09-001396 Hillsborough County vs. Department Of Juvenile Justice Status: Closed Recommended Order on Tuesday, June 30, 2009.

Summary: Detention facility cost allocation requires adjustment.

STATE OF FLORIDA

DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

vs. ) Case No. 09-1396

)

DEPARTMENT OF JUVENILE JUSTICE, )

)

Respondent. )

)

RECOMMENDED ORDER

On May 4, 2009, a formal administrative hearing was

conducted in Tampa, Florida, before William F. Quattlebaum,

Administrative Law Judge, Division of Administrative Hearings.

APPEARANCES

For Petitioner: Stephen M. Todd, Esquire

Hillsborough County Attorney’s Office

Post Office Box 1110

Tampa, Florida 33601

For Respondent: Brian Berkowitz, Esquire

Department of Juvenile Justice

Knight Building, Room 312V

2737 Centerview Drive

Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3100

STATEMENT OF THE ISSUE

The issue in this case is whether the Department of

Juvenile Justice (Respondent) properly calculated secure

juvenile detention center expenses for which Hillsborough County

(Petitioner) is responsible under state law.

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

This issue in this case stems from state law that requires

the State of Florida and the Petitioner to divide the costs of

detaining juveniles in secure facilities. The Petitioner was

prospectively assessed for a portion of juvenile detention

costs. The Respondent subsequently conducted an annual

reconciliation to determine whether the Petitioner's prospective

assessment was sufficient to cover the Petitioner's share.

Based on the annual reconciliation, each affected county either

receives a credit or pays an additional assessment.

In this case, the Petitioner disputed the results of the

Respondent's reconciliation. On March 12, 2009, the Petitioner

filed an "Initiation of Proceedings Pursuant to 28-106.201,

F.A.C.," asserting that the Respondent had improperly calculated

the allocation of costs and requesting a formal administrative

hearing. The Respondent forwarded the request to the Division

of Administrative Hearings, which scheduled and conducted the

proceeding.

The Petitioner presented the testimony of one witness and

had four exhibits admitted into evidence. The Respondent

presented the testimony of two witnesses and had one exhibit

admitted into evidence.

A Transcript of the hearing was filed on May 8, 2009. On

May 15, 2009, the Respondent filed a Notice of Supplemental

Affidavit and attachment, to which there was no objection. Both

parties filed Proposed Recommended Orders on May 18, 2009, that

have been considered in the preparation of this Recommended

Order.

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. As required by law, the Respondent prospectively

assessed the Petitioner for juvenile detention costs for the

2006-2007 fiscal year.

2. The Petitioner timely filed objections to the

Respondent's assessment. The Respondent generally denied the

objections, although the evidence indicated that representatives

of both parties attempted to address objections through the

exchange of relevant information, a practice that was continuing

immediately prior to commencement of the administrative hearing.

According to the testimony presented at the hearing, the parties

remained in disagreement regarding 9,258 instances where

"disposition dates" were unavailable (the "no date" cases).

3. The relevant statute requires that the Petitioner bear

the costs of detention prior to "final court disposition," a

phrase which is otherwise undefined by the statute. Although

the parties agreed that Final Orders issued by the Respondent

based upon prior litigation between the parties identified a

definition of "final court disposition," the parties apparently

disagreed on the application of the definition.

4. At the hearing, the Respondent offered testimony that

the agency's records would identify disposition dates for

juveniles transferred to the care and supervision of the

Respondent. The Respondent's records were reviewed to confirm

that there were no disposition dates identified therein for the

"no date" cases. The Petitioner presented no evidence to

establish that such disposition dates were available.

5. The Petitioner's witness essentially asserted that any

court order in a juvenile detention case is a dispositional

order upon which the Respondent becomes responsible for the

expenses related to detaining the juvenile. The Respondent

asserted that unless and until a juvenile is committed to the

care and supervision of the Respondent, such expenses remain the

responsibility of the Petitioner.

6. Neither the statute nor the previous Final Orders

suggest that fiscal responsibility for a juvenile is transferred

to the Respondent upon the issuance of any court order,

regardless of whether the order assigns responsibility for care

and supervision of the juvenile to the Respondent.

7. The Petitioner also asserted that some of the "no date"

cases listed addresses for the juveniles that were the

Respondent's offices, indicating that the Respondent had assumed

responsibility for care and supervision (and costs) for such

juveniles at some point.

8. After the hearing, and without objection by the

Petitioner, the Respondent submitted a notarized affidavit from

an individual identified as Norman Campbell, chief probation

officer for Hillsborough County, wherein the affiant stated that

the facilities at the identified addresses were offices of

providers providing contract services to juveniles through the

Department of Children and Family Services, and further stated

that the Respondent has offices within some of the facilities.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

9. The Division of Administrative Hearings has

jurisdiction over the parties to and subject matter of this

proceeding. §§ 120.569 and 120.57(1), Fla. Stat. (2008).

10. Section 985.686, Florida Statutes (2006), provides in

relevant part as follows:

985.686 Shared county and state

responsibility for juvenile detention.--

(1) It is the policy of this state that the

state and the counties have a joint

obligation, as provided in this section, to

contribute to the financial support of the

detention care provided for juveniles.

(2) As used in this section, the term:

(a) " Detention care" means secure

detention.

* * *

(3) Each county shall pay the costs of

providing detention care, exclusive of the

costs of any preadjudicatory nonmedical

educational or therapeutic services, for

juveniles for the period of time prior to

final court disposition. The department

shall develop an accounts payable system to

allocate costs that are payable by the

counties.

* * *

(5) Each county shall incorporate into its

annual county budget sufficient funds to pay

its costs of detention care for juveniles

who reside in that county for the period of

time prior to final court disposition . This

amount shall be based upon the prior use of

secure detention for juveniles who are

residents of that county, as calculated by

the department. Each county shall pay the

estimated costs at the beginning of each

month. Any difference between the estimated

costs and actual costs shall be reconciled

at the end of the state fiscal year.

(6) Each county shall pay to the department

for deposit into the Juvenile Justice Grants

and Donations Trust Fund its share of the

county's total costs for juvenile detention,

based upon calculations published by the

department with input from the counties .

(7) The Department of Juvenile Justice

shall determine each quarter whether the

counties of this state are remitting to the

department their share of the costs of

detention as required by this section.

(8) The Department of Revenue and the

counties shall provide technical assistance

as necessary to the Department of Juvenile

Justice in order to develop the most cost-

effective means of collection.

* * *

(10) The department may adopt rules to

administer this section. (Emphasis added)

11. The Respondent has the burden of establishing that the

annual reconciliation is supported by a preponderance of the

evidence. Florida Department of Transportation v. J.W.C.

Company, Inc. , 396 So. 2d 778, 788 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981). A

“preponderance” of the evidence means the greater weight of the

evidence. See Fireman's Fund Indemnity Co. v. Perry , 5 So. 2d

862 (Fla. 1942).

12. As set forth herein, this dispute involves instances

where the available records fail to indicate disposition dates,

the "no date" cases. Within that group, there are instances

where the juvenile's address of record is a location where the

Respondent has offices. Although the parties, apparently in

reliance on the previous Final Orders, further divided cases

into sub-categories, it is unnecessary for the purposes of this

dispute to address the individual cases in further detail.

13. The Respondent presumes that the absence of a

disposition date for a particular juvenile indicates that the

juvenile was not committed to the care and supervision of the

Respondent. It is reasonable to presume that the Respondent

would have disposition information about juveniles who had been

committed to the Respondent's custody, and it is likewise

reasonable to believe that, absent such information, the

juveniles were not committed to the Respondent's custody. The

Respondent has no responsibility for the expenses of detention

related to juveniles who were not committed to the Respondent's

care and supervision. Nothing in the statute or the previous

Final Orders indicates otherwise.

14. As to the instances where the Respondent's records do

not include disposition dates but identify addresses of record

that are facilities wherein the Respondent maintains offices,

the Respondent has not met the burden of establishing that such

juveniles were not committed to the care and supervision of the

Respondent.

RECOMMENDATION

Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of

Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Respondent issue a final order

amending the annual reconciliation as follows:

1. Responsibility for disputed cases which lack disposition

dates but include addresses of the Respondent's office locations

are assigned to the Respondent; and

2. Responsibility for disputed cases which lack disposition

dates and do not include addresses of the Respondent's office

locations are assigned to the Petitioner.

DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of June, 2009, in

Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida.

S

WILLIAM F. QUATTLEBAUM

Administrative Law Judge

Division of Administrative Hearings

The DeSoto Building

1230 Apalachee Parkway

Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060

[phone]

Fax Filing [phone]

www.doah.state.fl.us

Filed with the Clerk of the

Division of Administrative Hearings

this 30th day of June, 2009.

COPIES FURNISHED :

Brian Berkowitz, Esquire

Department of Juvenile Justice

Knight Building, Room 312V

2737 Centerview Drive

Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3100

Stephen M. Todd, Esquire

Hillsborough County Attorney’s Office

Post Office Box 1110

Tampa, Florida 33601

Frank Peterman, Jr., Secretary

Department of Juvenile Justice

Knight Building

2737 Centerview Drive

Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3100

Jennifer Parker, General Counsel

Department of Juvenile Justice

Knight Building

2737 Centerview Drive

Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1300

NOTICE OF RIGHT TO SUBMIT EXCEPTIONS

All parties have the right to submit written exceptions within

15 days from the date of this Recommended Order. Any exceptions

to this Recommended Order should be filed with the agency that

will issue the Final Order in this case.