The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1991-03-26; City Council; 11079; AUTHORIZING LITIGATION CHALLENGING SAN DIEGO COUNTY BOOKING FEEJ ClWOF CARLSBAD - AGEN-BILL -1 ! - - I AB# /; 077 I TITLE: AUTHORIZING LIT1 cam nmcn rnmw :GATION CHALLENGING DEPT. IMTG. 3/~&/91 I -_-. __"_ ____._ 1 BOOKING FEE CITY 1 1 DEPT. CA I IClTY I 1 I I RECOMMENDED ACTION: Adopt Resolution No. ?/- qA authorizing the City Attorney an City Manager to join with other concerned cities in selel special counsel to challenge the San Diego County booking fe appropriating funds not to exceed $10,000. P 0 9 E % z 0 .. E a J b z 3 ITEM EXPLANATION The San Diego County Board of Supervisors has adopted an ordi effective April 1, 1991 imposing booking fees on the cities. Exhibit A attached) . Carlsbad's charge for the next twelve m would be $231,154. A list of the charges to other citic attached as Exhibit B. The County has taken a very aggre view of the statutory authorization for the fee and has set an amount of $154, one of the highest in the state. A comm of city attorneys has reviewed the ordinance and believes t good faith argument exists as to whether or not the fc legitimate. Although all of the County's supporting data i available it appears that part of the fee may not be justi Litigation would allow a proper amount for the fee t judicially determined. The issues are common to all cities police departments in the County and the litigation can be ha by one attorney on behalf of all with the costs dividc proportion to the amount of fees at stake. If the Council w to proceed and litigate the fee with the County it is recomm that you adopt Resolution No. y/- %L which authorizes the Attorney and City Manager in consultation with other inter cities to select special counsel to file the lawsuit. resolution would appropriate funds from the contingency ac not to exceed $10,000 to pay for it. The resolution would n effective unless approved by five of the other six cities i County with police departments. FISCAL IMPACT The County's action setting the booking fee at $154 per booking will co City about $230,000 per year based on current booking fee levels. If t had set a fee more in line with the actual cost of the booking process, would have been between $50 and $75 per booking, or one-third .to one-ha present fee. The legal challenge.., if. successful, could save the City E $115,000 and $140,000 per year.. If Council chooses to proceed with thi tion and approp.riates funds from the Contingency Account as recommended account balance following the appropriation will be $590,000. EXHIBITS List of booking fees Ordinance of San Diego County Resolution No. 9/42 . 0 0 0 a INFORMATI01 ALL NEW MA ORDINANCE NO. (NEW SERIES) AN ORDINANCE TO ADD DIVISION 4 (COMMENCING WITH SECTION 34.101) TO TITLE 3 OF THE SAN DIEGO COUNTY CODE OF REGULATORY ORDINANCES RELATING TO FEES FOR BOOKING OR OTHER PROCESSING The Board of Supervisors of the County of San Diego orda as follows: Section 1. Division 4 (commencing with section 34.101) hereby added to Title 3 of the San Diego County Code of Regulatory Ordinances to read: DIVISION 4 FEES FOR BOOKING OR OTHER PROCESSING Sec. 34.101. PURPOSE. The purpose of this Division is implement in San Di.ego County the provisions of Government Cc section 29550 which authorize counties to 'impose a fee upon various local governmental entities for reimbursement of cour expenses incurred with respect to the booking or other procez of persons arrested and brought to the county jails for booki or detention by employees of the local governmental entities. Sec. 34.102. FEE IMPOSED. (a) There is hereby imposed upon every city, special district, school district, communitl college district, college, or university in San Diego County fee equal to the actual administrative costs, including applicable overhead costs, incurred by the County in booking other processing of persons arrested and brought to any count jail by an employee of the specified entities for booking or detention. For purposes of this division the term "employee" shall include any person making an arrest on behalf of an ent specified above, regardless of whether the person is an emplc of the specified entity for worker's compensation, employee benefits, tort liability, or any other purpose. (b) The fee shall be payable in respect to bookings of persons at a County jail on and after tJ~ly Apr: 71'1 ,Ae-i, ln (b) The fee shall be payable in respect to bookings of persons at a County jail on and after tJ~ly Apr: 71'1 ,Ae-i, ln ' (c) The fee shall not be applicable to re-bookings- R< bookings occur when an additional charge is filed against a person already booked and in custody in a County jail. (d) The fee shall not be applicable to bookings that oc after an arrestee has been arraigned and ordered by a court t remanded to the custody of the Sheriff, if the arrestee was detained in a city jail or holding facility prior to arraignr .... 1 1 a 0 (e) The fee shall not be applicable to self-bookings. (f) The fee shall not be applicable to bookings result: the Sheriff for alleged criminal activities in the from arrests made by employees of a local governme] entity on warrants issued on behalf of the County ( unincorporated area o . -the ..County. &Lou Sec. 34.103. FEE AMOUNT. ,The amount of the fee impose( pursuant to section 34.102 is $- for each person booked County jail. The specified fee is equal to the administrati1 costs, including applicable overhead costs as permitted by Federal Circular A-87 standards, incurred by the County in booking or other processing of arrested persons in County ja: Sec. 34.104. FEE COLLECTION. (a) The Sheriff shall quarterly in arrears submit an invoice to the local governme] entities responsible for payment of the fee imposed by this division, notifying them of the total amount of the fee for 1 preceding quarter. The responsible local governmental entit: shall pay the fee to the Sheriff within thirty (30) days of 1 date of the invoice: provided, however, that the fees for thc first three quarters of the 1990-91 fiscal year shall be pay: in one lump sum within thirty days of the date of the invoicc that period. (b) Fees which remain unpaid in whole or in part after thirty days shall bear interest at the legal rate establishec pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 685.010 on the balance unpaid. (c) In addition to any other remedy available to it, tl County may offset any delinquent fees, plus accrued interest, against any amount reciprocally owing in accordance with the provisions of Government Code section 907, and the Auditor- Controller is hereby authorized and directed to offset in accordance with Government Code section 907. Sec. 34.105. EXEMPTION AND WAIVER. (a) The City of. Sa1 Diego shall be exempt from the fees inposed by this division all bookings or other processing occurring during the 1990-9: fiscal year. (b) The Board of Supervisors by resolution may waive ft upon a finding that the loss of funds resulting from such wa: is offset by a benefit to the public of equal or greater valt Sec. 34.106. MULTI-AGENCY ARRESTS, Where two or more governmental entities, including local, state and federal entities, are responsible for an arrest and subsequent bookil each participating local governmental entity specified in sec 34.102 shall only be billed for its pro rata share of the fet ... -2- 1 e a The pro rata share shall be determined by dividing the total by the total number of local, state or federal governmental entities participating in the arrest and booking- Sec. 34.107. REGULATIONS. The Chief Administrative Of shall prepare necessary rules and regulations governing the application and administration of the fee imposed by this division. Such rules and regulations shall become effective approval of the Board of Supervisors by resolution. Sec. 34.108. SEVERABILITY, If any section, subsection sentence, clause, or phrase of this division is for any reas1 held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a decision of any ( of any competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affec' validity of the remaining portions of this chapter. The Boa: Supervisors hereby declares that it would have passed this division, and each and every section, subsection, sentence, clause, or phrase not declared invalid or unconstitutional without regard to whether any portion of this division would subsequently declared invalid or unconstitutional. .- . -. . .. . " .. :. . . .. . ... .. . . .. .. .. -3- - "..& : ;.-, . ._ e 0 SAN DIEGO COUNTY BOOKING FEE CITY # BOOKINGS BOOKING COST @ $154. CARLSBAD CORONADO CHULA VISTA DEL MAR EL CAJON ENCINITAS ESCONDIDO IMPERIAL BEACH LA MESA LEMON GROVE NATIONAL CITY OCEANSIDE POWAY SAN DIEGO SAN MARCOS SANTEE SOLANA BEACH VISTA 1,501 399 2,521 215 3,561 2,093 3,651 737 1,006 840 2,742 6,996 955 39,811 1,091 1,207 455 2,722 $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 231,154. 61,446. 388,234. 33,110. 548,394. 322,322. 562,254. 113,498. 154,924. 129,360. 422,268. 1,077,384. 147,070. 6,130,894. 168,014. 185,878. 68,530. 419,188. TOTAL CITIES 72,493 $ 11,163,922. COUNTY/OTHERS 29,410 $ 4,529,140. TOTAL 101,903 $ 15,693,062. _” 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 003 y1 Ea6 13 Su: gzag oLLgm 14 ooaa Z>JZ ot5g ma,, 15 ,->ma 52-1 $052 =ad 16 q0,y >E% 17 bu LL ‘4-1 urn0 I 1 0 e RESOLUTION NO. 91-92 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA AUTHORIZING LITIGATION AGAINST THE COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO TO CHALLENGE THEIR NEWLY IMPOSED BOOKING FEE. WHEREAS, the County of San Diego has adopted an ordj imposing a booking fee which Carlsbad believes exceed: legitimate costs for that service as authorized by state lab WHEREAS, Carlsbad wishes to join with other ef 1 cities in the common effort to have the legitimate amount ( fee judicially determined, - NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council City of Carlsbad, California, as follows: 1. That the above recitations are true and corre 2. That the City Manager and the City Attornc authorized in consultation and cooperation with other ef cities to join in a common effort to file litigation again Diego County challenging their newly adopted booking fee, cities shall be represented by a single counsel selectet - l8 the City contingency account to fund the litigation. 2o 19 consensus of the city attorneys and city managers. 3. That a sum not to exceed $10,000 is appropriatc 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 4. That this resolution shall be effective .upon a] of substantially similar measures by at least five other intt cities. /// 28 _I , i ! * e 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 l1 II n am (I)> mu? a$Em -)uq 0:am ooas 5>i= +5g mGn, gwmo g$$n zoss >"-% r-0 ri ' aJ >ma 5583 u 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a Regular Meeting c City Council of the City of Carlsbad on the 26th day of -!? 1991, by the following vote, to wit: AYES : Council Members Lewis, Larson, Nygaard and Stantc NOES : None ABSENT : Council Member Kulchin ATTEST : ALETHA L. RAUTENKRANZ, City plerk (SEAL) 27 /I 28