2017 06 12 FAC Special MeetingGEM of the DESERT —
NOTICE OF SPECIAL MEETING
OF THE LA QUINTA FINANCIAL ADVISORY COMMISSION
TO THE MEMBERS OF THE LA QUINTA FINANCIAL ADVISORY COMMISSION:
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a special meeting of the La Quinta Financial
Advisory Commission is hereby called to be held on Monday, June 12, at 4:00 p.m. at
La Quinta City Hall located at 78495 Calle Tampico, La Quinta, CA 92253 for the
following purpose:
ANNOUNCEMENTS, PRESENTATIONS AND WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS
1. INTRODUCTION OF COMMISSIONERS AND CITY SUPPORT STAFF
STUDY SESSION
1. FISCAL YEAR 2017/18 PROPOSED OPERATING BUDGET
CONSENT CALENDAR
1. RECIEVE AND FILE THE THIRD QUARTER FISCAL YEAR 2016/17 TREASURY AND
POOLED MONEY REPORTS FOR JANUARY, FEBRUARY, AND MARCH 2017
2. RECEIVE AND FILE REVENUE AND EXPENDITURE REPORT DATED MARCH 30, 2017
BUSINESS SESSION
1. REVIEW THE APPROVED FISCAL YEAR 2017/18 FINANCIAL ADVISORY
COMMISSION WORK PLAN
2. APPOINT TWO COMMISSIONERS TO SERVE ON THE REVIEW AND SELECTION
COMMITTEE FOR THE REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL FOR OTHER POST -EMPLOYMENT
BENEFIT TRUST FUND MANAGEMENT SERVICES
Dated: June 9, 2017
Attes>,
we=
SICA DELI DO, Management Assistant
�sl
eorgeBatavick
GEORGE BATAVICK, Chairperson
DECLARATION OF POSTING
I, Jessica Delgado, Management Assistant, do hereby declare that the foregoing
notice for the Financial Advisory Commission special meeting of June 12, 2017 was
posted on the outside entry to the Council Chamber at 78-495 Calle Tampico and on
the bulletin boards at 51-321 Avenida Bermudas and 78-630 Highway 111 on
June 9, 2017.
,Jessica Delgado, anagement Assistant
FINANCIAL ADVISORY COMMISSION 1 JUNE 12, 2017
SPECIAL MEETING
4Qutda
GEM offbe DE'I:+.R.[ —
Financial Advisory Commission agendas
and staff reports are now available on the
City's web page: www.ia-quinta.org
FINANCIAL ADVISORY COMMISSION
AGENDA
CITY HALL WEST CONFERENCE ROOM
78-495 Calle Tampico, La Quinta
SPECIAL MEETING ON MONDAY, JUNE 12, 2017 AT 4:00 P.M.
ROLL CALL: Board Members: Mills, Rosen, Turbow, Twohey, Chairperson Batavick
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
PUBLIC COMMENT
At this time members of the public may address the Commission on any matter not
listed on the agenda. Please complete a "Request to Speak" form and limit your
comments to three minutes. The Financial Advisory Commission values your
comments; however in accordance with State law, no action shall be taken on any
item not appearing on the agenda unless it is an emergency item authorized by GC
54954.2(b).
ANNOUNCEMENTS, PRESENTATIONS AND WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS
1. INTRODUCTION OF COMMISSIONERS AND CITY SUPPORT STAFF
CONFIRMATION OF AGENDA
STUDY SESSION
1. FISCAL YEAR 2017/18 PROPOSED OPERATING BUDGET
CONSENT CALENDAR
1. RECEIVE AND FILE THE THIRD QUARTER FISCAL YEAR 2016/17 TREASURY
AND POOLED MONEY REPORTS FOR JANUARY, FEBRUARY, AND MARCH 2017.
2. RECEIVE AND FILE REVENUE AND EXPENDITURE REPORT DATED MARCH 30,
2017
FINANCIAL ADVISORY COMMISSION AGENDA 1 JUNE 12, 2017
SPECIAL MEETING
BUSINESS SESSION
1. REVIEW THE APPROVED FISCAL YEAR 2017/18 FINANCIAL ADVISORY
COMMISSION WORK PLAN
2. APPOINT TWO COMMISSIONERS TO SERVE ON THE REVIEW AND SELECTION
COMMITTEE FOR THE REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL FOR OTHER POST -
EMPLOYMENT BENEFIT TRUST FUND MANAGEMENT SERVICES
DEPARTMENTAL REPORTS
COMMISSIONERS' ITEMS
ADJOURNMENT
The next regular meeting of the Financial Advisory Commission will be held on August
9, 2017 commencing at 4:00 p.m. at the La Quinta Study Session Room, 78-495 Calle
Tampico, La Quinta, CA 92253.
DECLARATION OF POSTING
I, Jessica Delgado, Management Assistant, of the City of La Quinta, do hereby declare
that the foregoing Agenda for the La Quinta Financial Advisory Commission special
meeting was posted on the City's website, near the entrance to the Council Chamber
at 78-495 Calle Tampico, and the bulletin boards at 78-630 Highway 111, and the La
Quinta Cove Post Office at 51-321 Avenida Bermudas, on June 9, 2017.
DATED: June 9, 2017
Jessica Delgado, Management Assistant
City of La Quinta, California
Public Notices
The La Quinta City West Conference Room is handicapped accessible. If special equipment is needed for the hearing
impaired, please call the City Clerk's office at 777-7103, twenty-four (24) hours in advance of the meeting and
accommodations will be made.
If special electronic equipment is needed to make presentations to the FAC, arrangements should be made in advance by
contacting the City Clerk's office at 777-7103. A one (1) week notice is required.
If background material is to be presented to the Financial Advisory Commission during a special FAC meeting, please be
advised that five (5) copies of all documents, exhibits, etc., must be supplied to the Management Assistant for distribution.
It is requested that this take place prior to the beginning of the meeting.
Any Writings or documents provided to a majority of the Financial Advisory Commission regarding any item(s) on the
agenda will be made available for public inspection at the Community Development counter at City Hall located at 78-495
Calle Tampico, La Quinta, California, 92253, during normal business hours.
FINANCIAL ADVISORY COMMISSION AGENDA 2 JUNE 12, 2017
SPECIAL MEETING
STUDY SESSION ITEM NO. 1
City of La Quinta
FINANCE ADVISORY COMMISSION MEETING: JUNE 12, 2017
STAFF REPORT
AGENDA TITLE: FISCAL YEAR 2017/18 PROPOSED OPERATING BUDGET
RECOMMENDATION
Review the proposed Fiscal year 2017/18 operating budget.
EXECUTIVE SUMMAR\
• This budget study session focuses on the police services contract and Wellness
Center operations.
• City Council reviewed the 2017 Matrix police services update (Attachment 1) on
June 6th
• The Wellness Center operations are currently under review and will be studied in
an upcoming City Council meeting.
• The Wellness Center tracks number of users for services, income received through
the Center, and cost effectiveness of programs. Staff will provide the Commission
with an overview of those items.
FISCAL IMPACT - None.
BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS
On June 8th the Financial Advisory Committee (FAC) reviewed the proposed General Fund
operating budget and was an agreement with the direction of the budget and funding
allocations as presented. However, Commissioners requested a third budget study
session focused on the police contract Matrix study update and the Wellness Center
operations.
ALTERNATIVES
This is an informational item only; staff does not recommend an alternative.
Prepared by: Chris Escobedo, Community Resources Director
Karla Campos, Finance Director
Attachments: 1. 2017 Matrix Update
ATTACHMENT 1
STUDY SESSION ITEM NO. 1
City of La Quinta
JOINT CITY COUNCIL/HOUSING AUTHORITY MEETING: JUNE 6, 2017
STAFF REPORT
AGENDA TITLE: RECEIVE AND FILE 2017 ANNUAL REPORT ON POLICE SERVICES BY
MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP
RECOMMENDATION
Receive and file annual report on police services.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
• The Riverside County Sheriff's Department (RCSD) provides police services; both
RCSD and the City have made great strides to work collaboratively to refine service
levels and improve efficiencies.
• In 2015, the City retained Matrix Consulting Group ("Matrix") to review police
services and align services with crime trends.
• The City enacted 11 of the 15 recommendations to better allocate police
resources, maintain low crime rates, and to increase efficiencies (Attachment 1).
• The 2017 update focused on calls for service, workload levels, response times and
cost savings opportunities.
FISCAL IMPACT - None.
BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS
Matrix has provided valuable information to determine the appropriate level of police
services and identify opportunities to reduce costs while meeting community needs. The
City retained Matrix in 2015; their 2015 study outlined 15 recommendations and the City
has since enacted 11. Since 2015, Matrix has annually updated the data to track the
police service modifications outcomes and to provide additional recommendations to
improve efficiencies.
The 2017 report provides the following findings:
• Daily patrol hours were reduced in 2016, from 150 in 2014 to 135 hours in 2016.
• Community generated calls for service decreased by 1.7%, from 17,879 in 2015 to
17,572 in 2016.
• Emergency call response time was very good, at 5.4 minutes.
319
•In 2016, the time to handle calls for service (from the time an Officer was
dispatched until the call was cleared) was 35.6 minutes, exactly the same as in
2015.
•In 2016, proactive time (officer-initiated tasks) continues to be high at 51.7%.
Proactive time continues to be a key factor in determining Patrol Officer staffing. Matrix
believes that for La Quinta, an effective policing level can be attained at 55%
“committed” and 45% “proactive” time levels. Committed time is time spent
responding and handling calls for services. Proactive time is time available after
handling calls for service, in which officers can conduct self-initiated tasks, such as area
checks, traffic enforcement, park patrols, etc. Based on this, Matrix recommends the
following:
•Adjust patrol hours from 135 to 130 daily hours to be closer to 45% overall
proactive time.
•It is important to allow reasonable discretion when managing the daily fulfillment
of contract hours. This means if there are unexpected and last minute staffing
shortages, the daily patrol hours may fall under the contracted hours; however, if
there is an unexpected increase in emergency and other calls for service, contract
hours should be increased, if reasonable.
•Determine if Community Service Officer (CSO) workload is being properly tracked,
and evaluate ways to increase their workload.
•Work with RCSD to develop a more equitable cost sharing allocation for current
Detective staff assigned to the Thermal Station, and reduce the number of
Detectives that must be funded by the City of La Quinta to three.
In summary, the report highlights that the City receives a high level of police services
from RCSD, making La Quinta one of the safest communities in the Coachella Valley, and
it provides recommendations that would reduce police costs by adjusting service levels
and/or changing the cost allocation of services.
ALTERNATIVES
This is an informational item only; staff does not recommend an alternative.
Prepared by: Martha Mendez, Public Safety Manager
Approved by: Chris Escobedo, Community Resources Director
Attachments: 1. 2015 Matrix Recommendations
2. 2017 Matrix Study
320
Status of 2015 Matrix Recommendations
Recommendations Status
Modify the contract to allow the Chief and Assistant Chief the discretion to allow
patrol staffing levels on a particular day to fall below the contracted level up to
15% (currently 23 patrol staff hours).
This option has been fulfilled; LQPD has agreed not to backfill.
Staff should work with the Riverside County Sheriff’s Office (RCSO) and
management from gated communities to evaluate the options available to
facilitate quick entry of police officers into gated communities.
On December 1, 2015, City staff (Staff) and La Quinta Police
Department (LQPD) presented and the Council passed an ordinance
to require all gated communities to install the Knox System. Up to
date, all gated communities have installed the system.
The RCSO should quarterly or semi-annually provide the City with data showing
the number of calls for service responded to, response times, calls per beat,
officer-initiated activity and other activity of the LQPD.
LQPD provides Staff with a Daily Activity Report showing number of
calls received per day. LQPD also provides a quarterly and annual
report with more detailed information including calls per beat and
police-initiated activity.
Review the CAD workload data for a second year to determine the level of
patrol officer committed time and proactive time; continue annual reviews of
patrol workload.
The City has completed three annual studies (2015-2017) to
measure the level of proactive and committed time.
Annually review patrol staff workload for each 4-hour time block to ensure that
a reasonable number of proactive hours are available throughout the day.
The third Matrix study includes an overview of patrol staff workload
for every 4-hour time block. LQPD will adjust as needed.
Adopt a 45% average proactive time level goal for patrol operations. A
workload analysis should be conducted annually to determine the actual
level of proactive time.
The City has adjusted Police Patrol hours twice, from 150 to 140
hours in July 2015, to 135 hours in July 2016. These changes
decreased proactive time from 58% to 51.9%. It is estimated that
if Patrol hours are reduced from 135 to 130, average proactive time
will be closer to 45%.
Expand the regular duty hours of the Traffic Unit to provide coverage from 0600
– 1900 or 2000 hours on weekdays.
LQPD will review recommendation and will adjust if beneficial.
Increase the productivity of the Motor Units to average 10 warnings/citations
per shift. Motor Unit’s current average is 12 warnings/citations per shift.
321
Status of 2015 Matrix Recommendations
Recommendations Status
Modify the work schedule of Community Service Officers to only work during the
day and evening hours (0600 hours – 2200 hours) to provide additional alternative
call handling options and also address other police related community concerns.
This has been ongoing per staffing levels provided by LQPD to Staff
and Matrix.
Reduce the number of daily patrol officer hours from 150 daily to 140 hours
daily; this results in an annual savings – estimated at $581,965 in 2015/16.
Reduction to 140 daily patrol hours completed in June 2015.
Reduction to 135 daily patrol hours completed in July 2016.
Staff should work with the RCSO to establish a goal that 50% of the patrol
officers (currently 12 = 50%) and Community Service Officers (3 = 50%) will
always be assigned to the City whenever they are working a regular shift.
This has been ongoing per staffing levels provided by LQPD to Staff
and Matrix.
Staff should work with the RCSO to modify the contract to provide a field
Sergeant that is dedicated to the supervision of City field services.
This option is being requested as part of the contract negotiation.
Adopt a process to enhance delivery of patrol services during the periods
when proactive time is available. The Asst. Chief, Patrol Lieutenant and
Sergeants should coordinate the development of plans that identify
specific tasks/projects that can be worked on or accomplished when
proactive time is available during a shift. Supervisors should actively
manage patrol officers’ proactive time.
This has been an ongoing practice by LQPD since 2013/14.
Staff should work with the RCSO to reduce the number of Detectives funded by
the City to three Detectives which will result in a cost savings of approximately
$586,040 annually; this staffing level will provide sufficient staff to conduct
follow-up investigations for the City while providing a moderate caseload level for
Detectives that provides capacity to absorb future increases in workload.
This option will be requested at the next contract negotiation.
Additionally, Staff should work with the RCSO to revise the methodology of
allocating the cost of Investigation Units (the Lieutenant, Sergeants and
Detectives) to an appropriate cost sharing percentage for each of the three
entities.
This option will be requested at the next contract negotiation.
322
Patrol Staffing and Workload Update
CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA
FINAL REPORT
May 30, 2017
323
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1
2 EVALUATION OF PATROL SERVICES
8
3 EVALUATION OF CONTRACT COST ALLOCATIONS / CHANGES 48
APPENDIX A – PATROL STAFFING FACTORS AND GUIDELINES FOR
COMMUNITIES
55
APPENDIX B – RESPONSE TIME DETAILS TO 2014 – 2016 CALLS FOR
SERVICE
63
324
CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA
Final Report of the Patrol Staffing and Workload Update
Matrix Consulting Group Page 1
1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
In January 2015 the Matrix Consulting Group began working with the City of La
Quinta to conduct a review of police services and crime trends in the City. The goals of
the original study were to determine if the level of police services in La Quinta was
appropriate and if there were steps that could be taken to reduce the cost of services
while still providing a level of policing services that meets La Quinta’s needs. Police
services for La Quinta are provided through a contract with the Riverside County Sheriff’s
Department (RCSD) and the cost of the services had been steadily increasing over the
years, primarily due to staffing costs. The initial project was completed in May 2015 and
presented to the City Council at a public meeting on May 18, 2015.
In that report, the project team evaluated the patrol workload level based on one
year of call for service data obtained from the RCSD. Analysis showed that La Quinta
had a very high level of police services – during calendar year 2014 just 42% of Patrol
Officers time was committed to handling community generated calls for service and
related tasks such as writing reports and handling arrestees. The remaining 58% of time
is referred to as “proactive time” and is used to complete administrative tasks (e.g. shift
briefings, vehicle maintenance, meetings) and conduct proactive tasks such as area
checks, frequent patrol and addressing specific beat problems/issues. The 58% proactive
time level is a high level and higher than is needed to provide effective policing services
to a community.
One of the main recommendations in the report was for the City to determine the
level of policing services desired in La Quinta by selecting a “proactive time” level to
325
CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA
Final Report of the Patrol Staffing and Workload Update
Matrix Consulting Group Page 2
target. High levels of proactive time should result in a higher level of police services such
as faster response times to calls for service and more Officer initiated activity such as
neighborhood patrols, traffic enforcement, park patrols, etc. A high service level also
results in higher costs for the City.
The project team recommended that the City target an overall service level of 45%
“proactive time” for regular patrol officers – this provides a good level of police services
that the project team believes is appropriate for the La Quinta community. To achieve
this targeted level of service the project team provided two recommendations – reducing
the number of daily patrol hours from 150 hours per day to 140 hours or to 130 hours per
day. Council elected to reduce the daily patrol hours to 140 hours which was implemented
on July 1, 2015. Another recommendation was to complete annual calculations of patrol
workload to develop a multi-year trend to be used to ensure an appropriate level of
policing services is provided to the community.
The second year analysis of calendar year 2015 was completed in May 2016 – this
showed that the overall proactive time level had been reduced to 54.8% for 2015 (the
reduction to 140 hours was only for six months of 2015). Based on these results and the
targeted 45% proactive time level, the number of daily patrol hours was reduced to 135
beginning July 1, 2016.
This report provides the calendar year 2016 Patrol staffing and workload analysis
using the Patrol deployment of 140 daily patrol hours (January – June) and 135 daily
hours (July – December). The workload level in 2016 was slightly less than the prior year
so the reduction in daily patrol hours is the primary reason for a reduction of the overall
proactive time level to 51.9%, still almost 7 percentage points above the targeted 45%
326
CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA
Final Report of the Patrol Staffing and Workload Update
Matrix Consulting Group Page 3
level. In this report the project team will also review the changes that have occurred in
the contract between La Quinta and the Riverside County Sheriff’s Department for various
Department and Division overhead charges.
The following summarizes the project team’s 2016 Patrol Officer workload analysis
and compares the results with the prior two years:
(1) The number of community generated calls for service (CFS) again decreased
slightly to 17,572 (from 17,945 calls in 2014 and 17,879 in 2015). This call for
service volume is at the lower end of the range of the 0.4 to 0.6 CFS per capita
typically seen by the project team in other law enforcement studies – meaning that
the La Quinta community request police services less frequently when compared
with other communities throughout the United States.
(2) The amount of time to handle a community generated call for service in 2016
remained almost exactly the same as last year – at 35.6 minutes handling time
per call (from time the Officer went enroute to the call until clearing the call). It was
slightly lower in 2014 at 34.6 minutes.
(3) The response time to emergency calls for service1 in 2016 was again a very
good average at 5.4 minutes (call processing time and travel time); a small
increase from the 5.2 minute average in 2015.
(4) Although the number of daily patrol hours has decreased from 150 hours in
2014 to 135 hours beginning in July 2016 the Patrol Officers continue to have
a high overall average level of “proactive” time of 51.9%. This is a decrease
from a 54.8% proactive time level in 2015. Officers continued to have good levels
of proactive time all hours of the day except for the peak workload hours between
4:00 PM and 8:00 PM.
The “proactive time” level continues to be the key factor in the determination of the
Patrol Officer staffing level that is needed in a community.
The Department also has other staff that provide field services in La Quinta and
they are available to assist in responding to calls for service when needed. This staff is
the Traffic Unit Sergeant and four Traffic Officers, a Special Enforcement Team Sergeant
1 For the 187 Priority 1A calls in 2016.
327
CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA
Final Report of the Patrol Staffing and Workload Update
Matrix Consulting Group Page 4
and seven SET Officers (which includes two Business District Officers) and four civilian
Community Service Officers. None of the work hours for this staff or for the Patrol
Sergeants are included in the proactive time calculations discussed above.
Analysis of 2017 Proactive Time and the Number of Contracted Daily Patrol Hours
The project team believes that La Quinta should continue to target a 45% overall
proactive time level for Patrol Officer field services. This level of service provides a patrol
workforce that is able to quickly respond to emergency and urgent community generated
calls for service in a reasonable amount of time and also have the opportunity during most
shifts to engage in “community policing” tasks and activities. Over the last several years
the City has taken steps to move to the 45% level by reducing the number of “daily patrol
hours” contracted for with the RCSO.
As mentioned above, in 2014 La Quinta’s overall proactive time level was 58%,
54.8% for calendar year 2015 and 51.9% for calendar year 2016. If the 135 daily patrol
officer hours had been in effect for all of 2016 it would have resulted in an overall proactive
time level of 50.9% and if it had been at 130 hours per day the overall proactive time level
would have been 48.7%.
The project team believes that the current workload and proactive time level
reasonably allows a further reduction from the current 135 daily patrol hours to 130 daily
hours and still be over the overall proactive time target of 45%.
Analysis of 2017 Contract Administration and Daily Operations
The project team believes it is important to provide reasonable discretion in the
daily circumstances that arise in fulfilling the terms of the contract between the RCSD and
La Quinta. The project team supports the current Patrol staffing plan that has been
328
CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA
Final Report of the Patrol Staffing and Workload Update
Matrix Consulting Group Page 5
agreed to by the City and the Police Chief to not unreasonably require them to order
Officers to work mandatory overtime to meet the contracted number of daily patrol hours.
On a day when there is an unexpected Patrol Officer position vacant and the RCSD
cannot fill it with voluntary overtime the only option is to order an Officer to work the shift.
The agreement is that if the RCSD cannot fill the shift with a volunteer and if they believe
it is reasonable to operate one Officer short for the shift they will do so rather than try to
contact an Officer and order them in to work. La Quinta will be credited the hours that
were not staffed rather than making up the hours on a subsequent day (e.g. if one day
only 125 hours was able to be provided La Quinta would receive a 10 hour credit rather
than staff 145 hours on another day to make up the 10 hours). This is a reasonable way
to deal with unexpected and last minute staffing shortages that may occur and is a
common practice in other law enforcement agencies.
Community Service Officers
The last three years evaluation of workload data for the four Patrol based
Community Service Officers (CSOs) clearly show that their field workload (community
generated and self-initiated activity) is low and only requires 9% of their work shift. It is
possible that the CSOs do not get credit in the CAD system for all of the time spent
handling calls for service (the CAD system cannot track multiple units on an incident) and
the CSOs may not document all of their self-initiated field activities in the CAD system.
However, the known work does not support the staffing of four positions without options
to increase their workload. The project team recommends that La Quinta determine if
CSO workload is being properly tracked and also evaluate options available to increase
their workload. Field based civilian personnel are almost always an efficient and effective
329
CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA
Final Report of the Patrol Staffing and Workload Update
Matrix Consulting Group Page 6
method to provide needed alternative call handling in a community but it is important to
ensure that they are utilized.
Contract Cost Allocations and Savings
The project team reviewed two cost related issues for La Quinta. The first is the
change to the billing credit La Quinta receives when La Quinta Officers respond into
Coachella or the unincorporated area to assist Officers with handling calls for service.
The past practices has been for Officers to track the amount of time they spend out of La
Quinta and when it exceeded 30 minutes per shift it was credited to La Quinta and
charged to the other agency. The new guideline is that La Quinta Officers will only
respond outside of the City to Priority 1 incidents, when requested, and for Officer safety
needs. This may result in a small reduction in the credit La Quinta receives but it is a
reasonable change and reduces the amount of administrative paperwork required by PD
staff.
The second item is the number of Detectives La Quinta is required to fund to
provide follow-up investigative services for the community. La Quinta is currently required
to fund 4.6 Detectives (27.7 Patrol Officers / 6.06) but only needs three Detectives for its
follow-up investigations. There are two issues related to Detective staffing that La Quinta
should resolve – developing an equitable cost sharing allocation for the current Detective
staff that is assigned to the Thermal Substation, and reducing the number of Detectives
that must be funded by La Quinta to three Detectives.
A detailed analysis was conducted in 2015 to evaluate if the workload and funding
of the Detectives Unit was equitable between the three entities served by the Thermal
Station Detectives (La Quinta, Coachella and the unincorporated areas). The review
330
CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA
Final Report of the Patrol Staffing and Workload Update
Matrix Consulting Group Page 7
showed that only 20% of the total number of cases assigned to a Detective were La
Quinta cases but that La Quinta was paying for 54% of the Detective Unit funding. The
overall cost for La Quinta is less than in 2015 as the Detective Unit staffing level was 12
Detectives and La Quinta was paying for 6.5 Detectives. While the number of positions
paid for by La Quinta is lower it is highly likely that the same inequities exist regarding the
number of cases assigned and funding paid by the three entities.
It is important to note that La Quinta benefits by being part of a larger agency as
all 10 Detectives assigned to the Thermal Substation could be assigned to work a major
La Quinta case (the same is true for a major case in Coachella or the unincorporated
area). It is also acknowledged that resolving these cost sharing and staffing issues can
only be made at the executive level in the Sheriff’s Department but the discussion to
achieve an equitable cost sharing arrangement and an appropriate Detective staffing level
should be pursued.
331
CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA
Final Report of the Patrol Staffing and Workload Update
Matrix Consulting Group Page 8
2. EVALUATION OF PATROL SERVICES
The City of La Quinta, through a contract with the Riverside County Sheriff’s
Department (RCSD), provides a wide range of law enforcement services for its residents
that is managed by a Captain who is appointed as the Police Chief and a Lieutenant who
is the Assistant Police Chief. The Police Chief is responsible for management and
oversight of all police services provided to residents. The Assistant Chief provides the
day to day direction to dedicated staff.
La Quinta contracts with the RCSD for a total of other police services positions that
provide management, supervision and additional police related services to the
community. These other positions provide administration of patrol and also may assist
patrol at calls for service and also conduct their own proactive activities. These positions
are:
• The Chief (a Captain who is not paid by the City) and a Lieutenant, the Assistant
Chief, who is paid through the City’s contract.
• Two Sergeants – for the Special Enforcement Team (SET) and for the
Administrative & Traffic Unit
• Seven Officers for the Special Enforcement Team – this includes the two Business
District Officers
• Four Officers for the Traffic Unit – Motor Officers
• Two Officers for regional Task Forces – the Violent Crime Gang Task Force and
the Coachella Valley Narcotics Task Force
• Six civilian Community Service Officers (four in Patrol, two in Admin & Traffic Unit)
The following sections provide the analysis and evaluation of the 2016 patrol
workload levels.
332
CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA
Final Report of the Patrol Staffing and Workload Update
Matrix Consulting Group Page 9
1. FIELD OPERATIONS STAFFING AND WORKLOAD.
The data used for this update was obtained from RCSD personnel and the
Computer Aided Dispatch system (CAD). Our analysis provides a detailed look at the
field staffing levels, Officer availability, calls for service and other workload as well as
calculating “committed” time, “proactive” time and the overall staffing needs in La Quinta.
The CAD data obtained included:
• Call or Event Number
• Date and Time of Initial Incident (Creation of the CAD Case)
• Location of Call (Reporting District), Type of Call, Priority of Call
• Time of Unit Dispatch, First Unit ‘Enroute’, First Unit Arrival
• Time the Unit Cleared the Call
• Beat Unit Identifiers / Radio Call Sign for the Responding Unit
• Incident Disposition (e.g., report taken, arrest, citation, etc.)
This information serves as the context for analyzing patrol’s staffing needs and
estimating workload activity, including the identification of community-generated calls for
service, as well as Officer initiated activity. This summary description of patrol services
in La Quinta is organized as follows:
• Patrol Unit Scheduled Deployment
• Patrol Officer Availability
• Total Calls for Service
• Calls for Service by Priority
• Calls for Service Handled by Staff
• Officer Initiated Activity
333
CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA
Final Report of the Patrol Staffing and Workload Update
Matrix Consulting Group Page 10
The first section provides the current patrol unit deployment, showing by time of
day the number of patrol units scheduled.
(1) La Quinta’s Patrol Schedule and Officer Availability in 2016.
Patrol Sergeants and Officers were assigned to work a 10 hour shift for all of the
calendar year. Staff are assigned to work four days a week, either Sunday – Wednesday
or Wednesday – Saturday. To provide the current 135 patrol officer hours each day (as
of July 1, 2016) the RCSD has assigned a total of 27 Officers to the three shifts:
• Graveyard (Watch 1) 2200-0800 hours; 4 Officers each side of the week
• Day (Watch 2) 0600-1600 hours; 5 Officers each side of the week
• Swing (Watch 3) 1400-2400 hours; 4 Officers Sun.-Wed.; 5 Officers Wed.-Sat.
All staff are scheduled to work on Wednesdays but it does not increase the number
of Officers assigned to work in La Quinta or cost to the City – some Officers are assigned
to training, others take it off on comp. time, others are assigned special projects.
The following table depicts the average Patrol Officer staffing over a 24 hour day
using the 135 hour daily staffing level. There are three Patrol Sergeants that are the field
supervisors – two are paid for by La Quinta as part of the ‘supported rate’ included in the
Officers’ hourly rate. The Sergeants also respond to calls for service but they are not
included in this table as their primary role is supervision and they also divide their time
between La Quinta, Coachella and the unincorporated areas.
334
CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA
Final Report of the Patrol Staffing and Workload Update
Matrix Consulting Group Page 11
Scheduled Patrol Officer Staffing - 135 Hours Daily
Hour Graveyard
2200-0800
Day
0600-1600
Swing
1400-2400
Hourly
Average
0000 3.9 3.9
0100 3.9 3.9
0200 3.9 3.9
0300 3.9 3.9
0400 3.9 3.9
0500 3.9 3.9
0600 3.9 4.8 8.7
0700 3.9 4.8 8.7
0800 4.8 4.8
0900 4.8 4.8
1000 4.8 4.8
1100 4.8 4.8
1200 4.8 4.8
1300 4.8 4.8
1400 4.8 4.8 9.6
1500 4.8 4.8 9.6
1600 4.8 4.8
1700 4.8 4.8
1800 4.8 4.8
1900 4.8 4.8
2000 4.8 4.8
2100 4.8 4.8
2200 3.9 4.8 8.7
2300 3.9 4.8 8.7
Average 3.9 4.8 4.8 5.6
The above table shows an average hourly deployment of Patrol Officers that
ranges from a low of 4.8 Officers to a high of 9.6 Officers during the two hour shift overlap.
Approximately one hour of the shift overlaps provides time for the oncoming shift to dress
in their uniform (20 minutes), attend briefing (20-30 minutes) and load their patrol car (5
minutes).
The daily hourly average is 5.6 Officers on duty based on the current shift
deployment of 27 Officers.
335
CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA
Final Report of the Patrol Staffing and Workload Update
Matrix Consulting Group Page 12
The following table shows the level of Patrol Officer staffing at 130 hours daily.
Patrol Officer Staffing – 130 Hours Daily
Hour Graveyard
2200-0800
Day
0600-1600
Swing
1400-2400
Hourly
Average
0000 3.7 3.7
0100 3.7 3.7
0200 3.7 3.7
0300 3.7 3.7
0400 3.7 3.7
0500 3.7 3.7
0600 3.7 4.6 8.4
0700 3.7 4.6 8.4
0800 4.6 4.6
0900 4.6 4.6
1000 4.6 4.6
1100 4.6 4.6
1200 4.6 4.6
1300 4.6 4.6
1400 4.6 4.6 9.3
1500 4.6 4.6 9.3
1600 4.6 4.6
1700 4.6 4.6
1800 4.6 4.6
1900 4.6 4.6
2000 4.6 4.6
2100 4.6 4.6
2200 3.7 4.6 8.4
2300 3.7 4.6 8.4
Average 3.7 4.6 4.6 5.4
This table depicts the number of Patrol Officers on duty using the current
deployment of Patrol Officers – it results in an hourly average of 5.4 Patrol Officers on
duty.
In La Quinta, there are other uniformed field staff that can assist Patrol Officers
during busy times of the day. Two Community Service Officers are assigned to Watch 2
(days) and Watch 3 (afternoons) and handle specified calls for service and also assist
Patrol Officers as necessary. They also work 10 hour shifts.
336
CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA
Final Report of the Patrol Staffing and Workload Update
Matrix Consulting Group Page 13
Motor Officers and SET Officers are can assist on any type of call when they are
on duty but these units do not have a minimum staffing level so there is not a guarantee
how many of these Officers will be working on a particular day and no guarantee that
these units will always be available. The work hours for these units are:
• Traffic Unit: the 4 Officers work Monday –Thursday 0600-1600 or Tuesday-Friday
0700-1700 (they commonly flex their shift to work 1000-2000 hours)
• Special Enforcement Team (SET): 5 Officers typically work 1400-2400 hours
Tuesday-Friday; the 2 Business District Officers work 0800-1800 Tuesday-Friday.
The table on the next page shows the average staffing level for La Quinta PD since
changing to 135 daily Patrol Officer hours on July 1, 2016. The table includes the three
sworn units who are assigned to work the streets – Patrol Officers, Motor Officers and
SET Officers.
As shown earlier in this section Officers either work Sunday-Wednesday (front side
of the week) or Wednesday-Saturday (back side of the week). Officer deployment is the
same for both sides of the week except on swing shift there are 4 Officers assigned to the
front side of the week and 5 Officers assigned to the back side of the week. Deploying a
higher percentage of Patrol personnel on Friday and Saturday nights is prudent “risk
management” to provide a slightly higher staffing level during busier days of the week.
337
CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA
Final Report of the Patrol Staffing and Workload Update
Matrix Consulting Group Page 14
Sworn Staffing Level by Day of Week @ 135 Daily Patrol Hours
(P = Patrol; T = Traffic; S = SET; Dy = Total for the Day)
Hour Sunday Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday
P T S Dy P T S Dy P T S Dy P T S Dy P T S Dy P T S Dy P T S Dy
0000 3.9 3.9 3.9 3.9 3.9 3.9 3.9 3.9 3.9 3.9 3.9 3.9 3.9 3.9
0100 3.9 3.9 3.9 3.9 3.9 3.9 3.9 3.9 3.9 3.9 3.9 3.9 3.9 3.9
0200 3.9 3.9 3.9 3.9 3.9 3.9 3.9 3.9 3.9 3.9 3.9 3.9 3.9 3.9
0300 3.9 3.9 3.9 3.9 3.9 3.9 3.9 3.9 3.9 3.9 3.9 3.9 3.9 3.9
0400 3.9 3.9 3.9 3.9 3.9 3.9 3.9 3.9 3.9 3.9 3.9 3.9 3.9 3.9
0500 3.9 3.9 3.9 3.9 3.9 3.9 3.9 3.9 3.9 3.9 3.9 3.9 3.9 3.9
0600 8.7 8.7 8.7 1.7 10.4 8.7 1.7 10.4 8.7 1.7 10.4 8.7 1.7 10.4 8.7 8.7 8.7 8.7
0700 8.7 8.7 8.7 1.7 10.4 8.7 3.4 12.1 8.7 3.4 12.1 8.7 3.4 12.1 8.7 1.7 10.4 8.7 8.7
0800 4.8 4.8 4.8 1.7 6.5 4.8 3.4 1.7 10.0 4.8 3.4 1.7 10.0 4.8 3.4 1.7 10.0 4.8 1.7 1.7 8.3 4.8 4.8
0900 4.8 4.8 4.8 1.7 6.5 4.8 3.4 1.7 10.0 4.8 3.4 1.7 10.0 4.8 3.4 1.7 10.0 4.8 1.7 1.7 8.3 4.8 4.8
1000 4.8 4.8 4.8 1.7 6.5 4.8 3.4 1.7 10.0 4.8 3.4 1.7 10.0 4.8 3.4 1.7 10.0 4.8 1.7 1.7 8.3 4.8 4.8
1100 4.8 4.8 4.8 1.7 6.5 4.8 3.4 1.7 10.0 4.8 3.4 1.7 10.0 4.8 3.4 1.7 10.0 4.8 1.7 1.7 8.3 4.8 4.8
1200 4.8 4.8 4.8 1.7 6.5 4.8 3.4 1.7 10.0 4.8 3.4 1.7 10.0 4.8 3.4 1.7 10.0 4.8 1.7 1.7 8.3 4.8 4.8
1300 4.8 4.8 4.8 1.7 6.5 4.8 3.4 1.7 10.0 4.8 3.4 1.7 10.0 4.8 3.4 1.7 10.0 4.8 1.7 1.7 8.3 4.8 4.8
1400 9.6 9.6 9.6 1.7 11.4 9.6 3.4 6.0 19.1 9.6 3.4 6.0 19.1 9.6 3.4 6.0 19.1 9.6 1.7 6.0 17.4 9.6 9.6
1500 9.6 9.6 9.6 1.7 11.4 9.6 3.4 6.0 19.1 9.6 3.4 6.0 19.1 9.6 3.4 6.0 19.1 9.6 1.7 6.0 17.4 9.6 9.6
1600 4.8 4.8 4.8 4.8 4.8 1.7 6.0 12.6 4.8 1.7 6.0 12.6 4.8 1.7 6.0 12.6 4.8 1.7 6.0 12.6 4.8 4.8
1700 4.8 4.8 4.8 4.8 4.8 6.0 10.8 4.8 6.0 10.8 4.8 6.0 10.8 4.8 6.0 10.8 4.8 4.8
1800 4.8 4.8 4.8 4.8 4.8 4.3 9.1 4.8 4.3 9.1 4.8 4.3 9.1 4.8 4.3 9.1 4.8 4.8
1900 4.8 4.8 4.8 4.8 4.8 4.3 9.1 4.8 4.3 9.1 4.8 4.3 9.1 4.8 4.3 9.1 4.8 4.8
2000 4.8 4.8 4.8 4.8 4.8 4.3 9.1 4.8 4.3 9.1 4.8 4.3 9.1 4.8 4.3 9.1 4.8 4.8
2100 4.8 4.8 4.8 4.8 4.8 4.3 9.1 4.8 4.3 9.1 4.8 4.3 9.1 4.8 4.3 9.1 4.8 4.8
2200 8.7 8.7 8.7 8.7 8.7 4.3 13.0 8.7 4.3 13.0 8.7 4.3 13.0 8.7 4.3 13.0 8.7 8.7
2300 8.7 8.7 8.7 8.7 8.7 4.3 13.0 8.7 4.3 13.0 8.7 4.3 13.0 8.7 4.3 13.0 8.7 8.7
Avg. 5.6 5.6 5.6 1.7 6.3 5.6 3.1 3.8 9.6 5.6 3.1 3.8 9.6 5.6 3.1 3.8 9.6 5.6 1.7 3.8 8.8 5.6 5.6
Hours 135 135 135 17 152 135 34 60 229 135 34 60 229 135 34 60 229 135 17 60 212 135 135
The weekly sworn staff hours total 1,323 hours (189 daily), Patrol provides 945 hours (135 daily).
338
CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA
Final Report of the Patrol Staffing and Workload Update
Matrix Consulting Group Page 15
As of April 2017 the total average hourly sworn field staff varies from 5.6 Officers
on the weekends to over 9 Officers Tuesday-Friday when all of the Motor Officers and
SET Officers are working.
(2) Administration of Police Contract – Meeting the Patrol Daily Hours
The project team believes it is important to provide reasonable discretion in the
daily circumstances that arise in fulfilling the terms of the contract between the RCSD and
La Quinta. The project team supports the current Patrol staffing plan that has been
agreed to by the City and the Police Chief to not unreasonably require them to order
Officers to work mandatory overtime to meet the 135 hours of daily patrol staffing.
The situation occurs when a Patrol Officer calls in sick just prior to the start of a
shift or is injured during the shift. Managers will try to contact another Officer to work
voluntary overtime but sometimes no one can be contacted or no one is willing to work
and the only option would be to order an Officer to work the shift (if one can be contacted).
The recent agreement is that if they cannot fill the shift with a volunteer, and if they believe
it is reasonable to operate one Officer short, an Officer will not be ordered back to work
and La Quinta will be credited the hours that were not staffed. This is a reasonable way
to deal with unexpected and last minute staffing shortages that may occur and is a
common practice in other law enforcement agencies.
Recommendation:
La Quinta should modify the contract with the RCSD to provide a written statement
that gives the LQPD Chief and Assistant Chief the discretion to operate short
staffed when no one is willing to voluntarily work the OT and it is reasonable to
operate short staffed.
339
CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA
Final Report of the Patrol Staffing and Workload Update
Matrix Consulting Group Page 16
(3) Officer Leave Hours, Training and Administrative Tasks.
An employee is scheduled to work 2,080 paid hours in a year. The total number
of hours actually worked on their patrol shift is reduced by leave hours used, in-service
training and other assigned tasks. The RCSD currently factors 293 leave hours annually
per Officer, equaling 1,787 net work hours of an employee (up from 1,780 hours in 2016).
This figure is used to calculate the number of Officers needed to provide the hours of daily
patrol staffing. Officers also attend some training as part of their normal duty hours which
reduces their availability in the field – RCSD staff estimate an Officer attends 25-45 hours
of training annually, depending on the number of hours of specialized training he/she may
receive in a particular year.
Although the leave and training hours do not directly impact LQPD staffing the
calculations are shown in the table below which summarizes Officer availability.
Leave, Training and OT Hours 2016 Work Hours Percentage
Total Annual Scheduled Work Hours 2,080
RCSD Calculated Average Leave Usage (253)
Average Training Hours (on duty) (40)
Work Hours / % Annual Availability 1,787 85.9%
Administrative Time (90 Min. per shift) 312 312
Net Available Work Hours 1,475 70.9%
Officer costs charged to La Quinta are based on the estimated net work hours of
employees. Additionally, the estimated time required for administrative tasks is also
shown – this is the time for Officers to attend briefing, personal breaks, attend court,
vehicle maintenance, etc. These tasks reduce an Officer’s net work hours to handle
community generated workload and self-initiated activity but an Officer is almost always
available to respond to calls for service while performing administrative tasks.
340
CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA
Final Report of the Patrol Staffing and Workload Update
Matrix Consulting Group Page 17
(4) Community Generated Workloads.
A critical data for the project team’s analysis relates to the number of community
generated events within the City. As a result, this excludes unit-initiated activity, such as
traffic stops, as well as 911 calls that are not responded to because they were cancelled
before the dispatch of a unit. Data contained in this section reflects the calls for service
received in calendar year 2016. Unless indicated otherwise, the data includes calls that
are responded to by any type of unit, including Traffic Officers, SET Officers, Sergeants,
and Detectives.
(4.1) Community Generated Calls for Service by Hour and Weekday.
The first table in the series organizes the number of community generated calls for
service by hour and day of the week – the volume of calls and the time/day call patterns
for all three years vary little from 2014 to 2016. The following shows the number of
community generated calls for service responded to by any La Quinta PD unit for the last
three years:
• 2014 – 17,423 calls for service (16,641 handled by Officers, 782 by CSOs)
• 2015 – 17,879 calls for service (16,986 handled by Officers, 893 by CSOs)
• 2016 – 17,572 calls for service (16,915 handled by Officers, 657 by CSOs)
341
CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA
Final Report of the Patrol Staffing and Workload Update
Matrix Consulting Group Page 18
2016 Community Generated Calls for Service by Day & Hour – Sworn & Civilian Staff
Hour
Sun
Mon
Tue
Wed
Thu
Fri
Sat
Total
CFS /
Hour
0000 91 51 48 57 49 61 95 452 1.2
0100 87 47 48 50 36 72 75 415 1.1
0200 53 71 30 42 42 55 65 358 1.0
0300 62 46 25 28 20 38 48 267 0.7
0400 28 32 29 23 31 37 39 219 0.6
0500 37 39 33 39 33 25 31 237 0.6
0600 43 58 47 44 60 55 41 348 1.0
0700 64 87 87 85 95 96 87 601 1.6
0800 78 144 142 126 126 122 105 843 2.3
0900 89 150 142 130 113 139 112 875 2.4
1000 111 147 132 129 117 142 119 897 2.5
1100 107 160 162 133 125 157 123 967 2.6
1200 113 162 139 120 143 156 112 945 2.6
1300 118 165 139 139 143 160 149 1,013 2.8
1400 110 184 150 165 152 170 147 1,078 3.0
1500 117 165 146 167 160 195 137 1,087 3.0
1600 155 145 167 141 157 175 136 1,076 2.9
1700 120 131 155 146 131 187 136 1,006 2.8
1800 128 131 136 176 155 189 140 1,055 2.9
1900 155 131 140 138 112 154 132 962 2.6
2000 118 98 103 112 95 131 119 776 2.1
2100 104 101 106 88 97 155 134 785 2.2
2200 63 89 79 90 107 127 149 704 1.9
2300 61 75 69 78 80 114 129 606 1.7
Total 2,212 2,609 2,454 2,446 2,379 2,912 2,560 17,572
Ave/day 43 50 47 47 46 56 49 48
LQPD responded to 17,572 unique community generated calls for service,
approximately 48 calls per day. The busiest day of the week was Friday with an average
of 56 calls. The distribution of calls throughout the day was as follows:
• 16.5% occurred during the nighttime hours (midnight – 0800)
• 43.8% occurred during the daytime hours (0800-1600 hours)
• 39.7% occurred during the afternoon/evening hours (1600-midnight)
The 2016 CFS distribution is almost the same as 2014 and 2015. The graph on
the following page shows a depiction of the hourly call volume.
342
CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA
Final Report of the Patrol Staffing and Workload Update
Matrix Consulting Group Page 19
(4.2) Sworn Officer Call for Service Workload.
Sworn officers are the primary responding units to the vast majority of calls for
service, in 2016 this was 16,915 calls and the remaining 657 calls a Community Service
Officer was the primary unit. This call volume is about the same as in the previous two
years – 16,641 calls in 2014 and 16,986 calls in 2015.
The following table shows the distribution of the calls in 2016.
0
200
400
600
800
1,000
1,200
1,400
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24Number of CallsHour of the Day (1 = Midnight -0100)
Calls for Service by Hour
343
CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA
Final Report of the Patrol Staffing and Workload Update
Matrix Consulting Group Page 20
CFS Handled by Sworn Staff - 2016
Hour
Sun
Mon
Tue
Wed
Thu
Fri
Sat
Total
Calls /
Hour
0000 91 50 46 57 49 61 95 449 1.2
0100 85 45 48 48 36 71 75 408 1.1
0200 53 68 30 42 41 53 63 350 1.0
0300 60 46 25 28 20 38 47 264 0.7
0400 27 31 28 22 30 37 39 214 0.6
0500 37 35 31 37 32 25 30 227 0.6
0600 41 55 42 39 55 54 40 326 0.9
0700 64 87 85 80 88 85 79 568 1.6
0800 76 144 142 111 115 114 92 794 2.2
0900 89 149 138 118 108 127 98 827 2.3
1000 111 145 131 119 112 129 106 853 2.3
1100 106 158 162 128 116 148 118 936 2.6
1200 112 161 139 107 132 146 104 901 2.5
1300 117 164 138 130 134 146 132 961 2.6
1400 109 182 149 157 141 162 140 1,040 2.8
1500 113 154 131 152 158 193 137 1,038 2.8
1600 149 136 153 131 155 172 136 1,032 2.8
1700 117 123 142 137 130 184 135 968 2.7
1800 121 124 129 161 155 187 140 1,017 2.8
1900 147 126 133 131 111 152 132 932 2.6
2000 118 95 96 110 95 128 117 759 2.1
2100 98 94 106 84 96 154 132 764 2.1
2200 62 83 78 90 106 127 147 693 1.9
2300 60 74 68 76 78 110 128 594 1.6
Total 2,163 2,529 2,370 2,295 2,293 2,803 2,462 16,915
Ave/day 42 49 46 44 44 54 47 46
LQPD sworn staff responded to 16,915 unique community generated calls for
service in 2016 or approximately 46 per day, representing 96.1% of the total community
generated call activity in La Quinta.
The following table shows the daily call distribution for the last three years.
2014 thru 2016 Calls by Day of Week
Calls Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Total
2016 2,163 2,529 2,370 2,295 2,293 2,803 2,462 16,915
Average / day 42 49 46 44 44 54 47 46
2015 2,252 2,498 2,423 2,311 2,472 2,577 2,453 16,986
Average / day 43 48 47 44 48 50 47 47
2014 2,086 2,374 2,343 2,325 2,447 2,617 2,449 16,641
Average / day 40 46 45 45 47 50 47 46
344
CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA
Final Report of the Patrol Staffing and Workload Update
Matrix Consulting Group Page 21
The following table shows the most common call types for sworn staff for the last
three calendar years. The list of call types is arranged in order of the 12 most frequent
calls in 2016. The frequency of calls handled in 2014 and 2015 may be higher or lower
(e.g. “911 Call from a Business”, “Suspicious Circumstance”) but are listed in order of the
2016 call frequency.
Most Common Call Types – Sworn Staff
Type of Call 2016 2015 2014
# Calls % of Total # Calls % of Total # Calls % of Total
Audible Burglary Alarm 3,497 20.7% 3,588 21.1% 3,609 21.7%
911 Call From Cell Phone 1,741 10.3% 1,843 10.9% 1,531 9.2%
Disturbance 577 3.4% 526 3.1% 480 2.9%
Disturbance (Noise) 538 3.2% 469 2.8% 480 2.9%
911 Call From a Business 523 3.1% 607 3.6% 758 4.6%
Assist Other Department 509 3.0% 494 2.9% 437 2.6%
Suspicious Circumstance 509 3.0% 490 2.9% 358 2.2%
Follow Up 508 3.0% 460 2.7% 432 2.6%
Suspicious Person 438 2.6% 432 2.5% 425 2.6%
Drunk Driving 336 2.0% 305 1.8% 342 2.1%
Reckless Driving 315 1.9% 283 1.7% 293 1.8%
Domestic Violence 287 1.7% 336 2.0% 277 1.7%
All Other Calls 7,137 42.2% 7,153 42.1% 7,219 43.4%
Total 16,915 100.0% 16,986 100.0% 16,641 100.0%
The types and frequency of calls handled by sworn staff has not varied significantly
during these years. However, when the false alarm ordinance is fully implemented it will
reduce the number of burglary alarm calls – the exact reduction is unknown but it is likely
to be a significant percentage of the approximate 3,500 annual calls.
(5) Patrol Beats 41 and 43 Remain the Busiest Beats in La Quinta.
The beats are numbered beginning in the northern portion of the City with Beat 40,
41 and 42; Beat 43 is primarily in the “Cove” residential area with Beat 44 east of Beat 43
and Beat 45 in the south portion of La Quinta – refer to the map on the next page.
345
CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA
Final Report of the Patrol Staffing and Workload Update
Matrix Consulting Group Page 22
346
CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA
Final Report of the Patrol Staffing and Workload Update
Matrix Consulting Group Page 23
The following tables show the distribution of calls for service handled by sworn
Officers by the beat areas.
CFS by Patrol Area – 2016
Hour 40 41 42 43 44 45 Unk. Other Total
0000 81 127 58 131 31 18 3 0 449
0100 59 109 68 116 21 30 4 1 408
0200 43 102 59 98 19 25 2 2 350
0300 40 74 27 86 18 17 1 1 264
0400 30 59 29 58 22 13 2 1 214
0500 36 56 32 52 20 28 3 0 227
0600 58 77 48 91 26 21 2 3 326
0700 105 145 96 129 53 35 5 0 568
0800 129 201 112 216 55 74 5 2 794
0900 118 185 135 214 79 85 7 4 827
1000 123 229 136 222 64 69 5 5 853
1100 142 249 142 253 80 60 7 3 936
1200 151 261 130 207 68 70 11 3 901
1300 141 298 149 219 79 67 4 4 961
1400 143 353 153 244 59 70 10 8 1,040
1500 175 304 153 241 76 77 7 5 1,038
1600 141 335 135 249 85 72 8 7 1,032
1700 136 296 115 280 65 60 6 10 968
1800 148 313 130 288 71 56 6 5 1,017
1900 143 274 122 279 53 52 5 4 932
2000 127 219 85 212 50 50 8 8 759
2100 135 194 92 224 50 56 5 8 764
2200 105 178 74 237 53 37 2 7 693
2300 97 159 82 176 37 29 6 8 594
Total 2,606 4,797 2,362 4,522 1,234 1,171 124 99 16,915
% 15.4% 28.4% 14.0% 26.7% 7.3% 6.9% 0.7% 0.6% 100.0%
Patrol beats 41 and 43 are the busiest beats, accounting for over 55% of all calls
for service. The next table shows the distribution of calls over the last three years.
Calls by Patrol Area – 2014 thru 2016
Year 40 41 42 43 44 45 Unk. Other Total
2016 2,606 4,797 2,362 4,522 1,234 1,171 124 99 16,915
% 15.4% 28.4% 14.0% 26.7% 7.3% 6.9% 0.7% 0.6% 100.0%
2015 2,614 4,305 2,544 4,614 1,373 1,282 154 100 16,986
% 15.4% 25.3% 15.0% 27.2% 8.1% 7.5% 0.9% 0.6% 100.0%
2014 2,457 4,210 2,451 4,437 1,289 1,295 440 62 16,641
% 14.8% 25.3% 14.7% 26.7% 7.7% 7.8% 2.6% 0.4% 100.0%
The next section examines field patrol workloads by priority type.
347
CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA
Final Report of the Patrol Staffing and Workload Update
Matrix Consulting Group Page 24
(6) Calls for Service by Priority Type.
The Riverside County Sheriff’s Department uses the following “Priority” types to
classify a call for service.
• Priority 1 – Involve circumstances that pose, or did pose in the immediate past, a
clearly defined threat to human life or property and which involve a high level of
violence or which have the potential for serious injury.
• Priority 1A– Involve circumstances that pose, or did pose in the immediate past,
a clearly defined threat to human life or property.
• Priority 2 – Involve circumstances of an urgent but not life threatening nature.
They are generally disturbances with a potential for violence, minor assaults and
batteries, unknown or suspicious circumstances, and certain thefts.
• Priority 3 – Involve circumstances which are neither urgent nor life threatening.
Many of these calls are simple disturbances of the peace.
• Priority 4 – Incidents occurring in the past or “cold” calls; except some felonies.
• Priority 5 – 911 cell phone calls without a location (often misdialed calls).
Calls by Priority Type
CFS Priority 2016 2015 2014
Number % of Total Number % of Total Number % of Total
1 22 0.1% 28 0.2% 27 0.2%
1A 187 1.1% 175 1.0% 223 1.3%
2 7,354 43.5% 7269 42.8% 7,203 43.3%
3 6,408 37.9% 6622 39.0% 6,274 37.7%
4 2,944 17.4% 2793 16.4% 2,902 17.4%
5 0 0.1% 99 0.6% 12 0.1%
Total 16,915 100% 16,986 100% 16,641 100%
As shown above, Priority 1 and 1A calls for service account for less than 2% of all
calls during the year. These types of emergency calls are infrequent and these statistics
indicates that the RCSO is appropriately classifying incoming calls for service. The
majority of the calls for all years were Priority 2 and Priority 3 calls. The percentages for
these Priority types are within the ranges seen by the project team in other police studies.
348
CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA
Final Report of the Patrol Staffing and Workload Update
Matrix Consulting Group Page 25
(7) Average Times for Response and Handling of Calls for Service.
The response to and handling of community generated calls for service is one of
the primary tasks of any municipal police agency and one that frequently is the subject of
inquiry from city leaders and members of the community. The project team calculated the
average times using all of the calls for service reported to the RCSD.
The following table shows three individual time components and two overall time
components for a community generated call for service:
• Call processing time – begins when the call was received in Dispatch and ends
when the Officer is dispatched.
• Travel time – from the time the call was dispatched until the arrival of the first police
unit; it includes delays Officers may have during nighttime hours getting through
locked security gates of gated communities (Officers do not have keys or codes).
• Call “response” time – the call process time + travel time. This is the time citizens
are most often interested in – from the time they call 9-1-1 until an Officer arrives
at the scene of the reported incident.
• On scene time – from the time of arrival to the time the last unit cleared the call.
• Call handling time – sum of the travel time and on scene time.
The table below shows the number of Priority types of CFS and the average
processing and call handling times (in minutes).
2016 Response and Call Handling Times
Pri CFS Call
Processing
Time
Travel
Time
Response
Time
Time On
Scene
Call Handling
(Travel + On
Scene)
Call Handling
Hours
1 22 1.1 4.0 5.1 128.1 132.1 48
1A 187 0.7 4.7 5.4 67.0 71.7 224
2 7,354 3.0 9.1 12.1 26.0 35.1 4,297
3 6,408 5.9 11.2 17.1 20.5 31.6 3,376
4 2,944 7.8 12.9 20.7 28.8 41.8 2,051
Totals 16,915 4.9 10.5 15.4 25.1 35.6 9,996
349
CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA
Final Report of the Patrol Staffing and Workload Update
Matrix Consulting Group Page 26
The overall average “response” time for the first RCSD unit to arrive at the scene
of a call for service is 15.4 minutes. This overall response time decreased from last year’s
17.2 minutes but is an increase of ½ minute since 2014. This is an excellent overall
response time to all calls and shows that even low priority calls in La Quinta receive a
fairly fast response by the PD of 17 – 20 minutes. Officers’ response time to the most
serious calls for service, Priority 1 and 1A, are significantly faster at 5.1 and 5.4 minutes
overall response time. These travel times are very good average response times to
emergency calls and at the faster end of the 5 - 7 minute range of response times seen
by the project team in other law enforcement studies.
The tables below shows the average processing and call handling times for the
prior two calendars years.
2015 Response and Call Handling Times
Pri CFS Call
Processing
Time
Travel
Time
Response
Time
Time On
Scene
Call Handling
(Travel + On
Scene)
Call Handling
Hours
1 28 0.6 4.6 5.2 152.3 156.9 73
1A 175 0.6 4.5 5.1 57.4 61.9 181
2 7269 3.9 8.9 12.8 26.0 34.9 4,226
3 6622 8.6 10.8 19.4 21.7 32.5 3,592
4 2793 12.4 11.8 24.2 31.0 42.8 1,991
5 99 NA NA NA NA NA NA
Totals 16,986 7.1 10.1 17.2 25.5 35.6 10,063
As noted above in 2015 the overall average “response” time for the first RCSD unit
to arrive at the scene of a call for service increased to 17.2 minutes from the average time
in 2014. Most of this change was due to the increase in low priority calls. The next table
shows this information for the first year of data analysis, calendar year 2014.
350
CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA
Final Report of the Patrol Staffing and Workload Update
Matrix Consulting Group Page 27
2014 Response and Call Handling Times
Pri CFS Call
Processing
Time
Travel
Time
Response
Time
Time On
Scene
Call Handling
(Travel + On
Scene)
Call Handling
Hours
1 27 1.0 5.6 6.5 140.1 145.6 66
1A 223 0.8 4.2 5.0 67.5 71.7 266
2 7,203 3.1 9.0 12.1 24.7 33.7 4,049
3 6,274 6.2 10.6 16.8 19.5 30.1 3,149
4 2,902 7.6 11.1 18.7 31.5 42.6 2,061
5 12 3.4 4.0 7.3 5.2 9.1 2
Totals 16,641 5.0 9.9 14.9 24.6 34.6 9,593
Over the last three years the response time to the highest priority calls for service,
Priority 1, 1A and 2, has improved or remained the same.
Additional tables showing the “travel times” for the various call for service priority
types is provided as an appendix to this report.
(8) Officer “Back-Up” Time, Reports Written and Bookings.
Officers also respond as backup units to assist the primary officer on many calls
for service. The backup Officer data was not able to be exported from the CAD system
so the project team used normative values to estimate the number of backup responses
and the amount of time spent by the back-up Officer(s) on the incident. The project team
has developed a methodology that calculates the number of backup Officer responses at
a 50% rate and the time spent on these incidents at 75% of the primary Officer’s total
handling time.2
The following table shows the primary Officer call handling time and the number of
back-up Officers’ responses to the calls. The most important information obtain from this
2 This methodology is based on the project team’s experience in hundreds of other law enforcement studies.
351
CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA
Final Report of the Patrol Staffing and Workload Update
Matrix Consulting Group Page 28
table is the total number of hours required to handle the community generated calls for
service in La Quinta over the last three years.
Hours Required to Handle Calls for Service
Primary Officer Back-up Officers Total
2016
Responses to Calls 16,915 8,458 25,373
Call Handling Minutes 35.6 26.7 NA
Call Handling Hours 10,028 3,760 13,788
2015
Responses to Calls 16,986 8,493 25,479
Call Handling Minutes 35.6 26.7 NA
Call Handling Hours 10,078 3,779 13,858
2014
Responses to Calls 16,641 8,321 24,962
Call Handling Minutes 34.6 25.9 NA
Call Handling Hours 9,596 3,592 13,188
As shown above, the total number of hours required to handle community
generated calls for service in La Quinta over the last three years is between 13,000 and
14,000 hours. In 2016 the number of calls dropped slightly so the workload hours also
decreased slightly.
In 2014 and 2015 LQPD wrote some sort of report3 on 60.5% of the calls for
service. The project team estimated that Patrol Officers wrote 80% of the reports (8,084
reports), Patrol CSOs wrote 15% and 5% of the reports were written by Detectives,
Business District and SET Officers.
The number of arrestees processed (bookings) by La Quinta Officers averaged
3.1% of the total calls for service for 2014 and 2015.4 In La Quinta, prisoner handling
time is captured in the CAD record (the Officer is still typically listed in an “on scene”
3 The actual number of reports written in 2014 was 10,248 and in 2015 it was 10,105.
4 The actual number of bookings reported to the project team was 512 in 2014 and 539 in 2015.
352
CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA
Final Report of the Patrol Staffing and Workload Update
Matrix Consulting Group Page 29
status) so all or almost all of an Officer’s time spent handling a prisoner should be
captured in the CAD record. Additionally, Community Service Officers commonly
transport arrestees to the jail for booking which allows Officers to return to an “available”
status. However, the project team included an additional 30 minutes of prisoner handling
time to capture any time that might not have been included in the CAD record – this
equaled 264 hours in 2016.
The project team considers the combination of call handling hours, report writing
hours and arrestee processing hours as the minimum number of hours La Quinta Officers
spent handling the “community demand” workload (i.e., calls for service and related
tasks). The hours total is used to calculate Officers’ committed time and proactive time
later in this report.
2. OFFICERS ALSO CONDUCT SELF-INITIATED TASKS AS PART OF NORMAL
PATROL DUTIES.
An Officer’s time on his/her shift is spent responding to calls for service but also
engaging in a number of self-initiated activities during their work hours. These activities
include vehicle stops, pedestrian stops, area checks, investigative follow-up, assisting the
public, etc. All of these incidents are captured by the CAD system. Community Service
Officers, whose work will be discussed later, also conduct self-initiated activity but their
self-initiated incidents are not included in this section.
The self-initiated activity numbers include all sworn staff – Patrol Officers, Motor
Officers, SROs, the Special Enforcement Team and supervisors. The CAD data does not
clearly specify if incidents are community generated or initiated by LQPD staff so the
project team counted incidents where the arrival time was the same as the dispatch time
as a “self-initiated” incident (the other incidents were counted as “community generated”
353
CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA
Final Report of the Patrol Staffing and Workload Update
Matrix Consulting Group Page 30
calls for service). The following table shows the day and hour distribution for the incidents
that were initiated by sworn staff in 2016.
Self-Initiated Incidents – Sworn Staff
Hour
Sun
Mon
Tue
Wed
Thu
Fri
Sat
Total
0000 52 24 18 20 42 45 48 249
0100 41 23 21 24 36 40 49 234
0200 42 20 10 17 8 9 24 130
0300 15 9 14 10 12 17 8 85
0400 9 2 8 2 12 8 11 52
0500 5 5 6 3 2 6 7 34
0600 10 51 72 76 71 47 7 334
0700 11 97 175 148 123 84 7 645
0800 27 108 150 125 140 106 29 685
0900 29 62 106 128 125 80 38 568
1000 21 73 81 122 130 61 45 533
1100 24 87 80 123 118 60 46 538
1200 29 79 104 103 96 89 44 544
1300 43 87 107 93 102 67 37 536
1400 39 77 101 115 97 94 54 577
1500 41 56 70 113 82 104 34 500
1600 35 58 43 79 69 71 48 403
1700 23 53 62 68 76 87 45 414
1800 26 29 37 56 64 72 57 341
1900 25 23 30 33 46 82 39 278
2000 27 18 28 23 43 84 30 253
2100 17 23 16 27 39 68 28 218
2200 15 13 14 21 33 57 30 183
2300 21 16 13 12 22 51 28 163
Total 627 1,093 1,366 1,541 1,588 1,489 793 8,497
Ave/day 12 21 26 30 31 29 15 23
LQPD staff initiated an average of 23 incidents a day in 2016. The following table
shows the daily call distribution for the last three years.
Officer Initiated Activity by Day of Week
Calls
Sun
Mon
Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Total
2016 627 1,093 1,366 1,541 1,588 1,489 793 8,497
Average / day 12 21 26 30 31 29 15 23
2015 550 1,021 1,498 1,508 1,647 1,334 799 8,357
Average / day 11 20 29 29 32 26 15 23
2014 603 931 1,314 1,393 1,490 1,465 836 8,032
Average / day 12 18 25 27 29 28 16 22
354
CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA
Final Report of the Patrol Staffing and Workload Update
Matrix Consulting Group Page 31
The four incident types of “traffic stop”, “citation”, “area check” and “attempt warrant
service” were the most common types of Officer initiated activity and accounted for 69%
- 79% of the total number of incidents in each year.
3. COMMUNITY SERVICE OFFICERS PROVIDE ADDITIONAL FIELD
RESOURCES TO ASSIST PATROL OFFICERS IN HANDLING SOME CALLS
FOR SERVICE AND OTHER FIELD TASKS.
La Quinta contracts for six Community Service Officers (CSOs) and four of the
CSOs are assigned to Patrol Operations. Two CSOs are assigned to Day shift, one works
Sunday – Wednesday and one works Wednesday – Saturday which provides coverage
seven days a week and an overlap day on Wednesday. The other two Patrol CSOs are
assigned to Swing shift, working the same work days as the Day shift CSOs. The Patrol
CSOs wear a uniform different from sworn staff and drive marked patrol units. They are
assigned to handle low risk / low priority calls for service, assist Patrol Officers on
incidents and transport arrestees to jail when appropriate (i.e. a cooperative arrestee).
They were the primary responding unit to 782 community-generated calls for
service in 2014, 893 calls in 2015 and 657 calls in 2016. This is an overall average of 2
– 3 calls per day which is a very low call for service workload (using the available CAD
data) for the two CSOs that are on duty daily.
The following table displays the calendar year 2016 calls for service by day and
hour.
355
CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA
Final Report of the Patrol Staffing and Workload Update
Matrix Consulting Group Page 32
CFS Handled by Community Service Officers - 2016
Hour
Sun
Mon
Tue
Wed
Thu
Fri
Sat
Total
0000 1 2 3
0100 2 2 2 1 7
0200 3 1 2 2 8
0300 2 1 3
0400 1 1 1 1 1 5
0500 4 2 2 1 1 10
0600 2 3 5 5 5 1 1 22
0700 2 5 7 11 8 33
0800 2 15 11 8 13 49
0900 1 4 12 5 12 14 48
1000 2 1 10 5 13 13 44
1100 1 2 5 9 9 5 31
1200 1 1 13 11 10 8 44
1300 1 1 1 9 9 14 17 52
1400 1 2 1 8 11 8 7 38
1500 4 11 15 15 2 2 49
1600 6 9 14 10 2 3 44
1700 3 8 13 9 1 3 1 38
1800 7 7 7 15 2 38
1900 8 5 7 7 1 2 30
2000 3 7 2 3 2 17
2100 6 7 4 1 1 2 21
2200 1 6 1 1 2 11
2300 1 1 1 2 2 4 1 12
Total 49 80 84 151 86 109 98 657
Ave/day 1 2 2 3 2 2 2 2
LQPD Community Service Officers responded to 657 unique community
generated calls for service, an average of 4 per day, which is 3.9% of the total number of
LQPD calls for service. These calls equal a total committed time of 424 hours for the year
(657 calls x 38.7 minutes per call).
The table on the following page shows the most common call types for CSOs for
the last three calendar years. The list of call types is arranged in order of the most
frequent calls in 2016.5 There are several categories of calls for service that were not
5 Note that in the 2017 review all three years of data were reviewed for consistency of analysis methodology
and that 522 incidents in 2014 originally listed as calls for service were actually self-initiated activity.
356
CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA
Final Report of the Patrol Staffing and Workload Update
Matrix Consulting Group Page 33
consistently in the top 10 in all three years – these are indicated by italicized lines at the
bottom of the table.
Most Common Call Types – Community Service Officers
2016 2015 2014
Type of Call # Calls % of Total # Calls % of Total # Calls % of Total
Traffic Collision (Non Injury) 69 10.5% 97 10.9% 155 19.8%
Traffic Hazard 68 10.4% 67 7.5% 90 11.5%
Petty Theft (cold) 53 8.1% 102 11.4% 77 9.8%
Malicious Mischief / Vandalism
(cold) 50 7.6% 80 9.0% 67 8.6%
Vehicle Burglary (cold) 44 6.7% 67 7.5% 34 4.3%
Lost/Found Property 44 6.7% 36 4.0% 51 6.5%
Parking Violation 39 5.9% 32 3.6% 36 4.6%
Traffic Collision (Minor Injury) 29 4.4%
Abandoned Vehicle 25 3.8%
Hit & Run (Prop. Damage) 23 3.5%
Grand Theft (cold) 43 4.8%
Burglary (cold) 35 3.9%
Follow UP 51 5.7%
Hit & Run (Prop. Damage) 29 3.7%
Grand Theft (cold) 37 4.7%
Burglary (cold) 33 4.2%
All Other Calls 213 32.4% 283 31.7% 173 22.1%
Total 657 100.0% 893 100.0% 782 100.0%
The top seven types of calls handled by the Community Service Officers are the
same for all three calendar years and an overall low workload for four staff.
One reason for the low call for service workload is that there are not additional
calls for service that occur of the type that are handled by CSOs. Another possible reason
for the low number of CSO calls for service could be related to the fact that the RCSD
CAD data only captures the primary unit assigned to a call for service and not any back-
up unit(s) that may also respond to assist – if a sworn Officer is initially assigned to the
call but a CSO also responds and takes over handling the call from sworn staff the CSO
call handling may not be captured and the initial sworn Officer may remain listed as the
Officer handling the incident. This situation could occur for calls such as minor traffic
357
CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA
Final Report of the Patrol Staffing and Workload Update
Matrix Consulting Group Page 34
accidents, traffic hazards, minor thefts and other incidents where a Patrol Officer may
initially be assigned to the call but subsequently handled by a CSO. Although this may
be true, it still does not account for the low the call for service workload of the Community
Service Officers.
CSO duties do also include proactive responsibilities for parking enforcement,
abandoned vehicles and vandalism complaints. However, this only has accounted for an
additional 842 incidents in 2014 and 1,827 incidents in 2015 and 1,581 incidents in 2016,
or approximately an additional 3 – 6 incidents per day for the four CSOs assigned to
Patrol. The 2016 self-initiated activity by day and hour is shown in the table below.
CSO Self-Initiated Activity - 2016
Hour
Sun
Mon
Tue
Wed
Thu
Fri
Sat
Total
0000 14 17 12 24 36 13 17 133
0100 12 20 22 25 31 8 11 129
0200 7 16 12 13 26 5 9 88
0300 14 10 19 9 24 6 6 88
0400 17 11 19 3 17 6 3 76
0500 14 6 6 19 15 7 3 70
0600 7 2 1 5 10 8 5 38
0700 1 2 1 1 2 3 10
0800 3 1 2 17 6 16 45
0900 4 1 9 6 14 16 50
1000 9 3 3 14 7 24 34 94
1100 2 5 1 11 18 20 31 88
1200 3 4 7 13 20 30 77
1300 13 4 8 21 17 9 72
1400 7 4 1 5 10 11 21 59
1500 9 6 5 6 1 2 19 48
1600 18 14 15 7 4 3 9 70
1700 11 15 5 8 1 3 3 46
1800 7 9 6 15 8 6 51
1900 9 4 9 10 2 5 1 40
2000 7 5 6 7 1 8 7 41
2100 11 7 2 12 6 2 5 45
2200 5 7 1 3 8 3 27
2300 17 14 18 23 10 9 5 96
Total 221 184 166 246 285 213 266 1,581
Ave/day 4 4 3 5 5 4 5 4
358
CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA
Final Report of the Patrol Staffing and Workload Update
Matrix Consulting Group Page 35
The most frequent self-initiated tasks were “area check” (779 incidents), “citation”
(464 incidents), “California Vehicle Code violation” (103 incidents) and “parking violation”
(68 incidents). The overall combined workload of community generated calls for service
and self-initiated activity for the four CSOs assigned to Patrol is very low – averaging 2
calls per day and 4 self-initiated incidents. The following table shows the combined
workload over the last three years.
Annual Workload for Community Service Officers
Task 2016 2015 2014
Calls for Service
Number of Calls 657 893 782
Minutes / Call 38.7 38.6 34.6
Time 424 574 451
Self-Initiated Activity
Number of Calls 1581 1827 842
Minutes / Call 9.4 8.1 9.0
Time 248 247 126
Combined Time 671 821 577
Annual Hours / CSO 168 205 144
The last three years evaluation of workload data for the four Patrol based
Community Service Officers clearly show that their field workload (community generated
and self-initiated activity) is low, averaging just 172 hours annually, and only requires 9%
of their work shift.
CSOs do support patrol operations by handling calls that Officers normally would
handle and also assist with transportation of arrestees to jail which relieves Officers from
these duties.
It is possible that the CSOs do not get credit in the CAD system for all of the time
spent handling calls for service (the CAD system cannot track multiple units on an
incident) and the CSOs may not document all of their self-initiated field activities in the
359
CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA
Final Report of the Patrol Staffing and Workload Update
Matrix Consulting Group Page 36
CAD system. However, the known work does not support the staffing of four positions
without options to increase their workload. The project team recommends that La Quinta
determine if CSO workload is being properly tracked and also evaluate options available
to increase their workload. The project team generally supports the use of civilian field
staff in patrol operations as it is almost always an efficient use of funds to provide
alternative call handling, reducing the need for higher cost sworn staff. However, it is
important to ensure that they are fully utilized.
The City and RCSD should explore alternatives to increasing the usage of these
positions or reducing the number of CSOs. The project team recommends that La Quinta
determine if CSO workload is being properly tracked in CAD and if not, what options are
available to document their work tasks. Options available to increase their workload
should also be evaluated. This should include possibly increased call handling,
increasing self-initiated activity, additional projects that could be assigned, and assisting
in other related work areas (e.g. City code enforcement assistance).
The project team reviewed the 2016 CAD data for types of calls where the primary
responder was a sworn Officer but a call of the type that may be able to be handled by a
CSO – it would depend on the specific circumstances of the incident and if a CSO was
on duty at the time. The possible additional calls are shown in the following table are the
total number of incidents of the listed call type that were handled by sworn staff.
360
CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA
Final Report of the Patrol Staffing and Workload Update
Matrix Consulting Group Page 37
Possible Additional Calls for CSOs
Call Type Number
Stolen Vehicle 237
Petty Theft (Cold) 229
Non-Injury Accident 224
Traffic Hazard 201
Vandalism (Cold) 161
Lost/Found Property 140
Hit & Rub 82
Minor Injury Accident 70
Barking Dog 70
Grand Theft (Cold) 67
Vandalism 55
Stolen Vehicle (Cold) 52
Abandoned Bicycle 44
Abandoned Vehicle 40
Property Damage Accident (Prior) 29
Total 1,701
Estimated 50% That Are CSO Appropriate / Available 850
The above table shows a reasonable to estimate of 50% of the calls that a CSO
would not be able to handle – either due to unavailability6 or the specific call would be an
inappropriate circumstance for a CSO. However, if the CSOs were able to handle these
additional calls it would more than double their 2016 call for service workload that was
documented in CAD. At 38.7 minutes per call it would add an additional 549 CSO work
hours during the year (and correspondingly reduce sworn Officer hours by the same
amount).
Field based civilian personnel are almost always an efficient and effective method
to provide needed alternative call handling in a community but it is important to ensure
that they are utilized.
6 This could be for several reasons, including not having a CSO on duty or multiple “CSO” type calls
occurring close in time that an available sworn Officer would be dispatched rather than wait until a CSO
was available.
361
CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA
Final Report of the Patrol Staffing and Workload Update
Matrix Consulting Group Page 38
Recommendation:
Determine if CSOs calls for service and self-initiated activity is being thoroughly
documented in CAD and if it is appropriate to increase documentation of their tasks
in CAD. Evaluate ways to increase the workload of the Community Service Officers
assigned to Patrol Operations.
The next sections provide information regarding the level of committed and
proactive time for Patrol Officers.
4. PATROL OFFICERS “PROACTIVE” TIME LEVEL REMAINS OVER 50% EVEN
THOUGH THE NUMBER OF CONTRACTED PATROL HOURS HAS BEEN
REDUCED FROM 150 TO 135 DAILY.
Previous sections calculated the amount of committed time for the La Quinta Patrol
Officers – the time handling community generated calls for service and the tasks related
to the calls (i.e. writing reports, booking arrested persons). The amount of time remaining
is referred to as “proactive time”. This is the third year that La Quinta has conducted a
workload evaluation and the previous year’s calculations showed:
• For calendar year 2014 (150 daily patrol hours all year) the average committed
time was 42.0% and average proactive time was 58.0%
• For calendar year 2015 (daily patrol hours were reduced to 140 hours beginning
7/1/15) the average committed time was 45.2% and average proactive time was
54.8%
After the evaluation was completed in May 2016 the City chose to reduce the
number of daily patrol hours to 135, beginning July 1, 2016. The next pages show the
level of committed time and proactive time from the calendar year 2016 work data.
The following sections review the data and assumptions used to calculate the level
of committed and proactive time for La Quinta Patrol Officers.
362
CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA
Final Report of the Patrol Staffing and Workload Update
Matrix Consulting Group Page 39
(1) Assumptions Utilized to Calculate Workload Levels for 2016.
There are several points of information and analytical assumptions that were
utilized in the calculation and analysis of Officers’ committed and proactive time level:
• Using the actual community generated calls for service obtained from the CAD
data for a 12 month time period. This number excludes: calls handled by non-
Patrol units and civilian Patrol units, all Officer initiated activities (such as traffic
stops), administrative activities and calls cancelled prior to an Officer being
dispatched (calls where the Officer is cancelled after being dispatched but before
arrival at the scene are included).
• These calculations do not include patrol supervisors, only Patrol Officers.
• A normative value of a 50% back-up rate (i.e. an average of 1.5 Officers per call
for service) was used as CAD data for back-up Officers was not available.
• Meals and other breaks are taken evenly across all hours of a shift.
• Administrative time is estimated at 90 minutes per shift; including tasks such as
attending roll call, meal breaks, vehicle servicing and meeting with a supervisor.
• The volume of calls for service throughout the day (the percentage for each 4 hour
time period) was used to allocate the number of reports written.
• Patrol Officers wrote 80% of the total reports written by LQPD.
• The current Patrol Officer deployment was used to show distribution of the daily
patrol hours during the year (140 daily hours from January – June and 135 hours
from July – December).
The 2016 committed / proactive time calculations are shown in the following table.
(2) Patrol Operations Committed Time and Proactive Time Analysis.
The following table shows the overall percentage of time that Patrol Officers’ were
committed to the various reactive elements and the remaining percentage of “proactive
time” as well as the percentages for four hour blocks of time during the day. This table
uses the 140 daily patrol hours for six months and 135 daily patrol hours for six months –
a total of 50,050 patrol hours.
363
CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA
Final Report of the Patrol Staffing and Workload Update
Matrix Consulting Group Page 40
2016 Committed and Proactive Time
Patrol Task 0000 -
0400
0400 -
0800
0800 -
1200
1200 -
1600
1600 -
2000
2000 –
2400
Total
Patrol Staff Allocation 11.8% 19.2% 14.7% 21.5% 13.5% 19.4% 100.0%
Hours Staffed 5,901 9,590 7,377 10,746 6,742 9,695 50,050
Administrative Time 956 1,554 1,196 1,742 1,093 1,571 8,112
Available Work Hours 4,944 8,035 6,182 9,004 5,649 8,123 41,938
Calls for Service (CFS) 1,471 1,335 3,410 3,940 3,949 2,810 16,915
% of Total CFS 8.7% 7.9% 20.2% 23.3% 23.3% 16.6% 100%
1st Officer Minutes / CFS 35.6 35.6 35.6 35.6 35.6 35.6 35.6
1st Unit Hours 872 791 2,021 2,335 2,341 1,666 10,026
Back-Up Unit Responses 736 668 1,705 1,970 1,975 1,405 8,458
Back Up Minutes / CFS 26.7 26.7 26.7 26.7 26.7 26.7 26.7
Back Up Officer(s) Hours 327 297 758 876 878 625 3,760
Reports Written 712 646 1,650 1,907 1,911 1,360 8,187
Report Writing Time 534 485 1,238 1,430 1,434 1,020 6,140
Bookings 46 42 106 123 123 88 528
Prisoner Handling Time 23 21 53 61 62 44 264
Total Committed Hours 1,756 1,594 4,070 4,703 4,714 3,354 20,191
Total Proactive Hours 3,189 6,442 2,111 4,301 935 4,769 21,747
Committed Time Percent 35.5% 19.8% 65.8% 52.2% 83.4% 41.3% 48.1%
Proactive Time Percent 64.5% 80.2% 34.2% 47.8% 16.6% 58.7% 51.9%
These calculations show that Patrol Officers spent approximately 48% of their
working hours handling community generated calls for service and the related tasks,
leaving an overall “proactive time” average of 52%. This overall proactive time
percentage is lower than the 2015 level of 54.8% but remains high and seven percentage
points above a targeted 45% proactive time level.
The following table shows the committed and proactive time results if LQPD had
worked 135 daily patrol hours for all 12 months of 2016 – a total of 49,275 patrol hours.
364
CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA
Final Report of the Patrol Staffing and Workload Update
Matrix Consulting Group Page 41
Committed and Proactive Time – 135 Hours for All 12 Months
Patrol Task 0000 -
0400
0400 -
0800
0800 -
1200
1200 -
1600
1600 -
2000
2000 –
2400
Total
Patrol Staff Allocation 11.8% 19.2% 14.7% 21.5% 13.5% 19.4% 100.0%
Hours Staffed 5,810 9,441 7,263 10,579 6,637 9,545 49,275
Administrative Time 956 1,554 1,196 1,742 1,093 1,571 8,112
Available Work Hours 4,853 7,887 6,067 8,838 5,545 7,973 41,163
Calls for Service (CFS) 1,471 1,335 3,410 3,940 3,949 2,810 16,915
% of Total CFS 8.7% 7.9% 20.2% 23.3% 23.3% 16.6% 100%
1st Officer Minutes / CFS 35.6 35.6 35.6 35.6 35.6 35.6 35.6
1st Unit Hours 872 791 2,021 2,335 2,341 1,666 10,026
Back-Up Unit Responses 736 668 1,705 1,970 1,975 1,405 8,458
Back Up Minutes / CFS 26.7 26.7 26.7 26.7 26.7 26.7 26.7
Back Up Officer(s) Hours 327 297 758 876 878 625 3,760
Reports Written 712 646 1,650 1,907 1,911 1,360 8,187
Report Writing Time 534 485 1,238 1,430 1,434 1,020 6,140
Bookings 46 42 106 123 123 88 528
Prisoner Handling Time 23 21 53 61 62 44 264
Total Committed Hours 1,756 1,594 4,070 4,703 4,714 3,354 20,191
Total Proactive Hours 3,097 6,293 1,997 4,135 831 4,619 20,972
Committed Time Percent 36.2% 20.2% 67.1% 53.2% 85.0% 42.1% 49.1%
Proactive Time Percent 63.8% 79.8% 32.9% 46.8% 15.0% 57.9% 50.9%
The overall proactive time level drops to 50.9% for 2016 if the 135 daily patrol
hours had been in effect for all of 2016.
There are several changes to note in several of the 4 hour time blocks when
comparing 2016 proactive time to the 2015 proactive time results
• Between 0800 and Noon the proactive time level increased from 23% in 2015 to
34% in 2016.
• Later in the afternoon, between 1600 and 2000 hours the proactive time level
dropped from 34% in 2015 to 16.6% in 2016.
Both of these changes are the result of staffing adjustments made by LQPD to
adapt to the reduction from 140 to 135 daily patrol hours, a total of 900 fewer Officer hours
(July – December 2016). These changes are significant and show the difference that
staffing levels and changes in calls for service patterns can have from year to year. It
365
CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA
Final Report of the Patrol Staffing and Workload Update
Matrix Consulting Group Page 42
also shows the importance of ongoing management evaluation to determine if there are
adjustments that can reasonable be made to address changes to try and balance
workload throughout the day.
The first change listed above for the 0800 – Noon time period was primarily due to
an increase of 880 additional hours staffed compared to 2015 and also a slight reduction
of 137 CFS from 2015.
The second change noted above is for the 1600 to 2000 hour time period in the
early evening. This is a more significant change as the percentage of proactive time
decreased from 34% in 2015 to 17% in 2016. The reduction in proactive time during
these hours is primarily due to the change in swing shift deployment from 10 Officers to
9 Officers which resulted in 1,376 fewer staff hours but also due to an increase in the
number of calls for service during these hours.
Although the proactive time of Patrol Officers declined significantly it is important
to note that during these busier work hours there are other LQPD field staff are on duty
during all or some of these hours – they are and available to assist in handling calls for
service if needed. This additional staff includes the on duty Patrol Sergeant, two Business
District Officers, Special Enforcement Team Officers, Traffic Officers and a Community
Service Officer – none of this staff is included in these Patrol Officer workload calculations.
A solution to this situation that would increase the proactive time percentage
between 1600 and 2000 is to adjust the start of day shift from 0600 to 0700 hours. This
one hour adjustment would increase the staffing level between 1600 and 1700 where it
is needed, and reduce the two hour shift overlap (0600 – 0800) to a one hour overlap,
which is sufficient. This change would have the beneficial effect of reducing the very high
366
CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA
Final Report of the Patrol Staffing and Workload Update
Matrix Consulting Group Page 43
80% level of proactive time between 0400 and 0800 and move it to the 1600 - 2000 time
period where it is very much needed. It would add 1,847 Officer hours to this evening
time block and increase the proactive time percentage to 34.5%. The 0400 - 0800
proactive time would still remain very high at 75%. This is a reasonable move and is
recommended to be implemented, subject to the constraints of the employment contract.
Another move to address this issue would be to assign 9 Officers to Day shift and
10 Officers to Swing shift – a move of one Officer. This is a less effective but the move
would shift some hours to the needed evening time slot.
The project team compiled a summary of the last three years most relevant
deployment, workload and proactive time information – presented in the following table.
2014 - 2016 Workload and Proactive Time
0000 -
0400
0400 -
0800
0800 -
1200
1200 -
1600
1600 -
2000
2000 –
2400
Total
2016
Staff Hours 5,901 9,590 7,377 10,746 6,742 9,695 50,050
Calls for Service 1,471 1,335 3,410 3,940 3,949 2,810 16,915
Committed Hours 1,756 1,594 4,070 4,703 4,714 3,354 20,191
Proactive Hours 3,189 6,442 2,111 4,301 935 4,769 21,747
Committed Time 35.5% 19.8% 65.8% 52.2% 83.4% 41.3% 48.1%
Proactive Time 64.5% 80.2% 34.2% 47.8% 16.6% 58.7% 51.9%
2015
Staff Hours 6,497 9,743 6,497 10,556 8,118 11,369 52,780
Calls for Service 1,383 1,374 3,547 3,966 3,818 2,898 16,986
Committed Hours 1,643 1,633 4,215 4,713 4,537 3,444 20,185
Proactive Hours 3,858 6,618 1,287 4,226 2,337 6,184 24,510
Committed Time 29.9% 19.8% 76.6% 52.7% 66.0% 35.8% 45.2%
Proactive Time 70.1% 80.2% 23.4% 47.3% 34.0% 64.2% 54.8%
2014
Staff Hours 8,760 9,127 9,488 9,488 9,127 8,760 54,750
Calls for Service 1,372 1,264 3,308 4,104 3,762 2,831 16,641
Committed Hours 1,615 1,488 3,893 4,830 4,427 3,332 19,585
Proactive Hours 5,852 6,291 4,194 3,257 3,352 4,135 27,080
Committed Time 21.6% 19.1% 48.1% 59.7% 56.9% 44.6% 42.0%
Proactive Time 78.4% 80.9% 51.9% 40.3% 43.1% 55.4% 58.0%
367
CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA
Final Report of the Patrol Staffing and Workload Update
Matrix Consulting Group Page 44
In 2014 the project team recommended that La Quinta target an overall 45%
proactive time level for patrol services. This is a good level of proactive time that allows
regular Patrol Officers time during their shifts for various administrative tasks while also
having availability to perform a good level of proactive policing in the field, including traffic
enforcement, targeted patrol efforts to address specific beat issues/problems, walking
patrol, and other tasks initiated by the Officer or directed by an Officer’s supervisor.
The overall workload level as expressed in the amount of Officers’ “committed”
hours is the most significant factor in determining the level of staffing in a community.
However, another significant factor is that a police agency must maintain a minimum
number of Officers during all hours of the day to provide for basic safety of Officers while
on patrol and the ability of the Department to handle at least one critical incident. These
factors combined must be evaluated and considered in the staffing and deployment of
police resources in La Quinta and all communities. In La Quinta, for example, this
reasonably requires a minimum staffing level of one Sergeant and four Officers on the
Graveyard shift – this is the current deployment. Although this results in proactive time
levels between approximately 65% and 80% between midnight and 0800 hours, this
staffing level is necessary for the reasons stated above.
Over the last three years La Quinta has reduced the number of daily patrol hours
from 150 to 140 (July 1, 2015) and to 135 hours on July 1, 2016. This has resulted in
cost savings for the city while maintaining a high service level to the community. There
has been a planned reduction in overall proactive time from 58% in calendar year 2014
to 51.9% in 2016. If the 135 daily patrol hours had been in effect for all of 2016 it would
have resulted in a 50.9% proactive time level.
368
CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA
Final Report of the Patrol Staffing and Workload Update
Matrix Consulting Group Page 45
(3) Potential Impacts to Patrol Officers Workload
The number of calls for service has been consistent over the last three years it is
possible that the number of calls for service could increase in the future. The project team
made projections if the calls for service and related workload increased by 2%, 5% and
10%, and calculated the committed time and proactive time levels for each of these
scenarios. All three of these projections are based on 130 daily patrol hours and assumed
a one hour change in start time for dayshift from 0600 to 0700 hours.
Proactive Time Levels at Increased Workload Levels
0000 –
0400
0400 –
0800
0800 –
1200
1200 –
1600
1600 –
2000
2000 –
2400
Total
2% CFS Increase
Staff Hours 5,594 7,342 6,993 10,189 8,141 9,190 47,450
Calls for Service 1,500 1,362 3,478 4,019 4,028 2,866 17,253
Committed Hours 1,784 1,619 4,137 4,780 4,790 3,409 20,519
Proactive Hours 2,853 4,468 1,661 3,668 1,959 4,210 18,819
Committed Time 38.5% 26.6% 71.4% 56.6% 71.0% 44.7% 52.2%
Proactive Time 61.5% 73.4% 28.6% 43.4% 29.0% 55.3% 47.8%
5% CFS Increase
Staff Hours 5,594 7,342 6,993 10,189 8,141 9,190 47,450
Calls for Service 1,545 1,402 3,581 4,137 4,146 2,951 17,761
Committed Hours 1,827 1,658 4,236 4,894 4,906 3,491 21,012
Proactive Hours 2,810 4,429 1,561 3,553 1,844 4,128 18,326
Committed Time 39.4% 27.2% 73.1% 57.9% 72.7% 45.8% 53.4%
Proactive Time 60.6% 72.8% 26.9% 42.1% 27.3% 54.2% 46.6%
10% CFS Increase
Staff Hours 5,594 7,342 6,993 10,189 8,141 9,190 47,450
Calls for Service 1,618 1,469 3,751 4,334 4,344 3,091 18,607
Committed Hours 1,899 1,723 4,402 5,086 5,097 3,627 21,834
Proactive Hours 2,739 4,364 1,396 3,362 1,652 3,992 17,504
Committed Time 40.9% 28.3% 75.9% 60.2% 75.5% 47.6% 55.5%
Proactive Time 59.1% 71.7% 24.1% 39.8% 24.5% 52.4% 44.5%
Based on the last three years, it is unlikely that the number of calls will increase
and as will be subsequently shown, it is very likely the number of calls will decrease.
369
CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA
Final Report of the Patrol Staffing and Workload Update
Matrix Consulting Group Page 46
However, if calls for service increased by 2% - 5% and La Quinta was receiving 130 daily
patrol hours the City would still have a good level of proactive time for Patrol Officers.
There are several changes that will occur in 2017 that will have a more significant
impact on patrol workload than the possibility of an increase in the number of calls for
service. One of the changes will increase the level of Patrol Officers proactive time and
three of the changes will reduce the proactive time level:
• False Alarm Ordinance – La Quinta is implementing a false alarm ordinance
which will reduce the number of calls for service for building alarms. In 2016 the
PD responds to about 3,500 building alarms annually and the ordinance will reduce
this number of calls. If there is a 20% reduction it will save approximately 600
Officer work hours annually and if the reduction is 50% it will save over 1,400 work
hours. This will result in an increase to the proactive time level from one
percentage point to 2.4 percentage points.
• Implementation of AB 953 – this requires the employing agency, beginning in
April 2019, to report details about the stop and actions taken by the Officer. It is
estimated the required documentation will take from 3 to 15 minutes to complete,
depending on the circumstances of the individual incident. In 2016 LQPD Officers
made 5,069 vehicle stops; allowing an average of 8 minutes documentation time
per incident would equal an additional 676 hours of ‘report writing’ required. If the
number of stops remains the same (which is unlikely as additional required
documentation will reduce the number of discretionary stops made by Officers) it
would reduce the overall proactive time level by one percentage point.
• Body Worn Cameras – the implementation of cameras will require additional work
by Officers to process the video documentation of the contacts during their shift
and review as necessary the incidents where the camera was used. The project
team includes this time under the “administrative time” category and it is
reasonable to add 10 – 15 minutes per shift for this process. This would add 900
to 1,400 hours of administrative time annually. It would reduce the overall
proactive time level by 1 to 1.7 percentage points.
• School Resource Officers – The number of School Resource Officers may be
reduced and if this occurs it will likely result in additional calls for service that Patrol
Officers will handle at the schools. The impact cannot be estimated at this time for
several reasons – the reduction of SROs is not known, the number of incidents
handled by SROs at the schools is not known and the number of incidents handled
by SROs that would result in a Patrol Officer response is not known.
370
CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA
Final Report of the Patrol Staffing and Workload Update
Matrix Consulting Group Page 47
Each of these items will increase proactive time or decrease proactive time but at
this time the impacts can only be estimated at a reduction between one and two
percentage points (not including the SROs).
The project team continues to recommend moving toward the 45% proactive time
level and, even taking into consideration the above items, a reduction to 130 daily patrol
hours will still continue to provide a good level of service to the community – if the
Department had staffed 130 daily patrol hours for all of 2016 the overall proactive time for
Patrol Officers would have been 48.7% for the year.
The project team believes that the current and anticipated patrol workload allows
a further reduction from the current 135 daily patrol hours to 130 daily hours as a
reasonable measure to realize cost savings while continuing to provide a good level of
service to the community.
Recommendations:
Reduce the number of daily Patrol hours to 130 hours daily.
371
CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA
Final Report of the Patrol Staffing and Workload Update
Matrix Consulting Group Page 48
3. EVALUATION OF CONTRACT COST
ALLOCATIONS / CHANGES
The current contract between the City of La Quinta and the Sheriff’s Department
took effect on July 1, 2012 and expires on June 30, 2017. As part of this project the
project team was asked to review the contract to evaluate several changes that have
occurred in the way costs are allocated and charged to La Quinta.
1. PATROL PERSONNEL COSTS
The last two amendments to the contract were to reduce the Patrol daily contracted
hours from 150 to 140 hours beginning July 1, 2015 and a further reduction to 135 hours
took effect on July 1, 2016. These hourly reductions resulted in the following number of
staff assigned to La Quinta PD:
• 150 daily patrol hours (July 1, 2012 – June 30, 2015) equals 54,750 annual patrol
hours and results in the costs for 30.76 Patrol Officers (at the RCSD calculated net
work hours of 1,780 hours per Officer).
• 140 daily patrol hours (July 1, 2015 – June 30, 2016) totals 51,100 annual patrol
hours and results in the costs for 28.71 Patrol Officers
• 135 daily patrol hours (July 1, 2016 – today) totals 49,275 annual patrol hours and
results in the costs for 27.68 Patrol Officers
In July 2016 an adjustment is being made to the Officer net work hours from 1,780
to 1,787 hours. If La Quinta continues to contract for 135 daily patrol hours it will result
in a minor reduction in costs for Patrol Officers to 27.57 Officers.
To provide 135 hours daily the RCSD currently assigns 27 Officers to La Quinta
patrol services, as has been pointed out earlier in this report. All of these staff are
assigned to patrol in La Quinta but may be called to respond to surrounding areas to
372
CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA
Final Report of the Patrol Staffing and Workload Update
Matrix Consulting Group Page 49
assist other law enforcement agencies with calls for service when Officers in that agency
request assistance. This assistance is commonly referred to as ‘mutual aid’ or ‘automatic
aid’. La Quinta Officers most often respond into Coachella or the unincorporated areas
nearby to assist when requested. Officers assigned to La Quinta and Coachella both
operate out of the Thermal Sub-station and are on the same radio channel. They hear
each other’s calls/activity and can keep track of each other, and assist when necessary
to help ensure officer safety.
Coachella has a larger population that La Quinta (approximately 44,000 compared
to 40,000 in La Quinta) and has a higher crime rate but Coachella only contracts for 90
Patrol hours daily. Since La Quinta deploys a high number of Officers per shift it is most
likely that La Quinta Officers will more frequently respond to assist Coachella Officers
than the reverse.
To ensure that La Quinta was not paying for police services in Coachella, the
RCSD developed a methodology to provide for appropriate cost accounting to ensure the
City receiving the extra patrol services is appropriately charged for them. All Patrol
Officers logged the time they respond into Coachella and if it totaled 30 minutes or more
in a shift the Officer reported it and the cost was deducted from La Quinta’s bill and
charged to Coachella. The same applied to Coachella Officers that responded to assist
in La Quinta. Although this could allow some “free” services being provided to Coachella,
overall it is an appropriate and reasonable way to ensure that Coachella is being properly
charged for the additional resources being used in Coachella. Supervisors also have the
responsibility to ensure that Officers only respond out of town when it is necessary. In
2017 the threshold was increased from 30 minutes per shift to 1 hour per shift and the
373
CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA
Final Report of the Patrol Staffing and Workload Update
Matrix Consulting Group Page 50
new guideline also provides that La Quinta Officers will only respond outside of the City
to Priority 1 incidents, when requested, and for Officer safety needs. This may result in
a small reduction in the credit La Quinta receives but it is a reasonable change and
reduces the amount of administrative paperwork required by PD staff.
2. METHODOLOGY FOR DETERMINING THE NUMBER OF INVESTIGATORS
REQUIRED.
All law enforcement agencies the size of La Quinta should have investigators
whose primary job responsibility is conducting follow-up investigations of reported crimes.
The RCSD has developed a methodology that determines the number of investigators
that are needed based on the number of Officers assigned to and paid for by contract
cities. This methodology is fairly complicated and confusing to understand. It uses hourly
rates for determining the cost of a Deputy Sheriff; these rates are called: “supported,
dedicated, compensated” or “SDC” rate, and “supported, undedicated, productive” or
“SUP” rate. All positions are “supported” (require added on costs for supervision,
investigations, general administration, dispatching, technical services, etc.) whether or
not they are “dedicated” positions such as Motor Officers or “undedicated” positions such
as Patrol Officers.
La Quinta currently contracts for a total of 38.7 Officer positions (27.7 Patrol, 4
Motors and 7 SET) and these are all “supported” positions. The formula developed by
the RCSD for the number of Detectives needed is listed in the contract as using a
multiplying factor of .143 Detective position for each sworn Officer position:
• In 2015 this equaled 41.76 Officers (30.7 Patrol, 4 Motors, 7 SET Officers) x .143
= 5.97 Detectives
• Effective 7/1/16 this equals 38.7 Officers (27.7 Patrol, 4 Motors, 7 SET Officers) x
.143 = 5.5 Detectives
374
CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA
Final Report of the Patrol Staffing and Workload Update
Matrix Consulting Group Page 51
The project team was also informed that a ratio of 1 Detective for every 6.06 Patrol
Officers (not including the Motor or SET Officers) is the current formula used to determine
the number of Detectives – this calculates as 27.7 Officers / 6.06 = 4.6 Detectives. It is
not known how either of these methodologies were developed but both of these formulas
have a major flaw – they are not based on or directly related to the Detectives workload.
As part of the original study completed in 2015 the project team obtained the
number of La Quinta cases assigned to a Detective for follow-up investigation in calendar
year 2014. These numbers are shown in the following table.
Detective Case Assignments
Case Type 2014 Total Monthly
Homicide (assigned to Central Homicide Unit) 2 0.2
Robbery 9 0.8
Aggravated Assault 19 1.6
Burglary 7 0.6
Grand Theft 6 0.5
Fraud/Embezzlement 30 2.5
Sex Crimes 25 2.1
Child Abuse 16 1.3
Elder Abuse 7 0.6
Vandalism 3 0.3
Weapons Offenses 4 0.3
Missing Persons/Runaways 26 2.2
Death Investigation (unattended deaths) 15 1.3
Other (Assist Other PD, Suspicious Circumstances) 12 1.0
Total 181 15.1
A total of 181 La Quinta cases were assigned to Detectives during 2014, an
average of 15 cases per month. La Quinta paid for six Detectives to work these cases –
an average of just 2.5 cases per Detective per month – this is a very low workload for six
Detectives. Based on the project team’s experience with other law enforcement studies
a typical workload for a Detective is 5 – 10 new cases per month. This obviously depends
375
CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA
Final Report of the Patrol Staffing and Workload Update
Matrix Consulting Group Page 52
on the complexity of the cases being assigned for investigation. In La Quinta this would
equal two or at most three Detectives to handle the 2014 investigative workload. The
2016 caseload would be approximately the same based on the number of crimes reported
to the PD.
A separate issue it the cost allocation of the Detectives assigned to the Thermal
Substation. The following table shows the number and percent of cases for La Quinta,
Coachella and the unincorporated areas, and the corresponding number of Detectives
(out of the 12 assigned in 2015) that should be appropriated to each entity based on the
cases that were actually assigned for follow-up.
Detective Case Assignments and Appropriate Cost Allocation
City Total for 2014 % of Cases Detective Allocation Based
on Workload
La Quinta 181 20.5% 2.5
Coachella 395 44.6% 5.4
Unincorporated 309 34.9% 4.2
Total 885 100.0% 12.0
La Quinta generated approximately 21% of the cases assigned to Detectives in
2014 but was paying for 54% of the Detectives (6.5 out of 12). Because of reductions to
staff made by La Quinta over the last two years the City is now funding 4.6 Detectives, a
reduction of two positions. As of May 2017 there were two, and soon to be three, vacant
Detective positions – the positions are still funded but it is unknown if one or all of the
positions are going to be filled. As long as these positions are vacant it reduces cost for
La Quinta.
The project team pointed out in the 2015 report that La Quinta should work with
RCSD to reduce the number of Detectives assigned to La Quinta and also to revise the
376
CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA
Final Report of the Patrol Staffing and Workload Update
Matrix Consulting Group Page 53
methodology of allocating the cost of Investigations Units (Lieutenant, Sergeants and
Detectives) to an equitable cost sharing percentage for each of the three entities.
The more significant issue for La Quinta is the number of Detectives that are
“required” to be paid for by the City. La Quinta only needs two or three Detectives and
should not be required to fund positions that are not reasonable needed to conduct follow-
up investigations of crime. Additionally, La Quinta contracts for five SET Officers that are
also involved in following up on crimes in La Quinta which also reduces the number of
Detectives needed.
Although the project team did not obtain the specific number of cases assigned to
Detectives for follow-up as part of this update project, the number of crimes reported in
La Quinta in 2014 has over the last five years was obtained from FBI records and is listed
in the following table.
The following table shows the 2009-2013 five year period as well as the
percentage change in the number of crimes reported.
Crimes Reported 2011 – 2015
Crime 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Total 5 Yr.
Avg.
Change
2011 to
2015
Homicide 1 0 0 1 1 3 0.6 0.0%
Rape 3 5 5 2 6 21 4.2 100.0%
Robbery 33 45 26 33 24 161 32 -27.3%
Aggravated Assault 151 100 37 51 49 388 78 -67.5%
Burglary 477 541 402 314 181 1,915 383 -62.1%
Larceny & Auto Burglary 901 1,033 1,002 954 972 4,862 972 7.9%
Auto Theft 50 95 90 56 67 358 72 34.0%
Arson 1 1 4 5 4 15 3 300.0%
Total: 1,617 1,820 1,566 1,416 1,304 5,003 1,668 -19.4%
Violent Crime 188 150 68 87 80 406 135 -57.4%
Property Crime 1,429 1,670 1,498 1,329 1,224 4,597 1,532 -14.3%
377
CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA
Final Report of the Patrol Staffing and Workload Update
Matrix Consulting Group Page 54
The primary types of crimes that are assigned to Detectives for follow-up are rape7,
robbery, aggravated assault, burglary and larcenies (petty thefts are included in this crime
category but are not typically assigned to a Detective). The number of reported crimes
has decreased over this time period – indicating there are a fewer number of cases to be
assigned to Detectives.
In summary, there are two issues that La Quinta should resolve – developing an
equitable cost sharing allocation for the current Detective staff that is assigned to the
Thermal Substation, and reducing the number of Detectives that must be funded by La
Quinta to three Detectives.
Recommendations:
La Quinta should work with the Sheriff’s Department to develop a more equitable
cost sharing allocation for the current Detective staff assigned to the Thermal
Substation.
La Quinta should work with the Sheriff’s Department to reduce the number of
Detectives that must be funded by La Quinta to three Detectives.
7 The increase in the number of reported rapes may be due to a change from the “legacy” definition of
rape to a revised definition.
378
CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA
Final Report of the Patrol Staffing and Workload Update
Matrix Consulting Group Page 55
APPENDIX A – PATROL STAFFING FACTORS AND
GUIDELINES FOR COMMUNITIES
Over the course of several hundred Police Department studies the Matrix
Consulting Group has developed a list of key elements in the effective provision of field
patrol services in a community, including the responsibility of Officers to be proactive
during their shifts (to identify and resolve problems) and not just reactive in handling calls
for service. These general policing elements are summarized on the next several pages.
Management Task Comments
Reactive Patrol
Requirements
• The primary mission of any law enforcement field patrol force and
the most critical element of successful patrol services.
• The PD should have clearly defined areas of responsibility
(beats).
• The Department should have clearly defined response policies in
place; including prioritization of calls, response time targets for
each priority and supervisor on scene policies.
• This reactive workload should make up between 50% and 65% of
each Officer’s net available time per shift (on average). This
includes time to write reports, transport and book prisoners.
Proactive Patrol
Requirements
• “Proactive time” is defined as all other activity not in response to a
citizen generated call; it occurs during the shift when Officers are
not handling calls and have completed other necessary tasks; it
includes items such as traffic enforcement, directed patrol, bike
and foot patrol. It is also sometimes referred to as “uncommitted”
time but that is somewhat of a misnomer as it only means “not
committed to handling community generated calls for service”.
• The Department should have clearly defined uses for “proactive
time” – i.e. Officers should know what they are expected to do
with their time when not responding to calls for service. This may
include targeted preventive patrol for general visibility, traffic
enforcement, developing relationships with members of the
community, visiting schools or parks.
• The proactive element of field patrol should make up between
35% and 50% of an Officer’s day (on average).
• Research and experience has shown the 35% – 50% range to be
reasonable “proactive time” levels.
379
CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA
Final Report of the Patrol Staffing and Workload Update
Matrix Consulting Group Page 56
Management Task Comments
Problem Identification
and Resolution
• Effective proactive patrol for municipal law enforcement requires
the rapid identification of problems and issues, the development
of an action plan to address issues as they arise, implementation
of the potential solution and regular evaluations to determine if
the approach successfully addressed the issue.
• This approach should be used on criminal, traffic and other quality
of life problems reported to the Department or discovered by
Officers during the course of their patrol duties.
• Officers have the primary role in accomplishing proactive tasks,
field projects (e.g. Problem Oriented Policing), etc.
• Formal and informal mechanisms for capturing and evaluating
information should be used. This should be primarily handled by
Officers and supervisors, but managers must also have
involvement and oversight.
Management of Patrol
Resources
• Patrol supervisors and managers must take an active role in
management of patrol. This includes developing and utilizing
management reports that accurately depict the activity, response
times to calls for service and the variety of current issues and
problems being handled by patrol units.
• Resources must be geared to address actual workload and
issues. This includes ensuring that patrol staffing is matched to
workload, that patrol beats or sectors are designed to provide an
even distribution of workload.
• This also includes matching resources to address issues in a
proactive manner. This may include shifting beats to free staff to
handle special assignments, assigning Officers to targeted
patrols, assigning traffic enforcement issues, etc.
• Staffing should be related to providing effective field response to
calls for service, provision of proactive activity and ensuring
Officer and the safety of members of the public.
• Supervisors should be both an immediate resource to field
Officers (for advice, training, back-up, inter-personal skills) and
field managers (handling basic administrative functions).
Measurement of
Success and
Performance
• Data should be used to plan and manage work in Patrol and other
field work units.
• Effective field patrol should be measured in multiple ways to
ensure that the Department is successful in handling multiple
tasks or functions.
• Examples of effective performance measurement include:
response time, time on scene, number of calls handled by an
Officer, back-up rate, citations/warnings issued, and the overall
level of crime and clearance rate.
• Managers and supervisors should track and review performance
measures on a regular basis to know what level of service is
being provided to the community and for use as one of the tools
to ensure that services are effective and efficient.
380
CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA
Final Report of the Patrol Staffing and Workload Update
Matrix Consulting Group Page 57
The matrix above summarizes the basic elements of an effective patrol service in
a community that provides both reactive field services (response to community generated
calls for service) and proactive work by Patrol Officers. During these times of limited or
decreasing budgetary resources it becomes critically important for managers of the patrol
function to make the best use of Officers’ time to provide effective policing and to meet
community expectations.
The following points summarize the key elements identified above in the effective
provision of field patrol services:
• Effective municipal law enforcement requires a field patrol force, which is designed
and managed to be flexible in providing both reactive and proactive response to
law enforcement issues in the community.
• This requires that the Department balance personnel, resources and time to
handle both reactive and proactive service elements. Between 50% and 65% of
an officer’s time should be spent handling all of the elements of reactive patrol.
The remaining 35% to 50% should be spent specific proactive patrol activities,
other self-initiated tasks and community policing activities. A lower percentage of
proactive time may be reasonable when the agency has other work units that
conduct targeted proactive activities.
• When an Officer has a block time available (e.g. during a slow day) the activities
planned/conducted during this time should be part of a Patrol plan and not left
unstructured and random. Effectively addressing issues in the community requires
tasks be accomplished as part of a plan – addressing specific problems in pre-
determined ways. The plans should be overseen by management but planned
and accomplished at the Officer, Sergeant or watch commander level.
• Any effective proactive approach to patrol requires that information be managed
formally and that a formal effort be put into evaluating that information. This
evaluation should lead to specific actions to address issues/problems in a
community. In addition, attempts to address problems should be evaluated
formally to determine if the efforts made have been effective.
These basic elements represent the essential ingredients of effective and efficient
municipal field law enforcement in United States in the 21st century.
381
CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA
Final Report of the Patrol Staffing and Workload Update
Matrix Consulting Group Page 58
Patrol “proactivity” is a very important part of field operations in communities such
as La Quinta, where the call for service volume can vary significantly during hours of the
day and season. During certain hours and months, very little time may be available for
proactive initiatives, while on other days significant time may be spent on directed and
officer-initiated activity. Planning and establishing patrol goals and specific pro-activity
targets are important for effective management of a patrol operations force and to ensure
that patrol officers are being used to accomplish desired tasks in meeting established
goals. In most communities, the expectations placed on the police department to ensure
a safe and orderly community are relatively high. Effectively managing proactive tasks of
all field personnel is one significant method to demonstrate the department is taking the
necessary steps toward the goal of creating and/or maintaining a safe community.
FACTORS THAT SHOULD BE CONSIDERED WHEN DETERMINING AN
APPROPRIATE PATROL STAFFING LEVEL.
The project team uses an analytical approach to determine the staffing level
required in a community such as La Quinta. The approach is characterized by several
key factors that provide the basis for objective evaluation of a patrol force:
• Staffing should be examined based on the ability of current staff to handle the calls
for service generated by the community (and the related work such as report
writing and processing arrestees); as well as providing sufficient time for proactive
activities such as directed patrol, traffic enforcement and addressing on-going
issues/problems in a neighborhood.
• Staffing is dependent on the time officers are actually available to perform the work
required of the patrol function. In this evaluation, leave hours usage and time
dedicated to administrative functions are examined.
• The number of patrol staff deployed should be the result of policymakers (City
leaders) selecting a level of policing that is desired by the community. Establishing
a targeted average level of proactive, or uncommitted, time is an effective method
to determine the policing level that will be provided and also gives guidance to the
police chief.
382
CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA
Final Report of the Patrol Staffing and Workload Update
Matrix Consulting Group Page 59
• The project team’s analysis does not include the utilization of ratios such as officers
per thousand residents because it does not account for the unique characteristics
of communities (e.g. demographics, workload, unique community needs,
deployment). Although these ratios are interesting, they do not provide a
comprehensive measure of staffing needs for a specific community, nor should
policymakers use them as a basis to make decisions regarding patrol staffing. The
project team’s approach is supported by the International Association of Chiefs of
Police (IACP) that views officer per thousand ratios as “totally inappropriate as a
basis for staffing decisions”8.
Other significant factors for policy makers to consider when determining staffing
levels include, but are not limited to, the following:
• The type, severity and volume of crime in a community.
• The ability of the Police Department to meet response time goals to calls for service
and solve crime.
• The desired level of Police Department involvement in providing non-traditional
police services such as neighborhood problem solving, graffiti removal, community
meetings and events and teaching/role modeling in the schools.
• The desired level of proactive efforts such as traffic safety and parking
enforcement, narcotics enforcement, enforcement of vice crimes such as
prostitution and liquor laws.
• Providing for basic officer safety and risk management of a patrol force. In some
police agencies, primarily smaller ones, the desired level of proactive time may not
be the primary measure to determine the minimum number of patrol officer
positions needed. It may be driven by officer safety concerns and the need to
provide reasonable community coverage 24 hours a day, seven days a week. For
example, a staffing level needed to meet basic officer safety concerns may result
in a proactive time that may be significantly above the 50% level for a portion of
the day (typically the early morning hours).
The following summary is provided in order to illustrate the implications of various
proactive time levels:
• A proactive time level of 25% or less reflects a patrol staff that is essentially fully
committed most of the time (except during the low CFS hours of the day).
Estimating this level as being fully committed is based on the fact that the CAD
8 International Association of Chiefs of Police, Patrol Staffing and Deployment Study, 2004, document 7218.
383
CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA
Final Report of the Patrol Staffing and Workload Update
Matrix Consulting Group Page 60
system does not capture all work tasks, functions and administrative duties that
are performed by officers. At this high level of committed time (75%) the average
travel times to high priority community-generated calls for service may be above 8
or 9 minutes and on-scene times may be below 30 minutes due to calls “stacking”
and the need to respond to other incidents. This may not be enough time to
conduct a thorough investigation of the incident or provide a high quality level of
service.
At this level of proactive time during most hours of the shift Officers will be
responding to CFS and will not have time for any consistent proactive or project-
oriented activity. The blocks of time will be generally too short (less than 20
minutes) to allow meaningful targeted patrol, working on beat projects, or
neighborhood issues.
• A 40% proactive time level is generally sufficient to provide blocks of time during
most shifts when Officers can conduct targeted patrol and identified beat projects
to address community issues. Average travel times to high priority community-
generated calls for service should commonly be less than 6 minutes and on-scene
times should commonly be above 30 minutes, sufficient to allow thorough
investigations and sufficient time to provide a high quality level of service.
• A 50% proactive time level will allow a patrol force on most workdays to have
several hours during their shift to conduct targeted patrol, work on specific projects
to address community issues and perform other officer-initiated activities. Average
travel times to high priority community-generated calls for service should
commonly be less than 5 minutes and on-scene times should commonly be above
30 minutes, sufficient to allow thorough investigations and sufficient time to provide
a high quality level of service.
• Proactive time levels above 50% may provide a challenge to supervisors to keep
officers busy with meaningful work and engaged in the job. For communities that
do have this high level of proactive time, it is important to plan for productive work
and measure the results.
Each community can choose an appropriate target level of proactive time desired
for its patrol staff based on its unique needs, available funding, and policing model. An
overall average proactive time level of 40% to 50% is a reasonable target/goal for a
community that desires a patrol force which can provide a consistent level of proactive
services to the community. Policymakers should determine the policing level for their
community and understand the impacts of higher and lower proactive time levels. Higher
384
CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA
Final Report of the Patrol Staffing and Workload Update
Matrix Consulting Group Page 61
targeted proactive time levels will require more staff but also ensure that the police force
is able to provide a higher level of service to the community through proactive policing
and will also allow patrol officers to be more involved in issues/problems in the
neighborhoods in which they serve.
Communities with a proactive time level above 50% have the luxury of patrol staff
handling more community problems/issues and unique needs. However, in these
situations it is very important for patrol managers to plan the use of proactive time to
accomplish identified needs. This requires that Officers and Sergeants make good use of
their available proactive time and have accountability measures in place for evaluation.
Sergeants and Officers on a given shift should be involved in determining individual
productivity goals, receive regular feedback from their supervisor, and measure
accomplishment of those goals throughout the year as part of the department’s
performance evaluation and accountability system. With this system, supervisors should
be provided regular (i.e., monthly) statistical reports showing each individual officer’s
productivity, such as reports written, investigations conducted, arrests made, field
contacts (e.g., vehicle and pedestrian stops), citations or warnings issued, foot patrol,
problems/issues addressed on their beat, community meetings attended, and the number
of calls for service handled.
Policymakers should use the above factors to determine appropriate staffing levels
for all functions within the police department. The goal of a patrol staffing analysis is to
ensure sufficient patrol resources on duty 24 hours a day and available to providing a
high level of service to the community. The ability of a police department to achieve a
high level of service depends on knowing and evaluating the community demand
385
CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA
Final Report of the Patrol Staffing and Workload Update
Matrix Consulting Group Page 62
workload—the number of community-generated calls for service, reports, and bookings
of arrested persons. These are the factors used by the project team to evaluate the
number of Patrol Officers needed to achieve a staffing level that will provide the level of
pro-activity desired by a community.
386
CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA
Final Report of the Patrol Staffing and Workload Update
Matrix Consulting Group Page 63
APPENDIX B – TRAVEL TIMES TO CALLS FOR
SERVICE
The following three tables show the La Quinta PD average travel time “increments”
by call Priority type for the last three years. Travel time begins when the Officer is
dispatched to the incident and ends when he/she arrives at the scene of the incident.
Travel times of under 5 minutes are excellent time, times between 5 and 7 minutes and
also 7 – 10 minutes are good travel times for most calls. Travel times above 10 minutes
are typical for the lower Priority call types (3 and 4) but should not be frequent for Priority
2 or higher calls for service.
The calls listed as “no time stamps” are the calls where neither a dispatch time nor
arrival time was listed in the CAD record.
Travel Time to Calls – 2016
Priority
Type
Travel Time CFS CFS %
0:00–4:59 5:00–6:59 7:00–9:59 Above
10:00
No Time
Stamps
1 15 4 3 22 0.1%
1A 128 31 13 11 4 187 1.1%
2 2,199 1,093 1,111 1,971 980 7,354 43.5%
3 1,739 841 1,021 2,171 636 6,408 37.9%
4 908 319 369 1,178 170 2,944 17.4%
Total 4,989 2,288 2,517 5,331 1,790 16,915 100%
% of CFS 29.5% 13.5% 14.9% 31.5% 10.6% 100.0%
RCSD responded to 43% of the calls in fewer than seven minutes of travel time
which is an increase of almost 3 percentage points over 2014 and a slight increase over
2015.
387
CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA
Final Report of the Patrol Staffing and Workload Update
Matrix Consulting Group Page 64
The following table shows the time metrics for the 2015 calls for service followed
by the 2014 table.
Travel Time to Calls – 2015
Priority
Type
Travel Time CFS CFS %
0:00–4:59 5:00–6:59 7:00–9:59 Above
10:00
No Time
Stamps
1 16 7 3 2 28 0.2%
1A 113 28 19 9 6 175 1.0%
2 2195 1102 1087 1956 929 7269 42.8%
3 1778 844 1019 2273 708 6622 39.0%
4 793 314 360 1135 191 2793 16.4%
5 0 0 0 0 99 99 0.6%
Total 4,895 2,295 2,488 5,375 1,933 16,986 100%
% of CFS 28.8% 13.5% 14.6% 31.6% 11.4% 100.0%
RCSD responded to over 42% of the calls in fewer than seven minutes of travel
time – a 2% increase from 2014.
Travel Time to Calls – 2014
Priority
Type
Travel Time CFS CFS %
0:00–4:59 5:00–6:59 7:00–9:59 Above
10:00
No Time
Stamps
1 2 16 3 2 4 27 0.2%
1A 10 149 38 16 10 223 1.3%
2 1,064 1,930 1,015 1,204 1,990 7,203 43.3%
3 706 1,606 814 969 2,179 6,274 37.7%
4 335 770 320 397 1,080 2,902 17.4%
5 11 1 0 0 0 12 0.1%
Total 2,128 4,472 2,190 2,588 5,263 16,641 100%
% of CFS 12.8% 26.9% 13.2% 15.6% 31.6% 100.0%
RCSD responded to almost 40% of the calls in fewer than 7 minutes travel time.
388
CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM NO. 1
City of La Quinta
FINANCIAL ADVISORY COMMISSION MEETING June 12, 2017
STAFF REPORT
AGENDA TITLE: RECEIVE AND FILE THE 3rd QUARTER FISCAL YEAR 2016/17 TREASURY
REPORTS (JANUARY, FEBRUARY, and MARCH 2017)
RECOMMENDATION
Receive and file the 3rd quarter fiscal year 2016/17 Treasury Reports (January,
February, and March 2017).
BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS
Attached are the 3rd quarter fiscal year 2016/17 (January, February, and March 2017)
Treasury/Investment Reports.
Treasurer's Commentary on 3rd Quarter FY 2016/17
For the 3rd quarter period of FY 2016/17 (January 1, 2017 through March 31, 2017) the
City's total portfolio decreased by $259,072 from $121.39 million ending December
31, 2016 to $121.14 million on March 31, 2017. The decrease reflects revenue,
expenditure, and investment activities during the quarter.
Investment Activity
January 2017
• A $5 million US Treasury, which matured on January 31, 2017, was held for debt
service payments
• A $240,000 CD with Washington Trust matured on 1/9/2017 and was
reinvested in a $240,000 CD with Discover Bank (settled on 2/1/17)
• LAIF was increased by $9.7 million:
o $46,658 in earned interest
o $12,200,000 deposit from Recognized Obligation Payment Schedule
o $2,500,000 withdrawal for debt service payments
• Bank fees in January were $1,125 and the sweep account earned $45 in
interest income
• Average investment days to maturity in January was 333 days.
o
o
o
o
o
o
City of La Quinta
Portfolio Management
January 31, 2017
City of La Quinta
-
Portfolio Summary
% of
Portfolio
Book
ValueInvestmentsMarket
Value
Par
Value
Days to
MaturityTerm
YTM
365 Equiv.
Local Agency Investment Funds 37,749,508.75 131.66 0.751137,777,092.8637,749,508.75
Federal Agency Coupon Securities 30,432,750.00 1,52825.53 1.18559430,244,560.0030,500,000.00
Treasury Coupon Securities 12,408,750.00 1,52310.41 1.1861,18212,279,400.0012,500,000.00
Certificate of Deposits 10,701,000.00 1,4568.98 1.40064610,747,832.3310,701,000.00
Bank Accounts 2,331,525.40 11.96 0.00012,331,525.402,331,525.40
Money Market with Fiscal Agent 25,602,602.73 121.47 0.000125,602,602.7325,602,602.73
119,226,136.88 100.00%Investments 118,983,013.32119,384,636.88 680 333 0.789
Cash and Accrued Interest
119,226,677.75Total Cash and Investments
540.87Subtotal
540.87
118,983,554.19119,384,636.88
540.87
540.87
680 333 0.789
Accrued Interest at Purchase
Current Year
January 31
73,225.01
Fiscal Year To Date
453,055.21
Average Daily Balance
Effective Rate of Return
119,744,333.04 126,273,843.02
0.61%0.72%
Total Earnings Month Ending
I certify that this report accurately reflects all pooled investments and is in compliance with the California Government Code; and is in comformity with the City Investment Policy.
As Treasurer of the City of La Quinta, I hereby certify that sufficient investment liquidity and anticipated revenues are available to meet the pools expenditure requirements for the next six months. The City
of La Quinta used the Bureau of the Public Debt, U.S. Bank monthly statement, The Bank of New York, and First Empire monthly custodian reports to determine the fair market value of investments at
month end.
Portfolio CITY
CP
Reporting period 01/01/2017-01/31/2017
Run Date: 06/09/2017 - 16:31 PM (PRF_PM1) 7.3.0
Report Ver. 7.3.6.1
_____________________________________________
Karla Campos, Finance Director/City Treasurer
Days to
Maturity
Page 1
Par Value Book Value
Maturity
Date
Stated
RateMarket Value
January 31, 2017
Portfolio Details - Investments
Average
BalanceIssuer
Portfolio Management
City of La Quinta
YTM
365TermCUSIPInvestment #
Purchase
Date
Local Agency Investment Funds
1Local Agency Inv Fund1055 37,749,508.75 37,749,508.75 0.75107/01/2016 37,777,092.86 198-33-434 0.751
37,749,508.75 137,777,092.8637,749,508.7531,860,479.80Subtotal and Average 1 0.751
Federal Agency Coupon Securities
1,547Federal Home Loan Bank1053 2,500,000.00 2,491,250.00 04/28/20211.35004/28/2016 2,414,000.00 1,8263130A7QZ1 1.423
1,363Federal Home Loan Bank1064 2,500,000.00 2,500,000.00 10/26/20201.37510/26/2016 2,446,300.00 1,4613130A9UQ2 1.375
1,244Federal Home Loan Mtg Corp1052 5,000,000.00 5,000,000.00 06/29/20201.75006/29/2015 4,913,800.00 1,8273134G65L3 1.750
1,547Federal Home Loan Mtg Corp1054 2,500,000.00 2,500,000.00 04/28/20211.25004/28/2016 2,465,600.00 1,8263134G8Y37 2.115
41Federal National Mtg Assn1047 5,000,000.00 5,000,000.00 03/14/20170.75005/30/2013 5,001,350.00 1,3843135G0VM2 0.750
41Federal National Mtg Assn1048 13,000,000.00 12,941,500.00 03/14/20170.75006/17/2013 13,003,510.00 1,3663135G0VM2 0.872
30,432,750.00 1,52830,244,560.0030,500,000.0030,432,750.00Subtotal and Average 594 1.185
Treasury Coupon Securities
1,610U.S. Treasury1045 5,000,000.00 5,000,000.00 06/30/20211.12507/18/2016 4,849,400.00 1,808912828S27 1.125
1,032U.S. Treasury1051 5,000,000.00 4,906,500.00 11/30/20191.00006/03/2015 4,940,450.00 1,641912828UB4 1.431
621U.S. Treasury1063 2,500,000.00 2,502,250.00 10/15/20180.87510/24/2016 2,489,550.00 721912828L81 0.829
12,408,750.00 1,52312,279,400.0012,500,000.0017,248,427.42Subtotal and Average 1,182 1.186
Certificate of Deposits
838First Business Bank1019 240,000.00 240,000.00 05/20/20191.75005/20/2014 241,840.80 1,82631938QH72 1.751
636First Merchants Bank1020 240,000.00 240,000.00 10/30/20181.50004/30/2014 242,179.20 1,64432082BDF3 1.501
313First National-Mayfield1044 248,000.00 248,000.00 12/11/20171.00006/11/2015 248,463.76 914330459AY4 1.002
362Third Saving Bank and Loan1038 240,000.00 240,000.00 01/29/20181.25004/29/2014 240,556.80 1,37188413QAN8 1.251
691Ally Bank Midvale1001 240,000.00 240,000.00 12/24/20181.70012/24/2015 241,411.20 1,09602006LWX7 1.702
553Amex Centurion1000 240,000.00 240,000.00 08/08/20181.90008/08/2013 242,644.80 1,82602587DRJ9 1.901
817Barclays Bank1003 240,000.00 240,000.00 04/29/20191.90004/29/2014 243,115.20 1,82606740KGR2 1.901
453Berkshire Bank1004 240,000.00 240,000.00 04/30/20181.35004/30/2014 241,269.60 1,461084601AL7 1.351
813BMW Bank1005 240,000.00 240,000.00 04/25/20191.90004/25/2014 243,110.40 1,82605568P7A9 1.901
1,225Capital One1006 245,000.00 245,000.00 06/10/20201.90006/10/2015 247,481.85 1,827140420RX0 1.902
411Carolina Alliance1007 248,000.00 248,000.00 03/19/20181.00006/19/2015 247,821.44 1,00414376RAM9 1.000
1,482Comenity Capital Bank1009 240,000.00 240,000.00 02/22/20211.70002/22/2016 238,576.80 1,82720033APG5 1.702
559CitiBank1008240,000.00 240,000.00 08/14/20181.90008/14/2013 242,544.00 1,82617284CKN3 1.901
489Compass Bank1010 248,000.00 248,000.00 06/05/20181.35006/05/2015 248,704.32 1,09620451PLG9 1.351
854Connect One1011 248,000.00 248,000.00 06/05/20191.50006/05/2015 249,277.20 1,46120786ABD6 1.501
453Cornerstone Community Bank1012 240,000.00 240,000.00 04/30/20181.35004/30/2014 240,734.40 1,461219240AZ1 1.351
453Crescent Bank and Trust1013 240,000.00 240,000.00 04/30/20181.30004/30/2014 240,585.60 1,461225645DC1 1.301
Portfolio CITY
CP
Run Date: 06/09/2017 - 16:31 PM (PRF_PM2) 7.3.0
Report Ver. 7.3.6.1
Days to
Maturity
Page 2
Par Value Book Value
Maturity
Date
Stated
RateMarket Value
January 31, 2017
Portfolio Details - Investments
Average
BalanceIssuer
Portfolio Management
City of La Quinta
YTM
365TermCUSIPInvestment #
Purchase
Date
Certificate of Deposits
118Customers Bank1014 240,000.00 240,000.00 05/30/20171.00005/28/2014 240,352.80 1,09823204HBE7 1.001
408Embassy National1015 248,000.00 248,000.00 03/16/20181.00006/17/2015 248,329.84 1,003290800AL5 1.000
818Ephrata Bank1016 240,000.00 240,000.00 04/30/20191.65004/30/2014 243,182.40 1,826294209AQ4 1.651
1,220EverBank1017248,000.00 248,000.00 06/05/20201.70006/05/2015 248,525.76 1,82729976DXX3 1.702
734Farmers & Merch1018 248,000.00 248,000.00 02/05/20191.25006/05/2015 247,446.96 1,341307814DC4 1.252
838Gulf Coast Bank1024 240,000.00 240,000.00 05/20/20191.75005/19/2014 241,850.40 1,827402194EB6 1.724
316GE Capital Bank1022 240,000.00 240,000.00 12/14/20171.10012/14/2012 240,376.80 1,82636161THK4 1.101
820GE Capital Retail Bank (Synch)1021 240,000.00 240,000.00 05/02/20192.00005/02/2014 243,062.40 1,82636160KJ22 2.001
321Goldman Sachs1023 240,000.00 240,000.00 12/19/20171.15012/19/2012 240,465.60 1,82638143A2N4 1.151
345Independent Bank1025 248,000.00 248,000.00 01/12/20180.90006/12/2015 248,399.28 94545383UQY4 0.902
489MB Financial Bank1027 248,000.00 248,000.00 06/05/20181.10006/05/2015 248,342.24 1,09655266CME3 1.101
448Medallion Bank1028 240,000.00 240,000.00 04/25/20181.35004/25/2014 240,739.20 1,46158403BL95 1.351
495MFR Trade & Trust1026 248,000.00 248,000.00 06/11/20181.20006/10/2015 248,193.44 1,097564759QT8 1.033
1,227Bank Midwest1002 248,000.00 248,000.00 06/12/20201.65006/12/2015 248,076.88 1,827063615AVO 1.652
679Morton Community1030 248,000.00 248,000.00 12/12/20181.25006/12/2015 248,577.84 1,279619165GE7 1.251
462Merrick Bank1029 240,000.00 240,000.00 05/09/20181.35005/09/2014 241,300.80 1,46159012Y6Q5 1.351
846Peapack-Gladstone Bank1031 240,000.00 240,000.00 05/28/20191.80005/28/2014 243,235.20 1,826704692AL6 1.801
1,575PrivateBank & Trust1032 240,000.00 240,000.00 05/26/20211.50005/26/2016 237,043.20 1,82674267GVG9 1.501
530Regal Bank1033 240,000.00 240,000.00 07/16/20181.40005/16/2014 241,581.60 1,52275874TAH4 1.401
946Riverwood1034248,000.00 248,000.00 09/05/20191.40006/05/2015 249,656.64 1,55376951DAL4 1.402
432South Atlantic1036 248,000.00 248,000.00 04/09/20181.00006/09/2015 247,756.96 1,03583637AAP9 1.001
853Solomon State1035 248,000.00 248,000.00 06/04/20191.40006/04/2015 249,279.68 1,46183427LAX2 1.401
124TCF National Bank1037 248,000.00 248,000.00 06/05/20170.70006/03/2015 248,186.00 733872278MT0 0.701
131Towne Bank1039 248,000.00 248,000.00 06/12/20170.90006/12/2015 248,205.84 73189214PAU3 0.901
302Traverse City1040 240,000.00 240,000.00 11/30/20171.10005/30/2014 240,916.80 1,280894333FE8 1.102
811Webster Bank1042 240,000.00 240,000.00 04/23/20191.80004/23/2014 243,112.80 1,82694768NJQ8 1.801
755Wells Fargo1043 240,000.00 240,000.00 02/26/20191.20002/26/2016 241,317.60 1,0969497483N5 1.201
10,701,000.00 1,45610,747,832.3310,701,000.0010,762,935.48Subtotal and Average 646 1.400
Bank Accounts
1First Empire Bank1060 0.00 0.0007/01/2016 0.00 1SYS1060 0.000
1La Quinta Palms Realty1062 55,595.39 55,595.3907/01/2016 55,595.39 1SYS1062 0.000
1Wells Fargo1057 1,163,652.14 1,163,652.1407/01/2016 1,163,652.14 14159282482 0.000
1Wells Fargo1059 1,700.00 1,700.0007/01/2016 1,700.00 1SYS1059 0.000
1Washington St Apt La Quinta1061 1,110,577.87 1,110,577.8707/01/2016 1,110,577.87 1SYS1061 0.000
Portfolio CITY
CP
Run Date: 06/09/2017 - 16:31 PM (PRF_PM2) 7.3.0
Days to
Maturity
Page 3
Par Value Book Value
Maturity
Date
Stated
RateMarket Value
January 31, 2017
Portfolio Details - Investments
Average
BalanceIssuer
Portfolio Management
City of La Quinta
YTM
365TermCUSIPInvestment #
Purchase
Date
2,331,525.40 12,331,525.402,331,525.403,837,288.85Subtotal and Average 1 0.000
Money Market with Fiscal Agent
1US Bank1058 25,602,602.73 25,602,602.7307/01/2016 25,602,602.73 1SYS1058 0.000
25,602,602.73 125,602,602.7325,602,602.7325,602,451.49Subtotal and Average 1 0.000
680119,744,333.04 119,384,636.88 333 0.789118,983,013.32 119,226,136.88Total and Average
Portfolio CITY
CP
Run Date: 06/09/2017 - 16:31 PM (PRF_PM2) 7.3.0
Days to
Maturity
Page 4
Par Value Book Value
Stated
RateMarket Value
January 31, 2017
Portfolio Details - Cash
Average
BalanceIssuer
Portfolio Management
City of La Quinta
YTM
365TermCUSIPInvestment #
Purchase
Date
0.00
680119,744,333.04 119,384,636.88 333 0.789
0 0
540.87
540.87
540.87
540.87
Subtotal
Accrued Interest at PurchaseAverage Balance
118,983,554.19 119,226,677.75Total Cash and Investments
Portfolio CITY
CP
Run Date: 06/09/2017 - 16:31 PM (PRF_PM2) 7.3.0
City of La Quinta
Total Earnings
City of La Quinta
-
Sorted by Fund - Fund
January 1, 2017 - January 31, 2017
Current
Rate
Ending
Par Value
Ending
Fund Book Value
Beginning
Book Value
Adjusted Interest Earnings
Accretion
Amortization/
Earnings
Adjusted InterestAnnualized
YieldCUSIPInvestment #
Interest
EarnedIssuer Realized
Gainl/Loss
Fund: General Fund
240,000.001000240,000.00 1.900AMEX 387.29 0.00 387.291.900101240,000.0002587DRJ9 0.00
240,000.001001240,000.00 1.700ALLY 346.52 0.00 346.521.700101240,000.0002006LWX7 0.00
248,000.001002248,000.00 1.650MIDWES 347.54 0.00 347.541.650101248,000.00063615AVO 0.00
240,000.001003240,000.00 1.900BARCLY 387.29 0.00 387.291.900101240,000.0006740KGR2 0.00
240,000.001004240,000.00 1.350BERKS 275.18 0.00 275.181.350101240,000.00084601AL7 0.00
240,000.001005240,000.00 1.900BMW 387.29 0.00 387.291.900101240,000.0005568P7A9 0.00
245,000.001006245,000.00 1.900CAPONE 395.35 0.00 395.351.900101245,000.00140420RX0 0.00
248,000.001007248,000.00 1.000CAROL 210.63 0.00 210.631.000101248,000.0014376RAM9 0.00
240,000.001008240,000.00 1.900CITI 387.29 0.00 387.291.900101240,000.0017284CKN3 0.00
240,000.001009240,000.00 1.700CCBA 346.52 0.00 346.521.700101240,000.0020033APG5 0.00
248,000.001010248,000.00 1.350COMP 284.35 0.00 284.351.350101248,000.0020451PLG9 0.00
248,000.001011248,000.00 1.500CONNEC 315.94 0.00 315.941.500101248,000.0020786ABD6 0.00
240,000.001012240,000.00 1.350CORNER 275.18 0.00 275.181.350101240,000.00219240AZ1 0.00
240,000.001013240,000.00 1.300CRESC 264.99 0.00 264.991.300101240,000.00225645DC1 0.00
240,000.001014240,000.00 1.000CUST 203.84 0.00 203.841.000101240,000.0023204HBE7 0.00
248,000.001015248,000.00 1.000EMBNAT 210.63 0.00 210.631.000101248,000.00290800AL5 0.00
240,000.001016240,000.00 1.650EPHRAT 336.33 0.00 336.331.650101240,000.00294209AQ4 0.00
248,000.001017248,000.00 1.700EVRBA 358.08 0.00 358.081.700101248,000.0029976DXX3 0.00
248,000.001018248,000.00 1.250FARMER 263.29 0.00 263.291.250101248,000.00307814DC4 0.00
240,000.001019240,000.00 1.7501STBUS 356.72 0.00 356.721.750101240,000.0031938QH72 0.00
240,000.001020240,000.00 1.5001STMER 305.76 0.00 305.761.500101240,000.0032082BDF3 0.00
240,000.001021240,000.00 2.000GECAPR 407.67 0.00 407.672.000101240,000.0036160KJ22 0.00
240,000.001022240,000.00 1.100GECAP 224.22 0.00 224.221.100101240,000.0036161THK4 0.00
240,000.001023240,000.00 1.150GLDMAN 234.41 0.00 234.411.150101240,000.0038143A2N4 0.00
240,000.001024240,000.00 1.750GCB 356.71 0.00 356.711.750101240,000.00402194EB6 0.00
248,000.001025248,000.00 0.900INDEP 189.57 0.00 189.570.900101248,000.0045383UQY4 0.00
248,000.001026248,000.00 1.200MFR 252.75 0.00 252.751.200101248,000.00564759QT8 0.00
248,000.001027248,000.00 1.100MBFIN 231.69 0.00 231.691.100101248,000.0055266CME3 0.00
240,000.001028240,000.00 1.350MEDBA 275.18 0.00 275.181.350101240,000.0058403BL95 0.00
240,000.001029240,000.00 1.350MRRCK 275.18 0.00 275.181.350101240,000.0059012Y6Q5 0.00
Portfolio CITY
CP
Run Date: 06/09/2017 - 16:33 TE (PRF_TE) 7.3.6
Report Ver. 7.3.6.1
Current
Rate
Ending
Par Value
Ending
Fund
Page 2
Book Value
Beginning
Book Value
Adjusted Interest Earnings
Accretion
Amortization/
Earnings
Adjusted Interest
January 1, 2017 - January 31, 2017
Total Earnings
City of La Quinta
Annualized
YieldCUSIPInvestment #
Interest
EarnedIssuer Realized
Gainl/Loss
Fund: General Fund
248,000.001030248,000.00 1.250MORTN 263.29 0.00 263.291.250101248,000.00619165GE7 0.00
240,000.001031240,000.00 1.800PEAPAC 366.90 0.00 366.901.800101240,000.00704692AL6 0.00
240,000.001032240,000.00 1.500PRVTBA 305.76 0.00 305.761.500101240,000.0074267GVG9 0.00
240,000.001033240,000.00 1.400REGAL 285.37 0.00 285.371.400101240,000.0075874TAH4 0.00
248,000.001034248,000.00 1.400RVRW 294.88 0.00 294.881.400101248,000.0076951DAL4 0.00
248,000.001035248,000.00 1.400SOLOM 294.89 0.00 294.891.400101248,000.0083427LAX2 0.00
248,000.001036248,000.00 1.000SOATL 210.63 0.00 210.631.000101248,000.0083637AAP9 0.00
248,000.001037248,000.00 0.700TCF 147.44 0.00 147.440.700101248,000.00872278MT0 0.00
240,000.001038240,000.00 1.2503RD 254.79 0.00 254.791.250101240,000.0088413QAN8 0.00
248,000.001039248,000.00 0.900TOWNE 189.57 0.00 189.570.900101248,000.0089214PAU3 0.00
240,000.001040240,000.00 1.100TRAV 224.22 0.00 224.221.100101240,000.00894333FE8 0.00
0.0010410.00 0.650WASHTR 34.19 0.00 34.190.650101240,000.00940637GB1 0.00
240,000.001042240,000.00 1.800WEB 366.90 0.00 366.901.800101240,000.0094768NJQ8 0.00
240,000.001043240,000.00 1.200WELLS 244.60 0.00 244.601.200101240,000.009497483N5 0.00
248,000.001044248,000.00 1.0001STNAT 210.63 0.00 210.631.000101248,000.00330459AY4 0.00
5,000,000.0010455,000,000.00 1.125USTR 4,816.99 0.00 4,816.991.1341015,000,000.00912828S27 0.00
5,000,000.0010475,000,000.00 0.750FNMA 3,125.00 0.00 3,125.000.7361015,000,000.003135G0VM2 0.00
12,941,500.00104813,000,000.00 0.750FNMA 8,125.00 0.00 8,125.000.73910112,941,500.003135G0VM2 0.00
0.0010500.00 0.500USTR 2,038.04 0.00 1,038.040.4961015,001,000.00912828H78 -1,000.00
4,906,500.0010515,000,000.00 1.000USTR 4,258.25 0.00 4,258.251.0221014,906,500.00912828UB4 0.00
5,000,000.0010525,000,000.00 1.750FHLMC 7,291.67 0.00 7,291.671.7171015,000,000.003134G65L3 0.00
2,491,250.0010532,500,000.00 1.350FHLB 2,812.50 0.00 2,812.501.3291012,491,250.003130A7QZ1 0.00
2,500,000.0010542,500,000.00 1.250FHLMC 2,604.17 0.00 2,604.171.2261012,500,000.003134G8Y37 0.00
37,749,508.75105537,749,508.75 0.751LAIF 20,999.89 0.00 20,999.890.77610128,002,850.6398-33-434 0.00
1,163,652.1410571,163,652.14WELLS 23.72 0.00 23.720.0111012,573,327.434159282482 0.00
1,700.0010591,700.00WELLS 0.00 0.00 0.001011,700.00SYS1059 0.00
2,502,250.0010632,500,000.00 0.875USTR 1,862.98 0.00 1,862.980.8771012,502,250.00912828L81 0.00
2,500,000.0010642,500,000.00 1.375FHLB 2,864.58 0.00 2,864.581.3491012,500,000.003130A9UQ2 0.00
92,615,860.89Subtotal 92,457,360.89 0.921 72,610.240.0073,610.2489,361,378.06 -1,000.00
Fund: 1st Empire Securities Cash Bal
0.0010600.00EMPIRE 0.00 0.00 0.001020.00SYS1060 0.00
0.00Subtotal 0.00 0.000.000.000.00 0.00
Fund: Fiscal Agent
25,602,602.73105825,602,602.73USBANK 614.77 0.00 614.770.02823125,602,446.45SYS1058 0.00
Portfolio CITY
CP
Run Date: 06/09/2017 - 16:33 TE (PRF_TE) 7.3.6
Report Ver. 7.3.6.1
Current
Rate
Ending
Par Value
Ending
Fund
Page 3
Book Value
Beginning
Book Value
Adjusted Interest Earnings
Accretion
Amortization/
Earnings
Adjusted Interest
January 1, 2017 - January 31, 2017
Total Earnings
City of La Quinta
Annualized
YieldCUSIPInvestment #
Interest
EarnedIssuer Realized
Gainl/Loss
25,602,602.73Subtotal 25,602,602.73 0.028 614.770.00614.7725,602,446.45 0.00
Fund: Housing Authority : WSA and LQ
1,110,577.8710611,110,577.87WSALQ 0.00 0.00 0.002411,094,223.23SYS1061 0.00
55,595.39106255,595.39LQPR 0.00 0.00 0.0024142,230.30SYS1062 0.00
1,166,173.26Subtotal 1,166,173.26 0.000.000.001,136,453.53 0.00
119,384,636.88Total 119,226,136.88 0.720 73,225.010.0074,225.01116,100,278.04 -1,000.00
Portfolio CITY
CP
Run Date: 06/09/2017 - 16:33 TE (PRF_TE) 7.3.6
Report Ver. 7.3.6.1
City of La Quinta
Portfolio Management
February 28, 2017
City of La Quinta
-
Portfolio Summary
% of
Portfolio
Book
ValueInvestmentsMarket
Value
Par
Value
Days to
MaturityTerm
YTM
365 Equiv.
Local Agency Investment Funds 39,249,508.75 130.70 0.777139,277,092.8639,249,508.75
Federal Agency Coupon Securities 30,432,750.00 1,52823.80 1.18556630,254,090.0030,500,000.00
Treasury Coupon Securities 12,408,750.00 1,5239.71 1.1861,15412,290,550.0012,500,000.00
Certificate of Deposits 10,941,000.00 1,4648.56 1.42566710,987,058.1110,941,000.00
Bank Accounts 4,872,670.08 13.81 0.00014,872,670.084,872,670.08
Money Market with Fiscal Agent 29,937,617.97 123.42 0.000129,937,617.9729,937,617.97
127,842,296.80 100.00%Investments 127,619,079.02128,000,796.80 637 304 0.758
Cash and Accrued Interest
127,842,837.67Total Cash and Investments
540.87Subtotal
540.87
127,619,619.89128,000,796.80
540.87
540.87
637 304 0.758
Accrued Interest at Purchase
Current Year
February 28
72,665.52
Fiscal Year To Date
525,720.73
Average Daily Balance
Effective Rate of Return
119,757,561.30 125,522,995.74
0.63%0.79%
Total Earnings Month Ending
I certify that this report accurately reflects all pooled investments and is in compliance with the California Government Code; and is in comformity with the City Investment Policy.
As Treasurer of the City of La Quinta, I hereby certify that sufficient investment liquidity and anticipated revenues are available to meet the pools expenditure requirements for the next six months. The City
of La Quinta used the Bureau of the Public Debt, U.S. Bank monthly statement, The Bank of New York, and First Empire monthly custodian reports to determine the fair market value of investments at
month end.
Portfolio CITY
CP
Reporting period 02/01/2017-02/28/2017
Run Date: 06/09/2017 - 16:35 PM (PRF_PM1) 7.3.0
Report Ver. 7.3.6.1
_____________________________________________
Karla Campos, Finance Director/City Treasurer
Days to
Maturity
Page 1
Par Value Book Value
Maturity
Date
Stated
RateMarket Value
February 28, 2017
Portfolio Details - Investments
Average
BalanceIssuer
Portfolio Management
City of La Quinta
YTM
365TermCUSIPInvestment #
Purchase
Date
Local Agency Investment Funds
1Local Agency Inv Fund1055 39,249,508.75 39,249,508.75 0.77707/01/2016 39,277,092.86 198-33-434 0.777
39,249,508.75 139,277,092.8639,249,508.7537,803,080.18Subtotal and Average 1 0.777
Federal Agency Coupon Securities
1,519Federal Home Loan Bank1053 2,500,000.00 2,491,250.00 04/28/20211.35004/28/2016 2,418,475.00 1,8263130A7QZ1 1.423
1,335Federal Home Loan Bank1064 2,500,000.00 2,500,000.00 10/26/20201.37510/26/2016 2,449,800.00 1,4613130A9UQ2 1.375
1,216Federal Home Loan Mtg Corp1052 5,000,000.00 5,000,000.00 06/29/20201.75006/29/2015 4,915,800.00 1,8273134G65L3 1.750
1,519Federal Home Loan Mtg Corp1054 2,500,000.00 2,500,000.00 04/28/20211.25004/28/2016 2,468,575.00 1,8263134G8Y37 2.115
13Federal National Mtg Assn1047 5,000,000.00 5,000,000.00 03/14/20170.75005/30/2013 5,000,400.00 1,3843135G0VM2 0.750
13Federal National Mtg Assn1048 13,000,000.00 12,941,500.00 03/14/20170.75006/17/2013 13,001,040.00 1,3663135G0VM2 0.872
30,432,750.00 1,52830,254,090.0030,500,000.0030,432,750.00Subtotal and Average 566 1.185
Treasury Coupon Securities
1,582U.S. Treasury1045 5,000,000.00 5,000,000.00 06/30/20211.12507/18/2016 4,856,250.00 1,808912828S27 1.125
1,004U.S. Treasury1051 5,000,000.00 4,906,500.00 11/30/20191.00006/03/2015 4,944,150.00 1,641912828UB4 1.431
593U.S. Treasury1063 2,500,000.00 2,502,250.00 10/15/20180.87510/24/2016 2,490,150.00 721912828L81 0.829
12,408,750.00 1,52312,290,550.0012,500,000.0012,408,750.00Subtotal and Average 1,154 1.186
Certificate of Deposits
810First Business Bank1019 240,000.00 240,000.00 05/20/20191.75005/20/2014 241,665.60 1,82631938QH72 1.751
608First Merchants Bank1020 240,000.00 240,000.00 10/30/20181.50004/30/2014 242,104.80 1,64432082BDF3 1.501
285First National-Mayfield1044 248,000.00 248,000.00 12/11/20171.00006/11/2015 248,647.28 914330459AY4 1.002
334Third Saving Bank and Loan1038 240,000.00 240,000.00 01/29/20181.25004/29/2014 240,684.00 1,37188413QAN8 1.251
663Ally Bank Midvale1001 240,000.00 240,000.00 12/24/20181.70012/24/2015 241,363.20 1,09602006LWX7 1.702
525Amex Centurion1000 240,000.00 240,000.00 08/08/20181.90008/08/2013 242,551.20 1,82602587DRJ9 1.901
789Barclays Bank1003 240,000.00 240,000.00 04/29/20191.90004/29/2014 242,906.40 1,82606740KGR2 1.901
425Berkshire Bank1004 240,000.00 240,000.00 04/30/20181.35004/30/2014 241,226.40 1,461084601AL7 1.351
1,821BMW Bank1067 240,000.00 240,000.00 02/24/20222.20002/24/2017 241,080.00 1,82605580AGK4 2.201
1,197Capital One1006 245,000.00 245,000.00 06/10/20201.90006/10/2015 247,408.35 1,827140420RX0 1.902
383Carolina Alliance1007 248,000.00 248,000.00 03/19/20181.00006/19/2015 247,883.44 1,00414376RAM9 1.000
1,454Comenity Capital Bank1009 240,000.00 240,000.00 02/22/20211.70002/22/2016 239,184.00 1,82720033APG5 1.702
531CitiBank1008240,000.00 240,000.00 08/14/20181.90008/14/2013 242,455.20 1,82617284CKN3 1.901
461Compass Bank1010 248,000.00 248,000.00 06/05/20181.35006/05/2015 248,706.80 1,09620451PLG9 1.351
826Connect One1011 248,000.00 248,000.00 06/05/20191.50006/05/2015 249,106.08 1,46120786ABD6 1.501
425Cornerstone Community Bank1012 240,000.00 240,000.00 04/30/20181.35004/30/2014 240,727.20 1,461219240AZ1 1.351
425Crescent Bank and Trust1013 240,000.00 240,000.00 04/30/20181.30004/30/2014 240,590.40 1,461225645DC1 1.301
Portfolio CITY
CP
Run Date: 06/09/2017 - 16:35 PM (PRF_PM2) 7.3.0
Report Ver. 7.3.6.1
Days to
Maturity
Page 2
Par Value Book Value
Maturity
Date
Stated
RateMarket Value
February 28, 2017
Portfolio Details - Investments
Average
BalanceIssuer
Portfolio Management
City of La Quinta
YTM
365TermCUSIPInvestment #
Purchase
Date
Certificate of Deposits
90Customers Bank1014 240,000.00 240,000.00 05/30/20171.00005/28/2014 240,314.40 1,09823204HBE7 1.001
1,798Discover Bank Greenwood DE CF1066 240,000.00 240,000.00 02/01/20222.25002/01/2017 241,848.00 1,8262546722U1 2.251
380Embassy National1015 248,000.00 248,000.00 03/16/20181.00006/17/2015 248,352.16 1,003290800AL5 1.000
790Ephrata Bank1016 240,000.00 240,000.00 04/30/20191.65004/30/2014 242,971.20 1,826294209AQ4 1.651
1,192EverBank1017248,000.00 248,000.00 06/05/20201.70006/05/2015 248,483.60 1,82729976DXX3 1.702
706Farmers & Merch1018 248,000.00 248,000.00 02/05/20191.25006/05/2015 247,456.88 1,341307814DC4 1.252
810Gulf Coast Bank1024 240,000.00 240,000.00 05/20/20191.75005/19/2014 241,670.40 1,827402194EB6 1.724
288GE Capital Bank1022 240,000.00 240,000.00 12/14/20171.10012/14/2012 240,561.60 1,82636161THK4 1.101
792GE Capital Retail Bank (Synch)1021 240,000.00 240,000.00 05/02/20192.00005/02/2014 242,853.60 1,82636160KJ22 2.001
293Goldman Sachs1023 240,000.00 240,000.00 12/19/20171.15012/19/2012 240,640.80 1,82638143A2N4 1.151
317Independent Bank1025 248,000.00 248,000.00 01/12/20180.90006/12/2015 248,560.48 94545383UQY4 0.902
461MB Financial Bank1027 248,000.00 248,000.00 06/05/20181.10006/05/2015 248,367.04 1,09655266CME3 1.101
420Medallion Bank1028 240,000.00 240,000.00 04/25/20181.35004/25/2014 240,736.80 1,46158403BL95 1.351
467MFR Trade & Trust1026 248,000.00 248,000.00 06/11/20181.20006/10/2015 248,225.68 1,097564759QT8 1.033
1,199Bank Midwest1002 248,000.00 248,000.00 06/12/20201.65006/12/2015 248,062.00 1,827063615AVO 1.652
651Morton Community1030 248,000.00 248,000.00 12/12/20181.25006/12/2015 248,565.44 1,279619165GE7 1.251
434Merrick Bank1029 240,000.00 240,000.00 05/09/20181.35005/09/2014 241,262.40 1,46159012Y6Q5 1.351
818Peapack-Gladstone Bank1031 240,000.00 240,000.00 05/28/20191.80005/28/2014 242,995.20 1,826704692AL6 1.801
1,547PrivateBank & Trust1032 240,000.00 240,000.00 05/26/20211.50005/26/2016 237,388.80 1,82674267GVG9 1.501
502Regal Bank1033 240,000.00 240,000.00 07/16/20181.40005/16/2014 241,531.20 1,52275874TAH4 1.401
918Riverwood1034248,000.00 248,000.00 09/05/20191.40006/05/2015 249,421.04 1,55376951DAL4 1.402
404South Atlantic1036 248,000.00 248,000.00 04/09/20181.00006/09/2015 247,821.44 1,03583637AAP9 1.001
825Solomon State1035 248,000.00 248,000.00 06/04/20191.40006/04/2015 249,111.04 1,46183427LAX2 1.401
96TCF National Bank1037 248,000.00 248,000.00 06/05/20170.70006/03/2015 248,193.44 733872278MT0 0.701
103Towne Bank1039 248,000.00 248,000.00 06/12/20170.90006/12/2015 248,208.32 73189214PAU3 0.901
274Traverse City1040 240,000.00 240,000.00 11/30/20171.10005/30/2014 241,058.40 1,280894333FE8 1.102
783Webster Bank1042 240,000.00 240,000.00 04/23/20191.80004/23/2014 242,906.40 1,82694768NJQ8 1.801
727Wells Fargo1043 240,000.00 240,000.00 02/26/20191.20002/26/2016 241,200.00 1,0969497483N5 1.201
10,941,000.00 1,46410,987,058.1110,941,000.0010,881,000.00Subtotal and Average 667 1.425
Bank Accounts
1First Empire Bank1060 0.00 0.0007/01/2016 0.00 1SYS1060 0.000
1La Quinta Palms Realty1062 65,883.03 65,883.0307/01/2016 65,883.03 1SYS1062 0.000
1Wells Fargo1057 3,684,772.65 3,684,772.6507/01/2016 3,684,772.65 14159282482 0.000
1Wells Fargo1059 1,700.00 1,700.0007/01/2016 1,700.00 1SYS1059 0.000
1Washington St Apt La Quinta1061 1,120,314.40 1,120,314.4007/01/2016 1,120,314.40 1SYS1061 0.000
Portfolio CITY
CP
Run Date: 06/09/2017 - 16:35 PM (PRF_PM2) 7.3.0
Days to
Maturity
Page 3
Par Value Book Value
Maturity
Date
Stated
RateMarket Value
February 28, 2017
Portfolio Details - Investments
Average
BalanceIssuer
Portfolio Management
City of La Quinta
YTM
365TermCUSIPInvestment #
Purchase
Date
4,872,670.08 14,872,670.084,872,670.082,474,556.42Subtotal and Average 1 0.000
Money Market with Fiscal Agent
1US Bank1058 29,937,617.97 29,937,617.9707/01/2016 29,937,617.97 1SYS1058 0.000
29,937,617.97 129,937,617.9729,937,617.9725,757,424.70Subtotal and Average 1 0.000
637119,757,561.30 128,000,796.80 304 0.758127,619,079.02 127,842,296.80Total and Average
Portfolio CITY
CP
Run Date: 06/09/2017 - 16:35 PM (PRF_PM2) 7.3.0
Days to
Maturity
Page 4
Par Value Book Value
Stated
RateMarket Value
February 28, 2017
Portfolio Details - Cash
Average
BalanceIssuer
Portfolio Management
City of La Quinta
YTM
365TermCUSIPInvestment #
Purchase
Date
0.00
637119,757,561.30 128,000,796.80 304 0.758
0 0
540.87
540.87
540.87
540.87
Subtotal
Accrued Interest at PurchaseAverage Balance
127,619,619.89 127,842,837.67Total Cash and Investments
Portfolio CITY
CP
Run Date: 06/09/2017 - 16:35 PM (PRF_PM2) 7.3.0
City of La Quinta
Total Earnings
City of La Quinta
-
Sorted by Fund - Fund
February 1, 2017 - February 28, 2017
Current
Rate
Ending
Par Value
Ending
Fund Book Value
Beginning
Book Value
Adjusted Interest Earnings
Accretion
Amortization/
Earnings
Adjusted InterestAnnualized
YieldCUSIPInvestment #
Interest
EarnedIssuer Realized
Gainl/Loss
Fund: General Fund
240,000.001000240,000.00 1.900AMEX 349.81 0.00 349.811.900101240,000.0002587DRJ9 0.00
240,000.001001240,000.00 1.700ALLY 312.99 0.00 312.991.700101240,000.0002006LWX7 0.00
248,000.001002248,000.00 1.650MIDWES 313.90 0.00 313.901.650101248,000.00063615AVO 0.00
240,000.001003240,000.00 1.900BARCLY 349.81 0.00 349.811.900101240,000.0006740KGR2 0.00
240,000.001004240,000.00 1.350BERKS 248.54 0.00 248.541.350101240,000.00084601AL7 0.00
0.0010050.00 1.900BMW 199.89 0.00 919.891.900101240,000.0005568P7A9 720.00
245,000.001006245,000.00 1.900CAPONE 357.10 0.00 357.101.900101245,000.00140420RX0 0.00
248,000.001007248,000.00 1.000CAROL 190.25 0.00 190.251.000101248,000.0014376RAM9 0.00
240,000.001008240,000.00 1.900CITI 349.81 0.00 349.811.900101240,000.0017284CKN3 0.00
240,000.001009240,000.00 1.700CCBA 312.98 0.00 312.981.700101240,000.0020033APG5 0.00
248,000.001010248,000.00 1.350COMP 256.83 0.00 256.831.350101248,000.0020451PLG9 0.00
248,000.001011248,000.00 1.500CONNEC 285.37 0.00 285.371.500101248,000.0020786ABD6 0.00
240,000.001012240,000.00 1.350CORNER 248.54 0.00 248.541.350101240,000.00219240AZ1 0.00
240,000.001013240,000.00 1.300CRESC 239.34 0.00 239.341.300101240,000.00225645DC1 0.00
240,000.001014240,000.00 1.000CUST 184.11 0.00 184.111.000101240,000.0023204HBE7 0.00
248,000.001015248,000.00 1.000EMBNAT 190.25 0.00 190.251.000101248,000.00290800AL5 0.00
240,000.001016240,000.00 1.650EPHRAT 303.78 0.00 303.781.650101240,000.00294209AQ4 0.00
248,000.001017248,000.00 1.700EVRBA 323.41 0.00 323.411.700101248,000.0029976DXX3 0.00
248,000.001018248,000.00 1.250FARMER 237.81 0.00 237.811.250101248,000.00307814DC4 0.00
240,000.001019240,000.00 1.7501STBUS 322.19 0.00 322.191.750101240,000.0031938QH72 0.00
240,000.001020240,000.00 1.5001STMER 276.16 0.00 276.161.500101240,000.0032082BDF3 0.00
240,000.001021240,000.00 2.000GECAPR 368.22 0.00 368.222.000101240,000.0036160KJ22 0.00
240,000.001022240,000.00 1.100GECAP 202.52 0.00 202.521.100101240,000.0036161THK4 0.00
240,000.001023240,000.00 1.150GLDMAN 211.73 0.00 211.731.150101240,000.0038143A2N4 0.00
240,000.001024240,000.00 1.750GCB 322.20 0.00 322.201.750101240,000.00402194EB6 0.00
248,000.001025248,000.00 0.900INDEP 171.22 0.00 171.220.900101248,000.0045383UQY4 0.00
248,000.001026248,000.00 1.200MFR 228.30 0.00 228.301.200101248,000.00564759QT8 0.00
248,000.001027248,000.00 1.100MBFIN 209.27 0.00 209.271.100101248,000.0055266CME3 0.00
240,000.001028240,000.00 1.350MEDBA 248.55 0.00 248.551.350101240,000.0058403BL95 0.00
240,000.001029240,000.00 1.350MRRCK 248.54 0.00 248.541.350101240,000.0059012Y6Q5 0.00
Portfolio CITY
CP
Run Date: 06/09/2017 - 16:34 TE (PRF_TE) 7.3.6
Report Ver. 7.3.6.1
Current
Rate
Ending
Par Value
Ending
Fund
Page 2
Book Value
Beginning
Book Value
Adjusted Interest Earnings
Accretion
Amortization/
Earnings
Adjusted Interest
February 1, 2017 - February 28, 2017
Total Earnings
City of La Quinta
Annualized
YieldCUSIPInvestment #
Interest
EarnedIssuer Realized
Gainl/Loss
Fund: General Fund
248,000.001030248,000.00 1.250MORTN 237.81 0.00 237.811.250101248,000.00619165GE7 0.00
240,000.001031240,000.00 1.800PEAPAC 331.40 0.00 331.401.800101240,000.00704692AL6 0.00
240,000.001032240,000.00 1.500PRVTBA 276.16 0.00 276.161.500101240,000.0074267GVG9 0.00
240,000.001033240,000.00 1.400REGAL 257.75 0.00 257.751.400101240,000.0075874TAH4 0.00
248,000.001034248,000.00 1.400RVRW 266.35 0.00 266.351.400101248,000.0076951DAL4 0.00
248,000.001035248,000.00 1.400SOLOM 266.34 0.00 266.341.400101248,000.0083427LAX2 0.00
248,000.001036248,000.00 1.000SOATL 190.24 0.00 190.241.000101248,000.0083637AAP9 0.00
248,000.001037248,000.00 0.700TCF 133.18 0.00 133.180.700101248,000.00872278MT0 0.00
240,000.001038240,000.00 1.2503RD 230.14 0.00 230.141.250101240,000.0088413QAN8 0.00
248,000.001039248,000.00 0.900TOWNE 171.22 0.00 171.220.900101248,000.0089214PAU3 0.00
240,000.001040240,000.00 1.100TRAV 202.52 0.00 202.521.100101240,000.00894333FE8 0.00
240,000.001042240,000.00 1.800WEB 331.40 0.00 331.401.800101240,000.0094768NJQ8 0.00
240,000.001043240,000.00 1.200WELLS 220.93 0.00 220.931.200101240,000.009497483N5 0.00
248,000.001044248,000.00 1.0001STNAT 190.24 0.00 190.241.000101248,000.00330459AY4 0.00
5,000,000.0010455,000,000.00 1.125USTR 4,350.82 0.00 4,350.821.1341015,000,000.00912828S27 0.00
5,000,000.0010475,000,000.00 0.750FNMA 3,125.00 0.00 3,125.000.8151015,000,000.003135G0VM2 0.00
12,941,500.00104813,000,000.00 0.750FNMA 8,125.00 0.00 8,125.000.81810112,941,500.003135G0VM2 0.00
4,906,500.0010515,000,000.00 1.000USTR 3,846.15 0.00 3,846.151.0221014,906,500.00912828UB4 0.00
5,000,000.0010525,000,000.00 1.750FHLMC 7,291.66 0.00 7,291.661.9011015,000,000.003134G65L3 0.00
2,491,250.0010532,500,000.00 1.350FHLB 2,812.50 0.00 2,812.501.4721012,491,250.003130A7QZ1 0.00
2,500,000.0010542,500,000.00 1.250FHLMC 2,604.16 0.00 2,604.161.3581012,500,000.003134G8Y37 0.00
39,249,508.75105539,249,508.75 0.777LAIF 22,505.47 0.00 22,505.470.77610137,749,508.7598-33-434 0.00
3,684,772.6510573,684,772.65WELLS 45.34 0.00 45.340.0471011,163,652.144159282482 0.00
1,700.0010591,700.00WELLS 0.00 0.00 0.001011,700.00SYS1059 0.00
2,502,250.0010632,500,000.00 0.875USTR 1,682.69 0.00 1,682.690.8771012,502,250.00912828L81 0.00
2,500,000.0010642,500,000.00 1.375FHLB 2,864.58 0.00 2,864.581.4941012,500,000.003130A9UQ2 0.00
240,000.001066240,000.00 2.250DISCOV 414.25 0.00 414.252.2501010.002546722U1 0.00
240,000.001067240,000.00 2.200BMW 72.33 0.00 72.332.2001010.0005580AGK4 0.00
96,876,981.40Subtotal 96,718,481.40 1.009 71,829.050.0071,109.0592,457,360.89 720.00
Fund: 1st Empire Securities Cash Bal
0.0010600.00EMPIRE 0.00 0.00 0.001020.00SYS1060 0.00
0.00Subtotal 0.00 0.000.000.000.00 0.00
Fund: Fiscal Agent
29,937,617.97105829,937,617.97USBANK 836.47 0.00 836.470.04223125,602,602.73SYS1058 0.00
Portfolio CITY
CP
Run Date: 06/09/2017 - 16:34 TE (PRF_TE) 7.3.6
Report Ver. 7.3.6.1
Current
Rate
Ending
Par Value
Ending
Fund
Page 3
Book Value
Beginning
Book Value
Adjusted Interest Earnings
Accretion
Amortization/
Earnings
Adjusted Interest
February 1, 2017 - February 28, 2017
Total Earnings
City of La Quinta
Annualized
YieldCUSIPInvestment #
Interest
EarnedIssuer Realized
Gainl/Loss
29,937,617.97Subtotal 29,937,617.97 0.042 836.470.00836.4725,602,602.73 0.00
Fund: Housing Authority : WSA and LQ
1,120,314.4010611,120,314.40WSALQ 0.00 0.00 0.002411,110,577.87SYS1061 0.00
65,883.03106265,883.03LQPR 0.00 0.00 0.0024155,595.39SYS1062 0.00
1,186,197.43Subtotal 1,186,197.43 0.000.000.001,166,173.26 0.00
128,000,796.80Total 127,842,296.80 0.791 72,665.520.0071,945.52119,226,136.88 720.00
Portfolio CITY
CP
Run Date: 06/09/2017 - 16:34 TE (PRF_TE) 7.3.6
Report Ver. 7.3.6.1
City of La Quinta
Portfolio Management
March 31, 2017
City of La Quinta
-
Portfolio Summary
% of
Portfolio
Book
ValueInvestmentsMarket
Value
Par
Value
Days to
MaturityTerm
YTM
365 Equiv.
Local Agency Investment Funds 44,249,508.75 136.53 0.821144,277,092.8644,249,508.75
Federal Agency Coupon Securities 16,481,250.00 1,67513.61 1.7361,35316,268,860.0016,500,000.00
Treasury Coupon Securities 16,417,175.00 1,22313.55 1.2841,11616,268,070.0016,500,000.00
Certificate of Deposits 10,941,000.00 1,4649.03 1.42563610,960,399.8110,941,000.00
Corporate Notes 1,993,200.00 7021.65 1.3056991,991,040.002,000,000.00
Bank Accounts 5,415,673.25 14.47 0.00015,415,673.255,415,673.25
Money Market with Fiscal Agent 25,639,120.77 121.17 0.000125,639,120.7725,639,120.77
121,136,927.77 100.00%Investments 120,820,256.69121,245,302.77 538 405 0.860
Cash and Accrued Interest
121,137,468.64Total Cash and Investments
540.87Subtotal
540.87
120,820,797.56121,245,302.77
540.87
540.87
538 405 0.860
Accrued Interest at Purchase
Current Year
March 31
149,439.45
Fiscal Year To Date
675,160.18
Average Daily Balance
Effective Rate of Return
121,424,019.63 125,059,242.97
0.72%1.45%
Total Earnings Month Ending
I certify that this report accurately reflects all pooled investments and is in compliance with the California Government Code; and is in comformity with the City Investment Policy.
As Treasurer of the City of La Quinta, I hereby certify that sufficient investment liquidity and anticipated revenues are available to meet the pools expenditure requirements for the next six months. The City
of La Quinta used the Bureau of the Public Debt, U.S. Bank monthly statement, The Bank of New York, and First Empire monthly custodian reports to determine the fair market value of investments at
month end.
Portfolio CITY
CP
Reporting period 03/01/2017-03/31/2017
Run Date: 06/09/2017 - 16:38 PM (PRF_PM1) 7.3.0
Report Ver. 7.3.6.1
_____________________________________________
Karla Campos, Finance Director/City Treasurer
Days to
Maturity
Page 1
Par Value Book Value
Maturity
Date
Stated
RateMarket Value
March 31, 2017
Portfolio Details - Investments
Average
BalanceIssuer
Portfolio Management
City of La Quinta
YTM
365TermCUSIPInvestment #
Purchase
Date
Local Agency Investment Funds
1Local Agency Inv Fund1055 44,249,508.75 44,249,508.75 0.82107/01/2016 44,277,092.86 198-33-434 0.821
44,249,508.75 144,277,092.8644,249,508.7540,055,960.36Subtotal and Average 1 0.821
Federal Agency Coupon Securities
1,488Federal Home Loan Bank1053 2,500,000.00 2,491,250.00 04/28/20211.35004/28/2016 2,416,375.00 1,8263130A7QZ1 1.423
1,304Federal Home Loan Bank1064 2,500,000.00 2,500,000.00 10/26/20201.37510/26/2016 2,447,425.00 1,4613130A9UQ2 1.375
1,185Federal Home Loan Mtg Corp1052 5,000,000.00 5,000,000.00 06/29/20201.75006/29/2015 4,952,150.00 1,8273134G65L3 1.750
1,488Federal Home Loan Mtg Corp1054 2,500,000.00 2,500,000.00 04/28/20211.25004/28/2016 2,467,450.00 1,8263134G8Y37 2.115
1,823Federal Home Loan Mtg Corp1073 2,000,000.00 1,990,000.00 03/29/20222.00003/29/2017 1,985,620.00 1,8263134GBAE2 2.106
1,031Federal National Mtg Assn1072 2,000,000.00 2,000,000.00 01/27/20201.70003/27/2017 1,999,840.00 1,0363135G0S53 1.700
16,481,250.00 1,67516,268,860.0016,500,000.0020,530,266.13Subtotal and Average 1,353 1.736
Treasury Coupon Securities
1,551U.S. Treasury1045 5,000,000.00 5,000,000.00 06/30/20211.12507/18/2016 4,855,300.00 1,808912828S27 1.125
562U.S. Treasury1063 2,500,000.00 2,502,250.00 10/15/20180.87510/24/2016 2,488,375.00 721912828L81 0.829
1,095U.S. Treasury1068 2,500,000.00 2,483,250.00 03/31/20201.37503/20/2017 2,489,150.00 1,107912828J84 1.602
988U.S. Treasury1069 2,500,000.00 2,490,750.00 12/15/20191.37503/20/2017 2,495,325.00 1,000912828U73 1.513
1,674U.S. Treasury1070 2,000,000.00 1,942,800.00 10/31/20211.25003/27/2017 1,943,980.00 1,679912828T67 1.903
364U.S. Treasury1071 2,000,000.00 1,998,125.00 03/31/20180.87503/27/2017 1,995,940.00 369912828Q45 0.968
16,417,175.00 1,22316,268,070.0016,500,000.0012,437,415.32Subtotal and Average 1,116 1.284
Certificate of Deposits
779First Business Bank1019 240,000.00 240,000.00 05/20/20191.75005/20/2014 240,823.20 1,82631938QH72 1.751
577First Merchants Bank1020 240,000.00 240,000.00 10/30/20181.50004/30/2014 241,550.40 1,64432082BDF3 1.501
254First National-Mayfield1044 248,000.00 248,000.00 12/11/20171.00006/11/2015 248,367.04 914330459AY4 1.002
303Third Saving Bank and Loan1038 240,000.00 240,000.00 01/29/20181.25004/29/2014 240,477.60 1,37188413QAN8 1.251
632Ally Bank Midvale1001 240,000.00 240,000.00 12/24/20181.70012/24/2015 240,780.00 1,09602006LWX7 1.702
494Amex Centurion1000 240,000.00 240,000.00 08/08/20181.90008/08/2013 242,049.60 1,82602587DRJ9 1.901
758Barclays Bank1003 240,000.00 240,000.00 04/29/20191.90004/29/2014 242,028.00 1,82606740KGR2 1.901
394Berkshire Bank1004 240,000.00 240,000.00 04/30/20181.35004/30/2014 240,907.20 1,461084601AL7 1.351
1,790BMW Bank1067 240,000.00 240,000.00 02/24/20222.20002/24/2017 239,661.60 1,82605580AGK4 2.201
1,166Capital One1006 245,000.00 245,000.00 06/10/20201.90006/10/2015 246,217.65 1,827140420RX0 1.902
352Carolina Alliance1007 248,000.00 248,000.00 03/19/20181.00006/19/2015 247,727.20 1,00414376RAM9 1.000
1,423Comenity Capital Bank1009 240,000.00 240,000.00 02/22/20211.70002/22/2016 238,012.80 1,82720033APG5 1.702
500CitiBank1008240,000.00 240,000.00 08/14/20181.90008/14/2013 241,956.00 1,82617284CKN3 1.901
430Compass Bank1010 248,000.00 248,000.00 06/05/20181.35006/05/2015 248,381.92 1,09620451PLG9 1.351
Portfolio CITY
CP
Run Date: 06/09/2017 - 16:38 PM (PRF_PM2) 7.3.0
Report Ver. 7.3.6.1
Days to
Maturity
Page 2
Par Value Book Value
Maturity
Date
Stated
RateMarket Value
March 31, 2017
Portfolio Details - Investments
Average
BalanceIssuer
Portfolio Management
City of La Quinta
YTM
365TermCUSIPInvestment #
Purchase
Date
Certificate of Deposits
795Connect One1011 248,000.00 248,000.00 06/05/20191.50006/05/2015 248,245.52 1,46120786ABD6 1.501
394Cornerstone Community Bank1012 240,000.00 240,000.00 04/30/20181.35004/30/2014 240,446.40 1,461219240AZ1 1.351
394Crescent Bank and Trust1013 240,000.00 240,000.00 04/30/20181.30004/30/2014 240,316.80 1,461225645DC1 1.301
59Customers Bank1014 240,000.00 240,000.00 05/30/20171.00005/28/2014 240,146.40 1,09823204HBE7 1.001
1,767Discover Bank Greenwood DE CF1066 240,000.00 240,000.00 02/01/20222.25002/01/2017 240,432.00 1,8262546722U1 2.251
349Embassy National1015 248,000.00 248,000.00 03/16/20181.00006/17/2015 248,166.16 1,003290800AL5 1.000
759Ephrata Bank1016 240,000.00 240,000.00 04/30/20191.65004/30/2014 242,083.20 1,826294209AQ4 1.651
1,161EverBank1017248,000.00 248,000.00 06/05/20201.70006/05/2015 247,342.80 1,82729976DXX3 1.702
675Farmers & Merch1018 248,000.00 248,000.00 02/05/20191.25006/05/2015 246,888.96 1,341307814DC4 1.252
779Gulf Coast Bank1024 240,000.00 240,000.00 05/20/20191.75005/19/2014 240,828.00 1,827402194EB6 1.724
257GE Capital Bank1022 240,000.00 240,000.00 12/14/20171.10012/14/2012 240,302.40 1,82636161THK4 1.101
761GE Capital Retail Bank (Synch)1021 240,000.00 240,000.00 05/02/20192.00005/02/2014 241,975.20 1,82636160KJ22 2.001
262Goldman Sachs1023 240,000.00 240,000.00 12/19/20171.15012/19/2012 240,384.00 1,82638143A2N4 1.151
286Independent Bank1025 248,000.00 248,000.00 01/12/20180.90006/12/2015 248,344.72 94545383UQY4 0.902
430MB Financial Bank1027 248,000.00 248,000.00 06/05/20181.10006/05/2015 248,064.48 1,09655266CME3 1.101
389Medallion Bank1028 240,000.00 240,000.00 04/25/20181.35004/25/2014 240,453.60 1,46158403BL95 1.351
436MFR Trade & Trust1026 248,000.00 248,000.00 06/11/20181.20006/10/2015 247,928.08 1,097564759QT8 1.033
1,168Bank Midwest1002 248,000.00 248,000.00 06/12/20201.65006/12/2015 246,926.16 1,827063615AVO 1.652
620Morton Community1030 248,000.00 248,000.00 12/12/20181.25006/12/2015 248,022.32 1,279619165GE7 1.251
403Merrick Bank1029 240,000.00 240,000.00 05/09/20181.35005/09/2014 240,928.80 1,46159012Y6Q5 1.351
787Peapack-Gladstone Bank1031 240,000.00 240,000.00 05/28/20191.80005/28/2014 242,088.00 1,826704692AL6 1.801
1,516PrivateBank & Trust1032 240,000.00 240,000.00 05/26/20211.50005/26/2016 236,280.00 1,82674267GVG9 1.501
471Regal Bank1033 240,000.00 240,000.00 07/16/20181.40005/16/2014 241,120.80 1,52275874TAH4 1.401
887Riverwood1034248,000.00 248,000.00 09/05/20191.40006/05/2015 248,458.80 1,55376951DAL4 1.402
373South Atlantic1036 248,000.00 248,000.00 04/09/20181.00006/09/2015 247,618.08 1,03583637AAP9 1.001
794Solomon State1035 248,000.00 248,000.00 06/04/20191.40006/04/2015 248,248.00 1,46183427LAX2 1.401
65TCF National Bank1037 248,000.00 248,000.00 06/05/20170.70006/03/2015 248,066.96 733872278MT0 0.701
72Towne Bank1039 248,000.00 248,000.00 06/12/20170.90006/12/2015 248,079.36 73189214PAU3 0.901
243Traverse City1040 240,000.00 240,000.00 11/30/20171.10005/30/2014 240,708.00 1,280894333FE8 1.102
752Webster Bank1042 240,000.00 240,000.00 04/23/20191.80004/23/2014 242,030.40 1,82694768NJQ8 1.801
696Wells Fargo1043 240,000.00 240,000.00 02/26/20191.20002/26/2016 240,535.20 1,0969497483N5 1.201
10,941,000.00 1,46410,960,399.8110,941,000.0010,941,000.00Subtotal and Average 636 1.425
Corporate Notes
699Johnson and Johnson Corp1075 2,000,000.00 1,993,200.00 03/01/20191.12503/29/2017 1,991,040.00 702478160BR4 1.305
Portfolio CITY
CP
Run Date: 06/09/2017 - 16:38 PM (PRF_PM2) 7.3.0
Days to
Maturity
Page 3
Par Value Book Value
Maturity
Date
Stated
RateMarket Value
March 31, 2017
Portfolio Details - Investments
Average
BalanceIssuer
Portfolio Management
City of La Quinta
YTM
365TermCUSIPInvestment #
Purchase
Date
1,993,200.00 7021,991,040.002,000,000.00192,890.32Subtotal and Average 699 1.305
Bank Accounts
1First Empire Bank1060 0.00 0.0007/01/2016 0.00 1SYS1060 0.000
1La Quinta Palms Realty1062 83,385.41 83,385.4107/01/2016 83,385.41 1SYS1062 0.000
1Wells Fargo1057 4,202,882.09 4,202,882.0907/01/2016 4,202,882.09 14159282482 0.000
1Wells Fargo1059 1,700.00 1,700.0007/01/2016 1,700.00 1SYS1059 0.000
1Washington St Apt La Quinta1061 1,127,705.75 1,127,705.7507/01/2016 1,127,705.75 1SYS1061 0.000
5,415,673.25 15,415,673.255,415,673.257,467,530.73Subtotal and Average 1 0.000
Money Market with Fiscal Agent
1US Bank1058 25,639,120.77 25,639,120.7707/01/2016 25,639,120.77 1SYS1058 0.000
25,639,120.77 125,639,120.7725,639,120.7729,798,956.77Subtotal and Average 1 0.000
538121,424,019.63 121,245,302.77 405 0.860120,820,256.69 121,136,927.77Total and Average
Portfolio CITY
CP
Run Date: 06/09/2017 - 16:38 PM (PRF_PM2) 7.3.0
Days to
Maturity
Page 4
Par Value Book Value
Stated
RateMarket Value
March 31, 2017
Portfolio Details - Cash
Average
BalanceIssuer
Portfolio Management
City of La Quinta
YTM
365TermCUSIPInvestment #
Purchase
Date
0.00
538121,424,019.63 121,245,302.77 405 0.860
0 0
540.87
540.87
540.87
540.87
Subtotal
Accrued Interest at PurchaseAverage Balance
120,820,797.56 121,137,468.64Total Cash and Investments
Portfolio CITY
CP
Run Date: 06/09/2017 - 16:38 PM (PRF_PM2) 7.3.0
City of La Quinta
Total Earnings
City of La Quinta
-
Sorted by Fund - Fund
March 1, 2017 - March 31, 2017
Current
Rate
Ending
Par Value
Ending
Fund Book Value
Beginning
Book Value
Adjusted Interest Earnings
Accretion
Amortization/
Earnings
Adjusted InterestAnnualized
YieldCUSIPInvestment #
Interest
EarnedIssuer Realized
Gainl/Loss
Fund: General Fund
240,000.001000240,000.00 1.900AMEX 387.29 0.00 387.291.900101240,000.0002587DRJ9 0.00
240,000.001001240,000.00 1.700ALLY 346.52 0.00 346.521.700101240,000.0002006LWX7 0.00
248,000.001002248,000.00 1.650MIDWES 347.54 0.00 347.541.650101248,000.00063615AVO 0.00
240,000.001003240,000.00 1.900BARCLY 387.28 0.00 387.281.900101240,000.0006740KGR2 0.00
240,000.001004240,000.00 1.350BERKS 275.18 0.00 275.181.350101240,000.00084601AL7 0.00
245,000.001006245,000.00 1.900CAPONE 395.35 0.00 395.351.900101245,000.00140420RX0 0.00
248,000.001007248,000.00 1.000CAROL 210.63 0.00 210.631.000101248,000.0014376RAM9 0.00
240,000.001008240,000.00 1.900CITI 387.29 0.00 387.291.900101240,000.0017284CKN3 0.00
240,000.001009240,000.00 1.700CCBA 346.53 0.00 346.531.700101240,000.0020033APG5 0.00
248,000.001010248,000.00 1.350COMP 284.35 0.00 284.351.350101248,000.0020451PLG9 0.00
248,000.001011248,000.00 1.500CONNEC 315.95 0.00 315.951.500101248,000.0020786ABD6 0.00
240,000.001012240,000.00 1.350CORNER 275.18 0.00 275.181.350101240,000.00219240AZ1 0.00
240,000.001013240,000.00 1.300CRESC 264.99 0.00 264.991.300101240,000.00225645DC1 0.00
240,000.001014240,000.00 1.000CUST 203.83 0.00 203.831.000101240,000.0023204HBE7 0.00
248,000.001015248,000.00 1.000EMBNAT 210.63 0.00 210.631.000101248,000.00290800AL5 0.00
240,000.001016240,000.00 1.650EPHRAT 336.33 0.00 336.331.650101240,000.00294209AQ4 0.00
248,000.001017248,000.00 1.700EVRBA 358.08 0.00 358.081.700101248,000.0029976DXX3 0.00
248,000.001018248,000.00 1.250FARMER 263.29 0.00 263.291.250101248,000.00307814DC4 0.00
240,000.001019240,000.00 1.7501STBUS 356.71 0.00 356.711.750101240,000.0031938QH72 0.00
240,000.001020240,000.00 1.5001STMER 305.76 0.00 305.761.500101240,000.0032082BDF3 0.00
240,000.001021240,000.00 2.000GECAPR 407.67 0.00 407.672.000101240,000.0036160KJ22 0.00
240,000.001022240,000.00 1.100GECAP 224.22 0.00 224.221.100101240,000.0036161THK4 0.00
240,000.001023240,000.00 1.150GLDMAN 234.41 0.00 234.411.150101240,000.0038143A2N4 0.00
240,000.001024240,000.00 1.750GCB 356.71 0.00 356.711.750101240,000.00402194EB6 0.00
248,000.001025248,000.00 0.900INDEP 189.57 0.00 189.570.900101248,000.0045383UQY4 0.00
248,000.001026248,000.00 1.200MFR 252.75 0.00 252.751.200101248,000.00564759QT8 0.00
248,000.001027248,000.00 1.100MBFIN 231.70 0.00 231.701.100101248,000.0055266CME3 0.00
240,000.001028240,000.00 1.350MEDBA 275.18 0.00 275.181.350101240,000.0058403BL95 0.00
240,000.001029240,000.00 1.350MRRCK 275.18 0.00 275.181.350101240,000.0059012Y6Q5 0.00
248,000.001030248,000.00 1.250MORTN 263.29 0.00 263.291.250101248,000.00619165GE7 0.00
Portfolio CITY
CP
Run Date: 06/09/2017 - 16:36 TE (PRF_TE) 7.3.6
Report Ver. 7.3.6.1
Current
Rate
Ending
Par Value
Ending
Fund
Page 2
Book Value
Beginning
Book Value
Adjusted Interest Earnings
Accretion
Amortization/
Earnings
Adjusted Interest
March 1, 2017 - March 31, 2017
Total Earnings
City of La Quinta
Annualized
YieldCUSIPInvestment #
Interest
EarnedIssuer Realized
Gainl/Loss
Fund: General Fund
240,000.001031240,000.00 1.800PEAPAC 366.91 0.00 366.911.800101240,000.00704692AL6 0.00
240,000.001032240,000.00 1.500PRVTBA 305.75 0.00 305.751.500101240,000.0074267GVG9 0.00
240,000.001033240,000.00 1.400REGAL 285.37 0.00 285.371.400101240,000.0075874TAH4 0.00
248,000.001034248,000.00 1.400RVRW 294.88 0.00 294.881.400101248,000.0076951DAL4 0.00
248,000.001035248,000.00 1.400SOLOM 294.88 0.00 294.881.400101248,000.0083427LAX2 0.00
248,000.001036248,000.00 1.000SOATL 210.63 0.00 210.631.000101248,000.0083637AAP9 0.00
248,000.001037248,000.00 0.700TCF 147.44 0.00 147.440.700101248,000.00872278MT0 0.00
240,000.001038240,000.00 1.2503RD 254.79 0.00 254.791.250101240,000.0088413QAN8 0.00
248,000.001039248,000.00 0.900TOWNE 189.57 0.00 189.570.900101248,000.0089214PAU3 0.00
240,000.001040240,000.00 1.100TRAV 224.22 0.00 224.221.100101240,000.00894333FE8 0.00
240,000.001042240,000.00 1.800WEB 366.90 0.00 366.901.800101240,000.0094768NJQ8 0.00
240,000.001043240,000.00 1.200WELLS 244.60 0.00 244.601.200101240,000.009497483N5 0.00
248,000.001044248,000.00 1.0001STNAT 210.63 0.00 210.631.000101248,000.00330459AY4 0.00
5,000,000.0010455,000,000.00 1.125USTR 4,816.99 0.00 4,816.991.1341015,000,000.00912828S27 0.00
0.0010470.00 0.750FNMA 1,354.17 0.00 1,354.170.7601015,000,000.003135G0VM2 0.00
0.0010480.00 0.750FNMA 3,520.83 0.00 62,020.830.76410112,941,500.003135G0VM2 58,500.00
0.0010510.00 1.000USTR 2,060.44 0.00 20,560.441.0221014,906,500.00912828UB4 18,500.00
5,000,000.0010525,000,000.00 1.750FHLMC 7,291.67 0.00 7,291.671.7171015,000,000.003134G65L3 0.00
2,491,250.0010532,500,000.00 1.350FHLB 2,812.50 0.00 2,812.501.3291012,491,250.003130A7QZ1 0.00
2,500,000.0010542,500,000.00 1.250FHLMC 2,604.17 0.00 2,604.171.2261012,500,000.003134G8Y37 0.00
44,249,508.75105544,249,508.75 0.821LAIF 26,401.70 0.00 26,401.700.77610139,249,508.7598-33-434 0.00
4,202,882.0910574,202,882.09WELLS 0.00 0.00 0.001013,684,772.654159282482 0.00
1,700.0010591,700.00WELLS 0.00 0.00 0.001011,700.00SYS1059 0.00
2,502,250.0010632,500,000.00 0.875USTR 1,862.98 0.00 1,862.980.8771012,502,250.00912828L81 0.00
2,500,000.0010642,500,000.00 1.375FHLB 2,864.59 0.00 2,864.591.3491012,500,000.003130A9UQ2 0.00
240,000.001066240,000.00 2.250DISCOV 458.63 0.00 458.632.250101240,000.002546722U1 0.00
240,000.001067240,000.00 2.200BMW 448.44 0.00 448.442.200101240,000.0005580AGK4 0.00
2,483,250.0010682,500,000.00 1.375USTR 1,132.72 0.00 1,132.721.3871010.00912828J84 0.00
2,490,750.0010692,500,000.00 1.375USTR 1,133.24 0.00 1,133.241.3841010.00912828U73 0.00
1,942,800.0010702,000,000.00 1.250USTR 345.31 0.00 345.311.2971010.00912828T67 0.00
1,998,125.0010712,000,000.00 0.875USTR 240.12 0.00 240.120.8771010.00912828Q45 0.00
2,000,000.0010722,000,000.00 1.700FNMA 377.77 0.00 377.771.3791010.003135G0S53 0.00
1,990,000.0010732,000,000.00 2.000FHLMC 222.22 0.00 222.221.3591010.003134GBAE2 0.00
1,993,200.0010752,000,000.00 1.125J&J 125.00 0.00 125.000.7631010.00478160BR4 0.00
94,395,090.84Subtotal 94,286,715.84 2.003 149,439.450.0072,439.4596,718,481.40 77,000.00
Portfolio CITY
CP
Run Date: 06/09/2017 - 16:36 TE (PRF_TE) 7.3.6
Report Ver. 7.3.6.1
Current
Rate
Ending
Par Value
Ending
Fund
Page 3
Book Value
Beginning
Book Value
Adjusted Interest Earnings
Accretion
Amortization/
Earnings
Adjusted Interest
March 1, 2017 - March 31, 2017
Total Earnings
City of La Quinta
Annualized
YieldCUSIPInvestment #
Interest
EarnedIssuer Realized
Gainl/Loss
Fund: 1st Empire Securities Cash Bal
0.0010600.00EMPIRE 0.00 0.00 0.001020.00SYS1060 0.00
0.00Subtotal 0.00 0.000.000.000.00 0.00
Fund: Fiscal Agent
25,639,120.77105825,639,120.77USBANK 0.00 0.00 0.0023129,937,617.97SYS1058 0.00
25,639,120.77Subtotal 25,639,120.77 0.000.000.0029,937,617.97 0.00
Fund: Housing Authority : WSA and LQ
1,127,705.7510611,127,705.75WSALQ 0.00 0.00 0.002411,120,314.40SYS1061 0.00
83,385.41106283,385.41LQPR 0.00 0.00 0.0024165,883.03SYS1062 0.00
1,211,091.16Subtotal 1,211,091.16 0.000.000.001,186,197.43 0.00
121,245,302.77Total 121,136,927.77 1.449 149,439.450.0072,439.45127,842,296.80 77,000.00
Portfolio CITY
CP
Run Date: 06/09/2017 - 16:36 TE (PRF_TE) 7.3.6
Report Ver. 7.3.6.1
City of La Quinta
-City of La Quinta
Sales/Call Report
Sorted by Maturity Date - Fund
January 1, 2017 - March 31, 2017
Redem. Date Redemption
Principal
Redemption
Interest
Book Value
at Redem.
Total
Amount Net IncomeFundMatur. Date
Rate at
Redem.
Par
ValueSec. TypeCUSIPInvestment #
Issuer Purchase
Date
04/25/2019
240,000.00 240,000.00 240,720.00 1,436.71100505568P7A902/17/2017 242,156.71 2,156.71101BMW
MC1 04/25/2019
04/25/2014 1.900
Sale
Subtotal 240,000.00 240,720.00 1,436.71240,000.00 242,156.71 2,156.71
11/30/2019
5,000,000.00 4,906,500.00 4,925,000.00 14,560.441051912828UB403/16/2017 4,939,560.44 33,060.44101USTR
TRC 11/30/2019
06/03/2015 1.000
Sale
Subtotal 4,906,500.00 4,925,000.00 14,560.445,000,000.00 4,939,560.44 33,060.44
5,165,720.00Total Sales 5,240,000.00 15,997.155,146,500.00 5,181,717.15 35,217.15
Portfolio CITY
CP
Run Date: 06/09/2017 - 11:28 SA (PRF_SA) 7.1.1
Report Ver. 7.3.6.1
City of La Quinta
-City of La Quinta
Purchases Report
Sorted by Fund - Fund
January 1, 2017 - March 31, 2017
Original
Par Value
Ending
Book Value
Sec.
TypeFund
Maturity
YTM
Accrued Interest
at PurchasePayment Periods DateCUSIPInvestment #Issuer
Purchase
Date
Principal
Purchased
Rate at
Purchase
General Fund
240,000.00 2.250 02/01/2022 240,000.00240,000.0002/01/2017 2.25108/01 - 02/01DISCOV10662546722U1MC1101
240,000.00 2.200 02/24/2022 240,000.00240,000.0002/24/2017 2.20108/24 - 02/24BMW106705580AGK4MC1101
2,500,000.00 1.375 03/31/2020 2,483,250.002,483,250.00 Received03/20/2017 1.60203/31 - 09/30USTR1068912828J84TRC101
2,500,000.00 1.375 12/15/2019 2,490,750.002,490,750.00 Received03/20/2017 1.51306/15 - 12/15USTR1069912828U73TRC101
2,000,000.00 1.700 01/27/2020 2,000,000.002,000,000.00 Received03/27/2017 1.70007/27 - 01/27FNMA10723135G0S53FAC101
2,000,000.00 1.250 10/31/2021 1,942,800.001,942,800.00 Received03/27/2017 1.90304/30 - 10/31USTR1070912828T67TRC101
2,000,000.00 0.875 03/31/2018 1,998,125.001,998,125.00 Received03/27/2017 0.96803/31 - 09/30USTR1071912828Q45TRC101
2,000,000.00 2.000 03/29/2022 1,990,000.001,990,000.0003/29/2017 2.10609/29 - 03/29FHLMC10733134GBAE2FAC101
2,000,000.00 1.125 03/01/2019 1,993,200.001,993,200.00 Received03/29/2017 1.30509/01 - 03/01J&J1075478160BR4MC2101
Subtotal 15,378,125.0015,378,125.00 0.0015,480,000.00
15,378,125.00Total Purchases 15,480,000.00 0.00 15,378,125.00
Received = Accrued Interest at Purchase was received by report ending date.
Portfolio CITY
CP
Run Date: 06/09/2017 - 08:51 PU (PRF_PU) 7.1.1
Report Ver. 7.3.6.1
City of La Quinta
-City of La Quinta
Maturity Report
Sorted by Maturity Date
Amounts due during January 1, 2017 - March 31, 2017
Rate
at MaturityPar Value
Sec.
TypeFund
Maturity
Date
Maturity
ProceedsInterest Income
Net
CUSIP Investment #Issuer
Purchase
Date
Book Value
at Maturity
240,000.00 0.650 240,132.49132.4906/09/2014WASHTR1041940637GB1MC110101/09/2017 132.49240,000.00
5,000,000.00 0.500 5,012,500.0012,500.0007/31/2015USTR1050912828H78TRC10101/31/2017 11,500.005,001,000.00
5,000,000.00 0.750 5,018,750.0018,750.0005/30/2013FNMA10473135G0VM2FAC10103/14/2017 18,750.005,000,000.00
13,000,000.00 0.750 13,048,750.0048,750.0006/17/2013FNMA10483135G0VM2FAC10103/14/2017 107,250.0012,941,500.00
23,320,132.49Total Maturities 23,240,000.00 80,132.4923,182,500.00 137,632.49
Portfolio CITY
CP
Run Date: 06/09/2017 - 08:52 MA (PRF_MA) 7.1.1
Report Ver. 7.3.6.1
US Treasury Rates https://www.treasury.gov/resource‐center/data‐chart‐center/interest‐rates/Pages/TextView.aspx?data=yieldYear&year=2017 Commercial Paper Rates https://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/cp/rates.htm
City of La Quinta
CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM NO. 2
FINANCE ADVISORY COMMISSION MEETING: June 12, 2017
STAFF REPORT
AGENDA TITLE. RECEIVE AND FILE REVENUE AND EXPENDITURE REPORT DATED
MARCH 31, 2017
RECOMMENDATION
Receive and file revenue and expenditure reports dated March 31, 2017.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
• Revenue and expenditure reports are submitted for review.
• The report summarizes the City's year-to-date (YTD) revenues and expenditures for
March 2017 (Attachment 1).
FISCAL IMPACT - None.
BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS
Revenues
Below is a summary of the column headers used on the Revenue Summary Report All
Funds:
Original Total Budget - represents the revenue budget the Council adopted in June
2016 for fiscal year 2016/17.
Current Total Budget - includes original adopted revenue budget, plus carryovers,
from the prior fiscal year and Council approved budget amendments. The bulk of
the carryovers are related to Capital Improvement Project (CIP) matters. Each
year total CIP projects are budgeted; however, project length may span over
multiple years. Therefore, unfinished projects from the prior year are carried over
(along with associated remaining budgets).
Period Activity - represents actual revenues received in the reporting month.
Fiscal Activity - presents actual revenues collected YTD. For example, the March
report shows revenues collected in March in the Period Activity column, but
revenues collected from the beginning of the FY through the end of the reporting
month for 2016/17 are presented in the Fiscal Activity column.
Variance Favorable/(Unfavorable) - represents the difference between YTD
collections and the budgeted amount.
Percent Used - represents the percentage of budgeted revenues collected YTD.
The revenue report includes revenues and transfers into funds from other funds (income
items). Unlike expenditures, revenues are not received uniformly throughout the year,
which results in peaks and valleys depending upon large payments that are received
throughout the year. For example, large property tax payments are usually received in
December and May. Similarly, Redevelopment Property Tax Trust Fund payments are
typically received in January and June.
March Revenues
$4 million in General Fund revenues were collected bringing the total YTD collections to
52.89 percent ($22,312,545). Total collections for all funds were $7,338,426, bringing
total YTD collections to 46.3 percent ($44.9 million).
The top five of General Fund revenues consisted of:
• $ 59,308 - Burrtec franchise fee
• $ 88,694 - Communications franchise fee
• $ 774,585 - Transient occupancy tax (hotels & short-term vacation rentals)
• $ 873,061 - Sales tax
• $ 1,521,690, - Property tax for fire services.
The larger non -General Fund payments consisted of:
• $ 133,425 - Park equipment quarterly internal service charges
• $ 156,750 - Insurance fund quarterly internal service charges
• $ 590,873 - SilverRock golf green fees
• $ 717,573 - Property tax for library and museum operations
• $ 764,130 - Capital improvement transfers in from multiple funds for projects.
Expenditures
Below is a summary of the column headers used on the Expenditure Summary Report All
Funds:
Original Total Budget - represents the expenditure budget adopted by Council in
June 2016 for 2016/17.
Current Total Budget - includes the original adopted expenditure budget plus any
carryovers from the prior fiscal year, and any Council approved budget
amendments. The bulk of the carryovers are related to CIP matters. Each year
total CIP projects are budgeted; however, project length can span over multiple
years. Therefore, unfinished projects from the prior year are carried over (along
with associated revenue reimbursements).
Period Activity- represents actual expenditures made in the reporting month.
Fiscal Activity - presents actual expenditures made YTD. For example, the March
report shows expenditures made in the Period Activity column, but expenditures
made during the fiscal year from July 2016 through the end of the reporting period
are presented in the Fiscal Activity column.
Variance Favorable/ (Unfavorable) - represents the difference between YTD
expenditures and the budgeted amount (the amount yet to be expended).
Percent Used - represents the percentage of budget spent to date.
The expenditure report includes expenditures and transfers out to other funds. Unlike
revenues, expenditures are fairly consistent month to month. However, large debt service
payments or CIP expenditures can cause swings.
March Expenditures
General Fund expenditures totaled $7.6 million bringing the total YTD expenditures to
53.15 percent. Of the $7.6 million, $563,274 is related to personnel costs (salaries,
benefits, etc.). In addition to personnel costs, the other larger General Fund expenditures
were:
• $ 133,425 - Parks equipment quarterly internal service charge
• $ 321,327 - Capital improvement expenses (Calle Tampico & Bermuda Dunes
drainage, pavement management, north La Quinta parkways, and Civic Center
campus lake irrigation conversion)
• $ 994,310 - Sheriff contract
• $ 2,154,676 - Eisenhower Drive land acquisition for drainage improvements
• $ 2,528,175 - Fire services contract (July thru December 2016).
Total expenditures for all funds were $9.2 million bringing total expenditures to 46.47
percent. The larger non -General Fund expenditures were:
• $ 123,968 - SilverRock golf course management
• $ 138,637 - Capital improvement construction expenses (Cove Oasis Trailhead,
City Hall exterior accessibility, Avenue Bermudas and Calle Tampico street
stripping)
• $ 148,639 - Capital improvement design expenses (Dune Palms bridge, Miles
median landscaping, Washington Street drainage, Civic Center campus lake
irrigation conversation)
• $ 172,560 - SilverRock maintenance equipment
• $ 207,548 - Park improvements (Fritz Burns tennis courts, Cove Oasis Trailhead,
sports complex/YMCA).
Summary
All funds are generally on target or under budget with regard to expenditures. The timing
imbalance of revenues receipts versus expenditures is funded from the City's cash flow
reserve.
Prepared by: Karla Campos, Finance Director
Attachment: 1. Revenue and Expenditure Reports for March 2017
6/9/2017 4:21:14 PM Page 1 of 2
City of La Quinta, CA
Revenue Summary Report All Funds
March 2017 Summary
For Fiscal: 2016/17 Period Ending: 03/31/2017
Fiscal
AcƟvity
Variance
Favorable
(Unfavorable)
Period
AcƟvityFund
Current
Total Budget
Original
Total Budget
Percent
Used
101 - GENERAL FUND 22,312,544.514,061,187.6340400600.00 42,183,600.00 -19,871,055.49 52.89 %
201 - GAS TAX FUND 1,051,312.17114,043.671299100.00 1,264,500.00 -213,187.83 83.14 %
202 - LIBRARY & MUSEUM FUND 1,384,678.83717,572.642250000.00 2,250,000.00 -865,321.17 61.54 %
210 - FEDERAL ASSISTANCE FUND 17,085.009,180.00125800.00 125,800.00 -108,715.00 13.58 %
212 - SLESF (COPS) FUND 96,069.228,333.33100100.00 100,100.00 -4,030.78 95.97 %
213 - JAG FUND 0.420.009000.00 9,000.00 -8,999.58 0.00 %
215 - LIGHTING & LANDSCAPING FUND 1,013,071.690.001447400.00 1,447,400.00 -434,328.31 69.99 %
218 - CV VIOLENT CRIME TASK FORCE 17,685.830.0022600.00 22,600.00 -4,914.17 78.26 %
219 - ASSET FORFEITURE 48.080.000.00 0.00 48.08 0.00 %
220 - QUIMBY FUND 27,308.460.0087000.00 87,000.00 -59,691.54 31.39 %
221 - AB 939 - CALRECYCLE FUND 3,823.390.0052500.00 52,500.00 -48,676.61 7.28 %
223 - MEASURE A FUND 434,891.4766,824.79752500.00 752,500.00 -317,608.53 57.79 %
224 - TUMF FUND 163.080.000.00 0.00 163.08 0.00 %
225 - INFRASTRUCTURE FUND 122.730.000.00 0.00 122.73 0.00 %
231 - SUCCESSOR AGCY PA 1 RORF 7,663,432.630.000.00 19,212,171.00 -11,548,738.37 39.89 %
235 - SO COAST AIR QUALITY FUND 25,619.2511,588.6645300.00 45,300.00 -19,680.75 56.55 %
237 - SUCCESSOR AGCY PA 1 ADMIN 125,018.050.000.00 -250,000.00 375,018.05 50.01 %
241 - HOUSING AUTHORITY 886,169.8777,057.37889600.00 889,600.00 -3,430.13 99.61 %
249 - SA 2011 LOW/MOD BOND FUND (Refinanced in 2016)645.310.000.00 0.00 645.31 0.00 %
250 - TRANSPORTATION DIF FUND 280,468.5728,420.00669000.00 669,000.00 -388,531.43 41.92 %
251 - PARKS & REC DIF FUND 151,571.4520,480.00350000.00 350,000.00 -198,428.55 43.31 %
252 - CIVIC CENTER DIF FUND 72,370.069,420.00200000.00 200,000.00 -127,629.94 36.19 %
253 - LIBRARY DEVELOPMENT DIF 25,456.003,440.0065000.00 65,000.00 -39,544.00 39.16 %
254 - COMMUNITY CENTER DIF 10,097.361,290.0035600.00 35,600.00 -25,502.64 28.36 %
255 - STREET FACILITY DIF FUND 12,901.921,160.0035000.00 35,000.00 -22,098.08 36.86 %
256 - PARK FACILITY DIF FUND 2,967.19400.007000.00 7,000.00 -4,032.81 42.39 %
257 - FIRE PROTECTION DIF 33,271.174,330.0080000.00 80,000.00 -46,728.83 41.59 %
270 - ART IN PUBLIC PLACES FUND 39,598.666,158.1398500.00 98,500.00 -58,901.34 40.20 %
299 - INTEREST ALLOCATION FUND 170,205.16112,380.940.00 0.00 170,205.16 0.00 %
310 - LQ FINANCE AUTHORITY DEBT SERVICE 678,102.1341,763.00678100.00 678,100.00 2.13 100.00 %
401 - CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS 3,181,192.22785,532.917327300.00 20,006,554.38 -16,825,362.16 15.90 %
501 - FACILITY & FLEET REPLACEMENT 367,661.3387,200.00456100.00 456,100.00 -88,438.67 80.61 %
502 - INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY 643,339.00213,295.00849800.00 844,800.00 -201,461.00 76.15 %
503 - PARK EQUIP & FACILITY FND 414,682.46133,425.00534700.00 534,700.00 -120,017.54 77.55 %
504 - INSURANCE FUND 480,253.17158,202.49648300.00 648,300.00 -168,046.83 74.08 %
601 - SILVERROCK RESORT 3,224,363.86665,740.304034800.00 4,034,800.00 -810,436.14 79.91 %
602 - SILVERROCK GOLF RESERVE 61,709.310.0061400.00 61,400.00 309.31 100.50 %
Report Total:7,338,425.86 44,909,901.0163,612,100.00 96,996,925.38 -52,087,024.37 46.30 %
ATTACHMENT 1
6/9/2017 4:22:01 PM Page 1 of 2
City of La Quinta, CA
Expense Summary Report All Funds
March 2017 Summary
For Fiscal: 2016/17 Period Ending: 03/31/2017
Fiscal
AcƟvity
Variance
Favorable
(Unfavorable)
Period
AcƟvityFund
Current
Total Budget
Original
Total Budget
Percent
Used
101 - GENERAL FUND 26,262,218.867,660,786.9541241100.00 49,411,154.96 23,148,936.10 53.15 %
201 - GAS TAX FUND 880,668.9281,999.031299200.00 1,339,700.00 459,031.08 65.74 %
202 - LIBRARY & MUSEUM FUND 389,575.3372,190.831717400.00 1,820,317.75 1,430,742.42 21.40 %
210 - FEDERAL ASSISTANCE FUND 0.000.0020200.00 20,200.00 20,200.00 0.00 %
212 - SLESF (COPS) FUND 56,331.1221,160.220.00 0.00 -56,331.12 0.00 %
215 - LIGHTING & LANDSCAPING FUND 837,193.4995,857.001467400.00 1,468,700.00 631,506.51 57.00 %
218 - CV VIOLENT CRIME TASK FORCE 7,531.21306.6546700.00 46,700.00 39,168.79 16.13 %
220 - QUIMBY FUND 498,787.66207,548.29437300.00 4,395,288.74 3,896,501.08 11.35 %
221 - AB 939 - CALRECYCLE FUND 460.100.0020000.00 20,000.00 19,539.90 2.30 %
223 - MEASURE A FUND 583,036.0817,461.77651000.00 1,755,784.32 1,172,748.24 33.21 %
231 - SUCCESSOR AGCY PA 1 RORF 12,720,432.380.000.00 18,077,120.00 5,356,687.62 70.37 %
235 - SO COAST AIR QUALITY FUND 18,606.678,691.5030000.00 30,000.00 11,393.33 62.02 %
237 - SUCCESSOR AGCY PA 1 ADMIN 322,321.259,000.000.00 292,000.00 -30,321.25 110.38 %
241 - HOUSING AUTHORITY 679,752.5672,498.41960200.00 975,400.00 295,647.44 69.69 %
249 - SA 2011 LOW/MOD BOND FUND (Refinanced in 2016)250.00250.000.00 0.00 -250.00 0.00 %
250 - TRANSPORTATION DIF FUND 86,408.1017,056.33675900.00 3,489,738.61 3,403,330.51 2.48 %
252 - CIVIC CENTER DIF FUND 31,231.900.000.00 0.00 -31,231.90 0.00 %
253 - LIBRARY DEVELOPMENT DIF 7,212.640.000.00 0.00 -7,212.64 0.00 %
255 - STREET FACILITY DIF FUND 8,405.240.000.00 0.00 -8,405.24 0.00 %
256 - PARK FACILITY DIF FUND 2,208.110.000.00 0.00 -2,208.11 0.00 %
257 - FIRE PROTECTION DIF 2,595.500.000.00 0.00 -2,595.50 0.00 %
270 - ART IN PUBLIC PLACES FUND 61,836.9146,012.35129000.00 329,000.00 267,163.09 18.80 %
310 - LQ FINANCE AUTHORITY DEBT SERVICE 638,939.500.00678100.00 678,100.00 39,160.50 94.22 %
401 - CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS 3,197,734.21357,750.88190400.00 20,196,783.38 16,999,049.17 15.83 %
501 - FACILITY & FLEET REPLACEMENT 166,377.9632,391.34498900.00 559,176.00 392,798.04 29.75 %
502 - INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY 573,455.6056,008.23848800.00 848,800.00 275,344.40 67.56 %
503 - PARK EQUIP & FACILITY FND 93,584.2726,292.15603700.00 680,200.00 586,615.73 13.76 %
504 - INSURANCE FUND 601,233.793,798.29649200.00 649,700.00 48,466.21 92.54 %
601 - SILVERROCK RESORT 2,840,042.47285,683.814262200.00 4,262,500.00 1,422,457.53 66.63 %
602 - SILVERROCK GOLF RESERVE 172,560.42172,560.420.00 0.00 -172,560.42 0.00 %
Report Total:9,245,304.45 51,740,992.2556,426,700.00 111,346,363.76 59,605,371.51 46.47 %
City of La Quinta
BUSINESS SESSION ITEM NO. 1
FINANCE ADVISORY COMMISSION MEETING: June 12, 2017
STAFF REPORT
AGENDA TITLE' REVIEW THE APPROVED FISCAL YEAR 2017/18 FINANCIAL ADVISORY
COMMISSION WORK PLAN
RECOMMENDATION
Review the approved Financial Advisory Commission's 2017/18 Work Plan and prepare for
an update at the joint City Council and Board/Commission meeting scheduled for July
18tH
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
• Annually, City Boards and Commissions review and update their work plans.
• The Financial Advisory Commission's (FAC) work plan reflects the six principal
functions as set forth in the City's Municipal Code.
• The FAC meets quarterly and will schedule special meetings as needed.
FISCAL IMPACT - None.
BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS
On March 27, 2017, the expanded principal functions and meeting dates were presented
to the FAC. Subsequently the work plan was approved by the City Council on June 6, 2017.
The principal functions are:
1. Annually review the City's investment policy and recommend appropriate changes;
2. Review at least quarterly the treasury report and note compliance with the
investment policy as well as adequacy of cash and investments for anticipated
obligations;
3. Receive and consider other reports provided by the City Treasurer;
4. Meet with the auditor after the annual audit of the City's financial statements, and
receive and consider the auditor's comments on auditing procedures, internal
controls, and findings for cash and investment activities;
5. Annually review the revenue and expenditures associated with Measure G, the one
percent (1%) transactions and use tax; and
6. Serve as a resource for City treasurer on matters such as proposed investments,
internal controls, and the utilization and/or change of financial institutions,
custodians, brokers and dealers.
The FAC will report to the Council after each meeting, either in person or through
correspondence. Staff presents approved FAC minutes to the City Council and
Commissioners may report additional comments during the public comment portion of a
City Council meeting.
City Ordinance specifies that the FAC shall meet quarterly and may schedule additional
special meetings as needed. The scheduled meetings for 2017/18 are:
August 9, 2017 - Wednesday
November 15, 2017 - Wednesday
February 12, 2018 - Monday
April 11, 2018 - Wednesday, proposed special meeting date for budget discussions
May 9, 2018 - Wednesday
June 13, 2018 - Wednesday, proposed special meeting date for budget discussions.
ALTERNATIVE
The Commission reviews the work plan annually. Staff does not recommend a substantial
change from this approved work plan.
Prepared by: Karla Campos, Finance Director
City of La Quinta
BUSINESS SESSION ITEM NO. 2
FINANCIAL ADVISORY COMMISSION MEETING: June 12, 2017
STAFF REPORT
AGENDA TITLE: APPOINT TWO COMMISSIONERS TO SERVE ON THE REVIEW AND
SELECTION COMMITTEE FOR THE REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL FOR OTHER POST -EMPLOYMENT
BENEFIT TRUST FUND MANAGEMENT SERVICES
RECOMMENDATION
Appoint two commissioners to serve on the review and selection committee for the
request for proposal for other post -employment benefit trust fund management services.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
• The City has issued a Request for Proposal (RFP) for Other Post -Employment
Benefits (OPEB) trust fund management services.
• Staff recommends the Financial Advisory Commission (FAC) appoint two
Commissioners to serve on the review and selection committee.
• Once established the trust funds and returns will be reviewed by the FAC.
FISCAL IMPACT - None
BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS
On May 12, 2017 the Finance Department issued a RFP for OPEB Trust Investment and
Management Services. The City provides medical benefits to retirees, also referred to as
OPEB. Unlike the expenses with pension benefits, the City has historically chosen to pay
its OPEB expenses as they come due rather than as they are earned. While pay-as-you-go
is a common financial practice among public agencies, the methodology only pays for
existing retirees and ignores future cost for employees that have earned the benefit but
have not yet retired, resulting in the accumulation of an unfunded liability for future
benefits.
Recognizing the potential benefit of paying down the OPEB unfunded liability, the City
Council set aside ($1,258,059) in 2009/10 specifically for this purpose. In 2011/12 the
funding was increased to $1,523,401 and has remained this amount since. Funds are
committed specifically for post-retirement health benefits in General Fund reserves.
Governmental Accounting Standards Board (GASB) requires that funds must be held in an
irrevocable trust that may not be used for purposes other than the payment of retiree
health benefits. The City currently holds retiree benefit funds in General Fund reserves.
This funding allocation does not satisfy the GASB 45 requirement to be counted as an
asset towards the unfunded accrued liability and has therefore not been recognized in
actuarial reports as a funding source.
Proposals will be evaluated based on the following criteria:
Fees: One-time and reoccurring for all services including management, trustee/custodial,
administrative, and transaction fees.
Structure: The different parties to the agreement, such as trustee and investment
manager, as well as legal structure of the trust.
Investment Options: The spectrum of investment options available to the City (e.g.
customized vs. model portfolios).
Returns/Performance: Investment performance of the different providers over different
periods of time.
Start-up cost and effort: Level of staff, legal, and other efforts to establish the trust.
Ongoing administration: Level of effort to maintain the trust, ensure that the program is
properly functioning, and monitoring performance; in addition to reporting and consulting
support provided by the trust.
Portability: Measure the ease in which the trust can be terminated with one trust provider
and monies moved to another trust provider.
Fiduciary risk: Measure the protection provided by the trust to the City.
Deadline to respond to this RFP was June 9, 2017 with a final recommendation for City
Council consideration on August 1, 2017.
After the trust is established, the funds and returns will be reviewed on a period basis by
the FAC. Therefore, City staff recommends appointing two Commissioners on the review
and selection committee.
ALTERNATIVE!
Select one Commissioner to the committee or none. This recommendation is not
recommended by Staff because the FAC will be reviewing investments in the Trust once
established.
Prepared by: Karla Campos, Finance Director
Attachment: 1. RFP for OPEB Trust Fund Management Services
The City of La Quinta
invites proposals from
qualified firms to
establish and provide
administration and
investment oversight
for Irrevocable Trust
and Investment
Management
Services for its Other
Post-Employment
Benefits (OPEB).
Proposal Deadline:
Friday, June 9, 2017
at 5:00PM
REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL
OTHER POST‐EMPLOYMENT
BENEFIT TRUST FUND
MANAGEMENT SERVICES
ATTACHMENT A
1
RFP for OPEB Trust Fund Management Services, Issued May 12, 2017
Request
The City of La Quinta (City) is inviting proposals to provide Other Post-Employment
Benefits (OPEB) trust fund management services. The City plans to have this trust in
place by September 2017. This letter and its enclosures comprise the entire request
for proposals (RFP) for this project. Responses should be submitted in accordance with
the instructions set forth in this RFP.
About the City
The City of La Quinta encompasses approximately 31 square miles, has a residential
population of slightly more than 38,394 and is located in the Coachella Valley
approximately 25 miles east of Palm Springs, CA.
Incorporated in 1982, governed by a Charter, the City is operated under a City
Council/City Manager form of government. Four City Council members are elected at
large to serve four-year terms. The Mayor is elected, serving a two-year term to be the
City Council administrative head. The Mayor/City Council also serve as Housing
Authority members.
The City contracts for some services to its residents and businesses including police,
fire, water and refuse disposal. As of May 1, 2017, City employment totaled 80 full-
time and 14 part-time employees. The City participates in the State of California Public
Employees’ Retirement System (PERS).
Copies of the City’s recent audited financial statements and budgets are located
online at www.la-quinta.org.
Background
The City selected Demsey, Filliger and Associates to complete its most recent actuarial
valuation as of July 1, 2014. The valuation conducted at that time determined the city
government had 67 active employees who may become eligible to retire and receive
benefits in the future and 12 retirees. Additionally as of the date of the valuation, the
unfunded actuarial accrued liability (UAAL) was projected to be $851,125.
Recognizing the benefit of paying down the OPEB unfunded liability, the City Council
set aside ($1,258,059) in 2009/10 specifically for this purpose. In 2011/12 the funding
was increased to $1,523,401 and has remained this amount since. Funds are
committed specifically for post-retirement health benefits in General Fund reserves.
ATTACHMENT A
2
RFP for OPEB Trust Fund Management Services, Issued May 12, 2017
Description, Scope and Budget of Proposed Work
The principal elements of this project will be as follows:
The principal elements of this project are to assist City staff with the establishment of
a Governmental Accounting Standards Board (GASB) qualified Other Post-Employment
Benefits Trust by:
1. Providing recommendations on the appropriate type and form of a trust for
the City, (discussing pros and cons of each) including the Internal Revenue
Service status of the recommended trust.
2. Helping City staff develop an investment policy statement that will guide
investment decisions by the Council or its designee. This may include
developing comprehensive investment objectives consistent with the nature
of the funds and the longevity of the investment.
3. Performing discretionary portfolio management including investing and
reinvesting funds in accordance with those objectives and guidelines, and all
applicable laws and regulations.
4. Keeping complete records of all transactions with regard to investment of
funds, monitoring performance, and providing for periodic reports to the
City.
5. Providing statements, portfolio analysis, and performance comparisons
quarterly or as agreed upon by the City.
6. Receiving ongoing contributions into the Trust and processing requests for
distributions.
Submission Information
The deadline for proposal submissions is Friday, June 9, 2017 at 5:00PM. Firms
should send their proposal to:
City of La Quinta
Attn. Karla Campos, Finance Director
78495 Calle Tampico
La Quinta, CA 92253
ATTACHMENT A
3
RFP for OPEB Trust Fund Management Services, Issued May 12, 2017
Proposals delivered after this deadline or to the wrong location will be rejected and
returned without exception.
Inquiries
The deadline for submitting questions is Friday, June 2, 2017 at 5:00PM. All inquiries
must be in writing via e-mail or fax to:
Karla Campos, Finance Director
kcampos@la-quinta.org
760-777-7105 FAX
Content of Proposal Submission
Interested trusts providers should submit five (5) copies of the proposal in response to
the information requested below and should address all requested information. Any
additional information the firm wishes to provide should be included in an appendix to
the proposal.
General Submission Requirements:
1. A transmittal letter signed by an official authorized to enter into contracts for the
firm should refer to this RFP by title and date. It should include the name and number
of a contact person for the proposal.
2. Provide evidence that the firm meets legal requirements to provide trust services in
the State of California.
3. Provide evidence and reporting artifacts to show that the proposed trust program
reporting is compliant with the requirements of Governmental Accounting Standards
Board (GASB) Statements 43 and 45.
Proposals should be prepared and organized with the following major section
headings and content:
1. Qualifications and Experience
A brief description of the firm and its various business functions;
A description of the qualifications and previous experience on similar or related
projects including performance history;
Brief resumes for the key staff members assigned, including professional
qualifications and experience related to trust management;
ATTACHMENT A
4
RFP for OPEB Trust Fund Management Services, Issued May 12, 2017
Contact information of three local government agencies for which the firm
provides or has provided similar services (agency name, contact individual,
mailing address, phone number and email address);
A description of the relationship, qualifications and experience of any
subcontractors to be used in administering trust services.
2. Business approach/philosophy
A description of your business approach and philosophy of providing OPEB trust
management services including how this would be most appropriate for the City of La
Quinta.
3. Trust and fiduciary services
A description of the legal form of the trust, the services it provides, and how trust
administrative transactions such as contributions and distributions will be controlled
and executed.
4. Investment services
A description of the OPEB investment, advisory, and management services offered
including information on your investment policy and asset allocation policy. Also
describe the content and frequency of investment result reporting.
5. Implementation
Describe key tasks, project milestones, dates and responsibilities for implementing the
trust, including reports, services or data to be provided by the City. Identify
assumptions used in developing the service implementation schedule.
6. Proposed fees
Provide a complete schedule of fees (one-time or recurring) for all services including,
but not limited to:
Investment management fees including policy development, asset allocation
recommendation, asset management (including underlying fund or manager
fees), and funding analysis
Trust document and trustee/custodial services (including asset balance based
fees)
Other management, administrative, or transaction fees
7. Financial stability
Provide your latest financial statement and describe in detail the financial history and
resources of your company. Disclose any settlements or legal claims where litigation is
currently pending or has occurred against your firm within the last five (5) years.
ATTACHMENT A
5
RFP for OPEB Trust Fund Management Services, Issued May 12, 2017
8. Conflicts of interest
Disclose any actual or potential conflicts of interest that may exist with respect to the
firm, management, or employees relative to the services provided to the City. If there
are no conflicts of interest, the proposal should include a statement to that effect.
9. Insurance
Provide a completed Certificate of Insurance evidencing the coverage types and
minimum limits as required in Exhibit A.
10. Proprietary information
All proposals shall become the property of the City of La Quinta once submitted and
should not contain information that is confidential or proprietary in nature.
Proposal Terms and Conditions
The City will not pay any costs incurred by the firm in preparing or submitting the
proposal. The City reserves the right to modify or cancel, in part or in its entirety, this
RFP. The City reserves the right to reject any or all proposals, to waive defects or
informalities, and to offer to contract with any firm in response to any RFP. This RFP
does not constitute any form or offer to contract with the City of La Quinta.
Business License requirement
The proposer to whom the award is made must have a valid City of La Quinta business
license before execution of the contract. Additional information regarding the City’s
Business License program may be obtained by calling (760) 777-7060 or by visiting the
City’s website at: http://www.laquintaca.gov/business/the-hub-permit-
center/business-licences.
Selection Process/Criteria
Subject to the approval of the City Council, staff will evaluate the proposals based on
the following criteria:
A. Understanding of the services required.
B. Quality, clarity and responsiveness of the proposal.
C. Demonstrated competence and professional qualifications necessary for
successfully performing the work required.
D. Background and related experience of the principal individuals to be
assigned to provide services.
E. Approach in providing services including trust and investment options.
F. Proposed fees.
ATTACHMENT A
6
RFP for OPEB Trust Fund Management Services, Issued May 12, 2017
Proposed Schedule
A. RFP issuance: Friday, May 12, 2017
B. Inquiries deadline: Friday, June 2, 2017
C. Proposal due date: Friday, June 9, 2017
D. Evaluation of proposals and possible interviews: by Friday, June 30, 2017
E. Verification of references: by Friday, July 7, 2017
D. Notification of contract award: Monday, July 10, 2017
E. Contract approval by City Council: Tuesday, August 1, 2017
Attachments
A. Exhibit A: City of La Quinta Contract for Professional Services
B. Actuarial Valuation (July 1, 2014)
ATTACHMENT A
Last revised April 2015
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT
THIS PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT (the “Agreement”) is made and
entered into by and between the CITY OF LA QUINTA, (“City”), a California municipal
corporation, and (“Consultant”). The parties hereto agree as
follows:
1.0 SERVICES OF CONSULTANT
1.1 Scope of Services. In compliance with all terms and conditions of this
Agreement, Consultant shall provide those services related to
, Project No. , as specified in the “Scope of Services”
attached hereto as Exhibit “A” and incorporated herein by this reference (the
“Services”). Consultant represents and warrants that Consultant is a provider of first-
class services and Consultant is experienced in performing the Services contemplated
herein and, in light of such status and experience, Consultant covenants that it shall
follow the highest professional standards in performing the Services required
hereunder. For purposes of this Agreement, the phrase “highest professional
standards” shall mean those standards of practice recognized by one or more first-
class firms performing similar services under similar circumstances.
1.2 Compliance with Law. All services rendered hereunder shall be provided in
accordance with all ordinances, resolutions, statutes, rules, regulations, and laws of
the City and any Federal, State, or local governmental agency of competent
jurisdiction.
1.3 Licenses, Permits, Fees and Assessments. Except as otherwise specified
herein, Consultant shall obtain at its sole cost and expense such licenses, permits, and
approvals as may be required by law for the performance of the Services required by
this Agreement, including a City of La Quinta business license. Consultant and its
employees, agents, and subcontractors shall, at their sole cost and expense, keep in
effect at all times during the term of this Agreement any licenses, permits, and
approvals that are legally required for the performance of the Services required by this
Agreement. Consultant shall have the sole obligation to pay for any fees,
assessments, and taxes, plus applicable penalties and interest, which may be imposed
by law and arise from or are necessary for the performance of the Services required by
this Agreement, and shall indemnify, defend (with counsel selected by City), and hold
City, its elected officials, officers, employees, and agents, free and harmless against
any such fees, assessments, taxes, penalties, or interest levied, assessed, or imposed
against City hereunder. Consultant shall be responsible for all subcontractors’
compliance with this Section.
1.4 Familiarity with Work. By executing this Agreement, Consultant warrants
that (a) it has thoroughly investigated and considered the Services to be performed,
(b) it has investigated the site where the Services are to be performed, if any, and fully
ATTACHMENT A
Last revised April 2015 -2-
acquainted itself with the conditions there existing, (c) it has carefully considered how
the Services should be performed, and (d) it fully understands the facilities, difficulties,
and restrictions attending performance of the Services under this Agreement. Should
Consultant discover any latent or unknown conditions materially differing from those
inherent in the Services or as represented by City, Consultant shall immediately inform
City of such fact and shall not proceed except at Consultant's risk until written
instructions are received from the Contract Officer (as defined in Section 4.2 hereof).
1.5 Standard of Care. Consultant acknowledges and understands that the
Services contracted for under this Agreement require specialized skills and abilities
and that, consistent with this understanding, Consultant’s work will be held to a
heightened standard of quality. Consistent with Section 1.4 hereinabove, Consultant
represents to City that it holds the necessary skills and abilities to satisfy the
heightened standard of quality as set forth in this Agreement. Consultant shall adopt
reasonable methods during the life of this Agreement to furnish continuous protection
to the Services performed by Consultant, and the equipment, materials, papers, and
other components thereof to prevent losses or damages, and shall be responsible for
all such damages, to persons or property, until acceptance of the Services by City,
except such losses or damages as may be caused by City's own negligence. The
performance of Services by Consultant shall not relieve Consultant from any obligation
to correct any incomplete, inaccurate, or defective work at no further cost to City,
when such inaccuracies are due to the negligence of Consultant.
1.6 Additional Services. In accordance with the terms and conditions of this
Agreement, Consultant shall perform services in addition to those specified in the
Scope of Services (“Additional Services”) only when directed to do so by the Contract
Officer, provided that Consultant shall not be required to perform any Additional
Services without compensation. Consultant shall not perform any Additional Services
until receiving prior written authorization from the Contract Officer, incorporating
therein any adjustment in (i) the Contract Sum, and/or (ii) the time to perform this
Agreement, which said adjustments are subject to the written approval of Consultant.
It is expressly understood by Consultant that the provisions of this Section shall not
apply to the Services specifically set forth in the Scope of Services or reasonably
contemplated therein. It is specifically understood and agreed that oral requests
and/or approvals of Additional Services shall be barred and are unenforceable. Failure
of Consultant to secure the Contract Officer’s written authorization for Additional
Services shall constitute a waiver of any and all right to adjustment of the Contract
Sum or time to perform this Agreement, whether by way of compensation, restitution,
quantum merit, or the like, for Additional Services provided without the appropriate
authorization from the Contract Officer. Compensation for properly authorized
Additional Services shall be made in accordance with Section 2.3 of this Agreement.
1.7 Special Requirements. Additional terms and conditions of this Agreement,
if any, which are made a part hereof are set forth in Exhibit “D” (the “Special
Requirements”), which is incorporated herein by this reference and expressly made a
Last revised April 2015 -3-
part hereof. In the event of a conflict between the provisions of the Special
Requirements and any other provisions of this Agreement, the provisions of the
Special Requirements shall govern.
2.0 COMPENSATION
2.1 Contract Sum. For the Services rendered pursuant to this Agreement,
Consultant shall be compensated in accordance with Exhibit “B” (the “Schedule of
Compensation”) in a total amount not to exceed
Dollars ($ ) (the “Contract Sum”), except as provided in Section 1.6.
The method of compensation set forth in the Schedule of Compensation may include
a lump sum payment upon completion, payment in accordance with the percentage
of completion of the Services, payment for time and materials based upon
Consultant's rate schedule, but not exceeding the Contract Sum, or such other
methods as may be specified in the Schedule of Compensation. The Contract Sum
shall include the attendance of Consultant at all project meetings reasonably deemed
necessary by City; Consultant shall not be entitled to any additional compensation for
attending said meetings. Compensation may include reimbursement for actual and
necessary expenditures for reproduction costs, transportation expense, telephone
expense, and similar costs and expenses when and if specified in the Schedule of
Compensation. Regardless of the method of compensation set forth in the Schedule
of Compensation, Consultant’s overall compensation shall not exceed the Contract
Sum, except as provided in Section 1.6 of this Agreement.
2.2 Method of Billing. Any month in which Consultant wishes to receive
payment, Consultant shall submit to City no later than the tenth (10th) working day of
such month, in the form approved by City's Finance Director, an invoice for Services
rendered prior to the date of the invoice. Such invoice shall (1) describe in detail the
Services provided, including time and materials, and (2) specify each staff member
who has provided Services and the number of hours assigned to each such staff
member. Such invoice shall contain a certification by a principal member of
Consultant specifying that the payment requested is for Services performed in
accordance with the terms of this Agreement. Subject to retention pursuant to
Section 8.3, City will pay Consultant for all items stated thereon which are approved by
City pursuant to this Agreement no later than thirty (30) days after invoices are
received by the City’s Finance Department.
2.3 Compensation for Additional Services. Additional Services approved in
advance by the Contract Officer pursuant to Section 1.6 of this Agreement shall be
paid for in an amount agreed to in writing by both City and Consultant in advance of
the Additional Services being rendered by Consultant. Any compensation for
Additional Services amounting to five percent (5%) or less of the Contract Sum may be
approved by the Contract Officer. Any greater amount of compensation for Additional
Services must be approved by the La Quinta City Council. Under no circumstances
shall Consultant receive compensation for any Additional Services unless prior written
Last revised April 2015 -4-
approval for the Additional Services is obtained from the Contract Officer pursuant to
Section 1.6 of this Agreement.
3.0 PERFORMANCE SCHEDULE
3.1 Time of Essence. Time is of the essence in the performance of this
Agreement. If the Services not completed in accordance with the Schedule of
Performance, as set forth in Section 3.2 and Exhibit C, it is understood that the City will
suffer damage.
3.2 Schedule of Performance. All Services rendered pursuant to this Agreement
shall be performed diligently and within the time period established in Exhibit C (the
“Schedule of Performance”). Extensions to the time period specified in the Schedule of
Performance may be approved in writing by the Contract Officer.
3.3 Force Majeure. The time period specified in the Schedule of Performance
for performance of the Services rendered pursuant to this Agreement shall be
extended because of any delays due to unforeseeable causes beyond the control and
without the fault or negligence of Consultant, including, but not restricted to, acts of
God or of the public enemy, fires, earthquakes, floods, epidemic, quarantine
restrictions, riots, strikes, freight embargoes, acts of any governmental agency other
than City, and unusually severe weather, if Consultant shall within ten (10) days of the
commencement of such delay notify the Contract Officer in writing of the causes of
the delay. The Contract Officer shall ascertain the facts and the extent of delay, and
extend the time for performing the Services for the period of the forced delay when
and if in his or her judgment such delay is justified, and the Contract Officer's
determination shall be final and conclusive upon the parties to this Agreement.
Extensions to time period in the Schedule of Performance which are determined by
the Contract Officer to be justified pursuant to this Section shall not entitle the
Consultant to additional compensation in excess of the Contract Sum.
3.4 Term. Unless earlier terminated in accordance with Sections 8.8 or 8.9 of
this Agreement, the term of this agreement shall commence on _________, ____, 20__
and terminate on ____________, ___ 20___(“Initial Term”). This Agreement may be
extended for _____ additional year(s) upon mutual agreement by both parties
(“Extended Term”).
4.0 COORDINATION OF WORK
4.1 Representative of Consultant. The following principals of Consultant
(“Principals”) are hereby designated as being the principals and representatives of
Consultant authorized to act in its behalf with respect to the Services specified herein
and make all decisions in connection therewith:
a.____________________________________
Last revised April 2015 -5-
E-mail: _____________________________
b. ___________________________________
E-mail: _____________________________
c. ___________________________________
E-mail: _____________________________
It is expressly understood that the experience, knowledge, capability, and
reputation of the foregoing Principals were a substantial inducement for City to enter
into this Agreement. Therefore, the foregoing Principals shall be responsible during
the term of this Agreement for directing all activities of Consultant and devoting
sufficient time to personally supervise the Services hereunder. For purposes of this
Agreement, the foregoing Principals may not be changed by Consultant and no other
personnel may be assigned to perform the Services required hereunder without the
express written approval of City.
4.2 Contract Officer. The “Contract Officer” shall be
or such other person as may be designated in writing by the City Manager of City. It
shall be Consultant's responsibility to assure that the Contract Officer is kept informed
of the progress of the performance of the Services, and Consultant shall refer any
decisions, that must be made by City to the Contract Officer. Unless otherwise
specified herein, any approval of City required hereunder shall mean the approval of
the Contract Officer. The Contract Officer shall have authority to sign all documents
on behalf of City required hereunder to carry out the terms of this Agreement.
4.3 Prohibition Against Subcontracting or Assignment. The experience,
knowledge, capability, and reputation of Consultant, its principals, and its employees
were a substantial inducement for City to enter into this Agreement. Except as set
forth in this Agreement, Consultant shall not contract with any other entity to perform
in whole or in part the Services required hereunder without the express written
approval of City. In addition, neither this Agreement nor any interest herein may be
transferred, assigned, conveyed, hypothecated, or encumbered, voluntarily or by
operation of law, without the prior written approval of City. Transfers restricted
hereunder shall include the transfer to any person or group of persons acting in
concert of more than twenty five percent (25%) of the present ownership and/or
control of Consultant, taking all transfers into account on a cumulative basis. Any
attempted or purported assignment or contracting by Consultant without City’s
express written approval shall be null, void, and of no effect. No approved transfer
shall release Consultant of any liability hereunder without the express consent of City.
4.4 Independent Contractor. Neither City nor any of its employees shall have
any control over the manner, mode, or means by which Consultant, its agents, or its
employees, perform the Services required herein, except as otherwise set forth herein.
City shall have no voice in the selection, discharge, supervision, or control of
Consultant’s employees, servants, representatives, or agents, or in fixing their number
or hours of service. Consultant shall perform all Services required herein as an
Last revised April 2015 -6-
independent contractor of City and shall remain at all times as to City a wholly
independent contractor with only such obligations as are consistent with that role.
Consultant shall not at any time or in any manner represent that it or any of its agents
or employees are agents or employees of City. City shall not in any way or for any
purpose become or be deemed to be a partner of Consultant in its business or
otherwise or a joint venture or a member of any joint enterprise with Consultant.
Consultant shall have no power to incur any debt, obligation, or liability on behalf of
City. Consultant shall not at any time or in any manner represent that it or any of its
agents or employees are agents or employees of City. Except for the Contract Sum
paid to Consultant as provided in this Agreement, City shall not pay salaries, wages, or
other compensation to Consultant for performing the Services hereunder for City. City
shall not be liable for compensation or indemnification to Consultant for injury or
sickness arising out of performing the Services hereunder. Notwithstanding any other
City, state, or federal policy, rule, regulation, law, or ordinance to the contrary,
Consultant and any of its employees, agents, and subcontractors providing services
under this Agreement shall not qualify for or become entitled to any compensation,
benefit, or any incident of employment by City, including but not limited to eligibility to
enroll in the California Public Employees Retirement System (“PERS”) as an employee
of City and entitlement to any contribution to be paid by City for employer
contributions and/or employee contributions for PERS benefits. Consultant agrees to
pay all required taxes on amounts paid to Consultant under this Agreement, and to
indemnify and hold City harmless from any and all taxes, assessments, penalties, and
interest asserted against City by reason of the independent contractor relationship
created by this Agreement. Consultant shall fully comply with the workers’
compensation laws regarding Consultant and Consultant’s employees. Consultant
further agrees to indemnify and hold City harmless from any failure of Consultant to
comply with applicable workers’ compensation laws. City shall have the right to offset
against the amount of any payment due to Consultant under this Agreement any
amount due to City from Consultant as a result of Consultant’s failure to promptly pay
to City any reimbursement or indemnification arising under this Section.
4.5 Identity of Persons Performing Work. Consultant represents that it employs
or will employ at its own expense all personnel required for the satisfactory
performance of any and all of the Services set forth herein. Consultant represents that
the Services required herein will be performed by Consultant or under its direct
supervision, and that all personnel engaged in such work shall be fully qualified and
shall be authorized and permitted under applicable State and local law to perform
such tasks and services.
4.6 City Cooperation. City shall provide Consultant with any plans, publications,
reports, statistics, records, or other data or information pertinent to the Services to be
performed hereunder which are reasonably available to Consultant only from or
through action by City.
5.0 INSURANCE
Last revised April 2015 -7-
5.1 Insurance. Prior to the beginning of any Services under this Agreement and
throughout the duration of the term of this Agreement, Consultant shall procure and
maintain, at its sole cost and expense, and submit concurrently with its execution of
this Agreement, policies of insurance as set forth in Exhibit E (the “Insurance
Requirements”) which is incorporated herein by this reference and expressly made a
part hereof.
6.0 INDEMNIFICATION.
6.1 Indemnification. To the fullest extent permitted by law, Consultant shall
indemnify, protect, defend (with counsel selected by City), and hold harmless City and
any and all of its officers, employees, agents, and volunteers as set forth in Exhibit F
(“Indemnification”) which is incorporated herein by this reference and expressly made
a part hereof.
7.0 RECORDS AND REPORTS.
7.1 Reports. Consultant shall periodically prepare and submit to the Contract
Officer such reports concerning Consultant's performance of the Services required by
this Agreement as the Contract Officer shall require. Consultant hereby acknowledges
that City is greatly concerned about the cost of the Services to be performed pursuant
to this Agreement. For this reason, Consultant agrees that if Consultant becomes
aware of any facts, circumstances, techniques, or events that may or will materially
increase or decrease the cost of the Services contemplated herein or, if Consultant is
providing design services, the cost of the project being designed, Consultant shall
promptly notify the Contract Officer of said fact, circumstance, technique, or event
and the estimated increased or decreased cost related thereto and, if Consultant is
providing design services, the estimated increased or decreased cost estimate for the
project being designed.
7.2 Records. Consultant shall keep, and require any subcontractors to keep,
such ledgers, books of accounts, invoices, vouchers, canceled checks, reports
(including but not limited to payroll reports), studies, or other documents relating to
the disbursements charged to City and the Services performed hereunder (the “Books
and Records”), as shall be necessary to perform the Services required by this
Agreement and enable the Contract Officer to evaluate the performance of such
Services. Any and all such Books and Records shall be maintained in accordance with
generally accepted accounting principles and shall be complete and detailed. The
Contract Officer shall have full and free access to such Books and Records at all times
during normal business hours of City, including the right to inspect, copy, audit, and
make records and transcripts from such Books and Records. Such Books and Records
shall be maintained for a period of three (3) years following completion of the Services
hereunder, and City shall have access to such Books and Records in the event any
audit is required. In the event of dissolution of Consultant’s business, custody of the
Books and Records may be given to City, and access shall be provided by Consultant’s
Last revised April 2015 -8-
successor in interest. Under California Government Code Section 8546.7, if the
amount of public funds expended under this Agreement exceeds Ten Thousand
Dollars ($10,000.00), this Agreement shall be subject to the examination and audit of
the State Auditor, at the request of City or as part of any audit of City, for a period of
three (3) years after final payment under this Agreement.
7.3 Ownership of Documents. All drawings, specifications, maps, designs,
photographs, studies, surveys, data, notes, computer files, reports, records,
documents, and other materials plans, drawings, estimates, test data, survey results,
models, renderings, and other documents or works of authorship fixed in any tangible
medium of expression, including but not limited to, physical drawings, digital
renderings, or data stored digitally, magnetically, or in any other medium prepared or
caused to be prepared by Consultant, its employees, subcontractors, and agents in the
performance of this Agreement (the “Documents and Materials”) shall be the property
of City and shall be delivered to City upon request of the Contract Officer or upon the
expiration or termination of this Agreement, and Consultant shall have no claim for
further employment or additional compensation as a result of the exercise by City of
its full rights of ownership use, reuse, or assignment of the Documents and Materials
hereunder. Any use, reuse or assignment of such completed Documents and
Materials for other projects and/or use of uncompleted documents without specific
written authorization by Consultant will be at City’s sole risk and without liability to
Consultant, and Consultant’s guarantee and warranties shall not extend to such use,
revise, or assignment. Consultant may retain copies of such Documents and Materials
for its own use. Consultant shall have an unrestricted right to use the concepts
embodied therein. All subcontractors shall provide for assignment to City of any
Documents and Materials prepared by them, and in the event Consultant fails to
secure such assignment, Consultant shall indemnify City for all damages resulting
therefrom.
In the event City or any person, firm, or corporation authorized by City reuses said
Documents and Materials without written verification or adaptation by Consultant for
the specific purpose intended and causes to be made or makes any changes or
alterations in said Documents and Materials, City hereby releases, discharges, and
exonerates Consultant from liability resulting from said change. The provisions of this
clause shall survive the termination or expiration of this Agreement and shall
thereafter remain in full force and effect.
7.4 Licensing of Intellectual Property. This Agreement creates a non-exclusive
and perpetual license for City to copy, use, modify, reuse, or sublicense any and all
copyrights, designs, rights of reproduction, and other intellectual property embodied
in the Documents and Materials. Consultant shall require all subcontractors, if any, to
agree in writing that City is granted a non-exclusive and perpetual license for the
Documents and Materials the subcontractor prepares under this Agreement.
Consultant represents and warrants that Consultant has the legal right to license any
and all of the Documents and Materials. Consultant makes no such representation
Last revised April 2015 -9-
and warranty in regard to the Documents and Materials which were prepared by
design professionals other than Consultant or provided to Consultant by City. City
shall not be limited in any way in its use of the Documents and Materials at any time,
provided that any such use not within the purposes intended by this Agreement shall
be at City’s sole risk.
7.5 Release of Documents. The Documents and Materials shall not be released
publicly without the prior written approval of the Contract Officer or as required by
law. Consultant shall not disclose to any other entity or person any information
regarding the activities of City, except as required by law or as authorized by City.
8.0 ENFORCEMENT OF AGREEMENT.
8.1 California Law. This Agreement shall be interpreted, construed, and
governed both as to validity and to performance of the parties in accordance with the
laws of the State of California. Legal actions concerning any dispute, claim, or matter
arising out of or in relation to this Agreement shall be instituted in the Superior Court
of the County of Riverside, State of California, or any other appropriate court in such
county, and Consultant covenants and agrees to submit to the personal jurisdiction of
such court in the event of such action.
8.2 Disputes. In the event of any dispute arising under this Agreement, the
injured party shall notify the injuring party in writing of its contentions by submitting a
claim therefore. The injured party shall continue performing its obligations hereunder
so long as the injuring party commences to cure such default within ten (10) days of
service of such notice and completes the cure of such default within forty-five (45)
days after service of the notice, or such longer period as may be permitted by the
Contract Officer; provided that if the default is an immediate danger to the health,
safety, or general welfare, City may take such immediate action as City deems
warranted. Compliance with the provisions of this Section shall be a condition
precedent to termination of this Agreement for cause and to any legal action, and
such compliance shall not be a waiver of any party's right to take legal action in the
event that the dispute is not cured, provided that nothing herein shall limit City's right
to terminate this Agreement without cause pursuant to Section 8.8. During the period
of time that Consultant is in default, City shall hold all invoices and shall, when the
default is cured, proceed with payment on the invoices. In the alternative, City may, in
its sole discretion, elect to pay some or all of the outstanding invoices during any
period of default.
8.3 Retention of Funds. City may withhold from any monies payable to
Consultant sufficient funds to compensate City for any losses, costs, liabilities, or
damages it reasonably believes were suffered by City due to the default of Consultant
in the performance of the Services required by this Agreement.
Last revised April 2015 -10-
8.4 Waiver. No delay or omission in the exercise of any right or remedy of a
non-defaulting party on any default shall impair such right or remedy or be construed
as a waiver. City's consent or approval of any act by Consultant requiring City's
consent or approval shall not be deemed to waive or render unnecessary City's
consent to or approval of any subsequent act of Consultant. Any waiver by either
party of any default must be in writing and shall not be a waiver of any other default
concerning the same or any other provision of this Agreement.
8.5 Rights and Remedies are Cumulative. Except with respect to rights and
remedies expressly declared to be exclusive in this Agreement, the rights and
remedies of the parties are cumulative and the exercise by either party of one or more
of such rights or remedies shall not preclude the exercise by it, at the same or
different times, of any other rights or remedies for the same default or any other
default by the other party.
8.6 Legal Action. In addition to any other rights or remedies, either party may
take legal action, at law or at equity, to cure, correct, or remedy any default, to
recover damages for any default, to compel specific performance of this Agreement,
to obtain declaratory or injunctive relief, or to obtain any other remedy consistent with
the purposes of this Agreement.
8.7 Liquidated Damages. Since the determination of actual damages for any
delay in performance of this Agreement would be extremely difficult or impractical to
determine in the event of a breach of this Agreement, Consultant shall be liable for
and shall pay to City the sum of [EIGHT HUNDRED AND FIFTY dollars ($850.00)] as
liquidated damages for each working day of delay in the performance of any of the
Services required hereunder, as specified in the Schedule of Performance. In addition,
liquidated damages may be assessed for failure to comply with the emergency call
out requirements, if any, described in the Scope of Services. City may withhold from
any moneys payable on account of the Services performed by Consultant any accrued
liquidated damages.
8.8 Termination Prior To Expiration Of Term. This Section shall govern any
termination of this Agreement, except as specifically provided in the following
Section 8.9 for termination for cause. City reserves the right to terminate this
Agreement at any time, with or without cause, upon thirty (30) days' written notice to
Consultant. Upon receipt of any notice of termination, Consultant shall immediately
cease all Services hereunder except such as may be specifically approved by the
Contract Officer. Consultant shall be entitled to compensation for all Services
rendered prior to receipt of the notice of termination and for any Services authorized
by the Contract Officer thereafter in accordance with the Schedule of Compensation or
such as may be approved by the Contract Officer, except as provided in Section 8.3.
8.9 Termination for Default of Consultant. If termination is due to the failure of
Consultant to fulfill its obligations under this Agreement, City may, after compliance
Last revised April 2015 -11-
with the provisions of Section 8.2, take over the Services and prosecute the same to
completion by contract or otherwise, and Consultant shall be liable to the extent that
the total cost for completion of the Services required hereunder exceeds the
compensation herein stipulated (provided that City shall use reasonable efforts to
mitigate such damages), and City may withhold any payments to Consultant for the
purpose of setoff or partial payment of the amounts owed City as previously stated in
Section 8.3.
8.10 Attorneys' Fees. If either party to this Agreement is required to initiate or
defend or made a party to any action or proceeding in any way connected with this
Agreement, the prevailing party in such action or proceeding, in addition to any other
relief which may be granted, whether legal or equitable, shall be entitled to
reasonable attorneys’ fees; provided, however, that the attorneys’ fees awarded
pursuant to this Section shall not exceed the hourly rate paid by City for legal services
multiplied by the reasonable number of hours spent by the prevailing party in the
conduct of the litigation. Attorneys’ fees shall include attorneys’ fees on any appeal,
and in addition a party entitled to attorneys’ fees shall be entitled to all other
reasonable costs for investigating such action, taking depositions and discovery, and
all other necessary costs the court allows which are incurred in such litigation. All
such fees shall be deemed to have accrued on commencement of such action and
shall be enforceable whether or not such action is prosecuted to judgment. The court
may set such fees in the same action or in a separate action brought for that purpose.
9.0 CITY OFFICERS AND EMPLOYEES; NONDISCRIMINATION.
9.1 Non-liability of City Officers and Employees. No officer, official, employee,
agent, representative, or volunteer of City shall be personally liable to Consultant, or
any successor in interest, in the event or any default or breach by City or for any
amount which may become due to Consultant or to its successor, or for breach of any
obligation of the terms of this Agreement.
9.2 Conflict of Interest. Consultant covenants that neither it, nor any officer or
principal of it, has or shall acquire any interest, directly or indirectly, which would
conflict in any manner with the interests of City or which would in any way hinder
Consultant’s performance of the Services under this Agreement. Consultant further
covenants that in the performance of this Agreement, no person having any such
interest shall be employed by it as an officer, employee, agent, or subcontractor
without the express written consent of the Contract Officer. Consultant agrees to at
all times avoid conflicts of interest or the appearance of any conflicts of interest with
the interests of City in the performance of this Agreement.
No officer or employee of City shall have any financial interest, direct or
indirect, in this Agreement nor shall any such officer or employee participate in any
decision relating to this Agreement which effects his financial interest or the financial
interest of any corporation, partnership or association in which he is, directly or
Last revised April 2015 -12-
indirectly, interested, in violation of any State statute or regulation. Consultant
warrants that it has not paid or given and will not pay or give any third party any
money or other consideration for obtaining this Agreement.
9.3 Covenant against Discrimination. Consultant covenants that, by and for
itself, its heirs, executors, assigns, and all persons claiming under or through them,
that there shall be no discrimination against or segregation of, any person or group of
persons on account of any impermissible classification including, but not limited to,
race, color, creed, religion, sex, marital status, sexual orientation, national origin, or
ancestry in the performance of this Agreement. Consultant shall take affirmative
action to insure that applicants are employed and that employees are treated during
employment without regard to their race, color, creed, religion, sex, marital status,
sexual orientation, national origin, or ancestry.
10.0 MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS
10.1 Notice. Any notice, demand, request, consent, approval, or communication
either party desires or is required to give the other party or any other person shall be
in writing and either served personally or sent by prepaid, first-class mail to the
address set forth below. Either party may change its address by notifying the other
party of the change of address in writing. Notice shall be deemed communicated
forty-eight (48) hours from the time of mailing if mailed as provided in this Section.
To City: To Consultant:
CITY OF LA QUINTA
Attention: Frank Spevacek,
City Manager
78-495 Calle Tampico
La Quinta, California 92253
10.2 Interpretation. The terms of this Agreement shall be construed in
accordance with the meaning of the language used and shall not be construed for or
against either party by reason of the authorship of this Agreement or any other rule of
construction which might otherwise apply.
10.3 Section Headings and Subheadings. The section headings and subheadings
contained in this Agreement are included for convenience only and shall not limit or
otherwise affect the terms of this Agreement.
10.4 Counterparts. This Agreement may be executed in counterparts, each of
which shall be deemed to be an original, and such counterparts shall constitute one
and the same instrument
10.5 Integrated Agreement. This Agreement including the exhibits hereto is the
entire, complete, and exclusive expression of the understanding of the parties. It is
Last revised April 2015 -13-
understood that there are no oral agreements between the parties hereto affecting
this Agreement and this Agreement supersedes and cancels any and all previous
negotiations, arrangements, agreements, and understandings, if any, between the
parties, and none shall be used to interpret this Agreement.
10.6 Amendment. No amendment to or modification of this Agreement shall be
valid unless made in writing and approved by Consultant and by the City Council of
City. The parties agree that this requirement for written modifications cannot be
waived and that any attempted waiver shall be void.
10.7 Severability. In the event that any one or more of the articles, phrases,
sentences, clauses, paragraphs, or sections contained in this Agreement shall be
declared invalid or unenforceable, such invalidity or unenforceability shall not affect
any of the remaining articles, phrases, sentences, clauses, paragraphs, or sections of
this Agreement which are hereby declared as severable and shall be interpreted to
carry out the intent of the parties hereunder unless the invalid provision is so material
that its invalidity deprives either party of the basic benefit of their bargain or renders
this Agreement meaningless.
10.8 Unfair Business Practices Claims. In entering into this Agreement,
Consultant offers and agrees to assign to City all rights, title, and interest in and to all
causes of action it may have under Section 4 of the Clayton Act (15 U.S.C. § 15) or
under the Cartwright Act (Chapter 2, (commencing with Section 16700) of Part 2 of
Division 7 of the Business and Professions Code), arising from purchases of goods,
services, or materials related to this Agreement. This assignment shall be made and
become effective at the time City renders final payment to Consultant without further
acknowledgment of the parties.
10.9 No Third Party Beneficiaries. With the exception of the specific provisions
set forth in this Agreement, there are no intended third-party beneficiaries under this
Agreement and no such other third parties shall have any rights or obligations
hereunder.
10.10 Authority. The persons executing this Agreement on behalf of each of the
parties hereto represent and warrant that (i) such party is duly organized and existing,
(ii) they are duly authorized to execute and deliver this Agreement on behalf of said
party, (iii) by so executing this Agreement, such party is formally bound to the
provisions of this Agreement, and (iv) that entering into this Agreement does not
violate any provision of any other Agreement to which said party is bound. This
Agreement shall be binding upon the heirs, executors, administrators, successors, and
assigns of the parties.
[SIGNATURES ON FOLLOWING PAGE]
Last revised April 2015 -14-
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Agreement as of the dates
stated below.
CITY OF LA QUINTA,
a California municipal corporation
FRANK J. SPEVACEK, City Manager
Dated:
CONSULTANT:
By:
Name:
Title:
Dated:
ATTEST:
SUSAN MAYSELS, City Clerk
La Quinta, California
By:
Name:
Title:
Dated:
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
WILLIAM H. IHRKE, City Attorney
City of La Quinta, California
Last revised April 2015 EXHIBIT A
Page 1 of 1
Exhibit A
Scope of Services
1. Services to be Provided:
[TO BE PROVIDED BY STAFF (include location of work)]
2. Performance Standards:
[TO BE PROVIDED BY STAFF]
Last revised April 2015 EXHIBIT B
Page 1 of 1
Exhibit B
Schedule of Compensation
With the exception of compensation for Additional Services, provided for in
Section 2.3 of this Agreement, the maximum total compensation to be paid to
Consultant under this Agreement is _______________________($_____________)
(“Contract Sum”). The Contract Sum shall be paid to Consultant in installment
payments made on a monthly basis and in an amount identified in Consultant’s
schedule of compensation attached hereto for the work tasks performed and properly
invoiced by Consultant in conformance with Section 2.2 of this Agreement.
[insert Consultant’s schedule of compensation]
Last revised April 2015 EXHIBIT C
Page 1 of 1
Exhibit C
Schedule of Performance
Consultant shall complete all services identified in the Scope of Services, Exhibit A
of this Agreement, in accordance with the Project Schedule, attached hereto and
incorporated herein by this reference.
[insert Project Schedule]
Last revised April 2015 EXHIBIT D
Page 1 of 1
Exhibit D
Special Requirements
[insert Special Requirements or indicate, “None” if there are none]
Last revised April 2015 EXHIBIT E
Page 1 of 6
Exhibit E
Insurance Requirements
E.1 Insurance. Prior to the beginning of and throughout the duration of this
Agreement, the following policies shall be maintained and kept in full force and effect
providing insurance with minimum limits as indicated below and issued by insurers
with A.M. Best ratings of no less than A-:VI:
Commercial General Liability (at least as broad as ISO CG 0001)
$1,000,000 (per occurrence)
$2,000,000 (general aggregate)
Commercial Auto Liability (at least as broad as ISO CA 0001)
$1,000,000 (per accident)
Errors and Omissions Liability
$1,000,000 (per claim and aggregate)
Workers’ Compensation
(per statutory requirements)
Consultant shall procure and maintain, at its cost, and submit concurrently
with its execution of this Agreement, Commercial General Liability insurance against
all claims for injuries against persons or damages to property resulting from
Consultant's acts or omissions rising out of or related to Consultant's performance
under this Agreement. The insurance policy shall contain a severability of interest
clause providing that the coverage shall be primary for losses arising out of
Consultant's performance hereunder and neither City nor its insurers shall be required
to contribute to any such loss. A certificate evidencing the foregoing and naming City
and its officers and employees as additional insured (on the Commercial General
Liability policy only) shall be delivered to and approved by City prior to
commencement of the services hereunder.
Consultant shall carry automobile liability insurance of $1,000,000 per
accident against all claims for injuries against persons or damages to property arising
out of the use of any automobile by Consultant, its officers, any person directly or
indirectly employed by Consultant, any subcontractor or agent, or anyone for whose
acts any of them may be liable, arising directly or indirectly out of or related to
Consultant's performance under this Agreement. If Consultant or Consultant’s
employees will use personal autos in any way on this project, Consultant shall provide
evidence of personal auto liability coverage for each such person. The term
“automobile” includes, but is not limited to, a land motor vehicle, trailer or semi-trailer
designed for travel on public roads. The automobile insurance policy shall contain a
severability of interest clause providing that coverage shall be primary for losses
Last revised April 2015 EXHIBIT E
Page 2 of 6
arising out of Consultant's performance hereunder and neither City nor its insurers
shall be required to contribute to such loss.
Professional Liability or Errors and Omissions Insurance as appropriate shall
be written on a policy form coverage specifically designed to protect against acts,
errors or omissions of the consultant and “Covered Professional Services” as
designated in the policy must specifically include work performed under this
agreement. The policy limit shall be no less than $1,000,000 per claim and in the
aggregate. The policy must “pay on behalf of” the insured and must include a
provision establishing the insurer’s duty to defend. The policy retroactive date shall be
on or before the effective date of this agreement.
Consultant shall carry Workers' Compensation Insurance in accordance
with State Worker's Compensation laws with employer’s liability limits no less than
$1,000,000 per accident or disease.
Consultant shall provide written notice to City within ten (10) working days
if: (1) any of the required insurance policies is terminated; (2) the limits of any of the
required polices are reduced; or (3) the deductible or self-insured retention is
increased. In the event any of said policies of insurance are cancelled, Consultant
shall, prior to the cancellation date, submit new evidence of insurance in conformance
with this Exhibit to the Contract Officer. The procuring of such insurance or the
delivery of policies or certificates evidencing the same shall not be construed as a
limitation of Consultant’s obligation to indemnify City, its officers, employees,
contractors, subcontractors, or agents.
E.2 Remedies. In addition to any other remedies City may have if Consultant
fails to provide or maintain any insurance policies or policy endorsements to the
extent and within the time herein required, City may, at its sole option:
a. Obtain such insurance and deduct and retain the amount of the
premiums for such insurance from any sums due under this Agreement.
b. Order Consultant to stop work under this Agreement and/or withhold
any payment(s) which become due to Consultant hereunder until Consultant
demonstrates compliance with the requirements hereof.
c. Terminate this Agreement.
Exercise of any of the above remedies, however, is an alternative to any
other remedies City may have. The above remedies are not the exclusive remedies for
Consultant's failure to maintain or secure appropriate policies or endorsements.
Nothing herein contained shall be construed as limiting in any way the extent to
which Consultant may be held responsible for payments of damages to persons or
Last revised April 2015 EXHIBIT E
Page 3 of 6
property resulting from Consultant's or its subcontractors' performance of work under
this Agreement.
E.3 General Conditions Pertaining to Provisions of Insurance Coverage by
Consultant. Consultant and City agree to the following with respect to insurance
provided by Consultant:
1. Consultant agrees to have its insurer endorse the third party general
liability coverage required herein to include as additional insureds City, its officials,
employees, and agents, using standard ISO endorsement No. CG 2010 with an edition
prior to 1992. Consultant also agrees to require all contractors, and subcontractors to
do likewise.
2. No liability insurance coverage provided to comply with this
Agreement shall prohibit Consultant, or Consultant’s employees, or agents, from
waiving the right of subrogation prior to a loss. Consultant agrees to waive
subrogation rights against City regardless of the applicability of any insurance
proceeds, and to require all contractors and subcontractors to do likewise.
3. All insurance coverage and limits provided by Consultant and
available or applicable to this Agreement are intended to apply to the full extent of
the policies. Nothing contained in this Agreement or any other agreement relating to
City or its operations limits the application of such insurance coverage.
4. None of the coverages required herein will be in compliance with
these requirements if they include any limiting endorsement of any kind that has not
been first submitted to City and approved of in writing.
5. No liability policy shall contain any provision or definition that would
serve to eliminate so-called “third party action over” claims, including any exclusion
for bodily injury to an employee of the insured or of any contractor or subcontractor.
6. All coverage types and limits required are subject to approval,
modification and additional requirements by the City, as the need arises. Consultant
shall not make any reductions in scope of coverage (e.g. elimination of contractual
liability or reduction of discovery period) that may affect City’s protection without
City’s prior written consent.
7. Proof of compliance with these insurance requirements, consisting of
certificates of insurance evidencing all of the coverages required and an additional
insured endorsement to Consultant’s general liability policy, shall be delivered to City
at or prior to the execution of this Agreement. In the event such proof of any
insurance is not delivered as required, or in the event such insurance is canceled at
any time and no replacement coverage is provided, City has the right, but not the
duty, to obtain any insurance it deems necessary to protect its interests under this or
Last revised April 2015 EXHIBIT E
Page 4 of 6
any other agreement and to pay the premium. Any premium so paid by City shall be
charged to and promptly paid by Consultant or deducted from sums due Consultant,
at City option.
8. It is acknowledged by the parties of this agreement that all insurance
coverage required to be provided by Consultant or any subcontractor, is intended to
apply first and on a primary, non-contributing basis in relation to any other insurance
or self-insurance available to City.
9. Consultant agrees to ensure that subcontractors, and any other party
involved with the project that is brought onto or involved in the project by Consultant,
provide the same minimum insurance coverage required of Consultant. Consultant
agrees to monitor and review all such coverage and assumes all responsibility for
ensuring that such coverage is provided in conformity with the requirements of this
section. Consultant agrees that upon request, all agreements with subcontractors
and others engaged in the project will be submitted to City for review.
10. Consultant agrees not to self-insure or to use any self-insured
retentions or deductibles on any portion of the insurance required herein (with the
exception of professional liability coverage, if required) and further agrees that it will
not allow any contractor, subcontractor, Architect, Engineer or other entity or person
in any way involved in the performance of work on the project contemplated by this
agreement to self-insure its obligations to City. If Consultant’s existing coverage
includes a deductible or self-insured retention, the deductible or self-insured retention
must be declared to the City. At that time the City shall review options with the
Consultant, which may include reduction or elimination of the deductible or self-
insured retention, substitution of other coverage, or other solutions.
11. The City reserves the right at any time during the term of this
Agreement to change the amounts and types of insurance required by giving the
Consultant ninety (90) days advance written notice of such change. If such change
results in substantial additional cost to the Consultant, the City will negotiate
additional compensation proportional to the increased benefit to City.
12. For purposes of applying insurance coverage only, this Agreement will
be deemed to have been executed immediately upon any party hereto taking any
steps that can be deemed to be in furtherance of or towards performance of this
Agreement.
13. Consultant acknowledges and agrees that any actual or alleged
failure on the part of City to inform Consultant of non-compliance with any insurance
requirement in no way imposes any additional obligations on City nor does it waive
any rights hereunder in this or any other regard.
Last revised April 2015 EXHIBIT E
Page 5 of 6
14. Consultant will renew the required coverage annually as long as City,
or its employees or agents face an exposure from operations of any type pursuant to
this agreement. This obligation applies whether or not the agreement is canceled or
terminated for any reason. Termination of this obligation is not effective until City
executes a written statement to that effect.
15. Consultant shall provide proof that policies of insurance required
herein expiring during the term of this Agreement have been renewed or replaced
with other policies providing at least the same coverage. Proof that such coverage
has been ordered shall be submitted prior to expiration. A coverage binder or letter
from Consultant’s insurance agent to this effect is acceptable. A certificate of
insurance and/or additional insured endorsement as required in these specifications
applicable to the renewing or new coverage must be provided to City within five (5)
days of the expiration of coverages.
16. The provisions of any workers’ compensation or similar act will not
limit the obligations of Consultant under this agreement. Consultant expressly agrees
not to use any statutory immunity defenses under such laws with respect to City, its
employees, officials, and agents.
17. Requirements of specific coverage features or limits contained in this
section are not intended as limitations on coverage, limits or other requirements nor
as a waiver of any coverage normally provided by any given policy. Specific reference
to a given coverage feature is for purposes of clarification only as it pertains to a given
issue, and is not intended by any party or insured to be limiting or all-inclusive.
18. These insurance requirements are intended to be separate and
distinct from any other provision in this Agreement and are intended by the parties
here to be interpreted as such.
19. The requirements in this Exhibit supersede all other sections and
provisions of this Agreement to the extent that any other section or provision conflicts
with or impairs the provisions of this Exhibit.
20. Consultant agrees to be responsible for ensuring that no contract used
by any party involved in any way with the project reserves the right to charge City or
Consultant for the cost of additional insurance coverage required by this agreement.
Any such provisions are to be deleted with reference to City. It is not the intent of City
to reimburse any third party for the cost of complying with these requirements. There
shall be no recourse against City for payment of premiums or other amounts with
respect thereto.
21. Consultant agrees to provide immediate notice to City of any claim or
loss against Consultant arising out of the work performed under this agreement. City
Last revised April 2015 EXHIBIT E
Page 6 of 6
assumes no obligation or liability by such notice, but has the right (but not the duty) to
monitor the handling of any such claim or claims if they are likely to involve City.
Last revised April 2015 EXHIBIT F
Page 1 of 2
Exhibit F
Indemnification
F.1 General Indemnification Provision.
a. Indemnification for Professional Liability. When the law establishes a
professional standard of care for Consultant’s Services, to the fullest extent permitted
by law, Consultant shall indemnify, protect, defend (with counsel selected by City), and
hold harmless City and any and all of its officials, employees, and agents
(“Indemnified Parties”) from and against any and all claims, losses, liabilities of every
kind, nature, and description, damages, injury (including, without limitation, injury to
or death of an employee of Consultant or of any subcontractor), costs and expenses of
any kind, whether actual, alleged or threatened, including, without limitation,
incidental and consequential damages, court costs, attorneys’ fees, litigation
expenses, and fees of expert consultants or expert witnesses incurred in connection
therewith and costs of investigation, to the extent same are cause in whole or in part
by any negligent or wrongful act, error or omission of Consultant, its officers, agents,
employees or subcontractors (or any entity or individual that Consultant shall bear the
legal liability thereof) in the performance of professional services under this
agreement. With respect to the design of public improvements, the Consultant shall
not be liable for any injuries or property damage resulting from the reuse of the design
at a location other than that specified in Exhibit A without the written consent of the
Consultant.
b. Indemnification for Other Than Professional Liability. Other than in
the performance of professional services and to the full extent permitted by law,
Consultant shall indemnify, defend (with counsel selected by City), and hold harmless
the Indemnified Parties from and against any liability (including liability for claims,
suits, actions, arbitration proceedings, administrative proceedings, regulatory
proceedings, losses, expenses or costs of any kind, whether actual, alleged or
threatened, including, without limitation, incidental and consequential damages,
court costs, attorneys’ fees, litigation expenses, and fees of expert consultants or
expert witnesses) incurred in connection therewith and costs of investigation, where
the same arise out of, are a consequence of, or are in any way attributable to, in whole
or in part, the performance of this Agreement by Consultant or by any individual or
entity for which Consultant is legally liable, including but not limited to officers,
agents, employees, or subcontractors of Consultant.
F.2 Standard Indemnification Provisions. Consultant agrees to obtain executed
indemnity agreements with provisions identical to those set forth herein this section
from each and every subcontractor or any other person or entity involved by, for, with
or on behalf of Consultant in the performance of this Agreement. In the event
Consultant fails to obtain such indemnity obligations from others as required herein,
Consultant agrees to be fully responsible according to the terms of this Exhibit. Failure
Last revised April 2015 EXHIBIT F
Page 2 of 2
of City to monitor compliance with these requirements imposes no additional
obligations on City and will in no way act as a waiver of any rights hereunder. This
obligation to indemnify and defend City as set forth herein is binding on the
successors, assigns or heirs of Consultant and shall survive the termination of this
agreement or this section.
a. Indemnity Provisions for Contracts Related to Construction. Without
affecting the rights of City under any provision of this agreement, Consultant shall not
be required to indemnify and hold harmless City for liability attributable to the active
negligence of City, provided such active negligence is determined by agreement
between the parties or by the findings of a court of competent jurisdiction. In
instances where City is shown to have been actively negligent and where City’s active
negligence accounts for only a percentage of the liability involved, the obligation of
Consultant will be for that entire portion or percentage of liability not attributable to
the active negligence of City.
Demsey, Filliger & Page 1 of 11 2/7/2015
Associates
February 7, 2015
Ms. Rita Conrad
Finance Director/City Treasurer
City of La Quinta
78-495 Calle Tampico
La Quinta, CA 92253
Re: City of La Quinta ("City") GASB 45 Valuation
Dear Ms. Conrad:
This report sets forth the results of our GASB 45 actuarial valuation of the City's retiree health
insurance program as of July 1, 2014.
In June, 2004 the Governmental Accounting Standards Board (GASB) issued its final accrual
accounting standards for retiree healthcare benefits, GASB 43 and GASB 45. GASB 43/45 require
public employers such as the City to perform periodic actuarial valuations to measure and disclose
their retiree healthcare liabilities for the financial statements of both the employer and the trust, if
any, set aside to pre-fund these liabilities. The City must obtain actuarial valuations of its retiree
health insurance program under GASB 43/45 not less frequently than once every three years.
To accomplish these objectives the City selected Demsey, Filliger and Associates (DF&A) to
perform an actuarial valuation of the retiree health insurance program as of July 1, 2014. This report
may be compared with the valuation performed by DF&A as of July 1, 2011, to see how the
liabilities have changed since the last valuation. We are available to answer any questions the City
may have concerning the report.
Financial Results
We have determined that the amount of actuarial liability for City-paid retiree benefits is
$1,326,853 as of July 1, 2014. This represents the present value of all benefits expected to be paid by
the City for its current and future retirees. If the City were to place this amount in a fund earning
interest at the rate of 4.0% per year, and all other actuarial assumptions were exactly met, the fund
would have exactly enough to pay all expected benefits.
ATTACHMENT B
Demsey, Filliger & Page 2 of 11 2/7/2015
Associates
This includes benefits for 12 retirees as well as 67 active employees who may become eligible
to retire and receive benefits in the future. It excludes employees hired after the valuation date.
When we apportion the $1,326,853 into past service and future service components under the
Projected Unit Credit Cost Method, the past service liability (or "Accrued Liability") component is
$851,125 as of July 1, 2014. This represents the present value of all benefits earned to date assuming
that an employee earns retiree healthcare benefits ratably over his or her career. The $851,125 is
comprised of liabilities of $510,175 for active employees and $340,950 for retirees. Because the City
has not established an irrevocable trust for the pre-funding of retiree healthcare benefits, the
Unfunded Accrued Liability (called the UAL, equal to the AL less Assets) is also $851,125.
We have determined that City of La Quinta's "Annual Required Contributions", or "ARC", for
the fiscal year 2014-15, is $106,104. The $106,104 is comprised of the present value of benefits
accruing in the current year, called the "Service Cost", and a 30-year amortization of the UAL. We
estimate that the City will pay approximately $18,026 for the 2014-15 fiscal year in healthcare costs
for its retirees and their covered dependents, so the difference between the accrual accounting
expense (ARC) and pay-as-you-go is an increase of $88,078.
There are two adjustments to the ARC that are required in order to determine the City's
Annual OPEB Cost (AOC) for the 2014-15 fiscal year. We have calculated these adjustments based
on an estimated Net OPEB Obligation (NOO) of $672,917 as of June 30, 2014, resulting in an AOC
for 2014-15 of $94,106.
We show these numbers in the table on the next page and in Exhibit II. All amounts are net of
expected future retiree contributions, if any.
Demsey, Filliger & Page 3 of 11 2/7/2015
Associates
City of La Quinta
Annual Liabilities and Expense under
GASB 45 Accrual Accounting Standard
Projected Unit Credit Cost Method
Item
Amounts for
Fiscal 2014-15
Present Value of Future Benefits (PVFB)
Active $985,903
Retired 340,950
Total: PVFB $1,326,853
Accrued Liability (AL)
Actives $510,175
Retired 340,950
Total: AL $851,125
Assets (0)
Total: Unfunded AL $851,125
Annual Required Contributions (ARC)
Service Cost At Year-End $56,883
30-year Amortization of Unfunded AL 49,221
Total: ARC $106,104
Adjustments to ARC
Interest on Net OPEB Obligation* 26,917
Adjustment to ARC* (38,915)
Total: Annual OPEB Cost (AOC) for 2014-15 $94,106
*Amounts based on estimated June 30, 2014 Net OPEB Obligation of $672,917.
The ARC of $106,104, shown above, should be used for the 2014-15, 2015-16, and 2016-17
fiscal years, but the Annual OPEB Cost for all three years must include an adjustment based on the
Net OPEB Obligation (NOO) as reported in the previous year's financial statement, which is not
known precisely in advance.
When the City begins preparation of the June 30, 2014 government-wide financial statements,
DF&A will provide the City and its auditors with complimentary assistance in preparation of
footnotes and required supplemental information for compliance with GASB 45 (and GASB 43, if
applicable).
Demsey, Filliger & Page 4 of 11 2/7/2015
Associates
Differences from Prior Valuation
The most recent prior valuation was completed by DF&A as of July 1, 2011. The Accrued
Liability as of that date was $907,015, compared to $851,125 on July 1, 2014. This Accrued
Liability (AL) is for City-paid benefits only; that is, it is net of expected future retiree contributions.
In this section, we provide a reconciliation between the 2011 AL and the 2014 AL, so that it is
possible to track the numbers from one actuarial report to the next.
Several factors have caused the AL to change sinc e 2011. The AL increases with the passage
of time as employees accrue more service and get closer to receiving benefits, and decreases as
outstanding benefit obligations to retirees are satisfied. There are actuarial gains/losses from one
valuation to the next, and changes in actuarial assumptions and methodology for the current
valuation. The most important of these factors were as follows:
1. There was a gain (a decrease in the AL) of $83,639 from increases in healthcare premiums and
statutory minimum contributions less than expected.
2. We changed to more up-to-date mortality tables. This change increased the AL by $25,246.
3. We increased the initial healthcare trend rate from 5.0% to 8.0% to better reflect our
expectations of healthcare premium increases over the next several years. This change increased
the AL by $9,043.
4. There was a gain (a decrease in the AL) of $1,015 due to a reduction in the PERS Health
administrative fee from 0.36% of premium to 0.33% of premium.
5. We lowered the discount rate from 5.0% to 4.0% to reflect the decrease in long-term interest
rates over the last several years. This change increased the AL by $158,456.
6. We changed the percent of future retirees assumed to waive benefits from 40% to 50% to reflect
emerging experience. This change decreased the AL by $102,035.
7. There was a net census gain (a decrease in AL) of $404,746.
The changes to the AL since the July 1, 2011 valuation may be summarized as follows:
Change to AL AL
AL as of 7/1/11 $907,015
Passage of time 342,800
Increases in premiums < expected (83,639)
Change in mortality tables 25,246
Change in trend rates 9,043
Change in PERS Health admin. fee (1,015)
Change in discount rate 158,456
Change percent waiving assumption (102,035)
Census (gain)/loss (404,746)
AL as of 7/1/14 $851,125
Demsey, Filliger & Page 5 of 11 2/7/2015
Associates
Actuarial Assumptions
In order to perform the valuation, the actuary must make certain assumptions regarding such
items as rates of employee turnover, retirement, and mortality, as well as economic assumptions
regarding healthcare inflation and interest rates. Our assumptions are based on a standard set of
assumptions we have used for similar valuations, modified as appropriate for the City. For example,
turnover rates are taken from a standard actuarial table, T-5, increased by 125% at all ages. This
matches the City's historic turnover patterns. Retirement rates were also based on recent City
retirement patterns. Both assumptions should be reviewed in the next valuation to see if they are
tracking well with experience.
The discount rate of 4.0% is based on our best estimate of expected long-term plan
experience. It is in accordance with our understanding of the guidelines for selection of this rate
under GASB 45 for unfunded plans such as the City's. The healthcare trend rates are based on our
analysis of recent City experience and our knowledge of the general healthcare environment.
For purposes of projecting the PEMHCA administrative fee, we used the average equivalent
single-retiree premium based on current retiree health plan selection. A co mplete description of the
actuarial assumptions used in the valuation is set forth in the "Actuarial Assumptions" section.
Projected Annual Pay-as-you go Costs
As part of the valuation, we prepared a projection of the expected annual cost to the City to
pay benefits on behalf of its retirees on a pay-as-you-go basis. These numbers are computed on a
closed group basis, assuming no new entrants, and are net of retiree contributions. Projected pay-as-
you-go costs for selected years are as follows:
FYB Pay-as-you-go
2014 $18,026
2015 19,588
2016 21,797
2017 24,473
2018 27,616
2019 30,945
2020 34,424
2025 52,599
2030 71,864
2035 90,862
2040 103,002
2045 104,100
2050 91,236
2055 68,112
2060 42,665
2065 22,490
2070 10,096
2075 3,699
Demsey, Filliger & Page 6 of 11 2/7/2015
Associates
Breakdown by Employee/Retiree Group
Exhibit I, attached at the end of the report, shows a breakdown of the GASB 45 components
(ARC, AL, Service Cost, and PVFB) by bargaining unit (or non-represented group) and separately by
active employees (future retirees) and current retirees.
Net OPEB Obligation (NOO) and Annual OPEB Cost (AOC)
Exhibit II shows a development of the City's Net OPEB Obligation ("NOO") as of June 30,
2008 through June 30, 2014, and the Annual OPEB Cost ("AOC") for the fiscal years 2008-09
through 2014-15. The NOO as of June 30, 2014 and the AOC for 2014-15 are estimates as of the
date this report is being published.
Funding Recommendations
In order to be counted as an asset for GASB 45 purposes, funds mu st be held in a trust that
may not be used for purposes other than the payment of retiree health benefits (OPEB). The City
Council has designated a fund of $1,523,401 as a reserve for OPEB. This fund does not satisfy the
GASB 45 requirements to be counted as an asset, and has therefore not been included in the
development of the Unfunded Accrued Liability and ARC in this report.
For practical purposes, the fund is sufficient to pay all retiree health benefits for both current
and future employees, and we do not recommend any further additions to the fund in the near future.
However, we do recommend that the City consider moving up to 50% of the fund into a qualifying
trust. This would permit the actuary to use a higher discount rate for the GASB 45 valuation, and
reduce the City's Unfunded Accrued Liability, which may have to be carried in the City's Statement
of Financial Position beginning in 2017 under newly proposed GASB OPEB standards.
Certification
The actuarial certification, including a caveat regarding limitations of scope, if any, is
contained in the "Actuarial Certification" section at the end of the report.
We have enjoyed working with the City on this report, and are available to answer any
questions you may have concerning any information contained herein.
Sincerely,
DEMSEY, FILLIGER AND ASSOCIATES
T. Louis Filliger, FSA, EA, MAAA
Partner & Actuary
Demsey, Filliger & Page 7 of 11 2/7/2015
Associates
Benefit Plan Provisions
This report analyzes the actuarially projected costs of the City of La Quinta's retiree health
insurance program. Our findings and assumptions are based on census data as of the valuation date
and PEMHCA premiums blended 50-50 for calendar years 2014 and 2015.
Active Employee Coverage
Medical coverage is provided through CalPERS under the Public Employees' Medical and
Hospital Care Act (PEMHCA), also referred to as PERS Health. Employees can choose one of five
medical options: Blue Shield Access HMO, Kaiser HMO, PERSCare PPO, PERSChoice PPO, and
PERS Select PPO.
The City sets its monthly contribution rates for health insurance on behalf of active employees
according to the PEMHCA statutory minimum ($119.00/month for calendar 2014 and $122.00/month
for calendar 2015.) These amounts are indexed (increased) in all future years according to the rate of
medical inflation. The City pays a 0.33% of premium administrative charge for all active employees.
Post-Retirement Coverage
The City offers the same medical plans to its retirees as to its active employees, with the
general exception that upon reaching age 65 and becoming eligible for Medicare, the retiree must join
one of the Medicare Supplement coverages offered under PEMHCA.
Employees become eligible to retire and receive City-paid healthcare benefits upon attainment
of age 50 and 5 years of covered PERS service, or by attaining qualifying disability retirement status.
The City's contribution on behalf of all eligible retirees is the same as for active employees
($119.00/month for calendar 2014 and $122.00/month for calendar 2015, increased in all future years
according to the rate of medical inflation.) The City pays a 0.33% of premium administrative charge
on behalf of all retirees.
The following table shows January 1, 2014 monthly PERS Health (PEMHCA) premiums for
retirees within the "Other Southern California" region:
Blue Shield
Access
HMO
Kaiser
HMO
PERS Care
PPO
PERS
Choice
PPO
PERS
Select
PPO
Basic Plan
Retiree $543.21 $602.79 $638.22 $612.25 $586.32
Retiree + 1 1,086.42 1,205.58 1,276.44 1,224.50 1,172.64
Family 1,412.35 1,567.25 1,659.37 1,591.85 1,524.43
Medicare Supplement
Retiree $298.21 $294.97 $327.36 $307.23 $307.23
Retiree + 1 596.42 589.94 654.72 614.46 614.46
Family 894.63 884.91 982.08 921.69 921.69
Demsey, Filliger & Page 8 of 11 2/7/2015
Associates
Valuation Data
Active and Retiree Census
Age distribution of retirees included in the valuation
Age Count
Under 55 0
55-59 2
60-64 4
65-69 4
70-74 1
75+ 1
Total 12
Average Age 64.83
Age/Years of service distribution of active employees included in the valuat ion
Years� 0-4 5-9 10-14 15-19 20-24 25-29 30+ Total
Age
<25 1 1
25-29 0 1 1
30-34 3 5 0 8
35-39 1 4 1 0 6
40-44 1 5 4 0 0 10
45-49 3 6 1 2 1 1 14
50-54 0 3 4 1 0 1 0 9
55-59 1 4 5 0 0 1 0 11
60-64 1 1 2 2 0 0 1 7
65+ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
All Ages 11 29 17 5 1 3 1 67
Average Age: 46.73
Average Service: 9.76
Demsey, Filliger & Page 9 of 11 2/7/2015
Associates
Actuarial Assumptions
The liabilities set forth in this report are based on the actuarial assumptions described in this
section.
Valuation Date: July 1, 2014
Actuarial Cost Method: Projected Unit Credit
Amortization Method: 30-year level dollar, open period
Discount Rate: 4.0% per annum
Return on Assets: 4.0% per annum
Pre-retirement Turnover: According to the Crocker-Sarason Table T-5 less mortality,
increased by 125% at all ages. Sample rates are as follows:
Age Turnover (%)
25 17.4%
30 16.2
35 14.1
40 11.6
45 8.9
50 5.8
55 2.1
Pre-retirement Mortality: RP-2000 Combined Mortality, static projection to 2012 by
scale AA. Sample deaths per 1,000 employees are as follows:
Age Males Females
25 0.33 0.18
30 0.42 0.23
35 0.73 0.42
40 0.98 0.59
45 1.29 0.93
50 1.72 1.36
55 2.88 2.47
60 5.56 4.76
Post-retirement Mortality: RP-2000 Combined Mortality, static projection to 2012 by
scale AA. Sample deaths per 1,000 retirees are as follows:
Age Males Females
60 5.56 4.76
65 10.75 9.14
70 18.52 15.77
75 31.95 25.52
80 57.06 42.17
85 101.80 72.05
90 174.80 127.02
Demsey, Filliger & Page 10 of 11 2/7/2015
Associates
Actuarial Assumptions
(Continued)
Claim Cost per Retiree or Spouse:
Age Medical/Rx
55-64 $7,561
65+ 3,854
Retirement Rates:
Age Percent Retiring*
50-54 2.0%
55-57 5.0
58-59 8.0
60-61 12.0
62 15.0
63 20.0
64 25.0
65 50.0
66 60.0
67 100.0
* Of those having met eligibility to receive PERS retirement benefits. The percentage
refers to the probability that an active employee who has reached the stated age will
retire within the following year.
Trend Rate: Healthcare costs were assumed to increase according to the
following schedule:
FYB Medical/Rx
2014 8.0%
2015 7.0
2016 6.0
2017+ 5.0
Percent Waiving Coverage: 50% (applies to future retirees only)
Medical Inflation: 4.0% per year (used to project PERS statutory minimum)
Percent of Retirees with Spouses:
Future Retirees: 80% of future retirees were assumed to have
spouses at the time of retirement. Female spouses assumed
three years younger than male spouses.
Current Retirees: Based on actual spousal data.
Demsey, Filliger & Page 11 of 11 2/7/2015
Associates
Actuarial Certification
The results set forth in this report are based on our actuarial valuation of the health and
welfare benefit plans of the City of La Quinta ("City") as of July 1, 2014.
The valuation was performed in accordance with generally accepted actuarial principles and
practices. We relied on census data for active employees and retirees provided to us by the City in
October, 2014. We also made use of claims, premium, expense, and enrollment data, and copies of
relevant sections of healthcare documents provided to us by the City.
The assumptions used in performing the valuation, as summarized in this report, and the
results based thereupon, represent our best estimate of the actuarial costs of the program under GASB
43 and GASB 45, and the existing and proposed Actuarial Standards of Practice for measuring post-
retirement healthcare benefits. We have assumed no post-valuation mortality improvements,
consistent with our belief that there will be no further significant, sustained increases in life
expectancy in the United States over the projection period covered by the valuation.
Throughout the report, we have used unrounded numbers, because rounding and the
reconciliation of the rounded results would add an additional, and in our opinion unnecessary, layer
of complexity to the valuation process. By our publishing of unrounded results, no implication is
made as to the degree o f precision inherent in those results. Clients and their auditors should use
their own judgment as to the desirability of rounding when transferring the results of this valuation
report to the clients' financial statements.
The undersigned actuary meets the Qualification Standards of the American Academy of
Actuaries to render the actuarial opinion contained in this report.
Certified by:
T. Louis Filliger, FSA, EA, MAAA Date: 2/7/15
Partner & Actuary
Exhibit I
City of La Quinta
GASB 45 Valuation Results By Employee Group
7/1/2014 7/1/2014 7/1/2014
Valuation Results Valuation Results Valuation Results
Union Non-Union Total All Groups
Present Value of Benefits (PVFB):
Actives 553,217$ 432,686$ 985,903$
Retirees 115,206 225,744 340,950
Total PVFB:668,423$ 658,430$ 1,326,853$
Accrued Liability (AL):
Actives 281,523$ 228,652$ 510,175$
Retirees 115,206 225,744 340,950
Total AL:396,729$ 454,396$ 851,125$
Assets*- - -
Unfunded Accrued Liability ("UAL")396,729$ 454,396$ 851,125$
GASB 45 ARC ("Annual Required Contributions" )
Service Cost at Year-end 29,227$ 27,656$ 56,883$
30-year amortization of City-paid UAL 22,943 26,278 49,221
Total ARC (City's Annual Expense)52,170$ 53,934$ 106,104$
*Assets, if any, allocated in proportion to AL for illustration purposes only; GASB 45 does not provide authority for this calculation.
Demsey, Filliger &
Associates 2/7/2015
City of La Quinta
Development of Annual OPEB Costs
Exhibit II
Amount
Net OPEB Obligation 6/30/2008 -
ARC for 2008-9 116,821
Interest on Net OPEB Obligation -
Amortization adjustment to ARC -
Annual OPEB Cost 2008-9 116,821
Employer Contribution (8,877)
Net OPEB Obligation 6/30/2009 107,944
ARC for 2009-10 116,821
Interest on Net OPEB Obligation 5,397
Amortization adjustment to ARC (4,181)
Annual OPEB Cost 2009-10 118,037
Employer Contribution (3,515)
Change in Net OPEB Obligation 2009-10 114,522
Net OPEB Obligation 6/30/2009 107,944
Net OPEB Obligation 6/30/2010 222,466
ARC for 2010-11 116,821
Interest on Net OPEB Obligation 11,299
Amortization adjustment to ARC (9,015)
Annual OPEB Cost 2010-11 119,105
Employer Contribution (4,260)
Change in Net OPEB Obligation 2010-11 114,845
Net OPEB Obligation 6/30/2010 222,466
Net OPEB Obligation 6/30/2011 337,311
ARC for 2011-12 138,992
Interest on Net OPEB Obligation 16,866
Amortization adjustment to ARC (27,365)
Annual OPEB Cost 2011-12 128,493
Employer Contribution (6,160)
Change in Net OPEB Obligation 2011-12 122,333
Net OPEB Obligation 6/30/2011 337,311
Net OPEB Obligation 6/30/2012 459,644
ARC for 2012-13 138,992
Interest on Net OPEB Obligation 4,596
Amortization adjustment to ARC (27,180)
Annual OPEB Cost 2012-13 116,408
Employer Contribution (16,461)
Change in Net OPEB Obligation 2012-13 99,947
Net OPEB Obligation 6/30/2012 459,644
Net OPEB Obligation 6/30/2013 559,591
ARC for 2013-14 138,992
Interest on Net OPEB Obligation 27,980
Amortization adjustment to ARC (36,402)
Annual OPEB Cost 2013-14 130,570
Employer Contribution (estimated)(17,244)
Change in Net OPEB Obligation 2013-14 113,326
Net OPEB Obligation 6/30/2013 559,591
Net OPEB Obligation 6/30/2014 estimated 672,917
ARC for 2014-15 106,104
Interest on Net OPEB Obligation 26,917
Amortization adjustment to ARC (38,915)
Annual OPEB Cost 2014-15 estimated 94,106
Demsey, Filliger &
Associates 2/7/2015
HAND OUTS
FAC
MEETING
JUNE 12, 2017
Police 16,517,400 38%15,830,400 37%(687,000.00)
Fire 6,485,500 15%6,485,500 15%-
Salaries & Benefits 8,688,300 20%9,094,100 21%405,800.00
Other Contracts 3,678,900 9%3,519,200 8%(159,700.00)
Transfers Out 2,737,500 6%2,771,500 6%34,000.00
Maintenance & Operations 2,567,000 6%2,837,000 7%270,000.00
Internal Service Charges 1,920,400 4%1,920,400 4%-
Utilities 438,100 1%438,100 1%-
Capital Expenses 15,000 0.03%15,000 0.03%-
43,048,100 100%42,911,200 100%136,900.00
Budget % Allocated
REVENUE
2016/17 (First Quarter, April - June 2017)1,000,000 15%
2017/18 (July 2017 - June 2018)5,700,000 85%
Total 6,700,000 100%
USES
Police Services Contract 100,000 1%
Public Safety Reserve Fund 300,000 4%
3 Capital Improvement Projects 4,969,500 74%
GF Measure G (Sales Tax Revenue) Reserves 1,330,500 20%
Total 6,700,000 100%
MEASURE G (SALES TAX) SUMMARY
5-2-17 Deficit (196,500)$
SilverRock Increase (34,000)$
5-16-17 Deficit (230,500)$
Brew in LQ Adjustment 5,000$
Police Contract Adjustments 687,000$
Temporary Staffing/Contract Service 180,000$
Staffing Requests (394,200)$
Marketing (150,000)$
Community Programs (100,000)$
Brew in LQ Event (20,000)$
Art on Main Street (20,000)$
Staffing Update from Recruitments (16,900)$
6-6-17 Deficit (59,600)$
Police Contract Measure G Allocation 100,000$
6-20-17 Surplus 40,400$