Council approves court fee to fund improvements

The Maricopa City Council unanimously approved a $20 court fee during its May 2 meeting.

Ordinance 23-24, a court enhancement fund, would allow for a $20 administrative fee to be added to and collected from court fines. The funds generated would be used toward funding improvements to the court.

This includes details such as repairing and improving existing court buildings, providing and upgrading court security, acquiring equipment, services that would enhance the court and training for judicial officers and court staff. The ordinance would also require the presiding judge to submit a spending report to Maricopa City Council.

A previous version of the ordinance did not specify a fee amount or require the spending be reported to the city council.

The new ordinance was initially introduced on the council’s consent agenda on April 18. At the time, it included a section that would allow the funds to be used toward acquiring sites for new buildings and constructing and acquiring new buildings. That version also required submitting reports to the city manager as well as the city council.

Councilmember Eric Goettl made a motion to remove this wording during the May 2 meeting. The motion was seconded by Councilmember Bob Marsh and, later, unanimously approved by the council.

“The court enhancement fund should be used to be able to enhance current buildings but not necessarily for the purchasing of lands and the building of those buildings,” Goettl said. “That is a role designated for our city staff.”

That same motion also added wording that specified allowing funds to provide and upgrade court security. The motion was seconded by Councilmember Bob Marsh and unanimously approved by the council.

When asked about the motion following the meeting, Goettl said he wanted to make sure any changes to city code are appropriate and that a separation of powers is honored even in city government.

“We just have to be real careful that those separations are there,” he said. “I don’t think it’s appropriate for the court to feel like it has to answer to the city manager.”

“It’s a technicality and I don’t know that it was a huge, big deal but I just wanted to make sure that we were just protecting those different areas of responsibilities,” Goettl said.