Laserfiche WebLink
04-20-92 03;35PM FROM MIDDLEBURG FINANCE TO 4614846 P003/009 <br />4) There are almast no limitations an what aan be <br />cnarged the Mayor's court citi@s for municipal caurt <br />operating Costs; <br />5) AXl coSts/final figures/budgets are unilaterally <br />determined. No negotiations!p <br />from the pZ2v1aus year are to be used to <br />determine the cUrrent psyments - a ver.y inequitable <br />measurement. <br />Iriequity would be most flsgrant if a Y,qayqx • s cQUrt <br />i.s terminated and still owes riased on a previous <br />year's recard; <br />7) Legislation is 100se on definitioris t,hat would affeGt <br />oost calcalation: <br />a) Is it ane ease qr several when mu],tiple aharges <br />arise frorrt a siriqle inGident? <br />b) Who is to designete the 1st defendant whose home <br />Cit}? pays the ooat of a czvrYx case wheri there is W <br />majarity of defendants zesiding in a singl.e city?; <br />Mayoros court could be requxred to pay out 150$ of <br />costs co1I.ected for the State. The amount current].y <br />claimed by the State would be caunted aE ?ovenue and, <br />thus, an additional 50% of that amount could be <br />tapped by the municipal courts. <br />9) It woulrl make available its regular share of <br />proportionate ineome now paid for cases actually <br />conducted in cqurt; <br />10) Shifts burden pf operating losses from the host <br />municipal city, whiCh has some control over <br />municipa], court spereding, to cities with mayor's <br />Cq11rts and whir-h have n2 control over municipal court <br />spending. <br />ZZ) H.B. 314 affeCts 28 Mzxyor•s courts in Cuyahaga <br />Caunty, whiah efficiently adt'ainister justice and rely <br />on x.t for revenue; <br />121 Section 3-makes bi].1 xetrvaative ta January 1, 1992.