HomeMy WebLinkAbout4945_CCv0001.pdf RESOLUTION ND. 4945
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF REDLANDS APPROVING THE
"SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT BY AND BETWEEN THE COUNTY OF' SAN BERNARDINO,
THE TREASURER OF SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY, THE AUDITOR OF SAN BERNARDINO
COUNTY, AND CERTAIN CITIES OF SAN BEI NARDINO COUNTY"
WHEREAS, the City of Redlands is part to a lawsuit in Sacramento County Superior Court
entitled Victorville, gt.,al.. v. San Bernardino County, et 1., Action No. 358193;
WHEREAS, a Settlement Agreement for settlement of Action No. 358193 has been presented to
the Redlands City Council, a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit A;
WHEREAS, the City Council is familiar with the contents of the Settlement Agreement;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED the City Council of the City of Redlands hereby
approves the "Settlement Agreement By and Between the County of San Bernardino, the Treasurer of
San Bernardino County, the Auditor of San Bernardino County, and Certain Cities of San Bernardino
County," and authorizes and directs the Mayor to sign the same.
ADOPTED, SIGNED AND APPROVED this 5th day of January, 1993.
A
M 0i of ffib-Ic sfi/
ay, "fRediand
itY
ATTEST-
City er
1, Lorrie Poyzer, City Clerk of the city of Redlands, do hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was
duly adopted at a regular meeting thereof held on the 5th day of January, 1993, by the following vote:
AYES: Councilmembers Larson, Cunningham, Milson, Foster; Mayor DeMirjyn
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAINED- None
...........
City Clerk
SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT BY AND BETWEEN
THE COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO,
THE TREASURER F SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY,
THE AUDITOR OF SAN BE INC. C0VN7T, AND
CERTAIN CITIES OF SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY
.. _ZARTIES. The parties to this Agreementarethe
Cities of ' ictcrville, Adelanto, Barstow, Big Bear Lake, Chino,
Colton, Fontana Grand Terrace, Montclair, Ontario, Rancho
Cucamonga, Redlands, Rialto, Copland, Highland and San Bernardino
(hereafter referred, to collectively as "Cities") the County of
San Bernardino (hereafter referred to a "County") , the Treasures
of San Bernardino County (hereafter referred to as "Treasurer") ,
and the Auditor of San Bernardino County (hereafter referred to
as "Auditor")
-
2 . PURPOSE. A lawsuit was filed in the Sacramento'
County Superior Court entitled city of "victorvil a et al. vs.
County, of Ban Bernardino, et al. (No. 355193) wherein the Cities,
excepting the Cities of Highland and San Bernardino, alleged that
the County, the Treasurer, and the Auditor had failed to dis-
tribute to Cities, pursuant to Penal Cade S 1.463, their share of
the fine revenues collected from defendants convicted of misde-
meanors in the Ban Bernardino County Municipal Courts and placed
on conditional sentence (also referred to a "court" probation
and./or "summary probation") . Said revenues are hereinafter
referred to as "fines. " ities moved successfully for summary
judgment on the issue of liability and a writ of mandate and
summary judgment on liability issued. The orders were affirmed
on the County's appeal. The newly created City of Highland
became, by its motion, a plaintiff in the lawsuit. The: purpose
of this Agreement is to finally and fully resolve all of the
issues and claims between the parties in Action No. 3551.93
currently pending in the Sacramento Superior Court.
further lawsuit alleging as above was filed by the
SAH VF, G
MUM DMA08-79 (Page 1 of ),
City of San Bernardino entitled City of San Bernardino vs County
ofSanBernardino, et al. , Riverside Superior Court Case No.
207900. In that case, the County stipulated to a judgment
substantively identical to that obtained by other cities. This,
the purpose of this Agreement also includes final and full
resolution of all claims and issues between the parties in action
No. 207900 currently pending in Riverside superior Court.
3. EFFECTIVE DATE. The effective date of this;-Agree-
anent
his Agree-
ment is the last date it is executed by any party.
4 . VX"FECTEII_R�EWIIZ. The lawsuits referenced in
paragraph 2 do not involve fines collected by the San Bernardino
County Municipal Courts from defendants who pay their fines
directly to the municipal or justice courts, which fines are
currently being, and will continue to be, distributed by County
to Cities as provided in Penal Code S 1463 . 001 et. seq. , without
any collection fee.
5. NO APXJSSIOH. This Agreement is not and shall
never be considered to be an admission of any fault, error,
wrongdoing, or liability by the County, the Treasurer, the
Auditor, or by any agent, officer, servant, or employee of any of
them.
6. FACEFINEREVENUES. County will pay to Cities the
total sum of three million nine hundred twenty-four thousand
three hundred seventy-four and 10/100 dollars ($3,924, 374.10) in
accordance with the payment schedule set forth in paragraph 8 .
This sum is comprised of two million nine hundred sixty-six
thousand fifty-seven and 46/100 dollars ($2 , 966, 057.46) fine
amounts and nine hundred fifty-eight thousand three hundred
sixteen and 64/100 dollars ($958, 316. 64) interest, which is
estimated at seven percent (7%) to January 4, 1993 . (This amount
is referred to as "back fine revenues" in this Agreement. ) The
amounts paid pursuant to this Agreement are in settlement of the
lawsuits referred to in paragraph 2 and may be treated by each
city as settlement proceeds.
SAH F&F.AGREEMEW
12J28/92 Doe.10879 (Page 2 of 22)
7 AP C3&TIo B o BACK FINE REVEM19. The sum of
three million nine hundredtwenty-four thousand three hundred
seventy-four and 10f100 dollars ($3,924 , 374. 10) shall be appor-
tioned among the Cities as follows,
giltz perce AMLOUAt
Adelant€a .62 24,476.42'
Barstow . 41 15,960 46
Big Bear Lake .05 1,895.90
Chino 5. 36 212, x}00.61
Colton 8.94 351,278.87`
Fontana 11.24 439,267..64
Grand Terrace 1. 18 46, 296.47
Highland .93 37,089.55
Montclair 4 . 45 174,295.58
Ontario 13 .63 537, 683 .95
Rancho Cucamonga; 6. 14 241, 660.99
Redlands 1. 73 67,443.15
Rialto 5. 12 200, 297.72
San Bernardino 31. 33 1, 225`, 601.39
Upland_ 6. 97 274, 298.79
Victorville 1.90 74, 826.61
The percentages set forth in this paragraph apply only to the
back fine revenues and to the interest provided for in paragraph
10.
8 PAY HACK PERIOD. The beck fine revenues (three
million nine hundred twenty-four thousand three hundred seventy-
four and, 10/100 dollars -($3,924, 374.10) ) shall be paid. to Cities
over the following "pay back period" and apportioned among the
Cities according to the percentages in paragraph 7, above:
(a) $400, 000. 00 on or before one month from the last
party's execution of this Agreement,
(b) $600,000.00 during Fiscal Year 1992 - 1993 `
1.992-93) by one payment by the end, of FY 1992-9
if necessary, so that a minimum of $1,000, 000.00
WAGREFIAErr
12nsm DMAOV9 (Page 3 of 22)
is paid during FY 1992-93;
(c) $1, 000, 000. 00 during Fiscal Year 1993-1994 (FY
1993-94) by one payment by the end of said Fiscal
Year,*
(d) The remainder by a final payment by the end of
Fiscal Year 1994 - 1,995 (FY 1994-95) .
County may pay more than the above amounts in any
fiscal year.
9. COLLECTION FEE. County will retain a collection
fee of ten percent (10%) of fine revenues collected from
defendants on conditional sentence and distributed to the cities
pursuant to Penal Code S 1463. 001, which shall be in addition to
the County's statutory share (Penal Code S 1463 . 002) of summary
probation collections. The lot is a collection fee and is not
intended to be an adjustment of the statutory percentages set
forth in Penal Code S 1463 . 002.
The collection fee will apply to distributions of fine
revenues collected subsequent to the County's execution of this
Agreement. The collection fee shall be in addition to the fee for
processing installment accounts as provided in Penal Code S 1205 (d) .
10. _INTEREST. The back fine revenues of three million
nine hundred twenty-four thousand three hundred seventy-four and
10/100 dollars ($3 , 924, 374 . 10) include accrued interest estimated
at seven percent (7%) . It is understood and agreed by the
parties that exact interest calculation would be extremely
burdensome because statutory interest accrues from the end of the
month following each payment on- each account, and the parties
therefore agree to accept the estimate below.
Additional interest will accrue after the date the
County executes this Agreement, at the Local Agency Investment
Fund (LAIF) rate or seven percent (7%) , whichever is lower,
throughout the duration of this Agreement, on amounts paid
pursuant to paragraph 8. The LAIC" rate will be calculated by
averaging the three (3) most recent quarters' LAIC' rate available
SAH F&F.AGREPNIM14T
IMS/92 Doc.l" (Page 4 of 22)
at the time a payment is Stade.
11. P FINES. All fines collected by County from
defendants on conditional sentence whose court orders are
received by County on and after September 1,: 1989, shall: be
distributed to Cities according to the percentages set forth in
Penal Code S 1463 .002, or such percentages as may in the future
be listed by Penal Code S 1463 .002 or its successor. County
agrees to prorate payments in accordance with Penal Cade
1462 .5; provided, however, that if the proration statutory
provisions are amended or repealed, County may adjust- its
procedures in accordance with the statutory changes related to
proration without necessity of any amendment to this Agreement.
12 . MgMISSAL. 'Within thirty days of the effective
date of this Agreement, Cities shall, file: a dismissal, with.
prejudice as to all defendants in City o Victorv' le; et al. vs.,
Countyof EAa B r ardina eta . , Sacramento County Superior
Court No. 358193 and Citv of San Bernardino vs. Countv o __San
Bernar ino.. et g. , Riverside County Superior Court No. 207900,
1 COSTS. Each party shall hear its own costs and,
attorney's fees.
14. OL)I '1CATIONB-. This Agreement may be modified
only by' a written instrument executed by all parties hereto.
15. RELEASE. Each and every city who is a party to
this Agreement, on behalf of itself, its successors and assigns,
hereby releases and discharges the County of San Bernardino, the
Auditor of San Bernardino County, the Treasurer of San Bernardino
County, and their officers, employees, agents, successors,
descendants, dependents, heirs, executers, administrators, and
assigns, from all causes of action, claims, demands, damages, and
liabilities of any kind, whether known or unknown, now existing
or hereafter arising from the facts and circumstances set forth
in the petition and complaint, as amended, in Sacramento Superior
Court Action No. 358193 and Riverside Superior Court Action No.
207900.
SAH F&YAGRFMAENT
18M12n8M Dm.1 "79 (Page 5' of 22)
1 t BASB YXA_R_..qMCPjAT1ON. County warrants that each
City's base year calculation amount for Fiscal Year 1990 - 1991:
shall reflect the fill amount of fine revenues attributable to
each city pursuant to the percentages set forth in Penal Code
146 .001 et seq. This warranty is made: for the express purpose;
of compliance with Chapter 189 of Statutes, 1991, and: for` no
other purpose.
17. PPLIgATE d3RI!91I+t S This Agreement is executed;
in seventeen (1 ) duplicate originals so that each party will
have an original of this Agreement.
COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO
DATED -- By:
C16z Z
Ch m, Board of Supergisor
A ST: EARLENE SPROAT, Clerk:
of the Beard of Supervisors
B
p
APPROVED AS TO FORM
AND CONTENT
ALAN K. MARKS
County Counsel
By: ��Ail
SUSAN A. HOPKINS
Deputy County Counsel-
DATEDN 12 199
THOMAS F. O'DONNE ,h
Treasurer-Tax Collector
o
County o S4n Bernardino
DATED JAN 12, 1993
ERROL J. 0(ACXZUM
Auditor/Controlle -Recorder
of
county of San Bernardino
sA F"AGREEMWt
120M DmA (Page 6 of 22)
CITY OF ADELANTO
DATED: By:
ATTEST:
City Clerk
City of Adelanto
By: zt . 11,1
SAH F&F.AGREFIAENT
12128192 Dm.10879 (Page 7 of 2 2)
CITY OF BARSTOW
t 1 �
r
DATED: By:
ATTEST:
City Clerk
City of Barstow
By: t
Depety-
sax F&FAGREEMENT
12128/92 DocA0879 (Page 8 of 22)
CITY OF BIG BEAR LAKE
DATED: January 6, 1993 By:
Walt Dwyer, Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
City of Big Bear Lake
By: f41
rf
'DepUty
SAH F&FAGREEME-4T
12/28192 Doc.10879 (Page 9 of 22)
CITY OF CHIN{
DATED: t�` .� By: I
ATTEST:
City Clerk
City of Chino
B
Deputy .
SAH F&F.AGMIAENT
IM9/92 Doc.10879 (Page 10 of 22)
CITY OF COLTON
DATED: By:
ATTEST.
City Clerk
City of Colton
By:
Deputy
y=
ty
SAH F&F.AGREEMENT
121n/92 Doe.10879 (Page 11 of 22)
CITY OF FONTANA
DATED: February 10, 1993 By: � �fj
MAY-5R G Y BOY EJB S
ATTEST:
City Clerk
City of Fontana
By: c ( _
CITY OF GRAND TERRACE
DATED: January 14, 1993 By
ATEST
City Clerk
City of Grand Terrace
By:
Deputy
SAKI F&RAGREEM NT
12 g/92 Dr-10879 (Page 13 of 22)
CITY OF HIGHLAND
DATED: s By:
John, P. Timmy , Mayor
ATTEST:
f
By:
Debbie L. Anderson
Deputy City Clerk
(Page 14 of 22)
CII? OF MONTCLAIR
Dk2£O: \ : By: = z e<.w«
/
Mayor Pro Tem Leonard Paulitz
ATTEST:
City Clerk
City of Montclair
el :
By:
City C . { d >
SAH F& GREFAIENT
!Wt# DecA0879 (page 15 of 22)
CITY OF ONTARIO
DATED:
AW M A Y 0 Oc
TTEST°
City Clerk
••� f- N City of Ontario
S4
ByAt
t C C
r r
6
1
' /
TO FORM
AS
�i�drr04irf ii it<t4�
F742-
-7 2
ATY ATTORNEY '
foR ammik MOWN
SAH F&F.AGREEMENT
12r2gi9l c .10879 (Page 16 of 22)
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
' f
DATED: By
ATTEST:
City Clerk
City of Rancho Cucamonga
n
Dei'
SAKI F&F.4GREEMENT
12/28/42 Dm.10979 (Page 1 7 of 2 2)
CITY OF REDLANDS
DATED: January, 1993 By: r -
Mayor
� 6
ATTEST:
City ierk Z_- --
City 'of Redias
SAH F&FAGREEMENT
12128192 dOC.10879
(Page 18 of 22)
CITY OF RIALTO
DATED: l "- By:
ATTEST:'
City Clerk
City of Rialto
By
SAH F&F.aGREEME T
12128/92 DmI0879 (Page 19 of 2 2)
CITY OF UPLAND
DATED: January 25, 2993 By. � .
ATTEST:
City Clerk
City of Upland
By: r �
Sheryll Schroeder
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Donald E. Marone City Attorney
SAH F&cF.AGREEMFNf
12a8/92 Doc.10879 (Page 20 of 22)
CITY OF VICTORVILLE
DATED: '
,F
ATTEST:
City Clerk
City of Victorville
By. .r .
Deputy
SAH F&F AQRFEMEW
12n8M Doc.2" (Page 21 of 22)
APPROVED AS TO FORM
AND ONT T`'
MEYERS, NAVE, RIBACK & WEST
By.
EL ZABETH H. SILVER
Attorneys for Plaintiff Cities
Adelantd, Barstow, Big Bear Lake,
Chins, Colton, Fontana, Grand Terrace,
Highland, Montclair, Ontario,
Rancho Cucamonga, Redlands, Rialto,
Upland and Vi torville
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO
m
DATED Q By
ATTEST:
city Clerk"
City of San Bernardino
By: ate
-bep ty
APPROVED AS TO FORM
LCONTENT:
JAMES F. PENMAN
City Attorney
By: ll �
blT�RE cATRAN ROTH
Deputy City Attorney
Attorney for City of San Bernardino
SAH F&F.AGREP-MENT 1=8 .s 7s Page c
FSE "ESS, NAVE, RIBACK & SILVER
Michael R. Nave A Professional Law Corporation
Steven R. Mevere Peninsula Office
Elizabeth tl, Silver Gatewav Plaza 22 5
Michael S. F�atrac� P..�t7 Howard Avenue, Suite ,d.;17
Mi h e l S.
Ribac Campbell 777 Davis Street,,Suite 3 Burlingame, CA 9401c1�211
`wticord F. C Rodriquez San Leandro, CA 94577-j 'relephcne: (415) a48-13
Mictl ct 1=auod i� Telephone: (510) 351 30 Facsimile. t415y 342-0856
Frederick S. Ether`idue Facsimile: (510) x`51 81
Wendy A. Roberts Sonoma County
David W. Spinner
Steven T. Mattas (;Cl l S4G-31_�S
Of counsel: MEMORANDUM Reply to:
Andrea J. Saltzman San L.randm
TO City Managers of the Cities of DATE: January 4 , 1993
delanto, Barstow, Big Bear Lake, Chino,
Colton, Fontana, Grand Terrace, Highland., Montclair,
Ontario, Rancho Cucamonga, Redlands, Rialto,
Upland, and Victory lle
FROM Elizabeth H. Salver
RE City of Victorville- et 1. vs. County of San Bernardino
et al. , Municipal Court Fines Litigation
As I indicated in my faxed memo of today, the Board of Supervisors
has approved the settlement agreement.
Enclosed is an originalcopy of the settlement agreement, together
with seventeen (17) signature pages for your city. once your city
council approves the; settlement agreement, please have all
seventeen signature pages signed and return them t me in the
enclosed envelope. Once all parties have approved the. agreement,-
I will provide you with a fully signed settlement agreement for
your files.
Once again, if you have any questions regardi
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT
(MUNICIPAL COURT FINES LITIGATION)
1. The County will pay to the 14 cities which are parties
to the Victorville, et-.1 al. lawsuit (Adelanto, Barstow, chino,
Colton, Fontana, Grand Terrace, Montclair, Ontario, Redlands,
Rialto, Upland, Victorville, Rancho Cucamonga, and Big Bear Lake) ,
the City of Highland (intervenor in Victorville, et al. ) and the
City of San Bernardino (plaintiff in its own lawsuit) the total sum
of $3 , 924,374. 10, which represents Municipal court fines collected
from March 1, 1985 through January 31, 1990, plus interest at the
statutory rate (7% per annum) .
2 . The $3 , 924 , 374 . 10 will be paid back as follows:• $400, 000
within one month of execution of the agreement by the last city;
$600, 000 prior to June 30, 1993 ; $1, 000, 000 by June 30, 1994; and
the balance ($1, 924 ,374. 10) by June 30, 1995. The County will pay
interest on these payments at 7% or the Local Agency Investment
Fund rate, whichever is lower.
3 . The amount each city in the Victorville., et alaction
will receive is shown on Attachment 1. Attachment 1 also includes
amounts paid to the cities in November 1991 (covering the period
from February 1, 1.990 to November 1991) , and shows the total each
city will receive from the litigation. The County has been
properly distributing fines since November 1991.
4. The County will be entitled to a collection fee of 10%
of amounts collected in the future as an incentive to continue an
aggressive collection effort. There is no collection fee on past
amounts due.
5. The agreement requires the approval of all 14 cities
parties to the Victorville, et .,al- action, the City of Highland
and the City of San Bernardino.
149\misc\execsum.ehs
MEYERS, NAVE, RIBACK & SILVER
Michael ,Navc A Professional Law Corporation
Steven R. Meyers Peninsula Office
Elizabeth H. SilverGateway Plaza
Michael S. Ribacic ,,r Davis Street, 5utx1220 Fiord Avenue, Suite 25
Clifford F. Campbell e Burlingame. CA 44010-4211
Michael F. Rodriquez Satz ndro, CA 44577 Telephone, (415) -7130
T:Icphone. (510) 351-
Kathleen Faubiotx Farsixnxlc: {415}.342
FrederickaEtheridge Facsimile. (510) 351-4481
Wendy A. Roberts- Sonoma County
David W. Skinner
Steven T. Martas ( --4&3126
Of counsel; MEMORANDUM Reply to-
Andrea 1, Saltzman San U�
TO: , San Bernardino County Cities DATE. December 23 , 1552
FROX#* Elizabeth H. Silver
RE 'V"ictorville et al . v. Count of San Bernardino
This Memorandum discusses the history of the distribution of
municipal court fines and forfeitures between cities and counties,
and the adoption of Penal Code S 1463 . Exploring this history
leads to the conclusion that the fixed percentage paid to the
county under Penal Code S 1463 was intended to cover the costs sof
operating the courts and not to cover casts of collection of the
fines and forfeitures. Most of the information in this memorandum-
hs been taken from two reports the report of the Senate Interim
Committee on the Disposition of :inferior Court Fines and
Forfeitures under the Court Reorganization Plan ,Adopted in 15509
(Report #1) and the 1965 Report of the Assembly Interim Committee
on the Adequacy of the Current Formula for Apportioning Fine and
Forfeiture Revenue (Report #2) References to specific pages of
these reports will be; made where appropriate.
Prior to 1950, counties ran "superior" courts and cities were
responsible for running the "inferior" courts. Inferior courts<
included a variety of tribunals -- Municipal courts, police courts,
city justices ' courts, etc. (Report #1, p. 15) The inferior
courts were financed partly by the cities that ran them and partly
by the counties in which the cities were situated. (Report jol, pp
22-23) However, cities kept all of thee fine and forfeiture revenue
that resulted from, criminal arrests or vehicle code violations
drawn by city officials. (Report 01, p. 19, 23; Report #2 , p. )
Since the money collected exceeded the amount necessary to cover
the cities' cost of running the courts, this system ended up
providing cities with money for their general funds. (Report #2,
pp. 49-52)
The system, however, was unsatisfactory because there were too many
independently run courts; some of the courts had overlapping
jurisdiction, and the entire system was confusing. (Report 01, p.
15; Report #2, p• 52) "Thus, in 1950, the Legislature reorganized
ATTACHMENT 2-
TO: San Bernardino County Cities
M; Elizabeth H. Silver
RE: `ictorvii leet_a1, v-.-,,Countv of San Bernardino
DATE: December 23 , 1992
PAGE: 2
the courts and eliminated all the various city-run courts. The
Legislature entrusted the operation of the inferior courts to the
counties. In reorganizing, the Legislature eliminated many of the
types of inferior courts, narrowing the category down to municipal
courts to serve the cities, and justice courts to serve rural and
unincorporated areas. (Report #1, pp. 25-26; Report #2 , p. 52)
There were two big issues with reorganization -- who should pay for
running the courts and how the fine and forfeiture revenue should
be distributed. As originally adopted, the reorganization plan
required counties to pay for all the costs of running the courts.
(Report #1, p. 27; Report #2, p. 53) Statutes provided for
counties to pay salaries of judges and court officials and to
provide quarters and supplies. (Report #1, p. 27) As to
distribution of fines, cities received 100% of vehicle code
violations money and 75% of money collected from criminal
complaints drawn by city officers -- the other 25% from criminal
complaints went to the county. (Report #1, pp. 28-29)
Neither counties nor cities were particularly satisfied with the
plan. The counties felt that it would not equitably reimburse them
for the increased expenses of running the inferior courts. The
cities did not want to give up all the general fund revenue they
had previously collected from the inferior courts. (Report #1, p.
29, Report #2, p. 53)
Various plans to change the 75-25 formula were proposed. Under
one, the county and the city would each get 50% of the revenue.
(Report #1, p. 31) Under another, the county would be entitled to
an amount sufficient to cover all its costs of maintaining the
courts, and then the remainder of the money would be divided
equally between the city and the county. (Report #2 , p. 53)
The Legislature studied the problem and in 1953 enacted Penal Code
5 1463 , which contained the fixed percentage structure that still
exists today. The goal of Section 1463 was to leave cities and
counties in the same relative financial positions they were in
prior to reorganization, compensating counties for the increased
costs of running the courts, but still providing cities with
general fund revenues. (Report #2 , p. 53) To accomplish this, the
Legislature attempted to get an idea of how much it had cost to run
the courts prior to reorganization, when the cities ran the courts.
The Legislature looked at costs of building maintenance, utilities,
janitorial services, judges ' salaries, court personnel salaries,
supplies, furniture, books. (Report #1, pp. 22-23, 32-33) if
To.
San Bernardino County Cities
FROM*
Elizabeth H. Silver
RE: Victorville. et al. ,, _._v. Cent y of San Bernardino
DATE: December 23 , 1992
PAGE: 3
operating costs before reorganization has been, for example, 15%
of revenues, then the Legislature incorporated the 15% figure into
S 1463. Thus, the county would always be entitled to 15% of the
revenues brought in by that city's courts and the city would get
the rest. Presumably, then, the counties would be compensated for
their costs of running the courts and the cities would not be
deprived of a traditional revenue source. (Report 12, pp. 53-54)
The f fixed percentage f iguras were arrived at by examining the years
immediately prior to court reorganization, and locating the
operating costs of the courts during those years. Thus, the
percentages were originally arrived at based on the costs existing
prigg to 1950. (Report 01, pp. 32-41)
The original S 1463 formula had been in effect for ten years when
the counties, citing increasing costs, sought a larger share of the
revenue. The counties ' demands prompted the Legislature to direct
the Interim Committee on Municipal and County Government to study
the situation. The Committee's findings and recommendations were
the subject of the 1965 Report on the Adequacy of the Current
Formula for Apportioning Fine and Forfeiture Revenue, cited as
Report #2 herein. The Report noted that the counties preferred to
get rid of the fixed percentage approach, and instead just deduct
all court costs from court revenues prior to returning any money
to the cities. The cities resisted this change, arguing that
reorganization was not meant to reduce their revenues and that
their own law enforcement costs were rising. (Report 02, pp.
54-55)
one argument in favor of changing the approach was that figuring
out how much it cost to run the courts was too difficult to do in
advance; such a determination, it was argued, should be done when
the exact amount of costs was known. (Report #2, p. 55) Also, it
was argued that the costs of county-operated courts differed so
much from the previous costs of city-operated courts that the fixed
percentage figures were out of line with actual costs. (Report #2,
pp. 54-55)
Furthermore, cities and counties differed sharply on what
constituted a court cost and opponents of S 1463 hoped a change in
the system would help take into account new costs that arose over
time. (Report #2 , pp. 55-56)
The Report concluded that any change in the system should have
approval of both cities and counties. It suggested three
TO.* San Bernardino County Cities
FROK: Elizabeth 14. Silver
RE: Vigtorville, et al. , V. County of -Sania iing
---5ggL_rL
DATE: December 23 , 1992
PAGE: 4
alternatives: (1) keeping the same system and just revising the
percentages; (2) setting a uniform percentage to be returned to all
cities; and (3) stating allowable court costs and having counties
reimbursed for those costs prior to turning over revenue to the
cities. (Report #2 , pp. 55-56)
The Legislature decided against alternatives #2 and #3, keeping the
f ixed peedaltaqe approach of 5 1463 .
Since the original logic of the fixed percentage approach was to
use court costs that existed prior to 1950 to gauge current court
costs, the Legislature's choice to stick with fixed percentages
seems to imply that the pre-1950 costs are the costs intended to
be reimbursed by Penal Code S 1463 . of course, the original fixed
percentages have been adjusted both upward and downward over time
and as new cities have come into being. But the Legislature's
decision to allow only minor adjustments in the percentages and not
to overhaul the entire system leads to the conclusion only the
costs of maintaining and operating the courts are covered by Penal
Code S 1463.
Thus, costs of collection of fines and forfeitures would not seem
to be included in S 1463. First, such costs were never considered
when the fixed percentage approach came into being; instead, at
that time, only costs of operating the courts themselves were
considered. Secondly, the Legislature has resisted attempts over
time to make S 1463 more flexible in covering costs. Except for
minor adjustments in the fixed percentages, the Legislature has
stuck with its original approach.
The conclusion from a review of legislative history is that 5 1463
was only intended to compensate the county for its costs of running
the courts. It was never intended to reimburse the counties for
costs of collecting fines.
Very truly yours,
MEYERS, NAVE, RIBACK & SILVER
--7/
q;u" tv &
Elizabeth H. Silver
EHS:smn
149\memo\history.ehs