Council reviews draft ordinance allowing preset fines to go to collections; staff and council discuss safeguards and cap

Tulsa Municipal Court staff presented a draft ordinance change to permit the use of collections for preset fines (citations where a defendant can pay a set amount without appearing in court) in addition to adjudicated fines. Under current city ordinance language (“adjudicated”), only fines entered before a judge were eligible; state law permits collection on preset fines, and the proposed ordinance would align city practice with that authority while adding required notices about court rights and available assistance.

Court administrator Sherry (last name in packet) described a companion letter and a program document that would accompany notices to defendants. The documents include: how to enter a plea, contact information for the court, options to appear and raise ability-to-pay issues, and a list of Municipal Court programs designed to assist people with payments.

Key points discussed: - The draft ordinance would authorize sending preset fines to a contractor-based collections process; state law allows a collection fee up to 35% but the November committee recommended a 25% cap, which is included in the draft paperwork. Councilors discussed whether to set the cap at 25% (current draft), raise it to 28–30% to improve contractor competition and reduce the need for frequent amendments, or keep it at or below 25% to limit added costs to individuals. - Staff explained the current collections contractor receives no up-front payment from the city; the contractor is paid by the collected fee assessed to the defendant. Staff said the contract is bid annually and the current contract rate is 24%, near the low end of statewide practice. - Councilors raised concerns about people who are unsheltered or transient who may not receive mailed postcards and whether collection letters would be effective for them. Staff said arrest and warrants remain enforcement outcomes for failure to appear or pay but also noted judges can recall cases from collections if defendants appear and seek relief.

Staff estimated an initial one-time collections yield of about $510,000 if the city batches outstanding eligible cases and sends them to collections, with an on-going annual yield thereafter estimated at $60,000–$100,000; staff said there is no direct city expenditure for collections — the contractor is paid from the assessed collection fee. Several councilors supported amendments to strengthen notice, preserve ability-to-pay hearings, and consider a slightly higher cap to improve contractor competition; others supported the 25% cap in the draft. The transcript does not record a final council vote on ordinance language or the fee cap.