.
Feedback

Need Fingerprints? That'll Cost You More Than Before

San Mateo County Board of Supervisors approves more than doubling the cost of processing fingerprints through the Sheriff's Office.

Employers who hire the San Mateo County Sheriff's Office to process fingerprints of new job applicants will soon be forced to pay more than double what they have in the past. 

The Board of Supervisors voted unanimously 4-0, with Supervisor Adrienne Tissier absent, to hike the cost of fingerprinting from $18 to $39 at Tuesday morning's meeting in Redwood City. The new rate will go into effect Oct. 1, according to the report.


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 saying it is necessary to become competitive with surrounding jurisdictions. 

According to Portis, the rate is near the median cost of local agencies that offer the same service. The highest local fee to process fingerprints is $54 from the Atherton Police Department, and the lowest is $13 from the San Bruno Police Department.

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 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 caregiver for a senior or disabled person, or a teacher who interacts with children. 

Increased security clearances after the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001 made fingerprinting an even more popular safety precaution. 

The Sheriff's Office contracts its fingerprinting services 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. 

During the 2010-2011 fiscal year the Sheriff's Office processed 3,649 applications which generated revenue for the department. This fiscal year, the department is expecting to process 2,361 fingerprints for non-criminal purposes, according to the report. 

In addition to the service offered by the Sheriff's Office, the San Mateo County Office of Education also provides fingerprinting, as does several other nearby cities, which will further reduce demand for the Sheriff's Office, according to the report. 

In the end, with the rate increase, "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.

The approved fee hike 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.

Part of the rate hike also involves a new $5 fee the Sheriff's Office must pay per fingerprint to the California Identification System in order to process an application and have it sent to the State Department of Justice for further review. 

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.

Newsletter & Alerts

Get the best stories each day and important breaking news

Subscribe

Not from Pacifica Patch? Find your Local Patch »

Loading comments ...
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
Janet Arline Barker May 17, 2013 at 11:18 am
Awesome! Next Tuesday, Thursday or Friday are open. Name a time and place. I used to write 3Read More different columns for San Bruno, Millbrae, and Burlingame Patch. I am ready to write for Pacifica Patch & blog too. Here's my personal blog...I do sporadically. Www.art-Janet.blogspot.com My art studio is at Sanchez Art Center #11
Christa Bigue (Editor) May 17, 2013 at 11:05 am
When can we meet for coffee Janet? Since you're the first one to post in our biz update section youRead More get to have coffee and chat with your local Patch editor! Email me at christa.bigue@patch.com and we'll find a date and place.
Anon. April 14, 2013 at 01:43 am
I can start with the comments on the Theravance drug, fluticasone fluroate - the active moiety inRead More this compound is the same, fluticasone (proprionate) that has been marketed by GSK for the same indication for approximately 25 years. Indeed, that patent is so old, and the drug has such a proven track record for safety and efficacy, that the patent has expired and there are generic versions available. There is also in implicit assumption by the author that the only reason that the FDA will approve medications in a short time span is because they are for 'life-or-limb' or unmet serious medical need. This is just not the case - regulators in many countries, including the FDA in the USA, may give accelerated approval to a product, where the safety and tolerability of a product is equivalent to a similar active agent which has already been approved. I suspect this is the case for fluticasone fluroate - but I am not privy to the details of the regulatory filing. I note that none of the companies mentioned here, nor the FDA, has provided input to this article. The journalism in this article smacks of someone trying to make a name for themselves quickly by scaring uneducated and/or anxious people. The science is just plain flawed.
Pacificat April 12, 2013 at 12:49 pm
Please tell us in what ways it is ill-informed
Anon. April 11, 2013 at 08:22 pm
Ill-informed, sensationalist rubbish.
Deb Wong March 26, 2013 at 06:09 pm
Thanks, Stacie!
Stacie Chan (Editor) March 26, 2013 at 02:51 pm
Absolutely stunning photos, Deb! Thanks for sharing. I really feel like I was there by just perusingRead More your photo gallery.
Donna Fentanes March 26, 2013 at 09:49 am
Thanks, Deb, for the videos. Now we all can take one last ride. :)
Jim Clifford March 25, 2013 at 01:08 pm
Each column gets better. I look for "The Shoe."
Deb Wong March 25, 2013 at 11:19 am
I think many of us can relate! 10 kids, huh? I was the oldest of 9, so sort of understand. MyRead More family grew up in Pacifica, & we rode over the slide every weekend when we went to the HMB airport to tend to my father's airplanes. I drove on it once, during driver's ed in high school, scary! I have an old home movie clip from 1966, going over the slide. Very overexposed, but you can still see parts of the slide in it. More recently, took 2 videos of our drive over the slide, North & south views. Going North: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kb8NKnu9Gvw Going South: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-rlN_g2LeE8