HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 11051991 - S.3 TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
. Contra
FROM: SUNNE. WRIGHT MC PEAK
Costa
DATE: Introduced November 5 , 1991 County
SUBJECT: Establish Policy Regarding the Responsibility to Pay for Search
and Rescue Expenses Incurred in Another County
SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR'RECOMMENDATION(S) & BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION
RECOMMENDATION
Refer to the Finance Committee the following attachments regarding
the responsibility for expenses incurred in Search and Rescue
missions in other counties by Contra Costa residents.
BACKGROUND
In reviewing the letter from Sharon Gentry and the report from
County Counsel it is evident , that Contra Costa has no specific
policy. Action must be taken by the Board to both settle the
Gentry matter and implement future policy.
CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: YES SIGNATURE:
RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE
APPROVE OTHER
SIGNATURE(S)
ACTION OF BOARD ON NovPmbOr S. 1991 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED _X_ OTHER
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: Finance Committee ATTESTED
November 5, 1991
Phil Batchelor,Clerk of the Board of
Supervisors and Conrrttl Administrator
M382/7-83 BY DEPUTY
CdUNrY COUNSEL'S OFFICE
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
MARTINEZ, CALIFORNIA
COMIUNNTIAL
Elate! August 19 , 1991
To: Phil Ratchwlor, County Administrator
From: victor J_ Westman, County Counzol
By: Mary Ann McNett Mason, Deputy County Counsel ��[ . �• �'/
F�P: Rw_covory of Cost of Search and Resouo Missions
Summary: In response to your memorandum of July 26, we advise
that the County may decide, on a case by case bacio, whether to bill
and pursue collection from a rescued party and his responsible
relatives for the County's cost of reimbursing a search-rescue county
for its reasonable Qxponses of searching for and/or rescuing the
individual. When the County has decided to bill the resident, the
County may compromise the claim.
In Resolution No . 86/94 , the Board of Supervisors authorized the
director of the Office of Revenue Collections to compromise an
account rocoivable less than $5 , 000 prior to assigning the accQUILL tv
a collection agency. The maximum adjustment is 40% . Theaccount at
issue is under $5, 000. (See Gov. Code, sec . 26220; County Counsel
opinion 85-62 . )
Background: Monterey County performed a search and rescue
involving a Contra Costa County resident and billed Contra Costa
County for the costs of the search, (Gov. Code, sec. 26614 . 5) It is
not clear to this office whether Contra Costa County has paid the
Monterey County bill. . on July 10, 1991 this County billed the
resident for the cost of the search and rescue operation. You asked
what flexibility the County has in waiving the bill for its cost of
reimbursing Montorcy County.
Discus$ivn: We have previously advised that the County of
rosidonco iN entitled to recover from the subjeQL of a search and
rescue, or his responsible relatives, the County's costs of
reimbursing the search-rescue county for its reasonable expenses of
searching for and/or rescuing the individual. (Cowit;y Counsel
Opinions 82-82 ; 79-39 copies attached. ) As discussed in our attached
memoranda, the County does not have a mandatory statutory obligation
to seek such roimburcement. however the County is enLiLled to seek
reimbursement on the basis that the subject of the search and rescue
Phil Batchelor -2- August 19 , 1.991
has a duty to reimburse the County under the legal doctrines of
restitution and quasi-contract.
We note that the County should make determinations as to billing
in an evenhanded manner and that no standards have been promulgated
on billing for rescue services . Subject to that caveat, the County
can make a discretionary decision whether billing for reimbursompnt
is appropriate on a case by case basis . As we stated in our
memorandum of October 5, 1981 to the Auditor-Controller:
,,Incidentally, we agree with your informal views that the
particular facts of each case ought to be considered in
deciding whether to bill and/or sue for such costs . Not only
will such facts sometimes be adverse to the County from a
public relations standpoint (as where a child is searched for
but found dead, etc. ) , but they will sometimes be difficult
from a strictly legal standpoint (as where a very expensive
search was undertaken without sufficient evidence of anyone
being lost, etc. ) . The courts justify rpcovery in this kind
I
of case by the equitable theory of restitution (to prevent
"unjust enrichment" , for instance) ; they have always sought
to deny recovery where it would seem inequitable to gralnt it,
and to grant recovery where it seemed equitable to do so or
inequitable not to do so . Therefore, it is proper for you to
weigh the facts of each case from this standpoint. "
Based on our conversations of August 8, 1991 with Lois Desmond
and Grace Darand of the Auditor's Office, it is our understanding
that when a bill is received from another county for a search and
rescue operation, the Auditor' s Office bills county residents for
such costs only after making a judgmental decision that biking is
appropriate. ,Also, the Auditor's Office determines which Costs
billed by the other county are reasonable and only requests
reimbursement from the county resident for the reasonable coots .
TLn this instance, where the County has already decided to bill
the resident, the County must determino whether to compromise the
account . In Resolution 86/94 (copy attached) , the Board of
Supervisors authorized the Director of the Office of Revenue
Collections to adjust and/or compromise any account receivable that
is less than $5,000 . 00 prior to assigning the account to a collection
agency, with a maximum allowable adjustment of 40% . The authority
cited for the authorization was Government Codo ooction 26220 and
County Counsel Opinion 85-62 which states:
"Government Code section 26220 empowors the Board to assign
delinquent bills, claims and accounts to a licensed collection
agency under such terms and conditions as the Board may
prescribe. ' Implicit in this grant of powQr is the recognition
that the County will pay the collection agency a commission and
will thus receive, net, less than the full amount owed it.
- Phil Batchelor -3- August 19 , 1991
"it would be a legal absurdity if the County were �permitted
to forego forty percent of the amount of a claim if the claim
were assigned to a collection agency, but it was barred from
discounting the claim at all to facilitate its collection of the
claim prior to assignmelit.
"We therefore advise you that the Auditor-Controller
[ formprly rQsponsible for collections] may offer to adjust or
compromise accounts within the limits of its certain expense,
prior to the Board' s assigning them to a collection agency. "
The account at issue is $1 , 250 .00 and within the limit of those
accounts the Director of Office of Revenue Collections has' btap.n
authorized to adjust . (DOS Res . 86/94 . )
M.AX:fjb-. Jh
CC., Ken Corcoran, Auditor-Controller (w/o attachments)
Nancy Bischoff, Directory Office of Revenue Collections
(w/o attachm,=_nts)
fb-3 s;\=m\meta\Rescue-r.3t
RECEIVED
OCT — 2 SM
OFFICE OF THE COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR Ansd............
C 0 N T R A C 0 S T A IC 0 U N T Y
Administration Building
651 Pine Street, 11th Floor
Martinez, California
DATE: October 1, 1991
TO: Victor J. Westman
County Counsel
FROM: Claude L. Van Marte
Assistant County A i strator
SUBJECT: RESPONSIBILITY TO PAY FOR SEARCH AND RESCUE I
EXPENSES INCURRED IN ANOTHER COUNTY
Attached is a letter which we received from Supervisor Mc i Peak' s
office regarding whether Contra Costa County is able to recover
from the party who is rescued the cost of search and rescue-1 for a
resident of Contra Costa County who is rescued in another county.
We previously received this in from, Supervisor McPeak' s
office. MY recollection is that it was sent to your loffice
asking this same question. If it was and if we received a
response from your office, neither my secretary nor Mr.
Batchelor's secretary are able to locate the correspondence. If
you are able to locate such correspondence we would appreciate
receiving another copy which we can share with Supervisor
McPeak's office. If my recollection is incorrect, pleaselreview
this correspondence and advise us whether the County can
appropriately recover these costs from a resident of this i lCounty
and if so on what basis so we may share this information with.
Supervisor McPeak' s office.
CLVM:nrl
van-21
cc: Richard K. Rainey, Sheriff-Coroner
Kenneth J. Corcoran, Auditor-Controller
yor ,,Normanj�;Supervisor McPeak' s office
SUNNE WRIGHT MCPEAK Board of Supervisors
Supervisor, District Four Contra
2301 Stanwell Drive Costa
Concord, California 94520
(415) 646-5763 County
(415) 646-5767(FAX)
July 10, 1991
Ms. Sharon Gentry
1572 Dianda, Drive
Concord, CA 94521
Dear Ms. Gentry:
Thank you for your July 8 letter concerning the search and rescue
operation involving your husband, which follows up on your
telephone conversation with Trevor Norman in my office.
I have asked the County Administrator to review this matter and to
contact you once his staff has had the opportunity to do that. We
will monitor this in our office to insure a prompt response.
I am hopeful we can resolve this concern to everyone's
satisfaction.
Sincerely,
Sunne Wright McPeak
SWM:ksm
cc: County Administrator
SUNNE WRIGHT McPEAKBoard of Supervisors
Supervisor, District Four Contra
onn
2301 Stanwell Drive Costa
Concord, California 94520 County
(415) 646-5763
(415) 646-5767(FAX)
TO: Phil Batchelor
FROM: Sunne Wright McPeak i
DATE: July 10, 1991
RE: Correspondence from Sharon Gentry
i
Attached is correspondence received in my office today. Ms . Gentry
had previously called and spoke with Trevor Norman about this
issue; Trevor asked her to send us a letter outlining in more
detail her concerns so that we might pursue the matter.
Would you please have staff review Ms . Gentry's concerns to see if
there is any flexibility here in waiving the fee. If that option
is not available, please provide Ms . Gentry with an explanation of
the county' s inability to waive the charge and copy my office.
SWM:ksm
Attachment
JUN 29 '91 09:55 CCC AUDITOR F'.
CA �t Q. *0 0• r..) '►coo y 'O •w �D tOr+ y su sv r► ^� R.
Cr ==n `c ro h P. Q c� eb a" !J n a n c5 CD ze cD ,� O a
to'G [RDD O Col � 'C r.: w h � � � 4 � n C �" C7 .'� � p � R t1 A [�D N p �_ 1 A CL
..• .y Cp e•r
lob
C, ►r fp �! .q ►►T n n `9 x �o y CD CD O �. A' N per'
4.v� to y p t✓r C eT �' �' f� R *� m 41b > � � ' p AJ m = :3 (D l9 `n N �' moi"' C6 W W
O 69 S CII a o ti p . .,, 5n v� 'O r �
y fA �.+ a. Q� In, G ti N "� ro = 0 rw to r+ m
fD +'h
8 ,�., %� 7 ''Cf �D .
._. n '-C O C ,C •• O O rr a a e a a O' o
O*�� �-O{ O o s �. " rn eA Po CD '� .1 cn � A O
A� C: •-► f1 DE S w n CD W3 s, � n is '» M. . y O = 0 � � �' *' (CQ O Q s
r�.r tD w ��! �' ' N� =" tL @ 0" `� CSD 8� .0�. CA O
o is
•n O LD 7 '� caa cb
CD O S ..• ,i o ro O CD n * < 'r3
^ ; � �'► � "4Otl p, O 'o tern O
e+ Y', 'n "� " '«. CD e•f �+ Z°i w' `[ O CD Q 0 ''y CD
::,n O Cr D k M CCD O' rpn �"' �+ f1 m c rn �,•,CD eo. ,C C A
CT fD [D "0 eD A� ro C� C) 7 w co tr ,� `C A cD O use2 cn O Cil
Q co
O a' R O n ro fD c� v w .d a- �. M t9 O:r 0 C✓ � W z
~ ro d CD y �' O .ao o a n °' na3 �' �, ?; `° 0
^� :✓ w c �. w ►Y � b � * Q CIO 10 =. � to
:. ,b ���pp D .., a' ,s -. CD•.4 w �.00 vA 9' ,,, r O O ►�+ cD p 0 _.
CD O CD W a '•► a -e --. •� cw d, ta, ih r 0� �-.
r.r O �„ o ao' O OO I n '
0 CA
O nCD `'""' A ro =a a � p r C� "'T• 'C? � '" � ►7
x O Q 7
a � � U° .o» a N' �' »,"ICD °, a.
tb C meq, y CD
cD
a aCD
s a' y a. e9 `' a• = 'c°D- ro o
y
^'+r3" rs M p O Z h ,O'`� r+ y > � q a� a.
CD G C0 '� ed C
Cv `-� 'G 0 w CS, N = : ro Ub v� O —_.0 O vR.' � 1 ( a r .�"to � �' n N � Y �
O rr � CD n C1\ � Q• Gl. a
.• Horoy •, y fac�D � eD a; F c� rpoeb
n ti O O A ro `�� Uq f-r �, '. C].. �, s V r1 Cs A n
p -. CD �10 fD ro eD a ti .w. .-. o te n G'❑ 3 a.
•.'C3 ro �. fi ."T'n Q p '-s Q }t T y -1 `C 0.G m CA
Q N ro y Cp O ro QQ"" �_ y CD 4,' tnJ ;a O O ji �/ V E N A a R �
eu C.
n 0 w ? p �, �' O O .%t o
� rCD
fs tigrvD u a. a _ Ch
" . � ` GA '
O ccneb A
_ , D
in, rZ ""7pp R, �(��i � � � ►� ry_ vy, u. IQO (AM. � O�•� w' �
r m ^O�i rte► �� O ON OCA
�.CO7 'rs N 'D! , Uq erDr ¢ "�Uq C ' in et
? N {� CA
Cv eD O y e•► ( Q rO r
eo
O.O Uq r0„ n rpi, O IR co �, ,; CD z 0
N 'h Cv CD In (AO w " : et, r_ t ro a C w n m om'
O CD = n fir- cOy c�D `�i�,, �, •� �.
n 'bj 3 wi V! `Cj O 'fit (y � ► cr
ca. Lyi� CA CC cr C .vi ^� N
ry O Q•CD „'j "y rte,,
y Q'.tj ro 's Q pe �s . Cyr n .a `� d a `- ^t CD
O C]" ^ CL cG 'Cf ro 0. rn •"
s 'd (D O CD ro eo ti cn o a141. .
CD CDgyp" 40 .4 . . + n0.
Cb O" O et A)15 ,Cl. Mr
• C CA v ert
:n Ci
eD CD p CD
Cv `[f •'.'. "'' '� CD ;o O •.. .�y Q eb CD =1 1+��r( �'�4 n C�.. O �" � r•+. "�ry UQ apt
L7 �% C•� G/, Q 'rte O t"► C: t+-=wr ct M R+ ~ � CA v iii ,A•j
G
CD LODL a ro tom '`"' uo' °"�• /�°.� C '. CD Cv .9
CD
ps (Deb n CA D �'"��' O �Cp� � cj, Q �• 0 0 0 tCLp C1� � � � � ti [D n �
r. `C e+
to ri (roD ly C O ,COQ n Co i].Q. (D Cr tJOq CSD f�D Q. �,
Offic:6 of Revenue Collection Contra l �,0
2020 North Broadway COsta 3 _ -
a �
Suite loo (415) 646.6140
Walnut Creek,CA 94596 County
06-12-91
pofk PTN R`T
L•_ • ,._ 1_I I HN_A
CONCORD CA 94520'
RE ; RE:SCLES• AUDITORY.
.-
- Refet-t?'r l N6C-�'-rk' -SEARCH &---RESC1..?r
Ba ancp Z, 1250 .00
Dear CARL SENTRY :
Our t:.i'#'1'1'-__ handles, the accounts receivable for Contra Cosf.Ia County .
Your :account has been transferred to this ot'fii=N for handling .- Our
records s lf}t-1ica.te the _u'tlCl!_ nt dt..le is 1.250 .00,
Please _.en(_) your r c("}eCk or money order to the Office UT 00 enuE
Coil tiJr , P .O . .B& 8184 , Walnut Creek , Ca , 94596 „ i.
1t ; . hei . itl A- :; :lreference t " _ account be- on Your _- eiw .
that your payments r_t 1 .._ applied the proper ,.=t._c_. ,i 1 .. ,
If yolhave ai '?ad r paid th1s invoice , Flea e disregard
this
letter
i nc.Pr 1• } 9 �i>�r
• `I�cQw`S�^ b �6_�•1 �I
.. h,-\r Co f-la
i
.._1 ,.WE OF c 1C0 ILL E'f- �
RETURN THIS PORTIONK.
ACCOUNT NT NAME XARL SENTRY ACCOUN II"IB L-R ::r.:......:...._,
PLEASE NOTE ANY C!- ANGE N ADDRESS :
1572 Dianda Drive
Concord, CA 94521
July B, 1991
Supervisor Sunne McPeak RECEIVED
2301 Stanwell Drive
Concord, CA 94520
Dear Supervisor McPeak: AnS�d...•••
••
I am writing to you because you are known for your fairness
and your willingness to go to bat for the citizens of your
district. I have a sticky problem with which I hope you can
help. Allow me to explain:
Early last February, my husband and his friend went hunting
in Monterey County. During the hunt they were separated and
darkness found my husband at the top of a mountain, where he
spent the night rather than come down in the dark. Meanwhile,
the friend summoned Search and Rescue. Dawn found my husband
greeting the search and rescue team at the base of the mountain.
On June 15 I received the enclosed bill asking payment for
Search and Rescue' s services, rendered in Monterey County and
billed by Monterey to Contra Costa. Upon investigation I
received the following information and advice:
Mr. Corkland' s office assured me that Search and Rescue was
a tar.-supported service and referred me to Ms. Grace Darand.
Ms. Darand read sections 26614 and ?6614.5 of the California
Government code in an effort to help me understand why I was
being billed for a tax-supported service. These sections said
that each county was responsible for providing search and rescue
services for its citizens and that one county (in this case
Monterey) could bill another county ( i .e. Contra Costa) for
rescuing a citizen that was from the other county (very equitable
since I pay tares here, not in Monterey. ) But nowhere could she
find where the law said that the bill could then be forwarded by
the County to the private citizen. She simply said that that had
been the practice for several years.
In essence, it seems that had we been lost up on Mount
Diablo with Search and Rescue fetching us at the cost of $1,000+,
the money would have come from our taxes. Since we had the
misfortune to be lost outside our own county, and that county
billed Contra Costa, we have to foot our own $1,000+ bill . I
say, "BOLOGNA! " Either search and rescue is tax supported or it
is not. It makes no difference whether the county pays its own
rescue workers $1 ,000 or pays Monterey $1,000 for fetching us, it
is, by law, a tax-supported service.
The small claims advisor said I could sue Contra Costa
County in small claims court, but suggested that I contact you
first, since this was a political matter involving common county
practice, as well .as a financial matter.
Since I have heard you like causes, I am hoping that you
will take up this one. No one else seems willing to help but
simply shrugs and says, "That's the way it's always been done. "
I am hoping that you will be successful in convincing your
political peers of the inequity of thss billing practice. I
realize that discontinuing these double collections will mean a
loss of revenue ata time when funds are very tight, but it is a
matter of principle that no one citizen should have to pay more
than their fair share, and I have already paid this bill in the
form of tares.
I must respond to the Office of Revenue Collection soon.
Please let me know if you will act on my behalf, or if I sFould
proceed on my own. Please contact me at (415) 686-3067 after
3:00 P.M. , or leave a message on my answering machine at your
convenience. I deeply appreciate your time and consideration.
Sincerely,
Sharon Gentry
i
1
Enc.
. •. - . � �r�-i :,off �_,�'
Offie�of Revenue Collection
Contra
2020 North Broadway COSta 13 ��O
Suite 100 '`= (415) 646.6140
�INainut Creek CA 94596 County
o6-12-q 1
CARL GENTRY
.15 rU I ritLn' '
ct]r'aLt7r;Li CA 'a4520 rr i
�o , Q, 7 ' 7 `1l�
cCUES. AUDITOR ' _
- Reference No : #'--SEARCH -&--F;ESrl.tr
rle�.r C^RL GEN-MY :
Our office handles the accounts receivable for Cont, a Costa C r-_Iwlnt'
Youi- ar-count hay be=n tran'=tei--j-t-_d tL, this off i=1r +a,i- k"'i?ndI i n a L1Lii
r ecords indicate the 'amount due is 125(--) .('}(^) ^
Ple-aSe se=nd 'joU)-, check: oi- !7loney orders to the Offs. of
Collection , P .O . .F:o:=:: S134 , Walnut Creek: , Ca .
It i= .helpful .if .j_,u i- +et-en-s the `sccc .;nt nui-ni i- on )VOL11- cF s.-
that. ut- payments al dpp'Lied to the proper accot_ir!t .
If you have already p._.id this in••roice , please, thi_
letter . 0
RAG I N I F'ANDYA
L'1 .L :!- C L�l I�hl! � rr)' LE;�T i i��'y h-1•'4 •c
R.ETURN THIS F'1'3�'TIDN
- -AC��GUNT NAME :CARL GENTRY - - - - - - - .- - ACCOUNT NUN :2: �"73
PLEASE NOTE ANY CHANGE � IN ADDRESS :