Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10/05/1990 B A K E R S F I E L D AGENDA CITY/COUNTY INTERGOVERNMENTAL RELATIONS COMMITTEE MEETING October 5, 1990 12:00 noon Southwing Annex Basement Conference Room i. Booking Fees (Patterson) 2. Solid Waste Gate Fees (Hawley) 3. Ambulance Ordinance (Drew) 4. Congestion Management (Heinrichs) 5. Fair Housing MOU Update (Wager) 6. CSA'S (Hawley) 7. Parks and Recreation Study (Stinson/Heinrichs) , , CORRECTED ITEM NO. $0 ..~ GEARY TAYLOR scott JOSES COUNTY ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER Director of Budget & F,nance MARY WEDDELL JOEL HEINRICHS Assistant County Admimstrative Officer Director o[ Policy Analvs~s & Intergovernmental Relations ROBERT SEVERS Employee Relahons Oil'.ocr COUNTY ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE October 9, 1990 Board of Supervisors Kern County Civic Center 1415 Truxtun Avenue Bakersfield, CA 93S01 REPORT ON IMPLEMENTATION OF JAIL BOOKING FEE On September 25, 1990, your Board considered a request from the City of Bakersfield's Police Chief, concerning the new "jail booking fee" authorized by SB 2557 to allow counties to partially replace losses in State funding resulting from massive cuts in the FY 1990-91 State Budget. Chief Patterson, on behalf of the Bakersfield City Council, requested that your Board: (1) direct County staff to expedite discussion regarding the proposed boc~g fee, and (2) not impose the jarl booking fee on a retroactive basis, and (3) establish a 30-day"no fee period" to allow City and County staff time to complete discussions regarding implementation of the booking fee. This matter was referred to the County Administrative Office for review and report~ The following steps have been taken to develop an implementation plan for the jail booking fee in Kern County, since conceptual approval by the Board of Supervisors on September 4, 1990: 1. September 17, 1990: Meeting between C°unty staff (including District Attorney) and City staff (Police Chief and representatives of City Managers Office) to discuss the booking fee provisions of SB 2557. 2. September 1~, 15190: Draft of Statewide guidelines for establishing jail booking fees received from County Supervisors Association of California. 3. September 19. 1990: Meeting between County and City Intergovernmental Relations Committee to discuss concerns regarding impact of the new jarl booking fee, County and City staff agreed to explore alternative of assigrdng City,staff to County Jarl to book city prisoners, 4, September 20, 1990: Meeting between County staff and Kern County Police Chiefs Association to explain origin and concept on new jarl booking fee.. Draft of Statewide guidelines for fee implementation distributed, with request for input and comments by city police chiefs, 5. October 1, 15190: Report from Sheriffs depa,huent documenting costs involved in jail booking process submitted to County Admires' trative Office. 1415 Truxtun Avenue, Room ~704 BAKERSFIELD, CALIFORNIA 93301' (805) 86i 237' Board of Supervisors October 9, 1990 Page 2 6. October 2. 1990: Sheriffs Departmenfs calculation of jail booking costs submitted to Auditor-Controller by County Administrative Office for review of cost accounting methodology. 7. October 3, 1990: Outline of proposed booking fee procedures developed by County Administrative Office for review by Sheriff's Department and affected agencies. ~ It is important to emphasize that no booking fee amount has yet been established, nor have the implementing procedures yet been presented for Board of Supervisors action. No affected agency will receive a billing or be required to pay SB 2557 booking charges until after January 1. 1991. A meeting is currently scheduled for Thursday, October 4, between ~ounty and City staff (Police Chief and City Manager's Office) to review an outline of the proposed booking fee implementation procedures. City input will be considered in development of the final procedures to be recommended for Board approval. As soon as the Sheriffs Depar~ent's cost calculations have been reviewed by the Auditor-Controller, and appropriate adjustments made, the County Administrative Office will present the resulting booking fee amount and implementation procedures (including an effective date), for Board of Supervisors appro _v~al. It should be noted that the Sheriffs Department is currently analyzing the operational and fiscal impact of the possibility of the Bakersfield Police Department stationing City staff in the County Jail to book City prisoners. The results of the analysis by the Sheriff will be discussed with City staff as soon as it is available. Based on the major drop in the number of bookings made by the Bakersfield Police Department since the booking fee was approved in concept on September 4th, it is very clear that the actual revenue to be generated by the booking fee for FY 1990-91 will not even be close to the preliminary rough estimate of $1.2 million. Obviously, the actual revenue will depend on both the volume of bookings and the fee amount that is finally set. County staff is making every effort to expedite the development of a final plan to implement the new jail booking in the most equitable manner possible. IT IS RECOMMENDED that your Board receive and file this report. ~Sdd~ e~~~'~ Assistant County Administrative Officer GT:SJ:drMmpjbf. bos attachment cc: Sheriff County Counsel County Supernsors Assoctatto of Californta MEMOP. ANDUM DATE: SEPTEMBER 11, 1990 TO: ALL COUNTY ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICERS FROM: CAO's BOOKING FEE TASK FORCE RE: FEE METHODOLOGY Attached please find the final draft of the task Force's suggested approacl~ to cleterm~.a. an appropriate 0ooking fee for t~e respective counties. Please be advisecl that tt~e task force may well have been unaware of or o:~erw',se overlookecl an issue that is of importance to your county. 'Therefore, please rev,.e'.~' clocument and contact Michael Cor~ett at CSAC via FAX (916 441.5507) or telepr~c."e 327-7513) as soon as possible and he will reconvene the task force througt'~ a The task force is keenly aware that some counties have implementecl a booking fee others are on the verge of doing so. Never-the-less, the suggested methodology may be helpful in refining your curre-'. -:- determination process or offer an alternative. Again please contact Micflael at your earliest convenience so tibet the task force its work witll t~e release o! a document that has ~een reviewed and commenteci on around ttle state. · . """"" .. AAiTONQV~C~ ~.O~ A~qge. et, C=~'~' · ' · ':: ~:.". I ~-','.~ '"='" "~:=~&" ~:'~'s ::t'~ I ,~Mc5 8 ~~~~ Sacramento Off,ce 1100 K 5treat. ~u~te 101 ~ Sacramento. CA 95814 3~1 91~ ~/ =., c,,.., N w Suite 503 / w~in~on, DC 2~1 i 202-753- COUNTY BOOKING FEES During (leliberations related to the FY 1990.91 State Buclget, the Legislature enacted SB 2557 (Chapter 466, Statutes of 1990). This bill contained, among other things, the authorization for counties to charge a "criminal justice administra~ve fee" for tl~e booking an(l processing of arrested persons. This authorization, co(lifted in Section 29550 of tl~e Government Code, reads in pa~t as follows: '29550. No~wl~$tancling any other l~rovlsion of law, e county may iml~ose a fee ul~on a cil7, sl~eclal d/strict, school district, communily college clio'ct, college, or unNersil7 for ~eirnfi,~rsement o.~ county exDenses incurrecl with respect to tl~e t~3oking Or other l~rocess,'ng of l~er$ons arrested by an eml~loyee of that city, special district, school district, com/'nuni~/ college c~istrict, college, or unlversi,'y, where the arrestecl persons are brought to the coun~ jail for t~Ooking or detention. The fee Irnf~osecl by e counl7 purstlant to t/tls section alkali not exceed tl~e actual administrative costa, inclu~ling agOIIcal~le overhead costs es i~errnlffed ~y federal Circular A.87 standercls, incurred in t~3king or otherwise I~rocesslng ar;eared ~er$ons. A coun~ may sut~'/~it an invoice to a ci~, special c/istr~'ct, school district, communil7 college district, college, or unNer$11~ for ~ese ex~enses .Incurred ~y the cou~/' on end after July 1, ;~990. * While this fee authorization is not effective until January 1, 1991; it is, by the terms of Government Co(la Section 29550, operationa~ retrospectively to July 1, 1990. Bookin_a and Proce~ln? The ,~tatute authorizes tl~e fee for "reiml~ursement of county expenses incurred" fo,' "~ocking or processing" arrested persons who are 'brought to the county ja;I for t3ook~,ng or detention.' The fee may not axceecl actual administrative costs, including indirect cos:s permit'ted I~y federal Circular A-87. "Booking and processing," for purposes of compliance with the provisions of Governmem Code Sectio~ 29550, refers to all activities necessary or appropriate for the reception a~,'J c!etent;on of. arreste~l persons at county detention facilit;es, from the t;me the arras;ed person is initially presented to facility staff until the person is either releasecl or assignec~ · ~o permanent housing within ~e facility. In general terms such activities may include, but are not I;mited to, initial reception, fingerprinting, photography, cdminal record screening. early release sa'eening, classification, medical screening, data entry, personal proper~ accounting and storage, clothing issuance, medical treatment, counseling, security, release processing. [~.J~. Direct costs are ascertained 13y identifying and costing out all acti,~ies directly involved in booking and processing. Such coSl~ include not only staffing costs, but also costs for services and supplies. Overhead Costs. Overhead costs are ascertained in accorc~ance with federat Circular A-87, per Government Code SectJo.,'t 29550. This circular establishes I~rinciples and standards for determining costs applicable to grants, contracts, and other agreements with State and local governments. Overhead costs will be based on an A- 87 Indirect Cost Rate Plan approved in each county by the State Controller. Fixed assets, and debt service if applical~le, are generally consider44 part of overhead pursuant to Circular A-87. Please note that SuCh costs will vary from county-tO-COunty, depending upon ti~e procedure used in each COunty for classification of particular costs as direct or inclirect. For example, computer costs may be cflarged in one county as direct costs, I~ut charged as indirect COsts through its approved A-87 plan in another county. LJnit C.0J.tA. Unit costs for booking and processing are ~lerived by addi:-,g the county's annualized direct and overhead costs, and dividing the sum by the total number of new booking and processing transactions, including those involving "non-I~illable entities" such as the county, the State and tl~e federal government. Examole. Total counly t~ooking and Drocessing costs are $1 million. Booking and I;roces$ing tralIs&¢tions Ore&k down es follows: 10% county, 15% CHP, 25% Ci~/ A and 50% City B. City A's bill would be $250,000; City B's t~ill would =_,be $500,000. While the Oooklng and processing transactions of its own eml~loyees and those of other *non.billable entities' are counted for purposes of determining unit cost, the county is not retmOursecl fo~' them. Section 29550 clearly states that counties may 'invoice," or bill, arresting agencies for expenses incurred in booking and processing on and after July 1, 1990. The section does not prescribe a .oarticular billing period. Therefore, counties may I~ill on a frequency convenient to them - e.g., annually, quarterly or monthly. Additionally, by its permissive nature, Section 29550 recognizes that local circumstances may cause it to be appropriate for a county to waive the imposition of fees on a particular agency for a variety of reasons .. e.g., in the event of e prior agreement between the county and a city wharel~ the city has provided valuable consideration in return for a county promise not to impose booking or other fees during tl~ term of ~e agreement. Exceptional circumstances may arise, as well, with regard to multi-agency ~rests, arrests on warrants is~jed on behalf of another agency, and "self-arrests." Guidelines for those situations follOw. Multi. Aaencv An'ast~ In the case of multi-agency arrests -- such as may occur, for example, ir~ connection with a joint task force of lOCal, StAte and federal officials -- the transaction will be billed to the arresting agency whose employee places the arrestecl person in the custody of Jail officials. If that agency is a non-billai~e entity, the transaction will be billed by the county to a local agency involved in the arrest. It will be the responsibility of arresting agencies to develop among themselves a mechanism .- such as a modified mutual aid agreement or a Joint powers agreement - for sharing such costs in an appropriate fashion. p~icl~te In ~ t~k f~ce w~tch ~$ult$ In ~ arr~ ~ IR ~ I~ i~ ~ c~ck ~l$~rl~ion scheme. Ft~ ~rres~ing ~genclea are I~ - t~e count, ~ree ci~ee, ~ ~ f~al govemmem .- on~ ~ree of whlc~ ate $ueject to ~e ~klng a~ Ot~ing f~. T~e 4rr~t~ ~S are ~pre~e~ a~ turn~ over to jail officials ~ O~ ag~. T~e coun~ may c~oose ~ all.ate all 12 ~ooklng a~ oroce~ing tran~ctlonl to o~e ~ ~e cffie$ I~. The total nutn~r of suc~ transactions may be shar~ annual~ am~g ~e I~al arresting agencies - incl~ing t~e count. . ~s~ u~n m~ agr~men[ ~. In some ~ses, an employee of one ci~ will arr~t a person on a warrant issued on Deha~ of ano~er ¢~. ~e ci~ ~ose employee presents the arrested person to jail officials will be bill~ for the tran~ion. L~I agencies may ~range among themselves ~ow to reimburse one another for such ~sts. Counties will not for arrests made by non-coun~ agencies on warrants issued on beha~ of the coun~ sheriff. ~. B;~ling is only permi~e~ in the case of persons "~rought to" the coun~ jail, Therefore, persons who preset' t~emselves for O~king, ot cou~ remands, wili be treated as non.billable transa~ions. Un~ costs for ~ooking an~ processing will va~ from coun~ to count, perhaps substantially. Prim~ily, this will result from ~ifferences in the size and complexi~ of ~ooking and detention operations. The size an~ ~mple~ of operations will, in turn, va~ in accordance w~h a host of variables indigenous to each count. Likewise, as noted above, ~itling perils may va~ from one coun~ to the ne~. A count/ may, in oraer tO a~aress Io~1 circumstances or m~ntain Io~1 agreements, f[na ~*. necessa~ or appropriate to waive or adjust fees in ce~ain ~ses. Whi;e unff costs an~ billing periodici~t are expe~e~ to va~, and while it may be necessa~ to wane or adjust fees in s~al circumstances, it is ex.ed that the me~oaology employe~ ~y counties in d~ermining booking an~ pr~ssi~ fees will be un~orm anc consistent througho~ ~e s~te.