HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 09201988 - 2.2 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ,�.,,
FROM: Phil Batchelor C tra
County Administrator Cost
DATE: September 13 , 1988
SUBJECT; Trial Court Funding Act
SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATION(S) & BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION
RECOMMENDATIONS:
1 . Authorize the County Administrator to meet. with the
Presiding Judge of the Superior Court and the Presiding
Judge of the Mt. Diablo Municipal Court, or such other
committee as the court may designate, to determine their
willingness to sign a resolution indicating the willingness
of the court for Contra Costa County to become an option
county pursuant to SB 612 and AB 1197.
2. Request the County Administrator to return to the Board of
Supervisors by November 30, 1988 with his recommendations
for whether the County should become an option county for
the 1988-89 fiscal year.
3 . Include as a part of the Board' s 1989 legislative program,
the repeal of Government Code Section 77200. 5 as added by AB
1197 which requires the transfer of $50,000 annually from
Contra Costa County to the Oakland Zoo.
4 . Refer this report for hearings before the full Board sitting
as the Finance Committee and augmented by the Correctional
and Detention Services Advisory Committee for the purpose of
reviewing the financial implications of becoming an option
county, and request the Finance Committee to report their
recommendations to the Board by November 30, 1988.
BACKGROUND:
In 1985 , the Legislature enacted AB 19 which provided funding for
the Trial Courts in California counties. AB 19 provided that it
would not go into effect until adequate funding was provided. In
1987, the Legislature enacted SB 709 which modified provisions of
the Trial Court Funding Act and funded the Act. Amendments were
added to SB 709 at the last minute which were troublesome to
Contra Costa and several other counties. These amendments
required the county to transfer property tax funds to any city in
the county which had a tax rate which resulted in the city
receiving less than 100 of the property taxes which were
generated in the city. Contra Costa has nine such cities.
CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT; _ YES - SIGNATURE; ��J� D /�/2��
__X- RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE
_ APPROVE OTHER
S I GNATURE I S
ACTION OF BOARD ON September 20, 1988 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED X OTHER
VOTE OF SUPERVISORS
1 HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE
X UNANIMOUS (ABSENT AND CORRECT COPY OF'AN ACTION TAKEN
AYES: NOES: AND ENTERED ON THE MINUTES OF THE BOARD
ABSENT: ABSTAIN: OF SUPERV I S'OR,,SS ON THE DATE SHOWN.
cc: Listed on Page 5 ATTESTED
PHIL_ BATCHELOR, CLERK OF THE BOARD OF
SUPERVISORS AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
M382/1-83 DEPUTY
Page 2
In 19881 the Legislature,, in ' response to pressure from the
counties which were affected, by the "no and low" provisions and
in recognition of the need. to clarify several provisions 'of . SB
709, ' began to 'work on -"clean up" legislation. 'This county,
through its contract lobbyists, and with. the close . cooperation of
CSAC, began .to work on amendments which would soften the impact
of the transfer. of property taxes to the "no and low" cities and
which, would cure several of the more obvious flaws in SB 709:
What eventually emerged from months, of work on the. part -of the
counties, cities, .and the : Legislature were -two pieces of
legislation: ''-'SB-" 612 (Presley) and AB 1197 (W:Brown) .: These two
pieces of legislation substantially modify the funding provisions
of SB . 709 .in terms of the trial courts, primarily to the benefit
of the counties. and 'modify the provisions of the.: transfer of
property taxes to the, cities which are defined as low- and
no-property tax cities, again substantially, .to thebenefit of the
counties. While neither bill is all .that the counties wanted or
. . sought, neither is either bill exactly -,what the cities wanted.
As enacted by. SR 709., trial court funding would have` been handled
by providing each county a fixed block grant based on the type
and number, of. judicial positions the county had been authorized
in the past by the - Legislature. In return,' the ::county would
return to' the state , all of the fees., fines. .,andforfeitures
collected by the county. This .system was conside,red ' not to be to' .
-the benef it of most -counties because the block grant would have
grown at the rate . of Saate employees ' salary increases. Since
fees, fines and.' forfeitures have historically grown at a rate
several times that• 'of State employee salaries it was clear that
the State would benefit from the system in the long run In many,
counties it -was . possible to' project that eventually the. State
would be. receiving more in fees, fines and forfeitures than it
would be returning to the . county in trial court block grants
Many counties, therefore, sought to have some of' the fees, fines
and forfeitures' exempted from being returned to the State. In.
addition, there was a move ..on the part of .many counties to argue
that a .share'<.of the' growth in the fees fines , and• forfeitures
should be retained .by the county both to serve as an `incentive to . .:
continue aggressively. collecting the fees, fines and forfeitures,'.
and to insure that the trial court block grant would. be .
worthwhile for the counties.
Another problem. with S,B 709 was .that it required that each county
whichchose to become an option county and accept the block grant.:
would have to forego any State reimbursement for. any future
State-mandated local programs. < It was. always unclear whether
this waiver .. applied only to court-related mandates . or to all
mandates, regardless of their relationship to the trial courts.
Finally, for some sixteen counties,. including, *Contra Costa
County, was the requirement in SB 709 that counties transfer to
any county that currently received less than. 10% of `the property
taxes generated -in that city sufficient property tax revenue to
... bring the city up to the. 10% level. This requirement was to be
phased in over a. ,ten-year period with 'the county guaranteeing the
city an additional l% of property taxes each.lyear until the city
was receiving the full 10% required by SB 709. •' Apart from. the
fact that : this .`,requirement had nothing to 'do with the funding of.
the trial courts, it. quickly became clear that this provision'
would 'create a financial disaster for many counties, ;,particularly
Ventura, which, has ., three no-property tax cities,, . -and Contra
Costa, which has two' no-property tax- cities and -seven additional ,
low-property tax cities: Analyses done - by the Office of the.
Auditor-Controller showed clearly that Contra' Costa . County would
eventually lose money from -.the entire trial court funding program'
Page 3
because `of this single requirement. The Board of, Supervisors, as
a result, indicated that they could - not in good conscience
participate in the trial court funding program :. unless • they
received some relief from the property tax transfer provisions of
the bill. Resolving this dilemma was made the single most
important legislative priority for the County Administrator ' s
Office and the County! s lobbyist.
Whatresulted from nearly `a year of substantial effort on the
part . of individual Board Members, the County Administrator' s
staff and the County' s lobbyist was a compromise which, while not
perfect, is probably the ,best that could have been expected from
a compromise involving so many competing interests.' .
. SB 612 and AB 1197 accomplish the following:
1 . The County will, if the Board decides to become an option
county:, receive ,a block grant of $212,000 annually for each
Judicial position, including the ' two Superior Court
positions created by SB: 709. . - This block grant amount will
be, increased each year by the amount State employees '
salaries are increased for the prior fiscal year. Since
State employees received a 6% increase for the current
fiscal year, the block grant will be increased by 60
effective July 1, 1989. The block grant will be provided in
the' form of quarterly payments from the State amounting to
$53, 000 per quarter for each judicial position.
2 . Counties will, be allowed to retain all fees, fines and
forfeitures collected by the county.
3 . Counties will receive a subsidy for the salary ofmunicipal
court judges . equivalent . to that - currently received for
superior court judges. Contra Costa County will be required
to . pay only $9500 per year toward the salary of each
municipal- court judge effective January 1, 1989.
4. Counties will lose the $60,000 subsidy for each superior
court position which - has been created since .1973 . For
Contra Costa County this will amount to. a loss of $240,000
per year for the four superior court positions which have
been created since 1973 .
5. Counties will have to waive any claim for reimbursement for
State-mandated local programs having to do with those
subjects covered in SB 612 for which the Trial Court -Block
Grant. can be used. In other words, the trial court block
grant is ' seen as, in part, a permanent replacement for
individual.claims relating to State-mandated local programs
in the trial court area. This waiver will be effective for
claims relating to .any legislation chaptered prior to the
chaptering of SB 612 unless a claim has been 'filed by -the
date that SB 612 is chaptered. The county does not
apparently waive any claims on future legislation. The
county can petition the .Governor, who is authorized to
exempt the county from any of the waiver requirements which,
in his discretion, are justified.
6 . The . bills establish a maintenance-of-effort requirement
whereby no ,county may reduce its financial support of the
trial courts below the level of expenditures made during the
fiscal year that the county becomes an. option county.
Page 4
7 . The . legislation requires that an option county agree to
transfer to the State that amount of .the ' county' s
appropriation limit represented by. the amount..': of the block
: grant plus the increased funding for municipal 'court judges'
salaries minus the -loss of thesuperior .,.court judges '
subsidy and minus the amount of - the• loss in reimbursement
for State-mandated local programs waived under,,,SB 612
8. The legislation increases the penalty surcharge for certain
vehicle code -violations currently dedicated to trauma care
and emergency medical service programs pursuant to SB 12
from $1.00 to $2 .00 .
. 9. The legislation makes all court employees., . other than those
with safety retirement -status;, public employees �of the
county for all matters within the scope of 'representation.
10: In order to. - become an option county during the 1988-8'9
fiscal year ,. the Board of Supervisors, the presiding judge
of the superior court, . and the presiding judge of the Mt.
Diablo Municipal Court, must jointly sign _ a resolution, to
the State by January ;15, ` 1989 indicating that the county
-wishes to be `ar option county. For the 1989-90 fiscal year,
the 'Board of Supervisors must indicate to the State by March
1, 1989 that, .it wishes to be an option county. For all
subsequentyears, the Board- must indicate its intent to
become ' an option county for a fiscal - year by the . preceding
November 15 .(November 15, 1989 for the. 1990-91. fiscal year),.
11 . Newly created judicial positions (ones which are effective
January 1, 1990 or ,later) will be subject to an additional
State ;payment whereby the county- will receive�- 1000 of the
cost to the county for adding a judicial position during the
.first year, 75,% of the cost for the second year,- 50% of the
cost for : the third year, and .250 . of the cost for . the fourth.
year. Thereafter, the county will receive the `amoixnt of the
block- grant, as _it has been adjusted , for inflation in the
intervening years. Apparently; the Judicial ,Council will
determine on, geographic basis the average increased cost
for adding a -municipal or superior court ,department. . It is
our understanding that this cost will include the associated
costs for ,bailiff, court clerk, and other -related, .costs
which are subject to inclusion. _.f or purposesof the trial
court block grant.
12 . The tra'ns`fer of property taxes to the no- . and' low-property .
tax cities will. be limited to 70 of the property tax
generated in' 'that city- phased in over 7 years rather than
10o phased --in over 10 years
13 : The transfer of property tax to the no- and low-property tax
cities, will be delayed until July 1 , 1989.,
14 . The no- and`.low-property tax cities will receive credit for
all 'of the growth ".in the assessed value each year within
that. city ,in -determining the amount of property taxes . to
which . the city is entitled. This was apparently the
. . original intent of the Legislature in ' enacting . SB 709:
However, . due - to a,-* technical drafting error '.. the Legislative
"Analyst 'h s' SB 709 as prohibiting the cities.
1. .:from benefiting _from increases in the property. .tax due to
increases. `in 'the assessed value. This error has. now been
corrected:
Page 5
15.. The amount~ of: assessed value which. belongs to a city
redevelopment. - agency . will. . be - deducted from the gross
assessed value of the city : in determining: the amount of
property tax to which. the city is,'entitled.
16. Cities • which incorporated after Proposition 13 and,
therefore., have their property tax, levels,, determined by
LAFCO are still eligible for, property tax transfers if they
qualify, as a no- or low-property tax city. .
17. � Specified counties may increase their bail ',schedules ' until
December 31,, 1992 and need not split the increase in revenue
with the cities up to a specified dollar. limit for each
county based on a .formula. For .. Contra - Costa County, the
limit is $1.00,000 `per year, in 'increased revenue from the
increase in the ''bail schedule. Any revenue which may be
generated from increases in the bail schedule 'above $100,000
per year. will be subject to, the. normal split . with the
cities. -
18. The specialg Vehicle License Feef provisionswhich have
applied to the ,no-property tax cities' would be restored,, but
those cities would 'lose the special subvention on a
dollar-for-dollar * basis as they received property tax
revenue. from 'the county.,
19 Contra Costa County and Alameda County.,` in an amendment:
added at the very. last minute with ho., public discussion or
`debate, would . berequired to provide a, subsidy to the
Oakland Zoo in the amount of $50 ,000 . per: year for each
county in case either or both counties became option
counties under these provisions.
Since the County has until January 15, 1989 to decide whether it
wishes to become . an. option county for the 198878.9' fiscal year
(effective January 1.,`' 1989)., it is not .necessary at ,:this time .for -
the Board of Supervisors to, decide whether or not "it wishes to .
become an option county. We :are providing this report at this
time primarily- to allow the. Board of . Supervisors : .to - understand.
` some of the''factors which. are involved in the 'Trial Court Funding
Act -.so that it will be. possible to make an informed. decision when
such a decision, is. required.
cc: ' County Administrator.
Presiding Judge, -Superior Court
Chairman; . Municipal Court Judges Association
Presiding Judge;. Mt. Diablo Municipal Court
Superior Court Administrator_
Municipal.:Court Administrator
District Attorney
Sheriff-Coroner
. -Public, Defender` ,
County Probation Officer'
County Clerk-Recorder
County Auditor-Controller.
Directors Justice Systems Programs;
�a
. r
H
O'
U �
H H r-
H z 0o N d' O -z
N �:) r-1 to 'I to Cl)
WO
Zi U Ln : M N O r -
W W D Ln ,o H M
W O O,
H
EA . I
W
z
41
x az Qd
°w � oa �4 :J
4-J
En UW LHH (d
x Ei � a 00' M � 0) M H 0o M � aro) -°: O
O 9 W rn r (,4 Ln co x 'M �4 a) a-? V O U
w O H � 00 N [� M M H H U O Q ro U a)
H a Lin . ,T -c), -4, Ln -14 rd � �.�
W W N � r. O U44 a) 0 0 +-)
N Pa a (N l0 . O l0 N +-) r-i O O ro U -A
3 i M r-I 4J
U
O M 1:: 3
a U) 4J (dro
wA HU) roa Urf-' 4-J 4J a) 4-)
w p >+ U o o 0 0 4J 4J •r-1 U a) O
x £ H O O o �v 00 f-I U) �4 A Ul
c/) O z 0 (D O o w Ln, rd >, H - A �4 a) (1)
U �D z I I . , . I �4 r-i E~ N .11. Ji
w O H O , O " l0 . 00 00 U rd a) +J 4-) 4-)Oa UH o o ri -T m I-- � �4 I,- Fz: rn
H � C:). d' 00 N W U Q' -P 40-1 U.>.:O
En W o 0 o r-q r•1 O a) u) u) U a)
W W a ,-i ,--1 '-, t-1 rA r-1 > 4-Jb
30 w .r, � (d0 (1) Q)
cno � a � —A 4j.
H H H �J U) S4 X a) t3' a)
P4, ri w -v 00 M O r-1 a (d -P a) > a)
WW O ni r l4 34
H > U �J
W O O cT N l0. (d a) J, O U
"Zr 00 •r♦ }-1 34 }4 V +-) .
Q U l0 r*1 w _ r-1 �4 a) , a) >1 In
HO H a � a � Cd rn-r-+
tea C C o a -AOOE: Q
H W -q r-1 w �4 U -ri J-).
(n U V0O �J
0 r 1 (1) in •ri }.4 O
a) � ?J) E
C) H N M O H.4-J 3 3 cd rd
a m rn m m rn z -x
U (Yi M O r-1 N M .
�I 00 m m m m
rn
H W rn rn (3) m
W �+