HomeMy WebLinkAboutSubmittal-Memo-City ManagerO
FRCM
CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA
!NI ER -OFFICE MEMORANDUM
Lomnissioncr Aneel Gonzalez
ndez, P.E
DAIL
SUBJECT
REF LREN FS
ENCLOSURES
April 9, 2008
Adequacy of staffing level in
Police Department
FILL
On March 26, 2008 I provided your Chief of Staff with a three page report (Attachment A)
regarding Police personnel positions, vacancies, and recruitment efforts. In addition, I also
provided a Police Deferred Retirement Option Program (DROP) Fiscal Impact Analysis
(Attachment B). On April 9, 2008 I received your memo titled, D1.1 "Adequacy of staffing level
in Police Department". The report that was provided on March 26, 2008 indicated that 444 sworn
police officers have been recruited since 2001. Since 2003, 299 officers have resigned for
various reasons, including retirement from the Miami Police Department. If you calculate an
average based on years 2003-2007, it is estimated that 419 have resigned for various reasons,
including retirement from the Miami Police Department since 2001.
It is important to point out that any modification to the DROP is more appropriately an issue of
collective bargaining. However, if we were to consider extending the DROP for no more than 18
months, for the 102 current DROP participants the City would under the worse case scenario
incur additional costs net of pensions of 81.1 million or approximately $$1 1,000 per officer on an
annualized basis. This amount could be mitigated somewhat by opportunity costs derived by
avoidance of certain recruitment and training costs, providing the process is not modified from
our current recruitment process to a more expensive one. However, the exact amount cannot be
established due to the many variables such as, but not limited to, each individual officer's ability
to determine his final work date with the City. Moreover, it would be difficult to predict the cost
savings, as we don't control the timing of when a Police Officer exercises their individual
discretion to leave, however we must generally conduct Police recruitment classes in groups of
25 or more. My preferred course of action is to be extremely proactive in recruiting sworn
officers to provide police services and increase the strength of our force to maximize public
safety.
I am available to meet with you at your convenience and provide additional explanation off -the
attachments.
Honorable Mayor Manuel A. Diaz
Commissioner Joe Sanchez, Chair
Commissioner Michelle Spence -Jones, Vice Chair
Commissioner Marc David Sarnoff
Commissioner Thomas Regalado
Priscilla A. Thompson, City Clerk
02- 00323 - Subk1,) s 'a - ( ,mp-C it3 riurtC>5C''(-
Submitted into the public
record in connection with
item D1.1 on 04-10-08
Priscilla A. Thompson
City Clerk
r
o cn
Extending the DROP for City of Miami Police Officers: An
Analysis of the Personnel and Budgetary Impacts
A Feasibility Study presented to City Manager, Pedro G. Hernandez, P.E,. as Requested by
Commissioner Angel Gonzales
By
Hector Mirabile, Ph, D.
March 26, 2008
DROP Personnel Analysis 2
Extending the DROP for City of Miami Police Officers: An
Analysis of the Personnel and Budgetary Impacts
Commissioner Angel Gonzales identified the potential need of extending the DROP
from the current contractually agreed upon term of four years to additional periods
up to eight years. The commissioner's identified needs included the crime trends of
his district, the shortfalls of current police staffing, the length of time it takes to fill
vacant police officer positions, and the number of police officers who are scheduled
to separate employment from the City due to their DROP period expiring. In an
effort to provide the citizens of Miami with sufficient staffing of police officers that
were recently increased by the commission as well as retaining experience law
enforcement officer Commissioner Gonzales requested of the City Manager to
conduct a feasibility study of extending the DROP.
Commissioner Gonzales, through his office, asked four questions. The following are
responses to questions from Commissioner Angel Gonzales' office as well as an
analysis of the time police officers (all ranks) remained in the DROP was also
conducted along with a discussion of potential environmental factors impacting the
decision of police officers to remain in the DROP. Additionally, an analysis of the
costs variances associated with the total specified costs associated with retaining a
police officer (all ranks) by extending the DROP was conducted.
Responses to Cornmissioner Angel Gonzales' Questions
1 What was the number of active police officers in MPD for the last four years?
a. Dec. 2007: 1075 police officers (all ranks)
h. Jun. 2007: 1064
c. Jun. 2006: 1065 "
d. Jun.2005 1050 "
e. Jun.2004 1039 "
f. Jun.2003 1038 "
2. What is the average number of years of service that a retired officer served
with MPD?
The average number of years of service that a retired officer served is 14.89.
3. What is the number of recruits that were hired from 2001-2008?
From 010101 — 032508 (today) 444
DROP Personnel Analysis 3
4. How many of the hired recruits from 2001-2008 remain with NIPD?
From 010101 — 032508 (today) there remains 343 individuals who were
recruits during this period of analysis. There was a loss of 101 individuals for
various reasons who were recruits during this period of analysis. Figure 1
represents the separation of the 101 individuals by year.
To assist with the City Manager and Commissioner's analysis of the situation the Figure
2 depicts the number of officers that separated from service with MPD for all reasons.
Figure 1: Separation of identified recruits hired between Jan. 1, 2001 through Mar. 25, 2008.
Ofcs
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
Ofcs
Source: Department of Employee Relations, Ms. Joni Harris; March 25, 2008.
IUROP Personnel Analysis
Figure2. Police officers separated from service by month (all reasons).
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
Apnl l May
3 8
4 1
5 4
5 3
6 3
August September October November
62 7 5
8 5 2
4
— 2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
Yo-n-c_ : 29 9
Source: Department of Employee Relations, Ms. Joni Harris; March 25, 2008.
The cyclical patterns shown by the graph is of importance when trying to identify the
potential reasons influencing the decision of the officer(s) retiring. Each year is slightly
different but the cycle appears to be prompted by the decisions made by police officers
as to when they want to retire based on their best return from the 185 Police Trust (also
known as the 1 % Fund). It should be noted that the 1 % Fund decision is one of various
reasons for any one police officer leaving but after personal discussions with many of
the officers during the past four months their decision about retiring is greatly influenced
by the returns or losses they may encounter in their individual 1 % Fund accounts at the
time of separation as well as other job opportunities in the law enforcement field.
Participants' Longevity in DROP
Additionally, an analysis of the period of time police officers of all ranks stayed in the
DROP was conducted depicting an average time in DROP of 2.69 years. Out of a
viable sample size of 115 police officers, twenty-two police officers (all ranks) or 19%
stayed between 3.91-4 years; twenty-nine police officers (all ranks) or 25% stayed
between 3.86-3 years; twenty-two police officers (all ranks) or 19% stayed between
DROP Personnel Analysis 5
2.95-2 years; and forty-two police officers (all ranks) or 37% stayed between 1.99-1
years in the DROP.
The majority of the police officers, or 59%, stayed in the drop 1-2.95 years and 84% of
the police officers remained in the DROP 1-3.86 years. The historical trend of police
officers (all ranks) remaining in the DROP must be further examined as to identifying
potential reasons for these trends occurring. Some identified environmental factors that
may be attributable to impacting the decision making of police officers staying in the
DROP include the aforementioned 1 % Fund performance, the lack of a contract from
2005 to part of 2007 which brought the comparable salary of MPD to the lower quartile
of the tri-county area, the economy being strong and thus reducing the recruiting pool,
and other law enforcement agencies aggressively recruiting for the same candidates
while simultaneously influencing our attrition through separations in an effort to
maximize their potential earning power. This discussion of potential environmental
factors is not meant to promote the hypothesis that the majority of those who enter the
DROP will remain the full term but it is important to understand the dynamic forces that
affect the police officer in making the decision of terminating employment with the city
prior to the full term of the DROP.
Cursory Budgetary Analysis of Impact
A cursory analysis of the differential current costs between hiring a new recruit at full
cost and retaining current participants in the DROP (full costs). Show that the City's
exposure is $1 M, $3.5M, and $2.4M for 1, 2, and 3 additional years of DROP
respectively. The total differential cost exposure for the additional three years of DROP
is $7M. (NOTE: These figures were rounded up for explanation purposes only). Table
1 provides a more detailed representation of the differential costs.
Table 1. DROP cost analysis for extension for 1, 2, and 3 years.
DROP Yr. 5 DROP Yr. 6 DROP Yr. 7 Total
DROP
Participant $ 1,118,548.49 $ 3,475,357.89 $ 2,381,121.65 $ 6,975,028.03
NOTE: Information derived from the Department of Strategic Planning, Budgeting, and Performance, March 26,
2008.
l . The analysis included current DROP participants in the police department as of February 29,
2008.
2. Police recruit current cost is $68,084.44.
3. Current costs include annual salary, longevity, anniversary, Medicare, group insurance, worker's
compensation, certification pay, and other allowance.
4. This schedule assumes DROP participants have the same date of termination and will remain in
the DROP for the full term.
The full costs associated with a police officer inherently has countervailing costs that in
some cases increase while in other cases mitigate the exposure. Further analysis of
these countervailing associated costs should be conducted to facilitate in the critical
DROP Personnel Analysis 6
analysis of extending the DROP. Conclusions regarding this feasibility study are
pending until discussion with the City Manager and key staff.
2
3
4
5
6
7
9
10
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
3695
605
681
1576
1819
185E
1961
2315
4324
755
1129
1658
336L
3575
4434
1467
6 rn_
6/1/08
6/1/08
6L1/08
6/1/08
6/1/08
6/1/08
6/1/08
6/1/08
6/1/08
6/1/08
6/1/08
6/1/08
6L I08
6/1/08
6/1/08
6/1/08
4045
4350
1746
3904
1465
962
3665
2174
3697
4420
4744
417
1497
3830
2633
4577
3705
3776
9215
340
6144
6/1/08
6/1/08
6/1/08
6/1/08
6j 1/08
6/1/08
6/1/08
6/1/08
6/1/08
6/1/08
6/1/08
6/1/08
6/1/08
6/1/08
6/1/08
6/1/08
6/1/08
6/1/08
6/1/08
6/1/08
6/1/08
92,214 87
104,852.59
91,974.89
90,877.09
98,319 22
102,266.14
91,974 89
91,974 89
92,874 87
92,874.87
100,654.01
88,385 37
91,974 89
105,868 17
95,554.83
159,177 24
89,677 19
90,545.45
92,095.01
106, 708.2 3
89,365 27
90,490 04
91,734.91
92,934 93
96,884 43
96,404,47
92,574.97
90.905.29
92,934 81
91,734.91
92,454 85
92,635 03
92,334.99
91,974.89
118,422.22
99,589.20
86,676.37
7,999.40
12,188 89
7,919 85
7 555 92
10,023 04
11,331.47
7,919.85
7,919.85
8,218 20
8,218.20
10,797.04
6,729 90
7,919 85
12,525 57
9,106 62
30,197 89
7,158.14
7,445.98
7,959 67
12,804 05
7,054 i4
7,427.61
7,840 29
8,238 11
9,547 39
9,388.28
8,118.78
7,565 27
8,238 07
7,840 29
8,078.96
8,138.69
8,039.22
7,919.85
16,687 32
10,444.04
6,130 20
24,854 34 17,028 81
37,871 19 25,947 23
24,607 16 16,859 46
23,476 43 16,084 74
31,141 82 21,336 64
35,207 15 24,12198
24,607 16 16,859 46
24,607 16 16,859 46
25,534 14 17,494 57
25,534 14 17,494 57
33,546 66 22,984.30
20,909 96 14,326 34
24,607,16 16,859 46
38,917 24 26,663 93
28,294 50 19,385.82
93,825 58 64,284.06
22,240 53 15,237 97
23,134.84 15,850 70
24,730 89 16,944 23
39,782 50 27,256 76
21,919 25 15,017.85
23,077.77 15,811.60
24,359 98 16,690 10
25,596 00 17,536 96
29,663.99 20,324 11
29,169.63 19,985.41
25,225 25 17,282 93
23,505 48 16,104 64
25,595.88 17,536 87
24,359.98 16,690.10
25,101 52 17,198 16
25,287 11 17,325 32
24,978 07 17,113.58
24,607 16 16,859 46
51,847 91 35,523 30
32,449 90 22,232 87
19,046 69 13,049 73
38 1837 6/1 08 163,928 25 31,772 88 98,719 12 67,636 85
39 262 6 1 08 106,708.23 12,804 75 39,782 50 27,256 76
40 2205 6 1 08 92,214,87 7,999 40 24,854 34 17,028 81
41 3543 6/1/08 104,822,86 12,179 04 37,840 57 25,926 25
42 4394 6/1/08 93,354 83 8,377 31 26,028 50 17,833,28
43 1895 6/1 08 103,586.16 11,769 06 36,566 77 25,053 52
44 3488 6 1 08 88,625 35 6,809 45 21,157 14 14,495 69
45 1457 6 1 08 89,465 41 7,087 94 22,022 40 15,088.52
46 3832 6 1 08 96,404 47 9,388.28 29, 169.63 19,985.41
47 1807 6 1 08 91,974 89 7,919,85 24,607 16 16,859 46
48 2055 6 1 08 94,085.20 8,619 43 26,780,78 18,348 70
49 3491 6/1/08 89,606 76 7,134 80 22,167 99 15,188 27
50 9234 6 1 08 146,377.68 25,954 75 80,642 04 55,251 43
51 3768 6 1 08 110,013 34 13,899 72 43,186.77 29,589 17
52 1555 6 1 08 92,214 87 7,999 40 24,854 34 17,028 81
53 46 6/1/08 96,464 41 9,408 15 29,231.37 20,027 71
54 403 6 1 08 91,974 89 7,919 85 24,607,16 16,859 46
55 2755 6 1 08 91,974 89 7,919.85 24,607 16 16,859 46
56 2505 6 1 08 92,992 56 8,257.21 25,655 36 17,577 63
57 4081 6 1 08 119,112 12 16,916 03 52,558 51 36,010 16
58 432E 6 1 08 91,974 89 7,919 85 24,607 16 16,859.46
59 439 6 08 116,622,24 16,090 61 49,993 93 34,253.06
60 734 6'1 08 105,628 19 12,446 01 38,670.06 26,494.57
61 217E 6 1 08 99,166 58 10,303 94 32,014.60 21,934.62
62 3535 6 1 06 97,124 41 9,626 95 29,911 17 20,493 47
63 1703 6 1 08 155,507.73 28,981 42 90,045.99 61,694.50
64 6160 6 1 08 102,317.95 11,348 64 35,260.52 24,158.54
65 1276 6 1 08 93,114 99 8,297.80 25,781 47 17,664.02
66 1406 6 1 08 91,974 89 7,919.85 24,607 16 16,859.46
67 9847 6 1 08 88,402,55 6,735 59 20,927 65 14,338.46
68 4049 6/1 08 109,287.21 13,659 00 42,438.85 29,076 74
69 3266 6 1 08 92,814.85 8,198.30 25,472.32 17,452.22
70 9217 6 1 08 163,969 82 31,786 66 98,761 94 67,666.18
71 3745 6 1 08 88,145.39 6,650 34 20,662.78 14,156.98
72 1448 6 1 08 119,735 90 17,122 81 53,201.00 36,450.36
73 7372 6 1 08 91,863 09 7,882.79 24,492.01 16,780 56
74 7427 6 1 08 84,844 74 5,556.15 17,263.11 11,827 72
75 854 6 1 08 88,385.37 6,729.90 20,909.96 14,326.34
76 2768 6/1/08
77 3296 6/1/08
78 25 6/1/08
79 2142 6/1/08
80
81 6/1/08
82
83
84 3145 6/1/08
85 1968 6r1/08
86 220 6/1/08
87 104 6/1/08
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95 2150 6/1/08
96 4704 6/1/08
97 376, 6/1/06
98 1060 6/1/08
99 _ 3155 6/1/08
100 5263 6/1/08
101 1768 6/1/08
102 5250 6/1/08
9220
657
637
3185
106
627
3681
1153
1320
1586
6/1/08
6/1/08
6/1/08
6/1/08
6/1/08
6/1/08
6/1/081
6/1/08
6/1/08
2288 6/1/08
161,348 37 30,917 63 96,061 85 65,816.23
105,148 23 12,286.90 38,175 70 26,155.87
160,820 91 30,742.77 95,518 56 65,444 00
91,734.91 7,840 29 24,359 98 16,690 10
140,337.87 23,952 51 74,421.03 50,989 15
86,377.00 6,064.11 18,841 34 12,909.03
89,677 19 7,158 14 22,240 53 15,237 97
112,291 33 14,654 89 45,533 10 31,196 74
88,856 31 6,886.02 21,395.03 14,658 68
116,322.20 15,991 15 49,684 89 34,041.32
105,388 21 12,366 46 38,422.88 26,325.22
96,732.96 9,497 18 29,507.98 20,217.22
90,570 77 7,454,37 23,160.92 15,868.57
91,974 89 7,919.85 24,607 16 16,859.46
91,974 89 7,919 85 24,607.16 16,859.46
96,704.39 9,487.71 29,478 55 20,197 06
96,044.37 9,268 91 28,798 73 19,731.28
91,974.89 7,919 85 24,607.16 16,859.46
100,943 25 10,892 92 33,844.57 23,188.42
94,129.62 8,634 16 26,826 54 18,380.05
91,734 91 7,840 29 24,359 98 16,690.10
112,051 35 14,575.33 45,265.92 31,027.39
88,274.56 6,693 16 20,795.82 14,248 14
90,090.81 7,295 26 22,666.56 15,529.87
92,358.27 8,046.94 25,002.04 17,130.01
130,619.71 20,730,87 64,411.33 44,131.05
96,685,46 _ 9,481.43 29 459.05 20 183.70
' 1,118,548 49 3,475,357 89
Total Cost
2,381,121. 65 6,975,028.02
Current cost includes DROP participant annual salary, longevity, anniversary, medicare, group insurance, worker's compensation, certification pay, and other
allowances
Assumes DROP partic pants have the same date of termination and will remain in DROP for the full term