Garnishment processing fee fails to pass
By Bert Lehman
The Clintonville City Council defeated a resolution to allow the city to charge a $3 processing fee for each garnishment payment it processes.
The Clintonville Finance Committee defeated the proposed resolution at its Aug. 13 meeting.
Despite the defeat, the item was still on the city council agenda the following night, allowing the entire council to discuss the issue.
The resolution was originally suggested by city staff.
At the finance committee meeting, Clintonville Clerk-Treasurer Peggy Johnson said the city currently has to process garnishment payments for five city employees.
A garnishment fee is charged by an employer to an employee who has been court-ordered to direct a portion of their paycheck to a person or institution that they owe money, such as for child support or student loans. The garnishment fee is intended to help recoup some of the costs associated with processing the payments.
Alderman Brandon Braden, a member of the finance committee, said he voted against the resolution because it wouldl impact city employees who are already having their wages garnished. The revenue wouldn’t significantly improve the ability of the city to function, he said.
Council President Mike Hankins, who is also the chairman of the finance committee, said there are costs involved for the city to process garnishment payments, and this was the staff’s attempt to recoup some of those costs.
“I think it’s the appropriate thing for staff to be recommending and we should be following through to do that,” Hankins said.
Johnson said state statute allows the city to charge $3 per garnishment payment in an effort to recover a portion of the city’s cost to process the garnishment payments.
Currently the city doesn’t charge anything to process garnishment payments. The city does receive a one-time fee of $15 for garnishments that go through the courts, such as small claims court.
Clintonville Mayor Richard Beggs informed the city council that the Clintonville Public School District charges a $3 processing fee on garnishment payments.
Alderman Ben Huber, who is also on the finance committee, said he felt a $3 processing fee for each garnishment payment is too much. He said that equates to an employee who is being garnished paying $78 in processing fees over the course of one year.
“I hope you recognize we have asked the taxpayers of Clintonville to pay Peggy’s [Johnson] staff to act as a bill-payer for people who can’t manage their own finances,” Beggs said. “We don’t think it’s fair to charge those people three bucks, which is nothing?”
Alderman Brad Rokus, also a member of the finance committee, said he voted against the resolution because of the generalization that all people being garnished are in that situation because of their negligence to pay their bills and that the city is acting as a bill collector.
“Not all garnishments are because of that,” Rokus said. “To me it’s almost like kicking somebody when they’re down.”
Braden said he also voted against the resolution because it would only bring the city around $300 in revenue.
“I think three bucks is three bucks and if the city has more than three bucks in expenses processing these things, I don’t think it’s unreasonable to do that,” Hankins responded. “And I appreciate the [city] staff trying to point out ways we can recoup some of our costs. This by no means covers all of our costs of doing this, but if the state has given us an avenue to cover some of our costs I think we should avail ourselves to that.”
Hankins made a motion to approve the resolution that would allow the city to charge a $3 processing fee for each garnishment payment. Alderwoman Julie Stumbris seconded the motion.
The motion was defeated 6-4. Hankins, Stumbris, Alderman Jim Supanich and Alderwoman Maggie Tischauser voted in favor of the resolution.