CCAgenda_03Oct8 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

more important, and may, in the end, trump the importance of keeping the facility open for this • commissioner. This commissioner will have the swing vote on any Board action related to the Suburban Court issue-so it behooves us to find a solution that will meet that person's standards in terms of the debt service for a facility. This person actually suggested that the solution was to fmd another suburban location that would be cheaper to operate (rent), and would better serve the needs of the court. Of course, the Bench countered that they have already cut funding for staff in the Suburban Court, so they would not be able to staff such a facility. Strategically, I think it's very important to remove Option A and C from consideration, as they appear to be very cost effective (and therefore very attractive), and are by far the easiest solution for the Court in terms of closing the Suburban facility permanently. One thing noted by several commissioners on the issue of the movement of the Suburban Court to the Courthouse or the LEC, was the need for additional parking-and this was not included in the financial analysis of either option. This would be a considerable expense, and could be adeal-killer in terms of cost for either location. The Family Court has been along-standing problem for the County Board and the Court. This solution will require considerable time and dollars. The situation with the Suburban Court is more immediate-the Court has already cut those 5 FTE's in their FY03-04 Budget. I am worried that the Court will say "we don't have the money, we have to close the facility". Clearly, the Court has made decisions about spending priorities that have a direct impact on their ability to keep the Suburban Court open. The Court seems to have other goals in declaring the • facility "unsuitable". In my opinion, they want to permanently consolidate the services provided at the Suburban Court into the LEC or Courthouse so that they can streamline the operations of the Court. Unfortunately, this will result in a situation where the suburban residents (who comprise half of the County's population) are not well served by the Court system. This also violates the state statute that requires Ramsey County to provide a court facility outside of Saint Paul. This is a classic debate regarding service provision and efficiency versus cost. In this case, the efficiency for suburban communities (in terms of police time, resident service, and geographical proximity of the court to suburban residents) would be lost if the Suburban Court were closed. While this may be good for the Court in terms of budgeting, this would be bad for the people who utilize, and pay, for the courts. Conclusion• The County must hold the State of Minnesota to their agreement to fully fund the District Court for operational expenses (which they did not do in FY03-04 because of a recapture of fee and surcharge revenue). This could be accomplished with the city's help in lobbying our state representatives. It is also important for the suburban communities to come together and work on finding a solution to this problem that will fit the constraints set forth by the Board, while also looking asking the Court to look at their staffmg model and the operational aspect of staffing a Suburban facility. Respectfully submitted.• Heather Worthington, City Administrator • City of Falcon Heights