EDITOR:
As part of their 2026 budget preparation, City of Parkville staff proposed eliminating the Municipal Court (MC) and moving all court matters to the Platte County Circuit Court (PCCC) on the basis that annual fine revenue doesn’t cover the city’s annual court costs. As I relayed to Alderman Brian Whitley, if this is the new standard by which the city is going to evaluate costs, I am all for it. However, in this case, there is more to the story.
Parkville residents can and should listen the Nov 18 meeting discussion, starting at the 32:02 mark.
https://parkvillemo.portal.civicclerk.com/event/735/media
Some key items presented/discussed were:
·Costs in the past few years are exceeding revenue.
·It was noted more than once that the 2025 MC budget included for the first time internal service fund (ISF) administrative cost allocations. If MC was eliminated, those ISF costs would be allocated to other departments. I label ISF as “accounting gymnastics” as it serves only to confuse those who don’t understand accounting and provides no benefit to residents. 2025 total MC costs and the 2026 MC budget are thus artificially inflated.
·MC’s true annual costs have remained relatively flat other than for items such as health insurance, over which MC has no control.
·Most cases heard by the MC do not pertain to traffic tickets; the vast majority of tickets are disposed of by the ticketed individual paying the fine. Thus, there is no direct correlation between court activities and fine revenue.
·The city would continue to fund a prosecutor and public defender, and possibly other expenses. In my world, it would be standard practice to present a pro forma revenue/expense summary if MC was eliminated. City staff failed to do that.
·Alderman Whitley suggested a “trial balloon” voter levy ballot to fund MC while also mentioning that voters rejected the 2004 levy extension. Is it the city so desperate that it needs MC’s budget to repair sidewalks at city hall?
Municipal Court Judge Kevin Humiston, who is subject to election every two years, made several key points:
·The purpose of MC is not to generate revenue, but to serve residents, and assist crime victims, many of whom are Parkville residents.
·Instead of having a MC judge who knows the local landscape, who may in some cases know the charged individual, who holds a high standard for community service, and who seeks to educate teens and young adults who appear before him how to make good adult decisions, a PCCC judge may seek only to clear a docket matter without the local touch.
·For crime victims, a move to PCCC means taking time off from work whereas MC matters are handled in the late afternoon and evening, thus avoiding that inconvenience.
Police Chief Kevin Chrisman also made some key points:
·The focus of police staff is not to write tickets, but to educate and change behavior.
·He prioritizes a focus on crime and officer safety. He noted that a vehicle stop can take two or more hours and tie up two or more officers depending on the individual(s) detained, warrants outstanding, etc.
·While some cities may have “gotcha” traffic points to generate ticket revenue, Parkville police focus on safety and quality of life.
The most revealing part of this board session, in my view, was that city staff doesn’t appear to understand two of its key customers, MC and Police, and that they exposed their inability to both evaluate public safety and place a value on safety related matters. There was no discussion in the meeting by either city staff or aldermen of the $1.1 million public safety sales tax revenues (a perpetual sales/use tax effective 10/1/2023) and how that new tax revenue impacts public safety or the general fund. Chief Chrisman noted that his department is now fully staffed without referencing the benefit of this new revenue.
As an accountant by trade, I am always amused when bean counters attempt to make financial decisions or recommendations without understanding the underlying business issues or ramifications of their recommendations. In my view, this is a clear case of tunnel vision bean counting. I suspect city staff came into the meeting thinking the board would rubber stamp their recommendation, and then applaud them for their work. Fortunately, the matter was tabled to a future meeting. Unfortunately, it appears there are some aldermen who are enamored with tunnel vision bean counting, including Alderman Melton.
Don’t assume your aldermen will make the best decision. Contact them. Parkville’s 2026 budget exceeds $19 million. MC’s net cost is less than .5% of the city’s annual budget.
Judge Humiston made the best argument for retaining municipal court: “A court closest to the people it affects is the best court.” If you have ever had to appear in court or if you have had a teenager faced with learning a hard life lesson by having to appear in court, you know the value of a local court.
I often refer to Parkville as Mayberry; not because Barney is on staff, but because crime is low. If this proposal is approved, the long term damage won’t be offset by cost savings. Tell your aldermen to find other areas to cut if they are so concerned about costs.
--Gordon Cook
Parkville
