Agenda

Return

C. 66

To:	Board of Supervisors
From:	David Twa, County Administrator
Date:	November 3, 2015

Contra

Costa

County

Subject:

MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING WITH CONTRA COSTA COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT ON MUTUALLY PROVIDED SERVICES

APPROVE	OTHER
RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR	RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE

Action of Board On: 11/03/2015

APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED

OTHER

Clerks Notes:

VOTE OF SUPERVISORS

AYE:

John Gioia, District I Supervisor
Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor
Mary N. Piepho, District III Supervisor
Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor
Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor

Contact:	Julie DiMaggio Enea (925) 335-1077
cc:	CAO Court Administration

I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown.
ATTESTED: November 3, 2015
David Twa,

BY:	, Deputy

RECOMMENDATION(S):

APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the County Administrator or designee to execute a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court of Contra Costa County formalizing the financial relationship and the continuing provision of support services between the County and the Court.

FISCAL IMPACT:

No additional fiscal impact. The intent of the MOU is to formalize the existing cooperative and financial relationship between the County and the Court.

BACKGROUND:

The Trial Court Funding Act of 1997, which provided for State assumption of trial court operations costs, substantially changed the funding relationship among the State, the County and the Court, and necessitated many administrative, budgetary, organizational, and procedural changes in order to transition the Court from a Board-governed agency to a State agency. The Act recognized the need to maintain cooperation between the County and the Court so as not to disrupt basic court operations. The County and the Court entered into am MOU in 1998 that laid the foundation for the continuing relationship during the transition period and under which the County and Court have worked cooperatively during the last 17 years.

While the Court has been an independent State agency for many years now, there still remain many areas for which continuing cooperation and service is beneficial. County and Court administration have worked over the last year to identify those areas, which are reflected in the attached new MOU. Under the specific terms of the MOU, the Court will continue to provide the County civil and criminal grand jury administration services; and the County will continue to provide the Court mental health hearing officer services, certain retiree health administration services, and optionally various general services such as printing, mailing, courier, recycling/shredding, facilities maintenance, and vehicle maintenance and repair, and IT network service. Each agency will charge its actual costs for providing the services.

Additionally, the MOU references several stand-alone agreements between the County and the Court that have been, or are being, separately negotiated such as information technology and telecommunications, and others which are specifically required by statute such as court security, enhanced collections, and facilities joint-occupancy agreements. The new MOU and the stand-alone agreements that are referenced in the MOU reflect the totality of service agreements between the County and the Court.

CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION:

Should the Board elect not to approve the new County/Court MOU, the County could only continue to coordinate services with the Court pursuant to an obsolete agreement that does not comply with the requirements of State statute in terms of specificity and cost rates.