HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 10141986 - T.4 ...... .... . . . ... .
Ty
TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
Contra
FROM: PHIL BATCHELOR Costa
County Administrator
DATE: October 3, 1986 County
SUBJECT: PRESENTATION BY THE PRESIDENT, MUNICIPAL COURT JUDGES ASSOCIATION AND
THE MARSHAL, AND THE SHERIFF—CORONER REGARDING THEIR PROPOSALS FOR
rQNSnT TnATTQM nT7 rnTTRT-RFT ATFT) CFRVTC`FR
SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATION(S) Q BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION
RECOMMENDATION:
Hear presentation by the Municipal Court Judges Association and the Marshal, and the
Sheriff-Coroner regarding their proposed options for achieving cost savings through
consolidation of court-related services in either the Marshal's Department or Sheriff's
Department, and consider action to be taken.
REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATION/BACKGROUND:
The Board of Supervisors referred the County Administrator's report on the feasibility of
consolidating court-related services in Contra Costa County to the Marshal,
Sheriff-Coroner, municipal and superior court judges (July 24, 1986). The Board members
asked for a recommendation as to how best to realize the cost savings outlined in the
report. The following responses have been received:
1. MARSHAL'S AND MUNICIPAL COURT JUDGES' PROPOSAL
The Marshal and municipal court judges presented two proposals to eliminate the
duplication of functions in the court services area:
Proposal 1: Marshal responsible for service of civil process Countywide.
Estimated Savings: $460,909
Proposal 2: Marshal to provide bailiffs and security for superior and municipal
courts, and provide Countywide service of civil process.
Estimated Savings: Not submitted
The proposal indicates that less annual savings can be realized than that indicated
in the recent County Administrator's study. Proposal 1 indicates a savings of
$460,909; this is $111,600 less a year than projected. This is largely a result of
the Marshal keeping more sworn officers and hiring fewer civilians than recommended.
CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: X YES SIGNATURE:
—X RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATIO OF BOARD COMMITTEE
X APPROVE OTHER
SIGNATURES)
ACTION OF BOARD ON October 14 , 1986 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED X— OTHER -.X____
The following people appeared to comment: Carol Kizziah, County Administrator's staff; Judge John C. Minney,
Walnut Creek-Danville Judicial District; Marshall Rodger Davis; G. Wright Morton, Contra Costa County Bar
Association; Richard James, Deputy Marshall; David Cook, Attorney, 333 Pine Street, San Francisco; and the
Board CONTINUED the matter to October 28, 1986 at 2:30 p.m.
VOTE OF SUPERVISORS
_X UNANIMOUS (ABSENT ) 1 HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE
AYES: NOES: AND CORRECT COPY OF AN ACTION TAKEN
ABSENT: ABSTAIN: AND ENTERED ON THE MINUTES OF THE BOARD
OF SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN.
CC: CAO-Justice System Programs ATTESTED October 14 , 1986
Superior & Municipal Court Judges Phfi eor, Cletk of the Burd of
Sheriff-Coroner &VeMSOrbSd C&AtyAdminWrimf
Marshal
M302/7•83 BY B. DEPUTY
�Presehtatidn-cProposals for Colidation of Court-Related Servs
Page 2•
4
The Marshal and municipal court judges suggest that if their proposal is unacceptable
to the Board of Supervisors, it would be their intent to join with the Board to seek
legislation which would adopt the provisions of putting all court-related services
under either the Marshal's Department or the Sheriff's Department. Suggested
legislation, modeled after that used in Ventura County, would establish a
"Marshal/Sheriff Consolidation Advisory Committee composed of,
". . .two judges of the Contra Costa County Superior Court,
one of which shall be the presiding judge and the other
shall be selected by the judges of the Contra Costa County
Superior Court; two judges of the Contra Costa County
Municipal Court, one of which shall be the chairperson of
the Municipal Court of Contra Costa County and the other
shall be selected by the judges of the Municipal Court of
Contra Costa County; and a fifth person from the Contra
Costa County Bar Association whose selection shall be
concurred in by unanimous vote of the other members.
"(b) The advisory committee shall prepare a plan for
the consolidation of the above services. The plan shall
be approved by affirmative vote of at least four members
of the committee.
"(c) If so approved, the plan shall be forwarded to
the judges of the superior and municipal courts for
ratification. The plan may not be implemented unless
ratified by a majority of the Superior Court Judges of
Contra Costa County and the majority of the Municipal
Court Judges of Contra Costa County."
2. SHERIFF-CORONER'S PROPOSAL
The Sheriff presented three options and the associated cost savings
that reflect his agency's position on consolidation of court services.
Plan 1: All court service functions consolidated in Sheriff's
Department (bailiffing, civil process, court holding and
security, and prisoner transportation).
Estimated Savings: $1,112,310
Plan 2: Civil process consolidated in Sheriff's Office and
superior/municipal court bailiffs consolidated in Marshal's
Office.
Estimated Savings: $997,775
Plan 3: Civil process consolidated in Sheriff's Department and
no change in bailiff organizational arrangement.
Estimated Savings: $997,775
The Sheriff's proposal states that it is possible to achieve more cost
savings than indicated in the recent County Administrator's study.
Under the three options presented by the Sheriff, the savings are
estimated at close to $1 million dollars a year--at least $500,000 per
year more than projected in the study. The Sheriff achieves the
additional cost savings largely through recommending closure of the
Marshal's district offices and centralizing the civil process
function.
Most of the additional savings outlined in the Sheriff's proposal are
obtainable. The current district offices could be closed. Most civil
process arrives by mail. The Sheriff is willing to have existing
staff at substations in each of the municipal .court districts accept
civil process to meet the current legal requirements and to
accommodate citizens wanting to deliver the papers in person. The
Marshal, with the cooperation of the municipal court judges, has
closed one office satisfactorily, substituting a drop box and
Preseh•tation-;Proposals for Co•lidation of Court-Related Servs
Page 3
telephone line for questions. The Sheriff can immediately realize
office closure savings because the Department has alternative
facilities already in operation. There would, however, be costs
associated with closing the Concord office. Those costs are estimated
at $80,000. This would reduce the. first year rental savings to
$150,000.
The Sheriff included savings in the area of safety equipment. This
figure ($161,490) came from the 1986-87 budget request by the Marshal
for safety equipment. The Marshal received only $13,270 of the
request. Furthermore, the items that were funded were basic safety
items which would be provided to any sworn officer.
The Sheriff also included a one-time cost saving of $49,000 for
upgrading the Sheriff's computerized system.
Staff revised savings figures for the Sheriff's three proposals are:
Plan 1: $901,820 per year
Plan 2: $746,213 per year
Plan 3: $746,213