive all or any part of the fee when determined to be in the best interests of justice. To assure future adjustments to City Court fees conform to legislation or other administrative actions in a timely manner, it will also be requested that the Presiding Judge set the amount to be charged by the City Court for all fees set forth in this section. The amount of the contract fee will be set by the Presiding Judge based on cost recovery. Based on current cost calculations, a fee of$31 will be recommended, which includes a mandatory state assessment. The fee would be deposited into the Court Improvement Fund. Staff is seeking guidance from Council on the proposed ordinance amending Glendale City Code Section 13-9 to establish a contract fee and revise how City Court fees will be set. Elizabeth Finn, Presiding City Judge,provided a brief summary on this item. Councilmember Clark asked for clarification on what a contract was in relation to the court. Judge Finn explained that a contract referred to a financial arrangement a defendant made with the court to pay fines, fees and possibly restitution due to the court. The process has been expanded to get additional information from the defendant and is more customized to the defendant. Councilmember Martinez asked if the fee was $31. Judge Finn explained that a portion of the fee would be going back to the state. Councilmember Clark asked if customized contracts were in place now and Judge Finn replied yes. Councilmember Clark remarked that if this money was to go into a designated account and not in a court improvement account and there were overages, she would expect it to come back to Council for assessment review of the fees. Therefore, this was very loosely worded and 2 basically the court was asking for dedicated and discretionary money and putting it all under contract user fees. She reiterated she believes Council should be apprised of any overages that occur. Judge Finn explained that at this point, they do have some collections occurring within that account. She noted the system's analyst is in that account,paid totally by the court improvement fees that staff needs to create and run reports to management, as well as monitor fees. The auto dialer is part of the collection process to let people know when they have missed payments. Councilmember Knaack wondered how the court came up with the $31.00 monitoring fee. Judge Finn explained they created a spreadsheet and their objective was for the amount to end in zero and an even amount. She noted that in finance, it was very difficult to deal with odd amounts. Their estimate is based on court expenditures in issuing, monitoring and enforcing contracts totaling about $75,000 dollars. In addition, the state legislature added $13.00 to every fine effective July 20th. She stated it was important to note that the court improvement fee with the system's analyst does provide support for the contract monitoring. Councilmember Knaack commented that, basically, the court was not trying to make money, but just offset their cost. Judge Finn stated this was only for cost recovery and not trying to make money. Councilmember Knaack suggests another title for this fund since the current title implies improvements as opposed to general Court operations. She stated she will be supporting this fee. Councilmember Lieberman asked if the fee was due upfront or added to the balance. Judge Finn explained the Supreme Court and statutes set priorities. She stated fees come off before fines. Councilmember Lieberman remarked it would be due upfront at the time it was assessed. Judge Finn stated that technically, all fines and fees are due the day there are assessed. However, it was not unusual when the defendants cannot pay the full amount and the Court is required to set payment plans based on their ability to pay. Judge Finn asked to continue with her presentation before Council provided their direction. She stated that as explained before, the legislature can enact changes requiring the courts to change every single fine in every sheet of paper, twice within six months. For instance this year a financial change occurred on July 20th and another financial change is occurring on January 1st In addition, having the dollar amount in the ordinance provides the court no discretion to round anything up or down. Therefore, having the Presiding Judge set the fees would save time by not having to come back to Council every time the legislature enacts something different. She added that other jurisdictions currently allow the presiding judge to make the changes without having to go back to Council. Councilmember Clark remarked this was not just a matter of rounding it up or down, but that the judge, at her discretion, could essentially raise fees and this would not be brought back to Council for any kind of affirmation. Judge Finn agreed that under the ordinance staff suggested this will not be coming back to Council. Councilmember Clark stated this was an area where City Council does not interface a lot; therefore she was troubled and uncomfortable with not knowing what is going on with fee assessments. She was not comfortable with not knowing when fees are raised or how much they are raised, as well as not having any control over what fees were assessed. She does not support delegating that kind of authority. Judge Finn reiterated staff's reasoning for not coming back to Council every single time there is a change. However, 3 if the Council so desires, the court can work within their system to make adjustments and come back to Council for approval. She restated they were simply asking to provide the Presiding Judge the flexibility to be able to accommodate these legislative changes without having to come to Council every time. She explained judges were required to stay within a fee range set by the Presiding Judge in Maricopa County Superior Court pursuant to an Administrative Order. She added that currently whenever any changes in fees occur, she notifies the Council in writing as was her practice in order to keep them informed of what is occurring. She reviewed some of the fees she was now allowed to set by Supreme Court order and that the Council was notified of the change in fees. Councilmember Lieberman asked if the city still had a service that collects outstanding fines and fees. Judge Finn replied yes and added it was a program operated through the Supreme Court. Councilmember Lieberman asked if they were hired directly. Judge Finn replied no. Councilmember Lieberman commented on some issues regarding collection agencies. Councilmember Alvarez asked if the court already had a contract fee established. Judge Finn replied no. She explained staff was seeking guidance from Council on the proposed ordinance to establish a contract fee and revise how City Court fees will be set. Councilmember Alvarez asked what they were currently charging. Judge Finn replied they were not charging anything because the court can only charge fees that the Council has established. Councilmember Martinez commented on the monthly summary sheet provided by the court to Council. He stated he was satisfied and pleased with the information received from the court and added anyone needing any more information can easily obtain it. Therefore, based on what he has heard today, he supports the recovery fee. Councilmember Clark remarked she was still uncomfortable with granting full authority to the court. Judge Finn stated that the Council could possibly place limitations on fees if the Council so desired. Councilmember Clark asked to make clear she was not objecting to the user fee, her concern centered on the idea that these fees that go into this court improvement fund and can be used for other uses. She added if the court was collecting money to maintain a contract, those fees should be used exclusively for that purpose and not spill over into other areas. She remarked that a contract fee means it was a fee established for the maintenance of a contract between an individual and the court, which requires multiple workers. She explained she only wants the assurance that the fee will be going for the intended use and not used to offset other costs incurred by the court system. Mayor Scruggs joined the meeting at this time. Councilmember Knaack commented this fee was arrived at by staff doing a lot of due diligence in figuring the cost; therefore, she was in full support. As far as allowing for discretion by the Presiding Judge, she does not have a problem with allowing them the flexibility to figure out the fees. She said the Council appoints the Presiding Judge and therefore, Judge Finn should be given some latitude since she had a judiciary duty to the court and to the city. She restated her support of the fee and also supports giving the discretionary ability to the presiding judge. She 4 added she was not about to micro-manage the court system since she was a city councilmember and not a judge. Vice Mayor Frate agreed with Councilmember Knaack and added that who better to set the fee than the Presiding Judge. He stated Judge Finn had the confidence of everyone on the City Council. In addition, city council does have frequent meetings with her and they are kept up to date. He stated he will support this item. Judge Finn inquired if the consensus from the Council was to move forward with this item. Vice Mayor Frate stated there was a consensus from the Council to move forward. He thanked Judge Finn for her presentation as well as for the updates she provides council each month. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 2:10 p.m. 5