The funding dispute at the 34th District Court which serves
the townships of Sumpter, Van Buren and Huron along with the cities of Belleville and Romulus
has been formally settled by a new funding agreement among the municipalities.
The District Court Unit Funding Agreement will replace the
one signed in 1998 and revised either in writing or verbally multiple times by
the communities served by the court
This written agreement was suggested by Michigan State Court
Regional Administrator Paul J. Paruk who completed an audit of the court
finances following questions raised by court officials earlier this year about
disbursements by Romulus ,
the host community of the court. That disagreement was reportedly based on the
2016 agreement to construct a new court building for which the City of Romulus issued a $17
million bond as a funding mechanism. The court subsequently added fees on
traffic tickets and fines to be set aside to pay that bond obligation.
Questions about the correct distribution of those funds were eventually
referred to the Michigan State Court Administrative Office for a review and an
audit. That audit was completed by Paruk who sent a letter detailing his
findings to all the communities involved last month.
In his detailed and extensive explanation of the findings,
Paruk found no wrongdoing or misappropriation of funding as had been rumored.
He did find both an overpayment of funds to the other communities from Romulus underRomulus
to the communities under another verbal arrangement, modifying the 1998
agreement.
In his letter, Paruk suggested the solution be the
formalization of all the various verbal agreements between the communities and
the court in a new funding document to be signed by all the municipalities
involved.
“In my initial meeting with representatives from the
communities, it became apparent there were differing interpretations of how
disbursement by the Court should have been made pursuant to the agreement and
how funds could be used. This was based, in part, on their interpretation of
the 1998 Agreement and their understanding of whether the agreement has been
orally modified over the years. A discussion took place regarding whether any
alleged oral agreements would be binding and enforceable,” Paruk wrote in his
findings.
He stressed the importance of the communities coming to a
consensus on the issues and recommended that representatives from the
communities continue to work on a joint resolution in the matter.
“It is an opportunity
to fashion an outcome that meets your needs and not risk an alternative that is
lengthy, costly and unpredictable. If I can be of any assistance in helping the
communities further understand these issues or help to resolve these matters,
please feel free to contact me,” Paruk concluded.
The agreement waives any claims any of the participants may
have against any of the other participants and establishes regular twice-yearly
meetings where court funding and procedural issues can be discussed.
All the involved communities have reportedly tentatively
agreed to the provisions of the new funding agreement.
