HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 7.1 State Budget Support Repeal SB 2557 (2) 3 0 -6
CITY OF DUBLIN
AGENDA STATEMENT
CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: OCTOBER 29, 1990
SUBJECT: Impact of State Legislation Authorizing the
County to Collect Fees for Property Tax
Administration and Jail Booking (SB 2557)
(Report prepared by Paul S. Rankin, Assistant
City Manager)
EXHIBITS ATTACHED: (1) Alameda County Staff Report dated
October 15, 1990
(2) Draft Resolution supporting the repeal of
SB 2557
RECOMMENDATION: �(1) Receive staff report
(2) Determine whether a City Council
representative should attend the Board
of Supervisors Hearing scheduled for
November 13 , 1990 and provide any input
on key issues to be raised.
(3) Adopt Resolution
FINANCIAL STATEMENT: Estimated costs related to
Booking Fees $ 79 , 400
Estimated costs related to
Property Tax Administration $ 53 , 401
Total $132 ,801
DESCRIPTION:
Background
Recently, the State Legislature adopted SB 2557, which was authored by
Senator Maddy. The bill was signed into law by Governor Deukmejian.
This legislation was the State's response to the fact that they did not
fund County governments in a manner which would allow Counties to
perform State mandated programs. It is important to understand that a
county government is an arm of the State, and is required to carry out
specific state-mandated programs.
As the Budget developed, the State recognized that it would be
underfunding counties by approximately $800 Million statewide. This
means that the State would not be providing the counties with the
necessary resources to perform State required services and programs. In
an effort to address this deficiency, the Legislature adopted SB 2557 ,
which allows counties to raise revenues from local agencies. The
measure allows the counties to charge local agencies for the collection
of property taxes and also allows counties to charge fees associated
with the expense incurred for booking and processing persons arrested by
local police agencies and brought to the county jail for booking and
detention.
The legislation was adopted without being considered by any policy
committee of the State Legislature. In fact, the actual legislation was
not available for review by impacted agencies until after it had been
approved. Locally, Assemblymember William Baker voted against SB 2557.
Senator Lockyer voted with the majority which passed the legislation.
The basic impact of this action is that the State was able to balance
its budget by shifting its responsibility to fund county government to
the local agencies.
The report which follows will analyze the impacts of this legislation on
the City of Dublin. Given that the County has not precisely identified
some of the criteria, costs have been estimated.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
COPIES TO:
ITEM NO. r�A
Property Tax Administration Fee
As stated in the County Administrator's report to the Board of
Supervisors, Alameda County intends to collect administrative fees from
various agencies through the County; including cities, special
districts, redevelopment agencies, schools, etc. It is the County's
intent in the case of cities for the fee to be withheld from any
property tax payments made to the City.
Attached to the Board Report is a breakdown of the allocation of
administrative costs for the 1990/91 Fiscal Year (Attachment A) . The
cost for the City of Dublin is calculated at $53 ,401. It is important
to note that local residents will also be paying for the collection
costs of other agencies which overlap with the City boundaries. For
example, the cost identified for Dublin Unified School District is $
49, 679. 00. In addition, various fees are shown for Flood Control Zone
7, Mosquito Abatement District, and the County Library District. The
County has not provided detailed information related to the calculation
of the collection costs; therefore, it is difficult to determine
whether inappropriate expenses are included in this calculation. The
County report identifies the total cost of tax collection at over $ 8 .9
million for all agencies within Alameda County. The report identifies
that the County estimates that 65% of these costs are for agencies other
than the County. .
The Alameda County City Management Association has recommended that the
County take no action on the imposition of fees for the collection of
property taxes. Alameda County currently collects the costs of special
levies which agencies add to the property tax rolls. Examples include
fees for assessment districts, weed abatement, etc. Cities agree that
this current charge is appropriate, given that an agency could collect
these fees in a manner separate from the property tax roll. State law
prevents cities from collecting property taxes. The County City
Management Association has also identified the fact that the County
earns interest on property tax collections prior to their distribution
to individual agencies; therefore, it is believed that any additional
costs associated with the collection and distribution of the City's
share of the property tax allocation should be offset by these interest
earnings.
Staff would recommend that any testimony at the Board of Supervisor's
Hearing should repeat this position. It should be noted that in the case
of Sutter County, local agencies testified and the County elected to not
impose any of the fees provided for in SB 2557 . In the case of Alameda
County, the adopted County Budget was based on anticipating some revenue
for these services. Staff would recommend that the City Council request
additional information as to the formula used to develop the costs and
that Staff be authorized to evaluate and respond to any deficiencies in
the formula.
Booking Fee Assessment
The County Administrator's Report identifies the development of a jail
booking fee at a cost of $134 . 10 per booking. Since the City of Dublin
does not book arrestees, the partial Booking Fee rate of $89 . 85 would
not apply to arrests made in the City of Dublin. Primarily, only those
agencies which have a CORPUS booking terminal pre-book individuals
arrested prior to transporting them to County Jail. The City of Dublin
currently lacks the equipment to book a person into the County CORPUS
network. This may also require staffing changes to operate a jail
facility. At the current time, adequate information is not available to
analyze whether the City could save money by performing its own booking
services. The County proposal does include the use of the reduced fee
in cases where the person is booked for identification purposes and
immediately released. The Alameda County Staff Report includes detailed
attachments which identify the formula utilized and the basis of several
assumptions related to the booking fee.
Attachment B of the County Administrator's Report identifies the types
of bookings and charges to be incurred. The County has agreed to omit
charges when an out-of-jurisdiction warrant or a County multi-agency
task force is involved in the arrest; however, there are several areas
in which fees are charged. This includes remands to custody. A remand
would occur when the court places the individual back into the custody
-2-
of the Sheriff. It is Staff's opinion that a fee in this case is beyond
what is authorized in the State Law. State Law provides for booking or
processing fees of persons arrested by a police agency; however, if a
person has been arraigned and is then remanded by the court, this is
purely a County function and the local jurisdiction should not be
charged any fee associated with the operation of the judicial system.
The Dublin Police Services Lieutenant has reviewed arrest statistics to
estimate the cost to the City of Dublin in the event that this fee is
enacted. It is important to note that certain data is not available in
order to assess the full impact of the County proposal. For example,
the information is not available on the number of court-ordered remands
booked into County Jail based on cases brought by Dublin Police. Also,
data is not available on the percentage of those which were booked and
released compared to those remaining in custody.
One alternative to incurring booking fees is to utilize the option of
citing the arrestee and releasing them to report to court. Given the
County's past experience with an overcrowded jail facility, the Dublin
Police Services already has in place procedures which allow certain
arrests to be handled in this manner. Of the 459 adult arrests taking
place during the first six months of 1990, 133 (or approximately 29%)
were cited and released. These arrests are considered on a case by case
basis and the overall goal of protecting the community weighs in a
decision to cite and release. Sheriff's Department Staff have indicated
that of the 326 booked, approximately 30, or 7% of the total arrests,
were arrested on a non-jurisdictional warrant. The County does not
propose to charge a booking fee for this type of arrest. Using these
statistics, Dublin Police Services estimates that 592 adults would be
booked during the Fiscal Year 1990/91. The estimated cost to the City
would be approximately $79, 400.
Lieutenant Rose would not recommend that additional efforts be made to
issue additional citations in lieu of booking the individual at the
County Jail. An effort to increase the number of individuals released
may have a negative impact on the community as a whole by allowing
criminals to remain outside of the Sheriff's custody. As noted above,
nearly one-third of arrests are already being handled in this manner.
This occurs only after consideration on a case by case basis.
Included in the County proposal is a cost associated with probation
violations. If a Dublin police officer viewed a probation violation and
arrested the individual, the City of Dublin would pay the booking fee.
The requirement to be placed on probation, and any conditions of
probation, are conditions imposed by the judicial system, which is not a
local responsibility. Staff believes it is improper for the local
agency to be saddled with the costs of enforcing probation conditions.
It is interesting that the County would not charge booking fees for
parole violations. This is associated primarily with a federal sentence
rather than a sentence imposed by a State or local court.
Alameda County has developed their fees based upon a one week sample of
arrests occurring between September 28 and October 4 . It is difficult
to determine whether this one week period is representative of the
actual costs which will be experienced over a full year. As previously
noted, City impacts must also be estimated upon incomplete data.
The County has outlined the assumptions used to recover staff costs
associated with booking services. The formula estimates that
approximately 61 employees out of the total 500 employees assigned to
Santa Rita are involved with bookings. This represents approximately
12% of the workforce. The County formula then applies this 12% factor
to their entire salary and benefits associated with the Santa Rita Jail.
City Staff is concerned that those involved with booking may not
accurately reflect the total workforce assigned to Santa Rita. For
example, of the approximate 61 booking related positions, approximately
46% of these positions are either clerks or accounting support
positions. If the salary levels for these positions are substantially
less than the cost of Sheriff Technicians, Deputies, and other jail
personnel, personnel costs would be overstated. It would appear that
the County should be determining a more precise definition of the cost
-3-
for the actual employees involved with the booking process. A similar
formula is used by the county in determining staff costs associated with
Consolidated Criminal Records.
Similarly, it is important that additional information be obtained on
the service and supply costs which are used in calculating the booking
fee. In the case of medical services, the County detail does not
identify whether all medical services, or only those associated with
booking, are included in the fee calculation.
Charging of Fees Prior to January 1, 1990
SB 2557 was not adopted as urgency legislation. - Therefore, the
legislation will become effective only after January 1, 1991. The
legislation references the ability of counties to collect the fees
discussed, based on costs beginning July 1, 1990. The City Attorney's
office has advised that in any testimony before the Board of
Supervisor's and any correspondence to the State Legislature, that the
City should object to the imposition of fees between July 1, 1990 and
December 31, 1990. Given that the law did not become effective until
January 1, 1991, it is inappropriate to pay for fees which occurred
prior to the effective date of the legislation.
City Contract for Police Services
A special consideration for the City of Dublin is the fact that the City
contracts with the Alameda County Sheriff's Department for its Police
Services. The contract already includes charges for overhead and a
variety of operational costs. The City of Dublin should require Alameda
County to satisfactorily demonstrate that any booking fees assessed to
the City of Dublin have not already been included in the cost of our
agreement for Police Services.
Double Taxation for Incorporated Areas
The provisions of SB 2557 raise an issue of double taxation for
residents of incorporated cities. Both the booking of prisoners and
collecting property taxes are currently countywide responsibilities
financed by the county general fund. All county residents and property
owners share in the cost of these services. The legislation creates
inequities in that residents of incorporated cities will now pay again
for these services through charges levied only in incorporated areas.
Conclusion
Staff believes that it is important to recognize that the overall cause
of these impacts is not due to the County. The State Legislature and
the Governor have created a financial burden for Counties which makes it
difficult for them to perform their duties without new revenues. It is
important for the City to be involved in the review and calculation of
any revenues imposed as a result of SB 2557 . It will also be important
for the City to support legislative changes which will develop reliable
revenue sources for both Cities and Counties.
Staff recommends that the City Council provide additional input on the
report, determine the method of testifying at the Board of Supervisor's
Hearing, and adopt the Resolution.
-4-
AGENDA November 13, 1990
J�4,4 OF 4C4
F
O �✓. O
' C O U N T Y A D M 1 N 1 S T R A T O R
CqC/FORN\Q
STEVEN C. SZALAY SUSAN S. MURANISHI
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR ASSISTANT COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
Scheduled as Set Matter
at 10:00 A.M. on the
Board of Supervisors
November 13, 1990 Agenda
October 15, 1990
Honorable Board of Supervisors
Administration Building
Oakland, CA 94612
Dear Board Members:
SUBJECT: SB 2557 (MADDY) - PROPERTY TAX ADMINISTRATION AND JAIL BOOKING FEES
RECOMMENDATIONS
1 . Receive my report about implementing the provisions of SB 2557 (Maddy)
that allow the County to charge a property tax administration fee and a
jail booking fee to cities and other local jurisdictions,
2. Approve the attached recommended fee schedule for these fees.
DISCUSSION
SB 2557 (Maddy) , Chapter 466 of the Government Code, which was signed by the
Governor on July 31 , 1990 allows the County to charge a property tax
administration fee and a jail booking fee to cities and other local
jurisdictions.
Property Tax Administration Fee
The bill provides that the Auditor shall determine and charge for property tax
administration costs proportionately attributable to incorporated cities and
provide an annual report about these costs to the Board of Supervisors. The
Auditor may also determine and charge for property tax administration costs
proportionately attributable to local jurisdictions other than cities. The
Board' s resolution adopting the 1990-91 Final Budget authorized and directed
the Auditor-Controller to establish and charge property tax administration
fees to local jurisdictions.
A letter by Senator Ken Maddy intended to clarify SB 2557 and reflect the
understanding of the leadership of both houses and the Governor, said that the
fee was intended to be mandated for all jurisdictions and intended to be
Y[-
1221 OAK STREET • SUITE 555 • OAKLAND,CALIFORNIA 94612 • (415)272-6984
FAX(415)272-3784
Board of Supervisors -2- October 15, 1990
imposed on cities, special districts, redevelopment agencies, schools, county
schools and community colleges.
Fees for cities and redevelopment agencies will be withheld from the
respective shares of the property tax of each of these entities by the
County. Fees for special districts and school districts will be billed
through invoice.
The Auditor-Controller, Treasurer-Tax Collector, and Assessor have developed
cost information for administering the property tax. The Auditor-Controller
has estimated each jurisdiction' s pro-rata share of cost based on the AB 8
property tax distribution formula. This information is provided in
Attachment A. Total net property tax administration costs, i .e. gross costs
less applicable revenue, are $8,918,777. Approximately 65% or $5,796,171 of
these costs will be distributed to local taxing jurisdictions other than the
County General Fund based on their pro-rata share of 1989-90 property tax
revenues. The authorization to collect Property Tax Administration Fees is
not effective until January 1 , 1991 but is operational retrospectively to July
1 , 1990.
A committee has been established composed of County Auditor' s and the State
Controller' s Office to develop uniform guidelines for administering the fee.
Draft guidelines are near completion. They will be forwarded to Counties,
CSAC, and other interested agencies for comment. Finalization of the
guidelines is targeted for November.
Jail Booking Fee
SB 2557 also provides that the County may impose a fee upon cities and other
local jurisdictions for booking and processing of persons arrested by these
jurisdictions when they are brought to the County jail . The County can charge
the fees for costs incurred on or after July 1 , 1990. The Board's resolution
implementing the final budget approved in principle establishing booking and
processing fees.
A Task Force established by CSAC composed of County Administrative staff
throughout the State is developing draft guidelines for developing the charges.
My office and the Sheriff' s Department have worked jointly to develop
recommended jail booking fees for Alameda County. The recommended fees have
been developed with consideration of CSAC' s pending guidelines.
The recommended Fee includes a full jail booking charge of $134. 10 and a
partial jail booking charge of $89.85. Attachment B provides a listing of the
fees and a description of the types of booking for which charges are
recommended. Attachment C provides a description of the methodology used to
develop the fees. Attachment D is a spreadsheet demonstrating the cost
development of the booking tees. Attachment E is a copy of CSAC' s booking fee
guidelines as approved by the County Administrative Officers Association.
Board of Supervisors —3— October 15, 1990
FINANCING
Revenues have been included in the final approved budget from property tax
administrative fees and jail booking fees based on preliminary estimates
provided by the Auditor—Controller, Assessor, Tax Collector and the Sheriff' s
Department. My office will monitor the receipt of these revenues and provide
periodic reports to your Board as part of the quarterly financial reporting
process.
Very truly yours,
Steven C_. zal aye
County Administra or
SCS:KG:jc/4125c
Attachments
.
TTACHMENT A
ALLOCATION OF TAX ADMINISTRATION COSTS ( SS 2557)
FOR 1990/91 FISCAL YEAR "
AGENCY FUND ADMIN. COET
a,91B, 777 .00
=========================================================
1005 3 1�2
COUNTY , , 606
SPECIAL DISTRICTS
___________________________________
'
FIRE:
COUNTY STRUCTURAL 7010 21 , 14B
CASTRO VALLEY 7025 B6,577
CASTRO VALLEY ZONE #1 7026 1 , 191
EDEN CONSOLIDATED 70% 6T , 151
FAIRVIEW 7040 11135:7
REDWOOD 7060 30i---'
�
TENNYSON 005 481
CO . SERVICE AREA F-1964-1 7390 22
CO , SERVICE AREA F-1965-1 -2m1 1 '001:
CO' SERVICE AREA F-1965--= 72q2 72S
FLOOD CONTROL/SOIL & WATER CONEER' ,
ALAMEDA CO ' RESOURCE CONSER . 7375 714
ALAMEDA CO . F . C . L N .C . 7070 10 ,291::,
FLOOD ZONE 2 OC75 EE. 20�--
FLOOD ZONE 2A 70S0 30�
FLOOD ZONE 2A 70B5 17 , 17B
FLOOD ZONE 4 70q 0 11 71�
FLOOD ZONE 5 7095 22,541
FLOOD ZONE 6 7100 2E, 670
FLOOD ZONE 7 7106 21 , 6a'-;
FLOOD ZONE 9 7110 2,555
FLOOD ZONE 12 7113 43,612
FLOOD ZONE 13 7114 4 ,03�
BYRON BETHANY IRRIGATION 7500 575
HEALTH:
ALAMEDA CO. MOSQUITO ABATEMENT 7135 11 , 096
BAY AREA AIR POLLUTION CONT . 7115 1B, ?41
SANITARY:
CASTRO VALLEY 7266 5, 152
ROAD:
COUNTY SERVICE AREA R-1967-1 7380 230
^ RECREATION & PARK:
�
`
'
�
~
ALLOCATION OF TAX ADMINISTRATION COSTS (SB 2557)
FOR 1990/91 FISCAL YEAR `
AGENCY PUMD ?DMIN . COST
B,918,777.00
=========================================================
374 133
HAYWARD AREA 7170 ,
�B
5B 1
LIVERMORE AREA 7175 ,
EAST BAY REGIONAL 7120 245,767
LIBRARY SERVICES: _
COUNTY LIBRARY 7005 161 ,3�7
COUNTY LIBRARY BP. TAX ZONE 7006 3,3917-
WATER:
ALAMEDA COUNT''-` 7135 22 .0Vt
LIGHTING:
COUNTY SERVICE AREA BL-1=70-1 �Ts5 4
COUNTY SERVICE AREA SL-1972-1 73%. 58
TOTAL SPECIAL DISTRICTS 1 , 0S7 , 604
CITIES
___________________________________
ALAMEDA 9001 150,660
ALBANY 9090 24, 199
BERKELEY 9075 258,541
DUBLIN 90B5 53,401
�005 15,96'.3
EMERYVILLE ,
FREMONT ?010 294,308
HAYWARD 9015 176,764
�070 91 ,32'7-
LIVERMORE ,
NEWARK 9035 65,080
OAKLAND 5040 6B4,636
OAKLAND (KN[}WLAND ZOO) 5043 3,361
PIEDMONT 9090 4B,359
9051 160,705
PLEASANTON ,
657 7 B2
SAN LEANDRO 105 ,
74
UNION CITY 9065 ,530
.
�
~
ALLOCATION OF TAX ADMINISTRATION COSTS ( BB 2557)
FOR 1990/91 FISCAL YEAR
`
AGENCY FUND ADMIN. COST
8 ,918,777.00
=========================================================
TOTAL CITIES 2, 1B4, 494
SCHOOLS
-----------------------------------
COUNTY SUFT. SZHOOL5-3P. FUNDS:
AUDIO-VISUAL CAPITAL 4020 1 ,414
COMMUNITY COLLESE TUITION 4000 0
COUNTY SUPT . SERVICE 4012 01305
COUNTY SUFT . CAPITAL 4013 7 , 13E
DEVELOP ' CENTER-HDCP . PUFIL5 4015 7 , 114
EDUCATION INSTIT ' PUPILS 4010 15,024
EDUCATION FHYS ' HDCP ' PUPILS 4007 9 ,50�
EDUCATION T .M .P . , EC 12E7 4008 2,561
3UVENILE HALL EDUCAT10N 40111 3, 10B
T.M .R. & P .H . CAPITAL 400-S 203
T . M .R . & P .H . TUITION 4009 1 ,2B(;'
AMADOR VALLEY AREAWIDE 290F 0
ELEMENTARY :
MOUNTAIN HOUSE 3042 2 '400
UNIFIED:
ALAMEDA 3005 8B,735
ALBANY 3006 19, 978
BERKELEY 3008 116, 476
CASTRO VALLEY 3072 41 ,733
DUBLIN 3T 3009 499679
EMERY 3026 8,532
FREMONT 3013 29e,524
HAYWARD 3030 157,254
LIVERMORE VALLEY JR' 3022 10B,239
NEW HAVEN 3076 741671
NEWARK 3052 621712
OAKLAND 3010 354,299
PIEDMONT 3012 2B,711
PLEASANTON 3T' 3052 1501430
SAM LEANDRO 3014 77,B22
SAN LORENZO 3064 67,5B2
SUNOL GLEN 3066 556B5
COMMUNITY COLLEGE:
FREMONT-NEWARK 3002 66,610
�
,.
�
ALLOCATION OF TAX ADMINIATRATION COSTS (SB 2557)
FOR 1990/91 FISCAL YEAR
`
AGENCY FUND ADMIN. COST
85918,777 '00
=========================================================
PERALTA 3004 87,750
SOUTH COUNTY 3003 101 ,450
SAN JOAQUIN COUNTY DISTRICTS :
TRACY HIGH 3077 2,469
SAN 3OAQUIN DELTA COMMUNITY ' 3001 903
TOTAL SCHOOLS 2, 029,497
`
SUB-TOTAL B , 27+,201
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCIES
ALAMEDA: WEST END IMP 43,723
BERKELEY : BAVO ISLAND 801
WEST BERKELEY 81431
TOTAL BERKELEY 9,222
EMERYVILLE: EMERYVILLE ` 74,029
SHELLMOUND 5,8%
TOTAL EMERYVILLE 79,714
FREMONT: NILES 1 ,702
INDUSTRIAL 445354
IRVINGTON 14,387
443
TOTAL FREMONT 60,443
HAYWARD: DOWNTOWN 2B,909
LIVERMORE 12Y764
645
OAKLAND: ACORN B,
CENTRAL DIST 265,600
ELMHURST 1 ,89B
OAK CENTER 41178
STANDFORD/ADELINE 5B1
77TH AVE INDIST 0
TOTAL OAKLAND 2B0,902
SAN LEANDRO: PLAZA 1 3,0B6
PLAZA 2 18,Z29
TOTAL SAN LEANDRO 211314
UNION CITY: COMMUNITY 7,520
.
'
`
�
ALLOCATION OF TAX ADMINISTRATION COSTS (SB 2557)
FOR 1990/9l FISCAL YEAR
AGENCY FUND ADMIN. COST
8,918,777.00
=========================================================
TOTAL REDEVELOPMENT 5441576
8 91B 777
TOTAL , r
�
ATTACHMENT B
ALAMEDA COUNTY RECOMMENDED BOOKING FEES
FULL BOOKING FEE: $134.10
A Full Booking Fee will be charged for those persons delivered to the Sheriff's
booking facility on authority of arrest documents only (Consolidated Arrest
Report).
PARTIAL BOOKING FEE: $ 89.85
A Partial Booking Fee will be charged for those persons delivered to the Sheriff's
booking facility for booking after having been processed, at minimum, in compliance
with CORPUS Booking Procedures by a local law enforcement agency.
TYPES OF BOOKINGS AND CHARGES
• Direct Book: Will be charged full booking rate. Example: Police Department delivers
directly to Sheriff's booking facility for booking.
• Remands to Custody: Will be charged to agency making arrest. This category includes transfer
of an inmate to Sheriff's booking facility for purposes of scheduling Public Defender
interviews (PDI's).
• Jurisdictional Warrants: Will be charged to the agency making the arrest. Example: Oakland
Police make arrest on warrant from Oakland.
• Out—of—Jurisdiction Warrants: Will not be charged. Example: Fremont Police Department
arrests on warrant from Oakland.
• Citizen's Arrest: Will be charged to agency making arrest.
• Probation Violations: "On view" probation violations will be charged to police agency making
arrest. Probation Officer arrests or probation warrants will not be charged.
• County Multi—Agency Task Force: Will not be charged. Example: Narcotics task force arrest
involving multiple agencies representing a county—wide effort, such as Alameda County
Narcotics Task Force.
• Non—County Multi—Agency Task Force: Will be charged to arresting agency. Example: SACNET.
• Contracted Police Service: (Dublin and AC Transit contracts) Will be charged to agency
making arrest.
• Demonstration Bookings: Will be charged to agency making arrest. Example: Mass booking of
demonstrators.
• Book and Release: Will be charged at partial booking rate. Example: Person is booked for
identification purposes and immediately released.
• Self—Surrender: Will not be charged.
• Re—Books While in Custody: Will not be charged.
• Parole Violations: Will not be charged.
• Hospitalization: Costs as a result of injuries incurred during arrest for medical care,
transportation, overtime, will be billed separately.
4204c
ATTACHMENT C
ALAMEDA COUNTY'S FEE POLICY
In developing Alameda County' s booking fee policy, the CSAC guidelines were
considered and exceptions identified in situations unique to Alameda County
and in order to maintain cooperative relationships among law enforcement
agencies within the County.
The following criteria was used in developing booking fees within Alameda
County:
Uniform Rate: Although Alameda County has two jails with booking operations,
one rate structure will be established for bookings at both jails. It is
estimated that approximately 21 .7% of all bookings take place at North County
Jail and 78.3% at Santa Rita. The new Santa Rita facility is similar in
operation and staffing to the North County facility and it was decided to base
the rate on Santa Rita' s costs for bookings.
Two-Rate Booking Fee: Alameda County is unique in that it has a County-wide
booking system (CORPUS) into which local law enforcement jurisdictions having
booking facilities enter booking information into the centralized system.
Once an inmate is transferred to the County jail , the booking process is
completed. For this reason, it was felt that two booking rates should be
established, one for "partial bookings" and one for "full bookings. " Partial
Booking Fees will be charged to those agencies who have initiated the booking
process at the local level prior to transferring to the Sheriff' s custody.
,Full Booking Fees will be charged to arresting agencies who deliver inmates
directly to the Sheriff for booking.
Direct Costs: The booking fees for Fiscal Year 1990-91 are based on FY
1989-90 actual expenditures for salaries and employee benefits and services
and supplies, plus a cost of living adjustment for known salary increases for
FY 1990-91 . Medical and food service costs are based on rates established by
contract with Prison Health Services and Szabo Food Service for FY 1990-91 .
Indirect Costs: County and Sheriff' s Department indirect costs are based on
an indirect cost rate plan that meets federal Circular A-87 standards and is
based on costs for FY 1987-88 to be used for FY 1988-89. This is the most
recent indirect cost plan available. It should be noted that Data Processing
Costs were excluded from the indirect cost rate as these charges are included
in the Booking Fee as a direct cost and are based on actual charges for
terminals and CPU time for the booking section of Santa Rita.
Consolidated Criminal Records does not have an established A-87 indirect rate;
therefore 10% indirect is applied to salaries for this unit, per A-87
guidelines.
The indirect cost factor was applied to the Salary cost only.
Statistics: There are two systems within the County which track and record
bookings: Criminal Oriented Records Production Unified System (CORPUS) and
Automated Jail Information System (AJIS) . Unfortunately, neither of these
systems are currently programmed to summarize booking data by jurisdiction and
type of booking. Therefore, a one—week sampling of bookings by type and
arrest agency was conducted during the week of September 28 through October 4,
1990. This sampling is used to determine the estimated number of full and
partial bookings per arrest agency projected over a one—year period.
Total bookings were determined for the period October, 1989 through September,
1990. This period of time was chosen because October, 1989 was the first full
month of operation of the new Santa Rita Jail booking facility.
Staffing: Staff related to booking at Santa Rita are as follows :
3.70 FTE Sergeant
29.40 FTE Deputy Sheriff II
25.52 FTE Sheriff' s Clerk
.53 FTE Accounting Technician
2.54 FTE Account Clerk I
61 .69 FTE Total
Staffing costs related to Santa Rita bookings were developed by dividing the
number of full—time equivalent staff by the total staff assigned to Santa Rita
(61 .69 FTE divided by 500 FTE total = 12.338%) . This percentage factor was
applied to actual costs of salaries and employee benefits for Fiscal Year
1989-90. One—time costs for opening the new jail and the October 17
earthquake were excluded from the calculation for overtime.
Staff related to booking at Consolidated Criminal Records are as follows:
.50 FTE Lieutenant
2.70 FTE Identification Supervisor
10.00 FTE Fingerprint Technician
9.00 FTE Clerk II
.75 Photo Lab Technician
22.95 FTE Total
Staffing costs related to booking for this unit were determined by dividing
budgeted salaries for these positions by the total budgeted salaries for the
unit (42.5%) . This factor was applied to actual salaries and benefits paid
for FY 1989-90. Salaries were increased by 3.38% for FY 1990-91 based on
known salary increases.
—2—
Services and Supplies: With the exception of food, medical , data processing
and building maintenance costs, services and supplies were calculated at 4.6%
of the total cost for Santa Rita. This factor was derived from dividing the
average daily number of bookings by the average daily population (129.6
divided by 2,836 = 4.6%) . A 5% inflation factor was applied to these services
and supplies accounts.
Food costs were based on the actual costs for staff meals multiplied by the
full—time equivalent staff x 365 days. Since inmates in the booking process
are not normally fed a regular meal , only staff meal costs were factored.
Medical costs were calculated by Prison Health Services as follows: Total
contract amount multiplied by 20% (direct cost plus overhead) for booking
divided by the total bookings for Santa Rita and North County Jail . Data
Processing charges are actual for processing time and terminal charges for the
booking section at Santa Rita for fiscal year 1989-90. Building maintenance
charges were calculated by the General Services Agency and include actual
costs plus cost of living adjustments for maintenance of electronic equipment,
communications, utilities, labor and facility maintenance.
Services and supplies were factored for Consolidated Criminal Records based on
the 42.5% staffing ratio with the exception of Laundry Service and Supplies ,
Motor Vehicle, Special Departmental Expense and Rents and Leases, which were
based on actual costs related to the processing of bookings.
Credits/Revenue: No revenue or credits received by either Santa Rita or
Consolidated Criminal Records is related to booking; therefore, no
revenue/credit is applied.
Full—Booking Fee Calculation: The Full—Booking Fee is the total cost
applicable to booking divided by the number of bookings-for Santa Rita and the
total bookings for both North County and Santa Rita Jails in Consolidated
Criminal Records.
Partial—Booking Fee Calculation: The Partial Booking Fee is 67% of the full
booking fee. This factor is based on the Sheriff' s Department estimate that a
full booking takes approximately one and one—half hours to complete while a
partial booking takes approximately one hour (or two—thirds of the time) .
4048c
—3—
ALAMEDA COUNTY BOOKING HIS - -- ------ 10/09/90-----=-----
- ATTACHMENT D
DEPT. 227 - CONSOLIDATED CRIMINAL RECORDS
TOTAL DEPT 227 COSTS REVISED BOOKING LINE ITEM
_ SALARIIS A BM L40YU BENEFITS __._ 1989-90 EXPENDED EXCLUDID _. .._ TOTAL. PORTION.---- _ COST--------__--_-----------. ------------------------ -- -- --
1011 Salaries A Wages 1,118,788 1,118,788 491,556 8.14 CCR STAFFING DEVOTED TO BOOKING:
.. 1015 Overtime 273,886 273,888 120,338 1.99 .5 FT6 Lieutenant
.1211 Retirement 1_______ __. _ 38,557_ _ 38,557 16,940. .__. 0.28-. 2.7 FTE Identification Supervisor__.-_---_._-_
1221 Retirement 2 53,835 53,835 23,653 0.39 10.0 FTH Fingerprint Technician
1311 FICA 98,981 98,981 43,489 0.72 9.0 FTI Clerk II
`__1411_Hea1th.Iosurance__.-__ _. .__ ....._ .._ 99,90L__ _-__ 99,901... .___ .43,893__..-..0.73-.-_.75.FTI Photo Lab Tech_-_ _---
1421 Dental Insurance 19,208 19,208 8,439 0.14 22.95 FTH
1511 Other Benefits 9,153 9,153 4,021 0.07 Salaries for these positions = 42.5% of budget; this factor applied to cost
1611_Comp-junrance-__ .-__20,188. _. ___.. _ 20,188_ 8,870____ 0.15 _..Salaries increased by 3.38%.for.90-91 salary increase-
1711 SDI 4,593 4,593 2,018 0.03
:SL_.TOTAL SALARIES A EMPLOYEE.BENEFITS___ __.__ 1,737,088_-_ .. .. 0 _. 1,731,088_. .__. 763,215__-- 12.64_
SERVICES A SUPPLIES
rl
::i____3071_Laundry_.Service/Supplies._ -_ . - .. 1,854 _ _ 1,851 _ . ..- 365... _._.0.01.__. Cleaning lab coats.-Photo.Lab.Techs_4 FTI/35 FTI_ 18.75% plus.5%_inflation_-__
:"1 3111 Office Ixpense 36,477 36,477 16,278 0.27 Based on 42.5% of coat plus 51 inflation factor
3112 Reprographic Services 1,533 1,533 684 0.01 Based on 42.5% of coat plus 5% inflation factor
«!317LSmall.Toola-_._ _ _. _ 859.___. _ 859 .._-.__ __ 0_._.___-__. 0 ..__ - 0.00_ Based on 42.5X.of-cost plus.51 inflation factor-
3231 Maintenance, Iquipment 2,868 2,868 1,280 0.02 Based on 42.5% of cost plus 5% inflation factor
3251 Maintenance, Electronic Equipment 59,733 59,733 26,656 0.44 Based on 42.5% of cost plus 5% inflation factor
-.3291 Communications------- _ _.. . 20,589- 20,589 _ 9,188, Based on.42.5%.of cost plue.5% inflation.factor_
3351 Transportation 0 0 0 0.00 Based on 42.5% of cost plus 5% inflation factor
3354 Transportation-Motor Vehicle 7,765 7,765 4,077 0.07 50% Lt assigned vehicle charges plus 5% inflation factor
.3391-Special Dept. Expense-____ _-.. ._._ 97,050.__ ._._ . 97,050 -____ 10,190-, 0.17__-_Iatimated 101 of this account is booking fingerprint/photo lab snppliea_p1na..5X_inflation.fact _
` 3411 Prof. A Spec. Services 15,603 15,603 0 0 0.00 DOJ costs for non-booking fingerprint processing
3421 Microfilm Services 7,740 7,740 0 0 0.00 Not related to booking
.3551-Iests_A Leases_-._-_.-_-._-_____ 10,044_ ..___: 4,04! _.. 6,000 6,000...-__ .0.10__.Direct cost.ot.copier for booking-___._._
3575 Building Maintenance 69,214 69,214 30,887 0.51 Based on 42.5% of cost plus 5% inflation factor
__TOTAL.SERVICIS A SUPPLIES.____ ___.___-___.331,329___.___ 28,245 303,084 . 105,605___. 1.75
5311 Equipment 400 400 0 0 0.00 Equipment purchase unrelated to booking
5312..Capital-Iquipment Leases __. 95,967 _ _ 95,967 95,967. ._ 1.59_.__-Lease of fax mackinea-100% booking use_
TOTAL FIXED ASSETS 96,367 400 95,967 95,967 1.59
__6331 Credit/Interdept. Services_ .__ ____ __. (2,745) __ (2,745) -.. _ 0.. _ ..__. O. - _._ 0.00__. Credits not related to-booking; no,revenues attributable.to booking.function_--___-
DIPARTMINTAL/COUNTY INDIRECT 49,156 0.81 ICRP not current; 10% used per 1-87 Standards on salaries only
TOTAL DEPT. 227 EXPENDITURES 2,162,039 25,900 2,136,139 1,013,943 16.79 NOTE: LINK ITEM COSTS DIVIDED BY TOTAL BOOKINGS SRJ/NCJ (60,393)
GRAND.TOTAL DKPTS. 236 A 227-__ _.__._____ 34,509,294 _...1,105,406 ._. 28,352,881-
FULL-BOOKING FIB 134.10 Fall booking estimated at 1.5 hour
PARTIAL-BOOKING-FIX.(67X OF.FULL BOOKING) 89.85 Partial booking estimated.at 1.0 hour (67% of fall booking)__- ------
_..
c
ALAXI A COUNTY BOOKING FM__
L
TOTAL DEPT 236 COSTS REVISED BOOKING LINE ITEM
11PRIDITURI CATEGORY 1989-90 EXPENDED RICLUDID TOTAL PORTION COST NOTES:
Salaries,&Benefits---- -------- -- -- ------- -90 unless noted
toll SALARIES 15,032,065 15,032,065 1,947,389 41.10 All Costs and calculations are based on Santa Rita for FY 89
1015 OVERTIME 2,481,572 364,521 2,117,051 274,262 5.80 SRJ Bookings 10/89-9/90 total 47,289 (129.6 daily)
-1211-RUIRMT-L____ 832,431-___. - - 632,43L__ 107,841 2.28.---. Avg.DaiIj.PopuIation.._; 2,83613190-8/9Q1___-_ _
�i 1221 RITIRRMW 2 1,025,959 1,025,959 132,912 2.81 61.69 FTR Booking Staff/500 M Total Staff = 12.3381
1311 FICA 425,963 425,963 55,183 1.17 Overtime for jail opening& earthquake excluded
1,132,001--. 146,650-.---3.10-_Salaries-&_.benef it"ncreased-by-51-f o"
1421 DENTAL 143,354 143,354 18,571 0.39
1511 OTHER 14,623 14,623 1,894 0.04
----.827,033 827,033..-. .107,141 2.21
1711 SDI 18,906 18,906 2,449 0.05
Uniform Allowance 17,325 16,150 18,150 0.38 Uniform allowance $550 x 33 badge staff
TOTAL SALARIES & BENEFITS 21,951,232 364,521 21,587,536 2,812,442 59.47
Services & Supplies Svs/Supplies factor: 129.6 avg daily bookings/2,836 avg daily population = 4.61
3L3O1I_1jricolturaLSTa_& Supplies 17,741----17.747.- -_.-.0-_ 0.00-- Costs u0t-APPlicAb1?_tQ.Bo0ILit'g
3031 Clothing & Personal Supplies 252,282 252,282 12,165 0.26 Based on 4.61 attributable to Booking plus 51 inflation factor
3051 H usebold Expense 274,456 274,456 13,256 0.28 Based on 4.61 attributable to Booking plus 51 inflation factor
undry 3,835 0.08 Based oa-LB1-attributabla.-to-Booking..Plaa-51-inflatioii factor-
3091 food 3,300,753 3,300,753 83,957 1.78 62 Staff x $3.71/seal x 365
3111 Office Expense 119,931 119,931 5,793 0.12 Based on 4.61 attributable to Booking plus 51 inflation factor
15,681 0.02 Based on-4.61-attribut able-to.Booking plua-51-inf lation_f actor-------
3171 Small Tools 1,185 1,185 0 0 0.00 Costa not applicable to Booking
3211 Haint. Grounds 9,038 9,038 0 0 0.00 Costs not applicable to Booking
,_3231 laint Equipment 28,232----.. .1,364- 0-03-,-BaBed-on_Lff attributable-to-Boo1W_pIu&5% inflation.factor
3251 Kaint Electronic Equipment 150,977 150,977 0 0 0.00 Charges included in Bldg. Haint.
3291 Communications 198,701 198,701 0 0 0.00 Charges included in Bldg. Maid.
193,116-. O____O-0O Charges.incluiled-im.Bldg-
3331 Memberships 50 50 0 0 0.00 Costs not applicable to Booking
3351 Transportation 402 402 0 0 0.00 Costs not applicable to Booking
3354.1ransportation Motor Vehicle----- 0 0- 0.00 Costs not-applicable-to
3361 Travel 304 304 0 0 0.00 Costs not applicable to Booking
xi 3362 Training 422 422 20 0.00 Based on 4.81 attributable to Booking plus 51 inflation factor
�_.3391 Special Departmental Expense-__.- 60,202.- 60,202.. 2,908 0.06---.Eased on.4.61.attributable to Booking plus 51 inflation factor
3411 Professional & Specialized Svs 30,954 30,954 1,495 0.03 Based on 4.81 attributable to Booking plus 51 inflation factor
3551 Rants&Leases 40,187 40,187 1,941 0.04 Based on 4.61 attributable to Booking plus 51 inflation factor
3575 Building Maintenance-- 5,285,415-- 233,582- 233,582---- 4.94---Istimate-lor-ITIl.by.GSA--factored_at_56%..for_bo oking.area
455 - Medical Services 0 0 1,604,989 33.94 Total Contract ( 10,250,000) x 201 booking / 60,393 total bookings (KCJ/SRJ) $33.94 factor'
221 - Data Processing Charges 0 0 155,543 3.29 Actual charges for booking terminals/epu time 1/90-6/90 x 2 plus 51 inflation
'i TOTAL SERVICES & SUPPLIES 10,261,064 580,025 4,629,206 2,121,626 44.87
i Other
A: 5311-Capital Equipment
275,314.- 0 0.DO--Capital-ego ipment-purchaaed-f Qr--antber-un it-
6331 Credit for Interdepartmental Svs (140,354) (140,354) (0) (0) (0.00) (Laundry service credits) Not applicable to booking
TOTAL WINDITURKS LESS-CREDITS____. 32,347,255 1,079,506 26,216,742 4,934,068 -.---104.34-- .(No-revenue.attributable..to.Booking)__
DRPI M KNTAL/COUNTY INDIRECT: 613,428 12.97 Indirect = 22.31 ACSD, 9.21 County applied to Salaries (1011) only
GRAND TOTAL - SANTA RITA JAIL 32,347,255 1,079,506 26,216,742 5,547,495 117.31 NOTE: LINE ITEM COSTS DIVIDED BY TOTAL BOOKINGS SANTA RITA ONLY (47,289)
ATTACHMENT E
COUNTY BOOKING FEES
Background
During deliberations related to the FY 1990-91 State Budget, the Legislature enacted SB 2557
(Chapter 466, Statutes of 1990). This bill contained, among other things, the authorization for
counties to charge a 'criminal justice administrative fee" for the booking and processing of
arrested persons.
This authorization, codified in Section 29550 of the Government Code, reads in part as follows:
"29550. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, a county may impose a fee upon
a city, special district, school district, community college district, college, or university
for reimbursement of county expenses incurred with respect to the booking or other
processing of persons arrested by an employee of that city, special district, school
district, community college district, college, or university, where the arrested persons
are brought to the county jail for booking or detention. The fee imposed by a county
pursuant to this section shall not exceed the actual administrative costs, including
applicable overhead costs as permitted by federal Circular A-87 standards, incurred
in booking or otherwise processing arrested persons. A county may submit an
invoice to a city, special district, school district, community college district, college,
or university for these expenses incurred by the county on and after July 1, 1990.°
While this fee authorization is not effective until January 1, 1991; it is, by the terms of Government
Code Section 29550, operational retrospectively to July 1, 1990.
Booking and Processing
The statute authorizes the fee for'reimbursement of county expenses incurred" for"booking and
processing" arrested persons who are "brought to the county jail for booking or detention." The
fee may not exceed actual administrative costs, including indirect costs permitted by federal
Circular A-87.
'Booking and processing,' for purposes of compliance with the provisions of Government Code
Section 29550, refers to all activities necessary or appropriate for the reception and detention of
arrested persons at county detention facilities, from the time the arrested person is initially
presented to facility staff until the person is either released or assigned to permanent housing
within the facility. In general terms such activities may include, by are not limited to, initial
reception, fingerprinting, photography, criminal record screening, early release screening,
classification, medical screening, data entry, personal property accounting and storage, clothing
issuance, medical treatment, counseling, security, and release processing.
Methodology
Direct Costs. Direct costs are ascertained by identifying and costing out all activities
directly involved in booking and processing. Such costs include not only staffing costs, but also
costs for services and supplies.
Overhead Costs. Overhead costs are ascertained in accordance with federal Circular A-87,
per Government Code Section 29550. This Circular establishes principles and standards for
determining costs applicable to grants, contracts, and other agreements with State and local
governments. Overhead costs will be based on an A-87 Indirect Cost Rate Plan approved in each
county by the State Controller. Fixed assets, and debt service if applicable, are generally
considered part of overhead pursuant to Circular A-87. Please note that such costs will vary from
county-to-county, depending upon the procedure used in each county for classification of
particular costs as direct or indirect. For example, computer costs may be charged in one county
as direct costs, but charge as indirect costs through its approved A-87 plan in another county.
Unit Costs. Unit costs for booking and processing are derived by adding the county's
annualized direct and overhead costs, and dividing the sum by the total number of new booking
and processing transactions, including those involving "non-billable entities" such as the county,
the State and the federal government.
Example. Total county booking and processing costs are $1 million. Booking and
processing transactions break down as follows: 10%county, 15% CHP, 25% City A,
and 50% City B. City A's bill would be $250,000; City B's bill would be $500,000.
While the booking and processing transactions of its own employees and those of
other "non-billable entities" are counted for purposes of determining unit cost, the
county is not reimbursed for them.
Billing
Section 29550 clearly states that counties may "invoice," or bill, arresting agencies for expenses
incurred in booking and processing on and after July 1, 1990. The section does not prescribe
a particular billing period. Therefore, counties may bill on a frequency convenient to them -- e.g.,
annually, quarterly or monthly.
Additionally, by its permissive nature, Section 29550 recognizes that local circumstances may
cause it to be appropriate for a county to waive the imposition of fees on a particular agency for
a variety of reasons -- e.g., in the event of a prior agreement between the county and a city
whereby the city has provided valuable consideration in return for a county promise not to impose
booking or other fees during the term_of the agreement.
Exceptional circumstances may arise, as well, with regard to multi-agency arrests, arrests on
warrants issued on behalf of another agency, and "self-arrests." Guidelines for those situations
follow.
Multi-Agency Arrests. In the case of multi-agency arrests -- such as may occur, for
example, in connection with a joint task force of local, state and federal officials -- a booking fee
shall not be imposed upon any law enforcement agency that participated in such joint task force.
In effect, multi-jurisdictional arrests shall not be subject to a booking fee.
Warrants. A booking fee will be imposed where an arrest is pursuant to a.warrant only in
those instances where the arresting officer is an employee of the agency or entity that issued the
warrant. Thus an arrest made by a peace officer from City C pursuant to a warrant issued by City
A shall not trigger a booking fee billing. Nor will counties bill for arrests made by non-county
agencies on warrants issued on behalf a county sheriff.
Self-Booking. Billing is only permitted in the case of persons "brought to " the county jail.
Therefore, persons who present themselves for booking will be treated as non-billable
transactions.
Comments
Unit costs for booking and processing will vary from county to county, perhaps substantially.
Primarily, this will result from differences in the size and complexity of booking detention and
operations. The size and complexity of operations will, in turn, vary in accordance with a host
of variables indigenous to each county.
Likewise, as noted above, billing periods may vary from one county to the next. A county may,
in order to address local circumstances or maintain local agreements, find it necessary or
appropriate to waive or adjust fees in certain cases.
While unit costs and billing periodicity are expected to vary, and while it may be necessary to
waive or adjust fees in special circumstances, it is expected that the methodology employed by
counties in determining booking and processing fees will be uniform and consistent throughout
the state.
RESOLUTION NO. - 90
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
SUPPORTING THE REPEAL OF SB 2557
WHEREAS, after the longest budget stalemate in California's
history, the Governor and California Legislature finally enacted a
1990/91 budget package that shifts state and county costs to cities, and
diverts city revenues to finance state/county responsibilities; and
WHEREAS, counties are an administrative arm of the state with
responsibilities for carrying out state programs, while cities are in a
different business of providing local municipal services which are
determined locally and have no responsibility or authority for
administering state or county programs; and
WHEREAS, the Governor and California Legislature have shifted
state and county financial responsibilities to cities; and
WHEREAS, all 457 cities in California balanced their budgets
only to find their budgets were subsequently thrown out of balance by
cost shifts and revenue losses designed to balance the budget of the
state; and
WHEREAS, the actions in the State budget package were enacted
by passage of SB 2557 , which (1) directed counties to charge cities,
school districts and special districts for the county function of
administering the property tax; (2) authorized counties to charge cities
for booking prisoners arrested by city employees; and (3) allowed
counties to retain property tax revenues that should otherwise go to 90
"No and Low Tax Cities" ; and
WHEREAS, these shifts of city revenues to counties were
specifically enacted to replace cuts in state revenue for counties that
should have funded state responsibilities carried out by counties; and
WHEREAS, the Governor and California Legislature have avoided
their financial responsibilities by enacting measures that are poor
public policy, which rob from one local government to finance another,
and result in no real solution to the continuing financial problems
facing all levels of government in California.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the
City of Dublin supports the repeal of SB 2557 and the protection of
cities from the state budget process; and supports alternatives that
will provide long-term funding for both cities and counties.
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 29th day of October, 1990
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Mayor
ATTEST:
x k ; b ,
City Clerk