HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 03271984 - 1.44 'TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
. Contra}}
FROM: C. E. Dixon, Interim County Administrator WSIa
DATE: March 27, 1984 C" ply
SUBJECT: AB 3108 - Financing of the Operation of Costs
of the Trial Courts
SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATION(S) $ BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION
RECOMMENDATION
Board of Supervisors support in concept AB 3108 and the companion bill which is `
identical at this point, SB 1850 , for the financing of the operational
costs of the trial court system in Contra Costa County and monitor them care- `
fully as they progress through the legislature.
BACKGROUND
During March, 1984 this office conducted meetings and discussions concerning
AB 3108 and SB 1850 in order to evaluate the impact on Contra Costa County.
The bills are identical at this point; however, careful attention must be
given to watching the progress of both bills as they move through the
Legislature.
The bills would enact the Trial Court Funding System of 1984 which would
establish a program of State funding of trial courts on a county option
basis. Revenues received by the courts in option counties from filing fees ,
fines and forfeitures and penalty assessments and surcharges with specific
exceptions would offset State funding.
You will find the following attachments:
1. Schedule A entitled State Block Grant Available for Contra
Costa County for Court Buyout, totaling $15, 832 ,339.
2 . Schedule B entitled Estimated Court Costs Subject to State
Buyout, totaling $16, 133,200 based on fiscal year 1983-84 appropriations.
3. Schedule C entitled Court Funding Proposal Worksheet which shows
total revenue loss on page 1 of $6 ,777,100 and additional revenue loss to
the cities within the County of $1, 416 ,575 on page 2, which revenues are
extracted from actual revenues received for fiscal year 1982-83.
AB 3108 requires that the gross total block grant owing to an option county
shall be expended by the County for court operations. Therefore, the State
block grant available to Contra Costa County is $15 ,832,339; and the offset
to this amount is shown on Schedule C and mentioned above which is a
combination of the total revenue loss of $6,777,100 and $1,416,575, or a
total of $8,193,675. The net amount of money due from the State of
California based on these preliminary calculations would be $7, 638, 664
($15,832, 339 minus $8 ,193, 675) . AB 3108 states the net total block grant
CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: X YES SIGNATURE
LL��/n
RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE
APPROVE OTHER
SIGNATURE(S)
ACTION OF BOARD ON APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER
VOTE OF SUPERVISORS
UNANIMOUS (ABSENT ) I 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 SUPERVIS S ON THE DATE SHOWN.
CC: County Administrator ATTESTED o2
J.R. OLSSON. CO NTY CLERK
AND EX OFFICIO CLERK OF THE BOARD
000113
,.l M362/7-83 BY DEPUTY
2.
dispersed shall equal the gross total block grant owing to a County less
any and all revenues collected or collectable from filing fees, fines and
forfeitures owing to the State as provided in this chapter or as otherwise
provided by statute.
County departments that participated in the discussions concerning these bills
reached the following conclusions and raised certain questions which are as
follows:
1. Financially this .appears to be beneficial to Contra Costa County
in that it would receive $7. 6 million in new revenue.
2. Under the provisions of the bill the County would have to assume
the judges' retirement system which is a cost in the range of $520,000 to
$1,300, 000 a year in addition to costs currently expended by the County.
There is considerable information available that the State judges ' retirement
system is vastly underfunded and the counties should receive clarification
as to who would be responsible to properly fund the retirement system.
Currently retired judges are being paid their retirement salaries on a
, pay-as-you-go basis and there is no funding available for future years.
3. As can be seen from Schedule C, the cities are financially impacted
by loss of revenue. There is some information that efforts will be made to
restore this revenue through other legislation.
4. The bill provides for the State Controller and Judicial Council
to adopt pertinent rules and regulations to implement this statute. This
can become cumbersome to the County in that we may have many State
regulations that will have to be followed and increase the difficulty of
administering programs.
5. It is felt that the block grant should be given to the counties
in advance in order to fund the trial court system as is intended by the
bill instead of having to fund it with County money and be reimbursed at
a later date by the State. This bill could put Contra Costa County in a
serious cash flow problem.
6. Provisions are included in the bill that stipulate, "by accepting
state funding of trial courts, the county agrees to perform all duties and
provide services required by this chapter and all other provisions of law. "
This may indicate that more duties would be mandated to counties and the
escalation of the block grant would not keep pace with these added services.
Schedule B shows the estimated costs of court systems that are includable
in this legislation already exceed the State block grant calculation shown
on Schedule A.
7. There is nothing in the legislation that guarantees the State
will provide final settlement to the counties within a certain time .�period.
This again can cause cash flow problems to counties.
8. It is not clear what, if any, interdepartmental charges such
as Personnel, County Counsel, County Administrator and other County
departments can be included in the calculation to determine the cost of
operations. This may be a moot question in that the estimated court costs
shown on Schedule B, which include direct costs, already exceed the block
grant calculation shown on Schedule A.
000114
3.
9. AB 3108 is in error on page 8. It does not indicate the two
municipal court commissioners in Contra Costa County.
10. There is a question concerning whether or not the State block
grant funds could be used for lease purchase of new court buildings and
facilities.
11. The County is concerned whether or not accounts receivable
that would be on the books at the time this new program would go into
operation when collected would have to be applied against the State block
grant.
12. There is concern that being the cities lose most of the vehicle
code fine money that they will lose incentive to enforce vehicle code
violations.
13. An incentive of 10 percent in new revenues collected is built
into the legislation for future years to be kept by the County; however,
it is felt that this is not a great incentive to continue the effort toward
improved court efficiency.
CONCLUSION
This bill should be watched very carefully; also its companion bill. There
is a definite financial advantage to Contra Costa County to support the
legislation as it currently reads with clarification of many of the items
that have been listed above.
000115
SCHEDULE A
3/8%84
STATE BLOCK GRANT
AVAILABLE FOR COUNTY BUYOUT
SB 1850
TYPE JUDICIAL POSITION NO. RATE AMOUNT
Superior Court Judges 15 $473 ,703 $ 7 , 105,545
Commissioner & Juvenile Court Referee 3 461 ,646 11384 , 938
Municipal Court Judges 14 461, 185 6 ,456 , 590
Municipal Court Commissioners 2 442 , 633 885 ,266
TOTAL AVAILABLE $15 ,832 ,339
�` 000116
SCHEDULE B
3/8/84
ESTIMATED COURT COSTS
SUBJECT TO STATE BUYOUT
SB 1850
DEPARTMENT F.Y. 1983-84
BUDGET OR ESTIMATED COSTS
Superior Court $ 21951, 910
Mt. Diablo Muni Court 1, 975 , 990
Bay Muni Court 2,067 ,480
WC-Danville Muni Court 1,832, 320
Delta Muni Court 822 ,500
Subtotal Budgeted Court Costs 9,650,200
County Clerk (Pro-Rata Costs) 2 ,200 , 000
Marshal (Pro-Rata Costs) 1,085 ,000
Sheriff (Pro-Rata Costs) 1,0331000
(1)Judges Salaries (paid by state) 865 ,000
(1)Judges Retirement (range of $520,000-$1, 300, 000) 1, 300,000
TOTAL ESTIMATED COSTS $16 , 133, 200
(1) Retirement costs and Judges salaries (85%) currently paid
by State of California. Retirement cost is unclear, higher
amount is used.
f' 000117
SCHEDULE C
' 3/8/84
State Court Funding Proposal
Mork Sheet
County Revenue
General Fund - 100300
Walnut Creek-Danville Municipal Court $1, 165, 700
Delta Municipal Court 394, 300
Mt. Diablo Municipal Court 975, 100
Bay Municipal Court 944,000
Superior Court 900,000
County Clerk 1,365,000
Probation:
Superior Court Fines 70,000
Administration Fees 30,000
Sheriff-
Alcohol Testing 305,000
Total General Fund $6,149, 100
Fish$ Game Fund - I10200 8,000
Road Fund - 110800 330,000
Hospital Enterprise Fund - 145000
1463.16 P.C. Alcohol Program Services 290,000
Total Revenue Loss $6, 777, 100
Additional Expenditures
Superior Court - Judges Salaric, 864,000
Potential Revenue Loss and
Increased Expenditure $7,641,100
*Costs for Judoes Retirement have not been included in the above cost of judges salaries.
The potential expense for Judges Retirement is unclear, however with the information
available it has been estimated at $520,800, (26.04% of payroll) if the County does
not have to assume the liability for unfunded obligations. If the county assumes
the unfunded liability the cost would be approximately $1,362,400 (68.12% of
payroll) .
r 000118
CITY REVENUE LOSS
Based on 1982/83 Revenue
TOTAL REVENUE TOTAL REVENUE LOSS OF REVENUE
CITY 1982/83 UNDER SB 1850* TO CITIES
Clayton $ 6, 121.14 $ 1, 743.52 $ 4,377.62
Concord 316, 923.34 102,378.38 214,544. 96
Martinez 117, 348.44 31, 149.34 86,199. 10
Pleasant Hill 118,401.36 30,995 .20 87,406.16
E1 Cerrito 75,099.66 19,463.13 55,636.53
Hercules 19, 984.48 5,327.SS 14,656.93
Kensington 10,322.84 2,400.66 7,922. 18
Pinole 60,785 .59 17,606.05 43, 179.54
Richmond 328,030.79 94,546.23 233,484.56
San Pablo 53,719. 21 14,028.91 39,690.30
Lafayette 96,939. 10 23, 183.98 73, 755 .12
Mbraga 22,578.96 5,670.92 16,908.04
Walnut Creek 458,095 .91 133,611.56 324,484. 35
Danville 12,421.18 2, 888.65 9,532.53
Antioch 128, 804.33 33,318.85 95,485 .48
Brentwood 17,039.39 5,684.05 11, 355.34
Pittsburg 125,698.69 27, 742.88 97, 955 .81
TOTALS $1,968, 314.41 $ 551,739.86 $1,416,574.55
*Total Revenue under SB 1850 includes revenue not to be credited
to the State of California.
f` 000119