HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 12121995 - C48 To: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
Contra
FROM: Finance Committee, Tom Torlakson f Costa
Jeff Smith
County
DATE: -cdJn`� ct
December 12, 1995
SUBJECT:
FACILITY COSTS FOR SHERIFF AND PROBATION DEPARTMENT
SPECIFIC REQUEST(S)OR RECOMMENDATION(S)&BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION
RECOMMENDATION:
1. ACKNOWLEDGE the current practice of budgeting for the Sheriff and Probation
Department's facility costs in the General Services Department.
BACKGROUND:
At the Budget Hearing held on June 13, 1995, the Board of Supervisors stated that presently it is
difficult for them and the public to clearly identify and see the total amount spent on law
enforcement and,in particular,incarceration. Specifically,the Board questioned why the Sheriff and
Probation Department's facility costs are reflected in the General Services Department's budget.
This issue prompted a request by the Board of Supervisors for the Finance Committee to review and
assess the current budget practice of accounting for facility costs for the Sheriff and Probation
Departments in the General Services Budget. The following information includes the genesis of this
budgeting practice and an assessment of its appropriateness.
In June of 1986,the County Administrator's Office established five budget committees to address
line departments' concerns regarding the level of departmental input on budget policies and
procedures. One of the Committees formed was an Advisory Committee on Interdepartmental
Charges. This Committee had two primary objectives defined as follows:
CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: YES SIGNATURE:
RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE
APPROVE OJkiEW
SIGNATURE(S): Tom Torlakson Jeff S i
ACTION OF BOARD ON December 12, 1995 APPROVE AS RECOMMENDED OTHER
VOTE OF SUPERVISORS
1 HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE
X UNANIMOUS(ABSENT --------- ) AND CORRECT COPY OF AN ACTION TAKEN
AYES: NOES: AND ENTERED ON THE MINUTES OF THE BOARD
ABSENT: ABSTAIN: OF SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN.
ATTESTED December 12, 1995
Contact: PHIL B CHELOR,CLERK OF THE BOARD OF
CC: General Services AE ORS AND COUNTY ADMINIST OR
BD Y
Page 2
1. Identify the problems and concerns with the current system of interdepartmental charges.
2. Identify specific charges that are consistent with improved budget accountability, efficiency
and consistency.
One of the several elements the Committee studied was the practice of charging facility costs to
departments. At the time the Committee was active the General Services Department charged user
departments for facility costs. The Committee identified several problems with this method of
budgeting as follows:
• Departments had no control over establishing rates and charges, but were held accountable
if actual costs exceeded the amount appropriated in their budgets.
• A tremendous amount of administrative staff time was spent in coordinating charges among
the General Services Department, County Administrator's Office and line departments.
• The system allowed for departments with more money the ability to purchase a higher level
of service than departments with limited funds.
• The system did not allow for the General Services Department to provide services based on
the overall needs and priorities of the County.
The Committee discovered that facility costs originally were budgeted in the General Services
Department. Apparently, the budget practice changed with the advent of federal and state
reimbursement to certain departments, which initiated these charges being included in the budgets
of user agencies. Upon further review the Committee found that the Uniform Accounting Code does
not require interdepartmental charges,except that non-county general fund monies, e.g., Enterprise
Funds,must be charged for services provided by a general fund department. The Auditor-Controller
confirmed this analysis and opined that eliminating interdepartmental charges for facility costs posed
no significant problem.
The Committee determined that the practice of charging user agencies for facility costs decreased
efficiency and overall budget accountability and recommended to eliminate these'costs from several
departmental budgets including the Sheriff and Probation Departments. The Committee's
recommendation was adopted and implemented as a budget practice in the County. This method of
budgeting is effective and provides the General Services Department with the ability to prioritize
work and provide services based on what is most necessary, cost effective and beneficial for the
overall operations of the County.
It is recommended to continue the current practice of accounting for the Sheriff and Probation
Department's facility costs in the General Services Budget in order to maintain budgetary control
and a budget practice that minimizes cost and increases efficiency. It is further recommended that
an itemized listing of all agencies' facility costs that make up the General Services budget units be
included in the proposed, recommended and final budget documents so that the Board and public
can see the full cost of providing law enforcement services.
The attached document provided by the General Services Department provides data on the Sheriff
and Probation Department's facility costs for this fiscal year.
The Finance Committee discussed this matter on November 6, 1995 and recommended that the
current budgeting practice be continued in the future.
4 .
1
zo d -ldlol
1994/95 OCCUPANCY COSTS FOR SHERIFF BUILDINGS
BUDGET
W1A UNIT 94195 94196 94196
# ADDRESS CHG MTCE EXPS DEBT SVC TOTAL
T00001 651 PINE ST,MTZ 0077 45,579.48 ,579.45
T00002 611 PINE ST.MTZ KW) 0077 29,350.70 950.70
000007 9130 ESCOBAR ST, MTZ 0077 37,637.65 &700.96 637.65
000048 40 GLACIER DR,MTZ 0077 66,526.79 526.79
T00057 100 37TH ST,RICH 0077 23,700.96
000129 1960 MUIR RD,MTZ 0077 153,100.97 534,015.00 68 ,115.97
000130 1980 MUIR RD, MTZ 0077 150,167.17 0.00 15.167.17
000130 1980 MUIR RD,MTZ 0119 0.00 481,765.00 48 ,765.00
000131 615 COURT ST,MTZ 0255 23,574.55 2.574.55
000136 401 ESCOBAR ST,MTZ 0077 36,165.00 3 ,185.00
T00150 45 CIVIC DR,PITTS 0077 1,494.50 1,494.50
U00151 55 CIVIC DR,PITTS 0077 1,632.68 1,632.68
T00164 210 O'HARA AVE,OAK 0077 7,897.33 ,897.33
U00338 160 ALAMO PLAZA,AL 0077 26,342.08 1342.08
000353 3018 WILLOW PASS,CON 0077 57,977.52 51,977,52
,
000848 1139 ECSOBAR ST,MTZ 0077 5,419.95 ,419.95
TOTAL SHERIFF OPERATIONS 856,567.34 1,015,780.00 1,68Z347.34
U00010 1000 WARD, MTZ(MDF) 0077 1,159,093.74 0.00 1,15 ,093.74
UDW13 900 THOMPSON ST,MTZ 0300 65,314.02 6,314.02
000182 MARSH CREEK(MCDF) 0077 321,050.56 0 3Z .050.56
000390 5555 GIANT HWY(WCDF) 0077 832,656.58 251,226.00 1,0 ,882.58
TOTAL DETENTION 2,378,114.90 251,226.00 2,6 340.90
TOTAL 1994195 OCCUPANCY COSTS BY BUDGET UNIT FOR SHERIFF
0077-GENERAL PROPERTY 3,741,034.67
0119-CRIMINAL.LUST CONST 481,765.00
0255-SHERIFF 23,574.55
0300-SHERIFF DETENTION 65,314.02
TOTAL SHERIFF BUILDINGS 4,311,688.24
f
10/'28/95tm
sheriff.memos
l
I
�A•.a ccrTo Q n� �i t i.irn-� ��n� �N��� i.in�a i,i�c �a c��r.-q�-AT