Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Municipal Court topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Belton council establishes municipal court of record, names judges and prosecutor
Summary
The Belton City Council unanimously amended its code to create a municipal court of record, set two-year judge terms, named presiding and associate judges and confirmed the city prosecutor; the council chose video-recording as the initial reporting method with a short retention policy and a transcription-on-appeal workflow.
The Belton City Council on May 13 unanimously approved an ordinance amending Chapter 2 of the city code to establish a municipal court of record and then approved employment contracts for the presiding judge, associate judge and the municipal prosecutor.
City staff said the change follows a charter amendment voters approved in the May 3 special election that removed a conflict preventing fixed judicial terms. "The big thing is, appeals in a court of record can only be done based upon procedural issues," a city presenter said during the discussion, explaining how the court-of-record status changes appeal review.
Under the ordinance the presiding municipal judge will be Steve Lee and the associate judge will be Jasmine Rios Harding; both were offered new two-year terms running May 13, 2025, through May 12, 2027. The council also approved a two-year contract for Carmen Garcia to continue as the municipal prosecutor, and approved Lacresha Van de Plasse as court administrator.
On court reporting, staff presented two options spelled out in the ordinance: require a stenographic reporter at proceedings or rely on video recordings with transcription provided if a case is appealed. The council selected the latter as the city’s intended approach. "We don't expect that many appeals," the presenter said, arguing the video-plus-transcription-on-appeal approach is less expensive and practical for the city. Staff said recordings will be kept for 20 days beyond the last hearing and that a court reporter would prepare a formal transcript when needed for appeal.
Council members asked about failure of recording equipment; staff said the required recordings would be maintained and that a recording failure would likely generate a procedural appeal to the county court, as would other procedural defects. City staff also said technology for video recording was already installed and ready to use upon adoption.
After adopting the ordinance the council voted unanimously to approve the three contracts and administered oaths of office for the judge and prosecutor as provided in the agenda.
The ordinance renumbers related municipal court code sections and explicitly lists the court’s jurisdiction as set out in state law. It also names the presiding judge, associate judge and court administrator and specifies the chosen court-reporting procedure.
Council action: the ordinance creating the municipal court of record and the related contracts were approved unanimously. The council directed staff to implement the video-recording approach and to call a court reporter for transcription if appeals require it.
The ordinance takes effect immediately upon passage; the council did not set any additional effective dates beyond the contract term dates for the judges and prosecutor.
