[Amended 7-17-2023 by Ord. No. 23-11]
The effective date for the creation of the Pascack Joint Municipal
Court shall be the later of March 1, 2011, or the date of approval
by the State of New Jersey Administrative Office of Courts and the
Assignment Judge of the Superior Court of New Jersey, Bergen County.
The Court shall remain in effect and extend its operation through
December 31, 2030.
The jurisdiction of the Pascack Joint Municipal Court shall
be coextensive with the territory of the Boroughs of Montvale, Park
Ridge, and Woodcliff Lake.
There shall be one Prosecutor of the Municipal Court who shall
prosecute all cases in the Municipal Court. The Prosecutor shall be
appointed for a one-year term by the Advisory Committee and the municipalities
in accordance with the procedures set forth in this chapter. The compensation
of the Prosecutor shall be determined by the Advisory Committee and
such compensation shall be allocated and billed to each municipality
as set forth herein.
There shall be one Public Defender of the Municipal Court who
shall represent those defendants assigned by the Municipal Court Judge.
The Public Defender shall be appointed for a one-year term by the
Advisory Committee and the municipalities in accordance with the procedures
set forth in this chapter. The compensation of the Public Defender
shall be determined by the Advisory Committee and such compensation
shall be allocated and billed to each municipality as set forth herein.
There may be one or more Deputy Court Administrators of the Municipal Court who shall be appointed in accordance with the procedures set forth in §
12-4, provided that funds are provided for such purpose in the Municipal Court budget. Deputy Municipal Court Administrators shall perform the functions assigned to them by the Municipal Court Judge and the Administrator. The compensation of the Deputy Administrator shall be determined by the Advisory Committee and such compensation shall be allocated and billed to each municipality as set forth herein.
There may be appointed such other necessary clerical and other
assistant staff for the Municipal Court as is necessary for the efficient
operation of the Municipal Court, who shall be appointed in accordance
with the procedures set forth in this chapter for administrative personnel.
The compensation of these employees shall be determined by the Advisory
Committee and such compensation shall be allocated and billed to each
municipality as set forth herein.
A municipality may withdraw from participation in the Joint
Municipal Court by delivering written notice to the Joint Court and
all municipalities of its intentions to withdraw no less than one
full year prior to the date of withdrawal. All withdrawals shall be
effective January 1, no earlier than one full year subsequent to the
date of notice of withdrawal. Withdrawal of one or more municipalities
from the Joint Court shall not preclude the other municipalities from
forming or continuing a joint municipal court on terms acceptable
to them.
Montvale may solicit other municipalities to the Joint Court.
In the event that a contract with an additional municipality is pending
or contemplated, Montvale will present the anticipated impacts on
staffing and operating expenses to the Advisory Committee and recommend
adjustments to the annual base fee associated with providing Joint
Court facilities, personnel, and resources, as appropriate. Notwithstanding
the foregoing, any amendment to include an additional municipality
shall require approval by all municipalities as required by law and
the agreement authorized by this chapter.
As provided in the Uniform Shared Services and Consolidation
Act, P.L.2007, c.63 (C.40a:65-1, et seq.), in the event of any dispute
as to the amount to be paid under the terms of the Joint Court Agreement,
the full amount shall be paid without prejudice to the disputing parties.
If through subsequent negotiation, litigation, or settlement, the
amount due shall be determined, agreed to, or adjudicated to be less
than was actually so paid, Montvale shall promptly pay the excess
owed.
The governing body of the Borough of Woodcliff Lake is hereby
authorized to enter into a shared services agreement embodying the
provisions of this chapter pursuant to the Uniform Shared Services
and Consolidation Act, N.J.S.A. 40A:65-1, et seq. (the "Act") in accordance
with the terms thereof. In the event of a discrepancy between this
chapter and the Uniform Shared Services and Consolidation Act and
any amendments thereto, the Act shall take precedence.
[Added 11-25-2013 by Ord.
No. 13-09]
A. Standard fees. The Municipal Prosecutor, or a private prosecutor in a cross-complaint case, may charge a fee for a copy or copies of discovery. The fee assessed for discovery embodied in the form of printed matter shall be $0.05 per letter-size page or smaller, and $0.07 per legal-size page or larger. From time to time, as necessary, these rates may be revised pursuant to a schedule promulgated by the Administrative Director of the Courts and this chapter shall be amended accordingly. If the prosecutor can demonstrate that the actual costs for copying discovery exceed the foregoing rates, the prosecutor shall be permitted to charge a reasonable amount equal to the actual costs of copying. The actual copying costs shall be the costs of materials and supplies used to copy the discovery, but shall not include the costs of labor or other overhead expenses associated with making the copies, except as provided for in Subsection
B of this rule. Electronic records and non-printed materials shall be provided free of charge, but the prosecutor may charge for the actual costs of any needed supplies such as computer discs.
B. Special service charge for printed copies. Whenever the nature, format,
manner of collation, or volume of discovery embodied in the form of
printed matter to be copied is such that the discovery cannot be reproduced
by ordinary document copying equipment in ordinary business size,
or is such that it would involve an extraordinary expenditure of time
and effort to copy, the prosecutor may charge, in addition to the
actual copying costs, a special service charge that shall be reasonable
and shall be based upon the actual direct costs of providing the copy
or copies. The defendant shall have the opportunity to review and
object to the charge prior to it being incurred.
C. Special service charge for electronic records. If the defendant requests
an electronic record: (1) in a medium or format not routinely used
by the prosecutor; (2) not routinely developed or maintained by the
prosecutor; or (3) requiring a substantial amount of manipulation
or programming of information technology, the prosecutor may charge,
in addition to the actual cost of duplication, a special charge that
shall be reasonable and shall be based on (1) the cost for any extensive
use of information technology, or (2) the labor cost of personnel
providing the service that is actually incurred by the prosecutor
or attributable to the prosecutor for the programming, clerical and
supervisory assistance required, or (3) both. The defendant shall
have the opportunity to review and object to the charge prior to it
being incurred.