HomeMy WebLinkAbout03-17-2021 PSAC Agenda PacketPublic Safety Advisory Commission
City of Lake Elsinore
Regular Agenda
LAKE-ELSINORE.ORG
(951) 674-3124 PHONE
CULTURAL CENTER
183 N. MAIN STREET
LAKE ELSINORE, CA
92530
JERRY CARLOS, CHAIR
KELLY HENDLEY, VICE-CHAIR
ROGER MILLER, COMMISSIONER
AGNES WILLIAMS, COMMISSIONER
ADOLFO PASTRANO, COMMISSIONER
LUZ REYES, DEPUTY CITY CLERK
Cultural Center6:00 PMWednesday, March 17, 2021
The City of Lake Elsinore appreciates your attendance. Public participation provides the Public Safety
Advisory Commission with valuable information regarding issues of the community.
Regular meetings are held on the 3rd Wednesday of every month.
If you are attending this Public Safety Advisory Commission Meeting, please park in the Parking Lot
across the street from the Cultural Center. This will assist us in limiting the impact of meetings on
Historic Main Street. Thank you for your cooperation.
The agenda is posted 72 hours prior to each meeting outside of City Hall and is available at each
meeting. The agenda and related reports are also available at City Hall on the Friday prior to the
Commission meeting and are available on the City ’s web site at www.lake-elsinore.org. Any writings
distributed within 72 hours of the meeting will be made available to the public at the time it is distributed
to the Public Safety Advisory Commission.
In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, any person with a disability who requires a
modification or accommodation in order to participate in a meeting should contact the City Manager's
Office at (951) 674-3124, ext. 204 at least 48 hours before the meeting to make reasonable
arrangements to ensure accessibility.
CITY VISION STATEMENT
The City of Lake Elsinore will be the ultimate lake destination where all can live, work and play, build
futures and fulfill dreams.
CALL TO ORDER
The Regular Meeting of the Public Safety Advisory Commission will be called to order.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
ROLL CALL
PRESENTATIONS
1)Fire Department Updates
2)Police Department Updates
Page 1 City of Lake Elsinore Printed on 3/12/2021
March 17, 2021Public Safety Advisory Commission Regular Agenda
PUBLIC COMMENTS – NON AGENDIZED ITEMS – 3 MINUTES
(Please read and complete a Request to Address the Advisory Commission form prior to
the start of the meeting and turn it in to the Clerk. The Chair or Clerk will call on you to
speak.)
CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM(S)
(All matters on the Consent Calendar are approved in one motion, unless a
Commissioner or member of the public requests separate action on a specific item.)
3)Minutes of the Regular Public Safety Advisory Commission Meeting of
October 21,2020
Approve the Minutes
10-21-2020 DraftAttachments:
BUSINESS ITEM(S)
4)Police Services Joint Powers Authority Feasibility Assessment
Discuss and review the Final Report on the Police Services Joint Powers
Authority (JPA) Feasibility Assessment by Citygate Associates, Inc.
Final Police Services JPA Feasibility Study - SR
Exhibit A - Final Report
Attachments:
SUBCOMMITTEE REPORTS
STAFF COMMENTS
COMMISSIONERS' COMMENTS
ADJOURNMENT
The Lake Elsinore Public Safety Advisory Commission will adjourn to the Regularly meeting of
Wednesday, April 21, 2021, at 6:00 p.m. at the Cultural Center located at 183 N. Main Street, Lake
Elsinore.
AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING
I, Luz Reyes Deputy City Clerk of the City of Lake Elsinore, do hereby affirm that a copy of the
foregoing agenda was posted at City Hall at ______ p.m. on March 12, 2021.
________________________
Luz Reyes
Deputy City Clerk
Page 2 City of Lake Elsinore Printed on 3/12/2021
City Council Agenda Report
City of Lake Elsinore 130 South Main Street
Lake Elsinore, CA 92530
www.lake-elsinore.org
File Number: ID# 21-085
Agenda Date: 3/17/2021 Status: Approval FinalVersion: 1
File Type: PSAC Consent
Calendar
In Control: Public Safety Advisory Commission
Agenda Number: 1)
Fire Department Updates
Page 1 City of Lake Elsinore Printed on 3/12/2021
City Council Agenda Report
City of Lake Elsinore 130 South Main Street
Lake Elsinore, CA 92530
www.lake-elsinore.org
File Number: ID# 21-086
Agenda Date: 3/17/2021 Status: Approval FinalVersion: 1
File Type: PSAC Consent
Calendar
In Control: Public Safety Advisory Commission
Agenda Number: 2)
Police Department Updates
Page 1 City of Lake Elsinore Printed on 3/12/2021
City Council Agenda Report
City of Lake Elsinore 130 South Main Street
Lake Elsinore, CA 92530
www.lake-elsinore.org
File Number: ID# 21-087
Agenda Date: 3/17/2021 Status: Approval FinalVersion: 1
File Type: PSAC Consent
Calendar
In Control: Public Safety Advisory Commission
Agenda Number: 3)
Minutes of the Regular Public Safety Advisory Commission Meeting of October 21,2020
Approve the Minutes
Page 1 City of Lake Elsinore Printed on 3/12/2021
Page 1
City of Lake Elsinore
Public Safety Advisory Commission
Regular Meeting Minutes
Wednesday October 21, 2020
Call to Order
A Regular meeting of the Public Safety Advisory Commission (PSAC) was held in the Cultural Center,
183 North Main Street, on the above date. The meeting was called to order at 6:00 p.m. by Chair Carlos.
Pledge of Allegiance
The Pledge of allegiance was led by Commissioner Pastrano.
Roll Call
Present: Commissioners Pastrano, Williams, and Miller; Vice-Chair Hendley; and Chair Carlos.
Presentations
1) Fire Department Updates – Division Chief Davis introduced himself to the Commission,
provided a Power Point Presentation on Quarterly Statistical Data, and responded to
questions from the Commission.
2) Public Safety Update – Lieutenant Rayls with the Riverside County Sheriff’s Department
introduced himself to the Commission, provided a Power Point Presentation, and responded to
questions from the Commission.
The Commission wished Captain Lujan well on his retirement.
Commissioner Miller shared his experience during his Ride-A-Long with the Riverside County
Sheriff’s Department in February.
Public Comments – Non Agendized Items – 3 Minutes
There were no speakers.
Consent Calendar Item(s)
It was moved by Commissioner Williams, seconded by Commissioner Pastrano, and unanimously
carried, to approve the Minutes.
3) Minutes from the Regular Public Safety Advisory Commission Meeting of January 15, 2020
and the Cancelled Meetings of February 19, 2020, March 3, 2020, April 18, 2020, June 17, 2020,
July 15, 2020, August 19, 2020 and September 16, 2020. – Approved the minutes.
Page 2
Subcommittee Reports
Commissioner Williams provided an update on the Homeless Task Force Subcommittee regarding
budget, Housing and Disability Advocacy Program (HDAP), and the purchase of the House of Siloam to
be converted into the crisis stabilization housing complex.
Staff Comments
No staff comments
Commissioners' Comments
Commissioner William asked to keep City Manager Yates and his family in your thoughts and prayers as
his son is not doing well.
Adjournment
The meeting adjourned at 6:36 p.m. to the Regular meeting on Wednesday, November 18, 2020, in the
Cultural Center located at 183 N. Main Street.
City Council Agenda Report
City of Lake Elsinore 130 South Main Street
Lake Elsinore, CA 92530
www.lake-elsinore.org
File Number: ID# 21-088
Agenda Date: 3/17/2021 Status: Approval FinalVersion: 1
File Type: PSAC BusinessIn Control: Public Safety Advisory Commission
Agenda Number: 4)
Police Services Joint Powers Authority Feasibility Assessment
Discuss and review the Final Report on the Police Services Joint Powers Authority (JPA) Feasibility
Assessment by Citygate Associates, Inc.
Page 1 City of Lake Elsinore Printed on 3/12/2021
REPORT TO PUBLIC SAFETY ADVISORY COMMISSION
To: Honorable Chairman and Members of the Public Safety Advisory
Commission
From: Jason Simpson, City Manager
Prepared by: Brendan Rafferty, Fiscal Officer
Date: March 17, 2021
Subject: Police Services Joint Powers Authority Feasibility Assessment
Recommendation
Discuss and review the Final Report on the Police Services Joint Powers Authority (JPA)
Feasibility Assessment by Citygate Associates, Inc.
Background
The City of 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 and many of our surrounding communities, the cost for contracting these
services has increased dramatically by more than 37% over the last ten years. These contract
rates are expected to continue to increase year after year. Based on these unsustainable
increases and projections, the City has been working with other contract cities to explore ways
to address these rising contract rates.
At a Mayors’ Summit on Public Safety hosted by the City of Temecula in 2015, participating
contract cities discussed the concept of forming a JPA as an alternative to save on public costs.
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 Sherriff’s Department. In addition to the City of Lake Elsinore, the
other participating cities included Coachella, Jurupa, Menifee, Moreno Valley, Perris, San
Jacinto, Temecula, and Wildomar.
On April 11, 2017, Matrix presented findings that indicate that a JPA could offer operational and
cost efficiencies based upon assumptions included in that study. During this meeting, staff
indicated that the next logical step would be to conduct a peer review study, whereby another
highly qualified consultant would independently validate the assumptions and findings in the
initial study. The City Council directed staff to take the next steps to conduct this peer review in
August 2017. The cities of Moreno Valley, San Jacinto, Wildomar, Jurupa Valley, and Temecula
also supported moving forward with a peer-review process.
Police Services Joint Powers Authority Feasibility Study
March 17, 2021
Page 2
Previously, the City Council designated a Public Safety Subcommittee to remain fully informed
on the progress of this project and continues to proactively explore all opportunities related to
improving public safety services and/or reducing the City’s costs. The Public Safety
Subcommittee has been very involved in reviewing services and costs associated with all
related contract services.
On November 12, 2019, City Council approved a contract with Citygate Associates, Inc. to
complete a review of the JPA process in an amount not to exceed $126,432.00.
Discussion
Citygate has completed their comprehensive analysis after obtaining a large current operating
and fiscal data set from the Sheriff’s Department. Citygate also conducted interviews with each
City’s Sheriff's command staff and the fiscal staff at Sheriff headquarters.
Their executive summary report was presented to and accepted by the collective study city
managers late in 2020. The study found and recommends the partners do not establish a police
agency JPA but rather continue to work within the Sheriff’s Department’s recent efforts to more
directly tailor
city costs versus unincorporated area services and general County overhead.
Citygate’s key findings included:
The Cities have been satisfied with police services provided by the Sheriff’s
Department.
The Sheriff’s Department’s revised 2020 contract formulas are highly
sophisticated and fairly apportion costs.
A macro analysis of JPA operational costs shows no savings.
The fiscal situation post-COVID-19 has worsened, likely curtailing the Cities’
ability to fund a large new agency’s start-up costs.
The summary operating cost comparison model of the current costs and full-time equivalents
(FTEs) versus a JPA revealed the following:
Table 1—Summary Operating Cost and FTE Comparison
Element Sheriff’s Department JPA
Total Sworn FTE 445.2 453.8
Total Non-Sworn FTE 215.0 215.0
Total FTE 660.2 668.8
Total Annual Cost $135,294,526 $139,056,052
Further, if only one or two cities did not participate in or left the JPA these costs would be even
higher than the contract or JPA estimate due to the need for a compliant police department
command and overhead staff expensed to a small number of patrol officers.
Police Services Joint Powers Authority Feasibility Study
March 17, 2021
Page 3
Based on the current Sheriff’s Department Administration’s willingness to research and develop
cost-control initiatives and given this preliminary JPA cost estimation is substantially higher than
the current contract amounts, Citygate recommends the Cities pursue the Sheriff’s
Department’s cost-controlling initiatives in-lieu of a JPA.
Additionally, over the next year, the Cities should request that the Sheriff’s Department conduct
an incident and community policing workload demand-based staffing study to further tailor their
costs to the needs of each city. This study would effectively be a Policing Master Plan per city to
include staffing levels, innovation, community engagement, oversight, and social justice/equity
structures.
The City Council’s Public Safety Subcommittee asked staff to present the attached Final Report
to the Public Safety Advisory Commission (PSAC) for comments and input prior to presenting
the full report to the City Council. At the meeting, staff will provide a brief presentation regarding
the findings and recommendations of the study.
Fiscal Impact
The contract with Citygate Associates was for an amount not to exceed $126,432. The current
expenditures total $90,003.27 which is split between the participating cities. The City’s portion of
the expense is approximately $12,857.61.
Exhibits:
A - Final Report – Police Services JPA Feasibility Assessment
Cities of Canyon Lake, Jurupa Valley, Lake Elsinore, Moreno Valley, San Jacinto, Temecula, and Wildomar
Police Services JPA Feasibility Assessment
Table of Contents page i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section Page
Executive Summary ..................................................................................................................................................... 1
Recommendation........................................................................................................................................ 3
Section 1—Study and Agency Background ............................................................................................................... 4
1.1 How This Analysis Was Performed............................................................................................... 4
1.2 Key Contract Measures per City .................................................................................................... 4
Section 2—Existing Contract Fiscal Analysis ........................................................................................................... 8
2.1 Existing Contract Fiscal Analysis and Costing Model .................................................................. 8
2.2 Existing Contract Operational Analysis ........................................................................................ 9
Section 3—Police JPA Fiscal Analysis ..................................................................................................................... 15
3.1 Macro Cost Comparison of Personnel Costs for Current Sheriff’s Department Contract Costing
to Police JPA ............................................................................................................................... 15
3.2 JPA Start-up Cost Estimate ......................................................................................................... 18
3.3 JPA Cost Allocation Methodology Options ................................................................................ 19
3.4 New Sheriff’s Department Cost Control Measures ..................................................................... 20
Section 4—Recommendation .................................................................................................................................... 22
Table of Tables
Table 1—Summary Personnel Cost and FTE Comparison ........................................................................................... 2
Table 2—Estimated JPA Start-up Costs ........................................................................................................................ 2
Table 3—Patrol Personnel Costs – FY 19/20 ................................................................................................................ 9
Table 4—Patrol Rate Components – FY 19/20 ............................................................................................................. 9
Table 5—Patrol Plus Dedicated Positions per City per Day – FY 19/20 .................................................................... 10
Table 6—Rate-Supported Positions – FY 19/20 ......................................................................................................... 11
Table 7—Dedicated and Rate Supported Positions – FY 19/20 .................................................................................. 13
Table 8—Sheriff’s Department Costs – FY 19/20 Adopted Budgets .......................................................................... 16
Table 9—JPA Cost Model with Current Service Levels – 80 Percent Classic / 20 Percent PEPRA........................... 17
Table 10—Summary Personnel Cost and FTE Comparison ....................................................................................... 17
Table 11—Estimated JPA Start-up Costs .................................................................................................................... 18
Table 12—JPA Cost Allocation Formula Options – Using Sheriff’s Personnel Costs ................................................ 19
Cities of Canyon Lake, Jurupa Valley, Lake Elsinore, Moreno Valley, San Jacinto, Temecula, and Wildomar
Police Services JPA Feasibility Assessment
Executive Summary page 1
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Cities of Canyon Lake, Jurupa Valley, Lake Elsinore, Moreno Valley, San Jacinto, Temecula,
and Wildomar (Cities) retained Citygate Associates, LLC (Citygate) to study the feasibility of
separating the Cities’ police services from the Riverside County (County) Sheriff’s Department
into a city-centric Joint Powers Authority (JPA), with the intent to increase cost-effectiveness
while retaining current service levels.
This assessment was prompted by several years of rising costs for the Sheriff’s Department’s
contracts to the Cities for local law enforcement services. It must be stressed that none of the Cities
had problems with services or law enforcement leadership in their respective Cities. However, the
large agency legacy costs and complicated formulas by which the Cities are charged for direct
services, headquarters services, and overhead had risen to the point the Cities felt it necessary to
study a fiscally responsible alternative without lowering services. City general taxes and revenues
pay for the law enforcement contracts, and in most cities this expense is their largest, with no local
control over annual cost increases, which strains the ability to provide other city services.
In lieu of each city establishing its own police department with resultant duplicated headquarters
and support costs, the Cities wanted to study establishing one new police agency under California
law, which permits local governments of all types to use a JPA structure. JPAs can have governing
boards comprised of members from the partner agencies and directly employ personnel and own
and operate physical assets.
In summary, this study finds and recommends the partners do not establish a police agency JPA
but rather continue to work within the Sheriff’s Department’s recent efforts to more directly tailor
city costs versus unincorporated area services and general County overhead.
Citygate’s key findings are:
◆ The Cities have been satisfied with police services provided by the Sheriff’s
Department.
◆ The Sheriff’s Department’s revised contract formulas are highly sophisticated.
◆ The current city Sheriff’s Department’s staffing is not based on detailed workload
analysis.
◆ A macro analysis of JPA operational costs shows no savings.
◆ The fiscal situation post-COVID-19 has worsened, likely curtailing the ability to
fund a large new agency’s start-up costs.
Cities of Canyon Lake, Jurupa Valley, Lake Elsinore, Moreno Valley, San Jacinto, Temecula, and Wildomar
Police Services JPA Feasibility Assessment
Executive Summary page 2
The summary personnel cost comparison model of the current costs and full-time equivalents
(FTEs) versus a JPA revealed the following:
Table 1—Summary Personnel Cost and FTE Comparison
Element Sheriff’s Department JPA
Total Sworn FTE 445.2 453.8
Total Non-Sworn FTE 215.0 215.0
Total FTE 660.2 668.8
Total Annual Cost $135,294,526 $139,056,052
This cost estimate model is based on the current as-is number of Sheriff’s Department personnel
supporting the Cities’ contracts plus Citygate’s estimate of headquarters services positions. The
JPA personnel costs were calculated using an 80/20 split between classic CalPERS retirement
formulas and Public Employees’ Pension Reform Act (PEPRA) based on the need to hire middle
and upper rank employees, as well as the multitude of CalPERS employer regulations.
The total annual Sheriff’s Department’s costs in Table 1 are based on Fiscal Year (FY) 19/20
adopted budgets as published on each city’s website; actual year-end closing costs were lower at
$125,416,738, per Sheriff’s Department Administration. The adopted budgets are forecasted prior
to each fiscal year and are impacted by staffing changes throughout the year, leading to the actual
costs incurred. Given that these staffing changes are fluid year over year, Citygate used the more
stable cost comparison of the adopted budget to compare with the estimated JPA model.
Estimated start-up costs are as follows:
Table 2—Estimated JPA Start-up Costs
Category Cost
Real Estate – Facilities ($900 x 43,000 sq. ft.) $38,700,000
Fleet – Vehicles ($45,000 x 325) $14,625,000
Police Safety Equipment ($9,000 x 445) $5,000,000
Information Technology $2,500,000
Communications (Dispatch) Infrastructure $15,000,000
Miscellaneous $4,500,000
Total $80,325,000
According to a Citygate partner firm, JKA Architecture, new public safety building construction
costs are estimated between $800 to $1,000 per square foot and $550 to $600 for remodeling an
Cities of Canyon Lake, Jurupa Valley, Lake Elsinore, Moreno Valley, San Jacinto, Temecula, and Wildomar
Police Services JPA Feasibility Assessment
Executive Summary page 3
existing building. Those are hard costs. Soft costs (design fees, permits, project management or
construction management fees, etc.) can add an additional 30 percent to the overall costs.
Construction costs may be offset by utilizing city-owned building spaces.
Without start-up costs, a fully functional year-one JPA is more expensive. When start-up costs are
added, the expense only increases with the amount of needed building work and equipment costs
paid for using debt financing. The debt service payment annually adds more to the cost gap. The
previous model also assumes the County will provide dispatching and radio system access at a
reasonable cost. If the Cities’ police JPA needs to construct and operate dispatching and radio/data
services over a large geography, then the annual JPA cost estimate will be substantially higher.
In addition to the start-up costs, there is also the practical difficulty in recruiting, hiring, on-
boarding, and training a 669-person workforce to new agency standards. This would require the
legal establishment of the JPA as an employer, along with enough of a command and human
resources staff to set up the agency and hire the employees. In the first two years, no services
would likely be provided at all to the Cities, so all these costs are in addition to the current contract
amounts. It is only by year three that phased-in conversion of services city by city could
commence, and this will likely take two to three years depending on the rate of hiring.
Citygate observes that all of the Sheriff’s Department’s proposed and currently implemented
staffing cost efficiencies are best practices and that appropriately using parts or all of them is the
best way to avoid unnecessary over deployment (cost) for the field patrol units.
RECOMMENDATION
Based on the current Sheriff’s Department Administration’s willingness to research and develop
cost-control initiatives, and given this preliminary JPA cost estimation is substantially higher than
the current contract amounts, Citygate recommends the Cities pursue the Sheriff’s Department’s
cost-controlling initiatives in-lieu of a JPA.
Additionally, over the next year, the Cities should request the Sheriff’s Department conduct an
incident and community policing workload demand-based staffing study to further tailor their costs
to the needs of each city. This study would effectively be a Policing Master Plan per city to include
staffing levels, innovation, community engagement, oversight, and social justice/equity structures.
Cities of Canyon Lake, Jurupa Valley, Lake Elsinore, Moreno Valley, San Jacinto, Temecula, and Wildomar
Police Services JPA Feasibility Assessment
Section 1—Study and Agency Background page 4
SECTION 1—STUDY AND AGENCY BACKGROUND
1.1 HOW THIS ANALYSIS WAS PERFORMED
Citygate reviewed prior studies on JPA feasibility issues and provided a large background
document and electronic incident data request to the Sheriff’s Department. Citygate then met
multiple times with the Cities and regional Sheriff’s Department leadership, as needed, to:
◆ Obtain follow-up information to understand current deployment and special
services.
◆ Interview the Sheriff’s Department’s Command Staff for each city and the Sheriff’s
Department’s Administrative Supervisor in charge of administering the police
services contracts on contract pricing for each city.
◆ Discuss the risks to be protected in each city and any necessary near-term changes
to policing to accommodate changes envisioned in each city.
◆ Obtain the current Sheriff’s Department’s contracts by city, with costing
itemizations, to include direct and indirect charges for all types of services, along
with the regional cost sharing of services such as dispatch and specialty teams.
These issues were all tracked through the cost-allocation methodology and
compared to the different sized Cities in this study.
◆ Discuss the possibility of city cost-control better alignment of city versus County
costs with a newly established Sheriff’s Department Research and Development
Unit.
◆ Conduct a high-level workload analysis based on the data received to determine the
need for each city’s staffing and test the costs of several scenarios for a new
employer JPA based on the study’s staffing model and the necessary headquarters
bureaus.
◆ Compare the JPA operating and start-up costs to the Sheriff’s Department’s
envisioned improvements to the contract cost model.
1.2 KEY CONTRACT MEASURES PER CITY
The following measures allow an understanding of the different scale and complexity in policing
the different Cities:
Canyon Lake
◆ Overall budget: $1,778,934 (FY 19/20 adopted budget)
Cities of Canyon Lake, Jurupa Valley, Lake Elsinore, Moreno Valley, San Jacinto, Temecula, and Wildomar
Police Services JPA Feasibility Assessment
Section 1—Study and Agency Background page 5
➢ Patrol operations: 24 hours per day (5 Deputies)
◆ Special services
➢ None
◆ Operated from the Sheriff’s Department’s Lake Elsinore Station
Jurupa Valley
◆ Overall budget: $20,460,073 (FY 19/20 adopted budget)
➢ Patrol operations: 180 hours per day (37 Deputies)
◆ Special services
➢ Traffic team (6 Deputies)
➢ Community policing (2 Deputies)
➢ Special Enforcement Team (SET) (6 Deputies)
➢ 5 dedicated Community Service Officers
◆ Operated from the Sheriff’s Department’s Jurupa Valley Station
Lake Elsinore
◆ Overall budget: $14,369,910 (FY 19/20 adopted budget)
➢ Patrol operations: 130.8 hours per day (27 Deputies)
◆ Special services
➢ Traffic team (4 Deputies)
➢ SET / community patrol / lake patrol (5 Deputies, 1 Sergeant)
➢ 5 dedicated Community Service Officers
◆ Operated from the Sheriff’s Department’s Lake Elsinore Station
Moreno Valley
◆ Overall budget: $45,267,540 (FY 19/20 adopted budget)
➢ Patrol operations: 458.5 hours per day (94 Deputies)
◆ Special services
➢ 1 Captain (90 percent)
Cities of Canyon Lake, Jurupa Valley, Lake Elsinore, Moreno Valley, San Jacinto, Temecula, and Wildomar
Police Services JPA Feasibility Assessment
Section 1—Study and Agency Background page 6
➢ Traffic team (9 Deputies, 1 Sergeant)
➢ K9 teams (3 Deputies)
➢ Crime prevention / graffiti prevention (4 Deputies)
➢ 17 dedicated Community Service Officers
➢ 1 Supervising Office Assistant
➢ 1 Office Assistant
◆ Operated from the Sheriff’s Department’s Moreno Valley Station
San Jacinto
◆ Overall budget: $13,254,533 (FY 19/20 adopted budget)
➢ Patrol operations: 97 hours per day (20 Deputies)
◆ Special services
➢ K9 team (1 Deputy)
➢ Traffic team (4 Deputies, 1 Sergeant)
➢ Problem-Oriented Policing (POP) (4 Deputies)
➢ Crime Analyst (0.5)
➢ 4 dedicated Community Service Officers
➢ 2 Office Assistants
◆ Operated from the Sheriff’s Department’s Hemet Station
Temecula
◆ Overall budget: $34,860,436 (FY 19/20 adopted budget)
➢ Patrol operations: 205 hours per day (42 Deputies)
◆ Special services
➢ 2 Sheriff’s Department Lieutenants
➢ Traffic team (17 Deputies, 1 Sergeant)
➢ SET (5 Deputies, 1 Sergeant)
➢ Mall Officers (4 Deputies)
Cities of Canyon Lake, Jurupa Valley, Lake Elsinore, Moreno Valley, San Jacinto, Temecula, and Wildomar
Police Services JPA Feasibility Assessment
Section 1—Study and Agency Background page 7
➢ K9 teams (2 Deputies)
➢ POP team (8 Deputies, 1 Sergeant)
➢ Gang / Pechanga / School Resource Officers (4.5 Deputies)
➢ 17 dedicated Community Service Officers
◆ Operated from the Sheriff’s Department’s Southwest Station
Wildomar
◆ Overall budget: $5,303,100 (FY 19/20 adopted budget)
➢ Patrol operations: 70 hours per day (14 Deputies)
◆ Special services
➢ Traffic team (1 Deputy)
➢ Community patrol (1 Deputy)
➢ 1 dedicated Community Service Officer
◆ Operated from the Sheriff’s Department’s Lake Elsinore Station
Cities of Canyon Lake, Jurupa Valley, Lake Elsinore, Moreno Valley, San Jacinto, Temecula, and Wildomar
Police Services JPA Feasibility Assessment
Section 2—Existing Contract Fiscal Analysis page 8
SECTION 2—EXISTING CONTRACT FISCAL ANALYSIS
2.1 EXISTING CONTRACT FISCAL ANALYSIS AND COSTING MODEL
The current Sheriff’s Department contract model identifies fully burdened (pay plus benefits)
hourly rates to be charged to applicable contract Cities for Sheriff’s Department services at the
beginning of a fiscal year. The model is updated annually based on the prior fiscal year actuals,
and components in the rate structure are updated as needed. The Cities receive a bill for costs that
should have been charged, due by the end of July each year. In the spring of each fiscal year, an
annual presentation is made to the Cities explaining the revised rates and presenting the estimated
costs for the upcoming year.
The cost categories are:
◆ Class 1 – wages, special pays, and benefits (e.g., pension, health, workers’
compensation, etc.)
◆ Class 2 – materials, services, and supplies
◆ Internal service fund costs – motor pool, radio shop, etc.
◆ Countywide cost allocation plan (COWCAP) – equipment use allowance and
administrative costs (e.g., human resources, county counsel, purchasing)
◆ Hourly rates for positions vary depending on dedication levels and support levels.
The rate components are:
◆ Patrol Officers – Deputy Sheriffs and Corporals
◆ Sworn support – Lieutenants, Sergeants, and Investigators
◆ Central dispatch – various communications-related positions
◆ Classified support – classified Analysts, Community Services Officers, Accounting
Technicians, etc.
◆ Other support services – other supportive personnel (e.g., records, information
technology, training, human resources, and accounting).
The fully burdened hourly rate uses an estimate of total annual productive hours (annual minus
earned leave and training hours) for all applicable patrol personnel. In FY 19/20, the total
productive hours used were 1,338,306. Overtime and mileage costs are billed separately and not
included in the personnel base rates.
Cities of Canyon Lake, Jurupa Valley, Lake Elsinore, Moreno Valley, San Jacinto, Temecula, and Wildomar
Police Services JPA Feasibility Assessment
Section 2—Existing Contract Fiscal Analysis page 9
This study used the Sheriff’s Department’s personnel cost model as depicted in the following table:
Table 3—Patrol Personnel Costs – FY 19/20
FY 2019-20 Rate
Component
Average
Salary and
Benefits per
FTE
Average Other
Compensation
per FTE
Average Annual
Salary/Benefit/
Other
Compensation
Cost per FTE
Average
Annual
Supplies and
Services Cost
per FTE
Average Total
Annual Cost
per FTE
Patrol Officers $151,712 $4,522 $156,235 $28,099 $184,334
Sworn Support $213,075 $16,828 $229,903 $26,089 $255,993
Central Dispatch $65,827 $9,927 $229,903 $8,273 $238,176
Classified Support $89,461 $2,207 $125,665 $25,784 $151,449
Other Support Services $102,126 $4,146 $106,272 $23,405 $129,677
Total $153,789 $7,638 $161,427 $25,047 $180,138
When summarized in the following table, the field patrol personnel dollars calculation yielded the
hourly rates for the personnel costs per city:
Table 4—Patrol Rate Components – FY 19/20
FY 2019-20 Rate
Component
Cost Categories
Total Cost
Total Annual
Applicable
Patrol
Personnel
Productive
Hours
Hourly
Rate
Number
of FTEs
Included
in Rate Class 1 Class 2
Internal
Service
Funds/
COWCAP
Patrol Officers $116,551,049 $20,961,875 $137,512,924 1,338,306 $102.75 746.0
Sworn Support $57,016,026 $6,470,115 $63,486,141 1,338,306 $47.44 248.0
Central Dispatch $18,786,898 $1,236,748 $20,023,646 1,338,306 $14.96 149.5
Classified Support $13,704,359 $4,326,573 $18,030,932 1,338,306 $13.47 167.8
Other Support Services $9,830,168 $2,164,971 $1,829,562 $13,824,701 1,338,306 $10.33 92.5
Total $215,888,500 $35,160,282 $1,829,562 $252,878,344 1,338,306 $188.95 1,403.8
2.2 EXISTING CONTRACT OPERATIONAL ANALYSIS
The following series of tables explains the total number of FTE employee positions currently
supported directly and indirectly by the city contracts based on the aforementioned Sheriff’s
Department’s cost model.
Cities of Canyon Lake, Jurupa Valley, Lake Elsinore, Moreno Valley, San Jacinto, Temecula, and Wildomar
Police Services JPA Feasibility Assessment
Section 2—Existing Contract Fiscal Analysis page 10
Table 5—Patrol Plus Dedicated Positions per City per Day – FY 19/20
Position Rate
Canyon
Lake
Jurupa
Valley
Lake
Elsinore
Moreno
Valley
San
Jacinto Temecula Wildomar Total
Patrol Hours Contracted 24.00 180.00 130.80 458.50 97.00 205.00 70.00 1,165.30
Police Officers – Patrol1 $188.95 4.92 36.91 26.82 94.02 19.89 42.04 14.35 238.95
Police Officers – Dedicated Supported2 $161.73 0.00 14.00 6.00 12.00 9.00 37.00 1.00 79.00
Police Officer – Dedicated Unsupported $88.14 0.00 0.00 3.00 4.00 0.00 3.50 1.00 11.50
Sergeants – Dedicated $124.28 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 3.00 0.00 6.00
Lieutenants – Dedicated $138.67 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.00 0.00 2.00
Captains – Dedicated $157.08 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.90 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.90
CSOs – Dedicated $61.65 0.00 5.00 5.00 21.00 4.00 17.00 1.00 53.00
Office Assistants – Dedicated $39.30 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.00 3.00 0.00 0.00 5.00
Crime Analyst – Dedicated $60.04 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.50 0.00 0.00 0.50
Total FTEs 4.92 55.91 41.82 134.92 37.39 104.54 17.35 396.85
1 Calculated based on 1,780 productive annual hours
2 Calculated based on 2,080 annual hours
Service levels in each city vary based on their individual size and needs and are specifically
enumerated in the scope of service section of the city’s contract. The basic service provided is
patrol and is quantified by the hour. Each city contracts for a specific number of patrol hours each
day to handle public-generated calls for service (i.e., 9-1-1 calls). In Table 5, these patrol hours are
listed for each city in the first row, which is highlighted in yellow. The number of FTE positions
needed to meet the daily patrol hour obligation is calculated on an annual basis and charged at the
fully burdened hourly contract rate, as depicted in Table 4 ($188.95). The second row of Table 5,
highlighted blue and labeled “Police Officers – Patrol,” identifies this FTE position number for
each city. For the purposes of this study, the titles of Police Officer and Deputy Sheriff are
synonymous; the latter title is used for specific employees of the Sheriff’s Department and the
former for specific employees of a potential JPA.
If a city desires additional sworn officer positions for services other than patrol, such as traffic
enforcement, community policing, police dogs (K9), etc., these are considered special services and
those positions that are also enumerated in a city’s contract are called “dedicated” positions. In
Table 5, these positions are captured in the third row titled “Police Officers – Dedicated Supported”
and are also highlighted blue.
The two aforementioned FTE types that are highlighted in blue in the table form the basis for all
of the “rate-supported” positions to be discussed later. There is a third classification of sworn
officer positions listed in Table 5 titled “Police Officer – Dedicated Unsupported” and highlighted
peach. These positions are assigned to a city and do not require additional support (i.e., dispatch
Cities of Canyon Lake, Jurupa Valley, Lake Elsinore, Moreno Valley, San Jacinto, Temecula, and Wildomar
Police Services JPA Feasibility Assessment
Section 2—Existing Contract Fiscal Analysis page 11
services, crime scene support, etc.); they are not factored into the rate-supported positions
calculation.
In addition to the patrol officer positions and the dedicated police officer (Deputy Sheriff) positions
listed, a city can contract for other dedicated positions, such as Sergeants, Lieutenants, Community
Service Officers (CSOs), etc. These positions are calculated at their weighted salary rate and are
listed in Table 5 as dedicated positions.
Included in the contracted rate for the positions highlighted in blue are all of the rate-supported
functions including sworn patrol, sworn support, central dispatch, classified support, and other
support services shown in Table 4, which includes the positions described in Table 6.
All of the aforementioned FTE positions are enumerated in the city contracts and are assigned to
the various Sheriff’s Department stations associated with the city contract.
The following table reflects the rate-supported positions as previously mentioned.
Table 6—Rate-Supported Positions – FY 19/20
Position Ratio
Canyon
Lake
Jurupa
Valley
Lake
Elsinore
Moreno
Valley
San
Jacinto Temecula Wildomar Total
Investigators – Rate Supported 9.80 0.50 5.20 3.30 10.80 2.90 8.10 1.60 32.40
Sergeants – Rate Supported 7.00 0.70 7.30 4.70 15.10 4.10 11.30 2.20 45.40
Lieutenant – Rate Supported 27.00 0.20 1.90 1.20 3.90 1.10 2.90 0.60 11.80
CSOs – Rate Supported 17.50 0.30 2.90 1.90 6.10 1.70 4.50 0.90 18.30
SSOs – Rate Supported 41.77 0.10 1.20 0.80 2.50 0.70 1.90 0.40 7.60
Accounting Technicians – Rate Supported 19.59 0.30 2.60 1.70 5.40 1.50 4.00 0.80 16.30
Office Assistants – Rate Supported 11.13 0.40 4.60 2.90 9.50 2.60 7.10 1.40 28.50
Central Homicide – Rate Supported 39.50 0.10 1.30 0.80 2.70 0.70 2.00 0.40 8.00
Administration (Internal Affairs) – Rate Supported 86.80 0.10 0.60 0.40 1.20 0.30 0.90 0.20 3.70
Personnel (Recruiting) – Rate Supported 89.80 0.10 0.60 0.40 1.20 0.30 0.90 0.20 3.70
Information Services (IT) – Rate Supported 28.30 0.20 1.80 1.20 3.70 1.00 2.80 0.50 11.20
Dispatch – Rate Supported 5.00 1.00 10.20 6.60 21.20 5.80 15.80 3.10 63.70
Accounting (Finance) – Rate Supported 52.00 0.10 1.00 0.60 2.00 0.60 1.50 0.30 6.10
Technical Services Bureau – Rate Supported 81.00 0.10 0.60 0.40 1.30 0.40 1.00 0.20 4.00
Grant Writing – Rate Supported 399.90 0.00 0.10 0.10 0.30 0.10 0.20 0.00 0.80
Training Center (Range) – Rate Supported 182.00 0.00 0.30 0.20 0.60 0.20 0.40 0.10 1.80
Total FTEs 4.20 42.20 27.20 87.50 24.00 65.30 12.90 263.30
Rate-supported positions are calculated by adding the total number of Police Officers – Patrol
(Table 5, second row) and the total number of Police Officers – Dedicated Supported (Table 5,
third row) assigned to a city. Those two combined numbers are then multiplied against a ratio
Cities of Canyon Lake, Jurupa Valley, Lake Elsinore, Moreno Valley, San Jacinto, Temecula, and Wildomar
Police Services JPA Feasibility Assessment
Section 2—Existing Contract Fiscal Analysis page 12
determined by the Sheriff’s Department to come up with a rate-supported position. For example,
Investigators are included in the rate-supported ratio of 9.80; meaning that for every 9.80 Police
Officer – Patrol and Police Officer – Dedicated Supported positions a city pays for, one FTE
Investigator is included.
Using San Jacinto for illustration purposes, the calculation is as follows:
(19.89 + 9) / 9.80 = 2.9 Investigators (rate-supported by San Jacinto contract)
These positions are reflected in Table 6. The non-highlighted positions are those FTEs that directly
support the patrol and dedicated positions and work out of each city’s respective Sheriff’s
Department station. The light-yellow positions are those FTEs that are included in the rate but are
centrally located and operate on a regional basis, most often from the Sheriff’s Department’s
Headquarters.
The costing structure of dedicated or rate-supported personnel is necessary and common in local
government costing contracts. There needs to be a method to fractionally expense central
administration services at different usage rates to each position dedicated to a city’s contract.
The cost model to derive personnel costs to each city then adds the patrol, dedicated, and rate-
supported positions together. For the purpose of Citygate expensing a separated police JPA, the
following table shows the total contracted for positions if all the Cities formed one police JPA.
Cities of Canyon Lake, Jurupa Valley, Lake Elsinore, Moreno Valley, San Jacinto, Temecula, and Wildomar
Police Services JPA Feasibility Assessment
Section 2—Existing Contract Fiscal Analysis page 13
Table 7—Dedicated and Rate Supported Positions – FY 19/20
Position Rate Ratio
Canyon
Lake
Jurupa
Valley
Lake
Elsinore
Moreno
Valley
San
Jacinto Temecula Wildomar Total
Patrol Hours Contracted 24.00 180.00 130.80 458.50 97.00 205.00 70.00 1,165.30
Police Officers – Patrol $188.95 4.92 36.91 26.82 94.02 19.89 42.04 14.35 238.95
Police Officers – Dedicated Supported $161.73 0.00 14.00 6.00 12.00 9.00 37.00 1.00 79.00
Police Officer – Dedicated Unsupported $88.14 0.00 0.00 3.00 4.00 0.00 3.50 1.00 11.50
Investigators – Rate Supported 9.80 0.50 5.20 3.30 10.80 2.90 8.10 1.60 32.40
Sergeants – Rate Supported 7.00 0.70 7.30 4.70 15.10 4.10 11.30 2.20 45.40
Sergeants – Dedicated $124.28 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 3.00 0.00 6.00
Lieutenant – Rate Supported 27.00 0.20 1.90 1.20 3.90 1.10 2.90 0.60 11.80
Lieutenants – Dedicated $138.67 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.00 0.00 2.00
Captains – Dedicated $157.08 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.90 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.90
CSOs – Rate Supported 17.50 0.30 2.90 1.90 6.10 1.70 4.50 0.90 18.30
CSOs – Dedicated $61.65 0.00 5.00 5.00 21.00 4.00 17.00 1.00 53.00
SSOs – Rate Supported 41.77 0.10 1.20 0.80 2.50 0.70 1.90 0.40 7.60
Accounting Technicians – Rate Supported 19.59 0.30 2.60 1.70 5.40 1.50 4.00 0.80 16.30
Office Assistants – Rate Supported 11.13 0.40 4.60 2.90 9.50 2.60 7.10 1.40 28.50
Office Assistants – Dedicated $39.30 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.00 3.00 0.00 0.00 5.00
Crime Analyst – Dedicated $60.04 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.50 0.00 0.00 0.50
Central Homicide – Rate Supported 39.50 0.10 1.30 0.80 2.70 0.70 2.00 0.40 8.00
Administration (Internal Affairs) – Rate Supported 86.80 0.10 0.60 0.40 1.20 0.30 0.90 0.20 3.70
Personnel (Recruiting) – Rate Supported 89.80 0.10 0.60 0.40 1.20 0.30 0.90 0.20 3.70
Information Services (IT) – Rate Supported 28.30 0.20 1.80 1.20 3.70 1.00 2.80 0.50 11.20
Dispatch – Rate Supported 5.00 1.00 10.20 6.60 21.20 5.80 15.80 3.10 63.70
Accounting (Finance) – Rate Supported 52.00 0.10 1.00 0.60 2.00 0.60 1.50 0.30 6.10
Technical Services Bureau – Rate Supported 81.00 0.10 0.60 0.40 1.30 0.40 1.00 0.20 4.00
Grant Writing – Rate Supported 399.90 0.00 0.10 0.10 0.30 0.10 0.20 0.00 0.80
Training Center (Range) – Rate Supported 182.00 0.00 0.30 0.20 0.60 0.20 0.40 0.10 1.80
Total Sworn FTEs 6.62 68.11 47.82 147.42 39.49 114.04 21.65 445.15
Total Non-Sworn FTEs 2.50 30.00 21.20 75.00 21.90 55.80 8.60 215.00
Total FTEs 9.12 98.11 69.02 222.42 61.39 169.84 30.25 660.2
However, the 660 positions that would yield a singular city-centric police department do not
include Sheriff’s Department central administration positions that, by policy, were never expensed
to the Cities’ contracts, including:
◆ Sheriff’s Department Executive Management Team
◆ Station Captains
◆ Station crime analysis capability / unit
Cities of Canyon Lake, Jurupa Valley, Lake Elsinore, Moreno Valley, San Jacinto, Temecula, and Wildomar
Police Services JPA Feasibility Assessment
Section 2—Existing Contract Fiscal Analysis page 14
◆ Station forensic units
◆ Social media
Later in this JPA analysis, some of these positions will be added to the separated police JPA, which
further increases the costs for the JPA.
Cities of Canyon Lake, Jurupa Valley, Lake Elsinore, Moreno Valley, San Jacinto, Temecula, and Wildomar
Police Services JPA Feasibility Assessment
Section 3—Police JPA Fiscal Analysis page 15
SECTION 3—POLICE JPA FISCAL ANALYSIS
3.1 MACRO COST COMPARISON OF PERSONNEL COSTS FOR CURRENT SHERIFF’S
DEPARTMENT CONTRACT COSTING TO POLICE JPA
The final Citygate research step was to create a staffing and cost plan for a multiple-city police
JPA. In 2020, the Sheriff’s Department was still working on testing cost control measures to the
differing contract Cities, so Citygate chose to build a cost estimation model for the JPA using
personnel and contract costs from FY 19/20. It was assumed that if the JPA was more expensive
in this comparison, any cost savings the Sheriff’s Department adopted into future contracts would
only widen the cost differences between contracting and a multiple-city police JPA operation.
The following set of JPA cost model tables assumes the following:
◆ FY 19/20 Sheriff’s Department personnel costs.
◆ FY 19/20 patrol and headquarters positions. Citygate reviewed field deployment
plans, which, along with Citygate’s interviews, determined that patrol staffing
levels are not currently based on any evidence-based workload analysis. For JPA
cost comparison purposes, Citygate used the current staffing levels for FY 19/20.
◆ Given the Sheriff’s Department contracts do not expense executive management
positions, these had to be estimated and added to the personnel costs.
Based on this cost model framework, the following table shows the combined cost for all
personnel, by city, in the city contracts:
Cities of Canyon Lake, Jurupa Valley, Lake Elsinore, Moreno Valley, San Jacinto, Temecula, and Wildomar
Police Services JPA Feasibility Assessment
Section 3—Police JPA Fiscal Analysis page 16
Table 8—Sheriff’s Department Costs – FY 19/20 Adopted Budgets
Position Rate Ratio
Canyon
Lake
Jurupa
Valley
Lake
Elsinore
Moreno
Valley
San
Jacinto Temecula Wildomar Total
Patrol Hours Contracted 24.00 180.00 130.80 458.50 97.00 205.00 70.00 1,165.30
Police Officers – Patrol $188.95 4.92 36.91 26.82 94.02 19.89 42.04 14.35 238.95
Police Officers – Dedicated Supported $161.73 0.00 14.00 6.00 12.00 9.00 37.00 1.00 79.00
Police Officer – Dedicated Unsupported $88.14 0.00 0.00 3.00 4.00 0.00 3.50 1.00 11.50
Investigators – Rate Supported 9.80 0.50 5.20 3.30 10.80 2.90 8.10 1.60 32.40
Sergeants – Rate Supported 7.00 0.70 7.30 4.70 15.10 4.10 11.30 2.20 45.40
Sergeants – Dedicated $124.28 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 3.00 0.00 6.00
Lieutenant – Rate Supported 27.00 0.20 1.90 1.20 3.90 1.10 2.90 0.60 11.80
Lieutenants – Dedicated $138.67 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.00 0.00 2.00
Captains – Dedicated $157.08 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.90 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.90
CSOs – Rate Supported 17.50 0.30 2.90 1.90 6.10 1.70 4.50 0.90 18.30
CSOs – Dedicated $61.65 0.00 5.00 5.00 21.00 4.00 17.00 1.00 53.00
SSOs – Rate Supported 41.77 0.10 1.20 0.80 2.50 0.70 1.90 0.40 7.60
Accounting Technicians – Rate Supported 19.59 0.30 2.60 1.70 5.40 1.50 4.00 0.80 16.30
Office Assistants – Rate Supported 11.13 0.40 4.60 2.90 9.50 2.60 7.10 1.40 28.50
Office Assistants – Dedicated $39.30 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.00 3.00 0.00 0.00 5.00
Crime Analyst – Dedicated $60.04 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.50 0.00 0.00 0.50
Central Homicide – Rate Supported 39.50 0.10 1.30 0.80 2.70 0.70 2.00 0.40 8.00
Administration (Internal Affairs) – Rate Supported 86.80 0.10 0.60 0.40 1.20 0.30 0.90 0.20 3.70
Personnel (Recruiting) – Rate Supported 89.80 0.10 0.60 0.40 1.20 0.30 0.90 0.20 3.70
Information Services (IT) – Rate Supported 28.30 0.20 1.80 1.20 3.70 1.00 2.80 0.50 11.20
Dispatch – Rate Supported 5.00 1.00 10.20 6.60 21.20 5.80 15.80 3.10 63.70
Accounting (Finance) – Rate Supported 52.00 0.10 1.00 0.60 2.00 0.60 1.50 0.30 6.10
Technical Services Bureau – Rate Supported 81.00 0.10 0.60 0.40 1.30 0.40 1.00 0.20 4.00
Grant Writing – Rate Supported 399.90 0.00 0.10 0.10 0.30 0.10 0.20 0.00 0.80
Training Center (Range) – Rate Supported 182.00 0.00 0.30 0.20 0.60 0.20 0.40 0.10 1.80
Total Sworn FTEs 6.62 68.11 47.82 147.42 39.49 114.04 21.65 445.15
Total Non-Sworn FTEs 2.50 30.00 21.20 75.00 21.90 55.80 8.60 215.00
Total FTEs 9.12 98.11 69.02 222.42 61.39 169.84 30.25 660.2
FY 2019-20 Adopted Budgets $1,778,934 $20,460,073 $14,369,910 $45,267,540 $13,254,533 $34,860,436 $5,303,100 $135,294,526
Based on Citygate’s review of each city contract and interviews with Sheriff’s Department
command staff personnel assigned to the supporting Sheriff’s Department stations, the FTE
calculations and rate formulas used in the preceding tables are appropriate.
The following table adds JPA executive management positions for Police Chief, a Deputy Chief,
and Bureau Captains to the positions in Table 7 and Table 8. Also added is an estimate for services,
supplies, differential pay, overtime, etc. For pension expense, given likely CalPERS regulations
with the JPA’s need to employ lateral hire mid- and upper management personnel plus
Cities of Canyon Lake, Jurupa Valley, Lake Elsinore, Moreno Valley, San Jacinto, Temecula, and Wildomar
Police Services JPA Feasibility Assessment
Section 3—Police JPA Fiscal Analysis page 17
investigators, the pension costs are estimated at CalPERS legacy classic employee pension costs
for 80 percent of the workforce, with the remaining 20 percent of the workforce at entry-level
positions or employees new to CalPERS under the pension reform PEPRA rates.
The net result of this table and the JPA cost model is a total of 669 full-time personnel at an
estimated annual cost of $139,056,052:
Table 9—JPA Cost Model with Current Service Levels – 80 Percent Classic / 20 Percent
PEPRA
Position Classification
Total Salary
and Benefits
of the
Position
(Classic)
Total Salary
and Benefits
of the
Position
(PEPRA)
Proposed
FTEs
Blended
Total Costs
(80-20 Split)
Police Chief $446,557 $423,039 1.0 $441,853
Deputy Police Chief $341,843 $324,153 2.0 $676,611
Captain $301,359 $286,062 7.0 $2,088,096
Lieutenant $261,182 $248,121 14.8 $3,826,829
Sergeant $231,995 $221,040 54.3 $12,478,352
Investigator $212,868 $202,978 40.2 $8,477,764
Corporal $192,943 $184,162 0.0 -
Patrol Officer $192,943 $184,162 334.5 $63,951,908
All non-sworn positions averaged $106,792 $106,792 215.0 $22,960,362
Service/supplies costs per sworn
position $45,038 $45,038 453.8 $20,438,277
Differential pay/mileage/overtime/
other outside of above $3,716,000
Total 668.8 $139,056,052
The following table summarizes the total position quantities and costs between the FY 19/20
Sheriff personnel contract costs and the JPA model personnel cost estimate:
Table 10—Summary Personnel Cost and FTE Comparison
Element Sheriff’s Department JPA
Total Sworn FTE 445.2 453.8
Total Non-Sworn FTE 215.0 215.0
Total FTE 660.2 668.8
Total Annual Cost $135,294,526 $139,056,052
Cities of Canyon Lake, Jurupa Valley, Lake Elsinore, Moreno Valley, San Jacinto, Temecula, and Wildomar
Police Services JPA Feasibility Assessment
Section 3—Police JPA Fiscal Analysis page 18
The city contracts each year provide for an estimated budget. At the end of a fiscal year there is a
true up where the Cities are charged only the actual costs. At the close of FY 19/20, the Sheriff’s
Department’s fiscal team reported the final contract city charge to be $125,416,738, or
approximately $10 million less due to some efficiencies being implemented, a lower-than-
estimated need for overtime, and unfilled positions (normal in any large organization due to
retirements and academy dates). The same will be true for a JPA; costs can shift slightly year over
year, even if salary, pension, and health costs stay the same. However, it should be noted that FY
19/20 was extraordinary due to widespread economic disruptions caused by COVID-19 stay-at-
home orders and business closures. The staffing flexibility in a crisis the Cities enjoyed through
direct dialogue with Sheriff’s Department Administration would be difficult for a JPA to replicate.
3.2 JPA START-UP COST ESTIMATE
Even if the personnel costs for the JPA were the same or less than the Sheriff’s Department’s,
starting a new agency of 669 personnel is a large, expensive effort. Even if some services can
continue to be contracted, start-up and service contracts need to be understood and added to the
previously listed personnel costs. The following table shows the estimated start-up and contract
service costs for a police JPA. While 9-1-1 dispatch center and technology services might possibly
be contracted through the Sheriff’s Department, that feasibility is unknown at this point. Therefore,
the following table includes dispatch center spaces and all needed technology services provided
by the JPA.
Table 11—Estimated JPA Start-up Costs
Category Cost
Real Estate – Facilities ($900 x 43,000 sq. ft.) $38,700,000
Fleet – Vehicles ($45,000 x 325) $14,625,000
Police Safety Equipment ($9,000 x 445) $5,000,000
Information Technology $2,500,000
Communications (Dispatch) Infrastructure $15,000,000
Miscellaneous $4,500,000
Total $80,325,000
The Sheriff’s Department owns some of the facilities. Some police station spaces in some of the
Cities might be able to utilize city-owned building space. If not, according to a Citygate partner
firm, JKA Architecture, new building construction costs for public safety “essential buildings”
under the California State building codes are estimated between $800 and $1,000 per square foot
and $550 to $600 for remodeling an existing building. Those are hard costs. Soft costs (design
fees, permits, furnishings, fixtures, equipment, and project management or construction
Cities of Canyon Lake, Jurupa Valley, Lake Elsinore, Moreno Valley, San Jacinto, Temecula, and Wildomar
Police Services JPA Feasibility Assessment
Section 3—Police JPA Fiscal Analysis page 19
management fees, etc.) can add an additional 30 percent to the overall costs. If even five new police
buildings were built with bonds, there is still an added cost for debt service, which further increases
the cost difference with contracting and operating a JPA police department.
3.3 JPA COST ALLOCATION METHODOLOGY OPTIONS
In a shared sub-regional police department, there must be mechanisms for local control via elected
officials, along with the ability to share costs equitably between cities of very different sizes with
different policing needs.
California’s JPA law allows for this. In a JPA of this size, the Board of Directors would typically
be elected officials from the member cities. The Board would hire and manage the Police Chief as
the JPA’s administrative leader, accountable to the Board. When the JPA is set up, the founding
agencies would choose the voting rules—either simple majority or weighted by agency size.
There are multiple cost allocation strategies possible within the structure of a JPA: per capita, 9-1-1
incident workload (calls for service), quantity of dedicated staffing, use of special teams, blended
multiple-part formulas, etc. As an illustration, the following table compares the Sheriff’s
personnel-only costs shared across common formulas, including resident population, budget ratio,
number of sworn police officers, the number of all police department personnel as FTE, and
percentage of 9-1-1 incidents.
Table 12—JPA Cost Allocation Formula Options – Using Sheriff’s Personnel Costs
Canyon
Lake
Jurupa
Valley
Lake
Elsinore
Moreno
Valley
San
Jacinto Temecula Wildomar Total
Population 11,106 103,784 64,037 205,034 47,474 112,230 36,162 579,827
Percentage 1.92% 17.90% 11.04% 35.36% 8.19% 19.36% 6.24% 100.00%
Budget $1,778,934 $20,460,073 $14,369,910 $45,267,540 $13,254,533 $34,860,436 $5,303,100 $135,294,526
Percentage 1.31% 15.12% 10.60% 33.40% 9.78% 25.72% 3.91% 100.00%
Sworn 6.62 68.11 47.82 147.42 39.49 114.04 21.65 445.15
Percentage 1.49% 15.30% 10.74% 33.12% 8.87% 25.62% 4.86% 100.00%
Total FTE 9.12 98.11 69.02 222.42 61.39 169.84 30.25 660.15
Percentage 1.38% 14.86% 10.46% 33.69% 9.30% 25.73% 4.58% 100.00%
2018 Calls 3,101 54,363 37,769 116,819 33,252 54,661 14,387 314,352
Percentage 0.99% 17.29% 12.01% 37.16% 10.58% 17.39% 4.58% 100.00%
As can be seen, given the diversity of size between the seven Cities, all of the formula tests come
out close to each other. If a JPA were to be feasible, the Cities could likely agree on one formula
or a blend of two formulas to use for cost sharing.
Cities of Canyon Lake, Jurupa Valley, Lake Elsinore, Moreno Valley, San Jacinto, Temecula, and Wildomar
Police Services JPA Feasibility Assessment
Section 3—Police JPA Fiscal Analysis page 20
Other than office space, start-up costs could be shared using the same formula as annual operations.
Capital building construction costs would be the responsibility of each different city based on their
local options.
Another, harder-to-estimate cost at this feasibility point is 9-1-1 dispatch, radio, and mobile data
systems. The Cities’ police JPA needs to have dispatching and radio/data services over a large
geography. The previous cost estimate includes the needed personnel, operating expense, and
capital expense for dispatch and technical services. The Sheriff’s Department might consider a
contract with the JPA for these services, offering the best regional cost efficiencies.
Not yet fully calculated in the start-up costs is the practical difficulty in recruiting, hiring, on-
boarding, and training a 669-person workforce to new agency standards. This would require the
legal establishment of the JPA as an employer, along with enough of a command and human
resources staff to set up the agency and hire the employees. In the first two years, no services
would likely be provided at all to the Cities, so all these costs are in addition to the current County
Sheriff’s Department contract amounts. It is only by year three that phased-in conversion of
services city by city could commence, and this will likely take two to three years depending on the
rate of hiring.
3.4 NEW SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT COST CONTROL MEASURES
After the change of Sheriffs in early 2019, Sheriff Chad Bianco formed a Research and
Development Unit and tasked them to, among other priorities, find cost efficiencies and deeply
review the contract Cities’ cost model. The Unit’s early efforts focused on patrol operations as that
is the Department’s largest personnel expense and customer area. The Unit began developing
staffing plans based on workload measures. As the Unit looked at staffing for cost efficiencies, it
identified three variables:
◆ Reduce or redistribute staffing
◆ Reduce call volume
◆ Reduce time spent on calls.
The research of these variables drove several key findings for workload distribution:
◆ CSOs are currently being underutilized on patrol
➢ CSOs handle only 4 to 10 percent of calls
➢ CSOs are capable of handling an average of 25 percent of calls
◆ The cost difference between Patrol Deputies and CSOs is significant:
➢ The Patrol Deputy cost per hour rate is $188.95
Cities of Canyon Lake, Jurupa Valley, Lake Elsinore, Moreno Valley, San Jacinto, Temecula, and Wildomar
Police Services JPA Feasibility Assessment
Section 3—Police JPA Fiscal Analysis page 21
➢ The CSO cost per hour rate is $61.64
➢ The potential Department-wide annual cost savings is $226,612.
Regarding time spent by Deputies on calls for service to gain efficiencies (cost per hour deployed),
the Unit evaluated the options of:
◆ No response – handling issues with a referral to another better suited type of
assistance
◆ Alternate reporting methods – including electronic, phone in, etc.
◆ Hybrid online reporting – incorporating elements of CSO assistance
◆ Online reporting – largely by the affected party
◆ Auto-populating report forms – easing repetitive entry by the Deputies on standard
issues and reducing report writing time.
Citygate observes that all of these elements to gain efficiencies in per-hour deployment are best
practices and that appropriately using parts or all of them is the best way to avoid unnecessary over
deployment (cost) for police services.
Cities of Canyon Lake, Jurupa Valley, Lake Elsinore, Moreno Valley, San Jacinto, Temecula, and Wildomar
Police Services JPA Feasibility Assessment
Section 4—Recommendation page 22
SECTION 4—RECOMMENDATION
Based on the current Sheriff’s Department Administration’s willingness to research and develop
cost-control initiatives, and given this preliminary JPA cost estimation is substantially higher than
the current contract amounts, Citygate recommends the Cities pursue the Sheriff’s Department’s
cost-controlling initiatives in-lieu of a JPA.
Additionally, over the next year, the Cities should request that the Sheriff’s Department conduct
an incident and community policing workload demand-based staffing study to further tailor their
costs to the needs of each city. This study would effectively be a Policing Master Plan per city to
include staffing levels, innovation, community engagement, oversight, and social justice/equity
structures.