Belen City Council to consider closing municipal court

BELEN—After years of operating in the red, the Belen Municipal Court might close its doors after the New Mexico Legislature and the governor eliminated criminal fees in all courts.

The Belen City Council unanimously approved a motion to establish a committee, which will be responsible for fact finding and make a final report and recommendation to the governing body.

Establishing a committee is the first part of the process to possibly eliminate a court. The process must take place before the end of the term of the current municipal judge, which, in this case, is December 2025.

The committee will be compromised of the mayor, one city councilor, the municipal judge, the police chief and three members of the public, who are selected by the mayor, the governing body and the judge. The council is scheduled to select and appoint members of the committee at the Monday, Sept. 16, regular business meeting.

Once the committee makes its recommendation to the council, the governing body will then take the matter into consideration and vote. If they do favor closing the court, it will then be sent to the New Mexico Supreme Court for its approval.

If the municipal court is closed, the Belen Magistrate Court would have the jurisdiction over the city’s municipal ordinances.

The subject of closing the court came up once before in September 2020 when then-city councilor Robert Noblin voiced his concerns the court’s revenue and expenditures were affecting the city’s general fund.

Four years later, Noblin, who is now Belen’s mayor, is once again bringing the idea to the council, this time giving them six reasons why he thinks a committee should be formed and why the council should possibly consider closing the court.

“One of the things that the public should be aware of is the mayor and council — the governing body — is not asking for a decision tonight to dissolve the municipal court,” Noblin said. “We’re asking, under state statute, to approve to form a committee ...”

Noblin said the first reason why he wants the city to consider forming a committee is the city’s fiscal responsibility regarding the municipal court.

“The committee would assess the current cost associated with operating the court, including salaries, facilities, administrative costs and other related expenses,” Noblin said. “This analysis would help determine if the court is sustainable or if using the magistrate court would reduce our costs.”

The second reason is the operational efficiency of the court, the mayor said. He wants to know the volume and types of cases in the court, and wants to see if the current system is efficient, and if it could be better managed by the magistrate court.

Noblin also wants to know if there are legal and jurisdictional implications of moving municipal cases to magistrate court, including how city ordinances would be enforced.

The mayor is also wondering about the continuity of legal services to the public.

“It’s crucial to ensure the transition to magistrate court would not disrupt legal services in the city of Belen,” Noblin said. “The committee could examine how well the magistrate court could handle the specific needs of our city ...”

The mayor wants to look at how closing the court would impact the community. He said the committee would be required to hold public hearings and solicit feedback from residents, business owners and the legal community.

The fifth reason on the mayor’s list is long-term strategic planning. He said the committee would consider the city’s growth projections as state law obligates cities with a population more than 10,000 to have a municipal court.

“The committee should study the city’s growth projections and if the court could meet those future demands, including if the magistrate court could accommodate the case volume,” the mayor said.

Noblin said being transparent and having an independent review of the issue ensures public trust and making sure the decision-making process is without conflicts of interest and bias.

“The committee is responsible for producing a detailed report of findings and recommendations, providing the city council and the public with a clear rational for any proposed changes,” the mayor said.

During the public comment portion of the city council meeting last week, Municipal Court Judge Keith Norwood, who is serving his first term in office, said he and his staff have been working on a plan on how to recoup the loss of the court fees.

“I understand that you have a right to do this,” Norwood said, “but just an (inaudible) of respect while we’re going through this process would have been OK, and I wouldn’t have been so upset.”

Norwood told the council he understands the cost of housing prisoners at the Valencia County Detention Center has increased, and the city is responsible for paying that bill.

“People go to jail, and it costs,” the judge said. “When people don’t show up for court, what do we do with them? Let them go? That’s not justice. It’s not fair. What about the victims?”

The judge said he doesn’t want to send people to jail, but he will when it’s about the law and about justice.

“I want you to really consider what’s going on and what the court is doing,” Norwood told the councilors. “I don’t think you understand what the court does. It’s going to cost us when we send people to jail.”

Court bailiff Jerry Baca invited the councilors and the mayor to attend a court hearing and witness what the court does.

“I’m here today because I respect each one of you and what you try to do for our city, and I know there’s tough decisions to be made,” Baca said. “I’m here in ... support of our current judge, Keith Norwood ...

“I want you to consider going to the courtroom, where you’ll see respect, dignity and accountability,” the bailiff said. “That’s what’s been happening. I know you guys will be surprised when you see what’s going on in the courtroom.”

Councilor Rudy Espinoza said he has more questions than answers about the proposed idea of closing the court. He said it would be best to form a committee to research all the necessary facts.

“I also think it’s important to get public involvement,” Espinoza said. “This is near and dear to my heart; this is something that is really important to me and we need to make the right decision.”

Councilor Frank Ortega said he’s lived in Belen all his life, and there’s always been a municipal court.

“The court isn’t supposed to be a money making business, but the city can’t afford everything,” Ortega said.

Councilor Steve Holdman also agreed a committee needs to be established, saying he doesn’t understand why the state took away the fees. He also reminded the council that if and when they do take a vote on the issue, it has to be a super majority, meaning three of the four councilors must vote in favor of closing the court before it can be sent to the Supreme Court.

“As someone who spent half of my career in the legal field, this isn’t something I want to see happen,” said Councilor Tracy Armijo. “But we have to have fiscal responsibility.”

Daniel Carbajal, the city’s finance director, told the council it’s still unclear how the absence of the fees will impact the court’s budget, but did say the increase of housing prisoners has once again gone up.

According to numbers provided to the News-Bulletin by Noblin, the city paid $104,000 in 2023 to house its prisoners, while the court received $59,000 in court fees. The salaries, utilities and operations of the court totaled $238,000.

Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham signed House Bill 139 into law in 2023.

“The elimination of fee funding is a national best practice,” said Chief Justice of the New Mexico Supreme Court, Shannon Bacon, “which promotes budget transparency and eliminates the unjust practice of paying for government functions on the backs of those who can least afford it.”