Court administrator seeks dedicated warrant officer, bailiff and higher maximum fines

Laura Roberts, court administrator for the City of Homewood, asked the City Council on Sept. 11 to add a full-time warrant officer and a full-time bailiff to the budget and to approve changes that would allow higher maximum ordinance fines. Roberts told the council the warrant officer would help clear a large backlog of outstanding warrants and that the bailiff position would replace overtime assignments now handled by sworn police officers. Roberts said the court originally had 12,876 outstanding warrants when she began and that the number is now “a little over 9,000,” and that the court’s printed case docket showed “over 22,000 outstanding cases.” She said a dedicated warrant officer would focus on serving warrants and assist with court security, and that the position would technically be an employee of the police department even though it would work to the court’s schedule. “The police department doesn't have the manpower or dedication time to dedicate to a warrant officer,” Roberts said. Roberts described the bailiff request as “in dire need” and said she would fund 50% of that position from the corrections jail fund and 50% from the court corrections fund, not from the general fund. She also asked the council to keep one already-funded full-time court clerk position available so she can fill it in the next fiscal year, and requested authority to spend up to $10,000 from court funds on office furniture and up to $45,000 from court funds on a vehicle for court use. Separately, Roberts recommended updating the city’s fine schedule. She proposed replacing many existing maximum fines capped at $100 with a maximum of $500, while leaving judges discretion to set lower amounts when appropriate. “I'm asking that you all approve the ordinance to be put in place to update what we have and make a maximum bond of 500,” Roberts said. She noted the change would be a maximum cap, not a mandatory fine amount, and said the judge would consider factors such as repeat offenses and indigence when assessing fines. Council members asked for comparables from other cities and for more specifics about thresholds between lower and higher fines, and one councilor said social science does not always show that higher fines change behavior. The council agreed to place the proposed fine-schedule changes on the committee referral agenda for the Public Safety Committee, where members said they would develop ordinance language and hold a fuller discussion. No formal motion or vote to adopt the personnel requests or ordinance change occurred at the Sept. 11 meeting; the requests were presented for consideration as part of the budget process and for referral to committee. Council members and staff indicated further review and committee discussion would follow.