HomeMy WebLinkAboutContracts & Agreements_23-1999_CCv0001.pdf 1 SUPPLEMENTAL SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT
2 ELIMINATING FEBRUARY 11, 1999 CRIMINAL
JUSTICE ADMINISTRATIVE FEE INCREASE
3
4 This Supplemental Settlement Agreement (hereinafter referred to as
5 "Agreement") is entered into between the COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO, for itself,
6 its employees, servants, representatives, officers, officials, agents and departments
7 (hereinafter referred to as "COUNTY") and the CITY OF REDLANDS
8 (hereinafter referred to as "CITY"). COUNTY and CITY are collectively referred to
9 herein as the "Parties".
10 CITY and COUNTY have previously entered into a Settlement Agreement
11 concerning payment of booking and processing fees (criminal justice administrative
12 fees pursuant to California Government Code section 29550) that was incorporated as
13 part of the judgment entered by the Sacramento County Superior Court in City o
14 Adelanto, et al. v. County of San Bernardino, Judicial Council Coordination Proceeding
15 No. 2584.
16 On January 26, 1999 the Board of Supervisors for the County of San Bernardino
17 passed and adopted a resolution to waive and eliminate the criminal justice
18 administrative fee Consumer Price Index increase scheduled to otherwise automatically
19 take effect on February 11, 1999, for all cities and towns which have previously entered
20 into a booking fee settlement agreement with the County that was incorporated as part
21 of the judgment in the above-referenced case, and which also enter into a supplemental
22 settlement agreement with the County, in which they each agree to allocate to local law
23 enforcement programs the entire amount of their savings derived from the fee
24 reduction, and to use this sum exclusively for law enforcement purposes within the
25 County of San Bernardino.
26 CITY now represents that it shall allocate to local law enforcement programs the
27 entire amount of its savings derived from the above-described fee reduction, and shall
28
DST 136593
1 use this sum exclusively for law enforcement purposes within the County of San
2 Bernardino.
3 Therefore, COUNTY and CITY agree to the following terms and conditions:
4 1. COUNTY, in consideration of the performance of all terms of this
5 Agreement by CITY, agrees to waive in full the 1999 Consumer Price Index increase
6 referred to in section 3.c. of the Settlement Agreement between the Parties concerning
7 payment of booking and processing fees (criminal justice administrative fees pursuant
8 to California Government Code section 29550) that was incorporated as part of the
9 judgment entered by the Sacramento County Superior Court in City of Adelanto, et al.
10 v. 'Counly of San Bernardino, Judicial Council Coordination Proceeding No. 2584, that
11 would otherwise automatically take effect on February 11, 1999, provided that CITY
12 executes this Agreement prior to April 1, 1999.
13 2. In the event that CITY executes this Agreement on or after April 1, 1999,
14 COUNTY, in consideration of the performance of all terms of this Agreement by CITY,
15 agrees to waive the 1999 Consumer Price Index increase referred to in section 3.c. of
16 the Settlement Agreement between the Parties concerning payment of booking and
17 processing fees (criminal justice administrative fees pursuant to California Government
18 Code section 29550) that was incorporated as part of the judgment entered by the
19 Sacramento County Superior Court in City of Adelanto, et al. v. County of San
20 Bernardino, Judicial Council Coordination Proceeding No. 2584, that would otherwise
21 automatically take effect on February 11, 1999, with such waiver beginning and
22 effective in the month that CITY signs this Agreement.
23 3. CITY, in consideration of COUNTY agreeing to waive the 1999 Consumer
24 Price Index increase referred to in section 3.c. of the Settlement Agreement between
25 the Parties concerning payment of booking and processing fees (criminal justice
26 administrative fees pursuant to California Government Code section 29550) that was
27 incorporated as part of the judgment entered by the Sacramento County Superior Court
28
DST 136593 2
I in Citv of Adelanto, et al. v. County of San Bernardino, Judicial Council Coordination
2 Proceeding No. 2584, that would otherwise automatically take effect on February 11,
3 1999, agrees to allocate to local law enforcement programs the entire amount of its
4 savings derived from the above-described fee reduction, and to use this sum
5 exclusively for law enforcement purposes within the County of San Bernardino.
6 4. The Parties agree that this Agreement shall be deemed breached and a
7 cause of action accrued thereon immediately upon the commencement by either party
8 of any action or proceeding contrary to the terms of this Agreement.
9 5. The Parties fully understand and declare that, if the facts under which this
10 Agreement is executed are found hereafter to be different from the facts now believed
11 by them to be true, they assume the risk of such possible differences in facts and
12 hereby agree that this Agreement shall be, and will remain, effective, notwithstanding
13 such differences in facts.
14 6. The Parties further agree that this Agreement shall be binding upon the
15 Parties, their employees, agents, heirs, representatives, successors, assigns, officers,
16 officials, agents, and departments, and that the benefits contained in this Agreement
17 shall inure to the benefit of the Parties hereto, their employees, agents, heirs,
18 representatives, successors, assigns, officers, officials, agents, and departments.
19 7. The Parties hereto certify they have not received any representations,
20 promises, or inducements from any of the Parties hereto or from their representatives
21 other than those expressed in this Agreement. The Parties further certify that they are
22 entering into this Agreement in reliance upon their knowledge and understanding of the
23 facts, the legal implications thereof, and the liability therefore as per the advice and
24 legal counsel of their attorneys. The Parties understand and agree that this Agreement
25 is intended only to supplement the Settlement Agreement reached by the Parties with
26 respect to all matters contained therein, and entered as part of the judgment, by the
27 Hon. James T. Ford in City of Adelanto, et al. v. County of San Bernardino, Judicial
28
DST 136593 3
� . .
1 Council Coordination Proceeding No. 2584. The Parties hereby affirm their
/w k
h ►
0.
1 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties sign this agreement on the
2 respective dates indicated below.
3
4 Approved as to form:
5 Dated: -' 717 ALAN K. MARKS
6 CNTY COUNS
7 By. L� a
8 DENNIS TILTON
9 Deputy County Counsel
Attorneys for COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO
10
Approved as to form:
11
12 Dated: 3 -k
13
By.
14 i�
15 Attorneys for CITY OF
'16
17 Dated: 3/29 , 1999
18 COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO
19 By:— CL,4� 4 A
20 J 1KEL
Arma
21 n, Board or Supervisors
Dated: March 16 ' 1999 22 CI OF REDLANDS
23
24 By" t 6 it VV=.
William . Cunnin m
25 Mayor
26 ATTEST:
27
By:
28 Lorrie �oyze i�yC erk
DST 136593 5
BRUNICK, ALVAREZ &, BATTERSBY
PROFESSIONAL LAW CORPORATION
WILLIAM J. BRUNICK 1839 COMMERCENTER WEST
21S CAJON STREET
POST OFFICE BOX 6#25
DONALD R. ALVAREZ BOX 1320
STEVEN M. KENNEDY 9P (}
. .
MARGUERITE P.
BATTERSBY SAN BERNARDINO, CALIFORNIA 92412 REDLANOS, CALIFORNIA 2373
tELANA p_ MCE{_HANEY
AREA CODE 909 TELEPHONE (909) 793-0818
RENE S. ABRAHAM TELEPHONE: 889-8301
MARK POTTER
ELIZABETH G. MERKIN FAX. 388-1869
ID)5, 1999
M A a
CONFIDENTIAL
ATTORNEY—CLIENT PRIVILEGED CUYIMO EY
TO: ALL CITIES IN THE COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO
FROM: BRUNICK, ALVAREZ & BATTERSBY
William J. Brunick
Steven M. Kennedy
RE: Citv of Adelanto, et al ....v. County of San Bernardino
Case No. 262309
City of Victorville et al v County of San Bernardino
Case No. 262162
City of Adelanto, et al v County of San Bernardino
Case No. SCV 18697
Ladies and Gentlemen:
The purpose of this memorandum is to update all cities on the
status of the above-referenced matters .
Booking Fees in San Bernardino Countv
As you will remember, on or about July 31, 1990, Senate Bill
2557 was signed by the Governor of the State of California as a
non-urgency measure. Senate Bill 2557 was subsequently codified as
California Government Code Section 29550, and became effective
January 1, 1991 .
Pursuant to Government Code Section 29550, counties were
authorized to retroactively charge cities and other entities for
expenses incurred after July 1, 1990, in connection with the
booking or other processing of persons arrested by employees of the
cities and other entities . Government Code Section 29550 requires
that the amount of the fee not exceed the actual administrative
costs, including applicable overhead costs as permitted by federal
Circular A-87 standards, incurred in booking or otherwise
processing those arrested persons .
Pursuant to the authority purportedly granted by Section 29550
of the Government Code, on or about January 14, 1991, the County of
San Bernardino adopted Ordinance No. 3428, to be effective on or
about February 13 , 1991 .
San Bernardino County Cities
March 5, 1999
Page Two
The County calculated that its booking and processing costs
for FY 1990-91 were $10 , 416, 808 . The estimated number of bookings
in the County is 84, 760 based on FY 1989-90 bookings. As a result,
the booking fee adopted by the County pursuant to Ordinance No.
3428 is $122 . 90 per booking.
On or about February 13 , 1990, the County began billing the
cities in San Bernardino County ("the Cities" ) retroactive booking
fees .
The Cities thereafter sent notices of 'di8pute regarding such
payment pursuant to the provisions of Government Code Section 907 .
However, on or about April 9, 1991, the County unilaterally began
withholding the disputed criminal justice administrative fees from
certain funds which were due and owing to the Cities .
On May 14, 1991, the San Bernardino Superior Court issued a
temporary restraining order, and on May 28, 1991, issued a
preliminary injunction, prohibiting the County from conducting any
further offsets from any sums which may be due and owing to the
Cities . On or about October 17, 1991, this case was included in
the Coordinated Proceeding in Sacramento challenging booking fees .
Coordinated Proceeding
You will recall that, following a hearing on or about March
27, 1992, the Coordination Court found that Government Code Section
29550 as it pertains to booking fees is valid and constitutional .
However, following a hearing on or about July 10, 1992 , the
Coordination Court held that the Cities with pre-existing law
enforcement agreements with the County ("the Contract Cities") were
excluded from the operation of Government Code Section 29550 . On
or about September 11, 1992 , the Coordination Court denied the
County' s motion for reconsideration of its ruling exempting the
Contract Cities from the payment of any booking fees.
Thereafter, in its Order After Hearing dated March 5, 1993 ,
the Coordination Court ordered that the issues on the scope and the
amount of the booking fee be bifurcated for factual determinations .
The first phase will examine the method or formula for the booking
and other processing fee. The second phase, as necessary, will
examine the formula as applied to the specific counties.
On June 15, 1993 , the Coordination Court issued an Order
providing that the issues which will be determined in Phase i of
the trial are (1) what is included in booking and processing and
(2) how the fee is calculated.
San Bernardino County Cities
March 5, 1999
Page Three
Trial on the first phase was held on May 23 and 24, 1994 . The
parties that were present were the cities and county in San
Bernardino and Ventura. The following is a summary of the
Coordination Court ' s rulings with respect to the above aspects of
Phase I .
Activities
In its Order After Hearing filed April 2, 1992 , the
Coordination Court had established the time frame within which the
booking process occurs :
it
. . . from the time an arrested person is brought to a
county detention facility through assessment to
assignment to the detention facility Population or
release whichever occurs first . ,,
The counties essentially contended at trial that everything
that occurs during this time period should be a cost that may be
included in the booking fee. The cities took a more narrow
approach and identified a limited number of activities that should
be deemed part of the booking process .
The Coordination Court confirmed the above time frame as
setting forth the appropriate parameters during which booking takes
place, but rejected the counties ' argument that all activities that
take place during that time period should be included in the
booking fee. While the court allowed the counties to include many
of the activities it sought to include, several other activities
were expressly excluded in the calculation of the booking fee,
including:
1 . Food;
2 . Bedding;
3 . Chemical testing;
4 . Providing public information;
5 . Aviation;
6 . The determination of arrestee work assignments and
assignment to other details;
7. Travel unrelated to the booking process;
8 . Temporary housing;
San Bernardino County Cities
March 5, 1999
Page Four
9 . Construction costs;
10 . Operating expenses;
11 . The return of inventoried property occurring after
placement in the detention facility population;
12 . Medical costs (except of minor incidental in-custody
treatment) and
13 . All activities outside the scope' of booking and other
processing as previously defined by the court; that is,
those which occur before arrival at the detention
facility and after initial placement in the detention
facility population or release.
County Counsel for Ventura County was ordered to prepare the
formal judgment and circulate it to all parties for approval prior
to filing with the court . Several drafts of that judgment were
prepared, but we believed that none of them accurately reflected
the court ' s rulings . As a result of this impasse, County Counsel
for Ventura County submitted a proposed judgment to the court on
behalf of the counties, and our office submitted a proposed
judgment to the court on behalf of the cities. On August 18 , 1994,
Judge Ford signed our proposed order.
Calculation Methodology
The cities argued that the counties did not apply the
appropriate methodology for calculating the booking fee for several
reasons, including:
1 . The methodology used
d to calculate the booking fee should
be the "Specific Method" rather than the "All-Inclusive
Method; "
2 . The booking fee should not include any duplication of
costs which have already been paid in connection with the
financing of the construction of the jails;
3 . The methodology used to calculate the booking fee should
not include expenses for inmates;
4 . The booking fee should not include any costs for services
for which the cities are already contributing revenues;
5 . The booking fee should not include interest or overhead,
San Bernardino County Cities
March 5, 1999
Page Five
6 . The booking fee should include adjustments and abatements
for grants, payments, reimbursements, and subventions;
and
7 . The counties must transfer appropriations limits to the
cities .
Aside from ruling that inmate expenses should not be included
in the booking fee, the court found the 'methodology issue too
confusing and decided to refer it to 'a special master for
determination and recommendation. On June 21, 1994, the court
appointed William V. Brennan of the Office of the State Controller
to serve as the referee. A meeting with Mr. Brennan was held on
August 3, 1994, in Sacramento to discuss the manner in which the
hearing will be held.
Thereafter, a hearing before the referee on the methodology
issues relating to the calculation of the original booking fee was
held on December 15 and 16, 1994, in Simi Valley. At the
conclusion of the hearing, the referee took the matter under
submission.
Although the Coordination Court issued an order on April 29,
1997, directing the referee to prepare and file a written report
containing his findings and recommendations within twenty (20) days
of the date thereof, we still have not yet received a ruling from
the referee on the methodology issues relating to the calculation
of the original booking fee.
Upon receipt of the referee ' s recommendation, a hearing will
be held before Judge Ford on whether to accept the referee ' s
report . Thereafter, once we receive an order from Judge Ford on
methodology, Phase I of the litigation will be complete and trial
on the Phase II issues involving the application of the
Coordination Court ' s Phase I orders to each of the remaining
counties in the litigation will be scheduled.
Challenge to the Increased Fee
However, in November of 1994, the County advised the Cities
that the Board of Supervisors will consider the adoption of a new
booking fee in the amount of $168 .20 in December of 1994 . The
purported reason that the proposed fee is higher is because of
adjustments associated with the reopening of the Central Detention
Center and updating indirect costs to reflect actual costs from
fiscal year 1993-1994 . Thus, the County estimates total booking
and processing costs of $12, 050, 720 and the total number of
bookings to be 71, 649 .
San Bernardino County Cities
March 5, 1999
Page Six
Over objection filed on behalf of the Cities, the County
approved an increase in the amount of the booking fee from $122 . 90
to $168 .20 effective February 9, 1995 .
Pursuant to the instructions given to our office at the City
Managers ' meeting on January 12 , 1995, this office filed a separate
action on behalf of the Cities against the County challenging its
increase in the amount of the booking fee from $122 . 90 to $168 .20 .
On or about April 26, 1996, Judge Ford issued an order which
included this new case in the Coordinated Proceeding. The County
has since filed an Answer to the Cities ' action and, on or about
February 26, 1998, served this office with a Cross-Complaint
against the Cities of Adelanto and Needles . We have entered into
a stipulation with the County wherein the parties have agreed that
the Answer previously filed by the Cities in the initial litigation
will also apply to the Cross-Complaint in this case as well .
Settlement
Beginning in and around July of 1995, a proposed Settlement
Agreement with the County was circulated to the Cities. All of the
Cities except for Needles have now signed the Settlement Agreement .
The terms of the Settlement Agreement have been approved by Judge
Ford, and Judgment has been entered into the Coordination Court ' s
records pursuant to the terms thereof as between the County and all
of the Cities except Needles .
Under the Settlement Agreement, the fee for bookings occurring
from July 1, 1990, through February 9, 1995, was established at
$104 . 90 per booking. However, for the Contract Cities, the fee was
set at $61.45 for bookings occurring from July 1, 1990, through
December 31, 1993 , and $122 . 90 for bookings occurring from January
1, 19941 through February 9, 1995 . The Settlement Agreement
further provides that the fee for bookings occurring from February
10, 1995, through February 10, 1996, shall be $152 . 00, and that the
booking fee for each successive 12-month period until 2001 shall be
the prior year's fee plus inflation as calculated in the 1996
edition of the Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers for the
Los Angeles/Anaheim/Riverside area {"CPI") . Thereafter, the amount
of the fee shall be the actual cost incurred by the County in
performing the booking activities allowed by the Coordination
Court .
However, at the request of the Cities, the County has agreed
to waive the CPI increase scheduled for February 11, 1999, if the
Cities participating in the Settlement Agreement agree to allocate
the savings derived therefrom to local law enforcement programs.
This offer has been formalized in the "Supplemental Settlement
Agreement Eliminating February 11, 1999 Criminal Justice
Administrative Fee Increase" enclosed herewith.
San Bernardino County Cities
March 5, 1999
Page Seven
if
If the enclosed document meets with the Cities ' approval ,
please arrange for two (2) originals thereof to be signed by each
City prior to April 1, 1999, and forward both executed originals
directly to Dennis S. Tilton, Deputy County Counsel for the County
of San Bernardino, at the County administrative offices located at
285 N. Arrowhead Avenue, Fourth Floor, San Bernardino, California
92415-0140 .
Please also be advised that under the 'Settlement Agreement,
the County is required to furnish the ' Cities with adequate
documentation to support its calculation of the fee. Therefore, if
a city that is a party to the Settlement Agreement disputes the
amount of the increase' that city may file a "written challenge',
with the County pursuant to Section 4 of the Settlement Agreement .
However, since the City of Needles has not yet signed the
underlying Settlement Agreement, it should continue to send timely
protest letters to the County and to set aside reserves to pay for
such fees at such time that it becomes necessary to do so. it is
also requested that these cities contact us immediately to discuss
the manner in which this office should proceed on their behalf with
respect to these matters.
Lastly, we wish to express our sincere gratitude and
appreciation to all of the Cities for granting us the opportunity
to represent you throughout the course of this litigation.
If you have any questions or comments regarding the above,
please feel free to contact us at your earliest convenience.
Enclosure