HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem No. 09 Police Services JPAText File
City of Lake Elsinore 130 South Main Street
Lake Elsinore, CA 92530
www.lake-elsinore.org
File Number: ID# 17-307
Agenda Date: 8/8/2017 Status: BusinessVersion: 1
File Type: Informational ReportIn Control: City Council / Successor Agency
Agenda Number: 9)
Page 1 City of Lake Elsinore Printed on 8/3/2017
Page 1 of 3
REPORT TO CITY COUNCIL
To:Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
From:Grant Yates, City Manager
Prepared by: Nicole Dailey, Senior Management Analyst
Date:August 8, 2017
Subject:Police Services Joint Powers Authority Feasibility Study Report
Recommendation
1. Receive and file Final Report on the Police Services Joint Powers Authority Feasibility Study
by Matrix Consulting Group.
2. Provide direction to the City Manager regarding conducting a peer review of the completed
feasibility study in conjunction with the other participating cities sponsoring the study.
Background
Lake Elsinore contracts with the Riverside County Sheriff’s Department for law enforcement
services. While the Sheriff’s Department provides high-quality public safety services to the City
of Lake Elsinore and many of our surrounding communities, the cost for contracting these
services has increased dramatically by more than 37% over the last seven years. The City’s
budget for police services for FY 2015/2016 was $11,799,472. The contract rate for FY
2016/2017 is expected to increase by another 5% and for FY 2017/2018 could increase by up to
10%. Based on these unsustainable increases and projections, the City has been working with
other contract cities to find ways to address these rising contract rates.
At a Mayors’ Summit on Public Safety hosted by the City of Temecula in May 2015, participating
contract cities discussed the concept of forming a joint powers authority (JPA) as an alternative
to the current contract model to achieve cost savings. The City of Moreno Valley, as the largest
contract city, prepared a draft Request for Proposals (RFP) to conduct a police services JPA
feasibility study. The RFP was issued by the City of San Jacinto. Seven proposals were
received with proposed costs ranging from $123,000 to $580,000. A panel of City Managers and
Finance Directors from participating contract cities selected Matrix Consulting Group to prepare
the feasibility study at a cost of $195,000.
In February 2016, the City Council approved the City of Lake Elsinore’s participation in the study
to evaluate the feasibility of creating a Police Services JPA to manage services of several cities
that currently contract with the Sheriff’s Department.
Police Services JPA
Page 2 of 3
Discussion
Of the 17 cities that contract for law enforcement services with the Sheriff’s Department, nine of
cities participated in sharing the cost evenly for the feasibility study. In addition to the City of
Lake Elsinore, the other participating cities included Coachella, Jurupa, Menifee, Moreno Valley,
Perris, San Jacinto, Temecula, and Wildomar.
The scope of work for the JPA Feasibility Study in general provided for the following:
Determining the potential of a JPA to manage police services consistent with the level
currently provided by the Riverside County Sheriff’s Department.
Identifying the advantages and disadvantages of creating a JPA as compared to the
current services.
A detailed review of existing police management and operations.
Establishing a recommended organizational structure for the JPA as compared to the
existing organization and staffing levels of each participating agency.
Defining the services and method of service delivery under the JPA for all necessary
functions of the police organization.
Defining and determining cost factors for the administration, capital purchases, and start-
up of the JPA structure.
Determining how the JPA would have access and use of necessary Riverside County
Sheriff’s Department regional law enforcement services.
A comprehensive salary and benefits survey with recommended compensation ranges
for each job classification, including pension options.
Potential areas of financial savings in the immediate and long term compared to current
costs.
A proposed implementation schedule, considering that Phase 2 (how to execute
implementation) and Phase 3 (full implementation) will follow subsequently.
In April 2017, the Matrix Consulting Group completed the police services JPA feasibility study.
As noted in the Final Report on the JPA Feasibility Study (Exhibit A), extensive data collection
from various sources was used to develop the conclusions and recommendations. This data
included information provided by each participating city, the Sheriff’s Department, compensation
surveys from various law enforcement agencies, data related to start-up costs, and retirement
options. Several meetings took place over the course of the last year between the participating
cities’ City Managers and the consultant. Currently, all participating cities are presenting the
results of this study to their City Councils.
Matrix Consulting Group will present their findings and recommendations at the City Council
meeting. The full results of the feasibility study are included in Exhibit A.
If directed, the next step would be for the City Manager to work with the other participating cities
to select and fund a peer review of the Matrix Consulting Group study.
Police Services JPA
Page 3 of 3
Fiscal Impact
If directed to proceed with a peer review, the cost is expected to be within the City Manager’s
contracting authority. If the City’s pro rata share exceeds $30,000, the contract would be
brought back to the City Council for consideration. The City Council previously authorized a
General Fund expenditure not to exceed $25,000 for the City of Lake Elsinore’s share in the
preparation of the proposed police services JPA feasibility study.
Exhibits
A – Final Report on the JPA Feasibility Study by Matrix Consulting Group
Final Report on the JPA Feasibility Study
RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
APRIL 2017
mat rix
consulting group
Report on the Riverside County JPA Feasibility Study
Table of Contents
If viewing the report electronically, double click on a chapter number to
navigate forward to that section.
SECTION A: STUDY INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY
1. Introduction and Project Overview 1
2. Executive Summary 3
3. Profile of Current Law Enforcement Services 17
SECTION B: STRUCTURING THE JPA AGENCY
4. Characteristics and Governance of the JPA Agency 51
5. Organization of the JPA Agency 55
6. JPA Cost Allocation Structure 62
SECTION C: JPA FEASIBILITY ANALYSIS
7. Analysis of Personnel Costs by Classification 77
8. Analysis of Agency Staffing Needs 91
9. Analysis of Non-Personnel Operating Costs 184
10. Analysis of Agency Startup Costs 193
11. Total Cost Allocations and Analysis Findings 207
APPENDIX: Summary of Compensation Survey Results 224
Report on the Riverside County JPA Feasibility Study
Matrix Consulting Group Page 1
1 Introduction and Project Overview
The project team conducted an analysis of the feasibility of creating a regional
police department formed under a joint powers agreement (JPA). To accomplish this, the
project team conducted extensive on-site work to identify priorities, collect data, and to
better understand the services provided by the Riverside County Sheriff’s Department
(RSD):
• Interviews with RSD leaders responsible for local contract service delivery, as well
as other department staff.
• Meetings with RSD management staff.
• Interviews with the city managers of municipalities participating in the study.
Recognizing that the cities participating in the study are satisfied at an overall level
with the services provided by RSD, the feasibility analysis assumes that the same level
of service must be provided by the theoretical JPA agency. Extensive research was also
conducted in order to provide accurate cost estimates, including a comprehensive survey
of compensation structures across nine comparable jurisdictions CalPERS forecasts, and
actuarial trends, as well as best practices for cost allocation.
From the results of the processes of on-site input and research, the project team
developed the model and methodologies necessary to conduct the feasibility analysis. In
order to create this foundation, a number of starting assumptions were made that include
the following:
• It is assumed that operations will begin in the year 2021.
Report on the Riverside County JPA Feasibility Study
Matrix Consulting Group Page 2
• It independently retains support, operational, and administrative services – for
instance, finance, human resources, and others – except for those that RSD would
normally provide to non-contract agencies, such as air support.
• Two sets of costs and staffing needs are provided in the analysis:
– For 2016, in order to compare the cost of current services contracted for
with RSD against the cost under a JPA.
– For 2021, to provide a staffing and cost blueprint for the JPA at the time of
its inception, as well as a roadmap for service needs, regardless of whether
or not the decision to form the JPA agency is ultimately made.
A comprehensive and detailed model of the JPA has been developed from this
process, determining estimated costs and considerations for the structure of the agency.
Report on the Riverside County JPA Feasibility Study
Matrix Consulting Group Page 3
2 Executive Summary
1 Foreword
The development of a JPA feasibility model has involved creating a series of
assumptions that form the foundation its characteristics, governance, and structure.
Without these in place, estimation of the agency’s service needs, projections, staffing
requirements, and cost analysis would not have been possible.
As a result of these considerations, the report is organized largely linear manner –
assumptions and methodologies build off of one each other sequentially, ultimately
arriving at final cost estimates for running and establishing the agency. Given this, the
executive summary mirrors this structure, summarizing the core outcomes and
conclusions of each chapter before offering final conclusions.
2 Construction of the JPA Model
The following sections summarize the assumptions and recommendations for how
a JPA agency would be organized, staffed, and governed, as well as a methodology for
cost allocation.
(1) Governance
A two-tiered governance structure for the JPA agency has been developed based
on best practices for regionally governed agencies and input from the cities participating
in the study. The governance model can be summarized as follows:
Report on the Riverside County JPA Feasibility Study
Matrix Consulting Group Page 4
Proposed Hybrid JPA Governance Model
Executive Board Advisory Committee
Size 9 seats 4 seats
Representation Equal Rotating (biannually)
Members Elected rep. (1YR rotation) City managers
Meeting Frequency Quarterly Monthly
Purpose Official governing body Technical advisory body
On the executive board, the representatives would be elected officials (e.g.,
councilmembers) from each of the member cities. The governance structure is described
in further detail in the section beginning on page 52.
(2) Organizational Structure
A detailed organization structure has been created for the JPA agency (located on
page 57), creating a streamlined model for the agency that reflects its division of services
and methodology for allocating costs. The structure divides agency functions into three
levels: centralized, regional, and local.
The regional layer of the organization is divided into three areas:
Division of JPA Regions
Report on the Riverside County JPA Feasibility Study
Matrix Consulting Group Page 5
Each city would have its own station, and each region would contain a ‘hub’ facility,
where certain services such as core investigations would be organized.
(3) Cost Allocation Model
A multi-tiered approach has been designed to allocate JPA costs between member
cities in a process that is transparent and equitable manner, as well one that maximizes
the economies of scale gained from a regionalized service model.
The cost recovery structure developed from this process (detailed on page 68) is
divides police agency functions – with all personnel and operating costs that they
represent – into three allocation categories, as outlined in the following chart:
Overview of Cost Allocation Categories
Cost Category
Description Examples
Class A
Cities pay a proportional share based a
formula consisting of the following factors:
40% Population
25% Total Calls for Service
35% Number of Locally Dedicated Staff
Information technology,
core detectives, fleet,
finance
Shared costs
Class B
Cities pay based on their electively set
level of contribution to a specialty unit.
Traffic, gang task force
Subscription-based
Class C
Full position and operating costs of locally
dedicated staff
Patrol, crime prevention,
POP teams Local costs
(4) Staffing Needs
RSD computer-aided dispatch (CAD) data was analyzed over a period of a year to
determine the number of calls for service and estimate1 the total hours of community-
1 Limitations in the CAD data received by the project team prevented the measurement of time
involved in handling calls for service.
Report on the Riverside County JPA Feasibility Study
Matrix Consulting Group Page 6
generated workload that RSD patrol units currently handle. These estimates were then
used to determine the number of JPA patrol officers that would be needed to handle those
workloads, while also retaining the ability to be proactive in the field. By setting a target
of 40% overall proactivity, or the time that on-duty officers have available after factoring
in time spent responding to calls for service and completing other – recommended staffing
levels can then be set for each city2, for both 2016 and 2021 workload projections.
To provide a level comparison and definition of coverage hours between the
current RSD model and the JPA estimates, the JPA patrol staffing levels were then
adjusted to meet or exceed the current levels of coverage that are currently contracted
for (detailed on page 113).
The results of this analysis are shown in the following table, which shows the net
number of hours that officers/deputies and CSOs are on-duty – after factoring in leave,
court time, administrative time (e.g., briefings, etc.), the impact of turnover, etc. – under
both current RSD contracts and JPA staffing estimates for 2016 –
2 Under the RSD costing model, cities contract for specific number of patrol service hours. The
cost and level of investigative services provided by RSD, by contrast, are built into this cost rather
than being set directly.
Report on the Riverside County JPA Feasibility Study
Matrix Consulting Group Page 7
Estimated Net Patrol Coverage Hours
(2016 figures; see disclaimers and methodology)
RSD3 JPA JPA
Coachella 25,900 28,153 +8.7%
Jurupa Valley 55,360 61,163 +10.5%
Lake Elsinore 46,700 46,922 +0.5%
Menifee 43,900 48,431 +10.3%
Moreno Valley 164,400 165,051 +0.4%
Perris 50,520 52,958 +4.8%
San Jacinto 33,720 45,413 +34.7%
Temecula 89,180 90,447 +1.4%
Wildomar 14,600 16,929 +17.7%
It is important to note that the RSD figures shown in the previous table are lower
than the contract-specified number of service hours, as other availability factors are
included, such as time spent on administrative tasks and court appearances.
A comprehensive account of the recommended staffing levels for the JPA agency
at both 2016 and 2021 projection levels can be in the chapter beginning on page 184,
including the process used to determine staffing needs, as well as the patrol coverage
hours displayed in the previous table.
Staffing needs for elective proactive functions, such as traffic, participation in a
violent offender task force, graffiti deputies, and others, have been duplicated at the same
levels that are contracted for with RSD.
3 Based on current contracted service hours, with adjustments made to account for the impact of
administrative tasks (e.g., briefings), court time, and other factors, on the availability of patrol units
to be in the field responding to calls for service and being proactive.
Report on the Riverside County JPA Feasibility Study
Matrix Consulting Group Page 8
(5) Personnel Costs
The project team completed a salary and benefit survey (page 224) of agencies in
the region that retain their own police department, as well as the Riverside County
Sheriff’s Office. From this research, a comprehensive compensation plan has been
developed (page 81) that provides detailed estimates on the cost of each individual
position that the JPA would employ, including all pension-related issues.
3 Costs of Operating and Establishing the JPA Agency
Comprehensive cost estimates have been developed from the results of the
staffing analysis, personnel cost estimates, and projections for other operating costs of
running the agency.
(3.1) Total JPA Operating Costs
Excluding startup costs (e.g., facilities, initial fleet purchases), the feasibility
analysis estimates the total cost of running the agency as follows:
Total JPA Agency Costs (Excluding Startup and Capital Costs)
City 2016 2021
0 0 0
Coachella $7,058,169 $7,469,738
Jurupa Valley $12,835,140 $13,389,257
Lake Elsinore $8,851,012 $9,286,906
Menifee $10,603,949 $11,341,106
Moreno Valley $29,306,387 $29,688,232
Perris $11,622,472 $12,513,220
San Jacinto $8,608,454 $9,296,310
Temecula $19,505,453 $20,204,219
Wildomar $3,184,737 $3,358,659
Total $111,575,772 $116,547,648
Report on the Riverside County JPA Feasibility Study
Matrix Consulting Group Page 9
It is important to note that the differences in total costs from 2016 to 2021 do not
consider any adjustments for increases to the cost of living or other factors, and are
instead reflective of changes to staffing levels resulting from service needs of the
community growing along with population. This highlights an important consideration, as
the agencies participating in the study will need to expand its local law enforcement
contingents as their communities grow, whether as part of the JPA or the RSD contract
service model.
(3.2) JPA Startup and Capital Costs
It is also important to also consider agency startup costs, as it provides for a more
realistic comparison of costs between the two service models. To address the capital
needs of establishing the agency, the JPA may issue bonds, which unlike operating costs,
can be paid out over a series of years. JPA-issued bonds do not require voter approval,
and instead can be passed by majority votes within the city councils of each member city.
The following table summarizes agency startup costs by category, assuming a
start date of 20214:
4 All building, fleet, dispatch, information technology, and equipment costs are developed using
current 2016 cost values. The square footage needs used to develop the building specifications,
however, are calculated using 2021 staffing estimates.
Report on the Riverside County JPA Feasibility Study
Matrix Consulting Group Page 10
Summary of Estimated JPA Agency Startup Costs
Category Cost
Facilities $23,337,869
Fleet $13,449,600
Equipment $6,584,093
Information Technology $2,195,400
Dispatch $15,000,000
Sworn Hiring Incentives $5,550,000
Total $66,116,962
Assuming a 10-year municipal bond with a fixed interest rate of 5.0%, as well as a
level principal payment schedule, estimated debt service for the JPA agency as a whole
would total an average of $8,429,913 per year. This figure is then added to the normal
operating costs of running the JPA, distributing the total amount among cities using the
Class A (shared) allocation method, which is based on a combination of population. calls
for service, and number of locally dedicated (i.e., contracted directly for) staff.
4 Conclusions and Findings of the JPA Feasibility Analysis
(1) The cost of running a nine-city JPA would be less than the cost of
contracting with the RSD.
The following table provides a comparison of the 2016 costs of running the JPA
agency against current spending on RSD contract services by city:
Report on the Riverside County JPA Feasibility Study
Matrix Consulting Group Page 11
RSD Contract Cost vs JPA Costs
(2016 Figures; Includes Startup Expenses)
City RSD Costs JPA Costs +/-%
0 0 0
Coachella $7,538,758 $7,975,873 +5.8%
Jurupa Valley $15,843,197 $14,411,117 -9.0%
Lake Elsinore $11,799,477 $9,973,552 -15.5%
Menifee $10,770,641 $12,192,012 +13.2%
Moreno Valley $39,834,484 $32,002,361 -19.7%
Perris $14,694,422 $13,355,855 -9.1%
San Jacinto $9,993,198 $9,913,385 -0.8%
Temecula5 $25,694,620 $21,481,401 -16.4%
Wildomar $2,667,300 $3,672,005 +37.7%
Total $138,836,097 $124,977,561 -10.0%
With the exception of Wildomar (which contracts for relatively few staff as a result
of reductions that were made in recent years to contracted service levels6), Menifee, and
Coachella, the JPA would achieve cost savings in all other cities, ranging from 0.8% in
San Jacinto to 19.7% in Moreno Valley.
As the cost projections were shown using 2016 numbers, the true cost of the JPA
in its start year of 2021 should be considered within the context of the relative risks for
cost increases in both models. CalPERS trends and changes, such as the recently
introduced reduction to the discount rate, present significant impacts on the relative
differences in costs between the two options in the future.
5 Numbers based on FY16 figures, as with other cities. With additional staffing, FY17 budgeted
RSD costs are listed at $27.8m. In the JPA cost model, if Temecula added an additional 10
officers and 1 CSO position to the numbers shown in the patrol analysis and staffing chapter,
total JPA costs would increase by approximately $1.6m.
6 The number of service hours provided to Wildomar by RSD was reduced to 40, down from 70.
The JPA cost estimates are based on achieving the reduced service hour target by dedicating 10
officers to the city, equating to 15,090 net coverage hours per year (approximately, 41.3 per day).
Report on the Riverside County JPA Feasibility Study
Matrix Consulting Group Page 12
(2) The cost effectiveness and service levels provided under the JPA model
center around a number of key elements.
Relative to the RSD contract model, these include the following characteristics:
• Organization and staffing levels designed to meet or exceed the same level
of service provided under current contracts: Core field services, including
patrol officers and CSOs, are staffed in the JPA model to provide at least the same
number of actual coverage hours in the field in each city, when examined on a
level basis between RSD and JPA models of counting ‘service hours’ (page 113).
Additional services, such as traffic units, proactive teams, and other specialized
resources that cities directly contract for are staffed at equal or exceeding levels.
• Reduced pension cost variability: Given that a high proportion of sworn
personnel fall under the tier 2 (“new member”) categories of CalPERS, as well as
the lack of unfunded liabilities in a new system, the potential for significant pension
cost increases are relatively limited compared to many other California agencies.
The same is true for retiree medical insurance, which the JPA compensation model
does not provide as a defined benefit plan.
• Sustainable and competitive compensation plans: Compensation plans have
been developed for the JPA model that minimize the risk of unfunded pension
liabilities through a combination of different elements:
– Defined contribution retiree medical systems for all employees
– Defined contribution pension plan for non-sworn personnel
– Above average salary and incentive-based pay
– Optional alternative defined contribution pension plan for sworn personnel
– Salaries have been set at above average levels, with significantly above
average assignment and attainment-based pay incentives
– $10,000 ‘bonus’ for sworn hires to further enhance competitiveness
– Risk from increasing pension costs is further mitigated by having low
percentage of sworn personnel falling under the Tier 1 category of CalPERS
benefits
– The discount rate change to CalPERS does not affect the JPA as
significantly, given that not all personnel are on defined benefit plans, as
well as the absence of unfunded liabilities
• Maximization of cost efficiencies by establishing relatively few specialty
units: The JPA organization lacks a number of optional proactive specialized units
that many large police agencies have, while by no means being a minimalist
structure. Investigations are for the most part generalized roles, excluding the
Report on the Riverside County JPA Feasibility Study
Matrix Consulting Group Page 13
Homicide Unit and Sex Crimes Unit. As a result, the organizational complexity and
administrative overhead costs of the JPA are relatively minimal. Core services,
such as patrol and investigations, constitute a larger proportion of the organization
than many agencies similar in size to the potential JPA.
• Municipal control and governance: Under the dual governing body structure,
elected officials from each member city form an executive management board,
while rotating city managers meet monthly in an advisory committee. As a result,
cities have significant control over how the JPA agency responds to citizen
concerns and manages its budget, as well as selection of the agency executive.
Many of the key characteristics for the cost effectiveness of the JPA are also
integral to the effective RSD contract model:
• Regionalization of investigations: As with the RSD model, a larger pool of
detectives allows for case workloads to be better balanced and prioritized as
fluctuations in case generation occur. Regionalization also allows for shared case
management practices to be put into place.
• Local control over major cost elements: Localized costs (those under the Class
C cost allocation category) represent the largest component of the charge for
services, and regional specialized functions (e.g., traffic, gang violent offender task
force) are optionally provided.
• Utilization of civilian field roles: Another feature of the current RSD services
incorporated into the model, the JPA agency would prioritize alternative response
capabilities to alleviate the workload of sworn patrol units.
(3) Opportunities exist to further reduce costs in the JPA model, as well as to
provide additional services.
By modifying certain assumptions, organizational aspects, and details of the
compensation plan, significant impacts can be made to the cost of the JPA:
• If RSD retained dispatch services, and as a result reducing total capital costs by
$15,000,000, the JPA would cost approximately 5.3–6.5% less for each city,
depending on the charge method applied.
• Pension system alternatives: Implementation of a defined contribution
retirement system for sworn personnel, at an employer rate of 9.0%7 the
7 Rate includes separate accounts for long-term disability and death benefits.
Report on the Riverside County JPA Feasibility Study
Matrix Consulting Group Page 14
employee’s pensionable salary, would save approximately $1,856,000 –
approximately 1.5% of the total cost of running the JPA8.
• Changes to the groups of cities participating in the JPA: As capital costs,
including the construction of agency facilities, are allocated based on the Class A
(shared) method, reducing the number of regions would decrease the capital
burden. However, if large cities were not to participate, certain economies of scale
are lost, given the proportion of staff and capital costs absorbed in smaller
organization units compared to those in large, regionalized/centralized services.
– For example, if Coachella were ultimately not part of the agency, very slight
cost efficiencies could be gained by other cities – about $2.3. million in
startup costs (not including interest) and negligible differences in operating
costs.
– However, if a large city such as Moreno Valley were to not be apart the JPA,
more significant cost efficiencies would be lost by other cities.
• Cities opting to add more staff, or the JPA deciding to form new units: The
relative cost of adding one officer position, including equipment and outfitting, a
proportional share of support and supervision costs, is slightly less than $200,000.
With the JPA costing about 10% less than the total RSD contract amount, cities
would be able to add additional staff while still maintaining cost reductions.
These opportunities, among others, provide additional variables and cost
considerations for the cost of the JPA relative to continuing to contract with RSD. Given
that the JPA would cost 10% after amortized startup costs have been factored in, there
is significant room to implement modifications to the JPA model.
(4) In the RSD service model, cities lack the ability to shape cost factors and
have a significant role in how regionally provided services are governed.
The same conclusions outlined in the previous point also apply equally to RSD
contract cities. Cities contracting with the RSD are stakeholders in the agency providing
the services, as reflected by the hundreds of staffing positions that they directly support.
8 Figures are based on 2016 cost estimates.
Report on the Riverside County JPA Feasibility Study
Matrix Consulting Group Page 15
The priorities of a JPA seeking to achieve cost efficiencies largely mirror those of a
contract city.
In fact, many of the principles for allocating costs are largely similar – such as the
regionalization of costs relating to administrative, support, and certain core service
functions, while for the most part retaining a component where cities directly determine
their local staffing levels. One of the key differences between the models is the degree of
stakeholdership – in the RSD model, cities do not have a part of the agency’s direct
governance.
By building the cost of administrative and support functions into the rate for core
service units, cities are removed from any decisions regarding these functions and any
impacts they may have on their costs. By contrast, in a JPA environment, a city may make
decisions that reduce the cost of these functions over time – such as implementing new
information management systems to streamline records promises, for example.
(5) RSD contract cities should reevaluate staffing levels based on the results of
the patrol service needs analysis contained in the report.
The patrol proactivity analysis provides cities with a methodology to evaluate
community-generated workloads patrol staffing resources in order to determine the level
of coverage being provided. Two sets of field staffing levels were provided in our report:
• Patrol staffing needed to achieve a field proactivity target of 40% based on
workload and availability
• Patrol staffing needed to equalize or exceed the coverage hours provided under
current RSD contracts
Ultimately, in the calculation of JPA costs, the latter method has been used. This
process enables cities to budget law enforcement spending on based on more
Report on the Riverside County JPA Feasibility Study
Matrix Consulting Group Page 16
transparent and measurable service level considerations. Other staffing need estimations
do not translate directly to the RSD model, as cities contract for patrol hours and certain
dedicated staff, with all other support, investigative, and administrative functions being
built into the supporting cost rates.
The recommended staffing levels, both currently and for the years 2016 and 2021
are contained within the comprehensive JPA staffing overview beginning on page 129.
(6) Cities should advance the process of determining JPA agency feasibility.
The contract cities participating in the study should move forward with the process
of exploring the feasibility of creating a regional law enforcement agency under a JPA
structure. Initial steps include:
• Revise and refine the assumptions, structure, and characteristics of the JPA
feasibility model to create a realistic target.
• Further examine the possibility contracting for certain services, such as dispatch,
from other agencies while remaining within the JPA environment.
• Reach out to other contract and non-contract cities with the model to explore the
possibility of a larger – and perhaps more contiguous – JPA group being formed.
Report on the Riverside County JPA Feasibility Study
Matrix Consulting Group Page 17
3 Profile of Current Law Enforcement Services
1. Introduction
The following descriptive profile outlines the law enforcement services provided to
the cities participating in the feasibility study, representing 9 of the 17 municipalities that
contract with the Riverside County Sheriff’s Department. The information contained in the
profile has been developed through a number of interviews conducted with Riverside
County Sheriff’s Department personnel, city managers, and staff from the nine contract
cities that are participating in the study. Information pertaining to a number of RSD work
areas is not specifically addressed in the profile, particularly those involving shared and
non-dedicated services.
It is important to note that the profile does not seek to provide any analysis of the
value or cost effectiveness of these services, and instead seeks to provide a reflection of
the project team’s core understanding of how those services are provided and charged
for, as well as the specific staffing levels assigned to each of the participating contract
cities.
2. Overview of Current Law Enforcement Services Provided by the Riverside
County Sheriff’s Department
The following sections provide a summary of the scope and costing model that the
Riverside County Sheriff’s Department uses to provide law enforcement services to
contracting municipalities and other entities.
Report on the Riverside County JPA Feasibility Study
Matrix Consulting Group Page 18
(1) Background and Summary of Contract Services in Riverside County
The nine cities participating in the study represent a total population of 767,868
spread across 323.7 non-contiguous square miles. Although not all of these cities are
contiguous, all but one of the cities are located closely together.
The relative locations of these cities are illustrated in the map below:
Contract Cities Included in the Study
The total combined budget from the 2015-16 cycle spent on police services was
$147.1 million. In each of the nine cities, the cost of police services was the largest single
budget expense. The law enforcement contracts are generally five-year, renewable
contracts that specify patrol hours to be delivered and any additional law enforcement
positions requested such as traffic or special enforcement teams.
Contract costs have risen significantly in recent years, even after adjusting for
changes to the services and staffing that each city contracts for. As stated before, cities
pay a set rate for the number of patrol hours they need to provide adequate police
coverage, plus more for additional services. The cost per hour is adjusted annually, and
Report on the Riverside County JPA Feasibility Study
Matrix Consulting Group Page 19
while the rate of increase slowed in years following the Great Recession, its pace has
since resumed at even greater levels than before, with FY2014-15 representing the single
largest increase to costs in the last decade. Contract cities revenues, by contrast, have
not grown at the same rate, prompting cities in some cases to examine the choice
between reducing the number of patrol hours contracted for and reducing other city
services. In the RSD costing model, patrol hours represent the central unit of allocating
expenses, and has represented the fastest growing element within contract costs overall.
(2) Overview of the Cost Recovery Model
According to Board Policy B-4 (7), The Riverside County Sheriff’s Department is
directed to recover the full cost of providing contract law enforcement services from the
agencies, stating the following:
Riverside County Board Policy B-4 (7)
Charges should recover actual costs of providing the services. The Board of
Supervisors may direct county departments to reduce operating costs in order to
reduce charges to users.
As a result, any inflationary changes or increases to personnel costs, such as
those relating to employee retirement systems, must then result in increases to the cost
assessed to contract areas for services provided. How these services may be charged
for, however, is somewhat constrained under California law:
California Government Code Section 51350
…A county shall not charge a city contracting for a particular service, either as a
direct or an indirect overhead charge, any portion of those costs which are
attributable to services made available to all portions of the county, as determined
by resolution of the board of supervisors, or which are general overhead costs of
operation of the county government.
General overhead costs, for the purpose of this section, are those costs which a
county would incur regardless of whether or not it provided a service under contract
to a city…
Report on the Riverside County JPA Feasibility Study
Matrix Consulting Group Page 20
As a result, in an analysis of the costing of RSD services to contract cities, it is
important to distinguish between general overhead costs – those that would be incurred
by the county regardless of a community’s status as a contract city – and those that are
not. The remaining costs are then charged based on whether or not they constitute part
of the core services being provided, which are billed for by the number of patrol hours
that a city contracts for.
(2.1) Supported Rates
The costs associated with providing these core services – ranging from
investigations, first-line field supervision, and other functions, to support areas such as
information technology, training, dispatch, etc. – are billed under one rate, which is
referred to as the supported rate. The associated rate comprises not only the costs
relating to salaries and benefits (including retirement system expenditures), but also a
share of other related cost areas, such as liability insurance premiums and PSEC costs
(911 communications infrastructure). In FY 2014-15, the supported rate was set at
$149.09/hour, reflecting a sizable increase over the previous year’s rate. This is
consistent with trends over the past eight fiscal years, which as displayed in the following
table along with the increase from the previous year:
Report on the Riverside County JPA Feasibility Study
Matrix Consulting Group Page 21
Supported Hourly Rate, FY2008-15
Year Rate % Change
FY07-08 $111.80 –
FY08-09 $117.30 +4.9%
FY09-10 $121.97 +4.0%
FY10-11 $125.37 +2.8%
FY11-12 $126.74 +1.1%
FY12-13 $132.69 +4.7%
FY13-14 $139.29 +5.0%
FY14-15 $149.09 +7.0%
8YR Change +33.4%
Avg./Year +4.2%
As explained in the full report of the Criminal Justice System Review completed
recently by KPMG9, the supported rate can be broken down into three main categories:
Direct Patrol, Direct Support, and Indirect Support.
The following table presents the components of each of these categories, and the
amount they contribute to the overall supported hourly rate of $149.09:
9 KPMG, LLP. Criminal Justice System Review. Board of Supervisors, County of Riverside,
California, 2016.
Report on the Riverside County JPA Feasibility Study
Matrix Consulting Group Page 22
Breakdown of Supported Rate Cost Factors (FY2014-15)10
Category Rate Factor % of Total
Direct Patrol $80.50 50.4%
Patrol Officers $80.50
Direct Support $48.56 30.4%
Sworn Support $38.35
Classified $10.21
Central Dispatch $10.67 6.7%
Indirect Support $20.03 12.5%
Central Dispatch $10.67
Countywide Cost Allocations $1.65
Field Training Costs $1.30
Personnel and Recruiting $1.22
Information Services $1.21
Administration $1.20
Technical Services $0.95
Accounting and Finance $0.82
Training Center $0.64
Contracts and Grants $0.38
TOTAL $149.09 100%
Comprising 54% of the supported hourly rate, direct patrol costs – those relating
to patrol deputies only – represent the single largest share. It is important to note that this
includes a share of liability insurance, as well as the cost of benefits provided to those
employees.
(2.2) Unsupported Rates
Positions that a city elects to include in the staffing complement they contract for
are billed at different rates, given that their functioning does not entail the use of other
10 All figures included the corresponding table reference those listed on pages 70-71 of the
aforementioned report completed by KPMG, LLP.
Report on the Riverside County JPA Feasibility Study
Matrix Consulting Group Page 23
services (e.g., investigations, dispatch) to the same extent as positions, such as patrol
deputies, that are billed at the full supported rate. The rates at which these positions are
billed are referred to as unsupported rates, and vary depending on
position/classification.
Examples of positions that would be billed at unsupported rates include task force
assignments, dedicated captains, localized crime analysts, community service officers,
and any other positions or function that a city elects to contract for above the core range
and level of services. This rate includes any costs incurred by providing these functions,
including, supplies, recruitment, accounting, and any other factors driving service costs.
For deputy positions in FY2014-15, the unsupported rate was $81.30 per hour –
significantly less than the supported rate.
(2.3) Other Costs
Certain cost categories are not included in either the supported and unsupported
rates. These include, but are not limited to, the following categories:
• Facility lease and maintenance costs
• Motor vehicles used by traffic unit
• K-9 dogs used by K-9 units
• Overtime for special events
• Citizen patrol programs
• Furniture and office supplies
• Field equipment purchases and maintenance staff used by unsupported staff
• Miscellaneous professional services
Report on the Riverside County JPA Feasibility Study
Matrix Consulting Group Page 24
These costs are not assessed under a costing rate, and are instead billed for
directly to each contract city at their cost on a line-item basis.
Report on the Riverside County JPA Feasibility Study
Matrix Consulting Group Page 25
3. Summary of Law Enforcement Contracts
The following chapter provide overviews of each contract city, including population
and crime trends, total spending on law enforcement services, and the number of staff
that each city currently contracts for.
1 Coachella
The City of Coachella has a population of 44,635 (2015 U.S. Census Bureau
estimate) and encompasses 29.0 square miles. The FY2015-16 budget for police
services is $7,538,758. The current contract ends on June 30, 2017.
(1.1) Overview of Service Environment
The population of Coachella has expanded steadily over the last few decades,
growing from a city of around 17,000 residents in 1990, to over 44,000 currently. The
chart below displays growth trends over the past five years:
Coachella Population, 2010 – 2014
Interestingly, although the rate of growth slowed gradually from 2011 to 2013,
expansion picked up again at a rapid pace in 2014 as the economy continued its recovery.
It can be expected that this level of continued growth will place important impacts on the
city’s law enforcement service needs, as total buildout is not foreseeable within the near
Report on the Riverside County JPA Feasibility Study
Matrix Consulting Group Page 26
future. To this point, some city estimates expect that growth could potentially place the
city’s population at around 100,000 within the next decade.
As recent growth has occurred, however, crime has not increased by the same
proportion, as evidenced by the following chart:
Coachella Part I Crimes, 2009 – 2013
Violent crime occurrences have dropped significantly over the five-year period,
although it is unclear whether this is somewhat of an outlier given the consistency in crime
totals in other years, or whether the drop is the result of the city’s gang injunction
operations. Compared to many of the other contract cities, however, violent and property
crime rates are relatively high.
(1.2) Spending on Police Services
Expenditures relating to police services have risen steadily over the past four years
without any significant contract changes occurring over that time period, as shown in the
following table:
Report on the Riverside County JPA Feasibility Study
Matrix Consulting Group Page 27
Year Expenditures % Change
FY12/13 $6,059,382 –
FY13/14 $7,153,254 18.1%
FY14/15 $6,678,050 -6.6%
FY15/16 $7,538,758 12.9%
FY16/17 – –
4YR Change 24.4%
Spending actually decreased from FY2013-14 to FY2014-15 as position levels
changed, before increasing by nearly 13% in the next fiscal year. Overall, Coachella
spends almost 25% more on law enforcement services today compared with FY 12/13.
(1.3) Dedicated and Non-Dedicated Contract Staffing Levels
The city contracts for a total of 27.5 positions, which does not include the partial
share of a lieutenant from the Thermal station:
City of Coachella Contract Staffing Levels
Staff Category FTEs Notes
Patrol
Deputies (Equivalent) 18.5 Based on 90 hours per day
Supervision and Management
Sergeant (Field) 1.0
Specialized Field Units
Deputies (Community Action Team) 3.0 Supported, non-dedicated
Deputies (Special Enforcement Team) 3.0 Supported, dedicated
Support
None
Administration
None
Task Forces
Sergeant (Task Forces) 1.0
Deputy (CV Narcotics Task Force) 1.0 Unsupported
Deputy (V. Crime Gang Task Force) 1.0 Unsupported
Report on the Riverside County JPA Feasibility Study
Matrix Consulting Group Page 28
2 Jurupa Valley
The City of Jurupa Valley has a population of 100,315 (2015 U.S. Census Bureau
estimate) and encompasses 43.5 square miles. The FY2015-16 budget for police
services is $15,843,197, with a contract expiration date of June 30, 2018.
(2.1) Overview of Service Environment
Jurupa Valley is the newest city in the contract group, having incorporated as
recently as 2011. Given that historical UCR crime data for the city is somewhat limited,
only two years of crime trends are displayed in the chart below:
Jurupa Valley Part I Crimes, 2012 – 2013
Overall, Part I crimes occur at a rate of about 33.7 crimes per 1,000 residents – at
almost exactly the same rate as Coachella.
(2.2) Spending on Police Services
Significant changes have occurred in the city’s spending on law enforcement
services, as evidenced by the table below:
Report on the Riverside County JPA Feasibility Study
Matrix Consulting Group Page 29
Year Expenditures % Change
FY12/13 $5,238,687 –
FY13/14 $12,603,820 140.6%
FY14/15 $14,830,641 17.7%
FY15/16 $15,843,197 6.8%
FY16/17 – –
4YR Change 202.4%
It is important to note that the 110+% rise in spending from FY14/15 to FY15/16 is
the result of changes to the staffing levels that the city contracts for, rather than increases
to the base rate for supported positions.
(2.3) Dedicated and Non-Dedicated Contract Staffing Levels
The city contracts for 52 supported positions – slightly fewer per capita than
Coachella – as shown in the table below:
City of Jurupa Valley Contract Staffing Levels
Staff Category FTEs Notes
Patrol
Deputies (Equivalent) 37.0 Based on 180 hours per day
Supervision and Management
Sergeant (Field) 1.0
Specialized Field Units
Deputies (Community Action Team) 6.0 Supported, dedicated
Deputies (Traffic) 6.0 Supported, dedicated
Support
Community Service Officers 2.0
Administration
None
Task Forces
None
Report on the Riverside County JPA Feasibility Study
Matrix Consulting Group Page 30
3 Lake Elsinore
The City of Lake Elsinore has a population of 61,981 (2015 U.S. Census Bureau
estimate) and covers an area of 41.7 square miles. The FY2015-16 budget for police
services is $11,799,472, with the current contract scheduled to end on June 30, 2020.
(3.1) Overview of Service Environment
Lake Elsinore has expanded rapidly from 2010 to 2014, as shown in the chart
below:
Lake Elsinore Population, 2010 – 2014
At a growth rate of over 3.1% per year, it can be expected that significant changes
to the city’s population will continue to occur over the coming years.
Despite the growth in population over recent years, Part I crime levels have
remained fairly consistent, as shown in the chart below:
Report on the Riverside County JPA Feasibility Study
Matrix Consulting Group Page 31
Lake Elsinore Part I Crimes, 2009 – 2013
Crime occurrences have decreased overall over the past five years of available
data, although the trend has not been entirely steadily, with 2012 representing marked
increases to both violent and property crime levels. Considered within the context of the
population increases over the same time period, the overall rate of crime has decreased
by a larger margin.
(3.2) Spending on Police Services
Law Enforcement spending for Lake Elsinore has risen significant over the past
five years, as shown in the following table:
Year Expenditures % Change
FY12/13 $9,634,801 –
FY13/14 $10,351,911 7.4%
FY14/15 $10,830,422 4.6%
FY15/16 $11,712,034 8.1%
FY16/17 $12,431,410 6.1%
4YR Change 29.0%
Report on the Riverside County JPA Feasibility Study
Matrix Consulting Group Page 32
It should be noted, however, that much of the increase – particularly, from FY2013-
14 to FY2014-15 – represents changes to the staffing levels the city contracts for, rather
only the overall supported hourly rate.
(3.3) Dedicated and Non-Dedicated Contract Staffing Levels
The table below provides detailed figures for the staffing levels that Lake Elsinore
currently contracts for:
City of Lake Elsinore Contract Staffing Levels
Staff Category FTEs Notes
Patrol
Deputies (Equivalent) 27.0 Based on 130.8 hours per day
Supervision and Management
Sergeant (Field) 1.0
Specialized Field Units
Deputies (Special Enforcement Team) 2.0 Supported, dedicated
Deputies (Motorcycle/Traffic) 4.0 Supported, dedicated
Support
Community Service Officers 5.0
Administration
None
Task Forces
None
Report on the Riverside County JPA Feasibility Study
Matrix Consulting Group Page 33
4 Menifee
The City of Menifee has a population of 87,174 (2015 U.S. Census Bureau
estimate) and encompasses 46.6 square miles. The FY2015-16 budget for police
services is $10,770,641, with the current contract ending June 30, 2017.
(4.1) Overview of Service Environment
Menifee has grown steadily in recent years, as shown by the chart below:
Menifee Population, 2010 – 2014
The rate of growth is comparable to other cities in the contract group, representing
about 10% additional residents in total over the past five years, and approximately 2% in
each of the last three years.
Unlike many of the other cities, where total crime numbers have decreased in
recent years, the opposite has been the case in Menifee. Both violent and property crime
totals have risen in that period, as shown in the following chart:
Report on the Riverside County JPA Feasibility Study
Matrix Consulting Group Page 34
Menifee Part I Crimes, 2009 – 2013
At increases of about 41% for violent crimes and 16% for property crimes, the pace
of growth has not outpaced the rate at which residents have been added to the city.
Despite these trends, the city’s Part I crime rate is relatively lower in comparison to many
of the other cities in the contract group, many of which with rates that are at least 50%
higher.
(4.2) Spending on Police Services
Law enforcement spending has grown throughout the subsequent period of time,
as shown in the table below:
Year Expenditures % Change
FY12/13 $8,375,221 –
FY13/14 $9,021,776 7.7%
FY14/15 $10,338,782 14.6%
FY15/16 $10,770,641 4.2%
FY16/17 – –
4YR Change 28.6%
Report on the Riverside County JPA Feasibility Study
Matrix Consulting Group Page 35
As is the case with many of the other contract cities, the years with the most
significant increase owe largely to changes in contracted staffing levels, rather than
changes to the direct supported hourly rate. Overall, the combined increases amount to
a four-year difference of 28.6% from FY2012-13 to FY2015-16.
(4.3) Dedicated and Non-Dedicated Contract Staffing Levels
The table below displays the current staffing levels that are contracted for by
Menifee:
City of Menifee Contract Staffing Levels
Staff Category FTEs Notes
Patrol
Deputies (Equivalent) 25 Based on 120 hours per day
Supervision and Management
None
Specialized Field Units
Deputies (Special Enforcement Team) 4.0 Dedicated, Supported
Deputies (Quail Valley) 2.0 Dedicated, Supported
Deputies (Motorcycle – Traffic) 2.0 Dedicated, Supported
Deputies (Traffic Team) 2.0 Dedicated, Supported
Support
Community Service Officers 5.0
Administration
None
Task Forces
Deputy (CV Narcotics Task Force) 1.0 Unsupported
Report on the Riverside County JPA Feasibility Study
Matrix Consulting Group Page 36
5 Moreno Valley
The City of Moreno Valley has a population of 204,198 (2015 U.S. Census Bureau
estimate) and encompasses 51.5 square miles. The FY2015-16 budget for police
services is $39,834,484.
(5.1) Overview of Service Environment
Moreno Valley, like many of the other municipalities in the contract cities group,
has grown steadily in recent years, as shown in the chart below:
Moreno Valley Population, 2010 – 2014
Growth has continued at around this rate since at least 1990, when the population
of the city was just over 121,000. Total buildout for the city is projected at between
260,000 and 300,000, depending on the completion of a set of industrial space
development projects.
By contrast, total crime occurrences have declined at a relatively consistent rate
over the past five years, as illustrated in the following chart:
Report on the Riverside County JPA Feasibility Study
Matrix Consulting Group Page 37
Moreno Valley Part I Crimes, 2009 – 2013
The majority of the drop in crime has occurred within the violent crimes category,
whereas the volume of property crimes has remained relatively unchanged since 2009.
When viewed as a proportion to the city’s growing population, both crime rates have
decreased overall.
(5.2) Spending on Police Services
Law enforcement spending has changed only to a minor degree in Moreno Valley,
as shown in the table below:
Year Expenditures % Change
FY12/13 $42,019,344 –
FY13/14 $36,736,089 -12.6%
FY14/15 $39,657,875 8.0%
FY15/16 $39,834,484 0.4%
FY16/17 $42,477,136 6.6%
5YR Change 1.1%
After falling by over 12% in FY 13/14 as a result of staffing level changes,
significant increases have occurred two other times in the five-year period. Even with the
Report on the Riverside County JPA Feasibility Study
Matrix Consulting Group Page 38
decreased staffing levels, the overall cost of police services has grown by about 1.1%
from FY2012-13 to FY2016-17.
(5.3) Dedicated and Non-Dedicated Contract Staffing Levels
The following table presents the current contracted staffing levels for Moreno
Valley, including the dedicated Captain position, which is unique among the nine
participating contract cities:
City of Moreno Valley Contract Staffing Levels
Staff Category FTEs Notes
Patrol
Deputies (Equivalent) 92.0 Based on 448 hours per day
Supervision and Management
Captain (90%) 1.0
Lieutenant 1.0
Sergeant (Field) 1.0
Specialized Field Units
Deputies (K9 Handler w/ Canine) 2.0 Dedicated, Supported
Deputies (Motorcycles- Traffic) 10.0 Dedicated, Supported
Deputies (Crime Prevention) 3.0 Dedicated, Unsupported
Deputies (Graffiti) 1.0 Dedicated, Unsupported
Deputies (School Resource Officer) 1.0 Dedicated, Unsupported
Support
Forensic Technicians 1.0
Community Service Officer 20.0
Sheriff Service Officer 1.0
Administration
Administrative Supervisor 1.0
Office Staff 2.0
Task Forces
Deputy (V. Crime Gang Task Force) 1.0 Unsupported
Report on the Riverside County JPA Feasibility Study
Matrix Consulting Group Page 39
6 Perris
The City of Perris has a population of 74,971 (2015 U.S. Census Bureau estimate)
and encompasses 31.5 square miles. The FY2015-16 budget for police services is
$14,694,422, and the current contract ends June 30, 2019.
(6.1) Overview of Service Environment
Perris has grown at a moderate pace over the last five years, as shown by in the
chart below:
Perris Population, 2010 – 2014
The city has added an average of over 1,300 residents per year over the time
period, with the largest single year of growth occurring in 2011.
Despite the relatively moderate population gains compared to some of the other
cities in the contract group, crime levels have risen significantly, as shown in the following
table:
Report on the Riverside County JPA Feasibility Study
Matrix Consulting Group Page 40
Perris Part I Crimes, 2009 – 2013
Violent crime has risen by over 28% over the five-year time period, while property
crime has climbed by about 8%. These trends are in contrast to many of the other contract
cities, where crime occurrences have either stayed relatively the same, or have fallen
somewhat significantly over the same period.
(6.2) Spending on Police Services
Law enforcement expenditures have risen considerably, as shown in the following
table:
Year Expenditures % Change
FY12/13 – –
FY13/14 $12,488,731 –
FY14/15 $13,788,286 10.4%
FY15/16 $14,694,422 6.6%
FY16/17 $15,729,960 7.0%
4YR Change 26.0%
Report on the Riverside County JPA Feasibility Study
Matrix Consulting Group Page 41
At an overall increase of over 26% in four years, Perris ranks among the highest
of the group in growth of contract costs.
(6.3) Dedicated and Non-Dedicated Contract Staffing Levels
The following table details the current staffing levels contracted for by Perris:
City of Perris Contract Staffing Levels
Staff Category FTEs Notes
Patrol
Deputies (Equivalent) 31.0 Based on 150.4 hours per day
Supervision and Management
Sergeant (Field) 1.0
Specialized Field Units
Deputies (Special Enforcement Team) 5.0 Dedicated, supported
Deputies (City Gang Team) 2.0 Dedicated, supported
Deputies (Motors) 4.0 Dedicated, supported
Support
Community Service Officers 4.0
Administration
None
Task Forces
Deputy (CV Narcotics Task Force) 1.0 Dedicated, unsupported
Report on the Riverside County JPA Feasibility Study
Matrix Consulting Group Page 42
7 San Jacinto
San Jacinto has a population of 46,951 (2015 U.S. Census Bureau estimate) and
covers an area of 26.1 square miles. The FY2015-16 budget for police services is
$9.993.198, with the current contract ending June 30, 2019.
(7.1) Overview of Service Environment
San Jacinto has grown at a relatively minor rate compared to most of the other
contract cities, as shown in the following chart:
San Jacinto Population, 2010 – 2014
At 5.2% overall growth in the last five years, San Jacinto has added between 450
and 800 residents per year, with the rate has decreasing somewhat over time.
However, total crime has remained relatively level unlike many of the other cities
in the contract group, as displayed in the following chart:
Report on the Riverside County JPA Feasibility Study
Matrix Consulting Group Page 43
San Jacinto Part I Crimes, 2009 – 2013
While violent crime occurrences have decreased by almost one-quarter of the total
number in 2009, property crimes have increased by almost one-third. Burglary crimes
have actually decreased in frequency, though occurrences of larcenies/thefts and motor
vehicle thefts have experienced significant growth.
(7.2) Spending on Police Services
Spending on law enforcement services has increased overall over the last four
years, despite falling in the last two budget periods, as shown in the table below:
Year Expenditures % Change
FY12/13 $9,202,058 –
FY13/14 $11,774,094 28.0%
FY14/15 $10,004,861 -15.0%
FY15/16 $9,993,198 -0.1%
FY16/17 – –
4YR Change 8.6%
Report on the Riverside County JPA Feasibility Study
Matrix Consulting Group Page 44
Spending increased in FY2013-14 by about 28% as a result of additional staff
being included in the contract, with those levels changing again in FY2014-15, reducing
spending by around 15%
(7.3) Dedicated and Non-Dedicated Contract Staffing Levels
San Jacinto currently contracts for 27.5 total positions directly, as shown in the
table below:
City of San Jacinto Contract Staffing Levels
Staff Category FTEs Notes
Patrol
Deputies (Equivalent) 19.0 Based on 97 hours per day
Supervision and Management
Sergeant (Field) 1.0 Dedicated
Specialized Field Units
Deputies (Motorcycles- Traffic) 3.0 Dedicated, supported
Deputies (K9 Handler with Canine) 1.0 Dedicated, supported
Deputies (Traffic Team) 1.0 Dedicated, supported
Support
Community Service Officer 4.0
Crime Analysis 0.5
Administration
Administrative Supervisor 1.0
Office Staff 2.0
Task Forces
Deputy (PACT) 1.0 Unsupported
Report on the Riverside County JPA Feasibility Study
Matrix Consulting Group Page 45
8 Temecula
The City of Temecula has a population of 112,011 (2015 U.S. Census Bureau
estimate) and encompasses an area of 30.2 square miles. The 2015/16 budget for police
services is $25,694,620. The current contract ends June 30, 2020.
(8.1) Overview of Service Environment
Temecula has steadily grown over the past five years, as shown in the following
chart:
Temecula Population, 2010 – 2014
Overall, the city has grown by about 9.3% over the past five years, and by about
2% in the last three years. If this pace were to continue through 2026, the city’s population
would reach a total of approximately 139,000.
Similar to many of the other contract cities, while growth has continued at a steady
pace, violent crime levels have not changed significantly:
Report on the Riverside County JPA Feasibility Study
Matrix Consulting Group Page 46
Temecula Part I Crimes, 2009 – 2013
Notably, property crimes occurrences spiked significantly in the last year of
available data, representing an increase of about 16.7% from the previous year.
(8.2) Spending on Police Services
Expenditures related to law enforcement services have risen consistently in recent
years, as shown in the following table:
Year Expenditures % Change
FY12/13 – –
FY13/14 $22,604,881 –
FY14/15 $23,887,777 5.7%
FY15/16 $25,694,620 7.6%
FY16/17 – –
3YR Change 13.7%
Spending has increased markedly since FY2013-14, having risen by an average
of about 6.7% in each of the following two years.
Report on the Riverside County JPA Feasibility Study
Matrix Consulting Group Page 47
(8.3) Dedicated and Non-Dedicated Contract Staffing Levels
The table below provides current contract staffing levels for Temecula by position
and function:
City of Temecula Contract Staffing Levels
Staff Category FTEs Notes
Patrol
Deputies (Equivalent) 37.0 Based on 180 hours per day
Supervision and Management
Lieutenant 2.0 Dedicated
Sergeant (Field) 3.0 Dedicated
Specialized Field Units
Deputies (Special Enforcement Team) 5.0 Dedicated, supported
Deputies (Mall Team) 4.0 Dedicated, supported
Deputies (Traffic/ Motorcycle Team) 16.0 Dedicated, supported
Deputies (POP Team) 6.0 Dedicated, supported
Deputies (K9 handler w/ dog) 2.0 Dedicated, supported
Deputies (School Resource Officers) 2.5 Dedicated, unsupported
Support
Community Service Officers 21
Administration
None
Task Forces
Deputy (V. Crime Gang Task Force) 1.0 Unsupported
Report on the Riverside County JPA Feasibility Study
Matrix Consulting Group Page 48
9 Wildomar
The City of Wildomar has a population of 35,632 (2015 U.S. Census Bureau
estimate) and encompasses 23.7 square miles. The FY2015-16 budget for police
services is $2,554,600, with the current contract ending June 30, 2021.
(8.1) Overview of Service Environment
Wildomar has grown steadily in recent years at about the same rate as Temecula,
as shown in the chart below:
Wildomar Population, 2010 – 2014
While the rate of increase slowed somewhat in 2012 and 2013, it rapidly in the
following year, with the population growing by approximately 4.7%. As in the other
municipalities, this level of growth will undoubtedly create impacts to public safety needs
over the coming years – not necessarily in crime, but in the number of calls for service
generated by the community.
Despite the population growth, crime levels have actually fallen substantially over
the past five years of available data, as shown in the following chart:
Report on the Riverside County JPA Feasibility Study
Matrix Consulting Group Page 49
Wildomar Part I Crimes, 2009 – 2013
With the number of Part I crimes having fallen significantly in both the violent and
property categories, Wildomar is relatively unique among the other contract cities
participating in the study. However, it is important to consider these changes within the
context that much of the decrease occurred in the last year of available data, and as a
result does not conclusively indicate a long-term trend.
(8.2) Spending on Police Services
Expenditures relating to law enforcement services have increased over the last
four years, as detailed by the table below:
Year Expenditures % Change
FY12/13 – –
FY13/14 $2,152,219 –
FY14/15 $2,309,038 7.3%
FY15/16 $2,454,600 6.3%
FY16/17 $2,667,300 8.7%
4YR Change 23.9%
Report on the Riverside County JPA Feasibility Study
Matrix Consulting Group Page 50
This equates to an average of about 7.4% growth in costs for each of the last three
increases, with the FY2016-17 year representing the single largest change in throughout
that period.
(8.3) Dedicated and Non-Dedicated Contract Staffing Levels
The following table details the number of positions that are currently contracted for
by Wildomar:
City of Wildomar Contract Staffing Levels
Staff Category FTEs Notes
Patrol
Deputies (Equivalent) 9.0 Based on 40 hours per day11
Supervision and Management
None
Specialized Field Units
None
Support
CSO 1.0
Administration
None
Task Forces
None
11 A reduction from the original contract of 70 service hours per day.
Report on the Riverside County JPA Feasibility Study
Matrix Consulting Group Page 51
4 Characteristics and Governance of the JPA Agency
1 Basic Characteristics of the JPA
It is important to first define the framework of the feasibility study and outline the
basic assumptions that shape its analysis, as outlined in the following dot points:
• Formation: The analysis assumes that the agency is formed under a joint powers
agreement (JPA), as opposed to a municipal police department that contracts with
other cities.
• Scope: The JPA is understood as being a full-service policing agency. While
options potentially exist to retain or contract for certain services, it is assumed that
all core functions (e.g., patrol, investigations, etc.) are to be retained within the JPA
organization. The analysis also assumes that services that the Riverside County
Sheriff’s Department would provide to non-contracting agencies will not be
provided by the JPA, and instead will be retained by the sheriff. This includes air
support, jail, and other non-contract functions. 911 communications are included
in this analysis as a JPA-provided function.
• Service Area: For the purposes of this analysis, it is assumed that all nine
municipalities participating in this project will become part of the eventual JPA
service area, and that no other municipalities or other entities will be included.
• Start Date: Given that some of the existing contracts that municipalities in the
contract group have with the Riverside County Sheriff’s Department run through
the next three years, as well as the time needed to plan for, create, and implement
the agency, it is assumed that the JPA would begin services in the year 2021. All
costs and service needs will be projected to coincide with that date.
• Independently Operated: Unlike a county sheriff’s department, a JPA does not
have the same ability to draw directly from pre-existing regional entities and
government services, such as county information technology, finance, and human
resources functions. As a result, it assumed that all of these functions will be
retained within the JPA organization, and include dedicated staff.
These guidelines provide the foundation for the rest of the analysis and design of
the JPA feasibility model, serving as the basis of the project team’s methodology.
Report on the Riverside County JPA Feasibility Study
Matrix Consulting Group Page 52
2 JPA Governance Structure
An effective governance structure is central to the longevity of JPAs, as they
inherently rely upon maintaining a relatively broad level of consensus to remain intact.
The following sections outline important considerations in this area, as well as potential
governance structures.
(1) Key Themes in JPA Governance
At a broad level, facilitating a broad level organizational consensus requires the
smaller member cities on the board to have a voice in decision-making processes.
However, this of course must be balanced against the interests of larger cities in the JPA
group that have populations significant enough to establish a large police agency on their
own.
The governance structure of a JPA possesses political implications as well –
particularly in the setting of a highly visible function such as law enforcement. Citizen
interest and demand for input on police issues is comparably higher than for many other
local government functions, which presents unique challenges to the success of providing
those services through a JPA, as opposed to a municipal or county entity. By default,
leadership of a JPA is not directly elected. Even in the environment of contract law
enforcement services through the county sheriff, the sheriff position itself – as well as
representation on the county board of supervisors – are directly elected by its residents.
(2) Developing a Hybrid Governance Structure
To counter these political factors, it is critical that the governance of the JPA
include elected leadership and appointed representatives from the member
Report on the Riverside County JPA Feasibility Study
Matrix Consulting Group Page 53
municipalities. This approach would necessitate a hybrid system of governance, as an
additional board would be necessary to handle more day-to-day and operational issues,
meeting more frequently than the other.
A hybrid structure could be organized as follows, featuring two governing bodies
with different roles and responsibilities assigned to each:
Proposed Hybrid Governance Structure
Executive Board Advisory Committee
Size 9 seats 4 seats
Representation Equal Rotating
Meeting Frequency Quarterly Monthly
Selection Elected reps. (1YR rotation) City managers (1YR rotation)
Purpose Official governing body Technical advisory body
Roles
– Approves of budgets, labor
agreements, and significant
contracts
– Appoints and terminates the
JPA Chief
– Meetings are closed-door
sessions
– Develops budgets and staffing
plans
– Develops quarterly reports for
the Executive Committee
– Coordinates responses to
various operational needs
– Meetings are open to the public
All seats on the advisory committee would rotate every six months, minimizing the
extent that municipal politics are affected by day-to-day governance of the JPA agency.
Elected officials representing each of the member cities would also rotate on an annual
basis. Control for major duties such as the hiring and firing of the organization’s executive,
as well as the approval of labor contracts and budgets, would be retained by the 9-seat
executive board featuring equal representation.
Report on the Riverside County JPA Feasibility Study
Matrix Consulting Group Page 54
There are also other forms of establishing representation in a multi-tiered
governance system. Many dispatch agencies that are formed under joint powers
agreements follow systems where one of the two governance boards are proportionally
represented, while the other is equally represented. This allows for larger constituent
cities to have a larger voice in making ultimate decisions on important budgetary voice,
while balancing out the interests for smaller cities. In discussing these considerations with
the nine cities involved in this study, however, a broad consensus was formed for a
governance system where both boards have equal representation.
3 Summary of Chapter Findings
• The JPA is assumed to represent all nine contract cities.
• Alternatives will be provided for various optional decisions, however, such as
whether an eight-city alternative is more feasible.
• The JPA is assumed to be independently organized and staffed as a JPA, include
all nine contract cities involved in the study, and will begin operation in the year
2021.
• The JPA should establish a hybrid governance structure, featuring two decision-
making boards:
– Executive Board: Meets quarterly and is responsible for approving
budgets, hiring and terminating the agency executive, and approving
collective bargaining agreements that have been negotiated with labor
units.
– Advisory Committee: Meets monthly and functions as the primary
decision-making body. Both boards would feature rotating representation
from JPA member cities.
Report on the Riverside County JPA Feasibility Study
Matrix Consulting Group Page 55
5 Organization of the JPA Agency
1 Objectives for Developing the Organizational Structure of the JPA
Without the responsibilities of providing any functions reserved for sheriff’s offices,
the JPA would more closely resemble a municipal law enforcement agency. Serving a
population of approximately 800,000 – nearly as many people as Charlotte, NC – it is
possible for the organization of a JPA agency to potentially mirror that of a large police
department. While it may be tempting to use such agencies as a template for designing
the JPA agency’s structure, there are important factors to consider that present unique
challenges in the JPA environment, as well as for cost objectives to be met that initially
drove the process of studying its feasibility. Cost allocation, specialization, and functional
spans of control all play important roles as well in shaping its structure.
In line with these considerations, the following dot points outline a series of
principle goals that should be met in designing a JPA organization:
• The structure of the JPA agency should reflect the cost recovery methodology
used by the department. Locally dedicated services should not be organized with
regionally allocated and centralized functions. More information can be found on
the recommended cost allocation structure in the chapter beginning on page 62.
• Sworn management of non-sworn units should be avoided; utilization of civilian
managers should be prioritized when possible.
• The organization should be mindful of the geography of the service area. Functions
that do not require staff to be on-location frequently, such as finance and crime
analysis, should be organized centrally.
• The structure should maintain of chain of command. Sworn reporting
responsibilities should be largely hierarchical.
Report on the Riverside County JPA Feasibility Study
Matrix Consulting Group Page 56
• The organization of the JPA agency should be ‘lean’ and streamlined – efforts
should be made to prevent over-specialization of policing functions that would add
extra depth or additional complexity to the organizational structure.
• For specialized field functions, the organizational structure should facilitate the
deployment and coordination of resources in real-time.
• The structure should provide for adequate and effective spans of control between
supervisors and direct reports.
With these principles guiding the process, a recommended organizational
structure has been developed that organizes the JPA agency into three divisions,
excluding the Office of the Chief of Police and governing bodies. The areas can be
summarized as follows:
Support Services
Division
Comprises three subdivisions (referred to as sections),
containing almost every centralized function of the agency. The
division includes a wide range of administrative and support
areas, such as 911 communications, training, human resources,
and information technology.
Regional Services
Division
Subdivided into two sections, and includes almost every function
provided at the regional hub stations, such as core investigations
and traffic, as well as centralized investigative functions that
cover specialized areas (e.g., homicide).
Local Services
Division
Consists of ten sections, reflecting the nine member cities as well
as an additional unit for patrol watch command. Excluding the
watch commanders, all division staff are locally dedicated,
including patrol, as well as any electively staffed areas, such
crime prevention and problem-oriented policing teams.
The following pages outline the division and management of functions in the
recommended organizational structure of the JPA agency – the first detailing where
functions are located in the structure, and the second displaying the classification and
type of manager over each area:
Report on the Riverside County JPA Feasibility Study
Matrix Consulting Group Page 57
Proposed Structure of the JPA Agency
Executive
Committee
Chief of Police
Assistant Chief
Support Services Division
Administrative
Section
Finance/Fiscal
Mgmt.
Human
Resources
Information
Technology
Records Unit
Support
Section
911 Comm.
Property and
Evidence
Fleet and
Facilities
Standards
Section
Training Unit
Professional
Standards Unit
Public
Information
Crime Analysis
Recruitment
and Hiring
Regional Services Division
Shared
Resources
Section
K9 Unit
Traffic Unit
Crime Scene
Unit
Investigations
Section
Major Crimes
Units (N/S/E)
Homicide Unit
Sex Crimes
Unit
Task Forces
Local Services Division
Local City
Commands
Watch
Command
Report on the Riverside County JPA Feasibility Study
Matrix Consulting Group Page 58
Command Structure of the JPA Agency
Executive
Committee
Chief of Police
Assistant Chief
Deputy Chief
Civ. Manager
Civ. Manager
Civ. Supervisor
Civ. Manager
Civ. Manager
Civ. Manager
Civ.Manager
Civ. Manager
Civ. Supervisor
Captain
Sergeant
Lieutenant
Civ. Staff
Civ. Supervisor
Sergeant
Deputy Chief
Captain
Sergeant
Lieutenant
Civ.Supervisor
Captain
Lieutenants (3)
Sergeant
Sergeant
Sergeants (2)
Deputy Chief
Captains (9)
Lieutenants (9)
Report on the Riverside County JPA Feasibility Study
Matrix Consulting Group Page 59
As reflected in the two previous charts, the organizational structure of the agency
has been designed with cost allocation in mind. Services that involve locally dedicated
staff are organized entirely locally, and functions funded and staffed by groups of cities
are organized regionally.
Some of the services that are organized centrally also possess regional and/or
local components. For instance, property and evidence lockers are located throughout
the service area, and staff are dedicated to pick up and transport its contents to the main
location. Additionally, while crime analysis is co-located and centralize, individual analysts
do retain responsibility for providing services to particular municipalities and regions.
Furthermore, watch commanders operate regionally, and in some cases beyond their
assigned regions, but are organized under the Local Services Division due to their role
as the primary operational interface with patrol.
It is worth noting that the divisions are not equal to one another in either their
staffing totals or the array of functional responsibilities that they manage, as this was not
a core priority in developing the structure. To this point, the Regional Services Division is
significantly smaller in size when compared to the other two. One consideration that does
provide a measure of balance on this issue is the additional complexity involved in
providing the division’s services. As the cost allocation section describes, many of its
functional areas, such as traffic and task force units, are staffed electively using a
‘subscription’-based model that in some ways approximates the process of allocating
costs by service hours that is employed by the Riverside County Sheriff’s Department.
Report on the Riverside County JPA Feasibility Study
Matrix Consulting Group Page 60
2 Geographical Division of JPA Service Areas
A number of challenges are posed by the geographical distribution of several of
the cities participating in the study, as many of are spread far apart from one another.
Coachella, for instance, is over an hour away from the nearest city in the contract group.
Given this, in developing the boundaries for regional divisions, it is assumed that
the travel time (without significant traffic) between the city center of the regional ‘hub’ and
another city in the grouping cannot exceed 30 minutes. With this limitation in mind, the
area can be divided into three regions – representing the fewest number of subdivisions
possible, which is ideal for minimizing costs arising from duplicate services and command
structures. This assumes that hypothetical regional ‘hub’ facilities exist in Moreno Valley,
Wildomar, and Coachella. The cities included within each geographical region are as
follows:
• South: Wildomar, Temecula, Lake Elsinore, and Menifee, with a combined
population of 417,382.
• North: Moreno Valley, Perris, San Jacinto, and Jurupa Valley, population totaling
281,372.
• East: Coachella, with a population of 43,093.
The geographical division of these areas is reflected in the following map:
Report on the Riverside County JPA Feasibility Study
Matrix Consulting Group Page 61
Division of JPA Regions
Although there are vast differences in the population and service need volumes
among the three illustrative JPA regions, this is essentially unavoidable unless the areas
are subdivided into smaller geographical units.
Report on the Riverside County JPA Feasibility Study
Matrix Consulting Group Page 62
6 JPA Cost Allocation Structure
1 Introduction
At the core of the JPA feasibility model process is the need to create a revenue
stream that fully recovers the agency’s costs of providing services. There are no universal
best practices for this – multiple alternatives exist for allocating contract costs among
groups of cities, each with their own advantages and disadvantages. In addition to
presenting a recommendation for an allocation structure, this chapter discuss the major
factors in choosing a cost allocation structure, as well as the comparative trade-offs
between utilizing various methodologies.
2 Considerations for Developing a JPA Cost Allocation Methodology
JPAs have significant freedom in determining options for recovering the costs of
any services it provides. Unlike counties, which are limited by California state law in terms
of what services they can and cannot charge contracting entities for, JPA organizations
do not have not such restrictions. Nonetheless, the options available for recovering the
costs of providing are largely the same in practice as those of a county.
The chargeback methodology used for contracting law enforcement services is
critical not only for the purposes of achieving full cost recovery, but because it is also
central to the shaping the level of service that is provided. The cost allocation structure
influences how the agency is administered, as well as how it evolves over time. The
following sections initiate the discussion on the various considerations in developing a
Report on the Riverside County JPA Feasibility Study
Matrix Consulting Group Page 63
cost recovery methodology, examining a number of alternatives and their potential
implications on service levels and cost reduction efficiencies.
(1) Effects of Regionalizing Services
One of the main benefits of a regional approach to law enforcement services,
whether through the county or a JPA organization, are the efficiencies gained through
regionalization. A number of cost savings are realized through shared services, whether
through the deployment of regionalized teams, or through the vertical integration of
support or administrative functions. In general, regionalization increases, economies of
scale are furthered.
However, under certain cost recovery methodologies, the regionalization of
services can also lead to the redistribution of resources in an unequal manner with respect
to the manner in which they are funded. For instance, if a drug task force is funded equally
by a number of cities without requirements on where its efforts are directed – each with
vastly different degrees of perceived need for narcotics enforcement – it can be assumed
that the benefit of the services would be disproportionately felt by the individual
municipalities. At the same time, this also represents service level efficiency, as resources
are being pooled together and directed to the areas of greatest need.
These considerations become vital to the discussion of chargeback methodology,
as a JPA organization that is feasible from a perspective of cost inherently relies on a
balance of regionalization and localizing of services.
Report on the Riverside County JPA Feasibility Study
Matrix Consulting Group Page 64
(2) Overview of Costing Method Types
The majority of contract costs tie back to the core methodology in which staff are
contracted for by individual municipalities. The following table outlines some of the more
common ways in which regional services are contracted for in regional public safety
agencies:
Example Charge Methodologies
Cost Factor
Description
Potential Implications
Per Capita
Costs are assessed to member
entities on a per capita basis,
typically with a high degree of
resource regionalization.
Population ratios are somewhat
limited as a gauge for public safety
staffing needs.
Entities may feel that the level of
service they receive is
disproportionate to the level at which
they pay for it.
Incident-
based
Services are charged for according to
a certain workload metric, such as
the number of calls for service that
occur within each entity.
As with per capita systems, the
regionalization of services may create
disproportionate service levels in
some areas relative to funding
provided by that entity.
Service Units
Member entities primarily contract for
a specific level of resources to be
provided, such as a fixed number of
patrol hours.
Supporting cost rates are developed
pro rata based on overhead costs
and the level of support that the
contracted positions receive from
other areas.
Transparency may be limited by a
high degree of complexity in cost
recovery methods for overhead and
supporting services.
Allows for a service level to be
contracted for in itself, mitigating the
impact of variations in staff
availability.
Report on the Riverside County JPA Feasibility Study
Matrix Consulting Group Page 65
Cost Factor
Description
Potential Implications
Dedicated
Positions
Specific numbers of dedicated staff
are contracted for, with the regional
agency being responsible for
providing the contracted staffing
levels.
Overhead costs are developed from
the costs and staff and support
whatever functions that are not
staffed locally.
Depending on the range of functions
that are staffed locally, can create
duplication of services.
Potential efficiency losses when
staffing positions locally that could
benefit from regionalization.
Achieving full cost recovery depends
on identification and control for
indirect costs.
Hybrid
Formula
Proportional share based on multiple
factors, which can include a number
of different metrics, such as
population, revenue, call for service
totals, incoming call volume (for
dispatch), number of local staff, etc.
The formula should be limited to a
few categories and easily
understandable.
Provides the relative simplicity and
cost effectiveness brought by other
proportional approaches (e.g., per
capita and incident-based), while
mitigating the drawbacks of using
individual singular metrics by
weighting them against other
contrasting variables.
By simplifying the process of cost
recovery for indirect costs, the
approach may not be as accurate in
doing so as methodologies that
involve a process of comprehensively
accounting for indirect cost shares.
It should be noted that table presents general approximations, and can exist in
varying degrees, or even combinations, of one another. In any of these methodologies,
municipalities typically retain the option to contract for specific levels of dedicated staff on
an individual or a la carte basis.
(3) Hybrid Costing Alternatives
Hybrid cost recovery methodologies present a number of potential advantages,
while mitigating some of the drawbacks associated with using a single cost method
approach.
Report on the Riverside County JPA Feasibility Study
Matrix Consulting Group Page 66
For instance, a hybrid system may stipulate that patrol services are provided
through a number of dedicated staff, while participation in a regional task force may
operate on a subscription basis relative to population. Or, alternatively, another hybrid
methodology may charge for patrol staffing and support services using a combination of
population, community-generated calls for service, and another factor, such as property
assessed valuation. Services that are more closely tied to the specific needs of an
individual community, such as crime prevention, community programming, specialized
investigation units, and field enforcement capabilities, on the other hand, could then be
contracted for as dedicated staff.
This type of chargeback methodology is common in regional 911 communications
agencies, where staff resources are pooled to handle the workload. By contrast, in a
regionalized law enforcement service, many functions cannot be provided concurrently to
multiple areas. Patrol units, for instance, are primarily assigned to an area within a single
city area at a time.
(4) Use of Singular Versus Multiple Charging Methodologies
Ultimately, an effective cost recovery methodology must balance the interests of a
wide range of interests, as well needs to maximize potential economy of scale
efficiencies. While the methodology does not necessarily need to be simple, it does need
to be transparent and approachable. However, using a single, ‘across-the-board’ type of
cost recovery methodology may either not be as equitable in charging for services or as
efficient in providing them as one that breaks down different types of services and charges
them different.
Report on the Riverside County JPA Feasibility Study
Matrix Consulting Group Page 67
Although stratifying functions into different categories of charging methods does
significantly improve upon the equitability and efficiency issues discussed earlier, doing
so increases the system’s complexity. If multiple methodologies are used, the structure
must be designed in a way that clearly allocates cost in a transparent and easily
understandable manner.
The relative advantages of each charge methodology vary between different
functions and cost categories – what may be a more equitable method of charging for a
function may not be the same for another. This is demonstrated in the table below, which
presents illustrative examples of charge methodologies that are more equitable and
efficient for a number of different function and cost categories:
Examples of Effective Charge Methodologies by Service Area
Service Areas
Charging Method
Advantages
– Patrol
– Crime Prevention
– Community Programs
Dedicated staffing (with
limited backfill)
Allows for enhanced local control
and deployment of staff.
– Traffic
– Proactive Investigations
Service hours are contracted
for, with built-in or attached
rates added to account for
indirect and supporting costs
Increased ability to plan and
prioritize workloads, while
maintaining the priorities of
communities contributing greater
levels of funding for the unit.
– Core Detectives
– Specialized Detectives
– 911 Dispatch
– Support services
– Administrative services
Proportional/hybrid formula;
for example, a pro rata share
based on:
– 40% population
– 25% # of calls for service
– 35% # of locally dedicated
staff
Mitigates issues associated with
subsidization, while also
maintaining a pay-per-service
component.
Additionally, a formula-based
share simplifies the process of
determining the allocation of true
overhead costs by city.
Report on the Riverside County JPA Feasibility Study
Matrix Consulting Group Page 68
Beyond these considerations, however, it is also critical that any methodology
include a detailed plan to recover both direct and indirect costs of associated with
providing services – including which are regionalized versus those that are billed locally
to individual municipalities.
3 Proposed JPA Cost Allocation Structure
A number of important points emerge from the discussion of the various trade-offs
of cost recovery methodologies. Conclusions are also able to be made, enabling the
outlining form of the cost recovery methodology to be shaped.
The following sections outline the core characteristics of the proposed cost
recovery methodology, as well as the structure of the methodology itself.
(1) Principles for Cost Allocation in the Riverside JPA
Based on these points, the principles for establishing the cost allocation structure
of the JPA are able to be summarized as follows:
• The cost allocation structure should seek to achieve cost reduction through
economies of scale offered by the regionalization of services.
• Cities should retain relative autonomy to set local service levels for functions
such as patrol, crime prevention, and community programming.
• In order to maintain the cost effectiveness of the agency offered by the low degree
organizational complexity, the structure of cost allocation should be resistant
toward adding specialized and non-regional functions.
• Multiple methods for cost recovery: Functions should be charged differently
depending on the nature of the service.
• Despite this, the cost allocation structure should be as simple as possible and
maintain clear transparency of costs.
Report on the Riverside County JPA Feasibility Study
Matrix Consulting Group Page 69
These principles form the foundation for the cost structure outlined in the following
sections.
(2) Three Categories of Cost Allocation
After developing and reviewing a number of different methodologies, a three-tiered
approach was selected that most comprehensively addresses each of the principle
objectives set for designing the cost allocation structure.
Under the configuration, any type of non-capital cost is allocated using one of three
methods. There are no built-in indirect or support rates – any type of cost, whether it
represents funding for a patrol officer position or office furniture for the agency
headquarters, can only assessed using a single method. As a result, cost allocation
responsibilities are readily identifiable and more transparent for department and municipal
officials alike. Because the assignment of cost areas to an allocation basket is
predetermined and universally applied, there are no conditional variabilities in how costs
are assessed to member cities.
The following table outlines the three allocation classes, or cost baskets, in which
any type of cost area is allocated among member cities:
Report on the Riverside County JPA Feasibility Study
Matrix Consulting Group Page 70
Overview of Cost Allocation Classes
Cost Category
Description Examples
Class A
Cities pay a proportional share based a
formula consisting of the following factors:
– 40% Population
– 25% Total Calls for Service
– 35% Number of Locally Dedicated Staff
Information technology,
core detectives, fleet,
finance
Shared costs
Class B
Cities pay based on their electively set level
of contribution to a specialty unit.
Traffic, gang task force
Subscription-based
Class C
Full position and operating costs of locally
dedicated staff
Patrol, crime prevention,
POP teams Local costs
It should be noted that capital costs are not assigned a cost basket, and so the
cost of providing facility space and a working environment for staff is not built into their
associated operating costs. The vast majority of costs fall into either Class A (shared
costs) or Class C (local costs). The recommended organizational structure, which divides
the agency into three divisions, loosely follows these cost areas, although a number of
key differences exist.
(2.1) Division of Function Areas by Cost Basket
The table below lists each functional area of the JPA agency, whether the staff
operate on a centralized, regional, or local basis (which may differ from their division), the
cost allocation basket the area is assigned, and whether its staffing levels are set directly
by the municipalities or established through the agency governance structure:
Report on the Riverside County JPA Feasibility Study
Matrix Consulting Group Page 71
Division of Agency Functions by Cost Category and Organizational Level
Function Org. Level Charge Method Staffing Set By
Administrative Support All Class A JPA
911 Communications Central Class A JPA
Central Command Central Class A JPA
Crime Analysis Central Class A JPA
Finance/Fiscal Mgmt. Central Class A JPA
Fleet and Facilities Central Class A JPA
Human Resources Central Class A JPA
Information Technology Central Class A JPA
Professional Standards Central Class A JPA
Property and Evidence Central Class A JPA
Public Information Central Class A JPA
Records Central Class A JPA
Recruitment and Hiring Central Class A JPA
Specialized Detectives Central Class A JPA
Training Central Class A JPA
Task Forces/Proac. Invest. Central Class B Munic./JPA
Local Command/Admin. Local Class A JPA
Civilian Field Personnel Local Class C Munic.
Community Programs Local Class C Munic.
Crime Prevention Local Class C Munic.
Misc. Details Local Class C Munic.
Patrol Local Class C Munic.
POP/Proactive Teams Local Class C Munic.
School Resource Officers Local Class C Munic.
Core detectives Regional Class A JPA
Crime scene processing Regional Class A JPA
K9 Regional Class A JPA
Regional Command Regional Class A JPA
Traffic Regional Class B Munic./JPA
The column “Staffing Set By” refers to how decisions are made regarding staffing
levels and deployment. For instance, cities elect for the level of patrol coverage, crime
prevention services, POP/proactive teams, and other localized functions, while the
Report on the Riverside County JPA Feasibility Study
Matrix Consulting Group Page 72
number of K9 officers the agency should staff is a decision made by the governance
boards in working with agency executives. Class B costs, which involve discussions
regarding contribution levels to a regionally shared service, are jointly discussed between
the cities and the JPA governance boards.
(2.2) Effects of the Hybrid Approach Used for Class A (Shared) Costs
Class A cost shares, like those in classes B and C, are computed annually at the
time of budget preparation. The project team will provide a template that automatically
calculates these shares based on the input totals for population, call for service volumes,
and the number of locally dedicated staff. In testing the effects of this formula (using
current numbers), the resulting proportions that each city would be required to contribute
to Class A funding did not differ significantly from what their shares would have been
under a strictly per capita, population-based formula. Cities spending more per capita on
policing services did pay slightly more to shared costs, as one of the factor is based on
the number of local dedicated positions (weighted at 40%).
While this difference was not highly significant, it did represent a marginally higher
rate. A large city that spends more per capita on police services than its peers, for
instance, can expect to contribute 1-3% higher of a share for Class A costs than it would
otherwise. The results of this test demonstrate the balance achieved by the hybrid formula
– cities paying for more police should contribute more to account for the costs of
supporting those positions, but they should not be in the position of greatly subsidizing
the services provided to other municipalities.
Report on the Riverside County JPA Feasibility Study
Matrix Consulting Group Page 73
(2.3) Allocation of Class B (Subscription-based) Costs
Class B costs are based on the level that a city participates in a regionalized
service. This practice enables cities to prioritize their involvement with certain specialized
services that benefit significantly from regionalization, still retaining access to specialized
services that some smaller departments do not have. Class B costs are relatively limited
for these reasons, however – in the current organization structure of the proposed JPA
agency, only two units fall under the Class B cost area.
Using the number of traffic enforcement personnel that cities currently contract for
with RSD, the following table displays how a contribution-based system may be
represented:
# of Traffic Enforcement Positions Contracted for with RSD
Region12 City # % Share
North Jurupa Valley 6 12.5%
Moreno Valley 10 20.8%
Perris 4 8.3%
San Jacinto 4 8.3%
South Lake Elsinore 4 8.3%
Menifee 4 8.3%
Temecula 16 33.3%
Total 48 100.0%
Omitted from the table are Wildomar and Coachella, neither of which contract for
traffic enforcement staff.
12 Coachella is omitted from the list, as the city does not contract for any positions specifically
dedicated to traffic enforcement functions.
Report on the Riverside County JPA Feasibility Study
Matrix Consulting Group Page 74
The shares displayed are then used as the assumed proportions for funding
contributions to specialty traffic functions, including coverage for costs such as providing
for supervisory personnel, administrative costs, and any operating costs, such as
overtime.
While Class B costs are inherently more complicated than the other two cost
allocation methods, and require collaboration and dialogue to organize successful, the
unequal funding/unequal service characteristic that they bring allows for cities to target
regional issues with specific resources without those outside of the area viewing their
involvement as a subsidy. For a specialty unit such a traffic, this can be an effective
approach, as different cities and communities may place a different level of value on the
issue in line with other policing priorities.
(3) Notes on the Use of 2016 and 2021 Costs
It is assumed that the agency will not begin operations until 2021, about five years
from the completion of the study. Throughout the report, however, costs for personnel
needs, operating costs, and capital expenses are presented at 2016 levels, while
recommended staffing levels and overall service needs (e.g., calls for services) are
presented at both projected 2016 and 2021 levels. This is done to provide a base level of
comparison between current RSD service costs and those of the proposed JPA agency,
as well as to avoid the high variability of projecting costs at a nominal level into the future.
It is true that many of the costs that are estimated at 2016 levels will change over
the five years until 2021. From building costs, salaries, cost of living increases, a number
of factors influence how these figures will change. Many of these changes, however, add
Report on the Riverside County JPA Feasibility Study
Matrix Consulting Group Page 75
significant variability to the analysis without contributing to its objective – determining the
answer to the question whether the JPA will cost more or less than current policing
contracts with the Riverside County Sheriff’s Department.
While this cannot be a true apples-to-apples comparison – as evidenced by the
number of alternative considerations in the executive summary and feasibility analysis
conclusions chapters – it is important that the analysis attempt to make it as level as
possible. As a result, a number of factors that will influence the impact cost changes over
the next five years presented uncertainties that made the comparison less effective,
including the following variables:
• Lower than expected performance of CalPERS funds, which would significantly
increase the costs of RSD’s services by adding to unfunded liabilities.
• Legislative changes to pension systems, such as the California Public Vote on
Pensions Initiative (#15-0033), which ultimately did not end up being included on
the 2016 general election ballot.
• The accuracy and validity of using 2016 salary survey data for 2021.
• The relation of increased costs of services to increased city revenues.
• Changes to the structure and methodology of how RSD charges for contract
services.
• Other variables that are currently unknown.
Given the high variability of these issues, 2016 costs are used for both projection years.
This allows the analysis to focus bottom-line answers around two core questions of JPA
feasibility:
(i) Under current cost factors and service levels, would a JPA cost less or more than
contracting with RSD?
(ii) If the JPA were to be formed in 2021, what would its staffing, equipment, facility,
and service needs be?
Report on the Riverside County JPA Feasibility Study
Matrix Consulting Group Page 76
When the variables listed previously become more known, the identified needs in
2021 then be translated into updated cost levels. Additionally, it should also be noted that
key pension assumptions, such as the proportions of sworn personnel that fall under the
pre-reform and higher level of benefits, are in fact estimated in the analysis at 2021 levels,
as are the costs of facility construction and other agency startup costs.
Report on the Riverside County JPA Feasibility Study
Matrix Consulting Group Page 77
7 Analysis of Personnel Costs by Classification
Personnel costs represent the single largest category of operating expenses for a
law enforcement agency, and are the current main driver behind the increasing rates
charged by the Riverside County Sheriff’s Department. Careful and accurate estimation
of what these costs would be in a JPA agency is central to the question of whether or not
establishing it would be cost effective. In order to accomplish this, it is necessary for costs
to be built from the ground up at a highly detailed level.
The following sections presents this analysis, outlining the compensation survey
research conducted by the project team, the process used to calculate the total costs of
adding positions, and the resulting figures for each individual position that a JPA agency
would require.
1. Research Conducted Through the Compensation Survey
The total cost of a position extends far beyond salary and pay, as benefits –
including retirement costs, medical, and others – as well as incentive pay and other
factors that comprise a significant portion of overall staffing-related expenditures.
Although there is some room in how compensation choices are made – much of which
being done through the collective bargaining process – personnel costs are largely set
through market rates for the positions being hired. In order to develop a baseline, it
became critical for the feasibility analysis to research these factors and understand what
the market rates are in comparable jurisdictions.
Report on the Riverside County JPA Feasibility Study
Matrix Consulting Group Page 78
To provide a baseline for the estimation of personnel costs, the project team
conducted a comprehensive salary survey of municipalities within Riverside County that
currently retain their own police department. The efforts included documentation of pay,
as well as benefits determined through collective bargaining units. Extensive data was
gathered to provide a detailed account of all positions that may be relevant to a JPA
agency, including both civilian and sworn positions. In comparing sworn positions, data
from Riverside County Sheriff’s Department was also included.
The following list outlines the main categories of information that were obtained in
the survey for each position are:
• Minimum and maximum annual compensation: While the characteristics of
step-by-step progressions in pay schedules may vary between different bargaining
units, in order to be able to reasonably compare different jurisdictions, it was
necessary to first reduce the level of detail down to minimum and maximum pay
for each position.
• Other direct compensation: One-time payments stipulated in contracts, as well
as compensation that be considered as a signing bonus.
• CalPERS contributions: Spending on retirement/pension systems. Different
benefit systems are provided, with employees either falling into two categories:
‘classic’ CalPERS members (pre-2011), and ‘new’ CalPERS members (post-
2013). For each type of system, the three main items of information gathered are
as follows:
– Retirement age: The age threshold required for employees to vest benefits.
For new CalPERS members in the survey group, the average age is over
five years higher than it is for classic members.
– Pension Coefficient: the percentage of an employee’s highest/final salary
level that is awarded in the plan, whether it is taken calculated from the
single-highest year or taken as an average over three years.
– Employee cost/contribution: Employee contribution/cost requirements,
including what – if any – contribution the city makes toward those
requirements.
Report on the Riverside County JPA Feasibility Study
Matrix Consulting Group Page 79
• Medical Insurance: Spending on medical plans for active employees. Subgroups
of this category include Dental and Vision insurance, which in many cases are
lumped into overall health insurance benefits.
• Retiree Medical Insurance: City expenditures or contributions made toward
health insurance plans for retired employees.
• Other types of insurance: Spending on other categories of insurance, such as
long-term disability, short-term disability, and life insurance.
• Allowances: Benefits that either directly provide value to employees, or reimburse
them for certain types of expenses. Types of these benefits include meal
reimbursement, tuition allowance, and others.
• Assignment-Based Incentive Pay: Modifications to regular pay based on the
assignment of a certain schedule or role. These include shift differential pay (e.g.,
for night or swing shifts), specialized assignment pays (e.g., FTO, K9, motors,
patrol supervision, SWAT team roles, etc.).
• Attainment-Based Incentive pay: Modifications to an employee’s regular pay
rate based on a variety of different factors, including the following:
– Educational attainment (e.g., bachelor’s degree, master’s degree, etc.)
– POST certification level (i.e., intermediate or advanced)
– Supervisory certification
– Bilingual language abilities
– Longevity, or pay awarded after meeting certain thresholds of employment
duration in the department
Given that positions may not be directly comparable from jurisdiction to jurisdiction,
positions have been aggregated by organizational area, function, and level, as described
below:
• Organizational Area: The general category or area of the department that the
position would fall under, such as human resources, sworn, information
technology, fleet management, etc.
• Function and Level: The type of function served by the position that differentiates
it from other positions in the same area (e.g., police corporal, police captain, HR
Report on the Riverside County JPA Feasibility Study
Matrix Consulting Group Page 80
analyst, HR support, etc.), as well as whether or not the position reflects a
managerial, supervisory, or staff-level position.
The aggregated results of the salary and compensation survey are provided in the
appendix beginning on page 224.
2. Process for Calculating Total Position Costs
The data obtained from the salary survey has been used to develop a set of
assumptions, including the estimated pay for each position as well as the cost of benefits
that they would be provided, including estimated retirement costs.
In order to simplify the analysis, benefit structures have been divided into two main
categories, representing sworn and civilian employees. For retirement benefits, as
mandated by the California Public Employees’ Pension Reform Act (PEPRA), separate
pension systems have been created for ‘new’ (became CalPERS member in 2013 or
later), or ‘classic’ members (entered system prior to 2013). There are some exceptions to
this in regards to certain benefits which vary by position within those groups, which will
be detailed in this section.
The following table describes the assumptions that will be developed from each
category of employee compensation, including the level at which they are determined –
whether the factor is unique to the specific position, or shared by other positions in the
hypothetical employee bargaining unit:
Report on the Riverside County JPA Feasibility Study
Matrix Consulting Group Page 81
Compensation Factors Used to Develop Total Position Costs
Factor
Calculation Process
Base Salary
To calculate the typical base salary for employees in a given position, the
average minimum and maximum compensation levels were taken from
salary survey data for each aggregated position. The salary level is then
calculated as the average minimum salary + 65% of the difference
between the minimum and maximum average salaries. This was done to
represent a model where slightly more than half of all employees will be
past the middle pay step for their classification. This can also be
represented as an equation, as shown below:
Avg. Min. Salary + [0.65 * (Avg. Max Salary – Avg. Min. Salary)]
Compensation levels are current, and are not scaled in line with estimates
for the JPA start date of 2021.
Other Direct
Compensation
Bonuses will be provided in order to facilitate hiring a sufficient number of
personnel to run the agency by the target start date. However, because
these are considered a startup cost and are only given once, bonus figures
are not included in the analysis of total position costs. Instead, bonus costs
will be provided within the analysis of startup costs.
Retirement Plans
Sworn
Two types of benefit structures will be developed for each sworn position –
'classic' and 'new' CalPERS plans. For estimating levels of defined
benefits, PEPRA has made this somewhat straightforward, as most
CalPERS members fall into a particular category, whether they are
considered classic or new members. Classic members are provided a
benefit of 3.0% at age 50, while new members are provided 2.7% at
age 57. These percentages are inclusive of any performance and
assignment pay incentives, in addition to base pay. As stipulated by
PEPRA, however, overtime and medical allowances are not included in
total pensionable compensation amounts.
For new members, as required under PEPRA, employees will share
50% of the total normal costs of the employer. Classic members,
however, will not share any portion of the employer cost. Neither type
of CalPERS member will receive Employer Paid Member Contributions
(EPMC), or payments made by the agency toward the employee’s
contribution into the plan.
Report on the Riverside County JPA Feasibility Study
Matrix Consulting Group Page 82
Factor
Calculation Process
For both new and classic members, the total normal cost rate has
been set at 16.8%13. The rate is comparatively lower than the vast
majority of agencies, as the JPA would not be responsible for any
unfunded liabilities – when an existing CalPERS member is hired by the
JPA, the liabilities are not transferred to the new employer. However, to
guard against future shortages in funding to the plan, an additional 20% is
added to the total normal cost amount as overfunding.
Given the 2021 start date, a smaller proportion of employees will fall under
the classic CalPERS member category than is currently the case for the
vast majority of police agencies, including the Riverside County Sheriff’s
Department. To this point, the JPA will be able to staff the officer positions
only new CalPERS members. The following percentages are used for the
percentage of employees that receive the higher, classic member benefit
level:
Officers: 0%
Detectives: 20%
Sergeants: 40%
Lieutenants: 90%
Captains and higher: 100%
Civilian
It is assumed that CalPERS plans will not be offered to civilian employees.
Instead of a defined benefit plan, civilians will fall under a defined
contribution plan, where a certain amount of funding is contributed by the
employer, without the agency being responsible for shortfalls in the fund’s
performance.
The agency contribution rate for all civilian employee positions will
be set at 7% of total pensionable compensation, which follows the
same set of definitions as for sworn employees.
Alternate Sworn Retirement System
A second retirement system was also developed as part of the JPA
feasibility analysis for sworn personnel. In contrast with the system
outlined previously, it functions as a defined contribution system similar to
the civilian one. The employer contribution rate would be slightly higher at
9.0% of total pensionable compensation, which includes shares for funding
long-term disability and death benefits. At the officer level, the plan would
cost the agency an estimated $7,654 annually per position, equating to a
net savings of $2,347.
13 As stated previously, the agency will only be required to pay half of that rate for new CalPERS
members.
Report on the Riverside County JPA Feasibility Study
Matrix Consulting Group Page 83
Factor
Calculation Process
Medical
Insurance
Data gathered from the salary survey on amounts for single and group
health plan allowances has been aggregated into categories for sworn and
non-sworn personnel. Averages were then calculated and annualized to
produce total cost factors.
Both sworn and civilian personnel are offered the same plan, with an
annual allowance of $10,110 for single coverage and $15,369 for group
coverage.
In line with actuarial standards, it is assumed that 90% of sworn personnel
will select a group plan, compared with 85% of civilian employees.
Retiree Medical
Insurance
As learned through the survey research, many comparable cities have
instituted a system where each year of employment with the agency
results a certain percentage or amount of health insurance premiums
being paid for following retirement, with 20 years resulting in full coverage.
While these benefits were common for both sworn and civilian personnel, it
was evident that a number of them were in the process of being phased
out, with several restricting the benefit to only those hired before the early
part of this decade. Instead, many have moved to a defined benefit
approach where a certain amount is contributed by the employer to a
savings fund
Although the first of these systems – the defined benefit approach – would
certainly be cheaper for the JPA in the short run, it potentially burdens the
agency with significant unfunded liabilities should costs be greater than
expected or funding shortfalls occur.
In order to mitigate these risks, the analysis assumes that all personnel are
instead provided defined contribution retirement medical plans, where
funding is added to a savings fund annually. It is worth noting that all
administrative fees relating to the accounts are built into the contribution
amounts.
Sworn
$4,080 per year, with $360 for each additional year of employment in the
agency. At 20 years of service, the total amount is capped, reaching a
level of $10,920 annually.
Civilian
A fixed amount of $3,960 per year is provided to all civilian personnel.
Report on the Riverside County JPA Feasibility Study
Matrix Consulting Group Page 84
Factor
Calculation Process
Workers’
Compensation
Sworn
Workers’ compensation costs for sworn personnel were researched by
examining total costs in other Riverside County law enforcement agencies
relative to their number of sworn personnel, as well as by using recent
position cost data from other California police departments. Costs for
sworn personnel are factored at rate equal to 10.88% of base employee
income.
Civilian
Non-sworn personnel are assumed to represent approximately the same
workers’ compensation costs as is typical for white collar employees in
California, and are assess a rate equal to 1.25% of base income.
CSOs, by exception, are assumed to represent the same level of workers’
compensation costs as sworn personnel, and are also assigned the
10.88% of base income rate.
Other Insurance
Types
The most prevalent types of insurance, as gathered through the salary
survey results, have been included in the benefit plans for both sworn and
civilian employees. Common benefit levels were then used for each plan.
The following other types of insurance have been included:
Life Insurance: The agency will provide a $50,000 term14 policy at a 0.4%
mortality rate assumption, following approximate actuarial standards. This
equates to about $200 annually per employee.
Long-Term Disability Insurance: Provided to all employees at a cost of
$19.50 per month, or $234 annually per employee.
Dental: Estimated using the same actuarial standards to determine
proportions of sworn and civilian personnel selecting single and group
medical plans, in combination with salary survey data. The agency will
provide $480 per year for single dental plans and $864 per year for group
plans.
Vision: All employees will receive an allowance of $156 per year for vision
coverage.
14 Only one type of plan is provided, as employer-provided life insurance terms over $50,000 are
considered taxable compensation.
Report on the Riverside County JPA Feasibility Study
Matrix Consulting Group Page 85
Factor
Calculation Process
Allowances
Different types of allowances were included in the data gathered by the
salary survey, including educational reimbursements, subsidized meals,
and uniform allowances. To simplify the compensation structure, while
maintaining competitive pay levels, these allowances are not provided in
the JPA compensation plan. In the case of uniforms, the assumption is
made that the agency will bear these costs as an operational expense.
Social Security
and Medicare
Sworn
Medicare: Employer contributions to Medicare are included at a rate equal
to 1.45% of annual income.
Social Security: Membership in CalPERS eliminates the requirement for
employer contributions to be made into the system.
Civilian
Medicare: As with sworn personnel, employer contributions are included at
a rate equal to 1.45% of annual income.
Social Security: Employer contributions are made at a rate of 6.2% on the
first $118,500 of annual income.
Assignment-
based Incentive
Pay
Pay incentives relating to assignment, such as shift schedule differentials,
or for specialty assignments in areas such as traffic, K9, or FTO. Almost
every sworn collective bargaining agreement surveyed includes these
incentive pay categories, although their amounts and qualifications varied
extensively.
Certain types have been selected for the JPA compensation model based
on the most widespread types of incentive pays, while maintaining a
relatively simple structure.
Projected costs for each benefit are then developed by position based on
the estimated proportion of employees that would qualify to receive it. The
additional pay is a percentage of the base salary (including step
increases), and is included in total pensionable and taxable compensation
amounts.
Sworn
FTO (Field Training Officer): 8% of officer positions will receive 5%
additional pay when functioning in an FTO role, which is assumed to equal
20% of their time.
Report on the Riverside County JPA Feasibility Study
Matrix Consulting Group Page 86
Factor
Calculation Process
Specialty or Investigative Assignment: Any officers or detectives assigned
to regional or centralized roles (e.g., Traffic Unit, one of the task forces,
etc.), including any investigative assignments, will receive 5% additional
pay. It is assumed 20% of officers and 100% of detectives will qualify to
receive the benefit.
Civilian
None provided.
Attainment-based
Incentive Pay
Pay incentives based on attainment of a specific skill, certification, or
education level. The results of the salary survey demonstrated that these
benefits differed greatly between agencies, with bilingual skills as the only
near-universal incentive pay provided to employees.
As with assignment-based incentive pay, certain types of attainment
incentives have been selected for the model based on the most common
types, while maintaining a simple compensation structure. Bilingual skills
were prioritized given the significant number of Spanish-only speakers in
the service area.
Sworn
POST Intermediate Certificate: 5% additional pay, with 70% of officers
qualifying, as well as 100% of detectives and sergeants.
POST Advanced Certificate: 5% additional pay (stacks with POST
Intermediate benefit), with 40% of officers qualifying, as well as 100% of
sergeants and detectives.
Bilingual Abilities: 5% additional pay, with 30% of sworn personnel
receiving the benefit.
Civilian
Bilingual Abilities:
– Dispatchers (I and II): 10% additional pay, with 35% receiving the
benefit.
– CSOs: 5% additional pay, with 30% receiving the benefit.
– All other civilian positions: 1% additional pay, with 20% receiving the
benefit.
Report on the Riverside County JPA Feasibility Study
Matrix Consulting Group Page 87
Operational costs relating to each position are not included among these factors,
and will be calculated separately in the chapter of this report focusing non-personnel
agency costs. These include cost areas such as the following:
• Equipment and vehicles
• Training
• Liability insurance
• Overtime15
• Related capital costs, such as facility space needs of adding positions
From the results of calculating these assumptions, the cost of salaries and benefits
for each job classification can then be determined, which the feasibility analysis will refer
to as the total position cost. After determining the number of positions needed by
position the staffing analysis, the total position cost figures will enable for a realistic and
accurate model of the JPA agency’s personnel costs.
3. Summarized Total Position Costs by Classification
The results of this analysis are displayed in the following table using the calculation
of salary and benefit factors outlined in the previous section, with position classifications
organized alphabetically:
15 As a result of the changes introduced by PEPRA, overtime pay is no longer counted toward
total pensionable income. Furthermore, overtime usage varies by assignment within each
position. An officer assigned as a school resource officer would likely work a different number of
overtime hours than an officer assigned to patrol.
Report on the Riverside County JPA Feasibility Study
Matrix Consulting Group Page 88
Summary of Total Position Costs for the JPA Agency by Classification
Classification Base Pay Incentives Pension Benefits Total
911 Comm. Director $90,581 $181 $6,353 $28,012 $125,127
Accounting Clerk I $42,379 $85 $2,972 $23,715 $69,151
Accounting Clerk II $53,273 $107 $3,737 $24,686 $81,802
Accounting Manager $82,788 $166 $5,807 $27,317 $116,077
Administrative Assistant $46,661 $93 $3,273 $24,096 $74,123
Administrative Services Mgr. $103,649 $207 $7,270 $29,177 $140,303
Assistant Chief $160,684 $2,410 $19,180 $47,026 $229,300
Captain $143,373 $2,151 $17,114 $44,888 $207,525
Chief of Police $177,371 $2,661 $21,172 $49,087 $250,290
Crime Analyst $59,234 $118 $4,155 $25,217 $88,724
Crime Scene Supervisor $57,026 $114 $4,000 $25,021 $86,160
Crime Scene Technician $51,842 $104 $3,636 $24,558 $80,140
CSO $50,324 $151 $3,533 $29,273 $83,282
Custodian $34,837 $70 $2,443 $23,042 $60,392
Deputy Chief $153,032 $2,295 $18,267 $46,081 $219,675
Detective $82,137 $13,553 $11,253 $33,903 $140,846
Dispatch Supervisor $66,705 $133 $4,679 $25,883 $97,400
Dispatcher I $50,385 $1,763 $3,650 $24,556 $80,355
Dispatcher II $54,485 $1,907 $3,947 $24,932 $85,271
Executive Assistant $57,858 $116 $4,058 $25,095 $87,127
Finance/Fiscal Manager $109,201 $218 $7,659 $29,672 $146,751
Financial Analyst $69,374 $139 $4,866 $26,121 $100,500
Financial Analyst II $74,285 $149 $5,210 $26,559 $106,203
Fleet Manager $82,036 $164 $5,754 $27,250 $115,205
Fleet Services Assistant $41,707 $83 $2,925 $23,655 $68,371
Fleet Services Supervisor $66,630 $133 $4,673 $25,877 $97,313
Fleet Technician $55,497 $111 $3,893 $24,884 $84,385
GIS Technician $61,972 $124 $4,347 $25,462 $91,904
Grants Administrator $52,338 $105 $3,671 $24,603 $80,716
HR Analyst $60,470 $121 $4,241 $25,328 $90,160
HR Assistant $40,858 $82 $2,866 $23,579 $67,385
Report on the Riverside County JPA Feasibility Study
Matrix Consulting Group Page 89
Classification Base Pay Incentives Pension Benefits Total
HR Manager $113,871 $228 $7,987 $30,088 $152,174
IT Manager $109,659 $219 $7,691 $29,713 $147,283
IT Specialist $59,017 $118 $4,139 $25,198 $88,472
IT Support Assistant $48,604 $97 $3,409 $24,270 $76,380
Lieutenant $123,358 $1,850 $15,776 $40,616 $181,600
Management Analyst $70,046 $140 $4,913 $26,181 $101,280
Network/Sys Analyst $67,485 $135 $4,733 $25,953 $98,307
Officer $78,690 $6,358 $10,002 $31,213 $126,264
PE Specialist $39,757 $80 $2,789 $23,481 $66,106
PE Supervisor $59,344 $119 $4,162 $25,227 $88,853
PE Technician $50,503 $101 $3,542 $24,439 $78,585
Procurement Manager $86,553 $173 $6,071 $27,653 $120,450
Procurement Specialist $61,371 $123 $4,305 $25,408 $91,207
Programmer $61,517 $123 $4,315 $25,421 $91,375
Project Manager $92,474 $185 $6,486 $28,181 $127,326
Public Information Officer $93,771 $188 $6,577 $28,297 $128,832
Public Information Specialist $57,287 $115 $4,018 $25,044 $86,464
Purchasing Assistant $45,306 $91 $3,178 $23,976 $72,550
Rangemaster $55,284 $111 $3,878 $24,865 $84,137
Records Manager $80,750 $161 $5,664 $27,136 $113,711
Records Specialist I $43,273 $87 $3,035 $23,795 $70,190
Records Specialist II $43,261 $87 $3,034 $23,793 $70,175
Records Supervisor $56,682 $113 $3,976 $24,990 $85,761
Senior Ntwk/ Sys Admin $85,565 $171 $6,002 $27,565 $119,303
Sergeant $103,473 $11,899 $19,383 $36,510 $171,265
Supervising Crime Analyst $67,890 $136 $4,762 $25,989 $98,776
Total position costs for sworn, particularly those at the officer level, are somewhat
lower than in many other comparable agencies – mainly due to the higher proportion of
PEPRA-affected ‘new’ CalPERS members in the agency, as well as the lack of unfunded
liabilities in the agency’s pension plan. Civilian personnel costs are also somewhat lower,
Report on the Riverside County JPA Feasibility Study
Matrix Consulting Group Page 90
primarily as a result of electing to offer a defined contribution retirement system rather
than CalPERS, even after accounting for the additional costs incurred from employer
social security contributions.
The complete data used to construct base pay averages, as well as other factors
researched as part of the compensation survey, can be found in the appendix chapter of
the report.
Report on the Riverside County JPA Feasibility Study
Matrix Consulting Group Page 91
8 Analysis of Agency Staffing Needs
1 Introduction
Having established the process for estimating the total cost of adding individual
positions to the agency, the next critical step of the feasibility analysis is to determine the
number and type of personnel needed to run the agency – and provide a high level of
service. For this analysis be accurate, a model of the JPA agency must be built from the
ground up at a highly detailed level, covering the position types and numbers needed to
fulfill each functional area of the department. The results of this process can then be tied
to the results of the salary survey in order to develop personnel cost estimates, and later
provides the ability for an implementation and hiring plan to be developed.
It is necessary for this process to be comprehensive, as there is no single metric
that can be used to calculate staffing needs for an entire agency, as basic staffing ratios
such as ‘sworn per 1,000’ fail to take into account differential service needs between
communities, as well as a number of other important considerations that drive personnel
needs.
As a result, the only way to accurately determine the cost of a potential JPA police
force is to determine the number of staff that would be needed at each individual function.
This can be done by first determining core service needs – including the call response
and investigation workloads service area – and then building off of the requirements for
supporting these functions. From there, needs for any ‘elective’ staff (non-
core/specialized resources) and services that are necessary to provide a high level of
Report on the Riverside County JPA Feasibility Study
Matrix Consulting Group Page 92
police service, such units that will provide community program and crime prevention
capabilities, can then be determined.
The following sections provide a basic overview of how the service needs and
other factors may be used to project individual position staffing levels within each
functional area for the JPA organization, as well as the process used in doing so. For key
service areas where staffing is based largely on service needs – patrol, investigations,
and dispatching – sections have been dedicated to the process of calculations used to
determine staffing needs.
2 Analysis of Patrol Staffing Needs
(1) Overview of the Patrol Staffing Model
The methodology used by the project team determines patrol staffing needs based
on the actual service needs of each community, as measured by the community-
generated call for service workloads handled by patrol officers. This process involves
developing an understanding of where, when, and what types of calls are received
provides a detailed account of the service needs of the community, and by measuring the
time used in responding and handling these calls, the staffing requirements for meeting
the community’s service needs can then be determined.
To provide a high level of service, however, it is not enough for patrol units to
function as call responders – officers must have sufficient time outside of community-
driven workload to proactively address community issues, conduct problem-oriented
policing, and perform other self-directed engagement activities within the community.
Report on the Riverside County JPA Feasibility Study
Matrix Consulting Group Page 93
Given the importance of providing for adequate proactive time in the process of
determining patrol staffing needs, targets are set for the proportion of officers’ available
time that should be remain uncommitted – and available to conduct self-initiated
workloads – on top of the number of hours that must be staffed for community-generated
workloads. As a result, the primary focus in analyzing community-generated calls for
service is not only to determine the level of call for service workloads, but to determine
the number of uncommitted hours that must also be staffed according to the targeted level
of proactivity.
Proactive time is calculated through an analytical approach that examines the
community-generated workload handled by patrol units, as well as the current staffing
levels of the division, in order to produce a realistic estimation of the department’s staffing
needs at its targeted service levels. The data required to complete the analysis has been
obtained from the computer aided dispatch system and other statistical data maintained
by the department.
The following sections provide the process and results of the analysis of this data,
which will provide the basis for developing an understanding of patrol staffing needs, as
well as other issues relating to the effectiveness of field services.
(3) CAD Analysis Methodology
Our project team has calculated the community-generated workload of RSD in
contract services areas by analyzing incident records in the computer aided dispatch
(CAD) database covering a period of time beginning on January 1st, 2015 at midnight,
and lasting for exactly one year.
Report on the Riverside County JPA Feasibility Study
Matrix Consulting Group Page 94
For incidents to be identified as community-generated calls for service and
included in our analysis of patrol, each of the following conditions needed to be met:
• The incident must have been unique.
• The incident must involve RSD staff in one of the nine contract service areas that
are included in the study.
• The incident must have been dispatched within the period of one year beginning
on January 1st, 2015.
• The incident must have involved at least one RSD deputy, corporal, sergeant, or
community service officer assigned to patrol, as identified by the unit type
information included in the CAD data16.
• The incident must have been originally initiated by the community, identified in the
following methods:
– The incident must have had a time stamp for the creation of the incident
record.
– The incident type must have corresponded to a community-generated
event. Call types that could be identified with a high level of certainty as
being either self-initiated (e.g., traffic stops) or other activity generated by
RSD (e.g., directed patrol) were not counted as community-generated calls
for service.
– The source of the call had to be through receipt of a 911 or telephone call,
rather than through the radio, which would correspond to a self-initiated
event in the field.
• There must have been no major irregularities or issues with the data recorded for
the incident that would prevent sufficient analysis, such as having no unit type
information.
After filtering through the data as listed above, the remaining incidents represent
the community-generated calls for service handled by RSD patrol units.
16 To further expand on this point, calls were not included if the only unit type listed as responding
to the incident were dispatchers. There had to be at least one deputy, community service officer,
or sergeant assigned to patrol responding to the call. Other types, such as motor officers, were
not included.
Report on the Riverside County JPA Feasibility Study
Matrix Consulting Group Page 95
(4) Notes on Projections Made with RSD CAD Data
Given that our call for service information corresponds to 2015, and the
determination of using 2016 and 2021 as the selected years for projecting staffing needs
and costs, it was necessary to show workload levels in line with that methodology. As a
result, all results for the call for service analysis have been projected a year forward into
2016. This was done to avoid increasing confusion by showing a third set of numbers
(corresponding to 2015), and instead focus on the analysis of 2016 and 2021.
As the later section on projections will describe in further detail, the projections
were made using the ratio of calls for service to population in each municipality in 2015,
and applying the ratios to their estimated populations in 2016. For call totals at the level
of detail showing individual hours and weekdays, each cell was multiplied by a factor
representing the proportional difference in the overall totals of 2016 and 2015.
For reference, the actual total number of community-generated calls for service
calculated from RSD CAD data in 2015 was 297,202, while the projected number of calls
for service in 2016 has been calculated at 301,761.
(5) Calls for Service by Hour and Weekday
The following table displays the total number of calls for service handled by patrol
units by each hour and day of the week across all nine contract service areas, projected
one year forward to 2016:
Report on the Riverside County JPA Feasibility Study
Matrix Consulting Group Page 96
2016 Calls for Service in Study Areas
As the chart shows, calls for service are far more heavily concentrated in the late
afternoon, evening, and early nighttime hours. On Saturday, the peak activity hours
extend for longer, lasting until around 2:00AM.
These differences underscore the point that different levels of patrol resources are
needed at different times of the day. While staffing during the daytime and evening hours
should focus on providing patrol officers with enough time available to be proactive,
Report on the Riverside County JPA Feasibility Study
Matrix Consulting Group Page 97
staffing for nighttime and early morning hours (2:00AM until 7:00AM) is dependent on
maintaining response capabilities for critical incidents and ensuring officer safety.
(6) Calls for Service by City
The following table displays how the calls are distributed by each city, including
the original (2015) ratio of calls for service per 1,000 persons that was used to project the
totals for 2016:
2016 Calls for Service by Contract City
The range of call volume to population ratios shown by the nine contract cities is
largely within the normal range. The vast majority of cities and counties that the project
team has worked with in recent years have ratios from 0.28 to 0.45 calls per 1,000
residents, which all but one of the cities in the contract group meet. San Jacinto, at 0.57
calls per 1,000, is significantly above that range.
These differences demonstrate the important point that patrol officer coverage and
staffing should not be set based on population – the needs of service environments vary
extensively, requiring different resource levels to meet those needs.
Report on the Riverside County JPA Feasibility Study
Matrix Consulting Group Page 98
(7) Developing a Model of Patrol Unit Net Availability
To be able to estimate the total number of hours that officers would have available
for incidents and to complete other workloads, it is first necessary to develop an accurate
representation of a typical officer’s time throughout a year, showing how often they are
actually on-duty and in-service in the field. This process begins with the assumption that
a 12-hour shift schedule is negotiated for both officers and CSOs that follows a 42-hour
week, 2,184-hour year configuration. Without that being negotiated in a normal 12-hour
shift schedule configuration, units would have to either leave early or arrive on-duty late
once per week, alternating biweekly, to meet a 40-hour limit on paid hours worked at the
normal rate.
In order to estimate officers’ net availability, the process then examines the number
hours by category that take away from the 2,184-hour total hours– including vacation,
sick, injury, sick, military, or any other type of leave – as well as any hours dedicated while
on duty to attending court or training, and all time spent on administrative tasks, such as
attending shift briefings or eating lunch.
After accounting for the time that each of these factors represents and subtracting
them from the 2,184-hour total, the result of this process of elimination represents the net
available hours of patrol officers – the uncommitted, on-duty time that patrol officers are
able to use to complete both reactive and proactive workloads. This statistic can then be
multiplied by the number of patrol positions, resulting in the total number of net available
hours.
The following factors are considered in the calculation process:
Report on the Riverside County JPA Feasibility Study
Matrix Consulting Group Page 99
Work Hours Per Year
Total number of scheduled work hours for patrol units, without factoring in leave,
training, or anything else that takes officers away from normal on-duty work. This forms
the ‘base number’ from which other availability factors are subtracted. A 12-hour shift
system under an 84-hour workweek (negotiated as part of contract) is assumed,
resulting in 2,184 hours per year of scheduled work.
Base number: 2,184 scheduled work hours per year
Total Leave Hours (subtracted from total work hours per year)
Includes all types of leave, as well as injuries and military leave – anything that would
cause officers that are normally scheduled to work on a specific day to instead not be
on duty. As a result, this category excludes on-duty training, administrative time, and
on-duty court time.
Estimated: 300 hours of leave per year
On-Duty Court Time (subtracted from total work hours per year)
The total number of hours that each officer spends per year while on-duty attending
court, including transit time. This number is usually estimated, as many agencies lack
records detailing on-duty versus off-duty court time.
Estimated: 20 hours of on-duty court time per year
On-Duty Training Time (subtracted from total work hours per year)
The total number of hours spent per year in training that are completed while on-duty
and not on overtime. Without any data showing the number of on-duty training hours
at a level of detail specific to officers, the project team assumed a forty hours per year,
fulfilling all annual state-mandated training requirements.
Estimated: 40 hours of on-duty training time per year
Administrative Time (subtracted from total work hours per year)
The total number of hours per year spent completing administrative tasks while on-
duty, including briefings, meal breaks, and various other activities. The number is
calculated as an estimate by multiplying 90 minutes of time per shift, times the number
of shifts actually worked by officers in a year – after factoring out the number of shifts
that are not worked due to leave being taken. Given that a 12-hour shift schedule is
followed in this instance, the total administrative time is somewhat less than it would
be in an 8 or 10-hour configuration.
Estimated: 236 hours of administrative time per year
Report on the Riverside County JPA Feasibility Study
Matrix Consulting Group Page 100
Net Availability
After subtracting the previous factors from the total work hours per year, the remaining
hours comprise the net available hours – the time during which patrol units are actually
available to work after accounting for all leave, as well as on-duty training and court
time, in addition to administrative time. Net availability can also be expressed as a
percentage of the total work hours per year.
Calculated from previously listed factors: 1,589 net available hours per officer
The following table outlines this calculation process, displaying how each
availability factor contributes to the overall rate at which patrol officers in the proposed
JPA agency would be available and on-duty:
Calculation of Patrol Unit Net Availability
Calculation Factor Value
Total Scheduled Work Hours 2,184
Total Leave Hours – 300
On-Duty Training Hours – 40
On-Duty Court Time Hours – 20
Administrative Hours – 236
Net Available Hours Per FTE = 1,589
The key result of these calculations, the net availability of patrol officers, is used in
our analysis to determine patrol proactivity levels and staffing needs. However, before we
calculate how total workload hours match up against the total net available hours of
officers, it is first necessary to consider the role of community service officers, and how
they affect the workload hours that sworn officers must handle.
(8) Summary of Patrol Workload Factors
Each call for service represents a certain amount of workload, much of which is
not represented by time stamps included in agency CAD databases. The components
Report on the Riverside County JPA Feasibility Study
Matrix Consulting Group Page 101
making up this time can be categorized, and from a combination of calculations from
actual data and estimates based on the experience of the project team, the average
workload time that each call represents can be determined for use in calculating patrol
staffing needs.
With the data received from RSD, these factors were estimated, outside of the
base number of calls for service. However, in order to provide the contract cities with the
full underlying methodology used to calculate patrol staffing needs, this section will
provide a breakdown and summary of each factor and how it contributes to the average
workload involved in handling a call for service.
The following outline describes each sub-category of workload involved in
determining the total workload per call, whether the figure was calculated from agency
data or estimated, and the figure used in the analysis of patrol staffing beginning in the
next section:
Factors Used to Calculate Total Patrol Workload
Number of Community-Generated Calls for Service
Data obtained from an export of CAD data covering a period of an entire year that has
been analyzed and filtered in order to determine the number and characteristics of all
community-generated activity handled by patrol deputies. The calculation process
used to develop this number has been summarized in previous sections.
Calculated from RSD data and projected forward to 2016 and 2021 based on ratios of
CFS to population in 2015:
– 2016: 301,761 calls for service
– 2021: 325,847 calls for service
Primary Unit Handling Time (multiplied by the rate)
The time used by the primary unit to handle a community-generated call for service,
including time spent traveling to the scene of the incident and the duration of on-scene
time. For each incident, this number is calculated as the difference between ‘call
Report on the Riverside County JPA Feasibility Study
Matrix Consulting Group Page 102
cleared’ time stamp and the ‘unit dispatched’ time stamp. In the experience of the
project team, the average handling time is typically between 30 and 42 minutes in
agencies where time spent writing reports and jail transport/booking workloads are not
included within the period between the two time stamps.
Estimated: 32.2 minutes of handling time per call for service
Number of Backup Unit Responses
The total number and rate of backup units responding to community-generated calls
for service. This number often varies based on the severity of the call, as well as the
geographical density of the area being served. An estimate is here, as the result
calculated from RSD CAD data was lower than realistic.
Estimated: 0.71 backup units per call for service
Backup Unit Handling Time (multiplied by the rate)
The handling time of any backup units responding to community-generated calls for
service, including both travel and on-scene times, and is typically calculated using the
same process as for primary units when the CAD data allows for the calculations to be
made.
In this case, a normative estimate was used, at a time equal to 75% of the primary
unit’s handling average handling time at each hour and day of the week, resulting in
an overall average of 23.9 minutes per backup unit response.
Estimated: 23.9 minutes of handling time per backup unit response.
Report Writing Time
Based on the number of community-generated calls for service, this factor represents
a significant portion of the total workload involved in handling calls for service. Given
that officers are typically cleared from a call in the CAD system before they complete
any assignments or other call-related tasks, report writing time is estimated based on
the experience of the project team.
Estimated: An additional 45.0 minutes are added to 33.3% of CFS
Time Per Jail Transport/Booking
The time that officers spend in the process of completing jail transports before they
become available and in-service again. This number is adjusted as needed based on
local factors, such as jail proximity and processing time.
Estimated: An additional 60 minutes are added to 5.0% of CFS
Report on the Riverside County JPA Feasibility Study
Matrix Consulting Group Page 103
Total Workload Per Call for Service
After combining the total workload from primary and backup handling times, as well as
any additional workload factors, the result is the total minutes of patrol workload per
call for service. This number can then be multiplied by the number of calls for service
to produce the total workload hours handled by patrol units.
Calculated from previously listed factors: 67.3 total minutes of workload per CFS
Each of these factors contributes to the overall picture of patrol workload – the total
number of hours required for patrol units to handle community-generated calls for service,
including primary and backup unit handling times, report writing time, and jail/booking
time.
The table below summarizes the process of using these factors to estimate
average handling time, as well as the total number of hours each represents:
Summary of Patrol Workload Factors (2016 Projections)
Category Factor
Result
≤
Total Number of Calls for Service 301,761
x = 161,772 hrs. Avg. Primary Unit Handling Time (min.) 32.2 min
Backup Units Per CFS 0.71
x = 86,143 hrs. Avg. Backup Unit Handling Time (min.) 23.9 min
Reports Written Per CFS 0.33
x = 75,440 hrs. Time Per Report (min.) 45.0 min
Jail Transports/Bookings Per CFS 0.05
x = 15,088 hrs. Time Per Jail Transport/Booking 60.0 min
Avg. Workload Per Call (min.) 67.3
Total Workload Hours 338,443
Overall, at 67.3 minutes of workload per call for service, the average time required
to handle incidents is somewhat on the lower end of the normal range for police agencies.
Report on the Riverside County JPA Feasibility Study
Matrix Consulting Group Page 104
Before determining patrol proactivity levels, the 338,443 hours of community-
generated workload handled, it is first necessary to examine the role that community
service officers provide in handling a portion of these hours.
(9) Availability and Workload Handled by Community Service Officers
Community service officers (CSOs) represent an important piece of the strategy
for making a JPA agency feasible. As non-sworn field units, they are able to handle a
number of low-priority calls that officers would otherwise be required to take, and
consequently prevent them from either responding to other incidents or enable them to
conduct proactive policing. Given this consideration, CSOs provide a relatively cost
effective way to provide a virtually equal level of service, freeing up sworn officers in the
process to be proactive. Many of the cities in the contract group already contract for CSOs
to do exactly this, mitigating any possible reaction to the public from being served with
non-sworn personnel.
In effect, this analysis considers CSOs function as patrol units that divert and
reduce the number of workload hours that officers must handle, while not having any
proactivity targets themselves – allowing them to spend a greater percentage of their time
handling calls. Nonetheless, CSOs cannot be utilized 100% of the time, as the calls will
not able to be handled sequentially without any gaps. Given this, it is assumed that on
top of factors taking away from total scheduled work hours, only 85% of their net available
time is spent handling calls.
The following table presents the process and results of these calculations:
Report on the Riverside County JPA Feasibility Study
Matrix Consulting Group Page 105
Estimated Workload Diverted Per CSO
Calculation Factor Value
Total Scheduled Work Hours 2,184
Total Leave Hours – 300
Administrative Hours – 45
Net Available Hours Per Position = 1,839
% of Time Handling Workloads x 85%
Workload Hours Diverted Per CSO = 1,563
All factors being considered – including net availability and utilization rates – each
CSO position that is staffed equates to 1,563 fewer hours of workload for patrol
officers. The next subsection will examine the factors that represent the total workload
of each call.
(10) Analysis of Overall Patrol Proactivity Levels
Proactive time is calculated through an analytical approach that examines the
community-generated workload handled by patrol units, as well as the current staffing
levels of the division, in order to produce a realistic estimation of the department’s staffing
needs at its targeted service levels.
The previous sections have provided the basis for this analysis by individually
examining each factor used in the calculation of proactivity.
It is first important to define the objectives of calculating proactivity, as this
determines what is counted and what is not in the calculation process. For the purposes
of this study, the proactivity level of patrol is defined as the percentage of patrol officers’
available and on-duty time that is not spent responding to community-generated calls for
Report on the Riverside County JPA Feasibility Study
Matrix Consulting Group Page 106
service, after the workload diverted by community service officers (CSOs) has been
factored out. This can also be expressed visually as an equation:
Net Available Hours – Total Workload Hours – Workload Hours Handled by CSOs
Total Hours On-Duty and Available
Overall, the goal of the analysis is to accurately model the ability of patrol units to
be proactive given current staffing allocations, and should not be considered a
performance measure of how the proactive time is being used. Instead, the analysis ties
the workload completed by patrol units to staffing levels in order to provide the opportunity
for effective proactive policing. A larger department should generally target an overall
proactivity level of at least 35-45% as an effective level of patrol coverage.
Given that the number of officers needed to reach a certain level of proactivity
depends on the number of workload hours they must handle – which in turn depends on
the number of CSOs – the following parameters have been established in setting staffing
levels for the JPA:
i) A proactivity level of at least 40% must be reached in each individual contract city.
ii) Officers should outnumber CSOs at a ratio of about 4.5 to 5.5 officers per CSO.
The second of these has been set keeping in mind that many types of calls require
an armed response by a sworn officer, or otherwise present too great of a safety risk,
capability limitation, or training concern for a CSO.
The table below displays the calculation process used by the project team to
determine proactivity, as well as the resulting proportion of time that officers have
available outside of responding to community-generated workloads:
Report on the Riverside County JPA Feasibility Study
Matrix Consulting Group Page 107
Calculation of Field Resources Needed to Achieve 40% Proactivity
(2016 CFS Projections)
Calculation Factor Value
Total CFS Workload Hours 338,443
# of CSOs (@ -1,563 hrs. per) 55
Workload Hours Diverted by CSOs – 85,973
Remaining Officer Workload Hours = 252,470
# of Patrol Officers (@ 1,589 NA hrs. per) 269
Total Officer Net Available Hours 427,307
(Minus remaining officer workload hours) – 256,713
Resulting # of Uncommitted Hours = 173,359
(Divided by officer net available hours) / 432,072)
Overall Proactivity Level = 40.9%
At an overall level, staffing the JPA agency with 269 officers and 55 CSOs at 2016
workload levels will result in a proactivity level of approximately 40.9%.
The following section outlines the assumptions used in modeling growth and
service needs changes, followed by a section detailing the number of CSOs and officers
needed in each city to meet the 40% proactivity target.
(11) Growth Assumptions and Projected Service Needs
Estimating the workload patrol officers are required to handle requires first
determining the number of calls for service, which in turn is built on the ratio of calls for
service per person that existed in 2015, during the time covered by the CAD data. By
estimating population into the future, it is then possible to project calls for service totals in
the baseline year of 2016, and at the JPA start date in 2021.
Report on the Riverside County JPA Feasibility Study
Matrix Consulting Group Page 108
In order to accomplish this, the process first begins by calculating the average rate
of population change from the previous year from 2012 to 2014 – the latest available U.S.
Census Bureau statistics. The average yearly growth rate is then calculated as
compounding rate of change from 2015 to 2021, with each year’s estimated population
building from the previous total. This method is used in place of using an overall growth
rate that is divided equally over the seven-year period, which would over represent initial
growth.
Projected Population Growth, 2014 – 2021
Based on the results of these projections, the calls for service totals calculated
from RSD CAD data covering 2015 are then compared to the population in each city that
year and projected forward through 2021, as shown below:
Report on the Riverside County JPA Feasibility Study
Matrix Consulting Group Page 109
Projected Call for Service Growth, 2014 – 2021
Some of the agencies displayed in the chat have vastly different growth rates than
the rest of the group. Temecula in particular stands out, increasing its calls for service
total by approximately 70% in five years.
(12) Patrol Staffing Needs by City
Using the same process of calculating proactivity levels and staffing that was
completed at an overall level, the number of officers and CSOs required to reach 40%
proactivity is calculated for each individual city, as shown below:
Report on the Riverside County JPA Feasibility Study
Matrix Consulting Group Page 110
Patrol Staffing Levels Needed to Achieve a Proactivity Level of 40%
In comparison to the current staffing levels that cities contract for, the
recommended levels shown above are in many cases close, and far off in some. It is
important, however, to consider these staffing levels as a plan – one that is based on the
projections determined previously.
Each staffing recommendation also uses the same target proportion of sworn
officers to CSOs. As staffing levels for patrol are by individual municipalities, some may
elect to staff the positions at a different ratio based on the priorities of their community.
Furthermore, it is important to consider that the results of this analysis can be used
independently outside of the JPA context as a tool for determining a baseline level of
patrol coverage that a city should contract, particularly as the region continues to grow
and services needs expand.
Report on the Riverside County JPA Feasibility Study
Matrix Consulting Group Page 111
(13) Equalizing Coverage Hours with Current Contracts
While the previous analysis has analyzed the patrol staffing levels needed in order
to provide an effective level of proactivity, it is critical that the analysis of JPA feasibility
match the current field staffing resources that each city currently contracts for. However,
comparing only the number of staff in the JPA model versus those contracted for in the
RSD model is not accurate, as there are a number of factors that are different in each
model.
(13.1) Defining Patrol Coverage Under the JPA Approach
The JPA approach to patrol staffing estimated the net availability of a single patrol
officer position – the time left over after factoring in training, leave, administrative
workloads (e.g., briefings), and court time. Overtime for any reason is not included in the
result. As the number of positions allocated to each city corresponds to actual filled
staffing positions, the impact of vacant positions is not factored into the number of net
available hours. Instead, if a position is vacant, it is not backfilled from elsewhere within
the organization; rather, the expected hours are ‘lost’ as a result. Under the definition
used in our analysis of estimated JPA officer net availability, each officer position
corresponds to 1,589 hours.
(13.2) Defining Patrol Coverage Under the RSD Approach
Whereas the JPA patrol calculations have used proactivity as the key metric in
determining staffing needs, the RSD approach involves contracting for a specific number
of service hours. The number of service hours per position can be considered as a similar
metric to net availability, although with some important differences. hours are thought
Report on the Riverside County JPA Feasibility Study
Matrix Consulting Group Page 112
Each patrol deputy position represents 1,780 hours per year. Staffing is adjusted in order
to meet that target. If a position is not filled, a different RSD deputy is substituted in to
meet the requisite number of service hours. As a result, turnover presents no impact on
net availability.
The report completed recently on RSD by KPMG17 calculated the number of
‘actual’ hours spent on patrol duties, examining the proportion of the 1,780 service hours
that is actually spent in the field on patrol coverage duties. Of the 1,780 service hours,
under the definition used by that report, there are an estimated 1,400 net available
hours per year for each RSD deputy position.
The following table reproduces their estimation of this number, calculating the net
available hours per deputy position:
KPMG Estimation of RSD Deputy Net Availability18
Gross hours scheduled per officer 2,080
Vacation, holiday, sick, training time 300
Average net available after leave/training 1,780
Shift meals and breaks 124
Patrol shift briefings 42
Administrative duties 124
Vehicle and equipment preparation and inspection 42
Court attendance/subpoena 40
Office meetings & committees 8
Average net available time 1,400
17 KPMG, LLP. Criminal Justice System Review. Board of Supervisors, County of Riverside,
California, 2016.
18 All figures included the corresponding table reference those listed on page 48 of the
aforementioned report completed by KPMG, LLP.
Report on the Riverside County JPA Feasibility Study
Matrix Consulting Group Page 113
The final figure of 1,400 net available hours for RSD deputies under the KPMG
definition is much closer to the corresponding estimate for the JPA officers, though
additional adjustments must be made before the two figures provide a level comparison.
(13.3) Reconciling the JPA and RSD Net Availability Figures
While the JPA net availability figure and the RSD estimate use different
assumptions for certain factors such as administrative time, the conflicts do not create an
issue for the purposes of this analysis.
However, because of the backfilling issue – where RSD deputies are backfilled
should the position become vacant, versus limited or no backfilling in the JPA model – an
additional factor must be considered. If we assume a turnover rate of 5%, and with each
position taking a year to be fully filled after hiring, academy, and FTO periods have been
completed, 5% of the annual total number of hours (1,589) must be deducted. This can
be done by multiplying that number by 95%, producing a total of 1,509 post-turnover net
available hours – the number of true coverage hours represented by one officer position.
For CSOs, who also factor into patrol staffing considerations because of their
impact on the number of workload hours that patrol officers are required to handle, the
distinction is much more simple. A figure of 1,780 hours per year is selected for RSD
CSOs, given that factors such as court and briefing time do not need to be factored in.
For JPA CSOs, the analysis can use the net availability figure before utilization has been
applied, at 1,839 per position.
To summarize, the analysis estimates that each deputy/officer position represents
the following numbers of ‘true’, turnover-adjusted coverage hours:
Report on the Riverside County JPA Feasibility Study
Matrix Consulting Group Page 114
Patrol Coverage Hours After Accounting for Net Availability and Turnover
RSD Model JPA Model
Officer/Deputy 1,400 hrs. 1,509 hrs.
CSO 1,780 hrs. 1,839 hrs.
The differences between the coverage hour figures for each position are explained
by several factors:
• Differences in the estimated amount of time spent on administrative tasks:
the RSD model figure uses the estimate produced in the KPMG report.
• Different shift schedules are used: The schedule for RSD deputies schedule
totals 2,080 hours per year under 10-hour shifts, while the JPA estimate assumes
a schedule with 2,184 hours per year in a 12-hour shift configuration.
At this point in the analysis, however, both figures factor in impacts from turnover,
training, court time, and all other major factors impacting ‘true’ net availability for patrol
coverage duties. Likewise, neither figures include overtime hours worked for any
reason19.
In conclusion, each RSD deputy position that is contracted for can be considered
as representing 1,400 hours per year of actual patrol coverage in the field. By contrast,
each JPA officer position reflects an estimated 1,509 hours per year of actual field patrol
coverage.
(13.4) Adjusting JPA Patrol Staffing Allocations to Meet or Exceed RSD Coverage
Levels
Having determined a method for creating a level comparison of the actual
coverage hours for RSD deputies and JPA officers, it is now possible to compare whether
19 In the absence of the JPA negotiating a 2,184-hour schedule, the difference of 104 hours per
year would be worked on built-in overtime.
Report on the Riverside County JPA Feasibility Study
Matrix Consulting Group Page 115
any actual coverage has been lost in the recommended JPA patrol staffing allocations. In
cases where the resulting number of coverage hours is less under the recommended
staffing numbers, positions are then added to create a total coverage level that is at least
that of what is currently contracted for with RSD.
The following table displays how this changes the recommended patrol staffing
levels for each city:
JPA Patrol Resources Needed to:
Achieve 40% Proactivity vs. Equalizing Current Coverage Hours
Recom. Revised +/–
Coachella Deputies 15 15 –
CSOs 3 3 –
Jurupa Valley Deputies 32 32 –
CSOs 7 7 –
Lake Elsinore Deputies 22 25 +3
CSOs 5 5 –
Menifee Deputies 26 26 –
CSOs 5 5 –
Moreno Valley Deputies 78 85 +7
CSOs 16 20 +4
Perris Deputies 29 29 –
CSOs 5 5 –
San Jacinto Deputies 24 24 –
CSOs 5 5 –
Temecula Deputies 34 38 +4
CSOs 7 18 +11
Wildomar Deputies 9 10 +1
CSOs 2 1 -1
Report on the Riverside County JPA Feasibility Study
Matrix Consulting Group Page 116
In some cases, this results in higher numbers of deputies or CSOs than the current
number contracted for with RSD. In other cases, it results in fewer positions. However, as
by calculating the net patrol coverage hours per position – including an adjustment for the
impact of turnover on availability – coverage hours in all cases meet or exceed those that
are currently contracted for in the RSD model.
The following table shows the results of these calculations, using the per-position
figures for JPA and RSD staff outlined in the previous section (see notes for Wildomar
calculation and cost adjustments for Temecula under added positions):
Patrol Staffing Levels and Coverage Hours: RSD Contracts vs. JPA (Adjusted)
# of FTEs
Adj. Coverage Hrs.20
RSD JPA
RSD JPA
% +/-
Coachella Deputies 18.5 15
25,900 22,636
# CSOs
0 3
0 5,517
Total
25,900 28,153
+8.7%
Jurupa Valley Deputies 37 32
51,800 48,290
# CSOs
2 7
3,560 12,873
Total
55,360 61,163
+10.5%
Lake Elsinore Deputies 27 25
37,800 37,727
# CSOs
5 5
8,900 9,195
Total
46,700 46,922
+0.5%
Menifee Deputies 25 26
35,000 39,236
# CSOs
5 5
8,900 9,195
Total
43,900 48,431
+10.3%
Moreno Valley Deputies 92 85
128,800 128,271
# CSOs
20 20
35,600 36,780
Total
164,400 165,051
+0.4%
20 Number of coverage hours after adjusting for administrative factors and other tasks
that are included in service hours. For RSD figures, uses the 1,400 hours per equivalent
deputy statistic.
Report on the Riverside County JPA Feasibility Study
Matrix Consulting Group Page 117
# of FTEs
Adj. Coverage Hrs.20
RSD JPA
RSD JPA
% +/-
Perris Deputies 31 29
43,400 43,763
# CSOs
4 5
7,120 9,195
Total
50,520 52,958
+4.8%
San Jacinto Deputies 19 24
26,600 36,218
# CSOs
4 5
7,120 9,195
Total
33,720 45,413
+34.7%
Temecula21 Deputies 37 38
51,800 57,345
# CSOs
21 18
37,380 33,102
Total
89,180 90,447
+1.4%
Wildomar22 Deputies 9 10
(12,600) 15,090
# CSOs
1 1
(1,780) 1,839
Total (see footnote)
14,600 16,929
+17.7%
As demonstrated in the chart, when accounting for net availability factors and such
as time spent on administrative functions, patrol staffing levels in the JPA model provides
equal or greater coverage in the field compared with current RSD contracts.
3 Analysis of Core Investigative Staffing Needs
As with patrol, investigative functions represent another critical staffing area for the
JPA agency. For the units handling cases that originate from the community, as opposed
to units that are primarily proactive, detective staffing needs are a direct function of the
21 Temecula has since added an additional 1 CSO and 10 officers to the RSD contract. 2015/16
numbers used for level comparison across the projection model. Adding those positions to the
JPA model would increase the city’s cost share by $1.55m. RSD contract costs would increase
as well – FY2016/17 operating budget for the city lists a figure of $27.79m for that fiscal year.
22 Wildomar patrol staffing levels under the JPA model were calculated using a different process.
Deputy staffing was set at a level that reflects at least as many adjusted coverage hours from
officers only that RSD provides from deputies only (based on the 40 contracted service hours
before adjustment).
Report on the Riverside County JPA Feasibility Study
Matrix Consulting Group Page 118
number and types of cases that are generated. From there, a number of questions affect
the level of workload that detectives handle, including:
• Case Screening by Type/Thresholds: The process of filtering cases for
investigation based on the type or value amount that they represent, such as the
following:
– Are auto thefts typically investigated?
– Are thefts only investigated if they reach a certain level of value?
• Case Screening by Solvability: Use of solvability factors – potentially in a
formalized point-based matrix – to decide whether or not a case should be
investigated. Key questions include:
– Are certain types of property crimes only investigated if there is a high
probability of solvability?
– Are home burglaries handled differently, such as through a non-sworn
position that follows up with the victims of the crime?
• Case Management: How are detectives supervised? What impact does this have
on efficiencies relating to the activation and deactivating of cases? How are
caseloads divided among detectives by the level of workload that they represent?
Decisions made in each of these areas significantly affects staffing needs. As a
result, a set of assumptions has been made regarding the types of cases that detectives
will investigate.
(3.2) Limitations on Analysis of Current Investigative Practices
Outside of proactive and specialized investigative functions, such as a regional
task force, cities contracting with RSD do not directly pay for a set number of positions or
service hours for detective positions. Instead, the cost of investigative services is rolled
up into pro rata costs, making it difficult to determine how detective workloads are
distributed among different jurisdictions. It should be noted that this is not a disadvantage
of a regionalized approach to most investigative functions, as the feasibility analysis
Report on the Riverside County JPA Feasibility Study
Matrix Consulting Group Page 119
proposes a similar approach for a JPA agency. It does, however, limit the ability for
availability and workload to be measured at a detailed and localized level.
(3.3) Projection of Part I Crime Levels
Part I crime totals have been estimated for the years 2016 and 2021 using a similar
process to the one in employed for patrol calls for service. The ratio of Part I crimes in
2014 is taken against population in the same year. The relationship is then assumed to
remain constant though 2021, where crime totals have been estimated using this ratio
against projected population over the time period:
The results of this analysis are shown in the following table:
Projected Part I Crimes, 2014-2021
Overall, as population growth rates are not equal across each municipality and
region, Part I crime is projected to grow at different rates, ranging from 6% in Jurupa
Valley to 24% in Lake Elsinore, at an overall rate of 11.0%.
Report on the Riverside County JPA Feasibility Study
Matrix Consulting Group Page 120
(3.4) Calculation of Investigator Staffing Needs
The following assumptions have been made to determine staffing needs for core
investigations:
• 5% of auto theft Part I crimes will be investigated. This reflects the low solvability
of many of these types of crimes, where the vehicle has not been recovered and
suspect information or other evidence is lacking.
• 65% of thefts/larcenies will be investigated. This includes a number of crimes that
are relatively minor in severity, including thefts that involve unauthorized breaking
and entering into a vehicle.
• After removing these from the total, it is assumed that detectives (not including
their supervisors) are staffed at a ratio of 300 Part I crimes per investigator. This is
in line with research conducted by the project team in past work that examines
other California agencies.
Using these assumptions, the following table calculates the number of
investigators required in each region:
Calculation of Detective Staffing Needs by Part I Crime Totals
2016 2021
North South East North South East
Total Part I Crimes 14,224 6,940 1,363 14,993 7,807 1,483
# of Auto Thefts 2,550 846 227 2,690 952 246
% Investigated 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5%
# of Thefts/Larcenies 7,466 4,097 683 7,867 4,606 742
% Investigated 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50%
Remaining Part I Crimes 8,068 4,088 806 8,504 4,600 878
Target Part I Crimes Per Det. 300 300 300 300 300 300
Detectives Required 27 14 3 28 15 3
Target Span of Control 9 9 9 9 9 9
# of Sergeants Required 3 2 1 4 2 1
Report on the Riverside County JPA Feasibility Study
Matrix Consulting Group Page 121
Overall, the ratios indicate that at least 44 line-level investigators are required in
2016, as well as an additional 2 in 2021. The results should be understood as minimum
needs, with the level of service increasing as support and specialized positions are added.
The following tables provide the breakdown staff by investigative unit (excluding
task forces), with sergeants staffed at a ratio to maintain a 1:9 span of control in
investigative units:
Recommended Investigative Unit Staffing
2016 2021
MAJOR CRIMES (NORTH)
Sergeants 3 4
Detectives 27 28
MAJOR CRIMES (SOUTH)
Sergeants 2 2
Detectives 14 15
MAJOR CRIMES (EAST)
Sergeants 1 1
Detectives 3 3
2016 2021
HOMICIDE UNIT
Lieutenants 0.5 0.5
Detectives 4 4
SEX CRIMES UNIT
Lieutenants 0.5 0.5
Detectives 5 5
The projected staffing needs amount to a total of 44 detectives and 6 sergeants in
2016, and 46 detectives and 7 sergeants in 2021. Investigative support needs are
included within these totals, including both in core investigations (i.e., most persons and
property crimes) and other reactive, caseload-based detective units specialized toward
specific crime types, such as the Homicide Unit.
It should also be noted that the same lieutenant position is responsible for
overseeing both the Homicide Unit and the Sex Crimes Unit, which is represented above
Report on the Riverside County JPA Feasibility Study
Matrix Consulting Group Page 122
as a fractional number of FTEs. The chart also does not include lieutenants, which
represent two positions in the recommended structure of the agency. One lieutenant is
located in the North Region, managing Major Crimes – North and the task force units,
while the other is located in the South Region, managing Major Crimes – South (which is
relatively smaller) and the specialized investigation units. Both positions report directly to
the Captain, who administers the Investigations Section and serves as part of the
agency’s management team.
4 Analysis of Dispatcher Staffing Needs
911 Communications represents a significant cost area for the department, and is
by far the largest non-sworn unit in the agency’s recommended staffing plan. In order to
determine personnel requirements for running an effective public safety answering point
(PSAP), unique factors must be considered that compare staff availability hours against
workloads. While the process is similar to the model used to determine patrol staffing
needs, a number of key differences exist.
As with patrol, staffing is calculated from two factors, representing aggregate
availability and workload hours. The following assumptions are made in order to conduct
the analysis:
• There are two distinct roles that dispatcher can perform: call taker and dispatcher.
– In many agencies, staff are cross-trained to function in both capacities,
while in others they are separate position classifications.
– It is assumed that in the JPA feasibility analysis, both line classifications
(Dispatcher I and II) can perform as either call taker or a dispatcher.
– Workload for the two positions has been combined into a single subtotal.
Report on the Riverside County JPA Feasibility Study
Matrix Consulting Group Page 123
• Based on the experience of the project team in working with 911 communications
agencies nationwide, the total number of unique. CAD incidents over a period of
one year is used as the metric to estimate workloads.
• All unique incidents are included, whether they represent a unique community-
generated calls for service, an officer initiated the event, or if no units were sent in
response.
• The total number of unique CAD incidents in 2015 (533,835) has been projected
forward to 2016 and 2021, based on the rate of increase in total calls for service in
relation to population growth.
• It is assumed that each CAD incident translates to an average of 1.1 minutes of
dispatcher workload, referred to in the analysis as the average radio time.
• Likewise, each incident is assumed to generate 2.5 minutes of call taker workload,
referred to as the average task time.
As shown below, the combined time factor of 3.5 minutes per incident is multiplied
by the CAD incident volume and expressed as the total number of workload hours:
Dispatcher/Call Taker Projected Workloads
Calculation Factor 2016 2021
Avg. Task Time 2.5 min 2.5 min
Avg. Radio Time + 1.1 min 1.1 min
Total Time Per Incident = 3.6 min 3.6 min
# of CAD Incidents x 550,890 596,415
Total Workload Hours = 33,053 35,785
Net availability is then estimated at 1,750, which assumes a 12-hour shift schedule
featuring a 2,184-hour work year, similar to the schedule used in the analysis for sworn
patrol officers. An additional factor must then be calculated against net availability,
representing the percentage of time in which a dispatch is actually handling workloads.
This factor is referred to as either the utilization rate as the agency occupancy rate, and
Report on the Riverside County JPA Feasibility Study
Matrix Consulting Group Page 124
typically ranges from 50-65%. It is a critical consideration in the analysis for a number of
reasons:
• Dispatching is a highly stressful and demanding job, and taking frequent breaks is
essential.
• Given that PSAP workloads are largely driven externally, gaps in activity are
inherent to 911 communications.
• Reducing turnover is a central goal for PSAPs, with many agencies in the range of
10-20% staff attrition per year. Turnover has implications for both costs operational
concerns, such as maintaining a consistent level of service.
Consequently, a more conservative target for utilization, such as 50%, generally
results in a lower rate of dispatcher turnover. This is balanced by the need for additional
staff, among other considerations. For the purposes of the JPA feasibility analysis, a
utilization rate of 65% has been selected.
When this rate is multiplied with the average number of net available hours per
position, the result provides the number of workload hours handled by each staffed
position. Total workload hours are then divided by this number to produce the number of
required FTEs, as shown in the table below:
Report on the Riverside County JPA Feasibility Study
Matrix Consulting Group Page 125
Calculation of Dispatcher Staffing Needs
Calculation Factor 2016 2021
Total Workload Hours 33,053 35,785
Net Available Hours 1,750 1,750
% Utilization Rate x 65% 65%
True Availability Per FTE = 1,138 1,138
(Total workload hours are divided by 1,138)
Dispatchers Needed 29.1 31.5
Turnover Rate x 10% 10%
Dispatcher FTEs Req. = 32.0 35.0
The number of authorized dispatcher positions needed must reflect the high rate
of turnover that dispatching jobs entail. An additional 10% is added to account for this,
and the result of that calculation is rounded up to the nearest whole number, representing
the total number of dispatcher positions required to staff the PSAP adequately.
The next section, which provides agency wide staffing considerations, will detail
how these positions are broken down between Dispatch I and II classifications, as well as
the number of supervisor positions that are needed.
However, if RSD retained dispatch services, and as a result reducing total capital
costs by $15,000,000, the JPA would cost approximately 5.3–6.5% less for each city,
depending on the charge method applied.
5 Analysis of Comprehensive Agency Staffing Needs
Having established the process for estimating the total cost of adding individual
positions to the agency, the next critical step of the feasibility analysis is to determine the
number and type of personnel needed to run the agency – and provide a high level of
Report on the Riverside County JPA Feasibility Study
Matrix Consulting Group Page 126
service equal to or better than that currently provided by the Riverside County Sheriff’s
Department.
(1) The Importance of Creating a Complete Model
If the feasibility analysis is to be completed accurately, a detailed model of the JPA
agency must be built from the ground up at a highly detailed level, covering the position
types and numbers needed of staff needed in each functional area of the agency. The
results of this process can then be tied to the results of the salary survey in order to
develop personnel cost estimates, and later provides the ability for an implementation
and hiring plan to be developed.
It is necessary for this process to be comprehensive, as there is no single metric
that can be used to calculate staffing needs for an entire agency, as basic staffing ratios
such as ‘sworn per 1,000’ fail to take into account differential service needs between
communities, as well as a number of other important considerations that drive personnel
needs.
As a result, the only way to accurately determine the cost of a potential JPA police
force is to determine the number of staff that would be needed at each individual function.
This can be done by first determining core service needs – including the call response
and investigation workloads service area – and then building off of the requirements for
supporting these functions. From there, needs for any ‘elective’ staff (non-
core/specialized resources) and services that are necessary to provide a high level of
police service, such units that will provide community program and crime prevention
capabilities, can then be determined.
Report on the Riverside County JPA Feasibility Study
Matrix Consulting Group Page 127
The following sections provide a basic overview of how the service needs and
other factors may be used to project individual position staffing levels within each
functional area for the JPA organization, as well as the process used in doing so.
(2) Factors Used to Determine Staffing Needs
The methodology used by the project team centers around five key factors that
shape the staffing needs for an individual function or position, as outlined below:
Key Scaling Factors for Individual Positions
A Scales to service needs: The position’s workload is directly related to the
volume of calls for service, crime occurrences, or other specific and measurable
workloads.
Example: Patrol officer staffing needs are tied to service level objectives that are
directly based on call for service workloads.
B Directly relates to the staffing levels of other position(s): Influenced by the
number of staff allocated to certain areas.
Example: The number of records staff needed is significantly affected by the
number of patrol officer positions that are staffed.
C Span of control considerations: Determined by organizational considerations,
such as supervisory spans of control, the impact of ancillary duties on workload,
and responsibilities for managing functional areas.
Example: Patrol sergeant staffing needs are based on maintaining an effective
supervisory ratio to patrol officers.
D Scales to size of division or organization: Smaller organizations have greater
economy of scale, and allow for more specialized functions to be created. While
a smaller department may assign mid-managers significant numbers of ancillary
duties, larger departments are often better able to create dedicated positions for
these roles.
Example: A large agency would likely have a sergeant dedicated to managing
and maintaining logs of completed training hours for sworn personnel.
E
Report on the Riverside County JPA Feasibility Study
Matrix Consulting Group Page 128
Does not scale: The staffing needs of a position are largely static, and do not
scale significantly with organizational and/or community growth.
Example: An agency only requires one chief executive.
Of course, staffing needs for an individual position can be driven by a combination
of any of these factors, or even by none at all. Nonetheless, the five categories provide
the core framework by which it is possible to build relationships between staffing levels,
service demands, and organizational effectiveness in order to accurately project future
staffing needs.
(3) Overview of Comprehensive Staffing Needs
Staffing needs for each individual position have been estimated for the entire
agency using this framework. For locally dedicated staff that are not part of patrol,
staffing levels have been assigned based on the current levels that are contracted
for with RSD. All projections are in line with the organizational structure depicted on page
57.
The results of this analysis are displayed in the following pages, displaying the total
position cost (salary, benefits, and all other non-equipment cost factors), describing its
roles and responsibilities, the factors shaping its staffing needs, and the number of
positions of that type required in both 2016 and 2021:
Report on the Riverside County JPA Feasibility Study
Matrix Consulting Group Page 129
Results of the Comprehensive Staff Analysis
Area
|
Position
|
TPC
|
Role Description
Projection Factors 2016 2021
Office of the Chief
Chief of Police
$250,290
Serves as the chief executive of the
agency.
Represents the agency to the public, and
works closely with the Executive Board
and Advisory Committee on matters
relating to the governance of the agency.
Does not scale:
The position represents the chief
executive of the JPA agency.
1 1
Assistant Chief
$229,300
Manages the internal operations of the
JPA agency and works closely with the
Advisory Committee, reporting directly to
the chief and supervising the three
deputy chiefs.
Does not scale:
The position represents an executive
role.
1 1
Executive
Assistant
$87,127
Serves as an administrative manager
and assistant to the agency's executive
personnel.
Directly relates to the number of
positions supported:
A maximum of two executive-level
personnel can be supported effectively
by the position.
1 1
Report on the Riverside County JPA Feasibility Study
Matrix Consulting Group Page 130
Area
|
Position
|
TPC
|
Role Description
Projection Factors 2016 2021
Support Services Division
Deputy Chief
$219,675
Manages the three sections of the
Support Services Division. Reports
directly to the Assistant Chief and
functions as part of the executive
management team.
Does not scale:
The position manages an area of the
organization.
1 1
ADMINISTRATIVE SECTION
Administrative
Services
Manager
$140,303
Works with the managers and
supervisors of the Finance/Fiscal
Management Unit, Human Resources
Unit, Information Technology Unit, and
Records Unit. Reports directly to the
Deputy Chief over the Support Services
Division.
Does not scale:
The position manages an area of the
organization.
1 1
Finance/
Fiscal Mgmt.
Finance/Fiscal
Mgmt.
Manager
$146,751
Manages the Finance/Fiscal
Management Unit, coordinating business
processes and supervising personnel.
Functions as part of the agency
management team.
Does not scale:
The position manages a specific
functional area.
1 1
Report on the Riverside County JPA Feasibility Study
Matrix Consulting Group Page 131
Area
|
Position
|
TPC
|
Role Description
Projection Factors 2016 2021
Financial
Analyst II
$106,203
Serves as the primary budgetary analyst
for the agency, preparing for upcoming
budget periods and monitoring current
performance against adopted budgets.
Scales to organization size:
The position supports staff throughout
the organization. 1.0 FTEs are allocated
for every 600 FTEs in the organization.
1 1
Management
Analyst
$101,280
Organizes and coordinates cost
allocation reports for member cities,
working with the financial analyst position
on budget forecasting. Interfaces with
member cities, analyzes and prepares
reports on contract service cost trends.
Scales to organization size:
The position supports staff throughout
the organization. 1.0 FTEs are allocated
for every 600 FTEs in the organization.
1 1
Financial
Analyst
$100,500
Functions in a similar capacity to
accounting clerks, although the role is
more focused on budgetary work and
cost forecasting.
Scales to organization size:
The position supports staff throughout
the organization. 1.0 FTEs are allocated
for every 600 FTEs in the organization.
1 1
Accounting
Accounting
Manager
$116,077
Supervises accounting staff.
Span of control:
Staffing needs are determined by the
number of positions allocated to the
unit, at a maximum of 1 supervisor for
every 9 direct reports to this position.
1 1
Accounting
Clerk II
$81,802
Processes and maintains financial
records and documents. Works under
less supervision than the Accounting
Clerk I, and generally handles more
advanced and/or complex duties.
Scales to organization size:
The position supports staff throughout
the organization. 1.0 FTEs are allocated
for every 600 FTEs in the organization.
1 1
Accounting
Clerk I
$69,151
Processes and maintains financial
records and documents. Works under
Scales to organization size:
The position supports staff throughout
2 2
Report on the Riverside County JPA Feasibility Study
Matrix Consulting Group Page 132
Area
|
Position
|
TPC
|
Role Description
Projection Factors 2016 2021
more supervision than the Accounting
Clerk II, and generally handles less
advanced and/or complex duties.
the organization. 1.0 FTEs are allocated
for every 400 FTEs in the organization.
Management
Analyst
$101,280
Organizes and coordinates cost
allocations for member cities, working
with the financial analyst position on
budget forecasting. Interfaces with
member cities, analyzes and prepares
reports on contract service cost trends.
Scales to organization size:
The position supports staff throughout
the organization. 1.0 FTEs are allocated
for every 600 FTEs in the organization.
1 1
Financial
Analyst
$100,500
Functions in a similar capacity to
accounting clerks, although the role is
more focused on budgetary work and
cost forecasting.
Scales to organization size:
The position supports staff throughout
the organization. 1.0 FTEs are allocated
for every 600 FTEs in the organization.
1 1
Grants
Administrator
$80,716
Identifies and applies for grants,
oversees the use of their funding, and
completes grant reports as required.
Scales to organization size:
The position supports staff throughout
the organization. 1.0 FTEs are allocated
for every 800 FTEs in the organization.
1 1
Procurement
Procurement
Manager
$120,450
Manages large procurement and contract
projects and supervises other
procurement staff, functioning in a lead
role.
Does not scale:
The position manages a specific
functional area.
1 1
Procurement
Specialist
$91,207
Completes agency purchases and
prepares agency payables and
receivables.
Scales to organization size:
The position supports staff throughout
the organization. 1.0 FTEs are allocated
for every 400 FTEs in the organization.
2 2
Report on the Riverside County JPA Feasibility Study
Matrix Consulting Group Page 133
Area
|
Position
|
TPC
|
Role Description
Projection Factors 2016 2021
Purchasing
Assistant
$72,550
Assists with procurement and the
coordination of agency payables and
receivables.
Scales to organization size:
The position supports staff throughout
the organization. 1.0 FTEs are allocated
for every 600 FTEs in the organization.
1 1
Human
Resources
HR Manager
$152,174
Supervises human resources staff.
Does not scale:
The position manages a specific
functional area.
1 1
HR Analyst
$90,160
Responsible for handling administrative
duties relating to benefit plans, payroll,
and civilian employee hiring and firing.
Scales to organization size:
The position supports staff throughout
the organization. 1.0 FTEs are allocated
for every 250 FTEs in the organization.
3 3
HR Assistant
$67,385
Assists with the handling of
administrative duties relating to benefit
plans, payroll, and civilian employee
hiring and firing.
Scales to organization size:
The position supports staff throughout
the organization. 1.0 FTEs are allocated
for every 350 FTEs in the organization.
2 2
Information
Technology
IT Manager
$147,283
Serves as the director of the Information
Technology Unit, manages IT business
processes, and functions as part of the
agency's overall management team.
Does not scale:
The position manages a specific
functional area.
1 1
Networks/
Systems
Senior Ntwk/
Sys Admin
$119,303
Responsible for managing the
network/systems component of the
Information Technology Unit, functioning
in a lead role.
Scales to organization size:
The position supports staff throughout
the organization, although increases to
agency size do not contribute
1 1
Report on the Riverside County JPA Feasibility Study
Matrix Consulting Group Page 134
Area
|
Position
|
TPC
|
Role Description
Projection Factors 2016 2021
significantly to its staffing needs. 1.0
FTEs are allocated for every 600
positions in the agency.
Network/Sys
Analyst
$98,307
Responsible for managing the
network/systems component of the
Information Technology Unit. Two
positions are primarily specialized to
provide support to 911 communications.
Scales to organization size/fixed level of
coverage:
Two positions are added initially to
primarily provide support for the 911
Communications Unit. Additionally, 1.0
FTEs are allocated for every 300
positions in the agency beyond the first
350.
3 4
Development
Project
Manager
$127,326
Manages information technology
projects, particularly the implementation
of new systems and software.
Elective:
Set based on priority for the need. A
minimum of one position is needed for a
new agency requiring a significant
number of information technology
projects to be completed in the
relatively near future.
1 1
Programmer
$91,375
Developers information management
systems, ensures the linkability of
various systems and software, and works
on information technology projects as
assigned.
Elective:
Set based on identified priorities that
require the position's roles and skillsets.
1 1
Support
IT Specialist
$88,472
Intermediate-to-advanced IT help and
support to agency employees. Serves in
an on-call rotation with Help Desk
Assistant positions.
Scales to organization size:
The position supports staff throughout
the organization. 1.0 FTEs are allocated
for every 300 positions in the
organization.
2 3
Report on the Riverside County JPA Feasibility Study
Matrix Consulting Group Page 135
Area
|
Position
|
TPC
|
Role Description
Projection Factors 2016 2021
IT Support
Assistant
$76,380
Entry-level role that provides basic IT
help and support to agency employees.
Serves in an on-call rotation with IT
Specialist positions.
Scales to organization size:
The position supports staff throughout
the organization. 1.0 FTEs are allocated
for every 200 positions in the
organization.
3 3
Records Unit
Records
Manager
$113,711
Manages records business processes,
hiring processes, and compiles records
statistics for the agency.
Does not scale:
The position manages a specific
functional area.
1 1
Records
Supervisor
$85,761
Supervises a shift team of records
specialist in a 'working lead' role.
Completes performance evaluations of
direct reports. Works 12-hour shifts in a
rotating schedule.
Scaled to a level of coverage: 1.0 FTE
for every shift team, as well as an
additional FTE that functions in a relief
capacity, as well as assisting with
records custodian duties.
5 5
Records
Specialist II
$70,175
Performs a wide range of records
functions, although largely does not
perform customer interface duties. The
position also assists with the initial
storage and retrieval video camera
footage. Works as part of a shift team in
a 12-hour schedule.
Scales to size of the agency/level of
coverage:
Day shift staffed at 1.6 FTE for every
300 positions, night shift staffed at 0.8
FTE for every 300 agency positions.
The total is then rounded to the nearest
whole number.
7 8
Records
Specialist I
$70,190
Performs a wide range of records and
customer service functions, working as
part of a shift team in a 12-hour
schedule.
Scales to size of the agency/level of
coverage:
Day shift staffed at 1.6 FTE for every
200 positions, night shift staffed at 0.8
FTE for every 200 agency positions.
11 12
Report on the Riverside County JPA Feasibility Study
Matrix Consulting Group Page 136
Area
|
Position
|
TPC
|
Role Description
Projection Factors 2016 2021
The total is then rounded to the nearest
whole number.
SUPPORT SECTION
Captain
$207,525
Manages the 911 Communications Unit,
Property and Evidence Unit, and the
Fleet and Facilities Unit.
Does not scale:
The position manages an area of the
organization.
1 1
911 Comm.
911 Comm.
Director
$125,127
Manages the 911 Communications Unit
and functions as part of the agency's
management team.
Does not scale:
The position manages a specific
functional area.
1 1
Dispatch
Supervisor
$97,400
Supervises Dispatcher I and II positions,
working in a 12-hour schedule
configuration with four alternating shift
teams.
Span of control/coverage level:
1 position is allocated per shift team,
with 911 Communications staff working
on four 12-hour shift teams, 1.0 FTE for
every 9.0 FTEs that the position
supervises (whichever result is higher).
4 4
Dispatcher II
$85,271
Functions in a line-level role as a
combined dispatcher and call taker, in a
12-hour schedule configuration with four
alternating shift teams.
Scales to service needs:
Dispatcher I and II positions are staffed
to handle total workload hours for both
call taking and radio roles. With 33,053
hours of workload projected for 2016
and 35,785 in 2021, each position
represents the capability to handle
1,138 hours of workload. Annual
11 12
Report on the Riverside County JPA Feasibility Study
Matrix Consulting Group Page 137
Area
|
Position
|
TPC
|
Role Description
Projection Factors 2016 2021
turnover rate is assumed at 10%, and
the final result is rounded up to a whole
number.
Approximately one-third of dispatchers
are assigned the Dispatcher II
classification.
For a full outline of the process and
assumptions used, see the previous
section on 911 communications
staffing.
Dispatcher I
$80,355
Functions in a line-level role as a
combined dispatcher and call taker, in a
12-hour schedule configuration with four
alternating shift teams.
Scales to service needs:
Staffed using the Dispatcher II
methodology, with the difference that
two-thirds of all dispatchers are
assumed to fall under the Dispatcher I
classification.
For a full outline of the process and
assumptions used, see the previous
section on 911 communications
staffing.
21 23
GIS Technician
$91,904
Maintains 911 Communication's master
addressing database, as well as all other
GIS data used by the unit. Analyzes and
extracts geographic-based data upon
request, and may occasionally assist
Crime Analysis and Information
Technology on certain projects.
Scales to service needs:
The primary workload of the 911
Comm. GIS technician involves working
with the master addressing database.
As a result, staffing needs beyond the
first position are heavily influenced by
growth and new agencies joining the
PSAP service.
1 1
Report on the Riverside County JPA Feasibility Study
Matrix Consulting Group Page 138
Area
|
Position
|
TPC
|
Role Description
Projection Factors 2016 2021
Property and
Evidence
PE Supervisor
$88,853
Functions as a working supervisor for the
unit. Works one of two 10-hour shifts that
work staggered days.
Level of coverage:
1.0 FTE is allocated for each shift team,
resulting in a total of 2 positions.
2 2
PE Technician
$78,585
Maintains PE information management
and barcoding systems. Is additionally
responsible for managing the retention
schedules, destruction, and auctioning of
property according to agency policies
and applicable legal requirements. Works
one of two 10-hour shifts that work
staggered days.
Level of coverage:
1 position is allocated per region.
3 3
PE Specialist
$66,106
Stores, maintains, and retrieves evidence
and property in the agency's custody,
properly maintaining records within
information management systems.
Works one of two 10-hour shifts that
work staggered days.
Fixed level of coverage/scales to
organization size:
1.0 FTEs are allocated per region, as
well as 1 additional position for every
200 patrol officers beyond the first 200
positions.
3 3
PE Specialist
(Transport)
$66,106
Collects property and evidence from
lockers located in each substation to the
main facility. The position is also
responsible for processing the storage
and maintenance of items, and works
one of two 10-hour shifts that work
staggered days.
Level of coverage:
1.0 FTEs are allocated for each shift
team, resulting in a total of 2 positions.
2 2
Report on the Riverside County JPA Feasibility Study
Matrix Consulting Group Page 139
Area
|
Position
|
TPC
|
Role Description
Projection Factors 2016 2021
Fleet and
Facilities
Fleet Manager
$115,205
Manages fleet operations, coordinates
with the Finance/Fiscal Unit as needed,
and supervises unit personnel.
Does not scale:
The position manages a specific
functional area.
1 1
Fleet Services
Supervisor
$97,313
Supervises fleet technicians and
assistants.
Span of control:
1.0 FTE for every 6.0 FTEs that the
position supervises.
2 2
Fleet
Technician
$84,385
Maintains city vehicles, identifying and
completing repairs as needed.
Directly relates to other areas of the
organization:
Staffed at a ratio of 1.0 FTEs for every
41 patrol vehicles.
Allocating fleet mechanics at this level
is at the upper end of industry
standards, and was made based on the
anticipated age of the JPA agency's
fleet. Overtime, additional mechanics
should be staffed in relation to the
number of patrol vehicles.
5 5
Fleet Services
Assistant
$68,371
Manages inventory, transports vehicles
for repair, and assists with other fleet
coordination tasks.
Directly supports other staff:
1 position for every 3 Fleet Technicians.
2 2
Custodian
$60,392
Maintains agency facilities. Reports
directly to the fleet manager. Each
custodian is responsible for a region, with
the Coachella/East Region custodian
assisting with the substations in the other
two regions.
Level of coverage:
1.0 FTE for every region.
3 3
Report on the Riverside County JPA Feasibility Study
Matrix Consulting Group Page 140
Area
|
Position
|
TPC
|
Role Description
Projection Factors 2016 2021
STANDARDS SECTION
Captain
$207,525
Manages the Training Unit, Professional
Standards, Public Information,
Recruitment and Hiring, and Crime
Analysis.
Does not scale:
The position manages an area of the
organization.
1 1
Training Unit
Lieutenant
$181,600
Responsible for supervising the training
unit and managing the sworn training
budget, as well as identifying and
prioritizing material for in-service training.
Does not scale:
The position manages a specific
functional area.
1 1
Sergeant (In-
Service
Training)
$171,265
Manages and schedules regular in-
service training for sworn agency
personnel; monitors the completion of
minimum training time to fulfill state
mandates.
Does not scale:
The position fills a unique role.
1 1
Sergeant
(Specialized
Training)
$171,265
Coordinates and schedules training for
specialized roles, including the all
facilities and equipment that are needed.
Does not scale:
The position fills a unique role.
1 1
Rangemaster
$84,137
Assists with the firearms training of
sworn personnel, maintains firearms
range grounds, assists with training
schedule coordination and firearms
range supply orders.
Scales to organization size (sworn
only):
The position supports sworn personnel
throughout the agency. 1.0 FTEs are
allocated for every 500 sworn positions
in the organization.
1 2
Report on the Riverside County JPA Feasibility Study
Matrix Consulting Group Page 141
Area
|
Position
|
TPC
|
Role Description
Projection Factors 2016 2021
Professional
Standards
Unit
Lieutenant
$181,600
Manages the Professional Standards
Unit, reviews its business processes, and
completes revisions to agency policies
and procedures. Reports directly to the
agency executive.
Does not scale:
The position manages a specific
functional area.
1 1
Sergeant
(Standards)
$171,265
Reviews collisions, high-level use of
force incidents, and other issues dealing
with policy and procedure violations that
have been escalated to this level.
Scales to organization size (sworn
only):
The position supports sworn personnel
throughout the agency. 1.0 FTEs are
allocated for every 200 sworn positions
in the organization.
3 3
Sergeant
(Internal
Affairs)
$171,265
Supervises officers assigned to the
Internal Affairs sub-section. Reviews
high-level citizen complaints and
corresponds as needed with non-
anonymous complainants. Coordinates
with standards sub-section of the unit as
needed.
Span of control:
1.0 FTE for every 5 positions that the
position supervises.
1 1
Officer
(Internal
Affairs)
$126,264
Reviews citizen complaints and
corresponds as needed with non-
anonymous complainants.
Scales to organization size (sworn
only):
The position supports sworn personnel
throughout the agency. 1.0 FTEs are
allocated for every 200 sworn positions
in the organization.
3 3
Report on the Riverside County JPA Feasibility Study
Matrix Consulting Group Page 142
Area
|
Position
|
TPC
|
Role Description
Projection Factors 2016 2021
Management
Analyst
$101,280
Manages and analyzes data on IA
information management systems,
including early warning programs.
Elective:
Set based on need or priority, although
typically only position will be needed to
fulfill the position's roles
1 1
Public
Information
Public
Information
Officer
$128,832
Interfaces with the media, provides
updates on social media, and
coordinates with department
management on responses to ongoing
events and issues relating to the public.
Does not scale:
The position performs a unique role in
the agency.
1 1
Public
Information
Specialist
$86,464
Serves as a liaison between community
members and the department, conducts
proactive messaging of department
activities and outreach work, manages
the social media presence of the agency.
Elective:
Staffing can be set depending on the
priority of community liaison functions.
1 1
Crime
Analysis
Supervising
Crime Analyst
$98,776
Manages business processes of crime
analysts, approves training requests,
functions as a liaison to different areas of
the department, and works on crime
analysis projects in a lead role.
Span of control:
1 for every 6 FTEs that the position
supervises. Minimum of 1.
1 1
Programmer
Analyst
$91,375
Develops crime analysis capabilities and
supports crime analysts as needed. May
occasionally work on projects as needed
with the programmer in the Information
Technology Unit.
Elective:
Staffing can be set depending on
project needs and agency priorities.
1 1
Report on the Riverside County JPA Feasibility Study
Matrix Consulting Group Page 143
Area
|
Position
|
TPC
|
Role Description
Projection Factors 2016 2021
Crime Analyst
$88,724
Provides regular statistical analysis and
support to various areas of the
department, particularly regional and
local services that interface with the field.
Scales to size of patrol:
Whichever is higher – 1 position for
every 100 patrol officers, or 1 per
region.
3 3
Recruitment
and Hiring
Sergeant
$171,265
Manages and coordinates the hiring
process for new sworn recruits.
Does not scale:
The position manages a specific
functional area.
1 1
Officer
$126,264
Assists with coordinating the hiring
process for new sworn recruits, conducts
background checks, communicates with
potential lateral recruits, and represents
the agency at various recruitment events.
Scales to size of patrol:
1.0 FTEs are allocated for every 150
patrol officers, rounded either up or
down to the nearest whole number.
2 2
Administrative
Assistant
$74,123
Processes new hire paperwork for sworn
recruits, administratively supports unit
personnel, and distributes materials as
needed electronically and through mail to
new and potential recruits.
Directly relates to the number of
positions supported:
1.0 FTEs are allocated for every 5
positions in the Recruitment and Hiring
Unit that the provides support to. A
minimum of one position must be
staffed.
1 1
Report on the Riverside County JPA Feasibility Study
Matrix Consulting Group Page 144
Area
|
Position
|
TPC
|
Role Description
Projection Factors 2016 2021
Regional Services Division
Deputy Chief
$219,675
Manages the three sections of the
Support Services Division. Reports
directly to the Assistant Chief and
functions as part of the executive
management team.
Does not scale:
The position manages an area of the
organization.
1 1
SHARED RESOURCES SECTION
Captain
$207,525
Manages the K9 Unit, Traffic Unit, and
Crime Scene Unit.
Does not scale:
The position manages an area of the
organization.
1 1
K9 Unit
Officer (North)
$126,264
Responds to calls that require a K9
response, and is also responsible for dog
handling and training. Reports directly to
the on-duty watch commander.
Level of coverage:
Two per region, working opposite 12-
hour shifts.
2 2
Officer (South)
$126,264
Responds to calls that require a K9
response, and is also responsible for dog
handling and training. Reports directly to
the on-duty watch commander.
Level of coverage:
Two per region, working opposite 12-
hour shifts. One additional position
working in relief on a flexible work
schedule.
2 2
Report on the Riverside County JPA Feasibility Study
Matrix Consulting Group Page 145
Area
|
Position
|
TPC
|
Role Description
Projection Factors 2016 2021
Officer (East)
$126,264
Responds to calls that require a K9
response, and is also responsible for dog
handling and training. Reports directly to
the on-duty watch commander.
Level of coverage:
Two per region, working opposite 12-
hour shifts.
2 2
Traffic Unit
Lieutenant
$181,600
Manages specialized traffic functions
throughout the JPA agency, reviewing
operational plans, managing the unit's
overtime budget, and developing
priorities in coordination with the Crime
Analysis Unit.
Does not scale:
The position manages a specific
functional area.
1 1
Sergeant
(North)
$171,265
Supervises the motor officers assigned to
North Region traffic functions.
Span of control:
1.0 FTE for every 9.0 FTEs that the
position supervises.
3 3
Officer (North)
$126,264
Conducts proactive, targeted
enforcement of traffic, as well as fatal
accident investigations and responses to
injury accidents. Available to respond to
emergency patrol incidents as needed in
a backup capacity.
Elective:
Scales to both service needs and the
level of priority of traffic enforcement in
the city. Set approximately at current
levels for 2016, with 2021 increases
scaled to population growth over that
time period.
24 25
Sergeant
(South)
$171,265
Supervises the motor officers assigned to
South Region traffic functions.
Span of control:
1.0 FTE for every 5.0 FTEs that the
position supervises.
3 3
Report on the Riverside County JPA Feasibility Study
Matrix Consulting Group Page 146
Area
|
Position
|
TPC
|
Role Description
Projection Factors 2016 2021
Officer (South)
$126,264
Conducts proactive, targeted
enforcement of traffic, as well as fatal
accident investigations and responses to
injury accidents. Available to respond to
emergency patrol incidents as needed in
a backup capacity.
Elective:
Scales to both service needs and the
level of priority of traffic enforcement in
the city. Set approximately at current
levels for 2016, with 2021 increases
scaled to population growth over that
time period.
24 27
Crime Scene
Unit
Crime Scene
Lead/
Supervisor
$86,160
Supervises the crime scene unit,
approving and providing training, as well
as functioning in the field as a working
lead. Has all of the training and
capabilities of a Crime Scene Technician
position.
Level of coverage:
Base staffing level for all crime scene
positions combined of 1 position per
Crime Scene Unit shift team, totaling 4
in North Region, 4 in South Region, and
2 in East Region. 1 additional FTE per
150 patrol officers.
The lead/supervisor position's total
compensation is not significantly higher
than that of the technician role, enabling
for it to be feasible to staff each shift
with a supervisor.
10 10
Crime Scene
Technician
(North)
$80,140
Collects evidence, photographs crime
scenes, and performs basic lab duties
such as latent fingerprint examinations.
Primarily assigned to a particular region,
but may respond to other areas as
needed when concurrent callouts occur.
Works a four-team, 12-hour shift
schedule for complete coverage.
Level of coverage:
Base staffing level for all crime scene
positions combined of 1 position per
Crime Scene Unit shift team, totaling 4
in North Region, 4 in South Region, and
2 in East Region. 1 additional FTE per
150 patrol officers.
5 5
Report on the Riverside County JPA Feasibility Study
Matrix Consulting Group Page 147
Area
|
Position
|
TPC
|
Role Description
Projection Factors 2016 2021
Crime Scene
Technician
(South)
$80,140
Collects evidence, photographs crime
scenes, and performs basic lab duties
such as latent fingerprint examinations.
Primarily assigned to a particular region,
but may respond to other areas as
needed when concurrent callouts occur.
Works a four-team, 12-hour shift
schedule for complete coverage.
Level of coverage:
Base staffing level for all crime scene
positions combined of 1 position per
Crime Scene Unit shift team, totaling 4
in North Region, 4 in South Region, and
2 in East Region. 1 additional FTE per
150 patrol officers.
5 5
Crime Scene
Technician
(East)
$80,140
Collects evidence, photographs crime
scenes, and performs basic lab duties
such as latent fingerprint examinations.
Primarily assigned to a particular region,
but may respond to other areas as
needed when concurrent callouts occur.
Works a four-team, 12-hour shift
schedule for complete coverage.
Level of coverage:
Base staffing level for all crime scene
positions combined of 1 position per
Crime Scene Unit shift team, totaling 4
in North Region, 4 in South Region, and
2 in East Region. 1 additional FTE per
150 patrol officers.
2 2
INVESTIGATIONS SECTION
Captain
$207,525
Manages the Major Crimes units (North,
South, and East), Homicide Unit, Sex
Crimes Unit, and Gang Task Force Unit.
Does not scale:
The position functions in an executive
role.
1 1
Major Crimes
(North)
Lieutenant
$181,600
Manages Major Crimes (North), as well
as the Gang Task Force.
Does not scale:
The position manages a specific
functional area.
1 1
Report on the Riverside County JPA Feasibility Study
Matrix Consulting Group Page 148
Area
|
Position
|
TPC
|
Role Description
Projection Factors 2016 2021
Sergeant
$171,265
Assigned to either supervise primarily
either persons or property crime
investigators. Assigns cases to
detectives following a screening process,
reviews reports, and manages the
caseloads of assigned detectives.
Regular meetings are held with direct
reports to review progress and activity on
open cases.
Span of control:
Given that the position has a moderate-
to-high degree of supervisory
responsibilities relative to the number
direct reports, spans of control remain
under 1:9.
3 4
Detective
$140,846
Core detectives are primarily assigned to
either persons or property crimes cases,
although some may function more as
generalists depending on variations in
caseloads.
As detailed in the core investigative
staffing analysis, detective staffing
needs have been determined by
estimating the number of workable
cases the JPA will handle, based on
comparative ratios to Part I crime
incidents per investigator. Detectives
were then allocated by region based on
projected crime levels, and after
selecting a portion of the total number
of detectives to form the two specialized
investigative units.
27 28
CSO
(Investigative
Assistant)
$83,282
Civilian position dedicated to providing
support for detectives on property crimes
cases. Much of the position's work
involves following up with victims on low
Elective/scales to service needs:
Can be electively staffed to fulfill a non-
sworn role in minor cases, as well as to
follow up with victims on cases with low
solvability.
1 1
Report on the Riverside County JPA Feasibility Study
Matrix Consulting Group Page 149
Area
|
Position
|
TPC
|
Role Description
Projection Factors 2016 2021
Major Crimes
(South)
Lieutenant
$181,600
Manages Major Crimes (South), as well
as the Homicide Unit and Sex Crimes
Unit. The position is assigned additional
administrative duties in comparison with
the Major Crimes (North) lieutenant as a
result of the smaller size of the southern
unit.
Does not scale:
The position manages a specific
functional area.
1 1
Sergeant
$171,265
Assigned to either supervise primarily
either persons or property crime
investigators. Assigns cases to
detectives following a screening process,
reviews reports, and manages the
caseloads of assigned detectives.
Regular meetings are held with direct
reports to review progress and activity on
open cases.
Span of control:
Given that the position has a moderate-
to-high degree of supervisory
responsibilities relative to the number
direct reports, spans of control remain
under 1:9.
2 2
Detective
$140,846
Core detectives are primarily assigned to
either persons or property crimes cases,
although some may function more as
generalists depending on variations in
caseloads.
As detailed in the core investigative
staffing analysis, detective staffing
needs have been determined by
estimating the number of workable
cases the JPA will handle, based on
comparative ratios to Part I crime
incidents per investigator. Detectives
were then allocated by region based on
projected crime levels, and after
selecting a portion of the total number
of detectives to form the two specialized
investigative units.
14 15
Report on the Riverside County JPA Feasibility Study
Matrix Consulting Group Page 150
Area
|
Position
|
TPC
|
Role Description
Projection Factors 2016 2021
CSO
(Investigative
Assistant)
$83,282
Civilian position dedicated to providing
support for detectives on property crimes
cases. Much of the position's work
involves following up with victims on low
Elective/scales to service needs:
Can be electively staffed to fulfill a non-
sworn role in minor cases, as well as to
follow up with victims on cases with low
solvability.
1 1
Major Crimes
(East)
Sergeant
$171,265
Functions as the manager and
supervisor of the Major Crimes (East)
Unit. Assigns cases to detectives
following a screening process, reviews
reports, and manages caseloads
assigned to detectives. Regular meetings
are held with direct reports to review
progress and activity on open cases.
Span of control:
Given that the position has a moderate-
to-high degree of supervisory
responsibilities relative to the number
direct reports, spans of control remain
under 1:9.
1 1
Detective
$140,846
Core detectives are primarily assigned to
either persons or property crimes cases,
although some may function more as
generalists depending on variations in
caseloads.
As detailed in the core investigative
staffing analysis, detective staffing
needs have been determined by
estimating the number of workable
cases the JPA will handle, based on
comparative ratios to Part I crime
incidents per investigator. Detectives
were then allocated by region based on
projected crime levels, and after
selecting a portion of the total number
of detectives to form the two specialized
investigative units.
3 3
Report on the Riverside County JPA Feasibility Study
Matrix Consulting Group Page 151
Area
|
Position
|
TPC
|
Role Description
Projection Factors 2016 2021
Homicide
Unit
Lieutenant
$181,600
Shared supervisory with the Homicide
Unit. Reviews detective caseloads,
reviews work products such as reports,
and coordinates detectives on major
cases.
Span of control:
Given that the position has a high
degree of supervisory responsibilities
relative to the number direct reports,
span of control ratios should be kept
under 1:9 (including reports in the Sex
Crimes Unit).
0.5 0.5
Detective
$140,846
Works as part of a team or individually on
aggravated assaults, attempted
homicides, and completed homicides.
Scales to service needs:
Staffed based on the ability to fill an
active caseload comprised of cases
within the detective's specialized area.
4 4
Sex Crimes
Unit
Lieutenant
$181,600
Shared supervisory with the Homicide
Unit. Reviews detective caseloads,
reviews work products such as reports,
and coordinates detectives on major
cases.
Span of control:
Given that the position has a high
degree of supervisory responsibilities
relative to the number direct reports,
span of control ratios should be kept
under 1:9 (including reports in the
Homicide Unit).
0.5 0.5
Detective
$140,846
Works primarily individually on cases
relating to sexual assaults,
domestic/family violence, predatory
offenders, and other related areas.
Scales to service needs:
Staffed based on the ability to fill an
active caseload comprised of cases
within the detective's specialized area.
5 5
Report on the Riverside County JPA Feasibility Study
Matrix Consulting Group Page 152
Area
|
Position
|
TPC
|
Role Description
Projection Factors 2016 2021
VO/G Task
Force
Sergeant
$171,265
Supervises all personnel assigned to the
Violent Offenders/Gang Task Force,
which operates across the jurisdiction on
issues relating to gang violence, violent
offender apprehension, and investigative
support to other areas of the agency on
related issues. Currently, the highest
level of funding is provided by cities
within the North Region, with about half
being divided between cities in the South
and East regions.
Span of control:
Given that the position has a high
degree of supervisory responsibilities
relative to the number direct reports,
span of control ratios should be kept at
a maximum of 1:6.
1 1
Detective
$140,846
Detective-level position operating across
the jurisdiction on issues relating to gang
violence, violent offender apprehension,
and investigative support to other areas
of the agency on related issues.
Elective:
Cities contribute a specific level to the
task force, which is then allocated into
funding positions and other operating
costs of the unit. Staffing levels have
been based approximately on current
funding for task force and specialized
investigation positions, as specified in
local RSD contracts.
2 2
Officer
$126,264
Supports investigators and active cases,
functioning primarily in the field. May
work in uniform or in plain clothes,
conducting activities such as
surveillance, AB109 compliance checks,
intelligence development, warrant
checks, and targeted enforcement.
Elective:
Cities contribute a specific level to the
task force, which is then allocated into
funding positions and other operating
costs of the unit. Staffing levels have
been based approximately on current
funding for task force and specialized
investigation positions, as specified in
local RSD contracts.
4 4
Report on the Riverside County JPA Feasibility Study
Matrix Consulting Group Page 153
Area
|
Position
|
TPC
|
Role Description
Projection Factors 2016 2021
Local Services Division
Deputy Chief
$219,675
Manages all locally provided (non-
regionalized) services, which includes
patrol and community programming
functions. Reports directly to the
Assistant Chief and functions as part of
the executive management team.
Does not scale:
The position manages an area of the
organization.
1 1
WATCH COMMAND SECTION
Lieutenant
(North)
$181,600
Coordinates the use and deployment of
local, regional, and centralized resources
in real time. Also responds on-scene to
major incidents across the service area,
such as homicides.
One for each patrol shift team. In the
absence of a lieutenant, a sergeant will
act in the role.
5 5
Lieutenant
(South)
$181,600
Coordinates the use and deployment of
local, regional, and centralized resources
in real time. Also responds on-scene to
major incidents across the service area,
such as homicides.
One for each patrol shift team. In the
absence of a lieutenant, a sergeant will
act in the role.
4 4
Lieutenant
(East)
$181,600
Provided as a rotating sergeant duty in
the East Region.
N/A 0 0
Report on the Riverside County JPA Feasibility Study
Matrix Consulting Group Page 154
Area
|
Position
|
TPC
|
Role Description
Projection Factors 2016 2021
MORENO VALLEY POLICE SERVICES (North Region)
Captain
$207,525
Functions as the 'local police chief' of the
city, externally representing the JPA
model to the public. The position is also
responsible for communicating with city
officials to identify service priorities,
station administrative duties and
coordination with regional watch
command.
Does not scale:
The position functions in an executive
role.
1 1
Administrative
Assistant
$74,123
Supports the captain and other local
staff.
Does not scale:
Does not scale, as the position is
staffed at a 1:1 ratio with
division/section executive.
1 1
Patrol
Operations
Sergeant
$171,265
Supervises both patrol officers and patrol
CSOs. Reports directly to watch
commanders on a daily operational
basis, though they are also commanded
by the local captain positions.
Span of control:
1 position for every 8 positions, with
patrol officers counted at 1.00x and
CSOs counted at 0.67x.
12 12
Officer (Patrol)
$126,264
Responds to and handles calls for
service, completes reports, and performs
targeted enforcement, as well as other
proactive activities. Works alternating 12-
hour shifts.
Scales to service needs:
The position is staffed to achieve a
proactivity level of 40% overall – the
percentage of time officers have after
total workload hours (excluding those
handled by CSOs) have been factored
85 85
Report on the Riverside County JPA Feasibility Study
Matrix Consulting Group Page 155
Area
|
Position
|
TPC
|
Role Description
Projection Factors 2016 2021
out of the total number of net available
hours.
CSO (Patrol)
$83,282
Responds to and handles certain types
of low-priority calls for service that do not
require a sworn officer, including non-
injury accidents, noise complaints, and
basic nuisance complaints. As a result,
they are able to divert workload that
would have otherwise been handled by
patrol officers, increasing their ability to
be proactive in the field. CSOs are also
able to function proactively, such as
conducting enforcement of parking and
vehicle abatement ordinances.
Scales to service needs/Directly relates
to other staffing levels:
Although the number of CSOs is
dependent on targets for reducing
sworn patrol workloads and the number
of positions needed to do so, levels
have been set based on achieving a
balance of about 1:5 patrol CSOs per
patrol officer (at a level of 40%
proactivity overall).
20 20
Community
Services
Sergeant
$171,265
Supervises any SROs, proactive policing
officers, crime prevention CSOs, and
community program CSOs that the city
elects to staff. If more than one
supervisor is needed, these functions are
divided between them.
Span of control:
1 FTE is allocated for every 9 direct
reports to the position.
1 1
Officer
(Proactive
Team)
$126,264
Interfaces with the community and
conducts problem-oriented policing,
including nuisance abatement.
Elective:
Based on the priority and availability of
funding for the city. Staffing has been
set based on the current levels that
cities currently contract for.
4 4
Report on the Riverside County JPA Feasibility Study
Matrix Consulting Group Page 156
Area
|
Position
|
TPC
|
Role Description
Projection Factors 2016 2021
Officer (SRO)
$0
Serves as a school resource officer at an
assigned location, providing both the
educational and response components of
the service. It is assumed that 100% of
each position's funding is paid for by their
school districts.
Elective:
Staffing is set the current number of
positions contracted for by the cities in
the study group.
1 1
CSO (Crime
Prevention)
$83,282
Activities may include CPTED
assessments, organizing and providing
crime free multi-housing programs, and
production of crime prevention materials,
among others. Roles may vary
significantly based on staffing levels and
the priorities of each individual city in
which they are assigned.
Elective:
Based on the priority and availability of
funding for the city. Staffing has been
set based on the current levels that
cities currently contract for.
4 4
CSO
(Community
Programs)
$83,282
Communicates with local community
groups, such as neighborhood watch
associations. Additionally, the position
may organize and provide educational
programs, crime prevention seminars,
and other community events. Activities
may vary significantly based on staffing
levels and the priorities of each individual
city in which they are assigned.
Elective:
Based on the priority and availability of
funding for the city. Staffing has been
set based on the current levels that
cities currently contract for.
0 0
Report on the Riverside County JPA Feasibility Study
Matrix Consulting Group Page 157
Area
|
Position
|
TPC
|
Role Description
Projection Factors 2016 2021
JURUPA VALLEY POLICE SERVICES (North Region)
Captain
$207,525
Functions as the 'local police chief' of the
city, externally representing the JPA
model to the public. The position is also
responsible for communicating with city
officials to identify service priorities,
station administrative duties and
coordination with regional watch
command.
Does not scale:
The position functions in an executive
role.
1 1
Administrative
Assistant
$74,123
Supports the captain and other local
staff.
Does not scale:
The position is staffed at a 1:1 ratio with
division/section executive.
1 1
Patrol
Operations
Sergeant
$171,265
Supervises both patrol officers and patrol
CSOs. Reports directly to watch
commanders on a daily operational
basis, though they are also commanded
by the local captain positions.
Span of control:
1 position for every 8 positions, with
patrol officers counted at 1.00x and
CSOs counted at 0.67x.
5 5
Officer (Patrol)
$126,264
Responds to and handles calls for
service, completes reports, and performs
targeted enforcement, as well as other
proactive activities. Works alternating 12-
hour shifts.
Scales to service needs:
The position is staffed to achieve a
proactivity level of 40% overall – the
percentage of time officers have after
total workload hours (excluding those
handled by CSOs) have been factored
out of the total number of net available
hours.
32 34
Report on the Riverside County JPA Feasibility Study
Matrix Consulting Group Page 158
Area
|
Position
|
TPC
|
Role Description
Projection Factors 2016 2021
CSO (Patrol)
$83,282
Responds to and handles certain types
of low-priority calls for service that do not
require a sworn officer, including non-
injury accidents, noise complaints, and
basic nuisance complaints. As a result,
they are able to divert workload that
would have otherwise been handled by
patrol officers, increasing their ability to
be proactive in the field. CSOs are also
able to function proactively, such as
conducting enforcement of parking and
vehicle abatement ordinances.
Scales to service needs/Directly relates
to other staffing levels:
Although the number of CSOs is
dependent on targets for reducing
sworn patrol workloads and the number
of positions needed to do so, levels
have been set based on achieving a
balance of about 1:5 patrol CSOs per
patrol officer (at a level of 40%
proactivity overall).
7 7
Community
Services
Sergeant
$171,265
Supervises any SROs, proactive policing
officers, crime prevention CSOs, and
community program CSOs that the city
elects to staff. If more than one
supervisor is needed, these functions are
divided between them.
Span of control:
1 FTE is allocated for every 9 direct
reports to the position.
1 1
Officer
(Proactive
Team)
$126,264
Interfaces with the community and
conducts problem-oriented policing,
including nuisance abatement.
Elective:
Based on the priority and availability of
funding for the city. Staffing has been
set based on the current levels that
cities currently contract for.
6 6
Report on the Riverside County JPA Feasibility Study
Matrix Consulting Group Page 159
Area
|
Position
|
TPC
|
Role Description
Projection Factors 2016 2021
Officer (SRO)
$0
Serves as a school resource officer at an
assigned location, providing both the
educational and response components of
the service. It is assumed that 100% of
each position's funding is paid for by their
school districts.
Elective:
Staffing is set the current number of
positions contracted for by the cities in
the study group.
0 0
CSO (Crime
Prevention)
$83,282
Activities may include CPTED
assessments, organizing and providing
crime free multi-housing programs, and
production of crime prevention materials,
among others. Roles may vary
significantly based on staffing levels and
the priorities of each individual city in
which they are assigned.
Elective:
Based on the priority and availability of
funding for the city. Staffing has been
set based on the current levels that
cities currently contract for.
0 0
CSO
(Community
Programs)
$83,282
Communicates with local community
groups, such as neighborhood watch
associations. Additionally, the position
may organize and provide educational
programs, crime prevention seminars,
and other community events. Activities
may vary significantly based on staffing
levels and the priorities of each individual
city in which they are assigned.
Elective:
Based on the priority and availability of
funding for the city. Staffing has been
set based on the current levels that
cities currently contract for.
0 0
Report on the Riverside County JPA Feasibility Study
Matrix Consulting Group Page 160
Area
|
Position
|
TPC
|
Role Description
Projection Factors 2016 2021
SAN JACINTO POLICE SERVICES (North Region)
Captain
$207,525
Functions as the 'local police chief' of the
city, externally representing the JPA
model to the public. The position is also
responsible for communicating with city
officials to identify service priorities,
station administrative duties and
coordination with regional watch
command.
Does not scale:
The position functions in an executive
role.
1 1
Administrative
Assistant
$74,123
Supports the captain and other local
staff.
Does not scale:
Does not scale, as the position is
staffed at a 1:1 ratio with
division/section executive.
1 1
Patrol
Operations
Sergeant
$171,265
Supervises both patrol officers and patrol
CSOs. Reports directly to watch
commanders on a daily operational
basis, though they are also commanded
by the local captain positions.
Span of control:
1 position for every 8 positions, with
patrol officers counted at 1.00x and
CSOs counted at 0.67x.
4 4
Officer (Patrol)
$126,264
Responds to and handles calls for
service, completes reports, and performs
targeted enforcement, as well as other
proactive activities. Works alternating 12-
hour shifts.
Scales to service needs:
The position is staffed to achieve a
proactivity level of 40% overall – the
percentage of time officers have after
total workload hours (excluding those
handled by CSOs) have been factored
24 27
Report on the Riverside County JPA Feasibility Study
Matrix Consulting Group Page 161
Area
|
Position
|
TPC
|
Role Description
Projection Factors 2016 2021
out of the total number of net available
hours.
CSO (Patrol)
$83,282
Responds to and handles certain types
of low-priority calls for service that do not
require a sworn officer, including non-
injury accidents, noise complaints, and
basic nuisance complaints. As a result,
they are able to divert workload that
would have otherwise been handled by
patrol officers, increasing their ability to
be proactive in the field. CSOs are also
able to function proactively, such as
conducting enforcement of parking and
vehicle abatement ordinances.
Scales to service needs/Directly relates
to other staffing levels:
Although the number of CSOs is
dependent on targets for reducing
sworn patrol workloads and the number
of positions needed to do so, levels
have been set based on achieving a
balance of about 1:5 patrol CSOs per
patrol officer (at a level of 40%
proactivity overall).
5 5
Community
Services
Sergeant
$171,265
Supervises any SROs, proactive policing
officers, crime prevention CSOs, and
community program CSOs that the city
elects to staff. If more than one
supervisor is needed, these functions are
divided between them.
Span of control:
1 FTE is allocated for every 9 direct
reports to the position.
0 0
Officer
(Proactive
Team)
$126,264
Interfaces with the community and
conducts problem-oriented policing,
including nuisance abatement.
Elective:
Based on the priority and availability of
funding for the city. Staffing has been
set based on the current levels that
cities currently contract for.
1 1
Report on the Riverside County JPA Feasibility Study
Matrix Consulting Group Page 162
Area
|
Position
|
TPC
|
Role Description
Projection Factors 2016 2021
Officer (SRO)
$0
Serves as a school resource officer at an
assigned location, providing both the
educational and response components of
the service. It is assumed that 100% of
each position's funding is paid for by their
school districts.
Elective:
Staffing is set the current number of
positions contracted for by the cities in
the study group.
0 0
CSO (Crime
Prevention)
$83,282
Activities may include CPTED
assessments, organizing and providing
crime free multi-housing programs, and
production of crime prevention materials,
among others. Roles may vary
significantly based on staffing levels and
the priorities of each individual city in
which they are assigned.
Elective:
Based on the priority and availability of
funding for the city. Staffing has been
set based on the current levels that
cities currently contract for.
0 0
CSO
(Community
Programs)
$83,282
Communicates with local community
groups, such as neighborhood watch
associations. Additionally, the position
may organize and provide educational
programs, crime prevention seminars,
and other community events. Activities
may vary significantly based on staffing
levels and the priorities of each individual
city in which they are assigned.
Elective:
Based on the priority and availability of
funding for the city. Staffing has been
set based on the current levels that
cities currently contract for.
0 0
Report on the Riverside County JPA Feasibility Study
Matrix Consulting Group Page 163
Area
|
Position
|
TPC
|
Role Description
Projection Factors 2016 2021
PERRIS POLICE SERVICES (North Region)
Captain
$207,525
Functions as the 'local police chief' of the
city, externally representing the JPA
model to the public. The position is also
responsible for communicating with city
officials to identify service priorities,
station administrative duties and
coordination with regional watch
command.
Does not scale:
The position functions in an executive
role.
1 1
Administrative
Assistant
$74,123
Supports the captain and other local
staff.
Does not scale:
Does not scale, as the position is
staffed at a 1:1 ratio with
division/section executive.
1 1
Patrol
Operations
Sergeant
$171,265
Supervises both patrol officers and patrol
CSOs. Reports directly to watch
commanders on a daily operational
basis, though they are also commanded
by the local captain positions.
Span of control:
1 position for every 8 positions, with
patrol officers counted at 1.00x and
CSOs counted at 0.67x.
4 5
Officer (Patrol)
$126,264
Responds to and handles calls for
service, completes reports, and performs
targeted enforcement, as well as other
proactive activities. Works alternating 12-
hour shifts.
Scales to service needs:
The position is staffed to achieve a
proactivity level of 40% overall – the
percentage of time officers have after
total workload hours (excluding those
handled by CSOs) have been factored
29 31
Report on the Riverside County JPA Feasibility Study
Matrix Consulting Group Page 164
Area
|
Position
|
TPC
|
Role Description
Projection Factors 2016 2021
out of the total number of net available
hours.
CSO (Patrol)
$83,282
Responds to and handles certain types
of low-priority calls for service that do not
require a sworn officer, including non-
injury accidents, noise complaints, and
basic nuisance complaints. As a result,
they are able to divert workload that
would have otherwise been handled by
patrol officers, increasing their ability to
be proactive in the field. CSOs are also
able to function proactively, such as
conducting enforcement of parking and
vehicle abatement ordinances.
Scales to service needs/Directly relates
to other staffing levels:
Although the number of CSOs is
dependent on targets for reducing
sworn patrol workloads and the number
of positions needed to do so, levels
have been set based on achieving a
balance of about 1:5 patrol CSOs per
patrol officer (at a level of 40%
proactivity overall).
5 6
Community
Services
Sergeant
$171,265
Supervises any SROs, proactive policing
officers, crime prevention CSOs, and
community program CSOs that the city
elects to staff. If more than one
supervisor is needed, these functions are
divided between them.
Span of control:
1 FTE is allocated for every 9 direct
reports to the position.
1 1
Officer
(Proactive
Team)
$126,264
Interfaces with the community and
conducts problem-oriented policing,
including nuisance abatement.
Elective:
Based on the priority and availability of
funding for the city. Staffing has been
set based on the current levels that
cities currently contract for.
6 6
Report on the Riverside County JPA Feasibility Study
Matrix Consulting Group Page 165
Area
|
Position
|
TPC
|
Role Description
Projection Factors 2016 2021
Officer (SRO)
$0
Serves as a school resource officer at an
assigned location, providing both the
educational and response components of
the service. It is assumed that 100% of
each position's funding is paid for by their
school districts.
Elective:
Staffing is set the current number of
positions contracted for by the cities in
the study group.
0 0
CSO (Crime
Prevention)
$83,282
Activities may include CPTED
assessments, organizing and providing
crime free multi-housing programs, and
production of crime prevention materials,
among others. Roles may vary
significantly based on staffing levels and
the priorities of each individual city in
which they are assigned.
Elective:
Based on the priority and availability of
funding for the city. Staffing has been
set based on the current levels that
cities currently contract for.
0 0
CSO
(Community
Programs)
$83,282
Communicates with local community
groups, such as neighborhood watch
associations. Additionally, the position
may organize and provide educational
programs, crime prevention seminars,
and other community events. Activities
may vary significantly based on staffing
levels and the priorities of each individual
city in which they are assigned.
Elective:
Based on the priority and availability of
funding for the city. Staffing has been
set based on the current levels that
cities currently contract for.
0 0
Report on the Riverside County JPA Feasibility Study
Matrix Consulting Group Page 166
Area
|
Position
|
TPC
|
Role Description
Projection Factors 2016 2021
WILDOMAR POLICE SERVICES (South Region)
Captain
$207,525
Functions as the 'local police chief' of the
city, externally representing the JPA
model to the public. The position is also
responsible for communicating with city
officials to identify service priorities,
station administrative duties and
coordination with regional watch
command.
Does not scale:
The position functions in an executive
role. Shared position with Lake
Elsinore.
0.5 0.5
Administrative
Assistant
$74,123
Supports the captain and other local
staff.
Does not scale:
Does not scale, as the position is
staffed at a 1:1 ratio with
division/section executive.
1 1
Patrol
Operations
Sergeant
$171,265
Supervises both patrol officers and patrol
CSOs. Reports directly to watch
commanders on a daily operational
basis, though they are also commanded
by the local captain positions.
Span of control:
1 position for every 8 positions, with
patrol officers counted at 1.00x and
CSOs counted at 0.67x. An exception is
made for Wildomar, whose patrol
staffing levels are just above the ratio.
As with other communities, overtime
can be used to backfill positions to
provide supervision.
1 1
Report on the Riverside County JPA Feasibility Study
Matrix Consulting Group Page 167
Area
|
Position
|
TPC
|
Role Description
Projection Factors 2016 2021
Officer (Patrol)
$126,264
Responds to and handles calls for
service, completes reports, and performs
targeted enforcement, as well as other
proactive activities. Works alternating 12-
hour shifts.
Scales to service needs:
The position is staffed to achieve a
proactivity level of 40% overall – the
percentage of time officers have after
total workload hours (excluding those
handled by CSOs) have been factored
out of the total number of net available
hours.
10 10
CSO (Patrol)
$83,282
Responds to and handles certain types
of low-priority calls for service that do not
require a sworn officer, including non-
injury accidents, noise complaints, and
basic nuisance complaints. As a result,
they are able to divert workload that
would have otherwise been handled by
patrol officers, increasing their ability to
be proactive in the field. CSOs are also
able to function proactively, such as
conducting enforcement of parking and
vehicle abatement ordinances.
Scales to service needs/Directly relates
to other staffing levels:
Although the number of CSOs is
dependent on targets for reducing
sworn patrol workloads and the number
of positions needed to do so, levels
have been set based on achieving a
balance of about 1:5 patrol CSOs per
patrol officer (at a level of 40%
proactivity overall).
1 2
Community
Services
Sergeant
$171,265
Supervises any SROs, proactive policing
officers, crime prevention CSOs, and
community program CSOs that the city
elects to staff. If more than one
supervisor is needed, these functions are
divided between them.
Span of control:
1 FTE is allocated for every 9 direct
reports to the position.
0 0
Report on the Riverside County JPA Feasibility Study
Matrix Consulting Group Page 168
Area
|
Position
|
TPC
|
Role Description
Projection Factors 2016 2021
Officer
(Proactive
Team)
$126,264
Interfaces with the community and
conducts problem-oriented policing,
including nuisance abatement.
Elective:
Based on the priority and availability of
funding for the city. Staffing has been
set based on the current levels that
cities currently contract for.
0 0
Officer (SRO)
$0
Serves as a school resource officer at an
assigned location, providing both the
educational and response components of
the service. It is assumed that 100% of
each position's funding is paid for by their
school districts.
Elective:
Staffing is set the current number of
positions contracted for by the cities in
the study group.
0 0
CSO (Crime
Prevention)
$83,282
Activities may include CPTED
assessments, organizing and providing
crime free multi-housing programs, and
production of crime prevention materials,
among others. Roles may vary
significantly based on staffing levels and
the priorities of each individual city in
which they are assigned.
Elective:
Based on the priority and availability of
funding for the city. Staffing has been
set based on the current levels that
cities currently contract for.
0 0
CSO
(Community
Programs)
$83,282
Communicates with local community
groups, such as neighborhood watch
associations. Additionally, the position
may organize and provide educational
programs, crime prevention seminars,
and other community events. Activities
may vary significantly based on staffing
levels and the priorities of each individual
city in which they are assigned.
Elective:
Based on the priority and availability of
funding for the city. Staffing has been
set based on the current levels that
cities currently contract for.
0 0
Report on the Riverside County JPA Feasibility Study
Matrix Consulting Group Page 169
Area
|
Position
|
TPC
|
Role Description
Projection Factors 2016 2021
LAKE ELSINORE POLICE SERVICES (South Region)
Captain
$207,525
Functions as the 'local police chief' of the
city, externally representing the JPA
model to the public. The position is also
responsible for communicating with city
officials to identify service priorities,
station administrative duties and
coordination with regional watch
command.
Does not scale:
The position functions in an executive
role. Shared position with Wildomar.
0.5 0.5
Administrative
Assistant
$74,123
Supports the captain and other local
staff.
Does not scale:
Does not scale, as the position is
staffed at a 1:1 ratio with
division/section executive.
1 1
Patrol
Operations
Sergeant
$171,265
Supervises both patrol officers and patrol
CSOs. Reports directly to watch
commanders on a daily operational
basis, though they are also commanded
by the local captain positions.
Span of control:
1 position for every 8 positions, with
patrol officers counted at 1.00x and
CSOs counted at 0.67x.
4 4
Officer (Patrol)
$126,264
Responds to and handles calls for
service, completes reports, and performs
targeted enforcement, as well as other
proactive activities. Works alternating 12-
hour shifts.
Scales to service needs:
The position is staffed to achieve a
proactivity level of 40% overall – the
percentage of time officers have after
total workload hours (excluding those
handled by CSOs) have been factored
25 25
Report on the Riverside County JPA Feasibility Study
Matrix Consulting Group Page 170
Area
|
Position
|
TPC
|
Role Description
Projection Factors 2016 2021
out of the total number of net available
hours.
CSO (Patrol)
$83,282
Responds to and handles certain types
of low-priority calls for service that do not
require a sworn officer, including non-
injury accidents, noise complaints, and
basic nuisance complaints. As a result,
they are able to divert workload that
would have otherwise been handled by
patrol officers, increasing their ability to
be proactive in the field. CSOs are also
able to function proactively, such as
conducting enforcement of parking and
vehicle abatement ordinances.
Scales to service needs/Directly relates
to other staffing levels:
Although the number of CSOs is
dependent on targets for reducing
sworn patrol workloads and the number
of positions needed to do so, levels
have been set based on achieving a
balance of about 1:5 patrol CSOs per
patrol officer (at a level of 40%
proactivity overall).
5 6
Community
Services
Sergeant
$171,265
Supervises any SROs, proactive policing
officers, crime prevention CSOs, and
community program CSOs that the city
elects to staff. If more than one
supervisor is needed, these functions are
divided between them.
Span of control:
1 FTE is allocated for every 9 direct
reports to the position.
0 0
Officer
(Proactive
Team)
$126,264
Interfaces with the community and
conducts problem-oriented policing,
including nuisance abatement.
Elective:
Based on the priority and availability of
funding for the city. Staffing has been
set based on the current levels that
cities currently contract for.
2 2
Report on the Riverside County JPA Feasibility Study
Matrix Consulting Group Page 171
Area
|
Position
|
TPC
|
Role Description
Projection Factors 2016 2021
Officer (SRO)
$0
Serves as a school resource officer at an
assigned location, providing both the
educational and response components of
the service. It is assumed that 100% of
each position's funding is paid for by their
school districts.
Elective:
Staffing is set the current number of
positions contracted for by the cities in
the study group.
0 0
CSO (Crime
Prevention)
$83,282
Activities may include CPTED
assessments, organizing and providing
crime free multi-housing programs, and
production of crime prevention materials,
among others. Roles may vary
significantly based on staffing levels and
the priorities of each individual city in
which they are assigned.
Elective:
Based on the priority and availability of
funding for the city. Staffing has been
set based on the current levels that
cities currently contract for.
0 0
CSO
(Community
Programs)
$83,282
Communicates with local community
groups, such as neighborhood watch
associations. Additionally, the position
may organize and provide educational
programs, crime prevention seminars,
and other community events. Activities
may vary significantly based on staffing
levels and the priorities of each individual
city in which they are assigned.
Elective:
Based on the priority and availability of
funding for the city. Staffing has been
set based on the current levels that
cities currently contract for.
0 0
Report on the Riverside County JPA Feasibility Study
Matrix Consulting Group Page 172
Area
|
Position
|
TPC
|
Role Description
Projection Factors 2016 2021
MENIFEE POLICE SERVICES (South Region)
Captain
$207,525
Functions as the 'local police chief' of the
city, externally representing the JPA
model to the public. The position is also
responsible for communicating with city
officials to identify service priorities,
station administrative duties and
coordination with regional watch
command.
Does not scale:
The position functions in an executive
role.
1 1
Administrative
Assistant
$74,123
Supports the captain and other local
staff.
Does not scale:
Does not scale, as the position is
staffed at a 1:1 ratio with
division/section executive.
1 1
Patrol
Operations
Sergeant
$171,265
Supervises both patrol officers and patrol
CSOs. Reports directly to watch
commanders on a daily operational
basis, though they are also commanded
by the local captain positions.
Span of control:
1 position for every 8 positions, with
patrol officers counted at 1.00x and
CSOs counted at 0.67x.
4 4
Officer (Patrol)
$126,264
Responds to and handles calls for
service, completes reports, and performs
targeted enforcement, as well as other
proactive activities. Works alternating 12-
hour shifts.
Scales to service needs:
The position is staffed to achieve a
proactivity level of 40% overall – the
percentage of time officers have after
total workload hours (excluding those
handled by CSOs) have been factored
26 28
Report on the Riverside County JPA Feasibility Study
Matrix Consulting Group Page 173
Area
|
Position
|
TPC
|
Role Description
Projection Factors 2016 2021
out of the total number of net available
hours.
CSO (Patrol)
$83,282
Responds to and handles certain types
of low-priority calls for service that do not
require a sworn officer, including non-
injury accidents, noise complaints, and
basic nuisance complaints. As a result,
they are able to divert workload that
would have otherwise been handled by
patrol officers, increasing their ability to
be proactive in the field. CSOs are also
able to function proactively, such as
conducting enforcement of parking and
vehicle abatement ordinances.
Scales to service needs/Directly relates
to other staffing levels:
Although the number of CSOs is
dependent on targets for reducing
sworn patrol workloads and the number
of positions needed to do so, levels
have been set based on achieving a
balance of about 1:5 patrol CSOs per
patrol officer (at a level of 40%
proactivity overall).
5 6
Community
Services
Sergeant
$171,265
Supervises any SROs, proactive policing
officers, crime prevention CSOs, and
community program CSOs that the city
elects to staff. If more than one
supervisor is needed, these functions are
divided between them.
Span of control:
1 FTE is allocated for every 9 direct
reports to the position.
1 1
Officer
(Proactive
Team)
$126,264
Interfaces with the community and
conducts problem-oriented policing,
including nuisance abatement.
Elective:
Based on the priority and availability of
funding for the city. Staffing has been
set based on the current levels that
cities currently contract for.
5 5
Report on the Riverside County JPA Feasibility Study
Matrix Consulting Group Page 174
Area
|
Position
|
TPC
|
Role Description
Projection Factors 2016 2021
Officer (SRO)
$0
Serves as a school resource officer at an
assigned location, providing both the
educational and response components of
the service. It is assumed that 100% of
each position's funding is paid for by their
school districts.
Elective:
Staffing is set the current number of
positions contracted for by the cities in
the study group.
0 0
CSO (Crime
Prevention)
$83,282
Activities may include CPTED
assessments, organizing and providing
crime free multi-housing programs, and
production of crime prevention materials,
among others. Roles may vary
significantly based on staffing levels and
the priorities of each individual city in
which they are assigned.
Elective:
Based on the priority and availability of
funding for the city. Staffing has been
set based on the current levels that
cities currently contract for.
0 0
CSO
(Community
Programs)
$83,282
Communicates with local community
groups, such as neighborhood watch
associations. Additionally, the position
may organize and provide educational
programs, crime prevention seminars,
and other community events. Activities
may vary significantly based on staffing
levels and the priorities of each individual
city in which they are assigned.
Elective:
Based on the priority and availability of
funding for the city. Staffing has been
set based on the current levels that
cities currently contract for.
0 0
Report on the Riverside County JPA Feasibility Study
Matrix Consulting Group Page 175
Area
|
Position
|
TPC
|
Role Description
Projection Factors 2016 2021
TEMECULA POLICE SERVICES (South Region)
Captain
$207,525
Functions as the 'local police chief' of the
city, externally representing the JPA
model to the public. The position is also
responsible for communicating with city
officials to identify service priorities,
station administrative duties and
coordination with regional watch
command.
Does not scale:
The position functions in an executive
role.
1 1
Administrative
Assistant
$74,123
Supports the captain and other local
staff.
Does not scale:
Does not scale, as the position is
staffed at a 1:1 ratio with
division/section executive.
1 1
Patrol
Operations
Sergeant
$171,265
Supervises both patrol officers and patrol
CSOs. Reports directly to watch
commanders on a daily operational
basis, though they are also commanded
by the local captain positions.
Span of control:
1 position for every 8 positions, with
patrol officers counted at 1.00x and
CSOs counted at 0.67x.
6 6
Officer (Patrol)
$126,264
Responds to and handles calls for
service, completes reports, and performs
targeted enforcement, as well as other
proactive activities. Works alternating 12-
hour shifts.
Scales to service needs:
The position is staffed to achieve a
proactivity level of 40% overall – the
percentage of time officers have after
total workload hours (excluding those
handled by CSOs) have been factored
38 38
Report on the Riverside County JPA Feasibility Study
Matrix Consulting Group Page 176
Area
|
Position
|
TPC
|
Role Description
Projection Factors 2016 2021
out of the total number of net available
hours.
CSO (Patrol)
$83,282
Responds to and handles certain types
of low-priority calls for service that do not
require a sworn officer, including non-
injury accidents, noise complaints, and
basic nuisance complaints. As a result,
they are able to divert workload that
would have otherwise been handled by
patrol officers, increasing their ability to
be proactive in the field. CSOs are also
able to function proactively, such as
conducting enforcement of parking and
vehicle abatement ordinances.
Scales to service needs/Directly relates
to other staffing levels:
Although the number of CSOs is
dependent on targets for reducing
sworn patrol workloads and the number
of positions needed to do so, levels
have been set based on achieving a
balance of about 1:5 patrol CSOs per
patrol officer (at a level of 40%
proactivity overall).
18 18
Community
Services
Sergeant
$171,265
Supervises any SROs, proactive policing
officers, crime prevention CSOs, and
community program CSOs that the city
elects to staff. If more than one
supervisor is needed, these functions are
divided between them.
Span of control:
1 FTE is allocated for every 9 direct
reports to the position.
2 2
Officer
(Proactive
Team)
$126,264
Interfaces with the community and
conducts problem-oriented policing,
including nuisance abatement.
Elective:
Based on the priority and availability of
funding for the city. Staffing has been
set based on the current levels that
cities currently contract for.
15 15
Report on the Riverside County JPA Feasibility Study
Matrix Consulting Group Page 177
Area
|
Position
|
TPC
|
Role Description
Projection Factors 2016 2021
Officer (SRO)
$0
Serves as a school resource officer at an
assigned location, providing both the
educational and response components of
the service. It is assumed that 100% of
each position's funding is paid for by their
school districts.
Elective:
Staffing is set the current number of
positions contracted for by the cities in
the study group.
2.5 2.5
CSO (Crime
Prevention)
$83,282
Activities may include CPTED
assessments, organizing and providing
crime free multi-housing programs, and
production of crime prevention materials,
among others. Roles may vary
significantly based on staffing levels and
the priorities of each individual city in
which they are assigned.
Elective:
Based on the priority and availability of
funding for the city. Staffing has been
set based on the current levels that
cities currently contract for.
0 0
CSO
(Community
Programs)
$83,282
Communicates with local community
groups, such as neighborhood watch
associations. Additionally, the position
may organize and provide educational
programs, crime prevention seminars,
and other community events. Activities
may vary significantly based on staffing
levels and the priorities of each individual
city in which they are assigned.
Elective:
Based on the priority and availability of
funding for the city. Staffing has been
set based on the current levels that
cities currently contract for.
0 0
Report on the Riverside County JPA Feasibility Study
Matrix Consulting Group Page 178
Area
|
Position
|
TPC
|
Role Description
Projection Factors 2016 2021
COACHELLA POLICE SERVICES (East Region)
Captain
$207,525
Functions as the 'local police chief' of the
city, externally representing the JPA
model to the public. The position is also
responsible for communicating with city
officials to identify service priorities,
station administrative duties and
coordination with regional watch
command.
Does not scale:
The position functions in an executive
role.
1 1
Administrative
Assistant
$74,123
Supports the captain and other local
staff.
Does not scale:
The position is staffed at a 1:1 ratio with
division or section executive.
1 1
Patrol
Operations
Sergeant
$171,265
Supervises both patrol officers and patrol
CSOs. Reports directly to watch
commanders on a daily operational
basis, though they are also commanded
by the local captain positions.
Span of control:
1 position for every 8 positions, with
patrol officers counted at 1.00x and
CSOs counted at 0.67x.
3 3
Officer (Patrol)
$126,264
Responds to and handles calls for
service, completes reports, and performs
targeted enforcement, as well as other
proactive activities. Works alternating 12-
hour shifts.
Scales to service needs:
The position is staffed to achieve a
proactivity level of 40% overall – the
percentage of time officers have after
total workload hours (excluding those
handled by CSOs) have been factored
out of the total number of net available
hours.
15 17
Report on the Riverside County JPA Feasibility Study
Matrix Consulting Group Page 179
Area
|
Position
|
TPC
|
Role Description
Projection Factors 2016 2021
CSO (Patrol)
$83,282
Responds to and handles certain types
of low-priority calls for service that do not
require a sworn officer, including non-
injury accidents, noise complaints, and
basic nuisance complaints. As a result,
they are able to divert workload that
would have otherwise been handled by
patrol officers, increasing their ability to
be proactive in the field. CSOs are also
able to function proactively, such as
conducting enforcement of parking and
vehicle abatement ordinances.
Scales to service needs/Directly relates
to other staffing levels:
Although the number of CSOs is
dependent on targets for reducing
sworn patrol workloads and the number
of positions needed to do so, levels
have been set based on achieving a
balance of about 1:5 patrol CSOs per
patrol officer (at a level of 40%
proactivity overall).
3 3
Community
Services
Sergeant
$171,265
Supervises any SROs, proactive policing
officers, crime prevention CSOs, and
community program CSOs that the city
elects to staff. If more than one
supervisor is needed, these functions are
divided between them.
Span of control:
1 FTE is allocated for every 9 direct
reports to the position.
1 1
Officer
(Proactive
Team)
$126,264
Interfaces with the community and
conducts problem-oriented policing,
including nuisance abatement.
Elective:
Based on the priority and availability of
funding for the city. Staffing has been
set based on the current levels that
cities currently contract for.
7 7
Officer (SRO)
$0
Serves as a school resource officer at an
assigned location, providing both the
educational and response components of
the service. It is assumed that 100% of
Elective:
Staffing is set the current number of
positions contracted for by the cities in
the study group.
0 0
Report on the Riverside County JPA Feasibility Study
Matrix Consulting Group Page 180
Area
|
Position
|
TPC
|
Role Description
Projection Factors 2016 2021
each position's funding is paid for by their
school districts.
CSO (Crime
Prevention)
$83,282
Activities may include CPTED
assessments, organizing and providing
crime free multi-housing programs, and
production of crime prevention materials,
among others. Roles may vary
significantly based on staffing levels and
the priorities of each individual city in
which they are assigned.
Elective:
Based on the priority and availability of
funding for the city. Staffing has been
set based on the current levels that
cities currently contract for.
0 0
CSO
(Community
Programs)
$83,282
Communicates with local community
groups, such as neighborhood watch
associations. Additionally, the position
may organize and provide educational
programs, crime prevention seminars,
and other community events. Activities
may vary significantly based on staffing
levels and the priorities of each individual
city in which they are assigned.
Elective:
Based on the priority and availability of
funding for the city. Staffing has been
set based on the current levels that
cities currently contract for.
0 0
Report on the Riverside County JPA Feasibility Study
Matrix Consulting Group Page 181
6 Estimated Personnel Costs by Allocation Category
Dividing sworn staff into the three cost allocation categories outlined earlier in this
report on page 68: shared services (Class A), optional/subscription-based regional
services (Class B), and locally dedicated staff (Class C), overtime expenditures may be
estimated at an overall level for each cost category.
The results of this analysis will be used later in the analysis to develop the total
costs under each of the three allocation methods, enabling total position costs to be
developed at a comprehensive level.
(1) Personnel Costs Allocated Under Class A (Shared)
Among all staff included under Class A cost categories – those relating to services
that are shared between municipalities, such as support, administrative, and investigative
functions, personnel expenditures have been estimated from the total position costs.
These costs have been aggregated into the following table, which provides the
total FTEs and costs associated for Class A positions in both 2016 and 2021 projection
years, listed alphabetically by unit:
Summary of Class A (Shared) Personnel Costs
Total FTEs Total Personnel Costs
Functional Area 2016 2021 2016 2021
911 Communications 38 41 $3,232,065 $3,478,046
Command/Admin. 11 11 $2,196,144 $2,196,144
Crime Analysis 5 5 $456,324 $456,324
Crime Scene Unit 22 22 $1,823,282 $1,823,282
Finance/ Fiscal Mgmt. 15 15 $1,448,825 $1,448,825
Fleet and Facilities 13 13 $1,049,677 $1,049,677
Homicide Unit 4.5 4.5 $654,184 $508,171
Human Resources 6 6 $557,424 $557,424
Report on the Riverside County JPA Feasibility Study
Matrix Consulting Group Page 182
Total FTEs Total Personnel Costs
Functional Area 2016 2021 2016 2021
Information Technology 12 14 $1,186,292 $1,373,070
K9 Unit 6 6 $757,581 $757,581
Major Crimes (East) 4 4 $593,803 $593,803
Major Crimes (North) 32 34 $4,581,519 $4,893,630
Major Crimes (South) 18 19 $2,579,256 $2,860,948
Professional Standards 9 9 $1,346,731 $1,346,731
Property and Evidence 10 10 $743,989 $743,989
Public Information 2 2 $215,296 $215,296
Records Unit 24 26 $1,805,830 $1,946,195
Recruitment and Hiring 4 4 $497,915 $497,915
Sex Crimes Unit 5.5 5.5 $795,030 $508,171
Training Unit 4 5 $608,267 $692,404
Watch Command 9 9 $1,634,402 $1,634,402
Total 254 265 $28,763,838 $29,582,029
Overall, Class A staffing costs are projected to increase by about 4% from 2016 to
2021 as a result of changes to staffing needs resulting from population growth. However,
the increases do not include factors such as cost of living increases or adjustments to
CalPERS member category proportions.
(2) Personnel Costs Allocated Under Class B (Subscription-Based)
Total personnel costs for each unit allocated under the Class B category are
displayed in the following table:
Personnel Costs Allocated Under Class B (2016 – 2021)
Total FTEs Total Personnel Costs
Unit 2016 2021 2016 2021
Gang Task Force 7 7 $958,011 $958,011
Traffic Unit 55 59 $7,269,839 $7,774,893
Total 62 66 $8,227,850 $8,732,904
Report on the Riverside County JPA Feasibility Study
Matrix Consulting Group Page 183
The cost allocation shares by each city will be detailed as part of the total cost
allocation chapter later in the report.
(3) Personnel Costs Allocated Under Class C (Local) Costs
The following table displays the number of FTEs directly contracted for by
municipalities in the 2016 and 2021 projections, as well as the total cost figures for those
positions:
Allocation of Class C (Locally Dedicated) Personnel Costs
Total FTEs Total Personnel Costs
City 2016 2021 2016 2021
Coachella 31 33 $3,994,350 $4,246,877
Jurupa Valley 53 55 $6,690,223 $6,942,750
Lake Elsinore 37.5 38.5 $4,688,469 $4,771,750
Menifee 43 46 $5,468,550 $5,804,359
Moreno Valley 129 129 $15,744,305 $15,744,305
Perris 47 51 $5,973,604 $6,480,678
San Jacinto 36 39 $4,539,704 $4,918,495
Temecula 83.5 83.5 $9,842,804 $9,842,804
Wildomar 13.5 14.5 $1,695,067 $1,778,349
Total 473.5 489.5 $58,637,076 $60,530,367
From changes to staffing levels as a result of growth alone, personnel costs are
projected to grow by about 3% from 2016 to 2021, from an increase of 16.0 FTEs. This
does not take into account any changes to the cost of living adjustments or to the
calculation of CalPERS retirement costs – it represents the change in costs to provide the
same level of service given evolutions in service environments.
Report on the Riverside County JPA Feasibility Study
Matrix Consulting Group Page 184
9 Analysis of Non-Personnel Operating Costs
1. Limitations in Comparing Non-Personnel Operating Costs
The uniqueness of the JPA environment possesses a number of challenges for the
estimation of non-personnel operating costs, as many of the major cost categories would
be fundamentally different, limiting comparability with other agencies.
(1.1) Replacement Needs:
The cost of replacing the most categories of the JPA’s equipment will be
dramatically lower than other policing agencies. Whereas many departments are in the
long-term process of replacing preexisting needs such as technology upgrades, CAD
replacements, Tasers, office furniture, and firearms, among others, the JPA agency will
be starting out with all of those needs taken care of. The cost associated with
purchasing a complete and new stock equipment and vehicles have already been
represented in the analysis of startup costs. As a result, in many categories of
equipment replacement, the JPA will have significantly lower spending needs throughout
the first decade or so of its existence (until 2031).
(1.2) Internal Service Charges
The JPA is assumed fully integrated, in that all services are provided in-house.
Unlike city or county law enforcement agencies, the JPA cannot draw from internal
services such as human resources, fleet, and risk management that also serve other
departments. Typically, and as required by the Government Accounting Standards Board
(GASB), these services are costed for through internal service charges.
Report on the Riverside County JPA Feasibility Study
Matrix Consulting Group Page 185
The rates and costs assessed generally include the cost of supplies, as well as the
costs of labor involved. In the case of fleet, for instance, charges for vehicle maintenance
include both the parts and resources used in a repair, as well as the cost of the mechanics’
and support staff’s time to complete it. This issue renders comparisons of internal service
charges with other agencies limited in usability, given that the personnel costs associated
with these positions have already been estimated. Certain categories of internal service
charges, such as liability insurance, can still be estimated accurately.
2. Assumptions Used to Model Operating Costs
The following table outlines the key considerations and assumptions used to
project overtime and non-personnel operating costs:
Factor
Calculation Process
Overtime
It is assumed that practice and practice limit executive staff and civilian
employees from working overtime.
Lieutenants, detectives, sergeants, and officers are each assigned an
estimated number of overtime hours per year, with all hours assumed to
be worked at the 1.5x normal rate23.
Classification Base Pay 1.5x Rate OT Hrs. $/Year
Lieutenant $56.48 $84.72 14 $1,186
Sergeant $36.03 $54.05 50 $2,702
Detective $39.49 $59.24 30 $1,777
Officer $47.38 $71.07 130 $9,239
Overtime hours for personnel fall under the same Class A/B/C (shared,
subscription-based, or locally dedicated staff) cost allocation system that
personnel operation expenses are charged under. The breakdown of these
costs for both 2016 and 2021 projection levels will be shown later in this
report.
23 The normal rate is defined as the average base pay amount, divided by 2,184 – the total number
of paid hours in the negotiated 12-hour shift schedule. Detectives, by exception, work a 2,080-
hour schedule, and have a higher hourly base rate than sergeants, despite having a lower annual
salary.
Report on the Riverside County JPA Feasibility Study
Matrix Consulting Group Page 186
Factor
Calculation Process
Liability
Insurance
Research was completed on the average rate of liability insurance
payments relative to the number of sworn personnel among the cities
included in the compensation survey. These costs will be assessed at a
rate of $4,841 per year for every sworn FTE.
As with overtime expenses, liability insurance costs fall under the Class
A/B/C cost allocation system. The breakdown of these costs for both 2016
and 2021 projection levels will be shown later in this report.
Vehicle Repair
Costs
Parts and repairs are estimated at $320 per non-patrol vehicle and $800
per patrol vehicle (2.5x the non-patrol rate). These rates are based on
industry standards and the experience of the project team.
The following table displays these rates by vehicle type,
Type # Rate/Yr. Total Cost
Patrol Vehicles24 180 $800 $144,000
Others 111 $320 $35,520
Vehicle maintenance costs are assessed as Class A costs, and the total
repair cost of $179,520 per year will be divided according to the
proportional formula.
Other Operating
Costs
Research was conducted on non-personnel operating costs in the
comparative cities, excluding cost categories under internal service
charges – as the major categories of these costs have been estimated
separately.
These costs have built into an approximate rate per sworn FTE, with the
costs associated with civilian employees being built into this number. This
also includes fees paid to other agencies, such to as the Riverside County
Sheriff’s Department for booking fees, as well as legal fees associated with
the JPA. Costs relating to the establishment of the agency are not,
however, included.
A total of $15,500 per sworn FTE will be applied to account for these
various operating cost categories.
24 Includes interceptors and supervisor vehicles. CSO vehicles are not included within this total.
Because fleet purchase costs relate directly to agency startup costs, only one maintenance and
fleet size figure is used for both 2016 and 2021 projection levels.
Report on the Riverside County JPA Feasibility Study
Matrix Consulting Group Page 187
3. Estimated Non-Personnel Operating Expenses
As in the personnel costs section, operating costs relating to sworn staff have been
divided among the three cost allocation categories outlined earlier in this report on page
68 – shared services (Class A), optional/subscription-based regional services (Class B),
and locally dedicated staff (Class C), overtime expenditures may be estimated at an
overall level for each cost category. The results of this analysis will be used later in the
analysis to develop the total costs under each of the three allocation methods, enabling
total position costs to be developed at a comprehensive level.
(1) Operating and Overtime Expenses Allocated Under Class A (Shared)
Class A costs represent services shared between cities that are not part of a
regional task force or contribution-based funding model. It also functions as an inclusive
overhead rate, taking into account administrative, support, most investigative functions,
and others that are not directly contracted for by individual cities. As a result, staffing for
these positions is set by the JPA agency’s system of governance. Under the currently
designed organizational structure of the JPA, this includes all positions that are not locally
dedicated, excluding those within the Traffic Unit or Violent Offender/Gang Task Force.
(1.1) Class A Overtime Costs
For staff included under the first cost allocation category, assumptions have made
regarding overtime usage by classification level, using the base wage rate to develop an
annualized cost per FTE. The following table displays total overtime costs at both 2016
and 2021 staffing levels:
Report on the Riverside County JPA Feasibility Study
Matrix Consulting Group Page 188
2016 Class A (Shared) Overtime Costs
Classification OT Cost/FTE FTEs Total Cost
Lieutenant $1,186 14 $16,604
Sergeant $2,702 13 $35,126
Detective $1,777 53 $94,181
Officer $9,239 11 $101,629
Total – 91 $247,540
2021 Class A (Shared) Overtime Costs
Classification OT Cost/FTE FTEs Total Cost
Lieutenant $1,186 14 $16,604
Sergeant $2,702 14 $37,828
Detective $1,777 55 $97,735
Officer $9,239 11 $101,629
Total – 94 $253,796
Over the five-year period, overtime costs are projected to grow by about 2.5%, or
directly proportional to the increases in staff relative to personnel categories.
(1.2) Class A Non-Personnel Operating Costs
Assuming $4,841 liability costs $15,500 in aggregate operating costs per sworn
FTE in, total operating costs under Class A are then able to be calculated:
Class A (Shared) Operating Costs
Category 2016 2021
0 0 0
Liability Costs/FTE $4,841 $4,841
Operating Costs/FTE $15,500 $15,500
# of Sworn FTE 100 103
Subtotal-Operating $2,034,100 $2,095,123
Vehicle Repair Costs 179,520 179,520
Overtime Costs 247,540 253,796
Total $2,461,160 $2,528,439
Report on the Riverside County JPA Feasibility Study
Matrix Consulting Group Page 189
The vehicle repair costs include those for all types of positions, rather than only
those that are centrally staffed or part of a shared services unit. Furthermore, these totals
will later be allocated among the nine municipalities according to the proportional system
outlined in the cost allocation chapter.
(2) Operating and Overtime Expenses Allocated Under Class B (Subscription-
based)
Class B overtime costs follow a slightly different model, where a fixed number, at
60 hours per year, is assumed for personnel at all position levels. These costs are
distributed according to the level of contribution that is electively made by each
participating city, by unit. The process for these calculations is detailed in the total cost
allocation chapter of the report.
(3) Operating and Overtime Expenses Allocated Under Class C (Local)
The process is then used to determine operating costs for Class C positions, which
represent all locally dedicated positions. Because locally dedicated positions are directly
allocated and contracted for by municipalities, the calculation is more straightforward –
each city pays for 100% of the overtime and operating costs of the personnel it staffs.
(3.1) Class C (Local) Overtime Costs
The following two tables display estimated overtime for the 2016 and 2021
projection periods, using the same assumptions for the number of overtime hours by
position used in shared cost allocation:
Report on the Riverside County JPA Feasibility Study
Matrix Consulting Group Page 190
2016 Class C (Local) Overtime Costs
City Sgt. $/FTE Ofc. $/FTE Total OT
309.5 49 0 9 0 0 0
Coachella 4 $2,703 1 22 $9,239 $214,070
Jurupa Valley 6 $2,703 1 38 $9,239 $367,301
Lake Elsinore 4 $2,703 1 27 $9,239 $260,266
Menifee 5 $2,703 1 31 $9,239 $299,925
Moreno Valley 13 $2,703 1 90 $9,239 $866,652
Perris 5 $2,703 1 35 $9,239 $336,881
San Jacinto 4 $2,703 1 25 $9,239 $241,788
Temecula 8 $2,703 1 55.5 $9,239 $534,390
Wildomar 1 $2,703 1 10 $9,239 $95,094
369.5 66 1 13 1 3 13
Total 50 – 0 333.5 – $3,216,365
2021 Class C (Local) Overtime Costs
City Sgt. $/FTE Ofc. $/FTE Total OT
309.5 49 0 9 0 0 0
Coachella 4 $2,703 1 24 $9,239 $232,548
Jurupa Valley 6 $2,703 1 40 $9,239 $385,779
Lake Elsinore 4 $2,703 1 27 $9,239 $260,266
Menifee 5 $2,703 1 33 $9,239 $318,403
Moreno Valley 13 $2,703 1 90 $9,239 $866,652
Perris 6 $2,703 1 37 $9,239 $358,062
San Jacinto 4 $2,703 1 28 $9,239 $269,505
Temecula 8 $2,703 1 55.5 $9,239 $534,390
Wildomar 1 $2,703 1 10 $9,239 $95,094
13
Total 51 – 0 344.5 – $3,320,697
Despite an addition of 11 officers and 1 sergeant, the increase in overtime costs
from 2016 to 2021 would be relatively, totaling around $104,333. These tables also
provide an important point that, as a Class C cost, the usage of overtime is transparent
and within the control of the contracting city – cities are not billed for the use of overtime
by patrol in other areas.
Report on the Riverside County JPA Feasibility Study
Matrix Consulting Group Page 191
(3.2) Class C (Local) Non-Personnel Operating Costs
The following table displays liability and aggregated operating costs for locally
dedicated positions, with costs determined by the number of staff that each city
specifically contracts for:
Allocation of Class C (Local) Operating Costs, 2016
City
# of
Sworn
Liability
Costs/FTE
Misc. Op.
Costs/FTE
Subtotal –
Op. Costs
Total OT
Total
Operating
309.5 0 9 9 9 49 0
Coachella 27 $4,841 $15,500 $549,207 $214,070 $763,277
Jurupa Valley 45 $4,841 $15,500 $915,345 $367,301 $1,282,646
Lake Elsinore 31.5 $4,841 $15,500 $640,742 $260,266 $901,007
Menifee 37 $4,841 $15,500 $752,617 $299,925 $1,052,542
Moreno Valley 104 $4,841 $15,500 $2,115,464 $866,652 $2,982,116
Perris 41 $4,841 $15,500 $833,981 $336,881 $1,170,862
San Jacinto 30 $4,841 $15,500 $610,230 $241,788 $852,018
Temecula 64.5 $4,841 $15,500 $1,311,995 $534,390 $1,846,385
Wildomar 11.5 $4,841 $15,500 $233,922 $95,094 $329,015
369.5 1 13 13 13 66 13
Total 392 – – $7,963,502 $3,216,365 $11,179,866
Allocation of Class C (Local) Operating Costs, 2021
City
# of
Sworn
Liability
Costs/FTE
Misc. Op.
Costs/FTE
Subtotal –
Op. Costs
Total OT
Total
Operating
309.5 0 9 9 9 49 0
Coachella 29 $4,841 $15,500 $589,889 $232,548 $822,437
Jurupa Valley 47 $4,841 $15,500 $956,027 $385,779 $1,341,806
Lake Elsinore 31.5 $4,841 $15,500 $640,742 $260,266 $901,007
Menifee 39 $4,841 $15,500 $793,299 $318,403 $1,111,702
Moreno Valley 104 $4,841 $15,500 $2,115,464 $866,652 $2,982,116
Perris 44 $4,841 $15,500 $895,004 $358,062 $1,253,066
San Jacinto 33 $4,841 $15,500 $671,253 $269,505 $940,758
Temecula 64.5 $4,841 $15,500 $1,311,995 $534,390 $1,846,385
Wildomar 11.5 $4,841 $15,500 $233,922 $95,094 $329,015
369.5 1 13 13 13 66 13
Total 404 – – $8,207,594 $3,320,697 $11,528,291
Report on the Riverside County JPA Feasibility Study
Matrix Consulting Group Page 192
As shown in the previous tables, the number of sworn personnel that are
contracted for in each city has been multiplied by the liability and miscellaneous operating
cost factors. The subtotal resulting from this calculating is then added to the total overtime
costs from sergeants and officers, calculated in the previous set of tables. It is also worth
noting that one additional sworn position has been added from the previous overtime
tables, representing the captain assigned to the section. No overtime is factored in for
that position.
In total, Class C (locally dedicated) operating costs are estimated to grow by
approximately 3.1% over the entire five-year period.
Report on the Riverside County JPA Feasibility Study
Matrix Consulting Group Page 193
10 Analysis of Agency Startup Costs
1. Introduction
As part of the feasibility study, the project team completed an assessment of the
estimated costs of establishing the agency outside of expenditures relating to recurring
operational costs. The project team has developed this summary to provide an initial
analysis of the startup cost of facilities, equipment, vehicles, and IT infrastructure
necessary to start a modern police agency. The costs were identified through a number
of sources including interviews, current RFPs for similar systems, and extensive research
on prices across a number of industry sources. The analysis is meant to give a baseline
cost estimate that provides enough detail to give decision makers a reasonable estimate
of what it would cost to start a JPA. Key assumptions that were made:
• Each city would have a physical police substation located within their boundaries.
• The JPA would have its own dispatch center.
• Officers and vehicles would be equipped in a similar manner to the Riverside
County Sheriff’s office.
• The JPA would not include a dedicated SWAT Team, Task force members or Air
support.
• Three of the municipal substations would also serve as regional hubs, with one of
them additionally functioning as the JPA agency headquarters.
2. Facility Costs
The proposed JPA would include ten separate buildings with a headquarters, three
regional and nine police stations. To reduce costs, headquarters and regional buildings
would be co-located with police stations.
Report on the Riverside County JPA Feasibility Study
Matrix Consulting Group Page 194
(1) Methodology Used for Building Cost Estimates
A project cost estimate was prepared to a new headquarters building base on
average construction/direct costs in the region and a percentage for owner’s indirect
costs. For average construction/ direct costs, the 2016 Square Foot Cost guide by RS
Means was used. The green building standard for Police Departments was consulted and
included a location factor of 1.15. For the average owner’s/ indirect costs, a factor of 20%
was applied to the average construction/ direct cost based on the industry standards and
the consultant’s experience (i.e., construction cost of $250/ sf results in a project cost of
$300/sq. ft.). In total, this resulted in a figure of $402.96 per sq. ft.
Project cost does account for average construction and owner costs
(architectural/engineering fees, project management fees, furniture/fixture/equipment
fees, typical site development and contingencies. Project cost does not account for land
acquisition, site development or utility construction beyond normal circumstances,
financing cost, or permitting fees. Please note that this cost estimate does not take into
account inflation and should be used for planning purposes only. Actual construction cost
will vary depending on the design of the facility.
Report on the Riverside County JPA Feasibility Study
Matrix Consulting Group Page 195
(2) Overview of Facility Needs and Projected Costs
The following table provides these estimates by building:
JPA Facility Needs and Cost Estimates
Type of Building Location Sq. Ft. Cost
Headquarters
(co-located with North Regional) Moreno Valley 26,467 $10,665,223
North Regional Hub Moreno Valley 7,300 $2,941,447
East Regional Hub
(co-located with Coachella Station) Coachella 3,238 $1,304,623
South Regional Hub Wildomar 4,111 $1,656,649
Coachella Station Coachella 2,469 $994,908
Jurupa Valley Station Jurupa Valley 2,632 $1,060,430
Lake Elsinore Station Lake Elsinore 2,502 $1,008,206
Menifee Station Menifee 2,567 $1,034,318
Moreno Valley Station Moreno Valley 4,216 $1,698,718
Perris Station Perris 2,653 $1,069,133
San Jacinto Station San Jacinto 2,437 $982,094
Temecula Station Temecula 3,330 $1,341,857
Wildomar Station
(co-located with South Regional) Wildomar 1,440 $580,262
Total 65,362 $23,337,869
Report on the Riverside County JPA Feasibility Study
Matrix Consulting Group Page 196
3. Fleet Costs
The proposed JPA would include 291 vehicles in six different configurations
depending on the requirements of each assignment. For general patrol functions, we
recommend approximately one vehicle for every 2.5 officers in the field. This accounts for
multiple work shifts, required maintenance, and days off.
The following series of tables provides detailed breakdowns of the various costs
associated with the purchase and outfitting of each type of vehicle used by the JPA
agency:
Marked Vehicles
Ford Interceptor Utility (FIU) $32,000
Mobile Computer with mounting $7,000
Electronic Release Shotgun / Rifle Rack $550
Rear Cargo Organizer Racks (Lockable) $2,000
Mobile Radio (800 MHz) $4,200
Prisoner Seats $1,000
Prisoner Partition $2,000
Light Bar with controller $1,200
Additional grill, rear and side warning lights $300
Siren $200
Decals and Wraps $500
Labor and Installation $5,000
Cost Per Unit $55,950
Total Vehicles Needed 135
Total Cost $7,553,250
Report on the Riverside County JPA Feasibility Study
Matrix Consulting Group Page 197
Supervisor Vehicles
Ford Interceptor Utility (FIU) $32,000
Mobile Computer with mounting $7,000
Electronic Release Shotgun / Rifle Rack $550
Rear Cargo Organizer Racks (Lockable) $2,000
Mobile Radio (800 MHz) $4,200
Light Bar with controller $1,200
Additional grill, rear and side warning lights $300
Siren $200
Decals and Wraps $500
Decals and Wraps $500
Labor and Installation $3,000
Cost Per Unit $51,450
Total Vehicles Needed 45
Total Cost $2,315,250
Admin. and Undercover Vehicles
Chevy Impala $26,000
Mobile Radio (800 MHz) $4,200
Additional grill, rear and side warning lights $300
Light and siren controller $400
Siren $200
Labor and Installation $2,000
Cost Per Unit $33,100
Total Vehicles Needed 66
Total Cost $2,184,600
Community Service Officer (CSO) Vehicles
Chevy Impala $26,000
Mobile Radio (800 MHz) $4,200
Decals and Wraps $500
Labor and Installation $1,000
Cost Per Unit $31,700
Total Vehicles Needed 33
Total Cost $1,046,100
Report on the Riverside County JPA Feasibility Study
Matrix Consulting Group Page 198
Crime Scene Vehicles
Ford Transit Connect $22,000
Mobile Radio (800 MHz) $4,200
Decals and Wraps $500
Labor and Installation $1,000
Cost Per Unit $27,700
Total Vehicles Needed 10
Total Cost $277,000
Property and Evidence Vehicles
Ford Transit $31,000
Mobile Radio (800 MHz) $4,200
Decals and Wraps $500
Labor and Installation $1,000
Cost Per Unit $36,700
Total Vehicles Needed 2
Total Cost $73,400
Overall, the purchase of 180 patrol/interceptor and 111 non-patrol vehicles
amounts to a total cost of $13,449,600.
4. Information Technology Infrastructure and Equipment
The proposed JPA would include necessary IT infrastructure to operate the agency
out of ten separate buildings. For the purposes of this analysis the project team included
the minimum number of servers, desktops and software needed.
Report on the Riverside County JPA Feasibility Study
Matrix Consulting Group Page 199
Projected IT Infrastructure Costs
Type of Infrastructure # Needed Unit Price Cost
Servers
Dispatch 4 $10,000 $40,000
Records Management 4 $10,000 $40,000
Station Hubs 9 $10,000 $90,000
Desk top computers 210 $1,200 $252,000
Printers 27 $200 $5,400
Scanner/ Copier 12 $11,000 $132,000
Misc. Network equipment. 1 $20,000 $20,000
Software
Firewall Software (Licenses) Mult. Licenses $10,000 $10,000
MS Suite (with email) 1 yr. cost 700 Licenses $168,000 $168,000
Integrated CAD/RMS System Mult-Yr. contract $1,200,000 $1,200,000
SQL (Client Access License) 17 servers $14,000 $238,000
Total: $2,195,400
Overall, the cost of purchasing the information technology equipment needed to
establish the agency totals $2,195,400, including networking equipment, desktop
hardware, and other electronics and software needs, such as printers and Microsoft Office
licenses.
5. Personnel Equipment Needs
The proposed JPA would include typical personally issued equipment. These
prices reflect the current retail costs and do not factor in reasonable discounts that an
agency of this size would receive due to its negotiating power. Many large agencies
negotiate lower prices through large quantity purchases. Typical equipment includes a
firearm, uniforms, portable radios and ballistic vests.
Report on the Riverside County JPA Feasibility Study
Matrix Consulting Group Page 200
The following series of tables provides detailed cost breakdowns of outfitting each
major personnel category:
Breakdown of Sworn Equipment Costs
Item Description Cost
Sidearm – 9 MM Glock, Model 17, w/ Three Magazines $540
Trijicon Night Sites $80
Protective Vest – Level IIIA $499
Portable Radio + Lapel Microphone + Radio Belt Holder
(Motorola) $4,200
Flashlight – Stream light, “STIRONr”, 7 inches, W/ AC
Charger, 40,000 Cdl $118
2 Long Sleeve Shirts, 5.11 -Wash & Wear ($51.99 ea.) $104
2 Short Sleeve Shirts, 5.11 Wash & Wear (51.99 ea.) $104
2 Pants, Wash & Wear, ($51.99 ea.) $104
Patrol Jacket $150
Safariland level III Holster $125
Baton Ring $7
Bianchi Double Cuff Case $32
Bianchi Double Magazine Pouch $26
Duty Utility Belt -5.11 (Outer belt) $50
Uniform Pant Belt (Inner belt) $12
Sabre Red Pepper Spray $15
Pepper Spray holder- 5.11 $18
Riot Helmet (Ballistic) $656
Belt “Keepers”, (4) $13
Badge Shield, Gold Plate (1) $76
Name Bar (2) $15
ASP expandable Baton – 26” $105
ASP expandable Baton holder $45
Smith and Wesson Handcuffs, (2) - $23.99 ea. $48
Helmet face shield $125
Gas Mask- Advantage 1000 w/filter $544
Report on the Riverside County JPA Feasibility Study
Matrix Consulting Group Page 201
Item Description Cost
Equipment Bag $50
Taser X2 $1,399
Taser X2 Holster $90
Taser X2 Cartridges (2) $80
Total Outfitting Cost Per Sworn FTE $9,429
# of Sworn 556
Total Sworn Equipment Costs $5,237,832
Breakdown of Additional Sworn Equipment Costs
Item Description Cost
Remington 870 12 gage shotgun $425
Colt AR15 w/ EOTEC red dot sites $1,625
Protech Mighty Mike Entry Shield $1,705
# of Sworn 556
% Receiving Equipment 50%
Total Cost of Additional Equipment $1,042,951
Breakdown of CSO Equipment Costs
Item Description Cost
Portable Radio + Lapel Microphone + Radio Belt Holder (Motorola) $4,200
Flashlight – Stream light, “STIRONr”, 7 inches, W/ AC Charger, 40,000 Cdl $118
2 Wash and Wear Polo with embroidered insignia $60
2 Pants, Wash & Wear, ($51.99 per) $104
Patrol Jacket $150
Duty Utility Belt -5.11 (Outer belt) $50
Uniform Pant Belt (Inner belt) $12
Sabre Red Pepper Spray $15
Pepper Spray holder- 5.11 $18
Belt “Keepers”, (4) $13
Equipment Costs Per CSO $4,739
# of CSOs 64
Total Equipment Costs for 55 CSOs (55) $303,310
Report on the Riverside County JPA Feasibility Study
Matrix Consulting Group Page 202
Summary of Equipment Costs
Category # of FTEs Cost
Sworn Officer
(Includes Sergeants and Command)
555.5 $5,237,832
Community Service Officer
(Unarmed)
64.0 $303,310
Additional Equipment
(Limited deployment of rifles,
shotguns and ballistic shields)
277.8 $1,042,951
Total Equipment Costs $6,584,093
Combining the equipment needs of sworn personnel and CSOs, including
additional field equipment, equipment needs total over $6.5 million, or approximately 49%
the cost of purchasing and outfitting the agency’s entire fleet.
6. Dispatch System
The proposed JPA would include the setup and operation of a trunked 800 MHz
radio system with a single (PSAP) Public Safety Access Point commonly referred to as a
911 center. The anticipated cost would include towers, antennas and repeaters, to cover
323 square miles. The following table lists the features and total price of implementing a
dispatch system:
System Includes:
323. Sq. mile service area
Repeaters/ All necessary cell towers
16 Talk Groups
764 to 869Mhz frequency Range
Digitally Encrypted digital voice Trans.
Dispatch Control Center
IP/MPLS network routers and switches
Report on the Riverside County JPA Feasibility Study
Matrix Consulting Group Page 203
System Includes:
Multiple System Failure Alarms
Central Dispatch Redundancy
6 dispatch consoles
All Transmitter sites have battery back up
15-year maintenance
Up to 800 subscribers (authorized radios)
TOTAL COST: $15,000,000
At $15,000,000 dispatch infrastructure represents a significant startup cost, which
is particularly notable given the potential for alternative methods of 911 communications
services to be provided.
7. Sworn Hiring Bonuses
The goal of hiring over 550 sworn officers by 2021 is substantial, if not
monumental. This is particularly difficult in the current hiring environment, which is marked
by high levels of competition among law enforcement agencies for recruits, as well as the
ability for officers in California to complete lateral moves relatively easily. Even when
considering changes to the size of the law enforcement job market in the future, the JPA’s
ability to potentially hire in the wake of the changes would by no means be automatic,
and perhaps very difficult.
Despite these challenges, the competitive sworn hiring market may also work to
the advantage of the JPA agency should the right compensatory incentives be provided.
As part of the research completed by the project team to develop the compensation
survey, one relatively uncommon technique used by cities to attract sworn candidates
was to offer a form of ‘signing bonus’. While these are not technically considered bonuses,
they are typically made as part of a contractually negotiated benefit in which new officers
Report on the Riverside County JPA Feasibility Study
Matrix Consulting Group Page 204
(particularly lateral hires) are paid a lump sum amount following a certain period of
successful employment, often between one and two years. Given the potential of this
technique as a means of hiring significant numbers of officers within a short time frame,
the JPA should make it a priority to do so, framing it as a semi-temporary startup expense
of establishing the agency.
Considering the numbers that the JPA agency would need to hire in a relatively
short time frame, the signing bonus should be significant – upwards of at least $8,000 to
$11,000. To retain its attractiveness as a compensation piece, it should be paid out over
no more than two years. Depending on needs and applicant pools at the time of
recruitment, differential benefits can be offered to new entry level candidates and lateral
hires. Assuming that a $10,000 benefit is paid out to all new sworn hires, at 551 sworn
FTEs, this would equate to a total cost of $5,555,000.
8. Summary of JPA Agency Startup Costs
The following table combines the total costs from each of the major startup cost
sections covered in this chapter:
Summary of Estimated JPA Agency Startup Costs
Category Cost
Facilities $23,337,869
Fleet $13,449,600
Equipment $6,584,093
Information Technology $2,195,400
Dispatch $15,000,000
Sworn Hiring Incentives $5,550,000
Total $66,116,962
Report on the Riverside County JPA Feasibility Study
Matrix Consulting Group Page 205
At over $66 million, the total startup costs involved in establishing the agency are
significant, and are roughly equivalent to the total cost of running the agency for nine
months.
9. Amortization of Capital Costs
The analysis assumes that capital costs are paid for through the JPA issuing a
municipal bond. To calculate associated costs, the following assumptions are used for
the bond:
Characteristics of JPA-Issued Bond
Principal Amount $66,116,962
Term 10 years
Interest Type Fixed
Interest Rate 5.0%
Under these assumptions, amortization of the total amount of $66,116,962 works
out as follows, assuming a level annual payment of the principal amount, as opposed to
payment method built around a level annual debt service amount:
Estimated Debt Service for JPA-Issued Bond
Year Principal Interest Debt Service
2021 6,611,696 3,305,848 9,917,544
2022 6,611,696 2,975,263 9,586,959
2023 6,611,696 2,644,678 9,256,375
2024 6,611,696 2,314,094 8,925,790
2025 6,611,696 1,983,509 8,595,205
2026 6,611,696 1,652,924 8,264,620
2027 6,611,696 1,322,339 7,934,035
2028 6,611,696 991,754 7,603,451
2029 6,611,696 661,170 7,272,866
2030 6,611,696 330,585 6,942,281
Total $66,116,962 $18,182,165 $84,299,127
Report on the Riverside County JPA Feasibility Study
Matrix Consulting Group Page 206
In order to compare JPA costs directly against RSD costs using 2016 cost
assumptions, the average debt service payment will be used – $8,429,913. It is worth
noting that variability in interest rates (if not a fixed interest rate), as well as differences in
expected versus actual startup capital costs, may affect the payment schedule
experienced by the JPA.
Report on the Riverside County JPA Feasibility Study
Matrix Consulting Group Page 207
11 Total Cost Allocations and Analysis Findings
1. Analysis of Total JPA Agency Costs
The following sections calculate total cost allocations for each of the three cost
baskets, representing shared, subscription-based, and locally dedicated staff and
operating expenses. Worksheets will be provided by the project team that allow for these
calculations to be streamlined and largely automated.
(1) Summary of Cost Allocation Process.
As discussed in the chapter focusing on cost allocation, a three-tier structure is
used to allocate JPA costs, as outlined in the earlier chapter:
Three Categories for Cost Allocation
Cost Category
Description Examples
Class A
Cities pay a proportional share based a
formula consisting of the following factors:
– 40% Population
– 25% Total Calls for Service
– 35% Number of Locally Dedicated Staff
Information technology,
core detectives, fleet,
finance
Shared costs
Class B
Cities pay based on their electively set level
of contribution to a specialty unit.
Traffic, gang task force
Subscription-based
Class C
Full position and operating costs of locally
dedicated staff
Patrol, crime prevention,
POP teams Local costs
Any type of non-capital cost, whether relating to equipment or personnel, fall into
one of these three baskets. For the purposes of clarity, the following sections will examine
the total costs of establishing and running a JPA for each unit under this structure, with
each cost class examined separately.
Report on the Riverside County JPA Feasibility Study
Matrix Consulting Group Page 208
For each of the three cost baskets, the general framework that is used to determine
total costs are as follows
(i) Determine Proportional Shares (Classes A and B only): How are costs allocated
on a pro rata basis, if applicable?
(ii) Calculate personnel costs: Determined form the total position costs of all salary
and benefit factors.
(iii) Calculate non-personnel operating costs: Liability insurance, overtime, and
operating expenses based on the number of sworn staff)
(iv) Addition of cost factors: The subtotals are combined to produce the cost of each
allocation category, which are then aggregated into the total cost of running the
JPA agency.
The following sections will examine the estimated total costs under each category
individually before combining them into a single total cost amount for 2016 and 2021.
(2) Class A (Shared) Total Costs
Class A positions and their associated costs are allocated among municipalities
according to a hybrid formula that balances out considerations of equity and use of
services, weighting three factors into an aggregate score, as follows:
• (40%) Population: Percentage of the total JPA population that each city
represents, weighted the most out of the three factors.
• (25%) Calls for Service: Percentage of total community-generated calls for service
that each city’s individual total represents.
• (35%) Number of Locally Dedicated Staff: Number of positions contracted for
directly (under Class C) by a city, calculated as a percentage of the total number
for the JPA.
Having previously determined the total operating and personnel costs that fall
under the Class A cost area, the actual proportions for each city are then calculated based
on this methodology.
Report on the Riverside County JPA Feasibility Study
Matrix Consulting Group Page 209
(2.1) Determining Pro Rata Shares for Class A Costs
The following tables display the percentages represented by each city for the three
metrics at 2016 and 2021 staffing levels, in addition to the resulting aggregate score:
Calculation of 2016 Class A Pro Rata Shares
(40%) (25%) (35%)
% of Pop. % of CFS % of LD Staff % Share
Coachella 6% 5% 7% 6.0%
Jurupa Valley 13% 12% 11% 12.1%
Lake Elsinore 8% 8% 8% 8.1%
Menifee 11% 9% 9% 10.1%
Moreno Valley 27% 29% 27% 27.5%
Perris 10% 10% 10% 10.0%
San Jacinto 6% 9% 8% 7.3%
Temecula 15% 13% 18% 15.2%
Wildomar 5% 3% 3% 3.7%
Total 100% 100% 100% 100%
Calculation of 2021 Class A Proportional Shares
(40%) (25%) (35%)
% of Pop. % of CFS % of LD Staff % Share
Coachella 6% 6% 7% 6.1%
Jurupa Valley 12% 12% 11% 11.8%
Lake Elsinore 9% 9% 8% 8.5%
Menifee 12% 10% 9% 10.4%
Moreno Valley 26% 28% 26% 26.6%
Perris 10% 10% 10% 10.2%
San Jacinto 6% 9% 8% 7.3%
Temecula 15% 13% 17% 15.2%
Wildomar 5% 3% 3% 3.9%
Total 100% 100% 100% 100%
From 2016 to 2021, some cities pay relatively higher proportional costs, while
others pay less, highlighting the need for annual recalculation of these costs.
Report on the Riverside County JPA Feasibility Study
Matrix Consulting Group Page 210
(2.2) Allocation of Total Class A (Shared) Costs
The resulting Class A shares for both 2016 and 2021 are then used to divide total
personnel and operating costs that are allocated under that category among the nine
cities participating in the study:
2016 Class A (Shared) Cost Allocations
City % Share Personnel Operating Total Costs
0 0 0
Coachella 6.0% $1,726,990 $147,769 $1,874,759
Jurupa Valley 12.1% $3,486,707 $298,338 $3,785,045
Lake Elsinore 8.1% $2,342,915 $200,470 $2,543,385
Menifee 10.1% $2,903,388 $248,427 $3,151,815
Moreno Valley 27.5% $7,896,075 $675,623 $8,571,698
Perris 10.0% $2,875,168 $246,012 $3,121,180
San Jacinto 7.3% $2,105,532 $180,159 $2,285,690
Temecula 15.2% $4,357,891 $372,880 $4,730,771
Wildomar 3.7% $1,069,172 $91,483 $1,160,655
Total 100.0% $28,763,838 $2,461,160 $31,224,998
2021 Class A (Shared) Cost Allocations
City % Share Personnel Operating Total Costs
0 0 0
Coachella 6.1% $1,820,555 $154,086 $1,974,641
Jurupa Valley 11.8% $3,534,264 $299,128 $3,833,392
Lake Elsinore 8.5% $2,550,725 $215,885 $2,766,610
Menifee 10.4% $3,102,066 $262,548 $3,364,615
Moreno Valley 26.6% $7,956,648 $673,424 $8,630,072
Perris 10.2% $3,036,283 $256,981 $3,293,263
San Jacinto 7.3% $2,191,173 $185,453 $2,376,626
Temecula 15.2% $4,528,689 $383,293 $4,911,982
Wildomar 3.9% $1,153,654 $97,641 $1,251,295
Total 100.0% $29,874,057 $2,528,439 $32,402,496
Report on the Riverside County JPA Feasibility Study
Matrix Consulting Group Page 211
Overall, costs under Class A (shared) allocations are estimated to experience an increase
of around 4% from 2016 to 2021.
(3) Class B (Subscription-Based Costs)
Class B costs are based on the level that a city participates in a regionalized
service. This practice enables cities to prioritize their involvement with certain specialized
services that benefit significantly from regionalization, still retaining access to specialized
services that some smaller departments do not have. Class B costs are relatively limited
for these reasons, however – in the current organization structure of the proposed JPA
agency, only two areas fall under the Class B cost area: The Traffic Unit and Violent
Offender/Gang Unit.
Total personnel costs for each unit allocated under the Class B category are
displayed in the following table:
Personnel Costs Allocated Under Class B (2016 – 2021)
Total FTEs Total Personnel Costs
Unit 2016 2021 2016 2021
Gang Task Force 7 7 $958,011 $958,011
Traffic Unit 55 59 $7,269,839 $7,774,893
Total 62 66 $8,227,850 $8,732,904
At under $9 million in personnel costs, Class B costs represent a relatively small
share of the agency’s total expenditures.
Report on the Riverside County JPA Feasibility Study
Matrix Consulting Group Page 212
(3.1) Traffic Unit (Class B)
Costs are allocated according to the percentage of traffic enforcement positions
that cities currently staff for, reflecting the system of contribution-based funding for
regional specialty units:
2016 Traffic Unit Cost Shares
City % Share Personnel Operating Total Cost
North Jurupa Valley 12.5% $908,730 $168,496 $1,077,226
Moreno Valley 20.8% $1,514,550 $280,827 $1,795,376
Perris 8.3% $605,820 $112,331 $718,151
San Jacinto 8.3% $605,820 $112,331 $718,151
South Lake Elsinore 8.3% $605,820 $112,331 $718,151
Menifee 8.3% $605,820 $112,331 $718,151
Temecula 33.3% $2,423,280 $449,322 $2,872,602
Total 100.0% $7,269,839 $1,347,967 $8,617,807
Overtime has been set at fixed rates of 60 hours per position, regardless of
classification. The same calculations are made for 2021 staffing levels, which have been
scaled in proportion to population growth:
2021 Traffic Unit Cost Shares
City % Share Personnel Operating Total Cost
North Jurupa Valley 12.5% $1,072,184 $199,125 $1,271,309
Moreno Valley 20.8% $1,786,974 $331,874 $2,118,848
Perris 8.3% $714,790 $132,750 $847,539
San Jacinto 8.3% $714,790 $132,750 $847,539
South Lake Elsinore 8.3% $714,790 $132,750 $847,539
Menifee 8.3% $714,790 $132,750 $847,539
Temecula 33.3% $2,859,159 $530,999 $3,390,157
Total 100.0% $8,577,476 $1,592,996 $10,170,472
Report on the Riverside County JPA Feasibility Study
Matrix Consulting Group Page 213
Traffic is by far the larger of the two specialty units, with 55 positions in 2016 and
65 in 2021.
(3.2) Violent Offender/Gang Unit (Class B)
The Violent Offender/Gang Unit has not been set to scale in proportion to growth,
and retains fixed staffing levels through 2021:
Violent Offender/Gang Unit Cost Shares (2016 and 2021)
City # % Share Personnel Operating Total Cost
Coachella 2 22.2% $212,891 $212,891 $425,783
Jurupa Valley 0 0.0% – – –
Lake Elsinore 0 0.0% – – –
Menifee 1 11.1% $106,446 $106,446 $212,891
Moreno Valley 1 11.1% $106,446 $106,446 $212,891
Perris 3 33.3% $319,337 $319,337 $638,674
San Jacinto 1 11.1% $106,446 $106,446 $212,891
Temecula 1 11.1% $106,446 $106,446 $212,891
Total 9 100.0% $958,011 $169,794 $1,916,022
While nine deputy positions were contracted for in current contract staffing, these
assignments were reorganized into a unit comprising of seven sworn personnel – one
sergeant, two detectives, and four officers.
(3.3) Allocation of Total Class B (Subscription-Based) Costs
Class B costs remain relatively stable, reflecting an increase of about $1.5 million
in costs from 2016 to 2021, as shown in the following table:
Report on the Riverside County JPA Feasibility Study
Matrix Consulting Group Page 214
Total Class B (Subscription-Based) Costs, 2016 and 2021
City 2016 2021
0
Coachella $425,783 $425,783
Jurupa Valley $1,077,226 $1,271,309
Lake Elsinore $718,151 $847,539
Menifee $931,042 $1,060,431
Moreno Valley $2,008,268 $2,331,740
Perris $1,356,825 $1,486,213
San Jacinto $931,042 $1,060,431
Temecula $3,085,494 $3,603,049
Wildomar $0 $0
Total $10,533,829 $12,086,495
The figures displayed in this table represent the combined cost allocated to each
city in the two previous tables showing costs for both the Gang/Violent Offender Task
Force and Traffic Unit.
(4) Class C (Locally Dedicated) Costs
Unlike Class A and Class B costs, personnel and related operating costs under
Class C are not shared between cities. Locally dedicated staff are paid for entirely by the
city contracting for them, and includes functions such as patrol, crime prevention, and
community programming.
The sections describing Class C costs follow the same format as in Class A,
sequentially moving from personnel costs (total position costs), to operating costs
(overtime, liability insurance, and a share of aggregate operating expenditures), and
finally to the combined allocation of the three cost elements.
Report on the Riverside County JPA Feasibility Study
Matrix Consulting Group Page 215
Combining the figures from the previous tables, it is possible to then calculate the
total shares each city pays for the locally staffed positions the model recommends they
contract for in 2016 and 2021:
2016 Total Class C (Locally Dedicated) Costs
City Personnel Operating Total Costs
0 0 0
Coachella $3,994,350 $763,277 $4,757,627
Jurupa Valley $6,690,223 $1,282,646 $7,972,869
Lake Elsinore $4,688,469 $901,007 $5,589,476
Menifee $5,468,550 $1,052,542 $6,521,092
Moreno Valley $15,744,305 $2,982,116 $18,726,421
Perris $5,973,604 $1,170,862 $7,144,466
San Jacinto $4,539,704 $852,018 $5,391,722
Temecula $9,842,804 $1,846,385 $11,689,188
Wildomar $1,695,067 $329,015 $2,024,082
Total $58,637,076 $11,179,866 $69,816,943
The same calculations are made for the 2021 projection year as well:
2021 Total Class C (Locally Dedicated) Costs
City Personnel Operating Total Costs
0 0 0
Coachella $4,246,877 $822,437 $5,069,315
Jurupa Valley $6,942,750 $1,341,806 $8,284,556
Lake Elsinore $4,771,750 $901,007 $5,672,757
Menifee $5,804,359 $1,111,702 $6,916,061
Moreno Valley $15,744,305 $2,982,116 $18,726,421
Perris $6,480,678 $1,253,066 $7,733,744
San Jacinto $4,918,495 $940,758 $5,859,252
Temecula $9,842,804 $1,846,385 $11,689,188
Wildomar $1,778,349 $329,015 $2,107,364
Total $60,530,367 $11,528,291 $72,058,658
Report on the Riverside County JPA Feasibility Study
Matrix Consulting Group Page 216
At just under $65 million in aggregated spending for locally dedicated staff, the
total number is approximately twice those relating to centralized/shared service costs.
(5) Total Costs of Running the JPA Agency
Combining all three cost areas together, the resulting total represents the total
annual cost of the JPA agency, excluding any startup cost obligations:
2016 Total JPA Agency Costs (Excluding Startup Expenses)
City Class A Class B Class C Total Costs %
0 0 0 0.0%
Coachella $1,874,759 $425,783 $4,757,627 $7,058,169 6.3%
Jurupa Valley $3,785,045 $1,077,226 $7,972,869 $12,835,140 11.5%
Lake Elsinore $2,543,385 $718,151 $5,589,476 $8,851,012 7.9%
Menifee $3,151,815 $931,042 $6,521,092 $10,603,949 9.5%
Moreno Valley $8,571,698 $2,008,268 $18,726,421 $29,306,387 26.3%
Perris $3,121,180 $1,356,825 $7,144,466 $11,622,472 10.4%
San Jacinto $2,285,690 $931,042 $5,391,722 $8,608,454 7.7%
Temecula $4,730,771 $3,085,494 $11,689,188 $19,505,453 17.5%
Wildomar $1,160,655 $0 $2,024,082 $3,184,737 2.9%
Total $31,224,998 $10,533,829 $69,816,943 $111,575,772 100.0%
These calculations are then repeating for 2021 costs, combining each of the three
cost allocation subtotals into a single cost for running the JPA:
Report on the Riverside County JPA Feasibility Study
Matrix Consulting Group Page 217
2021 Total JPA Agency Costs (Excluding Startup Expenses)
City Class A Class B Class C Total Costs %
0 0 0 0.0%
Coachella $1,974,641 $425,783 $5,069,315 $7,469,738 6.4%
Jurupa Valley $3,833,392 $1,271,309 $8,284,556 $13,389,257 11.5%
Lake Elsinore $2,766,610 $847,539 $5,672,757 $9,286,906 8.0%
Menifee $3,364,615 $1,060,431 $6,916,061 $11,341,106 9.7%
Moreno Valley $8,630,072 $2,331,740 $18,726,421 $29,688,232 25.5%
Perris $3,293,263 $1,486,213 $7,733,744 $12,513,220 10.7%
San Jacinto $2,376,626 $1,060,431 $5,859,252 $9,296,310 8.0%
Temecula $4,911,982 $3,603,049 $11,689,188 $20,204,219 17.3%
Wildomar $1,251,295 $0 $2,107,364 $3,358,659 2.9%
Total $32,402,496 $12,086,495 $72,058,658 $116,547,648 100.0%
As a result of the projected increases in staffing needs from 2016 to the expected
JPA start date of 2021 – without accounting for cost of living increases or inflation – the
total cost of operating the agency will increase by 4.5% over the five-year period. This
equates to an average increase of about 1% per year, far lower than the historic change
to the costs of contracting with RSD. However, as notes before, these figures do not take
into account startup costs, or increase in expenditures relating to inflation or the cost of
living, among other variable factors.
(6) Total JPA Costs with Amortized Startup Costs
Using the same proportions developed to allocate Class A (shared) costs, shares
for debt service related to startup expenses – at a total of $8,429,913 – can be distributed
among the nine JPA cities and added to general costs (all non-startup expenditures):
Report on the Riverside County JPA Feasibility Study
Matrix Consulting Group Page 218
2016 Total JPA Agency Costs
(Including Amortized Startup Expenses)
City Share General Debt Service Full Costs
0 0 0 0
Coachella 6.0% $7,469,738 $506,135 $7,975,873
Jurupa Valley 12.1% $13,389,257 $1,021,861 $14,411,117
Lake Elsinore 8.1% $9,286,906 $686,646 $9,973,552
Menifee 10.1% $11,341,106 $850,906 $12,192,012
Moreno Valley 27.5% $29,688,232 $2,314,129 $32,002,361
Perris 10.0% $12,513,220 $842,635 $13,355,855
San Jacinto 7.3% $9,296,310 $617,075 $9,913,385
Temecula 15.2% $20,204,219 $1,277,181 $21,481,401
Wildomar 3.7% $3,358,659 $313,346 $3,672,005
Total 100.0% $116,547,648 $8,429,913 $124,977,561
With the amortized startup costs factored in, the full cost of running the JPA runs
to approximately $125 million using 2016 figures.
2. Conclusions and Findings from the JPA Analysis
Having fully calculated the estimated costs of establishing and running a JPA
question, the analysis is now able to provide a comparison of its costs against those for
continuing to contract with RSD for law enforcement services. Other important
considerations include examining reasons for the cost differences, as well as any
potential volatility in the cost of either option.
(1) Compared with current RSD contracts, the JPA can provide services at a
reduced cost – even after factoring in startup and capital costs.
The following table compares the current cost of contracts for service with RSD
versus the fully developed estimations for establishing and running the JPA, Including the
amortized startup costs developed in the previous section:
Report on the Riverside County JPA Feasibility Study
Matrix Consulting Group Page 219
RSD Contract Cost vs JPA Costs (2016; Includes Startup Expenses)
City RSD Costs JPA Costs +/-%
0 0 0
Coachella $7,538,758 $7,975,873 +5.8%
Jurupa Valley $15,843,197 $14,411,117 -9.0%
Lake Elsinore $11,799,477 $9,973,552 -15.5%
Menifee $10,770,641 $12,192,012 +13.2%
Moreno Valley $39,834,484 $32,002,361 -19.7%
Perris $14,694,422 $13,355,855 -9.1%
San Jacinto $9,993,198 $9,913,385 -0.8%
Temecula $25,694,620 $21,481,401 -16.4%
Wildomar $2,667,300 $3,672,005 +37.7%
Total $138,836,097 $124,977,561 -10.0%
The results demonstrate that a JPA could be run with relatively low overhead and
support function costs, even including core services such as investigations within the
regional portion of the model. Economies of scale have been maximized in this
configuration, to the point where the JPA’s estimated costs would be less even for a
remote city such as Coachella than those contracted for with RSD.
To this point, comparisons made using the would-be 2016 JPA costs against the
current RSD contract costs may be the most useful for adding perspective to the results
of feasibility analysis. While these comparisons do have some limitations, the analysis
strongly concludes that a JPA organized and operated in an efficient manner could
provide a high level of service under a comparatively lower annual operating cost. In fact,
compared to the current aggregate contract cost of $138,836,097 charged by RSD among
the nine cities included in the study, the estimated price tag of running the JPA at 2016
staffing levels, at $124,977,561 –including amortized startup expenses – is approximately
10.0% lower.
Report on the Riverside County JPA Feasibility Study
Matrix Consulting Group Page 220
(2) Considerations Regarding Pension Liabilities
As discussed in the descriptive profile of current services, the direct rate charged
by the Riverside County Sheriff’s Department for patrol hours and supporting costs has
risen steadily in recent times, with the last four fiscal years experiencing average annual
increases of about 4.2%. CalPERS costs have undoubtedly has played an important role
in driving the rate’s growth, as has been the case with many other California law
enforcement agencies. To this point, for a number of agencies, the additional funding
burdens that must be covered are expected to continue to rise over the next several years.
While the massive reforms instituted by PEPRA ensuring that revenue into the
system would be maintained with new members (hired 2013 or later), the level of benefits
that agencies will be required to bear for these employees is much lower. As the
percentage of members under the lower-benefit “new member” category increases, the
value of vested benefits can be expected to level out to a degree.
However, as the state fund underperforms, the shortfalls are transferred to the total
normal cost, or the rate at which agencies are required to contribute to the system to
cover unfunded liabilities. With CalPERS having recently – and significantly – lowered its
long-term earnings forecast within the last quarter, the potential for funding gaps to be
ultimately born by taxpayers is relatively more significant than was the case in the 1990s
and early 2000s.
It may be speculated that these issues would potentially pose a greater risk to RSD
contract costs than it does for the JPA, as the agency would be created without any
pension liabilities present. The JPA agency would also be relatively is also well-guarded
Report on the Riverside County JPA Feasibility Study
Matrix Consulting Group Page 221
against pension cost increases, as it begins with a very high proportion of new CalPERS
members affected by PEPRA, as well as a civilian compensation plan that follows a
defined contribution system. Given these considerations, any future increases to the total
normal cost rates of CalPERS would very likely affect RSD’s contract cost to a greater
degree than it would the JPA’s, at least for the foreseeable future.
These contrasts are amplified by the exclusion of civilian personnel from CalPERS
retirement plans in the modeled JPA compensation structure. Furthermore, given the
higher overall cost of operating under the RSD service model, any proportional growth in
the cost of living would consequently result in higher nominal increases to total RSD costs
than would be true for the JPA. As a result of these factors, it the relative costs of the JPA
and RSD service models must also be carefully considered from a perspective of risk
relating to future increases to costs and liabilities, as well as which is better prepared to
mitigate the impacts of these variables and offer greater flexibility in making cost
allocation and staffing decisions.
(3) Key Attributes of the JPA Driving Cost Effectiveness
There are other factors to consider in this, such as startup costs, specific services
that the JPA does not attempt to duplicate, and others. However, it is important to first
note some of the main advantages of the JPA in comparison with RSD’s model that allow
it to operate at a lower cost without sacrificing core services:
• Risk-Mitigating Compensation Structure:
– The JPA compensation plan features an attractive pay schedule, as well as
signing payments to encourage lateral recruiting, ample overtime
opportunities, and an incentive pay schedule with up to +20% additional pay
for many sworn personnel.
Report on the Riverside County JPA Feasibility Study
Matrix Consulting Group Page 222
– However, these considerations are balanced by a pension plan that relies
on having a high proportion of PEPRA-affected “new” CalPERS members
that vest benefits at a much lower rate. Additionally, civilian personnel are
not offered CalPERS membership, and are instead provided a defined
benefit plan.
– For both sworn and civilian personnel, retirement health benefits also
operate as a defined benefit. While pay is relatively on the higher side of its
peers, risks and potential funding liabilities are avoided. An increase in
CalPERS costs and/or liabilities, either due to agency revenue loss or
underperformance of CalPERS in the market, would bear a much greater
impact on other agencies than it would on the JPA.
• Lack of Specialized Functions:
– Many large agencies, such as RSD, have a number of specialized units or
divisions that focus on specific crimes or issues. The JPA retains a relatively
lean organizational structure for an agency of its size.
– The only regionally deployed field units within the JPA organization are the
Traffic Unit and the Violent Offenders/Gang Task Force. It does not include
specialized functions such as street crimes, special investigations,
counterterrorism, organized crime, robbery, narcotics, or VICE.
– Regardless of the effectiveness that these units may have, specialization
can lead to the mitigation, an even reversing, of the economies of scale
gained in larger police agencies.
– Some structural barriers exist toward increases in organizational complexity
– the assignment of specialty regional functions to its own cost allocation
method (Class B), limits the regionalization of spending relating to specific
issues.
• Use of Civilian Personnel:
– This is widely practiced among contract cities in the Riverside Sheriff’s
Office, though it is worth noting the JPA extensively utilizes civilian
personnel to handle low-priority calls and divert workload away from sworn
patrol resources.
• Investments in Infrastructure:
– A significant investment up front in information management systems,
hardware, and other software used in administrative processes, minimizes
the need for personnel in records and certain other types of staff, due to
Report on the Riverside County JPA Feasibility Study
Matrix Consulting Group Page 223
reduction in data entry functions and database management. The costs of
these infrastructure purchases are shared among the JPA cities.
Many of these changes would require significant organizational or political will to
accomplish in a large agency – the creation of a JPA represents a significant opportunity
to shape these considerations to a degree that would otherwise be impossible. The
analysis demonstrates the potential in creating such an agency, as well as its ability to be
a highly cost effective agency while still maintaining a high level of service to the
communities it serves. As a result of these considerations, the analysis of the study
concludes and recommends that the contract cities move forward with the process of
establishing the feasibility of establishing a regional JPA law enforcement agency.
Report on the Riverside County JPA Feasibility Study
Matrix Consulting Group Page 224
APPENDIX: Summary of Compensation Survey Results
1. Introduction and Overview of Survey Methodology
In order to provide a baseline for the estimation of these costs, the project team
conducted a salary survey of comparable municipalities, collecting comprehensive data
relating to compensation packages offered to both sworn and civilian employees.
(1) Selection Criteria
Cities were selected according to the following criteria.
• The most important characteristic for selection in the survey were cities within
Riverside County that currently retain their own police department.
• Cities were also selected for their proximity to other RSD contract cities included
in the study.
• Additionally, economic factors were also included – among non-contract cities that
are near ones included in the study, certain exclusions were made based on highly
significant differences in median household income levels of the area, which in turn
would affect the compensation packages offered to employees.
• All full-time employees in each of the cities surveyed were members of CalPERS,
including both sworn and non-sworn personnel.
• Nearby agencies in San Bernardino County were excluded for lack of
comparability, while one city in San Diego County was, however, included.
From these considerations, the following cities were chosen, all of which are
located within California:
• Corona
• Desert Hot Springs
• Escondido
• Hemet
• Indio
Report on the Riverside County JPA Feasibility Study
Matrix Consulting Group Page 225
• Murrieta
• Palm Springs
• Riverside (City)
• Riverside County (sworn positions only)
(2) Data Obtained Through the Salary Survey
The research efforts of the compensation survey were comprehensive,
documenting both pay and benefit structures determined through collective bargaining
units. Extensive data was gathered to provide a detailed account of all positions that may
be relevant to a JPA agency, including both civilian and sworn positions. When comparing
sworn positions, data from Riverside County Sheriff’s Department was also included. The
following list outlines the main categories of information that were obtained in the survey
for each position are:
• Minimum and maximum annual compensation: While the characteristics of
step-by-step progressions in pay schedules may vary between different bargaining
units, in order to be able to reasonably compare different jurisdictions, it was
necessary to first reduce the level of detail down to minimum and maximum pay
for each position.
• Other direct compensation: One-time payments stipulated in contracts, as well
as compensation that be considered as a signing bonus.
• CalPERS contributions: Spending on retirement/pension systems. Different
benefit systems are provided, with employees either falling into two categories:
‘classic’ CalPERS members (pre-2011), and ‘new’ CalPERS members (post-
2013). For each type of system, the three main items of information gathered are
as follows:
– Retirement age: The age threshold required for employees to vest benefits.
For new CalPERS members in the survey group, the average age is over
five years higher than it is for classic members.
– Pension Coefficient: the percentage of an employee’s highest/final salary
level that is awarded in the plan, whether it is taken calculated from the
single-highest year or taken as an average over three years.
Report on the Riverside County JPA Feasibility Study
Matrix Consulting Group Page 226
– Employee cost/contribution: Employee contribution/cost requirements,
including what – if any – contribution the city makes toward those
requirements.
• Medical Insurance: Spending on medical plans for active employees. Subgroups
of this category include Dental and Vision insurance, which in many cases are
lumped into overall health insurance benefits.
• Retiree Medical Insurance: City expenditures or contributions made toward
health insurance plans for retired employees.
• Other types of insurance: Spending on other categories of insurance, such as
long-term disability, short-term disability, and life insurance.
• Allowances: Benefits that either directly provide value to employees, or reimburse
them for certain types of expenses. Types of these benefits include meal
reimbursement, tuition allowance, and others.
• Assignment-based Incentive Pay: Modifications to regular pay based on the
assignment of a certain schedule or role. These include shift differential pay (e.g.,
for night or swing shifts), specialized assignment pays (e.g., FTO, K9, motors,
patrol supervision, SWAT team roles, etc.).
• Attainment-based Incentive pay: Modifications to an employee’s regular pay rate
based on a variety of different factors, including the following:
– Educational attainment (e.g., bachelor’s degree, master’s degree, etc.)
– POST certification level (i.e., intermediate or advanced)
– Supervisory certification
– Bilingual language abilities
– Longevity, or pay awarded after meeting certain thresholds of employment
duration in the department
2. Summary of Key Compensation Survey Results
The following table, which is presented over a series of pages, provides several
key data elements gathered as part of the compensation survey research, including
minimum pay, maximum pay, single and family medical insurance allowances, and
CalPERS benefit levels for both classic and new (tiers 1 and 2) members. Sworn positions
have been highlighted in blue.
Report on the Riverside County JPA Feasibility Study
Matrix Consulting Group Page 227
Summary of Compensation Survey Results by Aggregated Classifications
Base Pay Classic Members New Members Medical Ins.
Category Min Max % Age % Age Single Family
911 Comm. Director $83,034 $94,644 3.0% 60 2.0% 62 $2,691 $7,597
Riverside – Public Safety Comm Mgr E $87,000 $96,378 – – – – $00 $00
Escondido – Pub Safety Communications Mgr $79,068 $92,910 3.0% 60 2.0% 62 $5,382 $15,194
Accounting Clerk I $39,255 $44,061 2.8% 57 2.0% 62 $9,268 $13,595
Hemet – Accountant $49,920 $56,832 2.7% 55 2.0% 62 $12,346 $12,346
Murrieta – Accounting Assistant $37,518 $41,560 2.7% 55 2.0% 62 $15,663 $15,663
Murrieta – Accounting Specialist $41,411 $45,874 2.7% 55 2.0% 62 $15,663 $15,663
Murrieta – Accounting Technician $44,917 $49,757 2.7% 55 2.0% 60 $10,001 $10,001
Riverside – Accounting Technician $47,256 $52,338 2.7% 55 2.0% 62 $7,380 $13,200
Corona – Accounting Technician I $37,104 $41,202 2.7% 55 2.0% 62 $3,552 $9,240
Hemet – Accounting Technician I $34,464 $39,240 2.7% 55 2.0% 62 $12,337 $12,337
Indio – Accounting Technician I $41,310 $51,172 2.7% 55 2.0% 62 $15,900 $15,900
Escondido – Account Clerk I $31,116 $34,464 3.0% 60 2.0% 62 $5,382 $15,194
Escondido – Account Clerk II $34,344 $38,040 3.0% 60 2.0% 62 $5,382 $15,194
Escondido – Accounting Assistant I $31,116 $34,464 3.0% 60 2.0% 62 $5,382 $15,194
Escondido – Accounting Assistant II $34,344 $38,040 3.0% 60 2.0% 62 $5,382 $15,194
Escondido – Sr Account Clerk $39,828 $44,118 3.0% 60 2.0% 62 $5,382 $15,194
Report on the Riverside County JPA Feasibility Study
Matrix Consulting Group Page 228
Base Pay Classic Members New Members Medical Ins.
Category Min Max % Age % Age Single Family
Accounting Clerk II $48,765 $55,700 2.8% 56 2.0% 62 $7,293 $12,112
Corona – Accountant I $50,052 $55,578 2.7% 55 2.0% 62 $3,552 $9,240
Riverside – Accountant I $54,624 $60,528 2.7% 55 2.0% 62 $7,380 $13,200
Corona – Accountant II $53,940 $59,892 2.7% 55 2.0% 62 $3,552 $9,240
Corona – Accounting Technician II $40,992 $45,522 2.7% 55 2.0% 62 $3,552 $9,240
Hemet – Accounting Technician II $39,972 $45,510 2.7% 55 2.0% 62 $12,337 $12,337
Indio – Accounting Technician II $46,796 $57,968 2.7% 55 2.0% 62 $15,900 $15,900
Corona – Accounting Technician III $45,300 $50,298 2.7% 55 2.0% 62 $3,552 $9,240
Hemet – Accounting Technician III $43,044 $49,008 2.7% 55 2.0% 62 $12,337 $12,337
Escondido – Accountant I $50,976 $59,898 3.0% 60 2.0% 62 $5,382 $15,194
Escondido – Accountant II $61,956 $72,798 3.0% 60 2.0% 62 $5,382 $15,194
Accounting Manager $75,168 $86,891 2.7% 55 2.0% 62 $9,062 $13,745
Hemet – Accounting Manager $86,628 $101,364 2.7% 55 2.0% 62 $12,346 $12,346
Corona – Accounting Supervisor $74,220 $82,410 2.7% 55 2.0% 62 $3,552 $9,240
Hemet – Accounting Supervisor $59,820 $69,990 2.7% 55 2.0% 62 $12,346 $12,346
Palm Springs – Accounting Supervisor $80,004 $93,798 2.7% 55 2.0% 62 $8,004 $21,048
Report on the Riverside County JPA Feasibility Study
Matrix Consulting Group Page 229
Base Pay Classic Members New Members Medical Ins.
Category Min Max % Age % Age Single Family
Administrative Assistant $42,665 $48,812 2.7% 55 2.0% 62 $7,463 $13,078
Riverside – Admin Assist $38,100 $44,598 2.7% 55 2.0% 62 $7,380 $13,200
Corona – Administrative Assistant $40,992 $45,522 2.7% 55 2.0% 62 $3,552 $9,240
Hemet – Administrative Assistant $47,904 $54,516 2.7% 55 2.0% 62 $12,337 $12,337
Palm Springs – Administrative Assistant $58,068 $68,052 2.7% 55 2.0% 62 $8,004 $21,048
Corona – Administrative Assistant I $40,992 $45,522 2.7% 55 2.0% 62 $3,552 $9,240
Corona – Administrative Assistant II $44,184 $49,062 2.7% 55 2.0% 62 $3,552 $9,240
Indio – Administrative Secretary $46,796 $57,968 2.7% 55 2.0% 62 $15,900 $15,900
Palm Springs – Administrative Secretary $50,028 $58,674 2.7% 55 2.0% 62 $8,004 $21,048
Corona – Management Services Assistant I $41,820 $46,440 2.7% 55 2.0% 62 $3,552 $9,240
Corona – Management Services Assistant II $45,300 $50,298 2.7% 55 2.0% 62 $3,552 $9,240
Corona – Office Manager $49,800 $55,296 2.7% 55 2.0% 62 $3,552 $9,240
Riverside – Police Admin Spec $35,916 $42,024 – – – – $00 $00
Hemet – Public Safety Office Specialist $31,944 $35,388 2.7% 55 2.0% 62 $12,346 $12,346
Murrieta – Secretary $40,900 $45,307 2.7% 55 2.0% 61 $12,832 $12,832
Palm Springs – Secretary $38,700 $45,378 2.7% 55 2.0% 60 $7,818 $21,005
Palm Springs – Secretary, Senior $42,732 $50,100 2.7% 55 2.0% 60 $7,818 $21,005
Corona – Senior Administrative Assistant $45,300 $50,298 2.7% 55 2.0% 62 $3,552 $9,240
Indio – Senior Administrative Assistant $59,158 $73,281 2.7% 55 2.0% 62 $15,900 $15,900
Riverside – Senior Office Spec $35,136 $39,990 2.7% 55 2.0% 62 $7,380 $13,200
Escondido – Administrative Aide $29,616 $32,802 3.0% 60 2.0% 62 $5,382 $15,194
Escondido – Administrative Assistant $34,344 $38,040 3.0% 60 2.0% 62 $5,382 $15,194
Report on the Riverside County JPA Feasibility Study
Matrix Consulting Group Page 230
Base Pay Classic Members New Members Medical Ins.
Category Min Max % Age % Age Single Family
Administrative Services Manager $95,734 $107,911 3.0% 51 2.1% 62 $17,410 $18,391
Indio – Administrative Services Manager $90,844 $112,531 3.0% 50 2.7% 57 $15,900 $15,900
Corona – Administrative Services Manager I $87,492 $97,152 3.0% 50 2.0% 62 $19,102 $19,102
Corona – Administrative Services Manager II $94,296 $104,706 3.0% 50 2.0% 62 $19,102 $19,102
Corona – Administrative Services Manager III $101,616 $112,836 3.0% 50 2.0% 62 $19,102 $19,102
Corona – Administrative Services Manager IV $129,756 $144,078 3.0% 50 2.0% 62 $19,102 $19,102
Corona – Public Safety Administration Manager I $94,296 $104,706 3.0% 50 2.0% 62 $19,102 $19,102
Corona – Public Safety Administration Manager II $97,152 $107,880 3.0% 50 2.0% 62 $19,102 $19,102
Corona – Public Safety Administration Manager
III $101,616 $112,836 3.0% 50 2.0% 62 $19,102 $19,102
Corona – Support Services Manager $91,968 $102,120 3.0% 50 2.0% 62 $19,102 $19,102
Escondido – Police Business Mgr $68,304 $80,262 3.0% 60 2.0% 62 $5,382 $15,194
Assistant Chief $143,718 $174,984 3.0% 50 2.7% 57 $2,722 $7,722
Riverside – Assist Police Chief Nc $158,640 $198,630 – – – – $00 $00
Escondido – Asst Chief of Police $128,796 $151,338 3.0% 50 2.7% 57 $5,443 $15,443
Captain $132,104 $149,441 3.0% 50 2.6% 57 $9,517 $12,792
Corona – Police Captain $145,524 $161,586 3.0% 50 2.0% 62 $19,102 $19,102
Hemet – Police Captain $113,400 $129,060 3.0% 50 2.7% 57 $12,337 $12,337
Murrieta – Police Captain $135,375 $149,962 3.0% 50 3.0% 50 $10,001 $10,001
Palm Springs – Police Captain $138,312 $153,402 3.0% 50 2.7% 57 $10,219 $19,871
Riverside – Police Captain $137,352 $158,502 – – – – $00 $00
Escondido – Police Captain $122,664 $144,132 3.0% 50 2.7% 57 $5,443 $15,443
Report on the Riverside County JPA Feasibility Study
Matrix Consulting Group Page 231
Base Pay Classic Members New Members Medical Ins.
Category Min Max % Age % Age Single Family
Chief of Police $161,340 $186,003 2.8% 53 2.2% 60 $3,155 $5,830
Corona – Police Chief $171,552 $190,494 – – – – $00 $00
Desert Hot Springs – Police Chief $123,240 $139,680 2.7% 55 2.0% 62 $6,641 $15,369
Hemet – Police Chief $180,000 $180,000 – – – – $00 $00
Indio – Police Chief $134,861 $167,056 – – – – $00 $00
Murrieta – Police Chief $146,362 $182,429 2.7% 55 2.0% 60 $10,001 $10,001
Riverside – Police Chief $224,256 $267,156 – – – – $00 $00
Escondido – Chief Of Police $149,112 $175,206 3.0% 50 2.7% 57 $5,443 $15,443
Crime Analyst $53,757 $62,183 2.7% 56 2.0% 61 $10,228 $15,158
Corona – Crime Analyst $59,592 $66,174 2.7% 55 2.0% 62 $3,552 $9,240
Murrieta – Crime Analyst $58,495 $64,799 2.7% 55 2.0% 62 $15,663 $15,663
Palm Springs – Crime Analyst $52,056 $61,026 2.7% 55 2.0% 60 $7,818 $21,005
Riverside – Crime Analyst $54,408 $65,478 2.7% 55 2.0% 62 $7,380 $13,200
Indio – Crime Analyst I $47,874 $56,015 2.7% 55 2.0% 60 $15,900 $15,900
Indio – Crime Analyst II $52,895 $61,890 2.7% 55 2.0% 60 $15,900 $15,900
Escondido – Crime Analyst $50,976 $59,898 3.0% 60 2.0% 62 $5,382 $15,194
Report on the Riverside County JPA Feasibility Study
Matrix Consulting Group Page 232
Base Pay Classic Members New Members Medical Ins.
Category Min Max % Age % Age Single Family
Crime Scene Technician $47,778 $54,030 2.7% 55 2.0% 61 $5,418 $10,552
Corona – Crime Prevention Assistant $31,164 $34,602 2.7% 55 2.0% 62 $3,552 $9,240
Corona – Crime Prevention Specialist $45,300 $50,298 2.7% 55 2.0% 62 $3,552 $9,240
Indio – Crime Scene Specialist $58,444 $68,382 2.7% 55 2.0% 60 $15,900 $15,900
Hemet – Crime Scene Technician $44,712 $49,530 – – – – $00 $00
Palm Springs – Crime Scene Technician $56,040 $65,706 2.7% 55 2.0% 60 $7,818 $21,005
Corona – Forensic Technician I $46,440 $51,570 2.7% 55 2.0% 62 $3,552 $9,240
Corona – Forensic Technician II $52,344 $58,122 2.7% 55 2.0% 62 $3,552 $9,240
CSO $46,231 $52,528 2.7% 56 2.0% 61 $10,655 $13,998
Murrieta – Lead Police Services Technician $42,446 $47,020 2.7% 55 2.0% 62 $15,663 $15,663
Murrieta – Police Services Technician I $34,838 $38,591 2.7% 55 2.0% 62 $15,663 $15,663
Murrieta – Police Services Technician II $38,450 $42,593 2.7% 55 2.0% 62 $15,663 $15,663
Palm Springs – Community Service Officer $46,032 $53,946 2.7% 55 2.0% 60 $7,818 $21,005
Indio – Community Service Officer I $43,329 $50,697 2.7% 55 2.0% 60 $15,900 $15,900
Indio – Community Service Officer II $47,874 $56,015 2.7% 55 2.0% 60 $15,900 $15,900
Hemet – Community Services Officer $36,672 $40,626 2.7% 55 2.0% 62 $12,346 $12,346
Indio – Senior Community Service Officer $52,895 $61,890 2.7% 55 2.0% 60 $15,900 $15,900
Riverside – Police Program Supervisor N $50,592 $56,016 – – – – $00 $00
Corona – Police Program Coordinator $52,608 $58,416 2.7% 55 2.0% 62 $3,552 $9,240
Riverside – Police Program Coordinator $47,238 $52,338 2.7% 55 2.0% 62 $7,380 $13,200
Indio – Senior Community Improvement Officer $58,571 $72,553 2.7% 55 2.0% 62 $15,900 $15,900
Escondido – Community Service Officer $44,364 $49,146 3.0% 60 2.0% 62 $5,382 $15,194
Escondido – Sr Community Service Officer $50,316 $55,740 3.0% 60 2.0% 62 $5,382 $15,194
Report on the Riverside County JPA Feasibility Study
Matrix Consulting Group Page 233
Base Pay Classic Members New Members Medical Ins.
Category Min Max % Age % Age Single Family
Custodian $32,534 $36,077 2.8% 57 2.0% 62 $5,438 $12,545
Riverside – Custodian $32,928 $36,516 2.7% 55 2.0% 62 $7,380 $13,200
Corona – Custodian I Flex $30,396 $33,750 2.7% 55 2.0% 62 $3,552 $9,240
Corona – Custodian II Flex $33,576 $37,284 2.7% 55 2.0% 62 $3,552 $9,240
Riverside – Senior Custodian $38,100 $42,222 2.7% 55 2.0% 62 $7,380 $13,200
Escondido – Custodian I $28,632 $31,716 3.0% 60 2.0% 62 $5,382 $15,194
Escondido – Custodian II $31,572 $34,974 3.0% 60 2.0% 62 $5,382 $15,194
Deputy Chief $135,060 $154,242 3.0% 50 2.7% 57 $6,169 $6,169
Hemet – Deputy Police Chief $117,924 $117,924 3.0% 50 2.7% 57 $12,337 $12,337
Riverside – Deputy Police Chief $152,196 $190,560 – – – – $00 $00
Detective $75,592 $85,662 3.0% 50 2.6% 53 $11,245 $12,060
Corona – Police Corporal $78,792 $87,492 3.0% 50 2.7% 57 $11,400 $11,400
Hemet – Police Corporal $82,872 $87,120 3.0% 50 2.7% 57 $12,337 $12,337
Indio – Police Corporal $78,050 $91,322 3.0% 50 2.7% 57 $15,900 $15,900
Murrieta – Police Corporal $78,050 $86,472 3.0% 50 3.0% 50 $10,001 $10,001
Riverside County – Police Corporal $66,335 $80,125 3.0% 50 2.0% 50 $11,280 $11,280
Murrieta – Detective II $81,973 $90,806 3.0% 50 3.0% 50 $10,001 $10,001
Riverside County – Investigator II $69,141 $83,544 3.0% 50 2.0% 50 $11,280 $11,280
Corona – Police Detective $80,388 $89,262 3.0% 50 2.7% 57 $11,400 $11,400
Riverside – Police Detective $75,348 $83,472 3.0% 50 3.0% 50 $6,480 $15,444
Hemet – Police Investigator $71,424 $79,122 3.0% 50 2.7% 57 $12,337 $12,337
Report on the Riverside County JPA Feasibility Study
Matrix Consulting Group Page 234
Base Pay Classic Members New Members Medical Ins.
Category Min Max % Age % Age Single Family
Dispatch Supervisor $61,243 $69,646 2.9% 55 2.2% 60 $5,442 $10,223
Indio – Police Dispatch Supervisor $55,721 $69,024 3.0% 50 2.7% 57 $15,900 $15,900
Riverside – Public Safety Comm Supervisor E $68,856 $76,278 – – – – $00 $00
Corona – Public Safety Dispatch Supervisor $61,716 $68,526 2.7% 55 2.0% 62 $3,552 $9,240
Riverside – Public Safety Dispatch Supervisor $68,856 $76,278 – – – – $00 $00
Palm Springs – Dispatcher Supervisor $52,056 $61,026 2.7% 55 2.0% 60 $7,818 $21,005
Escondido – Public Safety Shift Supervisor $60,252 $66,744 3.0% 60 2.0% 62 $5,382 $15,194
Dispatcher I $46,260 $52,607 2.7% 56 2.0% 61 $11,010 $15,127
Indio – Police Dispatcher I $47,874 $56,015 2.7% 55 2.0% 60 $15,900 $15,900
Hemet – Public Safety Dispatcher $40,404 $44,760 2.7% 55 2.0% 62 $12,346 $12,346
Riverside – Public Safety Dispatcher I $47,076 $52,146 2.7% 55 2.0% 62 $7,380 $13,200
Hemet – Public Safety Operator $36,672 $40,626 2.7% 55 2.0% 62 $12,346 $12,346
Palm Springs – Dispatcher $44,880 $52,632 2.7% 55 2.0% 60 $7,818 $21,005
Indio – Police Senior Dispatcher $58,444 $68,382 2.7% 55 2.0% 60 $15,900 $15,900
Escondido – Public Safety Dispatcher I $48,468 $53,688 3.0% 60 2.0% 62 $5,382 $15,194
Report on the Riverside County JPA Feasibility Study
Matrix Consulting Group Page 235
Base Pay Classic Members New Members Medical Ins.
Category Min Max % Age % Age Single Family
Dispatcher II $50,633 $56,559 2.8% 56 2.0% 62 $11,576 $15,211
Murrieta – Lead Dispatcher $51,862 $57,450 2.7% 55 2.0% 62 $15,663 $15,663
Indio – Police Dispatcher II $52,895 $61,890 2.7% 55 2.0% 60 $15,900 $15,900
Murrieta – Public Safety Dispatcher II $46,069 $51,033 2.7% 55 2.0% 62 $15,663 $15,663
Riverside – Public Safety Dispatcher II $56,988 $63,132 2.7% 55 2.0% 62 $7,380 $13,200
Murrieta – Dispatcher II $46,990 $52,054 2.7% 55 2.0% 62 $15,663 $15,663
Escondido – Public Safety Dispatcher II $53,436 $59,190 3.0% 60 2.0% 62 $5,382 $15,194
Escondido – Telecommunications Specialist $46,188 $51,162 3.0% 60 2.0% 62 $5,382 $15,194
Executive Assistant $52,703 $60,634 2.8% 54 2.0% 62 $6,512 $8,645
Corona – Assistant to the Police Chief $46,212 $51,312 3.0% 50 2.0% 62 $19,102 $19,102
Riverside – Executive Assist N $49,284 $62,610 – – – – $00 $00
Corona – Executive Assistant $49,800 $55,296 2.7% 55 2.0% 62 $3,552 $9,240
Corona – Executive Assistant I $49,800 $55,296 2.7% 55 2.0% 62 $3,552 $9,240
Corona – Executive Assistant II $53,664 $59,592 2.7% 55 2.0% 62 $3,552 $9,240
Indio – Executive Assistant to the Police Chief $59,158 $73,281 – – – – $00 $00
Murrieta – Executive Secretary $56,764 $62,881 2.7% 55 2.0% 60 $10,001 $10,001
Hemet – Management Assistant $56,940 $64,806 2.7% 55 2.0% 62 $12,337 $12,337
Report on the Riverside County JPA Feasibility Study
Matrix Consulting Group Page 236
Base Pay Classic Members New Members Medical Ins.
Category Min Max % Age % Age Single Family
Finance/Fiscal Mgmt. Manager $98,354 $115,041 3.0% 50 2.0% 62 $9,551 $9,551
Corona – Budget Manager $94,296 $104,706 3.0% 50 2.0% 62 $19,102 $19,102
Indio – Finance Manager $90,844 $112,531 – – – – $00 $00
Indio – Manager of Finance & Customer Service $90,844 $112,531 – – – – $00 $00
Corona – Public Safety Finance Deputy Director $117,432 $130,398 3.0% 50 2.0% 62 $19,102 $19,102
Financial Analyst $64,160 $72,181 2.7% 55 2.0% 62 $4,809 $12,230
Corona – Accounting Analyst I $60,792 $67,506 2.7% 55 2.0% 62 $3,552 $9,240
Corona – Accounting Analyst II $65,520 $72,750 2.7% 55 2.0% 62 $3,552 $9,240
Palm Springs – Financial Analyst $65,652 $76,992 2.7% 55 2.0% 62 $8,004 $21,048
Corona – Financial Analyst I $60,792 $67,506 2.7% 55 2.0% 62 $3,552 $9,240
Corona – Financial Analyst II $65,520 $72,750 2.7% 55 2.0% 62 $3,552 $9,240
Desert Hot Springs – Program and Financial
Specialist $66,684 $75,582 2.7% 55 2.0% 62 $6,641 $15,369
Financial Analyst II $68,628 $77,331 2.7% 55 2.0% 62 $4,665 $12,192
Corona – Accounting Analyst III $70,608 $78,402 2.7% 55 2.0% 62 $3,552 $9,240
Corona – Budget Analyst $60,792 $67,506 2.7% 55 2.0% 62 $3,552 $9,240
Corona – Financial Analyst III $70,608 $78,402 2.7% 55 2.0% 62 $3,552 $9,240
Palm Springs – Senior Financial Analyst $72,504 $85,014 2.7% 55 2.0% 62 $8,004 $21,048
Report on the Riverside County JPA Feasibility Study
Matrix Consulting Group Page 237
Base Pay Classic Members New Members Medical Ins.
Category Min Max % Age % Age Single Family
Fleet Manager $72,935 $86,937 2.9% 54 2.2% 61 $9,678 $14,249
Palm Springs – Fleet Maintenance Manager $80,004 $93,798 2.7% 55 2.0% 62 $8,004 $21,048
Riverside – Fleet Opers Mgr E $69,396 $88,134 – – – – $00 $00
Corona – Fleet Services Superintendent $72,756 $80,784 3.0% 50 2.0% 62 $19,102 $19,102
Indio – Fleet Services Operations Manager $70,793 $87,694 3.0% 50 2.7% 57 $15,900 $15,900
Escondido – Fleet Maint Superintendent $71,724 $84,276 3.0% 60 2.0% 62 $5,382 $15,194
Fleet Services Assistant $38,851 $43,245 2.7% 55 2.0% 62 $4,316 $10,664
Corona – Fleet Inventory Specialist $35,472 $39,390 2.7% 55 2.0% 62 $3,552 $9,240
Corona – Fleet Services Assistant $27,780 $30,852 2.7% 55 2.0% 62 $3,552 $9,240
Corona – Fleet Services Assistant Technician $29,640 $32,916 2.7% 55 2.0% 62 $3,552 $9,240
Corona – Fleet Services Associate Technician $40,992 $45,522 2.7% 55 2.0% 62 $3,552 $9,240
Corona – Fleet Services Heavy Equipment
Technician $48,336 $53,670 2.7% 55 2.0% 62 $3,552 $9,240
Corona – Fleet Services Helper $20,808 $23,106 2.7% 55 2.0% 62 $3,552 $9,240
Corona – Fleet Services Parts Runner $29,640 $32,916 2.7% 55 2.0% 62 $3,552 $9,240
Corona – Fleet Services Parts Runner/ Parts
Room Assistant $33,744 $37,470 2.7% 55 2.0% 62 $3,552 $9,240
Corona – Fleet Services Parts Storekeeper $40,992 $45,522 2.7% 55 2.0% 62 $3,552 $9,240
Corona – Fleet Services Technician $48,336 $53,670 2.7% 55 2.0% 62 $3,552 $9,240
Corona – Fleet Services Technician/ Parts Room
Administrator $48,336 $53,670 2.7% 55 2.0% 62 $3,552 $9,240
Corona – Fleet Services Worker $33,744 $37,470 2.7% 55 2.0% 62 $3,552 $9,240
Corona – Fleet Services Writer $43,308 $48,090 2.7% 55 2.0% 62 $3,552 $9,240
Palm Springs – Parts & Office Assistant $35,904 $42,132 2.7% 55 2.0% 60 $7,818 $21,005
Riverside – Police Fleet Maint Coordinator $52,080 $57,690 2.7% 55 2.0% 62 $7,380 $13,200
Report on the Riverside County JPA Feasibility Study
Matrix Consulting Group Page 238
Base Pay Classic Members New Members Medical Ins.
Category Min Max % Age % Age Single Family
Corona – Senior Fleet Services Assistant $31,944 $35,472 2.7% 55 2.0% 62 $3,552 $9,240
Escondido – Fleet Service Advisor $46,188 $51,162 3.0% 60 2.0% 62 $5,382 $15,194
Fleet Services Supervisor $61,593 $69,342 2.8% 57 2.0% 62 $3,122 $8,419
Corona – Fleet Administrator $47,616 $52,872 2.7% 55 2.0% 62 $3,552 $9,240
Riverside – Fleet Mgmt Supervisor N $66,036 $77,286 – – – – $00 $00
Corona – Fleet Services Supervisor $70,608 $78,402 2.7% 55 2.0% 62 $3,552 $9,240
Escondido – Maintenance Supervisor $62,112 $68,808 3.0% 60 2.0% 62 $5,382 $15,194
Fleet Technician $50,028 $58,442 2.8% 57 2.0% 61 $8,900 $17,439
Palm Springs – Fleet Maintenance Technician I $44,880 $52,632 2.7% 55 2.0% 60 $7,818 $21,005
Palm Springs – Fleet Maintenance Technician II $49,512 $58,086 2.7% 55 2.0% 60 $7,818 $21,005
Palm Springs – Fleet Maintenance Technician III $53,316 $62,538 2.7% 55 2.0% 60 $7,818 $21,005
Palm Springs – Fleet Maintenance Technician
Ill/Service Writer $57,468 $67,380 2.7% 55 2.0% 60 $7,818 $21,005
Palm Springs – Fleet Maintenance Technician IV $58,896 $69,054 2.7% 55 2.0% 60 $7,818 $21,005
Indio – Fleet Mechanic I $44,519 $55,147 2.7% 55 2.0% 62 $15,900 $15,900
Indio – Fleet Mechanic II $49,189 $60,932 2.7% 55 2.0% 62 $15,900 $15,900
Riverside – Fleet Mgmt Tech $44,136 $51,636 2.7% 55 2.0% 62 $7,380 $13,200
Indio – Senior Fleet Mechanic $54,349 $67,323 2.7% 55 2.0% 62 $15,900 $15,900
Escondido – Lead Mechanic $57,408 $63,594 3.0% 60 2.0% 62 $5,382 $15,194
Escondido – Maintenance Technician I $39,636 $43,908 3.0% 60 2.0% 62 $5,382 $15,194
Escondido – Maintenance Technician II $43,752 $48,468 3.0% 60 2.0% 62 $5,382 $15,194
Escondido – Sr Maintenance Technician $53,304 $59,052 3.0% 60 2.0% 62 $5,382 $15,194
Report on the Riverside County JPA Feasibility Study
Matrix Consulting Group Page 239
Base Pay Classic Members New Members Medical Ins.
Category Min Max % Age % Age Single Family
Grants Administrator $48,834 $54,225 2.7% 55 2.0% 62 $3,552 $9,240
Corona – Accounting / Grants Specialist $47,616 $52,872 2.7% 55 2.0% 62 $3,552 $9,240
Corona – Grant Administrator $50,052 $55,578 2.7% 55 2.0% 62 $3,552 $9,240
HR Analyst $55,150 $63,335 2.7% 56 2.0% 62 $5,725 $10,772
Corona – Benefit Specialist I $50,052 $55,578 2.7% 55 2.0% 62 $3,552 $9,240
Corona – Benefit Specialist II $53,940 $59,892 2.7% 55 2.0% 62 $3,552 $9,240
Corona – Benefit Specialist III $58,128 $64,542 2.7% 55 2.0% 62 $3,552 $9,240
Riverside – HR Admin Tech N $43,680 $52,578 – – – – $00 $00
Corona – HR Analyst $60,792 $67,506 2.7% 55 2.0% 62 $3,552 $9,240
Indio – HR Analyst $54,349 $67,323 – – – – $00 $00
Riverside – HR Analyst $50,502 $59,031 2.7% 55 2.0% 62 $14,196 $14,196
Desert Hot Springs – HR Specialist $42,540 $48,216 2.7% 55 2.0% 62 $6,641 $15,369
Indio – HR Specialist $51,705 $64,048 – – – – $00 $00
Palm Springs – HR Specialist $55,236 $64,782 2.7% 55 2.0% 62 $8,004 $21,048
Hemet – HR Technician $52,872 $61,860 2.7% 55 2.0% 62 $12,346 $12,346
Murrieta – HR Technician $46,850 $51,898 2.7% 55 2.0% 60 $10,001 $10,001
Corona – HR Technician I $46,908 $52,086 2.7% 55 2.0% 62 $3,552 $9,240
Corona – HR Technician II $50,556 $56,136 2.7% 55 2.0% 62 $3,552 $9,240
Corona – HR Technician III $54,480 $60,492 2.7% 55 2.0% 62 $3,552 $9,240
Corona – Senior HR Analyst $70,608 $78,402 2.7% 55 2.0% 62 $3,552 $9,240
Corona – Senior HR Analyst / ADA Emp.
Coordinator $70,608 $78,402 2.7% 55 2.0% 62 $3,552 $9,240
Palm Springs – Senior HR Specialist $65,652 $76,992 2.7% 55 2.0% 62 $8,004 $21,048
Corona – Senior HR Technician $54,480 $60,492 2.7% 55 2.0% 62 $3,552 $9,240
Report on the Riverside County JPA Feasibility Study
Matrix Consulting Group Page 240
Base Pay Classic Members New Members Medical Ins.
Category Min Max % Age % Age Single Family
Hemet – Senior HR Technician $58,356 $68,280 2.7% 55 2.0% 62 $12,346 $12,346
Escondido – Human Resources Analyst I $53,508 $62,880 3.0% 60 2.0% 62 $5,382 $15,194
Escondido – Human Resources Analyst II $58,992 $69,324 3.0% 60 2.0% 62 $5,382 $15,194
Escondido – Sr Human Resources Analyst $68,304 $80,262 3.0% 60 2.0% 62 $5,382 $15,194
HR Assistant $37,422 $42,708 2.9% 58 2.0% 62 $3,574 $9,774
Corona – HR Assistant $29,640 $32,916 2.7% 55 2.0% 62 $3,552 $9,240
Corona – HR Clerk $22,644 $25,146 2.7% 55 2.0% 62 $3,552 $9,240
Indio – HR Clerk $46,796 $57,968 – – – – $00 $00
Escondido – Human Resources Technician I $41,844 $46,350 3.0% 60 2.0% 62 $5,382 $15,194
Escondido – Human Resources Technician II $46,188 $51,162 3.0% 60 2.0% 62 $5,382 $15,194
HR Manager $104,651 $118,836 2.9% 53 2.0% 62 $9,740 $11,189
Indio – Director of HR & Risk Mgmt $112,013 $138,754 – – – – $00 $00
Hemet – HR Director $125,124 $125,124 – – – – $00 $00
Riverside – HR Director $146,100 $175,380 – – – – $00 $00
Hemet – HR Manager $86,628 $101,364 2.7% 55 2.0% 62 $12,346 $12,346
Murrieta – HR Manager $106,578 $118,062 2.7% 55 2.0% 60 $10,001 $10,001
Palm Springs – HR Manager $82,008 $96,144 2.7% 55 2.0% 62 $8,004 $21,048
Corona – HR Manager I $87,492 $97,152 3.0% 50 2.0% 62 $19,102 $19,102
Corona – HR Manager II $94,296 $104,706 3.0% 50 2.0% 62 $19,102 $19,102
Corona – HR Manager III $101,616 $112,836 3.0% 50 2.0% 62 $19,102 $19,102
Report on the Riverside County JPA Feasibility Study
Matrix Consulting Group Page 241
Base Pay Classic Members New Members Medical Ins.
Category Min Max % Age % Age Single Family
IT Manager $100,904 $114,373 2.9% 51 2.1% 61 $16,129 $18,548
Desert Hot Springs – HR Manager $55,608 $63,030 2.7% 55 2.0% 62 $6,641 $15,369
Corona – IT Director $147,720 $164,028 3.0% 50 2.0% 62 $19,102 $19,102
Corona – IT Manager $86,196 $95,712 3.0% 50 2.0% 62 $19,102 $19,102
Indio – IT Manager $105,506 $130,693 3.0% 50 2.7% 57 $15,900 $15,900
Palm Springs – IT Manager $99,948 $117,120 2.7% 55 2.0% 62 $8,004 $21,048
Corona – IT Manager I $87,492 $97,152 3.0% 50 2.0% 62 $19,102 $19,102
Corona – IT Manager II $94,296 $104,706 3.0% 50 2.0% 62 $19,102 $19,102
Corona – IT Manager III $101,616 $112,836 3.0% 50 2.0% 62 $19,102 $19,102
Corona – IT Manager IV $129,756 $144,078 3.0% 50 2.0% 62 $19,102 $19,102
IT Specialist $54,253 $61,582 2.7% 55 2.0% 62 $6,838 $9,940
Corona – Senior IT Specialist $56,700 $62,958 2.7% 55 2.0% 62 $3,552 $9,240
Indio – IT Analyst $55,168 $68,339 – – – – $00 $00
Murrieta – IT Analyst $67,141 $74,376 2.7% 55 2.0% 62 $10,001 $10,001
Corona – IT Specialist II $51,312 $56,976 2.7% 55 2.0% 62 $3,552 $9,240
Hemet – IT Specialist II $56,940 $64,806 2.7% 55 2.0% 62 $12,337 $12,337
Corona – IT Specialist III $59,592 $66,174 2.7% 55 2.0% 62 $3,552 $9,240
Corona – IT Support Specialist $52,080 $57,834 2.7% 55 2.0% 62 $3,552 $9,240
Indio – IT Support Technician $49,931 $61,851 2.7% 55 2.0% 62 $15,900 $15,900
Corona – IT Technician II $42,036 $46,674 2.7% 55 2.0% 62 $3,552 $9,240
Murrieta – IT Technician II $57,063 $63,212 2.7% 55 2.0% 62 $15,663 $15,663
Corona – IT Technician III $48,816 $54,204 2.7% 55 2.0% 62 $3,552 $9,240
Report on the Riverside County JPA Feasibility Study
Matrix Consulting Group Page 242
Base Pay Classic Members New Members Medical Ins.
Category Min Max % Age % Age Single Family
IT Support Assistant $45,196 $50,439 2.7% 55 2.0% 62 $8,064 $11,999
Murrieta – IT Coordinator $51,707 $57,279 2.7% 55 2.0% 62 $15,663 $15,663
Corona – IT Specialist $51,312 $56,976 2.7% 55 2.0% 62 $3,552 $9,240
Corona – IT Specialist I $44,184 $49,062 2.7% 55 2.0% 62 $3,552 $9,240
Hemet – IT Specialist I $54,192 $61,680 2.7% 55 2.0% 62 $12,337 $12,337
Corona – IT Technician $38,040 $42,240 2.7% 55 2.0% 62 $3,552 $9,240
Desert Hot Springs – IT Technician $34,236 $38,808 2.7% 55 2.0% 62 $6,641 $15,369
Corona – IT Technician I $36,192 $40,188 2.7% 55 2.0% 62 $3,552 $9,240
Murrieta – IT Technician I $51,707 $57,279 2.7% 55 2.0% 62 $15,663 $15,663
Lieutenant $115,154 $127,775 3.0% 50 2.8% 56 $8,233 $11,509
Corona – Police Lieutenant $124,056 $137,748 3.0% 50 2.7% 57 $11,400 $11,400
Hemet – Police Lieutenant $103,092 $117,330 3.0% 50 2.7% 57 $12,337 $12,337
Murrieta – Police Lieutenant $116,942 $129,543 3.0% 50 3.0% 50 $10,001 $10,001
Palm Springs – Police Lieutenant $116,940 $129,720 3.0% 50 2.7% 57 $10,219 $19,871
Riverside – Police Lieutenant $118,632 $121,572 – – – – $00 $00
Escondido – Police Lieutenant $111,264 $130,740 3.0% 50 2.7% 57 $5,443 $15,443
Report on the Riverside County JPA Feasibility Study
Matrix Consulting Group Page 243
Base Pay Classic Members New Members Medical Ins.
Category Min Max % Age % Age Single Family
Management Analyst $63,974 $73,315 2.8% 56 2.1% 61 $6,978 $11,898
Corona – Administrative Services Analyst I $60,192 $66,834 2.7% 55 2.0% 62 $3,552 $9,240
Corona – Administrative Services Analyst II $70,608 $78,402 2.7% 55 2.0% 62 $3,552 $9,240
Corona – Business Management Analyst $70,608 $78,402 2.7% 55 2.0% 62 $3,552 $9,240
Corona – Business Systems Analyst I Flex $60,792 $67,506 2.7% 55 2.0% 62 $3,552 $9,240
Corona – Business Systems Analyst II Flex $65,520 $72,750 2.7% 55 2.0% 62 $3,552 $9,240
Corona – Management Analyst $60,192 $66,834 2.7% 55 2.0% 62 $3,552 $9,240
Desert Hot Springs – Management Analyst $50,820 $57,600 2.7% 55 2.0% 62 $6,641 $15,369
Indio – Management Analyst $57,129 $70,767 3.0% 50 2.7% 57 $15,900 $15,900
Murrieta – Management Analyst $67,477 $74,748 2.7% 55 2.0% 60 $10,001 $10,001
Corona – Management Analyst I $60,192 $66,834 2.7% 55 2.0% 62 $3,552 $9,240
Corona – Management Analyst II $70,608 $78,402 2.7% 55 2.0% 62 $3,552 $9,240
Indio – Senior Management Analyst $69,742 $86,391 3.0% 50 2.7% 57 $15,900 $15,900
Riverside – Senior Mgmt Analyst E $65,880 $83,700 2.7% 55 2.0% 62 $14,196 $14,196
Murrieta – Sr Management Analyst $72,674 $80,504 2.7% 55 2.0% 60 $10,001 $10,001
Escondido – Management Analyst I $53,508 $62,880 3.0% 60 2.0% 62 $5,382 $15,194
Escondido – Management Analyst II $61,956 $72,798 3.0% 60 2.0% 62 $5,382 $15,194
Escondido – Police Services Analyst $65,064 $76,446 3.0% 60 2.0% 62 $5,382 $15,194
Escondido – Sr Management Analyst $65,064 $76,446 3.0% 60 2.0% 62 $5,382 $15,194
Report on the Riverside County JPA Feasibility Study
Matrix Consulting Group Page 244
Base Pay Classic Members New Members Medical Ins.
Category Min Max % Age % Age Single Family
Network/Sys Analyst $62,157 $70,354 2.9% 58 2.1% 62 $6,729 $13,987
Indio – Network Administrator $65,690 $81,372 2.7% 55 2.0% 62 $15,663 $15,663
Corona – Network Analyst $60,792 $67,506 2.7% 55 2.0% 62 $3,552 $9,240
Riverside – Network Sup Spec $54,726 $62,352 2.7% 55 2.0% 62 $7,380 $13,200
Indio – Network Systems Engineer $77,058 $95,453 3.0% 50 2.7% 57 $15,900 $15,900
Palm Springs – PC/Network Administrator $72,504 $85,014 2.7% 55 2.0% 62 $8,004 $21,048
Riverside – Systems Manager Nc2E $84,744 $84,744 – – – – $00 $00
Escondido – Network Administrator $60,600 $67,128 3.0% 60 2.0% 62 $5,382 $15,194
Escondido – Network Systems Engineer $63,660 $70,524 3.0% 60 2.0% 62 $5,382 $15,194
Escondido – Network Systems Technician I $40,824 $45,222 3.0% 60 2.0% 62 $5,382 $15,194
Escondido – Network Systems Technician II $45,060 $49,914 3.0% 60 2.0% 62 $5,382 $15,194
Escondido – Network Systems Technician III $49,740 $55,098 3.0% 60 2.0% 62 $5,382 $15,194
Escondido – Public Safety Systems Analyst $63,660 $70,524 3.0% 60 2.0% 62 $5,382 $15,194
Escondido – Public Safety Systems Manager $68,304 $80,262 3.0% 60 2.0% 62 $5,382 $15,194
Escondido – Systems Analyst I $70,272 $77,844 3.0% 60 2.0% 62 $5,382 $15,194
Report on the Riverside County JPA Feasibility Study
Matrix Consulting Group Page 245
Base Pay Classic Members New Members Medical Ins.
Category Min Max % Age % Age Single Family
Officer $65,374 $74,656 3.0% 50 2.7% 55 $10,110 $13,845
Riverside County – Deputy Sheriff $62,302 $75,251 3.0% 50 2.0% 50 $11,280 $11,280
Desert Hot Springs – Police Officer $47,412 $53,736 3.0% 50 2.8% 57 $6,641 $15,369
Hemet – Police Officer $64,932 $71,928 3.0% 50 2.7% 57 $12,337 $12,337
Indio – Police Officer $70,640 $82,652 3.0% 50 2.7% 57 $15,900 $15,900
Murrieta – Police Officer $70,796 $78,425 3.0% 50 3.0% 50 $10,001 $10,001
Palm Springs – Police Officer $64,392 $75,450 3.0% 50 2.7% 57 $10,219 $19,871
Riverside – Police Officer $65,100 $74,094 3.0% 50 3.0% 50 $6,480 $15,444
Corona – Police Officer I $68,184 $75,714 3.0% 50 2.7% 57 $11,400 $11,400
Corona – Police Officer II $74,964 $83,238 3.0% 50 2.7% 57 $11,400 $11,400
Escondido – Police Officer $65,016 $76,074 3.0% 50 2.7% 57 $5,443 $15,443
PE Specialist $36,590 $41,462 2.8% 56 2.0% 62 $9,630 $13,921
Riverside – Police Property Spec $37,008 $43,320 2.7% 55 2.0% 62 $7,380 $13,200
Hemet – Property & Evidence Technician $36,648 $40,596 2.7% 55 2.0% 62 $12,346 $12,346
Murrieta – Property & Evidence Technician $39,560 $43,823 2.7% 55 2.0% 62 $15,663 $15,663
Escondido – Property & Evidence Tech I $32,724 $36,252 3.0% 60 2.0% 62 $5,382 $15,194
PE Supervisor $55,458 $61,437 3.0% 60 2.0% 62 $2,691 $7,597
Riverside – Supervising Evidence Tech $57,360 $63,546 – – – – $00 $00
Escondido – Property & Evidence Supervisor $53,556 $59,328 3.0% 60 2.0% 62 $5,382 $15,194
Report on the Riverside County JPA Feasibility Study
Matrix Consulting Group Page 246
Base Pay Classic Members New Members Medical Ins.
Category Min Max % Age % Age Single Family
PE Technician $46,059 $52,895 2.8% 56 2.0% 61 $8,684 $14,289
Riverside – Evidence Tech $38,952 $46,839 2.7% 55 2.0% 62 $7,380 $13,200
Indio – Property & Evidence Officer I $47,874 $56,015 2.7% 55 2.0% 60 $15,900 $15,900
Indio – Property & Evidence Officer II $52,895 $61,890 2.7% 55 2.0% 60 $15,900 $15,900
Corona – Property Administrator $37,296 $41,412 2.7% 55 2.0% 62 $3,552 $9,240
Corona – Property Administrator II $55,572 $61,710 2.7% 55 2.0% 62 $3,552 $9,240
Palm Springs – Property Technician $47,136 $55,278 2.7% 55 2.0% 60 $7,818 $21,005
Riverside – Senior Evidence Tech $53,616 $59,394 2.7% 55 2.0% 62 $7,380 $13,200
Indio – Senior Property & Evidence Officer $58,444 $68,382 2.7% 55 2.0% 60 $15,900 $15,900
Escondido – Property & Evidence Tech II $36,084 $39,972 3.0% 60 2.0% 62 $5,382 $15,194
Escondido – Sr Property & Evidence Tech $39,828 $44,118 3.0% 60 2.0% 62 $5,382 $15,194
Procurement Manager $77,988 $91,166 2.9% 55 2.0% 62 $8,122 $13,836
Palm Springs – Procurement & Contracting
Manager $86,148 $101,016 2.7% 55 2.0% 62 $8,004 $21,048
Corona – Purchasing Manager $91,056 $101,112 3.0% 50 2.0% 62 $19,102 $19,102
Riverside – Purchasing Svcs Mgr E $81,588 $103,644 – – – – $00 $00
Escondido – Purchasing Supervisor $53,160 $58,890 3.0% 60 2.0% 62 $5,382 $15,194
Report on the Riverside County JPA Feasibility Study
Matrix Consulting Group Page 247
Base Pay Classic Members New Members Medical Ins.
Category Min Max % Age % Age Single Family
Procurement Specialist $56,655 $63,911 2.7% 55 2.0% 62 $6,234 $12,293
Hemet – Procurement Administrator $66,036 $75,156 2.7% 55 2.0% 62 $12,337 $12,337
Corona – Procurement Contract Specialist $52,872 $58,710 2.7% 55 2.0% 62 $3,552 $9,240
Palm Springs – Procurement Specialist I $55,236 $64,782 2.7% 55 2.0% 62 $8,004 $21,048
Palm Springs – Procurement Specialist II $62,508 $73,284 2.7% 55 2.0% 62 $8,004 $21,048
Murrieta – Purchasing & Contracts Coordinator $51,707 $57,279 2.7% 55 2.0% 60 $10,001 $10,001
Corona – Purchasing Specialist II $45,300 $50,298 2.7% 55 2.0% 62 $3,552 $9,240
Corona – Purchasing Specialist III $50,052 $55,578 2.7% 55 2.0% 62 $3,552 $9,240
Corona – Purchasing Specialist IV $55,572 $61,710 2.7% 55 2.0% 62 $3,552 $9,240
Corona – Purchasing Specialist V $70,608 $78,402 2.7% 55 2.0% 62 $3,552 $9,240
Programmer $57,308 $63,782 2.8% 56 2.0% 62 $5,066 $11,619
Corona – Programmer $60,792 $67,506 2.7% 55 2.0% 62 $3,552 $9,240
Corona – Programmer Analyst $60,792 $67,506 2.7% 55 2.0% 62 $3,552 $9,240
Riverside – Programmer Analyst $53,100 $62,100 2.7% 55 2.0% 62 $7,380 $13,200
Corona – Programmer I $45,072 $50,046 2.7% 55 2.0% 62 $3,552 $9,240
Corona – Programmer II $52,344 $58,122 2.7% 55 2.0% 62 $3,552 $9,240
Corona – Programmer III $60,792 $67,506 2.7% 55 2.0% 62 $3,552 $9,240
Riverside – Senior Programmer Analyst $66,474 $73,116 2.7% 55 2.0% 62 $7,380 $13,200
Escondido – Programmer Analyst I $50,976 $56,472 3.0% 60 2.0% 62 $5,382 $15,194
Escondido – Programmer Analyst II $56,268 $62,334 3.0% 60 2.0% 62 $5,382 $15,194
Report on the Riverside County JPA Feasibility Study
Matrix Consulting Group Page 248
Base Pay Classic Members New Members Medical Ins.
Category Min Max % Age % Age Single Family
Project Manager $83,028 $97,560 3.0% 60 2.0% 62 $5,382 $15,194
Escondido – Applications Development Mgr $83,028 $97,560 3.0% 60 2.0% 62 $5,382 $15,194
Public Information Officer $87,492 $97,152 2.7% 55 2.0% 62 $3,552 $9,240
Corona – Public Information Officer $87,492 $97,152 2.7% 55 2.0% 62 $3,552 $9,240
Public Information Specialist $52,294 $59,976 2.7% 55 2.0% 62 $2,842 $7,392
Corona – Community Liaison $48,576 $53,934 2.7% 55 2.0% 62 $3,552 $9,240
Corona – Community Relations Assistant $46,908 $52,086 2.7% 55 2.0% 62 $3,552 $9,240
Corona – Department Liaison $43,956 $48,810 2.7% 55 2.0% 62 $3,552 $9,240
Indio – Senior Neighborhood Coordinator $74,414 $92,178 – – – – $00 $00
Corona – Public Information Specialist $47,616 $52,872 2.7% 55 2.0% 62 $3,552 $9,240
Purchasing Assistant $42,142 $47,010 2.8% 57 2.0% 62 $6,041 $12,241
Hemet – Purchasing Assistant $46,356 $52,776 2.7% 55 2.0% 62 $12,337 $12,337
Corona – Purchasing Specialist I $40,992 $45,522 2.7% 55 2.0% 62 $3,552 $9,240
Corona – Purchasing Technician $37,296 $41,412 2.7% 55 2.0% 62 $3,552 $9,240
Escondido – Purchasing/inventory Control $38,868 $43,056 3.0% 60 2.0% 62 $5,382 $15,194
Escondido – Buyer/Stores Supervisor $47,196 $52,284 3.0% 60 2.0% 62 $5,382 $15,194
Rangemaster $51,138 $57,516 2.7% 55 2.0% 62 $6,532 $14,161
Riverside – Assist Rangemaster $46,344 $51,348 2.7% 55 2.0% 62 $7,380 $13,200
Corona – Rangemaster $49,800 $55,296 2.7% 55 2.0% 62 $3,552 $9,240
Palm Springs – Rangemaster $52,056 $61,026 2.7% 55 2.0% 60 $7,818 $21,005
Riverside – Rangemaster $56,352 $62,394 2.7% 55 2.0% 62 $7,380 $13,200
Report on the Riverside County JPA Feasibility Study
Matrix Consulting Group Page 249
Base Pay Classic Members New Members Medical Ins.
Category Min Max % Age % Age Single Family
Records Manager $73,540 $84,632 2.8% 57 2.0% 62 $9,194 $16,813
Palm Springs – Communications & Records
Manager $88,332 $103,554 2.7% 55 2.0% 62 $8,004 $21,048
Riverside – Police Records Info Mgr E $76,092 $84,306 2.7% 55 2.0% 62 $14,196 $14,196
Escondido – Police Records Manager $56,196 $66,036 3.0% 60 2.0% 62 $5,382 $15,194
Records Specialist I $38,920 $45,617 2.7% 55 2.0% 62 $8,873 $14,951
Riverside – Police Records Spec $37,008 $41,010 2.7% 55 2.0% 62 $7,380 $13,200
Palm Springs – Police Records Technician $46,032 $53,946 2.7% 55 2.0% 60 $7,818 $21,005
Riverside – Police Serv Rep $38,952 $46,839 2.7% 55 2.0% 62 $7,380 $13,200
Indio – Records Specialist I $35,569 $44,061 2.7% 55 2.0% 62 $15,900 $15,900
Records Specialist II $38,843 $45,640 2.8% 56 2.0% 62 $9,960 $15,733
Palm Springs – Police Services Officer $39,672 $46,494 2.7% 55 2.0% 60 $7,818 $21,005
Indio – Records Specialist II $39,300 $48,682 2.7% 55 2.0% 62 $15,900 $15,900
Riverside – Senior Police Records Spec $38,952 $44,292 2.7% 55 2.0% 62 $7,380 $13,200
Indio – Senior Records Specialist $43,423 $53,789 2.7% 55 2.0% 62 $15,900 $15,900
Escondido – Police Records Technician $32,760 $36,288 3.0% 60 2.0% 62 $5,382 $15,194
Records Supervisor $52,272 $59,057 2.7% 55 2.0% 62 $7,003 $13,904
Corona – Police Records Supervisor $61,716 $68,526 2.7% 55 2.0% 62 $3,552 $9,240
Desert Hot Springs – Police Records Supervisor $38,124 $43,206 2.7% 55 2.0% 62 $6,641 $15,369
Murrieta – Police Records Supervisor $55,932 $61,959 2.7% 55 2.0% 62 $10,001 $10,001
Palm Springs – Police Services Supervisor $53,316 $62,538 2.7% 55 2.0% 60 $7,818 $21,005
Report on the Riverside County JPA Feasibility Study
Matrix Consulting Group Page 250
Base Pay Classic Members New Members Medical Ins.
Category Min Max % Age % Age Single Family
Senior Ntwk/ Sys Admin $78,159 $89,554 2.8% 56 2.0% 62 $6,218 $13,583
Hemet – IT Operation/Network Systems
Supervisor $67,680 $77,028 2.7% 55 2.0% 62 $12,337 $12,337
Corona – Senior Network Engineer $105,228 $116,844 2.7% 55 2.0% 62 $3,552 $9,240
Riverside – Senior Network Sup Spec $66,474 $77,796 2.7% 55 2.0% 62 $7,380 $13,200
Palm Springs – Senior PC/Network Administrator $92,808 $108,816 2.7% 55 2.0% 62 $8,004 $21,048
Riverside – Senior System Admr $75,444 $88,308 2.7% 55 2.0% 62 $7,380 $13,200
Corona – Senior System Analyst $79,980 $88,812 2.7% 55 2.0% 62 $3,552 $9,240
Palm Springs – Senior Systems/Network
Administrator $92,808 $108,816 2.7% 55 2.0% 62 $8,004 $21,048
Corona – System Administrator $67,176 $74,592 2.7% 55 2.0% 62 $3,552 $9,240
Corona – Systems Analyst $65,520 $72,750 2.7% 55 2.0% 62 $3,552 $9,240
Escondido – Network Manager $87,180 $102,438 3.0% 60 2.0% 62 $5,382 $15,194
Escondido – Sr Network Systems Engineer $71,724 $84,276 3.0% 60 2.0% 62 $5,382 $15,194
Escondido – Systems Analyst II $77,568 $85,926 3.0% 60 2.0% 62 $5,382 $15,194
Report on the Riverside County JPA Feasibility Study
Matrix Consulting Group Page 251
Base Pay Classic Members New Members Medical Ins.
Category Min Max % Age % Age Single Family
Sergeant $87,365 $99,509 3.0% 51 2.7% 56 $9,795 $14,440
Corona – Police Sergeant $101,616 $112,836 3.0% 50 2.7% 57 $11,400 $11,400
Desert Hot Springs – Police Sergeant $66,564 $75,444 3.0% 50 2.8% 57 $6,641 $15,369
Hemet – Police Sergeant $85,908 $97,776 3.0% 50 2.7% 57 $12,337 $12,337
Indio – Police Sergeant $90,844 $112,531 3.0% 50 2.7% 57 $15,900 $15,900
Murrieta – Police Sergeant $91,609 $101,476 3.0% 50 3.0% 50 $10,001 $10,001
Palm Springs – Police Sergeant $83,652 $98,034 3.0% 50 2.7% 57 $10,219 $19,871
Riverside – Police Sergeant $91,596 $98,808 3.0% 50 3.0% 50 $6,480 $15,444
Escondido – Police Sergeant $87,132 $99,168 3.0% 60 2.0% 62 $5,382 $15,194
Supervising Crime Analyst $62,672 $70,699 2.8% 57 2.0% 62 $11,747 $15,018
Riverside – Supervising Crime Analyst $66,036 $73,188 2.7% 55 2.0% 62 $14,196 $14,196
Murrieta – Senior Crime Analyst $65,784 $72,873 2.7% 55 2.0% 62 $15,663 $15,663
Escondido – Sr Crime Analyst $56,196 $66,036 3.0% 60 2.0% 62 $5,382 $15,194
GIS Technician $56,398 $64,973 2.7% 55 2.0% 62 $12,330 $13,467
Corona – GIS Analyst $60,792 $67,506 2.7% 55 2.0% 62 $3,552 $9,240
Riverside – GIS Analyst $63,156 $73,488 2.7% 55 2.0% 62 $14,196 $14,196
Indio – GIS Coordinator $55,168 $68,339 2.7% 55 2.0% 62 $15,900 $15,900
Hemet – GIS Specialist $51,168 $58,254 2.7% 55 2.0% 62 $12,337 $12,337
Murrieta – GIS Technician $51,707 $57,279 2.7% 55 2.0% 62 $15,663 $15,663
Report on the Riverside County JPA Feasibility Study
Matrix Consulting Group Page 252
3. Summary of Current Trends in CalPERS Cost Sharing
One of the key reforms of PEPRA included changes to EPMCs, or employer paid
member contributions. Under these provisions, which are typically negotiated through the
collective bargaining process, employer agencies agree to cover part or all of the
employee’s contribution into the CalPERS system as a percentage of their pensionable
compensation. While PEPRA essentially eliminated these contributions for new members
(those hired by a CalPERS agency 2013 or later), many agreements for classic members
remain in place with shared employee contribution benefits.
The following table summarizes the data gathered from the most recent collective
bargaining agreements of the labor units surveyed, displaying the coefficient, vesting age,
and any employer contributions to the normal member costs of the plan:
Report on the Riverside County JPA Feasibility Study
Matrix Consulting Group Page 253
Comparison of Employee Contribution Rates
Tier 1 Tier 2
Union Type Coef. Age Employee Contribution Coef. Age Employee Contribution
Corona CPOA Police Ofc. 3.0% 50 City pays 1.5% of emp. share 2.7% 57 50% of normal cost
Corona CPS Police Supv. 3.0% 50 City pays 1.5% of emp. share 2.7% 57 50% of normal cost
Corona General General 2.7% 55 Employee pays full 8% 2.0% 62 Employee pays full 8%
Corona M&C Mgmt./Conf. 3.0% 50 City pays 1.5% of share 2.0% 62 50% of normal cost
Corona Supervisors Supervisors 2.7% 55 Employee pays full 8% 2.0% 62 Employee pays full 8%
Desert Hot Springs DHSDH Executives 2.7% 55 Employee pays full 8% 2.0% 62 50% of normal cost
Desert Hot Springs DHSEU General 2.7% 55 Employee pays full 8% 2.0% 62 50% of normal cost
Desert Hot Springs DHSPOA Police Ofc. 3.0% 50 Employee pays full 9% 2.8% 57 50% of normal cost
Escondido EPOA Police Ofc. 3.0% 50 Employees pay full 9% 2.7% 57 Employees pay 12.25%
Escondido Non-Sworn General 3.0% 60 Employees pay full 8% 2.0% 62 Employee pays 6.25%
Hemet CP Mgmt./Conf. 2.7% 55 Employees pay full 8% 2.0% 62 Employees pay full 8%
Hemet HNS General 2.7% 55 Employee pays full 8% 2.0% 62 50% of normal cost
Hemet P Police Ofc. 3.0% 50 Employee pays 3% of 12% 2.7% 57 50% of normal cost
Hemet PM Police Supv. 3.0% 50 Employee pays 3% of 12% 2.7% 57 50% of normal cost
Hemet SEIU General 2.7% 55 Employee pays full 8% 2.0% 62 50% of normal cost
Indio IPOA Police Ofc. 3.0% 50 City pays 3% share of full 9% 2.7% 57 Employee pays 3% share
Indio IPOA-Misc Police Ofc. 2.7% 55 City pays 3% share of full 9% 2.0% 60 Employee pays 3% share
Indio LIUNA General 2.7% 55 Employee pays full 8% 2.0% 62 50% of normal cost
Indio MGMT/SUPV Mgmt./Conf. 3.0% 50 City pays 50% share, max 4% 2.7% 57 Employees pay full 8%
Indio SEIU General 2.7% 55 Employees pay full 8% 2.0% 62 Employees pay full 8%
Report on the Riverside County JPA Feasibility Study
Matrix Consulting Group Page 254
Tier 1 Tier 2
Union Type Coef. Age Employee Contribution Coef. Age Employee Contribution
Murrieta M&C Mgmt./Conf. 2.7% 55 Employee pays full 8% 2.0% 60 City pays 50% cost of 6.5%
Murrieta MGEA General 2.7% 55 Employee pays 6.5% of 8% 2.0% 62 50% of normal cost
Murrieta MPMA Police Supv. 3.0% 50 City pays full 8% 3.0% 50 City pays full 8%
Murrieta MPOA Police Ofc. 3.0% 50 City pays full 9% 3.0% 50 City pays full 9%
Murrieta MSA Supervisors 2.7% 55 Employee pays full 8% 2.0% 62 City pays 50% cost of 6.5%
Palm Springs General General 2.7% 55 Employee pays full 8% 2.0% 60 50% of normal cost
Palm Springs MX Mgmt./Conf. 2.7% 55 Employees pay full 8% 2.0% 62 Employees pay full 7%
Palm Springs PMX Police Supv. 3.0% 50 City pays 3% share of full 12% 2.7% 57 City pays 3% of full 12%
Palm Springs PSPOA Police Ofc. 3.0% 50 City pays 3% of 12% 2.7% 57 City pays 3% of full 12%
R. County RCDSA Police Ofc. 3.0% 50 Employee pays full 9% 2.0% 50 Employee pays full 9%
R. County RCDSA-M Police Ofc. 3.0% 60 Employee pays full 8% 2.0% 60 Employee pays full 8%
R. County Police Supv. Police Supv. 3.0% 50 City pays full 9% 3.0% 50 Employee pays full 9%
Riverside PROFESSIONAL Mgmt./Conf. 2.7% 55 Employee pays full 8% 2.0% 62 City pays 2% share of 6%
Riverside RPOA Police Ofc. 3.0% 50 City pays full 9% 3.0% 50 Employee pays full 9%
Riverside SEIU General 2.7% 55 City pays 2% of full 6% 2.0% 62 City pays 2% of full 6%
Report on the Riverside County JPA Feasibility Study
Matrix Consulting Group Page 255
RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
Presentation on the JPA Feasibility Study
Study Objectives and Scope of Work
To determine the feasibility of establishing a nine-city regional
policing agency under a joint powers agreement (JPA).
To provide analysis and estimates of the proposed agency,
including:
Operating and startup costs
Organizational structure
Governance
Staffing and service delivery
Methodological Overview
Extensive input from key stakeholders and services providers:
Meetings with city managers of all nine cities
Interviews with RSD station commanders and staff
Extensive data collection in coordination with RSD to enable
analysis of current service levels and field workloads
Descriptive profile developed to review our understanding of
current RSD service delivery and contracts
Development and review of analytical assumptions
Research, analysis, and development of the feasibility report, as
well as coordination with city managers on revisions
Key Assumptions and JPA Characteristics
Agency to include all nine cities involved in the study:
No services to be retained by RSD other than jail and
other countywide services.
2021 is selected as the anticipated start date.
Comparisons between RSD and JPA costs are shown at
2016 to provide for a level view.
Staffing needs are also provided at 2021 levels, based
on growth, in order to provide a blueprint for the agency.
Assumptions
Governance
Organization
Cost Allocation
Compensation
Staffing
Startup Costs
Conclusions
Coachella
Jurupa Valley
Lake Elsinore
Menifee
Moreno Valley
Perris
San Jacinto
Temecula
Wildomar
Governance Model
Hybrid governance structure allows for equal
representation and for local control to be maximized:
Assumptions
Governance
Organization
Cost Allocation
Compensation
Staffing
Startup Costs
Conclusions
Organization of the JPA Services
Three regional subdivisions – North, South, and East:
The JPA organizational structure is divided into three
divisions, separating services that are provided at
centralized, regional, and local levels.
Assumptions
Governance
Organization
Cost Allocation
Compensation
Staffing
Startup Costs
Conclusions
JPA Organizational Structure
jjAssumptions
Governance
Organization
Cost Allocation
Compensation
Staffing
Startup Costs
Conclusions
Cost Allocation
A variety of cost allocation models were reviewed using
the following attributes as criteria:
Cost transparency
Support for regionalization-driven model
Local control over core services (e.g., patrol, SROs)
Proposed methodology:
Costs for each functional area are allocated using one of
three charging methods:
Class A (shared): Pro rata share based on population,
calls for service, and number of locally dedicated staff
Class B (subscription): Proactive regional units, such as
traffic enforcement, are paid for and staffed electively
Class C (local): Cities directly pay for locally dedicated
staff, such as patrol officers, local ‘chief’ position, etc.
Assumptions
Governance
Organization
Cost Allocation
Compensation
Staffing
Startup Costs
Conclusions
Compensation Survey
To accurately model the cost of running the JPA,
personnel costs represent the most significant cost
element.
A detailed compensation survey was conducted for this
purpose, focusing on nine cities within the area that
retain own police departments:
The data collected includes comprehensive pay and
benefit information for every position that a JPA agency
would need to staff.
Assumptions
Governance
Organization
Cost Allocation
Compensation
Staffing
Startup Costs
Conclusions
Corona
Desert Hot Springs
Escondido
Hemet
Indio
Murrieta
Palm Springs
Riverside (city)
RSD (sworn only)
JPA Compensation Structure
From this research, a compensation structure was
created with the goal of being both competitive and
resistant to pension cost variability.
Salaries and incentive-based pay structures have been
set at above-average levels for each position.
A defined benefit plan is offered for sworn personnel,
with an optional defined contribution system.
For civilian employees, however, only a defined
contribution plan is offered.
New-hire bonuses are provided for sworn recruits.
Assumptions
Governance
Organization
Cost Allocation
Compensation
Staffing
Startup Costs
Conclusions
Staffing Needs Analysis
Staffing models are created to determine the personnel
needs of the agency, both in 2016 and 2021.
Patrol, investigative, and dispatch workload analysis is
used to determine line-level staffing needs in those
functions.
Staffing levels for other areas are based on spans of
control, direct support needs, and other scaling factors.
Staffing needs for proactive functions (e.g., traffic
enforcement) are set according to the levels that cities
currently contract for.
At a minimum, staffing levels are set in order to to meet
or exceed the current level of service provided by RSD.
Assumptions
Governance
Organization
Cost Allocation
Compensation
Staffing
Startup Costs
Conclusions
Staffing Needs Analysis
Projected staffing needs for 2021 are based on
anticipated population growth in the nine JPA cities.
Estimated increases in calls for service and crime are
determined relative to growth rates in each city.
To maintain current service levels, an additional 38.0
positions are needed by 2021:
Assumptions
Governance
Organization
Cost Allocation
Compensation
Staffing
Startup Costs
Conclusions
Startup Costs
Estimates created from research and analysis on the
total costs of outfitting the JPA agency, including:
Facilities ($23.3m):
Moreno Valley HQ + North regional hub + station
Wildomar South regional hub + station
Coachella East regional hub + station
Stations in all other cities
911 communications infrastructure
Fleet
Equipment
Information Technology infrastructure and needs
Sworn hiring incentives (to meet 2021 start date)
Assumptions
Governance
Organization
Cost Allocation
Compensation
Staffing
Startup Costs
Conclusions
Startup Costs
In total, creating the agency would require $66.1m in
startup expenses, broken down by category as follows:
Amortized under a 10YR fixed bond and an interest rate
of 5.0%, the total reaches $84.3m overall, with an
average debt service of $8.4m per year.
Assumptions
Governance
Organization
Cost Allocation
Compensation
Staffing
Startup Costs
Conclusions
Conclusions
Total annual costs (2016 estimates) of running the JPA
agency –including amortized startup expenses – are as
follows:
Assumptions
Governance
Organization
Cost Allocation
Compensation
Staffing
Startup Costs
Conclusions
Conclusions
10% savings in the JPA overall – a difference of about
$14m/yr.
Cost would be less for most cities, with Coachella,
Menifee, and Wildomar as the exceptions.
Moreno Valley, Temecula, and Lake Elsinore would
experience the most significant cost reductions, at
approximately 16 – 20%.
Services currently provided by RSD to non-contracting
agencies would be retained per California law.
Qualitative differences in governance and local cost
control should also be considered.
Assumptions
Governance
Organization
Cost Allocation
Compensation
Staffing
Startup Costs
Conclusions
Cost Effectiveness of the JPA
There are multiple reasons for why the JPA is projected
to be a cost effective option for service:
Impact of PEPRA: Higher percentage of JPA sworn would
be categorized as Tier 2 (newer) CalPERS members,
costing less.
Pension systems: No unfunded pension or retiree
medical benefit liabilities. Civilians are a offered a defined
contribution pension plan.
Lack of over-specialization:Although all services
currently contracted for are retained, the JPA model does
not allocate resources to other non-essential services.
Retains RSD advantages: Many aspects of the RSD
service model are effective, and the JPA retains these:
Regionalization of services
Use of civilian personnel in the field
Assumptions
Governance
Organization
Cost Allocation
Compensation
Staffing
Startup Costs
Conclusions
Alternatives
Taking cities out of the JPA agency has varying effects on the
costs for remaining cities:
Leaving out Coachella cause the JPA to be slightly cheaper for all
cities ($2.3m), primarily due to startup costs and regional services.
Absence of 1-2 small/medium-sized cities has a marginal cost impact.
Leaving out major cities (i.e., Moreno Valley, Temecula) causes the
agency to be more expensive for all, as cost advantages from
economies of scale are reduced.
Including other cities within the region that did not participate in the
study could make the JPA more cost effective.
Developing more regional approaches to local services, similarly
to the RSD model, could lower costs for smaller cities.