Inter-Departmental Correspondence

Sheriff's Office


December 17, 2001


January 8, 2002


Honorable Board of Supervisors


District Attorney Jim Fox
Sheriff Don Horsley


Approve Spending Plan for FY 2001-02 SLESF Allocations


Adopt a Resolution approving a Spending Plan for State Law Enforcement Supplemental Fund (SLESF), permitting the District Attorney to receive a 5.15% allocation for criminal prosecution, and the Sheriff to receive a 5.15% allocation for jail operations, pursuant to Government Code §30061 GC, as recently amended by urgency legislation. SB736 (Poochigan)



Section 30061 of the Government Code is the authority for allocation of State Law Enforcement Supplemental Fund (SLESF) monies, also known as "State COPS funds." These monies come to the County and cities annually, and are distributed among four separate program areas: a) the Sheriff receives 5.15% to support jail construction or operations activities; b) the District Attorney receives 5.15% of the allocation to support criminal prosecution activities; c) 39.7% is allocated for front-line law enforcement activities in the cities and county unincorporated area; and d) 50% is allocated to the Juvenile Justice Plan, administered by the Board through the Chief Probation Officer. The District Attorney receives criminal prosecution funding under "b", and the Sheriff receives jail support funding ("a") and front-line law enforcement funds ("c"), which are accounted for separately.



In the past, a spending plan was required to be approved in or by September of each year, by each jurisdiction's governing body - including the Board of Supervisors for the County's respective shares - for allocations under sections "c" and "d" only. That requirement has been routinely met. The Sheriff's allocation under "c" ($118,697) has been used for the Sexual Habitual Offender Program (SHOP), and the Juvenile Justice Plan monies ($2,405,662) are allocated under the Board-approved Plan to a variety of agencies. No spending plan was required in the statute for allocations for criminal prosecution ("b") or jail operations ("a"), presumably because these are already clearly and specifically earmarked in the statute for particular activities, whereas there are extensive and broad guidelines for expenditures under the other two sections.


However, recent urgency legislation removed the sunset clause, extended SLESF funding indefinitely, and required that the spending plans for all components of the funding be approved by the board of supervisors and on file with the County Controllers Office prior to funds being transferred to a particular jurisdiction.


We were alerted to this new provision by Legislative Coordinator Mary McMillan, and requested County Counsel to review SB736. While placement of the requirement before sections "a" and "b" appears to have been unintentional, the new language of the bill does indeed require a spending plan be submitted to the Board of Supervisors for these previously exempted sections. The requirements for allocation of the monies - to criminal prosecution and to county jail construction and operations - remain unchanged. Normally, the spending plans would be brought to the Board by September of each year, as required by 30061GC. This year we are bringing them retroactively for FY 2001-02, as SB736 was just chaptered in November, 2001.


Spending Plan & Fiscal Impact

The District Attorney's allocation for criminal prosecution, under 30061 (b) (2) is used to finance the cost of one Deputy District Attorney and one DA Inspector position, with any small remainder allocated for temporary extra help prosecution support. The FY 2001-02 allocation for the District Attorney is $247,783. The Sheriff's allocation for jail operations, under 36001 (b) (1) is used to offset the cost of three Deputies and various jail operating expenses for the Sheriff's Honor Camp in La Honda. The FY 2001-02 allocation for the Sheriffs jail operations is identical to the District Attorney's, at $247,783. These annual funding uses and amounts have been very stable over the last half of the 1990's, since SLESF was first enacted. These spending allocations are already included within the Sheriff and District Attorney's FY 2001-02 adopted budget, and help reduce the net County cost of these two departments.


County Counsel has reviewed the legislation in question, and has approved this Resolution as to legal form.



Deborah Penny Bennett, Deputy District Attorney
Ramen Prasad, Controller's Office SLESF Coordinator