Council reviews ordinance to mirror state traffic offenses for clarity in city court; discussion over upkeep and civil vs. criminal status

The city’s court clerk briefed council on an ordinance that would explicitly adopt by reference and itemize state traffic and other misdemeanors in the municipal code so defendants and officers have clear notice of offenses heard in city court.

Mister Griffin said the ordinance is intended to comply with statutory requirements and case law, including the Municipal Court Reform Act and case law clarifying municipal jurisdiction, and to avoid vague language that now states only that “offenses against the state” punishable by small fines are violations of city ordinance. “So the most efficient means of complying with this jurisdictional, requirement, statutory requirement, is to specifically itemize and detail those mirrored misdemeanors,” Griffin said. He added that the city cannot jail defendants in municipal court and that the ordinance should remove any confusion implying jail authority.

Council members raised practical concerns. Councilman Streetman asked whether someone would regularly track state statutory changes so the city’s cross‑references do not fall out of date; Griffin replied he would monitor statutes that affect city ticketing. Councilman McLaughlin and others suggested adding explicit language before first reading to make clear that municipal citations heard in city court are civil fines and not criminal convictions on a person’s criminal record. Griffin welcomed potential edits and noted the ordinance allows the city to adjudicate additional offenses (for example, some offenses the city does not currently prosecute), subject to prosecutorial and officer discretion.

The Public Safety Committee had approved the ordinance; the transcript shows discussion and possible amendments but no final recorded council vote.