HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 09231986 - FC TO -BOARD OF SUPERVISORS G
FROM: Finance Committee Contra
CWIQ
DATE'- September 22, 1986 I Varty
SUBJECT: FINANCING POLICE SERVICES IN THE UNINCORPORATED AREAS
SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATION(S) & BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION
RECOMMENDATIONS:
Committee Agreements
1. Direct the CAO, Community Development Department, and Sheriff ' s Office
to define appropriate subzones for County Service Area P-6 .
2. Direct the Sheriff to define proposed "base level" of police services
for unincorporated areas.
3 . Direct the Sheriff and CAO to study the feasibility of contracting out
police services with cities for certain unincorporated areas.
4. Consider requesting state legislation which would authorize the County
to levy assessment fees for police services similar to the authority
currently available for financing fire services or amending the County
service area law to include police protection as an "extended service"
such as street lights and ambulance services.
ADDITIONAL RECOMMENDATIONS:
Supervisor Torlakson
5. Consider financing police services through special tax (charge) as a
development condition providing authority to levy the tax on homes in,
new subdivisions in CSA P-6 or alternatively in East County only,
waiving fees for homes in which city annexation is imminent.
Supervisor Schroder
6. Consider financing police services in CSA P-6 and subzones as may be
defined for P-6 through a special tax to be voted upon by the Citi-
zens.
BACKGROUND:
At the September 16 Board meeting, it was requested that this item be
considered by the Finance Committee on September 23 . Prior to this time,
the Board discussed the matter at the recent budget hearings•'and the matter
CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: l S SIGNATURE:
_n.. RECOMMENDATION OF COU TY M TRA TOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTE
APPROVE OT
SIGNATURE(S): Supe vis r obert Sc r Suoervlsor Tom Torlakson
ACTION OF BOARD ON St--pi-ember 23-1 1926 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER __x�
RECOMMENDATIONS 1, 2, and 3 are APPROVED. Recommendations 4, 5, and 6
are REFERRED to the County Administrator.
VOTE OF SUPERVISORS
I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE
X UNANIMOUS (ABSENT II ) AND CORRECT COPY OF AN ACTION TARN
AYES: NOES: AND ENTERED ON THE MINUTES OF THE BOARD
ABSENT: ABSTAIN: OF SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN.
CC: County Administrator ATTESTED September- 23, 1986
Sheriff-Coroner -_— —
R, CLERK
County Counsel PHIL SUPERVISORSLOND COUNTYATHE BOARD OF
DMINISTRATORDMINISTRATOR
Community Development
B f GC..�G(/
M382/7-83 ,DEPUTY
was referred to the County Administrator, Sheriff, Community Development
Department and County Counsel to study the imposition of a special tax as a
development condition for new residences as part of the E. I .R. process.
Last year, the Board discussed the matter in July and a follow-up report
was prepared by the County Administrator in October.
The problem arises from the development of a large number of residential
units, over the last several years, particularly in Oakley, Bethel Island
and West Pittsburg. These additional homes have caused a dilution of
police services in the surrounding areas, with resulting demands for
enhanced Sheriff patrols. Future subdivisions are planned in these areas
which will only exacerbate the problem.
Concurrent with the growth of residential development is the requirement
that significant County resources be made to construct and operate a new
jail in West County. The .cost for a new jail coupled with the continued
County cost sharing ratios of State mandated health and welfare programs
has made it difficult for the Sheriff ' s Office to secure additional field
patrol personnel through the normal budgetary process. In fact, the
Sheriff and all justice agencies are now in competition for the
discretionary local tax revenue (property tax, sales tax, interest, etc. )
in the County general fund.
The Finance Committee has discussed two approaches to secure an on-going
source of financing police services to address this problem. One approach
would be. for the Board to levy a special tax (charge) as a development
condition on each new residence built, much like the charges for schools,
street lighting, sidewalks and landscaping maintenance for roads. Addi-
tional information on the merits and concerns of this approach is attached.
It has been estimated that a tax of $125 per new residence would be ade-
quate, based on the following assumptions:
1 . A service ratio of 1 officer per 1000 population.
2 . A cost per officer of $50,000 including salary, benefits and equipment
(excluding patrol vehicles and Sheriff Office administrative
overhead) .
3 . An average of 2. 5 persons per residence.
How the tax is calculated on a 1000 home subdivision is shown below:
1) 1000 homes X 2. 5 persons/home = 2, 500 persons
2) 2, 500 persons divided by 1000 = 2 . 5 officers
3) 2 . 5 officers X $50,000/officer = $125,000
4) $125,000 divided by 1000 homes = $125 tax/home.
Another approach discussed for areas of significant population was the
calling of a vote on whether a tax should be imposed for maintaining a
level of police services. A two-thirds vote would be required to impose
such a tax. This approach follows the precedent of such areas as Blackhawk
and Alamo.
The issue dividing the Committee members was whether the Board should
impose a tax during the development phase of a subdivision or whether to
allow the homeowners to make that determination after the subdivision is
completed. The matter boils down to who decides and when that decision
should be made.
The Sheriff ' s Office has argued that new, dedicated revenues are needed but
has not taken a position on how to secure the revenues. However, the
Sheriff ' s Office urges that the County adopt a base level standard for
police patrol services for residential areas, exclusive of transients.
County Counsel has voiced concerns about utilizing a fee approach with no
special tax election authorization. Moreover, County Counsel points out
that such a fee could raise an issue of "denial of equal protection" in
that new homeowners. must pay for police services while others do not.
Further elaboration is included in the October 17, 1985 memo attached.
5.. 'N. 7.
w ti i na. fi Y. {� l��•e:j) ; ''�y'x: st.: ilit�►- .. f, :.i: l�,y, S?;, t': i �'
Y ! a+��,.,,j�,J)?�4Y` 4 •y�}.t %i ,.',i , � •►��"4� �S,r�j�yy� •,• a .. �" 1 Yl a':.j� v' �f .��
I'`'.4r '.•`�G+�r �. �y*�i+! _�:;;+• � t I I iw ��\HN` 3 , s.'L.. .;�y�1.i:f t.�1✓ti� �. �'F)'
• � `�li('fi{�.f'•. �' s y*:i e � j n• 'ti`I• � Y "y'J .r:i';'::: *:. - '
„'J ,.�.f �ls Y `Y�'.��,>..�'w{r�.�it:i.tI..li 'a y f i, ,J. k �;t •:`t t'r�+a':d. 1+ _ -. _ :1.'cti+a...:EsiaS�.".s.t:;
` 1 MITI .. .�D...� ........ Lh r. •.. •�/t�il�a
_. OFFICE OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY flfwl-rd Cc;t!ael
Administration Building OCT 2 `z 1985
Martinez, California
_ tvtar�t��ez, e> 94553
To: TQM TORLAKSON, Supervisor ` -(lore: _ October- 17-;_ 1985
District Number S
From PHIL BATCHELOR , Subject PROPOSAL FOR FINANCING .POLICE
County AdministratorSER VICES TO NEW SUBDIVISIONS IN
UNINCORPORATED AREAS
You previously requested this Office to explore with County Counsel, the
Sheriff., and Community Development the possibility of an additional
subdivision fee to fund the operating cost of Sheriff's patrot' services in the
unincorporated areas of the County (P-6). We have discussed this with Vic
Westman, Harvey Bragdon, and Warren Rupf. The following comments are the
result of these discussions:
1. There is no established authority for the Board of Supervisors to
directly assess such a fee for the operating cost of the Sherif"L 's
Department. : To County Counsel's knowledge, this is not being done
anywhere else. It has not been subjected to any judicial test, and the
legal outcome, if such a fee condition is imposed and challenged, is
impossible to predict. I Two problems are involved here, (1) the issue of
the authority to impose, which is not clear, (2) the issue of this being
a subversion of Proposition 13, and (3) the issue of "'denial of equal
protection" in that new subdivision homeowners would be required to pay
for service available to other County residents without special charge.
Basically, this is a policy decision for the Board to make, knowing the
uncertainties and the likely legal challenges that will arise. The
current County General Plan doesn't discuss police facilities and service
requirements which could provide a basis for a Sheriff's capital facility
fee in the same manner as the contemplated fire facilities fee. -
2. In addition to the above, there are political and administrative problems
wh1ch involve a small group of -citizens receiving, a higher level of
service. or an equivalent level of service, than others in contiguous
established subdivisions who do not pay for it. Since the Sheriff's
patrol, -for example, will be driving through a number of such areas, the
political and operating problems for the Sheriff are considerable. It is
the Sheriff's view that such an arrangement will be impossible -to carry
out in a practical manner without continual conflict -,with citizens over
the level of service to which they are entitled.
3. I, did ask for comments on the proposal from Mr. Dean La.Field of the
Northern California Building Indust-ry. Association.- He indicated that the
equity issue is a major problem. He does .not see how the question of
what a homeowner is getting for his money can be answered, since adjacent
non-paying homeowners would be receiving the same level -of service.
Tom Torlakson Z October 11, lYb!)
EMW
4. An option to consider is one that deals with P-6 as a whole, i.e. , the
entixe -unincorporated part of the County. A special tax could be put on
the ballot, which would require a two-thirds vote. While the problems
mentioned above do- not arise under- this option; there is obviously_ the
great difficul-ty of securing :that .type of vote-. A variant of this would
be to divide P-6 into zones and let the citizens of- each-zone vote on a
special tax for patrol services. This might be more manageable and
easier to accomplish since the citizens of any given zone- might see it to
their advantageto do this.
'. I'f you wish to discuss this further, please let me know. If, after
considering this issue further, you wish to request the Board to consider
imposing such subdivision conditions, please let me know and we can assist in
23 acquiring any additional information you feel might be necessary in order. to
do this.
PB:GR:pk
cc: Supervisor T. Powers
Supervisor N. Fanden
Supervisor S. McPeak
Supervisor R. Schroder
Community Development
God►%Cotiris�l
- Sheriff-Coroner
z.
i3
f..
t