Loading...
Item M04 Board of County Commissioners Agenda Item Summary Meeting Date: August 19, 2001 Bulk Item: Yes I!I No [J Division: Board of County Commissioners Department: George R. Neugent AGENDA ITEM WORDING: Approval of a resolution supporting Article V I Revision 7 clarifying county responsibility for funding court operations, specifically as it relates to fadlities, security, communication services, existing radio systems, and existing multi-agency information systems. Immediate state funding of essential court elements, including but not limited to, juror compensation, court reporting services, court interpreter/translator sen(ice, conflict counsel, wib1ess fees, and expert wib1ess fees." ITEM BACKGROUND: Requires the bulk of expenses associated with the courts to be state funded. PREVIOUS RELEVANT BOCC AcrION: CONTRACT I AGREEMENT CHANGES: STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: TOTAL COST: BUDGETED: YES [J NO [J COST TO COUNTY: $ REVENUE PRODUONG: YES [J NO [J AMT PER MONTH: YEAR: APPROVED BY: COUNlY ATIY [J OMB/PURCHASING [J RISK MANAGEMENT [J APPROVAL: Jmi'" ,(. ~ MAYOR GEORGE'R. NEUGENT DISTRICT II DOCUMENTATION: INCLUDED'" TO FOLLOW [J NOT REQUIRED [J AGENDA ITEM # ~ DISPosmON: .-. . ... FLOR~~. .. ASSOCIA~ We:-=' :: OF COUN ...... . .,. -. p.o. Box 549/ Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Phone: 850/922-4300 Suncom: 292-4300 FAX: 850/488.7501 Website: www.fI-counties.com MEMORANDUM TO: County Commission Chairs FROM: Mary Kay Cariseo, Executive Director SUBJECT: Article V I Revision 7 DATE: August 2, 2001 " In FAC's meetings and discussions with members of the Florida Legislature over the summer, it has become evident that there is a great deal of confusion and misinformation regarding Revision 7 and its implementation. I need to enlist your assistance in further educating legislators on the importance of this issue. I am requesting that you work with your fellow commissioners on your board to schedule breakfast, lunch or dinner meetings with the members of your delegation to educate them on Article V funding and the impact it has on your county. Since you and your colleagues know which of you has the best relationship with each legislator, we suggest you determine who is the most appropriate commissioner to meet with each legislator individually. Enclosed is a briefing paper prepared by FAC for your information and for you to share with legislators when you meet with them. The most effective means of educating your members on this issue is for you to illustrate the local perspective on this issue: If the county did not have to fund these court items we could fund "X" number of additional deputy sheriffs; buy "X" parcels of land for a new park; roll property taxes back by "X" mills, etc. Your staff can help you with these specifics. While the local perspective is most critical, the following are several other points we would like you to stress: . The Florida Constitution requires counties to fund the state court system after Revision 7 is implemented. Counties will continue to provide court facilities; court security; existing criminal justice information systems; limited communications services; and certain local programs. In short, counties will still be responsible for funding hundreds of millions of dollars in support of the courts. ,~ MARY KAY CARISEO EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR I KAREN 1. MARCUS PRESIDENT PALM BEACH I CHUCK DUNNlCK PRESIDENT- ELECT OSCEOLA I C. GUY MAXCY 'ST VICE PRESIDENT HIGHLANDS ~ .. I CLIFF THAELL 2ND VICE PRESIDENT LEON . There are many revenues and fees that subsidize the courts. If a specific revenue source is provided to fund a particular function or service that will be assumed by the state under Revision 7, that revenue source should be made available to the state. . The current system is rife with a lack of accountability where the people underwriting the cost of the system have little to no oversight. The transfer of many court functions to the state will create statewide efficiencies, uniformity and accountability. It is crucial that these meetings with your delegation members take place before legislators become focused on the 2002 Session, which is likely to be contentious due to reapportionment. I ask that you meet with your legislators prior to the FAC Policy Committee meetings on October 3. Enclosed is a brief , questionaire for commissioners to fill out and return to us so we can remain" apprised of your meetings. Please contact all members of your delegation and inform us of your meetings by October 3. Thank you for you assistance on this matter. We urge counties to participate in this effort and to contact all members of their delegation, even those that serve multiple jurisdictions. They need to hear your county's perspective on this issue. If you have any questions. please do not hesitate to call me. MKC/jr Attachments cc: F AC Executive Committee FAC Legislative Leadership Council F AC Policy Chairs County lobbyists OCV~TlO", Vj(,j .... o~ ~. ... ~_.. ..b o I!.. .- c:: '2..... .:~ o -- .. "-; >. .... ..~ .:y __ c, ARTICLE V/Revision 7 A Briefing for County Commissioners Prepared by the Florida Association of Counties, Inc. January 2001 HISTORY In 1972, the Florida Legislature gave voters the opportunity to revise the state courts system by reorganizing its structure. The proposed changes were approved by voters in the 1998 November General Election. Until the 1972 changes were adopted, Florida's courts were a "hodge podge" of municipal courts, county courts, justices of the peace and other court venues. The major impetus behind the changes made in 1972 was to create a unified, state-funded system. While the statewide system that was envisioned came into place, state funding did not and counties have been forced to fund an increasing share of the court system through local property taxes. Although some legislative achievements were enacted by the Legistature, such as the creation of the Article V Trust Fund, 20 years of unsuccessful pleading with the Legislature to assume more ofthe costs of its court system compelled Florida county leaders to pursue an amendment to the state constitution. Revision 7 was adopted by Florida voters in the November 3, 1998, General Election. Revision 7 is required to be fully implemented by 2004. CURRENT COUNTY RESPONSIBILITIES Currently, counties fund many components of the state courts system and the office~ of the state attorneys, public defenders, and clerks of court. Some of the. costs counties pay are statutorily mandated (e.g., court reporters) and some county costs are mandated by court decisions (e.g., additional private attorneys to assist public defenders). Other expenses paid by counties are made in an effort to reduce costs, such as hearing officers to reduce the need for additional judges. Other types of expenses paid by counties include: office space, courtrooms, administrative staff, communication services, expert witnesses, interpreters, security, depositions, court programs (e.g., dispute resolution), and other miscellaneous equipment and travel expenses. State/County Comparison Court Funding 1 $800,000,000 $700.000,000 $800,000,000 $500,000,000 $400.000,000 $300,000,000 $200,000,000 $100,000.000 $0 U-86 80-81 80.81 85-85 87-88 Year Source: 'State Appropriations Data from Florida s Final Budget Report and Ten-Year Summary of Appropriations Data 1988-89 through 1997-98, Office of Planning and Budget, Executive Office of the Governor. County Expenditures data from the Uniform Chart of Accounts (UCA) provided by the Department of Banking and Finance. Counties also pay for the court-related expenses of the clerks of court that are not covered by fees and service charges. CURRENT STATE RESPONSIBILITIES The state funds all salaries and expenses of the District Courts of Appeal and Supreme Court. The state pays for certain costs associated with the offices of the state attorneys, public defenders, judges, and a significant amount of court administration staff. Select travel expenses for judges and expenses for certain court programs, such as Guardian ad Litem, are also funded by the state. Other expenses funded by the state include: expenses of the Judicial Nominating Committee, the Judicial Qualifications Committee, juror expenses, and limited witness expenses. CURRENT COURT APPROPRIATIONS The judicial system represents only 1.4 percent of the total state budget. In FY 2000-01, the courts, public defenders, and state attorneys received approximately $732 million of the state's $51 billion budget. Funding for the Courts in Florida FY 2000-01 Total Court Expenditures (1,44%) S732 lTilion Tclal Slale E>cpendllures (98.56%) S5O.9 biIion Source: 2000-200 I General Appropriations Act. ORIGINS OF REVISION 7 Counties worked with the 1998 Constitution Revision Commission (CRC) to develop what is now known as Revision 7. The proposal was crafted during many months of negotiations among the primary stakehold- ers in the state courts system (counties, the courts, state attorneys, public defenders, and clerks of court). In addition to Revision 7, the Constitution Revision Commission promulgated a Statement oflntent which has been incorporated into West s Florida Statutes Annotated. The Statement of Intent clearly articulates the intent of Revision 7 regarding the funding of the state courts system and the offices of the state attorneys, public defenders, and clerks of court. All parties (state attorneys, public defenders, courts, clerks, and counties) had input in creating this document. WHAT REVISION 7 DOES A summary of the provisions of Revision 7 is as follows:" 1) Requires the bulk of expenses associated with the courts, state attorneys, and public defenders to be funded by the state. This includes items such as court reporters, court-appointed counsel, support staff and witness fees. 2) Requires the following related to clerks: . Directs all court-related operations of the clerks of court to be funded primarily by filing fees and service charges. . Allows the courts to receive appropriate fees for court programs. . Requires the state to provide funds to the clerks ofthe circuit court in instances where charges cannot be levied because doing so would bar access to the courts. . Requires the state to fund any shortfalls that may exist between clerk revenues and expenses. 3) Requires counties to fund: . Construction or lease of courthouse facilities. . Maintenance, utilities, and security of courthouse facilities. . Communications services, existing radio services, and existing multi-agency criminal justice information systems. . Costs and expenses of court programs needed to meet local requirements as determined by the Legislature. Article V . Page 2 4) Requires the Legislature to develop a phase-in schedule and begin appropriating additional court funds in FY 2000-01. Full state assumption of enumerated court expenses must be implemented by July 1, 2004. COST ESTIMATES There is no single method for capturing the revenues and expenditures within the state courts system, so exact figures have been difficult to obtain. The Florida Association of Counties and other interested parties advocated for, and the Legislature approved, the creation of a uniform accounting system for the courts (Chapter 95-400, Laws of Florida). The first year of data collection, county fiscal year 1998-1999, is now available, and data should be available within a few months for the 1999-2000 fiscal year. While it may not conclusively determine the exact cost of the system, it should more clearly identify court revenues and expenses. During the last decade, county expenditures for the courts have grown at a rate of 11 percent annually. This dramatic increase is due, in part, to a lack of accountability-counties have been funding a system for which they have no managerial control. Legislative funding of specific court functions will bring increased oversight and accountability, and economies of scale to the system. The Legislature, for example, could work with the courts to establish statewide appointment parameters and payment schedules for expert witnesses, which currently vary from circuit to circuit. WHAT HAS HAPPENED SINCE THE ADOPTION OF REVISION 7 In 2000, the Legislature passed Chapter Law 00-237 (Chapter 29, ES.). The legislation created a phase-in schedule to begin the implementation of Revision 7. The phase-in schedule is a follows: FY 2001-2002: Requires review of the revenue generated by the court system and allows appropriate rev- enue to be redirected to the state. FY 2002-2003: Requires review of the state attorneys' offices, public de- fenders' offices, the use of civil indigency counsel, and conflict counsel to determine what functions should be state funded. FY 2003-2004: Requires review of the offices of the clerks of the circuit and county courts to define court related activities performed by the clerks. The legislation requires counties to continue funding the existing elements of the state courts system, state attorneys' offices, public defenders' offices, court- appointed counsel, and the offices of the clerk of the circuit and county courts consistent with current law and practices until the state assumes th,e cost of these functions.' The legislation established a conflict attorney pilot project in Polk County, Hillsborough County, and Miami-Dade County to pay for attorney's fees, costs, and expenses related to conflict counsel. The bill also provided funding for the Small County Contingency Fund to assist counties with a population of85,000 or less with "extraordinary criminal" case-related costs. Chapter Law 00-237, defines the "essential elements" of the state courts system, state attorneys' offices, public defenders' offices, and court-appointed counsel. It also defines the counties obligations regarding facilities, construction and lease, maintenance, utilities, security, communication systems, existing radio systems, and existing multi-agency criminal justice information systems in a manner that is inconsistent with the express language of Revision 7 and the Statement of Intent promulgated by the Constitution Revision Commission. The legislation also created the Article V Joint Legislative Committee made up offour members from the Senate and four from the House of Representatives. The committee will recommend programs and funding to implement Revision 7. Also created in this legislation was the Article V Financial Accountability and Efficiency Workgroup. The Workgroup was tasked with the following: . Develop recommendations related to financial accountability systems and standards. Article V . Page 3 . Establish alternative budgeting structures and fi- nancial management. . Collect data on revenue sources for the court sys- tem. . Assess the efficiency and effectiveness of operat- ing policies and procedures for the court system, the public defenders and the state attorneys. The committee is made up of eleven voting members and four ex-officio members. FAC has an ex-officio representative on the workgroup. The workgroup will terminate upon submitting their report and recommendations to the Article V Joint Legislative Committee, Senate President, House Speaker, Supreme Court Chief Justice, and Governor. A report is due by January 15,2001. COUNTY POSITION Florida counties support implementing legislation consistent with Revision 7 to the Constitution and the Statement of Intent promulgated by the CRC. Such legislation must include the following: . Clarifying county responsibility for funding court operations, specifically as it relates to facilities, security, communication services, existing radio systems, and existing multi-agency information systems. . Immediate state funding of essential court ele- ments, including but not limited to, juror compen- sation, court reporting services, court interpreter/ translator services, conflict counsel, witness fees, and expert witness fees. Florida's counties stand ready to work with the Leg- islature to ensure the court funding transition is as smooth and efficient as possible, and 190k forward to accomplishing our mutual goals. ;':, For more information, contact Mary Kay Cariseo - Executive Director, Carol Bracy - Legislative Director, John Ricco - Director of Enterprise Programs, at FAC - (850) 922-4300. OC\i\T10I\t VJ~ .... O~ ~. ... ~_.. ..b o I!_. .'= C -='. ,- -II · < ~ ..- ~.~ ~ ...!!.. c,<)j 100 South Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Office: (850) 922-4300 Fax: (850) 488-7192 Website: www.tl-counties.com Article V . Page 4 Article V Commissioner/Legislator Questionnaire Commissioner name: Legislator Name: Date of meeting: 1) Was the legislator generally knowledgeable about Revision 7 / Article V? Yes No Comments: 2) Was the legislator aware that counties will still fund a significant portion of the courts after Revision 7 is implemented? Yes No Comments: 3) Did the legislator express a willingness to assist the county in assuring its concerns are addressed when this issue is acted upon by the Legislature? Yes No Comments: 4) Other general comments: (Please complete this form and fax it back to FAC at 850/488-7192) Article V Commissioner/Legislator Questionnaire Commissioner name: Legislator Name: Date of meeting: 1) Was the legislator generally knowledgeable about Revision 7 / Article V? Yes No Comments: 2) Was the legislator aware that counties will still fund a significant portion of the courts after Revision 7 is implemented? ' Yes No Comments: 3) Did the legislator express a willingness to assist the county in assuring its concerns are addressed when this issue is acted upon by the Legislature? Yes No Comments: 4) Other general comments: (Please complete this form and fax it back to FAC at 850/488-7192) UU.U::VD1 21: DU FL HS'",OC OF ,=IJUIII 1 E'C.' 1'10ilhUE I1UJijE..H I NCJ.352 P13Ul/003 ._1Il . .-. FlDR.- iii ., ASSOCIAli ':.:: 9!. COUN -= ..-- P.O. BOIr 549/ Tallahassee, Florith 12J02 "hfJn~: 8501912.4300 S"nfom: 292-4300 FA.X: 8.~DI4B8.750' Wrb.;t~: www.n.~OtInr;ft.ff)m PI-EASE DISTRIBUTE IMMEDIA TEl. YI M E M 0 RAN DUM... via facsimile Page 1 of 3 FROM: DATE: RE: All County Commiseioners County Administrators Mary Kay Cariseo, Executive Director TO; August 9, 2001 Governor's Response -Article V Trult Fund The Florida Association of Counties received today Governor Jeb Bush's response to President Karen Marcus' letter regarding the Article V Trust Fund veto (see attachment). As you can S8e from the letter, counties must continue their strong advocacy at the local 'evel find reinforce the importance of this issue to your county with the Govemor and legislators. As your members begin to focus on the 2002 Session, pleBse continue to educate them about Article V/Reviaion 7. A briefing paper outlining the constitutional changes ia available on FAC'a website at ~.fl-counties.com (go to the Governmental Relations Page under "Links"). Thank you for your support and commitment to this very important matter. MKC/clb Attachment cc: County lobbyists M"'Y KAY c.4.,sro E,\C<:UJlVC VII/L( lUll IKAflEN r. MA'CUS I'R(S/OENT ""'IM IfAC.H I CHlIClt OlJNNICK PRESIDENT. flEe.. 05CfOtA Ie. C;Vl' ""'.fer ISI VleL I'Kl.~/D[II/T HIGHIANUS I cu" rHAIIl INO VIeF PRf~'tJFNT &fON UUU;JUl 21:UU FL HSSlIl_ (If- ',-UUH IlL'':'' i'lIJljRUL Hl.,uuLlH 110.352 P002/003 #0' .. "f' r #';" ~ ~ .'<.'~~' ~ r: ..~, ..J. " .. ~~,~ STATe Of fWRlPA effite of tbe Q9obernor JE8 'BUSH OOVUNOIl THE CAPITOL TALLAHASSEE. fLORIDA 31'99.0001 WWW,npV.oom 850.488.11C8 860-487-<<1801 fa August 2, 2001 RECE-""/C'r) AUG 09 2001 The Honorable Karen Marcus President, Florida Association .of Counties Post Office Box 549 Tallahassee, Fl. 32302 FLORIDA AS~vvl" nON OF COUNTIES Dear Commissioner Marcus: Thank you for writing me regarding my vetOQs of certain expenditures for Article V purposes in the 2001-02 budget. I understand that you and your association disagree with these vetoes, and I directed my policy and budget staff to respond to your Executive Director's e-mail on this matter. You will also be contacted by DOMa Arduin, my Budget Director, for further discussion of these matteTS. You are certainly right in stating that I agree that compliance with the American with Disabilities Act can be difficult for small couptiea. That is why I approved funding for small-county courthouse renovations approvCld in line item #2970, which provides 53.34 million to fund renovations required by the ADA. This line item provides funding for 18 small counties with amounts ranging from $75,000 to $500,000. My staff's reference to my veto statement and rationale for rejecting "piecemeal"' funding was not meant to refer to the fact that some orthe Article S funding was designated for certain counties. (Although that is one reason why I vetoed funding for conflict legal services in only three counties). I believe that the state can no longer afford to fimd on a fragmented basis certain court costs when no one has a solid understanding ofthe state's Article V liabilities which begin in 2004, only three fiscal years away. As I noted in my press conference, we can and will make an illtelJigent detennination of the 2004-0S liabilities. Then and only then we will begin funding that liability. To expend $20 million of stlte taxpayer dollars on services that arc not yet required under state law, and do not correspond to a comprehensive approach to state-court funding responsibilities, is simply inconsistent with my views on the use of state funding. This is especially true when we know that economic conditions arc already requiring a much more conaervative use of state financial resources. o G ~I MII1taU.IIIitiItive o I' A MIHTCltL .... 1111 "1IJl f'" 1.....3H7.. U~L l1'j, , lH c:' 1 : 00 FL HS-:::,OC OF COllIn 1['':',' l'lUt IPOE HElIC,Ui I The Honorable Karen Marcus August 2, 2001 Page Two At the appropriate time, the Legislature will be required to fund an increase of hundreds of millions of dollars in the area of the state cQurts. Until we understand the extent of this required funding, it would be premature to expend state dollars on a fragmented basis berore this responsibility is incurred. To address the need for rescW'ching the costs of Revision 7, I approved significant funding to determine exactly how much liability the state will incur in 2004. As 1 noted in my veto message, "I have approved the expenditure of $800,000 to allow the Joint Legislative Conunittee on Atticl" V to retain ~onllultant8 or ,taff to assist in implementing Revision 7, and studying the cost of such implementation. I believe it is unwise to continue to fund an indetenninate portion oCthe Article V costs with the Article V Trust Fund until this effort is complete. Current funds in the County Article V Trust Fund will remain availablo for funding the statc's Article V responsibilities in 2004." Of course, such funding will remain available. regudlclS if thc trust fund is reauthorized. The funds will simply remain within the working capital fund. I uppreciate your letter and understand that this matter is critically important to your association. I hope you can understand that my duties require that I carefully review all state funding to ensure that our state government fulfilla its statutory and constitutional responsibilities. In the area of criminal justice. this state already expends approximately $3 billion to fund the Departments of Corrections, Juvenile Justice, Legal Affairs, State Courts. State Attorneys and Public DefendeR. and rclated arcas. In addition. we must invest billions morc in cducation. health and human services, environmental protection, and other areas. My officc looks forward to working closely with you as we collect the data and detennine the final Article V costs. I look forward to working together to address the costs of Revision 7 in an equitable and rationale manner, in the face of other budgct priorities within state government. Sincerely, ~ 18/mbt ~m. 3E,2 P003/003 "