HOUSE RESOLUTION NUMBER 126 OF 1989 A Review of Fees ... Representative Ron Gamble Oakdale Representative Victor J. Lescovitz Midway Representative A. Carville Foster, Jr. ... inadequate"

HOUSE RESOLUTION NUMBER 126 OF 1989 A Review of Fees Collected by County Row Offices

LOCAL GOVERNMENT COMMISSION General Assemb_ly of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania

Harrisburg, Pennsylvania February, 1 990

HOUSE RESOLUTION NUMBER 126 OF 1989 A Review of Fees Collected by County Row Offices

LOCAL GOVERNMENT COMMISSION General Assemb_ly of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania

Harrisburg, Pennsylvania February, 1990

This commentary was prepared by the Local Government Commission's Research Analysts, Philip G. Bear, Danette S. Hobbs, and Matthew M. O'Keefe, under the supervision of Michael P. Gasbarre, Assistant Director of the Commission. Ms. Sharon G. Behrendt and Ms. Karen S. Wagoner were responsible for typing this document. Any questions regarding the contents of this commentary should be directed to Virgil F. Puskarich, Executive Director of the Local Government Commission.

The Local Government Commission was created by the Act of 1935, May 29, P.L. 244, as amended, as a continuing agency to provide research and advice to the General Assembly of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania on matters affecting political subdivisions and municipal governments.

ii

LOCAL GOVERNMENT COMMISSION COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA

MEMBERS

Senator J. Doyle Corman Bellefonte

Senator James J. Rhoades Mahanoy City

Senator Frank A. Pecora Penn Hills

Senator J. Barry Stout Bentleyville

Senator Roy C. Afflerbach Allentown

Senate Post Office Main Capitol Building

Harrisburg, PA 17120-0030 (717) 787-7680 (717) 787-6211

EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR Virgil F. Puskarich

MEMBERS

Representative Ted Stuban Berwick

Representative Ron Gamble Oakdale

Representative Victor J. Lescovitz Midway

Representative A. Carville Foster, Jr. Seven Valleys

Representative Charles F. Nahill, Jr. Glen side

SENATORS HOUSE MEMBERS

J. Doyle Corman, Chairman James J. Rhoades

Ted Stuban Ron Gamble

Frank A. Pecora Victor J. Lescovitz J. Barry Stout Roy C. Afflerbach

A. Carville Foster, Jr. Charles F. Nahill, Jr.

Virgil F. Puskarich, Executive Director

Michael P. Gasbarre, Assistant Director

Danette S. Hobbs, Research Analyst

Lee P. Symons, Legal Counsel

Matthew M. O'Keefe, Research Analyst

Philip G. Bear, Research Analyst

Mary A. Morris, Bookkeeper-Treasurer

Sharon G. Behrendt, Secretary

Karen S. Wagoner, Clerk-Stenographer

iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

I. INTRODUCTION 1

A. BACKGROUND 1 B. METHODOLOGY 3 c. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS 7

II. THE ROW OFFICERS 9

BACKGROUND 9

A. TREASURERS 11

1. BACKGROUND 11 2. ANALYSIS OF THE DATA • 11 3. PROPOSALS 12

B. CORONERS 17

1. BACKGROUND 17 2. ANAJ,YSIS OF THE DATA • 17 3. PROPOSALS 17

c. RECORDERS OF DEEDS 22

1. BACKGROUND 22 2. ANALYSIS OF THE DATA • 23 3. PROPOSALS 23

D. PROTHONOTARIES 28

1. BACKGROUND 28 2. ANALYSIS OF THE DATA 28 3. PROPOSALS 30

E. CLERKS OF COURTS 35

1. BACKGROUND 35 2. ANALYSIS OF THE DATA 35 3. PROPOSALS 37

iv

F. CLERKS OF ORPHANS' COURTS . . . . . . . . . . . 1. BACKGROUND . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2. ANALYSIS OF THE DATA . . . . 3. PROPOSALS . . . . . . . . . . . . .

G. REGISTERS OF WILLS . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1. BACKGROUND . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2. ANALYSIS OF THE DATA . . . . . . . . . . . . 3. PROPOSALS . . . . . . . . .

H. SHERIFFS . . . . . . . 1. BACKGROUND . . . . . . . . . 2. ANALYSIS OF THE DATA . . . . . . . . . . . . 3. PROPOSALS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

III. GENERAL RECOMMENDATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

IV. APPENDICES • • • • • • • • • • • •

APPENDIX A - HOUSE RESOLUTION 126, PRINTER'S NUMBER 1945 • APPENDIX B - LETTER OF INSTRUCTIONS • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • APPENDIX C - QUESTIONNAIRE • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • APPENDIX D - HOUSE BILL 1220, PRINTER'S NUMBER 2633 (PART) APPENDIX E - HOUSE BILL 1221, PRINTER'S NUMBER 2634 (PART) • APPENDIX F - HOUSE BILL 2139, PRINTER'S NUMBER 2820 APPENDIX G - SENATE BILL 188, PRINTER'S NUMBER 188 •• APPENDIX H - HOUSE BILL 1556, PRINTER'S NUMBER 1817 APPENDIX I - HOUSE BILL 368, PRINTER'S NUMBER 2762 •• APPENDIX J - HOUSE BILL 2140, PRINTER'S NUMBER 2821

. .. . .

APPENDIX K - HOUSE BILL 2097, PRINTER'S NUMBER 2764 •••• APPENDIX L - PROPOSED "COUNTY FEE MODIFICATION LAW" • • • •

v

42

42 42 43

47

47 47 48

52

52 52 52

57

59

59 60 62 67 69 71 73 76 78 80 85 93

I. INTRODUCTION

"DIRECTING THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT COMMISSION TO RESEARCH THE SUBJECT

OF FEES LEVIED BY COUNTIES AND PREPARE LEGISLATION TO PERMIT

COUNTIES TO INCREASE SUCH FEES TO COVER ACTUAL EXPENSE."

-- HOUSE RESOLUTION 126

A. BACKGROUND

On June 5, 1989, Representative Alan G. Kukovich and other House Members of the Westmoreland County legislative delegation introduced House Resolution 126 (HR 126) (see Appendix A), which, in effect, requires the Local Government Commission to prepare legislation to permit counties to increase fee schedules to cover actual expenses counties incur when providing related mandated services. The language of the resolution predetermines that existing fee schedules administered by the various county row offices are "woefully inadequate" to pay for the costs incurred in rendering county services. On June 7, 1989, HR 126 was adopted by the House of Representatives by a vote of 201-0.

Initial review of the resolution by Local Government Commission staff raised concerns that supporting evidence and documentation were needed to verify the need for legislation to allow counties to raise their existing fee structures. In the past, fee augmentations were provided by the Legislature in the form of periodic amendments to various fee laws. On its face, HR 126 would require that legislation drafted by the Local Government Commission transfer the responsibility for fee adjustments from the General Assembly to each of Pennsylvania's sixty-seven counties. Inasmuch as this proposed legislation would earmark a change in policy direction, the membership of the Local Government Commission directed staff to meet with Representative Kukovich to ascertain his wishes in addressing the intent of HR 126. Staff was also requested to investigate the impetus behind introduction of HR 126.

On June 15, 1989, staff met with Representative Kukovich and discussed with him the importance of adequate research to determine a need for the legislation embodied in the language of HR 126. Representative Kukovich was advised that the Local Government Commission, in anticipation of passage of HR 126, had requested the Legislative Data Processing Center (LPDC) to conduct a computer word search on "fees" in an effort to determine which laws currently enable counties to levy and collect fees whether they be for the benefit of the Commonwealth or the counties. The resulting printout generated over 2,200 pages of fee laws, many of which pertained to county offices. Commission staff proceeded to examine the statutes identified in the printout and discovered over 180 laws which pertain specifically to county fees. Fee laws were then categorized by the county row officer responsible for their

1

administration. This information was subsequently provided to Representative Kukovich. Commission staff further explained to Representative Kukovich that in an effort to validate the necessity for fee increase legislation, it might be necessary to either (1) conduct a field audit of approximately eight county row offices in each of 67 counties or (2) survey each of those row officers by mailing to them a questionnaire designed to establish the cost of operation of each office and the sufficiency of fees collected to cover that cost. Although the preferred alternative by virtue of its superior capacity to gather reliable data, the former option would have required a supplemental appropriation of between $30,000 to $70,000 to the Local Government Commission. Because of this cost, Representative Kukovich requested that the Commission convene a meeting between himself and the legislative representatives of the several county row officer associations (also known as the Pennsylvania State Association of Elected County Officials (PSAECO)) who meet in monthly forum with the Local Government Commission. It was his desire, before the Commission proceeded with its work associated with HR 126, to discover "unofficially" whether members of PSAECO believed inadequate fee collection and/or commissions were a severe problem.

On July 13, 1989, Representative Kukovich, Members and staff of the Local Government Commission, and representatives from PSAECO met to discuss HR 126. Representative Kukovich indicated that early in 1989, the Westmoreland County House legislative delegation met with its county officials to discuss this fee issue. At that meeting, a consultant study conducted by David M. Griffith and Associates, Ltd., which detailed user fee activities of various county offices with a special emphasis on generating information relative to the operational efficiency of those offices, was provided to the delegation. The Griffith study utilized a computer model called the FASTR System (Fee and Service Technical Review) to analyze budgeted costs (e.g. administration, finance, personnel) allocated to the users of the services provided by various Westmoreland County offices and departments. Secondly, the model developed time estimates within departments whose services were costed. Based upon the estimates provided by county personnel, a model of departmental activites was developed, then costed for each fee area. These fee areas comprised direct labor costs, benefits, services, and surplus and allocation of county overhead. The result produced a calculation of the full cost of providing services. Cost was finally compared with revenue, and differentials were identffied to assist county officials in recommending changes to existing fees.

Also apparently discussed at that meeting was a 1983 California Statute (West's Ann. Cal. Gov. Code §54985-54987, as amended in 1988) which empowers counties to increase or decrease fees or charges in an amount necessary to recover the cost of providing any product or service or the cost of enforcing any regulation for which the fee or charge is levied. If a dispute arises regarding the reasonableness of the fee or charge, the board of county supervisors may request the county auditor to conduct a study to determine whether the proposed fee change is reasonable. Certain fees are exempt from this provision, including fees collected for the filing, recording, or indexing of any documents with a county recorder. A public meeting must be held in advance of the increasing of county fees, and such increases may be adopted only by ordinance.

2

As a result of concerns raised by Commission staff with Representative Kukovich regarding the magnitude of a comprehensive study on the adequacy of current fees collected by counties, Representative Kukovich, at the July 13, 1989, meeting, inquired of the PSAECO members whether the alleged inadequacy of county fees was such a problem that Commission staff should proceed with a thorough investigation of the issue. Representative Kukovich explained that he did not want staff to expend a time-consuming effort on HR 126 if there existed little consensus on the problematic aspects of the fee issue. The members of PSAECO overwhelmingly responded that fees are not only insufficient to cover the expenses of their collective offices, but that various state-mandated responsibilities were enlarging the deficit to operate their offices. The result, according to PSAECO members, is that the counties are subsidizing the offices with their general revenues. Satisfied with the sincerity of the comments of the PSAECO members, it was decided that all county row offices would be surveyed to determine the extent of the problem. It was suggested that each mailed questionnaire would be accompanied by instructions and a letter from the respective PSAECO representative of each county row office association urging their members to respond. Details of the survey were left to the discretion of Local Government Commission staff.

B. METHODOLOGY

Prior to the commencement of its task, the Cpmmission staff reviewed a computer printout provided by the Legislative Data Processing Center comprising over 2,200 pages of the various fee laws. As stated earlier, the printout was subsequently condensed into approximately 180 statutes which Commission staff identified as being applicable to county row officers. During this time, staff also developed a research timetable in an effort to apprise Members of the Local Government Commission of the time needed to complete this study. This timetable consisted of four phases with alternatives proposed for Phase II, the data-gathering aspect of the study. Phase I consisted of a comprehensive review of pertinent county fee laws with identification of those statutes which: (1) are used for actual management and operation of the county offices; (2) impose fees or taxes for use by the Commonwealth which require county row officers to act as collection agents (e.g., inheritance tax, hunting license, etc.); and (3) impose fees for the benefit of a specific purpose (e.g., Bingo Law, Small Games of Chance, etc.). Phase I was completed in June, 1989.

Phase II was the data-gathering stage of this study. Two options were recommended to the Members of the Local Government Commission, the preferred being a field audit of county fees generated within all 67 counties. Although less inclusive than the previously mentioned David M. Griffith study conducted for Westmoreland County, this alternative would have required a professional research association under contract with the Local Government Commission to visit every courthouse in Pennsylvania, using a uniform survey form prepared by Commission staff to compile fee and other fiscal information over a three-year fiscal period. This method of study was deemed most reliable since it would have insured a 100 percent return of uniformly reported data relative to each of the eight county row officers identified as fee service providers. Researchers would have been required to spend between one to three days in each county with more days spent in the larger counties. Since the cost of this alternative would have necessitated an appropriation of up to $70,000 by the Legislature to the Local Government Commission, it was decided to proceed

3

with a staff survey of each county row office in all counties utilizing a questionnaire format. In July, 1989, Commission staff formulated a questionnaire which sought information on county fee collections (monies) occurring in fiscal years 1986, 1987, and 1988.

Objective questions sought data on monies budgeted by counties for maintenance and operation of county row offices in each of these three fiscal years and whether a surplus was generated or deficit incurred by the row officers as a result of fee collections. The questionnaires were mailed to each county sheriff, coroner, treasurer, register of wills, clerk of orphans' court, recorder of deeds, prothonotary, and clerk of courts. The counterparts of all of the foregoing officials in home rule-chartered counties also received questionnaires. In all, 536 questionnaires were mailed on August 15, 1989, in conjunction with (1) instructions, (2) fee laws related to each respective row office, (3) a letter from the respective state county row office associations urging a return, and (4) a self-addressed, stamped envelope. The deadline for the return of the questionnaires was September 8, 1989.

The population in which the Commission was interested was quite extensive. Nevertheless, the Commission did not use a sample of the total population for the survey. Notwithstanding the additional costs involved, there was concern that the validity of the survey's results might be compromised through the possible use of an inaccurate sampling technique. There was particular concern that a sample might not be truly representative, i.e., that the views of those in the sample might not accurately and proportionately reflect the views of the whole. Therefore, questionnaires were mailed to the entire population, i.e., row offices comprising the eight offices which collect fees in each of the Commonwealth's counties. Accordingly, each and every delineated row office had an equal opportunity and probability of being a respondent, thereby assuring that equal weight was universally accorded.

The mechanics of survey research are subject to a substantial range of error. Regrettably, even though we successfully avoided the pitfalls associated with reliable sampling procedures, problems did occur.

The decision to conduct the survey by mail or in person was preordained by the exigencies of the moment. The least expensive type of survey research, the mail questionnaire, was utilized. Since there was the need to pose a lengthy and complex set of questions to a very interested audience, data gathering by mail was found to be rather effective. Furthermore, this avenue yielded a surprisingly high return of completed questionnaires. However, in-person interviewing would have been more efficient, but that approach represented an unrealistic option given financial considerations and time constraints.

Validity can also be adversely affected by any of the following: poor question format, faulty ordering of questions, inappropriate vocabulary, ambiquity of questions, or questions with built-in biases. Deficiencies in question form and language were clearly problem areas. However, the principal sources of difficulties lay with the inattentiveness or inability of the respondents to comply with directives.

4

A major weakness of the research design was failure in Question 6 to designate whether the official elected or appointed to administer the particular row office should be included in the compilation of full-time staff. Such was the severity of difficulty with this item that Commission staff felt it could formulate no coherent profile of county row off ice staffing nor recommend alterations thereto. Despite the theoretical and empirical attractiveness of the study, failure to pretest the questionnaire allowed poorly worded questions, such as this one, to remain. However, pretesting was not possible because, as noted above, financial and time constraints dictated a relatively prompt completion date for this study.

With the benefit of hindsight, numerous respondents informed the Commission that Question 8 was flawed. Some row officers who believed that chicanery plagued this particular query chastised the Commission. The Commission was advised that, generally, the fees imposed by state law are deposited directly with the county treasurer for the management and operation of nonspecific county functions. In most instances, a row office simply acts as a conduit through which collected fees are conveyed to the county treasury.

The most troublesome aspect of the survey emanated from the failure of many row officers to closely follow the letter of instructions (see Appendix B) which accompanied the questionnaire (see Appendix C). The majority of officers contacted for this study operate under provisions of the County Code (1955, P.L. 322, No. 130; 16 P.S. 101 et seq.), which sets forth the governmental structure for counties of the third through eighth classes and delineates their general and specific powers. In many instances the Code provides for two or more row offices to be held by the same person in which case officials elected to more than one off ice were asked to complete a separate questionnaire for each of the offices composing the combined office.

Unfortunately, combined offices are the rule, not the exception, in the Commonwealth. In second, second class A, third, and fourth class counties, the offices of register of wills and clerk of orphans' court are combined. In fifth class counties, prothonotary and clerk of courts are held by one person and register of wills and clerk of orphans' court are combined. In sixth and seventh class counties, prothonotary and clerk of courts are combined and the offices of register of wills, recorder of deeds, and clerk of orphans' court are held by one person. In eighth class counties one person holds the offices of prothonotary, clerk of courts, register of wills, recorder of deeds, and clerk of orphans' court.

The proclivity of individuals elected to combined offices to aggregate the data of their offices made marshalling appropriate research evidence extremely difficult. Whether these officials were unable or simply unwilling to segregate the requested information is a question that remains problematical. Quite frankly, there was often found to be no clear audit trail of separate fee law responsibilities for row officers who held more than one office. It is a_ common practice by these officers to combine funds from various fee laws without regard to the individual row off ice responsible for administering same. Thus, it became impossible to reach conclusions on the adequacy of certain fees in counties in which the row officer who held more than one office made no attempt to segregate costs according to the appropriate fee law.

5

In an attempt to engage in sophisticated statistical analysis, we had designed the questionnaire so as to facilitate the input and compilation of the data by the Legislative Data Processing Center. In fact, LDPC staff reviewed the questionnaire prior to its dissemination.

Upon examining the requested information submitted via the survey by the row officers, Commission staff met on two occasions with LDPC staff to discuss certain problems manifested by the responses which seemed to endanger original research plans. It was the intent to categorize the data, but the responses were disappointing and disjointed. LDPC concurred with the unavoidable conclusion that the validity of the survey would be enervated were arbitrary ranges assigned to the responses. Therefore, the tabulations of the unadulterated data were accomplished manually in order to preserve the survey's integrity.

In an effort to achieve a greater return, on September 11, 1989, Commission staff began contacting by telephone those row officers who did not respond in a timely manner. The questionnaires submitted by the various row officers were subsequently coded and tabulated by Commission staff. Phase II was completed in September, 1989.

Phase III of the project commenced with summations and analyses of the returned questionnaires. As stated before, it became obvious that many of the returned questionnaires were flawed and, quite frankly, invalid since most county row officers who held more than one office either could not or would not follow the instructions which required completion of a separate questionnaire for each office held. Instead, many combined fees for up to four offices in one questionnaire, thereby making their return indecipherable. Commission staff was unable to determine the percentage of fees and duties that should be divided in these cases; thus, these returns were segregated and not considered for purposes of the analysis. The following table illustrates the number of questionnaires mailed to each county office, the total returned, the number of invalid returns, and the number of returns upon which were based the analysis of the county fee issue.

NUMBER NUMBER INVALID VALID % OF VALID OFFICE MAILED RETURNED RETURNS RETURNS RETURNS

Sheriffsi~; 67 52 8 44 84.6% Coroners

112 67 45 34 11 24.4%

Treasurers 2 67 45 0 45 100.0%

Registers of Wills 67 56 25 31 55.3% Clerks of

20rphans'

67 52 20 32 61.5% Courts 2 Recorders of Dzeds 67 58 16 42 72.4%

Prothonotaries 2 67 56 15 41 73.2%

Clerks of Courts 67 54 33 21 38.9%

1 2serve only in this capacity and no other. Based upon data provided for FY 1988.

As a result of this survey, the Commission opines that before any county fee law is liberalized and/or counties are granted the power to periodically increase fees, the Legislature should address the issue of requiring county

6

row officers who hold more then one office to maintain separate accounts pertaining to those respective offices. It is imperative that proper accounting methods be utilized so that a certified audit will be available to fee setters thereby enabling them to determine whether a county row office may be in need of a specific fee increase. Of course, this generalization assumes the Legislature would agree to enact a law providing for annual increases in county fees based upon a predetermined formula. This matter will be discussed in greater depth under the General Recommendations. Tabulation and analysis of each county row office fee generation together with a review of office expenditures begin on page 11.

Phase IV of the in late fall, 1989. proposed on pages 57

C. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

study concerning the writing of this report was completed Staff recommendations for legislative changes are and 58.

A report is never the product of its authors alone. This is especially true when the report is based, to a great extent, on data acquired via a questionnaire. Accordingly, the Commission extends its appreciation to those county officers who were of assistance in this study. They directly contributed to the work by providing essential data and indirectly through their conversations, encouragement, and knowledge.

7

1

FOOTNOTES

David M. Griffith and Associates, Ltd., A Cost Allocation Plan for Westmoreland County, Report on Fees for Services, FY 1988 - Extensive Summary, p. 2.

8

II. THE ROW OFFICERS

BACKGROUND

Article IX, Section 4, of the Pennsylvania Constitution establishes the form of government for all counties which do not adopt home rule charters or optional forms of county government. According to Article IX:

"County officers shall consist of commissioners, controllers or auditors, district attorneys, public defenders, treasurers, sheriffs, registers of wills, recorders of deeds, prothonotaries, clerks of courts, and such others as may from time to time be provided by law.

County officers, except for public defenders who shall be appointed as shall be provided by law, shall be elected at the municipal elections and shall hold their offices for the term of four years, beginning on the first Monday of January next after their election, and until their successors shall be duly qualified; all vacancies shall be filled in such a manner as may be provided by law.

County officers shall be paid only by salary as provided by law for services performed for the county or any other governmental unit. Fees incidental to the conduct of any county office shall be payable directly to the county or the Commonwealth, or as otherwise provided by law.

Three county commissioners shall be elected in each county. In the election of these officers each qualified elector shall vote for no more than two persons, and the three persons receiving the highest number of votes shall be elected.

Provisions for county government in this section shall apply to every county except a county which has adopted a home rule charter or an optional form of government. One of the optional forms of county government provided by law shall include the provisions of this section."

Seven of the eight officers under consideration in this study--sheriffs, treasurers, registers of wills, clerks of orphans' courts, recorders of deeds, prothonotaries, and clerks of courts--are constitutional officers subject to all of the above ~eferenced provisions. Coroners, which are also reviewed as to their fee structures, are statutory officers. Nonetheless, coroners are subject to the same constitutional election and salary provisions as constitutional officers.

Controllers or auditors, district attorneys, and public defenders, while enumerated in the Constitution, were not subject to review in this paper due to the lack of fees remitted to their offices.

9

I,

The county row offices named for inclusion in this survey are all elected at municipal countywide elections (in odd-numbered years) for terms of four years beginning on the first Monday of January after the election. If a successor is not elected and qualified at the end of a county officer's term, he continues in office until a successor is qualified. All persons elected to county office must be at least eighteen years of age, a citizen of the United States, and a resident of the county for one year preceding their election.

At one time some of the elected county officials received the fees collected by their offices, paid certain expenses, and were permitted to keep the balance for their services. Reportedly, some of these county officials at times recieved greater annual income than either the governor or chief justice of the state supreme court. Per constitutional mandate, fees incidental to the conduct of any county off ice must now "be payable to the county or the Commonwealth, or as otherwise provided by law." Effectively, this proscription has made the county treasurer the central conduit for county fees generated through the various row officers. Such officers often act as initial collection officals for the Commonwealth and its various agencies (e.g., Game Commission, Department of Revenue). Presently, all row officials can be paid only by salary as provided by statute and may not have such salary increased or diminshed after election or appointment.

In addition to the duties and restrictions placed upon elected county officers by the Constitution, varfous statutes, perhaps most notably the County Code, provide a litany of requisites specific to each row office. These shall be explored as they relate to each particular office in the discourse relevant to each position.

Section 402 of the Code delimits the incompatible off ices for all elected county officials. Effectively delisted from the concurrent public service opportunities for county officers are: membership in the legislative body of any city, borough, town, or township of any class; treasurer or tax collector in any of the foregoing; school director of any school district; membership on any board of health; membership in the Congress of the United States; and off ices or appointments of trust or prof it under the federal government to which a salary, fee, or perquisite is attached.

10

A. TREASURERS

1 • BACKGROUND

The county treasurer is the duly constituted fiscal officer in each county and, as such, is the proper officer to receive and disburse the funds or monies of the county arising from ordinary sources of revenue. Fiscal record books must be maintained by the treasurer and such books must be open for inspection by the county controller, or the county commissioners, or any individual commissioner in counties havin~ no controller.

According to Section 801 of the County Code, no judge, clerk or prothonotary of any court, register of wills, recorder of deeds, county commissioner, or county controller is eligible to serve in this office during their continuance in office (16 P.S. 801).

In each county having a salary board and a member along with the county commissioners. also sits on the County Retirement Board, the be appointed director of the County Tax Claim

no controller, the treasurer is In addition, this row officer

Sinking Fund Commission, and may Bureau.

Several fees collected by treasurers are remitted directly to the county for its use. Notable among these are bingo fees collected under the Bingo Law (1981, P.L. 214, No. 67; 10 P.S. 301 et seq.) and registration fees collected under the Local Option Small Games of Chance Act (1988, P.L. 1262, No. 156; 10 P.S. 311 et seq.). In addition, handgun registration fees collected by the sheriff's office under the Crimes Code (Title 18, Pa.C.S.) are transferred to the treasurer's office for deposit in the county general fund.

Various state statutes have also made the treasurers a major collection agent for the state. Among the significant acts which require this county official to remit sums to the Commonwealth are: the Fish and Boat Code (Title 30, Pa.C.S.), which requires fish and boat licenses, and the Game and Wildlife Code (Title 34, Pa.C.S.), which requires various hunting licenses.

2. ANALYSIS OF THE DATA

Fees collected by treasurer's offices have been divided into two categories thereby reflecting their origination. "Fees collected by office" includes all state fee collections from which a portion is retained by the treasurer's office and also those fee commissions which are automatically credited as income of the county (often funds transferred from other row offices). Bingo revenues reflect a funding stream which is statutorily designed to be wholly for the use of the county and is collected solely by the treasurer. A similar source of revenue is currently coming on-line for counties in the form of licenses for small games of chance under the Local Option Small Games of Chance Act. Although not specifically designated as the ultimate repository for small games fees, it has been assumed that all such monies shall be transfered for use of the county general fund.

Review of the data collected for all years and all classifications of counties appears to indicate that counties do not recoup the expenses associated with this office. The severity of this shortfall is not ascertainable; however, it appears that the collection of fees for use by the

11

I ' I

I!

county offsets expenses by 10 to 30 percent. (NOTE: Financial data presented in Tables A-1 through A-3 have been rounded to the nearest thousand.)

3. PROPOSALS

By more than two to one (24-10) respondent treasurers felt the fees and commissions collected by their office must be increased. Fourteen officers called for a generalized increase in fees, five requested a review of fees with periodic review, three opted for user fees or actual costs and two treasurers called for a new schedule--one suggesting periodic review and one favoring an escalator clause.

The vast majority of treasurers felt uniform fees were a better method for establishing a fee schedule than one based upon population (35-1). Frequently cited rationales for uniform fees were the arguments that regardless of population, the cost of collecting any one fee is uniform in disparate counties and, if fees were to vary by county, purchasers might gravitate toward counties with cheaper fees. Three officers stated that actual cost of fee collection should be the standard for fee setting.

Among the specific fees which these elected officials felt were insufficient were the dog, hunting, and fishing license fees (23, 22, and 20, respectively). In addition, twelve respondents felt all fees were too low. The motor boat license was adjuged by twelve row officers to be undervalued. Two or less responses were recorded for specific licenses (e.g., furtaker, doe, pistol permits, bingo, small games of chance).

Although the subject is one about which generalizations are difficult, recommended increases by the county treasurers were primarily modest and centered on the fishing, dog, and hunting licenses. In those three categories the most often suggested increase in commissions was for fifty cents per license (12, 10, and 8, respectively). Less modest increases of two, three, or five dollars were suggested for the motor boat license. More exorbitant were the single requests for increases of four hundred dollars in both the bingo and small games of chance license.

Requests for increases of all fees ran a true gamut. Increases of all fees, by twenty-five cents through one dollar, were made several times. Others merely proffered the idea that all fees should be doubled or tripled. Uniform fees of one, one and one-half, and two dollars for all transactions also received mention. Finally, several treasurers believed a minimum county commission on all state collections should be retained for county use. Suggested commissions ranged up to two dollars per transaction.

Guided by the mandate of HR 126, which calls for the discerning of the funding level at which the row officers would become self-funding, it would appear that the fees the treasurer's office collects should be increased. Given the average seventy to ninety percent deficit experienced in the treasurer's office, it would appear that the doubling of commissions ($.50 in most occasions) retained by the county would merely alleviate, not eliminate, the fiscal distress occasioned by the operation of the treasurer's office.

A word of caution must be expressed regarding the term "fees" as it was interpreted by individual treasurers and other row officers in response to

12

certain questions. When asked to recommend a particular fee cost increase in various specific fees, many treasurers responded, for example, "increase fee X to one dollar." As fee X may already be established at several dollars, it is clear the respondent was advocating the increase of the commission on the fee. Where possible, obscure responses were categorized as being recommendations for increases in the total fee or increases in the commission on those fees. Undoubtedly, errors in assignment were made.

13

COUNTY CLASS

Montgomery 2A Berks 3 Bucks 3 Dauphin 3 Lancaster 3 Luzerne 3

*Northampton 3 Westmoreland 3 York 3 Cumberland 4 Fayette 4 Washington 4 Blair 5 Butler 5 Franklin 5 Lawrence 5

! I Lebanon 5 Mercer 5 Adams 6 Armstrong 6 Bedford 6 Bradford 6 Clarion 6 Clearfield 6 Clinton 6 Columbia 6 Huntingdon 6 Indiana 6 Jefferson 6 McKean 6 Mifflin 6 Monroe 6 Somerset 6 Susquehanna 6 Warren 6 Snyder 7 Union 7 Wayne 7 Cameron 8 Fulton 8 Juniata 8 Montour 8 Pike 8 Potter 8 Sullivan 8

* Counties which have adopted

** $500 or less.

, I

TABLE A-1 TREASURERS

1986

BUDGETED MAXIMUM EXPENDITURE FOR OFFICE BY COUNTY FEES COLLECTED BY OFFICE

Less Than $250,000 19,000 Less Than $250,000 24,000 Less Than $250,000 21,000 Less Than $250,000 16,000 Less Than $500,000 24,000 Less Than $250,000 24,000 Less Than $500,000 13,000 Less Than $500,000 24,000 Less Than $100,000 24,000 Less Than $100,000 13,000 Less Than $250,000 10,000 Less Than $250,000 18,000 Less Than $100,000 15,000 Less Than $100,000 20,000 Less Than $100,000 10,000 Less Than $250,000 13,000 Less Than $100,000 11,000 Less Than $250,000 15,000 Less Than $100,000 9,000 Less Than $100,000 10,000 Less Than $100,000 12,000 Less Than $250,000 15,000 Less Than $100,000 9,000 Less Than $100,000 16,000 Less Than $100,000 10,000 Less Than $100,000 13,000 Less Than $100,000 13,000 Less Than $100,000 11,000 Less Than $100,000 10,000 Less Than $100,000 11,000 Less Than $100,000 8,000 Less Than $100,000 10,000 Less Than $100,000 15,000 Less Than $100,000 10,000 Less Than $100,000 14,000 Less Than $100,000 6,000 Less Than $100,000 6,000 Less Than $100,000 11,000 Less Than $100,000 3,000 Less Than $100,000 5,000 Less Than $100,000 5,000 Less Than $100,000 3,000 Less Than $100,000 6,000 Less Than $100,000 6,000 Less Than $100,000 5,000

home rule charters.

14

TOTAL REVENUE FOR USE BINGO REVENUE OF COUNTY

4,000 23,000 9,000 33,000 6,000 27,000 7,000 23,000 7,000 31,000

10,000 34,000 6,000 19,000

15,000 39,000 7,000 31,000 5,000 18,000 6,000 16,000 7,000 25,000 3,000 18,000 6,000 26,000 3,000 13,000 3,000 16,000 3,000 14,000 6,000 21,000

9,000 5,000 15,000 1,000 13,000 2,000 17 ,000 2,000 11,000 5,000 21,000 1,000 11,000 2,000 15. 000 2,000 15,000 4,000 15,000 2,000 12,000 2,000 13,000 1,000 9,000 3,000 13,000 4,000 19,000 2,000 12,000 2,000 16,000 1,000 7,000 1,000 7,000 2,000 13,000

** 3,000+

** 5,000+ 1,000 6,000

** 3,000+ 2,000 8,000 2,000 8,000

** 5,000+

BUDGETED MAXIMUM EXPENDITURE

~ CLASS FOR OFFICE BY COUNTY

Montgomery 2A Less Than $250,000 Berks 3 Less Than $250,000 Bucks 3 Less Than $250,000 Dauphin 3 Less Than $250,000 Lancaster 3 Less Than $500,000 Luzerne 3 Less Than $250,000

*Northampton 3 Less Than $500,000 Westmoreland 3 Less Than $500,000 York 3 Less Than $100,000 Cumberland 4 Less Than $250,000 Fayette 4 Less Than $250,000 Washington 4 Less Than $250,000 Blair 5 Less Than $100,000 Butler 5 Less Than $100,000 Franklin 5 Less Than $100,000 Lawrence 5 Less Than $250,000 Lebanon 5 Less Than $100,000 Mercer 5 Less Than $250,000 Adams 6 Less Than $100,000 Armstrong 6 Less Than $100,000 Bedford 6 Less Than $100,000 Bradford 6 Less Than $250,000 Clarion 6 Less Than $100,000 Clearfield 6 Less Than $100,000 Clinton 6 Less Than $100,000 Columbia 6 Less Than $100,000 Huntingdon 6 Less Than $100,000 Indiana 6 Less Than $100,000 Jefferson 6 Less Than $100,000 McKean 6 Less Than $100,000 Mifflin 6 Less Than $100,000 Monroe 6 Less Than $100,000 Somerset 6 Less Than $100,000 Susquehanna 6 Less Than $100,000 Warren 6 Less Than $100,000 Snyder 7 Less Than $100,000 Union 7 Less Than $100,000 Wayne 7 Less Than $100,000 Cameron 8 Less Than $100,000 Fulton 8 Less Than $100,000 Juniata 8 Less Than $100,000 Montour 8 Less Than $100,000 Pike 8 Less Than $100,000 Potter 8 Less Than $100,000 Sullivan 8 Less Than $100,000

* Counties which have adopted home rule charters.

** $500 or less.


1987

FEES COLLECTED

19,000 27,000 21,000 16,000 25,000 28,000 14,000 27,000 26,000 14,000 11,000 18,000 16,000 26,000 14,000 16,000 12,000 15,000 10,000 13,000 12,000 17,000 11,000 16,000 11,000 14,000 10,000 14,000 11,000 12,000 9,000

11,000 15,000 11,000 16,000 5,000 5,000

11,000 3,000 6,000 5,000 3,000 7,000 7,000 5,000

15

BY OFFICE TOTAL REVENUE FOR USE

BINGO REVENUE OF COUNTY

7,000 $ 26,000 10,000 37,000 6,000 27,000 6,000 22,000 7,000 32,000 9,000 37,000 4,000 18,000

15,000 42,000 7,000 33,000 4,000 18,000 7,000 18,000 7,000 25,000 3,000 19,000 6,000 32,000 4,000 18,000 4,000 20,000 3,000 15,000 6,000 21,000

10,000 4,000 17 ,000 1,000 13,000 2,000 19,000 2,000 13,000 5,000 21,000 1,000 12,000 2,000 16,000 2,000 12,000 4,000 18,000 3,000 14,000 2,000 14,000 1,000 10,000 4,000 15,000 4,000 19,000 2,000 13,000 1,000 17 ,000 1,000 6,000 1,000 6,000 2,000 13,000

** 3,000+

** 6,000+ 1,000 6,000

** 3,000+ 2,000 9,000 2,000 9,000

** 5,000+


1988

BUDGETED MAXIMUM EXPENITURE TOTAL REVENUE FOR USE COUNTY CLASS FOR OFFICE BY COUNTY FEES COLLECTED BY OFFICE BINGO REVENUE OF COUNTY

Montgomery 2A Less Than $250,000 $18,000 4,000 $ 22,000 Berks 3 Less Than $250,000 25,000 10,000 35,000 Bucks 3 Less Than $250,000 23,000 5,000 28,000 Dauphin 3 Less Than $250,000 16,000 6,000 22,000 Lancaster 3 Less Than $500,000 26,000 6,000 32,000 Luzerne 3 Less Than $250,000 26,000 9,000 25,000

*Northampton 3 Less Than $500,000 16,000 4,000 20,000 Westmoreland 3 Less Than $500,000 30,000 14,000 44,000 York 3 Less Than $100,000 28,000 6,000 34,000 Cumberland 4 Less Than $250,000 15,000 4,000 19,000 Fayette 4 Less Than $250,000 11,000 7,000 18,000 Washington 4 Less Than $250,000 21,000 6,000 27,000 Blair 5 Less Than $100,000 18,000 3,000 21,000 Butler •5 Less Than $250,000 21,000 4,000 25,000 Centre 5 Less Than $100,000 18,000 2,000 20,000 Franklin 5 Less Than $100,000 15,000 4,000 19,000 Lawrence 5 Less Than $250,000 14,000 4,000 18,000 Lebanon 5 Less Than $100,000 12,000 3,000 15,000 Mercer 5 Less Than $250,000 16,000 7,000 23,000 Adams 6 Less Than $100,000 12,000 12,000 Armstrong 6 Less Than $100,000 11,000 6,000 17,000 Bedford 6 Less Than $100,000 12,000 1,000 13,000 Bradford 6 Less Than $250,000 17,000 2,000 19,000 Clarion 6 Less Than $100,000 11,000 2,000 13,000 Clearfield 6 Less Than $100,000 17,000 5,000 22,000 Clinton 6 Less Than $100,000 13,000 1,000 14,000 Columbia 6 Less Than $100,000 15,000 3,000 18,000 Huntingdon 6 Less Than $100,000 17,000 2,000 19,000 Indiana 6 Less Than $100,000 14,000 4,000 18,000 Jefferson 6 Less Than $100,000 12,000 3,000 15,000 McKean 6 Less Than $100,000 12,000 2,000 14,000 Mifflin 6 Less Than $100,000 11,000 1,000 12,000 Monroe 6 Less Than $100,000 12,000 4,000 16,000 Somerset 6 Less Than $100,000 16,000 4,000 20,000 Susquehanna 6 Less Than $100,000 11,000 2,000 13,000 Warren 6 Less Than $100,000 15,000 1,000 16,000 Snyder 7 Less Than $100,000 5,000 1,000 6,000 Union 7 Less Than $100,000 5,000 1,000 6,000 Wayne 7 Less Than $100,000 13,000 2,000 15,000 Cameron 8 Less Than $100,000 6,000 ** 6,000+ Fulton 8 Less Than $100,000 6,000 ** 6,000+ Juniata 8 Less Than $100,000 7,000 1,000 8,000 Montour 8 Less Than $100,000 3,000 ** 3,000+ Pike 8 Less Than $100,000 8,000 2,000 10,000 Potter 8 Less Than $100,000 8,000 2,000 10,000 Sullivan 8 Insufficient Data **

* Counties which have adopted home rule charters. ** $500 or less.

16

B. CORONERS

1. BACKGROUND

The office of coroner is a quasi-investigative position with duties that are both judicial and ministerial. Judicial powers include the calling of inquests, subpoening of witnesses, paneling of juries, administering of oaths, and compeling attendance at an inquest upon threat of imprisonment. Ministerial duties required of the coroner deal with the issuing of certificates of cause of death, filing of vital statistics information, keeping of notes of testimony, and filing of various reports.


Eleven coroners reported collecting fees in 1986 and 1987. In 1988 twelve offices reported collecting some fees for the services of their office. In no case were the fees generated above nominal, i.e., more than ten percent of the costs associated with the costs of the office.

It should be noted that coroners are not by statute authorized to levy charges for services associated with the operations of their office. In Philadelphia a schedule of fees for furnishing copies of records has been established by the city department of records for the city's medical examiner. Similar charges for copies of the reports, photographs, and slides of the coroners office have been established by the coroner's office or the county commissioners in several other counties. (NOTE: Financial data presented in Tables B-1 through B-3 have been rounded to the nearest thousand.)

3. PROPOSALS

Under various statutes coroners in counties of the third through eighth class are permitted to recover their costs (relating to mileage and other expenses) from a slayer or his estate in cases of murder or manslaughter. (1959, P.L. 821, No. 315; 16 P.S. 11365, 1959, P.L. 822, No. 316; 16 P.S. 11364, 1955, P.L. 323, No. 130; 16 P.S. 101 et seq.). According to the state's coroners' association, recovery of fees via this mechanism is not a common occurrence; in fact, no coroner surveyed or contacted by thls office has verified use of this collection tool.

Unlike the various other row offices under consideration the majority of monies taken in by the coroner's office are directed toward expenses rather than for transfer to the state or county. The predominant payor of coroner's expenses is county government. In this light, it is not practicable for the office to impose some type of commission for the majority of its services as such funds would merely be remitted back to the county general fund. A more practicable source of revenues for this off ice would likely be in the form of charges for the various reports which are currently being made available for free to nongovernmental entities (e.g., insurance companies, law firms).

Legislation to permit coroners to charge and collect payments for autopsy, toxicology, and inquisition or coroner's reports is currently before the General Assembly. Except for counties of the first class, House Bill 1220, Printer's Number 2633 (see Appendix D), and House Bill 1221, Printer's Number 2634 (see Appendix E), would set charges for the above-referenced

17

I !

: I I

reports which would be used exclusively to defray the expenses involved in complying with the provisions of Act 22 of 1988 (1988, P.L. 108, No. 22; 16 P.S. 9521.1 et seq.), commonly referred to as the Coroners Education Board Law. All expenses now associated with coroner's education are currently borne by the county general fund. Passage of House Bills 1220 and 1221 would remove this municipal expense; however, none of these funds would be available for making this row office fiscally solvent as envisioned in HR 126.

Based upon coroners' responses to the Local Government Commission survey, there appears to be an overwhelming consensus for the collection of some fee in connectior. with the sale of reports and other data to nongovernmental users (28-3). Three coroners were unsure if fee collection was a proper activity for the office. Of those favoring the establishment of fees, twenty-five advocated a uniform statewide schedule. One vote was cast for each alternative of a schedule based on population, statutory limits with county commissioner approval, and actual case load averages.

Responding to the question asking for proposed fees which would aid in funding their offices, coroners responded with an array of prices ranging from as little as ten dollars for a coroner's report to four hundred eighty dollars for an autopsy report. Given the lack of agreement reflected in the surveys, the following listing is perhaps most useful in determining the types of reports which might be considered for inclusion in a possible fee schedule rather than a truly efficacious pricing methodology.

Fee Candidate Autopsy Report Toxicology Report Coroner's Report All copies of

Reports -

Proposed Fee $100 $50

$10-$100

Insurance Companies $100

Respondents Favoring Fee Item

12 8 9

1

Respondents Favoring Proposed Fee

3 4 5

1

Given the adoption of a fee schedule, coroners favored, by eighteen to six, some adjustment factor to the schedule. Two respondents stated they were unsure whether a proposed fee schedule would need to be adjusted. Of the eighteen favoring a mechanism to keep fees current, sixteen supported a COLA, one proposed an actual cost increase, and one believed a periodic review would be the most effective manner of maintaining fee revenues.

18

TABLE B-1 CORONERS

1986

BUDGETED EXPENDITURE FOR FEES COLLECTED BY OFFICE COUNTY CLASS OFFICE BY COUNTY FOR COUNTY USE

*Philadelphia Less Than $2,000,000 $11,000 *Delaware 2A Less Than $500,000 5,000 Montgomery 2A Less Than $500,000 9,000 Berks 3 Insufficient Data/No Fees Chester 3 Less Than $500,000 5,000

*Erie 3 Insufficient Data/No Fees Lancaster 3 Insufficient Data/No Fees Luzerne 3 Insufficient Data/No Fees

*Northampton 3 Insufficient Data/No Fees Westmoreland 3 Insufficient Data/No Fees York 3 Less Than $100,000 3,000 Beaver 4 Less Than $250,000 ** Cumberland 4 Insufficient Data/No Fees Washington 4 Less Than $100,000 ** Butler 5 Insufficient Data/No Fees Franklin 5 Insufficient Data/No Fees Lawrence 5 Insufficient Data/No Fees Lycoming 5 Insufficient Data/No Fees Mercer 5 Insufficient Data/No Fees Adams 6 Less Than $100,000 ** Armstrong 6 Insufficient Data/No Fees Carbon 6 Insufficient Data/No Fees Clinton 6 Insufficient Data/No Fees Crawford 6 Insufficient Data/No Fees Elk 6 Insufficient Data/No Fees Greene 6 Insufficient Data/No Fees Huntingdon 6 Insufficient Data/No Fees Indiana 6 Less Than $100,000 1,000 McKean 6 Insufficient Data/No Fees Mifflin 6 Insufficient Data/No Fees Monroe 6 Less Than $100,000 10,000 Somerset 6 Insufficient Data/No Fees Susquehanna 6 Insufficient Data/No Fees

Venango 6 Insufficient Data/No Fees Snyder 7 Insufficient Data/No Fees Warren 7 Insufficient Data/No Fees Wayne 7 Insufficient Data/No Fees Wyoming 7 Less Than $100,000 1,000 Bradford 8 Insufficient Data/No Fees Cameron 8 Insufficient Data/No Fees Columbia 8 Insufficient Data/No Fees Forest 8 Insufficient Data/No Fees

Juniata 8 Insufficient Data/No Fees Montour 8 Insufficient Data/No Fees Pike 8 Insufficient Data/No Fees


** $500 or less.

19

TABLE B-2 CORONERS

1987


*Philadelphia 1 Less Than $3,000,000 $11,000 *Delaware 2A Less Than $500,000 5,000 Montgomery 2A Less Than $500,000 12,000 Berks 3 Insufficient Data/No Fees Chester 3 Less Than $500,000 6,000


*Northmapton 3 Insufficient Data/No Fees Westmoreland 3 Insufficient Data/No Fees York 3 Less Than $100,000 3,000 Beaver 4 Less Than $250,000 ** Cumberland 4 Insufficient Data/No Fees Washington 4 Less Than $100,000 1,000 Butler 5 Insufficient Data/No Fees Franklin 5 Insufficient Data/No Fees Lawrence 5 Insufficient Data/No Fees Lycoming 5 Insufficient Data/No Fees Mercer 5 Insufficient Data/No Fees Adams 6 Less Than $100,000 ** Armstrong 6 Insufficient Data/No Fees Carbon 6 Insufficient Data/No Fees Clinton 6 Insufficient Data/No Fees Crawford 6 Insufficient Data/No Fees Elk 6 Insufficient Data/No Fees Greene 6 Insufficient Data/No Fees Huntingdon 6 Insufficient Data/No Fees Indiana 6 Less Than $100,000 1,000 McKean 6 Insufficient Data/No Fees Mifflin 6 Insufficient Data/No Fees Monroe 6 Less Than $250,000 15,000 Somerset 6 Insufficient Data/No Fees Susquehanna 6 Insufficient Data/No Fees Venango 6 Insufficient Data/No Fees Snyder 7 Insufficient Data/No Fees Warren 7 Insufficient Data/No Fees Wayne 7 Insufficient Data/No Fees Wyoming 7 Less Than $100,000 ** Bradford 8 Insufficient Data/No Fees Cameron 8 Insufficient Data/No Fees Columbia 8 Insufficient Data/No Fees Forest 8 Insufficient Data/No Fees Juniata 8 Insufficient Data/No Fees Montour 8 Insufficient Data/No Fees Pike 8 Insufficient Data/No Fees


** $500 or less.

I 1

:11

20

TABLE B-3 CORONERS

1988


*Philadelphia 1 Less Than $2,000,000 $13,000 *Delaware 2A Less Than $500,000 5,000 Montgomery 2A Less Than $500,000 12,000 Berks 3 Insufficient Data/No Fees Chester 3 Less Than $500,000 5,000


*Northampton 3 Insufficient Data/No Fees Westmoreland 3 Insufficient Data/No Fees York 3 Less Than $100,000 5,000 Beaver 4 Less Than $250,000 1,000 Washington 4 Less Than $250,000 ** Butler 5 Insufficient Data/No Fees Cumberland 5 Insufficient Data/No Fees Franklin 5 Insufficient Data/No Fees Lawrence 5 Less Than $100,000 ** Lycoming 5 Insufficient Data/No Fees Mercer 5 Insufficient Data/No Fees Adams 6 Less Than $100,000 ** Armstrong 6 Insufficient Data/No Fees Carbon 6 Insufficient Data/No Fees Clinton 6 Insufficient Data/No Fees Crawford 6 Insufficient Data/No Fees Elk 6 Insufficient Data/No Fees Greene 6 Insufficient Data/No Fees Huntingdon 6 Insufficient Data/No Fees Indiana 6 Less Than $100,000 1,000 McKean 6 Insufficient Data/No Fees Mifflin 6 Insufficient Data/No Fees Monroe 6 Less Than $250,000 17,000 Somerset 6 Insufficient Data/No Fees Susquehanna 6 Insufficient Data/No Fees Venango 6 InsufUcient Data/No Fees Snyder 7 Insufficient Data/No Fees Warren 7 Insufficient Data/No Fees Wayne 7 Insufficient Data/No Fees Wyoming 7 Less Than $100,000 ** Bradford 8 Insufficient Data/No Fees Cameron 8 Insufficient Data/No Fees Columbia 8 Insufficient Data/No Fees Forest 8 Insufficient Data/No Fees Juniata 8 Insufficient Data/No Fees Montour 8 Insufficient Data/No Fees Pike 8 Insufficient Data/No Fees


** $500 or less.

21

C. RECORDERS OF DEEDS

1. BACKGROUND

Although at any one time there is only one recorder of deeds for each county, in some instances the individual who serves as recorder of deeds also holds one or more additional offices. In sixth and seventh class counties, the offices of register of wills, recorder of deeds, and clerk of orphans' court are held by one person. In eighth class counties, one person holds the offices of prothonotary, clerk of courts, register of wills, recorder of deeds, and clerk of orphans' court (County Code, Section 1302; 16 P.S. 1302).

The major duty of the recorder of deeds is to record and preserve legal documents relating mainly to real estate ownership and transfers. He is required to record and affix his seal on all deeds executed, mortgages, subdivision plans, and other records of property ownership. This function is designed to protect landowners and prospective purchasers of land against flaws in titles to property.

He records oaths and commissions of all county officers, notaries public, district justices, and special police officers. The recorder makes records of military discharges, agreements of sale, property options, leases, rights-of-way and easement .tgreements, and charters of nonprofit organizations. Another function of the office is recording plot plans for developments. Highway maps of road construction and secured transactions attached to real estate are all kept in the office of the recorder of deeds.

Fees collected by the recorder of deeds must be paid to the state treasurer, the county, a municipality, or a school district, depending upon whom is designated to receive them. The base fee for recording most payments is established by the General Assembly pursuant to the following schedules: the act setting fees for the recorder of deeds in first class counties (1949, P.L. 644, No. 143; 16 P.S. 7629 et seq.); the Second Class County Recorder of Deeds Fee Law (1919, P.L. 476, No. ·240; 16 P.S. 11411 et seq.); and the Recorder of Deeds Fee Law (1982, P.L. 310, No. 87; 42 P.S. 21051 et seq.), regarding recorders of deeds in second A through eighth class counties. The act of April 8, 1982 (P.L. 288, No. 81), amended the Second Class County Recorder of Deeds Fee Law (Act 240 of 1919) by establishing a schedule of minimum fees. Therefore, a recorder in a county of the second class can raise fees above the prescribed floor at his own initiative.

~he recorder of deeds is also responsible for collecting the tax on real estate transfers. The Commonwealth's realty transfer tax was first enacted by virtue of the act of December 27, 1951 (P.L. 1742, No. 467; 72 P.S. 3283 et seq.), and is now found in Article XI-C (72 P.S. 8101-C et seq.) of the Tax Reform Code of 1971 (1971, P.L. 6, No. 2; 72 P.S. 7101 et seq.). The rate of tax is 1 percent~ The Commonwealth tax is in addition to any tax which may be imposed in an amount up to 1 percent by certain political subdivisions under the Local Tax Enabling Act (1965, P.L. 1257, No. 511; 53 P.S. 6901 et seq.). A tax in a higher amount may be imposed by the City of Philadelphia by virtue of the Sterling Act (1932 (Ex. Sess.), P.L. 45, No. 45; 53 P.S. 15971 et seq.) and Section 1301(b) of the "Local Tax Reform Act," (1988, P.L. 1121, No. 145, 72 P.S. 4750.1301 (b)) and by certain home rule localities (1972, P.L. 184, No. 62; 53 P.S. 1-101 et seq.). The act which provides for the compensation

22

I illi ,,

of county officers in counties of the second through eighth classes (1971, P.L. 495, No. 113; 16 P.S. 11011-1 et seq.) requires the political subdivisions for which the real estate transfer tax is collected to compensate the recorder of deeds at the rate of two percent of the amount collected (16 P.S. 11011-6). Section 1106-C of the Tax Reform Code of 1971 establishes that the recorder of deeds be awarded a commission of one percent of the real estate transfer taxes imposed by the Commonwealth (72 P.S. 8106-C). Pursuant to the act of April 6, 1830 (P.L. 272, No. 1577; 72 P.S. 3171 et seq.), the recorder also collects a fifty cent state writ tax for each instrument recorded for which he receives a three percent commission (1830, P.L. 272, No. 157; 72 P.S. 3211).


Tables C-1, C-2, and C-3 manifest the data collected from the recorders of deeds for 1986, 1987, and 1988, respectively. The "fees collected by off ice for county use" comprise those revenues generated by fee schedules in addition to miscellaneous income. The "commissions collected by office for county use" are composed of fees paid to the recorder for collecting the local realty transfer tax, the Pennsylvania realty transfer tax, and the Commonwealth writ tax. The sum of the aforementioned categories yield the "total revenue for use of county." These funds, which are disbursed into each county's general fund, were compared with each office's budget in order to determine if an office is self-supporting.

In 1986, we found that a majority of recorders of deeds in each of the following classes of counties registered a surplus: second, second class A, third, fourth, fifth, and sixth. Most recorders in counties of the seventh and eighth class operated at a deficit. Generally, the pattern was duplicated in 1987 where we found that a majority of recorders in second through fifth class counties functioned in the black, whereas self-sufficiency was not obtained in most recorders' offices for counties of the sixth through eighth classes. The data for 1988 produced no discernible trend since the population of a county could not be correlated with an office's solvency. For instance, a preponderance of recorders' offices in counties of the second A, third, fourth, and sixth class evidenced more receipts than disbursements. Recorders in counties of the second, fifth, seventh, and eighth class, for the greatest part, saw an excess of expenditures over revenues.

Some caveats regarding the above analysis are essential. The degree of thoroughness demonstrated by the respondents varied enormously. For example, while some recorders listed only recording fees in response to Question 8, others included a plethora of miscellany, such as notary fees, photocopying revenues, etc. Also, not all recorders provided data detailing the commission received for collection of the state writ tax. In each case, the submitted data were used, where practicable, in toto. Also, the survey was debased by the inclusion, in some cases, of expenses such as heat, water, light, etc., within the budgetary information.

3. PROPOSALS

Most recorders favored an indeterminate increase in the fees that may be charged for recording documents. Almost universally, they argued that the current one percent commission paid to their offices for collecting the

23

Pennsylvania realty transfer tax is insufficient given the amount of time and labor involved with collecting and processing those monies. A majority of recorders urged a 100 percent increase in the commission. Some felt that a 50 percent adjustment would be adequate. Most recorders encouraged the elimination of the writ tax even though such an action would result in the loss of the three percent commission generated from it. (Currently, one and one-half cents is awarded to the recorder for each writ tax collected.) Uniform fees applicable to all counties was endorsed by the smaller counties' recorders who maintained that their costs to perform the function endemic to the office are no different than those of recorders in more heavily populated counties. An escalator clause upon which fees could be based was greeted cooly by almost all recorders.

If one accepts the proposition that recorders' offices should be self-sufficient entities, then perhaps some changes would be appropriate. However, since only seventh and eighth class counties' recorders offices were particularly affected by inadequate revenues, wholesale changes are probably unnecessary. The interests of equity may best be served by equalizing the commissions generated from the collection of the local and state realty transfer taxes. Accordingly, perhaps the state realty transfer commission should be increased to two percent. Furthermore, there is sympathy for the call for elimination of the state writ tax which appears to be no more than a nuisance tax that yields de minimis revenues for both the Commonwealth and the counties. Existing fee schedules appear to be adequate.

24

TABLE C-1 RECORDERS OF DEEDS

1986

BUDGETED EXPENDITURE FOR FEES COLLECTED BY OFFICE COMMISSIONS COLLECTED BY TOTAL REVENUE FOR USE OF COUNTY CLASS OFFICE BY COUNTY FOR COUNTY USE OFFICE FOR COUNTY USE COUNTY

*Philadelphia 1 Insufficient Data $ $ Allegheny 2 Less Than $2,000,000 2,272, 148 592,173 2,864,321

*Delaware 2A Less Than $500,000 1,195,214 343,515 1,538, 729 Montgomery 2A Less Than $750,000 2,266,093 649,482 2,915,575 Berks 3 Less Than $250,000 732,753 151,730 884,483 Bucks 3 Less Than $3,000,000 1,463.044 497,450 1,960,494 Chester 3 Less Than $750,000 1,699,178 422, 108 2,121,286 Dauphin 3 Insufficient Data

*Lackawanna 3 Less Than $500,000 259,012 116,575 375,587 *Lehigh 3 Less Than $250,000 909,231 180,643 1,089,874

Luzerne 3 Less Than $500,000 463,640 72,911 536,551 *Northampton 3 Less Than $250,000 573,291 144,329 717,620 Westmoreland 3 Less Than $500,000 686,917 98,325 785,242 Beaver 4 Insufficient Data Cambria 4 Less Than $250,000 232,052 22,405 254,457 Cumberland 4 Less Than $250,000 446,432 122,855 569,287 Fayette 4 Less Than $100,000 169,238 18' 710 187,948 Schuylkill 4 Less Than $500,000 245,368 25,577 270,945 Washington 4 Less Than $250,000 284,227 55,678 339,905 Blair 5 Insufficient Data Butler 5 Less Than $250,000 301,425 42,434 343,859 Centre 5 Less Than $250,000 240,473 52,415 292,888 Franklin 5 Less Than $100,000 165,498 37,510 203,008 Lawrence 5 Less Than $250,000 127,653 14,408 142,061 Lebanon 5 Insufficient Data Lycoming 5 Insufficient Data Mercer 5 Less Than $250,000 209,482 22,669 232,151 Northumberland 5 Insufficient Data Adams 6 Less Than $100,000 166,180 30,995 197,175 Armstrong 6 Less Than $250,000 144,578 10,519 155,097 Bedford 6 Insufficient Data Bradford 6 Insufficient Data Carbon 6 Less Than $100,000 157,620 21,940 179,560 Clarion 6 Less Than $100,000 82,590 6,009 88,599 Columbia 6 Less Than $100,000 119' 294 16,789 136,083 Crawford 6 Less Than $100,000 184,464 19,258 203,722 Elk 6 Less Than $100,000 56,000 5,900 61, 900 Greene 6 Insufficient Data Huntingdon 6 Less Than $100,000 105,453 7,172 112,625 Indiana 6 Insufficient Data McKean 6 Less Than $100,000 103,507 7,524 111,031 Mifflin 6 Insufficient Data Monroe 6 Less Than $250,000 508,313 116, 709 625,022 Somerset 6 Insufficient Data Susquehanna 6 Less Than $100,000 56,000 5,900 61,900 Tioga 6 Insufficient Data Venango 6 Less Than $100,000 129,939 9,544 139, 483 Warren 6 Less Than $100,000 60,242 9,559 69,801 Snyder 7 Less Than $100,000 62,153 9,012 71, 165 Union 7 Less Than $100,000 59,840 10,432 70' 272 Wayne 7 Insufficient Data Wyoming 7 Insufficient Data Forest 8 Less Than $100,000 19,223 1,654 20,877 Fulton 8 Less Than $100,000 21,260 2,051 23,311 Juniata 8 Insufficient Data Montour 8 Less Than $100,000 40,503 5,780 46,283 Pike 8 Less Than $100,000 230,914 51,745 282,659 Potter 8 Insufficient Data


25


1987

BUDGETED EXPF.NDITURE FOR FEES COLLECTED BY OFFICE COMMISSIONS COLLECTED BY TOTAL REVENUE FOR USE OF

~ CLASS OFFICE BY COUNTY FOR COUNTY USE OFFICE FOR COUNTY USE COUNTY

*Philadelphia 1 Insufficient Data Allegheny 2 Less Than $2,000,000 $2,275,574 535,478 $2,811,052

*Delaware 2A Less Than $500,000 1,299,184 381,619 1,680,803 Montgomery 2A Less Than $750,000 2,479,246 738,612 3,217,858

Berks 3 Less Than $500,000 793,500 162,109 955,609

Bucks 3 Less Than $3,000,000 1,638,548 616,615 2,255,163

Chester 3 Less Than $750,000 1,914,739 533,325 2,448,064

Dauphin 3 Less Than $500,000 575,000 150,000 725,000

*Lackawanna 3 Less Than $500,000 283,673 142,822 426,495

*Lehigh 3 Less Than $250,000 1,004,498 189,515 1,194,013

Luzerne 3 Less Than $500,000 485,482 79,059 564,541

*Northampton 3 Less Than $250,000 630,495 166,165 796,660 Westmoreland 3 Less Than $500,000 692,831 89,566 782,397 Beaver 4 Insufficient Data Cambria 4 Less Than $250,000 241,584 21, 770 263,354

Cumberland 4 Less Than $500,000 438,857 120,909 559,766

Fayette 4 Less Than $100,000 185,940 18,306 204,246

Schuylkill 4 Less Than $500,000 253,354 22,498 275,852

Washington 4 Less Than $250,000 303,967 48,267 352,234

Blair 5 Insufficient Data Butler 5 Less Than $250,000 277, 150 49,333 326,483 Centre 5 Less Than $250,000 233,927 45,656 279,583 Franklin 5 Less Than $100,000 172,678 38,972 211,650 Lawrence 5 Less Than $250,000 137,880 15,716 153,596 Lebanon 5 Insufficient Data Lycoming 5 Insufficient Data Mercer 5 Less Than $250,000 204,092 21,112 225,204 Northumberland 5 Insufficient Data Adams 6 Less Than $250,000 185,345 32,246 217,591 Armstrong 6 Less Than $250,000 140,075 10 ,369 150,444

Bedford 6 Insufficient Data Bradford 6 Insufficient Data Carbon 6 Less Than $250,000 198,983 29,369 228,352 Clarion 6 Less Than $100,000 78,089 10,943 89,032 Columbia 6 Less Than $100,000 121,185 17,181 138,366 Crawford 6 Less Than $100,000 178,829 19,058 197,887 Elk 6 Less Than $100,000 58,000 5,550 63,550 Greene 6 Insufficient Data Huntingdon 6 Less Than $100,000 91,378 6,896 98,274 Indiana 6 Insufficient Data McKean 6 Less Than $100,000 87,081 8,757 95,838 Mifflin 6 Insufficient Data Monroe 6 Less Than $250,000 659,407 137,023 796,430 Somerset 6 Insufficient Data Susquehanna 6 Less Than $100,000 100,784 16,505 117 ,289 Tioga 6 Insufficient Data Venango 6 Less Than $100,000 120,006 13,172 133,178 Warren 6 Less Than $100, 000 66,766 8,285 75,051 Snyder 7 Less Than $100,000 66,186 8,704 74,890 Union 7 Less Than $100,000 70,550 8, 776 79,326 Wayne 7 Insufficient Data Wyoming 7 Insufficient Data Forest 8 Less Than $100,000 18,883 2,250 21, 133 Fulton 8 Less Than $100,000 22,888 2,184 25,072 Juniata 8 Insufficient Data Montour 8 Less Than $100,000 37,706 5,413 43, 119 Pike 8 Less Than $100,000 348,338 74' 966 423,304 Potter 8 Insufficient Data


26


1988


*Philadelphia 1 Insufficient Data Allegheny 2 Less Than $3,000,000 $2,061,158 605,259 $2,666,417

*Delaware 2A Less Than $750,000 1,087,545 382,817 1,470,362 Montgomery 2A Less Than $750,000 2,184,024 861,522 3,045,546 Berks 3 Less Than $500,000 766,143 194,952 961,095 Bucks 3 Less Than $3,000,000 1,452,907 655,098 2,108,005 Chester 3 Less Than $750,000 1,345,584 621,205 1, 966' 789 Dauphin 3 Less Than $500,000 539,000 156,000 695,000

*Lackawanna 3 Less Than $500,000 274,261 168,346 442,607 *Lehigh 3 Less Than $500,000 959,847 236,593 1,196,440

Luzerne 3 Less Than $500,000 474,312 94,337 568,649 *Northampton 3 Less Than $250,000 553,152 189,244 742,396 Westmoreland 3 Less Than $500,000 669,504 94,780 764,284 Beaver 4 Insufficient Data Cambria 4 Less Than $250,000 218,973 24,059 243,032 Cumberland 4 Less Than $500,000 390,001 119, 799 509,800 Fayette 4 Less Than $100,000 185,161 17,737 202,898 Schuylkill 4 Less Than $500,000 254,802 30,562 285,364 Washington 4 Less Than $250,000 275,627 62,739 338,366 Blair 5 Insufficient Data Butler 5 Less Than $250,000 311,674 60,458 372,132 Centre 5 Less Than $250,000 230,351 64,970 295,321 Franklin 5 Less Than $250,000 163,654 43,396 207,050 Lawrence 5 Less Than $250,000 123,997 13,751 137,748 Lebanon 5 Insufficient Data Lycoming 5 Insufficient Data Mercer 5 Less Than $250,000 200,799 25,905 226,704 Northumberland 5 Insufficient Data Adams 6 Less Than $250,000 190,761 69,392 260,153 Armstrong 6 Less Than $250,000 146,338 10, 786 157,124 Bedford 6 Insufficient Data Bradford 6 Less Than $100,000 130,257 17,174 147,431 Carbon 6 Less Than $250,000 250,645 43,913 294,558 Clarion 6 Less Than $100,000 78,649 6,464 85, 113 Columbia 6 Less Than $100,000 111,429 20,524 131,953 Crawford 6 Less Than $100,000 168,072 18,176 186,248 Elk 6 Less Than $100 ,000 56,000 7,650 63,650 Greene 6 Insufficient Data Huntingdon 6 Less Than $100,000 107 ,077 9,349 116,424 Indiana 6 Insufficient Data McKean 6 Less Than $100,000 88,209 8,767 96,976 Mifflin 6 Insufficient Data Monroe 6 Less Than $250,000 571,842 142,565 714,407 Somerset 6 Insufficient Data Susquehanna 6 Less Than $100,000 98,051 18,492 116,543 Tioga 6 lnsuf f icient Data Venango 6 Less Than $100,000 115,327 10,341 125,668 Warren 6 Less Than $100,000 95,324 9,090 104,414 Snyder 7 Less Than $100,000 74,930 9,699 84,629 Union 7 Less Than $100,000 75,805 14,851 90,656 Wayne 7 Insufficient Data Wyoming 7 Insufficient Data Forest 8 Less Than $100,000 19,411 1,489 20,900 Fulton 8 Less Than $100,000 24,933 2,943 27,876 Juniata 8 Insufficient Data Montour 8 Less Than $100,000 34,550 8,653 43,203 Pike 8 Less Than $100,000 351,956 69' 211 421,167 Potter 8 Insufficient Data


27

D. PROTHONOTARIES

1 • BACKGROUND

In counties of the fifth through seventh class, the office of prothonotary is combined with that of the clerk of courts. In eighth class counties, one individual holds the offices of prothonotary, clerk of courts, register of wills, recorder of deeds, and clerk of orphans' court (County Code, Section 1302; 16 P.S. 1302).

The prothonotary essentially functions as a clerk of the court of common pleas. He maintains the records of all civil procedures before the courts, signs all writs and processes, and is charged with the responsibility of preserving copies of all pertinent documentation. Among other things, the prothonotary is required to collect bail in civil actions, enter judgments at the request of plaintiffs and, upon the confession of defendants, sign all judgments and accept acknowledgements of satisfaction of judgments or decrees entered upon the records of the court.

In many instances this office is responsible for receiving petitions in connection with roads and rights of way, recording the action of members of boards of view, and eminent domain proceedings.

Finally, this office is responsible for the processing of naturalization papers. The prothonotary obtains information and makes records and arrangements for naturalization court. Many passports issued in the county are obtained at the office of the prothonotary.

The aforementioned services rendered by the prothonotary's office have prescribed fees established by the following statutes: 1982, P.L. 744, No. 203; 42 Pa.c.s.A. 21091 et seq.; 1980, P.L. 643, No. 133; 42 Pa.c.s.A. 21001 et seq.; 1982 P.L. 303, No. 85; 42 Pa.C.S.A. 21041 et seq.; 1986, P.L. 7, No. 4; 42 Pa.C.S.A. 21161 et seq.; 1976, P.L. 586, No. 142; 42 Pa.C.S.A. 1725. In addition, the prothonotary is also responsible for the collection of fees for the Commonwealth such as the writ tax and surcharges on divorce decrees. A total sum of fifty cents is charged by the prothonotary for each writ of execution, three percent of which is retained by the county for its use (1830, P.L. 272, No. 157; 72 P.S. 3172, 3211). Act 151 of 1988 requires the prothonotary to collect a ten dollar surcharge on all divorce decrees which is to be remitted to the state (1988, P.L. 1235, No. 151; 11 P.S. 2231 et seq.). No commissions are retained by the county for Act 151 fees.


While 56 of the 67 counties in Pennsylvania responded to the survey, only 41 of those surveys were deemed "usable." Fifteen surveys were forced to be disqualified primarily because the respondent's combined financial data for two or more county row offices. This aggregate accounting scheme made it impossible to analyze the data pertinent to the individual offices.

The 41 surveys which were subsequently analyzed and incorporated into this report were also plagued with inconsistancies and incomplete responses. Problems were particularly evidenced in the data furnished for Questions 8 and 9 of the survey which requested information regarding the fees collected by

28

jl[\

the prothonotary for the actual management and operation of the off ice and fees imposed which are eventually remitted to the Commonwealth.

The respondents of the 41 "usable" surveys seemed to make an effort to supply the requested historical data. Admittedly, Question 8 was somewhat ambiguous and, therefore, resulted in a wide array of information supplied. This obviously has inhibited any attempts to formulate a concrete determination as to the adequacy of the fees provided by the respective state statutes. For example, some respondents simply provided lump sum figures for the prothonotary's office for the years 1986-1988, while others supplied itemized lists of fees. This is an important difference because without the actual listing of the fees collected, it is impossible to insure that all counties have included the same financial information. This makes a comparative analysis risky because it is feasible that one could be comparing apples and oranges.

Other respondents provided financial data which were an amalgamation of the revenues collected by the clerk of courts' and prothonotary's offices asserting that there was "no need" to keep separate accounts for these two offices.

Nevertheless, in perusing the data supplied it would appear as though the vast majority of prothonotary's offices, with the exception of second class counties, are experiencing deficits in their respective offices. For example, of the 18 usable surveys submitted by respondents in sixth class counties, only one county prothonotary office appeared to be self-sufficient in the period of 1986-1988, exemplifying a surplus in its budget all three years. This trend of deficit operations seemed to be constant throughout second class A through eighth class counties. Indeed, of the 41 county surveys included in this analysis, there were only three county prothonotary offices in each of the years 1986, 1987, and 1988 which showed any ability to operate in a profitable manner.

It is likely that some variation in the tables would be evidenced if the county's actual budget data for the prothonotary's office were utilized rather than the broad scale developed for the survey. For instance, approximately 77 percent of the respondents provided the actual budget figures for each year pursuant to Question 7 on the survey. Respondents were not required to provide this information but, rather, to choose one of the enumerated categories in Question 7 which reflected the monies budgeted for the particular row office. Nevertheless, this small percentage of prothonotaries did enlighten the overall survey by forwarding this information.

To illustrate how the data could, in some instances, be misrepresented in the tables, examine the data provided by Armstrong County. According to Table D-1, the Armstrong County prothonotary's office incurred a deficit in 1986 because the budget scale was "less than $100,000." The monies collected by this office were $61,766, thus exemplifying what would appear to be a deficit. However, when examining the actual budget for the Armstrong County prothonotary in 1986, it appears as though this office did not have a deficit but, rather, a surplus of over $12,000. The actual budget for the Armstrong County prothonotary was $49,373 while the revenues accounted for a total of $61,766. Other county prothonotaries such as Greene's and Cambria's supplied

29

actual budget figures and still maintained a deficit status regardless of whether the scale was applied.

However, one can glean from the comments provided by the respondents and the fiscal data regarding fees and commissions that there is a strong possibility that most prothonotary offices are not self-sufficient.

One final area of interest is that of the commissions retained by the prothonotary's office from monies collected for the Commonwealth. As previously noted, the prothonotary's office levies a fifty cent charge on each writ of execution which is subsequently remitted to the State. The prothonotary retains three percent of this money.

The surveys which exemplified data enumerating commissions collected by the prothonotary's office clearly evidence the small amount of money which the county retains from commissions collected for, and turned over to, the Commonwealth.

In 1986-1988, the combined average commission was $53. Counties reported commissions ranging from a high of $217 per year, to a low of $3 per year. Obviously, with such a small proportion of county officers responding to this particular data request, it would be presumptuous to emphatically state that all counties are experiencing this dearth in commission revenue. However, the trend would seem to indicate this to be the case.

3. PROPOSALS

The recommendations submitted by the respondents were varied; however, some underlying sentiments could be extracted from the surveys.

The prothonotaries suggested by a margin of 2 to 1 that fees need to be uniformly increased rather than increased based upon population. While there was agreement that all fees should be raised, specified fees were targeted. These included: fees for appeals to appellate courts; secured transactions fees; fees for liens; and commencement of action fees. An overwhelming majority stated that the writ tax should be completely eliminated.

Also specifically mentioned were the Uniform Commercial Code filings and the inconsistency in the fee charged by the prothonotary's office versus the fee charged by the recorder of deeds' office for the same service. Respondents advocated an increase in this fee to $9.50 so as to be congruent with the recorder of deeds' office.

Strong sentiments were also expressed regarding the utilization of the prothonotary's office as a collection agent for the state. Many officers feel the time and money spent on processing documents and fees for the state far outweighs the minimal commissions retained on those moneys. In fact, the newest mandate imposed .on the county prothonotary, (1988, P.L. 1235, No. 151; 11 P.S. 2231 et seq.), which requires this office to collect a ten dollar surcharge on all divorce decrees, deprives the prothonotary of any commission monies.

Based upon review of the financial data and the recommendations of the various prothonotary offices, concluding recommendations follow.

30

First, an issue that must be addressed is the inability of many prothonotary off ices to account for the fees and other revenue services generated for that particular office. It was noted in the analysis of data section that 15 surveys had to be disqualified primarily because the respondents reported aggregate data for two or more row offices. This made it virtually impossible to conduct a thorough survey of the adequacy of fees imposed by the individual row office.

Second, the evidence provided by the respondents is overwhelmingly in support of eliminating the writ tax. This tax is imposed under the domain of an 1830 statute. The fee imposed upon each writ was fifty cents in 1830: One hundred fifty-nine years later ••• it is still fifty cents. It does not require a great deal of statistical analysis to determine that this tax generates neither substantial revenue for the state or the county. It appears as though the paper factory created by this de minimis tax and the commission retained therefrom is requiring more money to collect, remit, and audit than any financial gains being realized.

Third, in relation to the above, consideration should be given to providing remuneration to the prothonotary's office for the collection of the ten dollar surcharge on divorce decrees pursuant to Act 151 of 1988.

Finally, it seems plausible that some type of uniform increase in fees should be effected by the Legislature. This is due to the analysis of data which seemed to indicate that a majority of prothonotary offices are not self-sufficient. For the sake of uniformity, all fees might be increased with particular attention directed to the cost of appeal proceedings and the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) filings. Perhaps the most appropriate means by which to raise these fees would be to establish a uniform maximum and minimum fee range for each service provided, thereby achieving uniformity, yet, creating some flexibility for each individual county.

Currently there exists legislation which would minimally increase various fees in counties of the second class. This legislation, House Bill 2139, Printer's No. 2820, was introduced on December 4, 1989, and referred to the House Committee on Urban Affairs (see Appendix F).

31

TABLE D-1 PROTHONOTARIES

1986

BUDGETED EXPENDITURE FOR FEES COLLECTED BY OFFICE COMMISSIONS COLLECTED BY TOTAL REVENUE FOR USE OF


Allegheny 2 More Than $3,000,000 $3,256,815 217 $3,257,032 Montgomery 2A Less Than $2,000,000 1,624,552 1,624,552 Berks 3 Less Than $500,000 336,339 74 336,413 Bucks 3 Less Than $1,000,000 718,485 154 718,639 Dauphin 3 Less Than $500,000 348,351 78 348,429 Lancaster 3 Less Than $500,000 357,364 98 357,462 Lackawanna 3 Insufficient Data Lehigh 3 Less Than $500,000 345,870 93 345,963 Northampton 3 Less Than $500,000 283,928 69 283,997 Westmoreland 3 Less Than $750,000 415,698 415,698 York 3 Less Than $500,000 403,010 403,010 Cambria 4 Less Than $250,000 129,774 129,774 Cumberland 4 Less Than $250,000 184,995 43 185,038 Fayette 4 Insufficient Data Schuylkill 4 Insufficient Data Washington 4 Less Than $250,000 273,945 67 274,012 Blair 5 Insufficient Data Butler 5 Less Than $250,000 151,419 151,419 Centre 5 Insufficient Data Franklin 5 Less Than $250,000 101,500 101,500 Lawrence 5 Less Than $250,000 134,468 134,468 Lebanon 5 Less Than $100,000 89,950 89,950 Lycoming 5 Insufficient Data

5 Less Than $250,000 147,262 147,262 5 Insufficient Data 6 Less Than $100,000 72,047 15 72,062

rmstrong 6 Less Than $100,000 61,766 13 61, 779 Bedford 6 Insufficient Data

radford 6 Less Than $250,000 73,847 17 73,864 arbon 6 Less Than $100,000 76,658 76,658 larion 6 Less Than $100,000 6,795 6,795 learf ield 6 Insufficient Data linton 6 Less Than $100,000 41,269 10 41,279 olumbia 6 Less Than $100,000 74,085 12 74,097 rawford 6 Insufficient Data lk 6 Less Than $100,000 37,142 9 37,151

6 Less Than $100,000 36,402 36,402 6 Less Than $100,000 36,295 36,295 6 Insufficient Data 6 Less Than $100,000 17,558 17,558 6 Less Than $100,000 48' 143 48, 143 6 Less Than $100,000 32,650 8 32,658

on roe 6 Less Than $100,000 168' 779 168,779 omerset 6 Less Than $100,000 76,521 76,521 usquehanna 6 Less Than $100,000 47,685 9 47,694 ioga 6 Less Than $100,000 54,000 54,000 enango 6 Less Than $250,000 30,870 30,870 ayne 6 Insufficient Data erry 7 Less Than $100,000 30,000 30,000 nyder 7 Less Than $100,000 41,244 6 41,250 nion 7 Insufficient Data or est 8 Less Than $100,000 8,000 8,000 lton 8 Less Than $100,000 17,601 17,601 uniata 8 Less Than $100,000 31,687 31,687 on tour 8 Less Than $100,000 17,241 3 17,244 ike 8 Insufficient Data

otter 8 Insufficient Data

Counties which have adopted home rule charters.

32


1987

BUDGETED EXPENDITURE FOR FEES COLLECTED BY OFFICE COMMISSIONS COLLECTED BY TOTAL REVENUE FOR USE OF COUNTY ~ OFFICE BY COUNTY FOR COUNTY USE OFFICE FOR COUNTY USE COUNTY

Allegheny 2 More Than $3,000,000 $3,295,646 $214 $3,295,860 Montgomery 2A Less Than $2,000,000 1,857,737 1,857,737 ' Berks 3 Less Than $500,000 388,921 76 388,997 • Bucks 3 Less Than $1,000,000 798, 718 159 798,877 I Dauphin 3 Less Than $500,000 371,515 78 371,593 I Lancaster 3 Less Than $500,000 384,512 87 384,599 I

*Lackawanna 3 Insufficient Data I *Lehigh 3 Less Than $500,000 355,642 101 355,743 *l *Northampton 3 Less Than $500,000 303,684 54 303,738 *I Westmoreland 3 Less Than $750,000 408,373 408,373 ·~ York 3 Less Than $500,000 374,066 374,066 \ Cambria 4 Less Than $250,000 133,281 133,281 1 Cumberland 4 Less Than $250,000 193,858 44 193,902 c Fayette 4 Insufficient Data c Schuylkill 4 Insufficient Data ! Washington 4 Less Than $250,000 273,008 62 273,070 s Blair 5 Insufficient Data ~

Butler 5 Less Than $250,000 157,081 157,081 I!

Centre 5 Insufficient Data I! Franklin 5 Less Than $250,000 100,000 100,000 c Lawrence 5 Less Than $250,000 117 ,989 117 ,989 p

Lebanon 5 Less Than $100,000 79,990 79,990 L

Lycoming 5 Insufficient Data t Mercer 5 Less Than $250,000 141,550 141,550 L

Northumberland 5 Insufficient Data M

Adams 6 Less Than $100,000 74,629 15 74,644 N A Armstrong 6 Less Than $100,000 60,384 12 60,396 A Bedford 6 Insufficient Data I! Bradford 6 Less Than $250,000 84, 792 18 84,810 B Carbon 6 Less Than $100,000 73,979 73,979 c Clarion 6 Less Than $100,000 6,984 6,984 c Clearfield 6 Insufficient Data c Clinton 6 Less Than $100,000 41,881 9 41,890 c Columbia 6 Less Than $100,000 70,847 11 70,858 c Crawford 6 Insufficient Data c

Elk 6 Less Than $100,000 41,623 41,632 E Greene 6 Less Than $100,000 30' 929 30,929 G Huntingdon 6 Less Than $100,000 38,036 38,036 li' Indiana 6 Insufficient Data I: Jefferson 6 Less Than $100,000 17,336 17,336 J, McKean 6 Less Than $100,000 53,215 53,215 M Mifflin 6 Less Than $100,000 31,158 31,165 M: Monroe 6 Less Than $100,000 181,226 181,226 M• Somerset 6 Less Than $100,000 76,754 76,754 s. Susquehanna 6 Less Than $100,000 49,553 9 49,562 S1 Tioga 6 Less Than $100,000 58,250 58,250 T: Venango 6 Less Than $250,000 30,381 30,381 VE Wayne 6 Insufficient Data w. Perry 7 Less Than $100,000 31,000 31,000 PE Snyder 7 Less Than $100,000 44,670 6 44,676 St Union 7 Insufficient Data Ur Forest 8 Less Than $100,000 7,575 7,575 Fe Fulton 8 Less Than $100,000 17,499 17,499 Ft Juniata 8 Less Than $100,000 33,071 33,071 J~ Montour 8 Less Than $100,000 18,276 3 18,279 Mc Pike 8 Insufficient Data Pi Potter 8 Insufficient Data Po

* Counties which have adopted home rule charters. *

33


1988



Allegheny 2 More Than $3,000,000 $3,192,271 217 $3, 192,488 Montgomery 2A Less Than $2,000,000 1,907,485 1,907,485

Berks 3 Less Than $500,000 399,833 79 399,912

Bucks 3 Less Than $1,000,000 819,554 165 819,719 Dauphin 3 Less Than $500,000 373,136 84 373,220 Lancaster 3 Less Than $500,000 441,706 95 441,801

*Lackawanna 3 Insufficient Data *Lehigh 3 Less Than $500,000 401,097 107 401,204 *Northampton 3 Less Than $500,000 318,540 65 318,605 Westmoreland 3 Less Than $750,000 423,478 423,478

York 3 Less Than $500,000 414,637 414,637 Cambria 4 Less Than $250,000 141,018 141,018 Cumberland 4 Less Than $250,000 199,553 47 199,600 Fayette 4 Insufficient Data Schuylkill 4 Insufficient Data Washington 4 Less Than $250,000 349,460 66 349,526 Blair 5 Insufficient Data Butler 5 Less Than $250,000 175,997 175,997 Centre 5 Insufficient Data Franklin 5 Less Than $250,000 102,700 102,700 Lawrence 5 Less Than $250,000 122,345 122,345 Lebanon 5 Less Than $250,000 76' 965 76 '965 Lycoming 5 Insufficient Data Mercer 5 Less Than $250,000 138,670 138,670 Northumberland 5 Insufficient Data Adams 6 Less Than $100,000 91,261 17 91,278 Armstrong 6 Less Than $100,000 57,151 12 57,163 Bedford 6 Insufficient Data Bradford 6 Less Than $250,000 81,331 16 81,347 Carbon 6 Less Than $100,000 86,428 86,428 Clarion 6 Less Than $100,000 7,153 7,153 Clearfield 6 Insufficient Data Clinton 6 Less Than $100,000 42,586 11 42,597 Columbia 6 Less Than $100,000 77' 297 11 77 ,308 Crawford 6 Insufficient Data Elk 6 Less Than $100,000 43,388 10 43,398 Greene 6 Less Than $100,000 33,781 33,781 Huntingdon 6 Less Than $100,000 33,838 33,838 Indiana 6 Insufficient Data Jefferson 6 Less Than $100,000 17 ,623 17,623 McKean 6 Less Than $100,000 53,202 53,202 Mifflin 6 Less Than $100,000 31,652 31,657 Monroe 6 Less Than $100,000 204,815 204,815 Somerset 6 Less Than $100,000 72,339 72,339 Susquehanna 6 Less Than $100,000 63,392 10 63,402 Tioga 6 Less Than $100,000 62,000 62,000 Venango 6 Less Than $250,000 38,713 38' 713 Wayne 6 Insufficient Data Parry 7 Less Than $100,000 40,000 40,000 Snyder 7 Less Than $100,000 43,063 5 43,068 Union 7 Insufficient Data Porest 8 Less Than $100,000 7,216 Pulton 7,216

8 Less Than $100,000 15,226 Juniata 15,226

8 Less Than $100,000 32,654 Montour 8 Less Than $100,000

32,654

Pike 18,464 3 18,467

8 Insufficient Data Potter 8 Insufficient Data


34

E. CLERKS OF COURTS

1 • BACKGROUND

In counties of the fifth through seventh class, the office of clerk of courts is combined with that of the prothonotary. In eighth class counties, one individual holds the office of clerk of courts, prothonotary, register of wills, recorder of deeds, and clerk of orphans' court (County Code, Section 1302; 16 P.S. 1302).

The clerk 9f courts is responsible for preparing a wide array of reports such as affidavits, bail bonds, bench warrants, exemplifications, etc. This office also receives summary appeals and appeals to the appellate courts, liquor license appeals, applications for licensing of private detectives, and performs other miscellaneous duties.

The clerk of courts is authorized to levy fees for the services rendered by this office. These fees are established in accordance with the following statutes: 1982, P.L. 547, No. 158; 42 Pa.C.S.A. 21061 et seq.; 1984, P.L. 964, No. 188; 42 Pa.C.S.A. 21081; 1986, P.L. 5, No. 3; 42 Pa.C.S.A. 21141; 1953, P.L. 1273, No. 361; 22 P.S. 11 et seq.

This office is also responsible for the collection of various state fees some of which emanate from criminal costs for summary convictions and felonies, fines collected from persons convicted of domestic violence crimes, Driving Under the Infuence (DUI) violations which result in admittance to an Accelerated Rehabilitative Disposition Program (ARD), and fees collected for deposit into the Crime Victim's Compensation Fund (1984, P.L. 458, No. 96; 71 P.S. 180-7 et seq.; 1986, P.L. 71, No. 24; 75 Pa.C.S.A.; 1988, P.L. 329, No. 44; 71 P.S. 611.13; 1988, P.L. 1055, No. 121; 35 P.S. 6923 et seq.; 1978, P.L. 202, No. 53; 42 Pa.c.s.A. 1721 et seq.).

It should be noted that review of the surveys evidenced some discrepancies regarding the statutory authority by which fees are collected for criminal costs. Some surveys referred to Act 204 of 1976 as the enabling legislation for these fees. While costs are required to be collected and remitted to the Commonwealth, the authority is now vested in 42 Pa.C.S.A. 1725. Act 204 of 1976 was repealed in 1978 by the Judiciary Act Repaler Act, 1978, P.L. 202, No. 53.


Surveys were mailed to the 67 respective clerks of courts in the Commonwealth of which 54 were returned. However, only 32 (33 for 1988) were determined to be valid or "usable." Surprisingly, the majority of the surveys that were disqualified were done so because respondents either could not, or would not, answer Questions 8 and 9 of the survey which requested information about the fees collected by the clerk of courts for the actual management of the office and fees collected and subsequently remitted to the state. Question 9 also requested information about commissions retained by the county from remitted state monies. Obviously without this information, the surveys were of little value in evaluating the financial impact of the current fee schedules on these particular county offices.

35

: I

i I 1,.

In addition, some of the surveys were rendered invalid because, again, respondents did not follow the directions and combined the financial data for two or more offices. Since the purpose of this survey was to ascertain the adequacy of fees for each individual row office, the aggregation of accounts resulted in the disqualification of these responses.

To reiterate, it was pointed out that Question 8 on the questionnaire was somewhat ambiguous. Perhaps this was the reason for the wide array of answers received for this question. The respondents of the 32 surveys analyzed seemed to make some attempt to list the particular fees collected by the office; however, it was difficult to find more than a handful of surveys that were somewhat similar. As was the case with other row offices, some respondents either could not, or would not, list the individual fees and, instead, provided aggregate numbers for each of the fiscal years 1986-1988. These numbers were helpful, but it made a comparative analysis very dangerous and subjective on the part of the Local Government Commission staff, primarily because there was no way of determining if parallel fees were included by each of the respondents.

Given the fact that the surveys which did include a listing of fees were so dissimilar, one would have to suspect the same problems existed among and between counties which simply provided a total figure amount for each year.

With the above problems brought to the forefront, an attempt was made to address the data which were supplied.

Most of the county clerks of courts' offices, with exception of second class counties, appear to be operating at a deficit. Specifically, of the 32 county surveys utilized for this analysis, no more than seven clerks of courts offices in any one year (1986-1988) seem to evidence any ability to operate by the revenue generated by the statutory allotted fees. Of the 25 usable surveys submitted by counties of the sixth class, only three exhibited any type of self-sufficiency in 1986 and 1988, with four county offices reflecting a surplus in 1987. This observation is based upon the scales utilized in the survey. Some counties reported as little as $2,000 in fee collections for an entire year. Again, the classification of the county seems to be irrelevant, in that this pattern appears to be evidenced in the majority of counties.

Once again, some variation in the tables would be plausible if the data reflecting the clerk of courts' actual budget monies were utilized rather than applying the scale developed specifically for the survey.

A handful of clerks of courts provided additional information by delineating the specific dollar amount budgeted for their off ice by the county. These figures were provided in response to question 7 of the survey which requested information reflecting the monies budgeted for the respective row office.

By examining the 1986 data provided by Mercer County, one can visualize the problems associated with the utilization of scales. Table E-1 exhibits Mercer County as one which has experienced a deficit in the clerk of courts' office. This is because the scale of "Less Than $100,000" was applied. However, after reviewing the actual budget data provided by this county, it can be seen that the Mercer County clerk of courts' office was budgeted

36

$94,857 and collected $97,550 in fees, costs, etc., thereby nullifying the deficit. However, regardless of whether the scales or actual budget figures are used, Mercer County suffered a loss in the years 1987 and 1988.

Nevertheless, in accordance with comments provided by the respondents and the financial data supplied, it would still seem very likely that, generally, fees for the clerk of courts' office are inadequate.

Previously noted in the analysis of the prothonotary's office was the insignificant amount of revenue generated by the retention of commissions which result from fees collected for the state. This reality has also been evidenced in the office of the clerk of courts. The commissions reported for the period 1986-1988 ranged from a high of $1,197 to a low of $6. The combined average commission for the three years was $338.

Again, caution must be exercised when evaluating the commissions retained by counties because such a small percentage of counties supplied this information. However, it would seem plausible that revenue from commissions is less than significant in most clerks of courts' offices.

3. PROPOSALS

Approximately ninety percent of the clerks of courts asserted that they are spending too much time acting as collection agents for the state. Indeed this office is responsible for collecting a myriad of fees for the state emanating from several separate statutes. Because these mandates have been thrust upon the county, many of the clerks of courts maintain that a commission of ten percent should be retained by their respective offices.

As was the case with the prothonotary, the vast majority of the respondents suggested that the fees levied by the clerk of courts should be increased but uniform. Some fees were particularly highlighted as being inadequate, such as: fees for criminal cases disposed of before or after trial; fees for expungement petitions; summary proceeding fees; and fees for probation and/or parole violation hearings.

Subsequent to review of both the financial data and the comments provided by the respondents, it would seem as though serious consideration should be exercised in increasing the fee laws for this office. Perhaps the best method by which to increase these fees would be to establish a uniform maximum and minimum fee range for each service provided. This in turn would effect a uniform increase, but still allow some flexibility for the respective county offices to set fees within the statutory range.

Another plausible recommendation would be to permit some type of commission to be retained by the clerk of courts' office for monies collected for and remitted to the state. Perhaps a ten percent commission of the monies collected for the state is a realistic one and a way which may help these offices become more self-sufficient.

Finally, an issue that should be addressed is the inability of many clerk of courts' offices to account for revenue which is generated by that particular office. Aside from the fact that the amalgamation of row office accounts is a questionable accounting practice, it potentially creates chaos

37

when auditing these revenues. Additionally, the expenses incurred in examining these books in search of accurate data is difficult to justify.

Senate Bill 188, Printer's No. 188 (see Appendix G), would seem to ease some of the administrative costs of the Accelerated Rehabilitative Disposition Program by authorizing a fee to be collected to cover "reasonable" expenses associated with this program. This legislation passed the Senate on February 14, 1989 (48-0), and was referred to the House Judiciary Committee.

38

TABLE E-1 CLERKS OF COURTS

1986



Allegheny 2 Insufficient Data Montgomery 2A Less Than $750,000 479,684 1,197 480,881 Berks 3 Insufficient Data Bucks 3 Less Than $750,000 719,343 719,343 Dauphin 3 Less Than $500,000 394,412 394,412

*Lackawana 3 Insufficient Data Lancaster 3 Less Than $500,000 700,338 700,338

*Lehigh 3 Less Than $500,000 249,168 249,168 Luzerne 3 Insufficient Data York 3 Less Than $250,000 281,227 281,227 Beaver 4 Less Than $250,000 100,517 381 100,898 Cambria 4 Less Than $100,000 169,765 439 170,204 Cumberland 4 Insufficient Data Fayette 4 Insufficient Data Washington 4 Insufficient Data Blair 5 Insufficient Data Butler 5 Less Than $250,000 148,549 148,549 Centre 5 Insufficient Data Franklin 5 Less Than $100,000 68,403 68,403 Lawrence 5 Less Than $100,000 73,334 73,334 Lebanon 5 Less Than $100,000 48,766 755 49,521 Lycoming 5 Insufficent Data Mercer 5 Less Than $100,000 97,550 428 97,978 Northumberland 5 Insufficient Data Adams 6 Less Than $250,000 84,793 84,793 Armstrong 6 Less Than $100,000 116,358 116,358 Bedford 6 Insufficient Data Bradford 6 Less Than $250,000 58,338 294 58,632 Clarion 6 Insufficient Data Clearfield 6 Insufficient Data Clinton 6 Less Than $100,000 120,537 173 120, 710 Columbia 6 Less Than $100,000 50,264 116 50,380 Crawford 6 Insufficient Data Elk 6 Less Than $100,000 9,000 9,000 Greene 6 Less Than $100,000 38, 114 366 38,480 Huntingdon 6 Less Than $100,000 20,865 351 21,216 Indiana 6 Less Than $100,000 32,195 32,195 Jefferson 6 Insufficient Data McKean 6 Less Than $100,000 10,820 10,820 Mifflin 6 Less Than $100,000 33,785 70 33,855 Monroe 6 Less Than $100,000 89,239 89,239 Somerset 6 Less Than $100,000 128,571 311 128,882 Susquehanna 6 Less Than $100,000 15,692 63 15,755 Tioga 6 Insufficient Data Venango 6 Less Than $250,000 26,290 26,290 Perry 7 Insufficient Data Snyder 7 Less Than $100,000 7,013 291 7,304 Union 7 Insufficient Data Wayne 7 Insufficient Data Forest 8 Less Than $100,000 2,033 6 2,039 Fulton 8 Less Than $100,000 19,697 19,697 Juniata 8 Insufficient Data Montour 8 Less Than $100,000 13, 720 128 13,848 Potter 8 Insufficient Data


39


1987


Allegheny 2 Insufficient Data $ Montgomery 2A Less Than $750,000 695,889 1,516 697,405 Berks 3 Insufficient Data Bucks 3 Less Than $750,000 773,060 773,060 Dauphin 3 Less Than $500,000 457,689 457,689 Lackawanna 3 Insufficient Data Lancaster 3 Less Than $500,000 638,912 638,912 Lehigh 3 Less Than $500,000 266,232 266,232 Luzerne 3 Insufficient Data York 3 Less Than $250,000 346,478 346,478 Beaver 4 Less Than $250,000 103,798 534 104,332 Cambria 4 Less Than $250,000 188,007 498 188,505 Cumberland 4 Insufficient Data Fayette 4 Insufficient Data Washington 4 Insufficient Data Blair 5 Insufficient Data Butler 5 Less Than $250,000 169,849 169,849 Centre 5 Insufficient Data Franklin 5 Less Than $100,000 84,443 84,443 Lawrence 5 Less Than $100,000 72,375 72,375 Lebanon 5 Less Than $100,000 63,994 63,994 Lycoming 5 Insufficient Data Mercer 5 Less Than $250,000 90,897 402 91,299 Northumberland 5 Insufficient Data Adams 6 Less Than $250,000 106,931 106,931 Armstrong 6 Less Than $100,000 123,230 123,230 Bedford 6 Insufficient Data Bradford 6 Less Than $250,000 58, 115 393 58,508 Clarion 6 Insufficient Data Clearfield 6 Insufficient Data Clinton 6 Less Than $100,000 119,623 85 119, 708 Columbia 6 Less Than $100,000 49, 143 170 49,313 Crawford 6 Insufficient Data Elk 6 Less Than $100,000 10,000 10,000 Greene 6 Less Than $100,000 41,600 328 41,928 Huntingdon 6 Less Than $100,000 23,991 23,991 Indiana 6 Less Than $100,000 32,545 412 32,957 Jefferson 6 Insufficient Data McKean 6 Less Than $100,000 29,076 29,076 Mifflin 6 Less Than $100,000 38,344 139 38,483 Monroe 6 Less Than $100,000 133,838 133,838 Somerset 6 Less Than $100,000 123,175 355 123,530 Susquehanna 6 Less Than $100 ,000 17,870 127 17,997 Tioga 6 Insufficient Data Venango 6 Less Than $250,000 24,259 24,259 Perry 7 Insufficient Data Snyder 7 Less Than $100,000 7,194 388 7,582 Union 7 Insufficient Da~a Wayne 7 Insufficient Data Forest 8 Less Than $100,000 2,381 2,381 Fulton 8 Less Than $100,000 18,529 18,529 Juniata 8 Insufficient Data Montour 8 Less Than $100,000 11,519 63 11,582 Potter 8 Insufficient Data


40


1988

F BUDGETED EXPENDITURE FOR FEES COLLECTED BY OFFICE COMMISSIONS COLLECTED BY TOTAL REVENUE FOR USE OF


Allegheny 2 Insufficient Data Montgomery 2A Less Than $750,000 644,944 1,056 646,000 Berks 3 Less Than $500,000 2,286,633 2,286,633 Bucks 3 Less Than $750,000 787,636 787,636 Dauphin 3 Less Than $500,000 454,545 454,545 Lackawanna 3 Insufficient Data Lancaster 3 Less Than $500,000 802,896 802,896 Lehigh 3 Less Than $500,000 288,875 288,875 Luzerne 3 Insufficient Data York 3 Less Than $250,000 402,859 402,859 Beaver 4 Less Than $250,000 132,522 398 132,920 Cambria 4 Less Than $250,000 182,928 320 183,248 Cumberland 4 Insufficient Data Fayette 4 Insufficient Data Washington 4 Insufficient Data Blair 5 Insufficient Data Butler 5 Less Than $250,000 155,136 155' 136 Centre 5 Insufficient Data Franklin 5 Less Than $100,000 86,440 86,440 Lawrence 5 Less Than $100,000 61,240 61,240 Lebanon 5 Less Than $100,000 70,164 70' 164 Lycoming 5 Insufficient Data Mercer 5 Less Than $100,000 85,882 240 86,122 Northumberland 5 Insufficient Data Adams 6 Less than $250,000 106, 744 106,744 Armstrong 6 Less Than $100,000 138,170 138,170 Bedford 6 Insufficient Data Bradford 6 Less Than $250,000 68,922 253 69. 175 Clarion 6 Insufficient Data Clearfield 6 Insufficient Data Clinton 6 Less Than $100,000 125,804 93 125,897 Columbia 6 Less Than $100,000 53,314 115 53,429 Crawford 6 Insufficient Data Elk 6 Less Than $100, 000 12,000 12,000 Greene 6 Less Than $100,000 37,053 296 37' 349 Huntingdon 6 Less Than $100,000 21,993 21,993 Indiana 6 Less Than $100,000 29,477 296 29,773 Jefferson 6 Insufficient Data McKean 6 Less Than $100,000 3,940 3,940 Mifflin 6 Less Than $100,000 43,517 70 43,587 Monroe 6 Less Than $100,000 79,802 79,802 Somerset 6 Less than $100,000 144,886 400 145,286 Susquehanna 6 Less Than $100,000 33,803 62 33,865 Tioga 6 Insufficient Data Venango 6 Less Than $250,000 23, 184 23,184 Perry 7 Insufficient Data Snyder 7 Less Than $100,000 9,488 382 9,870 Union 7 Insufficient Data Wayne 7 Insufficient Data Forest 8 Less Than $100,000 3,033 44 3,077 Fulton 8 Less Than $100,000 22,741 22,741 Juniata 8 Insufficient Data Montour 8 Less Than $100,000 7,032 44 7,076 Potter 8 Insufficient Data


41

F. CLERKS OF ORPHANS' COURTS

1 • BACKGROUND

Each county elects one clerk of the orphans' court. However, in numerous cases, two or more offices are held by the clerk of the orphans' court. In second through fourth class counties, the offices of register of wills and clerk of orphans' court are combined. In fifth class counties, register of wills and clerk of orphans' court are held by one person. In sixth and seventh class counties, the offices of register of wills, recorder of deeds, and clerk of orphans' court are combined. In eighth class counties, one person holds the offices of prothonotary, clerk of courts, register of wills, recorder of deeds, and clerk of orphans' court (County Code, Section 1302; 16 p. s. 1302).

The clerk of the orphans' court division of the court of common pleas is responsible for performing the administrative recordkeeping duties of that court. Additionally, he issues marriage licenses and keeps required marriage records. All proceedings relative to estates of incompetents and to adoptions are filed with the clerk of orphans' court.

With the exception of some revenues generated from the issuance of marriage licenses, provided for by the Marriage Law (1953, P.L. 1344, No. 383; 48 P.S. 1-1 et seq.), all monies collected by the clerk of orphans' court are remitted to the county. Fifty cents of the fee required for a marriage license is transmitted to the Commonwealth (48 P.S. 1-19).

Costs imposed by the clerk of orphans' court are established pursuant to the following schedules: the act of June 30, 1972 (P.L. 508, No. 164; 20 Pa.C.S.A. 743), regarding the establishment of a bill of costs in judicial districts having a separate orphans' court division; and the act establishing fees to be charged by clerks of the orphans' courts of counties of the fifth through eighth classes (1981, P.L. 193, No. 58; 42 Pa.C.S.A. 21031 et seq.), which also locked in those fees allowed by the original act (Act 164 of 1972) for clerks of orphans' courts in second through fourth class counties. The act of April 28, 1978 (P.L. 202, No. 53) had repealed Act 164 of 1972, effective June 27, 1979.


Tables F-1, F-2, and F-3 display the data collected from the clerks of orphans' courts for 1986, 1987, and 1988, respectively. The "fees collected by office for county use" is composed of the revenues generated by the various fee schedules, including marriage licenses. No commissions are collected by the clerk of orphans' court for the use of the county, so the similarly named column reflects that fact. Therefore, the "total revenue for use of county" comprises exclusively the aforementioned fees. This figure was compared with the pertinent budget data to determine the solvency of each office.

The results for each of the years surveyed were identical. In each instance, only one county (i.e., Bucks, a county of the third class) definitively showed a surplus. All other clerks' offices operated at a deficit for every one of the years examined.

42

i !

Careful consideration should be directed toward this analysis. Some clerks of orphans' courts included miscellaneous income in the data they submitted. Also, a few noted that their annual budgets included overhead expenses charged to their offi.ce by the county commissi.oners.

3. PROPOSALS

The clerks of orphans' courts were nearly unanimous in their support of major increases (up to 50 percent) in their respective fee schedules. They produced rather convincing evidence that their fee collections are insufficient to cover the costs incurred in operating the office. Indeed, the data indicate that only one county has operated at a surplus during the years studied. The smaller counties' clerks of orphans' courts urged adoption of a uniform fee schedule that would ignore population differences. The larger counties urged support of House Bill 1556, Printer's Number 1817 (see Appendix H), which would permit the clerk of the orphans' court in second through fourth class counties to adjust his offices' fees with the concurrence of the president judge within 60 days of the bill's approval. This bill passed the House of Representatives on June 19, 1989, and is now in the Senate Judiciary Committee. The concept of establishing a new fee schedule to which an escalator clause would be tied in the event House Bill 1556 would founder was greeted with a virtually unanimous chorus of disapproval by large and small counties alike.

Although the removal of fee ceilings is considered by some to be a politicially unfeasible reform, it represents an option that should be explored in this case. Clearly, when the Commonwealth limits the fees that may be collected by the clerks of orphans' courts, it fails to take into consideration the varying fiscal capabilities of those counties. Elimination of those limits would facilitate the development of fee policies that would be more suited to the individual counties they should be designed to serve. House Bill 1556 seems to address the problem, but it is, perhaps, too timorous. The General Assembly should perhaps extend the bill's provisions to clerks of orphans' courts in fifth through eighth class counties.

43

TABLE F-1 CLERKS OF ORPHANS' COURTS

1986

BUDGETED EXPENDITURE FOR FEES COLLECTED BY OFFICE COMMISSIONS COLLECTED BY TOTAL REVENUE FOR USE OF ~ CLASS OFFICE BY COUNTY FOR COUNTY USE OFFICE FOR COUNTY USE COUNTY

Allegheny 2 Insufficient Data $ $ $ Montgomery 2A Insufficient Data Berks 3 Less Than $100,000 45,224 0 45,224 Bucks 3 Less Than $100,000 109,956 0 109,956 Chester 3 Insufficient Data Dauphin 3 Insufficient Data

*Lackawanna 3 Insufficient Data Luzerne 3 Insufficient Data

*Northampton 3 Less Than $100,000 43,299 0 43,299 Westmoreland 3 Less Than $100,000 45,716 0 45,716 York 3 Less Than $100,000 42,754 0 42,754 Beaver 4 Less Than $100,000 31,046 0 31,046 Cambria 4 Insufficient Data Fayette 4 Insufficient Data Schuylkill 4 Less Than $100,000 12,258 0 12,258 Washington 4 Less Than $100,000 27,739 0 27,739 Butler 5 Less Than $100,000 23,148 0 23,148 Centre 5 Insufficient Data Franklin 5 Less Than $100,000 13,207 0 13,207 Lawrence 5 Less Than $100,000 19,776 0 19,776 Lebanon 5 Less Than $100,000 12,178 0 12,178 Lycoming 5 Insufficient Data Mercer 5 Insufficient Data Northumberland 5 Insufficient Data Adams 6 Less Than $100,000 14,621 0 14,621 Armstrong 6 Less Than $100,000 21,119 0 21,119 Bedford 6 Insufficient Data Bradford 6 Insufficient Data Carbon 6 Less Than $100,000 3,296 0 3,296 Clarion 6 Less Than $100,000 6,100 0 6,100 Columbia 6 Less Than $100,000 3,819 0 3,819 Crawford 6 Less Than $100,000 9,915 0 9,915 Elk 6 Less Than $100,000 5,610 0 5,610 Greene 6 Less Than $100,000 7,958 0 7,958 Huntingdon 6 Less Than $100,000 3,566 0 3,566 Indiana 6 Insufficient Data McKean 6 Less Than $100,000 13,595 0 13,595 Mifflin 6 Insufficient Data Monroe 6 Less Than $100,000 6,013 0 6,013 Somerset 6 Insufficient Data Susquehanna 6 Less Than $100,000 3,681 0 3,681 Tioga 6 Insufficient Data Venango 6 Less Than $100,000 10,405 0 10,405 Warren 6 Less Than $100,000 3,460 0 3,460 Snyder 7 Less Than $100,000 4,453 0 4,453 Union 7 Less Than $100,000 5,885 5,885 Wayne 7 Insufficient Data Forest 8 Less Than $100,000 772 0 772 Fulton 8 Less Than $100,000 848 0 848 Juniata 8 Insufficient Data Montour 8 Less Than $100,000 2,017 0 2,017 Pike 8 Less Than $100,000 2,431 0 2,431 Potter 8 Insufficient Data


44

TABLE F-2 CLERKS OF OPRHANS' COURTS

1987


Allegheny 2 Insufficient Data Montgomery 2A Insufficient Data Berks 3 Less Than $100,000 42,698 0 42,698 Bucks 3 Less Than $100,000 110,335 0 110,335 Chester 3 Insufficient Data Dauphin 3 Insufficient Data


*Northampton 3 Less Than $100,000 42,157 0 42,157 Westmoreland 3 Less Than $100,000 46,069 0 46,069 York 3 Less Than $100,000 42,131 0 42,131 Beaver 4 Less Than $100,000 26,750 0 26,750 Cambria 4 Insufficient Data Fayette 4 Insufficient Data Schuylkill 4 Less Than $100,000 12,201 0 12,201 Washington 4 Less Than $100,000 29,375 0 29,375 Butler 5 Less Than $100,000 23,508 0 23,508 Centre 5 Insufficient Data Franklin 5 Less Than $100,000 17,305 0 17,305 Lawrence 5 Less Than $100,000 25,842 0 25,842 Lebanon 5 Less Than $100,000 12,335 0 12,335 Lycoming 5 Insufficient Data Mercer 5 Insufficient Data Northumberland 5 Insufficient Data Adams 6 Less Than $100,000 16,884 0 16,884 Armstrong 6 Less Than $100,000 19,846 0 19,846 Bedford 6 Insufficient Data Bradford 6 Insufficient Data Carbon 6 Less Than $100,000 3,804 0 3,804 Clarion 6 Less Than $100,000 5,817 0 5,817 Columbia 6 Less Than $100,000 4, 117 0 4, 117 Crawford 6 Less Than $100,000 12,171 0 12,171 Elk 6 Less Than $100,000 6,320 0 6,320 Greene 6 Less Than $100,000 7,438 0 7,438 Huntingdon 6 Less Than $100,000 4,063 0 4,063 Indiana 6 Insufficient Data McKean 6 Less Than $100,000 12,884 0 12,884 Mifflin 6 Insufficient Data Monroe 6 Less Than $100,000 6,624 0 6,624 Somerset 6 Insufficient Data Susquehanna 6 Less Than $100,000 4,830 0 4,830 Tioga 6 Insufficient Data Venango 6 Less Than $100,000 11, 212 0 11,212 Warren 6 Less Than $100,000 3,828 0 3,828 Snyder 7 Less Than $100,000 4,453 0 4,453 Union 7 Less Than $100,000 5,903 0 5,903 Wayne 7 Insufficient Data Forest 8 Less Than $100,000 958 0 958 Fulton 8 Less Than $100,000 909 0 909 Juniata 8 Insufficient Data Montour 8 Less Than $100,000 2, 776 0 2, 776 Pike 8 Less Than $100,000 2,580 0 2,580 Potter 8 Insufficient Data


45

TABLE F-3 CLERKS OF ORPHANS'S COURTS

1988


Allegheny 2 Insufficient Data Montgomery 2A Insufficient Data Berks 3 Less Than $100,000 $ 60,843 $ 0 60,843 Bucks 3 Less Than $100,000 127' 271 0 127' 271 Chester 3 Insufficient Data Dauphin 3 Insufficient Data


*Northampton 3 Less Than $100,000 47,797 0 47,797 Westmoreland 3 Less Than $100,000 41,931 0 41,931 York 3 Less Than $100, 000 45,642 0 45,642 Beaver 4 Less Than $100,000 26,674 0 26,674 Cambria 4 Insufficient Data Fayette 4 Insufficient Data Schuylkill 4 Less Than $100,000 11, 159 0 11,159 Washington 4 Less Than $100,000 24,986 0 24,986 Butler 5 Less Than $100,000 24,819 0 24,819 Centre 5 Insufficient Data Franklin 5 Less Than $100,000 17,472 0 17 ,472 Lawrence 5 Less Than $100,000 21,750 0 21,750 Lebanon 5 Less Than $100,000 13,750 0 13,750 Lycoming 5 Insufficient Data Mercer 5 Insufficient Data Northumberland 5 Insufficient Data Adams 6 Less Than $100,000 18, 111 0 18, 111 Armstrong 6 Less Than $100,000 23,339 0 23,339 Bedford 6 Insufficient Data Bradford 6 Less Than $100,000 3,766 0 3,766 Carbon 6 Less Than $100,000 4,602 0 4,602 Clarion 6 Less Than $100,000 5,593 0 5,593 Columbia 6 Less Than $100,000 3,958 0 3,958 Crawford 6 Less Than $100,000 13,037 0 13,037 Elk 6 Less Than $100,000 7 ,112 0 7' 112 Greene 6 Less Than $100,000 7,271 0 7,271 Huntingdon 6 Less Than $100,000 3,979 0 3,979 Indiana 6 Insufficient Data McKean 6 Less Than $100,000 13,938 0 13,938 Mifflin 6 Insufficient Data Monroe 6 Less Than $100,000 6,663 0 6,663 Somerset 6 Insufficient Data Susquehanna 6 Less Than $100,000 6, 105 0 6, 105 Tioga 6 Insufficient Data Venango 6 Less Than $100, 000 12,063 0 12,063 Warren 6 Less Than $100,000 3,635 0 3,635 Snyder 7 Less Than $100,000 3,957 0 3,957 Union 7 Less Than $100,000 5,692 0 5,692 Wayne 7 Insufficient Data Forest 8 Less Than $100,000 622 0 622 Fulton 8 Less Than $100,000 850 0 850 Juniata 8 Insufficient Data Montour 8 Less Than $100,000 2,334 0 2,334 Pike 8 Less Than $100,000 2,994 0 2,994 Potter 8 Insufficient Data

* Counties which have adopted home rule charters,

46

G. REGISTERS OF WILLS

1. BACKGROUND

Each county has a register of wills. However, the register of wills in many counties is elected to a combined office. In second, second class A, third, and fourth class counties, the offices of register of wills and clerk of orphans' court are combined. In fifth class counties, the register of wills and clerk of orphans' court are held by one person. In sixth and seventh class counties, the offices of register of wills, recorder of deeds, and clerk of orphans court are combined. In eighth class counties, one person holds the offices of prothonotary, clerk of courts, register of wills, recorder of deeds, and clerk of orphans' court (County Code 1302; 16 P.S. 1302).

The register of wills is responsible for probating wills and granting letters of administration in cases where persons die without leaving a will, thus giving the register quasi-judicial powers. He decides the probate of the will of any residents of the county or of any decedents the bulk of whose estate lies within the county. The register has jurisdiction over and maintains records on wills, inventory of estates, fiduciary accounts, and other miscellaneous documents.

Fees accruing from the services outlined above are paid to the county pursuant to the following schedules: the First Class County Register of Wills Fee Bill Act (1982, P.L. 11, No. 5; 42 P.S. 21015 et seq.); the act of June 30, 1972 (P.L. 508, No. 164; 20 Pa. C.S.A. 909), regarding the establishment of a bill of costs in judicial districts having a separate orphans' court division; and the act establishing fees to be levied by registers in counties of the fifth through eighth classes (1981, P.L. 191, No. 57; 42 P.S. 21021 et seq.), which also froze fees pertinent to the original act's (Act 164 of 1972) provisions for registers in second through fourth class counties. The 1972 enactment had been repealed on April 28, 1978 (P.L. 202, No. 53), effective June 27, 1979.

The register is also responsible for collecting the state inheritance tax and for maintaining inheritance tax records. The Commonwealth imposes an inheritance tax pursuant to the Transfer Inheritance Tax Law (1919, P.L. 521, No. 258). The law which established the tax has been amended a number of times, including thorough revisions in 1961 (P.L. 373, No. 207) and most recently in 1982 (P.L. 1086, No. 255; 72 P.S. 1701 et seq.). Pursuant to the act of December 19, 1986 (P.L. 1732, No. 207; 72 P.S. 2381), effective January 1, 1988, the register as agent for the state, receives a commission of at least four and one-quarter percent of the taxable transfer. These monies are paid to the county's general fund. Prior to 1988, the total amount of commissions that could be retained by the register was capped at $20,000.


Tables G-1, G-2, and G-3 delineate the data supplied by the registers of wills for 1986, 1987, and 1988, respectively. The "fees collected by office for county use" include the monies generated pursuant to the pertinent fee bills. The "commissions collected by office for county use" comprise the monies paid to the register for collecting the inheritance tax. The sum of

47

the aforementioned collections result in the "total revenue for use of county." The self-sufficiency of each office was determined by juxtaposing the total revenues with each office's budget.

A majority of register's offices in counties of the third class showed a surplus in each of the years studied. Most poignantly, without exception, registers' offices in all sixth through eighth class counties in all of the years being examined functioned in the red.

Some words of caution are in order regarding the statistics dissected in this section. Unfortunately, a lack of uniformity permeated the data. Some registers responded to Question 8 by providing data for the granting of letters of administration and letters testamentary and the filing of accounts and inventory statements exclusively. Other registers included miscellaneous items, which were reflected, where warranted, in the information presented. The budgetary data were affected by the inclusion of data processing expenditures in some submissions.

3. PROPOSALS

A preponderance of registers of wills argued that an examination of their records discloses a need for increased fees. The data support their contention that none of the current fees cover the expenses incurred in the operation of their offices. Many registers utilized the opportunity to submit recommendations to endorse House Bill 368, Printer's Number 2762 (see Appendix I), which passed the House of Representatives on November 15, 1989, and is now in the Senate Local Government Committee. This bill would allow the register of wills in counties of the second through eighth class to adjust fees with the approval of the president judge within 60 days of the bill's passage. (NOTE: House Bill 2140, Printer's Number 2821 (see Appendix J), which would establish a liberalized fee schedule to be utilized by registers of wills in counties of the second class had not been introduced at the time the questionnaires were disseminated.) The registers in less populated counties urged adoption of a fee schedule that is uniform throughout the Commonwealth for every class county if passage of House Bill 368 is unlikely. Not surprisingly, the more heavily populated counties dissented. Agreement was evident on the issue of incorporating an escalator clause in a new fee schedule as the majority of registers in all classes found such an idea to be confusing and, therefore, impractical.

In view of the perilous fiscal state of the Commonwealth's registers of wills' offices, their case for self-determination can be compelling. The registers' economic afflictions were mitigated by Act 207 of 1986, which eliminated the ceiling on commissions generated through collections of inheritance tax revenues. However, major changes to the current fee schedules are warranted if these offices are to be self-supporting. House Bill 368, while not a panacea, deserves serious consideration.

48

TABLE G-1 REGISTERS OF WILLS

1986


Allegheny 2 Insufficient Data Montgomery 2A Insufficient Data Berks 3 Less Than $250,000 $151,403 20,000 $171,403 Bucks 3 Less Than $250,000 277' 568 29,000 306,568 Chester 3 Insufficient Data Dauphin 3 Insufficient Data

*Lackawanna 3 Insufficient Data *Lehigh 3 Less Than $250,000 81,636 20,000 101,636

Luzerne 3 Insufficient Data *Northampton 3 Insufficient Data

Westmoreland 3 Less Than $250,000 301,614 20,000 321,614 York 3 Less Than $100,000 170,853 20,000 190,853 Beaver 4 Less Than $250,000 64,338 32,681 97,019 Cambria 4 Insufficient Data Fayette 4 Insufficient Data Schuylkill 4 Less Than $100,000 72,059 20,000 92,059 Washington 4 Less Than $250,000 106,673 20,000 126,673 Blair 5 Insufficient Data Butler 5 Less Than $100,000 35,506 20,000 55,506 Centre 5 Insufficient Data Franklin 5 Less Than $100,000 82,749 20,000 102,749 Lawrence 5 Less Than $100,000 42,551 20,000 62,551 Lebanon 5 Less Than $100,000 37,919 20,000 57,919 Lycoming 5 Insufficient Data Mercer 5 Insufficient Data Northumberland 5 Insufficient Data Adams 6 Less Than $100,000 22,655 19,999 42,654 Armstrong 6 Less Than $100,000 15,788 20,000 35,788 Bedford 6 Insufficient Data Bradford 6 Insufficient Data Carbon 6 Less Than $100,000 24,406 20,000 44,406 Clarion 6 Less Than $100,000 10,979 15,355 26,334 Columbia 6 Less Than $100,000 20,628 20,000 40,628 Crawford 6 Insufficient Data Elk 6 Less Than $100,000 11,900 17,900 29,800 Greene 6 Insufficient Data Huntingdon 6 Less Than $100,000 12,947 13,926 26,873 Indiana 6 Insufficient Data McKean 6 Less Than $100,000 17,787 20,000 37,787 Mifflin 6 Insufficient Data Monroe 6 Less Than $100,000 29' 139 20,000 49,139 Somerset 6 Insufficient Data Susquehanna 6 Less Than $100,000 10,259 14,522 24,781 Tioga 6 Insufficient Data Venango 6 Less Than $100,000 35,255 20,000 55,255 Warren 6 Less Than $100,000 20,656 20,000 40,656 Snyder 7 Less Than $100,000 7,195 14,751 21, 946 Union 7 Less Than $100,000 7 ,211 17,434 24,645 Wayne 7 Insufficient Data Wyoming 7 Insufficient Data Forest 8 Less Than $100,000 2,880 6,321 9,201 Fulton 8 Less Than $100,000 4,202 8,398 12,600 Juniata 8 Insufficient Data Montour 8 Less Than $100,000 5,084 7,681 12,765 Pike 8 Less Than $100,000 12,048 22,492 34,540 Potter 8 Insufficient Data


49


1987


Allegheny 2 Insufficient Data Montgomery 2A Insufficient Data Berks 3 Less Than $250,000 $142,946 $20,000 $162,946 Bucks 3 Less Than $250,000 249,265 20,000 269,265 Chester 3 Insufficient Data Dauphin 3 Insufficient Data

*Lackawanna 3 Insufficient Data *Lehigh 3 Less Than $250,000 84,938 20,000 104,938

Luzerne 3 Insufficient Data *Northampton 3 Insufficient Data

Westmoreland 3 Less Than $250,000 286,513 20,000 306,513 York 3 Less Than $100,000 185,346 20,000 205,346 Beaver 4 Less Than $250,000 59,047 20,000 79,047 Cambria 4 Insufficient Data Fayette 4 Insufficient Data Schuylkill 4 Less Than $100,000 80,383 20,000 100,383 Washington 4 Less Than $250,000 114,499 31, l 72 145,671 Blair 5 Insufficient Data Butler 5 Less Than $100,000 41, 267 20,000 61, 26 7 Centre 5 Insufficient Data Franklin 5 Less Than $100,000 86,339 20,000 106,339 Lawrence 5 Less Than $100,000 45,960 20,000 65,960 Lebanon 5 Less Than $100,000 38,412 20,000 58,412 Lycoming 5 Insufficient Data Mercer 5 Insufficient Data Northumberland 5 Insufficient Data Adams 6 Less Than $100,000 22,795 20,000 42,795 Armstrong 6 Less Than $100,000 16,521 20,000 36,521 Bedford 6 Insufficient Data Bradford 6 Insufficient Data Carbon 6 Less Than $100,000 34,392 20,000 54,392 Clarion 6 Less Than $100,000 13,325 20,227 33,552 Columbia 6 Less Than $100,000 17,548 20,000 37,548 Crawford 6 Insufficient Data Elk 6 Less Than $100,000 12,850 19,700 32,550 Greene 6 Insufficient Data Huntingdon 6 Less Than $100,000 16,222 17,563 33,785 Indiana 6 Insufficient Data McKean 6 Less Than $100,000 17,072 20,000 37 ,072 Mifflin 6 Insufficient Data Monroe 6 Less Than $100,000 26, 139 20,000 46,139 Somerset 6 Insufficient Data Susquehanna 6 Less Than $100,000 12,786 20,911 33,697 Tioga 6 Insufficient Data Venango 6 Less Than $100,000 22,697 19,998 42,695 Warren 6 Less Than $100,000 21,807 20,000 41,807 Snyder 7 Less Than $100,000 10,819 13,578 24,397 Union 7 Less Than $100,000 7,850 17,033 24,883 Wayne 7 Insufficient Data Wyoming 7 Insufficient Data Forest 8 Less Than $100,000 3,107 5,592 8,699 Fulton 8 Less Than $100,000 4,609 6,465 11,074 Juniata 8 Insufficient Data Montour 8 Less Than $100,000 6,164 16,223 22,387 Pike 8 Less Than $100,000 13,053 19,147 32,200 Potter 8 Insufficient Data


50


1988



Allegheny 2 Insufficient Data Montgomery 2A Insufficient Data Berks 3 Less Than $250,000 $203,641 $ 77,773 $281,414 Bucks 3 Less Than $250,000 258,527 112,077 370,604 Chester 3 Insufficient Data Dauphin 3 Insufficient Data

*Lackawanna 3 Insufficient Data *Lehigh 3 Less Than $250,000 85,741 68,221 153' 962

Luzerne 3 Insufficient Data *Northampton 3 Insufficient Data Westmoreland 3 Less Than $250,000 281,825 78,594 360,419 York 3 Less Than $100,000 182,878 60,000 242,878 Beaver 4 Less Than $250,000 58,224 20,000 78,224 Cambria 4 Insufficient Data Fayette 4 Insufficient Data Schuylkill 4 Less Than $100,000 79,317 40,049 119,366 Washington 4 Less Than $250,000 119,152 25,947 145,099 Blair 5 Insufficient Data Butler 5 Less Than $100,000 38,201 43,822 82,023 Centre 5 Insufficient Data Franklin 5 Less Than $100,000 81,827 43,486 125,313 Lawrence 5 Less Than $100,000 41,332 28,616 69,948 Lebanon 5 Less Than $100,000 42 '713 35,658 78,371 Lycoming 5 Insufficient Data Mercer 5 Insufficient Data Northumberland 5 Insufficient Data Adams 6 Less Than $100,000 26,944 30,217 57,161 Armstrong 6 Less Than $100,000 14,636 25,534 40,170 Bedford 6 Insufficient Data Bradford 6 Less Than $100,000 16,370 23 '779 40,149 Carbon 6 Less Than $100,000 31,742 25,696 57,438 Clarion 6 Less Than $100,000 12,981 23,220 36,201 Columbia 6 Less Than $100,000 20,733 26,936 47,669 Crawford 6 Insufficient Data Elk 6 Less Than $100,000 13,040 22,800 35,840 Greene 6 Insufficient Data Huntingdon 6 Less Than $100,000 14,430 21,823 36,253 Indiana 6 Insufficient Data McKean 6 Less Than $100,000 18,356 26,151 44,507 Mifflin 6 Insufficient Data Monroe 6 Less Than $100,000 28,595 37,414 66,009 Somerset 6 Insufficient Data Susquehanna 6 Less Than $100,000 12,884 20,679 33,563 Tioga 6 Insufficient Data Venango 6 Less Than $100, 000 37,737 48, 775 86,512 Warren 6 Less Than $100,000 20,004 30,533 50,537 Snyder 7 Less Than $100,000 9,256 18,343 27,599 Union 7 Less Than $100,000 10,888 20,609 31,497 Wayne 7 Insufficient Data Wyoming 7 Insufficient Data Forest 8 Less Than $100,000 3,473 6,392 9,865 Fulton 8 Less Than $100,000 24,933 6, 106 31,039 Juniata 8 Insufficient Data Montour 8 Less Than $100,000 5,998 12,223 18,221 Pike 8 Less Than $100,000 14,191 20,592 34,783 Potter 8 Insufficient Data

* Counties which adopted home rule charters.

51 I

H. SHERIFFS

1. BACKGROUND

The county sheriff serves primarily as an officer of the court. The main duties of the office involve delivery and carrying out orders of county courts. Among other functions, the sheriff is empowered to serve various writs, processes, other judicial documents, and to assist in impaneling juries and executing sheriff's sales.

In 1984, the Local Government Commission introduced legislation to consolidate and revise fees collected by sheriffs. Resultingly, the Sheriff Fee Act (1984, P.L. 614, No. 127; 42 P.S. 21101 et seq.) delineated a uniform table of fees to be charged and received by sheriffs in all classes of counties except Phildelphia. The 1984 fee bill has not been revised since its adoption.

Licenses to carry firearms are also issued at the discretion of the county sheriff. Duties imposed upon the sheriff and the fee for such issuance are authorized in Title 18 (Crimes and Offenses) of the Pennsylvania Consolidated Statutes (Pa.C.S.).

The 1984 Deputy Sheriff's Education and Training Act (1984, P.L. 3, No. 2; 71 P.S. 2101 et seq.) also requires a two dollar surcharge on each fee collected by the sheriff upon acceptance for each service required for any complaint, summons, writ, or other legal paper required to be served or posted by the sheriff. All sums collected under this act are ultimately transferred to the Commonwealth for the restricted use of aiding in the basic training or continuing education of deputy sheriffs.


Sheriff's fees have been divided into two categories due to data collection difficulties and to facilitate an understanding of the ultimate disposal of these reported fees. Since many sheriffs included the sheriff's surcharge within the total revenue for use of county, or did not report surcharge amounts, it was impossible to combine these figures or completely rely on the total revenue generated figure in that it may include the surcharge amount. Additionally, surcharge funds are used solely for expenses related to deputies' training and are not available for general county use.

Review of the figures reported by the sheriffs indicate that the fees and commissions collected by their office and turned over to the county general fund represent upward of fifty percent of the expenses associated with that office. In no year and for no class of counties were these collections found to exceed the budgeted expenditure for the office by the county. (NOTE: Financial data presented in Tables H-1 through H-3 have been rounded to the nearest thousand.)

3. PROPOSALS

Almost in unison, respondent sheriffs believed that uniform increased fees for all of their offices should be established (39 responses). Three sheriffs answered that such increased fees should be based upon population of

52

counties, one favored either population or uniformity, and one stated that no change of the current fee schedule was necessary. The survey also elicited a single suggestion that a schedule should be developed based upon the current fees plus a percentage of actual costs. One sheriff decried increased fees based upon either population or a uniform schedule but advocated no alternate methodology for fee augmentation.

Addressing the question as to whether an escalator clause should be adopted to keep the sheriff's fee schedule current, the sheriffs' responses were slightly more diverse. Twenty-three favored a cost-of-living type of adjustment (COLA), seven a periodic review, and two an actual cost basis increase. Four sheriffs flatly stated they felt any escalator clause was unwise while one opined that the current schedule was adequate. One sheriff was unsure if any action should be taken regarding the updating of fees.

When asked to identify the elements of an updated fee schemata which need to be rectified, nineteen sheriffs felt all fees need to be increased although three believed no increases were necessary. The favored charge to be increased among the various fees was the firearms license which was specifically noted by twelve sheriffs. Eight officers mentioned the inadequate service charges while two felt monies collected under the state surcharge were insufficient to cover adequate sheriffs' training. Permits to sell firearms were categorized as underpriced by seven of those surveyed, and writs of execution, writs of possession, and records of sale were each listed six times.

The favored increase in the firearms license among the sheriffs was an increase from twelve dollars and fifty cents to twenty-five dollars (six responses). Other opinions regarding this license recommended increases in the current fee varying from as little as two dollars through twenty-eight dollars. One sheriff recommended a change from the current five-year license to a one-year permit with a set fee of ten dollars per year.

The remainder of the responses to the survey question requesting recommended fee schedule adjustments displayed a diversity which effectively defies categorization, Among the ideas offered were increases in all fees of twenty percent, thirty percent, forty to forty-five percent, and one hundred percent. Various proposals were made for specific fees--none of which received more than two votes. Perhaps the single most favored proposed fee increase--after the above referred items--was none (three responses).

Excellent detailed responses to the fee schedule adjustment question were received from the sheriffs of the counties of Butler, Clinton, Delaware, Monroe, and Pike. While not agreeing upon specific potential levies for individual fees, these sheriffs offered lengthy lists of the currently imposed fees and their considered opinions regarding adjustments. In lieu of reproduction of these varying schedules, a representative piece of legislation, House Bill 2097, Printer's Number 2764 (see Appendix K), is hereby referenced. HB 2097 contains the majority of fee items of concern to sheriffs and reflects the substantial increases they contend are needed. It would also appear that the revised fees located in HB 2097 would make significant progress toward a stated goal of HR 126, i.e., permitting recovery of actual expenses associated with the function of the county sheriff's office.

53

TABLE H-1 SHERIFFS

1986

BUDGETED EXPENDITURE TOTAL REVENUE COUNTY CLASS FOR OFFICE BY COUNTY FOR USE OF COUNTY SHERIFFS' SURCHARGE

Allegheny 2 More Than $3,000,000 $1,339,000 $82,000 *Delaware 2A Insufficient Data Montgomery 2A Less Than $2,000,000 634,000 30,000 Berks 3 Less Than $750,000 449,000 Chester 3 Less Than $750,000 643,000 15,000 Dauphin 3 Insufficient Data

*Erie 3 Insufficient Data. *Lehigh 3 Less Than $750,000 140,000 9,000 *Northampton 3 Less Than $750,000 20,000 Westmoreland 3 Less Than $100,000 303,000 York 3 Less Than $750,000 51,000 Beayer 4 Insufficient Data Fayette 4 Less Than $250,000 80,000 Schuylkill 4 Less Than $250,000 88,000 Washington 4 Less Than $750,000 109,000 7,000 Blair 5 Less Than $500,000 79,000 Butler 5 Less Than $500,000 117 ,000 5,000 Centre 5 Less Than $250,000 70,000 Franklin 5 Less Than $250,000 40,000 2,000 Lawrence 5 Less Than $250,000 66,000 2,000 Lebanon 5 Less Than $250,000 96,000 Lycoming 5 Less Than $250,000 76,000 Mercer 5 Less Than $250,000 74,000 4,000 Northumberland 5 Less Than $250,000 38,000 Adams 6 Less Than $100,000 63,000 2,000 Armstrong 6 Less Than $250,000 107,000 2,000 Bedford 6 Less Than $250,000 90,000 1,000 Bradford 6 Less Than $250,000 39,000 2,000 Carbon 6 Less Than $100,000 9,000 2,000 Clarion 6 Less Than $250,000 21,000 Clearfield 6 Less Than $250,000 54,000 Clinton 6 Less Than $100,000 16,000 Columbia 6 Less Than $100,000 54,000 Crawford 6 Less Than $250,000 26,000 Elk 6 Less Than $100,000 12,000 1,000 Greene 6 Insufficient Data Indiana 6 Less Than $250,000 38,000 Jefferson 6 Less Than $100,000 37,000 1,000 McKean 6 Less Than $100,000 44,000 2,000 Mifflin 6 Less Than $500,000 13,000 Monroe 6 Less Than $500,000 16,000 Somserset 6 Insufficient Data Susquehanna 6 Less Than $100,000 41,000 Warren 6 Insufficient Data Snyder 7 Less Than $100,000 26,000 Union 7 Less Than $100,000 13,000 Wayne 7 Less Than $100,000 30,000 Forest 8 Less Than $100,000 6,000 Fulton 8 Insufficient Data Montour 8 Less Than $100,000 7,000 Pike 8 Less Than $250,000 49,000 Potter 8 Less Than $100,000 10,000 **

* Counties which have adopted home rule charters, ** $500 or less.

54

TABLE H-2 SHERIFFS

1987

BUDGETED EXPENDITURE TOTAL REVENUE COUNTY CLASS FOR OFFICE BY COUNTY FOR USE OF COUNTY SHERIFFS' SURCHARGE

Allegheny 2 More Than $3,000,000 $ 1,476,000 88,000 Delaware 2A Insufficient Data Montgomery 2A Less Than $2,000,000 685,000 31,000 Berks 3 Less Than $750,000 497 ,000 Chester 3 Less Than $2,000,000 870,000 15,000 Dauphin 3 Insufficient Data

*Erie 3 Insufficient Data *Lehigh 3 Less Than $750,000 158,000 9,000 *Northampton 3 Less Than $750,000 20,000 Westmoreland 3 Less Than $1,000,000 357,000 York 3 Less Than $750,000 72,000 Beaver 4 Insufficient Data Fayette 4 Less Than $250,000 110,000 Schuylkill 4 Less Than $250,000 97,000 Washington 4 Less Than $750,000 124,000 7,000 Blair 5 Less Than $500,000 110,000 Butler 5 Less Than $500,000 140,000 5,00Q Centre 5 Less Than $250,000 80,000 Franklin 5 Less Than $250,000 55,00 2,000 Lawrence 5 Less Than $250,000 76,000 2,000 Lebanon 5 Less Than $250,000 103,000 Lycoming 5 Less Than $250,000 85,000 Mercer 5 Less Than $250,000 96,000 4,000 Northumberland 5 Less Than $250,000 63,000 Adams 6 Less Than $100,000 44,000 2,000 Armstrong 6 Less Than $250,000 138,000 2,000 Bedford 6 Less Than $250,000 80,000 1,000 Bradford 6 Less Than $250,000 44,000 2,000 Carbon 6 Less Than $100,000 18,000 2,000 Clarion 6 Less Than $250,000 28,000 Clearfield 6 Less Than $250,000 83,000 Clinton 6 Less Than $100,000 16,000 Columbia 6 Less Than $100 ,000 59,000 Crawford 6 Less Than $250,000 25,000 Elk 6 Less Than $100,000 18,000 1,000 Greene 6 Insufficient Data Indiana 6 Less Than $250,000 35,000 Jefferson 6 Less Than $100,000 38,000 2,000 McKean 6 Less Than $100,000 53,000 2,000 Mifflin 6 Less Than $500,000 11,000 Monroe 6 Less Than $500,000 26,000 Somerset 6 Insufficient Data Susquehanna 6 Less Than $250,000 52,000 Warren 6 Insufficient Data Snyder 7 Less Than $100,000 26,000 Union 7 Less Than $100,000 19,000 Wayne 7 Less Than $100,000 30,000 Forest 8 Less Than $100,000 7,000 Fulton 8 Insufficient Data Montour 8 Less Than $100,000 6,000 Pike 8 Less Than $250,000 46,000 Potter 8 Less Than $100,000 13,000 **

* Counties which have adopted home rule charters. ** $500 or less.

55

TABLE H-3 SHERIFFS

1988

BUDGETED EXPENDITURE TOTAL REVENUE COUNTY ~ FOR OFFICE BY COUNTY FOR USE OF COUNTY SHERIFFS' SURCHARGE

Allegheny 2 More Than $3,000,000 $1,368,000 $90,000 *Delaware 2A Insufficient Data Montgomery 2A Less Than $2,000,000 620,000 33,000 Berks 3 Less Than $750,000 432,000 Dauphin 3 Insufficient Data

*Erie 3 Insufficient Data Chester 3 Less Than $2,000,000 880,000 17,000 Westmoreland 3 Less Than $1,000,000 292,000 43,000

*Lehigh 3 Less Than $1,000,000 195,000 11,000 *Northampton 3 Less Than $750,000 5,000 York 3 Less Than $750,000 14,000 Beaver 4 Insufficient Data Fayette 4 Less Than $250,000 105,000 Schuylkill 4 Less Than $250,000 86,000 Washington 4 Less Than $1,000,000 135,000 8,000 Blair 5 Less Than $500,000 64,000 Butler 5 Less Than $500,000 109,000 6,000 Centre 5 Less Than $250,000 72,000 Franklin 5 Less Than $250,000 50,000 2,000 Lawrence 5 Less Than $250,000 67,000 2,000 Lebanon 5 Less Than $250,000 85,000 Lycoming 5 Less Than $250,000 64,000 Mercer 5 Less Than $250,000 51,000 4,000 Northumberland 5 Less Than $250,000 50,000 Adams 6 Less Than $250,000 36,000 2,000 Armstrong 6 Less Than $250,000 64,000 2,000 Bedford 6 Less Than $250,000 113,000 1,000 Bradford 6 Less Than $250,000 40,000 2,000 Carbon 6 Less Than $100,000 6,000 2,000 Clarion 6 Less Than $250,000 31,000 Clearfield 6 Less Than $250,000 53,000 Clinton 6 Less Than $100,000 17,000 Columbia 6 Less Than $100,000 43,000 Crawford 6 Less Than $250,000 29,000 Elk 6 Less Than $100,000 10,000 1,000 Greene 6 Insufficient Data Indiana 6 Less Than $250,000 44,000 Jefferson 6 Less Than $100,000 26,000 1,000 McKean 6 Less Than $100,000 54,000 2,000 Mifflin 6 Less Than $500,000 10,000 Monroe 6 Less Than $500,000 10,000 Somerset 6 Insufficient Data Susquehanna 6 Less Than $100,000 36,000 Warren 6 Insufficient Data Snyder 7 Less Than $100,000 20,000 Union 7 Less Than $100,000 10,000 Wayne 7 Less Than $100,000 35,000 Forest 8 Less Than ~100,000 5,000 Fulton 8 Insufficient Data Montour 8 Less Than $100,000 7,000 Pike 8 Less Than $250,000 47,000 Potter 8 Less Than $100,000 9,000 1,000


** $500 or less.

56

III. GENERAL RECOMMENDATIONS

Despite their basically administrative and recordkeeping duties, the chiefs of the various row offices form an integral part of a county's government. Their offices furnish essential services to the public, hopefully in a streamlined and equitable manner. However, failure to effectively administer their offices could have serious implications for their county's operating and/or capital budgets.

The preamble to House Resolution 126 states: "The various fee schedules affecting county services are woefully inadequate to pay for the actual costs involved in rendering such services." Its operative paragraph "directfs] the Local Government Commission to research the subject of fees levied by counties and to prepare legislation to permit counties to increase such fees to cover actual expenses in providing such services." Unfortunately, our efforts to abide by the resolution's directives were, in essence, stymied, thereby making the issuance of cogent recommendations torturous and the formulation of remedial legislation difficult.

In myriad instances, two or more offices are held by the same person. Such occurrences need not cause difficulties, but we found the practicai effects of researching fees in combined offices to be debilitating.

We discovered the accounting systems in many combined offices to be inadequate and outmoded inasmuch as a sizeable majority of those offices maintain one set of books which fail to segregate the revenues received. In numerous cases, payments to the combined office are recorded without regard to the particular row office that provided the service for which a fee was charged. Succinctly stated, contrary to sound principles of internal financial control, payments had been combined. Therefore, we believe the current procedures in many combined row offices are antiquated and in dire need of modernization. Presently, meaningful audit trails segregated by row office appear to be nonexistent.

Of course, the issue of whether row offices should be self-supporting by virtue of their collecting adequate fees j_s a policy matter for which the General Assembly is the final arbiter. However, the severity of the commingling of office funds has obviated our collection of adequate, accurate data upon which we could recommend a meaningful course of action in terms of adjusting the fees collected by county row officers. Nevertheless, we exhort the General Assembly, should they wish to create fees which cover actual expenses of row offices, to mandate that all county row offices, including those combined offices to which only one person is elected, maintain separate books.

The essence of HR 126 requires the Local Government Commission to "prepare legislation to permit counties to increase fees to cover actual expenses." The phrase "to cover actual expenses" is not defined and, therefore, the Legislature, as a matter of policy, must enact the necessary mechanism to provide such coverage. Therefore, as directed by the House of Representatives, the Local Government Commission has compiled the "County Fee Modification Law" for consideration (Appendix L). It must be stressed that this proposal is not endorsed by the Members and staff of the Local Government Commission, since this study failed to produce the necessary and pertinent

57

fiscal data upon which a determination could be made, with a reasonable amount of finality, that the current county fees are insufficient. Obviously, this determination can only be achieved by (1) maintenance of separate fiscal accounts by county officers sharing more than one office and (2) a subsequent certified public audit of existing fees. We would also suggest that should the General Assembly determine that county employee salaries and benefits, office material and supply costs, and public utility bills, etc., be considered the "actual cost" of doing business, necessary time studies be conducted of row offices in each county to determine the percentage of time county employees in these respective offices devote to duties specifically required of the fee laws. This provision has been included in the proposed "County Fee Modification Law" in Section 2(a).

58

APPENDIX A PRINTER 1 S NO. 1945

THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF PENNSYLVANIA

HOUSE RESOLUTION No. 126 Session of

1989

INTRODUCED BY KUKOVICH, MANDERINO, TANGRETTI, SALOOM, PETRARCA, VAN HORNE AND STAIRS, JUNE 5, 1989

REFERRED TO COMMITTEE ON RULES, JUNE 5, 1989

A RESOLUTION

1 Directing the Local Government Commission to research the 2 subject of fees levied by counties and prepare legislation to 3 permit counties to increase such fees to cover actual 4 expense.

5 WHEREAS, The various fee schedules affecting county services

6 are woefully inadequate to pay for the actual costs involved in

7 rendering such services; therefore be it

8 RESOLVED, That the House of Representatives direct the Local

9 Government Commission to research the subject of fees levied by

10 counties and to prepare legislation to permit counties to

11 increase such fees to cover actual expenses in providing such

12 services.

E24L82MRD/19890H0126Rl945

59

'.·.·.·.·.·. ' w1

I

APPENDIX B

LOCAL GOVERNMENT COMMISSION COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA

MEMBERS

Senator J. Doyle Corman Bellefonte

Senator James J. Rhoades Mahanoy City

Senator Frank A. Pecora Penn Hills

Senator J. Barry Stout Bentleyville

Senator Roy C. Afflerbach Allentown

Senate Post Office Main Capitol Building

Harrisburg, PA 17120-0030 (717) 787-7680 (717) 787-6211

EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR Virgil F. Puskarich

15 August 1989

MEMORANDUM

TO: All County Row Officers

MEMBERS

Representative Ted Stuban Berwick

Representative Ron Gamble Oakdale

Representative Victor J. Lescovitz Midway

Representative A. Carville Foster, Jr. Seven Valleys

Representative Charles F. Nahill, Jr. Glenside

FROM: Virgil F. Puskarich, Executive Director, Local Government Commission

SUBJECT: Fees Levied by Counties

Most of you are aware of the Local Government Commission. But for those who are not, a brief introduction would be appropriate. The Local Government Commission of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania was established in 1935 as a bicameral, bipartisan agency serving both chambers of the Pennsylvania General Assembly by providing research and advice to all Members on matters affecting political subdivisions and local government.

The Local Government Commission annually reviews resolutions adopted at the respective state conventions of the municipal associations and introduces legislation when warranted. The Commission also meets monthly in an open forum with representatives of the Pennsylvania State Association of Elected County Officials (PSAECO) and its affiliated organizations to provide a neutral, nonpartisan setting for airing and discussing the relevant and important concerns of governmental parties.

Moreover, the Commission's staff performs in-depth policy analyses on local government issues at the direction of the ten legislators comprising the Commission. Occasionally, either or both branches of the Legislature will require the Commission to conduct research on matters considered important.

On June 7, 1989, the House of Representatives unanimously adopted a simple resolution, which requires action by one chamber only, whose operative paragraph states the following:

"RESOLVED, That the House of Representatives direct the Local Government Commission to research the subject of fees levied by counties and to prepare legislation to permit counties to increase such fees to cover actual expenses in providing such services."

House Resolution 126 was introduced by Representative Kukovich on June 5, 1989, and was cosponsored by all the other Members of the House of

60

All County Row Officers Page 2 15 August 1989

Representatives elected from districts comprising in whole or in part Westmoreland County. The premise to this resolution can be found in its preamble, which states that "the various fee schedules affecting county services are woefully inadequate to pay for the actual costs involved in rendering such services."

In order to communicate with Pennsylvania's row officers so as to identify priorities and problems with the current fee structures, we have designed a questionnaire which is being mailed to all of those officials. Survey cost considerations dictate that mail surveys be utilized to obtain the factual data needed.

We cannot emphasize strongly enough the importance of achieving a reasonable response rate in order to gain statistically reliable survey results. Informed policymaking can result only from the analysis of an adequate compilation of accurate data.

Please note that where provisions of the County Code or other law provide for two or more offices to be held by the same person, that official will receive a separate questionnaire for each office. Also, for your reference we have enclosed a compilation of those county fee laws which are pertinent to your office.

One of the goals of the Local Government Commission is to act as an advocate for local governments by providing effective, efficient service for you. You can help us do this by filling out the enclosed questionnaire and returning it to us by September 8, 1989, in the stamped, self-addressed envelope which is provided for your convenience. Thanks for your assistance.

VFP:ksw

Enclosures

61

APPENDIX C

Importance of Accurate Information: In an effort to provide the General Assembly with reliable and valid information, it is of paramount importance that you accurately and thoroughly complete this questionnaire and that you subsequently return this survey in the self-addressed, stamped envelope by September 8, 1989. Failure to complete this questionnaire would most likely result in a conclusion that this issue is not one about which the Legislature should be concerned.

QUESTIONNAIRE

I. List the name of the county officer.

2. Circle the name of the office to which the incumbent has been appointed/elected.

Treasurer Clerk of Courts

Coroner Clerk of the Orphans' Court

Recorder of Deeds Register of Wills

Prothonotary Sheriff

District Attorney

3. What is the name of your county?

4. Circle the relevant classification of your county.

lst 4th

2nd 5th

2A 6th

3rd 7th

8th

5. Circle the code or law under which your county operates.

Second Class County Code County Code

62

Home Rule Charter (including Philadelphia)

6. How many individuals are employed by your office?

Full-Time Staff Part-Time Staff ~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~

7. Indicate the category which reflects the monies budgeted for your office by the county for maintenance and operation of your office in each of the last three fiscal years.

A = under $100,000

B $100,000 - $249,999

c $250,000

D =· $500, 000

$499,999

$749,999

1986 ~~~~---~

1987

E $750,000 - $999,999

F = $1,000,000 - $1,999,999

G = $2,000,000 - $2,999,999

H = $3,000,000 and over

1988 ~---~--~ -------

8. Name the fees which you collected that are imposed by law and utilized for the actual management and operation of your off ice and list the amounts of those revenues accruing in each of the last three fiscal years.

Amount Collected

Name of Fee 1986 1987 1988

63

9. List the fees which are imposed for the use of the Commonwealth (e.g., firearm permits, inheritance tax, realty transfer tax, dog licenses, deer licenses, etc.) and the revenues and commissions retained by your office during each of the last three fiscal years.

Amount Collected

1986 1987 1988 Name of Fee Fees/C~ssions Fees/C~ssions Fees/C~ssions

10. Name the fees which are imposed for the regulation and/or registration of charitable and service organizations (e.g., Bingo Law, Small Games of Chance) and list the amounts of those revenues collected in each of the last three fiscal years.

Amount Collected

Name of Fee 1986 1987 1988

64

11. Which fees, if any, that are collected by your office are insufficient to cover the actual expenses incurred in their collection?

12. Itemize those fees which should be adjusted and the amounts by which they should be adjusted.

13. Should the General Assembly establish increased, but uniform, fees or should a fee schedule based on population be developed to set those fees?

65

14. Should the General Assembly include an escalator clause in a new fee schedule which would tie the allowable fees to some standard like the cost of living index? Please explain.

66

APPENDIX D

PRIOR PRINTER'S NO. 1408 PRINTER 1 S NO. 2633


HOUSE BILL No. 1220 se~~~;ot

INTRODUCED BY GAMBLE, FOSTER, DOMBROWSKI, BARLEY, BATTISTO, BOYES, BROUJOS, CAPPABIANCA, COLAIZZO, DeLUCA, LAUGHLIN, MERRY, NAHILL, NAILOR, NOYE, PRESSMANN, ROBBINS, SCHEETZ AND D. W. SNYDER, APRIL 19, 1989

AS REPORTED FROM COMMITTEE ON LOCAL GOVERNMENT, HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, AS AMENDED, OCTOBER 17, 1989

AN ACT

Amending the act of July 28, 1953 (P.L.723, No.230), entitled, as amended, "An act relating to counties of the second class and second class A; amending, revising, consolidating and changing the laws relating thereto," further providing for the powers and duties of the coroner; and making an editorial change.

The General Assembly of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania

hereby enacts as follows:

Section 1. The act of July 28, 1953 (P.L.723, No.230), known

as the Second Class County Code, is amended by adding a section

to read:

Section 1235.1. Requests for Examinations and Reports.--(a)

Requests for examinations or other professional services by

other counties or persons may be complied with at the discretion

of the coroner pursuant to guidelines established by the county

commissioners.

(b) A set of fees and charges for such examinations or

professional services shall be established by the coroner,

67

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

I

i

I ,

.1

subject to approval by the county commissioners, and shall be

accounted for and paid to the county treasurer pursuant to

section 1960. Payment for examinations.or professional services

shall be the responsibility of the county or person requesting

such services.

(c) The coroner may charge and collect a fee of up to one

hundred dollars ($100) for each autopsy report, up to fifty

dollars ($50) for each toxicology report, up to fifty dollars

($50) for each inquisition or coroner's report and such other

fees as may be established from time to time for other reports

and documents requested by nongovernmental agencies. The fees

collected shall be accounted for and paid to the county

treasurer pursuant to section 1960 and shall be used to defray

the expenses involved in the county complying with the

provisions of the act of March 2, 1988 (P.L.108, No.22),

referred to as the Coroners' Education Board Law.

68

APPENDIX E

PRIOR PRINTER'S NO. 1409 PRINTER'S NO. 2634


HOUSE BILL No. 1221 Session of

1989

INTRODUCED BY DOMBROWSKI, FOSTER, GAMBLE, CAPPABIANCA, BATTISTO, BARLEY, BOYES, BROUJOS, COLAIZZO, DeLUCA, LAUGHLIN, MERRY, NAHILL, NAILOR, NOYE, PRESSMANN, ROBBINS, SCHEETZ, D. W. SNYDER AND FLEAGLE, APRIL 19, 1989

AS REPORTED FROM COMMITTEE ON LOCAL G0VERNMENT, HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, AS AMENDED, OCTOBER 17, 1989

AN ACT

Amending the act of August 9, 1955 (P.L.323, No.130), entitled "An act relating to counties of the third, fourth, fifth, sixth, seventh and eighth classes; amending, revising, consolidating and changing the laws relating thereto," further providing for ambulances and coroners; and making an editorial change.



Section 1. Section 1234 of the act of August 9, 1955

(P.L.323, No.130), known as The County Code, is amended to read:

Section 1234. Arnbulance.--In each county [having a county

morgue], the county commissioners may furnish and maintain, from

the general funds of the county, an ambulance for the removal of

bodies of deceased persons to and from the morgue, and for the

burial of unclaimed bodies. The coroner may provide rules and

regulations for the use and maintenance of the ambulance.

Section 2. The act is amended by adding a section to read:

Section 1236.1. Requests for Examinations and Reports.--(a)

69

! ' '1 !

I

I.

1 Requests for examinations or other professional services by

2 other counties or persons may be complied with at the discretion

3 of the coroner pursuant to guidelines established by the county

4 commissioners.

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

(b) A set of fees and charges for such examinations or

professional services shall be established by the coroner,

subject to approval by the county commissioners and shall be

accounted for and paid to the county treasurer pursuant to

section 1760. Payment for examinations or professional services

shall be the responsibility of the county or person requesting

such services.

(c) The coroner may charge and collect a fee of up to one

hundred dollars ($100) for each autopsy report, up to fifty

dollars ($50) for each toxicology report, up to fifty dollars

($50) for each inquisition or coroner's report and such other

fees as may be established from time to time for other reports

and documents requested by nongovernmental agencies. The fees

collected shall be accounted for and paid to the county

treasurer pursuant to section 1760 and shall be used to defray

the expenses involved in the county complying with the

provisions of the act of March 2, 1988 (P.L.108, No.22),

referred to as the Coroners' Education Board Law.

70

APPENDIX F

PRINTER'S NO. 2820



INTRODUCED BY TRELLO, COWELL AND GIGLIOTTI, DECEMBER 4, 1989

REFERRED TO COMMITTEE ON URBAN AFFAIRS, DECEMBER 4, 1989

AN ACT

1 Amending the act of April 8, 1982 (P.L.303, No.85), entitled "An 2 act establishing fees which shall be charged by a 3 prothonotary in a county of the second class," increasing 4 certain fees.

5 The General Assembly of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania

6 hereby enacts as follows:

7 Section 1. Section 2(5) and (9) of the act of April 8, 1982

8 (P.L.303, No.85), known as the Second Class County Prothonotary

9 Fee Act, are amended to read:

10 Section 2. Fee schedule.

11 The fees to be received by the prothonotary of the court of

12 common pleas of a county of the second class shall be as

13 follows:

14 * * * 15 (5) Commencement of actions.--Commencement

16 of any civil action by writ of summons,

17 complaint, amicable action, petition or

18 otherwise including Actions in Assumpsit,

19 Trespass, Ejectment, Quiet Title, Replevin,

71

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

I !

14 !

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

19~

Mandamus, Quo Warranto, Divorce or Annulment of

Marriage, Mortgage Foreclosure, Ground Rent

Foreign Attachment, Fraudulent Debtor's Attach

ment Equity, Partition of Real Property,

Actions to Prevent Waste, Actions upon

Mechanics' Liens, Class Actions, Actions

involving Minors, Declaratory Actions, Amicable

Actions, except Complaint in Confession of

Judgment (see "Judgments") and Commencement of

Commonwealth Tax Liens (see "Liens"). This is a

composite fee which includes the filing of all

plaintiff's pleadings discovery or any other

paper not otherwise provided for in this act

except trial and trial listings, judgment,

execution, attachment, revival and post judg-

ment papers ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• [ $35. 00] $45. 00

* * * (9) Fictitious individual and corporate

names.--

(i) The filing of an application for

the registration of an individual

fictitious name ••••••••••••••••••••••••••• ($40.00] $41.50

(ii) Any subsequent filing and

cancel la ti on . ............................. . 7.50

(iii) The filing of an application for

the registration of a fictitious corporate

name •••••••••••• ••••••••••••••••••••••••••• [ 50. 00·] -$51. 50

(iv) Any subsequent filing including

cancel la ti on . ............................. . 7.50

Section 2. This act shall take effect in 30 days.

72

APPENDIX G PRINTER'S NO. 188


SENATE BILL No. 188 Session of

1989

INTRODUCED BY WILT, GREENWOOD, PECORA, REIBMAN, FISHER, LYNCH, AFFLERBACH, STAPLETON, LEMMOND, PETERSON AND SHUMAKER, JANUARY 23, 1989

REFERRED TO JUDICIARY, JANUARY 23, 1989

AN ACT

1 Amending Title 75 (Vehicles) of the Pennsylvania Consolidated 2 Statutes, providing for payment to counties of certain costs 3 in driving while under the influence of alcohol or controlled 4 substances cases where a defendant is accepted into an 5 Accelerated Rehabilitative Disposition program.



8 Section 1. Section 373l(e)(6) and (8) of Title 75 of the

9 Pennsylvania Consolidated Statutes are amended to read:

10 § 3731. Driving under influence of alcohol or controlled

11 substance.

12 * * * 13 (e) Penalty.--

14 * * * 15 (6) Any person who accepts Accelerated Rehabilitative

16 Disposition of any charge brought under this section shall

17 accept as conditions the imposition of and the judge shall

18 impose in addition to any other conditions all of the

19 following:

73

l

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

{i} A fee to cover the costs referred to in section

1548(e} {relating to costs).

{ii) A mandatory suspension of operating privilege

for a period of not less than one month but not more than

12 months.

(iii) A condition that the defendant, as a condition

to entering the program, make restitution to any person

who incurred determinable financial loss as a result of

the defendant's actions which resulted in a charge of

violating this section.

(iv) Court supervision for any defendant required to

make restitution or submit to counseling or treatment.

(v} Court supervision for a period of not less than

six months when the Court Reporting Network indicates

that counseling or treatment is not necessary and not

less than 12 months when the Court Reporting Network

indicates that counseling or treatment is in order.

(vi} A fee to cover the reasonable costs, if any, of

19 a municipal corporation in connection with a charge

20 brought under this section which results in Accelerated

21 Rehabilitative Disposition.

22 (vii) A fee to cover the reasonable costs 6f

23 administering the Accelerated Rehabilitative Disposition

24 program which shall be payable to the county.

25 * * * 26 (8) With the exception of program costs referred to in

27 section 1548{e) or any restitution referred to in this

28 section, and with the exception of any fees imposed pursuant

29 to [paragraph (6)(vi)] paragraphs (6)(vi) and (vii) which

30 shall be distributed to the affected municipal corporation

74

1 and county, respectively, any fee or financial condition

2 imposed by a judge as a condition of Accelerated

3 Rehabilitative Disposition or any other preliminary

4 disposition of any charge under this section shall be

5 distributed as provided for in 42 Pa.c.s. §§ 3571 (relating

6 to Commonwealth portion of fines, etc.) and 3573 (relating to

7 municipal corporation portion of fines, etc.).

8 * * * 9 Section 2. This act shall take effect immediately.

L7L75CHF/19890S0188B0188

75

APPENDIX H

PRINTER 1 S NO. 1817


HOUSE BILL No. 1556 Se~::; 01

INTRODUCED BY GALLEN, CALTAGIRONE, LEH, SEMMEL, ANGSTADT AND DAVIES, MAY 23, 1989

REFERRED TO COMMITTEE ON JUDICIARY, MAY 23, 1989

AN ACT

Amending the act of July 1, 1981 (P.L.193, No.SS), entitled "An act establishing certain fees to be charged by clerks of the orphans' courts of counties of the fifth, sixth, seventh and eighth class and providing for fees in counties of the second, second A, third and fourth class," providing for the fees to be levied by clerks of orphans' courts in second through fourth class counties.



Section 1. Section 2 of the act of July 1, 1981 (P.L.193,

No.58), entitled, "An act establishing certain fees to be

charged by clerks of the orphans' courts of counties of the

fifth, sixth, seventh and eighth class and providing for fees in

counties of the second, second A, third and fourth class," is

repealed.

Section 2. The act is amended by adding a section to read:

Section 2.1. In counties of the second, second A, third and

fourth class, the Clerk of the Orphans' Court may establish,

increase, decrease, modify or eliminate fees and charges with

the approval of the President Judge within 60 days of the

76

1 effective date of this section. Thereafter, such fees and

2 charges shall not be established, increased, decreased, modified

3 or eliminated except by an act of the General Assembly.

4 Section 3. This act shall take effect in 60 days.

El7L42CHF/19890Hl556Bl817

77

APPENDIX I

PRIOR PRINTER'S NOS. 403, 1782 PRINTER'S NO. 2762


HOUSE BILL No. 368 Session of

1989

INTRODUCED BY GALLEN, CALTAGIRONE, LEH, SEMMEL, ANGSTADT AND DAVIES, FEBRUARY 8, 1989

AS AMENDED ON THIRD CONSIDERATION, HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, NOVEMBER 15, 1989

AN ACT

1 Amending the act of July 1, 1981 (P.L.191, No.57), entitled "An 2 act establishing certain fees to be charged by registers of 3 wills in counties of the fifth, sixth, seventh and eighth 4 class and providing for fees in counties of the second, 5 second A, third and fourth class," providing for the fees to 6 be levied by register of wills in counties of the second 7 through fourth class.



10 Section 1. Section 2 of the act of July 1, 1981 (P.L.191,

11 No.57), entitled ''An act establishing certain fees to be charged

12 by registers of wills in counties of the fifth, sixth, seventh

13 and eighth class and providing for fees in counties of the

14 second, second A, third and fourth class," is repealed.

15 Section 2. The act is amended by adding a section to read:

16 Section 2.1. In counties of the second, second A, third a-nd <-

17 fottrth cla~~, FOURTH, FIFTH, SIXTH, SEVENTH AND EIGHTH CLASSES, <-

18 the register of wills may establish, increase, decrease, modify

19 or eliminate fees and charges with the approval of the President

78

' 11

1, I

I ' I

. I

'I I

I. I

I !

I 1

1

!

! '

1 Judge within 60 days of the effective date of this section.

2 Thereafter, such fees and charges shall not be established,

3 increased, decreased, modified or eliminated except by an act of

4 the General Assembly.


B3L42RZ/19890H0368B2762

79

APPENDIX J



HOUSE BILL No. 2140 se~~~~ 01

INTRODUCED BY TRELLO, COWELL AND GIGLIOTTI, DECEMBER 4, 1989

REFERRED TO COMMITTEE ON URBAN AFFAIRS, DECEMBER 4, 1989

AN ACT

1 Amending the act of July 1, 1981 (P.L.191, No.57), entitled "An 2 act establishing certain fees to be charged by registers of 3 wills in counties of the fifth, sixth, seventh and eighth 4 class and providing for fees in counties of the second, 5 second A, third and fourth class," further providing for fees 6 in counties of the second class.



9 Section 1. Section 2 of the act of July 1, 1981 (P.L.191,

10 No.57), entitled "An act establishing certain fees to be charged

11 by registers of wills in counties of the fifth, sixth, seventh

12 and eighth class and providing for fees in counties of the

13 second, second A, third and fourth class," is amended to read:

14 Section 2. In counties of the [second], second A, third and

15 fourth class all existing fees and charges collected by the

16 register of wills shall continue in effect and shall not be

17 increased except by an act of the Legislature.

18 Section 2. The act is amended by adding a section to read:

19 Section 2.1. In counties of the second class the following

20 fees shall be received by registers of wills:

80

I I I'

: I I

I I, I ! ! 'I

1 Administration and Probate:

2 Letters of Administration, Administration c.t.a. and

3 Testamentary: For granting letters of administration; for

4 probate and recording will of two pages and granting of letters

5 c.t.a.; and for probating and recording will of two pages and

6 granting letters testamentary (including tax due Commonwealth

7 but excluding advertising), for estates graduated according to

8 the gross value thereof, real and personal:

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

Less than $5,000 ..•.•.•.•.......•.......•..•..

$5,001 to $10,000 ............................ .

$10, 001 to $20, 000 •••••.•••..•.•••..•.•.•.•.••

$20, 001 to $30, 000 •••••••.•••.•••••••••.••••.•

$30,001 to $40,000 ••••••••••••••..••.•.•••••••

$40,001 to $50,000 •••••••••.•••••••••••.••••••

$50, 001 to $75, 000 •••••••••••..•.•.•.•.•.•••••

$75, 001 to $100, 000 ••••.••••••.•.•.•••••.•.•••

$100, 001 to $200, 000 ••••••••.•••.•.•••••••.••

$200, 001 to $400, 000 ••••••••••.•••••••.•••••••

19 Each additional $100,000 or fraction

20 thereof ......................................... .

21 Each additional page .........................•

22 When the value of an estate is under-estimated

23 in the petition for letters, additional costs

24 will be collected.

25 Letters of Administration, d.b.n.:

26 For granting letters of administration

27 d.b.n. (pendente lite, durante absentia or

28 durante minoritate), excluding advertising,

29 regardless of value of estate •.••.•••..••..••••.•

30 Probate of Will Without

19890H2140B2821

81

$30.00

40.00

50.00

60.00

70.00

80.00

110.00

150.00

175.00

250.00

100.00

2.00

30.00

1 Letters:

2

3

Two a es or less. • .......................... .

Each additional page .•••••••••.•.•••••••••••••

4 Affidavit or Oath:

5 Filing or administering •.••••••••••.••••••••••

6 Appeals to the Orphans' Court:

7 Filin ....................................... .

8 Petition and citation ••.•••••••••••••.••••••••

9 Accounts:

10 For filing, advertising, adjudication

11 and recording of accounts of executors

12 and administrators, graduated according to the

13 total principal and income contained therein:

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

Less than $5,000 .•...••..............•..•....•

$5,001 to $10,000 ............................ .

$10, 001 to $20, 000 ••••••.•••••••.•••.•••••••••

$20, 001 to $30, 000 ........................•...

$30, 001 to $40, 000 ........................... .

$40, 001 to $50, 000 ........•...................

$50, 001 to $100, 000 ••••••.•.••.•••••••••••••••

$100, 001 to $200, 000 •••.•••••.•.••.•••••.•••••

$200, 001 to $500, 000 ••••••••.•••....••••••••••

$500, 001 to $1, 000, 000 •.•••.••...•••.•••••••••

24 Each additional $1,000,000 or fraction

25 thereof ........................................ .

26 ;\cceptance:

27 Testamentary guardian or trustee ••.•••..••••••

28 Bonds:

29 Filin an bond .............................. .

30 For petition, order and filing additional

19890H2140B2821

82

30.00

2.00

3.oo

20.00

25.00

40.00

60.00

80.00

90.00

100.00

130.00

150.00

200.00

400.00

500.00

200.00

3.00

10.00

'

1 bond . ................................ · · · · · · · · · · · ·

2 Caveat:

3 For filin

4 Certificate and Seal (Short) ••..•.•..•..••••.••.•

5 Certifications and Exemplifications:

6 Filing and recording certified or

7 exemplified copy of any record or

8 instrument ...................................... .

''

1 9 Issuing certified or exemplified copy of ,, ,

! : 10 any instrument or record, including seal

11 of court:

12 Letters of administration •••.••.•••••••••.•.•• I'

,1 I

13 Letters testamentary or administration

14 c.t.a. (two a e will .......................... .

15 Each additional page .•.•..••.••.••••.••••.•.•.

16 Additional seal .............................. . ii

! 1 17 Certification of Payment of Transfer

18 Inheritance Tax:

19 Issuin

' '' 20 Filing from another county ................... . !

21 Commission:

22 To take Testimony or

23 Interrogatories:

24 Executing those received .•••..•..•.•.••.......

25 Preparing those transmitted ...•.•••.••...•.•..

1

26 Inventory: '!

,': I I !

27

28

29

Filing original (one page) ••..•.••.•...•.••.•.

Filing supplemental or amended (one page) .....

Each additional page ......•........••.••••.•.•

30 Miscellaneous Register's Orders:

19890H2140B2821

83

20.00

25.00

3.00

30.00

20.00

20.00

2.00

3.00

5.00

2.00

20.00

20.00

10.00

5.00

2.00

1

2

With Petition ................................ .

Without petition ............................. .

3 Petitions: (other than specifically provided

4 for)

5 For filing petition, issuance of citation

6 and return of service:

7 One res ondent . ....•................••....••••

8 Each additional respondent .•..•••.....••.....•

9 For filing petition without citation ...••.....

10 Release of Legacy:

11 Per name ....•....•....••..•...•..•••........•.

12 Renunciation:

13 Filing, per renunciation •..•.••....••.••....•.

14 Secondary Pleadings:

15

16

17

Affidavits ..... o ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••

Answers (first pleading) •.•....•......•..•....

Appearance of counsel .•••..•.........•.•...•..

18 Proof of service (not included with

19 etition and citation ...••...................•..

20 Sub oena . •....•..........••.•..•.•....•........

20.00

10.00

25.00

5.00

20.00

3.00

3.00

3.00

10.00

5.00

3.00

3.00

21 In cases not specifically provided for, the register will make

22 the same charges as are imposed for services of a substantially

23 similar nature.


I28L20WMB/19890H2140B2821

84

APPENDIX K




INTRODUCED BY GIGLIOTTI AND COWELL, NOVEMBER 15, 1989

REFERRED TO COMMITTEE ON LOCAL GOVERNMENT, NOVEMBER 15, 1989

AN ACT

1 Amending the act of July 6, 1984 (P.L.614, No.127), entitled "An 2 act establishing the fees to be charged and received by 3 sheriffs," further providing for fees, compensation and 4 mileage.



7 Section 1. Sections 3(a), 4(a), 5, 6(a), 8, 10, 11, 14,

8 15(a) and 16 of the act of July 6, 1984 (P.L.614, No.127), known

9 as the Sheriff Fee Act, are amended to read:

10 Section 3. Civil and criminal actions.

11 (a) General rule.--Fees for the services of the sheriff

12 involved with civil actions, criminal proceedings or public

13 matters required by any court, statute or regulation including,

14 but not limited to, writs, complaints, orders, equity matters,

15 subpoenas, interrogatories and official notices, are as follows:

16 (1) Receiving, docketing and making

17 return ......................................••.. ($7.00] $9.00

18 (2) Service, either personally by the sheriff

19 or by copy served or posted:

85

, I:

',I

! ' ;I

' ' , I:' i

1

2

3

4

5

(i) First serving ......................•. (7.00] 9.00

(ii) Each additional defendant or person

served or copy posted ......................... (4.00] 6.00

(3) Making each copy served or posted ........ (3.00] 5.00

(4) Deputizing the sheriff of another county to

6 enable the other sheriff to make service or

7 accomplish an act ..•.................•......•..... (5.00] 9.00

8

9

10

(5) Making a return of an item delivered to the

sheriff too late to serve before expiration ....... (3.00] 5.00

(6) Return of non est inventus (person to be

11 served cannot be found within the jurisdiction of

12 sheriff) .......................................... (3.00] 5.00

13 (7) Attesting each copy of a document which is

14 to be served ...................................... (2.00] 4.00

15 (8) Service by publication in newspapers, in

16 addition to the actual cost of publication and

17 printing ......................................... (9.00] 15.00

18

19

20

(9) Taking an affidavit of one person ...•...• (1.50] 2.50

(10) Taking an affidavit of each additional

person ............................................. (0.50] 1.00

21 * * * 22 Section 4. Real estate executions.

23 (a) General rule.--For executing court-issued writs or

24 orders requiring the levy, seizure or sale of lands and

25 tenements, the following fees apply and, unless otherwise stated

26 in this section, shall be paid by the plaintiff, petitioner or

27 other moving party:

28

29

30

(1) Receiving, docketing and making return[$7.00] $15.00

(2) Serving or posting a notice or copy ..•.. (7.00] 15.00

(3) Levying on each separate piece or parcel of

19890H2097B2764

86

1 land ............................................. (7.00] 15.00

2 (4) Service of a writ against real estate of

3 defendant requiring service on third party for each

4 party .............................. , .............. [ 9 . 0 0 ] 15 . 0 0

5 (5) Making immediate return of service on a

6 garnishee when writ or other item is retained for

7 further action .................................... [ 3. 00 J 5. 00

8 (6) Advertising public sale in newspaper, for

9 each parcel of land, in addition to cost of

10 publication and printer's bill .•.•.••.•.••.••••.• (9.00] 15.00

11 (7) Advertising public sale by handbills, for

12 each parcel of land separately described by metes

13 and bounds or otherwise, in addition to publication

14 and printer's bills •••••.••••...••.•••.••••••.••• (9.00] 15.00

15 (8) Each sale held subsequent to the first

16 sale ................................... , .......... (7.00] 20.00

17 (9) Crying the sale of each separate parcel of

18 land separately sold ••..••••••.••••..•.•••..••••• (7.00] 10.00

19 (10) Distribution of proceeds •..•.•••••••..• (9.00] 25.00

20 (11) Executing and acknowledging a deed to real

21 property, payment to be made by grantee ..••.•.•. (10.00] 30.00

22 * * * 23 Section 5. Executing writs, orders and decrees.

24 For executing a writ of inquiry, partition, condemnation,

25 appraisement or inquisition or a similar writ, order or decree

26 issued by a court, district justice, or commissioner under a

27 statute, the party procuring execution shall pay the following

· 28 fees:

29

30

(1) Receiving, docketing and making return .• ($7.00] 9.00

(2) Summoning parties or persons in possession

9890H2097B2764

87

',,

1 personally or by copy served or posted:

2

3

4

(i) First service •.•••.••..•••••••.•.•••• (7.00] 9.00

(ii) Each additional service ••.•.•.••••.• (4.00] 6.00

(3) Making and certifying each copy served or

5 posted ............................................ (4.00] 6.00

6 (4) Summoning and swearing special jurors •.•••. 15.00

(5) Holding inquisition or appraisal of real

estate ............................................. . 15.00

7

8

9 (6) Otherwise executing .....•••••..•••..•••.. (7.00] 9.00

10 (7) Serving by publication as required by law

11 or order of court ••...•......••..•..••......••... (9.00] 15.00

12 (8) Delivering lands to plaintiff in

13 inquisition or similar proceedings •.••••••..••••• (9.00] 25.00

14 Section 6. Executing writs.

15 (a) General rule.--For executing execution writs, fraudulent

16 debtors attachment, retorno habendo, replevin, or order issued

17 by a court requiring the levy, seizure or sale of personal

18 property, unless otherwise provided in this section, the party

1

11 19 procuring execution shall pay the following fees:

I 'I

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

(1) Receiving, docketing and making return.[$7.00] $9.00

(2) Serving or posting a copy or notice ..••.. (7.00] 9.00

(3) Each levy on personal property ......... [10.00] 20.00

(4) Seizing personal property levied upon •• [10.00] 15.00

(5) Making return of nulla bona (unable to find

goods to levy upon) ................................ . 9.00

(6) Advertising personal property for public

sale by handbills ..........•.....•....•.....••..• (9.00] 10.00

(7) Each adjourned sale ..................... (7.00] 15.00

(8) Service upon a garnishee •......•.•...•... (7.00] 9.00

(9) Receiving a claim of exemption or immunity

19890H2097B2764

88

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

and notifying parties in interest to the filing of

the claim .......................................... .

12.00

(10) Receiving and docketing each claim to

property or to proceeds produced by sale thereof, to

be paid by claimant upon the filing of the claim ....

(11) Notifying an agency as required by law of

8 the proposed sale of the property or franchise of a

9 corporation or joint stock association, liquid fuels

[9.00]

10.00

10 producer or distributor .......................... (7.00] 10.00

11 (12) Appraising personal property under a

12 statute or at the request of a party or arranging an

13 appraisal by another .•.......................... (10.00] 20.00

14 (13) Making arrangements to preserve property

15 taken into legal custody including, but not limited

16 to, obtaining a watchman, together with the cost of

17 compensation for the watchman by the p~rty benefited

18 thereby or person requiring service ................. (10.00]

19 20.00

20 (14) Securing insurance; arranging goods for

21 sale; furnishing heat, light, power, storage, rent,

22 transportation and supplies; feeding livestock; and

23 meeting similar expenses incurred in caring for and

24 keeping the goods and chattels levied upon or

25 attached, when the same are necessary or

26 advantageous, or when requested by any party

27 interested to incur any such expense, the actual

28 costs thereof to be paid by the plaintiff,

29 petitioner or party requiring same to be incurred,

30 providing any surplus of advances for same to be

19890H2097B2764

89

'i:

1 refunded.

2 * * * 3 Section 8. Property claims.

4 For processing of property claims filed under statute or

5 rules of civil procedure, the claimant shall pay the following

6 fees:

7 (1) Receiving and filing

8 of property claim •....•...........•.....•.•••. [$10.00] $12.00

9

10

11

(2) Staying the execution and

providing notice ................................... .

(3) Making determination as to the owner of the

12 property without hearing and filing in the

13 prothonotary's office the determination and

14 valuation ............. o •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••

15 (4) Determining ownership of property with a

16 formal hearing and filing in the prothonotary's

9.00

9.00

17 office the determination and valuation •••••••••• [18.00] 25.00

18 (5) Appraising property by the sheriff and

19 giving notice .....•.•.•••...•...•.•..••••••••••• (10.00] 15.00

20 Section 10. Writs of ejectment or possession.

21 For executing writs of ejectment or possession,

22 dower or similar writs requiring the delivery of

23 possession of real property or ejecting or

24 dispossessing a person of personal property, the

25 claimant shall pay ............................... [$20.00] $30.00

26 Section 11. Warrants and attachments.

27 For executing a process, warrant, attachment, decree,

28 sentence or order of the court, issued in court on a person or

29 taking the defendant's body into custody, the party procuring

30 the process, writ, order or decree or, if the Commonwealth is

19890H2097B2764

90

1 interested, the county, will pay the following fees:

2 (1) Receiving, docketing and making return.($7.00] $9.00

3 (2) Each arrest .•.........•................ (20.00] 30.00

4

5

6

(3) Each commitment to jail, correctional

institution, asylum or place of detention pursuant

to lawful order .................................... .

7 20.00

8 (4) Removing a person from any place of

(10.00]

9 confinement pursuant to lawful order .•.•.......•. (9.00] 20.00

10 Section 14. Licenses.

11 For issuing and recording of a license, the licensee shall

12 pay, in addition to a fee payable to the county or Commonwealth,

13 the following fees:

14 (1) Issuing a license to sell firearms directly

15 to a consumer .•.•.••••••••.••...•..••.•••..... ($10.00] $27.00

16 (2) Issuing or reissuing a license to carry a

17 firearm on or about one's person.................... 5.00

18 Section 15. Conservator of the peace.

19 (a) Sheriff.--For the services performed in the capacity as

20 a conservator of the peace or police officer in suppressing

21 riots, mobs or insurrections, and when discharging any duty

22 requiring the summoning of a posse, comitatus or special deputy

23 sheriffs, the sheriff shall receive per diem compensation at the

24 rate of $50 in a county for eight hours service, together with

25 [the mileage and necessary expenses, including subsistence for

26 the sheriff and those under him, all to be paid by the county.]

27 compensation for his deputy or deputies at an hourly rate equal

28 to the prevailing wage scale of the sheriff's office, including

29 subsistence for the sheriff and those under him, to be paid by

30 either the county or the issuing authority. In addition thereto,

19890H2097B2764

91

1 the sheriff shall receive a fee of $10.00 for each deputy

2 employed to cover administrative costs.

3 * * * 4 Section 16. Mileage.

5 For mileage in serving and executing writs, official notices,

6 rules, decrees, orders or processes, or copies thereof, or

7 performing the duties or services specified in this act or

8 authorized by law, the sheriff shall receive and may tax as

9 official costs [the mileage fee as established by section 1 of

10 the act of July 20, 1979 (P.L.156, No.51), entitled "An act

11 establishing a uniform mileage fee for all officials, officers

12 and employees of the Commonwealth, its political subdivisions,

13 intermediate units, and authorities,"] $.25 for each mile

14 necessary to be traveled by the sheriff, deputies or employees.

15 The mileage fee shall be received on each separate writ, rule,

16 order, decree, process or notice served or service performed.

17 The sheriff shall not receive more than one mileage where the

18 plaintiff and the defendant and two or more contemporaneous

19 writs are the same, or when two or more persons or prisoners are

20 being conducted at one time to or from a place of detention or

21 correction. The sheriff shall receive the mileage fee for

22 transporting the prisoners and the deputies guarding them, and

23 meals and lodging during the journey and the return of the

24 deputies.


I27Ll6WMB/19890H2097B2764

92

1990000041 00041RDG:EW 12/22/89 #16

APPENDIX L

AN ACT

1 Empowering the boards of commissioners of counties to modify the 2 amount of fees collected by county row officers for the costs 3 of providing certain products and services; providing for 4 petitions to the courts of common pleas in the case of 5 disputes; providing for public meetings and official actions 6 through ordinance adoption; and repealing inconsistent acts.



9 Section 1. Short title.

10 This act shall be known and may be cited as the County Fee

11 Modification Law.

12 Section 2. Authority to increase or decrease fees or charges;

13 disputes; application of act.

14 (a) Authorization.--Notwithstanding any other provision of

15 law which prescribes an amount or otherwise limits the amount of

16 a fee or charge which may be levied by a county or a county row

17 officer, a county board of commissioners shall have the

18 authority to increase or decrease any such fee or charge,

19 otherwise authorized to be levied by another provision of law,

93

i '

'II ~

1 in the amount reasonably necessary to recover the cost of

2 providing any product or service or the cost of enforcing any

3 regulation for which the fee or charge is levied. Such change in

4 fees shall be approved only upon completion of a certified

5 public audit verifying the necessity of the change. The fee or

6 charge may reflect the cost of providing any product or service

7 or enforcing any regulation. For purposes of this act, the cost

8 of providing any product or service or the cost of enforcing any

9 regulation for which the fee or charge is levied shall include:

10 (1) The actual cost of any materials or supplies

11 required for printing or otherwise providing for the product,

12 service, regulation or enforcement provided by the county or

13 county row officer.

14 (2) The actual cost of processing the necessary

15 paperwork, forms and related documentation required by law.

16 (3) The actual cost of apportioned labor required to

17 provide the service, including employee salaries and

18 benefits.

19 (4) The indirect costs associated with providing the

20 product or service, including, but not limited to, office

21 space charges, communication and equipment costs, and utility

22 charges.

23 (5) The pro rata cost of the certified public audit

24 apportioned against the various fees and offices audited.

25 (b) Disputes.--If any person disputes whether a fee or

26 charge levied pursuant to subsection (a) is reasonable, the

27 person may petition the court of common pleas for the issuance

28 of a rule directed to the county to show cause why the change in

29 a fee or charge to be levied is necessitated. The court shall

30 consider all relevant evidence required by subsection (a),

1990000041 94

l including the certified public audit.

2 (c) Applicability.--This act shall not apply to any of the

3 following:

4 (l) Any fee, tax or charge which is levied by the

5 Commonwealth for Commonwealth purposes in which the county or

6 county row officer acts as the collection agent for the

7 Commonwealth.

8 (2) Any fee or charge that is prescribed by the Supreme

9 Count of Pennsylvania in accordance with 42 Pa.c.s. (relating

10 to judiciary and judicial procedure).

11 (3) Any fee charged or collected by a county recorder of

12 deeds for filing, recording or indexing of any document,

13 performing any service, issuing any certificate, or providing

14 a copy of any document.

15 (4) Any fees levied pursuant to 13 Pa.c.s. (relating to

16 commercial code).

17 (5) Any fee, tax or charge which is levied by the

18 Federal Government for Federal purposes and for which the

19 county or county row officer acts as collection agent for the

20 Federal Government.

21 Section 3. Public meetings; notice; public data; action of

22 board by ordinance; costs.

23 (a) Public meeting required.--Prior to approving an increase

24 in an existing fee or charge pursuant to section 1, the county

25 board of commissioners shall hold at least one public meeting

26 pursuant to the act of July 3, 1986 (P.L.388, No.84), known as

27 the Sunshine Act, at which oral or written presentations

28 relating to the increase may be made as part of a regularly

29 scheduled or special meeting. Notice of the time and place of

30 the meeting, including a general explanation of the matter to be

1990000041 95

I

:111

11:

1 considered, and a statement that the data required by this

2 section is available shall be mailed, at least 14 days prior to

3 the meeting, to any interested party who files a written request

4 with the clerk of the county board of commissioners for mailed

5 notice of the meeting on increased fees or charges. Any written

6 request for such mailed notices shall be valid for one year from

7 the date on which it is filed unless a renewal request is filed.

8 Renewal requests for such mailed notices shall be filed on or

9 before October 1 of each year. The county board of commissioners

10 may establish a reasonable annual charge for sending these

11 notices based on the estimated cost of providing this service.

12 At least ten days prior to the meeting, the county board of

13 commissioners shall make available to the public data indicating

14 the amount of cost, or estimated cost, required to provide the

15 product or service or the cost of enforcing any regulation for

16 which the fee or charge is levied, as well as the revenue

17 sources, including general fund revenues, anticipated to provide

18 the product or service or the cost of enforcing any regulation.

19 (b) Ordinance required.--Any action by a county board of

20 commissioners to levy a new fee or charge or to approve an

21 increase in an existing fee or charge shall be taken only by

22 ordinance.

23 Section 4. Construction of act.

24 (a) General rule.--This act shall not be construed as

25 granting authority to levy any fee or charge which is not

26 otherwise authorized by law, nor shall its provisions be

27 construed as granting authority to levy a new fee or charge when

28 other provisions of law specifically prohibit the levy of a fee

29 or charge.

30 (b) Exclusive use.--Increases in fees or charges authorized

1990000041 96

1 by this act shall be used exclusively to support operation of

2 the county row office rendering the service for which the fee

3 was levied.

4 (c) Specific limitation.--This act shall not be construed as

5 authorizing counties to utilize its provisions in supporting the

6 operations of general county government.

7 Section 5. Repeals.

8 All acts and parts of acts are repealed insofar as they are

9 inconsistent with this act.

10 Section 6. Effective date.

11 This act shall take effect in 60 days.

L22Ll6RDG/1990D00041 97

Documents

HOUSE RESOLUTION NUMBER 126 OF 1989 A Review of Fees ... Representative Ron Gamble Oakdale Representative Victor J. Lescovitz Midway Representative A. Carville Foster, Jr. ... inadequate"