CCAgenda_03Oct8 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Judge Mott (Chief Judge) explained that the budget shortfall for the operations of the Court (which is the responsibility of the State) is roughly $272,000 for FY03-04 (the court is in a two- year biennium, like the State). He outlined the issues as follows: 1) He believes that in order for the County to redevelop the West Publishing building (where the Family Court was temporarily located several years ago), the Family Court will need to be relocated. For the Court, he said that the Bench committee had decided that this was the highest priority because the facility is too small, too expensive, and was only intended as a temporary solution originally. 2) He stated that the Suburban Court facility has been declared "unsuitable" because it is too small. He said that the original intention of the Bench was to stay at that facility as long as the County appeared to be making progress towards along-term solution. He further stated that the Court would need 18,000 square feet in a new facility. Commissioner Rettman asked him if that is still the case, and he said that the issue now was that they did not have adequate dollars to cover the operational shortfall, and so will have to look at cutting staff in other areas if they are to keep the Suburban Court open. 3) Mott also told the Board that 90% of the Court's budget is personnel related, and that in order to make up for the budget shortfall, he cut jury pay by 1/3, and cut the guardian ad litem program (which is a program that provides adult guardians for children in the court system). He also stated that because of a shift in fee revenue from the Courts to the State, there is a statewide shortfall of $23 Million. 4) The closure of the Suburban Court would eliminate 5 FTE's. It was not clear if this would • mean that those staff would move to the LEC (Law Enforcement Center) or be eliminated altogether. The Board asked the Court to present a detailed analysis of the staff positions impacted, and the staffing plan for the future of the Court as it related to the opening of the LEC. He did say that the moving of staff to the LEC would not represent savings in staff time. He also stated that the Court has eliminated 9 FTE's and 7 part-time staff positions. The total budget cut represented 4% of the total $18 Million budget for the Court. 5) Mott also stated that even if the County built a new facility in the suburbs, the positions to staff that facility have been cut in the FY03-04 Budget, and so the Court would not be able to staff the facility unless other revenue sources were found. Operations• There were some discussions about moving out-of-custody arraignments out of the suburban court facility. Generally speaking, these arraignments don't require a police officers presence; however, I spoke with Captain Ohl of the SAPD, and he would be concerned about any transfer of services from the Suburban Court because it may represent a "chipping away" of the services provided at the Suburban facility. He also said that out-of-custody arraignments often require a re-interview of the defendant by police, and the movement of those arraignments to the LEC would present the same problems for the Suburban police departments as a moving of the entire court. •