HomeMy WebLinkAbout2022.0906.TCWS.Packet
NOTICE OF MEETING
WORK SESSION
FOUNTAIN HILLS TOWN COUNCIL
Mayor Ginny Dickey
Vice Mayor Gerry Friedel
Councilmember Sharron Grzybowski
Councilmember Alan Magazine
Councilmember Peggy McMahon
Councilmember MIke Scharnow
Councilmember David Spelich
TIME:WORK SESSION TO CONVENE IMMEDIATELY FOLLOWING THE REGULAR MEETING
WHEN:TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 6, 2022
WHERE:FOUNTAIN HILLS COUNCIL CHAMBERS
16705 E. AVENUE OF THE FOUNTAINS, FOUNTAIN HILLS, AZ
Councilmembers of the Town of Fountain Hills will attend either in person or by telephone conference call; a quorum of the Town’s various
Commission, Committee or Board members may be in attendance at the Council meeting.
Notice is hereby given that pursuant to A.R.S. §1-602.A.9, subject to certain specified statutory exceptions, parents have a right to consent
before the State or any of its political subdivisions make a video or audio recording of a minor child. Meetings of the Town Council are audio
and/or video recorded and, as a result, proceedings in which children are present may be subject to such recording. Parents, in order to
exercise their rights may either file written consent with the Town Clerk to such recording, or take personal action to ensure that their child
or children are not present when a recording may be made. If a child is present at the time a recording is made, the Town will assume that
the rights afforded parents pursuant to A.R.S. §1-602.A.9 have been waived.
AGENDA
1.CALL TO ORDER – Mayor Ginny Dickey
2.ROLL CALL – Mayor Dickey
3.REGULAR AGENDA
A.DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE DIRECTION: Presentation of the Initial Assessment on the Town's Law
Enforcement Services by Matrix Consulting Group.
4.ADJOURNMENT
CERTIFICATE OF POSTING OF NOTICE
The undersigned hereby certifies that a copy of the foregoing notice was duly posted in accordance with the statement filed by the Town
Council with the Town Clerk.
Dated this ______ day of ____________________, 2022.
_____________________________________________
Linda G. Mendenhall, MMC, Town Clerk
The Town of Fountain Hills endeavors to make all public meetings accessible to persons with disabilities. Please call 480-816-5199 (voice) or 1-800-367-8939
(TDD) 48 hours prior to the meeting to request a reasonable accommodation to participate in the meeting or to obtain agenda information in large print
format. Supporting documentation and staff reports furnished the Council with this agenda are available for review in the Clerk's Office.
Town Council Work Session of September 6, 2022 2 of 2
ITEM 3. A.
TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS
STAFF REPORT
Meeting Date: 09/06/2022 Meeting Type: Town Council Work Session
Agenda Type: Regular Agenda Submitting Department: Administration
Prepared by: David Pock, Finance Director
Staff Contact Information: David Pock, Finance Director
Request to Town Council Work Session (Agenda Language): DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE DIRECTION:
Presentation of the Initial Assessment on the Town's Law Enforcement Services by Matrix Consulting Group.
Staff Summary (Background)
The Town Council awarded a contract to Matrix Consulting Group on November 16, 2021 for the purpose of
providing an analysis of the Town's law enforcement services. Since that time Matrix has performed considerable
research for the analyses including discussions with Town and MCSO personnel. Data was also compiled related to
contract/personnel costs, calls for service, and dispatch/response times. Using the information received, Matrix
has provided its findings related to the Town's law enforcement services in the attached assessment. This
assessment will be presented by consultants from Matrix, and they will facilitate a discussion regarding the desired
level of service for the Town. Based on the information obtained during the discussion, Matrix will develop a final
report, along with recommendations, that will be presented to the Town Council in November.
Attachments
Initial Assessment
Form Review
Inbox Reviewed By Date
Finance Director (Originator)David Pock 08/17/2022 05:55 PM
Town Attorney Aaron D. Arnson 08/18/2022 08:30 AM
Town Manager Grady E. Miller 08/18/2022 10:14 AM
Form Started By: David Pock Started On: 08/17/2022 05:35 PM
Final Approval Date: 08/18/2022
Preliminary Law Enforcement Feasibility
Assessment – Issues and Assumptions
FOUNTAIN HILLS, ARIZONA
DRAFT
August 11, 2022
Table of Contents
Introduction 1
Law Enforcement Services Overview
3
DRAFT Preliminary Law Enforcement Feasibility Assessment FOUNTAIN HILLS, AZ
Matrix Consulting Group Page 1
1. Introduction
The Matrix Consulting Group was engaged to perform a contract review of the Maricopa
County Sheriff’s Office (MCSO) law enforcement contract with the Town of Fountain Hills.
This study is one of two public safety assessments now being completed for Fountain
Hills (the other being the Fire Department by another consulting firm) with the intention
of determining appropriate service levels, cost-effectiveness, and alternative service
delivery approaches.
1. Scope of Services
The current project includes several tasks designed to:
• Develop an understanding of current operations, costs and service levels. This
effort has taken extensive time based on difficulties in data collection facilitated
by MCSO. A town hall effort for community feedback was suspended as a
consequence of these delays.
• Develop issues and assumptions surrounding existing service levels and
potential future service level options.
• Develop alternative service delivery approaches to include change in existing
contract services, alternative contracting, other in-house law enforcement
options, etc. Identify costs associated with these options.
• Identify strengths and deficiencies in the existing contract language that can
impact service levels, cost of service, contract management, and related issue
areas.
• Evaluate the advantages and disadvantages of alternative service delivery
approaches in comparison to current services and costs with MCSO.
These key items reflect the scope of work for this project.
3. Development of Issues and Assumptions
The following document presents the preliminary analysis of this feasibility assessment
to include:
• Updated Operational Data: This include critical workload data which serves as the
foundation for potential future joint law enforcement operations.
DRAFT Preliminary Law Enforcement Feasibility Assessment FOUNTAIN HILLS, AZ
Matrix Consulting Group Page 2
• Key Assumptions: These assumptions surrounding future law enforcement
operations for Fountain Hills operations will ultimately drive service levels and
costs. They include, but are not limited to the following:
– Are current targeted service levels adequate?
– Are sufficient staff and other resources allocated to today’s function?
– Are law enforcement and supporting staff deployed and/or assigned
effectively?
– Are the right types of staff assigned to operations?
• Issue Areas: Various issues will be identified that must be resolved and ideally
agreed upon by Fountain Hills in order to facilitate alternative law enforcement
operational model that will be described in the forthcoming Draft Report.
This interim deliverable is designed to facilitate discussion, address issues, and develop
buy-in to critical assumptions that will be used to frame alternative law enforcement
service delivery for Fountain Hills whether through a revised MCSO contract, alternative
contract provider, or in-house police department serving the community.
DRAFT Preliminary Law Enforcement Feasibility Assessment FOUNTAIN HILLS, AZ
Matrix Consulting Group Page 3
2. Law Enforcement Service Overview
The following chapter provides an overview of law enforcement services provided to the
Town of Fountain Hills.
1. Law Enforcement Contracted and Assigned Personnel
The following table displays the number of personnel identified contractually to provide
Fountain Hills law enforcement services. These staff are articulated in Amendment 1 of
the contract in Worksheet Exhibit A.
Contracted Law Enforcement Positions
Position Fountain
Hills
Captain 0.75
Lieutenant 1.25
Patrol Deputy 19
School Resource Ofcr. 1
Detective 2.55
Sergeants 3
Clerical / Admn. Assistant 1
Sub-Total 28.55
Dispatch (FTEs) 1.92
Total 30.47
Expected contract charges for service are based on this staffing deployment allocation
which are based on various staffing models discussed subsequently. This staffing
allocation is very different, however, from recent deployment strategies.
Fountain Hills, currently occupies the majority of MCSO District 7. The district is also
responsible for law enforcement services to the unincorporated areas of Scottsdale, Rio
Verde, Tonto Verde, Trilogy at Verde River and Goldfield Ranch. In effect, District 7 is
divided into a four-beat patrol structure of which Fountain Hills “occupies” 3.8 beats (for
contractual purposes). District 7 staff operate out of the Fountain Hills sub-station.
There is no distinction between staff assigned exclusively to Fountain Hills versus District
7, thus the table below reflects the staffing allocation currently present and servicing
Fountain Hills as of May 6, 2022.
DRAFT Preliminary Law Enforcement Feasibility Assessment FOUNTAIN HILLS, AZ
Matrix Consulting Group Page 4
District 7 Current Law Enforcement Positions
Position
Fountain
Hills Sub-
station
Captain 1
Lieutenant 1
Patrol Deputy 13
School Resource Ofcr. 1
Admn. Deputy 1
Deputy Service Aides (DSA) 1
Patrol Sergeants 4
Admn. Sergeant 2
Clerical / Admn. Assistant 1
Sub-Total 25
Dispatch FTEs 1.92
Detective FTEs 2.55
Total 29.47
A review of the prior two tables shows a notable difference in some key staffing areas
between the contract and on-site Fountain Hills sub-station staff:
• There is consistently a Captain assigned to District 7, to which Fountain Hills only
compensates three-quarters of this position contractually.
• There have been long-standing vacancies in the Watch Commander Lieutenant
position. Presently, there is only one such position whereas Fountain Hills
contracts for 1.25.
• There is a Deputy Service Aide (DSA) and Administration Deputy at the Fountain
Hills sub-station not included in the contract.
• The number of patrol beat deputies at 13 is significantly below the 19 patrol
deputies contracted. This is also a long-standing issue whereby deputies are
consistently operating at what is identified at minimum patrol staffing levels (or
below).
• Conversely, there are 6 sergeant positions at the Fountain Hills sub-station as
opposed to the 3 positions contracted for in Fountain Hills. Notably, the Fountain
Hills contract does not cover the number of sergeants required to supervise each
of the four patrol shifts.
In summary, there is a distinct difference in the staffing profile of the Fountain Hills sub-
station versus what is contracted. Importantly, neither the contract staffing model or the
existing sub-station staff profile appear to be based on best practices surrounding law
DRAFT Preliminary Law Enforcement Feasibility Assessment FOUNTAIN HILLS, AZ
Matrix Consulting Group Page 5
enforcement staffing requirements. These are discussed below and throughout this
document.
(1) Contract Calculations for Staffing Requirements
The MCSO calculates staffing needs for their law enforcement contract recipients using
various modelling approaches. Ultimately these impact services provided. Importantly
they seem to be driven by MCSO perceived needs as opposed to client (e.g. Fountain
Hills) desires and/or requirements. The following observations are made with regard to
key approaches used to determine contract staffing requirements.
• A full-time equivalent position (FTE) is based on a 2,088 hour work year. This
baseline is generally appropriate with one exception: 12-hour shifts, of which
approximately one-half of the patrol deputies work, is a 2,190 hour shift. It is
unclear how these additional hours are captured in the contract.
• Deployment of patrol deputies and detectives are based on the number of beats
in the (contracted) service area. Fountain Hills has been allocated 3.8 beats. It is
unclear in the contract how this beat service area (3.8) was arrived at.
• 5 FTE deputies are apparently required for 24/7/365 coverage of each beat.
Broadly speaking, 5 personnel are required for any 24/7/365 operation filling one
fixed-post, (such as 1 deputy per beat), but this calculation is imprecise, as filling
one post should be based on average Net Annual Work Hours (NAWH) available
which would generally result in 4.5-5.5 FTEs per post dependent upon such factors
as scheduled and unscheduled absence usage.
• Moreover, using a geographic area to determine contractual deputy requirements
is not based on appropriate workload or service level operational requirements.
The patrol deputy staffing level of 19 (3.8 x 5 = 19) is not properly juxtaposed
against calls for service response requirements, proactive time needs, officer-
safety issues, etc.
• Additionally, detective staffing is based on 0.5 detectives per beat and then
modified based on the total days covered throughout the year (beyond the 2,088
FTE hours available to each detective). Similar to patrol deputies, devising a
staffing plan for detectives based on beats is not consistent with best practice.
Rather, detective staffing should be based on detective caseload requirements for
Fountain Hills.
These contract-related issue areas will be explored in further sections below.
DRAFT Preliminary Law Enforcement Feasibility Assessment FOUNTAIN HILLS, AZ
Matrix Consulting Group Page 6
(2) Patrol Service Delivery
Patrol services are primarily delivered by Patrol Deputies. They are periodically supported
by other units staff such as sergeants and School Resource Officer (SRO) personnel, as
needed.
The Matrix Consulting Group uses an analytical approaches to determine the staffing
level required in a community such as Fountain Hills. 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 (net average work
hours – NAWH) to perform the work required of the patrol function.
• The number of patrol staff deployed should be the result of policymakers (Town
leaders) selecting a level of policing that is desired by the community while
considering officer-safety requirements. 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 law enforcement leadership
regarding expectations.
• The analysis used 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 for comparative purposes, 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”1.
• The project team also does not assign deputy staffing based on arbitrary (or even
sophisticated) beat structures as a geographic-based staff deployment model
does not account for the numerous workload variables impacting deputy staffing
requirements.
1 International Association of Chiefs of Police, Patrol Staffing and Deployment Study, 2004, document 7218.
DRAFT Preliminary Law Enforcement Feasibility Assessment FOUNTAIN HILLS, AZ
Matrix Consulting Group Page 7
Other significant factors for policy makers to consider when determining staffing levels,
particularly in Patrol, include, but are not limited to, the following:
• The type, severity, and volume of crime in a community.
• The ability of the law enforcement agency to meet response time goals to calls for
service and solve crime.
• The desired level of law enforcement 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.
• 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 sets of data provide updated information with respect to the 2020 calendar
year. These are used to frame the issues and assumptions at the conclusion of this
section.
(3) Calls for Service Workload Information
Calls for service are one of the primary drivers of Patrol workload resulting in important
metrics such as proactive time and response time. These factors are fundamental in
determining a Patrol staffing contingent, as calls for service response generated by the
community often reflect the bulk of workload in a law enforcement agency.
Patrol Deputies are the primary responding units to the vast majority of calls for service
(CFS). The following tables shows community generated CFS distribution tables for the
Town of Fountain Valley.
DRAFT Preliminary Law Enforcement Feasibility Assessment FOUNTAIN HILLS, AZ
Matrix Consulting Group Page 8
Calls for Service by Hour and Weekday (2021)
Hour Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Total
12a 19 8 10 15 10 13 15 90
1am 13 10 5 7 13 14 15 77
2am 9 5 9 15 8 17 10 73
3am 15 6 7 8 6 10 7 59
4am 9 4 7 6 9 12 8 55
5am 11 15 9 15 15 8 9 82
6am 10 18 14 15 7 17 13 94
7am 18 22 25 16 28 25 21 155
8am 29 36 24 26 25 28 23 191
9am 35 35 27 27 33 36 34 227
10am 43 37 45 44 32 51 27 279
11am 36 35 31 26 48 40 40 256
12pm 35 39 34 34 34 29 32 237
1pm 39 33 35 39 24 47 34 251
2pm 33 33 33 40 39 41 31 250
3pm 27 27 35 35 31 38 24 217
4pm 30 33 38 25 30 35 37 228
5pm 35 39 32 43 37 54 37 277
6pm 32 39 34 37 33 31 42 248
7pm 36 35 38 26 32 35 41 243
8pm 29 29 37 22 29 30 33 209
9pm 34 18 22 22 29 42 35 202
10pm 26 18 25 26 25 32 34 186
11pm 23 13 19 24 12 21 26 138
Total 626 587 595 593 589 706 628 4,324
The 4,324 CFS are reflective of calendar 2021 workload, are those responses initiated by
the community, and do not reflect deputy-initiated activities (such as a traffic stop).
The following graphic and table portrays calls in a comparative fashion.
DRAFT Preliminary Law Enforcement Feasibility Assessment FOUNTAIN HILLS, AZ
Matrix Consulting Group Page 9
Calls for Service by Hour
Calls for Service by Month
Month # of CFS Seasonal +/-
Jan 345
-1.4% Feb 340
Mar 381
Apr 374
-1.9% May 358
Jun 329
Jul 392
+7.8% Aug 412
Sep 361
Oct 377
-4.5% Nov 320
Dec 335
Total 4,324
The following observations can be made with respect to calls for service in the Town of
Fountain Hills.
• Fountain Hills has 0.18 calls for service per community member. This would be
lower if incorporating seasonal residents. This CFS ratio is very low compared to
most towns/cities.
• Interestingly, CFS peak in the summer period compared to the other 3 seasons.
DRAFT Preliminary Law Enforcement Feasibility Assessment FOUNTAIN HILLS, AZ
Matrix Consulting Group Page 10
• The pattern of calls for service by hour of day also shows that CFS peak at 10am
and 5pm. This is different than some communities where CFS rise from the early
afternoon through the evening.
Finally, the CFS workload can be graphed to show how calls for service fluctuate on a
day-to-day basis compared to the average day. The following bar-chart shows this
information.
Number of Days Above or Below Average Workload
The data shows that CFS workload can fluctuate somewhat dramatically. There are
approximately the equivalent of 2 ½ months (74 days) where CFS on any given day is 20%
below average while nearly a full month’s of time (31 days) where CFS is 40% above
average. Notably, only 113 days of CFS are +/- within 10% average workload.
Additional calls for service data is informative with respect to the top 10 CFS types. The
graphic below portrays this information with the shading by time reflecting when such
calls are likely to occur and the handling time (HT) in average minutes.
DRAFT Preliminary Law Enforcement Feasibility Assessment FOUNTAIN HILLS, AZ
Matrix Consulting Group Page 11
Fountain Hills Top-10 Incident Types
Incident Type # CFS HT 12a 4a 8a 12p 4p 8p
WELFARE CHECK 727 32.6
FALSE BURGLAR ALARM 530 20.2
MOTORIST ASSIST 227 37.7
SUSPICIOUS ACTIVITY 160 38.5
VEHICLE CRASH NO INJ 146 72.1
LOUD NEIGHBORS DIST 140 22.6
SUSPICIOUS PERSON 131 23.8
TRAFFIC HAZARD 126 25.9
FOLLOW UP 124 46.5
ASSIST OTHER AGENCY 119 29.2
All Other Types 1,894 63.6
Total 4,324 46.0
As shown by the information portrayed, none of the top-10 CFS are related to major (or
minor) criminal events. Indeed, 3 of 10 are related to vehicular/traffic incidents. The #1
CFS is checking on the welfare of a resident.
(4) Proactive Time and Response Time
Proactive time and response time are two major patrol metrics that should be ultimately
used as primary drivers in patrol staffing levels. The definitions are summarized below.
• Proactive time is the amount of “uncommitted” time a Patrol Deputy has after
responding to calls for service and related activities (e.g. a jail run) and performing
administrative duties (e.g. report writing or meal time). Significant literature exists
regarding the appropriate level of proactive time for a police agency. Generally it
should be in the range of 35% to 50%. A maximum of 60% (to facilitate response
time and officer safety with respect to the latter) has been analytically supportable,
but this typically is in rural environments with long travel distances or small police
DRAFT Preliminary Law Enforcement Feasibility Assessment FOUNTAIN HILLS, AZ
Matrix Consulting Group Page 12
departments with minimal field staff that don’t have the capability to respond well
to multiple concurrent calls.
• Response time is the rapidity in which a CFS is responded to by the public safety
agency. It represents the receipt of call in 911 Dispatch to arrival of the unit on
scene. Generally, the faster the response time the better perceived customer
service, particularly with respect to high priority calls (e.g., burglary in progress).
These two factors are important to assess Fountain Hills law enforcement workload and
related staffing requirements
(4.1) Proactive Time
Proactive time is calculated based on average net-annual work hours (NAWH) available
to each deputy in a year to perform their duties. This is then compared to the average
amount of time it takes to handle a call for service. Once total time required to handle all
calls is calculated, and the total available time of assigned patrol deputies is determined,
proactive time can be developed.
The following tables show baseline information used to calculate proactive time. In the
absence of actual data provided by MCSO for certain categories (e.g. report writing)
estimates based on our law enforcement experience are used.
Summary of Patrol CFS Workload Factors
Total Calls for Service 4,324 55% Avg. Primary Unit Handling Time 46.0 min.
Backup Units Per CFS 0.65 27% Avg. Backup Unit Handling Time 34.5 min.
Reports Written Per CFS 0.34 18% Time Per Report 45.0 min.
Avg. Workload Per Call 83.7 min.
Total Workload 6,033 hrs.
DRAFT Preliminary Law Enforcement Feasibility Assessment FOUNTAIN HILLS, AZ
Matrix Consulting Group Page 13
The above table shows that annual 2021 CFS workload required an estimated 6,033 hours
of work. The table below shows the availability of the Deputy workforce (as of May 2022)
in hours per year. These 2 factors are used to calculate proactivity.
Breakdown of Unit Availability2
Base Annual Work Hours 2,292
Total Leave Hours − 246
On-Duty Training Hours − 60
On-Duty Court Time Hours − 20
Administrative Hours − 242
Net Available Hours Per Officer = 1,724
Number of Officer Positions × 13
Total Net Available Hours = 22,413
Fountain Hills Proactivity by Hour and Weekday
2 MCSO deploys uncommon work schedules whereby on 2 shifts staff work approximately 13.5 hours daily (40 hours
weekly) and on 2 shifts work 12 hours daily over 4 days (48 hours weekly). This results in an average availability of
2,292 hours available compared to the more common 2,088 hours or 2,190 (for 12-hour shift programs).
DRAFT Preliminary Law Enforcement Feasibility Assessment FOUNTAIN HILLS, AZ
Matrix Consulting Group Page 14
As shown by the proactive time table, average proactive time is 73%. While there are a
few time blocks in which proactive time suffers a notable reduction (10am – 2pm), in
summary more than sufficient proactive time is available even at reduced deputy staffing
levels of 13 personnel compared to contracted staffing levels of 19 deputies.
(4.2) Response Time
Response time characteristics are by priority of CFS, with Priority 1 being the highest and
requiring “rapid” law enforcement deployment whereas Priority 3 is the lowest priority
calls. The following graphic shows response time (RT) by priority.
Priority Levels Response Times
The response time metrics are impressive for all priorities, and with respect to Priority 1
calls particularly impressive as they also meet the contractual obligation of Priority 1
responses in 5 minutes or less3. These response times are reflective of appropriate
deputy availability, sufficient proactive time, and are an illustration of the response time
capabilities of the MCSO even below 19 contracted deputy positions.
The proactive and response time data suggest that Fountain Hills have more than
reasonable proactive time and exceptional response times irrespective of priority. These
data demonstrate that when considering both of these key performance indicators, they
reflect an exceptional service level that is more than robust. Indeed, the entirety of CFS-
related data brings important issues to bear that need resolution for consideration of
alternative law enforcement service delivery.
3 2012-17 MCSO / Fountain Hills Intergovernmental Agreement for Law Enforcement Services, pg. 9, Section II B(2).
DRAFT Preliminary Law Enforcement Feasibility Assessment FOUNTAIN HILLS, AZ
Matrix Consulting Group Page 15
(5) Deputy-initiated Activity
Deputy-initiated, or commonly referred to as self-initiated activity, are those events
executed proactively by deputies during their proactive time. This can include a wide
variety of activities ranging from traffic stops, to pedestrian assistance, to business
walks, etc. How deputies use proactive time is critically important with respect to law
enforcement service delivery. The following tables, in similar format to calls for service
data previously provided, serve to demonstrate workload related to self-initiated activity.
Self-Initiated Incidents by Hour and Weekday
Hour Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Total
12am 9 8 24 44 36 31 4 156
1am 10 8 29 23 25 33 5 133
2am 1 4 23 30 34 42 10 144
3am 8 7 16 44 25 30 9 139
4am 3 2 11 25 22 19 4 86
5am 3 4 6 15 10 5 3 46
6am 13 6 20 18 20 11 17 105
7am 17 33 61 47 66 38 18 280
8am 20 47 68 67 61 48 26 337
9am 24 40 59 61 47 43 17 291
10am 16 28 58 52 39 25 8 226
11am 16 27 33 59 37 28 13 213
12pm 15 30 41 52 44 22 12 216
1pm 15 29 45 41 41 13 9 193
2pm 17 31 40 49 36 20 16 209
3pm 10 20 17 42 35 50 14 188
4pm 13 22 14 38 38 48 13 186
5pm 4 11 10 28 32 19 7 111
6pm 17 24 30 23 25 22 10 151
7pm 17 33 20 27 31 21 13 162
8pm 19 28 22 36 42 21 25 193
9pm 12 30 21 31 28 12 15 149
10pm 13 27 19 29 41 9 6 144
11pm 12 21 36 35 39 7 5 155
Total 304 520 723 916 854 617 279 4,213
DRAFT Preliminary Law Enforcement Feasibility Assessment FOUNTAIN HILLS, AZ
Matrix Consulting Group Page 16
Self-Initiated Incidents by Hour
Fountain Hills Top-10 Self-Initiated Incident Types
Incident Type # SI HT 12a 4a 8a 12p 4p 8p
PATROL/VACATION WATCH 1,871 42.4
TRAFFIC VIOLATION 852 13.0
FOLLOW UP 472 46.9
SCHOOL PROGRAMS 245 136.9
TRAFFIC CONTROL 220 28.5
MOTORIST ASSIST 111 30.7
WELFARE CHECK 74 34.9
SPEEDERS 31 39.6
FOUND PROPERTY 31 45.3
SUSPICIOUS ACTIVITY 27 41.5
All Other Types 279 64.0
Total 4,213 42.7
The following points are made with respect to Fountain Hills deputy self-initiated activity.
DRAFT Preliminary Law Enforcement Feasibility Assessment FOUNTAIN HILLS, AZ
Matrix Consulting Group Page 17
• Whereas this data reflects computer-aided dispatch (CAD) information recorded
on self-initiated activity, it may marginally under-represent workload (though all
activities should be recorded for officer-safety purposes). By example the number
of citations and warning written in 2021 was 2,1674. This is notably higher than
those traffic-related activities noted in the above table. Moreover, this workload is
below the 6,289 self-initiated activities reported in 20205,
• Vacation watch activities represent the plurality of self-initiated efforts, at nearly
1,900 events in 2021.
• Traffic violations, traffic control, citizen vehicle assists, and speeders illustrate 4
of the top 10 self-initiated efforts are related to traffic activities.
• Self-initiated activity peaks in the 7am – 9am timeframe just before the peak in
calls for service workload.
• At 4,213 self-initiated events, this averages 11.5 activities a day or about 1 self-
initiated activity for the entire patrol force every 2 hours. As illustrated, however,
self-initiated activity is far more prevalent in the morning compared to the rest of
the day. Using 2020 data, self-initiated activity was one activity approximately
every 1 ½ hours.
In summary, deputies focus their proactive time efforts on vacation watch and traffic-
related activities, but also engage in work related to follow-up (on prior calls, on casework,
etc.) and school-related efforts. In sum, however, there is more than sufficient proactive
time to conduct additional proactive work, as needed.
(6) Selecting Workload Targets for Proactive Time
One of the fundamental decisions that drive both staffing levels and the use of staff is
the desire for a certain level of proactive time. In safe less busy communities such as
Fountain Hills, workloads cannot be the only influencer as deputy-safety factors must be
considered.
As previously noted, proactive time targets are typically set at 45%-50% for urban areas
with 60% targets potentially used in large geographic rural areas. The proactive targets
ultimately result in staffing levels required to meet them. At 73% average proactive time,
Fountain Hills has more than adequate resources to meet law enforcement needs.
4 931 warnings and 1,236 citations.
5 2020 Annual Report for Fountain Hills document. It should be noted that since 2018 self-initiated activity has suffered
a continual decline.
DRAFT Preliminary Law Enforcement Feasibility Assessment FOUNTAIN HILLS, AZ
Matrix Consulting Group Page 18
Minimum staffing set by the MCSO of three deputies on a shift is adequate (which is
generally current deployment), and is sufficient staffing (in concert with field sergeants)
to respond to the vast majority of officer-safety situations.
Yet, despite this level of proactive time, which is extremely high compared to agencies
that Matrix Consulting has worked with, some communities demand such service levels
in order to use the available proactive time for various initiatives. Moreover, higher levels
of proactive time can be a function of low calls for service, but more patrol staff are
needed than is justified by workload for officer-safety purposes.
The various initiatives selected to be conducted during proactive time can (and should)
be very specific. These range from traffic enforcement and citations/warnings to
business checks, etc. Currently, Fountain Hills deputies are underutilizing available
proactive time. This issue should be addressed.
In summary, similar to the MCSO developed target for Priority 1 CFS response time, so
should performance metrics be developed for use of proactive time (e.g. traffic
enforcement as reflected by citations/warnings). Furthermore, despite significant
amounts of proactive time availability, Fountain Hills should not drop below 3 deputies
per shift irrespective of proactive time metrics.
(7) Patrol Services Delivery Issues and Assumptions
The following issues and assumptions regarding Patrol services require resolution.
Issues
Assumptions
• The MCSO calculation for Patrol staffing requirements is based upon
geographic beats and not on workload and proactive time metrics.
• Fountain Hills has proactive time for Patrol well-above the typical
recommended range of 45% to 50%. Calls for service are typically
lower priority (98% for Priority 2 and 3).
• Current (minimum) Patrol staffing levels are satisfactory for service, as
reflected by existing response times and proactive availability. This is
compared to higher contracted staffing levels that have not been
consistently deployed.
• Deputy use of available proactive time is, based on records, generally
low and can be improved upon.
• Fountain Hills will strongly consider contractually revising deputy
deployment to lower staffing levels consistent with actual practice.
DRAFT Preliminary Law Enforcement Feasibility Assessment FOUNTAIN HILLS, AZ
Matrix Consulting Group Page 19
• Despite levels of proactive time, Fountain Hills will not reduce patrol
staffing further as it would be inconsistent with MCSO officer-safety
practices.
• Fountain Hills will embrace better use of deputy proactive time with
specifics memorialized in the contract or side-letter.
Next Steps in the Study:
Further details regarding patrol staffing plan to include deputies, field
sergeants and watch commander staff.
Potential use of civilianization to augment patrol services.
Use of specialized proactive units dedicated almost exclusively to traffic
enforcement.
3. Investigations
Under the current contract with MCSO, Detectives (Investigators) are ‘supporting’
positions and thus a calculation where the baseline is 0.5 detectives per beat. The 2.55
detectives for which Fountain Hills is charged cannot be mathematically replicated by the
project team given the data provided; however, the resultant our project team has is not
notably different. Irrespective of this particular contract issue, far more importantly is the
issue surrounding determining detectives based on beat structure.
Similar to Patrol whereby proactive time, NAWH, and officer safety are key factors in
determining staffing, so should detective staffing be driven by workload metrics. This is
reflected by caseloads undertaken by the detective contingent. Caseloads represents
those cases assigned to a detective for review and potential follow-up. Cases can range
from minor misdemeanors to complex felony cases.
While MCSO was able to provide caseloads for Fountain Hills, they did not provide
caseload by type of case. This restricts analyses capability. Furthermore, there is no
data available from the FBI Uniform Crime Report specifically for Fountain Hills
describing the key person and property crime categories.
DRAFT Preliminary Law Enforcement Feasibility Assessment FOUNTAIN HILLS, AZ
Matrix Consulting Group Page 20
(1) Investigations Caseload Information
Of some value is the data reported in the 2020 MCSO Annual Report to Fountain Hills (the
most recent). The following graph shows those key person and property crimes by type
of offense.
In sum, 429 major crimes were reported in Fountain Hills in 2020, an average of 1.2 per
day. It should be noted, and to be discussed in more detail in the Draft Report, most
property crimes (theft, burglary, motor vehicle theft) are not solvable, and should receive
little if any investigative effort beyond an initial case review.
With respect to caseloads the following graphs show caseload data for the Fountain Hills
detectives for calendar year 2020 and 2021.
101
0
26
2
24
72
204
0 50 100 150 200 250
Assault
Homicide
Sex Violation
Robbery
Veh. Theft
Burglary
Theft
2020 Fountain Hills Major Crime Incidents
DRAFT Preliminary Law Enforcement Feasibility Assessment FOUNTAIN HILLS, AZ
Matrix Consulting Group Page 21
The following observations can be made with respect to Fountain Hills investigative
caseloads and staffing.
• There is a large caseload difference between 2020 and 2021 despite the same
number of detectives being charged to Fountain Hills for investigative services.
Caseloads average 208 cases per year for the 2.55 detective positions.
• The detective contingent generally required to investigate these various person
and property crimes would carry a “generalist detective” caseload. Our
investigative analysis suggest that one detective can carry an average generalist
caseload of 9-12 cases per month or 108 to 144 cases per month. Based on these
metrics, Fountain Hills would need less than two detectives, on average, to
conduct such investigative work.
• Detectives should be assigned “workable” cases based on relevant leads.
Juxtaposing 2020 caseload (277 cases) versus reported major crimes (429)
shows a potential caseload metric of 65% of those case types worked (277/429).
While other misdemeanor case types may have been assigned and included in the
277 figure, this calculated proportion of workable cases related to major crimes is
very likely over emphasized with respect to case solvability. In sum, in 2020, many
of the 277 cases assigned likely had very limited ability to be solved and did not
need to be assigned. This would then result in less detective staffing needs for
Fountain Hills. This observation is particularly relevant when showing case
workload metrics of 139 cases in 2021.
277
139
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
2020 2021
2020/21 Detective Caseload
DRAFT Preliminary Law Enforcement Feasibility Assessment FOUNTAIN HILLS, AZ
Matrix Consulting Group Page 22
In summary, Fountain Hills has detective resources beyond need based on various
investigative metrics. Detective staffing, and what is actually being accomplished,
requires revisiting in the contract or alternative service approach.
(2) Investigations Issues and Assumptions
The following issues and assumptions regarding investigations and detectives require
resolution.
Issues
Assumptions
• The MCSO calculation for detective staffing requirements is based on
geographic beats and not detective caseload metrics. This is unusual.
• MCSO does not maintain (or was not provided) detailed case
management records showing types of cases assigned to detectives.
• Detective caseloads have fallen with no contractual adjustment in
staffing levels.
• Various caseload metrics indicated Fountain Hills needs less than 2
detective resources compared to the 2.55 detectives charged to the
contract.
• A more accurate investigative staffing model will be used to justify
staffing in investigations.
• A new model will result in nominally reduced detectives compared to
existing deployment.
Next Steps in the Study:
Developing a new investigative approach and related staffing levels
based on case workloads.
4. Contract-Related Issues
There are several contract-related issues surrounding Fountain Hills service delivery.
These range from the existing terms and conditions of the contract, to potential
alternative contract service providers, to contract termination and development of an in-
house police department. These will all be explored in some detail in the forthcoming
Draft Report; however, some key issue areas are highlighted herein.
DRAFT Preliminary Law Enforcement Feasibility Assessment FOUNTAIN HILLS, AZ
Matrix Consulting Group Page 23
(1) MCSO Contract
The MCSO contract has some notable shortcomings that should be addressed if future
services are employed by Fountain Hills. These include, but are not limited to:
• Staffing drivers for deputies and detectives are not based on relevant workload
requirements such as calls for service, proactive time, or caseload standards.
Fountain Hills is presently overstaffed based on current contract terms and
conditions.
• Beyond response time for Priority 1 calls, there are no performance expectations
embedded in the contract.
• Unique aspects of law enforcement services delivered to Fountain Hills are not
effectively incorporated into the contract terms and conditions. By example,
Fountain Hills is “undercharged” for sergeant positions based on actual need for
field supervision. One-half the deputy staff contingent is working 48-hour work
weeks resulting in annual staff hours dedicated to service well above the norm. In
sum, the contract does not accurately reflect in several ways what Fountain Hills
receives for service or actually requires for service.
• The terms and conditions of the contract have opportunities for improvement
related to effective contract management and service delivery requirements. Lack
of clarity, in part, resulted in an audit of MCSO with respect to Fountain Hills
expenses charged.
In summary, many elements of the Fountain Hills MCSO contract have opportunities for
improvement/revision.
(1) Alternative Service Contracts
Additional research is needed and will be provided in the Draft Report. Briefly, Fountain
Hills has potential opportunity to contract with other law enforcement agencies for
service delivery, but given the location of the Town it is limited to two options:
• Scottsdale Police Department.
• Fort McDowell Indian Reservation.
Unless directed otherwise, the Matrix Consulting Group will gauge the level of interest in
these agencies to provide contract law enforcement services and potential next steps if
interest is positive.
DRAFT Preliminary Law Enforcement Feasibility Assessment FOUNTAIN HILLS, AZ
Matrix Consulting Group Page 24
(2) Contract Termination and Police Department Start-up
A component of this study is the potential start-up of an in-house police department as
opposed to any law enforcement service contract. The details of this kind of operation
and a related pro-forma budget are pending the Draft Report; however, there are some
key considerations that require resolution to assist in model development.
• Agreement that a reduced staffing contingent (as will be recommended) provided
by MCSO serves as a baseline for an in-house Police Department comparison.
• Potential direction that an even reduced staffing model can be executed in an in-
house PD (given the level of patrol proactive time available) while supplementing
sworn staff with civilian field support (e.g. equivalent of a Community Service
Officer position). This would carry some additional (though modest) risk.
Moreover, it is very unlikely the MCSO would accommodate this staffing model
given potential officer-safety issues.
• Direction that compensation in an in-house Police Department would be very
competitive in order to attract and retain staff.
In brief, the costs of an in-house Police Department operation are contingent upon the
staff model Fountain Hills is willing to deploy. We can recommend a bare minimum,
optimal and robust model based upon the factors noticed in this report.
(3) Contract or Alternative Service Delivery Issues and Assumptions
Issues
Assumptions
• Various terms and conditions and staffing approaches in the MCSO
contract need revision.
• Alternative law enforcement service delivery with Scottsdale PD or
Fort McDowell Indian Reservation can be explored, but these
agencies may lack interest/capability to deliver.
• An in-house Police Department model and related costs are largely
dependent upon the interests of a community to target minimum,
optimum or robust staffing model, potential use of civilians, and the
level of compensation executed to attract and retain staff.
• Fiscal-based philosophies for an in-house police department
operation will be addressed and will likely be marginally above a “mid-
point” selection.
DRAFT Preliminary Law Enforcement Feasibility Assessment FOUNTAIN HILLS, AZ
Matrix Consulting Group Page 25
Next Steps in the Study:
Based upon fiscal philosophies noted, development of a pro-forma police
department staffing and budget model for a Fountain Hills in-house
operation.
Suggested revisions to existing contract terms and conditions.
Potential use of other contract agencies for law enforcement services.