Hillsborough County Florida

Transcription

1 HOARD 01: COUNTY COMMISSIONERS Kevin HetkmT Vk-t.ir D. Cnsi Ken Hagan Al Higginltndmm l.csley "Les" Miller, Jr. Sandra I.. Murniail Mark Sharpc Hillsborough County Florida Office of the County Administrator Michael S. Merrill CMI1-J- ADMINISTRATIVE OIT1CKR Ik'k-ne Marks Cl IIK1: I'INANCIAL ADMINISTRATOR Bonnie M. Wise Copy via and Original by Federal Ex Mr. John Milla Florida Department of Juvenile Justice Suite Centerview Drive Tallahassee, FL Re: Comments on Proposed/Revised Changes to Rule63-G F.A.C., for the August 5th Rule Hearing Dear Mr. Milla: As a non-fiscally constrained county, Hillsborough is adversely affected by implementation of the proposed rule which shifts costs for secure detention away from the State to counties. Hillsborough County has standing in this issue and has been involved in previous rule challenge proceedings including Okaloosa County et al., v. Department of Juvenile Justice, DOAH Case No RX (Final Order July 17, 2012), affirmed, Department of Juvenile Justice v. Okaloosa County et al., 113 So. 3d 1074 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013). We ask that all rule changes comply, in all respects, with the law as upheld by Florida's courts. Furthermore, Rule 63-G F.A.C., should be consistent with the Final Order and Joint Stipulations entered into by the Department of Juvenile Justice (Department) to resolve pending cases. The revised rule and methodologies should not further complicate detention cost sharing or unnecessarily add to our burden and expenses. We strongly disagree with Department's approach to the Statement of Estimated Regulatory Costs (SERC). The Department limited its analysis to their transactional costs associated with the proposed rule and denies that there are costs to local governments including Hillsborough County. The proposed rule will effectuate the intended shifting of $23 million in direct costs to Counties which the Department already attempted to implement as of July 1st Under the methodology announced by the Department, and formalized by this proposed rule, Hillsborough County's monthly invoice for secure detention increased by $88, (from $191, per month to $279,723.36) representing an annual increase of $1,058,112.24, which equates to a $5,290, increase over five years. As demonstrated, there is a significant, adverse financial impact to our budget and to the budgets of other non-fiscally constrained counties which should be identified in the SERC and analyzed. Past Office Box 1110 Tampa, Florida

2 Page Two The proposed rule is inconsistent with the Joint Stipulations referred to above which were entered into with the Florida Department of Juvenile Justice (Department) to settle Department of Administration Hearing (DOAH) cases and return jurisdiction to the Department, from the Courts. In those agreements, the Department admitted responsibility and accepted costs for secure detention occurring after a juvenile was placed on probation. Additionally, the parties agreed on a definition of a predisposition day and the Department recalculated Hillsborough County's portion of detention cost sharing accordingly. The proposed language transfers all days occurring after disposition where a subsequent violation of probation is coupled with a new charge by redefining predisposition and postdisposition. This effectively shifts significant costs from the State to non-fiscally constrained counties such as Hillsborough. The proposed rule is in violation of section (1)(d) F.S., because the Department failed to choose less costly alternatives as evidenced by the Joint Stipulations. The following information is provided in response to the drafting of revisions to Rule 63-G F.A.C., and is for consideration during the rule making process and for inclusion in the record for the August 5th public hearing. A. Purpose and Effect should add language to read "Amendments are necessary to comply with a recent appellate decision, Department of Juvenile Justice, State of Fla. v. Okaloosa County, 113 So. 3d 1074 (Fla. 1 st DCA 2013), invalidating portions of the Department's rules implementing secure detention cost sharing..." B. Summary to read "... Most notably, the state will assume responsibility for secure detention stays associated with...". Note the phrase "secure detention" should be substituted throughout the proposed rule in place of "detention". C. 63G (2) should include civil citation, conditional release, residential, non-residential rehabilitation programs, community-based care, non-department supervised probation, case termination, dismissal, non-file, nolle prosse of charges, charges held in abeyance, etc, even if additional open charges remain, D. 63G (3) should provide clearer language to un-tether counties. E. 63G (7) should delete "except for those youth described in subsection 63G-1.012(2)". F. 63G-1.011(9) should be reworded "temporary care of children, pending adjudication, disposition or placement" to clearly state that temporary care is only appropriate under cost sharing when it is necessitated by the pending adjudication, disposition or placement. It should not be included if it is used for other forms of care. G. 63-G1.011 (10) should define the length of stay excluding either the day-in or day-out of detention based on the daily census at a specific time of day that check-in or check-out occurs. This subsection is not based on any "industry standard" or any agency expertise, and further fails to satisfy generally accepted accounting practices and statistical methods. Charging for both days skews the data, misrepresents costs by creating an over-representation of utilization, and artificially deflates the average daily rate (per-diem). State prisons, local jails, residential programs (drug treatment, mental health, etc.), hospitals, even hotels only charge one of these days (based on a period of a day).

3 Page Three H (12) Inserting the phrases "estimated actual costs", "the... budget entity" are ambiguous and should not be added. The section should delete the references to "estimate". The estimated costs should exclude the costs of any preadjudicatory nonmedical educational or therapeutic services. This section should specifically provide for county input that satisfies F.S (6) G (13) the phrase "costs of the completed fiscal year" is unclear and does not explain what costs are eligible to be charged to detention cost sharing. This section should list the shared expenditures and require that all State costs and credits/payments be accounted for in the Shared Trust Fund, This section should also indicate if the actual per diem is based on a statewide calculation or if it is by detention center. J (14) be deleted and defined as" days a youth is in secure detention prior to entry of a final disposition." K (14) (a), (b), and (c), could be deleted or rewritten to specifically exclude violations of probation (even when accompanied by a new charge), technical violations of probation or the conditions of release including violations of community-based care, violations of community supervision (including home detention), status offenses, failure to pay restitution, truancy, contempt of court, court ordered detention, and pick up orders even if the disposition resulted in a civil citation, termination of the referral, dismissal or case closure. Section (b) should add language that disallows costs for new law violations that would otherwise not score a youth to detention. For instance, in the June 6th hearing the State used an example of a youth on probation stealing a pack of gum. The gum theft for a youth who was not on probation would not score to detention on the Detention Risk Assessment Instrument. Therefore, it is the continued involvement with the Department that triggers secure detention and that should automatically be considered postdisposition. L (14) add (c) to exclude secure detention with other/on-going sanctions. M (15) should define postdisposition to mean all days a youth is in secure detention after disposition regardless of the reason for detention and be rewritten to specifically name the following: "Felony or misdemeanor charges that remain open at the time of commitment or probation" "Awaiting release or placement for competency restoration, commitment, incompetent to proceed, or probation" "Abscond, escape, law enforcement violation of probation, other violation of probation, violation of conditions of release, violation of community-based care, violation of community supervision (including home detention), status offenses, failure to pay restitution, non-payment of fines/fees, failing urinalysis testing, contempt of court, failure to appear, court ordered detention, curfew violations, truancy, pick up orders, and custody orders" Responsibility for all service days attributable to fiscally constrained counties, and all service days attributable to youth that reside out of state, and all service days attributable to youth whose address cannot be determined." N (15)(b) delete "unless the youth is charged with new law violations occurring after the date youth was placed on probation".

4 Page Four G1.011(15)(d) should be added and the section should read "Without charges and detained on a court order for a closed or terminated referral including nolle prosse and all other case dispositions whether by dismissal or other reasons for closure." P. 63-G1,011 (15)(e) should be added and the section should read "The Department is also responsible for service days for youth that reside out of state or whose address cannot be determined." Q. 63-G1.011 (16) This section should specifically allow for county input that satisfies FS (6) which also provides for transparency. In line 1 after "as reported by the department" insert the following language: "and verified by the counties". An alternative to having counties verify the actual costs could be for the Department to have a third party (such as an independent accounting firm) verify the amount of the costs. After the first sentence, add: "Expenditures will be verified by [name the source] before final reconciliation is submitted to the counties to confirm that each cost reported by the department is directly connected to secure juvenile detention for the fiscal year at issue." The remainder of the section should be rewritten and cannot include all "fund types and appropriation categories" as certain costs/expenditures are outside the narrower language of the Statute. For instance, certain medical, substance abuse, and mental health costs are specifically excluded. Other expenses are subsidized by the Department of Education, and reduced lunch programs, so they should be excluded in detention cost sharing calculations. The reference to Legislative Initiatives is open-ended and unrealistic, and makes budgeting and predictability unreliable for all counties. Salaries & Benefits, Other Personal Services, Expenses, OCO, Food Products, Legislative Initiatives, Fiscally Constrained Counties, Contracted Services, G/A - Contracted Services, Risk Management Insurance, Lease or Lease- Purchase of Equipment, Human Resources Outsourcing, and FCO - Maintenance & Repair are overly broad and should also be deleted. The use of acronyms makes the language and intent unclear and should be deleted. R. 63G-1.013(1) (a) should clearly identify the period instead of using the non-specific and vague modifier "prior". The language should specify who sets the standard for "generally accepted statistical methods" and specifically identify the source ofthe "data". S. 63G-1.013(1)(a)1 should delete the proposed reference to "adjusted for any new legislative appropriations". T. 63G-1.013(1)(a)2 should read "The total estimated number of..." U. 63G-1.013(1)(a)3 should read "The total estimated number of..." V. 63G-1.013(1)(b) should describe the number of service days to include a reference to both total estimated predisposition (county share) and estimated postdisposition (sate share) to include responsibilities described in (15) F.A.C. This section should also specify the period as the current year or fiscal year. W. 63G-1.013(1)(c) should read "... detention costs for the fiscal year." X. 63G-1.015(b) delete unless "the youth is charged with new law violations..." Y. 63G-1.016(2) should read "In addition to the number of predisposition and postdisposition service days the monthly reports will include the total number of detention service days utilized statewide and by detention center and will also include..." Z. (63G-1.016(2)(g) should include all reasons for secure detention service days, the actual charge(s) as well as the charge category.

5 Page Five AA. BB. CC. DD. EE. FF. GG. HH. II. JJ. KK. LL. 63G-1.016(2) (i) should strike "if available" and describe what constitutes final disposition. 63G-1.016(2) add (k) to continue providing the release date (2) add (I) to guarantee continued on-line access to the face sheet and background information which is needed to complete disputes and/or to accept service days. 63G-1.016(4) should specifically include charging information in order to provide sufficient detail for counties to dispute or accept the provision of detention services. 63G-1.017(2) add "during which time there shall be no change in the utilization report", at the end of the first sentence in order to eliminate updates to the utilization report during the review period. Also, grant counties longer than 14 days to review the utilization data. We suggest a minimum of 21 days, but prefer 30 calendar days. 63G-1.017(3) should clarify that there is no need to file an administrative challenge for monthly billing disputes. Recommend using another name for "...online constitutes notice of final action..." the language is easily misinterpreted as a trigger for a Chapter 120 hearing request. 63G-1.017(4)(a) should specify the appropriation categories by name and the costs should be accounted for in the Shared Trust Fund. 63G-1.017(5) should specify when in November the Department will provide the reconciliation statement and how it will be sent. 63G (5) (a) should substitute "eligible costs" for "actual costs". 63G (5) (b) should preclude the use of both the day-in and day-out in calculating actual service days. 63G (6) should specify when the Department will send the reconciliation statement and accompanying invoice and how they will be sent. This section should also specify when and how the credit notice will be sent. 63G-1.017(7) should be rewritten to specify that the department also has responsibility for predisposition days for fiscally constrained counties and all postdisposition days as defined in 63- G1.015 above. The rule does not specify a process for county input on determining the per diem calculations and costs pursuant to FS (6). It should be included. The term "actual expenditures" should be defined and explained in keeping with the DCA decision(s) and Final Order(s) and Joint Stipulations. The term "actual expenditures" should be strictly construed, to include only the following: salaries of employees entirely within a secure detention facility, operating costs for secure detention facilities, etc. The term "actual expenditures" should specifically exclude bonuses which the department may award to its employees, as well as any other costs which are inconsistent with the Statute, Final Order(s), and Joint Stipulations.

6 Page Six Please enter this information into the hearing record as our formal objection to the proposed changes to Rule 63- G and advise us of the Department's decision regarding the proposed changes. Sincerely, Jan MacLeod Criminal Justice Liaison Cc: Eric Johnson, Hillsborough County Brandon Wagner, Hillsborough County Steve Todd, Hillsborough County Lisa Hurley, Florida Association of Counties