COUNTY OF SAN MATEO

Sheriff's Office

Inter-Departmental Correspondence

DATE:

May 5, 2003

BOARD MEETING DATE:

May 13, 2003

9:00 AM

TO:

Honorable Board of Supervisors

FROM:

Sheriff Don Horsley

SUBJECT:

Countywide Forensic Laboratory Cost-Sharing Program

Recommendation:

Authorize the implementation of stakeholder agency cost-sharing for the Sheriff's Office countywide Forensic Laboratory; hear public testimony; and authorize the Sheriff to negotiate the terms of the cost-sharing arrangement with the stake holder agencies, and to report back to your Board for final approval.

Background:

The Reasons For User Agency Cost-Sharing

The Sheriff's Office forensic laboratory ("crime lab") serves all law enforcement agencies within San Mateo County, including the 20 cities, Sheriff's Office, District Attorney, Probation, and Coroner, as well as the Courts, defense community, and various State and special district agency police departments, including the San Mateo County branch office of the California Highway Patrol. The crime lab provides a wide array of specialized scientific, forensic, ballistic, toxicology, serology, fingerprint and residue analysis, DNA, and crime scene processing services.

In 1998 the construction of a new crime lab became a priority due to the deteriorating physical plant and related environmental health issues in the old lab. In 2000, a ballot measure was submitted to San Mateo County voters to fund a new lab. Lab stakeholder agencies were informed at that time that if the initiative passed, they would not be charged a crime lab fee. Despite strong support from County officials and the media, the measure failed by a narrow margin. The State Department of Justice (DOJ) granted $3,000,000 out of a $25,000,000 statewide to San Mateo County. Your Board subsequently approved construction of a new forensic laboratory, using lease revenue bonds.
The annual debt service is $905,000. This cost has been added to the Sheriff's Office budget. At the same time, the department has had to make budget reductions exceeding $5.6 million, requiring closure of programs and facilities and the elimination of 35 positions. The imposition of some form of crime lab cost sharing has become imperative to avoid further cuts in law enforcement services and maintain a countywide forensic laboratory service.

Steering Committee Development of Cost-Sharing Options

On May 6, 2002, a Crime Lab Cost-Sharing Steering Committee was formed consisting of representatives from the Sheriff's Office, District Attorney, County Manager's Office, and Police Chiefs from three of the major county police departments, representing the San Mateo County Police Chiefs Association. The consulting firm of Maximus, Inc., which is an expert consultant on criminal justice costs, was engaged to provide consulting and fiscal support to the Committee. After two Committee working sessions, the Police Chief's Association members elected to withdraw from participation in the process.

Despite this setback, the Committee continued to meet every four to six weeks for the next year, and with the consultants, engaged in an extensive fiscal and analytical review of laboratory services, activities, time-studies, and comparative crime lab direct and indirect costs and staffing. This included a comparative Crime Lab Fee Survey of Northern California Crime Labs. Five of the nine responding county-run labs charge for all or a part of their services. The survey also revealed that San Mateo County has one of the largest workloads with one of the thinnest staffing patterns of any of the County-administered forensic laboratories.

Discussion:

Initial Crime Laboratory Cost Recovery Findings and Recommendations

Maximus determined the FY 2002-03 gross annual cost to be $3.7 million. This total was then reduced by $500,000 to exclude costs associated with expert court testimony, property and evidence handling, and CAL-ID database searches. It was determined that $1.35 million represents distinct costs that should be allocated to non-County stakeholder agencies. The balance ($1.85 million) is attributable to County activities such as District Attorney prosecution, Sheriff's Office investigations, Probation, Coroner's Office investigations; "sunk" overhead costs of the facility; or are costs attributable to State agencies such as the Highway Patrol, which are non-billable.

The initial Maximus study developed two options for laboratory cost-sharing: Option A is a fee-for-service schedule, which assigns distinct charges for a variety of laboratory tests and services. The charges are based on the staff time required to perform each activity, multiplied by a hourly rate which factors in both labor and operating costs, including indirect overhead. Option B presents a flat annual contribution level for each stakeholder agency, using an allocation formula based on a three-year average of FBI Part I (major) crimes for each agency. Both Options were initially projected to achieve an annual revenue to the crime lab of around $1,350,000.

Review of Study Findings With Stakeholder Agencies

The draft Maximus report and the two cost-sharing options were presented and distributed to the Police Chief's Association on April 3, 2003. It was determined by the group that the Chief's would meet internally to further review the report, following which the Executive Committee of the Association would meet with the Sheriff to present concerns, review findings, and consider alternatives. That meeting took place on April 21, 2003. The listing appended to this report presents the key concerns or issues raised by the Executive Committee at the 4/21 meeting, and the responses provided either at that time, or in follow-up activities, by the Sheriff. The Sheriff will continue to negotiate with the Executive Committee in order to reach a final agreement on the terms of the cost-sharing plan.

Revised Cost-Sharing Options:

Based on discussions at the 4/21/03 meeting, a number of changes are being considered in the cost-sharing approach (see List of Concerns and Responses, attached, for more detail.) Revised Options A and B reflect the impact of these potential changes, the most significant of which include:

a. Reducing the indirect countywide cost plan overhead included in labor rates.

b. Eliminating one proposed new position of Forensic Specialist, added to reduce backlogs in fingerprint examination.

c. Reorganization of the existing Forensic Services Unit to transition minor crime scene processing and fingerprint services from the laboratory staff to police department technicians, with the lab forensic staff retaining responsibility for major crime scene processing and adding a new responsibility for ongoing training of police department technicians. This change could result in staffing reductions in that unit.

d. Elimination of the cost of one new Fiscal Office Assistant position, should the cities choose Option B (flat annual fee) - the position would still be required for Option A fee for service.

e. Substituting the California Part 1 Crime Index for the FBI Part 1 Index in the flat fee option - the California index excludes larceny, theft and arson cases.

These negotiated changes could reduce the overall original cost basis from $3.7 million to $3.17 million, and result in a corresponding reduction in estimated cost-sharing to stakeholders from the original $1.4 million to approximately $1,104,000 - a reduction of $300,000, or 21%. Both the original Maximus report, and the revised Options A and B summary sheets, are attached for the Board's information.

Staff Recommendation For Board Action

The Sheriff's Office is recommending that the Board approve the implementation of a cost-sharing plan for the Forensic Laboratory, and authorize the Sheriff to continue negotiations with the Chiefs of Police Executive Committee in order to finalize specifics of the cost-sharing plan. Details to be finalized include:

· Reaching a consensus between cost-sharing Option A or Option B;

· The desired level of crime scene processing support from the Forensics Section of the Lab;

· If Option B is chosen, finalizing a decision to use either the FBI or California Crime Index in the formula (this decision has differing impacts for different cities);

· Agreement on developing a process to coordinate ordering of laboratory tests and procedures with the District Attorney's Office.

The Sheriff's Office will report back to the Board by the June Budget Hearings on the details of the final cost-sharing agreement.

Vision Alignment

The recommended action supports the Shared Vision 2010 goal number 20 (Government decisions are based on careful consideration of future impact, rather than temporary relief or immediate gain); as well as goal number 22 (County and local governments effectively communicate, collaborate and develop strategic approaches to issues affecting the entire County.)

Fiscal Impact

If Revised Option B, as presently constituted, is implemented, the Crime Lab will realize an annual total of $1,104,634 in cost-sharing revenues. Approximately the same level of revenue is anticipated from Option A, however, it is quite difficult to accurately project fee for service revenues with no historical basis, and with the number of variable factors in this situation. The projected income will "balance the budget" for the lab by offsetting the increased costs of debt service, quality control and increased lab utility expenses. Once a final cost-sharing plan has been developed, the Sheriff's Office will work with County Manager's Office staff in completing the necessary budget revisions so that the changes in cost and revenue associated with the recommended cost-sharing plan are included in the FY 2003-04 budget. This report has been reviewed and approved as to form by County Counsel.

List of Concerns & Responses From 4/21/03 Meeting with Chief's Executive Committee

1. Concern: It is late in the fiscal year and budgets have already been prepared. Response: This study has been publicly underway for over one year, with the knowledge that some form of cost-sharing would result. Moreover, the two Options, with their associated costs and charges, have been under Committee consideration in at least rough form since January 2003. That information would have been more readily available to all stakeholder agencies, and sooner, if the three police department representatives had continued to participate on the Steering Committee, since they were initially to serve as liaisons for the wider group.

2. Concern: Given current countywide economic conditions and public agency budget constraints, can lab cost-sharing be phased in over a period of several years rather than imposed in full for FY 2003-04? Response: This is an issue more properly addressed to the Board of Supervisors; the Sheriff's Office is not able to accommodate this request unless some relief was to be granted by the Board for annual debt service payments which commence in 2003-04.

3. Concern: The cost study applies standard countywide indirect cost plan (COWCAP) overhead rates to the laboratory service costs. These are essentially "sunk" costs already financed by the County without lab fees - can these be reduced? Response: Staff has worked with the consultant over the last two weeks, and approximately $314,946 in COWCAP costs have been reduced from the cost-sharing basis.

4. Concern: Three new positions have been factored into the cost-sharing basis - are these really necessary? Response: The inclusion of these three positions was recommended three years ago in the original HOK program design plan for construction of the new laboratory, and have been included in the cost-sharing analysis since inception of the current study. One position of Forensic Specialist was added to help reduce the backlog in fingerprint analysis, which has been cited as a concern by police agencies. However, it is not required to have this position, and it can be eliminated for a savings of approximately $88,630. One position of Criminalist is added to serve as Quality Control coordinator - this position is required for laboratory accreditation and overall supervision of the evidence processing workflow at the new lab, and must stay in the basis. The third position is a Fiscal Office Assistant - this position is only required if Option A (fee for service) is implemented, and would handle all the additional billing and collection activities. If Option B (flat annual fee) is implemented, the fiscal effort required is much less and can be handled by existing accounts receivable staff in the Sheriff's Office Fiscal Services Unit.

5. Concern: What other cost-saving alternatives can be considered with respect to the crime laboratory? Response: The Forensics Unit of the laboratory currently responds to all crime scenes on an on-call basis. This unit can be reduced by three positions for a savings of approximately $266,000 if all city police departments handle their own crime scene processing for property and minor crimes, and defer sending fingerprints for non-suspect crimes such as auto burglary to the lab for processing (these cases have an extremely low "latent hit" ratio and the high volume creates a backlog of fingerprint analysis.) The remaining staff would be responsible for ongoing training of city police officers and forensic technicians to process minor crime scenes, and would continue to respond to all major crime scenes (homicide, rape, armed robbery and aggravated assaults, etc.) (Note: the Chief's Executive Committee is currently considering This option.)

6. Concern: How will police agencies be able to control potentially rising costs at the crime lab? Response: The Sheriff's Office remains open to some form of collaboration in oversight of the countywide forensic laboratory. This might take the form of an Advisory Committee composed of representatives from stakeholder agencies, the Sheriff and the District Attorney, which would meet on a quarterly basis to review issues, policies and procedures, major cases, new legislation or scientific developments, etc.

7. Concern: Imposition of cost-sharing may negatively impact the positive relationship that currently exists between the police departments and both the laboratory and the District Attorney's Office. Disputes over the necessity of various tests and procedures, and who should pay for them, will detract from the primary law enforcement mission and the citizens and crime victims may be ill-served. Response: This is certainly a real concern, and can be mitigated by the selection of Option B - a flat annual fee, rather than Option A in which every single activity in a case is billed out. There could be a concern over uneven application of justice under Option A, if investigation and subsequent prosecution actions were in part determined by a city's economic circumstances and ability to pay for additional lab services in a case.

8. Concern: Can individual agencies choose either Option A or Option B? Response: No, that would be impractical and very difficult for the Sheriff's Office to administer. One or the other option must be imposed for all agencies.

9. Concern: Can we adopt Option A fee for service, but include some form of "insurance policy" premium to cover unanticipated major cases? Response: Over time, crafting this kind of "hybrid" option might be explored. In the short term, however, a brief review since the 4/21/03 meeting revealed a number of problems and questions in developing such an approach. These issues would need to be fully researched, with adequate time, in order to ensure a methodology that would be both fair and equitable to the paying agencies, but also ensure a minimum level of revenue to the lab to cover the significant resources required to respond in these "extraordinary" major cases. There was insufficient time to develop such an option for FY 2003-04, with just a couple weeks of lead time.

10. Concern: The FBI Part 1 Crime Index includes larceny, theft, and arson cases. Larceny and theft cases are rarely handled by the crime lab unless they are incidental to other crimes in the same case. Arson cases are all scientifically investigated at the lab, but are jointly investigated with Fire Department arson investigators who handle the crime scene investigation - these costs should not be allocated to police departments. Response: An alternative formula has been developed using the California Part 1 Crime Index (which excludes larceny/theft and arson) rather than the wider FBI Index, for the three-year averaging in Option B. This will be considered by the Chief's Executive Committee.