The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutMINUTES - 05011990 - 2.1 _ 104,20-001 TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ` 6E_L Contra Costa FROM: i' - Phil Batchelor, County Administrator -;:4 DATE: April 24 1990 _ � County ��.Tpa_- �T SUBJECT: REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL SUPERIOR COURT JUDGES SPECIFIC REQUEST(S)OR RECOMMENDATION(S)&BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION RECOMMENDATION Determine whether the Board of Supervisors wishes to request the State Legislature to establish additional Superior Court Departments in Contra Costa County. BACKGROUND- The Board of Supervisors has been asked by the Superior Court to sponsor legislation which would add three more Superior Court Judges to the bench. The County currently has 17 Superior Court Departments, two of which were added as a part of Trial Court Funding in 1988 , although the last of the positions was not filled by the Governor until a few weeks ago. If the question were solely adding Superior Court judges, we would probably not hesitate to recommend them to the Board of Supervisors, providing the workload justified additional positions. This is because for the first four years after a new Superior Court position is created we receive what is being referred to as a super-block grant from Trial Court Funding. The super-block grant, which starts at approximately $471,000 per judge, is reduced by one quarter of the difference between the super block-grant and the normal block grant each year until at the end of the fourth year the County is receiving the normal block grant for the position. This "super block grant" is provided so that start-up and system costs can be addressed on a phased basis by the County. CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENTYeS YES SIGNATURE: RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE APPROVE OTHER SIGNATURE(S): ACTION OF BOARD ON May 1_,}9 9 Q APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER X REFERRED the matter to the Finance Committee (Supervi.sors Schroder and Torlakson) for review, and REQUESTED that the Judges be notified when the matter is scheduled for consideration by the Finance Committee. VOTE OF SUPERVISORS I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE X UNANIMOUS(ABSENT I ) AND CORRECT COPY OF AN ACTION TAKEN AYES: NOES: AND ENTERED ON THE MINUTES OF THE BOARD ABSENT: ABSTAIN: OF SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN. CC: ATTESTED Please see Page 2 . PHIL BATCH OR,CLERK OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR BY DEPUTY M382 (10/88) 61 However, we cannot only look at the needs of the Court versus the amount of block grant we receive. The District Attorney, County Clerk, Public Defender, Sheriff-Coroner, and Probation officer all have legitimate arguments that when a new Superior Court Department is added, there are increased demands on their departments. These legitimate needs exceed even the amount of the super-block grant we receive beginning in the first year, as the following figures indicate rather dramatically. Only in the first two years does the amount of the "super block grant" exceed the cost of the Court itself. While it is true that we do not always fully meet these needs when a new Superior Court Department is added, the needs are there and eventually require that we give some attention to them. Based solely on the available financing, it would generally be my recommendation that the Board not request any additional Superior Court judges. However, the mere fact that it is expensive to add additional Superior Court Departments cannot indefinitely outweigh the legitimate need to add to the number of Superior Court Judges. The Judicial Council study shows that the current workload justifies the three positions being requested by the Court. However, as the Board is aware, many county departments have overwhelming workloads which cannot be effectively addressed with our current extremely tight fiscal situation. The critical policy decision for the Board of Supervisors is to judge when the legitimate needs of the Court dictate that a request must be made for additional judges, even if it will cost money to do so. A five year projection of the amount of the Trial Court Block Grant versus the legitimate needs of the Court and other non-court related system costs for other departments which are impacted by an expansion of the court looks like this: Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Block Grant* $ (471,821) (424 ,653) ( 378, 074) ( 332,115) ( 286,606) Court Costs 424,537 407,100 427,455 448,827 471,269 System Costs 703,865 687,312 721,678 757 ,762 795 ,650 TOTAL COST TO COUNTY $ 656, 581 669,759 771,059 874,474 980 ,313 x 2 $1,313,162 $1,339,518 $1, 542,118 $1 ,748,948 $1,960,626 x 3 $1,969,743 $2,009,277 $2,313 ,177 $2,623 ,422 $2,940,939 *Years one through four are the "super block grant" . Year five begins the normal block grant provided for by law. cc: County Administrator Presiding Judge, Superior Court County Clerk-Recorder District Attorney Sheriff-Coroner Public Defender County Probation Officer Superior Court Administrator Assistant Administrator-Finance Director, Justice Systems Programs Summary of Cost For Each New Judge Year 1 2 3 4 5 Super Block -Grant* ( 471 ,821) ( 424 , 653) ( 378,074) ( 332 , 115) ( 286,606) Court Costs 424, 537 407 , 100 427, 455 448 , 827 471, 269 System Costs 703 ,865 687, 312 721, 678 757 ,762 795, 650 --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- TOTAL COST TO CO. $ 656 ,581 $ 669,759 $ 771,059 $ 874, 474 $ 980 , 313 x 2 $1 ,313 ,162 $1,339,518 $1, 542,118 $1 ,748,948 $1,960,626 x 3 $1, 969,743 $2,009,277 $2, 313 , 177 $2,623 ,422 $2,940,939 * Year 5 is equivalent of block grant as super block grant lasts only 4 years.