Cost Analysis and Assessment of Public Safety ...cityofrohnertpark.hosted.civiclive.com/UserFiles/Servers...Cost Analysis and Assessment of Public Safety Alternatives ROHNERT PARK,

Cost Analysis and Assessment of Public Safety Alternatives

ROHNERT PARK, CALIFORNIA

FINAL REPORT

721 Colorado Avenue, Suite 101

Palo Alto, CA 94303 v.650.858.0507 f.650.858.0509

June 6, 2011

CITY OF ROHNERT PARK 2017 Public Safety Resource Analysis RFP

RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS ATTACHMENT VERSION: 11.10.17 R2QA

Matrix Consulting Group

Cost Analysis and Assessment of Public Safety Alternatives for the City of Rohnert Park

In April 2010, the Matrix Consulting Group initiated the project to perform the cost

analysis and assess the potential alternative delivery models for law enforcement and

fire and emergency medical services in the City of Rohnert Park (the City). For law

enforcement, the project team assessed the Sonoma County Sheriff’s (the Sheriff)

preliminary proposal for the provision of law enforcement services to the City, which

included comparing the current staffing levels and costs of law enforcement services

provided by the Rohnert Park Department of Public Safety (DPS), to the staffing levels

and costs of the proposed Sheriff draft contract, with the goal of determining the initial

feasibility from a cost and / or quality perspective. For fire and emergency medical

services, the project team identified the preliminary contract costs proposed by the

Adobe Rancho Fire Protection District and CalFIRE, and compared these potential

costs to what is currently being allocated by the DPS.

To complete the assessment, the Matrix Consulting Group project team

conducted the following:

• Interviews with the City Manager to obtain a contextual understanding of the overall economic environment of the City, including the current costs of public safety, feasibility of alternative service provision, etc.

• Interviews with other key City function personnel to understand their respective

interaction with DPS, including public works and information technology. • Interviews with key managers and supervisors of the DPS, including the Director,

top command staff, and the sergeants to obtain a general understanding of DPS organization, operations, costs, and functional roles and responsibilities.



ROHNERT PARK, CALIFORNIA Cost Analysis and Assessment of Public Safety Alternatives

Matrix Consulting Group Page 2

• Collection and review of pertinent financial data of the DPS, including law enforcement costs, fire and emergency medical service costs, operating budgets, salary and benefit schedules, personnel leave utilization, etc.

• Collection and review of pertinent organizational and operational data of the

DPS, including detailed calls for service workload activity, personnel deployment, schedules, and organizational charts.

• Review of the proposed contracts and / or costs from other jurisdictions, including

the following:

- Sonoma County Sheriff’s Office draft proposal to provide law enforcement services.

- Rancho Adobe Fire Protection District’s draft cost sheet to provide fire and

emergency medical services. - CalFIRE’s draft cost sheet to provide fire and emergency medical

services. In order to assess these alternative service delivery approaches, the first section

below includes an overall profile of the DPS illustrating its current organizational

structure, staffing levels, workloads, and associated costs.

1. DPS LAW ENFORCEMENT AND FIRE SERVICES ARE PROVIDED FOR A FY 2010 / 2011 BUDGET OF $15.5 MILLION PLUS INDIRECT ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS OF NEARLY $800,000 – FOR A TOTAL OF $16.3 MILLION.

The following sub-sections provide key information of the DPS in order to

understand the baseline information for comparative purposes.

(1) The DPS is Authorized with 81.75 Full-Time Equivalents. The chart below summarizes the structure and FTE staffing authorization:





Department of Public Safety – Organizational Structure

As shown in the organizational structure, there are a total of 81.75 authorized

full-time equivalents (including 81 full-time positions and a 3/4 part-time position). In

addition to the Director and the Secretary position, the DPS has authorized 59.75 full-

time positions for the provision of law enforcement, 2 full-time positions for animal

control, and 18 full-time positions for the provision of fire and emergency medical

services, summarized per classification as follows:





DPS Full-Time Authorized Staffing per Classification

Classification Police Animal

Services Fire Total

Lieutenant 3 0 1 4

Fire Marshal 0 0 1 1

Sergeant 7 0 3 10

Public Safety Officer 33 0 13 46

Tech Services Manager 1 0 0 1

Communications Supervisor 1 0 0 1

Dispatcher 10 0 0 10

Animal Shelter Supervisor 0 1 0 1

Animal Shelter Technician 0 1 0 1

Records Supervisor 1 0 0 1

Records Clerk 1 0 0 1

Office Assistant 1.75 0 0 1.75

Community Service Officer 1 0 0 1

Total 59.75 2 18 79.75

It is important to note that the DPS utilizes additional numbers of volunteers and

other temporary / part-time employees throughout the organization (e.g., for records and

other office assistance, dispatching, crime scene specialists, and other special projects).

(2) The DPS has an Authorized FY 2010 / 2011 Budget of $15.5 Million.

The table below summarizes the adjusted FY 2010 / 2011 expenditures for the

DPS, including law enforcement, animal services, and fire services:





Authorized FY 2010 / 2011 Budget

Cost Item Personnel

Compensation Services and

Supplies Capital Total

Expenditure

% of DPS Total

Law Enforcement

Police Personnel $10,231,988 $0 $0 $10,231,988 66.0%

Police Protection $191,600 $1,013,500 $50,000 $1,255,100 8.1%

Police Main Station $8,100 $208,000 $0 $216,100 1.4%

Sub-Total $10,431,688 $1,221,500 $50,000 $11,703,188

Animal Services

Animal Control $332,804 $122,700 $0 $455,504 2.9%

Animal Shelter $11,740 $32,200 $1,000 $44,940 0.3%

Sub-Total $344,544 $154,900 $1,000 $500,444

Fire Services

Fire Personnel $3,049,668 $8,500 $2,000 $3,060,168 19.7%

Fire Protection $38,800 $149,900 $10,000 $198,700 1.3%

Fire Stations $0 $33,500 $0 $33,500 0.2%

HazMat / Emerg. Prep. $0 $4,000 $0 $4,000 0.0%

Sub-Total $3,088,468 $195,900 $12,000 $3,296,368

DPS TOTAL $13,864,700 $1,572,300 $63,000 $15,500,000 100.0%

% of Total 89.4% 10.1% 0.4% 100.0%

The following points summarize each of the cost items above: • Police Personnel includes primarily employee services such as regular salaries,

longevity pay, overtime pay, incentive pay, stipend amounts, training and education, counseling, and benefits.

• Police Protection includes primarily of supplies and other expenditures, including

office supplies, postage, special departmental supplies, utilities, dues and descriptions, uniform expenses, vehicle supplies (gas and oil) and maintenance, equipment leases, as well as contractual services, which includes such items as the following:

– CAD / RMS on-going maintenance and support – Radio maintenance – K-9 training and veterinarian – Live-scan annual maintenance – Others • Police Main Station includes primarily heat, light, and power, telephone, and

facility maintenance.





• Animal Control and Animal Shelter includes regular employee services and supplies and other expenditures, primarily related to special departmental supplies, contractual services, advertising and publications, etc.

• Fire Personnel includes primarily employee services such as regular salaries,

longevity pay, overtime pay, incentive pay (e.g., Fire Engineers, Captain and EMT pay), stipend amounts, training and education, counseling, and benefits.

• Fire Protection includes primarily uniform expense, vehicle repairs and

maintenance, contractual services, special departmental supplies, etc. • The Fire Stations (Northern and Southern) includes costs associated with heat,

light, and power, telephone, and facility maintenance. In total, the City allocates $11.7 million for the direct provision of law enforcement

services, in addition to over $500,000 for animal services, and $3.3 million for fire and

emergency medical services. For purposes of this assessment, the project team

focuses on costs related to Police Personnel and Police Protection and assumes that

costs related to the Police Main Station (for building and facility maintenance), Capital,

and Animal Control / Services will continue to be incurred by the City regardless of

whether an alternative option is implemented.

For contextual purposes regarding the cost of public safety services in the region,

the project team identified the total number of budgeted law enforcement staffing and

the total personnel compensation costs (salaries, wages, fringe benefits, overtime, etc.)

by the respective incorporated cities in Sonoma County. The table below calculates the

overall budgeted personnel cost per staff:





Budget per Law Enforcement Staff (Sworn and Non-Sworn) – Sonoma County

Rank City Total Police

Staffing Total Personnel

Budget Personnel Cost / Staff

1 Healdsburg 24 $4,051,291.0 $168,803.8

2 Rohnert Park 61.75 $10,231,988.0 $165,700.2

3 Santa Rosa 251.75 $38,728,861.0 $153,838.6

4 Cloverdale 23.8 $3,042,910.0 $127,853.4

5 Cotati 16.08 $2,002,037.0 $124,504.8

6 Petaluma 107.5 $12,579,700.0 $117,020.5

7 Sebastopol 21 $2,326,295.0 $110,776.0

Total / Avg. 505.88 $72,963,082.0 $144,230.0

As this shows, based on total authorized budget amounts for the current fiscal

year, the City of Rohnert Park has the second highest overall cost per law enforcement

position (and includes sworn and non-sworn personnel). It is important to note that the

City of Rohnert Park allocates the Director and Secretary personnel costs within the law

enforcement budget, which results in the use of 61.75 total police staffing to achieve an

accurate per personnel cost.

(3) In Addition to Direct Costs, the City has Approximately $776,000 in Indirect Costs Associated with the Support and Operation of the DPS.

Beyond the direct costs with the operating the DPS, the City incurs other costs

associated with the administration and support of public safety services. Based on

budget information obtained from the Finance Department and interviews / data

collection from supporting operating departments (i.e., information technology), the

following table estimates the indirect costs of the DPS.





Estimated DPS Indirect Costs – FY 2010 / 2011

Item

Police (74% of

FTE)

Animal Control (2.5% of

FTE)

Fire (21% of

FTE)

Admin (2.5% of

FTE) Total

Worker's Compensation $147,988 $4,954 $42,105 $4,954 $200,000

Liability $36,997 $1,238 $10,526 $1,238 $50,000

Legal $66,594 $2,229 $18,947 $2,229 $90,000

Human Resources $125,179 $4,190 $35,616 $4,190 $169,175

Information Technology $55,384 $1,854 $15,758 $1,854 $74,850

Finance $84,937 $2,843 $24,166 $2,843 $114,790

City Manager $56,987 $1,908 $16,214 $1,908 $77,016 Total Indirect Costs (Est.) $574,067 $19,216 $163,333 $19,216 $775,831

The following points summarize the items above: • Total worker’s compensation costs are based on 5 years of claims data, and

allocated based on the number of full-time equivalents within the DPS. • Total liability costs are based on 5 years of claims data, and allocated based on

the number of full-time equivalents within the DPS. • Total legal costs are based on 12 months of legal bills associated with DPS

personnel issues, and allocated based on the number of full-time equivalents within the DPS.

• Total human resources costs are based on the current budget of the function

divided by the percentage of employees allocated to DPS vs. other City departments and functions (which equates to approximately 54%) – and then allocated based on the number of full-time equivalents within the DPS.

• Total information technology costs are based on the annual maintenance and

support costs for DPS systems, allocated based on the number of full-time equivalents within the DPS.

• Total city manager and finance department costs are based on staff time and

functions related to public safety, and then allocated based on the number of full-time equivalents within the DPS.

In total, the estimated indirect costs associated with the DPS is nearly $776,000,

with an estimated $574,000 for law enforcement services, $19,000 for animal services,

$163,000 for fire and emergency medical services, and $19,000 for administration.





(4) Based on the Direct and Indirect Costs Described Above, the Project Team Estimated the Baseline Law Enforcement Costs for Comparison to the Sheriff Proposal.

Given the costs identified in this section, the project team identified the baseline

law enforcement cost in order to appropriately compare to the proposed Sheriff costs.

As such, the following table summarizes the costs and key assumptions utilized:

Baseline Law Enforcement Cost for Comparison to Sheriff Options

Item

Current DPS Budget

Baseline Cost for

Comparison

Key Assumption

Police Personnel

$10,231,988

$10,231,988

The Sheriff contract would incur costs associated with their respective law enforcement personnel and compensation.

Police Protection

$1,255,100

$465,100

The Sheriff contract would incur costs associated with law enforcement services and supplies. The City would continue to incur the costs associated with Contractual Services ($500,000), Vehicle Supplies, Repair, and Maintenance ($240,000), and Capital ($50,000).

Police Main Station

$216,100

$0

The City would continue to incur the costs associated with station facility maintenance.

Animal Services

$500,444

$0

The City would continue to incur the animal services costs.

Indirect Costs

$574,067

$518,683

The Sheriff contract would incur costs associated with administrative overhead, liability, etc. The City would continue to incur the costs associated with information technology support ($55,384).

Total Cost (Est.)

$12,777,699

$11,215,771

As shown above, the City currently allocates approximately $12.8 million in direct

and indirect costs for the provision of law enforcement services. Based on the costs





which would continue under a contract situation and the assumptions made above, the

baseline costs for comparisons to the Sheriff proposal costs equates to approximately

$11.2 Million.

2. THE CITY HAS RECEIVED A PRELIMINARY DRAFT PROPOSAL FROM THE SONOMA COUNTY SHERIFF’S OFFICE TO PROVIDE LAW ENFORCEMENT SERVICES, RANGING FROM $9.3 MILLION TO $11.3 MILLION.

Per request, the Sonoma County Sheriff’s Office submitted a preliminary draft

proposal in March of 2011 regarding the provision of law enforcement services to the

City of Rohnert Park. The preliminary draft proposal included 3 separate options for

staffing and service level approaches, ranging from an estimated annual cost of $9.3

million to $11.3 million. These staffing and cost options as drafted by the Sheriff are

summarized in the following table:

Draft Staffing and Cost Options – March 2011

OPTION 1 OPTION 2 OPTION 3

Position # Cost # Cost # Cost

Chief 1 $239,997 1 $239,997 1 $239,997

Sergeant 4 $766,028 5 $957,535 6 $1,149,042

Detective 1.75 $302,482 2 $345,694 2.25 $388,906

Deputy 26 $4,220,684 29 $4,707,686 31 $5,032,354

CSO 3 $276,723 3 $276,723 3 $276,723

Sr. Processor / Legal Staff Sup. 1 $93,503 1 $93,503 1 $106,273

Legal Processor 2 $172,678 2 $172,678 3 $259,017

Dispatcher 5 $586,165 5.5 $644,782 6 $703,398

Admin. Aide 1 $104,365 1 $104,365 1 $104,365

Sub-Total (Salaries / Benefits) 44.75 $6,762,625 49.5 $7,542,963 54.25 $8,260,075

Overtime $879,318 $990,467 $1,078,722

Premium Pay $14,336 $14,336 $29,454

Vacation Buy Back $15,912 $18,546 $20,796

Shift Differential $209,886 $228,483 $238,952

Sub-Total (All Compensation) $7,882,077 $8,794,795 $9,627,999

Overhead (@ 15%) $1,182,312 $1,319,219 $1,444,200

Services and Supplies $188,722 $204,239 $218,403

Total Option Cost $9,253,111 $10,318,253 $11,290,602





The following points summarize the draft options as proposed by the Sheriff: • Option 1 consists of 44.75 full-time equivalents for a total cost of $9.3 million,

including $7.8 million in personnel costs and $1.5 million in overhead, services, and supplies.

• Option 2 consists of 49.5 full-time equivalents for a total cost of $10.3 million,


• Option 3 consists of 54.25 full-time equivalents for a total cost of $11.3 million,


For comparative / contextual purposes, the total Sheriff Contract compensation

cost per position is approximately $177,000 (which is derived from the average sub-total

of “All Compensation” divided by the average number of proposed full-time equivalents)

versus $166,000 for the City of Rohnert Park. For further comparison, the following

table compares the applicable positions (for regular salaries and benefits only):

Comparison of Regular Salaries and Benefits – Rohnert Park vs. Sheriff Contract

Applicable Classification Rohnert

Park Sheriff

Contract Variation

Chief / Contract Chief $271,457 $239,997 $31,460

Lieutenant / Contract Chief $208,667 $239,997 ($31,331)

Sergeant $183,545 $191,507 ($7,962)

PSO / Deputy $147,006 $162,334 ($15,328)

Community Service Officer $97,014 $92,241 $4,773

Dispatcher $95,154 $117,233 ($22,079)

Records / Legal Processor $72,029 $86,339 ($14,310)

It is important to note that a Sheriff Lieutenant will be serving as the Contract

Chief. Thus, when the Rohnert Park Chief is compared to the Contract Chief, the City

would experience a position savings. However, for each position, the Sheriff Contract

cost for regular salaries and benefits is higher than each Rohnert Park cost for regular

salaries and benefits. Further, to understand potential cost increases of the Sheriff





Contract, the following table summarizes the total police budgets of Sonoma and

Windsor (who are under 10-year contracts with the Sheriff) for the past several years:

Sheriff Contract Cost Trends – FY 2007 / 2008 to FY 2010 / 2011

FY 2007 /

2008 FY 2008 /

2009 FY 2009 /

2010 FY 2010 /

2011 Avg. Annual

Increase 3-Year

Increase

Sonoma PD $3,765,781 $3,884,771 $4,054,160 $4,021,067 2.2% 6.8%

Windsor PD $5,098,653 $5,071,214 $5,114,972 $5,178,217 0.5% 1.6%

As shown above, the Sonoma PD contract has risen by an annual rate of 2% to

3% annually, while the Windsor PD contract has remained relatively steady. During this

same period, it is important to note that the total Rohnert Park Department of Public

Safety budget has decreased by over 22% since FY 2007 / 2008 (from $19.5 Million to

$15.2 Million in FY 2010 / 2011). This decline was primarily due to the necessary

expense adjustments resulting from the weakened economy (or the beginning of the

“great recession”).

However, before the height of the DPS budget during FY 2007 / 2008 and FY

2008 / 2009 at approximately $19.5 Million, the DPS budget was increasing by an

annual rate of 10% since FY 2002 / 2003, summarized in the following table:

DPS General Fund Budget – FY 2002 / 2003 to FY 2007 / 2008

FY 2002 / 2003

FY 2003 / 2004

FY 2004 / 2005

FY 2005 / 2006

FY 2006 / 2007

FY 2007 / 2008

Avg. Annual % Change

$12,096,313

$13,221,584

$15,582,695

$16,319,516

$17,287,268

$19,519,828

10.1%

As this table shows, the DPS general fund budget was increasing by an average

of approximately $1.5 Million annually between FY 2002 / 2003 and FY 2007 / 2008,

representing a 5-year change of over 61% (or approximately $7.4 Million). This

increase was due to a combination of increased public safety staff resources, as well as

increased personnel cost per position, as summarized in the following table:





DPS Cost per Public Safety Personnel – FY 2002 / 2003 to FY 2007 / 2008

FY 2002 /

2003 FY 2003 /

2004 FY 2004 /

2005 FY 2005 /

2006 FY 2006 /

2007 FY 2007 /

2008 PS GF Budget

$10,066,138

$10,837,777

$12,412,558

$13,435,577

$13,800,883

$15,517,771

PS FTE 96.5 97.5 103.5 103.5 103.5 104.5

Cost / FTE $104,312.3 $111,156.7 $119,928.1 $129,812.3 $133,341.9 $148,495.4

The proposed contract costs developed by the Sheriff utilized a number of key

assumptions and approaches, as summarized in the following table:

Sheriff Draft Cost Proposal Assumptions

Element

Key Assumptions / Approach

Service Level

Option 1 represents minimum coverage for the patrol function and investigative services at a service level necessary to ensure community and police officer safety. No specialty assignments are assumed, and 1 CSO would handle property / evidence and the other 2 CSO would perform typical patrol support duties. Option 2 represents enhanced patrol coverage, additional investigative services, a relief sergeant, and an SRO. No specialty assignments are assumed, and 1 CSO would handle property / evidence and the other 2 CSO would perform typical patrol support duties. Option 3 represents enhanced patrol coverage, additional investigative services, a relief sergeant, and administrative sergeant, an SRO, 2 traffic safety officers, and K-9 officers. 1 CSO would handle property / evidence and the other 2 CSO would perform typical patrol support duties.

Minimum Staffing

Patrol minimum staffing proposed is 4 officers from 6 AM to noon, 7 officers from noon to 6 PM, 6 officers from 6 PM to 2 AM, and 3 officers from 2 AM to 6 AM.

Schedule

Approach is a team / shift model with 2 teams, 11-hour shifts, and sworn staff assigned on 4 shifts.

Personnel Expenses

Salaries and benefits based on FY 2011 / 2012 costs. Overtime based on historical average of overtime hours paid for each job classification. Vacation buy-back based on historical average payouts for each job classification. Premium Pay assumes a certain number of officers receiving bilingual premium and lieutenant receiving the contract Chief premium. Shift Differential assumes a certain number of officers and sergeants assigned to swing and grave shifts.





Element

Key Assumptions / Approach Overhead

Estimated at 15% applied to personnel costs and includes law enforcement administration, crime prevention, payroll, personnel, accounting, administrative management, etc.

Services and Supplies

Estimated based on historical average of expenses as a percentage of total personnel expenses, or 1.7%.

Dispatch

Dispatchers would work out of the Sheriff’s Main Office.

Records / Property

Legal processors would be supervised by the day shift patrol sergeant or administrative staff.

Vehicle

Cost estimates do not include vehicle costs. The SCSO assumes that the City would either retain fleet or contract with County Fleet separately for fleet services.

Facilities

The SCSO assumes that City sworn personnel and some non-sworn staff would remain at current facility and that the City will be responsible for all facility related expenses.

Based on the DPS law enforcement operation and costs, the draft Sheriff

proposal costs, as well as the various assumptions identified in this assessment, the

next sections compare the overall services and costs.

3. THE DRAFT SHERIFF PROPOSAL TO THE CITY OF ROHNERT PARK PROVIDES A SIMILAR LEVEL OF COVERAGE AND AN ADEQUATE AMOUNT OF PROACTIVE TIME.

To understand the overall crime activity between cities serviced by the County

Sheriff and cities served by in-house departments, the following table summarizes the

crime activity per 1,000 residents based on 2009 Department of Justice data (ranked by

the total violent and property crimes per 1,000). Sonoma County consists of 9

municipalities, of which 7 cities provide law enforcement services with an in-house

department, while the remaining 2 cities receive law enforcement services from the

Sheriff (Sonoma and Windsor).





Crimes per 1,000 Residents – Sonoma County

# Jurisdiction Agency Population

# of Violent Crimes

Violent Crime

per 1,000

# of Property Crimes

Property Crime

per 1,000

Total Crime / 1,000

1 Santa Rosa In-House 163,436 803 4.9 4,265 26.1 31.0

2 Sebastopol In-House 7,943 15 1.9 200 25.2 27.1

3 Rohnert Park

In-House 43,398 201 4.6 905 20.9 25.5

4 Healdsburg In-House 11,931 16 1.3 286 24.0 25.3

5 Cotati In-House 7,476 32 4.3 157 21.0 25.3

6 Sonoma Sheriff 10,078 25 2.5 228 22.6 25.1

7 Cloverdale In-House 8,636 16 1.9 177 20.5 22.3

8 Petaluma In-House 58,401 168 2.9 852 14.6 17.5

9 Windsor Sheriff 26,955 80 3.0 352 13.1 16.0

10 County Sheriff 155031 553 3.6 1,537 9.9 13.5 Total / Avg. 493,285 1,909 3.9 8,959 18.2 22.0

Using crime activity as an indicator, the above data shows that areas serviced by

the Sonoma County Sheriff have generally lower levels of crime activity per 1,000

versus cities with an in-house department. On average, cities with in-house

departments are experiencing a violent crime rate of 4.2 per 1,000 residents, while the

County Sheriff patrolled cities are experiencing a violent crime rate of 2.8 per 1,000

residents. For property crimes, cities with in-house departments are experiencing a rate

of 22.7 per 1,000 residents, while the County Sheriff patrolled cities are experiencing a

rate of 15.7 per 1,000 residents.

Using this information as overall context, the following sections compare the

proposed Sheriff staffing and deployment approaches to the existing operation of the

DPS. The focus of this assessment is on the core function of any law enforcement





agency, which is the allocation of patrol resources in order to respond community-

generated calls for service and engage in proactive field enforcement (e.g., traffic stops,

suspicious vehicle stops, field interviews, etc.), as well as the resources allocated to

providing follow-up investigations.

(1) The Total Number of Field Resources Proposed by the Sheriff is Appropriate to Meet Adequate Levels of Proactive Time.

In order to assess the general amount of patrol resources proposed by the

Sheriff, the project team conducted a preliminary staffing analysis utilizing a method in

which the number of police field personnel required is determined based on the number

of unique workloads and service level requirements of a community. In order to

evaluate these proposed resources, the project team conducted an initial data collection

and analytical effort focusing on the following:

• Determining unique community generated calls for service indicated by a unit dispatch and unit field response.

• The field resources used to handle calls for service and proactive workloads

based on officer availability levels (after taking into account personnel time for vacation, sick, etc.).

• Deployment and scheduling patterns • Targeting a sufficient amount of time beyond community generated, or “reactive”

workload; this can then be utilized to perform proactive or community-oriented policing services (e.g. special enforcement of high-crime areas, etc.).

• Maintaining a deployment that would help reduce risk and maintain officer safety

levels. One of the primary responsibilities of a patrol officer is the responding to and

handling community-generated calls for service. Further, workload related to these calls

for service, including reports, arrests / bookings, back-up assistance to another patrol

officer on a call, etc., as well as the associated times for these activities, are primary





responsibilities of the officer. These elements are foundational in deriving the total field

staffing levels required based on desired proactive time targets, summarized below:

Proactive Time Targets

Characteristic Comments Proactive Patrol Requirements

• The proactive element of field patrol should make up between 40% and

50% of an Officer’s day (on average). • Research and experience has shown the 40% – 50% range to be

appropriate bounds for proactive time for several reasons:

- Less than 40% proactive time available to Officers results in inefficient bundling of available time – i.e., time comes in intervals too short to be effectively utilized by law enforcement personnel for meaningful activity.

- Proactive time of more than 50% results in less efficient use of community resources, as it is difficult to effectively manage law enforcement personnel whose time is so heavily weighted toward proactive activities.

- A level of 45% proactive time or higher is typically seen in smaller suburban or rural communities; a level of 40% – 45% is more common in larger cities where additional proactive resources are available (and are not counted toward patrol proactivity). This range of 45% to 50% is suitable for a community such as Rohnert Park.

To determine whether the amount of proposed field resources are meeting these

minimum proactive time targets, the table below summarizes the assessment factors:

Factors for Patrol Staffing Analysis

Calculation Factor

Summary Discussion

RP DPS

Calls for Service

Actual call data obtained from the CAD system allowed the project team to determine the number of community-generated calls for service for which a unit was dispatched and arrived on scene (and excluded duplicate calls, cancelled calls, information calls and incidents with missing dispatch, arrival, and clearance times).

17,303 calls for service in which a unit was dispatched and responded in the field.

Call Handling Time

An average handling time of 30-40 minutes is needed to efficiently and effectively handle a community generated call for service. The handling time includes an Officer’s travel time and on-scene time.

Target of 35 minutes is utilized.

Back-Up Frequency / Number of Units per Call

Target of 1.5 patrol unit responses per community generated call for service.

Best practice target utilized.





Calculation Factor

Summary Discussion

RP DPS

Duration of Time On-Scene by Back-Up

Target of 75% of the initial handling unit’s handling time.

Best practice target utilized.

Number of Reports

This number is based on the number of community-generated calls for service. For most incidents requiring a report the Officer will gather preliminary information while on-scene handling the call and spend additional time later in the shift, at the end of the shift or the next day completing the report.

3,196 case reports generated based on calls for service.

Time to Complete a Report

An average of 45 minutes is used to determine the time required for completing incident reports resulting from a call for service or self-initiated activity; this time is included as part of reactive workload time.

Estimate of 45 minutes.

Number of Arrests

This number is based upon actual data and indicates patrol Officer workload.

972 total arrests / bookings

Time to Complete an Arrest

An average of 1 hour is required for an officer to transport and book an arrestee at the regional jail facility. This time is included as part of reactive workload time.

Estimate of 60 minutes.

Available Time of Officers / Officers on Duty

This is based on actual data of vacation, sick, training, and other leave times which determine the actual available time an Officer actually is working.

Average of 1,750 for sworn field personnel, minus estimated time for training and administrative time lost on shift.

It is important to note that this is a preliminary analysis to provide a general

sense of the overall adequacy of the staffing levels proposed by the Sheriff. As such,

the patrol staffing calculation identifying the number of officers required to meet various

proactive time targets, under various patrol schedules, are illustrated below:





Estimated Staffing Requirements

Workload

Factor

1. COMMUNITY GENERATED WORKLOADS

Calls for service (Actual CY 2010) 17,303.00

Handling Time (Best Practice of 35 Minutes) 9,516.65

Back up Rate (Best Practice of 0.5) 0.50

Handling Time for Back Up Units (estimated, based on 75% of initial units) 0.38

Total Time for Back Up Unit CFS Handling 3,244.31

Number of Reports (Actual CY 2010) 3,196.00

Total Time for Report Writing (Estimated Avg. of 45 Minutes) 2,397.00

Number of CFS Bookings (Actual CY 2010) 972.00

Time to Process CFS Arrests / Bookings (Estimate of 60 Minutes) 1.00

Total Time for CFS Arrests / Bookings 972.00

TOTAL TIME TO HANDLE COMMUNITY GENERATED WORKLOADS 16,129.96

2. TIME FOR PREVENTIVE PATROL AND OFFICER INITIATED ACTIVITY

50% of Available Time 16,129.96



3. TOTAL TIME REQUIRED FOR REACTIVE AND PROACTIVE ACTIVITIES




4. PER OFFICER AVAILABILITY

Net hours worked each year (Minus leaves, training, briefings, etc.) 1,471.36

5. NUMBER OF POSITIONS REQUIRED (11-Hour Schedule)

50% of Available Time 30



Under the Sheriff’s 11-hour schedule, the City of Rohnert Park requires between

25 to 30 patrol officers to meet a proactive time target of between 40% to 50%.

(2) The Proposed Sheriff Hourly Minimum Staffing Requirements Exceed the Current DPS Minimum Hourly Staffing Requirements. The table below illustrates the minimum staffing requirements proposed by the

Sheriff (for all 3 options) versus those of the current DPS deployment (which includes

both regular patrol units, as well as any canine units or traffic units):





Minimum Patrol Staffing Requirements – DPS vs. Sheriff Option

Hour RP Minimum

Staffing

Contract Minimum Staffing

Variation to DPS

0000 6 6 0

0100 6 6 0

0200 4 3 (1)

0300 4 3 (1)

0400 4 3 (1)

0500 3 3 0

0600 3 4 1

0700 3 4 1

0800 3 4 1

0900 4 4 0

1000 4 4 0

1100 4 4 0

1200 4 7 3

1300 4 7 3

1400 4 7 3

1500 4 7 3

1600 4 7 3

1700 4 7 3

1800 4 6 2

1900 4 6 2

2000 4 6 2

2100 6 6 0

2200 6 6 0

2300 6 6 0 Avg. 4.25 5.25 1

As shown above, the Sheriff minimum staffing requirements exceed that of DPS

during several hours of the day, particularly between 1200 and 1800, when the Sheriff

has a requirement of 7 officers, versus 4 for the DPS. In general, the average minimum

staffing requirement for the DPS is 4.25 officers per hour, while the proposed Sheriff

contract indicates an average of 5.25 officers per hour.

(3) To Meet Minimum Staffing Requirements, the Sheriff Options are Similar or Exceed that of the Department of Public Safety. To compare the proposed deployment of Sheriff resources versus the current

DPS schedule, the following table illustrates the number of scheduled resources:





Scheduled Officers per Hour – DPS vs. Sheriff Options

DPS OPTION 1 OPTION 2 OPTION 3

Hour Officer

per Hour Officer

per Hour Variance to DPS

Officer per Hour

Variance to DPS

Officer per Hour

Variance to DPS

0000 8.5 6.0 (2.5) 7.0 (1.5) 8.0 (0.5)

0100 8.5 6.0 (2.5) 7.0 (1.5) 8.0 (0.5)

0200 5.5 3.0 (2.5) 4.0 (1.5) 4.0 (1.5)

0300 5.5 3.0 (2.5) 4.0 (1.5) 4.0 (1.5)

0400 5.5 3.0 (2.5) 4.0 (1.5) 4.0 (1.5)

0500 3.0 3.0 0.0 4.0 1.0 4.0 1.0

0600 3.0 3.0 0.0 4.0 1.0 4.0 1.0

0700 4.0 7.0 3.0 8.0 4.0 9.0 5.0

0800 4.0 4.0 0.0 4.0 0.0 5.0 1.0

0900 6.0 4.0 (2.0) 4.0 (2.0) 5.0 (1.0)

1000 6.0 4.0 (2.0) 4.0 (2.0) 5.0 (1.0)

1100 6.0 7.0 1.0 7.0 1.0 9.0 3.0

1200 6.0 7.0 1.0 7.0 1.0 9.0 3.0

1300 6.0 7.0 1.0 7.0 1.0 9.0 3.0

1400 6.0 7.0 1.0 7.0 1.0 9.0 3.0

1500 6.0 10.0 4.0 10.0 4.0 13.0 7.0

1600 9.0 10.0 1.0 10.0 1.0 13.0 4.0

1700 5.0 10.0 5.0 10.0 5.0 13.0 8.0

1800 5.0 6.0 1.0 6.0 1.0 8.0 3.0

1900 5.5 6.0 0.5 6.0 0.5 8.0 2.5

2000 5.5 6.0 0.5 6.0 0.5 8.0 2.5

2100 8.5 9.0 0.5 10.0 1.5 12.0 3.5

2200 8.5 6.0 (2.5) 7.0 (1.5) 8.0 (0.5)

2300 8.5 6.0 (2.5) 7.0 (1.5) 8.0 (0.5) Avg. 6.0 6.0 (0.1) 6.4 0.4 7.8 1.8

Based on the DPS patrol schedule, there is an overall average of 6 patrol officers

scheduled per hour, ranging from a high of between 8 to 9 between 2100 and 0100, to a

low of 3 to 4 officers scheduled between 0500 and 0900. The following point highlight

the key findings when compared to the proposed Sheriff options:

• Sheriff Option 1 provides a similar level of field resources, with an hourly average of 6 patrol officers scheduled per hour, with the Sheriff scheduling between 2 to 3 officers less than the DPS between 2200 and 0500, as well as during 0900 and 1000.

• Sheriff Option 2 provides a slightly higher level of field resources, with an hourly

average of 6.4 patrol officers scheduled per hour.





• Sheriff Option 3 provides a higher level of field resources, with an hourly average of nearly 8 patrol officers scheduled per hour, scheduling between 4 officers to up to 13 officers between 1500 and 1700.

Given this preliminary assessment of the adequacy of patrol resources outlined

in the Sheriff draft options, the project team suggests that Option 1, at a minimum,

provides an appropriate level of service, and also is similar to the current level of field

patrol services provided by DPS, summarized below:

• The minimum number of 26 officers proposed in Option 1 would meet an adequate level of proactive time of between 40% to 45%.

• The minimum staffing requirements targeted per the draft Sheriff proposal is

meeting or exceeding the current DPS approach. • The number of officers deployed per hour suggested in Option 1 in the draft

Sheriff proposal is similar to the current DPS approach. The next section provides the preliminary assessment of investigative caseloads

and the general adequacy of the proposed Sheriff contract.

(4) The Sonoma County Sheriff Response Times to Priority Calls for Service are Comparable to those of Rohnert Park.

One key indicator of performance is the ability of the law enforcement agency to

respond to community-generated calls for service in a timely manner. As an industry

benchmark, the project team utilizes the following response time targets:

• Priority 1: 3 – 5 Minutes



Based on data developed and published by the respective agencies, the

following table summarizes the response time performance for the City of Rohnert Park

Department of Public Safety, and the Sonoma County Sheriff for its contract cities:





Agency Response Time Performance – YTD 2011

Priority Rohnert

Park DPS Sonoma (Sheriff)

Windsor (Sheriff)

1 4:54 4:40 4:54

2 6:29 8:31 7:58

3 14:50 11:16 12:00

As this table shows, the respective agencies are performing well against best

practice targets for each of the priority calls. For the high priority emergency calls, the

respective agencies are performing similarly, while the DPS is performing better than

the Sheriff on Priority 2 calls for service, and are responding slower to lower Priority 3

calls versus the Sheriff.

Given the respective population and current number of deputies allocated to the

Cities of Sonoma (1,120 residents per Deputy) and Windsor (1,797 residents per

Deputy), the project team can expect the Sheriff to perform in a comparable fashion if it

provided law enforcement services to the City of Rohnert Park, as Option 1 results in

1,669 residents per Deputy (within the range of the other contract cities).

(5) The DPS Experiences Approximately 18 to 19 Investigative Case Assignments per Month.

The evaluation of investigative staffing levels takes on a unique approach

because, unlike field services, more subjective and qualitative determinants of workload

and work practices are more important. The following are the considerations and

factors which guide the assessment of operations and recommended staffing levels:

• Approaches used to screen, assign, and monitor cases are different among law enforcement agencies, and thus making direct comparisons to evaluate staffing is insufficient.

• What is actually investigated varies by agency. The extent to which agencies

assign misdemeanor level property crime cases to detectives varies. Also, the extent to which patrol performs preliminary investigation varies widely and impacts detective caseloads.





• Staffing approaches vary among agencies, in that some law enforcement

departments utilize non-sworn personnel (or civilian investigators) to handle caseloads and supplement sworn positions

• Work practices vary tremendously among agencies, relating to interviewing

techniques, mix of telephone and in-person interviews, use of computer technologies, and the time devoted to clerical tasks.

• The nature of the caseload is also a critical factor to consider when examining

quantitative factors relating to investigative activity. Each case is different in terms of leads, suspect description, and other available information. The way information in a single case combines with information on other cases also impacts investigative actions.

• The nature of the community itself is a factor in evaluating investigative workload

and staffing needs. Citizen expectations translate into service levels impacting detectives in terms of what is investigated and how investigations are conducted.

Generally speaking, the comparative measures that can be used to determine

staffing, efficiency and effectiveness are displayed in the following table:

Comparative Measures

Comparative Industry Patterns

Active cases assigned to “generalist” crimes Detectives.

12 to 15 active cases assigned and worked in the previous month (or 30 days).

Part I Offenses per “line” Detective in core investigative functions such as persons and property crimes Detectives.

The Average distribution of Part I Offenses per “line” Detective developed in police services studies in the U.S. generally ranges from 300-500 Part I Offenses per investigator.

To conduct the general assessment of investigative caseloads, the project team

obtained monthly caseload data, showing the date of case, the assigned detective, case

#, type of case, and status (assigned, closed, inactive, etc.) for July 2010 to March

2011. The table below summarizes the overall caseload and status for this 9-month

period:





DPS Investigative Caseload

Status 9-Month

Total Annualized Avg. / Month

Assigned 156 208 17.3

Closed, Inactive, Suspended, etc. 157 209 17.4

Based on this workload data and with 4 dedicated detectives, each generalist

DPS detective is averaging 4 to 5 case assignments per month (below the standard of

between 12 – 15 active cases worked per month). As such, the following table shows

the average number of active cases per month under the various Sheriff contract

options.

Monthly Detective Caseload – DPS vs. Sheriff Options

Proposed Sheriff Contract

Type

Current DPS per Detective

(4 FTE)

Option 1 per Detective (1.75 FTE)

Option 2 per Detective (2 FTE)

Option 3 per Detective (2.25 FTE)

Assigned 4.3 9.9 8.7 7.7

Closed, Inactive, Suspended 4.4 10.0 8.7 7.8

According to this data, the DPS detectives are being assigned an average of 4 to

5 cases per month, while at the same time closing between 4 to 5 case assignments per

month, indicating that detectives are being assigned and closing cases within 30 to 60

days. Assuming this similar caseload and measuring against the draft Sheriff proposal

for detective staffing, each option provides an adequate level of detective resources to

conduct follow-up investigations. Additionally, when comparing the standard ratio of the

number of Part I crimes per detective, the DPS detectives are experiencing

approximately 277 Part I crimes per detective (below the benchmark of between 300 to

500 per detective). As such, the project team concludes that the proposed Sheriff

contract levels for detectives are adequate to efficiently and effectively meet public

safety needs regarding investigations.





(5) In Summary, the Draft Sheriff Options Provide Similar Levels of Service versus the Current Approach.

Based on this basic assessment of field patrol resources and investigative

caseloads, the table below briefly summarizes how the draft Sheriff proposal compares

to the current primary services:

Key Service Element

Summary of Sheriff Approach

Field Patrol

Option 1 provides an adequate amount of field resources to meet appropriate proactive time targets and achieve community-policing goals, and provides the similar coverage in terms of hourly staffing requirements and deployment. Option 2 and Option 3 both provide enhanced levels of service.

Investigations

Each option provides an adequate amount of investigative staffing to meet the investigations caseload, as indicated by the staffing standard of 12 to 15 active cases per month, per detective.

Dispatching and Communications

Each option provides at least 1 dedicated dispatcher 24 hours per day / 7 days per week to handle the law enforcement dispatching services. Given the amount of community-generated calls for service activity (an average of between 1 to 2 per hour), this provides adequate coverage.

Records

Each option provides between 3 to 4 dedicated records-related staffing, which is similar to the current DPS allocation for records management and processing.

Property and Evidence

Each option provides 1 dedicated Community Service Officer position to handle property / evidence, which is similar to the current DPS allocation for property / evidence processing.

Regarding levels of service, the project team finds that Option 1, at a minimum,

provides an appropriate level of resources in order to meet public safety needs in the

City, in terms of both officer-safety and emergency law enforcement calls for service

demands. As a result, Option 2 and Option 3 would provide generally enhanced levels

of public safety service, however, would not yield significant cost savings, which are

discussed in the next section.





4. THE DRAFT SHERIFF OPTION 1 AND OPTION 2 WOULD PROVIDE ANNUAL COST SAVINGS, WHILE OPTION 3 WOULD INCREASE ANNUAL COSTS. The table below summarizes the current baseline DPS budget allocated to law

enforcement for comparative purposes (as described earlier) in comparison to each of

the Sheriff optional costs:

DPS Police Costs vs. Sheriff Contract Costs

Draft Sheriff Contract

Cost Item DPS Police

Budget Option 1 Option 2 Option 3 Employee Services $10,423,588 $7,882,077 $8,794,795 $9,627,999 Services and Supplies $273,500 $188,722 $204,239 $218,403 Overhead / Indirect Costs $518,683 $1,182,312 $1,319,219 $1,444,200 Total $11,215,771 $9,253,111 $10,318,253 $11,290,602

Annual Baseline Costs / (Savings) ($1,962,660) ($897,518) $74,831 Cost Difference w/o Furloughs ($2,403,422) ($1,338,280) ($365,931)

The following points highlight the findings above: • The total DPS budget determined for comparative purposes is approximately

$11.2 million (and excludes such items as facility maintenance, vehicle equipment maintenance, operation, and repair, capital, etc.). These excluded items are assumed to be incurred by the City if a contract option is chosen.

• The Sheriff Option 1 is proposed to be $9.3 million, and has been shown by the

project team to be an adequate option to provide appropriate levels of law enforcement services, while the Sheriff Option 2 and Option 3 provides enhanced levels of service, with Option 2 potentially yielding savings while Option 3 would increase costs.

• Given the current DPS budget for law enforcement services, Option 1 may result

in an annual baseline operating savings of approximately $1.9 million to $2 million in direct costs.

• Assuming the implementation of furloughs did not occur during the past fiscal

year (which saved the City approximately $440,762 for law enforcement





personnel), the potential annual savings would have increased to between $2.4 Million to $366,000 (depending on the Option) – as the baseline DPS budget would have been greater without the furloughs.

With any implementation the City would need to consider one-time costs related

to backfilling of employees during the transition, any integration regarding applicable

technology, radio, and communications, personnel separations (vacation payout,

severance), etc.

5. THE CITY OF ROHNERT PARK ALSO HAS AN OPPORTUNITY TO CONTRACT WITH A SURROUNDING AGENCY OR THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR FIRE SERVICES.

The City also has the opportunity to contract out fire and emergency medical

services to another entity in order to achieve potential cost savings. Unlike the cost

analysis for the law enforcement contract, the assessment by the project team is based

on preliminary fire staffing and cost estimates only. As such, this section provides basic

information regarding the fire station network and calls for service demands which may

inform the formal bidding process if the City chooses to explore this opportunity further.

Toward this, the following section includes the following:

• Fire Station Network

• Calls for Service Demand

• Preliminary Cost Comparisons

Using GIS mapping tools, the first section below provides an assessment of the

overall adequacy of the fire station network serving the City of Rohnert Park.





(1) The City is Protected Under a 5-Station Network Through an Automatic Aid

Agreement with Rincon Valley Fire Protection District and the Rancho Adobe Fire Protection District.

The DPS deploys its fire and EMS resources from 2 stations, in addition to an

automatic aid agreement with Rincon Valley Fire Protection District to the north of the

City, and the Rancho Adobe Fire Protection District to the south of the City. As

necessary on large incidents (or upon request), the City has a mutual aid agreement

with the City of Santa Rosa, City of Sebastopol, City of Petaluma, and others. In total,

the City is serviced primarily from 5 stations identified in the following table:

Primary Stations Covering Rohnert Park

Agency

Address

Rohnert Park

Station One 500 City Center Drive Station Two 5200 Country Club Drive

Rincon Valley Fire Protection District

Station 207 Todd Road Santa Rosa

Rancho Adobe Fire Protection District

Station One 1 East Cotati Avenue Cotati Station Two 11000 Main Street Penngrove

To assess the adequacy of this network, the project team developed GIS maps

to identify the percentage of Rohnert Park street miles covered by the fire stations within

a 4-minute response time and an 8-minute response time. These maps are included in

the following exhibits:





Exhibit 1





Exhibit 2





The following table highlights the statistical findings based on Exhibit 1 (for the 4-

minute service area):

Coverage for Street Miles – 4 Minute Service Area

Stations Street Miles

% of Street Miles

0 8.54 8.5%

1 46.87 46.9%

2 35.02 35.0%

3 6.25 6.3%

4 3.25 3.3%

5 0 NA

Total 99.93

As this table shows, of the 99.93 street miles in the City of Rohnert Park, there

are 8.54 street miles which cannot be reached from any station within 4-minutes.

Further, 46.87 street miles can be covered by one station within 4-minutes, 35.02 street

miles can be covered from two stations within 4-minutes, 6.25 street miles can be

covered by 3 stations within 4-minutes, and 3.25 street miles can be covered by 4

stations within a 4-minute response time. Finally, no street miles can be covered from 5

stations within a 4-minute response time. Essentially, the City of Rohnert Park can

provide at least one responding unit within a 4-minute timeframe to 92% of the City

street miles given the fire station network.

The following table highlights the statistical findings based on Exhibit 2 (for the 8-

minute service area):

Coverage for Street Miles – 8 Minute Service Area

Stations Street Miles

% of Street Miles

1 0 0.0%

2 2.41 2.4%

3 20.03 20.0%

4 77.48 77.5%

5 0 NA

Total 99.93





As this table shows, of the 99.93 street miles in the City of Rohnert Park, there

are zero street miles which can be covered by only 1 fire station within 8-minutes (i.e.,

all of the City is covered by at least 2 stations). Further, 2.41 street miles can be

covered by only 2 fire stations within 8-minutes, 20.03 street miles can be covered by

only 3 fire stations within 8-minutes, and 77.48 street miles can be covered by only 4

fire stations within 8-minutes. Finally, no street miles can be covered from 5 stations

within an 8-minute timeframe. Essentially, the City of Rohnert Park can provide at least

two responding units within an 8-minute timeframe to 100% of the City street miles

given the fire station network.

(2) The DPS Personnel Responded to Over 3,000 Fire and Emergency Medical Service Incidents During CY 2010.

The project team obtained detailed calls for service data from the CAD / RMS to

identify community-generated workload demands. The following represents the number

of incidents that were created by dispatch personnel in the CAD system resulting in 1 or

more fire and / or law enforcement units addressing the incident.





Fire and EMS Incidents – CY 2010

Hour Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Total Avg. / Day

Avg. / Week

0000 20 13 7 14 13 13 11 91 0.2 1.7

0100 14 8 16 9 6 17 10 80 0.2 1.5

0200 15 8 8 10 12 11 14 78 0.2 1.5

0300 8 17 12 7 10 6 11 71 0.2 1.4

0400 12 11 9 6 6 10 9 63 0.2 1.2

0500 11 3 8 5 6 13 9 55 0.2 1.1

0600 6 17 5 15 12 10 9 74 0.2 1.4

0700 11 18 22 19 12 14 9 105 0.3 2.0

0800 13 25 17 24 24 40 15 158 0.4 3.0

0900 23 26 31 28 25 34 31 198 0.5 3.8

1000 20 27 24 28 30 28 25 182 0.5 3.5

1100 23 29 25 17 27 26 25 172 0.5 3.3

1200 20 24 32 23 21 45 23 188 0.5 3.6

1300 30 33 37 38 30 35 26 229 0.6 4.4

1400 25 24 39 26 19 38 22 193 0.5 3.7

1500 25 37 28 26 28 27 29 200 0.5 3.8

1600 25 39 31 28 25 31 39 218 0.6 4.2

1700 21 22 24 26 28 29 30 180 0.5 3.5

1800 24 23 30 29 17 23 26 172 0.5 3.3

1900 15 29 25 29 31 26 24 179 0.5 3.4

2000 18 16 21 18 28 21 33 155 0.4 3.0

2100 25 19 20 15 18 24 27 148 0.4 2.8

2200 18 17 15 14 14 22 30 130 0.4 2.5

2300 12 8 10 8 17 17 24 96 0.3 1.8 Total 434 493 496 462 459 560 511 3,415 9.4 65.5

As shown above, the highest volume for fire and emergency medical service

incidents is generally the 10-hour period between 0900 and 1900 (representing over

60% of incidents), while the lowest volume for fire and emergency medical service

incidents is generally the 10-hour period between 2300 and 0900 (representing just over

25% of incidents. In total, the DPS can expect to respond to between 9 to 10 fire and

emergency medical service incidents each day, or between 66 to 67 incidents each

week.

To understand the types of fire and EMS calls which are created in CAD, the

table below identifies the number of calls per type:





Number of Incidents per Type – CY 2010

Rank Type # % of Total

1 ROHNERT PARK MEDICAL CALL 2,102 61.6%

2 PUBLIC ASSIST 263 7.7%

3 FIRE ALARM COMMERCIAL 220 6.4%

4 FIRE ALARM TESTING 108 3.2%

5 VEHICLE ACCIDENT (TRAFFIC COLLISION) 88 2.6%

6 TRAFF ACC AMBUL ENROUTE (COMBINED EVENT) 85 2.5%

7 STRUCTURE FIRE 60 1.8%

8 FIRE ALARM 55 1.6%

9 FIRE ALARM RESET 51 1.5%

10 FIRE ALARM RESIDENTIAL 51 1.5%

11 LAW, FIRE AND AMBULANCE RELATED EVENT 38 1.1%

12 HAZARDOUS CONDITION 37 1.1%

13 VEGETATION FIRE (WILDLAND, GRASS, ECT) 36 1.1%

14 ODOR INVESTIGATION 30 0.9%

15 SMOKE INVESTIGATION 25 0.7%

16 DEBRIS FIRE 24 0.7%

17 VEHICLE FIRE 21 0.6%

18 SUICIDE ATTEMPT (COMBINED EVENT) 19 0.6%

19 VEHICLE ACCIDENT EXTRICATION 16 0.5%

20 AGENCY ASSIST - BY ROHNERT PARK FIRE 12 0.4%

21 FIRE ALARM CARBON MONOXIDE 11 0.3%

22 POSSIBLE DEAD BODY - COMBINED EVENT 10 0.3%

23 ELECTRICAL INVESTIGATION 8 0.2%

24 NATURAL PROPANE LEAK INSIDE A STRUCTURE 8 0.2%

25 STRUCTURE FIRE/WORKING 8 0.2%

26 SPECIAL ASSIGNMENT FIRE 6 0.2%

27 AGENCY ASSIST 5 0.1%

28 FIRE INVESTIGATION 4 0.1%

29 INVESTIGATION 3 0.1%

30 TRAFFIC STOP 3 0.1%

31 INFORMATION 2 0.1%

32 NATURAL PROPANE LEAK OUTSIDE A STRUCTURE 2 0.1%

33 FIRE ALARM MONITORED ALARM 1 0.0%

34 FIRE INSPECTION 1 0.0%

35 MEETING 1 0.0%

36 STABBING VICTIM (COMBINED EVENT) 1 0.0%

Total 3,415 100.0%

As shown above, the majority of calls for service, or nearly 70%, are medical

related and public assist calls (between 45 to 46 incidents per week), while less than

4% of calls were related to a type of actual fire (e.g., structure fire, vegetation fire, debris





fire, and vehicle fire) and occur between 2 to 3 times per week. Given this mix of types

of calls for service, there are opportunities to implement innovative approaches that

increase cost efficiency and effectiveness. Examples include:

Approach

Summary

Cost Implications

Adaptive Response Program

This utilizes the minimum number of personnel from a fire station by selecting the appropriate type of response vehicle for a specific emergency. Upon dispatch, the station captain / officer determines if Adaptive Response is the appropriate unit to respond. For example, when fire alarms are activated in commercial buildings, dispatchers should confirm with persons on site that no fire exists. To satisfy ISO requirements, an Adaptive Response vehicle is sent. If multiple units are required, only the first due unit runs “lights and sirens” with subsequent units respond with normal traffic until the first due unit determines the severity of the emergency.

Potential of reduced staffing needs and overtime utilization, as well as reduced community risk with unnecessary speeds, potential accidents, and reduces overall fuel and maintenance expenses for engine companies, ladder trucks, etc.

Human Service “Alpha Truck”

Some departments partner with multiple human service organizations to serve at-risk and vulnerable populations who request most of the emergency services. The department dispatches a pickup truck staffed by two firefighter / EMTs and their equipment that can provide care for minor injuries and illnesses. The “Alpha Truck” responders are trained to make recommendations for social service intervention and can reduced the number of emergency calls in the long-term.

Reduced need for a 3-person engine company to respond to each medical call for service. Cost savings with reduced vehicle maintenance and operations.

These types of approaches should be considered by any jurisdiction, as well as

other elements including increase public education and prevention programs, municipal

code enforcement relating to fire suppression technologies, etc. Finally, it is important

to note that of the 3,415 incidents in Rohnert Park, there were 287 incidents in which a





law enforcement unit was the first to arrive on scene, and typically involved a

commercial fire alarm or a medical incident.

(3) The Alternative Fire Service Approaches May Result in Sizeable Cost Savings while Potentially Enhancing Service Levels.

Given the budget costs identified at the beginning of this document, the project

team identified the baseline fire and EMS cost in order to appropriately compare to any

proposed alternative. As such, the following table summarizes the costs and key

assumptions utilized:

Baseline Fire / EMS Cost for Comparison to Sheriff Options

Item

Current DPS

Budget

Baseline Cost for

Comparison

Key Assumption

Fire Personnel

$3,060,168

$3,060,168

The alternative service provider would incur this cost associated with fire and emergency medical services personnel and compensation.

Fire Protection

$198,700

$118,600

The alternative service provider would incur costs associated with fire and emergency medical services and supplies. The City would continue to incur the costs associated with Contractual Services ($30,000), Vehicle Supplies, Repair, and Maintenance ($40,000), and Capital ($10,000).

Northern Fire Station

$23,000

$0

The City would continue to incur the costs associated with station facility maintenance.

Southern Fire Station

$10,500

$0

The City would continue to incur the costs associated with station facility maintenance

Emergency Prep / Haz Mat

$4,000

$0

The City would continue to incur the costs associated with Haz Mat.





Item

Current DPS Budget

Baseline Cost for

Comparison

Key Assumption

Indirect Costs

$163,333

$147,575

The alternative service provider would incur costs associated with administrative overhead, liability, etc. The City would continue to incur the costs associated with information technology support ($15,758).

Total Cost (Est.)

$3,459,701

$3,326,343

As shown above, the total estimated budget for direct and indirect costs to

support fire and EMS is $3.5 Million. However, assuming the City will continue to incur

costs associated with such elements as facility, equipment, and vehicle maintenance,

the baseline cost for comparison is $3.3 Million.

Toward this, the City of Rohnert Park received a draft proposal from the Rancho

Adobe Fire Protection District which proposes a staffing model of 3.0 personnel

(Captain / Engineer / Firefighter) per engine company for each of the Rohnert Park

stations. Additionally, based on the project team’s experience with other CalFIRE

contract cities, the assumption is also a 3.0 personnel per engine approach for each of

the Rohnert Park stations. The table below identifies the estimated contract costs for

these alternative service providers:

Estimated Costs of Alternative Fire Service Provider

RAFPD CalFIRE

Personnel $2,307,562 $2,098,620

Administration / Support $441,360 $950,466 Total Estimated Cost $2,748,922 $3,049,086

The following points summarize the cost factors: • The Rancho Adobe Fire Protection District proposes a total of 21 personnel

(including a provision for overtime), as well as administrative support costs that





account for general goods and services and estimated dispatch communication costs.

• The project team’s estimation for CalFIRE contract costs proposes 18 line

personnel and some percentage of full-time equivalent for chief officer allocation, as well as support costs for volunteer programs and public education programs, dispatch communications, etc.

Based on these preliminary cost estimates and using the current baseline DPS

fire cost of $3.3 Million, the City of Rohnert Park has the potential to save from

$277,000 (under a contract with CalFIRE) up to $577,000 (under a contract with

Rancho Adobe Fire Protection District). Given the potential savings with each of these

agencies, the City should move to a formal bidding process in order to obtain further

details and costs for evaluation.

* * * * *

In summary, the City of Rohnert Park may experience significant annual cost

savings when considering the contracting of law enforcement and fire services. The

first table summarizes the total annual costs / savings under each Sheriff contract

Option and the contracting of fire with Rancho Adobe Fire Protection District,

summarized below:

Total Estimated Public Safety Cost Savings – Rancho Adobe Fire Protection District

Sheriff Cost / Savings

(Contract)

Cost / Savings (RAFPD

Contract)

Total Est. Annual Savings

Total Est. Annual

Savings w/o Furloughs

Option 1 ($1,962,660) ($577,421) ($2,540,081) ($3,135,932)

Option 2 ($897,518) ($577,421) ($1,474,939) ($2,070,790)

Option 3 $74,831 ($577,421) ($502,590) ($1,098,441)

The following points summarize the findings above: • Under Option 1, the City may experience total annual cost savings of $2.5

Million, and up to $3.1 Million when not factoring in the total implemented furlough savings of approximately $595,851.





• Under Option 2, the City may experience total annual cost savings of $1.5


• Under Option 3, the City may experience total annual cost savings of $502,590,

and up to nearly $1.1 Million when not factoring in the total implemented furlough savings of approximately $595,851.

The second table summarizes the total annual costs / savings under each

contract Option and the contracting of fire with CalFIRE, summarized below:

Total Estimated Public Safety Cost Savings – CalFIRE

Sheriff Cost / Savings

(Contract)

Cost / Savings (CalFIRE Contract)

Total Est. Annual Savings

Total Est. Annual

Savings w/o Furloughs

Option 1 ($1,962,660) ($277,257) ($2,239,917) ($2,835,768)

Option 2 ($897,518) ($277,257) ($1,174,775) ($1,770,626)

Option 3 $74,831 ($277,257) ($202,426) ($798,277)

The following points summarize the findings above: • Under Option 1, the City may experience total annual cost savings of $2.2


• Under Option 2, the City may experience total annual cost savings of $1.2


• Under Option 3, the City may experience total annual cost savings of $202,426,

and up to $798,277 when not factoring in the total implemented furlough savings of approximately $595,851.

As this preliminary assessment has documented, the contracting of law

enforcement services and / or fire services would continue to provide the City of

Rohnert Park with comparable levels of public safety services, with potential annual cost

savings.



Documents

Cost Analysis and Assessment of Public Safety ...cityofrohnertpark.hosted.civiclive.com/UserFiles/Servers...Cost Analysis and Assessment of Public Safety Alternatives ROHNERT PARK,