Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutBOARD STANDING COMMITTEES - 04012019 - PPC Agenda Pkt       PUBLIC PROTECTION COMMITTEE April 1, 2019 10:30 A.M. 651 Pine Street, Room 101, Martinez Supervisor John Gioia, Chair Supervisor Federal D. Glover, Vice Chair Agenda Items: Items may be taken out of order based on the business of the day and preference of the Committee         1.Introductions   2.Public comment on any item under the jurisdiction of the Committee and not on this agenda (speakers may be limited to three minutes).   3. APPROVE Record of Action from the March 11, 2019 meeting. (Page 3)   4. CONSIDER accepting an introductory report on the issue of certain fees assessed by the County related to the criminal justice system and provide direction to staff regarding next steps. (Paul Reyes, Committee Staff) (Page 7)   5.The next meeting is currently scheduled for May 6, 2019.   6.Adjourn   The Public Protection Committee will provide reasonable accommodations for persons with disabilities planning to attend Public Protection Committee meetings. Contact the staff person listed below at least 72 hours before the meeting. Any disclosable public records related to an open session item on a regular meeting agenda and distributed by the County to a majority of members of the Public Protection Committee less than 96 hours prior to that meeting are available for public inspection at 651 Pine Street, 10th floor, during normal business hours. Public comment may be submitted via electronic mail on agenda items at least one full work day prior to the published meeting time. For Additional Information Contact: Paul Reyes, Committee Staff Phone (925) 335-1096, Fax (925) 646-1353 paul.reyes@cao.cccounty.us PUBLIC PROTECTION COMMITTEE 3. Meeting Date:04/01/2019   Subject:RECORD OF ACTION - March 11, 2019 Department:County Administrator Referral No.: N/A   Referral Name: RECORD OF ACTION - March 11, 2019  Presenter: Paul Reyes, Committee Staff Contact: Paul Reyes, (925) 335-1096 Referral History: County Ordinance requires that each County body keep a record of its meetings. Though the record need not be verbatim, it must accurately reflect the agenda and the decisions made in the meeting. Referral Update: Attached for the Committee's consideration is the Record of Action for its March 11, 2019 meeting. Recommendation(s)/Next Step(s): APPROVE Record of Action from the March 11, 2019 meeting. Fiscal Impact (if any): No fiscal impact. This item is informational only. Attachments Record of Action - March 11, 2019 Page 3 of 19 PUBLIC PROTECTION COMMITTEE **RECORD OF ACTION** March 11, 2019 10:30 A.M. 651 Pine Street, Room 101, Martinez Supervisor John Gioia, Chair Supervisor Federal D. Glover, Vice Chair Agenda Items:Items may be taken out of order based on the business of the day and preference of the Committee   Present: John Gioia, Chair Federal D. Glover, Vice Chair Staff Present: Tim Ewell, Chief Assistant County Administrator                  1.Introductions    Convene - 10:30 AM   2.Public comment on any item under the jurisdiction of the Committee and not on this agenda (speakers may be limited to three minutes).    Public comment was received.   3.APPROVE Record of Action from the February 4, 2019 meeting.      Approved as presented.    Chair John Gioia, Vice Chair Federal D. Glover  AYE: Chair John Gioia, Vice Chair Federal D. Glover Passed 4.1. ACCEPT a report on the County's Multi-Agency Juvenile Justice Plan; and 2. PROVIDE direction to staff regarding the recruitment process for the community based organization and public member seats on the Contra Costa County Juvenile Justice Coordinating Coucil.       Approved as presented with the following direction to staff: Page 4 of 19  Approved as presented with the following direction to staff: Proceed with the proposed 8-week application process;1. Directed the Juvenile Justice Coordinating Council to implement the Juvenile Justice Action Strategy; 2. Report back to the Committee with an update upon completing the Georgetown University project. 3.    Chair John Gioia, Vice Chair Federal D. Glover  AYE: Chair John Gioia, Vice Chair Federal D. Glover Passed 5.1. ACCEPT an update on the Board of Supervisor's letter requesting the Contra Costa County Fairgrounds to ban gun shows; and 2. PROVIDE direction to staff on next steps.       Approved as presented.    Vice Chair Federal D. Glover, Chair John Gioia  AYE: Chair John Gioia, Vice Chair Federal D. Glover Passed 6.APPROVE the fiscal year 2018/2019 AB 109 funding for the Public Defender's West County EarlyRep program in the amount of $43,858.       Approved as presented with the following modification: Approved FY 18/19 AB 109 funding for the Public Defender's West County EarlyRep program in the amount of $63,000. 1.    Chair John Gioia, Vice Chair Federal D. Glover  AYE: Chair John Gioia, Vice Chair Federal D. Glover Passed 7.ACCEPT the recommendation by the QAC to increase Fast Eddie’s award by $37,500 to be executed as a new contract for $73,797 with a term of November 1, 2018 through December 31, 2019. 1. DIRECT the ORJ to award up to $50,000 from the Local Innovation Fund through “micro – grants” in amounts ranging from $3,000 - $10,000 to the five agencies currently participating in the County’s Capacity Building Project. 2. DIRECT staff to conduct an RFP process to utilize remaining revenue of the Local Innovation Fund. 3.       Approved as presented.    Chair John Gioia,  AYE: Chair John Gioia Page 5 of 19 Other: Vice Chair Federal D. Glover (ABSENT) Passed 8.The next meeting is currently scheduled for April 1, 2019.   9.Adjourn    Adjourned - 11:58 AM     The Public Protection Committee will provide reasonable accommodations for persons with disabilities planning to attend Public Protection Committee meetings. Contact the staff person listed below at least 72 hours before the meeting. Any disclosable public records related to an open session item on a regular meeting agenda and distributed by the County to a majority of members of the Public Protection Committee less than 96 hours prior to that meeting are available for public inspection at 651 Pine Street, 10th floor, during normal business hours. Public comment may be submitted via electronic mail on agenda items at least one full work day prior to the published meeting time. For Additional Information Contact: Timothy Ewell, Committee Staff Phone (925) 335-1036, Fax (925) 646-1353 timothy.ewell@cao.cccounty.us Page 6 of 19 PUBLIC PROTECTION COMMITTEE 4. Meeting Date:04/01/2019   Subject:Criminal Justice Fees Submitted For: PUBLIC PROTECTION COMMITTEE,  Department:County Administrator Referral No.: N/A   Referral Name: Criminal Justice Fees  Presenter: Paul Reyes, Committee Staff Contact: Paul Reyes, 925-335-1096 Referral History: On February 26, 2019, The Board of Supervisors referred to the Public Protection Committee the topic of criminal justice system fees charged to individuals and a review the current programs, policies and practices related to criminal justice fees. A copy of the referral is attached for reference. Referral Update: Background Momentum to end criminal fees is growing in the state and individual counties have begun to view criminal justice fees as “high pain, low gain,” and have taken steps to eliminate them. In 2017, the County of Los Angeles eliminated its public defender registration fee. In May 2018, San Francisco eliminated all criminal administrative fees under its control, freeing over 21,000 people of more than $32,000,000 in outstanding criminal administrative fees and surcharges. Most recently, in December 2018, the Alameda County Board of Supervisors voted to eliminate a host of county-imposed criminal fees. The board voted to eliminate $26,000,000 in fees for tens of thousands of Alameda County residents. A copy of the Alameda County Board of Supervisors approved ordiance is attached for reference.  With the passage of Senate Bill 190 in 2017, the State of California eliminated juvenile justice fees in all counties. In January 2019, Senate Bill (SB) 144 was introduced by Sen. Holly Mitchell and would state the intent of the Legislature to enact legislation to eliminate the range of administrative fees that agencies and courts are authorized to impose to fund elements of the criminal legal system, and to eliminate all outstanding debt incurred as a result of the imposition of administrative fees. There has recently been discussion at the state level about the proposed elimination of specific fees – the probation fee, the public defender fee, and work furlough fee. This will likely be amended into SB 144 (Mitchell). SB 144 is currently on referral to the Senate Rules Committee for assignment. A copy of SB 144 is attached for reference. Page 7 of 19 The general argument in favor of continuing criminal justice fees is that these fees generate revenue for public programs and to fund their operations. Elimination of certain fees is effectively eliminating a revenue source and could potential result in reduction in County services. This needs to be weighed against a strong argument against imposing criminal justice fees. There is public concern that criminal justice fees are inequitable in that these fees are disproportionately imposed on communities of color and are especially harmful for Black and Latinx people, who are overrepresented in the criminal legal system across the state. Additionally, many view these fees as being regressive; hurting the poorest the most. Criminal justice fees are also viewed as being an inefficient source of government revenue. With the majority of criminal cases qualifying for indigent defense, these fee are a poor way to raise revenue and are often difficult to collect. There is also concern that these fees are impoverishing in that large monetary sanctions translate to large levels of debt that reinforce poverty. Lastly, there is concern that criminal fees could undermine public safety. The goal of a successful post-incarceration period is to reintegrate into the community, yet these fees are perceived as creating significant barriers to successful reentry. Analysis of adult criminal justice fees has proven to be complicated. State law dictate a very complex process for the distribution of fine and fee revenue. Per a recent Legislative Analyst’s Office report, state law currently contains at least 215 distinct code sections specifying how individual fines and fees are to be distributed to state and local funds, including additional requirements for when payments are not made in full.  Today’s report will focus on those fees that have been positively identified as being local and discretionary fees (i.e. not mandated by California law), specifically Probation Fees, Public Defender Fees, and Sheriff Custody Alternative Facility Fees. Further research and analysis will be needed on other fines and fees collected by the Contra Costa Superior Court of California (Court) and remitted to the County. Probation Fees Probation Report Fee - In 2009, the Board of Supervisors adopted Ordinance 2009-28 authorizing the Probation Department to charge a fee of $176 for the cost of generating a probation report to the Court. This is one-time fee.  Cost of Probation Fee - In 2010, the Board of Supervisors adopted Resolution No. 2010/262 to increase the monthly Cost of Probation Fee from $50 per month to $75 per month (average daily cost of $2.50).  Probation Drug Testing Fee – The Probation Department currently charges $10 per month (average daily cost of $0.33) for drug testing.  Probation Dept. Drug Diversion Fee – The Probation Department currently receives approximately $1,000 per year from this fee.  All adults that have been ordered to formal Probation, which includes mandatory supervision, and ordered to pay Probation fees, drug testing fees and/or the cost of their court report shall be assessed for their ability to pay said fees. The ability-to-pay determination is sent to the Court. The Court will order the amount the probationer is required to pay and refer the probationer to the Court Collections Unit for collection.  The following table illustrates the total amount of probation fees a probationer could Page 8 of 19 hypothetically be charged. This is assuming the probation is placed on 3 years of probation and requires monthly drug testing. Over 3 years, a probationer could be charged up to $3,236 for probation. Example Probationer Cost # of Months Total Supervision $75/month 36 2,700 Drug Testing $10/month 36 360 Report Fee $176 one-time n/a 176 Total Cost of Probation 3,236 Cost of Collection and Revenue The following table shows the actual and estimated cost of collection and revenue for FY 17/18 and FY 18/19, respectively. The Probation fee revenue is used to offset the salaries of adult Deputy Probation Officers.  Fee FY 17/18 Estimated FY 18/19 Collection Cost Revenue Collection Cost Revenue Probation Dept. Drug Diversion Fee (PC 1001.9)143 1,249 10 1,000 Cost of Probation Fee 91,957 475,573 82,000 444,000 Probation Cost of Drug Test Fee (PC 1203.1(ab))12,332 60,638 12,000 61,000 Probation Report Fee (PC 1203.1(b))4,554 27,333 5,000 30,000 Total 108,986 564,793 99,010 536,000 Public Defender Fees Penal Code 987.81 authorizes the Court to consider and make a determination of the defendant’s ability to pay all or a portion of the costs of legal assistance provided through the public defender or private counsel appointed by the court and may order the defendant to pay all or a part of the cost.  Adults charged with capital or homicide cases may have to pay fees ordered by the court at the conclusion of the case to reimburse the County for the cost of outside counsel. The defendant is referred to the Contra Costa Superior Court Collections Unit by the judge who orders the amount to be paid. The Court makes a determination as to how  much, if any, of the ordered amount the person can afford to pay. This determination is made on a sliding scale  based upon the person's financial resources. The Office of the Public Defender is not involved in the determination  of, or collection of fees. Cost of Collection and Revenue The following table shows the actual and estimated cost of collection and revenue for FY 17/18 and FY 18/19, respectively. The Public Defender Fee revenue is used to offset cost of County trial court function, specifically costs associated with capital cases. Fee FY 17/18 Projected FY 18/19 Collection Cost Revenue Collection Cost Revenue Public Defender Fee 1,849 26,100 - 121,000 Page 9 of 19 Sheriff Office Custody Alternative Facility Program Fees In 2009, the Board of Supervisors approved Resolution No. 2009/435 setting the fees for the Office of the Sheriff custody alternative programs. The current fees for the Custody Alternative Facility programs are provided below. Fee Cost Electronic Home Detention and Alcohol Monitoring: Application fee $125.00 one-time Electronic Home Monitoring Only $20.00 per day Alcohol Monitoring Only $20.00 per day Electronic Home Monitoring and Alcohol Monitoring $23.50 per day Urinalysis Test $6.00 per test Work Alternative Program: Application fee $125.00 one-time Daily Fee $16.00 per day Ability to Pay Process The current Custody Alternative Facility (CAF) procedure provides for the CAF participant to be completely enrolled in a CAF program prior to discussing fees or ability to pay. Participants review and complete the personal budget with their assigned CAF Specialist. The participant will then request a reduction/waiver of fees based on their stated ability to pay. A CAF Sergeant will review and approve the Personal Budget form. A participant's inability to pay all or a portion of any fee(s) will not preclude them from being enrolled or completing any program offered by the Custody Alternative Facility. Process of Collections CAF fees are collected after the participant is enrolled in a CAF program. Fees can be paid in the manner which is most appropriate for the participant. Participants can pay their total program fees at one time or over a pre-determined length of time. There is no process established to collect payment from participants who complete the program, but do not pay. A participant's ability to successfully complete a CAF programs is not impacted by lack of payment. Future Plan for CAF Electronic Home Detention and Work Alternative Prog rams CAF is currently working with representatives from the Office of Re-Entry and Justice, the Public Defender’s Office, and Reentry Solutions Group to present updated Ability to Pay forms. Revenue The following table shows the actual and estimated revenue for FY 17/18 and FY 18/19, respectively. The CAF Fee revenue is used to offset program costs. Program FY 17/18 Projected FY 18/19 Work Alternative Program 443,055 423,000 Electronic Home Detention 568,541 12,000 Total 1,011,596 435,000 Page 10 of 19 Recommendation(s)/Next Step(s): ACCEPT an introductory report on the issue of certain fees assessed by the County related to the criminal justice system; and 1. PROVIDE direction to staff on next steps.2. Fiscal Impact (if any): No immediate fiscal impact. Attachments Board of Supervisors Referral - Criminal Justice Fees Alameda County Ordinance Eliminating Fees Senate Bill 144 Page 11 of 19 RECOMMENDATION(S): REFER to the Public Protection Committee the issue of criminal justice system fees charged to individuals. FISCAL IMPACT: No fiscal impact. This action refers the issue of justice system fees to the Public Protection Committee. BACKGROUND: Existing law allows the County to impose various criminal justice fees for the cost of administering the criminal justice system. This referral is being requested to review the current programs, policies and practices related to criminal justice fees. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: The issue will not be referred to the Public Protection Committee for review. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 02/26/2019 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor ABSENT:Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Contact: Paul Reyes, 925-335-1096 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: February 26, 2019 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: June McHuen, Deputy cc: C. 83 To:Board of Supervisors From:PUBLIC PROTECTION COMMITTEE Date:February 26, 2019 Contra Costa County Subject:Criminal Justice Fees Page 12 of 19 ORDINANCE NO. 2018-67 -- AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 2.42.190 OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE CODE TO ELIMINATE PROBATION FEES; REPEALING RESOLUTION 2011-142 REGARDING PUBLIC DEFENDER/CONFLICT COUNSEL FEES FOR REPRESENTATION OF INDIGENT ADULTS; AND ELIMINATING SHERIFF'S WORK ALTERNATIVE PROGRAM ADMINISTRATIVE AND ATTENDANCE FEES. WHEREAS, criminal justice financial obligations like probation supervision and investigation fees, indigent defense fees, and fees associated with work release programs, can have long-term effects that can undermine successful societal reentry goals of the formerly-incarcerated, such as attaining stable housing, transportation, and employment; and WHEREAS, this Board of Supervisors recognizes that criminal justice debt levied against low- income or indigent adults compromises key principles of fairness in the administration of justice in a democratic society and engenders deep distrust of the criminal justice system among those overburdened by such debt; and WHEREAS, California Penal Code section 1203 .1 b authorizes but does not require a county to recover the actual costs for probation services in lieu of incarceration; and WHEREAS, County of Alameda Administrative Code section 2.42.190 establishes probation department fees; and WHEREAS, California Penal Code sections 987 .5 and 987.8 authorizes but does not require the assessment of fees to cover the costs of appointed counsel; and WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors most recently authorized Indigent Defense Fees in Resolution 2011-142; and WHEREAS, California Penal Code section 4024.2 authorizes but does not require a board of supervisors to assess an administrative fee on inmates of the county jail for costs associated with a county 's work release program; and WHEREAS , the Board of Supervisors has approved the Alameda County Sheriff's Office Sheriff Work Alternative Program (SWAP) and set administrative and attendance fees for participation in that Program ; and WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors finds that it is in the best interest of the County, justice- involved adults , and the larger community to repeal the above-named adult fees; and WHEREAS, it is also in the best interests of the County and the community that the Auditor- Controller be authorized to write-off all accounts receivable balances and close the associated fee accounts; Page 13 of 19 NOW, THEREFORE, the Board of Supervisors of the County of Alameda ordains as follows: SECTION I Section 2.42.190 of the County of Alameda Administrative Code is hereby amended to read as follows : 2.42.190 Probation Department fees. Notwithstanding any prior County ordinance or resolution of the Board of Supervisors to permit assessment of probation fees and costs under California Penal Code section 1203.1 b, neither the Probation Department nor any other County agency shall assess fees for probation services , or any other fees or costs authorized by Penal Code section 1203.1 b. SECTION II The Public Defender schedule of fees authorized by this Board in Resolution No. 2011-142 on May 1 0, 2011 is hereby repealed. SECTION Ill The Sheriff's Office Alternative Work Program (SWAP) administrat ive fee and attendance fee , authorized by this Board by resolution as permitted by Penal Code section 4024.2 is repealed . Neither the Sheriff's Office or any other County agency shall assess SWAP administration or attendance fees. SECTION IV This ordinance shall take effect and be in force thirty (30) days from and after the date of passage and before the expiration of fifteen (15) days after its passage it shall be published once with the ~ names of the members voting for and against the same in the Inter-City Express , a newspaper published in the County of Alameda. Adopted by the Board of Supervisors of the County of Alameda , State of California , on the 4th day of December ,· 2018 , by the following called vote : AYES : Su pervisors Carson, Haggerty, Miley & Preside n t Ch a n NOES : None EXCUSED : Su pervisor V a l le ' ~~/2-- President of the Board of Supervisors ATTEST : Clerk of the Board of Supervisors , Page 14 of 19 \)~ By:. __ ~~~~~~~~----------- Deputy Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: DONNA R. ZIEGLER, COUNTY COUNSEL By: Assistant County Counsel I -Page 15 of 19 SENATE BILL No. 144 Introduced by Senator Mitchell January 18, 2019 An act relating to criminal fees. legislative counsel’s digest SB 144, as introduced, Mitchell. Fees: criminal administrative fees. Existing law imposes various fees contingent upon a criminal arrest, prosecution, or conviction for the cost of administering the criminal justice system, including administering probation and diversion programs, collecting restitution orders, processing arrests and citations, administering drug testing, incarcerating inmates, facilitating medical visits, and sealing or expunging criminal records. This bill would state the intent of the Legislature to enact legislation to eliminate the range of administrative fees that agencies and courts are authorized to impose to fund elements of the criminal legal system, and to eliminate all outstanding debt incurred as a result of the imposition of administrative fees. Vote: majority. Appropriation: no. Fiscal committee: no.​ State-mandated local program: no.​ The people of the State of California do enact as follows: line 1 SECTION 1. The Legislature finds and declares all of the line 2 following: line 3 (a)  State law authorizes counties to charge criminal line 4 administrative fees. These financial exactions are imposed in line 5 addition, in many cases, to serving time in prison, and are intended line 6 to generate revenue for public programs and to fund their line 7 operations. Page 16 of 19 line 1 (b)  Administrative fees, penalty assessments, and surcharges line 2 are extraordinarily burdensome. Individuals exiting the criminal line 3 justice system are often charged dozens of administrative fees and line 4 surcharges, totaling thousands of dollars per person. In Los Angeles line 5 County, for example, someone with a 3-year term of probation line 6 accumulates over $5,500 in probation fees alone. line 7 (c)  These fees are charged to people who have already paid their line 8 debt to society and serve no formal punitive function, and are often line 9 assigned to people who simply cannot afford to pay them. line 10 (d)  This practice often pushes families into poverty and can trap line 11 them in a cycle of debt. They serve as a perpetual punishment by line 12 pushing vulnerable families further into economic insecurity and line 13 peril, as well as increased mental stress, with low-income people line 14 and people of color often hit the hardest. Additionally, a national line 15 survey of formerly incarcerated people found that families often line 16 bear the burden of fees, and that 83 percent of the people line 17 responsible for paying these costs are women. line 18 (e)  Due to overpolicing and systemic racial bias, these fees are line 19 disproportionately imposed on communities of color and are line 20 especially harmful for Black and Latinx people, who are line 21 overrepresented in the criminal legal system across the state. line 22 Despite making up only 7 percent of the state population, Black line 23 people make up 23 percent of the probation population and are line 24 also grossly overrepresented in felony and misdemeanor arrests. line 25 Moreover, close to half of Black and Latinx households in line 26 California live on the brink of poverty as they struggle to put food line 27 on the table and pay for housing. line 28 (f)  The vast majority of people exiting jail or prison are line 29 unemployed, have unstable housing, have no steady source of line 30 income, and find work difficult or nearly impossible to obtain after line 31 release. Approximately 80 percent of individuals in jail are line 32 indigent. Yet, after someone has already served their time, they line 33 frequently receive a bill for a long list of fines and fees to pay for line 34 probation, fingerprinting, and mandated user fees. According to a line 35 report by the Ella Baker Center for Human Rights, the average line 36 debt incurred for court-related fines and fees of over 700 people line 37 surveyed was $13,607, nearly equal to the annual income for line 38 respondents in the survey. line 39 (g)  Criminal fees also undermine public safety. The goal of a line 40 successful postincarceration period is to reintegrate into the 2 Page 17 of 19 line 1 community, yet these fees create significant barriers to successful line 2 reentry. These financial burdens frequently hit individuals at the line 3 precise moment they are trying to turn their lives around. The line 4 nonpayment of criminal fees can lead to wage garnishment, bank line 5 account levies, tax refund intercepts, driver’s and professional line 6 license suspensions, negative credit scores, and even incarceration line 7 or deportation. These consequences can, in turn, limit access to line 8 employment, housing, education, and public benefits, which creates line 9 additional barriers to successful reentry. Research also shows that line 10 the fees can push individuals into underground economies and can line 11 result in individuals turning to criminal activity or predatory line 12 lending to pay their debts. line 13 (h)  Criminal fees are also an inefficient source of government line 14 revenue. Research shows that the fees are expensive and difficult line 15 to collect. For instance, in one year, Alameda County Central line 16 Collections spent approximately $1.6 million toward collection of line 17 adult fines, fees and restitution for all cases, resulting in a net loss line 18 of $1.3 million. Similarly, a study of comparable juvenile line 19 administrative fees found that counties typically netted very little line 20 or even lost revenue after accounting for collections costs. line 21 (i)  Momentum to end criminal fees is growing in the state and line 22 individual counties have begun to recognize that these fees are line 23 “high pain, low gain,” and are taking steps to eliminate them. In line 24 May 2018, San Francisco eliminated all criminal administrative line 25 fees under its control, freeing over 21,000 people of more than line 26 $32,000,000 in outstanding criminal administrative fees and line 27 surcharges. Additionally, in December of 2018, the Alameda line 28 County Board of Supervisors voted to eliminate a host of line 29 county-imposed criminal fees. The board voted to eliminate line 30 $26,000,000 in fees for tens of thousands of Alameda County line 31 residents. In 2017, the County of Los Angeles eliminated its public line 32 defender registration fee. line 33 (j)  With the passage of Senate Bill 190 in 2017 and other line 34 important criminal justice reform bills, California is a national line 35 leader in criminal justice reform. In order to live up to our line 36 progressive values of fairness, equity, and opportunity for all, the line 37 Legislature should continue its work on criminal justice reform line 38 and take all measures necessary to ensure all California families line 39 have a chance to achieve economic stability and are treated fairly. 3 Page 18 of 19 line 1 SEC. 2. It is the intent of the Legislature to enact legislation line 2 to eliminate the range of administrative fees that agencies and line 3 courts are authorized to impose to fund elements of the criminal line 4 legal system, and to eliminate all outstanding debt incurred as a line 5 result of the imposition of administrative fees. O 4 Page 19 of 19