Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
072517 CC Agenda
In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please contact the office of the City Clerk (951) 694-6444. Notification 48 hours prior to a meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to that meeting [28 CFR 35.102.35.104 ADA Title II] AGENDA TEMECULA CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS 41000 MAIN STREET TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA JULY 25, 2017 — 7:00 PM At approximately 9:45 P.M., the City Council will determine which of the remaining agenda items can be considered and acted upon prior to 10:00 P.M. and may continue all other items on which additional time is required until a future meeting. All meetings are scheduled to end at 10:00 P.M. 6:00 PM - The City Council will convene in Closed Session in the Canyons Conference Room on the third floor of the Temecula City Hall concerning the following matters: 1. Conference with Legal Counsel—Pending Litigation. The City Council will meet in closed session with the City Attorney pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9(d)(1) with respect to one matter of pending litigation: Los Ranchitos Homeowners Association v. City of Temecula, Riverside County Superior Court No. RIC1512880; Aghapy Group v. City of Temecula, Riverside County Superior Court No. MCC1601065; City of Temecula v. All In Holistic et al., Riverside County Superior Court No. MCC1700077. 2. Conference with Legal Counsel—Potential Litigation. The City Council will meet in closed session with the City Attorney pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9(d)(2) and (4) with respect to one matter of potential litigation. A point has been reached where, in the opinion of the City Attorney, based on existing facts and circumstances, there is a significant exposure to litigation involving the City based on the claims of Nature Works, Inc., Nancy Moran and Valerie Salatino. Next in Order: Ordinance: 17-05 Resolution: 17-41 CALL TO ORDER: Mayor Maryann Edwards Prelude Music: Temecula Valley Conservatory of the Summer Arts Chamber Music Invocation: Carrie Lewis of Baha'is of Temecula Flag Salute: Council Member James "Stew" Stewart ROLL CALL: Comerchero, Naggar, Rahn, Stewart, Edwards 1 PRESENTATIONS/PROCLAMATIONS Presentation of Award from the American Cancer Society, Inc. to the City of Temecula for Sponsoring the Relay for Life Event Presentation of Proclamation for National Hospitality House Week and 10th Anniversary of Jacob's House Presentation by Matrix Consulting Group Regarding Law Enforcement Joint Powers Authority Study PUBLIC COMMENTS A total of 30 minutes is provided for members of the public to address the City Council on items that appear within the Consent Calendar or a matter not listed on the agenda. Each speaker is limited to three minutes. If the speaker chooses to address the City Council on an item listed on the Consent Calendar or a matter not listed on the agenda, a Request to Speak form may be filled out and filed with the City Clerk prior to the City Council addressing Public Comments and the Consent Calendar. Once the speaker is called to speak, please come forward and state your name for the record. For all Public Hearing or Council Business items on the agenda, a Request to Speak form may be filed with the City Clerk prior to the City Council addressing that item. Each speaker is limited to five minutes. CITY COUNCIL REPORTS Reports by the members of the City Council on matters not on the agenda will be made at this time. A total, not to exceed, 10 minutes will be devoted to these reports. CONSENT CALENDAR NOTICE TO THE PUBLIC All matters listed under Consent Calendar are considered to be routine and all will be enacted by one roll call vote. There will be no discussion of these items unless Members of the City Council request specific items be removed from the Consent Calendar for separate action. 1 Waive Reading of Standard Ordinances and Resolutions RECOMMENDATION: 1.1 That the City Council waive the reading of the text of all standard ordinances and resolutions included in the agenda except as specifically required by the Government Code. 2 Approve the Action Minutes of July 11, 2017 RECOMMENDATION: 2.1 That the City Council approve the action minutes of July 11, 2017. 2 3 Approve the List of Demands RECOMMENDATION: 3.1 That the City Council adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 17- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA ALLOWING CERTAIN CLAIMS AND DEMANDS AS SET FORTH IN EXHIBIT A 4 Approve the License Agreement for Police Sub -Station and the Fourth Amendment to Amended and Restated Agreement for Partial Funding of Police Services at the Promenade Mall, both with Forest City Commercial Management, Inc. RECOMMENDATION: 4.1 Approve a three-year License Agreement with Forest City Commercial Management, Inc. for the City of Temecula Police Sub -Station at the Promenade Mall at no cost; 4.2 Approve the Fourth Amendment to Amended and Restated Agreement for Partial Funding of Police Services By and Between the City of Temecula and Forest City Commercial Management, Inc., to extend the term of the agreement to June 30, 2020, in the amount of $102,499 annually. 5 Adopt Resolution to Establish the Amount of the Voter Approved Measure C Annual Special Tax Levy for Fiscal Year 2017-18 RECOMMENDATION: 5.1 That the City Council adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 17- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA ESTABLISHING THE AMOUNT OF THE SPECIAL TAX LEVY FOR FISCAL YEAR 2017-18 TO PROVIDE FOR RECREATION AND HUMAN SERVICES PROGRAMS AND THE OPERATION, MAINTENANCE AND SERVICING OF PUBLIC PARKS AND RECREATIONAL FACILITIES, MEDIAN LANDSCAPING, AND ARTERIAL STREET LIGHTS AND TRAFFIC SIGNALS 3 6 Adopt Ordinance 17-03 to Approve an Amendment to the CaIPERS Contract to Provide for Sharing Employer Cost by Classic Local Miscellaneous Members in the Management and Confidential Employees Group (Second Reading) RECOMMENDATION: 6.1 That the City Council adopt an ordinance entitled: ORDINANCE NO. 17-03 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA AUTHORIZING AN AMENDMENT TO THE CONTRACT BETWEEN THE BOARD OF ADMINISTRATION OF THE CALIFORNIA PUBLIC EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT SYSTEM AND THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA 7 Adopt Ordinance 17-04 Amending the Temecula Municipal Code Providing for the Election of City Council Members By District, Establishing District Boundaries, Identifying District Numbers and Establishing the Election Order of Each District (Second Reading) RECOMMENDATION: 7.1 That the City Council adopt an ordinance entitled: ORDINANCE NO. 17-04 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA AMENDING CHAPTER 2.08 OF THE TEMECULA MUNICIPAL CODE PROVIDING FOR THE ELECTION OF FIVE MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL BY DISTRICTS, ESTABLISHING THE BOUNDARIES AND IDENTIFICATION NUMBER OF EACH DISTRICT, AND ESTABLISHING THE ELECTION ORDER OF EACH DISTRICT 8 Receive Report Regarding Status of Upcoming Vacancies on Boards and Commissions RECOMMENDATION: 8.1 That the City Council receive the report regarding the status of upcoming vacancies on Boards and Commissions. 9 Approve the First Amendment to the Agreement for Consultant Services with Michael Baker International, Inc. for Temecula Park and Ride, PW06-09 RECOMMENDATION: 9.1 Approve the First Amendment to the Agreement for Consultant Services with Michael Baker International, Inc., in an amount not to exceed $10,760, for additional design services; 9.2 Authorize an increase to the contingency in the amount of $1,076, and increase the City Manager's authority to approve Extra Work Authorizations by the same 4 amount. 10 Award a Contract to Best Contracting Services, Inc. for the Temecula Children's Museum — Roof Rehabilitation, PW16-02 RECOMMENDATION: 10.1 Award a Contract to Best Contracting Services, Inc., in the amount of $193,100, for the Temecula Children's Museum — Roof Rehabilitation, PW16-02; 10.2 Authorize the City Manager to approve change orders not to exceed the contingency amount of $19,310, which is equal to 10% of the Contract amount; 11 Approve a Three -Year Agreement for Contractor Services with Counts Unlimited, Inc. for Citywide Traffic Count Data Collection for Fiscal Years 2017-20 RECOMMENDATION: 11.1 That the City Council approve a three-year Agreement for Contractor Services with Counts Unlimited, Inc., in the amount of $30,000 annually, for a total agreement amount of $90,000, for Citywide Traffic Count Data Collection for Fiscal Years 2017-20. 12 Approve an Agreement for the Installation and Maintenance of Electrical and Telecommunication Lines in Public Right of Way on Pechanga Parkway Between the City of Temecula and the Pechanga Band of Luiseno Indians RECOMMENDATION: 12.1 That the City Council adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 17- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING AN AGREEMENT FOR THE INSTALLATION AND MAINTENANCE OF ELECTRICAL AND TELECOMMUNICATION LINES IN PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY ON PECHANGA PARKWAY BETWEEN THE CITY OF TEMECULA AND THE PECHANGA BAND OF LUISENO INDIANS AND FINDING THE CITY'S ACTION EXEMPT FROM CEQA ******************** RECESS CITY COUNCIL MEETING TO SCHEDULED MEETINGS OF THE TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT, THE SUCCESSOR AGENCY TO THE TEMECULA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY, THE TEMECULA HOUSING AUTHORITY, AND THE TEMECULA PUBLIC FINANCING AUTHORITY ******************** 5 TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT MEETING Next in Order: Ordinance: CSD 17-01 Resolution: CSD 17-05 CALL TO ORDER: President Jeff Comerchero ROLL CALL: DIRECTORS: Edwards, Naggar, Rahn, Stewart, Comerchero CSD PUBLIC COMMENTS A total of 30 minutes is provided for members of the public to address the Board of Directors on items that appear within the Consent Calendar or a matter not listed on the agenda. Each speaker is limited to three minutes. If the speaker chooses to address the Board of Directors on an item listed on the Consent Calendar or a matter not listed on the agenda, a Request to Speak form may be filled out and filed with the City Clerk prior to the Board of Directors addressing Public Comments and the Consent Calendar. Once the speaker is called to speak, please come forward and state your name for the record. For all Public Hearing or District Business items on the agenda, a Request to Speak form may be filed with the City Clerk prior to the Board of Directors addressing that item. Each speaker is limited to five minutes. CSD CONSENT CALENDAR NOTICE TO THE PUBLIC All matters listed under Consent Calendar are considered to be routine and all will be enacted by one roll call vote. There will be no discussion of these items unless Members of the Temecula Community Services District request specific items be removed from the Consent Calendar for separate action. 13 Approve the Action Minutes of July 11, 2017 RECOMMENDATION: 13.1 That the Board of Directors approve the action minutes of July 11, 2017. CSD DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY SERVICES REPORT CSD GENERAL MANAGER REPORT CSD BOARD OF DIRECTORS REPORTS CSD ADJOURNMENT Next regular meeting: Tuesday, August 8, 2017, at 5:30 PM, for a Closed Session, with regular session commencing at 7:00 PM, City Council Chambers, 41000 Main Street, Temecula, California. 6 TEMECULA PUBLIC FINANCING AUTHORITY MEETING Next in Order: Ordinance: TPFA 17-01 Resolution: TPFA 17-03 CALL TO ORDER: Chairperson Maryann Edwards ROLL CALL: DIRECTORS: Comerchero, Naggar, Rahn, Stewart, Edwards TPFA PUBLIC COMMENTS A total of 15 minutes is provided for members of the public to address the Board of Directors on items that appear within the Consent Calendar or a matter not listed on the agenda. Each speaker is limited to three minutes. If the speaker chooses to address the Board of Directors on an item listed on the Consent Calendar or a matter not listed on the agenda, a Request to Speak form may be filled out and filed with the City Clerk prior to the Board of Directors addressing Public Comments and the Consent Calendar. Once the speaker is called to speak, please come forward and state your name for the record. For all Public Hearing or Authority Business items on the agenda, a Request to Speak form may be filed with the City Clerk prior to the Board of Directors addressing that item. Each speaker is limited to five minutes. TPFA CONSENT CALENDAR NOTICE TO THE PUBLIC All matters listed under Consent Calendar are considered to be routine and all will be enacted by one roll call vote. There will be no discussion of these items unless Members of the Temecula Public Financing Authority request specific items be removed from the Consent Calendar for separate action. 14 Authorize Fiscal Year 2017-18 Special Tax Levies for the Community Facilities Districts RECOMMENDATION: 14.1 Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. TPFA 17- A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE TEMECULA PUBLIC FINANCING AUTHORITY AUTHORIZING THE LEVY OF A SPECIAL TAX IN COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT NO. 03-01 (CROWNE HILL) 14.2 Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. TPFA 17- A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE TEMECULA PUBLIC FINANCING AUTHORITY AUTHORIZING THE LEVY OF A SPECIAL TAX IN COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT NO. 01-02 (HARVESTON) 7 14.3 Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. TPFA 17- A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE TEMECULA PUBLIC FINANCING AUTHORITY AUTHORIZING THE LEVY OF A SPECIAL TAX IN COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT NO. 03-06 (HARVESTON II) 14.4 Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. TPFA 17- A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE TEMECULA PUBLIC FINANCING AUTHORITY AUTHORIZING THE LEVY OF A SPECIAL TAX IN COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT NO. 03-02 (RORIPAUGH RANCH) 14.5 Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. TPFA 17- A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE TEMECULA PUBLIC FINANCING AUTHORITY AUTHORIZING THE LEVY OF A SPECIAL TAX IN COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT NO. 03-03 (WOLF CREEK) 14.6 Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. TPFA 17- A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE TEMECULA PUBLIC FINANCING AUTHORITY AUTHORIZING THE LEVY OF A SPECIAL TAX IN COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT NO. 16-01 (RORIPAUGH RANCH PHASE 2) TPFA EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR REPORT TPFA BOARD OF DIRECTORS REPORTS TPFA ADJOURNMENT Next regular meeting: Tuesday, August 8, 2017, at 5:30 PM, for a Closed Session, with regular session commencing at 7:00 PM, City Council Chambers, 41000 Main Street, Temecula, California. 8 SUCCESSOR AGENCY TO THE TEMECULA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY — No Meeting TEMECULA HOUSING AUTHORITY — No Meeting RECONVENE TEMECULA CITY COUNCIL DEPARTMENTAL REPORTS 15 Community Development Department Monthly Report 16 Fire Department Monthly Report 17 Police Department Monthly Report 18 Public Works Department Monthly Report BOARD/COMMISSION REPORTS CITY MANAGER REPORT CITY ATTORNEY REPORT ADJOURNMENT Next regular meeting: Tuesday, August 8, 2017, at 5:30 PM, for a Closed Session, with regular session commencing at 7:00 PM, City Council Chambers, 41000 Main Street, Temecula, California. NOTICE TO THE PUBLIC The agenda packet (including staff reports and public Closed Session information) will be available for public viewing in the Main Reception area at the Temecula Civic Center (41000 Main Street, Temecula) after 4:00 PM the Friday before the City Council meeting. At that time, the agenda packet may also be accessed on the City's website — TemeculaCA.gov — and will be available for public viewing at the respective meeting. Supplemental material received after the posting of the Agenda Any supplemental material distributed to a majority of the City Council regarding any item on the agenda, after the posting of the agenda, will be available for public viewing in the Main Reception area at the Temecula Civic Center (41000 Main Street, Temecula, 8:00 AM — 5:00 PM). In addition, such material will be made available on the City's website — TemeculaCA.gov — and will be available for public review at the respective meeting. If you have questions regarding any item on the agenda for this meeting, please contact the City Clerk's Department, (951) 694- 6444. 9 PRESENTATIONS Si Si , .sJ yryyyr yyry ry �����0.R6R6R��I�Wi����G ` i����� _ 1 � � � t'!�� ��� maeaewm M1—...: ..����, •wwwwaY man j: ����t � ..,,p,p«�n,.,„a'P.:?!:'i:ll:� � u,¢p�a "` - �� •. l �� �AR �wwww. _ pp,, ,,pp The City of Temecula PROCLAMATION WHEREAS, Jacob's House has been a member of the National Healthcare Hospitality Network since 2007; and WHEREAS, hundreds of families travel through our community each year seeking medical care for their loved ones; and WHEREAS, these families need the comfort and support of others who understand the emotional and financial stress of coping with a traumatic medical crisis; and WHEREAS, being far from home during a medical crisis compounds the stress for both the patient and their families; and WHEREAS, the support provided by the community makes it possible to provide comfort and care to families and patients; and WHEREAS, our partnership with Temecula Valley Hospital ensures families are made aware of and can receive the services offered by Jacob's House; and WHEREAS, Jacob's House joins with the Healthcare Hospitality Network and all member houses across North America in recognizing the importance of compassionate lodging for families in need and the opportunity to show them support, comfort, and friendship; and WHEREAS, we congratulate Jacob's House on their 10th Anniversary and thank them for the service that they provide to our community. NOW, THEREFORE, I, Maryann Edwards, on behalf of the City Council of the City of Temecula, hereby proclaim July 23 through July 29, 2017, to be "National Hospitality House Week" I encourage all citizens to celebrate this national event that benefits the health and welfare of our community and our guest families. The City Council also extends sincere appreciation for the dedication, commitment, and leadership provided by the Founders, Shawn and Stephanie Nelson, the Board of Directors, staff, volunteers, and supporters of Jacob' s House. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and caused the Seal of the City of Temecula to be affixed this twenty-fifth day of July, 2017. Maryann Edwards, Mayor Randi Johl City Clerk CITY COUNCIL CONSENT Item No. 1 Approvals City Attorney Director of Finance City Manager CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT TO: City Manager/City Council FROM: Randi Johl, City Clerk DATE: July 25, 2017 SUBJECT: Waive Reading of Standard Ordinances and Resolutions PREPARED BY: Randi Johl, City Clerk RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council waive the reading of the text of all standard ordinances and resolutions included in the agenda except as specifically required by the Government Code. BACKGROUND: The City of Temecula is a general law city formed under the laws of the State of California. With respect to adoption of ordinances and resolutions, the City adheres to the requirements set forth in the Government Code. Unless otherwise required, the full reading of the text of standard ordinances and resolutions is waived. FISCAL IMPACT: None ATTACHMENTS: None Item No. 2 ACTION MINUTES TEMECULA CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS 41000 MAIN STREET TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA JULY 11, 2017-7:00 PM 6:00 PM - The City Council convened in Closed Session in the Canyons Conference Room on the third floor of the Temecula City Hall concerning the following matters: 1. Conference with Legal Counsel—Pending Litigation. The City Council will meet in closed session with the City Attorney pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9(d)(1) with respect to one matter of pending litigation: City of Temecula v. All In Holistic et al., Riverside County Superior Court No. MCC1700077. 2. Conference with Legal Counsel — Pending Litigation. The City Council will meet in closed session with the City Attorney pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9(d)(1) with respect to one matter of pending litigation: Los Ranchitos Homeowners Association v. City of Temecula, Riverside County Superior Court No. RIC1512880. 3. Conference with Legal Counsel — Pending Litigation. The City Council will meet in closed session with the City Attorney pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9(d)(2) with respect to one matter of potential litigation. A point has been reached where, in the opinion of the City Attorney, based on existing facts and circumstances, there is a significant exposure to litigation involving the City. At 6:00 PM Mayor Edwards called the City Council meeting to order and recessed to Closed Session to consider the matters described on the Closed Session agenda. The City Council meeting convened at 7:01 PM CALL TO ORDER: Mayor Maryann Edwards Prelude Music: Flutists — Ruth Dunlop, Saqtiel Orozco, Emily Schwank, Bridgette Shroll Invocation: Pastor Harold Forbis of Lifeline International Ministries of Temecula Valley Flag Salute: Mayor Pro Tem Matt Rahn ROLL CALL: Comerchero, Naggar, Rahn, Stewart, Edwards PRESENTATIONS/PROCLAMATIONS Presentation of Certificates of Recognition to Senior Class of 2017 National Charity League Temecula Valley Chapter Action Minutes 071117 1 PUBLIC COMMENTS (None) CITY COUNCIL REPORTS CONSENT CALENDAR 1 Waive Reading of Standard Ordinances and Resolutions - Approved Staff Recommendation (5-0) Council Member Comerchero made the motion; it was seconded by Council Member Rahn; and electronic vote reflected approval by Council Members Comerchero, Naggar, Rahn, Stewart and Edwards. RECOMMENDATION: 1.1 That the City Council waive the reading of the text of all standard ordinances and resolutions included in the agenda except as specifically required by the Government Code. 2 Approve the Action Minutes of June 27, 2017 - Approved Staff Recommendation (5-0) Council Member Comerchero made the motion; it was seconded by Council Member Rahn; and electronic vote reflected approval by Council Members Comerchero, Naggar, Rahn, Stewart and Edwards. RECOMMENDATION: 2.1 That the City Council approve the action minutes of June 27, 2017. 3 Approve the List of Demands - Approved Staff Recommendation (5-0) Council Member Comerchero made the motion; it was seconded by Council Member Rahn; and electronic vote reflected approval by Council Members Comerchero, Naggar, Rahn, Stewart and Edwards. RECOMMENDATION: 3.1 That the City Council adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 17-40 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA ALLOWING CERTAIN CLAIMS AND DEMANDS AS SET FORTH IN EXHIBIT A 4 Approve the City Treasurer's Report as of May 31, 2017 - Approved Staff Recommendation (5-0) Council Member Comerchero made the motion; it was seconded by Council Member Rahn; and electronic vote reflected approval by Council Members Comerchero, Naggar, Rahn, Stewart and Edwards. RECOMMENDATION: 4.1 That the City Council approve and file the City Treasurer's Report as of May 31, 2017. 5 Approve the First Amendment to the Third Amended and Restated Joint Powers Action Minutes 071117 2 Agreement Creating the Southwest Communities Financing Authority (SCFA) Animal Shelter - Approved Staff Recommendation (5-0) Council Member Comerchero made the motion; it was seconded by Council Member Rahn; and electronic vote reflected approval by Council Members Comerchero, Naggar, Rahn, Stewart and Edwards. RECOMMENDATION: 5.1 That the City Council approve the First Amendment to the Third Amended and Restated Joint Powers Agreement Between the County of Riverside and The City of Canyon Lake; The City of Lake Elsinore; The City of Murrieta; The City of Temecula; and The City of Wildomar; creating the Southwest Communities Financing Authority (Animal Shelter). 6 Approve the Amendments to Annual Agreements for Professional On -Call Services for the Various Needs for the Department of Public Works, Capital Improvement Program (CIP) Division for Fiscal Year 2017-18 - Approved Staff Recommendation (5-0) Council Member Comerchero made the motion; it was seconded by Council Member Rahn; and electronic vote reflected approval by Council Members Comerchero, Naggar, Rahn, Stewart and Edwards. RECOMMENDATION: 6.1 That the City Council approve the Amendments to Annual Agreements for Professional On -Call Services, in the amounts stated, for various needs for the Department of Public Works, Capital Improvement Program (CIP) Division for Fiscal Year 2017-18, as follows: Property Acquisition Services Interwest Consulting Group, Inc. — Second Amendment $60,000 Paragon Partners Ltd. — Second Amendment $60,000 Geotechnical and Material Testing Services Construction Testing & Engineering, Inc. — Second Amendment $200,000 Geocon West, Inc. — Second Amendment $200,000 Leighton Consulting, Inc. — Third Amendment $200,000 Engineering, Survey, and Environmental Services David Evans and Associates, Inc. — Second Amendment $200,000 Dokken Engineering — Second Amendment $200,000 Michael Baker International, Inc. — Third Amendment $200,000 Title and Escrow Services Chicago Title Company — Third Amendment $30,000 Action Minutes 071117 3 7 Approve the Department of California Highway Patrol Agreement for Construction Zone Enhanced Enforcement Program Services for the Interstate 15 / State Route 79 South Ultimate Interchange, PW04-08 - Approved Staff Recommendation (5-0) Council Member Comerchero made the motion; it was seconded by Council Member Rahn; and electronic vote reflected approval by Council Members Comerchero, Naggar, Rahn, Stewart and Edwards. RECOMMENDATION: 7.1 Approve the Department of California Highway Patrol Agreement Number 17R685000, in the amount of $102,536, for Construction Zone Enhanced Enforcement Program (COZEEP) services for the Interstate 15 / State Route 79 South Ultimate Interchange, Project No. PW04-08; 7.2 Authorize the City Manager to execute the Agreement. 8 Approve the First Amendment to the Agreement for Consultant Services with CASC Engineering and Consulting, Inc. for Temecula Park and Ride, PW06-09 - Approved Staff Recommendation (5-0) Council Member Comerchero made the motion; it was seconded by Council Member Rahn; and electronic vote reflected approval by Council Members Comerchero, Naggar, Rahn, Stewart and Edwards. RECOMMENDATION: 8.1 That the City Council approve the First Amendment to the Agreement for Consultant Services with CASC Engineering and Consulting, Inc., in the amount of $23,375, to provide additional storm water compliance services for the Temecula Park and Ride, PW06-09. 9 Approve the Agreements for Consultant Services with Wallace & Associates Consulting, Inc., CivilSource, Inc., and FALCON Engineering Services, Inc. for On -Call Construction Management Services for Fiscal Year 2017-18 - Approved Staff Recommendation (5-0) Council Member Comerchero made the motion; it was seconded by Council Member Rahn; and electronic vote reflected approval by Council Members Comerchero, Naggar, Rahn, Stewart and Edwards. RECOMMENDATION: 9.1 That the City Council approve the Agreements for Consultant Services with Wallace & Associates Consulting, Inc., CivilSource, Inc., and FALCON Engineering Services, Inc., in the amount of $200,000 each, for On -Call Construction Management Services for Fiscal Year 2017-18. 10 Approve the BEYOND Framework Fund Program Funding Agreements with Western Riverside Council of Governments (WRCOG) for Nine Proiects - Approved Staff Recommendation (5-0) Council Member Comerchero made the motion; it was seconded by Council Member Rahn; and electronic vote reflected approval by Council Members Comerchero, Naggar, Rahn, Stewart and Edwards. RECOMMENDATION: 10.1 That the City Council approve the BEYOND Framework Fund Program Funding Agreements with Western Riverside Council of Governments (WRCOG) for the BEYOND Core and BEYOND Team Program Categories for Nine Projects. Action Minutes 071117 4 RECESS: At 7:15 PM, the City Council recessed and convened as the Temecula Community Services District Meeting. At 7:23 PM, the City Council resumed with the remainder of the City Council Agenda. RECONVENE TEMECULA CITY COUNCIL PUBLIC HEARING 13 Conduct Public Hearing No. 4 Regarding the Transition from At -Large to By -District Elections — Receive report. RECOMMENDATION: 13.1 That the City Council conduct the final of four public hearings to receive public comments regarding the transition from at -large to by -district elections for members of the City Council. CITY COUNCIL BUSINESS The following individuals addressed the City Council on Item 14: • Martha Howard • David Matics • Bernard Truax II • Angel Garcia • Lanae Turley-Trejo • Ira Robinson 14 Introduce an Ordinance Amending the Temecula Municipal Code Providing for the Election of City Council Members By District, Establishing District Boundaries, Identifying District Numbers and Establishing the Election Order of Each District Motion 1: Approved Council District Map (3-2, Council Member Rahn and Council Member Stewart in opposition) Council Member Naggar made the motion to select the yellow map as the preferred Council District Map; it was seconded by Council Member Comerchero; and electronic vote reflected approval by Council Members Comerchero, Naggar, and Edwards with Council Members Rahn and Stewart in opposition. Motion 2: Approved Staff Recommendation (5-0) Council Member Naggar made the motion to introduce and read by title only the ordinance and direct staff to bring back for future Council consideration items related to districting policies and options associated with creating a redistricting board or commission; it was seconded by Council Member Comerchero; and electronic vote reflected approval by Council Members Comerchero, Naggar, Rahn, Stewart and Edwards. Action Minutes 071117 5 RECOMMENDATION: 14.1 That the City Council introduce and read by title only an ordinance entitled: ORDINANCE NO. 17-04 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA AMENDING CHAPTER 2.08 OF THE TEMECULA MUNICIPAL CODE PROVIDING FOR THE ELECTION OF FIVE MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL BY DISTRICTS, ESTABLISHING THE BOUNDARIES AND IDENTIFICATION NUMBER OF EACH DISTRICT, AND ESTABLISHING THE ELECTION ORDER OF EACH DISTRICT City Attorney Thorson introduced and read by title only Ordinance No. 17-04. BOARD/COMMISSION REPORTS CITY MANAGER REPORT CITY ATTORNEY REPORT City Attorney Thorson stated there were no reportable actions under the Brown Act in regards to the Closed Session items. ADJOURNMENT At 9:12 PM, the City Council meeting was formally adjourned to Tuesday, July 25, 2017, at 5:30 PM, for a Closed Session, with regular session commencing at 7:00 PM, City Council Chambers, 41000 Main Street, Temecula, California. *** Adjourned in the Celebration of Dick Fox *** Maryann Edwards, Mayor ATTEST: Randi Johl, City Clerk [SEAL] Action Minutes 071117 6 Item No. 3 TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: Approvals City Attorney Director of Finance City Manager CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT City Manager/City Council Jennifer Hennessy, Director of Finance July 25, 2017 Approve the List of Demands PREPARED BY: RECOMMENDATION: Pascale Brown, Accounting Manager Pam Espinoza, Accounting Tech 1 That the City Council adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 17- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA ALLOWING CERTAIN CLAIMS AND DEMANDS AS SET FORTH IN EXHIBIT A BACKGROUND: All claims and demands are reported and summarized for review and approval by the City Council on a routine basis at each City Council meeting. The attached claims represent the paid claims and demands since the last City Council meeting. FISCAL IMPACT: All claims and demands were paid from appropriated funds or authorized resources of the City and have been recorded in accordance with the City's policies and procedures. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Resolution 2. List of Demands RESOLUTION NO. 17- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA ALLOWING CERTAIN CLAIMS AND DEMANDS AS SET FORTH IN EXHIBIT A THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. That the following claims and demands as set forth in Exhibit A, on file in the office of the City Clerk, has been reviewed by the City Manager's Office and that the same are hereby allowed in the amount of $5,419,103.29. Section 2. The City Clerk shall certify the adoption of this resolution. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Temecula this 25th day of July, 2017. Maryann Edwards, Mayor ATTEST: Randi Johl, City Clerk [SEAL] STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss CITY OF TEMECULA ) I, Randi Johl, City Clerk of the City of Temecula, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 17- was duly and regularly adopted by the City Council of the City of Temecula at a meeting thereof held on the 25th day of July, 2017, by the following vote: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: ABSTAIN: COUNCIL MEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Randi Johl, City Clerk CITY OF TEMECULA LIST OF DEMANDS 06/29/2017 TOTAL CHECK RUN: $ 1,548,740.56 07/06/2017 TOTAL CHECK RUN: 3,405,209.46 06/29/2017 TOTAL PAYROLL RUN: 465,153.27 TOTAL LIST OF DEMANDS FOR 07/25/2017 COUNCIL MEETING: $ 5,419,103.29 DISBURSEMENTS BY FUND: CHECKS: 001 GENERAL FUND $ 2,934,571.52 125 PEG PUBLIC EDUCATION & GOVERNMENT 3,717.04 135 BUSINESS INCUBATOR RESOURCE 985.01 140 COMMUNITY DEV BLOCK GRANT 2,122.88 150 AB 2766 FUND 1,945.47 165 AFFORDABLE HOUSING 6,257.29 190 TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT 256,857.16 192 TCSD SERVICE LEVEL B STREET LIGHTS 61.30 194 TCSD SERVICE LEVEL D REFUSE RECYCLING 835.11 195 TCSD SERVICE LEVEL R STREET ROAD MAINTENANCE 2,600.00 196 TCSD SERVICE LEVEL 'Z" LAKE PARK MAINT. 5,983.75 197 TEMECULA LIBRARY FUND 6,401.74 210 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS FUND 601,924.91 300 INSURANCE FUND 12,322.01 320 INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY 29,171.59 330 CENTRAL SERVICES 14,178.44 340 FACILITIES 47,546.05 501 SERVICE LEVEL"C'ZONE 1 SADDLEWOOD 3,013.14 502 SERVICE LEVEL"C'ZONE 2 WINCHESTER CREEK 1,901.76 503 SERVICE LEVEL"C'ZONE 3 RANCHO HIGHLANDS 1,407.05 504 SERVICE LEVEL"C'ZONE 4 THE VINEYARDS 463.15 505 SERVICE LEVEL"C'ZONE 5 SIGNET SERIES 2,187.62 506 SERVICE LEVEL"C'ZONE 6 WOODCREST COUNTRY 1,149.33 507 SERVICE LEVEL"C'ZONE 7 RIDGEVIEW 1,393.81 508 SERVICE LEVEL"C'ZONE 8 VILLAGE GROVE 8,837.01 509 SERVICE LEVEL'C'ZONE 9 RANCHO SOLANA 219.22 510 SERVICE LEVEL"C'ZONE 10 MARTINIQUE 488.11 511 SERVICE LEVEL"C'ZONE 11 MEADOWVIEW 79.57 512 SERVICE LEVEL"C'ZONE 12 VINTAGE HILLS 6,719.31 513 SERVICE LEVEL"C'ZONE 13 PRESLEY DEVELOP. 1,075.84 514 SERVICE LEVEL'C''ZONE 14 MORRISON HOMES 1,080.48 515 SERVICE LEVEL"C'ZONE 15 BARCLAY ESTATES 738.00 516 SERVICE LEVEL"C'ZONE 16 TRADEWINDS 1,538.79 517 SERVICE LEVEL"C'ZONE 17 MONTE VISTA 112.75 518 SERVICE LEVEL"C'ZONE 18 TEMEKU HILLS 5,969.04 519 SERVICE LEVEL"C'ZONE 19 CHANTEMAR 2,737.25 520 SERVICE LEVEL"C'ZONE 20 CROWNE HILL 11,070.19 521 SERVICE LEVEL"C'ZONE 21 VAIL RANCH 9,260.66 522 SERVICE LEVEL"C'ZONE 22 SUTTON PLACE 256.29 523 SERVICE LEVEL"C'ZONE 23 PHEASENT RUN 251.76 524 SERVICE LEVEL"C'ZONE 24 HARVESTON 5,534.24 525 SERVICE LEVEL"C'ZONE 25 SERENA HILLS 2,585.58 526 SERVICE LEVEL"C'ZONE 26 GALLERYTRADITION 120.20 527 SERVICE LEVEL"C'ZONE 27 AVONDALE 747.51 528 SERVICE LEVEL"C'ZONE 28 WOLF CREEK 7,550.39 529 SERVICE LEVEL"C'ZONE 29 GALLERY PORTRAIT 158.97 700 CERBT CALIFORNIA EE RETIREE-GASB45 947,821.73 $ 4,953,950.02 CITY OF TEMECULA LIST OF DEMANDS 001 GENERAL FUND $ 260,775.72 140 COMMUNITY DEV BLOCK GRANT 419.77 165 AFFORDABLE HOUSING 3,117.03 190 TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT 150,392.86 192 TCSD SERVICE LEVEL B STREET LIGHTS 205.25 194 TCSD SERVICE LEVEL D REFUSE RECYCLING 2,333.27 196 TCSD SERVICE LEVEL 'Z" LAKE PARK MAINT. 100.76 197 TEMECULA LIBRARY FUND 1,209.46 300 INSURANCE FUND 1,989.46 320 INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY 27,418.98 330 CENTRAL SERVICES 3,760.94 340 FACILITIES 12,502.86 501 SERVICE LEVEL"C'ZONE 1 SADDLEWOOD 33.27 502 SERVICE LEVEL"C'ZONE 2 WINCHESTER CREEK 22.12 503 SERVICE LEVEL"C'ZONE 3 RANCHO HIGHLANDS 26.33 504 SERVICE LEVEL"C'ZONE 4 THE VINEYARDS 4.75 505 SERVICE LEVEL"C'ZONE 5 SIGNET SERIES 53.77 506 SERVICE LEVEL"C'ZONE 6 WOODCREST COUNTR 9.61 507 SERVICE LEVEL'C''ZONE 7 RIDGEVIEW 13.63 508 SERVICE LEVEL"C'ZONE 8 VILLAGE GROVE 91.39 509 SERVICE LEVEL"C'ZONE 9 RANCHO SOLANA 0.67 510 SERVICE LEVEL"C'ZONE 10 MARTINIQUE 3.97 511 SERVICE LEVEL"C'ZONE 11 MEADOWVIEW 2.39 512 SERVICE LEVEL"C'ZONE 12 VINTAGE HELLS 60.83 513 SERVICE LEVEL'C'ZONE 13 PRESLEY DEVELOP. 12.90 514 SERVICE LEVEL"C'ZONE 14 MORRISON HOMES 7.28 515 SERVICE LEVEL"C'ZONE 15 BARCLAY ESTATES 6.36 516 SERVICE LEVEL"C'ZONE 16 TRADEWINDS 15.05 517 SERVICE LEVEL"C'ZONE 17 MONTE VISTA 1.10 518 SERVICE LEVEL"C'ZONE 18 TEMEKU HILLS 56.30 519 SERVICE LEVEL"C'ZONE 19 CHANTEMAR 30.17 520 SERVICE LEVEL"C'ZONE 20 CROWNE HILL 81.93 521 SERVICE LEVEL"C'ZONE 21 VAIL RANCH 138.64 522 SERVICE LEVEL'C'ZONE 22 SUTTON PLACE 3.13 523 SERVICE LEVEL"C'ZONE 23 PHEASINT RUN 3.44 524 SERVICE LEVEL'C''ZONE 24 HARVESTON 77.93 525 SERVICE LEVEL"C'ZONE 25 SERENA HILLS 25.02 526 SERVICE LEVEL"C'ZONE 26 GALLERYTRADITION 0.82 527 SERVICE LEVEL"C'ZONE 27 AVONDALE 3.44 528 SERVICE LEVEL"C'ZONE 28 WOLF CREEK 115.03 529 SERVICE LEVEL"C'ZONE 29 GALLERY PORTRAIT 1.54 465,153.27 TOTAL BY FUND: $ 5,419,103.29 apChkLst 06/29/2017 11:35:56A M Final Check List CITY OF TEMECULA Page: 1 Bank : union UNION BANK Check # Date Vendor 3396 06/26/2017 011657 CALIF STATE OF PUBLIC EMPLOYEE 3397 06/29/2017 010349 CALIF DEPT OF CHILD SUPPORT 3398 06/29/2017 000283 INSTATAX (IRS) 3399 06/29/2017 000444 INSTATAX (EDD) 3400 06/29/2017 000389 NATIONWIDE RETIREMENT SOLUTION 3401 06/29/2017 000246 PERS (EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT) 3402 06/28/2017 007282 AMAZON.COM, INC 183612 06/27/2017 019895 WALCZAK, ERIKA 183613 06/27/2017 019496 MARLOWE, CHRISTOPHER 183614 06/27/2017 019495 HILLIGUS, CHAD 183615 06/29/2017 004802 ADLERHORST INTERNATIONAL LLC 183616 06/29/2017 019075 ADORAMA INC Description TO FUND GASB 45 CERTB SUPPORT PAYMENT FEDERAL TAXES PAYMENT STATE TAXES PAYMENT OBRA- PROJECT RETIREMENT PAYMENT PERS EMPLOYEE RETIREMENT PAYMENT misc small tools & eqip:Summer Day Camp CREDIT:OFFICE EQUIP/FIRE PREV SUPPLIES:CRC TEEN ZONE SUPPLIES:SUMMER DAY CAMP YOUTH PROGRAM SUPPLIES: ECO DEV MISC. TOOLS & SUPPLIES: PREVENTION YOUTH PROGRAM SUPPLIES: ECO DEV BIKE TRACK RESEARCH BOOK THEATER PERFORMANCE: JUNE 28, 2017 THEATER PERFORMANCE: JUNE 28, 2017 THEATER PERFORMANCE: JUNE 28, 2017 Training & equipment:Police K-9 unit MISCA/V SUPPLIES:PEG EQUIPMENT MISCA/V SUPPLIES:PEG EQUIPMENT MISCA/V SUPPLIES:PEG EQUIPMENT MISCA/V SUPPLIES:PEG EQUIPMENT 183617 06/29/2017 018859 AED SUPERSTORE, AED TRAINING PADS:AQUATICS AEDS.COM, AED Amount Paid Check Total 947,821.73 1,008.45 89,948.70 24, 539.80 6,177.37 38,364.91 363.69 -14.16 17.99 123.17 6.80 21.98 37.77 14.90 500.00 1,000.00 1,850.00 350.00 2,902.67 556.82 180.16 77.39 947,821.73 1,008.45 89,948.70 24, 539.80 6,177.37 38,364.91 572.14 500.00 1,000.00 1,850.00 350.00 3,717.04 408.00 408.00 Pagel apChkLst Final Check List 06/29/2017 11:35:56AM CITY OF TEMECULA Page: 2 Bank : union UNION BANK (Continued) Check # Date Vendor Description Amount Paid Check Total 183618 06/29/2017 009374 ALLEGRO MUSICAL VENTURES PIANO TUNING AND MAI NT: THEATER 185.00 PIANO MAINT: MPSC 185.00 370.00 183619 06/29/2017 009787 ALTEC INDUSTRIES INC VEHICLE REPAIR & MAINT SRVCS: PW 396.06 396.06 183620 06/29/2017 013015 ALWAYS RELIABLE BACKFLOW BACKFLOW REPAIRS: RRSP 703.00 703.00 183621 06/29/2017 004240 AMERICAN FORENSIC NURSES DUI DRUG SCREENINGS: POLICE 867.60 (AFN) DUI DRUG SCREENINGS: POLICE 211.90 1,079.50 183622 06/29/2017 002187 ANIMAL FRIENDS OF THE APR '17 ANIMAL CONTROLSVCS:CITY 10,000.00 10,000.00 VALLEYS OF TEME 183623 06/29/2017 013950 AQUA CHILL OF SAN DIEGO JUN WATER SVCS: PUBLIC WORKS 28.28 JUN DRINKING WATER SRVCS: INFO TE( 28.28 JUN MAINT SVCS DRINKING WATER: CIV 183.71 JUN MAINT SVCS DRINKING WATER: JR( 28.28 JUN MAINT SVCS DRINKING WATER: MP 34.75 183624 06/29/2017 017149 B G P RECREATION, INC. TCSD INSTRUCTOR EARNINGS 2,079.00 303.30 2,079.00 183625 06/29/2017 011954 BAKER & TAYLOR INC RECORDS ON TAPE 1.20 RECORDS ON TAPE 7.60 BOOK COLLECTIONS:LIBRARY 188.72 RECORDS ON TAPE 6.00 BOOK COLLECTIONS:LIBRARY 42.11 245.63 183626 06/29/2017 018101 BARN STAGE COMPANY INC, STTLMNT:CABARET...MERC 06/25/17 693.00 693.00 THE 183627 06/29/2017 010806 BARNEYS TIRE AND WHEEL VEHICLE MAINTENANCE:TCC 836.95 836.95 183628 06/29/2017 017788 BARTEL ASSOCIATES, LLC ACTUARIAL CNSLTNG SVCS: CALPERS 1,263.75 1,263.75 REVIEW 183629 06/29/2017 013482 BAS SECURITY SECURITY SERVICES:THEATER 729.00 729.00 183630 06/29/2017 004262 BIO-TOX LABORATORIES MAY DUI & DRUG TESTING:PD 1,646.70 MAY DUI & DRUG TESTING:PD 594.00 MAY DUI & DRUG TESTING:PD 1,956.30 4,197.00 183631 06/29/2017 009437 BRENNER FIELDER & ASSOC, WATER PUMP PARTS: HARV LAKE 845.08 845.08 INC PARK 183632 06/29/2017 019986 BURNS, JOANN REFUND:SEC DEP:PICNIC RENTAL:PALA PARK 200.00 200.00 Page2 apChkLst Final Check List 06/29/2017 11:35:56AM CITY OF TEMECULA Page: 3 Bank : union UNION BANK (Continued) Check # Date Vendor Description 183633 06/29/2017 003138 CAL MAT ASPHALT MATERIAL: PW STREET MAI NT 183634 06/29/2017 004241 CALIF DEPT OF STATE REMITTANCE OF SB1186 - QE MAR ARCHITECT 2017 Amount Paid Check Total 343.67 343.67 1,253.70 1,253.70 183635 06/29/2017 019949 CARRIER, LINDSEY PERFORMANCE:NIGHTOFTHE 300.00 300.00 LUMINARIES 183636 06/29/2017 018828 CASC ENGINEERING AND PERMIT COMPLIANCE SRVCS:PW LAND DEV 183637 06/29/2017 004462 CDW, LLC MISC SMALL TOOLS & EQUIP:INFO TECHNOLOGY 626.90 626.90 550.09 550.09 183638 06/29/2017 000442 COMPUTER ALERT SYSTEMS ELEVATOR REPAIR & MAINT:CIVIC 300.00 CENTER ELEVATOR REPAIR & MAI NT:CIVIC CENT 300.00 183639 06/29/2017 019255 COMTRONIX Vehicle light bar installation: pw 554.38 COMMUNICATIONS INC 600.00 554.38 183640 06/29/2017 002945 CONSOLIDATED ELECTRICAL ELECTRICAL SUPPLIES: LIBRARY 55.46 55.46 DIST. 183641 06/29/2017 001264 COSTCO TEMECULA #491 MISC SUPPLIES: MEDICS MISC SUPPLIES: STA 12 MISC SUPPLIES: MEDICS EVENT SUPPLIES: TVE2 EVENT SUPPLIES: TVE2 183642 06/29/2017 004329 COSTCO TEMECULA #491 SUPPLIES:HUMAN SERVICES SUPPLIES:SKATE PARK MISC SUPPLIES: VAR CULTURAL EVENT SUPPLIES:UTILITY PROGRAM: TCSD MISC SUPPLIES:MPSC 183643 06/29/2017 010650 CRAFTSMEN PLUMBING & HVAC INC FACILITY MAINTENANCE: STA 73 183644 06/29/2017 014580 DANCE THEATRE COLLECTIVE TIXT:DANCEXCHANGE 6/20/17 183645 06/29/2017 012600 DAVID EVANS & ASSOCIATES INC 183646 06/29/2017 003945 DIAMOND ENVIRONMENTAL SRVCS 3,380.16 78.50 629.13 150.91 97.32 973.13 400.91 717.54 318.83 484.75 4,336.02 2,895.16 362.17 362.17 87.50 87.50 4/30-5/27 DSGN SRVCS FOR FALLEN 5,330.00 HEROES: 4/30-5/27 DSGN SRVC:CITYWIDE CONCF 3,200.00 PORTABLE RESTROOMS: GREAT OAK 55.96 HS PORTABLE RESTROOM:OLD TOWN 191.02 8,530.00 246.98 Page :3 apChkLst 06/29/2017 11:35:56A M Final Check List CITY OF TEMECULA Page: 4 Bank : union UNION BANK (Continued) Check # Date Vendor 183647 06/29/2017 018247 DOKKEN ENGINEERING 183648 06/29/2017 004192 DOWNS ENERGY FUEL& LUBRICANTS 183649 06/29/2017 002528 EAGLE GRAPHIC CREATIONS INC 183650 06/29/2017 002390 EASTERN MUNICIPAL WATER DIST 183651 06/29/2017 004592 EBS GENERAL ENGINEERING, INC. 183652 06/29/2017 013367 ELECTRO INDUSTRIAL SUPPLY 183653 06/29/2017 011202 EMH SPORTS USA, INC 183654 06/29/2017 011292 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE ASSOC. 183655 06/29/2017 019984 ESCARCEGA, ELAINE 183656 06/29/2017 001056 EXCEL LANDSCAPE, INC. Description CONST MGMT SRVS: PARK & RIDE: PW06-09 FUEL FOR CITY VEHICLES: POLICE DEPT. FUEL FOR CITY VEHICLES: PUBLIC WOF FUEL FOR CITY VEHICLES: PUBLIC WOF FUEL FOR CITY VEHICLES: PUBLIC WOF FUEL FOR CITY VEHICLES: PUBLIC WOF FUEL FOR CITY VEHICLES: BLDG INSPEI FUEL FOR CITY VEHICLES: CODE ENFOI FUEL FOR CITY VEHICLES: PLANNING FUEL FOR CITY VEHICLES: CODE ENFOI FUEL FOR CITY VEHICLES: TCSD FUEL FOR CITY VEHICLES: TCSD FUEL FOR CITY VEHICLES: TCSD FUEL FOR CITY VEHICLES: LAND DEV FUEL FOR CITY VEHICLES: PUBLIC WOF FUEL FOR CITY VEHICLES: TRAFFIC DIV FUEL FOR CITY VEHICLES: TRAFFIC DIV FUEL FOR CITY VEHICLES: LAND DEV PLAQUES: TVE2/YOUTH PRGMS MAY WATER METER:39569 SERAPHINA RD MAY WATER METER:MURR HOT SPRING MAY WATER METER:MURR HOT SPRING MAY WATER METER:39656 DIEGO DR CITYWIDE CONCRETE REPAIRS: PW16-04 MISC SMALL TOOLS & EQUIP: PW TRAFFIC TCSD INSTRUCTOR EARNINGS APR '17 EIR: ALTAIR SPECIFIC PLAN MAY '17 EI R: ALTAI R SPECIFIC PLAN REFUND:SEC DEP:KITCHEN RENTAL:CRC JUN LNDSCP MAI NT SRVCS: NORTH SLOPES JUN LNDSCP MAI NT SRVCS: CRC Amount Paid Check Total 3,322.00 51.50 571.60 417.07 765.20 777.63 288.88 96.68 160.72 164.28 384.19 375.57 36.05 99.98 140.72 168.34 219.83 51.15 187.49 450.67 33.74 190.02 248.97 39,474.30 753.92 1,008.00 35,268.19 18,225.00 200.00 21,564.33 10,708.73 3,322.00 4,769.39 187.49 923.40 39,474.30 753.92 1,008.00 53,493.19 200.00 JUN LNDSCP MAI NT SRVCS: RANCHO HI 34,054.66 66,327.72 Page:4 apChkLst 06/29/2017 11:35:56A M Final Check List CITY OF TEMECULA Page: 5 Bank : union UNION BANK (Continued) Check # Date Vendor 183657 06/29/2017 015330 FAIR HOUSING COUNCIL 183658 06/29/2017 002982 FRANCHISE TAX BOARD 183659 06/29/2017 002982 FRANCHISE TAX BOARD 183660 06/29/2017 002982 FRANCHISE TAX BOARD 183661 06/29/2017 014865 FREIZE UHLER, KIMBERLY 183662 06/29/2017 018858 FRONTIER CALIFORNIA, INC. 183663 06/29/2017 009097 FULL COMPASS SYSTEMS 183664 06/29/2017 016184 FUN EXPRESS, LLC 183665 06/29/2017 000177 GLENNIES OFFICE PRODUCTS INC 183666 06/29/2017 009608 GOLDEN VALLEY MUSIC SOCIETY 183667 06/29/2017 019719 GOLDFIELD STAGE COMPANY, MCCLINTOCK ENTERPRISE INC 183668 06/29/2017 000186 HANKS HARDWARE INC 183669 06/29/2017 012129 HAVENS FOR THE ARTS Description APR 17 FAIR HOUSING SRVCS:CDBG FUNDING MAY 17 FAIR HOUSING SRVCS:CDBG FU SUPPORT PAYMENT SUPPORT PAYMENT SUPPORT PAYMENT UNIFORMS & EMBROIDERY SVCS: CODE ENF. PROMOTIONAL ITEMS: ECON DEV MAY INTERNET SVCS:27415 ENTERPRISE JUNE INTERNET SVCS:LIBRARY JUNE INTERNET SVCS:SENIOR CENTER JUNE INTERNET SVCS:41000 MAIN ST JUNE INTERNET SVCS:41000 MAIN ST SOUND/LIGHTING & MISC SUPPLIES: THEATER SUPPLIES:HUMAN SERVICES MISC. OFC SUPPLIES: FIRE STATIONS MISC. OFFICE SUPPLIES: STA 12 MISC. OFFICE SUPPLIES: TCC STTLMNT:CLASSICS...MERC JUN '17 TRANSPORTATION SVCS:SUMMER DAY CAMP TRANSPORTATION SVCS:SUMMER DAY HARDWARE SUPPLIES: STA 73 FACILITY MAINT SUPPLIES: STA 12 HARDWARE SUPPLIES: STA 73 HARDWARE SUPPLIES: STA 73 STTLMNT: WINTER'S TALE 6/8-6/24 183670 06/29/2017 001013 HINDERLITER DE LLAMAS & QTR 1 '16 SALES TAX/RECOVERY ASSOC SVCS:FINANC Amount Paid Check Total 939.68 1,035.25 453.03 124.46 76.66 433.47 1,192.31 102.84 186.98 147.68 2,468.06 5,328.16 364.08 829.29 55.22 25.49 233.65 1,336.50 587.94 741.31 149.09 31.31 12.83 16.60 6,548.34 1,974.93 453.03 124.46 76.66 1,625.78 8,233.72 364.08 829.29 314.36 1,336.50 1,329.25 209.83 6,548.34 13,366.53 13,366.53 Pages apChkLst Final Check List 06/29/2017 11:35:56AM CITY OF TEMECULA Page: 6 Bank : union UNION BANK (Continued) Check # Date Vendor Description Amount Paid Check Total 183671 06/29/2017 010210 HOME DEPOT SUPPLY INC, SUPPLIES:VITICULTURE GARDEN 332.76 THE PROJECT SUPPLIES:MPSC 242.10 CPR PROGRAM: MEDICS 2,308.29 HARDWARE SUPPLIES: STA 73 573.77 3,456.92 183672 06/29/2017 003198 HOME DEPOT, THE MAINT SUPPLIES: CIVIC CENTER 230.60 SMALL TOOLS & EQUIP:CIV CTR & GARP 282.35 SMALL TOOLS & EQUIP:CIV CTR & GARP 610.67 1,123.62 183673 06/29/2017 003624 HOWELL, ANN MARIE GRAPHIC & BANNER DESIGN: ECO 4,270.00 4,270.00 DEV 183674 06/29/2017 001407 INTER VALLEY POOL SUPPLY SANITIZING CHEMICALS: VARIOUS 563.11 INC POOLS SANITIZING CHEMICALS: VARIOUS POO 563.11 1,126.22 183675 06/29/2017 001091 KEYSER MARSTON MAY 17 CNSLTNT SVCS:UPTOWN 4,715.00 4,715.00 ASSOCIATES INC TEMECULA 183676 06/29/2017 019717 KLEIN, KEVIN CHARLES ENTERTAINMENT:HOT SUMMER 1,600.00 1,600.00 NIGHTS 183677 06/29/2017 017118 KRACH, BREE B. TROPHIES/AWARDS:MPSC 8.16 8.16 183678 06/29/2017 004412 LEANDER, KERRY D. TCSD INSTRUCTOR EARNINGS 805.00 805.00 183679 06/29/2017 011145 LODATO, JILL CHRISTINE TCSD INSTRUCTOR EARNINGS 2,633.40 2,633.40 183680 06/29/2017 003782 MAIN STREET SIGNS REGULATORY SIGNS: PW STREET 9,939.75 9,939.75 MAI NT 183681 06/29/2017 004141 MAINTEX INC CUSTODIAL SUPPLIES: VAR PARKS 5,634.66 CLEANING SUPPLIES:VAR LOCATIONS 2,561.07 8,195.73 183682 06/29/2017 013084 MANUFACTURERS EDGE, INC. LAKE FOUNTAIN PUMP: HARV LAKE 2,585.98 2,585.98 PARK 183683 06/29/2017 011956 MATTHEWS, AARON EE COMPUTER LOAN PRGM: 2,000.00 2,000.00 MATTHEWS, AARON 183684 06/29/2017 016297 MID -AMERICA ARTS ALLIANCE EXHIBIT RENTAL:TVM 6/16-8/11/17 2,550.00 2,550.00 183685 06/29/2017 013443 MIDWEST TAPE LLC Misc DVDs, books on CD, audio 22.94 22.94 183686 06/29/2017 016858 MILLER, JOEL PERFORMANCE:SUMMER CONCERT 1,500.00 1,500.00 SERIES Page6 apChkLst Final Check List 06/29/2017 11:35:56AM CITY OF TEMECULA Page: 7 Bank : union UNION BANK (Continued) Check # Date Vendor Description 183687 06/29/2017 000973 MIRACLE RECREATION PLAYGROUND PART: CROWNE HILL EQUIPMENT PARK 183688 06/29/2017 016445 MKB PRINTING & BUSINESS CARDS: AUGUSTINE, PROMOTIONAL INC WILHE 183689 06/29/2017 004040 MORAMARCO, ANTHONY J. Amount Paid Check Total 210.23 210.23 48.27 48.27 TCSD INSTRUCTOR EARNINGS 2,940.00 TCSD INSTRUCTOR EARNINGS 183690 06/29/2017 004522 MULLIGANS FAMILY FUN EXCURSION:SUMMER DAY CAMP CENTER 661.50 3,601.50 2,518.80 2,518.80 183691 06/29/2017 006087 NATURE WATCH EDUCATIONAL PROGRAM 250.00 250.00 SUPPLIES:TVM 183692 06/29/2017 018402 NEWSMINDED, INC 5/21-6/17 NEWSPAPER DELIVERY:MPSC 183693 06/29/2017 002105 OLD TOWN TIRE & SERVICE CITY VEHICLE MAINT SVCS:CITY MGR 118.75 118.75 2,591.40 2,591.40 183694 06/29/2017 019985 OLIVAS MASONRY REFUND:CANCELLED 151.90 151.90 PERMIT:B17-1221 183695 06/29/2017 002734 P V P COMMUNICATIONS INC MOTOR HELMETS W/COMMUNICATION KIT: POLICE 183696 06/29/2017 016226 PEALS, ANNIE REFUND:SEC DEP:KITCHEN RENTAL:CRC 1,560.16 1,560.16 200.00 200.00 183697 06/29/2017 003663 PECHANGA BAND OF LUISENO MAY TRIBAL MONITORING:115/79S 120.00 120.00 INTERCHG 183698 06/29/2017 014048 PERREAULT, MIKE P. PERFORMANCE:SMR CONCERT 1,800.00 1,800.00 SERIES 6/29 183699 06/29/2017 000249 PETTY CASH PETTY CASH:'17 4TH OF JULY EXTRAVAGANZA 183700 06/29/2017 000249 PETTY CASH PETTY CASH REIMBURSEMENT 183701 06/29/2017 012818 PLANETBIDS INC PLANETBIDS EVALUATION MODULE:FINANCE 183702 06/29/2017 019883 PLASTIX PLUS LLC SMALL TOOLS AND EQUIP: STA 73 1,500.00 1,500.00 734.32 734.32 3,400.00 3,400.00 678.76 678.76 183703 06/29/2017 014957 PRN PRODUCTIONS COMEDY @ THE MERC 6/24/17 305.20 305.20 Page:7 apChkLst Final Check List 06/29/2017 11:35:56AM CITY OF TEMECULA Page: 8 Bank : union UNION BANK (Continued) Check # Date Vendor Description Amount Paid Check Total 183704 06/29/2017 019015 PROJECT RADIAN TCSD INSTRUCTOR EARNINGS 1,113.00 TCSD INSTRUCTOR EARNINGS 1,680.00 2,793.00 183705 06/29/2017 000262 RANCHO CALIF WATER JUNE VAR WATER METERS:PW YMCA 349.29 DISTRICT JUN LNDSCP WATER METER:CALLE ELE 58.31 MAY LNDSCP WATER METER:41951 MOF 111.13 JUN VAR WATER METERS:TCSD SVC LE 17,922.86 18,441.59 183706 06/29/2017 013455 REED, DARRYL L. PERFORMANCE:SUMMER CONCERT 1,800.00 1,800.00 SERIES 183707 06/29/2017 015408 REST & RELAX REFUND:SEC DEP:RM RENTAL:CONF 150.00 150.00 CTR A/B 183708 06/29/2017 000353 RIVERSIDE CO AUDITOR MAY '17 PRKG CITATION 4,307.50 4,307.50 ASSESSMENTS 183709 06/29/2017 019983 RIVERSIDE CO FY 16/17 COUNCIL 2,000.00 2,000.00 PROFESSIONAL COMM.SRVC.FUNDING 183710 06/29/2017 000406 RIVERSIDE CO SHERIFFS MAY '17 BOOKING FEES 34,476.86 34,476.86 DEPT 183711 06/29/2017 012251 ROTH, DONALD J. TCSD INSTRUCTOR EARNINGS 630.00 TCSD INSTRUCTOR EARNINGS 504.00 1,134.00 183712 06/29/2017 011511 SCUBA CENTER TEMECULA TCSD INSTRUCTOR EARNINGS 672.00 672.00 183713 06/29/2017 009213 SHERRY BERRY MUSIC JAZZ @ THE MERC 6/22/17 518.00 518.00 183714 06/29/2017 000697 SISTER CITIES MEMBERSHIP:SISTER CITIES 990.00 990.00 INTERNATIONAL INTERNATIONAL 183715 06/29/2017 000537 SO CALIF EDISON MAY -JUN 2-27-560-0625:32380 2,202.91 DEERHOLLOW MAY -JUN 2-30-296-9522:46679 PRIMROSI 298.07 MAY -JUN 2-30-099-3847:29721 RYECRES 24.02 MAY 2-00-397-5059:33340 CAMINO PIEDF 8,504.95 MAY -JUNE 2-28-331-4847:32805 PAUBA 92.38 MAY 2-29-974-7568:26953 YNEZ RD TC1 113.14 MAY -JUNE 2-31-693-9784:26036 YNEZ TC 365.01 11,600.48 183716 06/29/2017 001212 SO CALIF GAS COMPANY MAY 055-475-6169-5:32380 177.94 DEERHOLLOW MAY 015-575-0195-2:32211 WOLF VLY RD 132.82 310.76 183717 06/29/2017 017168 SOLARCITY REFUND:PLN CK 347.04 347.04 FEES:B16-3684,4314,4326 Page:8 apChkLst Final Check List 06/29/2017 11:35:56AM CITY OF TEMECULA Page: 9 Bank : union UNION BANK (Continued) Check # Date Vendor Description 183718 06/29/2017 009061 STURDIVANT, ANGELA P. TCSD INSTRUCTOR EARNINGS 183719 06/29/2017 019969 TEMECULA MONTESSORI 183720 06/29/2017 018096 TEMECULA TIME MACHINE Amount Paid Check Total 980.00 980.00 REFUND:SEC 200.00 200.00 DEP:AMPHITHEATER:CRC REFUND:SEC DEP:PICNIC RENTAL:RRSP 183721 06/29/2017 008311 TEMECULA VALLEY ATHLETIC TCSD INSTRUCTOR EARNINGS CLUB 183722 06/29/2017 019639 TEMECULA VALLEY NATIONAL REFUND:SEC DEP:SPORTS SNACK BAR 183723 06/29/2017 010276 TIME WARNER CABLE JUNE HIGH SPEED INTERNET:FIRE STN 92 183724 06/29/2017 019100 TNT ENTERTAINMENT GROUP DJ & SOUND:MOVIES IN PARK 6/23 LLC DJ & SOUND:SUMMER CONCERT SERIE 183725 06/29/2017 019832 TRAUMA INTERVENTION FY 16/17 COUNCIL PRGMS OF COMM.SRVC.FUNDING 183726 06/29/2017 000278 TRONC, INC. MAY PUBLIC NTCS:PLNG/CITY CLERK/PW 183727 06/29/2017 002702 U S POSTAL SERVICE APR '17 POSTAGE METER DEPOSIT:XX254316 MAY '17 POSTAGE METER DEPOSIT:XX2 200.00 200.00 332.50 332.50 200.00 200.00 180.65 180.65 1,400.00 787.00 1,000.00 2,187.00 1,000.00 511.85 511.85 1,752.82 5,522.61 7,275.43 183728 06/29/2017 017579 U.S. HEALTHWORKS MEDICAL PRE EMPLOY DRUG SCREENINGS:HR 1,302.00 PRE EMPLOY DRUG SCREENINGS:HR 313.00 PRE EMPLOY DRUG SCREENINGS:HR 355.00 PRE EMPLOY DRUG SCREENINGS:HR 196.00 PRE EMPLOY DRUG SCREENINGS:HR 1,526.00 3,692.00 183729 06/29/2017 018206 UNSTOPPABLE PERFORMANCE:SUMMER CONCERT 1,200.00 1,200.00 ENTERTAINMENT SERIES 183730 06/29/2017 016094 VAVRINEK, TRINE, DAY & CO CITY AUDITSERVCIES:FINANCE 10,000.00 10,000.00 LLP 183731 06/29/2017 018871 WONDER SCIENCE TCSD INSTRUCTOR EARNINGS 2,007.78 TCSD INSTRUCTOR EARNINGS 1,984.50 3,992.28 1001666 06/23/2017 019970 BURCHARD, ADRIANA REFUND:ADAPTIVE SWIM LESSONS 90.00 90.00 Page9 apChkLst Final Check List 06/29/2017 11:35:56AM CITY OF TEMECULA Page: 10 Bank : union UNION BANK (Continued) Check # Date Vendor 1001667 06/23/2017 019971 BUSH, JAYNA L. 1001668 06/23/2017 019972 DITTENBER, CHRISTINA 1001669 06/23/2017 019973 HELSEL, ROBERT 1001670 06/23/2017 019974 MATA, JENNIFER 1001671 06/23/2017 019975 SHARPE, CYNTHIA Description Amount Paid Check Total REFUND:PWADMISSION X4 20.00 20.00 REFUND:BEAR CUB UNIV 4005.201 398.00 398.00 REFUND:TENNIS - LEVEL 4 1403.201 52.00 52.00 REFUND:COMPLETE TENNIS CAMP 92.00 92.00 1410.201 REFUND:SEC DEP:RM RENTAL:TCC 200.00 200.00 1001672 06/23/2017 019976 TRAN, THUY REFUND:SWEETTREATS BAKING CAMP 100.00 100.00 1001673 06/23/2017 019977 WAGNER, PENNY REFUND:BAKERY BOOT CAMP FOR 99.00 99.00 KIDS 1001674 06/23/2017 019553 WARREN, DOUGLAS REFUND:CREDIT:RM RENTAL:LIBRARY 105.00 105.00 1001675 06/23/2017 019978 CIBRIAN, ROBERTO REFUND:SEC DEP:RM RENTAL:TCC 150.00 150.00 1001676 06/23/2017 019979 DEWITT, CAREY 1001677 06/23/2017 019979 DEWITT, CAREY 1001678 06/23/2017 019979 DEWITT, CAREY 1001679 06/23/2017 019979 DEWITT, CAREY 1001680 06/23/2017 019979 DEWITT, CAREY 1001681 06/23/2017 019979 DEWITT, CAREY 1001682 06/23/2017 019980 GALLEGOS, VERONICA 1001683 06/23/2017 019981 LEVINE, ERIN 1001684 06/23/2017 017061 MARINO, SR., DONALD T. REFUND:SUMMER DAY CAMP 0400.204 240.00 240.00 REFUND:SUMMER DAY CAMP 0400.204 20.00 20.00 REFUND:SUMMER DAY CAMP 0400.202 240.00 240.00 REFUND:SUMMER DAY CAMP 0400.202 20.00 20.00 REFUND:SUMMER DAY CAMP 0410.202 240.00 240.00 REFUND:SUMMER DAY CAMP 0410.202 20.00 20.00 REFUND:SEC DEP:RM RENTAL:CRC 200.00 200.00 REFUND:SEC DEP:PICNIC 200.00 200.00 RENTAL:TEMEKU REFUND:SEC 200.00 200.00 DEP:AMPHITHEATER:CRC Pagel 0 apChkLst Final Check List 06/29/2017 11:35:56AM CITY OF TEMECULA Page: 11 Bank : union UNION BANK (Continued) Check # Date Vendor Description 1001685 06/23/2017 019982 WITHROW, KARLA REFUND:GET SMART WITH ART 1320.203 Amount Paid Check Total 52.00 52.00 Grand total for UNION BANK: 1,548,740.56 Page:11 apChkLst 06/29/2017 11:35:56A M Final Check List CITY OF TEMECULA Page: 12 147 checks in this report. Grand Total All Checks: 1,548,740.56 Page:12 apChkLst 07/06/2017 2:47:34PM Final Check List CITY OF TEMECULA Page: 1 Bank : union UNION BANK Check # Date Vendor 3403 06/29/2017 006887 UNION BANK OF CALIFORNIA 004822 RIVERSIDE TRANSIT AGENCY 004811 HEWLETT PACKARD COMPANY 001937 GALLS, LLC 020004 SEAFORTH SPORTFISHING CORP 007987 WALMART 019825 GETTY IMAGES 017201 STATEFOODSAFETY.COM 013812 DFIT SUBS, LLC 000515 TEMECULA VALLEY CHAMBER OF 018978 PIZZA FACTORY 3404 07/06/2017 007282 AMAZON.COM, INC 183732 07/06/2017 007186 AB MAILING SOLUTIONS 183733 07/06/2017 016764 ABM BUILDING SERVICES, LLC 183734 07/06/2017 001517 AETNA BEHAVIORAL HEALTH, LLC Description KH RTA PASSES FOR SENIORS/DISABLED KH PRINTER & SUPPLIES FOR ACTIVITY GUIDE KH PARK RANGER BADGES KH SENIOR EXCURSION - WHALE WATCHING KH FACILITY SUPPLIES KH DIGITAL IMAGES & GRAPHICS: TCSD KH FOOD HANDLER CERTIFICATES FOR STAFF KH RFRSHMNTS: POOL TOURNAMENT EVENT: KH SW REGIONAL ECO FORECAST: WOOTEN&RUSS KH RFSHMNTS: BUDGET REHEARSALS SUPPLIES:AQUATICS BOOKS/COLLECTIONS:LI BRARY MISC ITEMS:HUMAN SERVICES SUPPLIES:SUMMER DAY CAMP SUPPLIES:TVM SUPPLIES:SKATE PARK SUPPLIES:TVM MISC ITEMS:HUMAN SERVICES SUPPLIES:TVM SUPPLIES:SUMMER DAY CAMP BIKE TRACK RESEARCH BOOK SUPPLIES:SUMMER DAY CAMP SUPPLIES:SUMMER DAY CAMP OFC FURNITURE:HISTORY MUSEUM SUPPLIES:SKATE PARK BOOKS/COLLECTIONS:LI BRARY MAILING SRVCS:THEATER FY17-18 INSTALL HVAC ROOFTOP COMPRESSOR: CRC ADDING 1 MEMBER FOR JULY 2017 Amount Paid Check Total 600.00 472.54 387.78 377.00 276.07 229.00 216.00 120.00 100.00 74.77 688.95 208.71 195.72 145.78 135.27 133.77 111.88 71.92 65.24 43.98 40.56 27.18 25.92 16.99 15.98 9.55 2,400.00 10, 313.00 4.40 2,853.16 1,937.40 2,400.00 10, 313.00 JUL 17 EMPLOYEE ASSISTANCE PRGM 629.20 633.60 Pagel apChkLst Final Check List 07/06/2017 2:47:34PM CITY OF TEMECULA Page: 2 Bank : union UNION BANK (Continued) Check # Date Vendor Description 183735 07/06/2017 009374 ALLEGRO MUSICAL VENTURES PIANO TUNING AND MAI NT:LIBRARY 183736 07/06/2017 013950 AQUA CHILL OF SAN DIEGO JUN WATER SVCS:POLICE STOREFRONT 183737 07/06/2017 004623 AQUA SOURCE INC CHLORINE TABLETS:TES POOL 183738 07/06/2017 017149 B G P RECREATION, INC. 183739 07/06/2017 006254 BALLET FOLKLORICO Amount Paid Check Total 185.00 185.00 28.28 28.28 1,474.98 1,474.98 TCSD INSTRUCTOR EARNINGS 1,487.50 TCSD INSTRUCTOR EARNINGS TCSD INSTRUCTOR EARNINGS TCSD INSTRUCTOR EARNINGS TCSD INSTRUCTOR EARNINGS 1,368.50 2,856.00 392.00 215.60 117.60 725.20 183740 07/06/2017 015592 BAMM PROMOTIONAL SPORTS:VAR PROGRAM STAFF 847.41 847.41 PRODUCTS, INC UNIFORMS 183741 07/06/2017 015834 BOYER, WAYNE E. TRAFFIC UNIFORMS: TEM POLICE 5,284.76 5,284.76 183742 07/06/2017 002998 BRUNSWICK CAL OAKS BOWL EXCURSION:SUMMER DAY CAMP 299.61 299.61 183743 07/06/2017 017115 BUREAU OF OFFICE JUN TRANSCRIPTION 29.32 29.32 SERVICES, INC SRVCS:TEMECULA PD 183744 07/06/2017 003138 CAL MAT ASPHALT MATERIAL: PW STREET 240.57 240.57 MAI NT 183745 07/06/2017 004248 CALIF DEPT OF MAY FINGERPRINTING 4,723.00 JUSTICE-ACCTI NG SVCS: PD/H R/ECODEV/TCS MAY DOJ ALCOHOLANALYSIS:TEMECUL 665.00 183746 07/06/2017 000442 COMPUTER ALERT SYSTEMS SVC CALL: FIRE STATION 95 249.00 183747 07/06/2017 019255 COMTRONIX COMMUNICATIONS INC 183748 07/06/2017 002945 CONSOLIDATED ELECTRICAL DIST. EMS ENHANCEMENT: MEDICS 4,959.11 EMS ENHANCEMENT: MEDICS 4,959.11 MISC ELECTRICALSUPPLIES: MAI NT 425.21 FAC MISC ELECTRICAL SUPPLIES: TVM 375.19 MISC ELECTRICAL SUPPLIES FOC 311.03 MISC ELECTRICAL SUPPLIES: CIVIC CTF 113.10 183749 07/06/2017 001264 COSTCO TEMECULA #491 OFFICE SUPPLIES:INFO TECH 183750 07/06/2017 004329 COSTCO TEMECULA #491 SUPPLIES:HUMAN SERVICES MISC SUPPLIES:THEATER HOSPITALITY MISC SUPPLIES/EQUIPMENT:LIBRARY 5,388.00 249.00 9,918.22 1,224.53 154.71 154.71 1,372.89 715.97 190.39 2,279.25 Page2 apChkLst 07/06/2017 2:47:34PM Final Check List CITY OF TEMECULA Page: 3 Bank : union UNION BANK (Continued) Check # Date Vendor 183751 07/06/2017 010650 CRAFTSMEN PLUMBING & HVAC INC 183752 07/06/2017 000209 CROP PRODUCTION SERVICES 183753 07/06/2017 001233 DANS FEED & SEED INC 183754 07/06/2017 004192 DOWNS ENERGY FUEL& LUBRICANTS 183755 07/06/2017 019293 E&F PET SUPPLIES, INC. 183756 07/06/2017 004068 ECALDRE MANALILI-DE VILLA, AILEEN 183757 07/06/2017 011202 EMH SPORTS USA, INC 183758 07/06/2017 011292 ENVI RONMENTAL SCIENCE ASSOC. Description EMERG PLUMBING REPAIR: CRC INSTALL OUTLETS: CIVIC CENTER EMERG HVAC REPAIR: MRC EMERG HVAC REPAIR: HIST MUS CHAPE EMERGENCY PLUMBING SVCS: CRC EMERG PLUMBING REPAIR: TCC INSTALL SENSOR URINALS: THEATER REPLACE LIGHT POLE:ACCIDENT:CIVIC EMERG PLUMBING REPAIR: LIBRARY INSTALL CONTROL SCREEN: SPLASH PP MAINT SUPPLIES: PW STREET MAINT DIV MAINT SUPPLIES: PW STREET MAINT DF SUPPLIES: PW STREET MAINT DIV SUPPLIES: PW STREET MAINT DIV FUEL FOR CITY VEHICLES: POLICE DEPT K-9 FOOD & SUPPLIES:POLICE TCSD INSTRUCTOR EARNINGS TCSD INSTRUCTOR EARNINGS TCSD INSTRUCTOR EARNINGS TCSD INSTRUCTOR EARNINGS TCSD INSTRUCTOR EARNINGS TCSD INSTRUCTOR EARNINGS TCSD INSTRUCTOR EARNINGS TCSD INSTRUCTOR EARNINGS TCSD INSTRUCTOR EARNINGS TCSD INSTRUCTOR EARNINGS TCSD INSTRUCTOR EARNINGS TCSD INSTRUCTOR EARNINGS TCSD INSTRUCTOR EARNINGS TCSD INSTRUCTOR EARNINGS TCSD INSTRUCTOR EARNINGS MAY '17 SEIR: PROPOSED OLD TOWN HOTEL 183759 07/06/2017 015090 EVAPCO PRODUCTS, INC. JUN CONDENSER WATER SYS MAINT: CIV CTR Amount Paid Check Total 538.81 478.50 376.50 345.51 256.84 120.00 5,440.00 1,419.00 1,274.95 1,237.50 7.43 4.20 33.04 9.21 63.59 84.70 212.80 186.20 266.00 266.00 611.80 558.60 505.40 372.40 319.20 292.60 292.60 1,904.00 1,057.35 525.00 525.00 17,167.05 11,487.61 11.63 42.25 63.59 84.70 3,883.60 4,011.35 17,167.05 566.50 566.50 Page :3 apChkLst Final Check List 07/06/2017 2:47:34PM CITY OF TEMECULA Page: 4 Bank : union UNION BANK (Continued) Check # Date Vendor 183760 07/06/2017 001056 EXCEL LANDSCAPE, INC. Description JUN 17 LNDSCP MAI NT SRVC: VAR PARKS JUN 17 LNDSCP MAI NT SRVC: VAR PARK JUN 17 LNDSCP MAI NT SRVC: VAR PARK IRRIGATION REPAIRS:VAR PARKS:MEDI/ IRRIGATION REPAIRS:VAR PARKS:MEDI/ IRRIGATION REPAIR: SIGNET SERIES SL IRRIGATION REPAIRS:VAR PARKS:MEDI/ IRRIGATION REPAIRS:VAR PARKS:MEDI/ IRRIGATION REPAIRS:VAR PARKS:MEDI/ CREDIT: BILLING ADJUSTMENT: TEM CR Amount Paid Check Total 51,727.00 48,665.00 18,194.00 400.46 390.33 221.72 186.46 127.85 83.97 -2,220.00 117,776.79 183761 07/06/2017 012170 E -Z UP DIRECT.COM, LLC SHADE CANOPIES:SKATE PARK 484.44 SHADE CANOPIES:SKATE PARK 262.04 746.48 183762 07/06/2017 000165 FEDERAL EXPRESS INC 6/15-6/20 EXP MAILSVCS:PLAN/PW/FIN 155.41 155.41 183763 07/06/2017 018858 FRONTIER CALIFORNIA, INC. JUN INTERNET SVCS:THEATER 146.98 146.98 183764 07/06/2017 009097 FULL COMPASS SYSTEMS MISC EQUIP CRC 316.08 316.08 183765 07/06/2017 013076 GAUDET, YVONNE M. TCSD INSTRUCTOR EARNINGS 1,263.50 1,263.50 Page:4 apChkLst Final Check List 07/06/2017 2:47:34PM CITY OF TEMECULA Page: 5 Bank : union UNION BANK (Continued) Check # Date Vendor Description Amount Paid Check Total 183766 07/06/2017 000177 GLENNIES OFFICE PRODUCTS misc office supplies:central services 18.15 INC MISC OFFICE SUPPLIES: PW TRAFFIC OFFICE SUPPLIES: PW NPDES & LAND misc office supplies:central services MISC OFFICE SUPPLIES: PW MAINT DIV misc office supplies:central services MISC. OFFICE SUPPLIES: CITY CLERK OFFICE SUPPLIES: PW VAR DIVISIONS OFFICE SUPPLIES:SPORTS MISC OFFICE SUPPLIES: PW MAINT DIV OFFICE SUPPLIES: PW LAND DEV OFFICE SUPPLIES: PW LAND DEV OFFICE SUPPLIES: PW CIP MISC OFFICE SUPPLIES: PW TRAFFIC MISC. OFFICE SUPPLIES: CITY CLERK MISC. OFFICE SUPPLIES: TVE2 MISC OFC SUPPLIES:BUILDING & SAFE1 MISC OFC SUPPLIES:BUILDING & SAFE1 OFFICE SUPPLIES:SPORTS MISC OFC SUPPLIES:BUILDING & SAFE1 MISC. OFFICE SUPPLIES: TVE2 MISC. OFFICE SUPPLIES: PLANNING MISC. OFFICE SUPPLIES: TVE2 OFFICE SUPPLIES: PW LAND DEV OFFICE SUPPLIES: PW NPDES OFFICE SUPPLIES: CITY MANAGER MISC OFC SUPPLIES: CENTRAL SVCS 183767 07/06/2017 004890 GOLDEN STATE FIRE FIRE SPRINKLER INSPECTION: TVE2 PROTECTION 183768 07/06/2017 015451 GREATAMERICA FINANCIAL SVCS 183769 07/06/2017 000186 HANKS HARDWARE INC FIRE SPRINKLER INSPECTION: OLD TOV FIRE SPRINKLER INSPECTION: MPSC FIRE SPRINKLER INSPECTION: CRC JUN LEASE COPIERS:CITY HALL/OFF-SITE JUN LEASE FOR COPIERS: VAR LOCATIC JUN LEASE FOR COPIERS: VARIOUS LO1 JUN LEASE COPIERS:LIBRARY 18.03 11.16 9.68 1,079.62 413.48 351.01 296.41 186.48 116.20 113.68 111.62 108.74 100.73 99.44 89.61 86.78 85.60 82.61 73.02 60.85 55.43 37.26 35.31 33.02 31.56 30.62 650.00 650.00 650.00 650.00 523.70 291.45 1,351.02 793.89 EQUIP/SUPPLIES:PARK RANGERS 413.58 Misc small tools & equip: pw traffic 205.39 EQUIPMENT:SPORTS 173.91 Misc small tools & equip: pw traffic 122.45 SUPPLIES:VARIOUS CSD EVENTS 116.08 Misc small tools & equip: pw traffic 26.57 3,736.10 2,600.00 2,960.06 1,057.98 Pages apChkLst 07/06/2017 2:47:34PM Final Check List CITY OF TEMECULA Page: 6 Bank : union UNION BANK (Continued) Check # Date Vendor 183770 07/06/2017 019732 HARC, INC. 183771 07/06/2017 019998 HASEROT FAMILY TRUST 183772 07/06/2017 002109 HD SUPPLY CONSTR. SUPPLY LTD 183773 07/06/2017 010210 HOME DEPOT SUPPLY INC, THE 183774 07/06/2017 003198 HOME DEPOT, THE 183775 07/06/2017 017948 ILLUMINATOS INC 183776 07/06/2017 006914 INNOVATIVE DOCUMENT SOLUTIONS 183777 07/06/2017 001407 INTER VALLEY POOL SUPPLY INC 183778 07/06/2017 003296 INTL CODE COUNCIL 183779 07/06/2017 001091 KEYSER MARSTON ASSOCIATES INC 183780 07/06/2017 004412 LEANDER, KERRY D. 183781 07/06/2017 002634 LITELINES INC 183782 07/06/2017 011145 LODATO, JILL CHRISTINE 183783 07/06/2017 013982 MCI COMM SERVICE Description MAY CNSLT SVC: CANCER TREATMENT TASK FOR APR CNSLT SVC: CANCER TREATMENT JUN CNSLT SVC: CANCER TREATMENT - REFUND: SPORTS TOURNAMENT DEPOSIT MISC SUPPLIES:PW STREET MAINT DIV MISC SUPPLIES:PW STREET MAINT DIV CRC REC SUPPLIES MAINT SUPPLIES: CHILDREN'S MUSEUM MISC SUPPLIES:SKATE PARK replacement light bulbs:ot front street MAY COPIER MAI NT/R E PAI R/USAG E: CI TY WI D E MAY COPIER MAINT/REPAIR/USAGE:CIT' SANITIZING CHEMICALS: VARIOUS POOLS INSPECTOR BOOKS: PREV MAY '17 FISCAL IMPCTANALYSIS: CYPRESS R TCSD INSTRUCTOR EARNINGS TCSD INSTRUCTOR EARNINGS TCSD INSTRUCTOR EARNINGS TCSD INSTRUCTOR EARNINGS TCSD INSTRUCTOR EARNINGS TCSD INSTRUCTOR EARNINGS LED CONVERSIONS: OLD TOWN FRONT ST TCSD INSTRUCTOR EARNINGS TCSD INSTRUCTOR EARNINGS JUNE XXX -0714 GENERAL USAGE JUNE XXX -0346 GENERAL USAGE Amount Paid Check Total 6,102.00 5,800.00 5,800.00 2,000.00 1,015.62 147.71 328.00 544.43 75.94 3,116.72 9,169.40 346.31 589.17 201.19 9,001.25 1,260.00 1,055.60 724.50 537.60 144.90 54.60 20, 553.75 2,268.00 2,268.00 34.84 33.20 183784 07/06/2017 017427 MATCHETT, VIVIAN TCSD INSTRUCTOR EARNINGS 327.60 TCSD INSTRUCTOR EARNINGS 17, 702.00 2,000.00 1,163.33 328.00 620.37 3,116.72 9,515.71 589.17 201.19 9,001.25 3,777.20 20, 553.75 4,536.00 68.04 245.70 573.30 Page6 apChkLst Final Check List 07/06/2017 2:47:34PM CITY OF TEMECULA Page: 7 Bank : union UNION BANK (Continued) Check # Date Vendor Description Amount Paid Check Total 183785 07/06/2017 019935 MATRIX IMAGING PRODUCTS ELECTRONIC CONVERSION OF 6,494.90 6,494.90 INC. RECORDS 183786 07/06/2017 000944 MCCAIN TRAFFIC SUPPLY INC TRAFFIC SIGNAL REPAIRS: PW 183787 07/06/2017 004951 MIKE'S PRECISION WELDING DOG PEN GATE REPAIRS: REDHAWK INC. PARK 183788 07/06/2017 013827 MIKO MOUNTAINLION, INC. 183789 07/06/2017 012962 MILLER, MISTY REMOVAL OF SAND SILT: LONG CYN BASIN regrading dirt roads:liefer:kimberly In install temp fencing:future park n ride 11,902.80 11,902.80 4,750.00 4,750.00 44,000.00 2,600.00 1,500.00 TCSD INSTRUCTOR EARNINGS 425.60 TCSD INSTRUCTOR EARNINGS 292.60 TCSD INSTRUCTOR EARNINGS 239.40 183790 07/06/2017 012264 MIRANDA, JULIO C. TCSD INSTRUCTOR EARNINGS 672.00 TCSD INSTRUCTOR EARNINGS 638.40 TCSD INSTRUCTOR EARNINGS 79.80 183791 07/06/2017 004043 MISSION ELECTRIC SUPPLY, ELECTRICAL SUPPLIES:OLD TOWN 850.29 INC ELECTRICAL SUPPLIES:FIELD OP CENTE ELECTRICAL SUPPLIES:SENIOR CENTEf 358.76 227.29 48,100.00 957.60 1,390.20 1,436.34 183792 07/06/2017 004040 MORAMARCO, ANTHONY J. TCSD INSTRUCTOR EARNINGS 2,327.50 STAFF/VOLUNTEER UNIFORMS:HUMAN 989.00 STAFF/VOLUNTEER UNIFORMS:HUMAN 784.00 TCSD INSTRUCTOR EARNINGS 560.00 STAFF LANYARDS FOR CRC KEYS:CRC 140.00 TCSD INSTRUCTOR EARNINGS 119.00 4,919.50 183793 07/06/2017 001986 MUZAK LLC JUL DISH NETWORK 151.27 PROGRAMING:FOC JUL DISH NETWORK PROGRAM:41952 6" 65.11 216.38 183794 07/06/2017 001323 NESTLE WATERS NORTH WATER FOR POOLS:AQUATICS 129.83 129.83 AMERICA 183795 07/06/2017 014391 NICHOLS, KELLIE D. TCSD INSTRUCTOR EARNINGS 980.00 980.00 183796 07/06/2017 006140 NORTH JEFFERSON BUSINESS JUL-SEP 17 ASSN DUES 8358 #20: FV 649.93 PARK JUL-SEP 17 ASSN DUES 3561 #19: FV JUL-SEP 17 ASSN DUES 1810#16: FV JUL-SEP 17 ASSN DUES 3561 #17: FV 183797 07/06/2017 017148 OAKLEY SALES CORP MOTOR GLOVES & GLASSES: TEMECULA POLICE 625.21 514.71 478.36 2,268.21 301.16 301.16 Page:7 apChkLst Final Check List 07/06/2017 2:47:34PM CITY OF TEMECULA Page: 8 Bank : union UNION BANK (Continued) Check # Date Vendor Description 183798 07/06/2017 002292 OASIS VENDING KITCHEN SUPPLIES: FIELD OPS CENTER 183799 07/06/2017 003964 OFFICE DEPOT BUSINESS SVS DIV Amount Paid Check Total 364.85 364.85 OFFICE SUPPLIES:PW DEPTS 663.14 OFFICE SUPPLIES:PW TRAFFIC 143.44 OFFICE SUPPLIES: HR 84.34 OFFICE SUPPLIES: FINANCE 27.88 OFFICE SUPPLIES: HR 26.08 OFFICE SUPPLIES:PW TRAFFIC 23.81 OFFICE SUPPLIES: HR 15.66 OFFICE SUPPLIES: HR 13.83 OFFICE SUPPLIES: HR 1.51 OFFICE SUPPLIES: HR 325.96 OFFICE SUPPLIES: FINANCE 324.58 1,650.23 183800 07/06/2017 002105 OLD TOWN TIRE & SERVICE CITY VEHICLE MAINT SVCS:PARK 1,881.93 1,881.93 RANGER 183801 07/06/2017 002105 OLD TOWN TIRE & SERVICE CITY VEHICLE MAINT SVCS:BLDG & 867.62 867.62 SAFETY 183802 07/06/2017 002105 OLD TOWN TIRE & SERVICE CITY VEHICLE MAINT SVCS:PW LAND 98.36 DEV CITY VEHICLE MAINT SVCS:PW PARKS F 42.48 CITY VEHICLE MAINT SVCS:PW STREET 31.35 172.19 183803 07/06/2017 019851 ORTIZ ENTERPRISES, INC. PRGS PMT#1:I-15 RAMP SYS/ULT. 495,692.00 495,692.00 INTRCHG 183804 07/06/2017 019474 OUR NICHOLAS FOUNDATION FY 16/17 COMMUNITY SERVICE 4,768.84 4,768.84 FUNDING 183805 07/06/2017 002734 P V P COMMUNICATIONS INC MOTOR HELMETS W/ELECTRONICS: 1,667.06 1,667.06 POLICE 183806 07/06/2017 017888 PACIFIC HYDROBLASTING INC RESURFACE PAINT 8,710.00 8,710.00 EXTERIOR:LIBRARY REHAB 183807 07/06/2017 018978 PIZZA FACTORY REFRESHMENTS:CRC TEEN 75.74 75.74 ACTIVITIES 183808 07/06/2017 018830 PLANGEA, INC MISC SUPPLIES:AQUATICS PGRM 183809 07/06/2017 010338 POOL& ELECTRICAL PRODUCTS INC SUPPLIES & CHEMICALS: VAR POOLS/FAC MAIN VAR CHEMICAL SUPPLIES: FACILITIES N VAR CHEMICAL SUPPLIES: FACILITIES N VAR CHEMICAL SUPPLIES: FACILITIES N VAR CHEMICAL SUPPLIES: FACILITIES N 1,054.90 1,054.90 312.90 215.34 171.57 171.57 67.27 938.65 Page:8 apChkLst Final Check List 07/06/2017 2:47:34PM CITY OF TEMECULA Page: 9 Bank : union UNION BANK (Continued) Check # Date Vendor 183810 07/06/2017 000254 PRESS ENTERPRISE COMPANY INC 183811 07/06/2017 014379 PROFESSIONAL IMAGE ADVERTISI NG 183812 07/06/2017 019015 PROJECT RADIAN 183813 07/06/2017 005075 PRUDENTIAL OVERALL SUPPLY 183814 07/06/2017 004029 R J M DESIGN GROUP INC Description Amount Paid Check Total FY 17/18 SUBSCR:PW 180905656 424.36 FY 17/18 SUBSCR:SUPPORT SRVCS/181' 424.32 06/17-30/17 SUBSCR:PW 180905656 16.32 SUBSCR:SUPPORT SRVCS/181108943 8.16 873.16 JAN -JUN '17 POLE BANNER 2,892.50 2,892.50 MAINT:ECON DEV TCSD INSTRUCTOR EARNINGS 504.00 504.00 MAY FLR 626.52 MATS/UNIFORMS/TOWELS:CITY FACS CREDIT:BI LLI NG ADJ/LIBRARY -2.80 623.72 CONSULTANT 4,000.00 4,000.00 SRVCS:MARG.COMMUNITY CNTR 183815 07/06/2017 002176 RANCHO CALIF BUS PK ASSOC JUL-SEPT BUS.PRKASSN DUES: TVE2 2,234.14 JUL-SEPT BUS.PRKASSN DUES: DIAZ RI 2,033.07 JUL-SEPT BUS.PRKASSN DUES: FOC 1,843.17 183816 07/06/2017 000262 RANCHO CALIF WATER JUN VAR WATER METERS:TCSD SVC 24,932.98 DISTRICT LEV C JUN VAR WATER METERS:PW MAINT 2,845.26 VARIOUS WATER METERS:FIRE STNS 567.75 MAY COMM WATER METER:30875 RANC 558.20 183817 07/06/2017 011853 RANCON COMMERCE CNTR JUL-SEPT '17 BUS.PRKASSN 510.71 PH2,3&4 DUES:STN 73 JUL-SEPT '17 BUS.PRK ASSN DUES:OVR 249.03 JUL-SEPT '17 BUS.PRKASSN DUES:OVR 198.38 JUL-SEPT '17 BUS.PRKASSN DUES:OVR 177.27 183818 07/06/2017 004483 RECREONICS INC 183819 07/06/2017 002412 RICHARDS WATSON & GERSHON 183820 07/06/2017 001592 RIVERSIDE CO INFO TECHNOLOGY 183821 07/06/2017 005705 RIVERSIDE CO PURCH & FLEET SRV 183822 07/06/2017 000406 RIVERSIDE CO SHERIFFS DEPT 6,110.38 28,904.19 1,135.39 SUPPLIES:AQUATICS 1,238.82 1,238.82 MAY 2017 LEGAL SERVICES 121,379.91 121,379.91 APR EMERG. RADIO RENTAL: POLICE 2,839.80 MAY EMERG. RADIO RENTAL:TEMECULF 2,839.80 BILLING ADJ#413/EMERG.RADIO -2,839.80 2,839.80 VEH REPAIR & MAINT: TEMECULA 189.61 POLICE VEH REPAIR & MAINT: TEMECULA POLIC 74.71 264.32 04/27/17-05/24/17 LAW ENFORCEMENT 2,023,325.14 2,023,325.14 Page9 apChkLst Final Check List 07/06/2017 2:47:34PM CITY OF TEMECULA Page: 10 Bank : union UNION BANK (Continued) Check # Date Vendor Description 183823 07/06/2017 000406 RIVERSIDE CO SHERIFFS FY 16/17 RMS/CLETS SERVICES DEPT Amount Paid Check Total 153,422.00 153,422.00 183824 07/06/2017 004822 RIVERSIDE TRANSIT AGENCY MAY TRANSIT 1,945.47 1,945.47 AGREEMENT:HARVESTON SHUTTLE 183825 07/06/2017 001097 ROADLINE PRODUCTS INC TRAFFIC LEGEND SUPPLIES:PW 2,155.15 2,155.15 STREET MAINT 183826 07/06/2017 012251 ROTH, DONALD J. TCSD INSTRUCTOR EARNINGS 280.00 280.00 183827 07/06/2017 000277 S & S ARTS & CRAFTS INC CRAFT SUPPLIES:DAY CAMP 143.09 143.09 183828 07/06/2017 009196 SACRAMENTO THEATRICAL SOUND/LIGHTING SUPPLIES: 779.32 779.32 LIGHTING THEATER 183829 07/06/2017 004274 SAFE & SECURE LOCKSMITH LOCKSMITH SRVCS:CHILDRENS 129.30 129.30 MUSEUM 183830 07/06/2017 017424 SAMPLE, MARCIA REIMB: '17 TYLER CONNECT 1,253.39 1,253.39 CONVENTION 183831 07/06/2017 017699 SARNOWSKI, SHAWNA, M PHOTOGRAPHY SRVCS:C.MUSEUM 150.00 PRESTON 183832 07/06/2017 013695 SHRED -IT US JV, LLC 183833 07/06/2017 014818 SKYFIT TECH, INC. 183834 07/06/2017 000645 SMART & FINAL INC PHOTOGRAPHY SRVCS:HUMAN SRVCS PHOTOGRAPHY SRVCS:NIGHT...LUMINA PHOTOGRAPHY SRVCS:HUMAN SERVIC 150.00 150.00 150.00 5/16, 5/25, 5/31, 6/13 DOC SHRED 152.79 SRVCS:R 5/31, DOC SHRED SRVCS:TEMECULA PC 17.37 GYM EQUIP PREV MAINT: CIVIC 195.00 CENTER SUPPLIES:MPSC 1,172.93 SUPPLIES:HUMAN SERVICES 638.57 SUPPLIES: CULTURAL PGRM EVENTS 511.57 REC SUPPLIES:CRC 300.51 SUPPLIES: CULTURAL PGRM EVENTS 266.28 RECREATION CLASS SUPPLIES:AQUATI( 234.34 REC SUPPLIES:CRC 177.37 SUPPLIES:HIGH HOPES 149.09 600.00 170.16 195.00 3,450.66 Pagel 0 apChkLst Final Check List 07/06/2017 2:47:34PM CITY OF TEMECULA Page: 11 Bank : union UNION BANK (Continued) Check # Date Vendor 183835 07/06/2017 000537 SO CALIF EDISON 183836 07/06/2017 001212 SO CALIF GAS COMPANY 183837 07/06/2017 002503 SOUTH COAST AIR QUALITY Description Amount Paid Check Total JUN 2-02-351-4946 41845 6TH ST 2,070.72 JUN 2-18-937-3152 28314 MERCEDES ST 1,125.23 JUN 2-31-912-7494 28690 MERCEDES ST 1,090.41 JUN 2-31-536-3655:41904 MAIN ST 987.48 JUN 2-34-624-4452 32131 S LOOP RD LO' 561.65 JUN 2-19-171-8568 28300 MERCEDES ST 558.76 JUN 2-31-536-3481:41902 MAIN ST 144.80 JUN 2-28-904-7706 VARIOUS METERS 134.37 JUN 2-33-357-5785 44747 REDHAWK 46.63 JUN 2-14-204-1615 30027 FRONT ST RDI( 45.95 JUN 2-35-164-3770: 43487 BUTTERFIELD 26.10 JUN 2-34-333-3589:41702 MAIN ST 25.05 JUN 2-31-282-0665: 27407 DIAZ RD PED 25.01 JUN 2-31-031-2616: 27991 DIAZ RD 24.87 JUN 2-29-807-1093: 28079 DIAZ RD PED 24.54 JUN 2-29-807-1226: 28077 DIAZ RD PED 24.54 JUN 2-35-164-3515: 32932 LEENA WAY 24.41 JUN 2-35-164-3663: 42335 MEADOWS PK 24.41 JUN 2-29-657-2787: 41638 WINCHESTER 24.12 JUN 2-31-419-2873 43000 HWY 395 24.12 JUN 2-35-164-3242:44270 MEADOWS PK% 24.11 JUN 2-21-981-4720 30153 TEM PKWY 18.79 JUN 2-32-903-8293 41000 MAIN ST 22,890.09 JUN 2-29-933-3831 43230 BUSINESS PAR 2,503.83 JUN 2-29-224-0173 FIRE STNS 2,095.50 JUN 101 525 1560 6 27415 ENTERPRISE JUN 129-535-4236-7: 41000 MAIN ST JUN 091-024-9300-5: 30875 RANCHO VIS' MAY -JUN 095 167 7907 2 30650 PAUBA JUN 026-671-2909-8: 42051 MAIN ST JUN 021-725-0775-4: 41845 6TH ST JUN 098-255-9828-8: 29119 MARGARITA F JUN 129-582-9784-3: 43230 BUSINESS PP JUN 125-244-2108-3: 30600 PAUBA RD JUN 101-525-0950-0: 28816 PUJOL ST JUN 117 188 6393 6 32131 S LOOP RD JUN 181-383-8881-6: 28314 MERCEDES JUN 028-025-1468-3: 41375 MCCABE CT JUN 133-040-7373-0: 43210 BUSINESS PP JUN 196-025-0344-3: 42081 MAIN ST 105.56 815.34 708.23 109.24 89.04 77.47 53.44 43.72 41.78 28.29 23.51 21.54 20.58 17.67 2.88 ANN'L OPERATING FEES:LIBRARY 378.28 34, 545.49 2,158.29 EMISSIONS FEE:LIBRARY 127.46 505.74 Page:11 apChkLst Final Check List 07/06/2017 2:47:34PM CITY OF TEMECULA Page: 12 Bank : union UNION BANK (Continued) Check # Date Vendor 183838 07/06/2017 000519 SOUTH COUNTY PEST CONTROL INC 183839 07/06/2017 005786 SPRINT 183840 07/06/2017 000293 STADIUM PIZZA INC 183841 07/06/2017 018844 STANTECCONSULTING SERVICES Description Amount Paid Check Total JUN PEST CONTROL SRVCS: CITY 800.00 FACILITIES PEST CONTROL SRVCS:VAR. PARKS 493.00 PEST CONTROL SRVCS: PBSP 70.00 PEST CONTROL SRVCS:DUCK POND 59.00 PEST CONTROL SRVCS:DUCK POND 49.00 PEST CONTROL SRVCS:WOLF CREEK P 49.00 1,520.00 MAY 20 -JUN 19 CELLULAR 110.00 110.00 USAGE/EQUIP REFRESHMENTS:FUTURE 170.57 PHYSICIANS/TVE2 REFRESHMENTS:HUMAN SERVICES 6/1, 55.28 225.85 JUN DESIGN & ENG SRVCS: PW CIP 2,995.00 2,995.00 183842 07/06/2017 002366 STEAM SUPERIOR CARPET JANITORIAL SRVCS: CHILDREN'S 1,980.00 CLEANING MUSEUM CARPET CLEANING SRVC: CONF CENTE 650.00 CARPET CLEANING: CIVIC CENTER 650.00 CARPET CLEANING: CHILDREN'S MUSEI 375.00 3,655.00 183843 07/06/2017 020003 STEELE, CALEIGH 2017 STR.PAINTING 200.00 200.00 FEST.AWARD-BEST OF SHO 183844 07/06/2017 001505 STEFFEN, SUE REIMB:SUPPLIES:CITY MGR'S OFFICE 265.07 265.07 183845 07/06/2017 016262 STEVE ADAMIAK GOLF INSTRUCTION TCSD INSTRUCTOR EARNINGS 875.00 TCSD INSTRUCTOR EARNINGS 672.00 TCSD INSTRUCTOR EARNINGS 504.00 2,051.00 183846 07/06/2017 013387 SWEEPING UNLIMITED INC JUN SWEEPING SRVCS: PARKING 540.00 540.00 GARAGE 183847 07/06/2017 019999 TAGGETT, JACINDA 2017 STR.PAINTING 50.00 50.00 FEST.AWARD-BEST TEEN 183848 07/06/2017 017131 TEMECULA HILLS CHRISTIAN REFUND: PICNIC SHLTR/HARVESTON 6/25 200.00 200.00 183849 07/06/2017 003677 TEMECULA MOTORSPORTS MOTORCYCLE 86.96 86.96 LLC REPAIR/MAINT:TEM.P.D. 183850 07/06/2017 000919 TEMECULA VALLEY UNIFIED TVUSD POOL MAI NT FEE:CHAPARRAL 42,687.23 SCHOOL HS TVUSD ATHLETIC FIELD MAI NT FEE 21,525.00 183851 07/06/2017 020001 THOMPSON, OLIVIA 2017 STR.PAINTING 50.00 FEST.AWARD-COMM.CHOICE 64,212.23 50.00 Page:12 apChkLst Final Check List 07/06/2017 2:47:34PM CITY OF TEMECULA Page: 13 Bank : union UNION BANK (Continued) Check # Date Vendor 183852 07/06/2017 010276 TIME WARNER CABLE 183853 07/06/2017 002452 TOP LINE INDUSTRIAL 183854 07/06/2017 000278 TRONC, INC. 183855 07/06/2017 002185 U.S. POSTAL SERVICE 183856 07/06/2017 002110 UNITED RENTALS NORTH AMERICA 183857 07/06/2017 014486 VERIZON WIRELESS 183858 07/06/2017 007987 WALMART Description Amount Paid Check Total JUN HIGH SPEED INTERNET:41000 4,245.20 MAIN ST JUN HIGH SPEED INTERNET:40820 WINC 1.60 4,246.80 EQUIP PARTS: PW STREET MAI NT 41.54 41.54 JUN PUBLIC NTC ADS: CITY CLERK 1,121.82 1,121.82 POSTAGE:THEATER BROCHURE 8,400.00 8,400.00 2017-2018 EQUIP RENTALS:STREET PAINTING 851.47 851.47 FESTIVAL 5/16-6/15 BROADBAND 2,117.13 2,117.13 SVCS:CITYWI DE SUPPLIES:SKATE PARK 298.87 OFFICE SUPPLIES:CRC 218.00 STATION SUPPLIES: STA 92 187.12 SUPPLIES:HIGH HOPES PROGRAM 149.27 THEATER HOSPITALITY & MISC SUPPLIE 1,305.10 EXHIBIT SUPPLIES:TVM 340.58 183859 07/06/2017 020006 WARFIGHTER MADE FY 16/17 COUNCIL COMM.SERVICE FUNDING 2,498.94 1,000.00 1,000.00 183860 07/06/2017 001881 WATER SAFETY PRODUCTS EQUIPMENT:AQUATICS PRGM 292.25 INC LIFEGUARD T-SHIRTS:AQUATICS PRGM 200.24 492.49 183861 07/06/2017 001342 WAXIE SANITARY SUPPLY INC CUSTODIAL SUPPLIES:VAR 7,714.79 PARKS/MRC/LIBRARY SM EQUIP & SUPPLIES: FACILITIES MAIN 1,552.28 CUSTODIAL SUPPLIES: VAR PARKS 1,195.00 CREDIT: JANITORIAL SUPPLIES/PARKS -1,082.76 9,379.31 183862 07/06/2017 020000 WELCH, MELISSA 2017 STR.PAINTING 50.00 50.00 FEST.AWARD-BEST THEME 183863 07/06/2017 003730 WEST COAST ARBORISTS INC 4/1-15 TREE TRIMMINGS: CITY 1,650.00 RIGHT-OF-WAY 6/1-15 TREE MAINT SRVCS:PARKS & MEI 550.00 2,200.00 183864 07/06/2017 013556 WESTERN AV A/V SUPPORT:LIBRARY 360.00 360.00 183865 07/06/2017 020002 WILKINS, Al DAN 2017 STR.PAINTING FEST.AWARD-BEST YOUTH 50.00 50.00 Page:13 apChkLst 07/06/2017 2:47:34PM Final Check List CITY OF TEMECULA Page: 14 Bank : union UNION BANK (Continued) Check # Date Vendor 183866 07/06/2017 000341 WILLDANASSOCIATES INC 183867 07/06/2017 015199 WINTER ADVERTISING AGENCY 183868 07/06/2017 018871 WONDER SCIENCE Description MAY TRAFFIC ENG & SURVEY SRVCS: PW BANNER:TEMECULA PKWY/I-15 INTRCHG TCSD INSTRUCTOR EARNINGS TCSD INSTRUCTOR EARNINGS Amount Paid Check Total 943.34 1,224.37 2,858.63 2,551.50 Grand total for UNION BANK: 943.34 1,224.37 5,410.13 3,405,209.46 Page:14 apChkLst 07/06/2017 2:47:34PM Final Check List CITY OF TEMECULA Page: 15 139 checks in this report. Grand Total All Checks: 3,405,209.46 Page:15 Item No. 4 TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: Approvals City Attorney Director of Finance City Manager CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT City Manager/City Council Jennifer Hennessy, Director of Finance July 25, 2017 Approve the License Agreement for Police Sub -Station and the Fourth Amendment to Amended and Restated Agreement for Partial Funding of Police Services at the Promenade Mall, both with Forest City Commercial Management, Inc. PREPARED BY: RECOMMENDATION: Jennifer Hennessy, Director of Finance Mary Vollmuth, Purchasing Manager That the City Council: 1. Approve a three-year License Agreement with Forest City Commercial Management, Inc. for the City of Temecula Police Sub -Station at the Promenade Mall at no cost; 2. Approve the Fourth Amendment to Amended and Restated Agreement for Partial Funding of Police Services By and Between the City of Temecula and Forest City Commercial Management, Inc., to extend the term of the agreement to June 30, 2020, in the amount of $102,499 annually. BACKGROUND: Since 1999, Forest City Commercial Management has contracted with the City to provide partial funding of Police services at the Promenade Mall to help mitigate the impact of increased calls for Police services and provide a greater law enforcement presence in the area. The original contract provided for two sworn deputy sheriffs to deliver eighty hours of coverage per week, at a cost of $85,000 per year. The Agreement was amended and restated in 2004 to increase the annual payment to $102,499. In 2005, the Agreement was amended to extend the term to September 30, 2014. On September 23, 2014 the Agreement was amended again to extend the term to June 30, 2015. On August 25, 2015 Council approved a Third Amendment to extend the term of the agreement to June 30, 2017. The Fourth Amendment will extend the term of the agreement to June 30, 2020 and the annual payment of $102,499 for police services will remain unchanged. In parallel with the Police Services Agreement the City and Forest City Commercial Management entered into a License Agreement to occupy the Police Sub -Station at the Promenade Mall. Forest City Commercial Management has agreed to continue to provide the space occupied by Temecula Police at no cost for three years. FISCAL IMPACT: General Fund revenue of $102,499 for Police Services is reflected in the Fiscal Year 2017-18 Annual Operating Budget ATTACHMENTS: 1. License Agreement Between the City of Temecula and Forest City Commercial Management, Inc. for Temecula Police Sub -Station at the Temecula Promenade Mall 2. Fourth Amendment to Amended and Restated Agreement for Partial Funding of Police Services By and Between the City of Temecula and Forest City Commerical Management, Inc. LICENSE AGREEMENT Date Prepared: 6/26/2017 4:26 PM SPECIALTY LEASE ID: SL — 9002401 2017-72 LICENSEE ("Licensee") City of Temecula 41000 Main Street Temecula, CA 92590 Licensee: City of Temecula Police Department (Sub -Station) Location #: 2020 951-506-5100 License Commencement Date: 7/1/2017 Total Rent Grand Total LICENSOR (Property Owner or Agent) ("Licensor') Forest City Commercial Management, Inc., acting as authorized agent for TEMECULA TOWNE CENTER ASSOCIATES, LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company "Owner" 40820 Winchester Road Temecula, CA 92591 Shopping Center Trade Name ("Center'): Temecula, Promenade in 951-296-0979 License Expiration Date 7/1/2020 (unless earlier terminated per #8): Comment $0 per mo. for full Term Total $0.00 $0.00 Payment Schedule for Fixed License Fees (payable to Temecula, Promenade in by pre -approved company check, certified check or money order): $0 This Licence includes a Percentage Fee of % of alt Licensee's g-rass sales less take s of a break point of . Percentage Fee for a given month is due and Section 28 for more details. Sole purpose for which Licensed Area can be used by Licensee: Licensee to take possession of space #2020 for the use of a Police Sub -Station and for no other purpose. 1. License Area and Location. Based on the terms and information stated above which is an integral part of this License and incorporated in this License, Licensor hereby grants to Licensee a NON -TRANSFERABLE REVOCABLE LICENSE for the temporary use of those certain premises the "License Area" consisting of approximately 11 990 square feet in the retail facility known as Temecula, Promenade in. 2. Security Deposit. Licensee shall, upon cxccution of this License, deposit with Licensor a Sccurity Deposit for full performance of all Licensee's obligations hcrcundcr in thc amount of $0.00 Licensor may deposit thc Sccurity Deposit prior to Licensor's cxccution of thi- Licen..c. Acceptance of Sccurity Dcpo.,it docs not con.,titutc a Iicen.,c or approval of this in.,trument which shall not become effective until executed by both parties. Undcr no circumstance whatsoever shall thc Sccurity Deposit bc deemed to constitute paymcnt of the final installment of Fixcd Fcc or Pcrccntagc Fcc and Licensee may not designate that thc Sccurity Deposit bc utilized to reduce any othcr fcc or charges duc to Licensor. If, upon the termination of this License, Licensee is in default hcrcundcr, Liccn.,or may, in addition to any other rights that it may have, retain thc Sccurity Deposit. 3. Utilities Fee. If Licensee utilizes an amount of electricity greater than the average of other licensees during the pay period, Licensor may from time to time bill Licensee for the reasonable cost to Licensor of such extra electricity. Licensee may also make arrangements to transfer utilities and pay directly to utility company as available and approved by Licensor. 4. Sales Report. Licen-ce ..hall provide to Liccn..or a monthly written report of all Licen-ce's grose sales and revenues, with sales verification, ..igned by Licen-ce, by 11:00 a.m. on thc 10th day of each month during the Term. Licensor or its agent will have thc right from time to time to audit or examine all of Licensee's sales records. If any deficiency in thc payment of thc Pcrccntagc Fcc is disclosed by such audit, Licensee will immediately pay such delinquency plus thc cost of the Licensors audit, including professional fccs. 5. Late Charges. If Licensee shall fail to make any payment of thc total Fixcd Licen.,c Fcc, thc Pcrccntagc Fcc (if applicable), utility charges, fail to provide monthly sales records or any othcr charge to Licensor when duc, or shall otherwise fail to comply with the terms herein stated, Licensee shall bc in default of this License. In thc event of non payment, Licensee shall pay a Tate charge equal to One Hundred Dollar ($.100.00) plus Tcn Dollars ($10.00) per day Cher after for co long as said default continues. In addition, Liccnscc shall pay Licensor interest on the amounts owing (until paid) ata rate of cightccn percent (18%) per annum. If accrual or paymcnt of such interest should bc unlawful, then interest shall bc computed at the maximum legal ratc. 6. Licensee further agrees that it shall, at its sole cost and expense: (A) At all times maintain the License Area in good, clean and safe condition and on the expiration date of the Term of this License shall retum the License Area to Licensor in broom clean condition and restored to at least as good a condition as it was in before Licensee took possession. No work shall be performed in or to the License Area without Licensors prior written approval. (B) At all times observe and comply with all laws, ordinances, rules, regulations and code requirements, including those of the Center management and Licensor, as well as secure all permits and licenses required by law. At all times conduct its activities in a lawful manner and in accordance with Licensors specifications, and dress in a professional image and in a manner that will complement the aesthetics of the License Area and the Center. Licensee and its employees shall wear appropriate attire at all times while in the Center as determined by Licensor in its sole discretion. In addition, Licensee shall conduct its activities in accordance with the standards of good taste, refrain from permitting or conducting any illegal or immoral activities in the License Area, and shall not cause a nuisance to Licensor, its tenants or customers. Licensor shall be the sole judge as to what constitutes good taste and immoral or nuisance activities. (C) Licensee covenants and agrees that from and after the date of delivery of the License from Licensor to Licensee, and during the Term of this License or any renewal thereof, Licensee will carry and maintain, at its sole cost and expense, the following types of insurance, naming both Licensee, owner, and Licensor as insureds, commercial general liability insurance issued by an insurance company authorized to do business in the state in which the License Area is located and rated A-/ or better in the most current edition of Best's Insurance Report, which shall include broad form property damage liability coverage, extended bodily injury coverage, advertising injury liability coverage, contractual liability coverage and independent contractors coverage, in an amount not less than $1,000,000, adjusted annually for inflation, written on a combined single limit per occurrence basis for property damage, personal injury and bodily injury or death of one or more persons. A certificate of insurance will be provided by Licensee as required by Licensor with appropriate entities listed as additional named insured. Additional insured's: TEMECULA TOWNE CENTER ASSOCIATES, LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company, Forest City Commercial Management, Inc., Forest City Enterprises, Inc. Page 1 of 3 SPECIALTY LEASE ID: SL - 9002401 INITIAL (D) Indemnify, defend with counsel acceptable to Licensor, and hold harmless Licensor and Owners, and their principals, officers, directors, agents, employees, mortgagee(s), ground lessors, associated business entities, and all of their heirs, predecessors, successors and assigns from and against all legal actions, liabilities, obligations, damages, penalties, claims, cost, charges and expenses, including reasonable attorneys' fees which may arise in any manner out of Licensee's use, operation or maintenance of the License Area or the Center and/or in connection with loss of life, bodily or personal injury or property damage arising from or out of all acts, failures, omissions or negligence of Licensee, its agents, employees or contractors which occur in, on or about the License Area, unless such legal action, damage, loss, liability or other expense (including attorneys' fees) results from any sole act, omission or neglect of Licensor, its agents, contractors, employees or persons claiming through it or them. 7. Relocation. thc di..crction of the Liccn..or and at Licen-ce's ..ole co..t and cxpcn..c. 8. Termination. Licensee understands and agrees that Licensee's rights under this License may be terminated by ( Licensor) upon 30 days written notice to Licensee, without limitation and without cause. Notwithstanding the foregoing, in the event that Licensee violates any Rules established by Licensor, or the terms of this License, Licensor may terminate this License by providing Licensee with twenty-four (24) hours' notice. 9. Hours of Operation. Licensee shall operate 100% of the Licensed Area continuously and uninterrupted during the existence of this License in accordance with its terms. Licensee shall be open for business at the License Area during all regular Center hours, and at such other hours as a majority of the other businesses operating at the Center are open. Accordingly, with respect to any day during the Term that Licensee shall fail to be open for the hours provided for above, Licensee shall pay a late opening/early closing charge of $50.00 per day, which shall become immediately due and payable. The late opening/early closing charge shall not preclude Licensor from seeking any other available remedy. 10. Default. Licensor may exercise any remedy available to it at law or in equity upon Licensee's breach or default of this License. Any breach or default by the Licensee under this License shall constitute a default under any other Agreement or Lease between Licensor and Licensee. Any breach or default under any other Agreement or Lease between Licensor and Licensee shall constitute a default under this License. Licensee will reimburse Licensor for any and all costs and expense including reasonable attorneys' fees which Licensor incurs in connection with the enforcement of this License. Licensee hereby agrees that Licensor shall have no duty to seek a court order or provide due process before evicting Licensee from the License Area and removing Licensee's property from the Center. Licensee hereby waives any right to a jury trial in any lawsuit commenced in connection with this License. 11. Limitation of Right of Recovery Against Licensor. There shall be no personal liability of Licensor or Owner (nor any of their partners, beneficiaries, officers, directors, venturers, shareholders or affiliated entities) in respect to any of the terms of this License. In the event of any breach or default by Licensor under this License, Licensee shall look solely to the equity of Owner in the Center for the satisfaction of Licensee's remedies. 12. This License may be modified only in a writing signed by Licensor and Licensee. 13. Notices. All notices or payments made pursuant to this License will be to the address above stated. 14. Rules. Licensee shall comply with all Rules which may be made effective by Licensor from time to time. Failure to comply with any such Rules shall constitute a default in this License. Rules & Regulations packet provided separately. 15. License Area Maintenance. By taking possession of the License Area, Licensee shall be deemed to have: i) inspected the License Area; ii) accepted the License Area "AS IS" with no representation or warranty by Licensor as to the condition of the Licensor Area, its suitability for Licensee's proposed operation or the improvements therein; and iii) agreed that the Licensor has no obligation to improve or repair the License Area. Any improvements must be approved in advance by Licensor. 16. Repairs and Maintenance by Licensee. Licensee shall, at all times during the Term of this License, maintain, at its sole cost and expense, the License Area in good and tenantable condition and make all necessary replacements and repairs to the License Area except for structural repairs, as directed by Licensor and utilizing contractors and materials as Licensor shall indicate. Licensee's obligation to repair and maintain the License Area shall include, without limitation, repairing, maintaining and making replacements to such items as: floor coverings, ceilings (other than structural ceilings), utility meters, pipes and conduits, all fixtures which are installed by Licensee and/or which exclusively serve the License Area, the storefront, all of Licensee's signs, security grilles, windows, glass and door frames. In addition to all other remedies of Licensor under this License, if: i) Licensee does not complete its obligations to repair and maintain the License Area as set forth herein; or ii) Licensor, in the exercise of its sole discretion, determines that emergency repairs are necessary; or iii) repairs or replacement of any portion of the License Area or the Center are made necessary by any act, omission or negligence of Licensee or its agents, employees or assignees, then in any such event, Licensor may make such repairs without liability to Licensee for any loss or damage that may accrue to Licensee, its merchandise, fixtures or other property or to Licensee's business by reason of such repair. Further, upon completion of any such repair, Licensee shall pay upon demand, as additional Fixed Fee, Licensors cost for making such repairs together with Licensors administrative costs related thereto, which administrative costs shall equal 1.20 times the total cost of such repair. 17. Waiver of Responsibility. Neither Licensor nor Owner, nor their principals, agents and employees shall be liable for, and Licensee waives, all claims for loss or damage, economic or otherwise, to Licensee's business or damage to person or property sustained by Licensee or any person claiming by, through or under Licensee resulting from any accident or occurrence in, on or about the License Area or any part of the Center, including, without limitation, claims for Toss, theft or damage, resulting from: i) any equipment or appurtenances becoming out of repair; ii) injury done or occasioned by wind or weather; iii) any defect in or failure to operate, for whatever reason, any sprinkler, heating or air- conditioning equipment, electric wiring or the installation thereof, gas, water or steam pipes, stairs, porches, railings or walks; iv) broken glass; v) the backing up of any sewer pipe or downspout; vi) the bursting, leaking or running of any tank, tub, washstand, water closet, waste pipe, drain or other pipe; vii) the escape of steam or water; viii) water, snow or ice being upon or coming through the roof, skylight, trap door, stairs, doorways, windows, walks or any other place upon or near the Center; ix) the falling of any fixture, plaster, tile, stucco or other material; x) any act, omission or negligence of other licensees or any other persons or occupants of the Center or of adjoining or contiguous buildings, of owners of adjacent or contiguous property or the public, or by operation in the construction of any private, public or quasi -public work; xi) any lack of or impeded access to the Center; xii) failure of Licensor or Owner to advertise or market; xiii) the failure of Licensor or Owner to light or otherwise maintain the parking or other common areas; or xiv) any other cause of any nature. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Licensee agrees to use and occupy the License Area, and to use such other portions of the Center as Licensee is herein given the right to use, at Licensee's own risk. 18. Waiver of Right of Recovery. Licensee hereby releases and waives all right of recovery which it might otherwise have against Licensor, owner, the other tenants of the Center, and their respective agents and employees by reason of any loss or damage resulting from any recovery, claim, action or cause of action against Licensor or Owner, damage or injury or other occurrence no matter how caused, to the extent that the same is covered by the Licensee's insurance (assuming no deductible) or which would have been covered had Licensee complied with the requirements of Section 6(C) of this License. 19. Signage. The Licensee is responsible for all store signage, including interior and exterior signs. All signage must be professionally constructed and pre -approved by Licensor before installation. Hand-written signs are not permitted. 20. Visual Merchandising. The Licensee shall comply with the visual merchandising standards adopted by or promulgated by Licensor and is required to submit a visual merchandising plan for approval. The Licensee understands and agrees to implement visual merchandising recommendations of the Licensor and change visual merchandising presentation as requested by the Licensor. 21. Security. Licensee shall be responsible for its own security during daytime and nighttime hours. Licensor shall not be liable for the security of tenant's displays, fixtures and/or merchandise in the License Area. 22. Access. Licensor shall have the right to access the License Area and Licensee's place of business at all times without prior notice. 23. Trash and Refuse Removal. Licensee shall remove, at its sole cost and expense, all trash and refuse in an expedient and orderly manner. All such trash and refuse shall be kept completely within the License Area and out of the public view until so removed. If trash service is provided by Licensor, the Licensee will be responsible to pay the appropriate fee for this service, as determined by the Licensor. 24. Confidentiality. Other licensees in thc Ccntcr may have negotiated terms different from thio License. Thcrcforc, Licensee hcrcby agrees that it shall tr at the tcrms of this License as secret and confidential. Licenoce shall not disclose, or allow disclosure of thc tcrms of thi- Licenoc, directly or indirectly, to any third party for any r anon without thc prior written concent of Licensor. Breach of this confidentiality provision ohall constitute a breach of this License. 25. Informational Use. Any informational material which is or has been provided to Licensee is for reference only and no representations or warranties are made conceming any item contained therein, including, without limitation, applicability of the material to any particular business or location. Use of this material is solely at the users risk and discretion. 26. Representations. Licensee acknowledges that Licensor has made no representations concerning the possibility of any extension or continuance of this License, other than as specifically stated in this License. 27. Personal Guaranty. Thc undersigned Guarantor hcrcby absolutely and unconditionally guarantees, the payment of all amount - due and owing to Licensor pursuant to this Liccnsc. Thc rights of Licensor against Guarantor shall not bc altered, limited or waived by any representation, promise, or course of conduct hcrcundcr puroucd by Liccnoor. Thio Guaranty shall bc binding on Guarantors heirs and a-..igns. 28. Additional Items/Terms. N/A Page 2 of 3 SPECIALTY LEASE ID: SL - 9002401 INITIAL By: Signature Page LICENSEE: LICENSOR: City of Temecula Police Department (Sub -Station) TEMECULA TOWNE CENTER ASSOCIATES, LLC, a Delaware Tax ID No: Limited Liability Company By: By: (Maryann Edwards) , Its Mayor Jeff Kurtz, General Manager SR CM Date Signed: Date Signed: ATTEST: By: By: Its Citv Clerk Tom Gilkeson, VP of Commercial Operations (Randi Johl) Date Signed: Date Signed: Peter Thorson Its City Attorney Date Signed: Page 3 of 3 SPECIALTY LEASE ID: SL - 9002401 INITIAL FOURTH AMENDMENT TO AMENDED AND RESTATED AGREEMENT FOR PARTIAL FUNDING OF POLICE SERVICES BY AND BETWEEN THE CITY OF TEMECULA AND FOREST CITY COMMERCIAL MANAGEMENT, INC. THIS FOURTH AMENDMENT is made and entered into as of July 25, 2017 by and between the City of Temecula, a municipal corporation (hereinafter referred to as "City"), and Forest City Commercial Management, Inc., a Ohio Corporation (hereinafter referred to as "Manager"). In consideration of the mutual covenants and conditions set forth herein, the parties agree as follows: 1. Recitals: This Fourth Amendment is made with the respect to the following facts and purposes which the parties acknowledge to be true and correct: A. On September 28, 2004, the City and Manager entered into that certain Agreement entitled "Amended and Restated Agreement for Partial Funding of Police Services," at the Promenade Mall. B. On December 31, 2005, the Agreement was amended to extend the term of the Agreement to September 30, 2014. C. On September 23, 2014, the Agreement was amended to extend the term of the Agreement to June 30, 2015 and revise the Notice Section to update contact mailing information for the City. D. On August 25, 2015 the Agreement was amended to extend the term of the Agreement to June 30, 2017 E. The parties now desire to extend the term of the Agreement to June 30, 2020, correct the City mailing address, and to amend the Agreement as set forth in this Amendment. 2. Section 4 of the Agreement is hereby amended to read as follows: "The term of this Agreement shall commence on September 28, 2004 and terminate on June 30, 2020, unless terminated herein provided. City may terminate this Agreement on five (5) days' notice to Manager in the event that the License Agreement between City and Manager (or Managers authorized agent) for the Police sub -station within the Promenade Mall, as amended, is terminated for any reason or Manager fails to make the monthly payment on the date due. In the event the Manager fails to make the payment on the date due and City incurs any penalties or late charges on the Lease for the Police sub -station, then Manager shall pay to the City the amount of any such penalties or late charges." 1 3. Section 5 of the Agreement is hereby amended to read as follows: "Any notices which either party may desire to give to the other party under this Agreement must be in writing and may be given either by (i) personal service, (ii) delivery by a reputable document delivery service, such as but not limited to, Federal Express, that provides a receipt showing date and time of delivery, or (iii) mailing in the United States Mail, certified mail, postage prepaid, return receipt requested, addressed to the address of the party as set forth below or at any other address as that party may later designate by Notice. Notice shall be effective upon delivery to the addresses specified below or on the third business day following deposit with the document delivery service or United States Mail as provided above. Mailing Address: To City: To Manager: Copy To: City of Temecula Attn: City Manager 41000 Main Street Temecula, CA 92590 Forest City Commercial Management, Inc. The Promenade in Temecula 40820 Winchester Road, Ste. 2000 Temecula, CA 92591 Forest City Commercial Management, Inc. Attn: Tom Gilkeson, VP of Commercial Operations Terminal Tower 50 Public Square, Ste. 1360 Cleveland, OH 44113 4. Section 6 of the Agreement is hereby amended to read as follows: "This Agreement contains the entire understanding between the parties relating to the obligations of the parties to provide Police services at the Promenade Mall as described in this Agreement. All prior or contemporaneous agreements, understandings, representations, and statements, oral or written relating to the rights and obligations for Police services at the Promenade Mall as described in this Agreement are merged into this Agreement and shall be of no further force or effect; provided, however, that nothing herein is intended nor shall it be construed to modify that certain "Development Agreement By and Between the City of Temecula, Temecula Towne Center Associates, L.P. a California Corporation, and LGA -7, an Illinois Corporation, dated as of December 17, 1996, nor the License Agreement for the Police sub -station between the City and Forest City Commercial Management, Inc. acting as the authorized agency owner for owner, Temecula Towne Center Associates, L.P. dated as of September 28, 2004, as amended on December 31, 2005, September 23, 2014, August 25, 2015 and July 25, 2017. Each party entering into this Agreement 2 based solely upon the representations set forth herein and upon each party's own independent investigation of any and all facts such party deems material. Manager warrants and represents to City that the person signing this Agreement on behalf of the Manager is fully authorized to do so and that all corporate approvals for this Agreement have been duly given." 5. Limited Scope of Amendment. Except as otherwise specifically provided herein, all other terms and conditions of the Agreement shall remain in full force and effect. 3 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Agreement to be executed the day and year first above written. CITY OF TEMECULA FOREST CITY COMMERCIAL MANAGEMENT, INC. (Two Signatures of corporate officers required unless corporate documents authorize only one person to sign the agreement on behalf of the corporation.) By: By: Maryann Edwards, Mayor Jeff Kurtz, General Manager SR CM ATTEST: By: By: Randi Johl, City Clerk Tom Gilkeson, VP of Commercial Operations APPROVED AS TO FORM: By: Peter M. Thorson, City Attorney CONSULTANT Forest City Commercial Management, Inc. Attn: Jeff Kurtz, General Manager The Temecula Promenade Mall 40820 Winchester Road, Ste. 2000 Temecula, CA 92591 Phone: 951-296-0979 Fax: 951-296-0973 E -Mail: jeffkurtz(a forestcitv.net 4 PM Initials: Date: Item No. 5 Approvals City Attorney Director of Finance City Manager Por - CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT TO: City Manager/City Council FROM: Kevin Hawkins, Director of Community Services DATE: July 25, 2017 SUBJECT: Adopt Resolution to Establish the Amount of the Voter Approved Measure C Annual Special Tax Levy for Fiscal Year 2017-18 PREPARED BY: Jennifer Hennessy, Director of Finance RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 17- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA ESTABLISHING THE AMOUNT OF THE SPECIAL TAX LEVY FOR FISCAL YEAR 2017-18 TO PROVIDE FOR RECREATION AND HUMAN SERVICES PROGRAMS AND THE OPERATION, MAINTENANCE AND SERVICING OF PUBLIC PARKS AND RECREATIONAL FACILITIES, MEDIAN LANDSCAPING, AND ARTERIAL STREET LIGHTS AND TRAFFIC SIGNALS BACKGROUND: Beginning Fiscal Year 1997-98, the Community Services, Parks and Recreation and Arterial Street Lights Rates and Charges previously levied by the Temecula Community Services District (TCSD) were replaced by the City of Temecula's Parks/Lighting Services Special Tax approved by the voters as Measure C on March 4, 1997. The purpose of the Parks/Lighting Services Special Tax is to provide for the ongoing operations, maintenance and servicing of the City's public parks, recreational facilities; recreational and human services programs; landscaped median maintenance costs; and energy costs for arterial street lighting and traffic signals. Pursuant to City Ordinance 96-21, the City Council is also empowered to establish the amount of the tax levy each fiscal year. As a result, it is recommended that the amounts to be levied for Fiscal Year 2017-18 shall be the maximum tax rate approved by voters within the following categories: $ 74.44 per single family residential dwelling unit $ 55.83 per multi -family residential dwelling unit $ 148.88 per acre of vacant property in a residential zone $ 297.76 per acre of vacant property in a non-residential zone $ 446.64 per acre of non-residential improved property $ 148.88 per acre of golf course property $ 37.22 per acre of agricultural property The Parks/Street Lighting Services Special Tax is levied in the same manner, at the same time as the TCSD Rates and Charges, and collected on the annual property tax bills. The anticipated revenue based on the assessed rate from all taxable parcels within the City for Fiscal Year 2017-18 is $3,718,122. This revenue is allocated 50% to the General Fund, to provide funding for Parks Maintenance and 50% to the Temecula Community Services District, to provide funding for the multitude of recreation programs, services and facilities. The difference in operating costs over levy revenue is offset by recreational revenues, user fees, interest income, fund balance, and contributions from the voter -approved one -cent sales tax (Measure S). This will be the twenty-second consecutive year that the General Fund, and now the Measure S Fund, has contributed to the funding of the parks, programs, facilities, and services provided by the TCSD. To make the City's levy of the special tax consistent with the County's application of ad valorem property taxes and with the City's historical administration of the special tax, City Staff further recommends that the tax rate be set at $0.00 for any parcel of property that: (i) qualifies for an exemption from ad valorem taxation under California law, (ii) is owned by a federally recognized Tribal Government, (iii) is owned by a homeowners association and used by the owners and/or occupants of the respective residential development in a manner incidental to residential occupancy or (iv) is zoned for use as open space. FISCAL IMPACT: The $3,718,122 in Special Tax revenue will fund park and recreational facilities maintenance, recreational, human services and cultural arts programs throughout the City. Fifty percent of the levy is receipted in the City's General Fund and 50% is receipted in the Temecula Community Services District Fund. ATTACHMENTS: Resolution to Levy the Parks/Lighting Special Tax RESOLUTION NO. 17- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA ESTABLISHING THE AMOUNT OF THE SPECIAL TAX LEVY FOR FISCAL YEAR 2017-18 TO PROVIDE FOR RECREATION AND HUMAN SERVICES PROGRAMS AND THE OPERATION, MAINTENANCE AND SERVICING OF PUBLIC PARKS AND RECREATIONAL FACILITIES, MEDIAN LANDSCAPING, AND ARTERIAL STREET LIGHTS AND TRAFFIC SIGNALS THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Pursuant to the authority of Article XI, Section 7 of the California Constitution, Government Code Section 37100.5, and other applicable law, the City Council adopted, and the voters of the City of Temecula approved, Ordinance No. 96-21, levying and assessing a special tax on each parcel of property in the City of Temecula for each fiscal year, commencing with Fiscal Year 1997-1998. Section 2. The maximum amount of said special tax for each fiscal year as established by Ordinance No. 96-21 is $74.44 per single-family residential dwelling unit, $55.83 per multi -family residential dwelling unit, $148.88 per acre of vacant property in a residential zone, $297.76 per acre of vacant property in a non-residential zone, $446.64 per acre of non-residential improved property and $37.22 per acre for agricultural uses. Section 3. The City of Temecula has experienced a large amount of mixed use (both residential and commercial) development primarily within the Temecula Old Town area. As a result, all mixed use development assessment for the Special Tax will be calculated using the number and type of dwelling units and the per acre charge for non-residential improved property. Section 4. Pursuant to Ordinance No. 96-21 the City Council is empowered to establish the amount of the special tax levy annually each fiscal year, in amounts not to exceed the maximum amounts specified in Section 2 of this Resolution, as is required to provide an adequate level of service in accordance with the purposes set forth in the Ordinance. Section 5. The City Council hereby determines that the maximum rates will be required in order to provide an adequate level of service in accordance with the purposes set forth in Ordinance No. 96-21, and hereby establishes the following amounts to be levied as a special tax for Fiscal Year 2017-18: $ 74.44 per single-family residential dwelling unit $ 55.83 per multi -family residential dwelling unit $148.88 per acre of vacant property in a residential zone $297.76 per acre of vacant property in a non-residential zone $446.64 per acre of non-residential improved property $148.88 per acre of golf course property $ 37.22 per acre of agricultural property Section 6. Notwithstanding Section 5 of this Resolution the tax rate shall be $0.00 for any parcel of property that: (i) qualifies for an exemption from ad valorem taxation under California law, (ii) is owned by a federally recognized Tribal Government, (iii) is owned by a homeowners' association and used by the owners and/or occupants of the respective residential development in a manner incidental to residential occupancy or (iv) is zoned for use as open space. Section 7. The special tax shall be collected in the same manner, on the same dates, and shall be subject to the same penalties and interest as other charges and taxes fixed and collected by the County of Riverside on behalf of the City of Temecula. Said special tax, together with all penalties and interest thereon, shall constitute a lien upon the parcel upon which it is levied until it has been paid, and said special tax, together with all penalties and interest thereon, shall until paid, constitute a personal obligation of the City of Temecula by the persons who own the parcel on the date the tax is due. All laws applicable to the levy, collection and enforcement of property taxes, including, but not limited to, those pertaining to the matters of delinquency, correction, cancellation, refund and redemption, are applicable to the special tax, except for California Revenue and Taxation Code Section 4831. Section 8. The revenue raised by the special tax shall be placed in a special fund to be used only for the purposes of operating, maintaining and servicing public parks and recreational facilities, recreational and community services programs, median landscaping, arterial street lights and traffic signals throughout the City of Temecula and administrative expenses incurred by the City in connection therewith. Section 9. The special tax shall not be imposed upon a federal or state governmental agency or another local governmental agency or upon any parcel of property that is exempt from the special tax imposed by this ordinance pursuant to any provision of the Constitution or any paramount law. Section 10. The Director of Finance is hereby ordered to transmit or cause to be transmitted to the County Auditor of the County of Riverside, California before August 10, 2017, the property tax roll with the special tax enumerated for each parcel not exempt therefrom; and the County Auditor is hereby designated, required, empowered, authorized, instructed, directed and ordered to make collection of such special tax as shown on that roll and to perform any and all duties necessary therefore. Section 11. If a property owner subject to the special tax challenges or questions the levy of the special tax against such property owners' property, such property owner must appeal the levy by filing an appeal with the City Clerk before 5:00 p.m. on December 1, 2017, pursuant to procedures established by the City. Section 12. If a property owner subject to the special tax believes that payment of the special tax for Fiscal Year 2017-18 would create a hardship for that property owner during that fiscal year, such property owner must appeal the levy by filing a hardship appeal with the City Clerk before 5:00 p.m. on December 1, 2017, pursuant to the procedures established by the City, in order to be considered under the hardship appeal program. Section 13. If any provision of this Resolution or the application thereof to any person or circumstances is held invalid or unconstitutional by any court of competent jurisdiction, such invalidity or unconstitutionality shall not affect any other provision or applications, and to this end the provision of this Resolution are declared to be serverable. The City Council does hereby declare that it would have adopted this Resolution and each section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrases, parts or portions hereof are declared invalid or unconstitutional. Section 14. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Temecula this 25th day of July, 2017. Maryann Edwards, Mayor ATTEST: Randi Johl, City Clerk [SEAL] STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss CITY OF TEMECULA ) I, Randi Johl, City Clerk of the City of Temecula, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 17- was duly and regularly adopted by the City Council of the City of Temecula at a meeting thereof held on the 25th day of July, 2017, by the following vote: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: ABSTAIN: COUNCIL MEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Randi Johl, City Clerk Item No. 6 Approvals City Attorney Director of Finance City Manager Sier- CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT TO: City Manager/City Council FROM: Randi Johl, City Clerk DATE: July 25, 2017 SUBJECT: Adopt Ordinance 17-03 to Approve an Amendment to the CaIPERS Contract to Provide for Sharing Employer Cost by Classic Local Miscellaneous Members in the Management and Confidential Employees Group (Second Reading) PREPARED BY: Randi Johl, City Clerk RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council adopt an ordinance entitled: ORDINANCE NO. 17-03 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA AUTHORIZING AN AMENDMENT TO THE CONTRACT BETWEEN THE BOARD OF ADMINISTRATION OF THE CALIFORNIA PUBLIC EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT SYSTEM AND THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA BACKGROUND: The City of Temecula is a general law city formed under the laws of the State of California. With respect to adoption of ordinances and resolutions, the City adheres to the requirements set forth in the Government Code. With the exception of urgency ordinances, Government Code Section 36934 requires two readings of standard ordinances more than five days apart. Ordinances must be read in full at the time of introduction or passage unless a motion waiving the reading is adopted by a majority of the City Council present. Ordinance No. 17-03 was first introduced at the regularly scheduled meeting of June 27, 2017. FISCAL IMPACT: None ATTACHMENTS: Ordinance ORDINANCE NO. 17-03 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA AUTHORIZING AN AMENDMENT TO THE CONTRACT BETWEEN THE BOARD OF ADMINISTRATION OF THE CALIFORNIA PUBLIC EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT SYSTEM AND THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. That an amendment to the contract between the City Council of the City of Temecula and the Board of Administration, California Public Employees' Retirement System is hereby authorized, a copy of said amendment being attached hereto, marked Exhibit, and by such reference made a part hereof as though herein set out in full. Section 2. The Mayor of the City Council is hereby authorized, empowered, and directed to execute said amendment for and on behalf of said Agency. Section 3. This Ordinance shall take effect 30 days after the date of its adoption, and prior to the expiration of 30 days from the passage thereof shall be published at least once in The Californian, an edition of the San Diego Union Tribune, a newspaper of general circulation, published and circulated in the City of Temecula, Riverside County and thenceforth and thereafter the same shall be in full force and effect. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Temecula this 25th day of July, 2017. Maryann Edwards, Mayor ATTEST: Randi Johl, City Clerk [SEAL] STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss CITY OF TEMECULA ) I, Randi Johl, City Clerk of the City of Temecula, do hereby certify that the foregoing Ordinance No. 17-03 was duly introduced and placed upon its first reading at a meeting of the City Council of the City of Temecula on the 27th day of June, 2017, and that thereafter, said Ordinance was duly adopted by the City Council of the City of Temecula at a meeting thereof held on the 25th day of July, 2017, by the following vote: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: ABSTAIN: COUNCIL MEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Randi Johl, City Clerk Ati rc Ca1PERS EXHIBIT California Public Employees` Retirement System AMENDMENT TO CONTRACT Between the Board of Administration California Public Employees' Retirement System and the City Council City of Temecula The Board of Administration, California Public Employees' Retirement System, hereinafter referred to as Board, and the governing body of the above public agency, hereinafter referred to as Public Agency, having entered into a contract effective December 1, 1990, and witnessed November 8, 1990, and as amended effective October 25, 1997, August 24, 2002, July 10, 2004, April 24, 2009, June 19, 2010 and September 24, 2011 which provides for participation of Public Agency in said System, Board and Public Agency hereby agree as follows: A. Paragraphs 1 through 14 are hereby stricken from said contract as executed effective September 24, 2011, and hereby replaced by the following paragraphs numbered 1 through 15 inclusive: 1. All words and terms used herein which are defined in the Public Employees' Retirement Law shall have the meaning as defined therein unless otherwise specifically provided. "Normal retirement age" shall mean age 55 for classic local miscellaneous members entering membership in the miscellaneous classification on or prior to September 24, 2011, age 60 for classis local miscellaneous members entering membership for the first time in the miscellaneous classification after September 24, 2011 and age 62 for new local miscellaneous members. PLEASE DO NOT SIGN "EXHIBIT ONLY" 2. Public Agency shall participate in the Public Employees' Retirement System from and after December 1, 1990 making its employees as hereinafter provided, members of said System subject to all provisions of the Public Employees' Retirement Law except such as apply only on election of a contracting agency and are not provided for herein and to all amendments to said Law hereafter enacted except those, which by express provisions thereof, apply only on the election of a contracting agency. 3. Public Agency agrees to indemnify, defend and hold harmless the California Public Employees' Retirement System (CaIPERS) and its trustees, agents and employees, the CaIPERS Board of Administration, and the California Public Employees' Retirement Fund from any claims, demands, actions, losses, liabilities, damages, judgments, expenses and costs, including but not limited to interest, penalties and attorney fees that may arise as a result of any of the following: (a) Public Agency's election to provide retirement benefits, provisions or formulas under this Contract that are different than the retirement benefits, provisions or formulas provided under the Public Agency's prior non-CaIPERS retirement program. (b) Any dispute, disagreement, claim, or proceeding (including without limitation arbitration, administrative hearing, or litigation) between Public Agency and its employees (or their representatives) which relates to Public Agency's election to amend this Contract to provide retirement benefits, provisions or formulas that are different than such employees' existing retirement benefits, provisions or formulas. (c) Public Agency's agreement with a third party other than CaIPERS to provide retirement benefits, provisions, or formulas that are different than the retirement benefits, provisions or formulas provided under this Contract and provided for under the California Public Employees' Retirement Law. 4. Employees of Public Agency in the following classes shall become members of said Retirement System except such in each such class as are excluded by law or this agreement: a. Employees other than local safety members (herein referred to as local miscellaneous members). 5. In addition to the classes of employees excluded from membership by said Retirement Law, the following classes of employees shall not become members of said Retirement System: a. SAFETY EMPLOYEES. PLEASE DO NOT SIGN "EXHIBIT ONLY" 6. The percentage of final compensation to be provided for each year of credited prior and current service as a classic local miscellaneous member in employment before and not on or after July 10, 2004 shall be determined in accordance with Section 21354 of said Retirement Law (2% at age 55 Full). 7. The percentage of final compensation to be provided for each year of credited prior and current service as a classic local miscellaneous member in employment on or after July 10, 2004 and not on or after June 19, 2010 shall be determined in accordance with Section 21354.4 of said Retirement Law (2.5% at age 55 Full). 8. The percentage of final compensation to be provided for each year of credited prior and current service as a classic local miscellaneous member in employment on or after June 19, 2010 and not entering membership for the first time in the miscellaneous classification after September 24, 2011 shall be determined in accordance with Section 21354.5 of said Retirement Law (2.7% at age 55 Full). 9. The percentage of final compensation to be provided for each year of credited current service as a classic local miscellaneous member entering membership for the first time in the miscellaneous classification after the September 24, 2011 shall be determined in accordance with Section 21353 of said Retirement Law (2% at age 60 Full). 10. The percentage of final compensation to be provided for each year of credited prior and current service as a new local miscellaneous member shall be determined in accordance with Section 7522.20 of said Retirement Law (2% at age 62 Full). 11. Public Agency elected and elects to be subject to the following optional provisions: a. Section 20042 (One -Year Final Compensation) for classic local miscellaneous members entering membership , on or prior to September 24, 2011. b. Sections 21624 and 21626 (Post -Retirement Survivor Allowance). c. Section 21574 (Fourth Level of 1959 Survivor Benefits). d. Section 21024 (Military Service Credit as Public Service). e. Section 20903 (Two Years Additional Service Credit). f. Section 20475 (Different Level of Benefits): Section 21353 (2% @ 60 Full formula) and Section 20037 (Three -Year Final Compensation) are applicable to classic local miscellaneous members entering membership for the first time with this agency in the miscellaneous classification after September 24, 2011. g - PLEASE DO NOT SIGN "EXHIBIT ONLY" Section 20516 (Employees Sharing Additional Cost): From and after the effective date of this amendment to contract, 3% for classic local miscellaneous members in the Management and Confidential Employees group. The portion of the employer's contribution that the member agrees to contribute from his or her compensation, over and above the member's normal contribution ("Cost Sharing Percentage"), shall not exceed the Employer Normal Cost Rate, as that rate is defined in the CaIPERS Actuarial Valuation for the relevant fiscal year. If the Cost Sharing Percentage will exceed the relevant Employer Normal Cost Rate, the Cost Sharing Percentage shall automatically be reduced to an amount equal to, and not to exceed, the Employer Normal Cost Rate for the relevant fiscal year. 12. Public Agency shall contribute to said Retirement System the contributions determined by actuarial valuations of prior and future service liability with respect to local miscellaneous members of said Retirement System. 13. Public Agency shall also contribute to said Retirement System as follows: a. Contributions required per covered member on account of the 1959 Survivor Benefits provided under Section 21574 of said Retirement Law. (Subject to annual change.) In addition, all assets and liabilities of Public Agency and its employees shall be pooled in a single account, based on term insurance rates, for survivors of all local miscellaneous members. b. A reasonable amount, as fixed by the Board, payable in one installment within 60 days of date of contract to cover the costs of administering said System as it affects the employees of Public Agency, not including the costs of special valuations or of the periodic investigation and valuations required by law. c. A reasonable amount, as fixed by the Board, payable in one installment as the occasions arise, to cover thecosts of special valuations on account of employees of Public Agency, and costs of the periodic investigation and valuations required by law. 14. Contributions required of Public Agency and its employees shall be subject to adjustment by Board on account of amendments to the Public Employees' Retirement Law, and on account of the experience under the Retirement System as determined by the periodic investigation and valuation required by said Retirement Law. PLEASE DO NOT SIGN "EXHIBIT ONLY" 15. Contributions required of Public Agency and its employees shall be paid by Public Agency to the Retirement System within fifteen days after the end of the period to which said contributions refer or as may be prescribed by Board regulation. If more or less than the correct amount of contributions is paid for any period, proper adjustment shall be made in connection with subsequent remittances. Adjustments on account of errors in contributions required of any employee may be made by direct payments between the employee and the Board. B. This amendment shall be effective on the day of BOARD OF ADMINISTRATION CITY COUNCIL PUBLIC EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT SYSTEM BY ARNITA PAIGE, CHIEF PENSION CONTRACTS AND PREFUNDING PROGRAMS DIVISION PUBLIC EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT SYSTEM AMENDMENT CaIPERS ID #4274393153 PERS-CON-702A CITY OF TEMECULA BY PRESIDING O -VER %.(J..CVVitness Date ,s.\%'•< -<.i. c.J Attest: Item No. 7 Approvals City Attorney Director of Finance City Manager CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT TO: City Manager/City Council FROM: Randi Johl, City Clerk DATE: July 25, 2017 SUBJECT: Adopt Ordinance 17-04 Amending the Temecula Municipal Code Providing for the Election of City Council Members By District, Establishing District Boundaries, Identifying District Numbers and Establishing the Election Order of Each District (Second Reading) PREPARED BY: Randi Johl, City Clerk RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council adopt an ordinance entitled: ORDINANCE NO. 17-04 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA AMENDING CHAPTER 2.08 OF THE TEMECULA MUNICIPAL CODE PROVIDING FOR THE ELECTION OF FIVE MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL BY DISTRICTS, ESTABLISHING THE BOUNDARIES AND IDENTIFICATION NUMBER OF EACH DISTRICT, AND ESTABLISHING THE ELECTION ORDER OF EACH DISTRICT BACKGROUND: The City of Temecula is a general law city formed under the laws of the State of California. With respect to adoption of ordinances and resolutions, the City adheres to the requirements set forth in the Government Code. With the exception of urgency ordinances, Government Code Section 36934 requires two readings of standard ordinances more than five days apart. Ordinances must be read in full at the time of introduction or passage unless a motion waiving the reading is adopted by a majority of the City Council present. Ordinance No. 17-04 was first introduced at the regularly scheduled meeting of July 11, 2017. FISCAL IMPACT: None ATTACHMENTS: Ordinance ORDINANCE NO. 17-04 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA AMENDING CHAPTER 2.08 OF THE TEMECULA MUNICIPAL CODE PROVIDING FOR THE ELECTION OF FIVE MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL BY DISTRICTS, ESTABLISHING THE BOUNDARIES AND IDENTIFICATION NUMBER OF EACH DISTRICT, AND ESTABLISHING THE ELECTION ORDER OF EACH DISTRICT THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. This Ordinance is adopted with respect to the following purposes: (a) Pursuant to California Government Code Section 34886 and Elections Code Section 10010, the City Council votes to approve the change to a district -based election system for the members of the City Council whereby all five members of the City Council shall be elected by the voters of five City Council districts rather than at -large. (b) Pursuant to California Government Code Section 34886, it is declared the change in the method of electing members of the City Council of the City of Temecula made by this ordinance is in furtherance of the purposes of the California Voting Rights Act of 2001. Section 2. Sections 2.08.010 and 2.08.020 of the Temecula Municipal Code are hereby amended to read as follows and Sections, 2.08.015, 2.08.025 and Section 2.08.028 are hereby added to Chapter 2.08, Elections, of the Temecula Municipal Code to read as follows: 2.08.010. Council Election Dates. General municipal elections of the city shall be held on the first Tuesday after the first Monday of November in each even -numbered year. References in this Chapter to state statutes shall include any amendments thereto and any successor statutes. 2.08.015 City Council Districts Established. Five City Council districts are hereby established in the City of Temecula. The boundaries and identifying number of each district shall be as described on the official "Council District Map" on file in the Office of the City Clerk. 2.08.020 Election of Members of the City Council by District. A. Commencing with the November 2018 general municipal election, Members of the City Council shall be elected "by District" as defined in California Government Code Section 34871. A person shall not be eligible to be elected to be a Member of the City Council unless he or she is otherwise qualified as required by law, resides in the geographical area making up the district from which he or she is nominated to be elected and is a registered voter of the City of Temecula at the time nomination papers are issued to the candidate as provided in Section 10227 of the California Elections Code. No term of any Member of the City Council that commenced on or prior to the effective date of this Chapter shall be affected prior to its expiration date. B. Registered voters signing nomination papers or voting for a Member of the City Council shall be residents of the geographical area making up the district from which the Member is to be elected. C. The terms of the office of each Member elected to the City Council shall be four (4) years. 2.08.025 Commencement of District Elections. Commencing with the general municipal election in November of 2018 and thereafter, the voters in Council Districts 1, 3, and 5 shall elect Members of the City Council by district for full four (4) year terms. At the general municipal election in 2020 and thereafter, the voters in Council Districts 2 and 4 shall elect Members of the City Council by district for full four (4) year terms. 2.08.028 Adjustment of Council District Boundaries. A. Pursuant to Elections Code Section 21601 the City Council shall adjust the boundaries of any or all of the districts following each decennial federal census. Using the census as a basis, the City Council shall adjust the boundaries so that the districts shall be as nearly equal in population as practicable and in compliance with all applicable provisions of law. Any adjustment of district boundaries shall be made by ordinance adopted by the City Council before the first day of November of the year following the year in which each decennial federal census is taken commencing with the 2020 federal census. The City Council shall hold a public hearing on the proposed district boundaries as required by Elections Code Section 21607 prior to the introduction of an ordinance adjusting the district boundaries. B. At the time of any annexation of territory to the City, the City Council shall designate, by resolution adopted by a vote of at least a majority of the City Council, the contiguous district to which the annexed territory shall be a part and shall amend the district boundaries if necessary in accordance with Elections Code Section 21603. C. Pursuant to Elections Code Section 21606 the term of office of any council member who has been elected and whose term of office has not expired shall not be affected by any change in the boundaries of the district from which he or she was elected. D. At the first election for council following adjustment of the boundaries of the districts, a person meeting the requirements of Government Code Section 34882 shall be elected to the City Council for each district under the readjusted district plan that has the same district number as a district whose incumbent's term on the council is due to expire. Section 3. The Official Council District Map referenced in Section 2.08.010 is hereby approved and is attached hereto as Exhibit "A" and incorporated herein by this reference. The Official Council District Map shall be kept on file in the Office of the City Clerk. Section 4. Section 2.04.010 of the Temecula Municipal Code is hereby repealed as it is a duplicate of Section 2.08.010. Section 5. This Ordinance shall take effect upon its adoption pursuant to Government Code Section 36937(a) as it is an Ordinance relating to an election for the City. Section 6. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this Ordinance or Chapter 2.08 is for any reason held to be invalid or unenforceable by a court of competent jurisdiction, the remaining portions of this Ordinance shall nonetheless remain in full force and effect. The City Council of the City of Temecula hereby declares that it would have adopted each section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this Ordinance, irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, sentences, clauses, phrases, or portions of this Ordinance be declared invalid or unenforceable. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Temecula this 25th day of July, 2017. Maryann Edwards, Mayor ATTEST: Randi Johl, City Clerk [SEAL] STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss CITY OF TEMECULA ) I, Randi Johl, City Clerk of the City of Temecula, do hereby certify that the foregoing Ordinance No. 17-04 was duly introduced and placed upon its first reading at a meeting of the City Council of the City of Temecula on the 11th day of July, 2017, and that thereafter, said Ordinance was duly adopted by the City Council of the City of Temecula at a meeting thereof held on the 25th day of July, 2017, by the following vote: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: ABSTAIN: COUNCIL MEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Randi Johl, City Clerk Temecula 2017 Districting Proposed Council District Map oripaugh Ranch ni Yellow Census Block Water Area Streets Indian Reservation Landmark Point Landmark Area Pipeline/Power Line H OAs Proposed Election Years / Proposicion para los anos de eleccioon: 2018: 1, 3 and 5 2020:2 and 4 National Demographics Corporation, June 12, 2017 Item No. 8 Approvals City Attorney Director of Finance City Manager CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT TO: City Manager/City Council FROM: Randi Johl, City Clerk DATE: July 25, 2017 SUBJECT: Receive Report Regarding Status of Upcoming Vacancies on Boards and Commissions PREPARED BY: Randi Johl, City Clerk RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council receive the report regarding the status of upcoming vacancies on Boards and Commissions. BACKGROUND: In an effort to ensure early notification of upcoming vacancies on the City's various Boards and Commissions, staff has implemented a process to notify the City Council and the public of upcoming vacancies in advance of publication. On October 10, 2017, there will be one vacancy on the Community Services Commission and two vacancies on the Public/Traffic Safety Commission. The vacancies will be advertised through established procedures including the newspaper, website and social media outlets. The application for these vacancies will be available on August 1, 2017 and the application period will be open from August 1, 2017 — August 31, 2017. It is anticipated that the City Council will make appointments to fill the vacancies at the September 26, 2017 regularly scheduled meeting, ensuring continuity of service prior to the expiration of existing terms. Additional information is available through the City Clerk's office. FISCAL IMPACT: None ATTACHMENTS: None Item No. 9 Approvals City Attorney Director of Finance City Manager CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT TO: City Manager/City Council FROM: Patrick A. Thomas, Director of Public Works / City Engineer DATE: July 25, 2017 SUBJECT: Approve the First Amendment to the Agreement for Consultant Services with Michael Baker International, Inc for Temecula Park and Ride, PW06-09 PREPARED BY: Amer Attar, Principal Engineer Steve Charette, Associate Engineer RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council: 1. Approve the First Amendment to the Agreement for Consultant Services with Michael Baker International, Inc., in an amount not to exceed $10,760, for additional design services; 2. Authorize an increase to the contingency in the amount of $1,076, and increase the City Manager's authority to approve Extra Work Authorizations by the same amount. BACKGROUND: In September 2016, the construction Contract with the original Contractor for the Temecula Park and Ride ("Project") was terminated. All work is currently suspended. The Project construction is approximately 40% complete. The plans for the Project required updating to reflect existing conditions. The updated plans are needed to rebid the Project and complete the construction with a new contractor. On January 24, 2017, City Council approved a Consultant Services Agreement with Michael Baker International, Inc. ("MBI") to prepare revised construction drawings in the amount of $63,157.60 ($57,416.00 for plan revision, and $5,741.60 for contingency). Subsequent to approval of the Agreement with MBI, it was determined that additional design services were necessary. These additional design services include extensive adjustments to the originally approved plans, preparation of sound wall exhibits, and design of a water service connection. The costs for the additional design services are in the amount of $11,836 ($10,760 for additional plan and specifications revision, and $1,076 for contingency) as shown on Attachment A to the First Amendment to the Agreement for Consultant Services with MBI. Staff has reviewed the Proposal and found the proposed services and their respective costs to be reasonable. FISCAL IMPACT: With the approval of the First Amendment, $10,760 for additional design costs, and $1,076 for contingency the resulting Agreement amount will be $68,176, plus a total contingency amount of $6,817.60. Adequate funds are available in the project accounts for the additional design costs and contingency. ATTACHMENTS: 1. First Amendment 2. Project Description 3. Project Location FIRST AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT FOR CONSULTANT SERVICES BETWEEN CITY OF TEMECULA AND MICHAEL BAKER INTERNATIONAL, INC. TEMECULA PARK AND RIDE, PW06-09 THIS FIRST AMENDMENT is made and entered into as of July 25, 2017, by and between the City of Temecula, a municipal corporation (hereinafter referred to as "City"), and Michael Baker International, Inc., a Corporation (hereinafter referred to as "Consultant"). In consideration of the mutual covenants and conditions set forth herein, the parties agree as follows: 1. This Amendment is made with the respect to the following facts and purposes: a. On January 24, 2017, the City and Consultant entered into that certain Agreement entitled "Agreement for Consultant Services" in the amount of $57,416. b. The parties now desire to increase the scope of work, increase the payment in the amount of $10,760, and to amend the Agreement as set forth in this Amendment. 2. Section 6 of the Agreement entitled "PAYMENT" at paragraph "a" is hereby amended to read as follows: The City agrees to pay Consultant monthly, in accordance with the payment rates and schedules and terms set forth in Exhibit B, Payment Rates and Schedule, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference as though set forth in full, based upon actual time spent on the above tasks. Any terms in Exhibit B, other than the payment rates and schedule of payment, are null and void. The First Amendment amount shall not exceed Ten Thousand Seven Hundred Sixty Dollars ($10,760), for additional design services for a total Agreement amount of Sixty Eight Thousand One Hundred Seventy Six Dollars ($68,176). 3. Exhibits "A" to the Agreement are hereby amended by adding thereto the items set forth on Attachment "A" to this Amendment, which is hereto and incorporated herein as though set forth in full. 4. Except for the changes specifically set forth herein, all other terms and conditions of the Agreement shall remain in full force and effect. 1 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Agreement to be executed the day and year first above written. CITY OF TEMECULA MICHAEL BAKER INTERNATIONAL, INC. (Two Signatures of corporate officers required unless corporate documents authorize only one person to sign the agreement on behalf of the corporation.) By: By: Maryann Edwards, Mayor Michael A. Tylman, Assistant Secretary ATTEST: By: By: Randi Johl, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: By: Peter M. Thorson, City Attorney CONSULTANT John Tanner, Vice President Michael Baker International, Inc. Attn: Steven B. Burick, Vice President 14725 Alton Parkway Irvine, CA 92618-2027 949.855.5733 burick@mbakerintl.com 2 PM Initial Lam. Date: i�� Michael Baker INTERNATIONAL We Make a Difference Baker JN: 159004 Request No.: EWR 002 Date: June 14, 2017 EXTRA WORK REQUEST SUMMARY Client: City of Temecula Work Requested By: Steve Charette Adjustments to design, sound wall exhibit & RCWD Summary of Additional Work: Irrigation meter to existing as -built At the City's request, Michael Baker International (Consultant) shall provide revised Parking Lot design services which are not part of the original scope of work. For your review and approval please find below the itemized task and compensation: TASK 1 Extensive Adiustments to Approved Plans Consultant shall use the previous approved / engineered plans by AAE.Inc for basis of design and control elevations. Consultant shall complete the work outlined below: • Grading adjustments to ADA Parking areas to meet maximum grade requirements. • Grading adjustments to the Parking Lot to meet maximum grades while holding low point elevations. • Revised grading design to add a berm between Vallejo Avenue and Parking lot. Grade slopes to achieve minimum 3' high berm above parking lot and Vallejo Avenue. Berm along Vallejo not to exceed 2:1 and adjusted to accommodate new Vallejo Street Section, including DG Trail edge location. • Update Onsite Storm Drain piping horizontal and vertical alignment from upstream onsite basin and connecting to existing downstream catch basin location per exhibit provided by the Client. • Update Entry median location and design per City's Fire Department request. • Onsite parking lot vertical and horizontal revisions to drop off location, motorcycle parking and bike locker, which were impacted by the approved ADA Path of travel. • Design Storm Drain Catch Basin and depression along Vallejo Avenue, located along the SE frontage of the project site. Size piping and outlet with energy dissipater to southerly basin located on site. MBAKERINTL.COM 3 40810 County Center Drive, Suite 2001 Temecula, CA 92591 Office: 951.676.80421 Fax: 951.676.7240 Baker JN: 159004 EWR 002 June 14, 2017 Page 2 • Cursory review of Post Graded Geotechnical Report, Cursory review of approved WQMP Report completed by AAE.inc. Review infiltration Rates and Basin Design Assumptions. Per City's request Consultant shall provide 6" PVC perforated piping, surrounded by gravel and wrapped with geotextile fabric. 6" PVC cleanouts shall be added to both basin locations. MBI to connect perforated piping to proposed storm drain piping onsite. Horizontal and vertical piping design and basin details to be added to improvement plans. • Per recommendation of Leighton and Associates, City requests Jute Mesh be installed on all 1.5:1 Slopes onsite. • Calvada Topographic file inadequate for Street Improvement and Storm Drain design. MBI has requested additional field data. Vallejo Avenue and La Paz to be designed per latest Calvada field data collection. TASK 2 Sound / Retaining Wall Exhibit Per the Clients request the Consultant shall prepare a Sound / Retaining Wall Exhibit for discussions with neighboring Los Ranchitos HOA. Exhibit prepared shall provide top of wall elevations, existing and proposed finish grade elevations, Angeles Block aesthetics, sample photograph of wall example and elevation to include wall type, color, block size and approx. pilaster locations. This task includes coordination with Proto II and Angelus block. OPTIONAL TASKS TASK 3 Rec cled Water Meter Revision to As -built with As enc Processin Consultant shall revise existing as -built drawing for an Irrigation Meter and Backflow Device for review and approval through Rancho California Water District (RCWD). Consultant shall complete an RCWD Pre -Design Process Form, obtain recycled water as -built drawings from RCWD Engineering Services, redline recycled water drawings and complete a development status worksheet, per RCWD Appendix C. Scope includes preparation of a plan check review checklist, per RCWD Appendix J, along with a compact disk including cad files of the proposed design, topography, survey and CTB file of Temecula Park and Ride Site Improvement Plans, per RCWD Appendix B-2, for Agency review and approval. Consultant shall obtain plan check fees from the City of Temecula and deliver to RCWD along with first submittal. IT is understood that RCWD staff will review forms / files and provide corrections and/or approval of Mylar revisions. Water District Staff will sign the original and Consultant shall obtain the original Mylar as built and gather signatures where applicable. Consultant shall revise and return Mylar to RCWD along with 4 blackline copies. MBAKERINTL.COM 4 Baker JN: 159004 EWR 002 June 14, 2017 Page 3 Additional Services: Services which are not specifically identified herein as services to be performed by Baker or its consultants are considered "Additional Services" for purposes of this Agreement. Owner may request that Baker perform services which are Additional Services. However, Baker is not obligated to perform such Additional Services unless an amendment to this Agreement has been fully executed setting forth the scope, schedule and fee for such Additional Services. In the event Baker performs Additional Services before receipt of such executed amendment, Owner acknowledges its obligation to pay for such services at Baker's standard rates. Exclusions Baker services relating to any of the following tasks may be completed by Baker if negotiated under a separate contract for an additional fee; but are presently specifically excluded from this Agreement: 1. All other work not specifically in this scope of services. Estimated Fee for Extra Work: ITEM WORK TASK FEE Task 1 Extensive Adjustments to Approved Plans $6,485 Task 2 Sound / Retaining Wall Exhibit $1,955 Task 3 (Optional) Water Meter with Agency Processing $2,320 FEE GRAND TOTAL $10,760 The Client (City of Temecula) and Consultant (Michael Baker International) for a mutual consideration hereinafter set forth agree as follows: The Consultant agrees to perform the following services for the Pechanga Parkway Project. Prepared By: Candice Fenton for John Tanner III, P.E. Authorized By: MBAKERINTL.COM 5 FEE PROPOSAL Pechanga Parkway Widening, PW15-14 - Extra Work Request 002 Michael Baker INTERNATIONAL Hapdala1159004 A4minlProposal\1. In Progressl159004 EWR002 Fee Matrix.xlsx Approximate Person Hours Total Estimated Hours Direct(Repro Subcontract Costs Total Estimated Fee Principal Project Manager Senior Engr. Project Engr. Des. Engr! Designer Survey (1-pers) Licensed Surveyor Enviro Planner Admin Labor Cost $ 200.00 $ 208.00 $ 178.00 $ 15560 $ 150,00 $ 170.00 $ 188.00 $ 112.00 $ 70.00 TASK 1 - Extensive Design 38 $ 5,730.00 $ 5,730.00 90% Plans 6 32 100% Plans 1 4 5 $ 755,00 $ SUBTOTAL AMOUNT: 0 0 0 7 36 0 0 0 0 43 $ 6.48560 $ - 755.00 $ 6,485.00 TASK 2 - Sound i Retaining Wali Exhibit Exhibit Preparation 1 13 $ 1,955,00 _.12 $ 1,955.00 SUBTOTAL AMOUNT: 0 0 0 1 12 0 0 0 0 13 $ 1955.00 $ - $ 1,95560 (001 ONAL) TASK 3 - Water Meter with Agency Processing — 90% Plans 1 8 2 11 $ 1,495.00 $ 1,495.00 100% Plans 1 4 1 _ 6 $ 825.00 SUBTOTAL AMOUNT: 0 0 0 r – 2 12 0 0 0 3 17 $ 2,320.00 $ - $ 825.00 $ 2.320.66 PROJECT TOTALS 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 3 73 $ 10.760.00 $ - $ 10,760.00 Hapdala1159004 A4minlProposal\1. In Progressl159004 EWR002 Fee Matrix.xlsx Capital Improvement Program Fiscal Years 2018-22 TEMECULA PARK AND RIDE Infrastructure / Other Project Project Description: This project includes the acquisition of property, design, and construction of a Park and Ride facility in the vicinity of Temecula Parkway and La Paz Street. The Furniture, Fixtures and Equipment (FF&E) covers camera system infrastructure, and other identified Information Technology needs. Benefit / Core Value: This project enables and encourages Temecula residents to carpool when commuting. In addition, this project satisfies the City's Core Value of A Sustainable City. Project Status: The project is anticipated to be complete in Fiscal Year 2017-18. Department: Public Works - Account No. 210.165.747 PW06-09 Level: I Project Cost: Prior Years FYE 2017 2017-18 Actual Carryover Adopted 2018-19 Expenditures Budget Appropriation Projected 2021-22 Projected 2019-20 2020-21 and Future Total Project Years Cost Projected Projected Administration Acquisition $ 463,155 $ 187,530 $ 78,085 $ 258,170 $ 541,240 $ 187,530 Construction $ 639,119 $ 1,024,843 $ 482,844 $ 2,146,806 Construction Engineering $ 216,989 $ 54,481 $ 76,000 $ 347,470 Design/Environmental $ 195,566 $ 100,189 $ 300,674 $ 295,755 Information Technology $ 1,738,595 $ 1,355,498 $ 558,844 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 3,652,937 Equipment $ 2,100 $ 97,900 $ 100,000 MSHCP $ 34,136 $ 34,136 Totals $ 1,738,595 $ 1,355,498 $ 558,844 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 3,652,937 Source of Funds: Prior Years FYE 2017 2017-18 Actual Carryover Adopted 2018-19 Expenditures Budget Appropriation Projected 2019-20 2020-21 2021-22 Total Project Projected Projected Projected Cost AB 2766 $ 864,215 $ 258,170 $ 1,122,385 CMAQ") $ 99,800 $ 1,200,950 $ 1,300,750 DIF (Police Facilities) $ 2,100 $ 97,900 $ 100,000 General Fundr) $ 772,480 $ 56,648 $ 300,674 $ 1,129,802 Total Funding: $ 1,738,595 $ 1,355,498 $ 558,844 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 3,652,937 Future Operation & Maintenance Costs: 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 2021-22 (1) Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) Funds approved by the RCTC on January 8, 2014. (2) On 01/24/2017, City Council Approved $330,000 Additional Appropriation from General Fund Contributions 139 TEMECULA PARK AND RIDE Infrastructure / Other Projects Location Aerial Data - March 2010 0 150 300 Feet 600 138 Item No. 10 Approvals City Attorney Director of Finance City Manager CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT TO: City Manager/City Council FROM: Patrick A. Thomas, Director of Public Works / City Engineer DATE: July 25, 2017 SUBJECT: Award a Contract to Best Contracting Services, Inc. for the Temecula Children's Museum — Roof Rehabilitation, PW16-02 PREPARED BY: Amer Attar, Principal Engineer - CIP Bill McAteer, Construction Manager - CIP RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council: 1. Award a Contract to Best Contracting Services, Inc., in the amount of $193,100, for the Temecula Children's Museum — Roof Rehabilitation, PW16-02; 2. Authorize the City Manager to approve change orders not to exceed the contingency amount of $19,310, which is equal to 10% of the Contract amount; BACKGROUND: The existing roof system atop the Temecula Children's Museum has reached its useful life. Frequent maintenance and repair has been required to maintain functionality. The purpose of the Temecula Children's Museum — Roof Rehabilitation project is to replace all built up and shingle roof sections which will provide a twenty-year design life, update it to current energy efficiency standards, and eliminate the need for repetitive repairs. The Museum staff has agreed to close the Museum from September 11 through September 25, 2017 to accommodate construction of the new roof. Approximately thirty days after construction, the contractor will return to apply a reflective coating to the roof surface. On May 9, 2017, City Council approved the Plans and Specifications, and authorized staff to solicit construction bids. On Thursday, June 15, 2017, nine bids were electronically opened and publicly posted on PlanetBids. The results were as follows: Base Bid 1. Best Contracting Services, Inc. $193,100.00 2. Chambers, Inc. $194,821.00 3. A Good Roofer, Inc. $211,774.00 4. Chapman West Roofing Company $218,826.00 5. Rite -Way Roof Corporation $227,513.00 6. C.I. Services, Inc. $250,000.00 7. Tecta America Southern California, Inc. $272,900.00 8. Commercial Waterproofing Systems, Inc. $347,512.00 9. Contract West Roofing, Inc. Non -Responsive Staff has deemed the bid submitted by Contract West Roofing, Inc. non-responsive due to its invalid bid bond. Staff has reviewed the bid proposals and found Best Contracting Services, Inc. to be the lowest responsible bidder. Best Contracting Services, Inc. has successfully completed similar projects for other public agencies. The Engineer's Estimate for the project is $200,000. The project's duration is forty-five working days or two months and one week. FISCAL IMPACT: The Temecula Children's Museum - Roof Rehabilitation is included in the City's Fiscal Year 2018-22 Capital Improvement Program under City Facilities Rehabilitation which is funded with General Fund Contributions. Sufficient funds are available in the project accounts to cover the costs of construction, $193,100, and the contingency of $19,310, for a total obligation of $212,410. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Contract 2. Project Description 3. Project Location CITY OF TEMECULA, DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS CONTRACT for TEMECULA CHILDREN'S MUSEUM - ROOF REHABILITATION PROJECT NO. PW16-02 THIS CONTRACT, made and entered into the 25th day of July, 2017, by and between the City of Temecula, a municipal corporation, hereinafter referred to as "City", and Best Contracting Services, Inc., hereinafter referred to as "Contractor." WITNESSETH: That City and Contractor, for the consideration hereinafter named, mutually agree as follows: 1. CONTRACT DOCUMENTS The complete Contract includes all of the Contract Documents, to wit: Notice Inviting Bids, Instructions to Bidders, Proposal, Performance Bond, Labor and Materials Bond, Plans and Specifications entitled TEMECULA CHILDREN'S MUSEUM - ROOF REHABILITATION, PROJECT NO. PW16-02, Insurance Forms, this Contract, and all modifications and amendments thereto, the State of California Standard Plans and Specifications, (latest edition), issued by the California Department of Transportation, where specifically referenced in the Plans, Special Provisions, and Technical Specifications, and the latest version of the Standard Specifications for Public Works Construction, including all supplements as written and promulgated by Public Works Standards, Inc. (hereinafter, "Standard Specifications") as amended by the General Specifications, Special Provisions, and Technical Specifications for TEMECULA CHILDREN'S MUSEUM - ROOF REHABILITATION, PROJECT NO. PW16-02. Copies of these Standard Specifications are available from the publisher: BNi Building News Division of BNi Publications, Inc. 990 Park Center Drive, Suite E Vista, CA 92081 (760) 734-1113 The Standard Specifications will control the general provisions, construction materials, and construction methods for this Contract except as amended by the General Specifications, Special Provisions, and Technical Specifications for TEMECULA CHILDREN'S MUSEUM - ROOF REHABILITATION, PROJECT NO. PW16-02. In case of conflict between the Standard Specifications and the other Contract Documents, the other Contract Documents shall take precedence over, and be used in lieu of, such conflicting portions. Where the Contract Documents describe portions of the work in general terms, but not in complete detail, it is understood that the item is to be furnished and installed completed and in place and that only the best general practice is to be used. Unless otherwise specified, the Contractor shall furnish all labor, materials, tools, equipment, and incidentals, and do all the work involved in executing the Contract. 1 The Contract Documents are complementary, and what is called for by anyone shall be as binding as if called for by all. Any conflict between this Contract and any other Contract Document shall be resolved in favor of this Contract. 2. SCOPE OF WORK Contractor shall perform everything required to be performed, shall provide and furnish all the labor, materials, necessary tools, expendable equipment, and all utility and transportation services required for the following: TEMECULA CHILDREN'S MUSEUM - ROOF REHABILITATION, PROJECT NO. PW16-02 All of said work to be performed and materials to be furnished shall be in strict accordance with the Drawings and Specifications and the provisions of the Contract Documents hereinabove enumerated and adopted by City. 3. CITY APPROVAL All labor, materials, tools, equipment, and services shall be furnished and work performed and completed under the direction and supervision, and subject to the approval of City or its authorized representatives. 4. CONTRACT AMOUNT AND SCHEDULE The City agrees to pay, and Contractor agrees to accept, in full payment for, the work agreed to be done, the sum of: ONE HUNDRED NINETY-THREE THOUSAND ONE HUNDRED DOLLARS ($193,100), the total amount of the base bid. Contractor agrees to complete the work in a period not to exceed forty-five (45) working days, commencing with delivery of a Notice to Proceed by City. (Please reference section 19 of the Instructions to Bidder, Time Limits of Work, and Special Provision 6-2 Prosecution of Work). Construction shall not commence until bonds and insurance are approved by City. 5. CHANGE ORDERS All change orders shall be approved by the City Council, except that the City Manager is hereby authorized by the City Council to make, by written order, changes or additions to the work in an amount not to exceed the contingency as established by the City Council. 6. PAYMENTS a. Lump Sum Bid Schedule: Before submittal of the first payment request, the Contractor shall submit to the Director of Public Works a schedule of values allocated to the various portions of the work, prepared in such form and supported by such data to substantiate its accuracy as the Director of Public Works may require. This schedule, as approved by the Director of Public Works, shall be used as the basis for reviewing the Contractor's payment requests. b. Unit Price Bid Schedule: Pursuant to Section 20104.50 of the Public Contract Code, within thirty (30) days after submission of a payment request to the City, the Contractor shall be paid a sum equal to 95% of the value of the work completed according to the bid schedule. Payment request forms shall be submitted on or about the thirtieth (30th) day of each successive month as the 2 work progresses. The final payment, if unencumbered, or any part thereof unencumbered, shall be made sixty (60) days after acceptance of final payment and the Contractor filing a one-year Warranty and an Affidavit of Final Release with the City on forms provided by the City. c. Payment for Work Performed: Payments shall be made on demands drawn in the manner required by law, accompanied by a certificate signed by the City Manager, stating that the work for which payment is demanded has been performed in accordance with the terms of the Contract, and that the amount stated in the certificate is due under the terms of the Contract. Partial payments on the Contract price shall not be considered as an acceptance of any part of the work. d. Payment of Interest: Interest shall be paid on all undisputed payment requests not paid within thirty (30) days pursuant to Public Contract Code Section 20104.50. Public Contract Code Section 7107 is hereby incorporated by reference. 7 LIQUIDATED DAMAGES / EXTENSION OF TIME a. Liquidated Damages: In accordance with Government Code Section 53069.85, Contractor agrees to forfeit and pay to City the sum of $1,000 per day for each calendar day completion is delayed beyond the time allowed pursuant to Paragraph 4 of this Contract. Such sum shall be deducted from any payments due to or to become due to Contractor. b. Extension of Time: Contractor will be granted an extension of time and will not be assessed liquidated damages for unforeseeable delays beyond the control of, and without the fault or negligence of the Contractor, including delays caused by City. Within ten (10) calendar days of the occurrence of such delay, Contractor shall give written notice to City. Within thirty (30) calendar days of the occurrence of the delay, Contractor shall provide written documentation sufficient to support its delay claim to City. Contractor's failure to provide such notice and documentation shall constitute Contractor's waiver, discharge, and release of such delay claims against City. 8. WAIVER OF CLAIMS On or before making each request for payment under Paragraph 6 above, Contractor shall submit to City, in writing, all claims for compensation as to work related to the payment. Unless the Contractor has disputed the amount of the payment, the acceptance by Contractor of each payment shall constitute a release of all claims against the City related to the payment. Contractor shall be required to execute an affidavit, release, and indemnity agreement with each claim for payment. 9. PREVAILING WAGES Pursuant to the provisions of Section 1773 of the Labor Code of the State of California, the City Council has obtained the general prevailing rate of per diem wages and the general rate for holiday and overtime work in this locality for each craft, classification, or type of workman needed to execute this Contract from the Director of the Department of Industrial Relations. Copies may be obtained from the California Department of Industrial Relations Internet website at http://www.dir.ca.qov. Contractor shall provide a copy of prevailing wage rates to any staff or subcontractor hired, and shall pay the 3 adopted prevailing wage rates as a minimum. Contractor shall comply with the provisions of Sections 1720, 1720.9, 1725.5, 1771.1(a), 1773.8, 1775, 1776, 1777.5, 1777.6, and 1813 of the Labor Code. Pursuant to the provisions of 1775 of the Labor Code, Contractor shall forfeit to the City, as a penalty, the sum of $200.00 for each calendar day, or portion thereof, for each laborer, worker, or mechanic employed, paid less than the stipulated prevailing rates for any work done under this Contract, by him or by any subcontractor under him, in violation of the provisions of the Contract. This project, work, or service will be subject to compliance monitoring and enforcement by the Department of Industrial Relations (DI R) pursuant to Labor Code Section 1771.4. 10. TIME OF THE ESSENCE Time is of the essence in this contract. 11. INDEMNIFICATION All work covered by this Contract done at the site of construction or in preparing or delivering materials to the site shall be at the risk of Contractor alone. Contractor agrees to save, indemnify, hold harmless and defend the City of Temecula, Temecula Community Services District, and/or Successor Agency to the Temecula Redevelopment Agency, its officers, employees, and agents, against any and all liability, injuries, or death of persons (Contractor's employees included), and damage to property, arising directly or indirectly out of the obligations herein undertaken or out of the operations conducted by Contractor, save and except claims or litigations arising through the sole active negligence or sole willful misconduct of the City. The Contractor shall indemnify and be responsible for reimbursing the City for any and all costs incurred by the City as a result of Stop Notices filed against the project. The City shall deduct such costs from progress payments or final payments due to the Contractor. 12. GRATUITIES Contractor warrants that neither it nor any of its employees, agents, or representatives has offered or given any gratuities or promises to City's employees, agents, or representatives with a view toward securing this Contract or securing favorable treatment with respect thereto. 13. CONFLICT OF INTEREST Contractor warrants that none of its partners, members or shareholders are related by blood or marriage to any employee of the City who has participated in the development of the specifications or approval of this project or who will administer this project nor are they in any way financially associated with any City officer or employee, or any architect, engineer, or other preparers of the Drawings and Specifications for this project. Contractor further warrants that no person in its employ nor any person with an ownership interest in the Contractor has been employed by the City within one year of the date of the Notice Inviting Bids. 4 14. CONTRACTOR'S AFFIDAVIT After the completion of the work contemplated by this Contract, Contractor shall file with the City Manager, its affidavit stating that all workmen and persons employed, all firms supplying materials, and all subcontractors upon the Project have been paid in full, and that there are no claims outstanding against the Project for either labor or materials, except certain items, if any, to be set forth in an affidavit covering disputed claims or items in connection with a Stop Notice which has been filed under the provisions of the laws of the State of California. 15. NOTICE TO CITY OF LABOR DISPUTES Whenever the Contractor has knowledge that any actual or potential labor dispute is delaying or threatens to delay the timely performance of the Contract, Contractor shall immediately give notice thereof, including all relevant information with respect thereto, to City. 16. BOOKS AND RECORDS Contractor's books, records, and plans or such part thereof as may be engaged in the performance of this Contract, shall at all reasonable times be subject to inspection and audit by any authorized representative of the City. 17. INSPECTION The work shall be subject to inspection and testing by City and its authorized representatives during manufacture and construction and all other times and places, including without limitation, the plants of Contractor and any of its suppliers. Contractor shall provide all reasonable facilities and assistance for the safety and convenience of inspectors. All inspections and tests shall be performed in such manner as to not unduly delay the work. The work shall be subject to final inspection and acceptance notwithstanding any payments or other prior inspections. Such final inspection shall be made within a reasonable time after completion of the work. 18. DISCRIMINATION Contractor represents that it has not, and agrees that it will not, discriminate in its employment practices on the basis of race, creed, religion, national origin, color, sex, age, or handicap. 19. GOVERNING LAW The City and Contractor understand and agree that the laws of the State of California shall govern the rights, obligations, duties and liabilities of the parties to this Contract and also govern the interpretation of this Contract. 20. PROHIBITED INTEREST No member, officer, or employee of the City of Temecula or of a local public body who has participated in the development of the specifications or approval of this project or will administer this project shall have any interest, direct or indirect, in the Contract or the proceeds thereof during his/her tenure or for one year thereafter. 5 Furthermore, the Contractor covenants and agrees to their knowledge that no board member, officer or employee of the City of Temecula has any interest, whether contractual, non -contractual, financial or otherwise, in this transaction, or in the business of the contracting party other than the City of Temecula, and that if any such interest comes to the knowledge of either party at any time, a full and complete disclosure of all such information will be made, in writing, to the other party or parties, even if such interest would not be considered a conflict of interest under Article 4 (commencing with Section 1090) or Article 4.6 (commencing with Section 1220) of Division 4 of Title I of the Government Code of the State of California. 21. ADA REQUIREMENTS. By signing this Contract, Contractor certifies that the Contractor is in total compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, Public Law 101-336, as amended. 22. WRITTEN NOTICE. Any written notice required to be given in any part of the Contract Documents shall be performed by depositing the same in the U.S. Mail, postage prepaid, directed to the address of the Contractor as set forth in the Contract Documents, and to the City addressed as follows: Mailing and Delivery Address: Patrick A. Thomas, PE Director of Public Works / City Engineer City of Temecula 41000 Main Street Temecula, CA 92590 23. CLAIM DISPUTE RESOLUTION. In the event of any dispute or controversy with the City over any matter whatsoever, the Contractor shall not cause any delay or cessation in or of work, but shall proceed with the performance of the work in dispute. The Contractor shall retain any and all rights provided that pertain to the resolution of disputes and protests between the parties. The disputed work will be categorized as an "unresolved dispute" and payment, if any, shall be as later determined by mutual agreement or a court of law. The Contractor shall keep accurate, detailed records of all disputed work, claims and other disputed matters. All claims arising out of or related to the Contract or this project, and the consideration and payment of such claims, are subject to the Government Claims Act (Government Code Section 810 et seq.) with regard to filing claims. All such claims are also subject to Public Contract Code Section 9204 and Public Contract Code Section 20104 et seq. (Article 1.5), where applicable. This Contract hereby incorporates those provisions as though fully set forth herein. Thus, the Contractor or any Subcontractor must file a claim in accordance with the Government Claims Act as a prerequisite to filing a construction claim in compliance with Section 9204 and Article 1.5 (if applicable), and must then adhere to Article 1.5 and Section 9204, as applicable, pursuant to the definition of "claim" as individually defined therein. 6 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Contract to be executed on the date first above written. DATED: DATED: CONTRACTOR: Best Contracting Services, Inc. 19027 S. Hamilton Ave. Gardena, CA 90248 310-328-6969 dgallacher@bestcontracting.com By: Moji Tabazadeh, President By: Sean Tabzedah, CEO/Secretary (Signatures of two corporate officers required for Corporations) CITY OF TEMECULA ATTEST: Randi Johl, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: Peter M. Thorson, City Attorney By: Maryann Edwards, Mayor 7 1 2020-21 Capital Improvement Program Fiscal Years 2018-22 CITY FACILITIES REHABILITATION Infrastructure / Other Project Project Description: This project facilitates rehabilitation projects at City owned and operated facilities such as the Mary Phillips Senior Center, Community Recreation Center, Temecula Elementary School pool and locker room, Civic Center, Field Operations Center, Maintenance Facility, TVE2, Escallier House & Barn, Harveston Center, Mercantile Building, Old Town Parking Garage, Old Town Sixth Street Parking Lot, S.A.F.E., Temecula Children's Museum, Temecula Community Center, Temecula Public Library, Temecula Valley Museum and the Chapel of Memories. The rehabilitation projects could include, but are not limited to, parking lot rehabilitation and light replacements, heating ventilation and air conditioner (HVAC) upgrades, roof repairs, carpet and flooring replacement, cabinet re-facing/replacement, concrete repairs, replacement of fencing and repair of swimming pools. Benefit / Core Value: This project minimizes emergency repair costs, prolongs the service life of facilities, and upgrades aging facility components. In addition, this project satisfies the City's Core Values of a Healthy and Livable City and A Safe and Prepared Community. Project Status: A priority list of rehabilitation projects has been developed. Rehabilitation projects are completed on an ongoing basis as funding becomes available. Department: Public Works - Account No. 210.165.701 Level: I Project Cost: Prior Years Actual Expenditures FYE 2017 Carryover Budget 2017-18 Adopted 2018-19 2019-20 Appropriation Projected Projected 2021-22 Projected 2020-21 and Future Total Project Years Cost Projected Administration $ 118,011 $ 21,773 $ 25,000 $ 164,784 Construction $ 1,344,362 $ 182,296 $ 200,000 $ 1,726,658 Design $ 37,496 $ 46,062 $ 25,000 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 108,558 Totals $ 1,499,869 $ 250,131 $ 250,000 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 2,000,000 Source of Funds: Prior Years FYE 2017 2017-18 Actual Carryover Adopted 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 2021-22 Total Project Expenditures Budget Appropriation Projected Projected Projected Projected Cost General Fund $ 1,249,869 $ 250,131 $ 250,000 $ 1,750,000 DIF (Corporate Facilities) $ 250,000 $ 250,000 Total Funding: $ 1,499,869 $ 250,131 $ 250,000 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 2,000,000 Future Operation & Maintenance Costs 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2021-22 87 TIM CITY r)F TEMECULA. 11'i Y W's:rnl.:- PW16-02 Children's Museum Roof Replacement 134.5 0 67i24 134.5 Feet W GS_1984_ Web_ Mercator_ Auxiliary_ Sphere © Latitude Geographics Group Ltd. This map is a user generated static output from an Internet mapping site and is for reference only. Data layers that appear on this map may or may not be accurate, current, or otherwise reliable. THIS MAP IS NOT TO BE USED FOR NAVIGATION • Legend • Parcels Highways HWY INTERCHANGE 1 INTERSTATE r OFFRAMP ▪ ONRAMP ▪ USHWY Street Names City of Temecula Boundary Sphere of Influence Notes Item No. 11 Approvals City Attorney Director of Finance City Manager CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT TO: City Manager/City Council FROM: Patrick Thomas, Director of Public Works / City Engineer DATE: July 25, 2017 SUBJECT: Approve a Three -Year Agreement for Contractor Services with Counts Unlimited, Inc. for Citywide Traffic Count Data Collection for Fiscal Years 2017-20 PREPARED BY: Julie Tarrant, Senior Management Analyst RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council approve a three-year Agreement for Contractor Services with Counts Unlimited, Inc., in the amount of $30,000 annually, for a total agreement amount of $90,000, for Citywide Traffic Count Data Collection for Fiscal Years 2017-20. BACKGROUND: Counts Unlimited, Inc. provides Citywide traffic count data collection services, including collection of vehicular volume data for the City's Annual Traffic Count Program and the Neighborhood Traffic Calming Program, and collection of peak hour turning movement count data used for evaluating intersection performance at signalized intersections. The Agreement allows for a total term of three years, beginning July 1, 2017 through June 30, 2020, and a contractual amount of $30,000 annually for each of the three years, for continued services to the community. A budget appropriation will be made available in each of the three years to perform annual services needed. FISCAL IMPACT: Adequate funds will be available in each fiscal year in the Department of Public Works, Traffic Division, Annual Operating Budget. ATTACHMENT: Agreement AGREEMENT FOR CONTRACTOR SERVICES BETWEEN CITY OF TEMECULA AND COUNTS UNLIMITED, INC. CITYWIDE TRAFFIC COUNT DATA COLLECTION THIS AGREEMENT is made and effective as of July 25, 2017, between the City of Temecula, a municipal corporation (hereinafter referred to as "City"), and Counts Unlimited, Inc., a Corporation (hereinafter referred to as "Contractor"). In consideration of the mutual covenants and conditions set forth herein, the parties agree as follows: 1. TERM This Agreement shall commence on July 1, 2017, and shall remain and continue in effect until tasks described herein are completed, but in no event later than June 30, 2020, unless sooner terminated pursuant to the provisions of this Agreement. 2. SERVICES Contractor shall perform the services and tasks described and set forth in Exhibit A, attached hereto and incorporated herein as though set forth in full. Contractor shall complete the tasks according to the schedule of performance which is also set forth in Exhibit A. 3. PERFORMANCE Contractor shall at all times faithfully, competently and to the best of his or her ability, experiences, and talent, perform all tasks described herein. Contractor shall employ, at a minimum, generally accepted standards and practices utilized by persons engaged in providing similar services as are required of Contractor hereunder in meeting its obligations under this Agreement. 4. PAYMENT a. The City agrees to pay Contractor monthly, in accordance with the payment rates and terms and the schedule of payment as set forth in Exhibit B, Payment Rates and Schedule, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference as though set forth in full, based upon actual time spent on the above tasks. Any terms in Exhibit B, other than the payment rates and schedule of payment, are null and void. This amount shall not exceed Thirty Thousand Dollars ($30,000) annually, for total agreement amount of Ninety Thousand Dollars ($90,000), unless additional payment is approved as provided in this Agreement. b. Contractor shall not be compensated for any services rendered in connection with its performance of this Agreement which are in addition to those set forth herein, unless such additional services are authorized in advance and in writing by the City Manager . Contractor shall be compensated for any additional services in the amounts and in the manner as agreed to by City Manager and Contractor at the time City's written authorization is given to Contractor for the performance of said services. c. Contractor will submit invoices monthly for actual services performed. Invoices shall be submitted between the first and fifteenth business day of each month, for services provided in the previous month. Payment shall be made within thirty (30) days of receipt of each invoice as to all non -disputed fees. If the City disputes any of Contractor's fees, 1 it shall give written notice to Contractor within thirty (30) days of receipt of an invoice of any disputed fees set forth on the invoice. For all reimbursements authorized by this Agreement, Contractor shall provide receipts on all reimbursable expenses in excess of fifty dollars ($50) in such form as approved by the Director of Finance. 5. SUSPENSION OR TERMINATION OF AGREEMENT WITHOUT CAUSE a. The City may at any time, for any reason, with or without cause, suspend or terminate this Agreement, or any portion hereof, by serving upon the Contractor at least ten (10) days prior written notice. Upon receipt of said notice, the Contractor shall immediately cease all work under this Agreement, unless the notice provides otherwise. If the City suspends or terminates a portion of this Agreement such suspension or termination shall not make void or invalidate the remainder of this Agreement. b. In the event this Agreement is terminated pursuant to this Section, the City shall pay to Contractor the actual value of the work performed up to the time of termination, provided that the work performed is of value to the City. Upon termination of the Agreement pursuant to this Section, the Contractor will submit an invoice to the City, pursuant to Section entitled "PAYMENT" herein. 6. DEFAULT OF CONTRACTOR a. The Contractor's failure to comply with the provisions of this Agreement shall constitute a default. In the event that Contractor is in default for cause under the terms of this Agreement, City shall have no obligation or duty to continue compensating Contractor for any work performed after the date of default and can terminate this Agreement immediately by written notice to the Contractor. If such failure by the Contractor to make progress in the performance of work hereunder arises out of causes beyond the Contractor's control, and without fault or negligence of the Contractor, it shall not be considered a default. b. If the City Manager or his delegate determines that the Contractor is in default in the performance of any of the terms or conditions of this Agreement, it shall serve the Contractor with written notice of the default. The Contractor shall have ten (10) days after service upon it of said notice in which to cure the default by rendering a satisfactory performance. In the event that the Contractor fails to cure its default within such period of time, the City shall have the right, notwithstanding any other provision of this Agreement, to terminate this Agreement without further notice and without prejudice to any other remedy to which it may be entitled at law, in equity or under this Agreement. 7. OWNERSHIP OF DOCUMENTS a. Contractor shall maintain complete and accurate records with respect to sales, costs, expenses, receipts and other such information required by City that relate to the performance of services under this Agreement. Contractor shall maintain adequate records of services provided in sufficient detail to permit an evaluation of services. All such records shall be maintained in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles and shall be clearly identified and readily accessible. Contractor shall provide free access to the representatives of City or its designees at reasonable times to such books and records, shall give City the right to examine and audit said books and records, shall permit City to make transcripts there from as necessary, and shall allow inspection of all work, data, documents, proceedings and activities related to this Agreement. Such records, together with supporting documents, shall be maintained for a period of three (3) years after receipt of final payment. 2 b. Upon completion of, or in the event of termination or suspension of this Agreement, all original documents, designs, drawings, maps, models, computer files containing data generated for the work, surveys, notes, and other documents prepared in the course of providing the services to be performed pursuant to this Agreement shall become the sole property of the City and may be used, reused or otherwise disposed of by the City without the permission of the Contractor. With respect to computer files containing data generated for the work, Contractor shall make available to the City, upon reasonable written request by the City, the necessary computer software and hardware for purposes of accessing, compiling, transferring and printing computer files. 8. INDEMNIFICATION The Contractor agrees to defend, indemnify, protect and hold harmless the City of Temecula, Temecula Community Services District, and/or the Successor Agency to the Temecula Redevelopment Agency, its officers, officials, employees and volunteers from and against any and all claims, demands, losses, defense costs or expenses, including attorney fees and expert witness fees, or liability of any kind or nature which the City of Temecula, Temecula Community Services District, and/or the Successor Agency to the Temecula Redevelopment Agency, its officers, agents, employees or volunteers may sustain or incur or which may be imposed upon them for injury to or death of persons, or damage to property arising out of Contractor's negligent or wrongful acts or omissions arising out of or in any way related to the performance or non-performance of this Agreement, excepting only liability arising out of the negligence of the City of Temecula, Temecula Community Services District, and/or the Successor Agency to the Temecula Redevelopment Agency. 9. INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS Contractor shall procure and maintain for the duration of the contract insurance against claims for injuries to persons or damages to property, which may arise from or in connection with the performance of the work hereunder by the Contractor, its agents, representatives, or employees. a. Minimum Scope of Insurance. Coverage shall be at least as broad as: 1) Insurance Services Office Commercial General Liability form No. CG 00 01 11 85 or 88. 2) Insurance Services Office Business Auto Coverage form CA 00 01 06 92 covering Automobile Liability, code 1 (any auto). If the Contractor owns no automobiles, a non -owned auto endorsement to the General Liability policy described above is acceptable. 3) Worker's Compensation insurance as required by the State of California and Employer's Liability Insurance. If the Contractor has no employees while performing under this Agreement, worker's compensation insurance is not required, but Contractor shall execute a declaration that it has no employees. b. Minimum Limits of Insurance. Contractor shall maintain limits no less than: 1) General Liability: One million ($1,000,000) per occurrence for bodily injury, personal injury and property damage. If Commercial General Liability Insurance or other form with a general aggregate limit is used, either the general aggregate limit shall apply separately to this project/location or the general aggregate limit shall be twice the required occurrence limit. 3 2) Automobile Liability: One million ($1,000,000) per accident for bodily injury and property damage. 3) Worker's Compensation as required by the State of California; Employer's Liability: One million dollars ($1,000,000) per accident for bodily injury or disease. c. Deductibles and Self -Insured Retentions. Any deductibles or self-insured retentions shall not exceed Twenty Five Thousand Dollars and No Cents ($25,000). d. Other Insurance Provisions. The general liability and automobile liability policies are to contain, or be endorsed to contain, the following provisions: 1) The City of Temecula, the Temecula Community Services District, the Successor Agency to the Successor Agency to the Temecula Redevelopment Agency, their officers, officials, employees and volunteers are to be covered as insured's, as respects: liability arising out of activities performed by or on behalf of the Contractor; products and completed operations of the Contractor; premises owned, occupied or used by the Contractor; or automobiles owned, leased, hired or borrowed by the Contractor. The coverage shall contain no special limitations on the scope of protection afforded to the City of Temecula, the Temecula Community Services District, the Successor Agency to the Temecula Redevelopment Agency, their officers, officials, employees or volunteers. 2) For any claims related to this project, the Contractor's insurance coverage shall be primary insurance as respects the City of Temecula, the Temecula Community Services District, the Successor Agency to the Temecula Redevelopment Agency, their officers, officials, employees and volunteers. Any insurance or self-insured maintained by the City of Temecula, Temecula Community Services District, and/or Successor Agency to the Temecula Redevelopment Agency, its officers, officials, employees or volunteers shall be excess of the Contractor's insurance and shall not contribute with it. 3) Any failure to comply with reporting or other provisions of the policies including breaches of warranties shall not affect coverage provided to the City of Temecula, the Temecula Community Services District, and the Successor Agency to the Temecula Redevelopment Agency, their officers, officials, employees or volunteers. 4) The Contractor's insurance shall apply separately to each insured against whom claim is made or suit is brought, except with respect to the limits of the insurer's liability. 5) Each insurance policy required by this agreement shall be endorsed to state in substantial conformance to the following: If the policy will be canceled before the expiration date the insurer will notify in writing to the City of such cancellation not less than thirty (30) days' prior to the cancellation effective date. 6) If insurance coverage is canceled or, reduced in coverage or in limits the Contractor shall within two (2) business days of notice from insurer phone, fax, and/or notify the City via certified mail, return receipt requested of the changes to or cancellation of the policy. e. Acceptability of Insurers. Insurance is to be placed with insurers with a current A.M. Best rating of A -:VII or better, unless otherwise acceptable to the City. Self insurance shall not be considered to comply with these insurance requirements. f. Verification of Coverage. Contractor shall furnish the City with original endorsements effecting coverage required by this clause. The endorsements are to be signed by a person authorized by that insurer to bind coverage on its behalf. The endorsements are to be on forms provided by the City. All endorsements are to be received and approved by the 4 City before work commences. As an alternative to the City's forms, the Contractor's insurer may provide complete, certified copies of all required insurance policies, including endorsements affecting the coverage required by these specifications. 10. INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR a. Contractor is and shall at all times remain as to the City a wholly independent contractor. The personnel performing the services under this Agreement on behalf of Contractor shall at all times be under Contractor's exclusive direction and control. Neither City nor any of its officers, employees, agents, or volunteers shall have control over the conduct of Contractor or any of Contractor's officers, employees, or agents except as set forth in this Agreement. Contractor shall not at any time or in any manner represent that it or any of its officers, employees or agents are in any manner officers, employees or agents of the City. Contractor shall not incur or have the power to incur any debt, obligation or liability whatever against City, or bind City in any manner. b. No employee benefits shall be available to Contractor in connection with the performance of this Agreement. Except for the fees paid to Contractor as provided in the Agreement, City shall not pay salaries, wages, or other compensation to Contractor for performing services hereunder for City. City shall not be liable for compensation or indemnification to Contractor for injury or sickness arising out of performing services hereunder. 11. LEGAL RESPONSIBILITIES The Contractor shall keep itself informed of all local, State and Federal ordinances, laws and regulations which in any manner affect those employed by it or in any way affect the performance of its service pursuant to this Agreement. The Contractor shall at all times observe and comply with all such ordinances, laws and regulations. The City, and its officers and employees, shall not be liable at law or in equity occasioned by failure of the Contractor to comply with this section. 12. RELEASE OF INFORMATION a. All information gained by Contractor in performance of this Agreement shall be considered confidential and shall not be released by Contractor without City's prior written authorization. Contractor, its officers, employees, agents or subcontractors, shall not without written authorization from the City Manager or unless requested by the City Attorney, voluntarily provide declarations, letters of support, testimony at depositions, response to interrogatories or other information concerning the work performed under this Agreement or relating to any project or property located within the City. Response to a subpoena or court order shall not be considered "voluntary" provided Contractor gives City notice of such court order or subpoena. 5 b. Contractor shall promptly notify City should Contractor, its officers, employees, agents or subcontractors be served with any summons, complaint, subpoena, notice of deposition, request for documents, interrogatories, request for admissions or other discovery request, court order or subpoena from any party regarding this Agreement and the work performed there under or with respect to any project or property located within the City. City retains the right, but has no obligation, to represent Contractor and/or be present at any deposition, hearing or similar proceeding. Contractor agrees to cooperate fully with City and to provide City with the opportunity to review any response to discovery requests provided by Contractor. However, City's right to review any such response does not imply or mean the right by City to control, direct, or rewrite said response. 13. NOTICES Any notices which either party may desire to give to the other party under this Agreement must be in writing and may be given either by (i) personal service, (ii) delivery by a reputable document delivery service, such as but not limited to, Federal Express, that provides a receipt showing date and time of delivery, or (iii) mailing in the United States Mail, certified mail, postage prepaid, return receipt requested, addressed to the address of the party as set forth below or at any other address as that party may later designate by Notice. Notice shall be effective upon delivery to the addresses specified below or on the third business day following deposit with the document delivery service or United States Mail as provided above. Mailing Address: City of Temecula Attn: City Manager 41000 Main Street Temecula, CA 92590 To Contractor: Counts Unlimited, Inc. Attn: Kris Campos P.O. Box 1178 Corona, CA 92878 14. ASSIGNMENT The Contractor shall not assign the performance of this Agreement, nor any part thereof, nor any monies due hereunder, without prior written consent of the City. Upon termination of this Agreement, Contractor's sole compensation shall be payment for actual services performed up to, and including, the date of termination or as may be otherwise agreed to in writing between the City Council and the Contractor. 15. LICENSES At all times during the term of this Agreement, Contractor shall have in full force and effect, all licenses required of it by law for the performance of the services described in this Agreement. 16. GOVERNING LAW The City and Contractor understand and agree that the laws of the State of California shall govern the rights, obligations, duties and liabilities of the parties to this Agreement and also govern the interpretation of this Agreement. Any litigation concerning this Agreement shall take place in the municipal, superior, or federal district court with geographic jurisdiction over 6 the City of Temecula. In the event such litigation is filed by one party against the other to enforce its rights under this Agreement, the prevailing party, as determined by the Court's judgment, shall be entitled to reasonable attorney fees and litigation expenses for the relief granted. 17. PROHIBITED INTEREST No officer, or employee of the City of Temecula that has participated in the development of this agreement or its approval shall have any financial interest, direct or indirect, in this Agreement, the proceeds thereof, the Contractor, or Contractor's sub -contractors for this project, during his/her tenure or for one year thereafter. The Contractor hereby warrants and represents to the City that no officer or employee of the City of Temecula that has participated in the development of this agreement or its approval has any interest, whether contractual, non - contractual, financial or otherwise, in this transaction, the proceeds thereof, or in the business of the Contractor or Contractor's sub -contractors on this project. Contractor further agrees to notify the City in the event any such interest is discovered whether or not such interest is prohibited by law or this Agreement. 18. ENTIRE AGREEMENT This Agreement contains the entire understanding between the parties relating to the obligations of the parties described in this Agreement. All prior or contemporaneous agreements, understandings, representations and statements, oral or written, are merged into this Agreement and shall be of no further force or effect. Each party is entering into this Agreement based solely upon the representations set forth herein and upon each party's own independent investigation of any and all facts such party deems material. 19. AUTHORITY TO EXECUTE THIS AGREEMENT The person or persons executing this Agreement on behalf of Contractor warrants and represents that he or she has the authority to execute this Agreement on behalf of the Contractor and has the authority to bind Contractor to the performance of its obligations hereunder. The City Manager is authorized to enter into an amendment on behalf of the City to make the following non -substantive modifications to the agreement: (a) name changes; (b) extension of time; (c) non -monetary changes in scope of work; (d) agreement termination. 7 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Agreement to be executed the day and year first above written. CITY OF TEMECULA COUNTS UNLIMITED, INC. (Two Signatures of corporate officers required unless corporate documents authorize only one person to sign the agreement on behalf of the corporation.) By: By: Maryann Edwards, Mayor Kris Campos, Secretary/Treasurer ATTEST: By: By: Randi Johl, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: By: Peter M. Thorson, City Attorney CONTRACTOR Abe Campos, Vice President Counts Unlimited, Inc. Attn: Kris Campos P.O. Box 1178 Corona, CA 92878 (951) 268-6268, ext. 802 counts@countsunlimited.com 8 PM Initials: L Date: EXHIBIT A Tasks to be Performed The specific elements of this service include the collection of traffic count data for the City of Temecula's Annual Census Program, Neighborhood Traffic Calming Program, and as needed peak hour turning movement counts, pedestrian and bicycle counts, radar speed surveys, as shown on the attached fee schedule in Exhibit "B", Payment Rates and Schedule. 9 EXHIBIT B Payment Rates and Schedule 10 eId) t,e, unlimited Counts Unlimited Inc. PO Box 1178 Corona, CA 92878 951-268-6268 Email: counts@countsunlimited.com Fee Schedule Turning Movement Counts Standard Turning Movement Count 2 Hour AM 12 Hour PM — One Person 2 Hour AM 12 Hour PM — Two People Classified Turning Movement Count $160 $320 2 Hour AM / 2 Hour PM — One Person $180 2 Hour AM 12 Hour PM — Two People $360 Pedestrian 1 Bicycle Counts (with turning movement count) $10 (upon request) L4 Hour Tube Counts Entering Volume $50 per approach Directional Volume $100 per site Classification/Speed 2 lane roadway low volume 1 counter 2 lane roadway high volume 1 counter 4 lane roadway 2 counters 8 tubes 6 lane roadway 3 counters 12 tubes Radar Speed Surveys 1 Hour or 100 cars; whichever comes first Signal/Stop Warrants Parking lot accumulation/Fieldwork Intersection Diagrams / Signal Phasing GPS Travel Time Studies Fee Schedule Annual Census Program For the City of Temecula $150 per site $175 per site $200 per site $300 per site $85 each $65 each $40 per hour $25 per intersection email for quote 24 Hour Tube Counts Annual Locations Master Locations $75 per site $300 per site Counts Unlimited, Inc. • PO Box 1178 • Corona, CA 92878 • T 951 268 6268 • F 951 268 6267 • www.countsunlimited.com 11 Item No. 12 Approvals City Attorney Director of Finance City Manager CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT TO: City Manager/City Council FROM: Patrick A. Thomas, Director of Public Works / City Engineer DATE: July 25, 2017 SUBJECT: Approve an Agreement for the Installation and Maintenance of Electrical and Telecommunication Lines in Public Right of Way on Pechanga Parkway Between the City of Temecula and the Pechanga Band of Luiserio Indians PREPARED BY: Patrick A. Thomas, Director of Public Works / City Engineer RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 17- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING AN AGREEMENT FOR THE INSTALLATION AND MAINTENANCE OF ELECTRICAL AND TELECOMMUNICATION LINES IN PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY ON PECHANGA PARKWAY BETWEEN THE CITY OF TEMECULA AND THE PECHANGA BAND OF LUISENO INDIANS AND FINDING THE CITY'S ACTION EXEMPT FROM CEQA BACKGROUND: The Pechanga Band of Luiseno Indians ("Tribe") is a federally - recognized Indian Tribe located on federal trust lands which are within the geographic boundaries of Riverside County and next to the City boundaries. The Tribe has inhabited the Temecula Valley for more than 10,000 years (and according to Tribal history and culture, since time immemorial). Tribe has established the Pechanga Electrical Utility to provide electrical service within the Pechanga Tribal Lands, including the Pechanga Resort and Casino. The Tribe will purchase power wholesale under certain federal laws and programs and distribute the power throughout the Tribal Lands. The electrical load distributed under the new Pechanga Electrical Utility will be comparable to that now purchased from public utilities with no substantial increase in power distribution expected. The establishment of this Utility requires the Tribe to add an electrical line across Pechanga Parkway to connect the electrical systems for the Tribal Lands and the Pechanga Resort and Casino. Through a 2009 Agreement between the City and the Tribe, the Tribe installed and maintains a telecommunications line between the Tribal Government Center and the Pechanga Resort and Casino. The proposed new electrical line will be installed very near to the existing telecommunications line in a conduit across Pechanga Parkway. Proposed Agreement: The proposed Agreement grants the Tribe the authority to install and maintain electrical lines and telecommunication lines across Pechanga Parkway and the City's right of way near the southern side of the Pechanga Resort and Casino. The Agreement provides regulations governing the installation and maintenance of these lines including the following: 1. Tribe will comply with specified regulations concerning installation and maintenance including traffic control, restoration of roadways, and construction techniques required of other utilities. 2. Should the City road and right of way be modified for a City project, the Tribe shall relocate the Facilities at its expense. 3. The location of all new transmission lines and related facilities within the City of Temecula for supplying electrical power to the Tribe's electrical utility by other utilities shall be approved by the City Council of the City of Temecula and shall be located underground. 4. Tribe shall not use the telecommunication Facilities for the purpose of providing any video or telecommunication services or programming in competition with any incumbent cable television operator or for any purposes other than connecting telecommunications between the Tribal Government Center with the Pechanga Casino. 5. Tribe shall not use the electrical Facilities for the purpose of providing any electrical service outside of Tribal land or facilities. 6. Tribe shall cooperate with other utilities in the area with respect to placement and maintenance of their respective facilities. 7. Tribe shall indemnify the City for any claims of damages related to its facilities. 8. City and Tribe agree to a dispute resolution process emphasizing cooperation, mediation and arbitration. 9. Agreement shall remain in effect until: (1) terminated for breach of Agreement; (2) terminated by mutual consent of the Parties; (3) terminated for any reason by a Party upon 120 days prior written notice to the other Party. FISCAL IMPACT: No fiscal impact. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Resolution 2. Agreement for the Installation and Maintenance of Electrical and Telecommunications Lines in Public Right of Way RESOLUTION NO. 17- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING AN AGREEMENT FOR THE INSTALLATION AND MAINTENANCE OF ELECTRICAL AND TELECOMMUNICATION LINES IN PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY ON PECHANGA PARKWAY BETWEEN THE CITY OF TEMECULA AND THE PECHANGA BAND OF LUISEIVO INDIANS AND FINDING THE CITY'S ACTION EXEMPT FROM CEQA THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Approval of Agreement. The City Council hereby approves that certain agreement entitled "Agreement for the Installation and Maintenance of Electrical and Telecommunication Lines in Public Right of Way" ("Agreement") between the City of Temecula ("City") and Pechanga Band of Luiseno Indians, a federally -recognized Indian tribe ("Tribe"), and authorizes the Mayor to execute the Agreement on behalf of the City in the form presented to the City Council with such non -substantive changes as may be approved by the City Attorney as necessary and convenient to implement the purposes of the Agreement. Section 2. City Manager Authority. The City Manager is authorized and directed to take all actions necessary and convenient to implement the Agreement and to enter into such additional agreements as may be necessary and convenient to implement the agreements, including but not limited to, executing operating memoranda and agreements, certifications, escrow, amendments to the Agreement, and similar agreements and actions. Section 3. CEQA. In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the City's approval of the Agreement is exempt from CEQA and further environmental review and a Notice of Exemption will be filed in compliance with CEQA under Section 15061(b)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines. The Agreement provides for the addition of an electrical line in the same location as an existing telecommunications line that has been in place since February 2009. The proposed electrical line is designed to assist in the integration of the electrical systems of the Tribal Lands and Tribal Government Center easterly of Pechanga Parkway with the Pechanga Resort and Casino and its recently approved expansion. The electrical loads for the electrical systems of the Tribal Lands and Tribal Government Center easterly of Pechanga Parkway and the Pechanga Resort and Casino and its recently approved expansion will not be increased by the installation of the lines approved by this Agreement. The recently approved expansion of the Pechanga Resort and Casino was approved following the certification of a Tribal Environmental Impact Report for the project prepared in accordance with the Tribal Compact between the Tribe and the State of California. The Agreement does not approve any facilities for the generation of electricity and does not authorize the construction of any structures or facilities for the generation of electricity. As such, there is no possibility that the Agreement will have a significant effect on the environment. Section 4. Certification. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Temecula this 25th day of July, 2017. Maryann Edwards, Mayor ATTEST: Randi Johl, City Clerk [SEAL] STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss CITY OF TEMECULA ) I, Randi Johl, City Clerk of the City of Temecula, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 17- was duly and regularly adopted by the City Council of the City of Temecula at a meeting thereof held on the 25th day of July, 2017, by the following vote: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: ABSTAIN: COUNCIL MEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Randi Johl, City Clerk AGREEMENT FOR THE INSTALLATION AND MAINTENANCE OF ELECTRICAL AND TELECOMMUNICATION LINES IN PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY THIS AGREEMENT FOR THE INSTALLATION OF AND MAINTENANCE OF ELECTRICAL AND TELECOMMUNICATION LINES IN PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY ("Agreement") is entered into between the Pechanga Band of Luiseno Indians, a federally - recognized Indian tribe ("Tribe") and the City of Temecula, a California municipal corporation ("City") (each a "Party" and collectively the "Parties"), as of July 25, 2017. In consideration of the mutual covenants and conditions set forth herein, the Parties agree as follows: 1. RECITALS. This Agreement is made with respect to the following purposes and facts: A. Tribe is a federally -recognized Indian Tribe located on federal trust lands which are located within the geographic boundaries of Riverside County (the "County") and abut or are near City boundaries. B. Tribe has inhabited the Temecula Valley for more than 10,000 years (and according to Tribal history and culture, since time immemorial). C. Tribe has established the Pechanga Tribal Utility as a subdivision of its federally recognized sovereign tribal government to serve the public purpose of providing electrical service within the Pechanga Indian Reservation. D. City is the municipal authority having jurisdiction over the streets and public rights-of-way within its municipal boundaries. E. City has the right to impose reasonable permit fees for encroachments and excavations within its streets and public rights-of-way, provided that those fees are nondiscriminatory and do not exceed the reasonable cost of providing the required permitting services. F. Tribe desires to install, connect, operate, and maintain certain electrical lines, telecommunication lines, and related equipment within public streets and rights-of-way located in the City ("Facilities") in connection with the Pechanga Tribal Utility. G. The Parties desire to clearly delineate the rights and responsibilities of the Parties with respect to Tribe's proposed installation of its Facilities within the City's public streets and rights-of-way, and with respect to the City's imposition of reasonable permit fees and other regulations affecting that proposed installation. 2. PARTIES A. Parties to the Agreement. The Parties to this Agreement are: 1) City: The City of Temecula, a municipal corporation, having its principal office at 41000 Main Street, Temecula, California 92590. 2) Tribe: Pechanga Band of Luiseno Indians, a federally -recognized Indian tribe, having a local office at 12705 Pechanga Road, Temecula, California 92592. 1 B. Representatives of the Parties and Service of Notices. The representatives of the Parties who are primarily responsible for the administration of this Agreement, and to whom notices, requests, demands and other communications must be given, are as follows: 1) The principal representative of City is: Public Works Director City of Temecula Temecula City Hall 41000 Business Park Drive Temecula, California 92590 2) The principal representative of Tribe is: Mark Macarro Pechanga Tribal Chair Pechanga Band of Luiseno Indians 12705 Pechanga Road Temecula, California 92592 C. Notices, requests, demands, and other communications to be given by either Party must be in writing and may be effected by personal delivery, by overnight courier, by first class mail, or by certified mail, return receipt requested. D. If there is a change in the name or address of the principal representative or other recipients designated to receive the notices, requests, demands, and other communications, written notice must be given at least five working days before the effective date of that change. 3. TERMS. A. Location of Facilities. Tribe shall have the right to install electrical and telecommunication underground conduit and above ground facilities not exceeding thirty-six inches in height within the areas shown on Exhibit A, Location of Facilities. B. Plans. Prior to commencing any work within or upon the City's public streets and rights -of -ways as described in Paragraph 3.A., Tribe shall provide to the Public Works Director a construction plan showing the location of all Facilities proposed to be installed by Tribe in the City. The construction plan shall include a list of all affected streets and rights-of-way, as well as a description of the scope of work to be conducted on each affected street or right-of-way. Construction plans for proposed electrical improvements within the City right-of-way shall be signed and sealed by a California state -registered electrical engineer. C. Permits. Prior to commencing any encroachment, excavation, or construction activities within or upon any street or rights-of-way, Tribe shall obtain from the City all required excavation, encroachment, and building permits and will pay all authorized permit and other fees associated with those permits, in accordance with applicable laws. All Facilities must be constructed and installed in accordance with the Temecula Municipal Code, all applicable City standards, and the provisions of this Agreement. Tribe shall comply with all special construction -related conditions and specifications set forth in Exhibit B, Special Conditions of Encroachment Permits. The conditions listed in Exhibit B shall be deemed to be incorporated in all encroachment permits issued to Tribe or its contractors. 2 D. Interconnection Transmission Lines and Facilities. The location of all new transmission lines and related facilities within the City of Temecula for supplying electrical power to the Tribe's electrical utility by other utilities shall be approved by the City Council of the City of Temecula and shall be located underground. Tribe agrees to make it a requirement of any interconnection agreement that it enters into with another utility to supply power to the Tribe's utility that any new transmission lines and related facilities within the City of Temecula be sited and designed in accordance with Temecula law. E. Time, Place, and Manner Controls. City has the right to exercise reasonable control over the time, place, and manner with regard to which any excavation and encroachment permits are issued for Tribe's installation, operation, or maintenance of its Facilities. F. Construction. Tribe is solely responsible for construction, installation, and maintenance of its Facilities. City has the right at all times to inspect construction of the Facilities to assure compliance with all permits or approvals granted by City. G. Standard of Care. Tribe shall undertake all authorized activities within the streets and rights-of-way of the City in a skillful and workmanlike manner, consistent with the standards generally recognized as being employed by utility professionals in the same discipline in the State of California. Tribe's installation activities shall comply with all applicable federal, state, and local laws, regulations, and rules. H. Warranty. Tribe warrants that any trench backfill, pavement or concrete restoration, or other work performed by Tribe or its employees, agents, and contractors in the public rights-of-way shall be free from all defects due to faulty materials or workmanship. Tribe shall repair or remove and replace all such backfill, pavement or concrete restoration, or other work, together with any other pavement areas directly affected by that removal or replacement, without any expense to City. If Tribe fails to comply diligently with those provisions within ten (10) days after being notified in writing (or in cases of emergency, within 24 hours), City is authorized to proceed to have any backfill, pavement or concrete restoration, or other defects remedied at Tribe's sole cost and expense, and Tribe is obligated to pay those costs and expenses within 30 days of receipt of invoice. Such action by the City will not relieve Tribe of the warranty provided for in this subsection. I. Relocation of Improvements. 1) Within a reasonable period of time as specified in writing by City, Tribe shall relocate its Facilities, at its own expense, following written notification by City that such relocation is necessary to make way for a proper governmental use or disposition of any street or rights-of-way where Tribe maintains its Facilities, including but not limited to, change in grade, widening of roadway, median construction, trail construction and similar changes in the right of way. If relocation of Tribe's Facilities is requested by a person or entity other than City, and for other than a proper governmental use, the costs of relocation will be borne by the person or entity requesting that relocation, and such relocation will be undertaken in a manner that preserves the usefulness and safety of Tribe's Facilities. 3 2) Tribe shall remove or relocate, without cost or expense to City, any Facilities that are installed, used, or maintained under this Agreement if and when made necessary by any lawful change of grade, alignment, or width of any street, or the construction, maintenance or operation of any City -owned facilities, including, without limitation, medians or trails, whether underground or above -ground. 3) In those areas of the City where facilities of public utilities that provide telephone services, electricity, gas, cable television, or similar services are underground or are scheduled to be placed underground, Tribe must likewise construct, operate, and maintain all of its Facilities underground. For the purpose of this subparagraph 3), the term "underground" means and includes a partial underground system. City has no responsibility for any costs incurred by Tribe in placing Tribe's Facilities underground. J. Indemnity. Tribe shall indemnify, defend, and hold harmless the City, Temecula Community Services District, and their officials, officers, employees, agents, and contractors, from and against any and all losses, claims, damages, injuries to persons or property (including wrongful death), liabilities, fines, penalties, and reasonable expenses (including reasonable attorneys' fees) that arise out of or are attributable to the negligent or wrongful acts or omissions of Tribe, or its officers, employees, agents or contractors, related to the performance of this Agreement, except to the extent such losses, claims, damages, injuries to persons or property (including wrongful death), liabilities, fines, penalties, or expenses (including attorneys' fees) are caused by the intentional or negligent acts, omissions or misconduct of the City, its officials, officers, employees, agents or contractors. Tribe's obligation to indemnify the City is not affected by the fact that insurance proceeds may be received by the City, its officials, officers, employees, agents, or contractors. Tribe's indemnity obligations under this subparagraph shall survive the expiration or termination of this Agreement. K. Term of the Agreement; Effective Date. 1) This Agreement shall remain in effect until: (1) terminated pursuant to subparagraph 3.L. below subject to the dispute resolution procedures of Paragraph 4; (2) terminated by mutual consent of the Parties; (3) terminated for any reason by a Party upon one hundred twenty (120) days prior written notice to the other Party. 2) This Agreement will become effective on July 25, 2017 ("Effective Date"). Upon execution by both Parties, the City Clerk shall transmit one fully executed counterpart original to the Tribe. L. Termination. Either Party may seek termination of the Agreement for an alleged material breach of the Agreement pursuant to the dispute resolution procedures of Paragraph 4. M. Removal of Facilities upon Abandonment. If Tribe abandons its Facilities and ceases to use those facilities to provide services, City may require Tribe to remove its Facilities from City's streets and other public rights-of-way and to restore them to their prior condition within a reasonable period of time specified in writing by City. As long as Tribe provides any type of service over the Facilities, whether electrical or telecommunications or any other service authorized by applicable law, there will not be deemed to be a complete cessation of service. Upon Tribe's failure to remove abandoned Facilities, City may perform the work and collect all costs, direct and indirect, from Tribe. In the alternative, City may authorize Tribe to abandon its Facilities in place, under such terms and conditions as City may approve. Upon City -approved abandonment in place of Tribe's Facilities, rather than their removal, Tribe must cause to be 4 executed, acknowledged, and delivered to City such instruments as City may require in order to convey ownership of those Facilities to City. City's rights and Tribe's obligations under this subsection will survive the expiration or termination of this Agreement. N. Limitations on Use of Facilities. Tribe shall not use the telecommunication Facilities for the purpose of providing any video or telecommunication services or programming in competition with any incumbent cable television operator that is franchised by the City, the State of California, or otherwise, or for any purposes other than connecting telecommunications between the Tribal Government Center with the Pechanga Casino. Tribe shall not use the electrical Facilities for the purpose of providing any electrical service outside of the Pechanga Indian Reservation. O. Participation with Other Utilities. Tribe shall cooperate with utility service providers in planning, locating, and constructing its Facilities in utility joint trenches or common duct banks, and shall participate in cost-sharing for those trenches and ducts when two or more utility service providers are proposing Facilities in the same public rights-of-way, or when an underground project is being planned by the City. P. Records and Field Locations. 1) Tribe shall maintain accurate maps and improvement plans of its Facilities located within the City. Tribe shall, upon demand of the Public Works Director, deliver to the office of the Public Works Director, free of charge, and to other third Parties interested in performing work within the public right-of-way for a reasonable charge and upon request, within thirty (30) days after that demand, such maps and plans as may be required to show in detail the exact location, size, depth, and description of all Facilities installed within the public rights- of-way. Tribe shall also submit the plans in digital electronic format, as specified by the City. 2) Tribe shall be a member of the regional notification center for subsurface installations (Underground Service Alert) or its successor entity. Tribe shall also field -mark, at its sole expense, the locations of its underground Facilities upon notification in accordance with the requirements of Section 4216 of the California Government Code, as it now exists or may later be amended. Q. Damage to Public or Private Facilities. Tribe is responsible for any damage to City street pavement, existing utilities, curbs, gutters, sidewalks, and all other public or private facilities, attributable to or arising out of its construction, operation, installation, maintenance, repair, or removal of its Facilities in the public rights-of-way. Tribe shall repair, replace, and restore in kind or better, at its sole expense, the damaged facilities within thirty (30) days after being notified in writing by City, or in cases of emergency, within twenty-four (24) hours. 4. DISPUTE RESOLUTION. A. Meet and Confer Process. 1) In recognition of the government -to -government relationship between the Tribe and City, the Parties shall make their best efforts to resolve disputes that occur under this Agreement by good faith negotiations whenever possible. Therefore, the Parties hereby establish a threshold requirement that disputes arising under this Agreement shall first be subject to a good faith meet and confer procedure to give the Parties an opportunity to work together to solve identified issues. 5 2) Disputes arising between the Parties regarding a Party's alleged failure to meet its obligations imposed by this Agreement shall be addressed through the following process: a) The Parties may meet and confer informally to discuss their concerns. This stage may include an informal exchange of views among Tribal and City personnel and shall remain confidential in accordance with applicable law. b) A Party desirous of invoking the meet and confer provisions of this Agreement shall provide written notice to the other Party, identifying with specificity the alleged issue or issues, the specific provision breached, and the actions requested to resolve the dispute. Within seven (7) business days after receipt of the notice, the recipient Party shall provide a written response agreeing or disagreeing with the complaint. If the Parties agree upon the issues complained of, they will set forth detailed steps to address the alleged breach of the Agreement. If the Parties disagree, they shall proceed in accordance with subsection 4.B, Binding Arbitration Procedure. c) The Parties shall formally meet and confer in good faith within ten (10) business days of receipt of such notice, or at such other time as the Parties may agree in writing, to attempt to resolve the dispute. If both Parties agree, a mediator may be used to help resolve the dispute at this stage. The Parties and mediator, if any, shall ensure that any disputed issues are clearly and directly communicated according to any agreed upon process and timeline. Multiple meetings under this step may be reasonably required depending upon the nature of the dispute, provided that the meet and confer process shall be completed within thirty (30) days of formal initiation unless extended in writing by mutual agreement of the Parties. Failure to substantially comply with the procedures and timelines contained in this Section shall entitle the complaining Party to proceed directly to arbitration. d) To the extent allowed by law, such writings as may be prepared and transmitted between the Parties pursuant to this subsection shall be confidential. B. Binding Arbitration Procedure. 1) Subject to compliance with the meet and confer process stated above and the limitations herein as to the scope of any order, either Party may initiate binding arbitration to resolve any dispute arising out of this Agreement, regarding the interpretation of any the Agreement's provisions, and/or rights and obligations of the Parties under the Agreement. 2) The arbitration shall be conducted by arbitrator(s) in accordance with the JAMS Comprehensive Arbitration Rules & Procedures (the "Rules") then in effect at the time of the initiation of arbitration. The arbitration shall take place in or near Temecula, including any location on the Reservation or at another location mutually agreed upon by the Parties. The arbitrator shall be a retired federal or California superior court or appellate judge selected by agreement of the Parties. In the event the Parties cannot agree upon an arbitrator, the Parties agree that Rule 15 of the Rules shall govern the selection of the arbitrator. 3) Subject to the terms of this Section, the arbitrator shall have jurisdiction to interpret and apply the terms of this Agreement upon a Party's request for termination for breach of the Agreement, but shall lack jurisdiction to modify the Agreement or add to those 6 obligations under the Agreement, except in the event that material terms of this Agreement are determined to be void under law. 4) This Agreement does not provide for, and the arbitrator shall not have jurisdiction to order, remedies with respect to federal, state, or City laws, regulations, ordinances, codes or other laws against the City, including its government entities, officials, members or employees or its real property, and shall only consider or evaluate such laws and issue such orders as expressly permitted under this Agreement. 5) Equitable relief shall be limited to compelling some actual performance that is expressly described in this Agreement or preventing a Party from failing to take such action. 6) Any controversy regarding whether an issue is subject to arbitration shall be determined by the arbitrator, but the arbitrator's jurisdiction shall be limited to ordering forms of relief agreed to in this Agreement. 7) The Arbitrator shall render an award consistent with Rule 30 of the Rules. The Parties agree to be bound by the provisions of Rule 17 of the Rules relating to informal and formal discovery rights and obligations, subject to the agreement of the Parties or order of the Arbitrator otherwise. In any event, any discovery conducted shall be subject to the confidentiality provisions of this Agreement to the extent such provisions may be lawfully enforced, and the Arbitrator shall make such orders as are necessary to enforce such provisions. 8) Following an arbitration order or award, either Party may appeal pursuant to the JAMS Optional Arbitration Appeal Procedure as set forth in Rule 34 of the Rules. In the event appeal is sought, no order of the arbitrator shall be considered to be final until the appeal is concluded, including any matters that may be pending as to such order by a reviewing court as provided in this paragraph. C. Judicial Review and Enforcement. 1) The Parties agree that the prevailing Party in any arbitration contemplated under this Paragraph may seek to confirm and enforce any arbitration award that has become final by filing a petition with any Superior Court in the State of California, pursuant to the provisions of California Code of Civil Procedure, Section 1285 et seq. In any arbitration or court action, each Party shall bear its own costs and attorneys' fees in any court action or arbitration proceeding brought pursuant to this Agreement. 2) Nothing in this Agreement shall preclude or restrict the ability of Parties to voluntarily pursue, by mutual agreement, any other method of dispute resolution. D. Mutual Limited Waiver of Sovereign Immunity. 1) The Parties agree that the Parties' waiver of immunity from arbitration or suit, or the enforcement of any order or judgment related thereto, is limited to the express provisions of this Paragraph, and neither the agreement to arbitrate nor any other provision of this Agreement shall be construed as creating any implied waiver of such immunity. 2) The Parties each expressly covenant and agree that they may each sue and be sued, including the resolution of disputes in arbitration and the judicial enforcement thereof, as provided in this Paragraph, to resolve any controversy arising from this Agreement or to enforce or interpret the terms and conditions of this Agreement, as provided for in this Agreement. The Parties, their officers and agents expressly agree to waive governmental immunities, including sovereign immunity, in connection with any claims arising from this Agreement, as provided for herein for the enforcement of any arbitration award, or judgment to enforce such an award, or enforcement of any easement created as a result of this Agreement. The Parties further consent to the jurisdiction of an arbitrator and/or specified court under this Agreement including the consent to be sued and bound by a lawful order or judgment, to the extent provided for herein. Each of the Parties represent that its agreement to such dispute resolution processes and waivers has been effectively and lawfully granted and that nothing further needs to be done to effectuate those processes. 3) With respect to any action arising out of the Agreement for which there is a waiver of sovereign immunity, the Tribe and City expressly consent to the jurisdiction of the United States District Court for the Central District of California and, as limited herein to, the Superior Court of the State of California for Riverside County and all related appellate courts, and/or an arbitrator selected pursuant to this Agreement and specifically waive sovereign immunity for that purpose. The Parties specifically agree that the applicable court shall have jurisdiction to enter judgments enforcing rights and remedies provided for in this Agreement which shall be binding and enforceable on the Parties, subject to the limitations set forth in this Agreement. No Party to this Agreement shall contest jurisdiction or venue of the above - referenced courts, provided their jurisdiction and venue are invoked in the order specified, but only for disputes or claims arising out of this Agreement. Neither the Tribe nor the City shall plead or invoke the doctrine of exhaustion of Tribal or other administrative remedies, defenses of immunity or indispensable Parties beyond those contemplated in this Agreement. 4) The City and the Tribe may not join or unilaterally consent to the joinder of any third Party to any action (including but not limited to any arbitration) contemplated herein, unless failure to join such Party would deprive the court or arbitration tribunal of jurisdiction; provided that nothing in this Agreement shall be construed to constitute a waiver of the sovereign immunity or other protection from lawsuit (or other dispute resolution process), or the effect, orders or judgments thereof, of either the Tribe or the City with respect to any claim of any kind by any such third Party. In the event of intervention by any third Party into any such action without the consent of the Tribe and the City, nothing herein shall be construed to constitute a waiver of any immunity with respect to such third Party, and no arbitrator or court shall have jurisdiction to award any relief or issue any order as against the City or Tribe with respect to such third Party in that or any other proceeding. 5. MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS. A. Future Changes in the Law. If future changes to federal or state law modify the scope of City's authority to regulate the Tribe's use and occupancy of its public rights-of-way to a greater or lesser degree than is now authorized by this Agreement, City and Tribe agree that they will take any action necessary, or revise this Agreement where applicable, to be consistent with the scope of City's regulatory authority as modified. 8 B. Compliance with Applicable Laws and Regulations. 1) Tribe shall obtain all permits, licenses, and similar authorizations that are required by other governmental entities for the installation and use of its Facilities. Tribe shall also be and remain in compliance with all special conditions and requirements set forth in Exhibit B, and all other applicable statutes, ordinances, rules, regulations, orders, and decisions issued by any federal, state, or local governmental body or agency. 2) Tribe shall comply with City's policies and procedures relating to occupation and use of the public rights-of-way that are intended to encourage the shared use by utility service providers of existing facilities in those public rights-of-way in order to minimize the number of excavations in the public rights-of-way. 3) Prior to City's issuance of required permits, all above -ground Facilities proposed to be installed by Tribe in the public rights-of-way must be clearly delineated on the plans when they are submitted for City's review. The permitting of Tribe's above -ground Facilities will be subject to reasonable conditions that may be imposed by the Public Works Director in order to mitigate the safety hazards and the adverse visual impacts, both individually and cumulatively, of all authorized above -ground Facilities, which conditions may include or relate to, without limitation, the following: a) The subsequent design and installation by qualified professionals of landscaping and barriers to minimize public view of those Facilities, the location of which has been previously approved by City. b) The maintenance of those Facilities in good condition, including compliance with City's ordinances regarding graffiti removal. c) The placement of Facilities, such as overhead drops, as close as possible to other utility drops, consistent with all applicable electrical codes. d) Reasonable limitations upon the number of above -ground Facilities that may be installed within a designated geographical area. e) Reasonable limitations upon the dimensions or volume, or both, of above -ground Facilities. f) The specification of colors of above -ground Facilities reasonably requested by City to ensure that these Facilities blend with the surrounding environment to the maximum extent possible. g) Any conditions that are imposed upon Tribe by the Public Works Director, including those referenced above in subparagraphs a) through f), will also be imposed upon similarly situated rights-of-way users in a competitively neutral and nondiscriminatory manner. Additionally, if City makes its determination regarding application to Tribe of the above -referenced conditions, then that determination will be applied consistently throughout the duration of the construction of Tribe's Facilities. h) If City adopts City-wide requirements for the undergrounding of above -ground Facilities, or any portion thereof, which requirements are competitively neutral and nondiscriminatory, Tribe shall comply with those requirements at its cost. 9 C. Governing Law. This Agreement is governed by the applicable laws of the State of California and Federal law. D. Successors and Assigns. 1) The provisions of this Agreement and of all permits issued in accordance with Agreement are binding upon the successors and assigns of the Parties. 2) No assignment by Tribe of its rights or obligations under this Agreement shall be valid without the City's prior written consent, which consent will not be unreasonably withheld. E. Exhibits. 1) Exhibit A, Location of Facilities 2) Exhibit B, Special Conditions of Encroachment Permits F. Entire Agreement. This Agreement contains the entire agreement of the Parties with respect to its subject matter concerning the use of City rights of way for the Tribe's Facilities and supersedes all prior negotiations, understandings, or agreements, whether written or oral, express or implied. Nothing herein shall modify, nor shall be construed to modify, in any way that certain "Intergovernmental Agreement" between the Tribe and the City dated as of November 17, 2015. The invalidity in whole or in part of any provision of this Agreement will not void or affect the validity of any other provision of this Agreement. That certain agreement dated as of January 13, 2009 entitled "City of Temecula Agreement for the Installation of Telecommunications Lines" is hereby terminated by the mutual agreement of the Parties. G. No Third Party Beneficiaries. This Agreement is not intended to, and shall not be construed to, create any right on the part of a third Party nor does it create any private right of action for any third Party nor permit any third Party to bring an action to enforce any of its terms. H. Good Faith and Further Acts. In exercising their respective rights and performing their respective obligations, the Parties agree to exercise good faith and fair dealing toward one another so that the purposes of this Agreement can be achieved. The Parties will take such additional steps and sign such additional documents as may be reasonably necessary to achieve the purposes of this Agreement. Authority. The persons signing below represent that they have the requisite authority to bind the entities on whose behalf they are signing. 10 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, each of the Parties has caused this Agreement to be executed by its duly authorized representatives. PECHANGA BAND OF LUISENO INDIANS, a federally -recognized Indian Tribe Mark Macarro Tribal Chairman Attest: Louise Burke Tribal Secretary Approved as to form: Steve M. Bodmer General Counsel 11 CITY OF TEMECULA Maryann Edwards Mayor Attest: Randi Johl, City Clerk Approved as to form: Peter M. Thorson City Attorney 12 EXHIBIT A LOCATION OF FACILITIES 13 -T — THE PECHANGA BAND OF LUISENO INDIANS PROPOSED ELECTRICAL AND TELECOMMUNICATION LINE O. SHEET KEYED NOTES O AD f� n PROPOSED CONDUIT LOCATION ELEN F PECHANGA PARKWAY —?12KY--1ZilY �--�----'IZKV— ',SITE PLAN - LAYOUT ir '.K..o.LAN PECHANGA BANC OF LUISENO INDIANS SITE PUI.N 12T/ CIRCUIT TO TRIBAL GOVERNMENT CENTER E -2O% EXHIBIT 'A' 14 SHEET KMIEC NOTES E :ew,,.:an.�o.� °"•,aR w. wow E w pogo ,r.W.a. nosr. co. w1.1.ac.e Ream OWE PLAN - LAYOUT �/KU, wL AN ELEN 0204011 PECHANGA BAND OF LUISENO INDIANS SITE PLAN 1 2E CIRCLET TO MEAL GOVERNMENT CENTER 21.01.146 E-208 15 L WANT Vitille2PNOn.0.161,01. SHEET KEYED NOTES ELEN 1&ITE PLAN - LAYOUT w..r. 6 - KEY PLAN ONIs PEOHANDA BAND OF LDISENO INDIANS ere SITE PLAN ITKV CIRCUIT TO TRIBAL COVERNIAANf CANTER E-209 16 P I ® 1111, X X MEET I�YEO NOTES 6 in g a ' 3 i.�r-'"- - y !I s 9 mew`- yi fi *~ •V�rs .0.Y. "CHAN•.. �' 1' • GA . f' a aoi.71-' cr.. `r �,T. N�N �� �.�N wramn Wwm NGA BAND OUSENOSMRA`! OF INOlAN5 • lf 777[ JR >.! rM {gj r Y• O // .�"�f n "\ f \ I_'.. N. - SITE ROA TR16V. GGOVERNMENTJEAN GNN CENTER - t ,N ��//SRE PLAN - LAYOUT G/ f�KE4N G E-210 17 EXHIBIT B SPECIAL CONDITIONS OF ENCROACHMENT PERMITS SPECIAL CONDITIONS REGARDING CONSTRUCTION OF FACILITIES IN ADDITION TO STANDARD ENCROACHMENT PERMIT PROVISIONS 1. Traffic control plans are required for all work within major streets and such other streets as may be designated by the traffic engineer. All traffic control plans are subject to the following requirements: A. Traffic control plans shall be prepared in accordance with accepted traffic engineering standards and the Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices ("MUTCD"). B. All costs and expenses incurred by City in reviewing and approving Tribe's traffic control plans shall be reimbursed by Tribe. C. All traffic control plans submitted by Tribe shall be signed by an authorized representative of Tribe and shall contain a statement that Tribe is responsible for the quality of those plans and that Tribe will indemnify City for any liabilities incurred by City that arise from or are attributable to Tribe's traffic control plans pursuant to this Agreement. 2. Tribe shall maintain full access for emergency vehicles along all streets at all times. Tribe shall provide continuous access to all existing fire hydrants, streets, and driveways. 3. Tribe shall submit for City review and approval a comprehensive schedule for the construction of Facilities. Tribe is responsible for overall project management. 4. City has the right to restrict Tribe to a specified area for performance of work on any phase of construction of Facilities. 6. To the extent that such costs are not covered by applicable permit fees, Tribe shall reimburse City for all costs incurred, including without limitation plan preparation, plan checking, field inspections, and maintenance department callouts. 7 Tribe shall prepare and distribute a notice of construction to all owners or occupants of properties located adjacent to a construction area. The notice shall be reviewed and approved by City prior to its distribution. The notice shall be distributed at least one week before work begins. 8. The Public Works Director reserves the right to order the cessation of Tribe's construction of Facilities operations where necessary to protect the public health, welfare, or safety. City also reserves the right to defer any work on the Facilities by Tribe that may conflict with City projects undertaken during the course of Tribe's project. 18 9. All work shall be performed by Tribe between the hours of 7:30 am and 4:30 pm, Monday through Friday, unless otherwise authorized by the Public Works Director. All work within collectors and arterials shall be performed at night unless otherwise approved in advance by the Public Works Director. No work may be performed on City holidays. 10. During the course of work covered by an encroachment permit, City may require Tribe to suspend operations on the Facilities until such time as City staff is available to provide the necessary inspections. 11. Tribe shall adequately safeguard all excavations and obstructions with barricades, lights, or other suitable safety devices in conformance with the current "State of California Manual of Traffic Controls for Construction and Maintenance Work Zones" issued by the California Department of Transportation. 12. Tribe is responsible for the preservation or replacement of any permanent survey markers, monuments, or street ties that are disturbed, damaged, or lost as a result of Tribe's construction activities. 13. All asphaltic concrete removal shall be accomplished by sawcutting a neat, straight, and vertical line a minimum of one foot beyond any underminement or pavement cracking. 14. All P.C.C. removals shall be accomplished by saw cutting. 15. Concrete curbs, walks, gutters, cross gutters, driveway approaches, and alley entrances shall be removed and reconstructed in conformance with the then existing requirements of subsections 201-1 and 303-5 of the Standard Specifications for Public Works Construction, and in accordance with City's standard drawings as now exist or may hereafter be amended. 16. Trenches shall be closed daily at the completion of each work period. Tribe's method of trench protection shall be approved prior to the commencement of any work. 17. Tribe shall clean and sweep the project work area and adjacent areas at regular intervals and when requested by the Public Works Director as may be necessary to maintain the project work area in a clean and orderly condition at all times. 18. All of Tribe's contractors and subcontractors shall obtain a City business license prior to performing any work within the City. 19. All of Tribe's contractors, as well as subcontractors to primary contractors, shall be identified in permits. 20. Any subcontractor of Tribe that performs work in a negligent or unsafe manner may forfeit its authority to operate in the City. 21. Copies of the encroachment permit and of these special conditions shall be kept at all of the Tribe's work sites. 19 SPECIAL CONDITIONS REGARDING UTILITIES 1. For safety purposes, and to maintain response times for emergencies involving utilities, no trenching will be allowed after noon on Fridays, nor on Saturdays, Sundays or City holidays. 2. A minimum clearance of six inches (6") must be maintained between gas lines and Tribe's Facilities at crossings. A minimum clearance of twelve inches (12") is required for gas lines four inches (4") in diameter or larger. A minimum clearance of two feet (2') shall be maintained for all parallel installations. 3. Gas lines shall be "daylighted" at the point of crossing during boring operations, including back -reaming or cable -pulling. This requirement is also applicable if requested by other utilities. 4. Damages caused by Tribe to any utility installations, including but not limited to broken tracer wire, broken cathodic protection wires, minor scrapes on plastic pipe, or damaged wrap on steel pipes, shall be reported promptly by Tribe to the affected utility. 5. Tribe shall pay for any losses attributable to Tribe's Facility construction activities that are incurred by emergency services, the Public Works Department, and utilities. SPECIAL CONDITIONS REGARDING UNDERGROUND SERVICE ALERT ("USA") MARKOUT 1. All USA utility location pavement markings must be removed before completion of the work. All USA tickets shall reference Tribe's project. USA tickets shall be limited to 14 days (2 weeks) work. 2. 3. 4. chalk markings and shall be If utilities have not marked, Tribe cannot commence work. Tribe may not commence work until all utilities have performed field markouts or have confirmed that no field markouts are necessary. (Tribe shall contact utilities to verify, regardless of 48 hours USA call out). 5. All contractors and subcontractors shall be listed on USA dig alert notices. 6. Tribe shall provide to City mylar "as-builts" of all construction drawings upon completion of work. 20 TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT CONSENT Item No. 13 ACTION MINUTES July 11, 2017 City Council Chambers, 41000 Main Street, Temecula, California TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT MEETING The Temecula Community Services District meeting convened at 7:15 PM CALL TO ORDER: President Jeff Comerchero ROLL CALL: DIRECTORS: Edwards, Naggar, Rahn, Stewart, Comerchero CSD PUBLIC COMMENTS (none) CSD CONSENT CALENDAR 11 Approve the Action Minutes of June 27, 2017 - Approved Staff Recommendation (5-0) Director Edwards made the motion; it was seconded by Director Rahn; and electronic vote reflected approval by Directors Edwards, Naggar, Rahn, Stewart and Comerchero. RECOMMENDATION: 11.1 That the Board of Directors approve the action minutes of June 27, 2017. CSD PUBLIC HEARING 12 Approve Temecula Community Services District Proposed Rates and Charges for Fiscal Year 2017-18 - Approved Staff Recommendation (5-0) Director Edwards made the motion; it was seconded by Director Rahn; and electronic vote reflected approval by Directors Edwards, Naggar, Rahn, Stewart and Comerchero. RECOMMENDATION: 12.1 That the Board of Directors adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. CSD 17-04 A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA ADOPTING RATES AND CHARGES FOR SERVICE LEVEL B — RESIDENTIAL LIGHTING, SERVICE LEVEL C — PERIMETER LANDSCAPING, SERVICE LEVEL D — RECYCLING AND REFUSE COLLECTION, AND SERVICE LEVEL R — EMERGENCY UNPAVED ROAD MAINTENANCE SERVICES FOR FISCAL YEAR 2017-18 CSD Action Minutes 071117 1 CSD DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY SERVICES REPORT CSD GENERAL MANAGER REPORT CSD BOARD OF DIRECTORS REPORTS CSD ADJOURNMENT At 7:23 PM, the Community Services District meeting was formally adjourned to Tuesday, July 25, 2017, at 5:30 PM, for a Closed Session, with regular session commencing at 7:00 PM, City Council Chambers, 41000 Main Street, Temecula, California. Jeff Comerchero, President ATTEST: Randi Johl, Secretary [SEAL] CSD Action Minutes 071117 2 TEMECULA PUBLIC FINANCING AUTHORITY CONSENT Item No. 14 Approvals City Attorney Director of Finance City Manager Szer- TEMECULA PUBLIC FINANCING AUTHORITY AGENDA REPORT TO: Executive Director/Board of Directors FROM: Jennifer Hennessy, Director of Finance DATE: July 25, 2017 SUBJECT: Authorize Fiscal Year 2017-18 Special Tax Levies for the Community Facilities Districts PREPARED BY: Jennifer Hennessy, Director of Finance RECOMMENDATION: That the Board of Directors: 1. Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. TPFA 17- A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE TEMECULA PUBLIC FINANCING AUTHORITY AUTHORIZING THE LEVY OF A SPECIAL TAX IN COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT NO. 03-01 (CROWNE HILL) 2. Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. TPFA 17- A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE TEMECULA PUBLIC FINANCING AUTHORITY AUTHORIZING THE LEVY OF A SPECIAL TAX IN COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT NO. 01-02 (HARVESTON) 3. Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. TPFA 17- A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE TEMECULA PUBLIC FINANCING AUTHORITY AUTHORIZING THE LEVY OF A SPECIAL TAX IN COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT NO. 03-06 (HARVESTON II) 4. Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. TPFA 17- A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE TEMECULA PUBLIC FINANCING AUTHORITY AUTHORIZING THE LEVY OF A SPECIAL TAX IN COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT NO. 03-02 (RORIPAUGH RANCH) 5. Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. TPFA 17- A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE TEMECULA PUBLIC FINANCING AUTHORITY AUTHORIZING THE LEVY OF A SPECIAL TAX IN COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT NO. 03-03 (WOLF CREEK) 6. Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. TPFA 17- A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE TEMECULA PUBLIC FINANCING AUTHORITY AUTHORIZING THE LEVY OF A SPECIAL TAX IN COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT NO. 16-01 (RORIPAUGH RANCH PHASE 2) BACKGROUND: The Temecula Public Financing Authority (the "Authority") was created pursuant to a joint exercise of powers agreement between the City of Temecula and the Temecula Redevelopment Agency on April 24, 2001. An Amendment was approved on November 10, 2015 to replace the Temecula Redevelopment Agency with the Successor Agency to the Temecula Redevelopment Agency, due to the Statewide dissolution of all redevelopment agencies, effective February 1, 2012. In addition, the Temecula Community Services District and the Temecula Housing Authority were added as parties to the Authority Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement. The Authority adopted the required resolutions of intention relative to the formation of six Community Facilities Districts (CFDs) and, thereafter, took the necessary actions to issue bonds for all six CFDs. The bonds were utilized to fund various public improvements including, but not limited to, streets, street lights, parks, drainage, sewer and water improvements. The special tax levy required for Fiscal Year 2017-18, as calculated by the City's special tax consultant, Albert A. Webb Associates, is listed in the following table. The special tax levy is calculated each year based on the formula established in the Rate and Method of Apportionment, established when the CFD was formed. The special tax levy will fund the debt service payments and administrative costs which are detailed in the attached schedules entitled "2017-18 Budget." The amount of the levies may fluctuate each year due to changes in delinquency rates, debt service amounts, or administrative charges. City staff reviews each district throughout the year to consider possible refunding opportunities. The City refunded three of the five CFDs in 2012, saving the property owners 10-16% on their annual levies. Recently, the City refunded Harveston CFD 01-02 in 2016, Roripaugh Ranch CFD 03-02 in 2017, and Crowne Hill CFD 03-01 in 2017, providing savings for homeowners. Also in 2017, the Roripaugh Ranch Phase 2 CFD 16-01 was formed. The following table provides information for each of the six CFDs: Issue Date Issue Name Issue Outstanding Amount Amount as of 9/1/2017 FY 16-17 Annual Levy FY 17-18 Annual Levy Change 8/7/2003 Crowne Hill CFD 03-01 Ser. A $12,155,000 $9,905,000 $907,200.06 $833,831.33 ($73,368.73) 8/24/2005 Crowne Hill CFD 03-01 Ser. B $3,865,000 8/29/2002 Harveston CFD 01-02 Sp. Tax A $17,310,000 $12,775,000 $1,066,486.62 $1,015,186.63 ($51,299.99) N/A Harveston CFD 01-02 Sp. Tax B This is a non -bonded special tax established for the ongoing maintenance of Harveston Lake. $237,092.82 $239,480.03 $2,387.21 9/9/2004 Harveston II CFD 03-06 $4,845,000 $3,655,000 $316,914.52 $313,971.18 ($2,943.34) 4/27/2006 Roripaugh Ranch CFD 03-02 $51,250,000 $9,645,000 $3,533,421.92 $772,656.24 ($2,760,765.68) 1/8/2004 Wolf Creek CFD 03-03 $30,990,000 $21,770,000 $1,893,757.92 $1,895,744.15 $1,986.23 3/16/2017 Roripaugh Ranch Phase 2 CFD 16-01 $42,815,000 $42,815,000 N/A $3,275,509.37 $3,275,509.37 FISCAL IMPACT: The calculated special tax levy required for the 2017-18 Fiscal Year is listed in the preceding table. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Resolution (Crowne Hill) 2. 2017-18 Budget (Crowne Hill) 3. Resolution (Harveston) 4. 2017-18 Budget (Harveston) 5. Resolution (Harveston II) 6. 2017-18 Budget (Harveston II) 7. Resolution (Roripaugh Ranch) 8. 2017-18 Budget (Roripaugh Ranch) 9. Resolution (Wolf Creek) 10. 2017-18 Budget (Wolf Creek) 11. Resolution (Roripaugh Ranch Phase 2) 12. 2017-18 Budget (Roripaugh Ranch Phase 2) RESOLUTION NO. TPFA 17- A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE TEMECULA PUBLIC FINANCING AUTHORITY AUTHORIZING THE LEVY OF A SPECIAL TAX IN COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT NO. 03-01 (CROWNE HILL) THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE TEMECULA PUBLIC FINANCING AUTHORITY OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. The Temecula Public Financing Authority is the legislative body for Community Facilities District No. 03-01 (Crowne Hill) (the "CFD"), created pursuant to the Mello -Roos Community Facilities District Act of 1982, as amended (the "Act"). Section 2. The Board of Directors has enacted Ordinance No. TPFA 03-01 in accordance with Government Code Section 53340 authorizing the levy of a special tax assessment on the property located within the CFD. Section 3. The Board of Directors has completed all steps necessary to levy a special tax assessment in accordance with the procedures set forth in the Act. Section 4. Pursuant to the provisions of Resolution No. TPFA 03-05 and Ordinance No. TPFA 03-01, there is to be levied an aggregate special tax of $833,831.33 on the taxable parcels located in the CFD for Fiscal Year 2017-18 to be provided by Webb Associates to the Auditor -Controller of the County. Section 5. The Special Tax levy set forth above does not exceed the amount previously authorized by Resolution No. TPFA 03-05 and Ordinance No. TPFA 03-01, and is not in excess of that previously approved by the qualified electorate of the CFD. Section 6. The proceeds of the Special Tax levy shall be used to pay, in whole or in part, the costs of the following items: A. Payment of principal and interest on the outstanding authorized bonded indebtedness. B. Replenishment of the required bond reserve funds, or other reserve funds, if necessary. C. Payment of the administrative costs and incidental expenses of the CFD, as provided in Resolution No. TPFA 03-05 the Indenture of Trust for the CFD and the Act. The proceeds of the special tax levy shall be used as set forth above, and shall not be used for any other purpose. Section 7. The Auditor -Controller of the County is hereby directed to enter the installment of the special tax for the exact rate and amount of the special tax levied in accordance with this resolution for each lot or parcel of land affected in a space marked "CFD No. 03-1 (Crowne Hill)" on the next County assessment roll on which taxes will become due. Section 8. The County Auditor -Controller shall, at the close of the tax collection period, promptly render to the CFD a detailed report showing the amounts of the special tax installments, penalties, interest and fees collected, and from which properties they have been collected. Any expenses to be paid to the Auditor -Controller for carrying out the foregoing responsibilities shall be in accordance with a contract entered into between the CFD and the Auditor, pursuant to Section 29304 of the Government Code. Section 9. The Authority Secretary shall certify adoption of the resolution. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED by the Board of Directors of the Temecula Public Financing Authority this 25th day of July, 2017. Maryann Edwards, Chair ATTEST: Randi Johl, Secretary [SEAL] STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss CITY OF TEMECULA ) I, Randi Johl, Secretary of the Temecula Public Financing Authority, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution No. TPFA 17- was duly and regularly adopted by the Board of Directors of the Temecula Public Financing Authority at a meeting thereof held on the 25th day of July, 2017, by the following vote: AYES: BOARD MEMBERS: NOES: BOARD MEMBERS: ABSTAIN: BOARD MEMBERS: ABSENT: BOARD MEMBERS: Randi Johl, Secretary City of Temecula CFD 03-01 (Crowne Hill) Special Tax Refunding Bonds, Series 2017 and Special Tax Refunding Bonds, Series 2012 Budget Report Fiscal Year 2017-18 Debt Service Item 2016-17 2017-18 Difference Note/Comment Series 2012 1 Series 2005B Series 2012 1 Series 2017 March Interest Due $185,662.50 $55,427.50 $163,175.00 $40,810.42 ($14,617.08) $0.00 September Interest Due $185,662.50 $55,427.50 $163,175.00 $32,218.75 ($23,208.75) $0.00 3% Delinquency Allowance Principal Due $395,000.00 $15,000.00 $370,000.00 $25,000.00 $10,000.00 $3,953.52 Total Debt Service $766,325.00 $125,855.00 $696,350.00 $98,029.17 ($97,800.83) Difference due to refunding Administration Item 2016-17 2017-18 Difference Note/Comment Rate Actual Rate Levy Trustee/Paying Agent $0.00 $4,200.00 $4,200.00 $0.00 $0.00 3% Delinquency Allowance Consultant Services $3,876.00 $0.00 $3,953.52 $77.52 Contract amount Auditor -Controller (per FundNo enrollment fee) (11 $0.00 $130.45 Total Other $121.98 ($8.47) $24,286.35 Auditor -Controller (per Parcel enrollment fee) $0.09 $71.64 $0.12 $95.52 $23.88 Treasurer/Tax Collector (per Parcel fee) $0.33 $262.68 $0.33 $262.68 $0.00 Delinquency Management $532.95 $543.61 $10.66 Contract amount Continuing Disclosure/Dissemination $1,453.50 $1,482.57 $29.07 Contract amount City Administrative Costs $4,000.00 $4,000.00 $0.00 Administration Expenses $160.00 $160.00 $0.00 Other Costs $339.15 $345.93 $6.78 Contract amount Total Administration $15,026.37 $15,165.81 $139.44 Other 2016-17 Item Actual 2017-18 Levy Difference 1 Note/Comment Reserve Adjustment $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 Delinquency Allowance $0.00 $24,286.35 $0.00 3% Delinquency Allowance Delinquency Charges $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 Less: Prior Year Surplus $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 Total Other $0.00 $24,286.35 $0.00 Totals Total Requirement District Adjustment Enrollment Adjustment Actual Levy $907,206.37 $0.00 ($6.31) $907,200.06 $833,831.33 $0.00 $0.00 $833,831.33 Difference Note/Comment ($73,375.04) $0.00 Factors: Levy % Difference Administration % of Levy City's % of Levy Maximum Authorized Tax (Update Annually) Levy % of Maximum Tax Series 2012 Bonds Outstanding After September 1, 2017 Series 2017 Bonds Outstanding After September 1, 2017 Total Bonds Outstanding Prior to Levy -8.09% 1.82% 0.48% $2,003,682.40 41.61% $7,800,000 $ 2,105,000 $9,905,000 FY 2015-16 Delinquency Rate as of 4/10/2017 0.05% FY 2016-17 Delinquency Rate as of 4/10/2017 2.14% FY 2016-17 Parcels Levied 796 FY 2017-18 Projected Parcels to Levy 796 Final Maturity 2035 (1( Current Year Per Fund No Charge based upon Auditor -Controller Letter Dated June 12, 2017. Note/Comment RESOLUTION NO. TPFA 17- A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE TEMECULA PUBLIC FINANCING AUTHORITY AUTHORIZING THE LEVY OF A SPECIAL TAX IN COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT NO. 01-02 (HARVESTON) THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE TEMECULA PUBLIC FINANCING AUTHORITY OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. The Temecula Public Financing Authority is the legislative body for Community Facilities District No. 01-02 (Harveston) (the "CFD"), created pursuant to the Mello -Roos Community Facilities District Act of 1982, as amended (the "Act"). Section 2. The Board of Directors has enacted Ordinance No. TPFA 02-01 in accordance with Government Code Section 53340 authorizing the levy of a special tax assessment on the property located within the CFD. Section 3. The Board of Directors has completed all steps necessary to levy a special tax assessment in accordance with the procedures set forth in the Act. Section 4. Pursuant to the provisions of Resolution No. TPFA 02-03 and Ordinance No. TPFA 02-01, there is to be levied a special tax of $1,015,186.63 for Special Tax A and $239,480.03 for Special Tax B on the taxable parcels located in the CFD for Fiscal Year 2017-18 to be provided by Webb Associates to the Auditor - Controller of the County. Section 5. Special Tax A and B as set forth above do not exceed the amount previously authorized by Resolution No. TPFA 02-03 and Ordinance No. TPFA 02-01, and is not in excess of that previously approved by the qualified electorate of the CFD. Section 6. The proceeds of the Special Tax A levy shall be used to pay, in whole or in part, the costs of the following items: A. Payment of principal and interest on the outstanding authorized bonded indebtedness. B. Replenishment of the required bond reserve funds, or other reserve funds, if necessary. C. Payment of the administrative costs and incidental expenses of the CFD, as provided in Resolution No. TPFA 02-03 and the indenture of trust for the CFD and the Act. The proceeds of the special tax levy shall be used as set forth above, and shall not be used for any other purpose. Section 7. The Auditor -Controller of the County is hereby directed to enter the installment of the special tax for the exact rate and amount of the special tax levied in accordance with this resolution for each lot or parcel of land affected in a space marked "CFD No. 01-2 (Harveston Special Tax A)" and "CFD No. 01-2 (Harveston Special Tax B)" on the next County assessment roll on which taxes will become due. Section 8. The County Auditor -Controller shall, at the close of the tax collection period, promptly render to the CFD a detailed report showing the amounts of the special tax installments, penalties, interest and fees collected, and from which properties they have been collected. Any expenses to be paid to the Auditor -Controller for carrying out the foregoing responsibilities shall be in accordance with a contract entered into between the CFD and the Auditor, pursuant to Section 29304 of the Government Code. Section 9. The Authority Secretary shall certify adoption of the resolution. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED by the Board of Directors of the Temecula Public Financing Authority this 25th day of July, 2017. Maryann Edwards, Chair ATTEST: Randi Johl, Secretary [SEAL] STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss CITY OF TEMECULA ) I, Randi Johl, Secretary of the Temecula Public Financing Authority, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution No. TPFA 17- was duly and regularly adopted by the Board of Directors of the Temecula Public Financing Authority at a meeting thereof held on the 25th day of July, 2017, by the following vote: AYES: BOARD MEMBERS: NOES: BOARD MEMBERS: ABSTAIN: BOARD MEMBERS: ABSENT: BOARD MEMBERS: Randi Johl, Secretary City of Temecula CFD 01-02 Special Tax A (Harveston) 2016 Special Tax Refunding Bonds Budget Report Fiscal Year 2017-18 Debt Service Item 2016-17 2017-18 Difference Note/Comment Series A Series B 2016 Refunding Bonds March Interest Due $252,956.88 $56,097.50 $268,237.50 ($40,816.88) $3,850.00 September Interest Due $252,956.88 $56,097.50 $268,237.50 ($40,816.88) Principal Due $370,000.00 $65,000.00 $465,000.00 $30,000.00 Auditor -Controller (per Fund, No enrollment fee) (11 Total Debt Service $875,913.76 $177,195.00 $1,001,475.00 ($51,633.76) Difference due to refunding Administration Item 2016-17 2017-18 Difference Note/Comment Rate Actual Rate Levy Trustee/Paying Agent $0.00 $3,850.00 $0.00 $3,850.00 $0.00 Consultant Services $3,876.00 $0.00 3% Delinquency Allowance Met $3,953.52 $77.52 Contract amount Auditor -Controller (per Fund, No enrollment fee) (11 $0.00 $130.45 Less: Prior Year Surplus $121.98 ($8.47) Auditor -Controller (per Parcel enrollment fee) $0.09 $146.16 $0.12 $195.00 $48.84 $0.00 Treasurer/Tax Collector (per Parcel fee) $0.33 $535.92 $0.33 $536.25 $0.33 Delinquency Management $532.95 $543.61 $10.66 Contract amount Continuing Disclosure/Dissemination $1,453.50 $1,482.57 $29.07 Contract amount City Administrative Costs $5,000.00 $5,000.00 $0.00 Administration Expenses $180.00 $180.00 $0.00 Other Costs $339.15 $345.93 $6.78 Contract amount Total Administration $16,044.13 $16,208.86 $164.73 Other 2016-17 Item Actual 2017-18 Levy Difference 1 Note/Comment Reserve Adjustment $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 Delinquency Allowance $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 3% Delinquency Allowance Met Delinquency Charges $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 Less: Prior Year Surplus $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 Total Other $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 Totals Item 2016-17 Actual 2017-18 Levy Total Requirement District Adjustment Enrollment Adjustment $1,069,152.89 ($2,6 3.67) ($7: n Total Levy $1,066,486.62 $1,017,683.86 ($2,497.23) $0.00 $1,015,186.63 Difference Note/Comment ($51,469.03) $156.44 Credit due to surplus funds ($51,299.99) Factors: Levy % Difference Administration % of Levy City's % of Levy Maximum Authorized Tax (Update Annually) Levy % of Maximum Tax -4.81% 1.60% 0.49% $2,330,022.32 43.57% Bonds Outstanding After September 1, 2017 $12,775,000 FY 2015-16 Delinquency Rate as of 4/10/2017 0.20% FY 2016-17 Delinquency Rate as of 4/10/2017 2.67% FY 2016-17 Parcels Levied 1,624 FY 2017-18 Projected Parcels to Levy 1,625 Final Maturity 2036 (1) Current Year Per Fund No Charge based upon Auditor -Controller Letter Dated June 12, 2017. Note/Comment Bonds call protected until 9/1/2026 Audi dealership levied for first time FY 2017-18 City of Temecula CFD 01-02 Special Tax B (Harveston) Budget Report Fiscal Year 2017-18 Services CFD (No DSS) Maintenance & Services Item 2016-17 2017-18 Actual Park Maintenance $235,296.83 Total Maintenance and Services $235,296.83 Levy Difference $237,627.70 $2,330.87 $237,627.70 $2,330.87 Note/Comment Administration Item 2016-17 Rate Actual 2017-18 Rate Levy Difference Note/Comment Auditor -Controller (per FundNo enrollment fee) Difference 1 $130.45 Reserve Adjustment $121.98 ($8.47) Auditor -Controller (per Parcel enrollment fee) $0.09 $146.07 $0.12 $194.76 $48.69 Treasurer/Tax Collector (per Parcel fee) $0.33 $535.59 $0.33 $535.59 $0.00 City Administrative Costs $0.00 $1,000.00 Less: Prior Year Surplus $1,000.00 $0.00 Other Costs $0.00 $0.00 Total Other $0.00 $0.00 Total Administration $0.00 $1,812.11 $1,852.33 $40.22 Other 2016-17 Item Actual 2017-18 Levy Difference 1 Note/Comment Reserve Adjustment $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 Delinquency Allowance $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 Delinquency Charges $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 Less: Prior Year Surplus $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 Total Other $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 Totals Item 2016-17 Actual 2017-18 Levy Total Requirement District Adjustment Enrollment Adjustment $237,108.94 H $0.00 ($ Total Levy $237,092.82 $239,480.03 $0.00 $0.00 $239,480.03 Difference 1 Note/Comment $2,371.09 1% annual increase $0.00 $2,387.21 Factors: Levy % Difference Administration % of Levy City's % of Levy Maximum Authorized Tax (Update Annually) Levy % of Maximum Tax 1.01% 0.77% 0.42% $255,881.35 93.59% Bonds Outstanding After September 1, 2017 N/A FY 2015-16 Delinquency Rate as of 4/10/2017 0.19% FY 2016-17 Delinquency Rate as of 4/10/2017 1.80% FY 2016-17 Parcels Levied 1,623 FY 2017-18 Projected Parcels to Levy 1,623 Final Maturity N/A i1) Current Year Per Fund No Charge based upon Auditor -Controller Letter Dated June 12, 2017. Note/Comment RESOLUTION NO. TPFA 17- A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE TEMECULA PUBLIC FINANCING AUTHORITY AUTHORIZING THE LEVY OF A SPECIAL TAX IN COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT NO. 03-06 (HARVESTON II) THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE TEMECULA PUBLIC FINANCING AUTHORITY OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. The Temecula Public Financing Authority is the legislative body for Community Facilities District No. 03-06 (Harveston II) (the "CFD"), created pursuant to the Mello -Roos Community Facilities District Act of 1982, as amended (the "Act"). Section 2. The Board of Directors has enacted Ordinance No. TPFA 03-03 in accordance with Government Code Section 53340 authorizing the levy of a special tax assessment on the property located within the CFD. Section 3. The Board of Directors has completed all steps necessary to levy a special tax assessment in accordance with the procedures set forth in the Act. Section 4. Pursuant to the provisions of Resolution No. TPFA 03-27 and Ordinance No. TPFA 03-03, there is to be levied an aggregate special tax of $313,971.18 on the taxable parcels located in the CFD for Fiscal Year 2017-18 to be provided by Webb Associates to the Auditor -Controller of the County. Section 5. The Special Tax levy set forth above does not exceed the amount previously authorized by Resolution No. TPFA 03-27 and Ordinance No. TPFA 03-03, and is not in excess of that previously approved by the qualified electorate of the CFD. Section 6. The proceeds of the Special Tax levy shall be used to pay, in whole or in part, the costs of the following items: A. Payment of principal and interest on the outstanding authorized bonded indebtedness. B. Replenishment of the required bond reserve funds, or other reserve funds, if necessary. C. Payment of the administrative costs and incidental expenses of the CFD, as provided in Resolution No. TPFA 03-27 and the indenture of trust for the CFD and the Act. The proceeds of the special tax levy shall be used as set forth above, and shall not be used for any other purpose. Section 7. The Auditor -Controller of the County is hereby directed to enter the installment of the special tax for the exact rate and amount of the special tax levied in accordance with this resolution for each lot or parcel of land affected in a space marked "CFD No. 03-6 (Harveston II)" on the next County assessment roll on which taxes will become due. Section 8. The County Auditor -Controller shall, at the close of the tax collection period, promptly render to the CFD a detailed report showing the amounts of the special tax installments, penalties, interest and fees collected, and from which properties they have been collected. Any expenses to be paid to the Auditor -Controller for carrying out the foregoing responsibilities shall be in accordance with a contract entered into between the CFD and the Auditor, pursuant to Section 29304 of the Government Code. Section 9. The Authority Secretary shall certify adoption of the resolution. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED by the Board of Directors of the Temecula Public Financing Authority this 25th day of July, 2017. Maryann Edwards, Chair ATTEST: Randi Johl, Secretary [SEAL] STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss CITY OF TEMECULA ) I, Randi Johl, Secretary of the Temecula Public Financing Authority, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution No. TPFA 17- was duly and regularly adopted by the Board of Directors of the Temecula Public Financing Authority at a meeting thereof held on the 25th day of July, 2017, by the following vote: AYES: BOARD MEMBERS: NOES: BOARD MEMBERS: ABSTAIN: BOARD MEMBERS: ABSENT: BOARD MEMBERS: Randi Johl, Secretary City of Temecula CFD 03-06 (Harveston II) Special Tax Refunding Bonds, Series 2012 Budget Report Fiscal Year 2017-18 Debt Service 2016-17 2017-18 2016-17 2017-18 Item Actual Levy Difference Note/Comment March Interest Due $72,843.75 $71,043.75 ($1,800.00) Rate Actual September Interest Due $72,843.75 $71,043.75 ($1,800.00) $0.00 Principal Due $160,000.00 $160,000.00 $0.00 Total Debt Service $305,687.50 $302,087.50 ($3,600.00) Contract amount Administration 2016-17 2017-18 Item 2016-17 2017-18 Difference Note/Comment Rate Actual Rate Levy Trustee/Paying Agent $0.00 $2,195.00 $0.00 $2495.00 $0.00 ($972.55) Consultant Services $3,876.00 $0.00 3% Delinquency Allowance Met $3,953.52 $77.52 Contract amount Auditor -Controller (per FundNo enrollment fee) (1) $0.00 $130.45 Less: Prior Year Surplus $121.98 ($8.47) Auditor -Controller (per Parcel enrollment fee) $0.09 $113.49 $0.12 $151.32 $37.83 $0.00 Treasurer/Tax Collector (per Parcel fee) $0.33 $416.13 $0.33 $416.13 $0.00 Delinquency Management $532.95 $543.61 $10.66 Contract amount Continuing Disclosure/Dissemination $1,453.50 $1,482.57 $29.07 Contract amount City Administrative Costs $3,000.00 $3,000.00 $0.00 Administration Expenses $150.00 $150.00 $0.00 Other Costs $339.15 $345.93 $6.78 Contract amount Total Administration $12,206.67 $12,360.06 $153.39 Other 2016-17 2017-18 2016-17 Item Actual 2017-18 Levy Difference 1 Note/Comment Reserve Adjustment $317,894.17 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 Delinquency Allowance ($972.55) $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 3% Delinquency Allowance Met Delinquency Charges ($7.10) $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 Less: Prior Year Surplus $316,914.52 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 Total Other $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 Totals 2016-17 2017-18 Item Actual Levy Difference Note/Comment Total Requirement $317,894.17 $314,447.56 ($3,446.61) District Adjustment ($972.55) ($476.38) ($476.38) Credit due to surplus funds Enrollment Adjustment ($7.10) $0.00 Actual Levy $316,914.52 $313,971.18 ($2,943.34) Factors: Levy % Difference Administration % of Levy City's % of Levy Maximum Authorized Tax (Update Annually) Levy % of Maximum Tax -0.93% 3.94% 0.96% $443,181.75 70.84% Bonds Outstanding After September 1, 2017 $3,655,000 FY 2015-16 Delinquency Rate as of 4/10/2017 0.32% FY 2016-17 Delinquency Rate as of 4/10/2017 2.22% FY 2016-17 Parcels Levied 1,261 FY 2017-18 Projected Parcels to Levy 1,261 Final Maturity 2034 (1) Current Year Per Fund No Charge based upon Auditor -Controller Letter Dated June 12, 2017. Note/Comment Bonds call protected until 9/1/2022 RESOLUTION NO. TPFA 17- A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE TEMECULA PUBLIC FINANCING AUTHORITY AUTHORIZING THE LEVY OF A SPECIAL TAX IN COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT NO. 03-02 (RORIPAUGH RANCH) THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE TEMECULA PUBLIC FINANCING AUTHORITY OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. The Temecula Public Financing Authority is the legislative body for Community Facilities District No. 03-02 (Roripaugh Ranch) (the "CFD"), created pursuant to the Mello -Roos Community Facilities District Act of 1982, as amended (the "Act"). Section 2. The Board of Directors has enacted Ordinance No. TPFA 05-01 in accordance with Government Code Section 53340 authorizing the levy of a special tax assessment on the property located within the CFD. Section 3. The Board of Directors has completed all steps necessary to levy a special tax assessment in accordance with the procedures set forth in the Act. Section 4. Pursuant to the provisions of Resolution No. TPFA 05-01 and Ordinance No. TPFA 05-01, there is to be levied an aggregate special tax of $772,656.24 on the taxable parcels located in the CFD for Fiscal Year 2017-18 to be provided by Webb Associates to the Auditor -Controller of the County. Section 5. The Special Tax levy set forth above does not exceed the amount previously authorized by Resolution No. TPFA 05-1 and Ordinance No. TPFA 05-01, and is not in excess of that previously approved by the qualified electorate of the CFD. Section 6. The proceeds of the Special Tax levy shall be used to pay, in whole or in part, the costs of the following items: A. Payment of principal and interest on the outstanding authorized bonded indebtedness. B. Replenishment of the required bond reserve funds, or other reserve funds, if necessary. C. Payment of the administrative costs and incidental expenses of the CFD, as provided in Resolution No. TPFA 05-01 and the indenture of trust for the CFD and the Act. The proceeds of the special tax levy shall be used as set forth above, and shall not be used for any other purpose. Section 7. The Auditor -Controller of the County is hereby directed to enter the installment of the special tax for the exact rate and amount of the special tax levied in accordance with this resolution for each lot or parcel of land affected in a space marked "CFD No. 03-2 (Roripaugh Ranch)" on the next County assessment roll on which taxes will become due. Section 8. The County Auditor -Controller shall, at the close of the tax collection period, promptly render to the CFD a detailed report showing the amounts of the special tax installments, penalties, interest and fees collected, and from which properties they have been collected. Any expenses to be paid to the Auditor -Controller for carrying out the foregoing responsibilities shall be in accordance with a contract entered into between the CFD and the Auditor, pursuant to Section 29304 of the Government Code. Section 9. The Authority Secretary shall certify adoption of the resolution. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED by the Board of Directors of the Temecula Public Financing Authority this 25th day of July, 2017. Maryann Edwards, Chair ATTEST: Randi Johl, Secretary [SEAL] STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss CITY OF TEMECULA ) I, Randi Johl, Secretary of the Temecula Public Financing Authority, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution No. TPFA 17- was duly and regularly adopted by the Board of Directors of the Temecula Public Financing Authority at a meeting thereof held on the 25th day of July, 2017, by the following vote: AYES: BOARD MEMBERS: NOES: BOARD MEMBERS: ABSTAIN: BOARD MEMBERS: ABSENT: BOARD MEMBERS: Randi Johl, Secretary City of Temecula CFD 03-02 (Roripaugh Ranch) 2017 Special Tax Refunding Bonds Budget Report Fiscal Year 2017-18 Debt Service Item March Interest Due 2016-17 2017-18 Difference $0.00 Note/Comment Difference 1 Note/Comment Actual $1,147,827.50 Levy $197,809.38 ($950,018.12) September Interest Due $1,147,827.50 $197,809.38 ($950,018.12) Principal Due $1,205,000.00 $345,000.00 ($860,000.00) Total Debt Service $3,500,655.00 $740,618.76 Difference due to refunding ($2,760,036.24) and prepayment of pan Administration Difference $0.00 Note/Comment Item 2016-17 2017-18 Rate Actual Rate Levy Trustee/Paying Agent $6,000.00 $6,000.00 Consultant Services Delinquency Allowance $3,876.00 $0.00 $3,953.52 $77.52 Contract amount Auditor -Controller (per FundNo enrollment fee) (1) $130.45 $121.98 ($8.47) Less: Prior Year Surplus Auditor -Controller (per Parcel enrollment fee) $0.09 $47.43 $0.12 $59.16 $11.73 Treasurer/Tax Collector (per Parcel fee) $0.33 $173.91 $0.33 $162.69 ($11.22) Delinquency Management $532.95 $543.61 $10.66 Contract amount Continuing Disclosure/Dissemination $1,453.50 $1,482.57 $29.07 Contract amount City Administrative Costs $20,000.00 $20,000.00 $0.00 Administration Expenses $215.00 $215.00 $0.00 Other Costs $339.15 $345.93 $6.78 Contract amount Total Administration $32,768.39 $32,884.46 $116.07 Other 2016-17 Item Actual 2017-18 Levy Difference 1 Note/Comment Reserve Adjustment $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 Delinquency Allowance $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 3% Delinquency Allowance Mel Delinquency Charges $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 Less: Prior Year Surplus $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 Total Other $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 Totals Total Requirement $3,533,423.39 $773,503.22 District Adjustment Enrollment Adjustment Actual Levy $0.00 ($846.98) $0.00 $3,533,421.92 $772,656.24 Difference Note/Comment ($2,759,920.17) ($846.98) Credit due to surplus funds ($2,760,765.68) Factors: Levy % Difference Administration % of Levy City's % of Levy Maximum Authorized Tax (Update Annually) Levy % of Maximum Tax -78.13% 4.26% 2.59% $1,462,413.85 52.83% Bonds Outstanding After September 1, 2017 $9,645,000 FY 2015-16 Delinquency Rate as of 4/10/2017 0.08% FY 2016-17 Delinquency Rate as of 4/10/2017 0.84% FY 2016-17 Parcels Levied 527 FY 2017-18 Projected Parcels to Levy 493 Final Maturity 2036 (1) Current Year Per Fund No Charge based upon Auditor -Controller Letter Dated June 12, 2017. Note/Comment Only developed parcels to be taxed in FY 2017-1 91 new building permits for FY 2017-18 RESOLUTION NO. TPFA 17- A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE TEMECULA PUBLIC FINANCING AUTHORITY AUTHORIZING THE LEVY OF A SPECIAL TAX IN COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT NO. 03-03 (WOLF CREEK) THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE TEMECULA PUBLIC FINANCING AUTHORITY DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. The Temecula Public Financing Authority is the legislative body for Community Facilities District No. 03-03 (Wolf Creek) (the "CFD"), created pursuant to the Mello -Roos Community Facilities District Act of 1982, as amended (the "Act"). Section 2. The Board of Directors has enacted Ordinance No. TPFA 03-02 in accordance with Government Code Section 53340 authorizing the levy of a special tax assessment on the property located within the CFD. Section 3. The Board of Directors has completed all steps necessary to levy a special tax assessment in accordance with the procedures set forth in the Act. Section 4. Pursuant to the provisions of Resolution No. TPFA 03-22 and Ordinance No. TPFA 03-02, there is to be levied an aggregate special tax of $1,895,744.15 on the taxable parcels located in the CFD for Fiscal Year 2017-18 to be provided by Webb Associates to the Auditor -Controller of the County. Section 5. The Special Tax levy set forth above does not exceed the amount previously authorized by Resolution No. TPFA 03-22 and Ordinance No. TPFA 03-2, and is not in excess of that previously approved by the qualified electorate of the CFD. Section 6. The proceeds of the Special Tax levy shall be used to pay, in whole or in part, the costs of the following items: A. Payment of principal and interest on the outstanding authorized bonded indebtedness. B. Replenishment of the required bond reserve funds, or other reserve funds, if necessary. C. Payment of the administrative costs and incidental expenses of the CFD, as provided in Resolution No. TPFA 03-22 and the indenture of trust for the CFD and the Act. The proceeds of the special tax levy shall be used as set forth above, and shall not be used for any other purpose. Section 7. The Auditor -Controller of the County is hereby directed to enter the installment of the special tax for the exact rate and amount of the special tax levied in accordance with this resolution for each lot or parcel of land affected in a space marked "CFD No. 03-3 (Wolf Creek)" on the next County assessment roll on which taxes will become due. Section 8. The County Auditor -Controller shall, at the close of the tax collection period, promptly render to the CFD a detailed report showing the amounts of the special tax installments, penalties, interest and fees collected, and from which properties they have been collected. Any expenses to be paid to the Auditor -Controller for carrying out the foregoing responsibilities shall be in accordance with a contract entered into between the CFD and the Auditor, pursuant to Section 29304 of the Government Code. Section 9. The Authority Secretary shall certify adoption of the resolution. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED by the Board of Directors of the Temecula Public Financing Authority this 25th day of July, 2017. Maryann Edwards, Chair ATTEST: Randi Johl, Secretary [SEAL] STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss CITY OF TEMECULA ) I, Randi Johl, Secretary of the Temecula Public Financing Authority, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution No. TPFA 17- was duly and regularly adopted by the Board of Directors of the Temecula Public Financing Authority at a meeting thereof held on the 25th day of July, 2017, by the following vote: AYES: BOARD MEMBERS: NOES: BOARD MEMBERS: ABSTAIN: BOARD MEMBERS: ABSENT: BOARD MEMBERS: Randi Johl, Secretary City of Temecula CFD 03-03 (Wolf Creek) 2012 Special Tax Refunding Bonds Budget Report Fiscal Year 2017-18 Debt Service Item March Interest Due 2016-17 2017-18 2016-17 2017-18 Item Difference 1 Note/Comment Actual $493,050.00 Levy $479,550.00 ($13,500.00) Rate Actual September Interest Due $493,050.00 $479,550.00 ($13,500.00) $0.00 Principal Due $900,000.00 $930,000.00 $30,000.00 Total Debt Service $1,886,100.00 $1,889,100.00 $3,000.00 Contract amount Administration 2016-17 2017-18 Item 2016-17 2017-18 Difference Note/Comment Rate Actual Rate Levy Trustee/Paying Agent $0.00 $2,445.00 $0.00 $2,445.00 $0.00 ($8,005.11) Consultant Services $3,876.00 $0.00 3% Delinquency Allowance Met $3,953.52 $77.52 Contract amount Auditor -Controller (per FundNo enrollment fee) (l) $0.00 $130.45 Less: Prior Year Surplus $121.98 ($8.47) Auditor -Controller (per Parcel enrollment fee) $0.09 $162.54 $0.12 $216.72 $54.18 $0.00 Treasurer/Tax Collector (per Parcel fee) $0.33 $595.98 $0.33 $595.98 $0.00 Delinquency Management $532.95 $543.61 $10.66 Contract amount Continuing Disclosure/Dissemination $1,453.50 $1,482.57 $29.07 Contract amount City Administrative Costs $6,000.00 $6,000.00 $0.00 Administration Expenses $150.00 $150.00 $0.00 Other Costs $339.15 $345.93 $6.78 Contract amount Total Administration $15,685.57 $15,855.31 $169.74 Other 2016-17 2017-18 2016-17 Item Actual 2017-18 Levy Difference 1 Note/Comment Reserve Adjustment $1,901,785.57 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 Delinquency Allowance ($8,005.11) $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 3% Delinquency Allowance Met Delinquency Charges ($22.54) $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 Less: Prior Year Surplus $1,893,757.92 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 Total Other $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 Totals 2016-17 2017-18 Item Actual Levy Difference Note/Comment Total Requirement $1,901,785.57 $1,904,955.31 $3,169.74 District Adjustment ($8,005.11) ($9,211.17) ($1,206.06) Credit due to surplus funds Enrollement Adjustment ($22.54) $0.00 Actual Levy $1,893,757.92 $1,895,744.15 $1,986.22 Factors: Levy % Difference Administration % of Levy City's % of Levy Maximum Authorized Tax (Update Annually) Levy % of Maximum Tax 0.10% 0.84% 0.32% $2,756,688.40 68.77% Bonds Outstanding After September 1, 2017 $21,770,000 FY 2015-16 Delinquency Rate as of 4/10/2017 0.28% FY 2016-17 Delinquency Rate as of 4/10/2017 1.33% FY 2016-17 Parcels Levied 1,806 FY 2017-18 Projected Parcels to Levy 1,806 Final Maturity 2034 (1) Current Year Per Fund No Charge based upon Auditor -Controller Letter Dated June 12, 2017. Note/Comment Bonds call protected until 9/1/2022 RESOLUTION NO. TPFA 17- A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE TEMECULA PUBLIC FINANCING AUTHORITY AUTHORIZING THE LEVY OF A SPECIAL TAX IN COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT NO. 16-01 (RORIPAUGH RANCH PHASE 2) THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE TEMECULA PUBLIC FINANCING AUTHORITY OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. The Temecula Public Financing Authority is the legislative body for Community Facilities District No. 16-01 (Roripaugh Ranch Phase 2) (the "CFD"), created pursuant to the Mello -Roos Community Facilities District Act of 1982, as amended (the "Act"). Section 2. The Board of Directors has enacted Ordinance No. TPFA 16-01 in accordance with Government Code Section 53340 authorizing the levy of a special tax assessment on the property located within the CFD. Section 3. The Board of Directors has completed all steps necessary to levy a special tax assessment in accordance with the procedures set forth in the Act. Section 4. Pursuant to the provisions of Resolution No. TPFA 16-04 and Ordinance No. TPFA 16-01, there is to be levied an aggregate special tax of $3,275,509.37 on the taxable parcels located in the CFD for Fiscal Year 2017-18 to be provided by Webb Associates to the Auditor -Controller of the County. Section 5. The Special Tax levy set forth above does not exceed the amount previously authorized by Resolution No. TPFA 16-04 and Ordinance No. TPFA 16-01, and is not in excess of that previously approved by the qualified electorate of the CFD. Section 6. The proceeds of the Special Tax levy shall be used to pay, in whole or in part, the costs of the following items: A. Payment of principal and interest on the outstanding authorized bonded indebtedness. B. Replenishment of the required bond reserve funds, or other reserve funds, if necessary. C. Payment of the administrative costs and incidental expenses of the CFD, as provided in Resolution No. TPFA 16-04 and the indenture of trust for the CFD and the Act. The proceeds of the special tax levy shall be used as set forth above, and shall not be used for any other purpose. Section 7. The Auditor -Controller of the County is hereby directed to enter the installment of the special tax for the exact rate and amount of the special tax levied in accordance with this resolution for each lot or parcel of land affected in a space marked "CFD No. 16-01 (Roripaugh Ranch Phase 2)" on the next County assessment roll on which taxes will become due. Section 8. The County Auditor -Controller shall, at the close of the tax collection period, promptly render to the CFD a detailed report showing the amounts of the special tax installments, penalties, interest and fees collected, and from which properties they have been collected. Any expenses to be paid to the Auditor -Controller for carrying out the foregoing responsibilities shall be in accordance with a contract entered into between the CFD and the Auditor, pursuant to Section 29304 of the Government Code. Section 9. The Authority Secretary shall certify adoption of the resolution. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED by the Board of Directors of the Temecula Public Financing Authority this 25th day of July, 2017. Maryann Edwards, Chair ATTEST: Randi Johl, Secretary [SEAL] STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss CITY OF TEMECULA ) I, Randi Johl, Secretary of the Temecula Public Financing Authority, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution No. TPFA 17- was duly and regularly adopted by the Board of Directors of the Temecula Public Financing Authority at a meeting thereof held on the 25th day of July, 2017, by the following vote: AYES: BOARD MEMBERS: NOES: BOARD MEMBERS: ABSTAIN: BOARD MEMBERS: ABSENT: BOARD MEMBERS: Randi Johl, Secretary City of Temecula CFD 16-01 (Roripaugh Ranch Phase 2) Special Tax Bonds, Series 2017 Budget Report Fiscal Year 2017-18 Debt Service Item 2016-17 2017-18 Actual Levy March Interest Due $0.00 $1,292,634.38 September Interest Due Principal Due Total Debt Service $0.00 $1,292,634.38 $0.00 $0.00 $565,000.00 $3,150,268.76 Difference Note/Comment $1,292,634.38 $1,292,634.38 $565,000.00 $3,150,268.76 Administration 2016-17 2017-18 Item 2016-17 2017-18 Difference Note/Comment Rate Actual Rate Levy Trustee/Paying Agent $0.00 $0.00 Delinquency Allowance $2,500.00 $2,500.00 $0.00 Consultant Services Delinquency Charges $0.00 $0.00 $3,953.52 $3,953.52 Less: Prior Year Surplus Auditor -Controller (per FundNo enrollment fee) Ill $0.00 $0.00 $121.98 $121.98 $75,240.61 Auditor -Controller (per Parcel enrollment fee) $0.09 $0.00 $0.12 $2.16 $2.16 Treasurer/Tax Collector (per Parcel fee) $0.33 $0.00 $0.33 $5.94 $5.94 Delinquency Management $0.00 $543.61 $543.61 Continuing Disclosure/Dissemination $0.00 $1,482.57 $1,482.57 City Administrative Costs $0.00 $40,829.29 $40,829.29 Administration Expenses $0.00 $215.00 $215.00 Other Costs $0.00 $345.93 $345.93 Total Administration $0.00 $50,000.00 $50,000.00 Other 2016-17 2017-18 Item 2016-17 Actual 2017-18 Levy Difference Note/Comment Reserve Adjustment $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 Delinquency Allowance $0.00 $75,240.61 $0.00 3% Delinquency Allowance Delinquency Charges $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 Less: Prior Year Surplus $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 Total Other $0.00 $75,240.61 $0.00 Totals Item Total Requirement 2016-17 2017-18 Difference 1 Note/Comment Actual $0.00 Levy $3,275,509.37 $3,275,509.37 District Adjustment $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 Enrollment Adjustment Actual Levy $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $3,275,509.37 $3,275,509.37 Factors: Levy % Difference Administration % of Levy City's % of Levy Maximum Authorized Tax (Update Annually) Levy % of Maximum Tax N/A 1.53% 1.25% $5,987,312.33 54.71% Bonds Outstanding After September 1, 2017 $42,815,000 FY 2015-16 Delinquency Rate as of 4/10/2017 N/A FY 2016-17 Delinquency Rate as of 4/10/2017 N/A FY 2016-17 Parcels Levied 0 FY 2017-18 Projected Parcels to Levy 18 Final Maturity 2047 (1) Current Year Per Fund No Charge based upon Auditor -Controller Letter Dated June 12, 2017. Note/Comment FY 2017-18 is the inaugural levy No building permits issued to date DEPARTMENT REPORTS Item No. 15 Approvals City Attorney Director of Finance City Manager CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT TO: City Manager/City Council FROM: Luke Watson, Director of Community Development DATE: July 25, 2017 SUBJECT: Community Development Department Monthly Report PREPARED BY: Lynn Kelly -Lehner, Principal Management Analyst RECOMMENDATION: Receive and file. The following are the highlights for the Community Development Department for the month of June 2017. CURRENT PLANNING ACTIVITIES: New Cases: In June 2017, Planning received 35 new applications, including 6 pre - applications, and conducted 4 Public Hearings. A detailed account of current planning activities is attached to this report. Town Square Market Place: On January 13, 2015, City Council entered into an Exclusive Negotiating Agreement (ENA) with Truax Development to negotiate the development of the two Successor Agency owned vacant lots, flanking the Town Square Park on the north and south sides of Main Street. A Disposition and Development Agreement was approved by City Council on December 13, 2016. On February 16, 2017, staff received a Development Plan application for the Town Square Market Place. The project will feature 2 three story shell buildings with basements. Each building will total 38,863 square feet. Anticipated uses include retail, food vendors, restaurants, and breweries. Staff received a resubmittal on May 16, 2017. A Parcel Merger application was received on June 30, 2017. (JONES) Old Town Boutique Hotel: On February 18, 2016, staff received an application for a Development Plan to construct a five -story, 155,630 square foot hotel. The 151 room hotel will extend the entire length of 3rd Street between Old Town Front Street and Mercedes. A six - story parking structure for hotel valet parking will be located directly across 3rd Street. Amenities include restaurant and retail space, meeting and banquet rooms, and a pool. A Supplemental Environmental Impact Report has been prepared by ESA. The comment period for this document was May 2, 2017 to June 15, 2017. The Old Town Local Review Board reviewed the project on February 13, 2017 and recommended approval of the project. The project has undergone signficant revisions since the Board reviewed the project. These revisions include an increased square footage of 175,677 square feet and architectural changes. Staff will be presenting the revisions to the Board on July 17, 2017. Staff anticipates the project will be heard at the August 16, 2017 Planning Commission hearing. Staff anticipates the project will be heard at a City Council hearing in September of 2017. (JONES) Cypress Ridge: On December 21, 2015, staff received an application fora Development Plan to construct 245 market rate residential units in the form of duplex, triplex, attached and detached cluster units. The project will be located on the northeast corner of Pechanga Parkway and Loma Linda Road. The project also includes a Tentative Tract Map (for condo purposes), Zone Change/Planned Development Overlay, and General Plan Amendment. A fiscal impact analysis (FIA) and Environmental Impact Report (EIR) are underway. The comment period for the Draft EIR has closed and the response to comments is currently being prepared. The applicant is proposing to provide landscaping along Pechanga Parkway north of the project site and upgrade Pala Park to include amenities and play equipment for special needs. Staff anticipates this will be heard at the August 2, 2017 Planning Commission hearing and will be heard at a City Council hearing in September of 2017. (JONES) Altair Specific Plan: On November 12, 2013, City Council approved an Entitlement Processing Agreement with Ambient Communities (Developer) to process extensive land use entitlements for the 270 acre property located west of Old Town including General Plan Amendment, Specific Plan, Subdivision Maps, Development Agreement, and EIR. Ambient Communities is proposing a mixed-use development comprised of residential single-family and multi -family units, as well as retail/commercial, open space, and institutional uses. Keyser Marston Associates has prepared a fiscal impact analysis for the project. Staff is working through environmental issues associated with the MSHCP and wildlife corridors and negotiating a Development Agreement. A Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR), prepared by ESA, was circulated, and the comment period ended on June 17, 2016. A Planning Commission workshop was held on June 6, 2016, and a City Council Workshop was held on July 28, 2016. A second City Council Workshop was held on September 27, 2016. Staff is working on the EIR response to written comments, and the Development Agreement. In addition, the City Council discussed options for the Civic Site on February 14, 2017, and directed Staff to evaluate a less -intensive use to include a nature center and hiking trails in the EIR. Staff anticipates taking the project to the City Council during Fall 2017. (PETERS) Temecula Creek Inn (TCI) Specific Plan: JC Resorts is proposing a General Plan Amendment, Specific Plan, Tentative Tract Map, and Development Plan for a hotel expansion at Temecula Creek Inn. This project also includes a Fiscal Impact Analysis to evaluate the project's potential impacts on the City's General Fund. Since 2008, the Developer has modified the site plan and project description to address concerns regarding site layout, number of units, traffic impacts, cultural resources, potential Development Agreement, and timing of the hotel expansion. As a result of the changes, the applicant completed a pre - application to make a final determination on the site plan and project description. The final project description includes 385 single-family dwelling units, reducing the current 27 -hole golf course to an 18 -hole golf course, on 305 acres located on Rainbow Canyon Road. The Specific Plan proposes five Planning Areas: Planning Area 1 includes an expansion of the existing hotel by 99 rooms from 128 to 227 guest rooms, and the addition of a spa and banquet facilities totaling 153,837 square feet. Planning Areas 2-4 accommodate the 385 single family homes. Planning Area 5 consists of the golf course. A TCI Subcommittee meeting was held on February 14, 2017. The applicant is working with Staff to address issues regarding traffic impacts, extraordinary public benefits, and biological impacts associated with a wildlife corridor. (PETERS) LONG RANGE PLANNING Waves to Wineries: Staff is working with the National Park Service and multiple agencies on the Waves to Wineries Trail Plan(W2W). The purpose of this plan is to unite Temecula wine country with the Pacific Coast by identifying a network of trails along the Santa Margarita River corridor and eventually to the ocean. The goals are to identify existing trails, gaps necessary to connect them, and develop and implement a strategy to fill in the missing links. (PETERS) Uptown Temecula Specific Plan: The Uptown Temecula Specific Plan was adopted by the City Council along with the certification of the Final EIR on November 17, 2015. Staff released a Request for Proposal for the preparation of a supplemental document to the Plan. The Sidewalk Improvement Standards being developed will serve as a technical companion document to the Uptown Temecula Specific Plan, for City staff to use when reviewing development proposals to instruct the developer about the type and distance separation of street trees and light standards, the type and appropriate location of street furnishings, and the plant pallet for any landscaping that may be proposed as part of a development plan. Spurlock Landscape Architects was selected for the project. The first of two public workshops will be held July 17, 2017 at 7:00 PM. (WEST) Second Dwelling Unit Ordinance: Staff is preparing a proposed Development Code Amendment in response to Assembly Bill 2299 (AB 2299) and Senate Bill 1069 (SB 1069) amending the existing State Law related to second dwelling unit regulations. Both bills became effective on January 1, 2017. The new laws regulate parking, type and size of units, approval process and timelines, and water and sewer utility requirements applicable to second dwelling units. Most importantly, the amended State Law invalidates a local agency's existing second unit ordinance if it does not comply will all of the requirements of the newly adopted state standards. The proposed ordinance is scheduled for Planning Commission on August 2, 2017 to be followed by a City Council hearing. (WEST) SUCCESSOR AGENCY TO THE TEMECULA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY (SARDA) & AFFORDABLE HOUSING Affordable Housing RFP: The Supportive Housing Subcommittee directed staff to issue an RFP to solicit project proposals from interested developers for the construction of an affordable housing development. In late 2015, the Successor Agency obtained clearance from the Department of Finance $12.4 million of affordable housing funds. The RFP solicited development proposals that address one or more of the following housing needs: seniors, veterans, special needs, transitional, or supportive. The City received twenty proposals from interested developers. Keyser Marston Associates assisted staff in the review and analysis of the proposals. Staff presented the proposals to the Supportive Housing Subcommittee on February 28, 2017. On April 11, City Council recommended that nine of the original twenty proposals move forward to the next stage in the process. Staff requested updated financial information from each of the developers selected to move forward, and interviews are planned to be held in Summer 2017. (WATSON, LEHNER) Affordable Housing Overlay and Density Bonus Ordinance: The City Council adopted the 2014-2021 General Plan Housing Element Update on January 28, 2014, and the City received certification from the State Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) on March 10, 2014. A project processing schedule has been prepared for the Affordable Housing Overlay and Density Bonus Ordinances as required by Programs 1 and 4 of the Housing Element. The Code Amendment will also encompass land use updates as required by Program 3 of the Housing Element. The project is in the initial planning phase. Staff is conducting research and anticipates completing the ordinance for adoption in 2017. (WEST) Recognized Obligation Payment Schedule: As part of the ongoing wind -down of the former Temecula Redevelopment Agency, the Successor Agency (SARDA) is required to complete a Recognized Obligation Payment Schedule (ROPS) outlining the financial and debt obligations of the former Redevelopment Agency. Based on the outstanding obligations that are due, SARDA makes requests from the Property Tax Trust Fund to make the appropriate payments. On January 24, 2017, the 2017-18 ROPS was approved by SARDA Executive Board for approval, and subsequently SARDA Oversight Board on January 25, prior to the state deadline of February 1, 2017. (WATSON, LEHNER) COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT (CDBG) CDBG Consolidated Plan and Assessment of Fair Housing: Every five years, the City, as an Entitlement City, is required to prepare an updated Consolidated Plan (ConPlan) and Assessment of Fair Housing (AFH). The ConPlan and AFH process is designed to help local jurisdictions assess their affordable housing and community development needs. Three public workshops were held in conjunction with this process — two on June 29, 2016, and a third on July 30, 2016. A survey was created to assess resident and stakeholder input regarding fair housing. The City Council approved the Assessment of Fair Housing on September 27, and has been approved by HUD. On February 28, 2017, staff presented the draft strategic plan priority needs to the Finance Subcommittee for review and recommendation. On April 25, 2017, City Council approved the Consolidated Plan. The ConPlan becomes effective July 1, 2017 and will cover through June 30, 2022. (LEHNER) CDBG Administration: The City will receive $515,274 in CDBG funding for Fiscal Year 2017-18. Staff held two technical workshops for applicants on November 30, 2016. The application period for the 2017-18 was open from November 16 through December 15, 2016. Staff reviewed 14 applications for public service providers and four CIP projects. Staff presented the applications to the Finance Subcommittee for recommendations on February 28, 2017. City Council approved the 2017-18 Action Plan on April 25, 2017. (LEHNER) ENERGY & CONSERVATION Western Riverside Energy Leadership Partnership: This Partnership, consisting of eleven Western Riverside Council of Government (WRCOG) member cities, Southern California Edison, and Southern California Gas, provides incentives to develop energy efficiency programs. Staff worked with NRG EV Services to install an electric vehicle charging station in the 6th Street Parking Lot. The charging station complements the existing charging stations in the 6th Street Parking Lot and the Civic Center Parking Garage, by adding fast charging capabilities allowing drivers to add 50 miles of range in 15 minutes. (WEST) Solid Waste and Recycling Program: Staff manages the City's Solid Waste and Recycling Agreement with CR&R and acts as a liaison between the City, CR&R, and their customers. City staff and CR&R coordinate two Citywide Clean-up events each year for residents to dispose of household waste and large miscellaneous items that do not fit into the standard residential trash receptacle. Staff also assists with outreach for the Riverside County Mobile Household Hazardous Waste Collection events and the Composting Workshops. (WEST) BUILDING & SAFETY Building and Safety statistics for June 2017 are highlighted in the following table. Building and Safety Statistics — June 2017 Permits 262 New Single Family Residence 2 Photovoltaic 61 Tenant Improvements 7 Non Construction C of 0 37 Inspections 1,725 Inspections Per Day 78.04 Inspections Per Person Per Day 19.6 Visitors to Counter 920 New Commercial Buildings Retail Shell Building (Gateway)— 30010 Temecula Parkway Non Construction Certificate of Occupancy Oak Hill Academy — 29275 Santiago Road California Food Truck Manufacturing — 43300 Business Park Drive Tenant Improvements Which Which Sandwiches — 39650 Winchester Road Creative Habits — 42095 Zevo Drive Fit Body Boot Camp — 44054 Margarita Road CODE ENFORCEMENT During the month of June, Code Enforcement responded to 82 web complaints. In addition, the division opened 94 code cases and forwarded 20 referrals to Public Works, Police, Animal Control, and Fire. Code Enforcement assisted 25 people at the Community Development Counter. The City's annual Weed Abatement Program began March 1, and 650 parcels have been noticed for abatement. As a result, 133 Warrants were prepared for forced abatement. Detailed Code Enforcement case activity can be found in the following chart: Type of Code Case Total Abandoned or Inoperable Vehicle 2 Vacant Home / Property Maintenance / Rodent/ Mold 17 Business or Home Occupation w/o license/CUP 6 Trash and Debris / Dumping 5 Overgrown Vegetation / Weeds / Fire Hazard 12 Green Pool / Vector Control 6 Graffiti 4 Noise/Nuisance/Animal Control 1 Trailer / RV Stored/Boat/Parking 11 Construction w/o Permit/Building Code 12 Encroach Public ROW / Trash Cans 9 Other / Homeless Encampment 0 Zoning/Signs 5 Public Safety & Health 4 Total Number of Cases 94 Foreclosure Tracking: Code Enforcement works with the local real estate community to monitor foreclosures, defaults and real estate owned properties. The following charts demonstrate the past six months of activities in Temecula. Residential Foreclosure Tracking Commercial Foreclosure Tracking JANUARY FEBRUARY MARCH APRIL MAY JUNE 2017 2017 2017 2017 2017 2017 DEFAULT 78 88 85 82 83 76 FORECLOSED 69 61 61 60 60 56 REO 71 67 76 76 75 63 TOTALS 218 216 222 218 218 195 Commercial Foreclosure Tracking ATTACHMENT: Current Planning Activity Report January 2017 February 2017 March 2017 April 2017 May 2017 June 2017 DEFAULT 0 0 0 0 0 FORECLOSED 0 0 0 0 0 0 REO 12 12 10 10 10 5 TOTALS 12 12 10 10 10 5 ATTACHMENT: Current Planning Activity Report PLANNING ACTIVITY REPORT Assigned Planner Approval PA Number Project Address APN Apply Date Date Applicant Company Owner Plan Type Status PA17-0882 42326AgenaSt 944-281-005 Jaime Cardenas 06/01/2017 06/01/2017 Angelica Temecula, CA 92592 Case Title / Description: Los Vaqueros Chippers: a home occupation business license for landscape maintenance and clean-up services. Stefanie Gabriele PL Home Approved Martinez Lopez Occupation PA17-0883 28942 Kennebunk Ct 916-441-009 Jaime Cardenas 06/01/2017 06/01/2017 Robert Helsel Temecula, CA 92591 Case Title / Description: The Pawfressional: a home occupation business license for a pet grooming service operated from home and client's home. There will be no mobile grooming services conducted from a trailer. PL Home Approved Occupation PA17-0885 29976 Avenida Cima Del Sol 921-431-016 Jaime Cardenas 06/01/2017 06/01/2017 Ashley Evans Temecula, CA 92591 Case Title / Description: Temple of Grooms: a home occupation business license where pet grooming services are conducted at home by appointment only. Michael Evans PL Home Approved Occupation PA17-0887 43475 Business Park Dr 921-020-049 Brandon Rabidou 06/01/2017 Temecula, CA 92590 Case Title / Description: Rancho California Business Park MOD: A Minor Modification (Planning Review Only) for a drought tolerant landscape retrofit for the existing Rancho California Business Park Association (for POA maintained landscaped areas along Business Park Drive, Single Oak Drive and portions of Rancho California Road/Diaz Road) (Revised from PA17-0255) Warren Tong Rancho California Business Park Association PL Modifications Corrections PA17-0889 28936 Old Town Front St 962-580-003 Brandon Rabidou 06/01/2017 06/13/2017 Andrew Hunter Urban PL Home Approved (Change Of Address) , 205 Rodriguez Investments LLC Occupation Temecula, CA 92590 Case Title / Description: PMC Consulting: Project Management Consulting for Telecommunications Wiring PA17-0893 43145 Via Angeles Temecula, CA 92592 965-332-012 Jaime Cardenas 06/02/2017 Matt Corsaut Case Title / Description: Morecors Corp: A home based real estate business. PL Home Occupation Plan Review PA17-0895 42050 Dlr Dr Temecula, CA 92591 921-730-066 Scott Cooper 06/02/2017 Case Title / Description: John Hine Subaru MOD: A Modification for John Hine Subaru to construct a 5,694 square -foot, two story, expansion to the previously approved (PA12-0024) and existing sales center located at 42050 DLR Drive. Peter Noll JHCH REDLANDS LAND CO PL Modifications Out Page 1 of 10 Assigned Planner Approval PA Number Project Address APN Apply Date Date Applicant Company Owner Plan Type Status PA17-0897 31280 Tommy Ln Temecula, CA 92591 957-150-006 Jaime Cardenas 06/02/2017 Carly Chalker Case Title / Description: Prosper Industries, Inc.: a home occupation business license for property damage repair. PL Home Occupation Plan Review PA17-0908 40620 Winchester Rd 910-320-026 Jaime Cardenas 06/06/2017 Temecula, CA 92591 Case Title / Description: Suite B Patio MOD: A Modification (Planning Review Only) to convert a landscape area into a 212 square foot outdoor patio and to modify the westerly facade to create a window and entrance opening for the for the future tenant located at 40620 Winchester Road, Suite B. Mark Swenson Myron MacLeod PL Modifications Corrections PA17-0909 32115 Temecula Pky Temecula, CA 92592 960-010-044 Eric Jones 06/06/2017 Gerald Tessier Case Title / Description: Vail Ranch Headquarters Mod: A Minor Modification (Planning Review Only) to alter the exterior doors and windows on the machine barn and the construction of a covered stage at 32115/32125 Temecula Parkway VAIL PL Modifications Out HEADQUARTER S PA17-0910 31213 Temecula Pky , 105 961-450-006 Jaime Cardenas 06/07/2017 Temecula, CA 92592 Case Title / Description: Le Bon Massage MEP: a massage establishment permit renewal for Le Bon Massage located at 31213 Temecula Parkway, Suite 105 Minna Ng HIGHWAY PL Massage Plan Review DESERT Permits PA17-0914 31950 Pauba Rd Temecula, CA 92592 955-020-019 Scott Cooper 06/08/2017 Case Title / Description: Linfield School TUP: A Temporary Use Permit for a temporary cover/shade structure for outside church services while the gym undergoes repairs every Sunday from July 2, 2017 through October 1, 2017 located at 31950 Pauba Road. Terry Cutter Linfield Christian PL Temporary Cancelled School Use Permit PA17-0915 28872 Springfield PI 916-450-019 Jaime Cardenas 06/08/2017 06/23/2017 Kristen Hawes JAN ARNOLDUS PL Home Approved Temecula, CA 92591 Occupation Case Title / Description: Frosting Fanatic: a home occupation business license specializing in custom cakes and pastries. PA17-0924 29601 Mira Loma Dr Temecula, CA 92592 944-060-006 Brandon Rabidou 06/08/2017 Susan Paradiso Case Title / Description: Indigo Model Home Complex: A Model Home Complex for Indigo place including TR33584 (lots 51/52 parking & 53/54 models) MIRA LOMA PL Temporary Plan Review RECOVERY, Use Permit LLC PA17-0925 29601 Mira Loma Dr 944-060-006 Brandon Rabidou 06/08/2017 Temecula, CA 92592 Case Title / Description: Rancho Vista Village/Indigo MOD: A Minor Modification (Planning Review Only) to alter the previously approved elevations for Indigo Place (formerly known as Rancho Vista Village) on TR33584 D.R. Horton Inc D.R. Horton Inc PL Modifications Plan Review Page 2 of 10 Assigned Planner Approval PA Number Project Address APN Apply Date Date Applicant Company Owner Plan Type Status PA17-0926 29655 Rancho California Rd 944-290-027 Brandon Rabidou 06/09/2017 Temecula, CA 92591 Case Title / Description: Aldi Market MOD: A Minor Modification (Planning Review Only) to install a raised landscape planter area around the previously approved monument 29655 Rancho California Road Nina Raey RSI Group, Inc. PL Modifications Plan Review PA17-0927 27468 Ynez Rd Temecula, CA 92591 921-320-058 Brandon Rabidou 06/09/2017 06/22/2017 Temecula Town Temecula Town TEMECULA PL Modifications Approved Center Center TOWN CENTER LAND OWNER Case Title / Description: Temecula Town Center LED MOD: A Minor Modification (Planning Review Only) to convert and install LED (3,000 Kelvin or below) lighting within the existing Temecula Town Center located near the intersection of Ynez Road and Rancho California Road PA17-0928 27345 Jefferson Ave 909-270-044 Brandon Rabidou 06/09/2017 Temecula, CA 92590 Case Title / Description: A.I. Plastic Surgery Center MOD: A Minor Modification (Planning Review Only) to add 500 square feet to an existing building located at 27345 Jefferson Ave Dave Madden Temecula Capital PL Modifications Plan Review PA17-0931 44693 Corte Sanchez 960-143-018 Jaime Cardenas 06/09/2017 06/09/2017 Aaron Smith Temecula, CA 92592 Case Title / Description: Simply Publicity: a home occupation business license for online marketing with a forcus in custom designs for flyers posters, newsletters, etc. Myrtle Oneal PL Home Approved Occupation PA17-0933 32477 Sunnyvail Cir 921-810-010 Jaime Cardenas 06/09/2017 06/09/2017 Allison Pryor Temecula, CA 92592 Case Title / Description: Ally's Creationz: A home occupation business license that produces handbags, sewing, embroidery as well as pressing images on shirts. PL Home Approved Occupation PA17-0934 31090 Corte Arroyo Vista 954-071-010 Scott Cooper 06/12/2017 06/12/2017 Frank Banker JEFFREY PL Home Approved Temecula, CA 92592 WILLIAMS Occupation Case Title / Description: Frank J Banker - General Contractor PA17-0935 28544 Old Town Front St 922-033-009 Scott Cooper Temecula, CA 92590 06/12/2017 06/13/2017 Willem Steyn Crush & Brew PL Modifications Approved Case Title / Description: Espadin Exterior MOD: A Modification for Espadin to add wrought iron to the existing pillars and gooseneck lighting to the sign area above the entrance located at 28544 Old Town Front St., Suite 100 PA17-0936 40477 Linden Ct 919-350-017 Brandon Rabidou 06/12/2017 Jeremiah Lennar Homes of PL Temporary Plan Review Temecula, CA 92591 Acayturri Calif Use Permit Case Title / Description: Nicolas Heights Model Home Complex: A Model Home Complex application for Nicolas Heights (formerly Arbor Vista) to install three model homes (Plan 2, 3 & 4), a parking lot , landscaping, and ADA restrooms at TR 36479 Page 3 of 10 Assigned Planner Approval PA Number Project Address APN Apply Date Date Applicant Company Owner Plan Type Status PA17-0937 42245 Cosmic Dr Temecula, CA 92592 944-263-006 Jaime Cardenas 06/09/2017 Armando Romero Armando Romero Case Title / Description: Romero Room Addition MOD: a Minor Modification (Planning Review Only) to enclose a 12'x12' (144 sq. ft.) existing patio area to convert to indoor living space to the existing home located at 42245 Cosmic Drive. PL Modifications Corrections PA17-0938 29605 Solana Way , L01 921-290-004 Brandon Rabidou 06/13/2017 06/13/2017 Helen Marx Temecula, CA 92591 Case Title / Description: Helen Marx Art: a graphic design, web design, photography, videography, and painting business PL Home Approved Occupation PA17-0939 31226 Enfield Ln 957-183-013 Jaime Cardenas 06/13/2017 07/05/2017 ASHLEY ASHLEY PL Modifications Approved Temecula, CA 92591 ABRAMS ABRAMS Case Title / Description: Abrams Residence MOD: a Modification application (Planning Review Only) to add 606 square feet (kitchen/dining room) to the first floor at the rear of the property as well as a 628 square foot addition (master bedroom) to the second floor directly above the first floor addition to the existing residence located 31226 Enfield Lane. PA17-0942 33087 Tivoli St 959-270-038 Brandon Rabidou 06/13/2017 06/13/2017 Chad Wagner FRANCISCO PL Home Approved Temecula, CA 92592 MARCELINO Occupation Case Title / Description: Wagner Design & Drafting: Technical design and drafting services PA17-0945 45422 Beech Ct Temecula, CA 92592 961-311-005 Dale West 06/14/2017 06/14/2017 Thomas Lee Case Title / Description: California Country Gal Inc.: A Home Occupation for making cosmetic products PL Home Approved Occupation PA17-0947 32635 Hislop Way Temecula, CA 92592 960-072-013 Dale West 06/14/2017 06/14/2017 BRENT R STORLIE Case Title / Description: Storlie Signs: A Home Occupation for sign design and consulting services PL Home Approved Occupation PA17-0949 32120 Temecula Pky 959-410-002 Scott Cooper Temecula, CA 92592 06/14/2017 06/15/2017 Randi Newton Lahaina Partners PL Modifications Approved Case Title / Description: Verizon Festivo MOD: A Modification (Planning Review Only) for the addition of 6 antennas and 6 RRU's to a previously approved Administrative Development Plan for a wireless facility (PA16-1221) located at 32120 Temecula Parkway PA17-0952 42000 Zevo Dr Temecula, CA 92590 909-370-047 Jaime Cardenas 06/14/2017 Richard Rengel Case Title / Description: Airbus Building MOD: a Modification to an existing industrial building to renovate the main entrance, add windows, a generator enclosure area, roll up door, and an outdoor employee lunch patio on the property located at 42000 Zevo Drive. ZEVO DRIVE HOLDINGS PL Modifications Plan Review Page 4 of 10 Assigned Planner Approval PA Number Project Address APN Apply Date Date Applicant Company Owner Plan Type Status PA17-0955 40637 Cebu Dr Temecula, CA 92591 Dale West 06/14/2017 06/14/2017 Sheharyar Ali PL Home Approved Occupation Case Title / Description: Spectrum Services Group, Inc.: A Home Occupation for general contractor services PA17-0956 916-400-046 Scott Cooper 06/15/2017 Thomas Verloop Michael Baker Harveston SAB PL Maps Out International South (RBF Consulting) Case Title / Description: Harveston/WESTliving LLA: A Lot Line Adjustment to amend the southern lot lines of the proposed project. PA17-0957 42281 Camino Merano 954-391-007 Jaime Cardenas 06/15/2017 Temecula, CA 92592 Case Title / Description: Two Chicks Toffee: a home occupation business license to make and distribute candy. Brandi Tomaszewski PL Home Occupation Plan Review PA17-0960 33179 Corte Yaca 965-351-027 Brandon Rabidou 06/15/2017 06/15/2017 Gorkem Somer JOHN TAYLOR PL Home Approved Temecula, CA 92592 Occupation Case Title / Description: Soft Touch Corp. DBA Soft Touch Group - Wholesale of hospitality supplies (direct from manufacturer to client) PA17-0965 39118 Pagosa Springs Dr 957-741-014 Jaime Cardenas 06/16/2017 Temecula, CA 92591 Case Title / Description: B Lash: a home occupation business license for retail sales of custom eyelash extensions. Nicole Borges FATIMA PL Home SANCHEZ Occupation Plan Review PA17-0966 30825 Del Rey Rd 919-323-002 Scott Cooper 06/16/2017 06/16/2017 April Palacios Melvin Cratsley PL Home Approved Temecula, CA 92591 Occupation Case Title / Description: Simply Chic Flowers: Florist / Taking online flower orders & delivering to customers PA17-0968 40073 Charleston Ln 916-551-030 Jaime Cardenas 06/19/2017 06/19/2017 Dawn Smith Temecula, CA 92591 Case Title / Description: Making Waves Pool Service: a home occupation business license for swimming pool maintenance services. Jeffrey (Jeff) PL Home Approved Smith Occupation PA17-0970 961-440-016 Scott Cooper 06/20/2017 Case Title / Description: Oil & Water Parcel Merger: A parcel merger of Parcels 13 & 14 of Parcel Map 30180 Wilfredo Ventura Judd Kessler PL Maps Out Page 5 of 10 Assigned Planner Approval PA Number Project Address APN Apply Date Date Applicant Company Owner Plan Type Status PA17-0972 28780 Single Oak Dr Temecula, CA 92590 921-020-050 Brandon Rabidou 06/20/2017 Jon Silvester Case Title / Description: Rancho Family Medical Solar MOD: A Modification for Rancho Family Medical Group to add parking structures with solar on the roof of the structure located at 28780 Single Oak Drive. SINGLE OAK DEV PL Modifications Plan Review PA17-0973 40141 Gallatin Ct Temecula, CA 92591 916-500-022 Brandon Rabidou 06/20/2017 JOSE GARCIA Case Title / Description: Tribe Artisan: Photography/Videography/Beauty Services PL Home Occupation Plan Review PA17-0975 27350 Nicolas Rd 920-100-058 Jaime Cardenas 06/20/2017 Michelle PROTEA PL Massage Plan Review Temecula, CA 92591 Brownlow SENIOR LIVING Permits TEMECULA Case Title / Description: Michelle Brownlow Massage Establishment Permit: An initial massage establishment permit to operate a "Michelle Brownlow" massage establishment at 27350 Nicolas Road PA17-0977 31300 Rancho Community 959-070-018 Jaime Cardenas 06/21/2017 Way Temecula, CA 92592 Case Title / Description: ABC Tree Farms Pumpkin and Christmas Tree Sales: A Major Temporary Use Permit for a pumpkin and Christmas tree lot to include inflatable amusements as well as retail sales of seasonal festive items. The project is located at 31300 Rancho Community Way. Halloween activities will be conducted between October 1 through 31 and Christmas activities between November 22 through December 24, 2017. (Previous project was PA16-1134 ) Karin RANCHO PL Temporary Plan Review Raubenheimer COMMUNITY Use Permit REFORMED CHURCH PA17-0980 43471 Corte Rialto 944-322-008 Brandon Rabidou 06/21/2017 06/21/2017 Michael Ellis Temecula, CA 92592 Case Title / Description: Babes Ride Out, LLC: Event - production, online strategy, content, production PL Home Approved Occupation PA17-0983 27711 Diaz Rd 921-030-002 Brandon Rabidou 06/22/2017 Temecula, CA 92590 Case Title / Description: Forza One Tourny TUP: a Major Temporary Use Permit to allow for indoor volleyball tournaments. The tournaments will be conducted on weekends only between August 2017 and August 2018. The site is located at 27711 Diaz Road. Dana Burkholder RBI TEMECULA PL Temporary Plan Review PROP Use Permit PA17-0990 42200 Main St Temecula, CA 92590 959-410-002 Jaime Cardenas 06/26/2017 Case Title / Description: Rancho West Apartments MOD: A Minor Modification (Planning Review Only) to alter the exterior colors of the existing Rancho West Apartments located at 42200 Main Street J & S J J & S J Coachella Valley PL Modifications Plan Review Contractors Inc Contractors Inc Housing Coalition Page 6 of 10 Assigned Planner Approval PA Number Project Address APN Apply Date Date Applicant Company Owner Plan Type Status PA17-0992 40820 Winchester Rd 910-420-030 Jaime Cardenas 06/27/2017 Temecula, CA 92591 Case Title / Description: Jumpin Punpkins Inc. TUP: A Major Temporary Use Permit for a pumpkin patch to be operated from September 22nd to October 31st 2017 between the hours of 12:00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m. Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday; and, 10:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. Friday, Saturday and Sunday. The event will also include inflatables, a petting zoo, tractor rides, an obstacle course, face painting, music, DJ, carnival games, and food. The event site is located within the south east parking area of the Promenade Mall near Edwards Cinema at 40820 Winchester Road. Cody Shields TEMECULA PL Temporary Plan Review TOWNE Use Permit CENTER ASSOC PA17-0993 28921 Ynez Rd 922-130-003 Jaime Cardenas 06/27/2017 06/27/2017 Elba Judith Oscar Rodriguez PL Home Approved Temecula, CA 92592 Rodriguez Occupation Case Title / Description: Jules' Savory Shop: a home occupation business license for selling baked goods. PA17-0997 44894 Corte Rodriguez 960-161-012 Jaime Cardenas 06/27/2017 06/27/2017 Jason Limon Temecula, CA 92592 Case Title / Description: Mammoth Preventative Maintenance Services: a home occupaiton business license providing appliance repairs. Jason Limon PL Home Approved Occupation PA17-0998 31925 Wildwood Ct 962-490-027 Jaime Cardenas 06/27/2017 06/27/2017 Angelle Burrus Temecula, CA 92592 Case Title / Description: Angelle Burrus Interiors: a home occupation business license for residential interior design. PL Home Approved Occupation PA17-0999 40880 County Center Dr 910-110-089 Jaime Cardenas 06/28/2017 07/11/2017 Bella Heritage PL Zoning or Completed Temecula, CA 92591 Reyhanepour Partners Planning Letter Case Title / Description: F&M Radiology Medical Center Inc ZL: A Zoning Letter for the property located at 40880 County Center Drive (APN 910-110-089) PA17-1000 30660 Milky Way Dr 944-220-004 James Thomas 06/28/2017 07/11/2017 Morning Ridge Morning Ridge PL Zoning or Completed Temecula, CA 92592 Planning Letter Case Title / Description: Morning Ridge Apartments ZL: a Zoning Letter for Armada Analytics for Morning Ridge Apartments. Located at 30600-30660 Milky Way Drive (APN 944-220-001, -002, -003, -004) PA17-1001 41754 Margarita Rd Temecula, CA 92591 921-810-010 Jaime Cardenas 06/28/2017 07/11/2017 FAIRFIELD FAIRFIELD PL Zoning or Completed SOLANA RIDGE SOLANA Planning Letter RIDGE Case Title / Description: Solana Ridge Apartments ZL: a Zoning Letter for Solana Ridge Apartments with Assessor's Parcel Number 921-810-010. Page 7 of 10 Assigned Planner Approval PA Number Project Address APN Apply Date Date Applicant Company Owner Plan Type Status PA17-1002 31880 Via Cordoba 961-141-011 Jaime Cardenas 06/28/2017 06/28/2017 Franklin Snow Temecula, CA 92592 Case Title / Description: Welcome Home: a home occupation business license for retail home decor at street fairs and farmers markets PL Home Approved Occupation PA17-1007 44501 Rainbow Canyon Rd 922-220-031 Brandon Rabidou 06/28/2017 07/06/2017 Michael Tucker Temecula, CA 92592 Case Title / Description: AT&T Rainbow Canyon MOD: A Modification (Planning Review Only) to replace three existing panels and the addition of three RRU units at 44501 Rainbow Canyon Rd. REGENCY PL Modifications Approved PROP TEMECULA PA17-1015 0 922-026-044 Jaime Cardenas 06/29/2017 Temecula, CA 92590 Case Title / Description: Chaparral III EOT: Afifth (5th) Extension of Time (EOT) for Chaparral III (PA10-0226) on the west side of Old Town Front Street between Moreno Road and Sixth Street. RCM Capital PL Extension of Plan Review Partners Time PA17-1018 42105 Dlr Dr Temecula, CA 92591 921-730-065 Scott Cooper 06/29/2017 Larry Markham DCH INV PL Temporary Plan Review Use Permit Case Title / Description: Paradise Chevrolet Stockpile TUP: ATemporary Use Permit for Paradise Chevrolet to import approximately 50,000 cubic yards of dirt from the interchange project for stockpiling purposes. The project is located at 42105 DR Drive. PA17-1020 0 Temecula, CA 92590 922-044-017 Eric Jones 06/30/2017 Ross Jackson Temecula Hotel PL Minor Partners Old Exception Town, LLC Case Title / Description: Truax Hotel Parking Structure Minor Exception: A Minor Exception to allow for a height increase for the Truax Hotel parking garage (APN: 922-044-017). Plan Review PA17-1021 0 Temecula, CA 92590 922-360-004 Eric Jones 06/30/2017 Ross Jackson City of Temecula PL Maps Plan Review Case Title / Description: Market Place Parcel Merger: A Parcel Merger for the Market Place located in front of the Civic Center on the corners of Main Street and Mercedes Street. PA17-1022 42720 Jolle Ct Temecula, CA 92592 Case Title / Description: BOARG 965-140-035 06/30/2017 MARSHALL SHARI FAN PL Home Occupation Plan Review PA17-1024 28111 Jefferson Ave Temecula, CA 92590 921-060-006 Eric Jones 06/30/2017 David Jenkins Case Title / Description: Uptown Auto Spa Minor Modification (Planning Review Only): A Minor Modification (Planning Review Only) to make architectural changes to a recently approved car wash located at 28111 Jefferson Ave. Uptown Temecula Auto Spa, LLC PL Modifications Plan Review Page 8 of 10 Assigned Planner Approval PA Number Project Address APN Apply Date Date Applicant Company Owner Plan Type Status PA17-1026 27270 Madison Ave Temecula, CA 92590 910-272-005 Scott Cooper 06/30/2017 Case Title / Description: San Joaquin Valley Collge MOD: A Minor Modification for the addtional of 2,798 square feet of internal space for an expanded student area and offices loated at 27270 Madison Ave. Kimberly Boone PROVIDENCE II PL Modifications Plan Review TEMECULA MADISON AVENUE PLAZA PA17-1028 29729 Windwood Cir 921-541-026 Jaime Cardenas 06/30/2017 Amanda PL Home Temecula, CA 92591 Fjeldsted Occupation Case Title / Description: Amy Interior Design: a home occupation business license for interior design consulting. Plan Review PA17-1029 29729 Windwood Cir Temecula, CA 92591 921-541-026 Jaime Cardenas 06/30/2017 Eric Fjeldsted Case Title / Description: FJ Concrete Pumping: a home occupation business license for a cement pumping company PL Home Occupation Plan Review PA17-1030 30641 Del Rey Rd 919-332-004 Jaime Cardenas 06/30/2017 07/07/2017 Trey Ricchio Temecula, CA 92591 Case Title / Description: Everlast Elite: a home occupation business license for sale and installation of interlocking floor cover. PL Home Approved Occupation PREAPP17-0 29275 Santiago Rd 916 Temecula, CA 92592 922-130-018 Scott Cooper 06/08/2017 06/29/2017 David Higginson Case Title / Description: 29275 Santiago Road Pre -App: A Pre Application for the replacement of two existing modular classroom building and one existing modular toilet building located at 29275 Santiago Road. PL Completed Pre -Application PREAPP17-0 944-330-005 Scott Cooper 06/15/2017 06/29/2017 Tim Kihm PL Completed 959 Pre -Application Case Title / Description: Rancho Highlands Pre -App: A Pre -Application for a 240 unit multi -family community on 15.25 acres. The applicant is requesting a possible General Plan Amendment from PO to HDR, PDO, Development Plan, Parcel Map, and removal of the three parcels from the Rancho Highlands Specific Plan. The project is located on the northwest corner of Tierra Vista Road and Ynez Road. Previous Pre -App is PR17-0321 PREAPP17-0 40820 Winchester Rd 961 Temecula, CA 92591 910-420-030 Brandon Rabidou 06/15/2017 07/03/2017 Case Title / Description: Sinster Valley Haunted House Pre -app: A pre -application for a 10,000 square foot walk-thru haunted house at 40820 Winchester Road TEMECULA PL Completed TOWNE Pre -Application CENTER ASSOC Page 9 of 10 Assigned Planner Approval PA Number Project Address APN Apply Date Date Applicant Company Owner Plan Type Status PREAPP17-0 27423 Ynez Rd 984 Temecula, CA 92591 921-260-022 Brandon Rabidou 06/22/2017 Case Title / Description: Backyard Restaurant Pre -app: A pre -application for the backyard restaurant located at 27423 Ynez Road HALUK SONMEZLER PL SONMEZLER LLC Pre -Application Plan Review PREAPP17-1 27969 Jefferson Ave 019 Temecula, CA 92590 921-050-022 Brandon Rabidou 06/28/2017 Larry Markham Case Title / Description: Airstream Inland Valley CUP: A pre -application for Air Stream to operate an indoor air stream dealership and repair facility at 27969 Jefferson Ave Calle Cortez PL Pre -Application Plan Review PREAPP17-1 27570 Commerce Center Dr 921-400-062 Scott Cooper 06/30/2017 07/13/2017 Miguel Tafoya PL Completed 023 Temecula, CA 92590 Pre -Application Case Title / Description: Minnett Bakery Pre -App: A Pre -Application for Minnett Bakery, a wholesale bakery, located within the Uptown Temecula Specific Plan Area at 27570 Commerce Center Dr., Suite 123 Page 10 of 10 Item No. 16 Approvals City Attorney Director of Finance City Manager CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT TO: City Manager/City Council FROM: Charlie DeHart, Fire Chief/Fire Marshall DATE: July 25, 2017 SUBJECT: Fire Department Monthly Report PREPARED BY: Wendy Miller, Administrative Assistant RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council receive and file the Fire Department Monthly Report. Riverside County Fire Department/ CAL FIRE Emergency Incident Statistics John R. Hawkins Fire Chief 7/6/2017 Report Provided By: Riverside County Fire Department Communications and Technology Division GIS Section Please refer to Map and Incident by Battalion, Station, Jurisdiction Page 1 of 6 *Incidents are shown based on the primary response area for the incident location. This does not represent total response times for all units only the first unit in. Response Activity • Com Fire 2 0.3% False Alarm 62 9.0% Haz Mat 6 0.9% Medical 500 72.9% Op Muiti-Fan, Dwelling Fire 1 0.1% Other Fire 5 0.7% ! Other Misc 2 0.3% • Public Senate Assist 27 3.9% • Res Fire 1 0.1% i Ringing Alarm 1 0.1% • Standby 15 2.2% Traffic Collision 61 8.9% Vehicle Fire 1 0.1% • Midland Fire 2 0.3% Total: 666 100.0% Com Fire 2 False Alarm 82 Haz Mat 6 Medical 500 Multi-Fam Dwelling Fire 1 Other Fire 5 Other Misc 2 Public Service Assist 27 Res Fire 1 Ringing Alarm 1 Standby 15 Traffic Collision 61 Vehicle Fire 1 Wildland Fire 2 Incident Total: Average Enroute to Onscene Time* Enroute Time = When a unit has been acknowledged as responding. Onscene Time = When a unit has been acknowledge as being on sce_ne, For anv other statistic outside E11roolli a to Onscene please contacttbe IT help Desk at 951-949-6900 <5 Minutes +5 Minutes 686 +10 Minutes +20 Minutes Average % 0 to 5 min 464 160 14 4 4.2 72.3% The following incidents are included in the total number of records but not in the average time HZM, HZMMC, OAC, OAF, OAM, OAMAD, OAMAI, OAMTE, OAMVA, OAP, OAR, OAV, OUT, OOU, LEB, LEO, LEI, BRNPMT, OES, PAA, PAD, PAF, PAO, PAP, HFS, HFSAM, HFSCA, HSBT, HSBTC, HSBTS, HSBTV, HSE, HSG Last Updated 7/5/2017 2:5 'Incidents are shown based on the primary response area for the incident location. This does not represent total response times for all units only the first unit in. Page 2 of 6 Temecula Incidents by Battalion, Station and Jurisdiction Station 12 Temecula Station 73 Rancho California Station 83 French Valley Station 84 Parkview Station 92 Wolf Creek Com Fire False Haz Mat Medical Multi -Fa Other Other Public Alarm m Fire Mlsc Service Res Ringing Standby Traffic Vehicle WIIdIan Fire Alarm Colllsio Fire d Fire Temecula 0 Station Total Temecula Station Total 20 0 20 2 110 1 110 1 0 1 0 5 0 0 2 24 0 0 2 24 0 1 2 15 1 146 0 1 1 9 0 0 3 16 0 0 2 15 1 146 0 1 1 9 0 0 3 16 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 Station Total 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 Temecula 8 3 152 0 2 0 7 1 0 7 12 1 0 Station Total Temecula 0 8 3 152 0 2 0 7 1 0 7 12 1 0 Station Total 0 19 0 87 0 0 1 6 0 1 2 9 500 27 1 1 Total 166 166 1 194 7 193 , 193 126 126 15 61 1 2 686 686 1 1. 31 9 Last Updated 7/5/2017 2:5 `Incidents are shown based on the primary response area for the incident location. This does not represent total response times for all units only the first unit in. Page 3 of 6 Incidents by Jurisdiction Com Fire False Haz Mat Medical Multi -Fa Other Other Public Res Fire Ringing Standby Traffic Vehicle Wildland Alarm m Fire Misc Service Alarm Collision Fire Fire - Last Updated 7/5/2017 2:5 `Incidents are shown based on the primary response area for the incident location. This does not represent total response times for all units only the first unit in. Page 4 of 6 Incidents by Supervisorial District - Summary DISTRICT 3 CHUCK Com Fire False Alarm Haz Mat Medical Multi-Fam Dwelling Fire Other Fire Other Misc Public Service Assist Res Fire Ringing Alarm Standby Traffic Collision Vehicle Fire Wildland Fire Total 2 62 6 500 1 5 Grand Total Last Updated 7/5/2017 2:5 2 62 6 500 1 5 2 27 1 1 15 61 1 2 686 'Incidents are shown based on the primary response area for the incident location. This does not represent total response times for all units only the first unit in. Page 5 of 6 MONTI f — i ane YEAR — 2017 and C1TYNAMC - 'Temecula' Legend Fic Hna Mot Medical a! Other Mis c Public Senrioe Assists f4G)nr ri Last Updated 7/5/2017 2:5 Riverside County Fie Station Reservatians Casinos : 6' Riverside County Fire GIS *Incidents are shown based on the primary response area for the incident location. This does not represent total response times for all units only the first unit in. Page 6 of 6 2017 City of Temecula Fire Department Emergency Response and Training Totals PUBLIC SAFETY CLASS TOTALS 2017 Class Totals Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec Total CPR/AED 19 6 11 24 129 64 253 FIRST AID 16 10 0 60 47 _ 4 137 PEDIATRIC FIRST AID 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 _ HCP 0 0 0 0 3 0 3 STAFF HCP 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 CERT 1 0 0 0 28 0 29 TEEN CERT 0 0 0 28 0 0 28 Total 36 16 11 112 207 68 0 0 0 0 0 0 450 INCIDENT/RESPONSE TOTALS FOR THE CITY OF TEMECULA 2017 Incident Response Totals Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec Total COMMERCIAL FIRE 0 1 1 0 0 2 4 FALSE ALARM 68 56 51 73 57 62 367 HAZ MAT 4 3 6_ 3 3 6 25 MEDICAL AID 529 513 566 486 525 500 3119 MUTI FAMILY DWELLING 0 2 0 2 1 1 6 OTHER FIRE 5 4 2 8 5 5 29 OTHER MISC. 4 3 2 2 5 2 18 PSA 42 35 44 39 34 27 221 RINGING ALARM 1 0 1 3 0 1 6 RESIDENTIAL FIRE 2 1 2 2 4 1 _ 12 RESCUE 1 1 1 1 0 0 4 STANDBY 14 9 8 12 11 15 69 TRAFFIC COLLISSION 69 77 83 71 79 61 440 VEHICLE FIRE 1 1 3 1 5 1 12 WILDLAND FIRE 1 1 1 3 2 2 10 Total 741 707 771 706 731 686 0 0 0 0 0 0 4342 800 700 600 500 400 1 300 200 100 0 FIRE DEPARTMENT CLASS TOTAL COMPARISON 2016 vs. 2017 758 J"J yea ■ 2016 YTD ;:12017 YM *,mer ¢TQC 4e MONTH 2016 YTD 2017 YTD JANUARY 30 36 FEBRUARY 16 16 MARCH 71 11 APRIL 55 112 MAY 65 207 JUNE 49 68 JULY 176 AUGUST 114 SEPTEM@ BER 95 OCTOBER 52 NOVEMBER 35 DECEM BER 0 TOTAL TO DATE 758 450 9000 8000 7000 6000 5000 4000 3000 2000 1000 0 FIRE DEPARTMENT TOTAL CALL COMPARISON 2016 vs. 2017 MONTH 2016 YTD 2017 YTD JANUARY 693 741 FEBRUARY 675 675 MARCH 621 771 APRIL 681 706 MAY 702 731 )UNE 702 686 JULY 708 AUGUST 699 SEPTEMBER 751 OCTOBER 744 NOVEMBER 766 DECEMBER 829 TOTAL TO DATE 8571 4310 �i J cb44' dQCF 0442 @� �d dO 2016 YTD 02017 YTD Fire Department Temecula Battalion Fire Stations- Public Education Reporting Month: June Reporting Stations: 12, 73, 84, 92 Total Number of Events for Reporting Month 0 0 1 0 7 Reporting Year: 2017 PR and Public Education Programs: Event Type School Event Adult Education Fair/Safety Expo Total Number of Hours 0 0 1 0 Display Station Tour Fire Safety Trailer Other Field Inspections: Total Number of Initial Field Inspections for Reporting Month Total Number of Re -inspections for Reporting Month 0 0 3 0 Number of Public Contacts: 0 0 50 0 10 185 3 0 150 0 LE -100's (Weed Abatement) Total Number of LE -100 Inspections for Reporting Month 50 Prevention Referrals: Total Number of Fire Prevention Referrals for Reporting Month 1 Significant Events: Provide a brief synopsis of significant TC's, Fires, Near Drowning's, Road Closures etc... Include photos if available. Station 92 attended two prevention events with the explorers. Station 84 responded to fatal traffic collision on Butterfield Stage Rd cross street La Serena Item No. 17 Approvals City Attorney Director of Finance City Manager CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT TO: City Manager/City Council FROM: Jeffrey Kubel, Chief of Police DATE: July 25, 2017 SUBJECT: Police Department Monthly Report PREPARED BY: Joseph Greco, Sergeant RECOMMENDATION: Receive and file. The following report reflects the activity of the Temecula Police Department for the month of June 2017. PATROL SERVICES Overall calls for police service 3,319 "Priority One" calls for service 49 Average response time for "Priority One" calls 6.22 VOLUNTEERS Volunteer administration hours 210 Special Events hours 199 Community Action Patrol (CAP) hours 723 Reserve officer hours (patrol) 10 Training hours 55 Total Volunteer hours 1136 CRIME PREVENTION Crime prevention workshops/Neighborhood watch meetings conducted 0/1 Safety presentations/Training 3/0 Special events 0 Residential/Business security surveys conducted 0/0 Businesses visited 0 Residences/Businesses visited for past crime follow-up 0/2 Station Tour 0 Planning Review Projects/Temp Outdoor Use Permits 3/8 Sq. Footage of Graffiti Removed 543 OLD TOWN STOREFRONT Total customers served 223 Sets of fingerprints taken 60 Police reports filed 6 Citations signed off 16 Total receipts $4,256 SPECIAL TEAMS (POP / SET) On sight felony arrests 15 On sight misdemeanor arrests 13 Felony arrest warrants served 4 Misdemeanor arrest warrants served 11 Follow-up investigations 13 Parole/Probation Searches 1/23 Pedestrian Checks 60 Traffic Stops/Vehicle Checks 19 Crime Free Housing Checks 69 TRAFFIC Citations issued for hazardous violations 977 Grant funded D.U.I. / Traffic safety checkpoints 1 Grant funded traffic click it or ticket 0 D.U.I. Arrests 18 Non -hazardous citations 526 Stop Light Abuse/Intersection Program (S.L.A.P.) citations 169 Neighborhood Enforcement Team (N.E.T.) citations 0 Parking citations 146 School Zone 0 Seatbelts 50 Cell Phone Cites 227 Injury collisions 17 INVESTIGATIONS Beginning Caseload 295 Total Cases Assigned 51 Total Cases Closed 54 Search Warrants Served 9 Arrests 5 Out of Custody Filings 9 PROMENADE MALL TEAM Calls for service 312 Felony arrest/filings 5 Misdemeanor arrest/filings 25 Traffic Citations 1 Fingerprints/Livescans 269 Total receipts $7,802 SCHOOL RESOURCE OFFICERS Felony arrests 0 Misdemeanor arrests 1 Reports 4 Youth counseled 10 Meetings 0 Item No. 18 Approvals City Attorney Director of Finance City Manager CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT TO: City Manager/City Council FROM: Patrick A. Thomas, Director of Public Works / City Engineer DATE: July 25, 2017 SUBJECT: Public Works Department Monthly Report RECOMMENDATION: Receive and file the Public Works Department Monthly Report for Capital Improvement Projects, Maintenance Projects, and Land Development Projects. This report may also be viewed on the City's website at: http://temeculaca.gov/270/Capital-Improvement-Projects-CIP City of Temecula DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS PROJECT STATUS REPORT JULY 25, 2017 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS CIRCULATION PROJECTS Butterfield Stage Road Extension Phase III, PW15-11 Description: Cost: Status: Widening of Butterfield Stage Road from La Serena Way to Rancho California Road, which includes widening of Rancho California Road to four lanes through the intersection of Butterfield Stage Road (Riverside County is a partner on this major circulation project). $6,253,500 Anticipate bidding this project in summer 2017. Anticipate construction will begin in fall 2017. Butterfield Stage Road at La Serena Way — Traffic Signal Installation, PW15-11 TS Description: Traffic signal installation at the intersection of Butterfield Stage Road at La Serena Way. Cost: $315,000 Status: On May 31, 2017, City Council awarded a Construction Contract to Lekos Electric, Inc. Anticipate construction will begin in summer 2017. Citywide Slurry Seal for Arterial Streets, PW15-10 Slurry arterial streets (Winchester, Jefferson, and Temecula Parkway) with the goal to prolong their useful life and avoid much more costly roadway rehabilitation measures. Cost: $658,750 On June 14, 2018, City Council awarded a Construction Contract to Pavement Status: Coatings Co. Construction began on June 7, 2017 and completion is anticipated by the end of July 2017. Description: French Valley Parkway 1 Interstate 15 Improvements- Phase II, PWI6-01 Description: Cost: Status: Design and construction of the two lane northbound collector/distributer road system beginning north of the Winchester Road interchange on -ramps and ending Just north of the Interstate 15/interstate 215 junction with connection to interstate 15 and Interstate 215. $84,704,401 Currently in design phase. Work has begun on the environmental re-evaluation. 1 City of Temecula DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS PROJECT STATUS REPORT JULY 25, 2017 CIRCULATION PROJECTS - continued Interstate -15 1 State Route 79 South Ultimate Interchange, PW04-08 Description: Cost: Status: Construction of ramp system that will improve access to Interstate 15 from Temecula Parkway / State Route 79 South. $50,646,479 Construction is underway. More detail cart be found on the project website: www.15MSouth.info Murrieta Creek Bridge at Overland Drive, PW16-05 Description: Cost: Status: Design and construction of a new bridge crossing over Munieta Creek between Rancho California Road and Winchester Road. $11,784,550 In December 2018, the City was approved to receive Federal Highway Bridge Program (HBP) funds. Anticipate receiving authorization to proceed with the design from Caltrans in fall 2017. Overland Drive Extension (Commerce Center Drive to West of Enterprise Circle), PW16-05 Description: Cost: Status: Cnnstnirtinn of the extension Enterprise Circle West $8,425,347 On December IS, 2018, City Council approved Plans and Specifications, and authorized solicitation of construction bids. Bid opening Is scheduled for August 3, 2017. of Overland Drive from Commerce Center nrl►! to Pavement Rehabilitation Program — Margarita Road (Rancho California Road to Temecula Parkway), PW12-11 Description: Cost: Status: Rehabilitation of Margarita Road from Rancho California Road to Temecula Parkway. $5,500,000 On April 25, 2017, City Council awarded a Construction Contract to All American Asphalt. Construction began on June 5, 2017 and anticipate completion in October 2017. 2 City of Temecula DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS PROJECT STATUS REPORT JULY 25, 2017 CIRCULATION PROJECTS - continued Pavement Rehabilitation Program — Pavement Management Program Update, PWI 7-02 Description: Cost: Status: Review of all public roadways within the City, evaluating and updating existing Pavement Management Program software. $275,000 On June 13, 2017, City Council approved an Agreement with IMS Infrastructure Management Services, LLC. The evaluation process Is underway. Pavement Rehabilitation Program — Residential Slurry Seal, PW17-03 Description: Cost: Status: Pavement rehabilitation of various neighborhoods including, Harveston, Avendale/Barclay Estates, Woodarest Country, The Villages, Ridgeview, Promenade Mail at Temecula, Costain Signet, Rancho Del Sol, Rancho Solana, Verano, Crowne 1-1111, and Wolf Creek, and the Industrial Area - Westside Business Park Dr. (four commercial streets in the northwest section of the City), and Wolf Creek. $2.300,[000 On April 25, 2017, City Council awarded a Construction Contract to American Asphalt South, Inc. Construction began on May 30, 2017. Pavement Rehabilitation Program — Winchester Road (Jefferson Avenue to Ynez Road), PW1O-13 Description: Cost: Status: Rehabilitation of Winchester Road from Jefferson Avenue to Ynez Road $1,529,975 Bid Opening was held on July 10. 2017. Antidpate construction will begin late summer 2017. Pechanga Parkway Widening, PW16-14 Description: Cost: Status: Widening of Pechanga Parkway between Via Gilberto and North Casino Drive. $5,000,000 Design plans are nearly complete. Anticipate bidding this project in fall 2017. 3 City of Temecula DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS PROJECT STATUS REPORT JULY 25, 2017 CIRCULATION PROJECTS - continued Traffic Signal installation — Redhawk ParkwayNail Ranch Parkway at El Chimisal Road/Tehachapi Pass, PW15-09 Description: Installation of a new traffic signal at the intersection of Redhawk ParkwayNail Ranch Parkway at El Chimisal/Tehachapi Pass. Cost $295,000 Status: Design is ongoing. Anticipate bidding this project in summer 2017. Ynez Road Improvements, PW17-17 Widening Ynez Road from Rancho Vista Road to La Paz Street to two lanes in each Description: direction, and completion of missing segments of curb & gutter, sidewalk, and landscaped medians. Cost: $3,380,277 Status: Initiating planning and design. INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECTS Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) Transition Pian Upgrade, PW16-03 This protect will update the American with Disabilities Act (ADA) Transition Plan Deacnption: adopted by the City Council on September 12, 1995. Public facilities, programs, and right of ways will be evaluated. Cost: $327,570 The consultant, Owen Group. Inc., is currently preparing a comprehensive accessibility compliance evaluation of all City facilities (i.e., rights of way and buildings), as well as all City programs (services, activities, employment practices and communications impacted by ADA regulations). Status: 4 City of Temecula DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS PROJECT STATUS REPORT JULY 25, 2017 INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECTS - continued Citywide Concrete Repairs Fiscal Year 2016-17, PW16-04 Removing and replacing various concrete street and park improvements including, but Description: not limited to curb and gutter, sidewalk sections, drive approaches, under sidewalk drains, cross gutters, spandrels and ADA ramps, with all necessary traffic control. Cost: $242,022 Status: Construction began in March 2017. Anticipate completion in August 2017. Citywide Streetlight Acquisition and Light Emitting Diode (LED) Retrofit, PW17-18 Phase I of this project is to purchase the Southern Califomia Edison (SCE) owned Description: streetlights within the City's boundary, including the Tight poles, mast arms, and tight fixtures. Phase II of this project includes retrofitting the purchased lights with a Light Emitting Diode (LED) lighting system. Cost: $8,172,144 Agreements have been fully executed and the Application for Filing with the Califomia Status: Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) is in progress. Timeline for CPUC approval has yet to be determined. Interstate 15 Branding and Visioning — Conceptual Landscape Corridor Plan, PW17-19 Landscape beautification of the Interstate 15 corridor between French Valley Parkway Description: and Temecula Parkway, including each interchange, in association with Visit Temecula Valley. Cost: $100,000 Status: Initiating planning and design. Library Parking — Phase II, PW13-09 Description: Design and construction of an expansion of the current on-site parking facility. Cost: $2,908,924 The City entered Into an Agreement with David Evans & Associates, Inc. for the Status: preparation and development of the plans, specifications, and estimate. Design is ongoing. 5 City of Temecula DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS PROJECT STATUS REPORT JULY 25, 2017 INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECTS - continued Main Street Property Improvements, PW17-20 Site improvements on parcels adjacent to the Temecula Community Theater and Description: Pennypickle's Workshop to include general plumbing and electrical relocations and repairs, installation of landscaping and various hardscape components. Cost: $200,000 Status: Initiating planning and design. Margarita Recreation Center, PW17-21 Construction of a new recreation center in Margarita Community Park in place of the former YMCA building. May include demolition of the existing building and pool to Description: construct a new 6,000 square foot building, as determined by a feasibility study. Phase II Includes the design and construction of an expansion of the current on-site parking facility. Cost: $4,882,963 Status: Community Needs Assessment is being prepared. OId Town Parking Structure, PW17-22 Design and eventual construction of a new parking structure in Old Town. The OId Descriptlon: Town Parking Management Plan outlines a number of parking strategies that can be implemented in OId Town over time. Cost: $1,000,000 Status: Initiating planning and design. Sidewalks - OId Town Boardwalk Enhancement, PWI7-23 Description: Establish programs to remove boardwalk plank boards and replace them with colored concrete sidewalks. Cost: $850,000 Status: Mating planning and design. 6 City of Temecula DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS PROJECT STATUS REPORT JULY 25, 2017 INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECTS - continued Sidewalks - OId Town Improvement Protect (east side of Old Town Front Street from South Moreno Road to North Moreno Road, and south side of Fifth Street from Mercedes Street to Old Town Front Street), PW15-06 Description: This project will provide walking surfaces for pedestrians. Cost: $265,160 States: Construction began on June 7, 2017, with completion antidpated by the end of July 2017. Sidewalks - OId Town Sidewalks Improvement Project (east side of Mercedes Street from Sam Hicks Park to Fourth Street), PW17-04 Description: This project will provide walking surfaces for pedestrians. Cost: $220,520 Status: Design Is ongoing. Sidewalks - Sixth Street Improvements, PW17-05 Description: This protect Includes adding new sidewalks on the east side of Sixth Stoat between Mercedes Street and Mary Phillips Senior Center. Cost: $92,557 Status: Design is ongoing. Sidewalks — Ynez Road, PW17-24 Description: New sidewalks on the east side of Ynez Road between Winchester Road and County Center Drive. Cost: $137,537 Status: Initiating planning and design. City of Temecula DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS PROJECT STATUS REPORT JULY 25, 2017 INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECTS - continued Temecula Children's Museum — Roof Rehabilitation, PW16-02 (City Facilities Rehabilitation) Description: Cost: Status: This project consists of the roof removal and replacement $200,000 Award of a Construction Contract to Best Contracting Services, Inc. is scheduled for the July 25, 2017 City Council meeting. Construction is scheduled between September 11 and September 25, 2017, when the museum will be closed. Temecula Park and Ride, PW06-09 Description: Design and construction of a park and ride feciity in the vicinity of Temecula Parkway and La Paz Street Cost: $2,764,093 Status: Plan revisions are underway. Anticipate bidding this project in summer 2017. PARKS AND RECREATION PROJECTS Fallen Heroes Memorial, PW17-07 Description: Cost: Status: Construct a memorial to the fallen heroes of our community representing all service branches of the military. The memorial will be located at the Temecula Duck Pond park site adjacent to the Veteran's Memorial and paver walkway. $150,000 Currently in design. 8 City of Temecula DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS PROJECT STATUS REPORT JULY 25, 2017 PARKS AND RECREATION PROJECTS - continued Patricia H. Birdsall Sports Park Synthetic Turf Enhancement, PW15-08 Description: Cost: Replacement of the synthetic turf and infill material at each of the four synthetic turf sports fields. $1,678,411 On March 28, 2017, City Council approved the Utilization of a California Multiple Award Status; Schedule (CMAS) Contract with FieldTurf USA, Inc. Construction started in early July 2017, and will be completed by the end of summer 2017. Public Restroom Renovations, PW17-06 Renovation of various park site restroom facilities, including Ronald Reagan Skate Description_ Park, Patricia H. Birdsall Sports Park, Paloma Del Sol Park Temeku Hills Park, and Flarveston Lake Park. Cost: $347,800 Status: Anticipate bidding this project in fall 2017. Sam Hicks Monument Park Playground Enhancement, PW12-20 Description: Design and construct a new innovative play area to replace the existing equipment Cost: $648,888 On December 13, 2018, City Council rejected all construction bids and authorized Status: Public Works to re -bid the project for construction bids_ Design plans were completed at the end of January 2017, and the playground components are being fabricated. 9 City of Temecula DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS PROJECT STATUS REPORT JULY 25, 2017 MAINTENANCE PROJECTS Homeless Encampment Cleanup Services Provide turnkey homeless encampment site cleanup within the City limits with the goal Description: to keep waterways, parks, and public space free of encampments to protect the environment and provide safe use of public areas. Cost: $50,000 Status: Responses to the Request for Proposals (RFP) were received on June 22, 2017. Proposals are currently being reviewed. Old Town Street Lighting LED Conversion Description: Remove existing high pressure sodium bulbs and ballast, and replace with LED bulbs Cost: $40,000 Approval of the conversion of the Old Town Temecula street lights to LED, and Status: approval of an appropriation from the TEEM Fund was approved at the May 23, 2017 City Council Meeting. Anticipate completion in July 2017. Parks Non -Functional Turf Grass Replacement Project Convert approximately 110,000 square feet of non-functional turf grass to a drought Description: tolerant California friendly landscape. Sites include Veterans Park, Temecula Duck Pond Park, Meadows Park and Patricia H. Birdsall Sports Park. Coat: $150,000 Application for turf conversion grant has been submitted to Rancho California Water Status: District for $1.00 per square foot to cover costs. Anticipate project completion February 2018. Patricia H. Birdsall Park Playground Surfacing Replacement Description: Replace ageing playground rubber resilient surfacing. Coat: $130,000 Status: Anticipate bidding this project summer 2017. 10 City of Temecula DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS PROJECT STATUS REPORT JULY 25, 2017 MAINTENANCE PROJECTS (continued) Playground Equipment Enhancement and Safety Surfacing Description: Cost: Replace aging playground structures and associated safety surfacing (Nicolas Park, Butterfield Stage Park, Vail Ranch Park, Veterans Park, Sunset Park). $1,000,000 Parks & Recreation Committee Members approved the design plans for Nicolas Park, Vail Ranch Park, and Butterfield Stage Park. On June 13, 2017, City Council awarded Status: an agreement with Miracle Recreation Equipment Company and with PlayCore Wisconsin, Inc. d/bla Gamellme for the installation of playground equipment. Anticipate project completion in October 2017. RtiFJalf' dIIWUf REi1Nli li.7i RU�IbLdd Old Urm LIg11L ru i (City Facilities Rehabilitation) Removal of base him from 171 Old Town light poles for Inspection of the metal Inside Description: the wood trim. Out of the 171 lights poles inspected, 13 light poles will be replaced with a galvanized pole. Repaint pole bases to prevent future rust. Cost: $50,000 Status: Anticipate completion In July 2017. Ronald H. Roberts Temecula Public Library Enhancement Protect Description: Upgrades indude interior and exterior re -painting, fighting fixtures, furniture, electrical, and plumbing fixture improvements Cost: $250,000 Status: Anticipate completion by August 2017. 11 City of Temecula DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS PROJECT STATUS REPORT JULY 25, 2017 MAINTENANCE PROJECTS (continued) Expanded Recycled Water and Plant Material Conversion Project Description: Cost: Status: City of Temecula was awarded grant funding through the California Department of Water Resources and Rancho California Water District for the design and construction of recycled wafer systems. Project consists of converting potable water landscape systems to recycled water systems. Landscape sites include Temeku Hills Development, Winchester creek Development, Presley Development, and Crowne Hill Development. $428,028.99 This is a multi -phase grant funded project. Anticipate bidding the design phase of this project in summer 2017. Anticipate bidding the construction phase the beginning of 2018. Anticipate project completion in June 2018. 12 City of Temecula DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS PROJECT STATUS REPORT JULY 25, 2017 LAND DEVELOPMENT OVERSIGHT OF PROJECTS Calle Medusa, between Nicolas Road to La Serena Way Project: Southern California Edison (SCE) Status: Intermittent single lane closures for final paving. Anticipate completion in mid-July 2017. Del Rio Road and Jefferson Avenue Project: Auto Spa Status: Installation of driveway by private contract to be complete by July 14, 2017. No road closures. Diaz Road and Avenida Alvarado Project: Southern California Edison (SCE) Status: Installation of facilities and dry utilities are currently on hold. Works hours are 9:00 p.m. to 5:00 am. Anticipate completion in July 2017. Rancho California Road and Moraga Road Project: Highgate Senior Center Ongoing day and night utility work by a private contractor. Works hours on Rancho California Road are 9:00 p.m. to 5:00 a.m. Work hours ort Moraga Road are 7:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. Flagging and lane control at various times. Anticipate completion in August 2017. Status: Temecula Parkway and La Paz Street Project: Gateway to Temecula Status: Intermittent single lane closures for installations of utilities. Works hours are 7:00 p.m. to 5:00 a.m. Anticipate completion by end of July 2017. 13 City of Temecula DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS PROJECT STATUS REPORT JULY 25, 2017 LAND DEVELOPMENT OVERSIGHT OF PROJECTS - continued Vallejo Avenue, west of La Paz Street Project: Hope Lutheran Church Intermittent single lane dosures for paving work and installation of dry utilities. Work hours are 7:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. Anticipate completion by end of July 2017. Status: Via Lobo Road and Nicolas Road Project: Arbor Vista (Lennar Homes) Status: Installation of wet utilities, and curb & gutter are ongoing. Intermittent lane closures are anticipated. Work hours are 7:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.rn. Anticipate completion July 2017. Via Norte/ Del Rey Road Loop Project: Southern California Edison (SCE) Intermittent road closures are anticipated for installation of dry utilities and facilities. Work hours are 7:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. Anticipate completion July 2017. Status: 14 L L-/5Z/L 6u!TaaJ IiaunoO 4410 SNOI1b1NDS8?Jd (,\6L\,C Final Report on the JPA Feasibility Study RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA matrix consulting group APRIL 2017 Report on the Riverside County JPA Feasibility Study Table of Contents If viewing the report electronically, double click on a chapter number to navigate forward to that section. SECTION A: STUDY INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY 1. Introduction and Project Overview 1 2. Executive Summary 3 3. Profile of Current Law Enforcement Services 17 SECTION B: STRUCTURING THE JPA AGENCY 4. Characteristics and Governance of the JPA Agency 51 5. Organization of the JPA Agency 55 6. JPA Cost Allocation Structure 62 SECTION C: JPA FEASIBILITY ANALYSIS 7. Analysis of Personnel Costs by Classification 77 8. Analysis of Agency Staffing Needs 91 9. Analysis of Non -Personnel Operating Costs 184 10. Analysis of Agency Startup Costs 193 11. Total Cost Allocations and Analysis Findings 207 APPENDIX: Summary of Compensation Survey Results 224 Report on the Riverside County JPA Feasibility Study I1 Introduction and Project Overview The project team conducted an analysis of the feasibility of creating a regional police department formed under a joint powers agreement (JPA). To accomplish this, the project team conducted extensive on-site work to identify priorities, collect data, and to better understand the services provided by the Riverside County Sheriff's Department (RSD): Interviews with RSD leaders responsible for local contract service delivery, as well as other department staff. • Meetings with RSD management staff. Interviews with the city managers of municipalities participating in the study. Recognizing that the cities participating in the study are satisfied at an overall level with the services provided by RSD, the feasibility analysis assumes that the same level of service must be provided by the theoretical JPA agency. Extensive research was also conducted in order to provide accurate cost estimates, including a comprehensive survey of compensation structures across nine comparable jurisdictions CaIPERS forecasts, and actuarial trends, as well as best practices for cost allocation. From the results of the processes of on-site input and research, the project team developed the model and methodologies necessary to conduct the feasibility analysis. In order to create this foundation, a number of starting assumptions were made that include the following: • It is assumed that operations will begin in the year 2021. Matrix Consulting Group Page 1 Report on the Riverside County JPA Feasibility Study It independently retains support, operational, and administrative services — for instance, finance, human resources, and others — except for those that RSD would normally provide to non -contract agencies, such as air support. Two sets of costs and staffing needs are provided in the analysis: For 2016, in order to compare the cost of current services contracted for with RSD against the cost under a JPA. For 2021, to provide a staffing and cost blueprint for the JPA at the time of its inception, as well as a roadmap for service needs, regardless of whether or not the decision to form the JPA agency is ultimately made. A comprehensive and detailed model of the JPA has been developed from this process, determining estimated costs and considerations for the structure of the agency. Matrix Consulting Group Page 2 Report on the Riverside County JPA Feasibility Study I2 Executive Summary 1 I Foreword The development of a JPA feasibility model has involved creating a series of assumptions that form the foundation its characteristics, governance, and structure. Without these in place, estimation of the agency's service needs, projections, staffing requirements, and cost analysis would not have been possible. As a result of these considerations, the report is organized largely linear manner — assumptions and methodologies build off of one each other sequentially, ultimately arriving at final cost estimates for running and establishing the agency. Given this, the executive summary mirrors this structure, summarizing the core outcomes and conclusions of each chapter before offering final conclusions. 2 Construction of the JPA Model The following sections summarize the assumptions and recommendations for how a JPA agency would be organized, staffed, and governed, as well as a methodology for cost allocation. (1) Governance A two-tiered governance structure for the JPA agency has been developed based on best practices for regionally governed agencies and input from the cities participating in the study. The governance model can be summarized as follows: Matrix Consulting Group Page 3 Report on the Riverside County JRA. Feasibility Study Proposed Hybrid JPA Governance Model Executive Board Advisory Committee Size 9 seats 4 seats Representation Equal Rotating (biannually) Members Elected rep. (1 YR rotation) City managers Meeting Frequency Quarterly Monthly Purpose Official governing body Technical advisory body On the executive board, the representatives would be elected officials (e.g., councilmembers) from each of the member cities. The governance structure is described in further detail in the section beginning on page 52. (2) Organizational Structure A detailed organization structure has been created for the JPA agency (located on page 57), creating a streamlined model for the agency that reflects its division of services and methodology for allocating costs. The structure divides agency functions into three levels: centralized. regional. and local. The regional layer of the organization is divided into three areas: Division of JPA Regions Jurupa Valley P Moreno Valley Perris J _S Lake ElsinoreMemfee Wildomar San Jacinto Temecula Matrix Consulting Group Coachella Page 4 Report on the Riverside County JPA Feasibility Study Each city would have its own station, and each region would contain a 'hub' facility, where certain services such as core investigations would be organized. (3) Cost Allocation Model A multi -tiered approach has been designed to allocate JPA costs between member cities in a process that is transparent and equitable manner, as well one that maximizes the economies of scale gained from a regionalized service model. The cost recovery structure developed from this process (detailed on page 68) is divides police agency functions — with all personnel and operating costs that they represent — into three allocation categories, as outlined in the following chart: Overview of Cost Allocation Categories Cost Category Description Examples Class A Shared costs Class B Subscription -based Class C Local costs Cities pay a proportional share based a formula consisting of the following factors: 40% Population 25% Total Calls for Service 35% Number of Locally Dedicated Staff Information technology, core detectives, fleet, finance Cities pay based on their electively set Traffic, gang task force level of contribution to a specialty unit. Full position and operating costs of locally Patrol, crime prevention, dedicated staff POP teams (4) Staffing Needs RSD computer-aided dispatch (CAD) data was analyzed over a period of a year to determine the number of calls for service and estimate' the total hours of community- ' Limitations in the CAD data received by the project team prevented the measurement of time involved in handling calls for service. Matrix Consulting Group Page 5 Report on the Riverside County JPA Feasibility Study generated workload that RSD patrol units currently handle. These estimates were then used to determine the number of JPA patrol officers that would be needed to handle those workloads, while also retaining the ability to be proactive in the field. By setting a target of 40% overall proactivity, or the time that on -duty officers have available after factoring in time spent responding to calls for service and completing other — recommended staffing levels can then be set for each city2, for both 2016 and 2021 workload projections. To provide a level comparison and definition of coverage hours between the current RSD model and the JPA estimates, the JPA patrol staffing levels were then adjusted to meet or exceed the current levels of coverage that are currently contracted for (detailed on page 113). The results of this analysis are shown in the following table, which shows the net number of hours that officers/deputies and CSOs are on -duty — after factoring in leave, court time, administrative time (e.g., briefings, etc.), the impact of turnover, etc. — under both current RSD contracts and JPA staffing estimates for 2016 — 2 Under the RSD costing model, cities contract for specific number of patrol service hours. The cost and level of investigative services provided by RSD, by contrast, are built into this cost rather than being set directly. Matrix Consulting Group Page 6 Report on the Riverside County JPA Feasibility Study Estimated Net Patrol Coverage Hours (2016 figures: see disclaimers and methodology) RSDS JPA JPA Coachella 25,900 28,153 +8.7% Jurupa Valley 55,360 61,163 +10.5% Lake Elsinore 46,700 46,922 +0.5% Menifee 43,900 48,431 +10.3% Moreno Valley 164,400 165,051 +0.4% Perris 50,520 52,958 +4.8% San Jacinto 33,720 45,413 +34.7% Temecula 89,180 90,447 +1.4% Wildomar 14,600 16,929 +17.7% It is important to note that the RSD figures shown in the previous table are lower than the contract -specified number of service hours, as other availability factors are included, such as time spent on administrative tasks and court appearances. A comprehensive account of the recommended staffing levels for the JPA agency at both 2016 and 2021 projection levels can be in the chapter beginning on page 184, including the process used to determine staffing needs, as well as the patrol coverage hours displayed in the previous table. Staffing needs for elective proactive functions, such as traffic, participation in a violent offender task force, graffiti deputies. and others, have been duplicated at the same levels that are contracted for with RSD. 3 Based on current contracted service hours, with adjustments made to account for the impact of administrative tasks (e.g., briefings), court time, and other factors, on the availability of patrol units to be in the field responding to calls for service and being proactive. Matrix Consulting Group Page 7 Report on the Riverside County JPA Feasibility Study (5) Personnel Costs The project team completed a salary and benefit survey (page 224) of agencies in the region that retain their own police department, as well as the Riverside County Sheriff's Office. From this research, a comprehensive compensation plan has been developed (page 81) that provides detailed estimates on the cost of each individual position that the JPA would employ, including all pension -related issues. 3 Costs of Operating and Establishing the JPA Agency Comprehensive cost estimates have been developed from the results of the staffing analysis, personnel cost estimates, and projections for other operating costs of running the agency. (3.1) Total JPA Operating Costs Excluding startup costs (e.g., facilities, initial fleet purchases), the feasibility analysis estimates the total cost of running the agency as follows: Total JPA Agency Costs (Excluding Startup and Capital Costs) City 2016 Coachella $7,058,169 Jurupa Valley $12,835,140 Lake Elsinore $8,851,012 Menifee $10,603,949 Moreno Valley $29,306,387 Perris $11,622,472 San Jacinto $8,608,454 Temecula $19,505,453 Wildomar $3,184,737 2021 $7,469,738 $13,389,257 $9,286,906 $11,341,106 $29,688,232 $12,513,220 $9,296,310 $20,204,219 $3,358,659 Total $111,575,772 $116,547,648 Matrix Consulting Group Page 8 Report on the Riverside County JPA Feasibility Study It is important to note that the differences in total costs from 2016 to 2021 do not consider any adjustments for increases to the cost of living or other factors, and are instead reflective of changes to staffing levels resulting from service needs of the community growing along with population. This highlights an important consideration, as the agencies participating in the study will need to expand its local law enforcement contingents as their communities grow, whether as part of the JPA or the RSD contract service model. (3.2) JPA Startup and Capital Costs It is also important to also consider agency startup costs, as it provides for a more realistic comparison of costs between the two service models. To address the capital needs of establishing the agency, the JPA may issue bonds, which unlike operating costs, can be paid out over a series of years. JPA -issued bonds do not require voter approval, and instead can be passed by majority votes within the city councils of each member city. The following table summarizes agency startup costs by category, assuming a start date of 20214: 4 All building, fleet, dispatch, information technology, and equipment costs are developed using current 2016 cost values. The square footage needs used to develop the building specifications, however, are calculated using 2021 staffing estimates. Matrix Consulting Group Page 9 Report on the Riverside County JPA Feasibility Study Summary of Estimated JPA Agency Startup Costs Category Cost Facilities $23,337,869 Fleet $13,449,600 Equipment $6,584,093 Information Technology $2,195,400 Dispatch $15,000,000 Sworn Hiring Incentives $5,550,000 Total $66,116,962 Assuming a 10 -year municipal bond with a fixed interest rate of 5.0%, as well as a level principal payment schedule, estimated debt service for the JPA agency as a whole would total an average of $8,429,913 per year. This figure is then added to the normal operating costs of running the JPA, distributing the total amount among cities using the Class A (shared) allocation method, which is based on a combination of population. calls for service, and number of locally dedicated (i.e., contracted directly for) staff. 4 Conclusions and Findings of the JPA Feasibility Analysis (1) The cost of running a nine -city JPA would be less than the cost of contracting with the RSD. The following table provides a comparison of the 2016 costs of running the JPA agency against current spending on RSD contract services by city: Matrix Consulting Group Page 10 Report on the Riverside County JPA Feasibility Study City RSD Contract Cost vs JPA Costs (2016 Figures; Includes Startup Expenses) RSD Costs JPA Costs +/-% Coachella Jurupa Valley Lake Elsinore Menifee Moreno Valley Perris San Jacinto Temecula5 Wildomar Total $7,538,758 $15,843,197 $11,799,477 $10,770,641 $39,834,484 $14,694,422 $9,993,198 $25,694,620 $2,667,300 $138,836,097 $7,975,873 $14,411,117 $9,973,552 $12,192,012 $32,002,361 $13,355,855 $9,913,385 $21,481,401 $3,672,005 $124,977,561 +5.8% -9.0% -15.5% +13.2% -19.7% -9.1% -0.8% -16.4% +37.7% -10.0% With the exception of Wildomar (which contracts for relatively few staff as a result of reductions that were made in recent years to contracted service levels6), Menifee, and Coachella, the JPA would achieve cost savings in all other cities, ranging from 0.8% in San Jacinto to 19.7% in Moreno Valley. As the cost projections were shown using 2016 numbers, the true cost of the JPA in its start year of 2021 should be considered within the context of the relative risks for cost increases in both models. CaIPERS trends and changes, such as the recently introduced reduction to the discount rate, present significant impacts on the relative differences in costs between the two options in the future. 5 Numbers based on FY16 figures, as with other cities. With additional staffing, FY17 budgeted RSD costs are listed at $27.8m. In the JPA cost model, if Temecula added an additional 10 officers and 1 CSO position to the numbers shown in the patrol analysis and staffing chapter, total JPA costs would increase by approximately $1.6m. 6 The number of service hours provided to Wildomar by RSD was reduced to 40, down from 70. The JPA cost estimates are based on achieving the reduced service hour target by dedicating 10 officers to the city, equating to 15,090 net coverage hours per year (approximately, 41.3 per day). Matrix Consulting Group Page 11 Report on the Riverside County JPA Feasibility Study (2) The cost effectiveness and service levels provided under the JPA model center around a number of key elements. • • • • Relative to the RSD contract model, these include the following characteristics: Organization and staffing levels designed to meet or exceed the same level of service provided under current contracts: Core field services, including patrol officers and CSOs, are staffed in the JPA model to provide at least the same number of actual coverage hours in the field in each city, when examined on a level basis between RSD and JPA models of counting `service hours' (page 113). Additional services, such as traffic units, proactive teams, and other specialized resources that cities directly contract for are staffed at equal or exceeding levels. Reduced pension cost variability: Given that a high proportion of sworn personnel fall under the tier 2 ("new member") categories of CaIPERS, as well as the lack of unfunded liabilities in a new system, the potential for significant pension cost increases are relatively limited compared to many other California agencies. The same is true for retiree medical insurance, which the JPA compensation model does not provide as a defined benefit plan. Sustainable and competitive compensation plans: Compensation plans have been developed for the JPA model that minimize the risk of unfunded pension liabilities through a combination of different elements: Defined contribution retiree medical systems for all employees Defined contribution pension plan for non -sworn personnel Above average salary and incentive -based pay Optional alternative defined contribution pension plan for sworn personnel Salaries have been set at above average levels, with significantly above average assignment and attainment -based pay incentives $10,000 `bonus' for sworn hires to further enhance competitiveness Risk from increasing pension costs is further mitigated by having low percentage of sworn personnel falling under the Tier 1 category of CaIPERS benefits The discount rate change to CaIPERS does not affect the JPA as significantly, given that not all personnel are on defined benefit plans, as well as the absence of unfunded liabilities Maximization of cost efficiencies by establishing relatively few specialty units: The JPA organization lacks a number of optional proactive specialized units that many large police agencies have, while by no means being a minimalist structure. Investigations are for the most part generalized roles, excluding the Matrix Consulting Group Page 12 Report on the Riverside County JPA Feasibility Study • Homicide Unit and Sex Crimes Unit. As a result, the organizational complexity and administrative overhead costs of the JPA are relatively minimal. Core services, such as patrol and investigations, constitute a larger proportion of the organization than many agencies similar in size to the potential JPA. Municipal control and governance: Under the dual governing body structure, elected officials from each member city form an executive management board, while rotating city managers meet monthly in an advisory committee. As a result, cities have significant control over how the JPA agency responds to citizen concerns and manages its budget, as well as selection of the agency executive. Many of the key characteristics for the cost effectiveness of the JPA are also integral to the effective RSD contract model: • • (3) Regionalization of investigations: As with the RSD model, a larger pool of detectives allows for case workloads to be better balanced and prioritized as fluctuations in case generation occur. Regionalization also allows for shared case management practices to be put into place. Local control over major cost elements: Localized costs (those under the Class C cost allocation category) represent the largest component of the charge for services, and regional specialized functions (e.g., traffic, gang violent offender task force) are optionally provided. Utilization of civilian field roles: Another feature of the current RSD services incorporated into the model, the JPA agency would prioritize alternative response capabilities to alleviate the workload of sworn patrol units. Opportunities exist to further reduce costs in the JPA model, as well as to provide additional services. By modifying certain assumptions, organizational aspects, and details of the compensation plan, significant impacts can be made to the cost of the JPA: • If RSD retained dispatch services, and as a result reducing total capital costs by $15,000,000, the JPA would cost approximately 5.3-6.5% Tess for each city, depending on the charge method applied. • Pension system alternatives: Implementation of a defined contribution retirement system for sworn personnel, at an employer rate of 9.0%' the Rate includes separate accounts for long-term disability and death benefits. Matrix Consulting Group Page 13 Report on the Riverside County JPA Feasibility Study • • employee's pensionable salary, would save approximately $1,856,000 — approximately 1.5% of the total cost of running the JPA8. Changes to the groups of cities participating in the JPA: As capital costs, including the construction of agency facilities, are allocated based on the Class A (shared) method, reducing the number of regions would decrease the capital burden. However, if large cities were not to participate, certain economies of scale are lost, given the proportion of staff and capital costs absorbed in smaller organization units compared to those in large, regionalized/centralized services. For example, if Coachella were ultimately not part of the agency, very slight cost efficiencies could be gained by other cities — about $2.3. million in startup costs (not including interest) and negligible differences in operating costs. However, if a large city such as Moreno Valley were to not be apart the JPA, more significant cost efficiencies would be lost by other cities. Cities opting to add more staff, or the JPA deciding to form new units: The relative cost of adding one officer position, including equipment and outfitting, a proportional share of support and supervision costs, is slightly Tess than $200,000. With the JPA costing about 10% less than the total RSD contract amount, cities would be able to add additional staff while still maintaining cost reductions. These opportunities, among others, provide additional variables and cost considerations for the cost of the JPA relative to continuing to contract with RSD. Given that the JPA would cost 10% after amortized startup costs have been factored in, there is significant room to implement modifications to the JPA model. (4) In the RSD service model, cities lack the ability to shape cost factors and have a significant role in how regionally provided services are governed. The same conclusions outlined in the previous point also apply equally to RSD contract cities. Cities contracting with the RSD are stakeholders in the agency providing the services, as reflected by the hundreds of staffing positions that they directly support. B Figures are based on 2016 cost estimates. Matrix Consulting Group Page 14 Report on the Riverside County JPA Feasibility Study The priorities of a JPA seeking to achieve cost efficiencies largely mirror those of a contract city. In fact, many of the principles for allocating costs are largely similar — such as the regionalization of costs relating to administrative, support, and certain core service functions, while for the most part retaining a component where cities directly determine their local staffing levels. One of the key differences between the models is the degree of stakeholdership — in the RSD model, cities do not have a part of the agency's direct governance. By building the cost of administrative and support functions into the rate for core service units, cities are removed from any decisions regarding these functions and any impacts they may have on their costs. By contrast, in a JPA environment, a city may make decisions that reduce the cost of these functions over time — such as implementing new information management systems to streamline records promises, for example. (5) RSD contract cities should reevaluate staffing levels based on the results of the patrol service needs analysis contained in the report. The patrol proactivity analysis provides cities with a methodology to evaluate community -generated workloads patrol staffing resources in order to determine the level of coverage being provided. Two sets of field staffing levels were provided in our report: • Patrol staffing needed to achieve a field proactivity target of 40% based on workload and availability • Patrol staffing needed to equalize or exceed the coverage hours provided under current RSD contracts Ultimately, in the calculation of JPA costs, the latter method has been used. This process enables cities to budget law enforcement spending on based on more Matrix Consulting Group Page 15 Report on the Riverside County JPA Feasibility Study transparent and measurable service level considerations. Other staffing need estimations do not translate directly to the RSD model, as cities contract for patrol hours and certain dedicated staff, with all other support, investigative, and administrative functions being built into the supporting cost rates. The recommended staffing levels, both currently and for the years 2016 and 2021 are contained within the comprehensive JPA staffing overview beginning on page 129. (6) Cities should advance the process of determining JPA agency feasibility. The contract cities participating in the study should move forward with the process of exploring the feasibility of creating a regional law enforcement agency under a JPA structure. Initial steps include: • Revise and refine the assumptions, structure, and characteristics of the JPA feasibility model to create a realistic target. • Further examine the possibility contracting for certain services, such as dispatch, from other agencies while remaining within the JPA environment. • Reach out to other contract and non -contract cities with the model to explore the possibility of a larger — and perhaps more contiguous — JPA group being formed. Matrix Consulting Group Page 16 Report on the Riverside County JPA Feasibility Study I3 Profile of Current Law Enforcement Services 1. Introduction The following descriptive profile outlines the law enforcement services provided to the cities participating in the feasibility study, representing 9 of the 17 municipalities that contract with the Riverside County Sheriff's Department. The information contained in the profile has been developed through a number of interviews conducted with Riverside County Sheriff's Department personnel, city managers, and staff from the nine contract cities that are participating in the study. Information pertaining to a number of RSD work areas is not specifically addressed in the profile, particularly those involving shared and non -dedicated services. It is important to note that the profile does not seek to provide any analysis of the value or cost effectiveness of these services, and instead seeks to provide a reflection of the project team's core understanding of how those services are provided and charged for, as well as the specific staffing levels assigned to each of the participating contract cities. 2. Overview of Current Law Enforcement Services Provided by the Riverside County Sheriff's Department The following sections provide a summary of the scope and costing model that the Riverside County Sheriff's Department uses to provide law enforcement services to contracting municipalities and other entities. Matrix Consulting Group Page 17 Report on the Riverside County JPA Feasibility Study (1) Background and Summary of Contract Services in Riverside County The nine cities participating in the study represent a total population of 767,868 spread across 323.7 non-contiguous square miles. Although not all of these cities are contiguous, all but one of the cities are located closely together. The relative locations of these cities are illustrated in the map below: Contract Cities Included in the Study Jurupa Valley Moreno Valley Perris Lake ElsinoreMenifee Wildomar San Jacinto Temecula Coachella The total combined budget from the 2015-16 cycle spent on police services was $147.1 million. In each of the nine cities, the cost of police services was the largest single budget expense. The law enforcement contracts are generally five-year, renewable contracts that specify patrol hours to be delivered and any additional law enforcement positions requested such as traffic or special enforcement teams. Contract costs have risen significantly in recent years, even after adjusting for changes to the services and staffing that each city contracts for. As stated before, cities pay a set rate for the number of patrol hours they need to provide adequate police coverage, plus more for additional services. The cost per hour is adjusted annually, and Matrix Consulting Group Page 18 Report on the Riverside County JPA Feasibility Study while the rate of increase slowed in years following the Great Recession. its pace has since resumed at even greater levels than before, with FY2014-15 representing the single largest increase to costs in the last decade. Contract cities revenues. by contrast, have not grown at the same rate, prompting cities in some cases to examine the choice between reducing the number of patrol hours contracted for and reducing other city services. In the RSD costing model, patrol hours represent the central unit of allocating expenses. and has represented the fastest growing element within contract costs overall. (2) Overview of the Cost Recovery Model According to Board Policy B-4 (7), The Riverside County Sheriff's Department is directed to recover the full cost of providing contract law enforcement services from the agencies, stating the following: Riverside County Board Policy B-4 (7) Charges should recover actual costs of providing the services. The Board of Supervisors may direct county departments to reduce operating costs in order to reduce charges to users. As a result, any inflationary changes or increases to personnel costs, such as those relating to employee retirement systems, must then result in increases to the cost assessed to contract areas for services provided. How these services may be charged for, however, is somewhat constrained under California law: California Government Code Section 51350 ...A county shall not charge a city contracting for a particular service, either as a direct or an indirect overhead charge, any portion of those costs which are attributable to services made available to all portions of the county, as determined by resolution of the board of supervisors, or which are general overhead costs of operation of the county government. General overhead costs, for the purpose of this section, are those costs which a county would incur regardless of whether or not it provided a service under contract to a city... Matrix Consulting Group Page 19 Report on the Riverside County JPA Feasibility Study As a result, in an analysis of the costing of RSD services to contract cities, it is important to distinguish between general overhead costs — those that would be incurred by the county regardless of a community's status as a contract city — and those that are not. The remaining costs are then charged based on whether or not they constitute part of the core services being provided, which are billed for by the number of patrol hours that a city contracts for. (2.1) Supported Rates The costs associated with providing these core services — ranging from investigations, first-line field supervision, and other functions, to support areas such as information technology, training, dispatch, etc. — are billed under one rate, which is referred to as the supported rate. The associated rate comprises not only the costs relating to salaries and benefits (including retirement system expenditures), but also a share of other related cost areas, such as liability insurance premiums and PSEC costs (911 communications infrastructure). In FY 2014-15, the supported rate was set at $149.09/hour, reflecting a sizable increase over the previous year's rate. This is consistent with trends over the past eight fiscal years, which as displayed in the following table along with the increase from the previous year: Matrix Consulting Group Page 20 Report on the Riverside County JPA Feasibility Study Supported Hourly Rate, FY2008-15 Year Rate % Change FY07-08 $111.80 — FY08-09 $117.30 +4.9% FY09-10 $121.97 +4.0% FY10-11 $125.37 +2.8% FY11-12 $126.74 +1.1% FY12-13 $132.69 +4.7% FY13-14 $139.29 +5.0% FY14-15 $149.09 +7.0% 8YR Change AvgJYear +33.4% +4.2% As explained in the full report of the Criminal Justice System Review completed recently by KPMG9, the supported rate can be broken down into three main categories: Direct Patrol, Direct Support, and Indirect Support. The following table presents the components of each of these categories, and the amount they contribute to the overall supported hourly rate of $149.09: 9 KPMG, LLP. Criminal Justice System Review. Board of Supervisors, County of Riverside, California, 2016. Matrix Consulting Group Page 21 Report on the Riverside County JPA Feasibility Study Breakdown of Supported Rate Cost Factors (FY2014-15)1° Category Direct Patrol Patrol Officers Direct Support Sworn Support Classified Central Dispatch Indirect Support Central Dispatch Countywide Cost Allocations Field Training Costs Personnel and Recruiting Information Services Administration Technical Services Accounting and Finance Training Center Contracts and Grants Rate Factor $80.50 $80.50 $48.56 $38.35 $10.21 $10.67 $20.03 $10.67 $1.65 $1.30 $1.22 $1.21 $1.20 $0.95 $0.82 $0.64 $0.38 of Total 50.4% 30.4% 6.7% 12.5% TOTAL $149.09 100% Comprising 54% of the supported hourly rate, direct patrol costs — those relating to patrol deputies only — represent the single largest share. It is important to note that this includes a share of liability insurance, as well as the cost of benefits provided to those employees. (2.2) Unsupported Rates Positions that a city elects to include in the staffing complement they contract for are billed at different rates, given that their functioning does not entail the use of other 10 All figures included the corresponding table reference those listed on pages 70-71 of the aforementioned report completed by KPMG, LLP. Matrix Consulting Group Page 22 Report on the Riverside County JPA Feasibility Study services (e.g., investigations, dispatch) to the same extent as positions, such as patrol deputies, that are billed at the full supported rate. The rates at which these positions are billed are referred to as unsupported rates, and vary depending on position/classification. Examples of positions that would be billed at unsupported rates include task force assignments, dedicated captains, localized crime analysts, community service officers, and any other positions or function that a city elects to contract for above the core range and level of services. This rate includes any costs incurred by providing these functions, including, supplies, recruitment, accounting, and any other factors driving service costs. For deputy positions in FY2014-15, the unsupported rate was $81.30 per hour — significantly less than the supported rate. (2.3) Other Costs Certain cost categories are not included in either the supported and unsupported rates. These include, but are not limited to, the following categories: • • • • • • • Facility lease and maintenance costs Motor vehicles used by traffic unit K-9 dogs used by K-9 units Overtime for special events Citizen patrol programs Furniture and office supplies Field equipment purchases and maintenance staff used by unsupported staff Miscellaneous professional services Matrix Consulting Group Page 23 Report on the Riverside County JPA Feasibility Study These costs are not assessed under a costing rate, and are instead billed for directly to each contract city at their cost on a line -item basis. Matrix Consulting Group Page 24 Report on the Riverside County JPA Feasibility Study 3. Summary of Law Enforcement Contracts The following chapter provide overviews of each contract city, including population and crime trends, total spending on law enforcement services, and the number of staff that each city currently contracts for. 1 Coachella The City of Coachella has a population of 44,635 (2015 U.S. Census Bureau estimate) and encompasses 29.0 square miles. The FY2015-16 budget for police services is $7,538.758. The current contract ends on June 30. 2017. (1.1) Overview of Service Environment The population of Coachella has expanded steadily over the last few decades, growing from a city of around 17,000 residents in 1990, to over 44.000 currently. The chart below displays growth trends over the past five years: Coachella Population, 2010 — 2014 Year Total Pop. +/- 2010 40.704 2011 41,938 2012 42,689 2013 43,144 2014 44,132 5YR Change 3YR Avg. Growth Rate 8.4% 1.7% • 1 • Interestingly, although the rate of growth slowed gradually from 2011 to 2013, expansion picked up again at a rapid pace in 2014 as the economy continued its recovery. It can be expected that this level of continued growth will place important impacts on the city's law enforcement service needs, as total buildout is not foreseeable within the near Matrix Consulting Group Page 25 Report on the Riverside County JPA Feasibility Study future. To this point, some city estimates expect that growth could potentially place the city's population at around 100,000 within the next decade. As recent growth has occurred, however, crime has not increased by the same proportion, as evidenced by the following chart: Coachella Part I Crimes, 2009 — 2013 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 Violent Crime 255 193 276 265 118 Murder and nonnegligent manslaughter 4 2 1 5 2 Forcible rape 9 3 5 9 2 Robbery 64 74 76 67 56 Aggravated assault 178 114 194 184 58 Property crime 1,354 1,623 1,697 1,547 1,372 Burglary 479 551 467 424 358 Larceny -theft 578 667 972 780 634 Motor vehicle theft 297 405 258 343 380 Arson 10 11 6 10 5 Part I Crimes Per 1,000 Pop. 5YR Violent Crime Change 5YR Property Crime Change 33.8 'V -54% A 1% Violent crime occurrences have dropped significantly over the five-year period, although it is unclear whether this is somewhat of an outlier given the consistency in crime totals in other years, or whether the drop is the result of the city's gang injunction operations. Compared to many of the other contract cities, however, violent and property crime rates are relatively high. (1.2) Spending on Police Services Expenditures relating to police services have risen steadily over the past four years without any significant contract changes occurring over that time period, as shown in the following table: Matrix Consulting Group Page 26 Report on the Riverside County JPA Feasibility Study Year Expenditures % Change FY12/13 FY13/14 FY14/15 FY15/16 FY16/17 $6,059,382 $7,153,254 $6,678,050 $7,538,758 4YR Change 24.4% Spending actually decreased from FY2013-14 to FY2014-15 as position levels changed, before increasing by nearly 13% in the next fiscal year. Overall, Coachella spends almost 25% more on law enforcement services today compared with FY 12/13. (1.3) Dedicated and Non -Dedicated Contract Staffing Levels The city contracts for a total of 27.5 positions, which does not include the partial share of a lieutenant from the Thermal station: City of Coachella Contract Staffing Levels Staff Category FTEs Notes Patrol Deputies (Equivalent) Supervision and Management Sergeant (Field) Specialized Field Units Deputies (Community Action Team) Deputies (Special Enforcement Team) Support None Administration None Task Forces 18.5 Based on 90 hours per day 1.0 3.0 3.0 Supported, non -dedicated Supported, dedicated Sergeant (Task Forces) Deputy (CV Narcotics Task Force) Deputy (V. Crime Gang Task Force) 1.0 1.0 Unsupported 1.0 Unsupported Matrix Consulting Group Page 27 Report on the Riverside County JPA Feasibility Study 2 Jurupa Valley The City of Jurupa Valley has a population of 100,315 (2015 U.S. Census Bureau estimate) and encompasses 43.5 square miles. The FY2015-16 budget for police services is $15,843,197, with a contract expiration date of June 30, 2018. (2.1) Overview of Service Environment Jurupa Valley is the newest city in the contract group, having incorporated as recently as 2011. Given that historical UCR crime data for the city is somewhat limited, only two years of crime trends are displayed in the chart below: Jurupa Valley Part I Crimes, 2012 — 2013 2012 2013 Violent Crime 312 267 ", Murder and nonnegligent manslaughter 1 3 Forcible rape 12 12 Robbery 93 75 Aggravated assault 206 177 Property crime 3,174 3,065 Burglary 731 570 Larceny -Theft 1,779 1,732 Motor vehicle theft 664 763 Arson 9 2 Overall, Part I crimes occur at a rate of about 33.7 crimes per 1,000 residents - at almost exactly the same rate as Coachella. (2.2) Spending on Police Services Significant changes have occurred in the city's spending on law enforcement services, as evidenced by the table below: Matrix Consulting Group Page 28 Report on the Riverside County JPA Feasibility Study Year Expenditures % Change FY12/13 FY13/14 FY14/15 FY15/16 FY16/17 $5,238,687 $12,603,820 $14,830,641 $15,843,197 140.6% 17.7% 6.8% 4YR Change 202.4% It is important to note that the 110+% rise in spending from FY14/15 to FY15/16 is the result of changes to the staffing levels that the city contracts for, rather than increases to the base rate for supported positions. (2.3) Dedicated and Non -Dedicated Contract Staffing Levels The city contracts for 52 supported positions — slightly fewer per capita than Coachella — as shown in the table below: City of Jurupa Valley Contract Staffing Levels Staff Category FTEs Notes Patrol Deputies (Equivalent) Supervision and Management Sergeant (Field) 37.0 Based on 180 hours per day Specialized Field Units Deputies (Community Action Team) Deputies (Traffic) Support Community Service Officers 1.0 6.0 Supported, dedicated 6.0 Supported, dedicated Administration None 2.0 Task Forces None Matrix Consulting Group Page 29 Report on the Riverside County JPA Feasibility Study 3 Lake Elsinore The City of Lake Elsinore has a population of 61,981 (2015 U.S. Census Bureau estimate) and covers an area of 41.7 square miles. The FY2015-16 budget for police services is $11,799,472, with the current contract scheduled to end on June 30, 2020. (3.1) Overview of Service Environment Lake Elsinore has expanded rapidly from 2010 to 2014, as shown in the chart below: Lake Elsinore Population, 2010 — 2014 Year Total Pop. + /- 2010 — 2010 51,821 2011 54,724 2012 55,769 • 2013 57,542 11111 2014 60,029 5YR Change 15,8% 3YR Avg. Growth Rate 3.1% At a growth rate of over 3.1% per year, it can be expected that significant changes to the city's population will continue to occur over the coming years. Despite the growth in population over recent years, Part I crime levels have remained fairly consistent, as shown in the chart below: Matrix Consulting Group Page 30 Report on the Riverside County JPA Feasibility Study Lake Elsinore Part 1 Crimes. 2009 - 2013 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 Violent Crime 137 108 122 130 103 Murder and nonnegligent manslaughter 1 0 0 2 3 Forcible rape 10 15 3 3 2 Robbery 37 38 43 57 32 Aggravated assault 89 55 76 68 66 Property crime 1,653 1,571 1,611 1,932 1,494 Burglary 386 398 480 537 418 Larceny -theft 979 959 908 1,141 858 Motor vehicle theft 288 214 223 254 218 Arson 1 2 2 3 1 Part !Crimes Per 1,000 Pop. 5YR Violent Crime Change 5YR Property Crime Change 26.6 V -25% ♦ -10% Crime occurrences have decreased overall over the past five years of available data, although the trend has not been entirely steadily, with 2012 representing marked increases to both violent and property crime levels. Considered within the context of the population increases over the same time period. the overall rate of crime has decreased by a larger margin. (3.2) Spending on Police Services Law Enforcement spending for Lake Elsinore has risen significant over the past five years. as shown in the following table: Year Expenditures % Change FY12/13 FY13/14 FY14/15 FY15/16 FY16/17 $9.634.801 $10.351.911 $10,830,422 $11,712,034 $12,431,410 7.4% 4.6% 8.1% 6.10/0 4YR Change 29.0% Matrix Consulting Group Page 31 Report on the Riverside County JPA Feasibility Study It should be noted, however, that much of the increase — particularly, from FY2013- 14 to FY2014-15 — represents changes to the staffing levels the city contracts for, rather only the overall supported hourly rate. (3.3) Dedicated and Non -Dedicated Contract Staffing Levels The table below provides detailed figures for the staffing levels that Lake Elsinore currently contracts for: City of Lake Elsinore Contract Staffing Levels Staff Category FTEs Notes Patrol Deputies (Equivalent) 27.0 i Based on 130.8 hours per day Supervision and Management Sergeant (Field) 1.0 Specialized Field Units Deputies (Special Enforcement Team) 2.0 Supported, dedicated Deputies (Motorcycle/Traffic) 4.0 Supported, dedicated Support Community Service Officers 5.0 Administration None Task Forces None Matrix Consulting Group Page 32 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Report on the Riverside County JPA Feasibility Study 4 Menifee The City of Menifee has a population of 87,174 (2015 U.S. Census Bureau estimate) and encompasses 46.6 square miles. The FY2015-16 budget for police services is $10,770.641, with the current contract ending June 30. 2017. (4.1) Overview of Service Environment Menifee has grown steadily in recent years, as shown by the chart below: Menifee Population, 2010 - 2014 Year Total Pop. + / - 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 5YR Change 3YR Avg. Growth Rate 77,519 79,945 81,428 83,593 85,182 9.9% 2.1% • • • The rate of growth is comparable to other cities in the contract group, representing about 10% additional residents in total over the past five years, and approximately 2% in each of the last three years. Unlike many of the other cities, where total crime numbers have decreased in recent years, the opposite has been the case in Menifee. Both violent and property crime totals have risen in that period, as shown in the following chart: Matrix Consulting Group Page 33 Report on the Riverside County JPA Feasibility Study Menifee Part I Crimes, 2009 - 2013 Violent Crime Murder and nonnegligent manslaughter Forcible rape Robbery Aggravated assault Property crime Burglary Larceny -theft Motor vehicle theft Arson Part I Crimes Per 1,000 Pop. 5YR Violent Crime Change 5YR Property Crime Change 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 70 64 0 6 30 34 0 3 22 39 1,444 1,339 393 378 805 745 246 216 0 4 20.9 A 41% A 16% 53 87 2 1 2 4 23 24 26 58 1,611 450 901 260 6 99 3 6 21 69 1,942 1,680 507 391 1,109 979 326 310 0 3 At increases of about 41% for violent crimes and 16% for property crimes, the pace of growth has not outpaced the rate at which residents have been added to the city. Despite these trends, the city's Part I crime rate is relatively lower in comparison to many of the other cities in the contract group, many of which with rates that are at least 50% higher. (4.2) Spending on Police Services Law enforcement spending has grown throughout the subsequent period of time, as shown in the table below: Year Expenditures % Change FY12/13 FY13/14 FY14/15 FY15/16 FY16/17 $8,375,221 $9,021,776 $10,338,782 $10,770,641 7.7% 14.6% 4.2% 4YR Change 28.6% Matrix Consulting Group Page 34 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Report on the Riverside County JPA Feasibility Study As is the case with many of the other contract cities, the years with the most significant increase owe largely to changes in contracted staffing levels, rather than changes to the direct supported hourly rate. Overall. the combined increases amount to a four-year difference of 28.6% from FY2012-13 to FY2015-16. (4.3) Dedicated and Non -Dedicated Contract Staffing Levels The table below displays the current staffing levels that are contracted for by Menifee: Staff Category City of Menifee Contract Staffing Levels FTEs Notes i Patrol Deputies (Equivalent) 25 I Based on 120 hours per day Supervision and Management None i Specialized Field Units Deputies (Special Enforcement Team) 4.0 Dedicated, Supported Deputies (Quail Valley) 2.0 Dedicated, Supported Deputies (Motorcycle — Traffic) 2.0 Dedicated, Supported Deputies (Traffic Team) 2.0 Dedicated, Supported Support Community Service Officers 5.0 Administration None Task Forces Deputy (CV Narcotics Task Force) 1.0 Unsupported Matrix Consulting Group Page 35 Report on the Riverside County JPA Feasibility Study 5 Moreno Valley The City of Moreno Valley has a population of 204,198 (2015 U.S. Census Bureau estimate) and encompasses 51.5 square miles. The FY2015-16 budget for police services is $39,834,484. (5.1) Overview of Service Environment Moreno Valley, like many of the other municipalities in the contract cities group, has grown steadily in recent years, as shown in the chart below: Moreno Valley Population, 2010 - 2014 Year Total Pop. +/ - 2010 193,365 2011 196,970 10 2012 198,863 1 2013 201,131 0 2014 202,976 1 5YR Change 5.0% 3YR Avg. Growth Rate 1.0% Growth has continued at around this rate since at least 1990, when the population of the city was just over 121,000. Total buildout for the city is projected at between 260,000 and 300,000, depending on the completion of a set of industrial space development projects. By contrast, total crime occurrences have declined at a relatively consistent rate over the past five years, as illustrated in the following chart: Matrix Consulting Group Page 36 Report on the Riverside County JPA Feasibility Study Moreno Valley Part I Crimes, 2009 — 2013 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 Violent Crime 921 724 732 706 638 Murder and nonnegligent manslaughter 6 15 7 5 10 Forcible rape 30 33 32 25 31 Robbery 467 373 330 331 312 Aggravated assault 418 303 363 345 285 Property crime 5,958 5,222 5,782 6,371 5,872 Burglary 2,020 1,843 2,095 2,018 1,822 Larceny -theft 3,086 2,595 2,767 3,456 3,224 Motor vehicle theft 852 784 900 897 826 Arson 16 10 3 8 4 Part I Crimes Per 1,000 Pop. 5YR Violent Crime Change 5YR Property Crime Change The majority of the drop in crime has occurred within the violent crimes category, whereas the volume of property crimes has remained relatively unchanged since 2009. When viewed as a proportion to the city's growing population, both crime rates have decreased overall. (5.2) Spending on Police Services Law enforcement spending has changed only to a minor degree in Moreno Valley, as shown in the table below: Year Expenditures % Change FY12/13 FY13/14 FY14/15 FY15/16 FY16/17 $42,019,344 $36,736,089 $39,657,875 $39,834,484 $42,477,136 -12.6% 8.0% 0.4% 6.6% 5YR Change 1.1% After falling by over 12% in FY 13/14 as a result of staffing level changes, significant increases have occurred two other times in the five-year period. Even with the Matrix Consulting Group Page 37 Report on the Riverside County JPA Feasibility Study decreased staffing levels, the overall cost of police services has grown by about 1.1% from FY2012-13 to FY2016-17. (5.3) Dedicated and Non -Dedicated Contract Staffing Levels The following table presents the current contracted staffing levels for Moreno Valley, including the dedicated Captain position, which is unique among the nine participating contract cities: City of Moreno Valley Contract Staffing Levels Staff Category FTEs Notes Patrol Deputies (Equivalent) Supervision and Management Captain (90%) Lieutenant Sergeant (Field) Specialized Field Units Deputies (K9 Handler w/ Canine) Deputies (Motorcycles- Traffic) Deputies (Crime Prevention) Deputies (Graffiti) Deputies (School Resource Officer) Support Forensic Technicians Community Service Officer Sheriff Service Officer Administration Administrative Supervisor Office Staff Task Forces 92.0 Based on 448 hours per day 1.0 1.0 1.0 2.0 Dedicated, Supported 10.0 Dedicated, Supported 3.0 Dedicated, Unsupported 1.0 Dedicated, Unsupported 1.0 Dedicated, Unsupported 1.0 20.0 1.0 1.0 2.0 Deputy (V. Crime Gang Task Force) Matrix Consulting Group 1.0 Unsupported Page 38 Report on the Riverside County JPA Feasibility Study 6 Perris The City of Perris has a population of 74,971 (2015 U.S. Census Bureau estimate) and encompasses 31.5 square miles. The FY2015-16 budget for police services is $14,694,422, and the current contract ends June 30, 2019. (6.1) Overview of Service Environment Perris has grown at a moderate pace over the last five years, as shown by in the chart below: Perris Population, 2010 - 2014 Year Total Pop. +/- 2010 68,386 2011 70,368 2012 71,278 2013 72,463 2014 73,756 5YR Change 3YR Avg. Growth Rate 7.9% 1.6% The city has added an average of over 1,300 residents per year over the time period, with the largest single year of growth occurring in 2011. Despite the relatively moderate population gains compared to some of the other cities in the contract group, crime levels have risen significantly, as shown in the following table: Matrix Consulting Group Page 39 Report on the Riverside County JPA Feasibility Study Perris Part I Crimes, 2009 — 2013 Violent Crime Murder and nonnegligent manslaughter Forcible rape Robbery Aggravated assault Property crime Burglary Larceny -theft Motor vehicle theft Arson Part 1 Crimes Per 1,000 Pop. 5YR Violent Crime Change 5YR Property Crime Change 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 188 160 4 8 94 82 2 10 89 59 1,883 1,735 556 933 394 3 30.9 A 28% A 8% 502 875 358 3 167 240 241 3 3 93 68 3 6 94 137 6 1 102 132 2,124 2,081 2,038 588 488 489 974 1.118 1,067 562 475 482 D 0 3 Violent crime has risen by over 28% over the five-year time period, while property crime has climbed by about 8%. These trends are in contrast to many of the other contract cities, where crime occurrences have either stayed relatively the same, or have fallen somewhat significantly over the same period. (6.2) Spending on Police Services Law enforcement expenditures have risen considerably, as shown in the following table: Year FY12/13 FY13/14 FY14/15 FY15/16 FY16/17 Expenditures $12,488,731 $13,788,286 $14,694,422 $15,729,960 Change 10.4% 6.6% 7.0% 4YR Change 26.0% Matrix Consulting Group Page 40 Report on the Riverside County JPA Feasibility Study At an overall increase of over 26% in four years, Perris ranks among the highest of the group in growth of contract costs. (6.3) Dedicated and Non -Dedicated Contract Staffing Levels The following table details the current staffing levels contracted for by Perris: City of Perris Contract Staffing Levels Staff Category FTEs Notes Patrol Deputies (Equivalent) 31.0 Based on 150.4 hours per day Supervision and Management Sergeant (Field) 1.0 Specialized Field Units Deputies (Special Enforcement Team) Deputies (City Gang Team) Deputies (Motors) Support 5.0 Dedicated, supported 2.0 Dedicated, supported 4.0 Dedicated, supported Community Service Officers 4.0 Administration None Task Forces Deputy (CV Narcotics Task Force) 1.0 Dedicated, unsupported Matrix Consulting Group Page 41 Report on the Riverside County JPA Feasibility Study 7 San Jacinto San Jacinto has a population of 46,951 (2015 U.S. Census Bureau estimate) and covers an area of 26.1 square miles. The FY2015-16 budget for police services is $9.993.198, with the current contract ending June 30, 2019. (7.1) Overview of Service Environment San Jacinto has grown at a relatively minor rate compared to most of the other contract cities, as shown in the following chart: San Jacinto Population, 2010 — 2014 Year Total Pop. +/- 2010 44,199 2011 45,018 2012 45,492 2013 46,033 2014 46,490 5YR Change 3YR Avg. Growth Rate 5.2% 1.1% • 1 1 1 At 5.2% overall growth in the last five years, San Jacinto has added between 450 and 800 residents per year, with the rate has decreasing somewhat over time. However, total crime has remained relatively level unlike many of the other cities in the contract group, as displayed in the following chart: Matrix Consulting Group Page 42 Report on the Riverside County JPA Feasibility Study San Jacinto Part I Crimes, 2009 — 2013 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 Violent Crime 161 108 118 137 124 Murder and nonnegligent manslaughter 3 2 4 3 5 Forcible rape 9 6 4 5 6 Robbery 53 50 43 51 64 Aggravated assault 96 50 67 78 49 Property crime 1,382 1,371 1,462 1,479 1,805 Burglary 489 489 507 421 469 Larceny -theft 707 670 766 863 1,092 Motor vehicle theft 186 212 189 195 244 Arson 5 0 3 3 0 Part I Crimes Per 1,000 Pop. 5YR Violent Crime Change 5YR Property Crime Change 41.5 V -23% A 31% While violent crime occurrences have decreased by almost one-quarter of the total number in 2009, property crimes have increased by almost one-third. Burglary crimes have actually decreased in frequency. though occurrences of larcenies/thefts and motor vehicle thefts have experienced significant growth. (7.2) Spending on Police Services Spending on law enforcement services has increased overall over the last four years, despite falling in the last two budget periods, as shown in the table below: Year FY12/13 FY13/14 FY14/15 FY15/16 FY16/17 Expenditures % Change $9,202,058 $11,774,094 $10,004,861 $9,993,198 4YR Change 8.6% Matrix Consulting Group Page 43 Report on the Riverside County JPA Feasibility Study Spending increased in FY2013-14 by about 28% as a result of additional staff being included in the contract, with those levels changing again in FY2014-15, reducing spending by around 15% (7.3) Dedicated and Non -Dedicated Contract Staffing Levels San Jacinto currently contracts for 27.5 total positions directly, as shown in the table below: Staff Category City of San Jacinto Contract Staffing Levels FTEs Notes Patrol Deputies (Equivalent) Supervision and Management Sergeant (Field) Specialized Field Units 19.0 Based on 97 hours per day 1.0 Dedicated Deputies (Motorcycles- Traffic) Deputies (K9 Handler with Canine) Deputies (Traffic Team) Support Community Service Officer Crime Analysis Administration Administrative Supervisor Office Staff Task Forces 3.0 Dedicated, supported 1.0 Dedicated, supported 1.0 Dedicated, supported 4.0 0.5 1.0 2.0 Deputy (PACT) Matrix Consulting Group 1.0 Unsupported Page 44 Report on the Riverside County JPA Feasibility Study 8 Temecula The City of Temecula has a population of 112,011 (2015 U.S. Census Bureau estimate) and encompasses an area of 30.2 square miles. The 2015/16 budget for police services is $25,694,620. The current contract ends June 30, 2020. (8.1) Overview of Service Environment Temecula has steadily grown over the past five years, as shown in the following chart: Temecula Population, 2010 — 2014 Year Total Pop. +/- 2010 100,097 2011 102,955 2012 104,755 2013 106,699 2014 109,428 5YR Change 9.3% 3YR Avg. Growth Rate 2.0% El • • MI Overall, the city has grown by about 9.3% over the past five years, and by about 2% in the last three years. If this pace were to continue through 2026, the city's population would reach a total of approximately 139,000. Similar to many of the other contract cities, while growth has continued at a steady pace, violent crime levels have not changed significantly: Matrix Consulting Group Page 45 Report on the Riverside County JPA Feasibility Study Temecula Part! Crimes, 2009 — 2013 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 Violent Crime 126 74 95 97 91 Murder and nonnegligent manslaughter 1 2 0 0 3 Forcible rape 14 3 7 10 11 Robbery 59 42 54 53 39 Aggravated assault 52 27 34 34 38 Property crime 2,370 2,351 2,406 2,440 2,848 Burglary 576 535 547 588 711 Larceny -theft 1,574 1.642 1,700 1,640 1,897 Motor vehicle theft 220 174 159 212 240 Arson 4 5 0 2 9 Part 1 Crimes Per 1,000 Pop. 5YR Violent Crime Change 5YR Property Crime Change 26.9 V -28 A 20% Notably, property crimes occurrences spiked significantly in the last year of available data, representing an increase of about 16.7% from the previous year. (8.2) Spending on Police Services Expenditures related to law enforcement services have risen consistently in recent years, as shown in the following table: Year Expenditures % Change FY12/13 FY13/14 FY14/15 FY15/16 FY16/17 G $22,604,881 $23,887,777 $25,694,620 5.7% 7.6% YR Change 13.7% Spending has increased markedly since FY2013-14, having risen by an average of about 6.7% in each of the following two years. Matrix Consulting Group Page 46 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Report on the Riverside County JPA Feasibility Study (8.3) Dedicated and Non -Dedicated Contract Staffing Levels The table below provides current contract staffing levels for Temecula by position and function: Staff Category City of Temecula Contract Staffing Levels FTEs Notes Patrol Deputies (Equivalent) 37.0 Based on 180 hours per day Supervision and Management Lieutenant 2.0 Dedicated Sergeant (Field) 3.0 Dedicated Specialized Field Units Deputies (Special Enforcement Team) 5.0 Dedicated, supported Deputies (Mall Team) 4.0 Dedicated, supported Deputies (Traffic/ Motorcycle Team) 16.0 Dedicated, supported Deputies (POP Team) 6.0 2.0 2.5 21 Dedicated, supported Deputies (K9 handler w/ clog) Dedicated, supported Deputies (School Resource Officers) Dedicated, unsupported Support Community Service Officers Administration None Task Forces Deputy (V. Crime Gang Task Force) I 1.0 Unsupported Matrix Consulting Group Page 47 Report on the Riverside County JPA Feasibility Study 9 Wildomar The City of Wildomar has a population of 35,632 (2015 U.S. Census Bureau estimate) and encompasses 23.7 square miles. The FY2015-16 budget for police services is $2,554,600, with the current contract ending June 30, 2021. (8.1) Overview of Service Environment Wildomar has grown steadily in recent years at about the same rate as Temecula, as shown in the chart below: Wildomar Population, 2010 — 2014 Year Total Pop. + / — 2010 32,176 2011 32,984 2012 33,363 2013 33.836 2014 35,377 5YR Change 99% 3YR Avg. Growth Rate 2.4% While the rate of increase slowed somewhat in 2012 and 2013, it rapidly in the following year, with the population growing by approximately 4.7%. As in the other municipalities, this level of growth will undoubtedly create impacts to public safety needs over the coming years — not necessarily in crime, but in the number of calls for service generated by the community. Despite the population growth, crime levels have actually fallen substantially over the past five years of available data, as shown in the following chart: Matrix Consulting Group Page 48 Report on the Riverside County JPA Feasibility Study Wildomar Part! Crimes, 2009 — 2013 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 Violent Crime 87 59 46 53 40 Murder and nonnegligent manslaughter 1 0 0 1 0 Forcible rape 11 11 6 2 2 Robbery 30 15 16 14 11 Aggravated assault 45 33 24 36 27 Property crime 859 703 719 707 536 Burglary 237 188 187 208 166 Larceny -theft 484 365 411 392 287 Motor vehicle theft 138 150 121 107 83 Arson 2 2 0 0 1 Part !Crimes Per 1,000 Pop. 5YR Violent Crime Change 5YR Property Crime Change 16.3 ! -54% V -38% With the number of Part I crimes having fallen significantly in both the violent and property categories, Wildomar is relatively unique among the other contract cities participating in the study. However, it is important to consider these changes within the context that much of the decrease occurred in the last year of available data, and as a result does not conclusively indicate a Tong -term trend. (8.2) Spending on Police Services Expenditures relating to law enforcement services have increased over the last four years, as detailed by the table below: Year Expenditures % Change FY12/13 FY13/14 FY14/15 FY15/16 FY16/17 $2,152,219 $2,309,038 $2,454,600 $2,667,300 7.3% 6.3% 8.7% 4YR Change 23.9% Matrix Consulting Group Page 49 Report on the Riverside County JPA Feasibility Study This equates to an average of about 7.4% growth in costs for each of the last three increases, with the FY2016-17 year representing the single largest change in throughout that period. (8.3) Dedicated and Non -Dedicated Contract Staffing Levels The following table details the number of positions that are currently contracted for by Wildomar: Staff Category City of Wildomar Contract Staffing Levels FTEs Notes Patrol Deputies (Equivalent) Supervision and Management None Specialized Field Units None Support CSO Administration None Task Forces None 9.0 Based on 40 hours per day" 1.0 " A reduction from the original contract of 70 service hours per day. Matrix Consulting Group Page 50 Report on the Riverside County JPA Feasibility Study I4 Characteristics and Governance of the JPA Agency 1 Basic Characteristics of the JPA It is important to first define the framework of the feasibility study and outline the basic assumptions that shape its analysis, as outlined in the following dot points: • • • Formation: The analysis assumes that the agency is formed under a joint powers agreement (JPA), as opposed to a municipal police department that contracts with other cities. Scope: The JPA is understood as being a full-service policing agency. While options potentially exist to retain or contract for certain services, it is assumed that all core functions (e.g., patrol, investigations, etc.) are to be retained within the JPA organization. The analysis also assumes that services that the Riverside County Sheriff's Department would provide to non -contracting agencies will not be provided by the JPA, and instead will be retained by the sheriff. This includes air support, jail, and other non -contract functions. 911 communications are included in this analysis as a JPA -provided function. Service Area: For the purposes of this analysis. it is assumed that all nine municipalities participating in this project will become part of the eventual JPA service area, and that no other municipalities or other entities will be included. Start Date: Given that some of the existing contracts that municipalities in the contract group have with the Riverside County Sheriff's Department run through the next three years, as well as the time needed to plan for, create, and implement the agency, it is assumed that the JPA would begin services in the year 2021. All costs and service needs will be projected to coincide with that date. Independently Operated: Unlike a county sheriff's department, a JPA does not have the same ability to draw directly from pre-existing regional entities and government services, such as county information technology, finance, and human resources functions. As a result, it assumed that all of these functions will be retained within the JPA organization, and include dedicated staff. These guidelines provide the foundation for the rest of the analysis and design of the JPA feasibility model. serving as the basis of the project team's methodology. Matrix Consulting Group Pace 51 Report on the Riverside County JPA Feasibility Study 2 JPA Governance Structure An effective governance structure is central to the longevity of JPAs, as they inherently rely upon maintaining a relatively broad level of consensus to remain intact. The following sections outline important considerations in this area, as well as potential governance structures. (1) Key Themes in JPA Governance At a broad level, facilitating a broad level organizational consensus requires the smaller member cities on the board to have a voice in decision-making processes. However, this of course must be balanced against the interests of larger cities in the JPA group that have populations significant enough to establish a large police agency on their own. The governance structure of a JPA possesses political implications as well — particularly in the setting of a highly visible function such as law enforcement. Citizen interest and demand for input on police issues is comparably higher than for many other local government functions, which presents unique challenges to the success of providing those services through a JPA, as opposed to a municipal or county entity. By default, leadership of a JPA is not directly elected. Even in the environment of contract law enforcement services through the county sheriff, the sheriff position itself — as well as representation on the county board of supervisors — are directly elected by its residents. (2) Developing a Hybrid Governance Structure To counter these political factors, it is critical that the governance of the JPA include elected leadership and appointed representatives from the member Matrix Consulting Group Page 52 Report on the Riverside County JPA Feasibility Study municipalities. This approach would necessitate a hybrid system of governance, as an additional board would be necessary to handle more day-to-day and operational issues, meeting more frequently than the other. A hybrid structure could be organized as follows, featuring two governing bodies with different roles and responsibilities assigned to each: Proposed Hybrid Governance Structure Executive Board Advisory Committee Size 9 seats 4 seats Representation Equal Rotating Meeting Frequency Quarterly Monthly Selection Elected reps. (1YR rotation) City managers (1YR rotation) Purpose Official governing body Technical advisory body Roles — Approves of budgets, labor — Develops budgets and staffing agreements, and significant plans contracts — Appoints and terminates the — Develops quarterly reports for JPA Chief the Executive Committee — Meetings are closed -door — Coordinates responses to sessions various operational needs — Meetings are open to the public All seats on the advisory committee would rotate every six months, minimizing the extent that municipal politics are affected by day-to-day governance of the JPA agency. Elected officials representing each of the member cities would also rotate on an annual basis. Control for major duties such as the hiring and firing of the organization's executive, as well as the approval of labor contracts and budgets, would be retained by the 9 -seat executive board featuring equal representation. Matrix Consulting Group Page 53 Report on the Riverside County JPA Feasibility Study There are also other forms of establishing representation in a multi -tiered governance system. Many dispatch agencies that are formed under joint powers agreements follow systems where one of the two governance boards are proportionally represented, while the other is equally represented. This allows for larger constituent cities to have a larger voice in making ultimate decisions on important budgetary voice, while balancing out the interests for smaller cities. In discussing these considerations with the nine cities involved in this study, however, a broad consensus was formed for a governance system where both boards have equal representation. 3 Summary of Chapter Findings • The JPA is assumed to represent all nine contract cities. • Alternatives will be provided for various optional decisions, however, such as whether an eight -city alternative is more feasible. • The JPA is assumed to be independently organized and staffed as a JPA, include all nine contract cities involved in the study, and will begin operation in the year 2021. • The JPA should establish a hybrid governance structure, featuring two decision- making boards: Executive Board: Meets quarterly and is responsible for approving budgets, hiring and terminating the agency executive, and approving collective bargaining agreements that have been negotiated with labor units. Advisory Committee: Meets monthly and functions as the primary decision-making body. Both boards would feature rotating representation from JPA member cities. Matrix Consulting Group Page 54 Report on the Riverside County JPA Feasibility Study 1 5 Organization of the JPA Agency 1 Objectives for Developing the Organizational Structure of the JPA Without the responsibilities of providing any functions reserved for sheriff's offices. the JPA would more closely resemble a municipal law enforcement agency. Serving a population of approximately 800,000 — nearly as many people as Charlotte. NC — it is possible for the organization of a JPA agency to potentially mirror that of a large police department. While it may be tempting to use such agencies as a template for designing the JPA agency's structure, there are important factors to consider that present unique challenges in the JPA environment, as well as for cost objectives to be met that initially drove the process of studying its feasibility. Cost allocation, specialization, and functional spans of control all play important roles as well in shaping its structure. In line with these considerations, the following dot points outline a series of principle goals that should be met in designing a JPA organization: • The structure of the JPA agency should reflect the cost recovery methodology used by the department. Locally dedicated services should not be organized with regionally allocated and centralized functions. More information can be found on the recommended cost allocation structure in the chapter beginning on page 62. • Sworn management of non -sworn units should be avoided; utilization of civilian managers should be prioritized when possible. • The organization should be mindful of the geography of the service area. Functions that do not require staff to be on -location frequently, such as finance and crime analysis, should be organized centrally. • The structure should maintain of chain of command. Sworn reporting responsibilities should be largely hierarchical. Matrix Consulting Group Report on the Riverside County JPA Feasibility Study The organization of the JPA agency should be 'lean' and streamlined — efforts should be made to prevent over -specialization of policing functions that would add extra depth or additional complexity to the organizational structure. • For specialized field functions, the organizational structure should facilitate the deployment and coordination of resources in real-time. • The structure should provide for adequate and effective spans of control between supervisors and direct reports. With these principles guiding the process, a recommended organizational structure has been developed that organizes the JPA agency into three divisions, excluding the Office of the Chief of Police and governing bodies. The areas can be summarized as follows: Support Services Comprises three subdivisions (referred to as sections), Division containing almost every centralized function of the agency. The division includes a wide range of administrative and support areas, such as 911 communications, training, human resources, and information technology. Regional Services Subdivided into two sections, and includes almost every function Division provided at the regional hub stations, such as core investigations and traffic, as well as centralized investigative functions that cover specialized areas (e.g., homicide). Local Services Consists of ten sections, reflecting the nine member cities as well Division as an additional unit for patrol watch command. Excluding the watch commanders, all division staff are locally dedicated, including patrol, as well as any electively staffed areas, such crime prevention and problem -oriented policing teams. The following pages outline the division and management of functions in the recommended organizational structure of the JPA agency — the first detailing where functions are located in the structure, and the second displaying the classification and type of manager over each area: Matrix Consulting Group Page 56 IIIIII N OM 1 r N M MI- M M--- r MI M 1 M Report on the Riverside County JPA Feasibility Study Support Services Division Administrative Section Finance/Fiscal Mgmt. Human Resources Information Technology Records Unit r Support Section 911 Comm. Property and Evidence Fleet and Facilities Proposed Structure of the JPA Agency Standards Section Matrix Consulting Group Training Unit Professional Standards Unit Public Information Crime Analysis Recruitment and Hiring Executive Committee Chief of Police Assistant Chief Regional Services Division Shared Resources Section K9 Unit Traffic Unit Crime Scene Unit Investigations Section Major Crimes Units (N/S/E) Homicide Unit Sex Crimes Unit Task Forces 1 Local Services Division Local City Commands Watch Command Report on the Riverside County JPA Feasibility Study Deputy Chief Civ. Manager Civ. Manager Civ. Supervisor Civ. Manager Civ. Manager Command Structure of the JPA Agency Civ. Manager Captain Civ. Manager Sergeant Executive Committee Chief of Police Assistant Chief Deputy Chief Captain Captain Sergeant Lieutenants (3) Civ. Manager Lieutenant Lieutenant Civ. Supervisor Matrix Consulting Group Sergeant Civ. Staff Civ. Supervisor Sergeant Civ. Supervisor Sergeants (2) Sergeant Deputy Chief Page 58 Captains (9) Lieutenants (9) M EN —— ON 111111— I MN— 1 i MB EN I SE MN En 11111 Report on the Riverside County JPA Feasibility Study As reflected in the two previous charts, the organizational structure of the agency has been designed with cost allocation in mind. Services that involve locally dedicated staff are organized entirely locally, and functions funded and staffed by groups of cities are organized regionally. Some of the services that are organized centrally also possess regional and/or local components. For instance, property and evidence lockers are located throughout the service area, and staff are dedicated to pick up and transport its contents to the main location. Additionally, while crime analysis is co -located and centralize, individual analysts do retain responsibility for providing services to particular municipalities and regions. Furthermore, watch commanders operate regionally, and in some cases beyond their assigned regions, but are organized under the Local Services Division due to their role as the primary operational interface with patrol. It is worth noting that the divisions are not equal to one another in either their staffing totals or the array of functional responsibilities that they manage, as this was not a core priority in developing the structure. To this point, the Regional Services Division is significantly smaller in size when compared to the other two. One consideration that does provide a measure of balance on this issue is the additional complexity involved in providing the division's services. As the cost allocation section describes, many of its functional areas, such as traffic and task force units, are staffed electively using a `subscription' -based model that in some ways approximates the process of allocating costs by service hours that is employed by the Riverside County Sheriff's Department. Matrix Consulting Group Page 59 Report on the Riverside County JPA Feasibility Study 2 Geographical Division of JPA Service Areas A number of challenges are posed by the geographical distribution of several of the cities participating in the study, as many of are spread far apart from one another. Coachella, for instance, is over an hour away from the nearest city in the contract group. Given this, in developing the boundaries for regional divisions, it is assumed that the travel time (without significant traffic) between the city center of the regional 'hub' and another city in the grouping cannot exceed 30 minutes. With this limitation in mind, the area can be divided into three regions — representing the fewest number of subdivisions possible, which is ideal for minimizing costs arising from duplicate services and command structures. This assumes that hypothetical regional `hub' facilities exist in Moreno Valley, Wildomar, and Coachella. The cities included within each geographical region are as follows: • South: Wildomar, Temecula, Lake Elsinore, and Menifee, with a combined population of 417,382. • North: Moreno Valley, Perris, San Jacinto, and Jurupa Valley, population totaling 281,372. • East: Coachella, with a population of 43,093. The geographical division of these areas is reflected in the following map: Matrix Consulting Group Page 60 Report on the Riverside County JPA Feasibility Study Jurupa valley` Division of JPA Regions Moreno Valley Perris Lake ElsinorMenifeee. Wildomar San Jacinto Temecula. Coachella Although there are vast differences in the population and service need volumes among the three illustrative JPA regions, this is essentially unavoidable unless the areas are subdivided into smaller geographical units. Matrix Consulting Group Page 61 Report on the Riverside County JPA Feasibility Study I 6 JPA Cost Allocation Structure 1 Introduction At the core of the JPA feasibility model process is the need to create a revenue stream that fully recovers the agency's costs of providing services. There are no universal best practices for this — multiple alternatives exist for allocating contract costs among groups of cities, each with their own advantages and disadvantages. In addition to presenting a recommendation for an allocation structure, this chapter discuss the major factors in choosing a cost allocation structure, as well as the comparative trade-offs between utilizing various methodologies. 2 Considerations for Developing a JPA Cost Allocation Methodology JPAs have significant freedom in determining options for recovering the costs of any services it provides. Unlike counties, which are limited by California state law in terms of what services they can and cannot charge contracting entities for, JPA organizations do not have not such restrictions. Nonetheless, the options available for recovering the costs of providing are largely the same in practice as those of a county. The chargeback methodology used for contracting law enforcement services is critical not only for the purposes of achieving full cost recovery, but because it is also central to the shaping the level of service that is provided. The cost allocation structure influences how the agency is administered, as well as how it evolves over time. The following sections initiate the discussion on the various considerations in developing a Matrix Consulting Group Page 62 Report on the Riverside County JPA Feasibility Study cost recovery methodology. examining a number of alternatives and their potential implications on service levels and cost reduction efficiencies. (1) Effects of Regionalizing Services One of the main benefits of a regional approach to law enforcement services, whether through the county or a JPA organization, are the efficiencies gained through regionalization. A number of cost savings are realized through shared services, whether through the deployment of regionalized teams. or through the vertical integration of support or administrative functions. In general, regionalization increases, economies of scale are furthered. However, under certain cost recovery methodologies, the regionalization of services can also lead to the redistribution of resources in an unequal manner with respect to the manner in which they are funded. For instance, if a drug task force is funded equally by a number of cities without requirements on where its efforts are directed — each with vastly different degrees of perceived need for narcotics enforcement — it can be assumed that the benefit of the services would be disproportionately felt by the individual municipalities. At the same time, this also represents service level efficiency, as resources are being pooled together and directed to the areas of greatest need. These considerations become vital to the discussion of chargeback methodology, as a JPA organization that is feasible from a perspective of cost inherently relies on a balance of regionalization and localizing of services. Matrix Consulting Group Pare 63 Report on the Riverside County JPA Feasibility Study (2) Overview of Costing Method Types The majority of contract costs tie back to the core methodology in which staff are contracted for by individual municipalities. The following table outlines some of the more common ways in which regional services are contracted for in regional public safety agencies: Cost Factor Description Example Charge Methodologies Potential Implications Per Capita Incident - based Service Units Costs are assessed to member entities on a per capita basis, typically with a high degree of resource regionalization. Services are charged for according to a certain workload metric, such as the number of calls for service that occur within each entity. Member entities primarily contract for a specific level of resources to be provided, such as a fixed number of patrol hours. Supporting cost rates are developed pro rata based on overhead costs and the level of support that the contracted positions receive from other areas. Matrix Consulting Group Population ratios are somewhat limited as a gauge for public safety staffing needs. Entities may feel that the level of service they receive is disproportionate to the level at which they pay for it. As with per capita systems, the regionalization of services may create disproportionate service levels in some areas relative to funding provided by that entity. Transparency may be limited by a high degree of complexity in cost recovery methods for overhead and supporting services. Allows for a service level to be contracted for in itself, mitigating the impact of variations in staff availability. Page 64 Report on the Riverside County JPA Feasibility Study Cost Factor Description Potential Implications Dedicated Positions Hybrid Formula Specific numbers of dedicated staff are contracted for, with the regional agency being responsible for providing the contracted staffing levels. Overhead costs are developed from the costs and staff and support whatever functions that are not staffed locally. Proportional share based on multiple factors, which can include a number of different metrics, such as population, revenue, call for service totals, incoming call volume (for dispatch), number of local staff, etc. The formula should be limited to a few categories and easily understandable. Depending on the range of functions that are staffed locally, can create duplication of services. Potential efficiency losses when staffing positions locally that could benefit from regionalization. Achieving full cost recovery depends on identification and control for indirect costs. Provides the relative simplicity and cost effectiveness brought by other proportional approaches (e.g., per capita and incident -based), while mitigating the drawbacks of using individual singular metrics by weighting them against other contrasting variables. By simplifying the process of cost recovery for indirect costs, the approach may not be as accurate in doing so as methodologies that involve a process of comprehensively accounting for indirect cost shares. It should be noted that table presents general approximations, and can exist in varying degrees, or even combinations, of one another. In any of these methodologies, municipalities typically retain the option to contract for specific levels of dedicated staff on an individual or a la carte basis. (3) Hybrid Costing Alternatives Hybrid cost recovery methodologies present a number of potential advantages, while mitigating some of the drawbacks associated with using a single cost method approach. Matrix Consulting Group Page 65 Report on the Riverside County JPA Feasibility Study For instance, a hybrid system may stipulate that patrol services are provided through a number of dedicated staff, while participation in a regional task force may operate on a subscription basis relative to population. Or, alternatively, another hybrid methodology may charge for patrol staffing and support services using a combination of population, community -generated calls for service, and another factor, such as property assessed valuation. Services that are more closely tied to the specific needs of an individual community, such as crime prevention, community programming, specialized investigation units, and field enforcement capabilities, on the other hand, could then be contracted for as dedicated staff. This type of chargeback methodology is common in regional 911 communications agencies, where staff resources are pooled to handle the workload. By contrast, in a regionalized law enforcement service, many functions cannot be provided concurrently to multiple areas. Patrol units, for instance, are primarily assigned to an area within a single city area at a time. (4) Use of Singular Versus Multiple Charging Methodologies Ultimately, an effective cost recovery methodology must balance the interests of a wide range of interests, as well needs to maximize potential economy of scale efficiencies. While the methodology does not necessarily need to be simple, it does need to be transparent and approachable. However, using a single, `across-the-board' type of cost recovery methodology may either not be as equitable in charging for services or as efficient in providing them as one that breaks down different types of services and charges them different. Matrix Consulting Group Page 66 Report on the Riverside County JPA Feasibility Study Although stratifying functions into different categories of charging methods does significantly improve upon the equitability and efficiency issues discussed earlier, doing so increases the system's complexity. If multiple methodologies are used, the structure must be designed in a way that clearly allocates cost in a transparent and easily understandable manner. The relative advantages of each charge methodology vary between different functions and cost categories — what may be a more equitable method of charging for a function may not be the same for another. This is demonstrated in the table below, which presents illustrative examples of charge methodologies that are more equitable and efficient for a number of different function and cost categories: Examples of Effective Charge Methodologies by Service Area Service Areas — Patrol — Crime Prevention — Community Programs — Traffic — Proactive Investigations — Core Detectives — Specialized Detectives — 911 Dispatch — Support services — Administrative services Matrix Consulting Group Charging Method Dedicated staffing (with limited backfill) Service hours are contracted for, with built-in or attached rates added to account for indirect and supporting costs Proportional/hybrid formula: for example. a pro rata share based on: — 40% population — 25% # of calls for service — 35% # of locally dedicated staff Advantages Allows for enhanced local control and deployment of staff. Increased ability to plan and prioritize workloads, while maintaining the priorities of communities contributing greater levels of funding for the unit. Mitigates issues associated with subsidization, while also maintaining a pay -per -service component. Additionally, a formula -based share simplifies the process of determining the allocation of true overhead costs by city. Pagc 67 Report on the Riverside County JPA Feasibility Study Beyond these considerations, however, it is also critical that any methodology include a detailed plan to recover both direct and indirect costs of associated with providing services — including which are regionalized versus those that are billed locally to individual municipalities. 3 Proposed JPA Cost Allocation Structure A number of important points emerge from the discussion of the various trade-offs of cost recovery methodologies. Conclusions are also able to be made, enabling the outlining form of the cost recovery methodology to be shaped. The following sections outline the core characteristics of the proposed cost recovery methodology, as well as the structure of the methodology itself. (1) Principles for Cost Allocation in the Riverside JPA Based on these points, the principles for establishing the cost allocation structure of the JPA are able to be summarized as follows: The cost allocation structure should seek to achieve cost reduction through economies of scale offered by the regionalization of services. Cities should retain relative autonomy to set local service levels for functions such as patrol, crime prevention, and community programming. In order to maintain the cost effectiveness of the agency offered by the low degree organizational complexity, the structure of cost allocation should be resistant toward adding specialized and non -regional functions. Multiple methods for cost recovery: Functions should be charged differently depending on the nature of the service. Despite this, the cost allocation structure should be as simple as possible and maintain clear transparency of costs. Matrix Consulting Group Page 68 Report on the Riverside County JPA Feasibility Study These principles form the foundation for the cost structure outlined in the following sections. (2) Three Categories of Cost Allocation After developing and reviewing a number of different methodologies, a three -tiered approach was selected that most comprehensively addresses each of the principle objectives set for designing the cost allocation structure. Under the configuration, any type of non -capital cost is allocated using one of three methods. There are no built-in indirect or support rates — any type of cost, whether it represents funding for a patrol officer position or office furniture for the agency headquarters, can only assessed using a single method. As a result, cost allocation responsibilities are readily identifiable and more transparent for department and municipal officials alike. Because the assignment of cost areas to an allocation basket is predetermined and universally applied, there are no conditional variabilities in how costs are assessed to member cities. The following table outlines the three allocation classes, or cost baskets, in which any type of cost area is allocated among member cities: Matrix Consulting Group Page 69 Report on the Riverside County JPA Feasibility Study Overview of Cost Allocation Classes Cost Category Description Class A Shared costs Cities pay a proportional share based a formula consisting of the following factors: — 40% Population — 25% Total Calls for Service — 35% Number of Locally Dedicated Staff Examples Information technology, core detectives, fleet, finance Class B Cities pay based on their electively set level Traffic, gang task force Subscription -based of contribution to a specialty unit. Class C Local costs FuII position and operating costs of locally Patrol, crime prevention, dedicated staff POP teams It should be noted that capital costs are not assigned a cost basket, and so the cost of providing facility space and a working environment for staff is not built into their associated operating costs. The vast majority of costs fall into either Class A (shared costs) or Class C (local costs). The recommended organizational structure, which divides the agency into three divisions, loosely follows these cost areas, although a number of key differences exist. (2.1) Division of Function Areas by Cost Basket The table below lists each functional area of the JPA agency, whether the staff operate on a centralized, regional, or local basis (which may differ from their division), the cost allocation basket the area is assigned, and whether its staffing levels are set directly by the municipalities or established through the agency governance structure: Matrix Consulting Group Page 70 Report on the Riverside County JPA Feasibility Study Division of Agency Functions by Cost Category and Organizational Level Function Administrative Support 911 Communications Central Command Crime Analysis Finance/Fiscal Mgmt. Fleet and Facilities Human Resources Information Technology Professional Standards Property and Evidence Public Information Records Recruitment and Hiring Specialized Detectives Training Task Forces/Proac. Invest. Local Command/Admin. Civilian Field Personnel Community Programs Crime Prevention Misc. Details Patrol POP/Proactive Teams School Resource Officers Core detectives Crime scene processing K9 Regional Command Traffic Org. Level All Central Central Central Central Central Central Central Central Central Central Central Central Central Central Central Local Local Local Local Local Local Local Local Regional Regional Regional Regional Regional Charge Method Class A C lass A Class A Class A Class A Class A Class A Class A Class A Class A Class A Class A Class A Class A Class A Class B Class A Class C Class Class Class Class Class Class Class Class Class Class Class C C C C C C A A A A B Staffing Set By JPA JPA JPA JPA JPA JPA JPA JPA JPA JPA JPA JPA JPA JPA JPA MunicJJPA JPA Munic. Munic. Munic. Munic. Munic. Munic. Munic. JPA JPA JPA J PA Munic./JPA The column "Staffing Set By" refers to how decisions are made regarding staffing levels and deployment. For instance, cities elect for the level of patrol coverage, crime prevention services, POP/proactive teams, and other localized functions, while the Matrix Consulting Group Nage 71 Report on the Riverside County JPA Feasibility Study number of K9 officers the agency should staff is a decision made by the governance boards in working with agency executives. Class B costs. which involve discussions regarding contribution levels to a regionally shared service. are jointly discussed between the cities and the JPA governance boards. (2.2) Effects of the Hybrid Approach Used for Class A (Shared) Costs Class A cost shares, like those in classes B and C, are computed annually at the time of budget preparation. The project team will provide a template that automatically calculates these shares based on the input totals for population, call for service volumes, and the number of locally dedicated staff. In testing the effects of this formula (using current numbers), the resulting proportions that each city would be required to contribute to Class A funding did not differ significantly from what their shares would have been under a strictly per capita, population -based formula. Cities spending more per capita on policing services did pay slightly more to shared costs, as one of the factor is based on the number of local dedicated positions (weighted at 40%). While this difference was not highly significant, it did represent a marginally higher rate. A large city that spends more per capita on police services than its peers, for instance, can expect to contribute 1-3% higher of a share for Class A costs than it would otherwise. The results of this test demonstrate the balance achieved by the hybrid formula — cities paying for more police should contribute more to account for the costs of supporting those positions, but they should not be in the position of greatly subsidizing the services provided to other municipalities. Matrix Consulting Group Page 72 Report on the Riverside County JPA Feasibility Study (2.3) Allocation of Class B (Subscription -based) Costs Class B costs are based on the level that a city participates in a regionalized service. This practice enables cities to prioritize their involvement with certain specialized services that benefit significantly from regionalization, still retaining access to specialized services that some smaller departments do not have. Class B costs are relatively limited for these reasons, however — in the current organization structure of the proposed JPA agency, only two units fall under the Class B cost area. Using the number of traffic enforcement personnel that cities currently contract for with RSD, the following table displays how a contribution -based system may be represented: # of Traffic Enforcement Positions Contracted for with RSD Region12 City # % Share North Jurupa Valley 6 12.5% Moreno Valley 10 20.8% Perris 4 8.3% San Jacinto 4 8.3% South Lake Elsinore 4 8.3% Menifee 4 8.3% Temecula 16 33.3% Total 48 100.0% Omitted from the table are Wildomar and Coachella, neither of which contract for traffic enforcement staff. 12 Coachella is omitted from the list, as the city does not contract for any positions specifically dedicated to traffic enforcement functions. Matrix Consulting Group Page 73 Report on the Riverside County JPA Feasibility Study The shares displayed are then used as the assumed proportions for funding contributions to specialty traffic functions, including coverage for costs such as providing for supervisory personnel, administrative costs, and any operating costs, such as overtime. While Class B costs are inherently more complicated than the other two cost allocation methods, and require collaboration and dialogue to organize successful, the unequal funding/unequal service characteristic that they bring allows for cities to target regional issues with specific resources without those outside of the area viewing their involvement as a subsidy. For a specialty unit such a traffic, this can be an effective approach, as different cities and communities may place a different level of value on the issue in line with other policing priorities. (3) Notes on the Use of 2016 and 2021 Costs It is assumed that the agency will not begin operations until 2021, about five years from the completion of the study. Throughout the report, however, costs for personnel needs, operating costs, and capital expenses are presented at 2016 levels, while recommended staffing levels and overall service needs (e.g., calls for services) are presented at both projected 2016 and 2021 levels. This is done to provide a base level of comparison between current RSD service costs and those of the proposed JPA agency, as well as to avoid the high variability of projecting costs at a nominal level into the future. It is true that many of the costs that are estimated at 2016 levels will change over the five years until 2021. From building costs, salaries, cost of living increases, a number of factors influence how these figures will change. Many of these changes, however, add Matrix Consulting Group Page 74 Report on the Riverside County JPA Feasibility Study significant variability to the analysis without contributing to its objective — determining the answer to the question whether the JPA will cost more or less than current policing contracts with the Riverside County Sheriff's Department. While this cannot be a true apples -to -apples comparison — as evidenced by the number of alternative considerations in the executive summary and feasibility analysis conclusions chapters — it is important that the analysis attempt to make it as level as possible. As a result, a number of factors that will influence the impact cost changes over the next five years presented uncertainties that made the comparison less effective, including the following variables: • Lower than expected performance of CaIPERS funds, which would significantly increase the costs of RSD's services by adding to unfunded liabilities. Legislative changes to pension systems, such as the California Public Vote on Pensions Initiative (#15-0033), which ultimately did not end up being included on the 2016 general election ballot. • The accuracy and validity of using 2016 salary survey data for 2021. • The relation of increased costs of services to increased city revenues. • Changes to the structure and methodology of how RSD charges for contract services. • Other variables that are currently unknown. Given the high variability of these issues, 2016 costs are used for both projection years. This allows the analysis to focus bottom-line answers around two core questions of JPA feasibility: (1) Under current cost factors and service levels, would a JPA cost less or more than contracting with RSD? (11) If the JPA were to be formed in 2021, what would its staffing, equipment, facility, and service needs be? Matrix Consulting Group Page 75 Report or the Riverside County JPA Feasibility Study When the variables listed previously become more known, the identified needs in 2021 then be translated into updated cost levels. Additionally, it should also be noted that key pension assumptions, such as the proportions of sworn personnel that fall under the pre -reform and higher level of benefits, are in fact estimated in the analysis at 2021 levels, as are the costs of facility construction and other agency startup costs. Matrix Consulting Group Page 76 Report on the Riverside County JPA Feasibility Study I 7 Analysis of Personnel Costs by Classification Personnel costs represent the single largest category of operating expenses for a law enforcement agency, and are the current main driver behind the increasing rates charged by the Riverside County Sheriff's Department Careful and accurate estimation of what these costs would be in a JPA agency is central to the question of whether or not establishing it would be cost effective. In order to accomplish this, it is necessary for costs to be built from the ground up at a highly detailed level. The following sections presents this analysis, outlining the compensation survey research conducted by the project team, the process used to calculate the total costs of adding positions, and the resulting figures for each individual position that a JPA agency would require. 1. Research Conducted Through the Compensation Survey The total cost of a position extends far beyond salary and pay, as benefits — including retirement costs, medical, and others — as well as incentive pay and other factors that comprise a significant portion of overall staffing -related expenditures. Although there is some room in how compensation choices are made — much of which being done through the collective bargaining process — personnel costs are largely set through market rates for the positions being hired. In order to develop a baseline, it became critical for the feasibility analysis to research these factors and understand what the market rates are in comparable jurisdictions. Matrix Consulting Group Page 77 Report on the Riverside County JPA Feasibility Study To provide a baseline for the estimation of personnel costs, the project team conducted a comprehensive salary survey of municipalities within Riverside County that currently retain their own police department. The efforts included documentation of pay, as well as benefits determined through collective bargaining units. Extensive data was gathered to provide a detailed account of all positions that may be relevant to a JPA agency, including both civilian and sworn positions. In comparing sworn positions, data from Riverside County Sheriff's Department was also included. The following list outlines the main categories of information that were obtained in the survey for each position are: Minimum and maximum annual compensation: While the characteristics of step-by-step progressions in pay schedules may vary between different bargaining units, in order to be able to reasonably compare different jurisdictions, it was necessary to first reduce the level of detail down to minimum and maximum pay for each position. • Other direct compensation: One-time payments stipulated in contracts, as well as compensation that be considered as a signing bonus. CaIPERS contributions: Spending on retirement/pension systems. Different benefit systems are provided, with employees either falling into two categories: `classic' CaIPERS members (pre -2011), and 'new' CaIPERS members (post - 2013). For each type of system, the three main items of information gathered are as follows: Retirement age: The age threshold required for employees to vest benefits. For new CaIPERS members in the survey group, the average age is over five years higher than it is for classic members. Pension Coefficient: the percentage of an employee's highest/final salary level that is awarded in the plan, whether it is taken calculated from the single -highest year or taken as an average over three years. Employee cost/contribution: Employee contribution/cost requirements, including what — if any — contribution the city makes toward those requirements. Matrix Consulting Group Page 78 Report on the Riverside County JPA Feasibility Study Medical Insurance: Spending on medical plans for active employees. Subgroups of this category include Dental and Vision insurance, which in many cases are lumped into overall health insurance benefits. • Retiree Medical Insurance: City expenditures or contributions made toward health insurance plans for retired employees. • Other types of insurance: Spending on other categories of insurance, such as long-term disability, short-term disability, and life insurance. • • Allowances: Benefits that either directly provide value to employees, or reimburse them for certain types of expenses. Types of these benefits include meal reimbursement. tuition allowance, and others. Assignment -Based Incentive Pay: Modifications to regular pay based on the assignment of a certain schedule or role. These include shift differential pay (e.g., for night or swing shifts), specialized assignment pays (e.g., FTO, K9, motors, patrol supervision, SWAT team roles, etc.). • Attainment -Based Incentive pay: Modifications to an employee's regular pay rate based on a variety of different factors, including the following: — Educational attainment (e.g., bachelor's degree, master's degree, etc.) - POST certification level (i.e., intermediate or advanced) Supervisory certification - Bilingual language abilities - Longevity, or pay awarded after meeting certain thresholds of employment duration in the department Given that positions may not be directly comparable from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, positions have been aggregated by organizational area, function, and level, as described below: • Organizational Area: The general category or area of the department that the position would fall under, such as human resources, sworn, information technology, fleet management, etc. Function and Level: The type of function served by the position that differentiates it from other positions in the same area (e.g., police corporal, police captain, HR Matrix Consulting Group Page 79 Report on the Riverside County JPA Feasibility Study analyst, HR support, etc.), as well as whether or not the position reflects a managerial, supervisory, or staff -level position. The aggregated results of the salary and compensation survey are provided in the appendix beginning on page 224. 2. Process for Calculating Total Position Costs The data obtained from the salary survey has been used to develop a set of assumptions, including the estimated pay for each position as well as the cost of benefits that they would be provided, including estimated retirement costs. In order to simplify the analysis, benefit structures have been divided into two main categories, representing sworn and civilian employees. For retirement benefits, as mandated by the California Public Employees' Pension Reform Act (PEPRA), separate pension systems have been created for 'new' (became CaIPERS member in 2013 or later), or `classic' members (entered system prior to 2013). There are some exceptions to this in regards to certain benefits which vary by position within those groups, which will be detailed in this section. The following table describes the assumptions that will be developed from each category of employee compensation, including the level at which they are determined — whether the factor is unique to the specific position, or shared by other positions in the hypothetical employee bargaining unit: Matrix Consulting Group Page 80 Report on the Riverside County JPA Feasibility Study Compensation Factors Used to Develop Total Position Costs Factor Calculation Process Base Salary To calculate the typical base salary for employees in a given position, the average minimum and maximum compensation levels were taken from salary survey data for each aggregated position. The salary level is then calculated as the average minimum salary + 65% of the difference between the minimum and maximum average salaries. This was done to represent a model where slightly more than half of all employees will be past the middle pay step for their classification. This can also be represented as an equation, as shown below: Avg. Min. Salary + [0.65 * (Avg. Max Salary — Avg. Min. Salary)] Compensation levels are current, and are not scaled in line with estimates for the JPA start date of 2021. Other Direct Bonuses will be provided in order to facilitate hiring a sufficient number of Compensation personnel to run the agency by the target start date. However, because these are considered a startup cost and are only given once, bonus figures are not included in the analysis of total position costs. Instead, bonus costs will be provided within the analysis of startup costs. Retirement Plans Sworn Two types of benefit structures will be developed for each sworn position — 'classic' and 'new' CaIPERS plans. For estimating levels of defined benefits, PEPRA has made this somewhat straightforward, as most CaIPERS members fall into a particular category, whether they are considered classic or new members. Classic members are provided a benefit of 3.0% at age 50, while new members are provided 2.7% at age 57. These percentages are inclusive of any performance and assignment pay incentives, in addition to base pay. As stipulated by PEPRA, however, overtime and medical allowances are not included in total pensionable compensation amounts. For new members, as required under PEPRA, employees will share 50% of the total normal costs of the employer. Classic members, however, will not share any portion of the employer cost. Neither type of CaIPERS member will receive Employer Paid Member Contributions (EPMC), or payments made by the agency toward the employee's contribution into the plan. Matrix Consulting Group Page 81 Report on the Riverside County JPA Feasibility Study Factor Calculation Process For both new and classic members, the total normal cost rate has been set at 16.8%13. The rate is comparatively lower than the vast majority of agencies, as the JPA would not be responsible for any unfunded liabilities — when an existing CaIPERS member is hired by the JPA, the liabilities are not transferred to the new employer. However, to guard against future shortages in funding to the plan, an additional 20% is added to the total normal cost amount as overfunding. Given the 2021 start date, a smaller proportion of employees will fall under the classic CaIPERS member category than is currently the case for the vast majority of police agencies, including the Riverside County Sheriff's Department. To this point, the JPA will be able to staff the officer positions only new CaIPERS members. The following percentages are used for the percentage of employees that receive the higher, classic member benefit level: Officers: 0% Detectives: 20% Sergeants: 40% Lieutenants: 90% Captains and higher: 100% Civilian It is assumed that CaIPERS plans will not be offered to civilian employees. Instead of a defined benefit plan, civilians will fall under a defined contribution plan, where a certain amount of funding is contributed by the employer, without the agency being responsible for shortfalls in the fund's performance. The agency contribution rate for all civilian employee positions will be set at 7% of total pensionable compensation, which follows the same set of definitions as for sworn employees. Alternate Sworn Retirement System A second retirement system was also developed as part of the JPA feasibility analysis for sworn personnel. In contrast with the system outlined previously, it functions as a defined contribution system similar to the civilian one. The employer contribution rate would be slightly higher at 9.0% of total pensionable compensation, which includes shares for funding long-term disability and death benefits. At the officer level, the plan would cost the agency an estimated $7,654 annually per position, equating to a net savings of $2,347. 13 As stated previously, the agency will only be required to pay half of that rate for new CaIPERS members. Matrix Consulting Group Page 82 Report on the Riverside County JPA Feasibility Study Factor Calculation Process Medical Data gathered from the salary survey on amounts for single and group Insurance health plan allowances has been aggregated into categories for sworn and non -sworn personnel. Averages were then calculated and annualized to produce total cost factors. Retiree Medical Insurance Both sworn and civilian personnel are offered the same plan, with an annual allowance of $10,110 for single coverage and $15,369 for group coverage. In line with actuarial standards, it is assumed that 90% of sworn personnel will select a group plan, compared with 85% of civilian employees. As learned through the survey research, many comparable cities have instituted a system where each year of employment with the agency results a certain percentage or amount of health insurance premiums being paid for following retirement, with 20 years resulting in full coverage. While these benefits were common for both sworn and civilian personnel, it was evident that a number of them were in the process of being phased out, with several restricting the benefit to only those hired before the early part of this decade. Instead, many have moved to a defined benefit approach where a certain amount is contributed by the employer to a savings fund Although the first of these systems — the defined benefit approach — would certainly be cheaper for the JPA in the short run, it potentially burdens the agency with significant unfunded liabilities should costs be greater than expected or funding shortfalls occur. In order to mitigate these risks, the analysis assumes that all personnel are instead provided defined contribution retirement medical plans, where funding is added to a savings fund annually. It is worth noting that all administrative fees relating to the accounts are built into the contribution amounts. Sworn $4,080 per year, with $360 for each additional year of employment in the agency. At 20 years of service, the total amount is capped, reaching a level of $10,920 annually. Civilian A fixed amount of $3,960 per year is provided to all civilian personnel. Matrix Consulting Group Page 83 Report on the Riverside County JPA Feasibility Study Factor Calculation Process Workers' Compensation Other Insurance Types Sworn Workers' compensation costs for sworn personnel were researched by examining total costs in other Riverside County law enforcement agencies relative to their number of sworn personnel, as well as by using recent position cost data from other California police departments. Costs for sworn personnel are factored at rate equal to 10.88% of base employee income. Civilian Non -sworn personnel are assumed to represent approximately the same workers' compensation costs as is typical for white collar employees in California, and are assess a rate equal to 1.25% of base income. CSOs, by exception, are assumed to represent the same level of workers' compensation costs as sworn personnel, and are also assigned the 10.88% of base income rate. The most prevalent types of insurance, as gathered through the salary survey results, have been included in the benefit plans for both sworn and civilian employees. Common benefit levels were then used for each plan. The following other types of insurance have been included: Life Insurance: The agency will provide a $50,000 term14 policy at a 0.4% mortality rate assumption, following approximate actuarial standards. This equates to about $200 annually per employee. Long -Term Disability Insurance: Provided to all employees at a cost of $19.50 per month, or $234 annually per employee. Dental: Estimated using the same actuarial standards to determine proportions of sworn and civilian personnel selecting single and group medical plans, in combination with salary survey data. The agency will provide $480 per year for single dental plans and $864 per year for group plans. Vision: All employees will receive an allowance of $156 per year for vision coverage. 14 Only one type of plan is provided, as employer-provided life insurance terms over $50,000 are considered taxable compensation. Matrix Consulting Group Page 84 Report on the Riverside County JPA Feasibility Study Factor Calculation Process Allowances Different types of allowances were included in the data gathered by the salary survey, including educational reimbursements, subsidized meals, and uniform allowances. To simplify the compensation structure, while maintaining competitive pay levels, these allowances are not provided in the JPA compensation plan. In the case of uniforms, the assumption is made that the agency will bear these costs as an operational expense. Social Security Sworn and Medicare Medicare: Employer contributions to Medicare are included at a rate equal to 1.45% of annual income. Social Security: Membership in CaIPERS eliminates the requirement for employer contributions to be made into the system. Civilian Medicare: As with sworn personnel, employer contributions are included at a rate equal to 1.45% of annual income. Social Security: Employer contributions are made at a rate of 6.2% on the first $118,500 of annual income. Assignment- Pay incentives relating to assignment, such as shift schedule differentials, based Incentive or for specialty assignments in areas such as traffic, K9, or FTO. Almost Pay every sworn collective bargaining agreement surveyed includes these incentive pay categories, although their amounts and qualifications varied extensively. Certain types have been selected for the JPA compensation model based on the most widespread types of incentive pays, while maintaining a relatively simple structure. Projected costs for each benefit are then developed by position based on the estimated proportion of employees that would qualify to receive it. The additional pay is a percentage of the base salary (including step increases), and is included in total pensionable and taxable compensation amounts. Sworn FTO (Field Training Officer): 8% of officer positions will receive 5% additional pay when functioning in an FTO role, which is assumed to equal 20% of their time. Matrix Consulting Group Page 85 Report on the Riverside County JPA Feasibility Study Factor Calculation Process Specialty or Investigative Assignment: Any officers or detectives assigned to regional or centralized roles (e.g., Traffic Unit, one of the task forces, etc.), including any investigative assignments, will receive 5% additional pay. It is assumed 20% of officers and 100% of detectives will qualify to receive the benefit. Civilian None provided. Attainment -based Pay incentives based on attainment of a specific skill, certification, or Incentive Pay education level. The results of the salary survey demonstrated that these benefits differed greatly between agencies, with bilingual skills as the only near -universal incentive pay provided to employees. As with assignment -based incentive pay, certain types of attainment incentives have been selected for the model based on the most common types, while maintaining a simple compensation structure. Bilingual skills were prioritized given the significant number of Spanish -only speakers in the service area. Sworn POST Intermediate Certificate: 5% additional pay, with 70% of officers qualifying, as well as 100% of detectives and sergeants. POST Advanced Certificate: 5% additional pay (stacks with POST Intermediate benefit), with 40% of officers qualifying, as well as 100% of sergeants and detectives. Bilingual Abilities: 5% additional pay, with 30% of sworn personnel receiving the benefit. Civilian Bilingual Abilities: — Dispatchers (I and 11): 10% additional pay, with 35% receiving the benefit. — CSOs: 5% additional pay, with 30% receiving the benefit. — All other civilian positions: 1% additional pay, with 20% receiving the benefit. Matrix Consulting Group Page 86 Report on the Riverside County JPA Feasibility Study Operational costs relating to each position are not included among these factors, and will be calculated separately in the chapter of this report focusing non -personnel agency costs. These include cost areas such as the following: • Equipment and vehicles • Training • Liability insurance • Overtime15 • Related capital costs, such as facility space needs of adding positions From the results of calculating these assumptions, the cost of salaries and benefits for each job classification can then be determined, which the feasibility analysis will refer to as the total position cost. After determining the number of positions needed by position the staffing analysis, the total position cost figures will enable for a realistic and accurate model of the JPA agency's personnel costs. 3. Summarized Total Position Costs by Classification The results of this analysis are displayed in the following table using the calculation of salary and benefit factors outlined in the previous section, with position classifications organized alphabetically: 15 As a result of the changes introduced by PEPRA, overtime pay is no longer counted toward total pensionable income. Furthermore, overtime usage varies by assignment within each position. An officer assigned as a school resource officer would likely work a different number of overtime hours than an officer assigned to patrol. Matrix Consulting Group Page 87 Report on the Riverside County JPA Feasibility Study Summary of Total Position Costs for the JPA Agency by Classification Classification Base Pay Incentives Pension Benefits Total 911 Comm. Director $90,581 $181 $6,353 $28,012 $125,127 Accounting Clerk I $42,379 $85 $2,972 $23,715 $69,151 Accounting Clerk II $53,273 $107 $3,737 $24,686 $81,802 Accounting Manager $82,788 $166 $5,807 $27,317 $116,077 Administrative Assistant $46,661 $93 $3,273 $24,096 $74,123 Administrative Services Mgr. $103,649 $207 $7,270 $29,177 $140,303 Assistant Chief S160,684 $2,410 $19,180 $47,026 $229,300 Captain S143,373 $2,151 $17,114 $44,888 $207,525 Chief of Police $177,371 $2,661 S21,172 $49,087 5250,290 Crime Analyst $59,234 $118 $4,155 $25,217 $88,724 Crime Scene Supervisor $57,026 $114 $4,000 $25,021 $86,160 Crime Scene Technician $51,842 $104 $3,636 $24,558 $80,140 CSO $50,324 $151 $3,533 $29,273 $83,282 Custodian $34,837 $70 $2,443 $23,042 $60,392 Deputy Chief $153,032 S2,295 $18,267 $46,081 $219,675 Detective $82,137 $13,553 S11,253 $33,903 $140,846 Dispatch Supervisor $66,705 $133 $4,679 $25,883 $97,400 Dispatcher I $50,385 $1,763 $3,650 $24,556 $80,355 Dispatcher II $54,485 $1,907 $3,947 $24,932 $85,271 Executive Assistant $57,858 $116 $4,058 $25,095 587,127 Finance/Fiscal Manager $109,201 $218 $7,659 $29,672 $146,751 Financial Analyst $69,374 $139 $4,866 $26,121 $100,500 Financial Analyst II $74,285 $149 $5,210 $26,559 $106,203 Fleet Manager $82,036 $164 $5,754 $27,250 $115,205 Fleet Services Assistant $41,707 $83 $2,925 $23,655 $68,371 Fleet Services Supervisor $66,630 $133 $4,673 $25,877 $97,313 Fleet Technician $55,497 $111 $3,893 $24,884 $84,385 GIS Technician $61,972 $124 $4,347 $25,462 $91,904 Grants Administrator $52,338 $105 $3,671 $24,603 $80,716 HR Analyst $60,470 $121 $4,241 $25,328 $90,160 HR Assistant $40,858 $82 $2,866 $23,579 S67,385 Matrix Consulting Group Page 88 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Report on the Riverside County JPA Feasibility Study Classification Base Pay Incentives Pension Benefits Total HR Manager $113,871 $228 $7,987 $30,088 $152,174 IT Manager $109,659 $219 $7,691 $29,713 $147,283 IT Specialist $59,017 $118 $4,139 $25,198 $88,472 IT Support Assistant $48,604 $97 $3,409 $24,270 $76,380 Lieutenant $123,358 $1,850 $15,776 $40,616 $181,600 Management Analyst $70,046 $140 $4,913 $26,181 $101,280 Network/Sys Analyst $67,485 $135 $4,733 $25,953 $98,307 Officer $78,690 $6,358 $10,002 $31,213 $126,264 PE Specialist $39,757 $80 $2,789 $23,481 $66,106 PE Supervisor $59,344 $119 $4,162 $25,227 $88,853 PE Technician $50,503 $101 $3,542 $24,439 $78,585 Procurement Manager $86,553 $173 $6,071 $27,653 $120,450 Procurement Specialist $61,371 $123 $4,305 $25,408 $91,207 Programmer $61,517 $123 $4,315 $25,421 $91,375 Project Manager $92,474 $185 $6,486 $28,181 $127,326 Public Information Officer $93,771 $188 $6,577 $28,297 $128,832 Public Information Specialist $57,287 $115 $4,018 $25,044 $86,464 Purchasing Assistant $45,306 $91 $3,178 $23,976 $72,550 Rangemaster $55,284 $111 $3,878 $24,865 $84,137 Records Manager $80,750 $161 $5,664 $27,136 $113,711 Records Specialist I $43,273 $87 $3,035 $23,795 $70,190 Records Specialist II $43,261 $87 $3,034 $23,793 $70,175 Records Supervisor $56,682 $113 $3,976 $24,990 $85,761 Senior Ntwk/ Sys Admin $85,565 $171 $6,002 $27,565 $119,303 Sergeant $103,473 $11,899 $19,383 $36,510 $171,265 Supervising Crime Analyst $67,890 $136 $4,762 $25,989 $98,776 Total position costs for sworn, particularly those at the officer level, are somewhat lower than in many other comparable agencies - mainly due to the higher proportion of PEPRA-affected `new' CaIPERS members in the agency, as well as the lack of unfunded liabilities in the agency's pension plan. Civilian personnel costs are also somewhat lower, Matrix Consulting Group Page 89 Report on the Riverside County JPA Feasibility Study primarily as a result of electing to offer a defined contribution retirement system rather than CaIPERS, even after accounting for the additional costs incurred from employer social security contributions. The complete data used to construct base pay averages, as well as other factors researched as part of the compensation survey, can be found in the appendix chapter of the report. Matrix Consulting Group Page 90 Report on the Riverside County JPA Feasibility Study I 8 Analysis of Agency Staffing Needs 1 Introduction Having established the process for estimating the total cost of adding individual positions to the agency, the next critical step of the feasibility analysis is to determine the number and type of personnel needed to run the agency — and provide a high level of service. For this analysis be accurate, a model of the JPA agency must be built from the ground up at a highly detailed level, covering the position types and numbers needed to fulfill each functional area of the department. The results of this process can then be tied to the results of the salary survey in order to develop personnel cost estimates, and later provides the ability for an implementation and hiring plan to be developed. It is necessary for this process to be comprehensive, as there is no single metric that can be used to calculate staffing needs for an entire agency, as basic staffing ratios such as 'sworn per 1.000' fail to take into account differential service needs between communities, as well as a number of other important considerations that drive personnel needs. As a result, the only way to accurately determine the cost of a potential JPA police force is to determine the number of staff that would be needed at each individual function. This can be done by first determining core service needs — including the call response and investigation workloads service area — and then building off of the requirements for supporting these functions. From there, needs for any 'elective' staff (non- core/specialized resources) and services that are necessary to provide a high level of Matrix Consulting Group Page 91 Report on the Riverside County JPA Feasibility Study police service, such units that will provide community program and crime prevention capabilities, can then be determined. The following sections provide a basic overview of how the service needs and other factors may be used to project individual position staffing levels within each functional area for the JPA organization, as well as the process used in doing so. For key service areas where staffing is based largely on service needs — patrol, investigations, and dispatching — sections have been dedicated to the process of calculations used to determine staffing needs. 2 Analysis of Patrol Staffing Needs (1) Overview of the Patrol Staffing Model The methodology used by the project team determines patrol staffing needs based on the actual service needs of each community, as measured by the community - generated call for service workloads handled by patrol officers. This process involves developing an understanding of where, when, and what types of calls are received provides a detailed account of the service needs of the community, and by measuring the time used in responding and handling these calls, the staffing requirements for meeting the community's service needs can then be determined. To provide a high level of service, however, it is not enough for patrol units to function as call responders — officers must have sufficient time outside of community - driven workload to proactively address community issues, conduct problem -oriented policing, and perform other self-directed engagement activities within the community. Matrix Consulting Group Page 92 Report on the Riverside County JPA Feasibility Study Given the importance of providing for adequate proactive time in the process of determining patrol staffing needs. targets are set for the proportion of officers' available time that should be remain uncommitted — and available to conduct self -initiated workloads — on top of the number of hours that must be staffed for community -generated workloads. As a result, the primary focus in analyzing community -generated calls for service is not only to determine the level of call for service workloads, but to determine the number of uncommitted hours that must also be staffed according to the targeted level of proactivity. Proactive time is calculated through an analytical approach that examines the community -generated workload handled by patrol units, as well as the current staffing levels of the division, in order to produce a realistic estimation of the department's staffing needs at its targeted service levels. The data required to complete the analysis has been obtained from the computer aided dispatch system and other statistical data maintained by the department. The following sections provide the process and results of the analysis of this data, which will provide the basis for developing an understanding of patrol staffing needs, as well as other issues relating to the effectiveness of field services. (3) CAD Analysis Methodology Our project team has calculated the community -generated workload of RSD in contract services areas by analyzing incident records in the computer aided dispatch (CAD) database covering a period of time beginning on January 1s1. 2015 at midnight, and lasting for exactly one year. Matrix Consulting Group Page 93 Report on the Riverside County JPA Feasibility Study For incidents to be identified as community -generated calls for service and included in our analysis of patrol, each of the following conditions needed to be met: • The incident must have been unique. • The incident must involve RSD staff in one of the nine contract service areas that are included in the study. • The incident must have been dispatched within the period of one year beginning on January 151, 2015. • The incident must have involved at least one RSD deputy, corporal, sergeant, or community service officer assigned to patrol, as identified by the unit type information included in the CAD data16. The incident must have been originally initiated by the community, identified in the following methods: The incident must have had a time stamp for the creation of the incident record. The incident type must have corresponded to a community -generated event. CaII types that could be identified with a high level of certainty as being either self -initiated (e.g., traffic stops) or other activity generated by RSD (e.g., directed patrol) were not counted as community -generated calls for service. The source of the call had to be through receipt of a 911 or telephone call, rather than through the radio, which would correspond to a self -initiated event in the field. There must have been no major irregularities or issues with the data recorded for the incident that would prevent sufficient analysis, such as having no unit type information. After filtering through the data as listed above, the remaining incidents represent the community -generated calls for service handled by RSD patrol units. 16 To further expand on this point, calls were not included if the only unit type listed as responding to the incident were dispatchers. There had to be at least one deputy, community service officer, or sergeant assigned to patrol responding to the call_ Other types, such as motor officers, were not included. Matrix Consulting Group Page 94 Report on the Riverside County JPA Feasibility Study (4) Notes on Projections Made with RSD CAD Data Given that our call for service information corresponds to 2015, and the determination of using 2016 and 2021 as the selected years for projecting staffing needs and costs, it was necessary to show workload levels in line with that methodology. As a result, all results for the call for service analysis have been projected a year forward into 2016. This was done to avoid increasing confusion by showing a third set of numbers (corresponding to 2015), and instead focus on the analysis of 2016 and 2021. As the later section on projections will describe in further detail, the projections were made using the ratio of calls for service to population in each municipality in 2015, and applying the ratios to their estimated populations in 2016. For call totals at the level of detail showing individual hours and weekdays, each cell was multiplied by a factor representing the proportional difference in the overall totals of 2016 and 2015. For reference, the actual total number of community -generated calls for service calculated from RSD CAD data in 2015 was 297,202, while the projected number of calls for service in 2016 has been calculated at 301.761. (5) Calls for Service by Hour and Weekday The following table displays the total number of calls for service handled by patrol units by each hour and day of the week across all nine contract service areas, projected one year forward to 2016: Matrix Consulting Group Page 95 1,540 1,851 2,037 2,200 2,211 2,291 2,255 2,327 2,476 2,368 2,566 2,698 2,770 2,943 3,388 3,070 Report on the Riverside County JPA Feasibility Study Hour 12am 1 am 2am 3am 4am 5am 6am 7am 8am 9am 10am 11am 12pm 1pm 2pm 3pm 4pm 5pm 6pm 7pm 8pm 9pm 10pm 11 pm Total 2016 Calls for Service in Study Areas Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat 2.462 1,094 974 1,001 1,073 1,147 1,669 1,843 P 8391Milt796 824 926 1,301 1,354 714_Itall _ 775 1.165 1,046 54 567 836 : 584Lail, 684 _PPIP. ,- , 602 Inumormo!o 834 868 imp 690 38 1,343 1,316 1,272 1,715 1,880 2,060 2,117 2,075 2,272 2,292 2,266 2,361 2,488 2,535 2,559 2,302 1,986 1,477 1,981 2,030 2,137 2,244 2,222 2,363 2,522 2,770 2,658 2,552 2,429 2,362 2,158 1,904 1,621 1,255 1,861 2,028 2,057 2,249 2,219 2,239 2,463 2,730 2,624 2,601 2,417 2,373 2,112 1,881 1,635 1,220 1,312 1,337 1,299 1,091 1,836 1,919 2,062 2,134 2,275 2,293 2,412 2,727 2,649 2,551 2,532 2,353 2,132 2,004 1,678 1,322 1,795 1,948 2,095 2,232 2,226 2,332 2,511 2,774 2,594 2,620 2,666 2,422 2,306 2,114 1,857 1,550 1,720 2,066 2,031 2,273 2,259 2,370 2,444 2,966 2,799 2,764 2,756 2,620 2,425 2,553 2,319 2,051 Total 9,420 7,275 5,946 4,640 4,217 4,287 5,438 8,636 12,005 13,557 14,299 15,392 15,529 15,963 16,879 18,586 18,066 17,817 17,854 17,363 16,462 15,701 14,484 11,945 43,245 41,/15 40,969 41.096 42,620 45,087 47,029 301,761 As the chart shows, calls for service are far more heavily concentrated in the late afternoon, evening, and early nighttime hours. On Saturday, the peak activity hours extend for longer, lasting until around 2:OOAM. These differences underscore the point that different levels of patrol resources are needed at different times of the day. While staffing during the daytime and evening hours should focus on providing patrol officers with enough time available to be proactive, Matrix Consulting Group Page 96 Report on the Riverside County JPA Feasibility Study staffing for nighttime and early morning hours (2:OOAM until 7:00AM) is dependent on maintaining response capabilities for critical incidents and ensuring officer safety. (6) Calls for Service by City The following table displays how the calls are distributed by each city, including the original (2015) ratio of calls for service per 1,000 persons that was used to project the totals for 2016: 2016 Calls for Service by Contract City CFS / Pop. 2016 Coachella 0.36 16,571 Jurupa Valley 0.37 36,879 Lake Elsinore 0.40 25,387 Menifee 0.32 28,529 Moreno Valley 0.43 88,151 Perris 0.42 31,647 San Jacinto 0.57 26,849 Temecula 0.33 37,861 Wildomar 0.27 9,887 Total 0.39 301,761 The range of call volume to population ratios shown by the nine contract cities is largely within the normal range. The vast majority of cities and counties that the project team has worked with in recent years have ratios from 0.28 to 0.45 calls per 1,000 residents, which all but one of the cities in the contract group meet. San Jacinto, at 0.57 calls per 1,000, is significantly above that range. These differences demonstrate the important point that patrol officer coverage and staffing should not be set based on population — the needs of service environments vary extensively, requiring different resource levels to meet those needs. Matrix Consulting Group Page 97 Report on the Riverside County JPA Feasibility Study (7) Developing a Model of Patrol Unit Net Availability To be able to estimate the total number of hours that officers would have available for incidents and to complete other workloads, it is first necessary to develop an accurate representation of a typical officer's time throughout a year, showing how often they are actually on -duty and in-service in the field. This process begins with the assumption that a 12 -hour shift schedule is negotiated for both officers and CSOs that follows a 42 -hour week, 2,184 -hour year configuration. Without that being negotiated in a normal 12 -hour shift schedule configuration, units would have to either leave early or arrive on -duty late once per week, alternating biweekly, to meet a 40 -hour limit on paid hours worked at the normal rate. In order to estimate officers' net availability, the process then examines the number hours by category that take away from the 2,184 -hour total hours— including vacation, sick, injury, sick, military, or any other type of leave — as well as any hours dedicated while on duty to attending court or training, and all time spent on administrative tasks, such as attending shift briefings or eating lunch. After accounting for the time that each of these factors represents and subtracting them from the 2,184 -hour total, the result of this process of elimination represents the net available hours of patrol officers — the uncommitted, on -duty time that patrol officers are able to use to complete both reactive and proactive workloads. This statistic can then be multiplied by the number of patrol positions, resulting in the total number of net available hours. The following factors are considered in the calculation process: Matrix Consulting Group Page 98 Report nr the Riverside County JPA Feasibility Study Work Hours Per Year Total number of scheduled work hours for patrol units, without factoring in leave, training, or anything else that takes officers away from normal on -duty work. This forms the `base number' from which other availability factors are subtracted. A 12 -hour shift system under an 84 -hour workweek (negotiated as part of contract) is assumed, resulting in 2,184 hours per year of scheduled work. Base number: 2.184 scheduled work hours per year Total Leave Hours (subtracted from total work hours per year) Includes all types of leave, as well as injuries and military leave — anything that would cause officers that are normally scheduled to work on a specific day to instead not be on duty. As a result, this category excludes on -duty training, administrative time, and on -duty court time. Estimated: 300 hours of leave per year On -Duty Court Time (subtracted from total work hours per year) The total number of hours that each officer spends per year while on -duty attending court, including transit time. This number is usually estimated, as many agencies lack records detailing on -duty versus off-duty court time. Estimated: 20 hours of on -duty court time per year On -Duty Training Time (subtracted from total work hours per year) The total number of hours spent per year in training that are completed while on -duty and not on overtime. Without any data showing the number of on -duty training hours at a level of detail specific to officers, the project team assumed a forty hours per year, fulfilling all annual state -mandated training requirements. Estimated: 40 hours of on -duty training time per year Administrative Time (subtracted from total work hours per year) The total number of hours per year spent completing administrative tasks while on - duty, including briefings, meal breaks, and various other activities. The number is calculated as an estimate by multiplying 90 minutes of time per shift, times the number of shifts actually worked by officers in a year — after factoring out the number of shifts that are not worked due to leave being taken. Given that a 12 -hour shift schedule is followed in this instance, the total administrative time is somewhat less than it would be in an 8 or 10 -hour configuration. Estimated: 236 hours of administrative time per year Matrix Consulting Group Page 99 Report on the Riverside County JPA Feasibility Study Net Availability After subtracting the previous factors from the total work hours per year, the remaining hours comprise the net available hours — the time during which patrol units are actually available to work after accounting for all leave, as well as on -duty training and court time, in addition to administrative time. Net availability can also be expressed as a percentage of the total work hours per year. Calculated from previously listed factors: 1,589 net available hours per officer The following table outlines this calculation process, displaying how each availability factor contributes to the overall rate at which patrol officers in the proposed JPA agency would be available and on -duty: Calculation of Patrol Unit Net Availability Calculation Factor Value Total Scheduled Work Hours 2,184 Total Leave Hours — 300 On -Duty Training Hours — 40 On -Duty Court Time Hours — 20 Administrative Hours — 236 Net Available Hours Per FTE = 1,589 The key result of these calculations, the net availability of patrol officers, is used in our analysis to determine patrol proactivity levels and staffing needs. However, before we calculate how total workload hours match up against the total net available hours of officers, it is first necessary to consider the role of community service officers, and how they affect the workload hours that sworn officers must handle. (8) Summary of Patrol Workload Factors Each call for service represents a certain amount of workload, much of which is not represented by time stamps included in agency CAD databases. The components Matrix Consulting Group Page 100 Report on the Riverside County JPA Feasibility Study making up this time can be categorized, and from a combination of calculations from actual data and estimates based on the experience of the project team, the average workload time that each call represents can be determined for use in calculating patrol staffing needs. With the data received from RSD, these factors were estimated, outside of the base number of calls for service. However, in order to provide the contract cities with the full underlying methodology used to calculate patrol staffing needs, this section will provide a breakdown and summary of each factor and how it contributes to the average workload involved in handling a call for service. The following outline describes each sub -category of workload involved in determining the total workload per call, whether the figure was calculated from agency data or estimated, and the figure used in the analysis of patrol staffing beginning in the next section: Factors Used to Calculate Total Patrol Workload Number of Community -Generated Calls for Service Data obtained from an export of CAD data covering a period of an entire year that has been analyzed and filtered in order to determine the number and characteristics of all community -generated activity handled by patrol deputies. The calculation process used to develop this number has been summarized in previous sections. Calculated from RSD data and projected forward to 2016 and 2021 based on ratios of CFS to population in 2015: — 2016: 301,761 calls for service — 2021: 325,847 calls for service Primary Unit Handling Time (multiplied by the rate) The time used by the primary unit to handle a community -generated call for service, including time spent traveling to the scene of the incident and the duration of on -scene time. For each incident, this number is calculated as the difference between `call Matrix Consulting Group Page 101 Report on the Riverside County JPA Feasibility Study cleared' time stamp and the `unit dispatched' time stamp. In the experience of the project team, the average handling time is typically between 30 and 42 minutes in agencies where time spent writing reports and jail transport/booking workloads are not included within the period between the two time stamps. Estimated: 32.2 minutes of handling time per call for service Number of Backup Unit Responses The total number and rate of backup units responding to community -generated calls for service. This number often varies based on the severity of the call, as well as the geographical density of the area being served. An estimate is here, as the result calculated from RSD CAD data was lower than realistic. Estimated: 0.71 backup units per call for service Backup Unit Handling Time (multiplied by the rate) The handling time of any backup units responding to community -generated calls for service, including both travel and on -scene times, and is typically calculated using the same process as for primary units when the CAD data allows for the calculations to be made. In this case, a normative estimate was used, at a time equal to 75% of the primary unit's handling average handling time at each hour and day of the week, resulting in an overall average of 23.9 minutes per backup unit response. Estimated: 23.9 minutes of handling time per backup unit response. Report Writing Time Based on the number of community -generated calls for service, this factor represents a significant portion of the total workload involved in handling calls for service. Given that officers are typically cleared from a call in the CAD system before they complete any assignments or other call -related tasks, report writing time is estimated based on the experience of the project team. Estimated: An additional 45.0 minutes are added to 33.3% of CFS Time Per Jail Transport/Booking The time that officers spend in the process of completing jail transports before they become available and in-service again. This number is adjusted as needed based on local factors, such as jail proximity and processing time. Estimated: An additional 60 minutes are added to 5.0% of CFS Matrix Consulting Group Page 102 Report on the Riverside County JPA Feasibility Study Total Workload Per Call for Service After combining the total workload from primary and backup handling times, as well as any additional workload factors, the result is the total minutes of patrol workload per call for service. This number can then be multiplied by the number of calls for service to produce the total workload hours handled by patrol units. Calculated from previously listed factors: 67.3 total minutes of workload per CFS Each of these factors contributes to the overall picture of patrol workload — the total number of hours required for patrol units to handle community -generated calls for service, including primary and backup unit handling times, report writing time, and jail/booking time. The table below summarizes the process of using these factors to estimate average handling time, as well as the total number of hours each represents: Summary of Patrol Workload Factors (2016 Projections) Category Total Number of Calls for Service Avg. Primary Unit Handling Time (min.) Backup Units Per CFS Avg. Backup Unit Handling Time (min.) Reports Written Per CFS Time Per Report (min.) Jail Transports/Bookings Per CFS Time Per Jail Transport/Booking Avg. Workload Per Call (min.) Total Workload Hours Factor 301,761 32.2 min x 0.71 23.9 min x 0.33 45.0 min x 0.05 60.0 min x 67.3 338,443 Result = 161,772 hrs. = 86,143 hrs. = 75,440 hrs. = 15,088 hrs. Overall, at 67.3 minutes of workload per call for service, the average time required to handle incidents is somewhat on the lower end of the normal range for police agencies. Matrix Consulting Group Page 103 Report on the Riverside County JPA Feasibility Study Before determining patrol proactivity levels, the 338,443 hours of community - generated workload handled, it is first necessary to examine the role that community service officers provide in handling a portion of these hours. (9) Availability and Workload Handled by Community Service Officers Community service officers (CSOs) represent an important piece of the strategy for making a JPA agency feasible. As non -sworn field units, they are able to handle a number of low -priority calls that officers would otherwise be required to take, and consequently prevent them from either responding to other incidents or enable them to conduct proactive policing. Given this consideration, CSOs provide a relatively cost effective way to provide a virtually equal level of service, freeing up sworn officers in the process to be proactive. Many of the cities in the contract group already contract for CSOs to do exactly this, mitigating any possible reaction to the public from being served with non -sworn personnel. In effect, this analysis considers CSOs function as patrol units that divert and reduce the number of workload hours that officers must handle, while not having any proactivity targets themselves — allowing them to spend a greater percentage of their time handling calls. Nonetheless, CSOs cannot be utilized 100% of the time, as the calls will not able to be handled sequentially without any gaps. Given this, it is assumed that on top of factors taking away from total scheduled work hours, only 85% of their net available time is spent handling calls. The following table presents the process and results of these calculations: Matrix Consulting Group Page 104 Report on the Riverside County JPA Feasibility Study Estimated Workload Diverted Per CSO Calculation Factor Total Scheduled Work Hours Total Leave Hours Administrative Hours Value 2,184 300 45 Net Available Hours Per Position = 1,839 % of Time Handling Workloads x 85% Workload Hours Diverted Per CSO = 1,563 All factors being considered — including net availability and utilization rates — each CSO position that is staffed equates to 1,563 fewer hours of workload for patrol officers. The next subsection will examine the factors that represent the total workload of each call. (10) Analysis of Overall Patrol Proactivity Levels Proactive time is calculated through an analytical approach that examines the community -generated workload handled by patrol units, as well as the current staffing levels of the division, in order to produce a realistic estimation of the department's staffing needs at its targeted service levels. The previous sections have provided the basis for this analysis by individually examining each factor used in the calculation of proactivity. It is first important to define the objectives of calculating proactivity, as this determines what is counted and what is not in the calculation process. For the purposes of this study, the proactivity level of patrol is defined as the percentage of patrol officers' available and on -duty time that is not spent responding to community -generated calls for Matrix Consulting Group Page 105 Report on the Riverside County JPA Feasibility Study service, after the workload diverted by community service officers (CSOs) has been factored out. This can also be expressed visually as an equation: Net Available Hours - Total Workload Hours - Workload Hours Handled by CSOs Total Hours On -Duty and Available Overall, the goal of the analysis is to accurately model the ability of patrol units to be proactive given current staffing allocations, and should not be considered a performance measure of how the proactive time is being used. Instead, the analysis ties the workload completed by patrol units to staffing levels in order to provide the opportunity for effective proactive policing. A larger department should generally target an overall proactivity level of at least 35-45% as an effective level of patrol coverage. Given that the number of officers needed to reach a certain level of proactivity depends on the number of workload hours they must handle - which in turn depends on the number of CSOs - the following parameters have been established in setting staffing levels for the JPA: i) A proactivity level of at least 40% must be reached in each individual contract city. II) Officers should outnumber CSOs at a ratio of about 4.5 to 5.5 officers per CSO. The second of these has been set keeping in mind that many types of calls require an armed response by a sworn officer, or otherwise present too great of a safety risk, capability limitation, or training concern for a CSO. The table below displays the calculation process used by the project team to determine proactivity, as well as the resulting proportion of time that officers have available outside of responding to community -generated workloads: Matrix Consulting Group Page 106 Report on the Riverside County JPA Feasibility Study Calculation of Field Resources Needed to Achieve 40% Proactivity (2016 CFS Projections) Calculation Factor Value Total CFS Workload Hours 338,443 # of CSOs (@ -1,563 hrs. per) 55 Workload Hours Diverted by CSOs - 85,973 Remaining Officer Workload Hours = 252,470 # of Patrol Officers (@ 1,589 NA hrs. per) 269 Total Officer Net Available Hours 427,307 (Minus remaining officer workload hours) - 256,713 Resulting # of Uncommitted Hours = 173,359 (Divided by officer net available hours) / 432,072) Overall Proactivity Level 40.9% At an overall level, staffing the JPA agency with 269 officers and 55 CSOs at 2016 workload levels will result in a proactivity level of approximately 40.9%. The following section outlines the assumptions used in modeling growth and service needs changes, followed by a section detailing the number of CSOs and officers needed in each city to meet the 40% proactivity target. (11) Growth Assumptions and Projected Service Needs Estimating the workload patrol officers are required to handle requires first determining the number of calls for service, which in turn is built on the ratio of calls for service per person that existed in 2015, during the time covered by the CAD data. By estimating population into the future, it is then possible to project calls for service totals in the baseline year of 2016, and at the JPA start date in 2021. Matrix Consulting Group Page 107 Report on the Riverside County JPA Feasibility Study In order to accomplish this, the process first begins by calculating the average rate of population change from the previous year from 2012 to 2014 - the latest available U.S. Census Bureau statistics. The average yearly growth rate is then calculated as compounding rate of change from 2015 to 2021, with each year's estimated population building from the previous total. This method is used in place of using an overall growth rate that is divided equally over the seven-year period, which would over represent initial growth. Projected Population Growth, 2014 - 2021 2014 A. Growth % 2016 2021 7YR % Coachella 44,132 1.7% 45,646 49,663 13% Jurupa Valley 98,842 0.8% 100,452 104,592 6% Lake Elsinore 60,029 3.1% 63,799 74,291 24% Menifee 85,182 2.1% 88,804 98,548 16% Moreno Valley 202,976 1.0% 207,052 217,603 7% Perris 73,756 1.6% 76,083 82,225 11% San Jacinto 46,490 1.1% 47,498 50,115 8% Temecula 109,428 2.1% 113,969 126,164 15% Wildomar 35,377 2.4% 37,069 41,660 18% Total 756,212 - 780,371 844,860 +11.7% Based on the results of these projections, the calls for service totals calculated from RSD CAD data covering 2015 are then compared to the population in each city that year and projected forward through 2021, as shown below: Matrix Consulting Group Page 108 Report on the Riverside County JPA Feasibility Study Projected Call for Service Growth, 2014 — 2021 CFS / Pop. 2016 2021 6YR % Coachella 0.36 16,571 18,029 11% Jurupa Valley 0.37 36,879 38,399 5% Lake Elsinore 0.40 25,387 29,563 20% Menifee 0.32 28,529 31,659 13% Moreno Valley 0.43 88,151 92,643 6% Perris 0.42 31,647 34,202 10% San Jacinto 0.57 26,849 28,329 7% Temecula 0.33 37,861 41,912 13% Wildomar 0.27 9,887 11,112 15% Total 0.39 301,761 325,847 +9.6% Some of the agencies displayed in the chat have vastly different growth rates than the rest of the group. Temecula in particular stands out, increasing its calls for service total by approximately 70% in five years. (12) Patrol Staffing Needs by City Using the same process of calculating proactivity levels and staffing that was completed at an overall level, the number of officers and CSOs required to reach 40% proactivity is calculated for each individual city, as shown below: Matrix Consulting Group Page 109 Report on the Riverside County JPA Feasibility Study Patrol Staffing Levels Needed to Achieve a Proactivity Level of 40% 2016 2021 # of CSOs # of Ofc. % Proac. # of CSOs # of Ofc. % Proac. Coachella 3 15 41.7% 3 17 42.5% Jurupa Valley 7 32 40.2% 7 34 40.5% Lake Elsinore 5 22 40.9% 6 25 40.1% Menifee 5 26 41.5% 6 28 41.3% Moreno Valley 16 78 40.4% 16 83 40.2% Perris 5 29 39.9% 6 31 41.1% San Jacinto 5 24 41.5% 4 27 40.5% Temecula 7 34 41.6% 8 37 41.3% Wildomar 2 9 44.3% 2 10 41.2% Total 55 269 40.9% 58 292 40.8% In comparison to the current staffing levels that cities contract for, the recommended levels shown above are in many cases close, and far off in some. It is important, however, to consider these staffing levels as a plan — one that is based on the projections determined previously. Each staffing recommendation also uses the same target proportion of sworn officers to CSOs. As staffing levels for patrol are by individual municipalities, some may elect to staff the positions at a different ratio based on the priorities of their community. Furthermore, it is important to consider that the results of this analysis can be used independently outside of the JPA context as a tool for determining a baseline level of patrol coverage that a city should contract, particularly as the region continues to grow and services needs expand. Matrix Consulting Group Page 110 Report on the Riverside County JPA Feasibility Study (13) Equalizing Coverage Hours with Current Contracts While the previous analysis has analyzed the patrol staffing levels needed in order to provide an effective level of proactivity, it is critical that the analysis of JPA feasibility match the current field staffing resources that each city currently contracts for. However, comparing only the number of staff in the JPA model versus those contracted for in the RSD model is not accurate, as there are a number of factors that are different in each model. (13.1) Defining Patrol Coverage Under the JPA Approach The JPA approach to patrol staffing estimated the net availability of a single patrol officer position — the time left over after factoring in training, leave, administrative workloads (e.g., briefings), and court time. Overtime for any reason is not included in the result. As the number of positions allocated to each city corresponds to actual filled staffing positions, the impact of vacant positions is not factored into the number of net available hours. Instead, if a position is vacant, it is not backfilled from elsewhere within the organization; rather, the expected hours are `lost' as a result. Under the definition used in our analysis of estimated JPA officer net availability, each officer position corresponds to 1,589 hours. (13.2) Defining Patrol Coverage Under the RSD Approach Whereas the JPA patrol calculations have used proactivity as the key metric in determining staffing needs, the RSD approach involves contracting for a specific number of service hours. The number of service hours per position can be considered as a similar metric to net availability, although with some important differences. hours are thought Matrix Consulting Group Page 111 Report on the Riverside County JPA Feasibility Study Each patrol deputy position represents 1,780 hours per year. Staffing is adjusted in order to meet that target. If a position is not filled, a different RSD deputy is substituted in to meet the requisite number of service hours. As a result, turnover presents no impact on net availability. The report completed recently on RSD by KPMG17 calculated the number of `actual' hours spent on patrol duties, examining the proportion of the 1,780 service hours that is actually spent in the field on patrol coverage duties. Of the 1,780 service hours, under the definition used by that report, there are an estimated 1,400 net available hours per year for each RSD deputy position. The following table reproduces their estimation of this number, calculating the net available hours per deputy position: KPMG Estimation of RSD Deputy Net Availability18 Gross hours scheduled per officer 2,080 Vacation, holiday, sick, training time 300 Average net available after leave/training 1,780 Shift meals and breaks 124 Patrol shift briefings 42 Administrative duties 124 Vehicle and equipment preparation and inspection 42 Court attendance/subpoena 40 Office meetings & committees 8 Average net available time 1,400 17 KPMG, LLP. Criminal Justice System Review. Board of Supervisors, County of Riverside, California, 2016. 18 All figures included the corresponding table reference those listed on page 48 of the aforementioned report completed by KPMG, LLP. Matrix Consulting Group Page 112 Report on the Riverside County JPA Feasibility Study The final figure of 1,400 net available hours for RSD deputies under the KPMG definition is much closer to the corresponding estimate for the JPA officers, though additional adjustments must be made before the two figures provide a level comparison. (13.3) Reconciling the JPA and RSD Net Availability Figures While the JPA net availability figure and the RSD estimate use different assumptions for certain factors such as administrative time, the conflicts do not create an issue for the purposes of this analysis. However, because of the backfilling issue — where RSD deputies are backfilled should the position become vacant, versus limited or no backfilling in the JPA model — an additional factor must be considered. If we assume a turnover rate of 5%, and with each position taking a year to be fully filled after hiring, academy, and FTO periods have been completed, 5% of the annual total number of hours (1,589) must be deducted. This can be done by multiplying that number by 95%, producing a total of 1,509 post -turnover net available hours — the number of true coverage hours represented by one officer position. For CSOs, who also factor into patrol staffing considerations because of their impact on the number of workload hours that patrol officers are required to handle, the distinction is much more simple. A figure of 1,780 hours per year is selected for RSD CSOs, given that factors such as court and briefing time do not need to be factored in. For JPA CSOs, the analysis can use the net availability figure before utilization has been applied, at 1,839 per position. To summarize, the analysis estimates that each deputy/officer position represents the following numbers of 'true', turnover -adjusted coverage hours: Matrix Consulting Group Page 113 Report on the Riverside County JPA Feasibility Study Patrol Coverage Hours After Accounting for Net Availability and Turnover RSD Model JPA Model Officer/Deputy 1,400 hrs. 1.509 hrs. CSO 1,780 hrs. 1,839 hrs. The differences between the coverage hour figures for each position are explained by several factors: • Differences in the estimated amount of time spent on administrative tasks: the RSD model figure uses the estimate produced in the KPMG report. • Different shift schedules are used: The schedule for RSD deputies schedule totals 2,080 hours per year under 10 -hour shifts, while the JPA estimate assumes a schedule with 2,184 hours per year in a 12 -hour shift configuration. At this point in the analysis, however, both figures factor in impacts from turnover, training, court time, and all other major factors impacting `true' net availability for patrol coverage duties. Likewise, neither figures include overtime hours worked for any reason19. In conclusion, each RSD deputy position that is contracted for can be considered as representing 1,400 hours per year of actual patrol coverage in the field. By contrast, each JPA officer position reflects an estimated 1,509 hours per year of actual field patrol coverage. (13.4) Adjusting JPA Patrol Staffing Allocations to Meet or Exceed RSD Coverage Levels Having determined a method for creating a level comparison of the actual coverage hours for RSD deputies and JPA officers, it is now possible to compare whether 19 In the absence of the JPA negotiating a 2,184 -hour schedule, the difference of 104 hours per year would be worked on built-in overtime. Matrix Consulting Group Page 114 Report on the Riverside County JPA Feasibility Study any actual coverage has been lost in the recommended JPA patrol staffing allocations. In cases where the resulting number of coverage hours is Tess under the recommended staffing numbers, positions are then added to create a total coverage level that is at least that of what is currently contracted for with RSD. The following table displays how this changes the recommended patrol staffing levels for each city: JPA Patrol Resources Needed to: Achieve 40% Proactivity vs. Equalizing Current Coverage Hours Recom. Revised +/- Coachella Deputies 15 15 CSOs 3 3 Jurupa Valley Deputies 32 32 CSOs 7 7 Lake Elsinore Deputies CSOs 22 25 5 5 +3 Menifee Deputies 26 26 CSOs 5 5 Moreno Valley Deputies CSOs 78 85 +7 16 20 +4 Perris Deputies 29 29 CSOs 5 5 San Jacinto Deputies CSOs 24 24 5 5 Temecula Deputies 34 38 +4 CSOs 7 18 +11 Wildomar Deputies 9 10 +1 CSOs 2 1 -1 Matrix Consulting Group Page 115 Report on the Riverside County JPA Feasibility Study In some cases, this results in higher numbers of deputies or CSOs than the current number contracted for with RSD. In other cases, it results in fewer positions. However, as by calculating the net patrol coverage hours per position — including an adjustment for the impact of turnover on availability — coverage hours in all cases meet or exceed those that are currently contracted for in the RSD model. The following table shows the results of these calculations, using the per -position figures for JPA and RSD staff outlined in the previous section (see notes for Wildomar calculation and cost adjustments for Temecula under added positions): Patrol Staffing Levels and Coverage Hours: RSD Contracts vs. JPA (Adjusted) # of FTEs Adj. Coverage Hrs.20 RSD JPA RSD JPA % +/- Coachella Deputies 18.5 15 25.900 22.636 # CSOs 0 3 0 5.517 Total 25,900 28,153 +8.7% Jurupa Valley Deputies 37 32 51.800 48,290 # CSOs 2 7 3.560 12.873 Total 55,360 61,163 +10.5% Lake Elsinore Deputies 27 25 37.800 37,727 # CSOs 5 5 8.900 9.195 Total 46,700 46,922 +0.5% Menifee Deputies 25 26 35,000 39,236 # CSOs 5 5 8.900 9,195 Total 43,900 48,431 +10.3% Moreno Valley Deputies 92 85 128:800 128.271 # CSOs 20 20 35.600 36.780 Total 164,400 165,051 +0.4 20 Number of coverage hours after adjusting for administrative factors and other tasks that are included in service hours. For RSD figures, uses the 1,400 hours per equivalent deputy statistic. Matrix Consulting Group Page 116 Report on the Riverside County JPA Feasibility Study Perris # of FTEs Adj. Coverage Hrs.2° RSD JPA RSD JPA %+I - Deputies 31 29 43,400 43,763 # CSOs 4 5 7,120 9.195 Total 50,520 52,958 +4.8% San Jacinto Deputies 19 24 26,600 36.218 # CSOs 4 5 7,120 9.195 Total 33,720 45,413 +34.7% Temecula21 Deputies 37 38 51,800 57.345 # CSOs 21 18 37.380 33.102 Total 89,180 90,447 +1.4% Wildomar22 Deputies 9 10 (12,600) 15,090 # CSOs 1 1 (1,780) 1.839 Total (see footnote) 14,600 16.929 +17.7% As demonstrated in the chart, when accounting for net availability factors and such as time spent on administrative functions, patrol staffing levels in the JPA model provides equal or greater coverage in the field compared with current RSD contracts. 3 Analysis of Core Investigative Staffing Needs As with patrol, investigative functions represent another critical staffing area for the JPA agency. For the units handling cases that originate from the community, as opposed to units that are primarily proactive, detective staffing needs are a direct function of the 21 Temecula has since added an additional 1 CSO and 10 officers to the RSD contract. 2015/16 numbers used for level comparison across the projection model. Adding those positions to the JPA model would increase the city's cost share by $1.55m. RSD contract costs would increase as well — FY2016/17 operating budget for the city lists a figure of $27.79m for that fiscal year. 22 Wildomar patrol staffing levels under the JPA model were calculated using a different process. Deputy staffing was set at a level that reflects at least as many adjusted coverage hours from officers only that RSD provides from deputies only (based on the 40 contracted service hours before adjustment). Matrix Consulting Group Page 117 Report on the Riverside County JPA Feasibility Study number and types of cases that are generated. From there, a number of questions affect the level of workload that detectives handle, including: • Case Screening by Type/Thresholds: The process of filtering cases for investigation based on the type or value amount that they represent, such as the following: • Are auto thefts typically investigated? Are thefts only investigated if they reach a certain level of value? Case Screening by Solvability: Use of solvability factors — potentially in a formalized point -based matrix — to decide whether or not a case should be investigated. Key questions include: Are certain types of property crimes only investigated if there is a high probability of solvability? Are home burglaries handled differently, such as through a non -sworn position that follows up with the victims of the crime? Case Management: How are detectives supervised? What impact does this have on efficiencies relating to the activation and deactivating of cases? How are caseloads divided among detectives by the level of workload that they represent? Decisions made in each of these areas significantly affects staffing needs. As a result, a set of assumptions has been made regarding the types of cases that detectives will investigate. (3.2) Limitations on Analysis of Current Investigative Practices Outside of proactive and specialized investigative functions, such as a regional task force, cities contracting with RSD do not directly pay for a set number of positions or service hours for detective positions. Instead, the cost of investigative services is rolled up into pro rata costs, making it difficult to determine how detective workloads are distributed among different jurisdictions. It should be noted that this is not a disadvantage of a regionalized approach to most investigative functions, as the feasibility analysis Matrix Consulting Group Page 118 Report on the Riverside County JPA Feasibility Study proposes a similar approach for a JPA agency. It does, however, limit the ability for availability and workload to be measured at a detailed and localized level. (3.3) Projection of Part I Crime Levels Part !crime totals have been estimated for the years 2016 and 2021 using a similar process to the one in employed for patrol calls for service. The ratio of Part I crimes in 2014 is taken against population in the same year. The relationship is then assumed to remain constant though 2021, where crime totals have been estimated using this ratio against projected population over the time period: The results of this analysis are shown in the following table: Projected Part I Crimes, 2014-2021 2014 Crime/1,000 2016 2021 7YR % Coachella 1,318 29.86 1,363 1,483 13% Jurupa Valley 2,873 29.07 2,920 3,040 6% Lake Elsinore 1,790 29.82 1,902 2,215 24° Menifee 1,608 18.88 1,676 1,860 16% Moreno Valley 6,994 34.46 7,134 7,498 7% Perris 2,085 28.27 2,151 2,324 11% San Jacinto 1,976 42.50 2,019 2,130 8% Temecula 2,635 24.08 2,744 3,038 15° Wildomar 589 16.65 617 694 18% Total 21,868 28.92 22,527 24,283 +11.0% Overall, as population growth rates are not equal across each municipality and region, Part 1 crime is projected to grow at different rates, ranging from 6% in Jurupa Valley to 24% in Lake Elsinore, at an overall rate of 11.0%. Matrix Consulting Group Page 119 Report on the Riverside County JPA Feasibility Study (3.4) Calculation of Investigator Staffing Needs The following assumptions have been made to determine staffing needs for core investigations: • 5% of auto theft Part I crimes will be investigated. This reflects the low solvability of many of these types of crimes, where the vehicle has not been recovered and suspect information or other evidence is lacking. 65% of thefts/larcenies will be investigated. This includes a number of crimes that are relatively minor in severity, including thefts that involve unauthorized breaking and entering into a vehicle. After removing these from the total, it is assumed that detectives (not including their supervisors) are staffed at a ratio of 300 Part I crimes per investigator. This is in line with research conducted by the project team in past work that examines other California agencies. Using these assumptions, the following table calculates the number of investigators required in each region: Calculation of Detective Staffing Needs by Part I Crime Totals 2016 2021 North South East North South East Total Part I Crimes 14,224 6,940 1,363 14,993 7,807 1,483 # of Auto Thefts 2,550 846 227 2,690 952 246 Investigated 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% # of Thefts/Larcenies Investigated 7,466 4,097 683 7,867 4,606 742 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% Remaining Part I Crimes 8,068 4,088 806 8,504 4,600 878 Target Part 1 Crimes Per Det. 300 300 300 300 300 300 Detectives Required Target Span of Control # of Sergeants Required Matrix Consulting Group 27 14 3 28 15 3 9 9 9 9 9 9 3 2 1 4 2 1 Page 120 1 1 Report on the Riverside County JPA Feasibility Study 1 Overall, the ratios indicate that at least 44 line -level investigators are required in 2016, as well as an additional 2 in 2021. The results should be understood as minimum I needs, with the level of service increasing as support and specialized positions are added. 1 The following tables provide the breakdown staff by investigative unit (excluding Itask forces), with sergeants staffed at a ratio to maintain a 1:9 span of control in investigative units: 1 Recommended Investigative Unit Staffing 2016 2021 2016 2021 IMAJOR CRIMES (NORTH) HOMICIDE UNIT Sergeants 3 4 Lieutenants 0.5 0.5 1 Detectives 27 28 Detectives 4 4 I MAJOR CRIMES (SOUTH) SEX CRIMES UNIT Sergeants 2 2 Lieutenants 0.5 0.5 IDetectives 14 15 Detectives 5 5 MAJOR CRIMES (EAST) 1 Sergeants 1 1 Detectives 3 3 1 The projected staffing needs amount to a total of 44 detectives and 6 sergeants in 1 2016, and 46 detectives and 7 sergeants in 2021. Investigative support needs are included within these totals, including both in core investigations (i.e., most persons and Iproperty crimes) and other reactive, caseload -based detective units specialized toward 1 specific crime types, such as the Homicide Unit. It should also be noted that the same lieutenant position is responsible for Ioverseeing both the Homicide Unit and the Sex Crimes Unit, which is represented above Matrix Consulting Group Page 121 Report on the Riverside County JPA Feasibility Study as a fractional number of FTEs. The chart also does not include lieutenants, which represent two positions in the recommended structure of the agency. One lieutenant is located in the North Region, managing Major Crimes — North and the task force units, while the other is located in the South Region, managing Major Crimes — South (which is relatively smaller) and the specialized investigation units. Both positions report directly to the Captain, who administers the Investigations Section and serves as part of the agency's management team. 4 Analysis of Dispatcher Staffing Needs 911 Communications represents a significant cost area for the department, and is by far the largest non -sworn unit in the agency's recommended staffing plan. In order to determine personnel requirements for running an effective public safety answering point (PSAP), unique factors must be considered that compare staff availability hours against workloads. While the process is similar to the model used to determine patrol staffing needs, a number of key differences exist. As with patrol, staffing is calculated from two factors, representing aggregate availability and workload hours. The following assumptions are made in order to conduct the analysis: There are two distinct roles that dispatcher can perform: call taker and dispatcher. In many agencies, staff are cross -trained to function in both capacities, while in others they are separate position classifications. It is assumed that in the JPA feasibility analysis, both line classifications (Dispatcher I and II) can perform as either call taker or a dispatcher. Workload for the two positions has been combined into a single subtotal. Matrix Consulting Group Page 122 Report on the Riverside County JPA Feasibility Study • Based on the experience of the project team in working with 911 communications agencies nationwide, the total number of unique. CAD incidents over a period of one year is used as the metric to estimate workloads. All unique incidents are included, whether they represent a unique community - generated calls for service, an officer initiated the event, or if no units were sent in response. The total number of unique CAD incidents in 2015 (533,835) has been projected forward to 2016 and 2021, based on the rate of increase in total calls for service in relation to population growth. • It is assumed that each CAD incident translates to an average of 1.1 minutes of dispatcher workload, referred to in the analysis as the average radio time. • Likewise, each incident is assumed to generate 2.5 minutes of call taker workload, referred to as the average task time. As shown below, the combined time factor of 3.5 minutes per incident is multiplied by the CAD incident volume and expressed as the total number of workload hours: Dispatcher/Call Taker Projected Workloads Calculation Factor 2016 2021 Avg. Task Time 2.5 min 2.5 min Avg. Radio Time + 1.1 min 1.1 min Total Time Per Incident = 3.6 min 3.6 min # of CAD Incidents x 550,890 596,415 Total Workload Hours = 33,053 35,785 Net availability is then estimated at 1,750, which assumes a 12 -hour shift schedule featuring a 2,184 -hour work year, similar to the schedule used in the analysis for sworn patrol officers. An additional factor must then be calculated against net availability, representing the percentage of time in which a dispatch is actually handling workloads. This factor is referred to as either the utilization rate as the agency occupancy rate, and Matrix Consulting Group Page 123 Report on the Riverside County JPA Feasibility Study typically ranges from 50-65%. It is a critical consideration in the analysis for a number of reasons: • Dispatching is a highly stressful and demanding job, and taking frequent breaks is essential. • Given that PSAP workloads are largely driven externally, gaps in activity are inherent to 911 communications. • Reducing turnover is a central goal for PSAPs, with many agencies in the range of 10-20% staff attrition per year. Turnover has implications for both costs operational concerns, such as maintaining a consistent level of service. Consequently, a more conservative target for utilization, such as 50%, generally results in a lower rate of dispatcher turnover. This is balanced by the need for additional staff, among other considerations. For the purposes of the JPA feasibility analysis, a utilization rate of 65% has been selected. When this rate is multiplied with the average number of net available hours per position, the result provides the number of workload hours handled by each staffed position. Total workload hours are then divided by this number to produce the number of required FTEs, as shown in the table below: Matrix Consulting Group Page 124 Report on the Riverside County JPA Feasibility Study Calculation of Dispatcher Staffing Needs Calculation Factor 2016 2021 Total Workload Hours 33,053 35,785 Net Available Hours 1,750 1,750 0/0 Utilization Rate x 65% 65% True Availability Per FTE = 1,138 1,138 (Total workload hours are divided by 1,138) Dispatchers Needed Turnover Rate x 29.1 10% 31.5 10% Dispatcher FTEs Req. = 32.0 35.0 The number of authorized dispatcher positions needed must reflect the high rate of turnover that dispatching jobs entail. An additional 10% is added to account for this, and the result of that calculation is rounded up to the nearest whole number, representing the total number of dispatcher positions required to staff the PSAP adequately. The next section, which provides agency wide staffing considerations, will detail how these positions are broken down between Dispatch I and II classifications, as well as the number of supervisor positions that are needed. However, if RSD retained dispatch services, and as a result reducing total capital costs by $15,000,000, the JPA would cost approximately 5.3-6.5% less for each city, depending on the charge method applied. 5 Analysis of Comprehensive Agency Staffing Needs Having established the process for estimating the total cost of adding individual positions to the agency, the next critical step of the feasibility analysis is to determine the number and type of personnel needed to run the agency — and provide a high level of Matrix Consulting Group Page 125 Report on the Riverside County JPA Feasibility Study service equal to or better than that currently provided by the Riverside County Sheriff's Department. (1) The Importance of Creating a Complete Model If the feasibility analysis is to be completed accurately, a detailed model of the JPA agency must be built from the ground up at a highly detailed level, covering the position types and numbers needed of staff needed in each functional area of the agency. The results of this process can then be tied to the results of the salary survey in order to develop personnel cost estimates, and later provides the ability for an implementation and hiring plan to be developed. It is necessary for this process to be comprehensive, as there is no single metric that can be used to calculate staffing needs for an entire agency, as basic staffing ratios such as `sworn per 1,000' fail to take into account differential service needs between communities, as well as a number of other important considerations that drive personnel needs. As a result, the only way to accurately determine the cost of a potential JPA police force is to determine the number of staff that would be needed at each individual function. This can be done by first determining core service needs — including the call response and investigation workloads service area — and then building off of the requirements for supporting these functions. From there, needs for any `elective' staff (non- core/specialized resources) and services that are necessary to provide a high level of police service, such units that will provide community program and crime prevention capabilities, can then be determined. Matrix Consulting Group Page 126 Report on the Riverside County JPA Feasibility Study The following sections provide a basic overview of how the service needs and other factors may be used to project individual position staffing levels within each functional area for the JPA organization, as well as the process used in doing so. (2) Factors Used to Determine Staffing Needs The methodology used by the project team centers around five key factors that shape the staffing needs for an individual function or position, as outlined below: Key Scaling Factors for Individual Positions A Scales to service needs: The position's workload is directly related to the volume of calls for service, crime occurrences, or other specific and measurable workloads. Example: Patrol officer staffing needs are tied to service level objectives that are directly based on call for service workloads. B Directly relates to the staffing levels of other position(s): Influenced by the number of staff allocated to certain areas. Example: The number of records staff needed is significantly affected by the number of patrol officer positions that are staffed. C Span of control considerations: Determined by organizational considerations, such as supervisory spans of control, the impact of ancillary duties on workload. and responsibilities for managing functional areas. Example: Patrol sergeant staffing needs are based on maintaining an effective supervisory ratio to patrol officers. p Scales to size of division or organization: Smaller organizations have greater economy of scale, and allow for more specialized functions to be created. While a smaller department may assign mid -managers significant numbers of ancillary duties, larger departments are often better able to create dedicated positions for these roles. Example: A large agency would likely have a sergeant dedicated to managing and maintaining logs of completed training hours for sworn personnel. OE Matrix Consulting Group Page 127 Report on the Riverside County JPA Feasibility Study Does not scale: The staffing needs of a position are largely static, and do not scale significantly with organizational and/or community growth. Example: An agency only requires one chief executive. Of course, staffing needs for an individual position can be driven by a combination of any of these factors, or even by none at all. Nonetheless, the five categories provide the core framework by which it is possible to build relationships between staffing levels, service demands, and organizational effectiveness in order to accurately project future staffing needs. (3) Overview of Comprehensive Staffing Needs Staffing needs for each individual position have been estimated for the entire agency using this framework. For locally dedicated staff that are not part of patrol, staffing levels have been assigned based on the current levels that are contracted for with RSD. All projections are in line with the organizational structure depicted on page 57. The results of this analysis are displayed in the following pages, displaying the total position cost (salary, benefits, and all other non -equipment cost factors), describing its roles and responsibilities, the factors shaping its staffing needs, and the number of positions of that type required in both 2016 and 2021: Matrix Consulting Group Page 128 MEI 1M11 UN INN MN 111111 11111 IN111 111111 11111 MB Report on the Riverside County JPA Feasibility Study Area Results of the Comprehensive Staff Analysis Position TPC Role Description Projection Factors 2016 2021 Office of the Chief Chief of Police $250,290 Serves as the chief executive of the agency. Represents the agency to the public, and works closely with the Executive Board and Advisory Committee on matters relating to the governance of the agency. Does not scale: The position represents the chief executive of the JPA agency. Assistant Chief $229,300 Manages the internal operations of the Does not scale: JPA agency and works closely with the The position represents an executive Advisory Committee, reporting directly to role. the chief and supervising the three deputy chiefs. Executive Assistant Matrix Consulting Group $87,127 Serves as an administrative manager Directly relates to the number of and assistant to the agency's executive positions supported: personnel. A maximum of two executive -level personnel can be supported effectively by the position. Page 129 Report on the Riverside County JPA Feasibility Study Area Position TPC Role Description Projection Factors 2016 2021 Support Services Division Deputy Chief $219,675 Manages the three sections of the Does not scale: Support Services Division. Reports The position manages an area of the directly to the Assistant Chief and organization. functions as part of the executive management team. ADMINISTRATIVE SECTION Finance/ Fiscal Mgmt. Administrative $140,303 Works with the managers and Does not scale: Services supervisors of the Finance/Fiscal The position manages an area of the Manager Management Unit, Human Resources organization. Unit, Information Technology Unit, and Records Unit. Reports directly to the Deputy Chief over the Support Services Division. Finance/Fiscal $146,751 Manages the Finance/Fiscal Does not scale: Mgmt. Management Unit, coordinating business The position manages a specific Manager processes and supervising personnel. functional area. Functions as part of the agency management team. Matrix Consulting Group Page 130 M MINI I IIIIII N MI OM IIS IIIA M all E I M IIS MO NM r— E MMMM = N MN UM Report on the Riverside County JPA Feasibility Study Area Accounting Position Financial Analyst II TPC Role Description $106,203 Management $101,280 Analyst Financial Analyst Accounting Manager Accounting Clerk II Accounting Clerk I Matrix Consulting Group $100,500 Serves as the primary budgetary analyst for the agency, preparing for upcoming budget periods and monitoring current performance against adopted budgets. Organizes and coordinates cost allocation reports for member cities, working with the financial analyst position on budget forecasting. Interfaces with member cities, analyzes and prepares reports on contract service cost trends. Functions in a similar capacity to accounting clerks, although the role is more focused on budgetary work and cost forecasting. $116,077 Supervises accounting staff. $81,802 Processes and maintains financial records and documents. Works under less supervision than the Accounting Clerk I, and generally handles more advanced and/or complex duties. $69,151 Processes and maintains financial records and documents. Works under Projection Factors Scales to organization size: The position supports staff throughout the organization. 1.0 FTEs are allocated for every 600 FTEs in the organization. Scales to organization size: The position supports staff throughout the organization. 1.0 FTEs are allocated for every 600 FTEs in the organization. Scales to organization size: The position supports staff throughout the organization. 1.0 FTEs are allocated for every 600 FTEs in the organization. Span of control: Staffing needs are determined by the number of positions allocated to the unit, at a maximum of 1 supervisor for every 9 direct reports to this position. Scales to organization size: The position supports staff throughout the organization. 1.0 FTEs are allocated for every 600 FTEs in the organization. 2016 2021 Scales to organization size: The position supports staff throughout 2 2 Page 131 Report on the Riverside County JPA Feasibility Study Area Position Management Analyst Financial Analyst Grants Administrator Procurement Procurement Manager Procurement Specialist Matrix Consulting Group TPC Role Description more supervision than the Accounting Clerk II, and generally handles less advanced and/or complex duties. $101,280 $100,500 $80,716 Organizes and coordinates cost allocations for member cities, working with the financial analyst position on budget forecasting. Interfaces with member cities, analyzes and prepares reports on contract service cost trends. Functions in a similar capacity to accounting clerks, although the role is more focused on budgetary work and cost forecasting. Identifies and applies for grants, oversees the use of their funding, and completes grant reports as required. $120,450 Manages large procurement and contract projects and supervises other procurement staff, functioning in a lead role. $91,207 Completes agency purchases and prepares agency payables and receivables. Projection Factors the organization. 1.0 FTEs are allocated for every 400 FTEs in the organization. Scales to organization size: The position supports staff throughout the organization. 1.0 FTEs are allocated for every 600 FTEs in the organization. Scales to organization size: The position supports staff throughout the organization. 1.0 FTEs are allocated for every 600 FTEs in the organization. Scales to organization size: The position supports staff throughout the organization. 1.0 FTEs are allocated for every 800 FTEs in the organization. Does not scale: The position manages a specific functional area. Scales to organization size: The position supports staff throughout the organization. 1.0 FTEs are allocated for every 400 FTEs in the organization. 2016 2021 2 2 Page 132 N NM M = M NM I M M MN I MMMM MIll MO M NM 1 = I = NM I MI 1 MN M NM OM N MN M Report on the Riverside County JPA Feasibility Study Area Human Resources Position Purchasing Assistant HR Manager HR Analyst HR Assistant Information IT Manager Technology Networks/ Systems Senior Ntwk/ Sys Admin TPC Role Description $72,550 Assists with procurement and the coordination of agency payables and receivables. $152,174 Supervises human resources staff. $90,160 $67.385 Responsible for handling administrative duties relating to benefit plans. payroll, and civilian employee hiring and firing. Assists with the handling of administrative duties relating to benefit plans, payroll, and civilian employee hiring and firing. $147,283 Serves as the director of the Information Technology Unit, manages IT business processes, and functions as part of the agency's overall management team. $119,303 Responsible for managing the network/systems component of the Information Technology Unit, functioning in a lead role. Projection Factors Scales to organization size: The position supports staff throughout the organization. 1.0 FTEs are allocated for every 600 FTEs in the organization. Does not scale: The position manages a specific functional area. Scales to organization size: The position supports staff throughout the organization. 1.0 FTEs are allocated for every 250 FTEs in the organization. Scales to organization size: The position supports staff throughout the organization. 1.0 FTEs are allocated for every 350 FTEs in the organization. Does not scale: The position manages a specific functional area. Scales to organization size: The position supports staff throughout the organization, although increases to agency size do not contribute 2016 2021 3 3 2 2 Matrix Consulting Group Page 133 Report on the Riverside County JPA Feasibility Study Area Position Network/Sys Analyst Development Project Manager Programmer Support IT Specialist Matrix Consulting Group TPC Role Description $98,307 Responsible for managing the network/systems component of the Information Technology Unit. Two positions are primarily specialized to provide support to 911 communications. 5127.326 Manages information technology projects, particularly the implementation of new systems and software. 591.375 588.472 Developers information management systems. ensures the linkability of various systems and software. and works on information technology projects as assigned. Intermediate -to -advanced IT help and support to agency employees. Serves in an on-call rotation with Help Desk Assistant positions. Projection Factors significantly to its staffing needs. 1.0 FTEs are allocated for every 600 positions in the agency. 2016 2021 Scales to organization size/fixed level of 3 4 coverage: Two positions are added initially to primarily provide support for the 911 Communications Unit. Additionally. 1 .0 FTEs are allocated for every 300 positions in the agency beyond the first 350. Elective: Set based on priority for the need. A minimum of one position is needed for a new agency requiring a significant number of information technology projects to be completed in the relatively near future. Elective: Set based on identified priorities that require the position's roles and skillsets. Scales to organization size: The position supports staff throughout the organization. 1.0 FTEs are allocated for every 300 positions in the organization. 2 3 Page 134 MI OM I OM M MO M M I M OM I I M = NM 1 6111 EN EN NM OM En 1 M I 1 In M 11111 1 NE MN 1 Report on the Riverside County JPA Feasibility Study Area Position IT Support Assistant Records Unit Records Manager Records Supervisor Records Specialist II Records Specialist I TPC Role Description $76,380 $113,711 Entry-level role that provides basic IT help and support to agency employees. Serves in an on-call rotation with IT Specialist positions. Manages records business processes, hiring processes, and compiles records statistics for the agency. $85,761 Supervises a shift team of records specialist in a 'working lead' role. Completes performance evaluations of direct reports. Works 12 -hour shifts in a rotating schedule. $70,175 $70,190 Performs a wide range of records functions, although largely does not perform customer interface duties. The position also assists with the initial storage and retrieval video camera footage. Works as part of a shift team in a 12 -hour schedule. Performs a wide range of records and customer service functions, working as part of a shift team in a 12 -hour schedule. Projection Factors Scales to organization size: The position supports staff throughout the organization. 1.0 FTEs are allocated for every 200 positions in the organization. 2016 2021 3 3 Does not scale: The position manages a specific functional area. Scaled to a level of coverage: 1.0 FTE 5 5 for every shift team, as well as an additional FTE that functions in a relief capacity, as well as assisting with records custodian duties. Scales to size of the agency/level of 7 8 coverage: Day shift staffed at 1.6 FTE for every 300 positions, night shift staffed at 0.8 FTE for every 300 agency positions. The total is then rounded to the nearest whole number. Scales to size of the agency/level of 11 12 coverage: Day shift staffed at 1.6 FTE for every 200 positions, night shift staffed at 0.8 FTE for every 200 agency positions. Matrix Consulting Group Page 135 Report on the Riverside County JPA Feasibility Study Area Position SUPPORT SECTION 911 Comm. Captain 911 Comm. Director Dispatch Supervisor Dispatcher II Matrix Consulting Group TPC Role Description $207,525 Manages the 911 Communications Unit, Property and Evidence Unit, and the Fleet and Facilities Unit. $125,127 Manages the 911 Communications Unit and functions as part of the agency's management team. $97,400 Supervises Dispatcher I and II positions, working in a 12 -hour schedule configuration with four alternating shift teams. $85,271 Functions in a line -level role as a combined dispatcher and call taker, in a 12 -hour schedule configuration with four alternating shift teams. Projection Factors The total is then rounded to the nearest whole number. Does not scale: The position manages an area of the organization. Does not scale: The position manages a specific functional area. Span of control/coverage level: 1 position is allocated per shift team, with 911 Communications staff working on four 12 -hour shift teams, 1.0 FTE for every 9.0 FTEs that the position supervises (whichever result is higher). Scales to service needs: Dispatcher I and II positions are staffed to handle total workload hours for both call taking and radio roles. With 33,053 hours of workload projected for 2016 and 35,785 in 2021, each position represents the capability to handle 1,138 hours of workload. Annual I♦ 1 MI S I M 11111 111111 N 11111 OM NM 1 M 2016 2021 4 4 11 12 Page 136 - 1 MIll MO E E N E = M 11111 E OM MB 1111 MN MN M E Report on the Riverside County JPA Feasibility Study Area Position TPC Role Description Dispatcher I $80,355 Projection Factors Functions in a line -level role as a combined dispatcher and call taker, in a 12 -hour schedule configuration with four alternating shift teams. GIS Technician $91,904 Maintains 911 Communication's master addressing database, as well as all other GIS data used by the unit. Analyzes and extracts geographic -based data upon request, and may occasionally assist Crime Analysis and Information Technology on certain projects. turnover rate is assumed at 10%, and the final result is rounded up to a whole number. Approximately one-third of dispatchers are assigned the Dispatcher II classification. For a full outline of the process and assumptions used, see the previous section on 911 communications staffing. Scales to service needs: Staffed using the Dispatcher II methodology, with the difference that two-thirds of all dispatchers are assumed to fall under the Dispatcher I classification. For a full outline of the process and assumptions used, see the previous section on 911 communications staffing. Scales to service needs: The primary workload of the 911 Comm. GIS technician involves working with the master addressing database. As a result, staffing needs beyond the first position are heavily influenced by growth and new agencies joining the PSAP service. 2016 2021 21 23 Matrix Consulting Group Page 137 Report on the Riverside County JPA Feasibility Study Area Position Property and PE Supervisor Evidence PE Technician PE Specialist PE Specialist (Transport) Matrix Consulting Group TPC Role Description $88,853 Functions as a working supervisor for the unit. Works one of two 10 -hour shifts that work staggered days. $78,585 $66,106 $66,106 Maintains PE information management and barcoding systems. Is additionally responsible for managing the retention schedules, destruction, and auctioning of property according to agency policies and applicable legal requirements. Works one of two 10 -hour shifts that work staggered days. Stores, maintains, and retrieves evidence and property in the agency's custody, properly maintaining records within information management systems. Works one of two 10 -hour shifts that work staggered days. Collects property and evidence from lockers located in each substation to the main facility. The position is also responsible for processing the storage and maintenance of items, and works one of two 10 -hour shifts that work staggered days. Projection Factors Level of coverage: 1.0 FTE is allocated for each shift team, resulting in a total of 2 positions. Level of coverage: 1 position is allocated per region. Fixed level of coverage/scales to organization size: 1.0 FTEs are allocated per region, as well as 1 additional position for every 200 patrol officers beyond the first 200 positions. Level of coverage: 1.0 FTEs are allocated for each shift team, resulting in a total of 2 positions. 2016 2021 2 2 3 3 3 3 2 2 Page 138 1111 I 11111 MN MI I I I MN I 11111 NM I NS M S NM ell In OM e I M M I♦ M OM OM N M N IIIIIII E 1 MI I E Report on the Riverside County JPA Feasibility Study Area Position TPC Role Description Projection Factors 2016 2021 Fleet and Fleet Manager $115,205 Manages fleet operations, coordinates Does not scale: Facilities with the Finance/Fiscal Unit as needed, The position manages a specific and supervises unit personnel. functional area. Fleet Services $97,313 Supervises fleet technicians and Supervisor assistants. Span of control: 1.0 FTE for every 6.0 FTEs that the position supervises. 2 2 Fleet $84,385 Maintains city vehicles, identifying and Directly relates to other areas of the 5 5 Technician completing repairs as needed. organization: Staffed at a ratio of 1.0 FTEs for every 41 patrol vehicles. Allocating fleet mechanics at this level is at the upper end of industry standards, and was made based on the anticipated age of the JPA agency's fleet. Overtime, additional mechanics should be staffed in relation to the number of patrol vehicles. Fleet Services $68,371 Manages inventory, transports vehicles Directly supports other staff: 2 2 Assistant for repair, and assists with other fleet 1 position for every 3 Fleet Technicians. coordination tasks. Custodian Matrix Consulting Group $60,392 Maintains agency facilities. Reports Level of coverage: 3 3 directly to the fleet manager. Each 1.0 FTE for every region. custodian is responsible for a region, with the Coachella/East Region custodian assisting with the substations in the other two regions. Page 139 Report on the Riverside County JPA Feasibility Study Area Position 1 STANDARDS SECTION Captain Training Unit Lieutenant Sergeant (In - Service Training) Sergeant (Specialized Training) Rangemaster Matrix Consulting Group TPC Role Description $207,525 $181,600 $171,265 $171,265 $84,137 Manages the Training Unit, Professional Standards, Public Information, Recruitment and Hiring, and Crime Analysis. Responsible for supervising the training unit and managing the sworn training budget, as well as identifying and prioritizing material for in-service training. Manages and schedules regular in- service training for sworn agency personnel; monitors the completion of minimum training time to fulfill state mandates. Coordinates and schedules training for specialized roles, including the all facilities and equipment that are needed. Assists with the firearms training of sworn personnel, maintains firearms range grounds, assists with training schedule coordination and firearms range supply orders. Projection Factors Does not scale: The position manages an area of the organization. Does not scale: The position manages a specific functional area. Does not scale: The position fills a unique role. Does not scale: The position fills a unique role. Scales to organization size (sworn only): The position supports sworn personnel throughout the agency. 1.0 FTEs are allocated for every 500 sworn positions in the organization. 2016 2021 1 2 Page 140 ME In IIIIII IIIIII 11111 M M M M E 111111 M M MO IMIN M MO MI M IIIIII all r 1 ■ter = N r M 1. 1 M M Report on the Riverside County JPA Feasibility Study Area Position Professional Lieutenant Standards Unit Sergeant (Standards) Sergeant (Internal Affairs) Officer (Internal Affairs) Matrix Consulting Group TPC Role Description $181,600 $171,265 $171.265 S126,264 Manages the Professional Standards Unit, reviews its business processes, and completes revisions to agency policies and procedures. Reports directly to the agency executive. Reviews collisions, high-level use of force incidents, and other issues dealing with policy and procedure violations that have been escalated to this level. Supervises officers assigned to the Internal Affairs sub -section. Reviews high-level citizen complaints and corresponds as needed with non- anonymous complainants. Coordinates with standards sub -section of the unit as needed. Reviews citizen complaints and corresponds as needed with non- anonymous complainants. Projection Factors Does not scale: The position manages a specific functional area. Scales to organization size (sworn only): The position supports sworn personnel throughout the agency. 1.0 FTEs are allocated for every 200 sworn positions in the organization. Span of control: 1.0 FTE for every 5 positions that the position supervises. Scales to organization size (sworn only): The position supports sworn personnel throughout the agency. 1.0 FTEs are allocated for every 200 sworn positions in the organization. 2016 2021 3 3 3 3 Page 141 Report on the Riverside County JPA Feasibility Study Area Public Information Position TPC Role Description Projection Factors 2016 2021 Management $101,280 Manages and analyzes data on IA Elective: Analyst information management systems, Set based on need or priority, although including early warning programs. typically only position will be needed to fulfill the position's roles Public Information Officer $128,832 Interfaces with the media, provides updates on social media, and coordinates with department management on responses to ongoing events and issues relating to the public. Does not scale: The position performs a unique role in the agency. Public $86,464 Serves as a liaison between community Elective: Information members and the department, conducts Staffing can be set depending on the Specialist proactive messaging of department priority of community liaison functions. activities and outreach work, manages the social media presence of the agency. Crime Supervising $98,776 Manages business processes of crime Span of control: Analysis Crime Analyst analysts, approves training requests, 1 for every 6 FTEs that the position functions as a liaison to different areas of supervises. Minimum of 1. the department, and works on crime analysis projects in a lead role. Programmer $91,375 Develops crime analysis capabilities and Elective: Analyst supports crime analysts as needed. May Staffing can be set depending on occasionally work on projects as needed project needs and agency priorities. with the programmer in the Information Technology Unit. Matrix Consulting Group Page 142 M 11111 111111 NM M EN 11111 MO 1111 - 11111 M MO 111111 111111 1 11111 OM 1 rr - M- ■i■ -- E w M- MI I I M OM M Report on the Riverside County JPA Feasibility Study Area Position TPC Role Description Crime Analyst $88,724 Recruitment Sergeant and Hiring Provides regular statistical analysis and support to various areas of the department, particularly regional and local services that interface with the field. $171,265 Manages and coordinates the hiring process for new sworn recruits. Officer $126,264 Assists with coordinating the hiring process for new sworn recruits, conducts background checks. communicates with potential lateral recruits, and represents the agency at various recruitment events. Administrative $74,123 Assistant Matrix Consulting Group Processes new hire paperwork for sworn recruits, administratively supports unit personnel. and distributes materials as needed electronically and through mail to new and potential recruits. Projection Factors Scales to size of patrol: Whichever is higher — 1 position for every 100 patrol officers, or 1 per region. Does not scale: The position manages a specific functional area. Scales to size of patrol: 1.0 FTEs are allocated for every 150 patrol officers, rounded either up or down to the nearest whole number. Directly relates to the number of positions supported: 1.0 FTEs are allocated for every 5 positions in the Recruitment and Hiring Unit that the provides support to. A minimum of one position must be staffed. 2016 2021 3 3 2 2 Page 143 Report on the Riverside County JPA Feasibility Study Area Position TPC Role Description Regional Services Division Deputy Chief $219,675 Manages the three sections of the Support Services Division. Reports directly to the Assistant Chief and functions as part of the executive management team. I SHARED RESOURCES SECTION IK9 Unit Captain Officer (North) Officer (South) Matrix Consulting Group $207,525 Manages the K9 Unit, Traffic Unit, and Crime Scene Unit. $126,264 $126,264 Responds to calls that require a K9 response, and is also responsible for dog handling and training. Reports directly to the on -duty watch commander. Responds to calls that require a K9 response, and is also responsible for dog handling and training. Reports directly to the on -duty watch commander. Projection Factors Does not scale: The position manages an area of the organization. Does not scale: The position manages an area of the organization. Level of coverage: Two per region, working opposite 12 - hour shifts. Level of coverage: Two per region, working opposite 12 - hour shifts. One additional position working in relief on a flexible work schedule. 2016 2021 2 2 2 2 Page 144 E E I MN S ■E M— — NM r 11111 NS N On— M w— 0111 M N- M- I I MN N--- S MN IN 1111 Report on the Riverside County JPA Feasibility Study Area Position TPC Role Description Officer (East) S126,264 Responds to calls that require a K9 response, and is also responsible for dog handling and training. Reports directly to the on -duty watch commander. Traffic Unit Lieutenant Sergeant (North) $181,600 Manages specialized traffic functions throughout the JPA agency, reviewing operational plans, managing the unit's overtime budget, and developing priorities in coordination with the Crime Analysis Unit. $171,265 Supervises the motor officers assigned to North Region traffic functions. Officer (North) $126,264 Conducts proactive, targeted enforcement of traffic, as well as fatal accident investigations and responses to injury accidents. Available to respond to emergency patrol incidents as needed in a backup capacity. Sergeant (South) Matrix Consulting Group Projection Factors Level of coverage: Two per region. working opposite 12 - hour shifts. Does not scale: The position manages a specific functional area. Span of control: 1.0 FTE for every 9.0 FTEs that the position supervises. Elective: Scales to both service needs and the level of priority of traffic enforcement in the city. Set approximately at current levels for 2016. with 2021 increases scaled to population growth over that time period. $171,265 Supervises the motor officers assigned to South Region traffic functions. Span of control: 1.0 FTE for every 5.0 FTEs that the position supervises. 2016 2021 2 2 3 3 24 25 3 3 Page 145 Report on the Riverside County JPA Feasibility Study Area Position Crime Scene Unit Officer (South) Crime Scene Lead/ Supervisor Crime Scene Technician (North) Matrix Consulting Group TPC Role Description $126,264 $86,160 $80,140 Conducts proactive, targeted enforcement of traffic, as well as fatal accident investigations and responses to injury accidents. Available to respond to emergency patrol incidents as needed in a backup capacity. Supervises the crime scene unit, approving and providing training, as well as functioning in the field as a working lead. Has all of the training and capabilities of a Crime Scene Technician position. Collects evidence, photographs crime scenes, and performs basic lab duties such as latent fingerprint examinations. Primarily assigned to a particular region, but may respond to other areas as needed when concurrent callouts occur. Works a four -team, 12 -hour shift schedule for complete coverage. Projection Factors 2016 2021 Elective: 24 27 Scales to both service needs and the level of priority of traffic enforcement in the city. Set approximately at current levels for 2016, with 2021 increases scaled to population growth over that time period. Level of coverage: Base staffing level for all crime scene positions combined of 1 position per Crime Scene Unit shift team, totaling 4 in North Region, 4 in South Region, and 2 in East Region. 1 additional FTE per 150 patrol officers. The lead/supervisor position's total compensation is not significantly higher than that of the technician role, enabling for it to be feasible to staff each shift with a supervisor. Level of coverage: Base staffing level for all crime scene positions combined of 1 position per Crime Scene Unit shift team, totaling 4 in North Region, 4 in South Region, and 2 in East Region. 1 additional FTE per 150 patrol officers. 10 10 5 5 Page 146 IIIII MI I M M I I M I M M E N EN N N NM M M NM MO MI 1 1 an MI 11111 1 I = r NS Report on the Riverside County JPA Feasibility Study Area Position TPC Role Description Crime Scene Technician (South) Crime Scene Technician (East) 1 INVESTIGATIONS SECTION Captain Major Crimes Lieutenant (North) Matrix Consulting Group $80,140 $80,140 Collects evidence, photographs crime scenes, and performs basic lab duties such as latent fingerprint examinations. Primarily assigned to a particular region, but may respond to other areas as needed when concurrent callouts occur. Works a four -team, 12 -hour shift schedule for complete coverage. Collects evidence, photographs crime scenes, and performs basic lab duties such as latent fingerprint examinations. Primarily assigned to a particular region, but may respond to other areas as needed when concurrent callouts occur. Works a four -team, 12 -hour shift schedule for complete coverage. $207,525 Manages the Major Crimes units (North, South, and East), Homicide Unit, Sex Crimes Unit, and Gang Task Force Unit. $181,600 Manages Major Crimes (North), as well as the Gang Task Force. Projection Factors Level of coverage: Base staffing level for all crime scene positions combined of 1 position per Crime Scene Unit shift team, totaling 4 in North Region, 4 in South Region, and 2 in East Region. 1 additional FTE per 150 patrol officers. Level of coverage: Base staffing level for all crime scene positions combined of 1 position per Crime Scene Unit shift team, totaling 4 in North Region, 4 in South Region, and 2 in East Region. 1 additional FTE per 150 patrol officers. Does not scale: The position functions in an executive role. Does not scale: The position manages a specific functional area. 2016 2021 5 5 2 2 Page 147 Report on the Riverside County JPA Feasibility Study Area Position Sergeant Detective CSO (Investigative Assistant) Matrix Consulting Group TPC Role Description $171,265 $140,846 $83,282 Assigned to either supervise primarily either persons or property crime investigators. Assigns cases to detectives following a screening process, reviews reports, and manages the caseloads of assigned detectives. Regular meetings are held with direct reports to review progress and activity on open cases. Core detectives are primarily assigned to either persons or property crimes cases, although some may function more as generalists depending on variations in caseloads. Civilian position dedicated to providing support for detectives on property crimes cases. Much of the position's work involves following up with victims on low Projection Factors Span of control: Given that the position has a moderate - to -high degree of supervisory responsibilities relative to the number direct reports, spans of control remain under 1:9. 2016 2021 3 4 As detailed in the core investigative 27 28 staffing analysis, detective staffing needs have been determined by estimating the number of workable cases the JPA will handle, based on comparative ratios to Part !crime incidents per investigator. Detectives were then allocated by region based on projected crime levels, and after selecting a portion of the total number of detectives to form the two specialized investigative units. Elective/scales to service needs: Can be electively staffed to fulfill a non - sworn role in minor cases, as well as to follow up with victims on cases with low solvability. Page 148 En IN IIMI NM M M EN 11111 E MI 11111 EN In MN 11111 E MS MEI MI E- MI I NM V 1 E ii■i• - MB I NM MI- a- NB r Report on the Riverside County JPA Feasibility Study Area Position Major Crimes Lieutenant (South) Sergeant Detective TPC Role Description $181,600 $171,265 Manages Major Crimes (South), as well as the Homicide Unit and Sex Crimes Unit. The position is assigned additional administrative duties in comparison with the Major Crimes (North) lieutenant as a result of the smaller size of the southern unit. Assigned to either supervise primarily either persons or property crime investigators. Assigns cases to detectives following a screening process, reviews reports, and manages the caseloads of assigned detectives. Regular meetings are held with direct reports to review progress and activity on open cases. $140,846 Core detectives are primarily assigned to either persons or property crimes cases, although some may function more as generalists depending on variations in caseloads. Projection Factors Does not scale: The position manages a specific functional area. Span of control: Given that the position has a moderate - to -high degree of supervisory responsibilities relative to the number direct reports, spans of control remain under 1:9. As detailed in the core investigative staffing analysis, detective staffing needs have been determined by estimating the number of workable cases the JPA will handle, based on comparative ratios to Part I crime incidents per investigator. Detectives were then allocated by region based on projected crime levels, and after selecting a portion of the total number of detectives to form the two specialized investigative units. 2016 2021 2 2 14 15 Matrix Consulting Group Page 149 Report on the Riverside County JPA Feasibility Study Area Position CSO (Investigative Assistant) Major Crimes Sergeant (East) Detective Matrix Consulting Group TPC Role Description $83,282 $171,265 $140,846 Civilian position dedicated to providing support for detectives on property crimes cases. Much of the position's work involves following up with victims on low Functions as the manager and supervisor of the Major Crimes (East) Unit. Assigns cases to detectives following a screening process, reviews reports, and manages caseloads assigned to detectives. Regular meetings are held with direct reports to review progress and activity on open cases. Core detectives are primarily assigned to either persons or property crimes cases, although some may function more as generalists depending on variations in caseloads. Projection Factors Elective/scales to service needs: Can be electively staffed to fulfill a non - sworn role in minor cases, as well as to follow up with victims on cases with low solvability. Span of control: Given that the position has a moderate - to -high degree of supervisory responsibilities relative to the number direct reports, spans of control remain under 1:9. As detailed in the core investigative staffing analysis, detective staffing needs have been determined by estimating the number of workable cases the JPA will handle, based on comparative ratios to Part I crime incidents per investigator. Detectives were then allocated by region based on projected crime levels, and after selecting a portion of the total number of detectives to form the two specialized investigative units. 2016 2021 3 3 Page 150 Nil IN NM an I IS N MN I I 11111 1 N NM 11111 NB INN all En I I r N-- M I M s E MN M I- MO M I OM Report on the Riverside County JPA Feasibility Study Area Homicide Unit Position Lieutenant Detective TPC Role Description $181,600 $140,846 Sex Crimes Lieutenant Unit Detective Matrix Consulting Group $181,600 Shared supervisory with the Homicide Unit. Reviews detective caseloads, reviews work products such as reports, and coordinates detectives on major cases. Works as part of a team or individually on aggravated assaults, attempted homicides, and completed homicides. Shared supervisory with the Homicide Unit. Reviews detective caseloads, reviews work products such as reports. and coordinates detectives on major cases. $140,846 Works primarily individually on cases relating to sexual assaults, domestic/family violence, predatory offenders, and other related areas. Projection Factors Span of control: Given that the position has a high degree of supervisory responsibilities relative to the number direct reports, span of control ratios should be kept under 1:9 (including reports in the Sex Crimes Unit). Scales to service needs: Staffed based on the ability to fill an active caseload comprised of cases within the detective's specialized area. Span of control: Given that the position has a high degree of supervisory responsibilities relative to the number direct reports, span of control ratios should be kept under 1:9 (including reports in the Homicide Unit). Scales to service needs: Staffed based on the ability to fill an active caseload comprised of cases within the detective's specialized area. 2016 2021 0.5 0.5 4 4 0.5 0.5 5 5 Page 151 Report on the Riverside County JPA Feasibility Study Area VO/G Task Force Position Sergeant Detective Officer Matrix Consulting Group TPC Role Description $171,265 $140,846 $126,264 Supervises all personnel assigned to the Violent Offenders/Gang Task Force, which operates across the jurisdiction on issues relating to gang violence, violent offender apprehension, and investigative support to other areas of the agency on related issues. Currently, the highest level of funding is provided by cities within the North Region, with about half being divided between cities in the South and East regions. Detective -level position operating across the jurisdiction on issues relating to gang violence, violent offender apprehension, and investigative support to other areas of the agency on related issues. Supports investigators and active cases, functioning primarily in the field. May work in uniform or in plain clothes, conducting activities such as surveillance, AB109 compliance checks, intelligence development, warrant checks, and targeted enforcement. Projection Factors Span of control: Given that the position has a high degree of supervisory responsibilities relative to the number direct reports, span of control ratios should be kept at a maximum of 1:6. Elective: Cities contribute a specific level to the task force, which is then allocated into funding positions and other operating costs of the unit. Staffing levels have been based approximately on current funding for task force and specialized investigation positions, as specified in local RSD contracts. Elective: Cities contribute a specific level to the task force, which is then allocated into funding positions and other operating costs of the unit. Staffing levels have been based approximately on current funding for task force and specialized investigation positions, as specified in local RSD contracts. 2016 2021 2 2 4 4 Page 152 N I I N E I M UN 11111 MI 1111 MN MO Se MO = IIIN 11111 = r■� r E N I- = 1- N M w 1 E E MI MB Report on the Riverside County JPA Feasibility Study Area Position TPC Role Description Projection Factors 2016 2021 Local Services Division Deputy Chief IWATCH COMMAND SECTION $219,675 Manages all locally provided (non- Does not scale: regionalized) services, which includes The position manages an area of the patrol and community programming organization. functions. Reports directly to the Assistant Chief and functions as part of the executive management team. Lieutenant $181,600 Coordinates the use and deployment of One for each patrol shift team. In the 5 5 (North) local, regional, and centralized resources absence of a lieutenant, a sergeant will in real time. Also responds on -scene to act in the role. major incidents across the service area, such as homicides. Lieutenant $181,600 Coordinates the use and deployment of One for each patrol shift team. In the 4 4 (South) local, regional, and centralized resources absence of a lieutenant, a sergeant will in real time. Also responds on -scene to act in the role. major incidents across the service area, such as homicides. Lieutenant $181,600 Provided as a rotating sergeant duty in N/A 0 0 (East) the East Region. Matrix Consulting Group Page 153 Report on the Riverside County JPA Feasibility Study Area Position TPC Role Description MORENO VALLEY POLICE SERVICES (North Region) Patrol Operations Captain Administrative Assistant Sergeant Officer (Patrol) Matrix Consulting Group $207,525 Functions as the 'local police chief' of the city, externally representing the JPA model to the public. The position is also responsible for communicating with city officials to identify service priorities, station administrative duties and coordination with regional watch command. $74,123 Supports the captain and other local staff. $171,265 $126,264 Supervises both patrol officers and patrol CSOs. Reports directly to watch commanders on a daily operational basis, though they are also commanded by the local captain positions. Responds to and handles calls for service, completes reports, and performs targeted enforcement, as well as other proactive activities. Works alternating 12 - hour shifts. Projection Factors Does not scale: The position functions in an executive role. Does not scale: Does not scale, as the position is staffed at a 1:1 ratio with division/section executive. Span of control: 1 position for every 8 positions, with patrol officers counted at 1.00x and CSOs counted at 0.67x. Scales to service needs: The position is staffed to achieve a proactivity level of 40% overall — the percentage of time officers have after total workload hours (excluding those handled by CSOs) have been factored 2016 2021 12 12 85 85 Page 154 INN I MI MN I I M--- I M M— I— MO In 11111. E OM W 1 M M I OM M M M / I = M MI Report on the Riverside County JPA Feasibility Study Area Position TPC Role Description CSO (Patrol) $83.282 Community Sergeant Services Officer (Proactive Team) Matrix Consulting Group 5171,265 $126.264 Responds to and handles certain types of low -priority calls for service that do not require a sworn officer, including non- injury accidents. noise complaints, and basic nuisance complaints. As a result, they are able to divert workload that would have otherwise been handled by patrol officers. increasing their ability to be proactive in the field. CSOs are also able to function proactively. such as conducting enforcement of parking and vehicle abatement ordinances. Supervises any SROs. proactive policing officers, crime prevention CSOs, and community program CSOs that the city elects to staff. If more than one supervisor is needed, these functions are divided between them. Interfaces with the community and conducts problem -oriented policing, including nuisance abatement. Projection Factors out of the total number of net available hours. 2016 2021 Scales to service needs/Directly relates 20 20 to other staffing levels: Although the number of CSOs is dependent on targets for reducing sworn patrol workloads and the number of positions needed to do so, levels have been set based on achieving a balance of about 1:5 patrol CSOs per patrol officer (at a level of 40 proactivity overall). Span of control: 1 FTE is allocated for every 9 direct reports to the position. Elective: Based on the priority and availability of funding for the city. Staffing has been set based on the current levels that cities currently contract for. 4 4 Page 155 Report on the Riverside County JPA Feasibility Study Area Position Officer (SRO) CSO (Crime Prevention) CSO (Community Programs) Matrix Consulting Group TPC Role Description $0 Serves as a school resource officer at an assigned location, providing both the educational and response components of the service. It is assumed that 100% of each position's funding is paid for by their school districts. $83,282 Activities may include CPTED assessments, organizing and providing crime free multi -housing programs, and production of crime prevention materials, among others. Roles may vary significantly based on staffing levels and the priorities of each individual city in which they are assigned. $83,282 Communicates with local community groups, such as neighborhood watch associations. Additionally, the position may organize and provide educational programs, crime prevention seminars, and other community events. Activities may vary significantly based on staffing levels and the priorities of each individual city in which they are assigned. Projection Factors Elective: Staffing is set the current number of positions contracted for by the cities in the study group. Elective: Based on the priority and availability of funding for the city. Staffing has been set based on the current levels that cities currently contract for. Elective: Based on the priority and availability of funding for the city. Staffing has been set based on the current levels that cities currently contract for. 2016 2021 4 4 0 0 Page 156 Nr ON I M EN- N r N EN EN M 1111 MB r- 11111 i• NM O M E E O - - - M OM N - - - - - 1 w - Report on the Riverside County JPA Feasibility Study Area Position TPC Role Description I JURUPA VALLEY POLICE SERVICES (North Region) Captain $207,525 Functions as the 'local police chief' of the city, externally representing the JPA model to the public. The position is also responsible for communicating with city officials to identify service priorities. station administrative duties and coordination with regional watch command. Administrative $74,123 Supports the captain and other local Assistant staff. Patrol Sergeant Operations $171,265 Supervises both patrol officers and patrol CSOs. Reports directly to watch commanders on a daily operational basis, though they are also commanded by the local captain positions. Projection Factors Does not scale: The position functions in an executive role. Does not scale: The position is staffed at a 1:1 ratio with division/section executive. Span of control: 1 position for every 8 positions, with patrol officers counted at 1.00x and CSOs counted at 0.67x. Officer (Patrol) $126,264 Responds to and handles calls for service, completes reports, and performs targeted enforcement, as well as other proactive activities. Works alternating 12 - hour shifts. Matrix Consulting Group Scales to service needs: The position is staffed to achieve a proactivity level of 40% overall — the percentage of time officers have after total workload hours (excluding those handled by CSOs) have been factored out of the total number of net available hours. 2016 2021 5 5 32 34 Page 157 Report on the Riverside County JPA Feasibility Study Area Position CSO (Patrol) Community Sergeant Services Officer (Proactive Team) Matrix Consulting Group TPC Role Description $83,282 $171,265 $126,264 Responds to and handles certain types of low -priority calls for service that do not require a sworn officer, including non- injury accidents, noise complaints, and basic nuisance complaints. As a result, they are able to divert workload that would have otherwise been handled by patrol officers, increasing their ability to be proactive in the field. CSOs are also able to function proactively, such as conducting enforcement of parking and vehicle abatement ordinances. Supervises any SROs, proactive policing officers, crime prevention CSOs, and community program CSOs that the city elects to staff. If more than one supervisor is needed, these functions are divided between them. Interfaces with the community and conducts problem -oriented policing, including nuisance abatement. Projection Factors 2016 2021 Scales to service needs/Directly relates 7 7 to other staffing levels: Although the number of CSOs is dependent on targets for reducing sworn patrol workloads and the number of positions needed to do so, levels have been set based on achieving a balance of about 1:5 patrol CSOs per patrol officer (at a level of 40% proactivity overall). Span of control: 1 FTE is allocated for every 9 direct reports to the position. Elective: Based on the priority and availability of funding for the city. Staffing has been set based on the current levels that cities currently contract for. 6 6 Page 158 1 11111 N N 1111 11111 11111 11111 MB MI 11111 11111 11111 11111 IIIIIII MI NM NM NM MN = N INII MI !' I I MB OM N INI = M Report on the Riverside County JPA Feasibility Study Area Position Officer (SRO) CSO (Crime Prevention) CSO (Community Programs) Matrix Consulting Group TPC Role Description $0 Serves as a school resource officer at an assigned location, providing both the educational and response components of the service. It is assumed that 100% of each position's funding is paid for by their school districts. $83,282 $83,282 Activities may include CPTED assessments, organizing and providing crime free multi -housing programs, and production of crime prevention materials, among others. Roles may vary significantly based on staffing levels and the priorities of each individual city in which they are assigned. Communicates with local community groups, such as neighborhood watch associations. Additionally, the position may organize and provide educational programs, crime prevention seminars, and other community events. Activities may vary significantly based on staffing levels and the priorities of each individual city in which they are assigned. Projection Factors Elective: Staffing is set the current number of positions contracted for by the cities in the study group. Elective: Based on the priority and availability of funding for the city. Staffing has been set based on the current levels that cities currently contract for. Elective: Based on the priority and availability of funding for the city. Staffing has been set based on the current levels that cities currently contract for. 2016 2021 0 0 0 0 0 0 Page 159 Report on the Riverside County JPA Feasibility Study Area Position TPC Role Description SAN JACINTO POLICE SERVICES (North Region) Patrol Operations Captain Administrative Assistant Sergeant Officer (Patrol) Matrix Consulting Group $207,525 Functions as the 'local police chief' of the city, externally representing the JPA model to the public. The position is also responsible for communicating with city officials to identify service priorities, station administrative duties and coordination with regional watch command. $74,123 Supports the captain and other local staff. $171,265 $126,264 Supervises both patrol officers and patrol CSOs. Reports directly to watch commanders on a daily operational basis, though they are also commanded by the local captain positions. Responds to and handles calls for service, completes reports, and performs targeted enforcement, as well as other proactive activities. Works alternating 12 - hour shifts. Projection Factors Does not scale: The position functions in an executive role. Does not scale: Does not scale, as the position is staffed at a 1:1 ratio with division/section executive. Span of control: 1 position for every 8 positions, with patrol officers counted at 1.00x and CSOs counted at 0.67x. Scales to service needs: The position is staffed to achieve a proactivity level of 40% overall — the percentage of time officers have after total workload hours (excluding those handled by CSOs) have been factored 2016 2021 4 4 24 27 Page 160 NS NM —— MI -- In M 111111— O1111 In 1 it I— - r 11111 1 MN / 1 - - MI - w i» ii■ EN - N MI - - 1 Report on the Riverside County JPA Feasibility Study Area Position TPC Role Description CSO (Patrol) $83,282 Community Sergeant Services Officer (Proactive Team) $171,265 $126,264 Responds to and handles certain types of low -priority calls for service that do not require a sworn officer, including non- injury accidents. noise complaints, and basic nuisance complaints. As a result, they are able to divert workload that would have otherwise been handled by patrol officers. increasing their ability to be proactive in the field. CSOs are also able to function proactively. such as conducting enforcement of parking and vehicle abatement ordinances. Supervises any SROs, proactive policing officers, crime prevention CSOs, and community program CSOs that the city elects to staff. If more than one supervisor is needed, these functions are divided between them. Interfaces with the community and conducts problem -oriented policing, including nuisance abatement. Projection Factors out of the total number of net available hours. 2016 2021 Scales to service needs/Directly relates 5 5 to other staffing levels: Although the number of CSOs is dependent on targets for reducing sworn patrol workloads and the number of positions needed to do so, levels have been set based on achieving a balance of about 1:5 patrol CSOs per patrol officer (at a level of 40% proactivity overall). Span of control: 1 FTE is allocated for every 9 direct reports to the position. Elective: Based on the priority and availability of funding for the city. Staffing has been set based on the current levels that cities currently contract for. 0 0 Matrix Consulting Group Page 161 Report on the Riverside County JPA Feasibility Study Area Position Officer (SRO) CSO (Crime Prevention) CSO (Community Programs) Matrix Consulting Group TPC Role Description $0 Serves as a school resource officer at an assigned location, providing both the educational and response components of the service. It is assumed that 100% of each position's funding is paid for by their school districts. $83,282 S83,282 Activities may include CPTED assessments, organizing and providing crime free multi -housing programs, and production of crime prevention materials, among others. Roles may vary significantly based on staffing levels and the priorities of each individual city in which they are assigned. Communicates with local community groups, such as neighborhood watch associations. Additionally, the position may organize and provide educational programs, crime prevention seminars, and other community events. Activities may vary significantly based on staffing levels and the priorities of each individual city in which they are assigned. Projection Factors Elective: Staffing is set the current number of positions contracted for by the cities in the study group. Elective: Based on the priority and availability of funding for the city. Staffing has been set based on the current levels that cities currently contract for. Elective: Based on the priority and availability of funding for the city. Staffing has been set based on the current levels that cities currently contract for. 2016 2021 0 0 0 0 0 0 Page 162 M= r I= UM I NM E r- I NM r MIN I ME -= NMI — — — M w MI M II 1 M — — — — SII Report on the Riverside County JPA Feasibility Study Area Position TPC Role Description I PERRIS POLICE SERVICES (North Region) Patrol Operations Captain $207,525 Functions as the 'local police chief' of the city, externally representing the JPA model to the public. The position is also responsible for communicating with city officials to identify service priorities, station administrative duties and coordination with regional watch command. Administrative $74,123 Supports the captain and other local Assistant staff. Sergeant $171,265 Projection Factors Does not scale: The position functions in an executive role. Does not scale: Does not scale, as the position is staffed at a 1:1 ratio with division/section executive. Supervises both patrol officers and patrol CSOs. Reports directly to watch commanders on a daily operational basis, though they are also commanded by the local captain positions. Officer (Patrol) $126,264 Responds to and handles calls for service, completes reports, and performs targeted enforcement, as well as other proactive activities. Works alternating 12 - hour shifts. Matrix Consulting Group Span of control: 1 position for every 8 positions, with patrol officers counted at 1.00x and CSOs counted at 0.67x. Scales to service needs: The position is staffed to achieve a proactivity level of 40% overall — the percentage of time officers have after total workload hours (excluding those handled by CSOs) have been factored 2016 2021 4 5 29 31 Page 163 Report on the Riverside County JPA Feasibility Study Area Position CSO (Patrol) t! Community Sergeant it Services Officer (Proactive Team) Matrix Consulting Group TPC Role Description $83,282 $171,265 $126,264 Responds to and handles certain types of low -priority calls for service that do not require a sworn officer, including non- injury accidents, noise complaints, and basic nuisance complaints. As a result, they are able to divert workload that would have otherwise been handled by patrol officers, increasing their ability to be proactive in the field. CSOs are also able to function proactively, such as conducting enforcement of parking and vehicle abatement ordinances. Supervises any SROs, proactive policing officers, crime prevention CSOs, and community program CSOs that the city elects to staff. If more than one supervisor is needed, these functions are divided between them. Interfaces with the community and conducts problem -oriented policing, including nuisance abatement. Projection Factors out of the total number of net available hours. 2016 2021 Scales to service needs/Directly relates 5 6 to other staffing levels: Although the number of CSOs is dependent on targets for reducing sworn patrol workloads and the number of positions needed to do so, levels have been set based on achieving a balance of about 1:5 patrol CSOs per patrol officer (at a level of 40% proactivity overall). Span of control: 1 FTE is allocated for every 9 direct reports to the position. Elective: Based on the priority and availability of funding for the city. Staffing has been set based on the current levels that cities currently contract for. 6 6 Page 164 M - I I IN I NU - - ■■i - - - - r - - i. ■ N N MN= ■■I MB- I EN M NM w- E M MN MS I NE Report on the Riverside County JPA Feasibility Study Area Position Officer (SRO) CSO (Crime Prevention) CSO (Community Programs) Matrix Consulting Group TPC Role Description SO Serves as a school resource officer at an assigned location. providing both the educational and response components of the service. It is assumed that 100% of each position's funding is paid for by their school districts. $83,282 Activities may include CPTED assessments, organizing and providing crime free multi -housing programs, and production of crime prevention materials, among others. Roles may vary significantly based on staffing levels and the priorities of each individual city in which they are assigned. $83,282 Communicates with local community groups, such as neighborhood watch associations. Additionally, the position may organize and provide educational programs. crime prevention seminars, and other community events. Activities may vary significantly based on staffing levels and the priorities of each individual city in which they are assigned. Projection Factors Elective: Staffing is set the current number of positions contracted for by the cities in the study group. Elective: Based on the priority and availability of funding for the city. Staffing has been set based on the current levels that cities currently contract for. Elective: Based on the priority and availability of funding for the city. Staffing has been set based on the current levels that cities currently contract for. 2016 2021 0 0 0 0 0 0 Page 165 Report on the Riverside County JPA Feasibility Study Area Position TPC Role Description 1 WILDOMAR POLICE SERVICES (South Region) Patrol Operations Captain Administrative Assistant Sergeant Matrix Consulting Group $207,525 Functions as the 'local police chief' of the city, externally representing the JPA model to the public. The position is also responsible for communicating with city officials to identify service priorities, station administrative duties and coordination with regional watch command. $74,123 Supports the captain and other local staff. $171,265 Supervises both patrol officers and patrol CSOs. Reports directly to watch commanders on a daily operational basis, though they are also commanded by the local captain positions. Projection Factors Does not scale: The position functions in an executive role. Shared position with Lake Elsinore, Does not scale: Does not scale, as the position is staffed at a 1:1 ratio with division/section executive. Span of control: 1 position for every 8 positions, with patrol officers counted at 1.00x and CSOs counted at 0.67x. An exception is made for Wildomar, whose patrol staffing levels are just above the ratio. As with other communities, overtime can be used to backfill positions to provide supervision. 2016 2021 0.5 0.5 Page 166 IIIIII M i 11111 S I INN N ! N M I N N 1 E — O N 1 1 MI NM M E EN N 11111 1 1 I 1 1 = 1 Report on the Riverside County JPA Feasibility Study Area Position TPC Role Description Officer (Patrol) $126,264 Responds to and handles calls for service, completes reports, and performs targeted enforcement, as well as other proactive activities. Works alternating 12 - hour shifts. CSO (Patrol) $83,282 Community Sergeant Services $171,265 Responds to and handles certain types of low -priority calls for service that do not require a sworn officer, including non- injury accidents, noise complaints, and basic nuisance complaints. As a result, they are able to divert workload that would have otherwise been handled by patrol officers, increasing their ability to be proactive in the field. CSOs are also able to function proactively, such as conducting enforcement of parking and vehicle abatement ordinances. Supervises any SROs, proactive policing officers, crime prevention CSOs, and community program CSOs that the city elects to staff. If more than one supervisor is needed, these functions are divided between them. Projection Factors Scales to service needs: The position is staffed to achieve a proactivity level of 40% overall — the percentage of time officers have after total workload hours (excluding those handled by CSOs) have been factored out of the total number of net available hours. 2016 2021 10 10 Scales to service needs/Directly relates 1 2 to other staffing levels: Although the number of CSOs is dependent on targets for reducing sworn patrol workloads and the number of positions needed to do so, levels have been set based on achieving a balance of about 1:5 patrol CSOs per patrol officer (at a level of 40% proactivity overall). Span of control: 1 FTE is allocated for every 9 direct reports to the position. 0 0 Matrix Consulting Group Page 167 Report on the Riverside County JPA Feasibility Study Area Position Officer (Proactive Team) Officer (SRO) CSO (Crime Prevention) CSO (Community Programs) Matrix Consulting Group TPC Role Description $126,264 Interfaces with the community and conducts problem -oriented policing, including nuisance abatement. $0 Serves as a school resource officer at an assigned location, providing both the educational and response components of the service. It is assumed that 100% of each position's funding is paid for by their school districts. $83,282 Activities may include CPTED assessments, organizing and providing crime free multi -housing programs, and production of crime prevention materials, among others. Roles may vary significantly based on staffing levels and the priorities of each individual city in which they are assigned. $83,282 Communicates with local community groups, such as neighborhood watch associations. Additionally, the position may organize and provide educational programs, crime prevention seminars, and other community events. Activities may vary significantly based on staffing levels and the priorities of each individual city in which they are assigned. Projection Factors 2016 2021 Elective: 0 0 Based on the priority and availability of funding for the city. Staffing has been set based on the current levels that cities currently contract for. Elective: Staffing is set the current number of positions contracted for by the cities in the study group. Elective: Based on the priority and availability of funding for the city. Staffing has been set based on the current levels that cities currently contract for. Elective: Based on the priority and availability of funding for the city. Staffing has been set based on the current levels that cities currently contract for. 0 0 0 0 0 0 Page 168 ,8 S I M UM M = MI M I I MO M I NM M NM N I 11111 NM I M NM NE UN MI M MN MN NM MN NS Report on the Riverside County JPA Feasibility Study Area Position TPC Role Description LAKE ELSINORE POLICE SERVICES (South Region) IPatrol Operations Captain $207,525 Projection Factors Functions as the 'local police chief' of the city, externally representing the JPA model to the public. The position is also responsible for communicating with city officials to identify service priorities, station administrative duties and coordination with regional watch command. Does not scale: The position functions in an executive role. Shared position with Wildomar. Administrative $74,123 Supports the captain and other local Assistant staff. Sergeant $171,265 Supervises both patrol officers and patrol CSOs. Reports directly to watch commanders on a daily operational basis. though they are also commanded by the local captain positions. Officer (Patrol) $126,264 Responds to and handles calls for service, completes reports. and performs targeted enforcement, as well as other proactive activities. Works alternating 12 - hour shifts. Matrix Consulting Group Does not scale: Does not scale, as the position is staffed at a 1:1 ratio with division/section executive. Span of control: 1 position for every 8 positions, with patrol officers counted at 1.00x and CSOs counted at 0.67x. Scales to service needs: The position is staffed to achieve a proactivity level of 40% overall — the percentage of time officers have after total workload hours (excluding those handled by CSOs) have been factored 2016 2021 0.5 0.5 4 4 25 25 Page 169 Report on the Riverside County JPA Feasibility Study Area Position CSO (Patrol) Community Sergeant Services Officer (Proactive Team) Matrix Consulting Group TPC Role Description $83,282 $171,265 Responds to and handles certain types of low -priority calls for service that do not require a sworn officer, including non- injury accidents, noise complaints, and basic nuisance complaints. As a result, they are able to divert workload that would have otherwise been handled by patrol officers, increasing their ability to be proactive in the field. CSOs are also able to function proactively, such as conducting enforcement of parking and vehicle abatement ordinances. Supervises any SROs, proactive policing officers, crime prevention CSOs, and community program CSOs that the city elects to staff. If more than one supervisor is needed, these functions are divided between them. $126,264 Interfaces with the community and conducts problem -oriented policing, including nuisance abatement. Projection Factors out of the total number of net available hours. 2016 2021 Scales to service needs/Directly relates 5 6 to other staffing levels: Although the number of CSOs is dependent on targets for reducing sworn patrol workloads and the number of positions needed to do so, levels have been set based on achieving a balance of about 1:5 patrol CSOs per patrol officer (at a level of 40% proactivity overall). Span of control: 1 FTE is allocated for every 9 direct reports to the position. Elective: Based on the priority and availability of funding for the city. Staffing has been set based on the current levels that cities currently contract for. 0 0 2 2 Page 170 NB I I 6111 NM = M i♦ ME NM M EN MI NS MN = NM 11111 11111 MN N N = MN M N I I NM 111111 11111 I Report on the Riverside County JPA Feasibility Study Area Position Officer (SRO) CSO (Crime Prevention) CSO (Community Programs) TPC Role Description $0 Serves as a school resource officer at an assigned location, providing both the educational and response components of the service. It is assumed that 100% of each position's funding is paid for by their school districts. $83,282 $83,282 Activities may include CPTED assessments, organizing and providing crime free multi -housing programs, and production of crime prevention materials, among others. Roles may vary significantly based on staffing levels and the priorities of each individual city in which they are assigned. Communicates with local community groups, such as neighborhood watch associations. Additionally, the position may organize and provide educational programs, crime prevention seminars, and other community events. Activities may vary significantly based on staffing levels and the priorities of each individual city in which they are assigned. Projection Factors Elective: Staffing is set the current number of positions contracted for by the cities in the study group. Elective: Based on the priority and availability of funding for the city. Staffing has been set based on the current levels that cities currently contract for. Elective: Based on the priority and availability of funding for the city. Staffing has been set based on the current levels that cities currently contract for. 2016 2021 0 0 0 0 0 0 Matrix Consulting Group Page 171 Report on the Riverside County JPA Feasibility Study Area Position TPC Role Description MENIFEE POLICE SERVICES (South Region) • Patrol Operations Captain Administrative Assistant Sergeant Officer (Patrol) Matrix Consulting Group $207,525 Functions as the 'local police chief' of the city, externally representing the JPA model to the public. The position is also responsible for communicating with city officials to identify service priorities, station administrative duties and coordination with regional watch command. $74,123 Supports the captain and other local staff. $171,265 $126,264 Supervises both patrol officers and patrol CSOs. Reports directly to watch commanders on a daily operational basis, though they are also commanded by the local captain positions. Responds to and handles calls for service, completes reports, and performs targeted enforcement, as well as other proactive activities. Works alternating 12 - hour shifts. Projection Factors Does not scale: The position functions in an executive role. Does not scale: Does not scale, as the position is staffed at a 1:1 ratio with division/section executive. Span of control: 1 position for every 8 positions, with patrol officers counted at 1.00x and CSOs counted at 0.67x. Scales to service needs: The position is staffed to achieve a proactivity level of 40% overall — the percentage of time officers have after total workload hours (excluding those handled by CSOs) have been factored 2016 2021 4 4 26 28 Page 172 mg N. M M I M— — E MO OM I--- r N S 11111 I E 11111 11111 Report on the Riverside County JPA Feasibility Study Area Position TPC Role Description CSO (Patrol) 583.282 Community Sergeant Services Officer (Proactive Team) Matrix Consulting Group 5171,265 5126,264 Responds to and handles certain types of low -priority calls for service that do not require a sworn officer, including non- injury accidents, noise complaints. and basic nuisance complaints. As a result, they are able to divert workload that would have otherwise been handled by patrol officers, increasing their ability to be proactive in the field. CSOs are also able to function proactively, such as conducting enforcement of parking and vehicle abatement ordinances. Supervises any SROs, proactive policing officers, crime prevention CSOs, and community program CSOs that the city elects to staff. If more than one supervisor is needed, these functions are divided between them. Interfaces with the community and conducts problem -oriented policing, including nuisance abatement. Projection Factors 2016 2021 out of the total number of net available hours. Scales to service needs/Directly relates 5 6 to other staffing levels: Although the number of CSOs is dependent on targets for reducing sworn patrol workloads and the number of positions needed to do so, levels have been set based on achieving a balance of about 1:5 patrol CSOs per patrol officer (at a level of 40% proactivity overall). Span of control: 1 FTE is allocated for every 9 direct reports to the position. Elective: Based on the priority and availability of funding for the city. Staffing has been set based on the current levels that cities currently contract for. 5 5 Page 173 Report on the Riverside County JPA Feasibility Study Area Position Officer (SRO) CSO (Crime Prevention) CSO (Community Programs) Matrix Consulting Group TPC Role Description $0 Serves as a school resource officer at an assigned location, providing both the educational and response components of the service. It is assumed that 100% of each position's funding is paid for by their school districts. $83,282 $83,282 Activities may include CPTED assessments, organizing and providing crime free multi -housing programs, and production of crime prevention materials, among others. Roles may vary significantly based on staffing levels and the priorities of each individual city in which they are assigned. Communicates with local community groups, such as neighborhood watch associations. Additionally, the position may organize and provide educational programs, crime prevention seminars, and other community events. Activities may vary significantly based on staffing levels and the priorities of each individual city in which they are assigned. Projection Factors Elective: Staffing is set the current number of positions contracted for by the cities in the study group. Elective: Based on the priority and availability of funding for the city. Staffing has been set based on the current levels that cities currently contract for. Elective: Based on the priority and availability of funding for the city. Staffing has been set based on the current levels that cities currently contract for. 2016 2021 0 0 0 0 0 0 Page 174 11111 I NM MO M 1 I 1 NS 11111 11111 N NM N = EN INS NIB = M I = E 1 ! I= I MI IIIII M 1 OM M OM MI N IMP Report on the Riverside County JPA Feasibility Study Area Position TPC Role Description 1 TEMECULA POLICE SERVICES (South Region) IPatrol Operations Captain $207,525 Functions as the 'local police chief' of the city, externally representing the JPA model to the public. The position is also responsible for communicating with city officials to identify service priorities. station administrative duties and coordination with regional watch command. Administrative $74,123 Supports the captain and other local Assistant staff. Sergeant Projection Factors Does not scale: The position functions in an executive role. 5171,265 Supervises both patrol officers and patrol CSOs. Reports directly to watch commanders on a daily operational basis, though they are also commanded by the local captain positions. Officer (Patrol) $126,264 Responds to and handles calls for service. completes reports, and performs targeted enforcement, as well as other proactive activities. Works alternating 12 - hour shifts. Matrix Consulting Group Does not scale: Does not scale. as the position is staffed at a 1:1 ratio with division/section executive. Span of control: 1 position for every 8 positions, with patrol officers counted at 1.00x and CSOs counted at 0.67x. Scales to service needs: The position is staffed to achieve a proactivity level of 40% overall — the percentage of time officers have after total workload hours (excluding those handled by CSOs) have been factored 2016 2021 6 6 38 38 Page 175 Report on the Riverside County JPA Feasibility Study Area Position TPC Role Description CSO (Patrol) $83,282 Community Sergeant Services Officer (Proactive Team) Matrix Consulting Group $171,265 $126,264 Responds to and handles certain types of low -priority calls for service that do not require a sworn officer, including non- injury accidents, noise complaints, and basic nuisance complaints. As a result, they are able to divert workload that would have otherwise been handled by patrol officers, increasing their ability to be proactive in the field. CSOs are also able to function proactively, such as conducting enforcement of parking and vehicle abatement ordinances. Supervises any SROs, proactive policing officers, crime prevention CSOs, and community program CSOs that the city elects to staff. If more than one supervisor is needed, these functions are divided between them. Interfaces with the community and conducts problem -oriented policing, including nuisance abatement. Projection Factors out of the total number of net available hours. 2016 2021 Scales to service needs/Directly relates 18 18 to other staffing levels: Although the number of CSOs is dependent on targets for reducing sworn patrol workloads and the number of positions needed to do so, levels have been set based on achieving a balance of about 1:5 patrol CSOs per patrol officer (at a level of 40% proactivity overall). Span of control: 1 FTE is allocated for every 9 direct reports to the position. Elective: Based on the priority and availability of funding for the city. Staffing has been set based on the current levels that cities currently contract for. 2 2 15 15 Page 176 — M MN MB — EN — NM NB 1 — EN NE 11111 — — — = IIIM 2 NM E MN MI 1 OM MN MO 1 111111 IIIMI MO 1111 En NB Report on the Riverside County JPA Feasibility Study Area Position Officer (SRO) TPC Role Description SO Serves as a school resource officer at an assigned location, providing both the educational and response components of the service. It is assumed that 100°0 of each position's funding is paid for by their school districts. CSO (Crime Prevention) CSO (Community Programs) Matrix Consulting Group $83,282 Activities may include CPTED assessments. organizing and providing crime free multi -housing programs, and production of crime prevention materials, among others. Roles may vary significantly based on staffing levels and the priorities of each individual city in which they are assigned. Projection Factors Elective: Staffing is set the current number of positions contracted for by the cities in the study group. Elective: Based on the priority and availability of funding for the city. Staffing has been set based on the current levels that cities currently contract for. S83,282 Communicates with local community groups. such as neighborhood watch associations. Additionally, the position may organize and provide educational programs, crime prevention seminars, and other community events. Activities may vary significantly based on staffing levels and the priorities of each individual city in which they are assigned. Elective: Based on the priority and availability of funding for the city. Staffing has been set based on the current levels that cities currently contract for. 2016 2021 2.5 2.5 0 0 0 0 Page 177 Report on the Riverside County JPA Feasibility Study Area Position TPC Role Description COACHELLA POLICE SERVICES (East Region) Patrol Operations Captain Administrative Assistant Sergeant Officer (Patrol) Matrix Consulting Group $207,525 Functions as the 'local police chief' of the city, externally representing the JPA model to the public. The position is also responsible for communicating with city officials to identify service priorities, station administrative duties and coordination with regional watch command. $74,123 Supports the captain and other local staff. $171,265 $126,264 Supervises both patrol officers and patrol CSOs. Reports directly to watch commanders on a daily operational basis, though they are also commanded by the local captain positions. Responds to and handles calls for service, completes reports, and performs targeted enforcement, as well as other proactive activities. Works alternating 12 - hour shifts. Projection Factors Does not scale: The position functions in an executive role. Does not scale: The position is staffed at a 1:1 ratio with division or section executive. Span of control: 1 position for every 8 positions, with patrol officers counted at 1.00x and CSOs counted at 0.67x. Scales to service needs: The position is staffed to achieve a proactivity level of 40% overall — the percentage of time officers have after total workload hours (excluding those handled by CSOs) have been factored out of the total number of net available hours. 2016 2021 3 3 15 17 Page 178 MI M 111111 N 11111 1 E 111111 N S 111111 11111 111111 1 = I MB MI NM MB NM N S 1 In MB NM UN an 11111 Report on the Riverside County JPA Feasibility Study Area Position TPC Role Description CSO (Patrol) $83.282 Community Sergeant Services Officer (Proactive Team) Officer (SRO) Matrix Consulting Group $171,265 $126,264 Responds to and handles certain types of low -priority calls for service that do not require a sworn officer, including non- injury accidents, noise complaints, and basic nuisance complaints. As a result. they are able to divert workload that would have otherwise been handled by patrol officers. increasing their ability to be proactive in the field. CSOs are also able to function proactively, such as conducting enforcement of parking and vehicle abatement ordinances. Supervises any SROs, proactive policing officers. crime prevention CSOs, and community program CSOs that the city elects to staff. If more than one supervisor is needed, these functions are divided between them. Interfaces with the community and conducts problem -oriented policing, including nuisance abatement. $0 Serves as a school resource officer at an assigned location, providing both the educational and response components of the service. It is assumed that 100% of Projection Factors 2016 2021 Scales to service needs/Directly relates 3 3 to other staffing levels: Although the number of CSOs is dependent on targets for reducing sworn patrol workloads and the number of positions needed to do so. levels have been set based on achieving a balance of about 1:5 patrol CSOs per patrol officer (at a level of 40% proactivity overall). Span of control: 1 FTE is allocated for every 9 direct reports to the position. Elective: Based on the priority and availability of funding for the city. Staffing has been set based on the current levels that cities currently contract for. Elective: Staffing is set the current number of positions contracted for by the cities in the study group. 7 7 0 0 Page 179 Report on the Riverside County JPA Feasibility Study Area Position CSO (Crime Prevention) CSO (Community Programs) Matrix Consulting Group TPC Role Description each position's funding is paid for by their school districts. $83,282 $83,282 Activities may include CPTED assessments, organizing and providing crime free multi -housing programs, and production of crime prevention materials, among others. Roles may vary significantly based on staffing levels and the priorities of each individual city in which they are assigned. Communicates with local community groups, such as neighborhood watch associations. Additionally, the position may organize and provide educational programs, crime prevention seminars, and other community events. Activities may vary significantly based on staffing levels and the priorities of each individual city in which they are assigned. Projection Factors Elective: Based on the priority and availability of funding for the city. Staffing has been set based on the current levels that cities currently contract for. Elective: Based on the priority and availability of funding for the city. Staffing has been set based on the current levels that cities currently contract for. 2016 2021 0 0 0 0 Page 180 11111 1111111 MB NM 11111 11111 111111 EN MN MN MB 1111 11111 Report on the Riverside County JPA Feasibility Study 6 Estimated Personnel Costs by Allocation Category Dividing sworn staff into the three cost allocation categories outlined earlier in this report on page 68: shared services (Class A), optional/subscription-based regional services (Class B), and locally dedicated staff (Class C), overtime expenditures may be estimated at an overall level for each cost category. The results of this analysis will be used later in the analysis to develop the total costs under each of the three allocation methods, enabling total position costs to be developed at a comprehensive level. (1) Personnel Costs Allocated Under Class A (Shared) Among all staff included under Class A cost categories — those relating to services that are shared between municipalities, such as support, administrative, and investigative functions, personnel expenditures have been estimated from the total position costs. These costs have been aggregated into the following table, which provides the total FTEs and costs associated for Class A positions in both 2016 and 2021 projection years, listed alphabetically by unit: Summary of Class A (Shared) Personnel Costs Total FTEs Total Personnel Costs Functional Area 2016 2021 2016 2021 911 Communications 38 41 $3,232,065 $3,478,046 Command/Admin. 11 11 $2,196,144 $2,196,144 Crime Analysis 5 5 $456,324 $456,324 Crime Scene Unit 22 22 $1,823,282 $1,823,282 Finance/ Fiscal Mgmt. 15 15 $1,448,825 $1,448,825 Fleet and Facilities 13 13 $1,049,677 $1,049,677 Homicide Unit 4.5 4.5 $654,184 $508,171 Human Resources 6 6 $557,424 $557,424 Matrix Consulting Group Page 181 Report on the Riverside County JPA Feasibility Study Functional Area Information Technology K9 Unit Major Crimes (East) Major Crimes (North) Major Crimes (South) Professional Standards Property and Evidence Public Information Records Unit Recruitment and Hiring Sex Crimes Unit Training Unit Watch Command Total FTEs Total Personnel Costs 2016 2021 2016 2021 12 6 4 32 18 9 10 2 24 4 5.5 4 9 14 6 4 34 19 9 10 2 26 4 5.5 5 9 $1,186,292 $757,581 $593,803 $4,581,519 $2,579,256 $1,346,731 $743,989 $215,296 $1,805,830 $497,915 $795,030 $608,267 $1,634,402 $1,373,070 $757,581 $593,803 $4,893,630 $2,860,948 $1,346,731 $743,989 $215,296 $1,946,195 $497,915 $508,171 $692,404 $1,634,402 Total 254 265 828,763,838 S29,582,029 Overall, Class A staffing costs are projected to increase by about 4% from 2016 to 2021 as a result of changes to staffing needs resulting from population growth. However, the increases do not include factors such as cost of living increases or adjustments to CaIPERS member category proportions. (2) Personnel Costs Allocated Under Class B (Subscription -Based) Total personnel costs for each unit allocated under the Class B category are displayed in the following table: Personnel Costs Allocated Under Class B (2016 — 2021) Total FTEs Total Personnel Costs Unit 2016 2021 2016 Gang Task Force 7 7 $958,011 Traffic Unit 55 59 $7,269,839 2021 $958,011 $7,774,893 Total Matrix Consulting Group 62 66 58,227,850 $8,732,904 Page 182 Report on the Riverside County JPA Feasibility Study The cost allocation shares by each city will be detailed as part of the total cost allocation chapter later in the report. (3) Personnel Costs Allocated Under Class C (Local) Costs The following table displays the number of FTEs directly contracted for by municipalities in the 2016 and 2021 projections, as well as the total cost figures for those positions: Allocation of Cl; ss C (Locally Dedicated) Personnel Costs Total FTEs Total Personnel Costs City 2016 2021 2016 2021 Coachella 31 33 $3,994,350 $4,246,877 Jurupa Valley 53 55 $6,690,223 $6,942,750 Lake Elsinore 37.5 38.5 $4,688,469 $4,771,750 Menifee 43 46 $5,468,550 $5,804,359 Moreno Valley 129 129 $15,744,305 $15,744,305 Perris 47 51 $5,973,604 $6,480,678 San Jacinto 36 39 $4,539,704 $4,918,495 Temecula 83.5 83,5 $9,842,804 $9,842,804 Wildomar 13.5 14.5 $1,695,067 $1,778,349 Total 473.5 489.5 $58,637,076 $60,530,367 From changes to staffing levels as a result of growth alone, personnel costs are projected to grow by about 3% from 2016 to 2021, from an increase of 16.0 FTEs. This does not take into account any changes to the cost of living adjustments or to the calculation of CaIPERS retirement costs — it represents the change in costs to provide the same level of service given evolutions in service environments. Matrix Consulting Group Page 183 Report on the Riverside County JPA Feasibility Study 1 9 Analysis of Non -Personnel Operating Costs 1. Limitations in Comparing Non -Personnel Operating Costs The uniqueness of the JPA environment possesses a number of challenges for the estimation of non -personnel operating costs, as many of the major cost categories would be fundamentally different, limiting comparability with other agencies. (1.1) Replacement Needs: The cost of replacing the most categories of the JPA's equipment will be dramatically lower than other policing agencies. Whereas many departments are in the long-term process of replacing preexisting needs such as technology upgrades, CAD replacements, Tasers, office furniture, and firearms, among others, the JPA agency will be starting out with all of those needs taken care of. The cost associated with purchasing a complete and new stock equipment and vehicles have already been represented in the analysis of startup costs. As a result, in many categories of equipment replacement, the JPA will have significantly lower spending needs throughout the first decade or so of its existence (until 2031). (1.2) Internal Service Charges The JPA is assumed fully integrated, in that all services are provided in-house. Unlike city or county law enforcement agencies, the JPA cannot draw from internal services such as human resources, fleet, and risk management that also serve other departments. Typically, and as required by the Government Accounting Standards Board (GASB), these services are costed for through internal service charges. Matrix Consulting Group Page 184 Report on the Riverside County JPA Feasibility Study The rates and costs assessed generally include the cost of supplies, as well as the costs of labor involved. In the case of fleet, for instance, charges for vehicle maintenance include both the parts and resources used in a repair, as well as the cost of the mechanics' and support staff's time to complete it. This issue renders comparisons of internal service charges with other agencies limited in usability, given that the personnel costs associated with these positions have already been estimated. Certain categories of internal service charges, such as liability insurance, can still be estimated accurately. 2. Assumptions Used to Model Operating Costs The following table outlines the key considerations and assumptions used to project overtime and non -personnel operating costs: Factor Calculation Process Overtime It is assumed that practice and practice limit executive staff and civilian employees from working overtime. Lieutenants, detectives, sergeants, and officers are each assigned an estimated number of overtime hours per year, with all hours assumed to be worked at the 1.5x normal rate. Classification Base Pay 1.5x Rate OT Hrs. 8/Vear Lieutenant $56.48 $84.72 14 $1,186 Sergeant $36.03 $54.05 50 $2,702 Detective $39.49 $59.24 30 $1,777 Officer $47.38 $71.07 130 $9,239 Overtime hours for personnel fall under the same Class A/B/C (shared, subscription -based, or locally dedicated staff) cost allocation system that personnel operation expenses are charged under. The breakdown of these costs for both 2016 and 2021 projection levels will be shown later in this report. 23 The normal rate is defined as the average base pay amount, divided by 2,184 — the total number of paid hours in the negotiated 12 -hour shift schedule. Detectives, by exception, work a 2,080 - hour schedule, and have a higher hourly base rate than sergeants, despite having a lower annual salary. Matrix Consulting Group Page 185 Report on the Riverside County JPA Feasibility Study Factor Calculation Process Liability Research was completed on the average rate of liability insurance Insurance payments relative to the number of sworn personnel among the cities included in the compensation survey. These costs will be assessed at a rate of $4,841 per year for every sworn FTE. As with overtime expenses, liability insurance costs fall under the Class A/B/C cost allocation system. The breakdown of these costs for both 2016 and 2021 projection levels will be shown later in this report. Vehicle Repair Parts and repairs are estimated at $320 per non -patrol vehicle and $800 Costs per patrol vehicle (2.5x the non -patrol rate). These rates are based on industry standards and the experience of the project team, Other Operating Costs The following table displays these rates by vehicle type, Type # Rate/Yr. Total Cost Patrol Vehicles24 180 $800 S144,000 Others 111 $320 $35,520 Vehicle maintenance costs are assessed as Class A costs, and the total repair cost of $179,520 per year will be divided according to the proportional formula. Research was conducted on non -personnel operating costs in the comparative cities, excluding cost categories under internal service charges — as the major categories of these costs have been estimated separately. These costs have built into an approximate rate per sworn FTE, with the costs associated with civilian employees being built into this number. This also includes fees paid to other agencies, such to as the Riverside County Sheriff's Department for booking fees, as well as legal fees associated with the JPA. Costs relating to the establishment of the agency are not, however, included. A total of $15,500 per sworn FTE will be applied to account for these various operating cost categories. 24 Includes interceptors and supervisor vehicles. CSO vehicles are not included within this total. Because fleet purchase costs relate directly to agency startup costs, only one maintenance and fleet size figure is used for both 2016 and 2021 projection levels. Matrix Consulting Group Page 186 Report on the Riverside County JPA Feasibility Study 3. Estimated Non -Personnel Operating Expenses As in the personnel costs section, operating costs relating to sworn staff have been divided among the three cost allocation categories outlined earlier in this report on page 68 — shared services (Class A), optional/subscription-based regional services (Class B), and locally dedicated staff (Class C), overtime expenditures may be estimated at an overall level for each cost category. The results of this analysis will be used later in the analysis to develop the total costs under each of the three allocation methods, enabling total position costs to be developed at a comprehensive level. (1) Operating and Overtime Expenses Allocated Under Class A (Shared) Class A costs represent services shared between cities that are not part of a regional task force or contribution -based funding model. It also functions as an inclusive overhead rate, taking into account administrative, support. most investigative functions, and others that are not directly contracted for by individual cities. As a result, staffing for these positions is set by the JPA agency's system of governance. Under the currently designed organizational structure of the JPA, this includes all positions that are not locally dedicated. excluding those within the Traffic Unit or Violent Offender/Gang Task Force. (1.1) Class A Overtime Costs For staff included under the first cost allocation category, assumptions have made regarding overtime usage by classification levelusing the base wage rate to develop an annualized cost per FTE. The following table displays total overtime costs at both 2016 and 2021 staffing levels: Matrix Consulting Group Page 187 Report on the Riverside County JPA Feasibility Study 2016 Class A (Shared) Overtime Costs Classification OT Cost/FTE FTEs Total Cost Lieutenant $1,186 14 $16,604 Sergeant $2,702 13 $35,126 Detective $1,777 53 $94,181 Officer $9,239 11 $101,629 Total 91 $247,540 2021 Class A (Shared) Overtime Costs Classification OT Cost/FTE FTEs Total Cost Lieutenant $1,186 14 $16,604 Sergeant $2,702 14 $37,828 Detective $1,777 55 $97,735 Officer $9,239 11 $101,629 Total 94 $253,796 Over the five-year period, overtime costs are projected to grow by about 2.5%, or directly proportional to the increases in staff relative to personnel categories. (1.2) Class A Non -Personnel Operating Costs Assuming $4,841 liability costs $15,500 in aggregate operating costs per sworn FTE in, total operating costs under Class A are then able to be calculated: Class A (Shared) Operating Costs Category 2016 2021 Liability Costs/FTE $4,841 $4,841 Operating Costs/FTE $15,500 $15,500 # of Sworn FTE 100 103 Subtotal -Operating $2,034,100 $2,095,123 Vehicle Repair Costs Overtime Costs 179,520 247,540 179,520 253,796 Total $2,461,160 $2,528,439 Matrix Consulting Group Page 188 Report on the Riverside County JPA Feasibility Study The vehicle repair costs include those for all types of positions, rather than only those that are centrally staffed or part of a shared services unit. Furthermore, these totals will later be allocated among the nine municipalities according to the proportional system outlined in the cost allocation chapter. (2) Operating and Overtime Expenses Allocated Under Class B (Subscription - based) Class B overtime costs follow a slightly different model, where a fixed number, at 60 hours per year, is assumed for personnel at all position levels. These costs are distributed according to the level of contribution that is electively made by each participating city, by unit. The process for these calculations is detailed in the total cost allocation chapter of the report. (3) Operating and Overtime Expenses Allocated Under Class C (Local) The process is then used to determine operating costs for Class C positions, which represent all locally dedicated positions. Because locally dedicated positions are directly allocated and contracted for by municipalities, the calculation is more straightforward — each city pays for 100% of the overtime and operating costs of the personnel it staffs. (3.1) Class C (Local) Overtime Costs The following two tables display estimated overtime for the 2016 and 2021 projection periods, using the same assumptions for the number of overtime hours by position used in shared cost allocation: Matrix Consulting Group Page 189 Report on the Riverside County JPA Feasibility Study 2016 Class C (Local) Overtime Costs City Sgt. $/FTE Ofc. $/FTE Total OT Coachella 4 $2,703 22 $9,239 $214,070 Jurupa Valley 6 $2,703 38 $9,239 $367,301 Lake Elsinore 4 $2,703 27 $9,239 $260,266 Menifee 5 $2,703 31 $9,239 $299,925 Moreno Valley 13 $2,703 90 $9,239 $866,652 Perris 5 $2,703 35 $9,239 $336,881 San Jacinto 4 $2,703 25 $9,239 $241,788 Temecula 8 $2,703 55.5 $9,239 $534,390 Wildomar 1 $2,703 10 $9,239 $95,094 Total 50 - 333.5 - $3,216,365 2021 Class C (Local) Overtime Costs City Sgt. $/FTE Ofc. $/FTE Total OT Coachella 4 $2,703 24 $9,239 $232,548 Jurupa Valley 6 $2,703 40 $9,239 $385,779 Lake Elsinore 4 $2,703 27 $9,239 $260,266 Menifee 5 $2,703 33 $9,239 $318,403 Moreno Valley 13 $2,703 90 $9,239 $866,652 Perris 6 $2,703 37 $9,239 $358,062 San Jacinto 4 $2,703 28 $9,239 $269,505 Temecula 8 $2,703 55.5 $9,239 $534,390 Wildomar 1 $2,703 10 $9,239 $95,094 Total 51 - 344.5 - $3,320,697 Despite an addition of 11 officers and 1 sergeant, the increase in overtime costs from 2016 to 2021 would be relatively, totaling around $104,333. These tables also provide an important point that, as a Class C cost, the usage of overtime is transparent and within the control of the contracting city - cities are not billed for the use of overtime by patrol in other areas. Matrix Consulting Group Page 190 Report on the Riverside County JPA Feasibility Study (3.2) Class C (Local) Non -Personnel Operating Costs The following table displays liability and aggregated operating costs for locally dedicated positions, with costs determined by the number of staff that each city specifically contracts for: Allocation of Class C (Local) Operating Costs, 2016 City Coachella Jurupa Valley Lake Elsinore Menifee Moreno Valley Perris San Jacinto Temecula Wildomar # of Sworn 27 45 31.5 37 104 41 30 64.5 11.5 Liability Misc. Op. Subtotal - Costs/FTE Costs/FTE Op. Costs S4.841 515.500 $549,207 S4.841 $15.500 $915,345 S4.841 $15.500 $640,742 S4.841 $15,500 $752,617 54,841 $15.500 $2,115,464 $4,841 $15.500 $833,981 $4.841 $15.500 $610,230 S4,841 $15.500 $1,311,995 54,841 515.500 $233,922 Total Total OT Operating 5214,070 $763,277 5367,301 $1,282,646 $260,266 $901,007 $299,925 $1,052,542 5866.652 $2,982,116 $336,881 $1,170,862 5241,788 $852,018 5534.390 $1,846,385 S95.094 $329,015 Total 392 - - $7,963,502 $3,216,365 $11,179,866 Allocation of Class C (Local) Operating Costs, 2021 # of Liability City Sworn Costs/FTE Coachella 29 Jurupa Valley 47 Lake Elsinore 31.5 Menifee 39 Moreno Valley 104 Perris 44 San Jacinto 33 Temecula 64.5 Wildomar 11.5 Misc. Op. Subtotal - Costs/FTE Op. Costs $4,841 $15,500 5589,889 $4,841 $15,500 $956,027 $4,841 $15,500 $640,742 $4,841 $15,500 $793,299 $4,841 $15,500 $2,115,464 $4,841 515.500 $895,004 $4,841 515,500 $671,253 54,841 $15,500 $1,311,995 54.841 515.500 $233,922 Total Total OT Operating $232,548 $822,437 $385,779 $1,341,806 $260.266 $901,007 $318,403 $1,111,702 $866,652 $2,982,116 $358,062 $1,253,066 $269,505 $940,758 $534,390 $1,846,385 $95,094 $329,015 Total 404 - $8,207,594 $3,320,697 $11,528,291 Matrix Consulting Group Page 191 Report on the Riverside County JPA Feasibility Study As shown in the previous tables, the number of sworn personnel that are contracted for in each city has been multiplied by the liability and miscellaneous operating cost factors. The subtotal resulting from this calculating is then added to the total overtime costs from sergeants and officers, calculated in the previous set of tables. It is also worth noting that one additional sworn position has been added from the previous overtime tables, representing the captain assigned to the section. No overtime is factored in for that position. In total, Class C (locally dedicated) operating costs are estimated to grow by approximately 3.1% over the entire five-year period. Matrix Consulting Group Page 192 Report on the Riverside County JPA Feasibility Study I10 Analysis of Agency Startup Costs 1. Introduction As part of the feasibility study, the project team completed an assessment of the estimated costs of establishing the agency outside of expenditures relating to recurring operational costs. The project team has developed this summary to provide an initial analysis of the startup cost of facilities, equipment, vehicles, and IT infrastructure necessary to start a modern police agency. The costs were identified through a number of sources including interviews, current RFPs for similar systems, and extensive research on prices across a number of industry sources. The analysis is meant to give a baseline cost estimate that provides enough detail to give decision makers a reasonable estimate of what it would cost to start a JPA. Key assumptions that were made: • Each city would have a physical police substation located within their boundaries. • The JPA would have its own dispatch center. • Officers and vehicles would be equipped in a similar manner to the Riverside County Sheriff's office. • The JPA would not include a dedicated SWAT Team. Task force members or Air support. • Three of the municipal substations would also serve as regional hubs, with one of them additionally functioning as the JPA agency headquarters. 2. Facility Costs The proposed JPA would include ten separate buildings with a headquarters, three regional and nine police stations. To reduce costs, headquarters and regional buildings would be co -located with police stations. Matrix Consulting Group Page 193 Report on the Riverside County JPA Feasibility Study (1) Methodology Used for Building Cost Estimates A project cost estimate was prepared to a new headquarters building base on average construction/direct costs in the region and a percentage for owner's indirect costs. For average construction/ direct costs, the 2016 Square Foot Cost guide by RS Means was used. The green building standard for Police Departments was consulted and included a location factor of 1.15. For the average owner's/ indirect costs, a factor of 20% was applied to the average construction/ direct cost based on the industry standards and the consultant's experience (i.e., construction cost of $250/ sf results in a project cost of $300/sq. ft.). In total, this resulted in a figure of $402.96 per sq. ft. Project cost does account for average construction and owner costs (architectural/engineering fees, project management fees, furniture/fixture/equipment fees, typical site development and contingencies. Project cost does not account for land acquisition, site development or utility construction beyond normal circumstances, financing cost, or permitting fees. Please note that this cost estimate does not take into account inflation and should be used for planning purposes only. Actual construction cost will vary depending on the design of the facility. Matrix Consulting Group Page 194 Report on the Riverside County JPA Feasibility Study (2) Overview of Facility Needs and Projected Costs The following table provides these estimates by building: JPA Facility Needs and Cost Estimates Type of Building Headquarters (co -located with North Regional) North Regional Hub East Regional Hub (co -located with Coachella .Station) South Regional Hub Coachella Station Jurupa Valley Station Lake Elsinore Station Menifee Station Moreno Valley Station Perris Station San Jacinto Station Temecula Station Wildomar Station (co -located with South Regional) Location Moreno Valley Moreno Valley Coachella Wildomar Coachella Jurupa Valley Lake Elsinore Menifee Moreno Valley Perris San Jacinto Temecula Wildomar Sq. Ft. Cost 26,467 $10,665,223 7,300 3,238 4,111 2,469 2,632 2,502 2,567 4,216 2,653 2,437 3,330 1,440 $2,941,447 $1,304,623 $1,656,649 $994,908 $1,060,430 $1,008,206 $1,034,318 $1,698,718 $1,069,133 $982,094 $1,341,857 $580,262 Total Matrix Consulting Group 65,362 $23,337,869 Page 195 Report on the Riverside County JPA Feasibility Study 3. Fleet Costs The proposed JPA would include 291 vehicles in six different configurations depending on the requirements of each assignment. For general patrol functions, we recommend approximately one vehicle for every 2.5 officers in the field. This accounts for multiple work shifts, required maintenance, and days off. The following series of tables provides detailed breakdowns of the various costs associated with the purchase and outfitting of each type of vehicle used by the JPA agency: Marked Vehicles Ford Interceptor Utility (FIU) $32,000 Mobile Computer with mounting $7,000 Electronic Release Shotgun / Rifle Rack $550 Rear Cargo Organizer Racks (Lockable) $2,000 Mobile Radio (800 MHz) $4,200 Prisoner Seats $1,000 Prisoner Partition $2,000 Light Bar with controller $1,200 Additional grill, rear and side warning lights $300 Siren $200 Decals and Wraps $500 Labor and Installation $5,000 Cost Per Unit $55,950 Total Vehicles Needed 135 Total Cost $7,553,250 Matrix Consulting Group Page 196 Report on the Riverside County JPA Feasibility Study Supervisor Vehicles Ford Interceptor Utility (FIU) $32,000 Mobile Computer with mounting $7,000 Electronic Release Shotgun / Rifle Rack $550 Rear Cargo Organizer Racks (Lockable) $2,000 Mobile Radio (800 MHz) $4,200 Light Bar with controller $1,200 Additional grill, rear and side warning lights $300 Siren $200 Decals and Wraps $500 Decals and Wraps $500 Labor and Installation $3,000 Cost Per Unit $51,450 Total Vehicles Needed 45 Total Cost $2,315,250 Admin. and Undercover Vehicles Chevy Impala $26,000 Mobile Radio (800 MHz) $4,200 Additional grill, rear and side warning lights $300 Light and siren controller $400 Siren $200 Labor and Installation $2,000 Cost Per Unit $33,100 Total Vehicles Needed 66 Total Cost $2,184,600 Community Service Officer (CSO) Vehicles Chevy Impala $26,000 Mobile Radio (800 MHz) $4,200 Decals and Wraps $500 Labor and Installation $1,000 Cost Per Unit $31,700 Total Vehicles Needed 33 Total Cost $1,046,100 Matrix Consulting Group Page 197 Report on the Riverside County JPA Feasibility Study Crime Scene Vehicles Ford Transit Connect Mobile Radio (800 MHz) Decals and Wraps Labor and Installation Cost Per Unit Total Vehicles Needed Total Cost $22,000 $4,200 $500 $1,000 Property and Evidence Vehicles $27,700 10 $277,000 Ford Transit $31,000 Mobile Radio (800 MHz) $4,200 Decals and Wraps $500 Labor and Installation $1,000 Cost Per Unit $36,700 Total Vehicles Needed 2 Total Cost $73,400 Overall, the purchase of 180 patrol/interceptor and 111 non -patrol vehicles amounts to a total cost of $13,449,600. 4. Information Technology Infrastructure and Equipment The proposed JPA would include necessary IT infrastructure to operate the agency out of ten separate buildings. For the purposes of this analysis the project team included the minimum number of servers, desktops and software needed. Matrix Consulting Group Page 198 Report on the Riverside County JPA Feasibility Study Projected IT Infrastructure Costs Type of Infrastructure # Needed Unit Price Cost Servers Dispatch 4 $10,000 $40,000 Records Management 4 $10,000 $40,000 Station Hubs 9 $10,000 $90,000 Desk top computers 210 $1,200 $252,000 Printers 27 $200 $5,400 Scanner/ Copier 12 $11,000 $132,000 Misc. Network equipment. 1 $20,000 $20,000 Software Firewall Software (Licenses) MS Suite (with email) 1 yr. cost Integrated CAD/RMS System SQL (Client Access License) Mult. Licenses 700 Licenses Mult-Yr. contract 17 servers $10,000 $168,000 $1,200,000 $14,000 $10,000 $168,000 $1,200,000 $238, 000 Total: $2,195,400 Overall, the cost of purchasing the information technology equipment needed to establish the agency totals $2,195,400, including networking equipment, desktop hardware, and other electronics and software needs, such as printers and Microsoft Office licenses. 5. Personnel Equipment Needs The proposed JPA would include typical personally issued equipment. These prices reflect the current retail costs and do not factor in reasonable discounts that an agency of this size would receive due to its negotiating power. Many Targe agencies negotiate lower prices through large quantity purchases. Typical equipment includes a firearm, uniforms, portable radios and ballistic vests. Matrix Consulting Group Page 199 Report on the Riverside County JPA Feasibility Study The following series of tables provides detailed cost breakdowns of outfitting each major personnel category: Breakdown of Sworn Equipment Costs Item Description Cost Sidearm — 9 MM Glock, Model 17, w/ Three Magazines $540 Trijicon Night Sites $80 Protective Vest — Level IIIA $499 Portable Radio + Lapel Microphone + Radio Belt Holder $4,200 (Motorola) Flashlight — Stream light, "STIRONr", 7 inches, W/ AC $118 Charger, 40,000 Cdl 2 Long Sleeve Shirts, 5.11 -Wash & Wear ($51.99 ea.) $104 2 Short Sleeve Shirts, 5.11 Wash & Wear (51.99 ea.) $104 2 Pants, Wash & Wear, ($51.99 ea.) $104 Patrol Jacket $150 Safariland level III Holster $125 Baton Ring $7 Bianchi Double Cuff Case $32 Bianchi Double Magazine Pouch $26 Duty Utility Belt -5.11 (Outer belt) $50 Uniform Pant Belt (Inner belt) $12 Sabre Red Pepper Spray $15 Pepper Spray holder- 5.11 $1 8 Riot Helmet (Ballistic) $656 Belt "Keepers", (4) $13 Badge Shield, Gold Plate (1) $76 Name Bar (2) $15 ASP expandable Baton — 26" $105 ASP expandable Baton holder $45 Smith and Wesson Handcuffs, (2) - $23.99 ea. $48 Helmet face shield $125 Gas Mask- Advantage 1000 w/filter $544 Matrix Consulting Group Page 200 Report on the Riverside County JPA Feasibility Study Item Description Cost Equipment Bag $50 Taser X2 $1,399 Taser X2 Holster $90 Taser X2 Cartridges (2) $80 Total Outfitting Cost Per Sworn FTE $9,429 # of Sworn 556 Total Sworn Equipment Costs $5,237,832 Breakdown of Additional Sworn Equipment Costs Item Description Cost Remington 870 12 gage shotgun $425 Colt AR15 w/ EOTEC red dot sites $1,625 Protech Mighty Mike Entry Shield $1,705 # of Sworn 556 % Receiving Equipment 50% Total Cost of Additional Equipment $1,042,951 Breakdown of CSO Equipment Costs Item Description Cost Portable Radio + Lapel Microphone + Radio Belt Holder (Motorola) $4,200 Flashlight — Stream light, "STIRONr", 7 inches, W/ AC Charger, 40,000 Cdl $118 2 Wash and Wear Polo with embroidered insignia $60 2 Pants, Wash & Wear, ($51.99 per) $104 Patrol Jacket $150 Duty Utility Belt -5.11 (Outer belt) $50 Uniform Pant Belt (Inner belt) $12 Sabre Red Pepper Spray $15 Pepper Spray holder- 5.11 $18 Belt "Keepers", (4) $13 Equipment Costs Per CSO $4,739 # of CSOs 64 Total Equipment Costs for 55 CSOs (55) $303,310 Matrix Consulting Group Page 201 Report on the Riverside County JPA Feasibility Study Summary of Equipment Costs Category Sworn Officer (Includes Sergeants and Command) Community Service Officer (Unarmed) Additional Equipment (Limited deployment of rifles, shotguns and ballistic shields) # of FTEs Cost 555.5 $5,237,832 64.0 $303,310 277.8 $1,042,951 Total Equipment Costs $6,584,093 Combining the equipment needs of sworn personnel and CSOs, including additional field equipment, equipment needs total over $6.5 million, or approximately 49% the cost of purchasing and outfitting the agency's entire fleet. 6. Dispatch System The proposed JPA would include the setup and operation of a trunked 800 MHz radio system with a single (PSAP) Public Safety Access Point commonly referred to as a 911 center. The anticipated cost would include towers, antennas and repeaters, to cover 323 square miles. The following table lists the features and total price of implementing a dispatch system: System Includes: 323. Sq. mile service area Repeaters/ All necessary cell towers 16 Talk Groups 764 to 869Mhz frequency Range Digitally Encrypted digital voice Trans. Dispatch Control Center IP/MPLS network routers and switches Matrix Consulting Group Page 202 Report on the Riverside County JPA Feasibility Study System Includes: Multiple System Failure Alarms Central Dispatch Redundancy 6 dispatch consoles All Transmitter sites have battery back up 15 -year maintenance Up to 800 subscribers (authorized radios) TOTAL COST: $15,000,000 At $15,000,000 dispatch infrastructure represents a significant startup cost, which is particularly notable given the potential for alternative methods of 911 communications services to be provided. 7. Sworn Hiring Bonuses The goal of hiring over 550 sworn officers by 2021 is substantial, if not monumental. This is particularly difficult in the current hiring environment, which is marked by high levels of competition among law enforcement agencies for recruits, as well as the ability for officers in California to complete lateral moves relatively easily. Even when considering changes to the size of the law enforcement job market in the future, the JPA's ability to potentially hire in the wake of the changes would by no means be automatic, and perhaps very difficult. Despite these challenges, the competitive sworn hiring market may also work to the advantage of the JPA agency should the right compensatory incentives be provided. As part of the research completed by the project team to develop the compensation survey, one relatively uncommon technique used by cities to attract sworn candidates was to offer a form of `signing bonus'. While these are not technically considered bonuses, they are typically made as part of a contractually negotiated benefit in which new officers Matrix Consulting Group Page 203 Report on the Riverside County JPA Feasibility Study (particularly lateral hires) are paid a lump sum amount following a certain period of successful employment, often between one and two years. Given the potential of this technique as a means of hiring significant numbers of officers within a short time frame, the JPA should make it a priority to do so, framing it as a semi -temporary startup expense of establishing the agency. Considering the numbers that the JPA agency would need to hire in a relatively short time frame, the signing bonus should be significant — upwards of at least $8,000 to $11,000. To retain its attractiveness as a compensation piece, it should be paid out over no more than two years. Depending on needs and applicant pools at the time of recruitment, differential benefits can be offered to new entry level candidates and lateral hires. Assuming that a $10,000 benefit is paid out to all new sworn hires, at 551 sworn FTEs, this would equate to a total cost of $5,555,000. 8. Summary of JPA Agency Startup Costs The following table combines the total costs from each of the major startup cost sections covered in this chapter: Summary of Estimated JPA Agency Startup Costs Category Cost Facilities $23,337,869 Fleet $13,449,600 Equipment $6,584,093 Information Technology $2,195,400 Dispatch $15,000,000 Sworn Hiring Incentives $5,550,000 Total $66,116,962 Matrix Consulting Group Page 204 Report on the Riverside County JPA Feasibility Study At over $66 million, the total startup costs involved in establishing the agency are significant, and are roughly equivalent to the total cost of running the agency for nine months. 9. Amortization of Capital Costs The analysis assumes that capital costs are paid for through the JPA issuing a municipal bond. To calculate associated costs, the following assumptions are used for the bond: Characteristics of JPA -Issued Bond Principal Amount $66,116,962 Term 10 years Interest Type Fixed Interest Rate 5.0% Under these assumptions, amortization of the total amount of $66,116,962 works out as follows, assuming a level annual payment of the principal amount, as opposed to payment method built around a level annual debt service amount: Estimated Debt Service for J PA -Issued Bond Year Principal Interest Debt Service 2021 6,611,696 3,305,848 9,917,544 2022 6,611,696 2,975,263 9,586,959 2023 6,611,696 2,644,678 9,256,375 2024 6,611,696 2,314,094 8,925,790 2025 6,611,696 1,983,509 8,595,205 2026 6,611,696 1,652,924 8,264,620 2027 6,611,696 1,322,339 7,934,035 2028 6,611,696 991,754 7,603,451 2029 6,611,696 661,170 7,272,866 2030 6,611,696 330,585 6,942,281 Total $66,116,962 $18,182,165 S84,299,127 Matrix Consulting Group Page 205 Report on the Riverside County JPA Feasibility Study In order to compare JPA costs directly against RSD costs using 2016 cost assumptions, the average debt service payment will be used — S8,429,913. It is worth noting that variability in interest rates (if not a fixed interest rate), as well as differences in expected versus actual startup capital costs, may affect the payment schedule experienced by the JPA. Matrix Consulting Group Page 206 Report on the Riverside County JPA Feasibility Study I 11 Total Cost Allocations and Analysis Findings 1. Analysis of Total J PA Agency Costs The following sections calculate total cost allocations for each of the three cost baskets, representing shared, subscription -based, and locally dedicated staff and operating expenses. Worksheets will be provided by the project team that allow for these calculations to be streamlined and largely automated. (1) Summary of Cost Allocation Process. As discussed in the chapter focusing on cost allocation, used to allocate JPA costs, as outlined in the earlier chapter: Three Categories for Cost Allocation Cost Category Description Class A Shared costs Cities pay a proportional share based a formula consisting of the following factors: — 40% Population — 25% Total Calls for Service — 35% Number of Locally Dedicated Staff a three-tier structure is Examples Information technology, core detectives, fleet, finance Class B Cities pay based on their electively set level Traffic, gang task force of contribution to a specialty unit. Subscription -based Class C Local costs Full position and operating costs of locally Patrol, crime prevention, dedicated staff POP teams Any type of non -capital cost, whether relating to equipment or personnel, fall into one of these three baskets. For the purposes of clarity, the following sections will examine the total costs of establishing and running a JPA for each unit under this structure, with each cost class examined separately. Matrix Consulting Group Page 207 Report on the Riverside County JPA Feasibility Study For each of the three cost baskets, the general framework that is used to determine total costs are as follows (i) Determine Proportional Shares (Classes A and B only): How are costs allocated on a pro rata basis, if applicable? (ii) Calculate personnel costs: Determined form the total position costs of all salary and benefit factors. (iii) Calculate non -personnel operating costs: Liability insurance, overtime, and operating expenses based on the number of sworn staff) (iv) Addition of cost factors: The subtotals are combined to produce the cost of each allocation category, which are then aggregated into the total cost of running the JPA agency. The following sections will examine the estimated total costs under each category individually before combining them into a single total cost amount for 2016 and 2021. (2) Class A (Shared) Total Costs Class A positions and their associated costs are allocated among municipalities according to a hybrid formula that balances out considerations of equity and use of services, weighting three factors into an aggregate score, as follows: • (40%) Population: Percentage of the total JPA population that each city represents, weighted the most out of the three factors. • (25%) Calls for Service: Percentage of total community -generated calls for service that each city's individual total represents. • (35%) Number of Locally Dedicated Staff: Number of positions contracted for directly (under Class C) by a city, calculated as a percentage of the total number for the JPA. Having previously determined the total operating and personnel costs that fall under the Class A cost area, the actual proportions for each city are then calculated based on this methodology. Matrix Consulting Group Page 208 Report on the Riverside County JPA Feasibility Study (2.1) Determining Pro Rata Shares for Class A Costs The following tables display the percentages represented by each city for the three metrics at 2016 and 2021 staffing levels, in addition to the resulting aggregate score: Calculation of 2016 Class A Pro Rata Shares (40%) (25%) (35%) % of Pop. % of CFS % of LD Staff % Share Coachella 6% 5% 7% 6.0% Jurupa Valley 13% 12% 11% 12.1% Lake Elsinore 8% 8% 8% 8.1% Menifee 11% 9% 9% 10.1% Moreno Valley 27% 29% 27% 27.5% Perris 10% 10% 10% 10.0% San Jacinto 6% 9% 8% 7.3% Temecula 15% 13% 18% 15.2% Wildomar 5% 3% 3% 3.7% Total 100% 100% 100% 100% Calculation of 2021 Class A Proportional Shares (40%) (25%) (35°'o) of Pop. % of CFS % of LD Staff % Share Coachella 6% 6% 7% 6.1% Jurupa Valley 12% 12% 11% 11.8% Lake Elsinore 9% 9% 8% 8.5% Menifee 12% 10% 9% 10.4% Moreno Valley 26% 28% 26% 26.6% Perris 10% 10% 10% 10.2% San Jacinto 6% 9% 8% 7.3% Temecula 15% 13% 17% 15.2% Wildomar 5% 3% 3% 3.9% Total 100% 100% 100% 100% From 2016 to 2021, some cities pay relatively higher proportional costs, while others pay less, highlighting the need for annual recalculation of these costs. Matrix Consulting Group Page 209 Report on the Riverside County JPA Feasibility Study (2.2) Allocation of Total Class A (Shared) Costs The resulting Class A shares for both 2016 and 2021 are then used to divide total personnel and operating costs that are allocated under that category among the nine cities participating in the study: 2016 Class A (Shared) Cost Allocations City Coachella Jurupa Valley Lake Elsinore Menifee Moreno Valley Perris San Jacinto Temecula Wildomar % Share 6.0% 12.1% 8.1% 10.1% 27.5% 10.0% 7.3% 15.2% 3.7% Personnel $1,726,990 $3,486,707 $2,342,915 $2,903,388 $7,896,075 $2,875,168 $2,105,532 $4,357,891 $1,069,172 Operating $147,769 $298,338 $200,470 $248,427 $675,623 $246,012 $180,159 $372,880 $91,483 Total Costs $1,874,759 $3,785,045 $2,543,385 $3,151,815 $8,571,698 $3,121,180 $2,285,690 54,730,771 $1,160,655 Total 100.0% S28,763,838 $2,461,160 S31,224,998 City Coachella Jurupa Valley Lake Elsinore Menifee Moreno Valley Perris San Jacinto Temecula Wildomar 2021 Class A (Shared) Cost Allocations Share 6.1 % 11.8% 8.5% 10.4% 26.6% 10.2% 7.3% 15.2% 3.9% Personnel $1,820,555 $3,534,264 $2,550,725 $3,102,066 $7,956,648 $3,036,283 $2,191,173 $4,528,689 $1,153,654 Operating $154,086 $299,128 $215,885 $262,548 $673,424 $256,981 $185,453 $383,293 $97,641 Total Costs $1,974,641 $3,833,392 $2,766,610 $3,364,615 $8,630,072 $3,293,263 $2,376,626 $4,911,982 $1,251,295 Total Matrix Consulting Group 100.0% $29,874,057 S2,528,439 532,402,496 Page 210 Report on the Riverside County JPA Feasibility Study Overall, costs under Class A (shared) allocations are estimated to experience an increase of around 4% from 2016 to 2021. (3) Class B (Subscription -Based Costs) Class B costs are based on the level that a city participates in a regionalized service. This practice enables cities to prioritize their involvement with certain specialized services that benefit significantly from regionalization, still retaining access to specialized services that some smaller departments do not have. Class B costs are relatively limited for these reasons, however - in the current organization structure of the proposed JPA agency, only two areas fall under the Class B cost area: The Traffic Unit and Violent Offender/Gang Unit. Total personnel costs for each unit allocated under the Class B category are displayed in the following table: Personnel Costs Allocated Under Class B (2016 — 2021) Total FTEs Total Personnel Costs Unit 2016 2021 2016 2021 Gang Task Force 7 7 $958,011 $958,011 Traffic Unit 55 59 $7,269,839 $7,774,893 Total 62 66 $8,227,850 $8,732,904 At under $9 million in personnel costs, Class B costs represent a relatively small share of the agency's total expenditures. Matrix Consulting Group Page 211 Report on the Riverside County JPA Feasibility Study (3.1) Traffic Unit (Class B) Costs are allocated according to the percentage of traffic enforcement positions that cities currently staff for, reflecting the system of contribution -based funding for regional specialty units: 2016 Traffic Unit Cost Shares City % Share Personnel Operating Total Cost North Jurupa Valley 12.5% $908,730 $168,496 $1,077,226 Moreno Valley 20.8% $1,514,550 $280,827 $1,795,376 Perris 8.3% $605,820 $112,331 $718,151 San Jacinto 8.3% $605,820 S112,331 $718,151 South Lake Elsinore 8.3% $605,820 $112,331 $718,151 Menifee 8.3% $605,820 $112,331 $718,151 Temecula 33.3% $2,423,280 $449,322 $2,872,602 Total 100.0% $7,269,839 $1,347,967 $8,617,807 Overtime has been set at fixed rates of 60 hours per position, regardless of classification. The same calculations are made for 2021 staffing levels, which have been scaled in proportion to population growth: 2021 Traffic Unit Cost Shares City % Share Personnel Operating Total Cost North Jurupa Valley 12.5% $1,072,184 $199,125 $1,271,309 Moreno Valley 20.8% $1,786,974 $331,874 $2,118,848 Perris 8.3% $714,790 $132,750 $847,539 San Jacinto 8.3% $714,790 $132,750 $847,539 South Lake Elsinore 8.3% $714,790 $132,750 $847,539 Menifee 8.3% $714,790 $132,750 $847,539 Temecula 33.3% $2,859,159 $530,999 $3,390,157 Total 100.0% $8,577,476 $1,592,996 $10,170,472 Matrix Consulting Group Page 212 Report on the Riverside County JPA Feasibility Study Traffic is by far the larger of the two specialty units, with 55 positions in 2016 and 65 in 2021. (3.2) Violent Offender/Gang Unit (Class B) The Violent Offender/Gang Unit has not been set to scale in proportion to growth, and retains fixed staffing levels through 2021: Violent Offender/Gang Unit Cost Shares (2016 and 2021) City # % Share Personnel Operating Total Cost Coachella 2 22.2% $212,891 $212,891 $425,783 Jurupa Valley 0 0.0% - - - Lake Elsinore 0 0.0% - - - Menifee 1 11.1% $106,446 $106,446 $212,891 Moreno Valley 1 11.1% $106,446 $106,446 $212,891 Perris 3 33.3% $319,337 $319,337 $638,674 San Jacinto 1 11.1% $106,446 $106,446 $212,891 Temecula 1 11.1% $106,446 $106,446 $212,891 Total 9 100.0% $958,011 $169,794 $1,916,022 While nine deputy positions were contracted for in current contract staffing, these assignments were reorganized into a unit comprising of seven sworn personnel - one sergeant, two detectives, and four officers. (3.3) Allocation of Total Class B (Subscription -Based) Costs Class B costs remain relatively stable, reflecting an increase of about $1.5 million in costs from 2016 to 2021, as shown in the following table: Matrix Consulting Group Page 213 Report on the Riverside County JPA Feasibility Study Total Class B (Subscription -Based) Costs, 2016 and 2021 City 2016 2021 Coachella $425,783 $425,783 Jurupa Valley $1,077,226 $1,271,309 Lake Elsinore $718,151 $847,539 Menifee $931,042 $1,060,431 Moreno Valley $2,008,268 $2,331,740 Perris $1,356,825 $1,486,213 San Jacinto $931,042 $1,060,431 Temecula $3,085,494 $3,603,049 Wildomar $0 $0 Total $10,533,829 $12,086,495 The figures displayed in this table represent the combined cost allocated to each city in the two previous tables showing costs for both the Gang/Violent Offender Task Force and Traffic Unit. (4) Class C (Locally Dedicated) Costs Unlike Class A and Class B costs, personnel and related operating costs under Class C are not shared between cities. Locally dedicated staff are paid for entirely by the city contracting for them, and includes functions such as patrol, crime prevention, and community programming. The sections describing Class C costs follow the same format as in Class A, sequentially moving from personnel costs (total position costs), to operating costs (overtime, liability insurance, and a share of aggregate operating expenditures), and finally to the combined allocation of the three cost elements. Matrix Consulting Group Page 214 Report on the Riverside County JPA Feasibility Study Combining the figures from the previous tables, it is possible to then calculate the total shares each city pays for the locally staffed positions the model recommends they contract for in 2016 and 2021: 2016 Total Class C (Locally Dedicated) Costs City Personnel Operating Total Costs Coachella $3,994,350 $763,277 $4,757,627 Jurupa Valley $6,690,223 $1,282,646 $7,972,869 Lake Elsinore $4,688,469 $901,007 $5,589,476 Menifee $5,468,550 $1,052,542 $6,521,092 Moreno Valley $15,744,305 $2,982,116 $18,726,421 Perris $5,973,604 $1,170,862 $7,144,466 San Jacinto $4,539,704 $852,018 $5,391,722 Temecula $9,842,804 $1,846,385 $11,689,188 Wildomar $1,695,067 $329,015 $2,024,082 Total $58,637,076 $11,179,866 $69,816,943 The same calculations are made for the 2021 projection year as well: 2021 Total Class C (Locally Dedicated) Costs City Personnel Operating Total Costs Coachella $4,246,877 $822,437 $5,069,315 Jurupa Valley $6,942,750 $1,341,806 $8,284,556 Lake Elsinore $4,771,750 $901,007 $5,672,757 Menifee $5,804,359 $1,111,702 $6,916,061 Moreno Valley $15,744,305 $2,982,116 $18,726,421 Perris $6,480,678 $1,253,066 $7,733,744 San Jacinto $4,918,495 $940,758 $5,859,252 Temecula $9,842,804 $1,846,385 $11,689,188 Wildomar $1,778,349 $329,015 $2,107,364 Total $60,530,367 $11,528,291 $72,058,658 Matrix Consulting Group Page 215 Report on the Riverside County JPA Feasibility Study At just under $65 million in aggregated spending for locally dedicated staff, the total number is approximately twice those relating to centralized/shared service costs. (5) Total Costs of Running the JPA Agency Combining all three cost areas together, the resulting total represents the total annual cost of the JPA agency, excluding any startup cost obligations: 2016 Total JPA Agency Costs (Excluding Startup Expenses) City Coachella Jurupa Valley Lake Elsinore Menifee Moreno Valley Perris San Jacinto Temecula Wildomar Total Class A Class B Class C Total Costs $1,874,759 $3,785,045 $2,543,385 $3,151,815 $8,571,698 $3,121,180 $2,285,690 $4,730,771 $1,160,655 $31,224,998 $425,783 $1,077,226 $718,151 $931,042 $2,008,268 $1,356,825 $931,042 $3,085,494 $0 $10,533,829 $4,757,627 $7,972,869 $5,589,476 $6,521,092 $18,726,421 $7,144,466 $5,391,722 $11,689,188 $2,024,082 $69,816,943 $7,058,169 $12,835,140 $8,851,012 $10,603,949 $29,306,387 $11,622,472 $8,608,454 $19,505,453 $3,184,737 $111,575,772 6.3% 11.5% 7.9% 9.5% 26.3% 10,4% 7.7% 17.5% 2.9% 100.0% These calculations are then repeating for 2021 costs, combining each of the three cost allocation subtotals into a single cost for running the JPA: Matrix Consulting Group Page 216 Report on the Riverside County JPA Feasibility Study 2021 Total JPA Agency Costs (Excluding Startup Expenses) City Class A Class B Class C Total Costs % Coachella Jurupa Valley Lake Elsinore Menifee Moreno Valley Perris San Jacinto Temecula Wildomar Total $1,974,641 $3,833,392 $2,766,610 $3,364,615 $8,630,072 $3,293,263 $2,376,626 $4,911,982 $1,251,295 $32,402,496 $425,783 $1,271,309 $847,539 $1,060,431 $2,331,740 $1,486,213 $1,060,431 $3,603,049 $0 $12,086,495 $5,069,315 $8,284,556 $5,672,757 $6,916,061 $18,726,421 $7,733,744 $5,859,252 $11,689,188 $2,107,364 $72,058,658 $7,469,738 $13,389,257 $9,286,906 $11,341,106 $29,688,232 $12,513,220 $9,296,310 $20,204,219 $3,358,659 $116,547,648 6.4% 11.5% 8.0% 9.7% 25.5% 10.7% 8.0% 17.3% 2.9% 100.0% As a result of the projected increases in staffing needs from 2016 to the expected JPA start date of 2021 — without accounting for cost of living increases or inflation — the total cost of operating the agency will increase by 4.5% over the five-year period. This equates to an average increase of about 1% per year, far lower than the historic change to the costs of contracting with RSD. However, as notes before, these figures do not take into account startup costs, or increase in expenditures relating to inflation or the cost of living, among other variable factors. (6) Total JPA Costs with Amortized Startup Costs Using the same proportions developed to allocate Class A (shared) costs, shares for debt service related to startup expenses — at a total of $8,429,913 — can be distributed among the nine JPA cities and added to general costs (all non -startup expenditures): Matrix Consulting Group Page 217 Report on the Riverside County JPA Feasibility Study 2016 Total JPA Agency Costs (Including Amortized Startup Expenses) City Share General Debt Service Full Costs Coachella 6.0% $7,469,738 $506,135 $7,975,873 Jurupa Valley 12.1% $13,389,257 $1,021,861 S14,411,117 Lake Elsinore 8.1% $9,286,906 $686,646 $9,973,552 Menifee 10.1% $11,341,106 $850,906 $12,192,012 Moreno Valley 27.5% $29,688,232 $2,314,129 $32,002,361 Perris 10.0% $12,513,220 $842,635 $13,355,855 San Jacinto 7.3% $9,296,310 $617,075 $9,913,385 Temecula 15.2% $20,204,219 $1,277,181 $21,481,401 Wildomar 3.7% $3,358,659 $313,346 $3,672,005 Total 100.0% $116,547,648 $8,429,913 $124,977,561 With the amortized startup costs factored in, the full cost of running the JPA runs to approximately $125 million using 2016 figures. 2. Conclusions and Findings from the JPA Analysis Having fully calculated the estimated costs of establishing and running a JPA question, the analysis is now able to provide a comparison of its costs against those for continuing to contract with RSD for law enforcement services. Other important considerations include examining reasons for the cost differences, as well as any potential volatility in the cost of either option. (1) Compared with current RSD contracts, the JPA can provide services at a reduced cost — even after factoring in startup and capital costs. The following table compares the current cost of contracts for service with RSD versus the fully developed estimations for establishing and running the JPA, Including the amortized startup costs developed in the previous section: Matrix Consulting Group Page 218 Report on the Riverside County JPA Feasibility Study RSD Contract Cost vs JPA Costs (2016; Includes Startup Expenses) City Coachella Jurupa Valley Lake Elsinore Menifee Moreno Valley Perris San Jacinto Temecula Wildomar Total RSD Costs $7.538,758 $15.843.197 $11,799,477 $10.770.641 $39.834.484 $14,694.422 $9,993,198 $25,694,620 $2,667,300 $138,836,097 JPA Costs +/-°o $7,975.873 +5.8% $14,411,117 -9.0% $9,973.552 -15.5% $12,192.012 +13.2% $32,002.361 -19.7% $13,355,855 -9.1% $9,913.385 -0.8% $21,481,401 -1 6.4% $3,672,005 +37.7% $124,977,561 -10_0r'_. The results demonstrate that a JPA could be run with relatively low overhead and support function costs, even including core services such as investigations within the regional portion of the model. Economies of scale have been maximized in this configuration. to the point where the JPA's estimated costs would be less even for a remote city such as Coachella than those contracted for with RSD. To this point, comparisons made using the would-be 2016 JPA costs against the current RSD contract costs may be the most useful for adding perspective to the results of feasibility analysis. While these comparisons do have some limitations, the analysis strongly concludes that a JPA organized and operated in an efficient manner could provide a high level of service under a comparatively lower annual operating cost. In fact, compared to the current aggregate contract cost of $138.836,097 charged by RSD among the nine cities included in the study, the estimated price tag of running the JPA at 2016 staffing levels, at $124,977,561 —including amortized startup expenses — is approximately 10.0°/ lower, Matrix Consulting Group Page 219 Report on the Riverside County JPA Feasibility Study (2) Considerations Regarding Pension Liabilities As discussed in the descriptive profile of current services, the direct rate charged by the Riverside County Sheriff's Department for patrol hours and supporting costs has risen steadily in recent times, with the last four fiscal years experiencing average annual increases of about 4.2%. CaIPERS costs have undoubtedly has played an important role in driving the rate's growth, as has been the case with many other California law enforcement agencies. To this point, for a number of agencies, the additional funding burdens that must be covered are expected to continue to rise over the next several years. While the massive reforms instituted by PEPRA ensuring that revenue into the system would be maintained with new members (hired 2013 or later), the level of benefits that agencies will be required to bear for these employees is much lower. As the percentage of members under the lower -benefit "new member" category increases, the value of vested benefits can be expected to level out to a degree. However, as the state fund underperforms, the shortfalls are transferred to the total normal cost, or the rate at which agencies are required to contribute to the system to cover unfunded liabilities. With CaIPERS having recently — and significantly — lowered its Tong -term earnings forecast within the last quarter, the potential for funding gaps to be ultimately born by taxpayers is relatively more significant than was the case in the 1990s and early 2000s. It may be speculated that these issues would potentially pose a greater risk to RSD contract costs than it does for the JPA, as the agency would be created without any pension liabilities present. The JPA agency would also be relatively is also well -guarded Matrix Consulting Group Page 220 Report on the Riverside County JPA Feasibility Study against pension cost increases, as it begins with a very high proportion of new CaIPERS members affected by PEPRA, as well as a civilian compensation plan that follows a defined contribution system. Given these considerations, any future increases to the total normal cost rates of CaIPERS would very likely affect RSD's contract cost to a greater degree than it would the JPA's, at least for the foreseeable future. These contrasts are amplified by the exclusion of civilian personnel from CaIPERS retirement plans in the modeled JPA compensation structure. Furthermore, given the higher overall cost of operating under the RSD service model, any proportional growth in the cost of living would consequently result in higher nominal increases to total RSD costs than would be true for the JPA. As a result of these factors, it the relative costs of the JPA and RSD service models must also be carefully considered from a perspective of risk relating to future increases to costs and liabilities, as well as which is better prepared to mitigate the impacts of these variables and offer greater flexibility in making cost allocation and staffing decisions. (3) Key Attributes of the JPA Driving Cost Effectiveness There are other factors to consider in this, such as startup costs, specific services that the JPA does not attempt to duplicate, and others. However, it is important to first note some of the main advantages of the JPA in comparison with RSD's model that allow it to operate at a lower cost without sacrificing core services: • Risk -Mitigating Compensation Structure: — The JPA compensation plan features an attractive pay schedule, as well as signing payments to encourage lateral recruiting, ample overtime opportunities, and an incentive pay schedule with up to +20% additional pay for many sworn personnel. Matrix Consulting Group Page 221 Report on the Riverside County JPA Feasibility Study However, these considerations are balanced by a pension plan that relies on having a high proportion of PEPRA-affected "new" CaIPERS members that vest benefits at a much lower rate. Additionally, civilian personnel are not offered CaIPERS membership, and are instead provided a defined benefit plan. For both sworn and civilian personnel, retirement health benefits also operate as a defined benefit. While pay is relatively on the higher side of its peers, risks and potential funding liabilities are avoided. An increase in CaIPERS costs and/or liabilities, either due to agency revenue loss or underperformance of CaIPERS in the market, would bear a much greater impact on other agencies than it would on the JPA. Lack of Specialized Functions: Many large agencies, such as RSD, have a number of specialized units or divisions that focus on specific crimes or issues. The JPA retains a relatively lean organizational structure for an agency of its size. The only regionally deployed field units within the JPA organization are the Traffic Unit and the Violent Offenders/Gang Task Force. It does not include specialized functions such as street crimes, special investigations. counterterrorism, organized crime. robbery, narcotics, or VICE. Regardless of the effectiveness that these units may have, specialization can lead to the mitigation, an even reversing, of the economies of scale gained in larger police agencies. Some structural barriers exist toward increases in organizational complexity — the assignment of specialty regional functions to its own cost allocation method (Class B), limits the regionalization of spending relating to specific issues. Use of Civilian Personnel: This is widely practiced among contract cities in the Riverside Sheriffs Office, though it is worth noting the JPA extensively utilizes civilian personnel to handle low -priority calls and divert workload away from sworn patrol resources. Investments in Infrastructure: A significant investment up front in information management systems, hardware, and other software used in administrative processes, minimizes the need for personnel in records and certain other types of staff, due to Matrix Consulting Group Page 222 Report on the Riverside County JPA Feasibility Study reduction in data entry functions and database management. The costs of these infrastructure purchases are shared among the JPA cities. Many of these changes would require significant organizational or political will to accomplish in a large agency — the creation of a JPA represents a significant opportunity to shape these considerations to a degree that would otherwise be impossible. The analysis demonstrates the potential in creating such an agency, as well as its ability to be a highly cost effective agency while still maintaining a high level of service to the communities it serves. As a result of these considerations, the analysis of the study concludes and recommends that the contract cities move forward with the process of establishing the feasibility of establishing a regional JPA law enforcement agency. Matrix Consulting Group Page 223 Report on the Riverside County JPA Feasibility Study I APPENDIX: Summary of Compensation Survey Results 1. Introduction and Overview of Survey Methodology In order to provide a baseline for the estimation of these costs, the project team conducted a salary survey of comparable municipalities, collecting comprehensive data relating to compensation packages offered to both sworn and civilian employees. (1) Selection Criteria Cities were selected according to the following criteria. • The most important characteristic for selection in the survey were cities within Riverside County that currently retain their own police department. • Cities were also selected for their proximity to other RSD contract cities included in the study. Additionally, economic factors were also included — among non -contract cities that are near ones included in the study, certain exclusions were made based on highly significant differences in median household income levels of the area, which in turn would affect the compensation packages offered to employees. All full-time employees in each of the cities surveyed were members of CaIPERS, including both sworn and non -sworn personnel. Nearby agencies in San Bernardino County were excluded for lack of comparability, while one city in San Diego County was, however, included. From these considerations, the following cities were chosen, all of which are located within California: Corona Desert Hot Springs Escondido Hemet Indio Matrix Consulting Group Page 224 Report on the Riverside County JPA Feasibility Study • Murrieta • Palm Springs • Riverside (City) • Riverside County (sworn positions only) (2) Data Obtained Through the Salary Survey The research efforts of the compensation survey were comprehensive, documenting both pay and benefit structures determined through collective bargaining units. Extensive data was gathered to provide a detailed account of all positions that may be relevant to a JPA agency. including both civilian and sworn positions. When comparing sworn positions, data from Riverside County Sheriff's Department was also included. The following list outlines the main categories of information that were obtained in the survey for each position are: • Minimum and maximum annual compensation: While the characteristics of step-by-step progressions in pay schedules may vary between different bargaining units, in order to be able to reasonably compare different jurisdictions, it was necessary to first reduce the level of detail down to minimum and maximum pay for each position. • Other direct compensation: One-time payments stipulated in contracts, as well as compensation that be considered as a signing bonus. • CaIPERS contributions: Spending on retirement/pension systems. Different benefit systems are provided, with employees either falling into two categories: 'classic' CaIPERS members (pre -2011), and 'new' CaIPERS members (post - 2013). For each type of system, the three main items of information gathered are as follows: - Retirement age: The age threshold required for employees to vest benefits. For new CaIPERS members in the survey group, the average age is over five years higher than it is for classic members. - Pension Coefficient: the percentage of an employee's highest/final salary level that is awarded in the plan, whether it is taken calculated from the single -highest year or taken as an average over three years. Matrix Consulting Group Page 225 Report on the Riverside County JPA Feasibility Study 1 1 Employee cost/contribution: Employee contribution/cost requirements, I including what — if any — contribution the city makes toward those requirements. • Medical Insurance: Spending on medical plans for active employees. Subgroups L of this category include Dental and Vision insurance, which in many cases are lumped into overall health insurance benefits. • Retiree Medical Insurance: City expenditures or contributions made toward I health insurance plans for retired employees. • Other types of insurance: Spending on other categories of insurance, such as I long-term disability, short-term disability, and life insurance. • Allowances: Benefits that either directly provide value to employees, or reimburse 1 them for certain types of expenses. Types of these benefits include meal reimbursement, tuition allowance, and others. ' Assignment -based Incentive Pay: Modifications to regular pay based on the assignment of a certain schedule or role. These include shift differential pay (e.g., I for night or swing shifts), specialized assignment pays (e.g., FTO, K9, motors, patrol supervision, SWAT team roles, etc.). Attainment -based Incentive pay: Modifications to an employee's regular pay rate I based on a variety of different factors, including the following: Educational attainment (e.g., bachelor's degree, master's degree, etc.) I POST certification level (i.e., intermediate or advanced) Supervisory certification Bilingual language abilities 1 Longevity, or pay awarded after meeting certain thresholds of employment duration in the department 2. Summary of Key Compensation Survey Results I The following table, which is presented over a series of pages, provides several 1 key data elements gathered as part of the compensation survey research, including minimum pay, maximum pay, single and family medical insurance allowances, and I CaIPERS benefit levels for both classic and new (tiers 1 and 2) members. Sworn positions 1 have been highlighted in blue. I Matrix Consulting Group Page 226 1 1 1- 1 SE- i In N N NM -- -- --' Ell Report on the Riverside County JPA Feasibility Study Category Summary of Compensation Survey Results by Aggregated Classifications Base Pay Classic Members New Members Medical Ins. Min Max % Age % Age Single Family 911 Comm. Director $83,034 $94,644 3.0% 60 2.0% 62 $2,691 $7,597 Riverside - Public Safety Comm Mgr E $87,000 $96,378 - - - - $00 $00 Escondido - Pub Safety Communications Mgr $79,068 $92,910 3.0% 60 2.0% 62 $5,382 $15,194 Accounting Clerk 1 $39,255 $44,061 2.8% 57 2.0% 62 $9,268 $13,595 Hemet - Accountant $49,920 $56,832 2.7% 55 2.0% 62 $12,346 $12,346 Murrieta - Accounting Assistant $37,518 $41,560 2.7% 55 2.0% 62 $15,663 $15,663 Murrieta - Accounting Specialist $41,411 $45,874 2.7% 55 2.0% 62 $15,663 $15,663 Murrieta - Accounting Technician $44,917 $49,757 2.7% 55 2.0% 60 $10,001 $10,001 Riverside - Accounting Technician $47,256 $52,338 2.7% 55 2.0% 62 $7,380 $13,200 Corona - Accounting Technician 1 $37,104 $41,202 2.7% 55 2.0% 62 $3,552 $9,240 Hemet - Accounting Technician I $34,464 $39,240 2.7% 55 2.0% 62 $12,337 $12,337 Indio - Accounting Technician I $41,310 $51,172 2.7% 55 2.0% 62 $15,900 $15,900 Escondido - Account Clerk 1 $31,116 $34,464 3.0% 60 2.0% 62 $5,382 $15,194 Escondido - Account Clerk 11 $34,344 $38,040 3.0% 60 2.0% 62 $5,382 $15,194 Escondido - Accounting Assistant I $31,116 $34,464 3.0% 60 2.0% 62 $5,382 $15,194 Escondido - Accounting Assistant II $34,344 $38,040 3.0% 60 2.0% 62 $5,382 $15,194 Escondido - Sr Account Clerk $39,828 $44,118 3.0% 60 2.0% 62 $5,382 $15,194 Matrix Consulting Group Page 227 Report on the Riverside County JPA Feasibility Study Category Base Pay Classic Members New Members Medical Ins. Min Max % Age % Age Single Family Accounting Clerk II $48,765 $55,700 2.8% 56 2.0% 62 $7,293 $12,112 Corona - Accountant I Riverside - Accountant I Corona - Accountant II Corona - Accounting Technician II Hemet - Accounting Technician II Indio - Accounting Technician II Corona - Accounting Technician III Hemet - Accounting Technician III Escondido - Accountant I Escondido - Accountant II $50,052 $55,578 2.7% 55 2.0% 62 $3,552 $9,240 $54,624 $60,528 2.7% 55 2.0% 62 $7,380 $13,200 $53,940 $59,892 2.7% 55 2.0% 62 $3,552 $9,240 $40,992 $45,522 2.7% 55 2.0% 62 $3,552 $9,240 $39,972 $45,510 2,7% 55 2.0% 62 $12,337 $12,337 $46,796 $57,968 2.7% 55 2.0% 62 $15,900 $15,900 $45,300 $50,298 2.7% 55 2.0% 62 $3,552 59,240 $43,044 $49,008 2.7% 55 2.0% 62 $12,337 512,337 $50,976 $59,898 3.0% 60 2.0% 62 55,382 $15,194 $61,956 $72,798 3.0% 60 2.0% 62 $5,382 $15,194 Accounting Manager $75,168 $86,891 2.7% 55 2.0% 62 $9,062 $13,745 Hemet - Accounting Manager Corona - Accounting Supervisor Hemet - Accounting Supervisor Palm Springs - Accounting Supervisor Matrix Consulting Group $86,628 $101,364 2.7% 55 2.0% 62 $12,346 $12,346 $74,220 $82,410 2.7% 55 2.0% 62 $3,552 $9,240 $59,820 $69,990 2.7% 55 2.0% 62 $12,346 $12,346 $80,004 $93,798 2.7% 55 2.0% 62 $8,004 $21,048 Page 228 M N 1111111 IIIIII M M M MI IIIIIII N M M M N M IIIIIII all M IIIIII = I In En MN NM 1 NE 1111 EN 1 NM 111111 11111 11•11 Report on the Riverside County JPA Feasibility Study Category Base Pay Classic Members New Members Medical Ins. Min Max % Age % Age Single Family Administrative Assistant $42,665 $48,812 2.7% 55 2.0% 62 $7,463 S13,078 Riverside - Admin Assist $38,100 544,598 2.7% 55 2.0% 62 $7,380 513.200 Corona - Administrative Assistant $40,992 $45.522 2.7% 55 2.0% 62 $3,552 59,240 Hemet - Administrative Assistant $47,904 $54,516 2.7% 55 2.0% 62 $12,337 512,337 Palm Springs - Administrative Assistant $58,068 $68.052 2.7% 55 2.0% 62 $8,004 521.048 Corona - Administrative Assistant I $40,992 $45,522 2.7% 55 2.0% 62 $3,552 S9,240 Corona - Administrative Assistant II $44,184 $49,062 2.7% 55 2.0% 62 $3,552 59.240 Indio - Administrative Secretary $46,796 $57,968 2.7% 55 2.0% 62 $15,900 $15,900 Palm Springs - Administrative Secretary $50,028 $58,674 2.7% 55 2.0% 62 $8,004 $21.048 Corona - Management Services Assistant I 541,820 $46,440 2.7% 55 2.0% 62 $3,552 59.240 Corona - Management Services Assistant II $45,300 $50,298 2.7% 55 2.0% 62 $3,552 59,240 Corona - Office Manager $49,800 $55,296 2.7% 55 2.0% 62 $3,552 S9,240 Riverside - Police Admin Spec 535,916 $42,024 - - - - $00 $00 Hemet - Public Safety Office Specialist $31,944 535,388 2.7% 55 2.0% 62 512,346 512.346 Murrieta - Secretary $40.900 $45,307 2.7% 55 2.0% 61 512,832 $12,832 Palm Springs - Secretary $38,700 545,378 2.7% 55 2.0% 60 $7,818 $21.005 Palm Springs - Secretary, Senior $42,732 550.100 2.7% 55 2.0% 60 $7,818 $21,005 Corona - Senior Administrative Assistant $45,300 $50,298 2.7% 55 2.0% 62 $3,552 $9,240 Indio - Senior Administrative Assistant $59,158 S73,281 2.7% 55 2.0% 62 515.900 $15,900 Riverside - Senior Office Spec $35,136 539,990 2.7% 55 2.0% 62 $7,380 $13,200 Escondido - Administrative Aide $29,616 $32,802 3.0% 60 2.0% 62 $5,382 $15,194 Escondido - Administrative Assistant $34,344 $38,040 3.0% 60 2.0% 62 $5,382 $15,194 Matrix Consulting Group Page 229 Report on the Riverside County JPA Feasibility Study Category Base Pay Classic Members Min Max % Age New Members Medical Ins. % Age Single Family Administrative Services Manager $95,734 $107,911 3.0% 51 2.1% 62 $17,410 $18,391 Indio - Administrative Services Manager Corona - Administrative Services Manager I Corona - Administrative Services Manager II Corona - Administrative Services Manager 111 Corona - Administrative Services Manager IV Corona - Public Safety Administration Manager I Corona - Public Safety Administration Manager II Corona - Public Safety Administration Manager III Corona - Support Services Manager Escondido - Police Business Mgr $90,844 $87,492 $94,296 $101,616 $129,756 $94,296 $97,152 $101,616 $91,968 $68,304 $112,531 $97,152 $104,706 $112,836 $144,078 $104,706 $107,880 $112,836 $102,120 $80,262 3.0% 3.0% 3.0% 3.0% 3.0% 3.0% 3.0% 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 2.7% 2.0% 2.0% 2.0% 2.0% 2.0% 2.0% 57 62 62 62 62 62 62 $15,900 $19,102 $19,102 $19,102 $19,102 $19,102 $19,102 $15,900 $19,102 $19,102 $19,102 $19,102 $19,102 $19,102 3.0% 50 2.0% 62 $19,102 $19,102 3.0% 50 3.0% 60 2.0% 62 $19,102 $19,102 2.0% 62 $5,382 $15,194 Assistant Chief $143,718 $174,984 3.0% 50 2.7% 57 $2,722 $7,722 Riverside - Assist Police Chief Nc Escondido - Asst Chief of Police $158,640 $198,630 $128,796 $151,338 - - - - $00 $00 3.0% 50 2.7% 57 $5,443 $15,443 Captain $132,104 $149,441 3.0% 50 2.6% 57 $9,517 $12,792 Corona - Police Captain Hemet - Police Captain Murrieta - Police Captain Palm Springs - Police Captain Riverside - Police Captain Escondido - Police Captain Matrix Consulting Group $145,524 $113,400 $135,375 $138,312 $137,352 $122,664 $161,586 $129,060 $149,962 $153,402 $158,502 $144,132 3.0% 50 2.0% 62 $19,102 3.0% 50 2.7% 57 $12,337 3.0% 50 3.0% 50 $10,001 3.0% 50 2.7% 57 $10,219 - - - - $00 3.0% 50 2.7% 57 $5,443 111111 11011 all O--- E-- - 1111 0111 NM= $19,102 $12,337 $10,001 $19,871 $00 $15,443 Page 230 MI all 1011 $53,757 $62,183 2.7% 56 2.0% 61 $10,228 $15,158 1 M I I M N M N I = On M NM Report on the Riverside County JPA Feasibility Study Category Base Pay Classic Members Min Max % Age New Members Medical Ins. % Age Single Family Chief of Police $161,340 $186,003 2.8% 53 2.2% 60 $3,155 $5,830 Corona - Police Chief Desert Hot Springs - Police Chief Hemet - Police Chief Indio - Police Chief Murrieta - Police Chief Riverside - Police Chief Escondido - Chief Of Police $171,552 $123,240 $180,000 $134,861 $146,362 $224,256 $149,112 $190,494 $139,680 $180,000 $167,056 $182,429 $267,156 $175,206 - - - - $00 2.7% 55 2.0% 62 $6,641 - - - - $00 - - - - $00 2.7% 55 2.0% 60 $10,001 - - - - $00 3.0% 50 2.7% 57 $5,443 $00 $15,369 $00 $00 $10,001 $00 $15,443 Crime Analyst Corona - Crime Analyst Murrieta - Crime Analyst Palm Springs - Crime Analyst Riverside - Crime Analyst Indio - Crime Analyst Indio - Crime Analyst II Escondido - Crime Analyst Matrix Consulting Group $59,592 $66,174 $58,495 $64,799 $52,056 $61,026 $54,408 $65,478 $47,874 $56,015 $52,895 $61,890 $50,976 $59,898 2.7% 2.7% 2.7% 2.7% 2.7% 2.7% 3.0% 55 55 55 55 55 55 60 2.0% 2.0% 2.0% 2.0% 2.0% 2.0% 2.0% 62 62 60 62 60 60 62 $3,552 $15,663 $7,818 $7,380 $15,900 $15,900 $5,382 $9,240 $15,663 $21,005 $13,200 $15,900 $15,900 $15,194 Page 231 Report on the Riverside County JPA Feasibility Study Category Base Pay Classic Members New Members Medical Ins. Min Max % Age % Age Single Family Crime Scene Technician $47,778 $54,030 2.7% 55 2.0% 61 $5,418 $10,552 Corona - Crime Prevention Assistant Corona - Crime Prevention Specialist Indio - Crime Scene Specialist Hemet - Crime Scene Technician Palm Springs - Crime Scene Technician Corona - Forensic Technician Corona - Forensic Technician II CSO Murrieta - Lead Police Services Technician Murrieta - Police Services Technician Murrieta - Police Services Technician II Palm Springs - Community Service Officer Indio - Community Service Officer Indio - Community Service Officer II Hemet - Community Services Officer Indio - Senior Community Service Officer Riverside - Police Program Supervisor N Corona - Police Program Coordinator Riverside - Police Program Coordinator Indio - Senior Community Improvement Officer Escondido - Community Service Officer Escondido - Sr Community Service Officer Matrix Consulting Group $31,164 $45,300 $58,444 $44,712 $56,040 $46,440 $52,344 $46,231 $42,446 $34,838 $38,450 $46,032 $43,329 $47,874 $36,672 $52,895 $50,592 $52,608 $47,238 $58,571 $44,364 $50,316 $34,602 $50,298 $68,382 $49,530 $65,706 $51,570 $58,122 $52,528 $47,020 $38,591 $42,593 $53,946 $50,697 $56,015 $40,626 $61,890 $56,016 $58,416 $52,338 $72,553 $49,146 $55,740 2.7% 2.7% 2.7% 2.7% 2.7% 2.7% 2.7% 2.7% 2.7% 2.7% 2.7% 2.7% 2.7% 2.7% 2.7% 2.7% 2.7% 2.7% 3.0% 3.0% 55 55 55 55 55 55 56 55 55 55 55 55 55 55 55 55 55 55 60 60 2.0% 2.0% 2.0% 2.0% 2.0% 2.0% 2.0% 2.0% 2.0% 2.0% 2.0% 2.0% 2.0% 2.0% 2.0% 2.0% 2.0% 2.0% 2.0% 2.0% 62 62 60 60 62 62 61 62 62 62 60 60 60 62 60 62 62 62 62 62 $3,552 $3,552 $15,900 $00 $7,818 $3,552 $3,552 $10,655 $15,663 $15,663 $15,663 $7,818 $15,900 $15,900 $12,346 $15,900 $00 $3,552 $7,380 $15,900 $5,382 $5,382 $9,240 $9,240 $15,900 $00 $21,005 $9,240 $9,240 $13,998 $15,663 $15,663 $15,663 $21,005 $15,900 $15,900 $12,346 $15,900 $00 $9,240 $13,200 $15,900 $15,194 $15,194 Page 232 MO M- s I S r I- NM - -- MN- M r- OM IIIIII MO MO I M NM- I I MI- i- MN w■ r N Report on the Riverside County JPA Feasibility Study Category Base Pay Classic Members New Members Medical Ins. Min Max % Age % Age Single Family Custodian S32,534 S36.077 2.8% 57 2.0% 62 $5,438 $12,545 Riverside - Custodian Corona - Custodian I Flex Corona - Custodian II Flex Riverside - Senior Custodian Escondido - Custodian I Escondido - Custodian 11 $32,928 $36,516 2.7% 55 2.0% 62 $7.380 $13,200 S30,396 $33,750 2.7% 55 2.0% 62 $3.552 $9,240 S33,576 $37,284 2.7% 55 2.0% 62 $3.552 $9,240 $38,100 $42,222 2.7% 55 2.0% 62 $7.380 $13,200 $28,632 $31,716 3.0% 60 2,0% 62 $5.382 $15,194 $31,572 $34,974 3.0% 60 2.0% 62 $5,382 $15,194 Deputy Chief $135,060 $154,242 3.0% 50 2.7% 57 $6,169 $6,169 Hemet - Deputy Police Chief Riverside - Deputy Police Chief $117,924 5117,924 $152,196 S190.560 3.0°o 50 2.7% 57 $12,337 $12,337 $00 $00 Detective S75,592 S85,662 3.0% 50 2.6% 53 $11,245 $12,060 Corona - Police Corporal Hemet - Police Corporal Indio - Police Corporal Murrieta - Police Corporal Riverside County - Police Corporal Murrieta - Detective II Riverside County - Investigator 11 Corona - Police Detective Riverside - Police Detective Hemet - Police Investigator Matrix Consulting Group $78,792 $82,872 $78,050 S78,050 S66,335 S81.973 569.141 580,388 $75,348 $71.424 $87.492 $87.120 $91.322 $86,472 $80,125 $90,806 $83,544 $89,262 S83,472 S79,122 3.0% 3.0% 3.0% 3.0% 3.0% 3.0% 3.0% 3.0% 3.0% 3.0% 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 2.7% 2.7% 2.7% 3.0% 2.0% 3.0% 2.0% 2.7% 3.0% 2.7% 57 $11,400 57 $12,337 57 $15,900 50 S10,001 50 S11,280 50 S10,001 50 S11,280 57 S11,400 50 S6.480 57 S12.337 $11,400 $12,337 $15,900 $10.001 $1 1.280 $10.001 $11,280 $11,400 $15,444 $12,337 F.icl!' ':::7 Report on the Riverside County JPA Feasibility Study Category Base Pay Classic Members New Members Medical Ins. Min Max % Age % Age Single Family Dispatch Supervisor $61,243 $69,646 2.9% 55 2.2% 60 $5,442 $10,223 Indio - Police Dispatch Supervisor $55,721 $69,024 3.0% 50 2.7% 57 $15,900 $15,900 Riverside - Public Safety Comm Supervisor E $68,856 $76,278 - - - - $00 $00 Corona - Public Safety Dispatch Supervisor $61,716 $68,526 2.7% 55 2.0% 62 $3,552 $9,240 Riverside - Public Safety Dispatch Supervisor $68,856 $76,278 - - - - $00 $00 Palm Springs - Dispatcher Supervisor $52,056 $61,026 2.7% 55 2.0% 60 $7,818 $21,005 Escondido - Public Safety Shift Supervisor $60,252 $66,744 3.0% 60 2.0% 62 $5,382 $15,194 Dispatcher I $46,260 $52,607 2.7% 56 2.0% 61 $11,010 $15,127 Indio - Police Dispatcher I Hemet - Public Safety Dispatcher Riverside - Public Safety Dispatcher I Hemet - Public Safety Operator Palm Springs - Dispatcher Indio - Police Senior Dispatcher Escondido - Public Safety Dispatcher I Matrix Consulting Group $47,874 $56,015 2.7% 55 2.0% 60 $15,900 $15,900 $40,404 $44,760 2.7% 55 2.0% 62 $12,346 $12,346 $47,076 $52,146 2.7% 55 2.0% 62 $7,380 $13,200 $36,672 $40,626 2.7% 55 2.0% 62 $12,346 $12,346 $44,880 $52,632 2.7% 55 2.0% 60 $7,818 $21,005 $58,444 $68,382 2.7% 55 2.0% 60 $15,900 $15,900 $48,468 $53,688 3.0% 60 2.0% 62 $5,382 $15,194 Page 234 IMMI-01111 MD N MN I OM M M N 1 MI N 11111 Executive Assistant $52,703 $60,634 2.8% 54 2.0% 62 $6,512 $8,645 E MO - - - - - - - - - M N = M I - - r Report on the Riverside County JPA Feasibility Study Category Base Pay Classic Members New Members Medical Ins. Min Max % Age % Age Single Family Dispatcher II $50,633 $56,559 2.8% 56 2.0% 62 $11,576 $15,211 Murrieta - Lead Dispatcher $51,862 $57,450 2.7% 55 2.0% 62 $15,663 $15,663 Indio - Police Dispatcher 11 $52,895 $61,890 2.7% 55 2.0% 60 $15,900 $15,900 Murrieta - Public Safety Dispatcher 11 $46,069 $51,033 2.7% 55 2.0% 62 $15,663 $15,663 Riverside - Public Safety Dispatcher 11 $56,988 $63,132 2.7% 55 2.0% 62 $7,380 $13,200 Murrieta - Dispatcher 11 $46,990 $52,054 2.7% 55 2.0% 62 $15,663 $15,663 Escondido - Public Safety Dispatcher 11 $53,436 $59,190 3.0% 60 2.0% 62 $5,382 $15,194 Escondido -Telecommunications Specialist $46,188 $51,162 3.0% 60 2.0% 62 $5,382 $15,194 Corona - Assistant to the Police Chief $46,212 $51,312 3.0% 50 2.0% 62 $19,102 $19,102 Riverside - Executive Assist N $49,284 $62,610 - - - - $00 $00 Corona - Executive Assistant $49,800 $55,296 2.7% 55 2.0% 62 $3,552 $9,240 Corona - Executive Assistant I $49,800 $55,296 2.7% 55 2.0% 62 $3,552 $9,240 Corona - Executive Assistant II $53,664 $59,592 2.7% 55 2.0% 62 $3,552 $9,240 Indio - Executive Assistant to the Police Chief $59,158 $73,281 - - - - $00 $00 Murrieta - Executive Secretary $56,764 $62,881 2.7% 55 2.0% 60 $10,001 $10,001 Hemet - Management Assistant $56,940 $64,806 2.7% 55 2.0% 62 $12,337 $12,337 Matrix Consulting Group Page 235 Report on the Riverside County JPA Feasibility Study Category Finance/Fiscal Mgmt. Manager Corona - Budget Manager Indio - Finance Manager Indio - Manager of Finance & Customer Service Corona - Public Safety Finance Deputy Director Financial Analyst Corona - Accounting Analyst I Corona - Accounting Analyst II Palm Springs - Financial Analyst Corona - Financial Analyst I Corona - Financial Analyst 11 Desert Hot Springs - Program and Financial Specialist Financial Analyst 11 Corona - Accounting Analyst 111 Corona - Budget Analyst Corona - Financial Analyst III Palm Springs - Senior Financial Analyst Matrix Consulting Group Base Pay Classic Members Min Max % Age $98,354 $94,296 $90,844 $90,844 $117,432 $64,160 $60,792 $65,520 $65,652 $60,792 $65,520 $66,684 $115,041 $104,706 $112,531 $112,531 $130,398 $72,181 $67,506 $72,750 $76,992 $67,506 $72,750 $75,582 $68,628 $77,331 $70,608 $78,402 $60,792 $67,506 $70,608 $78,402 $72,504 $85,014 New Members Medical Ins. % Age Single Family 3.0% 50 2.0% 62 $9,551 $9,551 3.0% 50 2.0% 62 $19,102 $19,102 - - - - $00 $00 - - - - $00 $00 3.0% 50 2.0% 62 $19,102 $19,102 2.7% 55 2.0% 62 $4,809 $12,230 2.7% 55 2.0% 62 $3,552 $9,240 2.7% 55 2.0% 62 $3,552 $9,240 2.7% 55 2.0% 62 $8,004 $21,048 2.7% 55 2.0% 62 $3,552 $9,240 2.7% 55 2.0% 62 $3,552 $9,240 2.7% 55 2.0% 62 $6,641 $15,369 2.7% 55 2.0% 62 $4,665 $12,192 2.7% 55 2.0% 62 $3,552 $9,240 2.7% 55 2.0% 62 $3,552 $9,240 2.7% 55 2.0% 62 $3,552 $9,240 2.7% 55 2.0% 62 $8,004 $21,048 Page 236 i----- I--- E S MN= MN I I r IIIIII 11111 11111 1 ME I I EN In OM NE E 11111 11111 NM OM Report on the Riverside County JPA Feasibility Study Category Base Pay Classic Members New Members Medical Iris. Min Max % Age % Age Single Family Fleet Manager $72,935 $86,937 2.9% 54 2.2% 61 $9,678 $14,249 Palm Springs - Fleet Maintenance Manager $80,004 $93,798 2.7% 55 2,0% 62 $8,004 $21,048 Riverside - Fleet Opers Mgr E $69,396 $88.134 - - - - $00 $00 Corona - Fleet Services Superintendent $72,756 $80.784 3.0% 50 2.0% 62 $19,102 $19,102 Indio - Fleet Services Operations Manager $70,793 $87.694 3.0% 50 2,7% 57 $15,900 $15,900 Escondido - Fleet Maint Superintendent $71,724 $84,276 3.0% 60 2.0% 62 $5,382 $15,194 Fleet Services Assistant $38,851 $43,245 2.7% 55 2.0% 62 $4,316 $10,664 Corona - Fleet Inventory Specialist $35,472 $39,390 2.7% 55 2.0% 62 $3,552 $9,240 Corona - Fleet Services Assistant $27,780 $30,852 2.7% 55 2.0% 62 $3,552 $9.240 Corona - Fleet Services Assistant Technician $29,640 $32,916 2,7% 55 2.0% 62 $3,552 $9,240 Corona - Fleet Services Associate Technician $40,992 $45,522 2.7% 55 2.0% 62 $3,552 $9,240 Corona - Fleet Services Heavy Equipment Technician S48,336 $53,670 2.7% 55 2.0% 62 $3,552 $9,240 Corona - Fleet Services Helper S20,808 $23,106 2.7% 55 2.0% 62 $3,552 $9,240 Corona - Fleet Services Parts Runner 529,640 $32,916 2.7% 55 2.0% 62 $3,552 $9,240 Corona - Fleet Services Parts Runner/ Parts 533.744 $37,470 2.7% 55 2.0% 62 $3,552 $9,240 Room Assistant Corona - Fleet Services Parts Storekeeper 540.992 $45,522 2.7% 55 2.0% 62 $3,552 $9,240 Corona - Fleet Services Technician 548.336 $53,670 2.7% 55 2.0% 62 $3,552 $9,240 Corona - Fleet Services Technician/ Parts Room Administrator 548,336 $53,670 2.7% 55 2.0% 62 $3,552 S9,240 Corona - Fleet Services Worker $33,744 $37,470 2.7% 55 2.0% 62 $3,552 S9,240 Corona - Fleet Services Writer $43,308 $48,090 2.7% 55 2.0% 62 $3,552 $9,240 Palm Springs - Parts & Office Assistant $35,904 $42,132 2.7% 55 2.0% 60 $7,818 $21,005 Riverside - Police Fleet Maint Coordinator 552,080 $57,690 2.7°/0 55 2.0% 62 $7,380 $13200 Matrix Consulting Group Page 237 Report on the Riverside County JPA Feasibility Study Category Base Pay Classic Members New Members Medical Ins. Min Max % Age % Age Single Family Corona - Senior Fleet Services Assistant $31,944 $35,472 2.7% 55 2.0% 62 $3,552 $9,240 Escondido - Fleet Service Advisor $46,188 $51,162 3.0% 60 2.0% 62 $5,382 $15,194 Fleet Services Supervisor $61,593 $69,342 2.8% 57 2.0% 62 $3,122 $8,419 Corona - Fleet Administrator $47,616 $52,872 2.7% 55 2.0% 62 $3,552 $9,240 Riverside - Fleet Mgmt Supervisor N $66,036 $77,286 - - - - $00 $00 Corona - Fleet Services Supervisor $70,608 $78,402 2.7% 55 2.0% 62 $3,552 $9,240 Escondido - Maintenance Supervisor $62,112 $68,808 3.0% 60 2.0% 62 $5,382 $15,194 Fleet Technician $50,028 $58,442 2.8% 57 2.0% 61 $8,900 $17,439 Palm Springs - Fleet Maintenance Technician I $44,880 $52,632 2.7% 55 2.0% 60 $7,818 $21,005 Palm Springs - Fleet Maintenance Technician II $49,512 $58,086 2.7% 55 2.0% 60 $7,818 $21,005 Palm Springs - Fleet Maintenance Technician III $53,316 $62,538 2.7% 55 2.0% 60 $7,818 $21,005 Palm Springs - Fleet Maintenance Technician III/Service Writer $57,468 $67,380 2.7% 55 2.0% 60 $7,818 $21,005 Palm Springs - Fleet Maintenance Technician IV $58,896 $69,054 2.7% 55 2.0% 60 $7,818 $21,005 Indio - Fleet Mechanic I $44,519 $55,147 2.7% 55 2.0% 62 $15,900 $15,900 Indio - Fleet Mechanic II $49,189 $60,932 2.7% 55 2.0% 62 $15,900 $15,900 Riverside - Fleet Mgmt Tech $44,136 $51,636 2.7% 55 2.0% 62 $7,380 $13,200 Indio - Senior Fleet Mechanic $54,349 $67,323 2.7% 55 2.0% 62 $15,900 $15,900 Escondido - Lead Mechanic $57,408 $63,594 3.0% 60 2.0% 62 $5,382 $15,194 Escondido - Maintenance Technician I $39,636 $43,908 3.0% 60 2.0% 62 $5,382 $15,194 Escondido - Maintenance Technician II $43,752 $48,468 3.0% 60 2.0% 62 $5,382 $15,194 Escondido - Sr Maintenance Technician $53,304 $59,052 3.0% 60 2.0% 62 $5,382 $15,194 Matrix Consulting Group Page 238 11111 11111 N I I M E I = 1 11111 N M 2.7% 55 2.0% 62 $3,552 $9,240 2.7% 56 2.0% 62 55,725 510,772 M M S NM M-- M--- = M I ! MN In Report on the Riverside County JPA Feasibility Study Category Base Pay Classic Members New Members Medical Ins. Min Max % Age % Age Single Family Grants Administrator S48,834 S54,225 Corona - Accounting / Grants Specialist Corona - Grant Administrator $47,616 $52,872 $50,052 $55,578 2.7% 55 2.0% 62 $3,552 $9,240 2.7% 55 2.0% 62 $3,552 $9,240 HR Analyst $55,150 S63,335 Corona - Benefit Specialist 1 Corona - Benefit Specialist II Corona - Benefit Specialist III Riverside - HR Admin Tech N Corona - HR Analyst Indio - HR Analyst Riverside - HR Analyst Desert Hot Springs - HR Specialist Indio - HR Specialist Palm Springs - HR Specialist Hemet - HR Technician Murrieta - HR Technician Corona - HR Technician 1 Corona - HR Technician II Corona - HR Technician 111 Corona - Senior HR Analyst Corona - Senior HR Analyst / ADA Emp. Coordinator Palm Springs - Senior HR Specialist Corona - Senior HR Technician Matrix Consulting Group $50,052 $53,940 $58,128 $43,680 $60,792 $54,349 $50,502 $42,540 $51,705 $55,236 $52.872 $46.850 $46.908 $50,556 $54,480 570.608 S70.608 S65,652 $54.480 $55,578 $59,892 $64,542 $52,578 $67,506 $67,323 $59,031 $48,216 $64,048 $64.782 561.860 551.898 552.086 $56.136 $60.492 $78.402 $78.402 576.992 560.492 2.7% 55 2.0% 62 $3,552 $9,240 2.7% 55 2.0% 62 $3,552 $9,240 2.7% 55 2.0% 62 $3,552 $9,240 $00 $00 2.7% 55 2.0% 62 $3,552 $9,240 $00 $00 2.7% 55 2.0% 62 $14,196 $14,196 2.7% 55 2.0% 62 $6,641 $15,369 - - - - $00 $00 2.7% 55 2.0% 62 $8.004 $21,048 2.7% 55 2.0% 62 $12,346 $12,346 2.7% 55 2.0% 60 510,001 $10,001 2.7% 55 2.0% 62 $3,552 $9,240 2.7% 55 2.0% 62 $3,552 $9,240 2.7% 55 2.0% 62 $3,552 $9,240 2.7% 55 2.0% 62 $3,552 S9.240 2.7% 55 2.0% 62 $3,552 S9.240 2.7% 55 2.0% 62 $8,004 $21,048 2.7% 55 2.0% 62 $3,552 $9,240 Page 239 Report on the Riverside County JPA Feasibility Study Category Hemet - Senior HR Technician Escondido - Human Resources Analyst I Escondido - Human Resources Analyst II Escondido - Sr Human Resources Analyst HR Assistant Corona - HR Assistant Corona - HR Clerk Indio - HR Clerk Escondido - Human Resources Technician I Escondido - Human Resources Technician II HR Manager Indio - Director of HR & Risk Mgmt Hemet - HR Director Riverside - HR Director Hemet - HR Manager Murrieta - HR Manager Palm Springs - HR Manager Corona - HR Manager I Corona - HR Manager II Corona - HR Manager III Matrix Consulting Group Base Pay Classic Members New Members Min Max % Age $58,356 $53,508 $58,992 $68,304 $37,422 $29,640 $22,644 $46,796 $41,844 $46,188 $104,651 $112,013 $125,124 $146,100 $86,628 $106,578 $82,008 $87,492 $94,296 $101,616 $68,280 $62,880 $69,324 $80,262 $42,708 $32,916 $25,146 $57,968 $46,350 $51,162 $118,836 $138,754 $125,124 $175,380 $101,364 $118,062 $96,144 $97,152 $104,706 $112,836 Medical Ins. % Age Single Family 2.7% 55 2.0% 62 $12,346 $12,346 3.0% 60 2.0% 62 $5,382 $15,194 3.0% 60 2.0% 62 $5,382 $15,194 3.0% 60 2.0% 62 $5,382 $15,194 2.9% 58 2.0% 62 $3,574 $9,774 2.7% 55 2.0% 62 $3,552 $9,240 2.7% 55 2.0% 62 $3,552 $9,240 - - - $00 $00 3.0% 60 2.0% 62 $5,382 $15,194 3.0% 60 2.0% 62 $5,382 $15,194 2.9% 53 2.7% 55 2.7% 55 2.7% 55 3.0% 50 3.0% 50 3.0% 50 2.0% 62 $9,740 $11,189 $00 $00 - - $00 $00 - - $00 $00 2.0% 62 $12,346 $12,346 2.0% 60 $10,001 $10,001 2.0% 62 $8,004 $21,048 2.0% 62 $19,102 $19,102 2.0% 62 $19,102 $19,102 2.0% 62 $19,102 $19,102 Page 240 NM I EN 11111- 1- MO MN- NM MI MB 11111 r- ■i 11111 E 1 M - - - r - N - - - E 1 ■N E i■ - - i Report on the Riverside County JPA Feasibility Study Category Base Pay Classic Members New Members Medical Ins. Min Max % Age % Age Single Family IT Manager $100,904 $114,373 2.9% 51 2.1% 61 $16,129 $18,548 Desert Hot Springs - HR Manager Corona - IT Director Corona - IT Manager Indio - IT Manager Palm Springs - IT Manager Corona - IT Manager I Corona - IT Manager II Corona - IT Manager III Corona - IT Manager IV $55,608 $63,030 2.7% 55 2.0% 62 $6,641 $15,369 $147,720 $164,028 3.0% 50 2.0% 62 $19,102 $19,102 $86,196 $95,712 3.0% 50 2.0% 62 $19,102 $19,102 $105,506 $130,693 3.0% 50 2.7% 57 $15,900 $15,900 $99,948 $117,120 2.7% 55 2.0% 62 $8,004 $21,048 $87,492 $97,152 3.0% 50 2.0% 62 $19,102 $19,102 $94,296 $104,706 3.0% 50 2.0% 62 $19,102 $19,102 $101,616 $112,836 3.0% 50 2.0% 62 $19,102 $19,102 $129,756 $144,078 3.0% 50 2.0% 62 $19,102 $19,102 IT Specialist $54,253 $61,582 2.7% 55 2.0% 62 $6,838 $9,940 Corona - Senior IT Specialist $56,700 $62,958 2.7% 55 2.0% 62 $3,552 $9,240 Indio - IT Analyst $55,168 $68,339 - - - - $00 $00 Murrieta - IT Analyst $67,141 $74,376 2.7% 55 2.0% 62 $10,001 $10,001 Corona - IT Specialist 11 $51,312 $56,976 2.7% 55 2.0% 62 $3,552 $9,240 Hemet - IT Specialist II $56,940 $64,806 2.7% 55 2.0% 62 $12,337 $12,337 Corona - IT Specialist III $59,592 $66,174 2.7% 55 2.0% 62 $3,552 $9,240 Corona - IT Support Specialist $52,080 $57,834 2.7% 55 2.0% 62 $3,552 $9,240 Indio - IT Support Technician $49,931 $61,851 2.7% 55 2.0% 62 $15,900 $15,900 Corona - IT Technician II $42,036 $46,674 2.7% 55 2.0% 62 $3,552 $9,240 Murrieta - IT Technician II $57,063 $63,212 2.7% 55 2.0% 62 $15,663 $15,663 Corona - IT Technician III $48,816 $54,204 2.7% 55 2.0% 62 $3,552 $9,240 Matrix Consulting Group Page 241 $45,196 $50,439 2.7% 55 2.0% 62 $8,064 $11,999 Report on the Riverside County JPA Feasibility Study Category Base Pay Classic Members Min Max % Age New Members Medical Ins. % Age Single Family IT Support Assistant Murrieta - IT Coordinator Corona - IT Specialist Corona - IT Specialist I Hemet - IT Specialist I Corona - IT Technician Desert Hot Springs - IT Technician Corona - IT Technician I Murrieta - IT Technician I Lieutenant Corona - Police Lieutenant Hemet - Police Lieutenant Murrieta - Police Lieutenant Palm Springs - Police Lieutenant Riverside - Police Lieutenant Escondido - Police Lieutenant Matrix Consulting Group $51,707 $51,312 $44,184 $54,192 $38,040 $34,236 $36,192 $51,707 $115,154 $124,056 $103,092 $116,942 $116,940 $118,632 $111,264 $57,279 $56,976 $49,062 $61,680 $42,240 $38,808 $40,188 $57,279 $127,775 $137,748 $117,330 $129,543 $129,720 $121,572 $130,740 2.7% 2.7% 2.7% 2.7% 2.7% 2.7% 2.7% 2.7% 55 55 55 55 55 55 55 55 2.0% 2.0% 2.0% 2.0% 2.0% 2.0% 2.0% 2.0% 62 62 62 62 62 62 62 62 $15,663 $3,552 $3,552 $12,337 $3,552 $6,641 $3,552 $15,663 3.0% 50 2.8% 56 $8,233 3.0% 50 2.7% 57 $11,400 3.0% 50 2.7% 57 $12,337 3.0% 50 3.0% 50 $10,001 3.0% 50 2.7% 57 $10,219 - - - $00 3.0% 50 2.7% 57 $5,443 $15,663 $9,240 $9,240 $12,337 $9,240 $15,369 $9,240 $15,663 $11,509 $11,400 $12,337 $10,001 $19,871 $00 $15,443 Page 242 N N NM I M M I== 1 M M--- NM UM M - - - - - -- MN MO I N- r- r NM i N - Report on the Riverside County JPA Feasibility Study Category Base Pay Classic Members New Members Medical Ins. Min Max % Age % Age Single Family Management Analyst $63,974 $73,315 2.8% 56 2.1% 61 $6,978 $11,898 Corona - Administrative Services Analyst I Corona - Administrative Services Analyst II Corona - Business Management Analyst Corona - Business Systems Analyst I Flex Corona - Business Systems Analyst II Flex Corona - Management Analyst Desert Hot Springs - Management Analyst Indio - Management Analyst Murrieta - Management Analyst Corona - Management Analyst I Corona - Management Analyst II Indio - Senior Management Analyst Riverside - Senior Mgmt Analyst E Murrieta - Sr Management Analyst Escondido - Management Analyst Escondido - Management Analyst 11 Escondido - Police Services Analyst Escondido - Sr Management Analyst Matrix Consulting Group $60,192 $66,834 2.7% 55 2.0% 62 $3,552 $9,240 $70,608 $78,402 2.7% 55 2.0% 62 $3,552 $9,240 $70,608 $78,402 2.7% 55 2.0% 62 $3,552 $9,240 $60,792 $67,506 2.7% 55 2.0% 62 $3,552 $9,240 $65,520 $72,750 2.7% 55 2.0% 62 $3,552 $9,240 $60,192 $66,834 2.7% 55 2.0% 62 $3,552 $9,240 $50,820 $57,600 2.7% 55 2.0% 62 $6,641 $15,369 $57,129 $70,767 3.0% 50 2.7% 57 $15,900 $15,900 $67,477 $74,748 2.7% 55 2.0% 60 $10,001 $10,001 $60,192 $66,834 2.7% 55 2.0% 62 $3,552 $9,240 $70,608 $78,402 2.7% 55 2.0% 62 $3,552 $9,240 $69,742 $86,391 3.0% 50 2.7% 57 $15,900 $15,900 $65,880 $83,700 2.7% 55 2.0% 62 $14,196 $14,196 $72,674 $80,504 2.7% 55 2.0% 60 $10,001 $10,001 $53,508 $62,880 3.0% 60 2.0% 62 $5,382 $15,194 $61,956 $72,798 3.0% 60 2.0% 62 $5,382 $15,194 $65,064 $76,446 3.0% 60 2.0% 62 $5,382 $15,194 $65,064 $76,446 3.0% 60 2.0% 62 $5,382 $15,194 Page 243 Report on the Riverside County JPA Feasibility Study Category Network/Sys Analyst Indio - Network Administrator Corona - Network Analyst Riverside - Network Sup Spec Indio - Network Systems Engineer Palm Springs - PC/Network Administrator Riverside - Systems Manager Nc2E Escondido - Network Administrator Escondido - Network Systems Engineer Escondido - Network Systems Technician 1 Escondido - Network Systems Technician II Escondido - Network Systems Technician 111 Escondido - Public Safety Systems Analyst Escondido - Public Safety Systems Manager Escondido - Systems Analyst 1 Matrix Consulting Group Base Pay Min Max $62,157 $65,690 $60,792 $54,726 $77,058 $72,504 $84,744 $60,600 $63,660 $40,824 $45,060 $49,740 $63,660 $68,304 $70,272 $70,354 $81,372 $67,506 $62,352 $95,453 $85,014 $84,744 $67,128 $70,524 $45,222 $49,914 $55,098 $70,524 $80,262 $77,844 Classic Members % Age 2.9% 58 2.7% 55 2.7% 55 2.7% 55 3.0% 50 2.7% 55 3.0% 60 3.0% 60 3.0% 60 3.0% 60 3.0% 60 3.0% 60 3.0% 60 3.0% 60 New Members Medical Ins. % Age Single Family 2.1% 62 $6,729 $13,987 2.0% 62 $15,663 $15,663 2.0% 62 $3,552 $9,240 2.0% 62 $7,380 $13,200 2.7% 57 $15,900 $15,900 2.0% 62 $8,004 $21,048 $00 $00 2.0% 62 $5,382 $15,194 2.0% 62 $5,382 $15,194 2.0% 62 $5,382 $15,194 2.0% 62 $5,382 $15,194 2.0% 62 $5,382 $15,194 2.0% 62 $5,382 $15,194 2.0% 62 $5,382 $15,194 2.0% 62 $5,382 $15,194 Page 244 NM NM N all 1 11111 1111 11111 MO Me NM E I N 1 NB 1 UN N INN EN E NB EN all EN MN N UN En EN 11111 1 11111 N 11111 1 N Report on the Riverside County JPA Feasibility Study Category Base Pay Classic Members New Members Min Max % Age Medical Ins. % Age Single Family Officer $65,374 $74,656 3.0% 50 2.7% 55 $10,110 $13,845 Riverside County - Deputy Sheriff Desert Hot Springs - Police Officer Hemet - Police Officer Indio - Police Officer Murrieta - Police Officer Palm Springs - Police Officer Riverside - Police Officer Corona - Police Officer I Corona - Police Officer II Escondido - Police Officer $62,302 $47,412 $64,932 $70,640 $70,796 $64,392 $65,100 $68,184 $74,964 $65,016 $75,251 $53,736 $71,928 $82,652 $78,425 $75,450 $74,094 $75,714 $83,238 $76,074 3.0% 3.0% 3.0% 3.0% 3.0% 3.0% 3.0% 3.0% 3.0% 3.0% 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 2.0% 2.8% 2.7% 2.7% 3.0% 2.7% 3.0% 2.7% 2.7% 2.7% 50 $11,280 57 $6,641 57 $12,337 57 $15,900 50 $10,001 57 $10,219 50 $6,480 57 $11,400 57 $11,400 57 $5,443 $11,280 $15,369 $12,337 $15,900 $10,001 $19,871 $15,444 $11,400 $11,400 $15,443 PE Specialist $36,590 $41,462 2.8% 56 2.0% 62 $9,630 $13,921 Riverside - Police Property Spec Hemet - Property & Evidence Technician Murrieta - Property & Evidence Technician Escondido - Property & Evidence Tech I $37,008 $43,320 2.7% 55 2.0% 62 $7,380 $13,200 $36,648 $40,596 2.7% 55 2.0% 62 $12,346 $12,346 $39,560 $43,823 2.7% 55 2.0% 62 $15,663 $15,663 $32,724 $36,252 3.0% 60 2.0% 62 $5,382 $15,194 PE Supervisor $55,458 $61,437 3.0% 60 2.0% 62 $2,691 $7,597 Riverside - Supervising Evidence Tech $57,360 $63,546 - - - - $00 $00 Escondido - Property & Evidence Supervisor $53,556 $59,328 3.0% 60 2.0% 62 $5,382 $15,194 Matrix Consulting Group Page 245 Report on the Riverside County JPA Feasibility Study Category Base Pay Classic Members New Members Medical Ins. Min Max % Age % Age Single Family PE Technician $46,059 $52,895 2.8% 56 2.0% 61 $8,684 $14,289 Riverside - Evidence Tech $38,952 $46,839 2.7% 55 2.0% 62 $7,380 $13,200 Indio - Property & Evidence Officer I $47,874 $56,015 2.7% 55 2.0% 60 $15,900 $15,900 Indio - Property & Evidence Officer II $52,895 $61,890 2.7% 55 2.0% 60 $15,900 $15,900 Corona - Property Administrator $37,296 $41,412 2.7% 55 2.0% 62 $3,552 $9,240 Corona - Property Administrator II $55,572 $61,710 2.7% 55 2.0% 62 $3,552 $9,240 Palm Springs - Property Technician $47,136 $55,278 2.7% 55 2.0% 60 $7,818 $21,005 Riverside - Senior Evidence Tech $53,616 $59,394 2.7% 55 2.0% 62 $7,380 $13,200 Indio - Senior Property & Evidence Officer $58,444 $68,382 2.7% 55 2.0% 60 $15,900 $15,900 Escondido - Property & Evidence Tech II $36,084 $39,972 3.0% 60 2.0% 62 $5,382 $15,194 Escondido - Sr Property & Evidence Tech $39,828 $44,118 3.0% 60 2.0% 62 $5,382 $15,194 Procurement Manager Palm Springs - Procurement & Contracting Manager Corona - Purchasing Manager Riverside - Purchasing Svcs Mgr E Escondido - Purchasing Supervisor Matrix Consulting Group $77,988 $91,166 2.9% 55 2.0% 62 $8,122 $13,836 $86,148 $101,016 2.7% 55 2.0% 62 $8,004 $21,048 $91,056 $101,112 3.0% 50 2.0% 62 $19,102 $19,102 $81,588 $103,644 - - - - $00 $00 $53,160 $58,890 3.0% 60 2.0% 62 $5,382 $15,194 Page 246 = Mill 11111 N M E IIIIIII 1111111 IIIIII M IIIIII M MI MN I - IIIII E 1111 11111 EN 11111 11111 111111 M MI 1 MN I, 1 E r all NB Report on the Riverside County JPA Feasibility Study Category Base Pay Classic Members New Members Medical Ins. Min Max % Age % Age Single Family Procurement Specialist $56,655 $63,911 2.7% 55 2.0% 62 $6,234 $12,293 Hemet - Procurement Administrator $66,036 $75,156 2.7% 55 2.0% 62 $12,337 $12,337 Corona - Procurement Contract Specialist $52,872 $58,710 2.7% 55 2.0% 62 $3,552 $9,240 Palm Springs - Procurement Specialist I $55,236 $64,782 2.7% 55 2.0% 62 $8,004 $21,048 Palm Springs - Procurement Specialist II $62,508 $73,284 2.7% 55 2.0% 62 $8,004 $21,048 Murrieta - Purchasing & Contracts Coordinator $51,707 $57,279 2.7% 55 2.0% 60 $10,001 $10,001 Corona - Purchasing Specialist II $45,300 $50,298 2.7% 55 2.0% 62 $3,552 $9,240 Corona - Purchasing Specialist III $50,052 $55,578 2.7% 55 2.0% 62 $3,552 $9,240 Corona - Purchasing Specialist IV $55,572 $61,710 2.7% 55 2.0% 62 $3,552 $9,240 Corona - Purchasing Specialist V $70,608 $78,402 2.7% 55 2.0% 62 $3,552 $9,240 Programmer $57,308 $63,782 2.8% 56 2.0% 62 $5,066 $11,619 Corona - Programmer Corona - Programmer Analyst Riverside - Programmer Analyst Corona - Programmer Corona - Programmer II Corona - Programmer III Riverside - Senior Programmer Analyst Escondido - Programmer Analyst I Escondido - Programmer Analyst II Matrix Consulting Group $60,792 $67,506 2.7% 55 2.0% 62 $3,552 $9,240 $60,792 $67,506 2.7% 55 2.0% 62 $3,552 $9,240 $53,100 $62,100 2.7% 55 2.0% 62 $7,380 $13,200 $45,072 $50,046 2.7% 55 2.0% 62 $3,552 $9,240 $52,344 $58,122 2.7% 55 2.0% 62 $3,552 $9,240 $60,792 $67,506 2.7% 55 2.0% 62 $3,552 $9,240 $66,474 $73,116 2.7% 55 2.0% 62 $7,380 $13,200 $50,976 $56,472 3.0% 60 2.0% 62 $5,382 $15,194 $56,268 $62,334 3.0% 60 2.0% 62 $5,382 $15,194 Page 247 Report on the Riverside County JPA Feasibility Study Category Project Manager Escondido - Applications Development Mgr Public Information Officer Corona - Public Information Officer Public Information Specialist Corona - Community Liaison Corona - Community Relations Assistant Corona - Department Liaison Indio - Senior Neighborhood Coordinator Corona - Public Information Specialist Purchasing Assistant Hemet - Purchasing Assistant Corona - Purchasing Specialist I Corona - Purchasing Technician Escondido - Purchasing/inventory Control Escondido - Buyer/Stores Supervisor Rangemaster Riverside - Assist Rangemaster Corona - Rangemaster Palm Springs - Rangemaster Riverside - Rangemaster Matrix Consulting Group Base Pay Min Max $83,028 $97,560 $83,028 $97,560 Classic Members Age 3.0% 60 3.0% 60 $87,492 $97,152 2.7% 55 $87,492 $97,152 2.7% 55 $52,294 $48,576 $46,908 $43,956 $74,414 $47,616 $42,142 $46,356 $40,992 $37,296 $38,868 $47,196 $51,138 $46,344 $49,800 $52,056 $56,352 $59,976 2.7% 55 $53,934 2.7% 55 $52,086 2.7% 55 $48,810 2.7% 55 $92,178 - - $52,872 2.7% 55 $47,010 $52,776 $45,522 $41,412 $43,056 $52,284 $57,516 $51,348 $55,296 $61,026 $62,394 2.8% 2.7% 2.7% 2.7% 3.0% 3.0% 2.7% 2.7% 2.7% 2.7% 2.7% 57 55 55 55 60 60 55 55 55 55 55 New Members % Age Medical Ins. Single Family 2.0% 62 $5,382 $15,194 2.0% 62 $5.382 $15,194 2.0% 62 $3,552 $9,240 2.0% 62 $3,552 $9,240 2.0% 62 2.0% 62 2.0% 62 2.0% 62 2.0% 62 2.0% 2.0% 2.0% 2.0% 2.0% 2.0% 2.0% 2.0% 2.0% 2.0% 2.0% 62 62 62 62 62 62 62 62 62 60 62 $2,842 $3,552 $3,552 $3,552 $00 $3,552 $6,041 $12,337 $3,552 $3,552 $5,382 $5,382 $6,532 $7,380 $3,552 $7,818 $7,380 $7,392 $9,240 $9,240 $9,240 $00 $9,240 $12,241 $12,337 $9,240 $9,240 $15,194 $15,194 $14,161 $13,200 $9,240 $21,005 $13,200 Page 248 1111 INI1 M EN MN- 1111 I E MI I' 111111- I- 11111 E it 1 a- r- N M- - -- EN NM -- NE N 1 On Report on the Riverside County JPA Feasibility Study Category Base Pay Classic Members New Members Medical Ins. Min Max % Age % Age Single Family Records Manager $73,540 $84,632 2.8% 57 2.0% 62 $9,194 $16,813 Palm Springs - Communications & Records Manager Riverside - Police Records Info Mgr E Escondido - Police Records Manager $88,332 $103,554 2.7% 55 2.0% 62 $8,004 $21,048 $76,092 $84,306 2.7% 55 2.0% 62 $14,196 $14,196 $56,196 $66,036 3.0% 60 2.0% 62 $5,382 $15,194 Records Specialist 1 $38,920 $45,617 2.7% 55 2.0% 62 $8,873 $14,951 Riverside - Police Records Spec Palm Springs - Police Records Technician Riverside - Police Sery Rep Indio - Records Specialist I $37,008 $41,010 2.7% 55 2.0% 62 $7,380 $13,200 $46,032 $53,946 2.7% 55 2.0% 60 $7,818 $21,005 $38,952 $46,839 2.7% 55 2.0% 62 $7,380 $13,200 $35,569 $44,061 2.7% 55 2.0% 62 $15,900 $15,900 Records Specialist II $38,843 $45,640 2.8% 56 2.0% 62 $9,960 $15,733 Palm Springs - Police Services Officer Indio - Records Specialist II Riverside - Senior Police Records Spec Indio - Senior Records Specialist Escondido - Police Records Technician $39,672 $46,494 2.7% 55 2.0% 60 $7,818 $21,005 $39,300 $48,682 2.7% 55 2.0% 62 $15,900 $15,900 $38,952 $44,292 27% 55 2.0% 62 $7,380 $13,200 $43,423 $53,789 2.7% 55 2.0% 62 $15,900 $15,900 $32,760 $36,288 3.0% 60 2.0% 62 $5,382 $15,194 Records Supervisor $52,272 $59,057 2.7% 55 2.0% 62 $7,003 $13,904 Corona - Police Records Supervisor $61,716 $68,526 2.7% 55 2.0% 62 $3,552 $9,240 Desert Hot Springs - Police Records Supervisor $38,124 $43,206 2.7% 55 2.0% 62 $6,641 $15,369 Murrieta - Police Records Supervisor $55,932 $61,959 2.7% 55 2.0% 62 $10,001 $10,001 Palm Springs - Police Services Supervisor $53,316 $62,538 2.7% 55 2.0% 60 $7,818 $21,005 Matrix Consulting Group Page 249 $78,159 $89,554 2.8% 56 2.0% 62 $6,218 $13,583 Report on the Riverside County JPA Feasibility Study Category Base Pay Classic Members New Members Medical Ins. Min Max % Age % Age Single Family Senior Ntwk/ Sys Admin Hemet - IT Operation/Network Systems Supervisor $67,680 $77,028 2.7% 55 2.0% 62 $12,337 $12,337 Corona - Senior Network Engineer $105,228 $116,844 2.7% 55 2.0% 62 $3,552 $9,240 Riverside - Senior Network Sup Spec $66,474 $77,796 2.7% 55 2.0% 62 $7,380 $13,200 Palm Springs - Senior PC/Network Administrator $92,808 $108,816 2.7% 55 2.0% 62 $8,004 $21,048 Riverside - Senior System Admr $75,444 $88,308 2.7% 55 2.0% 62 $7,380 $13,200 Corona - Senior System Analyst $79,980 $88,812 2.7% 55 2.0% 62 $3,552 $9,240 Palm Springs - Senior Systems/Network Administrator $92,808 $108,816 2.7% 55 2.0% 62 $8,004 $21,048 Corona - System Administrator $67,176 $74,592 2.7% 55 2.0% 62 $3,552 $9,240 Corona - Systems Analyst $65,520 $72,750 2.7% 55 2.0% 62 $3,552 $9,240 Escondido - Network Manager $87,180 $102,438 3.0% 60 2.0% 62 $5,382 $15,194 Escondido - Sr Network Systems Engineer $71,724 $84,276 3.0% 60 2.0% 62 $5,382 $15,194 Escondido - Systems Analyst II $77,568 $85,926 3.0% 60 2.0% 62 $5,382 $15,194 Matrix Consulting Group Pran,- 7r,, OM M I-- ■■ OM M I N all M 1- MN M I IMM 2.7% 55 2.0% 62 $12,330 $13,467 E N- N 1- r- A r- MO --- r11111 Report on the Riverside County JPA Feasibility Study Category Base Pay Classic Members Min Max % Age New Members Medical Ins. Age Single Family Sergeant $87,365 $99,509 3.0% 51 2.7% 56 $9,795 $14,440 Corona - Police Sergeant Desert Hot Springs - Police Sergeant Hemet - Police Sergeant Indio - Police Sergeant Murrieta - Police Sergeant Palm Springs - Police Sergeant Riverside - Police Sergeant Escondido - Police Sergeant $101,616 $66,564 $85, 908 $90,844 $91,609 $83,652 $91,596 $87,132 $112,836 $75,444 $97,776 $112,531 $101,476 $98,034 $98,808 $99,168 3.0% 3.0% 3.0% 3.0% 3.0% 3.0% 3.0% 3.0% 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 60 2.7% 2.8% 2.7% 2.7% 3.0% 2.7% 3.0% 2.0% 57 57 57 57 50 57 50 62 $11,400 $6,641 $12,337 $15,900 $10,001 $10,219 $6,480 $5,382 $11,400 $15,369 $12,337 $15,900 $10,001 $19,871 $15,444 $15,194 Supervising Crime Analyst $62,672 $70,699 2.8% 57 2.0% 62 $11,747 $15,018 Riverside - Supervising Crime Analyst Murrieta - Senior Crime Analyst Escondido - Sr Crime Analyst $66,036 $65,784 $56,196 $73,188 $72, 873 $66, 036 2.7% 2.7% 3.0% 55 55 60 2.0% 2.0% 2.0% 62 62 62 $14,196 $15,663 $5,382 $14,196 $15,663 $15,194 GIS Technician $56,398 $64,973 Corona - GIS Analyst Riverside - GIS Analyst Indio - GIS Coordinator Hemet - GIS Specialist Murrieta - GIS Technician Matrix Consulting Group $60,792 $63,156 $55,168 $51,168 $51,707 $67,506 $73,488 $68,339 $58,254 $57,279 2.7% 55 2.7% 55 2.7% 55 2.7% 55 2.7% 55 2.0% 2.0% 2.0% 2.0% 2.0% 62 62 62 62 62 $3,552 $14,196 $15,900 $12,337 $15,663 $9,240 $14,196 $15,900 $12,337 $15,663 Page 251 Report on the Riverside County JPA Feasibility Study 3. Summary of Current Trends in CaIPERS Cost Sharing One of the key reforms of PEPRA included changes to EPMCs, or employer paid member contributions. Under these provisions, which are typically negotiated through the collective bargaining process, employer agencies agree to cover part or all of the employee's contribution into the CaIPERS system as a percentage of their pensionable compensation. While PEPRA essentially eliminated these contributions for new members (those hired by a CaIPERS agency 2013 or later), many agreements for classic members remain in place with shared employee contribution benefits. The following table summarizes the data gathered from the most recent collective bargaining agreements of the labor units surveyed, displaying the coefficient, vesting age, and any employer contributions to the normal member costs of the plan: Matrix Consulting Group Page 252 11111 1 NM M MN MN 1 r- N r--- - --- I Report on the Riverside County JPA Feasibility Study Comparison of Employee Contribution Rates Tier 1 Tier 2 Union Type Coef. Age Employee Contribution Coef. Age Employee Contribution Corona CPOA Police Ofc. 3.0% 50 City pays 1.5% of emp. share 2.7% 57 50% of normal cost Corona CPS Police Supv. 3.0% 50 City pays 1.5% of emp. share 2.7% 57 50% of normal cost Corona General General 2.7% 55 Employee pays full 8% 2.0% 62 Employee pays full 8% Corona M&C Mgmt./Conf. 3.0% 50 City pays 1.5°0 of share 2.0% 62 50% of normal cost Corona Supervisors Supervisors 2.7% 55 Employee pays full 8% 2.0% 62 Employee pays full 8% Desert Hot Springs DHSDH Executives 2.7% 55 Employee pays full 8% 2.0% 62 50% of normal cost Desert Hot Springs DHSEU General 2.7% 55 Employee pays full 8% 2.0% 62 50% of normal cost Desert Hot Springs DHSPOA Police Ofc. 3.0% 50 Employee pays full 9% 2.8% 57 50% of normal cost Escondido EPOA Police Ofc. 3.0% 50 Employees pay full 9% 2.7% 57 Employees pay 12.25% Escondido Non -Sworn General 3.0% 60 Employees pay full 8% 2.0% 62 Employee pays 6.25% Hemet CP Mgmt./Conf. 2.7% 55 Employees pay full 8% 2.0% 62 Employees pay full 8% Hemet HNS General 2.7% 55 Employee pays full 8% 2.0% 62 50% of normal cost Hemet P Police Ofc. 3.0% 50 Employee pays 3% of 12% 2.7% 57 50% of normal cost Hemet PM Police Supv. 3.0% 50 Employee pays 3% of 12% 2.7% 57 50% of normal cost Hemet SEIU General 2.7% 55 Employee pays full 8% 2.0% 62 50% of normal cost Indio IPOA Police Ofc. 3.0% 50 City pays 3% share of full 9% 2.7% 57 Employee pays 3% share Indio IPDA-Misc Police Ofc. 2.7% 55 City pays 3% share of full 9% 2.0% 60 Employee pays 3% share Indio LIUNA General 2.7% 55 Employee pays full 8% 2.0% 62 50% of normal cost Indio MGMT/SUPV Mgmt./Conf. 3.0% 50 City pays 50% share, max 4% 2.7% 57 Employees pay full 8% Indio SEIU General 2.7% 55 Employees pay full 8°0 2.0% 62 Employees pay full 8% Matrix Consulting Group Page 253 Report on the Riverside County JPA Feasibility Study Union Murrieta M&C Murrieta MGEA Murrieta MPMA Murrieta MPOA Murrieta MSA Palm Springs General Palm Springs MX Palm Springs PMX Palm Springs PSPOA R. County RCDSA R. County RCDSA-M R. County Police Supv. Riverside PROFESSIONAL Riverside RPOA Riverside SEIU Matrix Consulting Group Type Mgmt./Conf. General Police Supv. Police Ofc. Supervisors General Mgmt./Conf. Police Supv_ Police Ofc. Police Ofc. Police Ofc. Police Supv. Mgmt./Conf. Police Ofc. General Tier 1 Coef. 2.7% 2.7% 3.0% 3.0% 2.7% 2.7% 2.7% 3.0% 3.0% 3.0% 3.0% 3.0% 2.7% 3.0% 2.7% Age Employee Contribution 55 Employee pays full 8% 55 Employee pays 6.5% of 8% 50 City pays full 8% 50 City pays full 9% 55 Employee pays full 8% 55 Employee pays full 8% 55 Employees pay full 8% 50 City pays 3% share of full 12% 50 City pays 3% of 12% 50 Employee pays full 9% 60 Employee pays full 8% 50 City pays full 9% 55 Employee pays full 8% 50 City pays full 9% 55 City pays 2% of full 6% Tier 2 Coef. Age 2.0% 60 2.0% 62 3.0% 50 3.0% 50 2.0% 62 2.0% 60 2.0% 62 2.7% 57 2.7% 57 2.0% 50 2.0% 60 3.0% 50 2.0% 62 3.0% 50 2.0% 62 Employee Contribution City pays 50% cost of 6.5% 50% of normal cost City pays full 8% City pays full 9% City pays 50% cost of 6.5% 50% of normal cost Employees pay full 7% City pays 3% of full 12% City pays 3% of full 12% Employee pays full 9% Employee pays full 8% Employee pays full 9% City pays 2% share of 6% Employee pays full 9% City pays 2% of full 6% Page 254 OM M I I I M INIII M IIIIN = M MI M I OM NM M M N Report on the Riverside County JPA Feasibility Study Matrix Consulting Group Page 255 REQUEST TO SPEAK FORMS City Council Meeting 7/25/17 REQUEST TO SPEAK CITY OF TEMECULA Date: I wish to speak on: Public Comment Circle One: CITY COUNCIL / CSD / SARDA / THA / TPFA Subject: -;14z., C ` -r)1 / / A/ -f i4 .1- nn Agenda Item No. For n Against n Request to Speak forms for Public Comments or items listed on the Consent Calendar may be submitted to the City Clerk prior to the City Council commencing the Public Comment period. For all Public Hearing or Council Business items on the Agenda, a Request to Speak form may be submitted to the City Clerk prior to the City Council addressing that item. Once the speaker is called to speak, please come forward to the podium and state your name for the record. Name: Q 1-)f A/A j Phone Number: Address: - Email Email address: b U i AiA 1if ? e > � i7 ✓+'? If you are representing an organization or group, please give the name: Please note that all information presented at a City Council meeting becomes public record. All information provided is optional. REQUEST TO SPEAK CITY OF TEMECULA Date: I wish to speak on: Public Comment Circle On= CITY COUNCIL / SD / SARDA / THA i TPFA Subject: b1(1Cft -e 12Ylr\ (2Q,Y\A 3 n Agenda Item No. For Against ❑ Request to Speak forms for Public Comments or items listed on the Consent Calendar may be submitted to the City Clerk prior to the City Council commencing the Public Comment period. For all Public Hearing or Council Business items on the Agenda, a Request to Speak form may be submitted to the City Clerk prior to the City Council addressing that item. Once the speaker is called to speak, please come forward to the podium and state your name for the record. Name V1kCSZ ��(h Phone Number: Address: Email address: If you are representing an organization or group, please give the name: Please note that all information presented at a City Council meeting becomes public record. All information provided is optional. I wish to.speak on: Subject: REQUEST TO SPEAK CITY OF TEMECULA Date: -�f2sli� bnMCS ‘C-- \1a"CC Public Comment Circle On- CITY COUNCII' / CSD / SARDA / THA / TPFA u' C'eS )Se— lAc n cc \\I e EV ek\fnryvQ:- nAgenda Item No. For 0 Against Request to Speak forms for Public Comments or items listed on the Consent Calendar may be submitted to the City Clerk prior to the City Council commencing the Public Comment period. For all Public Hearing or Council Business items on the Agenda, a Request to Speak form may be submitted to the City Clerk prior to the City Council addressing that item. Once the speaker is called to speak, please come forward to the podium and state your name for the record Name: Address: 7Une (-e-\t � Phone Number: Email address. J 'O r? _5 If you are representing an organization or group, please give the name: Ai4f7Y- ErW1901AQ. Please note that all information presented at a City Council meeting becomes public record. All information provided is optional. REQUEST TO SPEAK CITY OF TEMECULA Date: I wish to speak on: 9-4\ Public Comment Circle One: CITY COUNCIL / CSD / SARDA / THA / TPFA Subject: j r� "�"[l'e -'t b. --L Agenda Item No. For Against n )0k\ Request to Speak forms for Public Comments or items listed on the Consent Calendar may be submitted to the City Clerk prior to the City Council commencing the Public Comment period. For all Public Hearing or Council Business items on the Agenda, a Request to Speak form may be submitted to the City Clerk prior to the City Council addressing that item. Once the speaker is called to speak, please come forward to the podium and state your name for the record. Name: " CV- A\Ct1 Phone Number - Address:- ) Email address:i\V:- SC 1.--.4.‘r e Li -A 1 . C C' If you are representing an organization or group, please give the name: Please note that all information presented at a City Council meeting becomes public record. All information provided is optional.