Loading...
052305 CC WS AgP . .~. . ~. 0 i ~ '!B,I tJl'f I .If BBt 11.5. .1 ....0 va ~. .... 0 i ~~I I~.'.. .......i......~...... ....ai al~ .~fil . '. - . ~ 'C) ~ ~ t:J f;Ill -< ~. " :z; o i ~ i ~ ~ ~ ~ o < ...; IIIII ~~ iJ~ ~ ~d~ (1t . ~ ~. i ... ; .~. W,l..' i ~ . '~'. (.2 ~ ..~~ ~ !!.. f!0 ~ 0 . 'J.. '.~..I~~ ~ .( ... .~.w=11 i ..I......,I~~ .~....... ....1.... !.. g -.....~ '.' ~ .rIJ .' Q J:QS. tI} 0 -< .... "'.. i irti vi .~"'."...... to- t I .i . -.:' / ~. i \ . 'I. ..: :;:~ 1 i' 1 ..9 '<. foIL OS:2;~. os WOY Ie. 5uS; Ov\ f~ ~d1;V'L CITY OF SHOREWOOD 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD. SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA 55331-8927. (Q52) 474-3236 FAX (952) 474-0128. www.ci.shorewood.mn.us. cityhall@ci.shorewood.mn.u~ MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: , City Council Craig Dawson oh May 19, 2005 SLMPD Issues Group Discussion . The SLMPDissues Group process began in mia-February, with facilitator Bill Joynes me~ting separately with each of the ~our cities' representative~. The first of what is tu,J:1ling out to be eight meetings ofthe Issues Groupwas heldon March 2. .The last scheduled meeting ofthe Gro\lP is Thursday, May26, beginning at 4:00'p:m., arid most likely at the SouthShore Center. . It's Not Going To Be Any Clieaper: The first several meetings provided all participants with a background of what it takes to provide police services, how police resources are deployed in the SL~D area, and some ~omparisons of staffinglevels. ,Labor-related C?sts are about 85% of operating expel}ses. Mr. Joynes noted that labor arbitrators look to the labor market when decidipg on wage issues, not on the ability of an employer to pay wages. He pointed out thatSLMPD is on the low end of the range in terms of sta(fing,below the midpoint for wages in Qomparable cities, and on the 19wer end ofthe range of customary additional compensation like longevity; In short, SLMPD is providing a relatively low-Qost , service, and it is not likely to be less'expensive unless staffing-and thus services-were reduced. I think everyone in the Group shared this conclusion. Putting Forth Recommendations: . When done with its work, the Group will(orward a package of fecommended changes to the four members' city councils. At one of its first meetings, the Group decided that a 6-member majority would be required to approve tentative agreements, as'well as the final package. At the next meeting, Excelsior representative Greg Miller asked that the vote requirement 1>e reconsIdered so that a 7 -member majority; the GrDup affirmed its 6-vote decision. Dissenting opinions wouldbe included, but dissenters wer~responsibl(f for writing up theit posItions. At. the end of the process (~.e., May 26), all of the tentative agreem~ts may he revisited, but the Group's rec9mmendation will be an interd~pyndent pack'l-ge. The Group's tentative agreements h~ve been based on what it would like tohaIJpen~withlesser attenticmpaid to specific w9rding. It is expected that the cities' attonieys and staffwoulddevelop specific wording after the Group's work is done and the city councils have voted onwhetherto proceed with the package of recommendations. " n ~~ PRINTED ON ftECYCLED PAPER SLMPD Issues Group Discussion May 23,2005, City Council Work Session Page 2 Tentative Agreements: The Group has been working through matters relating to governance and changes to the Agreement (e.g., dispute resolution). Last week it started to consider the 800-pound gorilla-the funding formula. The tentative agreements thus far: Governance: . Coordinating Committee - Term & Size: The Coordinating Committee (i.e., governing board) is currently comprised of the mayors of the member cities. The Coordinating Committee would continue to have one member from each city. City Councils would appoint their representative, who would serve at the Council's pleasure; in the absence of an appointment, the mayor would serve as the city's representative. . The vote on this item was 7-1. Excelsior's Miller dissented, as he preferred two members from each city. . Police Chief. reporting relationship. accountability: The Coordinating Committee would continue to be the conduit for accountability and information flow between the city councils and the Chief. A "foundation list" of items to be reported on at regular intervals would be developed, and the Committee would be deem what would be appropriate regarding additional information. Approved 7-0. There has also been discussion about the Committee holding an annual meeting, to which all city councils would be invited, where matters of performance and upcoming issues would be presented. While there has been general agreement about the value of this concept, the Group has not yet voted on it. Process Issues related to the Joint Powers Agreement: . . Dispute Resolution Process: On a 7-0 vote, the Group agreed that a dispute resolution process should be added to the JP A. It would require: o Filing of a written statement of grievance by any member city to the Coordinating Committee. o Limiting grievances to alleged misintefPretations or violations of the JP A, but not disagreements about proposed changes to the JP A. o The Coordinating Committee to meet within 30 days ofthe filing, and up to 90 days after that meeting to resolve the grievance. The 90-day timeline could be extended by mutual agreement of all member cities. o If not resolved, that the matter then goes to mediation. The Coordinating Committee would select a mediation panel of at least 3 qualified mediators. o Completion of the mediation process within 90 days. The 90-day clock starts when the Coordinating Committee fails to make a determination regarding the grievance. SLMPD Issues Group Discussion May 23,2005, City Council Work Session Page 3 The next logical step would be arbitration, but the Group has deferred this item thus far. The key point appears to be whether the arbitration should be binding or not, as some may prefer to have the possibility oflitigating matters further ifthey do not agree with the results of arbitration. . Withdrawal & Dissolution: The JP A currently provides that all parties are bound to the agreement through the retirement of financing for the new police station (i.e., unless refinanced, the end of2023). No member may withdraw. The Group has tentatively agreed to the following: . o A party may withdraw but would be required to continue to pay its share ofthe debt service on the police station until the debt is retired. That party would retain an equity interest in the facility, but it would be redeemed only ifthe SLMPD is dissolved. The vote on this provision was approved 6-2 (with Excelsior's two representatives dissenting). o The notice of withdrawal must be given at least 22 months prior. It may be given no later than March 1 of even-numbered years, and pay for service through December 31 of an odd-numbered year. Upon notice, the city would no longer be party to the agreement and would have no vote on the Coordinating Committee. The vote on this provision was approved 6-2 (with Excelsior's two representatives dissenting). . There has been discussion about what additional costs should be assigned to a withdrawing party. A fee equal to three months of its operating contribution, due on the date of termination of service, has been floated. No agreement has yet been reached on this matter. There has also been discussion about removing a member from the agreement, and it is still on the table. Financial and Service Issues, including Funding Formula: The Group started to work on this broad topic on May 17. The issues under this topic are: 1) Funding factors 2) Definitions of "fair" and "equitable" 3) Level of service decisions, policing philosophy 4) Provide ability to determine budget contribution with Uniform Service Level for each city At the beginning of this discussion, Excelsior presented a proposal that would pool the four cities' police-related non-tax revenues (liquor license fees, local government aid, fines); apply that sum to the revenue needs ofthe SLMPD; and apportion the difference on a tax-capacity basis. Representatives from the other cities reacted strongly, partly because it was tax-capacity based (rather than the long-standing time-spent-in-city basis, which is viewed as demand-for-service), and because the Group had not identified the factors that should be considered. SLMPD Issues Group Discussion May 23,2005, City Council Work Session Page 4 Through a nominal-group-technique process, the following factors were chosen as relevant to a funding formula: . Valuation (defined as tax capacity) . Demand (defined as incident call reports [ICRs]) . Population . Road Miles Staff is assembling the data for each factor per city from 2000 through 2004. Though not yet completed, the data show that each city's share of each of these indicators is essentially the same from year to year. . Fairness: Neither "fair" nor "equitable" has been defined yet by the Group. Fairness is being viewed differently by the parties on two levels. . One of the key concepts behind joint powers organizations is that the members can do more together and more economically than ifthey were to deliver it individually. SLMPD provides each member city more services at less cost than if they provided it themselves or under contract with another law enforcement entity. Many view this as meeting the test for what is considered "fair"; it might be considered an external level of fairness. . Another level of fairness is what is "fair" to the parties within the joint powers agreement. This level of fairness is what Excelsior has been challenging. For example, introducing tax capacity as a (or the) factor for a funding formula is seen as reflecting ability-to-pay, which is considered a measure of fairness. Comments from other cities show support for a demand- based formula, as that shows what a city consumes from SLMPD, and is what a city would need to service if it had its own police department. . Funding Level: Shorewood's representatives have stated several times that serious changes should be considered ifShorewood's funding ofSLMPD operations were to be 50% or more. At that point, there is a question of whether ajoint-powers approach is the best one, and whether a Shorewood PD providing services to the other three cities under contract would be more appropriate. If the JP A were to hold together, . Should there be weighted voting for all Coordinating Committee matters? . Should the budget/funding approval be changed such that a (weighted) majority vote of the cities is binding on all member cities? . Or, should the revenue from anyone member city be capped at 49%, with the balance it would owe in the formula spread among the other member cities? (This exists in the LMCD.) . And, what and how should other issues be decided if a formula would likely lead to ~50% funding? (e.g., that arbitration is binding?) It is hoped that as the funding formula is decided on, that tentative agreement can be reached on the remaining issues, and the recommended package forwarded to the city councils at the conclusion of the May 26 meeting.