Loading...
060908 CC WS MinCITY OF SHOREWOOD CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION MONDAY, JUNE 9, 2008 MINUTES 1. CONVENE CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION 5755 COUNTRY CLUB OAD COUNCIL CHAMBERS 6:00 P.M. Mayor Lizee called the meeting to order at 6:04 P.M. A. Roll Call Present. Mayor Lizee; Councilmembers Bailey (arrived at 6:55 P.M.), Turgeon, Wellens, and Woodruff; Acting Administrator/Director of Public Works Brown; Finance Director Burton; Planning Director Nielsen; and Engineer Landini Absent: None B. Review Agenda Turgeon moved, Wellens seconded, Approving the Agenda as presented. Motion passed 4/0. 2. DISCUSSION WITH POLICE CHIEF LITSEY REGARDING SLMPD STRATEGIC OPERATIONS PLAN Acting Administrator Brown stated the meeting packet contained a copy of the South Lake Minnetonka Police Department (SLMPD) Strategic Action Plan (the Plan) dated May 14, 2008; the Plan was discussed at a joint meeting of the SLMPD member cities' councils on May l4`~'. He explained that Councilmembers Wellens and Woodruff had a number of the questions regarding the Plan and the high- level draft SLMPD Operating Budget for 2009 - 2013. In order for aii Councilmembers to have the benefit of hearing the same questions and answers, SLMPD Chief Litsey was invited to this work session to address Council.. Chief Litsey stated he had met with Councilmember Woodruff for two hours on June 2"d and Councilmember Wellens for 1.5 - 2 hours on June 5`~' regarding their concerns. He appreciated their taking the time to meet with him. In response to a question from Chief Litsey, Mayor Lizee stated because Councilmember Wellens's issues were a matter of public record she suggested Litsey review each of Wellens's issues and respond to them. Wellens's issues were distributed at a May 27, 2008, City Council meeting and are italicized in the following discussion. Chief Litsey reviewed each of Councilmember Wellens's concerns and then responded to them as follows. Prior City Council and Chiefs did not have a problem with a single officer on duty. Undoubtedly many departments across the nation continue this practice without difficulty. The Claims that this is a problem and there are shortages and gaps; is an opinion and is not shared by all professionals. We have not been provided with evidence showing that SLMPD officers are regularly in danger CITY OF SHOREWOOD WORK SESSION il~IEETING MINUTES June 9, 2008 Page 2 of 7 because of coverage. Nor is there evidence that adding 2 (or 10) officers will some how ensure officer safety. Chief Litsey stated prior member cities' councils had recognized the need for additional staffing and had been working toward rectifying the problem. He had been championing the cause of additional staffing since he began his tenure as Chief in 1999. Some progress has been made, but because of the level of the staffing shortage progress is not as far along as he would like. He explained in 2000 the City of Shorewood had its own special policing officer which came about because of former Clinton COPS (i.e., COPS' MORE) grants program. That program allowed organizations to increase their staffing level while phasing in their out-of-pocket costs for the additional officers. When Federal funding for the officer ended, he was a strong proponent of absorbing that officer into the SLMPD's full compliment of officers. In 2001 the SLMPD added apart-time Community Service Officer (CSO) position; that CSO position transitioned into afull-time position in 2002. At that time there was discussion about the need for additional officers, but because the Shorewood officer had been absorbed into the SLMPD a decision was made to wait to hire additional officers. The CSO position was considered a means of lightening the police officer load in the short term by helping with some of the duties which did not require a fully licensed officer; the CSO position was not intended to replace the need for a police officer. During 2003 - 2006 the SLMPD was in a holding pattern while the member cities were trying to resolve their differences with regard to the SLMPD funding formula; the SLMPD was treading water just to stay afloat. Also, during that time emphasis was placed on the construction of the public safety facility because it was a great one-time opportunity to partner with the Excelsior Fire District. That was a considerable expense for the member cities, so additional staffing was placed on hold until that was completed. During that same time apart-time office position was left vacant and there were problems with other positions that could not be fully funded. After the arbitration over the funding formula was completed, the SLMPD started to move back toward status-quo with regard to operations in 2007. During 2007 the Strategic Planning initiative was started; an initiative the member cities' councils wanted to have happen. He noted in each budget he had prepared he addressed the SLMPD's past, present and future; and as far back as 2000 he addressed the need for additional staffing and in particular patrol officers. In 2008 the SLMPD expanded its CSO program by 40 hours per week to provide animal control services; the cost was similar to the cost the member cities' had been paying for contract control services and the expanded program provides additional services as well. In 2008 the Strategic Planning Group (the Group) was formed to focus on the firture of the SLMPD. The Group identified key strategies it would like the member cities' councils to support in order to provide better operations for the officers and better services to the community. It is his strong opinion that the SLMPD has serious staffing shortages; it is a fact and not an opinion. The shortages had been clearly demonstrated through the Strategic Planning process. Current scheduling exhibits were provided, and there were exhibits showing the number of shifts with shortages in different months. When there was only one officer on duty and that officer was tied up, the only coverage available was mutual aid and that was not a reliable source of backup. With regard to risk, policing work is inherently dangerous and risky and it always will be; although the risk catmot be eliminated steps can be taken to mitigate risk. Having an adequate level of staffing does mitigate the risk; as officers are added incrementally the risk factor is decreased. 2. The IACP funding formula might be helpful if there was none-size-fits-all formula. 13ut we are told there is rro such formula. If true, how can one maintain that we are understaffed? We should acknowledge that the IACP exists for the benefit of its chiefs, not our constituents. The IACP does not pay for what they recommend. Chief Litsey stated throughout the Strategic Planning process he continually stated there was no one-size- fits-all formula for determining policing staffing. The Group was provided with several benchmarks to make staffing comparisons. Different sources of data were used to make the comparisons which included population, demand, geography, and schedule. The Group considered the International Association of CITY OF SHOREWOOD WORK SESSION MEE'T'ING MINUTES June 9, 2008 Page 3 of 7 Chiefs of Police (IACP) demand formula, the per capita formula, gaps and shortages in the patrol officers schedules, and geographical barriers and distances impacting response tithe and service levels. All pointed to the same thing; under the current officer staffing scenario the SLMPD was not meeting the needs as well as it could and it was falling behind when compared to other police departments. The member cities needed to determine what type of community standard they wanted. Did they want good response time from the SLMPD? Did they want the SLMPD to be able to handle a domestic situation by mediating the dispute or to just clear the situation? It was important to consider how the call was handled, not just how quickly it was cleared. 3. Chief Litsey chose to use the Centennial Lakes police department for comparison with the SLMPD. It protects Circle Pines, Lexington and Centerville. If you check a map, these cities are NOT contiguous! With 3-4 lakes between them, they are roughly 6 miles apart! Clearly this significant geographical separation could juste having two officers on duty. While the Chief says this is an apples-to-apples comparison, we do not agree. Chief Litsey stated he had provided the Group with a comparison of the SLMPD and the Centennial Lakes Police Department (CLPD). The CLPD operated under a Joint Powers Agreement. The geographic area the CLPD serves has some similarities to the area served by the SLMPD; it has lakes, boundaries and distances which impact response. Calls for service were compared. The SLMPD and the CLPD operate very similar, with the exception of the CLPD having more police officers. The CLPD had made a decision to have no fewer than two officers on a shift. He had discussed with Councilmember Wellens the distances in the area served by the CLPD and how officers need to go around lakes to get from one spot to another. In some ways it was more difficult for the SLMPD officers to traverse the area because the distances between points can be even further, the times between distances can be longer because the roads in the area are narrow, and the bays and lakes in the area impact travel. When there is more than once officer on duty, the SLMPD tries to have one on the east side of the coverage area and one on the west side to improve service. The City's islands present the greatest challenge; if there is only one officer on duty and that officer goes to the islands (which is distance of approximately 13 miles) it will take the officer a significant amount of time to get to other parts of the coverage area. The SLMPD serves a 12.17 square-mile area and the CLPD serves a 5.19 square-mile area; the population served by the SLMPD is slightly greater than that served by the CLPD. The comparison of the SLMPD to the CLPD is a good comparison. 4. "Staff" created the Strategic Goals, not the mayors, councils or citizens. Staff does not represent out residents, generally dorr'tlive here and won't pay for their recommendations. Chief Litsey stated staff made some original recommendations to the Group as a starting point for discussions; management and staff contributed to forming those recommendations. By no means did the Group "rubber stamp" the recommendations. The Group met five times for a total of 8.5 hours. Staff spent a tremendous amount of time gathering and analyzing data and preparing presentations for the work sessions. The information presented was scrutinized and at times challenged. There were requests made to conduct additional research or better define some of the information presented. The staffing shortage issue was clarified when presented with monthly snapshots depicting the days/shifts when the shift was short an officer or two. There was reservation in presenting that information in a public forum because of concern that people could use that information to determine when they may commit crimes. With regard to staff not living in the coverage area, he stated he gets paid the same whether he works 40 hours per week or 80 hours per week; he is known to be a workaholic. He has nothing personal to gain from executing the recommendations included in the Plan; there was a likelihood that he would not be around to see it ail come to fruition. Part of why he became a Chief was to be able to influence the future of the Department. He has provided over thirty years of service in public safety, and he has lived in the CITY OF SHOREWOOD WORK SESSION MEETING MINUTES June 9, 2008 Page 4 of 7 communities. He feels a closeness to the communities and he has a great deal invested in the area. He takes his job very seriously, and people can rest assured that what he is doing is for gem~ine reasons. S. The Chief suggests the additional officers would allow for the creation of a canine offtcer and allow more details [out of the department?J But we have not been presented evidence or argument as to how these activities will benefit our constituents. These desires hardly constitute a crisis. Chief Litsey stated he may not have clearly articulated a canine was a secondary discussion in the process; it was not one of the primary goals. A canine unit could possibly come into play without the goals being implemented. It would make it more difficult to send an officer to canine training with the current staffing level. As a small organization, the SLMPD tries to create opportunities for its officers. The Department competes for the best in a very competitive market. The SLMPD has to have opportunities for officers as one way to attract and retain them. The formation of the Emergency Response Unit (ERU) created career opportunities, and it provided a means to build camaraderie with other departments in the ERU. Establishing a canine unit would also provide career opportunities as well as fill a need. 6. The Chief argues that Mutual Aid agreements should not be abused by regular use. We agree. We have not been presented any evidence that the SLMPD is abusing these agreements. Chief Litsey explained that basically every time there is a call to the City's islands the SLMPD relies on mutual aid. That could possibly be considered abusing the situation. When there is only one officer on duty and that officer gets tied up, which is frequently, the SLMPD relies on mutual aid. It's easy to draw the conclusion that the SLMPD uses a great deal of mutual aid after looking at the gaps in the officer schedule and the number of short-shifts. The SLMPD tracks how much mutual aid it provides, but it does not track what it receives. Mutual aid should be used in special situations; it's not to supplement what the SLMPD should regularly cover. The SLMPD has operated for decades while little has changed in our communities. Somehow, however, we are now understaffed, have "gaps " in the schedule, have shortages, we are jeopardizing officer safety, we have a "critical staffing need " that is "critically important. "There is little to support these assertions. Chief Litsey stated the staffing shortage in not new. Although progress has been made in addressing the issue, the issue is not resolved. The Cities of Chanhassen, Chaska and Minnetrista are growing communities; their growth impacts the SLMPD. There have been many procedural changes and will be many more; the officers have to book many more incidences. It's mandated that individuals arrested for DWI be booked; that requires an officer to transport the individual downtown Minneapolis and wait their turn to book the individual (sometimes it is a relatively short wait and other times it is very long). The officer making the arrest is responsible for the individual arrested. The officers are first responders; when there is a need to use an automatic defibrillator (AED) there is a need for two officers -one to set up the AED and one to do CPR. Seconds count in those situations. An officer does not use a tazer if there is no backup because it is too risky. For example, there recently was a mentally disturbed individual who had a knife and if there had not been a second officer on duty allowing the use of a tazer the individual would have been shot. Action beats reaction almost every time. The SLMPD is trying to crawl out of a staffing hole. Good progress has been made with regard to investigations; the SLMPD has a great clearance rate because of that. From his vantage point, the Group did an excellent job; the Group's members were thoughtful, respectful, and were open to ideas. There were many opportunities for the members to provide input into the various iterations of the Plan. He appreciated it is a big step with regard to funding at a time when dollars are at a premium. In addition to improving service, the Group thought it important to protect those that protect us. He questioned how many individuals would want to stop a car on CITY OF SHOREWOOI) WORK SESSION MEETING MINUTES June 9, 2008 Page 5 of 7 Highway 7 during the middle of the night with no backup and the car was full of intoxicated, loud and combative people. It has been proven that having more than one officer on the scene has a deterrent affect and it increases safety; people are more apt to comply and less apt to resist. Mayor Lizee stated she appreciated Chief Litsey responding to all of the questions. Councilmember Wellens stated he and Chief Litsey were fulfilling their roles during these discussions. Wellens stated a lot of member cities' council members and residents in the communities were probably not aware the SLMPD staffing was in the hole. He stated he had never heard of the shortage issue before, and it should have been expressed before. Chief Litsey stated the budget documents he had prepared addressed the need for additional patrol officer staffing; it was a reoccurring theme of his. During 2003 - 2006 efforts were redirected to resolving the funding formula issue. With regard to the 2009 - 2013 budget forecast Chief Litsey prepared, Councilmember Wellens stated the forecast indicated the total percent increase for the five years was 39.25% yet he calculated the increase to be 45.86%. Litsey explained during the Group discussions Councilmember Turgeon suggested the forecast be prepared using a different method. Litsey explained the forecast was prepared using ayear-by-year comparison which is the way the yearly budgets are presented; the comparison is made against the previous year. In response to two requests, he also prepared an operating budget comparison for 2008 - 2013 and it reflected the percentages along with the yearly-average increases. Although the methodologies used to create the forecasts were different, the actual dollars were the same. For the operating budget comparison chart, it was important to understand the comparison was asix-year comparison not afive-year comparison, as was the case in the budget forecast. Councilmember Woodruff stated it was mathematically incorrect to average averages, and at times Chief Litsey did that in the charts he prepared. Litsey stated the dollars are the same. Woodruff stated the percentages on the five-year budget forecast were incorrect. Litsey stated he respectfully disagreed with Woodruff; Woodruff could disagree with the methodology used but the mathematics used were correct. Woodruff disagreed. Litsey stated he did consult with a CPA when he prepared the charts. He suggested people consider the dollar amounts and not the percents as the dollars are the same in both methods. Woodruff stated it was easier for people to grasp percentages than dollars. Litsey stated the newspapers had done a good job of presenting the information using dollars. Councilmember Woodruff commented when he met with Chief Litsey they agreed to disagree on some things. He stated from his vantage point the SLMPD had been operating the same way for 7 - 8 years. He questioned if the community feedback indicated the services provided were lacking; he had not received that type of feedback. He explained he took data out of the various Strategic Planning presentations Litsey had prepared to determine the growth in the Patrol Division's work load. He did not find a significant increase in work load from 2003 to 2006. He also did comparisons to some other jurisdictions. The SLMPD was relatively comparable with regard to Part 1 and Part 2 crimes per officer. He stated he was qualitatively hearing from the people receiving the services that it was good enough; he was struggling with how it needed to be improved and identify what the communities were going to get for the cost. He noted he lived on Enchanted Island, and the Mound Fire Department provides fire services to Enchanted Island and Shady Island. He stated he would agree it was inefficient for a patrol officer to go out to the Islands. He suggested staff research the feasibility. of having the Mound Police Department (MPD) provide police services to the Islands and what the cost would be. He thought it would take an officer approximately 20 - 25 minutes to get from the Islands to Excelsior. If the Islands were to be served by the MPD that would provide the SLMPD with a little more availability of officers and the Islands would receive a lot better coverage. Councilmember Turgeon questioned if Minnetrista should also be approached. Woodruff stated the City already had a relationship with Mound, but he was not apposed to Minnetrista although it was further away. CITY OF SIIOREWOOD `YORK SESSION MEETING iVIINUTES June 9, 2008 Page 6 of 7 Mayor LizBe stated she expressed concern with engaging another police department as it could affect the SLMPD JPA and may not reduce the City's contribution to the SLMPD. Chief Litsey stated the way the JPA was structured it would be unlikely the City would realize a reduction in its contribution if that action was taken. He stated a better strategy would be to have the money go toward adding an officer who could respond from the west district rather than the east district, and the constituents in the area closer to the public safety facility would receive better coverage. Chief Litsey stated ICAP crime data states the SLMPD is not adequately staffed to handle its current call load. The SLMPD data is relatively conservative; the SLMPD does not track inconsequential items just to make its numbers look better. The IACP formula takes into account discretionary time for officers so the officers can do things other than just respond to calls; things such as speed enforcement and filling extra patrol requests. Currently dedicated speed enforcement requires overtime. Just because the SLMPD has operated a certain way, doesn't mean it should continue operating that way; if there was a better way to provide service it should be considered. He related when people hear there are times when there is just one officer on duty they state that is fundamentally wrong; and, if the only officer on duty is tied up the communities have to rely on mutual aid. The SLMPD can't count on mutual aid, and it has no say as to how those officers are trained. Councilmember Turgeon stated 3.9% levy limits have been put in place for 2009 - 2011 since the May 14t1i meeting. She recommended Chief Litsey reconsider the 5.8% proposed budget increase for 2009 and the 5.5% increase proposed for 2010 and 2011 for continuing the same level of service and try and reduce it to 3.9%. Councilmember Turgeon stated cost for the long-term care and maintenance of the public safety facility is not in the proposed budget; she thought it should be in order to have a better understanding of the entire budget picture. She then stated the savings from the crossover bond refunding for the public safety facilities belong to the member cities. Chief Litsey stated the levy limits allowed for exceeding the levy limit to hire additional police officers. He explained approximately 84% of the SLMPD operating budget is personnel related for any given year. The officers don't have a right to strike, but they do have a right to go to binding arbitration. The SLMPD is relatively unique in that it has to fund the building; there is little discretion in utilities. There also is no control over fuel costs. Councilmember Bailey arrived at 6:55 P.M. Chief Litsey stated there was agreement about a need to establish a fund for the long-term care and maintenance of the facility. How that will be done has not been determined. It was understood the savings from the bond refinancing belong to the cities. The Group agreed that preparing the replacement schedule will take some expertise the SLMPD and EFD do not possess. In the meantime the SLMPD and EFD auditors have been asked to recommend arule-of--thumb approach to guestimate the replacement costs. Mayor Lizee stated she would like to remind everyone that the Strategic Planning Group included the Coordinating Committee Members (the mayors of the four member cities); the Alternate Coordinating Committee Members; and the Operating Committee Members. The Strategic Planning process was planning for the future; something any successful business or organization did. The inherent question is what the community standard for policing should be. She thought it is prudent for the SLMPD to be proactive rather than reactive. CITY OF SHOREWOOD WORK SESSION MEETING MINUTES June 9, 2008 Page 7 of 7 Mayor Lizee thanked Chief Litsey for attending the work session. Woodruff moved, Wellens seconded, recessing the City Council work session to a City Council regular meeting at 6: 58 P.M. Mayor Lizee reconvened the City Council work session at 10:12 P.M. 3. CITY ADMINISTRATOR REVIEW FORM Acting Administrator Brown stated at its June 2, 2008, work session Council discussed the draft of the revised City Administrator's performance form. Points of review from the City Administrator's performance review form had been inserted into the form used at the City of Diamond Bar, California. At that work session Council identified items it wanted to delete or move into a different category. The updated draft form had been distributed to Council in the meeting packet. Councilmember Turgeon proposed this topic be continued to a future work session. Councilmember Woodruff stated he had a number of comments to make about the revised draft, and based on the time of night it would be better to discuss them at a future meeting. After discussion, there was consensus to tentatively continue this item to a June 23, 2008, Council work session with the understanding that it may not appear on that agenda based on the number of other items on the agenda. 4. OTHER There was no other business for discussion. 5. ADJOURN Wellens moved, Turgeon seconded, Adjourning the City Council Work Session Meeting of June 9, 2008, at 10:15 P.M. Motion passed 5/0. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Christine Freeman, Recorder . q °~' Christine Lizee, Mayor ATTEST: /- -- wrence A. Brown, Acting City Administrator/Clerk