HomeMy WebLinkAboutres1991-029WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCI_ 1GENDA BILL
NO. 91 -166
CLEARANCES
Initial
Date
Date Received in Council Office:
Agenda Date
Assigned To:
Originator- Executive
4/23/91
FC /Council (addendum)
Division Head -
Department Head -
Prosecutor Review-
Purchasing/Budget Dir.-
Executive-
SUBJECT:
Resolution in opposition to ESHB 1378, regarding Superior Court fees
ATTACHED OR ON FILE:
- Resolution
-Fax from Executive (message, 4/19 letter from WACO)
Public Hearing Needed? Yes /_INo 12gLl
SUMMARY STATEMENT • According to a phone conversation 4/23 with Fred Saeger, Executive
Director of WACO: The original bill raised the fees charged by Superior Courts and maintained the
traditional 68/32 split of such revenues between counties and the state. As a result, the counties expected
to gain about $4 million with a share to the state to be used to fund Evergreen Legal Services.
Sen. McDonald, in the Senate Ways & Means Committee, said counties were not entitled to such
a "windfall," and amended the legislation so the state keeps the entire increase in fees. To do this, the
Committee changed the percentages for ALL fees. The Committee could have said the state will keep
100 percent of the increases in fees; instead it came up with a new formula, a 53/47 percent split between
counties and the state for all fees.
Saeger said in essence, if this legislation passes in its present form, the state will be authorizing an
increase in local fees, then take it all away from counties. Some counties are getting more judges
(pursuant to HB 1127) and the state wants to use a portion of the Superior Court revenue increases to
pay its share of those new salaries. Snohomish County, one of the beneficiaries of HB 1127, issued a letter
stating its strong opposition to ESHB 1378, even though by doing so HB 1127 may go down the tubes as
well and new judges will not be authorized.
The opposition, Saeger said, should be to ESHB 1378 as it was modified in the Sen. Ways and
Means. County officials have been trying to get a fee increase for a couple of years (it's been about six
years since the last increase).
ORIGINATOR'S RECOMMENDED ACTION.•
Executive recommends Council take a stance in opposition to ESHB 1378, as modified.
COMMITTEE ACTION (including dates):
,_OUNCIL ACTION (including dates):
4- 23 -91: Council approved 6 -0 (Hansey absent)
Related File Numbers: Ordinance or Resolution Number. • RES91 -029
eshb1378.res 4/23/91 SPONSORED BY: Consent
PROPOSED BY: Executive
INTRODUCTION DATE: 4 -23 -91
1 RESOLUTION NO. 91 -029
2 IN OPPOSITION TO ESHB 1378, REGARDING SUPERIOR COURT FEES
3 WHEREAS, earlier this year, the Washington Association of County Officials
4 (WACO) agreed to support ESHB 1378, which calls for an increase in Superior Court fees
5 that have not been increased in about six years; and
6 WHEREAS, WACO offered its support on the condition the existing 68/32 percent
7 split of the revenues between the counties and the state remained in place; and
8 WHEREAS, of the estimated $6 million per biennium expected to be raised by this
9 increase, the state planned to use its third to fund civil legal aid to indigents; and
10 WHEREAS, the formula was altered in the Senate Ways & Means committee and
11 the percentage changed to 53/47 percent for all court fees, not just those being increased
12 this session; and
13 WHEREAS, WACO feels this an unfair division of the court fees which could end
14 up hurting counties, and a number of counties are opposing ESHB 1378; and
15 WHEREAS, the Whatcom County Executive requests the Whatcom County Council
16 take a stance against the legislation as well;
17 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Whatcom County Council that it
18 opposes ESHB 1378 as amended by the Senate Ways & Means Committee; and
19 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Council's opposition will be transmitted to
20 Sens. Pat McMullen and Ann Anderson in Olympia.
21 APPROVED this 23rd day of April , 1991.
22
23 ATTEST:
24 X�
25 Ramona Reeves, Council Clerk
WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON
'n
Daniel M. Warner, Chairman