Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
AGENDA
City Council Regular Study Session
Monday, May 24, 2021 - 7:00 p.m.
Zoom Webinar
Public Access Link: https://bit.ly/2LAgoW0
Please see the link to the Zoom Webinar Meeting in the header of the Agenda. However, please note that during this uncertain time, the city is aiming to reserve the bandwidth of the virtual meetings for residents who do not have the ability to submit their comments in writing, or to view the meetings via livestream or on Burien TV Channel 21. Therefore, we respectfully request that you do not join the webinar if you do not have any comments to share, or are able to view the meeting online or on Channel 21.
1. CALL TO ORDER
2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
3. ROLL CALL
Mayor Jimmy Matta
Deputy Mayor Krystal Marx Councilmember Pedro Olguin
Councilmember Sofia Aragon Councilmember Kevin Schilling
Councilmember Cydney Moore Councilmember Nancy Tosta
4. AGENDA CONFIRMATION
5. PUBLIC COMMENT ON AGENDA ITEMS
NOTICE to all participants: Pursuant to state law, RCW 42.17A.555, campaigning for any ballot measure or candidate in City Hall and/or during any portion of the council meeting, including the audience comment portion of the meeting, is PROHIBITED.
According to the Council Guidelines, at City Council Study Sessions members of the public are allowed to speak for two (2) minutes but must limit their comments to items that are specifically listed on the agenda, and the total time allotted to accept comment is 30 minutes. If you would like to provide public comment, please fill out this public comment form by 5:00 p.m. on the day of the meeting, so we may know to call on you. Alternatively, you can type your comment into the form, if you prefer the Clerk to read it aloud at the meeting. However, please take note that priority will be placed on hearing the comments of those who are in attendance at the meeting, but all written comments will be forwarded to Council and noted in the minutes for that meeting.
Page 1 of 96
Other ways to provide public comment:
• Email: Send an email to [email protected].
• Text: Send a text to [email protected]
• Online (Zoom): Attend the meeting and use the "Raise Your Hand" feature during the public comment portion of the agenda.
6. CORRESPONDENCE TO THE COUNCIL
a) Correspondence from the week of May 12 - 19, 2021 CTTC TOC 05.12.21 - 05.19.21
5 - 7
7. PRESENTATIONS OR DISCUSSIONS ON STUDY SESSION TOPICS
a) Ambaum Boulevard Park Update
(Alex Hunt, Planner and Susan McLain, Community Development Director)
Presentation and Update
b) Climate Action Plan Update
(Paige Morris, Environmental Education Specialist)
Update and Discussion Climate Action Plan Update
9 - 27
c) The 2011 Berk and Associates Report
(Police Chief Ted Boe)
Presentation and Discussion BERK Police Study
Police Service Report
29 - 88
d) Hazard Pay for Frontline Workers
(Garmon Newsom II, City Attorney)
Discussion Agenda Bill - Pdf
89 - 90
e) City Council Planning Calendar
(Brian J. Wilson, City Manager)
Review Planning Calendar as of 05.18.21
91 - 96
Page 2 of 96
8. ADJOURNMENT
NOTE: In accordance with Governor Inslee's Healthy Washington - Roadmap to Recovery (from January 8, 2021), the City is temporarily prohibited from holding in-person meetings. However, in an effort to encourage our community to continue to view and participate in Council meetings, we request that you visit our website for more information regarding Virtual Meeting Access.
The City of Burien offers Spanish interpretation during every virtual City Council meeting. Any attendee may access this service.
Once you log into the meeting, click on the “Interpretation” link at the bottom of your screen. If you need an interpreter for another language, please contact the City Clerk at [email protected] at least two business days prior to the meeting date.
***********
La Ciudad de Burien ofrece interpretación en español durante cada reunión virtual del Ayuntamiento. Cualquier asistente puede acceder a este servicio.
Cuando haya iniciado sesión en la reunión, haga clic en el enlace "Interpretación" en la parte inferior de la pantalla. Si necesita un intérprete para otro idioma, comuníquese con el Secretario de la Ciudad en [email protected] al menos dos días hábiles antes de la fecha de la reunión.
Page 3 of 96
Page 4 of 96
CORRESPONDENCE TO THE COUNCIL
Table of Contents May 12, 2021 (noon) – May 19, 2021 (noon)
For full Council Correspondence, please follow this link: https://burienwa.civicweb.net/filepro/documents/45791
DATE NAME TOPIC FOLLOW-UP
05/13/21 Brian Jones Opposes DESC
05/13/21 Pamela Jorgensen Back-in Parking
05/13/21 Shay McBride Opposes DESC
05/13/21 Mariko Yatsu Opposes DESC
05/13/21 Todd Manola Opposes DESC
05/13/21 Elisabeth Hurley Supports DESC
05/13/21 Sybil Davis Supports DESC
05/14/21 Patricia James Opposes DESC
05/14/21 Michael J. McBride Opposes DESC
05/14/21 Joy Yoon BMC – Hedge Height
05/14/21 Lisa & Stephen Olmstead Opposes DESC
05/14/21 Brian & Teri Barnes Opposes DESC
05/14/21 Troy Brogdon Opposes DESC
05/14/21 Beth & Dick Kent Supports DESC
05/14/21 Jordan Pomeroy Opposes DESC
05/14/21 Angus Wood Opposes DESC
05/14/21 Julie Green Opposes DESC
05/14/21 Robin Dunkle Opposes DESC
05/14/21 Seth Leizman Supports DESC
Agenda Item #6.a)
Page 5 of 96
Correspondence to the Council 05.12.21 – 05.19.21
05/14/21 Jeff Kerns Opposes DESC
05/14/21 Natalia Fialkoff Supports DESC
05/14/21 David Wilson &
Barbara DeVincentis Opposes DESC
05/14/21 Rev. Jenny Partch Supports DESC
05/15/21 Tony Home Opposes DESC
05/15/21 Kristen and Jeff Kerns Opposes DESC
05/15/21 Mandolin V. Noir Supports DESC
05/15/21 Twyla Lawrence Opposes DESC
05/15/21 Carol Sandoval Supports DESC
05/15/21 Will & Yvette Henricus Opposes DESC
05/15/21 August Hahn Supports DESC
05/15/21 Kristopher Medchill Opposes DESC
05/15/21 David Gould Opposes DESC
05/16/21 Marilyn McAdoo Supports DESC
05/16/21 Angela Doell Opposes DESC
05/16/21 Elizabeth Akina Opposes DESC
05/16/21 Adelle Comfort Supports DESC
05/16/21 Vicky Hartley Supports DESC
05/16/21 Glen Gaidos DESC
05/16/21 Jessica Brase Opposes DESC
05/17/21 William C. Kenner Opposes DESC
05/17/21 Enzo Morella Opposes DESC
05/17/21 Susan Nystrom Opposes DESC
05/17/21 Dr. C. Edgar Opposes DESC
05/17/21 Danny Dougan Supports DESC
05/17/21 Amy Kangas Supports DESC
Agenda Item #6.a)
Page 6 of 96
Correspondence to the Council 05.12.21 – 05.19.21
05/17/21 Dr. C. Edgar (2) TIP
05/17/21 Debi Wagner Opposes DESC
05/17/21 Andrea Pollock Wood Opposes DESC
05/17/21 Patty Kvinge Supports DESC
05/17/21 Benjamin Miksch Supports DESC
05/17/21 Melissa Margain SEA Supply Drop
05/17/21 Mary Ellen Armburst Opposes DESC
05/17/21 Kate Richardson Supports DESC
05/17/21 Patty Janssen Opposes DESC
05/17/21 Kathy Hazen Supports DESC
05/18/21 David Feinberg Supports DESC
05/19/21 Jen Powell Supports DESC
Agenda Item #6.a)
Page 7 of 96
Page 8 of 96
May 24, 2021
Climate Action Plan Update
Agenda Item #7.b)
Page 9 of 96
• Overview of Burien Climate Action Plan timeline• Overview of greenhouse gas (GHG) inventory and reduction
targets• Summary of community workshop #1• Overview of goals and strategies• Next steps
Agenda
Agenda Item #7.b)
Page 10 of 96
Burien Climate Action Plan Timeline
2020: Greenhouse gas
inventory
Spring–Summer 2021: Develop strategies and
actions
Winter 2021/2022: Finalize and adopt
Burien Climate Action Plan
Fall 2021: Draft Burien Climate
Action Plan and incorporate feedback
Agenda Item #7.b)
Page 11 of 96
GHG Inventory
Major Sources of Emissions:• Gasoline vehicles (e.g.,
passenger cars)• Residential natural gas use• Commercial natural gas use
Key Considerations:• Emissions were estimated using
verified local data• Community wastewater data
needed for future inventories
Community InventoryTotal Emissions: >160,000 MTCO2e
Agenda Item #7.b)
Page 12 of 96
Emissions Reduction Targets
Short Term Medium Term Long Term
• Reduce emissions 25%by 2025
• Reduce emissions 50%by 2030
• Reduce emissions 95% or reach GHG neutralityby 2050 Agenda Item
#7.b)
Page 13 of 96
Wedge AnalysisAgenda Item
#7.b)
Page 14 of 96
Workshop Objectives
• Identify the vision for the Burien Climate Action Plan
• Identify goals for the Burien Climate Action Plan, especially as they relate to proposed focus areas
• Outline working agreements for the Community Advisory Group
Workshop Activities
• Presentation of Climate Action Plan process
• Facilitated discussion with Community Advisory Group
• Public comment period
Community Advisory Group Workshop #1
Agenda Item #7.b)
Page 15 of 96
Bring more green jobs
Inspire behavior
change among residents and
business owners
Expand community green space
Engage young people in
climate action
Add new public
transportation options
Improve the city’s walking
and cycling infrastructure.
Supportenergy
efficiency efforts in buildings
Community feedback
Agenda Item #7.b)
Page 16 of 96
Identifying a Vision
MURAL Activities
Agenda Item #7.b)
Page 17 of 96
Mural Board Example
Agenda Item #7.b)
Page 18 of 96
Vision for the CAP
In the future, we want to see a climate-smartand climate-resilient Burien that preserves its
cultural diversity, its close-knit community,and its green spaces while increasing
affordable housing options, expanding accessible public transportation, and
expanding social services and publicly funded subsidy programs that make Burien a more
equitable place to live. Agenda Item #7.b)
Page 19 of 96
Goals and Strategies for the CAP
Goal
Strategy #1
Supporting Action
Supporting Action
Strategy #2
Supporting Action
Supporting Action
Focus Area
Agenda Item #7.b)
Page 20 of 96
Transportation and Land UseGoal T-1: Reduce transportation emissions and increase trips made by walking, biking, and transit
Strategy T-1.1: Transition to the use of energy efficiency vehicles
Strategy T-1.2: Reduce transportation emissions associated with government operations
Strategy T-1.3: Enable and provide multiple modes of green transportation
Goal T-2: Support neighborhood nodes that provide easy access to transit, amenities, jobs, and housing
Strategy T-2.1: Encourage density and mixed land use in strategic areas
Agenda Item #7.b)
Page 21 of 96
Buildings and EnergyGoal B-1: Support efficient building standards
Strategy B-1.1: Advance the decarbonization of buildings
Strategy B-1.2: Increase Burien community knowledge about energy efficienciesStrategy B-1.3: Increase energy efficiencies in City-owned buildings and other infrastructure
Goal B-2: Expand renewable energy production and useStrategy B-2.1: Transition to the use of renewable energy to eliminate fossil fuel use wherever possible
Agenda Item #7.b)
Page 22 of 96
Materials and ConsumptionGoal M-1: Reduce community waste generation and move towards zero waste of resources
Strategy M-1.1: Reduce waste from City purchasing and operations
Strategy M-1.2: Increase diversion of community waste while reducing contamination within waste streams
Strategy M-1.3: Promote a circular economy
Agenda Item #7.b)
Page 23 of 96
Water and Natural SystemsGoal W-1: Preserve the health of native habitats and enhance ecosystem health
Strategy W-1.1: Protect and support native habitats and open spaces
Goal W-2: Enhance natural drainage systems
Strategy W-2.1: Protect stormwater infrastructure and expand green infrastructure
Agenda Item #7.b)
Page 24 of 96
Community Resilience and Well-Being Goal C-1: Strengthen the capacity to support climate actionStrategy C-1.1: Build awareness in the community around climate change related impactsStrategy C-1.2: Improve City staff knowledge of and capacity for their role in climate actionGoal C-2: Ensure equitable access to parks, green space, and recreational servicesStrategy C-2.1: Increase and protect green spaces and natural areas within the communityGoal C-3: Focus investments in communities that experience disproportionate climate impactsStrategy C-3.1: Enhance resilience of populations that will be disproportionately impacted by climate change
Agenda Item #7.b)
Page 25 of 96
• Finalize City staff engagement • Community Advisory Group workshop #2 in early summer• First community survey
Next Steps
Agenda Item #7.b)
Page 26 of 96
Page 28 of 96
Agenda Item #7.c)
Page 29 of 96
Agenda Item #7.c)
Page 30 of 96
-51:1-£l?&?'|-hnljll??l?niu?l-ni-Ki-Ii-I-1-I'?'-:£I:I!I1||'&?'Ep'l|-hIll"1?-!"?&:hI-'?!-1-I-:lE.-
F.I
E |3j'H;?-E-III!-I E1--h??-l'lI:I:&In-|:1'l:h::l:|:Il:I-|:n-|I:'.l:iJ-nlI|qI:5I-Itl'=i:I1:I::|I. .Innl!Ii-In!-mu::l'i:-EjIl'Iu:Iiuj-in-Ililpjull-in-|lI'|n-i-lira-rdiuldnuI'I-$1.-IE Ell??i?-£5 ?-.I'||:l-2 E‘!-n!-E-ill: Hui????|1!1:H--?!Z'll:-1!-I5-I:?lH|1'.'|H|.'.'j'?!||II;||?l|!Il:|H?!|&?uj-l&l 1i:&
.I. l1:—-III:lI::?.:l?.l-uj?l-1 _???l?ih?j?i-T‘:-Hjj.
H. wd?i?d?d??ijnjh??jl
I
|'-'- 'l'i!I|=I:III|=-=|II'=r|:I:_IH=|II'-II
-:r=II|II-II=I||!-II:IIIIII|IIl|II-l|I'II'I-IJ1?-II|I|III1I:|'li--I'I.|Z;iIIIIiII|-|II||I-=||In:I|I'I-|III|I-II:|':liIlI-II:-
D. |'I&'I|'.'%'$'|'L'::h:hI"rTa'$jjjq.;?I.Il.n'hHnl-?III'|'J|I::-h?--IhII-——II'rh_p-I-I?-n--irIl-p'hilu-Ii-
25- 11|a'Ih-D-Ilr-pt!--|3=nnnhI'w|:uh-In‘!-l?-Irnrnwrulltjnlu?III-iliili ?-|=|=-|!'Iil'?—-F'I'|-F! ljllr?lj. -
TH-|:|ii:li?I'I=?-ll'Fi|—E:i=H-?lil?ii-'.IilH?.j|I-I|:Il'?-ii-!=|iIi#IiJF?'lII:!'!i1Ii-?"=Hl-Q-3.!-i'H|-Ei:?'@-ll'l|:-$13_'I|i|Il qlplnllu-ll-In-pll?nli-‘Ina!-h=Ii'-hrinjll-I-H'HlI-?lth!I113-.-?-?|=%'|'TH=-it?iihli-I-I-llllj-I'|I-I-|I'.'T"IjII-'i=|I|:I|I|dIII=-:I:II:=I-:III|'.:l'hI1]I::|--||IIIII|III.II:III:I'nu:inhlu:.-.lIu::u-In-isle:
-?-1-a~.:-.d-EI1-=14:-lnndd?l-I:h-hrqIulh:n.nthnnu.tuHlur1'|:iiiI=3F'?-i-h'l-i'-'ITH:j.=?'|5IiI-E1!-ill-In-huh-has-—I::Iu .n.1|:I.——uI--I.-.up-;u1-?plllui-u'nj._-
1I|I'.'£'hE'.?i:I.|%..E%.?.jhj “mad-I
??uhuuull-?hhu--Eh-itdp-n-r=intnnh.n:'1:uuu-u'.uu-ahuu.IHl—HII—Hn|:I|-Iiii:?I?pnE.=raIIhu—I-:t'|li-niind'.L:IlI|up--I:-nu-u-up ' . '-
connection with the services rendered under this Agreement shall be the property of the Citywhetherthe projectfor which they are made is executed or not.
5. IndepgndentContractor. The Contractoris and shallbe at all timesduring the term of thisAgreement an independentcontractor, and not an employee of the City. Any and all employeesof the Contractor or other personswhile engaged in the performance of any work or servicesrequired of the Contractorunder this Agreement shall be considered to be employees of theContractor only and not employeesof the City. The Contractor and City agree to the following11'ghts consistentwith an independentcontractor relationship:
A. Contractorhas the sole right to control and direct the means, manner and methodby which the servicesrequiredby this Agreement willbe performed.
B. Contractor will furnish all equipmentand materials used to provide the servicesrequiredby this Agreement.
C. The Contractoror Contractorsemployees or contract personnel shall perform theservices required by this Agreement; the City shall not hire or supervise any assistants tohelp Contractor.
D. Neither Contractornor Contractor's employees or contract personnel shall receiveany training from City in the skills necessary to perform the services required by thisAgreement.
E. City shall not require Contractor or Contractor'semployees or contract personnelto devote full time to performingthe services required by this Agreement.
The Contractor acknowledges that it is responsible for the payment of all charges and taxesapplicableto the services performed under this Agreement, and the Contractoragrees to complywith all applicable laws regarding the reporting of income, maintenance of insurance andrecords, and all other requirements and obligations imposed as a result of the Contractor's statusas an independentcontractor. If the City is assessed, liableor responsiblein any manner for suchcharges or taxes, the Contractor agrees to hold the City harmless from such costs, includingattomey‘sfees.
The Contractor shall provide at its sole expense all materials, office space, and other necessitiesto perform its duties under this Agreement, unless otherwisespeci?ed in writing.
The Contractor, at its expense, shall obtain and keep in force any and all necessary licenses andpermits to perform the work providedfor herein.
This Agreement shall be for the sole bene?t of the parties hereto, and nothing contained hereinshall create a contractual relationshipwith, or create a cause of action in favor of, a third partyagainsteither party hereto.
C:\Documemsand Senings\Lynnctte\LocalSettings\TcmporaryInternetF:lcs\Content.Out!ook\lOB309HQ\BerkAssociatesdoc
Agenda Item #7.c)
Page 31 of 96
?.;m'I::u"-duI&£IIJln.tb'I:::n'I.1'n:rE:dml:'Iz?a'::rn?1:pj
inl|f'hHhpI.I'::j:.-1I::hI1I::|j.:u.i.u'jpI,f.tI|:lg|'u'?'I|'i:!E#d_ElI. '|.'tIE:tg|'E.|::I::tIb'.IuI::ElI'jI%::IIjIIu.II&.H'd'
I::::::hI':rI'_'::tr:_'I%;|IdI. ?'f?.tj?EE]:::q:f£n?I'5'::t-:hH.E?'C:?'I?n'uIE$':hI"I?h|1u:£'?:jIl'l::d.I;:::|'::I'III|?:lI:tI:£E::|1?EtI:mjt:I'iIII?|:I?:::djEi
T. l!E:|'|.'tI.I?.|:I':|II'|uhm;|I%:n'II:I;?.:I':I5 Ell Irllfjhtrn:
i;mu'I:—"I:::hqm:Iml_1|n'l::l.E:—.-hllpahi?lhjjn;.n:III':r:|:?J,§:ujh1|'1:j:hI'u.'|L':::::_"I%]I::IuI.?tIrH.hiIl'l:I'II§-.'I'::I.Inh'It-|||.[|'é.
A. Tlnulllnjhll.-'—I:-::&l::I']I'll:l:.Il|';::I'|Ir?:I.j.p.§.l?ni..|n.i'.$.u%h,%"I'F::II?h.h.?::.1.,:lh.Ii:I.I.:I!LH.—.b:|'&Il
ltt¢.l|:t:|1:|‘:I'I't::I1LHEI.&:I:Il:l—-H'jéui.qII'5'.&i.,::i.:r-jntnlbll-':I.?II$'!?I'l:=:IjIhII?&l:E]'h|:ImIu.-?h%rHut|'II-jI:I§?:IIIrn'I1'IJ:HIn%.l?lIH.?!:I'E:?:i'.g|':tI1-q:IpI.1'F:I1hpqll?u.
II- Th+E5:tu'Iil:fHl?fHHHIl|!:rnd't|'au!H11h5!ITEh'Eh|luHEEdtnfTIHHJ-:?'HtH-?tFI?w}+'1?Ib:H3-13!-n'HwI'-?-I!F+?l-aHl|ilF|I!Il'.'i':-T?i?iniqn??n?f?f?-mf1t!rd'rhpi'Ii1-?iIpIn.rM-:i'?I?n'L:lrlI|I|.|r-ldurh:I'|:III1¢I.'uTl.luI?ln.l&IIdmf|;r'|;i.|IIh.l'.
'-'-H1:
-|'- H?£E. Till"-II'=|'IF|i-:I'i-I1]'i|-Fill‘!-F-IIIII-III-fr-|1:|-:11:-IHI-.?-=d-h'nmi=HA.n'II1-shine:-d-irnlili-H'h:5-Hilu?ncuaII-I-|=I|'-r:-'.|=-I:-I!lI|'r|=I.I=II'I-.-1|I'I=1;-'r|-1-I1-Ifnu-I:a-u-r:=u::-n-nuL.umq.lIn'n=IrI?Hirt=n:nnan-Irrmtbui-u1tsu1prm+Hc¢-mljtrn-an-adII-Fllrll-it=h|.d-¥-?:-E-.Hd|Ell--hh1$t?|1i?1l]!~.:?p:?n—'|hp1.tt-Itr?-I3‘-?dl?.?J:IT:'Ml&!-.p'?hIlhiHJu-nhinh-qiitdqcn?-nu.
I
ji*.j.ijj HJ
Contractor understands that neither Contractor nor Contractor's employees or contract personnelare eligible to participate in any employee pension, health, vacation pay, sick pay or other fringe
bene?t plan of the City. The City shall not obtain workers‘compensationinsurance on behalf ofContractor or Contractor's employees. City shall make no state or federal unemploymen
tcompensationpayments on behalf of Contractoror Contractor'semployees or contract personnel.Contractor will not be entitled to these benefits in connection with work performedunder this
Agreement. City shall not provide any insurance coverage of any kind for Contractor orContractor'semployees or contract personnel. Contractor agrees to maintain adequate insuranceto cover any negligent acts committed by Contractor or Contractor's employees or agents whileperformingservicesunder this Agreement.
6. Indemni?cation.
A. The Contractor agrees to indemnify the City from any claims, damages, losses, and costs,
including, but not limited to, attorney’s fees and litigation costs, arising out of claims by thirdparties for property damage and bodily injury,including death, caused by the negligence orwillful misconduct of the Contractor, the Contractor’s employees,affiliated corporations
,officers, and lower tier subcontractors in connection with this Contract, either solely or incombination with the negligence or willful misconduct of third parties.
B. The City agrees to indemnify Contractorfrom any claims, damages, losses, and costs,
including, but not limited to, attorney's fees and litigation costs, arising out of claims by thirdparties for property damage and bodily injury, including death, caused by the negligence orwillful misconduct of the City, the Cities employees, or agents in connection with this Contract,either solely or in combinationwith the negligence or willful misconductof third parties.
C. If negligence or willful misconductof both the Contractorand the City (or a personidentified above for whom each is liable) is a cause of such damage or injury, the loss, cost orexpense shall be shared between the Contractor and the City in proportion to their relativedegrees of negligence or willful misconduct and the right of indemnity shall apply for suchproportion.
D. The Contractor hereby waives its immunity under Title 51 of the Revised Code ofWashington for claims of any type brought by any Contractor agent or employee against theCity. This waiver is speci?cally negotiated by the parties and a portion of the City’s paymenthereunderis expressly made the consideration for this waiver.
7. Insurance.
A. Commercial General Liability. The Contractorshall procure and maintain in full forcethroughout the duration of the Agreement commercialgeneral liability insuranceto coverliability, bodily injury, and property damage. The Commercial General Liabilityinsurance shall be written on an occurrence basis and shall provide coverage for any andall costs,.includingdefensecosts, and losses and damages resulting from personal injury,bodily injury and death, property damage, products liability and completed operations
.
C:\Documc-ntsand Settings\I..ynnette\LocalSettings?emporary lntemet Files\Content.Outlook\IOB309HQ\BerkAssociatesxlocx3
Agenda Item #7.c)
Page 32 of 96
Agenda Item #7.c)
Page 33 of 96
mlj. ll|lIhlIldi:r:|'i.&£n'n.|:Ir-l1p'_|IrilI:I:I'I1Illll?n|Il?!IlI'u-??d??-i..II'.'-I?ltl-5-I'E.|iu-I|:u-:-?u-.I:|-I-E-Ivil i'I-I-|Z!|I:uII-I-?llzu-IIn?-
:-u-rn't?-I!:1.-:l.-uIlF'l-IiII=IIII1?-Ii:-I-|:-|Ij-II-IIh|I- T!I-I|3'I'_rI'Z'—=|-II'|.?'?||F*?I'|.q?1I'qFlHq*I.|:l'II'?#I'IE?-l|?.?1"I:-|'-:-I:|'-lIIIZ-=?-I--l-?i'|-l'FI'ltI-|:.|:Ii|-l-
El?l-Fil??'l'i|H-i11h'i'H?p-IIIE-El'lEId?=?-??-Ii-hi-Ill!-=h'rhath-nun!-In-1u:rHtu-?lth:-nn:enInIIv-H-innndFII=nI=nnu1?rE-u?.H!i??'!I1lEI:|'illI1?H?ilH-?-h'iiE?fl?HI'l:?.|=I'HI1?lad-M-tau;-n-u?afbr?-EIn‘|mpnIli-Dq|u'uuuIII'm-aidquut
Eil?ild-H'hiH?|-5:!-iIhdb:P¥H:-1-L?ii?-I-PH-l?-1liII'-H4-13-H-I:Ir|-it-ultifla-rill-II.I+u=III-nu--:Il'Ii.lL-'q:-ntli-L m
It %-.f.I..lI.il?|l-
|'l.. T1l5iF'lI$'IJ-lllil?l-IDFI-lI?1EtfH.I=h?l|_|BI1l1jl?Il'f§|'.?n:h.|?J.p'ngq.d:nm':|Ihd-?lcthl-dp1.p.l1:fI'i1p:?.?In-1iId11qF:IFIl'HFFllIFI¥Iild??FT|=-FT?'llHilFHIIFIll?lI'Iih?-!I}H-?‘Iii’!-H.l'l¢ll'?-I-IIl1'IldlI—Il|?lIllI1§f|'?'|ll-Hi:|'lIIEl1 ?I|II|II'l|i|'|'lI%:II¢|T't|'-II'|-Ii"-'-3
I TI---n'=|I=|=-Iltn-II-r-I-=I==I-Ifru|-url-II-1I4'rI-I-Ila: :-I-I-I1-I|I'tIII-I-nui-I:-:-n'|-FIl'l1?FTHiill-?it-?r?-ILHF1-?hrrh-J?iltf?l?lihllli?-il?i?n.-|utun-|7I|Ir-|'.'|u.q—-I-|:I.'.-I-.i.tu;.-tn.--nag.-.
'i| _E.-j:I.-iI!I:|.?!il%:i'|'$:I:I.. "|"IIF'lI||I2I|'I-l'!I|'lIIiHIIliI|ZIE'.q1'-lm:t:?q'jh:Hiq'I.=1.El'jH11|:In.'|:hIbi:1|pfnp|..H;i?.'.I;|E-I:h5'.l:|-.?:n'?.:I|I-;l-. E:|IIuI:n':I.|:|I.II1:|:Il.|I.l1I5II.lt-I'nIa|11:|.||:'h,':.Ihj:::qI.—'ll:--11$: l1'h'FEldIIIp'n-'?.|.h;|:|I|:;|n?b_.I?.|J:.II:H]:IIIH'I'|Fud.?h'j.l:uJ.1lh'm:t.i.:1._Hhq?'|H1—'PqtI,'?.;u.?'|P?:??g_11t._.||..:?'_'l.'l:l...||.E:tI.l.:|':tI:|_|.
Ill 'Ihm-h1&:mlnHhI'm=t=?%£l1hEiA?'EI:m:II|iIJJh:1£I::I:Ei.H]1u1hjdm.::I'hI:rjh3Ihr:t¢n{:t:|!?|'HIl?IwH?I|'l?'ulIiH.IE-EllEhIhII&.I'_:Ebl:h'.1:d.'Fiij.n-cninaniiilluhalzlrrimu-H-Ituhynu--mqituby--u-h.huLu!:u=ih1-I
HIEIF-Ira‘-nd=I_raH'-pnnwnlilrl?-Haulpufunlmiim-Huh--nth-II'IiIhEl?I'Tnn'l=-riH1|:H-.IdIiIJ.-hpnmauuuuirgnu-um--lunch.??i.IiFl1fjfFl|1[fl1hffIiU[I?t?.lh|11hi.Lmn'-in:.'h:h:dII-:-rI1-=IiI-:-:r:-:Ir=|-=-r-=lI-|I'I-I:I'|:-II-IJ.Iti|a|a:-II-:n:l.:-I:-H.I:.II...:-It:-at.-.u-:u:*.uI1;-'-I-11 Till?‘-l'bF4fIIIi1-?'?|IIF?I2hHh:Ini.:£:l|::|:5'h;n[HdI:I2l3hJIIIIHi2III|'?lIi-:Ih|J'Ilii|1lIh.:?:HI2Il:I'h'Ti"l&h:I]I1j:g-Iui=:'Hjm1t=IdH:4?nnI~:qib+1mmh:w:um-:u:luu-I':.—=u-u-n-h-=|-I-1-I'=|I|-|.Iu.|:III-III-Iu:-
risk manager. In the event that at any time during coverage, the insurer does not meet theforegoing standards, Contractor shall give prompt notice to the City and shall seekcoverage from an insurer that meets the foregoing standards. The City reserves the rightto change the rating or the rating guide depending upon the changed risks or availabilit
yof other suitable and reliable rating guides.
Commercialgeneral liability insurance policies obtainedpursuant to this Agreement bythe Contractor or required by the Contractor from its vendors and subcontractorsforevents, shall name the City as an additional insured without limitation, pursuant to anendorsement approvedof by the City’s responsibleDepartmentDirectoror designee.
Certi?cates of coverage as requiredby Paragraphs A, B and C above shall be delivered tothe City on or before the execution of this Agreement.
8. Record Keeping and Reporting.
A. The Contractor shall maintainaccounts and records, including personnel, property,?nancial and programmaticrecords which sufficiently and properly re?ect all direct and indirectcosts of any nature expended and services performed in the performanceof this Agreement andother such records as may be deemed necessary by the City to ensure the performance of thisAgreement.
B. These records shall be maintained for a period of seven years after terminationhereofunless pemrission to destroy them is granted by the office of the archivist in accordancewithRCW Chapter 40.14 and by the City.
9. Reports - Printed Copies & ElectronicVersion: When reports are required to besubmittedto the City pursuant to this agreement, Contractor will provide three (3) printed copiesto the City and an electronic version. Said electronic versionshall be submitted to the City in acomputer format compatible with PC software programs in current use by the City (MicrosoftWord, Microsoft Excel, Microsoft Access, Microsoft PowerPoint, Microsoft Publisher, Visio,
‘AutoCAD,Adobe Acrobat).
I0. Audits and Inspections.The records and documentswith respect to all matters coveredbythis Agreement shall be subject at all times to inspection, review or audit by law during theperformanceof this Agreement. The Contractor shall permit the City, state and federal agencies,from time to time as the City deems necessary or as required by state, local, or federal law orregulation,to inspect and audit, at any and all reasonable times, all pertinentbooks and recordsof theContractor and any other person or entity which has performed work in connectionwithorrelated to the Contractor's servicesunder this Agreement to verify the accuracy of accountin
grecords, and shall supply the City with, or shall permit the City to make, a copy of any books andrecords and any portion thereof pertaining to work under this Agreement, upon the City'srequest. The Contractorshallensure that such inspection, audit and copying right of the City is acondition of any contract, agreement or other arrangement under which any other person orentity is permitted to perform work in connection with or related to the Contractor's servicesunder this Agreement.
C:\Documentsand Scttings‘\1.ynneIte\bocalSettings?emporary lmemet Files\Content. Outloolt\IOB309l-lQ\BerkAssociates.docx
Agenda Item #7.c)
Page 34 of 96
Agenda Item #7.c)
Page 35 of 96
Agenda Item #7.c)
Page 36 of 96
Agenda Item #7.c)
Page 37 of 96
Agenda Item #7.c)
Page 38 of 96
Agenda Item #7.c)
Page 39 of 96
Agenda Item #7.c)
Page 40 of 96
I"-I!“-.':r"=-'!'='.'-I"-"III-=I|I'I'l|=-h'II-.. '-Irlil-It
' "pi-di_I-IiII'I_I|_-III-up-p_:|Ir.
I'
" nhgfl_u_' _ " ":2 '"
_I_I-ennui:-IiarE...;ui.I;....Ia:I,u;1.;I._;...u;;.a.I.,...g|'|!l|III IIIIII-'li|i"'-'=I|il.lull!-IIII:|.|vII-IIII..-IIil-I-JI-II-I-:-.-IIIHI-III]-:I,IIII:II-puI|_-_|:|-
nrnl-_'|=|=I_=i'3-'l¥-|:#"—.l'h.I3i'l l|I=i-l-?#'|-%-
. ,éhhli-i£H!.II-jIuui-nnI-IIuInmuI|;IgI-_ul—Ia:IhHpII|u1pIIu '
_ —iIl:I'EIiIl-'I:illl-I+'ilIlgI|InI11:IppjgI:'iq:|lIinI:£-II;.'nIHnr|.1-:I:I|p?:I-rI|I|_I:_IgI.;?.n-|_i:III|I
_ ?-F-_IrHu_-uu5I,gt_hIInI-Im|IuI:L_ug.p:-IIII:g-:uF.np-Iau.L.:!.I. ;_-' .-"hm .'==-In-u.=-ha‘-.-ri-3!-ri-1=i_'1ti_L
-."""""."’."'.".'!"'".""'F"|"'.""" 'F"P"'!"'T""'*"'i"*.'I|"'|'I|".*!H I!!!iEII'II-‘II-‘PI-==_I|I_=tIr'Iih|IF?IIn-IHIIIIII-nIH3Il'I-III
I.lu|I-I::IluI:|I_I:-Ii=1!-I-Iirl-I-Ir-III-imus-_I I=g;iuI=III~-u-I-u-=_I-u-_:I:=:-u_=u-:I;I-gp-uui-I-ta-I-mu.mg.
I'
'$lH'|lI':=|'#-Ii __ El-|I.|=-Illi-I-d-II-III-I-II-IIEIIIE-:1-IIIII|I_-I!II--II-I|!:p'I1|'IIIiu-II.+:u|:I-up--|p:|I|I:I|--II. III.-I:-n-al-a-|..'4_*uIuuuL-all:-I-Innlui-I-In-.u;I.¢II:.h.
_-- _-
'_I.
: .l-,'-. . ..-II2...:.3E-.:
nit! ql?i '|'li -i-I-h'i-‘I-I?I-l'|!-1.E|-I!‘-? Q-ul?ii'. I|I|-I;.1|..|I||-h ia-IHIIHIII-II: in-IIIIn-I up an
:—u|nnIpIuun-Igi-u?-nth-an-m—nIlnu5dnIuynrn:IIuIuq.III-II.-'
I I I I
: I I. :-I III-
. _:- '_ |'I.-
‘ .'
..'5-"=3: '.__. _- _ -
‘rial-I-nil:-I-nu-IIIZI-I-I-u-:-I_uII1-I-In-I'_-uqm-i-III-III-u-I-In"Iu-nIII-I-pI-:-i-_''
; _-
.-E
‘I-="-='I-=‘I+'r.t"!1=1'-'tIIr_-.|J-=I--I""Er"-I-I"'-alt‘-.IIuy-'-.i'-i---:"F-H-.‘ : --
_'IuI.'IiIu _' ;,.,,.'-.:_';-
"
CITYOF BURIENPUBLICSAFETYSERVICEDELIVERYANALYSIS8: STEERINGCOMMITTEESUPPORT
In terms of external communications.BERKwillsupport the City’s communication plan for relaying projectfindings to the CityCouncil, interested parties, and the public, which would include presentations or othercommunity briefings. We are currentlyassuming eight such meetings/briefings.
Deliverables:Ad-hocanalyses and responses as needed.
MeetingslPresentations:On-goingSteering CommitteeParticipation and Support
Task 2: Comparative Cost Analysis of Providing Police Services
In this task BERKwill conduct a comparative analysis focusing on the current costs of providing policeservices in-house. This task will provide important baseline information needed to conduct the fiscalanalysis in Task 3. To inform the development of city police department alternative, BERKenvisions ananalysis that would at a minimumaddress: 1) Startup costs and 2) Ongoing operational costs.
In 2007. BERKcompleted a cost-comparison for the City that assessed the costs and benefits the Citywould likely incur if it were to transition to a city-run police department. For this analysis, BERKfocusedon comparing staffing levels, operational costs. and capital costs for three cities (Malysville,Des Moines,and Wenatchee) of similar size and demand characteristics to Burien that operate their own policedepartments. To account for the North Highline annexation, BERK also included Lynnwood andBremerton, whose size and demand characteristics more closely matched a Burienwith a larger populationbase. BERKalso interviewed the City of Federal Way, who ceased contracting with KingCounty in 1995,to determine likely startup costs.
An important factor in the comparative analysis will be to determine the likely startup costs associatedwith the City creating and operating its own police department. BERKwill work with the City and SteeringCommittee to determine the appropriate analytic questions. To obtain comparable information,BERKwillinterview cities that have recently chosen to provide their own public safety services (Federal Way,Lakewood). Key questions may include:
as Howdid the city handle transition costs associated with personnel (e.g. recruitment, labor packages,uniforms, equipment, etc.)?
Howdid the city handle other transition costs such dispatch, evidence systems, and accreditation?
How did the city finance larger capital costs such as vehicle purchases?
Did the City continue to contract any serviceswith the County such as fleet or records management?
How did the city finance other capital purchases such as newstations or facility transfers?
Lookingback, how might the city have handled transition startup costs differently?
How did the City identify and account for indirect and/or “soft costs" like administrative and otherindirect costs?
it! Didthe City choose to contract for some selective services?
Ongoing Operational Costs
BERKwill update the 2007 analysis with current budget and staffing data to provide supplemental andupdated operational costs that the City may incur. This will serve two purposes: 1) it will bring costs andstaffing figures to current levels and 2) it will show how costs have changed over the last four years. Forcomparative purposes, this dynamic time-series perspective willbe useful in Task 3 for assessing howcostcomponents for city-run police departments change overtime.
[Q “Helping Communities and Organizations Create Their Best Futures” ’
2
Agenda Item #7.c)
Page 41 of 96
HITS-'ii???mmimmm
‘h-—*£d'i—'1CEI'I'%H%f?%H-j-H"'1 T‘-1-M'I'll'I|||iIIIh:|I.II:|II-III'I|rI|'I.III'-
'
- 1:-nu.--u-. _ .u 2-an-:;q::u|u.u'IIu|::|.|u-u-I.:|:-.|:-I-slain.-In-_'I.u-:1
I 1-u|-:L:q:-tn--H.uuh-u-ul-an-ruuaunla-a-uI|5-H-nut-:InIl=I:
nu|u-uhl-mdu:-u-uu1nH-Hq|aumHH-rrtHII++h'Iq-1d-nHhI1-Ilunuguln-1.-.-.|—.uJ:-:.u1p-—-tn-:|-.-uni-unt-nun:-1-at-.
TH-in:-Hm-in§'1I.I'i—l.h.t1-dlalj-1'tl"?-£'l:I'|:II:II'lq1—'Ih-h-hul.-1I'—
;nl|nI..h|h-:I.I::lI:'£ 1I1En.rt|I.ThIi;|I?IlIIhI::jI:I'I'dI'HIi1'th:II|.||'||I-Ill‘|.l'I:Ih.lr-{I11 hd:In'IIbId'j'I'I|:u?|:'ti h'|1II|2|-l!El!IdrI|IlI|I'I|'E|III
:I3I:?h'1I;qIlII'ftI.h'p'iiIhltldnr:h-?H1F1i'l!:&rHlH-:IrFrrryltljl l.t-I:dII;r-::?1I|I'|v|'I| I'|II'-III?I'rIIII'III|I-hI|I'I|I'l.lI'IlI'l|-IPIl|I|I*I|'I1'|||
EEI!¢'l1IIl'h:I|I1—hiIIllIlhHJ|3FIF-PH!nH?Ii?liiliFl'IllI$-'alhlq:-:IIbrII|III'II|I|I|I!IIIII'I'|:III. -
?_?'-1-H-??fjfji-£_-?&l-h'I'—'h.jZ.l'&'Ib1'Ii'jI'?
'-'||I|I&.I'|Il|.|I:I:|:|-lI.lIIHI.|I"I|-.
l IE|.—-I1.I2|.I'—'. :I]|lI II-!u,I2II|Ildhtl.
i Qli “H i III-..|| 1 -1'I:I|-I--cl lhl? !r!|.l:|.'.l:IrHIIIII'Il:|I.
?J11I?nli&.1It?r|:Id:IHIh-i|&:h:II:'ItIITi1I--hm-:|?tIrErr:d1pm-1I—I2:I.r.1..|h$.rdb?bhlIj.hII:I'-IuI|ll?:ri:ri.nlwr|:Irtilu':|:I-pnluji-Irhihll-1?II1b-|dIII?'|'nlnhiI?IlH-I-hIu'IrI1II lr|I:lI|-
d'h£Iu|E'.-1:Iu1iI-u1ItiIrl?-h1ill|1h£-£'I?I'f?&IriH-b'IIE|IHrah-Fllhinl?llr?unffwlhitli?if??i???rh?hhll?.hFh'i--"H-4-l':i.?'IH-1"-1'-'|h?*1'F1-i:"-HI1'j'T.'ii
l?ill-Ell!-II 5IIi1|i|'I|-1II|i'=*I'l"-*F?l'Hli1'l'?'||IllIill'i“I'li'l£llil
EEli-iiI¥IlIJi|'IIIH-I$II'FHl1¥-Hl'l'llI?rHI3Tl'l1'*l'-Fl-
IL?Ii?uI1IhI'—'fIq:II1I!I'*II1.-'II:In-I1:h:'j-I|I:I1T&lr?3.nII-rt1lhtI.l'r?hnj|'th'H?-HH-rinllbh-ilidu-FHEIIIIHI-u?-'Hil!HH?i??l?-IIH-Iii?lll?n-i—i|IHiH'l-UHHPih'!!!lH'PI1HtF'-hilt!pipulq-i?uuIl.nII?.h.II.jh.LI-jP?'|I&II:iiq1pI:?-.rJHI—n.i'.pl
-.?I-arH_d.l,rE:n.——l1&.hdIlhHI.II5I:rI-.'?I-1':r:fh:h—d:u|'|.-#lI:|.'.'E-§'I'.II.?.
ji2I?':.l'df1'I?:I'h.t:-'I'tI'1IfI':I'g:Id—.1th'lFlTI:IlLh'dI.I
IIIII-III-ulull-I-I-I-In-Iullll--I-Fl-'I=IIi-u-I-|-|I--|I|-:l|v|-I:r-|-1:-|-|u-|-u|:Iu-ug-u-nnI|-
E '|-Iiuhhg-?u-Hnlui-I$.I.l.I?liEuI.|I._f|.nI.IhnI=|.I.Ia.‘ |
CITYOF BURIENPUBLIC SAFETYSERVICEDELIVERYANALYSIS8: STEERINGCOMMITTEESUPPORT
We willwork with the Steering Committee to define the focus areas used for the comparative evaluation;
the analysis will includeat a minimum:
Staffing Levels;
in DirectCosts (Patrol, investigations, Dispatch. etc.); and
an indirect, Departmental. and General OverheadCosts (Countywide or Citywide).
Deliverable:Memodocumenting the findings and assumptions from the comparative analysis.
ll/|eetingslPresentations: BERKwillpresent findings to the Steering Committee.
Task 3: Fiscal Assessment of Alternatives
BERKwillassess the short and long-term fiscal implications of providing police services in-house versus
continuing to contract with King County. The analysis will be focused on maintaining the existing level of
service but may include level of service enhancements or operational derivatives at the discretion of theCity and/or Steering Committee. Emphasis will be placed on identifying how the City can effectively
manage and contain public safety costs while at the same time maintaining general fund sustainability.
BERKenvisionsthe fiscal analysis to extend at least 10 years into the future to account for any needed
capital acquisition and/ordebt service.
BERKunderstands that there will be two different service area assumptions for each alternativeanalyzed.
The assumptions would include:
in Current City. Current Cityof 45,000 residents.
as City of Burienplus a Potential AnnexationArea. A larger service area of about 65,000 residents.
BERKwillevaluate the fiscal impact of the in-house police department alternativedeveloped by the City
and Steering Committee.It is assumed that this evaluation will draw from the data analysis of comparable
municipal police departments (collected in Task 2) to-identify operational configurations used by othercities that would support the current level of service. We will also estimate any additional revenues thatmay be available through grants or other revenuestreams that could defray the total cost.
in order to estimate the cost of the current King County contract. BERKwill extrapolate from historicexpenditure trends. Discussionswith the City indicate that these trends have been stable and predictable
in the past and wouldserveas a reasonablemeasureof the cost of the contract in the future.
BERKwill produce a summary report, at a minimum, including the analyses in from Task 2 and 3. Thereport willbe documented in an easily accessible format suitable to a wide variety of audiences. We expect
the analysis and accompanying documentation to be scrutinized by many interested parties; it will need tobe rigorous, defensible, and highly readable. Using information design principles, schematics, color, andwell-editedtext, our documents are designed to effectively convey the content and findings of complexanalysis to busy, non-technicalaudiences.
Deliverable:Draft and Final Reports documenting the findings and assumptions from the alternativesassessment.
MeetingsIPresentations:BERKwillpresent findings to the Steering Committee.
Agenda Item #7.c)
Page 42 of 96
C!TYOF BURIENPUBLICSAFETYSERVICEDELIVERYANALYSIS8: STEERINGCOMMITTEESUPPORT
PROJECT SCHEDULE
BERKis prepared to begin work once the contract is executed (anticipated January 6, 2011) and envisionsthe completion of efforts in Task 2 and 3 by June 2011. We expect that many of the analytic tasks will be
front loaded in order to support the Steering Committee process. Given the uncertainty of in the level andduration of effort in Task 1, BERKwill provide monthly progress reports to the City communicate theremaining resources in the event any coursecorrection is needed.
BUDGET
Based on the scope described above, we propose an estimated budget not to exceed of $50,000 as shownin the detailed exhibit below. Given the uncertainty and nature of the level of support needed in Task 1,BERKwill make it a priority to communicate the level of budget usage on a periodic basis.
Exhibit 1: Proposed Budget
PrincipalProject Finandal& Total Hours and
Manaer Puli Anal t Estimated Cost$250 $140 $110 b Task2010 Hour ‘ Rate
Task 1: Steering Committee SupportSteeri ng Committee Support 8 S4 24 $12,200other Meetings/Briefings 4 20 20 $5 000
Subtotal 12 74 44 130$18,200
Task 2: Comparative Cost Analysisof Providing PoliceServicesSubtotal 4 10 40 54
$6,800Task3: FiscalAssessment of AlternativesSubtotal 20 60 90 170
$23,300
Total Estimated Hours 36 144 174 354Cost (i-lours“‘Bate) $9,000 $20,150 $19,140 $48,300
Subtotal Consultant Cost
Project Expenses @ "3% of project budget
Estimated Pro'ect Total
“Helping Communitiesand Organizations Create TheirBest Futures”
Agenda Item #7.c)
Page 43 of 96
_ :rr-:I'p.—I1r
“I: |.I.III1'r1IIpI m.III.I'I 1.I.1'I.'I I.:r.I.EH.I2IIIET'|'II-|.l'|'lIIT
FIIH |
ImII1:-p-iIII-III-biIg-puIIuh1I-Ir-b-|I-IIHnHlHt?'nI?II-jIII_':thru'5I'j1rI#l+l1nln'Ih-HFIIH-i'lIFl'lI'lI'_1'?'—‘:I'I1nu-—+!I-H-j:-I.—:I.ili'1H1-Hli1='iII:HI1IIr-hI'IH-ii?=F?T1lI?.I‘i1.Ii,.|1l_gIui.i.?I;|i-nuquIulb'I=n1I3rh1hh:—ttII|i‘?hllf|lrmrh?iu-:|IIrliIpHq|II=H'Hl:'I'l'j1l'fTIlllIi'—I§P=l'?II?F|"|.?.uq.h.-.|p.I|-...Ia|_.:.|II..I|.,iIl'.lhI|d':|u-'..II::h:t 'j'|l'1I:|l:|II:I'-rlltll-l'I|!'?I|I.|I-cl-h_-upd?ulnnhnuj-I.|.|?'III:?1¢IH.th1:I'I:hIh.rr:|r—I| |IllI|I|'l-|v|IIIl?|'lIlI|'-J-
IuIn.I:I.'I.Ip:I'|:.l.qI.'.:|.|.I—&'I'd?tIII.
?jh I?-II 1311- —i'3*- I-flit]-IJIIIIIIIIII-|IllIIIII|:Il'I I=|-I-IIIl—|-H-1-IIII
I ??lj?h??l? _'-"I j'?.I.I't'h'&-I:|-:II'-III: II'|II'lIH.
I'I?III|IJ-Ilillll-|I|I|IlI|I:-llldI ?"'{?'|“Z'?“'Iih'II.I'd qllfjdlllli I'II:rrIIIlIn' |I'|Il-:I:IrII|rIII.
Id-Il=I'II.Iu'I-I'EI-'-|-&'#i-l-
I:I-I.?I.IvI-I-I-:-.-I-':II-:II'I-h'-I-:h-I-?-=I':|'-Ililld HI-I1-I-=IIl-=?'I1|'iI='il= ?'¢I'-‘It!
—$ijq_I.r.IInl.+'g|§u.dq1:Iq.—nH.1p.?:—I':I-1hrlh.:nri.r:|
ti-?.hj-?.H.?_.?I'EE'1'?l'I1lI'IEI]'-IH.I'H'I.f'|?I'HI$
I':q.l:I.II|.IIIl.l'I?.IpI.I|l|.|.II.I.£a:uII.|'tl-I.
ll-Ii-IE3‘?I ??-j_'?'q.T'.P|li-Ihl?i IIi'I-'I..::I.III.|'uI.'.I.J'l1-h-q?
h-II'II|.|I|rI:III|Ih-l:Ih|I|-|I|'FlI|III|II'iI'|'-'|'Il- Ill-T1‘-ll l'l|l=i'i|-I1!-iii-|'I
l.|.I|.u.?.I'.III.|...|.I lI.II.|q.I|.—'h1I.Id .I:nI',ndI1-3. :I.I:hj'I'l.I'lHIIHIIyui|-qI|II-pIy.l'l1IIn=hdh1§nI11'1'hI?I'r:rt|:i-I:-..
I I1l'pI.hi.H?5ii.i|hFI.I.::i::n-I‘-'tI?'p—'I'-Iii-1'?II|I.&'I'I-I-.-:In.I.I-:|.-II-I:I.|II.I I-II|II.11-II p|:Igu-I-I-I.---u-II-I I:-I-:|I-In-ul-
nu:-u-.ItIt—u:uI-I:-u.II:;I-H:-—|In-I1-I-I-HHLIu-'+nI.rI-inr—|I.nIII-I--I-u--I-—-:.Igu-I-I.| ul-:I-:I-I-I-III-I-:I-Ir-IrII|I;:-in-I-Ill-:--I-I1-I1-IIFII-Ind-Ih.I-II-uI-I:-tuI'hg-|—|ruq:-IuuuiI.u.Inwbulq-H-In-u-nIIq-mun-n-mirth-nut:-an-ihniunul-a-Ihtl-aihn?trhludi
I hlinf-qIduI.|p?.I¢.ulh§.IE-'FhIa.'uil:I'It2hhIIIth'n.j1th.
:?:I1i.1H.|;.I|'I'IbIhn:iI1h.T::hl1.l.I':I1rI!¢.rl.‘|I:r.I ;h'
-h.Q:l'II.I2-.l—1?hfbI':il'I1b:I!h@'rhh-Icl-Eh-J1?-.lI:HphIl'|!l::&'hI-:l1lijj_.q:mlpIJ'.$p-'ilIrh-rill-ull1.-yII:lIn'—-1
h1Iiq::II'l1I:I|'j:i
- H-hr-I|IIIII1In-I-Ili--III-in-1:-In-I-!+Han-I-dnin-I—IIHH1I-uh-nan:-III:-I:-|.al1a-u-iI.uHu#ruhri=rIi-nt?tih-n-M-In-nutIla-bin-In-IIIrrnrH-lIrn:IlH¢'cn'-rId¢|in-nul?rudn?ltnuu-avhruhuuu-blur-uiu-rn?u-‘H-H-IHi1+u-IHHHHH-and-IIEHI-I1#I1I-I-IunnIru-.n-urntn-I:+H:'H-n--HIhH=rHh~n-in-in-1+-rr.r-nIHH-dtu-"II--euuinn?tnhhh-t.Il.1Iuuu-annual-.Ha-'-mil-I'n+-rnurien-warn-I-Hula:-nlliqr.-:+nrIII.tI+H-ll--?'HHbu-hunur-I-atzu?tn-n-hbuId'|Han'Hn?-nu-uni"-m--Innin--nrII'I:u+n
? '|-h|l[|2—I'I.IIIIEl.II-l:|pu|-hIII2II.uI|'hII'h|.|'|l.—' :-
CITYOF BURIENPUBLICSAFETYSERVICEDELIVERYANALYSIS& STEERINGCOMMITTEESUPPORT
FIRMINTRODUCTION
BERK is a 22-year old interdisciplinary public policy and management consulting firm with a whole-systems perspective on program analysis and policy development. We are a certified Women-
OwnedBusiness in Washington, specializing in fiscal and financial economic analysis, strategic planning and
program evaluation, and stakeholderoutreach and facilitation. Our firm is knownstatewidefor our depth of
knowledge and public policy expertise; the integration of rigorous business and policy analysis with
stakeholder engagement; communicationof clear, succinct messages for busy decision-makersand thepublic; and for collaborative engagement with staff, elected officials. and many others to accomplish a
broad range of policyand organizationalobjectives.
Our missionis: HelpingCommunitiesand Organizations Create their Best Futures. We do this by:
0 Integrating the art of effective decision-making with the science of rigorous quantitative and
qualitative analysis;
- Bringingpeople, ideas, and analysis together to generate understanding and consensuson the best
strategies and decisions; and
Bridging across disciplines; to integrate and synthesize diverse informationand coordinate,
collaborate, and facilitate relationships.
BERK is uniquely positioned to assist the City of Burien in conducting this public safety serviceassessment. We have performed dozens of studies examining public servicecosts for cities, counties, and
ports in Washington State. We also have familiarity with the City of Burien, having recently assisted theCity in examining the impacts of annexationon its fiscal position.
Specialized Expertise
o Municipal Finance. We are experts in municipal and infrastructure finance, and have developed
financial models and plans of finance for cities, state agencies. and special purpose districts.Aparticular area of expertise is in annexation and incorporationanalysis, including assessment of
service levels and revenue requirements needed to support those levels of municipal services.
Cost of serviceanalysis. We have completed cost-of-service and governance alternative studies for
cities and counties throughout the state. This policy analysis will need to understand therelationship between demographics and police demand to understand the City's future serviceneeds. We have worked successfully with police departments during many annexation and fiscalplanningefforts and understand the key fiscal and operational issues. We are also familiarwithCounty police contract and how the County's fiscal issues may drive future public safety costs.
- Expert FinancialModeling and Analysis. Our Finance & Economicsteam is known throughout theregion as the go-to firm for rigorous financial modeling, funding analysis, and financial plandevelopment. Our team of ten financial analysts has developed state-of-the-art financial plans andmodels for city and state agencies, special purpose governments. and non-profit agencies acrossabroad spectrum of subjects.
a communication and information design. A critical component of policy development iscommunicating the process, options, and outcomes of the policymakingprocess.We workwithourclients to develop effective internal and external communicationstrategies and plans, and thencollaboratein implementing those plans. We have expert capabilities in the design of Internet and
intranet websites, project graphics to convey complex information clearly and concisely, andprinted materials, including project brochures, issue papers and fact sheets, and newsletters.Wehave a track record of planning and facilitating successful public meetings—-oftenon controversialtopics--so that all perspectives are heard effectively considered in the policymaking process.
[E “Helping Communitiesand OrganizationsCreate TheirBest Futures" ' 5
Agenda Item #7.c)
Page 44 of 96
Agenda Item #7.c)
Page 45 of 96
Agenda Item #7.c)
Page 46 of 96
Provision of Police Service Assessment
City of Burien
August 5, 2011FINAL REPORT
Agenda Item #7.c)
Page 47 of 96
“Helping Communities and Organizations Create Their Best Futures”
Founded in 1988, we are an interdisciplinary strategy and analysis firm providing integrated, creative and analytically rigorous approaches to complex policy and planning decisions. Our team of strategic planners, policy and financial analysts, economists, cartographers, information designers and facilitators work together to bring new ideas, clarity, and robust frameworks to the development of analytically-based and action-oriented plans.
Morgan Shook, Project Manager
Jay Rogers, Lead Analyst
2025 First Avenue, Suite 800 Seattle, Washington 98121 P (206) 324-8760 www.berkconsulting.com
Agenda Item #7.c)
Page 48 of 96
City of Burien Provision of Police Service Assessment
8/5/2011 FINAL REPORT ES-1
CITY OF BURIEN
Provision of Police Service Assessment
Executive Summary
BACKGROUND STUDY PURPOSE The City of Burien currently contracts with the King County Sheriff’s Office (KCSO) for public safety services. In 2010, the contract cost the City $9.4 million (annualized1) out of a total of $18.0 million (approximately 52% of City spending) in expenditures from the General Fund. These costs are expected to rise to $9.8 million in 2011.
Faced with this situation, the City has asked BERK to support its inquiry into a cost evaluation of the current contract and how it might compare to a model where the City provided police services itself. The study relied heavily on the leadership and participation of a project Steering Committee consisting of members of the City of Burien, King County Sheriff’s Office, and King County.
It is important to bear in mind that cost is just one factor that must be weighed when considering the issue of contracting versus self-provision of police services. At a minimum, many jurisdictions also weigh issues around local control, administration, personnel, and community preferences when they have tackled this issue.
STUDY QUESTIONS AND SUMMARY OF FINDINGS How does the current contract compare to similar cities that provide their own police services?
Assuming that the contract and in-house department deliver similar levels of police service (e.g. quantity and quality of service), the contract provides a more cost effective alternative to delivering police services to the City of Burien. Most police department costs are in personnel (wages and benefits for commissioned officers or supporting personnel), with these costs accounting for over 70% of department budgets.
From a cost perspective, the current contract compares favorably against other similar cities. The reasons for this are two-fold: first, the contract offers economies of scale on shared services, administration, and other overhead; and, second, the shared supervision model of the King County Sheriff’s Office has fewer supervision staff (typically high-cost positions) paid for out of the contract allowing for more direct service to be provided in Patrol and Investigation functions.
What would a City of Burien provided police department look like and how much would it cost?
A City of Burien-provided police department would be staffed at 76 FTE. In addition, the City would need to add 3 FTE in administration and human resources to handle the additional 76 employees, bringing the total impact to 79 employees. The department would cost anywhere from $11.0 million to $13.2 million.
1 This “annualized” figure represents the City’s total contract costs if the entire year had been based upon post-annexation costs. Furthermore, the “annualized” figure does not include any reconciliation amount between the City and KCSO. The actual contract cost for the City in 2010 was about $8.8 million, which only reflects a partial year of post-annexation costs (the City annexed the southern part of North Highline in April 2010).
Agenda Item #7.c)
Page 49 of 96
City of Burien Provision of Police Service Assessment
8/5/2011 FINAL REPORT ES-2
How would these costs compare to the current contract?
Assuming a similar level of service, the cost of the contract ($9.8 million) is lower than the City providing its own police service. In this instance, the contract provides economies of scale in both supervision and related indirect costs. By allowing the City to share in these costs, the Sheriff’s contract provides the City an option to purchase these needed services on a prorated basis with the effect of directing more of its public safety dollars towards direct services (e.g. patrol and investigation services). In order to replicate the same level of service, a City-run department must purchase the full share of the staff capacity (both police officers and support functions).
How might the comparison between the contract and City-provided police department change upon the annexation of an additional 17,000 people into the City?
Under a contract alternative, the City would add 23.76 FTEs (94.62 total) to the contract and increase the annualized contract amount from $9.4 million to $12.5 million (an increase in cost of $3.1 million). Under a city-run department alternative, annexation would add an additional 17 FTEs (98 total). The cost impacts of additional staff would be $3.0 to $3.3 million or a total of $14.0 million to $16.6 million.
As the City grows, naturally or through annexation, the capacity needed to serve the existing City provides its own economies of scale, where the marginal cost of adding personnel is lower than the average cost of the entire department. In this sense, a City department closes the cost-efficiency gap of the current contract. Stated another way, in creating a new police department, the City is essentially putting in place the capacity to serve a much larger city.
At its current size, a City-run department has per capita costs of $229-$275 compared to $188 for the contract. As the City grows, the per capita costs begin to fall to the $212-$252 range because the City is able to utilize the capacity in supervision and support it had to put in place to serve the existing City. The contract, by comparison, grows to $205 per capita reflecting the demand for additional public safety needs in the annexed area. Under the current set of assumptions, it is likely that at some point in the City’s growth, moving to a city-run police department may make sense from a financial point of view.
How does either police service alternative deal with the City’s short- and long-term fiscal challenge?
Over the past ten years, law enforcement costs have outpaced general fund revenues (7.1% to 6.25%, respectively)2. Regardless of a move to keep the contract or pursue a city-run department, the City still must confront its fiscal challenge – a challenge shared by the majority of cities – in that its costs for police services are outpacing its ability to pay for then. At some point, measures to control costs or raise revenue will be needed to deal with this imbalance.
2 The City has made a number of tax policy decisions (e.g. addition of utility taxes and reallocation of franchise fees from the Street Fund) in order to keep general fund revenues in line with costs. Without these revenue policy changes, general fund revenues have been growing closer to 3.5% annually.
Agenda Item #7.c)
Page 50 of 96
City of Burien Provision of Police Service Assessment
8/5/2011 FINAL REPORT ES-3
TABLE of CONTENTS
1.0 Introduction and Study Purpose ............................................................................................................. 1
1.1 Study Questions .................................................................................................................................. 1
1.2 Policy Questions Not Addressed as Part of this Assessment.............................................................. 1
1.3 Project Steering Committee ............................................................................................................... 2
2.0 Report Organization ............................................................................................................................... 2
3.0 Broader Context of Law Enforcement Services within Washington ...................................................... 3
3.1 City Size and Provision of Police Service ............................................................................................. 3
3.2 Cost per Commissioned Officer by Provision of Service ..................................................................... 4
3.3 Police Costs as a Share of General Fund Expenditures ....................................................................... 6
4.0 Comparative Cost Assessment: Background and Approach................................................................... 8
4.1 Detailed Cost Comparison and “Exhibit B” ......................................................................................... 8
4.2 Context for City Comparisons ............................................................................................................. 9
4.3 Analytic Framework for City Comparisons ....................................................................................... 12
4.4 Police Functions ................................................................................................................................ 14
4.5 Other Exhibit B Functions ................................................................................................................. 15
4.6 City Services Not Included in Exhibit B ............................................................................................. 15
5.0 Comparative Cost Assessment ............................................................................................................. 16
5.1 Summary Department Information .................................................................................................. 16
5.2 Detailed Police Functional Comparisons .......................................................................................... 21
5.3 Comparison of Police Services, Structure, and Unit and Indirect Costs ........................................... 26
6.0 Cost Assessment of Alternatives .......................................................................................................... 31
6.1 Current KCSO Contract ..................................................................................................................... 31
6.2 City of Burien Provided Police Department ...................................................................................... 32
6.3 Comparison of Contract and City-run Department .......................................................................... 34
7.0 Start Up Costs ....................................................................................................................................... 34
7.1 Case Study: Lakewood ...................................................................................................................... 35
7.2 Case Study: Federal Way .................................................................................................................. 35
7.3 Case Study: City of Pompano Beach, Florida .................................................................................... 36
7.4 Start-up Cost Findings ....................................................................................................................... 37
Agenda Item #7.c)
Page 51 of 96
City of Burien Provision of Police Service Assessment
8/5/2011 FINAL REPORT 1
1.0 INTRODUCTION AND STUDY PURPOSE The City of Burien currently contracts with the King County Sheriff’s Office (KCSO) for public safety services. In 2010, the contract cost the City $9.4 million (annualized) out of a total of $18.0 million (approximately 52% of City spending) in expenditures from the General Fund. These costs are expected to rise to $9.8 million in 2011, an increase that far outpaces revenue growth, effectively crowds out lower priority needs, and accounts for a larger share of total General Fund expenditures.
As a result, the City is exploring alternatives to the contract with King County for public safety needs. The City formed a Steering Committee tasked to recommend an approach for providing public safety services to the citizens of Burien, and specifically whether to continue to contract with the King County Sheriff’s Office or to create a city-run department. The City has requested BERK serve as analytic support and participate with the Steering Committee as they tackle this issue.
1.1 Study Questions The central policy issue of this assessment is an evaluation between the cost of the current police contract and the cost of a city-run police department for the City of Burien. Given the increasing cost of the contract – averaging roughly 7.0% between 2000 and 20103 – the City would like to better understand their ability to control or influence the cost of service. A secondary issue addressed by this study is the evaluation of a contract and a city-run department under the assumption that the City were to annex the majority of the North Highline unincorporated area, adding approximately 17,000 additional people to the City.
1.2 Policy Questions Not Addressed as Part of this Assessment
It is important to bear in mind that cost is just one factor that must be weighed when considering the issue of contracting versus self-provision of police services. While not an exhaustive list4, the following criteria provide an example of other factors that decision makers might take into consideration when examining the choice for service:
• Community Ties. The ability to incentivize and/or structure close ties between officers and the community they serve.
• Executive Accountability. Reporting relationship and accountability between the City (City Manager and City Commission) and the chief law enforcement officer (Chief of Police or Sheriff).
• Community Specific Policing Style. The ability to "brand" the organization as the result of the development of a stated Mission, City Vision/Values, and strategic initiatives.
• Goal Setting/Priorities and Performance Management. The City's ability to set annual goals, establish operational priorities, and direct resources to specific problems.
• Information Resources. The type, structure, and timeliness of policing-related information made available to the City to provide review and oversight, within the limits of legislative mandates.
• Personnel Selection. The ability to control and oversee recruitment, development, and design/selection of test modules, and the overall selection process of the hiring of personnel.
• Vacancy Factors. Time and costs associated with carrying and filling of vacant positions. • Administrative Issues. Time and costs of administrative functions, such as human resources, IT,
finance, vehicle/radio maintenance, and facilities upkeep to support the policing function.
3 On a per capita basis, costs have only increased 2.9% between 2000 and 2010. 4 Source: Feasibility Study for Police Services, Wildan Group, 2009
Agenda Item #7.c)
Page 52 of 96
City of Burien Provision of Police Service Assessment
8/5/2011 FINAL REPORT 2
• Growth and Downsizing. Ease in which the policing function can be expanded or contracted based on budgetary resource availability.
• Personnel Discipline. Ease in which the City has influence over disciplinary issues, the impact of administrative discipline, and the handling of an unacceptable performer who may be disciplined and/or removed.
• The Gap of Experience. Range and level of experience in the policing workforce to include specialty assignments and areas of expertise.
• Succession Planning and Career Development. Range of promotional opportunities and specialty assignments to maintain and retain an energized and motivated workforce.
1.3 Project Steering Committee The City approached the task of evaluating the relative cost of police contract in a collaborative fashion that sought the partnership of the Sheriff’s Office and King County. Facilitated by City Manager Mike Martin, the Committee consisted of the following individuals:
• Kim Krause, Finance Director, City of Burien • Lori Fleming, Management Analyst, City of Burien • Scott Kimerer, Chief (Burien Police Department), King County Sheriff’s Office • Carl Cole, Captain (Burien Police Department), King County Sheriff’s Office • B.J. Myers, Deputy (Burien Police Department), King County Sheriff’s Office • DeWayne Pitts, Chief Financial Officer, King County Sheriff’s Office • Jason King, Budget and Finance Manager, King County Sheriff’s Office • Krista Camenzind, Criminal Justice Manager, King County
The Committee met periodically over the past six months to discuss the issues, review analysis, and agree on principal findings conclusions of this effort. BERK has supported the City on technical analyses and document production, but has relied heavily on the expertise of the committee in areas not limited to policing, city budget and personnel information, and the King County police contracting process.
2.0 REPORT ORGANIZATION The report organization mirrors the analytic approach taken by the Steering Committee. In order to arrive at a cost assessment of the current contract versus an in-house department, the Committee ultimately needed to better understand four principal questions.
First, how does the current police staffing and cost compare to other “similar” cities that operate their own departments? Second, what is the proper way to compare the services offered as part of a contract with those offered as part of an in-house department? Third, what might a City of Burien police department be structured and staffed at if it were trying to replicate the same level of policing as currently provided? Lastly, what is the range of one-time start-up costs associated with creating a city-run police department? To address these questions, the Committee completed three main lines of inquiry described below, which also serve as the organizing basis for this report.
This report is organized into 3 major sections:
• Comparative Cost Assessment of Police Services. This section consists of a comparative analysis focusing on the current costs of the contract relative to providing police services in-house. This task provides important baseline information needed to conduct the cost assessment of policing alternatives.
Agenda Item #7.c)
Page 53 of 96
City of Burien Provision of Police Service Assessment
8/5/2011 FINAL REPORT 3
• Cost Assessment of Alternatives. This section assesses cost of providing police services in-house versus continuing to contract with King County. BERK evaluated the cost impact of the in-house police department alternative developed by the City and Steering Committee. This evaluation drew from the data analysis of comparable municipal police departments to identify operational configurations used by other cities that would support the current level of service provided by the contract.
• Case Studies of Start-up Needs and Cost. This section briefly details the recent experience of a select number of cities that chose to create their own departments.
3.0 BROADER CONTEXT OF LAW ENFORCEMENT SERVICES WITHIN WASHINGTON
As a starting point for this assessment, BERK conducted a preliminary analysis examining both contract and city-run departments across the State in context with the City of Burien’s current position. The analysis poses two central key questions:
1. How does Burien’s current situation compare to cities of similar size?
2. Are there any emerging themes between contracted or city-provided law enforcement services?
Following these two questions, a few themes emerged:
• Most cities in Washington, especially those with similar population counts as Burien, provide their own law enforcement services.
• The number of commissioned officers and cost per commissioned officer is lower for contract cities than city-run departments.
• Contract cities have seen a smaller shift than city-run departments in law enforcement cost as a share of general fund expenditures.
These themes are explained in greater detail below.
3.1 City Size and Provision of Police Service Most cities in Washington, especially those with similar population counts as Burien, provide their own law enforcement services. According to the Washington Association of Sheriffs and Police Chiefs (WASPC), 58 cities (including Burien) provide the majority of their law enforcement services through interlocal agreements. As shown in Exhibit 1 below, only three cities larger than Burien (Shoreline, Spokane Valley, and Vancouver) contract for law enforcement. It is important to note that Exhibit 1 only indicates how the cities provide the majority of their law enforcement services. In fact, most cities still contract for certain services, such as animal control, community policing, and drug enforcement.
While no single reason explains the shift towards city provided police services as cities get larger, from a cost perspective, larger cities are able to more effectively leverage their fixed costs in administration, management, and technology to achieve better economies of scale. Stated another way, the marginal cost of providing additional officers is at least on par with shared cost models that most Sheriff agencies provide as part of their contracts (e.g. cities only pay a portion of that Sheriff’s fixed costs as part of their contract).
Agenda Item #7.c)
Page 54 of 96
City of Burien Provision of Police Service Assessment
8/5/2011 FINAL REPORT 4
Exhibit 1: Law Enforcement Services
Source: BERK 2011, WASPC 2010, WA State Auditor’s Local Government Financial Reporting System 2009, OFM 2010
3.2 Cost per Commissioned Officer by Provision of Service
The number of commissioned officers and cost per commissioned officer is lower for contract cities. Normalized to city population, contract cities employ fewer commissioned officers than city departments (Exhibit 2). The reasons for this finding are not clear and are beyond the scope of this analysis, but possible explanations could include:
• The nature of the police needs/expectations of contract cities. Most contract cities are relatively small and exist in either rural areas or at the fringe of urban areas. Because of their locations, many of these places have historically been accustomed to lower levels of crime and/or relatively lower expectations for police service (relative to more dense and urban areas).
• Different policing structure. Generally, most Sheriff Departments serve rural areas and maintain large span-of-controls (i.e. a supervision ratio of sergeants to deputies). When these departments contract for service, the typically apply/incorporate their existing service practices to the contract cities.
$0.00
$100.00
$200.00
$300.00
$400.00
$500.00
$600.00
$700.00
0 50,000 100,000 150,000 200,000 250,000
2009
Law
Enf
orce
men
t Co
sts P
er C
apita
2010 Population
Contract Cities City-Provided Law Enforcement Burien
VancouverSpokane ValleyShoreline
Agenda Item #7.c)
Page 55 of 96
City of Burien Provision of Police Service Assessment
8/5/2011 FINAL REPORT 5
Exhibit 2: 2010 Commissioned Officers per 1,000 Population Cities are Ranked by size of 2009 General Fund less Fire & EMS
Source: BERK 2011, WASPC 2010, OFM 2010, King County Sheriff Office 2011. Note: Due to the North Highline annexation, Burien’s value reflects a City population of 46,022 (not reflected in OFM’s 2010 population estimates) and annualized sworn (commissioned) officer counts for 2010 provided by King County Sheriff’s Office.
Likewise, normalizing law enforcement costs on a per capita basis shows that costs are lower for contract cities (Exhibit 3). A possible explanation for this finding may be due to the fact that most city-run police departments bear 100% of their commissioned officers costs, which would include some officers that function in a non-patrol, supervisory capacity. Contract cities benefit from economies of scale and share the costs for certain commissioned officers. The WASPC data counts reflect this feature.5
5 BERK created a subset of similar cities to analyze the following law enforcement metrics. The subset was selected based on 2010 OFM population counts with Spokane Valley representing the upper range at about 89,500 and Des Moines representing the lower range at about 29,300.
Agenda Item #7.c)
Page 56 of 96
City of Burien Provision of Police Service Assessment
8/5/2011 FINAL REPORT 6
Exhibit 3: 2009 Law Enforcement Costs per Capita Cities are Ranked by size of 2009 General Fund less Fire & EMS
Source: BERK 2011, WA State Auditor’s Local Government Financial Reporting System (LGFRS) 2011, OFM 2011
3.3 Police Costs as a Share of General Fund Expenditures While by no means definitive, contract cities have seen a smaller shift in law enforcement cost as a share of general fund expenditures. For contract cities, the average differential in shares of general fund expenditures has been about 2%. In contrast, for cities that provide their own police services this differential was 6% (Exhibit 4). Additionally, for most of the similar cities, law enforcement costs have outpaced general fund revenues since 2000 (Exhibit 5). For the City of Burien, law enforcement costs have been slightly outpaced by all general fund expenditures. However, the growth in law enforcement costs (at 5.6%) has outpaced the growth in general fund revenue (4.9%).
More importantly, Exhibit 5 highlights the key structural problem all cities face in the wake of I-7476 where revenues have not been able to keep pace with costs. This problem has been exposed by the heavy reliance on revenues from retail sales and new construction – revenues that have precipitously declined (and not yet returned) from the recent recession.
6 Initiative 747 limited property tax revenues to 101% of the previous year’s collections (with some add-on value based on the amount of new construction). Without levy lid lifts, the effect on cities of this change was a reduction in the purchasing power of the property tax. In many instances, the property tax revenues of cities were not even keeping pace with inflation. Most cities were able to backfill this void with sales and utility taxes driven by the housing boom and growth in personal consumption.
$0
$50
$100
$150
$200
$250
$300
$350
2009
Law
Enf
orce
men
t Co
sts P
er C
apita
Comparable Cities (Ranked by size of 2009 General Fund less Fire and EMS)
MEDIAN$222.11
Contracts for Police Services
Agenda Item #7.c)
Page 57 of 96
City of Burien Provision of Police Service Assessment
8/5/2011 FINAL REPORT 7
Exhibit 4: Max/Min Law Enforcement Costs share of General Fund less Fire & EMS; Cities are Ranked by size of 2009 General Fund less Fire & EMS
(2000-2009; 2009 Dollars)
Source: BERK 2011, WA State Auditor’s Local Government Financial Reporting System (LGFRS) 2011
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
Rang
e of L
aw En
froce
men
t cos
ts as
a %
of G
ener
al Fu
nd(Le
ss Fi
re an
d EM
S)
Comparable Cities (Ranked by size of 2009 General Fund less Fire and EMS)
Contracts for Police Services
Agenda Item #7.c)
Page 58 of 96
City of Burien Provision of Police Service Assessment
8/5/2011 FINAL REPORT 8
Exhibit 5: Comparison of General Fund and Law Enforcement Average Annual Growth Rates (2000-2009)
Source: BERK 2011, WA State Auditor’s Local Government Financial Reporting System (LGFRS) 2011 Note: Burien’s growth in Law Enforcement costs is listed at 3% in the chart above. During this time period, the actual growth rate was 4.8% based on detailed review of City budgets. The 3% figure relies on LGFRS systems where some costs may not all be categorized under law enforcement.
4.0 COMPARATIVE COST ASSESSMENT: BACKGROUND AND APPROACH Beyond the background context presented in the previous section, the Steering Committee wanted to better understand how the current contract compares to cities with similar size, community characteristics, and policing needs that provide their own police services in-house. For the comparative cost assessment, Section 3.0 does not adequately account for the management choices that ultimately manifest themselves in how cities staff and pay for their police departments whether they provide the service themselves or choose to contract. Thus, a more detailed analysis was necessary.
Section 4.1 describes what is commonly known as Exhibit B, the part of the police contract that describes in detail Burien’s police staffing and costs from the King County Sheriff’s Office. With this information, it is possible to include the same costs from the other cities and arrive at a more fair and apt comparison. Simply comparing the departments would obscure the services that these departments provide as well as the decisions about how to deliver these services.
4.1 Detailed Cost Comparison and “Exhibit B” The first step in conducting the comparative cost assessment was to examine and understand the current police contract. The City contracts with the County under a Shared Supervision Model in which the level,
Avg Annual Growth in
GF
Avg Annual Growth in Law Enf.
Des Moines 4.0% 3.7%Pasco 5.8% 4.9%Shoreline* 2.9% 2.8%Lakewood 5.7% 4.4%Renton 9.6% 5.2%Burien* 6.3% 5.6%Wenatchee 3.3% 4.0%Marysville 9.2% 9.9%Bremerton 2.3% 3.7%Richland 2.9% 6.2%Kennewick 2.8% 3.9%Spokane Valley* 12.4% 12.5%Yakima 2.4% 4.4%Kirkland 3.3% 4.5%Lynnwood 3.9% 4.2%Federal Way 2.8% 3.5%Olympia 1.3% 2.2%Bellingham 2.3% 3.4%Auburn 5.1% 5.7%Kent 0.9% 1.6%
*Contract City GF Outpaced LawEnfLawEnf Outpaced GF
0.0%
2.0%
4.0%
6.0%
8.0%
10.0%
12.0%
14.0%
Avg Annual Growth in GF Avg Annual Growth in Law Enf.
Agenda Item #7.c)
Page 59 of 96
City of Burien Provision of Police Service Assessment
8/5/2011 FINAL REPORT 9
degree, and type of direct services are determined by the City in consultation with the King County Sheriff’s Office (KCSO). Precinct command and supervision duties are shared between KCSO and the City. Each year the City is issued an “Exhibit B”7 that details the contract costs in three major categories:
• Dedicated Police Services. Includes law enforcement and other related services that are provided by personnel assigned to the precinct primarily for the benefit of the City. Examples of dedicated personnel for the City include the Police Chief, captains, reactive patrol, detectives, street crime detectives, school resource officers, and community service officers.
• Additional Police Services. Includes shared precinct services such as precinct command, supervision of reactive patrol, detectives, and street crimes, and precinct support staff. This category also includes the shared costs of special operation units (hostage negotiation, major crimes investigation, major accident response and reconstruction (MARR), and SWAT). These services are allocated to each of the contract cities using various workload proxies including dispatched calls for service, precinct FTEs, and caseloads/call-outs for detectives, major crimes, MARR, and SWAT. Some of the proxies are based on single-year call data, whereas others are based on a rolling three-year average of call-outs.
• Support and Administrative Services. Includes shared services and costs for payroll, crime analysis, evidence, records, recruiting, computers, and personnel that are allocated to contract cities based on the Dedicated and Additional Police Service FTE levels. Additionally services and costs for criminal intelligence, training, and firing range are allocated to contract cities based on sworn FTE levels. Finally, each contract city shares in KCSO field operations administrative overhead and facility charges. Field operations administrative overhead only includes costs associated with the Field Operations Administration.
• Fire Investigation Services. In addition to the above categories, the City also contracts with KCSO for fire investigation services. Costs for this service are shared between most contract cities and is allocated based on a three-year average of call-outs for the Fire Investigations Unit.
KCSO provided detailed Exhibit B cost data for 2010 that allowed BERK to analyze how costs were determined and allocated to the City. This was an important step for two reasons: first, it allowed for a full examination of the services and costs included in the City’s contract; and, second, it allowed BERK to “match-up” similar police services for comparable cities that provide their own services in-house, which provided a true “apples to apples” comparison.
4.2 Context for City Comparisons Four cities were selected to be included as part of the comparison with the City of Burien’s police contract based on each city’s unique mix of households, levels of commercial activity, geographic extent, crime rates, location in the central Puget Sound (to approximate cost of living and police labor pool), and unique policing needs8. To account for the potential North Highline annexation, larger cities are included to represent those demand characteristics more closely resembling a potentially larger Burien. The four cities selected are:
• Des Moines • Puyallup
7 The 2010 Exhibit B (both Actual and Annualized) can be found in Appendix A. 8 This category was included and used by the Project Steering Committee based on the input of King County Sheriff representation to identify cities with similar policing needs not captured in the other characteristics.
Agenda Item #7.c)
Page 60 of 96
City of Burien Provision of Police Service Assessment
8/5/2011 FINAL REPORT 10
• Lakewood • Marysville
Population, Land Area, and Department Size
Exhibit 6 summarizes the population, land area, and staffing characteristics of the five profiled cities and their departments.
Exhibit 6: Comparison of Population, Area, and Staffing by City
Source: BERK, 2011
City of Burien
• The City of Burien is the third most populous of the comparison cities, but fourth largest in terms of land area. It is the densest in terms of people per acre of land area.
• The City of Burien ranks fourth highest in number commissioned officers (51.3), second in number of FTEs categorized as Exhibit B functions, and fourth in total size of police force.
City of Des Moines
• The City of Des Moines is the least populous of the comparison cities and in terms of land area. However, it is the second densest in terms of people per acre of land area.
• The City of Des Moines has the least commissioned officers (37.0), the fewest number of FTEs categorized as Exhibit B functions (48.0), and the smallest total size of police force (49.0).
City of Puyallup
• The City of Puyallup is the fourth most populous of the comparison cities and third largest in terms of land area. It is the least dense in terms of people per acre of land area.
• The City of Puyallup ranks second in commissioned officers (57.0), fourth in number of FTEs categorized as Exhibit B functions (65.8), and third in total size of police force (78.0).
City of Lakewood
• The City of Lakewood is the second most populous of the comparison cities and largest in terms of land area. It is the second least dense in terms of people per acre of land area.
• The City of Lakewood has the most commissioned officers (102.0), the most number of FTEs categorized as Exhibit B functions (119.0), and the largest total size of police force (122.5).
City of Marysville
• The City of Marysville is the most populous of the comparison cities and second largest in terms of land area. It is less dense than Burien and Des Moines, but denser than Lakewood and Puyallup in terms of people per acre of land area.
PopulationArea
(acres)Density
(Pop per Acre)Commissioned
OfficersFTEs for Ex B
FunctionsTotal Size of Police Force
Burien 48,072 4,722 10.2 51.3 70.9 70.9Des Moines 29,673 4,111 7.2 37.0 48.0 49.0Puyallup 37,022 8,940 4.1 57.0 65.8 78.0Lakewood 58,163 12,120 4.8 102.0 119.0 122.5Marysville 60,020 10,430 5.8 53.0 68.5 84.5
StaffingPopulation & Land
Agenda Item #7.c)
Page 61 of 96
City of Burien Provision of Police Service Assessment
8/5/2011 FINAL REPORT 11
• The City of Marysville has the third most commissioned officers (53.0), third most number of FTEs categorized as Exhibit B functions (68.5), and second most in total size of police force (84.5).
Crime Rates
Exhibit 7 and Exhibit 8 show data from the FBI’s Uniform Crime Reports on rates of violent and property crime in the five profiled cities from 1998 to 2009. While most cities have followed a national trend in decreasing crime rates, Puyallup was the only city to see crime rates increase over the time period. It is important to note that the nature and extent of population and commercial growth among the cities has not been uniform.
Exhibit 7: Comparison of Violent Crime Rates by City
Source: FBI Uniform Crime Reports, 2011
Exhibit 8: Comparison of Property Crime Rates by City
Source: FBI Uniform Crime Reports, 2011
Agenda Item #7.c)
Page 62 of 96
City of Burien Provision of Police Service Assessment
8/5/2011 FINAL REPORT 12
4.3 Analytic Framework for City Comparisons As mentioned in Section 4.1, to help facilitate the comparison of the City’s police contract to the Cities of Puyallup, Lakewood, Des Moines, and Marysville, expenditures from the Annualized Exhibit B (the detailed cost break down of the services provided as part of the contract) were grouped into three broad categories:
• Police Functions. Those areas that most police departments provide for and are included in their budget.
• Other Exhibit B Functions. Functions in Exhibit B which cities perform, but may not include in the police department’s budget. This would include functions such as city administration, payroll processing, and human resources.
• Comparison City Functions Not in Exhibit B. This category covers costs cities include in their police department budget, but are not a part of the contract (Exhibit B). This would include functions such as detention/correction, animal control, and drug enforcement.
These categories represent typical functions in most city budgets for police services whether or not they all live within the police department’s budget. Exhibit 9 illustrates how BERK decoupled the City of Burien’s Exhibit B and assigned services and costs into these categories.9 A check mark in the chart means that certain costs in the left hand column are apportioned to those police and other functions.
9 Comparison City Functions Not in Exhibit B were not included in the cost comparison as these services are already provided by the City of Burien independent of the KCSO contract.
Agenda Item #7.c)
Page 63 of 96
City of Burien Provision of Police Service Assessment
8/5/2011 FINAL REPORT 13
Exhibit 9: Functional Breakdown of Burien’s Exhibit B
Source: BERK, 2011
OTHER EXHIBIT B FUNCTIONS
Administration & Support Investigation Patrol
Community Policing
Dispatch/Communications
Specialized Police Services
Ex B Functions Comp Cities Perform, but
not in Police BudgetDetention/Correction
Animal Control
Dedicated Police ServicesPol ice Chief Capta ins Patrol or Admin Sergeants Officers School Resource Officers Detectives Street Crimes Detectives Community Service Officer (CSO)
Overtime Uniform, Equipment, and Suppl ies Additional Wireless Cards Vehicles Insurance, 800 MHz, etc. Additional Police Services
Precinct Command Staff Patrol Supervis ion Detective Supervis ion Street Crimes Supervis ion Precinct Support Staff Communications/Dispatch Hostage Negotiation Team Major Crimes Investigation MARR Unit SWAT (TAC-30) Team
Police Support ServicesBudget & Accounting Computer Resource Unit Contract Services Evidence & Supply (PMU) Internal Investigations Legal Advisor Personnel Section Photo Lab Polygraph Records Research, Planning & Informational Services Data Unit Ravensdale Range Regional Criminal Intel l igence Group Tra ining Unit
Additional Credits and ChargesOverhead Charges Faci l i ty Charges
Fire Investigation charge
POLICE FUNCTIONSCOMP CITY FUNCTIONS
NOT IN EX. B
Agenda Item #7.c)
Page 64 of 96
City of Burien Provision of Police Service Assessment
8/5/2011 FINAL REPORT 14
4.4 Police Functions All of the comparable cities budget for police services differently; however, they do provide similar core police services and functions. Within the Police Functions category, BERK has identified core services provided by police departments, which include:
• Administration & Support • Investigation • Patrol • Community Policing • Dispatch/Communications • Specialized Police Services
Administration & Support
Includes costs associated with department-wide supervision, administrative functions, clerical functions, and command field operations. Associated costs include salaries and benefits, uniforms, equipment, supplies, vehicles, overtime, etc.
Burien Exhibit B Categories
• Dedicated Personnel – Police Chief and Captain
• Additional Police Services – Precinct Command Staff, Precinct Support Staff
• Police Support Services – Internal Investigations, Records, Ravensdale Range, Training Unit
• Additional Credits and Charges – Field Operations Administration
Investigation
Includes costs associated with crime investigation (traffic, narcotics, felonies, etc.). Associated costs include salaries and benefits, uniforms, equipment, supplies, vehicles, overtime, etc.
Burien Exhibit B Categories
• Dedicated Personnel – Detectives, Street Crimes Detectives
• Additional Police Services – Detective Supervision, Street Crimes Supervision, and Major Crimes Investigation.
• Police Support Services – Evidence & Supply (PMU), Internal Investigations, Photo Lab, Polygraph, Data Unit, Ravensdale Range, Training Unit
Patrol
Includes costs associated 24-7 patrol services. Associated costs include salaries and benefits, uniforms, equipment, supplies, vehicles, overtime, etc.
Exhibit B Categories
• Dedicated Personnel – Patrol Sergeants, Officers
• Additional Police Services – Patrol Supervision
• Police Support Services – Ravensdale Range, Training Unit
Agenda Item #7.c)
Page 65 of 96
City of Burien Provision of Police Service Assessment
8/5/2011 FINAL REPORT 15
Community Policing
Includes costs associated with school resource officers, community service officers, and crime prevention. Associated costs include salaries and benefits, uniforms, equipment, supplies, vehicles, overtime, etc.
Exhibit B Categories
• Dedicated Personnel – School Resource Officer, Community Service Officer
• Police Support Services – Ravensdale Range, Training Unit
Dispatch/Communications
Costs associated with dispatch services.
Exhibit B Categories
• Additional Police Services – Communications/Dispatch
Specialized Police Services
Costs associated with specialized police services comparison cities may provide or contract for.
Exhibit B Categories
• Additional Police Services – Hostage Negotiations Team, MARR Unit, SWAT Team
• Police Support Services – Regional Criminal Intelligence Group
4.5 Other Exhibit B Functions Includes costs associated with functions specific to Burien’s Exhibit B that comparison cities may not budget for in their police budget (typically citywide overhead).
Exhibit B Categories
• Police Support Services – Budget & Accounting, Computer Resource Unit, Contract Services, Legal Advisor, Personnel Section, Research, Planning & Informational Services
• Additional Credits and Charges – Additional Credits and Charges, Overhead Charges, and Facility Charges
• Fire Investigation Charge
4.6 City Services Not Included in Exhibit B
Includes city budgeted police services not included in the City of Burien’s Exhibit B. These services are already provided by the City of Burien independent of the KCSO contract. In order to construct an “apples to apples” comparison, BERK has excluded the costs for these services.
• Detention and Correction
• Animal Control
Agenda Item #7.c)
Page 66 of 96
City of Burien Provision of Police Service Assessment
8/5/2011 FINAL REPORT 16
5.0 COMPARATIVE COST ASSESSMENT
5.1 Summary Department Information Exhibit 10 shows the gross and relative amounts of spending per department. Notable findings include:
• In 2010, Burien’s Annualized Exhibit B totaled $9.4 million, which was lower than all other comparable cities with the exception of Des Moines.
• Personnel costs (salaries, benefits, specialty pay, and overtime) comprise more than 60-70% of total police costs for Burien and all of the comparable cities. The percent of personnel costs compared to total police costs ranged from a low of 62% for Puyallup to a high of 78% for Marysville. The percent of personnel costs compared to total police costs for Burien was 74%.
• Dispatch service costs comprised the majority of contracted services for Puyallup, Marysville, Des Moines, and Lakewood. However, the City of Puyallup houses their own communications center, which provides dispatch for police and fire. Contracted services for Puyallup reflect charges from the communications center, which is based on calls for service.
• The City of Marysville used a large amount of overtime to accommodate the increase in demand associated with an annexation of about 20,000 people in late 2009. It is unclear if Marysville will staff up to deal with increased demand associated with the annexed areas in the future. However, in 2011, they began to cut back on overtime by more than 50% by changing shift assignments and the timing of shifts.
Agenda Item #7.c)
Page 67 of 96
City of Burien Provision of Police Service Assessment
8/5/2011 FINAL REPORT 17
Exhibit 10: Total Costs for Exhibit B Functions by City (2010)
Total Costs For Ex B FunctionsBurien* Des Moines Puyallup Lakewood Marysville
Salaries & Wages $4,747,145 $3,928,876 $5,603,878 $8,938,396 $5,681,669Benefits $1,804,323 $1,542,174 $2,592,692 $3,308,242 $2,098,447Overtime $347,861 $362,773 $609,391 $695,179 $1,098,820Insurance, 800 MHz, etc. $225,354 $286,845 $475,397 $127,842 $99,998Supplies $175,508 $172,861 $354,663 $462,215 $278,391Dispatch/Communications $947,109 $460,716 $2,266,760 $1,557,400 $855,959Other Contracted Services - $50,823 $118,176 $788,759 $76,942Motor Pool $521,069 $442,597 $373,342 $1,186,336 $314,173Systems Services $165,740 $339,866 $893,656 $356,932 $224,143Facility Charges $105,557 $165,185 $152,771 - $194,368Capital $1,077 - $12,296 - -Overhead $320,458 $786,851 $687,420 - $454,930
Totals $9,361,201 $8,539,568 $14,140,442 $17,421,300 $11,377,839
Total Costs For Ex B FunctionsBurien Des Moines Puyallup Lakewood Marysville
Salaries & Wages 51% 46% 40% 51% 50%Benefits 19% 18% 18% 19% 18%Overtime 4% 4% 4% 4% 10%Insurance, 800 MHz, etc. 2% 3% 3% 1% 1%Supplies 2% 2% 3% 3% 2%Dispatch/Communications 10% 5% 16% 9% 8%Other Contracted Services - 1% 1% 5% 1%Motor Pool 6% 5% 3% 7% 3%Systems Services 2% 4% 6% 2% 2%Facility Charges 1% 2% 1% - 2%Capital 0% - 0% - -Overhead 3% 9% 5% - 4%
Totals 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%*Annualized amount
-
$2,000,000
$4,000,000
$6,000,000
$8,000,000
$10,000,000
$12,000,000
$14,000,000
$16,000,000
$18,000,000
$20,000,000
Burien* Des Moines Puyallup Lakewood Marysville
Overhead
Capital
Facility Charges
Systems Services
Motor Pool
Other Contracted Services
Dispatch/Communications
Supplies
Insurance, 800 MHz, etc.
Overtime
Benefits
Salaries & Wages
Agenda Item #7.c)
Page 68 of 96
City of Burien Provision of Police Service Assessment
8/5/2011 FINAL REPORT 18
Source: BERK, 2011; KCSO, Cities of Puyallup, Marysville, Des Moines, and Lakewood 2011
The following set of exhibits represents a series of metrics to help facilitate the comparison of the City of Burien’s Exhibit B contract with the King County Sheriff’s Office to the Cities of Puyallup, Lakewood, Des Moines, and Marysville.
Police Costs as a Share of Total Costs
As illustrated in Exhibit 11, most of the comparable cities, including Burien, had police costs that represent more than 40% of total general fund costs. Marysville was an exception at 34%, though increased non-police general fund costs associated with the large 2010 annexation might be the explanation for the lower figure. Notwithstanding, police costs in 2010 represented 52% of Burien’s total General Fund costs ($9.4M Annualized Exhibit B costs compared to $18.0M total General Fund costs). By comparison this percentage was greater than Puyallup (42%), Marysville (34%), and Lakewood (47%). Des Moines had the highest percentage at 54%.
Exhibit 11: Comparison of Exhibit B Costs as a % of Total General Fund Costs (2010)
Source: BERK, 2011; KCSO, Cities of Des Moines, Puyallup, Lakewood, and Marysville 2011
Agenda Item #7.c)
Page 69 of 96
City of Burien Provision of Police Service Assessment
8/5/2011 FINAL REPORT 19
Commissioned Officers
Exhibit 12 shows that the City of Burien has a ratio of 1.07 commissioned officers per 1,000 population, which is lower than Puyallup (1.54), Des Moines (1.25), and Lakewood (1.75). Amongst the comparable cities, Marysville had the lowest ratio of 0.88 commissioned officers per 1,000 population. This is explained by the City of Marysville backfilling police services with overtime in 2010. It is unclear if Marysville will staff up to deal with increased demand associated with the annexed areas in the future.
Exhibit 12: Commissioned Officers per 1,000 Population
Source: BERK, 2011; KCSO, Cities of Des Moines, Puyallup, Lakewood, and Marysville 2011
Agenda Item #7.c)
Page 70 of 96
City of Burien Provision of Police Service Assessment
8/5/2011 FINAL REPORT 20
Cost Per Capita
As Exhibit 13 shows, in 2010, the City of Burien’s Exhibit B costs per capita were about $188. This figure is the lowest of the comparable cities. Marysville is the closest in terms of Exhibit B costs per capita at about $190, followed by Des Moines ($288), Lakewood ($300), and Puyallup ($382).
The higher costs per capita for Puyallup primarily reflect higher costs for dispatch and 800MHz radio assessments. As mentioned before, the City of Puyallup houses their own communications center, which provides dispatch services for police and fire. The dispatch service currently only provides services to the city itself and there are no offsetting contract revenues from other jurisdictions.
Exhibit 13: Exhibit B Function Costs per Capita (2010)
Source: BERK, 2011; KCSO, Cities of Des Moines, Puyallup, Lakewood, and Marysville 2011
Agenda Item #7.c)
Page 71 of 96
City of Burien Provision of Police Service Assessment
8/5/2011 FINAL REPORT 21
5.2 Detailed Police Functional Comparisons
The exhibits presented in the following section illustrate staffing levels for each of the comparable police departments. As mentioned in Section 5.1, personnel costs make up the majority of police costs. For each of the detailed police functional comparisons below, we have also included costs per FTE so that one can compare, on a relative scale, the differences in personnel costs with each police function. Some of the factors that can impact the personnel costs per FTE are tenure of staff, number of commissioned officers, and number of assistant/clerical positions. Although the exhibits represent a cost comparison, they do not represent level of service or measure of effectiveness.
Administration and Support
Exhibit 14 and Exhibit 15 show that Burien is on the lower range of personnel costs per FTE at about $116,700. This is lower than Puyallup ($174,700) and Marysville ($123,900), but higher than Des Moines ($102,000) and Lakewood ($101,600).
Exhibit 14: Administration & Support – Personnel by City
Source: BERK, 2011; KCSO, Cities of Des Moines, Puyallup, Lakewood, and Marysville 2011
Burien(4.36 FTEs)
Des Moines(13 FTEs)
Puyallup(5 FTEs)
Lakewood(15 FTEs)
Marysville(10 FTEs)
Police Chief Police Chief Police Chief Police Chief Police Chief
Captain Commanders (2 FTEs)
Deputy Chief Assistant Chief Police Commander (2 FTEs)
Precinct Command Staff
(0.10 FTEs)
Master Sergeant (2 FTEs)
Admin Secretary(2 FTEs) Admin Lt.
Police Lieutenant (3 FTEs)
Precinct Support(1.16 FTEs)
Office Manager Support Specialist Office/Admin Asst.(4 FTEs)
Admin Division Manager
Records(1.09 FTEs)
Senior Secretary CSO(2 FTEs)
Crime Analyst
Training Unit(0.01 FTEs)
Record Specialists (6 FTEs)
Crime Analyst Business Office Manager
Property Room Supervisor
Confidential Admin Asst.
Evidence Custodian(2 FTEs)
Fiscal/Grants SpecialistChaplain
Total Costs $570,205 $1,742,523 $1,014,761 $2,380,839 $2,590,918Cost per FTE $116,738 $101,955 $174,729 $101,575 $123,879
Agenda Item #7.c)
Page 72 of 96
City of Burien Provision of Police Service Assessment
8/5/2011 FINAL REPORT 22
Exhibit 15: Administration & Support – Personnel Costs per FTE by City
Source: BERK, 2011; KCSO, Cities of Des Moines, Puyallup, Lakewood, and Marysville 2011
Agenda Item #7.c)
Page 73 of 96
City of Burien Provision of Police Service Assessment
8/5/2011 FINAL REPORT 23
Investigation
Exhibit 16 and Exhibit 17 illustrate that Burien is on the lower range of personnel costs per FTE at about $120,800. This is lower than all comparable cities except for Lakewood ($93,300). One reason that may be contributing to the low figure for Burien is that, by contracting, the City shares in some of the costs of Investigation supervision with the County, whereas many of the comparable cities do not share in costs for similar positions.
Exhibit 16: Investigation – Personnel by City
Source: BERK, 2011; KCSO, Cities of Des Moines, Puyallup, Lakewood, and Marysville 2011
Burien(18.46 FTEs)
Des Moines(6 FTEs)
Puyallup(14 FTEs)
Lakewood(37 FTEs)
Marysville(7 FTEs)
Detectives Supervision(0.31 FTEs)
Master Sergeant Investigations Lieutenant
Lieutenant Police Sergeant
Street Crimes Detectives Supervision
(0.43 FTEs)
Master Police Officer III (3 FTEs)
Police SergeantSergeant(5 FTEs)
Police Officers(5 FTEs)
Detectives(4 FTEs)
Master Police Officer II
Investigators (3 FTEs)
Detectives(10 FTEs)
Administrative Secretary
Street Crimes Detectives
(6 FTEs)
Evidence Technician
Detectives (4 FTEs)
Investigators(13 FTEs)
Major Crimes Investigation
(5.63 FTEs)
Forensic Technician
Traffic Officers(7 FTEs)
Evidence & Supply (0.65 FTEs)
Records Clerks (3 FTEs)
CSO-Auto Enf.
Internal Investigations (0.7 FTEs)
Investigation Support Clerk
Photo Lab (0.11 FTEs)Polygraph (0.7 FTES)Data Unit
(1.12 FTEs)Training Unit
(0.06 FTEs)Total Costs $2,535,722 $876,362 $2,843,366 $4,134,445 $1,139,830
Cost per FTE $120,801 $123,019 $171,428 $93,329 $149,381
Agenda Item #7.c)
Page 74 of 96
City of Burien Provision of Police Service Assessment
8/5/2011 FINAL REPORT 24
Exhibit 17: Investigation – Personnel Costs per FTE by City
Source: BERK, 2011; KCSO, Cities of Des Moines, Puyallup, Lakewood, and Marysville 2011
Agenda Item #7.c)
Page 75 of 96
City of Burien Provision of Police Service Assessment
8/5/2011 FINAL REPORT 25
Patrol
Exhibit 18 and Exhibit 19 show that Burien has the lowest personnel costs per FTE for Patrol at about $112,200. One reason that may be contributing to the low figure for Burien is that, by contracting, the City shares in some of the costs of Patrol supervision, whereas many of the comparable cities do not share in costs for similar positions.
Exhibit 18: Patrol – Personnel by City
Source: BERK, 2011; KCSO, Cities of Des Moines, Puyallup, Lakewood, and Marysville 2011
Exhibit 19: Patrol – Personnel Costs per FTE by City
Source: BERK, 2011; KCSO, Cities of Des Moines, Puyallup, Lakewood, and Marysville 2011
Burien(29.34 FTEs)
Des Moines(25.5 FTEs)
Puyallup(41 FTEs)
Lakewood(49 FTEs)
Marysville(40.5 FTEs)
Patrol Sergeants Master Sergeant I(5 FTEs)
Police Commander Lieutenant Police Sergeant(7 FTEs)
Patrol Supervision(1.84 FTEs)
Police Officers(19 FTEs) POP Lieutenant
Police Officers(42 FTEs)
Police Officers(33.5 FTEs)
Officers(26.33 FTEs)
Master Community Service Officer
(0.5 FTEs)
Police Sergeant(6 FTEs)
Police Sergeant(6 FTEs)
Training Unit(0.17 FTEs)
Community Service Officer(1 FTE)
Police Officers(33 FTEs)
School Resource OfficerParking
Enforcement Officer
Total Costs $3,864,851 $4,198,231 $6,387,039 $6,890,029 $5,923,823Cost per FTE $112,207 $130,600 $118,985 $121,777 $127,750
Agenda Item #7.c)
Page 76 of 96
City of Burien Provision of Police Service Assessment
8/5/2011 FINAL REPORT 26
Community Policing
Exhibit 20 and Exhibit 21 show that Burien has the lowest personnel costs per FTE for Community Policing at about $104,000. Similar to Administration and Support, Community Policing, is a functional area in which a city’s decisions on providing police services are distinct. For example, a city may decide to employ a more robust crime prevention unit or have additional high schools that need school resource officers.
Exhibit 20: Community Policing – Personnel by City
Source: BERK, 2011; KCSO, Cities of Des Moines, Puyallup, Lakewood, and Marysville 2011
Exhibit 21: Community Policing – Personnel Costs per FTE by City
Source: BERK, 2011; KCSO, Cities of Puyallup, Marysville, Des Moines, and Lakewood 2011
5.3 Comparison of Police Services, Structure, and Unit and Indirect Costs Police Departments have choices about the services provided to their communities. So far, this assessment has identified police functions similar to what the City of Burien currently provides through contract with
Burien(2.01 FTEs)
Des Moines(3 FTEs)
Puyallup(5 FTEs)
Lakewood(16.5 FTEs)
Marysville(2 FTEs)
School Resource Officer
School Resource Officer POP Lieutenant Lieutenant
School Resource Officers(2 FTEs)
Community Service Officer
Police Officers-COPS Grant
(2 FTEs)
Police Officers(3 FTEs) Sergeant
Training Unit(0.01 FTEs)
School Resource Officer
Officers(6 FTEs)
Fleet CoordinatorOffice Asst.(0.5 FTEs)
Crime Prevention(7 FTEs)
Total Costs $240,915 $376,508 $767,721 $2,422,653 $340,686Cost per FTE $103,989 $124,299 $118,985 $107,998 $158,941
Agenda Item #7.c)
Page 77 of 96
City of Burien Provision of Police Service Assessment
8/5/2011 FINAL REPORT 27
King County (Admin, Patrol, Investigation, Dispatch, Community Policing, Other) and those provided outside of the King County contract (Corrections, Animal Control). However, it is important to understand that each city has made a series of “choices” around the structure of those services that have impacted their costs.
From a cost perspective, cities manage their police departments through four principal means:
• Police Services – the “what” and “how much” aspects of total police costs. • Structure of those Services – once cities have made choices about what services they are going to
provide, they must make choices for how those services should be structured. Here, central issues of direct service provision, contracting, supervision, and management are decided.
• Unit Costs – once the previous two questions have been answered, cities make choices on the how much they should pay for them on a unit basis.
• Indirect Costs – a description of how much indirect and administrative/support costs are needed to support direct services functions.
The exhibits below highlight differences in how the cities address these four police service choices.
Police Service: Direct Service
While all the cities provide similar services, there are cost differences in how those services are distributed. In the chart below, “direct” services are identified as being Patrol and Investigative functions, core police functions that don’t vary widely amongst cities. The chart shows how much of a city’s costs go to “direct services,” as opposed to administration and specialized services.
Exhibit 22: Direct Functions (Patrol & Investigations) to Total Police (Exhibit B) Functions
Source: BERK, 2011; KCSO, Cities of Des Moines, Puyallup, Lakewood, and Marysville 2011
As shown in Exhibit 22 above, the City of Burien has a higher direct services cost relative to other comparable cities that provide their own police services. Not surprisingly, this implies that there are additional costs associated with city-run departments compared to what the City currently contracts for. Cities with their own police departments end up needing to buy additional capacity within the department related to supervision and administration. This implies that more of what Burien spends on the contract translates into more direct service in the form of patrol and investigation services. Puyallup, Marysville, and Lakewood all have lower, similar direct service cost ratios.
Agenda Item #7.c)
Page 78 of 96
City of Burien Provision of Police Service Assessment
8/5/2011 FINAL REPORT 28
Police Service: Structure Differences
The largest difference between the comparable cities was how they chose to structure their services, specifically, how much supervision is in place within Patrol and Investigations. A good metric for supervision is span-of-control, or the ratio of supervisors to employees. In a police department, the span-of-control is most often understood to be the ratio of sergeants to deputies.
The span-of-control comparison shown in Exhibit 23 and Exhibit 24 illustrates that the City of Burien has a much higher ratio of direct FTEs (Officers/Detectives) to supervisory FTEs (Lieutenants/Sergeants). The span-of-control ratio for Patrol and Investigations is much higher for Burien compared to city-run departments. For Patrol and Investigation, the Sheriff uses a shared supervision model that effectively decreases the span-of-control for the City. However, even with that in place, the City has span-of-control ratios higher than the comparable cities.
The cost impact of this structural difference is meaningful. In general, supervisory positions are higher salaried than direct positions (i.e. deputies). The higher span-of-control ratio results in some costs savings for the City of Burien. However, higher ratios could also result in a decreased ability to manage employees and department culture.
Exhibit 23: Span of Control Ratio: Patrol
Source: BERK, 2011; KCSO, Cities of Des Moines, Puyallup, Lakewood, and Marysville 2011
Exhibit 24: Span of Control Ratio: Investigations
Source: BERK, 2011; KCSO, Cities of Des Moines, Puyallup, Lakewood, and Marysville 2011
BurienDes
Moines Puyallup Lakewood MarysvilleSupervisory FTEs 2.84 5.00 8.00 7.00 7.00Direct FTEs 26.33 20.50 38.00 42.00 33.50Total 29.17 25.50 46.00 49.00 40.50Span of Control (Direct/Supervisory) 9.3 4.1 4.8 6.0 4.8
BurienDes
Moines Puyallup Lakewood MarysvilleSupervisory FTEs 0.74 1.00 2.00 6.00 1.00Direct FTEs 15.63 5.00 7.00 23.00 5.00Total 16.37 6.00 14.00 29.00 6.00Span of Control (Direct/Supervisory) 21.1 5.0 3.5 3.8 5.0
Agenda Item #7.c)
Page 79 of 96
City of Burien Provision of Police Service Assessment
8/5/2011 FINAL REPORT 29
Police Service: Cost Per Unit
Cities also have choices for how much they pay for the services they provide. These costs (e.g. salaries, benefits, supplies, vehicles) have a market price based on the relative local demand for them. In order to assess how cities compare on this measure, the fully burdened cost of a patrol officer is used to assess how much jurisdictions vary on the cost per unit of a patrol officer.
Exhibit 25: Fully Burdened Cost of Patrol Officer (2010 Actuals)
Source: BERK, 2011; KCSO, Cities of Des Moines, Puyallup, Lakewood, and Marysville 2011
The costs in Exhibit 25 for Burien represent the total costs for a Reactive Patrol Deputy with Precinct Support Staff, vehicles, and other associated costs. For each of the comparable cities, we have used similar cost pools as Burien within the Patrol function. The fully burdened cost of a patrol officer in Burien in 2010 was about $159,400. This figure was higher than Lakewood ($140,500) and Marysville ($150,200) but lower than Puyallup ($161,100) and Des Moines ($179,700).10
There is some spread among the cities analyzed and the actual amounts may lead to significant cost savings. For example, if, via the contract, the City of Burien were able to save $9,000 per patrol officer by procuring deputies at the unit rate of Marysville, then, over the scale of 30 Burien patrol officers, the savings could be in the range of $270,000 a year.
10 BERK was unable to obtain citywide overhead data from the City of Lakewood, which likely understates the fully burdened cost for a Lakewood patrol officer. If the City of Lakewood’s overhead costs are similar to the other analyzed cities, the fully burdened cost of the patrol officer is likely to be in the same range as the other cities.
Agenda Item #7.c)
Page 80 of 96
City of Burien Provision of Police Service Assessment
8/5/2011 FINAL REPORT 30
Indirect Costs: Overhead
The indirect rate represents the ratio of indirect and administrative/support costs compared to total direct services costs (i.e. patrol, investigations, etc.). Direct service costs are calculated by taking Total Exhibit B costs less costs for the Administration and Support function and overhead. The City of Burien’s calculated indirect rate for the police contract is about 10.7%. This is lower compared to Puyallup which has an indirect rate of about 13.7%. The indirect rate is much lower than Marysville and Des Moines, which are at about 36.6% and 13.1%, respectively. Indirect costs were not obtained for Lakewood (Exhibit 26).
The lower indirect rate for Burien reflects economics of scale in which staffing and costs for overhead functions such as budgeting and human resources are shared with all other contract cities. For the comparable cities, however, even though citywide overhead costs are shared with other city departments, Exhibit 26 shows that the economies of scale benefit is not as great (i.e. police shares a larger burden of overhead cost relative to direct costs).
Exhibit 26: Indirect Rate ((Indirect and Admin/Support costs)/ (Total Direct costs))
Source: BERK, 2011; KCSO, Cities of Des Moines, Puyallup, Lakewood, and Marysville 2011
Agenda Item #7.c)
Page 81 of 96
City of Burien Provision of Police Service Assessment
8/5/2011 FINAL REPORT 31
6.0 COST ASSESSMENT OF ALTERNATIVES Using the analyses of the comparative assessment in Section 5.0, the Steering Committee constructed staff and cost estimates for the current KCSO contract and an alternative city-run police department. Both alternatives were constructed under a scenario where the police would serve the existing City of roughly 48,000 people and one where it would serve a larger City if it were to annex a portion of the North Highline area (bringing the City population to 65,000 people).
6.1 Current KCSO Contract
Using the current structure of the Burien police contract, an estimate of staffing and cost under annexation was prepared. Under this alternative (Exhibit 27), the City would add 23.76 FTEs to the contract and increase the contract amount by $3.1 million.
Note: The additional costs displayed in Exhibit 27 also include increases in minimum staffing necessary to bring the level of service up to a preferred City level. The level of service increases staffing an additional 8.35 FTEs and $1.0 million. Total police staffing including level of staffing and annexation increment impacts would be 102.97 FTEs at a total contract cost of $13.5 million.
Agenda Item #7.c)
Page 82 of 96
City of Burien Provision of Police Service Assessment
8/5/2011 FINAL REPORT 32
Exhibit 27: Estimated City of Burien Contract Cost for 2010 for City and City with Annexation
Source: BERK, 2011; KCSO, 2011
6.2 City of Burien Provided Police Department
Based on discussions with the Steering Committee, a staffing plan for an alternative City of Burien police department was prepared. In order to replicate the shared supervision model of the Sheriff’s Office and prorated support and administration function, a City of Burien-provided police department would be staffed at 76 FTE. In addition, the City would need to add 3 FTE in administration and human resources to handle the additional 76 employees, bringing the total impact to 79 employees.
Using the FTE unit cost figures gleaned from the comparative assessment, cost estimates covering a low and high range were developed. An alternative city-run department would cost anywhere from $11 million to $13.2 million (Exhibit 28).
Dedicated Police Services
Current Ci ty
Levels*LOS
IncreaseAnnexation Increment Total FTEs
Current Ci ty Levels*
LOS Increase
Annexation Increment Total Cost
Pol ice Chief 1.00 - - 1.00 $168,259 - - $168,259Capta ins 1.00 0.50 0.50 2.00 $155,914 $77,957 $77,957 $311,828Patrol or Admin Sergeants * 1.00 - 1.00 $135,603 - - $135,603Officers * 26.33 3.00 8.67 38.00 $2,984,132 $339,964 $982,119 $4,306,215School Resource Officers 1.00 - 1.00 2.00 $112,179 - $112,179 $224,359Detectives 4.00 0.75 1.25 6.00 $468,428 $87,830 $146,384 $702,641Street Crimes Detectives 6.00 0.75 1.25 8.00 $702,641 $87,830 $146,384 $936,855Community Service Officer 1.00 0.50 0.50 2.00 $81,175 $40,587 $40,587 $162,349
Overtime $251,126 $33,235 $79,562 $363,923Cost of Dedicated Personnel, Subject to Reconciliation 41.33 5.50 13.17 60.00 $5,059,456 $667,404 $1,585,172 $7,312,032
Uniform, Equipment, and Suppl ies $99,548 $13,246 $31,711 $144,506Additional Wireless Cards $3,783 $1,274 $3,049 $8,106
Vehicles $443,887 $58,085 $139,052 $641,023Vehicle Adjustments ($7,852) - - ($7,852)
Insurance, 800 MHz, etc. $188,749 $24,984 $59,809 $273,542Subtotal, Dedicated Police Services 41.33 5.50 13.17 60.00 $5,787,571 $764,992 $1,818,793 $8,371,357
Additional Police ServicesPrecinct Command Staff 0.10 - - 0.10 $16,898 - - $16,898Patrol Supervis ion 1.84 0.24 0.73 2.81 $296,866 $39,051 $117,152 $453,070Detective Supervis ion 0.31 0.04 0.12 0.47 $49,040 $6,451 $19,353 $74,843Street Crimes Supervis ion 0.43 0.06 0.17 0.65 $69,447 $9,135 $27,406 $105,988Precinct Support Staff 1.16 0.13 0.40 1.68 $120,835 $13,743 $41,230 $175,808Communications/Dispatch 12.04 1.59 4.76 18.38 $947,109 - $498,343 $1,445,451Hostage Negotiation Team 0.00 - - 0.00 $574 - $302 $877Major Crimes Investigation 5.63 - 1.49 7.12 $766,253 - $203,553 $969,807MARR Unit 0.79 - 0.41 1.20 $63,204 - $33,256 $96,460SWAT (TAC-30) Team 0.28 - 0.15 0.43 $64,813 - $34,103 $98,916
Subtotal, Police Support Services 22.57 2.06 8.22 32.84 $2,395,039 $68,380 $974,698 $3,438,117
Police Support ServicesPayrol l , crime analys is , evidence, recrui ting computers , records , personnel , etc. 5.33 0.60 1.81 7.74 $704,778 $79,792 $239,375 $1,023,944Criminal intel l igence, tra ining, fi ring range 1.63 0.19 0.56 2.38 $267,278 $28,562 $85,686 $381,527
Subtotal, Additional Credits and Charges 6.96 0.79 2.37 10.12 $972,056 $108,354 $325,061 $1,405,471
Additional Credits and ChargesOverhead Charges $100,155 $10,195 $30,586 $140,937Faci l i ty Charges $81,921 $10,776 $32,328 $125,025Faci l i ty Charges (Storefront) ($2,000) - - ($2,000)
$180,076 $20,972 $62,915 $263,962
Total, Police Services $9,334,742 $962,698 $3,181,467 $13,478,906Fire Investigation charge $26,459 - - $26,459
TOTAL CONTRACT COST, WITH FIRE INVESTIGATION 70.87 8.35 23.76 102.97 $9,361,201 $962,698 $3,181,467 $13,505,365*Annualized amount for 2010
2010 Exhibit BFTEs
2010 Exhibit BCosts
Agenda Item #7.c)
Page 83 of 96
City of Burien Provision of Police Service Assessment
8/5/2011 FINAL REPORT 33
Exhibit 28: Estimated City of Burien Police Department for current population of 48,000
Source: BERK, 2011
Exhibit 29: Estimated City of Burien Police Department with Annexation for population of 65,000
Source: BERK, 2011
Ex B Functions Comp Cities Perform, but not
in Police BudgetLow High Low High Low High Low High Low High Low High
Salaries & Wages $782,000 $869,000 $1,307,000 $1,907,000 $3,498,000 $3,668,000 $227,000 $255,000 - - $246,000 $6,060,000 $6,945,000Benefits $302,000 $335,000 $504,000 $735,000 $1,349,000 $1,415,000 $87,000 $99,000 - - $89,000 $2,331,000 $2,673,000Overtime $33,000 $38,000 $56,000 $82,000 $150,000 $157,000 $10,000 $11,000 - - $249,000 $288,000Insurance $21,000 $21,000 $38,000 $38,000 $80,000 $80,000 $6,000 $6,000 - - $145,000 $145,000Supplies $40,000 $44,000 $72,000 $79,000 $151,000 $167,000 $11,000 $12,000 - - $274,000 $302,000Contracted Services $26,000 $58,000 $4,000 $39,000 $12,000 $29,000 - $2,000 $947,000 $1,285,000 $989,000 $1,413,000Motor Pool $31,000 $40,000 $91,000 $200,000 $406,000 $597,000 $10,000 $29,000 - - $538,000 $866,000Systems Services $33,000 $57,000 $60,000 $104,000 $125,000 $217,000 $9,000 $16,000 - - $227,000 $394,000Facility Charges $26,000 $31,000 $46,000 $57,000 $97,000 $119,000 $7,000 $9,000 - - $176,000 $216,000Capital - - - - - - - - - - - -OH - - - - - - - - - - - -
Totals $1,294,000 $1,493,000 $2,178,000 $3,241,000 $5,868,000 $6,449,000 $367,000 $439,000 $947,000 $1,285,000 $335,000 $10,989,000 $13,242,000FTEs 11.0 11.0 20.0 20.0 42.0 42.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 79.0 79.0
GRAND TOTALAdministration & Support Investigation Patrol Community PolicingDispatch/
Communications
Ex B Functions Comp Cities Perform, but not
in Police BudgetLow High Low High Low High Low High Low High
Salaries & Wages $995,000 $1,107,000 $1,503,000 $2,193,000 $4,498,000 $4,716,000 $302,000 $341,000 - - $246,000 $7,544,000 $8,603,000Benefits $384,000 $427,000 $580,000 $846,000 $1,735,000 $1,819,000 $117,000 $131,000 - - $89,000 $2,905,000 $3,312,000Overtime $43,000 $47,000 $64,000 $94,000 $192,000 $202,000 $13,000 $15,000 - - $312,000 $358,000Insurance $28,000 $28,000 $45,000 $45,000 $105,000 $105,000 $8,000 $8,000 - - $186,000 $186,000Supplies $50,000 $56,000 $83,000 $91,000 $194,000 $214,000 $14,000 $16,000 - - $341,000 $377,000Contracted Services $34,000 $74,000 $5,000 $45,000 $16,000 $37,000 $3,000 $3,000 $1,445,000 $1,740,000 $1,503,000 $1,899,000Motor Pool $40,000 $51,000 $104,000 $230,000 $522,000 $768,000 $14,000 $38,000 - - $680,000 $1,087,000Systems Services $42,000 $72,000 $69,000 $119,000 $161,000 $280,000 $12,000 $21,000 - - $284,000 $492,000Facility Charges $32,000 $40,000 $53,000 $65,000 $125,000 $153,000 $9,000 $11,000 - - $219,000 $269,000Capital - - - - - - - - - - - -OH - - - - - - - - - - - -
Totals $1,648,000 $1,902,000 $2,506,000 $3,728,000 $7,548,000 $8,294,000 $492,000 $584,000 $1,445,000 $1,740,000 $335,000 $13,974,000 $16,583,000FTEs 14.0 14.0 23.0 23.0 54.0 54.0 4.0 4.0 3.0 98.0 98.0
Administration & Support Investigation Patrol Community PolicingDispatch/
Communications GRAND TOTAL
Agenda Item #7.c)
Page 84 of 96
City of Burien Provision of Police Service Assessment
8/5/2011 FINAL REPORT 34
Exhibit 29 summarizes the staff and cost impacts of a City of Burien provided police department. Annexation would add an additional 17 FTEs (98 total) in order to serve the annexation area. The cost impacts of this additional staff would be $3 to $3.3 million or a total of $14 million to $16.6 million.
6.3 Comparison of Contract and City-run Department Exhibit 30 summarizes the staff and cost estimates of the contract and city-run police service alternatives. Assuming a similar level of service, the cost of the contract is lower than the City providing police service. In this instance, the contract provides economies of scale in both supervision and related indirect costs (see section 5.3 for a fuller description of these two effects). By allowing the City to share in its costs, the KCSO contract provides the City an option to purchase these needed services on a prorated basis with the effect of directing more of its public safety dollars towards direct services (e.g. patrol and investigation services).
Exhibit 30: Summary of Staffing and Costs
Source: BERK, 2011
In order to replicate the same level of service, a City-run department must purchase the full share of the staff capacity. However, as the City grows, naturally or through annexation, that capacity provides the City with its own economies of scale where the marginal cost of adding personnel is lower than the average cost of the entire department. This advantage is show in Exhibit 31.
Exhibit 31: Summary of Staffing and Costs
Source: BERK, 2011
At its current size, a City-run department has per capita costs of $229-$275 compared to $188 for the contract. As the City grows, the per capita costs begin to fall to the $212-$252 range because the City is able to utilize the capacity in supervision and support it had to put in place to serve the existing City. The contract, by comparison, grows to $205 per capita reflecting the need for additional public safety needs in the annexed area.
7.0 START UP COSTS The following section addresses start-up costs (e.g. those costs a city may be faced with in creating its own department). It currently contains three case studies: 1) the City of Lakewood, which formed its own police department in 2004; 2) the City of Federal Way, which formed its own police department in 1996; and 3) the City of Pampano Beach, FL, which recently studied bringing their police services under direct City control.
City City w/AnnexStaffing
Burien (Current Contract) 70.87 102.97Burien (City Dept.) 79 98
CostBurien (Current Contract) $9.4 M $13.5 M
Burien (City Dept.) $11-13.2 M $14-16.6 M
Burien (Current Contract)Burien (Ci ty Dept.) $229 to $275Burien (Contract w Annex)Burien (Ci ty Dept. w Annex) $212 to $252
Police Costs per Capita
$205
$188
Agenda Item #7.c)
Page 85 of 96
City of Burien Provision of Police Service Assessment
8/5/2011 FINAL REPORT 35
Generally, the findings from this inquiry indicate that the contract cities experience some net-new one-time costs (e.g. costs they currently do not have as part of their police contracts) related to the creation of their own departments. Based on the limited case studies, the range of costs is roughly between $3 to $6 million dollars. The major drivers impacting one-time costs tend to be dependent on how much new capital need there is for vehicles, facility space, and communications equipment.
7.1 Case Study: Lakewood The City of Lakewood formed its own police department in 2004, and is the most recent example in Washington State of a city making the change from a contract model to a municipal-provided model. Financial data from the City, reported in the Washington State Auditor’s Local Government Financial Reporting System from the last 10 years, show how the change in police service has resulted in fiscal impacts.
As Exhibit 32 illustrates, there was a brief increase in operating expenditures, but overall the net impact was minimal. After 2006, operating expenditures appear to follow the same pre-formation trend. It is worth noting that the data does not include any capital expenditures.
Exhibit 32: City of Lakewood Law Enforcement Operating Expenditures (2000-2009; 2009 Dollars)
* Police Department formed in 2004.
Source: BERK, 2011; WA State Auditor’s Local Government Financial Reporting System 2009
7.2 Case Study: Federal Way
The City of Federal Way, which incorporated in 1990, initially contracted with King County for its police services. Beginning in September of 1996, the City began to provide its own traffic enforcement and investigation of accidents, and by October of 1996 the Federal Way Police Department (FWPD) was providing full police services to the City and its citizens. In February 2011, BERK interviewed FWPD Chief Brian Wilson; the following represent key points made during the interview:
• The City handled the initial start-up costs for creating the department by using about $4.1 million in banked money that the Council had earmarked for the transition.
$0.0 M$2.0 M$4.0 M$6.0 M$8.0 M
$10.0 M$12.0 M$14.0 M$16.0 M$18.0 M$20.0 M
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004* 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
Police Operations Traffic & Crime Prevention Police Admin Other
Agenda Item #7.c)
Page 86 of 96
City of Burien Provision of Police Service Assessment
8/5/2011 FINAL REPORT 36
• The City made the decision to hire staff outside of KCSO since the City wanted to create a philosophy and culture that was different than what was currently in place with KCSO staff. In total, it took almost a year to fully staff-up for transition.
• To save on personnel costs, the City decided to start without labor unions, implemented an “on-call pay” system rather than “specialty pay”, and opted out of social security.
• Switching dispatch services to Valley Communications Center was an important factor in dealing with transition costs since the Department felt that the level of service would increase with the switch.
• The City purchased used vehicles and did not debt finance any vehicle purchases; however, the City as a policy matter does capitalize any purchase which is greater than $1,000.
• The City took over County-leased space initially, but in the first 18-months after transition, the Department moved three times.
• The City knew that there would be significant human resource and legal costs associated with the transition. The City planned for these costs and made sure, especially in the case of legal, that everyone was on the same page about why the Department was created. Commitment to the process was important during the transition.
7.3 Case Study: City of Pompano Beach, Florida In 2009, the Wildan Group conducted an organizational assessment, audit review, and analysis of the Pompano Beach Police Department’s (PBPD) policing services for the City of Pompano Beach. The City was, at the time, contracting with Broward County for police services. In conducting the analysis a number of transitional start-up costs were identified, including (a summary of expenses is shown in Exhibit 33 below):
• Recruitment, Testing, and Background Investigations. About 75% of transitional hires were assumed to be lateral transfers from Broward County or other local police departments. A total budget for this effort was estimated to be as high as $750,000, and includes expenses for recruitment, testing, completing background checks, physicals, psychological testing, and drug testing of all applicants.
• Transition/Training/Orientation. Two months of required training, not including new hire academy training, was estimated at $4.1 million for 302 employees.
• Vehicle Fleet and Mobile Data Computers. Year 1 costs were estimated to be $5.0 million. Costs could be reduced by either purchasing County vehicles or by financing purchases. The study also cited that the City would likely need to increase staffing within fleet maintenance to handle the increased workload associated with new police vehicles.
• Handheld Radios, Uniforms, and Equipment. Estimated to be $2.3 million.
• Consultant Services. Estimated to be $150,000.
Agenda Item #7.c)
Page 87 of 96
City of Burien Provision of Police Service Assessment
8/5/2011 FINAL REPORT 37
Exhibit 33: Summary of Total Estimated Costs for Establishing a City of Pompano Beach Police Department
Source: Feasibility Study for Police Services, Wildan Group, 2009
7.4 Start-up Cost Findings
In addition to staffing and personnel costs, there would be other one-time start-up costs that City of Burien would need to assume if it were to create a city-run police department. Based on the limited case studies presented in the sections above, the range of costs would be roughly between $3 and $6 million dollars. The major drivers impacting one-time costs tend to be dependent on how much new capital need there is for vehicles, facility space, and communications equipment. However, the City ultimately has flexibility and discretion on how much of these costs it is willing to assume.
First Year First Year Second Year Second Year Without Financing With Financing Without Financing With Financing
Salaries and Fringe Benefits $24,903,381 $24,903,381 $25,899,516 $25,899,516Overtime 500,000 500,000 520,000 520,000Uniforms and Equipment1 700,000* 700,000 110,000 110,000Testing and Training 750,000 750,000 0 0Radios (225) and Radio Maintenance 900,000* 0 0 0Vehicles and Equipment2 3,426,000* 0 172,000 (5) 172,000 (5) Gasoline and Maintenance3 1,073,356 1,073,356 1,116,290 1,116,290Mobile Data Computers, Network & Maintenance 1,600,000* 100,000 100,000 100,000Police Building ( Util ities and Maintenance) 275,000 275,000 275,000 275,000Office Equipment and Supplies 120,000 120,000 120,000 120,000On-Going Recruitment, Testing &Training 0 0 200,000 200,000911 Center/Dispatch BSO service contract 125,000 125,000 125,000 125,000Insurance 650,000 650,000 650,000 650,000Human Resource 108,288 108,288 112,614 112,619Positions (2) Information Technology Position 124,532 124,532 124,532 124,532Public Information Officer 40,000 40,000 40,000 40,000Legal Fees 90,000 90,000 90,000 90,000
$5,800,000 in Municipal Financing – 5% - 3 years 0 1,944,433 0 1,944,433TOTAL $35,260,557 $31,278,990 $29,654,957 $31,599,3901 Includes uniforms, leather, handgun, shotgun, non leather weapons, vest and ammo2 60 Patrol Cars, 30 Detective/Admin Vehicles, and 14 motorcycles3 Includes $155,000 for mechanics and parts; $600,000 for gas and oil* Capital Expenditures - Can be funded over a number of years (Maintenance not included.)
Total Estimated Costs for Establishing a City of Pompano Beach Police Department
Agenda Item #7.c)
Page 88 of 96
Agenda Bill
City Council Regular Study Session - 24 May 2021
Department
Legal
Staff Contact Garmon Newsom II, City Attorney
Agenda Placement Study Session Topic
Agenda Bill Title Council Discussion of Hazard Pay for Frontline Workers
Summary The Council has indicated a desire to discuss the possibility of adopting an ordinance providing
hazard pay for frontline workers that did not benefit from the Council's prior hazard pay ordinance. The Council will consider whether this topic should be referred to the BEDP during a regular or special meeting for the BEDP to gather information about the working conditions and compensation for front line workers.
Frontline workers may include but not be limited to firefighters/EMTs, healthcare workers, janitors (municipal and private), maintenance workers (municipal and private), police officers, agricultural workers, automotive repair workers, drug store and other retail cashiers and customer attendants, food processing workers, gasoline attendants, manufacturing workers, and truck drivers.
Options 1. Refer this matter to the BEDP for input and information related to providing hazard pay to
frontline workers. 2. Decline to refer this matter to the BEDP for input and information related to providing hazard
pay to frontline workers. 3. Request the drafting of an ordinance providing hazard pay for frontline workers without any
information being gathered. 4. Decline to consider providing hazard pay for frontline workers without any information being
gathered.
Administrative Recommendation N/A. This is a study session should be used to determine what information the council needs to
analyze and discuss the implications of adopting an ordinance providing hazard pay to frontline workers. This discussion should consider whether to refer this topic to the BEDP during a regular or special meeting. If referred to the BEDP, the Council should direct the BEDP to hold at least one
Page 1 of 2
Agenda Item #7.d)
Page 89 of 96
public hearing and invite frontline workers and their employers to discuss the impacts of the adoption of a hazard pay ordinance and any related concerns.
Suggested Motion None during a study session.
Fiscal Impact Uncertain, but it is potentially significant to the municipal government and to some businesses.
Page 2 of 2
Agenda Item #7.d)
Page 90 of 96
*Color Indicators: public hearing (green), or when action is anticipated (blue). 8 of 8
Council Agenda Planning Calendar (Updated 05/18/2021)
May 27, 2021 at 6:00 p.m. – Special Meeting – Council Retreat – Day 4
Topic/Title Staff Assigned
a) Retreat Day 4 – Topic TBD Brian J. Wilson, City Manager
June 7, 2021 at 7:00 p.m. – Regular Business Meeting
Agenda Placement Action Topic/Title Staff Assigned
Referral Information &
Status Presentations and Proclamations
a) LGBTQAI+ Pride Month Proclamation
Deputy Mayor Marx
b) Junteenth Councilmember Olguin
c) Citizen of the Year Award Acceptance
Mayor Jimmy Matta
City Manager’s Report on Emerging Issues
a) Emerging Issue Topic Brian J. Wilson, City Manager
Public Hearing a) Public Hearing Topic
Consent Agenda Approve a) Approve Resolution No. 460, Approving the 2022-2027 Six-Year Transportation Improvement Program (TIP)
Maiya Andrews, Public Works Director
(Previously discussed on 5/17)
Adopt b) Adopt Ordinance No. 764, Amending BMC 5.05.140 Pertaining to Business Licenses
Garmon Newsom II, City Attorney
(Previously discussed on 5/17)
c) Agenda Topic/Title (Previously discussed on xx/xx)
Business Agenda a) Agenda Topic/Title
b) Agenda Topic/Title
Review c) Council Agenda Planning Calendar
Brian J. Wilson, City Manager
Agenda Item #7.e)
Page 91 of 96
*Color Indicators: public hearing (green), or when action is anticipated (blue). 8 of 8
Council Agenda Planning Calendar (Updated 05/18/2021)
June 14, 2021 at 7:00 p.m. – Special Meeting Topic/Title Staff Assigned
a) Public Hearing Regarding the Proposed Downtown Emergency Service Center (DESC) Housing Demonstration Project
David Johanson, Senior Planner and Susan McLain Community Development Director
June 28, 2021 at 7:00 p.m. – Regular Study Session – CANCELED (Summer Months)
June 21, 2021 at 7:00 p.m. – Regular Business Meeting
Agenda Placement Action Topic/Title Staff Assigned
Referral Information &
Status Presentations and Proclamations
a)
City Manager’s Report on Emerging Issues
b) Emerging Issue Topic Brian J. Wilson, City Manager
Public Hearing a) Public Hearing Topic
Consent Agenda a)
b) Agenda Topic/Title (Previously discussed on xx/xx)
c) Agenda Topic/Title (Previously discussed on xx/xx)
Business Agenda Approve a) Re-consideration of postponed motion: to approve Resolution No. 457, accepting the Downtown Emergency Service Center (DESC) Housing Demonstration Project
David Johanson, Senior Planner and Susan McLain Community Development Director
(Previously discussed on 4/5, 4/19, 5/17, and
6/14)
Introduction and Discussion (Future Potential Action on 6/7)
b) Introduction to Ordinance No. 766, City of Burien Boards and Commissions Revisions and Introduction to the Revised Board and Commissions Handbook
Megan Gregor, City Clerk / Garmon Newsom II, City Attorney
(Council Direction on 6/15/2020)
Review c) Council Agenda Planning Calendar
Brian J. Wilson, City Manager
Agenda Item #7.e)
Page 92 of 96
*Color Indicators: public hearing (green), or when action is anticipated (blue). 8 of 8
Council Agenda Planning Calendar (Updated 05/18/2021)
July 5, 2021 at 7:00 p.m. – Regular Business Meeting – CANCELED (4th of July Observance)
July 19, 2021 at 6:00 p.m. – Special Meeting
Topic/Title Staff Assigned
a) Airport Committee Applicant Interviews Megan Gregor, City Clerk
July 26, 2021 at 7:00 p.m. – Regular Study Session – CANCELED (Summer Months)
July 19, 2021 at 7:00 p.m. – Regular Business Meeting
Agenda Placement Action Topic/Title Staff Assigned
Referral Information &
Status City Manager’s Report on Emerging Issues
a) Emerging Issue Topic Brian J. Wilson, City Manager
Public Hearing a) Public Hearing Topic
Consent Agenda Adopt a) Adoption of Ordinance No. 766, City of Burien Boards and Commissions Revisions and Introduction to the Revised Board and Commissions Handbook
Megan Gregor, City Clerk / Garmon Newsom II, City Attorney
(Council Direction on 6/15/2020, previously discussed on 6/7/21)
b) Agenda Topic/Title (Previously discussed on xx/xx)
c) Agenda Topic/Title (Previously discussed on xx/xx)
Business Agenda Introduction and Discussion
a) Introduction to Resolution No. 453, Housing Action Plan
Nicole Gaudette, Senior Planner / Susan McLain, Community Development Director
b) Agenda Topic/Title
Review c) Council Agenda Planning Calendar
Brian J. Wilson, City Manager
Agenda Item #7.e)
Page 93 of 96
*Color Indicators: public hearing (green), or when action is anticipated (blue). 8 of 8
Council Agenda Planning Calendar (Updated 05/18/2021)
Future Agenda Items (identified by Council)
Action Topic/Title Staff Assigned
Referral Information &
Status Discussion a) Options Regarding Bicycle and Ride Share
Services Maiya Andrews, Emily Inlow-Hood
Council direction on 3/5/18 – Low
Discussion b) Discussion and potential action on a possible rent debt relief order program within Burien – Recommendation on strengthening the Governors Orders
Brian J. Wilson, City Manager / Colleen Brandt-Schluter, Human Services Manager
Council direction on 6/1/20 – High
Discussion c) TREES : • Memorial Trees and Potential Locations in
Burien
• Review BMC 19.25.120 related to tree retention on development proposals
Casey Stanley Susan McLain
Council direction on 9/23/19 – High Staff implementing process of bringing
August 2, 2021 at 7:00 p.m. – Regular Business Meeting
Agenda Placement Action Topic/Title Staff Assigned
Referral Information &
Status City Manager’s Report on Emerging Issues
a) Emerging Issue Topic Brian J. Wilson, City Manager
Public Hearing a) Public Hearing Topic
Consent Agenda Approve a) Approve Resolution No. 453, Housing Action Plan
Nicole Gaudette, Senior Planner / Susan McLain, Community Development Director
(Previously discussed on 7/19/21)
b) Agenda Topic/Title (Previously discussed on xx/xx)
c) Agenda Topic/Title (Previously discussed on xx/xx)
Business Agenda a) Agenda Topic/Title
b) Agenda Topic/Title
Review c) Council Agenda Planning Calendar
Brian J. Wilson, City Manager
Agenda Item #7.e)
Page 94 of 96
*Color Indicators: public hearing (green), or when action is anticipated (blue). 8 of 8
Council Agenda Planning Calendar (Updated 05/18/2021)
potential Zoning Code amendments to City Council before July 2021.
Discussion d) Update from Port of Seattle on Fuel Dumping Procedures and Policy
Brian J. Wilson, City Manager
Council Direction on 1/27/20 – Medium
Discussion e) Developer feedback regarding the housing demonstration process
Susan McLain, Community Development Director
Council Direction on 4/24/20 - High
Discussion f) Sub-Prevailing Wages in Burien Particularly as it Relates to Members of the Disabled Community
Brian J. Wilson, City Manager
Council direction on 8/5/19 – Medium
Introduction, Discussion, Adoption
g) Code Amendments related to the Utility Tax Relief Program
Cathy Schrock, Administrative Services Director
Council Direction on 1/4/2021 – High
Discussion h) Public Safety Services 3 - Update on the efforts of contract City representatives and their discussions with the King County Executive regarding police services contracts.
Brian J. Wilson, City Manager
Council Direction on 02/01/21 - High
i) Public Safety Services 5 - Discussion of current state and federal legislative efforts addressing police reform.
j) Public Safety Services 7 - Discussion of the Burien Police Department as a model of public safety services (police and human services) and the efficiency of police services costs.
k) Public Safety Services 8 - Future potential commissioning of a study regarding Sheriff’s Department services versus alternative jurisdictions/partnerships.
Discussion l) Discuss future potential uses of the Previous Annex Site
Carolyn Hope, PaRCS Director
Council Direction on 2/22/21 - Medium
Discussion m) Look at what we might as a Council/city do to help create jobs for kids in our community.
Brian J. Wilson, City Manager
Council Direction on 2/22/21 - High
Discussion n) Presentation on available childcare options in Burien, and potential actions the city can take to assist those in need of childcare
Colleen Brandt-Schluter, Human Services Manager
Council Direction on 2/22/21 - High
Discussion o) Council to discuss the possibility of requiring hazard pay for other frontline workers
Garmon Newsom II, City Attorney
Council Direction on 4/5/21 - Medium
Agenda Item #7.e)
Page 95 of 96
*Color Indicators: public hearing (green), or when action is anticipated (blue). 8 of 8
Council Agenda Planning Calendar (Updated 05/18/2021)
Discussion and Approval
p) Create a CWA/PLA (Community Workforce Agreement/Project Labor Agreement) type of program
Brian J. Wilson, City Manager
Council Direction on 4/26/21 - High
Presentation and Update
q) Briefing on Airport Community Issues: Sustainable Airport Master Plan, Health Impacts, Efforts to Assure Mitigation of Burien Properties in Relation to Airport Operations
Brian J. Wilson, City Manager
Council Direction on 5/17/21
Future Agenda Items (identified by Staff)
Action Topic/Title Staff Assigned
Referral Information &
Status Discussion a) Rental Housing Program Status Report –
inquiries Rental Housing Inspection Program Coordinator
Quarterly
Discussion and Potential Action
b) Strategic Plan Development Brian J. Wilson, City Manager
Council approval 10/26 – Effort initiated in Q1 of 2021
Introduction, Discussion, Adoption
c) Adopt Ordinance No. 760, Solid Waste Management Requirements for Commercial Businesses
Chris Craig / Maiya Andrews
Council Direction on as of 3/26: Waiting for BEDP input and will bring back at a later time
Future Agenda Items (for 2022)
Action Topic/Title Staff Assigned
Referral Information &
Status Update a) In January 2022 - Outreach and status of
BMC 8.57.030, Noncompostable Food Service Product Prohibition
Chris Craig, Economic Development Manager
Council Direction on 4/5/21
b)
Agenda Item #7.e)
Page 96 of 96
