RPVCCA_SR_2011_06_21_08_FY11-12_Los_Angeles_County_Sheriff's_ContractMEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
REVIEWED:
HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
CAROLYNN PETRU,DEPUTY CITY MANAGER~
JUNE 21,2011
FY 11-12 LOS ANGELES COUNTY SHERIFF'S CONTRACT
CAROLYN LEHR,CITY MANAGER 0.9--
RECOMMENDATION
1)Authorize the Mayor to sign the FY 11-12 Law Enforcement Services Agreement for
the Peninsula Region (Rancho Palos Verdes,Rolling Hills and Rolling Hills Estates);
and,2)Authorize the City Manager to sign the FY 11-12 Rancho Palos Verdes
Deployment Survey with the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department.
BACKGROUND
The Lomita Sheriff's Station provides law enforcement services to three cities on the
Palos Verdes Peninsula:Rancho Palos Verdes,Rolling Hills and Rolling Hills Estates.
Together,these cities constitute the Peninsula Region Law Enforcement Area
("Peninsula Region").The City of Palos Verdes Estates is not included,as it maintains
its own police department.
Each year,the three regional cities enter into an agreement with the Lomita Sheriff's
Station to allocate resources and costs among the three cities.As part of this
agreement,the Mayor signs a letter,which is also signed by representatives from the
other two cities,approving the Level of Service that will be provided within the
Peninsula Region as a whole during the next fiscal year.In addition,each City
Manager signs a Deployment Survey for their respective jurisdiction,which specifies
how the contracted services and associated costs will be allocated within each city.
INTRODUCTION
The regional general law contract for police services with the Los Angeles County
Sheriff's Department is the single largest expenditure of the City's General Fund (about
22%of total General Fund expenditures).Indicated below is the City's cost of the
Sheriff's Contract over the last three years,plus the original and revised amounts
proposed for FY11-12 (including contributions to the liability trust fund account):
8-1
FY 11-12 Los Angeles County Sheriff's Contract
June 21,2011
Page 2 of6
FY08-09
FY09-10
FY10-11
FY11-12 (original)
FY11-12 (revised)
$4,152,033
$4,080,046
$4,160,732
$4,410,514
$4,174,950
The County previously notified contract cities that overall costs for FY11-12 would be
increasing by 3.07%,due to changes in overhead costs and employee benefits and
compensation.This increase is typical of what has occurred over the last several
years.However,when the City received the first draft of the regional agreement for
FY11-12 on May 16th
,the cost shown above as the "original"cost represented a 6.0%
increase over the prior fiscal year.Discussions with the staff of the other regional cities
and the Lomita Sheriff's Station ensued,modifications were proposed and the draft
"revised"agreement was produced on June 7th
.The draft revised regional agreement
is now being presented to the City Council for consideration.
DISCUSSION
A number of factors determine the City's cost for the Sheriff's Contract from year to
year.These include:
•Annual Contract Increase
An increase applied by the County to all contract cities due to changes in
overhead costs and employee benefits and compensation.(FY11-12:3.07%)
•Liability Trust Fund
The City's contribution to the Sheriff's Liability Trust fund used to pay claims and
is based on a percentage of the total contract amount.The current contribution
rate is4%of the total cost for service units.(FY11-12:$158,000)
•Grant Funding
Annual state Community Options for Police Services (COPS)funding that is
used to partially fund the Community Resource (CORE) Team.($100,000)
• Regional Service Level Authorization
This is the total number of full-time equivalent sworn personnel serving the
region.It includes regular patrol units,traffic units,surveillance units and special
assignment units.
•Deployment Survey
Each year,contracted personnel and their associated costs are distributed
among the three regional cities based on a combination of fixed and variable
formulas.
In addition to the annual county-wide contract increase,the cost of the FY11-12
Sheriff's contract is impacted by two other external factors,the county Liability Trust
8-2
FY 11-12 Los Angeles County Sheriff's Contract
June 21,2011
Page 3 of6
Fund contribution and the state Citizen's Options for Public Safety (COPS)grant.Their
effect on the FY11-12 budget is described below:
1.Liability Trust Fund
Los Angeles County CEO Fujioka has notified the California Contract Cities
Association that he will be recommending a one-year suspension of the
contribution to the Sheriff's Liability Trust Fund (4%of service costs)for FY11-
12,resulting in a potential one-time savings of about $158,000 for the City.The
County Board of Supervisors has not yet made a decision regarding the CEO's
recommendation;however,Staff believes there is a high probability that the
contribution will be suspended and has included the savings in the draft FY11-12
budget.
2.Citizen Options for Public Safety (COPS)Grant
The regional contract with the Sheriff includes two Community Resource (CORE)
deputies dedicated to addressing juvenile crime prevention and a variety of
quality of life issues in the community.The City's estimated 60%share of these
2 deputies is about $188,000 for FY11-12.Through FY10-11,the CORE
program has been partially funded with Citizens Options for Public Safety
(COPS)money from the state,which has enabled the regional contract to secure
discounted "grant"pricing for the CORE program.As statewide voter approval
would be required to extend a 0.15%vehicle license fee that funds the COPS
allocation to local agencies,the City does not expect to receive its annu'al
$100,000 allocation beginning in FY11-12.The draft budget presented to the
City Council assumes the entire cost of the CORE program will be from the
General fund,but at the discounted "grant"pricing.The City has applied for a
federal grant that would partially off-set the General fund contribution to the
CORE program and provide the discounted "grant"rate.If the federal grant is
not approved,Staff will r(3turn to City Council with more information.
The other two factors that determine the cost of the Sheriff's contract are related to the
Regional Agreement.The Regional Service Level Authorization is the total number of
full-time equivalent sworn personnel serving the region.It includes regular patrol units,
traffic units,surveillance units and special assignment units.The regional cities can
determine the staffing levels from year to year.For example,the number of regional
traffic deputies was increased from two to three in FY07 -08,while the number of CORE
Deputies was decreased from three to two in FY09-10.
Each year a Deployment Survey is approved by each regional city which distributes
contracted personnel and their associated costs among the three cities based on a
combination of fixed and variable formulas.Through FY1 0-11,the cost of the CORE
Team deputies and the regional traffic deputies have been divided among Rancho
Palos Verdes,Rolling Hills Estates and Rolling Hills on a 60%/30%/10%basis,
respectively.Historically,these positions were charged to Rancho Palos Verdes which,
8-3
FY 11-12 Los Angeles County Sheriffs Contract
June 21,2011
Page 4 of6
in turn,invoiced Rolling Hills and Rolling Hills Estates for their proportionate share.
Beginning in FY11-12,the Sheriff's Department will bill the cities directly for this cost,
thereby simplifying this aspect of the contract.
The Sheriff's Department provides 12.8 deputies for regular patrol services and two
Surveillance and Apprehension Team (SAT)deputies for the region.The cost of the
12.8 regular patrol deputies is shared amount the three cities using a formula that is
based on the following statistical measures of activity from the prior calendar year:
reported incidents,cases handled,traffic accidents,traffic citations and patrol time.
Depending on the level of activity in each city over the previous fiscal year,the level of
deployment (Le.the hours of service allocated to each of the three regional contract
cities)and the associated costs can shift slightly between the cities.These shifts have
either a positive or negative impact on the cost of the annual contract for each city.The
chart below,which shows the allocation of the regular patrol deputies among the three
contract cities over the last five years,demonstrates how the formula influences the
service levels from year to year:
Allocation of Reg ular Patrol Deputies
FY11·12 FY10·11 FY09·10 FY08·09 FY07·08
CITY Proposed Actual Actual Actual Actual
RPV 9.0581 8.4227 8.4944 8.0671 8.2027
RH 0.2856 0.4019 0.4819 0.4113 0.3840
RHE 3.4647 3.9838 3.8321 4.3300 4.2217
Total 12.8084 12.8084 12.8084 12.8084 12.8084
Similarly,the two SAT deputies are allocated to each city based on a formula that
reflects the number of burglary cases in each respective community.
Traffic Enforcement Program
For many years,the Peninsula Region was served by two traffic deputies (the
equivalent of 1.2 FTE)in the form of one patrol car and one motorcycle unit.As
previously mentioned,the cost of these two units is shared on a 60/30/10 basis
between the three cities.
Beginning around 2004,the City Council had increasing concerns related to traffic
issues,such as motorcycle racing on the Palos Verdes Drive East Switchbacks,
increased traffic congestion around school sites and speeding in residential
neighborhoods.These concerns caused the City Council to identify traffic calming as
one of its Tactical Goals.With only two traffic units,the Lomita Sheriff's Station did not
have sufficient flexibility to provide coverage when some of the more severe traffic
issues were occurring,such as during the P.M.and weekend shifts.This prompted the
City Council to initiate several short-term programs,such as the TEAM RPV,which
targeted weekend motorcycle racing on the Switchbacks.Based on the success of
these programs,on November 1,2005,the City added an exclusive traffic enforcement
unit to the City's contract with the Sheriff's Department.
8-4
FY 11-12 Los Angeles County Sheriff's Contract
June 21,2011
Page 5 of6
Although approached about adding the new unit as a regional traffic car in 2005,the
other two cities were not interested at that time,due to budget constraints.However,
two years later,the issue was re-examined and the Peninsula Region agreed to add a
third regional traffic unit in FY07-08.Since that time,the City has been served by one
exclusive traffic unit (1 FTE)and three regional traffic units (the equivalent of 1.8 FTE).
ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES
The significant increase in City's formula calculation reflected in the FY11-12 Sheriff's
Contract and the probable loss of the $100,000 of state grant funding prompted a
conversation between the staff from the regional cities and the Lomita Sheriff's Station
as to the cause and to identify possible mitigation measures.It became apparent to
staff that the addition of the dedicated traffic deputy,while a highly successful program,
was a move away from the regional concept that has resulted in unintended
consequences.In response,a modification has been made to this year's formula to
remove traffic citations from the formula used to calculate the allocation of regular patrol
units.It was also agreed that the cities should examine the contract formulas and
suggest possible modification prior to the next fiscal year.
Regional Traffic Team
The discussion also led staff to conclude that while two traffic deputies was not enough
to provide adequate traffic enforcement,as was the case prior to 2005,four traffic
deputies may be more than necessary.Staff felt that the traffic enforcement program
could be streamlined,while still remaining highly effective,by making the City's
exclusive traffic deputy part of the regional traffic team,but keeping the number of
regional traffic units at three.Under this scenario,the City's current exclusive traffic
deputy would continue to spend the majority of time in Rancho Palos Verdes and the
deputy has expressed a desire to remain highly involved in the community.
Reduction of the CORE Team ,
Another option considered was to decrease the CORE Team from two deputies to one,
which would decrease the City's annual cost by approximately $88,000 (not including
the 4%liability surcharge).However,this program was reduced from three deputies to
two beginning in FY09-10 and staff feels that the effectiveness of the program would be
severely limited by this change.This is especially true due to the fact that the new
administration at Peninsula High School is requesting greater involvement by the CORE
Team in addressing juvenile crime and drug abuse issues on the campus.
Continuation of the Exclusive Traffic Unit
The Council could consider maintaining the existing exclusive traffic unit in the contract.
If this option is chosen,the FY11-12 Budget will need to be adjusted accordingly.The
cost of a traffic unit is $239,478,not including the 4%liability surcharge.This assumes
that the three regional traffic units would be maintained.Any reduction in the number of
8-5
FY 11-12 Los Angeles County Sheriff's Contract
June 21,2011
Page 6 of6
regional traffic units below the current level would require the approval of the other two
cities.
FISCAL IMPACT
The City's total expected cost of the FY11-12 Sheriff's Contract is $4,015,000
($4,174,950 less the liability trust fund deposit amount of about $158,000).This
amount assumes that the City is able to preserve the discounted "grant"rate for the two
CORE deputies;and,the Council approves the proposed change in the traffic
enforcement program.The draft FY11-12 Budget presented to the City Council for
adoption on this evening's agenda is balanced based on these assumptions.
Attachments:
FY 11-12 Peninsula Region Service Level Authorization
FY 11-12 RPV Service Level Authorization
Public Correspondence
8-6
July 1,2011
Captain Ronene M.Anda,Commander
Los Angeles County Sheriff s Department
Lomita Station
26123 Narbonne Avenue
Lomita,California 90717
Dear Captain Anda:
2011-12 LAW ENFORCEMENT SERVICES FOR THE PENINSULA REGION
(RANCHO PALOS VERDES,ROLLING HILLS AND ROLLING IDLLS ESTATES)
Pursuant to the Regional Services Agreement between the Sheriffs Department and the Cities of
Rancho Palos Verdes,Rolling Hills and Rolling Hills Estates,our cities have requested the
following services to be provided to the Peninsula Region for Fiscal Year 2011-12,commencing
July 1,2011.
Fiscal Year 2011-12 Services for the Peninsula Region (Rancho Palos Verdes,Rolling Hills and
Rolling Hills Estates).
PENINSULA REGION
TYPE OF SERVICE REGIONAL UNITS %FOR REGION UNIT TOTAL
DEP.40HR
DEP NON-RELIEF
DEP.56HR
DEP.MOTOR
S.A.T.DETECTIVE
GRANT DEP.(CORE-NO VEH)
GRANT DEP.(CORE-W-VEH)
TOTAL UNITS
1
1
12.8084
1
2
1
1
x 100%
x 100%
x 100%
x 100%
x 100%
x 100%
x 100%
1
1
12.8084
1
2
1
1
19.8084
8-7
2011-2012 Law Enforcement
TYPE OF SERVICE
DEP40 HR
DEP 56HR
NON-RELIEF
DEPMOTOR
S.A.T.DETECTIVE
GRANT DEP (CORE-NO VEH)
GRANT DEP (CORE-W-VEH)
SUBTOTAL
LIABILITY @ 4%
GRAND TOTAL
OTHER SERVICES
-2-
#OF UNITS
1
12.8084
1
1
2
1
1
PER UNIT COST
$239,478
$335,270
$217,708
$229,788
$229,788
$146,732
$166,935
July 1,2011
TOTAL
$239,478.00
$4,294,272.27
$217,708.00
$229,788.00
$459,576.00
$146,732.00
$166,935.00
$5,754,489.27
$230,179.57
$5,984,668.84
Any other services shall continue to be contracted for on an individual,dedicated basis.
*Attached are the estimated contract costs for each individual city (Rancho Palos Verdes,
Rolling Hills and Rolling Hills Estates)for Fiscal year 2011-12.
Approved:
Tom Long
Mayor,Rancho Palos Verdes
B.Allen Lay
Mayor,Rolling Hills
Steven Zuckerman
Mayor,Rolling Hills Estates
8-8
PAGE 1 OF3
LOS ANGELES COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT
CONTRACT CITY LAW ENFORCEMENT SERVICES
Service Level Authorization
CITY:Peninsula Region
FISCAL YEAR:
CODE
#
2011-2012
SERVICES
7/1/2011
TOTAL SERVICE UNITS PURCHASED
NEW PREVIOUS CHANGE
CONTRACT
LAW
USE ONLY
DEPUTY SHERIFF SERVICE UNIT
306 __---:4~0;.;.H.;.::o:.::.u:...r +...,.:::1.c:;,00;:0:::0:---lf-:1.::.0:;:0'i0~0:_·+-__-:O:-:.;.O~O.;.OO;---+---__I
307 56 Hour 12.8084 12.8084 0.0000
308 ----:7;;;0:-7H.;.:;O:.::.u:...r-------+-7?0.~00~0~0~~0~.0;;:;0~0:;:;;0:.....t----:0;.:.;.0s:0:;;:00;;---t----I
310 __..:.N.:::o::.:,n-.:.R.:::e:::,:lie:.:.,f +....:.:1..;::;OO::;:O:;:0----l_1.:.:..0::;0:.:0:.::,0_+----::0:.:.:.0:.:0.;::;00::..-__+-____1
DEPUTY SHERIFF SERVICE UNIT (BONUS LEVEL)
301 4;;;0:-;H7o:;:u::,.r +~0.'*0~00s:0:---1_~0.~00~0s:0-/--~0~.0~0s:0~0 __-+-1
302 __--:5::;;6:-:H~o:.:u::..r -t-~O.~O~OO~O__:I_~O..;.OO::;;O~0-l----:O~.O::;;O~O~O__-+-1
303 70 Hour 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
305 ---;-N:-o:':n-::=R":':el:'=ie::"f--------t-~2.:;0~00~0~1-~2 ..;.00;;0;.;O-l----:O;::.0;;0;.;0~0---+----1
GROWTH DEPUTY,UNITS (Non-Relief Only)
335 Deputv 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
358 -=D:.::.ec;;Plu::.;.t~'----;-('w~it-;-h-a~d:-ed-::'ic-a-;-te-:d:-v-e;-:hic-,.le-:l)-+~O ..;.OO;;O~O--l'-O~.O~O~O.;.O-+---:O:-:.;.O~O.;.OO;---+-----I
336 Deputy.B-1 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
359 .;;D:.:::et:.:plu::.;.t~t.!....;;B-::-1:-';'"('W-::it';'"h-a-.d-ed7'"ic-:a7:te-.d-v~eh:-:'ic"";'le"";'l)-+-O~.~OO~Os:O-l---:O~.O~Os:O~O-+----:O;.:.;.Os:O:;;:OO;;---t----I
GRANT UNITS (Non-Relief Only)
383 Deputv 1.0000 1.0000 0.0000
360 ';;D":::e;C:;Olu::';:utvl..--(""',W-::'it""h-a...,de-d.".ic-a-;-te...,d-v-:eh..,.ic..,.le..,.l)--t---;.1.:;0~00~0'-1-..;.:1 ..;.00;;0;.;O-l----:O~.O;;O;.;O~O---+----1
384 Deputy B-1 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
361 .;;D,.:::e;c:;Plu~tv~B--::1-:(w~i7'"th-a-d-;-e...,di:-ca-,.te-d-;-v-e-;-h""icl:-e);----ll-.;.O.~O~OO~O--:I-~O ..;.OO;;O~O-l----:O~.O;;O~O~O---+----I
SUPPLEMENTAL POSITIONS (Non-Relief Only)
342 Lieutenant 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
353 .;;S:::.:er.::.:::.gEea:.:.:n:;.:t(7.::S:-::A-:::O:-:--)-------+~O.~OO~Os:O-l---:O~.O~Os:O~O-+----:0;.:.;.0s:0:;;:00;;---t----I
348 .;::S:;:;er~aEea:::n;:.t1.1::IM:.:.:o:.::to:.:.,r)I....-----------lI-~O..;.OO;;O;.;0----lI-0:-:..O;;O~O.;.O_+----:O:-:.;.O~O.;.OO;---+---__I
354 Watch Deputy 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
305 -:-M:-=o~to;';';r::::D:.:epJ::.lu~tv--------+-7'1.~00;;0~0--l--:1~.0~0~0.;.0-+---:0:-:.;.0~0~00;---+-----1
325 CSA 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
347 ";;S:'::'ec'-'u-'ri':'"'ttv-;:O::-;.:ffi;:-Ic-er--------+~O.~OO;;O~O--l-O~.O~O:;;;O.;.O-+---:O:-:.;.O:;;;O.;.OO;---+-----1
340 Law Enforcement Tech 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
343 Operations Asst I 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
344 -:O~)p:.::.Ee:.::ra~tio:.:.n::::;s"":A:.=;ss~t-::II--------t-~O.~O~OO~O--:I-~O..;.OO;;O~O-l----:O~.O;;O~O~O---+----1
345 ..;;O~Pler:::a;;.;tio:;:;n~s'-'A;;.;ss;,.;.t.:.;;III'-------+~O..;.OO;;O~0__l__:O~.~OO:;;;0.;.0-+---:0:-:.;.0:;;;0.;.00;---+---__1
351 Stn Clerk II 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
329 ";C;':':'ri:";m::;:e=:A':':'na':';'liy-~s-;-t --------+~O..;.OO;;O;.;O--l--:O:-:..;;OO~O.;.O-+----:O:-:.;.O~O.;.OO;---+-----I
331 Custody Assistant 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000";O~th::';:e';::;r ::..z...:..:::~(IN:;:.:e=ed~t""o..,.in-s-ert-:--co-s-;-t o-n-:P::-)a-:2~1)--l1-~0.';'00;;0~0--l--:0~.~00~0';'0-+----:0:-:';.0~0';'00;---+-----I
SH-AD 575 (REV.4/11)
NO NO
8-9
Page 20f3
HOURS OF SERVICE &ESTIMATED CHARGES
CITY:Peninsula Region 7/1/2011
DEPUTY SHERIFF SERVICE UNIT
40 Hour l2a$A1tl>1 239,478.00 9,579.12 2086 2,086 125,160
56 Hour ::'~!'r2'ltt::'12.8084 4,294,272.27 171,770.89 2920 37,401 2,244,032
70 Hour ":$41l<l'l:!an:'0 0.00 0.00 3650 0 0
Non-Relief (~11;11lll::::1 217,708.00 8,708.32 1789 1,789 107,340
DEPUTY SHERIFF SERVICE UNIT (BONUS LEVEL)
40 Hour 0 0.00 0.00 2086 0 0
56 Hour 0 0.00 0.00 2920 0 0
70 Hour 0 0.00 0.00 3650 0 0
Non-Relief 2 459,576.00 18,383.04 1789 3,578 214,680
GROWTH DEPUTY UNITS (Non-Relief Only)I~~,~~~De u 0 0.00 0.00 1789 0 0
De with dedicated vehicle ::$tfi;~'0 0.00 0.00 1789 0 0
De ,B-1 "$t:$lil$$::',0 0.00 0.00 1789 0 0
Deputy B-1 (with dedicated vehicle).'$17.;142"'"0 0.00 0.00 1789 0 0
GRANT UNITS
De u ~'$1;46;7at 1 146,732.00 5,869.28 1789 1,789
De u with dedicated vehicle '$1a$Jr~:'1 166,935.00 6,677.40 1789 1,789
De B-1 "$.1:lj$~lk:0 0.00 0.00 1789 0
Deputy B-1 (with dedicated vehicle)"":$119;142/'0 0.00 0.00 1789 0
SUPPLEMENTAL POSITIONS (Non-Relief Only)
Lieutenant :~1JlDr:0 0.00 N/A 1789 0 0 0.0000
Ser eant SAO ",$:1~;tt~>0 0.00 N/A 1789 0 0 0.0000
Ser eant Motor ':':~J:la;•...i'0 0.00 0.00 1789 0 0 0.0000
Watch De u ':':!M,..~':':'0 0.00 0.00 1789 0 0 0.0000
Motor De ':'$2211'1'$t!k"1 229,788.00 9,191.52 1789 1,789 107,340 1.0000
CSA :::'$S'l!'1'2It::0 0.00 0.00 1789 0 0 0.0000
Securi Officer :::'$t!!I:k24IF",0 0.00 0.00 1789 0 0 0.0000
Law EnforcemenlTech With Vehicle ::':$&ll~~ll:r:0 0.00 0.00 1789 0 0 0.0000
o erations Asstl :::':$12~31>4i':::0 0.00 N/A 1789 0 0 0.0000
o erations Asst II "':'$lIll'll42""':0 0.00 N/A 1789 0 0 0.0000
o erations Asstlll ::$:10:2;~'0 0.00 N/A 1789 0 0 0.0000
Sin Clerk II :::'~'l<laIV':·'0 0.00 N/A 1789 0 0 0.0000
Crime Anal st :':$t(i1i7Z1:0 0.00 N/A 1789 0 0 0.0000
Custod Assistant :':"$$lJi1ll":""0 0.00 0.00 1789 0 0 0.0000
Other (Need to insert cost in next column)0 0.00 N/A 1789 0 0 0.0000
ESTIMATED COST FOR SERVICE UNITS ~
HOURS ?,M@\:",iEll$liM(?
DEPUTY 46,643 2,798,552 26.0693
DEPUTY,B-i 3,578 214,680 2.0000
LTISERGEANT 0 0 0.0000
CSA 0 0 0.0000
CMUAN 0 0 0.0000
SH-AD 575 (REV.4/11)
8
-
1
0
PAGE30F 3
LOS ANGELES COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT
CONTRACT CITY LAW ENFORCEMENT SERVICES
DEPLOYMENT SURVEY
EFFECTIVE DATE:__""7/..:.:1/.:.20""1'-'-1 _City:Peninsula Region
TOTAL DEPLOYMENT TOTAL
SERVICE UNIT UNITS GENERAL LAW TRAFFIC LAW DEP SPECIAL D.B.TEAM UNITS
PURCHASED EM DAY PM EM DAY PM MOTOR ASSIGN.LOR ASSIGNED
DEPUTY,GENERALIST
40 Hour 1 1 1
56 Hour 12.8084 3.31 4 5.5 12.81
70 Hour 0 0
Non-Relief 1 1 1
Motor 1 1 1
DEPUTY BONUS I
40 Hour 0 0
56 Hour 0 0
70 Hour 0 0
Non-Relief 2 2 2
GROWTH DEPUTY
Deoutv 0 0
Deoutv,Dedicated Veh.0 0
B-1 0 0
B-1,Dedicated Veh.0 0
GRANT DEPUTY
Deouty 1 1 1
Deoutv,Dedicated Veh 1 1 1
B-1 0 0
B-1,Dedicated Veh.0 0
*NOTE License Detail is bi!~~;-~e~an hourly basis an~_~!Il~~monthly as servic..e is provided.
REPORT PREPAREO BY:
APPROVED BY:
SERGEANT DONI':LD MUELLER
STATION COMMANDER
DATE:--...::5;;,./1"'1c:..:/2;,:O'-'-1..;..1__
DATE:_
CITY APPROVAL BY:DATE:..,...,.,-=-=-_
CITY OFFICIAL "I certify that I am authorized to make this commitment on behalf of the City"
PROCESSED AT CLEB BY:
BILLING MEMO REQUIRED:
(PERSONNEL TRANSACTION REQUEST)"PTR"REQUIRED:
MINUTE PROGRAM:
DATE:_
SH-AD 575 (REV.4/11)
8-11
LOS ANGELES COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT
CONTRACT CITY LAW ENFORCEMENT SERVICES
Service Level Authorization
CITY:Rancho Palos Verdes
PAGE 1 OF3
FISCAL YEAR:2011-2012 7/1/2011
CONTRACT
CODE SERVICES TOTAL SERVICE UNITS PURCHASED LAW
#NEW PREVIOUS CHANGE USE ONLY
DEPUTY SHERIFF SERVICE UNIT
306 40 Hour 0.6000 1.6000 -1.0000
307 56 Hour 9.0581 8.4227 0.6354
308 70 Hour 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
310 Non-Relief 0.6000 0.6000 0.0000
DEPUTY SHERIFF SERVICE UNIT (BONUS LEVEL)
301 40 Hour 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
302 56 Hour 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
303 70 Hour 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
305 Non-Relief 1.6410 1.4627 0.1783
GROWTH DEPUTY,UNITS (Non-Relief Only)
335 Deputy 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
358 Deputv (with a dedicated vehicle)0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
336 Deputy,B-1 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
359 Deputy,B-1 (with a dedicated vehicle)0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
GRANT UNITS (Non-Relief Only)
383 Deputy 0.6000 1.0000 -0.4000
360 Deoutv (with a dedicated vehicle)0.6000 1.0000 -0.4000
384 Deputy B-1 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
361 Deputy B-1 (with a dedicated vehicle)0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
SUPPLEMENTAL POSITIONS (Non:Relief Only)
342 Lieutenant 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
353 Sergeant (SAOl 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
348 Seraeant (Motor)0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
354 Watch Deputy 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
305 Motor Deputy 0.6000 0.6000 0.0000
325 CSA 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
347 Security Officer 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
340 Law Enforcement Tech 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
343 Operations Asst I 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
344 Operations Asst II 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
345 Operations Asst III 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
351 Stn Clerk II 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
329 Crime AnalYst 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
331 Custody Assistant 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Other (Need to insert cost on pg 2)0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
~.I ..... ......'.........ftt NO NO::,.
I
SH-AD 575 (REV.4/11)
8-12
17.8824
1.6410
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
1,919,691
176,145
o
o
o
31,995
2,936
o
o
o
HOURS 1f::?J.{.:';M~1!t1
PEPUTY
PEPUTY,B-1
LT/SERGEANT
CSA
CMLlAN
Page 2 of3
HOURS OF SERVICE &ESTIMATED CHARGES
CITY:Rancho Palos Verdes 7/1/2011
~.~l IIII~.~I]I
0.6 143,686.80 5,747.47 2086 1,252 75,096 0.6996
9.0581 3,036,909.19 121,476.37 2920 26,450 1,586,979 14.7828
0 0.00 0.00 3650 0 0 0.0000
0.6 130,624.80 5,224.99 1789 1,073 64,404 0.6000
0 0.00 0.00 2086 0 0 0.0000
0 0.00 0.00 2920 0 0 0.0000
0 0.00 0.00 3650 0 0 0.0000
1.641 377,082.11 15,083.28 1769 2,936 176,145 1.6410
0 0.00 0.00 1789 0 0 0.0000
0 0.00 0.00 1789 0 '0 0.0000
0 0.00 0.00 1789 0 0 0.0000
0 0.00 0.00 1789 0 0 0.0000
0.6 88,039.20 3,521.57 1789 1,073 64,404 0.6000
0.6 100,161.00 4,006.44 1789 1,073 64,404 0.6000
0 0.00 0.00 1789 0 0 0.0000
0 0.00 0.00 1789 0 0 0.0000
0 0.00 N/A 1789 0 0 0.0000
0 0.00 N/A 1789 0 0 0.0000
0 0.00 0.00 1789 0 0 0.0000
0 0.00 0.00 1789 0 0 0.0000
0.6 137,872.80 5,514.91 1789 1,073 64,404 0.6000
0 0.00 0.00 1789 0 0 0.0000
0 0.00 0.00 1789 0 0 0.0000
0 0.00 0.00 1789 0 0 0.0000
0 0.00 N/A 1789 0 0 0.0000
0 0.00 N/A 1789 0 0 0.0000
0 0.00 N/A 1789 0 0 0.0000
0 0.00 N/A 1789 0 0 0.0000
0 0.00 N/A 1789 0 0 0.0000
0 0.00 0.00 1789 0 0 0.0000
0 0.00 N/A 1789 0 0 0.0000
ESTIMATED COST FOR SERVICE UNITS"
Other (Need to insert cost in next column
Custodv Assistant
Sin Clerk II
Operations Asst III
Operations Asst II
Operations Asst I
Law Enforcement Tech (With Vehicle
Securitv Officer
CSA
Motor De
Watch De
Crime Analvst
Serlleant (SAO
Seroeant (Motor'
Deputv 8-1 (with dedicated vehicle
Deputv 8-1
Deputv (with dedicated vehicle
Non-Relief
Deputv 8-1 (with dedicated vehicle
Deoutv,B-1
Deoutv (with dedicated vehicle
56 Hour
56 Hour
Non-Relief
70 Hour
70 Hour
GRANT UNITS (Non-Relief Only)
De
DEPUTY SHERIFF SERVICE UNIT (BONUS LEVEL)
40 Hour
GROWTH DEPUTY UNITS (Non-Relief Only)
De
SUPPLEMENTAL POSITIONS (Non-Relief Only)
Lieutenant
DEPUTY SHERIFF SERVICE UNIT
40 Hour
SH-AD 575 (REV.4/11)
8
-
1
3
PAGE 30F 3
LOS ANGELES COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT
CONTRACT CITY LAW ENFORCEMENT SERVICES
DEPLOYMENT SURVEY
EFFECTIVE DATE:__~7/.:.:1/.:::20~1:..:.1 _City:Rancho Palos Verdes
TOTAL DEPLOYMENT TOTAL
SERVICE UNIT UNITS GENERAL LAW TRAFFIC LAW DEP SPECIAL D.B.TEAM UNITS
PURCHASED EM DAY PM EM DAY PM MOTOR ASSIGN.LDR ASSIGNED
DEPUTY,GENERALIST
40 Hour 0.6 0.6 1 1.6
56 Hour 9.0581 2 3 3.4 8.4
70 Hour 0 0
Non-Relief 0.6 0.6 0.6
Motor 0.6 0.6 0.6
DEPUTY,BONUS I
40 Hour 0 0
56 Hour 0 0
70 Hour 0 0
Non-Relief 1.641 1.4627 1.4627
GROWTH DEPUTY
Deoutv 0 0
Deputy,Dedicated Veh.0 0
B-1 0 0
B-1,Dedicated Veh.0 0
GRANT DEPUTY
Deoutv 0.6 1 1
Deputv,Dedicated Veh 0.6 1 1
B-1 0 0
B-1,Dedicated Veh.0 0
REPORT PREPARED BY:
APPROVED BY:
SERGEANT DONALD MUELLER
STATION COMMANDER
DATE:--::5;;../1;..;1.:.;:/2;;0"'1.;.1__
DATE:_
CITY APPROVAL BY:DATE:...,..,,.-=-=-_
CITY OFFICIAL "I certify that I am authorized to make this commitment on behalf of the City"
PROCESSED AT CLEB BY:
BILLING MEMO REQUIRED:
(PERSONNEL TRANSACTION REQUEST)"PTR"REQUIRED:
MINUTE PROGRAM:
DATE:_
SH-AD 575 (REV.4/11)
8-14
Carolynn Petru
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Tom Redfield [tmredfield@cox.net]
Wednesday,June 15,2011 2:24 PM
cc@rpv.com
Carolyn Lehr;Carolynn Petru
C.C.Meeting,June 21st.Agenda Item on Staff Recommendation to Eliminate the Dedicated
Traffic Enforcement Deputy
TO:RPV CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS:
CC:C.LEHR,CITY MGR,C.PETRU,DEPUTY CITY MGR.
SUBJECT:RECOMMENDED OPTIONS RE:STAFF RECOMMENDATION TO ELIMINATE DEDICATED ENFORCEMENT
DEPUTY POSITION.
OVERVIEW ...While observing the C.C.discussion on the annual city budget,I heard some
brief comments from Carolynn Petru ...about the agendizing for council consideration of
eliminating the dedicated traffic enforcement deputy ...due to the last minute submission
of the 2012 Sheriff Budget ...at an unanticipated rate increase of approx.7%...far in
excess of the "historic"annual increases of approx.3%.In add.,she briefly commented
on the unintended consequences of having our RPV dedicated deputy ...and the systemic
problems which have resulted by this unique approach ...along with the increasing
difficulties in planning,budgeting,etc.The final note was that this recommendation
must be acted upon quickly by the council,so that a new/revised Sheriff Agreement could
be finalized and submitted by June 30 ...this year.Note;AS THE CHAIR OF THE R&R
COALITION WHO HAD SPENT TWO YEARS IN INTENSIVE ANALYSIS AND WORK WITH THE LEADERSHIP OF
THE LOMITA SHERIFF STATION CAPT.JAY AND LT.JOHN ...WHICH LED TO THE CREATION OF THE
EXTRAORDINARILY SUCCESSFUL S+YEAR PERFORMANCE BY DEPUTY KNOX ...I WAS GREATLY CONCERNEDl
FIRST STEPS BY ME 1)I immediately spent 7 long days of intensive research ...updating
all relevant info outlining the extraordinary success of Knox.I spoke at length with
Ken Dyda,who led the effort in the creation of the comprehensive 3 City Shared Sheriff
Concept ...highly successful overall ...and quite successful even initially with the shared
traffic enforcement piece.Note:I AM TOTALLY COMMITTED TO THIS OVERALL PLAN.2)I spoke
at length with Larry Clark ..who,as a council member spearheaded the initial dedicated
deputy test ...focused primarily on the PVE/Switchback area for two months ...highly
successful.Then he led the council effort to test a citywide dedicated test with
Knox ...also highly successful.I also spoke to other involved resources ..former members of
the Traffic Commission,Traffic Calming/Enforcement experts,and many other concerned
residents.Note:As word is spreading that the council will likely be quickly finalizing
the elimination of Knox's role,we are receiving many calls asking me/us how best to
appear before the council and convince them not to approve staff recommendation.
GOOD NEWS:Rather than assuming that I had enough key info.to launch a massive public
effort to defeat this staff recommendation,I quickly decided to ask for a meeting with
Carolynn Petru ..She is responsible for administration and coordination of the Sheriff
Dept.Program.She quickly agreed to meet with me for more than an hour yesterday ...As
usual,I came away amazed at the depth of knowledge she has on all aspects of this
program.I came prepared with a long list of prepared questions ...she came prepared with
all required info.BOTTOM LINE:TO THE BEST OF MY RECOLLECTION,SHE AND I CONCLUDED WITH
VIRTUALLY TOTAL AGREEMENT AND SUPPORT FOR HER STAFF RECOMMENDATIONl I DID TELL HER THAT I
PLANNED TO THINK THROUGH POSSIBLE ALTERNATIVES ...WITHOUT PREVENTING HER PLANNED COST
REDUCTIONS ..I.E.THE ELIMINATION OF THE DEDICATED SHERIFF,THE RESULTING ELIMINATION OF
ONE OF THE CURRENT 3 SHARED DEPUTIES ...AND ADD ..POSSIBLE REDUCTION OF 1 OF THE 2 REMAINING
CORE DEPUTIES.
*Note:While my focus on this presentation is strictly on effective traffic enforcement,
she and I agreed that we are concerned about the previous reductions of Core
Deputies ..from 4 to 3 to 2 to a likely 1.While not a highly visible position,the public
is extremely supportive of Core Deputies.Note also.Councilman Steve and I were involved
in saving the job of one deputy ..when he was only a candidate for council ..due to strong
resistance from the Rolling Hills Rivera HOA.
Special Note:I had planned to remind the council that Safety is their #1 Responsibility
and would quote what a leading Traffic Expert shared with me,"One thing decision makers
1 8-15
need to understand in that how law enforcement is utilized is a safety issue more so than
a budget issue.Citations are often the only method that can effectively change dangerous
driving,cycling or pedestrian activities.If those activities are not changed then
accidents will occur.Quality Enforcement shouldn't be considered an inconvenience,but
an important part of providing public safety!"NOTE:I HAVE CONCLUDED THAT OUR C.C.IS
WELL FOCUSED ON SAFETY MANY TIMES OVER ..I.E.BOTH THE MASSIVE SPENDING ON THE SAN RAMON
LANDSLIDE ISSUE AND THE MASSIVE EFFORT SCHEDULED TO IMPROVE SAFETY ON THE ENTIRE LENGTH OF
P.V.D.EAST ...ARE SUPERB DEMONSTRATIONS OF COMMITMENT TO SAFETY IN RPV.
Special Note:I had planned to ask for a budget exception to maintain Knox ...since our
C.C.has done such an excellent job in managing our budget and increasing our reserves.
NOTE:I HAVE CONCLUDED THAT WHILE OUR BUDGET/RESERVES ARE IN GREAT SHAPE ...FAR MORE MONEY
IS NEEDED FOR KEY PROJECTS.THEREFORE:I WILL OFFER BUDGET OFFSET SUGGESTIONS WHICH WILL
ENABLE YOU TO SUPPORT CAROLYNN'S STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS ...WITH THE FOLLOWING
ALTERNATIVES ....
1.Carolynn shared with me that residents should not be overly concerned about Knox being
renamed as a Shared Deputy.She and the Sheriff Dept.have agreed that Knox will
basically continue his focus on just RPV for most of the time ...with some minor time in
the other two cities.SUGGESTION:WHY ALARM THE RESIDENTS NEEDLESSLY BY GIVING HIM THE
"SHARED"DESIGNATION?MOST RESIDENTS AND I HAVE KNOWN FOR SEVERAL YEARS THAT WE SELDOM SEE
THE THREE SHARED DEPUTIES WHO ARE SUPPOSEDLY SPENDING 60%OF THEIR 40 HR.WEEKS {4 TEN
HR.SHIFTS)IN RPV.Note:For those unaware,the shared deputies are paid to spend 60%of
their time in RPV,30%of their time in RHE,10%in RH's.The reason why our residents
complain we seldom see the shared deputies is that they spend very little time in our city
since they are aware that Knox is doing such a superb job ...WE ARE PAYING FOR SERVICES NOT
FULLY RENDERED.
OPTION #1 ELIMINATE THE APPROX.$232,000 OF ONE SHARED DEPUTY ..HER PLAN.
OPTION #2 ELIMINATE ANOTHER APPROX.$232,000 BY REDUCING ONE CORE DEPUTY ...HER PLAN.
Note:Not my personal choice.
OPTION # 3 ...UTILIZE THE MORE THAN $100,000+CONTRIBUTION FOR RPV'S LIABILITY INSURANCE
POOL.CAROLYNN HAS BEEN NOTIFIED BY THE COUNTY THAT THE CONTRIBUTIONS FROM CITIES HAVE
RESULTED IN EXTRA SURPLUS THEREFORE,UNLESS GOV.BROWN CHANGES HIS MIND ...OUR CITY WILL
HAVE A PASS IN 2012 ON ANY LIABILITY INSURANCE CONTRIBUTION.
FURTHER RECOMMENDATION ...BASED ON CAROLYNN'S DISCUSSION.ALL OF THE ABOVE MENTIONED
SHIFTS IN WORK BEING ACTUALLY COMPLETED BY THE SHARED DEPUTIES ACCORDING TO ACTUAL
COVERAGE MAKES IT HARD FOR HER TO MANAGE/BUDGET EFFECTIVELY.SHE PLANS TO UPGRADE/REFINE
HER MGM'T MATRIXES IN THE UPCOMING YEAR.I/WE SUPPORT THIS,WITH THE FOLLOWING
SUGGESTION ...LET KNOX MAINTAIN HIS DEDICATED DEPUTY DESIGNATION UNTIL HER MATRIXES ARE
UPGRADED IN 2012.
Note:Result of the shared deputies spending very little time in RPV has led to another
"unintended consequence",i.e.RHE &RH'S BOTH COMPLAIN THAT THEY ARE GETTING FAR MORE
TRAFFIC ENFORCEMENT THAN THEY NEED ..AT A HIGHER THAN EXPECTED COST.ALSO,CAROLYNN SHARED
THAT RH'S HAS FOUND A METHOD OF REDUCING ENFORCEMENT COSTS WHEN NEEDED ...HIRE EXTRA
DEPUTIES FROM THE OVERALL SHERIFF POOL ...AT A MUCH LOWER HOURLY RATE!Note:There are
many other cost nuances which also make coverage costs analysis difficult.
BOTTOM LINE ..WITH THE INFO.CAROLYNN SHARED WITH ME,WE ARE ABLE TO PROVIDE THE C.C.WITH
THE ABOVE OPTIONS ...ALL RESULTING IN THE CITY REALIZING THE SAME COST REDUCTIONS IN
TRAFFIC ENFORCEMENT AS HER STAFF RECOMMENDATION CALLS FOR.Sincerely,Tom Redfield.
ADDITIONAL KEY INFO.ON SPECIAL PUBLIC OUTREACH PROGRAMS ...ON THE COUNCIL DIRECTION GIVEN
BY LARRY CLARK 2-3 YEARS AGO WHILE MEETING WITH C.LEHR,C.
PETRU AND CAPT.ANDA,LARRY ASKED THAT THEY WORK WITH DEDICATED TRAFFIC ENFORCEMENT DEPUTY
KNOX,IN DRAMATICALLY UPGRADING SPECIAL TRAFFIC CALMING PUBLIC OUTREACH EFFORTS.THE
FOLLOWING IS A PARTIAL LIST OF THE MANY KEY PROGRAMS KNOX CREATED AND LED ..ABOVE AND
BEYOND HIS REG.ASSIGNED TRAFFIC DUTIES.Note:This is for the benefit of the new council
members and the public.
-Worked with RPV Channel 33 in creating 7 innovative PSA's (Public Service
Announcements)
*2 PSA's on Overall Speeding
*1 PSA on Distracted driving (cell phones,etc.)
*1 PSA on Danger when approaching Cone Zones ...(road repairs,etc.)
*1 PSA on Dangerous use of bicycles.
*1 PSA on Dangerous use of motorcycles
*1 PSA on Dangerous practices by pedestrians ..particularly at crosswalks.
2
8-16
SPECIAL NOTE:KNOX THEN USES THESE PRESENTATIONS WHILE MEETING WITH ALL THESE GROUPS
PLUS MEETINGS WITH SCHOOLS,COLLEGES,SR.GROUPS ,HOA GROUPS,ETC,ETC.
-He worked with Channel 33 on developing two City talks ...one with Ken Dyda.
-He personally not only cited but impounded 25 vehicles (cars/motorcycles)of high
speed,
reckless drivers.
-He generally writes approx.2x the number of citations vs.all three other shared
deputies combined.SPECIAL NOTE ...KNOX ALSO FOCUSES ON EDUCATION ALONG WITH
ENFORCEMENT!
-Knox has given more than 50 presentations of Traffic Safety to groups including the
Peninsula Sr's,Teen Drivers,major Motorcycle groups.
-He alone of all traffic deputies has utilized most effectively still camera shots (he
paid for this one)to dramatize the radar speed and the offender while issuing
citations.
He also uses these photos when appearing in court ...and in presentations.
-He spends hundreds of unpaid hours ...including vacation time ..in attending special
Safety Programs ...at conventions and seminars.Ex.This summer ..while on vacation ...he
plans to visit the Mid-West hdg's of Consumer Report's Vehicle Test Center ..to better
understand safety nuances of various types of vehicles.
-He has then brought back to our Sheriff Dept.and RPV,new technical concepts to
improve
his traffic enforcement effectiveness.Two recent examples:RPV paid for a new Dash
Video Camera ...dramatically upgrades the impact during his public outreach
programs ..and
during Traffic Court Appearances.RPV also purchased new Radar/Laser equipment ..really
helped out in tracking speeders on the tough stretches of roads ...like the Switchback
and
Crenshaw.SPECIAL NOTE;NONE OF THE SHARED DEPUTIES UTILIZE CAMERAS.
-While working with the Sheriff Leadership before Knox,I learned that a very high %of
the citations written by our Shared Deputies were tossed out ...not documented enough.
Upon learning of this problem,Knox on his own,began taking extensive notes on the
back
of his copy of the citation ...enabling him to more effectively convince the Traffic
Court
Judges of the validity of all his citations.FEW OF HIS CITATIONS ARE TOSSED OUT!
SUMMARY OF SPECIAL OUTREACH PROGRAMS ...THE ABOVE IS A PARTIAL LIST OF MANY OF HIS
UNIQUE PROGRAMS.ANOTHER SPECIAL NOTE ..WHILE VARIOUS SHARED DEPUTIES ARE NOT STRESSING
TO THE PUBLIC ...THEIR WILLINGNESS TO WORK WITH RESIDENTS,CIVIC LEADERS,ETC.ON RIDE-
ALONGS,KNOX,AS PART OF HIS EDUCATIONAL OUTREACH PROGRAMS HAS STRONGLY RECOMMENDED ALL
RESIDENTS SPEND A DAY WITH HIM ...PARTICULARLY MEMBERS OF OUR C.C.AND T.&S ..
COMMISSION.
Note:I can vouch for the effectiveness of a day with Knox.I worked 4 full days with
him ...and full days with the other shared deputies (Except the Motorcycle Deputy ..for
practical reasons).Only Mayor Long has worked with him ..and that was due to a concern
that he was far too hard in citing bicyclists.*Has been since discounted ...primarily
due the photos of them continually violating safe driving techniques/laws.
3
8-17