Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Municipal Court topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Raymore moves to align municipal court fees with state audit; first reading approved

Raymore City Council · October 28, 2025
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

Council approved the first reading of Bill 39‑91 on Oct. 27, 2025 to amend Chapter 130 of the Raymore Code of Ordinances following an audit by the office of the state courts administrator. The changes remove certain chargeable costs and add a $1 clerk fee that the municipal judge may allocate.

The Raymore City Council approved the first reading of Bill 39‑91 on Oct. 27, 2025, an ordinance that amends provisions of Chapter 130 of the Raymore Code of Ordinances to conform city court practice to a recent audit by the office of the state courts administrator.

Staff described three primary changes: removal of a confinement cost previously imposed for individuals confined in the city jail; removal of costs for mileage and for issuance of warrants, commitments and summons; and creation of a $1 clerk fee in court costs that the municipal judge may divide between the judicial education fund and court‑appointed attorney fees at the judge’s discretion. Staff said these changes reflect the audit findings and are intended to bring the municipal court into compliance.

Councilmember Miss Adele Goad moved approval of the ordinance on first reading; Mister Ullman seconded. The first reading passed unanimously, 7‑0. Staff advised the council that a second round of audit recommendations is expected in the coming months and that additional ordinance changes may follow, including provisions that would further separate municipal court responsibilities from the prosecutor’s office and assign temporary‑judge appointment authority to the county presiding judge in certain circumstances.

No public comment was recorded on the item during the meeting.