Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 2.1 Police Service Contract Review MEMORANDUM DATE: April 26 , 1983 TO: City Council FROM: City Manager 53° 3'D SUBJECT: Police Service Contract Review The City ' s contract with Alameda County for the provision of police services will expire on July 1 , 1983 . In accordance with the City' s Goals & Objectives Implementation Plan, Staff has arranged with the Sheriff and the County Administrator for a formal contract review and evaluation by the City Council . In preparation for such review, Staff has identified four issues that warrant discussion. These include the following: 1 . How well has the Sheriff ' s Department met the expectations of the City Council and the community in providing police service in Dublin? 2 . Is the police staffing presently assigned to Dublin adequate to handle the present and anticipated workload? 3. What terms of the City ' s contract with the Sheriff need to be revised? 4. Should the City purchase its own patrol vehicles? Throughout the remainder of this report , Staff has identified specific areas within each issue which merit City Council discussion. In those areas where a certain aspect of the contract or police service could be evaluated objectively, Staff has included its recommendation. However, there are considerations regarding police service which require a more subjective evaluation. To facilitate such an evaluation, Staff has prepared a contract evaluation form to assist City Councilmembers in expressing their perception of how well the Sheriff has performed in Dublin. ISSUE #1 How well has the Sheriff ' s Department met the expectations of the City Council and the community in providing police service to Dublin? To assure a constructive evaluation process which is beneficial to the Sheriff ' s Department , City Staff and City Council , please complete the attached form prior to the meeting and submit to the City Manager at the end of the meeting. RECOMMENDATION: Review the evaluation form at the meeting and comment where appropriate . ISSUE #2 Is the police staffing presently assigned to Dublin adequate to handle the present and anticipated workload? At the beginning of 1983 , the Sheriff ' s Department was required to review the adequacy of police service levels as part of the 1983-84 budget process . The Sheriff ' s Department was also requested to recommend increases in staffing and equipment where needs were identified. Any proposed increases were to be fully justified in terms of workload and services to be provided, along with the incremental costs of each additional position. The Sheriff ' s Department has requested City Council consideration of the following increases in staffing: .1 - 1 - 1 ADDITIONAL CLERICAL POSITION Presently, Dublin Police Services is staffed with one clerk. This position has 39 identified different functions to perform. The workload is such that despite working four overtime hours per week, this position cannot address the current volume of work encountered. On a typical day, the clerk has at least one hour of duplicating chores , 15 police reports to process , 20 alpha cards to type and file , one insurance letter to write , an average of 4 persons assisted in office contact , and 30 telephone calls to answer. The clerk also has a courier run between San Leandro and Dublin that takes about one hour each day. There are 3 tasks that the Sheriff ' s Eden Township Substation is performing for Dublin that should be done by our own clerical staff. These are : Payroll/Timekeeping Duties 6 hours per week Statistical Record Keeping 4 hours per week Citation Follow-up 1 hour per week Additionally, there are 3 identified responsibilities that would be assigned to a clerk position. These are : Pin Terminal Operator 10 hours per week Evidence Clerk 4 hours per week Administrative Typing 2 hours per week Summary: The new position would be responsible for 27 hours currently not being addressed by Dublin Police Services . Clerks work a 37 1/2 hour work week. This leaves 10 1/2 hours to apply to the current workload. By eliminating the 4 hours of weekly overtime, it leaves 6 1/2 hours of actual work time to apply to bringing the clerical duties up to acceptable timeliness . Allocation of this position may allow for some added business office hours for the public . The contract cost of this position is estimated at $21 ,407 plus direct City costs of $2 ,200 for a total of $23 ,607 . This would be offset by $2 ,500 in reduced overtime costs . 1 ADDITIONAL DETECTIVE SERGEANT The Sheriff has also recommended the addition of a Detective Sergeant to function as a Crime Prevention/Juvenile Officer. These functions are not being addressed adequately at this time. In addition, this position would relieve some of the caseload from existing detectives , by handling check investigations of approximately 20 cases per month. The current criminal investigation caseload per investigator is 58 cases per month. This compares with investigative caseloads in Pleasanton of 45 per month and at ETS of 35 per month. With respect to crime prevention, it ' s important to recognize that it is a proactive police function that operates on a basic premise . That premise is : A measure of crime can be prevented by not affording criminals opportunities and encouraging active involvement of citizens in the crime prevention effort . A crime prevention officer actively recruits citizens within the community to assist in accomplishing this premise . A crime prevention officer will work closely with City planning insuring that new projects have addressed crime prevention aspects and encouraged their use . The officer will go into the community and establish Neighborhood Watch Organizations , give residents and business persons guidance in securing homes , businesses and property. The crime prevention officer will make presentations to local groups , service clubs and other organizations with particular emphasis in community involvement and awareness . In addressing juvenile problems , this position concentrates on the departmental caseload of both juveniles as victims and as suspects . He will coordinate the police effort with Juvenile Probation, Juvenile Court , Child Protective Services , school authorities and private agencies . The juvenile officer receives special training that relates to juveniles as victims . Scope of this training centers upon sexual assault and the need for special skills in communicating with juvenile sexual assault victims . Further, a juvenile officer sets up a line of communication with juvenile offenders and troubled youngsters and will initiate a runaway tracking - 2 - program. Much of his work will be with school officials that identify potential problems of their students and recognize the need for police involvement as a preventive measure . The contract cost of this position is estimated at $52 ,010 plus direct City costs of $2 ,200 for a total of $54,210. In considering the above requests for additional personnel , it ' s important to note that any increase in police personnel will necessitate the acquisition of more office space . In terms of comparative cost figures , the impact on the Police Operational Budget of additional Staff would be as follows : BUDGET BUDGET BUDGET CURRENT CURRENT CURRENT SERVICE SERVICE ESTIMATED SERVICE LEVEL LEVEL BUDGET EXPENDITURES LEVEL ADD 1 CLERK ADD 1 CLERK 1982-83 1982-83 1983-84 1983-84 ADD 1 DET SGT Contract $1 ,108,442 $1 ,086 ,661 $1 ,162 ,324 $1 ,183,731 $1 ,235, 741 Costs Direct City 6 ,000 7 ,000 6 ,200 8 ,400 10,600 Costs $1 ,114,442 $1 ,093 ,661 $1 ,168,524 $1 ,192 ,131 $1 ,246, 341 The Direct City Costs shown above include office supplies , copier usage and equipment , but do not include telephone or office space rental which are budgeted in the building management account . As a way of explanation of the increase in costs between the estimated expenditures for 1982-83 and 1983-84 current service level budget , the County is required as part of its Memorandum of Understanding with the Deputy Sheriffs to provide deputies with salary increases in December 1982 and December 1983. The 1983-84 budget reflects the full year funding of the 1982 increase and the partial year funding of the 1983 increase . In addition, civilian personnel were also provided with salary increases for the full year. RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council approve in concept the addition of two positions to the police services as identified above . If the City Council concurs , these items would -be included in the preliminary budget and the Sheriff could begin making preparations for the provision of such Staff effective July 1 , 1983. It is Staff ' s position that based on existing workload, these positions are justified. ISSUE #3 What terms of the City' s contract with the Sheriff need to be revised. REPLACEMENT PERSONNEL From December 1982 to April 17 , 1983 , the manning level assigned to Dublin had been down one position as the result of an on the job injury. During that time , the City was charged for the cost of the one position. It seems appropriate that the City should be credited for those costs during this fiscal year, and that a provision be included in the 1983-84 contract with the County that any personnel absent from duty for more than 10 working days as a result of illness or injury shall be replaced at the end of that 10 working day period. TRAINING Although the Sheriff ' s Department has been providing training to personnel assigned to Dublin, which relates more to the provision of municipal police service , it is recommended that a provision be placed in the 1983-84 contract which spells out that the County will continue to provide such training when needed by the City. - 3 - TERMS OF THE AGREEMENT Pursuant to discussions with the Sheriff , it is Staff ' s recommendation that the City enter into at least a two-year agreement with the Sheriff ' s Department for police service . Such an agreement would be subject to an annual review of any cost increases and performance . It is Staff ' s position that the City would benefit from such an agreement because it would enable the Sheriff to commit resources to the City, such as vehicles , which might not otherwise be committed. ISSUE #4 Should the City purchase its own patrol vehicles . Staff has undertaken a comparative analysis of the costs which are presently paid to the County for patrol vehicles as opposed to those costs incurred if the City purchased its own patrol vehicles ( see attached) . During Fiscal Year 1982-83 , Staff anticipates that the average annual cost per patrol unit will be $16 ,691 . This cost includes replacement cost depreciation, fixed garage overhead costs , maintenance , repairs , fuel , oil , and communications equipment and maintenance. For the first 9 months of Fiscal Year 1982-83, the average number of miles run per patrol vehicle , annualized, is estimated at approximately 28,600 miles . If the City were to purchase its own vehicles either through the County from a state purchase order, or from local dealers directly, the cost for the basic police package with comparable equipment would be as follows : State Purchase From Local Dealers 1983 Dodge Diplomat 1983 Ford Crown Victoria $ 9,080.00 per unit $10,224. 67 per unit 1983 Chevrolet Malibu $10,441 . 79 per unit 1983 Chevrolet Impala $10,517 . 63 per unit It should be pointed out that the Dodge Diplomat and the Chevrolet Malibu are mid-size units , while the Ford Crown Victoria and the Chevrolet Impala are full-size units . In addition to the purchase costs shown above , each vehicle would require approximately $4,000 in emergency equipment , including radio installation, siren, lite bar, cage , vinyl rear seat , shotgun rack, shotgun, fire extinguisher, first aid kit , and pry tool . With this additional equipment , the total capital cost for these vehicles would be as follows : 1983 Dodge Diplomat $13 ,080.00 per unit 1983 Ford Crown Victoria $14,224. 67 per unit 1983 Chevrolet Malibu $14,411 . 79 per unit 1983 Chevrolet Impala $14,517 . 63 per unit Given the estimated miles each vehicle is driven, the life expectancy of the vehicle is approximately 70,000 miles or 22 years . The basic police unit would be amortized over that period of time , while equipment such as radios , lite bars , etc . , would have a longer amortization period , approximately ten years . With respect to the cost of operating and maintaining each City purchased vehicle , the City has the option of remaining with the County for maintenance and operation, or purchase supplies and maintenance through private vendors . If the County were to maintain City vehicles , it would cost the City approximately $9 ,438/year. Approximately $4,100 of this amount is fuel cost . The remaining $5 ,300 covers 1 ) 3,000 mile service check that includes oil and filter change and any lubrication required; 2) a 10 ,000 mile tune up, along with inspection of brakes , brake linings , rearend, transmission, lights , etc ; 3) miscellaneous repairs on an as needed basis ; and 4) major repair, engine rebuilding, body work and, when necessary, replacement . - 4 - °err Determining the cost of maintenance of vehicles privately is difficult because there is little or no past experience on which to base the amount of repair that would be required over the period of a year. Staff has estimated repair costs at a rate of $42 .00/hour (per local dealer garages ) . This is compared to a government garage hourly rate of approximately $25.00/hour. Normal servicing costs were obtained by using County servicing frequency and local dealer garage price quotations . Fuel costs were based upon fuel purchases from DSRSD at actual cost . Since fuel purchase prices have been fluctuating, a conservative figure of $1 .25/gallon was used for calculation purposes . Total private maintenance and operation costs of vehicle only is estimated at $10,500. This does not include replacement cost , if vehicle was damaged beyond repair. With respect to purchsing electronic equipment , the County in all likeli- hood would continue to maintain electronic equipment purchased by the City. Most Cities in the County contract directly with the County for this service . However, as shown on the attached chart , the cost of acquiring and maintaining equipment in this manner would be approximately 60% higher. The insurance costs associated with City purchase of patrol vehicles would be partially borne by the City and County. This is necessary in order to distribute liability costs between the City' s responsibility for maintenance of the vehicle and the County' s responsibility for the driver. In addition, the City would obtain comprehensive and collision coverage which has been estimated at $704/unit/year by the City' s insurance broker. As shown in the annual cost comparison, there is not a significant cost difference per unit whether the City remains with the County vehicles or purchases its own, with the exception of vehicle replacement when a vehicle is damaged beyond repair. For example , during this contract period, a County patrol vehicle assigned to the City was totalled. The County replaced this vehicle at no additional cost to the City, because such contingencies are built into the County' s charges . If the City purchased its own vehicles , the City would have to purchase more patrol cars than it needed at the outset for such contingencies , or otherwise be in a position where oficer( s ) would not be placed in the field for approximately 3 months while a replacement vehicle was being purchased and outfitted for service . RECOMMENDATION: As an alternative , it is recommended that the City continue to utilize County vehicles and request the permission of the Sheriff to paint these vehicles and place a City seal on the vehicle in order to provide greater local identity. If such a vehicle was totalled, the Sheriff would provide a replacement vehicle with standard County markings immediately. As soon as permanent vehicle replacement could be acquired by the County and assigned to the City, it would be painted and marked with City colors and identification. In all likelihood, this would only be an acceptable alternative to the Sheriff if the City entered into a multi-year agreement with the County. - 5 -