Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 06062006 - SD.4 TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Contra FROM: SUPERVISOR FEDERAL D. GLOVER CSAC EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE MEMBER Costa DATE: JUNE 6, 2006 '�� �•�- STA•�oUti� SUBJECT: BOOKING FEE REVISIONS County 5D . L� SPECIFIC REQUEST(S)OR RECOMMENDATION(S)&BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION RECOMMENDATIONS: 1. OPPOSE revision of the booking fee structure currently being considered as part of the state budget deliberations. 2. Respectfully REQUEST, if the Governor and Legislature are interested in pursuing booking fee revisions, that they form a statewide booking fee task force that includes the County Administrators' Association, CSAC, Urban Counties Caucus and other stakeholders. BACKGROUND/REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATION: Under current law, counties are authorized to charge up to 50% of their costs for booking into local detention facilities. Cities have objected to these fees even though the state provides subventions to them to offset their costs. In January, the Governor put a $40 million "placeholder" in his budget to finance revisions to the structure of booking fees. In the May revise, the Governor proposed language that would revise booking fees as follows: ■ The current booking fee structure would be replaced by a new trust fund, the Local Detention Facility Fund (LDFF). The LDFF would be used to support operations, renovation, remodel, reconstruction, or construction of local detention facilities in each county. The Board of Supervisors would establish the fund, but expenditures from the fund would be limited to specified functions..The Board would be prohibited from substituting or supplanting funds. ■ The state would appropriate $40 million on an annual basis to the LDFF. The first "call" would be allocated to counties proportionate to revenue derived from booking fees; the remainder would be allocated to all counties based on proportional numbers of bookings in the prior year. (Cities that operate Type One detention facilities also would be eligible for revenue under this proposal, but it is expected that this share would represent a relatively small amount, if any, of the overall allocation.) ■ A new Jail Access Fee would be created, giving counties the authority to charge specified entities (i.e., the same entities identified in current booking fee statute) for arrests involving municipal code violations and certain misdemeanors (excludes misdemeanors involving driving while impaired, domestic violence offenses, and enforcement of protective orders). The jail access fee could be levied, however, only when a local agency booked at rates higher than the average arrest rate for the three prior years; in those instances, the county could charge actual administrative costs for each booking over the three-year average. The new jail access fee would not apply to specified violations established after the creation of the jail access fee. CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: X YES SIGNAT RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION F BOARD COMMITTEE APPROVE OTHER SIGNATURE(S): ---------------------------------- ----------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ACTION OF BOARD ON 0G�lOr (,_APPROVE AS RECOMMENDED _ OTHER VOTE OF SUPERVISORS I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS 1S A TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF AN ACTION TAKEN N UNANIMOUS(ABSENT AND ENTERED ON THE MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE AYES: NOES: SHOWN. ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTESTED CONTACT: Sara Hoffinan 335-1090 JOHN MLLEN,CLER.K OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR CC: County Administrator CSAC(via cao) UCC(via cao) E Nielsen Merksamer(via CAO) BY DEPUTY Board of Supervisors June 6, 2006 Booking Fee Revision Page 2 ■ If the state fails to appropriate the $40 million to the LDFF, the portion of the "under- appropriation" would be recouped by reverting to the status quo (i.e., charging one-half of actual administrative costs for each jail booking). Under these circumstances, the booking fee rate would be adjusted by the consumer price index (CPI) plus 1% for each year between 2005 and the year in which the state does not make the full LDFF appropriation. In reviewing the booking fee proposal, CSAC identified major concerns from both a policy perspective and an implementation/technical perspective. These are detailed below: Fundamental policy concerns Issue Comment/Potential Mitigation Limited role for Board of New Government Code Section 29560 references the board of Supervisors supervisors as the. entity that would establish the new fund, but the scope and appropriateness of that role remains unclear (the fund is established "on behalf of" the sheriff or official responsible for local detention facilities). ■Potential mitigation: Strengthen language to make more clear the Board's role in overseeing fund Limitations of non- The non-supplant provision is unclear. There is a need to clarify that it supplant language applies only to "new" money appropriated by the state to the Local Detention Facility Fund and not revenue derived from booking fee authority in GC Section 29550. ■Potential mitigation: Add new section to expressly state that substitution of general fund revenue derived from application of existing booking fee authority is not considered supplantation or re lacement. Lack of cost escalator The existing booking fee authority allows for recouping of one-half of actual administrative costs, which permits counties to evaluate and adjust to up to 50 percent of actual costs. This proposal effectively caps the state appropriation at $40 million, which, absent a state general fund augmentation, will be quickly outpaced by cost growth over time and any increased volume in arrests. ■Potential mitigation: Add an annual inflator to account for growth in costs over time or trigger. Limitations in jail access Counties are fundamentally opposed to the prohibition against fee charging a jail access fee to new misdemeanors or municipal code violations. Expansions in this area are out of counties' control, and there is no valid policy reason for considering "new" crimes differently than those that are already defined in statute. This bifurcation would create enormous administrative burdens for counties trying to track the three-year rolling average, as they will be required to segregate "old" offenses from "new" offenses. ■Potential mitigation: Strike language expressly prohibiting application of jail access fee to new misdemeanors or municipal code violations enacted after the 2005-06 legislative session. Closure of city-run jails Counties have raised the legitimate concern that this proposal should recognize the difficulties and burdens that result when city-run jail is closed. A mechanism should be identified to mitigate the impact on a county detention facility in the event that a city closes, reduces capacity of, or otherwise substantially alters the operation of a city-run jail. Potential mitigation: Permit the county in which the closed city-run jail is located to charge actual administrative costs for all arrests that are attributable to the population diverted from the city-run facility to the count ail. Board of Supervisors June 6, 2006 Booking Fee Revision Page 3 Implementation/Technical Issues Issue Comment/Potential Mitigation Timing The timing of the bill is unclear. It appears the bill is keyed "urgency." The intent language states that no county/city and county would receive less revenue than it "would have otherwise received collecting fees" under the existing booking fee authority in 2007-08 (budget year plus one) — perhaps to ensure that any expected incremental increases counties intend to propose in the budget year and the subsequent year are taken into account when the distribution is made. Absent a clause making clear when the provisions become effective, it will be difficult for counties (assuming implementation is immediate) to plan for and switch over to a new system from one day to the next. Potential mitigation: Given timing concerns and other technical issues identified, it may be wise to delay implementation of the proposal for one ear(July 1, 2007). Administering authority It is not clear what entity (state or local) will be responsible for (1) collecting data necessary to distribute the appropriation pursuant to the methodology contemplated in language; (2) calculating the three-year average of bookings by jurisdiction and authorizing application of jail access fee; and (3) calculating and administering the appropriation of funds when the Legislature under appropriates the $40 million. Potential mitigation: Delayed implementation as proposed above would give additional time to sort out these issues. Additional statutory specification as to the entities responsible for these functions seems a ro r. te. Mechanism for It is not clear how the distribution of funds would work in years when the appropriation in years of Legislature fails to appropriate the full $40 million. Will only the an "under appropriation" proportion of the shortage be subject to the reversion to the existing booking fee scheme? It is not clear how counties would be made whole, the timing of the appropriation within the fiscal year, and the mechanics of the entire process. Potential mitigation: Delayed implementation as proposed above would give additional time to sort out these issues. . Designation of local County budget managers have indicated that the designation of the detention facilities fund local detention facility fund as a "revenue account" is an important and necessary distinction for accounting purposes. Potential mitigation: Change "local detention facility fund" to "local detention facility revenue account"throughout. In addition to these concerns County staff has identified difficulties that may be unique to our County. Contra Costa County's computer system is not programmed to extract information on the different types of bookings; therefore, it would be very difficult for us to determine a city's 3- year average of qualified bookings. Consequently, we would incur substantial transition costs to revise our computer system. There are also likely to be other unintended consequences. At this time, the revision of the booking fee structure is being considered a part of the budget deliberations, not as a separate bill which receives legislative policy committee review. As such, there is not the normal venue for raising and resolving concerns. It could be a matter very quickly resolved without input from counties or other affected parties. It is widely believed that all parties will be working to wrap up the state budget as quickly as possible. If the booking fee "solution" is part of the overall budget package it could be raised as a "hold out" issue or emerging element of an overall deal that comes together very quickly, leaving very little time to fully understand the proposal and to adequately negotiate amendments to the statutory language that would be included in the budget bill. Instead of a hastily conceived "solution" that may have serious unintended negative consequences, it would be better not to take action on the booking fee structure during the budget process. If the Governor and Legislature wishes to pursue this issue, then they should form a statewide task force that includes all stakeholders including the County Administrators' Association, CSAC and the Urban Counties Caucus, among others. (flay, 12. 10ub J:Wm. No, U44 t. 1 05/02/06 10:22AM M 96272 RN 06 107 57 PAGE I Am act to amend Section 29550 of, and to add Sections 29560 and 29561 to,the Government Cade,relating to criminal procedure,making , an appropriation therefor, and declaring the urgency thereof,to take effect immediately. i ,flay• 11. 1UU,t iii VM No. Uj4' S .05102106 10;22 AM 96272 RN 06 10757 PAGE 2 TSE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA DO ENACT AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. It is the intent of the Legislature to appropriate funds for the creation of local detention facility funds within each county for the purpose of operating,renovating,remodeling,and construction of local detention facilities. It is the intent of the Legislature that when the appropriation is available,the funds shall be paid in place of the revenue the agencies would have received from the current booking fee authorized by Section 29550.It is the further intent of the Legislature that no county or city and county shall receive less money from the state appropriation than what the county or city and county would have otherwise received collecting fees pursuant to Section 29550 in the 2007-08 fiscal year SEC.2_ Section 29550 of the Government Code is amended to read, 29550. (a)(1) Lubject to subdivision(d) of Sectipm 29560 a county may impose a fee upon a city,special district, school district,community college district, college, or university for reimbursement of county expenses incurred with respect to the booking or other processing of persons arrested by an employee of that city,special district,school district, community college district, college, or university,where the arrested persons are brought to the county jail for booldng or detention.The fee unposed by a county pursuant to this section shall not exceed the actual administrative costs,including applicable overhead costs as permitted by federal Circular A=87 standards,as defined in subdivision (d), incurred in boolting Or Otherwise processing arrested persons.For the 2005-06 fiscal year and each fiscal year thereafter,the fee imposed by a county pursuant to this subdivision shall not exceed one-half of the actual administrative may. 11. tUlfb j;S�Ym , No. Uj?4 Y. ? 05102/06 10:22 ANI 96272 RN 0610757 PAGE 3 costs, including applicable overhead costs as permitted by federal Circular A-87 standards,as defined in subdivision(d),incurred in booking or otherwise processing arrested persons_A county may submit an invoice to a city,special district, school district,community college district, college,or university for these expenses incurred by the county on and after July 1, 1990. Counties shall fully disclose the costs allocated as federal Circular A-87 overhead. (2)Any increase in a fee charged pursuant to this section shall be adopted by a county prior to the beginning of its fiscal year and may be adopted only after the county has provided each city, special district, school district, community college district, college,or university 45 days written notice of a public meeting held. pursuant to Section 54952.2 on the-fee increase and the county has conducted the public meeting. (3)Any county that imposes a fee pursuant to this section shall negotiate a reduced fee with any city, special district,school district, community college district, college, or university within the county for any services that are performed by the arresting agency in the processing of arrestees that do not have to be duplicated by the county_ (4)This subdivision shall not apply to counties that are under a contractual j agreement with a city,special distract,school district,community college district, college, or university within the county that is subject to the fee. (b)The exemption of a local agency from the payment of a fee pursuant to this subdivision does not exempt the person arrested from the payment of fees for hooking or other processing. No. Uj44 r. 5 _ Fy. 11•. lUUh i;5�r� 0502106 10:22 AM 96272 RN 0610757 PAGE 4 (1)Notwithstanding subdivision (a), a city, special district,school district, community college district, college, or university shall not be charged fees for arrests on any bench warrant for failure to appear in court,nor on any arrest warmut issued in connection with a crime not committed within the entity's jurisdiction. (2)Notwithstanding subdivision(a},a city,special district,school distri.Gt, community college district,college, or university shall not be charged fees for a person who is ordered by a tout to be-remanded to the county jail except that a county may charge a fee to recover those direct costs for those fimctions required to book a person pursuant to subdivision(g) of Section 853.6 of the Penal Code. (3)Notwithstandinn subdivision(a), a city,special district, school district, community college district, college, or university shall not be charged fees for arrests made pursuant to arrest warrants originating outside of its jurisdiction. (4y Notwithstanding subdivision(a),no fees shall be charged to a city,special district, school district,community college district, college , or university on parole violation arrests or probation ordered returns to custody,unless a new charge has been filed for a crime committed in the jurisdiction,of the arresting city,district, college,or university. (5)An agency making a mutual aid request shall pay fees in accordance with subdivision(a)that result from arrests made in response to the mutual aid request except that in the event the Governor declares a state of emergency,no agency shall be charged fees for any arrest made during any riot, distmrbance, or event that is subject to the declaration. No. UJ44 Y, b Ma Y. 05102106 10:22 AM 96272 M 0610757 PAGE 5 (6)Notwithstanding subdivision(a),no fees shall be charged to a city,special district,school district,community college district, college,or university for the arrest of a prisoner who has escaped from a county,state, or federal detention or corrections facility. (7)Notwithstanding subdivision(a),.no fees shall be cha ged to a city,special district,school district,community college district,college,or university for arrestees s held in temporary detention at a court facility forpurposes of airaignment when the arrestee has been previously booked at an entity detention facility. (9)Notwithstanding subdivision(a),no fees shall be charged to a city, special district,school district, community college district,college, or university as the result of an arrest made by its officer assigned to a.formal multiagency task force in which the county is a participant.For the purposes of this section,"formal task force"means a task force that has been established by written agreement of the participating agencies. (9)in those counties wherr-the cities and the county participate in a consolidated booking program and where prior to arraignment an arrestee is transferred from a city detention facility to a county detention facility,the city shall not be charged for those tasks listed in subdivision(d) that are a part of the consolidated.booking program which were completed by.the city prior to delhTring the arrestee to the county detention facility.However,the county may charge the actual administrative costs for thus.-additional tasks listed in subdivision(d)that are 1 performed in order to receive the arrestee into the county detention facility.For the 2005-06 fiscal year and each fiscal year thereafter,the county may charge up to No, Ii ja4 Y. f May. 1'1. LUUb j;7�YiJ 05/02/06 16:22 AM .96272 RN 0610757 PAGE 6 one-half of the actual administrative costs for these additional tasks listed in -subdivision(d)that are performed in order to receive the arrestee into the county detention facility. ._ (c)Any county whose officer or agent arrests a person is entitled to recover from the arrested person a criminal justice administration fee for administrative costs it incurs in conjunction with the arrest if the person is convicted of any criminal offense relaxed to the arrest,whether or not it is the offense for which the person was originally booked.The fee which the county is entitled.to recover pursuant to this subdivision shall not exceed the actual administrative costs, including applicable overhead costs incurred in booking or otherwise processing arrested persons. (d)When the court has been notified in a manner specified by the court that a criminal justice administration fee is due the agetcy: (1)A judgment of conviction may impose an order for payment of the amount of the criminal justice administration fee by the convicted person, and execution may be issued on the order in the same mariner as a judgment in a civil action,but shall not be enforceable by contempt- (2)The court shall,as a condition of probation, order the convicted person, based on his or her ability to pay,to reimburse the county for the criminal justice .administration fee,including applicable overhead costs. (e)As used in this Section,"actual administrative costs"include.only those costs for functions that are performed in order to receive an airestee`into a county detention facility. Operating expenses of the county jail facility including capital costs and those costs involved in the housing,feeding, and care of inmates shall not Via y. 11. 2 U 0 jNo. UJ44 05/02/06 10:22 AM 96272 RN 06 10757 PAGE 7 be included in calculating"actual administrative costs°'"Actual administrative costs" may include the cost ofnotifyin;any local agency,.special district school district, community college district,college or university of any change in the fee charged by a county pursuant to this section. "Actual administrative costs"may include any one or more of the following as related to receiving an arrestee into the county detention facility- (1) acility(1)The searching,wristbanding,bathing,clothing,fingerprinting, photographing, and medical and mental screening of an arrestee. (2)Document preparation,retrieval,updating,filing, and court scheduling related to receiving an arrestee into the detention facility. (3)Warrant service,processing,and detainer. (4)Inventory of an arrestee's money and creation of cash accounts. (5)Inventory and storage of an arrestee's property. (6)Inventory,laundry,and storage of an amrestee's clothing. (7)The classification of an arrestee_ (8)The direct costs of automated services utilized in paragraphs (1.) to (7), inclusive. (9)Unit management and supervision of the detention fimction as related to paragraphs(1)to (8), inclusive. (f)An administrative screening fee of twenty-five dollars($25)shall be collected from each person arrested andreleased on his or her own recognizance upon conviction of any criminal offense related to the arrest other than an infraction.A citation processing fee in the amount of ten dollars ($10) shall be collected from each MayY. y 05/02/06 10:22 AM 96272 RN 06 10757 PAGE 8 person cited and released by any peace officer in the field or at a jail facility"upon conviction of any aiminal offense,other than an infraction;,related to the criminal offense cited in the notice to appear.However,the court may determine a lesser fee than otherwise provided in this subdivision upon a showing that the defendant is unable to pay the full amount.All fees collected pursuant to this subdivision shall be transmitted by the county auditor monthly to the Controller for deposit in the General � Fund.This subdivision applies only to convictions occurring on or after the effective date of the act adding this subdivision and prior to June 30, 1996. SEC. 3'. Section 29560 is added to the Government Code,to read: 29560_ (a)The board of supervisors shall establish a local detention facility fiord,on behalf of the sheriff or the county official responsible for local detention facilities in the county or county and city,into which shall be deposited funds paid by the Controller,pursuant to Section 29561.The funds in the local detention facility fund shall be used exclusively for the purpose of operating,renovating,remodeling, or construefing local detention facilities and related equipment.The funds in the local detention facility fund may not be used by a county to substitute or supplant county or city general funds. (b) (1)A county or a county and city may charge a local agency that exceeds the agency's three year average number of nonfelony bookings for crimes listed in paragraph(2), a Jail Access Fee at a rate not to exceed the actual cost of booldng an arrested person into the local detention facility,for each booking in excess of the ' i three year average.A local agency's tkuzee year average number of nonfelony bookings for crimes listed in paragraph(2) shall be recalc dated each year.The Jail. May. 11. 1UUb J M Nc. U�44 Y. lU 05/02/06 10.22 AM 96272 RN 06 10757 PAGE 9 Access Fee shall be calculated and paid on a:monthly basis,and all.revenue derived from the Jail Access Fee shall be deposited into the Local Detention Facility Fund created pursuant to subdivision (a).Cities shall not be required to pay Jail Access Fees for new niLgdemeanots or municipal code violations enacted by the Legislature _ after the enactment of the 2005-06 Regular Session act that added this section. (2)Bookings for violations of each of the following shall be used to determine a Iocal agency's three year average: (A)Municipal code violations. (B)Misdemeanor violations, except driving imder the influence offenses and domestic violence misdemeanor offenses,including enforcement ofprotective orders. (c)Cities that operate Type One facilities within a county shall be eligible to receive funds from the county's local detention facility fund.Cities that operate Type One facilities and char P booking fees pursuant to Section 29550,3 during the 2005-06-fiscal yearCaj)ceive funds in an amount proportional to the number of persons booked into the city's Type One facility for which the city charged fees to the arresting agency. (d)Every year in which the full appropriation made by Section 29561 is available, counties, cities and counties,and cities are prohibited from collecting fees pursuant to Sections 29550 and.29550.3.Anytime the full appropriation made by Section 29561 is not available, a county, city and county, yr a city may collect fees pursuant to Section 29550,as amended by Chapter 227 of the Statues of 2004,and. Section 29550.3, as added by Chapter 641 of the Statue of 1994,in an amount proportional to the amount not appropriated pumaut to Section 29561.In.addition, 1 No. UJJ44 May. 11. OUt i:79Ym 05J02r06 10:22-AMI 96272 RN 4510757 PAGE 10 for every year between 2005 and the year the fail appropriation authorized in Section 29561 is not available,the rate provided in Section 29550, as amended by Chapter 227 of the Statues of 2004,shall be increased by the annual California Consumer � Price Index plus 1 percant compounded annually. SEC_4. Section 29561 is added to the Government Code,to read: 29561. Notwithstanding Section 13340,forty million dollars($40,000,000) shall be appropriated avmually from the General Fund to the Controller.for distribution to counties,counties and cities,and cities,as follows: (a) (1) All counties and counties and cities that charged fees pursuant to Section 29550 and cities with Type One detention facilities that charged fees pursuant to Section 29550,3 during the 200546 fiscal year shall receive a portion of the forty million dollars ($40,000,000) equal to the fee revenue received by the county, county and city,or city during the 2005-06 fiscal year_ (2)The city council members of any dity paid funds'from the appropriation shall create a local detention facility fund into which all funds from the appropriation shall be deposited and shall only be used for the purpose of operating,renovating, remodeling, or constructing local detention facilities and related equipment. The funds in the local detemtion facility fund may not be used by a city to substitute or supplant city general funds. (b)The remaining portion of the forty million dollars ($40,000,000) shall be ' paid proportionally to all counties and counties and cities based on the number of bookings within each county during the year previous to the current payment_ No. UJ44 May. 11. 1UUb SyrM 05/02JO6 10:22 AM 96272 RN 06 10757 PAGE 11 SEC.5. If the Commission on State Mandates determines that this act contains costs mandated by the state,reimbursement to local agencies and school districts for those costs shall be made pursuant to Part 7 (commencing with Section 1-7500) of Division 4 of Title 2 of the Government Code. SEC. 6. This act is an urgency statute necessary for the immediate preservation of the public peace,health, or safety within the meaning of Article N of the Constitution and shall go into immediate effect.The facts constituting the Aecessity are:Local detention facilities are deteriorating which creates a threat to public safety- i ADDENDUM to Item SDA June 6,10062006 On this day, the Board of Supervisors considered opposing the revision of the booking fee structure currently being considered as part of the state budget deliberations. Supervisor Glover suggested the establishment of a task force that should include the County Administrators Association, CSAC,the Urban Counties Caucus, and other stakeholders to consider the matter. Sarah Hoffman of the County Administrator's Office said one of the major concerns is that the proposed initiative could be subject to a last-minute, midnight type of agreement that could be very disadvantageous to counties. She said the item deserves deliberate consideration. Supervisor Uilkema asked if the League of Cities has weighed in on the initiative. She noted that when CSAC and the League of Cities work together, they tend to be very persuasive. She suggested that Supervisor Glover, as the Board's representative on CSAC, could pursue that option. Supervisor Piepho requested that copies of the item be sent to the local Bay Area delegation. By a unanimous vote with none absent, the Board of Sig)ervisors took the following action: OPPOSED revision of the booking fee structure currently being considered as part of the state budget deliberations; and REQUESTED, if the Government and Legislature are interested in pursuing booking fee revisions, that they form a statewide booking fee task force that includes the County Administrators Association, CSAC, the Urban Counties Caucus and other stakeholders to consider the matter.