17-0926_MISSION VEIJO, ET AL._Memorandum of Understanding MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING
BY AND BETWEEN
THE CITY OF MISSION VIEJO
AND
THE CITIES OF ALISO VIEJO, DANA POINT, LAGUNA HILLS, LAGUNA NIGUEL,
LAGUNA WOODS, LAKE FOREST, RANCHO SANTA MARGARITA,
SAN CLEMENTE, SAN JUAN CAPISTRANO, STANTON,
VILLA PARK, AND YORBA LINDA
FOR
THE ORANGE COUNTY SHERIFF'S CONTRACT LAW ENFORCEMENT SERVICES
EVALUATION
THIS MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING (hereinafter referred to as "MOU")
is effective this 3.- P 441 day of S , 2017, by and between the
CITY OF MISSION VIEJO, a municipal corporation organized and existing under the
laws of the State of California ("MISSION VIEJO") and the CITIES OF ALISO VIEJO,
DANA POINT, LAGUNA HILLS, LAGUNA NIGUEL, LAGUNA WOODS, LAKE
FOREST, RANCHO SANTA MARGARITA, SAN CLEMENTE, SAN JUAN
CAPISTRANO, STANTON, VILLA PARK, AND YORBA LINDA all municipal
corporations organized and existing under the laws of the State of California (the
"CITIES"). The foregoing will hereinafter also be referred to singularly as a "Party" and
collectively as "Parties."
RECITALS
WHEREAS, the Parties individually contract (the "Agreement") with the Orange
County Sheriff's Department (the "Sheriff') for law enforcement services; and
1
WHEREAS, with the exception of the number and classification of direct
positions purchased, the terms of the Agreement and the cost assumptions,
methodologies and allocations of indirect costs, regional/shared staffing, other
cost/revenues are universally and uniformly applied to each Parties Agreement with the
Sheriff; and
WHEREAS, over the last ten fiscal years, costs charged by the Sheriff have
increased on average by 33%, with approximately 26% of the increase occurring in the
last five years; and
WHEREAS, most changes to cost are not within the Parties control, but are
within the control of the Orange County Board of Supervisors, the Sheriff, other County
agencies, and the Orange County Employees Retirement System; and
WHEREAS, the cost of the Sheriff's Agreement is becoming a greater
percentage of the Parties General Fund budgets and threatens the provision of other
vital municipal services; and
WHEREAS, the Parties recognize that the provision of law enforcement services
and overall public safety are a primary role of local government and agree that it is in
the best interests of the Parties and the Sheriff to explore options and efficiencies that
will ensure the long-term sustainability of the Sheriff's contract law enforcement
services; and
WHEREAS, the Parties also recognize the need to have an independent third
party review and analyze the existing Agreement model, cost assumptions,
methodologies and allocations, and cost-benefit of certain programs; and
2
WHEREAS, the Parties have expressed an interest to collaborate on retaining
the services of a professional firm/team to evaluate the Agreement, analyze alternative
service delivery models within the Agreement, review cost assumptions, methodologies
and allocations, and determine the cost-benefit of certain programs and issue a final
report with recommendations (hereinafter collectively referred to as the "PROJECT");
and
WHEREAS, the Parties have agreed, in principle, to mutually and
proportionally share in the costs of the PROJECT; and
WHEREAS, the Parties wish to enter into this MOU for the purpose of formalizing
an agreement between the Parties in order to facilitate completion of the PROJECT;
and
WHEREAS, each Party hereby commits that it shall designate a responsible
individual(s) to act as the lead for the respective Party and that each Party shall further
commit to attend regular meetings as agreed to by the Parties and to diligently and
actively participate and cooperate with each and every other Party in order to facilitate
the timely completion of the PROJECT.
NOW, THEREFORE, the Parties enter into this MOU with respect to the
matters set forth herein as follows:
AGREEMENT
1. Cooperation. The Parties agree to cooperate and coordinate to the
extent practicable in the performance of the work required for the PROJECT.
Furthermore, the Parties agree that each will cooperate and coordinate with the other in
all duties, obligations, and activities covered by this MOU. Further, the Parties agree to
3
work diligently together and in good faith, using their best efforts in the performance of
this MOU.
2. Designated Personnel. In order to ensure prompt and continued
cooperation and coordination between the Parties, the Parties agree to each designate
and authorize a responsible individual to act on behalf of and as the lead for the Party
and to perform any administrative tasks needed as part of this MOU. Each Party shall
designate its City Manager or the City Manager's designee as the responsible
individual. The intent of the Parties is that the responsible individual shall possess the
relevant experience and authority to address the various issues that may arise during
the term of this MOU. Notwithstanding Section 3 below, all communications relating to
this MOU or the PROJECT shall be exchanged between the designated individuals for
each Party.
3. Term. This MOU shall continue in full force and effect through
December 31, 2018, unless terminated earlier by mutual written consent of the Parties.
The term of this MOU may only be extended upon mutual written agreement of the
Parties.
4. Contract Law Enforcement Services Evaluation. The Parties agree
that the most efficient way to accomplish the goals of this MOU and explore various
options and recommendations to improve efficiencies and control costs is to retain the
services of a qualified professional firm/team to conduct a comprehensive Contract Law
Enforcement Services Evaluation.
A. As the lead agency, MISSION VIEJO will conduct a Request for Proposal
(RFP) process and contract with a professional firm/team to undertake
4
and complete the PROJECT. A copy of the draft Scope of Work to be
included in MISSION VIEJO's RFP is attached hereto as Exhibit A. The
CITIES will assist MISSION VIEJO in the selection process.
B. As the lead agency, MISSION VIEJO will hire an outside consultant to act
as PROJECT MANAGER to coordinate the RFP process, oversee the
work of the professional firm/team hired by MISSION VIEJO to undertake
and complete the PROJECT and coordinate the activities and efforts of
the Parties pertaining to the PROJECT.
C. The Parties will share mutually and proportionally in the cost of the
PROJECT and the PROJECT MANAGER. Exhibit B to this MOU shows a
Cost Allocation Summary for each of the Parties based on an initial budget
of$300,000.
5. Initial Payment. The Parties agree to have the MOU approved no later
than September 15, 2018. Upon approval, the CITIES agree to send executed copies
of the MOU to MISSION VIEJO along with an initial payment equal to each Parties pro-
rata cost share shown in Exhibit B.
6. Final True-up. Upon final completion of the PROJECT, MISSION
VIEJO will provide a final accounting of all PROJECT and PROJECT MANAGER
Expenditures (hereinafter, "COSTS") to the CITIES. Upon review and agreement of the
final accounting of all COSTS, the CITIES will issue a notice of acceptance to MISSION
VIEJO. If final COSTS exceed the initial PROJECT budget of $300,000, MISSION
VIEJO will invoice each Party their pro-rata share of the excess COSTS pursuant to the
Cost Allocation Summary in Exhibit B. CITIES agree to pay MISSION VIEJO within
5
sixty (60) days of receipt of said invoice. If final COSTS are less than the initial budget
of $300,000, MISSION VIEJO will refund each Party their pro-rata share of the budget
savings pursuant to the Cost Allocation Summary in Exhibit B. MISSION VIEJO agrees
to issue said refunds within sixty (60) days after notice of acceptance of the final
accounting by CITIES.
7. Applicable Laws. This MOU shall be governed by and construed
according to all applicable federal, state and local laws, statutes, rules, regulations, and
ordinances. The Parties warrant that in the performance of this MOU, each shall
comply with all applicable federal, state and local laws, statutes, rules, regulations, and
ordinances promulgated thereunder.
8. Complete Agreement. This MOU, including all exhibits and
documents incorporated herein and made applicable by reference, constitutes the
complete and exclusive statement of the term(s) and condition(s) of the agreement
between the Parties and it supersedes all prior representations, understandings, and
communications. The invalidity in whole or in part of any term or condition of this MOU
shall not affect the validity of any other term(s) or condition(s).
9. Amendments. This MOU may only be modified or amended in
writing by agreement of the Parties. All modifications, amendments, changes, and
revisions of this MOU, in whole or in part, and from time to time, shall be executed by
each Party and shall be binding upon all Parties.
10. Counterparts. This MOU may be executed in one or more
counterparts, all counterparts shall be valid and binding on the party executing them,
6
and all counterparts shall together constitute one and the same document for all
purposes.
11. Effective Date. The above understandings shall serve as a guide to
the intent and expectations of the parties involved in this MOU. This MOU shall be
effective upon execution of all Parties.
7
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties hereto have caused this Memorandum of
Understanding to be executed on the date first above written.
MISSION VIEJO: CITIES:
CITY OF MISSION VIEJO CITY OF ALISO VIEJO
` �
B :�--` l
Y � By:
Dennis Wilberg David Doyle
City Manager City Manager
ATTEST: ATTEST:
By: It By:
Kar n Hamman Mitzi Ortiz
City Clerk City Clerk
A PROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
:(((e/'
n
William P. Curley, City Attor44 Scott C. Smith, City Attorney
8
1361303
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties hereto have caused this Memorandum of
Understanding to be executed on the date first above written.
MISSION VIEJO: CITIES:
CITY OF MISSION VIEJO CITY OF ALISO VIEJO
By: By:
Dennis Wilberg David D e
City Manager City Manager
ATTEST: ATTEST:
By: By:
Karen Hamman Mitzi rt/iz
City Clerk City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM: vA P P R OVE D AS TO FORM:
IOW II
A -6- •
William P. Curley, City Attorney Sco '1 74 Ty irney
8
126363.1
CITY OF DANA POINT CITY OF LAGUNA HILLS
By: By:
Mark Denny Bruce E. Channing
City Manager City Manager
ATT(( 1Jl.l..U
ATTEST: nn ATTEST:
lJl�
By: . i) s3 OL__ By:
Kathy Ward ' Melissa Au-Yeung
City Clerk Assistant to City Manager/
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Leir-
'atrick uno. , City Atte -y Gregory E. Simonian, City Attorney
CITY OF LAGUNA NIGUEL CITY OF LAGUNA WOODS
By: _. By:
Stephen Erlandson Christopher Macon
Interim City Manager City Manager
ATTEST: ATTEST:
By: By:
Eileen Gomez Yolie Trippy
City Clerk Deputy City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Terry Dixon, City Attorney David Cosgrove, City Attorney
9
CITY OF DANA POINT CITY OF LAGUNA HIL -
By: .�.-�✓ -
B
Mark Denny :r E. Channing /
City Manager Cit. , anager
ATTEST: ATTEST:
By: By:
Kathy Ward Melissa Au-Yeung
City Clerk Assistant to City Man er/
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
„#-V 5:941
Patrick Munoz, City Attorney Gregory E. 81monian, City Attorney
CITY OF LAGUNA NIGUEL CITY OF LAGUNA WOODS
By: By:
Stephen Erlandson Christopher Macon
Interim City Manager City Manager
ATTEST: ATTEST:
By: By:
Eileen Gomez Yolie Trippy
City Clerk Deputy City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Terry Dixon, City Attorney David Cosgrove, City Attorney
9
1261363.1
CITY OF DANA POINT CITY OF LAGUNA HILLS
By: By:
Mark Denny Bruce E. Channing
City Manager City Manager
ATTEST: ATTEST:
By: By:
Kathy Ward Melissa Au-Yeung
City Clerk Assistant to City Manager/
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Patrick Munoz, City Attorney Gregory E. Simonian, City Attorney
CITY OF LAGUNA NIGUEL CITY OF LAGUNA WOODS
„ I By:
n Erla on Christopher Macon
Interim City Manager City Manager
ATTEST: ATTEST:
f
By: / By:
Eileen Gomez Yolie Trippy
City Clerk Deputy City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Terry Dixo , City At •rney /chi,/ David Cosgrove, City Attorney
9
CITY OF DANA POINT CITY OF LAGUNA HILLS
By: By:
Mark Denny Bruce E. Channing
City Manager City Manager
ATTEST: ATTEST:
By: By:
Kathy Ward Melissa Au-Yeung
City Clerk Assistant to City Manager/
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Patrick Munoz, City Attorney Gregory E. Simonian, City Attorney
CITY OF LAGUNA NIGUEL CITY 0 AGUNA WOODS
By: By:
Stephen Erlandson Chris pher Macon
Interim City Manager City Manager
ATTEST: ATTEST: _
').)//
By: By: t .,
Eileen Gomez Yolie'Trippy
City Clerk Duty City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
/ ems, h
Terry Dixon, City Attorney David Cosgrove,C `i(y Attorney
9
1261363.1
CITY OF LAKE FOREST CITY OF RANCHO SANTA
MARGARITA
By: )* a .A
De a Rose By:
City Manager Jennifer M. Cervantez
City Manager
ATTEST:
ATTEST:
By:
Stephanie Smith By:
City Clerk Amy Diaz
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
P(-41ka
Matthew E. ichardson, City Attorney
Gregory E. Simonian, City Attorney
CITY OF SAN CLEMENTE CITY OF SAN JUAN CAPISTRANO
By: By:
James Makshanoff Benjamin Siegel
City Manager City Manager
ATTEST: ATTEST:
By: By:
Joanne Baade Maria Morris
City Clerk City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Scott Smith, City Attorney Jeff Ballinger, City Attorney
10
1261363.1
CITY OF LAKE FOREST CITY OF RANCHO SANTA
MARGARITA
By:
Debra Rose By:Z2
City Manager J- nifer M. Cervantez
ity Manager
ATTEST:
ATTEST:
By:
Stephanie Smith By:
City Clerk Amy Diaz
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
0001,00
Matthew E. Richardson, City Attorney
regory E im nian, City Attorney
CITY OF SAN CLEMENTE CITY OF SAN JUAN CAPISTRANO
By: By:
James Makshanoff Benjamin Siegel
City Manager City Manager
ATTEST: ATTEST:
By: By:
Joanne Baade Maria Morris
City Clerk City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Scott Smith, City Attorney Jeff Ballinger, City Attorney
10
1261363.1
CITY OF LAKE FOREST CITY OF RANCHO SANTA
MARGARITA
By:
Debra Rose By:
City Manager Jennifer M. Cervantez
City Manager
ATTEST:
ATTEST:
By:
Stephanie Smith By:
City Clerk Amy Diaz
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Matthew E. Richardson, City Attorney
Gregory E. Simonian, City Attorney
CITY OF SAN CLEMENTE CITY OF SAN JUAN CAPISTRANO
Zt/ Ado
By: // By:
d es Maksh'off Benjamin Siegel
City Manager City Manager
ATTES : ATTEST:
f
By. ,`'1' « - ' -' i By:
•:nne Baade Maria Morris
ity Clerk City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Scott t' , City Attorn-y Jeff Ballinger, City Attorney
10
1261363 1
CITY OF LAKE FOREST CITY OF RANCHO SANTA
MARGARITA
By:
Debra Rose By:
City Manager Jennifer M. Cervantez
City Manager
ATTEST:
ATTEST:
By:
Stephanie Smith By:
City Clerk Amy Diaz
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Matthew E. Richardson, City Attorney
Gregory E. Simonian, City Attorney
CITY OF SAN CLEMENTE CITY OF SAN JUAN CAPISTRANO
By: By:
James Makshanoff ja eg:
City Manager i
ATTEST: ATTE`T:
By: By: ,
I
Joanne Baade M. k 0 is
City Clerk City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Scott Smith, City Attorney Jeff Ballinger, City Attorney
10
ORIGINAL
CITY OF STANTON CITY OF VILLA PARK
By: -.' .,./c9(-
By:
Jame: A Box Steve Franks
City a .:ger City Manager
TES firillibb.,..// " F'O ATTEST:
.� A ,,/
a y: —/i%/.AL.-._ c9,-;\ By:
m. ricia 4 ''�s-- o- �, ,-x,), '\ Jarad Hildenbrand
City CI- ' �' `-. --1 City Clerk
%' -0 � C.)/
z.
APPROVED AS TO ' : �4 / APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Matt ew E. Richardson, City Attorney Todd Litfin, City Attorney
CITY OF YORBA LINDA
By:
Mark Pulone
City Manager
ATTEST:
By:
Marcia Brown
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Todd Litfin, City Attorney
U\of Sri
11 0
1261363.1
//91naY
CITY OF STANTON CITY OF VI LA P
By: By:
James A. Box St- e F a ks
City Manager City Manager
ATTEST: ATTEST:
By: By: 1 iih
Patricia A. Vazquez Stev- Fra, s
City Clerk City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
-7;"—cte
/dIL)
Matthew E. Richardson, City Attorney Todd Litfin, ity Attorney
CITY OF YORBA LINDA
By:
Mark Pulone
City Manager
ATTEST:
By:
Marcia Brown
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Todd Litfin, City Attorney
11
CITY OF STANTON CITY OF VILLA PARK
By: By:
James A. Box Steve Franks
City Manager City Manager
ATTEST: ATTEST:
By: By:
Patricia A. Vazquez Jarad Hildenbrand
City Clerk City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Matthew E. Richardson, City Attorney Todd Litfin, City Attorney
CITY OF YORBA LINDA
By: -111,te-1
Mark Pulone
City Manager
ATTEST:
By: I
Marcia Brown
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
- -;a1D/10/4
Todd Litfin, ity Attorney
11
1261363 1
ORANGE COUNTY SHERIFF-CORONER DEPARTMENT'S CONTRACT LAW
ENFORCEMENT COST AND EFFICIENCY STUDY REQUEST FOR
PROPOSALS
SCOPE OF WORK
ORANGE COUNTY SHERIFF-CORONER DEPARTMENT'S LAW ENFORCEMENT
COST AND EFFICIENCY STUDY
BACKGROUND
Thirteen cities currently contract with the Orange County Sheriff-Coroner Department
(OCSD) for law enforcement services:
• Aliso Viejo • Lake Forest • Stanton
• Dana Point • Mission Viejo • Villa Park
• Laguna Hills • Rancho Santa Margarita • Yorba Linda
• Laguna Niguel • San Clemente
• Laguna Woods • San Juan Capistrano
OCSD services the contract cities over three patrol areas; North Patrol, Southeast Patrol,
and Southwest patrol.
Over the last ten fiscal years, costs charged by OCSD for law enforcement services have
increased on average by 33%, with approximately 26% of the increase occurring in the
last five years. During the last four fiscal years, average growth in contract costs has
ranged from 5.69% to 7.40% where prior years experienced growth ranging from 0.31%
to 3.00%.
While contract costs may change due to changes in service hours in a given year or
changes in staffing levels requested by the contracting City, most changes to cost are not
within a contracting City's control. Most changes are within the control of the Orange
County Board of Supervisors (BOS), OCSD, other County agencies such as the County's
Auditor Controller or Risk Management Unit, and agencies outside the County such as
the Orange County Employees Retirement System (OCERS). The primary driver of
increased costs over time has been increases in salaries and benefits. New programs
implemented by OCSD have also impacted direct charges and allocated overhead.
The cost model used by OCSD was developed prior to 2002 with minimal changes until
approximately 2006 to 2008 when allocations for new programs or modifications for
changes to existing programs began to be implemented. Changes include (but are not
limited to) charges for Patrol Video Systems (PVS), addition of the Field Training Bureau,
addition of the Southeast Substation including addition of positions, addition to Command
Staff impacting allocated overhead.
Costs for certain services have seen significant growth including salaries and benefits,
enhanced helicopter services, and increased overhead costs being allocated to contract
12
ORANGE COUNTY SHERIFF-CORONER DEPARTMENT'S CONTRACT LAW
ENFORCEMENT COST AND EFFICIENCY STUDY REQUEST FOR
PROPOSALS
cities. At the same time, credits to cities from citation revenues have significantly
decreased. The average rate of cost increases over the last four years (5.69%, 6.83%,
6.81 %, and 7.40%) significantly outpace growth in cities' revenues and changes in the
Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers (CPI_U) for the region. Cost increases
at current rates are no longer sustainable. Cities are looking to partner with OCSD and
the County of Orange to develop solutions toward stabilizing costs while continuing the
quality service that OCSD is known for.
It is understood and agreed that the protection of our region, and each City specifically,
is the primary role of government. To that end, the attraction, and more vital, the
retention of top quality law enforcement personnel is of primary importance. Yet, costs
must balance the ability to afford the expected service levels.
OBJECTIVE
All thirteen cities contracting with OCSD for law enforcement services desire to gain a
more detailed understanding of the trends and issues resulting in annual increases in the
cost of service, which continue to exceed 5% on an ongoing basis. The County
leadership, including our Sheriff and County of Orange Executive Staff, also support the
completion of this exercise. To this end, the cities desire to understand the underlying
methodology of calculating and allocating specific costs and revenues charged or credited
by OCSD to the contract cities.
SCOPE OF WORK
Project tasks shall include, but are not necessarily limited to, the following. If the
Proposer feels that additional tasks are warranted, they must be clearly identified in the
proposal. The Proposer is encouraged to recommend other tasks that it deems
appropriate to achieve the objectives set forth in this RFP.
1. Meet with cities to understand their concerns related to the cost of law enforcement
services.
2. Review the current internal cost study (compliant with Title 2, Code of Federal
Regulations, Part 225 Cost Principles for State, Local and Indian Tribal
Governments) and document changes occurring over the last ten years that have
had significant impact (1% or more) on law enforcement costs charged to contract
cities. Changes may include operational changes, rate changes, and changes to
cost capture and allocation methodologies.
3. Review a copy of Orange County Board of Supervisors Resolution No. 89-1160 dated
August 8, 1989, directing the Sheriff-Coroner as to what services are to be provided
county-wide to all Orange County cities at no-cost, and allowing recovery of costs
13
ORANGE COUNTY SHERIFF-CORONER DEPARTMENT'S CONTRACT LAW
ENFORCEMENT COST AND EFFICIENCY STUDY REQUEST FOR
PROPOSALS
from contract cities to the extent that the level-of-service requested by the city is
greater than that given to other Orange County cities free-of-charge.
4. For services received by cities per Resolution No. 89-1160 (per item 3 above), meet
with OCSD staff to gain an understanding of how OCSD defines when contract cities
are provided greater service than given to other Orange County cities. Document
how the OCSD defines when a city"requests" greater service, and how OCSD tracks
or monitors usage.
5. Review and document the methodology used to measure and allocate costs for
significant changes (as identified in item 2 above), and other programs as summarized
below:
a. Division, Department and County-wide overheads.
i. Are supervision, administrative and other costs related to units falling under
Resolution No. 89-1160 removed from total overhead costs allocated?
ii. What has been the impact of increased staffing (both sworn and civilian) in
overhead support units in terms of cost and performance? Have stated goals
supporting staffing increases been met?
b. Substations serving North, Southeast, and Southwest patrol areas.
i. Is there opportunity to consolidate regional teams and share supervisory
positions (e.g.: shared lieutenant and/or sergeants)?
ii. Are any costs included in the Southeast Substation operating lease capital in
nature that should be charged through the Countywide Cost Allocation Plan
(CWCAP) and not direct as an operating lease cost?
iii. Would it be feasible to allocate substation costs on a County-wide model versus
the current regional model and what would be the cost impact on individual
cities?
c. Helicopter Services.
i. What costs are included and excluded from helicopter services allocated?
ii. How have services provided and costs changed since the agreement with
ABLE (a joint agreement for maintenance with the cities of Costa Mesa and
Newport Beach) was discontinued?
14
ORANGE COUNTY SHERIFF-CORONER DEPARTMENT'S CONTRACT LAW
ENFORCEMENT COST AND EFFICIENCY STUDY REQUEST FOR
PROPOSALS
iii. Has there been a change in philosophy in what is base level service over the
last five years?
iv. Are calls for fire support, other law enforcement agency support, unincorporated
support, etc. appropriately removed from city allocations?
v. Do flight logs, calls for services, and priority level of calls, support the enhanced
services allocations?
vi. Is there a more accurate methodology for allocating enhanced helicopter
services, such as square miles covered, calls for service, or other method
compared to allocating by the number of deputy FTEs (see item six below).
d. Field Training Bureau.
i. Review program statistics for pass and fail rates for all participants broken out
by first time and repeat participants since program inception.
ii. Determine the number of participants who drop out and do not return.
iii. Are program goals being met based on current statistics?
iv. Do program statistics justify all costs allocated as patrol training that should be
allocated, and are allocation methods appropriate?
v. How do other County Sheriff operations (e.g.: Los Angeles, San Diego,
Riverside, San Bernardino) allocate cost for training with contracting agencies?
e. General Liability and Workers Compensation Annual Insurance Costs.
i. Document the last five year history of annual costs charged to OCSD by the
County Executive Office, Risk Management Unit.
ii. Document whether the impact of jail claims and patrol claims on costs can be
segregated or reasonably estimated?
iii. Review claims over the last five years to determine if new programs are
reducing risk and costs, e.g. do programs such as the Field Training Bureau
appear to have a positive impact?
f. Traffic Citation Revenue.
15
ORANGE COUNTY SHERIFF-CORONER DEPARTMENT'S CONTRACT LAW
ENFORCEMENT COST AND EFFICIENCY STUDY REQUEST FOR
PROPOSALS
i. Document the collection, reporting and allocation methods for citation
revenues.
ii. Obtain traffic citation statistics for the last five years by city to include the
number of citations issued and the value of fines charged.
iii. Obtain a list of collections and outstanding fines for the last five years.
iv. Review the statistics collected against revenues credited to cities to determine
if allocations appear reasonable.
g. Cost of Sworn Staff.
i. Confirm that sworn staff are charged to contract cities at top step.
ii. Determine if there is a more representative methodology of charging sworn
staff to contract cities, such as an individual's actual rate of pay or an average
rate of pay.
iii. Determine if retirement rates passed through appropriately reflect rates for new
sworn staff subject to lower benefit retirement plans. Review rate calculations
projected by the County Executive Office for reasonableness.
6. Identify potential alternatives to cost allocation methodologies for the programs
identified in item five above and calculate an estimated cost impact to cities for
identified alternatives.
a. Is there an alternative or more appropriate base of allocation (e.g. allocation based
on number of calls or full-time equivalents assigned to a City, etc.)?
b. Is the calculation of credits for vacancies and overtime assumptions a fair
methodology? How can this be refined to better show actual cost of services at
the contract level?
7. Meet with OCSD contract and cost unit staff to determine new programs that may
impact law enforcement costs over the next two to five years. Determine if there is a
method to forecast potential costs impacts. Results might be a cost range, a
percentage impact, or other method that will allow cities to plan for future increases.
8. Can efficiencies be found by consolidating the accounting, purchasing and human
resources units between the OCSD and the County to reduce administrative overhead
costs? •
16
ORANGE COUNTY SHERIFF-CORONER DEPARTMENT'S CONTRACT LAW
ENFORCEMENT COST AND EFFICIENCY STUDY REQUEST FOR
PROPOSALS
9. An optional direct purchase position under the Agreement is the School Resource
Officer (SRO). Some of the cities purchase this position, some share the cost of an
SRO with other cities and a few cities have opted not to purchase an SRO. The
number of SROs purchased by each city varies. As an alternative to the current
structure, determine if an optional, regional/shared staffing approach could achieve
operational and staffing efficiencies and cost savings.
10.The Sheriff offers a Drug Enforcement Team (DET) as an optional program. If a city
opts into the program, then they are required to assign one of their DSII Patrol deputies
to the DET team and are charged their pro rata share of one DET Sergeant and one
DET Investigator. Calculate the total cost of the DET program and evaluate its
effectiveness and determine if the program justifies the assignment of a DSII Patrol
Deputy as opposed to reassigning the DSII Patrol Deputy to the normal patrol
complement.
11.As an alternative to the current DET program structure, determine if Deputy staffing
of the DET team should fall under the regional/shared staffing approach and if this
could achieve operational and staffing efficiencies and cost savings.
12.Under the current contract model, Investigators are direct purchase positions and
each city is required to purchase Investigators. The number of Investigators
purchased by each city varies. Supervision of Investigators is not included in the
regional/shared staff, but is instead allocated under Division Overhead. As an
alternative to the current structure, determine if a regional/shared staffing approach
could achieve operational and staffing efficiencies and cost savings.
13.Provide samples of various County Contract models for consideration by the group.
Provide comments for discussion if other models value review and potential for
consideration.
The successful respondent shall be required to retain all working papers and related
supporting documents, including records of professional time spent, for a period of five
years after delivery of the required reports, unless notified in writing by City of Mission
Viejo of the need to extend the retention period. The Proposer further agrees to allow City
of Mission Viejo staff to review such documents upon written request at any time during
the retention period.
(END OF SCOPE OF WORK)
17
EXHIBIT B
Orange County Sheriff-Coroner Department's
Contract Law Enforcement Cost and Efficiency Study
Cost Allocation Summary
Estimated Costs: $ 300,000
City Population* Population % Pro-Rata Cost Share
Aliso Viejo 50,312 7.81% $ 23,417.59
Dana Point 33,699 5.23% $ 15,685.12
Laguna Hills 31,544 4.89% $ 14,682.08
Laguna Niguel 66,689 10.35% $ 31,040.23
Laguna Woods 16,319 2.53% $ 7,595.64
Lake Forest 84,931 13.18% $ 39,530.92
Mission Viejo 96,763 15.01% $ 45,038.10
Rancho Santa Magarita 48,602 7.54% $ 22,621.68
San Clemente 65,975 10.24% $ 30,707.90
San Juan Capistrano 36,262 5.63% $ 16,878.06
Stanton 39,611 6.15% $ 18,436.84
Villa Park 5,944 0.92% $ 2,766.62
Yorba Linda 67,890 10.53% $ 31,599.23
Totals 644,541 100.00% $ 300,000.00
*-CA DOF Population Estimates as of 01/01/2017