.
Feedback

Need Fingerprints? That'll Cost You More Than Ever Before

Board of Supervisors Approves More Than Doubling The Cost Of Getting Fingerprints From The Sheriff's Office.

Employers hiring the San Mateo County Sheriff's Office to process fingerprints of new job applicants will be forced to pay more than double what they had in the past, under a decision by the County Board of Supervisors.

The Board of Supervisors voted unanimously 4-0, with Supervisor Adrienne Tissier absent, to hike the cost of fingerprinting from its current $18 fee up to $39 at Tuesday morning's meeting in Redwood City. This is the first time in eight years the rate has been increased, said Allena Portis, Deputy Director of Administration and Finance for the Sheriff's Office.

Portis justified the increased rate by claiming it is necessary to become competitive with surrounding jurisdictions. According to Portis, the fee is near the median cost of local agencies that offer the same service.

The highest local fee to process fingerprints was the $54 in the Atherton Police Department, and the lowest was $13 with the San Bruno Police Department.

The Sheriff's Office processes about 3,500 fingerprints annually, as part of the job application process for more than 100 companies, according to a county report.

Fingerprinting has become an increasingly necessary step in the job application process, and is now a requirement to become a care giver for a senior and disabled person or teacher to a child.

Increased security clearances after the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 made fingerprinting an even more popular safety precaution. The Sheriff's Office contracts its fingerprinting service to government, private and non-profit employers wishing to check the criminal history of job applicants.

The Sheriff's Office may stand to generate revenue under the approved rate increase, but it is expected to only cover its cost of processing due to a reduced demand for job application fingerprints, caused by the downturn in the economy, according to the report.

Last fiscal year the Sheriff's Office processed 3,649 applications which generated revenue for the department. This fiscal year, the office is only expecting to process 2,361 fingerprints for non-criminal purposes, according to the report.

The San Mateo County Office of Education provides fingerprinting services along with a variety of other local cities, which will go to reduce demand for the Sheriff's Office, according to the report.

”The department's revenue will remain the same," said Portis.

In order to arrive at the $39 fee, the Sheriff's Office worked with a management research and consulting firm which audited its fingerprinting process then recommended what it believed was an appropriate cost in order to cover the price of operations, according to the report.

As well, the Sheriff's Office is facing a new $5 fee per fingerprint from the California Identification System in order to process an application, and have it sent to the State Department of Justice for further review.

The $39 fee approved by the board will only cover the fingerprinting cost to the Sheriff's Office. There is a separate fee charged by the Department of Justice for reviewing the criminal history of the fingerprints, according to the report.

The $5 fee will also be used by the California Identification System to maintain and pay partial cost of the replacement of the fingerprinting equipment in the Sheriff's Office. The additional $5 fee was added into the recommended fee increase approved by the board.

A review board, which includes Supervisor Tissier, overseeing costs and expenses related to fingerprinting signed off on the proposed fee increase before it was brought before the Board of Supervisors.

The new fee increase will go into effect on October 1, according to the report.

Newsletter & Alerts

Get the best stories each day and important breaking news

Subscribe

Not from San Carlos Patch? Find your Local Patch »

pat bell August 10, 2011 at 01:14 am
That's still a bargain. Life Scan at the UPS store are $50.
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors. Write a new post... What's up? Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell something
Bob Winters June 18, 2013 at 08:51 am
Best of luck finding good homes, we already have two cats. You may want to consider this advertisingRead More technique: http://i41.tinypic.com/2s17tk0.jpg
Michael G. Stogner June 15, 2013 at 05:07 pm
Marl Olbert said this right after refusing to second Matt Grocott's motion for 2 week delay of vote.Read More I wasn't here at the time but i talked to various people who were. It's my understanding that when Mr. Maltbie was hired into this position he was offered a significantly below market salary. both in terms of compensation and provision I think part because he has never been a city manager before. and he had to prove himself. you can make a argument that that wasn't fair. if you think the person is capable for doing the job not necessarily the fact that they don't have the experience. it happens all over the place it happened to me personally it's just a part of the accepted process but another part of the accepted process is that if the person proves themselves you have to keep faith with them and if you don't you're actually sending a message You're saying that you can't trust us and i totally think that Mr. Maltbie is worth the pay, but besides that i think it is a issue of integrity and maintaining the integrity of the negotiation process and the hiring process that's why I'm going to vote yes for it.
Michael G. Stogner June 15, 2013 at 05:08 pm
I would like to know who those various people were who gave Mark Olbert that understanding.
Michael G. Stogner June 17, 2013 at 04:54 pm
Council member Mark Olbert one who refused to second Mr. Grocott's motion made an interestingRead More statement. "I wasn't here at the time but i talked to various people who were. It's my understanding that when Mr. Maltbie was hired into this position he was offered a significantly below market salary." I know for a fact that he didn't talk to Matt Grocott who was there. That leaves 3 potentials, 2 of them are deceased and the 3rd was Andy Klein who did not attend that meeting so he didn't vote. I would like to know who the "various people who were" are.
Marc Parent June 11, 2013 at 07:50 am
San Carlos just spent 10 Million after lawsuit from the "Bay Keepers", more activistsRead More wanting more money?
Holly Bell June 8, 2013 at 01:23 pm
Unbelievable!! Many voters are watching this issue closely and will remember this vote. Evidently,Read More these commissioners believe that resident's have no voice in city decision-making. Someone please name those commissioners who disregarded the loud-and-clear preference of the people. Time to clean house.
Bob Farkas June 8, 2013 at 02:01 pm
The two commissioners who voted for turf were John Seiling and Ray Merala. It was Ray's lastRead More meeting as a commissioner since he has termed out after 9+ years of service. I think they felt that the needs of the elite CYSO program should take precedence over neighbors and others who use the park. Youth sports seems a principal influencer at Parks and Rec. as they are the largest organized user of the facilities. I agree with many other opponents of this project that we all need to support adequate fields for youth sports. I just think these needs have to be in balance with those of the rest of the community. It was very disappointing that, although it is field availability which is purportedly driving this initiative, there was no available recent data to demonstrate the problem or an analysis of how much of the problem would be addressed by this measure. To a businessman like me, this seems a very unprofessional approach.
Concerned Taxpayer June 8, 2013 at 07:08 pm
This is purely a NIMBY issue. Lets just all be honest about that. The folks who live across fromRead More Highlands Park were the loudest opponents there and were citing all kinds of crazy issues when they should have just been honest and said,"I really don't want to look at more people and cars at the public park that is across the street from me and was there when I moved in." That is essentially the true gripe. NIMBY!!! A very weak argument and unelectable dishonest. Unless you can create more land we have to extend the use at existing parks and fields. This is very logical. We live in California and having to use astro turf stinks but we also live where there is no more available land to utilize. The commissions punted this to the council pure and simple. Well we already know who will vote against it. I am curious who will vote for it?????
Bill June 5, 2013 at 02:53 pm
This post makes zero sense. Bike lanes are a visual reminder to drivers that they must share theRead More road with riders. For every cyclist who is not observing the rules of traffic, I will show you 100 texting drivers. Removing bike lanes is not the answer.